Acts17apologetics ask the HB; where is the holy spirit in the Bible?

In answer to the video "Zakir Naik Shocks Christians When He Says This!"

In the HB, the term "holy spirit" (in which "holy" is an adjective) never appears. But there is ruach hakodesh (lit. the spirit/wind of holiness). It is the pre-condition for prophethood, endowing an individual with divine intuition, wisdom Job32:8, warnings and glad tidings, as well as the ability to communicate God's direct words 2Sam23:2. Such person becomes God's representative on Earth and then either reforms or leads the Israelites to victory.

As a side note, Trinitarians claiming that this ruach is a divine entity seperate from God the Father must explain verses like Judges9:23,1Sam16:14,Isa19:14 speaking of

"an evil spirit from God"

and of

"a spirit of perverseness".

If, as trinitarians say, God's holy spirit is a divine entity, God's evil spirit should also be a different divine entity. 1Kings19:11 is even more damning to this idea

"And He said: "Go out and stand in the mountain before the Lord, Behold! the Lord passes, and a great and strong wind (b'ruach) splitting mountains and shattering boulders before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind (ha-ruach). And after the wind an earthquake-not in the earthquake was the Lord".

This spirit of God first appears in Gen1. It is neither qualified as holy nor evil, it could be any of the 2 since God directly creates both good and evil Deut30:15,Isa45:7,1Sam16:14, and neither is it described as taking part independantly in the act of creation. In fact its mention is preceded by the presence of already created wordly entities, like the waters and the earth.

The spirit/wind of holiness in the talmud is an agent sent by God to allow prophecy and revelation (Midrash Rabbah, Song of Songs 1.1,Sotah 16d). A well known teaching in rabbinic 2nd temple literature is that the end of prophecy was accompanied with the departure of the holyspirit "From the time that the last prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, died, the holy spirit was withdrawn from Israel". The RUACH is always at the disposal of God to bestow upon whomever He chooses Num11:17,25,29,Isa42:1,44:3,Joel3:1. 

All this parallels in many ways with the Quran's description of the RUH that descends to the prophets to give them inspiration. The spirit of God is certainly an agent of God, seperate from Him and fully encompassed by His will. The spirit being of/from God, does not entail him being a seperate divine entity, anymore than the hand, arm or eyes of God are seperately divine. Even if one turns to the highly esoteric and cryptic Zohar, believed to have originated somewhere in the 1st-2nd century CE when Judaism had been infiltrated by Graeco-Roman concepts, one might find notions of God having different aspects through which He interracts with the world. However none of those aspects are ever manifested in human form and neither are they seperate entities to be individually worshipped.

The phenomenon of collective revelation, as is alleged to have happened at Pentecost, through the descent of the holy spirit on several people at once, will only reoccur in the messianic age

Joel3:1"I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions".

This is the passage which the Christians link as the fulfillement of Jesus' prophecy of the paraclete, based on the faulty future tense in Jn14 as shown earlier. As stated in the following verses and preceding chapters, this will only happen in the end of times, and will be accompanied by obvious cataclysmic signs. This further shows that the holy spirit is always linked to the field of prophethood.

This, as a side note, poses a problem to the peculiar Christian notion of being filled with the holy spirit once they have accepted Christ and yet are unable to prophecy and never will be.  Similarly, no Christian today is able to "speak in tongues" as is alleged to have occurred at pentecost. Nothing prevents the miracle from being reproduced as the NT does not say the phenomenon ceased after pentecost. The purpose was to spontaneously evangelize in any audience's language, something missionaries are obviously unable to do today. Further, was the holyspirit limited that day, so that others who were present and heard the phenomenon Acts2:13"made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine"? The spirit left them out, their tongue was unworthy of being represented. To them, the spectacle was that of drunkards speaking unintelligibly. Where were Paul's interpreters when one desperately needs them 1Cor14? As Celsus, the early pagan intellectual opponent to Christians said 

"Having brandished these threats they then go on to add incomprehensible, incoherent, and utterly obscure utterances, the meaning of which no intelligent person could discover: for they are meaningless and nonsensical, and give a chance for any fool or sorcerer to take the words in whatever sense he likes".

Not a single of the well known criteria of the messianic age as outlined in the Hebrew Bible, have occurred until now, and neither were those criteria fulfilled at pentecost were God's spirit is said to have poured on several people as described in Joel. Yet we have Paul claiming the opposite throughout his writings, including Peter, based on that very messianic passage of Joel that negates the events of pentecost.

The pentecost story cannot have occurred as it is believed it did, and what descended on the people could not have been the holy spirit, let alone the paraclete. There is a reason why the Pharisees in Acts2:13 mockingly alluded to these people on the day of pentecost as a group of drunkards, for their odd, erratic behavior and incomprehensible speech; this type of effect that the indwelling spirit of holiness supposedly had on them was something unheard of in the prophetic history. No prophet who received the holyspirit ever behaved in such a manner, whether the prophets of the HB down to the last Ishmaelite prophet.

Christians thus need to "loosen up" the definition of a prophet, despite it being firm and precise, in order to make place for their unscriptural ideas. The deeper difficulty however for Christians is that this passage from Joel, and other similar eschatological passages, rejects any attempt at identifying the end time king/messiah with Jesus.

In addition to being "a" messiah, which requires the fulfilment of specific ritual and genealogical conditions which were never met in Jesus, the end times messiah also has to satisfy some lifetime requirements, including the global ingathering of the Jews, rebuilding of the temple, ushering of the age of unfaltering observance of the Law (which bellies by the way all of St Paul's innovations), universal peace, universal knowledge of God, blissful utopia, end of evil and sin, disease and death.

Obviously none of those criteria ever occurred anywhere near Jesus' era, and in fact the least that can be said is that the 1st century, its overall state of upheaval, was the antithesis of what the messianic era is supposed to be. 

