Apostate prophet prepares the beating stick; can violence be justified?

In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"

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 deterrant 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.

This 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. If it reflected the mentality of its contemporaries then it wouldnt have addressed the issue from such an intricately psychological perspective. 

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.

4:19"..Nor should ye treat them with harshness..on the contrary 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"

Apostate prophet against slavery; What are right hand possessions?

In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"

Besides those that already existed in the society and households before Islam, ma malakat aymanukum are not free persons randomly captured and enslaved or acquired through trade since the Quran only allows the enslavement of captives taken in defensive war campaigns, and only after the threat of war has been subdued meaning their seizure could not be an objective of going to war 8:67,47:4.

In fact the prophet dismissed from fighting those that were more preoccupied with the prospect of capturing potential concubines.

Ma malakat aymanukum, simplicticly rendered "concubines" by the opponents of Islam, are people from both genders, men or women, who were neither freed as a favor nor ransomed, but singled out from the rest of the captives and taken under a guardian's wing in his household because obviously not all captives were taken in. They also become sexually lawful outside wedlock to the guardian that has taken charge of them. It is to be noted here, although they can be treated as concubines, this however does not mean that they systematically were.

The prophet had in his household several such women living side by side with his wives, to aid and assist for the daily and nightly tasks of receiving at anytime people seeking all kinds of advises and help. The right hand posessions are people from both genders as already pointed

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

Ma Malakat aymanikum must cover both males and females because if they were only females it should be "wallaati" or "wallaa'i" instead of Walladheen, "yabtaghuna" (without the waw) instead of Yabtaghoona, "Fa Kaatibuuhuna" instead of Fa Kaatibuuhum.

This further proves that the expression, right hand posession does not automatically denote concubine relationship, and anyone claiming the opposite should be able to prove that it was accepted for male or female guardians to have sexual relations with their male right hand posession. Verses such as 24:33,58 speak of those MMA and how they should mingle with the rest of the household. 16:71 is a warning to those guardians who fail to live up to their moral and material responsibilities towards those categories under their care, stating that such failure ammounts to a denial of God's blessings and of His unceasing care for all His creatures.

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

Just as the Quran condemned Yusuf's mistress from acting against her servant's desire to remain chaste, the Quran again prohibits the guardian from acting contrary to his mulk yamin's desire for chastity such as by forcing her into prostitution as was the custom in pre-islamic times. If he does so, despite the prohibition, then the abused woman is certainly not to blame due to her weak background 24:33. In 4:36 the Quran speaks of how they must be treated with kindness, without pride as one would treat the parents, neighbors or the weak in society. This means their guardians cannot abuse them in anyway just as one would not abuse the other groups mentionned in the verse

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

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

The poor believer who cannot sustain a free believing woman/muhsana is told to marry a chaste MMA -since some were forced into prostitution by their guardians- and after taking her guardian's consent 4:25. Such MMA must be given their dowries justly and in case they commit an indecency only half the punishment of the self sustained women may be inflicted on them due to their past hardships and difficult upbringing that may have affected their common sense and judgement. This means that even after marrying, the mulk yamin still have a special status of clemency for their wrong-doings compared to other women. The verse ends by recommending the poor believer that it would be better for him to refrain from such union with someone 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.

Apostate prophet follows the steps; Quran offers marital advise?

In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"

Prior to the "beating" portion, first, the verse urges admonishement. 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 physicaly. 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 irrationaly 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 immidiately want to beat his wife, but the verse prevents that impulse, telling him to engage the situation rationaly 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".

Apostate prophet is shocked; Islam permits domestic abuse?

In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"

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".

Apostate prophet tries to be balanced; multiple male marriages?

In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"

As a side issue, one might ask why the regulation doesnt apply to women as well (polyandry). Aside from the basic issues of uncertain descendancy, a woman becomes undisposed to satisfy the most basic physical or sexual needs of her multiple husbands. IT is the case during her menstrual period or while pregnant. Also, from a strict biological viewpoint, a woman can only carry and conceive one child at a time and from one man only, for nine months before she can conceive another. A man on the other hand can beget a child every time he cohabits with a woman. Polyandry opposes these very elementary socio-biological issues. That is why it is practiced by very few societies that seek to limit population growth, with a purely materialistic outlook. For example, polyandry in the Himalayan mountains is related to the scarcity of land. The marriage of all brothers in a family to the same wife allows family land to remain intact and undivided.

Apostate prophet exposes Jesus' religion; Biblical polygamy?

