The cross, which wasnt even a Christian symbol until the 6th century, may or may not be an idol, just as any other entity, abstract or concrete. It all depends on how this entity is perceived by the person. If it is given unwarranted divine power or authority in and of itself, then it becomes an idol, regardless of whether the person intends to worship it as an idol or not.
In fact the Quran repeatedly says how those who associate with Allah anything that has not been given divine sanction and authority such as deities, saints or personalities, religious leaders or their own selves by following ways incited by their own desires 9:31,6:136-9,25:43,36:60,42:21,45:23 are guilty of the sin of associating with God without even knowing it
23:84-9,29:60-65"And if you ask them, Who created the heavens and the earth and made the sun and the moon subservient, they will certainly say, Allah. Whence are they then turned away?"
Islam has no issue with churches. It has even condoned the people's defence of these places of worship throughout the ages, whether synagogues, churches or cloisters, where they should be able to call upon God freely 22:40.
The Quran, 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.
The Quran in 17:8 alludes to a future destruction of the mischief makers among them. They will not constitute the entire world Jewish population but a fraction of it that will believe in the dajjal as their promised messiah (Sahih Muslim 2944). The dajjal is thus the arch-deceiver, not an "anti-christ" although among his actions is that he will oppose the returned Jesus, besides opposing the Mahdi and all those that shall side with him.
As regards that end times figure, the traditions refer to him as the deceiver or the messiah deceiver. Among his recognizable features, of which both the traditions and the Quran warn about, is that he will urge people to believe in him as both God and messiah, waging war and oppression against those that dont
3:79-80"It is not meet for a mortal that Allah should give him the Book and the wisdom and prophethood, then he should say to men: Be my servants rather than Allah's; but rather (he would say): Be worshippers of the Lord because of your teaching the Book and your reading (it yourselves). And neither would he enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lords; what! would he enjoin you with unbelief after you are Muslims?"
He will gain many followers which isnt surprising, given that Christianity's central belief is in a divine messiah who shall return in this world as a warrior figure. They will be the foremost to be deceived. Many details, both in the canonized and apocryphal Christian traditions have circulated, some true others false, some having survived and others disappeared. Among the details that were common in the region of the Levant, was that the dajjal will not step foot in Mecca and Medina, a notion which Tamim addari, a Christian convert later confirmed
" I am going to tell you about myself and I am Dajjal and would be soon permitted to get out and so I shall get out and travel in the land, and will not spare any town where I would not stay for forty nights except Mecca and Medina as these two (places) are prohibited (areas) for me and I would not make an attempt to enter any one of these two. An angel with a sword in his hand would confront me and would bar my way and there would be angels to guard every passage leading to it; then Allah's Messenger striking the pulpit with the help of the end of his staff said: This implies Taiba meaning Medina. Have I not, told you an account (of the Dajjal) like this? 'The people said: Yes, and this account narrated by Tamim Dari was liked by me for it corroborates the account which I gave to you in regard to him (Dajjal) at Medina and Mecca".
Many deceiving messiahs have in fact already appeared, some even claiming divinity, and many more will come
"The Hour shall not be established until nearly thirty imposters, Dajjal appear, each of them claiming that he is the Messenger of Allah".
Every true prophet has warned against such a phenomenon in a different way
"l warn you against him (i.e. the Dajjal) and there was no prophet but warned his nation against him. No doubt, Noah warned his nation against him but I tell you about him something of which no prophet told his nation before me..."
With the issue of Hell and threats, the Quran employs rethorical devices conveying the idea of how no imagination can fathom this reality. The Quran only uses hints, through loan images derived from our wordly experiences, so that we may form an approximate picture of it. These hints are meant at making hell a threat and warning
101:10,104:5,37:62-65,39:16,17:60"a trial for men..and We cause them to fear, but it only adds to their great inordinacy"
74:35-7"Surely it (hell) is one of the gravest (misfortunes), A warning to mortals, To him among you who wishes to go forward or remain behind".
54:4"And there has certainly come to them information that in which there is deterrence".
Many aspects describing hell are said to be a trial and warning. The threat of hellfire, its grafic description throughout the book is actually a mercy from God, akin to those educational programs where inmates are encouraged to speak about the awful places in which they dwell, in order to reform potential criminals or discourage people from making the choices that would lead them there.
It is like a shock therapy meant at breaking stubbornnes and unreasonable denial. Once that is achieved and that the warning is heeded, most will consider honestly listening to the message and ponder upon it.
The Quran was meant for all of mankind and the fact is that the vast majority of humanity will only maintain a good conduct and abide by the rule in the presence of incentives and deterrents. That is how society works or else one would remove all deterrents and simply expect the people to be morally upright. But the Quran does address the fact that some, will seek goodness regardless of rewards and punishments, simply by virtue of their nature and to please their Creator, the doing of good in cases where man has received no benefit. A stage in which a man's nature is so inclined to good that he has not to make an effort for doing good; he does good to all people as an ordinary man does good to his own kindred, looking at the whole comunity as his kindred
16:90"Surely Allah enjoins the doing of justice and the doing of good/ihsan (to others) and the giving to the kindred".
The deterring nature of hellfire as described in the Quran applies to the tree of Zaqqum, emerging from the bottom of hellfire, yielding a type of thorny produce as repulsive as demon heads, tasting like the liquid that results from the washing of the wounds, boiling the belly of those that eat it out of desperation, neither providing with nutrition nor satisfiying the hunger 37:62-66,44:43-45,56:52-3,69:36,88:6.
