The Anvil of Truth

Saturday, April 24, 2021

When disbelievers demand a miracle

6:67"For every prophecy is a term, and you will come to know it"

The previous verses speak of the prophet grieving over his people's disbelief as well as their persecution of him and his followers. Allah then tells him that, as was done with previous messengers, His help comes in due time and there is none that can change these words of promises by Allah 6:34. The prophet should therefore be patient.

He must understand that miracles are not manifested to conform to the whims of the disbelievers. Miracles are meant at causing mindfulness in open hearts, to the fact that the prophecies of punishment in this world, let alone those to be meted out in the Hereafter, will eventually unfold at some point should the people persist in their ways. The sending of a sign, whose nature and magnitude are determined by God, draws a nation closer to potential destruction

17:59"and We do not send signs but to make (men) fear".

When God judges that every possible warning has been properly conveyed and that a nation's time of respite, during which it was allowed to reflect on the signs and message brought by the prophets, has expired, and that nothing more can be done to make them mend their ways, He imposes His judgement on the rejecters of His prophets in this world.

Like the prophets of old whose signs and prophecies came to warn their addressees during an interval for deliberation with a deadline, Muhammad presented the surrounding signs attesting to the truth of his message, he recited the Quran whose miraculous eloquence they could not but call sorcery and magic, and issued warnings of divine retribution upon the rejectors when their appointed time of respite expires. When the deadline was reached, ultimate destruction befell the rejecters, thus confirming the divine pattern in this world.

When the disbelievers request signs, it is only because they are seeking excuses for their disbelief, or to side-track the issue of worshipping only One God and rejecting their false gods. Those who make such requests, never do it with an open heart, neither do they show a will to listen to the message itself prior to their demands

6:36"Only those accept who listen".

Such people are heedless of the fact that signs cause the destruction of those that request then reject them. The descent of a sign hastens the expiry of their time of respite. They are destroyed then, because the type of manifest sign they demand leaves no more room for speculation.

So, as denoted in 17:59, it clearly is God's Mercy that prevents Him from sending a miracle as per their immediate request. The second part of the verse 17:59 says what kind of "ancients" rejected the signs. They were for instance the Thamud who were destroyed when they transgressed in the matter of the she-camel. They had requested that sign themselves and then denied it, regarding it to be mere intimidation and a pressure tactic 14:9-10,26:154-5. The prophecied punishment that befell them all of a sudden, while in their homes that consequently became their tombs, came as an overly exceeding 69:5 loud blast/sayha or lethal noise/saaiqa that caused a rajfat/shaking in them (shaking from a sound) 7:78,11:65-7,41:17.

A few generations later the people of Madyan to whom Shuayb was sent suffered a similar fate 11:94,29:36-7. The ruins of the people of Thamud can still be seen up to this day 27:52,29:38 despite the passing of civilisations over them, including the Nabataeans who put their dead in these very homes once carved in mountains by the Thamud 26:149, thus extending upon these latter's original constructions. The Thamud themselves inherited the land from the nation of Aad to whom Hud was sent.

The people of Hud were also visited by divine punishment in the form of an extreme windstorm, killing them. It kept on blowing for several days and nights until their once imposing but now lifeless bodies in which they prided themselves, were torn apart along with their achievements and possessions 7:73-4,11:50-60,41:13-18,51:41-2,54:19-20,69:6-7. Contrary to the devastation caused by nature or humans, when divine destruction is sent upon a people, it leaves no chance to anyone or anything meant to be annihilated, as here stated regarding the nations of Madyan and Thamud

11:95-100"As though they had never dwelt there...This is of the tidings of the towns (which) We relate to you; some of them are still standing and some have been mown down".

The example of Thamud is very relevant here as the same situation was repeating with the Quraysh. They were tauntingly demanding the prophet Muhammad for a sign. Yet they did not show the slightest will to consider the message itself. They rejected his calls to the return of their original monotheistic spiritual path, although they knew and acknowledged their Abrahamic ancestry, knowingly admitting to Allah's supreme authority above all their interceding deities. Just as the Thamud, they forgot that their nation was established by a favour from God, that they owed their security to their Abrahamic legacy. The verse 17:59 isnt speaking of the sending of signs in general, but of the sending of signs as per the disbelievers' request. The verse is saying "We will not answer your request for a sign because people like you in the past did the same and when they got what they wanted they remained in denial so We had to destroy them as per the requirements of divine justice" ie "We are being merciful in not answering your request".

The Thamud, on top of their polytheism were overly complacent in their worldly achievements. They knew, just as the Quraysh, that they had a monotheistic, more precisely, a Noahide background to which they had progressively, knowingly, mixed with idolatrous practices

7:74"Remember when He made you successors after 'Ad, and settled you in the land; you build palaces in its plains, and hew houses out of the mountains. So remember Allah's bounties and do not act wickedly on the earth, causing corruption".

This ungratefulness was to be put to the test. They had to swallow their pride and greed, leaving an animal to drink freely in that land which they were ungrateful for, referred to by their prophet Salih as

7:73"Allah's land".

In reality they had no absolute authority on it, they were established in it as a divine favour after the destruction of previous nations whose stories they knew about. They had to acknowledge these facts by leaving the she-camel to feed during intervals of time decreed for her, and then take their turn along with their cattle

54:27-9,17:59"and We gave to Samood the she-camel-- a manifest sign-- but on her account they did injustice".

The camel was sent after a long time of respite and continuous taunting of their prophet. Their arrogance and ungratefulness to God's blessings led them to eventually reject that sign which they themselves requested. This led to their utter destruction. Before that, during their time of respite, they kept mockingly asking for the punishment to befall them and were urged to ask for forgiveness instead. As per the divine law concerning the prevailing of God's messengers and destruction of the die-hard rejecters, they were bound to perish at the expiration of their time of respite. This means they were bound to be destroyed whether or not their request for a sign was granted, so God used those people who were doomed in all case as an example for the following generations by accepting their request for a sign.

