Apostate prophet probes Muhammad finances; The Prophet got rich thanks to ghanima?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Rape Culture"

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".

This is how "extensive" the personal wealth and provisions he had gathered from the spoils and from

"the shade of his spear"

were.

For example 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 type of war spoils are the ones 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 opened 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".

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. An interesting linguistic device used in this sura to capture multitudes of meanings and implications is the omission of the 3rd person singular particle "ka" at the end of each of God's remedies to Muhammad's difficulties. This is done so as to indicate that these multifarious blessings ultimately benefit not only himself but those with him.

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.

Apostate prophet protects the oppressed; Quran 4:34 allows domestic beating?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Rape Culture"

Beating is not promoted nor did the Quran invent domestic violence. The Quran canalizes such behavior by preventing an immediate jump to beating, by giving a very stringent procedure to prevent reaching to that point. Men, if they beat their wives, they do so out of anger, and afterwards try and justify it by saying religion allows it. What the Quran is doing is preventing this impulse, and it does so in a context where it reforms women status and appeals to men's taqwa, their God consciousness, with verses setting the natural order of Men-Women relationships.

Verses such as 30:21 and others

"And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect".

Men and women naturally deal in terms of love and compassion, meaning domestic violence is against the natural order of things.

In 4:34 the Quran uses the word qawwam, from Q-W-M and it means standing upright. It covers the meaning that the entity stands upright and that it helps others stand upright. Man is referred to as being qawwam over the woman by means of the bounties which he has been bestowed with, the bounties which he must use responsibly in the maintenance of his household. In other words, man cannot stand upright over the woman if he does not care and maintain his base, his wife. Qawwam in addition is in a grammatical form of siratul mubalagha, denoting a pattern of behavior. In this case, the verse's opening is stating the husband is one behaving with a pattern of care towards his wife. The word carries also the notion of qima/value, making the qawwam the one who gives value ie to his wife, which negates emotional abuse, a domestic issue often addressed in the Quran.

As is obvious, domestic violence has nothing to do with the notion of qawwam, meaning the verse itself stipulates that proper treatment of a woman is exactly the opposite of hurting a women. This is why the Quran then goes on to provide an exhaustive means to prevent hitting in the first place, and even when one reaches the point where striking becomes a valid option, it must be done in a way that encourages a change of course and can never contradict the fundamental notion of man being qawwam over the woman. This will be shown a little later.

This passage, like many others where the divine law is expounded, the Quran wraps the passage with a message that connects the divine law with spiritual awareness. This is done so that man never loses sight of the spirit of the law. In this case, the passage ends with a mention of certain attributes of God; He is the High and Mighty. There is a greater Being, with more authority than man and he should therefore not abuse of his position. The attribute of Might is also well suited to the context; men may be stronger than woman, but there is One stronger than man. And if men abuse their power, then let them know that they will have to face the Almighty. This style is used in other instances, such as when a man is told of his superiority over a wife in certain aspects of divorce procedures but reminded that this superiority is based on absolute wisdom and should that superiority be misused outside the bounds of wisdom, then there is One mightier than all

2:228"and the men are a degree above them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise".

Prior to the "beating" portion, first, the verse urges admonishment. This reveals the Quran engages the situation rationally, appealing to the intellect of the woman which was considered lower than a man's.

"those on whose part you fear nushuz"

KHAWF means fear of credible danger, as is consistent with all its occurrences in the Quran. So, it is not fear as in suspicion/Dhann. Dhann is to hold an opinion upon uncertain evidence. KHAWF is a fear about probable significant danger but it still does not refer to something obvious/blatant, and there is an element of relativity/subjectivity to it which is why the Quran tells to ITHOOHUNNA/advise them. Even though the reasons for fear are credible, they can still be incorrect.

This advising will not be in a harsh manner, as can be seen by its occurrences in the Quran, for example 31:13-19. When you give advice, you give the advice and listen to what they have to say.

