In answer to the video "Muhammad's Marital Strife Part 1- Strong Form"
Sawda was the prophet's second wife after Khadija's death. She was an old black woman, who had emigrated with her husband to Abyssinia in the early years of persecutions. After her husband died, she returned to the Muslim community homeless and destitute. The natural course for her was to turn to the Prophet himself for whose mission her husband had died. The Prophet extended his shelter and married her to honor her stance and her husband's.
Although the reason isnt known, at some point Sawdah feared that the prophet might divorce her, after he had announced a revocable divorce. This type of divorce doesnt take immidiate effect, only after a waiting period. Sawdah was already old when the prophet married her meaning unattractiveness cannot be the reason for any relationship issues that might have led to the prophet asking for divorce.
A weak report states the divorce did eventually occur, with the main reason being her old age. Besides contradicting the facts just mentionned, this version also contradicts more authentic graded reports saying he used to frequently visit her even before the divorce took effect, as well as after she volontarily relinquished her turn to Aisha, even being affectionate with her. As stated earlier, the reasons for Sawda fearing the prophet divorcing her, or the prophet announcing a revocable divorce are unknown.
Another potential reason, besides the untenable "old age" reason mentionned earlier, the prophet could have had financial constraints making it hard for him to maintain a larger household, yet no evidence suggests his financial means were lesser at that point than later on inside his household.
Another reason could be that he needed to seperate from her in order to marry another, but he wasnt under any such constraints legally. Furthermore, he never married another woman after this event. A possible reason for the whole incident could be the following. Sawdah was advanced in her age and did not find herself inclined to men, which might have caused her to distance herself physically, emotionally, leading to possible tensions between her and her husband, and the latter eventually announcing the revocable divorce. The prophet seized upon the situation to put into practice, in front of the whole community, the verse
4:128"And if a woman fears...desertion from her husband, there is no blame on them if they effect reconciliation.."
As the time limit of the waiting period was about to expire, Sawdah made the pious plea that all she desires is die as a honorable "mother of believers".
She then declared that she did not desire sexual intimacy given her age, volontarily relinquishing her turn to Aisha. The prophet did not choose a wife over her or made her give up some marital right that she did not want to give up from herself.
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Marital Strife Part 1- Strong Form"
4:3"And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry from the women that seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice between them, then marry only one or what your right hands possess; this is closer that you be just".
Contrary to popular opinion, the verse is not addressing the issue of polygamy in a general sense, a pre-existing practice, but that of polygamy in a narrowed down context, that of safeguarding the orphans' rights. The reason the Quran only speaks of and limits polygamy in that context, is because these types of relationships hardly if ever run smoothly and therefore should be reserved for the achievement of higher objectives. It is clear from the opening statement, positing the situation of one with orphans under care, fearing for the just management of their rights
4:3"And IF you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, THEN marry..."
The verse is therefore silent on polygamy in a general sense, neither allowing nor forbidding it, but by only mentioning one case to which it applies, clearly hints to the preferred way to apply the practice, moralizing it, laying down the basis for the intricate perspective that must be considered if a man wishes to marry more than one woman.
However it is to be noted, this doesnt mean that polygamy outside the context of caring for orphans, which is the subject of the verse, is useless. Outside caring for orphans, polygamy can potentially be an answer to many problems one can think of, so to outright ban it would deprive the believers from a solution to potential social difficulties. Women around the world, not necessarily in Muslim societies are confronted to situations where they are left to fend for themselves and their children without the help of the family or the support of a father. But because polygamy is regulated and moralized in the Quran, by mentioning only one case to which it applies, along with its conditions, the Quran is explaining to the God-conscious that this familial configuration is not to be abused for selfish motives, the gratification of sexual desires.
There will always be people that will take advantage of the system, just as there are Muslims that will disregard that limitation to make it subservient to their own whims. Polygamy is thus not the norm but the exception in Islamic societies. It is a license granted to men to alleviate problems that have existed and will keep on existing in human societies.
From a modernist perspective, feminists often denounce the practice as legalized cheating. 2 things dont become the same because of superficial similarities. Is a regular marriage legalized prostitution because a man gains sexual access conditionally to spending from his resources? In a marriage, there are many more implications, rights and obligations beyond sex which is just one of the rights of both parties on another. A feminist may now be tempted to say that a wife is just a long term prostitute with more rights and duties. But then is any unmarried woman that has sex with a man prostituting herself because, besides money, there always exists an exchange without which the man would not have sexual access, including emotional, physical, intellectual etc. attractiveness? This extends to lesbianism and on a deeper level, even to self-sex where a woman is essentially a prostitute to her desire.
Feminists see genders as conflicting opposites rather than completing one another. This is why they loath systems that bind genders together whether monogamous or polygamous. They will prefer situations that paradoxically oppress them, like prostitution and adultery, because of the limited rights the opposite gender has on them in these cases.
Yateem, (plur. yatama) is derived from Y-T-M meaning alone. It is used for a child who lost one or both parents, or for a widow.
The verse answers the guardian's fear with a solution; marrying up to four women, not any, but specific ones preceded by the definite article "..marry from THE women...". Which specific women are best suited to share that burden of responsibility? The mother of the orphan first and foremost. By taking them in his household, the husband is bound to provide for them as he would do with a regular wife and children, as well as giving them increased advantages, which includes, possible inheritence in case the adoptive father dies and leaves a will for them, in addition to what must be given to the orphan even if there is no will 4:8. The mother of the orphan could also use her dower for the orphan's wellbeing, if she wishes.
Marrying the mother of an orphan taken under care, may also fill the emotional gap of a child with no father. Marrying these widows, or taking another woman or maiden (whose job included raising the children of a household) in case the orphan's mother is dead with the purpose of caring for one's orphan, solves the conditional clause of fear not to "act equitably towards orphans". The difficult responsibility of sustaining the orphan physically and emotionally, protecting his/her rights, wealth and property is this way shared by both parents.
Something to keep in mind is that Muslims are urged and obligated, per the divine law, to help the weak in society, including widows and orphans. Marriage isnt and never was a precondition to get the needed help. The verse is addressing a group among those that already have orphans under their wing, those who fear for the slightest inadvertent injustice towards them. These highly pious guardians are given a solution, in the form of a recommendation to help solve that fear. One can always involve himself further in a charitable endeavor and this can be argued to be amongst the most advanced manners of doing so.
