Apostate prophet wonders at simple words; what is an only son?

In answer to the video "The Truth About The Kaaba"

The first, most "in your face" oddity is God asking Abraham to sacrifice his Gen22:2,12"only son" Isaac. This would mean he had no son other than the one to be sacrificed. Yet this same book states Ismail, Abraham's firstborn son was 14 years older than Isaac, the supposed "only son" Gen17:17,24,25,18:10. In the presence of his older brother Ishmael, the literal, firstborn and legitimate "only son" could never, at any point, have been Isaac.

Another inconsistency resulting from the identification of Isaac with the son of the sacrifice is that the HB states Abraham had to journey from Beerseba where he dwelt with Isaac before and after the event of the sacrifice Gen21:31-34,22:19 to mourn Sarah's death in Canaan Gen23:2. Was Sarah living away from both husband and son all this time or just after the sacrifice and why? Jewish tradition suggests she dwelt in Canaan before Isaac's near sacrifice since it is this news that saddened her to the point it caused her demise Gen.Rabbah58:5. The only way she could have known of the incident while in Canaan was if Abraham and Isaac had left for the location of sacrifice (ie Moriah) from Canaan itself. However we are told Abraham and his "only son" left for the sacrifice from Beerseba, not from Canaan. And by the way, it would have never taken Abraham 3 days to reach Moriah in Jerusalem, from his location near Hebron, which is less than a day's walk.

The only way for all these conflicting elements to come together is to say that Abraham had left alone from Beerseba to the location where he had settled his "only son", and from there to the location of the sacrifice.

The Quran and the traditions say he left to Mecca where he had settled his firstborn Ismail, and from there to Marwah nearby, for the sacrifice.

Interestingly, this Marwah which the the HB calls "Moriah" is located in 2Chron3 in Jerusalem and yet when David purchases the site later on from a Jebusite, neither the writer, David, the owner, the angels, nor God or any prophet make a connection between that site, and one of the most significant locations to Judaism, the place where the event of the near sacrifice occurred. Instead it is simply labelled the "threshing floor" of the future Temple.

Some Judeo-Christian apologists have tried brushing away the literal and exclusive meaning of "only son" by invoking an unwarranted, textually unsupported metaphorical interpretation. Isaac was the "only son" left with Abraham since Ishmael was allegedly "cast away" along with Hagar. Others say Isaac was the "only son", not of Abraham as per the words in Genesis, but "of the covenant" (although Ishmael was also previously included in a covenant as will be shown below).

All these suggestions, besides contradicting the meaning of the phrase as used in other places in the HB (see Zech12:10 for example), contradict even the Jewish oral traditions which, actually shows that the rabbis understood the problem of associating Isaac with the phrase. But like recent apologists they must resort to the most absurd contortions of the text to make the phrase "only son" fit to Isaac.

They firstly present Abraham as perfectly understanding the meaning of the expression in a concrete, not figurative way, since he asks whether it is Hagar or Sarah's only son that God means. Notice the clever diversion, making it sound as if the command to take "your son, your only son" was issued to Sarah or Hagar, while it was issued to Abraham. Why would Abraham need to know whether it is Sarah or Hagar's only son when the command was directed at him alone, meaning it was HIS only son that is intended? Secondly, knowing themselves that it is the concrete meaning that is intended, create a surrealistic dialogue where Abraham confuses God's command to him specifically into an order that includes his wives. The dialogue supposedly cuts the flow of Gen22:2 and comes right after "take your son" in order to prepare the ground for the application of the phrase to Isaac:

(Sanh. 89b, Gen. Rabbah 39:9, 55:7)"He [Abraham] said to Him,“ I have two sons.” He [God] said to him,“ Your only one.” He said to Him,“ This one is the only son of his mother, and that one is the only son of his mother.” He said to him,“ Whom you love.” He said to Him,“ I love them both.” He said to him,“ Isaac.”

One doesn't need to be told how forced on the story this 'explanation' is. But this oral tradition stresses the important point that the phrase was understood in that particular context in a literal, concrete way; it wasnt the figurative "only son" left with Abraham when Ishmael was sent away, it wasnt the figurative "only son" of the covenant. Abraham needed to know if God meant the literal only son of Hagar or the literal only son of Sarah. What this Talmudic tradition also shows is that Ibrahim loved both his sons equally and saw both Ismail and Isaac as equals and legitimate sons of his. This is in accordance with the mosaic law in Deut21:15-17.

Some modern Jewish translations though, to escape the difficulty of the phrase "only son", attach a specificity to it "the only one you love" ie (Ishmael was not loved). Neither the Midrash, nor the Talmud, nor even ancient Rabbinical authorities understand the verse in that way. This is not only incorrect grammatically, but also textually since many passages reflect Abraham's love of his firstborn. In fact in the whole pre-binding narrative the only love one can see is the one Abraham had for Ishmael, obviously the son he so dearly desired and that came in answer to his prayers, while he seems distant from his second son Isaac.

When God granted Abraham's wish of a son, he named him Ishmael meaning "God hears" in Hebrew, because Ishmael was the answer of God to Abraham's prayer for a righteous son as reflected in both the HB Gen15:2 and the Quran 37:100-1. In Gen22:2 the child to be sacrificed is the one "whom you love", this love for the firstborn Ishmael is reflected in Gen17:17-18 where Abraham's reaction to God announcing a second miraculous birth, that of Isaac is

"O that Ishmael might live before thee".

It is expected for a firstborn to hold a special place in parents' hearts especially in the case of Abraham's old age who begged God for a righteous son. This adds to the relevancy of the test in relation to Ishmael, as well as the statement "whom you love". Further, from a legalistic perspective the sanctity of the firstborn (human or else) is a recurrent them in the bible Gen4:4,Numb8:17-18,Ex13:1-2. 

We interestingly find in the book of Jubilees (second temple retelling of Genesis and Exodus that was considered cannonical by Ethiopian Jews and Christians), that the Lord praises Abraham for “not refus[ing] me your first-born son whom you love"

What is even more revealing is how Jewish oral tradition explains the defeated rebellious Moabite king Mesha's offering of his firstborn in sacrifice 2Kings3:27 it was to emulate Abraham's offering of his only son, his firstborn:

 In the Pesikta of the section of Shekalim it is expounded that he asked his servants ([in] Pesikta [and] Yalkut: his astrologers), “What is the character of this nation, that miracles such as these were performed for them?” They replied, “Their forefather, Abraham, had an only son. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him, Sacrifice him before Me, and he wanted to sacrifice him to the Holy One, Blessed be He.” He said to them, “I too have a first born son. I will go and sacrifice him to the gods.”

Further, throughout their history of straying into the ways of the neighboring polytheistic nations, among the practices which they readily assimilated was children sacrifice which they adapted into their own tradition by offering the firstborn to the idol. See Rashi on Ezek20:31,39. Another interesting observation is that among the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is a fragment 4Q225 with an alternate version of the story, where Ishmael never appears on the scene prior to the binding of Isaac, making Isaac the true and literal "only son". The writer was aware of the inconsistency and obviously desired to fix it by changing the original text.