In contrast, the gardens of heaven shall have all kinds of thornless trees ceaselessly providing every fruit, in abundance, within easy reach 56:28.
2000 years ago if a person had foreknowledge of airplanes, he would describe them to the people through the closest possible references known to their senses such as "big metal bird etc.". The Quran therefore uses parables or allegories to describe things such as the nature of the soul or other subjects unknown to men's senses like the angels, the process of revelation, the pleasures of Paradise, the sufferings of Hell and so on.
All these concepts are beyond our knowledge and observation; words have not yet been invented for them and their true meaning, shape or form are known only to God until the day we come face to face with such concepts and experience them. Hence the frequent rethorical question as to mankind's present inability to clearly picture what is in store in Hell 74:27.
It is also interesting to note that the physical state of the dwellers of Hell, the form in which they shall be made is itself an alegory
87:13"And he will neither die therein nor live".
How does one who is in a state between life and death, physically experience the pain and suffering of hell? How does that special type of fire of which no human has any experience, a
104:6"fire kindled by God"
and
104:7"rising above the hearts"
be the means by which punishement will be inflicted? Many factors of that otherwordly realm are left in purposeful ambiguity because beyond human imagination. Sometimes when it gives a partial glimpse of hell punishments, it follows up by a vague statement about there being other similar ordeals in that place 38:55-8.
It is to be noted, physical pain isnt the sole corresponding chastisement of the dwellers of hell. Their sins did not only cause physical injury to their victims, but also emotional, spiritual, etc. Thus, while undergoing this harsh but necessary process of "spiritual cleansing", the dwellers of hell will be made to experience many different types and combinations of sufferings, all related to their worldy deeds and the effects they had on themselves and their environement, from humiliation 46:20 to spiritual frustration to distancing from God's mercy/laan to physical torture. In fact it says clearly that the primary reason for them begging to come out of hell isnt physical pain, but grief 22:22. In the end, they will be purged of their sins and then their ultimate fate is left to God. In 85:10 for example it speaks of the punishement in hell as seperate from the punishement by the fire. The flames and its related punishments are said to be meant for the worst of the disbelievers, again, showing that not all sins require the same types of "cleansing method" 92:14-15.
Let us start with the issue of women covering up, although not explicitly referred in that youtuber's video. This issue is present in both the Quran and Christian scriptures
1Cor11:6"For if a woman will not veil herself then she should cut off her hair, but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil...for man was not created from woman but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man".
The HB states in addition, an indiscrete woman, regardless of her physical beauty and attire is as disfigured as a swine with a golden ring around its snout Prov11:22.
The code of interaction between opposite genders in the Quran isnt meant at discouraging or prohibiting it at all. The prophet's own wives interacted with visitors on a daily basis seeking their religious counsel. What the Quran does, as with every aspect of human life, is to infuse it with God-consciousness so as to elevate the human being above the mere animalistic, material aspect of his existence. The Quran injects intergender interaction with modesty, chastity pragmatic caution that is beneficial both for the person itself and society at large.
For example it is disallowed to greet the opposite gender through physical contact (handshake or kiss) instead of reciprocal smiles, good words and courteous gestures. This is clear through the wording
24:30-31"yaghuddun min absarihim/to cast down of/from their look".
Its not saying to avoid looking altogether but to avoid staring, men and women alike. Looking at oneanother for a legitimate need like communication or identification does not constitute unhealthy staring with lustful motives. Neither is physical contact forbidden in the absolute sense, as the prophet would not take his hand away from a slave girl seeking his help and comfort
"Any of the female slaves of Medina could take hold of the hand of Allah's Messenger and take him wherever she wished".
As can be seen, the Quran in intergender relationships focuses on self-restraint. This is not an unrealistic demand that suppresses or prevents social development. On the contrary it gives it a healthy turn, reducing the chance for misplaced thoughts and misunderstandings, as is so common in any culture when opposite genders interact.
The verse sets a standard for Muslim men and women, starting from the first contact which is visual, telling them both to approach the opposite gender with the correct mindframe, regardless of the person's suggestive or explicit behavior towards them. This not only helps the person itself to keep his morality in check, but also sends the right signal to the other person who is in turn morally stimulated in case of misbehavior.
The Islamic dresscode has the same twofold purpose, it conditions the person wearing modest clothing to adopt a healthy attitude when about to go in public, as well as sends a healthy signal to other people who are in turn influenced to modify their own behavior when interacting with the opposite gender. Women in addition, because they tend to wear ornaments, are told to put an additional level of caution
“They should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments”24:31.
The dangers to the general atmosphere of chastity in any society, in any culture, are very real and observable nowadays as it was case throughout times past, whenever these elementary rules of opposite gender interaction are neglected. The prophet even refered to as devils those women who arouse sexual attraction through their misbehavior
"Allah’s Messenger – may peace be upon him – saw a woman, then he came to his wife, Zainab, who was tanning leather, and fulfilled his desire, then he went out to his Companions and said: “A woman comes in the form of a devil and goes in the form of a devil. If one of you sees a woman, let him go to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart".
In Arabic the word for devil can be used for any entity that causes evil. As noted by the scholars of hadith, this narration is speaking of women dressed inappropriately in the public space. During the advent of Islam, more specifically in Medina where the hadith is supposed to have been spoken, sexual promiscuity and prostitution were known features of that society.
