Apostate prophet defends dogs; but what about evil black dogs?

In answer to the video "All The Things That Satan Does (Ridiculous Islamic Teachings)"

Neither Allah, the angels, the prophet nor his followers hated dogs in an absolute sense, nor any other animals, as seen from the many traditions, the Quran itself and the understanding of the scholars towards the fair physical and emotional treatment of all animals. Cynophobia is rather abounding in the HB, as will be shown later.

The prophet did not mind his grandsons having a puppy in his own house, until the incident with Jibril mentioned below. 

There was once an interval of several days where revelation stopped and which distressed the prophet. He began thinking that he had done something wrong, or that, as his opponents taunted him, that Allah had abandoned him. Once revelation descended in the form of sura duha/93 he was told that neither was the case, and that this interruption obeys to a higher reality independent of anyone's whims. This bellies the notion that the reason of the interruption had anything to do with the prophet, whether in deeds (such as having a dog at home) or thoughts. This is further borne out by the fact that the prophet did receive revelation in different locations and conditions, and that a time finally arrived where revelation was about to descend on him. Jibril came to him and told him to prepare to receive revelation at his home. But when it did not occur as announced, it was this time due to a worldly reason specific to his home 

"Jibril came to me and said; "Indeed I had come to you last night, and nothing prevented me from entering upon you at the house you were in, except that there were images of men at the door of the house, and there was a curtain screen with imagines on it, and there was a dog in the house. So go and sever the head of the image that is at the door so that it will become like a tree stump, and go and cut the screen and make two throw-cushions to be sat upon, and go and expel the dog." So the Messenger of Allah did so, and the dog was a puppy belonging to Al-Husain or Al-Hasan which was under his belongings, so he ordered him to expel it". 

The details of the hadith vary depending on the chain, but the primary point remains that angels do not enter houses where specific things are found. 

Angels are not superhumans. They are a different creature. They have likes and dislikes, capacities and limits different than humans. For example the traditions relate how the angel Gabriel himself was limited and could not ascend to where the prophet Muhammad was permitted to enter during the mi'raj. The hadith here does not specify the reason for singling out dogs, so we can only conjecture. A legitimate question one might ask is, since the interruption had nothing to do with an issue with the prophet, that revelation did and could descend anywhere outside his home, with Jibril even coming to him just a night before and at a different location to announce his imminent visit, then why didnt Jibril just choose another place than the "problematic" home in order to reveal sura duha? 

What is first important noting is that these are not any type of angels, but the angels of revelation. Regular persons arent visited by such angels anyway so the issue of keeping dogs inside doesn't necessarily apply to anyone and any circumstance. But seeing how the noblest of them would refrain entering upon a prophet for that reason, makes one appreciate that, besides the representation of unidentified male figures, there must be an intrinsic reason in the dog in question. And this is understood through a contextual analysis of the report. This reveals an important point, one ever stressed by hadith commentators. When one tries to understand a hadith, which is a snippet of a larger statement, it cannot be done in a vacuum but in light of its time and circumstances, the potential question/remark the prophet was reacting/answering to, as well as the vast corpus of extra Quran material so as to establish a pattern of thought and behavior. 

A glaring example is the report 

"Evil omen is in the women, the house and the horse". 

The narrator did not report the context of the prophet's statement, which was in fact a condemnation of what some pre-islamic Arabs believed and what contemporary Jews said. There are even reports where the prophet equates belief in bad omen with shirk. 

As to dog, they were extensively used by the Arabs in the prophet's time, for specific purposes and not as pets. The angelic instruction not to keep dogs inside homes could be due to the particular breed of the prophet's environment, one that can potentially be harmful, hence its use to ward off danger. It could have been that this breed of dogs was not meant to be, neither for its own good or the good of the owner, kept in a closed space. The prophet, by allowing a seemingly harmless puppy in his home as a pet so as to please his grandsons, could have given or started a potentially harmful (not sinful) trend in the community. As in many cases, some special circumstances, sometimes having to do with the prophet and sometimes with other members of the community, were used by Allah as a means by which to illustrate what is more appropriate and beneficial for society.  

After this incident, the prophet became more aware of the issue of human interaction with the dogs of his environment, which he might have taken too lightly.  He allowed domesticated dogs for useful purposes in farming, herding, guarding or hunting but discouraged keeping them as pets, inside the homes, except if it is for self-defense. It would be oppressive and cruel to keep these types of dogs and any other such animal as pets. They are unsuited to remain in a confined environment. This could have been another reason for the angelic instruction.

“The reward of a person who keeps a dog for reasons other than herding, hunting, or agriculture is decreased every day by a qiraat". 

As a side note, how did this visitor know of the presence of a puppy, hidden somewhere in the house?

Historically there was a problem of disease transmitting dogs in Medina, who carried rabies. These were stray dogs that in addition, were ferocious and attacked people. Although the problem existed, the prophet as a leader in Medina had not turned his attention to it prior to the incident involving Jibril.

The term used in some ahadith is kalb al aakur/biting, wild or rabid dog. The expression covered not only dogs but different types of wild beasts roaming the desert 

"Malik said, about the "kalb akur" which people were told to kill in the Haram, that any animals that wounded, attacked, or terrorised men, such as lions, leopards, Iynxes and wolves, were counted as "kalb akur"". 

As to the dog specie, the harmful ones were recognized by their pitch black color, as the prophet stated in his khutbah on the matter 

"If it were not that dogs were a nation among nations, then I would order that they be killed. So kill every one among them that is all black". 

During that same khutbah, some people asked what should be done with other dogs, namely the domesticated ones, to which the prophet stated they should be spared. This was a clarification of his statement that dogs, as a nation like any other isnt intrinsically evil/harmful, and should therefore not be indiscriminately killed, but there are evil/harmful elements among them who should be. 

Due to the problems they caused, the prophet referred to these black dogs as devils, as is often used in Arabic in reference to something harmful. We're not talking of chihuahuas here but specially aggressive dogs. The fear they instilled, and consequent distraction, caused prayers to be disrupted if they approached while one is performing the rituals. Even what we consider today as pet dogs are put to death by the authorities when deemed too dangerous. There is thus nothing insensitive or extraordinary in the prophet's decision, in light of the reality of his time. Following the prophet's khutbah, some people were over-zealous in the application of the command, killing dogs indiscriminately 

"Allah's Messenger ordered us to kill dogs, and we carried out this order so much so that we also kill the dog coming with a woman from the desert. Then Allah's Apostle forbade their killing. He (the Prophet further) said: It is your duty the jet-black (dog) having two spots (on the eyes), for it is a devil."

Dogs are not impure in and of themselves otherwise the Quran would not have made it permissible to consume the game hunted by trained dogs/mukalibeen 5:4. It also specifically mentions the dog that slept for years next to a group of righteous people 18:18. These people and their dog had divine miracles performed on them. 

The simple fact is the Quran had many occasions to declare these animals impure or evil but did not. Even in the case of wild/street dogs, impurity does not equal to mistreatment. In a report the prophet said 

"A prostitute was forgiven by Allah, because, passing by a panting dog near a well and seeing that the dog was about to die of thirst, she took off her shoe, and tying it with her head-cover she drew out some water for it. So, Allah forgave her because of that". 

In a similar narration where a man went down a well to save a dog from thirst, the people reacted, asking 

"O Allah's Messenger, Is there a reward for us in serving (the) animals?" He replied, "Yes, there is a reward for serving any animate". 

There is thus a general principle, well established in the Quran and traditions as regards animal and environmental welfare 

"When Allah's Messenger was asked about donkeys, he replied, "Nothing particular was revealed to me regarding them except the general unique verse which is applicable to everything: "Whoever does goodness equal to the weight of an atom (or small ant) shall see it (its reward) on the Day of Resurrection".

