Islam critiqued doesnt know for sure; Becca in Psalms?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

In Psalms84, David speaks in his prayers to the Lord of hosts -the Lord of all nations-, of pilgrims frequently going through the valley of Beca to pray at the altar. Some attribute this psalm to David, others to Korah's 3 sons who lived in Moses' time. Jewish oral tradition states that the book is entirely David's who took the earlier works and melded them with his own ideas. In that passage Becca is identified by a definite article meaning a specific place. That place could not be the Jerusalem Temple, which was not even constructed at the time (neither in Moses' time).

Of course, later in Jewish history Zion became affiliated with Jerusalem, but it couldnt have been during the time of David, or Moses for that matter. Jerusalem in the sense of the Holy City and place of pilgrimage was not built yet in David's days who was in addition referring to a place far away that required strenuous effort. The context of Ps84 is that of difficulty as one engages in a dry and barren valley then gaining spiritual strength upon strength. Clearly the meaning as noted by all commentators cannot be anything than the "valley of lamentation/weeping". The root word, bacca is used for types of trees that grow in arid places, like balsam, mulberry, or aspen that drip resin like tears. The balsam tree itself is found in southern Arabia, as well as on the mountains of Mecca and Medina.

So then which valley in Jerusalem is the ground so hard that the rain collects in pools? The valley of Becca has this particularity and the passage is meant to demonstrate its aridity. A valley of trees and lush vegetation doesnt fit this description. Which valley in or around Jerusalem do people take rest in and make it a well, when they go through to "Zion"? The fact that they make it a well, show that they take their rest there as well, another specificity of the place.

David laments that this place is far from the people and much hardship has to be taken to get there and despite the hardship, as they proceed to it and get closer to the court of the Lord in 'Zion", they move with strength upon strength. So where is that arid valley that pilgrims ever took on their way to Zion?

None of this was applicable to Jerusalem, nor is any valley affiliated with the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, besides the fact that the Temple didnt even exist then.

David speaks of Becca as a frequently journeyed site by pilgrims and there was no place in his days nor before, to the point that certain commentators argue that what David is referring to is a place in heaven. This is ruled out by the fact it is refered to as a geographical location which Bible scholars have not been able to identify until now. Since pre-islamic times, Arabs identified Mecca originally as Becca as corroborated in the Quran.

One of the BEcca's defining characteristics, per the Psalms is that rain collects in pools when it rains because of the hardness of the grounds, which isnt Jerusalem's case, besides the fact that people journey to it through valleys

"Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools".

Mecca is enclosed between valleys and Jerusalem, which is on a small range of mountain tops in no way can be said to fulfill these qualities. The Zamzam well is what made the location hospitable to the pilgrims. This is where the HB states that God openned Hagar's eyes to a well, in answer to her supplications

Gen21:18-9"Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation. Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink".

This was God's gift to her, a means of sustenance for her settlement there in accordance with His plan and promise to make a great nation out of Ismail. As a side note, none of the wells of Beerseba or anywhere near it are mentionned as God-given. They are very distinctly described as the work of human hand. Nor is there any local tradition pointing to the existence there, now or in the past, of any divinely caused well. The only well made to gush miraculously in connection to Hagar and Ismail is in Mecca.

It is interesting to note also that by the time of the great rabbinic scholar and Torah commentator ibn Ezra, when every historian and religious scholarly authority agreed that the inhabitants of hijaz are descendants of Ishmael, he comments that the well which Hagar was miraculously pointed to prior to Ishmael's birth in Gen16:14 was originally called Beer Lahai, meaning 

"the well of him who will be alive next year..The well was so called because the Ishmaelites held annual festivities at this well. It is still in existence and is called the well of zamum". 

This well, present in his time and known accross cultures, is mispronounced as Zamum. Obviously no other well than that of Zamzam exists, where Ishmaelites ever held festivities prior to Islam.

Some Bible versions say "Valley of Tears/ Weeping", and Beca means "crying" in Arabic as a reference to Hagar crying for Allah's help in the wilderness fearing for her son Ismail's life, as related in both the Torah and Islamic tradition.

Islam Critiqued plays the sceptic; no reason to link becca and mecca?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

The Arabs identified Mecca originally as Becca as corroborated in the Quran in addition that it is the first monument of worship of the One God and that it will remain so 3:95-99. 

When asked 

"which mosque was set up first on the earth? He said: Al-Masjid al-Haram".

The name itself "kaaba" is attested in ancient south Arabian epigraphy as a word used to describe a shrine for divinities. 

It is also mentionned several times as the Ancient/Atiq House because it was so old that it came to be known throughout Arabia by that name 22:29,33 and its history went back to the days of Ibrahim and Ismail 2:125. The word Atiq conveys also the meaning of honor and reverance since it had been made sacred by God 27:91. The root word rataqa conveys also the deeper sense of freedom from bondage and the Kaaba effectively has always been free from the bond of ownership of the mortals and in no time it had a possessor, save Allah. It is to be noted, had there been any doubt as to Becca being a synonym for Mecca, one would have seen a variant interpretative reading replacing the B with M. Exegetical readings are known among the accepted qira'at. Given the importance Becca is given, one would have at least seen interpretive glosses inserted into the text, clarifying its meaning. And yet, just as with other geographical synonyms, we see none of all that in the Quran. This is because the location it refers to has never been disputed. Besides, Arab historians have recorded other names to the holy city than Mecca and Becca, each describing come of its characteristics. For example because of its position between valleys, causing it to be prone to flash floods, it was called Sayl meaning heavy rain (Al-Zahraniy). It was also called Tihama because it lies between Hijaz and Yemen.

Only one location is said to be dedicated to those performing the ritual prayers, as well as the pilgrimage and it is the Kaaba, Becca, the Ancient House and al masjid al haram, all names referring to one same place with the definite article and with almost identical wording 2:125,158,196,3:96-7,9:19,22:26,29, all connecting the Abrahamic legacy to one and the same place. This unquestionably links the Kaaba, Becca, Mecca with some of the most important rituals of Islam.

