In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"
The Prophet's conflict with his tribe was not because of any worldly reason; it was only for the freedom to practice the religion of God 4:74,94 in the place originally dedicated for it. The Quraysh had to fulfill their obligations towards the Kaaba because they were its custodians. If they were not ready for this, then they had no right to keep it in their custody nor did they have any right to prevent people from returning to the pure Arbrahamic legacy through intimidations, or stopping others from worshiping on a land settled for that purpose since the days of Ibrahim 22:25-9.
This was Allah's way before in regards to Canaan, even prior to the Israelites settling in it, when its natives progressively abandonned the ways of righteousness, despite knowing it, perverted it beyond recognition Gen15:16,Deut9,1Sam4:7. The Israelites were sent in precisely to purge the sacred land from its unworthy custodians. When the prophetic warnings materialized upon the Quraysh and their grip on the lives and freedom of the people was loosened, then the people hastened to accept Islam in multitudes now that they were suddenly afforded with the liberty to choose their own religion. 110:2 predicted this reality long before the conquest of Mecca
"And you see men embrace the religion of God in multitudes",
and this was through the guidance of the Heavenly Book that transcended all obstacles to give life to the spiritually dead 6:122.
Accepting to fight in Allah's way results in reward in this world as well as the next 48:18-21, but turning one's back to the enemy and refusing to shoulder that duty makes a person
48:16,8:16"deserving of Allah's wrath"
in this world as well as the next. Here are the prophet Jeremiah's words
Jer48:10"A curse on anyone who is lax in doing the Lord’s work! A curse on anyone who keeps their sword from bloodshed".
As already pointed, history bares testimony to this fact with the example of the Israelites who had refused to put their trust in the prophet Musa to go forth and fight in Allah's way. Their wordly reward was consequently taken away and they were forbidden entry into the blessed land and sent to wander 40 years in the desert until the last one of those who had shown cowardice was dead. A new generation was then raised instead, one that would willingly take up arms, fight and conquer as divinely ordained. See the Quran in 2:243,5:21-26 as well as the Hebrew Bible in Numbers13:28-33,14:1-35,21:14-35,26:64-65 and Deut2:7,14-19,Josh5:6.
The Muslims are warned that the very same fate awaits those who turn their backs to the prophet when they are called to struggle in Allah's way
9:38-39"If you do not go forth, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you, and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things".
True Believers rejoice at any opportunity of serving God's cause, like Joshua and Caleb who rent their clothes telling the remaining cowards among the Israelites to stand up for battle. In the end, what God wishes to accomplish is independant of the direct addressees of a prophet. As demonstrated with Musa and the Israelites, He could easily uproot them in case of disobedience and rise another people instead. However, those who followed the prophet Muhammad in times of peace and war are the opposite example. Contrary to the majority of Israelites in Moses' time who refused to march forth despite witnessing all kinds of divine miracles, the majority of Muhammad's followers fought when ordered to. This is corroborative of their desperate situation, leaving them no choice but to fight for their survival, the survival of their families and their rights to worship Allah. Because of all their sacrifices and because they went forth when they were commanded to, they were made successors in the land 6:133-134 and they earned Allah's rewards in this world as well as, God wills, in the next.
In addition, the Muslims are commanded not to neglect the obligatory prayers, even when facing the enemy at the battlefield 4:101-3. This shows the true objective of these warriors fighting to free themselves and their people from religious bondage; fighting was not their primary occupation for when the time of holding the timed and ordained communion with their Lord arrived, they performed their spiritual obligations despite the imminent danger.
In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"
As shown earlier, the philosophy of armed struggle/jihad as a form of divine punishment is confined to the prophetic era during which a previously warned nation is to be destroyed.
The 2nd type of jihad is the establishment of the will of God on a specific land (Canaan in the times of Moses, Mecca in the times of Muhammad). It is enforced by a prophet, and his followers makes sure that the new order established is maintained for that land.
Outside these 2 scenarios, the 3rd and last context to which armed jihad is applicable, is in self-defence, when war is waged against a Muslim community solely for its religion. This type of armed struggle covers the prophetic era and beyond. In that context, if their opponents engage them in battle they will be defeated, provided their objective purely is the end to religious persecution. This was Allah's way before
48:22-23"Such has been the course of Allah that has indeed run before, and you shall not find a change in Allah´s course".
It is to be noted that even the most zealous proponents of Jihad as the struggle to spread Islam to all the world, including nations that do not pose an explicit threat to the Islamic mainland, still maintain that this form of struggle aims at removing all obstacles a human being may face in his freedom to choose Islam or not. If a nation opposes the objective presentation of Islam to its people, so that they may freely choose to adopt or reject it, then an armed struggle by the Islamic state against that oppressive nation is justified. Once the Islamic state is established, then its citizen are free to choose between Islam and payment of zakat, or their own religion and payment of jizya. We thus see that even this view of jihad contains the element of self-defence as well as freedom of religious expression, in accordance with the Quranic axiom of no compulsion in religion. Another thing to note is that this interpretation of Jihad basically is what the western "civilized" world has been doing throughout history, whether the imperialists, christian colonizers, communists or democrats. Contrary to the Islamic model, the invaded people are not given the choice on whether to choose the new system or not, except for the "democratic" invasions to some extent.
God gives glad tidings of success 24:55 in this armed struggle. It is a great test of resolve and faith 9:14,16. 2:153-157 was specifically revealed to prepare the believers for the trials they would have to bear for having chosent he path of truth. They are told to remain firm in their faith so as to find the inner strength to bear that burden, because their opponents will not give up. They have realized that to stop Islam's spread they had to annihilate the Muslims themselves. The verses indicate that the great trial is near, it mentions martyrdom in the way of Allah, and praising it, saying that it is not a death, it is life. It lays great emphasizis on the virtue of "sabr" which is one of the most praiseworthy characteristics of the believer.
2:190-5 allowed retaliation for the first time
"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you"
the root qaf-t-l means to kill. But used in the form qaatilu entails interaction, killing opposite killing or killing against killing. Literally speaking it should be rendered "engage in killing opposite killing" and because of a lack of non-Arabic word conveying that sense, the interactive word "fight" has been preferred and used by both Muslim and non Muslim translators, in all instances where the same form is used. In 9:111 for example, the consequence of qaatilu/"engage in killing opposite killing" either results in killing the opposite party, or being killed and that is because there is a clear will to kill from the opposite side. When the original order to qaatilu was issued in 2:190, it came with 2 important messages: - do it against those who yuqaatilunakum - do not transgress the limits when applying the command to qaatilu
What constitutes transgression in that context? To apply the command of qaatilu in a different way than prescribed in the verse, ie against people other than those who "yuqaatilunakum". This again, not only agrees with what was said about the verb being interactive in nature, as attested by its usage and the dictionaries stating that the word is used "in a context of a counter-effort to kill", but also with the Quran's overall message, which is to live at peace with anyone, Muslim or else, that does not agress the Muslims unjustly, and defend against those that engage in hostilities without any reason other than hatred for the religion.
