Sam Shamoun "Unveiling the Inanimate Gods of Islam" (2)

Sam Shamoun "Unveiling the Inanimate Gods of Islam" (2)

The Kaaba, according to Arab history was constructed by Prophet Ibrahim and his son Ismail. One will find remnants from the time of Ibrahim, thus the 'black stone' fixed on one of the pillars/arkan of the edifice. It is one of the original stones Abraham used to build the Kaaba, as he built other altars and places of worship to God throughout his journeys Gen12:6-8,13:4,18. That Abrahamic practice we are told in the HB, was left to his posterity that similarly built places of worship symbolized by stones erected as pillars Gen28:10,18-22.

Whatever the origin of the Black Stone and whatever the origin of stone worship in Arabia, the pre-Islamic Arabs, neither of Mecca nor of the other places, are never found to have worshipped the Black Stone of the Kaaba. Neither was the Black Stone of the Kaaba symbolical of stone worship, nor were the Prophets Ibrahim or his righteous descendants that emulated his practice, stone worshippers on account of their having stone pillars at their altar. 

This is highly significant given the importance of the Kaaba to the pre-islamic Arabs, and of the black stone itself. Stone worship was deeply imbedded in their religions 

"We used to worship stones, and when we found a better stone than the first one, we would throw the first one and take the latter". 

And yet despite the presence of this special stone at their most revered shrine, they are never found worshipping it, or attributing to it any type of intrinsic power. Umar, who was a Meccan pagan prior to Islam, found it strange to include it in the religious rites. His reaction would have been different had the black stone any type of divine connotation to the polytheists. This shows that its significance was other to the Arabs, that just as the Islamic history teaches, it is an Abrahamic remnant. The Ishmaelite descendants, more particularly the hanif among them, of whom the prophet was part of, those that had tried preserving the way of Ibrahim contrary to the pagans among them, were emotionally attached to it for that reason.

Kissing the stone is a ritual done by Muslims out of imitation of the prophet, it isnt an obligatory ritual, neither is it the same as the respect given to statues. The earliest Muslims, as already said, did not feel the need to kiss it as part of their rituals, showing that it wasnt a pre-islamic habit among pagans. As the Caliph Umar said 

"I know you are but a stone that cannot hurt or help, and if i had not seen the messenger of God kiss you i would not kiss you".

The companions in fact refrained from forcing their way through so as to touch and kiss it during the tawaf/circlings, if the place was crowded (Sunan an-Nasa'i 2938).

Unlike the Catholics, who kiss statues with the intention of seeking nearness to those represented by those statues, hoping for a favor from them or nearness to God through them, or Hindus who kiss their idols hoping for the same, Muslims kiss the Black Stone without any personification, expectation or hope in it. Muslims do so on account of an emotional bond with it, and what it represents. Just as one would kiss a picture or random object, hand or individual out of pure emotional attachment. Being near or physically in contact with the black stone is for a Muslim an intense experience due to its ancestral importance, the remnant of the foundational stones of the edifice, as Abraham was erecting it. The remembrance it creates inevitably leads to spiritual uplifting. For comparison among the monotheistic faiths, one could parallel the experience with the Jews weeping during prayer while in contact with the remaining wall of their destroyed temple. 

Similarly, later companions of the prophet had never prayed to Allah while in physical connection with parts of the Kaaba, neither were they aware of the prophet doing so 

"O Abu abdur-Rahman, why do I only see you touching these two corners?" He said: "I heard the Messenger of Allah say: 'Touching them erases sins". 

As in the example of the black stone, Had it been common in the pre-Islamic belief to worship the Kaaba itself then it wouldnt have been surprising for that companion to see another touching it during worship. When the prophet did so, he did not merely touch it but addressed prayers of forgiveness to Allah 

"He walked forward until, when he was between the two columns that are on the either side of the door of the Kabah, he sat down, praised Allah, asked of him, and prayed for forgiveness. Then he got up, and went to the back wall of the Kabah, placed his face and cheek against it and praised Allah, asked of Him, and prayed for forgiveness. Then he went to each corner of the Kabah and faced it, reciting the Takbir, the Tahlil and Tasbih, praising Allah, asking of Him and praying for forgiveness. Then he came out and prayed two Rakahs facing the front of the Kabah, then he moved away and said: “This is the Qiblah, this is the Qiblah".

