Acts17apologetics poke fun at Islam; un-original wisdom of the Quran?

In answer to the video "Three Quran Verses Every Jew Should Know (David Wood)"

Christian critics often absurdly try discrediting the wisdom of the Quran by arguing that some of its principles were already uttered earlier, while completely forgetting that all of Jesus' wise humanist utterings reported in the NT were either stated long before in the Tanakh by the likes of Moses, or close to his time by Jewish thinkers, let alone those Pharisees whom Jesus regarded as "sons of satan", such as Hillel -one of the highest Pharisaic authority of his time- who is quoted in the Talmud saying almost word for word what Jesus would utter about a century later in

Matt7:12"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets".

The redaction of the Talmud began after Jesus but the oral tradition it contains, such as the one uttered by Hillel, existed long before. It was already in circulation before and after Jesus in Pharisaic tradition. This tradition considers the Talmud just as revealed as the written Torah is, probably even predating the events of Sinai. We can repeatedly read of Moses receiving Torah and Law before he ascended on the Mount to meet with God Ex12-18. Even the concept of a kingdom of God soon to be established on earth appears in numerous Jewish documents that antedate Jesus.

When trying to discredit Islam to a Muslim audience, the poorest and most insignificant of all arguments consists in pointing to the moral truths it contains then arguing they were uttered long before, that the Quran merely copied them. The Quran itself recognizes it isnt uttering anything new in matters of morality and spirituality, not only in the passage itself, but even upholds such principle as a tenet of faith, that divine guidance is a continuity that started long before the Torah, down to the Quran. By these same lowly standards, totally insignificant when debating a Muslim, Jesus and all prophets of the Bible were false prophets who merely copied from their predecessors and hardly uttered anything new.

Hundreds of quotes, similarities and incidents can be shown attesting to this. What cancels the Judeo-christian criticism further is that their religions contain very uncomfortable similarities with the pagan environments in which the successive books were authored. Contrary to Islam which has no problem with having similarities with pre-islamic practices, since it claims they are rooted in the Abrahamic legacy it came to revive, Judaism and Christianity have no common spiritual legacy with the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Canaanite or Greco-roman rituals and philosophies to help explain away the odd and uncomfortable similarities.

Here is a small example. In the Quran,

The whole matter of Jesus' end in this world appeared as if the Jews had succeeded in their evil, murdering plots because, among other reasons, Jesus was missing, or as the Quran says God "tawaffa" him, purified him and made him ascend to Heaven. This instead prevented the humiliation that wouldve happened if his enemies got to the body. If they presented it to the people in a humiliated state, leading to a psychological victory for the Israelites 

4:158"Allah took him up to Himself". 

They couldnt even kill him, nor could they damage his body and God states He would raise him up to himself, meaning that not only his body wouldnt be humiliated but it would be honored by God instead.

God thus lifted Jesus up and did not leave a trace of him with them yet even without proof for their claims, the Israelites that wanted him dead managed to start a rumor that quickly spread and was believed. The resulting confusion was similar to that of the rumor of the prophet Muhammad's death during the battle of Uhud 3:144. Roman crucifixions occured daily and by the hundreds, of any agitators to the point that they would sometimes run out of wood for the crosses. The accusing Jews could easily pass off their boastful claims as fact in those circumstances, regardless of whether they truly believed their own claim or not. This rumor spread among both friends and foes. It is entirely possible at this point that not only the Jews were unaware of Jesus' true whereabouts, but neither were his followers. The confusing absence of a prophet has been a means of testing the followers left behind, whether they would remain on the clear path outlined by the prophet when he was in their midst, maintain his directives, or start innovating in the religion and go back to their sinful ways. This occured with Moses, as he retreated away from his people to receive revelation, just as it did with Muhammad when many fell into despair during the battle of Uhud, and later when he died 

3:144"And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; the messengers have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels?" 

The Nazarenes, like the calf-worshiping Jews thus failed the test of steadfastness in the absence of their prophet. As the rumours of Jesus' death started by his enemies became widespread, his disillusioned followers retrospectively painted the whole thing as a divine masterplan, with all the Christologies that ensued. Those among them that maintained Jewish law were sidelined by Paul's movement very early on, and within just 2 generations the little remnant of Judaism within the Jesus sect was erased. It was supplanted by a wave of converts from the greco-roman world who found in this transformed and readapted original Jewish sect, a favorable echo for their own beliefs, naming this new religion, Christianity. 

It is thus meaningless to argue that because the corruptions the Quran denounces were introduced early on, then it follows that these were original teachings of Jesus. Had Moses and Aaron not quickly and violently corrected the corruptions to their teachings, executing the guilty by the thousands, nothing would have prevented the same kind of falsehood to be passed off as "genuine teachings" of Moses, as was done with Jesus 

5:117"I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness". 

Jesus did not have the occasion to do as Moses and Aaron did very early on so as to prevent the lies attributed to them from becoming "orthodoxy". However, if they escaped Jesus condemnation, it does not mean God was unaware of their evil doings.  

Isnt it surprising that the Lord's prayer taught by Jesus himself (as opposed to every other prayer that others taught to say in Jesus’ name), never mentioned Jesus, nor vicarious atonement, nor him as messiah, nor him as intermediary, nor any trinity, among anything else Christological? This foundational prayer is more anti-christian than any passage one may find in the entire Bible. 

We're not talking about the lack of Christological references in terms of labels, but in terms of concepts. The prayer is far removed from the ideas established by the Pauline movement, the creeds of the Church Fathers and later councils. Not only are those concepts absent but every sentence of the prayer clashes with mainstream Christian tenets. For example vicarious atonement, not only isnt it mentioned by name or implicitly as a concept, but in addition we have Jesus, who is supposed to be the embodiment of that notion, refuting it 

"forgive us our sins, as we have forgiven those who have sinned against us". 

No need for Jesus, forgiveness is attained through one's own efforts. The same is conveyed in the parable of the prodigal son Lk15. The unrighteous son is forgiven by his father simply for turning to God in sincere repentance. Not only is he forgiven but he is welcomed with a warm celebration. It is his state of contriteness that brought him back to life, not the blood on the cross "he was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found".

The idea of vicarious atonement stems from the notion of human depravity; none may claim righteousness on his own due to a sinful nature that pollutes every deed and thought. Yet Jesus undermines that notion too; temptation isnt the product of inherent human depravity and satanic influence. Rather it is God, who is perfectly righteous, whom the worshiper asks 

"not to lead us into temptation". 

Jesus teaches his followers to begin the prayer by calling upon "our" Father who is in heaven, not to the divine son who is on earth. Nothing distinguishes Jesus from a regular believer in terms of sonship to the Father. The same fatherhood that applies to him applies to the others. It is the Father's name only that is to be hallowed, His will is to be done, and He is the Sustainer of the devotees, including Jesus

 "Give us today our daily bread".

These innovations might have initiated among Jesus' close circle, through re-interpretations of his teachings, or among the wave of new converts that supplanted them. To this new, outer circle, the claim that he was captured and killed resonated as closer to the truth and a more honest assessment of his disappearance.

His gruesome death became an attractive narrative of heroism and martyrdom not only for the sake of his followers but for the entire human race. 

