In answer to the video "Muhammad Was Known as a Womanizer! (Fun Islamic Fact #18)"
The marital history of the Prophet reveals that all of the women he married were either divorced or widowed with the exception of Aisha. Although the prophet willfully chose this despite having had the full power and Quranic right to have much more women that were much younger, yet he did not necessarily push his followers to shoulder the same responsibilities and self-restraint. For example when the prophet learned that his young companion Jabir, who had lost his father in battle, married a woman older than him, in addition previously married, he told him he could and should have chosen among the virgins, who would playfully interact with someone like minded and of similar age. Virgins tend to be young, especially in ancient societies where girls married early. Girls still lose their virginity young today, but for the wrong reasons as compared to older times. Also, for a young girl to be infertile is very uncommon, under normal circumstances. Jabir's purpose was to have someone care for his younger siblings, and thus thought that marrying an experienced woman would help him from that perspective. The prophet was a fatherly figure to the community and was here giving a common sense advise to a young man who should be looking for a more cheerful, playful female companion.
In having more than one wife, Muhammad was no different than previous prophets such as Ibrahim, Musa, Yaqub, Dawud, Solomon etc.
In a time where the average life expenctancy was 60, the multiple marriages of the Prophet started when he was 54-56, and 7 years before his death, after 2 years of celibacy, and in the middle of the fierce struggle to establish Islam. The calmuny that he suddenly had the libido that only 11 women could satisfy is grotesque and not grounded in reality. In addition these marriages came at a time where he had to balance his extraordinary responsibilities as a spiritual leader and statesman, with his personal life, and the Quran relates how he had so little room for privacy as the believers would enter his home at all times to seek counseling.
Sura Ahzab as shown above, extends the prophet's spiritual responsibilities to his wives who had to dedicate themselves to studying the Quran and help propagate it in words, thoughts and deeds. His extraordinary schedule and responsibilities, his regular lengthy night prayers, his amazing achievements in such a short time, all that precludes any notion of obsession with worldly pleasures as the critics and those who hate him try to portray.
By contracting most of these marriages, the prophet meant to eliminate the cast or class system, racial and national superiority, and religious prejudices that were all baseless and unjust factors preventing marriages. He married some of the humblest and poorest women and widows, most of them having attained and advanced age, as a way of paying back his due to some of the companions who had perished in battles leaving behind widows with children. He created bonds with conflicting tribes, helping them to settle their disputes, just as prophet Solomon did through his multiple marriages as depicted in the Bible. The Arabs had extreme respect for their son-in-laws and fighting them was considered a great shame therefore many tribes were at peace with others merely due to inter-tribal mariages.
So through these marriages, the prophet strengthened the bonds between Muslims, made peace with his ennemies, released some women from slavery. From the pattern of the prophet's marriages, none can deny that social and reforming purposes were the priority, and physical attraction, although perfectly legitimate, was not the primary criteria. The restrictions regarding polygamy that were placed on Muslims in general had to be lifted for these goals to be achieved. The verse 33:50 says that this exception was to allow the tasks which he, the prophet and statesman shall encounter
"for you exclusively, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that there should be no difficulty for you; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful".
Had the prophet been guided by his lusts, or primarily by physical attraction, when seeking marriage he could have had any captive he wanted from the different wars or any Muslim woman from among the most beautiful ones. He would at least have shown a pattern in his behavior, especially in his younger years where he had every opportunity to show which qualities were the ones he primarily sought in women. Given the ruling as regards right hand possessions, the prophet did not need to loosen up the restriction on the number of wives, thereby "exposing" himself as using revelation for personal "convenience".
Wars and persecution burdened the Muslims with many widows, orphans and divorcees. They had to be protected and maintained by the surviving Muslim men. It was his practice to help these women become resettled by marriage to his followers. They rejected some women and so some of those women sought his personal protection. Realizing fully their conditions and sacrifices for the cause of Islam, he had to do something to relieve them. One course of relief was to take them as his own wives and accept the challenge of heavy liabilities. He had to take part in the rehabilitation of those widows, orphans and divorcees because he could not ask his companions to do things that he himself was not prepared to do or participate in.
These women were trusts of the Muslims and they had to be looked after jointly. What he did, then, was his share of responsibility, and as always his share was the largest and heaviest. That is why he had more than one wife and more than any of his Companions, with all the restrictions and responsabilities on himself and his wives.
There were also many prisoners of war captured by the Muslims who were entitled to security and protection. They were not killed or denied their rights: human or physical. On the contrary, they were helped to settle down through legal marriages to Muslims instead of being taken as concubines and common mistresses. That also was another moral burden on the Muslims, which had to be shouldered jointly as a common responsibility.
In answer to the video "Muhammad Was Known as a Womanizer! (Fun Islamic Fact #18)"
Here is again the verse exempting the prophet from the 4 wives limit
4:3,33:50-1"specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful".
Here, the women made lawful to him are spelled out, outside of which he could not marry, and each with a specific purpose that he might discharge his duties of prophethood and moral reformer without any hindrance, blame and difficulty:
1. Those whom he was already married to
2. Those whom were captured in war, meaning for the pacification of tribes
3. Cousins from paternal and maternal sides that had migrated with him and left everything behind, meaning close family ties should not impede him from coming to such women's help.
