In answer to the video "The Banu Qurayza Massacre (TGP 2)"
The Prophet never punished out of mere retaliation for a personal slight or injury. All his punishments, of believers and unbelievers alike, were for crimes committed against the public weal or infringements of the promulgated law; and even here his life contains acts of clemency in which he put mercy above justice. In 4:140 it says
"And indeed He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allah's communications disbelieved in and mocked at do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them; surely Allah will gather together the hypocrites and the unbelievers all in hell".
This is a Medinan verse in which the prophet isnt told to forcefully silence the critics, even those mockers of the religion. He is simply to gracefully turn away from them and leave them to their own shamefull talk. A similar verse was revealed in Mecca 6:68.
The Muslims entered Mecca but the keys to the Kaaba were with Uthman Bin Talha, a non-believer who locked the door of the holy sanctuary upon learning of the Muslims' entrance in Mecca. He hid, refusing to hand over the keys, until Ali found him and snatched the keys from him, openned the Kaaba and the Prophet entered, prayed in it, after which revelation came down
4:58"indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are belong to..".
The prophet understood that the Shaybah family had to be returned their possession; he thus ordered Ali to return the key to Uthman Bin Talha and excuse themselves. Ali then went to Uthman and gave back the key and presented their apologies for the wrong he had done to him by forcibly taking the key. Uthman b. Talha was shocked, he could not believe Ali was giving back the key to him as instructed by the Prophet Muhammad, the conqueror of Mecca, who could have done as he wished with anyone and anything within the city. Ever since, the guardianship of the Kaaba remained with Bani Shaybah, which is bestowed upon the elders of the family until today.
The soldiers and men of Quraysh who once levelled armies seeking to exterminate the Muslims by all means, persecuted and starved the Prophet and his powerless followers in the early days of his Call, brutalised and killed Muslim prisonners, war criminals in every sense of the word, came to the Prophet submissively. They thought they would most certainly be slain, just as they would have executed the Muslims had their tirelessly repeated plans worked. They knew very well that within their own customs retaliation and hatred were the rule of the game within the fabrics of the society and its order. Hatred and hostilities were passed down from one generation to the next and unwillingness to perpetrate revenge was considered a defect.
While attributing the promised victory to Allah alone, the Messenger, in the manner of the great men of God who show magnanimity once they are at the climax of their power and glory, contented himself with uttering what a previous Prophet, noble as him had uttered in similar circumstances. The prophet Joseph before him told his brothers who came to him in submission, seeking forgiveness for their faults against him
12:92"There shall be no reproof against you this day; Allah may forgive you, and He is the most Merciful of the merciful".
The prophet continued
"Let every wealth (wrongfully seized), every blood (wrongfully shed), and every revenge to be exacted belonging to the days of jahiliyyah be trampled under my foot, except the guardianship of the Kaaba and the bearing of water at the time of the pilgrimage; they shall be returned to their people (the Quraysh)".
The noble prophet finally recited the Quran verse which constitutes the epitome of divine justice
49:13"We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you with Allah is the one among you most careful (of his duty); surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".
With these words, Muhammad was giving a general amnesty to all Quraysh and all the Meccans. To realize the degree of generosity from the Prophet, one must recall the life threatening hardships which these people imposed on him and now that they were completely subdued by him, instead of thinking of vengeance, or at the very least demanding apologies and reparations, which was certainly his due, he forgave them. This way he was displaying his function of "rasul", the embodiement of God's mercy to mankind.
In answer to the video "The Banu Qurayza Massacre (TGP 2)"
In this Quran we find, and as embodied by the prophet, that it calls Muslims to treating others, whether close or far "neighbors", from one's own people or not, as they themselves would like to be treated. It was a way of life of the prophet who taught the people the general axiom that
"Allah will not be merciful to those who are not merciful to mankind".
Whenever the Quran encourages fair treatment, it does so by instilling empathy
4:9"Let those who would fear for the future of their own helpless children, if they were to die, show the same concern for orphans, let them be mindful of God and speak out for justice".
That type of imaginative role-reversal is a recurrent theme 4:36,42:23,83:1-6. Treating others even better than what is expected towards one's self, opens the possibility to create a positive change even in one's enemy 41:34,59:9. This shows how altruism in the Quran, although seemingly over empathetic, actually remains pragmatic by extending fair treatment even to one's enemies in certain cases. The prophet said
"Whoever would love to be delivered from the Hellfire and entered into Paradise, then let him die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and let him treat the people the way he would love to be treated".
In another narration of the prophet, those who are able to show such selflessness are described as neither belonging to the prophets or martyrs, but the prophets and martyrs will envy them due to their status on the Day of Resurrection
"The best faith is to love for the sake of Allah, to hate for the sake of Allah, and to work your tongue in the remembrance of Allah. Mu’adh said, “What is it, O Messenger of Allah?” The Prophet said: That you love for the people what you love for yourself, and you hate for the people what you hate for yourself, and that you speak goodness or remain silent".