Jesus is portrayed as fearing death and wanting to avoid it Jn7:1,11:54,Luke 22:42. He begged God (himself) 3 times, putting his forehead to the ground, to take his soul before experiencing suffering and death in Matt26:38. He does not want to experience what he was about to go through but nevertheless submits his will to that of the father, whether he decides to make him bear the cup of suffering or not 

"Yet not My will, but Yours be done". 

Clearly, had he been given the choice, he would have refused "dying for the sins of mankind" despite having supposed foreknowledge of the divine plan of salvation since the beginning of creation, a plan which he himself sketched together with his divine partners. It also shows one of the co-equal partners submitting his will to another. Yet we never see the reverse, with the Father obediently submitting his will to the Son or the Holyspirit. That "hesitation" from Jesus cannot be attributed to his human nature as he himself states that it is his soul that feared and doubted Matt26:38. Then, when on the cross Jesus grieves for God's abandoning him. Even Revelations5 which is sometimes quoted to defend the notion of a predetermined divine masterplan of salvation through Jesus, is in fact speaking in eschatological terms, just as the whole book does. It speaks of the salvation of some people after events of great tribulation, ie the end of times. Then we have Heb5:7 throwing in the ambiguous statement that Jesus' prayers were heard and accepted by God, and this includes the desperate cry to "let this cup pass from" him. The realization of his prayer, his inability to take on the full brunt of the "sins of mankind" came in the form of Simon of Cyrene who relieved Jesus from his cross and carried it half way till Golgotha Matt27:31-33. 

This embarrassing change to the divine master plan of salvation forced another author in Jn19:17-18 to have Jesus carrying his own cross, the symbol of mankind's sins, all the way until he reached Golgotha where he was crucified. The cross in fact was not a Christian symbol until the 6th century. Could the whole "Simon of Cyrene" tale be orthodoxy's early response to a story popularised by certain gnostics that it was not Jesus but Simon who had been nailed to the cross?

The predictions Jesus makes as regards his impending death on the other hand are portrayed as willful self-sacrifice. In these versions, we see other inconsistencies. When he tells his disciples, several times and explicitly how he would die, they are taken by complete surprise when the events unfold Matt16,17,20,Mk8,9,10,Lk9,18. Not once are they depicted, following his supposed death, as patiently waiting his predicted resurrection after just 3 days. Neither are they depicted recalling the secret miracle once it unfolds. Even when he appeals to prophecies at the third and last prediction of his death 

Lk18:34"The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about". 

Clearly, there was a general atmosphere of confusion as to Jesus' disappearance, a confusion which the writers could not deny as it corresponded to the reality they knew about and witnessed. But, because they were writing from the lens that he was crucified, they had to retrospectively paint this confusion as a misunderstanding by the disciples of Jesus' clear predictions. Between Jesus' desire to avoid death, his repeated predictions as to his willful execution, the misunderstandings of the disciples, the story line lacks consistency and seems muddled. We see the same pattern with other major themes retrospectively applied to Jesus, such as his messiahship, again painted as shrouded in obscurity due to the "misunderstanding" of his closest disciples. The simple reason is that the historical Jesus did not go around claiming to fulfil the messianic predictions of the HB. The claim was later made for him. If he did, people would have laughed their lungs off, including the Romans. The Gospel writers, writing at least 50 years after the events knew that what Jesus accomplished had nothing to do with the highly anticipated establishment of the kingdom of God. They were thus left with no option other than painting the whole matter as they did.

Prior to Jesus becoming God, the pagans scoffed at the notion of a human savior dying a cursed death then resurrecting. But the later introduction and spread of the deviant notion of Jesus' divinity made the Christian religion fit more easily into their paradigm. 

As the Quran says in the context of Jesus' supposed divine sonship 

9:30"they immitate the saying of those who disbelieved before".

Gentiles of the region believed in Mithraism, a religion already spread all throughout Europe and Asia minor centuries prior to the birth of Christianity. Among such beliefs is the death and resurrection of Osiris. Those ritually sharing in that death and resurrection through baptism had their sins remitted. The pagan Roman authorities thus welcomed the new religion seeing it was in congruence with centuries of tradition of dying and/or mutilated savior gods. 

As the early church father Justin Martyr conceded

"when  we say...Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified, died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you (ie the pagans) believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus". 

Paul, who was at most a hellenezied Jew, was explaining Jesus teachings in ways that were unheard of by Jesus' disciples. Paul's letters were written about AD 50-60, while the Gospels were not written until 60-90 meaning Paul's theories were already established before the unknown writers of the gospels started their works and earlier Christian thought was quickly branded heretical. The church was so weak that within the same generation of the disciples, this Jewish sect of the Nazarenes, whose distinction from mainstream Judaism was only in the belief that Jesus was the messiah, turned upon its heels, abandoned Jewish law, adopted concepts unheard of anywhere in Judaism. There is a reason why the Gospel writers including Paul do not quote the Hebrew Bible but the Greek Septuagint which was hated by the rabbis as it represented the Hellenization of many Jews of the time. The early church thus became irrelevant very early on following Jesus' departure, due to Paul's efforts at supplanting it, dismissing Jewish law as obsolete, reinterpreting core Semitic concepts of God so as to appeal to his pagan audience.

After Jesus' death, Paul's main problem was to convince his Jewish audience that the messiah's death, without accomplishing any of the messianic criteria, instead of being a failure was actually a necessity. He did so by introducing the doctrine of total depravity, making all humans de facto sinners and therefore in need of an atoning sacrifice Rom7:14-25,Rom3:10-11,5:13,8:7-8,1Cor2:14,Eph2:1-3,Titus3:3. His addressees however already believed in the resurrection of the dead, in a just God who forgave the sins of a penitent heart. Nothing was missing in their system that Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection could fix. Paul's redeeming hero was a redundancy to them, so he was obviously met with fierce resistance wherever he preached his unscriptural ideas. This led him to eventually turn to the gentiles among whom he found a much more favourable audience. All this is evident from a cursory reading of the NT and the writings of Paul. That is how Christianity was shaped, using its target audience's sensitivities all the while toning down to the maximum its Jewish heritage.

The sect that "won" and became "orthodoxy" achieved victory by political rather than epistemic means. The dominant branch was but one among many early, conflicting Christian sects, as even reflected in Paul's letters and the desperate struggles he had with them to maintain control of his own congregations. The process was not a difficult one considering Mithraism's tendency to accommodate with other rival cults, throughout its vast geographical spread, before and after Christianity. Christianity of course wasnt that accommodating, doing everything to supplant it due to the disturbing similarities. Many Church Fathers (Justin, Origen, Tertullian) attempted rationalizing Mithraism's similarities with their religion; "satanic imitations" being the standard explanation. 

The fine details of those similarities are now lost due to the Christian destructions of all "mithraes" they could put their hands on as well as persecute its followers. The task of reconstructing which themes Mithraism absorbed from Christianity so as to embellish its own narrative, versus what actually pre-dated Christianity, becomes a speculative task. But the presence of such vehement defenses by church authorities reveals their major embarrassment, their discomfort at their opponents' accusations of plagiarism. Instead of engaging their critics in debate, these church fathers and other Christian "orthodox" writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries slandered their opponents with exaggerated or even false charges, shunned them or socially intimidated them. This pattern of engaging their critics is in itself revealing of their own insecurities.

