Islam critiqued searches in the old libraries; the Sanaa manuscripts?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

As to the Sanaa manuscripts, they were found along with non Quranic material during a dig at the Great Mosque of Sanaa that was built in the 6th year of hijra under the prophet's orders. The Sanaa manuscripts are there for all to see, some that were dated were compiled in a CD by the UNESCO as a part of their "Memory of the World" program. Other manuscripts are awaiting publication. These facts silence the unjustified conspiracy theorists among the critics who claim that the "embarrassing" manuscripts are somehow hidden by the Yemeni authorities. Sanaa did not reveal anything Muslim tradition did not already know, especially not in terms of variant readings among the early companions

(Nicolai Sinai)"Thus, the Sanaa Palimpsest would appear to provide us with an exciting glimpse at a moment in time at which the hegemony of the Quran’s standard rasm had not yet become fully established. This, it must be said, is in line with the general drift of the Islamic tradition, which reports that during the first decades after Muḥammad’s death a variety of quranic recensions were in circulation. Although none of the exact “companion codices” described by Islamic sources have yet been discovered in manuscript, the general types of textual variants ascribed to them correspond to the types of variants found in the lower layer of the Sanaa Palimpsest. 17 The latter thus lends credence to the idea that there was originally more than one recension of the Quran and that the Islamic literary sources preserve a broadly accurate view of the scale and character of textual variance between these different versions of the Arabic scripture".

The Islamic hadith corpus and scholarly works, although written late, turn out to be remarkably accurate in reporting the phenomenon of variants. This is significant as the issue could be deemed controversial in terms of the preservation of the Quran, yet the Muslim scholars related every aspect of it. What does it say on how faithful the Muslim community was in preserving their tradition, history, morals, prophetic example? Sadeghi who studied the Sanaa manuscripts and how they relate to the Islamic tradition conclude that:

"It is now equally clear that recent works in the genre of historical fiction are of no help. By “historical fiction” I am referring to the work of authors who, contentedly ensconced next to the mountain of material in the premodern Muslim primary and secondary literature bearing on Islamic origins, say that there are no heights to scale, nothing to learn from the literature, and who speak of the paucity of evidence. Liberated from the requirement to analyze the literature critically, they can dream up imaginative historical narratives rooted in meager cherry-picked or irrelevant evidence, or in some cases no evidence at all. They write off the mountain as the illusory product of religious dogma or of empire-wide conspiracies or mass amnesia or deception, not realizing that literary sources need not always be taken at face value to prove a point; or they simply pass over the mass of the evidence in silence. A pioneering early example of such historical fiction was Hagarism, written by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook. While few specialists have accepted its narrative, the book has nevertheless profoundly shaped the outlook of scholars. It has given rise to a class of students and educators who will tell you not only that we do not know anything about Islamic origins, but also that we cannot learn anything about it from the literary sources. All this would be good and well if the mountain of evidence had been studied critically before being dismissed as a mole hill; but the modern critical reevaluation of the literary evidence has barely begun. And, significantly, any number of results have already demonstrated that if only one takes the trouble to do the work, positive results are forthcoming, and that the landscape of the literary evidence, far from being one of randomly-scattered debris, in fact often coheres in remarkable ways. A good example of such findings would be some of Michael Cook’s own fruitful recent studies in the literary sources in two essays of his already discussed here. It is not his confirmation of some elements of the traditional account of the standard Qurʾān that I wish to highlight here, noteworthy as it may be, but rather his demonstration that we can learn from the study of the literary sources".

Among the aspects of the known variant readings confirmed by the most recent scholarly observations is the phenomenon of qira'at tafsiriyya/exegetical recitation. According to Hilali’s general characterization,

“[m]ost of the variations in the lower text include more lengthy text than the corresponding passages in the Cairo edition”. This has led the major works of Hilali and Sadeghi to conclude that "the lower text of the palimpsest is derivative from the standard recension".

Hilali further reflects exactly what the Muslim authorities have stated concerning the shaad qiraat. She opines that the authors of the palimpsest integrated interpretative passages into the text without clearly demarcating the 2 because they did not consider their writings to be transmitted to the general public. Their works were meant for personal use. Ibn al Jazari says that some companions would

“insert exegesis into recitation by way of explanation and clarification because they were endeavoring to ascertain the true meaning of what they received from the Prophet by way of recitation; they were safe from confusion [between the text of scripture and the explanations added to it], but some of them may have written it [the explanations] down together with it [the recitation].”

It is important keeping in view that in many cases there is disagreement among scholars in deciphering the lower text. Successive scholars that have studied images of the lower layer have had different conclusions on what is readable and what isnt. With that being said, an interesting observation is that the sub-text, which was erased and then written over, not only corroborates some of the variant readings known and reported among the companions, but also attests to the truthfulness of the Islamic traditions. These traditions have reported much more variations in readings in the companions' codices in comparison to the ones found in Sanaa. That is why the scholars that have studied the manuscripts, such as Sadeghi and Goudarzi, have observed that the Uthmanic recension, in the minor places where it disagrees with the Sanaa manuscripts, was because it was compiled from a critical examination of other sources and is thus a more faithful reproduction of the prophetic prototype. In other words Uthman did not "invent" a new Quran and especially not "change it", given the nature of the differences between the standard rasm and the Sanaa variants, but instead represents the prophetic recital accurately.

This gives further weight to the already well established Muslim tradition concerning the early companions having their own compilations of the Quran even before Uthman's standardized copy, and Uthman's compilation effort motivated by the need to accommodate all of the variant readings in his skeletal structure. 

Other types of noted differences have no bearing on the text, but relate to the order of suras and aya separations, as well as a faulty writing of the hamza letter. Even today for academic reasons, both Muslims and non Muslims have rearranged Quranic suras in their own studies. Many times and especially in those days, mosques were used as study spaces. Sometimes a copyist can make mistakes in reproducing certain letters, his own style and writing level may also be erroneous. These variations, some of which could be deliberate for personal studies, memorization or prayers, do not undermine the integrity of the Quranic text. Puin's main observation of those differences is that eventually, these manuscripts will show that the medieval Muslim scholars who improved upon the primitive orthography of the text so as to make it more accessible, misread certain vowels, writing a long alef instead of the ya. This again, is irrelevant to determining textual corruption as the vowels are known to have been added so as to conform to different readings. 

