Acts17apologetics find the firm Quran; the criterion of indiscriminate justice?

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

The Quran is indiscriminate in its criticism of those that neglect the divine revelations. It accuses Muslims of holding deep hypocritical belief 2:8-11,4:60-2. They agree that all revelations have brought the truth from God but nevertheless

"seek to rule by the taghut/bad rule".

Whenever evil befalls them on account of their distortions, they justify their mishandling the law with concepts alien and in opposition to the Quran, that they were but "peace-makers" seeking to create "good and harmony". These Muslims, like their predecessors among the people of the book, are no true believers unless they surrender their judgement entirely and full heartedly to God's justice and wisdom 4:65. Any other type of reasoning stemming from a non divine source results in falsehood

4:105"Surely We have revealed the Book to you with the truth that you may judge between people by means of that which Allah has taught you".

Acting contrary to God's instructions is bound to cause failure, first and foremost to the person itself, whether in this world or the next. It is a vain and erroneous pursuit as equally stated in the Hebrew Bible 1Samm12:20-21. That is why the Quran often describes the sinners as

"people who commit injustice against their own selves".

I will now address the hadith brought up by this youtuber.

As shown earlier the notion of upholding equity and justice at all costs 4:58 and never knowingly siding with the guilty 4:105-7 was reflected in the orders given to the prophet, to judge equitably between all people approaching him be it from the Muslim munafiqeen (hypocrites) or the people of the book. This is because in Islam good and evil are absolute values. They don’t depend on who does them or who these are done to. Human values apply to all humans, not only to Muslims. The Quran itself enforces that principle, as in the aforementioned verses, or in its examples of relatives of illustrious people who will be judged impartially for their deeds. The prophet himself told his daughter

"O! Fatima, don’t think that you will be favored by Allah because you are the daughter of His Messenger. You will stand before your Creator on the basis of your own deeds".

Members of the Jewish community were sent to the prophet Muhammad, by their religious authorities, with a hidden agenda, trying to settle grave disputes in matters heavily punishable in the light of the Torah. This was just another of their ploys to avoid its harsh laws, hoping that the prophet might have a different ruling

"they alter the words from their places, saying: If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious".

This compromising, complacent attitude is a deeply ingrained transgression they have been committing ever since the law was bestowed upon them and throughout their history, despite the scolding of the prophets and the few righteous remnants among them whom the Quran mentions and praises

7:169-170"Then there came after them an evil posterity who inherited the Book, taking only the frail good of this low life and saying: It will be forgiven us. And if the like good came to them, they would take it (too). Was not a promise taken from them in the Book that they would not speak anything about Allah but the truth, and they have read what is in it; and the abode of the hereafter is better for those who guard (against evil). Do you not then understand? And as for those who hold fast by the Book and keep up prayer, surely We do not waste the reward of the righteous" 

Virtually all prophets that came to them decried the corruption of their elite, their neglect towards their own justice system. Yet the prophet was not under any obligation to judge their matters when their intent was to use him as a pawn for their low desires 5:41-43. The prophet was nevertheless commanded to judge between them with equity should he decide so, notwithstanding their severe enmity towards him and the fact they were always plotting with the enemies of Islam with the hope of uprooting and exterminating it. 

One famous incident is that of 

"A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess". 

According to another version, when the Torah was brought to the prophet who was now seeking to expose the innovations of the rabbis in the specific matter of punishment for adultery, he first respectfully put it on a cushion then said 

"I believed in you and in Him Who revealed you". 

 A holistic understand of both the hadith corpus and the Quran demonstrates that this statement of the prophet is not to be taken in the absolute sense. When in Medina he noticed that Jews would come and read the Torah and explain it to the Muslims, he advised them to adopt a neutral stance, neither believing nor disbelieving in it 

"Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' " 

This is because the scriptures of the Jews are an amalgam of truth and falsehood, the truthful parts being covered by the statement "whatever is revealed to you". Ibn Abbas would reprimand the Muslims who would seek information from the people of the book in religious matters, on the basis that

 "Allah has told you that the people of the scripture changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything?" 

The Quran, the prophet, the companions therefore all advise caution when approaching the previous scriptures, as they contain both truth, which the prophet confirmed and revered in the aforementioned statements, and falsehood.

The prophet then proceeded with exposing the learned ones by making them read by themselves the truthful part of the Torah which they had been hiding 

"Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning". 

This hadith depicting the prophet's reverence for the Torah should this be understood in light of other ahadith, as well as the many Quran passages stating that the Torah isnt absolutely corrupt, that despite the manipulations it still contains remnants of truth, hence the Quran being its guardian/muhaymin. The prophet declared his belief not in the entire Torah, but in the specific ruling on the punishment for adultery, and which Ibn Salam, the Jewish convert to Islam instantly recognized as the "divine verse".

It is this corruption in the absolute sense, which some scholars might have been referring to when they said, while commenting on the above report 

"if the Torah was corrupted he would not have placed it on the pillow and he would not have said: I believe in you and in the one who revealed you". 

This is speaking of complete corruption, which is not what the Muslims believe happened to previous scriptures and traditions. 

These scholars also stated that the Torah cannot be corrupted, based on the verse saying God's words cannot be changed 6:115. 

Obviously any worldly copy of the Torah can be altered. But so long as there exists the possibility for the original to be reproduced, God's words remain unaffected, only the copy of these words. 

