Islam critiqued surfs through Quran; 9:29 is unjust and violent?

In answer to the video "Surah 9:29 in Context"

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 punishement is prescribed on the peaceful idolaters beyond Mecca, as well as those in Mecca that refrain from their rituals at the sacred sites re-dedicated strictly to the Islamic religion. They are to be left unharmed as mentionned earlier.

Nor is there until now any legal directive towards the remaining non-Muslims living under Muslim rule, whether in Mecca or beyond. This included the people of the book (Jews and Christians) or the followers of other belief systems, or even atheists 

9:29"Fight those who believe not in God and nor in the Last Day and nor do they forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden and nor do they follow the religion/DEEN of truth from among the people of the book, till they give the compensation with a willing hand, while they are humble".

This verse, as attested by the prophetic practice, is not restricted to the people of the book. It covers any religion that was and could potentially fall under Muslim rule as a result of provoked warfare. The verse mentions 4 categories;

1- Those who do not believe in God 

2- Those who reject the resurrection 

3- Those who regard as lawful what Allah and the prophet have forbidden. Those that pass the 2 preceding criteria by believing in God and the concept of resurrection, should adhere to Islam as the only reasonable spiritual reality. If they make the choice not to, then they are believers in one of the many man made religions that does not forbid what Allah has forbidden through His prophet in the Quran and sunna. Or they might be from the people of the book, believers in God and the resurrection. Being sincere in their faith, they should, like the aforementioned group naturally enter the fold of Islam. The Quran speaks of them, those that remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability. Their sincerity, unprejudiced, praiseworthy reading and understanding of their books led many of them to eventually believe in the revelation bestowed on the prophet Muhammad 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4. But those that make the choice not to, they remain as people of the book who despite their sincerity in faith, do not regard as forbidden what Allah and His messenger forbade.

4- Those who do not follow the DEEN of truth from among the people of the book. The root D-Y-N means rule or debt or any obligation. It may be summarized as "system". It is used this way in the Quran 9:36,12:76 classical literature and even in common Arabic speak. Whenever the preposition "mina" is used before a composite entity, or a group, and that this entity is given a qualification, then "mina" carries the meaning of "among", pointing to a portion from among that composite entity 4:46,160,5:5,23,41,57,107,8:65,57:10. "The Deen of truth" in that phrase cannot refer to Islam as a religion. One cannot speak of a portion from among the people of the book as being followers of Islam while others reject it. This speaks of the Jews and Christians whom the Quran in many places condemns as sinful, insincere to the truth of their own books. The praiseworthy among them, followers of "the deen of truth" were those included in the 3rd category.

None of the groups above are to be fought until they become Muslims. Rather until they pay the jizya in submission to the Islamic rule. That subjection is in relation to the Islamic system which they are now bound to, being permanent non Muslim residents under protection of the Muslim state. The majority of Muslim scholars have understood the passage in that way. See for example al-Shafi'i, Al-Umm, Vol. 4, Ahmad Mustafa al-Maraghi's Tafsir Vol. 10 or Fatani, Ikhtilaf al-Darin p48. This is also seen by the fact that the musta'min (a non Muslim temporary resident) is not subjected to the Islamic legal system nor the jizya, according to the Hanafi school. That subjection has thus nothing to do with humiliation, as some have interpreted, and without any evidence in the prophetic practice nor that of the first caliphs. Humiliation does occur however, when those non-Muslim residents of the Islamic state refuse to pay government taxes to the point they have to be forcefully made to. Just as Muslims, shortly after the prophet's death had to be fought, humbled, and forced to pay the government taxes under Abu Bakr's caliphate.

The order to fight therefore isnt motivated by a choice of creed otherwise the mere paying of a tax would not have been enough to end the fighting, rather a forceful conversion would. Yet that option is never proposed in the verse. The only issue for them is explicitly spelled out; Payment of taxes and submission to the laws of the religious state they live in as members of a different religion on whom different rights and obligations apply. The governement 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. Each individual was imposed depending on his financial capacity. The benefits which the government offers in exchange of the due jizya, are matters of communal and national interest - defending the territory from outside aggression, establishing security, maintaining the environment, building infrastructure, etc., not the sort of benefits you can opt out of. The earliest Muslim rulers even appointed a portion of the Muslim zakat to feed the needy among the people of the book, even though they were exempted from paying the jizya. When a Jew came asking the caliph Umar for money, he said 

"go find him and those like him, and give them out of the public treasury". 

It is known that together with the needy, the clergy was also exempted from the tax by the Muslim authorities. And yet they fully benefited from government services, including military protection and infrastructure. These exception to the rule of 9:29 are based upon strong and firm unconditional principles as regards the Muslim duty towards the weak in any society, and the preservation of the worship sites of the people of the book where the name of Allah is mentionned. There is thus a strong Quranic basis for the policy of most Muslim rulers, including as early as the caliph Umar, of being selective in the application of the jizya upon the people of dhimma. 

Even though Jizya it is not a personal head tax, for the sake of argument, one can either pay taxes willingly, or be punished through several forceful means including jail in case of refusal, or leave the country. In a secular state the issue is pretty much the same. Special taxes will apply to alien residents, who in addition to having to compensate the state for providing them with benefits of all kind, must also exempt themselves from the obligations and rights that apply to the citizen of that state (military service, various taxes on salaries, financial regulations etc). Paying that tax will protect them from being pursued and punished by that government. 

Some insidious critics like calling it "protection money". Every taxation system in the world is in fact aimed at providing protection; either by financing a system that preserves the well-being of the society as a whole, or by protecting against punishment, since failing to pay results in sanctions. Jizya is the rightful compensation demanded from the dhimmi, in exchange of the exemption from the laws, rights, obligations, penalties etc of that state religion in matters that do not concern the society as a whole. That is because the sharia for Muslim governance of non-Muslim citizens is that non-Muslims should not be forced to follow the moral laws dictated in the Quran. 

The idea that this model oppressed non Muslim dhimmis to the point they preferred conversion is unfounded, without any historical and documented basis. It wasnt therefore a system aimed at enriching anyone, but a legitimate compensation for concrete services and exemptions. That is why non-Muslims that volontarily participated in the military were exempted from the tax. Those that paid the tax and werent properly served were refunded. For instance when Muslim ruled Syria was threatened with invasion by the Romans and the Muslim ruler doubted whether he would be able to protect the non-Muslims of that region, he hastily returned their jizya money which was supposed to be partly aimed at guarantying their protection. Abu Ubaydah ibn al Jarrah told the Christians they would be bound by the agreement again only if he is able to fend off the Roman invasion. The Christians consequently prayed for Muslim victory, knowing that the Romans would never behave with them in such a manner.
 
Under that system, non Muslims enjoy complete religious autonomy as long as it does not conflict with the state religion. For example selling alcohol publicly. Dhimmis may deliberate, individualy deny, or reform their religious laws to their liking and to fit their desires without any concern about the laws of the state, again, so long as no conflict occurs between the 2. For example it is well known that Christian and Jewish elites enacted laws preventing their people from resorting to a Muslim judge in cases where their own laws were unfavorable.