Another thing to keep in mind while trying to understand the verse, simply is the context. 4:3 is speaking of orphans in general, not gender specific, and is a continuation of
4:2"And give to the orphans their property, and do not substitute worthless (things) for (their) good (ones), and do not devour their property (as an addition) to your own property; this is surely a great crime".
Therefore the next verse must be at least talking about the same orphans, whom one fears not to act fairly towards and the solution to that problem is given in the same verse
"marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four".
The whole passage until v6 is speaking of orphaned children and how the trustee is to manage their lives and property the best possible way. Should these instructions not be enough to satisfy a believer's fear of not being fair towards orphans under his care, then as proposed in 4:3 one may marry women who would share the burden of responsibility, these women being first and foremost the widowed mothers of these orphans.
In the verse 4:3, orphans is in the plural, that is because a Muslim guardian could take multiple orphans under his care, especially during times of war as in the context of revelation, or any other situation where the number of men is largely reduced. The Quran has stated that the limitation of this permission is left to a maximum of four women because
"this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course".
A person may come under the impression that he can marry however many of these women he wants, in order to take care of orphans, but the Quran states that the very purpose of the injunction can be compromised the more woman that are married. Quantity isnt always the best, and people need to take into account their own abilities when trying to help other people. Another important statement in the verse, in connection to determining the number of wives, is the phrase
"Ma Taba Lakum".
TABA is related to goodness, rather than liking. So the guardian's decision cannot be dictated by mere desire/liking, but for what brings more goodness to the person and what brings more goodness is what brings the person closer to God, in this case, reinforcing the idea that the wife must be most suited in securing the orphan's rights, and this primarily means the orphan's mother. Because of these very reasons, that they were marriages with a moral reason, more so compatibility or personal liking, it often led to situations where the husband would leave this new wife in a state as if she wasnt necessarily wanted. The Quran warns the man not to do this a little later on in 4:127. He must do his best to give her rights, material, physical, emotional, as a married woman.
All married women deserve such rights, not only mothers of orphans, as stated earlier in the sura. 4:127 reminds the men of these things, while refocusing them on equity towards the orphans of those very women, so as to restress the sensitivity of the issue
"And they ask you a decision about women. Say: Allah makes known to you His decision concerning them AND that which is recited to you in the Book concerning yatama annisa'/the orphans of "the women whom you do not give what is appointed for them while you desire to marry them", and concerning the weak among children, and that you should deal towards orphans with equity; and whatever good you do, Allah surely knows it".
It isnt because he has done her a favor by improving her socio-economical situation, that the guardian is to forgo the marital rights of the orphans' mother. It is a marriage contract like with any other woman and her subsequent treatment must be just and fair like with a regular wife. And if the situation results in injustice to another party, then it should not be resorted to
"but if you fear that you will not do justice between them, then marry only one or what your right hands possess; this is closer that you be just".
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Marital Strife Part 1- Strong Form"
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.
Here are some practical examples. The prophet had such an intense remembrence of his first wife Khadija that whenever she was mentioned he gave her the best of praises so that Aisha used to say
"I never envied any woman as much as I envied Khadijah. The Holy Prophet always remembered her. Whenever any sheep or goat was slaughtered, the choicest parts were sent to Khadijah's relatives and friends. I used to say, 'It appears that Khadijah was the only woman in the world.' Hearing this, the Holy Prophet was very much annoyed and said: 'Khadijah had many virtues, which others do not have. "'
However such spousal jealousy isnt blameworthy, especially considering how Aisha herself reported Khadija’s merits. There are some documented conflicts and instances of petty jealousies among Prophet Muhammad’s wives, but this was by no means the norm and the prophet was always considerate and delicate when handling these issues. Aisha narrated:
“Once, Sawdah visited us and the Prophet sat down between me and her, one leg in her lap and the other in mine. I made then Khazira (a dish of bran in meat broth) and told her: “Eat!” She refused. I said: “If you don’t eat I will stain your face with Khazira,” but she insisted not to eat; therefore, I put my hand in Khazira and painted her face. Seeing that, the Prophet laughed and gave his share in Khazira to Sawdah and told her to stain my face; so, Sawdah stained my face and the Prophet laughed".
There are many such reported instances of the prophet's tactful handling of tense co-wives situations. His wives got along amicably otherwise, with mutual respect and sisterly love. Just like normal women, though, they had their human weaknesses and moody phases.
In answer to the video "Jesus Sent Paul, But Condemned Muhammad (PvM 6)"
It says in Deut18 that
"a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say...must be put to death"
and paul admitted speaking occasionaly his own words but still in God's name 1Cor7:25,2Cor8:8. How can "all scripture" be "God-breathed" 2Tim3:16 while at the same time including the words of one admitting to speak his own words, the same person who, as will be shown below, overtly encouraged deception as a legitimate missionary tactic? Contrast this with the forceful Quranic statement that
69:44-47"if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand, And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart: Nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath)".
Also
Deut18:22"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously"
Paul fell flat on his face regarding his predictions on Jesus' second coming.
Even the NT's criteria compromise Paul's self-proclaimed divine authority. The false prophet is one that forbids marriage 1Tim4:1-3. Paul advised not to marry 1Cor7:1. The false prophet
"will bring the way of truth (ie the way of Jesus which his direct followers testified to) into disrepute"2Pet2:2
and Paul interpreted Jesus' teachings in ways which led to disputes between him and Jesus' early followers whom he sarcastically called "super apostles" and further considered himself superior to them, proudly declaring he "learned nothing" from them Gal2:6-9. This is the sheer arogance of one who never knew or met Jesus 2Cor11:4-5,22-24. There is a reason why Paul's letters display their ignorance of, if not purposefully dismiss the writings attributed to Jesus' disciples. It is said that false prophets'
"greed..will exploit you with stories they have made up"2Pet2:3
and Paul who had several contradicting versions of his alleged encounter with a "light" admitted using deception in his modus operandi
"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.