The revisionist argument that these locations are disconnected and unrelated is based upon the faulty mehtodology of isolating statements out of their direct and wider context. The requirement that a particular Quranic statement needs to be fully detailed in each context is unnecessary. Any type of literary research, especially historical, is done by piecing together related information. Conjecture is stripping statements out of their direct and larger context and ignoring surrounding indicators, then drawing clumsy conclusions.

Interestingly, when Moses had fled Egypt where he was wanted for man slaughter, and hid in Midian/Madyan, which is nowhere else than in the Arabian Peninsula, a "foreign land" in Moses' own words, from where he had to "return to Egypt" to free the Israelites Ex2:22,4:18, the Quran mentions his encounter with a righteous man in that land of Arabia, saying to him

28:27"I desire to marry one of these two daughters of mine to you on condition that you should serve me for eight hijaj/pilgrimages; but if you complete ten, it will be of your own free will, and I do not wish to be hard to you; if Allah please, you will find me one of the good".

This righteous Arabian man, whom tradition identifies with Shuayb, is quoted as counting the years in terms of pilgrimage, as it happened every year. Also, the valley where God first spoke to Moses is called Tuwa 20:12. The word tuwa means to fold, from the root ta-waw-ya, it is used as a name of the valley because a valley is by definition folded between higher ground, and in this case, figuratively folded with holiness. Dhi tuwa, which is near Mecca might very well be this same Tuwa of Moses where he had been dwelling with his Madian or Arab family prior to his return to Egypt and confrontation with Pharao.

Another interesting observation, linguistically is that Makka and bakka are used once in the Quran, and not randomly; in the context of hajj which involves the mass ingathering of populations, bakka is used since it stems from a word meaning crowd, while makka is employed outside that context.

Islam Critiqued wont renew his repertoire; borrowed words in the Quran?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

Polemicists have misconstrued a known linguistic phenomenon so as to try another weak attack against the Quran. To enforce their obsessive claims of borrowing, they have scavenged the book for supposedly "foreign" words. These words betray the Quran's adoption of foreing concepts, as well as the fact it needed additional vocabulary to express new ideas.

Firstly, all languages, including Arabic, have eventually adopted foreign words as people have interracted. Sometimes these words retain their implicit cultural or theological baggage. At other times a completely new meaning is assumed.

In the Quran's case, foreign words do not even amount to a fraction of the totality. In addition, many of those words pointed to by the critics either are in fact Arabic, with well established triliteral Arabic roots, or have been part of Arabic vocabulary since before the emergence of the prophet, or were common to other Semitic cognate languages of the region, thus rendering their tracing very difficult.
Recently for instance, Wolf Leslau refuted Nöldeke's identification of certain Arabic words in the Quran as Ethiopic, like shaytan or jahannam, proving that the direction of borrowing was actually the opposite. The words that entered the Arabic language prior to revelation cannot be termed foreign. They are now Arabic words.

Onus is on the critics to prove that these words were borrowed post Islam. Another case is that of the Aramaic "qeryana" meaning "recitation", which supposedly became the Arabic "Quran" which also is, by its very nature a recitation. Being cognate languages, both Aramaic and Arabic share the same triliteral root for qeryana/quran, qa-ra-a meaning to read/recite. It is thus difficult to ascertain which came from which. It has been however recently suggested that Aramaic had penetrated deep within the peninsula, until Yathrib/Medina, as far back as during the 500s BC through king Nabonidus. Thus, there must have been intra-cultural and linguistic exchanges, between Aramaic speakers and Arabs, one way or the other. Even if one were to grant the adoption by Arabs of Aramaic loanwords, then by the rise of Islam these words had become Arabic words far detached from their full technical implications. In fact the Quran does so even with Arabic, using known words and expressions in novel ways, with new implications and imagery. Beyond the known phenomenon in every language of assimilation of foreign words, one can speak of quranization of words, both native and foreign. 

As to the idea of Arabic having a poor vocabulary, anyone familiar with pre-islamic literature and poems knows how rich and expressive the language of the time already was. There was no need to express any of its ideas by borrowing foreign words. In fact none of the supposed words or expression do not have their synonym, either in other passages of the Quran, or in the well established Arabic language. 

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 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.

Islam Critiqued needs updating to recent scholarship; Original Syriac Quran?

In answer to the video "Abraham and the Kaaba: From Borrowed Stories to Sacred Scripture"

A strange claim by Christoph Luxenberg (later repeated by Sawma) is that, despite early documentary evidence of Arabic Qurans, and without providing a single piece of proof, he believes the “proto-Koran” and the “original Koranic text” were written by Arab Christians in Garshuni, meaning the transcription of the Arabic language using the Syrio-Aramaic script. It was not until 150 years after the advent of Islam that the Arabic script was used instead for the Quran. All earlier inscriptions were in fact made by Christians and had nothing to do with Islam.

For example he states that the dome of the rock inscription about Muhammad is actually a mistransltation and is speaking of Jesus. Yet the same phrase

"muhammadun abdullahi wa rasuluhu"

is translated in 1st century Arabic-Greek bilingual papyri as

"maamet apostolos theou" ie "Muhammad is the Messenger of God".

There are Christian Syriac apocalyptic texts contemporaneous with the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock, mentioning its construction along with its "anti-Christian" Arabic inscriptions.

That is besides the known fact that we have nearly the entire Quran in the Arabic script, in scattered manuscripts all dated to the 1st century hijra, including hijazi manuscripts from the 1st half of the 1st century of hijra. This makes the time period between Uthman's codification of the Quran and the appearance of one of the earliest manuscript of the Quran, at most 20 years. How could this shifting of script occur so fast?

