Apostate prophet discusses 5:116; Quran says Mary, Jesus and Allah form the Christian Trinity?

In answer to the video "Allah Makes Another Mistake (The Trinity)"

There are several verses that address this false notion and dismantle it through several angles.

In 5:116 Jesus is asked whether he ordered to be worshiped along with Mary, short of Allah. "Min dooni" means "short of" in the sense of "excluding" someone or something. Less frequently it can also mean "lower than" depending on the plane of thought of the sentence. Here the meaning is that you are worshipping Mary and Jesus besides Allah whom you also worship. It is speaking of the worship of 3 separate entities. The Quran defines shirk/association with Allah as ascribing ability in the divine sphere to other than Him, whether abstract or concrete entities 9:31,6:136-9,42:21. The Quran does not concern itself with euphemisms but the essence of the deeds. Hence it states that the guilty are many times oblivious of the implications of their actions 

23:84-9,29:60-65"And if you ask them, Who created the heavens and the earth and made the sun and the moon subservient, they will certainly say, Allah. Whence are they then turned away?" 

These entities by definition assume divine status, regardless of the type of obedience and reverence given to them, and the euphemisms employed for justification. This even includes one's self when following ways incited by one's desires 

25:43,45:23"Have you then considered him who takes his low desire for his god/ilah?".

Christians and Catholics worship Allah, but most of the time they do not, just like the Meccan pagans prior to Islam, believers in Allah but directing most of their prayers to other entities. Christians and Catholics address most of their prayers to specific personalities like Jesus, or the Father, or Mary and extremely rarely, the HolySpirit. One never hears a Christian calling upon the Holy spirit for help. These entities and personalities are believed to have an intrinsic, active role in the process of salvation, whether through intercession or on their own. 5:116 does not address a particular Christian branch, although one can certainly point out that in Christianity's history, those who have most idolized Mary are the Collyridians -now extinct- and of course the Catholics till this day. Although the former supposedly outright referred to Mary as a goddess, the latter are a bit more subtle in their exaltation of Mary, but no less idolatrous. Today, the verse is thus mostly relevant to Catholics and their well known excessive Marian rituals, as other Christian denominations repudiate and denounce. The divide on the issue is so deep and ancient among Christians, going back to the violent wars, persecutions, decrees and counter decrees of the 7th-8th centuries.

When the Catholics spoken of in 5:116 address Mary in their prayers, as an entity with interceding authority in and of itself, they are taking her as a god besides Allah. Allah alone is the supreme divine authority, and no other entity besides Him has any intrinsic power and will other than what He allows it to have, especially not in matters of salvation.

The pagans of Arabia, like the Catholics, prayed to deities besides Allah to whom all prayers is due 6:56,13:14-16,22:73. Like the Catholics, they accepted and admitted to Allah being the supreme God and yet had given intrinsic divine authority to others besides Him, including the likes of Hubal, Lat, Manat etc

43:9,87,29:63,10:31,17:67,31:25"And if you ask them who created the heavens and the earth, they will certainly say: Allah".

When the prophet was asked, in the earliest days of his mission to say on whose behalf he was speaking, he was commanded to recite sura al-ikhlas, starting with

112:1"Say: He, Allah, is One".

He was not introducing a new Lord, rather it was the same Being they knew by the name of Allah, a name they did not apply to any other of their deities. 

It is God who sets the criterion of what is right and wrong, what is true and false belief regardless of anyone's standards.

When the pagans or the Christians address prayers to other entities than Allah whom they acknowledge and worship as the supreme God, they are taking gods besides Him regardless of whether they are fully aware while doing so, no matter the excuses and sophistries they create so as to justify their actions. The Quran as is here concerning the divinity of Mary, is attributing to Christians the necessary implications of their thoughts, sayings and deeds, even though these can sometimes be indirect. For example in 

5:72"They are unbelievers who say, ‘God is the Messiah, Mary’s son.’" 

The Quran is here attributing to Christians the necessary implication of their thoughts and sayings. Some of them will deny that affirmation as it exposes the untenability of their doctrines, using all kinds of fallacious arguments, semantics and sophistries. Here is a sample 

"while Jesus is God, it is not true that God is Jesus. There are others – the Father and the Spirit – of whom the predicate God may be rightfully used. Jesus is all that God is, without being all there is of God. The person of Jesus does not exhaust the category of deity". 

This is an inference that takes into account the difficulties of reconciling the trinitarian doctrine. Nowhere in the Bible is the above reasoning found, much less whether the terminology "Jesus is God" more correctly represents trinitarianism than "God is Jesus". Further, God is, according to Christians, One and Unique, inseparable in His triune essence "Father/Jesus/Spirit". But if, as they assert, Jesus "is ALL that God is" then ALL of God -including Father and Spirit- is Jesus. This is one of the major issue trinitarian scholars have been fruitlessly trying to solve for the past 2000 years; the problem of having 2 identical entities with different attributes who are nevertheless BOTH God. This is because the confusion of the distinct divine persons is forbidden. Trinitarians then sink deeper into sophistry. Although Jesus is God, he is not "all there is of God". Then it means Jesus isnt fully God. Their fallacies have now taken them to outright polytheism, with each person of the godhead being separate, partial gods. This is where Trinitarians turn from embarassement to anger when pressed. 