In answer to the video "Jesus Sent Paul, But Condemned Muhammad (PvM 6)"
In the HB a false prophet is one:
- whose prophecies do not come true Deut18:22
- who speaks in the name of other gods Deut13
- who proclaims any precept of the Torah to be abrogated or adds to it Deut13:4-5. It is to be noted that a case is mentioned where a prophet -Elijah- was commanded to conduct the famous challenge of the two bullocks on Mount Carmel, even though that temporarily violated the Torah prohibition against offering sacrifices outside the Temple or places designated fit for the ritual by God. And this is an "accepted" innovation. The book of Ezekiel for example is so full of cases where the prophet overturns, adds to Torah comandements and revises historical incidents that the famous Talmudic "sage" Hananiah ben Hezekiah needed 300 oil barrels to keep him busy overcoming the contradictions. His successors praised him for not having to hide the book of Ezekiel that simply exposes the fact that its writer either had no Torah in his time or had a different one because he obviously knew for example the First Temple, its order of service, the laws of the priesthood and of the land and yet treats those issues differently.
The HB in Deut13 warns the people to be very suspicious of anyone with the ability to perform what may seem as unexplainable supernatural deeds. The NT similarly says false prophets may be allowed the performance of miracles as a matter of test to the believers Matt24:4-5,23-25,2Thess2:9-10. John the Baptist was a true prophet but performed no supernatural miracles Jn10:41,Matt21:25-26. Besides, to base one's faith on the sight of "miracles" is very dangerous for one never really knows whether the "miracle" was in fact an illusion or other clever trick. The prophet Moses' opponents reflected that reality when they described his miracles as illusion without external reality
7:132"And they said; whatever sign you bring us to bewitch us, we are not going to believe you".
As the HB says, God may even purposefully allow a false prophet to perform miracles as a test to the people, whether their hearts and minds will be dazzled and swayed into ungodly ways or remain steadfast in their faith. In Ex7:11 Pharaoh commands his court magicians to imitate with their magic Moses' miracles, and some of these miracles were in fact successfully replicated, showing that seemingly supernatural occurrences do not necessarily come from God. Miracles therefore, whether in the Quran or the HB, do not serve the function of attesting to an individual claim to prophethood, rather have the twofold purpose of comforting an already believing heart as well as demonstrate the tremendous responsibilities of those that witness it.
The Bible doesnt even give instructions on how to recognize demonic miracles because technically, they are no different than the divine ones. But it shows how to recognize if the author is a false messenger. The djinn, as described in the story of the prophet Solomon, are capable of what is deemed supernatural bending of the expected laws of nature. But what they have no access to, except as Allah deems fit, is knowledge of the unseen, information that could only be obtained through revelation. Knowledge of the unseen, and of information that could not have been accessible to the messenger, prophecies coming true, uprightness of character are all very strong indications of a person's claims of prophethood. That is why the Quran, although it never denies that its messenger could and did perform miracles, treats this aspect of prophethood as inconsequential in determining the veracity of the claim, dismissing the requests of the doubters and disbelievers and leaving the matter to the Creator. The sending of signs is at all times depending in His will and wisdom. The Quran therefore, in its arguments, brings repeated attention the aforementioned 4 aspects of prophethood, with an additional focus on knowledge; based on what authority, and knowledge do the disbelievers among the polytheists and people of the book persist in their denial and deviations
46:4"Say, [O Muhammad], "Have you considered that which you invoke besides Allah? Show me what they have created of the earth; or did they have partnership in [creation of] the heavens? Bring me a scripture [revealed] before this or a [remaining] trace of knowledge, if you should be truthful."
In conclusion, messengership does not necessitate that the forces of nature be bent at will and upon request. Miracles are entirely dependent on God's will and the prophets are nothing but mere mortals tasked with transmitting a message of warnings and glad tidings
17:90-3"And they say, we will by no means believe in you until you cause a fountain to gush forth..or you should cause the heavens to come down...or bring Allah and the angels face to face...or you should have a house of gold...Say; Glory be to God, am I aught but a mortal messenger?"
The belief that whatever is written in the Torah is binding eternally is rooted in the belief that the promised messiah will reinstate all of the mosaic law that is now in great parts abandoned due to the Temple's destruction. Besides rendering Jesus' alleged sacrifice as a liberation from the "curse" of the law a useless concept, but that is another issue, not a single commandment the Israelites were given in the prophecy of Deut18, says that whatever the prophet commands in the name of God has to be in the Torah.
What it states unequivocally is that when this time comes and that this Prophet arises, a prophet that was still awaited in the times of Jesus, whoever does not hearken to his words whatever He speaks in the name of God, they will be held accountable. Deuteronomy 18 then clarifies how one can distinguish this Prophet from others, for which the answer is NOT that he follows the Torah eternally, but that whatever he states comes to pass in the name of the Lord. This point is important to emphasize; in the context of the prophecy, on the day of Horeb where the Israelites requested that the revelation of the law, not random prophecy, be done through an intermediary prophet, God tells them clearly how to recognize a true prophet coming to them with the divine commands. And in that context, nothing at all is said about the prohibition to add or substract from the Torah. This is because the prophecy isnt just about a random prophet, like the many Israelites including Jesus that told the Jews to adhere to their previous laws, but because it is about a law-giving prophet whom they are bound to follow if his prophecies, spoke in the name of the God, come to pass.
Further, if one argues that every commandment is binding in the Torah for one to be considered a true Prophet, then this negates practically every single injunction given to the Israelites, i.e. the rites of sacrifice, which are included in Deuteronomy 12 and 17, among other.
Why the Israelites arent going around driving idolaters from Israel, battling the descendants of certain specific nations whom they were commanded as an everlasting ordinance to exterminate off the earth's face, as well as not forsaking the Levites, because they have no inheritance? This surely has nothing to do with the rites of the temple and we know of countless Prophets in the Hebrew Bible that weren't driving out idolaters, between the time of Moses to this day even when the Temple was standing.
Further, as even the Hebrew Bible admits, Prophets have come and with other laws that would replace laws that were given by Moses, amongst them Solomon in Kings telling Israelites how to behave, even when the Temple is destroyed. Is every one of these Prophets a liar, despite the Hebrew Bible calling them true prophets?