Another interesting way in which the Sanaa manuscripts confirm the Muslim tradition is through the use of near-synonyms with certain passages from the Uthmanic recension. These near synonyms, known and listed in the Islamic tradition as parts of the prophetic approved readings, have led scholars that do not give much weight to the Muslim tradition, to actually confirm it once more as truthful. Commenting on various studies of the Sanaa manuscripts, Nicolai Sinai says

"The phenomenon (that is, of near symonyms) does, however, shed valuable light on the initial stage of the Quran’s transmission history, insofar as it suggests some degree of oral transmission in which transmitters were forced to rely on their memory of the gist of what was being said, rather than being able to check a written original. As Sadeghi has highlighted, the fact that an examination of the lower layer of the palimpsest yields a fair number but not a downright overabundance of such synonymic substitutions is best explained by an admixture of oral and written transmission. One may accordingly follow him in conceiving of the Quran’s textual transmission as being ultimately rooted in the transcription of oral proclamations recited at speed, thus accounting for the original transcribers’ occasional disagreement about whether a given verse employed, say, alnār or jahannam. The fact that Islamic works ascribe similar synonymic substitutions to some of the non-ʿUthmānic codices of the Quran reportedly com- piled by certain companions of the Prophet adds further weight to this hypothesis".

Kohlberg and Amir-Moezzi claimed that the Sanaa manuscripts contain “significant variants in relation to the official version of the Qur’an”. But an examination of their source, a statement by von Bothmer, shows that in actuality they have very badly misread him. What von Bothmer said is that approximately 22% of the 926 Quranic manuscripts of Sanaa, 208 manuscripts in total, contain a varying number of lines per page. This has nothing to do with their claims concerning the order of the suras. Furthermore, von Bothmer argues that the Sanaa fragments prove that a complete standard text of the Quran, including the Fatiha and the final two suras, existed in the first Islamic century, all the while acknowledging that the only dated fragment is from AH 357/AD 968.

Another important thing to be kept in mind is that there exists numerous partially written copies of the Quran dating well into medieval times that contain a variety of sura orders. This is simply due to the fact, as stated earlier, that some people only wanted a few or partial suras for personal or public use, without consideration for their chronological order. Thus one must carefully consider to what extent the manuscript in question was originally a full or partial copy.

Other Kufic Quranic manuscripts from 1st and early 2nd century hijra are found in museums today, like the ones of Austria and Bahrein. In fact even the style of the script of the Samarkand codex which the missionaries want to push the dating as far as the late 8th century is found in inscriptions from the 1st century of hijra in the form of dated Kufic inscriptions, predating Uthman's collection of the Quran.

Islam critiqued searches the manuscripts; No 7th century Quran, so what?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

The Quran was transmitted to the next generations both verbally and in script form, on a scale never seen for any document, let alone religious, a process which is still continuing today.

But the primary source of transmission was always oral, all written texts were dependent on it and it still is the case today as all written texts must be attested by the oral tradition of transmission through a Hafiz. Writing down was only meant to consolidate the process of preservation which was mainly oral.

This is what the novices to Islam, which is the case of most its self-proclaimed critics, fail to grasp. They approach Quran authenticity with their own scriptural history in mind. This dual method of control, textual but mainly oral, which was never practiced by the transmitters of the Bible, made it impossible for any textual tampering as it would immediately be detected by the thousands of memorizers in all corners of the Muslim territories.

The number of people having transmitted the Quran is so vast that any error in the transmission became impossible. This is why the Quran is labelled "mutawattir", a level of authenticity attributed to an oral transmission when it has been related exactly the same way by countless independent sources. Extremely few ahadith have been labelled as such or reached the level of multiple independent sources as the Quran. Most ahadith are based ahad reports or singular transmissions. Further and in contrast to the Quran, the ahadith require isnad (detailed chain of transmission) to be validated, because the earliest communities often disputed and argued about the veracity of these statements. The Quran never required any isnad to gain a sense of credibility and authenticity because the text and veracity of the Quran was agreed to by a consensus of the earliest Islamic communities. Despite the abundance of 1st-2nd century hijra manuscripts, there is zero proof that the Quran was transmitted in anyway other than tawatur. Hence the position of mainstream academia as regards the authenticity of the Islamic narrative of compilation, preservation, transmission of the text and recitals. See further below.

The Quran, contrary to both hadith and sunna does not seek support because it has community consensus or reliable transmission chain. Rather, it requires one to believe in its veracity based on it clear arguments. No scripture can be accepted purely on the basis that the same community profess its Divine origins and have themselves sought to protect it.

The script chosen for the Uthman compilation was Kufic, a script still readable today thanks to the dual preservation and transmission of the Quran, textual and oral. Some misinformed and misleading critics have tried arguing that the Kufic script did not appear until the late 8th century in an effort to push forth the dating of the Uthman codices exposed at Samarkand and Topkapi, as this youtuber is trying to claim.

That assertion is totally devoid of any historical basis since it is known that Kufic is the earliest script from which the others developed. That assertion is mainly based on a misquote of Martin Lings who was actually referring to the calligraphic perfection of the script, not its genesis. The Kufic script was known in Mesapotamia at least 100 years before Kufa was even founded, which was during the period of Umar in the 17th year of hijra/638CE. The reason for the layman confusion is because the script is named after the city of Kufa, though it did not originate there. The Kufic script in fact originated in the town of Hira and the Kufans inherited and took on that script that later became known as Kufic, the adopted script of the major learning center of the Islamic world. Several rock inscriptions, as well as coinage, scattered throughout Egypt, Syria, Iraq or the Hijaz attest to the prominence of the Kufic script in Muslim lands already in the 1st century AH.