It is thus a mercy to these very people to whom prophets of all times were confronted, that God does not answer their request immediately. Thus, it is in Quraysh's own interest that they do not emulate the preceding nations by keeping on demanding the prophet to send them a sign, instead of pondering on the message and their own spiritual condition in light of the arguments presented and the numerous signs observable daily that attest to the truth of the message. Had the signs been sent down as and when they requested, their current state of opposition was such that they 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.

This is an important aspect of miracles. If God chooses to manifest one through his prophets or by other means, it establishes the tremendous responsibility of those that witness it. Its rejection, and even should one be momentarily convinced then return to his wrong ways, causes retribution to descend at the time decreed by God. Besides the nations of the past that made such requests and remained heedless, the likes of the Egyptians or the aforementioned people, the Israelites were, and still are, a prime example of the half-hearted ones who are only temporarily convinced. Speaking of them, the Quran says

44:33"And We gave them of the signs that in which there was an obvious trial".

God therefore clearly warns those who demand it as a challenge or mockery, that they are in fact inviting their own doom

40:78"and it was not meet for a messenger that he should bring a sign except with Allah's permission, but when the command of Allah came, judgment was given with truth, and those who treated (it) as a lie were lost".

When the tables descended for Jesus and the Apostles 5:112-5, God warned the Apostles, through Jesus, that if they turned away after this, they would face a punishment unlike what others would normally face because it came at their own request. Being Jews, these close followers of Jesus knew that the performance of miracles by an individual, although impressive, are no indication of the truthfulness of his prophethood. They wanted a sign from God Himself, which was indicative of Him being the God of their forefathers, the One that fed them with heavenly food during their desert wandering. But this request came with immense responsibilities and consequences. This is an observable reality through the history of the Jewish people and the severity of their punishments that were collective and at the height of the miracles they witnessed and sometimes requested as a community. As Jesus said, the entire nation will be held accountable for the death of the prophets although not all of them physically took part in their murder Matt14:10,17:l2,Lk11:47-51. It is even reported that the Jews arrogantly and defiantly accepted that concept of collective punishment Matt27:25.

The Quran has pointed and explained the implications of many signs which exist in the world around and within man, calling him to ponder on every aspect of existence. These are in fact the true miracles happening everyday and only the one with an open heart is able to derive the higher realities from them. This is the particularity of the Quranic argument, to grasp things, concepts, phenomena which the human sees and experiences on a near daily basis, and teaches him the right angle from which to perceive them. The Quran uses simple scenes long familiar to man to attract attention to the higher realities and build profound faith. From a spiritual point of view, the same miraculous complexity applies to the building blocks of life as to gigantic structures and the universe. These scenes are used by the Quran because it addresses every human being, at all times and conditions. It does not seek to accommodate the philosophical and scientific intellectual elite while disregarding less educated people. The observations to which it points can be utilized by anyone so as to derive spiritual benefits. Through this approach among others, including a balance of warnings and glad tidings, as well as prophecies progressively unfolding, history attests that the prophet Muhammad, although often denigrated by Judeo-Christian critics who are ignorant of their own books, this prophet was in fact the most successful in implementing the will of God on an unprecedented scope and scale. Every time the prophet's opponents asked him for a miracle on demand, he was told to point them to a similar phenomena occurring daily under their eyes as evidence of a wise Creator

45:25-6"And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, their argument is only that they say, "Bring [back] our forefathers, if you should be truthful". Say, "Allah causes you to live, then causes you to die; then He will assemble you for the Day of Resurrection, about which there is no doubt, but most of the people do not know".

How will they admit to a miraculous sign the like of which they are demanding, if they arent able to see the imprint of a Creator in everyday causality? That is why we find that even those prophets that did perform miracles on demand to those kinds of obdurate people, were accused of sorcery and had in fact very little following

45:23"Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah? Then will you not be reminded?"

Therefore a person who never views a supernatural wonder, per the Quran, can attain a much higher superiority in the eyes of God than those that do, because they believe through hearkening their inner sense of spiritual perception

2:118"Indeed We have made the signs clear for a people who are sure".

What we refer to as nature is actually miraculous and "unnatural". It is only because they continuously unfold in front of our eyes that we take them for granted.

When such signs fail to convince people's hearts and set right their vision, then it means such people cannot perceive the divine presence. If they cannot derive the correct spiritual conclusions from everyday occurrences, then nothing will make them believe, especially not the type of wonders they often demand. They will do their best to find a reason other than God as the cause, so that their erroneous world-view is maintained. It was thus a mercy from God that He repeatedly denied these requests by the disbelievers in the prophet Muhammad's time, leaving them instead the time to be repeatedly exposed to the signs of creation the Quran was continuously pointing them to. This way the foundation of faith is strongly established, after which an open heart may request to see a sign so as to be further comforted. One in fact finds that most of the time, once persuasion is achieved the believer does not even need or want to see miracles

10:101"Consider what is it that is in the heavens and the earth; and signs and warners do not avail a people who would not believe".

Therefore, and as Jesus stated regarding the wicked Pharisees in the NT, why would God manifest a sign to those who reject the innumerable wonders evidence of His existence and whose hearts are devoid of faith

6:109-110"And they swear by Allah with the strongest of their oaths, that if a sign came to them they would most certainly believe in it. Say: Signs are only with Allah; and what should make you know that when it comes they will not believe? And We will turn their hearts and their sights, even as they did not believe in it the first time, and We will leave them in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on".

The Quran confirms and upholds the miracles performed by past prophets as signs of God's power, mercy, wisdom, and reiterates the fact that God exalted some prophets above others in certain particular fields. The Quran does not denigrate or deny these miracles and the exalted status of some prophets, in order to justify the fact that Muhammad like many other prophets even of the HB did not perform great wonders such as those of Moses or Jesus.

