In answer to the video "Scholarly Ability: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 2)"
The famous hadith, gladly picked up by the critics if Islam, where the prophet reportedly admonishes a group of women for their "deficiencies" isnt speaking of mental IQ, that notion is bellied by the description of the inquisitive woman as jazlah/wise,intelligent.
The second part of the hadith, with the word ghalaba which means to overcome, plainly states that women might outsmart "dhi lubbin”—a very intelligent, or wise, or resolute man. How can an intellectually inferior individual outwit one of superior intellect?
The word 'aql does not always equate with general mental capacities. That is why the prophet corroborated his statement "'aql deficiency" with the verse 2:282 spoken of earlier which deals with the issue of 2 women witnesses replacing one male witness. And neither does naqs necessarily equate with deficiency but also "to reduce".
This is like telling them that though they have been reduced in their worldly and religious duties, this does not mean in any way that they are of lesser mental/spiritual capacities since they can overcome the smartest of men. The statement within the hadith that most of hell dwellers will be women is not due to an inherent spiritual flaw but because of them cursing more and being more ungrateful. In another hadith and using the same wording it says that most of the dwellers of Paradise will be women too.
Imam Muslim quotes ibn Sireen as sayong that there was discussion between men and women as to which gender will be the majority in Heaven. Abu Hurayra answered, based on the prophet's statement that women will be more (Fath al Baari 6/325). By applying the same misunderstanding one would interpret this latter hadith as saying that women are spiritually superior to men. A woman is commanded by Allah not to pray or fast during her menses, which are the 2 examples the prophet gives of how they are reduced in religion. And though they are exempted from these rituals, by obeying these commands they will still receive their rewards. Seeing that a woman on her way to perform was sad, Aisha asked
"What is wrong with you?' I replied, ' I do not offer the prayers (i.e. I have my menses).' He said, ' It will not harm you for you are one of the daughters of Adam, and Allah has written for you (this state) as He has written it for them. Keep on with your intentions for Hajj and Allah may reward you that."
Men do not receive rewards for not praying or fasting and although the divine law stipulates different rights and obligations to men and women their ultimate reward is the same.
Anyone who knows the character and eloquence of the prophet with which he was able to effectively change the hearts and minds of his addressees, knows that he would never utter such hurtful, insulting speech, much less on a festive day of Eid. He would never put anyone down, especially due to gender, race, class or any other matter, and this is something the Quran forbids anyone to do.
Furthermore had the prophet been a proponent of such notion of women being mentally and spiritually inferior then he would never have entrusted his wives with safeguarding, transmitting and teaching the most sacred knowledge to both men and women. He is also reported as giving precedence to his wife Umm Salama's opinion in a very crucial matter, during the treaty of Hudaybiya over that of his closest male companions. The caliphs would later emulate the prophet in this behavior, on certain occasions. Aisha would even issue fatwas.
In answer to the video "Scholarly Ability: Paul vs. Muhammad (PvM 2)"
The ratio of 1 man equivalent to 2 women's testimonies mentionned in 2:282 is a general advice
"so that IF one of them errs, the other can remind her".
It is a conditional statement, which makes the second female a passive witness unless the primary witness is forgetful. Therefore if a women is sound and competent, then she would need no other woman to remind her of something she knew but forgot. Her single testimony becomes equal in value to that of the man. The testimony is not gender based as one expert is not sufficient for a transaction to be binding; it requires 2 men as is clear from the verse's beginning
"get two witnesses out of your men".
The verse actually favors a woman witness who wouldnt automatically be dismissed for incompetence but would be supported in case of error while the single male witness would be replaced in the same case. The verse addresses the issue of financial matters and the fact is that on average, women are much less qualified than men in financial expertise, even in western societies. As well, women are almost all affected, sometimes completely debilitated by PMS symptoms during and around the times of their menstrual cycles, in their emotional-intellectual and physical capacities, all of which might potentially compromise female testimony in such a situation. To dismiss that condition as potentially affecting every single woman simply for the sake of preserving a facade of progressive thinking, is a denial of an objective reality.
The Quran doesnt deny human nature and instead approaches everyday matters realisticly and pragmaticly. It only accepts the testimony of a person affected by a psycho-emotional condition that could potentially influence the objectivity of a case, when it is a woman -hence the 2nd woman to remind her. It is clearly referring to a condition not to the presumed intellectual capacities of a woman, hence the 2nd woman's role to remind her of something she knows but was mislead into forgetting.
If what the Quran meant was that a man's testimony is equal to 2 women's, the Quran in other instances ie when a woman is accused of adultery, would be saying that one woman's testimony is equal to 4 men's because if 4 men are not brought forth then their testimony will not be valid and they will be lashed for lying 24:4. Also, in the case a husband accuses his wife of adultery without bringing forth eyewitnesses, her testimony has the same value as her husband's, contrary to the Bible where the accused wife is immidiately considered guilty by default and is made to undergo humiliating and strange rituals to prove her innocence Numbers5:11-31. Without forgetting the fact that in Jewish law, women arent even allowed to serve as witnesses in legal matters in a court of law.
