In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"
The apologetic argument that the conflicting reports on Jesus' alleged resurrection, and many other differences are due to eyewitnesses recounting the same story through different angles doesnt hold. Besides these differences being so blatant that no objective enquirer can accept this defence, we have the very basic fact that those after whom the Gospels are named were not even eyewitnesses. They didnt even write their accounts of the story until at least 40 to 70 years after it allegedly took place, as they heard it from unidentified sources. How did these authors interview their sources of information? What criteria did they use to determine the reliability of the people that told them the details of the stories that they wrote?
There is a reason why the resurrected Jesus only appeared to his already devoted followers, who are our only source of the story, instead of his opponents to whom he allegedly pledged will show them proof of his resurrection Matt12:39.
Despite these facts, and basing themselves on the assumption that the resurrection(s) story, or rather stories, are actually true, Christians ask why did the Roman and Jewish opponents of Jesus not dig up the body of Jesus in order to disprove the claims made exclusively by his devoted followers? The true question should be, still assuming the story to be true, how could we know that his opponents did NOT dig up his body in order to disprove the resurrection story? And if they succesfully did, how would we hear about it today considering the centuries of Catholic censorship and fabrications that started very early on in Christian history? Also the decayed body displayed by the authorities could have easily been dismissed as not Jesus' by his devoted followers.
Although today's apologists love to suggest a "tradition" of early visitors to the tomb of Jesus (without a shred of evidence), nothing can disguise the fact that until the 4th century Christians got along just fine without a Jesus tomb and had no special reverence for the place of his supposed execution. The Christians' difficulty in finding all the hallmarks sites of the NT, sometimes even having the same hallmark in different locations where different sects reside, is often blamed on a conspiracy by Emperor Hadrian who had supposedly deliberately built his pagan sanctuaries over their sacred sites.
The same excuse is used for the confusion on the location of Jesus' tomb (the current one is unmarked and without a shred of evidence to connect it to Jesus). Far from being concerned with early Christianity, at that time just a cluster of cults among many others, and virtually unknown in the Roman world, in reality, the emperor Hadrian sited his temple and forum complex precisely where it would be found in most other Roman cities – at the intersection of the major east-west and north-south roads.
An interesting question to ask is, where was Jesus between his crucifixion and resurrection? Was he in heaven, in accordance with his promise to the crucified thief that
Lk23:43"today you shall be with me in paradise?
If so, how can we account for his post-resurrection statement to Mary Magdalene
Jn20:17"touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to the Father"?
In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"
That is actually one of the major argument against the resurrection, the lack of witnesses. When challenged by the Pharisees to display a miracle, Jesus promised them his resurrection after being dead for 3 days Matt12:39. Once he is supposedly resurrected, he doesnt appear to those who specifically asked him for the sign and to whom he said he will reappear. Instead, Jesus' followers come to the Pharisees, claiming that the sign had occured. Neither is there any claim that the risen Jesus ever appeared to anyone but believers. There is only the word of a mere handful of "witnesses" whose stories vary from person to person, and we dont even know who transmitted those biased accounts until they were eventually put to writing by scribes whom nobody knows.
Other problems arise when analyzing the conflicting testimonies of the evangelists as regards the resurrection in Matt28:1-10,Mk16:1-20,Lk24:1-12,Jn20:1-18. These testimonies are so unreliable, they would not stand up to critical cross-examination in any court of law.
"One of the first exercises students of the Gospels do is to consult a parallel version of them, allowing an examination in four columns of the ways in which they relate to each other… As one notices the parallels and differences, a host of questions flood in and one thing above all becomes clear: no single, agreed picture of Jesus is likely to be possible on this evidence." (David F. Ford – Professor Cambridge).
Matthew and Luke's unknown authors dont claim being eye witnesses. John's unknown author vaguely refers to John in the 3rd person during the resurection account, and doesnt claim to be a witness to the event. Paul's 500 witnesses to the risen Jesus 1Cor15 isnt reported by the gospels, the Jewish historian Josephus, Roman historians, and early Christian writers. In his account, 25 years after the alleged event, Paul doesnt give a geographic location where these
"upwards of five hundred brethren"
had simultaneously seen the resurrected Jesus, neither does he say whether he was among them, or whether he had heard of it through "inspiration" or from other Christians. None of those 500 witnesses ever came forward to give testimony to what they saw. Paul further says Jesus apeared to the 12 while Judas had comitted suicide before the event.
In fact, there is virtually not one detail of the crucifixion and resurrection narratives upon which all four Gospel authors agree. Yet, it is upon this story that the entire Christian religion stands or falls? Even the date of the crucifixion is an issue of contention among the four Gospels.