Therefore if the reason for the fear is diffused, then the problem is diffused. Another thing worth mentioning is that the word khawf denotes a significant threat in terms of marriage ties, it cannot be speaking of normal disagreements and disputes. This is corroborated by the life of the one that embodied the Quran, the prophet had many reported disputes with his wives but always kept his composure and patience, remaining of gentle character, neither did he qualify their behavior as nushuz. Nushuz from the root N-SH-Z means elevated. It is used, among other things, for when a person elevates themselves above others, as in rebellion or arrogance or disdaining others. This isnt about typical disagreements that arise normally during a marriage. One isnt disdainfully arrogant and disrespectful during such disputes. That is why the verse then says that if the wife desists from her nushuz

"do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great".

Further, this kind of attitude is one that threatens the preservation of the private, ie the intimate conjugal matters which the verse states should never be compromised, hence the parallel made between the preservation of these issues with the manner in which Allah preserves the unseen, a realm and knowledge which is shared only partially and with a select few

"the righteous women (are) dedicated, preservers of the private, by what Allah preserved".

If that first step, of engaging the situation rationally doesnt work, the Quran tells the husband to resort to step 2, distance himself physically. This can be done by not sharing the bed for example which is an appeal to the emotion of the woman.

Most men, the vast majority, will not even think of beating their wife even after these 2 steps, rational, then emotional, aiming at stoping her nushuz have failed. 99% of couples will simply divorce at that point.

However, the verse has specifically mentionned the option of beating in order to address 3 extreme situations.

First, as said in introduction, the issue of men who become violent due to impulsive anger. The verse offers them the option of beating, but after a gradual procedures precisely aimed at smoothly blocking their impulse and ultimately prevent beating. This is much more efficient than telling them from the get go that they cannot hit at all. One cannot expect a person behaving irrationally and emotionally to want to listen to a forceful instruction. It is well known that the best manner to deal with impulsive behavior is through mindful and calming steps.

In a situation where a husband fears nushuz from his wife in matters of transgression of the bounds of "guarding the unseen" which is a grave situation for any man of any culture, equal to backstabbing, an impulsive husband will immediately want to beat his wife, but the verse prevents that impulse, telling him to engage the situation rationally by first reasoning with his wife then refrain from physical contact

"admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places".

These 2 successive steps are crucial and effective at curbing a violent man's impulses and give him, as well as his wife, the time to cool-down and think.

At that point, the wife who stubbornly wants to keep going with her highly injurous attitude towards her husband knows that she just waisted 2 chances at solving the situation peacefully and rationaly and that now, if she wants to stay in the same household she has no choice but to mend her ways or face corrective physical punishement.

So even before resorting to beating, the wife with whom the appeal to her intellect and emotion through steps 1 and 2 did not work, who wants to stay in the same household and knows that her attitude was highly injurious will refrain by herself, thus settling the dispute. This is the second objective to allow beating, it serves as a deterrent to that type of woman. But if at that point, the woman genuinely did nothing wrong, decides not to change anything from her attitude while staying in the same household then she still knows that her husband, who believes to have been morally injured can resort to beating her.

So what will she do at that point and what option does the Sharia give her? Will she let her husband beat her while she thinks she has done nothing wrong? The Quran says

4:35"And if you fear a breech between the two, then appoint a judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they BOTH desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".

The words are clear and give her the right to appeal to a judge who will in turn designate an arbitrer from her side and her husband's, to settle the dispute and prove her right, or if she is proven wrong then she either mends her way and returns to the same household or simply divorce

"if they BOTH desire agreement".

The verse however clearly prefers reconciliation, as pointed in the words

"Allah will effect harmony between them; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".

This is reiterated in 4:128 which states that in case a wife fears nushuz from her husband, the same word used previously for a rebellious, disdaining wife, then

"there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and reconciliation is better".

4:128 also stresses that attempts at reconciliation should be undertaken as soon as signs of nushuz appear, not when the wife is already abused

"And if a woman FEARS nushuz".

Another thing worth noting is that nushuz, the attitude of disrespectful disdain and arrogance, when used in the context of marriage, applies to both men and women, with a tendency for adultery. The word is used in that connotation in pre- as well as post Islamic texts. For instance when a case of domestic dispute was brought to the prophet, the husband claimed that his wife 

"is nashiz and wants to go back to Rifa`a (another man)". 

In a report believed to have been uttered towards the end of the prophet's life, he emphasized that the option of striking is in the context of sexual transgression, thus further pointing that nushuz, the action which allows several punitive measures including striking, is related to adultery 

"Surely, I enjoin you to treat women well, for they are like your captives. You do not have any right to treat them otherwise, unless they commit a clear obscenity/fahisha. If they do so, you may forsake their beds and then strike them without violence".