As to Isaac qualifying as an "only son" due to Ishmael being supposedly of illegitimate birth. Nothing in the mosaic law states that the child of a concubine is illegitimate or of a "lesser birth" than one born of a normal marriage. Had it been the case, it would defeat the whole purpose of the union, initiated and endorsed by Sarah herself. The purpose was to ensure a male heir to the childless couple. Ismail was thus born of a legitimate union with Hagar whom he took as a wife Gen16:3. Hagar was the princess daughter of an Egyptian King according to even some Rabbinical traditions.

As a side note, Solomon became allied to the Egyptian king through marrying his princess daughter 1Kings3:1 and loved her more than his other numerous wives 1Kings11. There are other such recorded unions, between Israelites and daughters of Egyptian nobility 1Chr4:18.

David's great grandmother, Ruth, was a Moabite princess that preferred converting to Judaism and live as an ordinary member of the community. Her piety and good manners were well known, a book of the biblical cannon is named after her.

Abraham's marrying the daughter of a foreign nation's nobility is therefore certainly not something illegitimate or odd for the ancient people, including the Israelites. But blinded by their tribal hatred, they still argue that Ishmael was illegitimate due to a supposedly low birth to a foreign servant. Yet Ishmael is referred as Abraham's seed, taken to be circumcised, then distinguished as his son next to the purchased male slaves Gen17:23-27. Also, according to Deut21:15-17 the traditional rights and privileges of the first born son are not to be affected by the social status of his mother.

The Hebrew text's successive promises of blessing to Ibrahim's offspring and multiplying Ismail's progeny into a great nation Gen12,17 was something the Israelites writing the stories of the patriarchs much later than the events, could not ignore Gen21:21,25:9-18. By the time the scribes were busy compiling the Torah, Ismail had already multiplied and his progeny had already established princes and nations throughout the region. But just as they had to admit their racial affinity with the Bedouins of the Great Peninsula, at the same time they needed to degrade them by tracing their origin to a slave-concubine of their common ancestor, Abraham.

Apostate prophet revises history; Isaac was Abraham's only son?

In answer to the video "The Truth About The Kaaba"

The settlement of a place dedicated to propagate the Abrahamic legacy away from the sacred Jewish land, and established by their non-Israelite brethren, undermines the racist ideology prevalent throughout their scripture. This racism, besides having fueled all kinds of intertribal hatred among their own Israelite brethren, did not even spare the pure monotheism which they claimed to uphold, by turning the God of all mankind into an ethnical monolatrous deity.

Before detailing how the Abrahamic connection to Mecca and the Kaaba was distorted, the first thing to address is a recurrent question by Judeo-Christian apologists; how and when did the corrupt version of the patriarchs make it to the written Biblical text?

The simple logical answer is that these corruptions were first transmitted orally, as would any lie be repeated and exaggerated, until the matter was obscured beyond recognition as the generations passed through successive periods of destruction, enslavement, tumult and exile. The introduction of just one of many blatant falsehoods in their scriptures, is revealed by scrutinizing all related signs they could not blot out. These signs most often attest to carelessness in the transmission of religious knowledge, but also many times deliberate distortions fueled by their racial hatred.

That disfigured version was eventually put in writing when Genesis was first composed, around the same time different parts of the Torah were written by priests and scribes in the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah during the First Temple period and the Babylonian Exile.

This occured very far removed in time and space, let alone the Persian and Hellenistic cultural environment, and social conditions than the time of Moses, let alone Abraham. Scholars place that first redaction anywhere from the 9th to 6th centuries BCE, most probably the 7th which happens to coincide with the discovery of a scroll which nobody knew what it was until it was ascertained that it was the forgotten Torah 2kings22,23. How uncanny that this unknown document suddenly reappears around the same time the Torah is believed to have been written and compiled. Most of these parts were stitched together by Ezra the Scribe to create a single historic narrative and legal code for the returning exiles.

These authors were not writing from historical sources but were reflecting their own ideas, ideologies, cultural background, and rampant prejudices, as well as obviously their historical context.

The Quran however sheds light on the approximate period where the prejudice against Ismail began to grow among the Israelites

2:133-4"were you witnesses when death visited Yaqoub, when he said to his sons: What will you serve after me? They said: We will serve your god and the god of your fathers, Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq, one Allah only, and to Him do we submit. This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did".

In the HB, this particular section of Jacob's story, his last moments among his family, is known among biblical scholars as one of the most convoluted and problematic accounts of the Torah, betraying the conflation of multiple traditions which the scribes tried harmonizing. 

As the Quranic version makes it clear, up to the time of Jacob and the first few generations that followed, Ismail's rightful place in prophetic history was recognized. What is also interesting here is how the Quran absolves a prophet of God, Jacob, from any type of prejudice, let alone tribal, and shows that his utmost priority in regards to his sons is that they worship the one true, universal God as opposed to the tribal monolatrous Jewish religion later grafted into the religion of Ibrahim, Isaac and Jacob.

What is remarkable is the manner in which the Quran, in its usual pattern of employing words with surgical precision, subtly maintains the idea of a universal religion proclaimed by the Israelites' ancestors. When it quotes the prophet Yusuf/Joseph citing his physical relatives Ibrahim, Isaac and Jacob he leaves no ambiguity as regards the universality of the religion of these noble figures. He states that the same uprightness God favored him and his ancestors with, was equally bestowed on all of mankind

12:38"And I follow the religion of my fathers, Ibrahim and Ishaq and Yaqoub; it beseems us not that we should associate aught with Allah; this is by Allah's grace upon us AND ON MANKIND, but most people do not give thanks"

Apostate prophet the linguist; Black stone talking?

In answer to the video "The Truth About The Black Stone"

First of all, what is the black stone.

The Kaaba, according to Arab history was constructed by Prophet Ibrahim and his son Ismail. One will find remnants from the time of Ibrahim, thus the 'black stone' fixed on one of the pillars/arkan of the edifice. It is one of the original stones Abraham used to build the Kaaba, as he built other altars and places of worship to God throughout his journeys Gen12:6-8,13:4,18. That Abrahamic practice we are told in the HB, was left to his posterity that similarly built places of worship symbolized by stones erected as pillars Gen28:10,18-22.

Whatever the origin of the Black Stone and whatever the origin of stone worship in Arabia, the pre-Islamic Arabs, neither of Mecca nor of the other places, are never found to have worshipped the Black Stone of the Kaaba. Neither was the Black Stone of the Kaaba symbolical of stone worship, nor were the Prophets Ibrahim or his righteous descendants that emulated his practice, stone worshippers on account of their having stone pillars at their altar. 

This is highly significant given the importance of the Kaaba to the pre-islamic Arabs, and of the black stone itself. Stone worship was deeply imbedded in their religions 

"We used to worship stones, and when we found a better stone than the first one, we would throw the first one and take the latter". 

And yet despite the presence of this special stone at their most revered shrine, they are never found worshipping it, or attributing to it any type of intrinsic power. Umar, who was a Meccan pagan prior to Islam, found it strange to include it in the religious rites. His reaction would have been different had the black stone any type of divine connotation to the polytheists. This shows that its significance was other to the Arabs, that just as the Islamic history teaches, it is an Abrahamic remnant. The Ishmaelite descendants, more particularly the hanif among them, of whom the prophet was part of, those that had tried preserving the way of Ibrahim contrary to the pagans among them, were emotionally attached to it for that reason.

