Islam critiqued reveals prophetic experience; a violent event?

In answer to the video "Muhammad the Mystic and the Boy Under the Blanket"

At around the age of 40, Muhammad would retire in al Hira where he would meditate, and his loving wife Khadija would bring him food to help him in the process. A narration from Aisha relates how 6 months prior to that momentous event, the prophet had dreams every single night of happenings that would occur the following day. He was being prepared in an increasing manner to be in touch with the metaphysical realm. 
During one of those seclusions, Muhammad, extremely respected for his wisdom, truthfulness, honesty, charity and honourable character, is formally introduced to his momentous mission with the first revelation, consisting of the first 5 verses of Sura Al Alaq

96:1-5"Recite in the Name of Your Lord Who created. He created the human being from a clot. Recite and your Lord is Most Honourable, Who taught (to write) with the pen, taught the human being what he knew not".

 The one who taught Muhammad these heavenly words was the same whom he would see in his dreams months prior. This led him to think at first that he was hallucinating. So when he first resisted the command to "read". In answer, the angelic visitor repeatedly hugged him with strength so he would know he was not hallucinating, that his experience was tangible and real. After resisting and interrupting three times and pressed three times, Muhammad allowed Jibril to reveal the verses in totality and recited exactly as he was commanded.

 

We're not talking of God or the angel of God, wrestling with a prophet, and that prophet overcoming him, as is alleged in regards to prophet Joseph in the Biblical account. 

The prophet Muhammad's encounter with the metaphysical realm is very realistically depicted. He is a normal human being whose first reaction is fear and denial upon seeing a supernatural creature in a remote location, alone. That fear and confusion however did not pertain to the revelation itself, which he flawlessly recited when pressed the third time. As he was comforted by his entourage, then confirmed in his prophethood by the old Waraqa, his disbelief dissipated. That short and shocking introduction to revelation was followed by a long period, where no such supernatural encounter occurred. This is highly corroborative of the prophet's sincerity, as he was expected to keep on receiving revelation to enhance his credibility and corroborate his extraordinary claims. But as time passed, up to 3 years according to tradition, the prophet himself, despite his initial terror started longing for Jibril to return. When he did, it was again a magnificent but shocking sight 

"While I was walking I heard a voice from the sky. I looked up towards the sky, and behold! I saw the same Angel who came to me in the Cave of Hira', sitting on a chair between the sky and the earth. I was so terrified by him that I fell down on the ground. Then I went to my wife and said, 'Wrap me in garments! Wrap me in garments!' They wrapped me, and then Allah revealed: "O you, (Muhammad) wrapped-up! Arise and warn...and desert the idols." (74.1-5) Abu Salama said....Rujz means idols." After that, the Divine Inspiration started coming more frequently and regularly". 

This time, the prophet did not resist uttering the revelation. Thereafter his heart was progressively accustomed to bearing the connection with the metaphysical realm through concise revelations, he would not experience fear and terror whenever the angel appeared. In fact, contrary to his initial resistance, a little after his first encounter, the prophet became so eager in memorizing, understanding and communicating the revelation, that he would hastily repeat what Gabriel inspired him, as he was receiving it. The Quran came to check him on that anxiousness, and to appease his fear 

75:16-9"Move not your tongue with it, [O Muhammad], to hasten with recitation of the Qur'an. Indeed, upon Us is its collection [in your heart] and [to make possible] its recitation. So when We have recited it, then follow its recitation. Then upon Us is its clarification [to you]".

It is important to emphasize, prophethood came totally unexpectedly to him 

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

He in addition never entertained, prior to it, the idea of political and religious 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 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.

The exact process of revelation is a process unknown to humans and the prophets themselves do not understand its intricate details 17:85 however from the prophet Muhammad's testimony in the oral tradition where he describes the way he felt it coming to him, we know it could sometimes be a very powerful and internally violent experience. Especially so the very first revelation of sura Alaq that left him overwhelmed, exhausted and terrorized.