There isn't a single prophecy saying the Messiah would come, die, be resurrected, and then return thousands of years later to BEGIN his mission. It in facts says he will accomplish these tasks within his own lifetime Isa42:4"He shall not fail or be crushed until he has set the right in the earth". That is why the idea of a suffering king messiah is inexistent in pre-Christian Judaism. The awaited figure is in fact expected to violently enforce the new world order. In view if this, Christians also need to explain why would anyone not see the "second coming" theory as an attempt to explain away Jesus' failure during his "first coming" to usher the messianic era.

Acts17apologetics introduced to proper context; reason of the paraclete prophecy?

In answer to the video "Zakir Naik Shocks Christians When He Says This!"

The persecution and rejection of Jesus by his people, the murders of John the Baptist and Zechariah Matt23:30-37, along with the fact that punishement would be unleashed on the nation of Israel, were the main reasons why the apostles grieved. To comfort their grief, Jesus gave them the glad tidings of the paraclete who would honor Jesus' name and bring justice to the world.

The Holy Spirit was already acting before Jesus, and during these times of sorrow for the apostles. The apostles already believed in Jesus, and according to Jn14:17 they even already experienced the indwelling of the holy spirit. If the paraclete was the holyspirit and not seperate from it then how could an indwelling phenomenon cure the reasons of their grief and bring justice considering it has always been present and did not solve anything. They grieved, among other reasons because the people did not believe in Jesus. Since the apostles already believed in Jesus then how does an indwelling paraclete resolve this particular grief?

By the time of their death, the Temple was destroyed, Jerusalem was sacked by the gentiles. So how did the situation change for Jesus' followers? How does the intangible paraclete judge and convict the guilty according to Jesus' prophecies, when many of the apostles were persecuted and killed, after Jesus and after the alleged descent of the holyspirit on them at pentecost Acts4-5,7–9,12:1, 13:42-51,14:2-5,19,17–18,24:5,26:9-11,Gal1:11-16,4:29,Phil3:5-7,1Thess2:14-16. Even some prophets who received the Holy Spirit were killed by the Israelite leadership, as Jesus reported Matt23:37. Such a prophecy about the paraclete being the indwelling holyspirit would never have consoled the apostles, and it is quite clear that by "another" paraclete Jesus was referring to the coming of "another" prophet.

The very first phrase of Jn14 is

"Do not let your hearts be troubled".

Jesus is clearing making this statement in the context of their total helplessness. In the precedent chapter Jn13 Jesus is speaking of his future betrayal, hinting to his death at the hands of the unbelievers. This added to their already existing sorrow from John and Zechariah's unjust murders which further emphasized their marginalisation and powerless situation. The disciples grieve, prior to the prophecy of the paraclete, at their master Jesus' rejection by his own people and over the fact that according to Matt24, and Jn16 they will all be persecuted and slaughtered as well as "hated by all nations because of me", as repeated in Jn15.

They grieved over the coming abomination and destruction of the Temple because of their nation's rejection of Jesus, and their repeated transgressions. In Matt24 Jesus was predicting gloomy days ahead which put the apostles in great distress. Their grief is about what Jesus prophesized as a whole regarding Israel.

The prophecy of the paraclete comes at the climax of their grief, after he announces his disciples' future torments, his impending death, betrayal and denial by his close disciple

Jn16:6"Because I have said these things, you are filled with grief".

He comforts their troubled hearts by giving them the glad tidings of the paraclete, a powerful salvific figure who will put an end to this injustice which he and his followers suffered by judging the guilty, bringing justice and honoring Jesus in a world where he wasnt given any

Jn16"and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged"

he will convict those who rejected Jesus as a worthless liar. As Jesus prophesized many times in the NT, the rejectors were going to be punished for their rejection. For example, he alludes to this in the parable of the King, His Son, and the Servants. The paraclete will receive revelation, will establish justice and convict the guilty. That never happened in the life of the apostles. Men will see this person, and judgement will be laid down, because the people rejected Jesus. Did the apostles ever judge the world and condemn the guilty after allegedly receiving the indwelling Paraclete at Pentecost? Did judgement ever descend on the gentiles at the hands of the apostles? It never did.

Jesus in those statements is speaking in prophetic terminology by addressing them directly as is the case of the long term prediction made in Deut18 where God addresses the ISraelite community directly, saying that a specific prophet will come to them, but the intent is for the future. In Jesus' days, the Pharisees still awaited the fulfillement of that prophecy and questionned John, asking him if he was "that prophet". Even within the Greek writings, it is a recognized terminology to involve the audience in a long term prophecy. For example it is accepted that Jesus' second coming predictions, although explicitly spoken to the disciples and telling them that they will witness his return, was not meant for their generation.

In Jn14:26 the paraclete is also called the "holy spirit" although the early Codex Syriacus omits "holy". The scribe that redacted that particular codex wasnt writing from memory but was copying from another manuscript. This shows again the well known evolving nature of the NT text, more particularily as regards the paraclete prophecy, progressively blurred, willingly or not, with mystical and abstract concepts. In any case, the spirit of truth and the holy spirit refer to the same thing; the spirit of God indwelling those who believe Jesus to be God's envoy. Anyone holding that correct belief, including the paraclete can be termed the spirit of truth 1Jn4:2-3.

The paraclete, filled with the spirit of truth, only acts according to God's orders Jn15,16. This parallels with the prophecy in Deut18:18 where the prophet shall only speak what he hears, a personality guided by revelation. When the group of Israelites heard God speak at Sinai, received the holy spirit and became prophets Numb11:16-30 that was a specific event that would no longer happen in the future, per their own request fearing they would die, and God accepted their request. He decreed that the phenomenon of revelation will be a personal experience.

Acts17apologetics uncover shocking news; paraclete cannot be holyspirit?

In answer to the video "Zakir Naik Shocks Christians When He Says This!"

