In answer to the video "Can We Trust the Apostle Paul? (Answering Islam Part 19)"
Paul always quotes from the translation of the HB into Greek, i.e. the Septuagint and misrepresents the sources he is quoting. For example in Rom11:26 he quotes Isa59:20 as such
"The deliverer will come from Zion, he will remove ungodliness from Jacob"
thus attempting to establish scriptural support for the concept of Jesus' atoning death. However the Hebrew original, of which he knew nothing about, says the oppostie in Isa59:20"A redeemer will come to Zion and to those who turn from transgression in Jacob, declares the Lord". It stresses the oppostie of what Paul ineptly tries to convey. It says the messiah will come when people turn away from sins FIRST, not that he will redeem people from their sins. Interestingly, many NT translations render the verse correctly in Isa59:20 and incorrectly in Rom11:26.
A study of the Bible in the original Hebrew was the basis for all Pharisee studies. The Rabbis thus held this Greek Septuagint translation with little esteem, for many reasons. It symbolized the Hellenization of the Jewish people, hence the rabbis' distrust, more specifically the pharisees whom Paul supposedly was part of. It is Luke, the supposed author of Acts, that gives Paul this Pharisaic background, in addition trained by some of the most renowed rabbis of the time such as Gamaliel I (Acts22). Paul himself, in the letters attributed to him makes no such claim. He instead despised the Jewish Law, described it with the crudest of ways no Jew would ever dare doing. Given his bold confession to resort to deceptive missionary methods, especially when preaching to Jews, ie gentile to a gentile, a Jew to a Jew 1Cor9:20-23 one may only wonder how true was he in his obsessive appeals to his Jewishness Gal1:13-14,2Cor11:22,Phil3:5.
He came from Tarsus according to the NT, where historically there were few, if any, Pharisee teachers and a Pharisee training would have been hard to come by.
There arent even any records of Jewish citizen having lived there. It isnt surprising that early Christians like Jerome attempted to correct this by reporting that he in fact came from Galilee.
No Jewish writings exist of a 1st or 2nd century student of Gamaliel who, following his studies in which he excelled, and was so zealous in his Jewish orthodoxy that he enforced it through persecutions on behalf of the high priests, and in whose name letters were written to synagogues attesting to his authority Acts9, suddenly rebelling in favor of a heresy. Not only that but urged his followers to disregard the very law he was zealously enforcing. Surely such a renegade could not have completely escaped the attention of the scribes? Josephus speaks of virtually all of Paul's main characters found in Acts with but one exception, Paul himself.
The Gospels themselves, neither mention nor even hint at Paul. Another thing to mention is that the Jewish authorities neither had the power nor need to send a "chief persecutor" all the way to Damascus, where Paul had on the way his encounter with a light, to harass a group of rebellious Jews who believed the messiah had arrived. The Jews of Israel had much more pressing concerns in their everyday life living under Roman dominion than to care about a far away Jewish heresy. It is interesting that even in Acts5 we read that Gamaliel was against punishing Christians.
But accepting the NT's claim as true for argument's sake, for a Rabbi to quote a translation looked over with such suspicion shows how lacking he was in Rabbinic training. To them, it symbolized all that was wrong with the Jewish people. Paul could have quoted from the Hebrew Bible, but he never did. Paul was most probably a Roman pagan who held both Roman and Greek citizenships. We even read in Ebionite writings of the 2nd century that he was a Greek convert to Judaism, that later apostaised when the High Priest rejected his marriage offer to his daughter.
In the Acts of the Apostles, when Paul finally returns to Jerusalem to have his showdown with James, Acts records that the Jews have him arrested by the Romans. He then invokes his ROMAN citizenship Acts22:28, asking whether it is lawful to treat a Roman citizen in such a manner. Later, while Peter, James and the others are arrested Paul again invokes his Roman citizenship by appealing his case directly to the emperor. Only a Roman citizen of the upper social classes would be afforded this ability and if Jews had that right, then why didn't Peter, James and the others do the same?
The Bible does not say how or when Paul died, and history does not provide any information. It is only Christian tradition that has some unreliable accounts on how his life ended around the mid 60s A.D., during the reign of Nero.
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/sauldie.html "But there is great uncertainty on these subjects, so that we cannot positively rely on any account that even the ancients have transmitted to us concerning the death of this apostle; and much less on the accounts given by the moderns; and least of all on those which are to be found in the Martyrologists. Whether Paul ever returned after this to Rome has not yet been satisfactorily proved. It is probable that he did, and suffered death there, as stated above; but still we have no certainty" (Commentary on the Bible by Adam Clarke, commenting on Acts 28:31).
During what can safely be described as an "infiltration" into the early Christian movement by its chief persecutor who allegedly reformed himself due to a vision that contradicts itself from account to account, Saul of Tarsus now renamed Paul, was protected throughout his "ministry" from the Jewish crowd wanting to kill him by the Roman authorities who had even deployed an army for his sake Acts16:37-39,21:31-32,22:25-29,23:12-27,25:11-12,24-25,26:32 and who apparently even acquitted him from all charges laid against him by the Jews Acts23:29,25:13-26:31.
The prophet, despite being absolved from strict obligations towards his multiple wives would nevertheless feel saddened whenever he delayed his appointed time with one of his wives
33:51"You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you".
This ordinance made sure that no reproach would be cast upon him, and neither would he be hindered by social pressures or customs.
