Islam critiqued exposes Islam; The stealthy authors of the Quran?

In answer to the video "The Quran, Abraham, Zarathustra and the Furnace"

The Prophet's enemies kept a close watch on him, trying hard to prove him a liar. They could not point out even a single instance when the Prophet may have had a secret encounter. Tribal life in the desert was very open making it very hard to have regular secret meetings without being noticed. 

And yet these intellectually bankrupt individuals of the past and today want to come and argue that the most intricate of human discourses came to be through occasional chatters and hearsay around a camp fire. 

The Prophet did have religious discussions with the Jews and Christians but they took place in Medina more than 13 years after the revelation of the Quran had started. And they certainly werent going on in secret. The objective was to point their moral and spiritual errors as well as warn them of the consequences of their persistence in deviation. He met them as a teacher, not a student. Several of these Jews and Christians later embraced Islam, including some of their most learned figures. It should also be noted that the vast majority of verses relating the history of past prophets were revealed in Mecca, before these interactions with the people of the book occured. His relatives who surrounded him never questioned his truthfulness instead they gave their wealth and lives for his cause, contrary to some previous prophets, such as Jesus who was rejected and treated as a madman by his closest circle. The prophet Ibrahim himself was rejected by his father who almost stoned him 19:46.

His availability, his openness for inquiries and visits was such that towards an advanced stage of the prophetic mission, revelation came down to regulate the manners of those seeking to visit him, including spending in charity at first, as well as announcing themselves prior to entering his private quarters where his wives resided. The intricate manner in which his followers, in and out of the household, observed, memorized and safeguarded every aspect of his life, everyday and in all situations further dwarfs this already untenable proposition. So, because that idea of him having secret meetings was weak, his enemies instead resorted to character assassination. They resorted to all sorts of calumnies the likes of which previous prophets were victims of, including being a liar, sorcerer or a madman demon possessed. The Quran would then plainly challenge them; if it is something man made then, with all their resources, including the riches they tried bribing the prophet himself with, the availability of masters of eloquence the likes of which the Arab world has rarely seen since then, in addition to all supposed teachers of his, they should be able to respond to the challenge without much difficulty. 

But the rest is history. 

To this day, the enemies of Islam have been conjecturing just as they had always been, trying hard to uncover the sources of the Quran. They certainly did and will continue pointing to a plethora of potential human, textual, traditional candidates. On the surface, these sources seem believable but immediately crumble when one compares them on a macro- as well as micro level to the Quran, let alone if one considers other historical facts the likes of which have been pointed to earlier. 

What is undeniable, as is evidenced by the recent trend of studies on the Quranic engagement with previous traditions, is that the Quran shows a very high degree of knowledge of Judaeo-Christian tradition, written and oral, canonized or not, factual or folklore, whether restricted to the religious elite or common among the layman. Such intricate awareness is in fact among the fundamental arguments the Quran uses in support of the divine inspiration of the messenger, the gentile, unschooled Arab, a man highly unlikely to have possessed such vast array of information, let alone able to assemble the details in the form of eloquent speech, whose life whether before or after his prophethood, was known and scrutinized from every angle, day and night, by his friends, family and foes.

It is interesting however that we do read in the ahadith of a man appearing out of nowhere on several occasions in the life of the prophet and the community. Including to teach the prophet and his followers, publicly, the daily prayers, as well as to command him and the Muslim soldiers, to besiege the treacherous tribe of Bani Qurayza. These are not trivial issues, whether from the point of view of the religion, or the life of the community, showing that the prophet, although the uncontested leader of his people, was not acting from his own accord in essential matters. The ahadith relate several other encounters with the same man, unknown to the closest companions, appearing in unlikely circumstances among the people, then disappearing, and always in slightly different physical shape. He would be identified as the angel Jibril whenever the people inquired to the prophet. This "man" was around the prophet and the community from the very beginning, as the prophet was taught the first revelation, to other instances where the companions witnessed him teaching the Quran to the prophet, to when they saw him visit the prophet when he became sick. In terms of resemblance, the prophet likened him to a companion named Dihya. Someone else once confused him with Dihya too. Dihya as a side note, was not influential in the community in any way, even after the prophet's death did not attain to any leading position, neither was he among the closest companions whose decisions were considered by the prophet, nor was he knowledgeable so as to contribute to the Quran. Despite this closeness of interaction, none among the community was able to get a hold of the mysterious visitor, or could interact with him once the purposes of his visits were over. Medina's population at the time was around 20.000, the type of social life was very open and each individual had a very large network of friends and kinsfolk. It would have been impossible for this man to escape the people's grasp, let alone the numerous hypocrites who were always on the lookout to discredit the prophet, had he been known or been living in or anywhere near Medina. Other appearances were observed during battles, with men dressed as the occasional visitor of the prophet was

 "Narrated Sa`d: On the day of the battle of Uhud, on the right and on the left of the Prophet were two men wearing white clothes, and I had neither seen them before, nor did I see them afterwards".

From a strictly materialistic worldview, nothing indicates, neither from his character or the consequences upon himself and his loved ones, that he initiated his mission to satisfy any greed or lust. 

During the 40 years he lived among them, he was a person whose integrity they never questioned, and whom they considered to be an upright person just like Salih or Lut prior to the beginning of their preaching 11:62,162. Just like Jeremiah was inspired with warnings and glad tidings to his people for 23 years Jer25:3, the Quran was revealed over the span of 23 years. 

Practically speaking, the idea of a secret teacher following Muhammad for 23 years and in different locations and circumstances where revelation is known to have descended is completely untenable: while hiding with his companions in ravines, in his home with his family, on the battlefield etc. besides fulfilling every function and responsibilities of a statesman, husband, friend, teacher etc without ever being noticed. Besides the first short revelation which descended upon him as he had secluded himself in a cave to escape his sinful, idolatrous environment which he abhorred, all other revelations came to him openly with many times multiple witnesses present. 

The prophet was no mystic sitting in hope of being contacted by the divine. He was a righteous monotheist, a hanif among his people who searched for the truth using his inherited knowledge and observation of the nature around him. Many verses allude to his pre-revelational condition with words evoking how he had no expectation whatsoever of coming in contact with the divine realm and being chosen for prophethood. At the age of 37 Muhammad started seeing a person in his dreams addressing him as "Apostle of Allah", something which he did not comprehend nor expected

28:86"And you did not expect that the Book would be inspired to you, but it is a mercy from your Lord".

Not only did prophethood come totally unexpectedly to Muhammad, but also never did he entertain, prior to it, the idea of political leadership. As his early critics among the notables themselves objected, he was unimportant from that perspective prior to claiming prophethood and to them, such a weighty message, if true, should only be delivered to a notable 43:31. He did not display any such intent prior to it as his opponents themselves could not deny, nothing out of the ordinary in his demeanor and ambitions as would have been evident for anyone with political aspirations, besides his notoriety as a trustworthy and upright individual 10:16. That is also putting aside his state of shock following his later more vivid encounter with the divine, revealing utter unpreparedness for its implications. 

To these may be added the well-known facts of his denial of any desire for material gains out of his mission and, more particularly, his turning down of the Quraysh leaders' repeated offers of wealth, leadership and power to him in lieu of his abandoning his mission or compromising some of its tenets as repeatedly alluded to both in the Quran and traditions.