Kissing the stone is a ritual done by Muslims out of imitation of the prophet, it isnt an obligatory ritual, neither is it the same as the respect given to statues. The earliest Muslims, as already said, did not feel the need to kiss it as part of their rituals, showing that it wasnt a pre-islamic habit among pagans. As the Caliph Umar said 

"I know you are but a stone that cannot hurt or help, and if i had not seen the messenger of God kiss you i would not kiss you".

The companions in fact refrained from forcing their way through so as to touch and kiss it during the tawaf/circlings, if the place was crowded (Sunan an-Nasa'i 2938).

Unlike the Catholics, who kiss statues with the intention of seeking nearness to those represented by those statues, hoping for a favor from them or nearness to God through them, or Hindus who kiss their idols hoping for the same, Muslims kiss the Black Stone without any personification, expectation or hope in it. Muslims do so on account of an emotional bond with it, and what it represents. Just as one would kiss a picture or random object, hand or individual out of pure emotional attachment. Being near or physically in contact with the black stone is for a Muslim an intense experience due to its ancestral importance, the remnant of the foundational stones of the edifice, as Abraham was erecting it. The remembrance it creates inevitably leads to spiritual uplifting. For comparison among the monotheistic faiths, one could parallel the experience with the Jews weeping during prayer while in contact with the remaining wall of their destroyed temple. 

Similarly, later companions of the prophet had never prayed to Allah while in physical connection with parts of the Kaaba, neither were they aware of the prophet doing so 

"O Abu abdur-Rahman, why do I only see you touching these two corners?" He said: "I heard the Messenger of Allah say: 'Touching them erases sins". 

As in the example of the black stone, Had it been common in the pre-Islamic belief to worship the Kaaba itself then it wouldnt have been surprising for that companion to see another touching it during worship. When the prophet did so, he did not merely touch it but addressed prayers of forgiveness to Allah 

"He walked forward until, when he was between the two columns that are on the either side of the door of the Kabah, he sat down, praised Allah, asked of him, and prayed for forgiveness. Then he got up, and went to the back wall of the Kabah, placed his face and cheek against it and praised Allah, asked of Him, and prayed for forgiveness. Then he went to each corner of the Kabah and faced it, reciting the Takbir, the Tahlil and Tasbih, praising Allah, asking of Him and praying for forgiveness. Then he came out and prayed two Rakahs facing the front of the Kabah, then he moved away and said: “This is the Qiblah, this is the Qiblah".

The Quran further stresses that the Kaaba itself is of no intrinsic spiritual value beyond what God has commanded in regards to it. Without God's commission, no place has spiritual excellence or preference in its own essence. The direction in itself is therefore not something to be disputed and argued about. If one wishes to remain in a specific direction as if the place is intrinsically sacred then he may do so. He would have however disobeyed a divine injunction, prioritizing his personal desires and preferences 

2:143,148,177"and We did not make that which you would have to be the qiblah but that We might distinguish him who follows the Messenger from him who turns back upon his heels, and this was surely hard except for those whom Allah has guided aright...And every one has a direction to which he should turn, therefore hasten to (do) good works; wherever you are, Allah will bring you all together...It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is this that one should believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets, and give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) the captives, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in time of conflicts-- these are they who are true (to themselves) and these are they who guard (against evil)". 

This is the general principle behind every ritual, to do as one is told, as evidence of submission to the way of God.

There are thus no prayers to the kaaba or the stone. Rather prayers are offered to Allah while touching various parts of it. Not a single pre-islamic practice, as reflected by the companions' attitude to the kaaba, indicate kaaba worship. And the kaaba is only part of the hajj rituals. Just like Muslims pray to Allah while in the presence of that monument, they pray and ask Allah's forgiveness in many other situations, locations and touching other things, including slaughtering animals. All of which have their symbolic meaning similar to the ones described as regards the kaaba.

As to the talking black stone, they marvel, but we dont, and for good reasons.

A Day will come where none, whether in the heavens and earth and up to the highest ranked angels, will speak except by Allah's permission 11:105,78:37-8. This will be done to assert God's absolute dominion over all that exists. And to further stress that notion, unlike on the earth where a moment of silence can be broken anytime a person wishes to speak on his own, on that day it is God that will give the power of speech to even the most inert objects. This is the supreme Quran imagery at play. Several "witnesses" will be brought forth to the divine court, on the plain of resurrection, besides the messengers 39:69. Among them will be the earth itself which will be inspired by God to "speak" as regards the traces left behind by our deeds 99:4-5.

A more striking and shocking sight will be when we shall be asked as regards the manner in which we made use of God's innumerable bounties put at our disposal 16:78,17:36 and then the different body parts themselves will be made to testify

24:24,36:65,41:20-21"their ears and their eyes and their skins shall bear witness against them as to what they did. And they shall say to their skins: Why have you borne witness against us? They shall say: Allah Who makes everything speak has made us speak, and He created you at first, and to Him you shall be brought back".

When one is alone committing a crime, the last thing on the mind is that a day will come where one's own organs will testify

41:22-23"And you did not veil yourselves lest your ears and your eyes and your skins should bear witness against you, but you thought that Allah did not know most of what you did. And that was your (evil) thought which you entertained about your Lord that has tumbled you down into perdition, so are you become of the lost ones".

The ability to articulate thoughts, emotions or any other internal mental condition is only possible with God's power, as stated in both the Quran 55:4 and the HB Prov16:1 so just as God has given that ability to humans, He may as well impart it to any other creation of His. An explicit example is that of a donkey as per the Bible in Numb22:21-30 or the "talking serpent" that was able to outsmart the first humans. We find many other references in the traditions to such phenomenon of inanimate things made to speak and testify, such as the black stone of the Kaaba or even the Quran itself. The description of the Quran as an animate entity on the day of Judgement, testifying for its recital by the believer, or with some of its suras shading the believer, is understood as referring to the reward of recitation, not to the Quran itself. It is to be noted that the word "Quran" means recitation. The hadith describing the Quran coming as an interceding pale man is deemed inauthentic by some while others clarify that its contents can be authenticated by cross references with similar ahadith. Although, as stated earlier several reports describe the intercession of the Quran/recitation, none speak of it personified as a man. That is why the "pale man" portion is controversial. The notion of abstract deeds like the recital of the Quran interceding on the day of judgement is seen in many other cases 

"Fasting and the Quran will intercede for the servant on the Day of Resurrection. Fasting will say: O Lord, I prevented him from food and drink during the day, so let me intercede for him. The Quran will say: O Lord, I prevented him from sleeping during the night, so let me intercede for him. Thus, they will both intercede for him". 

Common phrases in everyday Muslim speech such as "ma shaa'allah" or "la hawla wa la quwwata illa billa" are described by the prophet as "among the treasures of the garden".

It is a major Quranic theme that the worldly deeds will take on a material form in the hereafter, as one of the means by which a person will see evidences of the judgement in his case. So the act of fasting and the act of reciting the Quran are good deeds which shall materialize and be made to speak to honour the believer 

"The Prophet said: “The Qur’an is an intercessor, something given permission to intercede” (Al-Tabarani)

Islam critiqued learns a new term; what is ruach hakodesh?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

In the HB, the term "holy spirit" (in which "holy" is an adjective) never appears. But there is ruach hakodesh (lit. the spirit/wind of holiness). It is the pre-condition for prophethood, endowing an individual with divine intuition, wisdom Job32:8, warnings and glad tidings, as well as the ability to communicate God's direct words 2Sam23:2. Such person becomes God's representative on Earth and then either reforms or leads the Israelites to victory.