4. Women that wanted to gift their souls to the Prophet, if he so desired to marry them. These women knew the difficulties that awaited them, spiritually due to their religious burdens and social role, emotionally due to the prophet hardly being available for them. In addition they knew they could not re-marry following his death, besides the major fact that financially, the prophet's household lived a very basic lifestyle relatively to others in the comunity. These selective criteria allowed for only the most pious, disinterested elements to be associated to him.
Here, the women made lawful to him are spelled out, outside of which he could not marry, and each with a specific purpose that he might discharge his duties of prophethood and moral reformer without any hindrance, blame and difficulty: 1. Those whom he was already married to 2. Those whom were captured in war, meaning for the pacification of tribes 3. Cousins from paternal and maternal sides that had migrated with him and left everything behind, meaning close family ties should not impede him from coming to such women's help. 4. Women that wanted to gift their souls to the Prophet, if he so desired to marry them. These women knew the difficulties that awaited them, spiritually due to their religious burdens and social role, emotionally due to the prophet hardly being available for them. In addition they knew they could not re-marry following his death, besides the major fact that financially, the prophet's household lived a very basic lifestyle relatively to others in the community. These selective criteria allowed for only the most pious, disinterested elements to be associated to him. This ordinance was so revealing of their piety that Aisha used to say
"I used to feel jealous of those women who offered themselves to the Prophet and I said, `Would a woman offer herself'"
And yet the noble prophet never took advantage of that rule as reported from ibn Abbas
"The Messenger of Allah did not have any wife who offered herself to him".
Ibn Kathir relates on such situations involving Khawlah bint Hakim
"a woman came to the Messenger of Allah and said, "O Messenger of Allah, verily, I offer myself to you (for marriage).'' She stood there for a long time, then a man stood up and said, "O Messenger of Allah, marry her to me if you do not want to marry her.'' The Messenger of Allah said: (Do you have anything that you could give to her as a dowery) He said, "I have only this garment of mine.'' The Messenger of Allah said: (If you give her your garment, you will be left with no garment. Look for something.) He said, "I do not have anything.'' He said: Look for something, even if it is only an iron ring.) So he looked, but he could not find anything. Then the Messenger of Allah said to him: (Do you have (know) anything of the Qur'an) He said, "Yes, Surah such and such and Surah and such,'' he named the Surahs. So, the Messenger of Allah said: (I marry her to you with what you know of the Qur'an.)"
The verse made it clear that the prophet's marriages were primarily motivated by his religious, social and moral obligations, and no blame was attached to him ever by his contemporaries for him marrying more than 4 in order to fulfill these duties, from within the categories allowed to him and with the special procedures cited in the verses. This shows that his contemporaries, enemies an followers alike, were perfectly aware and could not deny his motivation for having more wives than other Muslims.
With such a large household combined with his prophetic duties and the turmoil of these early days in which he was involved in on a daily basis, he could not be expected to divide his time so as to satisfy each of the wives and potential concubines equally. But as the Islamic history books explicitly denote, he tried to observe equality among them as much as possible. He used to visit sometimes his 9 wives at once. In that report, the Arabic doesnt denote sexual intercourse, on the part of that humble man in his late 50s who had in addition to balance his household duties with his extraordinary responsibilities as a spiritual leader and statesman.
Some of his male companions might have assumed so, but it did not have to be the case. And to further corroborate that the prophet, despite visiting all his wives, would only have intercourse with the one whose turn had arrived
"Narrated ‘Urwah: ‘A’ishah said: “O nephew! The Messenger of Allah would not prefer any one of us to another with regards to spending time with us. Hardly a day would go by without him visiting all of us. He would come close to each woman, without touching her, until he reached the one whose turn it was, then he would spend the night with her".
The flexibility of the law as regards the vision of time is of course not speaking of the sustenance and rightful material needs of every wife. In this area, the prophet had to divide his resources among every household, in addition to the financial burden of taking care of the indebted of the community and the incessant guests who would be received at all moments. He is known to have been left with very little to spend on himself and his wives, leading to them often complaining about the relative ease in which other companion's wives were living. And this at a time where the community had grown more prosperous in Medina, an ease which was not reflected in the prophet's household
33:28-9"say to your wives: If you desire this world´s life and its adornment, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing".
In answer to the video "Did Muhammad Use Religion for His Own Interests? (Answering Islam Part 4)"
His second wife after Khadija's death was an old black woman, Sawda 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 "How Does the Quran View Women? (Answering Islam Part 10)"
Beating is not promoted nor did the Quran invent domestic violence.
The Quran canalizes such behavior by preventing an immediate jump to beating, by giving a very stringent procedure to prevent reaching to that point. Men, if they beat their wives, they do so out of anger, and afterwards try and justify it by saying religion allows it. What the Quran is doing is preventing this impulse, and it does so in a context where it reforms women status and appeals to men's taqwa, their God consciousness, with verses setting the natural order of Men-Women relationships.
Verses such as 30:21 and others
"And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect".
Men and women naturally deal in terms of love and compassion, meaning domestic violence is against the natural order of things.
In 4:34 the Quran uses the word qawwam, from Q-W-M and it means standing upright. It covers the meaning that the entity stands upright and that it helps others stand upright. Man is referred to as being qawwam over the woman by means of the bounties which he has been bestowed with, the bounties which he must use responsibly in the maintenance of his household. In other words, man cannot stand upright over the woman if he does not care and maintain his base, his wife.
Qawwam in addition is in a grammatical form of siratul mubalagha, denoting a pattern of behavior. In this case, the verse's opening is stating the husband is one behaving with a pattern of care towards his wife. The word carries also the notion of qima/value, making the qawwam the one who gives value ie to his wife, which negates emotional abuse, a domestic issue often addressed in the Quran.
