Thursday, November 26, 2020

Sam Shamoun "Muhammad’s Adulterous Lust for a Married Woman"

Posted by at No comments:

Sam Shamoun "The Reliability of Muslim Chronicler Ibn Ishaq"


Many of the early writers, particularily the seera writers such as Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Al Waqidi, Ibn Saad were concerned by amassing and compiling all the material available or what was being talked about, surrounding any historical event or in comment to a verse, fearing they could be lost, without authenticating them. 

This shows the integrity of the Muslim tradition that did not seek to supress any information related to the life of the prophet and the early Muslims, nor invent things so as to advance their agenda. Such an endeavour would have been close to impossible to achieve anyway. There never was a centralized system of collecting information. Each narrator and historian took whatever was available to him, in his time and place. 

These historians, after gathering all that was floating around in oral tradition in regards an event of interest, would in the same time write down as many names among the chain of narrators as they could, so as to leave time and room for the specialists whose life was dedicated to sifting through the reliable and unreliable reports. They did not even attempt to examine the various reports in order to inform the reader of what they considered to be the reasons for various incidents. The biographers this way avoided taking responsibility for adopting a particular account when conflicting reports existed. Adopting specific accounts would mean discrediting the authenticity of other reporters and their accounts. And since was not their expertize, they preferred leaving it to the muhaddithun. When the experts finished selecting the authentic reports, the remainders were neither physically destroyed nor erased. They were instead kept as examples of what constitutes a weak narration, for future references and studies.

That is the difference between the Muslim tradition and the Judeo-Christian one that shamelessly accepts within its authentic collection of writings the most ridiculous and insulting things about God and the prophetic history, without any critical consideration for either the chain of transmission or the soundness of the content of a tradition. Neither do the Muslims take at face value the reports that over exalt the prophet and the early Muslims. If after deliberation they were deemed weak or unreliable, they were kept nevertheless if there was any moral lesson to derive from them. These weak and rejected narrations are well known to the Muslims, although the misinformed, unqualified critics of Islam make ample use of them to serve their anti Islamic propaganda machine.

These historians thus left the authentication process to the following generations in search of the truth. The famous historian Tabari for instance says in introduction to his work that his primary duty was to faithfully transmit whatever information he could gather, the responsibility is then on the reader or listener to verify not only the authenticity of the reports based on the transmitters' reliability, but also based on reason. As a case in point, the statement 'za'ama or za'amu often precedes Ibn Ishaq's reports implying the inherent caution of something being 'alleged'. This should make it clear for any sincere enquirer that there is more than a hint of a caution that the veracity of the statement he compiles is not necessarily determined as fact. Many narratives are this way injected with Arabic terms by the historians transmitting them, suggesting caution for the reader to undertake. 

Technically speaking, a seera book is a collection of reports about the prophet and his companions arranged in a chronoligical order with little attention given to reliability. The goal being to have as little gaps in time as possible.
Posted by at No comments:

Sam Shamoun "NOTES FOR THE LIVESTREAM ON ADNAN RASHID AND HIS MISUSE OF Q. 5:48"


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. The Quran in fact uses that established pattern of continuous revelation, to comfort the prophet, telling him that should his adressees disbelieve in that same pattern that is now bestowed upon him, then let him now, people preceded him that wholeheartedly believed in it. Further, their rejection does not compromise the honor and credibility of that lofty institution of prophethood. Instead of grieving, or even doubting, the prophet should follow the guidance of his predecessors who held fast by the revelation that came to them 6:84-90. All previous revelations 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
12:111,10:37,20:133"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 
2:2"dhaalika al kitab/that book or writing".  
The pronoun creates a distance with that kitab, because its katb/writing is done in a far heavenly place. In contrast the Quran speaks in many places of this/hadha al Quran denoting closeness because its recitation is being done in this world 
17:88"If men and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this quran, they could not bring the like of it, though some of them were aiders of others". 
Another instance of the Quran's surgical use of words. 

Ibn Abbas was among the companions that understood dhaalika as a synonym for haadha/this. According to the well established grammatical rules of classical Arabic and pre-islamic poetry, pronouns such as dhaalika/haadha or fee/aala are often used interchangibly. The interesting manner in which the Quran makes use of that flexibility, creates several layers of understanding that complement one another; This worldly writing reproduces that writing done in heaven on the preserved tablet. 


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.

 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.

The Quran is therefore the official preserver of the Book and this means that if something is claimed to be in the Book but the Quran says otherwise, then it is not from the Book. If the Quran is silent then it may or may not be of the Book and if the Quran approves it then it certainly is part of the Book. A long time ago, the prophet Muhammad explained how to approach the previous scriptures and traditions
“Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them. Say: We have faith in Allah, in what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes of Israel, in what was given to Moses and Jesus, and in what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims surrendering to Him (2:136)”.
This hadith encapsulates the notion of muhaymin/arbitrer. Muslims unambiguously believe in what was revealed to the prophets 4:136. However, Muslims do not believe nor reject the current scriptures and traditions of the people of the book. This is because by rejecting them, they could inadvertently reject an authentic remnant of the teachings of the prophets. By believing in them on the other hand would carry the risk of accepting things that were never sent by God, nor approved by the prophets. The perfect way for Muslims to maintain the middle ground and not commit any faulty judgement would therefore be to hold fast by the Muhaymin/the arbitrer that has preserved the truth of the previous revelations. This reflects even in the attitude of the classical exegetes. They exhibited no interest in the Jews and Christians of whom they must have had some contemporary knowledge. With very few exceptions such as Ibn Kathir and Zamakshari, we find no reference to the varieties of Jewish and Christian belief and practices.