But he never thought he was being visited by evil entities like the jinn, that were believed to come to the poets with eloquent words. The prophet never doubted that his encounter was with an angelic entity, as described earlier. The Quran unequivocally identifies the carrier of God's word to the prophet as the angel Gabriel. And although no self-serving reports exist where the angel of revelation formally introduces himself, we do have many reports where the prophet identifies the agent of revelation as Gabriel.

In the darkest times of his prophetic mission, towards the beginning, the prophet Muhammad would often retreat in fear, as any human being would be in that situation. Violent opposition and derision, intense sacrifices and possible death, are the lot of the prophets, especially at the beginning of their call. Revelation would come to comfort him and pull him out of that state of mind. He would be told to rise and through acts of devotion, to prepare himself spiritually to be able to bear what is about to come down on him from on high

73:5"Surely We will make to light upon you a weighty Word".

The Quran often uses the image of vastness, greatness found in nature and more particularly the mountains when it wants to express the greatness of a thing, more specifically of this Revelation

14:46,10:22-23,42:33,59:21"Had We sent down this Quran on a mountain, you would certainly have seen it falling down, splitting asunder because of the fear of Allah, and We set forth these parables to men that they may reflect".

This kind of imagery, again pictured in 13:31, is meant at contrasting those whose hearts are more inert and harder to penetrate by divine guidance, than a massive mountain would be. This literary style also serves the purpose of picturing the importance of Revelation; it takes a special kind of creature with a special kind of internal disposition to be able to bear it, in addition to bearing the consequences of having to communicate it. The word used in sura sharh to describe what kind of burden Muhammad was relieved from through God's expansion of his chest is wizr, used for something nearly unbearable

94:1-3"Have We not expanded for you your breast, And taken off from you your burden, Which pressed heavily upon your back".

What is rendered "pressed heavily" is anqada which actually is used when something is about to break. The prophet Moses at the beginning of his call and prior to his confrontation with Pharao requested from God the same spiritual relief and strengthening 20:25. God repeatedly gives Muhammad instructions to prepare himself spiritually, through acts of devotion, for the momentous task at hand

73:5"Surely We will make to light upon you a weighty Word".

There are narrations speaking of the effects of revelation, not only on the prophet but on those around him; his camel would sit and sink into the sand, a close companion whose knee happened to be under that of the prophet almost shattered.

All of the various manifestations of revelation on him were far removed from any sign of neuronal illness, as some malicious critics have recently suggested, since he never lost consciousness or memory during the process. The slander of epilepsy, unsurprisingly finds its source 200 years following the prophet's death by the pens of Bible loving Christians the likes of Theophanes. The Arabs knew what was the disease of epilepsy, even had a word for it. Once Ibn Abbas narrated 

“This black lady came to the Prophet and said, ‘I get attacks of epilepsy/sara'a and my body becomes uncovered; please invoke Allah for me.’ The Prophet said (to her), ‘If you wish, be patient and you will have (enter) Paradise; and if you wish, I will invoke Allah to cure you.’ She said, ‘I will remain patient,’ and added, ‘but I become uncovered, so please invoke Allah for me that I may not become uncovered.’ So he invoked Allah for her". 

None of his revelational experiences as reported in the ahadith conform to the symptoms of a mental illness. When he was first visited by Gabriel who compelled him the "Read". He was fully conscious and returned home terrified. When the painful ringing of a bell occurs, he retains what was revealed to him then recites it. His companions witnessed sweat drops forming on his forehead even on cold days, after which he would recite the revelation. When the burden of revelation descended on him and his face turned red on account of its intensity, Ubida b. Samit said he would then begin reciting. Similar events would precede a recitation, as witnessed by his companions, such as when his camel's legs would sink in the sand or a person's leg above which the prophet's leg was resting would almost crush from the weight. 