So this teacher of his, could never have been a visible human being without being noticed, and without eventually coming out against his student who was taking all the credits for himself. So either that teacher was the most stealthy human to ever live, or it was another entity. Supposing Muhammad's source was living outside the Hijaz, as some modern critics have opined. All historical records available show that Muhammad had made only three trips outside Mecca before his Prophethood: At the age of 9 he accompanied his mother to Medina. Between the age of 9 and 12, he accompanied his uncle Abu-Talib on a business trip to Syria. At the age of 25 he led Khadija’s Caravan to Syria. It is highly imaginary to assume that the Quran, a long term revelation that includes interactive passages with its addressees, where revelation answers a specific theological, social, economical etc matter, resulted from the occasional chats and meetings with the Christians or Jews from any of the above three trips. It is no less imaginary to assume there was any meaningful contact and religious dialogue between him and anyone, like Bahira, that led to the development of any of the Quran's intricately well knit discourse on any of the Christian themes and figures, conveniently discarding all the historical blunders and improbabilities of both canonical and apocryphal scriptures that allegedly were the subjects of discussion. And which testimonies are there to corroborate the conspiracy claim? Who witnessed the exchange and why did that private teacher equally recognize the prophet hood of Muhammad? 

Among the reasons why such conspiracy, and other similar false beliefs and revisionist ideas perdure despite the presence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is that the authors of these theories, and their supporters, find comfort in the feeling that at least a few propositions among many have some shade of truth in them, and that they receive enough approval by a certain public. Developmental psychologists have found that these 2 factors had a great impact on people's sense of self-certainty; the more one is convinced of knowing something, even though he doesnt, the less likely he will be curious enough to explore the topic further, failing to learn how little he actually knows. This way people remain stuck in their belief and thus will keep repeating it.

Islam critiqued cannot find the Uthman manuscripts

In answer to the video "The Quran, Abraham, Zarathustra and the Furnace"

Authenticity of the Quran isnt contingent on whether we have in our hands manuscripts written or approved by Uthman. The authentification and transmission of the Quran was always, since the time of the prophet, primarily oral. 

The Quran allows such endeavour because it isnt a text whose meaning and applicability is locked in time. And that is why the Muslims have not attached much importance to transmitting the minute detailed meaning of every passage, from the prophet and his companions, but they have instead focused on transmitting the text of the Quran itself. It was always the purpose of the Quran and its sharia to be adaptable accross time and space. That is why we have very few reports by the prophet giving his interpretation of the Quran. 

We are not talking of the core messages which are agreed upon, but of passages with multilayered meanings and implications, whose interpretations are open depending on the socio-cultural background or even the scientific knowledge of its contemporaries. These passages are open to many interpretations so long as they do not contradict the firm and unambiguous verses, which the Quran calls muhkam. It is these supposedly "obscure" parts of the book, that most modern critics of Islam use to build their theories on the origins of the Quran. They begin by discrediting the oral transmission process of the Quran based on the presence of these "blind spots" of Quranic exegisis. They think this consistues proof that the oral transmission chain was broken, hence the absence of a consensus on the meaning of these passages. 

These critics then dismiss centuries of accumulated Muslim scholarship, debates on all levels of the religion, textual, historical, sectarian, juristic, exegetical, theological, that led to the conclusions Muslims hold today as regards the Quran's authenticity, and all this, despite their awareness of various layers of meaning to certain passages. The critics then propose readings based on emendation of the text, changing letters and words so as to prove that "their" reading is more in line with what they individually think the message of a specific passage should be. The effortless cohesive theological structure of the text, the intricate connections between all of its passages and words is irrelevant and not worth considering. What is primordial is that their "improved" reading be violently forced into the text so as to integrate the Quran in the wider socio-religious context in which they suppose it came. The main purpose being the find their holy grail, to reveal the underlying sources that inspired it. 

The end result is an incoherent new book that has nothing to do with the original, with sometimes theological implications that Muslims of the past and today would never agree with. But in their minds, the purpose has been accomplished. The uniqueness of the Quran as a religious text orally transmitted, is now a pious legend, regardless of the thousands around the world in our own time doing just that, emulating their predecessors. 

The reality of the matter is that as a result of that revisionist approach to the Quran, all these critics converge on the same grounds; they do not know how the Quran originated, where it came from, and when it first appeared, how and in what language it was written, what form it first took, who was the first audience, how was it transmitted from one generation to another, especially in its early years, when, how, and by whom it was codified. These are all basic issues taken for granted by scholars dealing with other texts, much older than the Quran. Muslim tradition has for long resolved all these issues. 

Recent critical scholarship will eventually go back to the initial, much more constructive approach of pionneers in the field, by considering the historicity of the events agreed upon over the centuries by the Muslim scholars, and then try and build up their claims, whatever these might be.

The strong oral tradition is the reason why we find reports stating that the process of compilation was never a priority until memorizers started dying out in battles. The priority given to oral transmission is a phenomenon ongoing today and will remain so. It is irrelevant to Muslims whether we have many or few manuscripts attesting to our Quran, even if those few are found to be filled with errors and differences in comparison to what we have today. Neither would the availability of early manuscripts confirming the written text we have today, constitue strong proof for the Quran's authenticity. Someone with enough power and authority could have decided to write the first Quran compilation and disseminate it as the original left by the prophet. This however would have only been possible if the Muslim tradition, like the Judeo-Christian one, had neglected its strong oral tradition. 

So what would really challenge the Quran's authenticity is whether we have a variety of conflicting and competing traditions, primarily oral. Assuming for argument's sake that there are textual variations among manuscripts, or that we have no manuscripts belonging to Uthman, who by the way wasnt the first but the second compiler of the Quran into book form, is irrelevant, even laughable to a Muslim audience when trying to undermine the Quran's preservation. Because again, that preservation was, is and always will be, primarily oral. Trying to criticize the Quran from that angle is thus a fruitless effort, especially when the critic is coming from a background whose religious texts have a known history of neglectfulness or total loss of textual tradition. Such criticism only is valid from the view point of these critics because in the transmission process of their own tradition, they have entirely disregarded the oral aspect. Written texts and manuscripts thus become crucial to them in order to validate and authenticate their current scriptures and beliefs, even though such attestation in and of itself isnt strong proof of authenticity.

So, coming from such a poor background in terms of oral tradition, it is thus but natural for these critics to boast of their numerous manuscripts in comparison to the Quran, even though these early manuscripts of theirs contradict one another and sometimes are very damaging to their current pillars of faith. To this we may add the revisions and corruptions of the text, unknown or confused authorship, broken transmission chain, or even loss of the language of the person to whom the text is ascribed. All these, and other issues are problems that plagued the Biblical traditions, even to the point that the majoritarily accepted canons was different throughout the ages, even today with different Judeo-christian traditions having their own canon as God's word. Nothing even remotely similar happened to the Quran.

Again, we are comparing an oral society that made the progressive transition towards written with its first ever book, the Quran, of which we have abounding 1st and 2nd century Hijra manuscripts, comparing it with a well established written society. This Graeco-Roman written civilization is expected to have abounding written evidence for its central scriptures. Yet its manuscript attestation, the earlier we go back to the source, the more scant, obscure and inconsistent it becomes. The theory of late (post 200AH) composition of the Quran has been discarded even among the most hardened revisionists and orientalists, in light of the substantial and constantly increasing discoveries of 1st century hijri (622-719CE) Quranic manuscripts. The total texts extracted from these early manuscripts amount for over 90% of the current Quranic text. Contrast this with the single credit card size manuscript remnant of the NT whose dating is disputed somewhere along the 1st century CE. The issue of individual scribal errors is natural, to anyone who knows the various difficulties of copying a lengthy text prior to the printing era. The more essential question would be whether these individual errors were reproduced on a large enough scale so as to corrupt the majority of the transmitted text. This of course never occurred with the Quran, due to its dual, oral/written, mode of transmission. Even the variant readings, approved by the prophet, recorded and attested in books of tafsir, even those readings that change the skeletal Uthmanic text (a tiny minority of all variants and which are not contradictory), were never scripturally transmitted on a scale that would alter the majority of manuscripts throughout time. This again, attests to the well known and established phenomenon of mass oral transmission, as is done to this very day. These textual variations were for the most part restricted to companion codices, meant for the companions' personal use, hence their label by the scholars as companios' readings.