In the Quran, through the story of ancient nations and prophets, it establishes a pattern by which to determine the truthfulness of one claiming prophethood. It then places Muhammad inside that pattern; uprightness in character which includes an unflinching, uncompromising stance as regards his mission, to have been foretold by previous prophets, having access to special knowledge, and prophecies coming true. This includes warnings of punishment for fighting and opposing the messengers. God does not destroy a people among whom are messengers, believers, and potential repentent sinners. An overarching theme in the Quran is that God, being the most forgiving and merciful, always grants the prophet's addressees a time of respite during which they are intensely admonished, shown signs pointing to the truth of the revelation, inflicted with corrective punishments to cause reform. The means by which such punishment is delivered may be different. The traditions speak of a scourge of famine in Mecca, and the Quran alludes to that episode. But the essential means by which the corrective punishment would be delivered with the prophet Muhammad, as already alluded to in the Meccan phase of revelation 37:171-182, was through the believers themselves. They were the main rod of God’s corrective punishment during that time of respite. The Ishmaelites believers, like the Israelites before them who were divinely commanded to engage sinful people militarily, were being established as a nation under God, charged with carrying the light of truth to the nations of the world. It is thus expected that they would be put to the ultimate test of faithfulness, demonstrating that the possibility of physical sacrifice and martyrdom for the sake of truth would not deter them from fulfilling their obligations, their covenant with God.
And effectively by the end of the prophet's life almost the entire people he had reached with his message, who heard the admonishments, saw the signs, who were chastised with awakening punishments at the battlefield, had accepted Islam. The threatened punishement of complete destruction was thus eventually averted, as had happened with the people of Jonas/Yunus. The Quran alludes to the story of the prophet Yunus in between threats of divine destruction, so as to make the prophets Muhammad's addressees understand that the promised doom may be averted at anytime 10:95-104.
It is important to keep in mind, the Quran establishes the pattern of the prophets while the believers are in a state of weakness, even augmenting its rethoric, further antagonizing the disbelievers. As expected the people then oppose the message and prevent the people from it and get punished by the sword. End of the matter. None after him came with any of the following and was able to back his claims up:
1) comes from a common background of his addressees, meaning they know him very well, yet claims to be a Messenger, in fact the Final Messenger of God
2) warns his people of Divine chastisement
3) the chastisement comes home to roost and the partisans of the Prophet are established in the land
This is the exact process that occurred with the Bani Israil in the time of Moses, with the drowning of the host of Pharaoh and the deliverance of the Israelites, with the uprooting of the Canaanites and the establishment of the way of God. Not to mention, the Quranic invitation to the Arabs to see or recall for themselves the fate of the deniers of Nuh, Lut, Saleh, Shuayb, Hud... It is a Book of Warning that has already delivered its judgment in this world
53:36"This is a warner of the warners of old"
54:42-5"Are the unbelievers of yours better than these, or is there an exemption for you in the scriptures?...Soon shall the hosts be routed, and they shall turn (their) backs".
As said in Deuteronomy regarding the awaited prophet
"If any man will not listen to my words which he speaks in my name, I myself will make him answer for it".
God Almighty says that Prophethood has ended with the Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet bore witness to the unity of God, and his deniers were punished in this life. For those who claimed to be Prophets after him did they remain unvanquished as per the tradition of Allah, did they emerge as triumphant leaders or does their life and death fail to bear witness to their claims?
For example Musaylima emerged shortly after the Prophet's death and was killed under the orders of Abu Bakr. Before him and contemporaneous to the prophet was Saf Ibn Sayyad. He would eventually be completely discredited and in fact convert to Islam. I will speak of him in more details in another video.
Another one was Bahaullah - though later his followers branched off into the Bahai faith which is based on the nice concept of unity of religions- he died a prisoner of the Ottoman Empire. There is also Mirza Ghulam Ahmad from Qadian, Punjab - his death is widely cited to be from either one of these diseases - cholera, diarrhoea, plague, or dysentery. Besides numerous prophecies regarding the timing and manner of his death were left unfulfilled - though Ahmadis now intrepret those in a metaphorical manner- but the manner of death is hardly inspiring for one claiming to be a Prophet.
There is then Rashad Khalifa who was a modern claimant based on his theory of the number 19's pattern in the Quran. Well, besides being accused of paedophilia, he was assassinated and his theories entirely discredited.
But above all, their theories did not prevail and either remained confined to a small number of followers or were simply lost and forgotten shortly after their death.
Another modern claimant was Joseph Smith in the US who started the Latter Day Saints movement and is the founder of Mormonism. He too was unfortunately assassinated. As a side note even the Mormon story has more grounds to stand on from the point of view of authenticity, than the NT story, in that there are actually known then-living individuals who executed an affidavit saying that they had, themselves, seen something of the Mormon story whereas the NT is written by anonymous people with no first hand information decades after the alleged, unsubstantiated life of the NT Jesus.
Of all the new religions that have sprung up after Islam, one may perhaps say Sikhism is also there. But Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith, never claimed for himself Prophethood. Also, Sikhism emerged as a reform movement intertwined between Hinduism and Islam. The holy book Guru Granth contains quotes from Sufi saints as well.
One may also mention the case of Paul of Tarsus.
On the face of it, finality of Prophethood seems to be a tenuous claim. After all, potentially anyone can stand up and say that he is a Prophet of God - but so far all the instances in which this has happened has failed to even come close to the scale and scope of the Prophet Muhammad's mission. Also, if we examine the entire career of these claimants - they have singularly and absolutely failed to match the life-chart of Prophet Muhammad and moreover their death poses even more questions than their life. What is even more interesting that none of them claimed to be the final Prophet, much less Jesus who predicted the coming of a powerful figure after him, the Paraclete, that shall bring justice to the world. That is also the topic of another video.
In answer to the video "Jesus Sent Paul, But Condemned Muhammad (PvM 6)"
On his road to Damascus, about a year and a half following Jesus' alleged crucifixion, Paul claims to have seen Jesus in a vision. If we were to analyze these variant descriptions, made by the same man, as in a court of law, they would be thrown out as fabrication. We're not talking about the variations usually written off as being complimentary, such as the vision addressing Paul in Acts 9 with
“Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me… I am Jesus”
then in Acts22 with
“Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me… I am Jesus of Nazareth“
and in Acts 26 with
“Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads… I am Jesus”.
More serious defects in the reports of the event, made by the same man are what cast doubt on its verracity. In Acts 9:3-7 Paul falls to the ground when the vision appears to him while those with him didnt see anything except hearing Jesus'voice. In Acts 22:6-9 the others didnt hear anything but saw the light and in Acts 26:14 all fall contradicting 9:3-7. Christians usually try harmonizing the accounts in light of the tenses and forms of the Greek words akouo and phone. These attempts are all inconsistent in light of the usage of these words throughout the NT.
