dontconvert2islam tries talking hadith, sex with blond concubines?

In answer to the video "Muhammad and Blonde Women"

If we start rejecting prophets for having had sex with a concubine, then not much of the biblical prophets would be left. This youtuber is here attempting to misrepresent, with his biblical paradigm in mind, what a concubine is in Islam.

Besides those that already existed in the society and households before Islam, ma malakat aymanukum are not free persons randomly captured and enslaved or acquired through trade since the Quran only allows the enslavement of captives taken in defensive war campaigns, and only after the threat of war has been subdued meaning their seizure could not be an objective of going to war 8:67,47:4.

In fact the prophet dismissed from fighting those that were more preoccupied with the prospect of capturing potential concubines as with Jadd/Judd b. Qays. Even those who were seemingly seeking to engage in jihad for noble purposes were sometimes turned away for an equally meritorious jihad 

"A man came to the Prophet asking his permission to take part in Jihad. The Prophet asked him, "Are your parents alive?" He replied in the affirmative. The Prophet said to him, "Then make jihad in their service".

This is because benevolence is the basis of a stable and healthy society 

"The one who looks after and works for a widow and for a poor person, is like a mujahid for Allah's Cause or like a person who fasts during the day and prays all the night".

As to those like Judd, the prophet would tell them that they would have far better reward in terms of physical companionship in the hereafter if they restrained themselves in this life

"There are six rewards with Allah for the martyr. He is forgiven with the first flow of blood, he is shown his place in Paradise, he is protected from punishment in the grave, he secured from the greatest terror, the crown of dignity is placed upon his head and its gems are better than the world and what is in it, he is married to seventy two (72) wives among the pure maidens of Paradise, and he may intercede for seventy of his close relatives".

It is to be noted that this is addressed to soldiers fighting for the survival of their people, giving up all worldly pleasures, refusing transgression and misbehavior, including physical and thus the reward can only be proportional to the worldly sacrifice as a basic demand of justice.

This behavior the Quran instructs upon those accepting to shoulder the most selfless sacrifice, is in complete opposite to how the pre-islamic Arabs behaved in battle, and the ancient people in general, let alone the Israelites as amply described in their own books under divine sanction, since the times of Moses, and who basically had no ethical limits at the battlefield.

These Muslim martyrs, per the hadith, will be forgiven because they were merciful even at the battlefield, only fighting in retaliation, proportionally to the harm received, meaning they did not let the spirit of revenge take them over, and stopping all hostilities once the enemy surrenders 2:190-5,9:6. They will be shown their places in paradise because, through their righteousness and impeccable behavior they would have shown the path to paradise to their friends and enemies alike. They will be protected from the punishments and fear of the Hereafter, which are in Quranic terminology cleansing processes for worldly sins, because they have already accepted suffering, pain, hardships and fear as means by which to cleanse themselves in this life. They will be given the highest symbols of material honors and wealth because they gave up these worldly considerations when they engaged in battle, although they could have looted and abused of their position

4:74-75"Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter..And what reason have you that you should not fight in the way of Allah and of the weak among the men and the women and the children, (of) those who say: Our Lord! cause us to go forth from this town, whose people are oppressors, and give us from Thee a guardian and give us from Thee a helper".

They will be married, not given countless concubines as the prophets of the HB, to many women, pure like themselves, because they have never considered going to battle with the perspective of capturing women, in addition refused abusing of their power to assault them once in their hands. It is to be noted here that the majority of scholarly opinion regarding the verses about the maidens of paradise, is that they were revealed in Mecca, at a time where Muslims suffered persecution and before the injunctions to fight in the way of God. The Medinan verses about paradise speak of material and spiritual bliss, in the presence of the Creator.

Finally, because of their honoroble behavior on all counts, although having all opportunities to abuse and transgress, they will be given the possibility of interceding for their loved ones. This in Quran terminology is a mark of honor granted by God, to be among the select few allowed to speak on behalf of others. Intercession in the Quran is not a pleading action, but a reward since it will only be allowed on behalf of those that deserve it, as a means by which they are honored by association to a pure, exalted person.

For the martyr, to be among those exalted individuals to the extent that they will be themselves a means by which their loved ones will be rewarded, is in itself a great honor and reward. Again, the martyrs spoken of are not merely soldiers that die at the battlefield for worldly achievements and tales of heroism, but dead warriors who lived up until their final moments according to the spirit and ethics of Islam

“I heard the Messenger of God say: The first man [whose case] will be decided on the Day of Judgment will be one who died a martyr. He shall be brought [before the Judgment Seat]. God will make him recount His blessings [that is, the blessings which He had bestowed upon him] and he will recount them [and admit having enjoyed them in his life]. [Then] God will say: ‘What did you do [to requite these blessings]? He will say: ‘I fought for You until I died as a martyr.’ God will say: ‘You have told a lie. You fought so that you might be called “a brave warrior.” And you were called so.’ [Then] orders will be passed against him and he will be dragged with his face down and cast into Hell. Then will be brought forward a man who acquired knowledge, imparted it [to others], and recited the Qur’an. He will be brought and God will make him recount His blessings and he will recount them [and admit having enjoyed them in his lifetime]. Then will God ask: ‘What did you do [to requite these blessings]?’ He will say: ‘I acquired knowledge, disseminated it, and recited the Qur’an, seeking Your pleasure.’ God will say: ‘You have told a lie. You acquired knowledge so that you might be called “a scholar;” you recited the Qur’an so that it might be said: “He is a Qari” and such has been said.’ Then orders will be passed against him and he shall be dragged with his face down and cast into the Fire. Then will be brought a man whom God had made abundantly rich and had granted every kind of wealth. He will be brought and God will make him recount His blessings. He will recount them and [admit having enjoyed them in his lifetime]. God will [then] ask: ‘What have you done [to requite these blessings]?’ He will say: ‘I spent money in every cause in which You wished that it should be spent.’ God will say: ‘You are lying. You did [so] that it might be said about [you]: “He is a generous fellow” and so it was said.’ Then will God pass orders and he will be dragged with his face down and thrown into Hell”.

