Islam critiqued attacks YWHW; a deity with multiple personalities?

In answer to the video "The Quran and the Trinity"

God in the HB is Echad/one Exod9:7,Eccl4:8. Each of the things listed are not a compound unity. And if "one" in Hebrew can also be more than one why not a trillion? Both masculine and feminine forms of echad are found in the HB almost a thousand times and Christian translators always seem to understand that echad means ONE every single place except when they choose to say that it isn't. Echad/one, as in every language can be used figuratively for a compound unity as in one nation or one family, see also Gen1:5,2:24,Numb13:23. But most often literally means an “absolute one” and not compound at all. It is the direct context that decides whether the word is used figuratively or literally. When God told Abraham to take his son to "one/echad of the mountains" did He mean to divide his son upon a compound of mountains? When Hagar put her boy under "one/echad of the shrubs" did she cut him up under multiple plants? All analogies trinitarians try making eventually fall apart. None of them even adress the logical problem of the trinity, which is not whether one entity can be composed of multiple entities, but whether the so called components are the entity itself. Is a car engine "the car"? is hydrogen, one component of water, water itself? Is an individual within a nation, the nation itself?

It is the height of absurdity to suggest that a passage refuting idolatry and multiple deities, would tell the people that "your Lord is a unity of divine beings". 

When husband and wife are "one" for instance, the multiplicity of subjects is made clear in the sentence. Further, the analogy doesnt adress the problem of the trinity. Adam and Eve are still 2 distinct humans even after becoming one in marriage. The trinity, according to its proponents, is not composed of 3 distinct gods; this would be tritheism instead. Again, the language here is figurative, while the trinity, a multiplicity of divine beings making one God is literal. Nothing presupposes in the Schema, and its direct context, that the intent is figurative or that a compound unity is meant

Deut6:4 "Listen, O Israel – the Lord your God, the Lord is ONE”. 

Echad here is an adjective, and it describes the proper noun "the Lord", which is in the singular. This rules out the possibility of a "compound unity" in this highly relevant passage in terms of what the HB teaches on monotheism. Echad in this case assumes its primary literal meaning of "absolute one".

Similar usages are found in 2Sam13:30,17:12. The Schema contains 2 core messages that are prevalent throughout the Jewish writing; nationalism and monotheism. YHWH is the God of Israel (our God), and this same YHWH is echad/one. It is one of the most blatant examples of what Biblical scholars have termed Jewish monolatry, the belief in one ethno-centered tribal deity, without excluding the existence of deities to other nations. The infamous missionary corruption of a commentary from the Zohar, where the writer supposedly wonders at the threefold repetition of God's name in the Schema is a known 20th century forgery, absent from this Jewish book. In fact there is a quote from the Zohar saying 

"You are One but not in a countable sense" (Zohar petichat eliyahu). 

As to Yachid, it literally means "only". See Gen22 for example. To repeat, in Hebrew the word for one is echad (masculine) and ahat (feminine). Try telling a school kid to start counting with "yachid"...

In the Quran, the matter is presented in a most eloquent, intricate and comprehensive manner, constantly interlinking worship of God with application of social justice. It repeatedly points to the notion of inter-dependancy in all of creation, to make the believers heed to their own needs and vulnerabilities, whether from a physical/material sense or a spiritual sense, and how Allah alone is independent, self-sufficient 35:15,6:14. Everything is in need of Allah, the Qayyum (Self-subsisting) standing by Himself, the Hayy (Everliving) and all the universe stands because of His eternal endurance, maintenance of life in each instant 2:255,3:2. 

The prophet Daniel states in the Aramaic in which the text was recorded 

Dan6:26"elaha hayya qayyam". 

The words carry several implications, including the pervasive pattern throughout the Quran of God being the sole self-sufficient, uncreated, independant entity. He relies on none other than Himself to subsit and will perdure even when all things perish 55:26-7,28:88. Al hayy/the ever living is also a description meant at distinguishing Allah from false deities, as is done in the HB Joshua3:10,1Sam17:26,1Sam17:36,Jer10:9-10,etc., whether they be inanimate entities or living creatures that made themselves or were made into objects of worship 16:20-1. They are neither alive nor are able to keep others alive, they do not exist of their own accord nor can keep others into existence. Their existence depends at all times on the self-sustaining source of all life, Allah. 

This divine unity, self-sufficiency and uniqueness from the point of view of his attributes, is captured in sura ikhlas

112:1-4"He is Allah, AHAD/One".

AHAD literally translates to "one of", meaning one of His type. One might come back and argue that it is possible for an entity to be unique typologically but it does not negate that other entities might be comparable to it. For example a cat is comparable to a dog although individually they are typologically unique. There are people, namely the Trinitarians who do not deny God's numerical oneness, rather deny directly or indirectly the oneness of His essence which is shared through different typological entities father/son/holyspirit. The rest of the sura negates that proposition through several irrefutable arguments.

If Allah was not typologically unique, that there were other types of entities like Him, then they would have some kind of intrinsic power to influence the functioning of the universe. This is the known problem of the imperfect wording in what is supposed to be the ultimate declaration of monotheism in the HB 

Deut6:4"Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One/Echad".  

The wording here although similar to Arabic, negates there being more than one God to Israel, but it doesnt deny the existence of other gods in general. The Quran thus clears the matter, saying that intrinsic power is Allah's prerogative, He is the God upon whom all things depend/samad.

Further, none is comparable to Him in any way;

"Say: He, Allah, is AHAD, Allah is He on Whom all depend, He begets not, nor is He begotten, And none is like Him". 