It is ironic that Christians "haters of the flesh" and anything sexual, often raise this issue to undermine the prophet's credibility. As if the embodiment of piety, as reflected by their priests who cannot marry, is the one who denies himself the pleasures of the flesh, regardless of it being legitimate or not. They forget what is stated in their own books as regards the 50 year old prophet David who murders a brave soldier to satisfy his uncontrollable lust towards the married Batsheba (younger than 10 in Jewish tradition). The incident did not reduce an iota of his truthfulness as a prophet of YHWH. Far from behaving in such a shameful manner as described by the lying pens of Israel, the prophet Muhammad provides the most rational and upright manner to satisfy one's natural urges. Not through murders, rape or adultery but by coming together with one's own wife.
Notice also the contrast between David's incident and the one in the hadith; Batsheba did not purposefully provoke David's lust but was simply making her toilet in her private area while the hadith talks of unchaste women in public provoking men. The dress code isnt only meant for women, but both both men and women whenever opposite sexes outside the familiar circle interact 24:30-31. The Quran uses Khumur and Julbab, a kind of head covering, for the woman's clothing 33:59. Far from being a form of subjugation rather it is the degradation of women judged on their looks and overexposed physically, in the Western media which is a form of subordination to the lust of men, and insulting to women. As said earlier, the hijab conditions both men and women to adopt a proper inter gender attitude, leading even those that tend to be abusive among the men, those who do not, as per the passage's instruction, lower FROM their gaze, to regard women in a dignified manner and value them for their character, intelligence, moral qualities
“That they should be known as such and not molested”33:59.
For the woman, and the men too whom the Quran commands to dress with modesty, the adoption of such a dress code leads to more positive body image, less reliance on media messages about beauty ideals, and appearance than those who do not. Again, to emphasize the fact women, regardless of their suggestive or explicit behavior, their respect or not of the Islamic dress code, are not to be looked at in a lustful manner, men are to
24:30"cast down from their looks"
as well as
"guard their modesty".
This injunction comes before addressing even the issue of wearing the hijab. This puts first the responsibility on men and how they must behave towards women
"The Prophet said, 'Beware! Avoid sitting on the roads." They (the people) said, "O Allah s Apostle! We can't help sitting (on the roads) as these are (our places) here we have talks." The Prophet said, ' l f you refuse but to sit, then pay the road its right ' They said, "What is the right of the road, O Allah's Apostle?" He said, 'Lowering your gaze, refraining from harming others, returning greeting, and enjoining what is good, and forbidding what is evil".
Notice once more the realism of the Quran; it emphasizes lowering the gaze when addressing men, regardless of what the woman is wearing, because naturally, a woman's attractiveness is primarily in her physical features. But of course, not all men abide by this ordinance and thus to further protect women in the public sphere, it tells them to observe a modest and covered dresscode. Men too should dress modestly, but men do not need to go to the extent of wearing a head cover so as to avoid lecherous staring. Contrary to women, male attractiveness is not primarily in his physical features, but in his status, wealth, ambition, capacity to provide protection etc.
There is a reason why even modern secular societies, which do not impose modesty and censorship in interaction between the genders and who in consequence experience tension, including harassments, as well as clashes between sexes are resorting more and more to physical separations between the 2 in the public sphere. These rules of modesty apply across the social spectrum, to both free people and slaves who adopt Islam as their religion, and who, through their code of living signal to the outside world that they are not open to indecency. Nothing in the Quran's wording indicates an exemption of the rules of modesty for any member of the Muslim community, men or women. In the prophet's time, war prisoners, including women were non-Muslims in the vast majority of cases and so were not required to wear and follow the Islamic code against their will. There were also Muslim servants of course who, of convenience were exempt from covering their head as they went about doing their work in and out of the house, which obviously entailed being frequently seen by men. This however left them vulnerable to molestation by the hypocrites and the non-Muslims of Medina who didnt abide by the rules of lowering their gaze and avoiding unnecessary gender interaction. Regular Muslim women were obligated to observe the dresscode, screening their appearance. This constitutes an advantage in such mischievous atmosphere, as it dissuades lechery but at the end, regardless of a woman's attire, if a man is bent on acting inappropriately towards women and disregard the prescribed code of conduct, he will still abuse any type of woman he comes across. When commentators spoke of the female dresscode as a means by which free and slave women were separated, they were stating a fact related to how such society worked as described earlier. None of them said that Muslim slave women were generally forbidden or exempt from the same dresscode as regular Muslim women. Commenting on 33:59 ibn Hazm writes
"The nakedness of a woman is her entire body excluding the face and palms only. The free man and male servant, the free woman and maidservant are equal in this respect; there is no difference… As for differentiating between the free woman and maidservant, then the religion of Allah Almighty is one, creation and nature are one. All of that in respect to free women and maidservants is the same, unless there is an explicit text to distinguish between them in any way such that it can be applied".
This view is the default one in accordance with the wording of the Quran. Later jurists, to accommodate their leaders and environments used precedents from the time of the prophet and the companions to allow more flexibility in regards the dresscode of the servants. The accommodation most in line with the prophet's time was to allow women servants to unveil their hair and other minor body parts during their household activities. Just as mistresses are allowed, in the Quran itself 24:31 and for convenient reasons to unveil in front of their male servants
"The Prophet brought Fatimah a slave which he donated to her. Fatimah wore a garment which, when she covered her head, did not reach her feet, and when she covered her feet by it, that garment did not reach her head. When the Prophet saw her struggle, he said: There is no harm to you: Here is only your father and slave".
