In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"
In the HB and as corroborated by Jesus in the NT when he said to abide by it to the minute details, several types of wars are promulgated. Jesus by the way, is the one to have promulgated these laws in the first place, prior to his incarnation. So among these laws the pre-turn the other cheek Jesus instructed upon his subjects, is the compulsory command/mitzva among the 613 revealed at Sinai, binding on Jews of all times to destroy Amalek's seed Deut25:19 without showing any pity whenever the opportunity is there, and exterminate the remaining Canaanite nations from the land of Israel whenever any of them or their descendants are identified Deut20:16.
This is a timeless ordinance, as already said, part of the 613 binding commandements, and is thus an explicit order to genetically exterminate a certain people. Every command within the Torah is understood as eternally binding and those that are inapplicable today due to the absence of a Temple will be reinstated in the utopian messianic era, where every nation will be forcefully subdued to the Jewish God Mal3:4,Deut30,Ezek11,36,37,Isa56:6-8,Zech14:16,Jere33:15-18,Ezek43:18-46:24. The eternally binding command to blot out Amalek's seed and other Canaanites, if one fails acting upon this law anytime a descendant of such tribes is genetically identified, then one becomes subject to divine anger as what happened to king Saul 1Sam28:18,1Chr10.
Saul suffered a violent and dishonourable death. His household was decimated at the hands of the Philistines who also dispossessed his community.
The same happened prior to the entire Israelite community that was sent for a 40 years desert wandering for their refusal to engage the promised land's natives in battle.
Along with those known, compulsory genocidal warfare as described earlier, during which no atrocities towards men, women, children, cattle and plants may be spared, there are laws relating to optional warfare, for the sole purpose of Israel's "national glory" as labelled by their rabbis. In such cases any random nation the Israelites arbitrarily choose, and set themselves out to conquer can either be "peacefully" submitted, resulting in the enslavement and taxation of its population, or in case of their rejection of the "peace offer", a military subjugation resulting with the execution of all adult males, the capture as spoils of war of their women, children, and livestock
Deut20:10-14"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby".
In addition, should it be necessary to completely subdue that nation
2Kings3:19"you shall fell every good tree, and you shall stop up all springs of water, and you shall clutter every good field with stones".
In the land of Canaan, those natives that werent driven out or exterminated as per the Torah's injunctions during the invasion, were subdued into slavery Josh17:13. Their descendants suffered the same fate under Solomon's rule 1Kings9:20-1. After all and as stated in both the HB and the Talmudic writings (Eleazar ben Shammua) the purpose of creation and the reason why the heavens and earth are maintained is for the chosen race to observe Torah.
All these citations werent made to disparage the Bible, rather at pointing what would have been the outcome had the Quran been the product of human base desires, whims, greed and lust. The fact is the Ishmaelites went through almost identical situations as the Israelites in their confrontations with opposing tribes and nations, and yet we do not find anything remotely similar in terms of abuse and excess as is seen throughout the Hebrew writings, and by the hands of true prophets of God.
It is to be further noted that the Quran does allude to some episodes where the Israelites were confronted to, or were about to engage the Canaanites. Everytime, it refrains from mentionning the shocking acts which the Israelites have comitted. The Quran could have used these incidents as divinely sanctionned precedents allowing unrestricted bloodshed and abuses. Yet we keep on reading in the context of warfare, verses stressing self-restraint in retaliation, or the non-materialistic goals of fighting in Allah's way.
In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"
Even though the object of the enemies of Islam when they take on arms and engage Muslims in war is to exterminate them entirely, the Muslims are told that the Divine object in assisting the believers in punishing the disbelievers at war is not to exterminate them, but to deliver a blow that would deter them from continuous agression 3:127. They are therefore told to fight only the people who attack them
60:9"those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion".
Defensive warfare cannot be predicated on personal whims or desires. War ethics also include not fighting near the Kaaba except if initially attacked. If the enemy desists from deliberate aggression then fighting must stop. This in turn indicates that there should be no rancor against the enemy when they correct themselves or even when they end the hostility. The Muslims, even though oppressed should not seek blind revenge at all costs, rather they should try engaging in peaceful negotiations before 8:39-40. In a dominant position, Muslims must remain conscious of their past weakness before Allah strengthened them and not refuse the hand of peace from non-muslims 4:94. In all cases retaliation must be
22:60"with the like of that with which he has been afflicted and he has been oppressed".
2:194"Thus, if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him just as he has attacked you - but remain conscious of God".
This means that even while seeking just and equal retribution, one must remain conscious of God's limits. The Quran's supreme realism reflects even in such situations, telling those whose spirituality is of a high degree, that if they are able to be patient and forgive for Allah's sake, instead of exercising their legitimate right to retaliation when they have taken the upper hand then Allah will compensate them for their magnanimity
42:39-43,16:126-8"but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient..Surely Allah is with those who guard (against evil) and those who do good (to others)".
The sensitivity of the issue is pictured in God's address to David, the prophet-king 34:10-11. As he was given mastery over a crucial component in warfare -iron-, he and all those after him are told that in their use of that martial technology, God is ever seeing of what they do, indicating that they should use this means in the path of righteous deed, not in the way of oppression, cruelty, and sin.
Fighting cannot be directed at those
60:8"who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes..show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice".
Al-Tabari states that this applies to people of “all ways of life and religions". Nothing abrogates this principle. This is because being friendly and lenient with non-Muslims does not contradict severing ties with those same ones and even fighting them if it is to establish justice and claim one's rights. The Arabic birr/compassion is the same one the Quran uses when instructing Muslims on how to treat their own parents 17:23-4. Others towards whom defensive jihad cannot be directed are those who come in peace without any desire to fight 4:90. Not all of Islam's opponents are alike, some do not strive actively for the extermination of Muslims and should therefore not be fought in the same way as one would engage an armed enemy. They, as well as others could have been deliberately misinformed and are thus given the benefit of the doubt
60:7"It may be that Allah will bring about friendship between you and those whom you hold to be your enemies among them; and Allah is Powerful; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful".