Many times the Quran starts or ends a passage about belief in the One God, with a statement about just dealings between men, always showing how faith and righteousness are inevitably linked to social interactions.
This selflessness thus negates any expectations and favor in return while lending a helpful ear to any type of "asker" 74:6,93:10. This is because everyone in this world may be subject to physical, spiritual or intellectual need.
This comprehensive attitude enjoined in the Quran, along with other such directives, takes the principle of the "golden rule" to new heights and should be labelled the "diamond rule". Slaves were an integral part of the household to such an extent that, as with other members of the biological family, women were allowed to unveil in their presence 24:31. This of course was a ruling of convenience, given the frequent interaction with the male servants going about their various assisting tasks within the household. But it further contributed to their thorough integration within the family sphere, solidifying the various rulings of consideration towards them. They had to be fed and maintained without any psychological injury and for the sake of Allah, not seeking benefits of any kind from them in return
76:8-10"And they give food however great be their own want of it to the poor and the orphan and the captive: We only feed you for Allah's sake; we desire from you neither reward nor thanks: Surely we fear from our Lord a stern, distressful day. So God will save them from the woes of that day, and give them radiance and gladness. So God will save them from the woes of that day, and give them radiance and gladness".
What is remarkable here is that the Quran places even the need of the captive, regardless of his religion, above the need of the Muslim guardian himself. This is just one of the many passages that further dwarfs the judeo-christian notion of the golden rule.
So, even though the Quran does not pronounce an abstract concept like to “love your neighbour”, it does however articulate its reality and applications in a much more comprehensive manner, constantly interlinking worship of God with application of social justice.
In a hadith, the prophet describes how the angel Jibril admonished him for the sake of the neighbours
"Mujahid reported that a sheep was slaughtered for 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr. He asked his slave, "Have you given any to our Jewish neighbour? Have you given any to our Jewish neighbour? I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'Jibril kept on recommending that I treat my neighbours well until I thought that he would order me to treat them as my heirs.'"
Reciprocity in goodwill is so hardwired into the Quranic message that even when people meet and greet oneanother, the one answering should exceed the other in his greeting
4:86"When a greeting is offered you, answer it with an even better greeting, or [at least] with its like. God keeps count of all things".
The Islamic greeting is a supplication to Allah, that He might bestow peace on another. This known etiquette, which is a Muslim peculiarity, is a means by which people’s hearts are cleansed. It brings people closer together and reinforces their ties.
In answer to the video "The Banu Qurayza Massacre (TGP 2)"
His tolerance, patience were indiscriminate and touched people from all social spheres
“Do not be mere imitators, treating well only those who treat you well and doing wrong to those who do you wrong. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong if they do evil” Aisha said "The Messenger of Allah did not take revenge for anything against himself, but if the sacred law of Allah was violated then he would take retribution for the sake of Allah".
This attitude of the prophet, his forbearance was a pattern which remained throughout his 23 years of prophethood, whether at the best or worst moments the community went through. For instance following the defeat at Uhud due to some of the troops breaking up against the prophet's orders, allured by the spoils left behind by the retreating pagan army. The victory was on the Muslim side up to that point, after which the opponents took the upper hand. Even in such situations, where the lack of discipline of some, brought death and defeat on the nascent community, the prophet did not behave as would have been expected from a field commander and nation leader. He did not judge, condemn or punish the guilty and deserters.
3:159-161"And it was by Allah’s grace that you dealt gently with your adherents, for if you had been harsh and hard of heart, they would indeed have broken away from you. Pardon them, then, and pray that they be forgiven. And take counsel with them in all matters of public concern; then, when you have decided upon a course of action, place your trust in Allah, for, of certainty, Allah loves those who place their trust in Him. If Allah supports you, none can ever overcome you; but if He should forsake you, who could support you thenceforth? In Allah, then, let the committed Muslims place their trust. And it is not conceivable that a prophet should deceive [in military affairs or in anything else], since he who deceives shall be faced with his deceit on the Day of Resur- rection, when every human being shall be repaid in full for whatever he has done, and none shall be wronged [by any injustice]".
Despite the unsettling situation, he remained a tranquil and friendly administrator, fully involved into improving the society he belonged to. He acknowledged the deficiencies of human nature especially in times of war. At that moment it the prophet had to have a clear mind to understand the individual circumstances that led these first-time offenders to do what they did. He had to think with his heart, not to react in proportion to the adversity that resulted from their lethal mistakes
9:128"Indeed, there has come unto you an Apostle from within yourselves: heavily weighs upon him [the thought] that you might suffer [in the life to come], full of concern for you [is he, and] full of compassion and mercy toward the committed Muslims".
That is why one only finds the kind of reports as those concerning Asma bint Marwan who wrote poems that targeted the prophet personally, among the weak and discarded narrations. As a prophet of God and ruler, he was nevertheless not one to adopt the type of passivity that would result in the merciless becoming brazen and taking advantage of any apparent weakness.
From that perspective, we can begin to understand why he sanctioned the execution of some people, and tactically fought others, though he may have wished that this could have been avoided.
