In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"
Mosaic Law made no prohibition on male premarital or extramarital sexual activity so long as the women involved were not the property of another Jew. A Jewish male could acquire as many wives as he could afford, and also avail himself of the services of concubines, female war captives of any age regardless of them being married or not Deut21:10-17,Num31:17-18.
This was the case with the most eminent of their religious figures, including Abrahama, Moses, David or the wise king Solomon who were all polygamists, down to the regular members of society, including the priestly clan of the Levites 1Sam1:1-2.
Jacob counted 2 living sisters among his wives, which is against Torah law hence the various rabbinic explanations to the problem of having the father of the Jewish nation violating a future prohibition. Torah sets no limits to the number of wives Ex21:10,Deut21:15 although it vaguely warns Israelite rulers (not common people) against having "too many" wives Deut17:17.
Some Jewish comentators have argued, based on rabbinical discussions in the Talmud, that the maximum number of wives in all cases shouldnt exceed 18. Polygamy is at the foundation of the Jewish nation. It even was and is still seen as a good deed, the best fulfillement of the eternally binding command to "be fruitful and multiply", so much so that it can hasten the messianic age. It was practiced throughout the Talmudic period, with the legislation saying that a man can have as many wives as are willing to marry him (as long as he can support them) without any hint to it being an immoral or abnormal practice. It was such a well established part of the social system that Mosaic law is not even critical of it.
We find only certain regulations with respect to it but that were not practiced in reality as seen with David and Solomon's cases whose prophethood and kingship are never questionned despite their "transgressions". It was not until the 10th century and the rabbinic ban upon it specifically on the Ashkenazic fringe, that made the issue controversial. If it wasnt a widespread practice, there would be no need to issue such a forceful amendment. Jews needed to accomodate for the Christian host nations that forbade the practice, fearing further isolation and persecutions from a people that already resented them.
Contrary to their other host nations, namely the Muslims, Christian tradition isnt a continuation of Jewish tradition but of Greek and Roman pagan traditions, society and morality. Ancient Greeks, including the likes of Plato and Socrates, the supposedly great philosophers saw homosexuality, which they practiced and lauded, as the highest symbol of manhood. Women were inconvenient breeders, not ideal partners. Although Christianity somewhat discouraged homosexuality, it adopted this Greek attitude towards women and normal relations between men and women, adding the whole negative, evil spin to it.
Christians try interpreting the polygamy verses as if it is talking of marriage after divorce or death of a wife which is absurd since it says such marriage should not lead one to diminish any of the wife's conjugal rights, ie the first wife's of which the preceding verse clearly speaks of. Jesus does not oppose polygamy and even uses it in his parable to make his point about readiness for the kingdom Matt25. This was the perfect occasion for him to oppose it or criticize it, but doesnt at all. He features it, meaning giving it tacit approval. From this noninterference attitude Luther, as late as the 16th century, arrived at the conclusion that he could not forbid the taking of more than one wife.
The Quran clearly alludes to the fact that as per the norms of human nature, the real benefits and advantages of the institution of family manifest themselves in a monogamous family. And despite fully endorsing, and not limiting polygamy neither quantitatively nor contextualy, the HB too speaks of the preference for a man to be united with a single wife Gen2:24.
As a side issue, one might ask why the regulation doesnt apply to women as well (polyandry). Aside from the basic issues of uncertain descendancy, a woman becomes undisposed to satisfy the most basic physical or sexual needs of her multiple husbands. IT is the case during her menstrual period or while pregnant. Also, from a strict biological viewpoint, a woman can only carry and conceive one child at a time and from one man only, for nine months before she can conceive another. A man on the other hand can beget a child every time he cohabits with a woman. Polyandry opposes these very elementary socio-biological issues. That is why it is practiced by very few societies that seek to limit population growth, with a purely materialistic outlook. For example, polyandry in the Himalayan mountains is related to the scarcity of land. The marriage of all brothers in a family to the same wife allows family land to remain intact and undivided.
In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"
Coming from a biblical background, the critic has very little room to wiggle in the topic of polygamy. But let us see the difference between the biblical and Quranic stance.
4:3"And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry from the women that seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice between them, then marry only one or what your right hands possess; this is closer that you be just".
Contrary to popular opinion, the verse is not addressing the issue of polygamy in a general sense, a pre-existing practice, but that of polygamy in a narrowed down context, that of safeguarding the orphans' rights. The reason the Quran only speaks of and limits polygamy in that context, is because these types of relationships hardly if ever run smoothly and therefore should be reserved for the achievement of higher objectives. It is clear from the opening statement, positing the situation of one with orphans under care, fearing for the just management of their rights
4:3"And IF you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, THEN marry..."
The verse is therefore silent on polygamy in a general sense, neither allowing nor forbidding it, but by only mentioning one case to which it applies, clearly hints to the preferred way to apply the practice, moralizing it, laying down the basis for the intricate perspective that must be considered if a man wishes to marry more than one woman. However it is to be noted, this doesnt mean that polygamy outside the context of caring for orphans, which is the subject of the verse, is useless. Outside caring for orphans, polygamy can potentially be an answer to many problems one can think of, so to outright ban it would deprive the believers from a solution to potential social difficulties.
Women around the world, not necessarily in Muslim societies are confronted to situations where they are left to fend for themselves and their children without the help of the family or the support of a father. But because polygamy is regulated and moralized in the Quran, by mentioning only one case to which it applies, along with its conditions, the Quran is explaining to the God-conscious that this familial configuration is not to be abused for selfish motives, the gratification of sexual desires. There will always be people that will take advantage of the system, just as there are Muslims that will disregard that limitation to make it subservient to their own whims. Polygamy is thus not the norm but the exception in Islamic societies. It is a license granted to men to alleviate problems that have existed and will keep on existing in human societies.
From a modernist perspective, feminists often denounce the practice as legalized cheating. 2 things dont become the same because of superficial similarities. Is a regular marriage legalized prostitution because a man gains sexual access conditionally to spending from his resources? In a marriage, there are many more implications, rights and obligations beyond sex which is just one of the rights of both parties on another. A feminist may now be tempted to say that a wife is just a long term prostitute with more rights and duties. But then is any unmarried woman that has sex with a man prostituting herself because, besides money, there always exists an exchange without which the man would not have sexual access, including emotional, physical, intellectual etc. attractiveness? This extends to lesbianism and on a deeper level, even to self-sex where a woman is essentially a prostitute to her desire.
Feminists see genders as conflicting opposites rather than completing one another. This is why they loath systems that bind genders together whether monogamous or polygamous. They will prefer situations that paradoxically oppress them, like prostitution and adultery, because of the limited rights the opposite gender has on them in these cases.
Yateem, (plur. yatama) is derived from Y-T-M meaning alone. It is used for a child who lost one or both parents, or for a widow.
The verse answers the guardian's fear with a solution; marrying up to four women, not any, but specific ones preceded by the definite article
"..marry from THE women...".