After declaring its status as the Guardian and Watcher, the Quran states that those legitimate differences between the scriptures that are not the subject of human corruption, were because the laws were subject to their respective time frames
"for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way".
Allah could have prescribed one and the same Law for all, making all of humanity into a single nation but He did not do so for many good reasons. One of these reasons is to test people whether they obey or not what is given to them. Those people, who understand the real nature and spirit of the Divine Way and the position of the regulations in it and are not prejudiced, will recognize and accept the Truth in whatever form it comes. Such people will never hesitate to submit to the new regulations sent by Allah to replace the former ones. To demonstrate the unbiased nature of the Quranic message, it even tells its prophet in a hypothetical scenario that should a revelation be sent from God superseding both the Quran and the Torah, then Muhammad should be the first to follow it and nothing else 28:48-9.

This verse isnt arguing from the angle of authenticity, that the new scripture supersedes the previous due to them being flawed. Neither does it give an indication as to whether one of the 2 is partially flawed while the other is pristine. The verse is arguing from the viewpoint of unconditional obedience to God, regardless of the level of authenticity of the current scriptures. Those, who do not understand the true spirit of the Way, but consider the regulations and their details alone to be the Way and who have become static and prejudiced because of their own additions to it, will reject every new thing that comes from Allah to replace what they already possess
5:48"and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed"  
22:67"therefore they should not dispute with you about the matter".
But the unbiased, who understand that God's guidance is indiscriminate, not only accept the new revelation but also
13:36"rejoice in that which has been revealed to you".
They read the book 2:121"as it ought to be read". Consequently they cannot but recognize it as the truth 4:162,5:83.

Just like when the Bani Israil were ordered to follow the Injeel when it was revealed, the same proclamation is made regarding the Quran, now that it has been revealed. It guides them out of the labyrinths of assumptions and conjectures
27:76"Surely this Quran declares to the children of Israel most of what they differ in".
It brings them back to the path they deviated from, when they failed upholding both the Torah and the Injeel 5:66. The only way they can rightly say that they are following their own scriptures is by believing in the Quran as well because these revelations are interconnected:
5:68"Say: O followers of the Book! you follow no good till you keep up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; grieve not therefore for the unbelieving people".
5:69"If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: But many of them follow a course that is evil." 

This distinguished group from among them is the one that was led to believe in "that which has been revealed to you from your Lord" due to their sincere adherence to their own books. While the other group is the one that not only rejected the Quran, but also increased in their already existing inordinacy consequent to their neglect and distortion of their own books.  

2:89-93"..but when there came to them (Prophet) that which they did recognize, they disbelieved in him; so Allah's curse is on the unbelievers. Evil is that for which they have sold their souls-- that they should deny what Allah has revealed, out of envy that Allah should send down of His grace on whomsoever of His servants He pleases..And when it is said to them, Believe in what Allah has revealed, they say: We believe in that which was revealed to us; and they deny what is besides that, while it is the truth verifying that which they have. Say: Why then did you kill Allah's Prophets before if you were indeed believers? And most certainly Musa came to you with clear arguments, then you took the calf (for a god) in his absence and you were unjust. And when We made a covenant with you and raised the mountain over you: Take hold of what We have given you with firmness and be obedient. They said: We hear and disobey. And they were made to imbibe (the love of) the calf into their hearts on account of their unbelief Say: Evil is that which your belief bids you if you are believers"

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "NOTES FOR THE LIVESTREAM ON ADNAN RASHID AND HIS MISUSE OF Q. 5:48"
Posted by at No comments:

Sam Shamoun "The Prophet of Sensuality and Inconsistency; The Case of Maria The Copt"


As regards the number of right hand posessions (an expression that includes but is not restricted to "concubines", see articles below), There is the case of Tukana who was taken under his care until he died. She lived in his household under the status of right hand possession without becoming his concubine. After her death, she married Abbas, the prophet's uncle. This indicates that the prophet would not have had intercourse with her during her years as a right hand possession in his household. Further, had any of she been taken by the prophet as concubine, then we would have read of the kind of tension which is abundantly found in the history books between the prophet's wives and the prophet's only concubine, Maria the Copt. The prophet would have also settled her in a seperate house as he did with Maria. 

There were several such right hand posessions that lived in the prophet's household, side by side with his wives, as maids only. Such assistance was certainly needed and justified, given the number of guests constantly entering, day and night, and who were always kindly hosted to such an extent that they would overstay. The very fact that the history books speak of only one such right hand posession, Maria, as having had issues with the prophet's wives on account of her concubine relationship with him, the only right hand posession that was settled in her own house, while there is complete silence regarding his other right hand posessions, means that the burden of proof is upon those leveling the claim, to establish that the prophet was intimate with other women than those that are known, whether from his wives or right hand posessions.

Through the verse 33:52, the prophet was specifically told not to marry more women or divorce anyone from the wives he already had, if it is for purely physical motives. Here is a man who is supposedly lustful for women, forbidden from taking wives on the basis of their beauty only, which is precisely what is supposed to satisfy his alleged lusts. And besides, the ones leveling this type of mindless arguments, mainly Christians nowadays should ask themselves; how does having multiple or young/beautiful wives stain his truthfulness as a prophet, considering the marital and concubinal history of the prophets of the Hebrew Bible?