More recently, the university of Birmingham UK revealed the existence of a Quran manuscript, written in the early Hijazi script and containing suras 18 to 20, dated to between 568AD and 645AD which is at most 13 years after the prophet Muhammad's death. Only the parchment was dated, not the ink, so as to safeguard the manuscript. Some have used the occasion to claim the parchment was kept, its content erased so that it could be reused at a much later time. However, as noted by Bart Ehrman

"It is very difficult to test the ink on such documents, because to do so requires you to destroy the ink! And it takes a good bit of it to be enough to be checked. So in theory the parchment could be from the 7th century, but the ink from, say, the 14th. But in the judgment of most experts that would be highly unlikely. The only real reason for someone to use ancient parchment for a modern writing (when modern parchment would be in much better shape and easier to access and easier to use) is to make the writing look older than it was. That is something you might expect a modern forger to do, someone who knew that the parchment could be scientifically dated. But it’s not something that would be expected to be done in the Middle Ages. So more than likely the date of the parchment is pretty close to the date of the writing on it. As with all history, of course, this is simply a matter of probabilities, not certainties".

Scholars of the field, know that the Quran was closed text very early on in Islam. This fragment only confirmed what they already knew

(Shady Hekmat Nasser, university of Cambridge) "We already know from our sources that the Koran was a closed text very early on in Islam, and these discoveries only attest to the accuracy of these sources".

And as corroborated by Nicolai Sinai

"To be sure, one may well hold that the gamut of viable hypotheses about the date of the Quran has now shrunk to the seventh century, 9 thereby defusing some of the issue’s long-standing contentiousness".

Furthermore, a vast array of the Quran’s religious vocabulary is attested in old southern as well as sometimes northern Arabian epigraphy, without any linguistic and theological connection with the languages of the Christian Levant. 

Sulayman Dost "As we have seen, some of the most central concepts for the Qur’ān’s theological outlook have their solitary parallels in the religious, social and political idiom of the Arabian inscriptions. In some cases, there are exact lexical overlaps between the two sets of texts, i.e. the Qur’ān and the epigraphy, and, in some cases, the qur’anic equivalents of certain pre-Islamic concepts are given new semantic dimensions in line with the Qur’ān’s doctrinal stance. It is also worth noting that the Qur’ān’s description, albeit very short and elliptical, of pre-Islamic religious milieu can be largely followed through epigraphic evidence".

A very simple observation is that if the Quran had been an open text until the second half of the seventh century then, like other ancient writings, then its tumultuous historical context would have surely reflected within it. We would have seen anachronisms, traces, names, allusions to events and passionate Muslim debates, on laws and theology, the inter religious wars and other major events that had occured. The massive and fulgurant expansion of Muslim territories by that time would have surely been rewritten as retrospective prophecies. None of that is found in the Quran, unlike what happened with the Bible; from the successive destructions and rehabilitation of the Israelites, re-written as prophecies of punishment/reward, to Jesus' crucifixion re-cast as a divine suicide plan since the beginning of creation.

(Nicolai Sinai)"Hence, the argument that if the Quran had been an open text until the second half of the seventh century then, like other ancient writings, it somehow ought to reflect the historical context from which it supposedly emerged (albeit not necessarily by virtue of explicit name-dropping) still stands. As long as scholars have not managed to demonstrate that certain Quranic passages – and preferably, passages with a distinct stylistic and terminological profile! – are only intelligible, or best intelligible, when placed in a post-conquest context, a dating of the standard rasmto before 650 therefore seems heuristically preferable...the Quran lacks even the most editorially minimalist techniques of biographical contextualization, such as the insertion of superscriptions tying specific scriptural passages to certain events in Muḥammad’s life (see Isaiah 1:1, Jeremiah 1:1–3, and the various Psalmic superscriptions associating the following text with the life of David).136 The fact that the Quranic corpus as we have it is remarkably uncontaminated not only by fully-fledged sīra narratives but also by such minor redactional accretions is most easily accounted for by a mid-seventh century date for the standard rasm’s closure."

To further expound upon Luxenberg's theories. Christoph Luxenberg states that the Syro-Aramaic used in Edessa and its environs is the original language of the Quran, not Arabic, despite the Quran itself repeatedly saying about itself it is evident Arabic, in the language of the messenger's people 12:2,13:37,26:195,46:12,16:103,19:97,44:58,14:4. Neither does Luxenberg explain how this language might have come to dominate in far away Hijaz to such an extent that it would form the basis of the sacred writings of its inhabitants, nor does he present the slightest evidence that there existed in Mecca and its surroundings an Arab community under intense Christian influence.

These claims run along the same lines as those of the Protestant theologian Gunter Luling who theorized in the 1960 that this area was thoroughly christianized by Muhammad’s lifetime, and Mecca was a significant Christian town ruled by the Quraysh, a Christianized tribe that worshipped in the Kaaba, a Christian church built with an orientation toward Jerusalem. This assertion however remains unsubstantiated whether from Muslim or Christian sources, just as his assumption of a massive Christian presence in central and northwestern Arabia.

There are no Arabic inscriptions written in the Syriac script whereas there are quite a number of them written in Nabataean Aramaic script, the recognized origin of the Arabic script. Arabic was widely spoken in the Middle East by the 7th century CE, particularly in the region of the former Nabataean kingdom. This very evolution presumes frequent writing of Arabic in the Nabataean script. Some inscriptions prove that Arabic had already long been used for sacred expression, such as the Oboda inscription, and possibly also the ones found in the Madaba area. There is also Epiphanius of Salamis’ testimony as to the praises to a virgin deity sung in Arabic by the inhabitants of Petra and Elusa.

A well known Meccan inscription date to AH 98/717 CE is variously attributed to a bishop of Najran in southwest Arabia named Quss ibn Sa‘ida, or else to one of the pre-Islamic kings of Yemen.

Regardless of the authenticity of that attribution, the accumulation of pre-islamic evidence, including a vast wealth of poetry, does point to them belonging to that period. The pre-Islamic Arabic texts are nothing but the visible tip of the iceberg. Most of the hidden material is lost through the effect of time or in the process of being discovered. The point is that there is a substantial tradition of writing and speaking Arabic. Why would then the Quran's supposed authors need to express their sacred traditions in a far away foreign language?

