Islam Critiqued is full of hopes; Quran never affirms corruption of previous scriptures?

In answer to the video "Top 10 Ways Muslims Ignore the Quran"

3:78"There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah. It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it" 

6:91"the Book which Musa brought, a light and a guidance to men, which you make into scattered writings which you show while you conceal much".

Just to corroborate what this verse is saying, The rabbinical world is divided up to this day on whether their sacred texts should be shared with non-Jews. There is consensus that non-Jews may study the Torah as far as the noachide laws are concerned. These laws are considered binding on all of humanity.

The mosaic laws on the other hand concern strictly the Jewish people, hence the oddity of Pauline doctrine and its obsession with freeing mankind from a cursed law that isnt binding on anyone but Jews. Rabbinic opinion suggest that besides the noachide laws, only general and vague answers may be provided to a non-Jew inquiring about the Torah. The prohibition is discussed in the Talmud, which is considered God-given to Moses. The Talmud itself is on a higher level of restriction with even Jewish women forbidden from attempting to learn it due to the household activities they are expected to fulfill 

2:75"but when they find themselves alone with one another, they say. "Do you inform them of what God has disclosed to you, so that they might use it in argument against you, quoting the words of your Sustainer?"  

3:187"And when Allah made a covenant with those who were given the Book: You shall certainly make it known to men and you shall not hide it; but they cast it behind their backs and took a small price for it; so evil is that which they buy".

2:75-79 "..and a party from among them indeed used to hear the Word of Allah, then altered it after they had understood it, and they know (this)..And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but only lies, and they do but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!--Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby".

The Quran in those verses points to several types of misusing the scriptures;

-those who conceal the greater part of the book, reluctantly sharing as little as they can 6:91

-those who throw it completely behind their backs, ignoring it so as to not compromise some worldly profit. In the process, they are also guilty of failing to make it known to the world, as per their function of being the torch bearers of the truth to mankind 3:187.

-those who misinterpret the book after having fully understood it 2:75. Whether that information was canonized or not is irrelevant. This misinterpretation thus concerns both oral and written material. In Medina, members of the Jewish community were sent to the prophet Muhammad, by their religious authorities, with a hidden agenda. They were trying to settle grave disputes in matters heavily punishable in the light of the Torah. This was just another of their ploys to avoid its harsh laws, which they perfectly understood, hoping that the prophet might have a different ruling 

"they alter the words from their places, saying: If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious".  

This compromising, complacent attitude is a deeply ingrained transgression they have been committing ever since the law was bestowed upon them and throughout their history, despite the scolding of the prophets and the few righteous remnants among them whom the Quran mentions and praises 

7:169-170"Then there came after them an evil posterity who inherited the Book, taking only the frail good of this low life and saying: It will be forgiven us. And if the like good came to them, they would take it (too). Was not a promise taken from them in the Book that they would not speak anything about Allah but the truth, and they have read what is in it; and the abode of the hereafter is better for those who guard (against evil). Do you not then understand? And as for those who hold fast by the Book and keep up prayer, surely We do not waste the reward of the righteous" 

Virtually all prophets that came to them decried the corruption of their elite, their neglect towards their own justice system. 

"A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess".  

According to another version, when the Torah was brought to the prophet who was now seeking to expose the innovations of the rabbis in the specific matter of punishment for adultery, he first respectfully put it on a cushion then said 

"I believed in you and in Him Who revealed you". 

A holistic understand of both the hadith corpus and the Quran demonstrates that this statement of the prophet is not to be taken in the absolute sense. When in Medina he noticed that Jews would come and read the Torah and explain it to the Muslims, he advised them to adopt a neutral stance, neither believing nor disbelieving in it 

"Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' " 

This is because the scriptures of the Jews are an amalgam of truth and falsehood, the truthful parts being covered by the statement "whatever is revealed to you". Ibn Abbas would reprimand the Muslims who would seek information from the people of the book in religious matters, on the basis that

 "Allah has told you that the people of the scripture changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything?" 

The Quran, the prophet, the companions therefore all advise caution when approaching the previous scriptures, as they contain both truth, which the prophet confirmed and revered in the aforementioned statements, and falsehood.

The prophet then proceeded with exposing the learned ones by making them read by themselves the truthful part of the Torah which they had been hiding 

"Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning". 

This hadith depicting the prophet's reverence for the Torah should this be understood in light of other ahadith, as well as the many Quran passages stating that the Torah isnt absolutely corrupt, that despite the manipulations it still contains remnants of truth, hence the Quran being its guardian/muhaymin. The prophet declared his belief not in the entire Torah, but in the specific ruling on the punishment for adultery, and which Ibn Salam, the Jewish convert to Islam instantly recognized as the "divine verse".

In legal issues, Jews and Christians living in the Muslim state are not bound by the Islamic law when resolving their own internal affairs. That is how matters were conducted in many parts of the Muslim empire. Dhimmis could deliberate, individually deny, or reform their religious laws to their liking and to fit their desires without any concern about the laws of the state, so long as no conflict occurred between the 2. The historical, and clear Quranic context of these verses 5:41-50 is that of legal retribution. As stated earlier, it begins by telling the prophet that he was not under any obligation to judge their matters when they came to him insincerely, meaning to seek different and more lenient verdicts than what is found in their traditions. It is to be noted that in matters of equal retribution the Quran says that the oppressed or the victim may show magnanimity and forgiveness in order to grow spiritually, an issue the Torah, which also mentions the law of retaliation, does not contain in its proper context. The passage continues telling the prophet that he may turn them away if he wishes, leaving them to resolve their own disputes. But he is nevertheless to judge between them with equity should he decide so, notwithstanding their severe enmity towards him and the fact they were always plotting with the enemies of Islam with the hope of uprooting and exterminating it. What the prophet did at that point was to masterfully expose them for their corrupt mindframe. Had they came to him in truth, he would have judged them in accordance to the Quran, the last revelation superseding all previous ones. But due to their hypocritical stand towards both the Quran, which they didnt believe in, and their own scriptures, whose clear rulings they denied, he referred them back to the law of their Torah, thereby exposing this double game. One might come back with the question that, if the Torah and Injil are corrupt, as the Quran, traditions and history itself attest, why tell Jews and Christians to judge their own internal affairs in light of those scriptures? The answer is firstly because they are not obligated to believe in anything other than what they want to believe. If it suits them to remain in their faith, despite the Quran coming and exposing their falsehood, then they are free to do so. Second, that corruption is not absolute, the passage itself tells them the Torah and Injil contain guidance and light. How then are they to distinguish the right from the wrong? 

5:48"And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it". 