So although sacrifice for the cause of Islam is praiseworthy, like any apparently good deed, it loses its value when done insincerely, with an objective other than the Hereafter and to please Allah. The Quran and ahadith contain many such statements, hence the focus first and foremost on cleansing one's heart before pretending that one's deed are of any value to Allah 

"Abdallah b. ‘Umar told that the Prophet used to say, “Everything has a polish, and the polish for hearts is rememberance of God. Nothing saves more from God’s punishment than remembrance of God.” He was asked whether this did not apply also to jihad in God’s path, and said, “Not even if one should ply his sword till it is broken".

CIRA International uncover 2000 year old scandal; Jesus claims divinity?

In answer to the video "Islamic Original Sin Dilemma: Introduction: Are Muslims Born Sinless?"

Jn10:33-36“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

This, as anyone familiar with the way the Jews repeatedly tried provoking Jesus to commit blasphemy, was another of their attempt at discrediting his prophethood to them. In Jn8 for instance they create a situation where he would be pushed to transgress the law which he, as an Israelite prophet is supposed to uphold to the letter. But he doesnt, nor does he ever do all throughout his life. In Jn10 they tried discrediting his prophethood through the angle of polytheism, painting him as a false prophet claiming to be God. Note that these words in Jn10:33-36 are the accusers' words, not Jesus' who never said prior that he was God. He said he was one with the Father, that he was acting in His name, that he represented His authority. Jesus answered their false accustation by quoting Jewish scriptures and the usage of the term to their own forefathers as clear proof he was doing nothing wrong

"Jesus answered them "is it not written in your Law 'I have said you are gods'"? 

After demonstrating their double standards, he doesnt continue his reply by justifying himself for supposedly claiming to be God. He instead continues by saying if those who received the word of God are called gods in Jewish scriptures then why consider it blasphemy if he, the one apointed by God, considers himself the SON OF GOD, not God? Son of God is a phrase used throughout their scriptures to mean a servant of God. When Jesus answers,

"Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

What he was trying to say was that if the Jews called

"I and my Father are one"

blasphemy then they should call what was written in their law

"Ye are gods"

blasphemy too.

Also when Jesus was before Pilate and they were bringing their accusations against him, they said he was claiming to be the Son of God Jn19:7, not God. When they mocked him on the cross, they mocked him for claiming to be the Son of God/King of Israel. Had they truly understood him to have been claiming to be God all along, they would have never missed that opportunity to mocking him for that Matt27:41-43. This further proves that they were pressing false charges of blasphemy against him, and knowingly.

 The Pharisees knew their scriptures, they knew very well Jesus did nothing wrong to contradict their core teachings, never transgressed the Law. They knew very well that their charges of blasphemy were basless, meaning they were lying to dismiss his claims to prophethood because he, like past prophets sent to them whom they stoned, rejected or killed brought a message that did not fit with their desires.

Another thing worth noting is the usual ignorance of the gentile Greeks who penned the Gospels, when it comes to correctly referencing Jewish scriptures. Jesus' quote isnt from the Law/Torah as he supposedly claims, but from the

Psalms82:6"I said 'you are elohim' and all of you are children of the Most High".

Second, Elohim as is amply used in the HB, is one of God's names, but primarily means a powerful entity like for example angels or judges as in the case above and as clear from the context.

Christian apologists absurdly quote Jn10 as a proof text for the trinity. But if Jesus was truly claiming divinity, then it would totally justify his execution by stoning, according to the law of the Bible which he, allegedly in his pre-incarnate state, revealed to those very Jews attempting to kill him. It would further make those stubborn Jews anything but "children of the devil" or a "race of viper" for rejecting one who, in the trinitarian paradoxical world-view, told them not to follow a path in conflict with that of the prophets.

CIRA International try maths; Jesus and God are one?

In answer to the video "Islamic Original Sin Dilemma: Introduction: Are Muslims Born Sinless?"

The expression of being "in" eachother can easily be understood if one looks at the context of its use throughout the NT and its application for both physical and abstract subjects.

Trinitarian proof texting has obscured the meaning of that expression, as it did in so many other cases. The plain meaning of Jesus, and any other entity being "in" another one simply is to share a common position;

In Jn14:1-9 the apostles, as is often the case, are having trouble understanding Jesus. In v7 Jesus says that to know him would be to know God since he was conveying knowledge about God. Then Phillip asks him to see God, which means as a side note that his disciples saw Jesus and God as seperate entities, to which Jesus answers

"He that has seen me has seen the Father".

God cannot be seen according to Jesus Jn1:18,5:37 so the only way that He can be known is through His signs and messengers (Jesus in this case). This reflects even in Quranic terminology where it is said that we can see God anywhere around us, through His innumerable signs 2:115.
Still in Jn14:10-11 we read

"I am in the Father, and the Father in me.."

as well as throughout Jn17:21,23,26 all use the same expression of being "in" eachother for Jesus, the believers and God. Jesus asks God "just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us", he wants the believers to be "in" God and "in" himself so that they believe in his mission "so that the world may believe that you have sent me". This irrefutably proves that being "in" eachother is a figure of speech, implying a common position of truth.

In 1Jn4 the author speaks of believing in Jesus and loving one another as equivalent to being like Jesus and being in God

"No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus".

Similarily when Jesus is "in" us Col1:27, it does not make us divine or the messiah.

Same thing with Jn10:30"I and my father are one". Firstly, the verse doesnt even say "one God". That is just trinitarian wishful thinking. Also, to say that Jesus and the Father are literally one entity is a heresy by trinitarian standards because it confounds 2 distinct persons of the godhead who are supposed to be equal in authority but seperate in essence. The word "one" doesnt mean physical unity but unity of principle and agreement as it is crystal clear in Jn17 mentionned earlier, where Jesus asks God that all his followers "may be one". 

The expression is used today. Even in the Quran, the messengers are "one" with God because of their common position of truth and the fact that they represent God's authority on earth 4:80"He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah". 

