Islam critiqued's incomplete Christian religion; the function of the ruach hakodesh?

In answer to the video "Muhammad and Merkabah Mysticism"

Now lets dig a little deeper on this ruach hakodesh that descends upon the prophets. Starting with the Quran.

When Allah sends ALRUH, the Arabic equivalent of the "ruach", for divine inspiration, it executes its purpose as commanded by Him 40:15,42:52. It is important to emphasize that whatever it does and the effect it has, it is by the will of Allah alone, not its own intrinsic will or power. This is particularly made clear with what the RUH, that manifested in human form to Mary, told her in regards her miraculous conception 3:47,19:21. The angels then descend with the RUH upon those whom God deems fit

77:5,97:4,16:2"He sends down the angels with the RUH by His commandment on whom He pleases of His servants, saying: Give the warning that there is no god but Me, therefore be careful (of your duty) to Me".

RUH stems from r-w-h meaning anything that blows as in a wind/breeze/breath. It also carries the meaning of life giving breath. The word is always associated with a kind of breeze that brings something good such as life, rest or inspiration. Upon the prophet Jesus, the RUH al qudus/breeze of holiness, besides its basic role of inspiration, gave him the strength and aptitude to perform the miracles that he did 2:87,253,5:110. Jesus' association to the RUH do not however make any of them divine. It was a tool sent upon Jesus as was sent on all prophets and regular believers, each time for the purpose for which Allah intends for it. 

Jesus' mention with the RUH is among the patterns of the Quran of taking up the most cherished christological themes, then strip them from their paganistic implications. 

The Quran leaves no room to the kind of conjecture trinitarians are known for when approaching their Bible, let alone the Quran. Christians feel comforted whenever they superficially approach the Quran and find these familiar Christological themes. They are sometimes bold enough to assume the Quran is confirming their doctrines. After all, none other than Jesus is referred to as God's word, His messiah or a RUH from Allah. But by doing so Christians are missing the consistent Quranic approach of taking up the major trinitarian themes and labels associated to Jesus, then recasts them in a monotheistic, unitarian perspective. It is the case with the kalima, just as with the RUH/spirit or the name "messiah". Jesus is not the literal nor metaphorical "son of God" but simply, the son of Mary as Christians themselves cannot deny. Similarly, Jesus is stripped from any intrinsic power as regards his ascension and ability to perform miracles. Being the muhaymin/guardian of the previous scriptures and traditions, the Quran could not leave those themes unaddressed. And it does so in an impactful way, using them just as is done in Christian scriptures, while redefining them so as to deny their Christological background.

That corrective function goes beyond these aforementioned pillars of Christology. In the Gospels' eschatology, the trinitarian godhead is at the forefront and Jesus is given the leading role of judgement by his "father" Matt25,26. In the Quran, no possible ambiguity exists as to Allah's supremacy on that day, whether in terms of glory, authority or judgement.

The sending of revelation upon a prophet is carried out by an angelic delegation accompanying the spirit 16:2. In 16:102,26:192-4 that particular descending spiritual entity is not named, in another place God singles out the descending entity by name as Gabriel 2:97. The Quran describes the eminence of that particular messenger of revelation 

81:19-21"honored messenger, the posessor of strength, having an honorable place with the Lord of the Dominion, One (to be) obeyed, and faithful in trust". 

He is one who is mutaAA 81:21 denoting authority and the angels are created in different grades 35:1. His power, honor and unfaltering trustworthiness 26:192-4, his sacredness 16:102, means he is most fit to accomplish this noble task. That is why the Quran always singles him out from among the angels of revelation 2:98,66:4,97:1-4. The mention of an angelic delegation descending with the revelation expresses the prestige of Allah's word and the singling out of one entity from among them denotes the distinct nobility of the one selected to carry it. As noble and honored the carrier of revelation is, He remains under God's authority in the process 

2:97"he made it descend to your heart by Allah's command". 

This emphasis is meant at dispelling any doubt, in the minds of those that dislike the indirect manner in which God communicates with His prophets, making clear Who the ultimate source of that message is. Not only is the descent commanded by Allah, but it in addition originates from Him 

2:99"And certainly WE descended to you clear communications" 

2:105"Those who disbelieve..do not like..that the good should be brought down to you from your Lord, and Allah chooses especially whom He pleases for His mercy, and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace" 

26:192-4"And most surely this (ie Quran) is a sending down from the Lord of the worlds. The Faithful Spirit/RUH has descended with it, Upon your heart that you may be of the warners". 

The Quran originates from Allah, was commanded to be sent down by Him, through the trustworthy RUH, elsewhere named Gabriel, who is accompanied by a delegation of angels. Elsewhere the Quran, in its surgical use of words and in a similar context of attesting to the otherworldly origin of the Book, says that it is 

53:4"a revelation revealed". 

Since the most obdurate could still find a way to disbelieve, admitting to the divine origin of the Quran but rejecting the legitimacy of the prophet who could have been given the revelation by an inspired human, God makes it clear, it is a process twice revealed. The first time to the medium, that is Gabriel, and the second time to the prophet's heart, by the inspired medium. Sure no explicit statement says that Gabriel or holylspirit is an angel. Strong indications however point to the descending delegation as always and exclusively angelic. Throughout the Quran, no entity carrying God's will from heaven (revelation, punishment or else) is ever said to be other than angels. It is known that the descending entities fully encompassed by Allah's will in 19:64-5 are angels for whom Gabriel is speaking in the passage. What those attempting to deny Gabriel's identification with the holy spirit are left with is a slightly ambiguous statement in 97:4. And that is if one disregards the aforementioned patterns, as well as linguistic reasons for singling out the spirit from among the angels.

The WAW in 97:4 which is translated in general as AND, also often means inclusion of a particular entity within the general more encompassing entity. The purpose is to create a distinction in terms of prominence relevant to the context. For example the Quran says "and the prophets and Jesus and Moses" 2:136,3:84. It mentions the two in WAW/AN form to mean that they are included but to bring particular attention to those two amongst the prophets. Elsewhere it says 69:14"the earth and the mountains are lifted" or in 55:68"In both of them are fruit and dates and pomegranates". See also 31:16.

Finally, the attempted parallel of the syntax in 97:4 (separating entities part of the same angelic group) with 3:87 fails for the reason that in this verse God, angels and humans are explicitly stated elsewhere as being different entities. No statement in 97:4 or indications elsewhere say that the descending spirit and the angels are different entities, quite to the contrary as previously demonstrated.

The description of Gabriel with "RUH" denotes that angels are breeze like entities of the unseen realm. In this world they can take any form or be used for any purpose according to God's will. To Mary, that immaterial entity appeared as a human being 19:17-9. Then this immaterial entity, which assumed human form, blew a part of itself into her, so that she might conceive 

21:91"So We breathed into her from/MIN Our RUH". 

The Quran does not detail how that process was executed in relation to Mary. It uses the euphemism "farj" for the location where the breath was sent 66:12 a word referring to the space between 2 things, in this instance the legs. Farj is used for both men and women 23:5,33:35 eloquently but indirectly alluding to the private parts, which are located between that space. This process does not make Mary nor any part of her divine, just as God's breathing from His RUH in every human being doesnt make us or part of us divine 32:9,38:71-2. Ruhana/our breeze or breath is attached to God's name to stress its greatness, the particular connection it creates between the recipient and Allah, as is stated concerning the righteous 

58:22"These are they into whose hearts He has impressed faith, and whom He has strengthened with a RUH from Him/minhu". 

