Islam critiqued denounces Jesus' genocidal instructions

In answer to the video "Answering Muslims: 1 Samuel 15"

In the HB and as corroborated by Jesus in the NT when he said to abide by it to the minute details, several types of wars are promulgated. Jesus by the way, is the one to have promulgated these laws in the first place, prior to his incarnation. 

So among these laws the pre-turn the other cheek Jesus instructed upon his subjects, is the compulsory command/mitzva among the 613 revealed at Sinai, binding on Jews of all times to destroy Amalek's seed Deut25:19 without showing any pity whenever the opportunity is there, and exterminate the remaining Canaanite nations from the land of Israel whenever any of them or their descendants are identified Deut20:16. 

This is a timeless ordinance, as already said, part of the 613 binding commandements, and is thus an explicit order to genetically exterminate a certain people. Every command within the Torah is understood as eternally binding and those that are inapplicable today due to the absence of a Temple will be reinstated in the utopian messianic era, where every nation will be forcefully subdued to the Jewish God Mal3:4,Deut30,Ezek11,36,37,Isa56:6-8,Zech14:16,Jere33:15-18,Ezek43:18-46:24. 

The eternally binding command to blot out Amalek's seed and other Canaanites, if one fails acting upon this law anytime a descendant of such tribes is genetically identified, then one becomes subject to divine anger as what happened to king Saul 1Sam28:18,1Chr10. Saul suffered a violent and dishonourable death. His household was decimated at the hands of the Philistines who also dispossessed his community. 

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

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

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

In addition, should it be necessary to completely subdue that nation

2Kings3:19"you shall fell every good tree, and you shall stop up all springs of water, and you shall clutter every good field with stones".

In the land of Canaan, those natives that werent driven out or exterminated as per the Torah's injunctions during the invasion, were subdued into slavery Josh17:13. Their descendants suffered the same fate under Solomon's rule 1Kings9:20-1. After all and as stated in both the HB and the Talmudic writings (Eleazar ben Shammua), the purpose of creation and the reason why the heavens and earth are maintained is for the chosen race to observe Torah. 

All these citations werent made to disparage the Bible, rather at pointing what would have been the outcome had the Quran been the product of human base desires, whims, greed and lust. 

The fact is the Ishmaelites went through almost identical situations as the Israelites in their confrontations with opposing tribes and nations, and yet we do not find anything remotely similar in terms of abuse and excess as is seen throughout the Hebrew writings, and by the hands of true prophets of God.

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

dontconvert2islam tries talking hadith, stoning verse?

In answer to the video "Proof the Qur’an is incomplete"

This youtuber is trying to draw hasty conclusions again, this time with the famous stoning verse issue, famous that is among those with very superficial knowledge about Islam and the history of the Quran's compilation. 

This verse, Umar doesnt argue it was part, or should have been part of the Quran. He simply laments that people might forget or neglect the command, precisely because of it not being in the Quran. The mere statement that "I read it" does not indicate he read it as part of the Quran left by the prophet. Some prophetic rulings and prayers were meant to be of temporary application, but they were never meant to be in the Quran, neither temporarily nor in the complete and final version left by the prophet. But anyone could have written those rulings down, just as people recorded non-Quranic utterances of the prophet in his own lifetime. 

The fact that Umar remembered the "stoning verse", as well as other companions the likes of Ubay and Zaid bin Thabit, means that it was never lost. It was memorized and preserved, regardless of whether the written copies of it were all destroyed somehow, including the discarded report stating one written copy in Aisha's house was "eaten by a sheep". Umar and other companions could have simply re-introduced it in their own manuscript at least, had it been meant to be in the Quran. But this never occured, because nobody thought the prophet recited it as part of the Quran. Al Ghamari has rightly observed that what some call the ayat al rajm is not a verse at all, but at most a hadith. When the prophet uttered it, Umar recalls 

"I went to the Prophet and I said: Let me write it.” Shu’bah said: It was as if the Prophet disliked that".

 In another narration, the Prophet said in response 

"I cannot have it written". 

This desire of Umar to have it written, does not imply "as part of the Quran". Umar wanted it recorded so it can never be forgotten, which the prophet disliked. The only reason is that it could get confused as a Quran verse. And this is exactly what later occured with the proponents of abrogation. Some believed that certain statements were temporary Quran verses, that got abrogated once they saw and heard the final and completed Quran left by the prophet. This notion however isnt established by any prophetic saying. Nowhere does the prophet support the theory of abrogation of a Quran verse by another, nor does he hint to it. Other misunderstandings might be due to words of prayers which the prophet recited and that were thought to be Quran verses, until they saw that the prophet did not instruct them to be part of the final version. Even today, in the daily prayers and many other rituals, Muslims recite words that arent from the Quran. 

Again, none ever argued that these verses were missing from the Quran which the prophet left, just that they were abrogated. In addition, the prophet did sometimes speak revelation, which he paraphrased and that were never meant to be in the Quran, known later as hadith qudsi. Some early believers might have included them in their personal recitations, just as others would include personal notes in relation to certain passages, and even words of prayers and supplications. 

A typical such example is that of Ubayy' ibn Kaab's supposed 2 missing chapters, al-Hafd and al-Khalaa, which were in fact supplications the prophet used to recite and never ordered them written as part of the Quran, neither did Ubayy claim anything of the sort. That later people believed them to be so is no proof of anything. Ubayy was part of the standardization comitee under Uthman. Uthman himself is reported to have recited these supposed "lost surahs" as a supplication in his prayers (Musannaf ibn Abi Shayba, n°7032). 