Which specific women are best suited to share that burden of responsibility? The mother of the orphan first and foremost. By taking them in his household, the husband is bound to provide for them as he would do with a regular wife and children, as well as giving them increased advantages, which includes, possible inheritence in case the adoptive father dies and leaves a will for them, in addition to what must be given to the orphan even if there is no will 4:8.
The mother of the orphan could also use her dower for the orphan's wellbeing, if she wishes. Marrying the mother of an orphan taken under care, may also fill the emotional gap of a child with no father. Marrying these widows, or taking another woman or maiden (whose job included raising the children of a household) in case the orphan's mother is dead with the purpose of caring for one's orphan, solves the conditional clause of fear not to "act equitably towards orphans". The difficult responsibility of sustaining the orphan physically and emotionally, protecting his/her rights, wealth and property is this way shared by both parents. Something to keep in mind is that Muslims are urged and obligated, per the divine law, to help the weak in society, including widows and orphans. Marriage isnt and never was a precondition to get the needed help.
The verse is addressing a group among those that already have orphans under their wing, those who fear for the slightest inadvertent injustice towards them. These highly pious guardians are given a solution, in the form of a recommendation to help solve that fear. One can always involve himself further in a charitable endeavor and this can be argued to be amongst the most advanced manners of doing so.
Another thing to keep in mind while trying to understand the verse, simply is the context. 4:3 is speaking of orphans in general, not gender specific, and is a continuation of
4:2"And give to the orphans their property, and do not substitute worthless (things) for (their) good (ones), and do not devour their property (as an addition) to your own property; this is surely a great crime".
Therefore the next verse must be at least talking about the same orphans, whom one fears not to act fairly towards and the solution to that problem is given in the same verse
"marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four".
The whole passage until v6 is speaking of orphaned children and how the trustee is to manage their lives and property the best possible way. Should these instructions not be enough to satisfy a believer's fear of not being fair towards orphans under his care, then as proposed in 4:3 one may marry women who would share the burden of responsibility, these women being first and foremost the widowed mothers of these orphans.
In the verse 4:3, orphans is in the plural, that is because a Muslim guardian could take multiple orphans under his care, especially during times of war as in the context of revelation, or any other situation where the number of men is largely reduced. The Quran has stated that the limitation of this permission is left to a maximum of four women because
"this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course".
A person may come under the impression that he can marry however many of these women he wants, in order to take care of orphans, but the Quran states that the very purpose of the injunction can be compromised the more woman that are married. Quantity isnt always the best, and people need to take into account their own abilities when trying to help other people. Another important statement in the verse, in connection to determining the number of wives, is the phrase "Ma Taba Lakum".
TABA is related to goodness, rather than liking. So the guardian's decision cannot be dictated by mere desire/liking, but for what brings more goodness to the person and what brings more goodness is what brings the person closer to God, in this case, reinforcing the idea that the wife must be most suited in securing the orphan's rights, and this primarily means the orphan's mother. Because of these very reasons, that they were marriages with a moral reason, more so compatibility or personal liking, it often led to situations where the husband would leave this new wife in a state as if she wasnt necessarily wanted. The Quran warns the man not to do this a little later on in 4:127. He must do his best to give her rights, material, physical, emotional, as a married woman. All married women deserve such rights, not only mothers of orphans, as stated earlier in the sura. 4:127 reminds the men of these things, while refocusing them on equity towards the orphans of those very women, so as to restress the sensitivity of the issue
"And they ask you a decision about women. Say: Allah makes known to you His decision concerning them AND that which is recited to you in the Book concerning yatama annisa'/the orphans of "the women whom you do not give what is appointed for them while you desire to marry them", and concerning the weak among children, and that you should deal towards orphans with equity; and whatever good you do, Allah surely knows it".
It isnt because he has done her a favor by improving her socio-economical situation, that the guardian is to forgo the marital rights of the orphans' mother. It is a marriage contract like with any other woman and her subsequent treatment must be just and fair like with a regular wife. And if the situation results in injustice to another party, then it should not be resorted to
"but if you fear that you will not do justice between them, then marry only one or what your right hands possess; this is closer that you be just".
One might ask, why would it be allowed to marry more than one with the condition to deal equitably with all wives when the Quran itself states in 4:129 that such condition cannot be fulfilled even if one sincerely tries?
The fact is the two verses together 4:3,129 are addressing that conditional clause of equity towards wives from two perspectives to create mutual understanding from all parties involved:
- the perspective of the women, by saying in 4:3 that they have the right to equitable treatment and the man must be aware of that right regardless of his will to care for the orphans
- the perspective of the man, by saying in 4:129 that he will not be able to be perfectly just with all wives no matter how hard he sincerely tries. The women should be aware of the husband's sincere will to be just between them even he fails. They should keep in mind that the true objective of such unions is caring for the orphans. Allah is this way absolving the husband's shortcomings who is sincerely trying to be just with his wives for the sake of orphans and at the same time creating an understanding from the part of the wives, again for the sake of orphans. Although the verse absolves the husband from shortcomings, and the wives implicitly asked to be understanding, the husband then is explicitly warned he may not abuse of that forbearance to the point of injuring emotionally the wife he is less inclined to
"but be not disinclined (from one) with total disinclination, so that you leave her as it were in suspense".
This shows that the conditional clause of equity between wives in 4:3 covers the obvious and basic rights, not the shortcomings of a man sincerely trying to make a complex union work for the sake of orphans. From the point of view of the woman who fears she might be disdained, left aside, then there is the option of finding an arrangement, with one party compromising on its position so as to maintain the marriage ties 4:128. If none are willing to compromise then a divorce procedure is initiated.
In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"
The Hebrew Bible sanctionned letter for letter by Jesus, allows the extermination of entire population save their virgins, regardless of age. All visibly mature women are killed while the visibly virgin, meaning children, are distributed among the invading Israelites Numbers31:17-18etc. The Hebrew speaks of "every woman who can lie with a man" in contrast to the "young girls who have no experience of intimate relation with a man". The text is thus clearly speaking in terms of physical appearance. Obviously the soldiers weren't going around verifying each captive's private parts to distinguish the virgins. Those children may be disposed of according to one's whims, as the passage gives no regulation in the matter. This is in the context of genocidal warfare, binding on Jews of all times where specific nations must be annihilated, like the Amalekites and six other Canaanite nations and any of their descendants whenever they are identified Deut20:16,25:19.
