Sam Shamoun "OPEN CHALLENGE TO MUSLIMS: SHOW US WHERE THE QURAN MENTIONS CIRCUMCISION"

Sam Shamoun "OPEN CHALLENGE TO MUSLIMS: SHOW US WHERE THE QURAN MENTIONS CIRCUMCISION"

Josephus states in his Antiquites that the Arabs circumcized their children at 13 years old, as was still done in the times of the prophet, in remembrance of their forefather Ishmael. Josephus not only locates these descendants of Ismail as inhabiting the region from the Euphrates to the Red Sea, but also bellies the notion that the hanifs imitated the Israelites in their rites, more specifically their circumcision rites, by saying that these Ishmaelites purposefully practiced it at 13 in memory of Ishmael, contrary to the Jews who do it a 8 days in memory of Isaac. In the biography by ibn Ishaq, it says the pre-Islamic Arabs practiced it. A camel would be slaughtered for the occasion. Now of course not all of them had preserved the way of Ibrahim, and those that did, had only but a dim remembrance of it. 

Until Islam came and restored the religion of Ibrahim. 

When he circumcized Ishmael at 13, the age itself was not meant to be retained as the time at which the rite had to be performed, contrary to the precise timing concerning Isaac Gen21:4. The Quran does not mention the practice although it claims in many places to reinstate the pure way of Ibrahim. This includes the God-ordained rite covenant of circumcision that included Ishmael, as is depicted in the HB. 

More than a simple tribal mark, it is the physical symbol of God's special relationship with Abraham, and by extension of the duties and obligations of those among his household carrying the mark. This world has been put under mankind's dominion in its raw state, and it is up to humans to perfect it by making use of it in a God-conscious manner. This world is an arena for us to build a relationship with God. Had everything been made perfect and as religiously intended from the get go, this would have been impossible. When we put a religious sign on the most physical and potentially lowly organ, we signify it can and should be used in a holy way. By performing it on a child who is unaware of the portents of the ritual, the idea of hardwired, subconscious connection between God and mankind is being conveyed, as is so often stated in the Quran. 

Although there are ahadith that depict the prophet as saying male circumcision is part of the Abrahamic legacy, nowhere does the prophet instruct female circumcision. The most that is found leaning in favor of the practice are statements where he speaks about unrelated topics where the female involved is already circumcised, or a weak and disputed report where he is commenting on a pre existing practice, in both cases not instructing nor recommending it. In that latter hadith (sunan abu dawud) he says to avoid doing it in a way that would affect both men and women in their sexual life, meaning the procedure must be negligible. Even if one sees prophetic approval for female circumcision in this saying, it stays far from the image of genital mutilation in the mind of those who jump for joy at anything that superficially seems to paint Islam in an unfavorable light.

Sam Shamoun "Who Really Follows Jesus? Muslims and the Issue of Swine"

Sam Shamoun "Who Really Follows Jesus? Muslims and the Issue of Swine"

The Quran regulates the matters of divorce so that it isnt approached lightly, not caused by transient emotional factors 

65:1,4:19"If you take a dislike to them it may be that you dislike a thing and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good". 

It bans the pre-islamic practice of dhihar/zihar where husbands would arbitrarily physically repudiate their wives, considering them as unlawful as would be their biological mothers 33:4,58:1-4. Such injustice must be compensated through repentance and atonement; charity, fasting or the freeing of a captive. If not, then the wife remains unlawful to the husband, opening the way for her to seek divorce due to the husband not completing his matrimonial rights.

It is to be noted, the disapproval of that practice was mentioned in surah ahzaab much prior to sura mujaadila, where the options for atonement are given. We read in the traditions of a woman who complained to the prophet that her husband had declared zihar on her. Knowing that the Quran severely disapproved it, the woman, despite the prophet's advise to return to her husband and resume her marital life, sought for a way, on behalf of her husband to regain God's approval. The prophet's advise was due to the man's old age, described in some reports as becoming mentally confused as to his statements. Further, the Quran considers zihar a falsehood that has no bearing on the validity of the marriage. In pre-islamic days, the statement of zihar amounted to divorce. The verses 58:1-4 were then revealed, reiterating the negativity of the practice and opening a way for repentance. Khawlah desired to return to her husband, even pleading for him, but due to her piety, wanted to do so with God's blessing, and God honoured her attitude forever through the revelation of these verses 

"My husband, Aws ibn as-Samit, pronounced the words: You are like my mother. So I came to the Messenger of Allah, complaining to him about my husband. The Messenger of Allah disputed with me and said: Remain dutiful to Allah; he is your cousin. I continued (complaining) until the Qur'anic verse came down..I said: I shall help him with another date-basked ('araq). He said: You have done well. Go and feed sixty poor people on his behalf, and return to your cousin. The narrator said: An araq holds sixty sa's of dates. Abu Dawud said: She atoned on his behalf without seeking his permission". 

The traditions report that her status among the companions was such that they would stop and listen to whatever she had to say, bowing their heads in humility, calling her "the one whose complaint was heard at the seventh heaven".