The ethics of war as laid down in the verse is to remain within the bounds of
"and do not exceed the limit. Verily, Allah loves not those who exceed the limit".
This principle applies to Jihad in all of its aspects; - whether for the establishment of God's will in a specific land, as was the case in Mecca with Muhammad or Moses in Canaan - whether for the punishment of rejecters in the prophetic era, as was the case with the Ishmaelites and the Israelites - or the timeless right to self defence. At that point it became inevitable that the early persecuted Muslims should fight in self-defense or they would be destroyed. It is the natural right of all Muslims and every human being to
26:227"defend themselves after they are oppressed".
The divinely sanctioned right, throughout the ages and nations, of jihad in self defense has a clear objective. It isnt for any material gain or territorial expansion, but to dispel mischief, and corruption/fasad on the earth and stop religious oppression
2:251,22:40,3:167"Come, fight in the way of Allah or [at least] defend".
It is inadmissible that man be prevented from choosing or practicing Islam due to pressure and fear. In such a society, war is justified until one is free to choose or reject Islam
2:256"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error".
This shows that under no circumstances should be forced in spiritual matters, whether it is to accept or reject Islam.
The Quran would therefore stir up the believers for battle based on the reality of their physical and spiritual opression, whether men, women, old and young alike 2:217,4:75,8:26,22:39-40,28:57,60:1,85:8-10,96:9-10. God commands to fight for justice. Any other reason to fight is oppression and fighting
"in the way of the devil" 4:76.
This was an undeniable reality and necessity. They had to overcome any fear and trust that Allah's help will come at the battlfield. He will weaken the struggle of the oppressors no mater the forces they can muster 4:84. Even when this was established, the prophet still did not expect the Muslims to shed their blood for a decision from which they were excluded. Consensual agreement always preceded the final decision to go to war, as here stated in the context of the battle of Uhud
3:159"and seek their advise in all matters of public policy".
Once the decision is attained by common agreement, the plan must be launched with an absolute trust in God
3:159"then when you have decided upon a course of action, trust in Allah; for surely Allah loves those who place their trust in Him".
Even the prophet after that point may not revoke the covenant and act according to his whims 3:161-4. It is to be noted that in that particular context of Uhud, the prophet was the minority opinion. He advised confronting the Meccan alliance within Medina, instead of meeting them at Uhud. Yet he never protested the decision once it was mutually agreed upon, nor did he blame the majority once the battle was over and the Muslims were defeated. No matter how supreme the wisdom of the Muslim community's ruler is, in this case a prophet of God, the right of the remaining members of society to be consulted can never be waved off. We see here that in this defeat of the Muslims at Uhud, an important lesson was implemented as to the conduct of a Muslim leader.
Once everybody is set to leave with a full trust in their decision and the will of God, then their physical, mental, financial capacities as compared to their enemies only become secondary issues. Only if these conditions would result in overburdening and harming the person and the people depending on him, even before engaging in fighting, then such person is justified in holding back from fighting 9:91,48:17. The others rely on Allah, who knows their material and physical limits, and will assist them 8:66.
They are fully justified in fighting back, and will be helped in the process
22:38"Surely Allah will defend those who believe; surely Allah does not love any one who is unfaithful, ungrateful".
Part of the 613 Jewish commandments is to similarily be fearless in battle and fully trust in God Deut3:22,7:21,20:3. It was their failure to trust in God's capacity to defeat, through a weak army, a much stronger adversary that caused their 40 years desert wandering prior to entering the land promised to Abraham. God calls mankind to fight in His way first to solve the wordly obstacles to which a particular people is confronted, but these worldly obstacles are connected to the spiritual aspect of man's existence.
This means that fighting in God's way liberates man from both physical and spiritual obstacles. That is why those who fear wordly losses in the process, are told that this world is ultimately ephemeral whether in case of victory or loss. They would thus have certainly reason to fear should their battle be solely aimed at achieving wordly objectives. But since fighting in God's way includes spiritual objectives, then one has no reason to fear because the Hereafter in which the benefits of that struggle will be certainly found, is everlasting 4:74.
Choosing to serve God in this way, putting one's own life on the line to defend the oppressed and advance the cause of truth is the most selfless material and spiritual sacrifice one can do. Every culture and civilization in history has owed its survival in the face of oppression to these types of honored individuals. But even then, as in any army, there are degrees among soldiers, hence the prophet saying that military participation is ranked 3rd in terms of divine appreciation
"I asked the Prophet 'Which deed is loved most by Allah?" He replied, 'To offer prayers at their early (very first) stated times.' " `Abdullah asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" The Prophet said, "To be good and dutiful to one's parents," `Abdullah asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" The Prophet said, "To participate in Jihad for Allah's Cause." `Abdullah added, "The Prophet narrated to me these three things, and if I had asked more, he would have told me more".
However those among the volontaries going to such extent in their selfless sacrifice that they are martyred, the prophetic sayings describe them as meriting the highest reward. Wordly gains certainly follow as a collateral result of wars, and although are certainly the just compensation of those sacrificing their wealth and resources on the way, the Quran stresses that these wordly gains must never be the motive.
In a hadith the prophet even answered about someone fighting in God's cause but also seeking material reward, that in the herafter "He would receive no reward" (sunan Abu Dawud).
In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"
As regards implementing the divine will by the sword, the Quran retells the stories of past nations who were ordained, against a mightier ennemy and with God's help, to uproot unrighteousness and establish the will of God in a specific land. Such was the case with the Israelites back in the times of Moses.
They had to cleanse the blessed land of Canaan from its unrighteous dwellers, and the same command was issued to Saul/Talut and David 2:246-252, then finally the Ishmaelites. Under the Ishmaelite prophet and just as was commanded to the previous semitic prophets, Muslims had to purge the ancient temple of monotheism in Mecca from its unworthy guardians who had swayed into the ways of polytheism
22:40-1"Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And had there not been Allah's repelling some people by others, certainly there would have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah´s name is much remembered; and surely Allah will help him who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty. Those who, should We establish them in the land, will keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and enjoin good and forbid evil; and Allah´s is the end of affairs".
So just as Muhammad and the Children of Ishmael were commanded, Allah previously ordered in the days of Moses and the prophets of the children of Israel to fight in His way, see Deut1:41,Deut7,9:4-6,12:1-3,20:16-18 and allthroughout Deuteronomy. The Israelites are commanded to cleanse the land from idolatry, destroying all altars and not leaving a physical trace of idolatrous practices. All subsequent Israelite prophets were to purge all remaining traces of idolatry and evil from the land, by the sword without holding back whether it involves killing Jews or non Jews as prophecised in Isa1:25.