A woman isnt required to go through successive corrective steps to reform her husband, even if she only fears that her husband might become disrespectful, disdainful and arrogant. As soon as she sees the signs, she may appeal to a judge and only if she accepts reconciling, then the relationship may resume. Here is the verse again

"if they BOTH desire agreement".

We have seen until now how the Quran, contrary to any other religious scripture, deals with the issue of domestic violence in such a way that impulsive men cannot reach the point where they will use force.

Secondly, it is a deterrent to an emotionally abusive woman willing to live in a household and be maintained by a man while being inclined to backstab him. The 3rd purpose for allowing a husband to beat his wife is to address the issue of passionate, toxic relationships. In these types of unions, common to any time and culture, both may separate at any time, but instead, the abusive wife chooses to remain despite knowing the husband is about to resort to physical punitive measures and the husband chooses to remain despite having tried reforming an emotionally abusive wife. None can be forced to divorce and only one option remains to reform the abusive party, physical punishment.

This, again is an extreme case of passionate love where an abused husband wants to make his wife come back to her senses after having tried all peaceful avenues. Neither he wants to let go of her nor she wants to leave him despite both having the right to do so. The word used is IDRIBOOHUNNA, derived from the root Dhad-R-B and it means hitting of the limbs to serve a function. That function in this case is not only striking, but striking to encourage change of attitude and that cannot happen by a severe beating. It is a kind of physical action that brings back the person to the senses and causes a change of behavior. This is how all the commentators understand the striking that is meant, as a noninjurious form of physical force.

It is important to keep in mind the verse's aim which is not to give a command to strike, hence the Quran's explicit silence on the modus operandi, but to address the issue of violent men who would be inclined to strike their wives whether with their hand, a stick or chain. And this, although the verse was revealed in ancient Arabia, in a time when the world as a whole viewed beating one’s wife as a right in the male dominated patriarchal society. 

Islamic judges of the classical era, based on the prophet's example and many reported sayings on husband-wife etiquette, used to frequently dissolve marriages based on domestic abuse, with the wife keeping her belongings and dowry and the husband responsible for spousal maintenance, requesting compensation and protection for the women, discouraging and admonishing husbands from committing any type of violence against their wives. The 2nd caliph, Umar once meted out a punishment, a beating on a man as a result of him causing trouble and being harsh to his wife 

“Umar sent an arbitrator to a couple, but he returned without succeeding in reconciling them; whereupon he [‘Umar] BEAT HIM saying, “Almighty God says, ‘If they desire amendment [reconciliation], Allah will make them of one mind’ [Quran 4:35].“ So the man returned and with [good] intention[s] and gentleness toward them, he reconciled them.” 

This bellies the statement attributed to Umar where, after a man intervened to prevent him beating his wife, reported from the prophet "No man shall be asked for the reason of beating his wife". This specific statement within the incident is deemed weak and rejected by the hadith authorities. Even if taken as it is, the statement doesnt give free rein to wife beating. It rather prevents making private household issues known publicly.  

In terms of misogyny, nothing in Islam remotely resembles what is found in Judeo-Christian texts and traditions, whose background is, the events of the garden painting Eve as the first to sin, then leading Adam to sin, and because of that was condemned to be "restrained" through subjection to the rule of her husband forever Gen3. Prior to the modern era, that notion was interpreted as warranting physical punishment for marital disobedience, in both Jewish and Christian traditions. In Christian texts, through the writings attributed to Paul, male rulership is associated with physical coercion in case of disobedience. This includes disobedience of subjects to their ruler, slaves to their masters, children to their fathers, and by obvious analogy, wives to their husbands. Rom13:1-5,Titus2:9-10,Eph6:5,Heb12:5-11,1Tim3:4,Ex21:20-21,Prov23:13-14,20:30,13:24 etc.

The prophet himself never beat his wives, abusive or not. Had it been his habit or had the Quran condoned domestic abuse, we would have seen a pattern in the prophet's life. In fact his wives had the option to divorce him anytime they wished and be graciously helped so as to start their new life unbothered. Not only was this pattern absent from his life, but we even see one of his wives, Umm Habiba asking him to marry her own sister so she can "share with her of the prophet's goodness", which he declined. 

