Sam Shamoun "JESUS CHRIST – THE MUHAMMAD OF THE QURAN?" (2)

Sam Shamoun "JESUS CHRIST – THE MUHAMMAD OF THE QURAN?" (2)

With the last Qibla change, the Israelites had been definitely deposed from their spiritual leadership over mankind. , a leadership that what was for them to honourably carry 2:63-64,3:187,28:5,32:24. This prophecied supplanting, as stated by Jesus in Matt21, meant they werent worthy of carrying the flame anymore, that the geographical center of monotheism has switched to another location, under a new established nation under God 

33:45-46"We have sent you as a witness, and as a bearer of good news and as a warner, And as one inviting to Allah by His permission, and as a light-giving torch". 

This meant that their hopes of seeing the Jerusalem Temple rebuilt for the 3rd time through Divine sanction by their messianic salvific figure was over. The era of prophethood itself has now ceased 

33:40"Muhammad..is the Messenger of Allah and the khaatim of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things". 

The term khaatim from kh-t-m means to seal something shut so that nothing can get in or out of it. It is used often to mean that something is finished since one seals something when it is over. It is also used for a well demarcated feature of an entity or person.

Nowhere in the NT, or in the HB in those passages which Christians retrospectively apply to Jesus, is Jesus presented conceptually as, or even named the seal of the prophets. Not even in post NT traditions and writings. Christianity also posits that one should believe in Jesus' death on the cross to earn salvation. Not merely believing in 47:2"what is revealed to the Oft-Praised One (muhammadin)" in addition to righteousness. Neither did Jesus' followers show any firmness against the disbelievers, much less in a military sense as in the direct context of 48:29. Jesus' closest disciples fled the scene at his arrest and even denied knowing him. And Jesus was certainly not, according to Christianity, a messenger like all those that passed away 3:144. The context of 3:144 is that of war. Nothing to do with the circumstances of Jesus' mission. 

It was revealed in the context of the battle of Uhud during which the Muslims were overwhelmed by the enemy and rumor spread that the prophet was killed. So many of the believers fled the battlefield and some considered apostasy. They are admonished not for stopping to fight but for depending their faith on the prophet; meaning their belief would continue as long as he lived, and disappear the moment he died, turning back to their former state after finding the guidance. The verse tells them that the religion of truth and its succesful establishment is in the hands of Allah, Muhammad has no authority in this affair, he is but a messenger charged with conveying the message and many passed away before him. This is particularly made clear when Allah mentions the war of Badr and his assitance to the believers and suddenly cuts short the speech, turning towards His Prophet to tell him, 

3:127-128"You have no concern in the affair". 

In its wider implication the verse re-states the fundamental Islamic doctrine that adoration is due to God alone, and that no human being - not even a prophet - may have any share in it. 3:144 also hints to another reality, by mentionning both the possibilities of assassination and of Muhammad dying a natural death it projects on the future behavior of the Muslims and warns them that Muhammad is naught but a messenger, that they should not idolise him and turn upon their heels after him. When prophets were sent to humanity with the guidance, wisdom and Book from Allah, it was not for their followers to be their servants and neither to be worshiped, but to worship Allah alone 3:78-79. Muslims must uphold at all costs, this religion of Ibrahim and this Quran. The striking similarity between 

3:144"Muhammad is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away" 

and 

5:75"The Messiah son of Marium is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away" 

comes as a sign from Allah who makes clear His communications. Only these 2 messengers are described with the exact same wording because no other prophets were inappropriately over exalted among the nations to whom they were sent and the subsequent generations, as much as these 2 

"See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away". 

On a final note, finality of Prophethood seems to be a tenuous claim. After all, potentially anyone can stand up and say that he is a Prophet of God - but so far all the instances in which this has happened has failed to even come close to the scale and scope of the Prophet Muhammad's mission. Also, if we examine the entire career of these claimants - they have singularly and absolutely failed to match the life-chart of Prophet Muhammad and moreover their death poses even more questions than their life. What is even more interesting that none of them claimed to be the final Prophet, much less Jesus who predicted the coming of a powerful figure after him, the Paraclete, that shall bring justice to the world.

Sam Shamoun "JESUS CHRIST – THE MUHAMMAD OF THE QURAN?" (1)

Sam Shamoun "JESUS CHRIST – THE MUHAMMAD OF THE QURAN?" (1)

Some wild theories did float around in the previous century arguing that Islam could have originated in a Christian milieu. For example the Protestant theologian Gunter Luling theorized in the 1960s that Mecca was thoroughly christianized by Muhammad’s lifetime, and was a significant Christian town ruled by the Quraysh, a Christianized tribe that worshipped in the Kaaba, a Christian church built with an orientation toward Jerusalem. This assertion however remains unsubstantiated whether from Muslim or Christian sources, just as his assumption of a massive Christian presence in central and northwestern Arabia.

Going back in time, some 100 years after the prophet's death, there is John of Damascus. The short passage by this esteemed "church father" is by no means representative of the Quran's contents, form or extent as it was in his time. It surely is not, considering the heavy bias and intent of the author, representative of Islamic beliefs of the time. Especially coming from a school of thought known as justifying its use of lies and deceit, so as to save people into the loving arms of Christ. The author doesnt claim to have gone through the book from cover to cover. He did not even have a manuscript while penning his work and was obviously relying on hearsay. He paraphrases very few verses as he heard them, amplifying certain aspects so as to serve the purpose of his polemic. And because he has no Quran from which he is quoting, He jumbles clear Quranic chapters, calling them "books" since the scripture of his Christian audience is composed of books, and extra Quranic material, oral and written, as well as 2nd hand reports from non-Muslims about Muslims, like Herodotus's statement about Muslims worshiping Aphrodite. 