It does not matter who exhausts what, who represents which part of the godhead or in how many pieces God is sliced up. The bottom line and inescapable conclusion of the Trinitarian position is that attributing the divine essence to multiple seperate entities results in multiplicity of gods. This is because God, as an entity exists only as an inseperable divine being 

5:73"there is no god but the ONE Allah". 

This is a very fine point in the Quran's rebuttal of the trinitarian position; it doesnt respond by tellig them "there is no god but Allah". Trinitarians maintain, painstainkingly, that their doctrine does not entail polytheism. The Quran refutes the core of their claim, the only god that exists is ONE inseperable entity.

The divine unity, self-sufficiency and uniqueness from the point of view of God's 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 intrinsinc 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 wordly. 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".

It is important to emphasize, the verse 5:116 is addressing the issue of indirect attribution of divinity, which is the necessary implication of making an entity share in what is supposed to be God's prerogative. So although the "taking"/attakhid of Jesus as god as stated in this verse 5:116, certainly includes them actually naming him "god", which the Quran points and condemns 5:72, it isnt the case with Mary nor with their religious leaders or even their own selves 9:31,45:23 when they take/attakhid these entities as "gods". Again, the words of the Quran are very precise. Taking does not necessarily imply believing, nor naming. In Jesus' case, he is consciously, directly taken and named as a god. Mary is indirectly, unconsciously taken as a god just as one would unconsciously, indirectly take/yattakhid his own desire as his god 45:23. The attribution of intrinsic powers and authority to any of those entities, their leaders, their own selves, or Mary who in addition is included in prayer rituals, even without naming any of them "gods" is equal to taking them as gods besides Allah.

The only relevant defence from a secular viewpoint looking at the Quranic argumentation of what constitutes shirk/partnering with God, would be to prove that these entities are not given any intrinsic power in the process of salvation. But even that will not fully resolve the problem as the Quran says that this type of intercession involving someone beyond this wordly life will only occur on the day of judgement. At that point, none will be allowed to select whomever he pleases for that purpose. Neither can the interceding entities choose on whose behalf to join in prayers. Allah selects who is deserving of being joined in prayers to Him, based on His knowledge of the person's merit. That is how comprehensive the divine unity is manifested in the Quran. Catholics have arbitrarily chosen their intercessors, and those entities are free to choose who among the humans to include in their prayers to the supreme God. As the prophet Yusuf/Joseph admonished his cell mates 

12:40"You worship not besides Him except [mere] names you have named them, you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. Legislation is not but for Allah. He has commanded that you worship not except Him. That is the correct religion, but most of the people do not know".

By doing so, Catholics have taken their own desires as gods besides Allah, and in the process, willingly or not, have attributed divine will to the interceding entities.

When such deviation was pointed to the idolaters, they would deny their sin, arguing, just as Catholics do today when even their Christian brethren accuse them of idolatry in reference to their excessive worship of Mary

46:28,39:3"We do not serve them save that they may make us nearer to Allah".

Catholics today claim that they do not worship Mary but simply ask her for intercession with the supreme God, as stated in the verse. This confirms yet again man's tendency to deviate from the path of pure monotheism

12:106"And most of them do not believe in Allah without associating others (with Him)".

But assuming Mary isnt given authority in the divine realm besides mere asking for mercy on behalf of those that "venerate" her, by what "non-intrinsic" powers does Mary grant "protection" to the faithful who, through "special devotion" fly to her in "all their dangers and needs"? That is from Pope John Paul's catechism, not from some ill informed critic of Catholicism. Further, by what "non-intrinsic" powers does she "exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ"? Can Christ even refuse any of her requests? How does Mary represent "the most direct road for uniting all mankind in Christ" (Pope Pius X) if she has no independent power in the process of salvation? 

 

That is why when pressed, no Catholic can deny Mary's intrinsic power to get him closer to salvation through Jesus. As Pope Leo 13th declared, none can go to the Father except through the Son and similarly none can go to the Son except through Mary. That is also why the canonized "doctor of the church", Alfonsus de Liguori held that "Mary rules over the kingdom of mercy and Jesus rules over the kingdom of justice". She is further described as a "canal" favoring the supreme triune god's answer to prayers. 

Nor can a Catholic earn Jesus' salvation without ever "venerating" Mary due to her "close and indissoluble tie" with the divine son (Lumen Gentium 53). In fact prior to the VaticanII council in the 1960s, non-Catholic Christians werent guaranteed salvation. Her own power, through the devotee's calls to her, is a means of earning protection and grace. Her own power, through the devotee's calls to her, is a means of earning protection and grace. As Ephraim the Syrian states "after the mediater a mediatrix for the whole world" and "dispensatrix of heavenly graces"(Pope Pius IX). 