Akouo is translated 373 times in the NT as hear, then suddenly changed to "understand" in 22:9 so as to not contradict Paul's other accounts of the encounter. There are many similar examples of apologetics playing with words and Greek tenses to harmonize the story, none of them standing the test of the rules of language.
During the whole incident, this "light" which appeared to Paul fails to take any explicit form in order to be identified as Jesus. One must be very cautions here, according to 2Corinthians satan can disguise himself in the most trustworthy appearance such as an angel of light so as to fulfill his purpose. This light certainly did gain Paul's trust as it incited him to contravene and innovate most of what the God of the Torah, let alone Jesus and the previous prophets taught. Paul, a sworn enemy of Jesus that suddenly sees the "light" and changes his course, surely was the perfect candidate that fit the satanic purpose of infiltrating the original disciples and corrupting them from within, destroying the law Jesus abided by to the letter, through resorting to lies, camouflaging and deceit in order that "Christ is preached", instructing his missionary followers to resort to the same deceptive tactics. His objective was to disseminate as far and wide as possible a system of beliefs described even by the early church fathers and saints the likes of Justin Martyr as "no different from what you (pagans) believe".
Muslims were given the right to capture as war booty all things brought to the battelfield by their aggressors, including the fighters themselves whose enslavement had a three fold objective.
It was first a means by which Muslims could ransom their own captives, or ransom these prisoners in exchange of other material benefits. It is to be noted here that this ransoming did not apply to dead bodies. At the Battle of the Trench, Nawfal ibn Abd Allah ibn al-Mughirah died when he attempted to jump the trench with his horse. When the Meccans offered payment for receiving the body of Nawfal, the Prophet gave them the body and refused their offer.
Second, the permission to capture war booty and the individuals present at the battlefield in enemy camp, was a form of divine punishment and then, a form of mercy. During captivity they had to be treated with the utmost care thus seeing the reality and justice of Islam after which they could reform themselves, change attitude towards Islam and be freed 8:67-71.
Besides their weapons and other military equipment, waring Arab tribes would often go as far as bringing their women, children and slaves to the battlefield in order to galvanize themselves and do their utmost not to retreat or lose a battle, for their defeat would make them lose their possessions and even worse yet their own people. This is not a license for the Muslims to plunder their enemies and kill their innocent family members as the Israelites have done supposedly through Divine sanction Deut3:6-7,21:1-18, and neither is it the divinely sanctioned misuse of the spoils acquired from the desert dwellers as stated elsewhere in the HB Jer49:28. The Quranic command is to seize whatever is left behind by the aggressor on the battlefield.
The Quran legislates and divides the possessions of the enemy that fall into Muslim hands into 2 groups. Those acquired directly from and most importantly during warfare, called ghanima. Ghanima is split into 1/5th for
8:41"Allah and for the Messenger and for the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer".
"For Allah" entails as ordained by Him/in His ways, and "for the messenger" means the legislative entity. The prophet had much more moral and religious financial responsibilities towards the community as regular members had, a few examples will be given later. As the prophet said
"it is not lawful for me to take from the spoils that Allah bestowed upon you so much as the amount of this (hair), except for a fifth and it will come back to you".
This is how "extensive" the personal wealth and provisions he had gathered from the spoils and from
"the shade of his spear"
were.
For example when the prophet sent Ali to distribute the spoils from a battle, some disliked it, thinking he was doing it behind the prophet's back and complained about it. This shows how much trust they had in the prophet's ability to redistribute wealth into society. When the prophet heard of the complaint he answered that he had truly sent him, and in addition Ali took less than his due, so they should be thankful instead
"Do not hate him, for he deserved more of the fifth than that".
Ali deserved to take more OF the fifth because he didnt take the entire fifth, exactly as the prophet used to do. Ali said
"Have you not seen the maid-servant among the prisoners? Indeed, I have divided the spoils and set aside a fifth. She became part of the fifth, then she became part of the household of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, then she became part of the family of Ali, and I have consummated it with her".
The remaining 4/5th would be redistributed to those who actively took part in the war effort as obviously they were not otherwise paid for their services. Since the State was not yet fully formed, that there was no treasury with a military budget and that the Muslims, for the sake of their own survival, were required to carry their military duties on the basis of voluntary gifts, so they were allowed a share in war acquisitions
8:60"and whatever thing you will spend in Allah's way, it will be paid back to you fully and you shall not be dealt with unjustly".
This shows that by default, an Islamic state does not have a professional, full time military branch which needs to be constantly maintained and that Muslims are to take up arms voluntarily and benevolently whenever the conditions present themselves, for the defence of the community.
The second type of war spoils are the ones acquired without fighting (such as the surrender of an enemy) called fay (from anfa'a, He restored). Since this category of spoils is obtained without fighting, the warriors had no share in it 59:6. The fay fall entirely under the control of
"God and the Messenger",
not for any one individual specifically, certainly not for the needs of the rich in particular, but for the benefits of the weak first and foremost, as well as the community at large
59:7"for Allah and for the messenger and for the relatives and the orphans and the needy and the traveller, so that it should not be a perpetual distribution between the rich from among you".
The second part of verse is explicit. The prophet reportedly said that among the signs of the end of times will be the squandering of public property, more particularly
"the booty of war will be like personal property".
The people trusted the prophet's judgement in the just redistribution of wealth. Neither would he ever profit from his position by using the charity entrusted to him, on himself or his family
"Dates used to be brought to Allah's Messenger immediately after being plucked. Different persons would bring their dates till a big heap collected (in front of the Prophet). Once Al-Hasan and Al-Husain were playing with these dates. One of them took a date and put it in his mouth. Allah's Messenger looked at him and took it out from his mouth and said, "Don't you know that Muhammad's offspring do not eat what is given in charity?"