To further corroborate the point, the manuscripts found in Sanaa were Kufan manuscript, and those are dated the first century hijra. It is also well known that early Quran manuscripts are present in museums worldwide, besides those that are in private collections in the west and those that were lost or destroyed. A huge collection was kept in Germany, but destroyed during the Second World War. Even the manuscripts present in Muslim museums are available as copies in the non-Muslim countries, such as the Uthman Samarkand codex that has numerous copies disseminated worldwide in private and public hands. There are countless 1st century Hijra (622-719CE) Quran fragments, as well as a 99% complete manuscript of that period, the Huseini mosque Cairo manuscript.

Islam critiqued investigates further; missing Quran verses?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

Nobody in the hadith has argued that some verses had to be part of the FINAL compilation of the Quran. 

Here is a concrete example, as regards the stoning verse.

Umar doesnt argue it was part, or should have been part of the Quran. He simply laments that people might forget or neglect the command, precisely because of it not being in the Quran. The mere statement that "I read it" does not indicate he read it as part of the Quran left by the prophet. Some prophetic rulings and prayers were meant to be of temporary application, but they were never meant to be in the Quran, neither temporarily nor in the complete and final version left by the prophet. But anyone could have written those rulings down, just as people recorded non-Quranic utterances of the prophet in his own lifetime. 

The fact that Umar remembered the "stoning verse", as well as other companions the likes of Ubay and Zaid bin Thabit, means that it was never lost. It was memorized and preserved, regardless of whether the written copies of it were all destroyed somehow, including the discarded report stating one written copy in Aisha's house was "eaten by a sheep". Umar and other companions could have simply re-introduced it in their own manuscript at least, had it been meant to be in the Quran. But this never occured, because nobody thought the prophet recited it as part of the Quran. Al Ghamari has rightly observed that what some call the ayat al rajm is not a verse at all, but at most a hadith. When the prophet uttered it, Umar recalls 

"I went to the Prophet and I said: Let me write it.” Shu’bah said: It was as if the Prophet disliked that".

In another narration, the Prophet said in response 

"I cannot have it written". 

This desire of Umar to have it written, does not imply "as part of the Quran". Umar wanted it recorded so it can never be forgotten, which the prophet disliked. The only reason is that it could get confused as a Quran verse. And this is exactly what later occured with the proponents of abrogation. Some believed that certain statements were temporary Quran verses, that got abrogated once they saw and heard the final and completed Quran left by the prophet. This notion however isnt established by any prophetic saying. Nowhere does the prophet support the theory of abrogation of a Quran verse by another, nor does he hint to it. Other misunderstandings might be due to words of prayers which the prophet recited and that were thought to be Quran verses, until they saw that the prophet did not instruct them to be part of the final version. Even today, in the daily prayers and many other rituals, Muslims recite words that arent from the Quran. 

Again, none ever argued that these verses were missing from the Quran which the prophet left, just that they were abrogated. In addition, the prophet did sometimes speak revelation, which he paraphrased and that were never meant to be in the Quran, known later as hadith qudsi. Some early believers might have included them in their personal recitations, just as others would include personal notes in relation to certain passages, and even words of prayers and supplications. 

A typical such example is that of Ubayy' ibn Kaab's supposed 2 missing chapters, al-Hafd and al-Khalaa, which were in fact supplications the prophet used to recite and never ordered them written as part of the Quran, neither did Ubayy claim anything of the sort. That later people believed them to be so is no proof of anything. Ubayy was part of the standardization comitee under Uthman. Uthman himself is reported to have recited these supposed "lost surahs" as a supplication in his prayers (Musannaf ibn Abi Shayba, n°7032). 

The prophet allowed, under his watch, for the companions to freely paraphrase, add or substract to certain Quran passages during their supplications. The prophet himself did so, sometimes merging different suras together for supplication 

"When Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) went to his mattress each night, he joined the palms of his hands, then breathed into them and recited into them: “Say: ‘He is Allah, One [qul Huwa'llahu Ahad]!' (Al-Qur'an;112:1), and: “Say: ‘I take refuge with the Lord of the Daybreak [qul a'udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq]!' (Al-Qur'an;113:1), and: “Say: ‘I take refuge with the Lord of humankind [qul a'udhu bi-Rabbi’n-nas]!' (Al-Qur'an;114:1)". 

Neither the prophet nor the companions said that these recitals were to be passed on as Quran readings. Here is another example with sura ikhlas 

"Mihjan bin Al-Adra' narrated to him that the Messenger of Allah entered the masjid and there was a man who had finished his prayer and he was reciting the tashahhud. He said: "Allahumma inni as'aluka ya Allah! Bi-annakal-Wahidul-Ahad us-Samad, alladhi lam yalid wa lam yowled, wa lam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad, an taghfirali dhunubi, innaka antal-Ghafurur-Rahim".

The prophet forbade his contemporaries from recording from him anything other than the Quran, precisely to limit or stop this phenomenon 

"Do not write down anything of me...whoever writes other thn the Quran should delete it".

This shows that the prophet was reacting to an already existing trend among certain believers. But the consensus of the community, given the mass transmission of the Quran, always prevailed over these marginal opinions. Another such issue is that of the verse on the 10 sucklings, later reduced to 5 sucklings and finally abrogated shortly before the prophet's death. The abrogation and death of the prophet happened so close to oneanother that some people still were unaware of the final version of the Quran, and were still reciting the abrogated verse. One cannot but wonder how close to his death did this occur considering that the same hadith books say that Gabriel reviewed the entire recitation of the Quran with the prophet twice the year he passed away, without any reported change between the recitations. This contradicts the notion that a Quran containing the abrogated verse was in circulation until very close to his death to the point that some were still reciting the abrogated verse after his death. The simple explanation for such a report would be that, again some people among the vast cluster of tribes spread throughout the peninsula that adopted Islam by the time of the prophet's death, may have confused a ruling never meant to be part of the Quran, neither temporarily nor in the final version, before they were corrected. These individual errors and confusions have nothing to do with the issue of Quran authenticity. The hadith itself says they were corrected in their recital, meaning the true and final Quran left by the prophet was present among the people 

"Then, when Allah’s Messenger died these words were among what was recited in the Qur’an" 

Another important thing to note is that the compilers of the Quran after the prophet's death, included even verses they deemed abrogated based on the fact that they were part of the final recital they heard from the prophet 

"Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair: I said to `Uthman bin `Affan (while he was collecting the Qur'an) regarding the Verse:-- "Those of you who die and leave wives ..." (2.240) "This Verse was abrogated by an other Verse. So why should you write it? (Or leave it in the Qur'an)?" `Uthman said. "O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place". 