This is because, according to the prophet 

"In every living being there is a reward for charity" 

further 

"There is no Muslim who plants a tree or sows seeds and then a bird, or a person, or an animal eats from it except that it is regarded as a charity for him"

 and 

"If someone kills so much as a sparrow or anything larger without a just cause, then Allah the Exalted will ask him about it on the Day of Resurrection". 

There would have been ground for general assumptions as regards the Islamic stance on dogs, had there been similar depictions as the ones found in the Bible, in which one finds nothing but Contempt and negative metaphors of dogs. Whether in the mouth of Jesus in Matt7 who parallels human wickedness to the most hated animals to a Jew, dogs and pigs, or in the writings of the prophets of the HB. Down to the book of Revelation22, dogs are associated with the most wicked dwellers of hell. Even the price for which a dog, any dog, is sold is forbidden to be brought into the Temple for a vow

 Deut23"you shall not bring a prostitute's fee or the price of a dog, to the House of the Lord, your God, for any vow, because both of them are an abomination to the Lord, your God".

 This is a reoccurring theme; dogs, like swine and other morally degenerate people like prostitutes and sorcerers are intrinsically evil and hateful. YHWH's cynophobia, not that of His angels or the humans, is such that He cannot stand their presence or anything related to them in His most sacred site. 

Apostate prophet teaches dining etiquette; bismilla before eating?

In answer to the video "All The Things That Satan Does (Ridiculous Islamic Teachings)"

Muslims dont just utter the bismillah before eating. bismillah is repeated more than a 100 times in the Quran. God begins his speech with his own great name so that all that follows is associated with Him. The words in that formula teach the supplicant that Love and Mercy are God's primary attributes in relation to man, and he should therefore reciprocate this attitude upon every endeavor which he begins with it.

When we associate all our activities with God's compassionate and loving attributes, we are on one hand remembering God's favor, then erforming the task with a will to reflect that favor. In this way that action would neither be rendered null and void, nor remain incomplete; it has been started in the name of Allah, and negation and annihilation cannot reach that sacred name. The very first verse revealed to the prophet's heart was to

96:1"Read in the name of your Lord Who created".

The revelation ofthis Quran is a consequence of God's compassion, His mercy

55:1-2"The Beneficent (Al-Rahman), Taught the Quran".

Apostate prophet wont wake up; importance of praying on time?

In answer to the video "All The Things That Satan Does (Ridiculous Islamic Teachings)"

There are numerous Quran and prophetic sayings stressing the importance in the sincere performance of the spiritual duties. Laziness in these matters was so loathed and reprimanded by the prophet that he is reported as using a derogatory Arabic expression, in reference to one who oversleeps past the morning prayer

"He is a man in whose ears (or ear) Satan had urinated".

Urination has been used as a metaphor for corruption in Arabic, as attested by the earliest hadith scholars in reference to the hadith, and attributing this action to the devil as being performed in one's ears is a symbolism for the devil's corruption of one's self to the point the faculty to hear is willfully disregarded, leading one to ignore the call to prayer being heard.

The insistence of the prophet to pray and encourage others to do so, was of course not only restricted to simple physical attendance but included a broad range of related issues that all reflected one's sincerity in practice and consciousness of the seriousness of the undertaking.

 For example he reportedly used the vivid imagery of the devil being pleased when seeing someone yawning and entering the mouth of the one that doesnt put his hand in front of it.

Firstly, it is obvious the devil cannot but be pleased by any sign of human weakness, especially in a spiritual context. The hadith in question comes in the context of prayer, a moment where the devil is doing his utmost to deviate one's spiritual concentration. One could be tired or sleepy while praying, and yawning is the physical manifestation of that state. To try and prevent it or raise one's hand if it occurs is a sign of composure and self-awareness, let alone basic presentation etiquette -among others encouraged in both the Quran and hadith when about to solemnly address the Creator. The devil entering the mouth of the one who yawns improperly during prayer, illustrates that he has successfully exploited that specific weakness at a crucial moment, has defeated one's sense of self awareness and spiritual composure. Satanic entities from among the jinn have the property to enter the human body so that they might whisper their suggestions whenever one lowers his spiritual guard 

"He (the prophet) said: The devil flows in man as the blood flows in him. I feared that he might inject something in your hearts". 

Satanic entities lurk around in everyday affairs, awaiting any moment of inattention where they can enter people's minds and hearts, especially at prayer times.

In another report the prophet employed the image of one whose head is transformed into that of a donkey for preceding the imam during prayer. It is obviously not literal since he alludes to those that have already done so but were not transformed. Calling someone a donkey is equivalent to say he is stupid. To understand the image conveyed one has to picture the awkwardness of being the sole person in a room out of synchronization with all others.

This is another one among many misunderstood ahadith, often derided by critics of Islam, which need to be understood in terms of imagery.

For example the ahadith saying the satan passes wind upon hearing the call to prayer while running off fast and far away is obviously meant at depicting his intense loathing of it, and fear. To illustrate one can refer to the popular depictions (real or fake) of exorcisms and their physical effects on those undergoing it. Also in that particular hadith, what is rendered "passing wind" is the Arabic "dart", which is amply used in Arabic literature in other ways, including to escape, to disapprove, all of which equally apply in the context of the hadith.

It is very common in Arabic parlance of the past and today, to figuratively speak of Satan as influencing and/or adding to one's afflictions, physical or spiritual.

Other Semitic languages have this feature as well, as seen from Jesus' calling Peter "satan" in the NT Matt16:23, that when someone or something is associated with the devil, most of the time it is understood as a metaphor for its evil consequences. When some reports depict Satan as staying in one's nose at night, and that one should rinse it thrice (the number is just a recommendation not a strict obligation, and by the way a threefold repetion of the same action in religion is amply found within Christian rituals), it never states that such an action "flushes" Satan out. The prophet is here obviously giving a disease prevention advise and relief. It was addressed to desert people who surely experienced respiratory discomfort from sleeping in the dry desert climate. Rinsing the nose thrice helps decongesting it, humidifying it to ease breathing, but more importantly flushing out harmful dust and sand particles, things causing harm and hence the figurative association with Satan. The Prophet said,

 "When the darkness of night comes, or in the evening, collect your children, for the devil is abroad at that time, and when an hour of the night has passed let them free and shut the doors, making mention of God’s name, for the devil does not open a shut door. Tie up you buckets, mentioning God's name; cover up your vessels, mentioning God’s name, even though you should just put something on them, and extinguish your lamps". 

This again is plain common sense, while always relying on Allah for the outcome of things. Evil, whether coming from the men, jinn or anything else can and will affect all that was mentioned without precautions and relying on Allah. Imam Ibn Abd al-Barr said: In this hadeeth there is a command to close doors of houses at night. This is a Sunnah which is enjoined to protect people against the devils of mankind and the jinn. Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said: Ibn Daqeeq al-‘Eid said: in the command to close doors there are both religious and worldly benefits which protect lives and wealth from evildoers, and especially the devils.

It is interesting that among the critics of such ahadith are those who believe in Satan and demons entering people and animals' bodies, taking full control of their victims.

Apostate prophet needs pic or didnt happen; Satan urinates in ears, farts, plays with bells and sleeps in noses?

In answer to the video "All The Things That Satan Does (Ridiculous Islamic Teachings)"

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 happenned to be under that of the prophet almost shattered. When he described it at times coming to him "like" the sound of a bell (meaning something similar but not the same) it was to convey to his addressees in terms they could relate to, what he was personally experiencing.