An interesting trinitarian manipulation of the Greek figurative language of the NT is 1Cor3:8KJV where Paul says that he had planted the seed and Apollos had watered it. Then he said, "he who plants and he who waters are one". In the Greek, the wording of Paul is the same as that in Jn10:30, yet no one claims that Paul and Apollos make up "one being". The NIV translators know that this is a figure of speech in a language filled with metaphorical expressions, and so they render 1Cor3:8 as

"he who plants and he who waters have one purpose".

This further proves the non-literal meaning of the expression and the deliberate translation of the phrase as "are one" in one bible, but as "have one purpose" in another bible further exposes the trinitarian bias of bible editors. 

Jesus as a prophet of God always did God’s will, not his own Lk22:42,Jn5:30,6:38; he and God have "one purpose". The Quran uses a similar wording to the prophet and others, although not in a reciprocal manner of the type

"in you and you are in him".

It says for example

2:151"We have sent feekum/in you an Apostle from among you who recites to you Our communications and purifies you and teaches you the Book and the wisdom and teaches you that which you did not know".

The verse here and in other similar ones, addresses a group, not a person, saying the prophet is inside this group. He isnt indwelling the group like some intangible spirit, he interracts with them as a teacher and they see him. The particle FEE/in also conveys the sense of "coming from them" ie from within the nation of the primary audience, as implied in 9:8. 

Similarily in 5:20 Moses addresses his people "remember the favor of Allah upon you when He raised prophets feekum/in you". As in the previous example, the double implication of that word is that prophets are sent IN a group, and FROM WITHIN this group. Had the Quran used other words than FEE, such as baynakum/among/between you, the second implication "from within" would have been lost. 

This choice of words is just another testimony to the Quran's surgical literary precision, and another example of a reason why the prophet's contemporaries who were masters of eloquence were baffled when they heard the Quran at first.

CIRA International overly partisan; are religious labels necessary?

In answer to the video "Islamic Original Sin Dilemma: Introduction: Are Muslims Born Sinless?"

The Quran, by dismissing the notion of religious label as of any value, states that being Jew or Christian is not equivalent to being on the right path. Success in the Hereafter doesnt depend on labels

2:111"And they say: no one will enter the Garden except he who was a Jew or a Christian".

God, who knows the secrets of the hearts, answers such assertion by first dismissing it as baseless scripturally and lacking any evidence whatsoever. It then lays stress on humility, instead of boasting of one's man made labels. It finally explains, that even being Muslim isnt enough of a label

2:112"whoever submits himself entirely to Allah and he is the doer of good (to others) he has his reward from his Lord, and there is no fear for him nor shall he grieve".  

The true path is therefore independent of any label, its validity being contingent on agreement with the established pattern of the prophets, as revived in the Quran, with Abraham being the prototype monotheist and unflinching, humble servant of God, the spiritual leader/imam of mankind, the hanif/upright, who never adopted polytheism 2:128-135,3:67. Ibrahim was neither a precursor of Judaism nor of Christianity, as advocated in the conflicting theological, sometimes tribal and prejudiced analysis of his life details and the implications, by these groups 3:65.

One example among many would be in regards to the implication of sacrificing his only son, which carries entirely different connotations to a Jew than to a Christian.

Muslims in turn must bear witness to being affiliated to the path of Abraham and those eminent personalities that followed him, the only path acceptable to God. In an answer to Ibrahim's prayers that in his footsteps might come a nation voluntarily submitted/muslim to the One God 2:128-132, Allah raised a prophet among his Ishmaelite descendants, who revived his spiritual path, urging his followers to be upright (hanif) in the religion 10:105,22:31, to turn away from polytheism

22:78"And strive hard in (the way of) Allah, (such) a striving as is due to Him; He has chosen you and has not laid upon you an hardship in religion; the faith of your father Ibrahim; He named you Muslims before and in this, that the Apostle may be a bearer of witness to you, and you may be bearers of witness to the people; therefore keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and hold fast by Allah; He is your Guardian; how excellent the Guardian and how excellent the Helper!". 

The notion of Abrahamic religion is an Islamic one. No such concept exists in Judaism and Christianity. The Quran calls it the millah/way and din/religion of Ibrahim, consisting of reasoning to derive monotheism, faith and deeds in the way of Allah 2:130,135,3:95, 6:161,16:123,22:78.

Islam isnt a continuation of what the followers of their respective prophets later named "christianity" or "judaism". It is the continuation of the purest form of willful servitude to the one God, characterizing itself with the unadultered, timeless message it upholds, which was transmitted to mankind since Adam.

This timeless message being, as condensed in 98:5, a cognition of God's oneness and uniqueness and, implicitly, of man's responsibility to Him; a turning-away from all false concepts that compromise God's attributes, all over-estimation of oneself, and superstitions, with a great emphasis on kindness and charity towards all of God's creatures indiscriminately.

The Quran came to preserve and revive these concepts majoritarly abandoned and modified with time, as is easily seen through a cursory reading of what survived from the previous scriptures. So Just like the prophet Ibrahim was neither a Jew nor Christian, but one who willfully surrendered to Allah 3:67 his descendant the prophet Muhammad was told to follow the same original path of submission to the will of God 

6:161,16:123"Then We revealed to you, [O Muhammad], to follow the religion of Abraham, inclining toward truth; and he was not of those who associate with Allah".

Judaism, or more precisely the so called Mosaic law was a system meant for the children of Israel only, and until the rise of the prophet "like unto Moses". That prophet, per the clear context of the prophecy made at Horeb, would establish a new nation under a new law code. Since coming from the "brethren" of the Israelites, he would not be bound by the law of the Israelites, and especially not in its corrupt state, including its laws meant to punish the Israelites for their sins as well as contain their propensity to sin. But the Israelites on the other hand would be bound by whatever this prophet tells them, under the threat of divine destruction, as per the prophecy in their own book, and as happened to them when they opposed the prophet Muhammad. Islam therefore is certainly in line with "the religion of the prophets". Christianity is a complete departure of this "way of the prophets". It cherry picks which parts of the so called Mosaic law to literally or metaphorically observe, and which parts to dismiss. It is a man made system meant to appeal to a gentile audience which, in the first place, wasnt even bound by the Mosaic law. And this, in total opposition to Jesus' mission and practice. Being an Israelite prophet he was bound by the law, and hence directed his message to the Israelites only to admonish them for their sins and religious hypocrisy, and bring them back to the essence of the law which they were likewise bound to observe.

