In answer to the video "What Does Kafir (Really) Mean?"
The capital punishment solely for renouncing one's religion isnt Quranic, it is a Biblical ruling outlined in Deut13 or Deut17:1-7 and stipulates that all those who are caught enticing others into, or commiting idolatry, are to be put to death, in such a forceful manner that all the inhabitants of the city are to be indiscriminately executed, their livestock and possessions burned and their dwellings razed to the ground.
A demonstration of the law's application, on a large-scale and in a systematic way, directly commanded by God is when thousands of Israelites were executed by their own brethren for having reverted to idol worship during the exodus. This incident is reported in both the Torah and Quran. Further the Biblical law of apostasy is general to all situations. When the Israelite prophets executed apostates and idolaters from among their own, it wasnt in war times where the apostate risked joining enemy ranks or spying on their or refusing to contribute economically as a full fledged member of a community with his rights and obligations.
Later on in the course of their tumultuous history and as they were adapting the revealed law (of apostasy and other inconvenient and/or difficult laws) to their needs and whims, or their life circumstances, the passing of the death penalty required a much more stringent procedure. It was the case before, during and after the time of Jesus which is why it was rarely if ever applied then, whether by Jews or early followers of Jesus.
This by the way is one of the many points that undermine the crucifixion tale, as will be shown further below.
In Christianity a similar process of reinterpretation occurred as regards the capital punishment for apostasy. Up to the middle ages, whether it was church leaders, popes, thinkers and saints the likes of Thomas Aquinas, all justified and applied whenever they could, based on passages of both the HB/NT, the death penalty to apostates, as well as heretics and open sinners. It was not until Christianity and its church weakened through reforms and secularism that the capital punishment for religious transgressions was abandoned.
The Jews, in the times of Jesus didn't have any authority to try jesus for a death penalty, among other reasons, because of the procedures they had put into place so as to avoid the harsh mosaic punishments befalling their community for their frequent capital offenses: -the NT says that the high priest headed up the trial. The high priest never headed the Sanhedrin, that role fell to Nasi and the Av Bet Din, neither of whom are mentioned in the NT.
-To pass a death penalty a Jewish Sanhedrin had to meet in the Chamber of Hewn Stones in the Temple, but in 28CE which is prior to Jesus' supposed execution, the Chamber was destroyed so the Sanhedrin moved to another room on the Temple Mount, and then into the city itself (Talmud, Shabbat 15a, Rosh haShanah 31a).
Deut17:8-13"go up to the place that G-d your L-rd shall choose"
means the chamber of carved/hewn stone. Just as the Tabernacle was the only place in which to bring animal offerings until the final place was identified as the Temple, so to was the place for the court identified as the chamber in the Temple. Also, the Romans had removed the right to pass the death penalty according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 17:13). Around the year 6 CE, Herod Archelaus, was dethroned and banished to Vienna. He was replaced, not by a Jewish king, but by a Roman Procurator named Caponius. The legal power of the Sanhedrin was then immediately restricted. When Archelaus was banished the Sanhedrin lost the ability to try death penalty cases in favor of the Roman procurator (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20:19). So right there we have two impediments to the Jews passing a death sentence. -The Sanhedrin never met at night Matt26:57,Mk14:53 or in secret, on Shabbat or any holy day -- or even on the day BEFORE. Misnah (Sanhedrin IV:1) and Maimonides (Hilkot Sanhedrin XI:2).
- A death penalty case required two eye witnesses to the crime even when the Jews had the authority. When a death sentence was passed a minimum of 24 hours was given before it was carried out, giving time for witnesses to come forth on behalf of the condemned
-Jewish trials were never held in anyone's house, only in the Temple
So, in addition to the many legal proceedings which would have had to be broken for such trial to have taken place as is depicted in the Gospels, something that never happened in Jewish history, the Jews, living under Roman dominion, didn't have any authority to try Jesus for a death penalty. Why would they even make such effort, organizing this secret meeting just prior to the Passover festival, a time of religious preparations, breaking a long list of mosaic comandements along the way, yet knowing that their endeavor would be fruitless and their judgement would bear no legal weight? When in Jn18 the Pharisees take him to the Romans, they do not bring up their irrelevant blasphemy charge against him. They in fact bring no accusation at all. They leave it to Pilate to start guessing what crime Jesus is guilty of. What then was the necessity of that "pre-trial"? Why did they not just hand him to Pilate? They would have saved precious time on passover eve, an important time of religious dedication and preparation.
The whole story is fiction, meant at demonizing the Jews so that the blame is not shouldered by the Roman executioners, when they reluctantly put Jesus to death. The gentile authorities, painted as borderline Christians, were this way appeased and could be targeted for missionary activity, as occured soon after. Consequently, we never see in history Christians blaming, oppressing and mass murdering Italians in retaliation for Jesus' death, but rather Jews, despite them being in fact the necessary tools in the cosmic scheme of salvation through God's suicide..
In answer to the video "What Does Kafir (Really) Mean?"
Similarly the misquoted reports about Abu Bakr's ridda wars do not come in the context of apostasy. The people fought against were regarded as Muslims according to many other reports, although a minority had apostised. They were fought for their refusal to pay due government taxes and poor rate, and after they initially and unexpectedly attacked those that sided with Abu Bakr on the issue, and after causing bloodshed among government ranks and attempted to overthrow the first caliph. Prior to giving further details about this event, it is important noting that the Quran sanctions warfare against anyone, including Muslims, who refuse to desist from destructive practices such as riba 2:278-9. The events of the ridda war occured shortly after the prophet's death when many disheartened recent converts apostised and others attempted to reduce their community contributions.
Umar is reported to have pleaded with Abubakr to be more lenient with those that refused paying their dues, which he categorically refused. Clearly the issue was not about spiritual apostasy or else Abubakr would have acceded to Umar's request, accepting that they pay less in exchange of their adherence to the Muslim community. Abubakr sent them an official letter calling them back to Islam, those very people who were nominal Muslims, but that refused adhering to the laws of the Islamic state. He instructed his emissaries to fight the rebels after they have been informed of their obligations towards the state and have rejected
"(the duties) that are incumbent upon them and [the advantages] that accrue to them, and (the emissary) should take what is [imposed] on them and give them what they are due".