The script chosen for the Uthman compilation was Kufic, a script still readable today thanks to the dual preservation and transmission of the Quran, textual and oral. Some misinformed and misleading critics have tried arguing that the Kufic script did not appear until the late 8th century in an effort to push forth the dating of the Uthman codices exposed at Samarkand and Topkapi. That assertion is totally devoid of any historical basis since it is known that Kufic is the earliest script from which the others developed. That assertion is mainly based on a misquote of Martin Lings who was actually referring to the calligraphic perfection of the script, not its genesis. The Kufic script was known in Mesapotamia at least 100 years before Kufa was even founded, which was during the period of Umar in the 17th year of hijra/638CE. The reason for the layman confusion is because the script is named after the city of Kufa, though it did not originate there. The Kufic script in fact originated in the town of Hira and the Kufans inherited and took on that script that later became known as Kufic, the adopted script of the major learning center of the Islamic world. Several rock inscriptions, as well as coinage, scattered throughout Egypt, Syria, Iraq or the Hijaz attest to the prominence of the Kufic script in Muslim lands already in the 1st century AH. 

To further corraborate the point, the manuscripts found in Sanaa were Kufan manuscript, and those are dated the first century hijra.

It is also well known that early Quran manuscripts are present in museums worldwide, besides those that are in private collections in the west and those that were lost or destroyed. A huge collection was kept in Germany, but destroyed during the Second World War. Even the manuscripts present in Muslim museums are available as copies in the non-Muslim countries, such as the Uthman Samarkand codex that has numerous copies disseminated wordlwide in private and public hands. There are countless 1st century Hijra (622-719CE) Quran fragments, as well as a 99% complete manuscript of that period, the Huseini mosque Cairo manuscript.

Other Kufic Quranic manuscripts from 1st and early 2nd century hijra are found in museums today, like the ones of Austria and Bahrein. In fact even the style of the script of the Samarkand codex which the missionaries want to push the dating as far as the late 8th century, this same style is found in inscriptions from the 1st century of hijra in the form of dated Kufic inscriptions, predating Uthman's collection of the Quran.

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

In answer to the video "How Could Allah Give Mary A Son? Tawhid Dilemma Ep. 8"

The Quran is aware of the various man made doctrines as regards God's supposed progeny. 

For example, it does not say Jesus is the son of God in a physical/carnal sense, or that Christians believe such. 

In 2:116 it says

"And they say: Allah has taken to himself (ittakhadha) a son (waladan)".

This is saying that Christians claim Allah has taken a human being "as his son". This subtle wording represents the mainstream "declared" Christian belief concerning Jesus' sonship. But in reality, in the minds of the hellenistic converts that shaped Christianity, Jesus is literally "begotten by God, not made". The early translations of the Bible where the Greek monogenh occurs, represent that ecclesiastical tradition. When The Quran says "ittakhadha" (to take) for God taking Jesus as a son, it uses the same word in other places without any carnal or biological connotation. For example

4:125"..and Allah took (ittakhadha) Ibrahim as a friend".

39:4 elaborates on the meaning of "taking a son" when refering to God

"If Allah desire to take (yattakhidha) a son (waladan) to Himself, He will surely CHOOSE those He pleases from what He has created".

This proves that the meaning of "take a son" when it refers to God as in 2:116, is to choose one from among His creatures not to physically conceive one. Jesus must have been taken by God the Father as his son at some point in time, regardless of the sophistries trinitarians conjure so as to make sense of their doctrines. Jesus, the incarnate word of God, as a human being with a human soul did not exist from eternity, even according to their creeds. This man/god creature came took shape some 2000 years ago, which is when he was "taken" as a son by God. Whatever the speculation on the pre-incarnate form or nature of the son of God, it was different than the form he took on the earth, and the form he has now in heaven. This results in further problems, including a God to whom things are added or substracted.
In the Quran, although this hypothetical scenario is given, the reality of the matter is rejected alltogether, as is found elsewhere

23:91"never did Allah take to Himself a son, and never was there with him any (other) god"

21:26-29"Glory be to Him. Nay! they are honored servants. They do not precede Him in speech and (only) according to His commandment do they act. He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they do not intercede except for him whom He approves and for fear of Him they tremble. And whoever of them should say: Surely I am a god besides Him, such a one do We recompense with hell; thus do, We recompense the unjust".

The remotness of such a notion is thus rooted in that all these eminent persons are, along with all things, obedient creations of His. An interesting observation is the statement that those nearest to God

21:19"are never too proud to worship Him and never grow weary".

Contrary to worldly ownership and mastership, the closer a servant is to his master the more benefits he gains in terms of power, material gains and personal freedom. But as regards to God's ownership which is the true and absolute one, the closer the servant is drawn to Him the more humbled and submissive the servant becomes, aware of his insignificance in relation to the Supreme Being. 

That is how complete and intricate the Quran is, in its argumentations for perfect monotheism. 

Elsewhere the Quran depicts the notion of God's absolute sway over all things, including those the polytheists claim are His physical descendants

19:92-5"And it is not worthy of the Beneficient that He should take a son. There is no one in the Heavens and the earth but will come to the Beneficient as a servant. Certainly He has a comprehensive knowledge of them and He has numbered them a comprehensive numbering. And everyone of them will come to Him on the day of Resurrection, alone".

These entities who are supposed to share some of the divine essence are in fact so lowly before their Creator and far removed from any sort of divinity and intrinsic power, that they are numbered like slaves are. Their provisions decided, their tasks assigned and ultimate purpose defined. This reality will become manifest when all of creation is resurrected and brought to its Creator empty handed. It is further important to understand the psychology behind the notion of "taking a son" for a ruler, let alone a regular human being. Kings used to resort to this practice when they chose among their subjects an individual that fit their subjective/desired/missing criteria when their own progeny wasnt satisfying, in order to fulfill a certain purpose, most often their succession. The taking of a son reveals an inherent weakness, whether it be the desire of continuity or association in accomplishing a task. 

The Quran refutes these needs from various angles

2:116-7"Glory be to Him/subhanahu; rather, whatever is in the heavens and the earth is His; all are obedient to Him. Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth, and when He decrees an affair, He only says to it, Be, so there it is".

First and foremost He is far above any concept in terms of exaltedness, perfection, as denoted with subhaanahu. This necessarily precludes any need or weakness. Then, all of existence is fully encompassed by His grip meaning He does not need to pick and choose something if He already owns everything, even moreso when all things are submissive to Him. This submissivness began since the origin of the creation of the heavens and the earth

41:11"willingly or unwillingly",

a process that will be reproduced on the resurrection 84:2. What would then be the purpose of declaring an entitiy His son, when all reasons for which He would hypotheticaly need one are already covered? 

Finally, God does not require searching through His own creation for an entity endowed with qualities needed for the accomplishment of a supposed need of His, when He is

2:117"badeeu/Innovator and initiator of the heavens and the earth".

This term badieeu means that in His case, contrary to all creative endeavours, He creates without any blueprint, preexisting inspiration, experience, simply through His word

"and if HE decreed an order done, He only says be and it is".

This is why God is the "best of creators".

When it addresses the issue of carnal begetting, the Quran explains the incompatibility of that concept, from the point of view of God's majestic status, unique essence, for God to physically beget both sons and daughters as the polytheists claimed throughout time 6:100-101 ascribing to Him even a lineage among the jinn 37:158. 

The desire for children is based upon the desire to continue one's own legacy, i.e. it is based upon an inherent weakness within man and this rejects the majesty of Allah, His transcendence, and status as beyond causality and contingency. Why would He need entities besides Himself, sharing His essence? Is He lacking in power, knowledge to rule creation by Himself, or  is He limited in lifespan?
The Quran rejects this concept of progeny and sonship to God, as well as all the implications undermining His supremacy, by for instance pointing to the facts that nothing precedes or outlasts Him 57:3, that nothing is even within the realm of the remotest of comparisons, that He neither begets nor is He begotten 42:11,112:1-4.