Allah is therefore supremely One and that is why most translators rendered AHAD in this context as simply "One", encompassing both numerical and typological singularity. We are never told that Allah ascended at some point in time to the role he has throughout the Quran. Allah isnt merely another high god like Marduk, Baal, or Zeus who all took on their position at some point. Allah is the one and only God and has always held the highest position among all of creation, heavenly and worldly. He is never generated nor is limited by anything or anyone "when He wills a thing He says "Be" and it is".  

He is unique in the midst of diversity 30:22, complementarity, and polarity amongst the various kinds in the universe that work in interconnection. It is one of the major signs man is asked to ponder upon 

51:49"And of everything We have created azwaj (different kinds) that you may be mindful" 

2:164,89:3"Consider the multiple and the One". 

Through all these means and devices 

3:18"Allah (Himself) bears witness that there is no god but He". 

Sura ikhlas is the most explicit statement of tawhid, of the whole Quran. It clears the confusion of those who conjecture on the oneness of the Creator from every aspect. Allah is "one of" His type, but at the same time there is no origin or likeness to His kind. 

38:65-8"and there is no god but Allah, the One, the Subduer (of all). The Lord of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, the Mighty, the most Forgiving". 

Every single time the Quran mentions Allah subduing all of creation, it is preceded by an emphasis on His uniqueness. What necessarily follows from that statement is that neither one that preceded Him has shared that essence, nor one that is begotten by Him. He, in His uniqueness is the subduer of all things outside of Himself. An entity that is unique in every possible way means that there cannot be any point of comparison which one could use in order to begin to imagine Him. Any attempt to compare Him remains infinitely far from His actual reality 

42:11"nothing like a likeness of Him".

CIRA international been out to sea; no mixing between sweet and salt water?

In answer to the video "The Barrier Between Waters - Scientific Miracles of the Quran Ep.15"

Those to whom the verse was primarily addressed, the Arabs, were land and sea travellers. They passed through estuaries and points where a river met the ocean to see both bodies of water mixing. The Arabic "bahr" means a vast water expanse, be it the ocean, a big river or lake. None of the verses 25:53,27:61,55:19 say that a barrier prevents them from mixing. In fact it clearly says that they meet and mix/maraja 55:19. 

The verse immediately follows by saying that despite this mixing, there is an unbreakable barrier between the 2 water types referred to earlier. And it is the phenomenon that sustains life on this earth by keeping the water types perpetually appart, salt and sweet, despite their perpetual mixing when they meet. The verse comes in the context of providing evidence of God's bounties, the primary example being exactly this, the constant phenomenon of having 2 distinct water types available, despite their continuous flow and mixing into one another. Had this phenomenon of evaporation and filtration of salt not existed, life as we know it would have been impossible 

55:21"Which then of the bounties of your Sustainer will you deny?"  

A river meeting the ocean without mixing is not a bounty from God and is irrelevant in stimulating the gratefulness of the reader and audience, which is the whole point of the passage. Another spiritual parallel the verses make with that phenomenon is the existence of 2 types of humans, the spiritually aware and the rest. In this world they mix and mingle on a physical level but will remain separate on the metaphysical sphere. But the Merciful has placed in everyone the potential to thrive spiritually, even the sinner, if he chooses to repent. And so, the verse also states that pearls can be harvested from fresh and saltwater, just as there is spirituality in the righteous as well as the sinner. The imagery is beautiful and uplifting, as opposed to the NT's exclusivist and racist notion of "avoid sharing your pearls with pigs" Matt7. Corals, as a side note, live and grow in seawater but may be found in rivers, such as the massive reef of the Amazon. Corals can also thrive in estuaries, where the 2 bodies of water meet.

Talking about everlasting, unbreakable barrier, the Hebrew Bible in Jer5:22 speaks of the sea as unable to permanently invade and inundate dry land, forcibly kept till the end of times behind the shore, thus also showing ignorance of the phenomenon of tides

"I made sand a boundary for the sea, an everlasting ordinance, which it cannot pass, and [its waves] toss themselves, yet they cannot prevail; and its waves roar, but they do not pass it."

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

In answer to the video "Muhammad's "Revelations" Were Self-Serving; Paul's Weren't (PvM 15)"

Coming from a background that assigns the worst sins and abuses to the most eminent prophets, a Judeo-Christian critic has nothing even remotely similar in shamefulness to the depictions of his books, to try and assign to the prophet Muhammad in order to undermine his prophetic status.

The Quran strongly condemns the resort to false oaths in general 68:10 and more particularly those aimed at deceiving or screening an evil intention such as the attempt of a group to deceive another to make it join its ranks, which applies to deceitful religious proselytism. Only in the best manner can any type of debate, including religious, be engaged 16:125. Deceitful religious proselytism is against the will of Allah who could have deprived mankind of the freedom of choice and made them all followers of the Truth without having recourse to such disgraceful means. These manners, contrry to the type of proselytism promoted by St Paul, do not represent the correct spirit of religion and may actually lead to doubting the morality of the system that is being promoted 16:92-95,58:16,63:2. In the Gree writings, St Paul openly says

"I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it...crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery"2Cor12:11,16.

He openly encouraged lying when preaching Jesus, becoming like a Jew to win the Jew, and becoming like a gentile (one not under the law) to win the gentile Phil1:15-18,1Cor9:19-21, because

"The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached"

in order to

"win as many as possible".