No prophetic precedent exists however for the practice of letting slaves show their naked breasts, chests, or backs in public. And this, despite the prophet having several of those servant girls helping around his wives, just as many Muslim households had. Had there been a clear precedent, or that the Quran allowed it, Imam Malik ibn Anas wouldnt have publicly revolted against the practice in Medina to the point he asked the caliph to prevent it. As other schools of law had already allowed it, the caliph did not go against it. The jurists that came after the time of the companions, pushed these rulings of convenience to unhealthy extents, as seen with imam Malik's disapproval. But it seems the jurists themselves felt the need to introduce a caveat, as noted by ibn Taymiyya
"Slave women during the Prophet’s time didn't use to cover themselves like free women, while their chances of spreading Fitna were less, and their ruling was like of the old women who didn’t need to take Hijab as Quran said in verse 60 of Surah Noor. But as far as the beautiful Turkish slave women of today are concerned, then they could not be compared with the slave women of the time of prophet Muhammad. These beautiful Turkish slave women should thus cover whole of their bodies and to safeguard themselves from the eyes of men".
Ibn Umar's "inspection" of slave girls at the market, as he put his hand in between their breasts and the area of their lower hips, was done above their clothes. Although this practice, which never occurred in the prophet's time or that of the companions is certainly questionable, it was obviously not done with sexual motive; it was done over the clothes and not directly on the breasts themselves. Slaves were seen as a commodity which had to be physically inspected by the buyer. As stated by ibn Taymiyyah
"The default position is that the nakedness of a maidservant is like a free woman, just as the nakedness of a male servant is like a free man. When she takes on an occupation and duties, her prohibitions are reduced in comparison to a free woman, as a concession to her in showing only what needs to be shown… As for the back and chest, it remains in the default position".
The misunderstood notion that slave girls were totally exempt from wearing the veil, and even forbidden from doing so is unfounded in the Quran, in the practice of the prophet and his companions. What one may find at most is a disputed statement showing Umar, during his caliphate, forbidding a slave girl from covering her head. This could have been to differentiate her as a servant inside the household, in which the incident occurred and where guests were received. Due to a servant's function of attending the guests and household chores, the ample Julbab would have been inconvenient, and hence the exemption from wearing it. This means the servants were now wearing clothes more revealing of their body features, not because these features were openly exposed but because their clothes were closer to the body to allow better movements
"Anas bin Malik said: “The servants of Umar, may God be pleased with him, served us, revealing their hair, and their breasts were moving".
A point to note is that Umar only requested his servant woman's head be uncovered and no other body part, neither did he make a general statement about slave women. Also, having female servants dressed for their work does not entail the Muslim guests are allowed to transgress the command of lowering their gaze, ie looking beyond what is necessary, which applies to all situations beyond their wives and own servants. Ibn Taymiyyah continues elsewhere
"As for attractive Turkish maidservants, this cannot possibly be as it was in the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. It is an obligation for them to cover their whole bodies from being looked at".
Anything in the traditions or history books describing a different practice is either unreliable, or coming from a foreign culture which was included in the Islamic empire.
It would be appropriate here to further elaborate on 3:93, which addresses the issue of negation of abrogation by the Jews.
The Torah is in fact an example of abrogation in and of itself, forbidding certain foods that were allowed before, placing restrictions in situations where there were none. The verse states that among the Israelite prophets that preceded Moses and the Torah, only Jacob/Israel had forbidden to himself certain foods. Tradition tells us it was the choicest of meats for an Egyptian, that of camels, as a testimony of his gratitude to God for having healed his sickness. It could also be referring to other kinds of food for health or personal taste reasons. Although it wasnt requested from them, the Israelites, who wanted to emulate the prophet Jacob kept on forbidding themselves these foods. But every other food was allowed to them, including the very ones Jacob had disallowed for himself, before the revelation of the Torah.
When Revelation later came to Moses, God abrogated this principle. Certain foods were forbidden, either as a burden placed on them specifically because of their sins as already stated above, or as an everlasting ordinance, as in the case of pork meat for instance 6:146.
This reality strikes at the heart of a matter which the followers of previous scriptures, more specifically the Jews during the advent of Islam and even up to this day, could not admit; the issue of abrogation of a previous divine system by the very One who first decreed it. That is why they are then told to bring the scriptural proof for their claim that the dietary requirements of the Mosaic law preceded the Torah, and since they obviously couldnt, then it means God did in fact, through the Torah, abolish a previous system He had validated for them and their forefather Abraham whose way was now being restored in front of their eyes
3:93-5"All food was lawful to the children of Israel except that which Israel had forbidden to himself, before the Taurat was revealed. Say: Bring then the Taurat and read it, if you are truthful. Then whoever fabricates a lie against Allah after this, these it is that are the unjust. Say: Allah has spoken the truth, therefore follow the religion of Ibrahim, the upright one; and he was not one of the polytheists".
This is part of a wider passage similarly admonishing the Jews for their blind dogmatism and stubborn denial of various aspects of the truth, despite the clear arguments and signs presented to them.
In 2:106 the Quran adresses the followers of previous scriptures, summing up this principle of superseding divine revelations, making it clear to them that
13:38"For every term there is a book"
and
5:48"for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way"
22:67"therefore they should not dispute with you about the matter and call to your Lord; most surely you are on a right way"
and that
13:39"Allah makes to pass away and establishes what He pleases"
and all is done according to established heavenly and unchanging principles present with God
"and with Him is the basis of the Book"
Who did not create the universe but
46:3"with truth and (for) an appointed term".