And just as the Quran associates the RUH with Jesus, it does the same with the prophet Muhammad in the context of divine inspiration 16:102.

The RUH sent by Allah, under His command, affects multiple people at once like the wind would. Similar usage is seen with the house of Allah or the month of Allah or the sakina of Allah/the soothing calmness that filled Muhammad and the believers, or the love from Allah bestowed upon Moses 20:39 etc. None of those things are considered parts of Allah, having any intrinsic power, or emanating from within His essence, or sharing in His divinity. Again, it is the RUH that breathed a portion of it into Mary, not Allah 

19:19"He (the RUH) said: I am only a messenger of your Lord, that I will give you a pure boy". 

The RUH is consistently described as in Allah's control and command. God in 21:91 attributes to Himself the breathing of a portion of the RUH into Mary, because the whole process is under His control. He commands the RUH to blow into Mary, and God alone gives power to the RUH to have the intended effect on Mary. The RUH has no intrinsic ability by itself other than what Allah grants it 

19:21"She said, when shall I have a boy when no mortal has touched me, nor have I been unchaste? He (the RUH) said; Even so; Your Lord says "It is easy to Me"

 3:47"He (the RUH) said; Allah creates what He pleases, when He has decreed a matter, He only says to it "BE" and it is".

The RUH, like the prophets of old, is a vessel through which God manifests His will. There are no ambiguities the like of which trinitarians have read into passages of the HB. It doesnt even say that this RUH is an emanation FROM Allah, but that it is something TO Allah, meaning belonging to Him, in His possession and full control. The RUH breathed into every human being just as the RUH breathed into Mary is said to be OF God because it BELONGS TO God. The action of God blowing the RUH does not hint to it emanating from inside of Him. The RUH is a breeze-like entity external to Allah. The action of God breathing it for the performance of a task, means He creates the conditions external to Him that make blowing to happen, so that the RUH is transferred from its location to where He wants it to be. For example God, whether in the times of Moses as depicted in the HB or the times of Muhammad as described in the Quran, is said to be literally fighting the disbelievers in battle, although the physical reality was that the believers were the ones waging war. Religious scriptures are replete with such usage of God acting, and His actions manifesting through conditions external to Him. So, instead of naively imagining a human like deity blowing air out of its lungs, one can easily preserve the overall Quranic axiom of divine transcendence, by paralleling what causes the RUH to be sent, to the meteorological causes that send the wind on earth 

30:46"And one of His signs is that He sends forth the winds bearing good news.."

Lastly, what should be kept in mind as regards the RUH, is that it is an issue of which very little knowledge has been imparted to the humans, other than it is an entity under Allah's complete grasp and control 17:85 as demonstrated earlier. Therefore, like every reality pertaining to the Hereafter or the heavenly realm, only a glimpse of its true nature and manner in which it operates can be accessible to our perception in this life.

Angels in general have thus been specifically pointed as the carriers of divine revelation, necessarily making the belief in them a tenet of faith 2:177,285. At two points during Muhammad's revelational experience, the angel Gabriel, the one repeatedly singled out as the possessor of mighty strength, became to him as a clearly perceptible, almost tangible presence, revealing himself in his true shape and form 81:19-25,53:4-18.

Very few humans have had the privilege of such visions of the heavenly creatures. They mostly appear in this world in the shape of humans, it therefore is a great favor from the Creator to make a human capable of withstanding such a vision. The HB speaks of Ezekiel's visions of the throne bearing angels in their true form.

But what is to be noted is that even during those intense encounters, clear signs were shown to Muhammad to make him understand that there always will remain areas of knowledge no human mind can penetrate, which the Creator has reserved for Himself.

Divine revelations, through which medium?

In answer to the video "Muhammad and Merkabah Mysticism"

The common understanding between the Bible and the Quran as regards to a prophet is that it is someone chosen to be spoken to by God, receiving His spirit, becoming His spokesman, conveying teachings of holiness, scholarship and closeness to God. A prophet therefore in Jewish belief doesnt have to be explicitly labelled "prophet" for him to fit the function, in the same way as, contrary to Christian belief, the promised messianic figure to come at the end of times is never labelled "the messiah". Both have to fit a certain description to qualify, and for a prophet, he has to be first of all cleared from what constitutes the criteria of a false prophet Deut13,18 and then he has to have some type of communication with the divine, through the ruach hakodesh. More on that point later.

Now the HB does not grade the prophets according to their revelational experience, ie there are no half-prophets and minor prophets. It is the Talmudic scholars that discriminate between these personalities based on the manner in which God communicated with them. For example Moses is considered the most superior -and Jews a required to acknowledge that superiority in their creed- because God spoke directly with him. All others are less in status because divine communication was in a less direct manner, in a "blurry" fashion, through visions (in sleep or awake). And the most distant mode of divine communication is believed to be either through the ruach hakodesh/ which literally translates to "spirit of holiness" or through angels. Those persons arent considered prophets anymore, but simply holy individuals with a faint level of divine inspiration.

With these principles in mind, Talmudic scholars are nevertheless in disagreement whether to consider Daniel, one with whom God communicated through angels and visions, a prophet or not.

The HB on the other hand, as stated in introduction discards these discriminatory criteria at once when it states, concerning all prophets, including since the time of their exodus with Moses whom they regard as the chief of all prophets

Hosea12:10"I spoke to the prophets, gave them many visions and told parables through them".  

All of them are true prophets, no mention of grades despite the different visions they received. The Quran addresses this discriminatory criteria they make in many places.

The Talmud speaks of hundreds of thousands, even millions of other prophets without naming them all and whose stories are omitted from the Tanakh because of the limited impact of their mission as compared to those chosen to be included in it. In the Tanakh itself, an allusion is often made of "prophets" without naming them, living and performing, alongside other prominent prophets.

The Israelites, from their corrupt leaders and doctors of Law down to the populace are known for having pursued and persecuted, rejected, mocked, slandered, imprisoned, physically assaulted or even killed the prophets sent to them and telling them to adhere to their own books meaning there could have been many more by their own standards. 

In the NT, Jesus and others use very harsh words too when denouncing their rejection and killing of prophets Matt23:30-37,Mk12:1-12,Lk7:28,1Thess2:15,Acts7. 

The killing of their prophets, as stated in the Quran was done "unjustly" ie knowingly and intentionally - not by mistake, ignorance or misunderstanding 2:87,3:21,181,183,5:70,33:69.

Cain and Abel from rabbinic texts?

In answer to the video "Muhammad and Merkabah Mysticism"

Some have attempted to source the Quran's version of the Cain and Abel story, as well as a few other stories, to the Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer. The passages in question from the Pirke only superficially resemble the Quran. The usual claim of "imperfect borrowing" can easily be dismissed by the fact that similarity doesnt entail borrowing.

Without getting to the issue of textual authenticity and which text predates which, both traditions, Jewish and Muslim might be drawing from earlier, independant sources. 

And once more, similarities doesnt entail borrowing. One first has to establish that the supposed (illiterate) author of the Quran had access to the similarities. One then has to explain how he cherry picked among a long list of books and traditions, besides other philosophies and thought systems, to form a well knit, flawlessly intricate narrative in its literary form that left the masters of eloquence of the time dumbfounded, as well as depth of contents that has not finished unravelling its subtleties. 