Here are a few specific examples. In Matt28,Mk16 the 2 Marys are greeted by an angel who shows them the empty tomb where Jesus laid, informs them of his resurrection and instructs them that they are to tell the disciples that Jesus had gone "before them" to the Galilee to meet them. Both Marys then unexpectedly meet the resurrected Jesus, who repeats the angel's instructions to them, then sends them to the disciples to tell them they are to meet him in the Galilee. However, Lk24:13 shows him first appearing in the vicinity of Jerusalem, where the disciples are according to both Luke and Acts yet Mark, Matthew and John, say the disciples meet him in Galilee.
In John20, when Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb, there is no angel there to greet her with information about Jesus' whereabouts or instructions about a rendezvous in the Galilee. She thus concludes that someone had removed the body from the grave, runs back to Peter and an unnamed disciple and reports,
"They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him!".
Thats an entirely different version. Also, John's story lacks the Roman guards whom Matthew places at the tomb. Only Matthew speaks of that guard placed there to prevent anyone from removing Jesus' body. How could John's Mary have thought that someone removed the body, when according to Matthew, Roman soldiers were placed at the tomb for the specific purpose of preventing just such an occurrence?
The Gospel of Matthew later makes use of these guards as an argument against the "stolen body" objection. Instead it is as a conspiracy started by the Jewish priests to whom the guards reported the events (why would Roman guards report anything to Jewish authorities anyway?) and who covered it up by corrupting the guards with money, thus beginning the rumor that
Matt28:11-15"His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep".
Continuing with John's version of the events, Mary magdalene, after reporting about the missing corps to Peter, she returns a second time to the tomb, and finds 2 angels sitting inside it. They say nothing about any resurrection. So she inquires as to whether the angels have removed Jesus' body, turns around only to see Jesus standing before her. She doesnt recognize him at first, only after talking to him, desires to touch his wounds (that apparently failed to regenerate after the resurrection) but is told not to, yet just a few verses down Jesus asks Thomas the skeptic to do just that!
Another issue with John's writer is that he mixes up the chronological appearances of the risen Jesus. He says the Galilean appearance was the 3rd in Jn21:14 yet he had already stated the 1st was to Mary Magdalene 20:4, the 2nd to the disciples without Thomas 20:19, the 3rd eight days later to the disciples with Thomas 20:26. This leads John's writer to also mix up the chronology of miracles, because the fishing miracle that was a pre-resurrection miracle in Lk5:1-11 becomes post-resurrection apparition in Jn21:1-13.
In Luke24 we have yet another variant resurrection tale. Several women accompanied Mary Magdalene on her visit to the tomb making a total of 4+. They find it empty then suddenly see two men (instead of 1 as in the other gospels) with shining garments who inform them of the resurrection. The women then go to the male disciples and tell them what happened at the tomb. They dont believe them, but Peter goes to the tomb anyway, finds it empty, and then leaves. Thus, in this gospel's account, nobody sees Jesus during the initial visits to the tomb contrary to Matthew and John's accounts. Two witnesses, not from his disciples since the "eleven" appear later in the same story, one named Cleopas and one unindentified, inadvertently come accross the risen Jesus in Jerusalem's vicinity without recognizing him at first. As they declare their disbelief in the one whom they thought dead and defeated, Jesus scolds them for not recognizing his fulfillement of scriptures. Jesus remains with them and joins them for dinner then vanishes as soon as they recognize him. Luke says nothing about Jesus appearing first to the women.
In 1Cor15, the most celebrated creed of the resurrection, Paul states that among the disciples, Peter (aka Cephas, Simon) saw the risen Jesus first while Lk24:33 states he was with "the eleven" gathered in Jerusalem. That is why in Matthew and John's accounts he appears to the disciples together. Paul does not speak of Jesus' appearance to the women, in fact he dismisses their testimony entirely as if it never happenned. The Gospels on the other hand, despite disagreeing which of the women saw Jesus first, all agree the first testimony was that of a female. Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary Matt28:9 or to Mary Magdalene alone Mk16:9,Jn20:18. In his missionary zeal, Paul needed weighty arguments (the words of women certainly werent!) and the reference to Jesus' inner circle of disciples was more appropriate.