As is obvious, domestic violence has nothing to do with the notion of qawwam, meaning the verse itself stipulates that proper treatment of a woman is exactly the opposite of hurting a women. This is why the Quran then goes on to provide an exhaustive means to prevent hitting in the first place, and even when one reaches the point where striking becomes a valid option, it must be done in a way that encourages a change of course and can never contradict the fundamental notion of man being qawwam over the woman. This will be shown a little later.
This passage, like many others where the divine law is expounded, the Quran wraps the passage with a message that connects the divine law with spiritual awareness. This is done so that man never loses sight of the spirit of the law. In this case, the passage ends with a mention of certain attributes of God; He is the High and Mighty. There is a greater Being, with more authority than man and he should therefore not abuse of his position. The attribute of Might is also well suited to the context; men may be stronger than woman, but there is One stronger than man. And if men abuse their power, then let them know that they will have to face the Almighty. This style is used in other instances, such as when a man is told of his superiority over a wife in certain aspects of divorce procedures but reminded that this superiority is based on absolute wisdom and should that superiority be misused outside the bounds of wisdom, then there is One mightier than all
2:228"and the men are a degree above them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise".
Prior to the "beating" portion, first, the verse urges admonishment. This reveals the Quran engages the situation rationally, appealing to the intellect of the woman which was considered lower than a man's.
"those on whose part you fear nushuz"
KHAWF means fear of credible danger, as is consistent with all its occurrences in the Quran. So, it is not fear as in suspicion/Dhann. Dhann is to hold an opinion upon uncertain evidence. KHAWF is a fear about probable significant danger but it still does not refer to something obvious/blatant, and there is an element of relativity/subjectivity to it which is why the Quran tells to ITHOOHUNNA/advise them.
Even though the reasons for fear are credible, they can still be incorrect. This advising will not be in a harsh manner, as can be seen by its occurrences in the Quran, for example 31:13-19. When you give advice, you give the advice and listen to what they have to say. Therefore if the reason for the fear is diffused, then the problem is diffused. Another thing worth mentioning is that the word khawf denotes a significant threat in terms of marriage ties, it cannot be speaking of normal disagreements and disputes.
This is corroborated by the life of the one that embodied the Quran, the prophet had many reported disputes with his wives but always kept his composure and patience, remaining of gentle character, neither did he qualify their behavior as nushuz. Nushuz from the root N-SH-Z means elevated. It is used, among other things, for when a person elevates themselves above others, as in rebellion or arrogance or disdaining others. This isnt about typical disagreements that arise normally during a marriage.
One isnt disdainfully arrogant and disrespectful during such disputes. That is why the verse then says that if the wife desists from her nushuz
"do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great".
Further, this kind of attitude is one that threatens the preservation of the private, ie the intimate conjugal matters which the verse states should never be compromised, hence the parallel made between the preservation of these issues with the manner in which Allah preserves the unseen, a realm and knowledge which is shared only partially and with a select few
"the righteous women (are) dedicated, preservers of the private, by what Allah preserved".
If that first step, of engaging the situation rationally doesnt work, the Quran tells the husband to resort to step 2, distance himself physically. This can be done by not sharing the bed for example which is an appeal to the emotion of the woman.
Most men, the vast majority, will not even think of beating their wife even after these 2 steps, rational, then emotional, aiming at stoping her nushuz have failed. 99% of couples will simply divorce at that point.
However, the verse has specifically mentionned the option of beating in order to address 3 extreme situations.
First, as said in introduction, the issue of men who become violent due to impulsive anger. The verse offers them the option of beating, but after a gradual procedures precisely aimed at smoothly blocking their impulse and ultimately prevent beating. This is much more efficient than telling them from the get go that they cannot hit at all. One cannot expect a person behaving irrationally and emotionally to want to listen to a forceful instruction. It is well known that the best manner to deal with impulsive behavior is through mindful and calming steps.
In a situation where a husband fears nushuz from his wife in matters of transgression of the bounds of "guarding the unseen" which is a grave situation for any man of any culture, equal to backstabbing, an impulsive husband will immediately want to beat his wife, but the verse prevents that impulse, telling him to engage the situation rationally by first reasoning with his wife then refrain from physical contact
"admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places".
These 2 successive steps are crucial and effective at curbing a violent man's impulses and give him, as well as his wife, the time to cool-down and think.
At that point, the wife who stubbornly wants to keep going with her highly injurious attitude towards her husband knows that she just waisted 2 chances at solving the situation peacefully and rationaly and that now, if she wants to stay in the same household she has no choice but to mend her ways or face corrective physical punishement.
So even before resorting to beating, the wife with whom the appeal to her intellect and emotion through steps 1 and 2 did not work, who wants to stay in the same household and knows that her attitude was highly injurious will refrain by herself, thus settling the dispute. This is the second objective to allow beating, it serves as a deterrent to that type of woman. But if at that point, the woman genuinely did nothing wrong, decides not to change anything from her attitude while staying in the same household then she still knows that her husband, who believes to have been morally injured can resort to beating her.
So what will she do at that point and what option does the Sharia give her? Will she let her husband beat her while she thinks she has done nothing wrong? The Quran says
4:35"And if you fear a breech between the two, then appoint a judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they BOTH desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".