Why wasnt the source ever exposed nor came out to denounce him, leaving him reap the fruits of their labor. How wasnt this source detected given the largely exposed lifestyle of the time, the open circumstances in which the prophet lived and received revelation, as well as many other factors, not the least being that the Quran never claims to be relating something unknown in that particular narrative, repeatedly says it is a revelation in a long tradition of revelations. 

This means the superficial similarities might be remnants of revealed truths that eventually found their way into these apocrypha. In those writings from which the Quran supposedly draws, one can many times see how the superficial similarities are poorly weaved into the fabric of the story. The apocryphal writer, or his source, was aware of certain elements of the story but poorly integrated them in the whole account.

This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin (Guardian), when talking about the textual and oral traditions contemporaries to it. It points out major mistakes in them, filters the Truth from falsehood 

21:24"this is the reminder of those with me and the reminder of those before me". 

The Quran confirming the past scriptures, as well as any tradition, oral or written, in which divine truths still remain 2:41, means that the principles taught by Muhammad come from a common source, which Muslims believe is the Source of creation, and can be found throughout these textual and oral traditions. This is pointed to in the common phrase "musaddiqan lima bayna yadahi". With the passage of time these traditions were burdenned with additions, suffered from corruption and/or neglectful transmission. The Quran then acts as a criterion that distinguishes truth from falsehood. 

Therefore, and for argument's sake, to Muslims, it is irrelevant whether a story bearing similarities with a Quranic passage was even in circulation during and before Islam. It is even less relevant to Muslims whether the similarities were cannonized in the Bible or not. By what standard is the current Bible canon more reliable than the apocrypha? And what proof is there that the unknown Bible compilers rejected these traditions based on these points common to the Quran? Does the current Bible canon even claim to relate every single aspect of the life of its Biblical characters? Is it quiet possible that during the tumultuous process of transmission of the Bible, more particularily the HB which was lost at least twice as recorded in the Bible itself, some parts of the overall transmitted traditions were retained by the editors charged with reconstituting the lost text, and who reflected their own socio-cultural background in the process? Could they have been Selecting what was appropriate for their storytelling purposes and what was not? Of course from a secular viewpoint, the Quran, as a later text, is irrelevant in determining the authenticity, original versions or actual beliefs of those who originated or penned the previous oral and written traditions, canonized or not. But then so is the NT irrelevant in determining those matters from the HB, just as within the HB itself parts are far removed in time and space from other parts, making certain books insignificant when exploring these matters from earlier or later books. However, as soon as one introduces the divine into the equation, then all groups Jews-Christians-Muslims are equal in their claims as regards the authority of one scripture over another. The only factor from a non-secular view point enhancing one claim over another, would be the group with the most authentic, contradiction-free scripture.

In today's mainstream academia, no Islamicist asserts the Quran was influenced by the textual and oral traditions of its milieu, let alone copies from them. Simply because there is no possibility to know whether the human mind who supposedly authored the text had access to those traditions or understood them. What academics do at most, is present what they see as similarities, without disregarding or minimizing the vast differences. On the other side of the spectrum are Judeo-Christian religious zealots and apologists whose methodology and ideas are vastly inherited from their medieval peers' polemical writings. In order to enforce their untenable, unproven claims of borrowing, they retrospectively cherry pick convenient snippets from within larger stories that have very little to do with the corresponding Quranic passages. Then, not only do they disregard the significant differences loaded with theological meanings, but go on magnifying the tiniest similarities to the maximum so as to serve their paradigm. In the process, they inadvertently attribute to Muhammad an encyclopediac knowledge of texts and traditions, as well as an army of unseen informants from a variety of backgrounds and cultures following him around. This weak methodology can be applied to any thought system so as to build up a case for plagiarism. 

The Judeo-christian scriptures themselves relate, through the successive prophets and inspired personalities, different stories that were known to the addressees. This doesnt mean their statements were inspired by these traditions floating around. Rather, the common truths found between these traditions, and the statements of the prophets come from God. There is a myriad of similarities between the HB and stories, texts, inscriptions, including the Ugaritic mention of Adam and Eve, the Mesopotamian myth of Gilgamesh where he is cheated of immortality by a snake who eats a plant (had Gilgamesh eaten it, it would have made him immortal. The elements are the same but play out differently). There are other such myths circulating in Babylon where the Israelites spent a long time in exile, of a hero tricked out of immortality through the device of a plant/food. One could extend the parallelism with the laws of Hammurabi, or the global flood, among many examples, all predating Moses' supposed writing of the Torah. Some of these similarities might be due, as in the Quran, to being remnants of ancient truths partially preserved by these different cultures. But other biblical parallels with predating writings and traditions obviously are copies of unsophisticated legends floating in the region. The oldest and original account of creation in the Bible isnt found in Genesis but in Isaiah, Job or the Psalms. God in these crude stories divides the seas and fights off aquatic monsters. The same is found in the Ugaritic tablets and in a language very similar to Hebrew, with the myth that creation began when the storm god Baal vanquishing the god of the sea Yam and his sea monster-serpent-dragon helpers. Isa27:1 has a very close wording to what a Canaanite says about Baal 

"When you killed Litan, the fleeing serpent, annihilated the twisty serpent, the potentate with seven heads". 

One shouldnt forget that the canonization of the Bible was a long and controversial process, influenced by men with doctrinal bias, and that the current Biblical text is far from being a valid criterion of what truly constitutes divine knowledge from purely human invention.

The Pirke of rabbi Eliezer was actually redacted at least 200 years after the advent of Islam. Ishmael’s wives are even called Fatima and Ayesha! It is attributed to Eliezer although he wasnt its author except potentially for 2 disputed chapters. In addition various versions of it exist. Nothing of its specific information can be traced, whether from written or oral Jewish tradition, anywhere near the time of the advent of Islam. Other illusive sources from whence the prophet Muhammad supposedly constructed his well knit and consistent Quran, could be, according to the opponents, an approximate mishmash of the various informations found in works as, Targum pseudo Jonathan, which was redacted, edited and reedited, well after Islam, the Midrash Tanhuma/Yelammedenu, dated to the mid-9th century CE and having various recensions including in the Cain and Abel story, and finally the Mishnah Sanhedrin in the bit about preserving a soul, a tradition which the Qurn restores to its original universal connotation.

Islam critiqued find old murder archives; the value of a soul in Islam?

In answer to the video "Muhammad and Merkabah Mysticism"

The ordinance relating to unjust manslaughter in the Quran clearly has a universal connotation both for unjustly murdering or preserving a soul. Anyone familiar even on a most basic level with the Quran knows that among its most pervasive themes is the fact that to God, the value of a human, regardless of social status, gender or race only depends on righteousness in deeds and God-consciousness/taqwa 2:221,4:1,135,5:48,25:77,34:37,42:23,49:13. The Quran appeals to the believers' taqwa/God-consciousness in maintaining indiscriminate justice

"though it may be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives"

or even

"against a hated people"  

5:2"and let not hatred of a people..incite you to exceed the limits, and help one another in goodness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and aggression".