Nor did he ask to centralize donations so as to take credit for helping others
"Abu Talha had more property of date-palm trees gardens than any other amongst the Ansar in Medina and the most beloved of them to him was Bairuha garden, and it was in front of the Mosque of the Prophet. Allah's Messenger used to go there and used to drink its nice water." Anas added, "When these verses were revealed:--'By no means shall you Attain righteousness unless You spend (in charity) of that Which you love. ' (3.92) Abu Talha said to Allah's Messenger 'O Allah's Messenger! Allah, the Blessed, the Superior says: By no means shall you attain righteousness, unless you spend (in charity) of that which you love. And no doubt, Bairuha' garden is the most beloved of all my property to me. So I want to give it in charity in Allah's Cause. I expect its reward from Allah. O Allah's Messenger! Spend it where Allah makes you think it feasible.' On that Allah's Apostle said, 'Bravo! It is useful property. I have heard what you have said (O Abu Talha), and I think it would be proper if you gave it to your Kith and kin.' Abu Talha said, I will do so, O Allah's Apostle.' Then Abu Talha distributed that garden amongst his relatives and his cousins".
So the fay prevented the monopolization of wealth laying out the rule that wealth should circulate through society, benefitting each and everybody, and the prophet was the epitome of that principle
"When Allah made the prophet wealthy through conquests, he said, “I am more rightful than other believers to be the guardian of the believers, so if a Muslim dies while in debt, I am responsible for the repayment of his debt, and whoever leaves wealth (after his death) it will belong to his heirs".
The part that reads "made the prophet wealthy through conquests" is an interpretation more than a translation. The Arabic simply says "When Allah opened for him the openings/victories". The context obviously entails acquisition of wealth because of the implication of those "openings", which were that the prophet began shouldering the financial difficulties of his people. But neither do the words imply the prophet became "wealthy" nor does it speak of "conquests" as in unprovoked "invasions".
The Quran itself testifies to the purposefully chosen rigorous lifestyle of the prophet even in the times where the community had grown more prosperous, and his household's complaints that naturally ensued.
The dispute that followed the prophet's death over the gardens of Fadak, which were fay, between Fatima the prophet's daughter who claimed the inheritance and Abu Bakr the Caliph who wanted the property to be primarily redistributed to the needy as the prophet did in his lifetime, is testimony to this fact.
Abu Bakr did not want to change how the Prophet distributed it, but also did not deny Fatima's share as a member of the prophet's household. As one can see, the wealth even stipulated to the Prophet excluding the rest of the believers had to be used by him as the embodiment of the state, to serve the community. It was not until Umar's caliphate that the property was handed to the prophet's family, under the insistence of Ali and ibn Abbas, but under the strict condition that it would be managed as the prophet did; using its produce for the basic sustenance of the family and the surplus to the needy.
In fact so selfless and noble were the prophet's practices that he took on the onus of paying all the debts of the Muslims that died. He did so as soon as the Muslims began having the upper hand in battles, instead of upgrading his lifestyle and increasing the comfort of his household. He applied that policy upon his self and no one else, although he could have asked and received funds for the indebted from the more affluent members of the community, and although he wasnt even required to do so through revelation. This is in fact what he did in the early times of the community, when too little means were available to him so as to redistribute to the indebted
"Whenever a dead man in debt was brought to Allah's Messenger he would ask, "Has he left anything to repay his debt?" If he was informed that he had left something to repay his debts, he would offer his funeral prayer, otherwise he would tell the Muslims to offer their friend's funeral prayer. When Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests, he said, "I am more rightful than other believers to be the guardian of the believers, so if a Muslim dies while in debt, I am responsible for the repayment of his debt, and whoever leaves wealth (after his death) it will belong to his heirs".
As shown earlier, he went out of his way to apply the ambiguous Quranic statement of moral obligation towards the community 33:6 as a duty extending to their private financial lives.
He was so noble, that he did not allow the debt to be paid from the inheritance of an individual, desiring that it all go to the heirs of that person.
Which president, even the richest of them all which was by no means the prophet's case, promised and did take it upon himself to pay the debts of dead Muslims, and care for their orphans? He did so in kind, forgiving ways, through the share that came under his care, encouraging others to follow his example so as to build strong bonds of brotherhood
"A man demanded his debts from Allah's Messenger in such a rude manner that the companions of the Prophet intended to harm him, but the Prophet said, "Leave him, no doubt, for he (the creditor) has the right to demand it (harshly). Buy a camel and give it to him." They said, "The camel that is available is older than the camel he demands. "The Prophet said, "Buy it and give it to him, for the best among you are those who repay their debts handsomely".
He sometimes had to borrow so as to fulfill that self-imposed obligation. That is why we hear a companion testify
"I saw Abu Huraira point with his finger many a time and saying: By One in Whose Hand is the life of Abu Huraira, Allah's Apostle could not eat to his fill and provide his family bread of wheat beyond three days successively until he left the world".
Seeing his situation, the more affluent would feel the need to provide help
"An Ansari man, called Abu Shu'aib, came and told his butcher slave, "Prepare meals sufficient for five persons, for I want to invite the Prophet along with four other persons as I saw signs of hunger on his face".
Others would send him gifts as sustenance and he would make sure to share it or give it all in charity
"Whenever a meal was brought to Allah's Messenger, he would ask whether it was a gift or Sadaqa (something given in charity). If he was told that it was Sadaqa, he would tell his companions to eat it, but if it was a gift, he would hurry to share it with them".
If he benefited from the gift, he would make sure that he would reciprocate
"Allah's Messenger used to accept gifts and used to give something in return".
Furthermore, in relation to 33:28-9 referred to earlier, in which the prophet is told to
"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".
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.
When he died, he died with a few things, pawning some of his goods to meet ends meet, and his wives lived a very simple life as reflected in both the Quran and ahadith. He would hastily finish a congregational prayer, astonishing an audience used to see him standing so long in prayer that his feet would get blisters, stepping over people at the mosque, rushing to the room of one of his wives because
“I recalled that there was left with me some gold which was meant for charity; I did not like to keep it any longer, so I gave orders that it should be distributed”.
The prophet was not an ascetic, the Quran and his life are full of examples where he encourages Muslims to seek the good things of this life all the while keeping in view the afterlife. But he made sure that his needs and those of his closest people remained at the bare minimum so that he would always have something available to give in charity
"Once the Prophet went to the house of Fatima but did not enter it. `Ali came and she told him about that. When 'Ali asked the Prophet about it, he said, "I saw a (multicolored) decorated curtain on her door. I am not interested in worldly things." `Ali went to Fatima and told her about it. Fatima said, "I am ready to dispense with it in the way he suggests." The Prophet ordered her to send it to such-andsuch needy people".