In the HB, we read that God's established way of erradicating idolatry is so foreceful that He sometimes even tasks non-Jews to do the job when the Israelites failed Jer48:10. This happened when the Chaldeans were sent to destroy the Moabites
"Cursed be he who performs the Lord's work deceitfully, and cursed be he who withholds his sword from blood"
or again when the Assyrians of Sennacherib were raised by God so as to destroy, exil and enslave the idolatrous Kingdom of Israel Amos6:11-14. This reoccured with the Babylonians of Nebuchadnezzar whom God calls His servant for performing His will, sent firstly to inflict massacre upon the Israelites for their repeated transgressions, and then upon those Ammonites and Edomites that occupied the holy lands and reintroduced idolatry in it Jer25:9,49:19.
Later on it would be the non-Jew Cyrus, king of Persia who would be divinely aroused and commanded to wage war against the Babylonians until their defeat, expulsion from the holy land and the return of the Jews to Israel so as to re-establish monotheism in it Jer50:14-21,51:1,53.
The same semitic pattern of prophethood is thus found in regards to Muhammad, the Ishmaelites and the Kaaba. God does not and never did tolerate the presence of idolatry in a land declared sacred and dedicated to monotheism. So God tasked His prophet with re-establishing the monotheistic practice at the Kaaba, and should his opponents try fighting and exiling him and his followers, they will consequently be uprooted from the land they had complete dominion over 17:76-7. It was not the prophet's job to relocate the uninvited idols of the Kaaba, especially after years of warning those that put them there, against their corrupt practices, and the impending forceful expulsion.
The Quran addresses the Arabs in no uncertain terms and in a time where none would have imagined for such an outcome to materialize, telling them that the result of their rejection will be similar to the peoples of the Messengers of old such as Noah, Hud, Lot, Shuayb, Salih, Moses etc. Just as these people were judged on a lower but nonetheless terryfing scale for rejecting God's communications, a day will come where God's judgement will be even greater 69:1-12.
The Quran places Muhammad and his followers right inside that pattern since the very beginning of the prophetic mission. It would remind them of this reality and comfort them by saying this Law of God will never change. The rejecters are not denying the messenger, the individual; they are denying the Lord of the Universe
6:33-4"We know indeed that what they say certainly grieves you, but surely they do not call you a liar; but the unjust deny the communications of Allah. And certainly messengers before you were rejected, but they were patient on being rejected and persecuted until Our help came to them; and there is none to change the words of Allah, and certainly there has come to you some information about the messengers".
But a prophet's function isnt to bring God's retribution, rather to create spiritual reform before a day comes where no reform will be possible. The prophecies of destruction are warnings that can be undone depending on the people's answer. A prophetic warning is not irreversible. The Quran gives the example of the nation of the prophet Yunus/Jonas to demonstrate that reality. They reformed themselves prior to the expiration of their time of respite and thus the prophecies of destruction were nullified. A prophet thus, first and foremost conveys clear warnings. The Quran would call this step a verbal jihad 25:52 because it was so hard and dangerous for the messenger and his early followers.
Once all the stages of warning and thorough explanation of the truth pass, as the era of calls to reform reaches its end and the prophetic warnings are about to unfold, the prophet must declare his unambiguous aqcuital from the rejecters. This was emphatically done in sura Kafirun by the prophet towards the enemies among the Quraysh.
The label of "kafirun" at this specific time of the prophetic mission makes it now clear that no reform will come from the addressees, that their continuous animosity and opposition to a messenger of God and the arguments sent with him, after long years of admonition was not really due to the attachement and respect, as they claimed, to their ancestral ways. Only their desires and wordly interests that had shaped their religion was what stood in the way. Many verses reveal how little consideration they had for their inherited ways. They were ready to bargain and compromise their system so long as their wordly interests were preserved. They suggested that for them to embrace faith then the only possible option was to either bring another Quran or to make some changes in it which would be acceptable to them
68:9"They wish that you should be pliant so they (too) would be pliant"
17:73"And surely they had purposed to turn you away from that which We have revealed to you, that you should forge against Us other than that, and then they would certainly have taken you for a friend"
10:15"those who hope not for Our meeting say: Bring a Quran other than this or change it".
The prophet was divinely protected and firmly established in his faith 17:74, to face these moral challenges
10:104"If you are in doubt as to my religion, then (know that) I do not worship those whom you worship other than Allah! But I worship Allah Who causes you to die and I have been commanded that I should be of the believers".
In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"
The prophet Muhammad fought wars for 3 reasons, first to fend off opression, second to establish God's will on a nation of rejecters and 3rd to remove the unworthy custodians of the Kaaba. This is jihad in all its scopes.
To understand the concept of physical struggle/jihad, we have to analyze the context of its use in the times of the last prophet and before.
It is the unalterable law of God that when He sends a messenger in a people, these particular people are left with no option, but to hearken His warnings and calls during an interval of time whose expiry can not be hastened nor delayed except by Allah 15:5,16:61,53:58. Allah states about this period that His messengers show the community, starting from the leaders in mischief greatly responsible for the general moral degradation of their people down to the poorest and most insignificant elements of the community 17:16,73:11 the signs of the truth in the heavens and earth, as well as in their own deepest selves 41:53,51:27 to the point that the people must recognize it and mend their evil ways.
During that process, they are seized with affliction or tried with a sign from God when they reject the messenger 11:52-60,64-68 sent to them in order to humble themselves and mend their ways 7:94. They are urged to reason and ask for God's forgiveness lest the fate of past sinful nations each greater than other in might 43:8, befalls them. They all received God's messengers with the bayinat ie the undeniable evidence, but on account of persistent rejection, were all uprooted by a grasp so encompassing and violent that it is pictured as beginning from their foundations up
16:26,40:22,18:55,22:42-8"And if they reject you, then already before you did the people of Nuh and Ad and Samood reject (prophets). And the people of Ibrahim and the people of Lut, As well as those of Madyan and Musa (too) was rejected, but I gave respite to the unbelievers, then did I overtake them, so how (severe) was My disapproval. So how many a town did We destroy while it was unjust, so it was fallen down upon its roofs, and (how many a) deserted well and palace raised high. Have they not travelled in the land so that they should have hearts with which to understand, or ears with which to hear? For surely it is not the eyes that are blind, but blind are the hearts which are in the breasts. And they ask you to hasten on the punishment, and Allah will by no means fail in His promise, and surely a day with your Lord is as a thousand years of what you number. And how many a town to which I gave respite while it was unjust, then I overtook it, and to Me is the return".
Mankind is continuously encouraged to research and analyse the history of past nations, unavoidably seeing in it the divine pattern. History is the only extensive evidential base for the contemplation and analysis of how societies function. Proper contemplation of that evidence leads to moral reform, providing a backround for one to test his own moral sense against that of individuals and societies of the past when faced with similar situations. The past causes the present, and so the future.
This shows that even in this life, the Creator's relationship with man is not merely based on the physical law, as with other creatures devoid of moral accountability and freewill. The moral law is working side by side with it. Sometimes that higher reality is clearer than at other times, and the clearest manifestation of it is during the times of the prophets. Past nations to whom messengers were sent become means by which the evidence for the hereafter is presented. If moral acts have results in this world, and these results never manifest fully in the world, then it necessitates that another world must exist where the consequences of sin and righteousness will fully appear.