These verses came down at a time where Muslims were living in Medina under the constant threat of war, in an unceasing atmosphere of plotting and suspicions between all parties, including the Jews. Yet the Quran tells the Muslims not to give up justice for scapegoating, and baseless stereotypes. There are many examples to corroborate from the prophet's life and early companions. For instance the prophet once ruled in favor of a Jew to whom a companion owed money, on the Jew's own terms despite having full authority to give a more lenient ruling in favor of his close companion. The disregard for justice, or the abuse of power from a dominant position towards any human being was an attitude severely reprimanded by the prophet to the point he said

"If anyone wrongs a person protected by a covenant, violates his rights, burdens him with more work than he is able to do, or takes something from him without his consent, then I will plead for him on the Day of Resurrection".

Once a case of theft was brought before him by a close companion for a lenient verdict

 "When Usama spoke to Allah's Messenger about that matter, Allah's Messenger said, "Do you intercede (with me) to violate one of the legal punishment of Allah?" Then he got up and addressed the people, saying, "O people! The nations before you went astray because if a noble person committed theft, they used to leave him, but if a weak person among them committed theft, they used to inflict the legal punishment on him. By Allah, if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad committed theft, Muhammad will cut off her hand".

The corruption of the justice system to gain favors in a society or usurp other people's rights is forbidden 2:188. The verse 4:105 is cited in a historical context where the prophet judged a matter in favor of a Jew against the Muslim despite the tense situation between the 2 groups at the time. This is in contrast with the attitude of the Jewish elite who moulded their religious system so as to allow differentiation between Israelites and non-Israelites in their dealings Deut15,23,24,etc. Allah is Rabbul Alamin, the sustainer of all that exists everywhere. His presence in all that exists means that even the smallest degree of injustice displeases the Just Lord of the worlds 22:10. Rabbinic conjecture on the other hand has discriminated between Jews and non-Jews, in the value of a life as well as in moral obligations. In that particular issue of value of a human life, they modified the universality of the principle to make it apply solely to a Jewish soul, that consequently takes on a more sacred character

"whosoever destroys a single soul of Israel, Scripture imputes [guilt] to him as though he had destroyed a complete world; and whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes [merit] to him as though he had preserved a complete world".

The principle of the sanctity of human life is implicitly present in the biblical narrative of Abel and Cain. The rabbis understood it but partly obscured it due to their ethno centric worldview. The Quran engages with that Talmudic legal deduction of a true revealed principle, by clarifying its original intent.

The Quran further adds a clause of self-defence and application of justice to the moral principle, a clause which is present in the law of and teachings of every prophet of God

"unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land".

The passage 5:27-32 is a direct address to the Bani Israel of the prophet Muhammad's time who, like their forefathers to whom the ordinance was forcefully "written upon" because of their complete disregard for the sanctity of human life to the point they even murdered the prophets sent to them, planned time after time to kill their innocent Ishmaelite brother out of pure jealousy that God had now raised a prophet outside of their line. They subconsciously know about their unworthiness, which is time and again pointed in their own books. Like Cain, they could not see that all this, their removal as being the torch bearers of truth in favor of a new nation, was due to their persistence in transgression and lack of God-consciousness, as their own history bears testimony to.

The passage is meant at opening their eyes to their spiritual condition, and warning them of the severity of the sin they were planning on committing and how remorseful and helpless they would then become.

For a lapse of time following his crime, a murderer stays in bewilderment and shock, even denial, before something either from within or outside of him triggers back his consciousness and brings him back to reality, after which most often than not, he becomes filled with sorrow and remorse. That psychological dimension is unknown to the transmitters of the story in the HB who describe Cain as unconcerned with his brother's murder until the surrealistic and naive intervention of God and his dialogue with Cain Gen4:9-12.

In Cain's case, that trigger was the sight of a crow digging the earth to show him how to cover "sawata akheehi"/the shamefulness of his brother (ie his nakedness). The word sawata stems from S-Y-Hamza or S-W-Hamza meaning a shameful thing. That thing is determined by the context. That sight took him out of his state of shock and plunged him in regrets, seeing that besides the injustice he had just committed towards his own brother, he had in addition left him exposed in a shameful, disgraceful way 5:31. In fact in the Quran, one of the graces of Allah to human beings is the very burial of corpses

80:21"Then He causes him to die, then assigns to him a grave".

If the manner to dispose of corpses was unknown, they would humiliatingly remain putrid on the ground, and the beasts and birds would feast on them, which would be a horrible debasement. On a more general note, besides this passage indicating the importance of disposing of the dead in a dignified way, the Quran is completely silent on funerary rites and burial preparation. Cain thus proceeded to dispose properly of his dead brother's corpse, while regretting his crime.

The HB, though it implies that Cain buried his brother by speaking of the ground's "concealment" of the effects of the murder that was only known to Cain Gen4:10-11, does not speak of the encounter with the crow, and nor does Cain appear to be regretful at anytime. He even attempts to fool God who questioned him on his brother's whereabouts, minimizing the severity of his sin Gen4:9,13 and finaly God as a consequence of the murder absurdly gives him a prolonged time of respite under divine protection, allowing him to be fruitful and prosperous in a new location to which he was "banished" Gen4:15-24.

Islam critiqued exposes Quran plagiarism; Islam copied moral principles from others?

In answer to the video "Muhammad and Merkabah Mysticism"

Christian critics often absurdly try discrediting the wisdom of the Quran by arguing that some of its principles were already uttered earlier, while completely forgetting that all of Jesus' wise humanist utterings reported in the NT were either stated long before in the Tanakh by the likes of Moses, or close to his time by Jewish thinkers, let alone those Pharisees whom Jesus regarded as "sons of satan", such as Hillel -one of the highest Pharisaic authority of his time- who is quoted in the Talmud saying almost word for word what Jesus would utter about a century later in

Matt7:12"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets".

The redaction of the Talmud began after Jesus but the oral tradition it contains, such as the one uttered by Hillel, existed long before. It was already in circulation before and after Jesus in Pharisaic tradition. This tradition considers the Talmud just as revealed as the written Torah is, probably even predating the events of Sinai. We can repeatedly read of Moses receiving Torah and Law before he ascended on the Mount to meet with God Ex12-18.

Even the concept of a kingdom of God soon to be established on earth appears in numerous Jewish documents that antedate Jesus.

When trying to discredit Islam to a Muslim audience, the poorest and most insignificant of all arguments consists in pointing to the moral truths it contains then arguing they were uttered long before, that the Quran merely copied them. The Quran itself recognizes it isnt uttering anything new in matters of morality and spirituality, not only in the passage itself, but even upholds such principle as a tenet of faith, that divine guidance is a continuity that started long before the Torah, down to the Quran. By these same lowly standards, totally insignificant when debating a Muslim, Jesus and all prophets of the Bible were false prophets who merely copied from their predecessors and hardly uttered anything new. Hundreds of quotes, similarities and incidents can be shown attesting to this.

What cancels the Judeo-christian criticism further is that their religions contain very uncomfortable similarities with the pagan environments in which the successive books were authored. Contrary to Islam which has no problem with having similarities with pre-islamic practices, since it claims they are rooted in the Abrahamic legacy it came to revive, Judaism and Christianity have no common spiritual legacy with the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Canaanite or Greco-roman rituals and philosophies to help explain away the odd and uncomfortable similarities.

Here is a small example.

In the Quran, the whole matter of Jesus' end in this world appeared as if the Jews had succeeded in their evil, murdering plots because, among other reasons, Jesus was missing, or as the Quran says God "tawaffa" him, purified him and made him ascend to Heaven. This instead prevented the humiliation that wouldve happened if his enemies got to the body. If they presented it to the people in a humiliated state, leading to a psychological victory for the Israelites 

4:158"Allah took him up to Himself". 