So although he had the peace of mind from a spiritual viewpoint that he would never be blameworthy, he still felt uneasy emotionally towards his wives whom he loved. And he did his utmost to spend as much time as he could with them all equitably. Aisha would say to him
"If I could deny you the permission (to go to your other wives) I would not allow your favor to be bestowed on any other person".
This statement from the prophet's youngest wife, and thus logically the most physically attractive in comparison to his other wives, shows the prophet tried as best as he could not to favor one wife over another based on his personal preference. There is an instance where he refused letting Aisha replace another wife on a day that wasnt hers
"O Aisha, keep away from me, it is not your day".
The prophet maintained as best he could that considerate pattern of behavior throughout his life, as narrated by Aisha:
"When the ailment of the Prophet became aggravated and his disease became severe, he asked his wives to permit him to be nursed (treated) in my house. So they gave him the permission. Then the Prophet came (to my house) with the support of two men, and his legs were dragging on the ground, between `Abbas, and another man".
Besides absolving the prophet, the ordinance also put all the wives and potential concubines on the same level as it concerned them all from God's perspective.
Through it, they find the inner peace that the emotional sacrifice they shall endure, and which they all were fully aware of before accepting to marry the prophet, is for the accomplishment of a higher objective. Their merit with God will naturally be higher given their wordly sacrifices
"this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased, all of them with what you give them".
The verse ends with an affectionate message to the prophet's household in general, stressing that God is aware of the difficulties in all levels of life that they must endure, and their toll on their feelings
"and Allah knows what is in your hearts; and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing."
Aisha is indirectly described as expressing her initial frustration and spousal jealousy, when she supposedly stated in relation to 33:51 that
“I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires".
It is remarkable that the prophet would always abide by the restrictions divinely imposed on him but not the relaxations, as described above. In Sura Ahzab, around the verse quoted in the hadith, there are seven rules about marriage peculiar to the Prophet. Four of these granted him relaxations and three put restrictions.
The Prophet certainly abided by the restrictions, but yet, for someone whose "Lord hastens his desires" he did not opt to benefit from two of the relaxations. Had the idea of ‘convenient revelations’ any basis in that report from Aisha as claimed by Islam's opponents, to start with, there wouldnt have been any restrictions on the Prophet neither in this sura or other suras, to the exclusion of the rest of the believers. And neither would he have failed to take benefit of every relaxation, without having any guilty conscience as he just happened to have.
It is further worthy to note that, in those relaxations pertaining to marital affairs described in 33:50-1, the prophet is a passive agent; it is the women that are given the option of seeking him in marriage, not the other way around. The bottom line is that, whichever one looks at it, nothing in the pattern of the life of the prophet supports the malicious charges against him.
As a side note about the issue of jealousy, as noted by the earliest scholars the jealousy – of either husband or a co-wife, when it does not lead to transgression either by words or by actions, is not blameworthy.
The prophet died having united with 10 of his wives: Khadija, Aisha, Hafsah, Umm Salamah, Ramlah, Zaynab, Maymunah, Safiyyah, Juwayriyah and Sawda. He also married Aliyah and Qutaylah daughter of Qays whom he both divorced before consuming the marriage. Qutaylah remarried after the Prophet's death. Other similar divorces were those of Fatimah, Mulaykah and Layla.
He also married Sana who died before consuming the marriage. Some have also included among his wives, Rayhana bint Zayd. She was a Jewish woman from the Bani Nadir who had married into the Bani Qurayza. After the defeat of the Qurayza, the execution of the male warriors, many women were left helpless. She was among them and the prophet proposed marrying her, which she rejected, in addition despising Islam
"so the messenger of Allah put her aside and felt some displeasure".
These are not the words describing a concubine relationship. He let her under his care as a right hand possession without her being his concubine. After some time she accepted the mariage proposal. Other reports say the prophet manumited her and set her free to go among her people upon her rejection of the initial marriage proposal.
Tukana was similarily taken under his care until he died. She lived in his household under the status of right hand possession without becoming his concubine. After her death, she married Abbas, the prophet's uncle. This indicates that the prophet would not have had intercourse with her during her years as a right hand possession in his household.
Further, had any of the 2 been taken by the prophet as concubines, then we would have read of the kind of tension which is abundantly found in the history books between the prophet's wives and the prophet's only concubine, Maria the Copt. The prophet would have also settled them in seperate houses as he did with Maria.
There were several such right hand posessions that lived in the prophet's household, side by side with his wives, as maids only. Such assistance was certainly needed and justified, given the number of guests constantly entering, day and night, and who were always kindly hosted to such an extent that they would overstay. The very fact that the history books speak of only one such right hand posession, Maria, as having had issues with the prophet's wives on account of her concubine relationship with him, the only right hand posession that was settled in her own house, while there is complete silence regarding his other right hand posessions, means that the burden of proof is upon those leveling the claim, to establish that the prophet was intimate with other women than those that are known, whether from his wives or right hand posessions.