The Quran further stresses that the Kaaba itself is of no intrinsic spiritual value beyond what God has commanded in regards to it. Without God's commission, no place has spiritual excellence or preference in its own essence. The direction in itself is therefore not something to be disputed and argued about. If one wishes to remain in a specific direction as if the place is intrinsically sacred then he may do so. He would have however disobeyed a divine injunction, prioritizing his personal desires and preferences

 2:143,148,177"and We did not make that which you would have to be the qiblah but that We might distinguish him who follows the Messenger from him who turns back upon his heels, and this was surely hard except for those whom Allah has guided aright...And every one has a direction to which he should turn, therefore hasten to (do) good works; wherever you are, Allah will bring you all together...It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is this that one should believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets, and give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) the captives, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in time of conflicts-- these are they who are true (to themselves) and these are they who guard (against evil)". 

This is the general principle behind every ritual, to do as one is told, as evidence of submission to the way of God.

There are thus no prayers to the kaaba or the stone. Rather prayers are offered to Allah while touching various parts of it. Not a single pre-islamic practice, as reflected by the companions' attitude to the kaaba, indicate kaaba worship. And the kaaba is only part of the hajj rituals. Just like Muslims pray to Allah while in the presence of that monument, they pray and ask Allah's forgiveness in many other situations, locations and touching other things, including slaughtering animals. All of which have their symbolic meaning similar to the ones described as regards the kaaba.

As to the talking black stone, they marvel, but we dont, and for good reasons.

A Day will come where none, whether in the heavens and earth and up to the highest ranked angels, will speak except by Allah's permission 11:105,78:37-8. This will be done to assert God's absolute dominion over all that exists. And to further stress that notion, unlike on the earth where a moment of silence can be broken anytime a person wishes to speak on his own, on that day it is God that will give the power of speech to even the most inert objects. This is the supreme Quran imagery at play. Several "witnesses" will be brought forth to the divine court, on the plain of resurrection, besides the messengers 39:69. Among them will be the earth itself which will be inspired by God to "speak" as regards the traces left behind by our deeds 99:4-5.

A more striking and shocking sight will be when we shall be asked as regards the manner in which we made use of God's innumerable bounties put at our disposal 16:78,17:36 and then the different body parts themselves will be made to testify

24:24,36:65,41:20-21"their ears and their eyes and their skins shall bear witness against them as to what they did. And they shall say to their skins: Why have you borne witness against us? They shall say: Allah Who makes everything speak has made us speak, and He created you at first, and to Him you shall be brought back".

When one is alone committing a crime, the last thing on the mind is that a day will come where one's own organs will testify

41:22-23"And you did not veil yourselves lest your ears and your eyes and your skins should bear witness against you, but you thought that Allah did not know most of what you did. And that was your (evil) thought which you entertained about your Lord that has tumbled you down into perdition, so are you become of the lost ones".

The ability to articulate thoughts, emotions or any other internal mental condition is only possible with God's power, as stated in both the Quran 55:4 and the HB Prov16:1 so just as God has given that ability to humans, He may as well impart it to any other creation of His. An explicit example is that of a donkey as per the Bible in Numb22:21-30 or the "talking serpent" that was able to outsmart the first humans. We find many other references in the traditions to such phenomenon of inanimate things made to speak and testify, such as the black stone of the Kaaba or even the Quran itself. 

The description of the Quran as an animate entity on the day of Judgement, testifying for its recital by the believer, or with some of its suras shading the believer, is understood as referring to the reward of recitation, not to the Quran itself. It is to be noted that the word "Quran" means recitation. The hadith describing the Quran coming as an interceding pale man is deemed inauthentic by some while others clarify that its contents can be authenticated by cross references with similar ahadith. Although, as stated earlier several reports describe the intercession of the Quran/recitation, none speak of it personified as a man. That is why the "pale man" portion is controversial. The notion of abstract deeds like the recital of the Quran interceding on the day of judgement is seen in many other cases 

"Fasting and the Quran will intercede for the servant on the Day of Resurrection. Fasting will say: O Lord, I prevented him from food and drink during the day, so let me intercede for him. The Quran will say: O Lord, I prevented him from sleeping during the night, so let me intercede for him. Thus, they will both intercede for him". 

