17.4. Refuting Misinterpretations in "4th Covenant with Moses: 10 Commandments, Journey with the Righteous Servant, and Bloodshed"

1. Divinely Appointed Leaders and Immunity from Prosecution

Video Claim:

“the head of state, this divinely appointed king, is immune from prosecution... even today you find that the President of the United States, for example, he's immune from prosecution.” (00:50 - 29:21)

Refutation:

Islamic Perspective

Islam emphasizes justice and accountability for all individuals, including leaders. The Quran and Hadith stress that no one is above the law, regardless of their position.

Quranic Evidence:

Hadith Evidence:

Scholarly Interpretation:

Prominent scholars like Imam Al-Ghazali have emphasized that leadership in Islam carries immense responsibility and accountability before God and the people. Leaders are expected to uphold justice, and any deviation can lead to their removal or punishment.

Islamic Governance Principles:

Accountability: Leaders are accountable to Allah and the ummah (community). There are numerous Quranic verses and Hadiths that highlight the importance of justice and accountability for rulers.

Justice: Leaders must govern with justice, ensuring that their authority is exercised within the bounds of Islamic law.

Conclusion: The notion that divinely appointed leaders are immune from prosecution contradicts the foundational Islamic principles of justice and accountability.

Biblical and Torah Evidence

The Torah and the Bible also emphasize that leaders are accountable for their actions and are not inherently above the law.

Explanation: This passage shows that Moses was advised to delegate authority but still maintain oversight, indicating that even leaders require systems of accountability.

Explanation: Moses is portrayed as humble and accountable, not as someone above reproach.

Explanation: This passage highlights that the people's request for a king was seen as a rejection of divine authority, emphasizing that earthly kings are subject to divine will and not above it.

Explanation: This clearly states that even the king must adhere strictly to the law, reinforcing that leaders are not above the law.

Explanation: Although King Ahab was not immediately punished, the prophetic voices within the Bible consistently hold leaders accountable, illustrating that divine justice applies to them as well.

Conclusion: The Torah and the Bible both emphasize that leaders must adhere to divine laws and are not above reproach or accountability. This directly counters the claim that divinely appointed leaders are immune from prosecution.

Synthesis of Islamic, Biblical, and Torah Evidence

Across Islamic, Jewish, and Christian scriptures, a consistent theme emerges: leaders are entrusted with authority but are simultaneously held accountable for their actions. The idea that divinely appointed leaders are immune from prosecution is unfounded in these religious traditions. Instead, these scriptures advocate for just, accountable, and morally responsible leadership.

Final Conclusion for Section 1: The portrayal by Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq that divinely appointed leaders are immune from prosecution is inconsistent with Islamic teachings, as well as with the teachings found in the Torah and the Bible. All these religious texts advocate for accountability, justice, and adherence to divine laws, ensuring that leaders remain answerable for their actions.

2. Justification of Killing Innocent Individuals

Video Claim:

Refutation:

Islamic Perspective

Islam unequivocally prohibits the unjust killing of innocent people. The sanctity of life is a core principle.

Quranic Evidence:

Hadith Evidence:

Scholarly Interpretation:

Scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah and contemporary Islamic jurists maintain that any form of killing without just cause (e.g., self-defense, legal punishment after due process) is strictly forbidden. The principle of Hifz al-Nafs (protection of life) is paramount in Islamic ethics.

Conclusion: The justification of killing innocent individuals is entirely incompatible with Islamic teachings, which uphold the sanctity of life and prohibit unjust killing.

Biblical and Torah Evidence

The Torah and the Bible also emphasize the sanctity of life and prohibit the unjust killing of innocent individuals. While there are historical accounts of warfare and divine commands in specific contexts, these are often bound by strict conditions and are not prescriptive for all times or situations.

Explanation: This commandment establishes the fundamental prohibition against unlawful killing, underscoring the value of human life.

Explanation: This verse prohibits actions that harm others, including unjustly endangering their lives.

Explanation: Shedding innocent blood is explicitly listed among the actions detested by God, highlighting the moral imperative to protect innocent life.

Explanation: This verse calls for active pursuit of justice and protection of the vulnerable, reinforcing the ethical responsibility to safeguard innocent lives.

Explanation: Reiterating the prohibition against murder, this commandment reinforces the sanctity of life within the covenant community.

Explanation: Jesus expands on the commandment against murder, emphasizing the importance of internal righteousness and the avoidance of actions that lead to harm.

Contextual Clarifications:

While the Torah and the Bible contain narratives of warfare and divine commands to kill in specific historical contexts (e.g., the conquest of Canaan), these instances are typically understood within their unique temporal and cultural frameworks. Jewish and Christian theologians often interpret these events as bound by their specific circumstances and not as universal endorsements of violence against innocents.

Historical Context: The commands to conquer and eliminate certain groups were context-specific, often related to the immediate needs of establishing a covenant community free from idolatry and moral corruption.

Moral Progression: Over time, the ethical teachings within Judaism and Christianity have evolved to emphasize peace, forgiveness, and the inherent dignity of every human life.

Scholarly Interpretation:

Jewish Scholars: Jewish exegesis often contextualizes the commands for warfare as part of the broader narrative of establishing a just and morally upright society, not as perpetual commands applicable in all eras.