Among other superstitions associated with the jinn, and rejected by the Quran, is the supposed possibility for humans to master them. The Quran refutes that belief through the story of the prophet Solomon. He was given unlimited mastery over them, had the capacity to summon and use the jinn, the evil as well as the good ones, at will and for the accomplishement of positive actions only 27:17,38-41.
This however was a favor from God and was done by God's express command. Their subjection, despite the rebellious nature of the sinful ones among them, was not of Solomon's own will or power and the jinns concerned had no say in the matter or else they would face God's chastisement. They were under God's complete control in the process 21:81-2 meaning Solomon by himself had absolutely no special ability that allowed him the possibility to master them the way he did, use them at will and without any fear of having to render an account 34:12,38:36-38. In Jewish oral tradition however, it is stated that Solomon was overpowered by one of those demons, Ashmadai who chased him from his throne.
That such an eminent personality, favored by God and drawn near to Him, a prophet imparted knowledge of the unseen like all prophets, was not able to control the jinn except by God's will is an emphatic rejection of the claim that some random people with alleged powers have the capacity to summon them at will, making them perform certain tasks (most of the time for evil purposes) or obtain hidden knowledge, which is rejected as stated earlier with the verse 34:14. On a more specific note, it also negates the notion that solomon himself, contrary to the suspicions and calumnies of some of his contemporaries and the subsequent generations, used to practice the occult sciences
2:102"And they followed what the Shaitans chanted of sorcery in the reign of Sulaiman, and Sulaiman was not an unbeliever, but the Shaitans disbelieved".
We see traces of these allegations even in the Jewish historian Josephus' works. He relates how Solomon had, through incantations and the use of the occult sciences, mastery of demons, could perform exorcisms. He speaks of a Jew contemporary to him that made use of these Solomonic practices.
Obviously the people misinterpreted Sulayman's ability, granted to him by God, of controling entities of the unseen for his own benefit. Such falsehood is abundantly found in a wide variety of Solomonic lore, including the 5th century CE Testament of Solomon, each drawing from oneanother as well as other lost sources, written and oral. Particularly among Greek Christians that used amulets, medallions seals or rings with his name.
What we find in certain Jewish traditions in regards his perception of the language and behavior of birds, is that his ability wasnt a divine gift but due to his mastery of ornithomancy, an occult science involving birds (Pesika de-Rav Kahana, Ecclesiastes Rabbah). Here again, just as it does with his other supernatural abilities where clearly states they were divinely granted gifts to him, and that Solomon was humbly grateful to his Lord, it introduces the story of Solomon's interraction with the bird messenger with a prayer
27:19"My Lord, grant me that I should be grateful for Your favor that You bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I should do good such as You would be pleased with, and make me enter, by Your mercy, into Your servants, the good ones".
For a book that supposedly reflects the superstitious notions of 7th century Arabia, the Quran surprisingly demarcates itself from the belief systems of its contemporaries. It says, in regards to the jinn for instance, that before the times of revelation, they used to sit anywhere they wanted in the sky
72:9"we used to sit in some of the sitting-places thereof to steal a hearing".
But contrary to what the preislamic Arabs thought, these jinn could not hear anything no matter their obstination, as they declared themselves
72:10"we know not whether evil is meant for those who are on earth or whether their Lord means to bring them good".
Had they been able to hear a thing, even prior to revelation descending, they would have been destroyed as happened to those that tried during Revelation. This means the Quran doesnt given any credence to the pre-Islamic belief of jinn with the ability to spy on heavenly affairs or have any glimpse of the unseen and the future
34:14"the jinn came to know plainly that if they had known the unseen, they would not have tarried in abasing torment".
Here the Quran refers to Solomon who passed away but whose dead body was held by a wooden staff for a while until it disintegrated, eaten by a woodworm. It is only when his inanimate body fell to the ground that the jinn, living under his servitude, realized he was dead. The passage not only shows them as subservient to one of Allah's servants, but they are unable to even fathom something superficially hidden from them, yet very close: how then can they gratify people’s appeals to learn the secrets of the unseen?
It is also interesting to note, that when speaking of Iblis himself, the Quran says that his pledge to God that he would doubtlessly lead astray a portion of Adam's descendants, was in fact a conjecture and guess. The archetype of jinn himself has no access to special knowledge, not even of the future. It was just a coincidence that his conjecture and guess became true
34:20"And certainly Iblis found true his conjecture concerning them, so they followed him, except a party of the believers".
Satan or shaytan is used in the Quran for Iblis as well as for any creature that is mischievous, misleading, among the jinn and human beings 2:14,3:175,6:112,25:27-9,114:4-6. Iblis is the archetypical shaytan, the leader of them all, whether they be from among the men or jinn. After his banishement from his nearness to God, Iblis pledged to stray man away from the path of guidance and God allowed him to do so, giving him the respite until the Day of Resurrection that he demanded.
On the other hand, man has an innate capacity to understand good and evil, will receive divine guidance, will be guided through his own reason towards God Whose attributes reflect in the universe inside and outside of man, and is therefore expected to be able to choose good above evil. The mischieving entities, Iblis included, therefore fullfill a definite function in God's plan; tempting through the power of suggestion only, enabling man to exercize his God-given freedom of choice between good and evil
15:39-42"He said: My Lord..I will certainly make (evil) fair-seeming to them on earth, and I will certainly cause them all to deviate. Except Thy servants from among them, the devoted ones. He said: This is a right way with Me: Surely, as regards My servants, you have no authority over them except those who follow you of the deviators".