As to methodology, Luxenberg starts by selecting Quranic passages with multiple layered meanings. HE then forces the consonantal Uthmanic text into parallel Syriac words he chooses based on what he deems is a more appropriate meaning of the passage. His whole point being to expose the Arab compilers of the text that came some century and half after Muhammad, as disconnected from the original Syriac substratum of the Quran. But this exercize wasnt unique to Luxenberg.

The background of other scholars engaged in a similar process is reflects in their findings. Thus those studying northwestern semitic languages will see Ugaritic behind obscure Quranic words, while those inclined to see Islam coming out of a Christian background would prefer syriac etymologies; those favoring a Jewish matrix would see Hebrew and Jewish Aramaic as the sources of many Quranic terms.

Islam Critiqued pleads for mercy; Quranic forgiving depiction of Jews?

In answer to the video "Allah Doesn't Monkey Around: Quran, Apes, and Eschatology"

As alluded to in the former post, the manner which the Quran treats the Jewish history of failures can be paralleled with the account of the prophet Joseph and his treatment of his sinful brothers. When his brothers and former persecutors were within his powerful grasp, as he had all authority and right to exert justice and revenge, he instead, in his legendary patience, dignity and magnanimity with which God had established him since his youngest years, he still gave them the benefit of the doubt

"Do you remember what you did with Yusuf and his brother while you were jahill?"

Yusuf's tact and mercy manifest in that opening statement by saying, in an investigating, ambiguous tone that what they did was in a time where they were ignorant, meaning that they are expected to know better by now and not repeat the misdeed he passingly alludes to.

Second, he doesnt even make it personal by speaking in the first person "me" but instead by alluding to himself in the third person. Then when they recognize him, instead of making them feel the lowest by boasting of how life has vindicated him so that now he is the highest, he immediately attributes his status to God, it is a favor which isnt on account of any personal achievements, he is no different than them. In addition God's favor, he says, is within anybody's reach, not just himself

"surely he who guards (against evil) and is patient (is rewarded) for surely Allah does not waste the reward of those who do good".

One can hardly think of a more intricately humble, merciful address than this, given the circumstances. And the rest of the dialogue, which is more akin to Yusuf giving moral lessons to his brothers without demeaning them, is full of similar wording. When he declared that Allah forgives them, again avoiding to make it personal "I forgive you", and that no blame will henceforth be attached to them, Yusuf remained consistent and respected that declaration a little later on when he saw his childhood vision unfolding, he only mentioned God's favor in protecting him during his years of imprisonment, without saying anything of his much more dangerous ordeal of being thrown in a well by his brothers. Whatever evil had occured between he and his brothers -he is wording the statement so as to leave open the possibility that he might be equally blameable although he never did anything wrong to warrant the cruelty with which his older brothers treated him in his childhood- was because

"Shaitan had sown dissensions between me and my brothers".

Not only he puts himself as potentially having equal share of responsibility for the conflict, he attributes the source of evil to Shaytan, not even his brothers who stand blame free just as he had previously pledged. These kind of intricacies as are contained in just a few verses among many other verses within that specific story of the prophet Yusuf's life, clearly cannot have been devised by any human being orally and publicly transmitting an account without any chance at going back to a previous statement to correct and edit himself to improve his overall eloquence and coherence

"this is of the announcements relating to the unseen (which) We reveal to you, and you were not with them when they resolved upon their affair, and they were devising plans".

This is the kind of divine mercy with which the Quran treats them. When it points out some of the dark periods of their history, it isnt done wantonly or inappropriately but always in a specific context and to draw a moral lesson, both for them as a nation and anyone hearing and reading it. A parallel reading of the list of incidents starting from 2:40, with the same ones related in their books reveals the mild manner in which God has spared them further humiliation by not detailing their dark past.

This past the Quran says was "thrown behind the backs" of their educated elite, unknown to the majority of the Quran's addressees, even among the Jewish laymen of the time. Even if we taken into account the loathsome words that later Muslim scholars, the likes of ibn Qayyim, describe them with; tricksters, conspiracists, liars, slanderers, consumers of usury and bribe, killers and rejecters of prophets etc. every single one of those accusations and more, are directed at them collectively in their own sacred writings.

The Quran also, almost every time it cites one of those past failures, demarcates between the transgressors and the upright among them so as to not condemn them collectively although they have failed collectively to uphold the covenant they were bound to with God as a community. Throughout time, they were a fringe among the masses, and remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability. Their sincerity, unprejudiced reading and understanding of their books led some of them, from the times of the prophet where they “recognized him like their sons” to our own times, to inevitably believe and enter the fold of Islam 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4.

That separation is done in the apocalyptic hadiths as well, where in a time where several supernatural events will occur, including inanimate objects and plants pointing to those among them that will side with the dajjal to murder innocents, they are said to be on both sides of the conflict between good and evil. Those on the wrong side (Muslim,B54,H99), in opposition to the returned prophet Jesus will be completely eliminated, together with their allies among all religious groups including Christians and deviant Muslims who will seek to kill other Muslims (Sunan Ibn Majah 179, Sahih Bukhari 1881, Musnad Ahmad 3546, al-Buhur al-Zakhirah 1/493). The same destruction will befall them as was done to previous nations that sought to destroy the messengers and their followers. The Quran in 17:8 alludes to a future destruction of the mischief makers among them. They will not constitute the entire world Jewish population but a fraction of it that will believe in the dajjal as their promised messiah (Sahih Muslim 2944).

Their biblical history speaks at length of the wrongdoings of the majority of them, despite the presence of a few righteous among them, and how those sins have often plunged most of their community into suffering, and for several generations, as pledged by God in their scriptures Ex20 and later observed in Jeremiah for instance when the nation was decimated by the sword and famine, from the youngest to the oldest, men and women, if not taken captives.