The prophet allowed, under his watch, for the companions to freely paraphrase, add or substract to certain Quran passages during their supplications. The prophet himself did so, sometimes merging different suras together for supplication 

"When Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) went to his mattress each night, he joined the palms of his hands, then breathed into them and recited into them: “Say: ‘He is Allah, One [qul Huwa'llahu Ahad]!' (Al-Qur'an;112:1), and: “Say: ‘I take refuge with the Lord of the Daybreak [qul a'udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq]!' (Al-Qur'an;113:1), and: “Say: ‘I take refuge with the Lord of humankind [qul a'udhu bi-Rabbi’n-nas]!' (Al-Qur'an;114:1)". 

Neither the prophet nor the companions said that these recitals were to be passed on as Quran readings. Here is another example with sura ikhlas 

"Mihjan bin Al-Adra' narrated to him that the Messenger of Allah entered the masjid and there was a man who had finished his prayer and he was reciting the tashahhud. He said: "Allahumma inni as'aluka ya Allah! Bi-annakal-Wahidul-Ahad us-Samad, alladhi lam yalid wa lam yowled, wa lam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad, an taghfirali dhunubi, innaka antal-Ghafurur-Rahim".

The prophet forbade his contemporaries from recording from him anything other than the Quran, precisely to limit or stop this phenomenon 

"Do not write down anything of me...whoever writes other thn the Quran should delete it".

 This shows that the prophet was reacting to an already existing trend among certain believers. But the consensus of the community, given the mass transmission of the Quran, always prevailed over these marginal opinions. Another such issue is that of the verse on the 10 sucklings, later reduced to 5 sucklings and finally abrogated shortly before the prophet's death. The abrogation and death of the prophet happened so close to oneanother that some people still were unaware of the final version of the Quran, and were still reciting the abrogated verse. One cannot but wonder how close to his death did this occur considering that the same hadith books say that Gabriel reviewed the entire recitation of the Quran with the prophet twice the year he passed away, without any reported change between the recitations. This contradicts the notion that a Quran containing the abrogated verse was in circulation until very close to his death to the point that some were still reciting the abrogated verse after his death. The simple explanation for such a report would be that, again some people among the vast cluster of tribes spread throughout the peninsula that adopted Islam by the time of the prophet's death, may have confused a ruling never meant to be part of the Quran, neither temporarily nor in the final version, before they were corrected. These individual errors and confusions have nothing to do with the issue of Quran authenticity. The hadith itself says they were corrected in their recital, meaning the true and final Quran left by the prophet was present among the people 

"Then, when Allah’s Messenger died these words were among what was recited in the Qur’an" 

Another important thing to note is that the compilers of the Quran after the prophet's death, included even verses they deemed abrogated based on the fact that they were part of the final recital they heard from the prophet 

"Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair: I said to `Uthman bin `Affan (while he was collecting the Qur'an) regarding the Verse:-- "Those of you who die and leave wives ..." (2.240) "This Verse was abrogated by an other Verse. So why should you write it? (Or leave it in the Qur'an)?" `Uthman said. "O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place". 

Abrogation was thus not a criteria for the compilers, rather the last prophetic recital was. Had the prophet recited what is stated about the 5 sucklings, it would have been integrated in its precisely defined place.

We do not have competing texts that sprung up after the prophet, as was the case with the Judeo-christian scriptures until very late in their finalization process. What is also important to note is that Aisha in that hadith doesnt quote the prophet. She might have been quoting someone else or reporting what some people thought.

Islam critiqued reveals real shahada

In answer to the video "What is your favorite Shahada???"

The Quran and the traditions put great emphasis on the eminence of the prophets as epitomizing spiritual uprightness, all the while making sure that no ambiguity exists as to their servitude to the One God worthy of worship. 

Nothing encapsulates that notion more than the shahada which places God as the only entity worthy of worship, side by side with Muhammad who is nothing but His messenger. 

The Quran requires from the prophet in turn, to declare belief in God and the past prophets equally 2:285. The Shahada is a testimony in which the fundamental principles that concentrate all tenets of the Book are mentioned. It isnt meant at listing all the tenets of Islam, but at mentioning the aspects that encapsulate them most. This is very similar to the Biblical notion of the "10 sayings", erroneously rendered 10 "commandments" in Christian Bibles. These 10 sayings encapsulate the entire 613 mosaic commandments revealed at Sinai for the Jewish people. In the case of the shahada, the fundamental tenets mentioned are; belief in only one entity worthy of worship, Allah, and obedience to His messenger Muhammad. The first part stresses uncompromising monotheism. That part is stated in the negative rather than the positive. This is because the true challenge is not to believe in a single creator but to cleanse oneself of partnering with Him, whether it is another deity, worldly authority, or personal desire. The second part of the shahada stresses belief in all that was brought by that divinely appointed human being, as well as adherence to the community established through him. If these 2 components are understood and accepted, one has uttered the complete testimony to Islam. 

Of course a hypocrite or liar can testify outwardly without inner conviction 49:14-17,63:1. Their disregard and lowly opinion for that which they claim belief in, does not however diminish anything of its truth and value so long as God is testifying to the truth. Even if the most noble witnesses attest to the truth of those principles, God remains the supreme and most valuable witness, because He is the highest standard of Truth 

4:166"But Allah bears witness by what He has revealed to you that He has revealed it with His knowledge, and the angels bear witness (also); and Allah is sufficient as a witness".