Iblis and all mischieving entities are therefore not God's "enemies" in the sense that he has no power over them, that they have escaped his grand design and act contrary to His all encompassing will. That is why they are only called mankind's enemies/adversaries 7:22,17:53,36:60. Yet others are called God's enemies, like Pharaoh 20:39 because of his claim to the divine and cruelty. In fact if there is one thing Iblis is never portrayed as claiming, is divinity. He even denounces shirk 14:22. The opposite transpires in Christian writings, Satan wanted man to worship him as a deity Matt4:9, shedding light on the original pagan notions of early Christian converts and the manner in which those notions were projected unto Jewish writings and Jesus' teachings.
Shaytan stems from SHATN meaning the long rope that pulls the bucket out of the well. The verb SHATAN means to pull on the rope so that the bucket is taken out of the well. Therefore SHAYTAN is the one that pulls on that rope and takes the bucket out of its place (out of the well). Metaphorically it is thus any person or being that pulls people out of their own natural place (The natural place is in harmony with God). So SHAYTAN is anyone that takes a person away from God.
Iblis and his followers from the men and jinn misguide man by beautifying ugly deeds 16:63, making false promises 4:120 or playing on our fears and uncertainties in the future 2:268. These tricks disturbs man's innate capacity to distinguish good and evil, truth from falsehood. Man is only misguided if his innate capacity is not trained enough through worship and constant remembrance of God
17:65"Surely (as for) My servants, you have no authority over them; and your Lord is sufficient as a Protector".
SHAYTAN is therefore not a proper noun, it isnt an independant evil creation, contrary to Chrisitian belief (without any scriptural support). In fact the very notion of YHWH being the creator of evil, a pillar of Jewish belief based on Deut30:15,Isa45:7,1Sam16:14, refutes the notion of an independant evil entity acting against God's will or plan for mankind.
Similarly in the HB, it is haSatan or "the opponent". Satans are both humans and non-humans who "oppose" particular characters Deut22:32-33,1kings11:14,23-5. Hasatan/the opponent is therefore the description of a role that can be played by anyone, an angel or even God Himself. In the Hebrew, the absence of a definite article merely implies an indefinite article. Christian translators of the Hebrew bible are often unaware of this, so they think that 1Chron21 uses "satan" as a proper name because it appears without the definite article.
By doing so, they fail to realize that the verse is talking of God Himself as being David's adversary 1Samuel24. In all other cases, ha-satan is a loyal servant of God. He is neither evil, nor "fallen", rather sent by God to test humans with hardships. There is no Lucifer in the Bible either. Why would the Hebrew and Aramaic HB contain a Latin word all of a sudden? As explicitly stated in the Quran, shaytan, whether from the men or the jinn, is a tool fully encompassed by God and part of a higher scheme whose intricacies only a glimpse can be perceived.
In the book of Job, HaSatan acts as Job's prosecutor, while God is acting as both Judge and attorney for the defense. Nowhere in Job is HaSatan against God. His role is to test Job.
The Jinn are beings whose essence is, contrary to the earthly substance of mankind, a special kind of fire 6:100,15:26-27,21:30,55:15. Just as we originated from inorganic earthly elements, then passing through various stages of creation, became a flesh and blood entity capable of procreating 30:20 so did the jinn species originate with what the Quran calls "smokeless fire" and water 21:30 (water and ethanol can emit fire if ignited for example) then passing through various stages of creation, the initial model became a different entity of which we know little or nothing, capable of spreading its species 55:14-15,15:26-27.
They are not immaterial or non-physical entities, rather non visible to mankind specifically.
The term itself, stems from JNN and means hidden. The Arabic for garden is JANNA, from the same root, as it implies a hidden place from sight due to the lush vegetation. The term is thus used for the hidden entities. All beliefs, including the Abrahamic faiths, accept them. But each culture has ascribed more or less fantastical additions to this belief. The Quran refutes many of the beliefs the pre-Islamic Arabs had about them. It also adds some insights that were unknown about their nature and history.
They have freewill, a body and a soul, males and females 72:6, were made before men 15:27 and currently live on earth but cannot be perceived by mankind. Man's current vision is only engineered to perceive a fraction of the spectrum of light. Many realities of the universe remain hidden to us in this world yet they surround us. They are morally accountable for both their actions and spiritual choices, so they will be raised for judgement like the humans 6:128-130,51:56,55:14-16,31-39,72:1-7,11-14.
The NT makes several mention of unseen demonic entities, as well as refers to them believing in God James 2:19. The notion of non-human entites possessing freewill isnt explicitly stated in the HB, but there is mention of evil agents under God's control which He sends against some people Judges9:23,1Sam16:14,1Kings22:20-22, as well as mention of demons in Job3:4. God unleashes them for the destruction of a people Deut32:24. More details about them is found in Jewish oral tradition as well as in their comentaries over several verses including Job24:17,2Sam7:14,Isa24:12,34:14,Ezek26:21,Ps91:5-7.