The divorce matter is neither wholly in the husband's nor the wife's hands. A judge designates two arbiters, one belonging to the wife's family and the other to the husband's 4:35. The arbiters' primary objective is to effect a reconciliation during a counselling period of three months -called idda- where the husband remains financially responsible for his wife 65:1,6. He may not drive her out of the house by force and neither should she leave in anger 65:1, the underlying idea being that advantage may be taken if there is any chance of reconciliation unless, she has clearly committed an indecency or if they mutually decide to separate then she has the right to a decent lodging place 65:6, nor can he retain her injuriously 2:231. That temporary separation may cause conjugal relations to be re-established 

2:228"and their husbands have a better right to take them back in the meanwhile if they wish for reconciliation; and they have rights similar to those against them in a just manner". 

This is the best safeguard against a misuse of divorce, for in this way only such unions would be ended by divorce as really deserve to be ended, being devoid of the faintest spark of love. Their husbands have more right to them than another proposer 2:228, and this right can be utilized by taking them back in case he has initiated the procedure and revoking the divorce during the period of waiting 

65:2"So when they have reached their prescribed time, then retain them with kindness". 

However if all hopes of reconciliation fail, a divorce is pronounced and by no means is it viewed as a taint, rather the start of a new page with better opportunities 

4:130"if they (should) separate, Allah will enrich each out of His abundance, and Allah is All-Embracing, the Wise". 

The wife gets to keep her dower, a command preceded by an injunction to 

65:2,2:229"let them go with kindness". 

Whatever she has earned during marriage through business activities, she may keep it to herself 4:32 while the husband, even after the divorce is obliged to provide sustenance to his former wife in case she is nursing or is pregnant with his child until she delivers, according to his means 65:6-7. However in an exceptional case it is lawful for him to take back some gifts: when both parties desire legal separation, but the husband desists from divorce because he believes his financial loss, through wealth, assets or property, would be too significant. In such a case, it would be acceptable for the wife to return the gifts to her husband and for the husband to accept them 

2:229"it is not lawful for you to take any part of what you have given them, unless both fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allah; then if you fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allah, there is no blame on them for what she gives up to become free thereby". 

The Quran further prevents marrying them to someone else so as to take back their dower 4:32. The mahr/dower, once marriage has been consummated, is the wife's property. It cannot be taken by her husband unless she is proven guilty of immoral conduct 4:19, or if she knows that she will not honor her marital agreements, without any wrongdoing on the husband's part, thereby deciding to end the marriage 2:229,4:4. In the reverse case, the husband has no right to take back even a fraction of that dower 4:20. It is inconceivable he should take it back after being intimate with her, it would amount to a great sin from him, and humiliation to the wife. Although none can be forced to remain in a marriage one dislikes, even if it is for purely physical reasons as is the case here, the Quran again tries protecting the woman's dignity by discouraging the separation 

4:19"live with them in a proper manner; then if you hate them, it may be that you dislike a thing while Allah has placed abundant good in it".

 
The Quran then demands mutual understanding regarding the child's future 

65:6"take mutual counsel together, according to what is just and reasonable" 

and if they disagree in the matter then it will be returned to the judge's decision 4:35.

A divorce may also be pronounced instantly without the 3 months iddah period necessary for counselling and to ascertain the wife's pregnancy, and that is when there was no sexual contact 33:49.

Men are particularly reminded in 2:229,2:230 that they cannot abuse of their right to divorce, neglecting the wife's feelings in the process. If he asks to divorce the same wife twice then he may not ask her hand a third time unless she has married another man and he has divorced her. Even if she feels the need to go back to that same man, he remains forbidden to her until she has experienced marriage with another man (muhallil). This not only deters emotionally abusive men, but it serves as an eye opener to women who might be tempted out of fear and psychological control, to keep on pardoning and returning to their abusive relationship. It opens the way to these abused women to go into society free of any blame, and start a new life with another man. 

We find something similar in the HB in Deut24 where a divorced woman that remarries then divorces a second time, becomes forbidden to the man she was first married to. This is speaking of repeated sinfulness and sexual misbehaviour short of adultery. It is different that the problem the Quran addresses, as well as the solution it proposes. It would be of course inappropriate for a man to remarry a woman he had himself divorced for her immoral behavior. Especially if the second husband divorces her for the same reason, showing an established pattern of behavior. It would be an acceptance of sinfulness within one's household. The Quran equally forbids the righteous from marrying a sexually immoral person, until that person repents and mends his/her ways 24:1-25. There are no deadlocks in Islam.

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "Who Really Follows Jesus? Muslims and the Issue of Swine"

Acts17apologetics blinded by the light of a saint; Paul didn't compromise Jesus' message?

Apostate prophet wonders; prophets with different diets?

Sam Shamoun "Allah Abdul-Muhammad (“Slave of Muhammad”)"

Sam Shamoun "Allah Abdul-Muhammad (“Slave of Muhammad”)"

Some critics have used an unreliable story, dismissed by the commentators for its weak transmission chain, in order to discredit the prophet. The verse supposedly alludes to Hafsa, to whom the prophet promised not to be intimate with his mulk yamin/right hand possession Maria the Copt. 