The Quran is the speech of Allah, and that speech is with Allah, uncreated, eternal, unchanged like any other attribute of His. The analogy of God's speech to the Quran we touch with our hands or recite from our minds, is as God's mercy which manifests in tangible and abstract things. Both types of manifestations are created means through which God's uncreated attributes of speech and mercy are made known to humans. These attributes arent limited to those particular manifestations 

31:27"and If all the trees on the earth were pens, and the sea replenished with seven more seas [were ink], the words of Allah would not be spent". 

God's speech is therefore unexhaustive. It can potentially bring into existence a limitless number of words of revelation, among them the Hebrew Torah of Moses or the Arabic Quran of Muhammad 

14:4"And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly". 

Allah further states about the revelation to Muhammad, that He 

43:3"made it an Arabic Quran". 

The eternal speech of Allah takes on in this world the form that is relevant to the divine purpose. The Arabic Quran was thus not continuously spoken since eternity. It is the manifestation in time of God's eternal attribute of speech. Just like we may say a healthy newborn is the manifestation in time of God's eternal attribute of mercy.

Assuming for argument's sake that all things in the heavens and the earth are destroyed, including all Torahs and Qurans, the mother of the book that contains all revelations, and even the preserved tablet/lawh mahfuz. So long as the potential to generate a true Quran and Torah exists, then Allah's words that were revealed to Moses and Muhammad remain unaffected. As stated earlier, the physical and abstract things in which God's attributes manifest in this world do not exhaust the attributes themselves, neither do these manifestations share the uncreated essence of the attributes they are representing. This is the problem of Trinitarians. Jesus, a created being, is not merely a manifestation of God's word, rather he incarnates it fully, becoming this divine "person" with contradictory attributes Trinitarian thinkers have been struggling to explain for over 2000 years. Christians are quick to try and parallel the notion of uncreatedness of God's speech as manifested in the Quran, with their idea derived from the Gospel of John where God's uncreated word manifested in Jesus. The two concepts, arent comparable.  Further, why would trinitarians even need the Quran to explain the logical and philosophical problems of their theology.

Not a single group within Islam says the Quran was a separate entity floating around next to God since eternity past. This is how some Christians, with their trinitarian worldview, misrepresent the statement that the word of Allah is uncreated. In Christianity, the word is not an attribute but a divine person among others like the father and holy spirit, each with distinct attributes. One man with multiple attributes isnt many men just as One God with multiple attributes isnt many gods. This is tawhid. Yet Trinity says each person is divine but with different attributes, resulting in 3 different gods. The analogy Christians attempt between tawhid and trinity stops at the word of God being eternal. Christians made that word a person with attributes among other distinct persons, while Muslims kept the word as an attribute among others within the essence of the One God. As an aside, since the word or speech of God is not an attribute within the divine essence but a separate divine entity along with 2 others, does it mean that only this divine entity called "word or speech" has the ability to speak and that the other 2 divine entities are mute?

 If God's word is a separate divine entity that became flesh in Jesus, what about the words uttered by Jesus who is now divine? Are his words separate divine entities? Further, if the Torah is God's word, as Jews and Christians believe, does that make it divine as Jesus is? These are the kinds of problems Trinitarians are entangled with due to their conjectures on ambiguous matters, instead of relying on firm statements on God's oneness and unity. Muslims on the other hand, despite the early disputes as to whether the Quran was created or not, never went out of the way to declare the attributes of God, like His word, separate divine entities. No Muslim ever believed God's speech to be a separate conscious part. The reason why this issue is often brought up by Trinitarians is that the Quran is the only book that claims to be Allah's direct speech. The Bible doesnt make that claim. The closest one finds is an anonymous claim made about Jesus being God's word. Muslims on the other hand stick to clear and firm statements of scriptures to define their cardinal beliefs, including that "nothing is like a likeness of Him".

A statement attributed to ibn abbas says 

“No one can corrupt the text by removing any of Allah’s words from his Books, but they corrupted it by misinterpreting it”. 

This is a known defective narration and is not even a commentary on verse 2:79 speaking of textual corruption. It is in reference to the verse about the preserved heavenly tablet, where all the revealed scriptures are inscribed. None can change the words therein but only twist their meaning. In an authentic hadith however, Ibn Abbas said 2:79 was in reference to the people of the book corrupting the words of their scriptures that are in their hands.

Objectively speaking anyone can remove and alter words from any text at any point in time. And if that is done when not enough human and textual witnesses can independently detect that corruption, then it can easily be disseminated and passed off as true. That is what happened during the successive destructions of the Israelite nation, followed by the attempts of their scribes to re-write what was lost.

While agreeing with that opinion, al-Razi said 

"It is impossible to have a conspiracy to change or alter the word of God in all of these copies without missing any copy. Such a conspiracy will not be logical or possible". 

Al-Razi here is talking of a time when previous scriptures, although in their corrupt state (see his commentary on 5:41), were already widely disseminated and could be independently attested by countless witnesses. Nobody could remove Allah's word nor any other man-made word from it then, without being detected. Corruption of the Torah at that point became only possible through misinterpretation.

Similarly, some stated that the Torah cannot be corrupted, based on the verse saying God's words cannot be changed 6:115. Again, any worldly copy of the Torah can be altered. But so long as there exists the possibility for the original to be reproduced, God's words remain unaffected, only the copy of these words. 