In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"
The claim of persecution at the hands of Saul, apparently a leading persecutor Acts7:58-8:3,Gal1:13,Phil3:6,1Cor15:9 is flimsy. In those days the Sanhedrin had no authority to empower a heresy hunter as claimed in Acts9, to operate independently in Damascus, emprisonning, torturing, killing. The NT itself states that his ultra orthodox teacher Gamaliel persuaded the Sanhedrin to release the disciples and cease persecution "just in case" they were doing God's work Acts5:34-40. Saul was supposedly zealously persecuting Christians at the very time Jesus was performing miracles, attracting multitudes, overthrowing moneychangers in the Temple and generally provoking Pharisees and Sadducees yet not a word of protest is reported from him during all of Jesus' time throughout the gospels.
What is more intriguing is that following Saul conversion to Christianity, his Roman and Jewish employers do not react, and the persecution of Christians immidiately stops then, as if the entire show was run by just only one man Acts9:31. Either this religious policeman role was a storytelling embellishment or Jesus' had so little impact in his lifetime that he and his followers passed unnoticed.
After all, the NT itself states that the number of Jesus' followers did not exceed 120. That is not to mention the fact that Saul, after his name change to Paul and his conversion, his blazing missionary activities and audiences of governors and kings, equally passes unnoticed in the secular histories of his age. Not to say that Saul/Paul is an entirely fictional character as some scholars suggest, but it is clear that in their effort to reach out to the Jews, the NT writers needed a "zealous Jews who saw the light" and in fact most of the incidents surrounding Saul/Paul's life have a striking similarity with a certain aristocrat in the times of Herod, during the Jewish rebellion of 66-74 AD named SAUL, whose character and life are depicted by Josephus.
In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"
The Prophet never punished out of mere retaliation for a personal slight or injury. All his punishments, of believers and unbelievers alike, were for crimes committed against the public weal or infringements of the promulgated law; and even here his life contains acts of clemency in which he put mercy above justice. In 4:140 it says
"And indeed He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allah's communications disbelieved in and mocked at do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them; surely Allah will gather together the hypocrites and the unbelievers all in hell".
This is a Medinan verse in which the prophet isnt told to forcefully silence the critics, even those mockers of the religion. He is simply to gracefully turn away from them and leave them to their own shamefull talk. A similar verse was revealed in Mecca 6:68.
The Muslims entered Mecca but the keys to the Kaaba were with Uthman Bin Talha, a non-believer who locked the door of the holy sanctuary upon learning of the Muslims' entrance in Mecca. He hid, refusing to hand over the keys, until Ali found him and snatched the keys from him, openned the Kaaba and the Prophet entered, prayed in it, after which revelation came down
4:58"indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are belong to..".
The prophet understood that the Shaybah family had to be returned their possession; he thus ordered Ali to return the key to Uthman Bin Talha and excuse themselves. Ali then went to Uthman and gave back the key and presented their apologies for the wrong he had done to him by forcibly taking the key. Uthman b. Talha was shocked, he could not believe Ali was giving back the key to him as instructed by the Prophet Muhammad, the conqueror of Mecca, who could have done as he wished with anyone and anything within the city. Ever since, the guardianship of the Kaaba remained with Bani Shaybah, which is bestowed upon the elders of the family until today.
The soldiers and men of Quraysh who once levelled armies seeking to exterminate the Muslims by all means, persecuted and starved the Prophet and his powerless followers in the early days of his Call, brutalised and killed Muslim prisonners, war criminals in every sense of the word, came to the Prophet submissively. They thought they would most certainly be slain, just as they would have executed the Muslims had their tirelessly repeated plans worked. They knew very well that within their own customs retaliation and hatred were the rule of the game within the fabrics of the society and its order. Hatred and hostilities were passed down from one generation to the next and unwillingness to perpetrate revenge was considered a defect.
While attributing the promised victory to Allah alone, the Messenger, in the manner of the great men of God who show magnanimity once they are at the climax of their power and glory, contented himself with uttering what a previous Prophet, noble as him had uttered in similar circumstances. The prophet Joseph before him told his brothers who came to him in submission, seeking forgiveness for their faults against him
12:92"There shall be no reproof against you this day; Allah may forgive you, and He is the most Merciful of the merciful".
The prophet continued
"Let every wealth (wrongfully seized), every blood (wrongfully shed), and every revenge to be exacted belonging to the days of jahiliyyah be trampled under my foot, except the guardianship of the Kaaba and the bearing of water at the time of the pilgrimage; they shall be returned to their people (the Quraysh)".
The noble prophet finally recited the Quran verse which constitutes the epitome of divine justice
49:13"We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you with Allah is the one among you most careful (of his duty); surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".
With these words, Muhammad was giving a general amnesty to all Quraysh and all the Meccans. To realize the degree of generosity from the Prophet, one must recall the life threatening hardships which these people imposed on him and now that they were completely subdued by him, instead of thinking of vengeance, or at the very least demanding apologies and reparations, which was certainly his due, he forgave them. This way he was displaying his function of "rasul", the embodiement of God's mercy to mankind.