Abrogation was thus not a criteria for the compilers, rather the last prophetic recital was. Had the prophet recited what is stated about the 5 sucklings, it would have been integrated in its precisely defined place.

We do not have competing texts that sprung up after the prophet, as was the case with the Judeo-christian scriptures until very late in their finalization process. What is also important to note is that Aisha in that hadith doesnt quote the prophet. She might have been quoting someone else or reporting what some people thought.

Another important issue often missed by those approaching hadith literature is that, besides the many motivations to create forgeries, the language and various versions of the same hadith with extra information, or the weakness of a reporter, the most important thing to consider before drawing any conclusion on a hadith's meaning, and which is probably forever lost, are the intricacies of the context of a hadith, as with any discussion between individuals. For example it is possible that while the prophet was reciting a certain surah he broke up his recitation in the midst and gave an explanation which some might have thought to be actually part of the Quran. 

Aisha once asked her scribe to add "and the asr prayer" or according to Tabari "and it is the asr" in the known verse

2:238"Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer [and it is the Asr] and stand obedient to Allah".

A similar report is attributed to Hafsa. The verse was known unanimously in the time of Aisha, who quotes it as is known today. She might have wanted to add in her own personal manuscript, an exegesis the prophet had made while commenting on the verse and which Aisha wrongly thought was part of it. It is interesting to note that we find the same type of elaboration in the following hadith

"We were in the company of the Prophet on the day (of the battle) of al-Khandaq. The Prophet said, "May God fill their graves and houses with fire, as they have kept us so busy (in battle) that we could not offer the middle prayer till the sun had set; and it is the 'asr prayer".

The last part is supposed to be an insertion by the prophet, although it obviously runs against the flow of the speech. It could have been an addition by the narrator the same way the addition in 2:238 is attributed to the prophet. As already noted, some others might mix up a prophet's hadith with the Quran even though it remained orally transmitted. Then they might imagine it to be part of a larger sura. For example, the statement attributed to Ubayy ibn Kaab where he speaks of a verse he heard the prophet recite from sura 98 

"If the son of Adam had a valley of wealth..". 

The "verse" clearly has hadith wording and expressions not found in the Quran (yahudiyyah, nasraniyyah and hanifiyyah etc). Besides, this "verse" is found in ibn Majah solely as a hadith, without any mention of sura 98. We also find many ahadith where the prophet recites sura 98 to Ubayy without any mention of the missing "verse". Some might remember a particular verse in a flawed manner, or even mix up several verses together and think that they were originally as they remembered. For example Maslamah ibn Khalid al Ansari claimed 2 verses were absent from the Quran, which clearly seem to be 8:74 and 32:17 and joined together.

Even AbuBakr and ibn Abbas once recited 50:19 and 90:1 respectively slightly differently than is found in the Uthmanic recension. But witnesses stated they heard them at other occasions reciting with the same wording that has reached us. They, like any other companion, and the prophet himself, were of course not immune to momentary memory lapses.

All these cases, again, are irrelevant in regards to the question of preservation of the Quran. In each case, as it occured even to the prophet himself when he had a memory lapse, the consensus of the community was thereto safeguard the correct transmission.

There are other relevant things to consider when evaluating such reports. Including, the many known motivations to forge ahadith, their language and various versions of the same hadith with extra information, or the weakness of a reporter.

Hadith interpretation is a delicate science and Muslims never take any report for granted simply because it is compiled in a book deemed "authentic". No human being is faultless, except the prophets who were preserved in a single aspect; receiving, communicating and practicing the divine revelation. In fact the prophet himself stated that

"lies will spread after me, so whatever hadith comes to you compare it with the Book of God".

Content of a report thus supersedes even the reliability of the transmitters. 

Islam critiqued wonders at an Arabic peculiarity; Different recitations of the Quran?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

There are 10 qiraat/reading methods which have been approved by the scholars of Islam due to their mass transmission. The differences between them lie in the manner in which the basic Uthmanic text (absence of vowels and dots) was read. As stated earlier, besides the purpose of protecting the text from corruption by locking it with the oral tradition, the defective script allowed the preservation and integration of most authentic readings into the Uthmanic mushaf. Other authentic readings which modified the skeletal text could not be accommodated and thus people progressively ceased reciting them. This is a view shared by al Dani, Ibn al Arabi, Ibn Taymiyya, and Ibn al Jazari.

This formidable flexibility of the text allows for people of all cultural-linguistic backgrounds to choose which Quranic Arabic is easier for them to pronounce. These readings are preserved till this day, the names of the most prominent teachers, and their illustrious students, eachone reciting exactly as his predecessor taught him. The name given to a particular qira'a/reading was after its most excellent or famous reciter, not necessarily after the one that first transmitted it from the prophet. Scholars of fiqh/law must consider all readings of a verse before extracting a ruling.

The various readings, all of which are based on the very same text, are actually an integral part of the Quran's miraculous eloquence, with words carrying multiple but complementary meanings whether in areas of story-telling, beliefs or even divine laws. What is further remarkable is that there are "only" 10 readings while the basic script allows for many times more reading possibilities, with all of them making sense. This in itself is enough to dispel the notion that the 10 qiraat were due to a defective arabic script, rather than inherited by the oral tradition we already know to exist and is well attested. An evident example to corroborate is that of the skeletal m-l-k in surah fatiha read maalik or malik. The word appears in several other places where both reading could equally be applied yet the only place with divergent readings is sura fatiha. This is because the readers were not free to apply their preferences, they were constrained by the sunna of the qiraat.