In his letter Abubakr additionally appealed to the prophet's practice in a similar situation. When he was confronted to Muslims who rebelled against the state and refused paying their dues, unjustly taking advantage of the system which others were sacrificing their own wealth and lives to maintain
"he struck whoever turned his back to Him (God) until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly".
Such a behavior is equal to turning one's back to God, as is represented by the state religion. This isnt speaking of simply renouncing the religion while remaining a full fledged citizen with his rights and obligations.
The rebels of the ridda war launched their assault by night while the majority of the Muslim soldiers were sent on an expedition outside Medina. Abu Bakr fought back with his people and killed those who were involved. It is with such historical and Quranic perspective that the killing of apostates as reported in the history and hadith books should be understood, spiritual apostasy was never the sole charge warranting the death penalty, but rather political apostasy ie socio-political destabilisation and conspiracies to commit bloodshed, especially in times of war or other sort of trials that caused the early Muslims to be on high alert against those who wished to overthrown the system. In addition, some among the early Muslims' enemies pretended converting in attempts to infiltrate the community and harm it through inciting sedition and providing vital information in times of war 3:72,33:60. All governments would punish and sometimes execute foreign spies, double agents, or traitors to an enemy with whom one is at war. These are the people covered in the saying
"The one who leaves his religion AND SEPERATES from the community, kill him".
This clearly puts 2 condition for the execution of an individual in war times, leaving the religion combined with separation from the community to join the enemy. Leaving the religion while remaining a full fledged citizen with his rights and obligations does not warrant the death penalty. This openly declared threat would make the conspirators think twice before engaging in their insidious behavior. All scholars have understood that leaving Islam must be coupled with a will to harm it and its people, to warrant the death penalty. Ibn Taymiyah said
"Muhaarabah (waging war against Islam) is of two types: physical and verbal. Waging war verbally against Islam may be worse than waging war physically – as stated above – hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to kill those who waged war against Islam verbally, whilst letting off some of those who waged war against Islam physically. This ruling is to be applied more strictly after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Mischief may be caused by physical action or by words, but the damage caused by words is many times greater than that caused by physical action; and the goodness achieved by words in reforming may be many times greater than that achieved by physical action. It is proven that waging war against Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) verbally is worse and the efforts on earth to undermine religion by verbal means is more effective".
Another typical example is that of Abdullah Ibn Sad Ibn Abi Sarh who had converted then apostised, joined the enemy side and began undermining the authenticity of the Quran by spreading rumors that he had been forging verses. He in addition incited the opposite party to war. When the Muslim side finally overcame against all odds and his own inciting efforts, his inevitable, legitimate fate was now execution for high treason. This is what governments generally do once a traitor is apprehended, especially when a conflict ends while the person is still among enemy ranks. At that point, ibn Abi Sarh sought Uthman's intercession and came to the prophet to pledge his allegiance. The prophet ignored Uthman's plea twice before finally accepting. The prophet knew that he deserved to be put to death but at the same time, because of the general amnesty he had declared upon Mecca's conquest, he hesitated in the case of Sarh' special case, leaning more towards the capital penalty. By his silence, he left it to the attendance of close followers to do as they liked and as he saw that they leaned the opposite way, he reluctantly validated their judgement and accepted Sarh's pledge.
However and as already shown from the Quran, should one leave Islam peacefully without intending any harm to the community, not combining apostasy with public rejection of the state system, which includes refusal to acquit oneself from fiscal obligations, then the consequences of the sin are left for the Creator to decide in the Hereafter. A case in point is that of a bedouin that apostised though he had accepted Islam, pledging allegiance in front of the prophet the day before. The prophet did not punish him, the most that he did was to ignore him 3 times before stating
"Medina is like a furnace. It expels its impurities and collects what is pure".
The early caliphs followed the same line. Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz did not bother a group of apostates so long as they did not rebel against government laws. It is thus rejection of the religion in a way that threatens the stability of the Islamic system in place that warrants death penalty. These were the cases covered by the prophet's saying
"Whosoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him".
In fact there are explicit reports where the prophet let people leave the community in security following their spiritual apostasy.
Once more, there is no compulsion in religion 2:256,18:29 so no punitive measure can be directed at an apostate neither can he be compelled to go back to Islam or forced to repent solely on the basis of his choice of creed. Per the Quran and as made clear in 4:88-90 quoted earlier, action is to be undertaken against an apostate when he engages in hostile behavior towards Muslims and the Muslim state. Fighting, punishing or killing an apostate has therefore nothing to do with a person's choice of creed but with his behavior towards the Muslims.
In answer to the video "What Does Kafir (Really) Mean?"
Severing of social ties must be made with apostates who were former hypocrites, especially in the context of war as in the verses that will be quoted, since these former Muslims used to hide their hatred and enmity from other Muslims, and now openly declare it, even striving to make them leave their religion
4:88-89"What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned?..They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike".
They are therefore to be cut off from the community to avoid the spread of their mischief
4:89"take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes)/hajiru in Allah's way".
Ties with them can only be restored when they decisively return to Islam (as indicated by the clause "fi sabilillah/for Allah's sake") and prove their faith to the rest of the community through difficult sacrifices such as leaving their homes and doing hijra in Allah's way, forsaking the domain of evil for an environment where they can practice their faith without restrictions, as the true believers were doing. If they do not do so then their expression of Islam is only for the purpose of spying and destruction, serving the purpose of those with whom Muslims are at war. In this case
4:89"if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper".
They must be executed because of their open and secret hostile activities. However if those apostates refuse to flee their homes in Allah's way but nevertheless end the threat from within the community, by migrating for
4:90"a people between whom and you there is an alliance"
or who decide to remain within the Muslim community but have decisively abandoned all hostilities
4:90"who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people..withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them".
This Quranic passage establishes the social ruling as regards apostasy. The Quran frames it exclusively in the context of war, which is also the historical context in which the early scholars of Islam discussed the law of apostasy. That is why neither the Quran nor the scholars impose a punishment solely for the act of apostasy, but when it is coupled with hostile activity, verbal or physical. Ridda is the word used in reference to those who engage in this multifaceted behavior. This historical perspective is often missed, disregarded or obscured whenever critics quote a saying from the prophet on apostasy, or the rulings of the fuqaha'. One can now understand the words of the prophet
"The one who leaves his religion AND SEPERATES from the community, kill him".