The only right hand posession that was in addition his concubine was the noble Maria the Copt, who wasnt even a war captive, meaning the prophet didnt even go out of his way to find a woman that pleased him. She was given to him out of reverence by an Egyptian notable. It is interesting to note that there are at least 2 similar precedents in prophetic history, of a prophet's union with the Egyptian daughter of royalty. First Hagar who was given to Abraham, and then Solomon's unnamed Egyptian wife 1Kings3. The Egyptian notable wanted to establish political relations with the prophet, and this gesture was considered normal as per the decorum of ancient societies. Some reports say that two women were given, Maria and Sirin. The prophet freed Sirin whom he married to a close follower and took Maria as his concubine and lodged her in one of his followers' houses temporarily, Haritha.
With such a large household combined with his prophetic duties and the turmoil of these early days in which he was involved in on a daily basis, he could not be expected to divide his time so as to satisfy each of the wives and potential concubines equally. But as the Islamic history books explicitly denote, he tried to observe equality among them as much as possible. He used to visit sometimes his 9 wives at once. In that report, the Arabic doesnt denote sexual intercourse, on the part of that humble man in his late 50s who had in addition to balance his household duties with his extraordinary responsibilities as a spiritual leader and statesman.
Some of his male companions might have assumed so, but it did not have to be the case. And to further corroborate that the prophet, despite visiting all his wives, would only have intercourse with the one whose turn had arrived
"Narrated ‘Urwah: ‘A’ishah said: “O nephew! The Messenger of Allah would not prefer any one of us to another with regards to spending time with us. Hardly a day would go by without him visiting all of us. He would come close to each woman, without touching her, until he reached the one whose turn it was, then he would spend the night with her".
The flexibility of the law as regards the division of time is of course not speaking of the sustenance and rightful material needs of every wife. In this area, the prophet had to divide his resources among every household, in addition to the financial burden of taking care of the indebted of the community and the incessant guests who would be received at all moments. He is known to have been left with very little to spend on himself and his wives, leading to them often complaining about the relative ease in which other companion's wives were living. And this at a time where the community had grown more prosperous in Medina, an ease which was not reflected in the prophet's household
33:28-9"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".
The Quran itself testifies to the purposefully chosen rigorous lifestyle of the prophet even in the times where the community had grown more prosperous, and his household's complaints that naturally ensued. The dispute that followed the prophet's death over the gardens of Fadak, which were fay, between Fatima the prophet's daughter who claimed the inheritance and Abu Bakr the Caliph who wanted the property to be primarily redistributed to the needy as the prophet did in his lifetime, is testimony to this fact. Abu Bakr did not want to change how the Prophet distributed it, but also did not deny Fatima's share as a member of the prophet's household.
As one can see, the wealth even stipulated to the Prophet excluding the rest of the believers had to be used by him as the embodiment of the state, to serve the community. It was not until Umar's caliphate that the property was handed to the prophet's family, under the insistence of Ali and ibn Abbas, but under the strict condition that it would be managed as the prophet did; using its produce for the basic sustenance of the family and the surplus to the needy.
In fact so selfless and noble were the prophet's practices that he took on the onus of paying all the debts of the Muslims that died. He did so as soon as the Muslims began having the upper hand in battles, instead of upgrading his lifestyle and increasing the comfort of his household. He applied that policy upon his self and no one else, although he could have asked and received funds for the indebted from the more affluent members of the community, and although he wasnt even required to do so through revelation.
This is in fact what he did in the early times of the community, when too little means were available to him so as to redistribute to the indebted
"Whenever a dead man in debt was brought to Allah's Messenger he would ask, "Has he left anything to repay his debt?" If he was informed that he had left something to repay his debts, he would offer his funeral prayer, otherwise he would tell the Muslims to offer their friend's funeral prayer. When Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests, he said, "I am more rightful than other believers to be the guardian of the believers, so if a Muslim dies while in debt, I am responsible for the repayment of his debt, and whoever leaves wealth (after his death) it will belong to his heirs".
As shown earlier, he went out of his way to apply the ambiguous Quranic statement of moral obligation towards the community 33:6 as a duty extending to their private financial lives.
He was so noble, that he did not allow the debt to be paid from the inheritance of an individual, desiring that it all go to the heirs of that person.
Which president, even the richest of them all which was by no means the prophet's case, promised and did take it upon himself to pay the debts of dead Muslims, and care for their orphans? He did so in kind, forgiving ways, through the share that came under his care, encouraging others to follow his example so as to build strong bonds of brotherhood
"A man demanded his debts from Allah's Messenger in such a rude manner that the companions of the Prophet intended to harm him, but the Prophet said, "Leave him, no doubt, for he (the creditor) has the right to demand it (harshly). Buy a camel and give it to him." They said, "The camel that is available is older than the camel he demands. "The Prophet said, "Buy it and give it to him, for the best among you are those who repay their debts handsomely".
He sometimes had to borrow so as to fulfill that self-imposed obligation. That is why we hear a companion testify
"I saw Abu Huraira point with his finger many a time and saying: By One in Whose Hand is the life of Abu Huraira, Allah's Apostle could not eat to his fill and provide his family bread of wheat beyond three days successively until he left the world".
Seeing his situation, the more affluent would feel the need to provide help
"An Ansari man, called Abu Shu'aib, came and told his butcher slave, "Prepare meals sufficient for five persons, for I want to invite the Prophet along with four other persons as I saw signs of hunger on his face".
Others would send him gifts as sustenance and he would make sure to share it or give it all in charity
"Whenever a meal was brought to Allah's Messenger, he would ask whether it was a gift or Sadaqa (something given in charity). If he was told that it was Sadaqa, he would tell his companions to eat it, but if it was a gift, he would hurry to share it with them".