Acts17apologetics are oblivious to justice; allowing victim's revenge?

In answer to the video "Three Quran Verses Every Jew Should Know (David Wood)"

In case of murder, there are several aspects of wisdom in leaving the life of the killer directly at the mercy of the heirs of the murdered person.

It firstly compensates to some extent the tremendous loss caused, because once the justice system has done its job of exposing the guilty, true justice consits in compensating emotionaly or materialy for those first and foremost concerned, ie the victims themselves.

The other wisdom in leaving the punishment of the killer in the heirs of the slain person's hands is that in case they adopt the preferred issue of being magnanimous, they do a big favour to the murderer and his family, resulting in many other benefits.

The prophet waived his right for equal retribution many times against his opponents once he had the power to execute justice

"Whoever suffers an injury done to him and forgives (the person responsible), Allah will raise his status to a higher degree and remove one of his sins” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi).

There are countless traditions about his life illustrating his forgiveness to others, even those caught red handed attempting to murder him. But he had no right to force the believers to be forgiving in similar situations, it would be contrary to the spirit of the law as he would be negating their rights to resort to it should they desire. As already said, although the Quran encourages magnanimity in these cases it can only be from the victim, on his or her own accord, without any pressure or influence from anyone, or without any interference from the authorities. This way, because it is an unexpected, benevolent act, it heals both the victim and the criminal.

The story of Cain and Abel illustrated these points, and others, to the prophet Muhammad's addressees. It was similarily through this story that the gravity of murder was forcefully brought to the Israelites' attention for the first time. This moral principle existed since the dawn of humanity, both Cain and Abel were aware of it, as clearly depicted in the Quranic account. Again, the incident between the 2 brothers is not what caused the decree regarding the sanctity of human life to be issued and nowhere does the Quran say so. What it clearly states is that the first time the decree was brought to the Israelites' attention, it was illustrated through that incident. There are many examples whether in the Quran or the Bible where a prophet or sage person reminds his addressees of a universal principle, expressed by others before him.

It being "written upon" the children of Israel is a striking wording stressing its gravity to a people known for their long history of wars with their neighboring nations and bloody inter-tribal conflicts during which very little to no sanctity for human life was given. That is not to mention their persecution and slaying of the most righteous elements of the comunity, their own prophets.

That this law was decreed upon the Israelites does not take away its applicability to any murder commited anywhere in the world by subsequent nations. Many laws and notions were prescribed and taught to groups of people prior to Islam, this doesnt take away their applicability to Muslims, unless explicitly stated otherwise. In fact the verse says "whoever slays a soul" not "whoever among you slays a soul". The prophet's companions understood the verse as applying to their own time, Uthman for example is reported to have quoted it as he was under siege, to prevent bloodshed.

Acts17apologetics find nothing good in Quran; verse 5:32 not for Muslims?

In answer to the video "Three Quran Verses Every Jew Should Know (David Wood)"

Manslaughter has several degrees of seriousness depending on the victim, as exemplified through the story of Adam's 2 sons, whom the Quran does not name as it eloquently and concisely draws its audience's attention to the story's core precepts without distracting it with names of persons and places. The one slain was innocent of any wrongdoing, even warned his brother that was about to kill him, tried reforming him.

But this familial tragedy was about to repeat itself, as the murderous Israelites were trying by all means to put an end to their Ishmaelite brother's life, despite his warnings and calls to reforms, there being no reasons for them to threaten and attack him. The Jews of the prophet's time were not only trying to kill a man innocent of any wrongdoing against them and in general, but were trying to kill a prophet of God as their forefathers tried doing and sometimes succeeded against the prophets raised from among themselves and who called them to adhere to their own Books which they had thrown behind their backs and forgotten. The story of the 2 sons of Adam ends with a reminder of a lesson they knew very well

5:32"For this reason did We write upon the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men".

This is to emphasize the sanctity of human life, indiscriminately. It is essential for its preservation that everyone should regard the life of the other, whoever he might be, as sacred and help to protect it. The one who takes the life of another without right, does not commit injustice to that one alone, but also proves that he has no feeling for the sanctity for human life and mercy for others. But if one helps preserving a single human life, then it is a though he saved the whole human race. Notice the subtle nuance between killing, which is conditional, and saving, without any condition. This is because killing may be inevitable and necessary, such as in war situations. It may also be a legitimate right for the family of a murder victim. But saving is a course of action which the person is freely left to apply, depending on his internal disposition and ability to forgive. When a person chooses that option despite the right and possibility to kill, then the Quran praises him for his selflessness.

This is the supreme realism, pragmatism of the Quran, which will forever remain far above the heads of those mindless critics. Let me dig the knife a bit deeper before getting back to Cain and Abel.
While always opening the door to a peaceful resolution and magnanimity, the Quran however never denies the basic human right of self-defense when unjustly opressed beyond the limits where peaceful diplomacy can still stop this harassement and eventually reform the opposite party, when such oppression goes as far as threatening one's life. If in such case, one opts for a more confrontational stance, as most would tend to do when wronged, the Quran explicitly forbids any retaliation above and beyond what a person has himself received 2:190-5,16:126-8,22:60,42:39-43.

The very foundations of the divine law, as taught by all Prophets, is the establishment of justice and to argue a person has no right to seek his rights, or no say in the matter once guilt has been established, is an absolute wrong. In various types of social felonies, the Quran gives the right of having recourse to the law of "equitable punishment or compensation"/qisas, which is approximately equivalent to what Judeo-Christian tradition refers to as lex talonis 2:178,5:45. It is not an "exact same thing" situation, since killing another's child because he killed mine would be against all common sense, and justice. "Life for life" does not entail "your child's life in exchange of my child's life". The point is that the offending party must compensate with a life, the murderer's own life. It is a "punishment fits the crime" scenario. The definition of the word "qisas" itself stresses the importance of fairness and justice in the application of that system.

As stated in 17:33, the retribution must never exceed the harm suffered. This blocks the way to blind vengence and actually helps society to seek reparation for a moral or spiritual harm in conformity with justice. However it is stressed that in both cases (self-defense and social justice) the opressed or the victim may show magnanimity and forgiveness in order to grow spiritually, an issue the Torah, which also mentions the law of retaliation, does not contain in its proper context. To its credit, the HB does speak in other places of self-restraint as a great virtue

Prov14:29,20:22,19:11"It is good sense for a man to be slow to anger, and it is his glory to pass over a transgression". 

This then means that the equitable physical injury is the maximum that the victim can ask for with preferrance for forgiveness and even better forgiveness. It says that such patient attitude is a great sign of spiritual might and courage, a blessing from Allah and the way He prefers for His creatures

3:134,16:126,41:34-36,42:43"And whoever is patient and forgiving, these most surely are actions due to courage".