Christian Theologians: Christian teachings, especially in the New Testament, prioritize love, mercy, and reconciliation, reflecting a moral progression from Old Testament laws to New Testament principles.

Conclusion:

The Torah and the Bible uphold the sanctity of innocent life and prohibit unjust killing. While historical contexts include warfare, these are not presented as general prescriptions for all times but as specific divine instructions for particular situations. The overarching moral framework of these scriptures emphasizes justice, mercy, and the protection of innocent lives.

Synthesis of Islamic, Biblical, and Torah Evidence

Across Islamic, Jewish, and Christian scriptures, a consistent theme emerges: the sanctity of life is paramount, and the unjust killing of innocent individuals is strictly prohibited. While historical narratives may include instances of warfare, these are contextual and bound by specific conditions. The fundamental ethical teachings across these traditions advocate for the protection of innocent lives, justice, and the prohibition of murder.

Final Conclusion for Section 2: The portrayal by Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq that killing innocent individuals is permissible under the Fourth Covenant is inconsistent with Islamic teachings and contradicts the ethical imperatives found in the Torah and the Bible. All these religious texts uphold the sanctity of life and prohibit unjust killing, ensuring that innocent individuals are protected and that justice prevails.

3. Moses’ Actions and Divine Command

Video Claim:

Refutation:

Islamic Perspective

Islam emphasizes that prophets, including Moses (Musa), act strictly under divine guidance aimed at establishing justice and eliminating oppression. Any actions taken by prophets are within the framework of divine law and justice.

Quranic Context:

In Surah Al-Qasas (28:4-6), Moses is depicted as a leader sent to guide his people:

“Indeed, Pharaoh exalted himself in the land and made its people into factions, oppressing a sector among them, slaughtering their [newborn] sons and keeping their females alive. Indeed, he was of the corrupters. And We wanted to confer favor upon those who were oppressed in the land and make them leaders and make them inheritors.”

Principles of Warfare in Islam:

Just Cause: Warfare is only permissible in self-defense or to combat oppression.

Proportionality: The response must be proportional to the aggression faced.

Protection of Non-Combatants: Women, children, and non-combatants must be protected.

Hadith Evidence:

Scholarly Interpretation:

Scholars emphasize that prophets acted under strict divine guidance aimed at establishing justice and eliminating oppression, not for personal vendettas or unjust reasons.

Conclusion: Moses’ actions, as portrayed in Islamic teachings, are always in line with divine justice. Any portrayal suggesting unjustified killing misinterprets his role and the principles he upheld.

Biblical and Torah Evidence

The Torah and the Bible provide accounts of Moses' leadership and actions, particularly in the context of guiding the Israelites out of Egypt and establishing laws. While there are instances of conflict, these actions are generally understood within the framework of divine command and the establishment of a just society.

Explanation: This event, known as the Passover, was a direct command from God to Moses to execute a specific action against the Egyptians to compel Pharaoh to release the Israelites. It was a targeted action against those oppressing the Israelites, not a blanket justification for killing innocents.

Explanation: This passage emphasizes that Moses was held accountable by God for his actions, reinforcing the principle that even leaders must adhere to divine commands and are subject to divine judgment.

Explanation: This verse underscores that vengeance and justice belong to God alone, indicating that humans, including prophets like Moses, are instruments of divine will rather than autonomous agents of retribution.

Explanation: While this account involves the conquest of Jericho, it is framed within the context of fulfilling a divine command to establish a covenant community. The destruction was specific and commanded by God, not a general endorsement of killing innocents.

Explanation: This command to Saul to destroy the Amalekites was a specific divine mandate tied to their actions against Israel. It is not presented as a general principle for all times but rather as a historical event with particular circumstances.

Contextual Clarifications:

Divine Command Theory: In both the Torah and the Bible, actions such as those commanded to Moses are understood within the framework of divine justice and specific historical contexts. These commands are not viewed as blanket endorsements for indiscriminate killing but as targeted actions against oppression and injustice.

Accountability of Leaders: The Bible portrays leaders, including Moses, as accountable to God. Instances where Moses faces consequences for his actions (e.g., Numbers 20:12) highlight that leaders are not above divine law.

Moral Progression: Over time, biblical teachings have evolved to emphasize mercy, forgiveness, and the inherent dignity of every human life, aligning with broader ethical principles.

Scholarly Interpretation:

Jewish Scholars: Jewish exegesis often contextualizes the commands for warfare as part of the broader narrative of establishing a just and morally upright society, not as perpetual commands applicable in all eras.

Christian Theologians: Christian teachings, especially in the New Testament, prioritize love, mercy, and reconciliation, reflecting a moral progression from Old Testament laws to New Testament principles.

Conclusion:

The Torah and the Bible uphold the sanctity of life and prohibit unjust killing. While historical contexts include warfare, these are not presented as general prescriptions for all times but as specific divine instructions for particular situations. The overarching moral framework of these scriptures emphasizes justice, mercy, and the protection of innocent lives.