An example to corroborate would be that of Kaab ibn Ashraf. Following the Muslim victory of Badr, the idolators and the Jews of Medina felt that their political position was greatly diminished. Only 2 years after his migration, the Prophet of God had managed to break the traditional pattern of power distribution in the desert. The enemies of Islam would meet clandestinely and encourage the composition and recitation of divisive poetry. Kaab ibn Ashraf, a Jewish chieftain of Banu Nadhir, was a poet of considerable fame and he used to recite in the gatherings fiery poems inciting the people to rise up against Islam. This was a clear breeching of the Medina covenant of peace with the Muslims, non partisanship which eachother's enemies. ibn Ashraf's particularity as compared to the other non Muslims and hypocrites that secretly disliked Islam and conspired against it, is that he openly joined the Meccan ranks with whom the community was at war, becoming a propaganda tool that composed eulogies mourning the Meccan chiefs slain in the battle of Badr and defamed Muslim women. The closest one can come to the kind of impact this kind of poetry had in Arabian tribal life in those days, is to remember the role propaganda played during the world wars of the 20th century, more particularly the 2nd one. The chief propagandists among the Nazis were regarded as top priority targets by Western authorities. The issue here is thus not that of low-level disparaging comments and mockeries, rather the kind of criticism with deadly ramifications. The Quran and hadith contain many instances of the prophet and the Muslims being the targets of mockery and ridicule, both in times of political weakness and strength, yet neither responded in kind nor retaliated violently. The Quran for instance in sura tawba relates how the Medina hypocrites would engage in injurious talk about the prophet, and this at a time where the Muslim community had become powerful. The only response they got from the prophet was that he socially ostracized them, refusing their charity donations, and leaving their fate to Allah in the Hereafter
9:66"If We pardon one faction of you - We will punish another faction because they were criminals".
He would even pray for the forgiveness of some of them, only to be rebuked by Allah for his undeserving empathy 9:80,63:6. Even so, the Quran would repeatedly call them to repent, and that God may show them mercy
33:24"That Allah may reward the truthful for their truth and punish the hypocrites if He wills or accept their repentance. Indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful".
As to Kaab, his animosity was such that it is said the verse 4:51 speaking of Jews believing in idols alludes to him, when he accompanied a delegation from Medina to Mecca in search of an alliance against the Muslims, and publicly bowed to the idols to reassure the suspecting Quraysh
"Your are people of Scripture and Muhammad has a Scripture and we are not completely sure that this is a scheme that you devised. So if you want us to go along with you, you have to prostrate to these two idols and believe in them".
But being a coward he never attended the battles himself, preferring to plot and incite behind closed doors. His role in galvanizing the Quraysh prior to the battle of Uhud is well known, his wife herself is reported to have warned him that his life was at threat because of his actions. Although the prophet said that Kaab was deserving of being put to death since he should be treated as a combatant, he nevertheless did not plan the execution. It is to be noted that any modern government seeking to preserve the survival of its people in times of war, would look to target specific opponents whose death would have a more significant impact in the long-run in terms of avoiding further bloodshed. He was thus incited out of his hiding place and killed, which successfully prevented an all out war with the Bani Nadir. Other opinions say his assassination occurred after the battle of Uhud in response to an attempted murder of the prophet.
The critics of Islam wont find the kind of cold blooded, arbitrary and ruthless assassinations they try hard to attribute to the prophet and even if they succeed, which they wont, then it still takes nothing away from Muhammad's claim to prophethood, judging by the standards of the true prophets of the Bible, including David who assassinated an innocent man for the sole purpose of marrying his wife and yet it did not diminish an iota from his legitimacy as a prophet.
The fact is that so many factors in the prophet's life went against displaying any sort of positivity and mercy that one can only conclude that he had been preserved and guided by the Almighty from turning into an evil despot; never knew his father, hardly enjoyed the compassion of his mother, lost his grandfather, and then his uncle and dearest wife simultaneously, witnessed every single one of his children die save for one, who was treated like a menace and fugitive after decades of building a flawless reputation among his people, on top of that physically abused until he would faint, starved for years by his own people, and faced countless campaigns of character assassination, directed towards him and his household, driven out of his home, unto a foreign town only to find hypocrites there awaiting every opportunity to betray him, then watching assassination attempts against his life unfold regularly, as well as the murder and mutilation of his relatives and companions. Who could in such circumstances persevere and rise beyond negativity, displaying mercy, justice and empathy besides one divinely guided?
In answer to the video "The Banu Qurayza Massacre (TGP 2)"
Bukhari for example reports an incident where the prophet was disrespected in front of a large gathering. A companion felt so offended that he requested to kill the culprit. The prophet refused, just as he rejected the Muslims' desire to mutilate a captured Quraysh leader following the battle of Badr, Suhayl b. Amr, by uprooting his front teeth
“so that he could never preach against the Messenger”.