In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"
The selflessness are described by the prophet Muhammad as neither belonging to the prophets or martyrs, but the prophets and martyrs will envy them due to their status on the Day of Resurrection
"The best faith is to love for the sake of Allah, to hate for the sake of Allah, and to work your tongue in the remembrance of Allah. Mu’adh said, “What is it, O Messenger of Allah?” The Prophet said: That you love for the people what you love for yourself, and you hate for the people what you hate for yourself, and that you speak goodness or remain silent".
Many times the Quran starts or ends a passage about belief in the One God, with a statement about just dealings between men, always showing how faith and righteousness are inevitably linked to social interractions.
This selflessness thus negates any expections and favor in return while lending a helpful ear to any type of "asker" 74:6,93:10. This is because everyone in this world may be subject to physical, spiritual or intellectual need.
This comprehensive attitude enjoined in the Quran, as described in the previous article, along with other such directives, takes the principle of the "golden rule" to new heights and should be labelled the "diamond rule".
Slaves were an integral part of the household to such an extent that, as with other members of the biological family, women were allowed to unveil in their presence 24:31. This of course was a ruling of conveniency, given the frequent interraction with the male servants going about their various assisting tasks within the household. But it further contributed to their thorough integration within the family sphere, solidifying the various rulings of consideration towards them. They had to be fed and maintained without any psychological injury and for the sake of Allah, not seeking benefits of any kind from them in return
76:8-10"And they give food however great be their own want of it to the poor and the orphan and the captive: We only feed you for Allah's sake; we desire from you neither reward nor thanks: Surely we fear from our Lord a stern, distressful day. So God will save them from the woes of that day, and give them radiance and gladness. So God will save them from the woes of that day, and give them radiance and gladness".
What is remarkable here is that the Quran places even the need of the captive, regardless of his religion, above the need of the Muslim guardian himself. This is just one of the many passages that further dwarfs the judeo-christian notion of the golden rule.
So, even though the Quran does not pronounce an abstract concept like to “love your neighbour”, it does however articulate its reality and applications in a much more comprehensive manner, constantly interlinking worship of God with application of social justice. In a hadith, the prophet describes how the angel Jibril admonished him for the sake of the neighbours
"Mujahid reported that a sheep was slaughtered for 'Abdullah ibn 'Amr. He asked his slave, "Have you given any to our Jewish neighbour? Have you given any to our Jewish neighbour? I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'Jibril kept on recommending that I treat my neighbours well until I thought that he would order me to treat them as my heirs.'"
Reciprocity in goodwill is so hardwired into the Quranic message that even when people meet and greet oneanother, the one answering should exceed the other in his greeting
4:86"When a greeting is offered you, answer it with an even better greeting, or [at least] with its like. God keeps count of all things".
The Islamic greeting is a supplication to Allah, that He might bestow peace on another. This known etiquette, which is a Muslim peculiarity, is a means by which people’s hearts are cleansed. It brings people closer together and reinforces their ties.
In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"
The fact is that so many factors in the prophet's life went against displaying any sort of positivity and mercy that one can only conclude that he had been preserved and guided by the Almighty from turning into an evil despot; never knew his father, hardly enjoyed the compassion of his mother, lost his grandfather, and then his uncle and dearest wife simultaneously, witnessed every single one of his children die save for one, who was treated like a menace and fugitive after decades of building a flawless reputation among his people, on top of that physically abused until he would faint, starved for years by his own people, and faced countless campaigns of character assassination, directed towards him and his household, driven out of his home, unto a foreign town only to find hypocrites there awaiting every opportunity to betray him, then watching assassination attempts against his life unfold regularly, as well as the murder and mutilation of his relatives and companions.
Who could in such circumstances persevere and rise beyond negativity, displaying mercy, justice and empathy besides one divinely guided? This is why we find in this Quran, and as embodied by the prophet, that it calls Muslims to treating others, whether close or far "neighbors", from one's own people or not, as they themselves would like to be treated. It was a way of life of the prophet who taught the people the general axiom that
"Allah will not be merciful to those who are not merciful to mankind".
Whenever the Quran encourages fair treatment, it does so by instilling empathy
4:9"Let those who would fear for the future of their own helpless children, if they were to die, show the same concern for orphans, let them be mindful of God and speak out for justice".