Even though some physical effects of the revelation may resemble those of epilepsy, such as trembling and foaming, they could as well be due to the intensity of the process upon his body. This effect (trembling or foaming) was not generalized and again, immediately after the prophet would gain lucidity and begin to recite. Epileptic seizures are for the most part followed by a state of confusion and amnesia. The Prophet experienced revelation in all situations, when he was seated, standing, walking or riding, morning and evening, and even when he was talking to others, whether friends or foes. Revelation would come unexpectedly and cease just as suddenly. It would last only for a very brief period.

The prophet's experience, besides being witnessed as it occurred to him and changed his demeanour, or when it physically affected things around him, is also attested in the ahadith, speaking of a man appearing out of nowhere on several occasions in the life of the prophet and the community. That person would then take on a leading role, 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".

Just as the first revelation of the Quran caused him extreme fatigue, as well as overwhelmed him emotionally, we see the same pattern in regards to the revelational experience of the prophets of the HB. When the word of God descends it is described as Deut33:2"fiery", and prophets the likes of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel stated concerning the revelational experience that it can be

Isa8:11"overwhelming"  

Jer20:9"And it was in my heart like a burning fire"  

and Ezek2:2,8"the spirit entered me when He spoke to me, and it stood me on my feet...hearken to what I speak to you, open your mouth and eat what I give you..".

Daniel fell in a swoon when the angel Gabriel began speaking to him Dan8:15-18. He lost consciousness a second time when the angelic carrier of revelation visited him and spoke to him directly Dan10:4-9. The angel Gabriel, after having assumed the shape of a human being, infused Daniel with strength in order for him to regain consciousness and be able to speak Dan10:10-19.

Obviously none of this pattern among the Israelite prophets and the Ishmaelite prophet parallel with Saul/Paul's encounter with a shining light. Similarly, the Pharisees' reaction was justified in Acts2:13 when they mockingly alluded to people on the day of pentecost as a group of drunkards, for their odd, erratic behaviour and incomprehensible speech; this type of effect that the indwelling spirit of holiness supposedly had on them was something unheard of in the prophetic history. No prophet who received the holyspirit ever behaved in such a manner, whether the prophets of the HB down to the last Ishmaelite prophet.

Concerning Malachi, it is described as

Mal1:1"The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel in the hand of Malachi".

Again when comparing true inspiration to the alleged prophetic dreams of false prophets God states

Jer23:29"Is not My word so like fire? says the Lord, and like a hammer that shatters a rock?".

There always is an element of compulsion, implying that when God chooses an individual to be the recipient of revelation, prophecy seizes him against his will, as alluded to by Ezekiel who was fearfully setting himself to confront a highly sinful nation of Israelites

Ezek3:14,11:5"and I went, embittered in the wrath of my spirit, and the hand of the Lord became strong upon me..Then the spirit of the Lord fell upon me".

Depending on the manner in which it is communicated it can be extremely terrorizing, the prophet Amos compares it to the roaring of a lion Amos3:8, and when revelation was collectively bestowed upon the Israelites, they even thought they would die, begging Moses to put a halt to the experience by becoming their sole intermediary with God Deut5:23-27. There are also mention of various degrees of revelation intensity, such as in Numbers11:17 speaking of God intensifying the spirit of prophecy that was filling Moses, or doubling the power of the spirit of prophecy from a prophet to another, from Elijah to Elisha who effectively was granted double the miracles than his master Elijah 2Kings2:9. 

It is also important emphasizing that the medium of revelation is always angelic, just as with the prophet Muhammad. 

The weightier the revelation in terms of implications and importance, the more intense and overwhelming it is to the human recipient. One cannot compare the revelation to Zakariyya of a future child, to the revelation of the Torah and the covenant experienced by the Israelites at Mt Sinai who consequently thought they would die, or to the revelation bestowed upon Muhammad, one that could shatter a mountain if it was made to descend on it. The Quran speaks of the capabilities and prestige of the carriers of revelation to Muhammad's heart so as to highlight this weightiness. There is a reason why Waraqa the Christian in his old age, after learning of what had occurred with Muhammad immediately declares it is namus, the Arabic transcription of the Greek nomos meaning Law or Torah. Waraqa recognized that what Muhammad experienced was the same as had once happened to Moses with the sending down of the Torah on Sinai.