Islam critiqued sees God's hand in action; Allah fights through the believers?

In answer to the video "Muhammad in John 16:2"

Of course that God fights through the believers, inflicting His punishment on a nation of rejecters and transgressors as He did aforetime. In 8:17,9:14,59:2 the prophet and the believers are told that although they were physically waging war against their enemies, it was ultimately Allah who was smiting, not them. This is according to the Quranic principle that God, being the origin and sustainer of all causality, encompassing every happening by His will and power, is the indirect cause of every occurence.

In this case, God could have exacted His retribution on a nation of rejecters by unleashing calamities and cataclysms, but He has willed to do it differently with the Muslims 47:4, giving them the opportunity to increase in obedience to Him with this ultimate test of selflesness. God desired to achieve the same purpose in the times of Moses and the prophets after him, through whom He was fighting the enemy

Joshua10:14,42,23:3,10,1Sam17:47,2Sam23:9-12,Deut2:31-33,Ezek25:14,Ex12:12-23,Isa45:1,Zech14:3,Neh4:14,,Ps89:24,Ps18:35-48"The God Who grants me vengeance and destroys peoples instead of me".

The Psalmist refers to the Israelites' conquest of Canaan with these words

Ps44:4"For not by their sword did they inherit the land, neither did their arm save them, but Your right hand and Your arm and the light of Your countenance, for You favored them".

The HB speaks of the same phenomenon through non-Jewish nations namely the Persians ruled by Cyrus Jer51:20-24 or the Babylonians incited to destroy the Egyptians and were thus doing God's "smiting" concretely Ezek32:11-15, or through pagan nations raised to destroy the Jews themselves through whom YHWH was acting Ezek5:17,6:3,38:1-4,Amos6:11-14,9:1-4etc.

Islam critiqued defends the Jewish nation; YHWH the destroyer of His people?

In answer to the video "Muhammad in John 16:2"

When Jesus supposedly said that a time will come where those killing Jews will think they are doing God's work, did he known that in the HB, doing God's work doesnt preclude killing in general, and more specifically killing Jews? Firstly, at the hands of the pagan nations whom YHWH himself instigated against his "chosen race". These powerful enemies of theirs through whom God was acting to punish and destroy the Israelites, desecrate their most sacred places are referred to by God in both the Quran and the Hebrew Bible as "My servants" Jer25:9,27:6,32:3,Lam1:13,15,2:1-10etc because they were performing God's will, under His complete control, and are thus rewarded for it Ezek29:19-20.

It is also in a sense a reproof to the Jews who, despite their transgressions, still considered themselves God's chosen, His prefered and exalted servants. Yet here God calls pagan nations His servants instead of them. He summons, not His chosen race, but His pagan servants to perform His justice and inflict His punishements on those very people claiming to be God's servants. This happened a few times, where people were killing Jews and were certainly doing God's work. But for the vast majority of their history, Jews were murdered by God-loving Christians who thought they were doing God's work. For over 2000 years Jews have been subjected to humiliating abasement, mass expulsions, rounding up, forced conversions, false accusations and calumnies, extortions and indiscriminate mass killings.

Bible loving Christians were after "Christ-killers" who got what they deserved. What is even more disturbing is that this type of behavior was viewed as theologically and eschatologically justified and positive, in the sense that Christians were being "loving" and "charitable" by inciting Jews to be healed from their cursed and harmful faith. Here is a timeline of Jewish persecution https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/historyjewishpersecution/.

As a side note Jewish "persecution" began since before any Temple was standing, such as in ancient Egypt. Contrary to what this youtuber is clumsily trying to portray, 99% of such persecution as well as the killings from that time till now comes from non-Muslims.

But what is most important to note is the Jewish persecution and genocides of other people, through divinely ordained commands still applicable and compulsory to this day, as well as the persecution and killing of Jews by Jews throughout their biblical history.

As to recent times, the Arab nations had no "Jewish problem". They've been living side by side with them for centuries, even helped them escape the Nazis, especially in North Africa. Its not German antisemitic propaganda that turned the tide, causing Nazis and Arabs to ally, rather the shared hatred of the colonizers (British, French or Italian) and opposition to fascism and communism. It is known that the Arab elites did not endorse Nazism either, just as Hitler despised the Arabs. The Mufti of Jerusalem on the other hand had a "Jewish problem" (the massive influx of Jews into Palestine in the late 30s), combined with hatred of the British who opposed their nationalism. When Jews were targeted by Arabs in Arab lands, it was to prevent their emigration to Palestine, by sympathizers of the Mufti. There were no genocidal attacks/pogroms except for the event of Baghdad in '41, again in the backdrop of the politics of the time, blaming the Jews for the British invasion (they were seen as allies in relation to Palestine). But the scale of victims and damage to property is widely disputed, and some Iraqis risked their lives to hide Jewish neighbours. Although the authorities did not immidiately intervene, they eventually conducted an investigation, even executed army officers. Sure, life for a Jew in Arab lands was sometimes far from perfect, just like Muslim life is far from perfect in Israel (killings, destruction of land and property etc). But how many antisemitic incidents throughout ancient history until the 20th century came from Muslims, and were actually ordered by the authorities (as is done today in Israel)? Compare it to the scale of antimuslim attacks in Israel's short history.

Islam critiqued finds compromising clue; 2:187 elaborating on previous revelation?

In answer to the video "Allah's Confusing Ayah"

This verse touches upon the issue of piecemeal revelation. One of the aspects of that process was to guide the nascent Islamic movement in all its stages to suit its requirements on different occasions. It did so for example by elaborating on certain previous concise statements, either by a longer revelation in a different place or by addition of relevant information within the same previously revealed verse. We have classical examples reported in the hadith books, like 2:187 and 4:95 where the scribe present, who was being dictated the concise then more elaborate revelation, describes how the event occured supernaturally. It is a Quranic principle that one should not ask about things that if answered would render a simple directive complicated. But one may ask while revelation is descending and will be answered 5:101 as documented regarding ibn Um Maktum's concern upon hearing verse 4:95. The difference between the 2 attitudes is that of sincerity. The first one hears a directive, reflects on it and comes back after a while with conjecture, as if he is trying to avoid it. On the other hand the one expressing a concern directly when hearing a command does so out of genuine concern for a condition preventing him from immediately implementing the directive. 

The gradual revelation, progressive elaboration also gives the audience the feeling that it is being closely followed, listened to, attended to and corrected by its Sustainer, answering relevant questions of law or theology, questions by the believers or disbelievers alike, providing strong argument in favor of the truths it propounds or to counter false notions

25:32"And they do not bring to you an example except that We brought to you the truth and best of explanation".

Again this is not a strange phenomenon in the prophetic history, especially when it comes to the issue of further elaboration/explanation of a previous concise statement or ruling. See Jn3 for example. For a very detailed explanation of what piecemeal revelation consists of, this youtuber and others can go back to a previous video.