The paraclete predicted to come by Jesus cannot be the same thing as the holy spirit filling the people who subsequently become prophets, because of several reasons:

In Jn16:7-8 Jesus sets the condition that he has first to go away for the paraclete to come, while throughout Luke and other places such as Jn20:21-22 the Holy spirit is present during Jesus' life time and he is even already indwelling the disciples if one wants to equate paraclete with holyspirit in Jn14:17.

The NIV footnotes on this particular verse show that it is in the present tense in early manuscripts which renders the verse

"But you know him for he lives with you and IS in you"

and not

"But you know him for he lives with you and WILL BE in you".

What gives even more credence to those present tense early manuscripts is that the beginning of the sentence itself

"But you know him for he lives with you"

in all available manuscripts is in the present tense, whether the ones that end in the future or the ones that end in the present tense. The aim of bible editors is to promote the idea that the holyspirit was present in Jesus' lifetime but not indwelling the believers yet until Pentecost where the disciples where filled with the holy spirit, and that this is what Jesus meant when he said he will pray God to send "another" paraclete. But this verse's tense in early manuscripts clearly contradicts this notion, besides the simple fact that there was never "another" holy spirit. Further why would it be impossible for the holyspirit to come to the disciples in Jesus' presence when it is established that it can indwell a limitless number of people simultaneously?

So the disciples, per Jesus' words already know "the spirit of truth", because it is with and in them, during Jesus' lifetime. Jesus therefore did not need to go away as a precondition for that other paraclete to come, if "the spirit of truth" the holyspirit and the paraclete all refer to one and the same thing. Besides the fact that there was never "another" holyspirit, but there certainly was "another" paraclete.

The Greek "spirit" is pneuma and is neutral, without gender. According to 1Jn4 "the spirit of truth" is what distinguishes, among all the "spirits" those who accept Jesus as God's envoy

1Jn4"do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God..Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. This is how we recognize the spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood".

Anyone recognizing Jesus as a human being sent by God has "the spirit of truth" in him such as Muhammad, and by extension the Muslims, as opposed to the spirit of falsehood dwelling in the world that rejects Jesus as God's human envoy. This paints trinitarians as spirits of the antichrist since they do not recognize that

"Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" but that "God has come in the flesh".

It says that God dwells, through His spirit, in those who recognize Jesus

"This is how we know that we live in him and he in us: He has given us of his Spirit..God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them".

The spirit of truth is therefore coming from God and filling those who recognize Jesus' true identity. This applies to any individual, past, present and future. The disciples addressed by Jesus "know" this "other" paraclete because he is like them filled with the spirit of truth

Jn14:16-17"I will ask the Father, and he will give you another paraclete to help you and be with you forever, the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and is in you".

If by "another" paraclete Jesus meant "another" holyspirit then it would mean the disciples never knew or experienced the holyspirit. Besides the fact, again, that there never was "another" holyspirit, but there certainly was another paraclete.

The expression of being "in" eachother can easily be understood if one looks at the context of its use throughout the NT and its application for both physical and abstract subjects. Trinitarian proof texting has obscured the meaning of that expression, as it did in so many other cases. The plain meaning of Jesus, and any other entity being "in" another one simply is to share a common position.

Acts17apologetics reveal an NT prophecy; Muhammad is the paraclete?

In answer to the video "Zakir Naik Shocks Christians When He Says This!"

61:6"And when Isa son of Maryam said: O children of Israel! surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Taurat and giving the good news of an Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad, but when he came to them with clear arguments they said: This is clear magic"

Ahmad in this verse is in the grammatical form of ism tafdeel. For example a sentence might say "this person is kabeer/great but that one is akbar/greater". Ism tafdeel indicates that the characteristics described are greater in the individual concerned. It is an observable reality that the prophet Muhammad's name is much more revered than that of Jesus. That characteristic reached a point that the ism tafdeel became equivalent to the prophet Muhammad's proper name. It is reported that nobody had that name prior to the prophet. Shortly after the prophet's time however, Muslims began using it as a name. Ibn Abi Ahmad for instance, who narrated ahadith from Abu Hurayra who himself died around 59AH. Or another hadith narrator who was his contemporary, named Al Jamdi Abu Ahmad. The prophet referred to himself as Ahmad, among 5 other names. His companions did too, including in poems about him.

Ibn Ishaq in his sirah refers to "Ahmad" while relating the story of the prophet's birth.

 Hassan b. Thabit said: ‘I was a well-grown boy of seven or eight, understanding all that I heard, when I heard a Jew calling out at the top of his voice from the top of a fort in Yathrib “O company of Jews” until they all came together and called out “Confound you, what is the matter?” He answered: “Tonight has risen a star under which Ahmad is to be born.”

According to world renowned Islamicist professor Déroche, the earliest Quranic manuscripts contain the exact same wording as 61:6 (Catalogue des manuscrits Arabes). Arthur Jeffrey's proposition that 61:6 did not originally contain the reference to "Ahmad" is based on a marginal quote in a late 13th century book on qiraat by a certain "al-Marandi". Outside what that late source supposedly says, no evidence exists for Ubay's alleged variant reading, while every early manuscript containing the passage agrees with the Uthmanic recension. Also, just because someone claims something about Islam and is Muslim means nothing in terms of authenticity. There are many variants attested to this day that do not pass the standards and that do have at least a partial chain of transmission, contrary to this supposed variant that has none.

Muhammad, through his appellation and the praises he receives virtually every second of the day, fulfilled that prophecy in both ways, as established in the Quran

94:4"And We raised for you, your remembrance."

Further, nobody came after the prophet Jesus claiming to be a messenger of God and whose evidences were repeatedly and consistently treated as magic

46:7"Our clear lucid verses were read to them. But, referring to the truth as it came to them, the unbelievers said, “This is obviously a magic!”".