For this reason, the followers of the last Ishmaelite prophet are considered closer to the path of Ibrahim than the nations that preceded them and claimed spiritual descendency from him 

3:68"Indeed, the most worthy of Abraham among the people are those who followed him [in submission to Allah] and this prophet, and those who believe [in his message]. And Allah is the ally of the believers". 

CIRA International in need of the wrong label; which prophet was Christian or Jew?

In answer to the video "Islamic Original Sin Dilemma: Introduction: Are Muslims Born Sinless?"

No prophet came between Ibrahim and Muhammad but that called their people to be upright/hanif in their submission to God 10:72,84,98:5.

In pre-Islamic times, the term hanif had a strict monotheistic connotation, was used in contrast to those that abhorred polytheism, but also who rejected the God incarnate of the Christians on one side and the clear monolatrous inclination of Judaism. It applied to those who exerted themselves to return to their original predisposition to uprightness as exemplified by Ibrahim. Like him, the prophets that followed him were all voluntary self-submitters, steadfastly constant on the path of servitude to God until their last breath 2:132-3,5:44,12:101,27:44 (the Queen of Sheba voluntarily submits). All belonged to the same community, under the same purpose 3:44,21:92,23:52-3, preaching monotheism 42:13.

They are not responsible for the perversion of their message by their followers, including potentially the followers of the last prophet

42:14,21:93,23:53"But they cut off their religion among themselves into sects, each part rejoicing in that which is with them".

These prophets all followed the same pattern of spiritual thought, hence the necessity for anyone to reject any proposition that clearly goes against the re-establishment of that way 3:83-5. No appellation therefore is of any importance in Islam, so long as those claiming to belong to a certain group, submit themselves in words and deeds to the divine will as expounded by a prophet of their time 2:62,5:69. These 2 verses, which speak of righteous believers of the past as is clear from the context, are Medinan. They were recited in Medina after the prophet was confronted to the rejection of some among the people of the book. The idea often propounded by orientalists as regards Islam's supposed initial conciliatory tone towards other faiths, which then changed after the prophet's conflicts with Jews and Christians is therefore baseless. Further, Sura 5 is universally recognized as among the last revealed, much later than sura 3. The contemporaries of the prophet among the people of the book are spoken of in both Medinan and Meccan suras 2:121,3:113-115,199,4:162,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4 where they are either praised or condemned, irrelevant of the political tensions with Muslims, as is here the case for Christians in a late Medinan revelation

 5:83"And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, "Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses".

The appellations of Jewry or Christianity came into being after the time of the Patriarchs, and long after the times of Moses or Jesus 2:140. These terms do not carry any connotation in relation to the divine will, as opposed to Muslim or Islam. They are rather labels describing an affiliation to a race or individual. The very early few ones that believed in Jesus, and their contemporaries that followed in their footsteps werent even known as Christians at first but as Nazarenes. They were strict followers of the Torah and its laws, as Jesus enjoined on his community.

Then the Quran addresses the Israelites as those who literally

62:6"became Jews"

because what Moses and the other Israelite prophets really taught was essentially Islam, or lit. volontary self-submission (to the divine will). There is a reason why the Quran exposes it as utter ignorance to claim that the patriarchs and the tribes/asbat were Jews; the Torah itself makes no mention of those people as Jews, rather as Israelites.

The root of "hadoo" includes the meaning of "those that were guided" and the Quran has attached this meaning to the Jews obviously because no other people ever received such manifest, continuous guidance. There are no Jewish prophets prior to Moses and there are no Christian prophets at all and all true prophets are Muslims in principle. So the most that can be said in this regard is that among those prophets whom the prophet Muhammad emulated, are some Jewish prophets.

Despite their clear spiritual failures and consequent divine disapproval and severe destructions, those most conceited in their spiritual and racial label were, and still are, the Jews. In the NT, Jesus and John the Baptist harshly reprimanded them for that attitude. The Quran removed their delusion as well as anyone, including followers of Muhammad, who might think God would favor them on account of ancestry or due to the righteous deeds of an ancestor 2:80,111,3:24,5:18. It challenged the Jews specifically in that regard

2:94,62:6"if you think that you are the friends of Allah to the exclusion of other people, then invoke death if you are truthful".

But as the Quran pointed, they would never do such a thing

2:96"on account of what their hands have sent before".

They know and are fully aware of their failure as a community bound by a momentous covenant with God, and thus know that should they wish for death and consequently meet with their Lord, He will take them to account collectively as per the terms of the covenant, just as He demonstrated in this very world.
 
When those labelling themselves Jews, Christians or any other name, persist in following corrupted spiritual notions alien to that pattern of the prophets, despite receiving proper explanations of their errors and those of their predecessors, they are termed followers of "nothing good". They arent even upholding their own scriptures in sincerity

5:68"Say: O followers of the Book! you follow no good till you keep up the Torah and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord".

The Torah and Injeel attest to

"that which is revealed to you from your Lord"

ie the Quran. To reject the Quran, a revelation interconnected with the previous ones and coming from the same Source 6:91,26:196,29:46, which in addition guards, protects, revives the pattern of the prophets, therefore means to deny their own scriptures that attest to its veracity, more particularly of the one that carried and propagated it

6:20"Those whom We have given the Book recognize him as they recognize their sons; (as for) those who have lost their souls, they will not believe".

CIRA International shown the path; who are the true Judeo-Christian submitters?

In answer to the video "Islamic Original Sin Dilemma: Introduction: Are Muslims Born Sinless?"