This shows that the the spirit of vengeance is absent from the law, which is but aimed at reforming the society and deterring future vices. By encouraging instead of imposing this act of amnesty, it appeases the aggrieved party by giving it the position of superiority because the death penalty is a legitimate and authorized option. Further, by knowing that execution might be an option, the instinctive reaction of seeking revenge killings is neutralized. Another aspect of forgiveness, as stated in the verse is an act first and foremost beneficial to the victim of injustice. As the Quran says, it isnt an act of weakness but of courage. The injustice comitted isnt condoned, neither is one required to forget, deny or minimize it. Nor does forgiveness in this context necessarily entail reconciliation. Forgiveness is first meant at benefitting the victim, not the offender. It prevents wasting mental and emotional energy by being trapped in a self-consuming anger.

Acts17apologetics deny genetics; Divine covenant since Adam? The amazing Human potential.

In answer to the video "Allah Explains Semen Production! (Fun Islamic Fact #16)"

This passage refers to the notion that God placed within the humans an ingrained cognizance of the divine and higher realities 7:172-3. It is a major, pervasive theme in the Quran going back to the account of creation. 

Contrary to the Biblical notion that the knowledge of good and evil were concealed from man in a "tree of knowledge", the Quran clearly states that this spiritual feature is ingrained and hardwired in man. According to the interpolated HB, when man ate from the tree of the knowledge of good an evil, man "became like one of us", against God's will and desire. According to the Quran, God "breathed into man of his spirit" and in sura Shams, defines it as "He inspired the soul with the knowledge of evil and good", meaning he was meant to "become like us".

The concept of freewill and accountability that distinguishes mankind from the rest of creation (besides the jinn) 2:30,64:1-2 presupposes the free ability to do both good and evil. Man is therefore not a spiritually static, stagnant entity. There is in him a mechanism, a driving force that creates a flux. It is al nafs allawwama/the self-reproaching soul 75:2 which much be nurtured and trained to confront the moral obstacles in one's life.

The more it is trained the more it morphs into a positive state called al nafs al mutmainna 89:27 and the more it is neglected the more it changes into al nafs al'ammara bil sou'/the soul that incites to evil 12:53.

One has therefore to train and purify his spiritual side just as he would train and strengthen his physical body, and make it rise to the noblest spiritual station. In sura maarij for example, it speaks of man's tendency to be hasty and of impatient disposition, somewhere else referred to as an ingrained weakness of human nature 4:28. This is the manifestation of man's animalistic side, seeking immediate satisfaction of base desires regardless of the consequences. That tendency however can be tamed, starting with regular prayer, then a commitment towards fellow humans in need, hearkening one's sense of moral accountability (the self-reproaching soul), understanding God's threat of chastisement and never feeling secure or self-conceited in the matter, maintaining all that is connected to sexuality inside specific boundaries, being trustworthy and act upon one's word 70:18-35.

The objective of human creation is spiritual purification through divine worship, which will ultimately earn it an eternal bliss and reward. Reward is thus the true reason for which God has made mankind. It is a great mercy, and besides that ultimate reward, God's mercy manifests itself in this world in innumerable aspects both inside and outside of man.

Inwardly, it is man's ability to perceive the existence of a single Creator 7:172-3 referred to in 30:30 as man's hardwired uprightness at birth. 

Any notion that goes against that inborn awareness is therefore a corruption of man's spiritual nature. Pure monotheism, is the only intuitive system, one that can be naturally derived from observation and reflection. There is a reason why polytheistic societies all have one superior deity above all. This is their instinct, which can then become corrupt like any natural, beneficial predisposition. The Israelites throughout their history didnt stop believing in the supreme Yhwh even when they introduced idols in the temple itself. In fact, even subconsciously, no matter their sophistries, Trinitarians have the same thing as the aforementioned polytheists, with the "Father" whose name itself implies prominence in time, rank, importance, and who generates and begets the other 2 "persons" of the Godhead. Archaeology is not indicative of the historicity of monotheistic cults. Monotheism naturally seeks the immaterial, transcendental Creator who cannot be represented. Polytheism on the other hand is expected to leave traces in history, whether sculptures or drawings of that which is worshipped.

This concept of the universal intrinsic cognizance of a single Creator, is the reason why the Quran doesnt deny but rather honors the covenants made by God with previous religious communities, each being in essence a manifestation of the pre-eternal covenant that God made with all of humanity when they were still in Adam’s loins 

"And when thy Lord took from the Children of Adam, from their loins, their progeny and made them bear witness concerning themselves, “Am I not your Lord?” they said, “Yea, we bear witness”. 

The covenants made on earth renew this genetic cognition of divine oneness 

33:7"And [remember] when We made with the prophets their covenant, and with thee, and with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus the son of Mary; We made with them a solemn covenant". 

The various prophets thus served the purpose of reminding, so that no human beings can claim that they were unaware of that inner, instinctive knowledge 

7:172-3"Lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection, “Truly of this we were heedless,” or lest you should say, “[It is] only that our fathers ascribed partners unto God aforetime, and we were their progeny after them. Wilt Thou destroy us for that which the falsifiers have done?”

With such understanding in mind, one can appreciate the Quranic use of the word kafir/kuffar in reference to those that reject prophetic guidance. Although often rendered simply as "disbelievers", the word literally means to "cover up". In this case, a kafir is one that covers up his innate cognition of the higher realities.

It is well known that genetically, humans are programmed to to see life forces – a phenomenon called hypersensitive agency detection – everywhere we go, regardless of whether they’re there or not. Scientists say this might be an ancient defense mechanism that helped us avoid concealed danger, such as lions crouched in the grass or venomous snakes concealed in the bush, but that it also made us "vulnerable" to inferring the existence of invisible agents, such as a benevolent God. That mechanism, labelled "System 1" also encourages us to see things dualistically, meaning we have trouble thinking of the mind and body as a single unit. This tendency emerges quite early: young children, regardless of their cultural background, are inclined to believe that they have an immortal soul. For these reasons, many scholars believe that religion arose as “a byproduct of our cognitive disposition”, ie it would be cognitively unnatural to not believe, and to think of oneself in a non-dualistic way, which is why atheists (Atheism itself is a very recent phenomenon) must fight against that natural urge to believe in an existence with a purpose, that they are a part of something bigger, that life isn’t completely futile. Even those who explicitly describe themselves as non-believers, still harbor superstitious and non-rational thought processes. It is also established that inscribed in our DNA, there is a moral compass and sense of justice making us, since the youngest age, prefer good than bad actions.

It is the general guidance refered to 20:50 and instilled in all humans without exception. The Quran thus establishes that man is hardwired with a connection to its Creator. In reference to that intimate relation, the prophet said

"He who knows his soul knows his Lord".

On the other hand the Quran warns

59:19"And be not like those who forgot Allah, so He made them forget their own souls".

Man has both a principal and a secondary nature. His secondary nature returns to dust and his essence is related to Allah. This is why the Quran attributes the spirit to Allah and the body to the earth 38:71-72. A similar notion can be found in the Hebrew Bible in

Ecc12:7"The body reverts to the dust that it was before, and the ru'ah returns to God who gave it".

It is this spirit coming from Allah, infused into Adam for the first time, to inspire him the understanding of good and evil that creates the human thirst for guidance and worship

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".