The Quran is the criterion, confirming certain parts OF/MIN those scriptures, ie those parts containing guidance and light. The last revelation came down showing them the truth and falsehood of their books, the abrogated and the valid. This isnt circular reasoning as the things which the Quran confirms from the Bible are for the most part empirically testable, prophecies, past events and stories whose Quranic version make more sense in light of data both external (archaeology, manuscripts etc) and internal (contradictions) to the biblical text that expose the distortions of the transmitters of the Bible 

Once again:

1. the Quran clearly says that the corruption of previous scriptures and traditions, canonized or not, is not absolute

2. reference to previous traditions doesnt entail full endorsement or that they are wholly true, just as is the case with the Bible's known use of apocryphal material

3. there is no circularity in determining truth from corruption in light of the Quran, as the parallel passages and references can be for the most part independently attested. When for example a common story or principle is internally and externally contradictory in its biblical version but is internally coherent, consistent philosophically, theologically, ethically, with many times even scientific and archaeological backing in its Quranic version, then the probability is that the Quran is in the right.

4. the Quran doesnt need to go around fact checking everything stated in past written and oral traditions so as to determine truth from corruption. When certain broad principles and stories common to both the Quran and previous traditions are established as more sensical in their Quranic version, then big swaths of these previous traditions become highly questionable too.

5. then there is the personality of the message bearer, his high degree of credibility among his nation, the miracles he performed, the miraculous aspect of the Quran, still testable today (contrary to prophetic miracles, including those of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad that are lost in time), all major reasons for its contemporaries to pay very close attention to its statements and give it the benefit of the doubt.

That is why the Quran then continues saying that, although the option of judging their matters in light of their scriptures if they reject the Quran's authority is their full right, they will be held accountable for it

 

5:49"And judge, [O Muhammad], between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you. And if they turn away - then know that Allah only intends to afflict them with some of their [own] sins. And indeed, many among the people are defiantly disobedient". 

As the prophet told Umar 

"I have come to you with that which is pure and clear proof. And if Musa was alive, and then you were to follow him and abandon following me, you would certainly have strayed". 

If the last revelation supersedes the previous one even if the previous one is still in its pristine state, delivered by its prophet, then how much more should the Quran be authoritative over the previous revelations in their corrupt state?

-those who misinterpret the book after having fully understood it 2:75

-the uneducated/ummiyun, who have no access to the text and therefore only know the distorted lies of the learned ones 2:78

-those who alter the book physically, passing off their modifications as coming from God 2:79. These alterations may be additions and/or subtractions. Al-kitab, the writing/book alludes to a specific text, as the definite article implies, which is subjected to physical corruption. Al kitab is used for the Bible in the same sura. The Quran accuses the Jews of misinterpreting Al kitab while claiming it is from God 3:78 in reference to the HB, just as it exposes the physical corruption of Al kitab 2:79 in reference to the HB. This accusation the Quran makes is the climax of scriptural abuse, fitting into its overall polemic against Jews and Christians. Interestingly, we find similar statements  as regards the integrity of the biblical text among early Christians themselves. Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew made that exact accusation against the Jewish elite whose responsibility was to preserve the Hebrew Bible.

Ibn Abbas, in comment to the verse said

"O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah's Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, 'This is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it".

However there is another statement attributed to ibn abbas saying 

“No one can corrupt the text by removing any of Allah’s words from his Books, but they corrupted it by misinterpreting it”.  

This is a known defective narration, without any chain of reporters, as noted by the scholars of hadith, including Al Asqalani. What can at most be construed from that statement, assuming it is authentic for argument's sake, is that the incorruptibility is in reference to the heavenly tablet. It can obviously not be speaking of the worldly text which anyone can change. The Quran says all the revealed scriptures are inscribed in umm al kitab/the mother book, inscribed on the heavenly tablet. None can change the words therein but only twist their meaning. Ibn Kathir understood that nuance between the 2 ahadith of ibn Abbas very well. He quotes the weak hadith in his tafsir of 3:78 which speaks of oral misinterpretation. But he also refers to ibn Abbas' authentic comment on 2:79 that speaks of textual corruption by the people of the book. Ibn Kathir quotes other companion views on 2:79, including that of Uthman saying that 

"they (the Jews) distorted the Torah. They added to it what they liked and erased from it what they hated and they erased the name of Muhammad peace be upon him from the Torah and for that Allah became angry". 

Ibn Kathir and the earliest Muslim belief regarding the oral and textual corruption of the Bible is therefore clearly established, based on the Quran itself. That Muslim position is even reflected in the polemical writings of John of Damascus, some 100 years after the prophet's death 

"But some of them say that it is by misinterpretation that we have represented the Prophets as saying such things, while others say that the Hebrews hated us and deceived us by writing in the name of the Prophets so that we might be lost".  

As already noted, anyone can remove and alter words from any worldly text at any point in time. And if that is done when not enough human and textual witnesses can independently detect that corruption, then it can easily be disseminated and passed off as true. That is what happened during the successive destructions of the Israelite nation, followed by the attempts of their scribes to re-write what was lost. Al-Razi rightly noted 

"It is impossible to have a conspiracy to change or alter the word of God in all of these copies without missing any copy. Such a conspiracy will not be logical or possible".  

Al-Razi here is talking of a time when previous scriptures, although in their corrupt state (see his commentary on 5:41), were already widely disseminated and could be independently attested by countless witnesses. Nobody could remove Allah's word nor any other man-made word from it then, without being detected. Corruption of the Torah at that point became only possible through misinterpretation. 

Similarly, some stated that the Torah cannot be corrupted, based on the verse saying God's words cannot be changed 6:115. Again, any worldly copy of the Torah can be altered. But so long as there exists the possibility for the original to be reproduced, God's words remain unaffected, only the copy of these words. 

The Quran is the speech of Allah, and that speech is with Allah, uncreated, eternal, unchanged like any other attribute of His. The analogy of God's speech to the Quran we touch with our hands or recite from our minds, is as God's mercy which manifests in tangible and abstract things. Both types of manifestations are created means through which God's uncreated attributes of speech and mercy are made known to humans. These attributes arent limited to those particular manifestations 

31:27"and If all the trees on the earth were pens, and the sea replenished with seven more seas [were ink], the words of Allah would not be spent". 

God's speech is therefore unexhaustive. It can potentially bring into existence a limitless number of words of revelation, among them the Hebrew Torah of Moses or the Arabic Quran of Muhammad 

14:4"And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly". 

Allah further states about the revelation to Muhammad, that He 

43:3"made it an Arabic Quran". 

The eternal speech of Allah takes on in this world the form that is relevant to the divine purpose. The Arabic Quran was thus not continuously spoken since eternity. It is the manifestation in time of God's eternal attribute of speech. Just like we may say a healthy newborn is the manifestation in time of God's eternal attribute of mercy.

Assuming for argument's sake that all things in the heavens and the earth are destroyed, including all Torahs and Qurans, the mother of the book that contains all revelations, and even the preserved tablet/lawh mahfuz. So long as the potential to generate a true Quran and Torah exists, then Allah's words that were revealed to Moses and Muhammad remain unaffected. As stated earlier, the physical and abstract things in which God's attributes manifest in this world do not exhaust the attributes themselves, neither do these manifestations share the uncreated essence of the attributes they are representing. This is the problem of Trinitarians. Jesus, a created being, is not merely a manifestation of God's word, rather he incarnates it fully, becoming this divine "person" with contradictory attributes Trinitarian thinkers have been struggling to explain for over 2000 years. Christians are quick to try and parallel the notion of uncreatedness of God's speech as manifested in the Quran, with their idea derived from the Gospel of John where God's uncreated word manifested in Jesus. The two concepts, arent comparable.  Further, why would trinitarians even need the Quran to explain the logical and philosophical problems of their theology.