If he benefited from the gift, he would make sure that he would reciprocate
"Allah's Messenger used to accept gifts and used to give something in return".
Furthermore, in relation to 33:28-9 referred to earlier, in which the prophet is told to
"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".
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.
When he died, he died with a few things, pawning some of his goods to meet ends meet, and his wives lived a very simple life as reflected in both the Quran and ahadith. He would hastily finish a congregational prayer, astonishing an audience used to see him standing so long in prayer that his feet would get blisters, stepping over people at the mosque, rushing to the room of one of his wives because
“I recalled that there was left with me some gold which was meant for charity; I did not like to keep it any longer, so I gave orders that it should be distributed”.
The prophet was not an ascetic, the Quran and his life are full of examples where he encourages Muslims to seek the good things of this life all the while keeping in view the afterlife. But he made sure that his needs and those of his closest people remained at the bare minimum so that he would always have something available to give in charity
"Once the Prophet went to the house of Fatima but did not enter it. `Ali came and she told him about that. When 'Ali asked the Prophet about it, he said, "I saw a (multicolored) decorated curtain on her door. I am not interested in worldly things." `Ali went to Fatima and told her about it. Fatima said, "I am ready to dispense with it in the way he suggests." The Prophet ordered her to send it to such-andsuch needy people".
This is one aspect of the prophet's personality that has puzzled his critics, contemporary and throughout the ages. What is the worldly benefit that Muhammad gained from preaching what he did? In his normal life as a husband, he did not behave like royalty expecting to be served
"I asked `Aisha "What did the Prophet use to do in his house?" She replied, "He used to keep himself busy serving his family and when it was the time for prayer he would go for it".
The recent critics, the intellectually honest have dropped the old unsubstantiated propaganda of sensual, political or material motivation. They now have settled for sincerely delusional, which is basically what the Quraysh, who knew him for a lifetime used to say. Although even this does not stand the test of basic scrutiny. How does one leading the sanest life in every aspect, whether in the private, public or political sphere be delusional in just one aspect, ie divine communication?
This prophet, in line with the most basic commonality with all prophets did not ask any of the things a king or leader would ask from his followers, whether from the time of his humble beginnings having attracted only a small band of the most sincere and faithfull believers, or the later years when he had become the "king" of the Arabs
"Once, while I was in the company of the Prophet, he saw the mountain of Uhud and said, "I would not like to have this mountain turned into gold for me unless nothing of it, not even a single Dinar remains of it with me for more than three days (i.e. I will spend all of it in Allah's Cause), except that Dinar which I will keep for repaying debts." Then he said, "Those who are rich in this world would have little reward in the Hereafter except those who spend their money here and there (in Allah's Cause), and they are few in number."
His lifestyle did not move up. He still lived in the exact same house, slept in the exact same bed, and did not own any extra camels. This made his closest companions cry at times, seeing the marks that were left on the prophet's body from sleeping on the branches of date palms
"O Messenger of Allah, how can we allow you to live like this? Look at the kings of Roman, Persia. Look at how they live. Surely O Messenger of Allah, you deserve better".
Instead of considering a slight raise in his comfort, even seeing that his followers were the one making the request, meaning they would never grumble and suspect him of taking advantage of his position, he replied
"O Umar, is this why we are here for? O Umar, aren’t you happy that they have this ‘Dunia’and we have the ‘Akhira’?"
Abdullah bin Masud reported a similar occasion where
"The Messenger of Allah slept on a straw mat and got up with the marks left by it on his body. Ibn Mas'ud said, "O Messenger of Allah! Would that you make us spread out a soft bedding for you." He replied, "What have I to do with the world? I am like a rider who had sat under a tree for its shade, then went away and left it".
In another instance he stated
"True wealth is not abundant riches. True wealth is the contentment of the soul".
These types of incidents where his most trustworthy followers openly asked him to increase his lifestyle are many
"`Umar bin Al-Khattab saw a silken cloak (being sold) at the gate of the Mosque and said to Allah's Apostle, "I wish you would buy this to wear on Fridays and also on occasions of the arrivals of the delegations." Allah's Messenger replied, "This will be worn by a person who will have no share (reward) in the Hereafter." Later on similar cloaks were given to Allah's Messenger and he gave one of them to `Umar bin Al-Khattab. On that `Umar said, "O Allah's Messenger! You have given me this cloak although on the cloak of Atarid (a cloak merchant who was selling that silken cloak at the gate of the mosque) you passed such and such a remark." Allah's Messenger replied, "I have not given you this to wear". And so `Umar bin Al-Khattab gave it to his pagan brother in Mecca to wear".
If his clothes were worn out, and that some Muslims noticed it, offering him another, he would not hesitate giving it to someone who asked
"A woman brought a woven Burda (sheet) having edging (border) to the Prophet, Then Sahl asked them whether they knew what is Burda, they said that Burda is a cloak and Sahl confirmed their reply. Then the woman said, "I have woven it with my own hands and I have brought it so that you may wear it." The Prophet accepted it, and at that time he was in need of it. So he came out wearing it as his waist-sheet. A man praised it and said, "Will you give it to me? How nice it is!" The other people said, "You have not done the right thing as the Prophet is in need of it and you have asked for it when you know that he never turns down anybody's request." The man replied, "By Allah, I have not asked for it to wear it but to make it my shroud." Later it was his shroud"
Even if, for argument's sake as is so often implied by his shameless enemies without ever bringing any evidence in support, the prophet Muhammad misused these 1/5th or "20%" for personal greed, although his contemporaries testified that he only kept
"One-fifth of the fifth",
and on top of that added another 20% of war booty for personal expenses, then it still does nothing to his divinely appointed status. A little hint of comparison to the critics is to take a look at the divinely sanctioned "heavy yoke" taxation system that benefited Jewish royalty, including the prophets David and Solomon.