They couldnt even kill him, nor could they damage his body and God states He would raise him up to himself, meaning that not only his body wouldnt be humiliated but it would be honored by God instead.

God thus lifted Jesus up and did not leave a trace of him with them yet even without proof for their claims, the Israelites that wanted him dead managed to start a rumor that quickly spread and was believed. The resulting confusion was similar to that of the rumor of the prophet Muhammad's death during the battle of Uhud 3:144. Roman crucifixions occured daily and by the hundreds, of any agitators to the point that they would sometimes run out of wood for the crosses. The accusing Jews could easily pass off their boastful claims as fact in those circumstances, regardless of whether they truly believed their own claim or not. This rumor spread among both friends and foes. It is entirely possible at this point that not only the Jews were unaware of Jesus' true whereabouts, but neither were his followers. The confusing absence of a prophet has been a means of testing the followers left behind, whether they would remain on the clear path outlined by the prophet when he was in their midst, maintain his directives, or start innovating in the religion and go back to their sinful ways. This occured with Moses, as he retreated away from his people to receive revelation, just as it did with Muhammad when many fell into despair during the battle of Uhud, and later when he died 

3:144"And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels?" 

The Nazarenes, like the calf-worshiping Jews thus failed the test of steadfastness in the absence of their prophet. As the rumours of Jesus' death started by his enemies became widespread, his disillusioned followers retrospectively painted the whole thing as a divine masterplan, with all the Christologies that ensued. Those among them that maintained Jewish law were sidelined by Paul's movement very early on, and within just 2 generations the little remnant of Judaism within the Jesus sect was erased. It was supplanted by a wave of converts from the greco-roman world who found in this transformed and readapted original Jewish sect, a favorable echo for their own beliefs, naming this new religion, Christianity. 

It is thus meaningless to argue that because the corruptions the Quran denounces were introduced early on, then it follows that these were original teachings of Jesus. Had Moses and Aaron not quickly and violently corrected the corruptions to their teachings, executing the guilty by the thousands, nothing would have prevented the same kind of falsehood to be passed off as "genuine teachings" of Moses, as was done with Jesus 

5:117"I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness". 

Jesus did not have the occasion to do as Moses and Aaron did very early on so as to prevent the lies attributed to them from becoming "orthodoxy". However, if they escaped Jesus condemnation, it does not mean God was unaware of their evil doings.  

Isnt it surprising that the Lord's prayer taught by Jesus himself (as opposed to every other prayer that others taught to say in Jesus’ name), never mentioned Jesus, nor vicarious atonement, nor him as messiah, nor him as intermediary, nor any trinity, among anything else Christological? This foundational prayer is more anti-christian than any passage one may find in the entire Bible.

 

We're not talking about the lack of Christological references in terms of labels, but in terms of concepts. The prayer is far removed from the ideas established by the Pauline movement, the creeds of the Church Fathers and later councils. Not only are those concepts absent but every sentence of the prayer clashes with mainstream Christian tenets. For example vicarious atonement, not only isnt it mentioned by name or implicitly as a concept, but in addition we have Jesus, who is supposed to be the embodiment of that notion, refuting it 

"forgive us our sins, as we have forgiven those who have sinned against us". 

No need for Jesus, forgiveness is attained through one's own efforts. The same is conveyed in the parable of the prodigal son Lk15. The unrighteous son is forgiven by his father simply for turning to God in sincere repentance. Not only is he forgiven but he is welcomed with a warm celebration. It is his state of contriteness that brought him back to life, not the blood on the cross "he was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found".

The idea of vicarious atonement stems from the notion of human depravity; none may claim righteousness on his own due to a sinful nature that pollutes every deed and thought. Yet Jesus undermines that notion too; temptation isnt the product of inherent human depravity and satanic influence. Rather it is God, who is perfectly righteous, whom the worshiper asks 

"not to lead us into temptation". 

Jesus teaches his followers to begin the prayer by calling upon "our" Father who is in heaven, not to the divine son who is on earth. Nothing distinguishes Jesus from a regular believer in terms of sonship to the Father. The same fatherhood that applies to him applies to the others. It is the Father's name only that is to be hallowed, His will is to be done, and He is the Sustainer of the devotees, including Jesus

 "Give us today our daily bread". 

These innovations might have initiated among Jesus' close circle, through re-interpretations of his teachings, or among the wave of new converts that supplanted them. To this new, outer circle, the claim that he was captured and killed resonated as closer to the truth and a more honest assessment of his disappearance.

His gruesome death became an attractive narrative of heroism and martyrdom not only for the sake of his followers but for the entire human race. 

Jesus is portrayed as fearing death and wanting to avoid it Jn7:1,11:54,Luke 22:42. He begged God (himself) 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 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. Then, when on the cross Jesus grieves for God's abandoning him. 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 cross in fact 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?

The predictions Jesus makes as regards his impending death on the other hand are portrayed as willful self-sacrifice. In these versions, we see other inconsistencies. When he tells his disciples, several times and explicitly how he would die, they are taken by complete surprise when the events unfold Matt16,17,20,Mk8,9,10,Lk9,18. 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. Even when he appeals to prophecies at the third and last prediction of his death 

Lk18:34"The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about". 

Clearly, there was a general atmosphere of confusion as to Jesus' disappearance, a confusion which the writers could not deny as it corresponded to the reality they knew about and witnessed. But, because they were writing from the lens that he was crucified, they had to retrospectively paint this confusion as a misunderstanding by the disciples of Jesus' clear predictions. Between Jesus' desire to avoid death, his repeated predictions as to his willful execution, the misunderstandings of the disciples, the story line lacks consistency and seems muddled. We see the same pattern with other major themes retrospectively applied to Jesus, such as his messiahship, again painted as shrouded in obscurity due to the "misunderstanding" of his closest disciples. The simple reason is that the historical Jesus did not go around claiming to fulfil the messianic predictions of the HB. The claim was later made for him. If he did, people would have laughed their lungs off, including the Romans. The Gospel writers, writing at least 50 years after the events knew that what Jesus accomplished had nothing to do with the highly anticipated establishment of the kingdom of God. They were thus left with no option other than painting the whole matter as they did.

Prior to Jesus becoming God, the pagans scoffed at the notion of a human savior dying a cursed death then resurrecting. But the later introduction and spread of the deviant notion of Jesus' divinity made the Christian religion fit more easily into their paradigm. 

As the Quran says in the context of Jesus' supposed divine sonship 

9:30"they immitate the saying of those who disbelieved before".

Gentiles of the region believed in Mithraism, a religion already spread all throughout Europe and Asia minor centuries prior to the birth of Christianity. Among such beliefs is the death and resurrection of Osiris. Those ritually sharing in that death and resurrection through baptism had their sins remitted. The pagan Roman authorities thus welcomed the new religion seeing it was in congruence with centuries of tradition of dying and/or mutilated savior gods. 

As the early church father Justin Martyr conceded

"when  we say...Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified, died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you (ie the pagans) believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus".