Synthesis of Islamic, Biblical, and Torah Evidence

Across Islamic, Jewish, and Christian scriptures, a consistent theme emerges: prophets and leaders act under divine guidance aimed at establishing justice and eliminating oppression. While historical narratives may include instances of warfare, these are contextual and bound by specific conditions. The fundamental ethical teachings across these traditions advocate for justice, mercy, and the protection of innocent lives.

Final Conclusion for Section 3:

The portrayal by Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq that Moses justified killing enemies by labeling them as "works of the devil" is inconsistent with Islamic teachings and misrepresents the narratives found in the Torah and the Bible. In all these religious traditions, actions taken by prophets like Moses are within the framework of divine justice and specific historical contexts, emphasizing accountability, justice, and the protection of innocent lives.

4. The Fourth Covenant and Genocide of Canaanites

Video Claim:

Refutation:

Islamic Perspective

Islam does not endorse genocide or the elimination of entire groups based on lineage or beliefs. The Quran emphasizes justice, mercy, and the sanctity of life, even in contexts of conflict.

Quranic Evidence:

Hadith Evidence:

Scholarly Interpretation:

Scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah and contemporary Islamic jurists maintain that any form of killing without just cause (e.g., self-defense, legal punishment after due process) is strictly forbidden. The principle of Hifz al-Nafs (protection of life) is paramount in Islamic ethics.

As emphasized by scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah and contemporary Islamic jurists. Ibn Taymiyyah (1263�1328), a prominent Islamic scholar, strongly emphasized that the protection of human life is a fundamental principle in Islam. According to his writings, any form of killing that is not sanctioned by law or justified by specific circumstances, such as self-defense, is impermissible. He argued that acts of aggression and unlawful killing contradict the foundational Islamic ethics, which call for the preservation of life.

The concept of Hifz al-Nafs, which translates to "protection of life," is one of the key objectives (Maqasid) of Sharia (Islamic law). The preservation of human life is regarded as sacred and is a key priority in Islam. This principle aligns with broader Islamic values that promote the well-being and protection of individuals, families, and communities. Several verses in the Quran emphasize the sanctity of human life. For instance, Allah says:

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) further elaborated on the importance of preserving life. One notable hadith states:

�The blood of a Muslim is sacred and is not to be spilled except in one of three cases: a soul for a soul (i.e., in the case of lawful retribution), a married person who commits adultery, and one who leaves his religion and splits from the community."

While the principle of Hifz al-Nafs generally prohibits killing, Islamic law does allow for exceptions under specific circumstances, which are considered as justified forms of killing. Killing in self-defense, especially in the face of imminent harm or threat to life, is permissible. However, it must be proportional to the threat posed. Islamic law allows for the death penalty in certain cases, such as murder, apostasy, or adultery, but only after due process, fair trials, and clear evidence. These are strict conditions, and the application of the death penalty is not arbitrary or extrajudicial. In cases of warfare, where fighting is permitted to defend the faith or community (Jihad), combatants may be killed, but non-combatants, civilians, and prisoners of war must be protected according to Islamic ethical guidelines.

Contemporary Islamic scholars agree with Ibn Taymiyyah's stance on the sanctity of life. Modern jurists emphasize that killing should only occur in very specific, justified situations, and the legal process must be followed with due diligence. The use of violence or aggression against innocents, regardless of political, social, or personal reasons, is considered haram (forbidden). The current legal stance stresses the importance of due process and justice. For example, Islamic law prohibits extrajudicial killings and emphasizes accountability for those who take lives unlawfully. The application of capital punishment and military action is generally understood to fall under the jurisdiction of the state, with the rule of law, human rights, and ethical considerations being critical.

The statement underscores the broad consensus in Islamic scholarship regarding the protection of life. The concept of Hifz al-Nafs reflects the importance Islam places on safeguarding human life, with clear guidelines that govern when, if ever, life can be taken. Scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah and contemporary jurists highlight that only under specific circumstances (such as self-defense or legal punishment after a fair trial) is killing justified, and even then, there are strict conditions and processes to ensure justice and prevent unlawful actions.

Conclusion: The portrayal of a divine command for genocide is a gross misrepresentation of Islamic teachings, which prioritize justice, mercy, and the sanctity of life.

Biblical and Torah Evidence

While the Torah and the Bible contain accounts of warfare and divine commands in specific historical contexts, these actions are often bound by strict conditions and are not prescriptive for all times or situations. Additionally, these scriptures emphasize accountability, justice, and the protection of innocent life.

Explanation: This commandment establishes the fundamental prohibition against unlawful killing, underscoring the value of human life.

Explanation: This verse prohibits actions that harm others, including unjustly endangering their lives.

Explanation: This passage describes a specific command given to the Israelites during a particular conflict with the Midianites. It is context-specific and tied to the immediate circumstances of that time.

Explanation: This command was given in the context of the Israelites' conquest of Canaan, aiming to eliminate idolatry and immoral practices that were prevalent among those nations. It is not intended as a universal command for all times.

Explanation: The destruction of Jericho was a specific event commanded by God to establish a covenant community free from idolatry and immorality. It was not a general endorsement of genocide.

Explanation: This command to Saul was a divine mandate tied to the Amalekites' actions against Israel. It is understood within its historical context and not as a perpetual command.