The Quran hardly has a page which does not address the central religious issue of striving in God's way through trials of ease and hardship, where one will have to assert his will freely and choose to act within the limits of Allah. This hard struggle will go on, uninterrupted until the day where all will return to Him 84:6 and the road to the highest places is sometimes compared to an uphill climb 90:4-18, or as Jesus says to a tight path leading to a narrow door Matt7:13-14. This verse 90:4 does not speak of evil or of a wicked human nature, it is referring to the difficulties that will come in man's life as an inevitable consequence of him being a volitional creature, as stated in the following verses 

90:8-10"Have We not given him two eyes, And a tongue and two lips, And pointed out to him the two conspicuous ways?"

 Elsewhere the Quran eloquently uses the image of life being a vast ocean upon which man is constantly trying to remain afloat, and the manner to do so is given as spiritual strengthening through righteous deeds 

73:1-10,29:2-3"Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, We believe, and not be tried? And certainly We tried those before them, so Allah will certainly know those who are true and He will certainly know the liars".   

This purification process is necessary for a soul's success in the Hereafter 87:14. The success will only be possible when one, out of conviction stands before God in an attitude called ihsan 

4:125"And who has a better religion than he who submits himself entirely(in ihsan) to Allah? And he is the doer of good (to others) and follows the faith of Ibrahim, the upright one". 

This is the purest definition of Islam -willful servitude to God- and no other way is acceptable to Him. Mere declaration isnt enough, one must be able to withstand the requirements of that obedience despite the moments of hardship and ampleness, until his last breath 3:102. The key to that successful end is to have the quality of sabr/steadfastness and constancy, epitomised by the greatest prophets and the manner in which they endured the trials of life while maintaining spiritual uprightness in words, intentions and deeds not once, but throughout their lives, striving to maintain it as a prominent spiritual trait 16:127,13:28. 

The importance of being entirely submitted to God is emphasized in past scriptures too 2Chron30:8,Job22:21. After the prophet Muhammad, submission to God entailed accepting His revelations and laws which have reached their ultimate form with the Quran. Of course some may hypocritically submit without sincere belief and the Quran repeatedly speaks of, and exposes this behaviour 

49:14"The dwellers of the desert say: We believe. Say: You do not believe but say, We submit; and faith has not yet entered into your hearts..". 

The prophet said 

"Faith/iman consists of more than sixty branches (i.e. parts). And Haya (This term "Haya" covers a large number of concepts which are to be taken together; amongst them are self respect, modesty, bashfulness, and scruple, etc.) is a part of faith." 

The early Muslims in particular who were threatened by the phenomenon of religious hypocrisy, distinguished between one that enters Islam and one that implements it with sincerity 

"I asked, "O Allah's Messenger! Why have you left that person? By Allah I regard him as a faithful believer." The Prophet commented: "Or merely a Muslim."

Iman literally means "to feel secure". It entails complete trust, in a religious context, to God besides Whom there is no protector. The word is most appropriate considering the objective of the religion, which is to build a relationship between the individual and his Creator. Through pondering on the signs surrounding the individual, external and internal, as well as the divine revelation, one progressively increases in iman 4:136,47:17,48:4 until a level of submission is reached that entails a detailed and entire dedication of one's life to that new system

 43:69,2:208"O you who believe/alatheena amanu, enter into submission one and all". 

Iman and that ultimate level of submission therefore express themselves through one's deeds 

49:15,2:25"And give glad tidings unto those who believe and do good works; that theirs are Gardens underneath which rivers flow" 14:31"Say to My servants who believe/alatheena amanu that they should keep up prayer and spend out of what We have given them secretly and openly before the coming of the day in which there shall be no bartering nor mutual befriending".

 Allah also describes the high status of Muhammad and his companions, and then ends 48:29 with 

"Allah has promised those among them who believe and do good, forgiveness and a great reward". 

The phrase "among them" is highly significant and shows that even among these high ranked people, the honour and respect with Allah depends on real, concrete deeds, and most of all steadfastness and constancy on the straight path

 16:110"Definitely, your Lord unto those who have migrated after being persecuted, then they struggled and patiently persevered; verily your Lord, after that, is forgiving Merciful" 

3:136"As for these, their reward is forgiveness from their Lord and Gardens beneath which rivers flow; therein they will abide forever. How blissful will the reward of (such) workers/aamilin be!". 

The basic principle that the spiritual felicity does not depend on name or nomenclature, that no one can get honour with Allah except by true faith in, and total servitude to Him throughout one's life is reiterated many times 

20:112,33:29,2:112"whoever submits his self entirely to Allah and he is the doer of good, he has his reward with his Lord".

The submission to Allah is therefore the merging of the correct belief, with the correct deeds 

29:7,35:10"To Him do ascend the good words; and the good deeds, lift them up". 

The shahada itself is not found mentioned in a single Quranic verse. But the repeated axiom throughout the Book of what constitutes correct faith is belief in Allah and unconditional obedience to His messenger. Although one is free to add any other tenet within the testimony, like the prophethood of a specific individual such as Jesus or Noah, or belief in the previous books, or the entities of the unseen such as the angels, the testimony of faith would remain incomplete if belief in Muhammad's prophethood isnt expressed. It would still leave many principles of the Book as unattested for. As well it would give the ambiguity that one has not fully adhered to the community established by Muhammad, or that Muhammad is a true prophet. On the other hand to testify to Muhammad's divine appointment, automatically entails belief in all that is propounded in the message he brought, which includes every single principle and tennet of the Book, indiscriminate honoring of all of God's prophets of whom Muhammad is part of, as well as adherence to the Islamic community. That is why one may only add specific testimonies of faith once the 2 main components have been uttered and accepted. Some may choose adding an aspect in relation to a previous belief system, such as Jesus being nothing but a prophet of God so as to stress one's dissociation from trinitarian Christianity, as is typically done by a former Christian.