In sura duha, one of the earliest Meccan revelations, a period during which it could certainly not be said, even by Islam's most die-hard opponents, that the prophet and his followers were rich it says in 93:8 that God found him aailan which literally means carer of others and subsequently enriched him. This doesnt mean he became wealthy, but that he was increased in his meager resources for the sake of his empathy towards those he was found caring for. The whole surah duha is actually a verse which establishes the unique presence of Allah in the life of Muhammad upto when he began receiving revelation.
The Prophet was not poor and neither does the Quran say so. It states that the wealthiest among Quraysh considered him of no significance in the affairs of the people. Prior to prophethood Muhammad was actually a successful businessman, and Khadija employed him to manage her goods. Those that owned goods often employed businessmen to represent them on these caravans. It was through this employment that Khadija became aware of his outstanding qualities, especially his trustworthiness. He even used to sherd sheep in his teens. When prophethood began however, he could not provide for himself and his family from anything else than the war acquisitions.
As shown above, in doing so he was far removed from behaving like kings and conquerors did, much less the average soldier who actually gained more than him once he redistributed the biggest part of his portion to society.
And again, as already shown, had he kept all his shares and added more on top, it would have done nothing to his credibility as a true prophet in light of the HB prophets who were in similar situations and behaved in a far less, if at all, selfless and charitable manner. And besides, even if he had all the possessions which the polemicists most often arbitrarily number and list and 10x as much, it wouldnt diminish an iota to his prophethood status.
Anyone familiar with the HB knows the reason why.
A description of the Prophet's hujuraat/huts is given by Ibn Sa'd in his at-Tabaqat al-Kubra. A narrator named 'Abdullah ibn Yazid saw them just before they were knocked down by the order of the Caliph al-Walid ibn 'Abd al-Malik from Syria in the year 88/707 because he wanted to enlarge the Prophet's mosque. There were 9 huts and simple cottages in total, adjacent to the mosque and progressively built as his household expanded. 4 were of mud brick, with the inner space partitioned off by palm branches plastered with mud, and 5 made of palm branches plastered with mud and not divided into rooms. The doors werent even made of wood but of rough black blankets hanging for privacy. Maymunah's house for example wasnt partitioned. Abdullah ibn Abbas once slept as a youngster there as Maymunah was his aunt, when the Prophet's turn was to sleep in Maymunah's apartment. He detailed how he slept in the same room as the prophet and witnessed him spending the whole night in worship during his stay. The huts didnt exceed 5x4m in dimensions, each having a tiny 5x3m backyard enclosed by the branches of palm trees and unbaked bricks.
On a more serious note, here is how the prophet financed the defensive military expeditions as well as the functioning of a society.
Muslims were given the right to capture as war booty all things brought to the battelfield by their aggressors, including the fighters themselves whose enslavement had a three fold objective. It was first a means by which Muslims could ransom their own captives, or ransom these prisoners in exchange of other material benefits. It is to be noted here that this ransoming did not apply to dead bodies. At the Battle of the Trench, Nawfal ibn Abd Allah ibn al-Mughirah died when he attempted to jump the trench with his horse. When the Meccans offered payment for receiving the body of Nawfal, the Prophet gave them the body and refused their offer.
Second, the permission to capture war booty and the individuals present at the battlefield in enemy camp, was a form of divine punishment and then, a form of mercy. During captivity they had to be treated with the utmost care thus seeing the reality and justice of Islam after which they could reform themselves, change attitude towards Islam and be freed 8:67-71.
Besides their weapons and other military equipment, waring Arab tribes would often go as far as bringing their women, children and slaves to the battlefield in order to galvanize themselves and do their utmost not to retreat or lose a battle, for their defeat would make them lose their possessions and even worse yet their own people.
This is not a license for the Muslims to plunder their enemies and kill their innocent family members as the Israelites have done supposedly through Divine sanction Deut3:6-7,21:1-18, and neither is it the divinely sanctioned misuse of the spoils acquired from the desert dwellers as stated elsewhere in the HB Jer49:28. The Quranic command is to seize whatever is left behind by the aggressor on the battlefield.
The Quran legislates and divides the possessions of the enemy that fall into Muslim hands into 2 groups. Those acquired directly from and most importantly during warfare, called ghanima.
Ghanima is split into 1/5th for
8:41"Allah and for the Messenger and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer".
"For Allah" entails as ordained by Him/in His ways, and "for the messenger" means the legislative entity. The prophet had much more moral and religious financial responsibilities towards the community as regular members had, a few examples will be given later. As the prophet said
"it is not lawful for me to take from the spoils that Allah bestowed upon you so much as the amount of this (hair), except for a fifth and it will come back to you".