Some of these nations completely mend their ways during their time of respite and prior to their annihilation by Divine affliction, as happenned in the prophet Jonas' lifetime during which they all believed
10:98"When they believed, We removed from them the chastisement of disgrace in this world's life and We gave them provision till a time".
If they dont and in addition try uprooting or killing the messengers sent to them with the undeniable bayinat, continuously oppose them and conspire against them to prevent the establishement of the way of God 42:13 then those pinpointed as the guilty ones by the prophets 44:22 in these nations will incure Divine affliction. They may be put to the sword by the believers themselves as in Moses and Muhammad's time, or completely annihilated by natural cataclysms. At other times God might send a powerful ennemy to bring destruction as happened to the Israelites that rejected Jesus, or they are subjugated to the followers of the messengers for generations to come. Concerning this reality, the Psalmist states
Ps46:9"Go and see the works of the Lord, that He has wrought devastation in the earth".
Allah in the Quran alludes to all these potential outcomes, including the one that will be inflicted upon the rejecters of the prophet Muhammad, similarly to what He had decreed in the times of Moses
6:65-7"Say: "He has the power that He should send on you a chastisement from above you or from beneath your feet, or that He should throw you into confusion, (making you) of different parties; and make some of you taste the fighting of others." See how repeatedly We display the signs that they may understand. And your people call it a lie and it is the very truth. Say: "I am not placed in charge of you." For every prophecy is a term and you will come to know (it)".
In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"
Until 9:29, the sura Tawba prescribed divine punishment upon 3 groups; the hypocrites among the Muslims, the treacherous warmongerers among the idolaters, and those idolaters insisting on their pagan practices within the sacred precincts of Mecca.
No punishement is prescribed on the peaceful idolaters beyond Mecca, as well as those in Mecca that refrain from their rituals at the sacred sites re-dedicated strictly to the Islamic religion. They are to be left unharmed as mentionned earlier.
Nor is there until now any legal directive towards the remaining non-Muslims living under Muslim rule, whether in Mecca or beyond. This included the people of the book (Jews and Christians) or the followers of other belief systems, or even atheists
9:29"Fight those who believe not in God and nor in the Last Day and nor do they forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden and nor do they follow the religion/DEEN of truth from among the people of the book, till they give the compensation with a willing hand, while they are humble".
This verse, as attested by the prophetic practice, is not restricted to the people of the book. It covers any religion that was and could potentially fall under Muslim rule as a result of provoked warfare. The verse mentions 4 categories;
1- Those who do not believe in God
2- Those who reject the resurrection
3- Those who regard as lawful what Allah and the prophet have forbidden. Those that pass the 2 preceding criteria by believing in God and the concept of resurrection, should adhere to Islam as the only reasonable spiritual reality. If they make the choice not to, then they are believers in one of the many man made religions that does not forbid what Allah has forbidden through His prophet in the Quran and sunna. Or they might be from the people of the book, believers in God and the resurrection. Being sincere in their faith, they should, like the aforementioned group naturally enter the fold of Islam. The Quran speaks of them, 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, praiseworthy reading and understanding of their books led many of them to eventually 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. But those that make the choice not to, they remain as people of the book who despite their sincerity in faith, do not regard as forbidden what Allah and His messenger forbade.
4- Those who do not follow the DEEN of truth from among the people of the book. The root D-Y-N means rule or debt or any obligation. It may be summarized as "system". It is used this way in the Quran 9:36,12:76 classical literature and even in common Arabic speak. Whenever the preposition "mina" is used before a composite entity, or a group, and that this entity is given a qualification, then "mina" carries the meaning of "among", pointing to a portion from among that composite entity 4:46,160,5:5,23,41,57,107,8:65,57:10. "The Deen of truth" in that phrase cannot refer to Islam as a religion. One cannot speak of a portion from among the people of the book as being followers of Islam while others reject it. This speaks of the Jews and Christians whom the Quran in many places condemns as sinful, insincere to the truth of their own books. The praiseworthy among them, followers of "the deen of truth" were those included in the 3rd category.
None of the groups above are to be fought until they become Muslims. Rather until they pay the jizya in submission to the Islamic rule. That subjection is in relation to the Islamic system which they are now bound to, being permanent non Muslim residents under protection of the Muslim state. The majority of Muslim scholars have understood the passage in that way. See for example al-Shafi'i, Al-Umm, Vol. 4, Ahmad Mustafa al-Maraghi's Tafsir Vol. 10 or Fatani, Ikhtilaf al-Darin p48. This is also seen by the fact that the musta'min (a non Muslim temporary resident) is not subjected to the Islamic legal system nor the jizya, according to the Hanafi school. That subjection has thus nothing to do with humiliation, as some have interpreted, and without any evidence in the prophetic practice nor that of the first caliphs. Humiliation does occur however, when those non-Muslim residents of the Islamic state refuse to pay government taxes to the point they have to be forcefully made to. Just as Muslims, shortly after the prophet's death had to be fought, humbled, and forced to pay the government taxes under Abu Bakr's caliphate.
The order to fight therefore isnt motivated by a choice of creed otherwise the mere paying of a tax would not have been enough to end the fighting, rather a forceful conversion would. Yet that option is never proposed in the verse. The only issue for them is explicitly spelled out; Payment of taxes and submission to the laws of the religious state they live in as members of a different religion on whom different rights and obligations apply. The government has actually more to gain in wealth and manpower if they convert, especially in early times when Muslims were a minority in these newly conquered lands. Yet they are told to keep their religion and autonomy instead.
Converting to Islam, something that isnt incumbent upon them, would end the command to fight them should they insist on not paying the jizya. But they will not escape being fought should they refuse honoring the duties that fall upon them as Muslims, including contributing financially to the functioning of the Islamic state, as well as obligations that did not apply to their former religious communities, like military service. There really is no true incentive for them to leave their religion which is why the option is never proposed in the verse.
The verses that follow illustrate some of the transgressions of the people of the book, and their causes, such as deification of prominent personalities, blind following of their religious leaders etc, while no blame is placed on them for not following Islam. These dark deviations in religion will never extinguish the light of guidance, no matter how much the disbelievers among the people of the book dislike it 9:32. The verse employs the image of a person attempting to extinguish a strong light with a blow from the mouth, to illustrate the relative feebleness of his position.
The passage ends with the reiteration of a prophecy made long before 48:28,61:9 regarding the prevailing of the deen/way of truth sent by the One true God over all other ways no matter how much the polytheists dislike it 9:33. The wording of this verse is very appropriate since it specifically mentions the polytheists, followers of non-divine religions, as disliking the establishment of the deen of truth. The people of the book, sincere to their scriptures as pointed earlier, will not dislike the establishment of a Godly system, since it does not only mean establishing Islam, but also exposing and establishing the truth of their own religion
5:83"And when they hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize".