2:106 comes in a context where they are being admonished for their history of carelesness towards their revealed Books and their refusal to accept a new revelation. Their refusal being primarily rooted in it being bestowed on someone outside of their fold. It tells them the Quran has now superseded the previous revelations by abrogating them in part through the modification of previous laws that were either meant as a punishement for their transgressions, or were more applicable for the age. In the words of the Quran "better", and as for those that were just as applicable for the age, but forgotten by the People of the Book, God introduced something similar, or in the words of the Quran, "or the like thereof".
The act of forgetfulness is attributed to God in the same way is the "sealing of the hearts". God has allowed it to happen as a result of the carelessness of the People of the Book who besides their going astray into the ways of polytheism as attested in their scriptures, had grown so indifferent to the Torah that we read various incidents in their history and recorded in their books that attest to them having lost knowledge not only of the contents of their books, but also of their whereabouts. This is not to speak even of the complete erasure of their memory of the location of the mountain where they had collectively witnessed the most extraordinary miracles and were collectively made to live the prophetic experience.
What this means is that one is not losing anything from following the new revelation of God, contrary to the mindless ranting of the People of the Book. In fact, God has granted something better and revived what has been forgotten through the Quran.
Allah has not ordained a soulless sharia concerned only with the body of deeds.
The Quran constantly parallels internal with external purity, discussing issues of social laws side by side with laws of worship. Muslims are warned not to fall into the error of those before them, who neglected the spirit of the Sharia for soulless external rituals and subjective legal hair-splittings. Allah has restored the Sharia to its original simplicity in order to lighten our burdens 2:286,4:27-8 because
"man is created weak".
This means man's weakness is due to the fact that he cannot by himself find the true path, he is in need of Allah's guidance. That is why the preceding verses speak of Allah's will to guide mankind, turn to us mercifully and lighten our burdens. 2:286 also implies that Allah could burden mankind with a difficult Sharia as a form of punishment as was done with the Israelites and as plainly stated in the book of Ezekiel quoted above. When we create an innovation and complicate the Sharia on ourselves, then we will charge ourselves with greater burdens than God asked of us. God allows this to happen as a form of punishment.
What Allah demands from us is not unreachable and He does not impose what is beyond our power and understanding. This is why Allah expects us to answer the call of religion with
2:285"We hear and obey".
It is an unconditional declaration of faith and obedience to a system which is not meant, as already said, at narrowing down man's feel of life through ethical discipline and other teachings of the Quran but on the contrary, to enhance it by deepening his consciousness of right and wrong 20:2.
It is important to note here that the core tenets of religion have always remained unchanged and shall remain so; however, as far as the rituals and customs are concerned, God has prescribed them separately and differently in the course of human history. They are trials to determine who turns away from the truth by showing bias and prejudice to these rituals and customs and who becomes the real seeker of the truth and accepts them in every form that they come to them from God and His prophets. This is precisely why the Quran often states that the people, regardless of their chosen spiritual ways will be judged according to their faithfulness in abiding by these core tenets
22:17,5:48"and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed".
That 16:101 is speaking of the previous scriptures can also be inferred from 16:103 where the person pointed to as the probable secret teacher of the prophet was suspected of teaching him the stories of the Bible as reported in the traditions.
Islamic dietary laws are actually simple and wrapped in the principle that an upright, God-conscious being, is aware of the higher realities in all situations, even when feeding himself, contrary to
47:12"those who disbelieve enjoy themselves and eat as the beasts eat".
Allah did not burden mankind with an unrealistic system destined at obstructing human spiritual development rather at elevating humans above their mere materiality. Whenever the divine law became complicated, it was on account of the people's own disobedience. For instance most of the mosaic laws is either due to self imposed restrictions because of the Jews' well known hairsplitting of the law, or punishments for their disobedience. Islam is the path of Ibrahim, who was neither a Jew, a Christian, nor a polytheist, but one who submitted unto Allah. The Quran never tells the prophet and the Muslims to follow the ways of Moses, Solomon, or Jesus, as they were bound by a law meant for a different people. The whole passage speaking of replacement of an aya with another stresses that the prophethood of Muhammad supersedes the previous systems, including dietary and ritualistic with the example of the sabbath 16:124 and returns the divine system to its original simplicity as was taught to Abraham. The Quran confirming the Torah doesnt entail being bound by its law. Rather it confirms all its truthful statements, including what is found in the Torah itself about the Mosaic law being meant for the Jewish people only, as part of a conditional covenant. This covenant was eventually revoked.
The verse 16:101 reports the people's opposition to changes made by the prophet. The people who are objecting in 16:101 must have precise reference points to know that a newly revealed verse changed a previous one. The type of objection quoted in the verse, open and public negation of prophethood, cannot be referring to Muslims, who would never think their prophet was the Quran's author, nor to the pagans who, despite being convinced he authored it, either through sorcery, jinn possession or with the help of informants, only had a generic knowledge of the Quran's contents. They could not have precise reference points so as to detect a change. This leaves those among the people of the book who both rejected Muhammad's prophethood openly, and had precise reference points so as to detect the changes brought about by new verses. Their reference point was not the Quran which they didnt give much attention to besides for the gist of the prophet's message. The reference was their own scripture. They knew that verses from the Quran, when they heard them, replaced some of those in their hands. This was the main contention they had towards the prophet, the superseding of their scriptures with the Quran, as they still object to this day, in light of the warning in their books that they should Deut13"keep the commandments" if they are told to do otherwise.
A few verses down after mentioning the very basic dietary laws, the Quran refers to the more complex dietary laws of the people of the Book.