Common phrases in everyday Muslim speech such as "ma shaa'allah" or "la hawla wa la quwwata illa billa" are described by the prophet as "among the treasures of the garden".

It is a major Quranic theme that the worldly deeds will take on a material form in the hereafter, as one of the means by which a person will see evidences of the judgement in his case. So the act of fasting and the act of reciting the Quran are good deeds which shall materialize and be made to speak to honour the believer 

"The Prophet said: “The Qur’an is an intercessor, something given permission to intercede” (Al-Tabarani)

Sam Shamoun "Unveiling the Inanimate Gods of Islam" (1)

Sam Shamoun "Unveiling the Inanimate Gods of Islam"(1)

In anticipation to the people's reaction in Medina regarding this last change of qibla the Quran states 

2:142"The East and the West belong only to Allah; He guides whom He likes to the right path". 

As similarly stated in 2:115,26:28,73:9 and more particularly in 2:177, Allah is the Omnipresent grasping the universe as a whole, present in all directions one may like to face and therefore Jerusalem, the Kaaba and all other places belong to Allah, Who intrinsically has no house and no place. 

The prophet Solomon in the Bible similarly conveyed that transcendental notion. The Jerusalem Temple was the place where God would settle and "dwell in forever" 1kings8. It is the site towards which the prophet David's supplications were directed Ps5:8,138:2 and Daniel would later face it in his daily prayers Dan6:11. Although Solomon declared it as the direction where all obedient servants were to face in prayer if they wanted to be hearkened by God in Heaven he said 

1kings8:27"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold the heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You; much less this temple that I have erected". 

This reality is also echoed in the book of Isaiah 

Isa66:1"So says the Lord, "The heavens are My throne, and the earth is My footstool; which is the house that you will build for Me, and which is the place of My rest?". 

Without God's commission, no place has spiritual excellence or preference in its own essence. The direction in itself is therefore not something to be disputed and argued about. If one wishes to remain in a specific direction as if the place is intrinsically sacred then he may do so. He would have however disobeyed a divine injunction, prioritizing his personal desires and preferences 

2:143,148,177"and We did not make that which you would have to be the qiblah but that We might distinguish him who follows the Messenger from him who turns back upon his heels, and this was surely hard except for those whom Allah has guided aright...And every one has a direction to which he should turn, therefore hasten to (do) good works; wherever you are, Allah will bring you all together...It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West, but righteousness is this that one should believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets, and give away wealth out of love for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) the captives, and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in time of conflicts-- these are they who are true (to themselves) and these are they who guard (against evil)".

Sam Shamoun "Does the Bible Really Command Dashing Babies Against the Rocks?" (2)

Sam Shamoun "Does the Bible Really Command Dashing Babies Against the Rocks?" (2)

There are countless ahadith, besides the rules of war laid down in the Quran, forbidding and condemning the purposeful targeting of women, children and the elderly during battle. Muslims could however be confronted to a situation where the necessity of war in self defence and the particular circumstances of a battle make it hard or impossible to distinguish between fighters and innocent civilians. Just as initiating fighting in certain times and places is forbidden (months of hajj or within the inviolable precincts of Kaaba) but should the enemy attack first then one is left with no option but to respond, the ethical rules of engagement should not prevent the Muslims from defending themselves should they be attacked at first, even if it carries the risk of causing unintended collateral casualties 

"The Prophet passed by me at a place called al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They are from them."

Had there been a pattern by the Muslims of disregarding innocents in warfare, the question wouldnt have been presented to the prophet but the very fact that it was, shows that by default, the Islamic rule is to avoid civilians or any entity that does not pose a threat. In jihad the overarching principle is to always be proportional in retaliation 

2:190"And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits". 

Such war ethics are absent in biblical warfare.

Had a similar report been read with the Judeo-Christian pattern of behavior towards other religions in ancient times the case would have been different. 

True prophets and men of God were divinely sanctioned to tear down pagan temples in all the land of Canaan and exterminate the natives, men, women, elderly, children, infants and animals 1Sam15. Contrary to the aforementioned report where no intentional targeting of innocents is meant, God in the HB allegedly commands the purposeful and indiscriminate killing of all that breathes. In addition, the hadith comes in the context of preemptive warfare, as already pointed while the situation in the HB is not one of hostility against the Israelites, rather to allow their establishment. The purpose of such measures was to avoid the Israelites'  assimilation into the remaining pagan natives and adoption of their customs. And because the task was not thoroughly completed, with the Israelites intermarrying the natives, reverting to polytheism and worshipping in pagan temples, subsequent prophets and leaders were charged with destroying these rebuilt pagan temples once again and murder all their priests and false prophets. One notorious case is that of Elijah's mass slaughter of the false prophets of Baal.