That type of imaginative role-reversal is a recurrent theme 4:36,42:23,83:1-6. Treating others even better than what is expected towards one's self, opens the possibility to create a positive change even in one's enemy 41:34,59:9. This shows how altruism in the Quran, although seemingly over empathetic, actually remains pragmatic by extending fair treatment even to one's enemies in certain cases. The prophet said
"Whoever would love to be delivered from the Hellfire and entered into Paradise, then let him die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and let him treat the people the way he would love to be treated".
In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"
Until 9:29, the sura Tawba prescribed divine punishment upon 3 groups; the hypocrites among the Muslims, the treacherous warmongers among the idolaters, and those idolaters insisting on their pagan practices within the sacred precincts of Mecca.
No punishment 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 mentioned 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 mentioned. 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 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 voluntarily 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, individually 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 "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"
The concept of a divine fatherly figure typically is a Hebrew one, with God calling the nation of Israel His firstborn and referred to in the book of Jeremiah as their father. Jews are very much attached to that concept and dispute Christian appropriation of that title through their mistranslations of the Hebrew texts.
The Hebrew understanding of the notion of God as a fatherly figure has nothing to do with the Christian one.
In their monolatrous concept of God, Jews are the preferred sons above all nations charged with being the torch bearers of the truth, and their father is in charge of educating them throughout that process, sometimes in the harshest of ways. This is a notion which the Quran refutes.
The Quran rebukes the people of the book for their misappropriation of the phrase "son of God" metaphorically on themselves 5:18. Here the verse is not making a sweeping condemnation of the usage of that terminology, rather its abuse. They were making that claim in the context of moral accountability. Being the sons of God implied them being His "beloved", honored among the nations, His favoured. Forgiveness was thus their due and will always eventually be restored to their station of nearness to God despite their sins. If that is the case then the Quran reminds the Jews more particularily, of the destructions that befell them throughout their recorded history.
Each of those, as related in their own books were the result of divine disapproval. None is immune in this life to hardships, whether the most righteous or the sinners. These difficulties are either meant to strengthen one's spiritual resolve, make him mend his ways, or utterly destroy him, not leaving him any chance to even repent
3:140-1"and We bring these days to men by turns, and that Allah may know those who believe and take witnesses from among you; and Allah loves not the unjust. And that Allah may purge those who believe and eradicate the unbelievers".
The violent hardships that befell those very ones claiming to be God's favored among the nations, were neither meant at improving their non-existent spirituality, nor to make them mend their ways and forgive them. God, their "father" meant to eradicate the sinners off the face of the earth. They knew this reality and could not offer an answer in defence of their claim of being God's "beloved". Their history of punishments, down to our recent times, is no example of a father-son relationship where the child is being lovingly raised and corrected. Further, because the verse does not forbid the notion of sonship to God, it does however make sure that anyone using it does not think of himself in any way intrinsically superior to other human beings
5:18"you are mortals of His creating".
Nowhere here or elsewhere does the Quran accuse individual Jews of claiming divinity, rather it seeks to blot out that notion even on a subconscious level.
In 19:34 following the story of Jesus' nativity and infancy, the Quran addresses 2 issues. First in a statement from God rejecting any notion of sonship to Him 19:35 and then in a quote from Jesus stressing the basic monotheistic principle that
19:36"indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him; this is a straight path".
In light of Jesus' clear statement, which happens to be quoted almost verbatim in the NT although in a different context Jn20:17, the Quran then continues by condemning as disbelievers those that contended, and still do, with these 2 principles 19:37. Jesus during his time among his people did not forbid the expression "son of God" since it did not carry ambiguous connotation to the Jews, as regards the relationship between the person whom the expression was applied to, and God. A "son of God" was neither an extension of God, nor shared in the divine essence. It is thus God who took it upon himself to reject the notion once it became perverted and loaded with polytheistic significance after Jesus. As a prophet however, Jesus, like his predecessors, always stressed the basic monotheistic tenets to his addressees, and hence the verse 19:36 rightly quotes him doing so. The whole passage from 19:30-7 in defence of Jesus aims at condemning people for different reasons and at different times during his life and prophetic mission. Where the Jews in Jesus' time transgressed in their use of that metaphorical appelation, was in the implicit notion of intrinsic honor due to them, the "children of God". Jesus in the NT condemns this Jewish self-conceit in no uncertain terms, whether it pertained to their abuse of the notion of sonship to God Jn3:10,8:42-44 as the Quran does in 5:18 quoted earlier, or whether that conceit was due to their Abrahamic ancestry Matt3:9,Lk3:8. When Jesus himself, the prophet in their midst could not in anyway be compared in greatness to the One that sent him Jn13:16 then why would they, the sinful ones boast of them being God's sons? This was no false humility from Jesus and when he asked to be honored as the father is Jn5:22-23, he meant in terms of recognition
"Whoever does not honour the Son does no honour the Father who sent him".