As a side note, Trinitarians claiming that this ruach is a divine entity seperate from God the Father must explain verses like Judges9:23,1Sam16:14,Isa19:14 speaking of

"an evil spirit from God"

and of

"a spirit of perverseness".

If, as trinitarians say, God's holy spirit is a divine entity, God's evil spirit should also be a different divine entity. 1Kings19:11 is even more damning to this idea

"And He said: "Go out and stand in the mountain before the Lord, Behold! the Lord passes, and a great and strong wind (b'ruach) splitting mountains and shattering boulders before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind (ha-ruach). And after the wind an earthquake-not in the earthquake was the Lord".

This spirit of God first appears in Gen1. It is neither qualified as holy nor evil, it could be any of the 2 since God directly creates both good and evil Deut30:15,Isa45:7,1Sam16:14, and neither is it described as taking part independantly in the act of creation. In fact its mention is preceded by the presence of already created wordly entities, like the waters and the earth.

The spirit/wind of holiness in the talmud is an agent sent by God to allow prophecy and revelation (Midrash Rabbah, Song of Songs 1.1,Sotah 16d). A well known teaching in rabbinic 2nd temple literature is that the end of prophecy was accompanied with the departure of the holyspirit "From the time that the last prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, died, the holy spirit was withdrawn from Israel". The RUACH is always at the disposal of God to bestow upon whomever He chooses Num11:17,25,29,Isa42:1,44:3,Joel3:1. 

All this parallels in many ways with the Quran's description of the RUH that descends to the prophets to give them inspiration. The spirit of God is certainly an agent of God, seperate from Him and fully encompassed by His will. The spirit being of/from God, does not entail him being a seperate divine entity, anymore than the hand, arm or eyes of God are seperately divine. Even if one turns to the highly esoteric and cryptic Zohar, believed to have originated somewhere in the 1st-2nd century CE when Judaism had been infiltrated by Graeco-Roman concepts, one might find notions of God having different aspects through which He interracts with the world. However none of those aspects are ever manifested in human form and neither are they seperate entities to be individually worshipped.

The phenomenon of collective revelation, as is alleged to have happened at Pentecost, through the descent of the holy spirit on several people at once, will only reoccur in the messianic age

Joel3:1"I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions".

This is the passage which the Christians link as the fulfillement of Jesus' prophecy of the paraclete, based on the faulty future tense in Jn14 as shown earlier. As stated in the following verses and preceding chapters, this will only happen in the end of times, and will be accompanied by obvious cataclysmic signs. This further shows that the holy spirit is always linked to the field of prophethood.

This, as a side note, poses a problem to the peculiar Christian notion of being filled with the holy spirit once they have accepted Christ and yet are unable to prophecy and never will be.  Similarly, no Christian today is able to "speak in tongues" as is alleged to have occurred at pentecost. Nothing prevents the miracle from being reproduced as the NT does not say the phenomenon ceased after pentecost. The purpose was to spontaneously evangelize in any audience's language, something missionaries are obviously unable to do today. Further, was the holyspirit limited that day, so that others who were present and heard the phenomenon Acts2:13"made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine"? The spirit left them out, their tongue was unworthy of being represented. To them, the spectacle was that of drunkards speaking unintelligibly. Where were Paul's interpreters when one desperately needs them 1Cor14? As Celsus, the early pagan intellectual opponent to Christians said 

"Having brandished these threats they then go on to add incomprehensible, incoherent, and utterly obscure utterances, the meaning of which no intelligent person could discover: for they are meaningless and nonsensical, and give a chance for any fool or sorcerer to take the words in whatever sense he likes".

Not a single of the well known criteria of the messianic age as outlined in the Hebrew Bible, have occured until now, and neither were those criteria fulfilled at pentecost were God's spirit is said to have poured on several people as described in Joel. Yet we have Paul claiming the opposite throughout his writings, including Peter, based on that very messianic passage of Joel that negates the events of pentecost. The pentecost story cannot have occured as it is believed it did, and what descended on the people could not have been the holy spirit, let alone the paraclete.

There is a reason why the Pharisees in Acts2:13 mockingly alluded to these people on the day of pentecost as a group of drunkards, for their odd, erratic behavior and incomprehensible speech; this type of effect that the indwelling spirit of holiness supposedly had on them was something unheard of in the prophetic history. No prophet who received the holyspirit ever behaved in such a manner, whether the prophets of the HB down to the last Ishmaelite prophet. Christians thus need to "loosen up" the definition of a prophet, despite it being firm and precise, in order to make place for their unscriptural ideas.

The deeper difficulty however for Christians is that this passage from Joel, and other similar eschatological passages, rejects any attempt at identifying the end time king/messiah with Jesus. In addition to being "a" messiah, which requires the fulfillement of specific ritual and genealogical conditions which were never met in Jesus, the end times messiah also has to satisfy some lifetime requirements, including the global ingathering of the Jews, rebuilding of the temple, ushering of the age of unfaltering observance of the Law (which bellies by the way all of St Paul's innovations), universal peace, universal knowledge of God, blissful utopia, end of evil and sin, disease and death. Obviously none of those criteria ever occurred anywhere near Jesus' era, and in fact the least that can be said is that the 1st century, its overall state of upheaval, was the antithesis of what the messianic era is supposed to be. 

There isn't a single prophecy saying the Messiah would come, die, be resurrected, and then return thousands of years later to BEGIN his mission. It in facts says he will accomplish these tasks within his own lifetime Isa42:4"He shall not fail or be crushed until he has set the right in the earth". That is why the idea of a suffering king messiah is inexistent in pre-Christian Judaism. The awaited figure is in fact expected to violently enforce the new world order. In view if this, Christians also need to explain why would anyone not see the "second coming" theory as an attempt to explain away Jesus' failure during his "first coming" to usher the messianic era.

The paraclete is the spirit of truth, because of holding the correct belief in Jesus 1Jn4. He acts according to what he is inspired

Jn15:26,16:13-14"When the paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me..he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me.."

Per Jn14:16 the Father is the only sender of the paraclete and none else. Jesus saying he will send the paraclete in Jn15:26 depends entirely on the will of the Father. As Jesus says, the paraclete comes from the Father and goes out from the Father. Jesus will send him to the world through his prayers Jn14:16 to the Father. The sending of the paraclete depends entirely and exclusively on the Father and Jesus saying he will send him simply means that he will ask God to send him per Jn14:16. It doesnt say the paraclete will come to the people speaking in Jesus' name, but that the Father will send him in Jesus' name meaning at his request as reflected in other translations, because Jesus will pray the Father for this "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another paraclete"

Muhammad the son of Ishmael is the result of the preceding prophets' prayers like Abraham' prayers to God in the Quran to raise a prophet among his descendants settled in the area that will bring them to the straight path.