Nobody witnessed Paul's vision of Jesus and even the accounts given in the NT contradict themselves about what was allegedly seen or heard. No Apostles witnessed the alleged crucifixion, they all fled according to the NT Matt26:56. Nobody saw an angel telling Mary about the risen Jesus. No Apostles witnessed Jesus talking to Satan, no Apostles witnessed Mary giving birth to Jesus and they didnt see the angels. There were no witnesses to the Holy Spirit descending upon the various prophets within the HB that spoke to Israel. General revelation, descending upon people indiscriminately happened only once in the history of mankind and was stopped quickly, upon the people's request, fearing they would die as already shown above.

And for the already shown reasons, prophecy needs a special kind of eligibility, preparation, and purity of soul. All the wires of the vast electrical system of a city cannot be expected to receive the same high amount of electricity that immediately arrives into the initial thick wires directly from the main generator. Hence the vain and misplaced requests of some of the prophet Muhammad's contemporaries to experience revelation like he did

2:118-9,74:52,6:124"We will not believe until we are given the like of what was given to God's messengers. Allah knows best where to place His messengership".

The Quran is the testimony of God not based upon whether we see an angel coming to Muhammad or not, the Quran is the testimony of God based upon its own internal evidence. We know an angel came to Muhammad because of the Quran, not the other way around

36:2-3"by the Quran full of wisdom, Most surely you are one of the messengers",

the wisdom of this Quran is the evidence that it is from God and that Muhammad is His prophet. Prophets are those whom God chooses to speak with, and their authority comes by the signs that God manifests to people. Belief in Prophets isnt based upon who is witnessing what, its dictated by what they bring to establish their Prophethood. We have the Quran, Christians never saw the resurrection and dont even have one Bible.

Islam critiqued finds a failed mystic; Saf ibn Sayyad

In answer to the video "Muhammad the Mystic and the Boy Under the Blanket"

Saf Ibn Sayyad was a Jew and once when asked by the prophet if he testified to his prophethood he answered that, just as the learned Jews of the past and today reluctantly admit, Muhammad indeed was a prophet but not to the Israelites. Saf continued, in a challenging tone

"Do you bear witness to the fact that I am the messenger of Allah? Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) rejected this and said: I affirm my faith in Allah and in His messengers".

Notice the prophet's tactful and eloquent negation of ibn Sayyad's arrogance. He did not repond with a negation or affirmation. He answered rethorically, forcing the questionner to deduct by himself the true answer.

"Then he said (to Ibn Saiyad), "What do you think?" Ibn Saiyad answered, "True people and liars visit me." The Prophet said, "You have been confused as to this matter." Then the Prophet said to him, "I have kept something (in my mind) for you, (can you tell me that?)" Ibn Saiyad said, "It is Al-Dukh (the smoke)."

Thereupon Allah's Messenger said: May you be disgraced and dishonoured, you would not be able to go beyond your rank. 'Umar b. Khattab said: Allah's Messenger, permit me that I should strike his neck. Therupon Allah's Messenger said: If he is the same (Dajjal) who would appear near the Last Hour, you would not be able to overpower him, and if he is not that there is no good for you to kill him".

This long hadith shows something important. The prophet did not come to Saf ibn Sayyad randomly and started questioning him. There were speculations he might be the dajjal to the point people wanted to kill him, and so the prophet went to him publicly in order to discredit him and put an end to the negative attention he was generating; first by getting him to freely admit to Muhammad's prophethood, then by eloquently negating Saf's arrogant claim to prophethood, and finally showing that he had no special knowledge that could distinguish him from anyone, he couldn't see anything in the prophet's mind but smoke.

Since these steps did not decisively end the rumours, the prophet went together with a witness to attempt to overhear anything which would prove the deceit on Saf's part but when they were discovered and that the prophet could not catch him red handed saying anything compromising, the prophet then followed up by clearly defining to the suspicious people how to recognize the dajjal when he will actually appear.