33:52 was an answer to the hypocrites' annoying talk and unjust provocations the likes that were directed at other righteous men and women 33:48,57-58. The prophet is not here being denied the right to divorce. He is denied to do it for purely physical motives. He could divorce a woman if she misbehaved, then replace her with one regardless of her age or marital history, whose selection would strictly be on the basis of high morality and spiritual qualities 66:5. His divorces therefore would be dictated not by whims or lust but by righteousness and uprightness in conduct, or as the HB states in Prov31 after listing the true qualities of a married woman 
"Charm is false and beauty is futile; a God-fearing woman is to be praised". 
That is based on the notion that 
24:26"corrupt women are for corrupt men, and corrupt men, for corrupt women - just as good women are for good men, and good men, for good women". 
This negates the charges and calumnies raised by modern critics, mainly from a Judeo-Christian background, concerning the motives behind the prophet's marriages and these critics should rather turn attention towards their own scriptures where "divine ordinances" regulate whom is to marry whom, strictly on a physical basis 
Ezek44:22"And neither a widow nor a divorced woman may they (the high priests) take for wives, but they shall take virgins from the descendants of the House of Israel".
Such calumnies werent reserved to Muhammad, in the prophetic history, the likes of Moses were slandered to such an extent that the HB portrays YHWH wrathfully descending on the culprits Numb12,Ex2:21,Quran33:69. Despite these talks, the prophet is consoled that he is under constant spiritual blessings by God and His angels. These blessings in themselves will bring to naught all such imputations levelled against him or the believers in general, while a grievious sin will be written upon the culprits 33:56-8.  

What is very interesting is that the verse, although restricts any future marriage, allows him still to have as many right hand possessions as he would like to have and establish concubine relationships with them. And yet, here again is a man supposedly lustful, taking only 1 such women although he had the possibility of having much more, even as many as he would have liked. Again, we see a clear pattern from the prophet, abiding by all the restrictions imposed on him but not taking advantage of the legal relaxations. 
The religion of Islam, as exemplified in the life of the prophet, is against the concept of monasticism, the depraved idea of conflict between the flesh and the spirit, and the rejection of this world's legitimate pleasures. Accordingly, the Prophet said 
“By Allah, I fear Allah more than you do, and I am most obedient and dutiful among you to Him, but still I observe fast and break it; perform prayer and sleep at night and take wives. So whoever turns away from my Sunnah does not belong to me”. 
That balance between wordly enjoyments and spirituality is encapsulated in another hadith, placed by an Nasa'i in the chapter on the kind treatment of women 
“In your world, women and perfume have been made dear to me, and my comfort has been provided in prayer". 
Al-Suyuti offers the following insights on this report 
"In view of the fact that what is understood from the context of this Hadith is that the Prophet wanted to clarify what he received from the enjoyments of this world; he started his statement saying, “In your world, women and perfume have been made dear to me …“. In view of the fact of what has been made dear to him from the enjoyments of this world is the best thing of it; the women, as evidenced by his saying in another Hadith “The world is but a (quick passing) enjoyment; and the best enjoyment of the world is a pious virtuous woman” [Muslim]. It is appropriate to include the best religious matter, prayer, in the same Hadith, as prayer is the best worship that ranks second to faith. Therefore, we learn that this Hadith is a rhetorical one as it includes the best worldly enjoyments besides the best religious worships. Furthermore, the Prophet simply used the words “made dear to me” for the worldly matters while for the religious worships, he used the great expression of “my comfort has been provided in” as we can see that the word ‘comfort’ is used to express a great love not a normal one like the word “dear”".
The single right hand posession that was in addition his concubine was the noble Maria the Copt, who wasnt even a war captive, meaning the prophet didnt even go out of his way to find a woman that pleased him. She was given to him out of reverence by an Egyptian notable. It is interesting to note that there are at least 2 similar precedents in prophetic history, of a prophet's union with the Egyptian daughter of royalty. First Hagar who was given to Abraham, and then Solomon's unnamed Egyptian wife 1Kings3. The Egyptian notable wanted to establish political relations with the prophet, and this gesture was considered normal as per the decorum of ancient societies. Some reports say that two women were given, Maria and Sirin. The prophet freed Sirin whom he married to a close follower and took Maria as his concubine and lodged her in one of his followers' houses temporarily, Haritha. 

The prophet died only 2-3 years later. It is reasonable to assume that he would have eventually freed then married her, as seen from his relationship pattern in his household.
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, November 24, 2020

Sam Shamoun "JESUS CHRIST – THE MUHAMMAD OF THE QURAN?" (2)




With the last Qibla change, the Israelites had been definitely deposed from their spiritual leadership over mankind. , a leadership that what was for them to honourably carry 2:63-64,3:187,28:5,32:24. This prophecied supplanting, as stated by Jesus in Matt21, meant they werent worthy of carrying the flame anymore, that the geographical center of monotheism has switched to another location, under a new established nation under God 
33:45-46"We have sent you as a witness, and as a bearer of good news and as a warner, And as one inviting to Allah by His permission, and as a light-giving torch". 
This meant that their hopes of seeing the Jerusalem Temple rebuilt for the 3rd time through Divine sanction by their messianic salvific figure was over. The era of prophethood itself has now ceased 
33:40"Muhammad..is the Messenger of Allah and the khaatim of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things". 
The term khaatim from kh-t-m means to seal something shut so that nothing can get in or out of it. It is used often to mean that something is finished since one seals something when it is over. It is also used for a well demarcated feature of an entity or person.

Nowhere in the NT, or in the HB in those passages which Christians retrospectively apply to Jesus, is Jesus presented conceptually as, or even named the seal of the prophets. Not even in post NT traditions and writings. Christianity also posits that one should believe in Jesus' death on the cross to earn salvation. Not merely believing in 47:2"what is revealed to the Oft-Praised One (muhammadin)" in addition to righteousness. Neither did Jesus' followers show any firmness against the disbelievers, much less in a military sense as in the direct context of 48:29. Jesus' closest disciples fled the scene at his arrest and even denied knowing him. And Jesus was certainly not, according to Christianity, a messenger like all those that passed away 3:144. The context of 3:144 is that of war. Nothing to do with the circumstances of Jesus' mission. 