We see how the Quran engages the issue of warfare in the most sublime and pragmatic of ways. 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 is an absolute wrong. The Quran has taught the best attitude, and that is to forgive and continue calling people to right and goodness, even if the people try and persecute another but when the persecution becomes unbearable and life threatening, hindering one from religious freedom then retaliation is permitted, but never above and beyond what a person has himself received.
In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"
Accepting to fight in Allah's way results in reward in this world as well as the next 48:18-21, but turning one's back to the enemy and refusing to shoulder that duty makes a person
48:16,8:16"deserving of Allah's wrath"
in this world as well as the next. Here are the prophet Jeremiah's words
Jer48:10"A curse on anyone who is lax in doing the Lord’s work! A curse on anyone who keeps their sword from bloodshed".
As already pointed, history bares testimony to this fact with the example of the Israelites who had refused to put their trust in the prophet Musa to go forth and fight in Allah's way. Their wordly reward was consequently taken away and they were forbidden entry into the blessed land and sent to wander 40 years in the desert until the last one of those who had shown cowardice was dead. A new generation was then raised instead, one that would willingly take up arms, fight and conquer as divinely ordained. See the Quran in 2:243,5:21-26 as well as the Hebrew Bible in Numbers13:28-33,14:1-35,21:14-35,26:64-65 and Deut2:7,14-19,Josh5:6.
The Muslims are warned that the very same fate awaits those who turn their backs to the prophet when they are called to struggle in Allah's way
9:38-39"If you do not go forth, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement and bring in your place a people other than you, and you will do Him no harm; and Allah has power over all things".
True Believers rejoice at any opportunity of serving God's cause, like Joshua and Caleb who rent their clothes telling the remaining cowards among the Israelites to stand up for battle. In the end, what God wishes to accomplish is independant of the direct addressees of a prophet. As demonstrated with Musa and the Israelites, He could easily uproot them in case of disobedience and rise another people instead.
However, those who followed the prophet Muhammad in times of peace and war are the opposite example. Contrary to the majority of Israelites in Moses' time who refused to march forth despite witnessing all kinds of divine miracles, the majority of Muhammad's followers fought when ordered to. This is corroborative of their desperate situation, leaving them no choice but to fight for their survival, the survival of their families and their rights to worship Allah. Because of all their sacrifices and because they went forth when they were commanded to, they were made successors in the land 6:133-134 and they earned Allah's rewards in this world as well as, God wills, in the next.
In addition, the Muslims are commanded not to neglect the obligatory prayers, even when facing the enemy at the battlefield 4:101-3.
This shows the true objective of these warriors fighting to free themselves and their people from religious bondage; fighting was not their primary occupation for when the time of holding the timed and ordained communion with their Lord arrived, they performed their spiritual obligations despite the imminent danger.
In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"
2:190-5 allowed retaliation for the first time
"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you"
the root qaf-t-l means to kill. But used in the form qaatilu entails interaction, killing opposite killing or killing against killing. Literally speaking it should be rendered "engage in killing opposite killing" and because of a lack of non-Arabic word conveying that sense, the interactive word "fight" has been preferred and used by both Muslim and non Muslim translators, in all instances where the same form is used. In 9:111 for example, the consequence of qaatilu/"engage in killing opposite killing" either results in killing the opposite party, or being killed and that is because there is a clear will to kill from the opposite side. When the original order to qaatilu was issued in 2:190, it came with 2 important messages: - do it against those who yuqaatilunakum - do not transgress the limits when applying the command to qaatilu
What constitutes transgression in that context? To apply the command of qaatilu in a different way than prescribed in the verse, ie against people other than those who "yuqaatilunakum". This again, not only agrees with what was said about the verb being interactive in nature, as attested by its usage and the dictionaries stating that the word is used "in a context of a counter-effort to kill", but also with the Quran's overall message, which is to live at peace with anyone, Muslim or else, that does not aggress the Muslims unjustly, and defend against those that engage in hostilities without any reason other than hatred for the religion.
The ethics of war as laid down in the verse is to remain within the bounds of
"and do not exceed the limit. Verily, Allah loves not those who exceed the limit".
At that point it became inevitable that the early persecuted Muslims should fight in self-defense or they would be destroyed. It is the natural right of all Muslims and every human being to
26:227"defend themselves after they are oppressed".
The divinely sanctionned right, throughout the ages and nations, of jihad in self defense has a clear objective. It isnt for any material gain or territorial expansion, but to dispel mischief, and corruption/fasad on the earth and stop religious oppression 2:251,22:40.
It is inadmissable that man be prevented from choosing or practicing Islam due to pressure and fear. In such a society, war is justified until one is free to choose or reject Islam
2:256"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error".
This shows that under no circumstances should be forced in spiritual matters, whether it is to accept or reject Islam.
The Quran would therefore stir up the believers for battle based on the reality of their physical and spiritual opression, whether men, women, old and young alike 2:217,4:75,8:26,22:39-40,28:57,60:1,85:8-10,96:9-10. God commands to fight for justice. Any other reason to fight is oppression and fighting
"in the way of the devil" 4:76.
This was an undeniable reality and necessity. They had to overcome any fear and trust that Allah's help will come at the battlfield. He will weaken the struggle of the oppressors no mater the forces they can muster 4:84. Even when this was established, the prophet still did not expect the Muslims to shed their blood for a decision from which they were excluded. Consensual agreement always preceded the final decision to go to war, as here stated in the context of the battle of Uhud
3:159"and seek their advise in all matters of public policy".
Once the decision is attained by common agreement, the plan must be launched with an absolute trust in God
3:159"then when you have decided upon a course of action, trust in Allah; for surely Allah loves those who place their trust in Him".