Those on the other hand who recognized the Quran upon hearing it as attesting to the truth of their scriptures and the pattern of the prophets are the

3:113-115"upright party; they recite Allah's communications in the nighttime and they adore (Him). They believe in Allah and the last day, and they enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and they strive with one another in hastening to good deeds, and those are among the good. And whatever good they do, they shall not be denied it, and Allah knows those who guard (against evil)".

They were greatly devoted to their own scriptures prior to the coming of Islam. They sincerely followed the truth therein, without bias, instead of the conjectures of their corrupt leadership, nor their personal low desires in exchange of worldly benefits. It is only natural then that when they

5:83"hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: Our Lord! we believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth)"."

They

3:199"believe in Allah and (in) that which has been revealed to you and (in) that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before Allah; they do not sell the signs of Allah for a small price; these it is that have their reward with their Lord".  

This verse 3:199 stresses the obligation in believing in the Quran for them to be believers in their own scriptures, as it confirms the prophecies in their books and restores the truth. This does not need happening overnight and they might seek further information, study and knowledge to further confirm the initial gut instinct that made them recognize the truth of the Quran.

They are mainly the learned men among the Israelites 26:197,29:47 firm in knowledge as well as those among the common masses who adhere to their scriptures with sincerity and the best of their ability 4:162. They are those who overcame the stiff-neckedness and arrogance of their people, effortlessly and naturally recognizing the truth 46:10. Same is the case with the learned and austere and sincere believers among the Christians 5:82-4, and who will consequently be rewarded appropriately 28:52-4.

The Quran says that

3:110,28:52"those whom We gave the Book before it, they are believers in it".

It is a testimony to the conversions of Jews and Christians in Muhammad's lifetime and as a prophecy witnessed today. The image of God literally giving them the Book is a praise of their merit, a metonym for them having been granted wisdom and knowledge, because of their willingness and openness for guidance. To this effect the Quran quotes them testifying to their entire submission to their revealed scriptures, even before the revelation of the Quran

28:53"surely we were submitters (lit. Muslims) before this".

As stated above, the principle of being a "Muslim", voluntarily subservient to the divine will, is a feature of the rightly guided prior to the term becoming the sole prerogative of Muhammad's followers. These are the ones to be sought for confirmation of the Quran's veracity, among the followers of previous scriptures 10:94. There is a reason why it calls them

"those that read the book",

in contrast to others among them, pictured as donkeys that carry a load while totally unaware of its contents 62:5. The verse 10:94 is not telling Muslims to seek further knowledge about some supposed incomplete information in the Quran. It speaks of doubt as regards the Quranic statements being true. The Quran repeatedly points to all scriptures of the prophets coming from the same original source, and having the same common thread of truth running throughout them. If anyone is in doubt as regards the statements of the Quran being true, then he may seek corroborating information in the previous scriptures

"But if you are in doubt as to what we have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers".

The context is directly linked to information concerning the Israelites and their Egyptian bondage, as in 17:101. Similarly in 16:43,21:7 it tells the prophet's opponents to go and seek confirmation among the "people of the reminder", as regards the veracity that messengers were always sent as humans. Here again, as it does in 10:94 and elsewhere, the Quran uses a powerful image to depict the sincere and learned ones among the followers of previous scriptures, who should be sought for confirmation of a Quranic statement. They are those who have safeguarded whatever remains of truth of their scriptures and tradition, remembering it firmly and passing it on truthfully, in contrast to those among them who threw their scriptures behind their backs as if they were unaware of their contents 2:101.

CIRA International concerned for Muslims; become Christians or suffer eternally?

In answer to the video "Islamic Original Sin Dilemma: Introduction: Are Muslims Born Sinless?"

2:111"And they say: no one will enter the Garden except he who was a Jew or a Christian. These are their vain desires. Say; bring your proof if you are truthful".

A long time ago, God challenged that empty statement by the people of the book, telling them to bring the proof of that statement. And they never will.

In fact, Judaism today sees in Islam the manifestation of God's promised blessings of Ishmael, admits that Islam is the only religion along with Noachidsm (the system revealed to, and taught by Noah, as alluded to in the Quran 42:13) that can earn non-Jews success in the hereafter. They see in both of these "gentile religions" a complete compatibility with the universal spiritual principles revealed prior to Moses and the mosaic law (which is exclusively binding on Jews).

Trinitarian Christianity on the other hand is a different issue. Islam doesnt need Judaism to be justified but it is interesting to see how the closest people to Christianity, reading the same books, those who should a priori understand and accept the Christian proposition, in regards to their doctrines are actually further from them than from Islam which they see as a legitimate gentile religion

2:113"And the Jews say: The Christians do not follow anything (good) and the Christians say: The Jews do not follow anything (good) while they recite the (same) Book. Even thus say those who have no knowledge, like to what they say; so Allah shall judge between them on the day of resurrection in what they differ".

The truth of Islam is independent of whether Jews, Christians or Buddhists recognize it. It stands firm and strong because of its own internal arguments while the aforementioned groups crumble in the light of their own internal evidence, let alone common sense.

Christians are often the ones trying to disparage Islam by painting it as seemingly in disconnect with the Judeo-Christian system. This argument, as shown earlier is built on false assumptions; that Islam claims to be in continuity with these 2 religions, and that Christianity itself is a continuation of Judaism. Ironically and as the Quran alludes to, Judaism, which is supposed to be the precursor of Christianity, actually argues, based on the same books of the Christians, that the latter is a sinful way while Islam is in congruence with the pre-mosaic system. This is a quiet devastating observation to those trying to use that sort of analogy of continuity against Muslims.

Let us see the common sense of the Quran and how it devastates the weak charge of this youtuber.

The Quran uses the term Muslims to all those that voluntarily submit to the divine will, whether that will manifested through Abraham, Moses, Jesus or Muhammad. Submission to the Divine Will, willingly or not, is according to the Quran, an observable reality in the universe down to our inner selves, since the origin of things 3:83-5,13:15,19:88-95,22:18 until all are commanded and made to disintegrate and resurrect 84:2. The Divine Will governing the spiritual realm follows the same pattern, with a nuance regarding a specific entity, the humans. Their spiritual submission will not be done willingly or not, as in the case with the rest of the created universe. It must be a willful process, hence the Quranic statement that the only din/way acceptable to Allah, is Islam.

