Islam critiqued keeps sinking; al Hajjaj changes the Quran?

In answer to the video "Miraculous Preservation of the Quran: Burying the Myth"

There is not a single report saying that al-Hajjaj opposed Uthman's recension. Yet many traditions depict him as disparaging other authoritative compilations in circulations, such as the one of ibn Masud. Also, al-Hajjaj was merely the governor of one county -Iraq- of the huge Islamic land without the ability to do the Quran any harm. In Uthman's time itself, countless copies of his codexes were already disseminated far and wide. The phenomenon was even more amplified by the time of al-Hajjaj.

Supposing that he was still able to change the copies of his county how could he reach the 1000s of other ones in other districts, let alone reform and reset the people's memories to his "major alterations"? This is equivalent to saying that should suddenly the king of Saudi Arabia decide to forcefully change the Quran entirely in his own country today, then it would mean those changes could somehow affect the memories and written Qurans of billions worldwide. In his own lifetime, when al-Hajjaj dispatched one of his codices to Egypt, the local governor Abd al-Aziz ibn Marwan, rejected it, then had his own codex produced. Al-Hajjaj's authority in the matter was thus regional at most. He was not in a position to carry out an empire-wide standardization of scripture.

The bottom line is that even by the furthest stretch of the imagination, if one would accept the claim of corruption of the Quran as true, then how does that really impact the remaining oral and written tradition already disseminated far beyond al-Hajjaj's jurisdiction? It is worth reminding that there exists no parallel reports, contemporary or later, through another chain to substantiate the claim as regards al-Hajjaj. No contradiction is ever mentionned between the Codices of Iraq and the other Codices. The Abbassid dynasty that was built upon the ruins of the Umayyads, of whom al-Hajjaj was the most notable governor, did not waste a single occasion to show the Umayyad's negative aspects and effects on Islam in general. And yet we do not hear or read a word as regards this particular controversy, most significant in discrediting an enemy with whom they were at war. If anything, what the historical reports show is that al Hajjaj was very helpful in consolidating the Uthmanic text, not a new one or his own invented one.

That is why the Abbassid caliphs, that supplanted the Umayyads did not destroy al-Hajjaj's copies but instead would tacitly discredit it, by for example, putting it in a box on the side of the pillar adjacent to the minbar in the mosque (Ibn Zabala). Contrary to some critics' claims, al-Hajjaj was very careful in preserving the Uthmanic recension. He for instance immidiately summoned Yazid al-Farisi, the scribe of his predecessor Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad because of the introduction of 2 alef in 2 verses 23:87,89. Ibn Ziad had done it simply to agree with his Basran dialect. This shows how alteration or tampering with the Quran from al-Hajjaj, or anyone else for that matter, even if minimal, cannot have taken place without any reaction from the contemporary scholars.

The background of al-Hajjaj's compilation effort is this. His governorship came at a time of great political turmoil in Iraq between the shiite Kufans and the ruling Umayyads. Tension had already started in the time of his predecessor ibn Ziyad. The Kufans, partisans of Ali ibn abi Talib as the rightful successor of the prophet, symbolized their political rejection of the Umayyad by clinging to the recital of ibn Masud from the prophet. Ibn Ziyad, Al-Hajjaj's predecessor, would for example provoke the Kufans by reciting suras 113 and 114 in prayer, as it is known that ibn Masud had not included them in his compilation. Al-Hajjaj was even bolder in his provocations. He would mock and discredit ibn Masud as well as his recital

"How I wonder about Ibn Masud! He claimed to have read the [original] Quran of God. I swear by God that it is just a piece of rajaz poetry of the Bedouins".

Al-Hajjaj also reportedly said

"Ibn Masud is the chief of hypocrites. If I had lived in the same time as his, I would have soaked the ground with his blood ’”.

He would often threaten the Kufans should they not cease following the reading of ibn Masud (Asim ibn Bahdala). His hatred for his Kufan enemies, whose recital according to ibn Masud continuously symbolized the rejection of the Umayyad caliphate, was such that Al-Hajjaj swore that he would erase this reading from the mushaf

"even if it would be with a rib of a swine".

But because he could not do so, as he knew it would be tantamount to rejecting the Quran itself, what he did instead is conducting a major standardization project of the Quranic text. Only then, would he be able to exclude ibn Masud's reading in some instances from the skeletal text.

The initiative was supported by the central government in Damascus. Al-hajjaj selected memorizers, readers, gramarians and scribes from Basra only. Just as Uthman before him used as a blueprint AbuBakr's collection that was in Hafsa's hands, al-Hajjaj used the private mushaf of Uthman, which was then in the possession of the family of Uthman (Al-Baqillani). And, just like his predecessor, as the work of the project approached its end, al-Hajjaj destroyed the texts in circulation that differed from the Uthmanic recension. Of course he did not miss the occasion to destroy ibn Masud's copy so as to progressively make the people forget his reading. This however did not work as his reading, going back to the prophet, is still known today. It is none other than the reading of Aasim through ibn Masud from the prophet. The great reciter Aasim had preserved 2 readings from the prophet. Al-Hajjaj obviously knew he needed to do more to make the people forget the reading of ibn Masud. His standardized text did not allow the reading of ibn Masud, just as today for example one reading the Hafs text does not allow for other authentic readings, because its vowelization and dotting corresponds to strictly one reading. Al-Hajjaj then decreed that in the mosques of the major cities one was only allowed to recite from the new codices. Malik ibn Anas said

"The recitation of the Quran from the mushaf was not an old tradition among the people. The first to introduce it was al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf".

However, even on this point, he was unsuccessful. Especially in the anti-Umayyad city of Kufa where people would not give credit to their enemy by using his text.

In this atmosphere of hatred between the 2 camps, Shiites and Umayyads, al-Hajjaj could have never done the slightest alteration to the text itself and go unnoticed. The rejection of al-Hajjaj's compilation was never due to his changing or corruption of the text. None of his numerous enemies, let alone the other Muslims spread all over the territories on whom he had no jurisdiction, ever accused him of corruption. All that al-Hajjaj did to the Uthmanic text was adding sura titles, sura and paragraph divisions, dotting on certain similar looking consonants. In a tradition going back to Yahya ibn abi Kathir (d 129/747)

"The Quran was bare [of all diacritics] in the masahif. The points on the ya and ta were the first points to have been introduced. They said: ‘It does not go against the Quran. It will make the text of the Quran clearer ’”.

The introduction of diacritical points in the text was an innovation, although dotting was already practiced in pre-Islamic times. The first compilers of the Quran simply chose not to use dots so as to secure the text in a double preservation method. None would be able to correctly read it without being first introduced to the proper recital.

Al-Hajjaj further comissioned the assembly to count the verses, words and consonants. The differences in figures that came to us were due to whether the vowelized script was included in the counting or not. Different readings could also result in a different count, or whether the basmalla was included as part of the suras or not. All the numbers are very close, except in ibn Masud's count. Clearly in that case, a copyist error reported some 40.000 consonants and 500 word differences with the other counts. Had such a Quran been in circulation the Muslim word would have known it, even more so al-Hajjaj and his partisans who had every reason to discredit it.

Islam Critiqued is now a hadith scientist; no isnad for Zayd sources?

In answer to the video "Miraculous Preservation of the Quran: Burying the Myth"

The Quran was transmitted, learned and passed down both verbally and in script form, on a scale never seen for any document, let alone religious. Any unbiased individual can see this is a process which is still continuing today. But the primary source of transmission was always oral. All written texts were dependent on it and it still is the case today as all written texts must be attested by the oral tradition of transmission through a Hafiz. Again, this simply is a statement of fact. Writing down was only meant to consolidate the process of oral preservation.