This is very similar to the Quranic statement that rejecting the messenger (dishonoring him) is the same as rejecting the One that sent him. Jesus in fact desired for his followers the same honor and glory that were due to him Jn17:21-22. It is remarkable to note how the Quran who, had it been the product of its historical milieu, should have followed the example of its predecessors in claiming the honorific sonship title to the Muslims. Instead it emphatically states that no one has any unconditional right or privilege against Allah. The only ones honored and privileged by Allah are those of correct faith and righteous deeds, regardless of their claim of belonging to a religious group or specific ancestry. And the highest distinction God may confer among His creatures, is that of obedient slaves. Such distinction does not cause an increase in relation to God, rather in relation to the rest of creation. Further, contrary to the "son of God" terminology, it does not carry the misleading notion of special privilege with God, nor of particularity in terms of essence and lineage.
The concept of a divine fatherly figure is different in Christianity. To Christians, God is the father firstly in relation to the son/Jesus whom he has "begotten not made" and of whom he is the head in the trinity. The Jewish and Christians concepts have nothing to do with oneanother and Jews loath that misappropriation of the term by trinitarian Christians. Even the extension of God as a paternal figure to regular Christians has nothing to do with the notion as described in relation to the Jewish nation.
This father-son connection is only used in Hebrew scriptures for the Jews themselves and all other instances where "sons of elohim" is translated "sons of God" in Christian Bibles is considered erroneous, not only from a Jewish theological perspective, but also from a contextual one. The word elohim although may apply to God, primarily means a powerful entity like for example judges, rulers or notables Ex7:1,4:16,22:6-7,20,1Sam28:12-13,Ps82:6.
One famous Christian rendition of "sons of elohim" as "sons of God" is in Gen6. With their "fallen angel" concept in mind, Christians prefer the "sons of God" rendition due to the mention of "nefilim" in v4 whom they speculate are the progeny of fallen angels/sons of God with sons of adam. Yet "sons of elohim" obviously is in reference to the progeny of men with great power, who rather than using their position for justice, committed crimes against their fellow men, abusing the "daughters of Adam", indulging in lawlessness to their benefit. Follows God's decision to destroy the world and everything in it, explicitly because of the human race's injustice, nothing is said about angels.
Everything is destroyed, since all this world was created for man to rule over it Gen1:29-31, except those chosen to survive in the ark. But again, nothing about angels or do Christians mean that mankind was destroyed because of the angels´ wickedness?
Now regarding the nefilim, the v4 says they were already on the earth in those days and they continued to be so afterward. They were not the result of mating between fallen angels and humans.
This race of people had the peculiarity of counting giants among them, who even survived the flood Numb13:22,33,Josh12:4. In proportion, these giants were to the Israelites what a grasshopper is to a regular human being.
The Quran being the supreme protector of monotheism, never refers to God with such imperfect appellations, as it easily paves the ground for polytheistic beliefs, similar to the ones that polluted Christianity 17:110"HE has the best names". Interestingly, in Islam the closest one comes in parallelling God's relationship to His creatures, to that of human parent-children connection, is a hadith where the prophet compares the mercy of Allah towards the people with that of a mother to her infant. One of Allah's names, al-Rahman, stems from the root of rahm/the womb, evoking the nurturing, loving care of the mother.
Even when the masculine pronoun HE/HUWA is used in reference to Allah, it does not denote gender. In literature this masculine can either be the grammatical or biological masculine. Also, singular neutrality in Arabic is expressed with the masculine (not biological) pronoun. There is no IT in Arabic hence the use of the grammatical masculine HUWA to denote neutrality of gender (for a singular entity, while the feminine is used for a couple like the eyes). In the HB/NT, the title of "Father" has gender as well as sexual connotations. That notion of fatherhood associated with God may easily lead to polytheism, or at the least false, exclusivist, monolatrous notions as one finds throughout the Hebrew writings. Christians however took that misleading appellation to a more crooked level, as seen above.
In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"
Pre-Islamic oral tradition has preserved names of the non-polytheistic remnants in their midst, the likes of Luqman whom the Quran pointed to them as an example of wisdom, righteousness and gratefulness to the One God 31:12-13. This pure way, Abraham's way was something that none could contend with, whether Jew, Christian and even the Arab polytheists who knew him, his history and never denied that his "Way" was the Right Way, that Ibrahim was the founder of the Kaaba and was a pious worshiper of Allah.