Acts17apologetics confirm Jesus' claims; Jewish hypocrisy?

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

The Quran condemns only the people that write the scriptures and manipulate it with their own hands. This is one of the miraculous qualities of the Quran, where it never assaults the Torah or Injeel in the context of corruption, but it lays blame always on the scribes. The Torah and Injeel are revealed by God, and considering the Torah and Injeel are from the same source as the one who revealed the Quran, it is only natural that the Quran never attacks the text per say.

This respect of past scriptures is reflected when the Quran mentions how the Medinite Jews often brought their legal cases in front of the prophet. It is to be noted that these Jews had not become full-fledged subjects of the Islamic state. Their relations with that state were based on agreements according to which the Jews were to enjoy internal autonomy, and their disputes were to be decided by their own judges and in accordance with their own laws. They were not legally bound to place their disputes either before the Prophet for adjudication or before the judges appointed by him.

But in cases where it appeared against their interests to have their disputes judged according to their own religious laws they approached the prophet who was not obligated to arbitrate their matters yet he was commanded to

5:42"judge between them with equity"

should he decide to. This is the prophet's moral rectitude and the Quran's impartial justice, despite these very Jews' open enmity towards the Muslims and their alliances with the pagans in an effort to urpoot Islam. By approaching him, their hope was that he might have a different ruling than what their scriptures stipulated, and they had already adopted this attitude before the Quran by neglecting the rulings of their scriptures and even adopting pagan laws 5:43,45,50.

The Torah contains many harsh laws that were instituted on the Israelites because of their transgressions, and hard heartedness per the Quran, in order to contain them. Jesus in the NT alludes in certain places to this principle Mk10:5.

This hypocrisy of the religious elite and treachery towards their divine revelations which Jesus tried rectifying, is mentionned in the Quran

2:44"do you enjoin men to be good and neglect your own souls while you read the Book; have you then no sense?".

Throughout time and in order to escape these self-imposed heavy burdens, they went on hairsplitting each commandement further. Explicit punishements, such as death sentences were substituted for other punishements of their own inventions. They use (and still do) the excuse that the Temple must be standing for many laws to be applicable. This innovation is easily exposed through the fact that the Temple was never around at the time of Moses' execution of the Israelites found worshiping the calf, the institutions of death sentences for adultery, rebellious children, breaking the Sabath etc.

In Numb11 Moses asked God to spare him the burden of prophethood on such rebellious people. He was so convinced as to their tendency to disobey, that in Deut31:25-29 he swears before heaven and earth they will find a way to corrupt the revelation. Jeremiah condemned the scribes for their mishandling the law Jer8:8. Jeremiah here is accusing the scribes that they mishandled "the law of the LORD" with their lying pens, not with their mouths. He's tellin them how can they claim to have it when they have handled it falsely, meaning that book they have in their hands isnt the original Law but one that has been tampered with. That tampering does not have to be absolute and neither does the verse say so. It speaks of partial corruption of the overall text.

There is a reason why in the 2nd century, the early church father and messianic apologist Justin Martyr, accuses with explicit examples, the Jews of having physically altered passages of the HB, including within the book of Jeremiah, because they found them confusing. In his dialogue with a contemporary Jew named Trypho, Justin first alludes to the disagreement Jews had over the Septuagint Greek translation of the HB. A cursory reading of the text besides the Torah, reveals the Christian agenda of the unknown translators, especially within the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah. Christians in turn accused the Jews of shamelessly obscuring messianic passages in reference to Jesus. Justin tells Trypho;

“I certainly do not trust your teachers when they refuse to admit that the translation of the Scriptures made by the seventy elders at the court of King Ptolemy of Egypt is a correct one, and attempt to make their own translation. You should also know that they have deleted entire passages from the version composed by those elders at the court of Ptolemy, in which it is clearly indicated that the Crucified One was foretold as God and man, and as about to suffer death on the cross. But, since I know that all you Jews deny the authenticity of these passages, I will not start a discussion about them, but I will limit the controversy to those passages which you admit as genuine. Thus far, you have admitted the authenticity of all my quotations, except this, ‘Behold, a virgin will conceive,’ which you claim reads, ‘Behold, a young woman will conceive.’ And I promised to show that this prophecy was not spoken of Hezekiah, as you were taught, but of my Christ. This I now intend to prove.” “Before you do,” interrupted Trypho, “we would like you to quote some of the passages you claim were entirely omitted [from the elders” translation] “Since you asked,” I replied, “here is an example. They have deleted the following passage in which Ezra expounded the law of the Passover: ‘And Ezra said to the people: This Passover is our Savior and refuge. And if you have understood, and it has entered into your hearts, that we are about to humiliate Him on a cross, and afterwards hope in Him, then this place will never be forsaken, saith the Lord of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, nor listen to His teaching, you will be the laughing-stock of the Gentiles’. They have also expunged these words from Jeremiah: ‘I was as a meek lamb that is carried to be a sacrificial victim; they devised counsels against Me, saying: Come, let us put wood on His bread, and cut Him off from the land of the living, and let His name be remembered no more’ [Jer 11.19]. Since this passage from the words of Jeremiah is still found in some copies of Scripture in the Jewish synagogues (for it was deleted only a short time ago), and since it is also proved from these words that the Jews planned to crucify Christ Himself and to slay Him, and since He is shown, as was likewise prophesied by Isaiah, as led like a lamb to slaughter, and in accordance with this passage He is marked as ‘an innocent lamb,’ they are so confused by such words that they resort to blasphemy. Similarly have they removed the following words from the writings of the same Jeremiah: ‘The Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, remembered His dead who slept in their graves, and He descended to preach to them His salvation’ “Furthermore, from a verse of the ninety-fifth Psalm of David they have left out the short phrase, ‘from the tree.’ For they have changed the verse, ‘Say to the Gentiles: The Lord has reigned from the tree,’ to ‘Say to the Gentiles: The Lord has reigned’ [Ps 95.10]. [2] Now, no one of your people was ever said to have reigned as God and King over the Gentiles, except the Crucified One, who (as the Holy Spirit testifies in the same Psalm) was freed from death by His resurrection, and thus showed that He is not like gods of the Gentiles, for they are but the idols of demons. [3] To clarify this point, I will repeat the whole Psalm for you....“Only God knows,” remarked Trypho, “whether or not our leaders have deleted portions of the Scriptures as you say. But such an assertion seems incredible.”