Muhammad was given Al-Mizan (The Balance) and Al-Furqan (The Criterion) of truth and falsehood and told to

42:15"go on inviting, and go on steadfastly on the right way as you are commanded, and do not follow their low desires, and say: I believe in what Allah has revealed of the Book, and I am commanded to do justice between you: Allah is our Lord and your Lord; we shall have our deeds and you shall have your deeds; no plea need there be (now) between us and you: Allah will gather us together, and to Him is the return".

Through the Criterion and the Balance, Muhammad truly convicted the world of sin for rejecting Jesus, he honored and testified about Jesus' true identity; his humanity, the truthfulness of his prophethood to the Jews ONLY and a precursor of the last prophet. He reminded those claiming to be Jesus' followers of all truth regarding his message

43:59,5:14-16,75"O People of the Book, There has come to you Our messenger to explain to you much of what you have concealed of the book and pardoning much. There has come to you from Allah a light and an obvious book. Allah guides thereby those who follow His pleasure into the ways of peace and brings them out of darkness into the light by His permission and guides them to a straight path....The Messiah son of Marium is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away".

Muhammad stayed with humanity forever, obviously through the Quran. How is the holyspirit with us today and forever? What is the instant effect to an individual, of the indwelling of the holyspirit according to every single time it occurs in the HB? The person becomes a prophet and starts prophesying. Where are those prophets today?

Islam critiqued trusts the unseen judge; holy ghost convicting the guilty?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

As Jesus prophesized many times in the NT, the rejectors were going to be punished for their rejection. For example, he alludes to this in the parable of the King, His Son, and the Servants. The paraclete will receive revelation, will establish justice and convict the guilty. That never happened in the life of the apostles. Men will see this person, and judgement will be laid down, because the people rejected Jesus. Did the apostles ever judge the world and condemn the guilty after allegedly receiving the indwelling Paraclete at Pentecost?

Did judgement ever descend on the gentiles at the hands of the apostles? It never did. Jesus in those statements is speaking in prophetic terminology by addressing them directly as is the case of the long term prediction made in Deut18 where God addresses the ISraelite community directly, saying that a specific prophet will come to them, but the intent is for the future.

In Jesus' days, the Pharisees still awaited the fulfillement of that prophecy and questionned John, asking him if he was "that prophet". Even within the Greek writings, it is a recognized terminology to involve the audience in a long term prophecy. For example it is accepted that Jesus' second coming predictions, although explicitly spoken to the disciples and telling them that they will witness his return, was not meant for their generation.

In Jn14:26 the paraclete is also called the "holy spirit" although the early Codex Syriacus omits "holy". The scribe that redacted that particular codex wasnt writing from memory but was copying from another manuscript. This shows again the well known evolving nature of the NT text, more particularily as regards the paraclete prophecy, progressively blurred, willingly or not, with mystical and abstract concepts.

In any case, the spirit of truth and the holy spirit refer to the same thing; the spirit of God indwelling those who believe Jesus to be God's envoy. Anyone holding that correct belief, including the paraclete can be termed the spirit of truth 1Jn4:2-3.

The paraclete, filled with the spirit of truth, only acts according to God's orders Jn15,16. This parallels with the prophecy in Deut18:18 where the prophet shall only speak what he hears, a personality guided by revelation. When the group of Israelites heard God speak at Sinai, received the holy spirit and became prophets Numb11:16-30 that was a specific event that would no longer happen in the future, per their own request fearing they would die, and God accepted their request.

He decreed that the phenomenon of revelation will be a personal experience.

Islam critiqued's vision is enlarged; context of Jesus' prophecy

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

The persecution and rejection of Jesus by his people, the murders of John the Baptist and Zechariah Matt23:30-37, along with the fact that punishement would be unleashed on the nation of Israel, were the main reasons why the apostles grieved. To comfort their grief, Jesus gave them the glad tidings of the paraclete who would honor Jesus' name and bring justice to the world.

The Holy Spirit was already acting before Jesus, and during these times of sorrow for the apostles.

The apostles already believed in Jesus, and according to Jn14:17 they even already experienced the indwelling of the holy spirit. If the paraclete was the holyspirit and not seperate from it then how could an indwelling phenomenon cure the reasons of their grief and bring justice considering it has always been present and did not solve anything. They grieved, among other reasons because the people did not believe in Jesus. Since the apostles already believed in Jesus then how does an indwelling paraclete resolve this particular grief?

By the time of their death, the Temple was destroyed, Jerusalem was sacked by the gentiles. So how did the situation change for Jesus' followers? How does the intangible paraclete judge and convict the guilty according to Jesus' prophecies, when many of the apostles were persecuted and killed, after Jesus and after the alleged descent of the holyspirit on them at pentecost Acts4-5,7–9,12:1, 13:42-51,14:2-5,19,17–18,24:5,26:9-11,Gal1:11-16,4:29,Phil3:5-7,1Thess2:14-16. Even some prophets who received the Holy Spirit were killed by the Israelite leadership, as Jesus reported Matt23:37. Such a prophecy about the paraclete being the indwelling holyspirit would never have consoled the apostles, and it is quite clear that by "another" paraclete Jesus was referring to the coming of "another" prophet.

The very first phrase of Jn14 is

"Do not let your hearts be troubled".

Jesus is clearing making this statement in the context of their total helplessness. In the precedent chapter Jn13 Jesus is speaking of his future betrayal, hinting to his death at the hands of the unbelievers. This added to their already existing sorrow from John and Zechariah's unjust murders which further emphasized their marginalisation and powerless situation. The disciples grieve, prior to the prophecy of the paraclete, at their master Jesus' rejection by his own people and over the fact that according to Matt24, and Jn16 they will all be persecuted and slaughtered as well as

"hated by all nations because of me",

as repeated in Jn15. They grieved over the coming abomination and destruction of the Temple because of their nation's rejection of Jesus, and their repeated transgressions. In Matt24 Jesus was predicting gloomy days ahead which put the apostles in great distress. Their grief is about what Jesus prophesized as a whole regarding Israel.

The prophecy of the paraclete comes at the climax of their grief, after he announces his disciples' future torments, his impending death, betrayal and denial by his close disciple

Jn16:6"Because I have said these things, you are filled with grief".

He comforts their troubled hearts by giving them the glad tidings of the paraclete, a powerful salvific figure who will put an end to this injustice which he and his followers suffered by judging the guilty, bringing justice and honoring Jesus in a world where he wasnt given any

Jn16"and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged"

he will convict those who rejected Jesus as a worthless liar.

Islam critiqued investigates Greek imagery; the disciples already know the spirit of truth?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

So the disciples, per Jesus' words already know "the spirit of truth", because it is with and in them, during Jesus' lifetime. Jesus therefore did not need to go away as a precondition for that other paraclete to come, if "the spirit of truth" the holyspirit and the paraclete all refer to one and the same thing. Besides the fact that there was never "another" holyspirit, but there certainly was "another" paraclete.

The Greek "spirit" is pneuma and is neutral, without gender. According to 1Jn4 "the spirit of truth" is what distinguishes, among all the "spirits" those who accept Jesus as God's envoy

1Jn4"do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God..Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. This is how we recognize the spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood".

Anyone recognizing Jesus as a human being sent by God has "the spirit of truth" in him such as Muhammad, and by extension the Muslims, as opposed to the spirit of falsehood dwelling in the world that rejects Jesus as God's human envoy. This paints trinitarians as spirits of the antichrist since they do not recognize that

"Jesus Christ has come in the flesh"

but that

"God has come in the flesh".