This is what the novices to Islam, which is the case of most of its self-proclaimed critics, fail to grasp. They approach Quran authenticity with their own scriptural history in mind, thinking that the Quran was put to writing out of thin air. This dual method of control, textual but mainly oral, which was never practiced by the transmitters of the Bible, made it impossible for any tampering as it would immediately be detected by the thousands of memorizers in all corners of the Muslim territories. The number of people having transmitted the Quran is so vast that any error in the transmission, textual or oral, became impossible. This is why the Quran is labelled "mutawattir", a level of authenticity attributed to an oral transmission when it has been related exactly the same way by countless independant sources.

Extremely few ahadith have been labelled as such or reached the level of multiple independant sources as the Quran.

Most ahadith are based ahad reports or singular transmissions.

Further and in contrast to the Quran, the ahadith require isnad (detailed chain of transmission) to be validated, because the earliest communities often disputed and argued about the veracity of these statements. The Quran never required any isnad to gain a sense of credibility and authenticity because the text and veracity of the Quran was agreed to by a consensus of the earliest Islamic communities. Despite the abundance of 1st-2nd century hijra manuscripts, there is zero proof that the Quran was transmitted in anyway other than tawatur. Hence the position of mainstream academia as regards the authenticity of the Islamic narrative of compilation, preservation, transmission of the text and recitals. See further below.

Islam Critiqued investigates deeper; Zayd's job was difficult? His request for multiple witnesses discredits the oral transmission claim?

In answer to the video "Miraculous Preservation of the Quran: Burying the Myth"

Zayd ibn Thabit was the main scribe along with several other prominent Qurayshis tasked by Uthman to compile the Quran in book form. The same Zaid Ibn Thabit was involved with the collection during Abu Bakr's time as well, collecting the revelation in the form of suhuf or loose pages, from both oral as well as written sources that were in the prophet's house. Zayd remembered how

"the prophet was taken from this life while the Quran had not yet been gathered into a book".

The use of "gathered" instead of "written" is significant as it proves its existence in written form, although scattered on different supports. Zaid, after gathering all that was physically available, then demanded two witnesses for each piece, attesting to its oral transmission. Here Zaid was just following the prophet's dual authentication method, oral/textual. It is to be noted, none, not even the prophet himself as attested in the traditions, is able to recite flawlessly from memory each and every time. That is why the Quran was transmitted through massive consensus, with reciters and laymen checking one another for errors, in addition strengthening the transmission process using their physical copies.

To corroborate this great care in performing the task entrusted to him, there are at least 2 recorded incidents where Zayd would not validate a verse despite knowing it by heart from the prophet's mouth, until he found it in written form between the hands of a reliable believer. This was the case concerning the last 2 verses of sura tawba/bara'a, known and cross checked through the memory of several reciters including Zayd, and yet he would not include it in the text unless corroborated by a written copy. Once the unique hard copy of 9:128-129 was found between the hands Abu Khuzaimah al-Ansari it confirmed what the comitee of compilers, including  Umar, Uthman, Zaid and Ubay bin Kaab had already memorized and were looking for in the first place. There has never been any doubt across the spectrum of Islamic sects as to the authenticity of these 2 verses.

Other reports show how this double testimony denied even Umar's claim of the missing verse about stoning, because he was the only one to make the claim.

This authentication process was even more stringent than the one the other religious texts (hadith, tafsir, fiqh etc.) would later be put through, which already is in itself a method unsurpassed in the world for any other document, let alone religious. This is how serious, meticulous and careful Zayd was in accomplishing his mission

"By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Qur’an".

Zayd is here speaking retrospectively and implying how the succesfully completed task was a heavy duty obviously hard to accomplish considering the level of care he had imposed upon himself. 

This highly noble assignment, entrusted to the young Zayd, did cause resentment among some of the older companions, the most vocal of whom was Abdullah ibn Masud. That resentment was further fueled by the fact ibn Masud had to give up his own personal mushaf. The early Muslims held their Quran writings in high esteem, and ibn Masud compiled his own in greater part based on the recitation learned from the prophet in person. But he now had to give it up in favor of Zayd's approved standardized rasm/orthography. Zayd's compilation was superior to ibn Masud in that its rasm could absorb many potential qiraat while the scripts of the individual copies held by Muslims could not be read in all qiraat. 

It is only natural that he, out of pride, who hold on to his "superior" mushaf and by the same token try and discredit Zayd 

"'O you Muslim people! I am removed from recording the transcription of the Mushaf and it is overseen by a man, by Allah, when I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man' - meaning Zaid bin Thabit - and it was regarding this that 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: 'O people of Al-'Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement (3:161). So meet Allah with the Musahif.'" Az-Zuhri said: "It was conveyed to me that some men amongst the most virtuous of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah disliked that view of Ibn Mas'ud". 

In this correct rendition of Az-Zuhri's report in Jami' al Tirmidhi, not the misleading translation often used among Islam critics ("Avoid copying the Mushaf and the recitation of this man") several important things transpire. Firstly, the leading companions disapproved of that selfish, prideful stand from ibn Masud. Second, what ibn Masud really resented was not Zayd's capabilities. Rather it was Uthman's decision not to appoint him instead of Zaid as leader of the 2nd committee for the compilation. Al Asqalani discusses that particular point, saying ibn Masud simply was absent from Medina when Uthman urgently appointed the committee. He was in Kufah. Furthermore, because Uthman did nothing more than reproduce the pages compiled under Abu Bakr into one mushaf, and that Zayd Ibn Thabit had already been among the top scribes charged of that compilation, then it was natural to designate him to lead that 2nd compilation. 

The other issue ibn Masud had was in giving up his precious mushaf, which he was emotionally attached to 

"whenever the prophet and Jibril finished reciting to eachother, i would recite to the prophet as well and he would inform me that my recitation was eloquent". 

As already pointed, Zayd was already entrusted with a similar task under Abu Bakr and ibn Masud didnt voice any objection then, as he was now doing under Uthman. Uthman chose Zayd for his experience under Abu Bakr. Despite his initial opposition, ibn Masud eventually understood Uthman's plan and agreed with his effort, surrendering his personal mushaf. As later attested by ibn Qurazi, the mushaf of ibn Masud which he used for recitation and teaching was no different, including in its sura sequence, than the ones of Ubayy and Zaid ibn Thabit. The names of his most illustrious pupils and their transmission of the entire 114 suras of the Quran is also known, names like Alqama, al Aswad, Masruq and many others. 

The spurious reports by the historians, saying Uthman ordered the beating of ibn Masud are "fabrications" according to ibn al Arabi and some of the "most well known lies" according to al Dhahabi. The reality is that despite temporary tensions, Uthman and ibn Masud had high regard for one another, with Uthman even leading the funeral prayer at ibn Masud's death in Medina (ibn Saad/Tabaqat).

Islam critiqued wakes up with the wrong foot; variant readings prove no oral transmission? Different readings by same reciter? No codices of ibn masud?

In answer to the video "Miraculous Preservation of the Quran: Burying the Myth"

Each of the authentic readings is attested all the way to the prophet. So how exactly does an oral phenomenon disprove oral transmission??