Here, the apostate is to be killed if he in addition severes all ties with the community. In those days, this amounted to joining enemy ranks. If the apostate remains in the community he is left unharmed. We thus see the prophetic practice in clear congruence with the aforementioned Quranic passage.
However even in times of peace, execution of an apostate is sometimes justified. In an Islamic state, Islam itself is what constitutes and legislates life on every level; administrative, economic, social etc. For a Muslim citizen to abandon Islam means to reject the law of the land. One cannot at the same time pledge to abide by those rules while rejecting the essence of the legislative authority, which is the Quran and the prophetic sunna. The entire system derives from these 2 pillars, and new laws are continuously formulated based on them. This constitutes a destabilizing factor on all levels of society; how can a government endure if people reject a system unanimously adopted by the community? Except under a tyranny, such an attitude is unjustifiable and is an existential threat to the state. That is why the jurists have legislated for the threat to be cut off from its onset, before it becomes a movement. The apostate on the other hand is free to leave the land and reside outside Islamic jurisdiction, or remain in it without making his apostasy public. But if he makes the apostasy and rejection of the system public, remains in Muslim land, he becomes de facto an outlaw and a destabilizing factor within society. Even if it is for the sake of converting to one of the non-Muslim groups of the Islamic land, the apostate still is guilty of rejecting the legislative authority. The non-Muslim groups on the other hand, pre-existed the Islamic state until it expanded to their lands. They never at any point rejected the legislative authority, but instead embraced it, along with the freedom of religion it grants them.
To further corroborate, under Uthman's caliphate, a man named Abdullah Ibn Saba and his followers deeply resented Uthman, favoring Ali instead whom they saw as a semi divine figure more eligible to be caliph. Their over exaltation of Ali took them outside the fold of Islam, making them apostates. Their true aim by feinting conversion was to spread political and social discord to destabilize the caliphate. They planned on capturing and killing Uthman should he refuse stepping down, and Uthman was eventually murdered. Ali eventually arrested them, exiled some of them and executed others. The fact some were exiled shows that although they were all considered apostates, they did not all qualify for the death penalty. The executions were not motivated by choice of creed, which isnt an endorsed practice by the Quran, but rather for the capital offense of fasad fil ard, which per the Quran warrants the death penalty. Although the brief and most authentic reports do not clearly say how this was done, some say that they were first burned then thrown into a ditch while others say they were first beheaded then had their lifeless bodies burnt. In both possible cases, Ali had done something which the prophet forbade; - the first potential misdeed was execution by fire. It is reported
"When we intended to depart, Allah's Apostle said, "I have ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so, and it is none but Allah Who punishes with fire, so, if you find them, kill them". In another report "We were with the Prophet and we passed by a colony of ants which had been burned, and the Prophet became angry and said, ‘It is not fitting for any man to punish with the punishment of Allah.”
- the second potential misdeed was mutilation of lifeless bodies. It is reported
"The Prophet forbade robbery (taking away what belongs to others without their permission), and also forbade mutilation (or maiming) of bodies.”
The traditions explain that this instruction is rooted in a Quranic verse
16:126"And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient".
This verse is said to have been revealed after the prophet had seen the violent manner in which his uncle Hamza's dead body had been ripped open and then threatened
"Never yet have i felt more anger than now i feel; and when next time God gives me victory over Quraysh, i will mutilate thirty of their dead".
This emotional, on the spot declaration was never fulfilled, and the prophet in addition forbade mutilation as shown above, in obedience to the Quranic directive. Even in warfare, killing must be swift, without recourse to inefficient weapons that cause unnecessary suffering
"The Prophet forbade the throwing of stones (with the thumb and the index or middle finger), and said "It neither hunts a game nor kills (or hurts) an enemy, but it gouges out an eye or breaks a tooth".
When ibn Abbas learned of what Ali had done (either burning or mutilating), he publicly rebuked him by appealing to the prophetic sunna mentioned above, which embarrassed Ali, hence his first reaction
"Wayh Ibn Abbas!".
Ali either knew about the prophet's commands but let his emotions overcome him in the execution of the right course, or had forgotten them. So he admitted his error and praised ibn Abbas for speaking the truth
"When ‘Ali was informed about it he said: How truly ibn Abbas said!"
In answer to the video "What Does Kafir (Really) Mean?"
The youtuber here is struggling and wants to know what is the Quranic stance on apostasy.
18:29,2:256"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing"
When 2:256 says there is no compulsion in religion, it also gives the reason for the prohibition of compulsion
"truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error".
The reason is that truth has been clearly explained, there is thus no need to enforce it. It is available for anyone to consider, while knowing the consequences of accepting or rejecting it. The clause on which the prohibition of force is based ie "truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error" was never reversed, whether before or after the "verses of the sword" meaning the effect must equally remain unchanged.
Islam requires that belief follows reason and understanding. There is no need for compulsion in a matter whose advantages and disadvantages are clearly defined and the reward and punishment for accepting or rejecting it well-explained
"the right way has become clearly distinct from error".
This is why the prophet is told that he is not a warder, keeper and guardian over those who turn away. Like all prophets that passed before him his task consists in warning and giving glad tiding to the people, he has no power to influence their freewill or force their belief 17:54,42:48,88:21-2. He should therefore let him disbelieve whoever wishes to 18:29 after making sure that the message has reached them 13:40 in the most kindly manner 6:108,16:125.
Also, anyone can leave Islam and come back time and time again without punishment or being killed 4:137 which bellies the idea of killing a person as a punishment for leaving Islam or wavering in his faith. However God will only accept his repentance if it is sincere 3:86-89 and not followed by constant periods of disbelief then belief 4:137. As reported by ibn Abbas
"A man from among the Ansar accepted Islam, then he apostatized and went back to Shirk. Then he regretted that, and sent word to his people (saying): 'Ask the Messenger of Allah [SAW], is there any repentance for me?' His people came to the Messenger of Allah [SAW] and said: 'So and so regrets (what he did), and he has told us to ask you if there is any repentance for him?' Then the Verses: 'How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their Belief up to His saying: Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful' was revealed. So he sent word to him, and he accepted Islam."