This concise polemic is meant to resonnate to the average Christian of his time, ignorant of the teachings of their own bible on similar issues that undermine his very contentions against Muslims; Arianism, sexual depravity and parallelisms with the antichrist. Jesus' portrayal in the Quran is thus presented as partly in line with Arianism and gnosticism, Muhammad's prophethood is rejected, certain Islamic laws are amplified and misrepresented, sometimes completely distorted so as to render them offensive to flesh-hating Christians, including monastics like himself. 

As a side note, it was common for polemicists to purposefuly misrepresent Islam and its prophet so as to deride Muslims and instill hatred for them in their Christian audiences. For example Muhammad is depicted as claiming he would be married to the emaculate mother of Jesus Christ in heaven. This latter polemic was invented in the 800s by Eulogius of Cordova, making its way even among some Muslim Quran comentaries. Ibn Kathir cites it while disputing its authenticity. Among other lies of this untalented Christian hate-mongerer, there is Muhammad's failure to rise on the 3rd day following his death, as he supposedly claimed, contrary to the "risen" Jesus. Robert Hoyland observes about this writer, after sketching a portrait of the prophet's early life, most likely plagiarized from John of Damascus 

"follows a lampoon of the Qur'an, mocking the chapter titles involving animals and twisting the words of the verse on the divorce of Zayd and Zaynab (Qur'an xxxiii.37). The final section recounts Muhammad's failed attempt at resurrection, as told in John of Seville's note, adding that an annual slaughter of dogs was instituted to avenge him. This is pure invention, presumably meant to compare Muhammad unfavourably with Christ, and a similar fiction is found in the Bahira legend. "It was appropriate that a prophet of this kind fill the stomachs of dogs," concludes the author, "a prophet who committed not only his own soul, but those of many, to hell.""

Continuing with John' polemic; Islam is presented as a "heresy", but clearly not in the sense that it grew out of Christianity, rather in the sense of "false doctrine". John discusses in that polemic many other belief systems which he labels heresies, including pre-Christian religions. 

The irony is that this caricature of Islam, read through a Christian lens and aimed at a Christian audience even more ignorant than him of what Islam is, would undermine similar later criticisms of Islam, more particularily modern, by his Christ-loving peers. He for instance although is unfamiliar with the Quranic text, speaks multiple times of descendents of Abraham and Ishmael, venerating a single Book whose messenger, a "seemingly" pious man named Muhammad, received from heaven. The book was thus already present in his time, compiled as a single unit. His Muslim contemporaries whom he repeatedly "embarasses", affirmed the oral and textual corruption of his Bible. 

Regardless of the sharpness of their arguments or whether these Muslim interlocutors are real or fictitious, putting aside their supposed legends surrounding the Kaaba and the black stone, which are conveniently embarassing and self-serving for his polemic, these Muslims still affirmed the Abrahamic legacy with the Kaaba whose stone he says Muslims rub their face upon 

"but they still assert that the stone is Abraham's". 

In his "refutation" of that Muslim claim, he appeals to his Bible which he seems as unfamiliar with as he is with the Quran and Muslim tradition. Abraham had to travel, according to Genesis for a few days from Beersheba where he gathered wood to the location of the near sacrifice in Moriah. The wood was obviously not freshly cut from a forest as it would not burn, and neither is Beersheba an area that has wooded mountains. Abraham took wood from what he had already gathered, which he simply split, traveling with what he needed and leaving the rest behind. This makes John's argument for the supposed lack of wood at the Kaaba's location irrelevant to his contention. He further deceptively states or is simply ignorant of the text he appeals to, that the wood was gathered on the spot of the sacrifice itself. 

The blunder is so gross, coming from an esteemed church father, that one can only conclude that it is a purposeful deception so as to win an argument. What is clear is that some zealous Muslim contemporaries hit a nerve for John, accusing him of idolatrous worship of the cross, while John himself was having a hard time defending the veneration of icons against many fellow Christians. 

Instead of justifying his position, as he does against the Muslim rejection of Jesus' divinity, he engages in an untenable polemical invention. The black stone supposedly is, up to his day a carving with the features of the head of Aphrodite. The Muslim historians do not shy away from naming, describing every main idol and statue introduced into the Kaaba and the surrounding sites. None has ever mentionned anything close to that claim. Not a single idol was left standing in the precincts of Mecca after its conquest, including the main idol Hubal. Why would an obscure female deity be left up to a 100 years later?

Sam Shamoun "AHMAD OR THE HOLY SPIRIT?"

Sam Shamoun "AHMAD OR THE HOLY SPIRIT?"

61:6"And when Isa son of Maryam said: O children of Israel! surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Taurat and giving the good news of an Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad, but when he came to them with clear arguments they said: This is clear magic"

Ahmad in this verse is in the grammatical form of ism tafdeel. For example a sentence might say "this person is kabeer/great but that one is akbar/greater". Ism tafdeel indicates that the characteristics described are greater in the individual concerned. It is an observable reality that the prophet Muhammad's name is much more revered than that of Jesus. That characteristic reached a point that the ism tafdeel became equivalent to the prophet Muhammad's proper name. It is reported that nobody had that name prior to the prophet. Shortly after the prophet's time however, Muslims began using it as a name. Ibn Abi Ahmad for instance, who narrated ahadith from Abu Hurayra who himself died around 59AH. Or another hadith narrator who was his contemporary, named Al Jamdi Abu Ahmad. The prophet referred to himself as Ahmad, among 5 other names. His companions did too, including in poems about him.

Ibn Ishaq in his sirah refers to "Ahmad" while relating the story of the prophet's birth.

 Hassan b. Thabit said: ‘I was a well-grown boy of seven or eight, understanding all that I heard, when I heard a Jew calling out at the top of his voice from the top of a fort in Yathrib “O company of Jews” until they all came together and called out “Confound you, what is the matter?” He answered: “Tonight has risen a star under which Ahmad is to be born.”