Whether one refers to those calls to Mary's mediation and dispensing of graces; Marian devotions, venerations or rituals, it is all sophistry aimed at justifying plain worship. Whether one label is used for prayers to the godhead/latreouo, another for "veneration" to the saints/douleo and another yet to Marian devotions/hyperdouleo, it is difficult to see such devices as little more than attempts to get away with praying to interceding entities in the hope of them bringing one closer to the ultimate source of salvation. Further, even within the NT, the word douleo entails lowly servitude, slavery Rom8,Gal4. This implies an intense mindframe, and in the context of prayers, or "venerations" as is done to Mary, the lines can easily be blurred between prayer to God and prayers of intercession to God.

What is even more telling is that, had the icons of Mary or the saints solely been representations, that the devotee does not direct his rituals to the icon itself, that his mind is not focused on the image during prayers but what it represents, can a particular saintly personality be represented by a the drawing or statue of a spider, worm or a even a plate of lentils soup? No Catholic will accept the proposition. In fact so interwoven prayers and the image itself are, that as early as the 7th century a council was brought together and decreed that Jesus should be represented in human form rather than as a lamb. Catholics will often delude themselves when criticized, by comparing the veneration of icons to the respect or attachement displayed to a dear object, or pictures of loved ones. However one neither prays to those objects or those they represent, nor expects something from them in return, as Catholics expect from Mary and from God.

Catholics are at pains in trying to keep their excessive Marian dogmas and doctrines subtle in the face of criticisms, mainly from their own Christian brethren. That is why those descriptions, and many others coined by successive saints and popes, blatanty giving Mary a shared role with the other entities of the Trinitarian godhead in the salvation process, were controversial among Catholics themselves who sought toning them down.

This verse 5:116 has perplexed Christians throughout the ages, firstly because of their heedlesness in transgression, and second because of the gloomy picture it presents. It is a very powerful passage in the sense that those who raised Jesus to the status of divinity and put all hopes of salvation in him will see him being interrogated, humbling himself, then cleared of any responsibility, for the deviations of those claiming to follow him. Like all those who attributed divinity to entities besides God, those claiming to be Jesus' followers will find themselves in a hopeless situation where they will have to answer for their own claims, beliefs, conjecture and deeds.
Since he acted as God's messenger, then what his followers did in his name should be justifiable from his teachings, among them, the worship of both himself and his mother Mary. It is interesting that, just as his word in defence of his mother's chastity constituted the best testimony of the truth in this world, so to in the hereafter, he will speak on her behalf to clear her as well as himself from any possible guilt as to the people's worshipping his mother. Jesus did not order it, nor hint to it, neither for himself nor for his blessed mother. Jesus was nothing but a faithful and exemplary servant and prophet of God 43:59, in accordance with the glad tidings of eminence given to his mother before he was born 

3:45"When the angels said: O Mariam! Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Massih, Isa son of Mariam, honoured in this world and the hereafter, and he is among those brought near".

Finally, and more damning to Catholics and Trinitarians in general is that, from a Quranic perspective, any type of worship that compromises the concept of tawhid/oneness, uniqueness of Allah, is equal to not worshipping Allah at all, even if the worshiper actually adresses Allah in his prayers. Sincerity and exclusivity in worship to Allah is a pervasive theme throughout the Quran 4:145-6,7:29,39:2-15,98:5. In sura kafirun the Arabs are told that they are no worshipers of Allah, despite them knowing and recognizing Him as the supreme Creator.

Apostate prophet searches for the elusive concept; no trinity details in Quran?

In answer to the video "Allah Makes Another Mistake (The Trinity)"

The Quran doesnt define Trinity in details but in fact neither does so the Bible. What transpires at most from NT writings is a form of henoteism, a hierarchy of divine beings, with the Father on top, and then the subordinate divine son of God. There is a reason why one finds that Trinitarianism's adherents, for the vast majority, are unable to properly formulate the identity of their God, even though they might be church-goers, Bible readers, and aware of the creed of their Church fathers. Defining that doctrine isn't important to the point the Quran is making. The position of the Quran simply is that any concept that puts up partners to God in worship and authority, any conjecture regarding the divine unity and singularity is an affront against the most basic notion of monotheism.

The specific worship of the holyghost, which is an extreme rarity and almost nonexistant in all of Christianity is therefore omitted. The Quran has already made its point clear by rejecting the major concepts of Christian doctrine, like the worship of Mary and Jesus 5:116, the speculations on God's triune nature 4:171, or whether He is one of three distinct entities worthy of worship 5:72-75.