As a side note, the hadith saying the

"bell is the musical instrument of the Satan"

obviously is speaking of the real, physical thing unlike the similitude the prophet was using in reference to a certain type of revelation, further it isnt speaking of bells used at any occasion but for musical purposes that invite devilish, inappropriate behavior. It is well established in classical Arabic, let alone Semitic languages in general as seen from Jesus' calling Peter "satan" in the NT Matt16:23, that when someone or something is associated with the devil, most of the time it is understood as a metaphor for its evil consequences.

For example in Medina the Muslims are reported to have suggested using bells at first to signal the arrival of the time of prayer, although eventually someone was designated to vocally call the people to prayer.

The Quran never came to correct the prophet's worldviews in terms of knowledge of nature and general causality, neither of his contemporaries but rather guide him and the rest of humanity through him, to the most complete, advanced human spiritual knowledge

"The Messenger of Allah and I passed by some people who were at the top of their date palms. He said: “What are these people doing?” They said: “They are pollinating them, putting the male with the female so that it will be pollinated.” The Messenger of Allah said: “I do not think that it is of any use.” They were told about that, so they stopped doing it. The Messenger of Allah was told about that and he said: “If it benefits them, let them do it. I only expressed what I thought. Do not blame me for what I say based on my own thoughts, but if I narrate something to you from Allah, then follow it, for I will never tell lies about Allah, may He Glorified and Exalted is He.” He continued in another version "You know better about your worldly affairs".

The divine protection  therefore only pertained to the Quran which is the source of that perfect spiritual knowledge. The prophet was "uswa hasana" in his application of the Quran, not how he ate (When he said to eat with the right hand exclusively it was because the left was reserved for cleansing oneself. This is again, far from being a ritualistic obsession, a pragmatic approach to general hygiene), slept or saw the nature around him. This phrase in no way implies that he was a perfect creation.

Many verses urge him and those with him to seek God's forgiveness for shortcomings and the prophet used to implore God daily to be protected from sins. Anyone is free to imitate his lifestyle and adopt his worldviews as found in extra Quranic writings, if one finds any personal benefits in doing so but that isn't a religious requirement nor relevant to it, and that is explicitly stated in the Quran itself.

With that in mind, when the prophet made deductions as related in the ahadith, pertaining to his natural environement, general causality and basic observation of certain phenomenon, it is only expected from him that they would fit what the ancients of his time would find "plausible".

These views however, right or wrong, no matter how extraordinary they might seem in light of our current knowledge, have no bearing on the Quran itself, which is again, pledged to be fully protected.

It would have been interesting to have had written records of how the previous prophets saw the world, as we have with Muhammad, and see who among them held the most "unscientific" personal views. There are many examples to be extracted from the ahadith, most of them inappropriately derided and misunderstood by modern people, although none of them are falsifiable and even if proven wrong, as said above, have no bearing on the Quran itself. Here are a few quotations alluded to by this youtuber.

Islam critiqued examines divine royalty; A Quranic throne and the exhausted YHWH?

In answer to the video "Answering Muslims: God's Resting Place"

2:255"His chair (kursiyyahu) extends over the heavens and the earth"
20:5"The Beneficent One, Who is established (istawa) on the Throne (arsh)"
7:54"Surely your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six periods of time, and He is firm in power (thumma istawa alal arsh)"

In all the seven instances where God is spoken of in the Quran as "istawa alal arsh/established on the throne" 7:54,10:3,13:2,20:5,25:59,32:4,57:4 this expression is connected with a declaration of His having created the universe. Nothing symbolizes dominion more in human psyche than the image of a powerful king sitting on his throne and ruling his kingdom. Allah however is not like any human king. He is the King of Kings Who not only possesses a mighty throne, but is the sustainer of that throne

 23:116"So exalted be Allah, the True King; no god is there but He, the Lord of the Throne/arsh". 

This means, despite Him being the absolute ruler of all that exists, He stands by Himself and does not need the support of a throne. This is a major point in the Quran's depiction of creation. At no point is there any hint or reference to God needing a time of rest, or break from a tiresome endeavour.

As to the statement "established over/on" that generally accompanies the mention of the throne, it does not entail "sitting". It is important to emphasize, whenever there is mention of Allah being in a location, the only understanding that is open to us is in terms of implication relevant to each context. The "how" is beyond any human being's grasp since outside our experience. This, again, is a principle of interpretation established in the Quran and the teachings of the prophet. 

For instance it says Allah is at all times nearer than one's jugular vein 50:16. The implication is that His knowledge and control encompass every aspect of every human being's life, at each instant of their existence. It also says Allah's face is visible wherever one looks 2:115. How is Allah's face simultaneously present in whatever direction one lays his eyes is beyond human understanding but the implications are clear; the spiritually aware perceives in all aspects of creation and at all moments the divine will and design. Interestingly, in the very verse talking of Allah's establishing Himself above the throne, it says 

57:4"He is with you wherever you are". 

Again, His simultaneous presence above the throne and with every human at all moment shows that He is absolutely transcendent, unbound by space and time, or any other type of restriction. This is an unfathomable notion to our minds, hence the uselessness of seeking the "how". The implications of that statement however are clear; God has unrestricted sway over all that exists, including the throne itself which is a creation. 

God's presence, not appearance, during His communion with Moses follows this exact pattern of religious terminology 27:7-9,28:29-30. 

The same understanding applies to the hadith describing Allah descending 

"every night to the lowest heaven when one-third of the night remains" 

so as to bless and forgive those that request it. Just as Allah is closer, at each instant, than the jugular vein, with all humans wherever they are, His face simultaneously visible all around us at all moments, all the while being established over the throne, His presence in the lowest heaven at a certain point in time is an unfathomable concept to the human mind. The implications of the statement however is understood by the information provided; such descent is accompanied by a manifestation of His attribute of mercy which is more prominent during that interval to those that seek it.  

The Quran, as well as the prophet, draw the boundaries of our understanding of those verses. What we can seek to understand, and what is a fruitless effort, as pointed to earlier. Him encompassing all of existence from close and far simultaneously, as well as being in a certain place at a certain time, is unlike any concept we can imagine. We can however understand the implications of those descriptions.

 

Again, when Allah 87:1"the Most High" is 6:61,16:50"above" or in the heavens (which He created), the expression is understood as denoting his all encompassing sway and dominion, that there cannot be something higher than Him in the sense of perfection, exaltedness. Such verses cannot be taken in isolation of the principles of interpretation mentioned earlier, as well as the numerous statements of Allah's all encompassing presence unrestricted by time and space. In fact, in connection to Allah being "above", we read that He does not "reside" in a fixed place 

6:3"He is Allah in the heavens and in the earth".

We find in certain passages of the HB principles that similarly protect divine transcendance despite descriptions of God acting within time and space. Among such restrictive verses we read that

 Isa33:5"The Lord is exalted, for He dwells on high". 

That dwelling place is somewhere in the 

Amos9:6"upper stories in Heaven" 

which He has built. These chambers are above the solid canopy of the earth upon which He sometimes sits Isa40:22,Ps104 in order to 

Ps33:13-14"oversees all the inhabitants of the earth". 

The heavens strictly belong to him, while humans were made for the earth Ps115:16. In a closer sense, in the context of the Temple of Jerusalem, God is said to dwell among His people 1kings8:27. This is where the prophet Solomon salvages divine transcendance and provides an axiom by which to understand such "restrictive" Biblical verses. He states here that no location on the earth and neither of "the heaven of heavens" can contain Him. By definition, infinity cannot be limited in quantity or quality. This passage, which is in congruence with the Islamic principles mentioned earlier, refute the Hellenistic misappropriation of the HB by the NT authors. Jesus being fully God limits the infinite to a location. If the divine essence was not limited to a location when Jesus walked the streets of Jerusalem, then it means Jesus was not fully God. Solomon's words are decisive and closed to any misinterpretation. God manifests His presence through His attributes, not by entering His creation. 