Maria was given to him out of reverence by an Egyptian prefect or notable. It is interesting to note that there are at least 2 similar precedents in prophetic history, with the Egyptian daughter of royalty, Hagar who was given to Abraham, and 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, although some weak commentaries state she was lodged in Hafsa's house in the beginning. When Hafsa entered in her own private quarter that she had left for the day, and surprised the prophet and Maria in her own bed, she was angered. Not because, as the critics claim without the slightest shred of a proof that she was Hafsa's temporary slave but because that day was reserved for her. 

However the weak reports used by those very critics say that what the prophet had allegedly done with Maria in Hafsa's house was HALAL, meaning she must have been his own concubine, not a slave given to Hafsa temporarily. The prophet then requested her not to repeat what had occured, to avoid stirring up the already existing jealousy of the wives towards Maria, as depicted in several reports, who was given precedence over one of them on a day supposedly reserved for a wife. Besides its unreliability, the Quran itself refutes that story, due to several reasons including the fact that the prophet had complete liberty in matters of division of time among wives and concubines, something all his wives were aware of much prior to the alleged incident. He was not therefore bound by any time restriction and did not need to make any such promise not to be with his lawful concubine, as depicted in the incident. 

Also per the Quran, the object of what God's prophet forbade upon himself was to please his wives (plural). In this report, the object of the oath was to please one wife only (singular), the one that allegedly entered in her room and found him with his lawful concubine. Also, 66:3 says that a secret was divulged by God's prophet to one of his wives. Why would he need to tell what had just happened to Hafsa and cause all the commotion if she hadnt had a clue of what had occured, and instead keep that perfectly legal act to himself? 

This negates the story from yet another angle because in it, the prophet's "secret" was found out by one of the wives who surprised him in bed with Maria. He was thus in no need to share that "secret" with her. There are several theories regarding what that secret was, some of them being concerning his succession, but that is another issue.

In conclusion it should be stressed that the prophet, assuming those convoluted reports on Maria and Hafsa as true, he did not do anything wrong or inappropriate for a prophet, as even clearly stated in those accounts. Per the Quran, mulk yamin are a category of lawful women not covered by the regulation on the division of time between multiple wives. The prophet was even absolved from these time restrictions with his wives, although he always divided his time as equally as possible between them. 

It should also be reminded that Maria was the prophet's only mulk yamin, or concubine as the Judeo-Christian critics like saying with their distorted Biblical paradigms of what concubines are. He had no other "concubine". Maria was offered to him, as described earlier, and he accepted for the sake of a greater socio-political aim. The prophet could have acquired many more such women as a result of his military victories, as other prophets did before him, including Moses, David or Solomon, and on a much larger scale, without damaging his legitimacy as a true prophet of God in the least. He could have even, out of lust, resorted to murdering an innocent man so as to marry his widow, just as the noble and pious prophet-king David supposedly did, as shamefully transmitted by the Biblical scribes. 

Finally, Nasa'i gives 2 occasions of revelation for the verse, both of them graded sahih. He first cites the incident with Maria without saying anything about Hafsa or anyone else "finding out" about the prophet's legal intercourse with his concubine. All it says is that Hafsa and Aisha would continuously harass the prophet about Maria out of jealousy until he promised them not to be intimate with her. This more authentic version of the supposed event agrees with the Quran's wording, contrary to the weaker, convoluted report described earlier. The second occasion of revelation per Nasa'i also involved Aisha and Hafsa, both of them are again described as harassing the prophet to give up on something, but this time the object of their jealousy was Zaynab bint Jahsh. As a loving wife who knew the likes and dislikes of her husband, she used to offer him a variety of honey he very much appreciated each time he visited her. Aisha and Hafsa disliked that pleasant connection they had and thus schemed to put an end to it. As the prophet once came out of Zaynab's place, and knowing that the prophet would always pay attention to the manner he presented himself at all occasions so as to not offend anyone, Aisha told him that his breath smelled like maghafeer (a sweet drink that leaves a pungent smell). 

Being the sensitive and tactful person as described earlier, the prophet unsuspectedly promised not to drink this honey although he was very fond of it and had every right to it. Nasa'i further says that because these 2 reports are graded sahih it might be that they happened very close to eachother prior to the revelation of the verse. 

Whether it is Al Qurtubi, al Tabari, Ibn Arabi, Imam al Nawawi, among many other scholars, they all state that the prophet's overstaying at Zaynab to have his favorite drink, against Aisha and Hafsa's desire, is the reliable opinion for the opening verse of al Tahrim being revealed.

Further articles answering Sam Shamoun "Allah Abdul-Muhammad (“Slave of Muhammad”)"

dontconvert2islam tries handling Quran AND hadith, Maria/Hafsa affair?

dontconvert2islam wont break an oath; but can one ever be justified in doing so?  

Acts17apologetics raise the bar of a true prophet's morality; Muhammad breaks his oath? 

Acts17apologetics discuss divine military planning; What is the right "timing" of jihad? 

Islam critiqued accuses Muslim state; Expulsion of Jews? 

Apostate prophet deepens the search; a closer look at the sura tawba?

Apostate prophet finds the austere prophet; Muhammad living like a king?