The Jizya is a collective tax, not a head tax. It is imposed on the people of dhimma, the diminutive for dimmat Allah wa rasulih, the protection of God and His messenger. This connection demonstrates the significance of the dhimmis, making them eligible for protection under divine obligation. The prophet applied the command upon Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and according to some scholars like abu Hanifa, the pagans, based on a prophetic saying
"If they (Arab polytheists) accept the dhimmah contract (aqd al-dhimmah), then inform them that they have the same rights and duties as Muslims".
The jizya imposed on them is a collective tax because it is agreed upon by mutual consultation, not arbitrarily decided by the Muslim state. The nature of the compensation to the Muslim state varied depending on the capacities of each one. It was not always monetary and its amount was adaptable to each case.
The benefits which the government offers in exchange of the due jizya, are matters of communal and national interest - defending the territory from outside aggression, establishing security, maintaining the environment, building infrastructure, etc., not the sort of benefits you can opt out of. The earliest Muslim rulers even appointed a portion of the Muslim zakat to feed the needy among the people of the book, even though they were exempted from paying the jizya. When a Jew came asking the caliph Umar for money, he said
"go find him and those like him, and give them out of the public treasury".
It is known that together with the needy, the clergy was also exempted from the tax by the Muslim authorities. And yet they fully benefited from government services, including military protection and infrastructure. These exception to the rule of 9:29 are based upon strong and firm unconditional principles as regards the Muslim duty towards the weak in any society, and the preservation of the worship sites of the people of the book where the name of Allah is mentionned. There is thus a strong Quranic basis for the policy of most Muslim rulers, including as early as the caliph Umar, of being selective in the application of the jizya upon the people of dhimma.
Even though Jizya it is not a personal head tax, for the sake of argument, one can either pay taxes willingly, or be punished through several forceful means including jail in case of refusal, or leave the country. In a secular state the issue is pretty much the same. Special taxes will apply to alien residents, who in addition to having to compensate the state for providing them with benefits of all kind, must also exempt themselves from the obligations and rights that apply to the citizen of that state (military service, various taxes on salaries, financial regulations etc). Paying that tax will protect them from being pursued and punished by that government.
Some insidious critics like calling it "protection money". Every taxation system in the world is in fact aimed at providing protection; either by financing a system that preserves the well-being of the society as a whole, or by protecting against punishment, since failing to pay results in sanctions. Jizya is the rightful compensation demanded from the dhimmi, in exchange of the exemption from the laws, rights, obligations, penalties etc of that state religion in matters that do not concern the society as a whole. That is because the sharia for Muslim governance of non-Muslim citizens is that non-Muslims should not be forced to follow the moral laws dictated in the Quran.
The idea that this model oppressed non Muslim dhimmis to the point they preferred conversion is unfounded, without any historical and documented basis. It wasnt therefore a system aimed at enriching anyone, but a legitimate compensation for concrete services and exemptions. That is why non-Muslims that volontarily participated in the military were exempted from the tax. Those that paid the tax and werent properly served were refunded. For instance when Muslim ruled Syria was threatened with invasion by the Romans and the Muslim ruler doubted whether he would be able to protect the non-Muslims of that region, he hastily returned their jizya money which was supposed to be partly aimed at guarantying their protection. Abu Ubaydah ibn al Jarrah told the Christians they would be bound by the agreement again only if he is able to fend off the Roman invasion. The Christians consequently prayed for Muslim victory, knowing that the Romans would never behave with them in such a manner.
Under that system, non Muslims enjoy complete religious autonomy as long as it does not conflict with the state religion. For example selling alcohol publicly. Dhimmis may deliberate, individualy deny, or reform their religious laws to their liking and to fit their desires without any concern about the laws of the state, again, so long as no conflict occurs between the 2. For example it is well known that Christian and Jewish elites enacted laws preventing their people from resorting to a Muslim judge in cases where their own laws were unfavorable.
In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"
This hadith comes back many times in anti Muslim circles, passed around like a hot potato. A little background check will clarify the issue. The background is actually 9:5, another favorite of anti Muslim critics.
As the surrounding verses make it clear 9:5 is speaking of those who repeatedly broke the contracts, despite the Muslims keeping their engagements, attacked the Muslims first. These people, the Muslims should remain extremely cautious with. The Believers are required to put their trust in God and negotiate with them regardless of their treacherous history if they show an inclination towards peace 8:61-62, but at the same time should not hesitate to cancel the agreements in case they fear treachery on their part. But this must only be done openly and publicly so as to avoid any misunderstanding on the state of war between the parties 8:58, just as was done with the very first verse of sura tawba where a declaration of immunity and dissociation is made with the treaty breakers. Then the Muslims should prepare themselves for every eventual threat from within and outside the community 8:60.
The Muslims should only stop fighting these treaty violators under 2 conditions:
- The first condition is if they clearly become Muslims by praying regularly and pay the poor rate. This is the only guarantee Muslims have against being attacked by a people provably inclined to backstabbing and breaking of oaths
4:91"You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority".
It is in such background that one should read the often misused report in which the prophet says
"I have been commanded to fight the idolators (Other versions "the people") until they bear witness to La ilaha illallah (there is none worthy of worship except Allah) and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. If they bear witness to La ilaha illallah and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, and they pray as we pray and face our Qiblah, and eat our slaughtered animals, then their blood and wealth becomes forbidden to us except for a right that is due, and they will have the same rights and obligations as the Muslims".
What is translated as to fight/uqaatil implies fighting opposite an initial attack, as is clear from the context of 9:5. Also, the more complete hadith further portrays the prophet quoting
88:22"Therefore do remind, for you are only a reminder. You are not a watcher over them".
This, in addition to the known proper context of the report, decisively shows there can be no compulsion in religion, as explicitly stated in the Quran in many places. As commented by ibn Taymiya
"what is meant here: Fighting the fighters of those that Allah made permissible to fight, and not those under the treaty and were loyal to Allah".
No forced conversions occured at the conquest of Mecca and sura 88, which is quoted by the prophet in relation to his statement in the hadith, is unanimously believed to have been revealed in Mecca.
- The second condition is if they do not become Muslims but they stop their persecution then
2:193"there should be no hostility except against the oppressors".
That is because
8:38"if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed".
These 2 important point show that 9:5 does not say to fight these hostile idolaters until they become Muslims since an idolater who stops fighting is left to go freely to his homeland 9:6, but until they refrain from their hostile attitude of which a conversion to Islam and the strict and public adherance to each of its ordinances would be a guarantee.
One last time, not all idolaters were fought until they became Muslims, only those that were untrustworthy to be left based on a verbal agreement.
In answer to the video "The Quran and History: Surah 4:157"
The willingness of an individual to suffer and die for a particular cause or belief doesn't prove its truthfulness, neither its validity. For example, the willingness of the leadership of the early Mormon church to undergo persecution and even death doesn't prove the veracity of the Mormon faith system.
Likewise, the New Testament description of some of the disciples undergoing suffering or death does not prove that what they preached or believed was true either.
In fact this argument goes against the Christian missionaries that like using it, if one considers the Gospels' accounts of Jesus' closest followers all deserting him when true crisis arose. The same is the case with Moses whose followers refused following his orders to go to battle and invade the promised land.