That word literally translates into the voluntary self-submission 3:19,2:127-130 because it is the natural fabric of the universe. Those who choose not to surrender totally to God or humbly and freely comply with His order of life, appear out of place in this design. 

Those who choose not to surrender totally to God or humbly and freely comply with His order of life, appear out of place in this design 

3:83"Do they seek a religion other than God’s, when every soul in the heavens and the earth has submitted to Him, willingly or by compulsion, and to Him they shall all return?" 

Islam and its derivatives (muslim, aslama) are used throughout the Quran to denote one's adoption of the divine will with his heart and soul, symbolized by "the face" in classical Arabic

2:112"whoever submits his face (aslama wajhahu) to Allah and he is the doer of good (to others)..".

To further corroborate, those claiming to adhere to the Quran are told to further

2:208"enter into the silm/the volontary self-surrender".

Being a "Muslim" is thus on a higher level that mere acceptance of the Quran and Islam, it transcends the simple label as understood nowadays. What it really entails is subordinating all aspects of one's life to the divine will. With the revelation of the Quran none may be labelled Muslim except those who adhere to it in faith and deeds. This isnt because of following the Quran per se, but because it is the final manifestation of the divine will. Prior to it, every individual that followed the latest manifestation of the divine will through a prophet of the time, could equally be labelled Muslim.

With the Quran, the path to voluntary self-servitude to the divine will has been defined is such a clear way, that no compulsion is necessary for it to be adopted by a reasonable person 2:256,18:29. Through it, the divine will as manifested with such a climax that it will inevitably lead, as it has been doing since it came to the world and will continue doing, to the entering of people into its fold like waves upon waves 110:1-3.

Any other appellation that carries a connotation other than the one conveyed through "Muslim" and "Islam" is nothing but a distortion of this simple originality taught from Adam to Muhammad. When concluding in sura anbiya the stories of some of the most eminent prophets and pious personalities, the passage ends with a statement that these people that preceded, including the newly established nation of the last prophet are in fact a single nation with the same ultimate aims, despite the apparent disconnect between those that claim spiritual affiliation to them 21:92-3.

CIRA International awaken from a deep sleep; the failure of the Christian position?

In answer to the video "Islamic Original Sin Dilemma: Introduction: Are Muslims Born Sinless?"

Besides failing on a historical level for lack of external evidence, the crucifixion story as depicted in the Greek Christian writings fails on an internal, theological level. According to habakkuk1, the everlasting God "will never die". The Quran equally states 

25:58"And rely upon the Ever-Living who does not die, and exalt [Allah] with His praise".

Humans have a dual nature, the body and the spirit. Lets call that human being John. John has thus a human body and a spiritual essence. John gets nailed on a cross and dies. His body expires while his spirit transitions to the hereafter. To say that John did not die on the cross because his spiritual essence survived would be false. Similarily God, according to the trinity doctrine has both a human body and a spiritual essence. God gets nailed on a cross and dies. His human nature expires while his spiritual essence transitions. To say that God did not die because his spiritual essence survived would then be as false as in John's case. 

Yet even from a materialistic standpoint, death is the end of life. In religion, death ends life in the present world and begins life in the hereafter. How does the ever-living, eternal God cease living in anyway shape or form? Assuming God did not die when he was crucified. This would then undermine the notion of atoning sacrifice. Death and loss is what validates the atonement. If God did not die, losing nothing in the process, then what did He sacrifice on the cross? Habakkuk1 is a general statement. It excludes death in any way. It doesnt say God's spirit cannot die while his body can. This is an example of what an explicit statement, closed to any misinterpretations, is. It is what is referred to in religious terminology, a firm verse, or as the Quran says, muhkam. A religion based on solid explicit tenets, does not seek ambiguous verses and try to derive isolated meanings upon which to build an entire belief system. Whenever confronted to ambiguous verses, that are open to several contradicting interpretations, we consider the context, the words used and cross reference them with other similar verses. More importantly, whatever the conclusion we come up with, the interpretation may never contradict the explicit, firm, decisive verses. But that is not how Pauline christianity works. In order to circumvent the statement that God "will never die" and make it fit the belief of divine sacrifice, it is said that this sacrificing Christian god didnt really die. Assuming God did not die when he was crucified. This would then undermine the notion of atoning sacrifice. Death and loss is what validates the atonement. If God did not die, losing nothing in the process, then what did He sacrifice on the cross? 

Further, why would God go as far as killing his son (or self) to prove his trustworthiness and capacity to truly forgive, and how is it a proof of love? Only an unjust, deluded criminal, unworthy to be the judge of mankind would think that murder is a proof of love. Why would anyone trust an entity, divine or else, willing to commit suicide (or even worse, kill its own progeny) to prove its love? One would instead try helping such entity out of its delusion. One would not want in anyway to be associated with such demonstration of "passionate love".

God, since times immemorial has been demonstrating His love through the prophets, sending promises of mercy and forgiveness before that mythological Greek drama was invented. Believers have always known and trusted this fact attested in scriptures over and over again, which God made contingent on repentance and obedience to His commandements. Nobody thought God would fail His promise, or was incapable of forgiving the servants that wholeheartedly turn to Him. The Quran treats such hopelessness in God as a mark of disbelief

39:53-4"Say, "O My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not despair of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful. And return [in repentance] to your Lord and submit to Him before the punishment comes upon you; then you will not be helped"
15:56"And who despairs of the mercy of his Lord except for those astray?".