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "Does the Bible Really Command Dashing Babies Against the Rocks?"

1-Reason for Ambiguous verses in the Quran (mubahala)

2-Islam critiqued prefers anything to Muslims; Who were the Uraina/Ukl gangsters? (eye for an eye) 

3-Acts17apologetics protest the divine practice; God allows bible corruption? (Muslims believe in the Psalms)

4-Apostate prophet is a book critic; why naming Abu Lahab in the Quran?  (can prophets curse their enemies)

5-Apostate prophet incites the flames of hate; Abu lahab, who was it? (can prophets curse their enemies)

6-Apostate prophet stuck on verse 9:30; Allah curses people in the Quran? 

7-Islam critiqued denounces injustice; Khidr controversy?

Sam Shamoun "Does the Bible Really Command Dashing Babies Against the Rocks?" (1)

Sam Shamoun "Does the Bible Really Command Dashing Babies Against the Rocks?"(1)

In the Quran, 5:78 refers to the prophets scolding the stiff necked Israelites, the sinful ones among them. Psalm137 is a prayer of destruction against Babylonians and their infants. Here the psalmist calls for God to allow and bless those who would kill their enemies' infants. It is different than innocents dying as collateral casualties of divine cataclysms befalling a nation of rejecters. In the first case God goes after the innocent while in the second case, innocents die in consequence to the behavior of others.

Background to 5:78 is the well known history of Jews rejecting the prophets. No matter the miracles God performed, they still never truly believed. They could hardly cleanse themselves from their inclination for idolatry as seen in Joshua's address to them as reported in the Hebrew Bible, long after Moses' death Joshua24. Jeremiah later confirmed this fact Jer2:8,7:18 and history proves their constant straying from monotheism, almost complete disregard for their covenant and scriptures, which started very early on and apparently continued up to the times of Hosea, long after Moses Hos8:5,10:5. 

This is where the Quran in 5:78 echoes their scolding  by their prophets, from Moses to David Ps78 down to Jesus Matt12,23.

As to cursing, in the Quran the concept of nearness to Allah implies honoring, satisfaction and reward as often stated in the Quran. It is used in different contexts, as in the magicians whom Pharaoh promised to honor by drawing them near to him 26:42, to the believers who are urged to seek the means to obtain Allah's nearness 5:35. Nearness to Allah in the Hereafter is presented as the foremost reward of the foremost in faith, far surpassing everything that heaven may offer of delights 56:10-11,88,54:55,83:28 the Prophet Jesus is likewise made near to Allah 3:45, as the angels near to Allah executing His commands 4:172. Those honored individuals will experience realities of the unseen that are restricted to others 83:21. Further, those nearest to God 

21:19"are never too proud to worship Him and never grow weary". 

Contrary to worldly ownership and mastership, the closer a servant is to his master the more benefits he gains in terms of power, material gains and personal freedom. But as regards to God's ownership which is the true and absolute one, the closer the servant is drawn to Him the more humbled and submissive the servant becomes, aware of his insignificance in relation to the Supreme Being. That is how complete and intricate the Quran is, in its argumentations for perfect monotheism.

In contrast, Hell is described as the place of those whom Allah has "laan". Often rendered "curse", the Arabic denotes remoteness from God 3:87. Hell is the necessary result of separation from God. God is the source of all goodness, separation from Him necessarily results in a situation devoid of all goodness. And Hell is the climax of the absence of all good. The punishment of the disbelievers the day they are raised is described as the alienation from God's mercy 

23:66,83:15,20:126,11:99"And they are overtaken by curse/laana in this (world), and on the resurrection day, evil the gift which shall be given". 

All those who attribute a lie to Allah incur His curse/laanat (distancing or being forsaken) 11:18, as well as those who die as disbelievers 2:161, those who commit great sins like murder 4:93, hypocrites 9:68, ungratefulness 15:17 or slander 24:23.