The interesting result was that Christians not only were very successful at converting pagans (much less so with the Jews) but pagans in turn transformed Christianity into a hodge podge of neo-judeo/greco-roman religion, born at the council of Nicea in 325CE, in Alexandria which was the center of Hellenistic philosophies. This is in sharp contrast to what the Quran says about the inadmissibility of using deceitful and disgraceful means for the propagation of Truth

16:92-95,125"Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner".  

This strategy helped him gather funds -not for the poor and needy- for the establishement and reenforcement of the Churches throughout the Roman empire and beyond 1Cor15,16,2Cor8,9. This fits another description of a false prophet in Micah3:11 whose motivation is money. It is from Paul's teachings and method of approaching the Jews that the Evangelical Zionists derive their missionary tactics. It consists in showing the Jews a strong support that they might be

"provoked into jealousy"

so that they might be convinced that God's help has come from the followers of the one they rejected (Jesus) because

Rom11"if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!".

Paul has a very peculiar feature, and that is one who consistently is found swearing that whatever he has is from God, contrary to what is preached in the New Testament, where Jesus is reported to have stated that such a thing was a quality of the Pharisees. Further, the very 'gospel' he was alleged to preach contradicted not just what was being taught in Galilee, but what was being taught in the Temple of Jerusalem itself. Paul was attacked in that Temple for what he was claiming. By the end of his life, he had to seek refuge with the pagan Roman Authority, because people, which were obviously his enemies within the other factions, wanted to kill him.

Today, the evangelical zionist movement that finds its inspiration in Paul's above deceptive methods, masks its real intentions towards the Jewish people by corrupting their audience with money. Probably no nation needs this money more than Israel for its survival, exactly as God prophecised when He stated in the Quran that the Israelites, those who rejected Jesus, will be under the Christians' dominion until the Resurrection 61:14,3:55. This bribe money serves the purpose of gathering Jews from all over the world so a mythical end time is ushered.

At that time 2/3 of Israel will be destroyed and damned for rejecting the man/god of the trinity. Their Armageddon theology is detailed in the book of Revelation -a Book not even considered God inspired until very late in Church history-. Those damned Jews, the Jews of the "flesh" ie devoid of any spirituality because of their rejection of Jesus Rom2:28-9, those sons of Satan Jn8:44, worshipping in their satanic synagogues Rev2:9 will be made to bow down at the feet of the true Jews, ie the Christians Rev3:9 prior to their eternal damnation. Jews who do not accept Christianity are characterized as worshipers of Satan, hence, the expression “synagogue of Satan.” The author of Revelation declares that Jews of the “flesh” who do not become “true” Jews (that is, Christians) worship Satan and are destined to someday be subdued and come to bow down at the feet of Jesus’ beloved church.

It is these kinds of satanic association that helped produce a portrait for faithful Christians throughout the centuries of the “evil” Jew whose deeds on behalf of Satan took on ominous proportions. No wonder that the church and its faithful followers sought to hasten the day when Jesus would fulfill his promise to

“make them [the synagogue of Satan] come and bow down at your feet”

by persecution of those satanic Jews.

The call to Islam on the other hand must be done in a way befitting the moral heights of this Way, by people who act accordingly and who are references of uprightness, love, respect in a given comunity. A honorable and dignified message cannot be promoted through lies, deception and any evil means.

Besides the inadmissibility of deceiving others into the way of Islam through various types of corruption or compromises with the addresse's desires, the Quran often repeats that one can never force another to belief and neither guide another's heart, much less a prophet whose function solely is to warn and give glad tidings and who is the foremost in rejecting any kind of lowly and obscure behavior while addressing a people 3:161. He on the contrary is a means by which wisdom and purification is imparted on a people who are willing to receive his message 3:164. The caller simply communicates and then God either opens or shrinks the heart of the person depending on His knowledge of the person's will, desire and course of action

16:125"surely your Lord best knows those who go astray from His path, and He knows best those who follow the right way".

The Quran also mentions the case of vain oaths preventing one from doing his moral and noble duties as a believer 2:224,24:22 these should also be broken in order to allow a greater good. Allah commands man to do good, therefore under no pretext, even swearing by Allah should prevent one from doing so. God knows well the emotional disposition of His creatures, for exemple a husband making an emotional oath of distancing himself from his wife 2:226 should wait four month before engaging in divorce procedures and should he decide to go back to rebuild his household then the oath will not be taken into account, since it is for a greater good

"Allah is surely Forgiving, Merciful".

As to the vital or beneficial promises that must be kept and other agreements, pacts or covenants especially when Allah has been called to witness regardless of te socio-ethnico-religious background of the other party 8:27,9:4-5,7-10,13:20,16:91,33:15 the self-made pledges to perform a commendable deed 9:75-77,76:7 the trusts and testimonies 70:32-3. All such oaths must be upheld at all costs

5:1"O you who believe, fulfill the obligations/uqud"

the word uqud covers the covenants imposed by God as well as the mutual agreements made by men

5:89"and guard your oaths"  

23:1-8"Successful indeed are the believers..those who are keepers of their trusts/amantihim and their covenant/ahadihim"

the Arabic amanat is very comprehensive and includes all those trusts which are placed in their charge by Allah or society or individuals. Likewise ahd includes all those compacts, pledges, and promises which are made between Allah and man, and man and man

17:34"and fulfill the promise; surely (every) promise shall be questioned about".

The religion in itself is a commitment to Allah, our fellow kinsmen, neighbors and society at large. The quality of being steadfast appended to honouring commitments stipulates that a true believer should fight every impediment that comes in the way of fulfilling rights, whether from fear, lack of resolve or personal interests. That is because people who are careful in fulfilling self-made promises can be expected to be even more careful in their obligations imposed on them by God. Along with being steadfast, honouring one's commitments are the 2 only qualities mentionned as testifying to a God-conscious and upright character 2:177, because they bind all other qualities together.