This anticipates the objection about God's revealing different sets of dietary laws at different times 16:114-124. So the Quran specifies that these prohibitions, whether the dietary ones or others pertaining to different aspects of their lives, were either the result of divine chastisement for their rebellion, or because of self-imposed restrictions 3:93,4:160-1,6:146,16:118.
The words THULM and BAGHI used in 4:160,6:146 convey the sense of foolish actions, as in transgressions, while thulm has the wider meaning of "misplacing right and wrong". This may happen through direct rebellion or by making things forbidden on oneself by neglecting some teachings and stressing other, hairsplitting conjecture or irrational requests for clarifications to broad and simple directives.
The Quran relates an occasion where, due to their arrogance the religion became a burden on them. Their lack of obedience and will to bend to God's will, or "stiff-necked" as Moses and other prophets labelled them collectively in their scriptures, is demonstrated in 2:67-73. During the incident, they were offensive towards their prophet, accusing him of ridiculing them when he simply conveyed God's command. They had to sacrifice any cow in a ritual that would clarify the confusing circumstances of a murder. They went on asking Moses that he might ask "his lord" as though He was not their Lord, for more and more particulars regarding cow to be sacrificed. After ridiculing their prophet, discrediting God's answers to their demands as unclear because
"to us the cows are all alike",
they finally reluctantly agreed to perform the ritual.
This attitude of obscuring a simple religious directive is not restricted to this particular ordinance. They have done the same in other circumstances and for different reasons, and so God gave them free rein in forging their own laws. This resulted in them following their base desires and idolatrous tendencies
Ezek20:25-26: “Moreover, I gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live. When they passed every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts — that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am the Lord”.
God therefore shackled the rebellious souls of this "stiffed necked" nation with a law, the Torah, that would illuminate their way and lead them to the straight path. Their rebellious nature however took the upper hand, as it did even while Moses was among them performing miracles for all to see. Instead of humbling their selves, gratefully abiding by these directives meant for their own good, as David understood and did Ps19, they progressively took control of the laws, making their application only secondary to the man made practices that "validate them". Their ritualistic obsessions and hairsplitting conjectures basically turned the Divine law into a man made one. And this is another form of idolatry and God let them follow that path as a punishment, as He is described doing in Ezekiel, even letting them enshrine some of those laws in the written Torah. Divine law should instead be agreeable to the human soul, and if its recipients are mature and obedient, which was overwhelmingly not the case of the Israelites in their history, then it should make room for the evolving circumstances of the world. This adaptability however can never compromise the original spiritual principle and intent. This nature and purpose of the Mosaic law was rightly observed since the earliest days of Judeo-christian internal debates. In his dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr cites every aspect of the law, including the institution of sacrifice and observance of Sabbath, as burdens forced upon the Jews to contain their tendency to disobedience
"Wherefore, God, adapting His laws to that weak people, ordered you to offer sacrifices to His name, in order to save you from idolatry, but you did not obey even then, for you did not hesitate to sacrifice your children to the demons. Moreover, the observance of the sabbaths was imposed upon you by God so that you would be forced to remember Him, as He Himself said, ‘That you may know that I am God your Savior’ [Ezk 20.20]".
The Mosaic law in most part did not originate at Sinai but progressively came on the Israelites to contain their repeated disobedience and punish their endless conjectures on clear instructions. Many were then retrospectively painted as revealed to Moses since the beginning, and for different reasons. The Sabbath became a day of rest that mimics God's resting from creation Gen2,Ex20,31. Another passage gives a profoundly different reason for Sabbath. It is a remembrance of Egyptian bondage Deut5. This shows the confused manner in which tradition was transmitted prior to being written down.
The conjectures of their law books, obtained through subjective methods of deduction and then put forward as God's ordinances, reached such proportions that in the words of Rashi the famous rabbi and Torah exegete, in reference to the rabbinic disagreements during the era of Hillel and Shammai
“Since the students of Hillel and Shammai fought, there have been many disagreements about Torah to the point that it has become as two separate teachings for all the burdens of subjugation to the Heavens and edicts which they placed upon the Torah” (Bava Metzia 33b).
Put briefly, the creators of the Oral Torah (the sages of the Mishnah and the Talmud) completely ignored the laws of the (Written) Torah, only using them as a convenient framework within which to legislate laws adapted to their own time. These ideas are expressed in the Talmud/Oral Torah, considered as God-given and revealed as the written Torah of Moses is. Their known soulless interpretations and conjectures caused them to create insurmountable legal criteria.
For example some purity rituals must be fulfilled before or just at the start of the Messianic era, but the preconditions are impossible to achieve due to the supposed impurity of the entire community. There is also the sacrifice of a "red heifer" whom none has been able to breed and raise yet, despite the continuous attempts up to this day. It is said that even Solomon, the wisest of all men, tried throughout his life to understand the matter of the red heifer and did not succeed. Despite God punishing them in this manner, letting them complicate the law further upon themselves, so as to wake them up to their degenerate condition, they instead remained stiff necked and disobedient. They are still nowadays elaborating further upon these legal conjectures of their forefathers. Consequently, the Quran alludes to the spiritual barrenness of their hearts through the simile of dry rocks and even harder because
2:74"there are some rocks from which streams burst forth".
Their hard heartedness is a recurrent theme and accusation in their own Books Ezek3:7,Jer5:3etc.
Because these restrictions came either in direct consequence of their sins, so they could not have been intended for a righteous community, or were self-imposed meaning against the original intent, then it was one of the prophet's mission with the Quran to promulgate laws adapted to a new, upright nation that would be a torch bearer of the truth to the world. This is the Quran, making
7:157"lawful to them the good things and makes unlawful to them impure things, and removes from them their burden and the shackles which were upon them".