Contextual Clarifications:

Divine Command Theory: In both the Torah and the Bible, actions such as those commanded to the Israelites are understood within the framework of divine justice and specific historical contexts. These commands are not viewed as blanket endorsements for indiscriminate killing but as targeted actions against oppression and immorality.

Accountability of Leaders: The Bible portrays leaders, including Moses and Joshua, as accountable to God. Instances where they face consequences for their actions (e.g., Moses in Numbers 20:12) highlight that leaders are not above divine law.

Moral Progression: Over time, biblical teachings have evolved to emphasize peace, forgiveness, and the inherent dignity of every human life, aligning with broader ethical principles.

Scholarly Interpretation:

Jewish Scholars: Jewish exegesis often contextualizes the commands for warfare as part of the broader narrative of establishing a just and morally upright society, not as perpetual commands applicable in all eras.

Christian Theologians: Christian teachings, especially in the New Testament, prioritize love, mercy, and reconciliation, reflecting a moral progression from Old Testament laws to New Testament principles.

Conclusion:

The Torah and the Bible uphold the sanctity of innocent life and prohibit unjust killing. While historical contexts include warfare, these are not presented as general prescriptions for all times but as specific divine instructions for particular situations. The overarching moral framework of these scriptures emphasizes justice, mercy, and the protection of innocent lives.

Torah and Bible Perspective on Canaanites

While the Torah contains accounts of God commanding the Israelites to conquer the land of Canaan and eliminate certain groups, these commands are understood within their specific historical and theological contexts:

Purpose of Commands: The commands were aimed at establishing a community free from idolatry, immorality, and practices that were considered corrupting influences. The eradication of these groups was intended to prevent the Israelites from adopting their practices.

Conditional Nature: These commands were tied to the covenant between God and the Israelites. They were not meant to be universal mandates for all of humanity but specific to the time and context of establishing the Israelite nation.

Ethical Considerations: Modern Jewish and Christian interpretations often emphasize the ethical and moral lessons from these narratives, focusing on the importance of justice, the dangers of idolatry, and the need for a righteous society.

Final Conclusion for Section 4:

The portrayal by Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq that the Fourth Covenant involves divine commands for genocide against the Canaanites is inconsistent with Islamic teachings and misrepresents the narratives found in the Torah and the Bible. In all these religious traditions, actions taken by prophets and leaders are within the framework of divine justice and specific historical contexts, emphasizing accountability, justice, and the protection of innocent lives. The overarching ethical teachings prioritize justice, mercy, and the sanctity of life, rejecting the notion of genocide as a general or ongoing divine mandate.

5. Accountability of Prophet David (Dawud)

Video Claim:

“David wasn't killed. The law didn't apply to him because he was above the law.” (29:21 - 35:26)

Refutation:

Islamic Perspective

In Islam, all prophets, including Prophet David (Dawud), are regarded as exemplary individuals who are subject to divine laws and moral accountability. Islam does not support the notion that any prophet is above divine law or immune from accountability.

Quranic Evidence:

Explanation: This verse highlights David’s role as a just leader and warrior who acted under divine command. It does not suggest immunity but rather portrays him as a leader fulfilling his responsibilities.

Explanation: This verse underscores that leadership comes with responsibilities and that leaders are accountable for their actions. Leaders who neglect their duties or act unjustly are subject to divine judgment.

Hadith Evidence:

The Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) said, “All the prophets were human and had faults, but Allah chose them to be His messengers.” (Sahih Muslim)

Explanation: This Hadith emphasizes that prophets are human beings who can err but are chosen by Allah to fulfill their roles. It underscores their accountability and the possibility of making mistakes, which they are expected to repent for.

Scholarly Interpretation:

Imam Al-Ghazali and other Islamic scholars have long maintained that prophets are models of moral and ethical behavior. They are accountable to Allah and serve as examples for humanity. Any deviation from divine commands by a prophet would require repentance and seeking Allah’s forgiveness.

Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir elaborates that prophets, while chosen for their integrity and devotion, are still subject to Allah’s laws and are not exempt from accountability.

The concept that prophets are moral exemplars, accountable to Allah, and not exempt from His laws is widely supported in Islamic theology and is discussed extensively in the works of scholars like Imam Al-Ghazali and Ibn Kathir. Imam Al-Ghazali, in his famous work Ihya' Ulum al-Din (The Revival of the Religious Sciences), discusses the role of prophets as role models. He emphasizes that prophets are exemplary in both their worship and moral behavior, and their actions serve as a guide for the Muslim community. Al-Ghazali's theological stance is rooted in the belief that even though prophets are infallible in conveying Allah's message, they are still human and subject to divine accountability. If a prophet were to "err" in any way, it would be a major deviation requiring repentance and Allah's forgiveness. This perspective is tied to his larger ethical framework where the perfection of the prophets' moral conduct is highlighted, and their relationship with Allah remains one of humility and submission.

Ibn Kathir, in his Tafsir al-Qur'an al-Azim (Commentary on the Great Qur'an), elaborates on the concept of prophethood and how even the chosen individuals are still subject to Allah's laws. He refers to instances in the Quran where prophets, though chosen for their virtue, were still expected to adhere strictly to divine commands. For instance, in his commentary on verses from Surah Al-Anfal (8:33), Ibn Kathir explains that even though the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the final prophet, he remained accountable to Allah in all his actions, as seen in the moments when he sought forgiveness from Allah after specific events.