The words are clear and give her the right to appeal to a judge who will in turn designate an arbitrer from her side and her husband's, to settle the dispute and prove her right, or if she is proven wrong then she either mends her way and returns to the same household or simply divorce
"if they BOTH desire agreement".
The verse however clearly prefers reconciliation, as pointed in the words
"Allah will effect harmony between them; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware".
This is reiterated in 4:128 which states that in case a wife fears nushuz from her husband, the same word used previously for a rebellious, disdaining wife, then
"there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and reconciliation is better".
4:128 also stresses that attempts at reconciliation should be undertaken as soon as signs of nushuz appear, not when the wife is already abused
"And if a woman FEARS nushuz".
Another thing worth noting is that nushuz, the attitude of disrespectful disdain and arrogance, when used in the context of marriage, applies to both men and women, with a tendency for adultery. The word is used in that connotation in pre- as well as post Islamic texts. For instance when a case of domestic dispute was brought to the prophet, the husband claimed that his wife
"is nashiz and wants to go back to Rifa`a (another man)".
In a report believed to have been uttered towards the end of the prophet's life, he emphasized that the option of striking is in the context of sexual transgression, thus further pointing that nushuz, the action which allows several punitive measures including striking, is related to adultery
"Surely, I enjoin you to treat women well, for they are like your captives. You do not have any right to treat them otherwise, unless they commit a clear obscenity/fahisha. If they do so, you may forsake their beds and then strike them without violence".
A woman isnt required to go through successive corrective steps to reform her husband, even if she only fears that her husband might become disrespectful, disdainful and arrogant. As soon as she sees the signs, she may appeal to a judge and only if she accepts reconciling, then the relationship may resume. Here is the verse again
"if they BOTH desire agreement".
We have seen until now how the Quran, contrary to any other religious scripture, deals with the issue of domestic violence in such a way that impulsive men cannot reach the point where they will use force.
Secondly, it is a 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.
This verse was revealed in ancient Arabia, in a time when the world as a whole viewed beating one’s wife as a right in the male dominated patriarchal society. If it reflected the mentality of its contemporaries then it wouldnt have addressed the issue from such an intricately psychological perspective.
In terms of misogyny, nothing in Islam remotely resembles what is found in Judeo-Christian texts and traditions, whose background is, the events of the garden painting Eve as the first to sin, then leading Adam to sin, and because of that was condemned to be "restrained" through subjection to the rule of her husband forever Gen3. Prior to the modern era, that notion was interpreted as warranting physical punishment for marital disobedience, in both Jewish and Christian traditions. In Christian texts, through the writings attributed to Paul, male rulership is associated with physical coercion in case of disobedience. This includes disobedience of subjects to their ruler, slaves to their masters, children to their fathers, and by obvious analogy, wives to their husbands. Rom13:1-5,Titus2:9-10,Eph6:5,Heb12:5-11,1Tim3:4,Ex21:20-21,Prov23:13-14,20:30,13:24 etc.
The prophet himself never beat his wives, abusive or not. Had it been his habit or had the Quran condoned domestic abuse, we would have seen a pattern in the prophet's life. In fact his wives had the option to divorce him anytime they wished and be graciously helped so as to start their new life unbothered. Not only was this pattern absent from his life, but we even see one of his wives, Umm Habiba asking him to marry her own sister so she can "share with her of the prophet's goodness", which he declined.
The prophet approved of a woman's divorce request following physical and verbal domestic abuse from her husband. It was only expected by him given that he would not tolerate even the beating of women maid-servants
"one of us slapped her and Allah's messenger ordered us to set her free".
In fact it is said that this wife beating verse 4:34 was revealed in relation to the case of a woman that came complaining to the prophet that her husband had hit her. The prophet disliked that behavior, he was known for his good treatment of his wives. He was about to punish the perpetrator based on the law of retaliation then the verse came to educate husbands and wives on the matter. The prophet said
"I wanted one thing and God wanted another".
This is because, as shown earlier, there is wisdom in allowing corrective physical punishement in the intricate way that the Quran does.
In answer to the video "How Does the Quran View Women? (Answering Islam Part 10)"
The Quran directs men and women to complete and comfort eachother. They have been made from the same essence and should therefore relate to oneanother 4:25. They are eloquently depicted as garments of tranquility and protection to eachother
2:187"They are raiment (libas) for you and ye are raiment for them"
9:71"And (as for) the believing men and the believing women, they are guardians of each other".
"Libas" is a clothing used to cover the physical body, also used in the Quran as a means by which one is spiritually covered with God-consciousness/taqwa 7:26. It is to that sort of covering the verse 2:187 refers to because each spouse restrains the other from unchastity, and protects society from debauchery.
"be in contact with them and seek what Allah has written for you".
This is just another instance of the Quran's supreme pragmatism. The coming together of men and women in lawful sexual intercourse isnt primarily a means of being
Gen1:28"fruitful and multiply".
Otherwise the divine law should have banned sexual relations between married infertile people or in any other case that doesnt cause, or at least has the high probability of ending in procreation. Rather the Quran's approach addresses human nature and reality. It considers lawful sexuality as a means by which a natural need is satisfied, first and foremost. Regardless of whether being "fruitful and multplying" results from it or not. Sexual attraction is a pressure God has ingrained in human nature. When a couple engages in that action, they are in reality seeking what Allah has written for them, even if at that time their only aim is to satisfy their sexual desire.
The Quran refers in many places to the positive, God-ordained nature of sexuality within limits, that there is nothing wrong in satisfying carnal desires in lawful ways. What is evil is to deny or forbid those needs or that one should transgress the prescribed limits for satisfying those needs
23:5-7,2:187,222"go in to them as Allah has commanded you".