It says that God dwells, through His spirit, in those who recognize Jesus

"This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit..God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them".

The spirit of truth is therefore coming from God and filling those who recognize Jesus' true identity. This applies to any individual, past, present and future. The disciples addressed by Jesus "know" this "other" paraclete because he is like them filled with the spirit of truth

Jn14:16-17"I will ask the Father, and he will give you another paraclete to help you and be with you forever, the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and is in you".

If by "another" paraclete Jesus meant "another" holyspirit then it would mean the disciples never knew or experienced the holyspirit. Besides the fact, again, that there never was "another" holyspirit, but there certainly was another paraclete.

The expression of being "in" eachother can easily be understood if one looks at the context of its use throughout the NT and its application for both physical and abstract subjects. Trinitarian proof texting has obscured the meaning of that expression, as it did in so many other cases. The plain meaning of Jesus, and any other entity being "in" another one simply is to share a common position, as is amply used throughout the NT.

Islam critiqued turns to his NT; Muhammad is the paraclete?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

61:6"And when Isa son of Maryam said: O children of Israel! surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Taurat and giving the good news of an Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad, but when he came to them with clear arguments they said: This is clear magic"

Ahmad in this verse is in the grammatical form of ism tafdeel. For example a sentence might say "this person is kabeer/great but that one is akbar/greater". Ism tafdeel indicates that the characteristics described are greater in the individual concerned. It is an observable reality that the prophet Muhammad's name is much more revered than that of Jesus. That characteristic reached a point that the ism tafdeel became equivalent to the prophet Muhammad's proper name. It is reported that nobody had that name prior to the prophet. Shortly after the prophet's time however, Muslims began using it as a name. Ibn Abi Ahmad for instance, who narrated ahadith from Abu Hurayra who himself died around 59AH. Or another hadith narrator who was his contemporary, named Al Jamdi Abu Ahmad. The prophet referred to himself as Ahmad, among 5 other names. His companions did too, including in poems about him.

Ibn Ishaq in his sirah refers to "Ahmad" while relating the story of the prophet's birth.

 Hassan b. Thabit said: ‘I was a well-grown boy of seven or eight, understanding all that I heard, when I heard a Jew calling out at the top of his voice from the top of a fort in Yathrib “O company of Jews” until they all came together and called out “Confound you, what is the matter?” He answered: “Tonight has risen a star under which Ahmad is to be born.”

According to world renowned Islamicist professor Déroche, the earliest Quranic manuscripts contain the exact same wording as 61:6 (Catalogue des manuscrits Arabes). Arthur Jeffrey's proposition that 61:6 did not originally contain the reference to "Ahmad" is based on a marginal quote in a late 13th century book on qiraat by a certain "al-Marandi". Outside what that late source supposedly says, no evidence exists for Ubay's alleged variant reading, while every early manuscript containing the passage agrees with the Uthmanic recension. Also, just because someone claims something about Islam and is Muslim means nothing in terms of authenticity. There are many variants attested to this day that do not pass the standards and that do have at least a partial chain of transmission, contrary to this supposed variant that has none.

Muhammad, through his appellation and the praises he receives virtually every second of the day, fulfilled that prophecy in both ways, as established in the Quran

94:4"And We raised for you, your remembrance."

Further, nobody came after the prophet Jesus claiming to be a messenger of God and whose evidences were repeatedly and consistently treated as magic

46:7"Our clear lucid verses were read to them. But, referring to the truth as it came to them, the unbelievers said, “This is obviously a magic!”".

The prophecies speaking of the prophet Muhammad that were written down were not removed which is why the Quran says that the people of the book

2:146"recognize him as they recognize their sons".

The Quran does not speak of alteration but of deliberate misinterpretation of these prophecies by those who heard the Quran, because of the implications

2:146"and a party of them most surely conceal the truth while they know (it)". 

Jn14:16"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor (paraclete) to be with you forever. The spirit of truth, the world cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him for he lives with you and will be in you"

Jn15:26"When the Counselor (paraclete) comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me"

Jn16:7"But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor (paraclete) will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you"

The Greek "paraclete" is used in the New/Greek Testament for a comforter, advocate, counselor etc.

1Jn2:1"..we have an advocate (paraclete) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."

Here the paraclete is translated as "advocate". This is one of a prophet's functions, and although anyone could potentially be qualified as an advocate, the context of its use in the Greek writings is that of an envoy from God. It is applied to Jesus the human prophet, who identified himself as a prophet, and who was similarly recognized by the multitudes as a prophet Matt21:11,Mk6:3-5Lk13:32-4 who was a human being

"made like his brothers in every way"Heb2:17.

So when Jesus prays God to send "another" paraclete in Jn14, one can justifiably argue that he is asking God to send another prophet like him who will be an advocate, a counselor and comforter, all of these being the descriptions of a prophet. Like Jesus the advocate 1Jn2:1 and prophet of God Matt21:11. There was never "another" holy spirit. More on that point later on.

The paraclete predicted to come by Jesus cannot be the same thing as the holy spirit filling the people who subsequently become prophets, because of several reasons:

In Jn16:7-8 Jesus sets the condition that he has first to go away for the paraclete to come, while throughout Luke and other places such as Jn20:21-22 the Holy spirit is present during Jesus' life time and he is even already indwelling the disciples if one wants to equate paraclete with holyspirit in Jn14:17. The NIV footnotes on this particular verse show that it is in the present tense in early manuscripts which renders the verse

"But you know him for he lives with you and IS in you"

and not

"But you know him for he lives with you and WILL BE in you".

What gives even more credence to those present tense early manuscripts is that the beginning of the sentence itself

"But you know him for he lives with you"

in all available manuscripts is in the present tense, whether the ones that end in the future or the ones that end in the present tense. The aim of bible editors is to promote the idea that the holyspirit was present in Jesus' lifetime but not indwelling the believers yet until Pentecost where the disciples where filled with the holy spirit, and that this is what Jesus meant when he said he will pray God to send "another" paraclete. But this verse's tense in early manuscripts clearly contradicts this notion, besides the simple fact that there was never "another" holy spirit.

Further why would it be impossible for the holyspirit to come to the disciples in Jesus' presence when it is established that it can indwell a limitless number of people simultaneously?

Islam critiqued ruins it again; where are the Quran manuscripts?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

It is important to emphasize again, authenticity of the Quran isnt contingent on whether we have in our hands manuscripts written or approved by Uthman. The authentification and transmission of the Quran was always, since the time of the prophet, primarily oral. The Quran allows such endeavour because it isnt a text whose meaning and applicability is locked in time. And that is why the Muslims have not attached much importance to transmitting the minute detailed meaning of every passage, from the prophet and his companions, but they have instead focused on transmitting the text of the Quran itself.

It was always the purpose of the Quran and its sharia to be adaptable accross time and space. That is why we have very few reports by the prophet giving his interpretation of the Quran. We are not talking of the core messages which are agreed upon, but of passages with multilayered meanings and implications, whose interpretations are open depending on the socio-cultural background or even the scientific knowledge of its contemporaries. These passages are open to many interpretations so long as they do not contradict the firm and unambiguous verses, which the Quran calls muhkam.