Not a single group within Islam says the Quran was a separate entity floating around next to God since eternity past. This is how some Christians, with their trinitarian worldview, misrepresent the statement that the word of Allah is uncreated. In Christianity, the word is not an attribute but a divine person among others like the father and holy spirit, each with distinct attributes. One man with multiple attributes isnt many men just as One God with multiple attributes isnt many gods. This is tawhid. Yet Trinity says each person is divine but with different attributes, resulting in 3 different gods. The analogy Christians attempt between tawhid and trinity stops at the word of God being eternal. Christians made that word a person with attributes among other distinct persons, while Muslims kept the word as an attribute among others within the essence of the One God. As an aside, since the word or speech of God is not an attribute within the divine essence but a separate divine entity along with 2 others, does it mean that only this divine entity called "word or speech" has the ability to speak and that the other 2 divine entities are mute?

 If God's word is a separate divine entity that became flesh in Jesus, what about the words uttered by Jesus who is now divine? Are his words separate divine entities? Further, if the Torah is God's word, as Jews and Christians believe, does that make it divine as Jesus is? These are the kinds of problems Trinitarians are entangled with due to their conjectures on ambiguous matters, instead of relying on firm statements on God's oneness and unity. Muslims on the other hand, despite the early disputes as to whether the Quran was created or not, never went out of the way to declare the attributes of God, like His word, separate divine entities. No Muslim ever believed God's speech to be a separate conscious part. The reason why this issue is often brought up by Trinitarians is that the Quran is the only book that claims to be Allah's direct speech. The Bible doesnt make that claim. The closest one finds is an anonymous claim made about Jesus being God's word. Muslims on the other hand stick to clear and firm statements of scriptures to define their cardinal beliefs, including that "nothing is like a likeness of Him".

2:79 is a timeless warning, addressed to any corrupt scribes among the Jews who would in addition reap profit from such an evil deed. It is not specific to the Jews of the time of the prophet. This means, although that type of corruption did occur, it may have happened before or during the prophet's time as well as both. No contemporary 7th century Jewish writing has survived so as to compare with older manuscripts to know whether this was done during the time of the prophet. And even if such 7th century writing is found, agreeing with older manuscripts, then it still does not negate that the corruption might have occurred much longer before the prophet's time. Another thing to note is that this verse doesnt target the writings of the Christians. The books that these groups follow are not the singular Gospel of Jesus of which the Quran speaks. As the Quran repeatedly says, they follow but mere conjecture. This conjecture has taken the shape of the Greek writings compiled as the New Testament. They are writings that interpret and re-interpret Jesus' words and singular Gospel, giving them a completely different intent. Sometimes this conjecture doesnt take for basis Jesus' Gospel at all, such as with the notion of human depravity and sin atonement. The Quran thus appropriately tells the Christians to abide by the singular Gospel of Jesus to find the right path that will lead them to the truth of the Quran.

When they did so, in contrast to the corrupt aforementioned groups, when they remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability, then their sincerity, unprejudiced reading and understanding of their books led them to inevitably believe in the revelation bestowed on the prophet Muhammad 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4. This is what occurred in the times of the prophet, even among their most learned figures, just as it occurred throughout time and in our days. The Quran thus expects the Jews and Christians to recognize the truth based on what is in their hands first and foremost. The prophethood of Muhammad and the truth revealed to him make ample theological sense within their own written and oral traditions.

When they behaved with insincerity, hypocrisy towards their books 2:85, then despite having sources of light and guidance in their hands, it availed them nothing "The Torah and the Gospel are with the Jews and the Christians but what do they avail of them?" (Tirmidhi 2653). They become followers of deliberate corruption and lies, or mislead by conjecture.

The term Muhayminan, derived from H-M-N means witness and arbiter where the arbiter would be the one to let know which is right and wrong. Besides witnessing and arbitrating it carries at the same time the notion of protecting. So, when the book that came to Muhammad is declared as muhayminan upon the book it means it is the ultimate arbiter in case of dispute or potential misunderstanding in regards to whatever came before it. It declares what truly came from God vs what truly is not from God

45:16-8"And We did certainly give the Children of Israel the Scripture and judgement and prophethood, and We provided them with good things and preferred them over the worlds. And We gave them clear proofs of the matter [of religion]. And they did not differ except after knowledge had come to them - out of jealous animosity between themselves. Indeed, your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that over which they used to differ. Then We put you, [O Muhammad], on an ordained way concerning the matter [of religion]; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who do not know". 

We see the same pattern of Allah revealing a system, those supposed to uphold it end up turning away from it, in addition causing its corruption. Hence the need for the religion to be restored through the revelation of a new system. 

Islam Critiqued disapproves of YHWH's behavior; Lot commits incest?

In answer to the video "Muslim Problems? Muslim Polemics!"

Lot whom Judaism does not consider a prophet but was certainly among the most God-fearing in his nation, had incest with his daughters who begat his children Gen19:30. Yet this only righteous man among his decadent and sinful people was just extracted from a nation destroyed because of sex related crimes. What is more intriguing is that according to the Hebrew text, once his eldest daughter got him drunk and finished the sexual act with him, he realized what had happened but nevertheless got drunk again the same night and had incest with his second daughter.

That is besides the issue of God not preventing the misdeed of those He had just saved. He could have simply told them that there were other men in the town of Zoar they had just reached. The reason given by the scribes that the daughters worried about the extinction of the human race, thinking no men were left upon the earth, is further discredited considering the simple fact that they certainly interracted with the people of Zoar to get the alcohol that got their father drunk with, or the nearby settlement of Abraham Gen19:28.

Regardless, this surreal tale has the 2 daughters eventually begetting 2 boys, Moab, and Ben-ammi. Moab is the ancestor of the Moabites and Ben-ammi the father of the Ammonites who just so happen to be the competing kingdoms to the west of Judah. Thus is explained the origin and inferiority of non-Jewish neighbours. This by the way is one of the known patterns of the HB where the sins of others, in explain God's disapproval, cursing or punishing of others. Instead of being Abrahamic tribes and thus equally entitled to the land as the Israelites, the Moabites and Ammonites became foreign invaders with no rights to the land. That the whole tale is a retrospective account aimed at portraying negatively a certain people, is seen from the anachronism of having Moabites or Ammonites in the patriarchal period, while there were none. 

Islam Critiqued makes more analogies; moral standard of biblical prophets vs quran?

In answer to the video "Muslim Problems? Muslim Polemics!"