God awareness therefore remains in all situations, even while seeking to fulfill what is an indispensable basis for a healthy husband/wife relationship
2:223"Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers".
Man is told to consider the spouse's affectionate disposition aforehand meaning he does not have the entire monopoly of the right to sexual intimacy. This statement goes both ways, which means that neither of the 2 is permitted to withhold the sexual act without a valid reason. Such a behavior would amount to abuse and mistreatment of the husband or the wife, hence reports the likes of which stating that angels curse the wife that refuses her husband's invitation to sleep with him, making him angry. This speaks of a wife not giving any reason for her refusal, hence the husband's upset feelings.
When informed of Abdullah Ibn Amr’s neglecting of his wife’s conjugal rights, the Prophet reminded him that
"Your wife has a right over you".
Some traditions relate the importance of both being satisifed after physical intercourse. The Prophet once said,
“When a man approaches his wife he should not hasten until she is satisfied because women have needs”
also
“You men must make yourselves tidy and be prepared for your wives, as you would like them to be prepared for you”.
This is about the importance for the husband to be well groomed for his wife, as a sign of love and respect. As shown from the Quran earlier, the spouse's affectionate disposition, his or her mood, must be taken into account aforehand
"None of you should fall upon his wife like an animal; but let there first be a messenger between you. The companions asked, what is that messenger? The prophet replied, Kisses and (romantic) words".
Contrast this with the NT in 1cor7 saying a wife has no right over her body but her husband does, which leaves the door wide open to marital rape. Back in the HB itself, a rape victim is sometimes forced to marry her rapist. He may not divorce her at any point, giving him free license to keep on abusing his victim for the rest of her life Deut22.
The Quran urges man to be considerate towards the wife, he cannot forsake his spirituality and obedience to God in the process
2:222"go in to them as Allah has commanded you".
Anything going against the prescribed way in which sex is to be performed, is forbidden.
The language used in the verse 2:222 evokes tenderness and deep consideration between the mates with the imagery of the farmer cultivating his tilth with great care. The words allude to liberty in this regard like the farmer is free to approach his land and cultivate it, as well as responsibility, caution and care which he must exercise in approaching his land. A farmer may not mishandle his land nor plant it anyway or anytime he likes.
A somehow similar metaphore is employed in the HB, as it compares a wife to the vine, a weak and tender tree, that needs support, often fastened to the sides of the house, on which it cleaves, runs up and bears fruit. The image creates a parallel with the weakness and tenderness of the female sex, their fruitfulness in bearing children and care for the household in which she is to stay in and exert herself
Ps128:3"Your wife will be as a fruitful vine in the innermost parts of your house; your sons will be like olive shoots around your table".
The Quran's eloquent words leave no room to them being read with the notion of forced sex in mind. Firon's crime of keeping the Israelites' women for himself and his men as a humiliation and torment, ie to abuse them sexually, as fasad fil ard meaning it is a crime punishable by death 28:4,5:33.
In answer to the video "How Does the Quran View Women? (Answering Islam Part 10)"
The ratio of 1 man equivalent to 2 women's testimonies mentioned 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 realistically and pragmatically. 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 immediately 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.
The famous hadith, gladly picked up by the critics if Islam, where the prophet reportedly admonishes a group of women for their "deficiencies" isnt speaking of mental IQ, that notion is bellied by the description of the inquisitive woman as jazlah/wise,intelligent. The second part of the hadith, with the word ghalaba which means to overcome, plainly states that women might outsmart "dhi lubbin”—a very intelligent, or wise, or resolute man. How can an intellectually inferior individual outwit one of superior intellect? The word 'aql does not always equate with general mental capacities. That is why the prophet corroborated his statement "'aql deficiency" with the verse 2:282 spoken of earlier which deals with the issue of 2 women witnesses replacing one male witness. And neither does naqs necessarily equate with deficiency but also "to reduce".
This is like telling them that though they have been reduced in their worldly and religious duties, this does not mean in any way that they are of lesser mental/spiritual capacities since they can overcome the smartest of men.
The statement within the hadith that most of hell dwellers will be women is not due to an inherent spiritual flaw but because of them cursing more and being more ungrateful. In another hadith and using the same wording it says that most of the dwellers of Paradise will be women too.
Imam Muslim quotes ibn Sireen as saying that there was discussion between men and women as to which gender will be the majority in Heaven. Abu Hurayra answered, based on the prophet's statement that women will be more (Fath al Baari 6/325). By applying the same misunderstanding one would interpret this latter hadith as saying that women are spiritually superior to men.
A woman is commanded by Allah not to pray or fast during her menses, which are the 2 examples the prophet gives of how they are reduced in religion. And though they are exempted from these rituals, by obeying these commands they will still receive their rewards. Seeing that a woman on her way to perform was sad, Aisha asked
"What is wrong with you?' I replied, ' I do not offer the prayers (i.e. I have my menses).' He said, ' It will not harm you for you are one of the daughters of Adam, and Allah has written for you (this state) as He has written it for them. Keep on with your intentions for Hajj and Allah may reward you that."
Men do not receive rewards for not praying or fasting and although the divine law stipulates different rights and obligations to men and women their ultimate reward is the same.