According to world renowned Islamicist professor Déroche, the earliest Quranic manuscripts contain the exact same wording as 61:6 (Catalogue des manuscrits Arabes). Arthur Jeffrey's proposition that 61:6 did not originally contain the reference to "Ahmad" is based on a marginal quote in a late 13th century book on qiraat by a certain "al-Marandi".  Outside what that late source supposedly says, no evidence exists for Ubay's alleged variant reading, while every early manuscript containing the passage agrees with the Uthmanic recension. Also, just because someone claims something about Islam and is Muslim means nothing in terms of authenticity. There are many variants attested to this day that do not pass the standards and that do have at least a partial chain of transmission, contrary to this supposed variant that has none.

Muhammad, through his appellation and the praises he receives virtually every second of the day, fulfilled that prophecy in both ways, as established in the Quran 

94:4"And We raised for you, your remembrance." 

Further, nobody came after the prophet Jesus claiming to be a messenger of God and whose evidences were repeatedly and consistently treated as magic 

46:7"Our clear lucid verses were read to them. But, referring to the truth as it came to them, the unbelievers said, “This is obviously a magic!”".

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "AHMAD OR THE HOLY SPIRIT?"

Acts17apologetics reveal an NT prophecy; Muhammad is the paraclete?
Acts17apologetics uncover shocking news; paraclete cannot be holyspirit?
Acts17apologetics introduced to proper context; reason of the paraclete prophecy?
Acts17apologetics ask the HB; where is the holy spirit in the Bible?
Acts17apologetics find the intangible spirit; paraclete is a person?
Acts17apologetics discover Jewish trinity; How many gods fit in Genesis?
Acts17apologetics keep hitting the same brick wall; where did JEsus claim divinity?

Sam Shamoun "The Quran and Sunnah In Conflict: Is Every Living Thing From Water?"

Sam Shamoun "The Quran and Sunnah In Conflict: Is Every Living Thing From Water?"

When the Quran speaks of the creation of the human race, it consistently implies the action of fashioning, molding, forming, perfecting 40:64,64:3,87:2 starting with an extract/sulala of various inorganic, earthly elements 15:26,23:12,32:7,37:11,55:14 and water 21:30,24:45,25:54. Obviously the absence of organic life entails it originated from inorganic compounds. In some of these verses it speaks of dust, dry clay at others of muddy, sticky clay, indicating that a combination of elements (the aforementionned water and dry matter) was involved at the beginning of the process. 

All languages inherently accept exceptions unless the statement is clearly absolute, or that no other statements from the same source exist to allow the exclusion. The Quran speaks in several places of different non organic compounds at mankind's origins and in none of these verses does it make an absolute assertion. Nowhere does it say mankind was made exclusively of dust or only of water. The same reasoning applies to the verses speaking of the creation of the jinn. None of them make absolute statements or negate there being other elements involved in their creation than those mentionned.

The Jinn are beings whose essence is, contrary to the earthly substance of mankind, a special kind of fire 6:100,15:26-27,21:30,55:15. Just as we originated from inorganic earthly elements, then passing through various stages of creation, became a flesh and blood entity capable of procreating 30:20 so did the jinn species originate with what the Quran calls "smokeless fire" and water 21:30 (water and ethanol can emit fire if ignited for example) then passing through various stages of creation, the initial model became a different entity of which we know little or nothing, capable of spreading its species 55:14-15,15:26-27. They are not immaterial or non-physical entities, rather non visible to mankind specifically. The term itself, stems from JNN and means hidden. The Arabic for garden is JANNA, from the same root, as it implies a hidden place from sight due to the lush vegetation. The term is thus used for the hidden entities. All beliefs, including the Abrahamic faiths, accept them. But each culture has ascribed more or less fantastical additions to this belief. The Quran refutes many of the beliefs the pre-Islamic Arabs had about them. It also adds some insights that were unknown about their nature and history.

They have freewill, a body and a soul, males and females 72:6, were made before men 15:27 and currently live on earth but cannot be perceived by mankind. Man's current vision is only engineered to perceive a fraction of the spectrum of light. Many realities of the universe remain hidden to us in this world yet they surround us. They are morally accountable for both their actions and spiritual choices, so they will be raised for judgement like the humans 6:128-130,51:56,55:14-16,31-39,72:1-7,11-14.

Sam Shamoun "Does the Quran Reject Christ’s Eternal Generation? Pt. 1"

Sam Shamoun "Does the Quran Reject Christ’s Eternal Generation? Pt. 1"

Warith/to inherit stems from w-r-th. The common denominator between all derivates of the root is the idea of acquiring something that has survived. The word in itself does not indicate ownership status. It essentially conveys the idea that what has been acquired has survived an event that caused things around it to perish (death, destruction, etc). Only the context of its use determines whether there was previous ownership or not. 

The Quran, as Jesus does in the NT Matt25 (see also Zechariah2:12), describes the righteous believers as the inheritors of paradise 19:63,23:10-11,39:74,43:72. Literaly, the meaning is that they have received a thing that remained despite a destructive event, the resurrection in this case. The Arabic, again, does not indicate previous ownership status. Inheriting paradise does not imply it belonged to another who then forfeited his ownership to them. Metaphorically, it carries the notion of aqcuiring without much exertion. Because the immense reward of Paradise is many times described as far surpassing in value any kind of deed. 

But ultimately all things are perishing and only God is everlasting in and of Himself 55:26-7,28:88. Ultimately, He is the true inheritor and the Quran calls Allah khayr al waritheen/the best of those who inherit 3:180,15:23,19:40,21:89,28:58. He receives all that perdures, because even the life of those who "receive what has survived", such as the aforementionned case of the inheritors of paradise, is entirely dependant on His will. Should He cease sustaining them then all perduring things will return to Him 

11:108"And as to those who are made happy, they shall be in the garden, abiding in it as long as the heavens and the earth endure, except as your Lord please". 