Another relevant part is the commentary on Surah Al-Tahrim (66:1-3), where the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is admonished for certain personal matters that were displeasing to Allah. Ibn Kathir explains that this incident demonstrates how prophets, even when favored by Allah, must seek repentance for any actions that might not align with the divine will.

The Quran also provides insight into the concept that prophets are role models for humanity and are not exempt from accountability. For instance, Allah says:

This verse highlights the humanity of the prophet, indicating that while they are chosen by Allah, they remain subject to the same divine laws as the rest of mankind. Furthermore, in Surah Al-Imran (3:161), it is stated:

This verse underscores the accountability of all prophets to Allah's laws, highlighting that they are not exempt from the consequences of failing to uphold the trust bestowed upon them.

Islamic scholars agree that prophets are ma'sum (infallible) in terms of conveying the message of Allah. However, this does not mean that they are free from all forms of error in personal matters or that they do not require repentance for minor lapses. The idea is that prophets do not make errors in delivering the message or leading the community but may seek repentance for human shortcomings in their personal conduct. A key example of this is the Prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him) actions following certain moments where he sought forgiveness from Allah. These instances are understood as reflections of the Prophet's humility and consciousness of his complete dependence on Allah, even as the final messenger.

In conclusion, the belief that prophets are exemplary models of morality and accountability, yet still human and subject to repentance for deviations from divine commands, is deeply rooted in Islamic scholarship. Imam Al-Ghazali and Ibn Kathir both stress the moral integrity of prophets, while acknowledging that they, like all human beings, are subject to Allah's laws and must seek repentance for any actions that fall short of divine expectations. The Quran reinforces this perspective by illustrating the humanity of prophets and their continuous accountability to Allah.

Conclusion: The assertion that Prophet David was immune from prosecution contradicts Islamic teachings, which uphold that all prophets are accountable to Allah and must adhere to divine laws. Islam emphasizes the moral integrity and accountability of its prophets, ensuring they serve as righteous examples for humanity.

Biblical and Torah Evidence

In the Hebrew Bible (Torah) and the Christian Old Testament, King David is portrayed as a complex figure who, despite his significant contributions and status, is subject to divine judgment and accountability for his actions. 2 Samuel 11-12 (Bible/Torah):

David and Bathsheba:

Nathan’s Rebuke:

Explanation:

Despite David’s status as king, he is reprimanded by the prophet Nathan for his sins. This narrative illustrates that even the king is not above divine law and must answer to God’s commandments.

Psalm 51 (David’s Repentance):

Explanation:

After his transgressions, David seeks forgiveness from God, demonstrating his recognition of accountability and the need for repentance.

1 Kings 1:8-9 (Bible):

2 Samuel 7:16 is part of God's covenant with King David, where God promises that David's dynasty will endure forever. The verse specifically states that David's throne and kingdom will be established and remain secure for all time. It signifies the eternal nature of David's lineage, with the promise that one of his descendants will always rule, ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ according to Christian belief.

Explanation:

While God promises to establish David’s lineage, it is contingent upon David’s faithfulness and adherence to divine commands, reinforcing the concept of accountability.

Explanation:

This passage underscores that obedience to God’s commands is paramount, even for kings, highlighting that leaders must adhere to divine laws.

2 Samuel 24:10-12 (Bible/Torah):

Explanation:

David’s act of conducting a census, which was against God’s will, leads to divine punishment. This narrative illustrates that even the king is subject to God’s judgment for his actions.

Deuteronomy 17:14-20 (Torah/Bible):

Explanation:

This passage outlines the responsibilities and limitations of kings, emphasizing that they must adhere strictly to God’s laws and cannot act above them.

Contextual Clarifications:

Divine Accountability:

Both the Torah and the Bible portray kings as accountable to God. Their actions are monitored, and they are expected to lead with justice and righteousness.

Repentance and Forgiveness:

King David’s repentance after his sins demonstrates that leaders are not immune to divine judgment but are encouraged to seek forgiveness and amend their ways.

Moral Leadership:

The narratives emphasize that leaders must exemplify moral integrity and adhere to divine commands, serving as models for their people.

Scholarly Interpretation:

Jewish Scholars:

Jewish exegesis often explores the complexities of David’s character, highlighting his strengths and acknowledging his flaws. The focus is on his role as a leader who, despite his mistakes, sought repentance and maintained his covenant with God.

Christian Theologians:

Christian teachings view David as a man after God’s own heart, emphasizing his repentance and the establishment of a lineage leading to Jesus Christ. They interpret his actions within the broader narrative of redemption and divine mercy.

Conclusion:

The biblical and Torah narratives clearly demonstrate that King David was not above divine law and was subject to accountability for his actions. His stories of sin, repentance, and divine judgment illustrate the principle that leaders, regardless of their status, must adhere to God’s commandments and face consequences for their transgressions. This directly counters the claim that Prophet David was immune from prosecution, aligning with Islamic teachings that emphasize the accountability and moral integrity of all prophets and leaders.