The argument of steadfastness in the face of death as a testimony of a prophet's truthfulness in fact only applies to Muhammad, whose small band of followers time after time overwhelmingly stood up to fight in God's cause whenever commanded to do so and regardless of their opponent's disproportionate level of power.
Neither does the criterion of embarrasement work in favor of Christians. For example people invented the Romulus story, and Romulus murdered his own brother. People invented Attis, and he is said to have castrated himself, besides the numerous mythologies of mutilated/dying/resurrected gods and sons of gods contemporaries or close to Jesus' time. Nothing suggests that the Gospels' authors were in anyway embarrassed by their writings when they penned them. There were storytelling, theological and cultural reasons for the authors to associate these things to their heroes, besides possible additions by later scribes.
The same goes for all the evil deeds ascribed to the most illustrious biblical personalities, as a means by which the scribes settled their intertribal prejudices, justified their own sins. If the most prominent personalities are capable of the worst sins, then the regular people shouldnt be blamed for their transgressions.
These inventions were more or less skilfully, appropriately inserted in the original. For example it might be embarrassing in hindsight to depict Jesus as undergoing a sin cleansing ritual but John's author skilfully inserts that the baptiser thought so highly of Jesus that he didnt want to baptize him at first. What Christians don't understand is that the criterion of embarrassment is used by historians to interpret objective facts and evidence, whether one or the other version of a real, actual story is more likely. Historians do not use it so as to create facts as Christians do.
This kind of argument only results in circular reasoning, as the facts interpreted arent independantly attested. For example it would be circular to state that because superman is sensitive to magic, or joker's fear toxins (that made him inadvertently kill a pregnant Lois Lane), or vampires and green kryptonite (the pink one turns him to a homosexual) then it means that he really was affected by all these embarrasing things, or that he even existed.
In the words of Celsus, one of the foremost thinkers of his age whose critique of the Christians was so damaging that Christians destroyed every copy of his work they could find
"Clearly the Christians have used ... myths ... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth ... It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction."
In answer to the video "The Quran and History: Surah 4:157"
Jesus did not proclaim anything dissimilar to what his contemporaries expected from an Israelite prophet.
Jesus was the final prophet in a series of prophets sent to the Bani Israel exclusively Matt10:5-6,15:24-26,21,Quran3:49, to warn them of their constant betrayal of their covenant with God, including their hiding and distortion of the true expression of the Torah, just like Moses foresaw Deut31:25-29 and Jeremiah confirmed Jer2:8,7:21,8:8,23:9-36.
Being the last one in the line of Israelite prophets, Jesus had to prophecy the coming of the final prophet who would be sent to all of mankind and he did so through his prophecies of the paraclete, as echoed in the Quran 61:6. It is this distinction between the prophet Muhammad and the other prophets that makes his prediction a necessity, by his predecessors from among the Israelites, Moses and Jesus included 6:20,7:157,61:6. Muhammad is the only prophet whom the Quran says was announced by previous prophets.
As to Jesus, one can clearly see from his few reported NT sayings that he did not come to establish a new religion. That is why the earliest Christian creed was simple and concise as compared to the one grossly inflated centuries later at Nicea then Constantinople so as to integrate new theological notions. Although speculations were rife about Jesus' nature and relationship with God the Father, prior to the 4th century, the authorities of the church did not view the persons of the trinity as equal in divinity. The Father was understood as the supreme God and the Son came second in worship, subordinate in knowledge and power, followed by the Holy Ghost as third in rank.
Jesus, per the Quran, came to verify the truth remaining in the Torah
3:50,5:46,61:6"verifying what is between my hands MIN/OF the Torah".
Just as the prophet Muhammad was tasked in doing with the Quran, Jesus wasnt going around listing every single error and absurdity of the scriptures and traditions that preceded him. His words and deeds testified to the truth and falsehood in them. Most of those words and deeds have been forgotten, misinterpreted or purposefully put aside by the gospels writer's own admission. These writers reported what was transmitted to them with their heavy pagan Hellenistic perspective, if not outright fabricated events that do not stand the test of internal and external scrutiny. Their sole purpose was to advance the notion of Jesus being "the messiah, the son of God" as candidly admitted in Jn20:31.
The Quran gives several examples of how his words and deeds testified to some of the corruptions of the HB. For example when Jesus, with God's leave, creates life from inanimate material and resurrects the dead, these were meant to demonstrate to an audience highly skeptical of the concept of resurrection how life can be gathered from dust and how a lifeless body can be risen back. During the volatile transmission process of the HB, such concepts, like the concept of an afterlife were almost entirely blotted out from their books. These actions from Jesus acted as a criterion of what is true and false in the HB, confirming the very few passages vaguely attesting to resurrection. The near scriptural absence of those concepts was an obvious manipulation. Because of their sins for which they were successively destroyed and humiliated during their tumultuous history, the Israelites became averse at the notion of an afterlife in which one is resurrected and held accountable for his worldly deeds. And so they progressively denied the concept, leading to the polemics within their sects during Jesus' time. The Pharisees forcefully argued in favor of the concept, using scattered biblical references including 1Kings17:17-24,2Kings4:17-37,13:20-1,1Sam2:6,Isa2:17,26:19,66:14,Ezek37:1-28,Ps71:20,Prov6:22,Prov31(see Rashi),Dan12:1-2 while their main opponents, the Sadducees strongly denied that basic monotheistic tenet.
Jesus' purpose was in addition to allow some of the things that were forbidden to them through the traditions of men (NT Matt15,23). He was the most qualified to do so, through his inspired knowledge
3:48"And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel".
That is why he is depicted in the NT as turning the people's attention away from their oral man-made traditions, and focus instead on the true divine source which he claimed to fulfill to the letter Matt5:17-20. In that passage, the "Law and the Prophets" was a regular expression Jews of Jesus' day used in reference to the entire HB Matt7:12,22:40,Acts24:14,28:23,Rom3:21. The fulfillment of the Torah refers to the revival of its spirit, which the Jews had neglected by focusing more on baseless rituals, and issuing ever new conjectured complications to those rituals, attributing their origins to the revealed Oral Torah/Talmud. These additions had distorted Moses' religion beyond recognition Mk7:7.
Humans, because of their very nature as volitional creatures are bound to differ in almost every aspect of life, as stated elsewhere in the Quran. This isnt necessarily an evil, however the only sphere in which they should not contend but rather unite are the original and clear tenets of the religion. The innovations of the Jews in that area inevitably caused dissension among them and Jesus came to unite them by clarifying their misunderstandings and/or deliberate distortions
43:63"And when Isa came with clear arguments he said: I have come to you indeed with wisdom, and that I may make clear to you part of what you differ in; so be careful of (your duty to) Allah and obey me".
Jesus wasnt an all-knowing being charged with resolving every conflict, his function wasnt to unify them in every aspect of life, but only in the relevant religious matters hence the statement in the verse "part of what you differ in". The Quran here again, as it does in countless places, demonstrates its surgical precision in its meaningful choice of every word. To further corroborate, when God the all-knowing best of judges swift in reckoning will resurrect and gather the people, He shall judge between them in all that which they differed
39:46"Say: O Allah, Originator of the heavens and the earth, Knower of the unseen and the seen! Thou (only) judgest between Thy servants as to that wherein they differ".