The prophecies speaking of the prophet Muhammad that were written down were not removed which is why the Quran says that the people of the book

2:146"recognize him as they recognize their sons".

The Quran does not speak of alteration but of deliberate misinterpretation of these prophecies by those who heard the Quran, because of the implications

2:146"and a party of them most surely conceal the truth while they know (it)". 

Jn14:16"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor (paraclete) to be with you forever. The spirit of truth, the world cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him for he lives with you and will be in you"

Jn15:26"When the Counselor (paraclete) comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me"

Jn16:7"But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor (paraclete) will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you"

The Greek "paraclete" is used in the New/Greek Testament for a comforter, advocate, counselor etc.

1Jn2:1"..we have an advocate (paraclete) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."

Here the paraclete is translated as "advocate". This is one of a prophet's functions, and although anyone could potentially be qualified as an advocate, the context of its use in the Greek writings is that of an envoy from God. It is applied to Jesus the human prophet, who identified himself as a prophet, and who was similarly recognized by the multitudes as a prophet Matt21:11,Mk6:3-5Lk13:32-4 who was a human being

"made like his brothers in every way"Heb2:17.

So when Jesus prays God to send "another" paraclete in Jn14, one can justifiably argue that he is asking God to send another prophet like him who will be an advocate, a counselor and comforter, all of these being the descriptions of a prophet. Like Jesus the advocate 1Jn2:1 and prophet of God Matt21:11. There was never "another" holy spirit. More on that point later on.

Apostate prophet misses little details; prophet unwilling to marry Zaynab?

In answer to the video "The Prophet’s Desire - Muhammad Marries Adopted Son’s Wife"

The prophet was at first reluctant to publicly announce the command to marry her and concealed it in his heart, fearing public reaction, until Allah brought it to light and definitely ended the notion that adopted children were blood children

33:37"and you concealed in your soul what Allah would bring to light, and you feared men, and Allah had a greater right that you should fear Him. But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We gave her to you as a wife...and Allah's command shall be performed. There is no harm in the Prophet doing that which Allah has ordained for him; such has been the course of Allah with respect to those who have gone before".

And the 3rd repercussion of this marriage was to lift the burden which society put upon divorced women who were degraded and often couldnt remarry. The degradation of divorced women is still present in the Bible Matt5:31-32 and many societies throughout the world. That marriage, to a divorced woman, ex-wife of an adopted son, who in addition was now considered of far lower rank than the prophet because of her previous union with a manumitted slave brought down all theses social stigmas, unjust notions and illogical practices.

So deeply were these customs anchored that to counter balance them the prophet, in addition to having practically exposed their falsehood with his marriage, according to history further stressed the psychological reform by giving the most public and generous marriage ceremony to his guests than he had done with all his other marriages.

Besides serious defects in its transmission chain and the untrustworthy, sometimes entirely rejected persons that related it, one version of the story of Zayd and Zainab as reported in some traditions including in Tabari's tafsir, presents several absurdities that led it to be criticized by specialists in hadith and completely rejected. For instance Zaynab was the Prophet's cousin, he knew her through familial relations going back to Mecca. He saw her and interacted with her 100s of times in his aunt's house, and it was the Prophet that arranged the wedding to Zayd in the first place. Besides the fact the Prophet was repeatedly providing marriage counseling to prevent the union from breaking up, what did he miss during all these years that he suddenly noticed during that short period during which Zaynab was married to Zayd? The idea that he suddenly noticed her "beauty" is an absurdity, because he had already seen that "beauty" multiple times before she was even married. In pre-islamic times the dresscode for both men and women was much more liberal. There is nothing that the prophet would have missed from her appearance that he suddenly discovered now. He had plenty of opportunities to approach her without creating any polemic or transgressing any taboo.

The prophet Muhammad isnt the biblical David who saw a woman's beauty for the first time and decided to forcefully take her for himself by setting up the assassination of her innocent husband. You dont suddenly have a heart change based on seeing something you have already seen multiple times before and neither do you secretly desire someone whom you had just arranged to marry with another and in addition provide not one or two, but repeated counseling to make the union work despite the difficulties. How could there exist any lust when the Prophet is trying to prevent the marriage from falling apart, and when the marriage occured right after the divorce meaning there is no way he could have lusted for her while trying to make her marriage work? It is interesting to further note that even those reports saying the prophet had a sudden heart change upon seeing Zaynab's beauty, depict him as hiding his feeling from Zayd  and repeatedly denying his desire for her, urging Zayd over and over to keep his wife despite the troubles in their marriage. The prophet could have covered up his "scheme" by using Zayd's own pretext to his advantage, when he came to the prophet complaining of her being "arrogant and hurts me with her words". Instead he would tell him to fear God and preserve his marriage. He uses neither direct nor indirect ways, not even the furthest hints and suggestions that could influence Zayd to break his marriage apart.

The Quran therefore expressly contradicts the story-telling of the seera writers who collected it. Not only because of its depiction of the incident that leaves no room to such polemics, as just shown briefly, but also due to the fact the verse is narrating a past event, prior to the verse's revelation. This unequivocally cancels the claim the prophet used the revelation to achieve a secret desire. The prophet did not go around reciting this verse, which wasnt yet revealed, nor any other verse in relation to Zaynab, prior to making his intentions towards her known publicly. After he was ordained to marry her, the Prophet feared the reaction of the people once he would make the announcement 

"you feared the people, when you should have feared God".

Aisha reportedly said that his fear was such that if any divine command were to be covered up by the Prophet, concealed and never made known, this would have been it. The verses points to the exact opposite of the hatemongerers' claims who think what the prophet was concealing in his heart was his lust for Zaynab while the verse says the Prophet concealed something that God wanted to bring to light. This paints God, or more absurdly Muhammad himself whom they say fabricated the Quran to suit his needs, as wanting to bring to light his own secret lust for Zaynab, in other words God wanted to humiliate his prophet, or more absurdly, Muhammad who invented the Quran explicitly issued a statement to expose and humiliate himself. Reason and truth are found elsewhere of course than this tangled web weaved by people who arent interested in truth nor reason. God "brought to light" not a secret lust, but a command to marry Zaynab for a social reform as regards adopted children

"so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons".