Nowhere does the Quran say a person must be punished or killed solely for the act of apostasy and all it mentions is that apostates shall face a terrible punishment in the Hereafter. This of course excludes those who apostize unwillingly, who are
3:86-91,16:106"compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith".
Such a person is compelled to renounce faith with his lips due to imminent danger on his life while he remains a firm believer in his heart. This is what is often referred to as taqiya. The Quran doesnt condone lying, rather commands to uphold one's pledges, to judge with equity, to speak justly, kindly, with integrity, without corruption, with the outward locution corresponding to the intent
4:5-9,135,6:152,2:83,235,3:32,70"O you who believe! Reverence God and speak justly".
It is further to be noted here, that although martyrdom in the cause of faith is highly meritorious, still the Quran absolves those who sincerely, not out of lack of faith, cannot go to such an extent because
2:233"no soul shall have imposed upon it a duty but to the extent of its capacity".
Saving life takes precedence over following the law. That is why a Muslim may eat pork if facing starvation. Exactly what Jesus taught in the Gospels when he transgressed the sabbath by citing David's example.
Punishment in the hereafter for the sin of apostasy is therefore solely the lot of the one who willingly, without any compulsion renounces Faith and:
"opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement".
In answer to the video "What Does Kafir (Really) Mean?"
In the HB and as corroborated by Jesus in the NT when he said to abide by it to the minute details, several types of wars are promulgated. Jesus by the way, is the one to have promulgated these laws in the first place, prior to his incarnation. So among these laws the pre-turn the other cheek Jesus instructed upon his subjects, is the compulsory command/mitzva among the 613 revealed at Sinai, binding on Jews of all times to destroy Amalek's seed Deut25:19 without showing any pity whenever the opportunity is there, and exterminate the remaining Canaanite nations from the land of Israel whenever any of them or their descendants are identified Deut20:16.
This is a timeless ordinance, as already said, part of the 613 binding commandements, and is thus an explicit order to genetically exterminate a certain people.
Every command within the Torah is understood as eternally binding and those that are inapplicable today due to the absence of a Temple will be reinstated in the utopian messianic era, where every nation will be forcefully subdued to the Jewish God Mal3:4,Deut30,Ezek11,36,37,Isa56:6-8,Zech14:16,Jere33:15-18,Ezek43:18-46:24. The eternally binding command to blot out Amalek's seed and other Canaanites, if one fails acting upon this law anytime a descendant of such tribes is genetically identified, then one becomes subject to divine anger as what happened to king Saul 1Sam28:18,1Chr10. Saul suffered a violent and dishonourable death. His household was decimated at the hands of the Philistines who also dispossessed his community. The same happened prior to the entire Israelite community that was sent for a 40 years desert wandering for their refusal to engage the promised land's natives in battle. Along with those known, compulsory genocidal warfare as described earlier, during which no atrocities towards men, women, children, cattle and plants may be spared, there are laws relating to optional warfare, for the sole purpose of Israel's "national glory" as labelled by their rabbis. In such cases any random nation the Israelites arbitrarily choose, and set themselves out to conquer can either be "peacefully" submitted, resulting in the enslavement and taxation of its population, or in case of their rejection of the "peace offer", a military subjugation resulting with the execution of all adult males, the capture as spoils of war of their women, children, and livestock
Deut20:10-14"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby".
In addition, 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. All these citations werent made to disparage the Bible, rather at pointing what would have been the outcome had the Quran been the product of human base desires, whims, greed and lust. The fact is the Ishmaelites went through almost identical situations as the Israelites in their confrontations with opposing tribes and nations, and yet we do not find anything remotely similar in terms of abuse and excess as is seen throughout the Hebrew writings, and by the hands of true prophets of God.
It is to be further noted that the Quran does allude to some episodes where the Israelites were confronted to, or were about to engage the Canaanites. Everytime, it refrains from mentionning the shocking acts which the Israelites have comitted. The Quran could have used these incidents as divinely sanctionned precedents allowing unrestricted bloodshed and abuses. Yet we keep on reading in the context of warfare, verses stressing self-restraint in retaliation, or the non-materialistic goals of fighting in Allah's way.
In answer to the video "What Does Kafir (Really) Mean?"
Until 9:29, the sura Tawba prescribed divine punishment upon 3 groups; the hypocrites among the Muslims, the treacherous warmongers among the idolaters, and those idolaters insisting on their pagan practices within the sacred precincts of Mecca.
No punishement is prescribed on the peaceful idolaters beyond Mecca, as well as those in Mecca that refrain from their rituals at the sacred sites re-dedicated strictly to the Islamic religion. They are to be left unharmed as mentionned earlier.
Nor is there until now any legal directive towards the remaining non-Muslims living under Muslim rule, whether in Mecca or beyond. This included the people of the book (Jews and Christians) or the followers of other belief systems, or even atheists
9:29"Fight those who believe not in God and nor in the Last Day and nor do they forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden and nor do they follow the religion/DEEN of truth from among the people of the book, till they give the compensation with a willing hand, while they are humble".
This verse, as attested by the prophetic practice, is not restricted to the people of the book. It covers any religion that was and could potentially fall under Muslim rule as a result of provoked warfare. The verse mentions 4 categories;
1- Those who do not believe in God
2- Those who reject the resurrection
3- Those who regard as lawful what Allah and the prophet have forbidden. Those that pass the 2 preceding criteria by believing in God and the concept of resurrection, should adhere to Islam as the only reasonable spiritual reality. If they make the choice not to, then they are believers in one of the many man made religions that does not forbid what Allah has forbidden through His prophet in the Quran and sunna. Or they might be from the people of the book, believers in God and the resurrection. Being sincere in their faith, they should, like the aforementioned group naturally enter the fold of Islam. The Quran speaks of them, those that remained truthful to the scriptures in anyway, shape or form it reached them, trying to follow it to the best of their ability. Their sincerity, unprejudiced, praiseworthy reading and understanding of their books led many of them to eventually believe in the revelation bestowed on the prophet Muhammad 2:121,83,3:113-115,199,4:162,5:13,66,69,83,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4. But those that make the choice not to, they remain as people of the book who despite their sincerity in faith, do not regard as forbidden what Allah and His messenger forbade.