If God's judgement is immediately made in answer to the people's iniquities, not only will the wrongdoing people be immediately destroyed 6:47 but also not a single soul would be left on the Earth 16:61. Divine Retribution is thus certainly not exacted for gratification of a sense of revenge, or to settle any personal account. God is self-sufficient, above all the needs of the world. He is not in the least affected, whether increased or decreased by His creatures' actions.

Rather divine retribution is due to divine justice, it is the natural outcome of the order of causality to which the humans have been subjected to, as volitional creatures. As alluded to by David in the HB when recalling the sins of his people, God leaves a time of respite to return to the straight path, and even when His requital is inflicted when that respite expires, it is less proportionate than truly deserved

Ps103:10"He has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor has He repaid us according to our iniquities".

The disbelievers have always asked their prophets to hasten on God's promised doom as evidence of the prophets' truthfulness

8:32,10:48-54,11:8,32-33,29:50-6,38:14-6,67:25-8,13:6"And they ask you to hasten on the evil before the good, and indeed there have been exemplary punishments before them; and most surely your Lord is the Lord of forgiveness to people, notwithstanding their injustice; and most surely your Lord is severe in requiting (evil)".

The same is also reported in the Hebrew Bible, as in the times of the prophet Jeremiah when not a day would go by without that the people sought opportunities to make him appear ridiculous and insane

"Where is God's word? Why does it not come true? God is not, and misfortune will never reach us".

Saturday, April 17, 2021

Was Muhammad an Ishmaelite?

The original Arabs, of whom very little is known, existed much before Abraham and comprised among others the Ad or the Thamud which are mentioned in the Quran. There is also the tribe of Jurhum, attracted to the new settlement of Mecca as alluded to in the Quran 14:35-9 in which Ismail married into. Later the tribe of Jurhum ruled over Mecca but the Khuza'a supplanted them and drove them out, together with the descendants of Ismail. The Jurhum are attested in Greek sources (the Ethnica of Stephanus of Byzantium).

The marriage of Ismail with a Jurhumite is how Arabic as a language progressively entered into the Ishmaelite line, eventually replacing the semitic non-Arabic language of Ismail. It is interesting to note, scholars estimate that the ancestor of the Arabic languages, called proto-Arabic, split off from its central semitic family around 2000BCE. This also is the estimated time at which Abraham and Ishmael lived.

The prophet narrated that Ismail, after he was settled together with his mother in Mecca

"grew up and learnt Arabic from them (the Jurhum)".

Further the Quran describes Ismail, in his prophetic function, as preaching primarily to his own family rather than a nation as a whole 19:54-55. This is because he was a newly alien resident in a foreign land. He had to first establish his own family in that place, before carrying the message to the growing settlement.

The Arabs of the Peninsula are divided in to 2 main groups;

-Qahtani, who dominated the areas of Yemen and the southern part of the peninsula.

-Adnani, which comprised the regions of Central, Western and Northern Arabia and of whom the prophet Muhammad was a descendant.

A widely spread misconception is the notion that Qahtanis were the indigenous people of the Arabian Peninsula prior to the arrival of Ismael. And that Adnanis were the result of the intermarriage of Ismael with the Qahtani tribes. It is true that Arabs are either Qahtanis or Adnanis for the very most part. However, both Qahtanis and Adnanis are from the offspring of Ismael, as stated in some traditions, and the confusion could be due to the fact Qahtan was one of the major tribesmen of the descendants of Ismail, and thus over the years gotten confused with Qahtan bin Hood who was Ibrahim's grandfather.
It is agreed that Adnan is from the descendants of Ismail. Also, there is poetry which proves that Qahtan is from Ismail.

The genealogy of the prophet Muhammad:

Abdullah, Abdul Muttalib, Hashim, Mughirah Abd-i Manaf, Qusayy, Kilab, Marra, Ka'b, Loo, Ghalib, Fahr, Malik, Nazar, Kananah, Khuzamah, Mudrakah, Ilyas, Mazar, Nazar, Ma'd and Adnan.

While agreeing with the above names, some narrators differ on the exact number of intermediate persons between the prophet and Adnan but where lies most of the disagreements is from Adnan upto Ismail. Not a single Muslim scholar, theologian or historian, past and present denies the Arabs' lineage from Ishmael. What Muslims differ on is on the necessity of trying to conjecture beyond Ma'ad and Adnan. The prophet himself discouraged such endeavour.

People can be part of a tribal group that ultimately traces their ancestry to a specific person, and not know their full genealogy upto that person. It happens all the time for tribal groups, let alone the Arabs, who were more keen on lineage. Can the Queen of England trace her detailed lineage up 5000 years which is roughly the interval between Muhammad and Ismail? Whenever the prophet mentioned the names of his forefathers he did not proceed beyond Adnan, and ordered that others too should do the same because he held that what was commonly known amongst the Arabs regarding that portion of the pedigree (which they all traced up to Ismail) could hardly be entirely true, obviously, going back so far would be virtually impossible to trace with 100% certainty and would be futile.

It is also to be noted that the Arabs knew very well who belonged to each tribe, and those who tried claiming otherwise by associating themselves with other clans, especially with those higher casts like the Quraysh. Tradition has recorded the names of several people who attempted faking their genealogy and tribal affiliations, like Akhnas ibn Shurayq or Walid ibn Mughirah.

Some critics have attempted painting Muhammad as the initiator to have claimed descendency from Abraham in order to justify his claim of prophethood. Then the burden is upon them to establish that he was unique in his claim. Muhammad made no proclamations of this fact, because it was already recognized in Arabian society that he was a descendant of Ishmael, and that further this issue of lineage was not even unique, especially in Mecca. So how could Muhammad's prophethood rest on claims that weren't unique to him? Further, not a single Meccan sura proves this. Muhammad claiming his prophethood was based upon the inimitability of the Quran during the period in Mecca. How does that correlate with the claim regarding the mission of Muhammad resting purely on this claim? Further, the Jews primarily lived in Medina, and Muhammad did not face them until over ten years of preaching to his own people in Mecca. So if Muhammad was preaching to his people, who were idolaters and not People of the Book, why would he rely on his descent to Ishmael as proof of his prophethood? They were from the same line as him, besides the fact that this argument wouldnt have been a weighty one considering the Israelites' history of rejecting and killing their own prophets.