It was revealed in the context of the battle of Uhud during which the Muslims were overwhelmed by the enemy and rumor spread that the prophet was killed. So many of the believers fled the battlefield and some considered apostasy. They are admonished not for stopping to fight but for depending their faith on the prophet; meaning their belief would continue as long as he lived, and disappear the moment he died, turning back to their former state after finding the guidance. The verse tells them that the religion of truth and its succesful establishment is in the hands of Allah, Muhammad has no authority in this affair, he is but a messenger charged with conveying the message and many passed away before him. This is particularly made clear when Allah mentions the war of Badr and his assitance to the believers and suddenly cuts short the speech, turning towards His Prophet to tell him, 
3:127-128"You have no concern in the affair". 
In its wider implication the verse re-states the fundamental Islamic doctrine that adoration is due to God alone, and that no human being - not even a prophet - may have any share in it. 3:144 also hints to another reality, by mentionning both the possibilities of assassination and of Muhammad dying a natural death it projects on the future behavior of the Muslims and warns them that Muhammad is naught but a messenger, that they should not idolise him and turn upon their heels after him. When prophets were sent to humanity with the guidance, wisdom and Book from Allah, it was not for their followers to be their servants and neither to be worshiped, but to worship Allah alone 3:78-79. Muslims must uphold at all costs, this religion of Ibrahim and this Quran. The striking similarity between 
3:144"Muhammad is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away" 
and 
5:75"The Messiah son of Marium is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away" 
comes as a sign from Allah who makes clear His communications. Only these 2 messengers are described with the exact same wording because no other prophets were inappropriately over exalted among the nations to whom they were sent and the subsequent generations, as much as these 2 
"See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away". 

On a final note, finality of Prophethood seems to be a tenuous claim. After all, potentially anyone can stand up and say that he is a Prophet of God - but so far all the instances in which this has happened has failed to even come close to the scale and scope of the Prophet Muhammad's mission. Also, if we examine the entire career of these claimants - they have singularly and absolutely failed to match the life-chart of Prophet Muhammad and moreover their death poses even more questions than their life. What is even more interesting that none of them claimed to be the final Prophet, much less Jesus who predicted the coming of a powerful figure after him, the Paraclete, that shall bring justice to the world.
Posted by at No comments:

Sam Shamoun "JESUS CHRIST – THE MUHAMMAD OF THE QURAN?" (1)




Some wild theories did float around in the previous century arguing that Islam could have originated in a Christian milieu. For example the Protestant theologian Gunter Luling theorized in the 1960s that Mecca was thoroughly christianized by Muhammad’s lifetime, and was a significant Christian town ruled by the Quraysh, a Christianized tribe that worshipped in the Kaaba, a Christian church built with an orientation toward Jerusalem. This assertion however remains unsubstantiated whether from Muslim or Christian sources, just as his assumption of a massive Christian presence in central and northwestern Arabia.

Going back in time, some 100 years after the prophet's death, there is John of Damascus. The short passage by this esteemed "church father" is by no means representative of the Quran's contents, form or extent as it was in his time. It surely is not, considering the heavy bias and intent of the author, representative of Islamic beliefs of the time. Especially coming from a school of thought known as justifying its use of lies and deceit, so as to save people into the loving arms of Christ. The author doesnt claim to have gone through the book from cover to cover. He did not even have a manuscript while penning his work and was obviously relying on hearsay. He paraphrases very few verses as he heard them, amplifying certain aspects so as to serve the purpose of his polemic. And because he has no Quran from which he is quoting, He jumbles clear Quranic chapters, calling them "books" since the scripture of his Christian audience is composed of books, and extra Quranic material, oral and written, as well as 2nd hand reports from non-Muslims about Muslims, like Herodotus's statement about Muslims worshiping Aphrodite. 

This concise polemic is meant to resonnate to the average Christian of his time, ignorant of the teachings of their own bible on similar issues that undermine his very contentions against Muslims; Arianism, sexual depravity and parallelisms with the antichrist. Jesus' portrayal in the Quran is thus presented as partly in line with Arianism and gnosticism, Muhammad's prophethood is rejected, certain Islamic laws are amplified and misrepresented, sometimes completely distorted so as to render them offensive to flesh-hating Christians, including monastics like himself. 

As a side note, it was common for polemicists to purposefuly misrepresent Islam and its prophet so as to deride Muslims and instill hatred for them in their Christian audiences. For example Muhammad is depicted as claiming he would be married to the emaculate mother of Jesus Christ in heaven. This latter polemic was invented in the 800s by Eulogius of Cordova, making its way even among some Muslim Quran comentaries. Ibn Kathir cites it while disputing its authenticity. Among other lies of this untalented Christian hate-mongerer, there is Muhammad's failure to rise on the 3rd day following his death, as he supposedly claimed, contrary to the "risen" Jesus. Robert Hoyland observes about this writer, after sketching a portrait of the prophet's early life, most likely plagiarized from John of Damascus 
"follows a lampoon of the Qur'an, mocking the chapter titles involving animals and twisting the words of the verse on the divorce of Zayd and Zaynab (Qur'an xxxiii.37). The final section recounts Muhammad's failed attempt at resurrection, as told in John of Seville's note, adding that an annual slaughter of dogs was instituted to avenge him. This is pure invention, presumably meant to compare Muhammad unfavourably with Christ, and a similar fiction is found in the Bahira legend. "It was appropriate that a prophet of this kind fill the stomachs of dogs," concludes the author, "a prophet who committed not only his own soul, but those of many, to hell.""

Continuing with John' polemic; Islam is presented as a "heresy", but clearly not in the sense that it grew out of Christianity, rather in the sense of "false doctrine". John discusses in that polemic many other belief systems which he labels heresies, including pre-Christian religions. 