Anyone who knows the character and eloquence of the prophet with which he was able to effectively change the hearts and minds of his addressees, knows that he would never utter such hurtful, insulting speech, much less on a festive day of Eid. He would never put anyone down, especially due to gender, race, class or any other matter, and this is something the Quran forbids anyone to do.
Furthermore had the prophet been a proponent of such notion of women being mentally and spiritually inferior then he would never have entrusted his wives with safeguarding, transmitting and teaching the most sacred knowledge to both men and women. He is also reported as giving precedence to his wife Umm Salama's opinion in a very crucial matter, during the treaty of Hudaybiya over that of his closest male companions. The caliphs would later emulate the prophet in this behavior, on certain occasions. Aisha would even issue fatwas.
In answer to the video "Pretending to Be Muslims (Quran 9:56-57)"
This hadith comes back many times in anti Muslim circles, passed around like a hot potato. A little background check will clarify the issue. The background is actually 9:5, another favorite of anti Muslim critics.
As the surrounding verses make it clear 9:5 is speaking of those who repeatedly broke the contracts, despite the Muslims keeping their engagements, attacked the Muslims first. These people, the Muslims should remain extremely cautious with. The Believers are required to put their trust in God and negotiate with them regardless of their treacherous history if they show an inclination towards peace 8:61-62, but at the same time should not hesitate to cancel the agreements in case they fear treachery on their part. Because Muslim rectitude forbids treachery in agreements, the Quran commands the believer to do so openly so as to avoid any misunderstanding as regards the state of war between the parties 8:58. The same principle is observed with the very first verse of sura tawba, where Muslims openly proclaim their dissociation from the treaty breakers. Once the Muslim position is made clear, they should prepare themselves for every eventual threat from within and outside the community 8:60.
The Muslims should only stop fighting these treaty violators under 2 conditions:
- The first condition is if they clearly become Muslims by praying regularly and pay the poor rate. This is the only guarantee Muslims have against being attacked by a people provably inclined to backstabbing and breaking of oaths
4:91"You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority".
It is in such background that one should read the often misused report in which the prophet says
"I have been commanded to fight the idolators (Other versions "the people") until they bear witness to La ilaha illallah (there is none worthy of worship except Allah) and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. If they bear witness to La ilaha illallah and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, and they pray as we pray and face our Qiblah, and eat our slaughtered animals, then their blood and wealth becomes forbidden to us except for a right that is due, and they will have the same rights and obligations as the Muslims".
What is translated as to fight/uqaatil implies fighting opposite an initial attack, as is clear from the context of 9:5. Also, the more complete hadith further portrays the prophet quoting
88:22"Therefore do remind, for you are only a reminder. You are not a watcher over them".
This, in addition to the known proper context of the report, decisively shows there can be no compulsion in religion, as explicitly stated in the Quran in many places. As commented by ibn Taymiya
"what is meant here: Fighting the fighters of those that Allah made permissible to fight, and not those under the treaty and were loyal to Allah".
No forced conversions occured at the conquest of Mecca and sura 88, which is quoted by the prophet in relation to his statement in the hadith, is unanimously believed to have been revealed in Mecca.
- The second condition is if they do not become Muslims but they stop their persecution then
2:193"there should be no hostility except against the oppressors".
That is because
8:38"if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed".
These 2 important point show that 9:5 does not say to fight these hostile idolaters until they become Muslims since an idolater who stops fighting is left to go freely to his homeland 9:6, but until they refrain from their hostile attitude of which a conversion to Islam and the strict and public adherance to each of its ordinances would be a guarantee. One last time, not all idolaters were fought until they became Muslims, only those that were untrustworthy to be left based on a verbal agreement.
In answer to the video "Pretending to Be Muslims (Quran 9:56-57)"
18:29,2:256"There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing"
When 2:256 says there is no compulsion in religion, it also gives the reason for the prohibition of compulsion
"truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error".
The reason is that truth has been clearly explained, there is thus no need to enforce it. It is available for anyone to consider, while knowing the consequences of accepting or rejecting it. The clause on which the prohibition of force is based ie "truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error" was never reversed, whether before or after the "verses of the sword" meaning the effect must equally remain unchanged.
Islam requires that belief follows reason and understanding. There is no need for compulsion in a matter whose advantages and disadvantages are clearly defined and the reward and punishment for accepting or rejecting it well-explained "the right way has become clearly distinct from error". This is why the prophet is told that he is not a warder, keeper and guardian over those who turn away. Like all prophets that passed before him his task consists in warning and giving glad tiding to the people, he has no power to influence their freewill or force their belief 17:54,42:48,88:21-2. He should therefore let him disbelieve whoever wishes to 18:29 after making sure that the message has reached them 13:40 in the most kindly manner 6:108,16:125.
Also, anyone can leave Islam and come back time and time again without punishment or being killed 4:137 which bellies the idea of killing a person as a punishment for leaving Islam or wavering in his faith. However God will only accept his repentance if it is sincere 3:86-89 and not followed by constant periods of disbelief then belief 4:137.
As reported by ibn Abbas
"A man from among the Ansar accepted Islam, then he apostatized and went back to Shirk. Then he regretted that, and sent word to his people (saying): 'Ask the Messenger of Allah [SAW], is there any repentance for me?' His people came to the Messenger of Allah [SAW] and said: 'So and so regrets (what he did), and he has told us to ask you if there is any repentance for him?' Then the Verses: 'How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their Belief up to His saying: Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful' was revealed. So he sent word to him, and he accepted Islam."