Those traditions assert among other things, that demons come in different genders, have superhuman powers, with some of them being half-humans because of Adam having had intercourse with them. This happened during his 130 years seperation from his wife after the death of Abel. These half-breed humans/demons have nowadays majoritarily or fully been destroyed, or kept from interfering with humans. That is because the current spirituality of the world is so low compared to what it was in the times where prophets abounded among the people, that humans today would stand no chance in repelling those evil spiritual forces by themselves.
Contrary to the Bible that unequivocally states, that God is the creator of evil Deut30:15,Isa45:7,1Sam16:14 the Quran says God indirectly creates evil, by endowing entities like humans and jinn with the capacity of freewill which they may either use for the good or the bad.
Whatever evil comes from God's creatures is entirely encompassed by God's power and knowledge, meaning He may either allow or prevent it. Whatever His decision, it is done with wisdom and justice that takes into account a global perspective whose intricacies none other than Him can fathom. From a purely speculative view point, rabbinic writings state that the passage of Judges5:23 refers to non-human intelligent lifeforms outside our world (although freewill is ruled out) and in different places there is mention of God "visiting" other worlds, just as He visited and interracted with sentient beings in this world.
In answer to the video "Paul Was a Contemporary of Jesus; Muhammad Wasn't (PvM 4)"
The Quran demarcates itself in the most subtle and meaningful of ways, from the embellishments added on top of the nativity and infancy stories.
The RUH/the breeze, the immaterial entity sent by Allah, tamathala laha/lit. he transformed to her, as a well made human being. He then breathed into her part of his own self that she might conceive Isa 21:91.
Contrast this subtle Quranic wording with the crude depiction made in the NT of the holy ghost (a trinitarian deity) coming upon Mary and overshadowing her like a man getting ready to copulate Lk1:35.
At an advanced point of her pregnancy, she withdrew to a remote place, away from the Temple in which she was secluded. She was searching for a private place to deliver when the moment would come. The verse 19:22, through the double use of the particle "fa" indicates a time interval between the moment she got pregnant and her decision to leave her dwelling place.
She would this way be hidden from the people's eyes and ears. Her pain was intense and she did not want to be heard suffering and then have to explain herself 19:23. Away and secluded, she would have time to compose herself mentally and physically prior to the return with her newborn. She was seeking to safeguard herself from the clamor had she been seen or heard during or right after the process of delivery, in a debasing state. Her accusers would have gladly picked up on the occasion, seeing a supposedly chaste and pious woman devoted in the sanctuary to God's service, conceiving outside wedlock, in addition in the sanctuary itself and under the guardianship of Zakariya one of the most highly regarded Temple devotee and prophet 19:22.
As she set herself on her way out of her community, she did not know what to expect and how things would turn out, but being the God-conscious woman that she was, she trusted in God. During her walk, the suffering of childbirth began, prompting her to stop and sit under the shade of a palm tree. As a side note, Christians were too quick to adopt pagan symbolisms (christmas tree) around Jesus' nativity from the pagan cultures surrounding them. Had they waited for the Quran's revelation, they would have found the closest one can come to the significance of a tree in the story of Jesus' birth, and they would've been decorating palm trees around Christmas instead of evergreen conifers.
Mary's case at that point was desperate. She had to deliver in the middle of nowhere without any food and most importantly no water. Water is crucial for a woman about to deliver, providing hydration during and after labor when she would have lost plenty of body fluids, as well as afterwards to help her cleanse herself and the newborn. Lacking these elements, in addition to her intense suffering and emotional toll, she wished she had died.
But unexpectedly, God, as He did during her seclusion in the Temple, took it on Himself to sustain and protect her. A voice called from beneath her position, indicating to her the presence of a water source directly under her and the tree, plentiful and flowing meaning it will not stagnate or spoil as she makes use of it throughout her ordeal. The voice comforted and consoled her with words telling her how the sustenance of food and water is abundantly put within easy reach and would re-energize and reinvigorate her entirely 19:23-6. God was watchful over her, taking care not only of her physical suffering but also soothing her fearful heart due to her emotional isolation from her community. All she had to do was shake the trunk of the tree, no matter her feebleness, the simple action of attempting to shake it, would miraculously create a motion in the tree that would force loose the ripe fruits.
It is interesting to note, how the Quran in its well established pattern of employing meaningful words and placing them surgically in a sentence, relates how before anything else, the first comfort Mary was given was the abundance of water, being of primary importance to a woman in labor, and then speaks of the availability of highly nutritious food.
The Quran at that point omits the fictions, absurdities and anachronisms of the NT and apocryphal writings, as well as Christian traditions -such as Herod's mass killing episode that prompted Mary to flee to Egypt in order to give birth safely, or the census of Quirinus-.