It is to be kept in mind that a qiraa is a mode of recitation. A recitation is orally transmitted by one reciter to the next going back to the prophet himself. That is why the fame and spread of a qiraa is in itself testimony of its authenticity and the less it is used the more its legitimacy can be questionned. One cannot create a recital in a vacuum and impose it on the masses, passing it off as authentically received from the prophet. This has never hapenned and never will. The process by which a particular recitation imposed itself was gradual, as it was transmitted from teacher to student. Had there been other mass transmitted qiraat than the 10, it would have been inevitably known. Their spread and use among the Muslims in itself would have provided a major argument for their authenticity, as with the 10.

Sometimes one and the same teacher reciter, taught a different qiraa to a different student. That is nothing new contrary to that youtuber's pompous tone.

Hafs quoted Aasim as saying that the qiraa he taught him was that of as-Sulami, from Ali ibn Abi Talib, from the prophet, while the one that he taught his other main student Shu'ba, was that of Zirr ibn Hubaysh, from ibn Mas’ud, from the prophet. That is why we find that, Shu’ba and Hafs, who studied under the same reciter Aasim, differed from each other in around forty places.

The differences between the 10 readings lie in the manner in which the basic Uthmanic text (absence of vowels and dots) was read. This formidable flexibility of the text allows for people of all cultural-linguistic backgrounds to choose which Quranic Arabic is easier for them to pronounce. As stated earlier, besides the purpose of protecting the text from corruption by locking it with the oral tradition, the defective script allowed the preservation and integration of most authentic readings into the Uthmanic mushaf. Other authentic readings which modified the skeletal text could not be accommodated and thus people progressively ceased reciting them. This is a view shared by al Dani, Ibn al Arabi, Ibn Taymiyya, and Ibn al Jazari.

These readings are preserved till this day, the names of the most prominent teachers, and their illustrous students, eachone reciting exactly as his predecessor taught him. The name given to a particular qira'a/reading was after its most excellent or famous reciter, not necessarily after the one that first transmitted it from the prophet. The various readings, all of which are based on the very same text, are actually an integral part of the Quran's miraculous eloquence, with words carrying multiple but complementary meanings whether in areas of story-telling, beliefs or even divine laws.

What is further remarkable is that there are "only" 10 readings while the basic script allows for many times more reading possibilities, with all of them making sense. This in itself is enough to dispel the notion that the 10 qiraat were due to a defective arabic script, rather than inherited by the oral tradition we already know to exist and is well attested. An evident example to corroborate is that of the skeletal m-l-k in surah fatiha read maalik or malik. The word appears in several other places where both reading could equally be applied yet the only place with divergent readings is sura fatiha. This is because the readers were not free to apply their preferences, they were constrained by the sunna of the qiraat. The Sanaa manuscripts have since confirmed this tradition on the qira'at.

(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".

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].”

These Recitations were accomodating to the major dialects of the Arabs, thus leading to unifying the Arabic language, and validating all of its variations and subtleties. This not only allowed a faster spread of Islam but also solidified and preserved the language, as part of the divine pledge to protect the Quran. Had there not been approved recital variations, going back to the prophet's time himself, it would have opened the door to tampering with the text to adapt it to different dialects. It would have corrupted the meaning of the text. As time passed, the phenomenon of fame and spread of one religious, political center instead of another led in the Muslim world, movement of students and teachers led to some qiraat being supplanted by others more popular ones. Today the one most spread is that of Aasim through Hafs.

There are several examples, among them the known case of m-l-k in sura fatiha that can be read maalik/possessor or malik/ruler. It might say in the Hafs reading of

2:271 "If you give alms...yukaffir/this will cover up some of your evil deeds"

while the Doori reading is

"If you give alms...nukaffir/We will cover up some of your evil deeds".

Both readings perfectly complete eachother, with the latter saying Who will provide the covering (God) and the former saying through which action (charity). 9:66 is very similar with Hafs saying

"If we pardon/naafu a group of you we shall punish/nuaadhib another group"

while Doori says

"If a group of you is pardonned/yuaafa another group will get punished/tuaadhab".

Doori explains what the contrasting behaviors spoken of in the passage will result in (a group will be pardonned while another will be punished) and the Hafs says Who will grant forgiveness or inflict punishment. Another similar complementary example is 2:10 in Hafs

"a painful chastisement in what they lied/yakthibun"

while in Doori it is

"a painful chastisement in what yukathibun/they gave the lie/they made a lie".

Both readings come together and reveal that their lie is twofold, consisting in knowingly misrepresenting something that is true. One can give the lie to someone or something by exposing the truth about it, which is commendable. One the other hand one might give the lie to someone/something by inventing a falsehood about him/it, which is a twofold crime deserving punishment. Again in 6:115 Hafs

"And the word/kalimatu of your Lord has been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words"

while Doori reads

"And the words/kalimaatu of your Lord have been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words".

The singular kalima refers to God's word in the sense of his promise as amply used in the Quran while the use of the plural kalimaat in the Doori reading reveal that this promise is none other than the words of this book. A last example to corroborate is 43:23 Hafs

"He said/qaala: What! even if I bring to you a better guide than that on which you found your fathers?"

While Doori reads

"Say/qul: What! even if I bring to you a better guide than that on which you found your fathers?".

Hafs is quoting a prophet, but Doori explains that the words of this prophet were directly inspired by God.

It is also to be noted that despite their claims of variant readings due to alleged different texts, a statement and conclusion they attribute to Ibn Masud and Ubayy Ibn Kaab, the critics, namely Arthur Jeffery failed to produce any statement from either these 2 men implying that what was in the Uthmanic recension was not from the prophet.

In fact from the manuscript evidence shown by his collegue Bergstrasser, Jeffery concedes the lack of textual differences in the 'texts' attributed to Ibn Masud and Ubayy Ibn Kaab when compared to the Uthmanic text. The true difference these 2 mushafs had with the universal form was in their arrangement of suras, which in itself has no bearing on the message of the Quran. Each sura works as an independent unit and does not follow a chronological narrative.

That is why the scholars agree that it isnt compulsory to follow this universal order in recitation, memorization or prayer. The prophet himself is reported to have recited during prayer and at once suras 2 then 4 then 3. Ibn Kaab and ibn Masud might simply have grouped the suras in a sequence they found more suited for their needs and likings. Some reports describe the companions as even excluding certain known and well established suras from their codices, or adding extra chapters and words of ritual prayers.

As to the omissions, a known instance is that of ibn Mas'ud who did not write al fatiha in his mushaf. When asked why, he said that if he were to do so, he would write it before every sura. Ibn Mas'ud thus deliberately left the most famous suras -al fatiha and the muawidatayn- out of his mushaf for the sake of brievty. These 3 suras were so widely memorized, including among children, as is the case today, that he deemed it useless to preserve them in writing. We have early manuscripts (DAM 01-25.1 and DAM 20-33.1) testifying to its presence in the Quran in the 1st century of hijra. It is also immediately followed by al-Baqara.

Again, variant readings go back to the prophet, who even encouraged them. There is a report describing the prophet even praying God to allow those differences. A typical case, as shown earlier from both Muslim and non Muslim scholarship, would be the addition of explanatory words or word substitutions. They have been reported in tafsir and fiqh works, whenever the author wanted to present different opinions. For example Tabari mentions a report where ibn Mas'ud, whose recital he learned from the prophet and which is still preserved today, read 20:96 with the addition of the word "faras". This was an explanatory addition, and the prophet allowed his companions to recite the Quran together with these modifications, additions, word replacement with near-synonyms or substractions to simplify the meaning or the pronounciations. His concern was to get the message through. This leniency was however meant for them because they were under the prophet's supervision, as appropriately noted by professor Déroche quoted earlier. That is why we do not find those readings among the students of the companions. We do not find for instance ibn Masud's slight variant of 51:58 although his recital has reached us, through his own students. And if some exceptions "leaked" from the companion to his student, as was the case of 92:3, then they were eventually dropped in light of the consensus reading as we have it today. See further below on that point.