It is important to note here the concept of rajaa/"returning" to God. Nothing in the heavens and the earth has ever escaped His ownership. Some of these things were, at most, temporary trusts put at mankind's disposal by virtue of man's vicegerency on the earth, to test his gratitude and aptitude to make use of them in God-consciousness. Numerous verses reinforce that notion. So God's status is never altered during that whole process, neither does He gain or lose while His favors are entrusted to the humans, up until they are returned to him when He decrees to stop sustaining all life. 

It is in this sense that the prophet Zakariyya, in sura anbiya and aal imran, describes Allah as khayr al waritheen/best of the inheriters, when he prays Allah for a heir. With that wording, Zakariyya shows his farseighted wisdom. He humbly acknowledges that all life, including that of the heir he so wholeheartedly desires will end when God stops maintaining it. The higher implication is that, what his heir will inherit from him, will one day return to the true and ultimate Heir.

In the Bible, as it suffered loss, editions, corruptions in its transmission process, Yhwh is depicted as an inferior entity, receiving his alloted portion of inheritance among others, from the high God Elyon Deut32. This portion being, in the ethno-centric depiction of God that is made in the HB, Israel. The Quran is far removed from such defective descriptions, applies the concept of "inheritance" to Allah in an eloquent manner that strengthens monotheism, as well as universality in God's relationship with mankind.

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "Does the Quran Reject Christ’s Eternal Generation? Pt. 1"

CIRA International uncover Quran mistake; foreign gods can only have carnal sons?

Sam Shamoun "Do They Bear Another’s Burdens Or Not?"

Sam Shamoun "Do They Bear Another’s Burdens Or Not?"

Manslaughter has several degrees of seriousness depending on the victim, as exemplified through the story of Adam's 2 sons, whom the Quran does not name as it eloquently and concisely draws its audience's attention to the story's core precepts without distracting it with names of persons and places 

5:27"And relate to them the story of the two sons of Adam with truth". 

It is interesting to note the repetitve stress on re-establishment of the truth, most often when the Quran recounts an incident already known for long by its addressees but transmitted in a convoluted and/or purposefully obscured manner. 

As will be shown below, the Quran sheds light on at least 2 crucial events within the whole narrative that are strikingly absent from the HB. These details have important implications and ramifications not only for the protagonists but for all mankind; the reason for the rejection of one brother's offering, derogatorily referred to with al akhar. It means "remaining", he remains after first introducing the virtuous brother. The word also creates a kind of disdain and distancing between the sinful character and the audience/reader. The second issue the Quranic narrative tacles is the killing of the other brother, how it was unjustifiable from every possible angle.  

For brevity's sake, the 2 brothers will be given their Biblical names.

Abel first sought reforming his brother. He pointed that the offering was rejected due to his sinfulness or lack of piety (the divine approval/disapproval might have manifested itself through inspiration, either to Abel or his father the prophet Adam). He should thus focus on his inner self, reassessing his spirituality and mend his ways instead of being envious 5:27. The nature of the offering in itself is not important, so long as it is done with sincerity and God-consciousness, hence the Quran's silence on the things both brothers offered

 22:37"There does not reach Allah their flesh nor their blood, but to Him is acceptable the guarding (against evil) on your part; thus has He made them subservient to you, that you may magnify Allah because He has guided you aright; and give good news to those who do good (to others)".

This is a major point driven through by the Quran. In the HB, God disdainfully rejects Cain's offering for no other reason that 

Gen4:3"Cain brought the fruit of the soil" 

while Abel 

"brought the firstborn of his flocks and the fattest, and the Lord turned to Abel and to his offering"

This sacrificial rite is no more than a symbol of a conscious, selfless offering in God's name of something one cherishes as necessary and valuable. It is not an attempt to "appease" Him who is far above anything that resembles human emotion, nothing of His creation can disturb Him 35:44. Ultimately anything offered to Allah in God consciousness counts as of equal value and merit than a blood offering as stated in 22:37 above. The primary issue is to remain aware of Allah during this universal rite

 22:34"To every people did We appoint rites, that they might celebrate the name of God over the sustenance He gave them" 

The Quran recognizes the universality of this rite, and then restores it to the right, original course; glorifying God alone, first and foremost.

It is when one loses Allah's pleasure from sight in the process, such as by having one's intentions polluted with sinfulness as occured to Cain, or by having other deities or motives in mind, that the offering is invalidated. The merit does not lie in the intrinsic value or nature of the offering. Even fasting for Allah's sake by the one who cannot afford an offering is a valid substitute 2:196.  

Although the HB echoes that reality when it says 

Ps50:8-14"..Will I eat the flesh of bulls or do I drink the blood of he-goats? Slaughter for God a confession and pay the Most High your vows". 

Yet in other places, YHWH is depicted as physically delecting with the offering 

Lev1:9"Then, the kohen shall cause to [go up in] smoke all [of the animal] on the altar, as a burnt offering, a fire offering, [with] a pleasing fragrance to the Lord". 

This is reminiscent of ancient mythologies, more particularily Babylonian, where the gods would partake in the offering together with the offerer. In the HB numbers18 the priests making the offering are the only ones allowed to eat from the dead animal. Gods do not sit on the same table as the laymen. The Quran in sharp contrast allows to 

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".

Finally, regardless of Cain's decision, Abel said he will not attempt murdering his brother in return, on account of his deep God-consciousness. Cain is now left with no reason to carry on with his death threats. Abel this way left the entire burden of manslaughter on his brother, not sharing any responsibility for having caused this action, for example by threatening Cain back with death, or fighting back so fiercely that he puts Cain's life in danger

5:28"If you will stretch forth your hand towards me to slay me, I am not one to stretch forth my hand towards you to slay you surely I fear Allah, the Lord of the worlds". 