WALAD is the term translated as "son" in 6:101 but the word really means a "product of birth". This covers that Allah does not give birth, nor does he have a consort to give birth for Him. It is important to note, the verse does not tie the impossibility for God to beget to the absence of consort exclusively. It says Wa/And He has no consort. So, the absence of the consort is one of many reasons why Allah does not have a son. Along with the absence of consort, the other reasons for God not having any son are "innovator of the heavens and Earth", "Creator of everything" and so on. It does not befit the One holding sway over all creation to have the need for a son, which entails an inherent weakness. 

Why would He need to, when His grasp over creation is so all-embracing, that His will, whatever it may be, is instantly executed

19:35"It is not for Allah to take a child; glory to be Him. When He decrees a command, He only says to it: Be; and it is".

The Quran treats this assertion as so far removed from reality, that it tells its messenger, had it been true he would have been the first to be instructed to worship such an entity 43:81.

Finally the word ANNA translated as How, is an exclamatory expression through several angles, as in "How" and "why" together, to mean "why should He?!" 

The primary Quranic argument against God procreating is thus not linked at all to the presence or absence of consort, but to the contradiction that notion creates with His uniqueness, supremacy, perfection, self-subsitence and so on. But had the Quran not refuted the idea of God physically procreating by mentionning the absence of a consort, its argument would have remained incomplete. 

That is because the very notion of God needing to procreate demotes Him in His self-sustained status, restricts His power and will. This inevitably entails the need for partners in His rule, including a consort to procreate. In such a demoted status, the notion of God doing whatever He wills through His creative word "BE" becomes an impossible proposition. The Quran is here showing the necessary implications of the polytheists' belief, exposing their flaws and refuting them from every possible angle. 

The perfect example to illustrate is that of Mary 19:20. 

Being a human, she was limited in her power and will just as God would have been, had He needed a progeny. Mary was unable by her own will to conceive, just as Allah would have been due to His demoted status. They would have both needed a counterpart to procreate. But the reality is different. God, the Majestic, is free from any need, including that of having children, which necessarily implies Him being limitess in His power and will

19:35"It is not for Allah to take a child; glory to be Him. When He decrees a command, He only says to it: Be; and it is".

The verse makes it clear, the total absence of any need to have a child is linked to His supreme dominion over all things, as encapsulated with the creative word "BE". On the other hand, the need for a child would immidiately negate that absolute power. But Allah is limitless and that is why He was able to impose His creative will upon Mary, making her conceive even in the absence of a male counterpart. Furthermore, the phrase used in this verse is

6:101"..How could He HAVE (yakun lahu) a son (waladun)..".

The different wording for a physical/carnal son in 6:101 as the pagans claimed and 2:116/39:4 speaking of God TAKING a son from among His creatures as some Christians claim, irrefutably shows that the Quran does not mix the 2 notions.

CIRA International ask a riddle; why cant Allah have a son?

In answer to the video "How Could Allah Give Mary A Son? Tawhid Dilemma Ep. 8"

The verse in question is not concerned with Jesus' sonship as understood in Christianity, but of the polytheists who attributed a carnal progeny to Allah. 

The negation of male children to God is stated in 6:100-101, where the Quran also explains the impossibility, from the point of view of His majestic status, unique essence, for God to physically/carnally beget both sons and daughters as the polytheists claimed throughout time, ascribing to Him even a lineage among the jinn 37:158. 

The desire for children is based upon the desire to continue one's own legacy, i.e. it is based upon an inherent weakness within man and this rejects the majesty of Allah, His transcendence, and status as beyond causality and contingency. Why would He need entities besides Himself, sharing His essence? Is He lacking in power, knowledge to rule creation by Himself, or  is He limited in lifespan? 

The Quran rejects this concept of progeny and sonship to God, as well as all the implications undermining His supremacy, by for instance pointing to the facts that nothing precedes or outlasts Him 57:3, that nothing is even within the realm of the remotest of comparisons, that He neither begets nor is He begotten 42:11,112:1-4.

WALAD is the term translated as "son" in 6:101 but the word really means a "product of birth". This covers that Allah does not give birth, nor does he have a consort to give birth for Him. It is important to note, the verse does not tie the impossibility for God to beget to the absence of consort exclusively. It says Wa/And He has no consort. So, the absence of the consort is one of many reasons why Allah does not have a son. Along with the absence of consort, the other reasons for God not having any son are "innovator of the heavens and Earth", "Creator of everything" and so on. It does not befit the One holding sway over all creation to have the need for a son, which entails an inherent weakness. Why would He need to, when His grasp over creation is so all-embracing, that His will, whatever it may be, is instantly executed

19:35"It is not for Allah to take a child; glory to be Him. When He decrees a command, He only says to it: Be; and it is".

The Quran treats this assertion as so far removed from reality, that it tells its messenger, had it been true he would have been the first to be instructed to worship such an entity 43:81.

Finally the word ANNA translated as How, is an exclamatory expression through several angles, as in "How" and "why" together, to mean "why should He?!" 

The primary Quranic argument against God procreating is thus not linked at all the presence or absence of consort, but to the contradiction that notion creates with His uniqueness, supremacy, perfection, self-subsitence and so on. But had the Quran not refuted the idea of God physically procreating by mentionning the absence of a consort, its argument would have remained incomplete. 

That is because the very notion of God needing to procreate demotes Him in His self-sustained status, restricts His power and will. This inevitably entails the need for partners in His rule, including a consort to procreate. In such a demoted status, the notion of God doing whatever He wills through His creative word "BE" becomes an impossible proposition. The Quran is here showing the necessary implications of the polytheists' belief, exposing their flaws and refuting them from every possible angle. 

The perfect example to illustrate is that of Mary 19:20. Being a human, she was limited in her power and will just as God would have been, had He needed a progeny. Mary was unable by her own will to conceive, just as Allah would have been due to His demoted status. They would have both needed a counterpart to procreate. But the reality is different. God, the Majestic, is free from any need, including that of having children, which necessarily implies Him being limitess in His power and will

19:35"It is not for Allah to take a child; glory to be Him. When He decrees a command, He only says to it: Be; and it is".

The verse makes it clear, the total absence of any need to have a child is linked to His supreme dominion over all things, as encapsulated with the creative word "BE". On the other hand, the need for a child would immidiately negate that absolute power. But Allah is limitless and that is why He was able to impose His creative will upon Mary, making her conceive even in the absence of a male counterpart.

CIRA International compare the incomparable; who has the truth on Jesus' birth?

In answer to the video "How Could Allah Give Mary A Son? Tawhid Dilemma Ep. 8"

On the surface, the Quran and the Bible agree on that part of Jesus' story. But in reality they dont because one narration comes from God and the other doesnt. Firstly in the Quran it says the RUH/the breeze, the immaterial entity sent by Allah, tamathala laha/lit. he transformed to Mary, as a well made human being. He then breathed into her part of his own self that she might conceive Isa 21:91. 

Contrast this subtle Quranic wording with the crude depiction made in the NT of the holy ghost (a trinitarian deity) coming upon Mary and overshadowing her like a man getting ready to copulate Lk1:35. 

Now we get to the crucial point, which is Jesus' given matronym "son of Mary". Although others in the Bible were referred to with matronyms such as Shamgar son of Anath, "son of Mary" isnt a known name in the Christian world, while it is in the Muslim world. The Gospel writers had no interest in tracing Jesus' genealogy through Mary since it goes against Jewish law. Secondly, their object was to fulfill the HB's tribal requirements for the messiah. To that end they invented 2 (conflicting) genealogies through an adoptive father, Joseph. Jesus was thus described with the patronym "son of Joseph". 