The Quran describes as most detestable in God's sight those who do not act according to their words, whether they include an oath or not 61:2-3 and talks of the fulfillement of one's word as among the foremost of the qualities of the dwellers of paradise 76:6-7. It is in this vein that the Quran recurrently calls Muslims unto bearing true witness and regards its concealment as a sin 2:140,283,5:106,65:2.

The prophet's integrity in these matters of safeguarding any types of agreement was such, that in one reported occasion in the context of the battle of Badr and while the Muslims were at a military disadvantage, refused a Muslim's participation in the battle on the basis that he had agreed with Quraysh not to fight them should they release him and his father. As the prophet Zechariah admonished the Israelites

Zech8:17"nor shall you love a false oath-for all these are what I hate, says the Lord".

Acts17apologetics agree with Aisha; Muhammad had convenient revelations?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's "Revelations" Were Self-Serving; Paul's Weren't (PvM 15)"

With such a large household combined with his prophetic duties and the turmoil of these early days in which he was involved in on a daily basis, he could not be expected to divide his time so as to satisfy each of the wives and potential concubines equally. But as the Islamic history books explicitly denote, he tried to observe equality among them as much as possible. He used to visit sometimes his 9 wives at once. In that report, the Arabic doesnt denote sexual intercourse, on the part of that humble man in his late 50s who had in addition to balance his household duties with his extraordinary responsibilities as a spiritual leader and statesman. Some of his male companions might have assumed so, but it did not have to be the case. And to further corroborate that the prophet, despite visiting all his wives, would only have intercourse with the one whose turn had arrived

"Narrated ‘Urwah: ‘A’ishah said: “O nephew! The Messenger of Allah would not prefer any one of us to another with regards to spending time with us. Hardly a day would go by without him visiting all of us. He would come close to each woman, without touching her, until he reached the one whose turn it was, then he would spend the night with her".

The flexibility of the law as regards the division of time is of course not speaking of the sustenance and rightful material needs of every wife. In this area, the prophet had to divide his resources among every household, in addition to the financial burden of taking care of the indebted of the community and the incessant guests who would be received at all moments. He is known to have been left with very little to spend on himself and his wives, leading to them often complaining about the relative ease in which other companion's wives were living. And this at a time where the community had grown more prosperous in Medina, an ease which was not reflected in the prophet's household 

33:28-9"say to your wives: If you desire this world´s life and its adornment, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing".  

The prophet thus, despite being absolved from strict obligations towards his multiple wives would nevertheless feel saddened whenever he delayed his appointed time with one of his wives

33:51"You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you".

This ordinance made sure that no reproach would be cast upon him, and neither would he be hindered by social pressures or customs. 

So although he had the peace of mind from a spiritual viewpoint that he would never be blameworthy, he still felt uneasy emotionally towards his wives whom he loved. And he did his utmost to spend as much time as he could with them all equitably. Aisha would say to him 

"If I could deny you the permission (to go to your other wives) I would not allow your favor to be bestowed on any other person". 

This statement from the prophet's youngest wife, and thus logically the most physically attractive in comparison to his other wives, shows the prophet tried as best as he could not to favor one wife over another based on his personal preference. There is an instance where he refused letting Aisha replace another wife on a day that wasnt hers 

"O Aisha, keep away from me, it is not your day".

 The prophet maintained as best he could that considerate pattern of behavior throughout his life, as narrated by Aisha:

 "When the ailment of the Prophet became aggravated and his disease became severe, he asked his wives to permit him to be nursed (treated) in my house. So they gave him the permission. Then the Prophet came (to my house) with the support of two men, and his legs were dragging on the ground, between `Abbas, and another man". 

Besides absolving the prophet, the ordinance also put all the wives and potential concubines on the same level as it concerned them all from God's perspective. Through it, they find the inner peace that the emotional sacrifice they shall endure, and which they all were fully aware of before accepting to marry the prophet, is for the accomplishment of a higher objective. Their merit with God will naturally be higher given their wordly sacrifices 

"this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased, all of them with what you give them".

The verse ends with an affectionate message to the prophet's household in general, stressing that God is aware of the difficulties in all levels of life that they must endure, and their toll on their feelings

"and Allah knows what is in your hearts; and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing."

Aisha is indirectly described as expressing her initial frustration and spousal jealousy, when she supposedly stated in relation to 33:51 that

“I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires".

It is remarkable that the prophet would always abide by the restrictions divinely imposed on him but not the relaxations, as described above. In Sura Ahzab, around the verse quoted in the hadith, there are seven rules about marriage peculiar to the Prophet. Four of these granted him relaxations and three put restrictions. The Prophet certainly abided by the restrictions, but yet, for someone whose "Lord hastens his desires" he did not opt to benefit from two of the relaxations. Had the idea of ‘convenient revelations’ any basis in that report from Aisha as claimed by Islam's opponents, to start with, there wouldnt have been any restrictions on the Prophet neither in this sura or other suras, to the exclusion of the rest of the believers. And neither would he have failed to take benefit of every relaxation, without having any guilty conscience as he just happened to have.

It is further worthy to note that, in those relaxations pertaining to marital affairs described in 33:50-1, the prophet is a passive agent; it is the women that are given the option of seeking him in marriage, not the other way around. The bottom line is that, whichever one looks at it, nothing in the pattern of the life of the prophet supports the malicious charges against him. 