Now that God's Law has achieved its final and universal character, it has been restored to its original simplicity, as close as it had ever been to the way of Abraham who was neither Jew nor Christian nor a polytheist. God does not burden an obedient people with difficulties they cannot bear
2:286,23:62"And we do not lay on any soul a burden except to the extent of its ability, and with Us is a book which speaks the Truth, and they shall not be dealt with unjustly".
This covers that the divine law cannot be burdensome in and of itself, but also that it may not make the particular circumstances of an individual even harsher and unbearable than they already are. For example forcing a sick person to fast for a month. The religion of Allah is not a burden, and neither is the set of ethical discipline it imposes upon man meant at narrowing down his feel of life 20:2, it rather is meant at enhancing it by deepening his consciousness of right and wrong. It is a blessing meant at purifying mankind or as the Quran says when speaking of the objective of religion being for spiritual tazkiya/purging. Allah calls it His favor and grace
4:113,5:3,2:231"and remember the favor of Allah upon you, and that which He has revealed to you of the Book and the Wisdom".
Here, this favor is described as being in the Book and the Wisdom referring to the body and soul of the Sharia respectively, to its commandments and their philosophy. This phrase is often used to connote the fact that God's guidance is perfectly balanced between both these aspects.
There is plenty of Music in Islam, more than in any other religion. Adhan is music, just as the melodious recitation of the Quran, regardless of anyone's personal tastes. That is why there are many different kinds of reciting methods and tones of voices.
Of course, Islam doesnt tolerate music that degrades the human soul and incites dark desires and debauchery. It is interesting to note how in the HB, a contrast is made between music destined to praise God, as in David's case, and the kind of music that is condemned, when devoid of any true spirituality
Amos6:5"Who sing according to the tone of the lute. They thought that their musical instruments were like [those of] David".
Not all music is therefore designated as evil. Similarily, Islam doesnt condemn all poetry.
In 26:224-226 for example it singles out, a group among the poets. In pre-islamic times certain poems were instruments of evil and wickedness. Before and during the advent if Islam, poets posted their sexually explicit verses on the walls of the Kaaba. They were highly revered and believed to be under the power of jinns. This type of poetry darkened the people's emotions and intellects, instigated wars and hatred among different parties who otherwise would not have even fought eachother on the battlefield.
A hadith often gladly picked up by the non-educated Islam critics on that issue is the one saying the
"bell is the musical instrument of the Satan".
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 suggested using bells at first to signal the arrival of the time of prayer, showing that bells arent always associated with evil.
Eventually someone was designated to vocally call the people to prayer.
In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."
To reconcile Jesus' and his early followers' stance with Paul's and theirs as regards to Jewish laws, Christians today attempt word acrobatics to equate on one hand, "the Law of the Lord" with the so called "Ten Commandments", and on the other hand, the "moral laws" or the "Law of Moses" with the now obsolete "ceremonial law" (ie the remaining 603 laws of the Torah). However what these Christians want to classify as "ceremonial law", the obsolete 603 mosaic laws according to Paul, is called "the Law of the Lord" many times Ex13:7-9,1Chron16:40,2Chron31:3-4 as well as in Nehemiah8:1,8,14 -in conjonction with Lev23:33-36-. Not only that but the "Law of Moses" and the "Law of the Lord" are used to refer to the same books.
Even Jesus in Matt12:5 refers to the ceremonial law as "the Law" because he considered the Mosaic Law to be one inseparable unit. He equated what Christians call Moses' "ceremonial law" with "the law of the Lord" numerous times Luke2:22-24,39. When he was asked which of the commandments was the greatest he quoted two commandments neither of which were from the so-called "Ten Commandments" Matt22:34-40 but from what Christians want to differentiate as Moses' "ceremonial law" Deut6:5,Lev19:18. It is obvious that the Bible never even once makes any distinction in terms of the Law between the moral (which Christians want to be so-called 10 commandements) and the ceremonial.
On the contrary the 613 laws are always viewed as one unit. For example Deut4:44-45 speaking of "the law", ie all 613 laws not just the so called 10 commandements. Same thing for Josh8:34-35,1Kings 2:3,Micah4:2,Lev18:5,24:22,Deut4:1,5,8,6:25,31:12-13,2Kings17:3,21:8, 23:25,1Chron16:40,Ezra7:6,Ps78:5,119:1,55,108,137,174,147:20,Prov31:4-5, Isa5:24,Jere18:18,Lam2:9,Ezek7:26,Hosea4:6,Amos2:4,Hab1:4, Zeph3:4,Zech7:12,Mal2:9,Mk15:31,Jn1:17,Acts13:39,Gal3:10,Eph2:14-15,1Tim1:7-8,Titus3:9,Heb10:28,James2:10.
Even the word "law" (Torah in Hebrew and Nomos in the Greek) when applied to the entire corpus of laws of the Torah is always singular even though it contains 613 separate commandments. Finally, Deut27 curses the one who does not live by the divine law. Yet we have Paul in places like Gal3:10 painting it as a curse which Jesus' death now retrospectively freed the world from. But the world in the first place isnt even concerned by this law, only the Jews were, and still are, concerned by it. This negative, completely misconstrued view of the mosaic law is of course in disregards of statements such as Deut30:10-14 where the entire Law is said to be at anyone's reach, of Ps119:1 stating that
"Praiseworthy are those whose way is perfect, who walk with the law of the Lord"
and Job37:23 which does not expect people to be perfectly righteous in Torah observance. In fact even the NT contains similar statements, as in Lk1:6 where John's parents are upright in God's sight, observing all commandements blamelessly.