Contrary to the convoluted HB, this peculiar human feature was not hidden  in a forbidden "tree of knowledge" but hardwired in mankind, since its inception. This is the spark, when nurtured and developed, that leads one to fulfil the goal of human creation; the worship of God.

In order to know if one has the right approach to knowledge, one has to see whether the chosen approach is beneficial in terms of personal insight as well as insight into the surrounding world, what does this approach teach and where does it lead. What does it imply about truth, what truth is, and where truth can be found, what does it say about how to live one's every day life.

There are 3 main domains that the chosen approach must satisfactorily address; intellectually, morally, spiritually. Intellectually; Why is the universe the way that it is and why are we able to learn and understand it? Why should man even probe the secrets of the universe. Morally; how should life be lived and according to which virtues? In what circumstances is it better to be humble or proud, gentle or fierce, merciful or stern, patient or hasty? How does experience and the ability to overcome obstacles develop us in these virtues? Spiritually: Why does mankind exist, more specifically why is my own life worth living? What point does my existence accomplish in the broader scheme of things?

Every single human being will eventually be confronted with these questions and will adopt some form of value system that attempts to address them. The only question to ask is whether or not the ideology to which they have committed can successfully and coherently address these dimensions of life in a manner that provides meaningful guidance. Only Islam unifies all of life’s ethical, rational, and spiritual pursuits under the singular aim of attaining nearness to God, providing a firm foundation for true personal development in all spheres.

The Quran speaks to human intuition in a way that renders reality meaningful, unravelling all of the paradoxical knots of confusion. Haqq/truth is used in the Quran to refer to what is real 10:32 but also to mean purpose 16:3 as well as rights and responsibility 30:47. Reality is therefore meaningful (makes intellectual sense) and purposeful (makes spiritual sense), and this is something that corresponds to human intuition. 

The Quranic discourse helps us make sense of what’s important and what’s relevant in our lives, what to focus on to achieve true spiritual, moral and intellectual growth. It does so by appealing to the existing knowledge of the fitrah.

That spiritual fabric, combined with the spiritual senses of perception 23:78,46:26,67:23,76:2 create an understanding of what is good and bad for the soul. One becomes able to hearken the calls of the self-reproaching soul in place of the evil-inciting conscience whenever a moral crisis arises. It is with that implicit notion that the Quran in many places refers to the commendable deeds with the general term maaruf/recognized,accepted and to the evil deeds as munkar/rejected. Human nature can naturally recognize what is appropriate spiritually, morally, from what should be rejected.

The more the calls of the self-reproaching soul are hearkened and acted upon in place of the evil-inciting conscience, the more the soul is purified until it reaches a status referred to in 89:27 as al nafs al mutma'inna/the secure, peaceful soul. It is to be noted that this stage is something one can never permanently achieve in this life, one is constantly switching between these 3 states even though some spend more time in one state than the other depending on their spirituality, which is why God only addresses the righteous with this term once all matters are settled in the afterlife and the successfull are invited to enter their eternal blissful state.

In consistency with that principle, the Quran in sura ghaashiya/88 pictures the successful as having an appeased and content face only in the hereafter while utter humility will be all over the face of the doomed. These 2 states are generally reversed in this life.

The opposite can also happen until one's spirituality becomes incapable of making the right moral choices and is sealed despite having been given the ability to perceive the right from the wrong

76:3,90:8-10,91:7-10"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".

As a side note, this concept entirely agrees with the one described in the Hebrew Bible according to which mankind has a proclivity to sin but can overcome it, as exemplified through the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis.

After detailing how the mercy of Allah manifests in our deepest selves, we may now look at its external manifestation.

Outwardly, divine mercy manifests itself through revelations, that make a clear distinction between the right and wrong ways 2:38,16:9,92:12 and that direct mankind's spiritual senses of perception towards the innumerable signs attesting to the existence of God, the hereafter, a day of judgement and accountability. As it states in sura insan, immediately after speaking of God's innate guidance, man is also actively guided with external factors

76:2-3"We made him a being indowed with hearing and sight, verily We have shown him the way (and it rests with him to prove himself) either grateful or ungrateful".

All this inward and outward arrangement serves man in the accomplishment of his existential role of being God's vicegerent in this world 2:30 recognizing his Creator and worshipping Him. This world has been entrusted to him to make use of it in God-consciousness, in respect of the commands and limits set by the True Owner

51:56"And I have not created the jinn and the men except that they should serve Me/yaabuduni".

The root is Ain-B-D and it means slave or servant. Being a 'abd/slave of God is what each pious Muslim strives for and previous prophets all throughout the Hebrew Bible were referred to as God servants, including Moses or David. God Himself calls them

Jer29:19,2Kings17:13"My servants, the prophets". 

The original Hebrew says abadi/my slaves and the Arabic rendition Ketab El Hayat (NAV) uses the same word ibaadi/slaves.

Any regular person who is pious and humble before God, considers himself a slave to the Almighty. This notion isnt specific to Islam or the Quran, see the Hebrew Bible in 1Sam1:11,3:9-10,23:10,2Sam3:18,7:20. Again, the Arabic Bible uses 'abd/slave, just as the original Hebrew says abdi/my slave or abdika/your slave. The reason Moses was sent to free the enslaved Israelites was because their servitude was only God's prerogative "Let My people go, so that they may serve Me" as is stressed in 

Lev25"It is to Me that the Israelites are slaves: they are My slaves, whom I freed from the land of Egypt". 

As the prophet king Solomon is reported to have stated in his last words with which he concludes his book of

Ecclesiastes12:13-14"Fear God and keep His commandments for this is the whole purpose of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil".

The whole purpose of man is therefore to remain in fear of God, His judgement, and keep His entire commands which obviously is synonymous with worshiping Him with awe.

Acts17apologetics wont buy it; Muhammad went to all wives in one night?

In answer to the video "Fun Islamic Facts n°15"

With such a large household combined with his prophetic duties and the turmoil of these early days in which he was involved in on a daily basis, he could not be expected to divide his time so as to satisfy each of the wives and potential concubines equally. But as the Islamic history books explicitly denote, he tried to observe equality among them as much as possible. He used to visit sometimes his 9 wives at once.

In that report, the Arabic doesnt denote sexual intercourse, on the part of that humble man in his late 50s who had in addition to balance his household duties with his extraordinary responsibilities as a spiritual leader and statesman. Some of his male companions might have assumed so, but it did not have to be the case. And to further corroborate that the prophet, despite visiting all his wives, would only have intercourse with the one whose turn had arrived

"Narrated ‘Urwah: ‘A’ishah said: “O nephew! The Messenger of Allah would not prefer any one of us to another with regards to spending time with us. Hardly a day would go by without him visiting all of us. He would come close to each woman, without touching her, until he reached the one whose turn it was, then he would spend the night with her".

The flexibility of the law as regards the division of time is of course not speaking of the sustenance and rightful material needs of every wife. In this area, the prophet had to divide his resources among every household, in addition to the financial burden of taking care of the indebted of the community and the incessant guests who would be received at all moments. He is known to have been left with very little to spend on himself and his wives, leading to them often complaining about the relative ease in which other companion's wives were living. And this at a time where the community had grown more prosperous in Medina, an ease which was not reflected in the prophet's household 

33:28-9"say to your wives: If you desire this world´s life and its adornment, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing".  