These words show that the consequence of what Allah "would bring to light", would stop the believers from having any "difficulty" ie repercussions or pressures in their society. How does the supposedly bringing to light of the prophet's secret lusts create this reform, as opposed to the bringing to light of the command to marry her, which the prophet already knew about but concealed due to his fear of the people's reaction? That is why, as a side note, Zaynab used to pride herself in the fact that the ordinance to marry her was purely divine, while there was always a human element that brought about the prophet's other unions.

The story of Muhammad's sudden crush for Zaynab isnt integrated in the prophet's biography prior to Tabari's time. That is 300 years after the the prophet's passing away. It doesnt appear in Ibn Ishaq's biography which precedes it, and neither is it found narrated by the early authorities in the field, such as Urwa bin al Zubayr, ibn Shihab al Zuhri and others. The story could have entered the exegetical tradition through the channel of the qussaas, the story tellers, notorious for their elaborations upon the lives of the prophet's wives. In that case, recent scholars argue that the inspiration is the Biblical account of the prophet David's encounter with a naked Batsheba, followed by his lusting for her.

Apostate prophet complains of human abuse; Quran bans adoption?

In answer to the video "The Prophet’s Desire - Muhammad Marries Adopted Son’s Wife"

Another crucial component of that marriage relates to the pre-Islamic perspective on adopted children. At the time, Arab custom considered adopted children as blood children. Besides being against nature, they would also pass onto them the adopter's genealogy and name, thus confusing their identity. The overarching Quranic principle of preserving the adopted's true identity, as will be shown later, negates any practice that compromises this issue. This includes the modern practice of 'closed adoption' which usually conceals any disclosure of information such as the identities of the biological kin. Even if for some other reason the biological father is unknown it is still not a reason to confuse their identity by giving them the adoptive family's name because it neither corresponds to truth nor reality. In all cases, adopted persons can be addressed as brethren in religion or friends and there is no blame if they are sometimes referred to as sons metaphorically, out of affection, just as one would do with any person regardless of there existing blood relations or not 2:220,33:4-5. What the Quran does is abolishing the unnatural, unpractical, and even dangerous implications of treating non-relatives as blood relations while counterbalancing with an emphasis on practicality and moral duties towards the adopted. In Islam, the relation with an adopted person is that of guardianship, tutelage, training, protection, until he/she is mentally and physically able to enter into society, possibly using his/her own inheritance to live their life independently 4:2-7. It is not a father/mother - child relationship. 

Keeping the adopted's original identity secures his specific rights, and inherited wealth that are in the adoptive father's responsibility.

This wealth is forbidden to be approached or released 6:152, until the child is fully grown and mature, having reached a mariageable age and intellectual maturity/rushd. After repeated testing by the guardian and once he is reasonably convinced of them having reached maturity, he may allow them to start up their own life anew 4:2,6,8,10. The property will be returned in the presence of witnesses in order to make sure that the guardian's judgement in the matter was sound. Before that time, the guardian is warned not to consume with extravagance and hastiness the orphan's wealth and if he is a rich man then he should abstain altogether from even touching the property. The purpose of the Quran, again, as is the case with safeguarding their identity, is so that orphans are given the best chance to kick start their own life when they are able to.

However, the Quran adds its usual pragmatic instruction that if the guardian is poor then "let him eat reasonably" "out of" the profits of the orphan's capital, not "from" the capital itself lest it is eaten up completely 4:5. Then the Quran reminds again the God-fearing people, the spiritual aware, not to fall back to the previous unjust sytems of share and swallowing the weak orphans' property because their offspring could very well be in the same situation 4:9. This particular verse does not tell the people to show mercy and compassion, they are told to fear Allah as He is quick in requiting evil. It is a threat that whatever they swallow unjustly by usurping orphan's rights, is equal to swallowing fire into their bellies 4:10. Their soul is already burning for their deeds.

In pre-Islamic times, orphans were abused by men who would take them under their wing only to take advantage of them not having any close relatives for protection and dispossessed them of their property which they rightfuly inherited, replacing it with worhtless belongings 4:1-2. The Quran, like past scriptures Prov23:10-11, strongly reprimended this type of injustice as already shown. It laid stress on the relation between good care, kindness and compassion, as well as respect and honor towards the orphans with success in the Hereafter 107:1-3,93:9-10,89:17.

The HB echoes that notion Prov14:13. The emphasis of the Quran is such that even the sincere believers became affraid of taking orphans under their care lest they would act unjustly towards them. But they were reassured that Allah knows the sincere welldoers. They should mingle with the orphans as they do with any of their Muslim breathren, with sincerety of heart 2:220 caring for them patiently and compassionately 4:36,90:11-17, considering their needs whenever giving for charity 2:177,215. This is what qualifies one as among

90:18"the people of the right hand". 

Preserving the adopted's identity opens the possibility for inheritence rights besides those of the natural heirs 4:8,33. If the adoptive parents had no children or desire to give a specific portion of the inheritence to the adoptive child or else, they can do it in writing or even before their death 4:11-12. It also prevents compromising the legitimate inheritence of biological offspring, even in some cases in Wesern societies making the adopted the complete heir in lieu of the blood children. Preserving the adopted's identity avoids the risk of accidental incest. Another obvious problem is the lack of medical advantages of not knowing one's biological family. I

slam does it utmost to guarantee the well being of the weak people of society, including the orphans, while at the same time making it clear they need to preserve their real identify and not be confused with one's own children. This isnt a negation of adoption but rather of the practice of joining their name to one's own name and compromising their and the biological offspring's rights 33:4-5. This was the opportunity to erase these customs unfortunately still existing nowadays among non Muslims. Such a behavior is nothing short of identify theft, in addition making someone believe they are real children of the household in which they grow up. When such children realize the truth they suffer much disappointment and grief. It is the responsibility of the entire community to help children in need. They should be taken in and nurtured but again, not confused with one's own children.