The trinity concept is one that developped through several councils and debates, wars and persecutions that gradually fashionned Christianity the way it is today. This why the Quran accuses Christians of taking one another and more specifically their religious leaders for lords besides/min doon Allah 3:64,9:31. Since Christianity's earliest days, church fathers, bishops and other saints were seen as divinely inspired so much so that their word was equalled to the word of God. Ignatius demanded of Christians that

"we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself".

Similarily the Syriac Didascalia attributes divine honor to the bishop because "he sits for you in the place of God almighty". Perhaps there exists no better example than that of saint Paul who, through divine inspiration, completely falsified Jesus' teachings and clear instructions.

As a final note regarding the charge of the Quran supposedly misrepresenting the trinitarian doctrine in 5:116, when the Quran speaks of deifying the religious leaders, and Jesus besides Allah, nobody in his right mind would suggest that it is misrepresenting the trinity because it mentions 2 worshipped entities besides God in one sentence. This exposes the shallowness of Islam's early critics among the orientalists who tried claiming that the Quran falsely represents that concept in 5:116.

This raising of their religious leaders as having divine authority, is yet another aspect of Christian transgression, in terms of partnering with God and compromising the divine unity. Followers of all religions easily fall into that sort of transgression, including Muslims when they give divine authority to that which God never sanctioned through His messengers 42:21. This type of shirk is so pervasive, prioritizing anything abstract or concrete over Allah, within humanity, that some islamic narrations have likened its stealth to the movement of an ant on a black stone at night.

Islam critiqued the prosecutor; Aisha, the Prophet and domestic abuse?

In answer to the video "Bizarre Narrations- Why Muhammad Shoved Aisha"

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

Verses such as 30:21 and others

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

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

In 4:34 the Quran uses the word qawwam, from Q-W-M and it means standing upright. It covers the meaning that the entity stands upright and that it helps others stand upright. Man is referred to as being qawwam over the woman by means of the bounties which he has been bestowed with, the bounties which he must use responsibly in the maintenance of his household. In other words, man cannot stand upright over the woman if he does not care and maintain his base, his wife. Qawwam in addition is in a grammatical form of siratul mubalagha, denoting a pattern of behavior.

In this case, the verse's opening is stating the husband is one behaving with a pattern of care towards his wife. The word carries also the notion of qima/value, making the qawwam the one who gives value ie to his wife, which negates emotional abuse, a domestic issue often addressed in the Quran.

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

This passage, like many others where the divine law is expounded, the Quran wraps the passage with a message that connects the divine law with spiritual awareness. This is done so that man never loses sight of the spirit of the law. In this case, the passage ends with a mention of certain attributes of God; He is the High and Mighty. There is a greater Being, with more authority than man and he should therefore not abuse of his position. The attribute of Might is also well suited to the context; men may be stronger than woman, but there is One stronger than man. And if men abuse their power, then let them know that they will have to face the Almighty.

This style is used in other instances, such as when a man is told of his superiority over a wife in certain aspects of divorce procedures but reminded that this superiority is based on absolute wisdom and should that superiority be misused outside the bounds of wisdom, then there is One mightier than all

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

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

"those on whose part you fear nushuz"

KHAWF means fear of credible danger, as is consistent with all its occurrences in the Quran. So, it is not fear as in suspicion/Dhann. Dhann is to hold an opinion upon uncertain evidence. KHAWF is a fear about probable significant danger but it still does not refer to something obvious/blatant, and there is an element of relativity/subjectivity to it which is why the Quran tells to ITHOOHUNNA/advise them. Even though the reasons for fear are credible, they can still be incorrect. This advising will not be in a harsh manner, as can be seen by its occurrences in the Quran, for example 31:13-19. When you give advice, you give the advice and listen to what they have to say. Therefore if the reason for the fear is diffused, then the problem is diffused.

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

That is why the verse then says that if the wife desists from her nushuz

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

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

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

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

Most men, the vast majority, will not even think of beating their wife even after these 2 steps, rational, then emotional, aiming at stoping her nushuz have failed. 99% of couples will simply divorce at that point. However, the verse has specifically mentionned the option of beating in order to address 3 extreme situations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"if they BOTH desire agreement".

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

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

This is reiterated in 4:128 which states that in case a wife fears nushuz from her husband, the same word used previously for a rebellious, disdaining wife, then "there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and reconciliation is better". 4:128 also stresses that attempts at reconciliation should be undertaken as soon as signs of nushuz appear, not when the wife is already abused

"And if a woman FEARS nushuz".

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

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

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

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

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

"if they BOTH desire agreement".

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

As unambiguously stated by Aisha

"The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, did not strike a servant or a woman, and he never struck anything with his hand".

This statement made long after the prophet's death, by itself is enough to negate any attempt at misrepresenting any related incident from the prophet's life and cast it in a bad light. But this isnt enough to the hatemongerers. The intellectual dishonesty is such that they quote and misrepresent an incident involving the same Aisha who said the prophet never hit a woman, in their bid to disparage him. The part of the hadith in question which is misunderstood is

"He struck me on the chest which caused me pain".