Assuming the Quran and Muslim tradition allow all the reprehensible things Islam's critics have attributed to the prophet, how does it in anyway discredit Islam or its prophet, especially coming from Christians? They use that angle of attack to imply that he couldnt be a prophet based on his evil deeds. What is the biblical criteria for a true prophet and does it include any of those charges, including "not marrying pre-pubescent kids"? There is a reason why nothing at all is said about uprightness of character in the biblical criteria for prophethood.

In fact one needs turning to the Quran, not the Bible, to see among the criteria of a prophetic envoy, impeccable morality as one of the primary requirements. Looking at these Christians' own bible, the characters and deeds of its most prominent prophets, then, simply based on behavior, even if one would accept every single calumny the Christ-loving evangelists have been throwing, then adding many more on top, it would still do nothing to erode Muhammad's credibility even an iota. None of the individuals the bible calls "prophets" ceased being prophets while premeditating their murders, committing adultery and debauchery, hoarding wealth and enslaving nations, idolatry, capturing countless virgins in their holy genocidal wars. Some repented and others never did, and even those that did, never repented for all of their "evil deeds". But it is besides the point.

These Judeo-christian critics lack consistency and intellectual honesty; Condemning a man as a false prophet while the book they stand for approves of prophets whose deeds should give them a heart attack if they find the supposed charges against Muhammad offensive. That is why no Muslim is bothered by such dishonest criticism. They can only hope to trouble Muslims if they argue from the angle of the Quran's standards of the prophets as sublime examples of morality, then showing that the prophet Muhammad's supposed deeds are in conflict with those standards. So long as the accusers keep the bible as a standard of morality of the true prophets, these attacks self-destruct. By the Quranic standard, one that is extremely high in comparison to the Bible, as well as the accepted standards of morality, Muhammad did not commit a single inappropriate deed for a prophet. Finally, it is interesting to note that the prophet, whom those critics claim invented the Quran, as well as committed every possible misdeed under the sun (misdeeds that still make him look like a saint in comparison to the true prophets of the Bible) went out of his way to establish a pattern of morality among the prophets that contradicts his own. He had every reason to not change a single thing of what is shamelessly attributed to the Biblical prophets, so that he might justify his supposed misdeeds all the while claiming to be a prophet of God, in line with those very prophets of the Bible.

As a final observation, among the most outspoken Christian polemicists on that particular issue, many admit, knowing the lowly moral standards of those described as true prophets in their Bible, that should one prove Muhammad's prophethood then they would not object to him marrying Aisha as described in the hadith. Here lies their dishonesty, they will defend the authenticity and veracity of the information in those particular ahadith, but will reject other reports from the same books with no slightest bit of controversy as are found as regards Aisha's age, describing Muhammad as a prophet of God, receiving revelation, experiencing miracles, either as the direct agent or indirectly, making prophecies, giving information of the unseen.

Islam Critiqued tries an analogy; bible canon historicity vs canonization of quran?

In answer to the video "Muslim Problems? Muslim Polemics!"

The 2 processes are miles appart. There was never any canonization process and debates, revisions over what the Quran's contents had to be. This is exactly what occured with the Bible with different canons over time. Nothing in the history of the Quranic text, even by the furthest stretch of imaginaton and revisionist fantasies, can be compared to the tumultuous 400 years following Jesus' death, which marked the canonization process of the Bible. During that period numerous canons of the bible were produced, each combining different gospels, rejecting and adding things from the HB and adding to the NT. Even today, the Protestant, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Greek Orthodox, Coptic, Ethiopic, Syriac churches boast their different bibles as God's Word.

According to some estimates, early Christians wrote at least twenty gospels that weren't included in the bible. The apocryphal Gospels were rejected because of many reasons including doubtful authorship yet the canonized scriptures arent that much more authentic. Some books are considered apocrypha by the western church and scripture by the eastern church. When comparing the canonical and apocryphal writings, it isnt a case of first-hand versus second-hand information. It is merely a choice between doctrinal points of view, with the choice being made by men with a doctrinal bias. Some have been partially preserved such as the Gospel of Thomas. It is different than the infancy gospel of Thomas, and lacks any mention of crucifixion or resurrection. It is considered by some scholars to be the or one of the initial documents out of which developped the other more elaborate gospels. This Gospel of Thomas was for the first 2 centuries considered holy scriptures. The same with the gospels of Matthaias or the "The Twelve", Acts of Andrew or Acts of John, Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas. The last 2 books were still included in the codex sinaiticus, which is the earliest complete copy of the NT that is dated to around the year 350.

There is also the Didache and the Apocalypse of Peter. On the other hand rejected by the early church fathers were Paul’s letter to Philemon, the 2nd and 3rd letters of John, the 2nd letter of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude, all part of the canon after Christianity became the state religion. Nobody ever found the books from which the writers of the NT are sometimes quoting, as in Jn7:38,Lk11:49 or James4:5,Jude1:14-15.

The Book of Revelations was considered apocrypha for the first 200 years of the Christian Church and then suddenly became God-inspired. However even as late as the 4th-century, many Christians either rejected it in favor of the Apocalypse of Peter, or believed that they should both be included in the canon. Revelations is a book of warnings to the deviant churches that were being absorbed by paganism, and consolation to those that remained distinctively Christian, containing retrospective prophecies betraying its restricted historical context ie the Roman empire, using mythical and pagan symbolisms, sometimes gross caricatures in its references to heaven/hell, God, Jesus, the angels or Satan, as well as symbolisms from certain passages of the HB. It has no relevance to modern times or in predicting events that are still awaiting fulfillement, contrary to the countless fruitless attempts of later Christians who have all failed in taking the book out of the historical context for which it was meant in their bid to instill fear and hope in their congregations, as well demonize whoever was/is seen as a major threat.

The Epistle of St James was ignored for centuries until the Council of Trent put it in the canon in 1563. That book received a cool reception, obviously as it appeals greatly to JEwish scriptures, rejects the Pauline concept of "faith alone".

In the 2nd century, Marcion who claimed to have known Paul, composed the first NT, calling it "Evangelicon" which he attributed to Paul himself, and appended ten of Paul's epistles to it. He rejected all of Jewish scriptures, based on YHWH's cruelty versus Paul's loving god. One can argue he was right in a sense, nothing could be further in terms of similarities than the Gods and their plan for creation than the Gods of the HB and the NT.

Islam Critiqued trusts his Bible; True location of Paran?

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

Lets start with the mountain where the Torah was revealed. It is often placed in the Sinai peninsula, yet we read in Gal4:25 that Mt Sinai is in Arabia. By his time, Hellenistic geography applied the term Arabia to the Peninsula as a whole. It was therefore easy to imagine the inhabitants of the inner Arabian desert also as Ishmaelites. The location of Horeb and Mt Sinai in the Sinai peninsula instead of the Arabian peninsula originated in the 4th century. Christian authorities of the time created several such fictious holy sites for pilgrims throughout the empire because of the massive revenue it generated for the Church and local areas. 