Adoption in the Quran is thus more of a long term foster care which while offering guardianship for the individual, does not legally assume any biological kinship and rights. The Quran's stance therefore isnt against adoption, which is never banned, but against confusing the adopted person's identity.

All these crucial societal reforms are first introduced through admonishment in sura Ahzab 33:4-5 and then with the practical example of the prophet's marriage proposal to Zaynab, now ex-wife of an adopted son. This clearly drew a distinct line from any biological connection with the adoptive family. Nothing could strike harder and clearer at the root of that deeply ingrained belief other than a union one would consider incestuous precisely due to that notion. And none other than the most eminent member of a community, one whom an entire nation looks up to as the epitome of morality could do a better job at setting the example.

The point of the marriage of the prophet and Zaynab was therefore to implement a social reform, and the prophet, being the moral authority of his comunity as well as last transmitter of divine law 33:40, was the most apt in enforcing it. It is in that reform of principles that Muslims are obliged and commanded to follow the prophet's example. Marrying the ex-wives of their adoptive sons is neither a command nor necessity since the reform was already implemented by the prophet. But it shoud however never be hindered by all the false notions spoken of earlier and which the Quran came to reform, hence the statement that

"there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them".

Apostate prophet denounces inapropriate Marriage; prophet's union to Zaynab?

In answer to the video "The Prophet’s Desire - Muhammad Marries Adopted Son’s Wife"

The eighth wife of the Prophet was Zaynab bint Jahsh of the Asad tribe. This particular marriage had multiple aims. Zaynab was the Prophet's first cousin, from a noble lineage and at first, the prophet arranged her to unite with Zayd ibn Haritha, a slave he had freed from his guardians, and whom he then adopted. It was unthinkable at the time for such unions to happen between the daughters of the aristocracy and a slave even if he was freed.

This was a radical step taken by the Prophet in order to bring down the sense of superiority the Arabs had over slaves. The process had already started through the countless verses of the Quran speaking of dealing with the weak people of society including slaves as one would deal with his own family 4:36 that it is allowed to marry from among them 4:3,25,24:32,33:50 since the primary criteria distinguishing the people including for marriage, is piety 25:77,34:7,49:13.

By persuading both Zayd himself who was hesitant and Zaynab along with her family who were skeptical as well, the marriage did finally happen and the Quran alludes to the context of skepticism as regards the prophet's decision in introduction to the story 33:36. But Zaynab could not overcome the deeply ingrained social class system she was brought up with. That she had personal tastes and requirements (unrelated to religion) that werent met in the person of Zayd (social status), doesnt make her sinful. It just exposes her limits in terms of self-sacrifice as regards her materialistic outlook of life. She would have been praiseworthy had she been able to restrain that aspect of her personality but she certainly isnt condemned for failing to do so. Even the prophets' wives are told to kindly divorce him and go live their own life as they please, without any disapproval put on them, if they cannot handle the humble lifestyle inside his household 33:28-29.

Zayd complained many times to the Prophet and wanted to divorce her at one point but the prophet would keep telling him to be patient and keep his own wife, for the command was meant at accomplishing a higher and beneficial objective

33:37"And when you said to him to whom Allah had shown favor and to whom you had shown a favor: Keep your wife to yourself and be careful of (your duty to) Allah".

Taqul, when used in the simple present in classical Arabic conveys the notion of persistence and continuity of a state, ie the repeated attempts of the prophet at hindering the seperation. Nothing less could have been expected from the noble prophet who many times is depicted as a fatherly figure to his people, providing them with sincere and pragmatic advises in their private lives

"Anyone who incites a woman against her husband or a slave against his master is not one of us".

But the situation did not improve and Zayd finally divorced her, about a year after they united and he had no more desire for her of any sort

"when Zaid had accomplished his want of her".

The marriage thus ultimately failed. Both sides couldnt surmount their differences and reform themselves. But this failure did not mean that the objective of the ordinance failed. This prejudiced society that was gradually being reformed was shown, through the union of people originating from both extremities of society and under a messenger of God's blessing, that the oft repeated Quranic principle that a person's merit should only be measured by his righteousness and God-consciousness, as strongly stressed just 2 verses prior 33:35, is a reality all members of the Muslim community must learn to deal with, even in such intimate areas as marriage.

Critics argue that the union's failure did not help to bring about the reform that the command was supposed to bring, but the object of the command was not to make a union work after several years of marriage, despite the parties' freewill so the objection is irrelevant. The object was to show in what a person's true merit lies in and this was succesfully established since the taboo surrounding the union of 2 persons from different social origins was broken.

Apostate prophet disappointed with Islamic meteorology; Does Quran mention water cycle?

In answer to the video "Allah Sends Rain DOWN From The Sky"

The winds stir/tutheer, move, scatter or gather the clouds/sahab in the sama/sky, pressing them together then rain falls from within it  2:22,7:57,24:43,35:9,56:69,77:1-4,78:4. Note the singular IT, refering to the cloud from where rain drops. It does not say from the middle of the cloud itself or from in between 2 clouds. The verse 30:48 says the clouds are made into (not broken into) fragments/kisafan so that we see rain coming from the cloud. Note the singular again, not from between 2 chopped up pieces of clouds, as in a sponge losing its water after being sliced. It says a visible entity, the cloud, is changed into smaller entities so the transition must be a visible phenomenon like the spreading of the cloud spoken of prior to its fragmentation is also a visible phenomenon.