Later on Saf would convert and become a devout, practicing Muslim, and would even reiterate the prophet's descriptions of the dajjal to those who still were suspicious and fearful of him. In another version of that encounter, ibn Sayyad doesnt answer the prophet's question on the unseen with a blurry "vision" of smoke. Instead he clearly sees the throne of Allah over the waters

"Whereupon Allah's Messenger said: You see the throne of Iblis upon the water", and what else do you see? He said: I see two truthfuls and a liar or two liars and one truthful. Thereupon Allah's Messenger said: Leave him He has been confounded".

The prophet first corrects his supposed divine vision by telling him he has been deceived. Iblis deceives by all means and all avenues except in true visions which, per the Quran he has no access to. He was making the false prophet ibn Sayyad think he was having a divine vision of God on His throne. It is interesting to note that the prophet had said that, to imitate the Creator, Iblis also established himself on a throne

"Verily Satan puts his throne on ocean and sets veils around himself. This way he imitates Allah, the Almighty".

In yet another version of the encounter, ibn Sayyad says that his vision was

"a throne on the sea , surrounded by serpents then the Prophet said “that is the throne of Iblees".

Following this, the noble prophet, for ibn Sayyad's own sake, still gave him a chance to stop his shameful, deceitful act but instead, he gave an even more confused "vision" that further discredited him. At that point the prophet could have chosen to execute him as eagerly proposed by one of his companions, without this action diminishing an iota from his credibility as a true prophet.

The Bible orders to kill false prophets, a command the prophets of the Bible ruthlessly applied in many cases, slaughtering false prophets in masse.

Instead Muhammad told his companions to leave this confused fellow wandering on in his delusions. Ibn Sayyad later came to the truth, as already mentioned, like other contemporary Jews that initially opposed the prophet, accepting Islam and dying as devout Muslims.

As regards that end times figure, the traditions refer to him as the deceiver or the messiah deceiver. Among his recognizable features, of which both the traditions and the Quran warn about, is that he will urge people to believe in him as both God and messiah, waging war and oppression against those that dont 

3:79-80"It is not meet for a mortal that Allah should give him the Book and the wisdom and prophethood, then he should say to men: Be my servants rather than Allah's; but rather (he would say): Be worshippers of the Lord because of your teaching the Book and your reading (it yourselves). And neither would he enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lords; what! would he enjoin you with unbelief after you are Muslims?"  

He will gain many followers which isnt surprising, given that Christianity's central belief is in a divine messiah who shall return in this world as a warrior figure. They will be the foremost to be deceived. Many details, both in the canonized and apocryphal Christian traditions have circulated, some true others false, some having survived and others disappeared. Among the details that were common in the region of the Levant, was that the dajjal will not step foot in Mecca and Medina, a notion which Tamim addari, a Christian convert later confirmed 

" I am going to tell you about myself and I am Dajjal and would be soon permitted to get out and so I shall get out and travel in the land, and will not spare any town where I would not stay for forty nights except Mecca and Medina as these two (places) are prohibited (areas) for me and I would not make an attempt to enter any one of these two. An angel with a sword in his hand would confront me and would bar my way and there would be angels to guard every passage leading to it; then Allah's Messenger striking the pulpit with the help of the end of his staff said: This implies Taiba meaning Medina. Have I not, told you an account (of the Dajjal) like this? 'The people said: Yes, and this account narrated by Tamim Dari was liked by me for it corroborates the account which I gave to you in regard to him (Dajjal) at Medina and Mecca". 

Many deceiving messiahs have in fact already appeared, some even claiming divinity, and many more will come 

"The Hour shall not be established until nearly thirty imposters, Dajjal appear, each of them claiming that he is the Messenger of Allah". 

Every true prophet has warned against such a phenomenon in a different way 

"l warn you against him (i.e. the Dajjal) and there was no prophet but warned his nation against him. No doubt, Noah warned his nation against him but I tell you about him something of which no prophet told his nation before me..."

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".