As a side note about the issue of jealousy, as noted by the earliest scholars the jealousy – of either husband or a co-wife, when it does not lead to transgression either by words or by actions, is not blameworthy.

Acts17apologetics prefer those who self-flagellate; restrictions on the prophet?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's "Revelations" Were Self-Serving; Paul's Weren't (PvM 15)"

Through 33:52, the prophet was specifically told not to marry more women or divorce anyone from the wives he already had, if it is for purely physical motives. Here is a man who is supposedly lustful for women, forbidden from taking wives on the basis of their beauty only, which is precisely what is supposed to satisfy his alleged lusts. And besides, the ones leveling this type of mindless arguments, mainly Christians nowadays should ask themselves; how does having multiple or young/beautiful wives stain his truthfulness as a prophet, considering the marital and concubinal history of the prophets of the Hebrew Bible?

33:52 was an answer to the hypocrites' annoying talk and unjust provocations the likes that were directed at other righteous men and women 33:48,57-58. The prophet is not here being denied the right to divorce. He is denied to do it for purely physical motives. He could divorce a woman if she misbehaved, then replace her with one regardless of her age or marital history, whose selection would strictly be on the basis of high morality and spiritual qualities 66:5. His divorces therefore would be dictated not by whims or lust but by righteousness and uprightness in conduct. That is based on the notion that

24:26"corrupt women are for corrupt men, and corrupt men, for corrupt women - just as good women are for good men, and good men, for good women".

This negates the charges and calumnies raised by modern critics, mainly from a Judeo-Christian background, concerning the motives behind the prophet's marriages and these critics should rather turn attention towards their own scriptures where "divine ordinances" regulate whom is to marry whom, strictly on a physical basis

Ezek44:22"And neither a widow nor a divorced woman may they (the high priests) take for wives, but they shall take virgins from the descendants of the House of Israel".

Such calumnies werent reserved to Muhammad, in the prophetic history, the likes of Moses were slandered to such an extent that the HB portrays YHWH wrathfully descending on the culprits Numb12,Ex2:21,Quran33:69. Despite these talks, the prophet is consoled that he is under constant spiritual blessings by God and His angels. These blessings in themselves will bring to naught all such imputations levelled against him or the believers in general, while a grievous sin will be written upon the culprits 33:56-8.

What is very interesting is that the verse, although restricts any future marriage, allows him still to have as many right hand possessions as he would like to have and establish concubine relationships with them. And yet, here again is a man supposedly lustful, taking only 1 such women although he had the possibility of having much more, even as many as he would have liked.

Again, we see a clear pattern from the prophet, abiding by all the restrictions imposed on him but not taking advantage of the legal relaxations. That right hand possession that was in addition his concubine was the noble Maria the Copt, who wasnt even a war captive, meaning the prophet didnt even go out of his way to find a woman that pleased him. She was given to him out of reverence by an Egyptian notable. 

It is interesting to note that there are at least 2 similar precedents in prophetic history, of a prophet's union with the Egyptian daughter of royalty. First Hagar who was given to Abraham, and then Solomon's unnamed Egyptian wife 1Kings3. 

The Egyptian notable wanted to establish political relations with the prophet, and this gesture was considered normal as per the decorum of ancient societies. Some reports say that two women were given, Maria and Sirin. The prophet freed Sirin whom he married to a close follower and took Maria as his concubine and lodged her in one of his followers' houses temporarily, Haritha.

Acts17apologetics jealous of the VIP: special treatment for the prophet?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's "Revelations" Were Self-Serving; Paul's Weren't (PvM 15)"

Here is again the verse exempting the prophet from the 4 wives limit

4:3,33:50-1"specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful".

Here, the women made lawful to him are spelled out, outside of which he could not marry, and each with a specific purpose that he might discharge his duties of prophethood and moral reformer without any hindrance, blame and difficulty:
1. Those whom he was already married to
2. Those whom were captured in war, meaning for the pacification of tribes
3. Cousins from paternal and maternal sides that had migrated with him and left everything behind, meaning close family ties should not impede him from coming to such women's help.
4. Women that wanted to gift their souls to the Prophet, if he so desired to marry them. These women knew the difficulties that awaited them, spiritually due to their religious burdens and social role, emotionally due to the prophet hardly being available for them. In addition they knew they could not re-marry following his death, besides the major fact that financially, the prophet's household lived a very basic lifestyle relatively to others in the community. These selective criteria allowed for only the most pious, disinterested elements to be associated to him. This ordinance was so revealing of their piety that Aisha used to say 

"I used to feel jealous of those women who offered themselves to the Prophet and I said, `Would a woman offer herself'"

And yet the noble prophet never took advantage of that rule as reported from ibn Abbas 

"The Messenger of Allah did not have any wife who offered herself to him". 

Ibn Kathir relates on such situations involving Khawlah bint Hakim

 "a woman came to the Messenger of Allah and said, "O Messenger of Allah, verily, I offer myself to you (for marriage).'' She stood there for a long time, then a man stood up and said, "O Messenger of Allah, marry her to me if you do not want to marry her.'' The Messenger of Allah said: (Do you have anything that you could give to her as a dowery) He said, "I have only this garment of mine.'' The Messenger of Allah said: (If you give her your garment, you will be left with no garment. Look for something.) He said, "I do not have anything.'' He said: Look for something, even if it is only an iron ring.) So he looked, but he could not find anything. Then the Messenger of Allah said to him: (Do you have (know) anything of the Qur'an) He said, "Yes, Surah such and such and Surah and such,'' he named the Surahs. So, the Messenger of Allah said: (I marry her to you with what you know of the Qur'an.)"