This is very similar to modern criticism’s approach to the account of Moses' trip along a river to encounter a knowledgeable individual. The account in the Quran superficially resembles a story found in the beta recension of the Alexander Romances. Although usually dated to the 5th century CE, the primary manuscript witness to that text post-dates the Quran by eight centuries. But assuming the Quran's author was aware and influenced by that story while writing 18:60-65, instead of the reverse being the case with the beta recension's author inspiring himself from the Quran, why would he strip the story from all the fantastic elements that make it worthwhile, very prominent elements, including details that would not harm its own distinctive theological message? For example in the beta recension, Alexander the Great is the protagonist. In Late Antiquity he was depicted as a proto Christian and monotheist. Why would the Quran replace him with the prophet Moses? Similarly, why would the Quran omit mentioning myths impossible to falsify and that would greatly embellish the story, such as the life giving spring replaced with a normal geographical location, the dried fish miraculously coming to life after being submerged in the water of immortality replaced with a captured fish escaping as a sign for Moses that he reached his destination, without any miracle involved. The burden of proof lies on the critic to show why would the Quran avoid the recension's most prominent features, such as historical and scientific inaccuracies that do not compromise its own ideas and theological notions, had it been borrowing from it. From a Muslim viewpoint, the answer is simple; a fictional tradition developed independently of a true event. Its popularity gave the Quran an occasion to seize on familiar themes slightly connecting the 2 stories, so as to transmit more easily its theological message all the while revealing a forgotten episode in the life of a prophet of God.
It is interesting to note how Muhammad the illiterate was able to cherry pick the right information everytime, among the plethora of written books and oral traditions supposedly widely available, managing to glue everything together in the most well-knit, intricate and meaningful manner. It is even more remarkable considering the manner in which the Quran was uttered, openly and publicly, instantly written down by the scribes and leaving him no chance at going back to his word and re-editing it so as to harmonize it or correct an error, which would have been brought to his attention later on.
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 burdened 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 canonized 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 particularly 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.
Back to the Quran's nativity account.
After the blessed Mary delivered, God inspired her, taking in charge the responsibility of answering the critics among her people with compelling evidence
19:26"Then if you see any mortal, say: Surely I have vowed a fast to the Beneficent Allah, so I shall not speak to any man today".
As a woman known for her chastity because of having lived secluded in dedication to Allah's worship all her life, Mary was received with suspicion when she came back to her people with the newborn. A priest's daughter had to exemplify modesty and piety and tradition asserts that should she commit a sin such as fornication she would suffer a punishment worse than that of regular women. So to remove all doubts -justifiable to some extent- of seeing an unmarried woman supposed to represent the epitome of piety and chastity conceiving and bringing forth a child, Jesus, while in the cradle began speaking clearly, identifying himself and his future role 19:22-33.
Mary could not bring evidence of her virginity anymore so the only way she could dispel all doubts was to prove this child is a miracle from God so he cannot be the product of sin. The blessed Mary, who was previously divinely ordered to remain silent in the face of criticism, kept her mouth closed and simply "pointed to him". She let him speak to prove his miraculous conception. Jesus did so by clarifying his identity, purity, and the fact he has been made kind, respectful and "dutiful" to his mother. Interestingly, in another case of the Quran's cherry picking the correct information, this statement negates the NT's depiction of his irreverent interactions with his mother Jn2:4. Another subtlety is his being dutiful to his mother only, contrary to another miraculous birth, that of John/Yahya who was made "dutiful" to both parents 19:14. This is because Jesus had no father contrary to John. It is also worthwhile noting the honorable manner in which Jesus implicitly defended his mother; it was not necessary to repeat the slanderous accusations and argue against them. In the manner of an orator confident of his being on the side of truth, Jesus preserved his eminence and that of his mother by not steeping to the level of the slanderers' injurious talk, the statement of his identity would suffice to dispel all doubts to any intellectually honest individual.
As a side note, some critics among Christians and Jews have denigrated this infant speech miracle, forgetting what their own scriptures say about God giving even to animals, such as a donkey, the ability to utter a clear speech Numb22:21-30 as well as forgetting that some prophets were appointed by God and sent to preach at very early ages, such as Jeremiah Jer1:6.
Despite witnessing that miracle, some among Mary's folk remained obdurate in their position as regards her chastity, contending with others who were convinced of her innocence 19:34.
Mary and Jesus were then given
23:50"shelter on a lofty ground having meadows and springs".
When Jesus later began denouncing the Israelites, exposing their leaders for their hypocrisy, moral degradation and its consequences, those same disbelieving Jews who had absolutely no ground for suspicion about his miraculous birth without father because God had caused the whole community to stand as witness to the miracle, started accusing Mary of the most grievous calumny in order to put a stain on Jesus. In their mind, this stain would discredit his claim of prophethood, because of being the product of fornication.
They were once again mistreating, rejecting, and blaspheming against a prophet sent to them with that which they did not like despite witnessing clear signs. At this point, Allah labelled their accusations "disbelief" and "monstruous calumny" 4:156 because they knew it for certain that Mary and her son were absolutely free from this taint. It wasnt real honest suspicion, which they might be harboring in their hearts as they did in the beginning when they saw Mary with a child for the first time, but it was a pure, invented calumny with a clear evil aim; opposing the Truth and hindering the people from the Way of God. Again, one cannot but notice the remarkable manner in which the Quran connects the most subtle points of a narrative together, even while these 2 parts of the story are mentioned in different suras, years appart, and in different contexts. These repetitions always retain a core meaning, and are always thematically correlated with similar passages in other suras, like conversations and dialogues between the suras. The brilliant Pakistani scholar Islahi called the recurrence of themes in several suras "complementarity".