Also, if we accept for the sake of argument regarding this mutual affiliation between the claim to Prophethood and the lineage of Ismail, than this would automatically mean that the Arabs themselves believed that Abraham was a Prophet of God, and Ishmael was a key figure of their history, worthy of veneration, and that a Prophet would arise from among the Ishmaelites. In fact among the pre-islamic evidences attesting to the Arabs' high regard for the Abrahamic legacy is the case of Qusay ibn Kilab who argued for his better legitimacy to the Kaaba's guardianship based on his purer lineage to Ismail. Again, that forceful statement, long before the prophet, could not have been made in a vacuum, if the Abrahamic legacy was not an already well established, uncontested knowledge among the Arabs. The religious beliefs of these patriarchs would obviously be respected in their eyes. The Ishmaelite tradition would have no value to them in regards to prophethood, unless they themselves understood that a Prophet would come from among them. So one would have to admit of the knowledge of Abraham and Ishmael in Arab tradition to even propose that argument. And if these figures were venerated in such a manner, then it would be rather easy for an Arab to weed out a false claimant to the lineage of Ishmael, because they would have been keen on preserving the purity of lineage.

The fact is Muhammad wasn't claiming anything in terms of lineage, nobody ever disputed that affiliation, whether the Madinan people of Yemeni origin, the pagans or hypocrites, the Jews or Christians, despite both the Quran and traditions reporting the calumnies and accusations of the enemies of the prophet and the Muslims. If there were the slightest of doubts about his descent, then this would have been made into a massive issue considering the core message of his prophethood centred around the revival of the way of Ibrahim.

The Arabs were already acknowledged even by the likes of Josephus in his Antiquites, that they were descended from Ishmael, way before the time of Muhammad, almost 500 years. He even mentions that the Arabs circumcise their children at 13 years old, as was still done in the times of the prophet, in remembrance of their forefather Ishmael. It is also important noting, Josephus not only locates these descendants of Ismail as inhabiting the region from the Euphrates to the Red Sea, but also bellies the notion that the hanifs imitated the Israelites in their rites, more specifically their circumcision rites, by saying that these Ishmaelites purposefully practiced it at 13 in memory of Ishmael, contrary to the Jews who do it a 8 days in memory of Isaac. In the biography by ibn Ishaq, it says the pre-Islamic Arabs practiced it. A camel would be slaughtered for the occasion. Now of course not all of them had preserved the way of Ibrahim, and those that did, had only but a dim remembrance of it. Until Islam came and restored the religion of Ibrahim. When Ibrahim circumcised Ishmael at 13, the age itself was not meant to be retained as the time at which the rite had to be performed, contrary to the precise timing concerning Isaac Gen21:4.

The Quran does not mention the practice although it claims in many places to reinstate the pure way of Ibrahim. This includes the God-ordained rite covenant of circumcision that included Ishmael, as is depicted in the HB. More than a simple tribal mark, it is the physical symbol of God's special relationship with Abraham, and by extension of the duties and obligations of those among his household carrying the mark. This world has been put under mankind's dominion in its raw state, and it is up to humans to perfect it by making use of it in a God-conscious manner. This world is an arena for us to build a relationship with God. Had everything been made perfect and as religiously intended from the get go, this would have been impossible. When we put a religious sign on the most physical and potentially lowly organ, we signify it can and should be used in a holy way. By performing it on a child who is unaware of the portents of the ritual, the idea of hardwired, subconscious connection between God and mankind is being conveyed, as is so often stated in the Quran.

Wednesday, March 17, 2021

Sam Shamoun "Turning the Tables Pt. 9: Allah Needs Carrying!"

40:7"Those who bear the throne and those around it celebrate the praise of their Lord and believe in Him and ask protection for those who believe.."
39:75"And you shall see the angels going round about the throne glorifying the praise of their Lord; and judgment shall be given between them with justice.."

69:16-7"And the heavens shall be rent asunder, for that Day it shall be frail and shall collapse. And the angels shall be on the sides thereof; and above them eight shall bear on that day your Lord's throne"

These verses speaking of the entities bearing the Throne and being near it on the Day of Judgement, do not say that God is or will be seated on this "Throne". As stated earlier, Allah is in no need of the throne for support, rather it is the throne that is constantly sustained by its Creator. Beyond its symbolism, the reality and function of the throne is something known to God only.

In contrast, we read in the HB

1Kings22:19"I saw the Lord seated on His throne, and all the host of heaven were standing by Him on His right and on His left"

or also in Isa6:1,37:16,Ezek1,2,3 all picturing God carried by angelic creatures, seated on His throne. He is also pictured as accompanied by innumerable chariots and angels during certain "important" movements Ps68:18.

Even the statement of ibn Abbas describing the kursi as Allah's footstool does not come close to the biblical depiction, neither does he state that Allah is seated on the throne

"The Kursi is the place where the Qadamain (feet) of Allah rest and the Arsh, no one knows its extent except Allah".

It is to be noted here that the statement is not attributed to the prophet.

The picture painted in the Quran carefully preserves divine transcendence all the while taking human imagination as close as possible to the divine essence. When subjects look at their king, the closest thing to him is his throne. Yet here at no point is Allah seated on His throne. Instead, powerful and compassionate angels are bearing it, in complete submission to the will of the mighty King. Seeing those majestic entities submitted in this manner is awe inspiring, and the fact that the King Himself does not need to appear to create such an effect, increases the feeling of amazement.

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "Turning the Tables Pt. 9: Allah Needs Carrying!"

- Acts17apologetics find Zeus; How does Allah istawa on His throne?

Monday, March 15, 2021

Sam Shamoun "QURAN ONLY DILEMMA: HOW MANY PATHS TO PARADISE?"