In another context, that of optional warfare, Deut21 instructs the soldiers to marry the captive he lusts for, prior to sexual intimacy. She has no choice and say in the matter. She is brought to the soldier's household, her hair trimmed (the Hebrew does not mean shaved off), nails shortened, previous clothes put aside, and given a month to mourn her decimated family, right in front of her captors' eyes v13. This period of mourning provides no mechanism by which to ascertain former pregnancy. The potential child's lineage is this way cut off and assimilated into his captor's tribe. Also, the passage only mentions the captive girl's murdered parents, which implies again she could be very young, or mature and unmarried (unlikely in those days for a woman that is so attractive that the soldier lusts after), or with a husband who is still alive. The altering of her physical appearance is understood differently among the commentators, some seeing it as a means by which she is beautified, and others that she is made purposefully unattractive. If after that process the Jewish man still lusts for her, he may then marry her, keeping her alongside the "preferred" wife. If not, she is simply abandonned to fend off for herself, returning to whatever is left of her ravaged home.
As already said, Numbers31 and Deut21 are contextually unrelated. This undermines the argument that marriage is always a precondition to sexual intimacy. In Numbers31 the option of forced marriage isnt given as the female captive is from among the nations whom the Israelites are to be at war with forever, whose population, men women and children, are to be mercilessly killed to the last one by divine decree. Marrying from among their captives would contradict that ordinance. In Deut21, the context is that of optional wars, whose targets are people outside those concerned by the decree of extermination, hence the option of forceful marriage. In that sub-category, the Israelites are permitted to prey on the weak nation of their choice, subdue and abuse its people as they wish. These are the wars labelled up to this day by the rabbis as wars of "national glory". This isnt a war necessary for the survival of the Jewish people, or in response to provocation, not even under divine injunction. In such a case a random nation is given the choice between a "peaceful" surrender, that would result in the enslavement and taxation of its population, or in case of their rejection of the "peace offer", a military subjugation resulting in the execution of all adult males, the capture as spoils of war of their women, children, and livestock Deut20:10-14.
Should it be necessary to completely subdue that nation
2Kings3:19"you shall fell every good tree, and you shall stop up all springs of water, and you shall clutter every good field with stones".
In the land of Canaan, those natives that werent driven out or exterminated as per the Torah's injunctions during the invasion, were subdued into slavery Josh17:13. Their descendants suffered the same fate under Solomon's rule 1Kings9:20-1. After all and as stated in both the HB and the Talmudic writings (Eleazar ben Shammua) , the purpose of creation and the reason why the heavens and earth are maintained is for the chosen race to observe Torah.
That is what the Quran would have looked like, and how it would have instructed its people to behave towards the foreign nations and the weak that come under their possession, had it been penned by the ancients of its time to whom such attitude was regarded as expected and acceptable. The Quran changed the way such categories of people that already existed in the society it came to reform, had to be treated. It did so by igniting the believers' taqwa/God-consciousness, elevating the status of such weak categories whom there was now no shame of marrying 4:3,25,24:32,33:50 and honoring them as one would honnor the closest family members 4:36.
In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"
4:23-24 expands on the categories of women that are illegal for intimate relations however it makes an exception for already married Ma Malakat aymanikum. In case a married woman embraces Islam and then decides to desert her non-Muslim husband (only for the sake of her new faith) seeking shelter in a Muslim area. If after examination she is believed to be sincere in her faith then she cannot be turned back to her previous home, not only for safety reasons but also because -in the case her husband is an idolator- her new faith has made unlawful intermarriages with idolaters 2:221.
A Muslim man may take her under his wing in his household, thus making her his mulk yamin. They become legal for eachother and if they wish to marry, they may only do so after payment of the dower to her initial husband thus definitely annulling the previous marriage ties 60:10. Notice here the justice in the Quran where it first encourages Muslims to pay what is due to the opposite party with whom one is at war, regardless of potentially these enemies not reciprocating with the Muslims in the same situation. 60:11 then discusses that eventuality and says that should it occur, then for the next cases, a disbelieving husband will only be compensated proportionally to what his predecessor unfairly compensated the Muslim camp. By first encouraging indiscriminate justice, and then justice by deterrence, the Quran skilfully equalizes the balance of justice even in times of war.
The other case of a married woman becoming lawful to a Muslim is that of a former married war prisoner. Once the threat of war was over, the defeated enemy and their belongings brought at the battlefield were confiscated, including their women which per their customs they used to unjustly drag with them as a means by which they were emboldened to fight. They now fell under Muslim custody, as a punishment and lesson to those who do not value their own, including a lesson to these very women.
When they were integrated into the fabric of society, taken in a Muslim household and made to benefit from the strict regulations as regards right hand possessions, which includes being kind and caring with them as one would be with the remaining members of the family, these women learned that Islam gave them, even in such conditions, a value they could never have hoped for in their own communities. Their surviving husbands that in fact do not deserve to be married to them in the first place, are only hurt in their male "pride". They didnt love these women, who would treat a wife in such way, bring her to the battlefield as a motivation not to surrender? Even then, they learn that wives, and women in general, do have a value seeing how Muslims treat the wives of their enemies.
There were also cases of wars where Muslims were on the offensive, and after defeating the enemy, seized the property and families of the combatants. When a Muslim guardian takes into his home such women war captives, making them his right hand possessions, their former marriage is dissolved. After a waiting period until one menstrual cycle is cleared, she become sexually lawful to him. This in no way entails forced sex. There are no such recorded cases in history and if anything, whenever a case of mistreated and abused person was brought to the prophet, he condemned such a behavior, especially when the victims were women and slaves. The guardian may in that case either keep her in his household and stop insisting or send her away from his household by ransoming her against benefits of any kinds to her former camp, if anyone among her own people desires taking her back. For example upon the conquest of Khaybar, Safiyya fell under the prophet's possession. He offered her to return to her own people, or be freed and married to him and she chose the latter. The social contract between a guardian and his right hand possession is exclusive to them both, legalizing and regulating sexual activity as would be in a marriage contract and its accompanying responsibilities of maintenance and good treatment.
That these mulk yamin cannot be forced into intimacy by the guardian is exemplified through the story of prophet Yusuf, bought as a slave and whom his mistress wanted to abuse sexually under the threat of emprisonnement. The Quran condemns such action, calls it an indecency/fahisha for the owner of a slave to have intercourse with him/her under compulsion 12:24 a grave fault and a manifest error 12:29-30. Yusuf desired to keep his chastity so he repeatedly refused, being God's sincere servant he was protected and guided away from transgression, even willingly preferring emprisonnement than succombing to the sin 12:24-35 (see Ps105:19). Temptation is something any human being, regardless of his uprightness, might be subject to. Merit lies in whether one acts upon that temptation when in the full capacity to do it, or restrains oneself.
Just as the Quran condemned Yusuf's mistress from acting against her servant's desire to remain chaste, the Quran prohibits the guardian from acting contrary to his mulk yamin's desire for chastity, such as by forcing her into prostitution as was the custom in pre-islamic times. If he nevertheless does so, despite the prohibition, then the abused woman is certainly not to blame due to her weak background 24:33.
In 4:36 the Quran speaks of how they must be treated with kindness, without pride as one would treat the parents, neighbors or the weak in society. This means their guardians cannot abuse them in anyway just as one would not abuse the other groups mentionned in the verse
"He who slaps his slave or beats him, there is no expiation for this but to free him".