The principle that God judges men individually, and not in groups does not negate the infliction of collective suffering even because of the misdeeds of a few, and this is an objective reality.  Such reality may repeat itself with any community, including the Muslims 8:25 which is why believers of all times have been urged by their prophets to purge evil from their communities, hasten each other to good deeds and guard one another from evil. Muslims are warned, through examples of the past, to choose very carefully their leaders because when such elite and rulers begin their mischief, they drag most of the community with them in corruption and lead it to destruction

17:16"And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction".

As happened in the past, the Almighty may punish a whole nation for the crime of a single individual if that whole nation sanctions it, directly or passively. As stated by Ezekiel in his warnings to Israel, the righteousness of the few will not deliver the guilty when the time comes Ezek14:20, although it may delay it Prov28:2. If the efforts of those few righteous remnants fall on deaf ear and that the decreed punishment is if such a scale that even the righteous cannot escape it, their reckoning will be with God, as the prophet stated 

"If Allah sends punishment upon a nation then it befalls upon the whole population indiscriminately and then they will be resurrected (and judged) according to their deeds. "

Islam Critiqued the defender of Jews; quranic anti-semitism?

In answer to the video "Allah Doesn't Monkey Around: Quran, Apes, and Eschatology"

The Quran doesnt hate anybody, it states facts. The reason why Jews are addressed as monolith, whether in the Quran or their own books and prophets following Moses is that because from all people, and up to this day, no community claims continuity to their ancestors and the rights and obligations placed on them than the Israelites. They were bound as a nation by a covenant in which they entered while being persuaded, one can even say compelled, by the sight of miracles. The terms of the covenant were that should they breach it, then it would result in their rejection from God's grace as a whole, even if not all of them transgress.

However this prided covenant was, and still is, in great majority and even sometimes entirely disregarded, with them only laying claim to the favors which were in fact conditional to obedience  (land grant, divine protection from enemies, light unto the nations etc). This is actually one other reason to call them out for their sins as a single unit, to show them that if they want to lay claim on the favors conditionaly bestowed upon their ancestors, then they should equally recognize as a nation the less glorious parts of their history.

Another thing to consider is that the Quran, which is often accused of being anti-Jewish or antisemitic actually spares the Israelites and is much more tempered and balanced in its description of their early history than their own scriptures, down to the Christian writings and Jesus' outright insults towards them. Jesus himself was no antisemite, but his followers, the descendants of Greek and Roman pagans, certainly were and gladly used the crude depictions and insults that Jesus reportedly makes of his fellow "vipers" and "sons of satan". Jesus' racial slur is so intense, the general feel of the Gospels so anti-semitic that one can only conclude they had been written by Gentiles.

The Quran speaks of their failures and rebellions under various prophets, as well as their multiple divine destructions, in a passing manner without delving much over the details, as if it is seeking to spare them some dignity, just as it does not report the scale of their prophets' loathing of them. This is among the facets of divine mercy, the like of which was inculcated to the prophet Yusuf/Joseph.

Islam Critiqued is no textual critic; incoherent, garbled quran?

In answer to the video "Allah Doesn't Monkey Around: Quran, Apes, and Eschatology"

A note on the Quranic style. In the Quran when it comes to reminding of past narratives and anecdotes, the objective isnt dry storytelling and genealogies as in most of the Bible where one can easily and quickly lose track of names, places and other details. These little details, if omitted wouldn't make humanity miss out on anything in terms of guidance, and in fact confuse the reader and distract his attention to trivial matters. The Quran is not a historical record or dry, impartial document: it is argumentative and impactful to get people to believe and actively reform themselves and their environment.

Its powerful statements are in an intellectual, spiritual and emotional language that every culture across time and space can appreciate. The Quran's objective isnt story telling, but "message telling" and maximizing its audience's attention to the precept(s) of the story. We thus find in the Quran that most of the characters recognizable through their Biblical counterparts have their stories retold without necessary links and in disconnected episodes. As a result, they largely lose their temporal and spatial dimensions, thus perfectly fitting into the Quranic moral style of narrative. The Quran therefore is not a story book in a beginning to end format, it is a never ending cyclical experience. Like the word or speech of God, it has no beginning or end.

Muslims will not be asked on the Day of Judgment the details of the people of the cave or how Noah's flood occurred, how many generations passed between a person and another, the names in a genealogy or whether they memorized the names of people in the Quran. They will be questioned as to how they responded to the lessons from the different incidents and stories related in the Quran. Thus to focus on the message, the Quran injects the passage of a well-known story, whenever the larger context a sura requires it. And when it does so, it only puts the details of that story that are relevant to that specific context. That is why one sees variations in repetitions, but never contradictions. The only exception to that style of narrative is the story of the prophet Joseph/Yusuf which takes the form of a beginning to end narrative in one place, and a highly eloquent, intricate one at that.

Those unable to appreciate that Quranic style speak of contradictory, or incomplete repetitions. This is because first and foremost they approach the Quranic text with the above Biblical paradigm in mind; the Quran, instead of being read on its own is seen as a garbled version of multiple Judeo-Christian sources. If, however, the text is approached according to its own thematic unities, its lack of historical detail and absence of chronological order become unproblematic. And this is the prevalent approach among western scholarship nowadays.

The second common problem for those reading the text occurs when they are unable to connect the different repetitions properly among one another and fail to grasp the manner in which each repetition fits in the context of a particular sura. This a side note isnt circular reasoning as it doesnt presume the notion of textual coherence. It is textual coherence that objectively establishes itself, through consistent repetitions, recurrence of similar themes and notions in different contexts.

These repetitions always retain a core meaning, and are always thematically correlated with similar passages in other suras, like conversations and dialogues between the suras. The brilliant Pakistani scholar Islahi called the recurrence of themes in several suras "complementarity".

What is remarkable from a linguistic perspective is that the Quran was uttered publicly, live and as a speech, which prevents any type of editing and yet it forms one incredibly well knit whole, from verse to verse, paragraph to paragraph, sura to sura. If we take the example of sura baqara, the longest of all and revealed over the course of 10 years while other suras were being simultaneously revealed, it is structured in an interconnected manner allowing it to be thematically structured in many different ways.