The irony is that this caricature of Islam, read through a Christian lens and aimed at a Christian audience even more ignorant than him of what Islam is, would undermine similar later criticisms of Islam, more particularily modern, by his Christ-loving peers. He for instance although is unfamiliar with the Quranic text, speaks multiple times of descendents of Abraham and Ishmael, venerating a single Book whose messenger, a "seemingly" pious man named Muhammad, received from heaven. The book was thus already present in his time, compiled as a single unit. His Muslim contemporaries whom he repeatedly "embarasses", affirmed the oral and textual corruption of his Bible. 

Regardless of the sharpness of their arguments or whether these Muslim interlocutors are real or fictitious, putting aside their supposed legends surrounding the Kaaba and the black stone, which are conveniently embarassing and self-serving for his polemic, these Muslims still affirmed the Abrahamic legacy with the Kaaba whose stone he says Muslims rub their face upon 
"but they still assert that the stone is Abraham's". 
In his "refutation" of that Muslim claim, he appeals to his Bible which he seems as unfamiliar with as he is with the Quran and Muslim tradition. Abraham had to travel, according to Genesis for a few days from Beersheba where he gathered wood to the location of the near sacrifice in Moriah. The wood was obviously not freshly cut from a forest as it would not burn, and neither is Beersheba an area that has wooded mountains. Abraham took wood from what he had already gathered, which he simply split, traveling with what he needed and leaving the rest behind. This makes John's argument for the supposed lack of wood at the Kaaba's location irrelevant to his contention. He further deceptively states or is simply ignorant of the text he appeals to, that the wood was gathered on the spot of the sacrifice itself. 

The blunder is so gross, coming from an esteemed church father, that one can only conclude that it is a purposeful deception so as to win an argument. What is clear is that some zealous Muslim contemporaries hit a nerve for John, accusing him of idolatrous worship of the cross, while John himself was having a hard time defending the veneration of icons against many fellow Christians. 

Instead of justifying his position, as he does against the Muslim rejection of Jesus' divinity, he engages in an untenable polemical invention. The black stone supposedly is, up to his day a carving with the features of the head of Aphrodite. The Muslim historians do not shy away from naming, describing every main idol and statue introduced into the Kaaba and the surrounding sites. None has ever mentionned anything close to that claim. Not a single idol was left standing in the precincts of Mecca after its conquest, including the main idol Hubal. Why would an obscure female deity be left up to a 100 years later?
Posted by at No comments:

Sam Shamoun "AHMAD OR THE HOLY SPIRIT?"



61:6"And when Isa son of Maryam said: O children of Israel! surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Taurat and giving the good news of an Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad, but when he came to them with clear arguments they said: This is clear magic"
Ahmad in this verse is in the grammatical form of ism tafdeel. For example a sentence might say "this person is kabeer/great but that one is akbar/greater". Ism tafdeel indicates that the characteristics described are greater in the individual concerned. It is an observable reality that the prophet Muhammad's name is much more revered than that of Jesus. That characteristic reached a point that the ism tafdeel became equivalent to the prophet Muhammad's proper name. It is reported that nobody had that name prior to the prophet. Shortly after the prophet's time however, Muslims began using it as a name. Ibn Abi Ahmad for instance, who narrated ahadith from Abu Hurayra who himself died around 59AH. Or another hadith narrator who was his contemporary, named Al Jamdi Abu Ahmad. The prophet referred to himself as Ahmad, among 5 other names. His companions did too, including in poems about him.
Ibn Ishaq in his sirah refers to "Ahmad" while relating the story of the prophet's birth.
 Hassan b. Thabit said: ‘I was a well-grown boy of seven or eight, understanding all that I heard, when I heard a Jew calling out at the top of his voice from the top of a fort in Yathrib “O company of Jews” until they all came together and called out “Confound you, what is the matter?” He answered: “Tonight has risen a star under which Ahmad is to be born.”
According to world renowned Islamicist professor Déroche, the earliest Quranic manuscripts contain the exact same wording as 61:6 (Catalogue des manuscrits Arabes). Arthur Jeffrey's proposition that 61:6 did not originally contain the reference to "Ahmad" is based on a marginal quote in a late 13th century book on qiraat by a certain "al-Marandi".  Outside what that late source supposedly says, no evidence exists for Ubay's alleged variant reading, while every early manuscript containing the passage agrees with the Uthmanic recension. Also, just because someone claims something about Islam and is Muslim means nothing in terms of authenticity. There are many variants attested to this day that do not pass the standards and that do have at least a partial chain of transmission, contrary to this supposed variant that has none.

Muhammad, through his appellation and the praises he receives virtually every second of the day, fulfilled that prophecy in both ways, as established in the Quran 
94:4"And We raised for you, your remembrance." 
Further, nobody came after the prophet Jesus claiming to be a messenger of God and whose evidences were repeatedly and consistently treated as magic 
46:7"Our clear lucid verses were read to them. But, referring to the truth as it came to them, the unbelievers said, “This is obviously a magic!”".

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "AHMAD OR THE HOLY SPIRIT?"

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, November 23, 2020

Sam Shamoun "The Quran and Sunnah In Conflict: Is Every Living Thing From Water?"



When the Quran speaks of the creation of the human race, it consistently implies the action of fashioning, molding, forming, perfecting 40:64,64:3,87:2 starting with an extract/sulala of various inorganic, earthly elements 15:26,23:12,32:7,37:11,55:14 and water 21:30,24:45,25:54. Obviously the absence of organic life entails it originated from inorganic compounds. In some of these verses it speaks of dust, dry clay at others of muddy, sticky clay, indicating that a combination of elements (the aforementionned water and dry matter) was involved at the beginning of the process. 