4- Those who do not follow the DEEN of truth from among the people of the book. The root D-Y-N means rule or debt or any obligation. It may be summarized as "system". It is used this way in the Quran 9:36,12:76 classical literature and even in common Arabic speak. Whenever the preposition "mina" is used before a composite entity, or a group, and that this entity is given a qualification, then "mina" carries the meaning of "among", pointing to a portion from among that composite entity 4:46,160,5:5,23,41,57,107,8:65,57:10. "The Deen of truth" in that phrase cannot refer to Islam as a religion. One cannot speak of a portion from among the people of the book as being followers of Islam while others reject it. This speaks of the Jews and Christians whom the Quran in many places condemns as sinful, insincere to the truth of their own books. The praiseworthy among them, followers of "the deen of truth" were those included in the 3rd category.
None of the groups above are to be fought until they become Muslims. Rather until they pay the jizya in submission to the Islamic rule. That subjection is in relation to the Islamic system which they are now bound to, being permanent non Muslim residents under protection of the Muslim state. The majority of Muslim scholars have understood the passage in that way. See for example al-Shafi'i, Al-Umm, Vol. 4, Ahmad Mustafa al-Maraghi's Tafsir Vol. 10 or Fatani, Ikhtilaf al-Darin p48. This is also seen by the fact that the musta'min (a non Muslim temporary resident) is not subjected to the Islamic legal system nor the jizya, according to the Hanafi school. That subjection has thus nothing to do with humiliation, as some have interpreted, and without any evidence in the prophetic practice nor that of the first caliphs. Humiliation does occur however, when those non-Muslim residents of the Islamic state refuse to pay government taxes to the point they have to be forcefully made to. Just as Muslims, shortly after the prophet's death had to be fought, humbled, and forced to pay the government taxes under Abu Bakr's caliphate.
The order to fight therefore isnt motivated by a choice of creed otherwise the mere paying of a tax would not have been enough to end the fighting, rather a forceful conversion would. Yet that option is never proposed in the verse. The only issue for them is explicitly spelled out; Payment of taxes and submission to the laws of the religious state they live in as members of a different religion on whom different rights and obligations apply. The governement has actually more to gain in wealth and manpower if they convert, especially in early times when Muslims were a minority in these newly conquered lands. Yet they are told to keep their religion and autonomy instead.
Converting to Islam, something that isnt incumbent upon them, would end the command to fight them should they insist on not paying the jizya. But they will not escape being fought should they refuse honoring the duties that fall upon them as Muslims, including contributing financially to the functioning of the Islamic state, as well as obligations that did not apply to their former religious communities, like military service. There really is no true incentive for them to leave their religion which is why the option is never proposed in the verse.
The verses that follow illustrate some of the transgressions of the people of the book, and their causes, such as deification of prominent personalities, blind following of their religious leaders etc, while no blame is placed on them for not following Islam. These dark deviations in religion will never extinguish the light of guidance, no matter how much the disbelievers among the people of the book dislike it 9:32. The verse employs the image of a person attempting to extinguish a strong light with a blow from the mouth, to illustrate the relative feebleness of his position.
The passage ends with the reiteration of a prophecy made long before 48:28,61:9 regarding the prevailing of the deen/way of truth sent by the One true God over all other ways no matter how much the polytheists dislike it 9:33. The wording of this verse is very appropriate since it specifically mentions the polytheists, followers of non-divine religions, as disliking the establishment of the deen of truth. The people of the book, sincere to their scriptures as pointed earlier, will not dislike the establishment of a Godly system, since it does not only mean establishing Islam, but also exposing and establishing the truth of their own religion
5:83"And when they hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize".
The Jizya is a collective tax, not a head tax. It is imposed on the people of dhimma, the diminutive for dimmat Allah wa rasulih, the protection of God and His messenger. This connection demonstrates the significance of the dhimmis, making them eligible for protection under divine obligation. The prophet applied the command upon Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and according to some scholars like abu Hanifa, the pagans, based on a prophetic saying
"If they (Arab polytheists) accept the dhimmah contract (aqd al-dhimmah), then inform them that they have the same rights and duties as Muslims".
The jizya imposed on them is a collective tax because it is agreed upon by mutual consultation, not arbitrarily decided by the Muslim state. The nature of the compensation to the Muslim state varied depending on the capacities of each one. It was not always monetary and its amount was adaptable to each case.
The benefits which the government offers in exchange of the due jizya, are matters of communal and national interest - defending the territory from outside aggression, establishing security, maintaining the environment, building infrastructure, etc., not the sort of benefits you can opt out of. The earliest Muslim rulers even appointed a portion of the Muslim zakat to feed the needy among the people of the book, even though they were exempted from paying the jizya. When a Jew came asking the caliph Umar for money, he said
"go find him and those like him, and give them out of the public treasury".
It is known that together with the needy, the clergy was also exempted from the tax by the Muslim authorities. And yet they fully benefited from government services, including military protection and infrastructure. These exception to the rule of 9:29 are based upon strong and firm unconditional principles as regards the Muslim duty towards the weak in any society, and the preservation of the worship sites of the people of the book where the name of Allah is mentionned. There is thus a strong Quranic basis for the policy of most Muslim rulers, including as early as the caliph Umar, of being selective in the application of the jizya upon the people of dhimma.
Even though Jizya it is not a personal head tax, for the sake of argument, one can either pay taxes willingly, or be punished through several forceful means including jail in case of refusal, or leave the country. In a secular state the issue is pretty much the same. Special taxes will apply to alien residents, who in addition to having to compensate the state for providing them with benefits of all kind, must also exempt themselves from the obligations and rights that apply to the citizen of that state (military service, various taxes on salaries, financial regulations etc). Paying that tax will protect them from being pursued and punished by that government.