Nowhere does the Quran say a person must be punished or killed solely for the act of apostasy and all it mentions is that apostates shall face a terrible punishment in the Hereafter.
This of course excludes those who apostize unwillingly, who are
3:86-91,16:106"compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith".
Such a person is compelled to renounce faith with his lips due to imminent danger on his life while he remains a firm believer in his heart. This is what is often referred to as taqiya. The Quran doesnt condone lying, rather commands to uphold one's pledges, to judge with equity, to speak justly, kindly, with integrity, without corruption, with the outward locution corresponding to the intent
4:5-9,135,6:152,2:83,235,3:32,70"O you who believe! Reverence God and speak justly".
It is further to be noted here, that although martyrdom in the cause of faith is highly meritorious, still the Quran absolves those who sincerely, not out of lack of faith, cannot go to such an extent because
2:233"no soul shall have imposed upon it a duty but to the extent of its capacity".
Saving life takes precedence over following the law. That is why a Muslim may eat pork if facing starvation. Exactly what Jesus taught in the Gospels when he transgressed the sabbath by citing David's example.
Punishment in the hereafter for the sin of apostasy is therefore solely the lot of the one who willingly, without any compulsion renounces Faith and:
"opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement".
Severing of social ties must be made with apostates who were former hypocrites, especially in the context of war as in the verses that will be quoted, since these former Muslims used to hide their hatred and enmity from other Muslims, and now openly declare it, even striving to make them leave their religion
4:88-89"What is the matter with you, then, that you have become two parties about the hypocrites, while Allah has made them return (to unbelief) for what they have earned?..They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike".
They are therefore to be cut off from the community to avoid the spread of their mischief
4:89"take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes)/hajiru in Allah's way".
Ties with them can only be restaured when they decisively return to Islam (as indicated by the clause "fi sabilillah/for Allah's sake") and prove their faith to the rest of the community through difficult sacrifices such as leaving their homes and doing hijra in Allah's way, forsaking the domain of evil for an environement where they can practice their faith without restrictions, as the true believers were doing. If they do not do so then their expression of Islam is only for the purpose of spying and destruction, serving the purpose of those with whom Muslims are at war. In this case
4:89"if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper".
They must be executed because of their open and secret hostile activities. However if those apostates refuse to flee their homes in Allah's way but nevertheless end the threat from within the community, by migrating for
4:90"a people between whom and you there is an alliance"
or who decide to remain within the Muslim community but have decisively abandonned all hostilities
4:90"who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people..withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them".
This Quranic passage establishes the social ruling as regards apostasy. The Quran frames it exclusively in the context of war, which is also the historical context in which the early scholars of Islam discussed the law of apostasy. That is why neither the Quran nor the scholars impose a punishement solely for the act of apostasy, but when it is coupled with hostile activity, verbal or physical.
Ridda is the word used in reference to those who engage in this multifaceted behavior. This historical perspective is often missed, disregarded or obscured whenever critics quote a saying from the prophet on apostasy, or the rulings of the fuqaha'. One can now understand the words of the prophet
"The one who leaves his religion AND SEPERATES from the community, kill him".
Here, the apostate is to be killed if he in addition severes all ties with the community. In those days, this amounted to joining enemy ranks. If the apostate remains in the community he is left unharmed. We thus see the prophetic practice in clear congruence with the aforementionned Quranic passage.
However even in times of peace, execution of an apostate is sometimes justified. In an Islamic state, Islam itself is what constitutes and legislates life on every level; administrative, economic, social etc. For a Muslim citizen to abandon Islam means to reject the law of the land. One cannot at the same time pledge to abide by those rules while rejecting the essence of the legislative authority, which is the Quran and the prophetic sunna. The entire system derives from these 2 pillars, and new laws are continuously formulated based on them. This constitutes a destabilising factor on all levels of society; how can a government endure if people reject a system unanimously adopted by the community? Except under a tyranny, such an attitude is unjustifiable and is an existential threat to the state. That is why the jurists have legislated for the threat to be cut off from its onset, before it becomes a movement. The apostate on the other hand is free to leave the land and reside outside Islamic jurisdiction, or remain in it without making his apostasy public. But if he makes the apostasy and rejection of the system public, remains in Muslim land, he becomes de facto an outlaw and a destabilising factor within society. Even if it is for the sake of converting to one of the non-Muslim groups of the Islamic land, the apostate still is guilty of rejecting the legislative authority. The non-Muslim groups on the other hand, pre-existed the Islamic state until it expanded to their lands. They never at any point rejected the legislative authority, but instead embraced it, along with the freedom of religion it grants them.
In answer to the video "Pretending to Be Muslims (Quran 9:56-57)"
After the warmongerers among the Idolaters were dealt with, the sura Tawba turned to the hypocrites, plotting and sowing dissension among the Muslims, recognizable through various traits such as sluggishness in rising for prayer, stinginess or reluctancy to take up arms to the point
9:57"If they could find a refuge or cave or a place to enter into, they would certainly have turned thereto, running away in all haste".
Refusing to defend the larger community in times of war is the central blame attached to this group throughout the sura, living and benefiting from the selfless sacrifices and martyrdom of others. When they were pointed out they would swear they were faithful and sincere. They feared for the repercussions of their treacheries and sabotaging efforts of a community in times of war
9:56,95"They will swear to you by Allah when you return to them so that you may turn aside from them; so do turn aside from them; surely they are unclean and their abode is hell; a recompense for what they earned".