All languages inherently accept exceptions unless the statement is clearly absolute, or that no other statements from the same source exist to allow the exclusion. The Quran speaks in several places of different non organic compounds at mankind's origins and in none of these verses does it make an absolute assertion. Nowhere does it say mankind was made exclusively of dust or only of water. The same reasoning applies to the verses speaking of the creation of the jinn. None of them make absolute statements or negate there being other elements involved in their creation than those mentionned.

The Jinn are beings whose essence is, contrary to the earthly substance of mankind, a special kind of fire 6:100,15:26-27,21:30,55:15. Just as we originated from inorganic earthly elements, then passing through various stages of creation, became a flesh and blood entity capable of procreating 30:20 so did the jinn species originate with what the Quran calls "smokeless fire" and water 21:30 (water and ethanol can emit fire if ignited for example) then passing through various stages of creation, the initial model became a different entity of which we know little or nothing, capable of spreading its species 55:14-15,15:26-27. They are not immaterial or non-physical entities, rather non visible to mankind specifically. The term itself, stems from JNN and means hidden. The Arabic for garden is JANNA, from the same root, as it implies a hidden place from sight due to the lush vegetation. The term is thus used for the hidden entities. All beliefs, including the Abrahamic faiths, accept them. But each culture has ascribed more or less fantastical additions to this belief. The Quran refutes many of the beliefs the pre-Islamic Arabs had about them. It also adds some insights that were unknown about their nature and history.

They have freewill, a body and a soul, males and females 72:6, were made before men 15:27 and currently live on earth but cannot be perceived by mankind. Man's current vision is only engineered to perceive a fraction of the spectrum of light. Many realities of the universe remain hidden to us in this world yet they surround us. They are morally accountable for both their actions and spiritual choices, so they will be raised for judgement like the humans 6:128-130,51:56,55:14-16,31-39,72:1-7,11-14.
Posted by at No comments:

Sam Shamoun "Does the Quran Reject Christ’s Eternal Generation? Pt. 1"


Warith/to inherit stems from w-r-th. The common denominator between all derivates of the root is the idea of acquiring something that has survived. The word in itself does not indicate ownership status. It essentially conveys the idea that what has been acquired has survived an event that caused things around it to perish (death, destruction, etc). Only the context of its use determines whether there was previous ownership or not. 

The Quran, as Jesus does in the NT Matt25 (see also Zechariah2:12), describes the righteous believers as the inheritors of paradise 19:63,23:10-11,39:74,43:72. Literaly, the meaning is that they have received a thing that remained despite a destructive event, the resurrection in this case. The Arabic, again, does not indicate previous ownership status. Inheriting paradise does not imply it belonged to another who then forfeited his ownership to them. Metaphorically, it carries the notion of aqcuiring without much exertion. Because the immense reward of Paradise is many times described as far surpassing in value any kind of deed. 

But ultimately all things are perishing and only God is everlasting in and of Himself 55:26-7,28:88. Ultimately, He is the true inheritor and the Quran calls Allah khayr al waritheen/the best of those who inherit 3:180,15:23,19:40,21:89,28:58. He receives all that perdures, because even the life of those who "receive what has survived", such as the aforementionned case of the inheritors of paradise, is entirely dependant on His will. Should He cease sustaining them then all perduring things will return to Him 
11:108"And as to those who are made happy, they shall be in the garden, abiding in it as long as the heavens and the earth endure, except as your Lord please". 
It is important to note here the concept of rajaa/"returning" to God. Nothing in the heavens and the earth has ever escaped His ownership. Some of these things were, at most, temporary trusts put at mankind's disposal by virtue of man's vicegerency on the earth, to test his gratitude and aptitude to make use of them in God-consciousness. Numerous verses reinforce that notion. So God's status is never altered during that whole process, neither does He gain or lose while His favors are entrusted to the humans, up until they are returned to him when He decrees to stop sustaining all life. 

It is in this sense that the prophet Zakariyya, in sura anbiya and aal imran, describes Allah as khayr al waritheen/best of the inheriters, when he prays Allah for a heir. With that wording, Zakariyya shows his farseighted wisdom. He humbly acknowledges that all life, including that of the heir he so wholeheartedly desires will end when God stops maintaining it. The higher implication is that, what his heir will inherit from him, will one day return to the true and ultimate Heir.


Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "Does the Quran Reject Christ’s Eternal Generation? Pt. 1"
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, November 22, 2020

Sam Shamoun "Do They Bear Another’s Burdens Or Not?"


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 
5:27"And relate to them the story of the two sons of Adam with truth". 
It is interesting to note the repetitve stress on re-establishment of the truth, most often when the Quran recounts an incident already known for long by its addressees but transmitted in a convoluted and/or purposefully obscured manner. 

As will be shown below, the Quran sheds light on at least 2 crucial events within the whole narrative that are strikingly absent from the HB. These details have important implications and ramifications not only for the protagonists but for all mankind; the reason for the rejection of one brother's offering, derogatorily referred to with al akhar. It means "remaining", he remains after first introducing the virtuous brother. The word also creates a kind of disdain and distancing between the sinful character and the audience/reader. The second issue the Quranic narrative tacles is the killing of the other brother, how it was unjustifiable from every possible angle.  

For brevity's sake, the 2 brothers will be given their Biblical names.