Even the prophet after that point may not revoke the covenant and act according to his whims 3:161-4. It is to be noted that in that particular context of Uhud, the prophet was the minority opinion. He advised confronting the Meccan alliance within Medina, instead of meeting them at Uhud. Yet he never protested the decision once it was mutually agreed upon, nor did he blame the majority once the battle was over and the Muslims were defeated. No matter how supreme the wisdom of the Muslim community's ruler is, in this case a prophet of God, the right of the remaining members of society to be consulted can never be waved off. We see here that in this defeat of the Muslims at Uhud, an important lesson was implemented as to the conduct of a Muslim leader.
Once everybody is set to leave with a full trust in their decision and the will of God, then their physical, mental, financial capacities as compared to their enemies only become secondary issues. Only if these conditions would result in overburdening and harming the person and the people depending on him, even before engaging in fighting, then such person is justified in holding back from fighting 9:91,48:17.
The others rely on Allah, who knows their material and physical limits, and will assist them 8:66. They are fully justified in fighting back, and will be helped in the process
22:38"Surely Allah will defend those who believe; surely Allah does not love any one who is unfaithful, ungrateful".
Part of the 613 Jewish commandments is to similarily be fearless in battle and fully trust in God Deut3:22,7:21,20:3. It was their failure to trust in God's capacity to defeat, through a weak army, a much stronger adversary that caused their 40 years desert wandering prior to entering the land promised to Abraham. God calls mankind to fight in His way first to solve the wordly obstacles to which a particular people is confronted, but these worldly obstacles are connected to the spiritual aspect of man's existence. This means that fighting in God's way liberates man from both physical and spiritual obstacles. That is why those who fear wordly losses in the process, are told that this world is ultimately ephemeral whether in case of victory or loss. They would thus have certainly reason to fear should their battle be solely aimed at achieving wordly objectives. But since fighting in God's way includes spiritual objectives, then one has no reason to fear because the Hereafter in which the benefits of that struggle will be certainly found, is everlasting 4:74.
Choosing to serve God in this way, putting one's own life on the line to defend the oppressed and advance the cause of truth is the most selfless material and spiritual sacrifice one can do. Every culture and civilization in history has owed its survival in the face of oppression to these types of honored individuals. But even then, as in any army, there are degrees among soldiers, hence the prophet saying that military participation is ranked 3rd in terms of divine appreciation
"I asked the Prophet 'Which deed is loved most by Allah?" He replied, 'To offer prayers at their early (very first) stated times.' " `Abdullah asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" The Prophet said, "To be good and dutiful to one's parents," `Abdullah asked, "What is the next (in goodness)?" The Prophet said, "To participate in Jihad for Allah's Cause." `Abdullah added, "The Prophet narrated to me these three things, and if I had asked more, he would have told me more".
However those among the volontaries going to such extent in their selfless sacrifice that they are martyred, the prophetic sayings describe them as meriting the highest reward. Wordly gains certainly follow as a collateral result of wars, and although are certainly the just compensation of those sacrificing their wealth and resources on the way, the Quran stresses that these wordly gains must never be the motive. In a hadith the prophet even answered about someone fighting in God's cause but also seeking material reward, that in the herafter "He would receive no reward" (sunan Abu Dawud).
The Prophet's conflict with his tribe was not because of any worldly reason; it was only for the freedom to practice the religion of God 4:74,94 in the place originally dedicated for it. The Quraysh had to fulfill their obligations towards the Kaaba because they were its custodians. If they were not ready for this, then they had no right to keep it in their custody nor did they have any right to prevent people from returning to the pure Arbrahamic legacy through intimidations, or stopping others from worshiping on a land settled for that purpose since the days of Ibrahim 22:25-9.
This was Allah's way before in regards to Canaan, even prior to the Israelites settling in it, when its natives progressively abandonned the ways of righteousness, despite knowing it, perverted it beyond recognition Gen15:16,Deut9,1Sam4:7. The Israelites were sent in precisely to purge the sacred land from its unworthy custodians. When the prophetic warnings materialized upon the Quraysh and their grip on the lives and freedom of the people was loosened, then the people hastened to accept Islam in multitudes now that they were suddenly afforded with the liberty to choose their own religion. 110:2 predicted this reality long before the conquest of Mecca
"And you see men embrace the religion of God in multitudes",
and this was through the guidance of the Heavenly Book that transcended all obstacles to give life to the spiritually dead 6:122.
In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (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.
When a group of armed men feinted conversion from the tribe of Ukl/Uraina/Urayna, taking advantage of the prophet's hospitality then captured his shepherd, tortured and murdered him before leaving with the camel herd, the prophet, as an embodiement of the state, could not force his penchant for leniency in case of a crime committed on someone else. Beyond being a crime against the shepherd, this was also a direct attack against the state and its citizen among whom these criminals had sought protection. The Islamic state was at that time subject to attacks from all sides, yet its leader and citizen had generously offerred shelter to foreigners who not only abused from their hospitality, in addition infiltrated the community, spreading violence and bloodshed. The prophet could neither impose magnanimity on the victim's family nor on a state which represents its citizen.
He therefore inflicted the law of equal retribution upon these cold blooded murderers in its full force; they were tortured the same way they did to the innocent hospitable shepherd who had given them food, drink and medicine when they were hungry, thirsty and ill, then they were left to die of thirst in the desert. Although many later Quran commentators have linked this incident to the revelation of 5:33-4, there actually is no report that proves it.
Ibn Umar even denies that this verse that limits the harshness of punishments upon criminals, is in anyway a divine disapproval of the prophet's severity. The law of equal retribution still stands and can be used in case one is subject to the same gruesome murder circumstances of the prophet's shepherd. 5:33-4 is unrelated to qisaas, the law of equal retribution, which concerns all members of a community. This passage rather it is a set of punishments for crimes which only the state has the final word for, committed against governement institutions, interests, laws, etc.