When the prophet sent Ali to distribute the spoils from a battle, some disliked it, thinking he was doing it behind the prophet's back and complained about it. This shows how much trust they had in the prophet's ability to redistribute wealth into society. When the prophet heard of the complaint he answered that he had truly sent him, and in addition Ali took less than his due, so they should be thankful instead
"Do not hate him, for he deserved more of the fifth than that".
Ali deserved to take more OF the fifth because he didnt take the entire fifth, exactly as the prophet used to do. Ali said
"Have you not seen the maid-servant among the prisoners? Indeed, I have divided the spoils and set aside a fifth. She became part of the fifth, then she became part of the household of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, then she became part of the family of Ali, and I have consummated it with her".
The remaining 4/5th would be redistributed to those who actively took part in the war effort as obviously they were not otherwise paid for their services. Since the State was not yet fully formed, that there was no treasury with a military budget and that the Muslims, for the sake of their own survival, were required to carry their military duties on the basis of voluntary gifts, so they were allowed a share in war acquisitions
8:60"and whatever thing you will spend in Allah's way, it will be paid back to you fully and you shall not be dealt with unjustly".
This shows that by default, an Islamic state does not have a professional, full time military branch which needs to be constantly maintained and that Muslims are to take up arms voluntarily and benevolently whenever the conditions present themselves, for the defence of the community.
The second group is the booty acquired without fighting (such as the surrender of an enemy) called fay (from anfa'a, He restored). Since this category of spoils is obtained without fighting, the warriors had no share in it 59:6. The fay fall entirely under the control of "God and the Messenger", not for any one individual specifically, certainly not for the needs of the rich in particular, but for the benefits of the weak first and foremost, as well as the community at large
59:7"for Allah and for the messenger and for the relatives and the orphans and the needy and the traveller, so that it should not be a perpetual distribution between the rich from among you".
The second part of verse is explicit. The prophet reportedly said that among the signs of the end of times will be the squandering of public property, more particularly
"the booty of war will be like personal property".
The people trusted the prophet's judgement in the just redistribution of wealth. Neither would he ever profit from his position by using the charity entrusted to him, on himself or his family
"Dates used to be brought to Allah's Messenger immediately after being plucked. Different persons would bring their dates till a big heap collected (in front of the Prophet). Once Al-Hasan and Al-Husain were playing with these dates. One of them took a date and put it in his mouth. Allah's Messenger looked at him and took it out from his mouth and said, "Don't you know that Muhammad's offspring do not eat what is given in charity?"
Nor did he ask to centralize donations so as to take credit for helping others
"Abu Talha had more property of date-palm trees gardens than any other amongst the Ansar in Medina and the most beloved of them to him was Bairuha garden, and it was in front of the Mosque of the Prophet. Allah's Messenger used to go there and used to drink its nice water." Anas added, "When these verses were revealed:--'By no means shall you Attain righteousness unless You spend (in charity) of that Which you love. ' (3.92) Abu Talha said to Allah's Messenger 'O Allah's Messenger! Allah, the Blessed, the Superior says: By no means shall you attain righteousness, unless you spend (in charity) of that which you love. And no doubt, Bairuha' garden is the most beloved of all my property to me. So I want to give it in charity in Allah's Cause. I expect its reward from Allah. O Allah's Messenger! Spend it where Allah makes you think it feasible.' On that Allah's Apostle said, 'Bravo! It is useful property. I have heard what you have said (O Abu Talha), and I think it would be proper if you gave it to your Kith and kin.' Abu Talha said, I will do so, O Allah's Apostle.' Then Abu Talha distributed that garden amongst his relatives and his cousins".
So the fay prevented the monopolization of wealth laying out the rule that wealth should circulate through society, benefitting each and everybody, and the prophet was the epitome of that principle
"When Allah made the prophet wealthy through conquests, he said, “I am more rightful than other believers to be the guardian of the believers, so if a Muslim dies while in debt, I am responsible for the repayment of his debt, and whoever leaves wealth (after his death) it will belong to his heirs".
The part that reads "made the prophet wealthy through conquests" is an interpretation more than a translation. The Arabic simply says "When Allah openned for him the openings/victories". The context obviously entails acquisition of wealth because of the implication of those "openings", which were that the prophet began shouldering the financial difficulties of his people. But neither do the words imply the prophet became "wealthy" nor does it speak of "conquests" as in unprovoked "invasions".
So the prophet's wives were his rich sponsors and yet they are told that
33:28-29"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".
These rich women, depicted as longing for material benefits, are told to leave the prophet if they so wish, in addition they will be given some provisions to allow them to start up their life anew? 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.
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.
Besides those that already existed in the society and households before Islam, ma malakat aymanukum are not free persons randomly captured and enslaved or acquired through trade since the Quran only allows the enslavement of captives taken in defensive war campaigns, and only after the threat of war has been subdued meaning their seizure could not be an objective of going to war 8:67,47:4. In fact the prophet dismissed from fighting those that were more preoccupied with the prospect of capturing potential concubines.
Ma malakat aymanukum, simplicticly rendered "concubines" by the opponents of Islam, are people from both genders, men or women, who were neither freed as a favor nor ransomed, but singled out from the rest of the captives and taken under a guardian's wing in his household because obviously not all captives were taken in. They also become sexually lawful outside wedlock to the guardian that has taken charge of them. It is to be noted here, although they can be treated as concubines, this however does not mean that they systematically were. The prophet had in his household several such women living side by side with his wives, to aid and assist for the daily and nightly tasks of receiving at anytime people seeking all kinds of advises and help.