The prophet approved of a woman's divorce request following physical and verbal domestic abuse from her husband. It was only expected by him given that he would not tolerate even the beating of women maid-servants

"one of us slapped her and Allah's messenger ordered us to set her free".

In fact it is said that this wife beating verse 4:34 was revealed in relation to the case of a woman that came complaining to the prophet that her husband had hit her. The prophet disliked that behavior, he was known for his good treatment of his wives. He was about to punish the perpetrator based on the law of retaliation then the verse came to educate husbands and wives on the matter. The prophet said

"I wanted one thing and God wanted another".

This is because, as shown earlier, there is wisdom in allowing corrective physical punishement in the intricate way that the Quran does.

Apostate prophet in the dark; How are 2 women equal to 1 man?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Rape Culture"

The ratio of 1 man equivalent to 2 women's testimonies mentionned in 2:282 is a general advice

"so that IF one of them errs, the other can remind her".

It is a conditional statement, which makes the second female a passive witness unless the primary witness is forgetful. Therefore if a women is sound and competent, then she would need no other woman to remind her of something she knew but forgot. Her single testimony becomes equal in value to that of the man. The testimony is not gender based as one expert is not sufficient for a transaction to be binding; it requires 2 men as is clear from the verse's beginning

"get two witnesses out of your men".

The verse actually favors a woman witness who wouldnt automatically be dismissed for incompetence but would be supported in case of error while the single male witness would be replaced in the same case. The verse addresses the issue of financial matters and the fact is that on average, women are much less qualified than men in financial expertise, even in western societies. As well, women are almost all affected, sometimes completely debilitated by PMS symptoms during and around the times of their menstrual cycles, in their emotional-intellectual and physical capacities, all of which might potentially compromise female testimony in such a situation.

To dismiss that condition as potentially affecting every single woman simply for the sake of preserving a facade of progressive thinking, is a denial of an objective reality. The Quran doesnt deny human nature and instead approaches everyday matters realisticly and pragmaticly. It only accepts the testimony of a person affected by a psycho-emotional condition that could potentially influence the objectivity of a case, when it is a woman -hence the 2nd woman to remind her. It is clearly referring to a condition not to the presumed intellectual capacities of a woman, hence the 2nd woman's role to remind her of something she knows but was mislead into forgetting.

If what the Quran meant was that a man's testimony is equal to 2 women's, the Quran in other instances ie when a woman is accused of adultery, would be saying that one woman's testimony is equal to 4 men's because if 4 men are not brought forth then their testimony will not be valid and they will be lashed for lying 24:4.

Also, in the case a husband accuses his wife of adultery without bringing forth eyewitnesses, her testimony has the same value as her husband's, contrary to the Bible where the accused wife is immidiately considered guilty by default and is made to undergo humiliating and strange rituals to prove her innocence Numbers5:11-31. Without forgetting the fact that in Jewish law, women arent even allowed to serve as witnesses in legal matters in a court of law.

Apostate prophet a progressive feminist; Allah says men are naturally superior to women?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Rape Culture"

Allah's does not make any gender, racial, social distinction except in the people's taqwa/God consciousness and devotion to Him

4:1,25:77,34:37,42:23,49:13"We have created you of a male and a female..the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is he who is most righteous of you".

Islam does not favor men instead of women but outlines roles intended for the general welfare of society, which starts first of all with a balanced, harmonious household. These roles have no intrinsic value by which to judge the worth of a human being. As stated earlier, the intrinsic value of human beings, male or female, resides in their righteousness.

To have a functioning household, there needs to be some sort of financial income. A husband, when he provides that income, it is perfectly natural and expected for the balance of justice to be equalized, that he has superiority in terms of authority, hence the demand for the wife to be obedient

4:34"Men are the maintainers/qawwam of women by what Allah has favored one over another, and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded".

A very important point to note before continuing, the verse is speaking of husband-wife relationship, and a specific one at that, where the husband is the provider, not men-women relations in general. That superior authority of the husband cannot be abusive

4:19"live with them on a footing of kindness and equity"  

30:21"And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect".