Acts17apologetics read between the lines; Muhammad was "all ears" to the stories of the ancients?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's "Revelations" about Historical Figures Destroy His Credibility (PvM 9)"

By the time of the prophet Muhammad, the assimilation of the Abrahamic legacy into the regional polytheistic systems was such that only a distant echo had remained in their minds from their spiritual connection to Abraham. Just as happenned to the Temple of Jerusalem that slowly became transformed into a pagan shrine and idols were introduced in it 2kings21 the prime symbol of monotheism in Mecca became thus radically transformed through pagan influence.

As the Ishmaelites, like the Israelites throughout their history, drifted from the original path of monotheism, the Hajj pilgrimage became a celebratory occasion, and the Kaaba was stocked with idols and false deities supposed to bring the worshipers closer to the One God, Allah, whom they believed in. Men and women would run naked throughout the holy precinct. Merchants from all over would travel to the Kaaba and set up shop during the pilgrimage.

People and tribes from all over Arabia would make the journey to Mecca to take part in the festivities. But this annual pilgrimage was in greater parts disconnected from the Abrahamic practice 22:26-7. It was simply a time to make money instead of being charitable, drink alcohol, and commit immoral acts. The importance of the annual event perdured despite the corruption. It was maintained by those that settled in Mecca, and the Arabs of the entire peninsula that got attracted to it with time. These are the points brought to attention in 2:196-7. And then until v203 great stress is laid on the spiritual dimension, forgotten and neglected, of that occasion.

No other nation can be compared to the Ishmaelites' handling of their spiritual legacy and sacred shrine, than their own Israelite brothers. They could not maintain the way of their forefathers despite the constant sending of prophets to them to bring them back to the right path. When the Arabs were admonished and urged to reform, they qualified the warnings as

16:24,27:68"stories of the ancients".

These Ishmaelites vaguely recalled the Abrahamic ways, but found no other constructive argument in their opposition but by denigrating it as old and useless stories, based on its ancienty and supposed obsolescence, inaplicability to the current circumstances. They never qualify these stories as "false". It was in fact one of the Quran's oft repeated functions, to "remind" the people of the truth they were still somewhat aware of but that had been supressed by falsehood. The Quran openly states that

26:196"most surely the same is in the scriptures of the ancients".

It repeats, time and again, its role as the guardian and preserver of the truth present in the past scriptures. Along with Abrahamic and monotheistic practices known in pre-islamic days, going back to previous prophets, was the Zakat which the people knew they had to give away to the poor but rarely practiced or misused 19:30-31,54-55,70:24,Deut14:28-29,26:12-14, fasting 2:51,183-187,7:142,Deut9:9,Ex24:18,34:28,Matt4:2,Lk5:33-6 prayer that continued after Ibrahim established it in the settlement of the Kaaba 14:37,19:55,Dan6:10,Ps55:18,1Chr23:30 until it was disfigured 8:35, animal sacrifice, circumcision. Other concepts propounded by previous prophets and which the Quran was reminding its addressees of, include the Resurrection, day of Judgement and accountability Matt13:24-43,1Kings17:17-24,2Kings4:17-37,13:20-1,1Sam2:6,Isa2:17,26:19,66:14,Ezek37:1-28,Ps71:20,Prov6:22,Prov31(see Rashi),Dan12:1-2,Quran29:36,54:36-9.

There are pre-islamic poems with clear eschatological connotation, some of them speaking of the resurrection of the soul, and Allah being the judge of mankind. One such poems is that of Zuhayr who wrote in his muallaqat

"Do not conceal from Allah what is in your souls, trying to hide it. Whatever is concealed from Allah, He knows. It is delayed and entered in a register and stored up for the day of reckoning, or it is brought forward and avenged".

Labid wrote

"every human will one day come to know his striving when it will be disclosed before the God what has been extracted".

See also the lines of al-A'sha evoking fear of the final accounting

"when the resurrected souls will shake of the dust".

The Quran and the traditions speak of the hanif remnants that tried preserving the monotheism of Ibrahim, and these lines of poetry might echo these marginal beliefs. The majority of the pre-islamic Arabs however rejected bodily resurrection and otherworldy accountability, the Quran repeatedly condemns this attitude. This phenomenon is clearly seen with the "talbiya", the invocations the pilgrims coming from all over Arabia made during their rituals.

Some of these have come down to us, referring to Allah as

"al wahid al qahhar rabb assamad",

while others clearly referred to the idols as subservient to him

"laa nabudul asnama hatta tajtahida li rabbiha wa tutabad"

or

"rabb al thalitha ukhra/Lord of the third goddess",

and others spoke of the One Lord of the last hour

"rabba assa'a".

All of this shows the multifaceted shades of idolatry among the pilgrims, some of them praising Allah alone, others associating with Him while maintaining Him above the intercessors, and others still referring to the day of judgement. This confirms the Quranic statement that the original religion established at the sanctuary was Abrahamic monotheism. It got disfigured with time, polluted with foreign concepts, although it maintained a recognizable foundation of truth, which the last prophet came to revive. Sura 87, after summing up the pillars of divine truth, such as monotheism, intelligent design, resurrection, God's all-encompassing, intricate knowledge and sway over His creatures' affairs, spiritual purification through prayer and constant remembrence of God as being the ways to success in the Hereafter, it says that these are all concepts known, written and transmitted by the prophets, from Ibrahim to Moses.

All of these things were known to the people whom Muhammad was addressing over 4000 years later but have been neglected for so long that only a dim remembrance of them remained

23:83"Certainly we are promised this, and (so were) our fathers aforetime; this is naught but stories of those of old".

Muhammad revived the corrupted, obscured and forgotten way of Ibrahim

6:161"Say: Surely, (as for) me, my Lord has guided me to the right path; (to) a most right religion, the faith of Ibrahim the upright one, and he was not of the polytheists".

The climax of that revival occured when he entered Mecca triumphantly, cleansed the Kaaba of its idols and rededicated it to its monotheistic purpose.

The prophet used to answer the call of freeman, slave, maid servant and destitute alike, shortening his prayer anytime someone would visit his open house so much so that his opponents spread it as a form of weakness and credulity while the prophet knew very well who to trust 9:61. The verse absolutely doesnt come in the context of charges of plagiarism. They would literally reproach him of being "an ear" because of his empathy and readiness to patiently listen to what anyone had to say. But although at first glance that seemingly gave the impression of being credulous it in fact reveals a great leadership quality of keeping cohesion within a group. He knows very well the liars or people with ill intentions but does not immidiately expose them to the rest of the community so as to leave them the chance to reform themselves, as is commanded within the Quran itself. This passive attitude should however not leave any ambiguity as regards the prophet's intellectual and spiritual stance, as denoted in the rest of the verse.

Sometimes as reflected in 33:53, his leniency, kindess and forbearance to his folks would often lead to abuse. People would enter his house at anytime, preventing him and his wives from their spiritual duties and basic privacy requirements. This injunction taught them certain rules of behaviour bearing on the life of such particular society, based on a true feeling of brotherhood, mutual consideration, and respect for the sanctity of each other's personality and privacy.