The important notion to keep in mind is that the companions were not free to invent a reading, unless approved by the prophet. The incident detailed further below, of Umar and Hisham wouldnt have occured had there been individual freedom in the Quran's recitation.

The prophet was not only communicating the Quran, but teaching it as he deemed fit according to his companions' linguistic or comprehension sensitivities. When these modifications were meant as a personal side note, the reciter would not instruct his pupils to include them in their recital. But he would keep using them as a method of elaboration on the meaning of the Quran. One of ibn Abbas' pupils, al-Makhzumi for instance noted that had he learned the qiraa'a of ibn Masud, he would not have asked as many questions as to the meaning of the Quran to his teacher ibn Abbas.

The recital of ibn Mas'ud as we have it today, therefore does not include these modifications. This proves that the "irregular recitations" were never intended to be anything other than oral, serving the purpose of assistance in understanding and memorizing the skeletal text. As noted by al-Tabari, this flexibility was a "rukhsa"/leniency by the prophet and it was not an obligation for all Muslims to learn and transmit them. This leniency by the prophet was not an arbitrary decision but stemmed directly from the Quranic principle that 

54:17"We made this Qur'an easy to bear in mind; who, then, is willing to take it to heart?"

The scholars have called these types of variations in the companions' recital qiraa'at tafsiriyya/exegetical recitations. Some of them go back to the prophet, and others dont. For instance 5:89 was discussed by al Ghazzali who argues that this reading, although attributed to ibn Masud is neither part of the Quran, nor going back through tawaatur to the prophet. Consequently, it should be considered as his own legal interpretation/madhab. Al Ghazzali quotes Abu Hanifah as having adopted this madhab although Abu Hanifah too, like al Ghazzali did not accept this addition as part of the Quran. He accepted it as an isolated report that, in his view and because of ibn Masud virtues, was sufficient evidence for practice. Al Ghazzali, contrary to abu Hanifah, argues that this reading cannot even be considered valid for practice because of it being an isolated report. It has not come down to us as a sunnah of the prophet through another chain and in none of the hadith compilations. It is to be noted that None of Abu Hanifah's disciples, including al Shaybani, opposed their teacher's opinion. Neither did any of them argue that this reading had to be part of the canon. The Most of what his successors stated is that the reading did circulate in the prophet's time until its abrogation prior to his passing. But ibn Masud continued using it, not as a canonized reading rather as a legal basis for a specific ruling. As appropriately noted by al Jassas, had this reading of ibn Masud not been abrogated prior to the prophet's passing, then it would not have been an ahad/isolated report. Rather 

"it would have necessarily been transmitted to us in the same manner as the rest of the Qur’an: mass-transmission and profuse narration, such that no-one doubts it being a part of it". 

On the other hand we have cases of attested textual variants going to the prophet in which the reading elaborates on the generality of the text 

"Ibn 'Umar said that Allah's Apostle then recited this verse:" O Apostle, when you divorce women, divorce them at the commencement of their prescribed period". 

In this reading of 65:1, the prophet adds the words "at the commencement". This clearly was an exegetical reading to narrow down the application of the verse to the situation to which ibn Umar was confronted. The same was the case with ibn Abbas' reading of 2:198 which al Suyuti rightly categorized as mudraj reading, ie explanatory reading 

"If you seek of the bounty Of your Lord (during the Hajj season)". 

One should keep in mind, the variant readings whether occuring during or after the prophet have no bearing on the issue of the Quran's authentic transmission. The prophet himself, as already seen, allowed and even prayed Allah to reveal the Quran in different modes/ahruf, of which ibn Masud's reading was part of. The purpose was, as already stated to accomodate each one's eloquence, dialect and understanding of the revelation, which never was supposed to be a rigid text but a multifaceted one. After the prophet's death, when by massive consensus the community agreed upon the Uthmanic recension, whose defective script allowed for many of those readings to be absorbed, either completely or partially, then those readings that did not agree with the Uthmanic recension were marginalized. It is the case of ibn Masud's reading which became obsolete in certain very few instances, such as 5:89 or ibn Umar in 65:1. If such readings were retained by Uthman in the skeletal text, they would have prevented its dynamism, not allowing any other reading in those instances. In ibn Masud's case, even though his reading of 5:89 was generally marginalized by the adoption of the Uthmanic recension, it however kept being used mainly by his students and Kufan partisans, not as part of the canon, but as basis for their legal rulings. None, including ibn Masud, opposed Uthman's consonantal text. Finally, even if a single reading among all those going to the prophet was preserved in the Uthmanic recension, it would still mean that the Quran as we have it today is authentic and approved by the prophet.

Another relevant example is ibn Masud's exegetical reading of 5:38 as aymanihuma/their right hand. That reading narrows down the conventional reading aydiyahuma/their hands which covers a broad range of understandings. It could apply to the left or right hand, not both simultaneously, hence the use of the plural instead of the dual. The prophet applied this penalty and did not cut both hands. The conventional reading could as well apply to any part of the hand from the fingers up to the elbow. 

This type of variants became extinct and the reciters who used them did not teach them to their students as parts of the reading they learned from the prophet, except in some cases by ibn Masud although he never opposed the Uthmanic text. Uthman's compilation does not reproduce these modifications in its skeletal structure and yet it was unanimously accepted as authorative in all corners of the caliphate, even while Uthman's political authority was challenged to the point he was assassinated.

Those who recited the Quran with these modifications, such as ibn Mas'ud or Ubay, were among the comitee in charge of compiling the mushaf of Uthman and never voiced their opposition to it not representing their exegetical recitations. Yet they are known to have argued on different matters relating to the compilation process.

It is to be noted, out of the approximately 500 reported instances of differences with the Uthmanic codex, only 20 are authenticaly traceable to a companion, similar to the case of ibn Mas'ud's recital mentionned earlier. There is a reason why the early bibliographer, ibn an-Nadim reported that among the many codexes attributed to ibn Masud and that sprung up after his death, no 2 were in complete agreement.

Acts17apologetics open the Bible; Jesus allows indiscriminate killing?

In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"

In the HB and as corroborated by Jesus in the NT when he said to abide by it to the minute details, several types of wars are promulgated. Jesus by the way, is the one to have promulgated these laws in the first place, prior to his incarnation. So among these laws the pre-turn the other cheek Jesus instructed upon his subjects, is the compulsory command/mitzva among the 613 revealed at Sinai, binding on Jews of all times to destroy Amalek's seed Deut25:19 without showing any pity whenever the opportunity is there, and exterminate the remaining Canaanite nations from the land of Israel whenever any of them or their descendants are identified Deut20:16.

This is a timeless ordinance, as already said, part of the 613 binding commandements, and is thus an explicit order to genetically exterminate a certain people. Every command within the Torah is understood as eternally binding and those that are inapplicable today due to the absence of a Temple will be reinstated in the utopian messianic era, where every nation will be forcefully subdued to the Jewish God Mal3:4,Deut30,Ezek11,36,37,Isa56:6-8,Zech14:16,Jere33:15-18,Ezek43:18-46:24. The eternally binding command to blot out Amalek's seed and other Canaanites, if one fails acting upon this law anytime a descendant of such tribes is genetically identified, then one becomes subject to divine anger as what happened to king Saul 1Sam28:18,1Chr10.