Men and women are expected, as an outcome of their own nature, to deal with one another in terms of love and compassion. The verse 4:34 we are discussing from sura nisa itself rules out, through the notion of qawwam as will be shown later, any domestic abuse. But being the qawwam of a wife carries more implications than mere financial support. Because of that, and for the balance of conjugal rights and duties be equalized among husband and wife, in addition to obedience, the wife is asked to play another active role. From a purely functional viewpoint, after the financial aspect, a household needs proper internal management. This is covered in the part of the verse talking about "guarding the unseen", the duty of the wife.

We see how the verse intricately converges all factors together for a household to function smoothly.

In another place it shows again how different sets of marital rights and obligations are balanced at the end

2:228"and they (wives) have rights similar to those against them in a just manner, and the men are a degree above them".

Husbands are superior in terms of authority but the sum total of their rights and obligations are the same. The verse is explicit and leaves no room for those transposing their own mysogynistic paradigm into it, be it Muslims or else. The conditional superiority of husbands over wives in the Quran is in contrast with the unconditional and general, divinely appointed state of subjugation of wives to their husbands in the Bible, as a matter of punishment for having brought about mankind's fall from grace

Gen3:16"And to your husband will be your desire, and he will rule over you".

Now we get to the notion of qawwam used in 4:34. It stems from Q-W-M and it means standing upright. It covers the meaning that the entity stands upright and that it helps others stand upright. Man is referred to as being qawwam over the woman by means of the bounties which he has been bestowed with, the bounties which he must use responsibly in the maintenance of his household. In other words, man cannot stand upright over the woman if he does not care and maintain his base, his wife. Qawwam in addition is in a grammatical form of siratul mubalagha, denoting a pattern of behavior. In this case, the verse's opening is stating the husband is one behaving with a pattern of care towards his wife. The word carries also the notion of qima/value, making the qawwam the one who gives value ie to his wife, which negates emotional abuse, a domestic issue often addressed in the Quran.

As is obvious, domestic abuse of any sort has nothing to do with the notion of qawwam, meaning the verse itself stipulates that proper treatment of a woman is exactly the opposite of abusing a women.

The fact that marital rights and obligations in the Quran flow from specific conditions, shows that it isnt speaking in absolute terms, although it shows what is the preferred standard. If the husband does not and cannot fulfill the condition of providing for the household, then the superiority in terms of authority falls upon the side that does. If both partners mutually agree on their lifestyle, then they are within their rights to live their lives as they deem fit, as long as it does not contradict the rules of Islam.

The Quran also abolishes all of the uncivilized acts that were being perpetrated against women, such as female infanticide 16:58-59,17:31, forced prostitution 24:33, and matrimonial mistreatment 2:231-2. It is a detestable behavior to be unhappy at the birth of a female, and an evil act to treat her with disgrace throughout her life 16:58-59. In the case of forced prostitution, the Quran again takes under consideration the circumstances, mental, social or else of abused women by absolving them of any indecent act they were forced to commit.

Apostate prophet seeks marriage counseling; Muslims must consider a wife's needs?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Rape Culture"

As stated earlier, the Quran urges man to be considerate towards the wife, he cannot forsake his spirituality and obedience to God in the process

2:222"go in to them as Allah has commanded you".

Anything going against the prescribed way in which sex is to be performed, is forbidden. This includes sodomy, whether it be practiced by heterosexual or homosexual couples. Every verse speaking of mating involves members of the opposite sex and in fact states that the very reason for creating the human species in opposite genders is that

7:189"he might incline to her".

Inclining to "him" would therefore cancel the reason for God's model of creation. Homosexuality in the sense of a platonic romantic attraction to the same gender, isnt a sin in itself and nowhere is it condemned, until it involves sexuality 7:80-1. It is a temptation like any other unlawful desire that only becomes transgression when acted upon. Overcoming temptation, whether it be sexual misconduct or anything else, in order to live within the boundaries of the religion, is a great virtue and the struggle of every spiritualy awakened individual

84:25"surely you must strive (to attain) to your Lord, a hard striving until you meet Him" 

7:201"Surely those who guard (against evil), when a visitation from the Shaitan afflicts them they become mindful, then lo! they gain insight and foresight".

In a wider context from a Quranic perspective, whatever we have been granted innately (psychological traits), or otherwise, remain conduits for us to be trialled through. As stated in the Quran, how one responds to those trials is a matter for God to decide, depending on the level of difficulty and how pronounced each characteristic is manifested in each one. The greater one's occasions and inclinations to do wrong, the greater the chance for spiritual growth.