This is one aspect of the prophet's personality that has puzzled his critics, contemporary and throughout the ages. What is the worldly benefit that Muhammad gained from preaching what he did? In his normal life as a husband, he did not behave like royalty expecting to be served
"I asked `Aisha "What did the Prophet use to do in his house?" She replied, "He used to keep himself busy serving his family and when it was the time for prayer he would go for it".
The recent critics, the intellectually honest have dropped the old unsubstantiated propaganda of sensual, political or material motivation. They now have settled for sincerely delusional, which is basically what the Quraysh, who knew him for a lifetime used to say.
Although even this does not stand the test of basic scrutiny. How does one leading the sanest life in every aspect, whether in the private, public or political sphere be delusional in just one aspect, ie divine communication? This prophet, in line with the most basic commonality with all prophets did not ask any of the things a king or leader would ask from his followers, whether from the time of his humble beginnings having attracted only a small band of the most sincere and faithfull believers, or the later years when he had become the "king" of the Arabs
"Once, while I was in the company of the Prophet, he saw the mountain of Uhud and said, "I would not like to have this mountain turned into gold for me unless nothing of it, not even a single Dinar remains of it with me for more than three days (i.e. I will spend all of it in Allah's Cause), except that Dinar which I will keep for repaying debts." Then he said, "Those who are rich in this world would have little reward in the Hereafter except those who spend their money here and there (in Allah's Cause), and they are few in number."
His lifestyle did not move up. He still lived in the exact same house, slept in the exact same bed, and did not own any extra camels. This made his closest companions cry at times, seeing the marks that were left on the prophet's body from sleeping on the branches of date palms
"O Messenger of Allah, how can we allow you to live like this? Look at the kings of Roman, Persia. Look at how they live. Surely O Messenger of Allah, you deserve better".
Instead of considering a slight raise in his comfort, even seeing that his followers were the one making the request, meaning they would never grumble and suspect him of taking advantage of his position, he replied
"O Umar, is this why we are here for? O Umar, aren’t you happy that they have this ‘Dunia’and we have the ‘Akhira’?"
Abdullah bin Masud reported a similar occasion where
"The Messenger of Allah slept on a straw mat and got up with the marks left by it on his body. Ibn Mas'ud said, "O Messenger of Allah! Would that you make us spread out a soft bedding for you." He replied, "What have I to do with the world? I am like a rider who had sat under a tree for its shade, then went away and left it".
In another instance he stated
"True wealth is not abundant riches. True wealth is the contentment of the soul".
These types of incidents where his most trustworthy followers openly asked him to increase his lifestyle are many
"`Umar bin Al-Khattab saw a silken cloak (being sold) at the gate of the Mosque and said to Allah's Apostle, "I wish you would buy this to wear on Fridays and also on occasions of the arrivals of the delegations." Allah's Messenger replied, "This will be worn by a person who will have no share (reward) in the Hereafter." Later on similar cloaks were given to Allah's Messenger and he gave one of them to `Umar bin Al-Khattab. On that `Umar said, "O Allah's Messenger! You have given me this cloak although on the cloak of Atarid (a cloak merchant who was selling that silken cloak at the gate of the mosque) you passed such and such a remark." Allah's Messenger replied, "I have not given you this to wear". And so `Umar bin Al-Khattab gave it to his pagan brother in Mecca to wear".
If his clothes were worn out, and that some Muslims noticed it, offering him another, he would not hesitate giving it to someone who asked
"A woman brought a woven Burda (sheet) having edging (border) to the Prophet, Then Sahl asked them whether they knew what is Burda, they said that Burda is a cloak and Sahl confirmed their reply. Then the woman said, "I have woven it with my own hands and I have brought it so that you may wear it." The Prophet accepted it, and at that time he was in need of it. So he came out wearing it as his waist-sheet. A man praised it and said, "Will you give it to me? How nice it is!" The other people said, "You have not done the right thing as the Prophet is in need of it and you have asked for it when you know that he never turns down anybody's request." The man replied, "By Allah, I have not asked for it to wear it but to make it my shroud." Later it was his shroud"
Even if, for argument's sake as is so often implied by his shameless enemies without ever bringing any evidence in support, the prophet Muhammad misused these 1/5th or "20%" for personal greed, although his contemporaries testified that he only kept
"One-fifth of the fifth"
and on top of that added another 20% of war booty for personal expenses, then it still does nothing to his divinely appointed status. A little hint of comparison to the critics is to take a look at the divinely sanctioned "heavy yoke" taxation system that benefited Jewish royalty, including the prophets David and Solomon.
In sura duha, one of the earliest Meccan revelations, a period during which it could certainly not be said, even by Islam's most die-hard opponents, that the prophet and his followers were rich it says in 93:8 that God found him aailan which literally means carer of others and subsequently enriched him.
This doesnt mean he became wealthy, but that he was increased in his meager resources for the sake of his empathy towards those he was found caring for. The whole surah duha is actually a verse which establishes the unique presence of Allah in the life of Muhammad upto when he began receiving revelation. An interesting linguistic device used in this sura to capture multitudes of meanings and implications is the omission of the 3rd person singular particle "ka" at the end of each of God's remedies to Muhammad's difficulties. This is done so as to indicate that these multifarious blessings ultimately benefit not only himself but those with him.
The Prophet was not poor and neither does the Quran say so. It states that the wealthiest among Quraysh considered him of no significance in the affairs of the people. Prior to prophethood Muhammad was actually a successful businessman, and Khadija employed him to manage her goods. Those that owned goods often employed businessmen to represent them on these caravans. It was through this employment that Khadija became aware of his outstanding qualities, especially his trustworthiness. He even used to sherd sheep in his teens. When prophethood began however, he could not provide for himself and his family from anything else than the war acquisitions. As shown above, in doing so he was far removed from behaving like kings and conquerors did, much less the average soldier who actually gained more than him once he redistributed the biggest part of his portion to society.
And again, as already shown, had he kept all his shares and added more on top, it would have done nothing to his credibility as a true prophet in light of the HB prophets who were in similar situations and behaved in a far less, if at all, selfless and charitable manner. And besides, even if he had all the possessions which the polemicists most often arbitrarily number and list and 10x as much, it wouldnt diminish an iota to his prophethood status. Anyone familiar with the HB knows the reason why. A description of the Prophet's hujuraat/huts is given by Ibn Sa'd in his at-Tabaqat al-Kubra.