In every day speak Muslims very often utter one or another aspect of the shahada in an isolated manner. A Muslim will often express that God is the only deity worthy of worship in a discussion, or that Muhammad is the messenger of God. It is even seen in all types of arts and engravings, past and present. This does not mean that a partial or incomplete shahada is being expressed. Nothing in any of those art works hint at or claim to be declarations of faith. 

Jesus taught his followers the testimony of faith similar to the Muslim shahada

Jn17:3"And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent".

Once again, 2 basic components for a clear testimony of faith, uncompromising monotheism on one side and adherence to a community established by a divinely appointed human being, distinct from the One God who sent him. That community must accept Jesus' leadership only, reorienting their past emotional and spiritual affiliations for new norms they are expected to live by

Lk14:26"If any man comes to me and does not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers and sisters, and yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple".

The Quran, when referring to the most honourable experiences of the prophet still calls him a slave, such as in the context of his chosenness, possessor of a miracle and taken on the israa and miraj 2:23,17:1,18:1. Therefore the Quran continuously stresses the prophet Muhammad being a slave of Allah like any Muslims 7:194, not possessing the keys of the unseen except what Allah granted him 7:188 and him being nothing but a warner and giver of glad tidings.

The issue of aqeedah/aqida is one that developed between the 8th-10th century by the likes of ibn Hanbal, abu Hasan al Ashari, al Shafi'i, al Maturidi or al Ghazali. These are the schools that have survived within sunni Islam. However, historically there have existed many more schools than these. Even today, there are minority schools within Sunni Islam, as well as major schools of thought outside of Sunni Islam. The scholars who formulated their aqeedah, felt the need to answer questions raised by new adherents to Islam with different cultural backgrounds and by non-Muslim critics, as the empire spread far beyond Arabia. A aqida or creed, takes the well established aspects of belief/iman, as stated in the Quran 2:177,4:136 such as God's oneness, resurrection, angels, books and prophets, and expounds upon each aspect in details. Sunnis have included qadar/predestination as a sixth point in light of the hadith of Gabriel 

"Inform me about Iman (faith)." He (the Prophet) answered, "It is that you believe in Allah and His angels and His Books and His Messengers and in the Last Day, and in fate (qadar), both in its good and in its evil aspects". 

Having the correct aqeedah consists for a large part of practicing Tawhid. Tawhid means Allah is One in His Lordship and no one has the power over the creation but Him. He is One in the right to be worshipped. He has Names and Attributes unique to Him. The prophet and the companions did not have to establish detailed creeds as they did not have to contend with the questions and doubts raised after their time. Not a single scholar or adherent to a particular creed negates those points, from Sunni to Shia. So, although the aqeedah of the prophet and the companion was very concise, the later scholars of Islam developed extremely detailed formulation of it. A Aqeedah became more like a lengthy argumentation in light of a particular scholar's philosophical, intellectual, vocabulary tools at hand. The vast majority of the points discussed in a aqeeda do not explicitly go back to the prophet or the companions, but are the result of a particular scholar's deductions, hence the divergences in aqeedas. One therefore doesnt need to agree on every single point of a scholar's articulation of the pillars of belief, if one is able to show that the point one disagrees with doesnt necessarily follow the premise, just as scholars disagreed among themselves on those details. The fact is throughout the centuries there were nuances on the fine points of aqeeda among scholars of the same school. The detailed articulations of the pillars of belief did not lead any Muslim group to deviate from worshiping one entity, to several, as happened to Christianity. Christians went as far in the development of their creeds that they had to invent new vocabulary, including the notion of "persons" to mask the reality of the tri-theism they fell into. The divergences between schools pertain, among other things to whether the descriptions of certain of God's attributes likes eyes and hands, should they be understood literally, metaphorically or one of the two depending on context and language? Does qadar cause human deeds directly by affecting human will, indirectly by causing freewill to exist or sometimes one or the other depending on context? As to the hadith on the 72 sects, the part stating that only 1 will be admitted to heaven is highly controversial in its isnad and even contradicts the plain meaning of many Quranic passages about the resurrection and judgement, where each individual will be raised alone to account for his own beliefs and actions.

Aqeeda differences are nothing like the differences in creeds within the Christian Church tradition for instance, where differences affect the nature of God, the hierarchy of the godhead, human nature, or the hereafter. For example does the holy spirit issue from the father or from both the father and son (who was "begotten" by the father)? What is the relation of humans with divine grace, do Christians become partakers or not of the divine nature? Will the dead go through a purgatory in the afterlife? Is sin a hereditary condition making all humans totally depraved, and that initiated with Adam or did his descendants inherit the state of mortality?

Acts17apologetics go back to basic maths; Echad for more than one?

In answer to the video "Mohammed Hijab Goes to Hebrew School"

God in the HB is Echad/one Exod9:7,Eccl4:8. Each of the things listed are not a compound unity. And if "one" in Hebrew can also be more than one why not a trillion? Both masculine and feminine forms of echad are found in the HB almost a thousand times and Christian translators always seem to understand that echad means ONE every single place except when they choose to say that it isn't. Echad/one, as in every language can be used figuratively for a compound unity as in one nation or one family, see also Gen1:5,2:24,Numb13:23. But most often literally means an “absolute one” and not compound at all. It is the direct context that decides whether the word is used figuratively or literally. When God told Abraham to take his son to "one/echad of the mountains" did He mean to divide his son upon a compound of mountains? When Hagar put her boy under "one/echad of the shrubs" did she cut him up under multiple plants? All analogies trinitarians try making eventually fall apart. None of them even adress the logical problem of the trinity, which is not whether one entity can be composed of multiple entities, but whether the so called components are the entity itself. Is a car engine "the car"? is hydrogen, one component of water, water itself? Is an individual within a nation, the nation itself?