Cain apparently did not show any sign of reform, prompting Abel, despite his initial pleas, to openly declare his enmity towards his brother, making it clear to him what would be the eternal consequences of what he was about to commit 

5:29"Surely I want that you should bear my sin and your sin, and so you would be of the inmates of the fire, and this is the recompense of the unjust". 

Abel wanted his brother to carry the burden of "my sin and your sin". It is speaking of 2 specific sins, in the singular. The context shows what these 2 specific sins are; Abel's unjust murder ie "my sin", and Cain's sinfulness, his refusal to reform himself despite the repeated pleas of his brother, leading to him being bent on murdering his brother ie "your sin". Certain commentators have erroneously assumed the word was in the plural, concluding that the murder transfered the victim's past sins to the criminal. 

The singular "your sin" is used in the same sense in certain ahadith. The prophet tries diffusing a situation where one whose brother was murdered, is about to seek his right to retaliation. He is explained that he could achieve more in terms of personal vengence in the long run in a different way

"Don’t you like that he should take upon him (the burden) of your sin and the sin of your companion (your brother)? He said: Allah’s Apostle, why not? The Messenger of Allah said: If it is so, then let it be. He threw away the strap (around the offender) and set him free". 

The criminal is described in the full hadith as an outcast, quick in shedding blood and thus with a potential of comitting more murders. But instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt in case, during a fight, he killed the brother who is now openly seeking blood retaliation, and thus lessening to severity of his sin, the brother could forfeit his right entirely. On top of that, this "throwing away of the strap" symbolizes forgiveness as reflected in another version of the hadith 

"If you forgive him, he will bear the burden of his own sin and the sin of the victim. He then forgave him. He (the narrator) said: I saw him pulling the strap". 

Just as Abel did with Cain, he would be leaving the entire burden of responsibility of his own potential murder upon the criminal, adding on top of that the sin of refusing to reform himself despite the victim's brother forfeiting his right upon his life and forgiving him. This would push the potential killer's awareness to its maximum while committing his crime. The whole idea is to avoid triggering potential criminals based on suspicion, even when they declare their intentions, trying to reform them if possible by making the first step, and this way puting the entire burden of the sin upon them if they act upon it. 

In a similar situation the prophet advised not provoking people known for their violent intent even if they should enter one's house 

“...O Messenger of Allah, what if they enter my house?” He said: “If you are afraid that the flashing of the sword will dazzle you, then put the edge of your garment over your face, and let him carry his own sin and your sin, and he will be one of the people of the Hellfire”. 

The prophet here is teaching the most basic and pragmatic approach both in a wordly and spiritual sense. Any security expert would advise to diffuse a situation where one is confronted to very dangerous individuals in such a way, even if they should enter one's home. In addition, the prophet gives the assurance that in case one falls victim due to not trying to kill as the agressor is trying, then one would receive maximum vindication by leaving the full blame upon the criminal.

Again, Abel at no point denies he will defend himself just as the prophet in those ahadith nowhere denies the right to self defense. What is denied is fending off the attacker with the same murdering intent. Abel does not say he will not fight back if he sees Cain coming with the purpose of realizing his death threats. He didnt say "I wont defend myself and will let you do whatever you want with me" he only said "I do not intend, under any circumstances, to kill you".

 
Despite his brother's increased admonitions, from gentle pleas and pointing the wrong ways, to threatening him with hellfire should he commit the crime, Cain slew Abel. The victim was not only innocent of any wrongdoing, but did not even raise his hand with the intention of killing him while he defended himself. What made matters worse, Cain knew beforehand that Abel would never under any circumstance pose a threat to his life. With his crime, Cain had established an evil precedent among the sons of Adam. 

This precedent has found its way all throughout the history of mankind, down to our present days 

"The Prophet said, "None is killed unjustly, but the first son of Adam will have a part of its burden." Sufyan said, "...a part of its blood because he was the first to establish the tradition of murdering". 

The hadith speaks of the concept of misleading others into sin. We will never establish the chain of events linking our current experiences and actions all the way to the first sons of Adam. But this hadith tells us the connection exists, so much so that whenever an unjust murder is comitted, Cain is burdened with SOME of that sin, not all of it. This is simple common sense as one cannot be held fully responsible for a crime he was enticed into comitting. It does not take away one's responsibility in the sin, rather determines the level of involvement of every individual.

The Quran explains in many places that a person's good deeds are means of obtaining God's forgiveness in the hereafter. But the person who comes to the hereafter with few good deeds as compared to his sins will inevitably have a spiritual debt to pay, and this is done in the Fire for an appropriate time. If his sins were comitted against others, then in addition to having to account for the sin itself, he will have a share of some of his victims' sins. 

Abu Hurairah narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: “Do you know who the bankrupt is?” They said: “O Messenger of Allah! The bankrupt among us is the one who has no Dirham nor property.” The Messenger of Allah said: “The bankrupt in my Ummah is the one who comes with Salat and fasting and Zakat on the Day of Judgement, but he comes having abused this one, falsely accusing that one, wrongfully consuming the wealth of this one, spilling the blood of that one, and beating this one. So he is seated, and this one is requited from his rewards. If his rewards are exhausted before the sins that he committed are requited, then SOME of their sins will be taken and cast upon him, then he will be cast into the Fire.”

This "some" doesnt refer to some of the total sins, ie 2 out of 5 sins. Rather some part of some specific sins, as with Cain's example above. 