In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"
Superior or not, no prophethood is more valuable than another based on the performance of miracles. The HB in Deut13 warns the people to be very suspicious of anyone with the ability to perform what may seem as unexplainable supernatural deeds. The NT similarly says false prophets may be allowed the performance of miracles as a matter of test to the believers Matt24:4-5,23-25,2Thess2:9-10.
John the Baptist was a true prophet but performed no supernatural miracles Jn10:41,Matt21:25-26.
Besides, to base one's faith on the sight of "miracles" is very dangerous for one never really knows whether the "miracle" was in fact an illusion or other clever trick. The prophet Moses' opponents reflected that reality when they described his miracles as illusion without external reality
7:132"And they said; whatever sign you bring us to bewitch us, we are not going to believe you".
As the HB says, God may even purposefully allow a false prophet to perform miracles as a test to the people, whether their hearts and minds will be dazzled and swayed into ungodly ways or remain steadfast in their faith. In Ex7:11 Pharaoh commands his court magicians to imitate with their magic Moses' miracles, and some of these miracles were in fact successfully replicated, showing that seemingly supernatural occurrences do not necessarily come from God.
Miracles therefore, whether in the Quran or the HB, do not serve the function of attesting to an individual claim to prophethood, rather have the twofold purpose of comforting an already believing heart as well as demonstrate the tremendous responsibilities of those that witness it. That is why the Quran uses examples of past nations that requested miracles and disbelieved thereafter, as a lesson to the prophet's contemporaries who were doing the same. Had the signs been sent down as and when they requested, their current state of opposition was such that they were would have found any excuse to deny and denigrate them, and would have increased their enmity towards the message bearer and his message. Just as those before them, who were then destroyed although they were much more powerful than them. Pharaoh and his people are among those examples.
The Bible doesnt even give instructions on how to recognize demonic miracles because technically, they are no different than the divine ones. But it shows how to recognize if the author is a false messenger. The djinn, as described in the story of the prophet Solomon, are capable of what is deemed supernatural bending of the expected laws of nature. But what they have no access to, except as Allah deems fit, is knowledge of the unseen, information that could only be obtained through revelation. Knowledge of the unseen, and of information that could not have been accessible to the messenger, prophecies coming true, uprightness of character are all very strong indications of a person's claims of prophethood. That is why the Quran, although it never denies that its messenger could and did perform miracles, treats this aspect of prophethood as inconsequential in determining the veracity of the claim, dismissing the requests of the doubters and disbelievers and leaving the matter to the Creator. The sending of signs is at all times depending in His will and wisdom. The Quran therefore, in its arguments, brings repeated attention the aforementioned 4 aspects of prophethood, with an additional focus on knowledge; based on what authority, and knowledge do the disbelievers among the polytheists and people of the book persist in their denial and deviations
46:4"Say, [O Muhammad], "Have you considered that which you invoke besides Allah? Show me what they have created of the earth; or did they have partnership in [creation of] the heavens? Bring me a scripture [revealed] before this or a [remaining] trace of knowledge, if you should be truthful."
In conclusion, messengership does not necessitate that the forces of nature be bent at will and upon request.
Miracles are entirely dependent on God's will and the prophets are nothing but mere mortals tasked with transmitting a message of warnings and glad tidings
17:90-3"And they say, we will by no means believe in you until you cause a fountain to gush forth..or you should cause the heavens to come down...or bring Allah and the angels face to face...or you should have a house of gold...Say; Glory be to God, am I aught but a mortal messenger?"
Besides that, for argument's sake assuming Jesus had superior miracles than Muhammad, then this poses no problem to a Muslim. Muslims must regard all prophets and messengers as equals 2:136,3:84, but from Allah's perspective He has exalted some above others in particular aspects 2:253,17:55 like in the manner in which revelation was bestowed upon them or in the type of signs they were given to confirm their prophethood, or in the universality of their message.
Moses spoke to and was spoken to directly and repeatedly by Allah 4:164,7:143 possibly because he needed a special kind of reassurance considering the magnitude of the opposition, whether internal with the rebellious Israelites or external with the ruthless Pharao.
Jesus was a living sign of Allah to the people, along with his mother 21:91,23:50 and the RUH al qudus/breeze of holiness was working with him, under Allah's command and control, allowing him the performance of spectacular signs 2:87,253,5:110. The RUH al qudus/breeze of holiness, besides its basic role of inspiration, gave him the strength and aptitude to perform the miracles that he did. Jesus' association to the RUH do not however make any of them divine. It was a tool sent upon Jesus as was sent on all prophets and regular believers, each time for the purpose for which Allah intends for it. God's breathing from His RUH in every human being doesnt make us or part of us divine 32:9,38:71-2. Ruhana/our breeze or breath is attached to God's name to stress its greatness, the particular connection it creates between the recipient and Allah, as is stated concerning the righteous 58:22"These are they into whose hearts He has impressed faith, and whom He has strengthened with a RUH from Him/minhu". And just as the Quran associates the RUH with Jesus, it does the same with the prophet Muhammad in the context of divine inspiration 16:102. The RUH sent by Allah, under His command, affects multiple people at once like the wind would. Similar usage is seen with the house of Allah or the month of Allah or the sakina of Allah/the soothing calmness that filled Muhammad and the believers, or the love from Allah bestowed upon Moses 20:39 etc. None of those things are considered parts of Allah, having any intrinsic power, or emanating from within His essence, or sharing in His divinity.
Jesus' mention with the RUH is among the patterns of the Quran of taking up the most cherished christological themes, then strip them from their paganistic implications.
David is often singled out, even in comparison to Muhammad, for the scripture he received. The exact aspect by which the original Psalm, now lost, excelled all other divine scriptures may be hard to define, but it could be in terms of beauty through its description of the hymns to God by all creation.