Sam Shamoun "OPEN CHALLENGE TO MUSLIMS: SHOW US WHERE THE QURAN MENTIONS CIRCUMCISION"

Sam Shamoun "OPEN CHALLENGE TO MUSLIMS: SHOW US WHERE THE QURAN MENTIONS CIRCUMCISION"

Josephus states in his Antiquites that the Arabs circumcized their children at 13 years old, as was still done in the times of the prophet, in remembrance of their forefather Ishmael. Josephus not only locates these descendants of Ismail as inhabiting the region from the Euphrates to the Red Sea, but also bellies the notion that the hanifs imitated the Israelites in their rites, more specifically their circumcision rites, by saying that these Ishmaelites purposefully practiced it at 13 in memory of Ishmael, contrary to the Jews who do it a 8 days in memory of Isaac. In the biography by ibn Ishaq, it says the pre-Islamic Arabs practiced it. A camel would be slaughtered for the occasion. Now of course not all of them had preserved the way of Ibrahim, and those that did, had only but a dim remembrance of it. 

Until Islam came and restored the religion of Ibrahim. 

When he circumcized Ishmael at 13, the age itself was not meant to be retained as the time at which the rite had to be performed, contrary to the precise timing concerning Isaac Gen21:4. The Quran does not mention the practice although it claims in many places to reinstate the pure way of Ibrahim. This includes the God-ordained rite covenant of circumcision that included Ishmael, as is depicted in the HB. 

More than a simple tribal mark, it is the physical symbol of God's special relationship with Abraham, and by extension of the duties and obligations of those among his household carrying the mark. This world has been put under mankind's dominion in its raw state, and it is up to humans to perfect it by making use of it in a God-conscious manner. This world is an arena for us to build a relationship with God. Had everything been made perfect and as religiously intended from the get go, this would have been impossible. When we put a religious sign on the most physical and potentially lowly organ, we signify it can and should be used in a holy way. By performing it on a child who is unaware of the portents of the ritual, the idea of hardwired, subconscious connection between God and mankind is being conveyed, as is so often stated in the Quran. 

Although there are ahadith that depict the prophet as saying male circumcision is part of the Abrahamic legacy, nowhere does the prophet instruct female circumcision. The most that is found leaning in favor of the practice are statements where he speaks about unrelated topics where the female involved is already circumcised, or a weak and disputed report where he is commenting on a pre existing practice, in both cases not instructing nor recommending it. In that latter hadith (sunan abu dawud) he says to avoid doing it in a way that would affect both men and women in their sexual life, meaning the procedure must be negligible. Even if one sees prophetic approval for female circumcision in this saying, it stays far from the image of genital mutilation in the mind of those who jump for joy at anything that superficially seems to paint Islam in an unfavorable light.

Sam Shamoun "Who Really Follows Jesus? Muslims and the Issue of Swine"

Sam Shamoun "Who Really Follows Jesus? Muslims and the Issue of Swine"

The Quran regulates the matters of divorce so that it isnt approached lightly, not caused by transient emotional factors 

65:1,4:19"If you take a dislike to them it may be that you dislike a thing and Allah brings about through it a great deal of good". 

It bans the pre-islamic practice of dhihar/zihar where husbands would arbitrarily physically repudiate their wives, considering them as unlawful as would be their biological mothers 33:4,58:1-4. Such injustice must be compensated through repentance and atonement; charity, fasting or the freeing of a captive. If not, then the wife remains unlawful to the husband, opening the way for her to seek divorce due to the husband not completing his matrimonial rights.

It is to be noted, the disapproval of that practice was mentioned in surah ahzaab much prior to sura mujaadila, where the options for atonement are given. We read in the traditions of a woman who complained to the prophet that her husband had declared zihar on her. Knowing that the Quran severely disapproved it, the woman, despite the prophet's advise to return to her husband and resume her marital life, sought for a way, on behalf of her husband to regain God's approval. The prophet's advise was due to the man's old age, described in some reports as becoming mentally confused as to his statements. Further, the Quran considers zihar a falsehood that has no bearing on the validity of the marriage. In pre-islamic days, the statement of zihar amounted to divorce. The verses 58:1-4 were then revealed, reiterating the negativity of the practice and opening a way for repentance. Khawlah desired to return to her husband, even pleading for him, but due to her piety, wanted to do so with God's blessing, and God honoured her attitude forever through the revelation of these verses 

"My husband, Aws ibn as-Samit, pronounced the words: You are like my mother. So I came to the Messenger of Allah, complaining to him about my husband. The Messenger of Allah disputed with me and said: Remain dutiful to Allah; he is your cousin. I continued (complaining) until the Qur'anic verse came down..I said: I shall help him with another date-basked ('araq). He said: You have done well. Go and feed sixty poor people on his behalf, and return to your cousin. The narrator said: An araq holds sixty sa's of dates. Abu Dawud said: She atoned on his behalf without seeking his permission". 