The Arabic lahaza does not denote striking, rather a nudge, and neither does the complete hadith justify the malicious misinterpretation of the critics. Being of gentle, forbearing character with his wives, as attested by too many ahadith to list, and even echoed in the Quran, the prophet in that hadith is depicted as silently leaving Aisha's quarter at night so as to not wake her up and going to a cemetery to pray for the dead, then hastily returning to the conjugal bed where he encountered Aisha suspicious of him. That is when he engaged Aisha physically by pushing her chest, not with the intention of beating or causing pain but to grab her attention as he is reported to have done in other cases 

"The Prophet struck my chest with his hand and he said.."sahih Muslim 1825 or Bukhari V4,B52,N310 "I informed the Prophet that I could not sit firm on horses, so he stroke me on the chest with his hand and I noticed his finger marks on my chest. He invoked, 'O Allah! Make him firm and a guiding and rightly-guided man.." Etc.

This physical manner in engaging a person to grab his/her attention was often done before teaching the important lesson that follows. In another narration the prophet said

"The most complete of the believers in faith are those with the best character, and the best of you are the best in behavior to their women".

Many ahadith are of the same import. For example the prophet used a particular expression in reference to women nature 

"Treat women nicely, for a women is created from a rib, and the most curved portion of the rib is its upper portion, so, if you should try to straighten it, it will break, but if you leave it as it is, it will remain crooked. So treat women nicely". 

According to al albani and sheikh al arnaout, the allusion to a rib is metaphorical, and this is obvious for several reasons. "ka dhilaa/like ribs" is used in other narrations figuratively. Even the Quran alludes to nature rather than physical origin when it says that 21:37"man has been created from hastiness". Also, Had the hadith been speaking of the physical origin of women then it would have mentionned the first or a particular woman as created from a rib. The prophet here is giving a subtle and pragmatic lesson in gender relationships. Just as a rib would break if one uses force against its naturally curved shape, a woman will break, and the relation with her husband as well, should one try to forcefully change her particular nature and character so as to fit one's tastes. And just as leaving the rib undisturbed will make it retain its natural shape, complete passivity in a relationship will make the woman keep her natural character (regardless of whether that character is good or bad). If a man therefore wants to try changing some traits in a woman, so as to make her more suited to his own personal disposition, then one should neither use force, nor be disinterested and detached, rather one should always be tactful.

It is important to keep in mind the verse's aim which is not to give a command to strike, hence the Quran's explicit silence on the modus operandi, but to address the issue of violent men who would be inclined to strike their wives whether with their hand, a stick or chain. And this, although the verse was revealed in ancient Arabia, in a time when the world as a whole viewed beating one’s wife as a right in the male dominated patriarchal society. Islamic judges of the classical era, based on the prophet's example and many reported sayings on husband-wife etiquette, used to frequently dissolve marriages based on domestic abuse, with the wife keeping her belongings and dowry and the husband responsible for spousal maintenance, requesting compensation and protection for the women, discouraging and admonishing husbands from comitting any type of violence against their wives. The 2nd caliph, Umar once meted out a punishment, a beating on a man as a result of him causing trouble and being harsh to his wife.

Apostate prophet finds technical reasons; gradual structuring of Quran?

In answer to the video "Who (Really) Wrote The Quran?"

As already alluded to previously, the prophet's opponents would critisize the periods during which no new verses were revealed and recited by him

7:203"And when you bring them not a revelation they say: Why do you not forge it? Say: I only follow what is revealed to me from my Lord; these are clear proofs from your Lord and a guidance and a mercy for a people who believe".

Consequently, at various places in the Quran, the Prophet is told to exercise resolve and patience 20:113-4 until the whole of the Quran is revealed to him, and he needs not worry as the arrangement of it rests on Allah 25:32 and no falsehood can approach it 41:42. The One upon whom its establishement in the prophet's memory is entirely dependant upon, and who could therefore either take it away completely or erase chunks of it from the prophet's mind without him even noticing it 17:86-7,87:6-7 will take care of arranging it in the form of a Book with an ultimate recital structure which he and all Muslims will be bound to follow in the future. If any directive needed further explanation, it will be done so at this last recital, and in this manner this book will stand completed in every way after memorization, collection and arrangement and explanation by the Almighty Himself

75:16-19"Do not move your tongue with it to make haste with it, Surely on Us (devolves) the collecting of it and the reciting of it. Therefore when We have recited it, follow its recitation. Again on Us (devolves) the explaining of it". 

This Divine arrangement gives the Quran a unique feature, it can be read a few verses at a time as anyone can see for himself. One can open it at any page and start reading, even skipping the beginning of the Book and starting in its middle, in most cases even starting at any verse on a page without going back many verses to know what it is speaking of and will still gain a lesson of wisdom.

The Divine structuring of the Quran was solidified by the promise to protect it 15:9, one of the fullfilments of this promise is to guard from extinction the Arabic language in which the Quranic message was coded. Unlike ancient Hebrew in which the HB was put to writing and the Aramaic of Jesus, which both became extinct, classical Arabic flourished and developed since the revelation of the Quran.