As the prophet here clearly instructs, physical abuse is a transgression that must be expiated.
The Quran thus opens many different options to those categories, besides encouraging their kind treatment. In 4:3 Allah is commanding the believers who has orphans under his care towards whom he fears not to fulfill all his responsibility to marry up to 4 women but if he thinks he cannot deal in fairness with multiple wives, to marry
"only one or/aw Ma Malakat Aymanukum",
meaning a legal wife for a man who fears not to deal justly between mutliple wives can be either a regular woman who is protected and supported/muhsana OR Ma Malakat Ayman already in his possession. Therefore marrying malakat ayman according to 4:3, and other passages like 4:25, is as acceptable as marrying a normal woman and further 24:32 strongly encourages men and women to marry from their male/female slaves as an act of virtue.
In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"
If we start rejecting prophets for having had sex with a concubine, then not much of the biblical prophets would be left. This youtuber is here attempting to misrepresent, with his biblical paradigm in mind, what a concubine is in Islam.
Besides those that already existed in the society and households before Islam, ma malakat aymanukum are not free persons randomly captured and enslaved or acquired through trade since the Quran only allows the enslavement of captives taken in defensive war campaigns, and only after the threat of war has been subdued meaning their seizure could not be an objective of going to war 8:67,47:4.
In fact the prophet dismissed from fighting those that were more preoccupied with the prospect of capturing potential concubines.
Ma malakat aymanukum, simplicitly rendered "concubines" by the opponents of Islam, are people from both genders, men or women, who were neither freed as a favor nor ransomed, but singled out from the rest of the captives and taken under a guardian's wing in his household because obviously not all captives were taken in. They also become sexually lawful outside wedlock to the guardian that has taken charge of them.
It is to be noted here, although they can be treated as concubines, this however does not mean that they systematically were. The prophet had in his household several such women living side by side with his wives, to aid and assist for the daily and nightly tasks of receiving at anytime people seeking all kinds of advises and help.
The right hand possessions are people from both genders as already pointed
24:33"And (as for) those (Walladheen) who ask (Yabtaghoona) for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess give them the writing (Fa Kaatibuuhum)"
Ma Malakat aymanikum must cover both males and females because if they were only females it should be "wallaati" or "wallaa'i" instead of Walladheen, "yabtaghuna" (without the waw) instead of Yabtaghoona, "Fa Kaatibuuhuna" instead of Fa Kaatibuuhum. This further proves that the expression, right hand possession does not automatically denote concubine relationship, and anyone claiming the opposite should be able to prove that it was accepted for male or female guardians to have sexual relations with their male right hand possession. Verses such as 24:33,58 speak of those MMA and how they should mingle with the rest of the household. 16:71 is a warning to those guardians who fail to live up to their moral and material responsibilities towards those categories under their care, stating that such failure amounts to a denial of God's blessings and of His unceasing care for all His creatures.
In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"
Contrary to Christians who went to such extent in their over-exaltation of their prophet that, in the absence of a birthday for Jesus went searching in the pagan calendar for a date to artificially ascribe as Jesus' birthday, the Muslims do not celebrate their prophet's birth or death. The importance is focused on the message and this is why we celebrate the only month mentioned by name in the Quran, that of Ramadan. We gratefuly fast, which is a symbol of self sacrifice, in remembrence of God's sending in this month, a guiding light for all of mankind, to the heart of His prophet on a night of Ramadan, the Night of Destiny/laylatul Qadr. The root is R-M-Dhad, meaning "heat".
RAMADAN was the month of heat because it fell in the heat of the summer. The pre-Islamic Arabs used a combined Lunar/Solar calendar, and would periodically add a month in order to compensate for the shorter lunar year as opposed to the solar year. This resulted in fixing their rituals, like the yearly pilgrimage, to more convenient times from certain aspects. However, Islam banned the addition of such months 9:36-7.
This meant that the month of Ramadan is now rotating through the year in a 33 year cycle. This avoids the convenient fixation of certain religious practices according to human whims, for purely worldly motives, violating God's established sacred months and allowing an ordinary month to be observed as sacred and vice versa. For example the pre-Islamic Arabs used this practice to avoid the disadvantages for their trade. Banning the intercalary month opens up the way for spiritual improvement, training one to perform his duties at all times of the year and under all circumstances.
Also, from the viewpoint of the universality of religion, it is obvious that the periods of fasting and performing Haj cannot satisfy all if they be fixed, always falling in the same season and month in different places-summer or winter or very hot or very cold or rainy or dry or harvesting or sowing-year after year. The Islamic time-keeping system is in fact the most scientifically relevant, because it does not require intercallation and thus making its precise reference point known to the day. Add to this the fact that the Islamic calendar is the only one that is divested from all elements of overt and parenthetical shirk, such as how the days of the week and the months of the year are named.
Before Islam, fasting did not resemble the current practice of Ramadan. Fasting meant, among other things to the Arabs the suffering of some (not complete) privation in times of mourning and sorrow.
In pre-islamic times, couples also entirely refrained from sexual contact even after breaking their fast, which the Quran abolished 2:187. The regular, yearly practice of fasting for the Meccans was done on the day of Ashura, on the 10th of Muharram. Ashura is the Arabic for the "10th" just as Tasua is for "9th". The prophet was no exception. He in addition fasted throughout the year, not leaving any month without fast
"Sometimes Allah's Messenger would not fast (for so many days) that we thought that he would not fast that month and he sometimes used to fast (for so many days) that we thought he would not leave fasting throughout that month".
Before institutionalizing fasting in its current form during Ramadan, the Muslims were to emulate the prophet during short fasting periods.
This is reflected in the Quran's introduction to the practice of fasting, as well as the prophet's recommendation
"Once Allah's Messenger said to me, "I have been informed that you offer Salat (prayer) all the night and observe Saum (fast) during the day." I said, "(Yes) I do so." He said, "If you do so, your eye sight will become weak and you will become weak. No doubt, your body has right on you, and your family has right on you, so observe Saum (for some days) and do not observe it (for some days), offer Salat (for sometime) and then sleep".
Before speaking of Ramadan, the Quran regulates fasting for a short period of time, using the phrase ayyam maAAdudaatin/counted days, implying a small number 2:183-4, which isnt the case of a 30 days fast. maAAdudaatin is a device in Arabic called jam3un qilla/lit. plural for little. The regulations of the previous fast are then transposed onto the new fast of Ramadan. This will be the definite form of the fast
"Ashura' (i.e. the tenth of Muharram) was a day on which the tribe of Quraish used to fast in the prelslamic period of ignorance. The Prophet also used to fast on this day. So when he migrated to Medina, he fasted on it and ordered (the Muslims) to fast on it. When the fasting of Ramadan was enjoined, it became optional for the people to fast or not to fast on the day of Ashura".