This is the timeless lesson, applicable for all times, and which is now enshrined in the Quran through incidents that concerned the prophet. A report suggests that this verse was first revealed in the context of the prophet's marriage ceremony with Zaynab. Some of the guests stayed long after the event was over, in the prophet's home. The verse, according to the report from Anas came down some time after the incident, thus thwarting any attempt by modern critics to try and use the story as evidence of "convenient revelations". Besides, the ahadith speak of other occasion of revelation than this particular incident. This is due to the traditions and Quran commentaries, typically retrospectively applying events in the life of the prophet and the community as asbab alnuzul/occasions of revelation.

The Quran is full of such moral lessons, although illustrated through temporal situations, some of them related and others unrelated to the prophet.

Here are a few other examples 

24:62-63"surely they who ask your permission are they who believe in Allah and His Apostle". 

In the prophet's time, the sincerity of a person's belief in God and the one representing His will on earth, was measured by their obedience to the prophet. None could dare claim to submit to Allah while rejecting the means by which He was actively comunicating with the people. They could obviously not communicate with God directly and had thus to seek the messenger's guidance to know the divine will. This guidance from the messenger is still found both in the Quran and the sunna he left behind. The timeless application of the verse is thus in consulting both sources of guidance. See also 4:64.

Acts17apologetics wont buy it; Youth of Ephesus is a myth?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's "Revelations" about Historical Figures Destroy His Credibility (PvM 9)"

Regarding the historicity of the story, it is a highly revered and respected Christian tradition known, among other titles as the seven youths of Ephesis. The miraculous events are believed to have started under the reign of the Roman emperor Decius that persecuted the belief systems contrary to the Greek state religion.

The earliest manuscripts relating the story are Greek but the tradition itself predates these Greek writings, and was widespread geographically very early on after the actual events. Its appearance in the golden legends with added embellishments and modifications, intermingling reality and fiction, occured hundreds of years after other texts made references to it, including the lost original in Greek.

The golden legend version of the story is irrelevant in establishing the historicity of the original. The golden legends stories are inspired by ancient traditions drawn from multiple sources, including the New Testament, some having undergone more or less modifications. None of those rewrites claim to be the true version of the common events of the cave.

Only the Quran claims, in its introduction to the story, to have the authentic and original version, in addition divinely inspired. To validate the claim of the Quran borrowing a false story and passing it off as true, the critic must show what the original source of the story was, from which all later texts and traditions outside of the Quran find inspiration. Until that is achieved, it remains a case of one word against another. And no single Syriac text we have today includes every aspect of the legend as it circulated orally in the time of the Quran, or as the Quran evokes it. 

And once more, similarities doesnt entail borrowing. One first has to establish that the supposed (illiterate) author of the Quran had access to the similarities. One then has to explain how he cherry picked among a long list of books and traditions, besides other philosophies and thought systems, to form a well knit, flawlessly intricate narrative in its literary form that left the masters of eloquence of the time dumbfounded, as well as depth of contents that has not finished unravelling its subtleties. 

Why wasnt the source ever exposed nor came out to denounce him, leaving him reap the fruits of their labor. How wasnt this source detected given the largely exposed lifestyle of the time, the open circumstances in which the prophet lived and received revelation, as well as many other factors, not the least being that the Quran never claims to be relating something unknown in that particular narrative, repeatedly says it is a revelation in a long tradition of revelations. 

This means the superficial similarities might be remnants of revealed truths that eventually found their way into these apocrypha. In those writings from which the Quran supposedly draws, one can many times see how the superficial similarities are poorly weaved into the fabric of the story. The apocryphal writer, or his source, was aware of certain elements of the story but poorly integrated them in the whole account.

This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin (Guardian), when talking about the textual and oral traditions contemporaries to it. It points out major mistakes in them, filters the Truth from falsehood 

21:24"this is the reminder of those with me and the reminder of those before me". 

The Quran confirming the past scriptures, as well as any tradition, oral or written, in which divine truths still remain 2:41, means that the principles taught by Muhammad come from a common source, which Muslims believe is the Source of creation, and can be found throughout these textual and oral traditions. This is pointed to in the common phrase "musaddiqan lima bayna yadahi". With the passage of time these traditions were burdenned with additions, suffered from corruption and/or neglectful transmission. The Quran then acts as a criterion that distinguishes truth from falsehood. 

Therefore, and for argument's sake, to Muslims, it is irrelevant whether a story bearing similarities with a Quranic passage was even in circulation during and before Islam. It is even less relevant to Muslims whether the similarities were cannonized in the Bible or not. By what standard is the current Bible canon more reliable than the apocrypha? And what proof is there that the unknown Bible compilers rejected these traditions based on these points common to the Quran? Does the current Bible canon even claim to relate every single aspect of the life of its Biblical characters? Is it quiet possible that during the tumultuous process of transmission of the Bible, more particularily the HB which was lost at least twice as recorded in the Bible itself, some parts of the overall transmitted traditions were retained by the editors charged with reconstituting the lost text, and who reflected their own socio-cultural background in the process? Could they have been Selecting what was appropriate for their storytelling purposes and what was not? Of course from a secular viewpoint, the Quran, as a later text, is irrelevant in determining the authenticity, original versions or actual beliefs of those who originated or penned the previous oral and written traditions, canonized or not. But then so is the NT irrelevant in determining those matters from the HB, just as within the HB itself parts are far removed in time and space from other parts, making certain books insignificant when exploring these matters from earlier or later books. However, as soon as one introduces the divine into the equation, then all groups Jews-Christians-Muslims are equal in their claims as regards the authority of one scripture over another. The only factor from a non-secular view point enhancing one claim over another, would be the group with the most authentic, contradiction-free scripture.

In today's mainstream academia, no Islamicist asserts the Quran was influenced by the textual and oral traditions of its milieu, let alone copies from them. Simply because there is no possibility to know whether the human mind who supposedly authored the text had access to those traditions or understood them. What academics do at most, is present what they see as similarities, without disregarding or minimizing the vast differences. On the other side of the spectrum are Judeo-Christian religious zealots and apologists whose methodology and ideas are vastly inherited from their medieval peers' polemical writings. In order to enforce their untenable, unproven claims of borrowing, they retrospectively cherry pick convenient snippets from within larger stories that have very little to do with the corresponding Quranic passages. Then, not only do they disregard the significant differences loaded with theological meanings, but go on magnifying the tiniest similarities to the maximum so as to serve their paradigm. In the process, they inadvertently attribute to Muhammad an encyclopediac knowledge of texts and traditions, as well as an army of unseen informants from a variety of backgrounds and cultures following him around. This weak methodology can be applied to any thought system so as to build up a case for plagiarism. 