Compare this as a side note, to David's unwarranted mutilation of the Phillistines, among a long list of crimes and sins for which he never was reprimanded since in God's eyes only his adulterous behavior was considered sinful 1Kings15:5. The prophet similarily did not allow his followers to assassinate a man that had spoken in favor of uprooting the Muslim leadership shortly after the defeat of Uhud. On another occasion in Medina, Ibn Salool a known hypocrite constantly working to undermine the prophet's authority, rudely cut the prophet as he was preaching to an audience
“Stay in your home. If someone would like to hear your message, they will come to you.”
In another narration,
“Now leave, the smell of your donkey bothers us.”
The Muslims became irate upon hearing these insults, but the Prophet forbade them from retaliating. When he received Urwa b. Mas‘ud as he was still a pagan an representing the enemy side, during the negotiations for a peace treaty, he was physically and verbally abusive but despite the companions threatening him with their weapons, and the fact that some time ago Urwa's tribe, of whom he was the chief, assaulted the prophet, he honored this ambassador’s stay and hosted him for as long as he stayed.
There are many other such incidents, like his eloquent answer to a group of Jews' playing on words and saluting him, inside his home, with
"As-Sâmu ‘alayk (Death be upon you)”.
The prophet was at that point in a position of authority in Medina, meaning that just as in our days where verbally assaulting authority figures makes one liable to prosecution, he would surely have been justified in exercizing his judicial authority. He instead answered
“And upon you”.
When Aisha felt compelled to add,
“Death be upon you, along with the curse of Allah and His wrath!”
The prophet admonished her against being vulgar and instead answer this kind of talk gently. It is this same gentleness that made a leading Jewish figure convert. Zayd b. Su‘na was astonished at the prophet's response to his public disrespect, under the false pretext that he had failed paying his debt as agreed. Not only did the prophet hold back his companions from doing any harm to Zayd but added
"O ‘Umar, we do not need this…Go with him, pay off his loan, and give him twenty additional sâ‘ (32 kg) of dates because you frightened him.”
It was that response that convinced Zayd b. Su‘na to embrace Islam. That incident is similar to when a Bedouin to whom the prophet owed a camel was repaid with a better one although he demanded it in an uncivil manner that vexed the Companions. They were again, as in the previous examples about to hurt him before the prophet prevented them. That attitude extended to occasions when even his family members were slandered, such as when a Muslim believed and spread the false rumours of adultery on Aisha's part. Not only did the Prophet ultimately forgive this man who had slandered his wife, but he even admonished Abu Bakr, Aisha's father from boycotting this man, especially since he was related to Abu Bakr and used to receive charity from him. More astounding is the pardoning of Habbar ibn Al-Aswad who had once caused his daughter Zaynab to fall from her ride as he was pursuing her, inflicted her with injuries that eventually led to her death several years later.
All such instances are in conformity with God's injunction to
41:34"repel evil with what is best"
so that eventually one who is viewed as an enemy might become
"as though he was a devoted friend".
Besides his reported prayers even for Abu Jahl's sake at a time when he was among his staunchest opponent, his supplications for Abu Huraira's pagan mother who used to insult the prophet even when the prophet had full power in Medina, on one occasion, the Prophet silently smiled when Abu Bakr refrained from responding to a rude and insulting person. But when Abu Bakr eventually spoke up, the Prophet became angry and left, later telling him that
“An angel was with you, responding on your behalf. But when you said back to him some of what he said, a devil arrived, and it is not for me to sit with devils".
Even when he permitted the killing of Thumama b. Uthal, the chief of Banu Haneefa who had assassinated a number of the Prophet’s Companions, and had even plotted to kill the Prophet himself, yet when he was captured, not only was he given to drink from the prophet's own she-camel but after repeated invitation to Islam and repeated rejection, was eventually set free. He returned to the prophet's mosque and eventually converted, impressed like many others by the prophet and Islam's high morality. He knew he deserved the death penalty, as seen from his own answer
"If you do me a favour, you will do a favour to a grateful person. If you kill me, you will kill a person who has spilt blood. If you want wealth ask and you will get what you will demand"
yet the prophet neither was vengeful, nor wanted favors and much less money from him, despite his influential tribal position. Upon his arrival to Mecca and after an enthusiastic declaration of faith, in his zeal he implicitly answered a questioner that he had always been a Muslim
"When he reached Mecca, somebody said to him: Have you changed your religion? He said: No! I have rather embraced Islam with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)".
The prophet had to temper Thumama's overzealousness later on; when he returned to his tribe and the most influential among the people of Yamama converted after hearing his story. Thumama convinced them to halt all grain supply to the Quraysh. Such a sanction would have been highly effective in draining the Quraysh, but the noble prophet interceded on behalf of those very ones that had starved him and his early companions in a ravine, persuading the people of Yamama to resume trading with Quraysh, preferring to take the harder but nobler route to victory than the faster one at any cost
"The Messenger of Allah (Sallalahu Alayhi Was-Sallam) did not have to choose between two matters, but that he chose the easier of them as long as it was not a wrong action. If it was a wrong action, he was the furthest of people from it".