The verse made it clear that the prophet's marriages were primarily motivated by his religious, social and moral obligations, and no blame was attached to him ever by his contemporaries for him marrying more than 4 in order to fulfill these duties, from within the categories allowed to him and with the special procedures cited in the verses. This shows that his contemporaries, enemies an followers alike, were perfectly aware and could not deny his motivation for having more wives than other Muslims.

With such a large household combined with his prophetic duties and the turmoil of these early days in which he was involved in on a daily basis, he could not be expected to divide his time so as to satisfy each of the wives and potential concubines equally. But as the Islamic history books explicitly denote, he tried to observe equality among them as much as possible.

He used to visit sometimes his 9 wives at once. In that report, the Arabic doesnt denote sexual intercourse, on the part of that humble man in his late 50s who had in addition to balance his household duties with his extraordinary responsibilities as a spiritual leader and statesman. Some of his male companions might have assumed so, but it did not have to be the case. And to further corroborate that the prophet, despite visiting all his wives, would only have intercourse with the one whose turn had arrived

"Narrated ‘Urwah: ‘A’ishah said: “O nephew! The Messenger of Allah would not prefer any one of us to another with regards to spending time with us. Hardly a day would go by without him visiting all of us. He would come close to each woman, without touching her, until he reached the one whose turn it was, then he would spend the night with her".

The flexibility of the law as regards the vision of time is of course not speaking of the sustenance and rightful material needs of every wife. In this area, the prophet had to divide his resources among every household, in addition to the financial burden of taking care of the indebted of the community and the incessant guests who would be received at all moments. He is known to have been left with very little to spend on himself and his wives, leading to them often complaining about the relative ease in which other companion's wives were living. And this at a time where the community had grown more prosperous in Medina, an ease which was not reflected in the prophet's household 

33:28-9"say to your wives: If you desire this world´s life and its adornment, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing".  

The prophet thus, despite being absolved from strict obligations towards his multiple wives would nevertheless feel saddened whenever he delayed his appointed time with one of his wives

33:51"You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you".

This ordinance made sure that no reproach would be cast upon him, and neither would he be hindered by social pressures or customs. 

So although he had the peace of mind from a spiritual viewpoint that he would never be blameworthy, he still felt uneasy emotionally towards his wives whom he loved. And he did his utmost to spend as much time as he could with them all equitably. Aisha would say to him 

"If I could deny you the permission (to go to your other wives) I would not allow your favor to be bestowed on any other person". 

This statement from the prophet's youngest wife, and thus logically the most physically attractive in comparison to his other wives, shows the prophet tried as best as he could not to favor one wife over another based on his personal preference. There is an instance where he refused letting Aisha replace another wife on a day that wasnt hers 

"O Aisha, keep away from me, it is not your day".

 The prophet maintained as best he could that considerate pattern of behavior throughout his life, as narrated by Aisha:

 "When the ailment of the Prophet became aggravated and his disease became severe, he asked his wives to permit him to be nursed (treated) in my house. So they gave him the permission. Then the Prophet came (to my house) with the support of two men, and his legs were dragging on the ground, between `Abbas, and another man". 

Besides absolving the prophet, the ordinance also put all the wives and potential concubines on the same level as it concerned them all from God's perspective. Through it, they find the inner peace that the emotional sacrifice they shall endure, and which they all were fully aware of before accepting to marry the prophet, is for the accomplishment of a higher objective. Their merit with God will naturally be higher given their worldly sacrifices 

"this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased, all of them with what you give them".

The verse ends with an affectionate message to the prophet's household in general, stressing that God is aware of the difficulties in all levels of life that they must endure, and their toll on their feelings

"and Allah knows what is in your hearts; and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing."

Aisha is indirectly described as expressing her initial frustration and spousal jealousy, when she supposedly stated in relation to 33:51 that

“I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires".

It is remarkable that the prophet would always abide by the restrictions divinely imposed on him but not the relaxations, as described above. In Sura Ahzab, around the verse quoted in the hadith, there are seven rules about marriage peculiar to the Prophet. Four of these granted him relaxations and three put restrictions. The Prophet certainly abided by the restrictions, but yet, for someone whose "Lord hastens his desires" he did not opt to benefit from two of the relaxations. Had the idea of ‘convenient revelations’ any basis in that report from Aisha as claimed by Islam's opponents, to start with, there wouldnt have been any restrictions on the Prophet neither in this sura or other suras, to the exclusion of the rest of the believers. And neither would he have failed to take benefit of every relaxation, without having any guilty conscience as he just happened to have.

It is further worthy to note that, in those relaxations pertaining to marital affairs described in 33:50-1, the prophet is a passive agent; it is the women that are given the option of seeking him in marriage, not the other way around. The bottom line is that, whichever one looks at it, nothing in the pattern of the life of the prophet supports the malicious charges against him. 

As a side note about the issue of jealousy, as noted by the earliest scholars the jealousy – of either husband or a co-wife, when it does not lead to transgression either by words or by actions, is not blameworthy.

Acts17apologetics have jealous wives; upgraded mothers of believers?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's "Revelations" Were Self-Serving; Paul's Weren't (PvM 15)"

The prophet's wives had the title of mothers of the believers

33:6"The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers".