In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"

Mosaic Law made no prohibition on male premarital or extramarital sexual activity so long as the women involved were not the property of another Jew. A Jewish male could acquire as many wives as he could afford, and also avail himself of the services of concubines, female war captives of any age regardless of them being married or not Deut21:10-17,Num31:17-18.

This was the case with the most eminent of their religious figures, including Abrahama, Moses, David or the wise king Solomon who were all polygamists, down to the regular members of society, including the priestly clan of the Levites 1Sam1:1-2.

Jacob counted 2 living sisters among his wives, which is against Torah law hence the various rabbinic explanations to the problem of having the father of the Jewish nation violating a future prohibition. Torah sets no limits to the number of wives Ex21:10,Deut21:15 although it vaguely warns Israelite rulers (not common people) against having "too many" wives Deut17:17.

Some Jewish comentators have argued, based on rabbinical discussions in the Talmud, that the maximum number of wives in all cases shouldnt exceed 18. Polygamy is at the foundation of the Jewish nation. It even was and is still seen as a good deed, the best fulfillement of the eternally binding command to "be fruitful and multiply", so much so that it can hasten the messianic age. It was practiced throughout the Talmudic period, with the legislation saying that a man can have as many wives as are willing to marry him (as long as he can support them) without any hint to it being an immoral or abnormal practice. It was such a well established part of the social system that Mosaic law is not even critical of it. We find only certain regulations with respect to it but that were not practiced in reality as seen with David and Solomon's cases whose prophethood and kingship are never questionned despite their "transgressions". I

It was not until the 10th century and the rabbinic ban upon it specifically on the Ashkenazic fringe, that made the issue controversial. If it wasnt a widespread practice, there would be no need to issue such a forceful amendment. Jews needed to accomodate for the Christian host nations that forbade the practice, fearing further isolation and persecutions from a people that already resented them.

Contrary to their other host nations, namely the Muslims, Christian tradition isnt a continuation of Jewish tradition but of Greek and Roman pagan traditions, society and morality. Ancient Greeks, including the likes of Plato and Socrates, the supposedly great philosophers saw homosexuality, which they practiced and lauded, as the highest symbol of manhood. Women were inconvenient breeders, not ideal partners. Although Christianity somewhat discouraged homosexuality, it adopted this Greek attitude towards women and normal relations between men and women, adding the whole negative, evil spin to it.

Christians try interpreting the polygamy verses as if it is talking of marriage after divorce or death of a wife which is absurd since it says such marriage should not lead one to diminish any of the wife's conjugal rights, ie the first wife's of which the preceding verse clearly speaks of. Jesus does not oppose polygamy and even uses it in his parable to make his point about readiness for the kingdom Matt25. This was the perfect occasion for him to oppose it or criticize it, but doesnt at all. He features it, meaning giving it tacit approval. From this noninterference attitude Luther, as late as the 16th century, arrived at the conclusion that he could not forbid the taking of more than one wife.

The Quran clearly alludes to the fact that as per the norms of human nature, the real benefits and advantages of the institution of family manifest themselves in a monogamous family. And despite fully endorsing, and not limiting polygamy neither quantitatively nor contextualy, the HB too speaks of the preference for a man to be united with a single wife Gen2:24.

Apostate prophet finds a double edged sword; polygamy inapplicable?

In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"

One might ask, why would it be allowed to marry more than one with the condition to deal equitably with all wives when the Quran itself states in 4:129 that such condition cannot be fulfilled even if one sincerely tries?

The fact is the two verses together 4:3,129 are addressing that conditional clause of equity towards wives from two perspectives to create mutual understanding from all parties involved:

- the perspective of the women, by saying in 4:3 that they have the right to equitable treatement and the man must be aware of that right regardless of his will to care for the orphans

- the perspective of the man, by saying in 4:129 that he will not be able to be perfectly just with all wives no matter how hard he sincerely tries. The women should be aware of the husband's sincere will to be just between them even he fails. They should keep in mind that the true objective of such unions is caring for the orphans. Allah is this way absolving the husband's shortcomings who is sincerely trying to be just with his wives for the sake of orphans and at the same time creating an understanding from the part of the wives, again for the sake of orphans. Although the verse absolves the husband from shortcomings, and the wives implicitly asked to be understanding, the husband then is explicitly warned he may not abuse of that forbearance to the point of injuring emotionally the wife he is less inclined to

"but be not disinclined (from one) with total disinclination, so that you leave her as it were in suspense".