Clouds themselves are innumerable water drops suspended in the sky, so technically rain drops are cloud fragments falling from within the cloud itself. The description of rain as being fragments of clouds is in fact extremely accurate. The Hebrew Bible on the other hand describes clouds like solid entities on which God travels around to visit the wicked nations with His punishement Isa19:1,Ps104:3, or like sponges, delivering the rain they absorb in case God allows water to fall from the "firmament" on them

Job36:27-32"He increases drops of water; they pour rain into His cloud..Or will one understand the spreading of a cloud..Behold He spread His rain over it..Over the clouds He covers the rain, and He commands it through one who prays".

Water therefore does not originate from the clouds themselves but from the heavens, clouds are only carriers of that heavenly water Jer10:13. Besides stocking water "above the mountains", behind the firmament in "His upper chambers" Ps104, God also has reserves of hail and snow Job38:22-3. An angel named "Aph Beri" is the one tasked by God for "burdening" the clouds with water and driving them through the earth. See Rashi on Job37:12.

All these citations werent made to disparage the Bible, rather at pointing what would have been the outcome had the Quran been the product of a 7th century human being. The Quran had many occasions to expose itself as the product of an ancient human mind, as it speaks in many places of phenomenons similar to the ones refered to above in the HB. And yet we do not find anything remotely similar in terms of faulty depictions of the workings of nature.

The Quran further says, some of what comes down from the sama' goes back up to it 57:4,34:2 in a ever recuring cycle as denoted with alrajaa 86:11. Literally the word means to return and is used in classical Arabic for the rain. It is a very appropriate description of rain since it is the same water that rains down and returns to the sky in a cycle. It is this very cycle that is sworn by as a testimony of the reality of resurrection.

The Quran in 56:68-70 when drawing attention to God's mercy says the water coming from the cloud could have been salty and such an assertion can only be made if one is aware of the evaporation phenomenon that causes fresh water to evaporate from the sea and leave the salt behind. What goes down to the Earth, penetrating it 23:18 or flowing throughout it 39:21 is drank by humans and animals 16:10,25:49 who were created from it

21:30,25:54,24:45"And Allah has created from water every living creature: so of them is that which walks upon its belly, and of them is that which walks upon two feet, and of them is that which walks upon four; Allah creates what He pleases; surely Allah has power over all things".

Not a single living organism has been found to be entirely needless of water in any of its shapes.
Water causes vegetation to grow 45:5,78:15 or mixes with already existing plants 10:24.

Apostate prophet looks for the higher cause; Does Allah "send" the rain?

In answer to the video "Allah Sends Rain DOWN From The Sky"

Despite the apparent simplicity, again, once one scratches the surfaces of any Quranic passage, a most intricate discourse transpires.

The Quranic concept of attributing to Allah the consequence of a man's actions, even for the most insignificant things like the clothes man wears, as will be shown later, is in the same spirit. It reminds man that the laws of the universe are caused then allowed by Him, He is the only Independent Cause

11:56"there is no creature except that He is holding its forelock".

He "causes" the spiritual senses to be sealed, as one often reads. In Quran terminology this means He has established and allowed a process in which willful, repeated transgression leads to a progressive dimming of the innate spiritual receptivity

91:7-10"And (by) a soul and He Who proportioned it. And inspired it with its wickedness and its virtue. One has succeeded whoever purified it. And one has failed whoever corrupted it".

This higher reality in terms of causality is similar to Allah "causing" physical death as a result of repeated auto-mutilation. God could, against their freewill, prevent people from sinning 18:65-82,6:107,112,137, force them to believe 2:253,5:48,6:35,149,11:118, let them live their sinful life 111:1-5 or interrupt the system of freedom of choice at anytime 11:36, and all is done according to His Knowledge, Wisdom and Justice.

Even a person's sins can be said to be ultimately from Allah, but without precluding moral responsibility. Sins come in result of a chain of causality established, allowed and sustained at all times by Allah, according to which, willful neglect and disobedience to one's innate sense of spiritual perception leads to heedlesness to the external warnings and signs until transgression occurs. Allah "caused" the person to sin by allowing the process which fully integrates moral responsibility. Similarly in 7:16,15:39 after Iblis' curse, he says it is Allah who "ighwa" -literally "made him err". How was this done? Indirectly and not arbitrarily, not by compeling Iblis to sin but by puting him in a situation where his own arrogance and prejudice were exposed. The choice was of course his, to either obey or disobey the command. He chose rebellion and his reasons given to God after he was given the chance to explain himself were evil and totally unjustified.

Therefore nothing happens, good or bad, unless Allah wills it/allows it, and it is as a clear reminder of this supreme reality that in some instances speaking of human will, Allah's will immidiately follows

81:28-29,76:29-30"Surely this is a reminder, so whoever pleases takes to his Lord a way, And you do not please except that Allah please, surely Allah is Knowing, Wise".

This basically is one of the pillars of Quranic teachings, striking a balance between divine will and human effort. The sequence in the verses of sura takwir above make it clear, in the system of causality established, allowed and sustained at each instant by God, and which intricately integrates moral responsibility, humans need to be resolved upon an action, then God either allows or not that intent to be executed. Similarily it states in the HB in

Prov16:9"A man's heart plans his way, but the Lord prepares his step".

The system of causality being dependant upon Allah's will negates the implicit notion that His hands are 5:64"tied up" as some fatalists would taunt the prophet. Nothing passes out of His control, not even man's freewill, and he is judged according to the level of freewill he is granted. Therefore when Allah causes one's heart to turn away and be sealed, it is the same as saying that one has done it to himself, as stated in 41:4-5. They first turn away in such a manner that they become heedless to the Quran. They themselves ackowledge the immunity of their spiritual senses to it. But even then, their choices only happens if Allah wills it, ie allows it

9:127"..Then they turn away: Allah has turned away their hearts because they are a people who do not understand".