This is the way of God and is reflected not only in the earlier revelations, but down to the Quran as well
2:220"And had God so willed, He would indeed have imposed on you hardships which you would not have been able to bear, but behold, God is almighty, wise".
The sharia/law of God is and has always been intended to be simple and straightforward, adapted to man's nature, extreme circumstances and exceptions, and above all it is the means by which one is spiritually purified 2:185,5:6,22:78. Whenever the religion became complicated, it was either because of man-made additions to it, or as a punishement.
Today's Christians pick and choose which laws are still aplicable to them while all of them, including the so-called 10 laws, were revealed at Sinai. But being non-Jews, they are not obliged to follow the Law in the first place, yet still declare that Jesus' sacrifice is the only thing that saved them from it (the law that God Himself obliged). Being that God is the source of the very laws they condemn, the "mercy" of Jesus "fulfilling" the law by "breaking" it, came after the generations upon generations of oppression by that very same God's demand that His law be upheld and fulfilled.
Through a concise statement, the Quran explains the mutual relationship between the Torah and the Gospel; they complete one another by centering the attention on the wisdom and spirit of every aspect of God's Laws so that they do not end up as something lifeless and burdensome for the people
3:48-50"And He will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Tawrat and the Injeel..And a verifier of that which is before me of the Taurat and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord therefore be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me".
By the beginning of the 1st century Judaism was a sterile, lifeless organism, waiting to be infused with a spirituality that only Jesus could provide.
Jesus repeatedly condemned those traditions in the NT, denounced the Jews and their leaders as "hypocrites" and told the people to beware of these "teachers of law" for their soulless traditions, and "children of the Devil" because of their claim of inherited righteousness through their affiliation to Abraham Jn8:37-44.
Not in one single instance within the whole NT is it reported that Jesus said that the law of Moses needs to be abandoned, contrary to Paul who besides stating it was a curse Gal3:13 given not by God but by angels Gal3:19-25,Heb2:2 declared it obsolete Rom3:20,7:4,10:4,Heb8:13,Gal2:21,3:23-25,4:21-31,5:1,Eph2:15 even describing his former Jewish beliefs as worthless, rejecting his former Jewishness by warning of Jewish dogs saying in the original Greek
Phil3:2-8"I consider them excrement".
He told people he was seeking to convert, that they were now under the vague 'law of Christ'. Jesus himself never alludes to such law, hence it being unknown to any of those who met and followed him and respected all Jewish laws to the letter as per his actual instructions. That law of christ, tailored so as to apeal to Paul's mainly pagan audience, has removed the old burden from mankind 1Corin9:21,Gal6:2. He sometimes paid lip service to the Law if the situation or audience required a show of obedience to the law Acts21:20-26 but immidiately denounced the likes of James and Peter for telling the Gentiles to follow the law Gal2, evidently because it attracted less converts.
As regards Matt26:28 and elsewhere where it is believed Jesus declared the ushering of a "new" covenant
"This is my blood of the new covenant",
some manuscripts have "new" others dont and even if we go with the former translations, there is still the problem of Jesus allegedly ushering in a new covenant yet he specifically told his followers to abide by the Law or what Paul refered to as the Old covenant, which Jesus called "the way" and upheld to the letter. Where did Jesus say the Law of Moses would become "old" and needed to be abandonned subsequently to his alleged sacrifice? In fact, we find in the Gospels Jesus invoking the Torah when arguing with the religious elite because Jesus' mission was exposing the Pharisees for their hypocritical and rigid application of the Torah, not to abolish it. He gives the example of David who worked on the Sabbath, driven by necessity to eat food Matt12:1-8,1Sam21:1-6. He was this way upholding the spirit of the Law because saving a life is lawful on the Sabbath per the Torah Mk3:4 hence his quoting from
Hosea6:6"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice".
The Rabbis knew and understood this, that is why they couldn't answer as there was no violation of the Law. Similarly when he was accused of breaking the Sabbath because he healed the sick, what he was actually doing once again is exposing their rigid and soulless outlook of the religion. He took advantage of that situation to infuse the law with its lost wisdom. He showed them the Torah itself allowed circumsising or caring for an animal on a sabbath, then what to say of helping a suffering human being Matt12:9-13,Jn7:23-4,Lk13:10-17,Mk3:1-6.
By breaking it he was doing what he "sees" the Father doing, sustaining His creation at all times. Jesus, the most knowledgeable person among his contemporaries in religious law further told his Jewish audience that he was in this way working together with God. As correctly understood by the faithfull blind man who was cured on Sabbath, this action did not make Jesus a sinner nor a blasphemer as his enemies among the Jews accused him, but rather a true prophet Jn11:11-33. Yet even to this day, the Talmudic "sages" whose legalistic deductions are viewed as God-given still hold that “one does not assist a gentile woman in childbirth on the Sabbath” (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 330:2).
The Quran accurately sums up Jesus' mission as such
3:50"And a verifier of that which is before me of the Torah and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you".
Jesus verified the truth remaining in the past scriptures, relieved the bani Israel of some of the things forbidden to them through the soulless and far fetched conjectures of their rabbis. That is what Jesus meant when he told his disciples that they must practice and teach these laws to the letter while surpassing the "righteousness" of the Pharisees, meaning they must practice the body and soul of the law not only the body as they did
"whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven".