These Recitations were accommodating to the major dialects of the Arabs, thus leading to unifying the Arabic language, and validating all of its variations and subtleties. This not only allowed a faster spread of Islam but also solidified and preserved the language, as part of the divine pledge to protect the Quran. Had there not been approved recital variations, going back to the prophet's time himself, it would have opened the door to tampering with the text to adapt it to different dialects. It would have corrupted the meaning of the text. It would have corrupted the meaning of the text. As time passed, the phenomenon of fame and spread of one religious, political center instead of another led in the Muslim world, movement of students and teachers led to some qiraat being supplanted by others more popular ones. Today the one most spread is that of Aasim through Hafs.

There are several examples, among them the known case of m-l-k in sura fatiha that can be read maalik/possessor or malik/ruler. It might say in the Hafs reading of 2:271

"If you give alms...yukaffir/this will cover up some of your evil deeds"

while the Doori reading is

"If you give alms...nukaffir/We will cover up some of your evil deeds".

Both readings perfectly complete eachother, with the latter saying Who will provide the covering (God) and the former saying through which action (charity). 9:66 is very similar with Hafs saying

"If we pardon/naafu a group of you we shall punish/nuaadhib another group"

while Doori says

"If a group of you is pardonned/yuaafa another group will get punished/tuaadhab".

Doori explains what the contrasting behaviors spoken of in the passage will result in (a group will be pardonned while another will be punished) and the Hafs says Who will grant forgiveness or inflict punishment.

Islam critiqued turns to the HB; Gospels misunderstand mosaic law?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

The true failure of the Greek writers rests in their misunderstanding of the Hebrew sacrificial system, leading to a convoluted combination of the Jewish scriptures with their Hellenistic theological background of God incarnate and human sacrifice:

-Jesus wasnt perfect, unblemished as required for an offering Lev1:3,4:3,22:18-25,Deut17:1. He was beaten, scourged before his sacrifice Matt26:67,27:26,30-31,Mk14:65,15:15-20,Lk22:63,Jn18:22,19:1,3. How could God accept an offering that was beaten and humiliated, most of all "offered" by pagans. Animals do not sin. When the HB speaks of an animal without blemish, it is from a physical aspect, not metaphorical, ie sin blemishes. Also Jesus was circumcised, which is according to the NT itself, a mutilation Phil3:2,Gal5:12 (where did the foreskin of the everlasting God go to by the way?). Paul's priority was gentile, and more particularily Greek and Helenized people's conversions, hence that depiction of circumcision. The Greeks abhorred, and eventually outlawed it, which helped cause the Bar Kokhba revolt. Some Jews fearing persecution began calling for the removal of only a part of the prepuce, and some Hellenized Jews attempted to look uncircumcised by stretching the extant parts of their foreskins.

Continuing with what constitutes a valid offering in Jewish law, in case of mammal offerings (bulls, lambs, etc.) the offering must be less than one year old, having cloven hooves and chew cud and death must be caused by a sharp, perfect blade cutting across the neck, resulting in blood loss and swift death. Lev4:27-29 also states that, logically, sin offering must be brought forth by the person seeking atonement, and slaughtered either by the sinner or by the (Aaronic) priest. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah. All sacrifices, logicaly are offered by man to God, and never the other way around, by God to man. It is mankind that needs sacrifices to understand the value of life, giving up something of value for the betterment of our spiritual selves. 

That is the essence of why sacrifices were instituted, not to appease a vengeful deity whose anger towards His creatures' sins can only be abated with blood. A physically blemished animal isnt difficult for its owner to sacrifice, because it has lost its value to the farmer, becoming among his least valuable assets. God points that reality to the half-hearted priests who offered their worthless animals in sacrifice

Mal1:8-14"When you offer a blind [animal] for a sacrifice, is there nothing wrong? And when you offer a lame or a sick one, is there nothing wrong? Were you to offer it to your governor, would he accept you or would he favor you? says the Lord of Hosts..And you brought that which was taken by violence, and the lame and the sick. And you bring an offering-will I accept it from your hand? says the Lord. And cursed is he who deals craftily; although there is a ram in his flock, he vows and sacrifices a blemished one. For I am a great King, says the Lord of Hosts, and My Name is feared among the nations".

Definately, YHWH lays great stress on the quality of the offering to Him. And yet, assuming for argument's sake that God making an offering to the humans is a valid concept, He is not capable to reciprocate and instead offers a badly damaged sacrifice?

The strength of an animal, one that can be used for multiple tasks, relies on it being 'unblemished'. As the Torah states in regards to the firstborn, which is offered for sacrifice, he is the strength of the family. An elder son carried on the family tradition and assisted the father in his tasks, which parallels with Abraham's binding of his firstborn Ishmael, not Isaac. The near human sacrifice was stopped, substituted by a ram. It was a test of Abraham's trust in God and had nothing to do with sin atonement, as retrospectively claimed by the NT writers that applied the incident to Jesus' death. 

Where, as a side note, in Torah does God prescribe humans as appropriate for sin sacrifice? Instead we read that human sacrifices of any kind is a forbidden abomination Deut12:30-31,18:9-12,Jer19:4-6. God's anger in those verses is because He never commanded such a thing, not because they were made to another deity. God did not command Abraham to sacrifice his son in Genesis. It says, to "take him up", using ambiguous words as a means by which Abraham's trust in God is tested. The purpose was for Abraham to understand God's will based on His former promises.

- Another major inconsistency of the crucifixion as a sin offering, is that, Jewish law states it must be brought forth for unintentional sins Lev4,Num15:27-31. There are a few precise exceptions Lev5:1-6,6:1-7 but the overarching principle is that it should be a means of motivating individuals to true repentance. This undermines the notion of "once and for all sin sacrifice". Also, sin offerings did not apply to all offences, specific penalties are prescribed for many types of offence. For example, certain type of theft as described in Ex21:37 are only "forgiven" after payment of a fine, without requiring animal sacrifice. Numerous passages similarily explain how to expiate for sins in the absence of blood offerings.