Paul, who was at most a hellenezied Jew, was explaining Jesus teachings in ways that were unheard of by Jesus' disciples. Paul's letters were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until 60-90 meaning Paul's theories were already established before the unknown writers of the gospels started their works and earlier Christian thought was quickly branded heretical. The church was so weak that within the same generation of the disciples, this Jewish sect of the Nazarenes, whose distinction from mainstream Judaism was only in the belief that Jesus was the messiah, turned upon its heels, abandoned Jewish law, adopted concepts unheard of anywhere in Judaism. There is a reason why the Gospel writers including Paul do not quote the Hebrew Bible but the Greek Septuagint which was hated by the rabbis as it represented the Hellenization of many Jews of the time. The early church thus became irrelevant very early on following Jesus' departure, due to Paul's efforts at supplanting it, dismissing Jewish law as obsolete, reinterpreting core Semitic concepts of God so as to appeal to his pagan audience.

After Jesus' death, Paul's main problem was to convince his Jewish audience that the messiah's death, without accomplishing any of the messianic criteria, instead of being a failure was actually a necessity. He did so by introducing the doctrine of total depravity, making all humans de facto sinners and therefore in need of an atoning sacrifice Rom7:14-25,Rom3:10-11,5:13,8:7-8,1Cor2:14,Eph2:1-3,Titus3:3. His addressees however already believed in the resurrection of the dead, in a just God who forgave the sins of a penitent heart. Nothing was missing in their system that Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection could fix. Paul's redeeming hero was a redundancy to them, so he was obviously met with fierce resistance wherever he preached his unscriptural ideas. This led him to eventually turn to the gentiles among whom he found a much more favourable audience. All this is evident from a cursory reading of the NT and the writings of Paul. That is how Christianity was shaped, using its target audience's sensitivities all the while toning down to the maximum its Jewish heritage.

The sect that "won" and became "orthodoxy" achieved victory by political rather than epistemic means. The dominant branch was but one among many early, conflicting Christian sects, as even reflected in Paul's letters and the desperate struggles he had with them to maintain control of his own congregations. The process was not a difficult one considering Mithraism's tendency to accommodate with other rival cults, throughout its vast geographical spread, before and after Christianity. Christianity of course wasnt that accommodating, doing everything to supplant it due to the disturbing similarities. Many Church Fathers (Justin, Origen, Tertullian) attempted rationalizing Mithraism's similarities with their religion; "satanic imitations" being the standard explanation. The fine details of those similarities are now lost due to the Christian destructions of all "mithraes" they could put their hands on as well as persecute its followers. The task of reconstructing which themes Mithraism absorbed from Christianity so as to embellish its own narrative, versus what actually pre-dated Christianity, becomes a speculative task. But the presence of such vehement defenses by church authorities reveals their major embarrassment, their discomfort at their opponents' accusations of plagiarism. Instead of engaging their critics in debate, these church fathers and other Christian "orthodox" writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries slandered their opponents with exaggerated or even false charges, shunned them or socially intimidated them. This pattern of engaging their critics is in itself revealing of their own insecurities.

Islam critiqued goes back to the first Biblical man; Abel murder in the Quran?

In answer to the video "Muhammad and Merkabah Mysticism"

The story of Cain and Abel illustrated the previously mentioned points about equal retribution and manslaughter, to the prophet Muhammad's addressees. It was similarily through this story that the gravity of murder was forcefully brought to the Israelites' attention for the first time. This moral principle existed since the dawn of humanity, both Cain and Abel were aware of it, as clearly depicted in the Quranic account. Again, the incident between the 2 brothers is not what caused the decree regarding the sanctity of human life to be issued and nowhere does the Quran say so.

What it clearly states is that the first time the decree was brought to the Israelites' attention, it was illustrated through that incident. There are many examples whether in the Quran or the Bible where a prophet or sage person reminds his addressees of a universal principle, expressed by others before him.

It being "written upon" the children of Israel is a striking wording stressing its gravity to a people known for their long history of wars with their neighboring nations and bloody inter-tribal conflicts during which very little to no sanctity for human life was given. That is not to mention their persecution and slaying of the most righteous elements of the comunity, their own prophets. That this law was decreed upon the Israelites does not take away its applicability to any murder commited anywhere in the world by subsequent nations. Many laws and notions were prescribed and taught to groups of people prior to Islam, this doesnt take away their applicability to Muslims, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

In fact the verse says "whoever slays a soul" not "whoever among you slays a soul". The prophet's companions understood the verse as applying to their own time, Uthman for example is reported to have quoted it as he was under siege, to prevent bloodshed.

Islam critiqued plays inspector colombo; Quran addressing manslaughter?

In answer to the video "Muhammad and Merkabah Mysticism"

Manslaughter has several degrees of seriousness depending on the victim, as exemplified through the story of Adam's 2 sons, whom the Quran does not name as it eloquently and concisely draws its audience's attention to the story's core precepts without distracting it with names of persons and places. The one slain was innocent of any wrongdoing, even warned his brother that was about to kill him, tried reforming him.

But this family tragedy was about to repeat itself, as the murderous Israelites were trying by all means to put an end to their Ishmaelite brother's life, despite his warnings and calls to reforms, there being no reasons for them to threaten and attack him. The Jews of the prophet's time were not only trying to kill a man innocent of any wrongdoing against them and in general, but were trying to kill a prophet of God as their forefathers tried doing and sometimes succeeded against the prophets raised from among themselves and who called them to adhere to their own Books which they had thrown behind their backs and forgotten.

The story of the 2 sons of Adam ends with a reminder of a lesson they knew very well

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

This is to emphasize the sanctity of human life, indiscriminately. It is essential for its preservation that everyone should regard the life of the other, whoever he might be, as sacred and help to protect it. The one who takes the life of another without right, does not commit injustice to that one alone, but also proves that he has no feeling for the sanctity for human life and mercy for others. But if one helps preserving a single human life, then it is a though he saved the whole human race.

Notice the subtle nuance between killing, which is conditional, and saving, without any condition. This is because killing may be inevitable and necessary, such as in war situations. It may also be a legitimate right for the family of a murder victim. But saving is a course of action which the person is freely left to apply, depending on his internal disposition and ability to forgive. When a person chooses that option despite the right and possibility to kill, then the Quran praises him for his selflessness.

This is the supreme realism, pragmatism of the Quran, which will forever remain far above the heads of those mindless critics. Let me dig the knife a bit deeper before getting back to Cain and Abel.

While always opening the door to a peaceful resolution and magnanimity, the Quran however never denies the basic human right of self-defense when unjustly opressed beyond the limits where peaceful diplomacy can still stop this harassement and eventually reform the opposite party, when such oppression goes as far as threatening one's life. If in such case, one opts for a more confrontational stance, as most would tend to do when wronged, the Quran explicitly forbids any retaliation above and beyond what a person has himself received 2:190-5,16:126-8,22:60,42:39-43.

The very foundations of the divine law, as taught by all Prophets, is the establishment of justice and to argue a person has no right to seek his rights, or no say in the matter once guilt has been established, is an absolute wrong. In various types of social felonies, the Quran gives the right of having recourse to the law of "equitable punishment or compensation"/qisas, which is approximately equivalent to what Judeo-Christian tradition refers to as lex talonis 2:178,5:45. It is not an "exact same thing" situation, since killing another's child because he killed mine would be against all common sense, and justice. "Life for life" does not entail "your child's life in exchange of my child's life". The point is that the offending party must compensate with a life, the murderer's own life. It is a "punishment fits the crime" scenario. The definition of the word "qisas" itself stresses the importance of fairness and justice in the application of that system.