Some insidious critics like calling it "protection money". Every taxation system in the world is in fact aimed at providing protection; either by financing a system that preserves the well-being of the society as a whole, or by protecting against punishment, since failing to pay results in sanctions. Jizya is the rightful compensation demanded from the dhimmi, in exchange of the exemption from the laws, rights, obligations, penalties etc of that state religion in matters that do not concern the society as a whole. That is because the sharia for Muslim governance of non-Muslim citizens is that non-Muslims should not be forced to follow the moral laws dictated in the Quran.
The idea that this model oppressed non Muslim dhimmis to the point they preferred conversion is unfounded, without any historical and documented basis. It wasnt therefore a system aimed at enriching anyone, but a legitimate compensation for concrete services and exemptions. That is why non-Muslims that volontarily participated in the military were exempted from the tax. Those that paid the tax and werent properly served were refunded. For instance when Muslim ruled Syria was threatened with invasion by the Romans and the Muslim ruler doubted whether he would be able to protect the non-Muslims of that region, he hastily returned their jizya money which was supposed to be partly aimed at guarantying their protection. Abu Ubaydah ibn al Jarrah told the Christians they would be bound by the agreement again only if he is able to fend off the Roman invasion. The Christians consequently prayed for Muslim victory, knowing that the Romans would never behave with them in such a manner.
Under that system, non Muslims enjoy complete religious autonomy as long as it does not conflict with the state religion. For example selling alcohol publicly. Dhimmis may deliberate, individualy deny, or reform their religious laws to their liking and to fit their desires without any concern about the laws of the state, again, so long as no conflict occurs between the 2. For example it is well known that Christian and Jewish elites enacted laws preventing their people from resorting to a Muslim judge in cases where their own laws were unfavorable.
The misinformed critics arguing that jizya was an unfair system aimed at enriching the Muslim state may be thinking of the divinely blessed taxation and hoarding of riches and spoils by king David and his appointed governors in his conquests. This wealth was dedicated to the building of national religious edifices (on the ruins of other people's) 2Sam8,1Chr18:2,6,8,13,20:1-2,26;26-7 and meant for personal glory as well 2Sam12:29-31. The wise king and prophet Solomon would continue in this pattern, in line with the rules of the monarchy dictating that the king's expenditures (a "heavy yoke" that ultimately caused the scission of the kingdom of Israel after Solomon's death 1Kings12) should be collected indiscriminately, contrary to the jizya that spares the needy and weak 1Sam8:11 (some exemples of the daily rights, gifts and luxuries of the Jewish monarch to be brought forth by conquered nations in 1Kings5:1-7,9:14-15,27-28,2Chr27:5). Solomon similarily to David had appointed representents that collected his levy from Jews and non-Jews, the difference between the 2 groups being that when the conquered nations could not pay they were reduced to forced labor 1Kings9:21. Contrary to this subduing system aimed at benefiting a party and lowering another, going back to the days of Joshua (Josh16:10) and before, jizya partly financed the functioning of a society in which those who paid it were fully part of.
In answer to the video "What Does Kafir (Really) Mean?"
The youtuber here is struggling and wants to know what kafir means. Linguistically, the term in the Quranic language carries a wide range of understanding, from "non believer" to "active enemy of Allah" to "non adherer to the law of Allah, although not necessarily out of the fold of Islam" as in
5:47"And whoever does not judge by what Allah brought down, then those are the kafirun".
The common denominator is that the kafir is someone that willingly denies, conceals the truth and is so adamant to remain in his behavior that should even the best preacher call him to reform, he will not change his ways
2:6"Surely those who kafaru, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not yu'minun/safely trust (in the message)".
Here it must be noted, that the kafir label is most often wrongly assumed as generaly refering to all non Muslims yet the Quran itself in many places states that this cannot be the case. It does so, among other things, by exposing the limited knowledge of humans when they begin assuming and conjecturing on other people's spiritual condition. Towards the end of the Prophet's mission when it was thought that a clear line had been drawn between followers and rejecters of Islam, as a major conflict was about to erupt between the Muslims and the Meccans, God states that had it not been for Him withholding their hands from fighting, many Muslims in what was assumed to be the disbelieving camp would have been killed by Muslims 48:25. In other places it quotes members of Jewish and Christian communities joining Islam during their declaration of faith, saying that
28:53"We believe in it surely it is the truth from our Lord; surely we were submitters before this".
There are several such verses, and when one understands the fact that a kafir, one whose spirituality is sealed in Quran terminology is one bent on a willful repetitive misbehavior, then such label cannot be used haphazardly on anyone outside the fold of Islam.
In 57:20 the tiller of the soil is called, without any pejorative implication, a kafir. This is because he literally is "one who covers", when he covers the seed with earth. The night is spoken of as having "covered" (kafara) the earth with darkness. Allah covers, yukaffir, the sins of those who will enter heaven 48:5. In their abstract sense, and as already noted, both the verb and the nouns derived from it have a connotation of "concealing" something that exists as Allah says when He covers/kafara the evil deeds of the people 5:65. When used for someone it has the connotation of "denying" something that is true. It relates to man's deliberate suppression of his inborn cognition of God's existence 7:172, acting against his spiritual senses 76:2,46:26 and innate understanding of good and evil 91:7-8.
She was originally another Muslim's war captive. The prophet asked the companion to give her to him and choose another woman from among the captives (some versions say he selected 7). The prophet then proceeded to free her without any preconditions, (as he bought and freed many other slaves and encouraged all who could afford to do the same) and only then married her. Her manumission was considered her dower.
Her father had died during the siege of Khaybar. The prophet's marriage to her alleviated her tragedy by keeping her former dignity as the daughter of a ruler. It also created a rapprochement with one of the greatest Bani Israel tribes of the Arabian peninsula, as was the custom in ancient times. She died in 36AH. Being an Israelite, the Muslims in general did not see the prophet's marriage to her as an extension of their ethnicity, so as to begin freeing their own captives as many did with the Bani Mustaliq upon the prophet's marriage to Juwayriyyah.