Synthesis of Islamic, Biblical, and Torah Evidence

Across Islamic, Jewish, and Christian scriptures, a consistent theme emerges: prophets and leaders are entrusted with authority but are simultaneously held accountable for their actions. The idea that a prophet or leader is above divine law is unfounded in these religious traditions. Instead, these scriptures advocate for just, accountable, and morally responsible leadership, ensuring that leaders remain answerable for their actions.

Final Conclusion for Section 5:

The portrayal by Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq that Prophet David was immune from prosecution is inconsistent with Islamic teachings and misrepresents the narratives found in the Torah and the Bible. In all these religious traditions, prophets and leaders are held accountable to divine laws, emphasizing justice, repentance, and moral integrity. Leaders are not above reproach and must adhere to the ethical and moral standards set forth by their respective scriptures.

6. Moral and Ethical Governance

Video Claim:

“the person who he appoints and he sends forth is immune from prosecution... he has to be immune from prosecution.” (28:49 - 29:21)

Refutation:

Islamic Perspective

Islamic governance is based on the principles of consultation (Shura), justice, and accountability. Leaders are expected to govern with integrity and are accountable to both Allah and the ummah (community).

Quranic Evidence:

Hadith Evidence:

Scholarly Interpretation:

Prominent scholars like Imam Al-Ghazali and Imam Al-Mawardi have emphasized that leadership in Islam carries immense responsibility and accountability. Leaders must uphold justice and adhere to Islamic law, and any deviation can lead to their removal or punishment.

Conclusion: The notion that divinely appointed leaders are immune from prosecution contradicts the foundational Islamic principles of justice and accountability. Leaders must adhere to divine laws and are accountable for their actions.

Biblical and Torah Evidence

The Torah and the Bible also emphasize that leaders are accountable for their actions and are not inherently above the law. Several scriptures highlight the responsibility and accountability of leaders, ensuring they govern justly and ethically.

Explanation: This passage shows that Moses was advised to delegate authority but still maintain oversight, indicating that even leaders require systems of accountability.

Explanation: This clearly states that even the king must adhere strictly to the law, reinforcing that leaders are not above reproach or accountability.

1 Samuel 8:10-18 (Bible):

“When they said, ‘Give us a king to rule over us,’ this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him: ‘Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king...’”

Explanation: This passage highlights that the people's request for a king was seen as a rejection of divine authority, emphasizing that earthly kings are subject to divine will and not above it.

Explanation: Although King Ahab was not immediately punished, the prophetic voices within the Bible consistently hold leaders accountable, illustrating that divine justice applies to them as well.

Explanation: These verses call upon leaders to act justly and protect the vulnerable, emphasizing their role in upholding justice rather than exerting unchecked power.

Contextual Clarifications:

Divine Accountability:

The Bible and Torah consistently portray leaders as accountable to God. Instances where leaders face consequences for their actions (e.g., Moses in Numbers 20:12) highlight that leaders must adhere to divine laws.

Moral Leadership:

Leaders are expected to exemplify moral integrity, justice, and righteousness. The scriptures emphasize that leadership is a sacred trust that requires adherence to ethical standards.

Checks and Balances:

The establishment of judges and officials (Exodus 18:21-22) serves as a system of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power, ensuring that leaders remain accountable.

Scholarly Interpretation:

Jewish Scholars:

Jewish exegesis often explores the responsibilities and limitations of kings and leaders, emphasizing that their authority is conditional upon their adherence to God's laws and ethical standards.

Christian Theologians:

Christian teachings uphold the idea that earthly rulers must govern justly and are accountable to both divine and moral laws. The New Testament reinforces principles of ethical governance and the responsibility of leaders to act justly (e.g., Romans 13:1-7).

Conclusion:

The Torah and the Bible both emphasize that leaders must adhere to divine laws and are not above reproach or accountability. These scriptures advocate for just, ethical, and accountable leadership, directly countering the claim that divinely appointed leaders are immune from prosecution.

Synthesis of Islamic, Biblical, and Torah Evidence

Across Islamic, Jewish, and Christian scriptures, a consistent theme emerges: leaders are entrusted with authority but are simultaneously held accountable for their actions. The idea that divinely appointed leaders are immune from prosecution is unfounded in these religious traditions. Instead, these scriptures advocate for just, accountable, and morally responsible leadership.

Final Conclusion for Section 6:

The portrayal by Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq that divinely appointed leaders are immune from prosecution is inconsistent with Islamic teachings and contradicts the teachings found in the Torah and the Bible. All these religious texts advocate for accountability, justice, and adherence to divine laws, ensuring that leaders remain answerable for their actions.

7. Misinterpretation of Covenants and Prophetic Missions

Video Claim:

“The Fourth Covenant is perhaps one of the most interesting covenants yet, because it is unlike the previous three covenants.” (01:41 - 29:21)

Refutation:

Islamic Perspective

In Islam, the concept of covenants (Mithaq) is integral to the relationship between Allah and His prophets, as well as with humanity. However, Islam does not categorize covenants in the same manner as some Judeo-Christian traditions. Instead, the Quran emphasizes the continuity and consistency of the prophetic mission across different eras.