That attribute of mercy is in fact the only one described in the Quran as "written upon" God 6:12,54. Christians on the other hand do not expect God to be merciful, to the point they need him to prove his capacity to forgive by murdering his own self/son. Furthermore, a judge that forgives someone because of the actions of another, Jesus' sacrifice in this case, isnt a merciful judge. Forgiveness wasnt triggered by the mercy of the judge, rather by the price paid by another. So although Christians do believe in their God's absolute mercy, in reality their concept of the divine is far removed from it. The profound difference in relation to that theological aspect between Islam and Christianity goes back to the story of the garden. While in the Quran, the story ends with hope and forgiveness, in Christianity it is misconstrued in a way the Jews who read the same scriptures before them, vehemently dispute.

In the Quran Adam is sent away from the garden with the message that whenever guidance is recognized and acted upon, then mankind "shall not go astray nor be unhappy". There is therefore in the Quranic account of creation no place for unconditional, senseless and indiscriminate condemnation. On the contrary, the incident is concluded with forgiveness and spiritual guidance. The Christian belief on the other hand is that there was no forgiveness, sin became ingrained in human nature and transmitted to Adam's progeny. On top of that, God, instead of sending the solution to that "problem" in the shape of Christ's atoning death, establishes a long line of prophethood and laws to be followed. This divinely decreed deceptive crooked system was bound to fail in the face of human depravity, for several thousands of years, until the issue of salvation was finally resolved with the crucifixion. This theology appeals to people who have despaired of life, themselves and God. It is toxic, as it crushes the person's self esteem, making him yield to dark thoughts of hopelessness in oneself, and it is satanic as it discourages the building of a relationship with a merciless, unloving God. Hope is therefore found elsewhere, neither in God nor man, but in an intercessor that fixes the defects of both so as to reconcile them. He is a sinless man and a merciful, loving God, both in one since the divine cancels sinfulness and the human cancels mercilessness and unlovingness. His divine nature makes this man capable of perfect deeds thus pleasing God and restoring His (God's) hope in man, while his human nature makes this God capable of dying, and through this self-sacrifice, capable of showing love and mercy, thus pleasing man and restoring his hope in God.

 That is why the Quran quotes Jesus himself, emphatically denying the man-made, unscriptural notion of sin atonement as understood by those that deified him

5:72"and the messiah said; ...serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates with Him, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the Fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust".

In this short statement, Jesus nullifies everything Trinitarian Christianity stands for, the idea of a divine entity other than God being the means by which one's eternal felicity and freedom from sins depends. In another place, Jesus, instead of taking upon himself the sins of mankind, denies even the sins of his own followers that began deifying him. He washes his hands from their deviations and submits to God's justice, leaving the entire prerogative of salvation in God's hands 

5:116-118"If You should chastise them, then surely they are Your servants; and if You Should forgive them, then surely You are the Mighty, the Wise".

In the monotheistic faith, the prominence of God's attribute of mercy does not mean it comes freely. It is earned, through concrete, repeated, steadfast actions proving one's sincere penitent resolve. This however is only beneficial in relation to God's rights. But if a sin includes infringing on other people's rights then the divine law has declared it an injustice to deprive a victim of its due rights. In that case it is upon the victim to either benevolently forgive and turn away, or demand restitution for the harm done. No human sacrifice was needed before Jesus for people to known and trust in those things which the prophets said. It is ironic that in the book of Isaiah, the one most appealed to and distorted to prove the abhorrent notion of human sacrifice as the only prerequisite for sin atonement, God says

Isa55"my ways are different from yours".

This comes right after the reassuring statement that God is near and hearer of prayers so

"Let the wicked leave their way of life and change their way of thinking. Let them turn to the LORD, our God; He is merciful and quick to forgive".

God's nature is contrary to human's who need and ask their debt to be settled in case of foul play. There are no debts between men and God, He doesnt lose anything from people transgressing His commands neither does He gain from their worship. His glory remains unchanged in both cases. That is why he does not need to be propitiated. 

For His mercy to be released, the sinner does not need to act in relation to God but to his own self, through repentance and mending of ways. This deed is one that has no effect on God but on the sinner, cleansing his own soul. It is as a result of the person taking action to cleanse his self, that God releases His mercy, blotting out the sin completely and forgives Isa43. This is the main, among many other avenues for forgiveness which the HB gives besides blood atonement. 

The concept of atoning sacrifice is nowhere to be found in Jesus' words anyway. He nowhere speaks of his own death as an atonement for sin. He is instead depicted as talking of his life as being a ransom Mk10:45, but in a clear context of dedication and humility. He is dedicating his life for the sake of others, like all selfless people should. It is Paul who connected these words with expiation for sins in 1Tim2. This spin caused intense debates and disagreements throughout the ages among all branches of Christianity; ranging from the notion of Jesus' life being the ransom paid back to Satan who held humanity in hostage, to the idea that God the Father was the one to receive the payment, and many other nuances in between. The inherent problems to every proposition, the contradictions each of them create with various Christian doctrines such as God literally ransoming himself to himself, is what led the Roman Catholic Church to describe the ransom theory as a "mystery of universal redemption".

CIRA International rewrite NT narrative; Jesus dies willingly?

In answer to the video "Islamic Original Sin Dilemma: Introduction: Are Muslims Born Sinless?"

Jesus feared death and tried to avoid it Jn7:1,11:54,Luke 22:42. He begged God 3 times, putting his forehead to the ground, to take his soul before experiencing suffering and death in Matt26:38. He does not want to experience what he was about to go through but nevertheless submits his will to that of the father, whether he decides to make him bear the cup of suffering or not "Yet not My will, but Yours be done".

Clearly, had he been given the choice, he would have refused "dying for the sins of mankind" despite having supposed foreknowledge of the divine plan of salvation since the beginning of creation, a plan which he himself sketched together with his divine partners. It also shows one of the so called co-equal partners submitting his will to another. Yet we never see the reverse, with the Father obediently submitting his will to the Son or the Holyspirit. That "hesitation" from Jesus cannot be attributed to his human nature as he himself states that it is his soul that feared and doubted Matt26:38.

