The issue of great age difference in a married couple shouldnt be brought up by Christians, in whose tradition, it is reported Joseph at 90 married Mary who was 12 which is the double age difference than that of Muhammad when he allegedly married Aisha. That is besides the disturbing notion of an eternal deity impregnating a young virgin with whom the age difference is infinitely greater than Muhammad and Aisha, and out of whose private parts was born an entity combining human and divine attributes.
Here are a few interesting facts for Christians to ponder upon;
1. Church leaders that argued what was inerrant and what was not, never challenged the age. In the story itself we read that the society accepts and even expects a 12 years old to be sexually active "When she turned twelve, a group of priests took counsel together, saying, "Look, Mary has been in the temple of the Lord twelve years. What should we do about her now, so that she does not defile the sanctuary of the Lord our God?" Her turning 12 is what prompted the priests to gather to find her a husband. God himself, finding nothing wrong with her age, chooses the old Joseph for her, from among other men of advanced age "And the high priest said, "Joseph! Joseph! You have been chosen by lot to take the virgin into your own keeping". As already said, neither God nor the society saw a problem with a 12 year old given to marriage. Joseph then expresses his fear that he might be ridiculed among the people, and this is due to 3 precise factors; he is old, meaning barren. The angel instructed Zachariah to seek potential husbands from among men of advanced age for a reason, protecting the virgin birth from any accusation. Joseph further said he already has sons, meaning beyond the need for a progeny, and Mary is young, meaning the marriage would appear to be simply motivated by lust, not even companionship. Had he feared mockeries because of the age difference, the mention of him having sons would be unnecessary and he would have stressed her being "too young" not simply "young". Why would a young woman be married to an old, barren man who already has children, in addition impotent? Her pregnancy only occurred 4 years later while Joseph had not defiled her. Little in the NT indicates Mary's age when she was married to Joseph. She is described as reciting a short 10 verses prayer, which isnt a hard task for a 12 years old, and undertaking a trip from Nazareth to Judah, which of course did not have to be undertaken by foot.
2. Not a single 'apocrypha' scripture was rejected based upon the age of Joseph marrying Mary.
3. Just because an apocrypha was rejected, does not mean it was rejected for all of it's contents. For example, the same Apocrypha can say that Jesus was born in a stable and 3 wise-men came and visited him. Is this story 'false' because it's in Apocrypha? Besides the fact that it is known that we find reference throughout the Bible to information extracted from lost and non canonical texts. But let us assume this particular detail of Mary’s age was made up. It would then make the point even stronger that it is acceptable, one could even say recommended for such a marriage to happen in Christian tradition. It is the venerated, idolised Mary who is supposed to have been given by the respected temple priest to Joseph at that age. No Christian of that time would have invented that detail in her story if such union was seen as morally wrong.
4. One man's apocrypha is another man's scripture, thus the example of the book of Revelation, among other books, being rejected as apocrypha until later on.
5. What is the minimum age of virgins allowed to be taken as war captives in Num31?
6. The Bible forbids, even under the death penalty by stoning, certain morally and physically harmful sexual practices like adultery and homosexuality. Why would it be silent on minor marriage, a very common practice in all ancient and pre-modern societies around the Judeo-Christian world and among Jews and Christians themselves, had the God of the Bible and His prophets disapproved of it?
7. More importantly, does the Bible even set an age of consent, or gives any ethical instructions to consider when determining marriage age, contrary to the Quran which clearly lays out psycho-physical requirements?
Assuming the Quran allows pre-pubescent marriages, and that the prophet did, how does this claim discredit Islam or its prophet, especially coming from Christians? They in general level this claim to attack the prophet's personality and imply that he couldnt be a prophet based on his evil deeds. What is the biblical criteria for a true prophet and does it include "not marrying pre-pubescent kids"? There is a reason why nothing at all is said about uprightness of character. In fact one needs turning to the Quran, not the Bible, to see among the criteria of a prophetic envoy, impeccable morality as one of the primary requirements. Looking at these Christians' own bible, the characters and deeds of its most prominent prophets, then, simply based on behavior, even if one would accept every single calumny the Christ-loving evangelists have been throwing, then adding many more on top, it would still do nothing to erode Muhammad's credibility even an iota. None of the individuals the bible calls "prophets" ceased being prophets while premeditating their murders, committing adultery and debauchery, hoarding wealth and enslaving nations, idolatry, capturing countless virgins in their holy genocidal wars. Some repented and others never did, and it is besides the point. These Judeo-christian critics lack consistency and intellectual honesty; Condemning a man as a false prophet while the book they stand for approves of prophets whose deeds should give them a heart attack if they finds the supposed charges against Muhammad offensive. That is why no Muslim is bothered by such dishonest criticism. They can only hope to trouble Muslims if they argue from the angle of the Quran's standards of the prophets as sublime examples of morality, then showing that the prophet Muhammad's supposed deeds are in conflict with those standards. So long as the accusers keep the bible as a standard of morality of the true prophets, these attacks self-destruct. By the Quranic standard, one that is extremely high in comparison to the Bible, as well as the accepted standards of morality, Muhammad did not commit a single inappropriate deed for a prophet. Finally, it is interesting to note that the prophet, whom those critics claim invented the Quran, as well as committed every possible misdeed under the sun (misdeeds that still make him look like a saint in comparison to the true prophets of the Bible) went out of his way to establish a pattern of morality among the prophets that contradicts his own. He had every reason to not change a single thing of what is shamelessly attributed to the Biblical prophets, so that he might justify his supposed misdeeds all the while claiming to be a prophet of God, in line with those very prophets of the Bible.
As a final observation, among the most outspoken Christian polemicists on that particular issue, many admit, knowing the lowly moral standards of those described as true prophets in their Bible, that should one prove Muhammad's prophethood then they would not object to him marrying Aisha as described in the hadith. Here lies their dishonesty, they will defend the authenticity and veracity of the information in those particular ahadith, but will reject other reports from the same books with no slightest bit of controversy as are found as regards Aisha's age, describing Muhammad as a prophet of God, receiving revelation, experiencing miracles, either as the direct agent or indirectly, making prophecies, giving information of the unseen.
"whoever says that the Prophet was black is killed. The Prophet was not black"
occurs 400 years after the Prophet and uttered in a specific context, which is as usual ignored by the polemicists who think they can freely interject in a discussion occuring centuries earlier. Ahmad ibn Sulayman was a member of the family that ruled a part of what is now Spain. He was in Europe and surrounding countries were those of Europeans. The enemies of Islam, in those days werent different than the shameless ones of today, they have always insulted the Messenger of God and this was another one in their racist view.
Secondly, to call the Prophet black would be to deny his lineage; it is to say that his mother wasn’t really his mother. Coming from the venomous Western tongue which for most of its bible loving history viewed blacks as subhumans, such a statement was an insult. Saying to anyone, especially in a derogatory tone, that he is from another race than what he and his culture proudly trace themselves to, is an insult. Try saying to a Greek that he is of Turkish descent or to an Irish that he's English.
Further, within the same statement there is a long list of acts in relation to the prophet which the rulers of the time decided to punish, such as if someone says that the prophet died before his beard began to grow, then he is to be killed. There is nothing wrong with the statement in and of itself but when one makes these statements with the aim to defame and insult, then its not something any Muslim would tolerate.
Contrary to Islamophobic rant and media, there is no such thing as "Islamic law" insofar as there exists list of rules that are fixed and immutable. Even among issues on which there is temporary ijma'/consensus the classical hanbali and shafi'i jurists reject the notion that the doors of ijtihad are closed. The hanafi jurists practiced ijtihad to resolve legal issues in the Ottoman era. In more recent times, even the most prominent advocate of salafism (return to the pristine origins of Islam), who is none other than Muhammad ibn abd al Wahhab, was a staunch anti-taqleed (imitation of previous scholars), advocating the return to the Quran and hadith rather than relying on a centuries long inherited corpus of laws from medieval times.
The Quran is not Deuteronomy or Leviticus and their fixed, eternal immutable laws that will be reinstated at the end of times. As a side note this negates the Christian notion of 10 "comandements" open to interpretation. Jesus doesnt even quote from those "comandements" when asked which is the most important. The reason for that is that these 10 things arent even laws but classifications which the 613 immutable laws fall under.
The Quran therefore explicitly addresses only a handful of principle issues, leaving the rest to the Prophetic Sunna. These are the transmitted Oral records of the teachings, deeds and sayings, silent permissions or disapprovals of the prophet, as well as various reports of his companions and household. That prophetic sunna itself is largely concerned with matters of worship and the basic foundation of social, human justice. That is why the biggest part of the Sacred Law is the result of a jurist' own independent mental deductions, which is called in Islamic law, ijtihad.
If one looks at the compilations of the Traditions, the chapters concerning ritual worship are far longer than those on social transactions. The reason is that acts of ritual worship are independent of changes throughout time. In contrast, social transactions require explanation according to the changes in circumstances and eras. Binding people with fixed and uniform rules would be harsh and inconvenient. There is thus very little room for analogical reasoning in matters of ritual worship, while in social transactions it operates on a very wide scale. In the Quran too, the commands regarding transactions are mostly framed in general and universal terms.
Malik ibn Anas, the author of the Muwatta', rejected a suggestion by the Abbasid caliph Abu Jaafar al-Mansur to enforce his juristic doctrines as the law of the land.
The caliph said “I have decided to copy your book, send one copy of it to each of the regions of the caliphate, and order [the people] to abide by it and not leave it to anything else”. Malik replied “O leader of the faithful, do not do so, for people have already learnt certain views and known certain traditions, and the inhabitants of each region have adhered to one or the other of the different opinions of the Companions of God’s Apostle and others according to which their religious practice has been shaped. Preventing them from that will be hard, so leave people to their practice and to what they have chosen for themselves".
It is to be noted that following the prophet, the successive leaders of the Muslim nation that came after the 4 caliphs (AbuBakr-Umar-Uthman-Ali) progressively carried on political roles rather than religious. This became the field of the ulama'. The result of the aforementioned pragmatism is that very few laws are set in stone, leading to much diversity in legal Muslim opinion. Therefore, a clear distinction should be made between the jurists’ rulings based on Islamic sources and the rulings based on their personal opinions. Muslim jurists have always developed different rulings based on their interpretations and contextualization of the texts compared with the ever changing contexts that have surrounded them.
This is the wisdom of the final revelation, leaving many matters open to interpretation to allow flexibility in matters that may be contingent on circumstances and human experiences as Islam crosses various civilizations, generations, and eras.
One of the seven renowned jurists of Madinah, Imam al-Qasim b. Muhammad. Abi Bakr (d.107H) stated,
“The differences amongst the companions of the Prophet Muhammad are a mercy for the servants of God”.
A person once informed the great jurist Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d.241H) that a book had been written called “The Book of Differences”, and he responded that it should instead have been called “The Book of Flexibility”. The prophet himself encouraged this kind of analogical reasoning in social matters. When he was about to send Muadh ibn Jabal to Yemen, he asked
“How will you judge when the occasion of deciding a case arises?” He replied: “I shall judge in accordance with God’s Book.” He asked: “[What will you do] if you do not find any guidance in God’s Book?” He replied: “[I shall act] in accordance with the Sunnah of God’s Apostle”. He asked: “[What will you do] if you do not find any guidance in the Sunnah of the Apostle of God and in God’s Book?” He replied: “I shall do my best to form an opinion and I shall spare no effort.” The Apostle of God then patted him on the chest and said: “Praise be to God, Who has helped the messenger of the Apostle of God to find something which pleases the Apostle of God”.
Many religious commands within the Quran are thus ambiguously framed, as a mercy and leniency. Believers are encouraged to leave them as they are instead of seeking a firm and definite interpretations 5:101-2.
This principle allows jurists to define according to their own time, space and circumstances what constitutes offenses like fasad fil ard. Whatever the conclusion be, it must be in accordance with the principles of morality and wisdom laid down in the Book.
In 5:33-4 for instance, the type of crime spoken of isnt a one time offence with limited impact on the society but a steady and repeated evil, without any sign of abating, with far reaching consequences and that destabilize the society as a whole. The passage's historical background is that of a group of people who came to Medina, they ate, rested and later in the day robbed and butchered an innocent shepherd to pieces. These criminals then cut the limbs, decapitated the shepherd(s), gouged their eyes out. After they fled, they also went on to rape women.
Secular societies have hundreds of changing, evolving laws enacted throughout the centuries by groups holding completely different worldviews. And although the Sharia law, and even the many Mosaic laws, has much less number of laws, life in a secular environment seems freer and more agreeable. This is due to Sharia not seeking to conform to the changing human whims, and their base desires. The secular system on the other hand is permissive in the essential aspects of the individual, including, sexuality, gender interaction or spirituality, which is very appealing.
In the Quran, the central notion in matter of religious responsibilities is that a person's own taqwa, his God-consciousness, should be the primary driving force leading him to instinctively choose the right course of action. This idea is rooted in the pervasive Quranic notion that mankind is ingrained with a spiritual fabric. That fabric, combined with the spiritual senses of perception 23:78,46:26,67:23,76:2 create an understanding of what is good and bad for the soul and helps hearkening the calls of the self-reproaching soul in place of the evil-inciting conscience whenever a moral crisis arises. It is with that implicit notion that the Quran in many places refers to the commendable deeds with the general term maaruf or accepted, and to the evil deeds as munkar/rejected.
Furthermore, besides the basic responsibilities of national defense, looking after the indigent and ensuring security, the sharia has very little to say about matters of administration. Its silence on the obligatory taxable amount of its Muslim citizen, which is the most basic means by which an administration can function, reflects this notion. It is left to those in governance to work out the details of Zakat depending on the needs of their society and state. This silence also allows for the passage of time where changing conditions and circumstances may require changes in the amount of Zakat levied.
The Quran therefore and neither the prophet elucidate a concept of an Islamic state, but of a just society, and the leader must be the embodiment and guardian of such equity and spiritual uprightness. The verse 2:177 reiterating the issue of direction in prayer comes between verses discussing the laws of religion, it is a warning given to the Muslims that they should not fall into the error into which the previous people fell, who sacrificed the spirit of religion for the outward ceremonial. Internal purity goes in parallel with the external which is why the Quran refers to the Sharia/Law as the Book and the Wisdom 2:151 referring to the body and soul of the sharia respectively, to its commandments and their philosophy.
The previous nations, namely the Jews, had neglected this aspect as Jesus amply demonstrates in the NT. The essence of religion, we are here told 2:177, is faith in God and benevolence towards men which Allah compares to an uphill climb 90:11-20 or as Jesus eloquently describes in the NT
Matt7:13-14"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it".
This important Quranic notion reflects even within its style, abruptly turning from topics of theology and spirituality, to matters of law. For example in sura nisaa, after a long passage dealing with questions on theology, the sura ends with a question on the law of inheritance, thus showing how interwoven moral exhortations and practical legislations are. Among the prophets, one who most emphasized the unbreakable link between social affairs and God-consciousness is Shuayb 11:85-90. Sura Talaq, after detailing certain procedures of divorce ends with a reminder of the unfathomable vastness of the universe as a reflection of God's power. Earth, and all those living on it, as well as sums of money and arrangements between spouses about to separate all suddenly seem small matters in comparison. Obedience to God whose vast kingdom extends beyond this grain of sand on which we live, becomes a priority to the believer, above any worldly considerations.
Because Islam aims at elevating humanity's spiritual awareness, the prophet did not designate a successor, leaving the people to choose based on merit. Given the magnitude of his charismatic leadership and overwhelming reverence, had he chosen one it would have created frictions and jealousies. But by reforming the hearts and minds of the people and giving them the vision of what constitutes a just society, he allowed for the brotherly bond he initiated to fructify after him. Their own conscience should open the way for compromise and consensus, and the selection of the one most suited in terms of spiritual and leadership qualities. In case of failure of that leader, it is considered the duty of every member of that society to uproot the corrupt leader(s).
The Shia on one side see the prophet's household as most justified in being the leaders of the ummah because of their proximity to the prophet and his teachings. They in fact argue that his household is divinely protected in terms of righteousness to allow them to embody the virtues of an islamic society.
The Sunnis on the other side believe that the prophet's companions are more warranted in being the leaders, again based on their proximity to the prophet and superior understanding of his teachings. Both groups therefore, even though they differ as to where the leader must come from, agree that this leader must possess outstanding moral virtues.
A major aspect of the prophet Muhammad's leadership is combining authority, power and consultation, with mercy and gentleness. This combination is difficult to achieve, especially when one extends such integrity both to the public and private sphere, as he did. Many verses testify to those qualities of his as of paramount importance in the success of his mission 3:159,9:61,128,21:107,42:38,68:4. Not a single Muslim leader today embodies those leadership qualities as promoted in the Quran through the prophet's example. They were hardly found even among the first successors, hence their chaotic rule, and certainly not in the caliphs that came after them. 3 of the first 4 caliphs were killed. Had Abu Bakr's rule extended for more than two years, one can assume he would have known the same fate. After Ali, Muslim caliphs did not gain power through the consensus of a majority, despite the presence of disruptive and rebellious pockets, but by imposing themselves on their Muslim subjects. Their purely materialistic motives were also far detached from the original vision of the first 4.
For example, although the Ottomans expanded the caliphate in all directions yet not a single sultan made the trip to Mecca for pilgrimage. When one studies Islamic history following the prophet's death, seeing that even the likes of Ali whose integrity was undisputed but had nevertheless to battle internal opponents to the point he was assassinated, then what makes someone like ISIS leader Baghdadi remotely believe he could revive and establish a caliphate?
Neither the Quran nor the prophet promote the notion of an Islamic state. What Islam calls for is the end to religious persecution and all types of injustice. That is why the prophet never named a successor but laid the ground for a just and pious society, which should then naturally choose a righteous leader. If on the other hand the society lacks moral values, it will neither raise at its head a worthy leader, nor uproot a tyrant. Besides denouncing tyrants and their practices, the Quran equally condemns those living under tyrannical regimes and that become such obedient servants of the sinful leaders that they become their accomplices in crime, accepting every falsehood and suppressing every protest that is voiced in favor of the truth in order to firmly establish corruption in the land 43:51-4, instead of being upholders of truth and rising against falsehood among eachother and ultimately against the leaders of mischief
90:8-10"Have We not given him two eyes, And a tongue and two lips, And pointed out to him the two conspicuous ways?"
103:2-3"..enjoin on each other truth, and enjoin on each other patience".
Yet we read a completely opposite directive in the HB in in Ecc10:20 that one should never rebel, neither openly or in secret, against this kind of rulers. This idea is the basis by which many rulers, ancient and more recent, especially from the Christian world, found justification for their ruthlessness and corruption.
Moral and spiritual degradation quickly spreads in such a society. That is why to enjoin what is good and to forbid what is evil, has been ordained on the Muslim community as a duty and the community which performs this duty has been declared to be the best community 3:104-10 as opposed to those, such as the Israelites as amply demonstrated in their own scriptures, as well as other nations, who not only did not forbid eachother from sin, but also ended up being assimilated by the polytheists in their midst 5:78-81,7:65 resulting in miseries that affected the community as a whole
8:25"And fear an affliction which may not smite those of you in particular who are unjust; and know that Allah is severe in requiting (evil)".
Such people, despite believing in God, deem it dangerous to do anything against their leaders' dignity, but as for the Creator and Lord of the universe, they do not attribute to Him the same dignity nor are they ashamed in transgressing His limits
4:108,71:13"What is the matter with you that you fear not the greatness of Allah?".
In Islam therefore, each individual has the duty to uphold the moral standards of the community, and the community has the collective responsibility to enforce these standards. Ideally, the moral health of individuals contributes to the moral health of society, while the moral integrity of society encourages and provides fertile ground for the proper moral and spiritual development of each of its members. This principle can be derived from the Quran’s charge to both individuals and the collective community that they enjoin right and forbid wrong 3:104, 110; 9:71.
The Quran relates how obedience to the prophet Muhammad, who was equally a ruler, was restricted to 60:12"what is good" meaning that should even he, a prophet, enjoin something on his followers that seems to be outside the bounds of morality and righteousness then none should obey him.
There is thus no basis for the caliphate with an ideology for territorial expansion in either the Quran or in prophetic traditions. These wars did not happen under the prophet's authority. Neither the prophet nor the Quran approve of unprovoked aggression. The life and wars of the prophet testify to this.
"`Abdullah bin `Umar came to us and we hoped that he would narrate to us a good Hadith. But before we asked him, a man got up and said to him, "O Abu `Abdur-Rahman! Narrate to us about the battles during the time of the afflictions, as Allah says:-- 'And fight them until there is no more afflictions (i.e. no more worshipping of others besides Allah).'" (2.193) Ibn `Umar said (to the man), "Do you know what is meant by afflictions? Let your mother bereave you! Muhammad used to fight against the pagans, for a Muslim was put to trial in his religion (The pagans will either kill him or chain him as a captive). His fighting was not like your fighting which is carried on for the sake of ruling".
During the Prophet's lifetime, while the Quran was being revealed, no act of hostility was initiated by him against an enemy because of his religion. For instance, the Jews of Qaynuqa fought alongside Muslim ranks after Badr, a Jewish Rabbi fought and called upon his fellow Jews to fight alongside the Prophet against the Quraysh at Uhud, even many idolaters fought on the Prophet's side at Hunayn and al-Ta’if. The confusion about the tradition of war in Islam arises from the fact that the decision to join in these wars was given religious justification, because it is the right of every human being to have the freedom to choose his religion, Islam or else. Confusion is also due to the Muslims' enemies being identified by their religious beliefs in relation to Islam; kuffar, mushrikun and ahl al-kitab. There is no compulsion in religion, and until the end of days, ironically the same day which, those who deceptively level these false accusations against the prophet, think that all races and nations will be forcefully bowing to their God Zech14. The notion of divinely sanctioned conquests and subjugation, decimation of foreign population is purely a Judeo-Christian one.
The wars of the first 4 caliphs were the closest to the Quran's ideology of war in that it was actually a war of liberation of the oppressed people of the Roman, Persian and Egyptian nations from centuries of tyranny. There is a reason why the early Islamic state expanded with such speed, the local people did not resist and instead embraced the Muslim liberators that brought positive change in all aspects of their lives, whether they decided to convert or keep their own belief system. For example the Judeo-Christian population of Syria preferred Muslim rule to that of the Christian Byzantine empire. Seeing this phenomenon occuring all throughout the Muslims territories is what made some medieval jurists argue that the Islamic System is a much better one than any man-made law as it opposed oppression. The purpose of waging Islamic war, became in their eyes to spread the sharia, which includes laws accommodating non-Muslim communities. This supremacist view of the Islamic system is what made Ibn Khaldun argue that Islam had to ultimately spread globally, even by coercion. Throughout time, dominant powers viewed and still do, their societal order as superior, seeking to spread it by all means so as to safeguard their geopolitical interests. It is to be noted that Ibn khaldun maintained that warfare is intrinsic to human history, since immemorial times. He did not argue that cessation of warfare was something unthinkable to Islam. Prior to ibn Khaldun, other Muslim scholars the likes of al-Turtushi described wars as “social anomalies”. Al-Hasan ibn ‛Abd Allah compared wars “to diseases of society”.
The vast majority of Muslim scholars past and present, view war as a necessary remedy against aggression. Going back to ibn Rushd/Averoes, he reported the controversies of his time as to whether an enemy should be killed because of his hostility or solely for his religious difference and refusal to accept Islam. As one goes through the various legal opinions of the Muslim scholars throughout time and up until the modern era, what transpires is that their understanding of what is required of the Quran and the prophet in terms of warfare reflects the political and ideological environments in which they formulated their ideas. But the historical facts are clear; none of the wars in the times of the prophet and the early caliphs were done against a people solely because of their religious differences. The massive, but progressive conversions, could by no means be due to the fear of being enslaved by the Arab Muslims during the early Islamic conquests. Otherwise, we should expect many people to have renounced Islam following the military and political decline of Muslim power in the world.
The ratio of 1 man equivalent to 2 women's testimonies mentioned in 2:282 is a general advice
"so that IF one of them errs, the other can remind her".
It is a conditional statement, which makes the second female a passive witness unless the primary witness is forgetful. Therefore if a women is sound and competent, then she would need no other woman to remind her of something she knew but forgot. Her single testimony becomes equal in value to that of the man. The testimony is not gender based as one expert is not sufficient for a transaction to be binding; it requires 2 men as is clear from the verse's beginning
"get two witnesses out of your men".
The verse actually favors a woman witness who wouldnt automatically be dismissed for incompetence but would be supported in case of error while the single male witness would be replaced in the same case. The verse addresses the issue of financial matters and the fact is that on average, women are much less qualified than men in financial expertise, even in western societies.
As well, women are almost all affected, sometimes completely debilitated by PMS symptoms during and around the times of their menstrual cycles, in their emotional-intellectual and physical capacities, all of which might potentially compromise female testimony in such a situation. To dismiss that condition as potentially affecting every single woman simply for the sake of preserving a facade of progressive thinking, is a denial of an objective reality.
The Quran doesnt deny human nature and instead approaches everyday matters realistically and pragmatically. It only accepts the testimony of a person affected by a psycho-emotional condition that could potentially influence the objectivity of a case, when it is a woman -hence the 2nd woman to remind her. It is clearly referring to a condition not to the presumed intellectual capacities of a woman, hence the 2nd woman's role to remind her of something she knows but was mislead into forgetting.
If what the Quran meant was that a man's testimony is equal to 2 women's, the Quran in other instances ie when a woman is accused of adultery, would be saying that one woman's testimony is equal to 4 men's because if 4 men are not brought forth then their testimony will not be valid and they will be lashed for lying 24:4.
Also, in the case a husband accuses his wife of adultery without bringing forth eyewitnesses, her testimony has the same value as her husband's, contrary to the Bible where the accused wife is immediately considered guilty by default and is made to undergo humiliating and strange rituals to prove her innocence Numbers5:11-31. Without forgetting the fact that in Jewish law, women arent even allowed to serve as witnesses in legal matters in a court of law.
The famous hadith, gladly picked up by the critics if Islam, where the prophet reportedly admonishes a group of women for their "deficiencies" isnt speaking of mental IQ, that notion is bellied by the description of the inquisitive woman as jazlah/wise,intelligent.
The second part of the hadith, with the word ghalaba which means to overcome, plainly states that women might outsmart "dhi lubbin”—a very intelligent, or wise, or resolute man. How can an intellectually inferior individual outwit one of superior intellect? The word 'aql does not always equate with general mental capacities. That is why the prophet corroborated his statement "'aql deficiency" with the verse 2:282 spoken of earlier which deals with the issue of 2 women witnesses replacing one male witness. And neither does naqs necessarily equate with deficiency but also "to reduce". This is like telling them that though they have been reduced in their worldly and religious duties, this does not mean in any way that they are of lesser mental/spiritual capacities since they can overcome the smartest of men.
The statement within the hadith that most of hell dwellers will be women is not due to an inherent spiritual flaw but because of them cursing more and being more ungrateful. In another hadith and using the same wording it says that most of the dwellers of Paradise will be women too. Imam Muslim quotes ibn Sireen as sayong that there was discussion between men and women as to which gender will be the majority in Heaven. Abu Hurayra answered, based on the prophet's statement that women will be more (Fath al Baari 6/325).
By applying the same misunderstanding one would interpret this latter hadith as saying that women are spiritually superior to men. A woman is commanded by Allah not to pray or fast during her menses, which are the 2 examples the prophet gives of how they are reduced in religion. And though they are exempted from these rituals, by obeying these commands they will still receive their rewards. Seeing that a woman on her way to perform was sad, Aisha asked
"What is wrong with you?' I replied, ' I do not offer the prayers (i.e. I have my menses).' He said, ' It will not harm you for you are one of the daughters of Adam, and Allah has written for you (this state) as He has written it for them. Keep on with your intentions for Hajj and Allah may reward you that."
Men do not receive rewards for not praying or fasting and although the divine law stipulates different rights and obligations to men and women their ultimate reward is the same.
Anyone who knows the character and eloquence of the prophet with which he was able to effectively change the hearts and minds of his addressees, knows that he would never utter such hurtful, insulting speech, much less on a festive day of Eid. He would never put anyone down, especially due to gender, race, class or any other matter, and this is something the Quran forbids anyone to do.
Furthermore had the prophet been a proponent of such notion of women being mentally and spiritually inferior then he would never have entrusted his wives with safeguarding, transmitting and teaching the most sacred knowledge to both men and women. He is also reported as giving precedence to his wife Umm Salama's opinion in a very crucial matter, during the treaty of Hudaybiya over that of his closest male companions. The caliphs would later emulate the prophet in this behavior, on certain occasions. Aisha would even issue fatwas.
Not every saying and action of the prophet is meant to be emulated. One doesnt need, in all cases, to apply saliva or suck on a child's tongue to relieve him from thirst as the prophet and desert Arabs did when in the absence of water in the extreme conditions of their environment.
"The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, heard Hasan and Hussein crying while they were with their mother, so he hurried to them and he said: What is the matter with my boys? Their mother said: It is thirst".
As the water source had dried out, the Prophet called out:
"Does anyone have any water?"
As nobody answered, he asked for one of his grandchildren be brought to him
"He massaged his tongue and moistened it until he calmed down".
This obviously is a practical solution to a specific situation. We arent talking here of rubbing adult tongues and ears with one's saliva as some are depicted in the NT Mk7:33,Jn9:6.
The Quran, almost every time it cites one of the past failures of the Israelites, demarcates between the transgressors and the upright among them so as to not condemn them collectively although they have failed collectively to uphold the covenant they were bound to with God as a community. Those rightoues few are in contrast to those that remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability. Their sincerity, unprejudiced reading and understanding of their books led them to inevitably believe in the revelation bestowed on the prophet Muhammad 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4.
That seperation is done in the apocalyptic hadiths as well, where in a time where several supernatural events will occur, including inanimate objects and plants pointing to those among them that will side with the dajjal to murder innocents, they are said to be on both sides of the conflict between good and evil. Those on the wrong side (Muslim,B54,H99), in opposition to the returned prophet Jesus will be completely eliminated, together with their allies among all religious groups including Christians and deviant Muslims who will seek to kill other Muslims (Sunan Ibn Majah 179, Sahih Bukhari 1881, Musnad Ahmad 3546, al-Buhur al-Zakhirah 1/493). The same destruction will befall them as was done to previous nations that sought to destroy the messengers and their followers.
The Quran in 17:8 alludes to a future destruction of the mischief makers among them. They will not constitute the entire world Jewish population but a fraction of it that will believe in the dajjal as their promised messiah (Sahih Muslim 2944). The dajjal is thus the arch-deceiver, not an "anti-christ" although among his actions is that he will oppose the returned Jesus, besides opposing the Mahdi and all those that shall side with him.
Their biblical history speaks at length of the wrongdoings of the majority of them, despite the presence of a few righteous among them, and how those sins have often plunged most of their community into suffering, and for several generations, as pledged by God in their scriptures Ex20 and later observed in Jeremiah for instance when the nation was decimated by the sword and famine, from the youngest to the oldest, men and women, if not taken captives.
As a side note, Islam critics that are aware of the weakness of accusing the Quran for being antisemitic, rather turn to the ahadith which they often misconstrue. They use partial quotes allegedly uttered by the prophet of which the proper context is unknown, taking advantage of this absence of information to turn the quote into an absolute assertion.
The forceful, worldwide dominion of one religion above all others in this life isnt a Quranic concept, but a Biblical one that will occur in the Messianic Age. See Zech14 for example among messianic passages, relating how "utopian" the world will become once all other religions, along with those that keep practicing them despite the warnings, are wiped out and only the Jewish God is worshiped. This is not to mention that among the 613 commandements revealed at Sinai are the laws concerning the erradication of specific nations, and these are still binding upon the Jews up to this day due to their failure in executing these laws fully in the past Deut20:16,17,25:19.
The phenomenon of Muslim violent intolerance to others, besides being statistically marginal and scripturally baseless, is a reaction, the indirect but happily approved creation of Judeo-Christian biblically endorsed oppression and destruction of other races and nations, which has been ongoing since its earliest days. The Judeo-Christian media uses and needs the fringe lunatics to further justify their policies, instead of giving voice to the truthful and genuine Muslims that constitute the vast majority.
Just because one doesnt see violent images of Christian or Jewish leaders decapitating others, doesnt mean that people, especially Muslims, arent dying in the 100s daily from direct and indirect result of the Judeo-Christian battle to shape world geopolitics in accordance with their ultimate aim, the domination of their system and ushering of their utopian messianic age. There is a reason why Jewish and Christian leaders see in Trump a reincarnation of Cyrus.
This issue is often made into a mountain by the enemies of Islam. The prophet recommended the ingestion of camel's urine that had grazed in particular areas that thus rendered it useful to humans, in combination with milk, not separately. That prescription was a one off incident to a group of people that consequently were cured. It was not something recommended to everyone or for general consumption. It was meant as a treatment and we have no other instances of the prophet using it or telling others to do so. It is well known, as a side note, that camel urine has strong antibiotic properties. Due to this, the critics of Islam have now switched to saying that isolating the beneficial component makes the remedy risk free, as compared to taking the cure in its raw form ie the urine. Yet a modern drug, even though having the component of interest in concentration is still harmful to an extent and has a long list of side effects. Take chemotherapy for example. Ancient people cured diseases using inherited knowledge and raw materials provided by nature. Chemical extraction and synthetic reproduction didn't exist. These ancient remedies, like our modern drugs werent perfect but did the specific job they were known to be useful for, as is clearly the case in this hadith.
The JEwess Zaynab bint al harith was later forgiven by the prophet. Other versions state that when Bishr ibn al-Bara’ ibn Ma’roor died as a result of the effects of this food, then the prophet executed her as a qisaas punishment, while others yet like ibn Kathir maintain that she even converted to Islam, seeing that the prophet passed her "falsification" test and was thus left alone. She initially approached the prophet with the meal after the treaty negotiations with the Jewish leadership of Khaybar had ended.
In such circumstances it would have been against decorum and basic sensitivity to refuse it based on suspicion. In ancient times, especially in rural cultures till this day, refusal to share a meal when the host clearly displays his peaceful intentions is a sign of treachery and mistrust. The Quran relates how Abraham was fearful of his guests that refused the food he offered them despite his clear hospitality 11:69-70. There were no means to the prophet Muhammad by which to chemically test the meal and verify his suspicion. His detractors wouldnt have missed this opportunity to charge him with accusing an innocent woman without proof.
Neither did he behave like the kings and leaders of times past by having someone taste the food before he ate nor would it have ever been in his thought and character to have forced the woman to eat it herself or forced any of the Jews to eat it to prove that it was not poisoned. In accordance with his lofty character and prophetic status, he wanted to show that he was willing to trust the Jews, hoping that, perhaps, they will be guided.
He did not yield to suspicion, even with the enemy. Yet, by eating, he did not show any lack of wisdom because showing suspicions without proof is not the way to build a relationship. And the prophet, in accordance with the Quran's commands was never one to be inconsiderate of others or sceptical of their inner condition. Especially in the context of warfare, the good treatment of captives, as the prophet was here exemplifying, is expected to soften their hearts towards Islam. But if they act treacherously despite the Muslims' honourability, they will be overpowered just as they had been 8:70-71.
What is interesting with Bishr is that he was the only one, together with the prophet, that sensed the poison during the meal. Although the prophet spat out the morsel in his mouth after briefly chewing on it, Bishr, seeing him beginning to eat, trusted his judgement and swallowed his bite prior to the prophet's reaction. The remaining Muslims did not sense the poison and started eating, just like Bishr, trusting the prophet's judgement, until everyone was told to stop. This is where something strange occurs. Bishr, according to most reports dies instantly, as well as a dog that ate a morsel of the poisonned meal. The prophet lives on but suffers occasionally from the effects of the poison while it had no consequence on the remaining Muslims. Bishr's martyrdom revealed the deadly nature of the poison. The prophet's sickness proved the entire meal was toxic, not just Bishr's portion. The remaining Muslims' immunity was miraculous, given that the whole meal was poisoned. Had only Bishr or only the prophet been afflicted, one could have argued that a specific part of the meal was poisoned or that a specific individual was particularly sensitive to the poison. If the prophet was safeguarded and that someone else, together with Bishr were afflicted, someone could have said the prophet was simply lucky. The Prophet's sickness was necessary to prove that no human being will be allowed to put an end to his life, despite being clearly poisoned, until his mission is accomplished. The manner in which these events unfolded show that God was in full control.
This youtuber is not a rat geneticist, but again, neither the prophet. I will address his scientific concerns, but need first to establish certain points.
As is explicit in the Quran, the divine protection of the carriers of the revelation pertains strictly to the revelation itself. But in everyday affairs, the messengers, who are still humans endowed with freewill and thus the potential, if not to sin due to their heightened level of spiritual awareness, to make mistakes, they are left to their own devices in their everyday lives to fight off the assaults of evil forces. No prophet was in a constant state of communication with the divine realm. The hadith and Quran itself speak of long periods where revelation had stopped, and the subsequent tauntings of his enemies on the issue, the questions of his followers and his anxious anticipation. The prophet is for instance reported, as a reflection of his all too often humble character, to have said
"I am only human like you; I forget as you forget. If I forget, then remind me".
This comes in the context of a slight mistake which he had done during prayer, inadvertently shortening it, apparently angry with himself as he suspected the mistake, then humbly accepting the correction from the attendance which confirmed his thought
"The Prophet (peace be upon him) meanwhile, stood by a piece of wood placed in the mosque, leaning against it, as if he was angry. So a man stood and said, 'O Messenger of Allah, have you forgotten or has the prayer been reduced?' So the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) said, 'I did not forget nor has it been reduced.' So the man said, 'Rather you have indeed forgotten.' So the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to the Companions, 'Is what he is saying true?' They said 'Yes' So the Prophet (peace be upon him) went forward and prayed what remained of the prayer, then he gave the salutation, then he prostrated twice, then he gave the salutation".
The prophet did not forget the Quran. He forgot, momentarily like any one with a memory lapse, certain passages. That is irrelevant to the issue of Quran preservation. When these memory lapses occured, the Quran had already been transmitted, in both oral and written form. Hence even regular members of the community, not even renouned memorizers, correcting the prophet's recital. Something important noting in that regard. The Quran assures him
87:6"We shall make you recite (sanuqriuka) so you shall not forget".
Allah was literaly puting the holy words into the prophet's mouth
19:97"We have only made it easy in your tongue that you may give good news thereby to those who guard (against evil) and warn thereby a vehemently contentious people"
and teaching him how to read them out. As the prophecy of Deut18 says
"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him".
Man is apt to forget, and the Prophet was a human being and he too was apt to forget and since the Quran was also a great asset which was being entrusted to him, he would repeat each and every word of the revelation fearing that any of it might slip away from his memory. This verse, telling him he will be made to recite in manner so as to not forget, came as a reassurance, stressing that God has taken upon Himself its impression on his memory. This was not by his own power and leave, being a mortal like anyone else and it is a reminder of this reality that the Quran continues
87:7"Except what Allah pleases, surely He knows the manifest, and what is hidden".
The context of the verse is about intricate, detailed, purposeful divine planing for all things and how nothing escapes God's grasp and knowledge. The prophet's rare occasions of very limited forgetfulness (and his followers and recorders' reminding him) were fully in accordance with that master plan, meant among other things at humbling him as well as to the believers' eyes around him, of his own faillibility as a human being as well of God's being in control of the process of memorization and compilation of the Quran, allowing only what He wills to be temporarily, not completely, forgotten. As a principle, the Quran reminds in many instances of that concept, how this revelation and its very preservation is a mercy from Allah that could be taken away from Muhammad or erase parts of it from the prophet's own memory without him noticing it as said above, therefore man should remain grateful for it and never feel complacent
17:86-7"And if We please, We should certainly take away that which We have revealed to you, then you would not find for it any protector against Us. But on account of mercy from your Lord-- surely His grace to you is abundant".
It is because of this very complacency towards divine guidance, the rejection, persecution and killing of the prophets sent in their midst that God temporarily interrupted an ongoing guiding revelation to the nation of Israel Ezek3:26,24:27,33:21-22.
The Quran never came to correct the prophet's worldviews in terms of knowledge of nature and general causality, neither of his contemporaries but rather guide him and the rest of humanity through him, to the most complete, advanced human spiritual knowledge
"The Messenger of Allah and I passed by some people who were at the top of their date palms. He said: “What are these people doing?” They said: “They are pollinating them, putting the male with the female so that it will be pollinated.” The Messenger of Allah said: “I do not think that it is of any use.” They were told about that, so they stopped doing it. The Messenger of Allah was told about that and he said: “If it benefits them, let them do it. I only expressed what I thought. Do not blame me for what I say based on my own thoughts, but if I narrate something to you from Allah, then follow it, for I will never tell lies about Allah, may He Glorified and Exalted is He.” He continued in another version "You know better about your worldly affairs".
The divine protection therefore only pertained to the Quran which is the source of that perfect spiritual knowledge. The prophet was "uswa hasana" in his application of the Quran, not how he ate, slept or saw the nature around him. This phrase in no way implies that he was a perfect creation. Many verses urge him and those with him to seek God's forgiveness for shortcomings and the prophet used to implore God daily to be protected from sins. Anyone is free to imitate his lifestyle and adopt his worldviews as found in extra Quranic writings, if one finds any personal benefits in doing so but that isn't a religious requirement nor relevant to it, and that is explicitly stated in the Quran itself.
With that in mind, when the prophet made deductions as related in the ahadith, pertaining to his natural environement, general causality and basic observation of certain phenomenon, it is only expected from him that they would fit what the ancients of his time would find "plausible". These views however, right or wrong, no matter how extraordinary they might seem in light of our current knowledge, have no bearing on the Quran itself, which is again, pledged to be fully protected. It would have been interesting to have had written records of how the previous prophets saw the world, as we have with Muhammad, and see who among them held the most "unscientific" personal views.
There are many examples to be extracted from the ahadith, most of them inappropriately derided and misunderstood by modern people, although none of them are falsifiable and even if proven wrong, as said above, have no bearing on the Quran itself. As to the hadith about Jews changed into rats, besides the report itself describing the incredulity of those that heard it reported on behalf of the prophet by only one person, Abu Hurayra, it also shows the prophet himself giving a loose personal opinion based on observation, not a statement of fact
"Muslim2997 a: Abu Huraira reported that Allah's Messenger said: A group of Bani Isra'il was lost. I do not know what happened to it, but I think (that it 'underwent a process of metamorphosis) and assumed the shape of rats. Don't you see when the milk of the camel is placed before them, these do not drink and when the milk of goat is placed before them, these do drink. Abu Huraira said: I narrated this very hadith to Ka'b and he said: Did you hear this from Allah's Messenger? I (Abu Huraira) said: Yes. He said this again and again, and I said: Have I read Torah? This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Ishaq with a slight variation of wording."
The same uncertainty is found in another similar hadith
"Then Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) called him out at the third time saying: O man of the desert, verily Allah cursed or showed wrath to a tribe of Bani Isra'il and distorted them to beasts which move on the earth. I do not know, perhaps this (lizard) may be one of them. So I do not eat it, nor do I prohibit the eating of it".
This observation by the prophet could have been directly or indirectly influenced by a belief floating among the Arabs, more particularily the Banu Salim who forbade themselves to eat the flesh of lizards, asserting that it was a metamorphosed Jew.
If there is one person that did not benefit from the conquest of Khaybar, it is the noble prophet. For example in 33:28-29 the prophet's wives are told that if their desire for this world and its adornment is preferable in their eyes than a life of sacrifices dedicated to their spiritual duties
"say to your wives: If you desire this world´s life and its adornment, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing".
After divorce the woman would have stood excluded from the category of "mothers of believers", and she would not be forbidden to any other Muslim; for she would have chosen divorce from the prophet only for the sake of the world and its adornments of which she had been given the choice. The prophet's wives had thus the option of requesting and getting a just and kind divorce for even such petty reasons like their desire to pursue this wordly life which God's prophet could not afford giving them in his household.
By the time this verse was revealed, and as shown in the direct context, the Muslims had conquered the rich agricultural region of Khaybar, and the community had grown more prosperous. But while life was becoming easier for most of its members, this ease was not reflected in the household of the Prophet. As was always his habit, he only allowed himself and his family only the absolute minimum necessary for the most simple living
28:83"that future abode, We assign it to those who have no desire to exalt themselves in the earth nor to make mischief and the good end is for those who guard (against evil)".
His prestigious status as a prophet and ruler never came in the way of that humble principle of living. Not only was he not ever one to ask for any kind of reward from his addressees 6:90,25:56-7,12:104etc but every occasion where he could make use of his status and deep knowledge for material benefit, he would do it for the sake of the needy
58:12"when you consult the Messenger, then offer something in charity before your consultation; that is better for you and purer".
The prophet's wives on the other hand naturally were longing for a share in the comparative luxuries which other Muslim women could now enjoy. His wives often stated that they had little on their shelves besides bread flour and dates. But it is reported that all of them rejected a possible seperation with the prophet and resumed their spiritual duties as "mothers of the believers", and were promised a great reward in the Hereafter for having denied themselves the ordinary comforts of life by remaining in the Prophet's house 33:31.
If ambushing is a problem to this youtuber, he should first deal with his HB. When in the HB the Israelites, led by Joshua set themselves to conquer the Canaanite tribe of Ai. They placed an army in ambush west of the city, while another army attacked from the east, then feigned retreat, drawing the enemy further from the city. At a given signal, the army that lay in ambush entered the city and set it on fire. The enemy then found himself hemmed in on both sides and was completely annihilated of its inhabitants indiscriminately, its king hanged publicly and the spoils kept for the Jewish warriors Josh8. This would be the fate of 31 kings and their tribes accross Canaan, under the leadership of Joshua. After him, the remaining Canaanite population would suffer the same, if not more severe fate, and its kings similarily executed, others mutilated Judges1:6. For the indiginous population that remained, to YHWH's genocidal command to cleanse the land from its natives along with their pagan practices, they were reduced to a life of slavery to the Israelites Judges1:28.
As to Khaybar, here is the real story. The defeat the Jews had suffered at the battle of the Trench, where they had allied with the near totality of the Arab pagan tribes for the purpose of exterminating the Muslims, did not deter them. They were making preparations behind their settlements of Khaybar and the gardens of Fadak where 14000 of them lived inside 7 well fortified strongholds, for a final showdown with the Muslims. Their chief, Yusayr ibn Razam, joined with the Arab tribe of Ghatfan, along with the banished Jewish tribes of Nadir and Qaynuqa that were allowed, by the prophet, despite their former treacheries, to find refuge within the fortress with their Jewish brethren. A little prior to the battle, the prophet authorized the assassination of Abu rafi'.
The Khazraj tribe asked for the Prophet’s permission to kill him. Permission was granted provided that no women or children would be harmed, an instruction that was respected despite Abu Rafi's wife almost foiling the attempt. This happened prior to the siege of Khaybar, where he was mercifully allowed to remain following the defeat of the Jewish-Meccan alliance that nearly decimated the Muslims at the battle of the Trench. Abu rafi' kept on actively inciting the Muslims' enemies from within the fortress. Wars were started and innocent people lost their lives because of such incitements. The prophet thought that such a move would dissuade the people of Khaybar from pursuing their belligerent attitude but it did not. To demonstrate their strength, Ghatfan captured 20 camels of the Prophet after killing their herdsman and capturing his wife.
Their intriguing and use of their wealth to incite tribes against the Muslims left the prophet Muhammad with no choice but to put an end to their machinations and betrayals that had almost caused the extermination of the Muslim community in the previous battle. Ibn Ishaq reports that when the prophet arrived at Medina he invited the peaceful Jews of Khaybar to Islam with a letter, which after reminding them of the prophetic history and how he fits in it, does not put any blame on them if they sincerely reject his call
"I adjure you to tell me if you find in that revelation which Allah sent down to You, that you should believe in Muhammad. If you cannot find that in your scripture, no displeasure will fall on you. Guidance will be distinguishable from error, and I invite you to Allah and to His prophet".
This call, from which they arent liable in case of rejection after sincerely and objectively considering the prophet's message in light of their own scriptures, was made at a time where they had not yet displayed the machinations, war incitements and enemy alliances they would actively participate in a few years later against the Muslims. A few years later then, as he reached the fortress and to make sure that he would not inadvertently cause an innocent Muslim casualties, who would have accepted the invitation he had made a few years back in times of peace, he waited for the sound of the morning call to prayer. This was a common practice of the prophet which he had done in other cases
"Whenever the Prophet went out with us to fight (in Allah's cause) against any nation, he never allowed us to attack till morning and he would wait and see: if he heard Adhan he would postpone the attack and if he did not hear Adhan he would attack them".
When the time came and the call to prayer wasnt heard, the green light was given to attack and to apply the unalterable divine law of retribution, as amply demonstrated in both their scriptures and the Quran. Whenever a messenger is sent to a people with an undeniable manifestation of the truth, and that the people reject it knowingly and attempt to kill him, then they are destroyed either by a heavenly disaster or by the hands and swords of the prophet and his partisans. Those believers and their prophet are then are then made their successors in the land.
When Ali spearheaded the assault he asked the prophet on which basis (not that there were no basis, rather which among the basis) should he fight them, the prophet replied on the basis of that very divine law alluded to earlier
"O Messenger of Allah, on what basis should I fight the people?” He said: “Fight them until they bear witness that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. If they do that, then they have protected from you their blood and their wealth, except for a right that is due, and their reckoning will be with Allah".
Again, a very important point to reiterate, these Jews were peacefully invited to Islam many years back and were never bothered for their refusal to accept it. The prophet only engaged them in battle when they initiated hostile activities against him and the Muslim community. It is the mercy of the prophet that, despite having full authority of applying the divine penalty, gave them nevertheless the option of surrendering to the divine law and walk free (meaning the Muslims' priority in their case was not their wealth rather the application of the divine law), yet they still refused, just as they had in the past stubbornly and arrogantly rejected prophets from their own people telling them to adhere to their own books. They were thus forcefully subdued for their wordly crimes and the transgression of rejecting a prophet in their midst. It is to be noted, as said in the report, had they accepted Islam at that moment then it would have only warded off the divine wordly destruction from them but not their moral accountability before God for their past crimes. A detachement of above 1000 men was sent to their fortresses.
It took the Muslims 20 days of siege and several assaults led by Abu Bakr then Umar (1st & 2nd caliph) and finally Ali who vaillanty pierced the fortress and inflicted heavy casualties in the Jews and pagan ranks. After their defeat, the tribes of Bani Nadir and Qaynuqa were expelled and over those that remained, Muhammad proposed putting their own chief Usir ibn Rizam as Governor of Khaybar over his fellow Jews, but he had to recognize the Prophet's authority and never engage in hostilities or stir up anyone against the Muslims again. He accepted but on his way back to Khaybar where he was escorted with his 30 men and some armed Muslim men, he regretted his decision and attacked the Prophet's messenger, killing him. Followed a heavy fight from which no Muslim died and all Jewish soldiers were killed except 1 who escaped.
The history books report that one of the chiefs of the Bani Nadir named Kinana ibn Rabi, who had been given amnesty and relocated to Khaybar, was put to death under the prophet's orders, by Muhammad ibn Maslama in retaliation for the murder of his borther Mahmud. The rest of the story according to which, prior to his death, he was supposedly tortured for his refusal to indicate the location of his hidden treasure, was copied by both Tabari and Ibn Hisham from Ibn Ishaq who doesnt give any isnad with it. This report was most probably a Jewish invention as it is known that ibn Ishaq, in his effort at collecting every possible historical account regardless of authenticity (leaving the authentication process to be conducted by the subsequent generations), would borrow Jewish stories from the prophet's battles.
Further, the prophet forbade any kind of torture involving burning, and in his pattern of conduct in the authentic reports, no precedent exists for such a behavior although he could have done so on many occasions. That is besides his complete disinterest in pursuing wealth, neither in his battles nor his reportedly austere lifestyle. Neither was his family put to death. It is related that Kinana's brother was alive under Umar's caliphate.
With the collapse of their last fortress, the Jews did not pose any more threat to the Muslims. Those that were expelled had their immovable properties confiscated and redistributed to the homeless among Muslims, who still had no dwelling places since their migration from Mecca. Those that were allowed to stay, remained on the condition that they could be expelled anytime should they return to treachery, desire for war or instigating others against the Muslims.
They could keep their property but in exchange had to provide the Muslims with part of their crops, they had to relinquish their insularity and participate in the life of the whole community with the rights and obligations that naturally ensue. Ibn Rawahah was placed as governor, and under the Prophet's instructions the Jews were allowed free practice of their religion. Now the believers had inherited under divine sanction their lands and wealth just as other unrighteous people's possessions were entirely given to them as spoils
Neh9:25"And they captured fortified cities and fat soil, and they inherited houses full of all good, hewn cisterns, vineyards, and olive trees, and fruit trees in abundance, and they ate and were sated, and they became fat, and they enjoyed pleasures with Your great goodness".
The Ishmaelites and their prophet however did not behave anywhere remotely like the Israelites and their prophets did whenever the lands of their enemies were granted to them by God, disregarding all ethics of war and humanitarian principles.
The Prophet never punished out of mere retaliation for a personal slight or injury. All his punishments, of believers and unbelievers alike, were for crimes committed against the public weal or infringements of the promulgated law; and even here his life contains acts of clemency in which he put mercy above justice. In 4:140 it says
"And indeed He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear Allah's communications disbelieved in and mocked at do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them; surely Allah will gather together the hypocrites and the unbelievers all in hell".
This is a Medinan verse in which the prophet isnt told to forcefully silence the critics, even those mockers of the religion. He is simply to gracefully turn away from them and leave them to their own shamefull talk. A similar verse was revealed in Mecca 6:68.
The Muslims entered Mecca but the keys to the Kaaba were with Uthman Bin Talha, a non-believer who locked the door of the holy sanctuary upon learning of the Muslims' entrance in Mecca. He hid, refusing to hand over the keys, until Ali found him and snatched the keys from him, openned the Kaaba and the Prophet entered, prayed in it, after which revelation came down
4:58"indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are belong to..".
The prophet understood that the Shaybah family had to be returned their possession; he thus ordered Ali to return the key to Uthman Bin Talha and excuse themselves. Ali then went to Uthman and gave back the key and presented their apologies for the wrong he had done to him by forcibly taking the key. Uthman b. Talha was shocked, he could not believe Ali was giving back the key to him as instructed by the Prophet Muhammad, the conqueror of Mecca, who could have done as he wished with anyone and anything within the city. Ever since, the guardianship of the Kaaba remained with Bani Shaybah, which is bestowed upon the elders of the family until today.
The soldiers and men of Quraysh who once levelled armies seeking to exterminate the Muslims by all means, persecuted and starved the Prophet and his powerless followers in the early days of his Call, brutalised and killed Muslim prisonners, war criminals in every sense of the word, came to the Prophet submissively. T
hey thought they would most certainly be slain, just as they would have executed the Muslims had their tirelessly repeated plans worked. They knew very well that within their own customs retaliation and hatred were the rule of the game within the fabrics of the society and its order. Hatred and hostilities were passed down from one generation to the next and unwillingness to perpetrate revenge was considered a defect.
While attributing the promised victory to Allah alone, the Messenger, in the manner of the great men of God who show magnanimity once they are at the climax of their power and glory, contented himself with uttering what a previous Prophet, noble as him had uttered in similar circumstances. The prophet Joseph before him told his brothers who came to him in submission, seeking forgiveness for their faults against him
12:92"There shall be no reproof against you this day; Allah may forgive you, and He is the most Merciful of the merciful".
The prophet continued
"Let every wealth (wrongfully seized), every blood (wrongfully shed), and every revenge to be exacted belonging to the days of jahiliyyah be trampled under my foot, except the guardianship of the Kaaba and the bearing of water at the time of the pilgrimage; they shall be returned to their people (the Quraysh)".
The noble prophet finally recited the Quran verse which constitutes the epitome of divine justice
49:13"We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you with Allah is the one among you most careful (of his duty); surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".
With these words, Muhammad was giving a general amnesty to all Quraysh and all the Meccans. To realize the degree of generosity from the Prophet, one must recall the life threatening hardships which these people imposed on him and now that they were completely subdued by him, instead of thinking of vengeance, or at the very least demanding apologies and reparations, which was certainly his due, he forgave them. This way he was displaying his function of "rasul", the embodiement of God's mercy to mankind.