Quranic Evidence:

Explanation: This verse underscores the importance of fulfilling divine covenants, highlighting the ongoing relationship between Allah and the Children of Israel without specifying a "fourth" covenant.

Explanation: This verse references the covenant made with the Children of Israel, emphasizing obedience, support for prophets, and ethical conduct as conditions for divine favor.

Explanation: This verse highlights the concept of trust (Amanah) placed upon humanity, reflecting the responsibilities inherent in any covenant with Allah.

Hadith Evidence:

Another Hadith states, “When a prophet is sent, he is sent to all of mankind, not just a particular group.” (Sahih Bukhari)

Explanation: These Hadiths emphasize the universal nature of prophetic missions and divine covenants, countering the notion of isolated or segmented covenants.

Scholarly Interpretation:

Imam Al-Ghazali and other Islamic scholars have interpreted the covenants mentioned in the Quran as part of a continuous divine plan to guide humanity through various prophets, each addressing the specific needs and contexts of their times.

Contemporary Scholars maintain that Islam views all prophets as part of a unified mission to establish monotheism, justice, and moral conduct, rather than segmented or conflicting covenants.

Conclusion: The claim that the Fourth Covenant is radically different and involves aspects like immunity of leaders and genocide misrepresents the Islamic understanding of covenants. Islam emphasizes continuity, accountability, and ethical responsibility within its covenants, aligning with the broader themes of justice and mercy.

Biblical and Torah Evidence

The Torah and the Bible present covenants as foundational agreements between God and His people, each with its unique context and stipulations. However, these covenants are interconnected rather than segmented into a sequence where one supersedes the other in a conflicting manner.

Old Testament Covenants:

Explanation: This covenant is universal, extending to all living beings, and establishes a perpetual promise from God.

Explanation: This covenant is specific to Abraham and his descendants, outlining promises of land, descendants, and blessings.

Explanation: This covenant involves the giving of the Law (Torah) to the Israelites, establishing their identity and relationship with God through obedience to His commandments.

Explanation: This covenant promises an everlasting dynasty through David's lineage, highlighting God's enduring relationship with his chosen king.

New Testament Covenant:

Explanation: The New Covenant, established through Jesus Christ, emphasizes forgiveness, internalization of God's laws, and a direct personal relationship with God.

Refutation of the "Fourth Covenant" Concept:

Lack of Sequential Fourth Covenant: The Torah and the Bible do not categorize covenants numerically in a way that positions a "Fourth Covenant" as distinct and fundamentally different from previous ones. Instead, each covenant builds upon the previous ones, maintaining continuity in God's relationship with humanity.

Unified Purpose of Covenants: All covenants share the common purpose of establishing a relationship between God and His people, emphasizing obedience, moral conduct, and divine guidance. The idea of a radically different Fourth Covenant that involves immunity of leaders and endorsement of genocide is not supported by the scriptural texts.

Accountability in Covenants: Similar to Islamic teachings, the Bible and Torah emphasize that leaders are accountable to God. Instances like King David's repentance after his transgressions demonstrate that no leader is above divine law.

Scholarly Interpretation:

Jewish Scholars: Jewish exegesis views covenants as progressive revelations tailored to the needs of each generation, maintaining a consistent moral and ethical framework across different covenants.

Christian Theologians: Christian teachings interpret the New Covenant as a fulfillment and extension of previous covenants, focusing on grace, redemption, and the establishment of a personal relationship with God.

Conclusion: The Torah and the Bible do not support the notion of a distinct "Fourth Covenant" that diverges fundamentally from previous covenants in a manner that justifies the claims made in Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq's video. Instead, these scriptures present a cohesive and continuous framework of covenants aimed at guiding humanity towards righteousness, justice, and a profound relationship with God.

Synthesis of Islamic, Biblical, and Torah Evidence

Across Islamic, Jewish, and Christian scriptures, covenants are portrayed as integral agreements between God and humanity, each serving specific purposes within their historical and theological contexts. These covenants emphasize continuity, accountability, justice, and moral responsibility rather than presenting segmented or conflicting agreements.

Final Conclusion for Section 7: The portrayal by Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq that the Fourth Covenant represents a radical departure involving immunity of leaders and divine endorsement of genocide is inconsistent with Islamic teachings and misrepresents the narratives found in the Torah and the Bible. All these religious traditions view covenants as part of a unified divine plan aimed at guiding humanity towards justice, mercy, and moral integrity.

Final Thoughts

Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq's video, "4th Covenant with Moses: 10 Commandments, Journey with the Righteous Servant, and Bloodshed," presents a narrative that significantly diverges from established Islamic, Jewish, and Christian teachings. This misrepresentation not only distorts the theological principles of these religions but also fosters misconceptions that can lead to misunderstanding and misinterpretation among audiences.

One of the primary misconceptions presented in the video is the assertion that divinely appointed leaders are immune from prosecution. This claim is directly contradicted by the foundational texts of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. In the Quran, it is stated:

This emphasizes the accountability of leaders. Similarly, the Torah clearly articulates in Deuteronomy:

These scriptures collectively underscore that leaders are entrusted with authority but are simultaneously held accountable for their actions, dispelling the notion of immunity from prosecution.