Perfect judgement and final resolution of conflicts is only possible in the hereafter, at God's court of justice.
What is very revealing and that most Christians are oblivious of, is that after the councils of Hippo and Cartage in the end of the 4th century where 27 books were finally canonized as NT scriptures, one would expect the Church to want its adherents to get to know the official books of the Church.
Especially when there were many non-canonical books in circulation, competing sects and heresies. And yet this is absolutely not what happened. Not only were the people discouraged from reading the Bible on their own, but translations into native languages were prohibited (Council of Toulouse 1229, Tarragona 1234, Constance 1415), forcing translation efforts to go underground. Some were burned for doing so (Tyndale 1536).
With the proliferation of unreliable versions, the church authorities had no choice but to begin an effort of official translations, especially done in the monasteries. Two main reasons motivated this concealment by the Church. First to maintain their own aura of elitism. Among the reasons Martin Luther was persecuted in the 1500s was because of his translation, giving the lowly folk access to the "lofty" Bible.
Compare this to the early efforts of the Quran compilers just 10 years following the prophet Muhammad's death, to spread copies of the book in scripts that would unlock the primitive consonantal structure of the text. The second and most important reason for the Church's reluctance to make its canon accessible to the commoner, was to prevent Christians from finding out about Jesus' purely Jewish environment, teachings, legacy, as well as the Jewishness of his followers, prior to Paul's appearance on the scene.
Despite all of Paul's missionary activities, early Jewish converts to Christianity still worshiped in synagogues until the late 4th century (Homilies against Jews by Chrysostom). The dominant Pauline Church wanted and needed to break with Jesus and his early followers' Jewish heritage. Something that would have been impossible to do as early on in the history of Christianity where the traditions transmitted by the original cluster of Jewish sects claiming descendency from Jesus and his followers, were still known. Instead the church presented limited editions to the people, they could not show the full version because the Gospel writers didnt and couldnt erase Judaism from Jesus' ministry. They couldnt do it, because it would have made Jesus contextually irrelevant, as if appearing in a vacuum.
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 immediately denounced the likes of James and Peter for telling the Gentiles to follow the law Gal2, evidently because it attracted less converts.
In answer to the video "The Quran and History: Surah 4:157"
The non-Christian sources Christians reference for Jesus' crucifixion arent by contemporary historians aside from a disputed Roman passage which will be discussed shortly, or the few forged lines awkwardly inserted in between 2 flowing sections in Josephus' voluminous works.
These writings have pages and chapters devoted to petty personalities such as robbers or simple kings, yet Josephus, this devout and zealous orthodox Jew, and who remained so until his death, ie the last person to accept Jesus as a god or as the Jewish King-messiah is said to have given a short comment in the middle of an account on another character (Pilate) about how Jesus was indeed the wonderful, divine, and prophecied Jewish King-Messiah. Just a short passage about the long awaited Jewish King and yet he reports in much more details about John the Baptist and other self-proclaimed messiahs like Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, the "Egyptian Jew" messiah? The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian.
There is a reason why none of the early Church fathers up to the 3rd century never quoted this most-appropriate passage in their controversies with the Jews and other works despite their familiarity with Josephus' writings; it is a late forgery.
No contemporary writing or immidiately following his time mention a thing about the extraordinary events surrounding his life or alleged crucifixion. Yet we have archeological and historical proof for the existance of Bar Kochba, another messianic claimant who came just a few years after Jesus, performed no spectacular wonders. In short, none of the sources Christians bring up, religious or else, amount to more than circular reasoning in regards to determining the historical Jesus. The earliest sources are Christian, meaning the NT itself, written 30-70 years after the supposed events, by non eye witnesses. Up to 70 years is a huge time gap where legends, conjectures and deliberate lies could have been grafted into a historical core. The NT itself has no currently existing 1st century witnesses, either as manuscripts or as writings of Christians. We do not have an unbroken chain linking the Apostolic Fathers to the gospel writers to Jesus. So yes, relying on the NT is circular reasoning, besides the fact we are talking of grandiose events that could not have been missed by independent witnesses who were active and writing in that time and place. What secular historians will attest to, is not that a miracle worker named Jesus did and said what is narrated about him in the NT, but that an early 1st century community existed that believed what is said in the NT about someone called Jesus. Historians will then conclude that the existence of such community attests to a true core regarding a historical person named Jesus who could have said some of what was attributed to him. Each historian will then work out what that true core was, based on textual criticism, archaeology, independent sources and conjecture.
Muslims got their answer to this through revelation
"That is Jesus, the son of Mary - the word of truth about which they are in dispute".
Of course, this description of what every prophet and slave of God was, doesnt line up well with those that raised a particular prophet to divine status.
Tacitus was a Roman historian born a good 20 years after Jesus' death. He started writing some 60 years later, meaning 80 years after Jesus. He was by no means a historical witness and only relied on hearsay if we were to accept the passage attributed to him as authentic. That passage talks of the persecutions of early Christians, mentions how the founder of this religion
"was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was punished, as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate".
None of the Church fathers nor any Christian writer prior to the 15th century mention that passage, despite their familiarity with Tacitus' works and their need for such weighty evidence by a renouned historian. Not even Eusebius who in the 4th century cites all sources available from Jewish and pagan sources. What is even more troubling is that the note on Jesus is part of a passage relating the mass persecution and killing of Christians under Nero. Yet for 3 centuries, in discussions of the Christian history of martyrdom, no appeal is ever made to Tacitus’ account of the dramatic and horrifying Neronian persecution. Only 1 surviving copy of this writing exists, supposedly "copied" in the 8th century CE (700 years after it was supposedly written) by Christian hands. As is the case with the Josephus passage which is universally recognized as interpolated, if not entirely forged, interpolation at least, cannot be ruled out in Tacitus' case. Although mainstream scholarship accepts the passage as authentic, even James Rives, prominent scholars of the Roman world, recognizes there are plenty of disputes over Tacitus’ precise meaning, the source of his information, and the nature of the historical events that lie behind his report.
There exist no Roman records of Jesus' execution by Pontius Pilate . The opposite would have been extraordinary anyway, as such executions occurred by the 100s and the authorities did not bother archiving each case. But here we have the most renowned of Roman historians citing the alleged event, and yet he is ignored by Christian apologists up to the 15th century. In fact the reference to Jesus is absent from a 5th century Christian writer Sulpicius Severus who quotes the passage attributed to Tacitus in nearly the same words.