This is a vast field of Quranic studies, with many sub-branches, studied by both Muslims and non-Muslim scholars; the interconnection between suras, passages, verses, words and even letters and how the whole thing remarkably fits together. The idea of the Quran being a dull, boring or incomprehensible repetitive book is a discredited proposition, not only by the scholars of Islam all throughout their exegetical works spanning centuries, but also more recently by non-Muslims who have been doing, and keep on doing, a remarkable job at unveiling the intricate connections of the text, from verse to another, paragraph to paragraph and sura to sura. See Norman Brown's work on sura 18 for instance. That weak assertion is only still circulating among uneducated critics of Islam, and missionaries.

For most of modern Islamicists, the Quran has to be approached as a text on its own, with its own internal coherence to be properly understood. So long as explanations to its passages are sought from the perspective of its alleged, elusive and countless proposed sources, the Quran will remain an obscure book for those approaching it. Here is just one of the thematical structuring of sura Baqara, in a symmetrical construction called ring structure;
- 1st subject from v1-20 faith vs unbelief/Last subject v285-6 dua about belief-hypocrisy-disbelief.
- 2nd subject from v21-39 God's creation and knowledge/2nd subject from down God's creation and knowledge v254-284
- 3rd topic v40-103 the Israelites receive the law/3rd subject from down from down about the laws given to Muslims v178-253
- 4th subject Ibrahim faces tests v104-141/4th one from down Ibrahim's nation, the Ishmaelites are tested v153-177
- middle section culminates with the new direction of prayer, the Kaaba symbolizing that new nation and its new law

And all this symetrical ring structure leads to the statement of the Muslims having been made the ummatan wasata/balanced nation, a statement located in the center of a sura composed of 286 verses, at exactly verse 143. Every single Quranic sura on its own forms, like baqara, a cohesive argument.

Also, because many of its passages can be read through the lens of another passage from within the sura, other analysts have approached its structuring in a pericope. For example, the story of Adam in sura Baqara pericopes throughout the sura. The Israelites were told to enter a town and enjoy its sustenance v58 similarily to the instructions previously given to Adam and his spouse upon entering the garden v35. But just as Adam and his spouse werent content with what they were given, the Israelites began grumbling for the sustenance they had in captivity v61. And just as Adam and his spouse found their Lord forgiving once they repented, some of the Israelites were eventually forgiven for their worshipping the calf and desisting prior to Moses' return v54.

Islam Critiqued is a science fiction fan; what about rat transformation?

In answer to the video "Allah Doesn't Monkey Around: Quran, Apes, and Eschatology"

In the hadith about Jews changed into rats, the prophet gives a loose personal opinion based on observation, not a statement of fact

"Muslim2997 a: Abu Huraira reported that Allah's Messenger said: A group of Bani Isra'il was lost. I do not know what happened to it, but I think (that it 'underwent a process of metamorphosis) and assumed the shape of rats. Don't you see when the milk of the camel is placed before them, these do not drink and when the milk of goat is placed before them, these do drink. Abu Huraira said: I narrated this very hadith to Ka'b and he said: Did you hear this from Allah's Messenger? I (Abu Huraira) said: Yes. He said this again and again, and I said: Have I read Torah? This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Ishaq with a slight variation of wording."

The same uncertainty is found in another similar hadith

"Then Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) called him out at the third time saying: O man of the desert, verily Allah cursed or showed wrath to a tribe of Bani Isra'il and distorted them to beasts which move on the earth. I do not know, perhaps this (lizard) may be one of them. So I do not eat it, nor do I prohibit the eating of it".

This observation by the prophet could have been directly or indirectly influenced by a belief floating among the Arabs, more particularly the Banu Salim who forbade themselves to eat the flesh of lizards, asserting that it was a metamorphosed Jew. That is why the former Jew, Kaab al Ahbar seemed incredulous upon hearing this report. Clearly these ahadith cannot be taken as related to the Quran passages above or as a basis to interpret them. The hadiths are worded as potentially erroneous subjective suppositions concerning a tribe of bani Israel contemporaneous with the prophet, and the Quran relates a historical incident far preceding the prophet.

Even if the Quran statement of "Be despised apes" is taken as a literal transformation, the Quran says only the transgressors among them were inflicted with that punishment and a prophetic tradition suggests they did not transmit their condition, dying out in their state (hadith scholars say after 3 days)

"Mention was made before him about monkeys, and Mis'ar (one of the narrators) said: I think that (the narrator) also (made a mention) of the swine, which had suffered metamorphosis. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Verily, Allah did not cause the race of those which suffered metamorphosis to grow or they were not survived by young ones. Monkeys and swine had been in existence even before (the metamorphosis of the human beings)".

So both the Quran and hadith speak of a punishment that was inflicted once, in one location, directed at the transgressors in the community. The incident cannot be used to paint Islam as diabolizing the Jews as a whole. Further, both the Quran and ahadith repeatedly distinguish between the righteous among the people of the book and the sinners deserving of condemnation. Whether mention of that shameful event is found in rabbinic literature or not is irrelevant in determining the authenticity of the story. Is oral Jewish tradition and the Talmud expected to faithfully preserve every incident in the life of each Jewish community of the diaspora prior to the finalization of its text? Did the incident even occur before its composition? Is the holocaust mentioned in the Talmud?

Islam Critiqued is offended; insulting scriptures?

In answer to the video "Allah Doesn't Monkey Around: Quran, Apes, and Eschatology"

The Quran refers with very degrading terms, not only to non-Muslims, but also Muslims whenever they neglect their spiritual potential and steep to the level of animals. This is because the value of a human being in God's eyes, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity or social class, rests only in his God-consciousness 49:13. Stripped of that quality, a human being is worthless. This is a major Quranic theme. When all has been created with an inner truth, for a higher purpose and for an appointed term in a universe whose phenomena all testify to a higher reality 30:8,14:19,10:3-6 by Allah who is Truth in essence 22:6,62 it necessitates that everything false or based on falsehood, ie devoid of its higher purpose ultimately perishes.