During his prophetic mission, these Israelites to whom he was preaching the return to the straight path kept rejecting him, despite the miracles he performed. Some of these miracles the Quran mentions 3:46,49,5:110-114,19:28-34, while the NT omits
Jn20:30"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book"
Jn21:25"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written".
The Quran makes it clear, these miracles of Jesus, bringing the dead to life among other things, would not have been possible without God's license. They were performed with the "ithn" of Allah 3:49 which means with His knowledge and approval. Jesus was given whatever abilities he had by God, as a favor 5:110. In fact the Quran connects all the miracles that marked Jesus life, with Allah's permission, as signs meant to distinguish both Jesus and his mother 5:110. God this way defeated in His final revelation and until the resurrection, the slanderous talk of some among Mary's contemporaries and those that followed, who wanted to put a stain on her and abase her. Jesus as well as his mother were chosen to be made jointly, "A" single sign of the power of the Maker and Creator over all things 23:50,21:91. With every miracle Jesus performed by God's permission, it had the double effect of elevating Mary against the slanderers and strengthening Jesus' mission.
But again, these miracles, Jesus did not obtain them on his own and neither could express them except with his Maker's license
40:78"and it was not meet for a messenger that he should bring a sign except with Allah's permission".
This message was so embedded in Jesus' teachings that he proclaimed it since infancy and all throughout his prophetic career, surprisingly in a wording found almost verbatim in the NT although in a different context
19:36,3:51"Surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore worship Him"
Jn20:17"I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God".
The whole point of the Quran in regards to Jesus is that he was not fully, nor partially God. The reason it lists his miracles is to make it clear they were performed with the permission of other than him. The signs are described as "for you" and "from your Lord". They testify to Jesus' identity, leaving no doubt as to his humanity and prophethood, like others before and after him. It is a message to those conjecturing on his identity due to these very miracles, and trying hard to find a subtext to them in relation to the HB.
Jesus' direct disciples understood well this distinction and never saw him as the originator of miracles; he was but a means of their manifestation. Just as the staff of Moses was, or like every naturally occuring phenomena through which Allah manifests His will. In 5:111-115 Jesus' close circle did not request Jesus to send down a table-spread. Rather they asked him to invoke his Sustainer, if He would consent to this miracle so that their hearts are reassured through it. They knew that this man whom they saw as sent by God, a prophet, was but a means through which God manifested His will.
This reflects in Jesus' own reported sayings in the NT Jn17:6-8,13:3,8:28,5:30,Matt28:17-19,Mk2:10 where he teaches his audience he is given everything and cannot do anything on his own Jn10:25. He further emphasizes this reality by invoking Allah's name during and after the performance of miracles Jn11:40-43. He was fully dependant of God's power when he exorcised demons Lk11:21,Matt12:28. Neither did he forgive sins, but stated a fact, in the passive form "your sins are forgiven".
What happened, by the way to the blood pre-requisite for atonement, allegedly established by Jesus himself since Genesis? Jesus in this statement doesnt take God's place but uses a circumlocution for God: “your sins are forgiven” means “they are forgiven by God” as he said "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” Mk2:5-10. He states himself that he is given that authority. He is authorized to declare forgiveness on God's behalf, the same way priests think they can do. In fact in a passage absent from the oldest manuscripts of Luke over a wide geographical distribution, Jesus while on the cross prays the Father to forgive his killers, instead of forgiving them himself
Lk23:34"Father forgive them, they do not know what they are doing".
It is however difficult to blame the branches of Christianity that have misunderstood the NT's sometimes blurred lines between the Creator and His creation.
The transmitted oral traditions of Jesus were put to writing not by Jews like him with a Semitic concept of the Divine but by gentile converts who understood and transmitted these traditions through the lens of their previous Hellenistic thought system. That is why we find "difficult" passages obviously tainted with Roman Mithraism, the likes of Jesus telling regular people that they should strive to become
Matt5:48"perfect just as your father in heaven is perfect".
Nothing is more abhorred in Semitic monotheism, of which Jesus was part of, to suggest that the Creator could in any way be brought to the level of his creation.
The unsurmountable difficulty Trinitarians face is that Jesus, contrary to God as depicted throughout the Bible, never asks to be worshiped. This is because he was a prophet, and prophets never departed from the pattern of complete obedience and servitude to the supreme authority that sent them among the people
3:79-80"It is not meet for a mortal that Allah should give him the Book and the wisdom and prophethood, then he should say to men: Be my servants rather than Allah's; but rather (he would say): Be worshippers of the Lord because of your teaching the Book and your reading (it yourselves). And neither would he enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lords; what! would he enjoin you with unbelief after you are Muslims?"
The long line of prophets supported one another in that principle, never departing from it by virtue of the covenant they had entered into with their Lord
3:81"God made a covenant with the Prophets: “If after what I have vouchsafed to you of the Scriptures and wisdom, there comes to you a messenger confirming the truth of what you have in your possession, you shall believe in him and you shall help him. Do you,” said He, “affirm this and accept the obligation I lay upon you in these terms?” They answered: “We do affirm it.” Said He: ‘Then bear witness, and I am also a witness with you".