The same process is echoed by the psalmist in the HB, in the context of the Israelites' straying from the right path, repeatedly rebelling despite receiving Moses' prophetic guidance and witnessing all kinds of miracles

Ps81:13"So I let them go after their heart's fantasies; let them go in their counsels".

Again David would invoke God to guide those who willfuly stray from the path, into the evil ways they have themselves chosen

Ps125:5"And those who turn their crooked ways-may the Lord lead them away with the workers of iniquity".

It is a fundamental concept with which God interacts with humanity, leading people in the direction that they want to go, enlightening those that seek light, blinding those that seek obscurity. Again, in Ezek20:24-5, Israel's rebelliousness to God is answered with God Himself giving them what they want, more tools to continue on their rebellious path

"Because they did not perform my ordinances, and they rejected my statutes and desecrated my sabbaths and their eyes were after the idols of their fathers, I, too, gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances through which they should not live".

Th same is said in

Isa63:17"O Lord why did you makes us err from your ways, and hardenned our hearts from your fear?"

Many other verses in the Quran describe the process

6:110"And We will turn their hearts and their sights, even as they did not believe in it the first time, and We will leave them in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on"  

61:5"when they turned aside, Allah made their hearts turn aside"  

51:9"He is turned away from it who would be turned away".

The Quranic concept of Allah being the indirect cause of all things because of the laws of causality established and allowed by Him is reflected in many instances. In the language of the Quran everything is with God and is sent down to men 15:21. From the rain falling from the clouds 16:65 to even the most insignificant things like the clothes man wears 7:26,16:80-1 that are found in the cattle 16:5 which were themselves sent down 39:6. The same is the case with iron 57:25, the prime symbol used in the Quran to denote God's having endowed mankind with the ability to engineer, convert to his use the natural resources of his natural environement.

Allah is thus

57:3"the Apparent and the Hidden".

He is the transcendental cause of all that exists and at the same time inherently operating in every phenomenon. That higher reality is beautifuly pictured in the opening verses of sura hadid, the chapter of the iron. It is Allah Who holds the birds up in the air, yet they are themselves expanding and contracting their wings 16:79,24:41,67:19.

He is the "splitter" of the seed grain 6:95. He is the One to have multiplied the humans on earth 23:79. He established, allows and sustains the reproductive system resulting in us multiplying. He makes people laugh or cry because He controls and allows all the processes of causality from birth till death, and beyond 53:43-8. This higher principle present in every aspect of life, of which the God-conscious is always aware of, is mentionnedd by Ibrahim to his people

26:78-81"Who created me then He has shown me the way, and He who gives me to eat and gives me to drink, and when i am sick, He restores me to health, and He who will cause me to die and give me life".

This Quranic style of reminding the believer the true meaning of God's all-encompassing ownership, power and authority is also conveyed with the taking of the soul which is attributed to Allah 39:42,53:44 the angel of death 32:11, and a group of angels 6:61, or the movement of clouds of which God is responsible 24:43 (God's hand moves weather accross the earth Isa28:2, God creates the wind Amos4:13) because He is the originator and constant sustainer of the various meteorological phenomena leading to a cloud's movement 7:57,35:9,56:69.

 This is a concept found in previous religious books too and in fact is an axiom of HB scriptural exegisis that a person's agent is like himself (ie the agent's action is considered as though his principal had performed it). There are many instances such as in Ex12:12 where it is God personally who promises to punish the Egyptians yet a few verses down in v23 it is the "destroyer". Or throughout Isaiah where "the Lord spoke" to such and such while it in fact was the prophet relating the divine inspiration to such a person Isa7:10.

Again in Isa22:11 it is God who is said to have built what king Hezekiah made 2Chron32:5 and this is because he was acting as God's agent during the process, trusting Him in his endeavours 2kings18:5. In 2Sam24:1 it is God that incites David to conduct a cencus while in 1Chron21:1 it is Satan, the adversary that does God's work. Hasatan by the way is an angel, just as the angel sent on specific occasions during the Israelites' exodus to execute the will of God Ex14,23,33etc. God in all those instances was "with" the Israelites through His messenger angel, the same way as a commander talking to the citizen of his nation, telling them he is with them although his soldiers are the ones defending the people. This angel/messenger of the Lord by the way is incapable of forgiving sins Ex23. It is thus very surprising that Christians would use this type of proof text as an indication of the HB having multiple divine persons. Further the book of Hebrews openly states Jesus is not an angel Heb1. This kind of language, where the agent is called God or the consequence of an agent's actions is attributed to God, is common to the Semitic revelations, and found throughout the Quran too. It stems from the monotheistic notion that God is the creator of all things, including the laws of causality which He maintains and allows at each instant.

These are straightforward notions to a person imbedded in Abrahamic monotheism. But as soon as these concepts are read through the lens of polytheistic cultures where multiple gods interract among oneanother and independantly influence the lives of the humans, then confusions appear. That is why one will never find an Israelite reading trinity or any other speculation on God's unity in any of the passages proposed by Christians.

Apostate prophet gets gory; Islam condones female genital mutilation?

In answer to the video "Female Genital Mutilation: Islamic or Cultural?"

Although there are ahadith that depict the prophet as saying male circumcision is part of the Abrahamic legacy, nowhere does the prophet instruct female circumcision. The most that is found leaning in favor of the practice are statements where he speaks about unrelated topics where the female involved is already circumcised, or a weak and disputed report where he is comenting on a pre existing practice, in both cases not instructing nor recommending it.

In that later hadith (sunan abu dawud) he says to avoid doing it in a way that would affect both men and women in their sexual life, meaning the procedure must be negligable.

Even if one sees prophetic approval for female circumcision in this saying, it stays far from the image of genital mutilation in the mind of those who jump for joy at anything that superficially seems to paint Islam in an unfavorable light.