Ramadan commemorates the sacredness and spiritual significance of that month
2:185"The month of Ramadan is that in which the Quran was revealed, a guidance to men and clear proofs of the guidance and the distinction; therefore whoever of you is present in the month, he shall fast therein..that you should exalt the greatness of Allah for His having guided you and that you may give thanks".
The first thing said about the month of Ramadan is its sacredness due to the revelation having initiated in it, fasting is the secondary aspect of it.
Fasting is an act of great virtue and piety practiced by nations and prophets long before Muhammad 2:183-187,Ex24:18,Joel2:11-13,Matt4:2,6:16-18etc The abstinence prescribed, from gratifying material desires, satisfying the body's lust and inclinations purges the soul from the love of worldly affairs, focuses the attention on the spiritual realm. It is a period of self-improvement, where Muslims start a spiritual and moral training that shapes their lives for the months ahead, from one Ramadan to the next. It is a command literally aimed at "doing guarding"/laAAlakum tattaqqun 2:183. Often translated "fear", taqwa stems from w-q-w meaning guarding, or protection (see 73:17). In Arabic, as in any language, synonyms have one or more common elements but every synonym on its own carries some sort of specific nuance. For example many words are used in the Quran to denote fear, including khushuaa, Khawf, Hadhr, rawaa, awjas, rahb, ruaab, taqwa etc. The common denominator between these words is fear but every time with a nuance highly meaningful to the context. The specificity of the taqwa type of fear is that it is the fear of future consequences, hence the implicit notion of guarding oneself. The prophet is reported to have stated that
"A person might fast and he gets nothing from his fast but hunger".
That is because he did not do it with taqwa, guarding his spirituality.
So, just as the body must go through physical training to become protected in specific situations, the soul needs the same in order to be guarded from deviations. Fasting, along with all its spiritual implications is one of the means given in the Quran for the achievement of that objective. This taqwa/guarding of the soul happens through consciousness of God in all deeds, by increasing help to the underprivileged members of society, working towards improving social interactions, including strengthening ties of kinship, showing forgiveness and compassion. Fasting also teaches one that if he can abstain from that which is otherwise lawful and a primary need such as food, natural sexual desires and passions, how much more necessary is it that he should abstain from the evil ways which are forbidden by God and are not only unnatural but oppose one's own conscience.
It is made compulsory except on the sick or temporarily incapacitated from travel
"but whoever among you is sick or on a journey".
That person must later redeem himself by fasting the same number of missed days (when the conditions become more favorable for a fast) and in addition must feed a needy person if he can afford it (the pronoun HU in yatiqunahu refers to taam/feeding). In all cases, whether it be to redeem a missed fast or not
"whoever does good spontaneously it is better for him; and that you fast is better for you if you know".
We will now get technical and analyze the claims of adverse health effect resulting from fasting.
The physical effects of a Ramadan-type fasting, on the ones able to perform it, lowers LDL cholesterol, excessive fatty tissue and anxiety in the fasting subjects. Experiments on mice have shown that extending the daily fasting period may override the adverse health effects of a high-fat diet and prevent obesity, diabetes and liver disease. This is because when eating frequently, the body continues to make and store fat, ballooning fat cells and liver cells, which can result in liver damage. Under such conditions the liver also continues to make glucose, which raises blood sugar levels. Time-restricted feeding, on the other hand, reduces production of free fat, glucose and cholesterol and makes better use of them. It cuts down glucose, fat and ketone storage, and turns on fat burning mechanisms, thereby keeping the liver cells healthy and reducing overall body fat.
The daily feeding-fasting cycle activates liver enzymes that breakdown cholesterol into bile acids, spurring the metabolism of brown fat -- a type of "good fat" in our body that converts extra calories to heat. Thus the body literally burns fat during fasting. The liver also shuts down glucose production for several hours, which helps lower blood glucose. The extra glucose that would have ended up in the blood -- high blood sugar is a hallmark of diabetes -- is instead used to build molecules that repair damaged cells and make new DNA. This helps prevent chronic inflammation, which has been implicated in the development of a number of diseases, including heart disease, cancer, stroke and Alzheimer's. Hormonal changes during the fasting period have also shown to favor the dieter.
For example the satiety hormone (leptin)'s secretion rises in daylight hours, declining in the late day; the hunger hormone (ghrelin)'s secretion decreases, peaking only in the evening hours; and the curve of adiponectin, the hormonal link between obesity, insulin resistance and the metabolic syndrome, remain elevated. Dieters have thus been shown to have a pattern leading to lower hunger scores, and better anthropometric (weight, abdominal circumference and body fat), biochemical (blood sugar, blood lipids) and inflammatory outcomes.
Cycles of prolonged fasting also provide protection against immune system damage, even inducing immune system regeneration, shifting stem cells from a dormant state to a state of self-renewal. That is because starvation forces the system to save energy, such as by recycling a lot of the immune cells that are not needed. Then when you re-feed, the blood cells come back. During each cycle of fasting, this depletion of white blood cells induces changes that trigger stem cell-based regeneration of new immune system cells. In particular, prolonged fasting reduced the enzyme PKA, responsible for longevity in simple organisms and which has been linked in other research to the regulation of stem cell self-renewal and pluripotency. Prolonged fasting also lowered levels of IGF-1, a growth-factor hormone, linked to aging, tumor progression and cancer risk.
Prolonged fasting also protects against toxicity in a pilot clinical trial in which a small group of patients fasted for a 72-hour period prior to chemotherapy, causing partial regeneration of damaged immune cells.
The important point about fasting as said in the passage's opening statement is that it is aimed at increasing piety, God-consciousness. It is thus the responsibility of the one seeking spiritual betterment to make all necessary preparations for the attainment of that objective. This doesnt only apply to fasting but to all other religious practices, like praying, spending for charity, going on pilgrimage or fighting in self-defense when required. All religious rites demand the fulfillment of certain conditions to be valid and so is the practice of fasting, counting among its conditions the witnessing of certain natural phenomena. These phenomena are the start and end of a lunar month
"whoever of you witnesses the month"
and the start and end of a day
"and eat and drink until the whiteness of the day becomes distinct from the blackness of the night at dawn, then complete the fast till night"
In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"
When they raise the "foreign" words card, the misinformed critics imply that the Quran borrows foreign concepts or uses foreign expressions without which certain ideas could not be formulated using purely Arabic vocabulary. It is first to be noted that in Arabic, like every other language, foreign words have been adopted as people have interracted. In some cases, as can be seen with every language, these words retain their cultural or theological baggage, and in others, a new meaning is assumed even to the point of complete departure from the original definition.
In the Quran's case, these words which the polemicists point to and that do not even amount to a fraction of all words in the whole Book, are either not even foreign at all (they have well established triliteral Arabic roots), have been part of Arabic vocabulary since before the emergence of the prophet, or were common to Arabic, Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew and Ethiopic, they being cognate languages and thus rendering the tracing of their origin very difficult. Words of foreign origin are found in the Quran but they had entered into Arabic before the revelation and are thus now to be considered Arabic.