There are no maps from the 1st century that delineate Arabia, all that is available are accounts of geographers, historians, and contemporary travellers. Until Hellenistic times, only the northern part of the Arabian Peninsula was referred to as "Arabia". But as the Greek explorers began mapping the shores of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf, they extended the name to the entire Peninsula. What is of interest here is the area around central Saudi Arabia, more particularily the Hijaz which borders to the north the ancient land of Canaan, Moses and the Israelites' final destination following their desert wandering. There is a reason why the location of "Sinai", the place associated with the most momentous miracles witnessed by an entire nation has never been located yet. People have simply been looking in the wrong place. 

"Sinai" is an Arab location and an Arabic word known to the descendants of Ishmael under 2 variations saynaa' 23:20 and sineen 95:2. It further is interesting to note, the verse 23:20 speaks of a tree yielding oil pleasant to eat, in reference to olive oil. In Saudi Arabia, even today, wild olives grow high in the Hijaz mountains, stretching from Jabal Radhwa (West of Medina) to Jabal Fayfa near the Yemen border. The largest population is concentrated between Baljurshi, 300km south of Mecca, to Al Namas further south. Many trees can be seen there even today having large trunks and are probably over a 1000 years old.

The desert of Paran where Ishmael was settled Gen21 is equally associated with Mt Sinai (Numbers10), again reinforcing the fact that the correct location is Arabia.

Ex3:1 plainly identifies Mt Sinai/Horeb as being in Midian. That is where Moses at the beginning of his herding job was tending to Jethro's flock. This place could not have been in the modern Sinai peninsula since Moses' refuge in Midian is qualified as being outside of Egypt Ex2:15,4:19. The name of his Midianite son reflects this fact

Ex18:3"named Gershom, because he [Moses] said, "I was a stranger in a foreign land".

He would have never returned to Egypt, much less with a whole flock of sheep at that point. His return would only occur later on when God told him to do so. Later as he led his people out of Egypt and was encamping at the mount of God/Sinai in the desert, Jethro came to visit the community and hear first hand the miraculous account from Moses, his son in law. He is reported to have converted and returned to his land to preach to his people Ex18. The implicit meaning as per the rabbinic commentaries is that he went to "convert the members of his family".

Obviously, Jethro wasn't the ruler of the whole land of Midian and further it is appropriate to refer to the wilderness as a foreign land within one's own geographical borders. In another instance in Numb10:31, Moses pleads with Hobab the Midianite (Jewish tradition says this is none other than Jethro) to be his and the Israelites' guide in the wilderness, prior to his return to his land and kinsmen. Again, there is a reason why he was very familiar with this wilderness, as a Midianite who would have no reason to wander around the Sinai Peninsula instead. As a side note his return to his land and kinsmen corroborates the Jewish commentary on Ex18:27 mentionned above.

IT would have been completely insane for Moses, accused of murder, to "hide" in Sinai, ie Egyptian territory with state mining activity throughout the region, meaning presence and movement of government officials and manpower. It would have been even more improbable for the whole Israelite comunity to "hide" in the same area, let alone wander in it for 40 years after having escaped their masters, along with their masters' precious belongings Ex3:21-22,11:2,12:35-36.

There is a reason why not a shred of evidence has been found for the massive wandering of Israelites in the Sinai peninsula. The Jews witnessed impressive, collective revelation and miracles at that location. So extraordinary and terifying their experience was that they never forgot it, actually even used and still use it to claim superiority over gentile religions. Yet even they have no idea where that location is, further showing how "truthful" and "preserving" they were of their religion and covenant they were entrusted with.

It is interesting to note here that the Quran states that following their ungrateful request for "better" foods during their desert march, Moses scolds them and tells them to 2:61"descend to Egypt, and you will find what you asked for". They were therefore wandering outside Egyptian territory (if one considers that the Pharao of the exodus was RamessesII as is most certainly the case), and the only vast desertic region that fits is the one in the Arabian peninsula.

The Quran in addition, in its usual pattern of narrating ancient stories and at the same time restoring the truth, states that the enslaved Israelite population was few in numbers compared to the Egyptians 26:52-6. The HB on the other hand Ex12, as well as Jewish tradition place their number in the millions, almost equalling the known number of Egyptians at the time. Besides the absurdity of captors being able to control and enslave, torture and humiliate with such a compelling manner this relatively vast population, no evidence has been found that Egypt, whose population was estimated at between 3 and 5million, ever suffered the demographic and economic catastrophe such a loss of population would represent. Nor is there the slightest spark of evidence suggesting that the Sinai desert ever hosted (or could have hosted) these millions of people and their herds. Marching ten abreast, and without accounting for livestock, they would have formed a line 150 miles long. Also, no evidence has been found that a large new group of people entered into Canaan during the post-Exodus settlement period, further dividing the land among 12 tribes.

In fact archaeological finds from the area of the Israelite settlement in Canaan display no connection between the area’s inhabitants and Egypt, which certainly wouldnt have been the case had the group been as numerous and overwhelmingly invasive as Biblically depicted. No archaeological evidence has ever been found of the migration of the Israelites from the wilderness of Sinai via the Jordan Valley to the fertile land of Canaan, as described in the Bible. The Abrahamic relatives of the Israelites, among the Edomites and Moabites inhabitants of Canaan, were natives to the land and no evidence suggests that the Israelites came from outside, as stated earlier. Although a limited number may have been taken captives by the Egyptians, most archaeologists now agree that the Israelite-Jewish identity arose from traditions that developed among the inhabitants of Canaan. It was not brought from outside by invaders. This doesnt mean the event didnt occur, just that it happenned differently. Ancient records are known to have sometimes been exagerated for story telling purposes. Besides other instances of blatant exagerration with the HB, as in 2Sam24:9 where the Israelite army numbers above a million soldiers, something unheard of in ancient times and very difficult to achieve even in the modern era, Herodotus for instance claims that a million Persians invaded Greece in 480 BCE. The numbers were undoubtedly exaggerated, as in most ancient records. But nobody claims the invasion of Greece never happened. It has been argued that the Hebrew word for thousand, eleph, can mean different things depending upon context. It can even denote a group/clan or a leader/chief. Elsewhere in the bible, "eleph" could not possibly mean "a thousand”. For example 1Kings20:30 mentions a wall falling in Aphek that killed 27000 men. If we translate eleph as leader, the text more sensibly says that 27 officers were killed by the falling wall. By that logic, some scholars propose that the Exodus actually consisted of about 20000 people.

Islam Critiqued flies over a complex issue; Abraham binds his only son in Jerusalem?

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

Putting aside the fact that, in the presence of his older brother Ishmael, the literal, firstborn and legitimate "only son" could never, at any point, have been Isaac, another inconsistency resulting from the identification of Isaac with the son of the sacrifice is that the HB states Abraham had to journey from Beerseba where he dwelt with Isaac before and after the event of the sacrifice Gen21:31-34,22:19 to mourn Sarah's death in Canaan Gen23:2.