The prophet thus, despite being absolved from strict obligations towards his multiple wives would nevertheless feel saddened whenever he delayed his appointed time with one of his wives

33:51"You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you".

This ordinance made sure that no reproach would be cast upon him, and neither would he be hindered by social pressures or customs. 

So although he had the peace of mind from a spiritual viewpoint that he would never be blameworthy, he still felt uneasy emotionally towards his wives whom he loved. And he did his utmost to spend as much time as he could with them all equitably. Aisha would say to him 

"If I could deny you the permission (to go to your other wives) I would not allow your favor to be bestowed on any other person". 

This statement from the prophet's youngest wife, and thus logically the most physically attractive in comparison to his other wives, shows the prophet tried as best as he could not to favor one wife over another based on his personal preference. There is an instance where he refused letting Aisha replace another wife on a day that wasnt hers 

"O Aisha, keep away from me, it is not your day".

 The prophet maintained as best he could that considerate pattern of behavior throughout his life, as narrated by Aisha:

 "When the ailment of the Prophet became aggravated and his disease became severe, he asked his wives to permit him to be nursed (treated) in my house. So they gave him the permission. Then the Prophet came (to my house) with the support of two men, and his legs were dragging on the ground, between `Abbas, and another man". 

Besides absolving the prophet, the ordinance also put all the wives and potential concubines on the same level as it concerned them all from God's perspective. Through it, they find the inner peace that the emotional sacrifice they shall endure, and which they all were fully aware of before accepting to marry the prophet, is for the accomplishment of a higher objective.

Their merit with God will naturally be higher given their worldly sacrifices

"this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased, all of them with what you give them".

The verse ends with an affectionate message to the prophet's household in general, stressing that God is aware of the difficulties in all levels of life that they must endure, and their toll on their feelings

"and Allah knows what is in your hearts; and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing."

Aisha is indirectly described as expressing her initial frustration and spousal jealousy, when she supposedly stated in relation to 33:51 that

“I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires".

It is remarkable that the prophet would always abide by the restrictions divinely imposed on him but not the relaxations, as described above. In Sura Ahzab, around the verse quoted in the hadith, there are seven rules about marriage peculiar to the Prophet. Four of these granted him relaxations and three put restrictions. The Prophet certainly abided by the restrictions, but yet, for someone whose "Lord hastens his desires" he did not opt to benefit from two of the relaxations.

Had the idea of ‘convenient revelations’ any basis in that report from Aisha as claimed by Islam's opponents, to start with, there wouldnt have been any restrictions on the Prophet neither in this sura or other suras, to the exclusion of the rest of the believers. And neither would he have failed to take benefit of every relaxation, without having any guilty conscience as he just happened to have.

It is further worthy to note that, in those relaxations pertaining to marital affairs described in 33:50-1, the prophet is a passive agent; it is the women that are given the option of seeking him in marriage, not the other way around. The bottom line is that, whichever one looks at it, nothing in the pattern of the life of the prophet supports the malicious charges against him. 

As a side note about the issue of jealousy, as noted by the earliest scholars the jealousy – of either husband or a co-wife, when it does not lead to transgression either by words or by actions, is not blameworthy.

Acts17apologetics denounce prophetic inappropriateness; Scrubbing semen from clothes?

In answer to the video "Fun Islamic Facts n°15"

The purification of the garments 74:4 is a pre-requisite of religious rituals. Just as the ablutions/wudu', it contains an element of symbolism as seen with the classical Arabic metaphor of garment purity being equal with moral uprightness, as well as encourages rectitude. Beyond this symbolism, purification of the garments encourages general rectitude. A neat and clean, as well as pure appearance helps one to remain mentally uplifted everyday, and gives the correct introduction of one's personality to others.

This is a reason why, as a side note, the prophet is reported to have avoided both in his private and religious life, foul smelling foods and used to perfume himself on all occasions, always seeking to be presentable so as to not offend neither the humans nor the angels, especially in a religious gathering context

7:31"O children of Adam, take your adornment at every place of prayer. Eat and drink, but not to excess. Verily, He does not love those who commit excess".

There is no need however to over exert oneself and be obsessed with the cleanness of one's clothes prior to engaging in the prayer ritual. A case in point is the following, and there is no shame in speaking of it.

People do not always undress entirely naked during sexual intercourse. His wife Aisha said 

"I never saw the Messenger of Allah’s (Allah bless him & give him peace) private parts”. 

Naturally then, it might happen that visible traces of sexual fluids remain on one's clothes, especially if those clothes are wide and ample as is the case in many cultures. Someone asked Umm Habibah, the wife of the Prophet: 

"Did the Messenger of Allah ever offered prayer in a garment in which he had sexual intercourse?" She said: "Yes, if there was nothing noxious on it". 

So even though one must perform a ritual bath prior to prayer in that case, one's clothes do not need to be entirely washed because of a few traces. The removal of these visible impurities is enough to purify the clothes again.

This happened to the prophet, as it must have happened to countless prophets and regular people before, and after him. The prophet was a saint, but remained entirely human, living in according to what he thought was the most suited behavior of his time and space, so long as it did not contravene the principles of higher morality and pragmatism.

Unfortunately nothing survived of the prophets Moses, David or Solomon's standards of behavior in similar circumstances for comparison.

Acts17apologetics see a scientific error; Quran places semen formation in backbone?

In answer to the video "Allah Explains Semen Production! (Fun Islamic Fact #16)"

Although revealed in an environement where poetry and oratory speeches were loaded with explicitly lustful and indecent language and allusions, the Quran never departs from its pattern of using respectable language and concepts. This is particularily made clear in sura Yusuf, the "best of stories", when detailing the mistress' attempted seduction of Yusuf. The Quran beautifully combines in that context, precision in expression with a dignified vocabulary, and despite the fact that it talks about lust, utilizes the principles of piety, morals and respect without being paralysed in the process.

When the Quran addresses the themes of sex or sexual organs, its eloquence necessitates that it does not directly speak of testicles, penis or vagina. This is an established Quranic pattern accross several topics. Contrary to the Bible with its known rude language and unsophisticated imageries, as is amply found in modern pop culture, news, and magazines, the Quran seeks not to flood the imagination with crude details so as to not trivialize certain themes.

There are ample examples, such as 2:222 where it refers to sexual intercourse by using the imagery of the farmer cultivating his tilth with tenderness and deep consideration aforehand, or as "touching" the mate 2:236,237,4:43,5:6,33:49etc. The word for 'touching' is laamastum from the root L-M-S that means skin feeling an object interactively. It is used to mean mainly sex, or at least some form of foreplay.

Other terminologies used in the Quran to refer to sexual intercourse is "covering" the mate 7:189 or in the context of refraining from sex it says "guarding the private parts" 23:5,33:35. In some instances where the Quran refers to women's sexual organs it literaly speaks of

60:12"what lies between their legs and hands"

among other apellations. Now we come to the passage in question which is of interest to this youtuber. 86:5-7 speaks of the fluid

"coming out".