The right hand posessions are people from both genders as already pointed
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. This further proves that the expression, right hand posession does not automatically denote concubine relationship, and anyone claiming the opposite should be able to prove that it was accepted for male or female guardians to have sexual relations with their male right hand posession.
Verses such as 24:33,58 speak of those MMA and how they should mingle with the rest of the household. 16:71 is a warning to those guardians who fail to live up to their moral and material responsibilities towards those categories under their care, stating that such failure ammounts to a denial of God's blessings and of His unceasing care for all His creatures.
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.
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'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 else's 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.
Then through 33:52, the prophet was specifically told not to marry more women or divorce anyone from the wives he already had, if it is for purely physical motives. Here is a man who is supposedly lustful for women, forbidden from taking wives on the basis of their beauty only, which is precisely what is supposed to satisfy his alleged lusts.
And besides, the ones leveling this type of mindless arguments, mainly Christians nowadays should ask themselves; how does having multiple or young/beautiful wives stain his truthfulness as a prophet, considering the marital and concubinal history of the prophets of the Hebrew Bible?
33:52 was an answer to the hypocrites' annoying talk and unjust provocations the likes that were directed at other righteous men and women 33:48,57-58. The prophet is not here being denied the right to divorce. He is denied to do it for purely physical motives. He could divorce a woman if she misbehaved, then replace her with one regardless of her age or marital history, whose selection would strictly be on the basis of high morality and spiritual qualities 66:5. His divorces therefore would be dictated not by whims or lust but by righteousness and uprightness in conduct. That is based on the notion that
24:26"corrupt women are for corrupt men, and corrupt men, for corrupt women - just as good women are for good men, and good men, for good women".
This negates the charges and calumnies raised by modern critics, mainly from a Judeo-Christian background, concerning the motives behind the prophet's marriages and these critics should rather turn attention towards their own scriptures where "divine ordinances" regulate whom is to marry whom, strictly on a physical basis
Ezek44:22"And neither a widow nor a divorced woman may they (the high priests) take for wives, but they shall take virgins from the descendants of the House of Israel"
Such calumnies werent reserved to Muhammad, in the prophetic history, the likes of Moses were slandered to such an extent that the HB portrays YHWH wrathfully descending on the culprits Numb12,Ex2:21,Quran33:69. Despite these talks, the prophet is consoled that he is under constant spiritual blessings by God and His angels. These blessings in themselves will bring to naught all such imputations levelled against him or the believers in general, while a grievious sin will be written upon the culprits 33:56-8.
What is very interesting is that the verse, although restricts any future marriage, allows him still to have as many right hand possessions as he would like to have and establish concubine relationships with them. And yet, here again is a man supposedly lustful, taking only 1 such women although he had the possibility of having much more, even as many as he would have liked. Again, we see a clear pattern from the prophet, abiding by all the restrictions imposed on him but not taking advantage of the legal relaxations.
That right hand posession that was in addition his concubine was the noble Maria the Copt, who wasnt even a war captive, meaning the prophet didnt even go out of his way to find a woman that pleased him. She was given to him out of reverence by an Egyptian notable. It is interesting to note that there are at least 2 similar precedents in prophetic history, of a prophet's union with the Egyptian daughter of royalty. First Hagar who was given to Abraham, and then Solomon's unnamed Egyptian wife 1Kings3. The Egyptian notable wanted to establish political relations with the prophet, and this gesture was considered normal as per the decorum of ancient societies. Some reports say that two women were given, Maria and Sirin. The prophet freed Sirin whom he married to a close follower and took Maria as his concubine and lodged her in one of his followers' houses temporarily, Haritha.
Here is again the verse exempting the prophet from the 4 wives limit
4:3,33:50-1"specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful".
Here, the women made lawful to him are spelled out, outside of which he could not marry, and each with a specific purpose that he might discharge his duties of prophethood and moral reformer without any hindrance, blame and difficulty:
1. Those whom he was already married to
2. Those whom were captured in war, meaning for the pacification of tribes
3. Cousins from paternal and maternal sides that had migrated with him and left everything behind, meaning close family ties should not impede him from coming to such women's help.
4. Women that wanted to gift their souls to the Prophet, if he so desired to marry them. These women knew the difficulties that awaited them, spiritually due to their religious burdens and social role, emotionally due to the prophet hardly being available for them. In addition they knew they could not re-marry following his death, besides the major fact that financially, the prophet's household lived a very basic lifestyle relatively to others in the community. These selective criteria allowed for only the most pious, disinterested elements to be associated to him.
"I used to feel jealous of those women who offered themselves to the Prophet and I said, `Would a woman offer herself'"
And yet the noble prophet never took advantage of that rule as reported from ibn Abbas
"The Messenger of Allah did not have any wife who offered herself to him".
Ibn Kathir relates on such situations involving Khawlah bint Hakim
"a woman came to the Messenger of Allah and said, "O Messenger of Allah, verily, I offer myself to you (for marriage).'' She stood there for a long time, then a man stood up and said, "O Messenger of Allah, marry her to me if you do not want to marry her.'' The Messenger of Allah said: (Do you have anything that you could give to her as a dowery) He said, "I have only this garment of mine.'' The Messenger of Allah said: (If you give her your garment, you will be left with no garment. Look for something.) He said, "I do not have anything.'' He said: Look for something, even if it is only an iron ring.) So he looked, but he could not find anything. Then the Messenger of Allah said to him: (Do you have (know) anything of the Qur'an) He said, "Yes, Surah such and such and Surah and such,'' he named the Surahs. So, the Messenger of Allah said: (I marry her to you with what you know of the Qur'an.)"