What this passage of Jer8:8 establishes beyond doubt, is that there was at least some physically corrupted writings passed off as the real Torah, and Jeremiah exposed the authors of these documents. Elsewhere Jeremiah laments over the false prophets among them's oral misinterpretation of the Law

Jer23:9-36"They use their tongues and say, "He Says".

What transpires from Jeremiah's repeated condemnations is that the Jews of his time and most probably before, mishandled both textually and orally the writings of the prophets. Some of these corrupted writings and their authors were exposed, thankfully to the prophets that were continuously sent among them in an almost uninterrupted manner, and the presence of righteous remnants among them, that kept the Torah. But this is far from solving the problem. Jeremiah appeals to the uncorrupted text available to them, urging them to abide by it despite and they majoritarily resist his calls, trying even to kill him Jer26.

The greater implication here is that when crimes are exposed at an advanced stage, that it is found out it is done on a large scale, even institutionalized as is the case with the corrupt scholars in the time of Jeremiah, it often means one is only dealing with the tip of the iceberg. No sooner would Jeremiah turn his back, or pass away, the criminals would continue doing what they did before and during his presence among them.

As reflected by Moses when he predicted their future disobedience

Deut31:27"If you have been rebellious against the Lord while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebel after I die!"

To further corroborate the corrupt leaders went as far as burning Jeremiah's scroll Jer36:23, and even though it was divinely re-writen later Jer36:27-32, something the text never says reoccured in Biblical history, it reveals the complete careless attitude of the comunity's most prominent figures towards sacred texts. There is a reason why Jeremiah says in Jer7:21 that even though God had spoken to them, they

"went backward and not forward".

This shows their constant tendency to leave the right path. One cannot but question, how long would the fringe righteous remnants resist and be able to maintain the integrity of the inherited written and oral tradition in such a heavily corrupt environement? About 600 years later and after prophethood ceased for 400 years, meaning a very long period where these deceitful leaders and supposed maintainers of the scriptures were left on their own, Jesus rose and echoed Jeremiah's lamentations, probably in a harsher tone than any of their prophets. How could the Torah and the oral tradition be rightfully preserved when those very ones supposed to keep it and faithfully transmit it were rotten spiritually, like a tomb

Matt23"full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean"?

After Jeremiah, who exposed the tip of the iceberg of corruption, and especially after 400 years where prophethood was interrupted up till Jesus' time, the scriptures in the hands of the Jews were only Torah and book of the prophets by name, not by contents. Although there still remained guidance and truth in these books, one cannot legitimately say their integrity was safeguarded.                                                                                                      
               
That attitude, disregard and hypocrisy of the divine law, as shown above, went on even down to the time of the prophet Muhammad. The Quran itself says Muhammad is not under any obligation to judge their matters, especially after it has exposed their hypocrisy, and their attempts to use him as a pawn for their own whims and desires 5:42. The Quran refers to how they come to Muhammad to settle their own disputes, yet they possess the Torah, the very Book they proclaim to adhere to and say is from God

5:43"And how do they make you a judge and they have the Taurat wherein is Allah's judgment? Yet they turn back after that, and these are not the believers"

or

3:187"And when Allah made a covenant with those who were given the Book: "You shall certainly make it known to men and you shall not hide it"; but they cast it behind their backs and took a small price for it; so evil is that which they buy".

That hypocrisy and disregard for the revealed law was repeatedly exposed and condemned by the Hebrew prophets, as Jeremiah quoted earlier, or the likes of Nehemiah in an almost identical wording as is done throughout the Quran

Neh9:26"And they disobeyed and rebelled against You, and they cast Your Law behind their backs, and they slew Your prophets who warned them, to bring them back to You, and they committed great provocations".

This neglect of their own justice system is a deeply ingrained habit of theirs, going back to the times of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and others who repeatedly condemned this attitude of the corrupt elite. Here are the words of the prophet Amos

"They sell the innocent for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads of the poor as on the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed...Those who turn justice to wormwood, and who leave righteousness on the ground...For I know that your transgressions are many, and your sins are mighty; you who oppress the just, taking ransom, and turning aside the needy in the gate"

or Micah

"The prince asks, and the judge is in the payment, and the great man speaks what is in his heart-and they weave the web".