A language that was confined to the tribes of the Arabian peninsula 1,400 years ago has since developed into the lingua franca of peoples from the extremities of Asia to the farthest corners of Africa. And another fullfilment is that besides all the scholarly scrutiny of the skeptics, no discrepencies can be found in it

4:82"Had it been from other Than God, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy".

The gradual process solidified the Quran in the believers' hearts 28:51, as a sign of Allah's pledge to secure it and preserve it. Consequently the Prophet would memorize each verse as it was revealed, recite it to the "Scribes of the Revelation" (kuttab al-wahy) who would write it down immediately, in the manner of prophets of old. Jeremiah for instance dictated his prophecies to his disciple Baruch son of Neriah, when God commanded him

Jer30:1"Write for you the words that I have spoken to you, on a scroll"  

Jer36:4"And Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah, and Baruch wrote from Jeremiah's mouth all the words of the Lord that He had spoken to him, on a roll of a book".

The prophet Jeremiah was literate and also wrote a scroll by himself Jer51:60.

Apostate prophet sees more reasons to piecemeal revelations; supporting the believers?

In answer to the video "Who (Really) Wrote The Quran?"

Besides this gradual educative purpose of the piecemeal system of revelation, the "strengthening of the hearts" also refers to the constant good tidings to the obedient servants in the midst of daily persecution and obstacles.

The numerous prophecies and promises of success in both lives to the patient served this purpose. They were assured of ultimate success time and again to fill them with hope to carry on their mission

16:102"that it may establish those who believe and as a guidance and good news for those who submit".

This mission was to create a movement of faith and righteousness to combat disbelief and sin. The piecemeal revelation guided that movement in all its stages to suit its requirements on different occasions. It did so for example by elaborating on certain previous concise statements, either by a longer revelation in a different place or by addition of relevant information within the same previously revealed verse. We have classical examples reported in the hadith books, like 2:187 and 4:95 where the scribe present, who was being dictated the concise then more elaborate revelation, describes how the event occured supernaturally. It is a Quranic principle that one should not ask about things that if answered would render a simple directive complicated. But one may ask while revelation is descending and will be answered 5:101 as documented regarding ibn Um Maktum's concern upon hearing verse 4:95. The difference between the 2 attitudes is that of sincerity. The first one hears a directive, reflects on it and comes back after a while with conjecture, as if he is trying to avoid it. On the other hand the one expressing a concern directly when hearing a command does so out of genuine concern for a condition preventing him from immediately implementing the directive. 

The gradual revelation, progressive elaboration also gives the audience the feeling that it is being closely followed, listened to, attended to and corrected by its Sustainer, answering relevant questions of law or theology, questions by the believers or disbelievers alike, providing strong argument in favor of the truths it propounds or to counter false notions

25:32"And they do not bring to you an example except that We brought to you the truth and best of explanation".

Again this is not a strange phenomenon in the prophetic history, especially when it comes to the issue of further elaboration/explanation of a previous concise statement or ruling. See Jn3 for example.

17:106 also explains the important point that, despite this gradual system, the Quran is nevertheless one integral whole and can therefore, be properly understood only if it is considered in its entirety, if each of its passages is read in the light of all the other passages it contains.

Apostate prophet finds a good reason for piecemeal revelations; gradual societal reform?

In answer to the video "Who (Really) Wrote The Quran?"

The Quran relates how the prophet's opponents among the pagans and the People of the Book did everything to make him compromise his revealed principles with theirs, forge verses or deliberately corrupt them but the message was divinely protected from the interference of the evil ones -men and jinn- from its descent from heaven all the way to its uttering by the prophet who was repeatedly warned 2:145,10:37,42:15 and never allowed to yield one bit to them despite the hardships he and his followers suffered.

Like the prophets of old, who despite the pressure to alter the divine messages and make them more appealing he answered

2:120,10:15,13:37,17:75,68:9,69:44-7,40:66"Say: I am forbidden to serve those whom you call upon besides Allah when clear arguments have come to me from my Lord, and I am commanded that I should submit to the Lord of the worlds".

As reflected is sura qalam, which is among the earliest Meccan suras, pressure was already being imposed on the prophet at the onset of his mission to change and compromise his message. It is to be noted, when the Noble Book unapologeticaly warns its messenger in the context of temptation to yield to his opponents, these frequently seen conditional statements do not mean that the prophet was actually tempted in doing so.

There are many implicit meanings to these warnings, including that regarding the obligation to abide by the divine law/sharia, there is no difference between a prophet and a regular believer.

The second thing is that, seeing that the prophet is warned, how much more should they be careful of their responsibilities in upholding the principles of this revelation. And finally, seeing and hearing that the messenger is in no position to change anything in Allah's ordinances, the enemies should know that it would be fruitless to even think of approaching him with such objective.