This shows that the conditional clause of equity between wives in 4:3 covers the obvious and basic rights, not the shortcomings of a man sincerely trying to make a complex union work for the sake of orphans. From the point of view of the woman who fears she might be disdained, left aside, then there is the option of finding an arrangement, with one party compromising on its position so as to maintain the marriage ties 4:128. If none are willing to compromise then a divorce procedure is initiated.

Apostate prophet exposes multiple marriages; caring for orphans?

In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"

Yateem, (plur. yatama) is derived from Y-T-M meaning alone. It is used for a child who lost one or both parents, or for a widow.

The verse answers the guardian's fear with a solution; marrying up to four women, not any, but specific ones preceded by the definite article "..marry from THE women...". Which specific women are best suited to share that burden of responsibility? The mother of the orphan first and foremost. By taking them in his household, the husband is bound to provide for them as he would do with a regular wife and children, as well as giving them increased advantages, which includes, possible inheritence in case the adoptive father dies and leaves a will for them, in addition to what must be given to the orphan even if there is no will 4:8.

The mother of the orphan could also use her dower for the orphan's wellbeing, if she wishes. Marrying the mother of an orphan taken under care, may also fill the emotional gap of a child with no father. Marrying these widows, or taking another woman or maiden (whose job included raising the chidlren of a household) in case the orphan's mother is dead with the purpose of caring for one's orphan, solves the conditional clause of fear not to "act equitably towards orphans". T

he difficult responsibility of sustaining the orphan physically and emotionnaly, protecting his/her rights, wealth and property is this way shared by both parents. Something to keep in mind is that Muslims are urged and obligated, per the divine law, to help the weak in society, including widows and orphans. Marriage isnt and never was a precondition to get the needed help. The verse is addressing a group among those that already have orphans under their wing, those who fear for the slightest inadvertent injustice towards them. These highly pious guardians are given a solution, in the form of a recommendation to help solve that fear. One can always involve himself further in a charitable endeavor and this can be argued to be amongst the most advanced manners of doing so.

Another thing to keep in mind while trying to understand the verse, simply is the context. 4:3 is speaking of orphans in general, not gender specific, and is a continuation of

4:2"And give to the orphans their property, and do not substitute worthless (things) for (their) good (ones), and do not devour their property (as an addition) to your own property; this is surely a great crime".

Therefore the next verse must be at least talking about the same orphans, whom one fears not to act fairly towards and the solution to that problem is given in the same verse

"marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four".

The whole passage until v6 is speaking of orphaned children and how the trustee is to manage their lives and property the best possible way. Should these instructions not be enough to satisfy a believer's fear of not being fair towards orphans under his care, then as proposed in 4:3 one may marry women who would share the burden of responsibility, these women being first and foremost the widowed mothers of these orphans.

In the verse 4:3, orphans is in the plural, that is because a Muslim guardian could take multiple orphans under his care, especially during times of war as in the context of revelation, or any other situation where the number of men is largely reduced. The Quran has stated that the limitation of this permission is left to a maximum of four women because

"this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course".

A person may come under the impression that he can marry however many of these women he wants, in order to take care of orphans, but the Quran states that the very purpose of the injunction can be compromised the more woman that are married. Quantity isnt always the best, and people need to take into account their own abilities when trying to help other people.

Another important statement in the verse, in connection to determining the number of wives, is the phrase

"Ma Taba Lakum".

TABA is related to goodness, rather than liking. So the guardian's decision cannot be dictated by mere desire/liking, but for what brings more goodness to the person and what brings more goodness is what brings the person closer to God, in this case, reinforcing the idea that the wife must be most suited in securing the orphan's rights, and this primarily means the orphan's mother. Because of these very reasons, that they were marriages with a moral reason, more so compatibility or personal liking, it often led to situations where the husband would leave this new wife in a state as if she wasnt necessarily wanted.

The Quran warns the man not to do this a little later on in 4:127. He must do his best to give her rights, material, physical, emotional, as a married woman. All married women deserve such rights, not only mothers of orphans, as stated earlier in the sura. 4:127 reminds the men of these things, while refocusing them on equity towards the orphans of those very women, so as to restress the sensitivity of the issue

"And they ask you a decision about women. Say: Allah makes known to you His decision concerning them AND that which is recited to you in the Book concerning yatama annisa'/the orphans of "the women whom you do not give what is appointed for them while you desire to marry them",

and concerning the weak among children, and that you should deal towards orphans with equity; and whatever good you do, Allah surely knows it".