Here the Quran overlooks the time intervals which separated the messengers, and groups them all in one majestic scene with God, addressing them all at the same time.
The specific miracle of the bird from clay, an example of miracle reported in the Quran but absent from the canonical Gospels, is found in another transmitted Christian text, the infancy Gospel of Thomas. Although it connects this miracle to his childhood along with the ability to speak in the cradle, the Quran only qualifies the ability to speak in the cradle as a childhood miracle (serving the purpose of clearing Mary of the slanders), and then proceeds to connect the bird from clay miracle to his ministry to the Israelites, coming to them and preaching and performing other miracles with Allah's permission like his healing powers and knowledge of the unseen 3:49-55,5:110. Obviously there would have been no reason to give Jesus such powers in his childhood, because he needed them in adulthood in support of his ministry to demonstrate certain points, including the process of resurrection of the dead from dust, a concept heavily disputed at the time. The Quran ascribes special traits to other prophets in their infancy, such as John/Yahya, given wisdom and divine knowledge as a child in answer to his father Zakariya, who requested an upright progeny as opposed to his wicked and sinful contemporaries 19:12.
Concerning the relevance of Jesus' miracles and their purpose, it was already seen that the ability to speak in infancy was highly pertinent in absolving Mary from any suspicion of sexual transgression which in turn would purify Jesus' own identity. This twofold purpose is the reason why the Quran, when listing the divine favors experienced by Jesus from miracles, including the speech in the cradle, says that it benefited both him and his mother 5:110.
Concerning the infancy Gospel's reliability, just because it was rejected as apocrypha, does not mean it was rejected for all of its contents and besides, a man's apocrypha was another's scripture until very late in the canonization process of the Bible. The book of revelation for example was regarded as apocrypha and then finally canonized. Current estimates for the composition of the book of revelations point to the late 80s while traditionally believed to be around the 60s. If oral tradition can be preserved for almost a century for it to be considered reliable enough according to Church standards, then what kind of logic denies the reliability of the transmission of oral tradition just a few years later when the infancy Gospel of Thomas was put to writing? That Gospel is believed to have been finalized anywhere between the late 80s (which would make it contemporaneous with Luke's gospel) and 185CE. It was never discredited for all of its contents, neither for the miracles in it such as the bird from clay miracle. It was rejected because among other things it depicts Jesus in an unflattering, capricious, malicious way, similarly to how Greek mythological “trickster” gods and pagan “child-gods” from antiquity were depicted. Scholars believe this Gospel integrated these pagan themes so as to serve as a missionary propaganda tool. It demonstrated the divine nature of Jesus in a manner familiar to the Hellenistic, Egyptian and other pagans proselytized by the early Christians.
Even a "late compilation" argument of that Gospel is a non-issue, considering that every book of the NT was composed decades after Jesus, containing traditions obviously preceding it and transmitted orally until written down. There exists no other account anywhere of Jesus' infancy and childhood. The canonical Gospels make a passing reference to a 12 year old Jesus. Besides that there is no point of reference in Christian tradition to determine the genuine from fictional parts in the Infancy Gospel.
In fact by the time of the writing of the Gospels, many lost accounts, written and oral, of Jesus' life were in circulation. The Gospel of Luke's author, unknown and thus making it impossible to ascertain his agenda and credibility, chose, according to his standards, one or more versions of Jesus' early life to include in his writings Lk1:1.
In answer to the video "Paul Was a Contemporary of Jesus; Muhammad Wasn't (PvM 4)"
Being contemporary of an individual doesnt make a testimony reliable. The witness has to prove his objectivity, and Paul certainly fails in that regard. The sources we do have from historians contemporaries to Jesus paint a completely different picture than what Paul says, let alone the entire NT. No contemporary writing or immidiately following Jesus' 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, and 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.
The 72 virgins reward, the typical hadith past on like a hot potato in anti-islamic circles is directly linked to the principle mentioned above, of intense heavenly reward of those who restrain themselves in this life. Among the spoils of war in those days, the victorious party had authority to seize war captives, men and women, but only after the threat of war has been subdued meaning their seizure could not be an objective of going to war 8:67,47:4.
In fact the prophet dismissed from fighting those that were more preoccupied with the prospect of capturing potential concubines as with Jadd/Judd b. Qays. Even those who were seemingly seeking to engage in jihad for noble purposes were sometimes turned away for an equally meritorious jihad
"A man came to the Prophet asking his permission to take part in Jihad. The Prophet asked him, "Are your parents alive?" He replied in the affirmative. The Prophet said to him, "Then make jihad in their service".
This is because benevolence is the basis of a stable and healthy society
"The one who looks after and works for a widow and for a poor person, is like a mujahid for Allah's Cause or like a person who fasts during the day and prays all the night".
As to those like Judd, the prophet would tell them that they would have far better reward in terms of physical companionship in the hereafter if they restrained themselves and purified their thoughts while performing their military duties
"There are six rewards with Allah for the martyr. He is forgiven with the first flow of blood, he is shown his place in Paradise, he is protected from punishment in the grave, he secured from the greatest terror, the crown of dignity is placed upon his head and its gems are better than the world and what is in it, he is married to seventy two (72) wives among the pure maidens of Paradise, and he may intercede for seventy of his close relatives".