In the process, they made flaws in both genealogies cancelling any legitimate claims to the throne of the King Messiah (see the Jeconia curse, among other blunders).

The Quranic matronym "son of Mary" carried several deep implications, besides being simply an appellation. In 3:45 the angels give Mary the news that she will soon conceive of a child. This information in itself doesnt indicate anything special, unless it was given to a barren old lady with an equally barren old husband, as in Sara's case who was consequently incredulous at the angelic declaration 11:71-3. Mary would have naturally understood she would conceive in a normal way and there wouldnt have been any reason for her to be surprised at the news 3:47,19:20-1. But by adding the information that the future child will be named "son of Mary", among other names, the angels were telling her he would be born without the agency of a father, in a miraculous way. In semitic tradition a person was identified by the father's name so nothing could have been more striking in the psyche of a woman of the time to be told that her son will not be identified by his affiliation to a male, but to a woman. 

This miraculous conception is a sign not only Jesus would be known by, but also his mother and the name "son of Mary" implies exactly that; she would jointly share this sign with him forever as both of their names will be mentioned together

23:50,21:91"and made her and her son a sign for the worlds".

Jesus as well as his mother were chosen to be made jointly, "A" single sign of the power of the Maker and Creator over all things. So from a Quranic perspective, that miracle equally sets Mary and Jesus apart from humanity. Before discussing the implications of this sign, it is worthwhile noting that by honoring Mary in such a way and joining her name to that of one of the most illustrious individuals to have walked the earth, God has defeated in His final revelation and until the resurrection, the slanderous talk of some among her contemporaries and those that followed, who wanted to put a stain on her and abase her. 

As regards the sign, it consists in demonstrating how the resurrection of bodies isnt a difficult task to God. We deem it impossible for a female to give life without the necessary biological process yet God did it, so just as He easily creates life in conditions we think are impossible then similarly He is able to bring the dead back to life even if the conditions make it unfeasable from our perspective. The rejection of the concept of resurrection by many Jews of the time adds to the relevancy of that miracle. One can even argue that Jesus was given the greatest evidence for resurrection among God's prophets who all equally stressed the importance of that tenet to their people. 

This is because Jesus is the only explicit case in the prophetic history where a human's birth did not result from mating. The Quran doesnt even state that Adam was born in such a way, ie that he was not the result of sexual reproduction. 

Other miraculous births are recorded in the Quran, including around the time of Jesus as was the case for the prophet John/Yahya. But they primarily served the purpose of a reward and were not meant to be disclosed and shared openly other than within the circle of the people concerned. Jesus' birth not only was different than all others in its prominence because as already said, intercourse between a man and a woman did not even precede it, but also because it was primarily meant as a sign for all of humanity. As a testimony to this, the Quran uses a linguistic subtlety, showing again and again how it uses words surgically in order to maximize the impact. There is a slight different wording between God's answer to Mary

3:47"Even so Allah creates what he pleases"

and to Zakariya

3:40"Even so does Allah whatsoever He pleases".

The nuance -creates vs does- lies in that the miracle of a child born of a virgin is definitely more striking than a child born to a couple, even if barren. It must be kept in mind the Quran was recited in the form of speech, publicly and instantly as it came to the prophet, with no chance a re-editing and modifying, and the 2 verses are very closely located. How would one, let alone a known illiterate without any background in poetry or any form of oral eloquent speeches, instantly and naturally make such a distinction in a flowing discourse?

The NT writers firstly wanted Jesus to be traced up to King David to fulfill the criteria for the Messiah's lineage. But Jesus had no father as both the Bible and Quran agree, hence the introduction of an adoptive father, Joseph. Now Jesus had to be known under the patronym "son of Joseph" in his community, instead of "son of Mary" as affirmed in the Quran. In addition to providing a fabricated lineage, they were now, in their eyes, "protecting" Mary's public image and that of Jesus. She was now engaged before her pregnancy and married when she delivered, not, as the Quran says, completely alone when she met God's messenger, as well as all throughout her pregnancy, including when she secluded herself to deliver the baby. 

According to the Greek writers, the virgin birth was a secret yet this particular miracle was, according to those same writers that base themselves on the infamous mistranslation of Isa7:14 in the Greek Septuagint, one of the most crucial fulfilments of HB prophecies. This "secret" virgin birth supposedly was among the signs the Israelites had to know from the very beginning to identify the awaited savior

Isa7:14,Matt1:22"All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel".

It is no surprise that in his purported letters, Ignatius the bishop of Antioch and supposed disciple of the apostles declares that Mary's virginity and child bearing were secrets only made known to the world through a "star". 

This is not to mention the cultural ignorance of the non-Jewish Greek writer who penned the story. 

A Hebrew wedding is celebrated in two parts. In ancient times, the interval between the two ceremonies could take up to several weeks in order to allow time for the new home to be arranged. But to avoid secret encounters between the newly wedds who could not hold their urge to come together, the wedding ie the second ceremony was arranged at the earliest possible opportunity. It is clear from Deut22:23 that a girl described as "betrothed" to a husband already has the status of a legally married woman which is why a newly-married couple normally consummate their union immediately after their betrothal ceremony to complete it and make it legally valid and binding. This makes it all the more absurd to paint Mary as "bethroted" prior to her pregnancy. 

The fact is that this non-existent virgin birth prophecy of the HB was inserted into the NT narrative retrospectively. From a theological viewpoint, Christians needed to solve the problem of having the perfect, sinless human sacrifice born of a human mother, while all humans are sinful in nature and that they pass on that depravity to their progeny. They thus neglected and forgot the true purpose of that miracle, and assumed that the object of the virgin birth was to guarantee Jesus would be born without the inevitable sinful stain. Back in these times people didnt know that women contribute just as much if not a bit more (in terms of genetic material) to the formation of a baby than men did. And so by believing that women were a mere passive vessel, in the absence of a human father Jesus would necessarily be free of original sin. The particularities of Yahya/John and Jesus' births, do not make any of them different or special than other human beings in terms of their physical nature. Neither were these miraculous circumstances necessary to accommodate the false notions retrospectively applied to them. For example Jesus did not need to come from a virgin to circumvent human depravity, something Jesus never even spoke of. Neither did Jesus need to combine the immaterial/RUH of Allah, with the material/human mother so as to assume his dual human/divine nature. All humanity has exactly this same dual aspect as Jesus, without any of us being divine.

Jesus had to be known, according to the NT writers themselves, as special since the very beginning, yet not only was the virgin birth obscured to the people through the absurd introduction of a husband but the NT also repeatedly says how the young Jesus was completely unknown in any particular way prior to his ministry in adulthood, see Matt13 for example. 

The absurdity doesnt end here, the same NT that tells us his people knew nothing special about him prior to his ministry also tells us of all the wonderful signs and wonders surrounding his first moments as an infant, the celestial signs that prompted both friends and foes to look for him even from outside Palestine, people such as the Magi coming "from the east" to worship the newly born "king of the Jews". Signs of the messiah's impending rise were supposedly so obvious that king Herod, fearing for his throne, began slaughtering all male infants born in Bethleem at that particular time. Mary was prompted to flee with her son to Nazareth to hide and protect him Matt2. 

Part of the NT establishes the fact that it was well known in and outside Palestine that the awaited savior had come, and countless people identified him with Jesus since his youngest days. Elizabeth for instance refers to Mary as "mother of my Lord" as she saw her pregnant Lk1. Shepherds, informed by the angels, rushed to Bethleem to see the newly born messiah. After confirmation

Lk2:17"they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them".

Anna, the daughter of Penuel as well as Simeon recognized in the newly born Jesus the awaited savior and told others about him Lk2. Both rabbis and laymen at the Temple were astonished at the child Jesus' display of wisdom and knowledge. And yet we read elsewhere that nobody knew of the virgin birth miracle, neither was Jesus known as anything special prior to adulthood. 