The Quran uses the term Muslims to all those that voluntarily submit to the divine will, whether that will manifested through Abraham, Moses, Jesus or Muhammad. Submission to the Divine Will, willingly or not, is according to the Quran, an observable reality in the universe down to our inner selves, since the origin of things 3:83-5,13:15,19:88-95,22:18 until all are commanded and made to disintegrate and resurrect 84:2.

That submission however is different in the spiritual realm.

The creatures, including the humans, endowed with a spirituality, are to volontarily choose submission to the divine will. It will never be enforced upon them. No other din/way is acceptable to Allah, other than volontary self-submission, the meaning of Islam 3:19,2:127-130 because it is the natural fabric of the universe. Those who choose not to surrender totally to God or humbly and freely comply with His order of life, appear out of place in this design

3:83"Do they seek a religion other than God’s, when every soul in the heavens and the earth has submitted to Him, willingly or by compulsion, and to Him they shall all return?"

Islam and its derivatives (muslim, aslama) are used throughout the Quran to denote one's adoption of the divine will with his heart and soul, symbolized by "the face" in classical Arabic

2:112"whoever submits his face (aslama wajhahu) to Allah and he is the doer of good (to others)..".

To further corroborate, those claiming to adhere to the Quran are told to further

2:208"enter into the silm/the volontary self-surrender".

Being a "Muslim" is thus on a higher level that mere acceptance of the Quran and Islam, it transcends the simple label as understood nowadays. What it really entails is subordinating all aspects of one's life to the divine will. With the revelation of the Quran none may be labelled Muslim except those who adhere to it in faith and deeds. This isnt because of following the Quran per se, but because it is the final manifestation of the divine will. Prior to it, every individual that followed the latest manifestation of the divine will through a prophet of the time, could equally be labelled Muslim. With the Quran, the path to voluntary self-servitude to the divine will has been defined is such a clear way, that no compulsion is necessary for it to be adopted by a reasonable person 2:256,18:29. Through it, the divine will manifests in its purest form.

That is why people of all ages and backgrounds have been entering into its fold like waves upon waves 110:1-3. There was no need to forcefully spread it.

Any appellation that carries a connotation other than the one conveyed through "Muslim" and "Islam" is nothing but a distortion of this simple originality taught from Adam to Abraham, Moses, Jesus and down to Muhammad. When concluding in sura anbiya the stories of some of the most eminent prophets and pious personalities, the passage ends with a statement that these people that preceded, including the newly established nation of the last prophet are in fact a single nation with the same ultimate aims, despite the apparent disconnect between those that claim spiritual affiliation to them 21:92-3.

No prophet came between Ibrahim and Muhammad but that called their people to be upright/hanif in their submission to God 10:72,84,98:5.

In pre-Islamic times, the term hanif had a strict monotheistic connotation. It was used in contrast to those that abhorred polytheism, but also who rejected the God incarnate of the Christians on one side and the ethno-centered monolatry of Judaism. It applied to those who exerted themselves to return to their original predisposition to uprightness as exemplified by Ibrahim. Like him, the prophets that followed him were all voluntary self-submitters, meaning Muslims, steadfastly constant on the path of servitude to God until their last breath 2:132-3,5:44,12:101,27:44 (the Queen of Sheba voluntarily submits). All belonged to the same community, under the same purpose 3:44,21:92,23:52-3, preaching monotheism 42:13.

They are not responsible for the perversion of their message by their followers, including potentially the followers of the last prophet

42:14,21:93,23:53"But they cut off their religion among themselves into sects, each part rejoicing in that which is with them".

These prophets all followed the same pattern of spiritual thought, hence the necessity for anyone to reject any proposition that clearly goes against the re-establishment of that way 3:83-5. No appellation therefore is of any importance in Islam, so long as those claiming to belong to a certain group, submit themselves in words and deeds to the divine will as expounded by a prophet of their time 2:62,5:69. These 2 verses, which speak of righteous believers of the past as is clear from the context, are Medinan. They were recited in Medina after the prophet was confronted to the rejection of some among the people of the book. The idea often propounded by orientalists as regards Islam's supposed initial conciliatory tone towards other faiths, which then changed after the prophet's conflicts with Jews and Christians is therefore baseless. Further, Sura 5 is universally recognized as among the last revealed, much later than sura 3. The contemporaries of the prophet among the people of the book are spoken of in both Medinan and Meccan suras 2:121,3:113-115,199,4:162,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4 where they are either praised or condemned, irrelevant of the political tensions with Muslims, as is here the case for Christians in a late Medinan revelation

5:83"And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, "Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses".

The appellations of Jewry or Christianity came into being after the time of the Patriarchs, and long after the times of Moses or Jesus 2:140. Objectively, these terms do not carry any connotation in relation to the divine will, as opposed to self-submission to God, as is intended with the descriptions of "Muslim" or "Islam". They are rather labels describing an affiliation to a race or individual.

The very early few ones that believed in Jesus, and their contemporaries that followed in their footsteps werent even known as Christians at first but as Nazarenes. They were strict followers of the Torah and its laws, as Jesus enjoined on his community. These 120 small band of believers in Jesus, an inconsequential number considering the spectacular wonders that accompanied his life, death and resurrection, were the followers of "the way" Acts19:9,23,22:4,24:14,22 and known as the Nazarenes Acts24:11. The Quran calls them nasara from nusra/help in reference to those few core elements that valiantly stood by him, when he started sensing disbelief among his followers 3:52,61:14. This inner circle are not the cowards presented in the NT as fleeing Jesus when adversity came or unable to understand most if any, of his teachings which is why they abandoned his instructions to abide by the law soon after his death. In the Quran they pray Allah to make them witnesses of the truth, that their life becomes an embodiment, a testimony to Jesus' teachings.

"Christian" is a later appellation Acts11:26. In fact the word Christian itself is in reference to the belief that those who hold that qualification are anointed with God's oil, according to the earliest Christians such as Theophilus.