It is the height of absurdity to suggest that a passage refuting idolatry and multiple deities, would tell the people that "your Lord is a unity of divine beings". 

When husband and wife are "one" for instance, the multiplicity of subjects is made clear in the sentence. Further, the analogy doesnt adress the problem of the trinity. Adam and Eve are still 2 distinct humans even after becoming one in marriage. The trinity, according to its proponents, is not composed of 3 distinct gods; this would be tritheism instead. Again, the language here is figurative, while the trinity, a multiplicity of divine beings making one God is literal. Nothing presupposes in the Schema, and its direct context, that the intent is figurative or that a compound unity is meant

Deut6:4 "Listen, O Israel – the Lord your God, the Lord is ONE”. 

Echad here is an adjective, and it describes the proper noun "the Lord", which is in the singular. This rules out the possibility of a "compound unity" in this highly relevant passage in terms of what the HB teaches on monotheism. Echad in this case assumes its primary literal meaning of "absolute one". Similar usages are found in 2Sam13:30,17:12. The Schema contains 2 core messages that are prevalent throughout the Jewish writing; nationalism and monotheism. YHWH is the God of Israel (our God), and this same YHWH is echad/one. It is one of the most blatant examples of what Biblical scholars have termed Jewish monolatry, the belief in one ethno-centred tribal deity, without excluding the existence of deities to other nations. The infamous missionary corruption of a commentary from the Zohar, where the writer supposedly wonders at the threefold repetition of God's name in the Schema is a known 20th century forgery, absent from this Jewish book. In fact there is a quote from the Zohar saying 

"You are One but not in a countable sense" (Zohar petichat eliyahu). 

As to Yachid, it literally means "only". See Gen22 for example. To repeat, in Hebrew the word for one is echad (masculine) and ahat (feminine). Try telling a school kid to start counting with "yachid"...

The concept of a divine fatherly figure typically is a Hebrew one, with God calling the nation of Israel His firstborn and referred to in the book of Jeremiah as their father. Jews are very much attached to that concept and dispute Christian appropriation of that title through their mistranslations of the Hebrew texts. 

The Hebrew understanding of the notion of God as a fatherly figure has nothing to do with the Christian one. 

In their monolatrous concept of God, Jews are the preferred sons above all nations charged with being the torch bearers of the truth, and their father is in charge of educating them throughout that process, sometimes in the harshest of ways. This is a notion which the Quran refutes. 

The Quran rebukes the people of the book for their misappropriation of the phrase "son of God" metaphorically on themselves 5:18. Here the verse is not making a sweeping condemnation of the usage of that terminology, rather its abuse. They were making that claim in the context of moral accountability. Being the sons of God implied them being His "beloved", honored among the nations, His favoured. Forgiveness was thus their due and will always eventually be restored to their station of nearness to God despite their sins. If that is the case then the Quran reminds the Jews more particularily, of the destructions that befell them throughout their recorded history.

Each of those, as related in their own books were the result of divine disapproval. None is immune in this life to hardships, whether the most righteous or the sinners. These difficulties are either meant to strengthen one's spiritual resolve, make him mend his ways, or utterly destroy him, not leaving him any chance to even repent 

3:140-1"and We bring these days to men by turns, and that Allah may know those who believe and take witnesses from among you; and Allah loves not the unjust. And that Allah may purge those who believe and eradicate the unbelievers". 

The violent hardships that befell those very ones claiming to be God's favored among the nations, were neither meant at improving their non-existent spirituality, nor to make them mend their ways and forgive them. God, their "father" meant to eradicate the sinners off the face of the earth. They knew this reality and could not offer an answer in defence of their claim of being God's "beloved". Their history of punishments, down to our recent times, is no example of a father-son relationship where the child is being lovingly raised and corrected. Further, because the verse does not forbid the notion of sonship to God, it does however make sure that anyone using it does not think of himself in any way intrinsically superior to other human beings 

5:18"you are mortals of His creating". 

Nowhere here or elsewhere does the Quran accuse individual Jews of claiming divinity, rather it seeks to blot out that notion even on a subconscious level.

In 19:34 following the story of Jesus' nativity and infancy, the Quran addresses 2 issues. First in a statement from God rejecting any notion of sonship to Him 19:35 and then in a quote from Jesus stressing the basic monotheistic principle that 

19:36"indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him; this is a straight path". 

In light of Jesus' clear statement, which happens to be quoted almost verbatim in the NT although in a different context Jn20:17, the Quran then continues by condemning as disbelievers those that contended, and still do, with these 2 principles 19:37. Jesus during his time among his people did not forbid the expression "son of God" since it did not carry ambiguous connotation to the Jews, as regards the relationship between the person whom the expression was applied to, and God. A "son of God" was neither an extension of God, nor shared in the divine essence. It is thus God who took it upon himself to reject the notion once it became perverted and loaded with polytheistic significance after Jesus. As a prophet however, Jesus, like his predecessors, always stressed the basic monotheistic tenets to his addressees, and hence the verse 19:36 rightly quotes him doing so. The whole passage from 19:30-7 in defence of Jesus aims at condemning people for different reasons and at different times during his life and prophetic mission. Where the Jews in Jesus' time transgressed in their use of that metaphorical appellation, was in the implicit notion of intrinsic honor due to them, the "children of God". Jesus in the NT condemns this Jewish self-conceit in no uncertain terms, whether it pertained to their abuse of the notion of sonship to God Jn3:10,8:42-44 as the Quran does in 5:18 quoted earlier, or whether that conceit was due to their Abrahamic ancestry Matt3:9,Lk3:8. When Jesus himself, the prophet in their midst could not in anyway be compared in greatness to the One that sent him Jn13:16 then why would they, the sinful ones boast of them being God's sons? This was no false humility from Jesus and when he asked to be honored as the father is Jn5:22-23, he meant in terms of recognition 

"Whoever does not honour the Son does no honour the Father who sent him". 