If that werent enough, when on the cross he grieves for God's abandoning him, or himself abondonning his own self. Even Revelations5 which is sometimes quoted to defend the notion of a predetermined divine masterplan of salvation through Jesus, is in fact speaking in eschatological terms, just as the whole book does. It speaks of the salvation of some people after events of great tribulation, ie the end of times. Then we have Heb5:7 throwing in the ambiguous statement that Jesus' prayers were heard and accepted by God, and this includes the desperate cry to

"let this cup pass from"

him. The realization of his prayer, his inability to take on the full brunt of the "sins of mankind" came in the form of Simon of Cyrene who relieved Jesus from his cross and carried it half way till Golgotha Matt27:31-33.

This embarrassing change to the divine master plan of salvation forced another author in Jn19:17-18 to have Jesus carrying his own cross, the symbol of mankind's sins, all the way until he reached Golgotha where he was crucified.

The predictions Jesus makes as regards his impending death, similarily reveal the clumsiness of the Greek scribes trying to retrospectively enforce their theological agenda anyway they could, just as they did with their inapropriate linking of HB passages to Jesus. When Jesus supposedly tells his disciples, several times and in the most explicit of ways, how he would die, they are taken by complete surprise when the events allegedly unfold. Not once are they depicted, following his supposed death, as patiently waiting his predicted resurrection after just 3 days. Neither are they depicted recalling the secret miracle once it unfolds. These writers werent even able to maintain a consistent story line from chapter to chapter, why would anyone take any of their reports at face value? As a side note the cross was not a Christian symbol  until the 6th century. Could the whole "Simon of Cyrene" tale be orthodoxy's early response to a story popularised by certain gnostics that it was not Jesus but Simon who had been nailed to the cross? We will leave that to Christians to ponder upon.

The "via dolorosa" as a side note, does not pass anywhere near this path, but follows the line of the town built on the ruins of old Jerusalem by the Roman Emperor Hadrian after 135, long after Jesus. The later embellishments along that route such as Jesus' encounters with Mary or Veronica or his falling three times, are also alien to even the Gospel accounts. The original holy walk had no "devotional halts" and went from the Mount of Olives southwest via Mount Sion before entering the city. But by the Middle Ages Christendom was divided by schisms, triggered less by theological and doctrinal subtleties than by power struggles and rivalry for converts in central Europe and the Balkans. The rancour and hostility between the Roman and Greek churches led each to scramble for the more impressive array of icons, relics and sanctuaries. In Jerusalem, opposing Christian groups established rival routes to Calvary (Latin for Golgotha), each route acquiring sacred stops along the way to add to their appeal and holiness. The Latins were even divided among themselves. An informed Christian would doubtless argue that the Via Dolorosa and its way stations are no longer understood as historically accurate, that they are symbolic.

CIRA International seeking light in the dark; who is the true shepherd?

In answer to the video "Islamic Original Sin Dilemma: Introduction: Are Muslims Born Sinless?"

God is the utlimate and exclusive guide, because all direct and indirect means by which one is spiritually purified and elevated come from Him ultimately. He clarifies the right from the wrong, after which each one is free to make a conscious choice

2:38,16:9,92:12-13"Surely on Us is the guidance"  

9:122,2:187,6:154"..so that they should believe in the meeting of their Lord". 

The first sura, sura fatiha teaches mankind in the form of a supplication that we should seek help exclusively from Allah

1:5"You alone (iyyaka) we ask for help"

in order that He guides us to the one and only path that leads to Him, the same path the Prophets and Messengers of Allah throughout history have called human beings to follow called Al-Sirat Al-Mustaqim

1:6"Keep us on the right path".

It is a path that Allah has Himself appointed for His servants and the only one leading to success

30:60"Did I not enjoin on you, 0 children of Adam! that you should not worship the Satan..And that you should worship Me; this is the straight path".

Worshiping God is the shortest path

2:186"..I am near; I answer the prayer of the suppliant when he calls on Me, so they should answer My call and believe in Me, that they may walk in the right way".

Other ways also lead to God

5:15-6"Indeed, there has come to you a light and a clear Book from Allah; with it Allah guides him who follows His pleasure into the ways of safety and brings them out of utter darkness into light by His permission and guides them to the straight path".

God guides those in search for the truth to these many ways 29:69 that all lead to one and same straight path.

Trinitarianism can be deemed one of those ways, to an individual coming from outright polytheism for example, and with no other available religious system than it to adhere to. But through it, and despite its obvious deficiencies, one may come closer and closer to a purer form of monotheism until he is naturally led to the straight path of Islam. The Quran has alluded to these deficient ways

12:106"And most of them do not believe in Allah without associating others (with Him)"

this verse along with 13:16,29:61 is indiscriminate, it addresses both Muslims and non-Muslims who claim to believe in One God while associating with Him in His supreme authority, consciously or unconsciously, their religious authorities, saints, personalities and even their own selves. Linguistically, mustaqim stems from q-y-m whose primary meaning is standing upright. siratul mustaqim is thus a vertical, upright path, taking the human away from the world, carrying him to heaven.

Some however have strayed far from any tiniest rivulet leading to the torrent, willfuly rejecting all guidance. Sura fatiha teaches the supplicant to only seek God's guidance to the straight path, so that he is preserved from straying far to these crooked, forsaken ways leading to destruction

1:6-7"Keep us on the right path, The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray".

This straight path is a favor from Allah to His creation and brings about blessings and felicity to its sincere followers

4:69"They will be in the company of those whom Allah has blessed from among the Prophets, the truthful, the martyrs, and the righteous".

God's guidance is thus contingent on freewill, it can never be forced on anyone. It is only natural then that each person is allowed to alk the path it willfully chooses. Those who want to be guided will be shown guidance and those that arent interested in being guided, then God will utlimately withdraw the guidance from them

5:41"Those are they for whom Allah does not desire that He should purify their hearts".

The Quran illustrates this through the people's reaction to its parables. It shows how one and same cause produces two opposite reactions. The right response is the acceptance of the guidance, the reaction of the muttaqin 2:2. The wrong response is the "going astray" by adding more threads to the already existing web of doubts, the reaction of the fasiqin 2:26.