A narrator named 'Abdullah ibn Yazid saw them just before they were knocked down by the order of the Caliph al-Walid ibn 'Abd al-Malik from Syria in the year 88/707 because he wanted to enlarge the Prophet's mosque. There were 9 huts and simple cottages in total, adjacent to the mosque and progressively built as his household expanded. 4 were of mud brick, with the inner space partitioned off by palm branches plastered with mud, and 5 made of palm branches plastered with mud and not divided into rooms. The doors werent even made of wood but of rough black blankets hanging for privacy. Maymunah's house for example wasnt partitioned. Abdullah ibn Abbas once slept as a youngster there as Maymunah was his aunt, when the Prophet's turn was to sleep in Maymunah's apartment. He detailed how he slept in the same room as the prophet and witnessed him spending the whole night in worship during his stay. The huts didnt exceed 5x4m in dimensions, each having a tiny 5x3m backyard enclosed by the branches of palm trees and unbaked bricks.
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 injurous attitude towards her husband knows that she just waisted 2 chances at solving the situation peacefully and rationaly and that now, if she wants to stay in the same household she has no choice but to mend her ways or face corrective physical punishement.
So even before resorting to beating, the wife with whom the appeal to her intellect and emotion through steps 1 and 2 did not work, who wants to stay in the same household and knows that her attitude was highly injurious will refrain by herself, thus settling the dispute. This is the second objective to allow beating, it serves as a deterrent to that type of woman. But if at that point, the woman genuinely did nothing wrong, decides not to change anything from her attitude while staying in the same household then she still knows that her husband, who believes to have been morally injured can resort to beating her.
So what will she do at that point and what option does the Sharia give her? Will she let her husband beat her while she thinks she has done nothing wrong? The Quran says
4:35"And if you fear a breech between the two, then appoint a judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they BOTH desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".
The words are clear and give her the right to appeal to a judge who will in turn designate an arbitrer from her side and her husband's, to settle the dispute and prove her right, or if she is proven wrong then she either mends her way and returns to the same household or simply divorce
"if they BOTH desire agreement".
The verse however clearly prefers reconciliation, as pointed in the words
"Allah will effect harmony between them; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".
This is reiterated in 4:128 which states that in case a wife fears nushuz from her husband, the same word used previously for a rebellious, disdaining wife, then
"there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and reconciliation is better".
4:128 also stresses that attempts at reconciliation should be undertaken as soon as signs of nushuz appear, not when the wife is already abused
"And if a woman FEARS nushuz".
Another thing worth noting is that nushuz, the attitude of disrespectful disdain and arrogance, when used in the context of marriage, applies to both men and women, with a tendency for adultery. The word is used in that connotation in pre- as well as post Islamic texts. For instance when a case of domestic dispute was brought to the prophet, the husband claimed that his wife
"is nashiz and wants to go back to Rifa`a (another man)".
In a report believed to have been uttered towards the end of the prophet's life, he emphasized that the option of striking is in the context of sexual transgression, thus further pointing that nushuz, the action which allows several punitive measures including striking, is related to adultery
"Surely, I enjoin you to treat women well, for they are like your captives. You do not have any right to treat them otherwise, unless they commit a clear obscenity/fahisha. If they do so, you may forsake their beds and then strike them without violence".
A woman isnt required to go through successive corrective steps to reform her husband, even if she only fears that her husband might become disrespectful, disdainful and arrogant. As soon as she sees the signs, she may appeal to a judge and only if she accepts reconciling, then the relationship may resume. Here is the verse again
"if they BOTH desire agreement".
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 deterrent 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.
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 committing 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
“Umar sent an arbitrator to a couple, but he returned without succeeding in reconciling them; whereupon he [‘Umar] BEAT HIM saying, “Almighty God says, ‘If they desire amendment [reconciliation], Allah will make them of one mind’ [Quran 4:35].“ So the man returned and with [good] intention[s] and gentleness toward them, he reconciled them.”
This bellies the statement attributed to Umar where, after a man intervened to prevent him beating his wife, reported from the prophet "No man shall be asked for the reason of beating his wife". This specific statement within the incident is deemed weak and rejected by the hadith authorities. Even if taken as it is, the statement doesnt give free rein to wife beating. It rather prevents making private household issues known publicly.
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.
The ratio of 1 man equivalent to 2 women's testimonies mentionned in 2:282 is a general advice
"so that IF one of them errs, the other can remind her".
It is a conditional statement, which makes the second female a passive witness unless the primary witness is forgetful. Therefore if a women is sound and competent, then she would need no other woman to remind her of something she knew but forgot. Her single testimony becomes equal in value to that of the man. The testimony is not gender based as one expert is not sufficient for a transaction to be binding; it requires 2 men as is clear from the verse's beginning
"get two witnesses out of your men".
The verse actually favors a woman witness who wouldnt automatically be dismissed for incompetence but would be supported in case of error while the single male witness would be replaced in the same case. The verse addresses the issue of financial matters and the fact is that on average, women are much less qualified than men in financial expertise, even in western societies. As well, women are almost all affected, sometimes completely debilitated by PMS symptoms during and around the times of their menstrual cycles, in their emotional-intellectual and physical capacities, all of which might potentially compromise female testimony in such a situation.
To dismiss that condition as potentially affecting every single woman simply for the sake of preserving a facade of progressive thinking, is a denial of an objective reality. The Quran doesnt deny human nature and instead approaches everyday matters realisticly and pragmaticly. It only accepts the testimony of a person affected by a psycho-emotional condition that could potentially influence the objectivity of a case, when it is a woman -hence the 2nd woman to remind her. It is clearly referring to a condition not to the presumed intellectual capacities of a woman, hence the 2nd woman's role to remind her of something she knows but was mislead into forgetting.
If what the Quran meant was that a man's testimony is equal to 2 women's, the Quran in other instances ie when a woman is accused of adultery, would be saying that one woman's testimony is equal to 4 men's because if 4 men are not brought forth then their testimony will not be valid and they will be lashed for lying 24:4.
Also, in the case a husband accuses his wife of adultery without bringing forth eyewitnesses, her testimony has the same value as her husband's, contrary to the Bible where the accused wife is immidiately considered guilty by default and is made to undergo humiliating and strange rituals to prove her innocence Numbers5:11-31. Without forgetting the fact that in Jewish law, women arent even allowed to serve as witnesses in legal matters in a court of law.