The verse made it clear that the prophet's marriages were primarily motivated by his religious, social and moral obligations, and no blame was attached to him ever by his contemporaries for him marrying more than 4 in order to fulfill these duties, from within the categories allowed to him and with the special procedures cited in the verses. This shows that his contemporaries, enemies an followers alike, were perfectly aware and could not deny his motivation for having more wives than other Muslims.
With such a large household combined with his prophetic duties and the turmoil of these early days in which he was involved in on a daily basis, he could not be expected to divide his time so as to satisfy each of the wives and potential concubines equally. But as the Islamic history books explicitly denote, he tried to observe equality among them as much as possible. He used to visit sometimes his 9 wives at once. In that report, the Arabic doesnt denote sexual intercourse, on the part of that humble man in his late 50s who had in addition to balance his household duties with his extraordinary responsibilities as a spiritual leader and statesman. Some of his male companions might have assumed so, but it did not have to be the case. And to further corroborate that the prophet, despite visiting all his wives, would only have intercourse with the one whose turn had arrived
"Narrated ‘Urwah: ‘A’ishah said: “O nephew! The Messenger of Allah would not prefer any one of us to another with regards to spending time with us. Hardly a day would go by without him visiting all of us. He would come close to each woman, without touching her, until he reached the one whose turn it was, then he would spend the night with her".
The flexibility of the law as regards the vision of time is of course not speaking of the sustenance and rightful material needs of every wife. In this area, the prophet had to divide his resources among every household, in addition to the financial burden of taking care of the indebted of the community and the incessant guests who would be received at all moments. He is known to have been left with very little to spend on himself and his wives, leading to them often complaining about the relative ease in which other companion's wives were living. And this at a time where the community had grown more prosperous in Medina, an ease which was not reflected in the prophet's household
33:28-9"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".
The prophet thus, despite being absolved from strict obligations towards his multiple wives would nevertheless feel saddened whenever he delayed his appointed time with one of his wives
33:51"You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you".
This ordinance made sure that no reproach would be cast upon him, and neither would he be hindered by social pressures or customs.
So although he had the peace of mind from a spiritual viewpoint that he would never be blameworthy, he still felt uneasy emotionally towards his wives whom he loved. And he did his utmost to spend as much time as he could with them all equitably. Aisha would say to him
"If I could deny you the permission (to go to your other wives) I would not allow your favor to be bestowed on any other person".
This statement from the prophet's youngest wife, and thus logically the most physically attractive in comparison to his other wives, shows the prophet tried as best as he could not to favor one wife over another based on his personal preference. There is an instance where he refused letting Aisha replace another wife on a day that wasnt hers
"O Aisha, keep away from me, it is not your day".
The prophet maintained as best he could that considerate pattern of behavior throughout his life, as narrated by Aisha:
"When the ailment of the Prophet became aggravated and his disease became severe, he asked his wives to permit him to be nursed (treated) in my house. So they gave him the permission. Then the Prophet came (to my house) with the support of two men, and his legs were dragging on the ground, between `Abbas, and another man".
Besides absolving the prophet, the ordinance also put all the wives and potential concubines on the same level as it concerned them all from God's perspective. Through it, they find the inner peace that the emotional sacrifice they shall endure, and which they all were fully aware of before accepting to marry the prophet, is for the accomplishment of a higher objective. Their merit with God will naturally be higher given their worldly sacrifices
"this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased, all of them with what you give them".
The verse ends with an affectionate message to the prophet's household in general, stressing that God is aware of the difficulties in all levels of life that they must endure, and their toll on their feelings
"and Allah knows what is in your hearts; and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing."
Aisha is indirectly described as expressing her initial frustration and spousal jealousy, when she supposedly stated in relation to 33:51 that
“I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires".
It is remarkable that the prophet would always abide by the restrictions divinely imposed on him but not the relaxations, as described above. In Sura Ahzab, around the verse quoted in the hadith, there are seven rules about marriage peculiar to the Prophet. Four of these granted him relaxations and three put restrictions. The Prophet certainly abided by the restrictions, but yet, for someone whose "Lord hastens his desires" he did not opt to benefit from two of the relaxations. Had the idea of ‘convenient revelations’ any basis in that report from Aisha as claimed by Islam's opponents, to start with, there wouldnt have been any restrictions on the Prophet neither in this sura or other suras, to the exclusion of the rest of the believers. And neither would he have failed to take benefit of every relaxation, without having any guilty conscience as he just happened to have.
It is further worthy to note that, in those relaxations pertaining to marital affairs described in 33:50-1, the prophet is a passive agent; it is the women that are given the option of seeking him in marriage, not the other way around. The bottom line is that, whichever one looks at it, nothing in the pattern of the life of the prophet supports the malicious charges against him.
As a side note about the issue of jealousy, as noted by the earliest scholars the jealousy – of either husband or a co-wife, when it does not lead to transgression either by words or by actions, is not blameworthy.
