In answer to the video "Muhammad's Marital Strife Part 1- Strong Form"
The prophet Muhammad, like many eminent prophets of the past, had a large household towards the end of his life. With such a large household combined with his prophetic duties and the turmoil of these early days in which he was involved in on a daily basis, he could not be expected to divide his time so as to satisfy each of the wives and potential concubines equally. But as the Islamic history books explicitly denote, he tried to observe equality among them as much as possible. He used to visit sometimes his 9 wives at once.
In that report, the Arabic doesnt denote sexual intercourse, on the part of that humble man in his late 50s who had in addition to balance his household duties with his extraordinary responsibilities as a spiritual leader and statesman. Some of his male companions might have assumed so, but it did not have to be the case. And to further corroborate that the prophet, despite visiting all his wives, would only have intercourse with the one whose turn had arrived
"Narrated ‘Urwah: ‘A’ishah said: “O nephew! The Messenger of Allah would not prefer any one of us to another with regards to spending time with us. Hardly a day would go by without him visiting all of us. He would come close to each woman, without touching her, until he reached the one whose turn it was, then he would spend the night with her".
The flexibility of the law as regards the division of time is of course not speaking of the sustenance and rightful material needs of every wife. In this area, the prophet had to divide his resources among every household, in addition to the financial burden of taking care of the indebted of the community and the incessant guests who would be received at all moments. He is known to have been left with very little to spend on himself and his wives, leading to them often complaining about the relative ease in which other companion's wives were living. And this at a time where the community had grown more prosperous in Medina, an ease which was not reflected in the prophet's household
33:28-9"say to your wives: If you desire this world´s life and its adornment, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing".
The prophet thus, despite being absolved from strict obligations towards his multiple wives would nevertheless feel saddened whenever he delayed his appointed time with one of his wives
33:51"You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you".
This ordinance made sure that no reproach would be cast upon him, and neither would he be hindered by social pressures or customs.
So although he had the peace of mind from a spiritual viewpoint that he would never be blameworthy, he still felt uneasy emotionally towards his wives whom he loved. And he did his utmost to spend as much time as he could with them all equitably. Aisha would say to him
"If I could deny you the permission (to go to your other wives) I would not allow your favor to be bestowed on any other person".
This statement from the prophet's youngest wife, and thus logically the most physically attractive in comparison to his other wives, shows the prophet tried as best as he could not to favor one wife over another based on his personal preference. There is an instance where he refused letting Aisha replace another wife on a day that wasnt hers
"O Aisha, keep away from me, it is not your day".
The prophet maintained as best he could that considerate pattern of behavior throughout his life, as narrated by Aisha:
"When the ailment of the Prophet became aggravated and his disease became severe, he asked his wives to permit him to be nursed (treated) in my house. So they gave him the permission. Then the Prophet came (to my house) with the support of two men, and his legs were dragging on the ground, between `Abbas, and another man".
Besides absolving the prophet, the ordinance also put all the wives and potential concubines on the same level as it concerned them all from God's perspective. Through it, they find the inner peace that the emotional sacrifice they shall endure, and which they all were fully aware of before accepting to marry the prophet, is for the accomplishment of a higher objective. Their merit with God will naturally be higher given their worldly sacrifices
"this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased, all of them with what you give them".
The verse ends with an affectionate message to the prophet's household in general, stressing that God is aware of the difficulties in all levels of life that they must endure, and their toll on their feelings
"and Allah knows what is in your hearts; and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing."
Aisha is indirectly described as expressing her initial frustration and spousal jealousy, when she supposedly stated in relation to 33:51 that
“I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires".
It is remarkable that the prophet would always abide by the restrictions divinely imposed on him but not the relaxations, as described above. In Sura Ahzab, around the verse quoted in the hadith, there are seven rules about marriage peculiar to the Prophet. Four of these granted him relaxations and three put restrictions. The Prophet certainly abided by the restrictions, but yet, for someone whose "Lord hastens his desires" he did not opt to benefit from two of the relaxations.
Had the idea of ‘convenient revelations’ any basis in that report from Aisha as claimed by Islam's opponents, to start with, there wouldnt have been any restrictions on the Prophet neither in this sura or other suras, to the exclusion of the rest of the believers. And neither would he have failed to take benefit of every relaxation, without having any guilty conscience as he just happened to have. It is further worthy to note that, in those relaxations pertaining to marital affairs described in 33:50-1, the prophet is a passive agent; it is the women that are given the option of seeking him in marriage, not the other way around. The bottom line is that, whichever one looks at it, nothing in the pattern of the life of the prophet supports the malicious charges against him.
As a side note about the issue of jealousy, as noted by the earliest scholars the jealousy – of either husband or a co-wife, when it does not lead to transgression either by words or by actions, is not blameworthy.
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Marital Strife Part 1- Strong Form"
Mosaic Law made no prohibition on male premarital or extramarital sexual activity so long as the women involved were not the property of another Jew. A Jewish male could acquire as many wives as he could afford, and also avail himself of the services of concubines, female war captives of any age regardless of them being married or not Deut21:10-17,Num31:17-18.
This was the case with the most eminent of their religious figures, including Abrahama, Moses, David or the wise king Solomon who were all polygamists, down to the regular members of society, including the priestly clan of the Levites 1Sam1:1-2.
Jacob counted 2 living sisters among his wives, which is against Torah law hence the various rabbinic explanations to the problem of having the father of the Jewish nation violating a future prohibition.