Concerning the Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata (125-180 CE), what Christian apologists assume as a reference to Jesus, since he never names Jesus, keeping in mind that crucifixions occured by the 100s sometimes daily around Jesus' time, these references of Lucian were written near the end of the 2nd century. Even if one were to assume that the reference is to Jesus it does nothing to establish the historicity of the crucifixion as neither Lucian (nor Tacitus as is explained above) quote their sources. Of course that by their time the Jesus legend had already spread among early Christians. Lucian, like Tacitus, is simply repeating Christian beliefs mockingly. The Quran exposes those who started the rumors of the crucifixion. The same claim which Christians proudly laud as their pillar of belief, is one which the rest of the world sees as the epitome of ridicule. Paul alludes to these mockeries when he says "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles". This verse further belies the idea that the spread and acceptance of a claim proves its truthfulness somehow. Christians were the ones busy propagating the false news of Jesus' crucifixion, once his Jewish enemies succesfully initiated and passed on the rumor. It is thus expected for any external observer of the Christian movement, to simply reiterate what they claim about themselves, especially if such a claim undermines them in the eyes of that observer.
It was thus certainly appropriate for both Tacitus and Lucian to allude to the execution of the leader of Christianity. Not as a way to validate their claim or to represent historical reality, but rather to further deride the movement. Finally, having a narrative account about someone doesn't make the person historical. That is a basic premise of historical research. The work of a historian is to determine whether the account is relating myths or facts. The sources of these 2 non-Christian authors are unknown, neither are they witnesses to the events. This makes it impossible to discern myths from facts from their writings about Jesus, especially considering their bias against Christians, leading them to repeat the denigrating information being circulated about their leading figure.
In answer to the video "The Quran and History: Surah 4:157"
The Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest known manuscript of the NT and in the gospel of Mark, it doesnt mention anything about the resurrection. In that manuscript, the gospel of Mark stops at verse 16:8.
Nothing, whether in the wording used or the context indicates that this ending was unintended. The author simply knew nothing of the resurrection tale. The story ends right after the discovery of the empty tomb and after the 3 women leave the tomb. These women, according to Mark, feared telling anyone of what the angel reported, despite the angel's instructions to tell the disciples. And yet, if the women told no one, how could Mark be telling his story?
The last 12 verses describing Jesus' resurrection and his appearance to the disciples were added later, as part of the overall retrospective re-write of Jesus' story. Mark is regarded as the earliest Gospel and the other Gospels, namely Luke and Matthew seem to be an effort to develop upon Mark's account.
Eusebius and Jerome explicitly state that almost all the Greek MSS available to them end at verse 8:
Eusebius Ad Marinum 1 - "How is it that in Matthew the Savior, after having been raised, appears 'late on the Sabbath' but in Mark 'Early on the first day of the week'? The Solution to this might be twofold. For, on the one hand, the one who rejects the passage itself, namely the pericope which says this, might say that it does not appear in all the copies of the Gospel according to Mark. At any rate, the accurate ones of the copies define the end of the history according to Mark with the words of the young man who appeared to the women and said to them, 'Do not fear. You are seeking Jesus the Nazarene' and the words that follow. In addition to these it says, 'And having heard this they fled and they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid.' For in this way the ending of the Gospel according to Mark is defined in nearly all the copies."
Also, Eusebius, in his Church History (3.39.) notes the role that a presbyter named Aristion had in the transmission of Mark's gospel. We also read in Peake's Commentary, p818 that
"A 10th century Armenian MS ascribes the passage to Aristion, the presbyter mentioned by Papias."
Jerome 120 to Hedybia Concerning Twelve Questions 3 -
"The solution to the question [of why the endings of Mark and Matthew contradict one another] is twofold. Either we do not receive the testimony of Mark, which appears scarsely in copies of the gospel, while almost all books in Greek do not have this pericope at the end..."
These 2 men are writing in the 4-5th century and testifying that even by their time, the longer ending is absent from the vast, if not all original Greek manuscripts available to them. The most revealing admission is that Mark, the disciple to whom the Gospel is ascribed, might not have been the one testifying to the events and whose words were canonized in their days. In the 2nd century, Church figures such as Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and Tatian paraphrase or thematicaly allude to the contents of this omitted passage. This simply shows the evolving nature of Christianity's 2Tim3:16"God-breathed" scriptures, the progressive inclusion of oral legends into the text. Besides the lack of physical evidence, there are also obvious stylistic and thematic differences between that passage and the rest of Mark's Gospel.
In Contra Celsus, Origen's famous work addressing the objections of the pagan thinker Celsus, Origen tries (unsuccessfully) to defend the assertions of Christianity, including the most important, that Jesus resurrected. He quotes detail citations from Matthew, Luke and John to support the resurrection as he was specifically challenged to produce post-resurrection evidence yet he doesnt mention anything beyond Mark16:8. This despite ORigen being the most outstanding Christian manuscript expert of his time, using all scriptural means at his disposal to support the post-resurrection story against the charges of the sceptics.
Modern scholars contend that
"At least nine versions of the ending of Mark can be found among the 1,700 surviving ancient Greek manuscripts and early translations of the gospel".
The NIV bible also comments
"The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20"
Roman Catholics are not required to believe that Mark wrote this longer ending. The NAB translation includes the footnote:
"[9-20] This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. It is a general resume of the material concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus, reflecting, in particular, traditions found in Luke 24 and John 20."
The Codex Sinaiticus, besides exposing the fact that the resurrection was an unknown story in the earliest Gospel, also contains two New Testament books that arent part of the current canon: the Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century and the Epistle of Barnabas, which is more blatant than the current Gospels on explicitly blaming Jesus' alleged murder on the Jews.
The Didache, composed anywhere between the mid 1st century and the 3rd century, by an early Christian sect which focused on Torah observance while leaving the door open to gentile converts, makes no mention of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and its Eucharist celebration makes no connection of the meal with the body and blood of Christ, nor does it speak of some of the most basic tenets of Pauline thought such as original sin or faith without works
"Since the writings which now constitute the New Testament were for long not agreed to be sacred, they were repeatedly edited revised and elaborated. The story of Jesus and his sayings was changed according to the context and interests of successive believers. So different sets of believers read and transmitted variant texts… Some additions, revisions and deletions to early Christian writings were on a much grander scale. The intrusion of seven spurious letters into the Pauline corpus, the helpfully compression of two of Paul’s letters to make 2 Corinthians, and the clumsy addition of revised endings to the gospels of Mark (16:9-20) and John (21) – both destined to include extra post-resurrectional appearances of Jesus to the disciples – all illustrate the fluidity and porosity of these texts before they became canonical… The easy alterability of the earliest writings about Jesus, by addition, omission or redaction, indicate that for all the sacredness of their subject, the gospels themselves were not regarded as sacrosanct. Or put another way, for a century or more after Jesus’ death, Christian groups existed, and flourished, without the New Testament. The existence of the gospel of Mark, probably the earliest of the canonical gospels, did not present Matthew and Luke from changing what Mark had written , or from writing their own gospels…"(Keith Hopkins – Professor Cambridge).
Similarly, the Q Gospel, believed to be the source out of which the 4 canonic Gospels expand upon, knows nothing of Jesus’ death and his resurrection. It is inconceivable that its compilers knew of such things, particularly the resurrection, and neglected or chose not to mention them.