Abel first sought reforming his brother. He pointed that the offering was rejected due to his sinfulness or lack of piety (the divine approval/disapproval might have manifested itself through inspiration, either to Abel or his father the prophet Adam). He should thus focus on his inner self, reassessing his spirituality and mend his ways instead of being envious 5:27. The nature of the offering in itself is not important, so long as it is done with sincerity and God-consciousness, hence the Quran's silence on the things both brothers offered
 22:37"There does not reach Allah their flesh nor their blood, but to Him is acceptable the guarding (against evil) on your part; thus has He made them subservient to you, that you may magnify Allah because He has guided you aright; and give good news to those who do good (to others)".
This is a major point driven through by the Quran. In the HB, God disdainfully rejects Cain's offering for no other reason that 
Gen4:3"Cain brought the fruit of the soil" 
while Abel 
"brought the firstborn of his flocks and the fattest, and the Lord turned to Abel and to his offering"
This sacrificial rite is no more than a symbol of a conscious, selfless offering in God's name of something one cherishes as necessary and valuable. It is not an attempt to "appease" Him who is far above anything that resembles human emotion, nothing of His creation can disturb Him 35:44. Ultimately anything offered to Allah in God consciousness counts as of equal value and merit than a blood offering as stated in 22:37 above. The primary issue is to remain aware of Allah during this universal rite
 22:34"To every people did We appoint rites, that they might celebrate the name of God over the sustenance He gave them" 
The Quran recognizes the universality of this rite, and then restores it to the right, original course; glorifying God alone, first and foremost.
It is when one loses Allah's pleasure from sight in the process, such as by having one's intentions polluted with sinfulness as occured to Cain, or by having other deities or motives in mind, that the offering is invalidated. The merit does not lie in the intrinsic value or nature of the offering. Even fasting for Allah's sake by the one who cannot afford an offering is a valid substitute 2:196.  

Although the HB echoes that reality when it says 
Ps50:8-14"..Will I eat the flesh of bulls or do I drink the blood of he-goats? Slaughter for God a confession and pay the Most High your vows". 
Yet in other places, YHWH is depicted as physically delecting with the offering 
Lev1:9"Then, the kohen shall cause to [go up in] smoke all [of the animal] on the altar, as a burnt offering, a fire offering, [with] a pleasing fragrance to the Lord". 
This is reminiscent of ancient mythologies, more particularily Babylonian, where the gods would partake in the offering together with the offerer. In the HB numbers18 the priests making the offering are the only ones allowed to eat from the dead animal. Gods do not sit on the same table as the laymen. The Quran in sharp contrast allows to 
22:28-36"eat of them and feed the poor man who is contented and the beggar; thus have We made them subservient to you, that you may be grateful".
Finally, regardless of Cain's decision, Abel said he will not attempt murdering his brother in return, on account of his deep God-consciousness. Cain is now left with no reason to carry on with his death threats. Abel this way left the entire burden of manslaughter on his brother, not sharing any responsibility for having caused this action, for example by threatening Cain back with death, or fighting back so fiercely that he puts Cain's life in danger
5:28"If you will stretch forth your hand towards me to slay me, I am not one to stretch forth my hand towards you to slay you surely I fear Allah, the Lord of the worlds". 
Cain apparently did not show any sign of reform, prompting Abel, despite his initial pleas, to openly declare his enmity towards his brother, making it clear to him what would be the eternal consequences of what he was about to commit 
5:29"Surely I want that you should bear my sin and your sin, and so you would be of the inmates of the fire, and this is the recompense of the unjust". 
Abel wanted his brother to carry the burden of "my sin and your sin". It is speaking of 2 specific sins, in the singular. The context shows what these 2 specific sins are; Abel's unjust murder ie "my sin", and Cain's sinfulness, his refusal to reform himself despite the repeated pleas of his brother, leading to him being bent on murdering his brother ie "your sin". Certain commentators have erroneously assumed the word was in the plural, concluding that the murder transfered the victim's past sins to the criminal. 

The singular "your sin" is used in the same sense in certain ahadith. The prophet tries diffusing a situation where one whose brother was murdered, is about to seek his right to retaliation. He is explained that he could achieve more in terms of personal vengence in the long run in a different way
"Don’t you like that he should take upon him (the burden) of your sin and the sin of your companion (your brother)? He said: Allah’s Apostle, why not? The Messenger of Allah said: If it is so, then let it be. He threw away the strap (around the offender) and set him free". 
The criminal is described in the full hadith as an outcast, quick in shedding blood and thus with a potential of comitting more murders. But instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt in case, during a fight, he killed the brother who is now openly seeking blood retaliation, and thus lessening to severity of his sin, the brother could forfeit his right entirely. On top of that, this "throwing away of the strap" symbolizes forgiveness as reflected in another version of the hadith 
"If you forgive him, he will bear the burden of his own sin and the sin of the victim. He then forgave him. He (the narrator) said: I saw him pulling the strap". 
Just as Abel did with Cain, he would be leaving the entire burden of responsibility of his own potential murder upon the criminal, adding on top of that the sin of refusing to reform himself despite the victim's brother forfeiting his right upon his life and forgiving him. This would push the potential killer's awareness to its maximum while committing his crime. The whole idea is to avoid triggering potential criminals based on suspicion, even when they declare their intentions, trying to reform them if possible by making the first step, and this way puting the entire burden of the sin upon them if they act upon it. 

In a similar situation the prophet advised not provoking people known for their violent intent even if they should enter one's house 
“...O Messenger of Allah, what if they enter my house?” He said: “If you are afraid that the flashing of the sword will dazzle you, then put the edge of your garment over your face, and let him carry his own sin and your sin, and he will be one of the people of the Hellfire”. 
The prophet here is teaching the most basic and pragmatic approach both in a wordly and spiritual sense. Any security expert would advise to diffuse a situation where one is confronted to very dangerous individuals in such a way, even if they should enter one's home. In addition, the prophet gives the assurance that in case one falls victim due to not trying to kill as the agressor is trying, then one would receive maximum vindication by leaving the full blame upon the criminal.

Again, Abel at no point denies he will defend himself just as the prophet in those ahadith nowhere denies the right to self defense. What is denied is fending off the attacker with the same murdering intent. Abel does not say he will not fight back if he sees Cain coming with the purpose of realizing his death threats. He didnt say "I wont defend myself and will let you do whatever you want with me" he only said "I do not intend, under any circumstances, to kill you".
 