 As stated in 17:33, the retribution must never exceed the harm suffered. This blocks the way to blind vengence and actually helps society to seek reparation for a moral or spiritual harm in conformity with justice. However it is stressed that in both cases (self-defense and social justice) the opressed or the victim may show magnanimity and forgiveness in order to grow spiritually, an issue the Torah, which also mentions the law of retaliation, does not contain in its proper context. To its credit, the HB does speak in other places of self-restraint as a great virtue

Prov14:29,20:22,19:11"It is good sense for a man to be slow to anger, and it is his glory to pass over a transgression". 

This then means that the equitable physical injury is the maximum that the victim can ask for with preferrance for forgiveness and even better forgiveness. It says that such patient attitude is a great sign of spiritual might and courage, a blessing from Allah and the way He prefers for His creatures

3:134,16:126,41:34-36,42:43"And whoever is patient and forgiving, these most surely are actions due to courage".

This shows that the the spirit of vengeance is absent from the law, which is but aimed at reforming the society and deterring future vices. By encouraging instead of imposing this act of amnesty, it appeases the aggrieved party by giving it the position of superiority because the death penalty is a legitimate and authorized option. Further, by knowing that execution might be an option, the instinctive reaction of seeking revenge killings is neutralized. Another aspect of forgiveness, as stated in the verse is an act first and foremost beneficial to the victim of injustice. As the Quran says, it isnt an act of weakness but of courage. The injustice comitted isnt condoned, neither is one required to forget, deny or minimize it. Nor does forgiveness in this context necessarily entail reconciliation. Forgiveness is first meant at benefitting the victim, not the offender. It prevents wasting mental and emotional energy by being trapped in a self-consuming anger.

In case of murder, there are several aspects of wisdom in leaving the life of the killer directly at the mercy of the heirs of the murdered person. It firstly compensates to some extent the tremendous loss caused, because once the justice system has done its job of exposing the guilty, true justice consits in compensating emotionaly or materialy for those first and foremost concerned, ie the victims themselves.

The other wisdom in leaving the punishment of the killer in the heirs of the slain person's hands is that in case they adopt the preferred issue of being magnanimous, they do a big favour to the murderer and his family, resulting in many other benefits. The prophet waived his right for equal retribution many times against his opponents once he had the power to execute justice

"Whoever suffers an injury done to him and forgives (the person responsible), Allah will raise his status to a higher degree and remove one of his sins” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi).

There are countless traditions about his life illustrating his forgiveness to others, even those caught red handed attempting to murder him. But he had no right to force the believers to be forgiving in similar situations, it would be contrary to the spirit of the law as he would be negating their rights to resort to it should they desire.

As already said, although the Quran encourages magnanimity in these cases it can only be from the victim, on his or her own accord, without any pressure or influence from anyone, or without any interference from the authorities. This way, because it is an unexpected, benevolent act, it heals both the victim and the criminal.

Islam critiqued and the 2 offending women of Medina

In answer to the video "Muhammad and Merkabah Mysticism"

 The believers, in their graves, will be questioned as regards their previous faith. While on earth their inner reality was hidden from view, in the grave they will be incapable of lying and their true self will become apparent. Depending on the answer, the grave will then instantly turn into a pleasant or punishing place until the resurrection. 

Muslims in the Quran and the prophetic traditions, are taught to never feel complacent as regards their righteousness and what will be their condition in the Hereafter. So when the prophet informed the public of that notion of being tested in the graves, people were frightened. Some enemies of the Muslims used that occasion to insinuate things that were not intended by the prophet. A Jewess quickly came to Aisha, who was unaware of the prophet's statement, telling her that 

'You will be tested in your graves.' The Messenger of Allah got upset and said: 'Rather the Jews will be tested."' 

The testing maliciously intended here was one of punishment, which will not happen to the righteous believers, rather to those like the Jews contemporaries of a prophet and disbelievers in him. In another version of the hadith, Aisha told the prophet how she understood their statement 

'O Messenger of Allah, two of the old Jewish women of Al-Madinah said that the people of the graves are tormented in their graves.' He said: 'They spoke the truth. They are tormented in a manner that all the animals can hear". 

As a side note, the immediate response of the prophet to Aisha's question shows that the inspiration in regards to the intermediary world of barzakh had occured to him prior to the Jewess coming to Aisha. However the prophet did not confirm the Jewess' generalization 

"A few nights later, the Messenger of Allah said: 'It has been revealed to me that you will be tested in your graves."' 'Aishah said; "Afterward I heard the Messenger of Allah seeking refuge with Allah from the torment of the grave".

Countless verses explain that punishment begins at the moment of death to those burdenned with major worldly sins left unrepented for. But as stated earlier, the Quran teaches both the prophet and all believers, no matter their level of faith and righteousness to never be complacent and secure of God's threats, even if these threats arent necessarily directed at them and, this includes the grave which is a place that could potentially be unpleasant to anyone.

Fear of God, awareness of the seriousness of His threats avoids one from falling into self-complacency, makes one feel obliged at all times to act upon Divine Commands and regard the righteous good deeds as insignificant in the face of divine perfection 7:99,70:24-8. This state of mind further frees one from any tinge of idolatry as it makes one aware that no protector ultimately exists outside of Allah 

6:14,51,70,17:111"Praise to Allah, who has not taken a son and has had no partner in [His] dominion and has no [need of a] protector out of weakness; and glorify Him with [great] glorification" 33:17"Say, "Who is it that can protect you from Allah if He intends for you an ill or intends for you a mercy?" And they will not find for themselves besides Allah any protector or any helper".

Fear however can never be the sole constituent of belief, it must be balanced with 2 other elements; hope 12:87 and love for God

32:16"call upon their Sustainer in fear and in hope"  

21:90"These people exerted their utmost in righteous deeds and called upon Us with love and fear and they remained humble before Us".

From a philosophical viewpoint, fear,  whether in the natural or spiritual world, is an asset without which survival is impossible. But it must be balanced and controlled or else it leads to stagnation and even death. As is taught to us by the Creator, spiritually, fear must be balanced with love and trust.

The correct attitude is to never fall into either extreme, becoming self-complacent or hopeless of God's mercy. This upright perspective leads one to continuously strive to increase safety/iman in Allah. 

This balanced attitude is reflected in the saying of the prophet 

“If the believer knew what was with Allah of punishment, no one would hope for Paradise; and if the disbeliever knew what was with Allah of Mercy, no one would despair of attaining Paradise".

Elsewhere the Quran describes the successful as those who "hope" to meet their Lord and "hope" for His forgiveness 2:218,18:110. This is a sign of humility, when even within the same verse, those people are reassured that Allah is surely forgiving and merciful, they still keep in mind that salvation is ultimately in God's hands

2:218"Surely those who believed and those who fled (their home) and strove hard in the way of Allah these hope for the mercy of Allah and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful".

The believer in those concepts, the one who knows what God demands of Him and what not, what His Sustainer loves in His servant and what not, continuously toils in the path of truth, without pride and self content. Contrary to the scripturally indefensible concept of an unconditionally loving God, which leads to conceit and self-righteousness, the one striving to meet God's explicit criteria of approval, constantly remains God-conscious. He remains humble, never thinking he is beyond reproach, fearing the seriousness of God's threats as well as hoping for His mercy, until he meets his Creator.