There are other similar instances of the prophet catching a person red handed trying to murder him, even while easily having power and right to exact revenge, but instead chose forgiveness. It was the case with Fadala b. ‘Umayr after the conquest of Mecca where he had full dominion over the people. I was also the case before, with the Bedouin man (al-Ghawrath b. al-Harith) that sneaked to him while he was asleep following a military expedition.
The prophet woke up while he was about to unsheeth his sword and kill him, but calmly reasonned with him at that point and let him go free. After unmasking the Jewess Zaynab b. al-Harith that had given him a poisonned lamb to eat, he refused to kill her and even forgave her.
On his return by night from the expedition of Tabuk and as he was riding his camel on a route passing above a ravine, a group of camel riders came fast in his direction in an attempt to scare his own camel that he might fall into the ravine. The prophet however sensed their intentions and preemptively gestured so as to scare the coming camels and signify to the men that he uncovered their plan. They consequently quickly retreated. Even though the prophet's companions identified the perpetrators, the prophet isntructed them not to denounce them because
In answer to the video "The Banu Qurayza Massacre (TGP 2)"
When it points out some of the dark periods of their history, it isnt done wantonly or inappropriately 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 righteous 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.
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.
The principle that God judges men individually, and not in groups does not negate the infliction of collective suffering even because of the misdeeds of a few, and this is an objective reality. Such reality may repeat itself with any community, including the Muslims 8:25 which is why believers of all times have been urged by their prophets to purge evil from their communities, hasten each other to good deeds and guard one another from evil. Muslims are warned, through examples of the past, to choose very carefully their leaders because when such elite and rulers begin their mischief, they drag most of the community with them in corruption and lead it to destruction
17:16"And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction".
As happened in the past, the Almighty may punish a whole nation for the crime of a single individual if that whole nation sanctions it, directly or passively. As stated by Ezekiel in his warnings to Israel, the righteousness of the few will not deliver the guilty when the time comes Ezek14:20, although it may delay it Prov28:2. If the efforts of those few righteous remnants fall on deaf ear and that the decreed punishment is if such a scale that even the righteous cannot escape it, their reckoning will be with God, as the prophet stated
"If Allah sends punishment upon a nation then it befalls upon the whole population indiscriminately and then they will be resurrected (and judged) according to their deeds. "
In answer to the video "The Banu Qurayza Massacre (TGP 2)"
The reason why Jews are addressed as monolith, whether in the Quran or their own books and prophets following Moses is that 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 immidiately 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 mentionned 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 iverall 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.
In answer to the video "The Banu Qurayza Massacre (TGP 2)"
The conflict with the Qurayza occured in the context of the momentous battle of the Trench, where Muslims were besieged by the greatest coalition of enemies they had faced until now. Qurayza were the only Jewish tribe still abiding by their covenant with the Muslims until they broke the treaty and joined the pagan ranks, the very people whom Moses and subsequent prophets fought.
This betrayal shook the Prophet greatly as well as the rest of the Muslims, so he sent his companion Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, leader of the Aws and close ally to Banu Qurayzah to confirm the bad news, which he did. With the last Jews joining the pagan ranks, cutting the food supply and threatening the Muslims from within the city, the pagan forces had their moral uplifted.
They prepared an invasion from 3 fronts and it was with reference to this deployment of enemy forces that the Quran said
33:10-13"When they came upon you from above you (the pagans) and from below you (the hypocrites and traitors), and when the eyes turned dull, and the hearts rose up to the throats, and you began to think diverse thoughts of Allah. There the believers were tried and they were shaken with severe shaking. And when the hypocrites and those in whose hearts was a disease began to say: Allah and His Messenger did not promise us (victory) but only to deceive. And when a party of them said: O people of Yathrib! there is no place to stand for you (here), therefore go back; and a party of them asked permission of the prophet, saying: 'Surely our houses are exposed; and they were not exposed.' they only desired to fly away".
The enemy managed to enter through a narrow breach in the trench, and engulfed their men inside but Ali managed to fend off the attack, forcing them to retreat.
The night came and the Prophet asked volunteers to go spy on the enemy and only one stood up, it was Hudhayfah. When he departed, the Prophet made a long cry and prayer to God to protect this man and bring victory over the unbelievers. Hudhayfah came back from the enemy camp unharmed and recounted what he had witnessed: a strong wind came out of nowhere, striking panic among them, blowing away their encampment. The pebbles carried by the wind, forced them to retreat for shelter
"and I heard the clatter of the pebbles against the shields. Abu Sufyan rushed up to his mount and cried out: 'Save yourselves, save yourselves!' Thus the Confederates went away".
This completely frustrated their plans, not only were they unable to pierce the Muslim defense, but in addition had to face a a bitterly-cold storm wind that raged for several days, making life unbearable even for hardened warriors
33:25"And Allah turned back the unbelievers in their rage"
33:9"call to mind the favor of Allah to you when there came down upon you hosts, so We sent against them a strong wind and hosts, that you saw not, and Allah is Seeing what you do".