- the notion of a "passover lamb" atoning for the sins of mankind Rom6:10,Heb9:12,10:10,18 misrepresents HB teachings on several levels. Firstly, the passover sacrifice is an individual offering, not communal Numb28:22 and according to Ex12, the Passover lamb was NOT a sin or even an atonement sacrifice but was meant to commemorate the Israelites' salvation from Egyptian bondage. Passover has thus nothing to do with repentance, but thanks-giving. Further, the Hebrew "seh" used in Ex12:3 doesnt mean a lamb as seen from V5"you can take the seh either from the lambs or from the goats". 

The "paschal lamb" didnt therefore even have to be a lamb as proposed in John who was obviously writing to a pagan audience who was familiar with lambs in their mythologies. Other instances of thanks-giving animal sacrifices are Noah's offerings following the flood. Historically, as reported in the HB, the blood of the paschal lambs marked the door frames of houses of the ISraelites to spare their firstborn males once the plague of death is delivered to the land of Egypt. The lambs were also to be roasted and eaten. Jesus was neither roasted nor eaten, and, once more, the Passover lamb was in actuality many lambs, not one, which were NOT atonement sacrifices but thanksgiving offerings.

- Another issue is Paul's peculiar idea that blood sacrifice freed mankind from the bondage of the divine law. Deut30:10-14 describes this same Law as being at anyone's reach meaning it cannot be a means by which God has binded mankind. Further, passover sacrifices did not free the ISraelites from bondage, contrary to the parallel Paul tries making with Jesus' sacrifice being what freed mankind from the Law.

- Other blunders by the NT writers due to their unfamiliarities with Jewish laws, is that an offering can only be done in a place designated by God Deut12:13-14,16:1-6,Ex28:35,Gen22:2. Animal sacrifices brought as sin offerings may only occur in the Temple precinct as stressed in Lev17:8-9. When God built the Temple through Solomon, all sacrifices at other altars ceased. All the major Biblical figures, from Abraham down to Solomon followed the practice of erecting, anointing and sacrificing at altars Gen12:7-8,28:18-9,Ex24:3-4,Joshua4:20,1Kings3:4etc. Jesus was nailed on a pagan symbol, by pagans Jn19:23 and Lev17:8-9 further states that anyone bringing an offering outside the Temple is to be "cut off". Jesus offerred himself according to Heb9:14 yet he wasnt even an Aaronic priest. 

It is the height of idiocy to argue God chose a pagan-run altar (the cross) for his place of sacrifice and choose idol-worshippers to perform an offering for Him. The very reason the altars were chosen by God was to avoid any tinge of idolatry. That is why the Israelites were instructed, upon their entry in Canaan they couldn't simply replace the existing altars of Canaan with their own, but they were ordered to smash them completely and leave not a trace of them Ex34:13, although they many times succombed to polytheism and worshiped at the pagan altars they were supposed to destroy 2Kings12:3,18:4,21:3.

- Jesus was tried on Passover night, or on the preceding night, in the palace of the high priest Mk14:53,Jn18:13. Yet the Sanhedrin in the time of Jesus was situated in the Chamber of Hewn Stone in the Temple. It was assembled daily, only in daytime between the hours of the two daily sacrifices (approximately 7:30 A.M.–3:30 P.M.). Assemblies never occured at night as the NT depict, on the Sabbaths or festivals, or on their eves.

The closest parallel one can make between Jesus' sin sacrifice and the HB is the scapegoat sacrifice Lev16 on a day called The Day of Atonement/Yom kippur done each year. Levitical, Aaronic priests must preside Ex29:9, not pagans as what happened to Jesus. Neither was Jesus an Aaronic priest, since he was from Judah. The apologetic counter argument that Jesus had the Melchizedek priesthood and thereby could offer up himself as a sacrifice is useless in this case. A non-Aaronic order of priesthood, regardless of its tribal origin has no relevancy to the requirements. Melchi-tzedek by the way is a description, not a name. It means "righteous king". Although individual offerings were brought for the expiation of specific, unintentional sins on Yom kippur, the offer brought on Yom Kippur that cleansed all sins (as in what Jesus is supposed to have accomplished) is the offer where the scapegoat was sent ALIVE into the wilderness, symbolicaly carrying away the sins. Even in that case, somewhat close to Jesus' sacrifice, the shedding of blood is not even an obligation for sin atonement. 

And even then, this applies only if one repents. If one does not repent, the goat atones only for the light sins.

Islam critiqued asks; The Quran? much of it is gone!

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

This is a common hadith brought up by Islam's critics. Ibn Umar said

“Let none of you say ‘I have acquired/ahatta the whole of the Qur’an’. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur’an has disappeared/faatahu? Rather let him say ‘I have acquired what has survived/ma tayassara minhu.'” 

This is a blatant mistranslation. The Arabic speaks of knowledge/understanding

"Let no one say: I have encompassed/understood the whole of the Quran. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Quran escapes him? Rather, let him say: I have encompassed whatever amount of it has been facilitated (for me to grasp).”

ibn Umar, to whom the quote belongs, wasnt refering to the Quran's collection. He was from a conservative school of thought in matters of Quranic exegisis, even criticizing ibn Abbas' zeal in comenting the sacred text. That is why he warns against those assuming that they are capable of fully grasping this mighty, intricate and deep word of God.

Islam critiqued goes to the pagans; non-Christian witnesses?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

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. For example Origen the Church Father who spent most of his life contending with the pagan writer Celsus, and using Josephus' works failed to mention this "ultimate rebuttal". Origen even condemns Josephus for not having accepted Jesus as the messiah in his writings.

It isnt until Eusebius the official propagandist for Emperor Constantine, who judged that

"it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived",

the Church father notorious for his deception and distortions of evidence to advance the cause of the church, described by St Jerome himself who thought of him as well as other Church Fathers such as Origen as sometimes

"compelled to say not what they think but what is useful",

that we see a mention of the passage. The first ever mention of the passage unsurprisingly comes at a time where Christianity monopolised what should be the truth, torching whole libraries, yet keeping Josephus' histories which they needed to advance their cause, turning the leading Jewish historian of his day into a witness for Jesus Christ.