The Quran has also warned that these type of ambiguous verses are a test to those in whose heart there is perversity 3:7. They will deny the explicit verses that shed light on the right manner to approach these passages, preferring to apply their own desires and notions unto them. Trinitarians will often reply that God can do whatever He wishes. God surely has power over all things, but the contention here isnt about what God can or cannot do. God doesnt contradict Himself or negate His attributes, including Majesty and Self-sufficiency. Entering creation compromises both. This also opens the way for speculation, can God, for whatever theological construct, also incarnate into a worm? If not why not?

With those principles in mind we may further understand the implications of Allah "coming". We do not and cannot fathom how Allah can come within space and time, but we certainly can know the implications of that statement. Besides the hadith mentioned prior which entails mercy, in the Quran it means the execution of His command or of His threatened punishment. Similarly, the HB states in the context of divine chastisement visiting a wicked people, that God swiftly comes "riding" the clouds to destination Isa19:1,Ps104:3 or is transported by majestic angels Ps18:10. More in line with the Quranic imagery is God "descending" on the sinners for punishment or on a people for battle Isa31:4,Micah1:3 or "coming with a strong hand" to mete out retribution upon the heathens Isa40:10. 

The idea of tiredness is completely excluded from God's creative work 46:33. God's establishment over the throne, which is itself a creation sustained by Him, symbolises His constant dominion upon all that exists. He has not relinquished His rule in favour of others nor has He made the whole of His creation or any part of it independent like a clock running by itself. He has instead remained at all times the sole Sustainer upon Whom the functioning of all things depend. The ending of these verses with 

"surely His is the creation and the command" 

refer precisely to this; after creation comes the command, symbolized by the establishment on the throne 

32:5"He manages and regulates every affair from the heavens to the earth. Then, it will go up to him, in one Day, the space whereof is a thousand years of your reckoning". 

In fact the Quran is silent about a seventh day in the history of creation, where the Bible depicts God as seemingly collapsing on a throne following a tiresome task. Rather, God creates in six days only and then controls His creation, including the throne upon which He is established. Had His management abandoned the world of existence for one single moment, the organization of them all would have perished 22:65,35:41. 

In the HB, despite being One that Isa40:28"neither tires nor wearies", the crudely depicted Hebrew God is one that needed "resting" after "finishing" the monumental task of creating the universe, a pre-measured and finalized work 

Isa40:12"Who measured water with his gait, and measured the heavens with his span, and measured by thirds the dust of the earth, and weighed mountains with a scale and hills with a balance?" 

also Isa48:13. 

This concept borders with the polytheistic beliefs of many people around the world, including the Arabs of the Hijaz, who attributed the act of creation to the One God supreme, who then for many various reasons, left it either partially or completely, to the interceding deities or lesser gods to administrate the natural processes. The perfect monotheism of Islam is far detached from these incomplete and primitive depictions of God.

Ibrahim's discussion with the unnamed ruler of his nation (later Quran commentaries identify him with Namrud/Nimrod) was precisely about this notion of God's omnipresence in the created world. What transpires from the portion of the debate quoted in the Quran is that the point of contention was not God's existence, rather His presence in man's life. The ruler gave examples implying that God is not concerned with all worldly matters, is mostly absent from man's life. Ibrahim refuted that point by reminding him of God's constant command of the natural laws upon which all life depends. He did so after the king's heedlessness to the first argument; God is the origin of the mechanism of life and death which all organisms are subject to. The ruler used ridicule to maintain his position, in the manner that the arrogant possessors of power often do. Instead of considering the deeper meaning of Ibrahim's argument, he alluded to the giving of life and death in an indirect manner; as a worldly king, he also had the power to inflict death and give or allow life. This exposed his spiritual heedlessness. Ibrahim then dumbfounded him with an argument he could not, even with his spiritual shallowness and corrupt belief in God, dismiss as he had previously done. 

As has been made clear by now, God establishing Himself on the throne evokes dominion, and in the comprehensive language of the Quran conveys that Allah governs the whole of His creation, including the throne itself. He has kept all the powers by Himself, and whatever is taking place in each and every part of the universe is happening with His command and permission 

30:25"And one of His signs is that the heaven and the earth subsist by His command". 

Allah at no point becomes unconcerned with His creation, especially not man for whom he took the responsibility of making arrangements for his guidance, protection and fulfilment of his needs. This is done by providing means by which both aspects of the human being can thrive; the spiritual, through the innate perception of higher truths 23:78,46:26,67:23,76:2 as well as sending divine guidance 2:38-9,7:35-6,20:123 and the physical through the continuous maintenance of the universe and its laws 35:41. There is a reason why the Quran, in its surgical precision, describes Allah with His attribute of infinite mercy, when it mentions His establishment over the throne that encompasses all of creation

 20:5"The Beneficent One/al Rahman, Who is established on the Throne". 

No word enshrines the concept of constant care of every aspect of the functioning of the universe, more that the superlative Qayyum which reoccurs in the Quran, and no verse comprehensively explains it like ayat al kursi does 2:255. As denoted with "musiun" 51:47 which carries the meaning of expanding, the universe is not a finished work, but in continuous expansion, with new manifestations of God's creation

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

If creation in the universe is an ongoing phenomenon then how could one deem it far fetched and difficult to re-create the universe along with the humans after their destruction? These verses most often come in the context of providing proof for the resurrection. God has not just created this universe and left it alone after giving it the initial push. The same underlying notion is in 64:1. He isnt just the first cause after which He has no role in the affair. He is ruling over it and sustaining it at every moment 

35:13,7:54"Who created the heavens and the earth in six periods of time, and He is established on the Throne; He throws the veil of night over the day, which it pursues incessantly; and (He created) the sun and the moon and the stars, made subservient by His command; surely His is the creation and the command; blessed is Allah, the Lord of the worlds".

 Day and night are not following each other by themselves but by the Command of Allah Who could change the present system totally. But it is by His love and mercy that the system is maintained so as to allow life to thrive. God's love and mercy for His creation is a recurrent theme in the Quran and the idea of divine "detachment" from human destiny is in complete opposition to that concept. The combined statements that Allah is simultaneously above the throne as well as close to all things in existence, strikes the perfect balance between all encompassing transcendence and careful implication on an individual level. 

This negates the atheist world-view, our universe is not a closed, continuous and self-perpetuating material universe. Every part of every process is brought about by Allah, whether creation of rain, the development of seeds, rotation of planets, from the cosmic to the cellular, man doesnt stand alone. Material causality is thus treated as a delusion 40:62 while constant divine creation is a reality 87:1-3. 

40:7"Those who bear the throne and those around it celebrate the praise of their Lord and believe in Him and ask protection for those who believe.."
39:75"And you shall see the angels going round about the throne glorifying the praise of their Lord; and judgment shall be given between them with justice.."
69:16-7"And the heavens shall be rent asunder, for that Day it shall be frail and shall collapse. And the angels shall be on the sides thereof; and above them eight shall bear on that day your Lord's throne"

These verses speaking of the entites bearing the Throne and being near it on the Day of Judgement, do not say that God is or will be seated on this "Throne". As stated earlier, Allah is in no need of the throne for support, rather it is the throne that is constantly sustained by its Creator. Beyond its symbolism, the reality and function of the throne is something known to God only. In contrast, we read in the HB 

1Kings22:19"I saw the Lord seated on His throne, and all the host of heaven were standing by Him on His right and on His left" 

or also in Isa6:1,37:16,Ezek1,2,3 all picturing God carried by angelic creatures, seated on His throne. He is also pictured as accompanied by innumerable chariots and angels during certain "important" movements Ps68:18. Even the statement of ibn Abbas describing the kursi as Allah's footstool does not come close to the biblical depiction, neither does he state that Allah is seated on the throne 

"The Kursi is the place where the Qadamain (feet) of Allah rest and the Arsh, no one knows its extent except Allah". 