It isnt because he has done her a favor by improving her socio-economical situation, that the guardian is to forgo the marital rights of the orphans' mother. It is a marriage contract like with any other woman and her subsequent treatment must be just and fair like with a regular wife. And if the situation results in injustice to another party, then it should not be resorted to

"but if you fear that you will not do justice between them, then marry only one or what your right hands possess; this is closer that you be just".

Apostate prophet in search of the Islamic tablets; Sharia set in stone?

In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"

Contrary to Islamophobic rant and media, there is no such thing as "Islamic law" insofar as there exists list of rules that are fixed and immutable. Even among issues on which there is temporary ijma'/consensus the classical hanbali and shafi'i jurists reject the notion that the doors of ijtihad are closed. The hanafi jurists practiced ijtihad to resolve legal issues in the Ottoman era. In more recent times, even the most prominent advocate of salafism (return to the pristine origins of Islam), who is none other than Muhammad ibn abd al Wahhab, was a staunch anti-taqleed (imitation of previous scholars), advocating the return to the Quran and hadith rather than relying on a centuries long inherited corpus of laws from medieval times.

The Quran is not Deuteronomy or Leviticus and their fixed, eternal immutable laws that will be reinstated at the end of times.

As a side note this negates the Christian notion of 10 "comandements" open to interpretation. Jesus doesnt even quote from those "comandements" when asked which is the most important. The reason for that is that these 10 things arent even laws but classifications which the 613 immutable laws fall under.

The Quran therefore explicitly addresses only a handful of principle issues, leaving the rest to the Prophetic Sunna. These are the transmitted Oral records of the teachings, deeds and sayings, silent permissions or disapprovals of the prophet, as well as various reports of his companions and household. That prophetic sunna itself is largely concerned with matters of worship and the basic foundation of social, human justice.

That is why the biggest part of the Sacred Law is the result of a jurist' own independent mental deductions, which is called in Islamic law, ijtihad. If one looks at the compilations of the Traditions, the chapters concerning ritual worship are far longer than those on social transactions. The reason is that acts of ritual worship are independent of changes throughout time. In contrast, social transactions require explanation according to the changes in circumstances and eras. Binding people with fixed and uniform rules would be harsh and inconvenient.

There is thus very little room for analogical reasoning in matters of ritual worship, while in social transactions it operates on a very wide scale. In the Quran too, the commands regarding transactions are mostly framed in general and universal terms. Malik ibn Anas, the author of the Muwatta', rejected a suggestion by the Abbasid caliph Abu Jaafar al-Mansur to enforce his juristic doctrines as the law of the land. The caliph said

“I have decided to copy your book, send one copy of it to each of the regions of the caliphate, and order [the people] to abide by it and not leave it to anything else”. Malik replied “O leader of the faithful, do not do so, for people have already learnt certain views and known certain traditions, and the inhabitants of each region have adhered to one or the other of the different opinions of the Companions of God’s Apostle and others according to which their religious practice has been shaped. Preventing them from that will be hard, so leave people to their practice and to what they have chosen for themselves".

It is to be noted that following the prophet, the successive leaders of the Muslim nation that came after the 4 caliphs (AbuBakr-Umar-Uthman-Ali) progressively carried on political roles rather than religious. This became the field of the ulama'. The result of the aforementioned pragmatism is that very few laws are set in stone, leading to much diversity in legal Muslim opinion. Therefore, a clear distinction should be made between the jurists’ rulings based on Islamic sources and the rulings based on their personal opinions. Muslim jurists have always developed different rulings based on their interpretations and contextualization of the texts compared with the ever changing contexts that have surrounded them.

This is the wisdom of the final revelation, leaving many matters open to interpretation to allow flexibility in matters that may be contingent on circumstances and human experiences as Islam crosses various civilizations, generations, and eras. One of the seven renowned jurists of Madinah, Imam al-Qasim b. Muhammad. Abi Bakr (d.107H) stated,

“The differences amongst the companions of the Prophet Muhammad are a mercy for the servants of God”.