Although fully justified should he decide to seize them, bring them to justice or even execute them as any governement, past and modern would do to such individuals in times of war, God tells the prophet to let them be, they have been exposed and wont delude or deceive anybody but their own selves.
The prophet of God did exactly that and didnt even imprison such traitors. The most that he did was to socially ostracize them, refusing their unworthy charitable contributions and even their participation in battle, although the community at that point was in need of financial and human resources to defend itself. He even refused pronouncing himself on those who came out in repentance, asking the prophet to pray for their forgiveness, and to accept their charitable donations. Until God revealed His command
9:103-4"Take a portion of their money as charity, so that you may cleanse and purify them thereby; and pray for them: for your prayers are a source of comfort for them. Do they not know that it is God alone who accepts repentance from His servants, and He is truly the One who takes charitable offerings, and that God is the oft returning to mercy, the merciful?”
In answer to the video "Countering Muslim Claims, Episode 4: The Preservation of the Quran"
An important thing to note here is that Uthman was leader when the Muslim lands had already expanded over a third of the known world and the Quranic transmission was an on-going phenomenon mainly through memory. It would have been impossible for him, or anyone more powerful than him, to destroy all personal, private copies had there already existed differing traditions on written Qurans and manuscripts spread throughout the empire, let alone destroy all these "alternate" Qurans from the Muslims' memories and prevent their recitation.
It should be easy to provide empirical proof for these claims, like in Christianity, where there is manuscript evidence as well as a whole history of textual revisions, disagreements of what should or shouldnt be canonical. There is nothing even remotely similar in Islam.
Also it is well known how Uthman's control on his own far regions, including Iraq and Egypt was weak. Hence his inability to control the rebellions and the rulers of the farthest regions of his empire, until he was finally assassinated in Medina. These rebels and their rulers who never accepted Uthman's authority and upon whom he had no control did not need to reach the seat of the caliphate to have and propagate their own Qurans in their own regions upon which they had authority, just as their predecessors who never swore allegiance to the previous caliphs.
So despite their hatred for the caliphate, these rebels that the caliphs could not even control, magically followed Abu Bakr then Uthman's Quran in their own prayers, abandoning what they thought was God's word for the person they had actually revolted against and assassinated? Not a single source speaks of dispute between competing texts or of a rejection of Uthman's copy in favor of another.
Similarly the tensions surrounding the succession of the prophet had every reason to incite people to alter the Quran in their favor yet we find that all disputes and arguments between leaders and supporters against the opposite camp were never based on the Quran but on sayings of the prophet and his companions. The authoritative consonantal skeleton of the Quran is unanimously traced back to Uthman, not only by the Sunni tradition but also by eir historical enemies like the Kharijites and the Shia. These groups and even sub groups were willing to go to war for their theological positions. They fabricated ahadith in defence of their views yet none ever tampered with the Quran. Not that they were not tempted, rather the oral and textual dissemination was such that corruption became impossible without being detected and discredited. So how could this pan-Islamic consensus have formed at a time when the Islamic community had spread from Spain to Iran, had split into several hostile groups, unless the Quran had attained the level of mass transmission/tawaatur? How could Uthman or even Abd al-Malik after him, have coerced their various adversaries to adopt "their" version of scripture, in addition crediting Uthman for it? There were other existing recensions, compiled by the prophet's companions such as that of Ibn Masud which he received from Ali ibn Abi Talib, from the prophet. Why didnt the Shia adopt it in order to demarcate themselves from the sunni? They could have in addition credited Ali for the compilation instead of Uthman. Also, variants are all still attested in many scholarly works throughout the centuries, with their chains of transmission, some authentically attested to the prophet and others of weaker authenticity. There is no widescale conspiracy to hide or suppress anything nor would it have been possible by the wildest stretch of imagination. And burning the defective copies did nothing to erase the knowledge of the variants from the hearts of the people, well after Uthman. Why didnt someone or at least a group of people who had preserved their alternate versions, somewhere in the vast caliphate begin the process of rewriting and propagating their own copies allegedly suppressed by Uthman?
It is obvious Uthman, who could not assert his political power in those lands, would not have been able to control something even more complex and dynamic and far ranging, which is the recitation and transmission of the Quran. And if Uthman had his own enemies to the point they revolted in Iraq and Egypt, and marched to Medina to have him assassinated, why would these people agree to Uthman's Quran? They surely would have kept their own "Qurans" but it didnt happen.
So how did these multiple Qurans just disappear out of the collective conscience of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Muslims, through the introduction of just 6-9 manuscripts, considering the fact that the vast majority of Muslims was illiterate anyway. And all this through the "force" of a man who was assassinated in his own house, as said earlier, unable to assert his political authority, yet he supposedly and just magically controlled all these various competing traditions of not just manuscripts, but RECITED words?
We have over 15 years, including Umar's extensive rule of Africa, Asia and parts of Central Asia, to Persia, meaning one is talking about a deeply embedded culture prior to Uthman even taking the reigns of rule. How did all these millions upon whom he in addition had no control line up in such a short-time to relearn and re-memorize the Quran due to a few manuscripts they couldnt even read, and abandon their differing tradition?
The opposition against Uthman, his growing unpopularity, and for which he was eventually assassinated, was due to divergence from the practice of the two preceding caliphs in handling the public trust of the Muslims, and other such issues. But his work relating to the Quran was appreciated equally by his friends and foes and it was never made a point of stigma on him by his adversaries. Had Uthman altered the Quran, that would have served as the clearest argument for, and major justification of, his public assassination.