Saul suffered a violent and dishonourable death. His household was decimated at the hands of the Philistines who also dispossessed his community.

The same happened prior to the entire Israelite community that was sent for a 40 years desert wandering for their refusal to engage the promised land's natives in battle.

Along with those known, compulsory genocidal warfare as described earlier, during which no atrocities towards men, women, children, cattle and plants may be spared, there are laws relating to optional warfare, for the sole purpose of Israel's "national glory" as labelled by their rabbis. In such cases any random nation the Israelites arbitrarily choose, and set themselves out to conquer can either be "peacefully" submitted, resulting in the enslavement and taxation of its population, or in case of their rejection of the "peace offer", a military subjugation resulting with the execution of all adult males, the capture as spoils of war of their women, children, and livestock

Deut20:10-14"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby".

In addition, 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.

All these citations werent made to disparage the Bible, rather at pointing what would have been the outcome had the Quran been the product of human base desires, whims, greed and lust. The fact is the Ishmaelites went through almost identical situations as the Israelites in their confrontations with opposing tribes and nations, and yet we do not find anything remotely similar in terms of abuse and excess as is seen throughout the Hebrew writings, and by the hands of true prophets of God.

It is to be further noted that the Quran does allude to some episodes where the Israelites were confronted to, or were about to engage the Canaanites. Everytime, it refrains from mentionning the shocking acts which the Israelites have comitted. The Quran could have used these incidents as divinely sanctionned precedents allowing unrestricted bloodshed and abuses. Yet we keep on reading in the context of warfare, verses stressing self-restraint in retaliation, or the non-materialistic goals of fighting in Allah's way.

Acts17apologetics open their eyes; Islamic war ethics?

In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"

Even though the object of the enemies of Islam when they take on arms and engage Muslims in war is to exterminate them entirely, the Muslims are told that the Divine object in assisting the believers in punishing the disbelievers at war is not to exterminate them, but to deliver a blow that would deter them from continuous agression 3:127. They are therefore told to fight only the people who attack them

60:9"those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion".

Defensive warfare cannot be predicated on personal whims or desires. War ethics also include not fighting near the Kaaba except if initially attacked. If the enemy desists from deliberate aggression then fighting must stop. This in turn indicates that there should be no rancor against the enemy when they correct themselves or even when they end the hostility. The Muslims, even though oppressed should not seek blind revenge at all costs, rather they should try engaging in peaceful negotiations before 8:39-40. In a dominant position, Muslims must remain conscious of their past weakness before Allah strengthened them and not refuse the hand of peace from non-muslims 4:94. In all cases retaliation must be

22:60"with the like of that with which he has been afflicted and he has been oppressed".  

2:194"Thus, if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him just as he has attacked you - but remain conscious of God".

This means that even while seeking just and equal retribution, one must remain conscious of God's limits. The Quran's supreme realism reflects even in such situations, telling those whose spirituality is of a high degree, that if they are able to be patient and forgive for Allah's sake, instead of exercising their legitimate right to retaliation when they have taken the upper hand then Allah will compensate them for their magnanimity

42:39-43,16:126-8"but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient..Surely Allah is with those who guard (against evil) and those who do good (to others)". 

The sensitivity of the issue is pictured in God's address to David, the prophet-king 34:10-11. As he was given mastery over a crucial component in warfare -iron-, he and all those after him are told that in their use of that martial technology, God is ever seeing of what they do, indicating that they should use this means in the path of righteous deed, not in the way of oppression, cruelty, and sin.

Fighting cannot be directed at those

60:8"who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes..show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice".

Al-Tabari states that this applies to people of “all ways of life and religions". Nothing abrogates this principle. This is because being friendly and lenient with non-Muslims does not contradict severing ties with those same ones and even fighting them if it is to establish justice and claim one's rights. The Arabic birr/compassion is the same one the Quran uses when instructing Muslims on how to treat their own parents 17:23-4. Others towards whom defensive jihad cannot be directed are those who come in peace without any desire to fight 4:90. Not all of Islam's opponents are alike, some do not strive actively for the extermination of Muslims and should therefore not be fought in the same way as one would engage an armed enemy. They, as well as others could have been deliberately misinformed and are thus given the benefit of the doubt

60:7"It may be that Allah will bring about friendship between you and those whom you hold to be your enemies among them; and Allah is Powerful; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful". 

We see how the Quran engages the issue of warfare in the most sublime and pragmatic of ways. The very foundations of the divine law, as taught by all Prophets, is the establishment of justice and to argue a person has no right to seek his rights is an absolute wrong. The Quran has taught the best attitude, and that is to forgive and continue calling people to right and goodness, even if the people try and persecute another but when the persecution becomes unbearable and life threatening, hindering one from religious freedom then retaliation is permitted, but never above and beyond what a person has himself received.

Acts17apologetics forget the Semitic pattern; fighting in God's name?

In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"

Accepting to fight in Allah's way results in reward in this world as well as the next 48:18-21, but turning one's back to the enemy and refusing to shoulder that duty makes a person

48:16,8:16"deserving of Allah's wrath"

in this world as well as the next. Here are the prophet Jeremiah's words

Jer48:10"A curse on anyone who is lax in doing the Lord’s work! A curse on anyone who keeps their sword from bloodshed".

As already pointed, history bares testimony to this fact with the example of the Israelites who had refused to put their trust in the prophet Musa to go forth and fight in Allah's way. Their wordly reward was consequently taken away and they were forbidden entry into the blessed land and sent to wander 40 years in the desert until the last one of those who had shown cowardice was dead. A new generation was then raised instead, one that would willingly take up arms, fight and conquer as divinely ordained. See the Quran in 2:243,5:21-26 as well as the Hebrew Bible in Numbers13:28-33,14:1-35,21:14-35,26:64-65 and Deut2:7,14-19,Josh5:6.

The Muslims are warned that the very same fate awaits those who turn their backs to the prophet when they are called to struggle in Allah's way

9:38-39"If you do not go forth, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you, and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things".

True Believers rejoice at any opportunity of serving God's cause, like Joshua and Caleb who rent their clothes telling the remaining cowards among the Israelites to stand up for battle. In the end, what God wishes to accomplish is independant of the direct addressees of a prophet. As demonstrated with Musa and the Israelites, He could easily uproot them in case of disobedience and rise another people instead.

However, those who followed the prophet Muhammad in times of peace and war are the opposite example. Contrary to the majority of Israelites in Moses' time who refused to march forth despite witnessing all kinds of divine miracles, the majority of Muhammad's followers fought when ordered to. This is corroborative of their desperate situation, leaving them no choice but to fight for their survival, the survival of their families and their rights to worship Allah. Because of all their sacrifices and because they went forth when they were commanded to, they were made successors in the land 6:133-134 and they earned Allah's rewards in this world as well as, God wills, in the next.
In addition, the Muslims are commanded not to neglect the obligatory prayers, even when facing the enemy at the battlefield 4:101-3.

This shows the true objective of these warriors fighting to free themselves and their people from religious bondage; fighting was not their primary occupation for when the time of holding the timed and ordained communion with their Lord arrived, they performed their spiritual obligations despite the imminent danger.
  

Acts17apologetics expose murderers; Jihad without ethics?