Simple observation shows that many times victims become offenders due to past trauma, or various circumstances caused by the sin originally comitted against them. Again, as with the hadith about Cain's partial responsibility for the murders among Bani Adam, there is a chain of causality behind each human action. It is possible that some of his victims' sins were enticed by his deeds against them. These specific sins will then naturally be partially shared with the criminal, without taking away the due share of responsibility of those that committed them. Another similar hadith says 

"Had it not been for Bani Isra'il, food would not have become stale, and meat would not have gone bad; and had it not been for Eve, a woman would never have acted unfaithfully toward her husband". 

The prophet, and anyone else who heard this, knew there werent Israelites going around causing food to spoil. With or without them, food decay occurred anyway. But because an undeniable character trait of theirs, whether in the prophet's time, the time of Jesus, or our very capitalist era, is greed and hoarding of surplus wealth, the notion of spoilage is here associated to them among all the people of the earth. They established a pattern on an unprecedented scale whose repercussions are seen till this day. As to Eve, the nature of her betrayal isnt indicated, but it has to do with something her husband entrusted her with. Being the first among all the women vicegerent of the earth, her actions, good or bad, left a mark on subsequent women vicegerents, who learned from her. This doesnt mean that without her, women would have always been faithful. Eve had at some point a choice to make but made the wrong one, even though she wasnt influenced by a previous pattern. This means woman will always have the choice between faithfulness and betrayal to their husbands, just like Eve had. But to the women that came after Eve, a pattern of bad conduct in a particular matter preceded them, influencing to some instinctive degree their own conduct, without it being a decisive factor beyond their freewill. The association of certain traits with particular people is therefore hyperbolic, as is so common in the manner of speech of the Arabs

God knows very well those who conceal or misconstrue the Truth 41:40 and such sin causes the rejection from God's grace, rejection by men and angels alltogether 2:161. This type of human and spiritual injustice is "fitna", not based on any reasonable evidence and knowledge but instead on inner desires, worldly interests, blind attachement to inherited ways, and the Quran logically explains that the misleaders shall bear their own burden of sins as well as the responsibility of misleading others -intentionally or not- into sin 4:85,16:25,29:12-13 without diminishing from the moral responsibility and consequent requital of those they mislead 14:21,43:36-9. Once more, misleaders do not take away the share of responsibility of a person in his sin, because none bears the burden of other people's sins 17:13-15,53:38-42. Misleaders share their own burdens in those specific sins which they enticed others into committing. Thus each one shares his full burden of responsibility within one and the same sin. This why the Quran keeps warning to guard 

36:45"against that which is before you and that which is behind you"

The "before" referring to the action one is about to perform and "behind" is the consequence of this action, referred to as the footsteps one leaves behind 

36:12,37:69-70,43:22"they say: We found our fathers on a course, and surely we are guided by their footsteps". 

There is a reason why, in sura fatiha, we seek example from people of the past confirmed to have succeeded spiritually, hence the use of the past alladhina anaamta alayhim.

This story of Adam's 2 sons establishes that in the next life, punishment is a matter of degrees, where a murderer can get a more severe punishment depending upon the person he killed. The one slain was innocent of any wrongdoing, even warned his brother that was about to kill him, tried reforming him, and finally pointed the grave consequences of his sins. But this familial tragedy was about to repeat itself, as the murderous Israelites were trying by all means to put an end to their Ishmaelite brother's life, despite his calls to reforms, there being no reasons for them to threaten and attack him, and his warnings of hellfire should they carry on with their deadly intentions. The Jews of the prophet's time were not only trying to kill a man innocent of any wrongdoing against them and in general, but were trying to kill a prophet of God as their forefathers tried doing and sometimes succeeded against the prophets raised from among themselves and who called them to adhere to their own Books which they had thrown behind their backs and forgotten. The story of the 2 sons of Adam ends with a reminder of a lesson they knew very well 

5:32"For this reason did We write upon the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men".

A day will come where all generations that ever roamed the earth shall be gathered at the same time for account precisely due to that principle, that whatever a person does in his lifetime, whether good or evil, its influence and impact does not end with his life but continues to operate even after his death for long periods of time, for which he is totally responsible. 

The Quran draws attention to this important sense of awareness of one's deeds and how they inevitably have consequences on a larger scale. It firstly does so through the examples of the most eminent prophets, including Nuh, Ibrahim or Jacob as being deeply concerned with their family's future spirituality, and that of the following generations. The most righteous, once made to enter paradise and joined with the righteous among their relatives will remember that earthly concern with joy and relief at its pleasant unfolding 

52:25-8"And some of them shall advance towards others questioning each other. Saying: Surely we feared before on account of our families: But Allah has been gracious to us and He has saved us from the punishment of the hot wind. Surely we called upon Him before: Surely He is the Benign, the Merciful". 

The second manner by which attention is drawn to the idea of repercussions of one's deeds is through a concise and eloquent statement 

82:5"Every soul shall know what it has sent before/qaddamat and held back/akharat". 

1) Ma qaddamat is the good or evil act which man has sent forward, and ma akharat is what he refrained from doing, 2) what one did earlier as well as after (in the early and latter days of his life) and finally 3) whatever good and evil deeds a man did in his life is ma qaddamat and whatever effects and influences of his acts he left behind for human society is ma akharat 

14:49"And you will see the guilty on that day linked together in chains". 

In that connection, the prophet said

“When a man dies, his acts come to an end, except three, recurring charity, or knowledge [by which people] benefit, or a pious son, who prays for him [i.e. for the deceased]”. 

The concept of not following the evil footsteps of misleaders is contrasted with the Quran's command to the believers not to "advance" the righteous guidance of the messenger of God, willing for their desires to have precedence over divine directives, they should walk in the footsteps of the one guided to success in both this world and the next 49:1,33:36. 

So besides being careful which footsteps one is following, one should ever be watchful of the print left behind, and one of the essential ways of doing so is by educating and transmitting righteousness to the best of one's ability the members of one's family who have been entrusted to one's care in the natural process of life. The Quran actually treats this as a moral responsibility for which one shall be held accountable 

66:6"save yourselves and your families from a fire whose fuel is men and stones; over it are angels stern and strong, they do not disobey Allah in what He commands them, and do as they are commanded". 