That sanctified title carried several implications to those that were willing to uphold it. It is not a title of nobility but rather denotes responsibility and care towards the community. For example Zaynab one of the prophet's wives was called Barrah/pious. The prophet told her to keep her name instead of that nickname to avoid her

"giving herself the prestige of piety".

He further told his wives

"Don't hold yourself to be pious. It is God alone who knows the people of piety among you".

They had to restrain their social activities to their own houses as much as possible in order to dedicate themselves to piety and religious study, pray intensely, solidify in their memories the recitations and wisdom of the revelation so that they become means of preserving the right way 33:33-4. During their spiritual counseling activities, they had to watch for the tone of their voice when addressing the opposite sex so that they leave no ambiguity as to their intentions, or cause those with an indecent inclination to harbor inapropriate thoughts. They had to speak to males outside their close relatives from behind a curtain 33:32,53-55.

This injunction, besides it being a logical demand of modesty whenever opposite sexes interract, becomes all the more relevant if one considers the Quran's description in sura ahzab/33 of the atmosphere of rumour mongering, provocations and other verbal abuses the prophet, and the righteous members of the Muslim community at large were either already the targets of, or were potentially at risk of. There were elements within the community and outside of it that were on the look out for any opportunity to spew their malice and discredit and dishearten the Muslims. Consequently the prophet's household and the Muslims at large are given reassurance of the nobility of their status in God's eyes, and told in which manners to fend off those with evil inclinations. The best way to fend off these attacks were with ethics becoming of the nobility of their moral status as well as by adopting a modest dresscode.

The religious duties the prophet's wives had to shoulder were such, that willingly faltering in that respect would make them deserving of a more severe chastisement in the hereafter 33:30. This was meant to stress their spiritual responsibilities and the fact they had to exemplify piety, and so their moral conduct should be corresponding. As stated in 33:32, their difference with other Muslim women consisted in them maintaining and propagating moral, ethical and spiritual uprightness. On the other hand their reward will be more intense than regular people due to their higher sacrifices 33:31.

This is just like Allah's addressing the prophet warning him not to falter in his righteousness and upright conduct lest he should face a double/more severe punishement than regular people 10:15,17:73-4,39:65,68:9. There is a simple reason behind that principle, leaders in a society are the ones that establish moral standards and are emulated. Their evil does not remain their own but spreads fast and creates further evil, just as their goodness. One and the same sin may thus be requited according to different levels of severity depending on the person comitting it as well as the social repercussions of that sin.

Finally, in consequence of their designation and duties as mothers of the believers, they were not allowed to remarry after the prophet's death, contrary to regular muslim women divorcees 33:53.

The difference between the prophet's wives and others is that obviously none would ever marry and sleep with Moses', Solomon's, Abraham's or Muhammad's wives had the prophets passed away. This sanctified status is not one that was decreed because some believers would potentially desire to unite with one of them after the prophet's demise, it was addressed to the wives he already had and those in the future that would enter into a marriage with him, making clear to them the conditions of marrying him, and the consequences. To those that were already married to him, they could at anytime prior to his death, relinquish that status and be given the opportunity to leave this life of sacrifices and socio-religious responsibilities. Some of them did, prior to even consuming the marriage, unable to bear the burden of responsibility and an austere life.

In 33:28-29 they are told that if their desire for this world and its adornment is preferable in their eyes than a life of sacrifices dedicated to their spiritual duties

"say to your wives: If you desire this world´s life and its adornment, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing".

After divorce the woman would have stood excluded from the category of "mothers of believers", and she would not be forbidden to any other Muslim; for she would have chosen divorce from the prophet only for the sake of the world and its adornments of which she had been given the choice. The prophet's wives had thus the option of requesting and getting a just and kind divorce for even such petty reasons like their desire to pursue this wordly life which God's prophet could not afford giving them in his household. No shame or stigma was put on those that did nor on those that would afterwards. Divorces with prophet occured, as already said. Also, enemies of Islam were all around Medina and within the city itself. Had there been such a potential negative consequence on a divorced woman's personal life she could have joined any opposing community just as former polytheist Meccan women joined the Medina Muslims for shelter after conversion to Islam. Furthermore, in relation to 33:28-9 referred to earlier, 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.

By the time this verse was revealed, and as shown in the direct context, the Muslims had conquered the rich agricultural region of Khaybar, and the community had grown more prosperous. But while life was becoming easier for most of its members, this ease was not reflected in the household of the Prophet. As was always his habit, he only allowed himself and his family only the absolute minimum necessary for the most simple living

28:83"that future abode, We assign it to those who have no desire to exalt themselves in the earth nor to make mischief and the good end is for those who guard (against evil)".

His prestigious status as a prophet and ruler never came in the way of that humble principle of living. Not only was he not ever one to ask for any kind of reward from his addressees 6:90,12:104etc, his reward and compensation being simply that people might be guided 

25:57"Say: ‘No reward do I ask of you for this. All I ask is that he who so wills may find a way leading to his Lord" 

but every occasion where he could make use of his status and deep knowledge for material benefit, he would do it for the sake of the needy

58:12"when you consult the Messenger, then offer something in charity before your consultation; that is better for you and purer". 

The prophet's wives on the other hand naturally were longing for a share in the comparative luxuries which other Muslim women could now enjoy. His wives often stated that they had little on their shelves besides bread flour and dates. But it is reported that all of them rejected a possible seperation with the prophet and resumed their spiritual duties as "mothers of the believers", and were promised a great reward in the Hereafter for having denied themselves the ordinary comforts of life by remaining in the Prophet's house 33:31. Their voluntary worldy sacrifices can only be understood from a spiritual perspective.  Umm Habiba, one of the prophet's wives had such awareness for that spiritual favor despite the sacrifices that she even proposed the hand of her own sister to the prophet 

“Are you interested in my sister, Apostle of Allaah?” He said “What should I do?” She said “You marry her” He said “Your sister?” She said “Yes”. He said “Do you like that?” she said “I am not alone with you of those who share me in this good, my sister is most to my liking. He said “She is not lawful for me.”