Both the Quran and the HB speak of non-human creation joining David in his prayers to God.
There is a very deep and relevant reason for which the Quran in 2:253 has specifically pointed out Moses and Jesus in the context of God's exaltedness of some prophets above others in particular aspects. The Jews regard it as an article of faith to declare Moses the greatest of all prophets that preceded and followed him, precisely because of the reason mentioned in the verse, ie the manner in which God spoke to him without intermediaries like angels. This discrimination reflects even in the manner in which they have classified and canonized their books, following a descending order of "holiness" depending on the manner in which God communicated with the personalities who authored them.
For example the Hebrew Bible is composed first and foremost of the Torah of Moses, viewed as the most sacred of all, then come the books of nevi'im/prophets that are considered holy but not as much as the Torah since although the prophets who wrote these books communicated with God, their interaction with Him were indirect or "blurry" ie through visions or dreams that required interpretation. The last books of the Hebrew bible are the ketuvim/writings, also regarded as holy, but even on a lesser degree than the nevi'im/prophets because their authors -not considered prophets- did not communicate with God, but either through intermediaries like angels, as in Daniel's case whom Rabbis have still not agreed whether he is a prophet or not, or through the ruach hakodesh/spirit of holiness (what the Quran calls ruh alqudus/breath or spirit of holiness). With the passage of time, the years of suffering and exile, and the ensuing loss of the Torah and knowledge of Jewish history, even the praise given to Moses diminished in favor of a new prophetic figure. Ezra, because of his role in re-introducing the Torah, both as a text and in practice, to the exiled Jews, was seen as deserving of having received the revelation of Sinai as Moses was
"R. Yossi says: “Ezra was fit to have the Torah given to Israel by him, if it weren’t for the fact that Moses came before him.”
Christians on the other hand regard Jesus to be the greatest of all prophets sent to mankind, even raising him to the status of a deity, precisely because of those qualities spoken of in 2:253 and that Allah made to shine through him more than with other prophets; the manifestation of the holy spirit through him and the wonders he performed.
That is where the Quran steps in, saying that all prophets received clear signs 57:25 and all of them received God's spirit/breath of prophecy carried down into their hearts by angelic messengers 16:2 and although God's spirit filled some prophets with more intensity than others, were able to perform more spectacular signs than others, or were sometimes spoken to without angelic intermediaries, it is Allah who, in His wisdom, has exalted them in some particular aspects. Therefore from a true believer's perspective it is not befitting to discriminate among God's messengers in terms of status, holiness or relevancy, or in light of the manner God communicated with them.
There is no real standard to use as a reference anyway, since the process of inspiration is something of which very little knowledge has been imparted to us 17:85. This reflects in the prophet Muhammad's warning to his addressees not to raise him in status even above the prophet Jonas/Yunus
"No slave (of Allah) should say that I am better than Yunus bin Matta.” So the Prophet mentioned his father’s name with his name".
This is an interesting pattern in the history of prophethood that not a single prophet ever declared his superiority over another. Except in the Gospels' depiction of Jesus, proclaiming his eminence in relation to the prophet Jonah and Solomon in one breath Matt12.
The prophet condemned a zealous follower who overstepped the limits by slapping a man who was speaking of the superiority of Moses on Muhammad, saying it is wrong to engage in discussions discriminating among prophets. He sometimes praised the superiority of character of certain prophets. For example he once said he would not have had Yusuf's strength of character when he provided the interpretation of the king's dream while unjustly imprisoned
"I would not have done so until I put a condition on them that they let me out...May Allah have mercy on Yusuf. May Allah bless him for his patience, and Allah will forgive him. I could not have done that..."
The Tanakh itself discards these discriminatory criteria at once when it states, concerning all prophets, including since the time of their exodus with Moses whom they regard as the chief of all prophets
Hosea12:10"I spoke to the prophets, gave them many visions and told parables through them".
All of them are true prophets, no mention of grades despite the different visions they received.
Muslims are required first and foremost as one of the pillars of faith to believe in the existence and truthfulness of all of God's envoys, humans or angels 2:177,285. Secondly, as regards the human messengers, they must be revered and accepted on the same level, not making any distinction between them in terms of status.
It is worthwhile to note the term used in the Quran when speaking of the continuous sending of prophets following Moses in 2:87. It says qafayna, derived from q-f-w meaning the back of the neck. The verb means to follow (because you follow the back of someone). It is a word used to describe a poetically structured text or speech because it denotes a close, synchronized, harmonious succession. In the same way, the prophets were closely synchronized in their message, and Allah in the Quran repeatedly states how all revelations are one in essence 46:9,21:7-10,4:163. This by the way not only is meant at denying any discrimination among them, but it also means that none of those noble personalities deviated in the message he was conveying so as to depart from a well established pattern. This implies that Jesus, an Israelite prophet in a long line of prophets, would have never asked to be worshiped so as to depart from the pattern of his predecessors.
Muhammad was inspired following the same pattern as other known illustrious men before him were, including many unnamed and forgotten ones, whether among the tribes of Israel (Jewish tradition holds that thousands were sent to them) or outside of them
4:163-4"We inspired towards you as We inspired towards Noah and the prophets from after him. And We inspired towards Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the children (of Jacob)/alasbat and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon. And we brought to David, Psalm. And (We sent) apostles We have mentioned to you before and apostles we have not mentioned to you; and to Musa, Allah addressed His Word, speaking (to him)."
As shown earlier through the attitude of Jews and Christians in whose creed one must acknowledge the superiority of one prophet above all others, Islam, truly earns its name as the "willful surrender unto God" instead of surrendering to one's prejudice and desires.