The Judeo-christian scriptures themselves relate, through the successive prophets and inspired personalities, different stories that were known to the addressees. This doesnt mean their statements were inspired by these traditions floating around. Rather, the common truths found between these traditions, and the statements of the prophets come from God. There is a myriad of similarities between the HB and stories, texts, inscriptions, including the Ugaritic mention of Adam and Eve, the Mesopotamian myth of Gilgamesh where he is cheated of immortality by a snake who eats a plant (had Gilgamesh eaten it, it would have made him immortal. The elements are the same but play out differently). There are other such myths circulating in Babylon where the Israelites spent a long time in exile, of a hero tricked out of immortality through the device of a plant/food. One could extend the parallelism with the laws of Hammurabi, or the global flood, among many examples, all predating Moses' supposed writing of the Torah. Some of these similarities might be due, as in the Quran, to being remnants of ancient truths partially preserved by these different cultures. But other biblical parallels with predating writings and traditions obviously are copies of unsophisticated legends floating in the region. The oldest and original account of creation in the Bible isnt found in Genesis but in Isaiah, Job or the Psalms. God in these crude stories divides the seas and fights off aquatic monsters. The same is found in the Ugaritic tablets and in a language very similar to Hebrew, with the myth that creation began when the storm god Baal vanquishing the god of the sea Yam and his sea monster-serpent-dragon helpers. Isa27:1 has a very close wording to what a Canaanite says about Baal 

"When you killed Litan, the fleeing serpent, annihilated the twisty serpent, the potentate with seven heads". 

One shouldnt forget that the canonization of the Bible was a long and controversial process, influenced by men with doctrinal bias, and that the current Biblical text is far from being a valid criterion of what truly constitutes divine knowledge from purely human invention.

The Quran says regarding these courageous youths of Ephesis, that they openly refused worshiping false gods, even publicly denouncing the pagan practices of their people 18:14-15. This attracted great hostility against them to the point their lives were threatened 18:19-20. Allah then guided and inspired them to seek a specific cave in which to hide 18:10-11,16. It must have been a hidden location, in an unexplored area, because its entrance remained unobstructeded, the rays of the sun could still go in 18:17. There, they sought their Lord in prayer, to direct them to a favorable outcome 18:10. This is where the miraculous events begin, with God preserving their bodies by causing them to fall into a sleep that lasted several centuries 18:11-12. God Himself raised them up at the moment He saw fit 18:12,19.

When they were awaken, they had no idea how long they had tarried, thinking they had just spent a few hours or at most a day. They were hesitant to go back to their town but had no choice, they needed to find some food. So one of them was cautiously sent with money 18:19. Once he payed with his ancient silver coin his identity was betrayed. By that time, their disappearance had turned into a legend, various stories circulated about them. People were even conjecturing about them down in the times the Quran was revealed 18:22. But now they had nothing to fear as the pagan population was supplanted by a religion that saw them as saints, worthy of having a comemorative edifice built on their cave 18:21. It is interesting to note that the youths apparently wanted to remain secluded, even while the threat to their lives was gone and people acclaimed them as heroes. This reveals that they might not have fully agreed with the religion of the townsfolk although it clearly wasnt paganism anymore, as seen with the people's calling upon the one God 18:21. The townsfolk finally settled upon building a place of prostration, a masjid on top of their cave 18:21. This miracle served the purpose of settling the dispute people were having at the time concerning the concept of bodily resurrection 18:21.

In Christian tradition, after their death they were raised to sainthood and the power of intercession was attributed to them. The Jacobites Christians of Najran celebrated them yearly, with some church paintings representing them with a dog. Up to this day, the Orthodox Church commemorates them twice yearly. Their historicity was never officially doubted until the 16th century that saw the rise of Protestantism and the period of Enlightenment. The first to voice doubts regarding it was actually a Renaisance scholar and cardinal, named Baronius, branding it as apocryphal. He was representing the thought process of his own time, which was all about discrediting anything medieval to raise the church's credibility to a highly sceptical, cartesian audience. And he did not discredit the story based on evidence, nobody can prove or disprove oral tradition when the source is unknown and when that tradition is believed for centuries as true. He rather labelled it an "improbability".

Again, it is the embellished version as found in the golden legends compilation that was subject to criticism and not the core story which can never be disproven. In a series of concessions to his cartesian audience, the cardinal selected that story among others because it isnt of primary importance to Christian tenets. Even though what one can find as "probable" and accepted within the NT, such as the resurrection story, is no more credible in terms of historicity and internal evidence, than the discarded story of the seven sleepers. But of course, this part of the Christian fable cannot be as easily dismissed since, according to Paul "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins".

Where the Quran account departs from Christian tradition is regarding the theological derivations and some factual details. The Quran denies the intercession powers attributed to them, through their declaration of God's supreme power and unity. The Quran also teaches through them the universal principle that in some cases, unnecessary attention given to side issues deviates the focus from the deeper meaning of things and more important, pressing and immidiate problems; for example when raised, some among them began guessing and disputing the time-span of their sleep, while others knew for a fact that only God posesses this knowledge. They relied on Him and began instead organizing the manner in which their immidiate needs and problems should be solved.

Similarily, as the townfolk discovered the truth some began going after the unnecessary details of the sleepers' identity, the various facts surrounding them, the length of time they spent in the cave instead of ackowledging God's all encompassing knowledge and pondering on the deeper significance of the miracle

18:26"Say: Allah knows best how long they remained; to Him are (known) the unseen things of the heavens and the earth; how clear His sight and how clear His hearing! There is none to be a guardian for them besides Him, and He does not make any one His associate in His Judgment".

The Quran also very appropriately hints at the overall confusion among later people as to the timespan of their sleep and other details. The Quran settles these disputes.

Among all saints of Christianity, had they not been mentionned, none would have known them in Islam, but God rehabilitated them as heroes of spiritual integrity, insisting and puting great emphasis that

18:13"We relate to you their story bil haqq/with truth/purpose/rightfully".

The word covers that God takes back all rights to telling their story, it isnt the prerogative of the Christians and their false conjectures anymore. And by rehabilitating their truth, restores the purpose of God's miracle through them and how they benefited themselves from it

18:21"And thus did We make (men) to get knowledge of them that they might know that Allah's promise is true and that as for the hour there is no doubt about it".

Acts17apologetics find the horned one; Dhul Qarnayn is Alexander the Great?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's "Revelations" about Historical Figures Destroy His Credibility (PvM 9)"

Dhul Qarnayn's story is that of a mighty, pious, divinely chosen and inspired King. He was known for his high morality even among his enemies, remaining just and fair towards a newly conquered people even when they are at his entire mercy 18:84-8. He was a monotheist selected and spiritually guided by God as well as facilitated in his worldly endeavors, battles, adventures and extensive journeys.

This was Cyrus the Great as described both in the HB and the Quran, sometimes with strikingly similar wording and imageries. He was so revered by one among many of those nations that looked up to him, ie the Jews, that he is referred to as God's messiah Isa45. Despite his monumental achievements and conquests, he remained humble and attributed his "being established in the land" to God's mercy, just like the prophet King Solomon and other righteous and great humans attributed their wisdom, spiritual uprightness, powers and other worldly advantages to God. In fact Dhul Qarnayn's name itself, in the classical Arabic, encapsulates all these aforementioned lofty attributes. Dhul also means "full of" while Qarnayn stands for wisdom and power.