Acts17apologetics forgot their prophets; Muhammad having more wives is suspicious?

In answer to the video "Muhammad's "Revelations" Were Self-Serving; Paul's Weren't (PvM 15)"

Sure he had more, because he had more responsibilities, as well as responsibilities to share.
The marital history of the Prophet reveals that all of the women he married were either divorced or widowed with the exception of Aisha. Although the prophet willfully chose this despite having had the full power and Quranic right to have much more women that were much younger, yet he did not necessarily push his followers to shoulder the same responsibilities and self-restraint.

For example when the prophet learned that his young companion Jabir, who had lost his father in battle, married a woman older than him, in addition previously married, he told him he could and should have chosen among the virgins, who would playfully interact with someone like minded and of similar age. Virgins tend to be young, especially in ancient societies where girls married early. Girls still lose their virginity young today, but for the wrong reasons as compared to older times. Also, for a young girl to be infertile is very uncommon, under normal circumstances. Jabir's purpose was to have someone care for his younger siblings, and thus thought that marrying an experienced woman would help him from that perspective. The prophet was a fatherly figure to the community and was here giving a common sense advise to a young man who should be looking for a more cheerful, playful female companion.

In having more than one wife, Muhammad was no different than previous prophets such as Ibrahim, Musa, Yaqub, Dawud, Solomon etc.

In a time where the average life expenctancy was 60, the multiple marriages of the Prophet started when he was 54-56, and 7 years before his death, after 2 years of celibacy, and in the middle of the fierce struggle to establish Islam. The calmuny that he suddenly had the libido that only 11 women could satisfy is grotesque and not grounded in reality. In addition these marriages came at a time where he had to balance his extraordinary responsibilities as a spiritual leader and statesman, with his personal life, and the Quran relates how he had so little room for privacy as the believers would enter his home at all times to seek counseling. Sura Ahzab as shown above, extends the prophet's spiritual responsibilities to his wives who had to dedicate themselves to studying the Quran and help propagate it in words, thoughts and deeds.

His extraordinary schedule and responsibilities, his regular lengthy night prayers, his amazing achievements in such a short time, all that precludes any notion of obsession with worldly pleasures as the critics and those who hate him try to portray.

By contracting most of these marriages, the prophet meant to eliminate the cast or class system, racial and national superiority, and religious prejudices that were all baseless and unjust factors preventing marriages. He married some of the humblest and poorest women and widows, most of them having attained and advanced age, as a way of paying back his due to some of the companions who had perished in battles leaving behind widows with children. He created bonds with conflicting tribes, helping them to settle their disputes, just as prophet Solomon did through his multiple marriages as depicted in the Bible. The Arabs had extreme respect for their son-in-laws and fighting them was considered a great shame therefore many tribes were at peace with others merely due to inter-tribal mariages.

So through these marriages, the prophet strengthened the bonds between muslims, made peace with his ennemies, released some women from slavery. From the pattern of the prophet's marriages, none can deny that social and reforming purposes were the priority, and physical attraction, although perfectly legitimate, was not the primary criteria. The restrictions regarding polygamy that were placed on Muslims in general had to be lifted for these goals to be achieved. The verse 33:50 says that this exception was to allow the tasks which he, the prophet and statesman shall encounter

"for you exclusively, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that there should be no difficulty for you; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful".

Had the prophet been guided by his lusts, or primarily by physical attraction, when seeking marriage he could have had any captive he wanted from the different wars or any Muslim woman from among the most beautiful ones. He would at least have shown a pattern in his behavior, especially in his younger years where he had every opportunity to show which qualities were the ones he primarily sought in women. Given the ruling as regards right hand possessions, the prophet did not need to loosen up the restriction on the number of wives, thereby "exposing" himself as using revelation for personal "convenience".

Wars and persecution burdened the Muslims with many widows, orphans and divorcees. They had to be protected and maintained by the surviving Muslim men. It was his practice to help these women become resettled by marriage to his followers. They rejected some women and so some of those women sought his personal protection. Realizing fully their conditions and sacrifices for the cause of Islam, he had to do something to relieve them.

One course of relief was to take them as his own wives and accept the challenge of heavy liabilities. He had to take part in the rehabilitation of those widows, orphans and divorcees because he could not ask his companions to do things that he himself was not prepared to do or participate in. These women were trusts of the Muslims and they had to be looked after jointly. What he did, then, was his share of responsibility, and as always his share was the largest and heaviest. That is why he had more than one wife and more than any of his Companions, with all the restrictions and responsabilities on himself and his wives.

There were also many prisoners of war captured by the Muslims who were entitled to security and protection. They were not killed or denied their rights: human or physical. On the contrary, they were helped to settle down through legal marriages to Muslims instead of being taken as concubines and common mistresses. That also was another moral burden on the Muslims, which had to be shouldered jointly as a common responsibility.

Apostate prophet is disappointed by his idol; Jesus allows sexual slavery?

In answer to the video "Islamic Slavery"

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.

Apostate prophet focuses on sex; What is ma malakat aymanikum?

In answer to the video "Islamic Slavery"

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, simplicitly 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.