This is very similar to the Quranic statement that rejecting the messenger (dishonoring him) is the same as rejecting the One that sent him. Jesus in fact desired for his followers the same honor and glory that were due to him Jn17:21-22. It is remarkable to note how the Quran who, had it been the product of its historical milieu, should have followed the example of its predecessors in claiming the honorific sonship title to the Muslims. Instead it emphatically states that no one has any unconditional right or privilege against Allah. The only ones honored and privileged by Allah are those of correct faith and righteous deeds, regardless of their claim of belonging to a religious group or specific ancestry. And the highest distinction God may confer among His creatures, is that of obedient slaves. Such distinction does not cause an increase in relation to God, rather in relation to the rest of creation. Further, contrary to the "son of God" terminology, it does not carry the misleading notion of special privilege with God, nor of particularity in terms of essence and lineage.

The concept of a divine fatherly figure is different in Christianity. To Christians, God is the father firstly in relation to the son/Jesus whom he has "begotten not made" and of whom he is the head in the trinity. The Jewish and Christians concepts have nothing to do with oneanother and Jews loath that misappropriation of the term by trinitarian Christians. Even the extension of God as a paternal figure to regular Christians has nothing to do with the notion as described in relation to the Jewish nation.

This father-son connection is only used in Hebrew scriptures for the Jews themselves and all other instances where "sons of elohim" is translated "sons of God" in Christian Bibles is considered erroneous, not only from a Jewish theological perspective, but also from a contextual one.

Jesus nowhere made any claim to be God, neither does the bible say anywhere to confess Jesus is God. He isnt called YHWH anywhere and neither did Abraham or Isaac worship a trinity, a god called Jesus or holy spirit. Nobody ever misunderstood God's unique, indivisible essence, nor misapplied divinity to terms such as messiah or "son of God". 

Ambiguities arose when the Graeco-Roman world merged with the Abrahamic, Semitic religion of the HB. Gentile Greeks and Romans, the main targets for conversion by post-Jesus missionary activity, found a fertile ground for continuity of their ancient religions in those various terminologies and events describing the functioning of the God of the HB. Those passages however never hinted at a possible multiplicity of godhead in Semitic thought. 

There is a well established pattern of God, repeatedly identifying Himself whether in the Hebrew scriptures or the Quran with phrases such as "I am the Lord". The literal terminologies "tawhid" or "Jewish monotheism" arent found in the Quran or the HB, but just as tawhid/divine transcendance is a concept stamped on every page of the Quran, Jewish monotheism is unambiguous. The God of the HB makes clear that worship is His prerogative only, and no entity besides Him is seen making the same claim. So much so that the HB uses sometimes crude imageries to refer to Israel's spiritual "adultery" whenever it worshiped something else than its "jealous" God. It is then legitimate for those opposing the Trinitarian doctrine to demand from Trinitarians an explicit, unambiguous statement from Jesus, or any of the other members of their godhead like the holy ghost, independently claiming divinity, or asking to be worshiped. No such statements exist, leaving Trinitarians with a doctrine built from assumptions, suppositions and by piecing ambiguous verses together. Its called "proof texting." 

This method violates two of the paramount points of scriptural understanding: 1) Use clear verses to explain the unclear ones, and 2) gather all of the pertinent verses and study them completely before reaching a conclusion on a doctrine. And even if one were to grant Trinitarian apologist's interpretations of these scattered and isolated verses as correct, still these verses together only provide fractional support for the doctrine. The same can be said of other foundational Christian themes like inherited sin and forgiveness through blood atonement exclusively, which are all based on incomplete references. 

None of the verses where God is identified, either by Himself or others, state that a multiplicity of beings is meant, nor whether these separate divine entities are co-equal or subservient to God, nor whether one is to worship each of those entities separately. The vague verses and passages used as a basis for the potential multiplicity of beings can perfectly be understood without references to Trinity or the incarnation, as was always the case in Semitic thought. Again, there are clear and unambiguous verses denying that God can be seen Ex33:20,Jn1:17 that He has a form Isa40:17,25, or that any representation of Him is to be worshiped Deut4:15. 

Although God's unlimited attributes are by essence beyond human comprehension, God's identity however is not. Beyond understanding doesnt entail inherently contradictory. For example to notion of God being eternal is humanly unfathomable, but not inherently contradictory. But a single one and same entity, Jesus, who is at the same time omniscient and ignorant is contradictory. God is thus certainly beyond comprehension but not illogical and absurd as a square circle or a trinity would be. 