Furthermore, Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq's justification of killing innocent individuals starkly misrepresents the core ethical principles upheld by these religions. Islam unequivocally prohibits the unjust killing of innocent people, as highlighted in the Quran:

Similarly, the Bible reinforces the sanctity of life with the commandment:

These foundational texts make it clear that the sanctity of life is paramount and that unjust killing is unequivocally forbidden, directly opposing any claims that such actions are permissible under a "Fourth Covenant."

The portrayal of prophets, specifically Prophet David (Dawud), as being above divine law is another critical misrepresentation. In Islam, prophets are held to the highest standards of moral and ethical behavior and are accountable to Allah. The Quran states:

This emphasizes that prophets, while exemplary, are not exempt from accountability. Similarly, in the Bible, King David is confronted by the prophet Nathan for his transgressions, as seen in:

This narrative illustrates that even revered leaders are subject to divine judgment and must adhere to moral and ethical standards.

Additionally, the concept of a "Fourth Covenant" as proposed in the video lacks support and coherence within the canonical texts of these religions. The Torah and the Bible present covenants as part of a continuous and interconnected relationship between God and His people, each building upon the previous ones to guide humanity towards righteousness and ethical living. For instance, the Torah outlines the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic Covenants, each serving specific purposes within their historical and theological contexts. The idea of a separate "Fourth Covenant" that fundamentally diverges from these established agreements is unfounded and disrupts the continuity and unity of divine guidance.

Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq's interpretations overlook the contextual and interpretative frameworks provided by scholars and religious exegesis, which emphasize justice, mercy, and accountability. By selectively interpreting and misrepresenting scriptural texts, his claims distort the original messages of these sacred traditions. This distortion not only misleads audiences but also undermines the ethical and moral teachings that are central to Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.

In conclusion, Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq's video presents a perspective that is inconsistent with the core teachings of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. These religions fundamentally emphasize justice, the sanctity of life, accountability of leaders, and the moral integrity of prophets. Misrepresenting these teachings not only distorts the original messages but also fosters misconceptions that can lead to misunderstanding and misuse of religious principles. A comprehensive and accurate understanding of religious teachings requires contextual interpretation and adherence to the ethical and moral frameworks established by sacred texts and scholarly consensus.

For accurate and nuanced insights into these religious principles, it is essential to consult the Quran, authentic Hadith collections, the Torah, the Bible, and the exegeses of recognized religious scholars. These sources collectively uphold the values of justice, accountability, and the sanctity of life, providing a clear refutation of the misleading claims presented by Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq.

Why Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq's Claims are Wrong and Misleading

Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq's interpretations present a skewed understanding of religious texts and principles, leading to several fundamental misconceptions:

Firstly, his assertion that divinely appointed leaders are immune from prosecution directly contradicts the universally emphasized principles of justice and accountability found in Islamic, Jewish, and Christian teachings. The Quran emphasizes justice with verses like:

Similarly, the Torah and the Bible both stress that leaders must adhere to divine laws and are not above reproach. For example, Deuteronomy states:

Secondly, Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq's portrayal of divine commands as endorsements of genocide misrepresents the context-specific and justice-oriented nature of these commands. Scriptures like the Quran clearly prohibit unjust killing:

“Whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely.” (Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:32)

And the Bible reinforces the sanctity of life with the commandment:

Thirdly, his erroneous depiction of prophetic accountability undermines the foundational belief in the moral integrity of prophets. In Islam, prophets are accountable to Allah, as highlighted in the Quran:

Similarly, the Bible narrates instances where prophets like David are held accountable, such as:

Fourthly, the misinterpretation of covenants disrupts the continuity and interconnectedness of divine guidance. The Torah and the Bible present covenants as part of a unified divine plan, not as segmented or conflicting agreements. For example, the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic Covenants in the Torah build upon one another to guide humanity towards righteousness.

Lastly, Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq's claims ignore the contextual and scholarly interpretations that emphasize justice, mercy, and accountability. By selectively interpreting texts, his narrative distorts the original messages and undermines the ethical teachings central to these religions.

Scriptural Consistency Across Religions

The Quran, Torah, and Bible consistently emphasize justice, accountability, and the sanctity of life. For instance, the Quran states:

The Torah commands:

And the New Testament emphasizes:

Scholarly Consensus

Islamic scholars such as Imam Al-Ghazali and Imam Al-Mawardi have long maintained that leadership entails accountability and adherence to divine laws. Jewish and Christian scholars similarly interpret their scriptures to uphold the accountability and ethical responsibilities of leaders.

Conclusion

Abdullah Hashem Aba Al-Sadiq's video presents a perspective that is inconsistent with the core teachings of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. By distorting scriptural texts and misrepresenting theological principles, his claims foster misconceptions that contradict the foundational values of justice, accountability, and the sanctity of life upheld by these religions. For an accurate and comprehensive understanding of religious teachings, it is essential to engage with the Quran, authentic Hadith, the Torah, the Bible, and the exegeses of recognized religious scholars. These sources collectively reinforce the principles that leaders must be accountable, the sanctity of life must be preserved, and divine covenants are part of a continuous and unified divine plan aimed at guiding humanity towards righteousness and ethical living.