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

The only way for all these conflicting elements to come together is to say that Abraham had left alone from Beerseba to the location where he had settled his "only son", and from there to the location of the sacrifice. The Quran and the traditions say he left to Mecca where he had settled his firstborn Ismail, and from there to Marwah nearby, for the sacrifice. Interestingly, this Marwah which the the HB calls "Moriah" is located in 2Chron3 in Jerusalem and yet when David purchases the site later on from a Jebusite, neither the writer, David, the owner, the angels, nor God or any prophet make a connection between that site, and one of the most significant locations to Judaism, the place where the event of the near sacrifice occured. Instead it is simply labelled the "threshing floor" of the future Temple.

Islam Critiqued needs Mecca for himself; Muslims doing hajj in Petra?

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

The Quran speaks of specific communities and incidents in relation to Mecca and the Kaaba with no evidence as happening anywhere but in Mecca at the time of revelation.

It in addition names places surrounding Mecca and the Kaaba, well known then and still identified today, like Arafat, Mash'ari haram, Juranah about 6hours walk from Mecca, where was located the farthest mosque in relation to the Kaaba, where the prophet used to stop and pray in the mosque that was by the spring and encouraged the Muslims to begin their minor pilgrimage (umrah) from that place until they reached Mecca. There were of course wells and springs where the Meccans went for their water supply. Some of these wells were in the city, dug long into the pre-islamic times, others on the city's outskirts, and others further still. One of these relatively distant water sources for instance is the one in the valley of Khumm, between Mecca and Medina, given the same name by Kilab ibn Murrah who dug it long before the prophet according to the Islamic tradition. Water is still available at the place and is called Ghadir Khumm. It was a frequent passing point for the Muslims and the prophet, who according to the Shia tradition, named Ali as his successor at the spot. Water supply was certainly not plentiful and easily available, so much so that those in charge of the siqaya/providing water to pilgrims were highly regarded. Although scarce, rain fell nevertheless on Mecca, even sometimes to the point that the precincts of the Kaaba would be flooded, it happens still nowadays. This in fact is a known factor to have caused degradation to the edifice of the Kaaba throughout time. The Quraysh would gather this water in reservoirs to make sure their water supply wouldnt run dry for themselves and the yearly pilgrims.
The cave of Hira is another of those places found in the early historical records, described in a manner corresponding to a specific location in Mecca. It is about a 2hours walk on the nour mountain, outside of which one can oversee Mecca, as well as Safa and Marwa.

The word "jabal" describing Safa and Marwa in Arabic applies to any rocky elevation, small or big. The Quran for instance speaks of Ibrahim scattering chopped off pieces of a bird on surrounding jabal 2:260. Abraham wasnt going around climbing up mountains and leaving a piece of bird on each. It is also clear from the description of Hagar's ordeal, running between safa and marwa then standing successively on top of one jabal, then the other. She obviously wasnt going along climbing mountains in the desert heat.
No place in the world was refered to as Mecca, other than present day Mecca. That is not to mention the battles of Badr and Uhud, among many other specific locations where battles occured, where native tribes were met, their names and dialogues recorded, as well as the plethora of traditional records, authentic or else, isolated or known, all speaking of places and people that cannot by the furthest strech of the imagination be placed anywhere else than where they are currently located.

There isnt the slightest hint at a conspiracy the scale of which would have been required to put into place such a massive rewrite of history. Neither is there evidence for a large conspiracy to rename Mecca and all these places, nor is there archaeological support for these places being anywhere but in Mecca.

The Quran for example denounces the Arabs' idol worship and practices like animal sacrifice repeatedly, occuring in places it names in and around Mecca 2:256-7,5:3,90,16:36,22:30. All these practices were banned long before Islam by the Byzantines in the northern area of Arabia Petrae, meaning they couldnt have occured there at the time of the revelation of these condemning verses.

This type of claim runs along the same lines as others who argue that the original qibla faced Petra to the north of Arabia, instead of the Kaaba in Mecca. Early Muslims, and those of Mecca in particular had a fair idea about the orientation of several astronomical phenomenon (sunrise or sunset during equinoxes, solstices, Pole star, Canopus etc) in relation to the Kaaba and used them to orient their mosques towards their respective qibla. They knew that when they stood in front of the edifice, they were facing a particular astronomical direction and reproduced the same alignments in their new location as if they stood directly in front of a particular Kaaba segment. Iraqi mosques aligned towards the winter sunset, ie facing the northeast wall of Kaaba. In Fustat, Egypt it faced the winter sunrise, ie facing the northwest wall of Kaaba. None of those mosques faced Jerusalem or northern Arabia.
 

Why would the entire Muslims community, a cluster of highly unruly and disunited tribes and clans, linked together only by their religion, living since times immemorial in this unnamed mysterious northern place, suddenly accept to be uprooted from its sacred location, where its prided history, cultural, economic attachments are all found, and accept relocating in a barren and isolated area. How could such a move pass unnoticed in the oral tradition. Even if every Muslim alive at the time of the alleged move vowed to keep it secret, how likely is it that the next generation of Muslims would not have leaked multiple versions of the story into the hadith? 

The years following the prophet's death were times of great political and sectarian turmoil. Each group, spread geographically gave religious and legal authority to their figures, rejecting the legitimacy, beliefs, and practices of others. From the partisans of Ali in Kufa, to the Umayyads in Damascus, to the proto-sunnis that claimed to follow the schools of Mecca, Medina and Iraq or the Omani Kharijites. This led to the development of independent and various traditions. And yet the single thing they all agreed upon was the Quran and the Meccan qibla, the prophet's birth in Mecca, his death in Medina and the vast majority of the essentials of the religion. This unified tradition can only be rooted at a time where the community was united under their prophet and uncontested leader. Recent archaeology has revealed inscriptions dated to the first and 2nd centuries after hijra around Medina speaking of a Kaaba and masjid-al haram (al maghtawi). 

There are even earlier open mosques in the Negev area, none of them are oriented towards northern Arabia or Jerusalem and all of them are aligned to Canopus thus facing the northwest wall. Some more recent polemicists, the likes of Gibson, stubbornly insisting on such flimsy claims have deceptively tried using satellite images of mosques to make them appear as if they face the Petra region. The flaw in that method is that, as anyone familiar with mosques knows, it is impossible to ascertain eachone's mihrab (a niche in the interior of the wall of a mosque denoting the direction of prayer for worshippers in the mosque) except if one sees it from inside the building. One could just as easily align them with Hawaii rather than Petra. Even today, and within one and the same country, certain mosques face different cardinal points depending on whether they base their direction to Mecca on a flat map, or on the shortest distance around the globe. Among other flimsier claims are those of Crone and Cook, misquoting Jacob of Edessa so as to make it appear as if the Muslims prayed towards Jerusalem in the early 8th century. The actual quote refutes their distortions and confirms Muslim historical accounts;

"The Jews who live in Egypt, as likewise Mahgraye (the Syriacized form of muhajirun, in reference to the invading Muslim Arab immigrants) there, as I saw with my own eyes and will now set out for you, prayed to the east, and still do, both people - the Jews towards Jerusalem, and the Mahgraye towards the Kʿabah (K‘bt'). And those Jews who are in the south of Jerusalem pray to the north; and those in Babylonia and nhrt' and bwst' pray to the west. And also the Mahgraye who are there pray to the west, towards the Ka‘ba; and those who are to the south of the Ka‘ba pray to the north, towards the place. So from all this it is clear that it is not to the south that the Jews and Mahgraye here in the regions of Syria pray, but towards Jerusalem or Kʿabah, the patriarchial places of their races".