In fact the Latin version of Josephus' work translated by Jerome is very similar to the quote Eusebius attributes to Josephus, except of course for the crucial parts about Jesus. Even later Christian apologists and open deciever such as Chrysostom who judged that

"often it is necessary to deceive",

and Photius both rejected this passage in their works yet they needed evidence such as this in their writings. Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defenses against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words. Because of the overwhelming evidence against its authenticity, Christian apologists try turning to another much briefer reference in "Book 20" Yet Josephus's second reference falls both because it is dependent upon the earlier (false) reference for explanation – and because it actually refers to "Jesus, the son of Damneus" who was made "high priest by king Agrippa".

Finally, even though Josephus is the only non-Christian source that mentions John the Baptist, yet he presents a different picture of him than the NT portrayal, and makes no reference to him proclaiming anything about Jesus.

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.

Islam critiqued in opposition to Jesus; the lamb runs from the slaughter?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

Jesus feared death and tried to avoid it Jn7:1,11:54,Luke 22:42. He begged God 3 times, putting his forehead to the ground, to take his soul before experiencing suffering and death in Matt26:38. He does not want to experience what he was about to go through but nevertheless submits his will to that of the father, whether he decides to make him bear the cup of suffering or not "Yet not My will, but Yours be done". Clearly, had he been given the choice, he would have refused "dying for the sins of mankind" despite having supposed foreknowledge of the divine plan of salvation since the beginning of creation, a plan which he himself sketched together with his divine partners.

It also shows one of the so called co-equal partners submitting his will to another. Yet we never see the reverse, with the Father obediently submitting his will to the Son or the Holyspirit. That "hesitation" from Jesus cannot be attributed to his human nature as he himself states that it is his soul that feared and doubted Matt26:38. If that werent enough, when on the cross he grieves for God's abandoning him. Even Revelations5 which is sometimes quoted to defend the notion of a predetermined divine masterplan of salvation through Jesus, is in fact speaking in eschatological terms, just as the whole book does. It speaks of the salvation of some people after events of great tribulation, ie the end of times.

Then we have Heb5:7 throwing in the ambiguous statement that Jesus' prayers were heard and accepted by God, and this includes the desperate cry to "let this cup pass from" him.

The realization of his prayer, his inability to take on the full brunt of the "sins of mankind" came in the form of Simon of Cyrene who relieved Jesus from his cross and carried it half way till Golgotha Matt27:31-33.

This embarrassing change to the divine master plan of salvation forced another author in Jn19:17-18 to have Jesus carrying his own cross, the symbol of mankind's sins, all the way until he reached Golgotha where he was crucified. The predictions Jesus makes as regards his impending death, similarily reveal the clumsiness of the Greek scribes trying to retrospectively enforce their theological agenda anyway they could, just as they did with their inapropriate linking of HB passages to Jesus.

When Jesus supposedly tells his disciples, several times and in the most explicit of ways, how he would die, they are taken by complete surprise when the events allegedly unfold. Not once are they depicted, following his supposed death, as patiently waiting his predicted resurrection after just 3 days. Neither are they depicted recalling the secret miracle once it unfolds. These writers werent even able to maintain a consistent story line from chapter to chapter, why would anyone take any of their reports at face value? As a side note the cross was not a Christian symbol  until the 6th century. Could the whole "Simon of Cyrene" tale be orthodoxy's early response to a story popularised by certain gnostics that it was not Jesus but Simon who had been nailed to the cross? We will leave that to Christians to ponder upon.

The "via dolorosa" as a side note, does not pass anywhere near this path, but follows the line of the town built on the ruins of old Jerusalem by the Roman Emperor Hadrian after 135, long after Jesus. The later embellishments along that route such as Jesus' encounters with Mary or Veronica or his falling three times, are also alien to even the Gospel accounts. The original holy walk had no "devotional halts" and went from the Mount of Olives southwest via Mount Sion before entering the city. But by the Middle Ages Christendom was divided by schisms, triggered less by theological and doctrinal subtleties than by power struggles and rivalry for converts in central Europe and the Balkans. The rancour and hostility between the Roman and Greek churches led each to scramble for the more impressive array of icons, relics and sanctuaries. In Jerusalem, opposing Christian groups established rival routes to Calvary (Latin for Golgotha), each route acquiring sacred stops along the way to add to their appeal and holiness. The Latins were even divided among themselves. An informed Christian would doubtless argue that the Via Dolorosa and its way stations are no longer understood as historically accurate, that they are symbolic.

Islam critiqued goes to zombieland; the signs of Jesus' death?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

The death and birth of great personalities was meant to be accompanied by great signs, in the minds of ancient people. The gospel writers were no exception. However the over dramatization surrounding Jesus' death found in Matt27:45-52, which clearly was an effort by that unknown writer to connect Jesus to the prophecies of Zech14, isnt reported in other Gospels let alone contemporary historical writings, with the eclipse, earthquake and deads coming back to life to be seen by many (where did they all go by the way, did they just keep wandering around for some time like zombies in the streets of Jerusalem?).

That is besides the other spectacular events such as Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, his witnessed ascencion to heaven and other various wonderful displays allegedly seen by many.

None of all this is reported in history including the works of Josephus or Philo who lived very close to the time and at the place where all these things supposedly happenned and wrote profusely about every noted personage of Palestine, describing every important event which occurred there during the first seventy years of the Christian era, even Galilee natives historians such as Tiberias who wrote detailed accounts of the period and of the Jews covering the entire time Jesus existed. Same deafening silence regarding other contemporaries of Jesus such as the Roman aristocrat and prodigious writer Seneca, and Pliny the Elder or other historians of the time who failed to mention these amazing events yet their works covered vast subjects relevant to their period. Seneca's silence was such an embarrasement even to early Christians that in the late 4th century forgeries were made in the shape of an exchange of letters between him and none other than the apostle Paul.

Romans were renouned record keepers and they recorded earthquakes which they called prodigies yet the only ones spoken about around Jesus' era happenned in 37 BCE (too early to fit the NT tale) and again in 110 CE (too late).

Partly for this reason, even many biblical scholars doubt that these cataclysms surrounding the alleged crucifixion really happened.