"We conquered Khaibar and gathered the captives. Dihyah came and said: 'O Prophet of Allah, give me a slave girl from among the captives.' He said: 'Go and take a slave girl.' He took Safiyyah bint Huyayy. Then a man came to the Prophet and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, you gave Dihyah Safiyyah bint Huyayy, and she is the chief mistress of Quraizah and An-Nadir, and she is fit for no one but you.' He said: 'Call him to bring her.' When the Prophet saw her, he said: 'Take any other slave girl from among the captives.'" He said: "The Prophet of Allah set her free and married her".
In other versions, together with her status, her beauty was also mentioned to the prophet. How much of that "beauty" corresponds the reality is lost in history. The prophet in fact would defend her whenever anyone derided her appearance, more specifically her short stature
"She said: "I said: 'O Messenger of Allah! Safiyyah is a woman who is ..." and she used her hand as if to indicate that she is short - "So he said: 'You have said a statement which, if it were mixed in with the water of the sea, it would pollute it"
or when her co-wives would derogatorily mention her Jewish heritage
"So the Prophet said: 'And you are the daughter of a Prophet, and your uncle is a Prophet, and you are married to a Prophet, so what is she boasting to you about?'"
Her marriage to the prophet wasnt contracted until after her menses had cleared up with certainty
"and when we reached a place called Sidd-as-Sahba, Safiya became clean from her menses then Allah’s Apostle married her".
The waiting period of the widow did not apply in her case as a woman's former marriage is dissolved upon her capture in war. Had the prophet disregarded that ruling or forgotten it, the marriage would have been contracted regardless of the menstrual period clearing up or not.
The prophet certainly married her soon after her manumission so as to not leave her in suspense, neither did he want to injure her dignity by keeping her as his right hand possession. He wanted to raise her status and honor to the rest of the community and his wives. This does not mean that the marriage was consummated at that point. It could have been during that trip between Khaybar and Sidd-as-Sahba, where several reports depict the prophet's first interactions and dialogues with her. In those reports the prophets begins by scolding his faithful companion Bilal. He had been insensitive in making her pass by her dead husband. He then gently explained the reason of his conflict with her tribe in consequence to her own father's crimes and incitements. She would later remember, in her own words, how the prophet's gentle explanation convinced and appeased her heart (al-Bayhaqi's Dalail Al Nubuwa). He then gave her a choice between remaining a Jew and going back to her people or converting to Islam and marrying him, and according to Ibrahim Bin Ja’far she willfully chose to convert and marry him. During that whole time she did not say a word about her dead husband, although she did mention her other dead relative, her father.
This most probably could have been due to her actually resenting him as she described how he had just recently, prior to the siege of Khaybar, struck her face out of jealousy. He interpreted a dream which she shared with him as a hidden desire to actually leave him and marry the prophet (ibn Ishaq).
This also denies the report from al Waqidi, a narrator universally regarded as a liar and forger of hadiths, where a companion supposedly guarded the prophet's door while he was spending the night with Safiyya, fearing that she might kill the prophet in revenge.
It is also to be noted that all of the prophet's wives were free to leave him anytime they wanted, as a divine command, even for the pettiest reasons, without the slightest reproach or injury
33:28-29"O Prophet, say to thy wives, `If you desire the life of this world and its adornment, come then, I will provide for you and send you away in a handsome manner; `But if you desire ALLAH and HIS Messenger and the Home of the Hereafter, then, truly, ALLAH has prepared for those of you, who do good, a great reward".
No muslim, and no man of any culture is required to go out of his way and ask his wife if she is happy and satisfied enough in all material aspects, especially when one is just with the wife in relation to one's financial capabilities. Further, no muslim or man in general is required to offer divorce if the wife is unhappy. On top of it, not simple divorce, with each partner going his/her way, which would be fairest in this case, but a "gracious" divorce, where the wife is free to leave as well as receive compensation if she chooses to. Yet this is what was required of the prophet, contrary to all muslims, a man supposedly seeking multiple marriages of lust.
Why would the noble prophet give her that option if he knew he had abused her, that she hated him, while he could have simply kept her as a right hand possession whose request for separation from her guardian wouldnt be as straight forward as in a divorce? None of the facts agree with the hatemongers's tall tales and their attempts at disparaging the prophet and his household.
These critics, mainly from a Judeo-Christian background, often operate with their corrupt Biblical paradigms in mind, in this case reflecting their shame of having David, one of the greatest Biblical prophets, murdering an innocent man, not even from among his enemies, but among his own faithful people, for the sole purpose of covering up for his secret affair with a married woman. It is but normal that they would expect similar behavior from other prophets or prophet claimants, although their own charges against the prophet Muhammad pale in comparison to the shameful depiction the biblical scribes have made of past prophets.
Safiyya willfuly stayed with the prophet, establishing a warm and friendly relation with the rest of the household and became known for her piety and ascetism. She had maintained connection, even after the prophet's death, with her Jewish relatives.
The Hebrew Bible sanctionned letter for letter by Jesus, allows the extermination of entire population save their virgins, regardless of age. All visibly mature women are killed while the visibly virgin, meaning children, are distributed among the invading Israelites Numbers31:17-18etc. The Hebrew speaks of "every woman who can lie with a man" in contrast to the "young girls who have no experience of intimate relation with a man". The text is thus clearly speaking in terms of physical appearance. Obviously the soldiers weren't going around verifying each captive's private parts to distinguish the virgins. Those children may be disposed of according to one's whims, as the passage gives no regulation in the matter. This is in the context of genocidal warfare, binding on Jews of all times where specific nations must be annihilated, like the Amalekites and six other Canaanite nations and any of their descendants whenever they are identified Deut20:16,25:19.
In another context, that of optional warfare, Deut21 instructs the soldiers to marry the captive he lusts for, prior to sexual intimacy. She has no choice and say in the matter. She is brought to the soldier's household, her hair trimmed (the Hebrew does not mean shaved off), nails shortenned, previous clothes put aside, and given a month to mourn her decimated family, right in front of her captors' eyes v13. The passage only mentions her murdered parents, which implies again she could be very young, or mature and unmarried (unlikely in those days for a woman that is so attractive that the soldier lusts after), or with a husband who is still alive. The altering of her physical appearance is understood differently among the commentators, some seeing it as a means by which she is beautified, and others that she is made purposefully unattractive. If after that process the Jewish man still lusts for her, he may then marry her, keeping her alongside the "preferred" wife. If not, she is simply abandonned to fend off for herself, returning to whatever is left of her ravaged home.