Torah sets no limits to the number of wives Ex21:10,Deut21:15 although it vaguely warns Israelite rulers (not common people) against having "too many" wives Deut17:17. Some Jewish comentators have argued, based on rabbinical discussions in the Talmud, that the maximum number of wives in all cases shouldnt exceed 18.
Polygamy is at the foundation of the Jewish nation. It even was and is still seen as a good deed, the best fulfillement of the eternally binding command to "be fruitful and multiply", so much so that it can hasten the messianic age. It was practiced throughout the Talmudic period, with the legislation saying that a man can have as many wives as are willing to marry him (as long as he can support them) without any hint to it being an immoral or abnormal practice. It was such a well established part of the social system that Mosaic law is not even critical of it. We find only certain regulations with respect to it but that were not practiced in reality as seen with David and Solomon's cases whose prophethood and kingship are never questionned despite their "transgressions".
It was not until the 10th century and the rabbinic ban upon it specifically on the Ashkenazic fringe, that made the issue controversial. If it wasnt a widespread practice, there would be no need to issue such a forceful amendment. Jews needed to accomodate for the Christian host nations that forbade the practice, fearing further isolation and persecutions from a people that already resented them.
Contrary to their other host nations, namely the Muslims, Christian tradition isnt a continuation of Jewish tradition but of Greek and Roman pagan traditions, society and morality.
Ancient Greeks, including the likes of Plato and Socrates, the supposedly great philosophers saw homosexuality, which they practiced and lauded, as the highest symbol of manhood. Women were inconvenient breeders, not ideal partners. Although Christianity somewhat discouraged homosexuality, it adopted this Greek attitude towards women and normal relations between men and women, adding the whole negative, evil spin to it.
Christians try interpreting the polygamy verses as if it is talking of marriage after divorce or death of a wife which is absurd since it says such marriage should not lead one to diminish any of the wife's conjugal rights, ie the first wife's of which the preceding verse clearly speaks of. Jesus does not oppose polygamy and even uses it in his parable to make his point about readiness for the kingdom Matt25. This was the perfect occasion for him to oppose it or criticize it, but doesnt at all. He features it, meaning giving it tacit approval.
From this noninterference attitude Luther, as late as the 16th century, arrived at the conclusion that he could not forbid the taking of more than one wife.
The Quran clearly alludes to the fact that as per the norms of human nature, the real benefits and advantages of the institution of family manifest themselves in a monogamous family. And despite fully endorsing, and not limiting polygamy neither quantitatively nor contextualy, the HB too speaks of the preference for a man to be united with a single wife Gen2:24.
As a side issue, one might ask why the regulation doesnt apply to women as well (polyandry). Aside from the basic issues of uncertain descendancy, a woman becomes undisposed to satisfy the most basic physical or sexual needs of her multiple husbands. IT is the case during her menstrual period or while pregnant. Also, from a strict biological viewpoint, a woman can only carry and conceive one child at a time and from one man only, for nine months before she can conceive another. A man on the other hand can beget a child every time he cohabits with a woman. Polyandry opposes these very elementary socio-biological issues. That is why it is practiced by very few societies that seek to limit population growth, with a purely materialistic outlook. For example, polyandry in the Himalayan mountains is related to the scarcity of land. The marriage of all brothers in a family to the same wife allows family land to remain intact and undivided.
In answer to the video "Muhammad's Marital Strife Part 1- Strong Form"
One might ask, why would it be allowed to marry more than one with the condition to deal equitably with all wives when the Quran itself states in 4:129 that such condition cannot be fulfilled even if one sincerely tries?
The fact is the two verses together 4:3,129 are addressing that conditional clause of equity towards wives from two perspectives to create mutual understanding from all parties involved:
- the perspective of the women, by saying in 4:3 that they have the right to equitable treatement and the man must be aware of that right regardless of his will to care for the orphans
- the perspective of the man, by saying in 4:129 that he will not be able to be perfectly just with all wives no matter how hard he sincerely tries. The women should be aware of the husband's sincere will to be just between them even he fails. They should keep in mind that the true objective of such unions is caring for the orphans. Allah is this way absolving the husband's shortcomings who is sincerely trying to be just with his wives for the sake of orphans and at the same time creating an understanding from the part of the wives, again for the sake of orphans. Although the verse absolves the husband from shortcomings, and the wives implicitly asked to be understanding, the husband then is explicitly warned he may not abuse of that forbearance to the point of injuring emotionally the wife he is less inclined to
"but be not disinclined (from one) with total disinclination, so that you leave her as it were in suspense".
This shows that the conditional clause of equity between wives in 4:3 covers the obvious and basic rights, not the shortcomings of a man sincerely trying to make a complex union work for the sake of orphans. From the point of view of the woman who fears she might be disdained, left aside, then there is the option of finding an arrangement, with one party compromising on its position so as to maintain the marriage ties 4:128. If none are willing to compromise then a divorce procedure is initiated.
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. 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. As previously stated, these are; 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. The Quran places Muhammad inside that pattern of the prophets, at a time when none, not even the nascent Muslim community whose fear and reluctance to engage in military confrontation is related in the Quran, could have imagined for him and his small band of followers to become victorious and establish themselves 37:171-182. Muhammad then effectively rises up and says to his tribe that they will meet a similar fate. He made the claim while in a state of weakness, and augmenting his rhetoric that should have antagonized his people against him instead of gaining him followers. 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.