Onus is on the critics to prove that these words were borrowed post Islam in order to express certain notions. In their effort to blow up that issue of "foreign" words out of proportions, they have disregarded other well known facts. Anyone familiar with pre-islamic literature and poems knows how rich and expressive the language of the time already was, thus there was no need to express certain ideas by borrowing new terms from foreign languages.
In any case, whether a Quranic word truly is originally foreign to Arabic and in addition retains its original meaning, by becoming part of Arabic vocabulary and common use it necessarily, as in any language, becomes an Arabic word.
In answer to the video "Why the Quran Was Revealed in Arabic (David Wood)"
When the Quran states scriptures of the past were corrupted and tampered with, it never asserts corruption in an absolute sense. This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin (Guardian/Arbitrer), when talking about what is contemporary to it in terms of revealed truths, whether available in oral or writen tradition, such as the Torah and Injil. It points out major mistakes in them, filters the Truth from falsehood
21:24"this is the reminder of those with me and the reminder of those before me".
The Quran confirming the past scriptures, as well as any tradition, oral or written, in which divine truths still remain 2:41, means that the principles taught by Muhammad come from a common source and can be found throughout these textual and oral traditons. It also means the coming of Muhammad and the Quran prove the prophecies of the Torah and Gospel as true 6:20,7:157,61:6. It is in this same sense that Jesus confirmed and fulfilled the Torah and the Prophets. He confirmed the truth in them, exposing the falsehood, oral or textual, and he fulfilled the prophecies related to himself
Matt5:17-20,19:16-19,Quran5:46"And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil)".
The Bani Israil who rejected Jesus were in reality rejecting their Torah. Now that the Quran came, if the people of the book do not stand firm by it, then they will be violating even their own scriptures which it confirms and fulfills. In 46:10 the Quran refers to a witness from among the Israelites that believed in the like of his scriptures, meaning the Quran.
According to tradition, the verse is speaking of the learned rabbi Abdullah ibn Salam's conversion to Islam. Given his religious knowledge, he knew the Quran abrogates and supersedes, exposes and denies, confirms in places while contradicting in many other places his own scripture, the Torah. But yet it literally says, this rabbi believed in the like of his scriptures. That "likeness" between the Torah and the Quran therefore can only be the statements that fully agree with one another. This is exactly what is meant by Quran confirming the past revelations. It confirms the truth in them in several ways, including exposing what is from God and what is man-made, hence its function as the Muhaymin/guardian,arbitrer as well as fulfilling its prophecies, which the Quran repeatedly echoes and which of course the learned rabbi knew applied to Muhammad
2:146"those to whom We have given the scripture recognize him as they recognize their own sons"..
That is also why the minority comentators that rejected the application of the verse to ibn Salam, rather see in it a reference to Moses himself. He was the Israelite witness that testified to one like himself/mithlihi, as clearly stated in the prophecy of
Deut18:18"I will set up a prophet for them, from among their brothers like you and I will put my words into his mouth and he will speak to them all that I command him".
But as attested in history, not all of them remained obdurate
3:199"And most surely of the followers of the Book there are those who believe in Allah and (in) that which has been revealed to you and (in) that which has been revealed to them, being lowly before Allah; they do not take a small price for the communications of Allah; these it is that have their reward with their Lord; surely Allah is quick in reckoning".
These are the righteous among the followers of previous scriptures and who remained truthful to their Books. This sincerity inevitably led them to believe in the Quran
4:162,5:83"But the firm in knowledge among them..believe in what has been revealed to you and what has been revealed before you...and when they hear what has been revealed to the apostle, you will see their eye overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize. They say; our Lord, we believe so write us down with the witnesses".
A subtle aspect worth noting in 2:121 is that since the righteous among them are mentioned, the expression used is "We have given them the Book" not "They were given the Book" conveying the idea that it is God who gave it to them and guided them on account of their righteousness, contrary to those who were given the book without identification of the giver or instructor. This pattern is present throughout the Quran and is actually one of the many examples of its linguistic precision.
This is why the people of the book are never told to reject their scriptures in 5:68,69 but rather to stand by not only the Torah and the Gospel, but the Quran, to which the previous scriptures naturally lead to. This has been pointed to in the words
"and that which is revealed to you from your Lord".
Because it is the "Muhaymin" of their revelations, the guardian of the truth which God himself has pledged to preserve unlike any holy book, the reminder of the pure way of Ibrahim. As to those who would claim, and still do, that they only believe that which has been revealed to them then the Quran answers them that even Prophets that came from among their own people, preaching adherence to their own books were killed by these men, as Jesus put it Mk12:1-12,Matt23:31-37. This charge was levelled against them in the earliest Meccan revelations such as 37:37 before the interraction with them in Medina.
In answer to the video "Why the Quran Was Revealed in Arabic (David Wood)"
In summary, the passage 5:43-68, states the following;
1. God reveals the Torah.
2. God then reveals the Gospel, and the Bani israel are required to judge by it. They cannot ignore it, despite the fact that they have the Torah. Further, this rejection would be even more grievous considering the fact that the Gospel confirms the Torah as a Book of God.
3. Now God has revealed the Quran, and the people must judge by it, irrespective of the fact that the Gospel and Torah are present, even though in their corrupted forms. The Quran states that the new revelation confirms the Torah and Gospel and guards them.
That is why the whole passage ends in 5:69 with a statement that success in the Hereafter is independant of any appellation, so long as one is obedient to God's revelations throughout time. Rejecting the last Revelation does not only result in rejecting their own scriptures. It also entails rejection of Gabriel who has revealed it to the Prophet's heart by Allah's Command, not by his own wish. So they were ultimately disbelieving in God
6:33,2:98"Whoever is the enemy of Gabriel for surely he revealed it to your heart by Allah's Command, verifying that which is before it, and guidance and good news for the believers. Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His apostles and Gabriel and Michael - so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers".
To reject any messenger, as is here stated concerning Moses against whom the Israelites rebelled 44:19 is equal to rejecting the One that sent him. Similarily, Gabriel is one of Allah's honored servants, just like Michael and others; they have no authority except to follow and obey the Divine Commands. That is why the Quran speaks of the belief in the carriers and transmitters of revelation -angels or human messengers- as an article of faith 2:177,285.
The verse 2:98 exposes another side of the Israelites' rejection. The angel Gabriel in Jewish tradition functions among other things as a deliverer of God’s justice against sinners. References in the Talmud are Bereshit Rabbah 50:2, Sanhedrin 19b. In the HB, in the vision in Ezekiel 10 Gabriel is the one charged with destroying Jerusalem (see Rashi). The passage in Isaiah 63:7-10 is also interesting. Although the angel (see ibn Ezra on the identification of the holy spirit with an angel) that turns out to be Israel's enemy is unnamed, it could be Gabriel. This is based on a holistic understanding of Gabriel's function in Judaism.