It is obvious that the primary reason for revelation is to identify the Entity requiring exclusive worship. Only one and the same being is found identifying itself and by others as God. As there are no cases of a multiplicity of beings identified, by themselves or others as God then it follows that only One and the same being is always meant whenever the Bible speaks of God. This is the logical premise of the Bible. If Trinitarians on the other hand want to identify a separate set of beings as one and the same God, they are then forced to accept the Biblical premise that no 2, 3 or 4 DIFFERENT beings are identified as God in their Bible, only One and the same being everytime. It follows that these separate beings must be identical to one another if they are identified with God. In a nutshell, if D has the value 1 and that A, B, C are all equal to D then it must mean that A, B, C have the value of 1, making them all identical to one another. Trinitarians however need to keep the 3 components of the godhead distinct from one another. To do so, they have no choice but to conjecture outside Biblical patterns to formulate their beliefs. They begin with the unbiblical notion that a separate set of beings can identify as God all the while remaining distinct and different from one another. This however results in the problem of non transferability of attributes within 2 identical entities. If for instance father and son have all the attributes of God but that Father and son have different attributes then it must mean that they each possess attributes God does not have. 

By rejecting the biblical premise above, Trinitarians begin piling up more problems until the greatest of their scholars end up admitting their ignorance of the concept, it being an impenetrable mystery. Some will even hail that mystery as evidence of their God's superiority since He is above any human concept, although in reality it is the Bible's own premises that conflict with this notion. Again, the problem stems from Christian terms and proposed solutions that do not add up. The external observer merely shows the inconsistencies of those attempts, so the comparison between the "Christian God" with the One others worship isnt appropriate. Further, if the superiority of the triune concept of a god resides in its incompatibility with human understanding, then no Trinitarian has grounds to criticize other beliefs if they are found to be illogical and contrary to empirical data. In fact with that line of reasoning, the more absurd a belief system is, the superior it becomes. Sure, a supreme and transcendental God is a simple concept in comparison. "God is One" was never meant to be a complicated statement. Christian thinkers know this, and have been wrestling with the logical inconsistencies of their creed for 2000 years, yet no progress has been made in resolving the contradictions of the notion of incarnation.

Even at a most basic level of the doctrine, Trinitarians have been struggling, since the first councils of the church fathers down to our times and the Phd thesis of Christian apologists and philosophers, to get around the charge of tri-theism; how does 3 distinct "persons", each fully divine, not result in 3 distinct gods? To add to the problem, these 3 distinct persons have 3 distinct wills/consciences. Although traditionally, trinitarians have held that the trinity has one mind/conscience, this position in unsubstantiated scripturally and logically. In the Bible, each person of the godhead speaks in terms of "I" which cannot be mutually shared. For example when the Father states "you are my son with whom i am well pleased" this proposition cannot be shared in the mind of the son or the holyspirit. This results in 3 minds and 3 wills with each being separately divine. Those among Christendom that argued against Social trinitarians precisely did so on the basis that it would result in tritheism.

The concept of Monarchia, where only the Father is uncaused, while the Spirit and Son are "eternally" caused is an unhelpful ad hoc. This unconventional way of speaking doesnt solve tritheism as there still ultimately are three divine persons. As they have three distinct personalities they must be counted as distinct gods. Due to the unavoidable fact that counting is done based on identity, Catholic and orthodox scholars admit that in a sense, monotheism can include multiple deities. Others will try avoiding that conclusion by going to the extent of trying to redefine how to count. Counting could be done based on unity of nature. 3 distinct human persons could be considered as one man just as 3 distinct divine persons are one God. Besides the fallacy of giving a material example to explain the immaterial, how does one count the 3 appart from oneanother? If their distinct identity doesnt make them countable, as would be the case conventionally, this means we only have one divine entity, thus negating trinitarianism and resulting in basic monotheism. If we were to say that conventional counting is inapplicable to the ineffable divine being, can we then count the incarnate, material person of Jesus which contains the fullness of the divine being? If yes then we can in fact count the divine being, if not then we cannot count Jesus appart from other things like a tree or a rock. Ultimately, if the divine being is uncountable, can we even say that He is one? Trinitarians will very often put arbitrary limits, unfounded in their texts, when it comes to what applies or not to God, what is similar to Him or not, whenever an aspect of their doctrine reaches a dead end. For example the bible notoriously uses anthropomorphisms, meaning there are similitudes between God and the material world, as well as worldly concepts. We understand many things about God, otherwise we wouldnt know what we are worshiping. Why is the idea of counting God something unfathomable?

At this point trinitarians pile up more unconventional terminologies and hypothesis to salvage their doctrine, pushing the whole idea further into the realm of mystery. 

The Quran gives them a simple warning out of this labyrinth of confusion 

4:171"People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs"

Jesus' creed:

Mk12:29-30"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment".

Jesus, coming from a long line of messengers and prophets sent to mankind was thus confirming what Moses uttered approximately 1500 years earlier in

Deut6:4"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord"

and 600 years later came the seal of the prophets with the final reminder to mankind, the Quran repeating once more this ultimate truth

2:163"And your God is one God, there is no god but He; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful"

Apostate prophet for PETA; the value of animal sacrifice

In answer to the video "The Sacrifice Craziness"

Until now and throughout the Muslim world, the courage and trust of Ibrahim in his Lord, his complete detachement from all wordly benefits, including the most precious gifts for God's sake, are remembered through the day of sacrifice ('id al adha).

Throughout the Quran, the notion of sacrificing a portion of anything of value is encouraged as a means of spiritual betterment by expressing gratitude to God and solidarity with mankind. Anything that provides benefits, directly or indirectly, is eligible for sacrifice.

From all the worldly things an individual is told to sacrifice from, whether abstract or material, the slaughter of livestock, being another of those benefits, is only mentioned once. The aqiqah, the practice of sacrificing an animal for a newborn (most reliable versions speak of 1 animal whether it is a boy or a girl) is not seen as an obligatory deed. It may have been a situation where the prophet saw it appropriate for his own case, or may have recommended it for a specific case.