A person once informed the great jurist Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d.241H) that a book had been written called “The Book of Differences”, and he responded that it should instead have been called “The Book of Flexibility”. The prophet himself encouraged this kind of analogical reasoning in social matters. When he was about to send Muadh ibn Jabal to Yemen, he asked

“How will you judge when the occasion of deciding a case arises?” He replied: “I shall judge in accordance with God’s Book.” He asked: “[What will you do] if you do not find any guidance in God’s Book?” He replied: “[I shall act] in accordance with the Sunnah of God’s Apostle”. He asked: “[What will you do] if you do not find any guidance in the Sunnah of the Apostle of God and in God’s Book?” He replied: “I shall do my best to form an opinion and I shall spare no effort.” The Apostle of God then patted him on the chest and said: “Praise be to God, Who has helped the messenger of the Apostle of God to find something which pleases the Apostle of God”.

Many religious commands within the Quran are thus ambiguously framed, as a mercy and leniency. Believers are encouraged to leave them as they are instead of seeking a firm and definite interpretations 5:101-2.

This principle allows jurists to define according to their own time, space and circumstances what constitutes offenses like fasad fil ard. Whatever the conclusion be, it must be in accordance with the principles of morality and wisdom laid down in the Book. In 5:33-4 for instance, the type of crime spoken of isnt a one time offence with limited impact on the society but a steady and repeated evil, without any sign of abating, with far reaching consequences and that destabilize the society as a whole. The passage's historical background is that of a group of people who came to Medina, they ate, rested and later in the day robbed and butchered an innocent shepherd to pieces. These criminals then cut the limbs, decapitated the shepherd(s), gouged their eyes out. After they fled, they also went on to rape women.

Secular societies have hundreds of changing, evolving laws enacted throughout the centuries by groups holding completely different worldviews. And although the Sharia law, and even the many Mosaic laws, has much less number of laws, life in a secular environment seems freer and more agreeable. This is due to Sharia not seeking to conform to the changing human whims, and their base desires. The secular system on the other hand is permissive in the essential aspects of the individual, including, sexuality, gender interaction or spirituality, which is very appealing.

Apostate prophet wants social justice; Islamic polygamy is mysogynistic?

In answer to the video "10 Reasons to Reject Islam"

4:3"And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry from the women that seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice between them, then marry only one or what your right hands possess; this is closer that you be just".

Contrary to popular opinion, the verse is not addressing the issue of polygamy in a general sense, a pre-existing practice, but that of polygamy in a narrowed down context, that of safeguarding the orphans' rights. The reason the Quran only speaks of and limits polygamy in that context, is because these types of relationships hardly if ever run smoothly and therefore should be reserved for the achievement of higher objectives.

It is clear from the opening statement, positing the situation of one with orphans under care, fearing for the just management of their rights

4:3"And IF you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, THEN marry..."

The verse is therefore silent on polygamy in a general sense, neither allowing nor forbidding it, but by only mentioning one case to which it applies, clearly hints to the preferred way to apply the practice, moralizing it, laying down the basis for the intricate perspective that must be considered if a man wishes to marry more than one woman.  However it is to be noted, this doesnt mean that polygamy outside the context of caring for orphans, which is the subject of the verse, is useless.

Outside caring for orphans, polygamy can potentially be an answer to many problems one can think of, so to outright ban it would deprive the believers from a solution to potential social difficulties. Women around the world, not necessarily in Muslim societies are confronted to situations where they are left to fend for themselves and their children without the help of the family or the support of a father. But because polygamy is regulated and moralized in the Quran, by mentioning only one case to which it applies, along with its conditions, the Quran is explaining to the God-conscious that this familial configuration is not to be abused for selfish motives, the gratification of sexual desires.

There will always be people that will take advantage of the system, just as there are Muslims that will disregard that limitation to make it subservient to their own whims. Polygamy is thus not the norm but the exception in Islamic societies. It is a license granted to men to alleviate problems that have existed and will keep on existing in human societies.

From a modernist perspective, feminists often denounce the practice as legalized cheating. 2 things dont become the same because of superficial similarities. Is a regular marriage legalized prostitution because a man gains sexual access conditionally to spending from his resources? In a marriage, there are many more implications, rights and obligations beyond sex which is just one of the rights of both parties on another. A feminist may now be tempted to say that a wife is just a long term prostitute with more rights and duties. But then is any unmarried woman that has sex with a man prostituting herself because, besides money, there always exists an exchange without which the man would not have sexual access, including emotional, physical, intellectual etc. attractiveness? This extends to lesbianism and on a deeper level, even to self-sex where a woman is essentially a prostitute to her desire. 

Feminists see genders as conflicting opposites rather than completing one another. This is why they loath systems that bind genders together whether monogamous or polygamous. They will prefer situations that paradoxically oppress them, like prostitution and adultery, because of the limited rights the opposite gender has on them in these cases.