The language used in the verse 2:222 evokes tenderness and deep consideration between the mates with the imagery of the farmer cultivating his tilth with great care. The words allude to liberty in this regard like the farmer is free to approach his land and cultivate it, as well as responsibility, caution and care which he must exercise in approaching his land. A farmer may not mishandle his land nor plant it anyway or anytime he likes.

A somehow similar metaphore is employed in the HB, as it compares a wife to the vine, a weak and tender tree, that needs support, often fastened to the sides of the house, on which it cleaves, runs up and bears fruit. The image creates a parallel with the weakness and tenderness of the female sex, their fruitfulness in bearing children and care for the household in which she is to stay in and exert herself

Ps128:3"Your wife will be as a fruitful vine in the innermost parts of your house; your sons will be like olive shoots around your table".

The Quran's eloquent words leave no room to them being read with the notion of forced sex in mind. Firon's crime of keeping the Israelites' women for himself and his men as a humiliation and torment, ie to abuse them sexually, as fasad fil ard meaning it is a crime punishable by death 28:4,5:33.

Apostate prophet rejects abuse to women; Quran allows marital rape?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Rape Culture"

The Quran directs men and women to complete and comfort eachother. They have been made from the same essence and should therefore relate to oneanother 4:25. They are eloquently depicted as garments of tranquillity and protection to eachother

2:187"They are raiment (libas) for you and ye are raiment for them"  

9:71"And (as for) the believing men and the believing women, they are guardians of each other".

"Libas" is a clothing used to cover the physical body, also used in the Quran as a means by which one is spiritually covered with God-consciousness/taqwa 7:26. It is to that sort of covering the verse 2:187 refers to because each spouse restrains the other from unchastity, and protects society from debauchery.

"be in contact with them and seek what Allah has written for you".

This is just another instance of the Quran's supreme pragmatism. The coming together of men and women in lawful sexual intercourse isnt primarily a means of being

Gen1:28"fruitful and multiply".

Otherwise the divine law should have banned sexual relations between married infertile people or in any other case that doesnt cause, or at least has the high probability of ending in procreation. Rather the Quran's approach addresses human nature and reality. It considers lawful sexuality as a means by which a natural need is satisfied, first and foremost. Regardless of whether being "fruitful and multiplying" results from it or not.

Sexual attraction is a pressure God has ingrained in human nature. When a couple engages in that action, they are in reality seeking what Allah has written for them, even if at that time their only aim is to satisfy their sexual desire. The Quran refers in many places to the positive, God-ordained nature of sexuality within limits, that there is nothing wrong in satisfying carnal desires in lawful ways. What is evil is to deny or forbid those needs or that one should transgress the prescribed limits for satisfying those needs

23:5-7,2:187,222"go in to them as Allah has commanded you".

God awareness therefore remains in all situations, even while seeking to fulfill what is an indispensable basis for a healthy husband/wife relationship

2:223"Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers".

Man is told to consider the spouse's affectionate disposition aforehand meaning he does not have the entire monopoly of the right to sexual intimacy. This statement goes both ways, which means that neither of the 2 is permitted to withhold the sexual act without a valid reason. Such a behavior would  amount to abuse and mistreatment of the husband or the wife, hence reports the likes of which stating that angels curse the wife that refuses her husband's invitation to sleep with him, making him angry. This speaks of a wife not giving any reason for her refusal, hence the husband's upset feelings. When informed of Abdullah Ibn Amr’s neglecting of his wife’s conjugal rights, the Prophet reminded him that

"Your wife has a right over you".

Some traditions relate the importance of both being satisfied after physical intercourse. The Prophet once said,

“When a man approaches his wife he should not hasten until she is satisfied because women have needs”

also

“You men must make yourselves tidy and be prepared for your wives, as you would like them to be prepared for you”.

This is about the importance for the husband to be well groomed for his wife, as a sign of love and respect. As shown from the Quran earlier, the spouse's affectionate disposition, his or her mood, must be taken into account aforehand

"None of you should fall upon his wife like an animal; but let there first be a messenger between you. The companions asked, what is that messenger? The prophet replied, Kisses and (romantic) words".