Historically, it is the Jews living on the outskirts of Mecca that instigated the Arab pagans to question the prophet on Dhul Qarnayn. It was a question meant at ensnaring the prophet, just as they had the habit of doing with previous prophets including Jesus as reported in the NT. He had to know the hidden symbolisms of Daniel 8's prophecy of the 2 horned ram and how they relate to the book of Isaiah that speaks of Cyrus. In the prophecy, the 2 horns stand for the kingdoms of Persia and Media while the ram itself stands for the Medo-Persian kingdom effectively founded and united by Cyrus the Great. The Persian kingdom, younger and eventually greater, is symbolized by the higher horn that sprouted last, while Media, older and eventually lesser, is symbolized by the smaller and older horn. The kingdom of Media was the more ancient and prominent while Persia was of little account until Cyrus gave it its glory, conquering Media and maintaining the ascendant over it.

It is only natural then that Cyrus would be symbolically connected to the 2 horned ram. He founded and embodied the Medo-Persian kingdom greatness until the fall of his empire under his successor Darius III. The Jews wanted to verify Muhammad's claim to prophethood in light of his knowledge of scriptures, they werent asking for random information about non-religious matters, or about an issue known to everyone and which could easily be replied to. More than merely repeating the apparent scriptural information about Cyrus as related in the books of Isaiah or Ezra, they needed confirmation that his knowledge was "advanced", covering subtle knowledge unknown to the common folk. The cryptic symbolism of the 2 horned ram, in reference to Cyrus, was to them the perfect test. In addition, Cyrus is never explicitly given the "two horned" epithet in scriptures which is all the more relevant in raising the difficulty level of their question to the prophet.

This incident is similar to the challenge by the rabbi ibn Salam to Muhammad, prior to his conversion to Islam. He asked him several questions as a falsification test of prophethood; among them, what would be the first meal in heaven, the first sign of the end of times and the reason a child resembles one of the parents. Ibn Salam was a leading scholar of the Jewish community and teacher. He knew what was accessible of scriptural and traditional knowledge to the layman and what was restricted. He therefore asked Muhammad questions which no layman could know, let alone an Arab unschooled in scriptural knowledge, except through revelation. Nor is there indication of any of the information requested circulating orally in the region and among the common folk. Nor were the source scriptures alluding to the themes in those answers translated into Arabic. As to the meal, the prophet replied it would be the caudate lobe of the liver of a sea creature, followed by the meat of a bull that grazed from the vegetation of heaven. As to the notion of parental resemblance, it is similar to a passage in the Babylonian Talmud, Nidda 31a. The prophet's answers were comparable in their essence, not in their details, to what is found in Jewish tradition. From an Islamic perspective, the essential parallelisms between Islam and previous scriptures and traditions, are the truthfull parts which a third party independently revealed across time. As the prophet stated when he finished answering these and other questions 

"He asked me about such and such things of which I have had no knowledge till Allah gave me that". 

To further illustrate, a Jew once shared information with the Muslims while the prophet was present, and the latter recited from a Meccan sura (prior to Muslim-Jewish interaction) to demonstrate his defective knowledge 

"A (Jewish) Rabbi came to Allah's Messenger and he said, "O Muhammad! We learn that Allah will put all the heavens on one finger, and the earths on one finger, and the trees on one finger, and the water and the dust on one finger, and all the other created beings on one finger. Then He will say, 'I am the King.' Thereupon the Prophet smiled so that his pre-molar teeth became visible, and that was the confirmation of the Rabbi. Then Allah's Messenger recited: 'They made not a just estimate of Allah such as is due to Him. And on the Day of Resurrection the whole of the earth will be grasped by His Hand and the heavens will be rolled up in His Right Hand. Glorified is He, and High is He above all that they associate as partners with Him.' (39.67)".

The Quran plainly states, it will continuously provide the relevant information whenever an objection, similitude or question is put forward to the prophet 

25:33"And they do not come to you with a mathal/similitude except that We bring you the truth and the best explanation".

Returning to the hadith where the prophet was questioned, there are three possibilities to view the report;

- the incident really occured. The knowledgeable rabbi approached the prophet with inquiries he could not have known, as mentioned earlier.

- the information was in circulation to the extent that even non-Jews were familiar with it. Why didnt any of the numerous enemies of Islam, whether Jews, pagans or hypocrites expose this fact? Could the rabbi really be that oblivious of how common this knowledge he inquiried about was, to the point that the prophet's answers made him convert to Islam?

- the whole incident did not happen, making the background of Abdullah ibn Salam's conversion a mystery.

Cyrus was a messianic hero and extraordinary figure to them. In addition, these scattered and exiled Jews were in constant anticipation for a savior to come and bring them back to their position of honor among the nations, as almost achieved under Cyrus. Their chosen topic was certainly not random and was relevant to their psychological and scriptural context. The Quranic reply begins with

"i will recount upon you a remembrance of him".

The prophet was then inspired with an answer that was relevant to the questioners on 2 levels;

- it confirmed the apparent and hidden knowledge on Cyrus/Dhul Qarnayn in their scriptures

- it provided an affectionate reminder of some of that beloved figure's forgotten greatness, through worldly achievements connected to his spiritual worthiness

As a side note it was a common motif among kings and rulers in ancient times to be portrayed with 2 horns which symbolized power and rulership. It is the case with Cyrus who, besides the symbolism in Daniel's prophecy, is physically depicted as such in engravings. As noted by Biblical scholars it was usual for persian kings to wear a decorated ram's head. Other ancient rulers were sometimes depicted with horns to symbolize their power, including Alexander the great who himself adopted the horns from the god Zeus-Ammon. He can be seen on a few marginal coin issues, among the vast variety of Alexander coins, from profile, with free flowing hair, with a small horn curling around his ear and his proper name stamped on.

This can hardly be used as evidence for the unproven assertion that the Arabs nicknamed Alexander "two horned" prior to the revelation of sura kahf. Throughout time, the exegetes and story tellers have proposed a vast range of potential candidates among the historical figures known to them, as possible references to the Quranic Dhul Qarnayn. Some have even suggested he was an angel.

Apostate prophet skeptic of Muslim sources; Islamic sources retrospectively written?

In answer to the video "The Most Ignorant Quran Verse"

Hadith books, are based upon oral tradition and oral tradition in any culture, precedes the writing of that tradition. All history is a 'written' attestation to an ORAL tradition, meaning written word comes AFTER THE FACT. Just because pre-Islamic history became written down after a certain time period does not predicate it never existed. History did not fail to exist, because it was not written down. Many times the reporters themselves admitted that in the transmission process, they paid little regard to truth and falsehood.

That is why we find reports about the prophet ranging from overly flattering to slanderous.