Through the example of the most eminent of prophets whose last words and bequests to their descendants were to steadfastly remain on the straight path, the Quran draws back mankind's focus on the higher matters of life at a moment where most would be concerned with purely worldly and financial issues 2:132-3. 

In the Hereafter, the believers will see their deeds rewarded manifolds contrary to the disbelievers 

2:261-274,28:84,6:160"Whoever brings a good deed, he shall have ten like it, and whoever brings an evil deed, he shall be recompensed only with the like of it, and they shall not be dealt with unjustly". 

This shows how God's wrath is always tempered by His perfect attributes of justice and mercy meaning He never loses control, contrary to humans who when they sit on the throne of force, they take the path of cruelty, oppression. 

In sura Jumua 62:1 just after describing God as the malik/sovereign, He is called the quddus/holy, thus warding off any adverse connotation attached in human psyche to a powerful king.

It is in reminder of this reality that many Quranic verses speaking of God's capacity to retribute, or the manner in which He freely distributes benefits, end with a mention of His almightiness, praiseworthiness, wisdom; He is worthy of all praise at every moment all the while being the almighty ruler who does not need rendering any account. Similarly, His self sufficiency is often coupled with His praiseworthiness because although some persons might be self-sufficient, their niggardiness and manner in which they exploit their wealth is unworthy of any praise, contrary to God's indiscriminate mercy and grace. Also when the ordinary self-sufficient persons happens to do something, at last they gain some benefits from their action, while the only One Who bestows things on His servants abundantly and gains no benefit is His Pure Essence, and for the same reason He is the most eligible of all to be praised and glorified.

But the Quran also portrays some sinners, more precisely the misleaders, receiving a "double" punishment 11:20,25:69,33:68 just as the prophet Muhammad was threatened with a "double" punishment should he yield to the low desires of his sinful nation 68:9,10:15,17:73-4, this is because their sins have repercussions outside the individual and will ultimately mislead others into sin. Even the followers of a falsehood initiated or left to posterity by the misleaders will have a double punishment 7:38-39 because they followed the heritage of evil left by their predecessors and then left the heritage of evil for their successors. One and the same sin may thus be requited according to different levels of severity depending on the person committing it as well as the social repercussions of that sin. The same standard was applied to the Israelites, the first community tasked with guiding the nations Isa40:2,Jer16:18 as can be seen with their long history of divine chastisements. 

The Quran answers those who tried deceiving the believers into thinking they had the power to diminish their burdens by taking upon themselves the entire responsibility of their apostasy 

29:12"And never shall they be the bearers of any of their (the Muslims') wrongs; most surely they are liars". 

The responsibility for transgression will rest entirely on the transgressor himself but as regards the misleaders and deceivers, in addition to their own burdens they will carry the burden of responsibility for leading others astray 29:13. On the day of Resurrection, being aware of their error and the warnings of the Quran not to take any Guardian (in religious guidance) other than Allah 7:3, the disbelievers who were mislead will start by confronting their misleaders who are now leading their followers to Hell as they led them on the wrong path on Earth 11:97-8, asking them to take some of their punishment upon them since they put them in this situation 40:47-50 but this will be impossible so they will try taking the matter into their own hands 

41:29"Our Lord, show us those who led us astray from among the jinn and the men that we may trample them under our feet so that they may be of the lowest". 

Being guilty of the grievous sin of misleading others, they will be the first to be dragged inside the Fire, and those who were mislead and kept rejecting the truth after it was made manifest to them, will be on their knees witnessing the humiliation of their earthly prestigous leaders, referred to as shaitans. 

Sura maryam vividly paints the picture of what these 2 types of sinners will endure in the hereafter. It starts with 19:68 where the blind followers and their leaders are gathered. Only those arriving to the resurrection burdened with disbelief and so many sins they havent repented for, they will be the only ones gathered for a terrible task 25:26,54:6 as opposed to the righteous believers who in their lifetime stood in awe of such day 

76:7-11"Therefore Allah will guard them from the evil of that day and cause them to meet with ease and happiness".

Consequently they, whether male or female, will never be abased or disgraced between their earthly deth and final entry to heaven. Instead, once resurrected they will be shining with a light emanating from them and guiding them on the path to paradise while the rest of the world is plunged in darkness 3:194-5,57:12,66:8. They will in addition be receiving Allah's love 19:96, His individual care 76:11, they will be safe from harm 41:40 and raised in a happy state 56:8,76:11,88:8. Their faces will be bright 3:107,75:22 looking forward to Allah's promise 50:32,28:61. They wont have any grief or fear of the supreme awesomeness of that day, as they will be protected from its upheaval and afflictions, welcomed and greeted by the angels before the beginning of their judgement 2:277,16:32,21:103. They will be removed far away from hearing the faintest sound of hell 2:17,26:90,21:98-103. The fire of hell will only be brought before the disbelievers and unrepented sinners 18:99-101, the only ones experiencing this mighty day as a great difficulty 74:8-10.

From among the disbelievers, the most prominent misleaders are brought forth 19:69. The next verse states 

19:70"We do certainly know best those who deserve most to be burned therein".

This indirect form of address, starting at v66 with a people's denial of the resurrection, is called tabaaid in Arabic, or distancing. 

It is meant at expressing the speaker's discust towards the addressees who arent worthy of being directly spoken to. We know however from the context that they are the most prominent of the misleaders who deserve the worst punishment. The Quran then, in its typical manner of executing its threats, switches from the indirect, to the direct form, catching its audience off-guard 

"And there is not one of you but shall come to it". 