The Quran therefore would repeat Abraham's life story while laying great stress on his antagonism to polytheism, as well as him not being part of any later group that claimed spiritual closeness to him, like the Jews and Christians. This was an admonishment, on one hand to the Arabs and the Quraish in particular. They regarded themselves as his spiritual and physical descendants. The people of the book and more particularily the Jews, thought the same and are told that Abraham instead was a pure submitter (lit. hanif muslim) as demonstrated throughout his upright life and unconditional submission to God
3:67"Ibrahim was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was a hanif, a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists".
In such background, the Quran would interpel Ismail's descendants and kept asking them to bring proof for their innovations 35:40-1, kept reminding them again and again about the One, supreme, all powerful Creator they readily professed belief in, yet placed interceding idols next to him, hence the baselessness of their polytheism.
These small groups of Meccan men and women detested the use of the Kaaba by the polytheists and kept their practice of religion monotheistic. They affirmed that the Abrahamic legacy had been distorted beyond recognition, whether by the Jews, Christians or Ishmaelites brethren, and these personalities were seeking a return to the pristine religion. The traditions mention their names and how their ways of life would lead them to harassement by the Idol worshipers. They include names like Uthman ibn Huwayrith, Ubaydullah bin Jahsh, Zayd ibn Amr ibn Nawfal Al-Nabighah al Ja'adi etc, as well as Muhammad the orphan whom they all knew and hence couldnt accuse him of change of heart
10:16"I have lived a lifetime among you before it".
Muhammad essentially raised himself, never worshiped the idols, never entertained the idea of doing so in the past 109:1-6. He would retreat away from the pagan environement to contemplate as some of his forefathers did, such as his great grand father the hanif, Hashim ibn Abd al-Manaf. He would remain in such wandering perplexity until his prophetic call came unexpectedly. His firm stance against associating with God and polluting the Kaaba reached its peak then, despite his opponents' demands to compromise his message with their beliefs 68:9.
In the pre-Islamic poems of the likes of Jiran al-'Awd or Umayyah ibn Abi as-Salt, the hanifiya, "the way of Ibrahim" as he said, is mentioned by name and Ibn Ishaq quotes it in connection with Abraha's attack on the Kaaba. Sirmah ibn Anas of the Banu Adyy ibn Al Najjar was another hanif, per the work of Isabah, that renounced idolatry and became a hanif and that he worshipped only the God of Abraham. There are countless sources that connect Abraham with the Arabs and those that desired to return to his ways, without any connection to Jewish and Christians ways, were considered hanifs. None among the Arabs ever contended with such facts. This whole tradition revolved especially around the legacy of the Kaaba.
In answer to the video "Psychology, Bias, and Transformation: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 12)"
The hanifs is a term used first and foremost as an uncompromising opposition to polytheism 10:105,22:30-1,98:5. It also describes mankind's original predisposition to uprightness 30:30. Hanif stems from H-N-F, which is lexically very interesting. It means the foot that is tilted inwards so that the sole is exposed. In the highly metaphorical language of the Arabs, it became used for the one that exposes his inner self, his secrets, has nothing to hide due to his uprighteness, rectitude. The opposite of hanaf is janaf, indicating the outward inclination of the feet. It is used to imply crookedness of intent in 2:182. As to hanaf, a water tap is called hanafiya, from the same root, because of the straight manner that water comes out of it. A person born with a condition that made both feet point to eachother when walking was referred to as rajulun "ahnaf" because that person walks in a straight manner and can only change direction with difficulty. The common denominator to all these subtle meanings, is straightness, rectitude.
Because to the pre-islamic Arabs, their forefather Ibrahim's spiritual way was independant of all belief systems of the time, be it the loathsome distortions of Judaism and Christianity or Idolatry, it was considered as close to man's original upright predisposition as one can be, and thus the word became associated with those seeking to emulate Ibrahim 3:67,6:161. They rejected the consumption of meat slaughtered in the name of idols as well as other pagan rituals and abominable practices like the burrying of infants alive, which they openly decried. They performed circumcision and rites that were similar to the Israelite rites of the altar sacrifice even before the coming of Muhammad.
Josephus in his Antiquites speaks of the Arabs as Ishmael's descendants, way before the time of Muhammad, almost 500 years, saying they circumcized their children at 13 years old, as was still done in the times of the prophet, to commemorate their forefather Ishmael.