Robert Hoyland further observes that

"Jacob had studied in Alexandria as a youth and so would have been in a position to observe the Muslims there at first hand, which makes his testimony particularly valuable. His information about Syria is also likely to be accurate, for there were Muslims resident in Edessa while he was bishop of that town. What he makes abundantly clear is that the intention of the Muslims was to direct themselves towards a specific site, which they called the Ka'ba. This is presumably to be identified with the "House of God," "the locality in the south where their sanctuary was," which is mentioned by Jacob's contemporary, John bar Penkaye, a resident of north Mesopotamia".

The list of empty claims, sensational conspiracies and revisionism of established history goes on and on. And yet, the language of the Quran itself, its consonantal text is in the old Hijazi. That Arabic dialect is attested in the Hijaz region from about the 1st to the 7th centuryCE. 

Other humorists, have proposed similar massive conspiracies, citing Quran verses describing locations and landscapes apparently nowhere near Mecca's surroundings. It is well known and established that Mecca was a seasonal city where people flocked in during the pilgrimage period only. 28:57 refers to this fact, that it is a safe sanctuary by God's grace, where people flock in and bring in it thamaraat/produce of all kinds. All year long outside this pilgrimage season where people brought in their goods, the caravans of the Arabs and the Quraysh had to travel outside the Peninsula to the north, to Syria and Jordan to do their trade. They passed through all types of landscapes along the way especially in the more lush areas of the north

23:17-20"..then with that rain We caused vineyards and palmgroves to spring up in which you have plentiful of fruit that you eat. As well as the tree that springs from mt Sinai producing oil and relish for the eaters".

They were also familiar with agriculture and rich farming lands, such as those of Ta'if, famous for its grapes, pomegranates, figs etc, and located less than a 100km from them. It is to be noted that since the earliest revelations, the Quran was a message, not only addressed to the Meccans but to

42:7"the mother city and those around it".

Umm al qura/mother city refers to Mecca being a center point of pilgrimage for the cities around it. There was no mother city in anyway shape or form in northern Arabia at the time, and Petra had gone into decline for long before Islam. These Meccan voyagers also passed through several locations where nations were known, prior to Islam, for having been destroyed. One of those locations was that of the people of Lut. The city of Lut is traditionally believed to be located somewhere along the Dead Sea, between Israel and Jordan, is said to be a frequent passing point of those people addressed by the Quran

37:133-8"And Lut was also of the messengers...you pass by their ruins by day and by night".

On their northern trips, the Meccans passed this location "by night and by day". Notice the clear Quranic words, not "daily and nightly". The verse 11:89 as a side note is quoting the prophet Shuayb, the Midianite 11:94,29:36-7 telling his people about the land of Lut not being far away. Midian is to the north of the Hijaz.

Islam Critiqued finds comfort in discredited scholarship; Yehuda Nevo?

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

In the mid-seventies, Crone and Cook, 2 orientalists, stated

“There is no hard evidence for the existence of the Koran in any form before the last decade of the seventh century, ...”

adding that in the 2nd century of hijra the textual state of the Quran

“... may have differed considerably in content from the Koran we now know”.

Both were echoing the views of Wansbrough who believed the Quran was not completed until the 3rd century of hijra at the earliest. It is worthwhile noting John Wansbrough himself stated that

"of genuinely textual variants exhibiting material deviation from the canonical text of revelation, such as are available for Hebrew and Christian scripture, there are none".

His contemporary, John Burton (1977) contended that Muhammad himself had already established the final edition of the consonantal text of the Quran. Nöldeke himself once commented that the Quran

“is the work of Muhammad, and as such is fitted to afford a clue to the spiritual development of that most successful of all prophets and religious personalities".

Wansbrough also espoused a massive conspiracy about Islam being the product of the Mesopotamian clerical elite that wrote Muslim history as they adopted Judeo-Christian beliefs. Such fantasies, purely conjectural by Wansbrough's own admission were nevertheless parrotted by polemicists with even weaker theories.

One such candidate was Yehuda Nevo who could not grasp why Muhammad's name was absent from a monotheistic rock inscriptions in the Negev desert (600km away from where Islam originated!). He did not even conduct research closer to Islam's origins, like Mecca or Medina. Also, the early Muslim generations lacked any interest in architectural works, especially when it came to mosques, making the lack of early Islamic inscriptions that mention Muhammad a red herring. Nevo, and the editor who compiled the work of this amateur archaeologist posthumously, Koren, argue that Muhammad, the early caliphs and the entire list of Muslim conquests were invented myths. Muhammad isnt the name of a specific prophet but of "a praised one", in reference to prophets in general. It was an anti-Christian propaganda that originated in Abd-al malik's era, to counter the notion of God having a son.

 No reasonable explanation is given for the reference of a Saracen prophet in the Doctrina Jacobi dated to the 630s. Most scholars continue to regard the Doctrina Iacobi as the earliest known non Muslim piece of writing to claim that the teachings of an Arabian prophet provided the impetus for the conquests. Near contemporary surviving Syriac manuscripts makes reference to series of incursions by “the Arabs of Muḥammad”  into Palestine and Syria as well as their clashes with Roman forces. These two texts however, one named BL Add. 14461, and a brief historical notice penned by Thomas the Presbyter do not come as close to the description made in the Doctrina Jacobi of conquests inspired by a religious leader.

Robert Hoyland sums up how Non-Muslim writers of the first century AH (622-719CE) saw Islam. They

"attest that it was strictly monotheistic (Sebeos, John bar Penkaye, Anastasius of Sinai) and iconoclastic (anti-Jewish polemicists, Germanus); that its adherents had a sanctuary, their "House of God" (Bar Penkaye), of Abrahamic association (Chronicler of Khuzistan, Jacob of Edessa), called the Ka'ba (Jacob of Edessa), towards which they prayed (Jacob of Edessa) and at which they sacrificed (Anastasius of Sinai) and reverenced a stone (Anastasius of Sinai, Germanus); and also that they followed Muhammad (Thomas the Presbyter, Sebeos, Chronicler of Khuzistan), who was their "guide" and "instructor" (Bar Penkaye), whose "tradition" and "laws" they fiercely upheld (Bar Penkaye) and who prescribed for them abstinence from carrion, wine, falsehood and fornication (Sebeos). It is also noted that the Muslims held Jerusalem in honour (John Moschus, Arculf, Maronite chronicler, Anastasius of Sinai), were hostile to the cross (Sophronius, Isaac of Rakoti, Anastasius of Sinai), denied that Christ was the son of God (Isaac of Rakoti, Hnanisho, Anastasius of Sinai, Jacob of Edessa) and conducted their worship in specific places bearing the name masjid (John Moschus, Anastasius of Sinai). It is thus evident that the early Muslims did adhere to a cult that had definite practices and beliefs and was clearly distinct from other currrently existing faiths.
This is also confirmed by archaeology for the period beginning AH 72/691, when inscriptions proclaiming allegiance to Muhammad and his religion are found in abundance on buildings, milestones, rocks, coins, papyri, textiles and so on".