Despite his brother's increased admonitions, from gentle pleas and pointing the wrong ways, to threatening him with hellfire should he commit the crime, Cain slew Abel. The victim was not only innocent of any wrongdoing, but did not even raise his hand with the intention of killing him while he defended himself. What made matters worse, Cain knew beforehand that Abel would never under any circumstance pose a threat to his life. With his crime, Cain had established an evil precedent among the sons of Adam. 
This precedent has found its way all throughout the history of mankind, down to our present days 
"The Prophet said, "None is killed unjustly, but the first son of Adam will have a part of its burden." Sufyan said, "...a part of its blood because he was the first to establish the tradition of murdering". 
The hadith speaks of the concept of misleading others into sin. We will never establish the chain of events linking our current experiences and actions all the way to the first sons of Adam. But this hadith tells us the connection exists, so much so that whenever an unjust murder is comitted, Cain is burdened with SOME of that sin, not all of it. This is simple common sense as one cannot be held fully responsible for a crime he was enticed into comitting. It does not take away one's responsibility in the sin, rather determines the level of involvement of every individual.

The Quran explains in many places that a person's good deeds are means of obtaining God's forgiveness in the hereafter. But the person who comes to the hereafter with few good deeds as compared to his sins will inevitably have a spiritual debt to pay, and this is done in the Fire for an appropriate time. If his sins were comitted against others, then in addition to having to account for the sin itself, he will have a share of some of his victims' sins. 
Abu Hurairah narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: “Do you know who the bankrupt is?” They said: “O Messenger of Allah! The bankrupt among us is the one who has no Dirham nor property.” The Messenger of Allah said: “The bankrupt in my Ummah is the one who comes with Salat and fasting and Zakat on the Day of Judgement, but he comes having abused this one, falsely accusing that one, wrongfully consuming the wealth of this one, spilling the blood of that one, and beating this one. So he is seated, and this one is requited from his rewards. If his rewards are exhausted before the sins that he committed are requited, then SOME of their sins will be taken and cast upon him, then he will be cast into the Fire.”
This "some" doesnt refer to some of the total sins, ie 2 out of 5 sins. Rather some part of some specific sins, as with Cain's example above. 

Simple observation shows that many times victims become offenders due to past trauma, or various circumstances caused by the sin originally comitted against them. Again, as with the hadith about Cain's partial responsibility for the murders among Bani Adam, there is a chain of causality behind each human action. It is possible that some of his victims' sins were enticed by his deeds against them. These specific sins will then naturally be partially shared with the criminal, without taking away the due share of responsibility of those that committed them. Another similar hadith says 
"Had it not been for Bani Isra'il, food would not have become stale, and meat would not have gone bad; and had it not been for Eve, a woman would never have acted unfaithfully toward her husband". 
The prophet, and anyone else who heard this, knew there werent Israelites going around causing food to spoil. With or without them, food decay occurred anyway. But because an undeniable character trait of theirs, whether in the prophet's time, the time of Jesus, or our very capitalist era, is greed and hoarding of surplus wealth, the notion of spoilage is here associated to them among all the people of the earth. They established a pattern on an unprecedented scale whose repercussions are seen till this day. As to Eve, the nature of her betrayal isnt indicated, but it has to do with something her husband entrusted her with. Being the first among all the women vicegerent of the earth, her actions, good or bad, left a mark on subsequent women vicegerents, who learned from her. This doesnt mean that without her, women would have always been faithful. Eve had at some point a choice to make but made the wrong one, even though she wasnt influenced by a previous pattern. This means woman will always have the choice between faithfulness and betrayal to their husbands, just like Eve had. But to the women that came after Eve, a pattern of bad conduct in a particular matter preceded them, influencing to some instinctive degree their own conduct, without it being a decisive factor beyond their freewill. The association of certain traits with particular people is therefore hyperbolic, as is so common in the manner of speech of the Arabs

God knows very well those who conceal or misconstrue the Truth 41:40 and such sin causes the rejection from God's grace, rejection by men and angels alltogether 2:161. This type of human and spiritual injustice is "fitna", not based on any reasonable evidence and knowledge but instead on inner desires, worldly interests, blind attachement to inherited ways, and the Quran logically explains that the misleaders shall bear their own burden of sins as well as the responsibility of misleading others -intentionally or not- into sin 4:85,16:25,29:12-13 without diminishing from the moral responsibility and consequent requital of those they mislead 14:21,43:36-9. Once more, misleaders do not take away the share of responsibility of a person in his sin, because none bears the burden of other people's sins 17:13-15,53:38-42. Misleaders share their own burdens in those specific sins which they enticed others into committing. Thus each one shares his full burden of responsibility within one and the same sin. This why the Quran keeps warning to guard 
36:45"against that which is before you and that which is behind you"
 the "before" referring to the action one is about to perform and "behind" is the consequence of this action, referred to as the footsteps one leaves behind 
36:12,37:69-70,43:22"they say: We found our fathers on a course, and surely we are guided by their footsteps". 
There is a reason why, in sura fatiha, we seek example from people of the past confirmed to have succeeded spiritually, hence the use of the past alladhina anaamta alayhim.
 
This story of Adam's 2 sons establishes that in the next life, punishment is a matter of degrees, where a murderer can get a more severe punishment depending upon the person he killed. The one slain was innocent of any wrongdoing, even warned his brother that was about to kill him, tried reforming him, and finally pointed the grave consequences of his sins. 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 calls to reforms, there being no reasons for them to threaten and attack him, and his warnings of hellfire should they carry on with their deadly intentions. 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".

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "Do They Bear Another’s Burdens Or Not?"

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)