Uri Rubin (Professor, Tel Aviv University) "The pre-Islamic Abrahamic sacredness of the Kaaba is clearly demonstrated in the belief that Abraham's footprints could be seen on one of its sacred stones. This belief is reflected in the very early verses attributed to Abii Talib in which numerous pre-Islamic places of worship are described in a manner which is totally independent of the phraseology of later Islamic sources. The verse referring to Abraham's' footprints reads "wa-mawtii Ibrahima fi l-sakhri ratbatun 'ala qadamayhi hafiyan ghayra na'ili/By Abraham's footprint in the rock still fresh / with both feet bare, without sandals". Later on, Muslim tradition applied to the stone bearing Abraham's footprints the Quranic epithet "Maqam lbrahim". Even the view that the haram, i.e., the sacred territory of Mecca, was founded by Abraham may be regarded as pre-Islamic in origin. Muhammad b. Habib (d. 245H/859), has recorded in his Munammaq a remarkable report saying that Quraysh once asked Thaqif to become their partners in the Meccan haram, in return for equal partnership of Quraysh in the territory of Wajj which was owned by Thaqif. Thaqif refused saying: "How can you be partners in a land in which our father settled, and dug it out of the rocks with his bare hands, without iron tools. And you have not founded the haram by yourselves. It was Abraham who founded it". In other words, Thaqif maintained that Quraysh had no right to make transactions with the Meccan land due to its Abrahamic sacredness. Later on, Muhammad established the haram of Medina on the model of the Abrahamic haram of Mecca".
There is a reason why virtually every non-Muslim writer that witnessed the rise of Islam, from polemicists the likes of John of Damascus that had every reason to refute Muslim claims, to Sebeos in Armenia and beyond, regardless of precise dating and authorship of the works attributed to various Judeo-Christian elite accross the region, almost all of them refer to the Abrahamic ancestry of Muhammad and the Muslims.
In a short Nestorian chronicle, the Khuzistan Chronicle written around 660, in the section concluding the death of Heraclius, the writer says
"the victory of the sons of Ishmael who overpowered and subdued these two strong empires, came from God."
The chronicler further observes
"Regarding the dome of Abraham, we have been unable to discover what it is except that, because the blessed Abraham grew rich in property and wanted to get away from the envy of the Canaanites, he chose to live in the distant and spacious parts of the desert. Since he lived in tents, he built that place for the worship of God and for the offering of sacrifices. It took its present name from what it had been, since the memory of the place was preserved with the generations of their race. Indeed, it was no new thing for the Arabs to worship there, but goes back to antiquity, to their early days, in that they show honour to the father of the head of their people. Hasor, which scripture calls "head of the kingdoms" (Joshua 11:10), belongs to the Arabs, while Medina is named after Midian, Abraham's fourth son by Qetura; it is also called Yathrib. And Dumat Jandal [belongs to them], and the territory of the Hagaraye, which is rich in water, palm trees and fortified buildings. The territory of Hatta, situated by the sea in the vicinity of the islands of Qatar, is rich in the same way; it is also thickly vegetated with various kinds of plants. The region of Mazon also resembles it; it too lies by the sea and comprises an area of more than 100 parasangs. So [belongs to them] too the territory of Yamama, in the middle of the desert, and the territory of Tawf, and the city of Hira, which was the seat of king Mundar, surnamed the "warrior;" he was sixth in the line of the lshmaelite kings".
Even among the polytheist Arabs, remnants of rites commemorating the Abrahamic legacy were maintained.
The beliefs the hanif were attached to, did not initiate from observations and interractions with the Jews and Christians as some orientalists tried suggesting without proof. In fact nothing could have been further from the truth considering the teachings of the scriptures and beliefs in circulation at the time. The HB for example doesn't teach strict monotheism but rather a mix of monolatry and monotheism, with an evident inclination towards the former. Its tribal god, the one god of the tribe of Israel
Deut6"Hear Israel, the Lord is OUR God, the Lord is one",
is openly partial to them, his destiny is closely intertwined with that of his chosen comunity, lamenting their failure and suffering with them, carefully working to achieve their religious and political aspirations. Such a god could scarcely attract the imagination, far less the adoration, of a non-Israelite population. The NT, on the other hand, obscured and blurred the concept of One God by tagging it with the admittedly mysterious doctrine of the Trinity, besides its loathsome notion to a strict monotheist, of a dying god incarnate.
Most of these hanif have their names preserved in the traditions. They were non-Jewish, non-Christian Arabian monotheists although some of them, such as Waraqa bin Nawfal, would convert to one of the 2 faiths as a result of their search before the revelation of the Quran. This Hanif had decided to become a Christian and was among the first ones to recognize the signs of prophethood in Muhammad at the beginning of his call. That recognition however occured towards the end of his life and Waraqa thus died a Christian, before the core Islamic teachings were openly communicated.