It is to be noted here that the statement is not attributed to the prophet. 

The picture painted in the Quran carefully preserves divine transcendence all the while taking human imagination as close as possible to the divine essence. When subjects look at their king, the closest thing to him is his throne. Yet here at no point is Allah seated on His throne. Instead, powerful and compassionate angels are bearing it, in complete submission to the will of the mighty King. Seeing those majestic entities submitted in this manner is awe inspiring, and the fact that the King Himself does not need to appear to create such an effect, increases the feeling of amazement.

CIRA International dig up Hebrew Bible authenticity; faithful Jewish preservation of scriptures?

In answer to the video "Jeremiah 8:8 - Scripture Twisting 101"

If we go back in time, in light of the information present in the HB itself, the issue of preservation becomes even more damning.

We read, as far back as the first or second generation following Moses

Judges2:10"After that whole generation had been gathered to their ancestors, another generation grew up who knew neither the Lord nor what he had done for Israel".

This is unsurprising, why would one expect a people to remain faithful to Moses' teachings and preserve them accurately years following his death when during his own lifetime, his 40 days absence was enough to make them revert to idol worship, despite having just witnessed all kinds of supernatural occurrences testifying to the truth of what he was bringing. In light of all that they were made to witness from miracles and guidance, one would expect them to be sincerely obedient to God and deeply united yet the opposite happenned. From the onset, there was not a single fundamental thing of religion to which they adhered.

They had serious differences in every aspect of religion; so much so, they lost many of them just because of this attitude. And if it was so that early on in their history when they had been freshly established and tied to God with a covenant then what is to say of the later times filled with troubles, wars, exiles and enslavement? Or as is said in the Talmud of tradition given to Moses at Sinai and then forgotten,

“they were forgotten and re-established” (Sukkah 44a, Megillah 3a).

To succesfully achieve this re-establishment the rabbis openly state it is acceptable to resort to sophistry (Ketubot 103b). A similar example to Ezra is that of Otniel son of Kenaz who is credited with "restoring" some 3000 laws that were forgotten during the mourning over Moses’ death and other

"1700 analogies from minor to major, analogies by equivalent words, and obligations derived from a meticulous scrutiny of the Scriptural text were forgotten during the mourning over Moses’ death" (Temurah 16a).

There are other examples attesting not only to forgetfulness as to the contents of the books, let alone complete despise towards them Hos8:12, but also to their whereabouts. For example during the reign of Joshiah and while the Temple was being repaired, the high priest came across a manuscript not knowing what it was until it was presented to the King who rent his clothes appart upon recognizing it 2kings22. Interestingly, that period of 7th century BCE coincides with the time critical Biblical scholarship places the composition of the current HB. It is important to emphasize, the text says what was found was "the" Torah not "a" Torah.

Talmudic rabbis explain this difficulty by stating that the uniqueness of this find, and the fact nobody knew a priori what it was, doesnt mean no other Torah was in circulation, rather that it was written in a forgotten script very few could read. Consequently the king whose subjects had sunk into idolatry sent emmissiaries to

“Go and inquire of the Lord for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the Lord’s anger that burns against us because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us”.

This specific Torah, according to the Damascus Document, was none other than the original Torah fully revealed to Moses and sealed in the Ark of the Covenant 5 centuries ago in the times of Joshua. The detailed, written law was unknown to the masses all that time. The Ark itself was lost to the Phillistines and in the times of Solomon, its sole contents were the 2 tablets 1Kings8:9. There are also mention of entire pieces having been purposely burned by the corrupt elite, such as the scroll of Jeremiah Jer36:23 as mentionned earlier, and even though it was re-writen later Jer36:27-32, it reveals the complete careless attitude of the comunity's most prominent figures towards sacred texts.

Jeremiah, Hosea and others often lamented at their behavior and manipulations Jer8:8,Hosea4:6etc Too many factors have accumulated leading to the physical loss of the entire Torah, since the breaking of the oral transmission chain right after Moses, followed by blatant neglectfulness if not purposeful destruction of scriptures and their misinterpretations resulting in a faulty and corrupt oral tradition, combined with their successive massacres, destruction of their holiest sites and writings, forced exiles and assimilation into foreign cultures and all elements are there for the loss of the original. Hence the claims of divine intervention through Ezra to restore it, even having to transliterate the hebrew into Aramaic so the people would be able to read.

Ezra was the founder of the "Great Assembly", the institution that provided religious guidance to the Jews during the second temple era (520BCE – 70CE). These 120 men are said to have "finalized" the Hebrew Bible and enacted many laws, under the prophet Ezra's authority who was divinely inspired. They, after much debates, decided what to include in the final canon of the Tanakh/Hebrew bible. This era however is covered in darkness and not much is known of what was happening with the Jewish community.

The identity of these “Men of the Great Assembly” isnt even known.

In fact Israelite tradition isnt even sure in which language the Torah was given to them originally, whether it was ancient Hebrew, Assyrian, or Samaritan or whether it was later changed to Samaritan as a punishement (Sanhedrin 21b,22a,Y'rushalmi M'gillah 10a - chapter 1 halachah 9). In the process, they even forgot how to pronounce God's name hence the use of the tetragammaton. What is agreed upon is that upon his return from the Babylonian exile and into Israel, Ezra rewrote the HB in Hebrew but using the Aramaic alphabet (the lingua franca of those days). Their level of forgetfulness, as reflected in the issue of the language of revelation also reflects in their forgetfulness of the correct forms of certain ending letters, which made it impossible for them to recall the laws of Moses alluded to earlier until the intervention of Otniel son of Kenaz (Shabbat 104a). The Talmudic rabbis basically just decided on the letter forms to use, giving the current meaning to the text. Even though all Jews and rabbis agree to the rule which forbids the innovation of anything not said at Sinai, things can be recalled through discourse or any other means available, and the conclusion will be considered as having been given at Sinai.

The result is a Torah text nowadays far from being monolithic. There are 3 different Torah editions (Koren, Adi/Leningrad, Mosad HaRav Kook) each meticulously proofread from dozens of Torah scrolls on parchment then reproduced based on majority concordances between these scrolls. These 3 editions however have over 100 letter differences among them, which leaves one wondering as to the number of differences between the scrolls which were used by the proofreaders, if after all their efforts there were still 100+ letter differences.

That is without even getting into the issue of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, words of the midrash and the Zohar, showing that the Torah scrolls the Tanaaim (10-220CE) and Amoraim (200-500CE) had before them were different from the texts we have. This, as a side note, discredits the modern phenomenon of seeking Torah codes in a text whose original is unknown: one who works codes according to the Leningrad text or the Zohar text or according to the text used in the Talmud and the midrash will find, in each text, different results.

It is an undisputed fact that;
- there are parts of the Torah that must have been written long after Moses' death (Burial, Dan, etc)

- that Ezra at least re-introduced the people to the Torah (see Nehemia8) if not added rituals to festivals such as "Sukkot" that the Jews never knew about until he showed up Neh8:17 while the details of this ritual are found in Lev23 which was supposedly written by Moses.