Acts17apologetics seeks hadith confirmation; Muhammad declares belief in current Torah?

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

Here this youtuber attempts to misrepresent how the Quran views past scriptures. He then grossly misinterprets a historic incident involving Jewish adulters approaching the prophet for arbitration.

The discontinuation of the line of prophethood is among the reasons that necessitated the protection of the final revelation to mankind, a revelation containing all previous books 98:2-3 as here reflected in the declaration of faith

2:177"believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets".  

3:23,5:44,4:44,51"Have you not considered those to whom a portion of the Book has been given? They buy error and desire that you should go astray from the way".

This indicates that the Torah and Injil were not the final words of God, but portions of one Book 6:156, sent throughout time upon several individuals 6:84-90, and all are part of one Book called the Mother of the Book/umm al kitab which the Quran is also part of

43:4,13:39,2:236"and remember Allah's favour to you, and that which He has revealed to you of the Book".

The previous revelations forecasted the final revelation in the form of the Quran 4:47. This draws attention to an important truth: all the revealed scriptures contain the same spiritual and moral principles. They cannot contradict eachother and their only differences reside in that they were made to conform to the language of the addressees

26:192-6"And most surely this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. The Faithful Spirit has descended with it, Upon your heart that you may be of the warners, In plain Arabic language. And most surely the same is in the scriptures of the ancients".

The Quran then verifies the truth of these divine portions of the one Book and offers a clear global explanation of it

10:37,20:133"Has not there come to them a clear evidence of what is in the previous books?".

This is why it is said to be the Guardian and Arbitrer/Muhaymin and a clear explanation of THE Book (singular) of which past scriptures including the Quran are part of 5:48-9,10:37. This single scripture containing all past revelations as well as the Quran is said to be highly secure, purified and preserved, exalted and honored, inaccessible to evil interference and only between the hands of the most honourable custodians 26:193,56:77-80,80:13-16,81:19-21,88:22. It has been engraved in the lawh mahfuz/the preserved tablet 85:21-2, hence it being referred to in the opening verses of sura baqara as it is dhaalika al kitab/that book or writing, denoting distance through the pronoun, because its katb/writing is done in a far heavenly place.

In contrast the Quran speaks of this/hadha al Quran denoting closeness because its recitation is being done in this world. Another instance of the Quran's surgical use of words. The Quran, being from the same God and containing the same basic wisdom and truths of ancient scriptures 6:91,26:196,29:46 speaks highly about the Torah and Injeel. They are referred to as sources of mercy, wisdom, guidance and light 5:43,44,46,7:154,11:17,28:43,46:12 as well as criterions of truth and falsehood (furqan) clarifying all things 2:53,21:48,28:43,37:117.

It even cites them sometimes as sources of guidance hand in hand with the Quran 28:48-9. Because again, they are never said to be totally corrupted. Read with the knowledge of the Quran, whose function is to be the muhaymin/protector and arbitrer, one can discern the guiding parts of previous oral and written traditions from the portion that were corrupted, either purposefully or through neglect.

In 46:12 it says the Torah came prior to the Quran, as a guide and mercy. It is this guiding and merciful aspect of the Torah that the statement musaddiqan/declaring true, refers to, not simply the Torah. It doesnt say declaring "it" true. This is seen by the rest of the verse, paralelling the guidance and mercy of the Torah with the Quran being a warner and giver of glad tidings. Again we see, the Quran only confirms the truthful aspects of past oral and written traditions, which the Quran never claims were entirely blotted out.

This restricted aspect of the Quran's confirmation of the Torah is made clear in 6:154-7. The passage starts again with a praise of the Torah as being a book of mercy and guidance, followed by a parallel statement about the Quran, echoing stricly the merciful and guiding aspect of the Torah

"And this is a Book We have revealed, blessed; therefore follow it and be God-conscious that mercy may be shown to you".

The Torah contains many things that are neither guiding, nor sources of mercy, and other things that erroneous or even outright blasphemous about God and His prophets. The Quran does not confirm these things, and sometimes openly rejects them.

Acts17apologetics encourage Quranic Zionism; Islam endorses Jewish promised land?

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

In a clear prophecy of Muslim domination and rule over the Holy Land of Mecca, Allah declares in no uncertain terms that He will make the righteous, successors in the land, and establish them as a nation. This was done with previous nations before, including the Israelites. But if these Muslims do not show gratefulness and keep their duty towards God, they will be dealt with as transgressors and will be uprooted 6:165,24:55. This is because God's favor upon a people is by virtue of righteousness and as a test of faith

8:34"And what (excuse) have they that Allah should not chastise them while they hinder (men) from the Sacred Mosque and they are not (fit to be) guardians of it; its guardians are only those who guard (against evil), but most of them do not know". 

The Quran reminds the Israelites of one their painful periods of humiliation and bondage under the Egyptians, followed by their freedom, the destruction of their oppressors and them being made to inherit all of the good things their oppressors deprived them from for centuries, including their lands 7:137,26:57-9. The Pharao of the Quran, although unnamed, clearly points to him being RamessesII, who controlled vast regions in the area, including the land of Canaan upon which he exerted a particularly tight grip. His dominion was completely taken away and given as inheritence to the Israelites. They could have theoretically chosen to dwell anywhere in that vast kingdom but have understandingly been directed to an area away from where they had been enslaved, in order to start afresh, and in order to fulfill the promise made to their forefathers of settling them in Canaan.