Continuing with Nevo's conclusions, Muslim lands on the other hand, were supposedly ceded peacefully and without any valid reason to their Arab vassals who werent even Muslim but pagans at the time. Arabian paganism to him by the way, was inexistant in the Hijaz and instead was extent in the Negev region. Of course, this is the only area in which he carried his archaelogoical flimsy research. The site in question, Sede Boqer, is instead seen by other scholars as nothing more than an agricultural settlement.

And then, as is expected, Nevo offers no explanation as to why would the Byzantines even want to happily rid themselves of vast slices of territories to those Hijazi pagans who adopted the paganism of another region. According to this massive conspiracy that went on completely undetected, the Byzantines themselves encouraged the rise of local heresies, like the Monophisytes, to sow hatred of the emperor among the population.

This policy was supposedly carried on for centuries under a complete governement cover up. in Gabriel S Reynolds's words

"Certainly many scholars will see Crossroads to Islam as a work of arrogance and folly".

Islamicists have considered the reality of the conquests based not on whether or not contemporenous proofs exist. Evidence rather lies in their aftermath, and meaning, which both Nevo and Koren deliberatly brush aside or werent aware of. Nothing other than Islam can explain the zeal and energy by which previously scattered and disunited Arab tribes have gathered together and occupied a vast chunk of the Byzantine Empire.

Along those lines of examples there is a mid 7th century apocalyptic history in Iraq speaks of the conquests of Egypt and southern Iraq. Even seen through the lens of the critical and skeptical school of Islamicists, Nevo's amateurish work betrays a political agenda.

Chase Robinson; "The problem of how Palestine became Muslim, if the conquest did not take place, is neatly solved by the claim that the Byzantines willingly withdrew, handling it to the not yet Muslim Arabs (The claim is preposterous, and no positive adduced)".

Due to his extreme and complete rejection of anything Muslim sources have preserved and reconstructed of Islam's origins, his work has been labelled by some who have taken the time to read it, as one of the most iconoclastic study of Islam. For example one of the major flaw in his methodology lies in that this leads him to exclude

"any later accounts that might be based on valuable but lost contemporary or near contemporary sources. Yet the bulk of Byzantine and Arabic historical writing on the conquests is made up of precisely such accounts, dating mostly from the ninth century and (scholars believe) based partly on lost Syriac and Greek Christian sources, some perhaps ultimately oral. The later writers include Nicephorus (eighth century) and Theophanes on the Byzantine side, and al-Baladhuri, al-Tabari, al-Yaqubi, and al-Kafi among others on the Arabic side".

When a non-Muslim source very close to the events, such as Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem speaks of the conquest, it is dismissed based on the circular argument that anything agreeing with the traditional account is unreliable. Nevo and Koren reject, repeatedly, all such sources. Deliberatly and without evidence. They do not interrogate their sources. Others from the skeptical school have equally stated, that even though radical revisionism might sometimes have benefits in that it allows one to sharpen the evidence in favor of a theory, such as with Holocaust denial, in this case with Nevo's work

"surely this book fails to cross it. Crossroads to Islam is so unsound — so uninformed in its welter of detail, so specious in the contrivance of its arguments, and so tendentious in its barely hidden agenda — that it’s hard to imagine anyone taking it seriously enough to reassess anything, except possibly his or her decision to pick it up in the first place" (Colin Wells).

This and other similar theories developped in complete isolation from the abunding early manuscript evidence (and much more awaiting publication), inscriptions on buildings, coins (Some early Islamic coins have been dated to 35AH/655CE), rocks, such as the recently discovered inscriptions dated to 78AH and containing the full shahada with Muhammad's name, papyri etc. all distibuted geographically from Cyprus down to Sanaa.

The sum of these scattered Quranic texts, along with the damaged and partially preserved manuscripts dating back to the 1st century hijri surpasses 90% of the current Quranic text. This wide geographical distribution of the Quranic text shows that the Quran was already codified and became a public property even a little before Uthman's standardization.

The Paris manuscript is dated from between 30-50 years after the prophet's death, meaning by people who lived with and knew him. In addition, according to Francois Deroche the manuscript seems to be based on another copy. We see again, the same pattern of empirical evidence confirming the traditional Muslim account on the compilation of the Quran. We see again, the same pattern of empirical evidence confirming the traditional Muslim account on the compilation of the Quran. Whichever way one looks at it, there is no reason to assume the Quranic text is any different of what Muhammad himself uttered. That is why, as a side note, one sees more and more the Judeo-Christian critics abandoning the idea of late compilation by unknown authors, admitting to the authenticity of the text, while maintaining that authenticity does not equal to what they deem as "truth".

Dismissing Wansbrough's theory for a late compilation of the Quran, as others did, Noseda in his research reached the figure of 80% by using 1st century manuscripts known to him.

The fact is that None of the revisionist theories are actually based on studies of the available manuscripts. As more and more manuscripts are coming out and being analyzed, the best explanation for their existence is none other than the Muslim traditional narrative. This is an accepted reality among the actual Islamicists who have analyzed the available, physical data. Nobody would make up a story the way Muslims did. Who would invent the story that their most venerated book, the pillar of their belief was not even written down and compiled by the hand of their prophet?

Instead we have the faithfully transmitted reports showing how the process was gradual and put into place by others than the prophet. Another thing to keep in mind is that western scholars, particularily the Christian critics approaching Islamic history, do so with a flawed methodology. Islamc did not rise in a lettered environement.

Whereas one must expect finding an abundance of Greco-Roman historical records attesting to the minutest details, let alone the spectacular events described in the NT, and yet we find none, not even of Jesus himself, one can certainly not apply the same standards to Islam. That is why most early physical references to Islam are not from Muslims but by the established lettered societies of the Christian empire, as Islam entered their lands with the first conquests. The more the Muslim society transitionned from an oral to written tradition, the more its history was put to writing. 

Further, as any historian knows, ancient physical sources deteriorated quickly. Subsequent scholars and historians had to constantly rewrite the material either based on actual sources or hearsay. Sources about Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great, seen as undisputable historical characters come centuries later. Diodorus Siculus wrote first about Alexander 265 years after the events, but we dont have the original. We have a rewritten copy from 1500 years later yet all historians accept it as a source for Alexander. What we have from Plato comes 1300 years after his death, for Caesar it is 900 years. Muhammad's earliest sira comes 200 years later by ibn Hisham who copied from ibn Ishaq. This genre is very specific about locations and events which can be corroborated archeologicaly today. Nothing can account for the available evidences other than the events described in the sira.