In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"

2:190-5 allowed retaliation for the first time 

"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you" 

the root qaf-t-l means to kill. But used in the form qaatilu entails interaction, killing opposite killing or killing against killing. Literally speaking it should be rendered "engage in killing opposite killing" and because of a lack of non-Arabic word conveying that sense, the interactive word "fight" has been preferred and used by both Muslim and non Muslim translators, in all instances where the same form is used. In 9:111 for example, the consequence of qaatilu/"engage in killing opposite killing" either results in killing the opposite party, or being killed and that is because there is a clear will to kill from the opposite side. When the original order to qaatilu was issued in 2:190, it came with 2 important messages:
- do it against those who yuqaatilunakum
- do not transgress the limits when applying the command to qaatilu

What constitutes transgression in that context? To apply the command of qaatilu in a different way than prescribed in the verse, ie against people other than those who "yuqaatilunakum".
This again, not only agrees with what was said about the verb being interactive in nature, as attested by its usage and the dictionaries stating that the word is used "in a context of a counter-effort to kill", but also with the Quran's overall message, which is to live at peace with anyone, Muslim or else, that does not aggress the Muslims unjustly, and defend against those that engage in hostilities without any reason other than hatred for the religion.

The ethics of war as laid down in the verse is to remain within the bounds of 

"and do not exceed the limit. Verily, Allah loves not those who exceed the limit".

At that point it became inevitable that the early persecuted Muslims should fight in self-defense or they would be destroyed. It is the natural right of all Muslims and every human being to

26:227"defend themselves after they are oppressed".

The divinely sanctionned right, throughout the ages and nations, of jihad in self defense has a clear objective. It isnt for any material gain or territorial expansion, but to dispel mischief, and corruption/fasad on the earth and stop religious oppression 2:251,22:40. 

It is inadmissable that man be prevented from choosing or practicing Islam due to pressure and fear. In such a society, war is justified until one is free to choose or reject Islam 

2:256"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error". 

This shows that under no circumstances should be forced in spiritual matters, whether it is to accept or reject Islam.

The Quran would therefore stir up the believers for battle based on the reality of their physical and spiritual opression, whether men, women, old and young alike 2:217,4:75,8:26,22:39-40,28:57,60:1,85:8-10,96:9-10. God commands to fight for justice. Any other reason to fight is oppression and fighting

"in the way of the devil" 4:76.

This was an undeniable reality and necessity. They had to overcome any fear and trust that Allah's help will come at the battlfield. He will weaken the struggle of the oppressors no mater the forces they can muster 4:84. Even when this was established, the prophet still did not expect the Muslims to shed their blood for a decision from which they were excluded. Consensual agreement always preceded the final decision to go to war, as here stated in the context of the battle of Uhud

3:159"and seek their advise in all matters of public policy".

Once the decision is attained by common agreement, the plan must be launched with an absolute trust in God

3:159"then when you have decided upon a course of action, trust in Allah; for surely Allah loves those who place their trust in Him".

Even the prophet after that point may not revoke the covenant and act according to his whims 3:161-4. It is to be noted that in that particular context of Uhud, the prophet was the minority opinion. He advised confronting the Meccan alliance within Medina, instead of meeting them at Uhud. Yet he never protested the decision once it was mutually agreed upon, nor did he blame the majority once the battle was over and the Muslims were defeated. No matter how supreme the wisdom of the Muslim community's ruler is, in this case a prophet of God, the right of the remaining members of society to be consulted can never be waved off. We see here that in this defeat of the Muslims at Uhud, an important lesson was implemented as to the conduct of a Muslim leader.

Once everybody is set to leave with a full trust in their decision and the will of God, then their physical, mental, financial capacities as compared to their enemies only become secondary issues. Only if these conditions would result in overburdening and harming the person and the people depending on him, even before engaging in fighting, then such person is justified in holding back from fighting 9:91,48:17.

The others rely on Allah, who knows their material and physical limits, and will assist them 8:66. They are fully justified in fighting back, and will be helped in the process

22:38"Surely Allah will defend those who believe; surely Allah does not love any one who is unfaithful, ungrateful".

Part of the 613 Jewish commandments is to similarily be fearless in battle and fully trust in God Deut3:22,7:21,20:3. It was their failure to trust in God's capacity to defeat, through a weak army, a much stronger adversary that caused their 40 years desert wandering prior to entering the land promised to Abraham. God calls mankind to fight in His way first to solve the wordly obstacles to which a particular people is confronted, but these worldly obstacles are connected to the spiritual aspect of man's existence. This means that fighting in God's way liberates man from both physical and spiritual obstacles. That is why those who fear wordly losses in the process, are told that this world is ultimately ephemeral whether in case of victory or loss. They would thus have certainly reason to fear should their battle be solely aimed at achieving wordly objectives. But since fighting in God's way includes spiritual objectives, then one has no reason to fear because the Hereafter in which the benefits of that struggle will be certainly found, is everlasting 4:74.

Choosing to serve God in this way, putting one's own life on the line to defend the oppressed and advance the cause of truth is the most selfless material and spiritual sacrifice one can do. Every culture and civilization in history has owed its survival in the face of oppression to these types of honored individuals. But even then, as in any army, there are degrees among soldiers, hence the prophet saying that military participation is ranked 3rd in terms of divine appreciation

"I asked the Prophet 'Which deed is loved most by Allah?" He replied, 'To offer prayers at their early (very first) stated times.' " `Abdullah asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" The Prophet said, "To be good and dutiful to one's parents," `Abdullah asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" The Prophet said, "To participate in Jihad for Allah's Cause." `Abdullah added, "The Prophet narrated to me these three things, and if I had asked more, he would have told me more".

However those among the volontaries going to such extent in their selfless sacrifice that they are martyred, the prophetic sayings describe them as meriting the highest reward. Wordly gains certainly follow as a collateral result of wars, and although are certainly the just compensation of those sacrificing their wealth and resources on the way, the Quran stresses that these wordly gains must never be the motive. In a hadith the prophet even answered about someone fighting in God's cause but also seeking material reward, that in the herafter "He would receive no reward" (sunan Abu Dawud).

The Prophet's conflict with his tribe was not because of any worldly reason; it was only for the freedom to practice the religion of God 4:74,94 in the place originally dedicated for it. The Quraysh had to fulfill their obligations towards the Kaaba because they were its custodians. If they were not ready for this, then they had no right to keep it in their custody nor did they have any right to prevent people from returning to the pure Arbrahamic legacy through intimidations, or stopping others from worshiping on a land settled for that purpose since the days of Ibrahim 22:25-9.

This was Allah's way before in regards to Canaan, even prior to the Israelites settling in it, when its natives progressively abandonned the ways of righteousness, despite knowing it, perverted it beyond recognition Gen15:16,Deut9,1Sam4:7. The Israelites were sent in precisely to purge the sacred land from its unworthy custodians. When the prophetic warnings materialized upon the Quraysh and their grip on the lives and freedom of the people was loosened, then the people hastened to accept Islam in multitudes now that they were suddenly afforded with the liberty to choose their own religion. 110:2 predicted this reality long before the conquest of Mecca

"And you see men embrace the religion of God in multitudes",

and this was through the guidance of the Heavenly Book that transcended all obstacles to give life to the spiritually dead 6:122. 

Acts17apologetics prefer Ghandi; can revenge be justified?

In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"

In case of murder, there are several aspects of wisdom in leaving the life of the killer directly at the mercy of the heirs of the murdered person. It firstly compensates to some extent the tremendous loss caused, because once the justice system has done its job of exposing the guilty, true justice consits in compensating emotionaly or materialy for those first and foremost concerned, ie the victims themselves.