39:23"Allah has sent down the best statement: a consistent Book wherein is reiteration. The skins shiver therefrom of those who fear their Lord; then their skins and their hearts relax at the remembrance of Allah. That is the guidance of Allah by which He guides whom He wills".

The Love is evident in the word IMAN that denotes profound and sincere feeling of safety implying that one is in complete trust of a protective entity, that is, God. One cannot feel safe in an entity without having love for that entity, and knowing in turn that the entity is loving. This is where the Quran explains that this love isnt reciprocal, but more intense when coming from God. He is as al-rahman, the intensification of rahma. The root R-H-M means WOMB. Therefore in order to imagine what this word actually means one has to picture the womb and what it does to the fetus. It nurtures, protects, provides warmth, love etc. without even the fetus being aware of it.

Islam critiqued incites a battle; Which is the most Jew-hating tradition?

In answer to the video "Muhammad and Merkabah Mysticism"

The Quran often addresses the Jews as a monolith. But that isnt a particularity of the Muslim book. This is done in their own books and prophets following Moses, because from all people, and up to this day, no community claims continuity to their ancestors and the rights and obligations placed on them than the Israelites. They were bound as a nation by a covenant in which they entered while being persuaded, one can even say compelled, by the sight of miracles. The terms of the covenant were that should they breach it, then it would result in their rejection from God's grace as a whole, even if not all of them transgress.

However this prided covenant was, and still is, in great majority and even sometimes entirely disregarded, with them only laying claim to the favors which were in fact conditional to obedience  (land grant, divine protection from enemies, light unto the nations etc). This is actually one other reason to call them out for their sins as a single unit, to show them that if they want to lay claim on the favors conditionaly bestowed upon their ancestors, then they should equally recognize as a nation the less glorious parts of their history.

Another thing to consider is that the Quran, which is often accused of being anti-Jewish or antisemitic actually spares the Israelites and is much more tempered and balanced in its description of their early history than their own scriptures, down to the Christian writings and Jesus' outright insults towards them. Jesus himself was no antisemite, but his followers, the descendants of Greek and Roman pagans, certainly were and gladly used the crude depictions and insults that Jesus reportedly makes of his fellow "vipers" and "sons of satan". Jesus' racial slur is so intense, the general feel of the Gospels so anti-semitic that one can only conclude they had been written by Gentiles.

The Quran speaks of their failures and rebellions under various prophets, as well as their multiple divine destructions, in a passing manner without delving much over the details, as if it is seeking to spare them some dignity, just as it does not report the scale of their prophets' loathing of them. This is among the facets of divine mercy, the like of which was inculcated to the prophet Yusuf/Joseph.

When his brothers and former persecutors were within his powerful grasp, as he had all authority and right to exert justice and revenge, he instead, in his legendary patience, dignity and magnanimity with which God had established him since his youngest years, he still gave them the benefit of the doubt

"Do you remember what you did with Yusuf and his brother while you were jahill?"

Yusuf's tact and mercy manifest in that opening statement by saying, in an investigating, ambiguous tone that what they did was in a time where they were ignorant, meaning that they are expected to know better by now and not repeat the misdeed he passingly alludes to. Second, he doesnt even make it personal by speaking in the first person "me" but instead by alluding to himself in the third person. Then when they recognize him, instead of making them feel the lowest by boasting of how life has vindicated him so that now he is the highest, he immediately attributes his status to God, it is a favor which isnt on account of any personal achievements, he is no different than them. In addition God's favor, he says, is within anybody's reach, not just himself

"surely he who guards (against evil) and is patient (is rewarded) for surely Allah does not waste the reward of those who do good".

One can hardly think of a more intricately humble, merciful address than this, given the circumstances. And the rest of the dialogue, which is more akin to Yusuf giving moral lessons to his brothers without demeaning them, is full of similar wording. When he declared that Allah forgives them, again avoiding to make it personal "I forgive you", and that no blame will henceforth be attached to them, Yusuf remained consistent and respected that declaration a little later on when he saw his childhood vision unfolding, he only mentioned God's favor in protecting him during his years of imprisonment, without saying anything of his much more dangerous ordeal of being thrown in a well by his brothers.

Whatever evil had occured between he and his brothers -he is wording the statement so as to leave open the possibility that he might be equally blameable although he never did anything wrong to warrant the cruelty with which his older brothers treated him in his childhood- was because

"Shaitan had sown dissensions between me and my brothers".

Not only he puts himself as potentially having equal share of responsibility for the conflict, he attributes the source of evil to Shaytan, not even his brothers who stand blame free just as he had previously pledged. These kind of intricacies as are contained in just a few verses among many other verses within that specific story of the prophet Yusuf's life, clearly cannot have been devised by any human being orally and publicly transmitting an account without any chance at going back to a previous statement to correct and edit himself to improve his overall eloquence and coherence

"this is of the announcements relating to the unseen (which) We reveal to you, and you were not with them when they resolved upon their affair, and they were devising plans".

This is the kind of divine mercy with which the Quran treats them. When it points out some of the dark periods of their history, it isnt done wantonly or inapropriately but always in a specific context and to draw a moral lesson, both for them as a nation and anyone hearing and reading it. A parallel reading of the list of incidents starting from 2:40, with the same ones related in their books reveals the mild manner in which God has spared them further humiliation by not detailing their dark past. This past the Quran says was "thrown behind the backs" of their educated elite, unknown to the majority of the Quran's addressees, even among the Jewish laymen of the time.

Even if we taken into account the loathsome words that later Muslim scholars, the likes of ibn Qayyim, describe them with; tricksters, conspiracists, liars, slanderers, consumers of usury and bribe, killers and rejecters of prophets etc. every single one of those accusations and more, are directed at them collectively in their own sacred writings. The Quran also, almost every time it cites one of those past failures, demarcates between the transgressors and the upright among them so as to not condemn them collectively although they have failed collectively to uphold the covenant they were bound to with God as a community. Those rightoues few are in contrast to those that remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability. Their sincerity, unprejudiced reading and understanding of their books led them to inevitably believe in the revelation bestowed on the prophet Muhammad 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4.

That separation is done in the apocalyptic hadiths as well, where in a time where several supernatural events will occur, including inanimate objects and plants pointing to those among them that will side with the dajjal to murder innocents, they are said to be on both sides of the conflict between good and evil. Those on the wrong side (Muslim,B54,H99), in opposition to the returned prophet Jesus will be completely eliminated, together with their allies among all religious groups including Christians and deviant Muslims who will seek to kill other Muslims (Sunan Ibn Majah 179, Sahih Bukhari 1881, Musnad Ahmad 3546, al-Buhur al-Zakhirah 1/493). The same destruction will befall them as was done to previous nations that sought to destroy the messengers and their followers. The Quran in 17:8 alludes to a future destruction of the mischief makers among them. They will not constitute the entire world Jewish population but a fraction of it that will believe in the dajjal as their promised messiah (Sahih Muslim 2944). The dajjal is thus the arch-deceiver, not an "anti-christ" although among his actions is that he will oppose the returned Jesus, besides opposing the Mahdi and all those that shall side with him.

Their biblical history speaks at length of the wrongdoings of the majority of them, despite the presence of a few righteous among them, and how those sins have often plunged most of their community into suffering, and for several generations, as pledged by God in their scriptures Ex20 and later observed in Jeremiah for instance when the nation was decimated by the sword and famine, from the youngest to the oldest, men and women, if not taken captives.