Even Peter who was giving his speech in Acts 2 only 50 days after the alleged event along with Paul who in 1Cor15 was trying to convince the people on Jesus' resurection never mentionned these extraordinary, corroborating events in front of an audience that badly needed it. When Paul was made to face the Sanhedrin, instead of appealing to all the miracles witnessed by the multitudes, the supernatural events seen by many and all testifying to what he was preaching, simply claims innocence of the charges against him based on scriptures. Not only does he omit these miracles, but he doesnt even speak of the crucifixion, nor of the resurrection. Yet these events were attested by the 500 who saw the resurrected Jesus, many of whom, supposedly still alive. Nor does he request the testimony of any of the apostles, still actively working miracles, as Paul himself amply did on his missionary trip and could therefore have easily done now. It is important to add that in Acts2, Peter, speaking to the disbelieving audience mocking the erratic drunk-like behavior of some Christians, does appeal to the miracles Jesus performed in his lifetime so as to strengthen his arguments. These miracles were, according to Peter done by God through Jesus (ie with God's authority as the Quran states) and were all witnessed by that audience "as you yourselves know". So to Peter, it certainly was necessary to remind his skeptical audience of the miracles that marked Jesus' life, even though they had witnessed them and knew about them. Yet when Peter alludes to the crucifixion and resurrection, he says nothing of the supernatural and cataclysmic events they had supposedly previously witnessed, so as to enhance his claims for the divine necessity of Jesus' suicide. He instead refers back to prophecies of the HB. Peter, just like Paul and all of contemporary secular historical records ommit those events because they never occured.

Although Christian apologists choose to ignore Matthew's account and his miracles -for obvious reasons- when trying to prove the historicity of the crucifixion, they do try to find some basis for the eclipse by refering to an obscure pagan personality of whom next to nothing is known about; Thallus. He is mentionned in a 9th century work that relies on a 3rd century Christian writer called Julius Africanus who himself paraphrases -not quotes- Thallus about a solar eclipse none knows when and where it happenned exactly and neither does Thallus link it to Jesus.

As a side note the only recorded eclipse closest to Jesus' location and time of death occured in the year 29 in the Persian Gulf which doesnt fit the Jesus chronology and would have been of negligible impact in Jerusalem, 100s of miles away.

Islam critiqued turns to the HB; could the Jews kill Jesus?

In answer to the video "Muslims' Worst anti-Christian Polemics: Corruption of the New Testament"

Here are some other interesting facts pointing to the fictional nature of most of the Gospel account, especially in relation to Jesus' last moments;

-the NT says that the high priest headed up the trial. The high priest never headed the Sanhedrin, that role fell to Nasi and the Av Bet Din, neither of whom are mentioned in the NT.

-To pass a death penalty a Jewish Sanhedrin had to meet in the Chamber of Hewn Stones in the Temple, but in 28CE which is prior to Jesus' supposed execution, the Chamber was destroyed so the Sanhedrin moved to another room on the Temple Mount, and then into the city itself (Talmud, Shabbat 15a, Rosh haShanah 31a).

Deut17:8-13"go up to the place that G-d your L-rd shall choose"

means the chamber of carved/hewn stone. Just as the Tabernacle was the only place in which to bring animal offerings until the final place was identified as the Temple, so to was the place for the court identified as the chamber in the Temple. Also, the Romans had removed the right to pass the death penalty according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 17:13). Around the year 6 CE, Herod Archelaus, was dethroned and banished to Vienna. He was replaced, not by a Jewish king, but by a Roman Procurator named Caponius. The legal power of the Sanhedrin was then immediately restricted.  When Archelaus was banished the Sanhedrin lost the ability to try death penalty cases in favor of the Roman procurator (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20:19). So right there we have two impediments to the Jews passing a death sentence.

-The Sanhedrin never met at night Matt26:57,Mk14:53 or in secret, on Shabbat or any holy day -- or even on the day BEFORE. Misnah (Sanhedrin IV:1) and Maimonides (Hilkot Sanhedrin XI:2).

- A death penalty case required two eye witnesses to the crime even when the Jews had the authority. When a death sentence was passed a minimum of 24 hours was given before it was carried out, giving time for witnesses to come forth on behalf of the condemned 

-Jewish trials were never held in anyone's house, only in the Temple 

So, in addition to the many legal proceedings which would have had to be broken for such trial to have taken place as is depicted in the Gospels, something that never happened in Jewish history, the Jews, living under Roman dominion, didn't have any authority to try Jesus for a death penalty. Why would they even make such effort, organizing this secret meeting just prior to the Passover festival, a time of religious preparations, breaking a long list of mosaic commandements along the way, yet knowing that their endeavor would be fruitless and their judgement would bear no legal weight? And not only in the eyes of the authorities but in light of Jewish law itself since the halakha requirements for a legal trial were not fulfilled? When the Pharisees take him to the authorities, Pilate tells them to 

"Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law". 

This is because, supposing Jesus did break some religious law, which he never did, this charge would carry no weight in Roman courts except if it threatened the state. To try creating a valid criminal case they begin accusing him of rebellion against the state and claiming kingship. These charges have no bearing on Jewish law, so that this historically exceptional Sanhedrin had to be hastily set up. This is because the messianic king supposed to usher the era of Jewish dominance over the entire world will do just that. Bar Kochba, a messianic claimant who came just a few years after Jesus was supported by those very Pharisees, hoping he would fulfill those very "crimes" they supposedly accused Jesus of comitting. 

That "pre-trial" was thus irrelevant on all counts. They could have just handed him to Pilate, on the charge of rebellion, this way saving time on passover eve, in preparation for their festival. They would have also avoided breaking a long list of requirements while setting up this hasty trial, making it invalid even by their own law.

 

The whole story is fiction, meant at demonizing the Jews so that the blame is not shouldered by the Roman executioners, when they reluctantly put Jesus to death. The gentile authorities, painted as borderline Christians, were this way appeased and could be targeted for missionary activity, as occured soon after. Consequently, we never see in history Christians blaming, oppressing and mass murdering Italians in retaliation for Jesus' death, but rather Jews, despite them being in fact the necessary tools in the cosmic scheme of salvation through God's suicide..