It is these supposedly "obscure" parts of the book, that most modern critics of Islam use to build their theories on the origins of the Quran. They begin by discrediting the oral transmission process of the Quran based on the presence of these "blind spots" of Quranic exegisis. They think this constitutes proof that the oral transmission chain was broken, hence the absence of a consensus on the meaning of these passages. These critics then dismiss centuries of accumulated Muslim scholarship, debates on all levels of the religion, textual, historical, sectarian, juristic, exegetical, theological, that led to the conclusions Muslims hold today as regards the Quran's authenticity, and all this, despite their awareness of various layers of meaning to certain passages. The critics then propose readings based on emendation of the text, changing letters and words so as to prove that "their" reading is more in line with what they individually think the message of a specific passage should be.

The effortless cohesive theological structure of the text, the intricate connections between all of its passages and words is irrelevant and not worth considering. What is primordial is that their "improved" reading be violently forced into the text so as to integrate the Quran in the wider socio-religious context in which they suppose it came. The main purpose being the find their holy grail, to reveal the underlying sources that inspired it. The end result is an incoherent new book that has nothing to do with the original, with sometimes theological implications that Muslims of the past and today would never agree with. But in their minds, the purpose has been accomplished. The uniqueness of the Quran as a religious text orally transmitted, is now a pious legend, regardless of the thousands around the world in our own time doing just that, emulating their predecessors.

The reality of the matter is that as a result of that revisionist approach to the Quran, all these critics converge on the same grounds; they do not know how the Quran originated, where it came from, and when it first appeared, how and in what language it was written, what form it first took, who was the first audience, how was it transmitted from one generation to another, especially in its early years, when, how, and by whom it was codified. These are all basic issues taken for granted by scholars dealing with other texts, much older than the Quran. Muslim tradition has for long resolved all these issues. Recent critical scholarship will eventually go back to the initial, much more constructive approach of pionneers in the field, by considering the historicity of the events agreed upon over the centuries by the Muslim scholars, and then try and build up their claims, whatever these might be.

The strong oral tradition is the reason why we find reports stating that the process of compilation was never a priority until memorizers started dying out in battles. The priority given to oral transmission is a phenomenon ongoing today and will remain so. It is irrelevant to Muslims whether we have many or few manuscripts attesting to our Quran, even if those few are found to be filled with errors and differences in comparison to what we have today. Neither would the availability of early manuscripts confirming the written text we have today, constitue strong proof for the Quran's authenticity. Someone with enough power and authority could have decided to write the first Quran compilation and disseminate it as the original left by the prophet. This however would have only been possible if the Muslim tradition, like the Judeo-Christian one, had neglected its strong oral tradition.

So what would really challenge the Quran's authenticity is whether we have a variety of conflicting and competing traditions, primarily oral.

Assuming for argument's sake that there are textual variations among manuscripts, or that we have no manuscripts belonging to Uthman, who by the way wasnt the first but the second compiler of the Quran into book form, is irrelevant, even laughable to a Muslim audience when trying to undermine the Quran's preservation. Because again, that preservation was, is and always will be, primarily oral. Trying to criticize the Quran from that angle is thus a fruitless effort, especially when the critic is coming from a background whose religious texts have a known history of neglectfulness or total loss of textual tradition. Such criticism only is valid from the view point of these critics because in the transmission process of their own tradition, they have entirely disregarded the oral aspect. Written texts and manuscripts thus become crucial to them in order to validate and authenticate their current scriptures and beliefs, even though such attestation in and of itself isnt strong proof of authenticity.

So, coming from such a poor background in terms of oral tradition, it is thus but natural for these critics to boast of their numerous manuscripts in comparison to the Quran, even though these early manuscripts of theirs contradict one another and sometimes are very damaging to their current pillars of faith. To this we may add the revisions and corruptions of the text, unknown or confused authorship, broken transmission chain, or even loss of the language of the person to whom the text is ascribed. All these, and other issues are problems that plagued the Biblical traditions, even to the point that the majoritarily accepted canons was different throughout the ages, even today with different Judeo-christian traditions having their own canon as God's word.

Nothing even remotely similar happened to the Quran.

Again, we are comparing an oral society that made the progressive transition towards written with its first ever book, the Quran, of which we have abounding 1st and 2nd century Hijra manuscripts, comparing it with a well established written society. This Graeco-Roman written civilization is expected to have abounding written evidence for its central scriptures. Yet its manuscript attestation, the earlier we go back to the source, the more scant, obscure and inconsistent it becomes. The theory of late (post 200AH) composition of the Quran has been discarded even among the most hardened revisionists and orientalists, in light of the substantial and constantly increasing discoveries of 1st century hijri (622-719CE) Quranic manuscripts. The total texts extracted from these early manuscripts amount for over 90% of the current Quranic text. Contrast this with the single credit card size manuscript remnant of the NT whose dating is disputed somewhere along the 1st century CE. The issue of individual scribal errors is natural, to anyone who knows the various difficulties of copying a lengthy text prior to the printing era. The more essential question would be whether these individual errors were reproduced on a large enough scale so as to corrupt the majority of the transmitted text. This of course never occurred with the Quran, due to its dual, oral/written, mode of transmission. Even the variant readings, approved by the prophet, recorded and attested in books of tafsir, even those readings that change the skeletal Uthmanic text (a tiny minority of all variants and which are not contradictory), were never scripturally transmitted on a scale that would alter the majority of manuscripts throughout time. This again, attests to the well known and established phenomenon of mass oral transmission, as is done to this very day. These textual variations were for the most part restricted to companion codices, meant for the companions' personal use, hence their label by the scholars as companios' readings.

Islam critiqued searches in the old libraries; the Sanaa manuscripts?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

As to the Sanaa manuscripts, they were found along with non Quranic material during a dig at the Great Mosque of Sanaa that was built in the 6th year of hijra under the prophet's orders. The Sanaa manuscripts are there for all to see, some that were dated were compiled in a CD by the UNESCO as a part of their "Memory of the World" program. Other manuscripts are awaiting publication. These facts silence the unjustified conspiracy theorists among the critics who claim that the "embarrassing" manuscripts are somehow hidden by the Yemeni authorities. Sanaa did not reveal anything Muslim tradition did not already know, especially not in terms of variant readings among the early companions

(Nicolai Sinai)"Thus, the Sanaa Palimpsest would appear to provide us with an exciting glimpse at a moment in time at which the hegemony of the Quran’s standard rasm had not yet become fully established. This, it must be said, is in line with the general drift of the Islamic tradition, which reports that during the first decades after Muḥammad’s death a variety of quranic recensions were in circulation. Although none of the exact “companion codices” described by Islamic sources have yet been discovered in manuscript, the general types of textual variants ascribed to them correspond to the types of variants found in the lower layer of the Sanaa Palimpsest. 17 The latter thus lends credence to the idea that there was originally more than one recension of the Quran and that the Islamic literary sources preserve a broadly accurate view of the scale and character of textual variance between these different versions of the Arabic scripture".