Nasara is phonetically close to the historical Nazarene/Nazoraios (Greek) or Nasraya (Syriac) Acts24. In the region of the Levant from where the Christians of the Hijaz originated, Christians called themselves Kristyane. It is expected that the Quran would address them by that same name just as it addresses Jews and other groups by their own names. Instead it chose to bring back to the spotlight an appellation forgotten by Christians themselves, found in their books, in reference to the first followers of Jesus, so as to illustrate how far they have gone astray. The last revelation this way vindicates Jesus' true followers, the Nazarenes, by bringing them back to the forefront of history after they had been relegated to darkness by the Christian pauline movement.

Another similarly remarkable feature of the Quran, is in its emphatic description of Jesus' mission as exclusively meant for the Israelites. To the Jews of 7th century Arabia, as is the case today, the reason for Jesus' mission and to whom it was directed to, was of no importance. No Jew would have walked around teaching the notion that Jesus was sent to the Jewish tribes. Christians on the other hand, teach that Jesus' mission was meant for all of humanity. The NT itself makes the claim, contradicting itself. It is thus expected for a 7th century Arab who is neither a Jew nor Christian, and who awkwardly decides to reveal Jesus' target audience, to similarly state that Jesus was sent to all people. Or at the very least that he was sent to Christians just as Moses was sent to the Jews.

Then the Quran addresses the Israelites as those who literally 62:6"became Jews" because what Moses and the other Israelite prophets really taught was essentially Islam, or lit. volontary self-submission (to the divine will). There is a reason why the Quran exposes it as utter ignorance to claim that the patriarchs and the tribes/asbat were Jews; the Torah itself makes no mention of those people as Jews, rather as Israelites.

The root of "hadoo" includes the meaning of "those that were guided" and the Quran has attached this meaning to the Jews obviously because no other people ever received such manifest, continuous guidance. There are no Jewish prophets prior to Moses and there are no Christian prophets at all and all true prophets are Muslims in principle. So the most that can be said in this regard is that among those prophets whom the prophet Muhammad emulated, are some Jewish prophets.

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "QURAN ONLY DILEMMA: HOW MANY PATHS TO PARADISE?"

- Acts17apologetics needs belonging to a group; is a label important?

- Acts17apologetics seek the just rankings; which religion came first?

- Sam Shamoun "A “Prophet” for Profit: More of Muhammad’s Inconsistencies Exposed" (1) (prevailing of Islam over all religions?)

- Acts17apologetics crack Islamic code; Quran is easy to understand?

Monday, March 8, 2021

The Islam Issue "The death penalty for drinking Alcohol in Islam."

The Quran does not prescribe a punishment for drinking alcohol. The prophet told his followers to beat the one that does, but did not specify the manner. It was not a systematic command and neither was it often applied despite alcohol being deeply embedded in the society of the time. Abu Bakr to whom a drinker was brought, had to search for witnesses to establish a precedent through the prophet's practice in a similar case. That this closest companion had to make such an inquiry shows how rarely the prophet applied physical punishment to drinkers.

If beating was so seldomly applied then it means the case of the drinker brought to the prophet and whom he ordered be beaten, and which Abubakr inquired about, had to be significant enough to deserve such a decision. The caliphs that followed Abubakr equally conjectured in their own way as to the details of the punishment for drinking

"I saw the Messenger of Allah on the morning of the conquest of Mecca when I was a young boy. He was walking among the people, seeking the camp of Khalid ibn al-Walid. A man who had drunk wine was brought (before him) and he ordered them (to beat him). So they beat him with what they had in their hands. Some struck him with whips, some with sticks and some with sandals. The Messenger of Allah threw some dust on his face. When a man who had drunk wine was brought before AbuBakr, he asked them (i.e. the people) about the number of beatings which they gave him. They numbered it forty. So AbuBakr gave him forty lashes. When Umar came to power, Khalid ibn al-Walid wrote to him: The people have become addicted to drinking wine and they look down upon the prescribed punishment and its penalty. He said: They are with you, ask them. The immigrants who embraced Islam in the beginning were with him. He asked them and they agreed on the fact that (a drunkard) should be given eighty lashes. Ali said: When a man drinks wine, he tells lies. I, therefore, think that he should be prescribed punishment that is prescribed for telling lies.."

The Islam Issue "Why Muslims should not marry infertile women"

On a general note first, the marital history of the Prophet reveals that all of the women he married were either divorced or widowed with the exception of Aisha. Although the prophet willfully chose this despite having had the full power and Quranic right to have much more women that were much younger, yet he did not necessarily push his followers to shoulder the same responsibilities and self-restraint.

For example when the prophet learned that his young companion Jabir, who had lost his father in battle, married a woman older than him, in addition previously married, he told him he could and should have chosen among the virgins, who would playfully interact with someone like minded and of similar age. Virgins tend to be young, especially in ancient societies where girls married early. Girls still lose their virginity young today, but for the wrong reasons as compared to older times. Also, for a young girl to be infertile is very uncommon, under normal circumstances. Jabir's purpose was to have someone care for his younger siblings, and thus thought that marrying an experienced woman would help him from that perspective. The prophet was a fatherly figure to the community and was here giving a common sense advise to a young man who should be looking for a more cheerful, playful female companion.

Similarly, most of the prophet's marriages were childless. He had in total 7 children, 6 from his first wife Khadijah out of whom 4 girls survived beyond infancy, and 1 from his right hand possession/mulk yamin Maria who died in infancy. He married divorcees that didnt have children before and after marrying him. But he neither stigmatized nor separated from them on that basis. Yet among the criteria he advised his followers to look for in a woman, which include the known Quranic principles that the best quality of a spouse and of a human being in general lie in his/her uprightness and nobility of character 2:221,66:5,49:13, were love and fertility

“Marry one who is loving and fertile, for I will boast of your great numbers to the Prophets on the Day of Resurrection.”