It doesnt speak of origin or formation, but exiting. All people know from where seminal fluid exits from. The determination of the location where the fluid is formed is irrelevant to the point of the verse. The verse speaks of man's humble and simple origins despite him growing into a highly complex creature, and how he will inevitably be humbled once again to simple elements then recreated and brought forth to render account. The rejecters of resurrection saw it as a far fetched thing, an impossibility for a human being to be grown back after its death, decay, and return to the earth.

So instead of telling these arrogant people, who see their current state as a highly complex entity impossible to re-create, that they were once a simple fluid that exited from their father's penises, it says they exited

"from between the sulb and the taraaib".

Sulb stems from S-L-B, implying strength, hardness, firmness, uprightness. Words like the backbone or the saleeb/crucifix, because of standing firmly upright, are derived from it.

Taraaib stems from T-R-B, implying some sort of resemblence, uniformity, harmony, symetry. It is used for example for turab/soil or dust, because dust grains are resembling and corresponding.

Elsewhere it denotes how the mates of paradise match oneanother in many aspects 56:37,78:33 and it can similarily describe how certain body parts like the eyes, the hands, the legs, or the ribs etc. are matching. The statement

"exiting from between the sulb/backbone and the taraaib/legs or ribs"

refers to man's sexual organ just like

"what lies between their legs and hands"

subtely alludes to women's sexual parts. Any other propostition would suggest the people back in 7th century Arabia, or whomever the sceptics allege wrote the Quran, were ignorant of the function of testicles. This of course is an untenable assertion. For example, they used to practice castration on animals, and knew of the existence of eunuchs.An equally valid interpretation as noted by the early tafasirs, including Makki ibn abi Talib, al Mahdawi or ibn Atiya, is that yakhruju/exiting may refer to the human being spoken of earlier. This is valid both linguistically and biologically, as the womb is located between the backbone and ribs of the woman. Between, as a side note, does not entail "middle".

Acts17apologetics are vexed; Quran calls Christians polytheists?

In answer to the video "Quran Contradictions: Are Christians Polytheists? (Anthony Rogers)"

No it doesnt, Muslim may even intermarry with Jews and Christians, contrary to Idolaters. In Islam, spirituality is the prime quality of selection for marriage. Fornicators are therfore forbidden to marry other members of the Muslim comunity, just like the idolaters with whom intermariages are prohibited 2:221. The Bible reflects that notion too in Deut7:3,Ezra9:13,2Cor6:14. The Torah further teaches that if a Jewish man marries a gentile woman, he must divorce her, send her away, and send the children who resulted from this illegal union as well.

Spiritual affinity is an important factor to consider in human ties, especially marital ties, since in the Quran, marriage is a source of serenity on all levels

30:21"And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion".

Faith should be the first criteria of selection

25:77,34:7,49:13"Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is he who is the most righteous of you".

Because they are not distant from Muslims spiritually, as opposed to idolaters, the Quran has allowed intermariages with the people of the book 5:5. But it also delivers a stern warning to guard the principles of faith very cautiously against the influence of a non-Muslim wife. There is complete silence as to whether a Muslim woman is allowed to mary a man from the people of the book, this cannot be taken as a prohibition since the Quran has explicitly denied other intermarriages, such as with idolaters. This silence could be due to the fact that in the Muslim society, let alone society worldwide, it is the man that asks for a woman's hand and the Quran in this verse is addressing Muslim men 2:221.

Shirk, meaning partnering or more specifically in religion, the act of giving to an entity or concept besides God or along with Him, any independant attribute, authority, power that otherwise belongs to God alone, is a sin that can vary in severity. The Quran attributes this sin to Muslims and non-Muslims alike 12:106,16:100,41:6-7.  However the appellation mushrikin, which denotes a persistent, willful behaviour, open acknowledgment of associating separate deities to God, is never used to define any of them, Muslims or people of the book. Only those guilty of the highest degree of shirk, knowingly and openly attributing divinity to entities other than the One God, and treating them as separate deities, are called mushrikin. This isnt the case of Trinitarians, the majority sect among Christians who, although technically accused of associating with Allah 5:72,9:30, view themselves as monotheists. Their shirk is not based on conscious intent, but rather flows from their "overstepping the bounds of truth" in their veneration of Jesus 4:171,5:77 and so the Quran uses a subtle device to separate between declared adherents to polytheism (the Idolaters of Arabia) and those who were adverse to polytheism yet had become involved in it. It refers to the polytheistic practices of the People of the Book with a verb; never are they referred to in the form of an adjective, ie mushrikin, which, as said earlier, denotes a wilful mindframe.

Again, that appellation is a particular Quranic terminology and we should look at the Quran to know who is called a mushrik. The Quran does not use this term for the Jews or the Christians. Instead it invented for them the term "people of the book" and clearly seperates between the two

5:82,22:17,98:1"Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the mushrikin.."

In the times of the prophet Muhammad, when a Christian delegation came to him from Najran to inquire of his message, they were received at his mosque, where they prayed and resided. In 3:64 it tells them to

"come to a word that is just between us and you"

with this commonality being

"that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah"

meaning that they openly declare the correct tawhid and yet cannot perceive that they corrupt it in several ways, which the Quran came to correct and reform.

Some have argued that the people of the book stand excluded from the marriage law in 5:5 based on 60:10 saying Muslims may not remain married to those guilty of kufr and verses such as 9:28-33,5:17 and others qualify the people of the book as kuffar. However, the term in the Quranic language carries a wide range of understanding, from "non believer" to "active enemy of Allah" to "non adherer to the law of Allah, although not necessarily out of the fold of Islam" as in

5:47"And whoever does not judge by what Allah brought down, then those are the kafirun".

Words with wide ranges of meaning are understood, in Arabic as in any language, in their proper context. When read in context, the kuffar of 60:10 are the polytheists with whom marriage is forbidden, not the people of the book. This verse is universally known as having been revealed in a specific context, that of the treaty of Hudaybiya which involved Muslims and pagans. This is the typical error of those trying to approach the Islamic texts hastily, in their bid to draw their quick conclusions.

The exegisis of every verse in the Quran isnt done in a vacuum, but must firstly correlate with other verses on the same topic elsewhere in the Book, then must agree with the multifaceted subtlties of the Arabic language, and finally with the vast corpus of historical and prophetic traditions. 

All these areas fly far above the head of the likes of this youtuber.

Acts17apologetics get real; 5:116 not about the trinity?

In answer to the video "Quran Contradictions: Are Christians Polytheists? (Anthony Rogers)"

The verse 5:116 is not concerned with warning Christians against the Trinity.

5:116 is a warning against shirk, with the veneration of Mary and Jesus specifically being a very big part of the roman and orthodox variants of Christianity. Both personalities are particularly tied up together in Catholic prayers as the most significant means of salvation and the Quran's mention of them together as objects of worship besides Allah is very appropriate from that perspective.

The Trinity and other deviations that Jesus' followers and their descendants fell prey to are mentioned elsewhere in the Quran. Trinity is specifically denounced in 4:171 that says to Christians not to say "three" when speaking of Allah's nature, Allah is One. In this "trinity context", the verse mentions Mary's name twice without saying anything about her being a deity according to that doctrine, while it strongly refutes Jesus' deity who is believed to be part of it. He is Allah's messenger, born of a woman, having a ruh/soul created by Allah ie a human being like any other.