This last incident at the Temple is preceded by the improbable scenario of Jesus' parents travelling from Jerusalem where they had attended Passover, back to their hometown of Nazareth and only noticing after a day's walk that the little Jesus had been left behind. So they return to Jerusalem, and only find him after 3 days search. Astoundingly, the NT writers also paint Mary and Joseph, the very ones who witnessed first hand the virgin birth, as completely ignorant of what Jesus meant when he stated that he

"must be concerned with the affairs of my Father".

Jesus made that statement in response to Mary's scolding him because of his disappearance Lk2:42-50. Did Mary and Joseph suddenly forget all the miraculous signs and fame surrounding his infancy just 12 years after his birth, as if they had never heard of them and their obvious implications as regards his identity? In another context, Mary, who gave birth to him miraculously, and his brothers James and Jude even thought he had gone mad Mk3.

The Quran, far from copying the above NT absurdities, says the virgin birth was a miracle made known to all. It would be foolish to provide a miracle of virgin birth, while the woman supposed to carry the child is married. For an unmarried woman, in addition known for her piety and chastity, to show up with her own baby would immediately attract the eyes of an entire community upon her, maximizing the impact of the absolving speech of the infant Jesus at once, as vividly and eloquently described in sura Maryam. None would have spontaneously came to her had she been married prior, nobody would have inquired because there would have been no scandal of a woman dedicated to worship in God's temple suddenly showing up with a child. 

According to the NT depiction, the married Mary now has to prove the virgin birth miracle by going out of her way and pleading repeatedly to the unsuspecting community. It would have been inefficient and debasing. In the Quranic version of the story, the blessed Mary did not need to utter a single word to defend her innocence, preserving her honor and avoiding her the difficulty of having to argue and dispute with a crowd, and neither did the child need to be overexposed so as to repeat his speech senselessly.

The protection of the virgin birth reaches such an extent in the Quran and in such eloquent and intricate details, that whenever Jesus is quoted as addressing the Israelites, he does not once call them "my people" or "my nation" as other Israelite prophets like Moses are quoted as saying in the Quran. Jesus always calls them "Bani Israel" because they, contrary to him, could trace their lineage up to Israel from their fathers, which wasnt his case. Jesus had no worldly father, neither one involved in his conception, nor the made up one of the NT whom the writers needed to create a messianic lineage.
Son of Mary is an appelation used by those that testify to the miraculous circumstances of Jesus' birth, contrary to those calling him by the patronym of the NT. 

While the Quran does agree on certain points with the NT just as it does with the HB in other instances the Quran corrects the errors that have crept into these Books and further adds unknown, obscured or forgotten information. If Muhammad was copying from them, then one has to explain how the very subtle differences, which are loaded with meaning, let alone the major differences are there in the Quran.

Apostate prophet wonders; what are the Huruf muqataat?

In answer to the video "The Mysterious Letters in the Quran"

There is a pervasive, humbling Quranic principle that

12:76"above every possessor of knowledge is (one) (more) knowing"

with God being the ultimate possessor of all knowledge, hidden and apparent, allowing what He wills to be temporarily shared with His creation 2:255. This concept transpires throughout the Quran in many different ways, in order to put man's propensity for arrogance and self-sufficiency in check. For example right after sura fatiha, the plea in which man is spiritually humbled and taught to seek guidance from a superior entity, in the next sura man's intellect is immediately humbled, right from the start through the huruf muqattaat/disjointed letters.

These seemingly simple alphabetical letters are found in every Arabic text, available for all, but out of which Allah created a book the equivalent of which no intellect can produce. That intellectual, creative superiority can be observed virtually anywhere in the system of the universe; just as man makes bricks and ceramics out of soil, Allah creates thousands of flowers and plants, fruits and animals as well as man, out of the same materials. 

As a testimony of one's understanding of that principle, one should therefore ask the All-Knowing to be increased in knowledge 20:114, just like the prophet David teaches in his Psalms119:27-34 to ask God to open one's intellect to grasping the Torah, increase one's knowledge and understanding of His precepts. The Quran primarily teaches humanity how to think before imparting knowledge. 

Regarding those disjointed letters, there is no fixed theory on their meaning. Yet no Muslim has ever tampered with them, edited or removed them. This is despite the fact that their definite meaning remained mysterious, even among the early Muslims. Abu Bakr said 

"Every book has a mystery (sirr), and the mystery of the Quran is the beginnings of the surahs".

The whole corpus of traditions in general was meant at recording history and incidents of the early community, the manner in which the prophet lived his everyday life and applied the Quran, rather than relaying his exegesis of the book. That is why one doesnt find much Quran commentary attributed to the prophet, besides the verses and passages speaking of the important pillars of faith, or those connected to a particular incident in the life of the community. So although the definite opinion of the earliest Muslims as regards the muqataat isnt known, the Muslims and the memorizers throughout the ages held fast by the authenticity of the Quran by keeping them as is. 

We see a similar phenomenon attesting to the preservation of the Quranic text with the bismilla/basmalla. Although the scholars and reciters have differed on whether it should be treated as a separate verse, or if it should be included in the recitation, all have kept it as an integral part of the text. Nobody denied its placement at the beginning of every sura, and all have maintained the prophetic tradition of omitting it both textually and orally from the beginning of sura tawba. From the position of a textual critic, the fact that the odd absence of the opening formula was not corrected at this single place attests to the diligence of the transmitters and compilers of the Quran, protecting its integrity from falsification.

Going back to the muqataat, there is however one report, going back to ibn Abbas where he makes the following statement as regards the letter nun which appears in 68:1

"The first thing Allah created was the pen. He ordered it to write. It said: What shall I write? He said: Write the fate. So it wrote what will happen from that day until the Day of judgement, then he created the Nun, then he raised the water and created the heavens with it and laid the earth on the back of the Nun, the Nun moved and so did the earth, so it was fixed down with mountains".

The chain is authentic but cannot be taken as evidence for the definite meaning of the muqataa letter. The reason is that this view is not attributed to the prophet. It would not be a problem had ibn Abbas been doing ijtihad, but he is here reportedly commenting on the unseen, a matter that can only be known through revelation. Some commentators have made a connection between the letter nun, and the phonetically similar word nuun which appears in 21:87 in reference to a large fish. This laid the basis to many fantastic stories in several books of tafsir, speaking of a giant whale carrying the earth. This could be influenced by the Biblical description of pillars keeping earth afloat above the waters on which it was established Ps24:2,136:6. The exegetes however unanimously noted the absurdity of the concept, although they mentioned it, saying it most probably originated in Jewish traditions, as noted by the likes of al-thaalabi. There is in fact a very similar statement of Kaab al-Ahbar and ibn Abbas is known to have quoted israeliyyat from him. Kaab was an early Jewish convert to Islam known for adding his talmudic knowledge, as well as local Arabian Jewish folklore, while commenting on the Quran. However when he did so, Kaab did not attribute his opinion to the prophet. Ibn Abbas here might have been simply relating what contemporary Jews believed, without confirmation or negation. This is in fact what the prophet told the Muslims as they began interacting with the people of the book 

"The Prophet said: Convey (my teachings) to the people even if it were a single sentence, and tell others the stories of People of Israel (which have been taught to you), for it is not sinful to do so. And whoever tells a lie on me intentionally, will surely take his place in the (Hell) Fire".

Other mufassirun have understood this "nun" to mean an inkpot, a tablet of light, or an abbreviation of Rahman. All these attempts demonstrate the point of these letters which is about humbling man in his pursuit of knowledge.