It is to be noted that this is addressed to soldiers fighting for the survival of their people, giving up all worldly pleasures, refusing transgression and misbehaviour, including physical and thus the reward can only be proportional to the worldly sacrifice as a basic demand of justice. This behaviour the Quran instructs upon those accepting to shoulder the most selfless sacrifice, is in complete opposite to how the pre-islamic Arabs behaved in battle, and the ancient people in general, let alone the Israelites as amply described in their own books under divine sanction, since the times of Moses, and who basically had no ethical limits at the battlefield.
These Muslim martyrs, per the hadith, will be forgiven because they were merciful even at the battlefield, only fighting in retaliation, proportionally to the harm received, meaning they did not let the spirit of revenge take them over, and stopping all hostilities once the enemy surrenders 2:190-5,9:6.
They will be shown their places in paradise because, through their righteousness and impeccable behaviour they would have shown the path to paradise to their friends and enemies alike.
They will be protected from the punishments and fear of the Hereafter, which are in Quranic terminology cleansing processes for worldly sins, because they have already accepted suffering, pain, hardships and fear as means by which to cleanse themselves in this life.
They will be given the highest symbols of material honours and wealth because they gave up these worldly considerations when they engaged in battle, although they could have looted and abused of their position
4:74-75"Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter..And what reason have you that you should not fight in the way of Allah and of the weak among the men and the women and the children, (of) those who say: Our Lord! cause us to go forth from this town, whose people are oppressors, and give us from Thee a guardian and give us from Thee a helper".
They will be married, not given countless concubines as the prophets of the HB, to many women, pure like themselves, because they have never considered going to battle with the perspective of capturing women, in addition refused abusing of their power to assault them once in their hands. It is to be noted here that the majority of scholarly opinion regarding the verses about the maidens of paradise, is that they were revealed in Mecca, at a time where Muslims suffered persecution and before the injunctions to fight in the way of God. The Medinan verses about paradise speak of material and spiritual bliss, in the presence of the Creator.
Finally, because of their honorable behaviour on all counts, although having all opportunities to abuse and transgress, they will be given the possibility of interceding for their loved ones. This in Quran terminology is a mark of honour granted by God, to be among the select few allowed to speak on behalf of others. Intercession in the Quran is not a pleading action, but a reward since it will only be allowed on behalf of those that deserve it, as a means by which they are honoured by association to a pure, exalted person. For the martyr, to be among those exalted individuals to the extent that they will be themselves a means by which their loved ones will be rewarded, is in itself a great honour and reward.
Again, the martyrs spoken of are not merely soldiers that die at the battlefield for worldly achievements and tales of heroism, but dead warriors who lived up until their final moments according to the spirit and ethics of Islam
“I heard the Messenger of God say: The first man [whose case] will be decided on the Day of Judgment will be one who died a martyr. He shall be brought [before the Judgment Seat]. God will make him recount His blessings [that is, the blessings which He had bestowed upon him] and he will recount them [and admit having enjoyed them in his life]. [Then] God will say: ‘What did you do [to requite these blessings]? He will say: ‘I fought for You until I died as a martyr.’ God will say: ‘You have told a lie. You fought so that you might be called “a brave warrior.” And you were called so.’ [Then] orders will be passed against him and he will be dragged with his face down and cast into Hell. Then will be brought forward a man who acquired knowledge, imparted it [to others], and recited the Qur’an. He will be brought and God will make him recount His blessings and he will recount them [and admit having enjoyed them in his lifetime]. Then will God ask: ‘What did you do [to requite these blessings]?’ He will say: ‘I acquired knowledge, disseminated it, and recited the Qur’an, seeking Your pleasure.’ God will say: ‘You have told a lie. You acquired knowledge so that you might be called “a scholar;” you recited the Qur’an so that it might be said: “He is a Qari” and such has been said.’ Then orders will be passed against him and he shall be dragged with his face down and cast into the Fire. Then will be brought a man whom God had made abundantly rich and had granted every kind of wealth. He will be brought and God will make him recount His blessings. He will recount them and [admit having enjoyed them in his lifetime]. God will [then] ask: ‘What have you done [to requite these blessings]?’ He will say: ‘I spent money in every cause in which You wished that it should be spent.’ God will say: ‘You are lying. You did [so] that it might be said about [you]: “He is a generous fellow” and so it was said.’ Then will God pass orders and he will be dragged with his face down and thrown into Hell”.
So although sacrifice for the cause of Islam is praiseworthy, like any apparently good deed, it loses its value when done insincerely, with an objective other than the Hereafter and to please Allah. The Quran and ahadith contain many such statements, hence the focus first and foremost on cleansing one's heart before pretending that one's deed are of any value to Allah
"Abdallah b. ‘Umar told that the Prophet used to say, “Everything has a polish, and the polish for hearts is rememberance of God. Nothing saves more from God’s punishment than remembrance of God.” He was asked whether this did not apply also to jihad in God’s path, and said, “Not even if one should ply his sword till it is broken".