As happened before when the besieged and starved Israelites and their prophet Elisha, were rescued from the Syrians, by God who terrorized the hearts of their enemies, forcing them to retreat and break the siege, leaving their camps and all belongings intact and for the Israelites to plunder as spoils of war 2Kings6:24-33,7:1-20, the Muslims were freed by divine intervention. They went back next morning to Medina, baffled but joyful at what had happened.
The prophet did not have time to cheer, the angel Gabriel appeared to him telling him to pursue the retreating armies, including those among the People of the Book that supported them. Bani Qurayza were besieged for several war crimes, they did not abide by the Medina covenant saying they had to defend the city against foreign invasion, they in addition provided logistical support to the enemy, participating in the attack against the fortress where Muslim women and children were lodged for safety.
This time God did not side with them as He did in the times of Elisha, He did not break the siege of their enemies; the Muslim siege lasted 25 days without fighting until the Qurayza surrendered. They realized, just as they had deceived the Muslims, the pagans in turn deceived them by not coming to their rescue as promised. This means they didnt surrender out of any change of heart, but because they had no choice
3:111"They shall by no means harm you but with a slight evil; and if they fight with you they shall turn (their) backs to you, then shall they not be helped".
Thus the parable of the 2 sons of Adam was repeating itself 5:27-31. It was recited to the Children of Israel as a warning not to reject and kill their Ishmaelite brothers, out of jealousy that God has now chosen them instead. Just as happened to the one that murdered his brother, they would similarly be thrown into intense remorse and regret. The Israelites plotted against the Ishmaelite prophet for the same reason for which the erring son of Adam had slain his pious brother. They could not see the obvious fact that God withdrew His favor from them and bestowed it upon their more God-conscious brothers, just as Cain's offering was refused for lack of piety while that of the God-fearing Abel was accepted. Instead of considering the matter, and reforming their evil ways, they plotted to kill those whom God had blessed with His favors.
At that point, Ka'b, the leader of the Qurayza, sought the prophet for a lenient verdict. But the prophet refused giving him the benefit of the doubt as he had done with the Jews of the Banu Nadir who were freely left to relocate following their treacheries. The crime of the Qurayza was much more grievous.
He then turned to the tribe of Aws, the former allies of his tribe back in preislamic times. They intervened with the prophet before declaring his verdict, pleading for the lives of the combatants among the Qurayza..
The prophet of God, even though he knew that whatever punishment he would have requested be imposed upon the Qurayza, it would have been unquestionably executed, stepped down from his prerogative, telling the notables of Aws to have their leader issue his own verdict instead. Saad ibn Muaad, the leader of Aws, who was being treated for a severe battle injury, received the notables. They began telling him of their plea to the prophet, reminding him of the preislamic times when Aws and Qurayza were friends and allies, pressuring him for a lenient verdict.
Saad was on his deathbed and about to succumb to his wounds, which he had suffered during the battle against their alliance. He made at that point a decision that disregarded all political wisdom, one that could have otherwise secured his remembrance as a popular leader who heard his people's wishes before breathing his last. His judgement was directly related to the Jews' own ethics of war for national expansion.
That divinely sanctioned option stipulates, in their own scriptures, should a random nation be given the choice of a "peaceful" surrender to the Israelites army, and that this nation accepts, it would result in the enslavement and taxation of its population. Notice here it is speaking of purely arbitrary aggression, not a war in self-defense as was the case with the Muslims against whom the Qurayza had allied at the battle of the Trench earlier. Neither did the prophet arbitrarily choose to go and conquer them, neither did he propose any conditional peace offer. He was going after them to sanction them.
Anyway, Should the randomly chosen nation reject the appealing "peace offer" then it would result in military subjugation with the execution of all adult males, confiscation of all their belongings, as well as capture of their women, children, and livestock Deut20:10-14. Should it be necessary to completely subdue that nation
2Kings3:19"you shall fell every good tree, and you shall stop up all springs of water, and you shall clutter every good field with stones".
This was the case that applied most to the current situation, even though the Qurayza werent a randomly chosen nation, they were a people living in complete and unrestricted freedom according to the "peace offer" that was agreed upon between them and the Muslims. This "peace offer" was not conditional on the enslavement and taxation of their population, as their scriptures allows them doing.
They nevertheless rejected peace, and even though, according to their own war ethics, the only fact of rejecting a non-appealing offer results in complete destruction, in this case they not only rejected a truly appealing peace offer but also fought with the purpose of exterminating those that lived in peace with them.
Even if we just consider these factors, we see that, per their own standards, the punishment to be inflicted should be much higher. But it wasnt. And we're not even getting into the indiscriminate disposessions and massacres of the Canaanites. We're not talking of Joshua and subsequent leaders, down to David who after beating the Moabites, measured them off
"with a line, making them lie down on the ground; and he measured two cord-lengths to put to death, and one full cord-length to keep alive"(2Sam8:2)
and enslaved the remaining population. The prophet did not go to these lowly "divine" standards.