In both cases, Muslims do not just accept a report or reject it at face value, but scrutinize it through various meticulous angles so as to arrive to a decent level of certainty. The ahadith, although a secondary source of religious guidance, went through an authentication process that the major scriptures of Christianity and Judaism cannot even hope for, let alone their secondary sources. That authentication process of the ahadith is still open even today, with ahadith seen in the past as undisputed but now downgraded to a lower level of certainty. No writing in the history of mankind received a divine pledge of protection other than the Quran. Anything else is open to human error.

An important thing to be kept in mind, as already said, many of the early writers, particularily the seera writers such as Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Al Waqidi, Ibn Saad were concerned by amassing and compiling all the material available or what was being talked about, surrounding any historical event or in comment to a verse, fearing they could be lost, without authenticating them. This shows the integrity of the Muslim tradition that did not seek to supress any information related to the life of the prophet and the early Muslims, nor invent things so as to advance their agenda. Such an endeavour would have been close to impossible to achieve anyway. There never was a centralized system of collecting information. Each narrator and historian took whatever was available to him, in his time and place. These historians, after gathering all that was floating around in oral tradition in regards an event of interest, would in the same time write down as many names among the chain of narrators as they could, so as to leave time and room for the specialists whose life was dedicated to sifting through the reliable and unreliable reports. When the selecting process was finished, the discarded reports werent physically destroyed and erased, but were instead kept as examples of what constitutes a weak narration, for future references and studies.

That is the difference between the Muslim tradition and the Judeo-Christian one that shamelessly accepts within its authentic collection of writings the most ridiculous and insulting things about God and the prophetic history, without any critical consideration for either the chain of transmission or the soundness of the content of a tradition. Neither do the Muslims take at face value the reports that over exalt the prophet and the early Muslims. If after deliberation they were deemed weak or unreliable, they were kept nevertheless if there was any moral lesson to derive from them. These weak and rejected narrations are well known to the Muslims, although the misinformed, unqualified critics of Islam make ample use of them to serve their anti Islamic propaganda machine.

These historians thus left the authentication process to the following generations in search of the truth. The famous historian Tabari for instance says in introduction to his work that his primary duty was to faithfully transmit whatever information he could gather, the responsibility is then on the reader or listener to verify not only the authenticity of the reports based on the transmitters' reliability, but also based on reason.

As a case in point, the statement 'za'ama or za'amu often precedes Ibn Ishaq's reports implying the inherent caution of something being 'alleged'. This should make it clear for any sincere enquirer that there is more than a hint of a caution that the veracity of the statement he compiles is not necessarily determined as fact. Many narratives are this way injected with Arabic terms by the historians transmitting them, suggesting caution for the reader to undertake. Technically speaking, a seera book is a collection of reports about the prophet and his companions arranged in a chronoligical order with little attention given to reliability. The goal being to have as little gaps in time as possible.

Apostate prophet stuck on verse 9:30; Allah curses people in the Quran?

In answer to the video "The Most Ignorant Quran Verse"

The entire Quran is a discourse from Allah alone, transmitted to the prophet Muhammad by the angel Gabriel. It isnt God's autobiography for it to be cast wholly in the form of 'I' and 'me'. It quotes many different speakers like prophets, angels, believers, jinn, satan and more, even sometimes inanimate entities made to speak for a specific purpose, all this all the while actively interracting with the reader and or/audience, making it sometimes directly part of the flow of the discourse. In all cases it is word for word the speech of God, whoever it quotes or commands to proclaim/qul. When Allah speaks through the prophet starting with qul, the words spoken afterwards do not become the words of the speaker, for example

39:10"Qul (Say/Proclaim/Declare/State/Mention), “O My servants who have believed, fear your Lord. For those who do good in this world is good, and the earth of Allah is spacious. Indeed, the patient will be given their reward without account."

This is just one of the many aspects of what makes it a literary masterpiece on such a level that the masters of eloquence of the time could not but call it magic and sorcery.

When it commands the prophet to be the speaker the Quran sometimes begins with qul/say. In the Hebrew Bible, the book of Ezekiel is full of verses addressing the prophet beginning with "say". At other places the prophet is to relate the revelation on God's behalf without starting with the qul/say formula. Only the style indicates that the speaker at a place is not Allah but indirectly His messenger or some other character who are either directly quoted, paraphrased, or instructed on what to say in a given situation, context or ritual. Among the examples concerning the believers specifically, the Quran instructs them how to start certain endeavors or suras of the book with the "bismilla", or teaches them either within a larger sura or in a complete sura, like sura fatiha, how to verbally seek Allah's guidance.

 In the HB God says to Moses

Ex33:19"I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you",

ie I will teach you how to worship Me. or in the book of Jeremiah, after a long admonishment, the prophet begins quoting, without any transition, a prayer of repentance to be uttered by the believers Jer3:22-5.

The same principle is followed when determining at other places who the speaker is when using certain idiomatic expressions like "may Allah" or "By God" see 4:65,9:30,16:56,63,34:3,63:4 "By your life" 15:72 "alhamdulilla/praise God" 39:29. It is to be noted there is no "may" in 9:30,63:4 and the Arabic literally reads "Allah happened to fight them" and can be understood, amongst other things, as "Allah cursed them/distanced them from his mercy or planned for their bad ending in this life and the next". The Arabic is actually in the past, and in the Quran's language this conveys the idea of the inevitability of a thing happenning. Here the Quran is quoting what the indignated expression of a believer should be, when confronted to groups who insist on such deviation despite being warned and admonished. For a believer to be offended by sin, to the point of hating the obdurate people who insist on it, is not something misplaced. It is rather expected. God endows those willing to walk the straight path with increased sharpness of spiritual insight. Faith and righteousness become the dearest of values to them while unbelief and transgression become hated 49:7-8.

The prophet Ibrahim, having received a clear discernment of right and wrong even felt physically sick at the sight of falsehood 37:89. The prophet Yusuf, because of that faculty was able to extricate himself from a situation that would have otherwise compromised his chastity 12:22-4. Love of Truth and aversion towards everything false and sinful is the natural outcome of the acceptance of the straight path. One becomes in a heightened state of spiritual awareness, constantly longing to be increased in divine knowledge and wisdom. IT is however important to keep in view that the Quran here is not speaking of hatred towards the sinful person itself. There are countless verses encouraging rectitude and compassion indiscriminately even towards one's enemies, and regardless of the person's religion or lack thereof. Religious hatred is hatred for evil and evil deeds. This again, demonstrates the supreme pragmatism of the Quran; infatuated love and destructive hatred completely miss the mark. One hates for the sake of God and loves for the sake of God.

One hates the evil deed because it harms the sinner, just as one loves the good deed because it brings one closer to guidance. The prophet encapsulated that notion when  he spoke of a category of people whom the prophets and martyrs themselves will envy 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".