The traditions report that her status among the companions was such that they would stop and listen to whatever she had to say, bowing their heads in humility, calling her "the one whose complaint was heard at the seventh heaven".

The divorce matter is neither wholly in the husband's nor the wife's hands. A judge designates two arbiters, one belonging to the wife's family and the other to the husband's 4:35. The arbiters' primary objective is to effect a reconciliation during a counselling period of three months -called idda- where the husband remains financially responsible for his wife 65:1,6. He may not drive her out of the house by force and neither should she leave in anger 65:1, the underlying idea being that advantage may be taken if there is any chance of reconciliation unless, she has clearly committed an indecency or if they mutually decide to separate then she has the right to a decent lodging place 65:6, nor can he retain her injuriously 2:231. That temporary separation may cause conjugal relations to be re-established 

2:228"and their husbands have a better right to take them back in the meanwhile if they wish for reconciliation; and they have rights similar to those against them in a just manner". 

This is the best safeguard against a misuse of divorce, for in this way only such unions would be ended by divorce as really deserve to be ended, being devoid of the faintest spark of love. Their husbands have more right to them than another proposer 2:228, and this right can be utilized by taking them back in case he has initiated the procedure and revoking the divorce during the period of waiting 

65:2"So when they have reached their prescribed time, then retain them with kindness". 

However if all hopes of reconciliation fail, a divorce is pronounced and by no means is it viewed as a taint, rather the start of a new page with better opportunities 

4:130"if they (should) separate, Allah will enrich each out of His abundance, and Allah is All-Embracing, the Wise". 

The wife gets to keep her dower, a command preceded by an injunction to 

65:2,2:229"let them go with kindness". 

Whatever she has earned during marriage through business activities, she may keep it to herself 4:32 while the husband, even after the divorce is obliged to provide sustenance to his former wife in case she is nursing or is pregnant with his child until she delivers, according to his means 65:6-7. However in an exceptional case it is lawful for him to take back some gifts: when both parties desire legal separation, but the husband desists from divorce because he believes his financial loss, through wealth, assets or property, would be too significant. In such a case, it would be acceptable for the wife to return the gifts to her husband and for the husband to accept them 

2:229"it is not lawful for you to take any part of what you have given them, unless both fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allah; then if you fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allah, there is no blame on them for what she gives up to become free thereby". 

The Quran further prevents marrying them to someone else so as to take back their dower 4:32. The mahr/dower, once marriage has been consummated, is the wife's property. It cannot be taken by her husband unless she is proven guilty of immoral conduct 4:19, or if she knows that she will not honor her marital agreements, without any wrongdoing on the husband's part, thereby deciding to end the marriage 2:229,4:4. In the reverse case, the husband has no right to take back even a fraction of that dower 4:20. It is inconceivable he should take it back after being intimate with her, it would amount to a great sin from him, and humiliation to the wife. Although none can be forced to remain in a marriage one dislikes, even if it is for purely physical reasons as is the case here, the Quran again tries protecting the woman's dignity by discouraging the separation 

4:19"live with them in a proper manner; then if you hate them, it may be that you dislike a thing while Allah has placed abundant good in it".

 
The Quran then demands mutual understanding regarding the child's future 

65:6"take mutual counsel together, according to what is just and reasonable" 

and if they disagree in the matter then it will be returned to the judge's decision 4:35.

A divorce may also be pronounced instantly without the 3 months iddah period necessary for counselling and to ascertain the wife's pregnancy, and that is when there was no sexual contact 33:49.