Just as it calls and presents the prophet Muhammad as no more than a humble slave of Allah, Jesus is equally shown as powerless without Allah's will and in entire submission to Him. That description is appropriate given the Christians' raising him to divine status. Moses likewise, seen as the wisest of all prophets by the Jews, is shown humbling himself before another of God's messengers who far surpassed him in wisdom and knowledge of the unseen. This again is highly appropriate given the particular exaltation the Jews give him in comparison to other prophets.
The Quran in addition admonishes against the attitude of claiming belief in God but rejecting a particular prophet 4:150. Those who do so simply do not like the message from the God they claim to believe in, it threatens their sinful ways and prevents them from pursuing their evil interests.
In 45:16-18 the Quran addresses Muhammad, telling him just as another nation was vouchsafed revelation, he too is now chosen and put on the straight path, thus stressing the continuation of the divine message.
Stress is also laid, in different ways, on the principle that rejecting one messenger amounts to rejecting all the messengers because all of them had brought one and the same message from Allah 26:105,123,141,160,176.
In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"
The only killing allowed in Islam is in self-defense in a war context or in retribution of an unjust murder. 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. It is important noting the deep psychology behind the ordinance, issued by the creator of all things who knows humans inside and out; When it encourages, 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.
In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"
Mosaic Law made no prohibition on male premarital or extramarital sexual activity so long as the women involved were not the property of another Jew. A Jewish male could acquire as many wives as he could afford, and also avail himself of the services of concubines, female war captives of any age regardless of them being married or not Deut21:10-17,Num31:17-18.
This was the case with the most eminent of their religious figures, including Abrahama, Moses, David or the wise king Solomon who were all polygamists, down to the regular members of society, including the priestly clan of the Levites 1Sam1:1-2.
Jacob counted 2 living sisters among his wives, which is against Torah law hence the various rabbinic explanations to the problem of having the father of the Jewish nation violating a future prohibition. Torah sets no limits to the number of wives Ex21:10,Deut21:15 although it vaguely warns Israelite rulers (not common people) against having "too many" wives Deut17:17.
Some Jewish comentators have argued, based on rabbinical discussions in the Talmud, that the maximum number of wives in all cases shouldnt exceed 18. Polygamy is at the foundation of the Jewish nation. It even was and is still seen as a good deed, the best fulfillement of the eternally binding command to "be fruitful and multiply", so much so that it can hasten the messianic age. It was practiced throughout the Talmudic period, with the legislation saying that a man can have as many wives as are willing to marry him (as long as he can support them) without any hint to it being an immoral or abnormal practice. It was such a well established part of the social system that Mosaic law is not even critical of it.
We find only certain regulations with respect to it but that were not practiced in reality as seen with David and Solomon's cases whose prophethood and kingship are never questionned despite their "transgressions". It was not until the 10th century and the rabbinic ban upon it specifically on the Ashkenazic fringe, that made the issue controversial. If it wasnt a widespread practice, there would be no need to issue such a forceful amendment. Jews needed to accomodate for the Christian host nations that forbade the practice, fearing further isolation and persecutions from a people that already resented them.
Contrary to their other host nations, namely the Muslims, Christian tradition isnt a continuation of Jewish tradition but of Greek and Roman pagan traditions, society and morality. Ancient Greeks, including the likes of Plato and Socrates, the supposedly great philosophers saw homosexuality, which they practiced and lauded, as the highest symbol of manhood. Women were inconvenient breeders, not ideal partners. Although Christianity somewhat discouraged homosexuality, it adopted this Greek attitude towards women and normal relations between men and women, adding the whole negative, evil spin to it.
Christians try interpreting the polygamy verses as if it is talking of marriage after divorce or death of a wife which is absurd since it says such marriage should not lead one to diminish any of the wife's conjugal rights, ie the first wife's of which the preceding verse clearly speaks of. Jesus does not oppose polygamy and even uses it in his parable to make his point about readiness for the kingdom Matt25. This was the perfect occasion for him to oppose it or criticize it, but doesnt at all. He features it, meaning giving it tacit approval. From this noninterference attitude Luther, as late as the 16th century, arrived at the conclusion that he could not forbid the taking of more than one wife.
The Quran clearly alludes to the fact that as per the norms of human nature, the real benefits and advantages of the institution of family manifest themselves in a monogamous family. And despite fully endorsing, and not limiting polygamy neither quantitatively nor contextualy, the HB too speaks of the preference for a man to be united with a single wife Gen2:24.
As a side issue, one might ask why the regulation doesnt apply to women as well (polyandry). Aside from the basic issues of uncertain descendancy, a woman becomes undisposed to satisfy the most basic physical or sexual needs of her multiple husbands. IT is the case during her menstrual period or while pregnant. Also, from a strict biological viewpoint, a woman can only carry and conceive one child at a time and from one man only, for nine months before she can conceive another. A man on the other hand can beget a child every time he cohabits with a woman. Polyandry opposes these very elementary socio-biological issues. That is why it is practiced by very few societies that seek to limit population growth, with a purely materialistic outlook. For example, polyandry in the Himalayan mountains is related to the scarcity of land. The marriage of all brothers in a family to the same wife allows family land to remain intact and undivided.
In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"
Coming from a biblical background, the critic has very little room to wiggle in the topic of polygamy. But let us see the difference between the biblical and Quranic stance.
4:3"And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry from the women that seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice between them, then marry only one or what your right hands possess; this is closer that you be just".
Contrary to popular opinion, the verse is not addressing the issue of polygamy in a general sense, a pre-existing practice, but that of polygamy in a narrowed down context, that of safeguarding the orphans' rights. The reason the Quran only speaks of and limits polygamy in that context, is because these types of relationships hardly if ever run smoothly and therefore should be reserved for the achievement of higher objectives. It is clear from the opening statement, positing the situation of one with orphans under care, fearing for the just management of their rights
4:3"And IF you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, THEN marry..."