The other wisdom in leaving the punishment of the killer in the heirs of the slain person's hands is that in case they adopt the preferred issue of being magnanimous, they do a big favour to the murderer and his family, resulting in many other benefits. The prophet waived his right for equal retribution many times against his opponents once he had the power to execute justice

"Whoever suffers an injury done to him and forgives (the person responsible), Allah will raise his status to a higher degree and remove one of his sins” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi).

  There are countless traditions about his life illustrating his forgiveness to others, even those caught red handed attempting to murder him. But he had no right to force the believers to be forgiving in similar situations, it would be contrary to the spirit of the law as he would be negating their rights to resort to it should they desire.

As already said, although the Quran encourages magnanimity in these cases it can only be from the victim, on his or her own accord, without any pressure or influence from anyone, or without any interference from the authorities. This way, because it is an unexpected, benevolent act, it heals both the victim and the criminal.

When a group of armed men feinted conversion from the tribe of Ukl/Uraina/Urayna, taking advantage of the prophet's hospitality then captured his shepherd, tortured and murdered him before leaving with the camel herd, the prophet, as an embodiement of the state, could not force his penchant for leniency in case of a crime committed on someone else. Beyond being a crime against the shepherd, this was also a direct attack against the state and its citizen among whom these criminals had sought protection. The Islamic state was at that time subject to attacks from all sides, yet its leader and citizen had generously offerred shelter to foreigners who not only abused from their hospitality, in addition infiltrated the community, spreading violence and bloodshed. The prophet could neither impose magnanimity on the victim's family nor on a state which represents its citizen.

He therefore inflicted the law of equal retribution upon these cold blooded murderers in its full force; they were tortured the same way they did to the innocent hospitable shepherd who had given them food, drink and medicine when they were hungry, thirsty and ill, then they were left to die of thirst in the desert. Although many later Quran commentators have linked this incident to the revelation of 5:33-4, there actually is no report that proves it.

Ibn Umar even denies that this verse that limits the harshness of punishments upon criminals, is in anyway a divine disapproval of the prophet's severity. The law of equal retribution still stands and can be used in case one is subject to the same gruesome murder circumstances of the prophet's shepherd. 5:33-4 is unrelated to qisaas, the law of equal retribution, which concerns all members of a community. This passage rather it is a set of punishments for crimes which only the state has the final word for, committed against governement institutions, interests, laws, etc.

Acts17apologetics measure the prophets; Jesus's miracles superior to Muhammad?

In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"

Superior or not, no prophethood is more valuable than another based on the performance of miracles. The HB in Deut13 warns the people to be very suspicious of anyone with the ability to perform what may seem as unexplainable supernatural deeds. The NT similarly says false prophets may be allowed the performance of miracles as a matter of test to the believers Matt24:4-5,23-25,2Thess2:9-10.

John the Baptist was a true prophet but performed no supernatural miracles Jn10:41,Matt21:25-26.

Besides, to base one's faith on the sight of "miracles" is very dangerous for one never really knows whether the "miracle" was in fact an illusion or other clever trick. The prophet Moses' opponents reflected that reality when they described his miracles as illusion without external reality

7:132"And they said; whatever sign you bring us to bewitch us, we are not going to believe you".

As the HB says, God may even purposefully allow a false prophet to perform miracles as a test to the people, whether their hearts and minds will be dazzled and swayed into ungodly ways or remain steadfast in their faith. In Ex7:11 Pharaoh commands his court magicians to imitate with their magic Moses' miracles, and some of these miracles were in fact successfully replicated, showing that seemingly supernatural occurrences do not necessarily come from God.

Miracles therefore, whether in the Quran or the HB, do not serve the function of attesting to an individual claim to prophethood, rather have the twofold purpose of comforting an already believing heart as well as demonstrate the tremendous responsibilities of those that witness it. That is why the Quran uses examples of past nations that requested miracles and disbelieved thereafter, as a lesson to the prophet's contemporaries who were doing the same. Had the signs been sent down as and when they requested, their current state of opposition was such that they were would have found any excuse to deny and denigrate them, and would have increased their enmity towards the message bearer and his message. Just as those before them, who were then destroyed although they were much more powerful than them. Pharaoh and his people are among those examples.

The Bible doesnt even give instructions on how to recognize demonic miracles because technically, they are no different than the divine ones. But it shows how to recognize if the author is a false messenger. The djinn, as described in the story of the prophet Solomon, are capable of what is deemed supernatural bending of the expected laws of nature. But what they have no access to, except as Allah deems fit, is knowledge of the unseen, information that could only be obtained through revelation. Knowledge of the unseen, and of information that could not have been accessible to the messenger, prophecies coming true, uprightness of character are all very strong indications of a person's claims of prophethood. That is why the Quran, although it never denies that its messenger could and did perform miracles, treats this aspect of prophethood as inconsequential in determining the veracity of the claim, dismissing the requests of the doubters and disbelievers and leaving the matter to the Creator. The sending of signs is at all times depending in His will and wisdom. The Quran therefore, in its arguments, brings repeated attention the aforementioned 4 aspects of prophethood, with an additional focus on knowledge; based on what authority, and knowledge do the disbelievers among the polytheists and people of the book persist in their denial and deviations 

46:4"Say, [O Muhammad], "Have you considered that which you invoke besides Allah? Show me what they have created of the earth; or did they have partnership in [creation of] the heavens? Bring me a scripture [revealed] before this or a [remaining] trace of knowledge, if you should be truthful."

In conclusion, messengership does not necessitate that the forces of nature be bent at will and upon request.

Miracles are entirely dependent on God's will and the prophets are nothing but mere mortals tasked with transmitting a message of warnings and glad tidings

17:90-3"And they say, we will by no means believe in you until you cause a fountain to gush forth..or you should cause the heavens to come down...or bring Allah and the angels face to face...or you should have a house of gold...Say; Glory be to God, am I aught but a mortal messenger?"

Besides that, for argument's sake assuming Jesus had superior miracles than Muhammad, then this poses no problem to a Muslim. Muslims must regard all prophets and messengers as equals 2:136,3:84, but from Allah's perspective He has exalted some above others in particular aspects 2:253,17:55 like in the manner in which revelation was bestowed upon them or in the type of signs they were given to confirm their prophethood, or in the universality of their message.

Moses spoke to and was spoken to directly and repeatedly by Allah 4:164,7:143 possibly because he needed a special kind of reassurance considering the magnitude of the opposition, whether internal with the rebellious Israelites or external with the ruthless Pharao. 

Jesus was a living sign of Allah to the people, along with his mother 21:91,23:50 and the RUH al qudus/breeze of holiness was working with him, under Allah's command and control, allowing him the performance of spectacular signs 2:87,253,5:110. The RUH al qudus/breeze of holiness, besides its basic role of inspiration, gave him the strength and aptitude to perform the miracles that he did. Jesus' association to the RUH do not however make any of them divine. It was a tool sent upon Jesus as was sent on all prophets and regular believers, each time for the purpose for which Allah intends for it. God's breathing from His RUH in every human being doesnt make us or part of us divine 32:9,38:71-2. Ruhana/our breeze or breath is attached to God's name to stress its greatness, the particular connection it creates between the recipient and Allah, as is stated concerning the righteous 58:22"These are they into whose hearts He has impressed faith, and whom He has strengthened with a RUH from Him/minhu". And just as the Quran associates the RUH with Jesus, it does the same with the prophet Muhammad in the context of divine inspiration 16:102. The RUH sent by Allah, under His command, affects multiple people at once like the wind would. Similar usage is seen with the house of Allah or the month of Allah or the sakina of Allah/the soothing calmness that filled Muhammad and the believers, or the love from Allah bestowed upon Moses 20:39 etc. None of those things are considered parts of Allah, having any intrinsic power, or emanating from within His essence, or sharing in His divinity.