When the prophet Micaiah the son of Imlah was under the same kind of pressure, he answered, knowing the dangerous repercussions of refusing to yield to the rejecters

1Kings22:14"As the Lord lives, for what the Lord will say to me, that will I speak".

The prophet Isaiah was equally warned not to yield to the disbelievers' requests Isa8:11 who, unhappy with his strong warnings and admonitions, would openly demand that he should forsake the straight path, the true God and give them false prophecies

Isa30:10-11"You shall not prophesy for us true things. Speak to us with smooth talk; prophesy mockery". 

The prophet's opponents practiced deception upon him, and tempted him with greed, held out threats, and raised a storm of false propaganda against him, and persecuted him and applied economic pressure and social boycott against him. Yet the prophet did not compromise an iota of what was revealed to him, even in the direst Meccan period. Although he did experience fear at the consequences, never did he withhold a word that needed to be uttered in the face of his opponents, so as to soften their stance. Even when his uncle and protector Abu Talib was pressured by a Meccan delegation to withdraw his tribal protection of Muhammad and the Muslims, he firmly replied: 

"0 my uncle, if they placed the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left hand to cause me to renounce my task, verily I would not desist therefrom until Allah made manifest His cause or I perished in the attempt". 

The prophet then turned to depart until Abu Talib called him back 

"Say whatever you please; for by the Lord I shall not desert you ever". 

It is to be stressed that the prophet took this stance when his uncle, his last resort, seemed on the verge of letting him down. This attitude, besides the established reputation he had as a man of great integrity by his friends and foes, before and after the revelation, confirm the testimony of God Himself about His chosen one 

68:4"And indeed, you are of a great moral character".

The Quran also presents situations where the prophet is showing fear in communicating certain revelations to his people 5:67,33:37 fearing their reaction, judgements or tauntings but the Quran would compel him to keep transmitting what he is receiving, not to ever

11:12"give up part of what is revealed to you"

showing how he wasnt acting according to his whims

2:120"If you (Muhammad) give in to their whims and desires despite the knowledge that has reached you, you will have no protector or helper against Allah".

So in the second part of the verse 25:32, God outlines some of the major benefits of this gradual process of revelation

"Thus that We may strengthen thereby your heart; and We have recited it in (clear) reciting".

This concise statement implies a deep impression on the minds, causing a smooth acceptance of its Laws. It would not be possible if all the Commandments and the whole system of life had been sent down all at once. The process of diverting a people from the social norms which they are accustomed to and which have nurtured their ideas and ideals, to make them question and ackowledge the errors of the systems which they grew up believing in, emulating generations of their ancestors, to make them assimilate the laws and wisdom of the Book which was going against their ancient practices, the process had to be gradual

17:106"And it is a Quran which We have revealed in portions so that you may read it to the people by slow degrees, and We have revealed it, revealing in portions"  

28:51"We have caused this word [of Ours] to reach mankind step by step, so that they might [learn to] keep it in mind".

Since the beginning, the prophet, despite his fear and reluctance is assured that he will be led and guided every step of the way, in his words and deeds, when the time is appropriate until his momentous mission is complete.
The parallel is made with all natural phenomena as they pass through various gradual stages before reaching the culminating point 87:1-18.

Apostate prophet finds revelation in nature; revelation mimics the natural process?

In answer to the video "Who (Really) Wrote The Quran?"

Just as in this world daytime and its light and heat are essential and so are the darkness and stillness of the night, in a similar manner, the trials of happiness and sorrow, ease and difficulty, affluence and poverty are essential for mankind's spiritual development. It is through these circumstances that the Almighty tests a person's gratitude and patience.

The prophet is thus assured that the stiff opposition he faced, the little following and meager resources he had and the interruption of revelation did not mean that his Lord had abandoned him or was displeased with him: these circumstances are a trial and test to train and instruct him in order to fully prepare him to bear his responsibilities.

Just as night and day are necessary phases this material life needs going through to develop, so to is our spirituality bound to pass through bright and dark moments in order for it to be trained and purified

93:1-3"By the morning brightness And (by) the night when it darkens, Your Lord has not bidden you farewell, nor has He become displeased".

An interesting linguistic observation testimony once more to the Quran's surgical use of words is that, just after illustrating the fact that revelation, through its phases of interruptions and descent, obeys to an established pattern very similar to the natural and transient phenomena of daylight and darkness of night, the Quran then eloquently consoles its messenger. It does so by negating any thought in his mind that such interruptions, even if long, indicate complete cessation or displeasure by God

93:3"Your Lord has not bidden you farewell, nor has He become displeased".

One does not "bid farewell" to a hated but to a loved person and so the verse uses the particle ka/you in order to establish a link with the prophet "bidden YOU farewell". This connection is broken in the second part of the verse with qalaa/displeased, because it implies a situation of conflict between enemies or hated people. The Arabic text makes the distinction more obvious.