The Islamic hadith corpus and scholarly works, although written late, turn out to be remarkably accurate in reporting the phenomenon of variants. This is significant as the issue could be deemed controversial in terms of the preservation of the Quran, yet the Muslim scholars related every aspect of it. What does it say on how faithful the Muslim community was in preserving their tradition, history, morals, prophetic example? Sadeghi who studied the Sanaa manuscripts and how they relate to the Islamic tradition conclude that:

"It is now equally clear that recent works in the genre of historical fiction are of no help. By “historical fiction” I am referring to the work of authors who, contentedly ensconced next to the mountain of material in the premodern Muslim primary and secondary literature bearing on Islamic origins, say that there are no heights to scale, nothing to learn from the literature, and who speak of the paucity of evidence. Liberated from the requirement to analyze the literature critically, they can dream up imaginative historical narratives rooted in meager cherry-picked or irrelevant evidence, or in some cases no evidence at all. They write off the mountain as the illusory product of religious dogma or of empire-wide conspiracies or mass amnesia or deception, not realizing that literary sources need not always be taken at face value to prove a point; or they simply pass over the mass of the evidence in silence. A pioneering early example of such historical fiction was Hagarism, written by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook. While few specialists have accepted its narrative, the book has nevertheless profoundly shaped the outlook of scholars. It has given rise to a class of students and educators who will tell you not only that we do not know anything about Islamic origins, but also that we cannot learn anything about it from the literary sources. All this would be good and well if the mountain of evidence had been studied critically before being dismissed as a mole hill; but the modern critical reevaluation of the literary evidence has barely begun. And, significantly, any number of results have already demonstrated that if only one takes the trouble to do the work, positive results are forthcoming, and that the landscape of the literary evidence, far from being one of randomly-scattered debris, in fact often coheres in remarkable ways. A good example of such findings would be some of Michael Cook’s own fruitful recent studies in the literary sources in two essays of his already discussed here. It is not his confirmation of some elements of the traditional account of the standard Qurʾān that I wish to highlight here, noteworthy as it may be, but rather his demonstration that we can learn from the study of the literary sources".

Among the aspects of the known variant readings confirmed by the most recent scholarly observations is the phenomenon of qira'at tafsiriyya/exegetical recitation. According to Hilali’s general characterization,

“[m]ost of the variations in the lower text include more lengthy text than the corresponding passages in the Cairo edition”. This has led the major works of Hilali and Sadeghi to conclude that "the lower text of the palimpsest is derivative from the standard recension".

Hilali further reflects exactly what the Muslim authorities have stated concerning the shaad qiraat. She opines that the authors of the palimpsest integrated interpretative passages into the text without clearly demarcating the 2 because they did not consider their writings to be transmitted to the general public. Their works were meant for personal use. Ibn al Jazari says that some companions would

“insert exegesis into recitation by way of explanation and clarification because they were endeavoring to ascertain the true meaning of what they received from the Prophet by way of recitation; they were safe from confusion [between the text of scripture and the explanations added to it], but some of them may have written it [the explanations] down together with it [the recitation].”

It is important keeping in view that in many cases there is disagreement among scholars in deciphering the lower text. Successive scholars that have studied images of the lower layer have had different conclusions on what is readable and what isnt. With that being said, an interesting observation is that the sub-text, which was erased and then written over, not only corroborates some of the variant readings known and reported among the companions, but also attests to the truthfulness of the Islamic traditions. These traditions have reported much more variations in readings in the companions' codices in comparison to the ones found in Sanaa. That is why the scholars that have studied the manuscripts, such as Sadeghi and Goudarzi, have observed that the Uthmanic recension, in the minor places where it disagrees with the Sanaa manuscripts, was because it was compiled from a critical examination of other sources and is thus a more faithful reproduction of the prophetic prototype. In other words Uthman did not "invent" a new Quran and especially not "change it", given the nature of the differences between the standard rasm and the Sanaa variants, but instead represents the prophetic recital accurately.

This gives further weight to the already well established Muslim tradition concerning the early companions having their own compilations of the Quran even before Uthman's standardized copy, and Uthman's compilation effort motivated by the need to accommodate all of the variant readings in his skeletal structure. 

Other types of noted differences have no bearing on the text, but relate to the order of suras and aya separations, as well as a faulty writing of the hamza letter. Even today for academic reasons, both Muslims and non Muslims have rearranged Quranic suras in their own studies. Many times and especially in those days, mosques were used as study spaces. Sometimes a copyist can make mistakes in reproducing certain letters, his own style and writing level may also be erroneous. These variations, some of which could be deliberate for personal studies, memorization or prayers, do not undermine the integrity of the Quranic text. Puin's main observation of those differences is that eventually, these manuscripts will show that the medieval Muslim scholars who improved upon the primitive orthography of the text so as to make it more accessible, misread certain vowels, writing a long alef instead of the ya. This again, is irrelevant to determining textual corruption as the vowels are known to have been added so as to conform to different readings. 

Another interesting way in which the Sanaa manuscripts confirm the Muslim tradition is through the use of near-synonyms with certain passages from the Uthmanic recension. These near synonyms, known and listed in the Islamic tradition as parts of the prophetic approved readings, have led scholars that do not give much weight to the Muslim tradition, to actually confirm it once more as truthful. Commenting on various studies of the Sanaa manuscripts, Nicolai Sinai says

"The phenomenon (that is, of near symonyms) does, however, shed valuable light on the initial stage of the Quran’s transmission history, insofar as it suggests some degree of oral transmission in which transmitters were forced to rely on their memory of the gist of what was being said, rather than being able to check a written original. As Sadeghi has highlighted, the fact that an examination of the lower layer of the palimpsest yields a fair number but not a downright overabundance of such synonymic substitutions is best explained by an admixture of oral and written transmission. One may accordingly follow him in conceiving of the Quran’s textual transmission as being ultimately rooted in the transcription of oral proclamations recited at speed, thus accounting for the original transcribers’ occasional disagreement about whether a given verse employed, say, alnār or jahannam. The fact that Islamic works ascribe similar synonymic substitutions to some of the non-ʿUthmānic codices of the Quran reportedly com- piled by certain companions of the Prophet adds further weight to this hypothesis".

Kohlberg and Amir-Moezzi claimed that the Sanaa manuscripts contain “significant variants in relation to the official version of the Qur’an”. But an examination of their source, a statement by von Bothmer, shows that in actuality they have very badly misread him. What von Bothmer said is that approximately 22% of the 926 Quranic manuscripts of Sanaa, 208 manuscripts in total, contain a varying number of lines per page. This has nothing to do with their claims concerning the order of the suras. Furthermore, von Bothmer argues that the Sanaa fragments prove that a complete standard text of the Quran, including the Fatiha and the final two suras, existed in the first Islamic century, all the while acknowledging that the only dated fragment is from AH 357/AD 968.

Another important thing to be kept in mind is that there exists numerous partially written copies of the Quran dating well into medieval times that contain a variety of sura orders. This is simply due to the fact, as stated earlier, that some people only wanted a few or partial suras for personal or public use, without consideration for their chronological order. Thus one must carefully consider to what extent the manuscript in question was originally a full or partial copy.

Other Kufic Quranic manuscripts from 1st and early 2nd century hijra are found in museums today, like the ones of Austria and Bahrein. In fact even the style of the script of the Samarkand codex which the missionaries want to push the dating as far as the late 8th century is found in inscriptions from the 1st century of hijra in the form of dated Kufic inscriptions, predating Uthman's collection of the Quran.