That reality many times manifested in this very world with the uprooting of transgressing nations altogether. The Jews for instance when they neglect the Torah which they claim to uphold and practice 62:5, they are compared to donkeys that carry a load while totally unaware of its contents. Donkeys merely feel the burden. It is not different for them to carry rocks and wood or books containing the most precise secrets of Creation and the most fruitful lessons for a better life, as the Quran often describes the previous revelations.

The Hebrew Bible itself, quoting the prophet Isaiah, reduces them to lower than donkeys in the times when the nation had almost reached total spiritual collapse Isa1:3 and Malachi echoes how lowly and contemptible they were made to be in the eyes of the whole world for having forsaken the Torah Malachi2:8-9. To Hosea they are a "useless ustensil" as they lost the divine immunity that was granted to them as long as they remained faithful to the covenant. HE also calls them wandering wild donkeys in foreign land, in search of alliances with the pagans Hos8:8-9. Their leaders and elders are blind and slumbering, compared to dumb dogs for their failure to warn and avert spiritual disaster despite the presence of prophets among them Isa56:10.

The unrighteous foreigners that persecuted the Jews are spoken of in similar debasing terms and with such aversion that they should not be touched Isa52:1,11,Ps94:8. All these parallels humans/animals have one common denominator, the loss of all morality and spirituality. In reference to such loss, God in Ps32:9 warns David not to become

"like a mule that does not discern; whose mouth must be held with bit and bridle, so that when he is being groomed, he does not come near you".

To avoid that outcome, David is to be careful to follow God's guidance

Ps32:8"I will enlighten you and instruct you which way [to go]; I will wink My eye to you".

The Quran uses such metaphors for all people, not only the Jews, who blindly turn away and reject divine guidance

7:175,179,8:22,25:44,74:49-51"Then, why do they turn away from the reminder? As if they were frightened wild donkeys, Fleeting from lions".

Again, the metaphor applies to those who behave in this life without spiritual awareness and God-consciousness

47:12"and those who disbelieve enjoy themselves and eat as the beasts eat".

The idolaters, because of their sacraligious practices are najis/ritually impure 9:28 just as in Judaism those of "uncirumcised flesh or hearts" shouldnt be allowed anywhere near a ritualy pure entity, whether a human or else, such as the Temple.

As a side note, recently two copies of inscriptions prohibiting the entry of nonbelievers to the Temple have been found on Temple Mount, which Josephus wrote about. These inscriptions were on the dividing wall that surrounded the Second Temple, which prevented non-Jews from accessing the interior of the Temple courtyard. The "warning" stone, which is at the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, warns non-Jews of the perils of entering the sacred Temple.

In the HB and throughout the books of the Prophets, and down to the book of "writings", non-Jewish ways are paralleled with the images of lewdness, harlotry, foolishness, lurking around to lure the weak of heart.

As a side note, it is interesting to note that this evil path is symbolized in the HB by a woman, ensaring the man, thus perpetrating the mysoginist representation of females, going back to the convoluted and corrupted story of creation. This symbolizm is well depicted in Prov7 or Ecc7:26 where apostasy, sinfulness are personified by the female sex, and the way it lures man to her

"And i find more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets, her hands are bonds; whoever is good in God's sight will escape from her, and a sinner will be taken by her".

This is because even though it is hard enough to find a truly righteous man, it is even moreso difficult in the case of women

Ecc7:28"While i was still searching but not finding-- I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all".

Jesus in the NT makes use of such metaphors as well when he compares the spiritually unclean to dogs and swine Matt7:6. The main thing distinguishing man from animals is his spirituality and sense of morality. This aptitude is what raised him to be God's vicegerent on earth, a honored creature excelling most of God's creation 14:32-33,17:70. So when anyone corrupts and forsakes that aspect of his being, and in addition rejects Divine guidance only to follow his low desires then he loses that distinction. He becomes the lowest of the lows although having been made in such a mold that could raise him up to moral and spiritual heights, with the highest rank being that of a prophet of God. That reality is captured through four oaths in 95:1-5. The oath taken by the 2 of the choicest and noblest fruits, the fig and the olive, followed by an oath by the 2 locations most blessed in terms of revelation, mount Sinai and Mecca, serve as argument to the positive potential of the human being.

Like the above mentioned fruits, he may become among the most select by rising spiritually, the highest humans in terms of spiritual nobility being the prophets, hence the oaths taken by 2 locations associated with 2 of the most eminent of them, Moses and Muhammad. The comparison of the spiritually dead to animals, and even lower in value, as inert and senseless as a stone 2:74, is very apt in that an animal such as sheep or cattle, despite being of very weak intellect can still properly process what it hears (voice of the herdsman) or sees (location of the herdsman and the rest of the flock) in order to find guidance. The spiritually dead cannot make use of any of his senses and so is unable to properly process the perceived information to find guidance and rise to ultimate success. A sheep becomes more apt in finding its correct direction and thus thriving through its life. Dumbness (muteness) illustrates how the inability to listen leads to lack of interest, which would naturally be expressed through further verbal inquiry, reflexion, exchanges etc.

2:18"Deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they will not turn back"  

25:44"They are nothing but as cattle; nay, they are straying farther off from the path".

Islam Critiqued looks into the galaxy; planet of the despised apes?

In answer to the video "Allah Doesn't Monkey Around: Quran, Apes, and Eschatology"

Every religious scriptures uses degrading terms, mostly in reference to animals, when referring to sinful people. In the case of the Quran and the "Jews into apes" passage, It is to be noted first that this speaks of a special kind of transgression.

The sabbath violation is one of the sins they have been most persistent and constant in committing throughout their history, despite it being one of the few ordinances so important in God's eyes when it was first ordained upon them that transgressing it was punishable by death. This is revealing of their mentality, disregard and disrespect to God which the Quran exposed when it revealed what was truly in their hearts while they were made to swear into the covenant 2:93. They would transgress the Sabbath even in such critical times as when they had just finished rebuilding the Temple that had been destroyed precisely for their misbehavior Neh13:15-22.