The verse is therefore silent on polygamy in a general sense, neither allowing nor forbidding it, but by only mentioning one case to which it applies, clearly hints to the preferred way to apply the practice, moralizing it, laying down the basis for the intricate perspective that must be considered if a man wishes to marry more than one woman. However it is to be noted, this doesnt mean that polygamy outside the context of caring for orphans, which is the subject of the verse, is useless. Outside caring for orphans, polygamy can potentially be an answer to many problems one can think of, so to outright ban it would deprive the believers from a solution to potential social difficulties.
Women around the world, not necessarily in Muslim societies are confronted to situations where they are left to fend for themselves and their children without the help of the family or the support of a father. But because polygamy is regulated and moralized in the Quran, by mentioning only one case to which it applies, along with its conditions, the Quran is explaining to the God-conscious that this familial configuration is not to be abused for selfish motives, the gratification of sexual desires. There will always be people that will take advantage of the system, just as there are Muslims that will disregard that limitation to make it subservient to their own whims. Polygamy is thus not the norm but the exception in Islamic societies. It is a license granted to men to alleviate problems that have existed and will keep on existing in human societies.
From a modernist perspective, feminists often denounce the practice as legalized cheating. 2 things dont become the same because of superficial similarities. Is a regular marriage legalized prostitution because a man gains sexual access conditionally to spending from his resources? In a marriage, there are many more implications, rights and obligations beyond sex which is just one of the rights of both parties on another. A feminist may now be tempted to say that a wife is just a long term prostitute with more rights and duties. But then is any unmarried woman that has sex with a man prostituting herself because, besides money, there always exists an exchange without which the man would not have sexual access, including emotional, physical, intellectual etc. attractiveness? This extends to lesbianism and on a deeper level, even to self-sex where a woman is essentially a prostitute to her desire.
Feminists see genders as conflicting opposites rather than completing one another. This is why they loath systems that bind genders together whether monogamous or polygamous. They will prefer situations that paradoxically oppress them, like prostitution and adultery, because of the limited rights the opposite gender has on them in these cases.
Yateem, (plur. yatama) is derived from Y-T-M meaning alone. It is used for a child who lost one or both parents, or for a widow.
The verse answers the guardian's fear with a solution; marrying up to four women, not any, but specific ones preceded by the definite article
"..marry from THE women...".
Which specific women are best suited to share that burden of responsibility? The mother of the orphan first and foremost. By taking them in his household, the husband is bound to provide for them as he would do with a regular wife and children, as well as giving them increased advantages, which includes, possible inheritence in case the adoptive father dies and leaves a will for them, in addition to what must be given to the orphan even if there is no will 4:8.
The mother of the orphan could also use her dower for the orphan's wellbeing, if she wishes. Marrying the mother of an orphan taken under care, may also fill the emotional gap of a child with no father. Marrying these widows, or taking another woman or maiden (whose job included raising the children of a household) in case the orphan's mother is dead with the purpose of caring for one's orphan, solves the conditional clause of fear not to "act equitably towards orphans". The difficult responsibility of sustaining the orphan physically and emotionally, protecting his/her rights, wealth and property is this way shared by both parents. Something to keep in mind is that Muslims are urged and obligated, per the divine law, to help the weak in society, including widows and orphans. Marriage isnt and never was a precondition to get the needed help.
The verse is addressing a group among those that already have orphans under their wing, those who fear for the slightest inadvertent injustice towards them. These highly pious guardians are given a solution, in the form of a recommendation to help solve that fear. One can always involve himself further in a charitable endeavor and this can be argued to be amongst the most advanced manners of doing so.
Another thing to keep in mind while trying to understand the verse, simply is the context. 4:3 is speaking of orphans in general, not gender specific, and is a continuation of
4:2"And give to the orphans their property, and do not substitute worthless (things) for (their) good (ones), and do not devour their property (as an addition) to your own property; this is surely a great crime".
Therefore the next verse must be at least talking about the same orphans, whom one fears not to act fairly towards and the solution to that problem is given in the same verse
"marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four".
The whole passage until v6 is speaking of orphaned children and how the trustee is to manage their lives and property the best possible way. Should these instructions not be enough to satisfy a believer's fear of not being fair towards orphans under his care, then as proposed in 4:3 one may marry women who would share the burden of responsibility, these women being first and foremost the widowed mothers of these orphans.
In the verse 4:3, orphans is in the plural, that is because a Muslim guardian could take multiple orphans under his care, especially during times of war as in the context of revelation, or any other situation where the number of men is largely reduced. The Quran has stated that the limitation of this permission is left to a maximum of four women because
"this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course".
A person may come under the impression that he can marry however many of these women he wants, in order to take care of orphans, but the Quran states that the very purpose of the injunction can be compromised the more woman that are married. Quantity isnt always the best, and people need to take into account their own abilities when trying to help other people. Another important statement in the verse, in connection to determining the number of wives, is the phrase "Ma Taba Lakum".
TABA is related to goodness, rather than liking. So the guardian's decision cannot be dictated by mere desire/liking, but for what brings more goodness to the person and what brings more goodness is what brings the person closer to God, in this case, reinforcing the idea that the wife must be most suited in securing the orphan's rights, and this primarily means the orphan's mother. Because of these very reasons, that they were marriages with a moral reason, more so compatibility or personal liking, it often led to situations where the husband would leave this new wife in a state as if she wasnt necessarily wanted. The Quran warns the man not to do this a little later on in 4:127. He must do his best to give her rights, material, physical, emotional, as a married woman. All married women deserve such rights, not only mothers of orphans, as stated earlier in the sura. 4:127 reminds the men of these things, while refocusing them on equity towards the orphans of those very women, so as to restress the sensitivity of the issue
"And they ask you a decision about women. Say: Allah makes known to you His decision concerning them AND that which is recited to you in the Book concerning yatama annisa'/the orphans of "the women whom you do not give what is appointed for them while you desire to marry them", and concerning the weak among children, and that you should deal towards orphans with equity; and whatever good you do, Allah surely knows it".