- that Ezra is known as "the scribe", compared to none other than the one who received the Law, ie Moses who is seen as the greatest of prophets in the Talmud Sanhedrin 21b-22a

- that even in the mainstream Jewish tradition there is acceptance that Ezra at least made minor edits to the Torah

- that there is an entire book from 2,000 years ago (albeit a few hundred years after Ezra's time) that claims Ezra wrote the current version of the Torah (2Esdras14). The Talmud states:

“Reish Lakish said, ‘at first the Torah was forgotten by Israel; Ezra came from Babylon and established it'” (Sukkah 20a).

- that Ezra initiated the particulars of the prayer ritual

Medieval rabbis could not counter Muslim polemics regarding the corruption of their scriptures as there exists no foundational narrative to the genesis of the text, how these Scriptures came into being and were shaped as a book. There is no explicit “transmission chain” self-referentially described in the Hebrew Bible or in post-biblical canonical literature. Medieval Karaites, Jews that only adhered to the written Torah, exposed the embarassing traditions which the rabbis hid in these interfaith discussions with Muslims. Karaism was in fact born in Muslim lands. By interracting with Muslims Jews became aware of the problems related to the preservation of their HB, as is reported in their rabbinic traditions. 

Thus in answer to Muslim polemics, they would primarily attack these Jewish traditions, in an effort to blot out the embarrassing parts and re-write the transmission history of the text. Qirqisani, the leading Karaite theologian and exegete of Baghdad said 

"They (the Rabbanites) assert that the Torah which is in the hands of the people is not the Torah which Moses – on whom be peace – brought, but was composed by Ezra, for they say that the Torah brought by Moses perished and was lost and disappeared. This amounts to the destruction of the whole religion. Were the Muslims to learn of this, they would need nothing else with which to revile and confute us, for some of their theologians argue against us, saying: “Your Torah is not the Torah brought to Moses.” Against one who makes this claim we proclaim that he is lying out of a desire to contradict, and that they are reduced to this because they have nothing to say and need an argument. But were they to discover this teaching of the Rabbanites – may God forgive them – the field would be open to them and they would need nothing else". 

To this, he offers the poor reply that 

"There are two implications to this (claim) – one is that he who changed this (the text of the Bible) and altered it was wiser and more knowledgeable than the prophets who wrote it; and it is extremely implausible that Ezra and Nehemiah were wiser than Moses, may he rest in peace,..and wiser than the Creator..and if it were so that he changed Scripture and altered it and took out of it what was not found to be of benefit, would the shamefulness remain in its place and the disgracefulness not be removed? All the more so if what they say, namely, that the Torah which is in our hands was collated and composed by Ezra – if this were so, and there was no one besides him that would have compelled him to say that this was so and (to say) “I am the one who has changed it and fashioned it in this way”– he could have just (re-)written it in the way he wanted and left the matter hidden, without informing anyone that he had changed it!" 

Karaites deflected Muslim accusations of tahrif of their Hebrew Bible, by implying that if there is a form of falsification in Judaism, it only occured in the oral Torah, the books of the Mishnah and Talmud. It was necessary to them to reject the oral Torah's preservation so as to deny the information it contained as regards the written Torah's corruption. Eventually Karaism was declared a heresy by the rabbis, due to its denial of the authenticity of the oral tradition. The mouvement failed gaining dominance due to several factors; the Jewish people's turbulent history of oppression and exile, raised their rabbinic authorities as heroes of preservation and survival in the face of the complete annihilation of their identity. That mentality of the layman perdured in time due to Judaism's position as a minority religion, forcing it to dilute ideological dissent so as to retain a sense of community and survive. Also, Jewish Karaism had a strong zionist ideology. The demolition of their Jerusalem center by the Crusade of 1099 proved this ideology unattainable and brought about their dispersal and absorption in the Karaite pockets of Egypt, Byzantium and Spain.  

CIRA International open can of worms; the lying pens of the scribes Jer8:8?

In answer to the video "Jeremiah 8:8 - Scripture Twisting 101"

The Torah contains many harsh laws that were instituted on the Israelites because of their transgressions, and hard heartedness per the Quran, in order to contain them. Jesus in the NT alludes in certain places to this principle Mk10:5. This hypocrisy of the religious elite and treachery towards their divine revelations which Jesus tried rectifying, is mentionned in the Quran

2:44"do you enjoin men to be good and neglect your own souls while you read the Book; have you then no sense?".

Throughout time and in order to escape these self-imposed heavy burdens, they went on hairsplitting each commandement further. Explicit punishements, such as death sentences were substituted for other punishements of their own inventions. They use (and still do) the excuse that the Temple must be standing for many laws to be applicable. This innovation is easily exposed through the fact that the Temple was never around at the time of Moses' execution of the Israelites found worshiping the calf, the institutions of death sentences for adultery, rebellious children, breaking the Sabath etc. In Numb11 Moses asked God to spare him the burden of prophethood on such rebellious people. He was so convinced as to their tendency to disobey, that in Deut31:25-29 he swears before heaven and earth they will find a way to corrupt the revelation.

Jeremiah condemned the scribes for their mishandling the law Jer8:8. Jeremiah here is accusing the scribes that they mishandled

"the law of the LORD"

with their lying pens, not with their mouths. He's tellin them how can they claim to have it when they have handled it falsely, meaning that book they have in their hands isnt the original Law but one that has been tampered with. That tampering does not have to be absolute and neither does the verse say so. It speaks of partial corruption of the overall text. There is a reason why in the 2nd century, the early church father and messianic apologist Justin Martyr, accuses with explicit examples, the Jews of having physically altered passages of the HB, including within the book of Jeremiah, because they found them confusing. In his dialogue with a contemporary Jew named Trypho, Justin first alludes to the disagreement Jews had over the Septuagint Greek translation of the HB. A cursory reading of the text besides the Torah, reveals the Christian agenda of the unknown translators, especially within the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah. Christians in turn accused the Jews of shamelessly obscuring messianic passages in reference to Jesus. Justin tells Trypho;

“I certainly do not trust your teachers when they refuse to admit that the translation of the Scriptures made by the seventy elders at the court of King Ptolemy of Egypt is a correct one, and attempt to make their own translation. You should also know that they have deleted entire passages from the version composed by those elders at the court of Ptolemy, in which it is clearly indicated that the Crucified One was foretold as God and man, and as about to suffer death on the cross. But, since I know that all you Jews deny the authenticity of these passages, I will not start a discussion about them, but I will limit the controversy to those passages which you admit as genuine. Thus far, you have admitted the authenticity of all my quotations, except this, ‘Behold, a virgin will conceive,’ which you claim reads, ‘Behold, a young woman will conceive.’ And I promised to show that this prophecy was not spoken of Hezekiah, as you were taught, but of my Christ. This I now intend to prove.” “Before you do,” interrupted Trypho, “we would like you to quote some of the passages you claim were entirely omitted [from the elders” translation] “Since you asked,” I replied, “here is an example. They have deleted the following passage in which Ezra expounded the law of the Passover: ‘And Ezra said to the people: This Passover is our Savior and refuge. And if you have understood, and it has entered into your hearts, that we are about to humiliate Him on a cross, and afterwards hope in Him, then this place will never be forsaken, saith the Lord of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, nor listen to His teaching, you will be the laughing-stock of the Gentiles’. They have also expunged these words from Jeremiah: ‘I was as a meek lamb that is carried to be a sacrificial victim; they devised counsels against Me, saying: Come, let us put wood on His bread, and cut Him off from the land of the living, and let His name be remembered no more’ [Jer 11.19]. Since this passage from the words of Jeremiah is still found in some copies of Scripture in the Jewish synagogues (for it was deleted only a short time ago), and since it is also proved from these words that the Jews planned to crucify Christ Himself and to slay Him, and since He is shown, as was likewise prophesied by Isaiah, as led like a lamb to slaughter, and in accordance with this passage He is marked as ‘an innocent lamb,’ they are so confused by such words that they resort to blasphemy. Similarly have they removed the following words from the writings of the same Jeremiah: ‘The Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, remembered His dead who slept in their graves, and He descended to preach to them His salvation’ “Furthermore, from a verse of the ninety-fifth Psalm of David they have left out the short phrase, ‘from the tree.’ For they have changed the verse, ‘Say to the Gentiles: The Lord has reigned from the tree,’ to ‘Say to the Gentiles: The Lord has reigned’ [Ps 95.10]. [2] Now, no one of your people was ever said to have reigned as God and King over the Gentiles, except the Crucified One, who (as the Holy Spirit testifies in the same Psalm) was freed from death by His resurrection, and thus showed that He is not like gods of the Gentiles, for they are but the idols of demons. [3] To clarify this point, I will repeat the whole Psalm for you....“Only God knows,” remarked Trypho, “whether or not our leaders have deleted portions of the Scriptures as you say. But such an assertion seems incredible.”