Anyone would agree that fertility is a justified criteria for one seeking a spouse, although not the main one. And of course the prophet and any Muslims should and would be proud in seeing the members of his/her community increase in numbers. When someone asked the prophet if he could marry a wealthy and noble woman despite her infertility, he said no. That is because wealth and social status should not be the main reasons for marriage. Had there been other justified reasons, such as love and uprightness in character, the prophet wouldnt have advised against such marriage, despite the woman's infertility, as he himself did.

The prophet thus had no children by any wife other than Khadijah, except Ibrahim born in Medina to Maria the Copt in 8AH and died in Medina at the age of one year. After so many years without children, in addition losing 2 of his boys in infancy, one can imagine the prophet's profound joy, bordering on disbelief when his son Ibrahim was born. A narration by ibn Kathir, although unreliable as given without isnad, reflects that state of mind

"When Maria give birth to Ibrahim, something would have almost fell upon the prophet's mind but Jibril came down and said "Peace be upon you, father of Ibrahim".

Doubt was not permitted to enter the prophet's mind the moment Ibrahim was born. Not only that, but his birth was greeted by the angel Gabriel. Later however, the prophet came to know of the people's slander against Maria, which he demonstrated were totally baseless. (see link below).

One interesting incident related to the young Ibrahim's death, revealing once more the prophet's sincerity, humility is that, according to several reports a solar eclipse occurred on that day. Instead of taking advantage of the situation to enhance his claim to prophethood, Muhammad declared that the celestial bodies are all signs in God's Hands. Their condition isnt affected by the life or death of any human. God had already decreed, for a wisdom and foresight known only to Him, that Muhammad's male child would never reach a mature age

33:40"Muhammad is not the father of any of your rijal/men".

This is yet another demonstration of the Quran's surgical use of words.

As a side note, it is worthwhile contrasting Muhammad's view of eclipses as a purely natural phenomenon and the rabbinic, talmudic tradition that explicitly says "Eclipses happen because people sin". Both lunar and solar eclipses are understood as a form of divine punishment - a curse to be dreaded and feared, rather than a miraculous wonder of nature. Later rabbis would argue that though the eclipse in itself is predictable yet the weather conditions were not necessarily, so the visibility of the eclipse could still be viewed as dependant on non scientific factors.

Sunday, March 7, 2021

The Islam Issue "Ibn Abbas testifies to Quranic corruption"

In 17:23 the word qada has different shades of meanings depending on context, going from setting limits to measuring those limits to acting according to those limits. See 6:91,12:68,28:15,28,33:23 etc. The word fits 17:23 in the sense that Allah has set limits to the humans in regards to worship which they are obligated to fulfill, just like any citizen under the rule of law. Fulfilling that law does not entail through compulsion, but could equally be through freewill. This is clear in 33:36 where disobedience to Allah's qada/decree through His messenger is forbidden, although it is possible

"and whoever disobeys Allah and His Apostle, he surely strays off a manifest straying".

In 17:4 Allah qada/decreed that the Israelites

"will make mischief in the land twice, and most certainly you will behave insolently with great insolence".

However that decreed disobedience only came about through God's foreknowledge of their own will

17:7"If you act rightly, it is for your own good, but if you do wrong, it is to your own loss".

The possibility was there for them to act good and the decree to be otherwise. But God knew that in their freewill they would choose evil instead.

So Qada entails obligation, although not devoid of freewill, while the very similar Wassa is softer in tone. It entails trusting a matter, hence its use in Arabic for the will of the deceased or anything of importance one asks another to take care of. Both words can be used interchangeably to convey a particular nuance depending on the general tone of the context. The use of wassa in 4:131 creates a softer tone. Had qada been used, grammatically it would have to be followed by aala or ila as in 17:4, and the general feel of the verse would have been different, more forceful. Similarly the use of wassa for the revelation 42:13 is more fitting as it is speaking of it being entrusted to the prophets, the devoted slaves of God who do not need to be "obligated" with it.

Further reading answering The Islam Issue "Ibn Abbas testifies to Quranic corruption"

- Islam Critiqued cannot ask with humility...(variants 2:214,18:79-80,24:27,17:23,4:24)

- Islam critiqued wakes up with the wrong foot..(variant 2:198)

- Sam Shamoun "Muhammad and the Ten Commandments" (mutah and 4:24)

Saturday, March 6, 2021

The Islam Issue "Aisha testifies to Quranic corruption"

4:162 is a grammatical construction where case markers are switched, having the effect of highlighting a particular thing. It says muqimin instead of muqimun. Highlighting prayer here is understandable in the light of the stress laid several times in this same sura on its observance.

In 5:69 it is the nominative sabiun instead of sabiin like other accusative nouns in the sentence. In the passage, the Jews and the Christians are repeatedly alluded to. Now the verse mentions a third group not spoken of before and thus marks a sudden shift in pronoun so as to turn the reader/audience's attention on them, integrating them in the passage's overall notions of forgiveness and good deeds. Arabic is known to be a highly elliptical language, with omissions involving all elements within a sentence. This is seen as a major feature of its eloquence.

In 22:25 it says

"The unbelievers who debar others from the path of God and the Sacred Mosque.."

It does not say what happens to them, or what punishment they will receive. Their mere description is enough to determine their fate. In 41:41 it says

"Indeed, those who disbelieve in the message after it has come to them... And indeed, it is a mighty Book".

The sentence is again left without a predicate; the mere mention of their condition is enough to deduce the horrible consequences.

Another example is

9:31"They have taken their rabbis and their monks (as) Lords besides Allah and the Messiah, son (of) Maryam. And not they were commanded except that they worship One God. (There) is no god except Him. Glory be to Him from what they associate (with Him)."