It is to be noted that this hadith, along with others weak ones related to the Islamic view of cosmology, were kept by the scholars and used to corroborate certain notions found in more trustworthy sources. Among such weak ahadith is 

"Above the seventh heaven there is a sea, the distance between whose surface and bottom is like that between one heaven and the next. Above that there are eight mountain goats the distance between whose hoofs and haunches is like the distance between one heaven and the next. Then Allah, the Blessed and the Exalted, is above that". 

Some reports are outright forgeries attributed to later jurists the likes of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal after their death, as is found in a tract called Kitab al-sunna, a pro-anthropomorphic work. Among such ahadith put in the mouth of renowned authorities are "when He Most Blessed and Exalted sits on the Kursi, a squeak is heard like the squeak of a new leather saddle" or "Allah wrote the Torah for Moses with His hand while leaning back on a rock, on tablets of pearl, and the screech of the quill could be heard. There was no veil between Him and him" or "The angels were created from the light of His two elbows and chest". If anyone among the salaf was far removed from any tinge of anthropomorphisms it was Ibn Hanbal, whose position on the matter was known as purely literal, and avoided delving beyond the plain reading of any statement from the Quran or the prophet describing something from Allah. Another work with its share of forgeries is Ibn al-Qayyim’s Ijtima al-juyush al-Islamiyya.

As to the huruf, Im not sure whether this youtuber is being serious in his claim, but nowhere did the preislamic poets start their odes with similar disjointed letters. 

Others tried explaining them by appealing to a polemical anti-Karaite treatise dated to the 10th century CE, where mention is made of 10 Jews that faked their conversion to Islam to avoid harm befalling them. They then began teaching some verses to the prophet. Besides the contradicting fact that in this polemical text, those Jews themselves begin attacking the Medina and Khaybar Jews, not a single of those verses can be found either in the Quran or in the whole corpus of Islamic literature. 

It is additionally claimed that each of them inserted his name, within a sura in a cryptic manner, resulting in the huruf al muqataat. Here again one can easily detect the falsehood. These authorship references arent said to be at the beginning of a fabricated sura but part of a whole verse everytime, nowhere to be found in the current Quran. In addition from a linguistic viewpoint, the words which these letters claim to be abreviations of, can only work if one were to substitute, add or revise the pronunciations of these letters. 

For example YA-SIN starting sura 36 is supposed to be the abbreviation of israa'il. As anyone with rudimentary knowledge of Arabic knows, israa'il is composed of alif-sin-ra-lam. Nothing to do with ya-sin.

Acts17apologetics find Trinity in HB; God appears to Abraham and Moses?

In answer to the video "Decapitating Allah (and "Defacing" Islam)"

Gen18:1-2"The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground".

Firstly, none can and has ever seen God, as is explicitly stated in both the Hebrew writings and the Greek testament Ex33:20,Jn1:17. To argue the contrary based on ambiguous verses 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.  To corroborate, the angels sent by YHWH are sometimes addressed as "YHWH" Ex3:2,4,14,Judges6:12,14,Zech3:1,2 simply because they spoke for Him. 

This is a known axiom of HB scriptural exegisis, that a person's agent is like himself; the agent's action is considered as though his principal had performed it. 

There are many instances such as in Ex12:12 where it is God personally who promises to punish the Egyptians yet a few verses down in v23 it is the "destroyer". Or throughout Isaiah where "the Lord spoke" to such and such while it in fact was the prophet relating the divine inspiration to such a person Isa7:10. Again in Isa22:11 it is God who is said to have built what king Hezekiah made 2Chron32:5 and this is because he was acting as God's agent during the process, trusting Him in his endeavours 2kings18:5. In 2Sam24:1 it is God that incites David to conduct a census while in 1Chron21:1 it is Satan, the adversary that does God's work. Hasatan by the way is an angel, just as the angel sent on specific occasions during the Israelites' exodus to execute the will of God Ex14,23,33etc. God in all those instances was "with" the Israelites through His messenger angel, the same way as a commander talking to the citizen of his nation, telling them he is with them although his soldiers are the ones defending the people.  This angel/messenger of the Lord by the way is incapable of forgiving sins Ex23. It is thus very surprising that Christians would use this type of proof text as an indication of the HB having multiple divine persons. Further the book of Hebrews openly states Jesus is not an angel Heb1. This kind of language, where the agent is called God or the consequence of an agent's actions is attributed to God, is common to the Semitic revelations, and found throughout the Quran too. It stems from the monotheistic notion that God is the creator of all things, including the laws of causality which He maintains and allows at each instant. These are straightforward notions to a person imbedded in Abrahamic monotheism. But as soon as these concepts are read through the lens of polytheistic cultures where multiple gods interact among oneanother and independantly influence the lives of the humans, then confusions appear. 

That is why one will never find an Israelite reading trinity or any other speculation on God's unity in any of the passages proposed by Christians.

Besides these facts, if it is YHWH himself who appeared to Abraham in the shape of Jesus in Genesis 18 as trinitarians want it to be, then who are the "Ancient of Days" and the "son of man" who simultaneously appeared to Daniel in his vision Dan7:9-14? And why is one described with a title evoking eternity while the other stresses his human origin? What is rendered "Ancient of Days" lit. means "the One from the ancient years" - that is, "the same God who existed in ancient times". So if this "Ancient of Days" who stands for YHWH, and the "son of man" for Jesus, appeared together in human form in this vision as all Christian scholars agree, what proof is there that when YHWH manifested himself in human form in Gen18 it was Jesus christ?

In Revelation 4 and 5 it is said that the "Lamb" (which stands for Jesus) came and took a scroll from God's hand as he was sitting on his throne surrounded by "elders". Again both Jesus and YHWH appear simultaneously in human form meaning they are viewed by the authors as distinct so what reason is there to assume the YHWH who appeared throughout the HB was Jesus? 

Also, contrary to what trinitarians want, there are 4 characters in Gen18, not 3. 18:1 says God appears. Then three strangers, who are angels, turn up in v2. God has already appeared before. Abraham asks them to stop and he offers them food. Besides basic chronology, another thing making it clear that V1 and v2 are referring to separate occurrences is that in v22 the "men" were completely separate from God

"the men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD".

Acts17apologetics need to see to believe; Islamic way of perceiving Allah?

In answer to the video "Decapitating Allah (and "Defacing" Islam)"

Christianity’s dogma of incarnation, a theology resulting from centuries of later reflections, is the climax of anthropomorphism. The NT is far removed from the Hebraic universe and closer to the Hellenestic world view. It isnt theocentric but christocentric. 

Islam emphasizes God’s transcendence, protecting it from any shades of corporealism. Countless verses substantiate this principle, without resorting to textual contortions or external help to safeguard this paradigm. The Quran makes it clear, God is unknown in His essence, but is known through His signs, attributes, qualities and actions. 

God's essence is, as shown earlier, one that can never be perceived, meaning we cannot speak of Him in terms of any point of reference, including spatio-temporal. However, nothing is more evident than God's attributes within and outside ourselves. He, through His attributes, is everywhere in the heavens and earth

57:4,12:105,31:20,2:115"so whichever way you turn, there is the Face of Allah".

These attributes manifest in every aspect of creation, down to our

45:3-4,51:21"own souls (too); will you not then see?".

It is a continuously unfolding phenomenon as denoted with the present progressive tense in 41:53. As also denoted with "musiun" 51:47 which carries the meaning of expanding, the universe is not a finished work, but in continuous expansion, with new manifestations of God's creation

87:2"Who creates, then makes complete".

Musiun stems from W-S-Ayn meaning wide or to encompass something. It is often used in the Quran to imply both meanings 4:97,130,7:156,20:98,29:56. Musiun is a noun describing the subject doing the widening or the encompassing. Here the meaning that fits better the context is widening or expanding. The passage turns the audience's attention to the sky whose primary characteristics they know and see, obvisouly is its vasteness. It first says God built it with power, because something that vast could only have been done with immesurable might. This verse is part of a group of verses arguing for the resurrection by pointing to mankind's creation as insignificant in terms of complexity and strength needed to achieve it, compared to the heavens above 40:57. The idea of making the heavens vast thus then naturaly follows the initial description of the creation from the perspective of the strength needed.