What this passage of Jer8:8 establishes beyond doubt, is that there was at least some physically corrupted writings passed off as the real Torah, and Jeremiah exposed the authors of these documents. Elsewhere Jeremiah laments over the false prophets among them's oral misinterpretation of the Law

Jer23:9-36"They use their tongues and say, "He Says".

What transpires from Jeremiah's repeated condemnations is that the Jews of his time and most probably before, mishandled both textually and orally the writings of the prophets. Some of these corrupted writings and their authors were exposed, thankfully to the prophets that were continuously sent among them in an almost uninterrupted manner, and the presence of righteous remnants among them, that kept the Torah. But this is far from solving the problem. Jeremiah appeals to the uncorrupted text available to them, urging them to abide by it despite and they majoritarily resist his calls, trying even to kill him Jer26.

The greater implication here is that when crimes are exposed at an advanced stage, that it is found out it is done on a large scale, even institutionalized as is the case with the corrupt scholars in the time of Jeremiah, it often means one is only dealing with the tip of the iceberg. No sooner would Jeremiah turn his back, or pass away, the criminals would continue doing what they did before and during his presence among them. As reflected by Moses when he predicted their future disobedience

Deut31:27"If you have been rebellious against the Lord while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebel after I die!"

To further corroborate the corrupt leaders went as far as burning Jeremiah's scroll Jer36:23, and even though it was divinely re-writen later Jer36:27-32, something the text never says reoccured in Biblical history, it reveals the complete careless attitude of the comunity's most prominent figures towards sacred texts. There is a reason why Jeremiah says in Jer7:21 that even though God had spoken to them, they

"went backward and not forward".

This shows their constant tendency to leave the right path. One cannot but question, how long would the fringe righteous remnants resist and be able to maintain the integrity of the inherited written and oral tradition in such a heavily corrupt environement? About 600 years later and after prophethood ceased for 400 years, meaning a very long period where these deceitful leaders and supposed maintainers of the scriptures were left on their own, Jesus rose and echoed Jeremiah's lamentations, probably in a harsher tone than any of their prophets. How could the Torah and the oral tradition be rightfully preserved when those very ones supposed to keep it and faithfully transmit it were rotten spiritually, like a tomb

Matt23"full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean"?

After Jeremiah, who exposed the tip of the iceberg of corruption, and especially after 400 years where prophethood was interrupted up till Jesus' time, the scriptures in the hands of the Jews were only Torah and book of the prophets by name, not by contents. Although there still remained guidance and truth in these books, one cannot legitimately say their integrity was safeguarded.

Acts17apologetics put Jesus back in semitic history; Jesus succeeds despite Jewish slaying of prophets?

In answer to the video "The Significance of Jesus' Resurrection"

Many of the Prophets the Israelites were sent to were rejected, killed and opposed Matt23:37,Acts7 Jesus being one of them Jn8:37. He explained this wicked trend through The Parable of the Tenants Matt21:33-45 and foresaw their destruction and

"that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit".

This powerful statement was meant at shutting their constant boasting of their lineage and choseness. He continued this way until the hatred and arrogance of the Jewish elite made him select a group of apostles from among his few followers to be his helpers in his mission. Jesus sensed unbelief in his group, this prompted him to select a smaller group from among them

5:111,61:14,3:52"But when Isa perceived unbelief on their part, he said: "Who are my helper to Allah?" The disciples said: "We are helpers of Allah: We believe in Allah and be (our) witness that we are submitting ones".

This is a very important observation if one considers the depiction made in the NT of Jesus' disciples, they were the first to desert him in adversity and hardly understood any of his teachings. It is a fact that very few Israelites, to whom he was sent and whom he preached for, believed in him during his ministry Acts1:13-16. Throughout Jesus' ministry Allah defeated his enemies' conspiracies to allow him the fullfilment of his mission. Whether from the moment his remarkable prophetic experience began while still an infant, until he attained the peak of his physical maturity toward the end of his ministry, he was in Allah's protection

3:46,5:110"and when I withheld the children of Israel from you when you came to them with clear arguments".

The term kahl refers to a middle aged man whose hair is beginning to turn gray. It is used for what is believed to be the ideal physical age of a man, defined as anywhere between 30 and 50 years. The scholars of Christianity since very early times have given all sorts of ages for Jesus' lifespan, from 33 years to 50 years. This is mainly due to the many difficult and inconsistent historical data present in the Gospels.

When his time finally came and the transmission of his message fulfilled, Allah saved him from the hands of his enemies by lifting him up. Jesus was not sent on a suicide mission and neither did he want to purposefully die as a human offering, something God explicitly abhors in both the HB, which he upheld to the letter as well as his early followers after him, and the Quran.

According to Islam, Jesus therefore succeeded 100% in conveying the message he was meant to convey. His mission was deep, intricate, far reaching and much more elaborate, pertinent, consistent and beautiful than what is attributed to him by the Greek authors. By relating the essential landmarks of his prophetic mission as well as the basis of the message he was commanded to faithfully transmit, saved his honor both physically and spiritually. It clears him of all slanders by his contemporaries and those that followed, as well as from the false teachings attributed to him that corrupted his message. It is ironic that Christians see Jesus in Islam as a failed prophet or fabricated figure, when it is they that depict him as such; from his humiliating ending at the hands of his opponents, to his teachings that were misappropriated and assimilated into the religion of a pagan entity, or the fabricated events in his life that dont stand to historical scrutiny, and the theological implications of his mission that are irreconcilable with the HB which is supposed to foreshadow Christianity. 

This painstaking, sketchy endeavour is the result of Christians attempting to reconstruct Jesus as a heroic figure after his death, just as pagans in those times deified their dead emperors or called the living ruler "son of god", creating events that did not happen; Jesus' pre-existence, his co-creation of the universe with God, his miraculous birth, miracles, arrest, trial, crucifixion, resurrection, post-resurrection appearances, and reunion with God his Father were all the inventions of story tellers trying to restrospectively fit Jesus within both the Jewish messianic tradition and the writers' own greco-roman religious background. Islam, the religion of all prophets is a religion of success. Unlike the meaningless, devastating, disgraceful, helpless death of the invented central figure of Christianity, neither Muhammad nor Jesus were failures.

Whether Jesus' message survived now or not is irrelevant. The success of a prophet's mission of being the faithful conveyor of his God's message is independant of whether his addressees hearken his calls, mend their ways, preserve his message or attempt to kill him. All prophets attest to this reality. Prophets are not sent to cause forceful spiritual reform. Their duty is only to deliver the warnings and glad tidings, as here stated by the prophet Hud

11:57"But if you turn back, then indeed I have delivered to you the message with which I have been sent to you, and my Lord will bring another people in your place, and you cannot do Him any harm; surely my Lord is the Preserver of all things". 