The exiled Jews of Arabia saw their situation as a punishment. If what Muhammad recited was true, coming from God and through the angel Gabriel, sometimes addressing them directly, warning the wrongdoers among them, then it implied potential divine punishment to befall them again. Some of them thus chose to deny the message based on the alleged transmitter, God would not send an enemy with a new revelation to them. Whether Islam was true or false, this argument was ludicrous. Angelic messengers, as corroborated in their own books, have no free will and act only according to God's directives. They do not willingly take sides, much less among humans.
That opposition to God's envoys, in reality is due to a dislike of the message they bring 38:8. This is exemplified in the opposition the prophet Muhammad had to face. His opponents tried to make him compromise the message in exchange of their alliegance, which he of course never did.
Belief in all prophets equally is an article of faith 3:84. To reject one is to reject all, considering that, besides all of them coming with the same tenets of faith and refering to the same One God, all of them, except for the first prophet sent to mankind, claimed spiritual descendancy from a line of prophets
26:105,25:37"And the people of Nuh, when they rejected the messengers (plural), We drowned them, and made them a sign for men, and We have prepared a painful punishment for the unjust".
Any distinction or rejection of any of them is a denial of all of them and the rejection of the very One who sent them 2:136-7 an act of rebellion severly condemned 4:150-2. This is rooted in the principle that all revelations are one in essence
46:9,21:7-10,29:47,4:163"Surely We have revealed to you as We revealed to Nuh, and the prophets after him, and We revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and Isa and Ayub and Yunus and Haroun and Sulaiman and We gave to Dawood Psalms".
It isn't simply believing in Muhammad that entails faith and one cannot be a Muslim, claiming that it is sufficient to believe in him. All Prophets represent the will of the Lord and must be equally believed.
In answer to the video "Why the Quran Was Revealed in Arabic (David Wood)"
The corruption of the HB and NT is a historical fact. This corruption is not dictated upon what the Quran says, i.e. it is an objective reality. The Quran simply confirms this objective reality. Even if, for argument's sake we assume that the Quran endorses the Bible's authenticity, despite it speaking of the corrupt writings of the Jewish scribes and the singular Injil of Jesus, which has nothing to do with the multiple Gospels and other Greek writings assembled into the NT, then there is still the inescapable notion of the Quran superseding and abrogating previous revealed, authentic laws and scriptures.
The corruption of the Bible is nothing but the natural outcome of the moral degeneration of the Bani Israel, their heedlessness and carelessness in matters of religion, confirming Moses' predictions Deut31:25-29, Jeremiah's and other prophets' accusations, their lamentations Isa48:8.
The Dead Sea scrolls discovered in 1950 in Jordan are dated between 150 BCE and 70 CE meaning there is still over 1000 years of history between this time period and the time of Moses, let alone Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. But this is besides the point since no Torah was found among the scrolls of Qumran nor any book of the NT. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain many non-canonical manuscripts such as the Books of Enoch, Jubilees, Tobit, Sirach, additional psalms, etc., that were not ultimately canonized, as well as "Sectarian" speaking of the beliefs of smaller groups within Judaism. There is even a Book in the canonized Bible that is not found in the DSS, namely the Book of Esther. Less than 40% of the documents found are classified as Biblical. The oldest known Torah fragment is from the silver scrolls dating back to 700BCE and contains Numbers 6:24-26.
The written Torah was completely destroyed, along with the first Temple. It was rewritten by Ezra through "divine miracle" according to Jewish traditions, obviously as it was majoritarly forgotten despite their claims of unbroken chain of transmission up to Moses. In fact there are even indications of that "chain" having broken even in the first or second generation following Moses
Judges2:10"After that whole generation had been gathered to their ancestors, another generation grew up who knew neither the Lord nor what he had done for Israel".
This is unsurprising, why would one expect a people to remain faithful to Moses' teachings and preserve them accurately years following his death when during his own lifetime, his 40 days absence was enough to make them revert to idol worship, despite having just witnessed all kinds of supernatural occurrences testifying to the truth of what he was bringing. In light of all that they were made to witness from miracles and guidance, one would expect them to be sincerely obedient to God and deeply united yet the opposite happened.
From the onset, there was not a single fundamental thing of religion to which they adhered. They had serious differences in every aspect of religion; so much so, they lost many of them just because of this attitude. And if it was so that early on in their history when they had been freshly established and tied to God with a covenant then what is to say of the later times filled with troubles, wars, exiles and enslavement? Or as is said in the Talmud of tradition given to Moses at Sinai and then forgotten,
“they were forgotten and re-established” (Sukkah 44a, Megillah 3a).
To successfully achieve this re-establishment the rabbis openly state it is acceptable to resort to sophistry (Ketubot 103b). A similar example to Ezra is that of Otniel son of Kenaz who is credited with "restoring" some 3000 laws that were forgotten during the mourning over Moses’ death and other
"1700 analogies from minor to major, analogies by equivalent words, and obligations derived from a meticulous scrutiny of the Scriptural text were forgotten during the mourning over Moses’ death" (Temurah 16a).
There are other examples attesting not only to forgetfulness as to the contents of the books, let alone complete despise towards them Hos8:12, but also to their whereabouts. For example during the reign of Joshiah and while the Temple was being repaired, the high priest came across a manuscript not knowing what it was until it was presented to the King who rent his clothes apart upon recognizing it 2kings22. Interestingly, that period of 7th century BCE coincides with the time critical Biblical scholarship places the composition of the current HB. It is important to emphasize, the text says what was found was "the" Torah not "a" Torah.
Talmudic rabbis explain this difficulty by stating that the uniqueness of this find, and the fact nobody knew a priori what it was, doesnt mean no other Torah was in circulation, rather that it was written in a forgotten script very few could read. Consequently the king whose subjects had sunk into idolatry sent emissaries to
“Go and inquire of the Lord for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the Lord’s anger that burns against us because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us”.
This specific Torah, according to the Damascus Document, was none other than the original Torah fully revealed to Moses and sealed in the Ark of the Covenant 5 centuries ago in the times of Joshua. The detailed, written law was unknown to the masses all that time. The Ark itself was lost to the Phillistines and in the times of Solomon, its sole contents were the 2 tablets 1Kings8:9.
There are also mention of entire pieces having been purposely burned by the corrupt elite, such as the scroll of Jeremiah Jer36:23, and even though it was re-written later Jer36:27-32, it reveals the complete careless attitude of the community's most prominent figures towards sacred texts. Jeremiah, Hosea and others often lamented at their behavior and manipulations Jer8:8,Hosea4:6etc
Too many factors have accumulated leading to the physical loss of the entire Torah, since the breaking of the oral transmission chain right after Moses, followed by blatant neglectfulness if not purposeful destruction of scriptures and their misinterpretations resulting in a faulty and corrupt oral tradition, combined with their successive massacres, destruction of their holiest sites and writings, forced exiles and assimilation into foreign cultures and all elements are there for the loss of the original. Hence the claims of divine intervention through Ezra to restore it, even having to transliterate the hebrew into Aramaic so the people would be able to read.