A warning is issued together with that remembrance, stressing that God's favor could be taken away from them at anytime

7:129"then He will see how you act"

just as He uprooted nations in the past and raised other people in their stead to inherit the land. This happened to them again and again as attested in their own history, of successive destructions, scattering and enslavement, even up to the days of the prophet Muhammad. God through His prophet uprooted them from their lands for having associated themselves in battle with the enemies of monotheism, those same polytheistic people whom Moses had ordered them to oust from Canaan 33:26-7.

This is because God is not bound unconditionally to anything and may easily replace a people with another 14:19-20,35:16-17 just like the rulers and people of Pharao were wiped out and replaced with other competing nations 44:25-29. The land of Palestine, blessed since the times of Abraham 21:71,81,5:21,7:137 was entrusted to the Israelites on the condition that they

2:58"Enter this qariya (applied to a place of gathering and settlement be it a town or a village 6:92,42:7,47:13,34:18)..and enter the gate making obeisance, and say, forgiveness".

Their obstination in refusing to abide by the terms of the covenant, and upon their straying from the right path and repeated transgressions despite the continuous sending of prophets to them, led to their destruction and expulsion by the same God who had given them this land 2:59-60. It is to be noted, the land was blessed, in the words of the Quran 21:71"to all people" meaning that anyone can potentially be given authority over it. The only condition, because it is a sacred land, the inhabitants have to live in it according to the landowner's rules.

The Israelites were thus given that land for 2 reasons; to test their gratefulness and God-awareness, as well as to uproot through them, the nations that previously inhabited it, and who became unworthy of it. The very reason, per the Torah, For God deciding to uproot and exterminate those nations, then settling the Israelites instead, was not because of the Abrahamic covenant, but because these nations had become sinners, unworthy to reside in a land previously declared sacred Gen15:16,Deut9,1Sam4:7. The Canaanite were relatives of the Israelites. They were Abrahamic descendants, such as the Moabites descendants of Lot and Edomites whose father is Esau. There is no reason to assume that these Abrahamic tribes did not emulate their common forefather by worshiping YHWH. But as the generations passed they corrupted that worship until God sent another Abrahamic branch, the Israelites, to uproot and replace them.

Similarly Jethro was a Midianite-Kenite. Midian was the son of Abraham, and Kenite in reference to Adam's son, Cain whose descendants lived among all the people of the Levant. Jethro was thus a non Israelite semite, descendant of Arabham, who had kept the Abrahamic legacy. He proclaims to Moses that YHWH is greater than all false deities Ex18:7-12.

When the Muslims were made successors in the land of Mecca, they were repeatedly warned that if they transgress they will be swiftly requited. Just as was done with the Israelites and nations before them, That is because in a universal system based on Truth, falsehood is bound to perish

 34:49,21:16-8,14:19"Do you not see that Allah created the heavens and the earth with truth? If He please He will take you off and bring a new creation".

They will be replaced by the One encompassing them as He encompasses the whole earth, capable of erasing them completely then re-establish a similarly great human creation, even better yet in make, should He want to 6:165,70:40-1,76:28. Similar warnings were issued to the Israelites, as seen earlier, should they neglect the spiritual duties for which they were established in a land 7:137,26:57-9,Deut8:19-20,Deut28-31. The same forceful way the previous landowners were dislodged, due to their wickedness Deut9, could be repeated with them 

Amos9:7"To Me, O Israelites, you are just like the Ethiopians—declares YHWH. True, I brought Israel up from the land of Egypt, but also the Philistines from Crete and the Arameans from Kir". 

Previous nations that were similarly established, then rejected their prophets were destroyed and others were raised in their stead as trustees of God's favours 

10:71-3,44:26,7:69,74,137,100"Is it not clear to those who inherit the earth after its (former) residents that if We please We would afflict them on account of their faults". 

The HB uses a very appropriate metaphor to describe that pattern, picturing a sacred land becoming sick of its inhabitants' practices to the point it cannot contain them anymore

 Lev18:24-8"Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants..." 

Lev20:22-3"And you shall observe all My statutes and all My ordinances, and fulfill them, then the Land, to which I am bringing you to dwell therein, will not vomit you out. You shall not follow the practices of the nation that I am sending away from before you, for they committed all these [sins], and I was disgusted with them".

The prophet Solomon Prov2:21-22 and before him David spoke of that reality

 Ps37:9-11"evildoers shall be cut off, and those who hope for the Lord-they will inherit the land. A short while longer and the wicked man is not here, and you shall look at his place and he is not there. But the humble shall inherit the land, and they shall delight in much peace".

The heritage of the earth in this worldly life is neither permanent nor everlasting. It is merely bestowed as a trial for different communities. That is why, everlasting heritage of the "land" is only possible in the Hereafter, in Heaven where those that will be established, the righteous believers, will never falter in their spirituality 21:105,39:73-4.

When God calls his covenant "everlasting", it means HE will never abrogate it, so long as the terms of that covenant are fulfilled. As soon as there is a breech in the agreement from either side, it becomes void, like with any agreement. For example in 1Sam2:30 we read

"Therefore," says the Lord, God of Israel, "I said, 'Your house and the house of your father will walk before Me forever,' but now, says the Lord: Far be it from Me, for those who honor Me shall I honor, and those who despise Me will be disgraced".