As Saad announced the verdict, the prophet, who knew the divine standard of justice in such cases did not object and said
"You have given the judgement of Allah above the seven heavens".
All adult males suspected of being fighters among the Qurayza were executed. This concerned only those above the age of puberty, meaning fighting children, if there were, could not be subject to law of equal retribution. Others came to the prophet and sought amnesty, which was granted to them based on the fact they hadnt participated in the treachery, had left their stronghold prior to the siege and hadnt fought the encircled Muslims at the trench battle. In some cases the individual amnesty was extended to the close family relations despite them having actively taken part in the anti-Muslim preparations and attacks. These men later converted.
The number of men executed on the other hand varies greatly from one source to another, despite these sources being unreliable to begin with. What is sure is that, there was no "genocide", and certainly not one on the scale of what their own people have done throughout their history. No such "massacre" is spoken of anywhere despite the Quran itself and the Muslim traditions reporting some of the silliest contentions the prophet's enemies had. No such news ever reached the Jewish diaspora with whom the Medina Jews had regular contacts, including those of Syria or Iraq which was the seat of their religious authority at the time.
The cutting down of some of their trees occured prior to the battle. The prophet ordered some of their palm-trees adjacent to their stronghold be felled to incite them to come out and confront the Muslims, seeing some of their most precious trees being destroyed. The Quran describes those trees as "linat" denoting that they were the choicest 59:5. But the treacherous cowards remained behind their fortress until they could not bare the siege anymore.
Saad imposed his judgement just before the wound which he had suffered in his arm during the battle suddenly opened and the blood continued to gush out until he died. The women and children that had now no fathers and husbands were taken as captives, which in Islam implies in no way oppressive slavery. The land was distributed to the Muslims immigrating to Medina, and their wealth shared among all Muslims with one-fifth for public purposes.
Bani Israel were thus once again destroyed through divine punishment for their treachery and transgression, as it happened to them twice before, and on a divinely sanctionned scale far surpassing their punishment at the hands of the Muslims 17:4-8. The Quran prophecises that this threat of destruction will remain hanging above them until the Day of Resurrection 7:167. This severe decree does not contravene God's attribute of forgiveness, since both His punishment and mercy are contingent on the people's behavior
"And when your Lord proclaimed that He would surely send against them, until the day of Resurrection, those who would inflict on them a terrible punishment. Indeed your Lord is swift in retribution, and indeed He is all forgiving, ever merciful".
Abasement and humiliation, as well as insecurity and vulnerability, were stamped upon them wherever they went. This was due to their ungratefulness, transgressions which they persistently and sometimes even provocatively committed throughout their history, from the time they were led out of bondage 2:16,3:112. They were once again engulfed by the divine curse and wrath and whenever they kindled a fire for war after that, Allah put it out
33:26-7"And He drove down those of the followers of the Book who backed them from their fortresses and He cast awe into their hearts; some you killed and you took captive another part. And He made you heirs to their land and their dwellings and their property".
The prophet was at war for over 13 years with various tribes, including other Jews than Bani Qurayza. If he was a war lord that loved blood as the critics claim by raising this incident, then it would be easy to provide evidence for this lust for be-heading and decapitating to establish a precedent. History on the other hand says that Jews continued to live in that region. They should have all fled following the supposed massacres, but didnt. They were only to be expelled many years after the Prophet died, by Umar. They were shifted to other regions within the Peninsula, Tayma and Ariha, and given paid settlements.
The Jews of Khaybar for example, after they had violently attacked a Muslim were exiled and compensated for their lands
"When the people of Khaibar dislocated `Abdullah bin `Umar's hands and feet, `Umar got up delivering a sermon saying, "No doubt, Allah's Messenger made a contract with the Jews concerning their properties, and said to them, 'We allow you (to stand in your land) as long as Allah allows you.' Now `Abdullah bin `Umar went to his land and was attacked at night, and his hands and feet were dislocated, and as we have no enemies there except those Jews, they are our enemies and the only people whom we suspect, I have made up my mind to exile them." When `Umar decided to carry out his decision, a son of Abu Al-Haqiq's came and addressed `Umar, "O chief of the believers, will you exile us although Muhammad allowed us to stay at our places, and made a contract with us about our properties, and accepted the condition of our residence in our land?" `Umar said, "Do you think that I have forgotten the statement of Allah's Messenger, i.e.: What will your condition be when you are expelled from Khaibar and your camel will be carrying you night after night?" The Jew replied, "That was joke from Abul-Qasim." `Umar said, "O the enemy of Allah! You are telling a lie." `Umar then drove them out and paid them the price of their properties in the form of fruits, money, camel saddles and ropes, etc."
Umar was being lenient here, considering that their expulsion was due to them breaching a non-aggression treaty with the Muslims. The prophet therefore could not have ordered their expulsion from the entire peninsula when he said
"I will certainly expel the Jews and Christians from the peninsula until I leave none but Muslims".