As already said, Numbers31 and Deut21 are contextually unrelated. This undermines the argument that marriage is always a precondition to sexual intimacy. In Numbers31 the option of forced marriage isnt given as the female captive is from among the nations whom the Israelites are to be at war with forever, whose population, men women and children, are to be mercilessly killed to the last one by divine decree. Marrying from among their captives would contradict that ordinance. In Deut21, the context is that of optional wars, whose targets are people outside those concerned by the decree of extermination, hence the option of forceful marriage. In that sub-category, the Israelites are permitted to prey on the weak nation of their choice, subdue and abuse its people as they wish. These are the wars labelled up to this day by the rabbis as wars of "national glory". This isnt a war necessary for the survival of the Jewish people, or in response to provocation, not even under divine injunction. In such a case a random nation is given the choice between a "peaceful" surrender, that would result in the enslavement and taxation of its population, or in case of their rejection of the "peace offer", a military subjugation resulting in the execution of all adult males, the capture as spoils of war of their women, children, and livestock Deut20:10-14.
Should it be necessary to completely subdue that nation
2Kings3:19"you shall fell every good tree, and you shall stop up all springs of water, and you shall clutter every good field with stones".
In the land of Canaan, those natives that werent driven out or exterminated as per the Torah's injunctions during the invasion, were subdued into slavery Josh17:13. Their descendants suffered the same fate under Solomon's rule 1Kings9:20-1. After all and as stated in both the HB and the Talmudic writings (Eleazar ben Shammua) , the purpose of creation and the reason why the heavens and earth are maintained is for the chosen race to observe Torah.
That is what the Quran would have looked like, and how it would have instructed its people to behave towards the foreign nations and the weak that come under their possession, had it been penned by the ancients of its time to whom such attitude was regarded as expected and acceptable. The Quran changed the way such categories of people that already existed in the society it came to reform, had to be treated. It did so by igniting the believers' taqwa/God-consciousness, elevating the status of such weak categories whom there was now no shame of marrying 4:3,25,24:32,33:50 and honoring them as one would honnor the closest family members 4:36.
That these mulk yamin cannot be forced into intimacy by the guardian is exemplified through the story of prophet Yusuf, bought as a slave and whom his mistress wanted to abuse sexually under the threat of emprisonnement. The Quran condemns such action, calls it an indecency/fahisha for the owner of a slave to have intercourse with him/her under compulsion 12:24 a grave fault and a manifest error 12:29-30. It is to be noted that the right hand possessions in Islam are people of both sexes as seen in
24:33"And (as for) those (Walladheen) who ask (Yabtaghoona) for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess give them the writing (Fa Kaatibuuhum)"
Ma Malakat aymanikum must cover both males and females because if they were only females it should be "wallaati" or "wallaa'i" instead of Walladheen, "yabtaghuna" (without the waw) instead of Yabtaghoona, "Fa Kaatibuuhuna" instead of Fa Kaatibuuhum. Just as the Quran condemned Yusuf's mistress from acting against her servant's desire to remain chaste, the Quran again prohibits the guardian from acting contrary to his mulk yamin/right hand possession's desire for chastity such as by forcing her into prostitution as was the custom in pre-islamic times. If he does so, despite the prohibition then the abused woman is certainly not to blame due to her weak background 24:33.
In 4:36 the Quran speaks of how they must be treated with kindness, without pride as one would treat the parents, neighbors or the weak in society. This means their guardians cannot abuse them in anyway just as one would not abuse the other groups mentionned in the verse
"He who slaps his slave or beats him, there is no expiation for this but to free him".
As the prophet here clearly instructs, physical abuse is a transgression that must be expiated.
The poor believer who cannot sustain a free believing woman/muhsana is told to marry a chaste MMA -since some were forced into prostitution by their guardians- and after taking her guardian's consent 4:25. Such MMA must be given their dowries justly and in case they commit an indecency only half the punishment of the self sustained women may be inflicted on them due to their past hardships and difficult upbringing that may have affected their common sense and judgement. This means that even after marrying, the mulk yamin still have a special status of clemency for their wrong-doings compared to other women. The verse ends by recommending the poor believer that it would be better for him to refrain from such union with someone elses' mulk yamin. In practice, although providing a short term solution for someone desiring to stay away from fornication, it could eventually lead to tension with the former guardian. In addition the poor believer will not be able to provide for her in the long run despite her status as stated in 24:33 where a poor man is told to remain chaste until his financial situation improves. This is a situation where the Quran clearly allows an issue that could potentially be harmful, which is why it discourages it, in order to prevent the occurrence of a greater harm which is fornication. It is interesting that some commentators have seen, among the "difficulties" arising from such unions the fact that, should the guardian not manumit his slave girl upon her marriage, then the child born will as a fact be born in bondage. The reality is this situation would burden the guardian with maintaining a child, in addition to the servant who is now less disposed to household chores as she is now split between caring for her husband, serving her guardian's household, and own child. That is why in pre-Islamic times and early Islam, guardians were quick to sell off their female servants when they conceived of a child. And that is besides taking into consideration this servant being married to another. But because the prophet forbade selling off a servant who conceives of a child, then practically this left the guardian with either the most logical choice of manumitting the slave girl, or much less probably keeping her as a burden. This is the pragmatism of Islam, and the prophetic sunna in its approach to slavery.
The Quran thus opens many different options to those categories, besides encouraging their kind treatment. In 4:3 Allah is commanding the believers who has orphans under his care towards whom he fears not to fulfill all his responsibility to marry up to 4 women but if he thinks he cannot deal in fairness with multiple wives, to marry
"only one or/aw Ma Malakat Aymanukum",
meaning a legal wife for a man who fears not to deal justly between mutliple wives can be either a regular woman who is protected and supported/muhsana OR Ma Malakat Ayman already in his possession. Therefore marrying malakat ayman according to 4:3, and other passages like 4:25 above, is as acceptable as marrying a normal woman and further 24:32 strongly encourages men and women to marry from their male/female slaves as an act of virtue.