That stain particularly in regards to te Sabbath is so great on them, whether in their own books or the Quran, that when Allah speaks of those on whom that ordinance came, ie the Israelites, it calls them 16:124"those who differed about it". It is as if no sooner was it ordained that they already resisted its application. Allah tells those sabbath breakers to "Be despised apes".

Many indicators, both linguistic and textual as attested by some of the earliest authorities even among the taabiun (Mujahid), point to it being a metaphor on how lowly these transgressors among them were made to be in God's eyes, as well as to the rest of the righteous community and those who kept their commandments 7:159,163-166. The tafsir scholar Mujahid, who had studied under Ali ibn Abi Talib and is said to have reviewed his tafsir 10s of times under ibn Abbas, explicitly ascribed to this view. He compared the simile to that made elsewhere in the Quran regarding the spiritually barren, who carry the divine scriptures like donkeys carrying a load of which they dont know the value.

The textual indicators to it being a metaphor are seen from the next verse, 2:66 were it says to those to whom it was said to "Be despised apes", that they have been made an example to their community and posterity. How were these people made into an example to posterity? Physically transforming them into apes would have been witnessed by one generation at most. It would have had no effect on posterity as the verse says. Today and as reported in the HB, any Jew would recognize how many of their ancestors reached the lowest spiritual degradation, which the Sabbath breaking was their main marker and indicator, and were consequently destroyed and humiliated among the pagan nations. That is how the metaphorical expression materialized to posterity and was a well known pattern in their history, to be punished, humiliated and abased lower than animals, for their transgressions

2:65"And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be apes, despised and hated". 

The emphasis on humiliation, in addition to the beastly reference, suggests that it is the abstract state of abasement that is meant. The mere physical transformation into apes wouldnt have been enough in itself as a humiliation. As the HB states about those who do any type of work on the sabbath 

Ex31:14"that soul will be cut off from the midst of its people".

In fact this occurred in the times of the prophet. Allah threatens the Jews who knowingly twist the scriptures and religious knowledge so as to turn the believers away from the straight path, that the same curse will befall them 

3:47"as We cursed the sabbath-breakers". 

None of them were transformed into animals, but they sure were punished, humiliated, abased and exiled for their enmity towards the prophet of God.

The incident the Quran chose to illustrate their lack of consideration and abuse of the Sabbath is a highly meaningful and appropriate one; the prophet Muhammad is told to question them (a questioning can be done with the object of reminding one of a forgotten occasion) when the Jewish inhabitants of a coastal city would fish on the Sabbath and not on the other days 7:163-6.

They did so out of pure laziness, unconcerned by the spiritual consequences, blinded by their sinful, rebellious hearts, simply because it happened that whenever the Sabbath arrived, the fish were easier to capture

"their fish came to them..appearing on the surface of the water"

but on other days the fish did not readily come in that favorable manner and had therefore to be patiently sought and trapped as normal fishermen do. The incident shows how convenience, not even necessity or hardship, was a good enough reason for them to transgress one of the most basic and sacred ordinance.  For comparison, the hadith describe a situation where a traveling group of Muslims among whom some were in a state of ihram (forbidden to hunt, among ither restrictions prior to the pilgrimage) while others werent, refused participating even indirectly in the capture of a prey, despite their hunger 

"Once, while I was sitting with the companions of the Prophet at a station on the road to Mecca and Allah's Messenger was stationing ahead of us and all the people were assuming Ihram while I was not. My companion, saw an onager while I was busy Mending my shoes. They did not Inform me of the onager but they wished that I would see it Suddenly I looked and saw the onager Then I headed towards my horse, saddled it and rode, but I forgot to take the lash and the spear. So I said to them my companions), "Give me the lash and the spear." But they said, "No, by Allah we will not help you in any way to hunt it ' I got angry, dismounted, took it the spear and the lash), rode (the horse chased the onager and wounded it Then I brought it when it had dyed. My companions started eating of its (cooked) meat, but they suspected that it might be unlawful to eat of its meat while they were in a state of Ihram Then I proceeded further and I kept one of its forelegs with me. When we met Allah's Apostle we asked him about that. He said, "Have you some of its meat with you?" I gave him that foreleg and he ate the meat till he stripped the bone of its flesh although he was in a state of Ihram".

What is interesting is that there is actually a debate in the Talmud about whether it is permitted to lay out nets before Shabbat in order to catch fish on Shabbat. This shows that there is a historical basis for the discussion or that there was a need to circumvent shabbat in that specific case, which then triggered the debate. The Shammai schools forbids it while the one of Hillel allows it (shabbat 1:7). The latter school of interpretation is regarded as more authorative, making it permissible to lay traps for fish ahead of the Sabbath, thus opening the way for their distortions of the spirit of the Law to suit their needs. Instead of using that occasion, the peculiar behavior of the fish, as a means by which they can put Shabbat above worldly convenience, they actually sunk deeper into sin and defiance. Not only that, they repeated their transgression openly, despite the admonishments of righteous members of the community.

Their spirituality was so degraded that they would turn a deaf ear and rather disobey than miss a trouble-free opportunity. It is important to keep in view that the Quran does not generalize this behavior to the whole community. A closer reading of the verses shows that there were not only 2 but 3 groups; the rebellious, the admonishers, and the ones passively sitting by, with the understanding that a punishment would soon befall the transgressors 7:164. This means that although, prior to the incident many had transgressed the Sabbath, some had successfully passed the trial by reforming themselves and desisting from catching the fish despite the convenient opportunity. But 1 group failed the test and was consequently punished. Also, the fact that a group knew that the Sabbath violators would be divinely punished, before their abasement to the level of despised apes, reinforces what was said earlier concerning the well-known, established pattern in their history, to be punished, humiliated and abased for their transgressions. This happened to them, as already stated before Islam, during the prophet’s time and beyond.