Contrast this with the NT in 1cor7 saying a wife has no right over her body but her husband does, which leaves the door wide open to marital rape. Back in the HB itself, a rape victim is sometimes forced to marry her rapist. He may not divorce her at any point, giving him free license to keep on abusing his victim for the rest of her life Deut22. As to withholding the sexual act intentionally, a legitimate reason for a woman would be, among other things, during her menses

2:222"And they ask you about the monthly courses. Say; it is a harm. Keep therefore aloof from women during their courses, and do not approach them until they are cleansed. And when they are cleansed, go in unto them as Allah has commanded you".

The words here are not general but restricted to sexual contact, and more specifically penetration. This is seen, firstly by the mention of "harm" resulting from that contact and more importantly from the part of the verse that talks about

"coming into them"

once the menses are over

"from where Allah ordered you".

The words are clear and unambiguous and dont mean that men and women may not or should not approach one another normally, interracting in everyday life as well as sharing the same bed, or even being romantic or erotic during that time, all of which having nothing to do with causing "harm" or

"coming into them from where Allah has ordained".

The prophet used to yubaashir his wives during that time, without penetration. Yubaashir is a polite word to describe romantic physical, skin to skin interraction, from the root b-sh-r/skin

"The Prophet used to kiss and embrace/yubaashir while he was fasting, and he had more power to control his desires than any of you" "and then she smiled".

The statement is unambiguous and shows that although he used to yubaashir his wives, the prophet still restrained himself sexually. He did not complete the sexual act, something that happens when penetration occurs. During a woman's periods, the Quran requires the same level of restraint among husbands and wives, but similarly this restraint, as seen from Aisha's words as she was pleasantly remembering her husband, is only limited to sexual penetration.

Another implication of the statement of "coming into them as Allah commanded" is that it prohibits penetration in an unnatural way 

"Ibn 'Abbas said: The Messenger of Allah said: “Allah will not look at a man who has intercourse with a woman in her back passage". 

Similar reports are numerous. Further, "coming to your tilth however you wish" simply allows all variations of intercourse so long as it is in the natural way, ie "in the place of tilth".

It is in the HB that general contact with one's wife is forbidden during menses, and actually among the 613 commandements revealed at Sinai, stating a menstruating woman is unclean and defiles others Lev15:17-33. She becomes completely ostracized in basic social activities because not only is she unclean but almost everything she touches or that touches her can transmit ritual impurity, exactly like a leper whose impurity isnt only restricted to him, but his entire house too Lev13:2-49,14:34-46. Similarily to the physically impared and handicapped who arent fit to approach holy sites for offerings to God, as their physical blemishes are a profanity to God's sanctuaries Lev21:16-24.

Christians followers of St Paul, who have arbitrarily, and contrary to Jesus' explicit instructions, absolved themselves from Torah observance, which includes those purity laws, have no restriction at all about mingling, or even sexually interracting with women during their menstrual period. The pagans of Arabia were divided between those of Medina who adopted some of the Jewish customs, and the others who had no rules in this matter, some even seeking sexual intercourse specifically during this period of a woman's life in the belief that if a woman became pregnant then, the child would be cruel and extremely fond of shedding blood. These were admirable qualities for a man among the Bedouins. 

Apostate prophet exposes ancient crimes; raping war captives?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Rape Culture"

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. Yusuf desired to keep his chastity so he repeatedly refused, being God's sincere servant he was protected and guided away from transgression, even willingly preferring emprisonnement than succombing to the sin 12:24-35 (see Ps105:19). Temptation is something any human being, regardless of his uprightness, might be subject to. Merit lies in whether one acts upon that temptation when in the full capacity to do it, or restrains oneself.

Just as the Quran condemned Yusuf's mistress from acting against her servant's desire to remain chaste, the Quran 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 nevertheless 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 mentioned 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 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 multiple 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, 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.

The Hebrew Bible sanctioned 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 shortened, 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 abandoned 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. 

Apostate prophet revises a Quranic term; who were ma malakat aymanukum?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's Rape Culture"

Ma malakat aymanukum are, simplicticly rendered "concubines" by the opponents of Islam, 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 possession 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 possession. 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 amounts to a denial of God's blessings and of His unceasing care for all His creatures.

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.