The sura goes on reminding him of what the revelation brought him in the past and what it was about to bring to him soon for it could not be that the Prophet to whom the Quran was revealed, should remain unsuccessful in bringing about the transformation for which it was revealed 20:1. He should therefore remain patient, and his burdens will be removed 94:1-8, steadfast on the right path along with his followers.

Apostate prophet denies the pattern of the prophet; circumstancial Quranic revelations?

In answer to the video "Who (Really) Wrote The Quran?"

The 114 suras of the Quran were revealed on a period of 22 years, 5 months and 14 days: 13 years in Mecca and the rest in Medina, as and when it was required. The Quran repeatedly declares that its medium of communication to the people is the prophet. He is forbidden, under the threat of sudden death, from integrating anything other than divine inspiration within the Quran. Every word that make up the 114 suras of the Quran were spoken by the prophet as revelation, and recorded as such by his contemporaries.

This system of occasional, piecemeal revelation applies to all prophets. Ezekiel for example and other prophets in the HB were granted a vision of their entire individual book and its content which they will be responsible to later communicate and put into writing Ezek2:9-10. They still had to follow directions and commands revealed at specific times in answer to certain events.

There are ample examples of biblical prophets, including Moses who received revelation in answer to specific incidents, whether having to do with the prophet's own personal life or concerning the comunity at large. There are even situations in the Hebrew Bible where the solution to a situation is deffered until God reveals the answer Lev24:12. According to Jewish tradition, the entire Torah was given to Moses in 2 parts; the first during the year after the exodus, then followed a 38 years hiatus after which the rest was revealed.

David is reported to have told his followers to wait for God's decision as regards a possible strike on an enemy 1Sam22:3. Moses received oral instructions for 40 years and long before the events of Sinai, see for example Ex12:49,13:9,16:4,28,18:19-20 all refering to Torah and Law before Moses went to Mt Sinai. This process is meant at smoothly establishing socio-religious reforms, among other benefits as will be pointed out below. Gradual revelation also ensures a continuous connection between the receiver/prophet and the Source, providing him further comfort and legitimity in the face of the unavoidable persistent, increasing opposition, as well as answers to new challenges and questions.

Muhammad went through the same process for 23 years, just like Jeremiah was inspired with warnings and glad tidings to his people for 23 years Jer25:3. This was objected to by the Quraysh, and, ironically, by the People of the Book themselves, just as missionaries do today, in ignorance of their prophetic history

4:153,25:32"Why has not the Quran been revealed to him all at once?".

Yet had the request been granted, it would still not prevent the rebellion and disbelief of those that requested it in the first place, since the demand did not stem from sincere hearts seeking to confirm their belief and intuition, rather it was a mocking challenge and an excuse to justify their rejection 6:7.

Sometimes even the sincere early Muslims would grow impatient if long periods would pass without a new revelation 47:20, yet the precedent in the history of the prophets, per the HB as shown earlier, is that prophets received prophecy only when God desired it. Some would go months or years or even never again without communication from God.

This created in the prophet the yearning to receive the whole of the Quran as soon as possible. But he was told to show patience through prayer and remembrence of God, and to wait for the decree of the Almighty, not worry about the opposition and idle talk of people. God will deal with these people and He is sufficient to do this 76:23-6. This is because the prophet never asked to be the recipient of revelation, so that it is his responsibility to prove the truths and premises it presents. His authority rests exclusively in delivering the message, not in deciding its timing or contents.

As a side note, studies have been made of the prophet's speech patterns by regrouping all sayings attributed to him, authentic or not, and it has been shown that the Quran, a book revealed over a period of 23 years, uses patterns not only different to the messenger but also that were unknown to the masters of eloquence of the time all the while retaining deep, intricate meanings.

The Quran also depicts him in situations of extreme grief and anguish as he apparently felt abandonned, deprived of his divine support in the midst of the soul tearing taunts and ever growing spiritual conflicts with his opponents. This grief led him to the point he thought his Lord had become displeased with him on account of some error he had done, and had forsaken and left him to fight the battle between truth and falsehood alone. But he was told to remain patient in such moments otherwise he might compromise his divine mission 68:48, to keep conveying the message relentlessly despite the opposition. Slackness in this regard and in such a crucial time would help his opponents in attaining their objective 28:86.

A passage even came down quoting the angels themselves, the carriers of revelation, justifying their silence by the fact that they act in obedience to a Higher, all encompassing Authority

19:64-5"And we do not descend but by the command of your Lord; to Him belongs whatever is before us and whatever is behind us and whatever is between these, and your Lord is not forgetful. The Lord of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, so serve Him and be patient in His service. Do you know any one equal to Him?"

Neither the prophet nor even the angels are free to decide the timing of revelation; there can be a break in the process whenever Allah deems it fit, and a continuation whenever He wills it. Although that process would sometimes put him in difficulty opposite his detractors, it in fact supported his credibility that the revelation was not his invention and he had no control over it.