That is why the medieval scholars argued that by Arabia, what was meant was the area of the Hijaz. It is well established that when the ancients referred to Arabia, it did not necessarily mean what is understood today as the Arabian Peninsula. The order was specific to the Hijaz, more specifically the southern portion, to secure the establishment of Islam from their proven, unabated hostilities even after the prophet's death. The prophet's foresight proved to be true when he said
"Two deens shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula".
Clearly the prophet's conflict with his Israelites brethren was neither arbitrary or prejudiced. It is also to be noted it is Umar who, upon Jerusalem's conquest, cleaned the garbage dump which Christians purposefully left over the Jewish temple mount. It is Umar who invited 70 Jewish families of a nearby refugee village back into Jerusalem giving them the right to return after centuries of banishment by successive Christian leadership. Many attempts were made to reason and coexist with them.
This is nothing like the 2000 years of humiliating abasement, mass expulsions, rounding up, forced conversions, false accusations and calumnies, extortions and indiscriminate mass killings of Jewish "Christ-killers" by Christians. What is even more disturbing is that this type of behavior was viewed as theologically and eschatologically justified and positive, in the sense that Christians were being "loving" and "charitable" by inciting Jews to be healed from their cursed and harmful faith.
Here is a timeline of Jewish persecution https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/historyjewishpersecution/.
Jewish "persecution" began since before any Temple was standing, such as in ancient Egypt. As already pointed 99% of such persecution as well as the killings from that time till now come from non-Muslims. But what is most important to note is the Jewish persecution and genocides of other people, through divinely ordained commands still applicable and compulsory to this day, as well as the persecution and killing of Jews by Jews throughout their biblical history.
As to recent times, the Arab nations had no "Jewish problem". They've been living side by side with them for centuries, even helped them escape the Nazis, especially in North Africa. Its not German antisemitic propaganda that turned the tide, causing Nazis and Arabs to ally, rather the shared hatred of the colonizers (British, French or Italian) and opposition to fascism and communism. It is known that the Arab elites did not endorse Nazism either, just as Hitler despised the Arabs. The Mufti of Jerusalem on the other hand had a "Jewish problem" (the massive influx of Jews into Palestine in the late 30s), combined with hatred of the British who opposed their nationalism. When Jews were targeted by Arabs in Arab lands, it was to prevent their emigration to Palestine, by sympathizers of the Mufti. There were no genocidal attacks/pogroms except for the event of Baghdad in '41, again in the backdrop of the politics of the time, blaming the Jews for the British invasion (they were seen as allies in relation to Palestine). But the scale of victims and damage to property is widely disputed, and some Iraqis risked their lives to hide Jewish neighbours. Although the authorities did not immediately intervene, they eventually conducted an investigation, even executed army officers. Sure, life for a Jew in Arab lands was sometimes far from perfect, just like Muslim life is far from perfect in Israel (killings, destruction of land and property etc). But how many antisemitic incidents throughout ancient history until the 20th century came from Muslims, and were actually ordered by the authorities (as is done today in Israel)? Compare it to the scale of antimuslim attacks in Israel's short history.
In answer to the video "Was Muhammad a False Prophet?"
And by the way, 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, 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.
It was in the 4th century that Pope Damasus I introduced the 25th of december as the birthday of Jesus (Christmas). In a move to gain the hearts and minds of the Romans, he used the immensely popular ancient mid-winter solstice festival, which lasted for several days and culminated in the feast of 'Brumalia' on December 25th. This major celebration among pagans caused agonies for the Church, and since the early Christians had absolutely no idea of the day, month or even year of Jesus' nativity, it was a relatively easy matter to superimpose a Christian festival on the pagan one.
Easter similarly has its origins in a pagan celebration of nature’s resurrection, with rabbit and eggs symbolizing fertility and renewal. In fact it is well known that pagan Europe, up to the middle ages was undergoing a Christianization of their old rites and customs.
This process facilitated European conversions. One can extend the comparison to some extent in regards to what is celebrated nowadays as the Jewish new year or Rosh Hashanah. Although, as described in Lev23:24 some rituals are to be performed on the first day of Tishrei (actual day of the Jewish new year), none are related to a new year festival. This began in the 2nd Temple period. We don’t know what the religious life of the Jews was like during the Babylonian exile. But we do know that by the time the Jews returned to Israel and marked the beginning of the 2nd Temple period in 516 BCE, Jewish religious practices had profoundly changed compared with the pre-exile era. For one, the names of the months that Jews use to this very day are the Babylonian names. Tishrei for example is a Babylonian month whose name derives from the Akkadian word tishritu - “beginning.” In addition, the Babylonians took their New Year’s Day celebrations very seriously. They called the holiday Akitu (from the Sumerian word for barley) and Resh Shattim, the Akkadian equivalent of the Hebrew Rosh Hashanah. This was celebrated twice a year, at the beginning of Tishrei and the beginning of Nisan, and lasted for 12 days.
Jews absorbed this veneration for the New Year from the Babylonian example. But it was not immediately apparent upon their return – the Jewish rituals, including the ones performed on Rosh Hashanah developed over centuries.