Strength however does not necessarily imply exertion and effort. And this is where the eloquence of the Quran manifests. The statement "musiun" is a noun denoting a state, not a temporary action. It also implies ease. The Quran could have used here other words to derive the same meaning of expanding, but without that nuance of ease. Muwassi3 for instance carries the same meaning but with an emphasis on effort because of the shadda. Ibn Abbas comments

"(We have built) created (the heaven with might, and We it is who make the vast extent (thereof)) as We will; it is also said that this means: we expand the provision thereof".

He understood musiun as implying vastness, and as reflected in the view he reports, musiun is a constant action. Ancient people did not know the universe is in expansion and in a constant state of creation, so they connected musiun to the provision from the heaven, ie the rain.  Here is a typical case of Quranic eloquence, allowing its words not to violently disturb nor confirm its audience's understanding of nature, so as to not deflect the attention from the spiritual portents of the verse. This is because the Quran's objective isnt to cause scientific, but spiritual reform. 

The Quran has pointed and explained the implications of many signs which exist in the world around and within man calling, him to ponder on every aspect of existence. These are in fact the true miracles happening everyday and only the one with an open heart is able to derive the higher realities from them. This is the particularity of the Quranic argument, to grasp things, concepts, phenomena which the human sees and experiences on a near daily basis, and teaches him the right angle from which to perceive them. The Quran uses simple scenes long familiar to man to attract attention to the higher realities and build profound faith. From a spiritual point of view, the same miraculous complexity applies to the building blocks of life as to gigantic structures and the universe. These scenes are used by the Quran because it addresses every human being, at all times and conditions. It does not seek to accommodate the philosophical and scientific intellectual elite while disregarding less educated people. The observations to which it points can be utilized by anyone so as to derive spiritual benefits. Through this approach among others, including a balance of warnings and glad tidings, as well as prophecies progressively unfolding, history attests that the prophet Muhammad, although often denigrated by Judeo-Christian critics who are ignorant of their own books, this prophet was in fact the most successful in implementing the will of God on an unprecedented scope and scale. Every time the prophet's opponents asked him for a miracle on demand, he was told to point them to ta similar phenomena occurring daily under their eyes as evidence of a wise Creator 

45:25-6"And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, their argument is only that they say, "Bring [back] our forefathers, if you should be truthful". Say, "Allah causes you to live, then causes you to die; then He will assemble you for the Day of Resurrection, about which there is no doubt, but most of the people do not know". 

How will they admit to a miraculous sign the like of which they are demanding, if they arent able to se the imprint of a Creator in everyday causality? That is why we find that even those prophets that did perform miracles on demand to those kinds of obdurate people, were accused of sorcery and had in fact very little following

45:23"Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah? Then will you not be reminded?" 

The human mind has been designed so as to observe and meditate upon the creation, not the Creator. Our minds cannot and will not ever be able to absorb Allah's infinite essence. Once, the prophet said to his companions who were in deep contemplation;

"Contemplate and reflect on Allah's creation, and not on the Creator for you will never be able to understand Allah in measures or quantum".

The Quran embraces all scientific endeavor that does not reject the spiritual dimension, which is present in all things, in and outside of man

3:190-1"Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day there are signs for men who understand. Those who remember Allah standing and sitting and lying on their sides and reflect on the creation of the heavens and the earth".

The Quran guides and imparts knowledge regarding the unseen realm, which is beyond our reach. But the material world is available for anyone to explore. That is why the Quran doesnt impart new knowledge in relation to our world but rather seeks to purge the scientist's intention and attitude when exploring it. These passages lay the ground for the proper understanding of many verses that mention God's attributes. For instance, looking towards Allah in the Hereafter 75:23 is the same as seeing His face in this world 2:115 except that the perception and experience will be far more intense. This is because the believers will literally be

3:107"in Allah's mercy".

Looking towards Allah 75:23 is the most suited expression to convey the idea of the very strong perception of God's manifestation through His attributes. The Quran averts any possible misuse of such verses through its explicit statements

6:103"Visions comprehends Him not, and He comprehends (all) vision".

To leave no room for ambiguity, the verse actually says alabsar/visions in the plural. This covers any type of physical vision, even including the impossibility to imagine God. Allah's mathal or example, is therefore unimaginable, uncomparable

30:27"and His is the most exalted essence/mathal in the heavens and the earth, and He is the Mighty, the Wise".

The statement that He "comprehends all visions" is quite powerful as it entails God not only seeing but encompassing the entity He sees. Creatures with vision are limited to the physical sight of things, without always seeing its inner reality. That is how precise and complete the Quran is in its monotheistic approach to the divine essence. He does not need to be detached from the creation to remain beyond all perception. He is fully present and aware of the reality of all things.

Similarly to seeing their Lord, the believers meeting Him in the Hereafter is equal to an intense perception of the way in which He manifests His attributes 2:46. In fact it clearly says, that in the Hereafter, the successful will meet God's good promise 28:61. Another aspect through which the Quran places the divine reality beyond human perception is the statement

112:4,42:11"there is nothing like a likeness of Him"  

This is the Quran axiom as regards the manner by which God manifests in this world, He does so through His attributes, but never through His imperceptible essence. 42:11 literally says

"like a likeness of Him"

meaning His reality is not only above all material limitations, but even above the limitation of metaphor. This also carries the meaning that even the "how" of His being is beyond the category of human thought.  

Humans, like every creation, are a manifestation of God's attributes. They in turn are encouraged to try and emulate some of those attributes as best as possible, such as generosity, mercy and forgiveness. So they are in a sense in "God's image". Similarly, Man has the ability to create, like the Creator of all things does, but in reality he is only reshaping what God previously created. He can judge, be good, show mercy but not and never in an equal manner to God 

2:115"so whichever way you turn, there is the Face of Allah". 

So clearly one can see God's face in all of creation, because all things reflect His attributes to some degree. Humans, and more particularily their face, reflects God's image just as the rest of creation does

 “Do not say ‘May Allaah deform your face’, for the son of Adam was created in the image of the Most Merciful". 

The similitude does not pertain to physical resemblence but in the way the divine attributes manifests. The face contains the foremost elements that allow perception, relfexion and action. The Eyes for instance allow the brain to perceive and process the surrounding signs, shaping our thoughts that are then expressed with speech. Only God however is able to manifest these shared attributes, like the aforementioned sight and speech, to infinite perfection. The manner, the "how" in which this is done is unfathomable to our minds 

42:11"nothing like a likeness of Him". 

Just as the human face reflects God's image, the prophet said 

“The first group to enter Paradise will be in the image of the moon”. 

The intent is obviously that they will manifest some of the moon's attributes like radiance and glorious appearance, as the Quran describes them beaming with light. They will however retain their specific human form, which is completely different than that of the moon. The prophet even described the righteous as being the embodiment of Allah 

"Allah Almighty said: My servant continues to grow closer to me with extra good works until I love him. When I love him, I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes, and his foot with which he walks". 

The senses and limbs remain that of a human being but due to his righteousness and the ensuing divine guidance, each perception, expression and action is done with a level of spiritual awareness so high that it reflects God's attributes and will.

Similar principles are stated in the Hebrew Bible by the prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah Jer10:6,Isa40:18. Being in God's image simply means in the HB to reflect God's attributes in some way. The HB states that when man "became like one of us" he had gained knowledge of good and evil (after eating from the tree). This means that humans being "like God" or in His image is about knowledge, which the Quran explicitly states was mercifully ingrained in man from the beginning, not hidden from him in a forbidden tree. As the "serpent" says in Genesis

"For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil".