dontconvert2islam tries talking hadith, poor Safiyyah?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Jewish Wife"

She was originally another Muslim's war captive. The prophet asked the companion to give her to him and choose another woman from among the captives (some versions say he selected 7). The prophet then proceeded to free her without any preconditions, (as he bought and freed many other slaves and encouraged all who could afford to do the same) and only then married her. Her manumission was considered her dower. 

Her father had died during the siege of Khaybar. The prophet's marriage to her alleviated her tragedy by keeping her former dignity as the daughter of a ruler. It also created a rapprochement with one of the greatest Bani Israel tribes of the Arabian peninsula, as was the custom in ancient times. She died in 36AH. Being an Israelite, the Muslims in general did not see the prophet's marriage to her as an extension of their ethnicity, so as to begin freeing their own captives as many did with the Bani Mustaliq upon the prophet's marriage to Juwayriyyah.

"We conquered Khaibar and gathered the captives. Dihyah came and said: 'O Prophet of Allah, give me a slave girl from among the captives.' He said: 'Go and take a slave girl.' He took Safiyyah bint Huyayy. Then a man came to the Prophet and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, you gave Dihyah Safiyyah bint Huyayy, and she is the chief mistress of Quraizah and An-Nadir, and she is fit for no one but you.' He said: 'Call him to bring her.' When the Prophet saw her, he said: 'Take any other slave girl from among the captives.'" He said: "The Prophet of Allah set her free and married her". 

In other versions, together with her status, her beauty was also mentioned to the prophet. How much of that "beauty" corresponds the reality is lost in history. The prophet in fact would defend her whenever anyone derided her appearance, more specifically her short stature 

"She said: "I said: 'O Messenger of Allah! Safiyyah is a woman who is ..." and she used her hand as if to indicate that she is short - "So he said: 'You have said a statement which, if it were mixed in with the water of the sea, it would pollute it" 

or when her co-wives would derogatorily mention her Jewish heritage 

"So the Prophet said: 'And you are the daughter of a Prophet, and your uncle is a Prophet, and you are married to a Prophet, so what is she boasting to you about?'"

 Her marriage to the prophet wasnt contracted until after her menses had cleared up with certainty

 "and when we reached a place called Sidd-as-Sahba, Safiya became clean from her menses then Allah’s Apostle married her".

The waiting period of the widow did not apply in her case as a woman's former marriage is dissolved upon her capture in war. Had the prophet disregarded that ruling or forgotten it, the marriage would have been contracted regardless of the menstrual period clearing up or not. 

The prophet certainly married her soon after her manumission so as to not leave her in suspense, neither did he want to injure her dignity by keeping her as his right hand possession. He wanted to raise her status and honor to the rest of the community and his wives. This does not mean that the marriage was consummated at that point. It could have been during that trip between Khaybar and Sidd-as-Sahba, where several reports depict the prophet's first interactions and dialogues with her. In those reports the prophets begins by scolding his faithful companion Bilal. He had been insensitive in making her pass by her dead husband. He then gently explained the reason of his conflict with her tribe in consequence to her own father's crimes and incitements. She would later remember, in her own words, how the prophet's gentle explanation convinced and appeased her heart (al-Bayhaqi's Dalail Al Nubuwa). He then gave her a choice between remaining a Jew and going back to her people or converting to Islam and marrying him, and according to Ibrahim Bin Ja’far she willfully chose to convert and marry him. During that whole time she did not say a word about her dead husband, although she did mention her other dead relative, her father.

This most probably could have been due to her actually resenting him as she described how he had just recently, prior to the siege of Khaybar, struck her face out of jealousy. He interpreted a dream which she shared with him as a hidden desire to actually leave him and marry the prophet (ibn Ishaq).

This also denies the report from al Waqidi, a narrator universally regarded as a liar and forger of hadiths, where a companion supposedly guarded the prophet's door while he was spending the night with Safiyya, fearing that she might kill the prophet in revenge.

It is also to be noted that all of the prophet's wives were free to leave him anytime they wanted, as a divine command, even for the pettiest reasons, without the slightest reproach or injury

33:28-29"O Prophet, say to thy wives, `If you desire the life of this world and its adornment, come then, I will provide for you and send you away in a handsome manner; `But if you desire ALLAH and HIS Messenger and the Home of the Hereafter, then, truly, ALLAH has prepared for those of you, who do good, a great reward".

No muslim, and no man of any culture is required to go out of his way and ask his wife if she is happy and satisfied enough in all material aspects, especially when one is just with the wife in relation to one's financial capabilities. Further, no muslim or man in general is required to offer divorce if the wife is unhappy. On top of it, not simple divorce, with each partner going his/her way, which would be fairest in this case, but a "gracious" divorce, where the wife is free to leave as well as receive compensation if she chooses to. Yet this is what was required of the prophet, contrary to all muslims, a man supposedly seeking multiple marriages of lust.

Why would the noble prophet give her that option if he knew he had abused her, that she hated him, while he could have simply kept her as a right hand possession whose request for separation from her guardian wouldnt be as straight forward as in a divorce? None of the facts agree with the hatemongers's tall tales and their attempts at disparaging the prophet and his household.

These critics, mainly from a Judeo-Christian background, often operate with their corrupt Biblical paradigms in mind, in this case reflecting their shame of having David, one of the greatest Biblical prophets, murdering an innocent man, not even from among his enemies, but among his own faithful people, for the sole purpose of covering up for his secret affair with a married woman. It is but normal that they would expect similar behavior from other prophets or prophet claimants, although their own charges against the prophet Muhammad pale in comparison to the shameful depiction the biblical scribes have made of past prophets.

Safiyya willfuly stayed with the prophet, establishing a warm and friendly relation with the rest of the household and became known for her piety and ascetism. She had maintained connection, even after the prophet's death, with her Jewish relatives.

dontconvert2islam examines slavery under Jesus; Christian and Jewish abuse?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Jewish Wife"

On a final note,

The Hebrew Bible sanctionned letter for letter by Jesus, allows the extermination of entire population save their virgins, regardless of age. All visibly mature women are killed while the visibly virgin, meaning children, are distributed among the invading Israelites Numbers31:17-18etc. The Hebrew speaks of "every woman who can lie with a man" in contrast to the "young girls who have no experience of intimate relation with a man". The text is thus clearly speaking in terms of physical appearance. Obviously the soldiers weren't going around verifying each captive's private parts to distinguish the virgins. Those children may be disposed of according to one's whims, as the passage gives no regulation in the matter. This is in the context of genocidal warfare, binding on Jews of all times where specific nations must be annihilated, like the Amalekites and six other Canaanite nations and any of their descendants whenever they are identified Deut20:16,25:19. 

In another context, that of optional warfare, Deut21 instructs the soldiers to marry the captive he lusts for, prior to sexual intimacy. She has no choice and say in the matter. She is brought to the soldier's household, her hair trimmed (the Hebrew does not mean shaved off), nails shortenned, previous clothes put aside, and given a month to mourn her decimated family, right in front of her captors' eyes v13. The passage only mentions her murdered parents, which implies again she could be very young, or mature and unmarried (unlikely in those days for a woman that is so attractive that the soldier lusts after), or with a husband who is still alive. The altering of her physical appearance is understood differently among the commentators, some seeing it as a means by which she is beautified, and others that she is made purposefully unattractive. If after that process the Jewish man still lusts for her, he may then marry her, keeping her alongside the "preferred" wife. If not, she is simply abandonned to fend off for herself, returning to whatever is left of her ravaged home. 

As already said, Numbers31 and Deut21 are contextually unrelated. This undermines the argument that marriage is always a precondition to sexual intimacy. In Numbers31 the option of forced marriage isnt given as the female captive is from among the nations whom the Israelites are to be at war with forever, whose population, men women and children, are to be mercilessly killed to the last one by divine decree. Marrying from among their captives would contradict that ordinance. In Deut21, the context is that of optional wars, whose targets are people outside those concerned by the decree of extermination, hence the option of forceful marriage. In that sub-category, the Israelites are permitted to prey on the weak nation of their choice, subdue and abuse its people as they wish. These are the wars labelled up to this day by the rabbis as wars of "national glory". This isnt a war necessary for the survival of the Jewish people, or in response to provocation, not even under divine injunction. In such a case a random nation is given the choice between a "peaceful" surrender, that would result in the enslavement and taxation of its population, or in case of their rejection of the "peace offer", a military subjugation resulting in the execution of all adult males, the capture as spoils of war of their women, children, and livestock Deut20:10-14.

Should it be necessary to completely subdue that nation

2Kings3:19"you shall fell every good tree, and you shall stop up all springs of water, and you shall clutter every good field with stones".

In the land of Canaan, those natives that werent driven out or exterminated as per the Torah's injunctions during the invasion, were subdued into slavery Josh17:13. Their descendants suffered the same fate under Solomon's rule 1Kings9:20-1. After all and as stated in both the HB and the Talmudic writings (Eleazar ben Shammua) , the purpose of creation and the reason why the heavens and earth are maintained is for the chosen race to observe Torah. 

That is what the Quran would have looked like, and how it would have instructed its people to behave towards the foreign nations and the weak that come under their possession, had it been penned by the ancients of its time to whom such attitude was regarded as expected and acceptable. The Quran changed the way such categories of people that already existed in the society it came to reform, had to be treated. It did so by igniting the believers' taqwa/God-consciousness, elevating the status of such weak categories whom there was now no shame of marrying 4:3,25,24:32,33:50 and honoring them as one would honnor the closest family members 4:36.

dontconvert2islam concern for slaves' rights in Islam; forced sex?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Jewish Wife"

That these mulk yamin cannot be forced into intimacy by the guardian is exemplified through the story of prophet Yusuf, bought as a slave and whom his mistress wanted to abuse sexually under the threat of emprisonnement. The Quran condemns such action, calls it an indecency/fahisha for the owner of a slave to have intercourse with him/her under compulsion 12:24 a grave fault and a manifest error 12:29-30. It is to be noted that the right hand possessions in Islam are people of both sexes as seen in

24:33"And (as for) those (Walladheen) who ask (Yabtaghoona) for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess give them the writing (Fa Kaatibuuhum)"

Ma Malakat aymanikum must cover both males and females because if they were only females it should be "wallaati" or "wallaa'i" instead of Walladheen, "yabtaghuna" (without the waw) instead of Yabtaghoona, "Fa Kaatibuuhuna" instead of Fa Kaatibuuhum. Just as the Quran condemned Yusuf's mistress from acting against her servant's desire to remain chaste, the Quran again prohibits the guardian from acting contrary to his mulk yamin/right hand possession's desire for chastity such as by forcing her into prostitution as was the custom in pre-islamic times. If he does so, despite the prohibition then the abused woman is certainly not to blame due to her weak background 24:33.

In 4:36 the Quran speaks of how they must be treated with kindness, without pride as one would treat the parents, neighbors or the weak in society. This means their guardians cannot abuse them in anyway just as one would not abuse the other groups mentionned in the verse

"He who slaps his slave or beats him, there is no expiation for this but to free him".

As the prophet here clearly instructs, physical abuse is a transgression that must be expiated.

The poor believer who cannot sustain a free believing woman/muhsana is told to marry a chaste MMA -since some were forced into prostitution by their guardians- and after taking her guardian's consent 4:25. Such MMA must be given their dowries justly and in case they commit an indecency only half the punishment of the self sustained women may be inflicted on them due to their past hardships and difficult upbringing that may have affected their common sense and judgement. This means that even after marrying, the mulk yamin still have a special status of clemency for their wrong-doings compared to other women. The verse ends by recommending the poor believer that it would be better for him to refrain from such union with someone elses' mulk yamin. In practice, although providing a short term solution for someone desiring to stay away from fornication, it could eventually lead to tension with the former guardian. In addition the poor believer will not be able to provide for her in the long run despite her status as stated in 24:33 where a poor man is told to remain chaste until his financial situation improves. This is a situation where the Quran clearly allows an issue that could potentially be harmful, which is why it discourages it, in order to prevent the occurrence of a greater harm which is fornication. It is interesting that some commentators have seen, among the "difficulties" arising from such unions the fact that, should the guardian not manumit his slave girl upon her marriage, then the child born will as a fact be born in bondage. The reality is this situation would burden the guardian with maintaining a child, in addition to the servant who is now less disposed to household chores as she is now split between caring for her husband, serving her guardian's household, and own child. That is why in pre-Islamic times and early Islam, guardians were quick to sell off their female servants when they conceived of a child. And that is besides taking into consideration this servant being married to another. But because the prophet forbade selling off a servant who conceives of a child, then practically this left the guardian with either the most logical choice of manumitting the slave girl, or much less probably keeping her as a burden. This is the pragmatism of Islam, and the prophetic sunna in its approach to slavery.

The Quran thus opens many different options to those categories, besides encouraging their kind treatment. In 4:3 Allah is commanding the believers who has orphans under his care towards whom he fears not to fulfill all his responsibility to marry up to 4 women but if he thinks he cannot deal in fairness with multiple wives, to marry

"only one or/aw Ma Malakat Aymanukum",

meaning a legal wife for a man who fears not to deal justly between mutliple wives can be either a regular woman who is protected and supported/muhsana OR Ma Malakat Ayman already in his possession. Therefore marrying malakat ayman according to 4:3, and other passages like 4:25 above, is as acceptable as marrying a normal woman and further 24:32 strongly encourages men and women to marry from their male/female slaves as an act of virtue.

dontconvert2islam tries talking Quran, what about already married captives?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Jewish Wife"

The issue of already married war captives isnt a difficult one to grasp, certainly not a reason to reject Islam as happened to this youtuber.

4:23-24 expands on the categories of women that are illegal for intimate relations however it makes an exception for already married Ma Malakat aymanikum. In case a married woman embraces Islam and then decides to desert her non-Muslim husband (only for the sake of her new faith) seeking shelter in a Muslim area. If after examination she is believed to be sincere in her faith then she cannot be turned back to her previous home, not only for safety reasons but also because -in the case her husband is an idolator- her new faith has made unlawful intermarriages with idolaters 2:221. 

A Muslim man may take her under his wing in his household, thus making her his mulk yamin. They become legal for eachother and if they wish to marry, they may only do so after payment of the dower to her initial husband thus definitely annulling the previous marriage ties 60:10. Notice here the justice in the Quran where it first encourages Muslims to pay what is due to the opposite party with whom one is at war, regardless of potentially these enemies not reciprocating with the Muslims in the same situation. 60:11 then discusses that eventuality and says that should it occur, then for the next cases, a disbelieving husband will only be compensated proportionally to what his predecessor unfairly compensated the Muslim camp. By first encouraging indiscriminate justice, and then justice by deterrence, the Quran skilfully equalizes the balance of justice even in times of war.

The other case of a married woman becoming lawful to a Muslim is that of a former married war prisoner. Once the threat of war was over, the defeated enemy and their belongings brought at the battlefield were confiscated, including their women which per their customs they used to unjustly drag with them as a means by which they were emboldened to fight. They now fell under Muslim custody, as a punishment and lesson to those who do not value their own, including a lesson to these very women.

When they were integrated into the fabric of society, taken in a Muslim household and made to benefit from the strict regulations as regards right hand possessions, which includes being kind and caring with them as one would be with the remaining members of the family, these women learned that Islam gave them, even in such conditions, a value they could never have hoped for in their own communities. Their surviving husbands that in fact do not deserve to be married to them in the first place, are only hurt in their male "pride". They didnt love these women, who would treat a wife in such way, bring her to the battlefield as a motivation not to surrender? Even then, they learn that wives, and women in general, do have a value seeing how Muslims treat the wives of their enemies. 

There were also cases of wars where Muslims were on the offensive, and after defeating the enemy, seized the property and families of the combatants. When a Muslim guardian takes into his home such women war captives, making them his right hand possessions, their former marriage is dissolved. After a waiting period until one menstrual cycle is cleared, she become sexually lawful to him. This in no way entails forced sex. There are no such recorded cases in history and if anything, whenever a case of mistreated and abused person was brought to the prophet, he condemned such a behavior, especially when the victims were women and slaves. The guardian may in that case either keep her in his household and stop insisting or send her away from his household by ransoming her against benefits of any kinds to her former camp, if anyone among her own people desires taking her back. For example upon the conquest of Khaybar, Safiyya fell under the prophet's possession. He offered her to return to her own people, or be freed and married to him and she chose the latter. The social contract between a guardian and his right hand possession is exclusive to them both, legalizing and regulating sexual activity as would be in a marriage contract and its accompanying responsibilities of maintenance and good treatment.

dontconvert2islam raises the bar; spiritual benefit in human diversity?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Jewish Wife"

Diversity among people on all levels, whether from a sociological, economical, psycho-physical angle, isnt viewed in the Quran as a stain purposefully put on the human race. Neither is it allowed by God in order to confuse and seperate people, or oppose them. Rather it is allowed, as an outcome of the established system of causality, because it is a driving force that creates interraction, interdependency, exchanges and positive understanding

49:13"We have created you of a male and a female and made you nations and tribes that you may know each other. Indeed, the most honourable among you in the sight of Allah is the most fearful (of Allah) among you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing, Aware".

This is one of the most compelling Quranic proof man is repeatedly told to ponder upon; the divine unity in the face of an interdependant diversity

43:32"it is We who distribute their means of livelihood among them in the life of this world, and raise some of them by degrees above others, to the end that they might avail themselves of one another's help".

This is based on the wisdom that no human being should become independent of others, but everyone should remain dependent on the other in various ways. The Creator is in this way in total contrast with His creation; He is the Self-Sufficient, Sustainer of the universe at each instant. He creates difference among His creation, through the natural processes He established, and the system of freewill on which He has full control.

This system established by Allah ultimately creates a web of interdependant diversity necessary for one of the aspects of divine trials; our dealings with eachother. Many fail to perceive this ultimate reality and they are referred to in

36:47"And when it is said to them: Spend out of what Allah has given you, those who disbelieve say to those who believe: Shall we feed him whom, if Allah please, He could feed? You are in naught but clear error".

God does indeed will for the deprived and weak to be helped, but according to the laws He has established and that benefit both the one who freely offers his help (emotional, material, physical, spiritual, intellectual), as well as the receiver of that help. Others raise an outcry and question divine justice in light of the fact that people are born with varying degrees of socio-economical as well as psycho-physical conditions. That questioning is answered through the divine scheme explained above, as well as the Quranic concept that

2:156"Indeed, we belong to Allah and indeed we towards Him will return".

Our whole self belongs to Him and He in reality doesnt owe us a single thing, whatever we receive from Him, since birth and throughout life, little or big, is a favor from Him and serves a higher purpose which can only be beneficial if one accepts God's supreme ownership

11:9"If We make man taste mercy from Ourselves, (and) then take it off from him, verily he is despairing ungrateful".

Neither self-conceit nor despair are appropriate if one admits that all things belong to God and return to Him when He decides.

The unbelievers of the time of the prophet disregarded lower social classes, disrespected and discriminated them. They mocked the assemblies of poor people and ex-slaves listening to the prophet, just like prophets were reproached before, the likes of Nuh 11:27-30, assuming that if Allah had truly sent revelation then why didnt He address the elite and rulers of whom Muhammad was not 43:31? In their limited, materialistic mindframe they considered themselves more deserving of divine favors

6:53"And thus do We try some of them by others so that they say: Are these they upon whom Allah has conferred benefit from among us? Does not Allah best know the grateful?".

dontconvert2islam studies sociology; benefits in Islamic slavery?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Jewish Wife"

Another repercussion of the Islamic system of "slavery", is that when captured during a battle against Muslims, those prejudiced individuals whose aim really was to annihilate Islam by all means, suddenly find themselves under the guardianship of those they believe represent evil.

Instead of being mistreated or even killed as they would have done had they captured Muslims instead, they benefit from strict regulations that guarantee their well-being. These people who, like in our days, were brainswashed with a distorted image of Islam, were shocked at seeing and experiencing the truth behind the scenes, benefiting from it, and how just and fair a social system it was as compared to their own society and how they themselves treated their slaves and war prisonners. They experienced the reality of divine justice and many converted.

So by restricting the acquisition of slaves to war prisoners, Islam was (and is still in case war is waged on Muslims because of their religion) actually giving them a chance of reform by introducing them to a better system on all levels

8:70"say to those of the captives who are in your hands: If Allah knows anything good in your hearts, He will give to you better than that which has been taken away from you and will forgive you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful". 

The voluntary assimilation and conversion of war prisoners because of having witnessed Islam from within, parallels with what happened during the treaty of Hudaybiyyah. It provided a relative peace era on the Meccan front which allowed Islam to spread faster than it ever did, because it allowed Muslims and non-Muslims to visit eachother and interact on account of their family relationships and trade connections. Many Meccans started visiting Medina, and stayed there for months. They got acquainted with the teachings of Islam and were deeply impressed by the righteous conduct and moral integrity of the Muslims, and how they treated the prisoners of war, integrating them into the fabric of society. Islam gained many converts in its ranks during that period.

This sense of brotherhood which Islam gave the oppressed, helped gradually bring down social barriers. As a result, in the early periods of Islam after the prophet, we see countless slaves with high political responsibilities, including the command of armies, governorship and judgeship. Not only in administration, we find theologians, commentators of the Quran, traditionists, jurists and authors who either were slaves or the children of the slaves or ex-slaves.

From a higher perspective, the Quran explains the reason for there being differences socio-economical, or even psycho-physical differences among humans. All human beings were created with the aim of being Allah's vicegerents on earth. We have been endowed with freewill -which asserts itself through tests and trials- and are compelled to use it to fulfill our role of vicegerency according to our degrees in this world

6:165"And He it is Who has made you successors in the land and raised some of you above others by (various) grades that He might try you by what He has given you".

This is according to the divine principles of the Greatest of Judges 11:45,95:8 that what is expected of a person is directly in correlation to that person's condition 65:7.

Just like some trees are made to excel others in fruits 13:4, we are raised in degrees and some of us made to excel others in certain aspects, whether physical or mental, social or economical etc, but it is all done according to an all encompassing wisdom and knowledge that takes into consideration every aspect of our being 6:83. However, if one disregards the materialistic mindframe that blurs the higher realities of existence, the level of difficulty in all cases can be said to be the same; the one with less worldly benefits (financially, in his health etc) has less avenues by which to be religiously and morally accountable but he is required to have a high level of inner discipline, patience and trust in God while the reverse is the case for the more advantaged in terms of worldly benefits; the burden on his inner discipline and steadfastness is less while the means given to him by which to be morally tested are manifold. He can be tested in his wealth, his health and other privileges.

A great part of Allah's scheme of testing the people through their choices in order to gradually purge the hearts, is to test us through our dealings with eachother

25:20"and We have made some of you a trial for others; will you bear patiently? And your Lord is ever Seeing".

One of the obvious proof for this is how most often individuals are endowed with benefits, material, physical or abstract, surpassing the basic and reasonable needs. All else will either vanish or be left behind after their passing away for others to benefit from. Through this scheme every human being becomes by virtue of his social existence, a means whereby the moral qualities of his fellow men are put to a test

"I saw Abu Dharr al-Ghifâri wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a cloak. We asked him about that (how both were wearing similar cloaks). He replied: Once I abused a man, and he complained of me to the Prophet. The Prophet asked me, Did you abuse him by slighting his mother? You are a man who has jahiliyah. He added: Your slaves are your brethren upon whom Allah has given you authority. So if one has one’s brethren under one’s control, he should feed them with the like of what he eats and clothe them with the like of what he wears. You should not overburden them with what they cannot bear, and if you do so, help them (in their hard job)".

As the HB puts it in

Prov22:2"The rich and poor meet together: the LORD is the maker of them all".

God is not only the maker of every human, but also of their conditions, through the laws of the material and physical world He has created, in which almost every outcome is the result of a previous action. The people should therefore, regardless of their circumstances keep in view that ultimate reality in their dealings with oneanother instead. These wise words however are clearly bellied by other passages in the HB discriminating among the people solely on the basis of appearance and physical condition Lev21:16-24.

Just as there is diversity in nature, as in the aforementioned metaphor of the fruit trees, mankind is bound by that system too 6:165,11:118,30:22. As said many times in the Book, mankind could have been made a single nation, equal in all aspects, and spiritually upright 42:8. But Allah has decreed there will be diversity in creation whether physical, cultural, material or spiritual through the process of freechoice which was divinely established, sustained every step of the way and encompassed by Allah's power. God is thus ultimately the cause of these differences.

Here is how that causality plays out. For example;

- Some people have been made by Allah to resist better to diseases, others are stronger, taller or more intelligent. This is due to the natural biological processes He established, that can either be triggered by internal reactions and mutations or/and influenced by external, environemental factors that are themselves subject to the divinely decreed law of causation which God dominates with His all encompassing wisdom and power at each instant.

- Some people have been made by Allah to believe, and others to err and this is due to the system of freewill He established and fully controls, according to which one's moral choices shape his spiritual condition and destiny, either darkening his inner spiritual receptivity or enlightening it and making it further receptive to external guidance.

- Some people have been made by Allah to enjoy more worldly, material benefits than others. This again, is the consequence of a chain of causality in God's grasp.

dontconvert2islam creates a clash; Islamic vs Judeo-Christian slavery?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Jewish Wife"

In light of the above, clearly, the Quran dismisses the western and judeo-christian notion of slavery by giving a new meaning to the term. A slave in the Quran is nothing more than a former war prisonner captured during defensive warfare, and taken under care in a Muslim household because he couldnt be ransomed in benefits of any kind or freed unconditionally.

Both Male and female war prisonners who became mulk yamin/right hand possession now fell under masters who treated them kindly to such an extent they had to be guaranteed a share of the inheritance if present along with other weak members of society taken under care 4:8. The prophetic traditions on the prophet's closest entourage and how they interacted with their slaves, all corroborate these facts.

Critics often disregard the overall description that is made of the prophet in relation to slaves, that of his closest entourage, let alone the many Quranic injunctions on the matter, whenever they engage in their polemics. They begin isolating ahadith, which is the worst method of objectively approaching that vast corpus of fragmented, disconnected incidents, in the life of the the early Muslim community, and then draw their hasty conclusions. Clearly, Islam, the prophet and the Quran are completely in favor of freeing slaves, even without preconditions, simply as an act of benevolence 2:177.

 Yet we read a few instances where the prophet cancelled some people's desire to manumit their own slaves, either after their death or while still alive. He is described as freeing a part while selling another. If he was against setting slaves free altogether, as the insiduous polemicsts try to portray, then why allowing the manumission of some of them? He surely had the power and authority to keep them all into slavery. The reason he divided them this way is simple, once one objectively considers other similar instances, while of course, keeping in mind what was said about the noble prophet's core attitude in regards to slaves. These partial cancellations of arbitrary manumission came in specific contexts, that of Muslims that had no other assets that could be used to settle a debt than their slaves. It is very clear in the light of a narration in Bukhari where an indebted man pledges to free/manumit his only valuable possession which he could have used to settle his debt instead. The prophet used to personally settle the debts of those who had no assets. But it wasnt this indebted man's case, which is why the prophet cancelled that pledge and settled the debt by transfer of ownership of the slave. It would have been unfair for the prophet to use his limited assets to settle this particular debt when other indebted people were more entitled to his gracious and compassionate help.

Slaves were an integral part of the household to such an extent that, as with other members of the biological family, women were allowed to unveil in their presence 24:31. This of course was a ruling of conveniency, given the frequent interraction with the male servants going about their various assisting tasks within the household. But it further contributed to their thorough integration within the family sphere, solidifying the various rulings of consideration towards them.
They had to be fed and maintained without any psychological injury and for the sake of Allah, not seeking benefits of any kind from them in return

76:8-10"And they give food however great be their own want of it to the poor and the orphan and the captive: We only feed you for Allah's sake; we desire from you neither reward nor thanks: Surely we fear from our Lord a stern, distressful day. So God will save them from the woes of that day, and give them radiance and gladness".

What is remarkable here is that the Quran places even the need of the captive, regardless of his religion, above the need of the Muslim guardian himself. This is just one of the many passages that further dwarfs the judeo-christian notion of the golden rule.

The people at that time accorded no dignity to slave-girls and anyone marrying such a woman immediately became an object of scorn. Through 2:221 the believers are encouraged to marry their female-slaves instead of choosing a pleasing unbelieving woman, and the believing women are also told to choose their male-slaves above an idolater if they wish to marry. By qualifying the word "bondswoman" with the adjective "believing" and leaving the word "idolatress" without any condition, emphasizes the principle that a believing woman, even if she is a slave, is better than an idolatress even if she comes from a noble family, in adition posessing all desired outward physical qualities.

It is to be kept in mind that to the Quran's primary addressees, as is even the case nowadays, establishing ties of various interests through marriages with a honorable family was a priority. The Quran turns that notion on its head, not with any example, but with that of slaves whom the ancients saw as the lowest human beings in society.

24:32 further encourages the believers to marry from their pious male/female slaves so that if some of them are poor, then they will be freed and enjoy more sustenance

"And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, Allah will make them free from want out of His grace; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing".

This reinforces the fact that the ultimate criteria for judging an individual is his piety, the verse clearly tells the believers to choose from any member of society while at the same time emphasizing the good gesture in Allah's eyes to marry a male/female slave and freeing him/her. The verse also point to the fact that not all slaves are poor

"if they are needy".

Islam controlled slavery in such a way that it made the maintaining of a slave a great responsibility for the master, who had to show them so much care that in many cases when the slaves were set free they did not like to leave their masters. That is why within the Islamic community, it was seen as shockingly ungrateful for a slave to suddenly desert his guardians. It is in such context that the prophet reportedly condemned as kafir/denier a slave that unexpectedly deserts his guardian who did not harm him, but instead gave him shelter when he needed it and sustenance.

dontconvert2islam reveals truth on Islamic servitude; slave in Quran?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Jewish Wife"

In pre-Islamic Arab society, slavery was also an established institution. Slave men and women were found in almost every house, their number was a symbol of status. They were mainly prisoners of wars, or even debtors who were enslaved, then distributed among the armies or sold in the market places like animals. They were a source of cheap labor and livelihood for thousands.

To remedy this deeply rooted social habit, Islam first and foremost never places the acquisition of slaves as a demand of religion. This means that when the institution of slavery is absent altogether from Muslim society, the divine law remains complete.

Secondly it limits the acquisition of slaves by confining it to the war prisoners in the defensive war campaigns, specifically those that could not be ransomed, thus forbidding the enslavement of a free person. This is how God gives mastery to those who fight in His ways, over those that seek to extinguish the light of truth.

As ordained by Islam and as will be seen in details later on, it is but the most logical and humane manner of dealing with the enemy in war; they could obviously not free them at once and re-ignite the war, nor execute them all, nor set up a camp for them in which they would overburden state treasury and demand inefficient logistical organization with poor spiritual and psychosocial impact, but instead were sent among the Muslims themselves who were to treat them as quasi-members of the household. 

"they (slaves or servants) are your brothers, and Allah has put them under your command. So the one under whose hand Allah has put his brother, should feed him of what he eats, and give him dresses of what he wears, and should not ask him to do a thing beyond his capacity. And if at all he asks him to do a hard task, he should help him therein".

These former enemies could see and experience first hand the values and morals of Islam, after which they could eventually be freed.

From all the ways that provided an avenue for slave acquisition, the Quran kept only one, as already said because of it being a logistical necessity, and more importantly, helped protect the captives’ lives as well as offer them a possibility of reform. Possession of slaves in Islam is therefore unrelated to financial wealth. When slaves were bought, it was for the purpose of emancipating them immediately as a righteous benevolent action or to atone for a sin. They only could be acquired as collateral war prisoners, together with their belongings brought at the battlefield such as horses, camels, useful weapons. If they weren't ransomed in exchange of Muslim war prisoners at the hands of the enemy, they were then distributed in Muslim households in which the Islamic label of a "slave" would make the best western modern system of social care pale in comparison

"Narrated Anas: I served the Prophet for ten years, and he never said to me, "Uf" (a minor harsh word denoting impatience) and never blamed me by saying, "Why did you do so or why didn't you do so?"

That is why the prophet in a reported case advised against the freeing of a particular slave, although he and the Quran repeatedly encouraged and freed slaves indiscriminately. Some people are better off living and benefitting from that Islamic system than to be left in society to fend for themselves

"Narrated Maimuna, the wife of the Prophet that she manumitted her slave-girl and the Prophet said to her, "You would have got more reward if you had given the slave-girl to one of your maternal uncles."

To further corroborate that principle, the prophet said about the one 

"who has a beautiful slave girl, so he teaches her good manners, then he frees her, then he married her seeking the Face of Allah by that; then he will be given his reward twice".

Wars, past and present, justified or not, result in death, destruction and misery. The defeated party is always the one bearing the brunt of suffering. Among the consequences of wars, oppression, economic blockades, geopolitical bullying, post colonial damage and the like, that we see till this day are asylum seekers and refugees fleeing their homeland. Many of them die in the process, never see their families again or simply dont succeed and go back home without a solution. Looking realistically at the situation, one has to determine what would be the best course of action for the victor, ethically, spiritually and economically. Whether they retreat with the loot, in addition instauring a system that keeps drawing upon the local wealth, turning their backs and "closing their borders" or deal with the collateral damages. Once a party is defeated, its resources, including human are at the mercy of the victor. Families lose their pillars of support, leaving women and children helpless. Male refugees die by the hundreds till this day, seeking to feed their families back home, as stated earlier due to all types of oppression. Most of the time for these women, returning to their families adds more misery to an already impoverished community whose resources are lost or to be shared with the victorious party. That is not to speak of the general state of confusion in a community following defeat in war, adding burden upon burden for those left behind. The inevitable result is exile and more misery, or joining the victor whose increased wealth can afford extending the household to war captives and their children. This is the most pragmatic scenario in a war situation.

Muslims are warned however that even in a context of legitimate war, they can never be motivated by the perspective of capturing prisoners or acquiring any type of material gains over the main objective, the complete and entire defeat of their enemies and oppressors 8:67-71. The Quran relates in 8:5-8 how Allah tested the believers' motives in battle in order to purge them from their greed; if they would run after the booty or stand firm with the prophet to defend Islam. When the acquisition of slaves became restricted to battles after which they had to be freed either voluntarily or as a ransom, God warned the Muslims that during battle the motive must be the attainment of the military objectives before any consideration for war gains, and once the objective is fully accomplished, only then the taking of war prisoners and seizing of other spoils is allowed 47:4. In a later verse following the battle of Badr, God admonished those among the Muslims who had shown weakness in their general outlook on life, who had succumbed to their greed and begun capturing soldiers while the battle was still raging and the enemy threat hadnt been entirely contained 

8:67"you desire the frail goods of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter; and Allah is Mighty, Wise". 

But because God had already permitted the ransoming of war prisoners 47:4 that wealth gathered, although not in accordance with the spirit of the law, was considered lawful 

8:68-9"Were it not for an ordinance from Allah that had already gone forth, surely there would have befallen you a great chastisement for what you had taken to. Eat then of the lawful and good (things) which you have acquired in war, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful". 

The believers are warned not to repeat this behavior and submit to their greed. They must keep in mind the higher objectives for going to war. They must first entirely subdue the enemy until the threat of war is over, and only then begin taking prisoners.

So the type of slavery allowed in the Quran, up to this day if the conditions are met, isnt the one where free innocent human beings are captured and sold like a merchandise.

In fact the Quran emphatically condemns this type of human trafficking through the story of prophet Yusuf, as will be shown below.

The Quran gives 2 clear options towards war prisoners, either of the 2 can be applied from the moment of their capture following their defeat at the battlefield, until the threat of war has subsided 47:4. They can be given an unspecified favor, such as being taken care off within a Muslim household or even unconditionally freed 2:177. The second option is to be ransomed for benefits of any kind, including monetary compensation as happens when a prisoner is bailed out, or in specific services as would be the case with prisoners doing community works, or in mutual prisoners. When a female captive gives birth to her owner's child, her status and conditions change 

"The Messenger of Allah forbade the sale of the (slave) mothers of one's children (umm al walad), they can not be sold, nor gifted, nor inherited. The master will make use of her while he is alive and when he dies she shall be free".

It is possible that some companions werent aware of the prohibition, and sold these categories of servants. A practice that happened even under Abu Bakr. Nothing indicates the prophet or close companions seeing and allowing the practice, as denoted with the "we" 

“We used to sell our slave women and the mothers of our children (Umahat Awaldina) when the Prophet was still living among us, and WE did not see anything wrong with that”. 

Umar, when he saw people doing it, forbade it in accordance with the prophet's command. 

Should the threat of war cease while there still are prisoners who havent benefited from the above 2 methods, then they can be employed as servants in a Muslim household where they must be treated on an almost equal level as other members of the household 4:36. At that point, if a slave who can offer any good contribution to society decides to be set free can enter into a written agreement with his guardian stipulating the terms and conditions of his manumition 24:33 which would more often than not be a term of service, i.e. you work for me for this many more months in my fields so I can recover my investment. This basically burdens the owner with only those right hand possessions that are of no value to society, after those that were capable of fending for themselves requested and eventually received their freedom. What this essentially means is that the burden of slavery in the end ultimately fell on the owners. Any capable slave that wanted to go into society, earn a living and get married would, and in addition the owner actually must offer financial assistance for the achievement of that objective. 

In fact some of the spendings of zakat are aimed at helping those masters who have entered into a manumition contract (mukataba) with their slaves 9:60. In one narration Anas b. Malik refuses to write a mukataba for a slave, so the caliph ʿUmar orders him to do it, paraphrasing the verse 24:33 ‘Write [a contract] with them if you see good in them!’, and making him swear an oath that he would do so. The majority opinion as attributed to Umar, Uthman, Aisha, and Ibn Umar, as well as the prophet is that the mukatab remains a slave until the last dirham is paid. Ibn Abbas reportedly stated that the slave is freed upon making the contract and merely owes the amount as a debt. Somewhere else we read, including in an alternative view from Umar that the slave is freed and the remainder converted to a debt upon paying half. Ibn Masud said that this occurs after one third or one quarter. The caliph Ali reportedly said that the mukatab attains freedom in proportion to what he has paid off. This seems to match a number of Prophetic hadith that discuss the rights and responsibilities of the mukatab becoming more like a free person the more they have paid off in certain numerically specified juristic matters. All this shows the flexibility of the issue of manumition.

The divine grant of mastery over their enemies doesnt give Muslims sanction to treat them as they wish. As shown above whether in the Quran or through the practice of the prophet, Muslims must treat them with care, almost as full members of a household. The reason being that through an exemplary conduct those former enemies might open their eyes to the real, unfiltered truth of Islam, free from the distortions of those that only seek to disparage it, and possibly reform themselves. The prophet once commented 

"you bring them tied in chains on their necks (capture them in war) and they later embrace Islam". 

This comment was uttered in relation to the verse qualifying Muslims as the best of nations, conditionally on their rightful conduct and forbidding evil. It is precisely this uprightness that turned enemy combatants, captured in war, into Muslims.

However, because the Quran repeatedly speaks of freeing slave as an act of great virtue, it warns against creating situations that could lead to the captivity then ransoming of slaves, through the example of the Jews of Medina. They entered into alliances with warring pagan tribes and fought, killed, enslaved then freed their own brethren while considering it a "pious act" 2:83-85. Such a behavior would not only be against the letter of the law but also its spirit 

"Malik related to me that he had heard that Abdullah ibn Umar was asked whether a slave could be bought on the specific condition that it was to be used to fulfil the obligation of freeing a slave, and he said, "No"...Malik added, "There is no harm, however, in someone buying a person expressly to set him free". 

Malik continues that in his opinion, the best course of action in this case is to exclude non-Muslim slaves. Choice must be made among those who neither were in the process of being freed, nor burdens to the owner due to physical impairment or bearing his child. A Muslim slave belonging to any of those categories is therefore not a valid kaffara/atonement. Even if he wasnt of those categories, Malik describes the slave as mu'min, meaning sincere and pious believer, which has more merit than simply being labelled Muslim. This way the intrinsic worth of the slave is enhanced to the maximum 

"Malik said...There is no harm in freeing a christian, jew, or magian voluntarily, because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'either as a favour then or by ransom,' (Sura 47 ayat 4) The favour is setting free".

The very fact of calling the manumission of slaves one of the greatest acts of charity, piety and benevolence towards men 2:177,9:60,90:11-18 shows that having them in one's possession is not the preferred way ultimately even though a short term captivity in the specific context of wars is sometimes necessary. 

The captives of the very first Islamic battle of Badr, were freed on ransom (in form of money depending on each prisoner's financial capacities or work like teaching ten Muslim children how to read and write), while those of the tribe of Tay were freed without any ransom. Some would reform themselves and cease their hostilities towards the Muslims, but others would go back headlong into battle whenever the chance to fight and kill Muslims presented itself. 

For example Abu Izza was among the anti-Muslim coalition at Uhud. He had been taken as a prisoner of war at Badr and then released by the prophet without a ransom because he was poor and had a large family. The condition for his release was that he would not take part in further anti-Islamic activities, especially verbal provocations, as he was known for his eloquence. If relatives were captured they could not be separated. It is then that the Quran progressively introduced the notion of freeing slave benevolently as a great virtue. 

As already noted, slaves were a source of livelihood and labor, even to Muslims who had to treat them with care. That is why it is considered a great act of generosity if done unconditionally. Even if the person wasnt prepared to go to such charitable extent, the Quran still encouraged freeing them through other avenues such as atoning for certain sins like missing a fast, breeching a vow made hastily concerning a lawful thing, accidental homicide, and many other small acts common in this society 4:92,5:89,58:3. As an act of virtue, Ali emancipated 1000 slaves, purchasing them from his own money. The Prophet emphatically stated on many occasions that, in the sight of God, the unconditional freeing of a human being from bondage is among the most praiseworthy acts which a Muslim could perform.  

No religion other than Islam promoted the liberation of fellow humans in bondage as an act of humanity and virtue, beautifully reflected in Sura 90. That is a fact the Judeo-Christian critics of Islam, who try misrepresenting Islamic slavery with their twisted biblical paradigm in mind, will have to deal with. The overarching approach of Islam towards slavery, as already seen and as will be further developed, is thus to reduce the access to servitude and expand the way towards freedom.

dontconvert2islam tries talking human rights, what is a slave in the Bible?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Jewish Wife"

Slavery wasnt invented by Islam or Christianity, it existed long before. In ancient times almost all nations from the Romans to the Greeks regarded slavery as something natural. Aristotle thought that

"..some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right."

The elites throughout India, Persia, Rome, the Arabian Peninsula, Romania and Greece regarded them as some commodity not worthier than cattle and had the power of life or death over them. The Judeo-christian scriptures hardly improved the status of slaves, as human traficking was allowed even if it involved one's own children. Severly scourging the slave was permissible so long as the beating did not immidiately bring about the slave's death Ex21:20-1. The mosaic law, which Jesus abided by to the letter and instructed his followers to do the same, still allows purchasing them like any other commodity, detaining them and passing them down against their will Lev25:44-46,Deut15:16-17. Slaves can be forcefully seperated from their wives married under slavery, and from their children who are to stay with the master should the slave request and gain his freedom Ex21:2-4. By keeping his family as hostages, the master is almost sure to keep his slave permanently. For hard labor purposes, the only restriction to slave acquisition is that it was forbidden for Jews to enslave one another for hard labor. However, throughout history they could, and did, sell one another to slavery for a different purpose than their non-Jewish slaves, they were employed for works that did not involve physical toil Lev25:40-46. Solomon, during the building of the Temple and his own palace made ample use of non-Jewish slaves during 20 years of hard labor.

Slaves had to lookup to their masters as equals of God Col3:22-24, respect and fear them in servitude as they would serve Jesus Ephes6:5, submit to even harsh masters 1Pet2:18. So inconceivable is it that a slave may one day rise above his cursed status and gain responsibilities that the earth is pictured as quacking at the thought of it Prov30:21. The subjugation of a slave is an essential part of religion

1Tim6:1-4"so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered..These are the things you are to teach and insist on. If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing".

As stated earlier, being nothing more than an ISraelite prophet in a long line of prophets, Jesus himself never banned slavery and in fact even endorsed unquestioned submission of slaves to their masters Lk17:7-10. Slave trafficking became an organized business through the Christian nations of Europe and America who captured slaves by thousands from their colonies.
They packed them like sardines in ships according to a precise mathematical calculation to maximize profit and many died on the way. Before leaving, the ships were blessed by priests. Christian priests themselves participated in the trade, especially in Angola, and justified it by saying they were baptizing them. Towards the end of the 18th century, some Arab nations participated in the slave trade too.

The end of slavery in the christian world did not come by the hand of the church. It was a handful of moralists who rose slowly against it. Their cries werent heard in britain until 1807 when it was no longer profitable to the economy and the governement wanted to cut expenses especially in the sugar plantations after they lost their global monopoly.

The prophetic traditions are clear as regards the treatment of slaves. In his famous sermon in 'Arafat, on 9th Dhul-hijjah 9 AH, during his last pilgrimage, the Prophet said,

"...and your slaves, see that you feed them such food as you eat yourselves and dress him with what you yourself dress. And if they commit a mistake which you are not inclined to forgive then sell them, for they are the servants of Allah and are not to be tormented..."

As a side note, the selling refered to here is certainly not in the context of trade. It is the best solution for both parties to seperate with lesser harm. The guardian is here confronted to a situation where the slave comits a grave offense. The prophet's compassionate words refer to the slave's misdeed as a mistake, although from the guardian's perspective it is unforgivable and deserving of a harsh treatment.
This wording of the prophet is in line with the Quranic injuntions of being more lenient towards the weaker members of society in case of an offense 4:25. The conditions for having a slave in Islam, as already shown, is costly. Parting with them could not be done immidiately because the guardian had to recover some of his investment somehow. He would thus be tempted to become harsh towards his slave until he could get back some of his costs and then free him. The prophet thus proposes a pragmatic solution that keeps in view justice, with the guardian recovering some of his investment, and compassion, with the slave avoiding punishment and being transferred to a new household where he could have a fresh start.

From Risalat al-Huqooq

"And the right of your subject through being your slave is that you should know that he is a creature of your Lord and is made of the same flesh and blood. And you only own him, but you are much too inferior to God and you have not created him. And you have not created his hearing and sight, nor do you provide his daily sustenance; rather it is God who gives you sufficiency for that. Then He subjugated him to you, entrusted him to you, and provisionally consigned him with you. So protect him there, and treat him well, just as He (God) has treated you well, and feed him with what you eat yourself, and clothe him with what you clothe yourself. And do not burden him with what he cannot withstand. And if you dislike him, you ought to let him go and replace him, but do not torment God's creature. And there is no power but in God". Slaves are even covered by the law of equal retribution "Samurah ibn Jundub narrated that the Prophet had said: “He who kills his slave shall be killed, he who amputates his slave shall be amputated and he who castrates his slave shall be castrated.”

Islam Critiqued is concerned with E.Coli; Clean, pure, fresh Islamic water?

In answer to the video "Muhammad said, "Nothing Makes Water Impure"

Again, this youtuber makes a mountain of superficial parallels between completely disconnected events and issues then runs away with his hasty conclusions. I wont bother much with his analysis per se and instead explain the stance of the Quran and the traditions on the issue of ritual purity and the purity of water itself. This will be more than enough to dismiss all his delirious claims as mere wishful thinking.

Islamic pre-worship rituals symbolize mental and physical preparation before the momentous instant of addressing the Creator, like a transitional time from the hustle and bustle of life to the remembrance and glorification of Allah. It isnt some kind of ritualistic obsession or constant concern with hygiene. Without water for ablution one may perform "tayammum" which is touching the ground/earth/sand then passing over certain body parts. This means that ritual purity isnt due to the inherant condition of water, rather it is aqcuired through obedience to a symbolic command, with or without water. To further corroborate on the symbolism of pre-prayer rituals, one may even pray without tayammum prior in extreme cases where neither water nor clean earth is found 2:239,4:101-3. This is not something new and is present in the previous scriptures. Throughout the book of Leviticus in the HB, the speech is interrupted every now and then in between very intricate purity rituals, reminding the higher reason for the practice

"You shall be holy, for I, the Lord, your God, am holy".

Najasa, or ritual uncleanness, isnt therefore a state of physical uncleanness. It may be the case, for example if one would come in contact with feces, but not necessarily. On the other hand, tahara or ritual purity, isnt a state of physical cleanness. One may be wearing clothes whose dirty condition isnt caused by something impure (dust, dirt from the ground, grease etc).

The prophet however laid great stress on general body hygiene, declaring carelessness in the matter a sin, such as using the restrooms inappropriately and causing one's self to be constantly soiled in urine. This reveals a lack of care not only for oneself but for other people using the same space and society at large with whom one comes into physical contact. This condemnation of course does not include those affected by a medical condition, as per the prophet's own words, and neither is it some kind of obsession or exaggeration with hygiene

"from Um Qays Ibn Mihsan that she brought a baby boy of her’s who was not yet eating food to the Messenger of Allah (Sallalahu Alayhi Was-Sallam) and he sat him in his arms and he urinated on his garment, so the Messenger of Allah called for some water and sprinkled over it but did not wash it".

This is simple pragmatism. As anyone whose had male children knows, or who was in close contact with them, including while playing, carrying or cleaning them, when they suddenly urinate, the urine generally spreads dropplets on a wide surface. And this is something that happens very often at this stage of their development. Cleaning thoroughly the whole surface everytime, be it one's clothes or other object would be cumbersome. Girls' urine on the other hand tends to spill onto a narrower area, easier to clean, hence the recommendation to clean that specific soiled area thoroughly 

"Water should be sprinkled on the urine of a baby boy, and the urine of a baby girl should be washed away". 

It speaks of washing away the girl's urine, not the entire clothes on which it fell. However when a baby boy starts eating a more varied diet, meaning at a later stage when such urine accidents are less frequent, and that in addition the quantity of urine has increased, then the ruling of conveniency is lifted and a more thorough washing is prescribed.

 When he said to eat with the right hand exclusively it was because the left was reserved for cleansing oneself. This is again, far from being a ritualistic obsession, a pragmatic approach to general hygiene.

Some reports depict the prophet discouraging excessive usage of water and over washing and cleaning oneself, while performing the pre-worship rituals. He also refrained from doing so himself. He said that wastefulness applies to ablution

"even if you were on the banks of a flowing river".

Also he did not lay strict stress on the kind of water to be used for ritual purity. As depicted earlier, ritual purity isnt caused by the inherant quality of the water. This doesnt mean one is to sacrifice common sense and basic hygiene by using any kind of water regardless of its condition to perform the ablutions. So although the prophet didnt lay great stress on the kind of water to be used, he did explain that it shouldnt be used if it is perceptibly altered in its smell, color or texture as reported in a prophetic saying 

"Water cannot be rendered impure by anything except something which changes its smell, taste and colour".

This is the least one would expect from the prophet who laid great stress on general body hygiene. This hadith has been quoted in its complete version. Some scholars think that this version might be a conflation of different ahadith, but in any case it still shows how the report was understood because there are other ahadith that define the conditions for water to be deemed pure, meaning not all water is pure. It is also to be noted that the report has for background a believer asking the prophet about a particular well, the large well of Budaa, whose water was not stagnant, and the person was unsure whether the filth accidentally carried into it due to flooding and rain affected its purity. The citation is also found in the context of believers coming across a large body of water (the Arabic also includes the meaning of rivulet) in which a dead animal was found. The people naturally refrained from using this water until the prophet allowed them to do so. In both cases the people were being too cautious considering the flow and volume of water involved.

What was said until now was enough to dismiss the mindless rant of this youtuber, i will continue with other interesting issues in relation to purity.

The purification of the garments 74:4, another pre-requisite of religious rituals, similarily contains an element of symbolism as seen with the classical Arabic metaphor of garment purity being equal with moral uprightness. Beyond this symbolism, purification of the garments encourages general rectitude. A neat and clean, as well as pure appearance helps one to remain mentally uplifted everyday, and gives the correct introduction of one's personality to others. This is a reason why, as a side note, the prophet is reported to have avoided both in his private and religious life, foul smelling foods and used to perfume himself on all occasions, always seeking to be presentable so as to not offend neither the humans nor the angels, especially in a religious gathering context

7:31"O children of Adam, take your adornment at every place of prayer. Eat and drink, but not to excess. Verily, He does not love those who commit excess".

Here again however, just as above, there is no need to over exert oneself and be obsessed with the cleanness of one's clothes prior to engaging in the prayer ritual. A case in point is the following, and there is no shame in speaking of it. People do not always undress entirely naked during sexual intercourse. His wife Aisha said 

"I never saw the Messenger of Allah’s (Allah bless him & give him peace) private parts”. 

Naturally then, it might happen that visible traces of sexual fluids remain on one's clothes, especially if those clothes are wide and ample as is the case in many cultures. Someone asked Umm Habibah, the wife of the Prophet: 

"Did the Messenger of Allah ever offered prayer in a garment in which he had sexual intercourse?" She said: "Yes, if there was nothing noxious on it". 

So even though one must perform a ritual bath prior to prayer in that case, one's clothes do not need to be entirely washed because of a few traces. The removal of these visible impurities is enough to purify the clothes again. This happened to the prophet, as it must have happened to countless prophets and regular people before, and after him. The prophet was a saint, but remained entirely human, living in according to what he thought was the most suited behavior of his time and space, so long as it did not contravene the principles of higher morality and pragmatism.

Unfortunately nothing survived of the prophets Moses, David or Solomon's standards of behavior in similar circumstances for comparison.

It is interesting to note the manner in which God instilled an etiquette of humility when about to communicate with the divine, that would later forever be perpetuated. God, as He was about to impart divine wisdom, prophecy, miracles to Musa told him to be aware of the sacredness of his surrounding and humble himself by taking off his sandals

20:12"Surely I am your Lord, therefore put off your shoes; surely you are in the sacred valley, Tuwa".

As stated in the HB

Ex3:5"Do not draw near here. Take your shoes of your feet, because the soil upon which you stand is holy soil".

God himself required it, not because of mourning and neither humility, as is sometimes understood in Judaism but

"because the soil upon which you stand is holy soil".

God does certainly mind the issue of impurities desecrating a place Holy due to being a location of communication with the divine. The prophet Muhammad also invoked the presence of impurities as a reason to take off the shoes in congregation. These things matter to God and, just as one wouldn't present himself soiled with feces in front of any wordly respectable figure, one similarily does his best to avoid doing so when about to address the Creator.

Muslims take their shoes off because they emulate their prophet who preserved the way of his predecessors. Of course the law isnt rigid, and has a spirit, like every divine ordinance, hence the prophet Muhammad's flexibility in the matter, depending on the circumstances. He sometimes prayed with shoes off, or on but in the latter case always made sure his shoes had no impurities on them.

Moses, the suffering servant and the treacherous rock

In answer to the video "Muhammad said, "Nothing Makes Water Impure"

Contrary to what this youtuber is trying to make a mountain of, besides wishful thinking, nothing indicates a correlation between the hadith on Moses taking a bath and losing his clothes, and the travelling well of Miriam.

In this hadith, which is another instance in both the Quran and traditions speaking of the Israelites' mistreatment of Moses, the suffering servant of God, the prophet Muhammad describes how sometimes a seemingly unfortunate event might turn into something beneficial in the long run. In that story, Moses was as usual the victim of a particular hurtful speech by his own people. It is interesting to note, before getting into the story how the HB describes God Himself wrathfully descending on those who kept on abusing him Numb12,Ex2:21. But this time, the way by which the rebellious were put back in their place was more subtle

"(The Prophet) Moosa (i.e. Moses), may Allaah exalt his mention, was a shy person and used to cover his body completely because of his extensive shyness. One of the children of Israel hurt him by saying, ‘He covers his body in this way only because of some defect in his skin, either leprosy or scrotal hernia, or he has some other defect.’" On a parenthetical note, other versions have a slight introductory variation "The (people of) Bani Israel used to take bath naked (all together) looking at each other. The Prophet Moses used to take a bath alone. They said, ‘By Allah! Nothing prevents Moses from taking a bath with us except that he has a scrotal hernia..."

Them taking a communal bath might be due to the particular, harsh and obviously uncomfortable circumstances of their exodus. The hadith continues

"...Allaah wished to clear Moosa, may Allaah exalt his mention, of what they said about him, so one day while Moosa, may Allaah exalt his mention, was in seclusion, he took off his clothes and put them on a stone and started taking a bath. When he had finished the bath, he moved towards his clothes so as to take them, but the stone took his clothes and fled; Moosa picked up his stick and ran after the stone saying, ‘O stone! Give me my garment!’ Till he reached a group of Bani Israa’eel who saw him naked then, and found him the best of what Allaah The Almighty had created, and Allaah cleared him of what they had accused him of. The stone stopped there and Moosa took and put his garment on and started hitting the stone with his stick. By Allaah, the stone still has some traces of the hitting, three, four or five marks".

The stone itself, or rock, might have been made loose as Moses touched it, then carried away by the stream, maybe due to the vegetation attached to it which kept it afloat, until it was stopped by an object or river bank. Nothing in the text nor common sense negates that possibility. Such a phenomenon isnt extraordinary and sometimes whole pieces of river banks with vegetation and rocks are carried a certain distance by a river. The only difference in that case is that it was God who caused that otherwise common and banal phenomenon to occur, in order to clear his suffering servant from the incessant calumnies of his stiff necked people.