The HB surely echoes the theme of religious hatred although it amalgamates hatred towards the individual itself as reflected in David's

Psalms119:104-5,139:21-22"From Your precepts I shall gain understanding; therefore, I hate all ways of falsehood. Your words are a lamp for my foot, and light for my path...Did I not hate Your enemies, O Lord? With those who rise up against You, I quarrel. I hate them with utmost hatred; they have become my enemies"

as well as Solomon's Proverbs2:7-10,13:5. Again in 2Sam22, the prophet David speaks of God's guidance as the lamp by which one walks in darkness, levelling the obstacles along the path, making every step firm, a rock, forteress and shield of salvation. In his later days, he would state

Ps19:9"the commandment of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eyes".

Apostate prophet seeks evidence; Jews said Ezra is son of God?

In answer to the video "The Most Ignorant Quran Verse"

In 9:30 the Quran accuses some Jews of over exalting one of their prophets, Ezra. It is important here to note that a statement that starts with "the people said" without being followed by a precise designation of the individuals concerned inside the group is a literary feature of Arabic usage of sentences; its aim is to point to a prevailing tendancy among a larger group. It is the equivalent to "Most people said". This is all the more true when the single feminine form is used, as in this case.

So in 9:30, it does not mean that all the Jews said this, but it does bring the attention to a significant group amongst them which happened to say it. The same verbal form is used in 5:64-66 for the Jews, and again because in the introductory statement "the Jews said" there was no precise designation of the guilty individuals, the passage ends by making a distinction between the sinners and the righteous, thus showing that although both belong to the same larger group, not all of them are concerned with the accusation levelled against their comunity.

Further corroboration can be seen in the prophetic sayings, where a glimpse of what shall occur on the day of judgement is given, when people are seperated into different groups. The first group, those who consciously worshipped anything other than Allah are sent to hellfire. Then 2 groups are made from among the worshippers of Allah; the righteous and the sinners. In both groups there will be Muslims and non muslims, such as Jews and Christians. The Quran repeatedly says, among the people of the book, both righteous and sinners will be rewarded accordingly in the hereafter. Finally, a party will be brought forth from those who worshipped Allah among the people of the book. They will be those whom the Quran accuses of transgression in regards to Ezra and Jesus

"and SOME of the people of the Book who worshipped Allah are left. Then the Jews would be summoned, and it would be said to them: What did you worship? They will say: We worshipped 'Uzair, son of Allah. It would be said to them: You tell a lie...Then it will be said to the Christians, 'What did you use to worship?' They will reply, 'We used to worship Messiah, the son of Allah.' It will be said, 'You are liars..." 

The Quran is here making a historical observation pertaining to the beliefs of the Arabian peninsula. It is already well-documented that not all Jews had the same beliefs. Even within the HB and NT, one finds competing theologies such as the Sadducees' disbelief in the resurrection, while it is a pillar of the orthodox Jewish belief. Paul observes that some Jews in his lifetime worshiped angels Col2:18. There were Jews and gentiles among the proto-christian sect that deified Jesus. That is besides the numerous idolatrous practices Jews have done since the times of Moses, and recorded in the HB.

Ezra was believed to have ascended up to heaven without dying by certain Jews, just as Christians argued Jesus ascended to heaven. In the Jewish apocalypse 2 Esdras 14 God tells him that 

"You will be taken from among human beings, and you will associate from now on with my son and with those who are like you until the times are finished". 

There is nothing far-fetched in the assertion of these Arabian Jews, their over exaltation of Ezra especially in the context of the religious competition that existed between Christianity and Judaism in the Arabian peninsula. The Quran often references this, and the following verse is a similar style to the one in question

2:113"And the Jews say: The Christians do not follow anything (good) and the Christians say: The Jews do not follow anything (good) while they recite the (same) Book. Even thus say those who have no knowledge, like to what they say; so Allah shall judge between them on the day of resurrection in what they differ".

It was in such religious prejudice that the Jews and Christians would even go as far as condemning their opponents on matters that had no religious basis from the book they shared. 9:30 is an example of the religious prejudices reaching extremes, but in this case, it caused them to utter words of unbelief regarding their own religious figures. The next verse states

9:31"They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one Allah only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him)".

There is an important omission in the verse. Although both Jews and Christians have raised their religious figures as God's sons, and both have set their scholars and monks as God's partners in the sense that they follow their authority blindly even if it innovates and contradicts what was revealed to them, yet in contrast to Ezra only Jesus is mentionned as having been raised to a divine status. And this is to differentiate between the Christians who willingly did so, whereas with the Jews, their type of idolatry in regards to Ezra was indirect, through descriptions overstepping the limits of acceptable monotheistic belief. There is a reason why that transgression is only mentionned once, in contrast to the deification of Jesus which is repeatedly condemned throughout the Quran. The hadith itself states that they used to worship Allah, although they will be convicted of worshipping Ezra 

"and SOME of the people of the Book who worshipped Allah are left. Then the Jews would be summoned, and it would be said to them: What did you worship? They will say: We worshipped 'Uzair, son of Allah..." 

These Jews were pointed and publicly exposed for their transgression. That is why when they will be singled out from among other Jews on the day of resurrection, as per the hadith quoted earlier, then questionned as to who they used to worship, they will immidiately know that this questionning will be related to the accusation made against them in their lifetime, and will thus convict their own selves, admitting to their worship of Ezra.

An important Quranic principle is that those who associate with Allah's essence and authority, whether deities, saints or personalities, religious leaders or their own selves by following ways incited by their own desires 9:31,6:136-9,25:43,36:60,42:21,45:23 do so many times unknowingly 

23:84-9,29:60-65"And if you ask them, Who created the heavens and the earth and made the sun and the moon subservient, they will certainly say, Allah. Whence are they then turned away?" 

The attribution of intrinsic powers and authority to any of those entities, their leaders, their own selves, or Mary who in addition is included in prayer rituals, even without naming any of them "gods" is equal to taking them as gods besides Allah. 

This appelation, Ezra's sonship to God, implies that someone might be compared in essence to God, to whom there is no likeness in the heavens and the earth, the Supreme above all things 3:83,19:88-95,13:15,22:18. This title is so much honor no one deserves, not the greatest prophets or angels, not anything of His creation. The greatest of the greatest creations, although honored and drawn near to Allah, are only fit to be called His slaves

19:93,21:26"And they say: The Beneficent Allah has taken to Himself a son. Glory be to Him. Nay! they are honored servants".

Another important point is that 9:30 does not necessarly state that what they uttered concerning Ezra and Jesus has scriptural basis. This means that although it might be the case, as in Jesus' case who is referred to with the title son of man and son of God in the NT, it isnt necessarly so as in Ezra's case.

 There are other such instances where the Quran exposes some false utterances of the Jews and challenges them to bring the scriptural basis 2:94,2:111,3:75. Elsewhere it denounces their misinterpretations aimed at satisfying their own interests, either by advancing certain concepts contrary to their scriptures' intent or hiding certain realities fully present in them 3:71,78,98-99.
The point of the verse is that they were not interested in proclaiming the truth, they were interested in their partisanship, even at the expense of the truth. Serving God, as the above verse states, is not in their equation.