Where does YHWH state the absurdity He will keep blessing them with honor, and favors regardless of their behavior? God clearly states in Deuteronomy he would take back all blessings and favors, replace them with punishment and humiliation, if such were the case. But God is also merciful and honors any of his servants that sincerely repents and mends his ways. That is why the Israelites were brought back to a position of honor among the nations after they were destroyed and scattered the first time, when they realized their errors and repented. But as they proved themselves again unworthy of divine favors, they were humiliated a second time and their Temple turned into a garbage dump.

Acts17apologetics seek the best system; Islam promotes human brotherhood?

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

The ordinance in the Quran, of avoiding unjust murder, clearly has a universal connotation both for unjustly murdering or preserving a soul. Anyone familiar even on a most basic level with the Quran knows that among its most pervasive themes is the fact that to God, the value of a human, regardless of social status, gender or race only depends on righteousness in deeds and God-consciousness/taqwa 2:221,4:1,135,5:48,25:77,34:37,42:23,49:13.

The Quran appeals to the believers' taqwa/God-consciousness in maintaining indiscriminate justice

"though it may be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives"

or even "against a hated people"

5:2"and let not hatred of a people..incite you to exceed the limits, and help one another in goodness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and aggression".

These verses came down at a time where Muslims were living in Medina under the constant threat of war, in an unceasing atmosphere of plotting and suspicions between all parties, including the Jews.

Yet the Quran tells the Muslims not to give up justice for scapegoating, and baseless stereotypes. There are many examples to corroborate from the prophet's life and early companions. For instance the prophet once ruled in favor of a Jew to whom a companion owed money, on the Jew's own terms despite having full authority to give a more lenient ruling in favor of his close companion.

The disregard for justice, or the abuse of power from a dominant position towards any human being was an attitude severely reprimanded by the prophet to the point he said

"If anyone wrongs a person protected by a covenant, violates his rights, burdens him with more work than he is able to do, or takes something from him without his consent, then I will plead for him on the Day of Resurrection".

Once a case of theft was brought before him by a close companion for a lenient verdict

 "When Usama spoke to Allah's Messenger about that matter, Allah's Messenger said, "Do you intercede (with me) to violate one of the legal punishment of Allah?" Then he got up and addressed the people, saying, "O people! The nations before you went astray because if a noble person committed theft, they used to leave him, but if a weak person among them committed theft, they used to inflict the legal punishment on him. By Allah, if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad committed theft, Muhammad will cut off her hand".

The corruption of the justice system to gain favors in a society or usurp other people's rights is forbidden 2:188. The verse 4:105 is cited in a historical context where the prophet judged a matter in favor of a Jew against the Muslim despite the tense situation between the 2 groups at the time. This is in contrast with the attitude of the Jewish elite who moulded their religious system so as to allow differentiation between Israelites and non-Israelites in their dealings Deut15,23,24,etc.

Allah is Rabbul Alamin, the sustainer of all that exists everywhere. His presence in all that exists means that even the smallest degree of injustice displeases the Just Lord of the worlds 22:10.

Rabbinic conjecture on the other hand has discriminated between Jews and non-Jews, in the value of a life as well as in moral obligations. In that particular issue of value of a human life, they modified the universality of the principle to make it apply solely to a Jewish soul, that consequently takes on a more sacred character

"whosoever destroys a single soul of Israel, Scripture imputes [guilt] to him as though he had destroyed a complete world; and whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes [merit] to him as though he had preserved a complete world".

The principle of the sanctity of human life is implicitly present in the biblical narrative of Abel and Cain. The rabbis understood it but partly obscured it due to their ethno centric worldview. The Quran engages with that Talmudic legal deduction of a true revealed principle, by clarifying its original intent.

The Quran further adds a clause of self-defence and application of justice to the moral principle, a clause which is present in the law of and teachings of every prophet of God

"unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land".

The earliest Muslim leaders and scholars thus understood the verse as having an indiscriminate application. For example the caliph Umar ibn Abdul Aziz is reported to have left a Muslim murderer's life in the hands of the non-Muslim victim's family. Before him, the caliph Umar ibn al Khattab warned that

"if one of you were to give a gesture of safety to an idolater and he came trusting you and you killed him, then I would execute you for it".

When the prophet reportedly

"judged that a believer should not be killed for killing a disbeliever"

it isnt speaking in an unrestricted sense, but as agreed by many hadith scholars, and schools of law, in the case a Muslim soldier independently kills the soldiers of a hostile army in a declared war. This hadith, as a side note, is a classical case of the prophet speaking in an unspecified context, answering/reacting to an unknown question/situation/remark and thus the only way for someone to ascertain the meaning of the report is to take into consideration the whole corpus of hadith and historical records, establishing a pattern of actions from the noble prophet, as well as the overarching Quran commands, to arrive at the correct interpretation. Based on that holistic approach, the classical schools of law derived different conclusions; while most Hanafi jurists argued that qisas applies between 2 individuals regardless of status (slave/free person) or religion, Malikis or Hanbalis only validate qisas between Muslims. This however did not, and never meant that a crime committed against someone not covered by qisas, implied that the crime would remain without consequences, whether worldly through the justice system, or before God Who sanctified the soul of every innocent human being, indiscriminately 5:32. A hadith sometimes cited to demonstrate discrimination in qisas among Muslims themselves on the basis of social status, is the one where Zinba'/Zanba Abi Rawh found his servant boy with his own servant girl 

"so he became jealous of him, and cut off his penis". 