It isnt because he has done her a favor by improving her socio-economical situation, that the guardian is to forgo the marital rights of the orphans' mother. It is a marriage contract like with any other woman and her subsequent treatment must be just and fair like with a regular wife. And if the situation results in injustice to another party, then it should not be resorted to
"but if you fear that you will not do justice between them, then marry only one or what your right hands possess; this is closer that you be just".
One might ask, why would it be allowed to marry more than one with the condition to deal equitably with all wives when the Quran itself states in 4:129 that such condition cannot be fulfilled even if one sincerely tries?
The fact is the two verses together 4:3,129 are addressing that conditional clause of equity towards wives from two perspectives to create mutual understanding from all parties involved:
- the perspective of the women, by saying in 4:3 that they have the right to equitable treatment and the man must be aware of that right regardless of his will to care for the orphans
- the perspective of the man, by saying in 4:129 that he will not be able to be perfectly just with all wives no matter how hard he sincerely tries. The women should be aware of the husband's sincere will to be just between them even he fails. They should keep in mind that the true objective of such unions is caring for the orphans. Allah is this way absolving the husband's shortcomings who is sincerely trying to be just with his wives for the sake of orphans and at the same time creating an understanding from the part of the wives, again for the sake of orphans. Although the verse absolves the husband from shortcomings, and the wives implicitly asked to be understanding, the husband then is explicitly warned he may not abuse of that forbearance to the point of injuring emotionally the wife he is less inclined to
"but be not disinclined (from one) with total disinclination, so that you leave her as it were in suspense".
This shows that the conditional clause of equity between wives in 4:3 covers the obvious and basic rights, not the shortcomings of a man sincerely trying to make a complex union work for the sake of orphans. From the point of view of the woman who fears she might be disdained, left aside, then there is the option of finding an arrangement, with one party compromising on its position so as to maintain the marriage ties 4:128. If none are willing to compromise then a divorce procedure is initiated.
In answer to the video "The Truth about Ramadan (David Wood)"
The Hebrew Bible sanctionned letter for letter by Jesus, allows the extermination of entire population save their virgins, regardless of age. All visibly mature women are killed while the visibly virgin, meaning children, are distributed among the invading Israelites Numbers31:17-18etc. The Hebrew speaks of "every woman who can lie with a man" in contrast to the "young girls who have no experience of intimate relation with a man". The text is thus clearly speaking in terms of physical appearance. Obviously the soldiers weren't going around verifying each captive's private parts to distinguish the virgins. Those children may be disposed of according to one's whims, as the passage gives no regulation in the matter. This is in the context of genocidal warfare, binding on Jews of all times where specific nations must be annihilated, like the Amalekites and six other Canaanite nations and any of their descendants whenever they are identified Deut20:16,25:19.
In another context, that of optional warfare, Deut21 instructs the soldiers to marry the captive he lusts for, prior to sexual intimacy. She has no choice and say in the matter. She is brought to the soldier's household, her hair trimmed (the Hebrew does not mean shaved off), nails shortened, previous clothes put aside, and given a month to mourn her decimated family, right in front of her captors' eyes v13. This period of mourning provides no mechanism by which to ascertain former pregnancy. The potential child's lineage is this way cut off and assimilated into his captor's tribe. Also, the passage only mentions the captive girl's murdered parents, which implies again she could be very young, or mature and unmarried (unlikely in those days for a woman that is so attractive that the soldier lusts after), or with a husband who is still alive. The altering of her physical appearance is understood differently among the commentators, some seeing it as a means by which she is beautified, and others that she is made purposefully unattractive. If after that process the Jewish man still lusts for her, he may then marry her, keeping her alongside the "preferred" wife. If not, she is simply abandonned to fend off for herself, returning to whatever is left of her ravaged home.
As already said, Numbers31 and Deut21 are contextually unrelated. This undermines the argument that marriage is always a precondition to sexual intimacy. In Numbers31 the option of forced marriage isnt given as the female captive is from among the nations whom the Israelites are to be at war with forever, whose population, men women and children, are to be mercilessly killed to the last one by divine decree. Marrying from among their captives would contradict that ordinance. In Deut21, the context is that of optional wars, whose targets are people outside those concerned by the decree of extermination, hence the option of forceful marriage. In that sub-category, the Israelites are permitted to prey on the weak nation of their choice, subdue and abuse its people as they wish. These are the wars labelled up to this day by the rabbis as wars of "national glory". This isnt a war necessary for the survival of the Jewish people, or in response to provocation, not even under divine injunction. In such a case a random nation is given the choice between a "peaceful" surrender, that would result in the enslavement and taxation of its population, or in case of their rejection of the "peace offer", a military subjugation resulting in the execution of all adult males, the capture as spoils of war of their women, children, and livestock Deut20:10-14.
Should it be necessary to completely subdue that nation
2Kings3:19"you shall fell every good tree, and you shall stop up all springs of water, and you shall clutter every good field with stones".
In the land of Canaan, those natives that werent driven out or exterminated as per the Torah's injunctions during the invasion, were subdued into slavery Josh17:13. Their descendants suffered the same fate under Solomon's rule 1Kings9:20-1. After all and as stated in both the HB and the Talmudic writings (Eleazar ben Shammua) , the purpose of creation and the reason why the heavens and earth are maintained is for the chosen race to observe Torah.
That is what the Quran would have looked like, and how it would have instructed its people to behave towards the foreign nations and the weak that come under their possession, had it been penned by the ancients of its time to whom such attitude was regarded as expected and acceptable. The Quran changed the way such categories of people that already existed in the society it came to reform, had to be treated. It did so by igniting the believers' taqwa/God-consciousness, elevating the status of such weak categories whom there was now no shame of marrying 4:3,25,24:32,33:50 and honoring them as one would honnor the closest family members 4:36.