5:72-75 refutes another aspect of the trinitarian doctrine and starts by only mentioning Jesus' divinity in the context of the trinity. No other personality is described as divine. It denies Jesus' divinity by saying that he was a mortal, along with his mother who ate food like any mortal despite her exalted status. The implicit meaning is that; how then can God be born of a mortal woman whose essence is the opposite of Him? The whole set of verses 5:72-75 is centred around Jesus' divinity only so when his mother's humanity is emphasized, it is pointing to the absurdity of ascribing divinity to her son. This criticism, the necessity for mother and child to be of the same essence is highly appropriate in unveiling the true colors of the various Catholic Marian doctrines. Mary being the theotokos/deipara/mother of God means that she must be of the same essence as the child in her womb. Motherhood implies conception. Trinitarians are aware of that difficulty and so, just as their other doctrines compel them to do, they engage in sophistry 

(Council of Ephesus 431CE)"Mother of God, not that the nature of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the Word is said to be born according to the flesh" 

Such a convoluted explanation and ad hoc concepts attests to the Church authorities' unease resulting from their theologies. 

The same goes for other excesses directly resulting from Mary being the "mother of God", including her being the Queen of Heaven and Earth, (Pius IX), Queen and Ruler of the Universe (Leo XIII) and Queen of the World (Pius XII). Although they were toned down by successive authorities so as to avoid any "misunderstandings", these titles are still in use by Catholics. Mary is supposed to reflect in heaven the role of the king messiah's queen mother on earth, including holding an official position in the royal court, in which she shared in her son’s reign and served as an advocate for the people and a counselor for her son. No matter the euphemisms and sophistries, these titles and descriptions assign an intrinsic authoritative role to Mary in the "divine kingdom" together with the triune God. She is fully part of the process of salvation, inseparable from the divine son. Without her heavenly acceptance, nobody can access her son; she is in fact a divine doorkeeper.

Saying that Christians take Jesus and Mary as gods besides Allah, and saying that Allah is 'third of three' are not 2 mutually exclusive statements if taken exactly as they are; 2 warnings to 2 different kinds of shirk Christians are guilty of. A discrepancy starts appearing only if a passage not concerned with the trinity doctrine is read with that concept in mind, as is most often the case when the critics of Islam approach the text.

Allah being third among three distinct entities, as stated in 5:73, is found in the NT. In 1Cor8:6 God is equated with the father, one of three personalities in the trinitarian godhead. Note here that it doesnt say Allah is the third fraction of a whole/thuluth, but a third of 3. So to a trinitarian reading 1Cor8:6, God is a third of 3 distinct entities. Neither does it place Allah in a hierarchy among three. Thalith, as already noted means A third in the sense of one of three, not AL thalith or THE third in a hierarchical sense. Trinitarians perceive God the Father as the first person of their godhead. Had the verse negated Allah being alawwal/the first of three, its argument would have remained incomplete, opening the possibility that Allah might be the second or the third in a triune godhead. Through its linguistic precision, the Quran negates the overall concept of Allah being a third among three, regardless of whether He is thought to be the first, the second or the third.

Further 5:72-75 doesn't say Mary is one of the 3. It doesnt even say Jesus is one of the 3 as the emphasis is not on who else is in the 3, but whether Allah is 1 of 3. 

Islam is not concerned in precisely defining Christian terminologies, which were different throughout time and geography, but to negate the concept of Allah being one among other divine entities altogether. Thus we find commentators of the Quran applying different Christian beliefs to that general statement. Mujahid for example said in relation to 5:73 that among the various competing beliefs is that the Father, the Son and the Word is one of those, while al Suddi saw in 5:73 a condemnation of taking Allah, Jesus and Mary as 3 gods. Christian objections that the Quran doesnt accurately depict their beliefs is the same as saying that the Quran doesnt describe confusion accurately. To even attempt to explain confused concepts results in more confusion and thus the best course of action is to point to the general idea out of which stems that confusion, then clarify it. One can also point to certain necessary implications of that confusion which point to the overall falsehood of the system. The Quran does both things. It is further hypocritical from Christians to raise that objection when their scholars are still trying to "refine" their terminologies in light of never ending logical, philosophical and scriptural difficulties.

Mary being a sadiqa/truthful woman in this verse is simply a quality stressed about her throughout the Quran and is not meant to refute her supposed divinity, and neither her son's, but meant at refuting those who doubted that pious woman's chastity and truthfulness, putting in question the miracle of the virgin birth. The Quran has quoted their accusations in sura Maryam and this is why Allah has stamped her here and elsewhere with words evoking her truthfulness, piety, submission to the Almighty.

The Quran doesnt define Trinity in details but in fact neither does so the Bible. What transpires at most from NT writings is a form of henoteism, a hierarchy of divine beings, with the Father on top, and then the subordinate divine son of God.

There is a reason why one finds that Trinitarianism's adherents, for the vast majority, are unable to properly formulate the identity of their God, even though they might be church-goers, Bible readers, and aware of the creed of their Church fathers. Defining that doctrine isn't important to the point the Quran is making. The position of the Quran simply is that any concept that puts up partners to God in worship and authority, any conjecture regarding the divine unity and singularity is an affront against the most basic notion of monotheism. 

The specific worship of the holyghost, which is an extreme rarity and almost nonexistant in all of Christianity is therefore omitted. The Quran has already made its point clear by rejecting the major concepts of Christian doctrine, like the worship of Mary and Jesus 5:116, the speculations on God's triune nature 4:171, or whether He is one of three distinct entities worthy of worship 5:72-75.

The trinity concept is one that developed through several councils and debates, wars and persecutions that gradually fashioned Christianity the way it is today. This why the Quran accuses Christians of taking one another and more specifically their religious leaders for lords besides/min doon Allah 3:64,9:31. Since Christianity's earliest days, church fathers, bishops and other saints were seen as divinely inspired so much so that their word was equalled to the word of God. Ignatius demanded of Christians that 

"we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself". 

Similarly the Syriac Didascalia attributes divine honor to the bishop because

"he sits for you in the place of God almighty".

Perhaps there exists no better example than that of saint Paul who, through divine inspiration, completely falsified Jesus' teachings and clear instructions.

As a final note regarding the charge of the Quran supposedly misrepresenting the trinitarian doctrine in 5:116, when the Quran speaks of deifying the religious leaders, and Jesus besides Allah, nobody in his right mind would suggest that it is misrepresenting the trinity because it mentions 2 worshipped entities besides God in one sentence. This exposes the shallowness of Islam's early critics among the orientalists who tried claiming that the Quran falsely represents that concept in 5:116.

This raising of their religious leaders as having divine authority, is yet another aspect of Christian transgression, in terms of partnering with God and compromising the divine unity. Followers of all religions easily fall into that sort of transgression, including Muslims when they give divine authority to that which God never sanctioned through His messengers 42:21. This type of shirk is so pervasive, prioritizing anything abstract or concrete over Allah, within humanity, that some islamic narrations have likened its stealth to the movement of an ant on a black stone at night.