Ezra was the founder of the "Great Assembly", the institution that provided religious guidance to the Jews during the second temple era (520BCE – 70CE). These 120 men are said to have "finalized" the Hebrew Bible and enacted many laws, under the prophet Ezra's authority who was divinely inspired. They, after much debates, decided what to include in the final canon of the Tanakh/Hebrew bible. This era however is covered in darkness and not much is known of what was happening with the Jewish community. The identity of these “Men of the Great Assembly” isnt even known.
In fact Israelite tradition isnt even sure in which language the Torah was given to them originally, whether it was ancient Hebrew, Assyrian, or Samaritan or whether it was later changed to Samaritan as a punishment (Sanhedrin 21b,22a,Y'rushalmi M'gillah 10a - chapter 1 halachah 9). In the process, they even forgot how to pronounce God's name hence the use of the tetragammaton. What is agreed upon is that upon his return from the Babylonian exile and into Israel, Ezra rewrote the HB in Hebrew but using the Aramaic alphabet (the lingua franca of those days). Their level of forgetfulness, as reflected in the issue of the language of revelation also reflects in their forgetfulness of the correct forms of certain ending letters, which made it impossible for them to recall the laws of Moses alluded to earlier until the intervention of Otniel son of Kenaz (Shabbat 104a).
The Talmudic rabbis basically just decided on the letter forms to use, giving the current meaning to the text. Even though all Jews and rabbis agree to the rule which forbids the innovation of anything not said at Sinai, things can be recalled through discourse or any other means available, and the conclusion will be considered as having been given at Sinai.
The result is a Torah text nowadays far from being monolithic. There are 3 different Torah editions (Koren, Adi/Leningrad, Mosad HaRav Kook) each meticulously proofread from dozens of Torah scrolls on parchment then reproduced based on majority concordances between these scrolls. These 3 editions however have over 100 letter differences among them, which leaves one wondering as to the number of differences between the scrolls which were used by the proofreaders, if after all their efforts there were still 100+ letter differences.
That is without even getting into the issue of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, words of the midrash and the Zohar, showing that the Torah scrolls the Tanaaim (10-220CE) and Amoraim (200-500CE) had before them were different from the texts we have. This, as a side note, discredits the modern phenomenon of seeking Torah codes in a text whose original is unknown: one who works codes according to the Leningrad text or the Zohar text or according to the text used in the Talmud and the midrash will find, in each text, different results.
It is an undisputed fact that;
- there are parts of the Torah that must have been written long after Moses' death (Burial, Dan, etc)
- that Ezra at least re-introduced the people to the Torah (see Nehemia8) if not added rituals to festivals such as "Sukkot" that the Jews never knew about until he showed up Neh8:17 while the details of this ritual are found in Lev23 which was supposedly written by Moses.
- that Ezra is known as "the scribe", compared to none other than the one who received the Law, ie Moses who is seen as the greatest of prophets in the Talmud Sanhedrin 21b-22a
- that even in the mainstream Jewish tradition there is acceptance that Ezra at least made minor edits to the Torah
- that there is an entire book from 2,000 years ago (albeit a few hundred years after Ezra's time) that claims Ezra wrote the current version of the Torah (2Esdras14). The Talmud states:
“Reish Lakish said, ‘at first the Torah was forgotten by Israel; Ezra came from Babylon and established it'” (Sukkah 20a).
- that Ezra initiated the particulars of the prayer ritual
Medieval rabbis could not counter Muslim polemics regarding the corruption of their scriptures as there exists no foundational narrative to the genesis of the text, how these Scriptures came into being and were shaped as a book. There is no explicit “transmission chain” self-referentially described in the Hebrew Bible or in post-biblical canonical literature. Medieval Karaites, Jews that only adhered to the written Torah, exposed the embarrassing traditions which the rabbis hid in these interfaith discussions with Muslims. Karaism was in fact born in Muslim lands. By interacting with Muslims Jews became aware of the problems related to the preservation of their HB, as is reported in their rabbinic traditions.
Thus in answer to Muslim polemics, they would primarily attack these Jewish traditions, in an effort to blot out the embarrassing parts and re-write the transmission history of the text. Qirqisani, the leading Karaite theologian and exegete of Baghdad said
"They (the Rabbanites) assert that the Torah which is in the hands of the people is not the Torah which Moses – on whom be peace – brought, but was composed by Ezra, for they say that the Torah brought by Moses perished and was lost and disappeared. This amounts to the destruction of the whole religion. Were the Muslims to learn of this, they would need nothing else with which to revile and confute us, for some of their theologians argue against us, saying: “Your Torah is not the Torah brought to Moses.” Against one who makes this claim we proclaim that he is lying out of a desire to contradict, and that they are reduced to this because they have nothing to say and need an argument. But were they to discover this teaching of the Rabbanites – may God forgive them – the field would be open to them and they would need nothing else".
To this, he offers the poor reply that
"There are two implications to this (claim) – one is that he who changed this (the text of the Bible) and altered it was wiser and more knowledgeable than the prophets who wrote it; and it is extremely implausible that Ezra and Nehemiah were wiser than Moses, may he rest in peace,..and wiser than the Creator..and if it were so that he changed Scripture and altered it and took out of it what was not found to be of benefit, would the shamefulness remain in its place and the disgracefulness not be removed? All the more so if what they say, namely, that the Torah which is in our hands was collated and composed by Ezra – if this were so, and there was no one besides him that would have compelled him to say that this was so and (to say) “I am the one who has changed it and fashioned it in this way”– he could have just (re-)written it in the way he wanted and left the matter hidden, without informing anyone that he had changed it!"
Karaites deflected Muslim accusations of tahrif of their Hebrew Bible, by implying that if there is a form of falsification in Judaism, it only occured in the oral Torah, the books of the Mishnah and Talmud. It was necessary to them to reject the oral Torah's preservation so as to deny the information it contained as regards the written Torah's corruption. Eventually Karaism was declared a heresy by the rabbis, due to its denial of the authenticity of the oral tradition. The movement failed gaining dominance due to several factors; the Jewish people's turbulent history of oppression and exile, raised their rabbinic authorities as heroes of preservation and survival in the face of the complete annihilation of their identity. That mentality of the layman perdured in time due to Judaism's position as a minority religion, forcing it to dilute ideological dissent so as to retain a sense of community and survive. Also, Jewish Karaism had a strong zionist ideology. The demolition of their Jerusalem center by the Crusade of 1099 proved this ideology unattainable and brought about their dispersal and absorption in the Karaite pockets of Egypt, Byzantium and Spain.