The ellipsis allows for a more concise statement. Rendered fully it would be 9:31"They have taken their rabbis and their monks (as) Lords besides Allah and the Messiah, son (of) Maryam has been taken too as Lord besides Allah. And not they were commanded except that they worship One God. (There) is no god except Him. Glory be to Him from what they associate (with Him)." The verse warns to worship only one God, besides Whom there are none and Who has no associates. It would have made no sense to include that warning had it meant that Allah and Jesus are to be worshiped together. Jesus' deification is on a different level than that of the religious scholars. It was appropriate for the verse to mention him apart from that group, especially considering the message of divine unity at the end.

These types of sentence structures are the reason why we may find different valid grammatical explanations for an elliptical construction.

That is why some have stated that sabiun is in the nominative/mobtada because of the omitted "khadhalika", ie "the Sabeans AS WELL". That literary feature allows for a concise speech, and the Quran initially was uttered as a piecemeal oral discourse, whenever the revelation came to the prophet. This very recurrent feature of the Arabic of the Quran makes its translation difficult, hence the addition of many words in brackets that we see so as to convey the full meaning. For instance in the famous aya of birr 2:177 it literally says

"It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is those who believed in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets..."

This genitive construction allows for an obvious omission. The full rendering would be

"It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF those who believed in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets..."

Some reports attributed to Uthman and Aisha state that 5:69 quoted earlier, along with 4:162 and 20:63 are scribal mistakes. Before getting to the reports, in 20:63, the grammatical construction combines negation "in" and restriction "la" hence the reason why haadhani is declined as such. Other grammarians have said that in the Kinaanah dialect, the dual form always appears with the alif. Still in accordance with grammar rules, the subject of inna is omitted and thus in the accusative. These and other valid grammatical constructions that apply to the verse were reported by Al-Suyuti, who himself quotes the reports attributed to Uthman and Aisha stating this verse and a few others are erroneous.

Further, these reports, narrated by Urwah in his Iraqi period are considered weak due to the hadith scholars, including imam adhahabi recognizing that

"when he, ie Urwah, came to Iraq at the end of his life...there were a few hadith that he reported that were not sound".

But that is not the sole reason undermining the authenticity of these reports. The one attributed to Uthman has a broken chain of transmission, as well as contains narrators whom no scholars vouched for their integrity, such as ibn Aamir. Neither Yahya ibn Ya'mur nor Ikrimah were contemporaries of Uthman to have heard anything from him, as corroborated by ad Daani. Bukhari deemed the chain broken and Qataadah said it was ambiguous. Further, the various names in the chain appear in different chronological orders depending on the channel of transmission. At Tabari even quotes Ubay ibn Kaab's recitation of 4:162 as "walmuqimeena", just as in the mushaf of Uthman we have today.

This further undermines the notion of a widespread grammatical error among several independant masaahif. And why didnt anyone else notice the "errors" among the multiple independant channels of transmission of the Uthmanic text, other than Uthman and Aisha? How could the exact same "errors" be repeated in the multiple copies which Uthman had compiled? Lastly, why would Uthman, whose task was to harmonize and standardize the Quranic text, destroying all imperfect copies, leave erroneous manuscripts to be disseminated under his watch?

Al Suyuti himself considered these rational implications and others as damaging to the report's authenticity. Al Suyuti also reports from abu Ubayd how Uthman would immediately correct scribal mistakes which were brought to his attention, citing the examples of 30:30, 86:17 and 2:259 containing very slight errors by the copyists. Why would he then neglect supposedly blatant grammatical mistakes elsewhere? Al Zamakhshari states in Al Kashshaf says those who talk of orthographical error here or elsewhere simply do not know the various ways the Arabs use their language. When the Arab grammarians and philologists, such as those of Kufa and Basra, disputed the grammatical validity of a reading known for its authentic transmission, it was because they neglected the principle of the 7 revealed ahruf which integrated various Arab dialects. They began instead reflecting their own criteria of fluency to these dialects. The fact is that both grammar schools did not assimilate every parts of Arabic into their rules. Many parts of the Arabic is transmitted by the Kufans and others parts by the Basran (al bahr al muhit).

More recently, the Islamicist Nicolai Sinai while quoting John Burton's claim of grammatical error in 20:63 based on that hadith from Aisha says

"The Hafs aan Asim reading of Q 20:63 (in hadhani la-sahirani..) is of course not, strictly speaking, incorrect, for in al-mukhaffafa does not require the accusative (see Wright, Grammar, vol. 2, 81D). On the other hand, it is noteworthy that the majority of canonical readers seem to have read inna hadhani, at the price of linguistic correctness (Ahmad Mukhtar Umar and Abd al-Al Salim Makram, Mujam al-qiraat al-qur'aniyya, 2nd ed., 8 vols (Kuwait: Dhat al-Salasil, 1988, vol. 4, 89–90). There must consequently have been a strong oral tradition in favour of inna instead of in al-mukhaffafa; and it seems probable that this was the original wording, as it is surely the lectio difficilior. Abu Amr and others read inna hadhayn la-sahiran, probably by tacitly going against the rasm. What is significant in the present context is that this oral tradition in favour of inna did not result in an emendation of the rasm".

Further reading answering The Islam Issue "Aisha testifies to Quranic corruption"

- Islam critiqued on the lookout; Where are the stoning and suckling verses? (Aisha on 2:238)

The Islam Issue "Aisha endorses FGM"

Although there are ahadith that depict the prophet as saying male circumcision is part of the Abrahamic legacy, nowhere does the prophet instruct female circumcision. The most that is found leaning in favor of the practice are statements where he speaks about unrelated topics where the female involved is already circumcised, or a weak and disputed report where he is comenting on a pre existing practice, in both cases not instructing nor recommending it. In that latter hadith (sunan abu dawud) he says to avoid doing it in a way that would affect both men and women in their sexual life, meaning the procedure must be negligable. And that is why nor he, nor the companions, spoke against it even though it seems it was commonly practiced among the Arabs. Even if one sees prophetic approval for female circumcision in a prophetic saying, it stays far from the image of genital mutilation in the mind of those who jump for joy at anything that superficially seems to paint Islam in an unfavorable light.