Animal sacrifice nowadays has lost most of its meaning because of our eating habits that radically changed our perception of the real value of animals, whether on a concrete or abstract level. The over consumption of meat has lead to unsustainable farming, wasting land, food and water resources that could be more efficiently used to feed humans. Lands are farmed to grow grains and animal protein that will feed other animals that normally eat grass, in order to increase their productivity. Animals that should be eating vegetation can only handle so much animal protein and grain in their diet. When they get too much they start to get sick. High grain diets change the pH of the cow’s rumen making the cow sick and allowing E.coli to grow; potentially exposing anyone who consumes products from that animal to the bacteria.  Strains of E.coli that regularly put people in the hospital develop in the rumen of cows that eat excessive amounts of grain. Just a short time back on hay or pasture, allows the rumen to regulate its pH and eliminate the E.coli.

That system, which disregards the animals' natural behavior, long time health inevitably leads to mistreatment as a consequence of frenetic industrial farming and improper slaughtering, besides environmental destruction. That system has become so banal and low-cost that to the vast majority of humanity who is now completely desensitized at the notion of killing an animal to eat it, the literal meaning of sacrifice lost all significance whether on a psychological or economical level. When billions of animals are killed each day to feed us, in addition bred in miserable, abasing conditions and that meat products are available in abundance anywhere, what value is there in the "sacrifice" of another animal?

Back when the Quran was revealed most people only occasionally ate meat, animals were an important source of income used for their byproducts mainly when alive, all the while having an emotional and psychological worth, both for their beautiful appearance and the notion that through them a society can be self-sufficient 16:5-8,66,40:79-81. People had more interest, abstract and concrete, in having them as a long term asset than killing them for their meat, hence there was no need nor would it have been sustainable to breed them freneticaly in order to slaughter them soon after. Owners personally used as well as traded their milk and milk products.

As a note for the vegan activists, Cows usually produce more milk than what is needed for the calf, especially those that are selectively bred for their milk production capacities. On responsible and ethical dairy farms, calves are fed their mothers’ milk, and the excess is then shipped to the processor for human consumption. After this, cows are inseminated or bred once a year, but only if their health allows. This mimics the natural cycle of a cow giving birth once a year. In the wild, a cow is bred as soon as she comes into heat after giving birth to a calf, regardless of her health or her ability to carry a calf to term. Sustainable farms only do so with healthy and ready cows, and only after a few months have passed after she has given birth.

Other byproducts that people benefited from their livestock was of course wool, as well as feces for multiple ends including fabrics for housing and clothing, fertilizer, flammable source or building material. People of ancient times even found medicinal properties to derive from them, including their urine, a sterile fluid except in rare cases.

Livestock were the principal means of transportation of men, food and material, as well as played a crucial role in providing brute strength in agriculture and increasing productivity. In such an environment, which is still the case in many communities around the world, the rare occasional slaughter of such a precious commodity for private consumption, or on the occasion of the yearly or once in a lifetime pilgrimage of Mecca, was a deep and sincere God-conscious deed. The spiritual significance when done at the pilgrimage was a symbol of gratitude to God for one’s sustenance, and the personal sacrifice of sharing one’s means of subsistence and income with fellow humans

22:28-36"eat of them and feed the poor man who is contented and the beggar; thus have We made them subservient to you, that you may be grateful".

Just as Ibrahim had to leave aside his personal preference in submission to God, when he took his son and prepared him for sacrifice, people of the past and today are expected to do the same, although on a much lesser level, of setting aside their interests and preferences in submission to the divine directives. They are however expected to do so in a manner befitting Islamic morality and ethics, as will be shown later in matters of animal sacrifice.

Farm and domesticated animals nowadays  while alive, still provide the humans with many resources including the ones cited for our ancestors and much more as technology and science advances. Even indirectly, sustainable livestock grazing, using suitable types and numbers of livestock at the appropriate time of year, benefit the humans on many levels. Besides converting the forages from lands not suitable for tillage, ie lands which humans cannot use to grow food, into a nutrient-dense food, livestock grazing recycles nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and other plant nutrients by returning them to the soil in their urine and feces and thus causing 2 major benefits for the land; fertilization, and building up of erosion-fighting organic matter. This helps maintaining on the grazing lands a healthy and balanced ecosystem for plants, insects, birds and other animals, even increasing their biodiversity. The resulting dense, lush pasture sward is an extremely efficient solar harvester, capturing sunlight and transforming it into plant energy, and in turn animal and then human energy. And because there’s a lot of sun-powered plant growth, perennial pastures sequester high amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. This type of rotationally managed pasture is even more carbon-productive than forests. A meadow is like a huge solar array. But this solar panel can feed people.

From a purely biological standpoint, all life, sentient or not, is solar energy temporarily stored in an impermanent form, and whose healthy maintenance depends on the consumption of life by life, sentient or not. The entire planetary system hangs on that principle, even for those beings whose diet is strictly plant based, including humans that adopt the vegan diet and whose meat and other animals byproducts substitutes require the death of life, even sentient life, during harvest and transport. In terms of productivity, rotationally managed and grazed pasture can compete with row-crops, in such terms as carbon sequestration, human food potential, and economic returns.

Besides these environmental factors, sustainable livestock gazing gently provides support for other types of agriculture as it removes plant material more gradually than cutting or burning and gives mobile species a better chance to move to other areas within the habitat. It can also be noted that by clearing dry brush and accumulated dead vegetation, livestock grazing also reduces the fire hazard of drought-stricken areas.