In answer, the prophet freed the slave from his owner, writing a testimony that he shall be financially supported by the state for as long as he lived. Qisas here didnt apply as the slave committed a wrong against his guardian and was entitled to punishment, but not in the manner and harshness his guardian inflicted on him. We thus see that in an incident which isnt exactly adapted to a qisas situation, because the one of lesser status had committed a crime against the free person and was thus deserving of retaliation, the prophet still made the free person bear the consequences for his harshness, in addition making the state itself responsible for the slave. One can only wonder then, what would have been the prophet's reaction in an actual situation of qisas, ie where the slave committed no crime whatsoever and was unjustly harmed in the same manner by a free person? The prophet and the Quran's positions as regards the just and kind treatment of slaves are well known 

"The Prophet Said: If anyone kills his slave, we shall kill him, and if anyone cuts off the nose of his slave, we shall cut off his nose" (graded unreliable by al-Albani although at-Tirmidhi and al-Hakim disagree by validating it). 

The same al-Hasan who transmitted the hadith later became forgetful according to the scholars, saying that "A free man should not be subjected to retaliation in return for a slave". The retaliation spoken of here being murder. It is to be noted that the jurists werent making their legal deductions in a vacuum. The society of the time was patriarchal, with the head of the household responsible for maintaining the direct and extended family, as well as possibly one or more servants under his care. So in terms of social repercussions, the death of the free had far more negative implications than the slave. It would lead to more harm in the long run, leaving the remaining household under the responsibility of the state. That is why the jurists who discriminated in qisas applied the same reasoning to dhimmis (non-Muslims citizen of the Islamic state) and their own slaves. It is to avoid reaching that difficult situation that while discussing the law of qisas even between people in general, the Quran favours pardon and reconciliation, while never taking away the victim's right to resort to equal retribution. In modern civil suits for homicide, compensation is most often calculated based upon the expected income that is now lost. Just as the Muslim jurists did when applying qisas, according to the economic realities of the time. The same considerations are taken into account in the laws of inheritance.

When Al-Mughirah murdered and took the wealth of idolaters before converting to Islam and pledging allegiance to the prophet, the latter accepted his pledge but rejected his wealth as unlawfully acquired, regardless of the victim's religion

"As for your Islam, we have accepted it. As for the property, it is the wealth of treachery and we have no need for it".

The passage 5:27-32 is a direct address to the Bani Israel of the prophet Muhammad's time who, like their forefathers to whom the ordinance was forcefully "written upon" because of their complete disregard for the sanctity of human life to the point they even murdered the prophets sent to them, planned time after time to kill their innocent Ishmaelite brother out of pure jealousy that God had now raised a prophet outside of their line.

They subconsciously know about their unworthiness, which is time and again pointed in their own books. Like Cain, they could not see that all this, their removal as being the torch bearers of truth in favor of a new nation, was due to their persistence in transgression and lack of God-consciousness, as their own history bears testimony to. The passage is meant at opening their eyes to their spiritual condition, and warning them of the severity of the sin they were planning on committing and how remorseful and helpless they would then become. 

For a lapse of time following his crime, a murderer stays in bewilderment and shock, even denial, before something either from within or outside of him triggers back his consciousness and brings him back to reality, after which most often than not, he becomes filled with sorrow and remorse. That psychological dimension is unknown to the transmitters of the story in the HB who describe Cain as unconcerned with his brother's murder until the surrealistic and naive intervention of God and his dialogue with Cain Gen4:9-12.

In Cain's case, that trigger was the sight of a crow digging the earth to show him how to cover "sawata akheehi"/the shamefulness of his brother (ie his nakedness). The word sawata stems from S-Y-Hamza or S-W-Hamza meaning a shameful thing. That thing is determined by the context. That sight took him out of his state of shock and plunged him in regrets, seeing that besides the injustice he had just committed towards his own brother, he had in addition left him exposed in a shameful, disgraceful way 5:31.

In fact in the Quran, one of the graces of Allah to human beings is the very burial of corpses

80:21"Then He causes him to die, then assigns to him a grave".

If the manner to dispose of corpses was unknown, they would humiliatingly remain putrid on the ground, and the beasts and birds would feast on them, which would be a horrible debasement. On a more general note, besides this passage indicating the importance of disposing of the dead in a dignified way, the Quran is completely silent on funerary rites and burial preparation. Cain thus proceeded to dispose properly of his dead brother's corpse, while regretting his crime.

The HB, though it implies that Cain buried his brother by speaking of the ground's "concealment" of the effects of the murder that was only known to Cain Gen4:10-11, does not speak of the encounter with the crow, and nor does Cain appear to be regretful at anytime. He even attempts to fool God who questioned him on his brother's whereabouts, minimizing the severity of his sin Gen4:9,13 and finally God as a consequence of the murder absurdly gives him a prolonged time of respite under divine protection, allowing him to be fruitful and prosperous in a new location to which he was "banished" Gen4:15-24.

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.