It is then up to the people themselves to hearken the calls and act accordingly. If they do it is for their own benefit, if not it is their own loss. Both outcomes have no bearing on the truthfulness of a prophet or the accomplishment of his mission.

Acts17apologetics expose Judaism; Jesus rejected because he was crucified?

In answer to the video "The Significance of Jesus' Resurrection"

Jesus was rejected by his fellow Jews, not for claiming to be the promised ruler, who in addition to his functions will be "a" messiah, but because, just like his predecessors Israelite prophets whom they calumnied, rejected, killed, for harshly condemning their straying from their own Books. Jesus in particular was rejected and almost killed for his harsh condemnation of the Jewish elite, their religious hypocrisy. The Quran quotes him as urging them to fear God and obey him in his application of Torah 3:48-50 which they resisted. This is amply demonstrated throughout the NT and the numerous demonstrations by Jesus as to the importance of prioritizing the spiritual dimension of the Law.

There is a reason why plenty evidence exists for Jewish messianic claimants during or just a few years after Jesus, but not 1 concerning a person named Jesus who claimed to be the Davidic king.

There is a reason why the NT authors could not but paint that whole part of Jesus' ministry as some sort of hidden reality, with Jesus telling his followers to keep it to themselves Mk8:29, secretly admitting it to a woman Jn4, and offering differing answers to the high priest's charge against him, either obscuring or confirming the charge of him claiming to be the king messiah Matt26:63-64,Lk22:70,Mk14:62. Yet Jesus himself says

Jn18:20"I have spoken openly to the world..I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret."  

"Jesus spoke about his own role reluctantly.  He rarely, if ever, referred explicitly to himself as Messiah.  On the other hand, so many aspects of his actions and teachings were “messianic” in a broad sense that we can understand how his followers claimed soon after Easter that Jesus was the promised Messiah."(Graham Stanton – Professor Cambridge).

The appeal to secrecy is one of the devices needed to paint the Jesus of the NT as a success rather than failure. His disillusioned followers and converts wanted him to be more than another prophet calling out the Jews for their transgressions and who was defeated by his enemies. The only thing higher in rank in Jewish scriptures is the awaited end times davidic king who shall fulfill well known criteria and usher the utopian Kingdom of God. But Jesus did not fit the role prior to his crucifixion, he had to do it a little later, within the generation of the disciples at his cataclysmic return and forcefully establish the kingdom of God. The prophecy failed of course and further reinterpretations were needed. The kingdom of God became a spiritual thing, with its associated Christologies and Pauline concepts. The writers however did not know the prediction they put in Jesus' mouth would eventually fail. They still expected it to happen, and so had no choice but to paint the plot as a secret because the Romans were on the lookout for any rebel leader. If, as Christians nowadays claim, the kingdom of God was something else all along then Jesus' job is done; he wouldnt need to come back so as to violently establish what the Jews and his disciples anticipated, and the Romans feared. If Jesus' kingdom of God had nothing to do with what everyone (including his disciples) understood and anticipated, then he did not need to fear the Romans either and be secretive about his operation. The Romans would have allowed this Jewish sect and their spiritual kingdom of God to flourish so as to supplant the rebellious messianic HB ideology of world dominance which every 1st century Jew expected, and still does till this day. Further, even by Christian standards, none of what Jesus did, or was done to him, brought about "victory over sin and death". These are still plenty, even among sincere Trinitarians. Anyway one turns it, the contrived NT narrative paints Jesus as a false prophet and false messiah. This is  worse to those that love and follow him, than the Quran's proposition. Christians are always taken aback by the purpose the Quran gives to Jesus. Being "just a prophet" is to them a degrading proposition, not only in light of Paul's christologies, but because in the biblical paradigm, "just a prophet" carries with it a paradigm of sinfulness. Yet here again, Islam untangles the distortions of past scriptures, as it paints prophets as the highest spiritual potential humans can achieve, the most sublime examples of morality and the highest legal and spiritual authorities.

The fact that the end times messianic figure did not materialize in Jesus, that it appeared to many that he was murdered, those who nevertheless believed him to fit the messianic role could not but paint this aspect of his life in "purposeful" obscurity. In addition, his death/failure became his self-predicted success, purposefuly orchestrated, in fulfillment of ancient prophecies retrospectively applied to him, or rather misapplied to anyone familiar with the HB.

The whole NT is a poorly written apology of a new concept of the end times king messiah, as here stated

Jn20:31"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name".

Matt12:15-21 attempts to show that Jesus' appeal to secrecy was in fulfilment of Isa42:1-4, a passage that only relates to what Matthew infers by the most farfetched analogy. He implies that by the vast majority of Israel's being puporsefully denied access to the truth, the Gentiles instead will be saved. But for these gentiles to have access to this truth after JEsus' death, there had to be a select few who would understand the secret scheme.

The plot was supposedly achieved through obscured parables only his disciples would understand Mk4:11-12,Matt13:13-15 yet we many times read thoughout the NT how his closest followers who supposedly were among those select few at least struggled in comprehending him if not completely misunderstood him. In fact towards the end of Jesus' mission people in general and his closest entourage had no clue about his messianship, to the point that when Simon identifies him as the messiah, Jesus tells him that he could only have received that information in a supernatural way Matt16.

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.

The Jewish people were thus divinely blinded for that purpose, at least temporarly as stated in

Rom11:11"I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous".

As if God could not provide salvation for both Jew and Gentile without deliberately withholding knowledge so that only some Jews are saved.

When Jesus was apprehended and judged by the Romans, with the complicity of the Jewish leaders who wanted to get rid of him for his denouncing their sins as past prophets did, he did not claim to be the king messiah, neither to the Jews who were seeking a pretext to make him arrested, pressing the question to have him confess Matt26:63-64,Mk14:62,Lk22:70 nor in front of the authorities, who eventually sent him to be crucified. By doing so, and acceding to the request of the Jews, the romans validated the Jewish charge against him of messianic kingship which is punishable by death under state laws. Now that Jesus and his band became official outlaws wanted by the state, his close apostles are reported to have fled with Peter even denying he knew Jesus 3 times. The Romans, lobbied by their Jewish stooges, deemed the allegation against him enough for him to be crucified.

This punishment was most often reserved to those who threatened the political status quo, regardless of their background motives (religious or else). Jesus' enemies painted him as one whom the Romans would typically go after in those days, a charismatic leader who proclaimed a kingdom "with God" not "with Caesar" at its head was seen as an immediate threat. The person didnt even have to present a violent danger to be inflicted with such punishment, nor tangible evidence, especially a non-Roman citizen or a slave. Simple suspicion, in this case instigated by their Jewish minions, was enough to trigger the authorities. 

As to Pontius Pilate washing his hands of the decision to execute a political agitator, a man known for his brutality against his subjects, is obviously a scribal corruption with an agenda. The Greeks were writing the Gospels after the Roman legions had returned to crush the Jewish rebellion of 66CE and did not want to antagonize Roman power and attract their hostility at that point in time. What is interesting to add is that, contrary to similar cases where accomplices would be tracked down and killed to crush a potential rebellion, the Romans left Jesus' disciples to freely preach their gospel.

This shows that, as said above, Jesus was seen as inconsequential in terms of posing a violent threat, that the savage Roman police would easily be triggered on simple basis of suspicion and that they would readily accomodate their local puppets to safeguard their own dominion in the distant regions of the empire.