Jesus' mention with the RUH is among the patterns of the Quran of taking up the most cherished christological themes, then strip them from their paganistic implications. 

David is often singled out, even in comparison to Muhammad, for the scripture he received. The exact aspect by which the original Psalm, now lost, excelled all other divine scriptures may be hard to define, but it could be in terms of beauty through its description of the hymns to God by all creation.

Both the Quran and the HB speak of non-human creation joining David in his prayers to God.
There is a very deep and relevant reason for which the Quran in 2:253 has specifically pointed out Moses and Jesus in the context of God's exaltedness of some prophets above others in particular aspects. The Jews regard it as an article of faith to declare Moses the greatest of all prophets that preceded and followed him, precisely because of the reason mentioned in the verse, ie the manner in which God spoke to him without intermediaries like angels. This discrimination reflects even in the manner in which they have classified and canonized their books, following a descending order of "holiness" depending on the manner in which God communicated with the personalities who authored them.

For example the Hebrew Bible is composed first and foremost of the Torah of Moses, viewed as the most sacred of all, then come the books of nevi'im/prophets that are considered holy but not as much as the Torah since although the prophets who wrote these books communicated with God, their interaction with Him were indirect or "blurry" ie through visions or dreams that required interpretation. The last books of the Hebrew bible are the ketuvim/writings, also regarded as holy, but even on a lesser degree than the nevi'im/prophets because their authors -not considered prophets- did not communicate with God, but either through intermediaries like angels, as in Daniel's case whom Rabbis have still not agreed whether he is a prophet or not, or through the ruach hakodesh/spirit of holiness (what the Quran calls ruh alqudus/breath or spirit of holiness). With the passage of time, the years of suffering and exile, and the ensuing loss of the Torah and knowledge of Jewish history, even the praise given to Moses diminished in favor of a new prophetic figure. Ezra, because of his role in re-introducing the Torah, both as a text and in practice, to the exiled Jews, was seen as deserving of having received the revelation of Sinai as Moses was 

"R. Yossi says: “Ezra was fit to have the Torah given to Israel by him, if it weren’t for the fact that Moses came before him.”

Christians on the other hand regard Jesus to be the greatest of all prophets sent to mankind, even raising him to the status of a deity, precisely because of those qualities spoken of in 2:253 and that Allah made to shine through him more than with other prophets; the manifestation of the holy spirit through him and the wonders he performed.

That is where the Quran steps in, saying that all prophets received clear signs 57:25 and all of them received God's spirit/breath of prophecy carried down into their hearts by angelic messengers 16:2 and although God's spirit filled some prophets with more intensity than others, were able to perform more spectacular signs than others, or were sometimes spoken to without angelic intermediaries, it is Allah who, in His wisdom, has exalted them in some particular aspects. Therefore from a true believer's perspective it is not befitting to discriminate among God's messengers in terms of status, holiness or relevancy, or in light of the manner God communicated with them.

There is no real standard to use as a reference anyway, since the process of inspiration is something of which very little knowledge has been imparted to us 17:85. This reflects in the prophet Muhammad's warning to his addressees not to raise him in status even above the prophet Jonas/Yunus

"No slave (of Allah) should say that I am better than Yunus bin Matta.” So the Prophet mentioned his father’s name with his name".

This is an interesting pattern in the history of prophethood that not a single prophet ever declared his superiority over another. Except in the Gospels' depiction of Jesus, proclaiming his eminence in relation to the prophet Jonah and Solomon in one breath Matt12.

The prophet condemned a zealous follower who overstepped the limits by slapping a man who was speaking of the superiority of Moses on Muhammad, saying it is wrong to engage in discussions discriminating among prophets. He sometimes praised the superiority of character of certain prophets. For example he once said he would not have had Yusuf's strength of character when he provided the interpretation of the king's dream while unjustly imprisoned

"I would not have done so until I put a condition on them that they let me out...May Allah have mercy on Yusuf.  May Allah bless him for his patience, and Allah will forgive him.  I could not have done that..."

The Tanakh itself discards these discriminatory criteria at once when it states, concerning all prophets, including since the time of their exodus with Moses whom they regard as the chief of all prophets 

Hosea12:10"I spoke to the prophets, gave them many visions and told parables through them". 

All of them are true prophets, no mention of grades despite the different visions they received.

Muslims are required first and foremost as one of the pillars of faith to believe in the existence and truthfulness of all of God's envoys, humans or angels 2:177,285. Secondly, as regards the human messengers, they must be revered and accepted on the same level, not making any distinction between them in terms of status.

It is worthwhile to note the term used in the Quran when speaking of the continuous sending of prophets following Moses in 2:87. It says qafayna, derived from q-f-w meaning the back of the neck. The verb means to follow (because you follow the back of someone). It is a word used to describe a poetically structured text or speech because it denotes a close, synchronized, harmonious succession. In the same way, the prophets were closely synchronized in their message, and Allah in the Quran repeatedly states how all revelations are one in essence 46:9,21:7-10,4:163. This by the way not only is meant at denying any discrimination among them, but it also means that none of those noble personalities deviated in the message he was conveying so as to depart from a well established pattern. This implies that Jesus, an Israelite prophet in a long line of prophets, would have never asked to be worshiped so as to depart from the pattern of his predecessors.

Muhammad was inspired following the same pattern as other known illustrious men before him were, including many unnamed and forgotten ones, whether among the tribes of Israel (Jewish tradition holds that thousands were sent to them) or outside of them

4:163-4"We inspired towards you as We inspired towards Noah and the prophets from after him. And We inspired towards Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the children (of Jacob)/alasbat and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon. And we brought to David, Psalm. And (We sent) apostles We have mentioned to you before and apostles we have not mentioned to you; and to Musa, Allah addressed His Word, speaking (to him)."

As shown earlier through the attitude of Jews and Christians in whose creed one must acknowledge the superiority of one prophet above all others, Islam, truly earns its name as the "willful surrender unto God" instead of surrendering to one's prejudice and desires. 

Just as it calls and presents the prophet Muhammad as no more than a humble slave of Allah, Jesus is equally shown as powerless without Allah's will and in entire submission to Him. That description is appropriate given the Christians' raising him to divine status. Moses likewise, seen as the wisest of all prophets by the Jews, is shown humbling himself before another of God's messengers who far surpassed him in wisdom and knowledge of the unseen. This again is highly appropriate given the particular exaltation the Jews give him in comparison to other prophets.

The Quran in addition admonishes against the attitude of claiming belief in God but rejecting a particular prophet 4:150. Those who do so simply do not like the message from the God they claim to believe in, it threatens their sinful ways and prevents them from pursuing their evil interests.

In 45:16-18 the Quran addresses Muhammad, telling him just as another nation was vouchsafed revelation, he too is now chosen and put on the straight path, thus stressing the continuation of the divine message.

Stress is also laid, in different ways, on the principle that rejecting one messenger amounts to rejecting all the messengers because all of them had brought one and the same message from Allah 26:105,123,141,160,176.