This is a parenthetical statement. The same sura contains several such examples. For instance, 19:64-65 is an independent passage. It does not belong to the discourse that precedes and that follows it. The preceding passage ends with the good news of heaven to the righteous and what comes after it is about the deniers of the resurrection. 19:64-65 is in between and addresses the issue of piecemeal revelation. The timing is entirely dependent on Allah's will, Who controls the process every step of the way until its destination. One should therefore submit to His wisdom in that regard and remain steadfast in His worship. The style of the quranic speech is elliptical,  as recognized long ago in tafasir and even non muslim modern academia. The Christian seems unfamiliar with this. The Quran does not cut its discourse with qul/say everytime it quotes an entity. Sura fatiha quotes the believers, without ever starting with qul/say. There are countless other examples. The context indicates who the speaker is, and here those who descend with revelation are always said to be the entities sent by God. Not God himself, ever. There is a hadith which quotes the verse as part of an incident where the prophet was asking the angel Gabriel why he does not appear more often.

The Quran abounds in such examples of parenthetical statements, due to its very nature as an interactive speech seeking to keep the audience ever attentive to its message. In the aforementioned passage threatening the people with hellfire, it points directly at the disbelievers who are hearing the message of the prophet, telling them they cannot escape

18:53"And the guilty shall see the fire, then they shall know that they are going to fall into it, and they shall not find a place to which to turn away from it". 

The 'you' in 19:71 is a direct address to all the disbelievers as an actual threat, with the additional warning that 

"this is an unavoidable decree of your Lord". 

Then the Quran mentions the "delivery" of the believers, how they will be spared such disgraceful situation of humiliation on their knees and begging to be saved

 "And We will deliver those who guarded (against evil), and We will leave the unjust therein on their knees". 

The "delivery" of the believers is again mentioned in 39:61 and how no evil and grief will even touch them 

"And Allah shall deliver those who guard (against evil) with their achievement; evil shall not touch them, nor shall they grieve". 

Even among the commentators that argued the believers will be made to enter hell, none of them stated they shall be made to suffer in it. So harmless that experience will be that some reports describe the believers after entering paradise, not even aware they were in hell prior 

“The people of paradise said after they entered paradise, ‘Didn’t our Lord promise that we will enter hell?’ and they will be told, ‘You entered it and found it ashes.’”

The experience is depicted as a mercy from Allah. The believers are made to see, but not experience, a place that could have been theirs had it not been by Allah's guidance and grace.

When Judgement is laid down on a Day where none can harm or benefit the other 34:42, they will hate their own selves 40:10. They will realize, not only that they are now accountable for the actions they were mislead into committing, but also for misleading others in turn 43:67. Their earthly ties will crumble and will begin denying one another, cursing eachothers 29:25. The followers will request a double punishment for their leaders 38:61, asking to see them to trample them and make them of the lowest 41:29. 

That bitter dissension among the sinners and their misleaders during their judgement and following their entry to hell, incessantly disputing and quarrelling 36:59-64 is in stark contrast with the dwellers of heaven who shall greet and speak to one another with the best words of prayers, sit face to face, symbolizing their whole heartedness in being in eachother's company

 10:10,44:53,52:20"Reclining on thrones set in lines". 

Nothing symbolizes peace of mind, purity of intentions and mutual love more than the free manner of sitting in front of one another. 

These same leaders will disavow their followers like Iblis will disavow his followers since none of them can be discharged from their moral responsibilities and none were forced in making their conscious choices

 14:22,34:32,37:29-30"They shall say: Nay, you (yourselves) were not believers. And we had no authority over you, but you were an inordinate people". 

These earthly misleaders will in turn blame their false beliefs and wrongdoings on their forefathers 28:63, after ackowledging their own helplessness and error 37:32. Now each person can only blame his own self, and will consequently hate himself 40:10. 

38:64"That most surely is the truth: the contending one with another of the inmates of the fire" 

but their excuse of having followed the footsteps of their fathers will not be accepted as throughout the Quran and through the examples of the greatest prophets such as Ibrahim who distanced himself from the practices of his fathers and contemporaries 43:26, man has been told to think of himself 30:8 and warned of the moral inadmissibility of accepting a proposition as true on no other grounds than that it was held to be true by the majority 54:44 or by earlier generations, and the blind acceptance of religious doctrines or traditions (taqlid) which are not unequivocally supported by divine revelation 23:24,43:21-24. 

The jinn themselves, the sole other entity along with humans possessing freedom of choice and consequent moral accountability, are quoted as admitting to having fallen prey to the same erroneous view 72:5. 

The number of people accepting a practice does not mean it is morally acceptable or contributes to human progress. It could signify the nation is on the verge of self-destruction 

5:100"The bad and the good are not equal, though the abundance of the bad may please you; so be careful of (your duty to) Allah, O men of understanding, that you may be successful". 

The acceptance of certain behaviour as normal behaviour is a reflection that the norms of society have turned upside down and the pursuit of lower values is given priority. 

Finally all ties between them will be cut off 2:166,69:35.

We thus see throughout the Quran and ahadith, a clear and consistent explanation of the theme of divine justice and moral accountability. This is in constrast to the tensions one sees in past scriptures, traditions and philosophies of the world in this particular topic. In the HB God punishes children for their parents' sins Ex34 yet elsewhere states that one is requited for his own sins only Deut24, Ezek18. The rabbis, recognizing the contradiction (Sanhedrin 27b) harmonize by saying that only when a child knowingly follows the sinful path of the parent does he bear their sins as well as his. This obviously doesnt remove the contradiction as the child did not actively participate in the parents' sins. In Christianity the case is far worse as we have an innocent person made to bear the sins of all the world.

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "Do They Bear Another’s Burdens Or Not?"

Islam critiqued refuses paying for others' sins; Ransoming Muslims from hell? 

Apostate prophet still struggling; Allah mocks people?