Men are particularly reminded in 2:229,2:230 that they cannot abuse of their right to divorce, neglecting the wife's feelings in the process. If he asks to divorce the same wife twice then he may not ask her hand a third time unless she has married another man and he has divorced her. Even if she feels the need to go back to that same man, he remains forbidden to her until she has experienced marriage with another man (muhallil). This not only deters emotionally abusive men, but it serves as an eye opener to women who might be tempted out of fear and psychological control, to keep on pardoning and returning to their abusive relationship. It opens the way to these abused women to go into society free of any blame, and start a new life with another man. 

We find something similar in the HB in Deut24 where a divorced woman that remarries then divorces a second time, becomes forbidden to the man she was first married to. This is speaking of repeated sinfulness and sexual misbehaviour short of adultery. It is different that the problem the Quran addresses, as well as the solution it proposes. It would be of course inappropriate for a man to remarry a woman he had himself divorced for her immoral behavior. Especially if the second husband divorces her for the same reason, showing an established pattern of behavior. It would be an acceptance of sinfulness within one's household. The Quran equally forbids the righteous from marrying a sexually immoral person, until that person repents and mends his/her ways 24:1-25. There are no deadlocks in Islam.

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "Who Really Follows Jesus? Muslims and the Issue of Swine"

Acts17apologetics blinded by the light of a saint; Paul didn't compromise Jesus' message?

Apostate prophet wonders; prophets with different diets?

Sam Shamoun "Allah Abdul-Muhammad (“Slave of Muhammad”)"

Sam Shamoun "Allah Abdul-Muhammad (“Slave of Muhammad”)"

Some critics have used an unreliable story, dismissed by the commentators for its weak transmission chain, in order to discredit the prophet. The verse supposedly alludes to Hafsa, to whom the prophet promised not to be intimate with his mulk yamin/right hand possession Maria the Copt. 

Maria was given to him out of reverence by an Egyptian prefect or notable. It is interesting to note that there are at least 2 similar precedents in prophetic history, with the Egyptian daughter of royalty, Hagar who was given to Abraham, and Solomon's unnamed Egyptian wife 1Kings3. The Egyptian notable wanted to establish political relations with the prophet, and this gesture was considered normal as per the decorum of ancient societies. Some reports say that two women were given, Maria and Sirin. The prophet freed Sirin whom he married to a close follower and took Maria as his concubine and lodged her in one of his followers' houses temporarily, Haritha, although some weak commentaries state she was lodged in Hafsa's house in the beginning. When Hafsa entered in her own private quarter that she had left for the day, and surprised the prophet and Maria in her own bed, she was angered. Not because, as the critics claim without the slightest shred of a proof that she was Hafsa's temporary slave but because that day was reserved for her. 

However the weak reports used by those very critics say that what the prophet had allegedly done with Maria in Hafsa's house was HALAL, meaning she must have been his own concubine, not a slave given to Hafsa temporarily. The prophet then requested her not to repeat what had occured, to avoid stirring up the already existing jealousy of the wives towards Maria, as depicted in several reports, who was given precedence over one of them on a day supposedly reserved for a wife. Besides its unreliability, the Quran itself refutes that story, due to several reasons including the fact that the prophet had complete liberty in matters of division of time among wives and concubines, something all his wives were aware of much prior to the alleged incident. He was not therefore bound by any time restriction and did not need to make any such promise not to be with his lawful concubine, as depicted in the incident. 

Also per the Quran, the object of what God's prophet forbade upon himself was to please his wives (plural). In this report, the object of the oath was to please one wife only (singular), the one that allegedly entered in her room and found him with his lawful concubine. Also, 66:3 says that a secret was divulged by God's prophet to one of his wives. Why would he need to tell what had just happened to Hafsa and cause all the commotion if she hadnt had a clue of what had occured, and instead keep that perfectly legal act to himself? 

This negates the story from yet another angle because in it, the prophet's "secret" was found out by one of the wives who surprised him in bed with Maria. He was thus in no need to share that "secret" with her. There are several theories regarding what that secret was, some of them being concerning his succession, but that is another issue.

In conclusion it should be stressed that the prophet, assuming those convoluted reports on Maria and Hafsa as true, he did not do anything wrong or inappropriate for a prophet, as even clearly stated in those accounts. Per the Quran, mulk yamin are a category of lawful women not covered by the regulation on the division of time between multiple wives. The prophet was even absolved from these time restrictions with his wives, although he always divided his time as equally as possible between them. 

It should also be reminded that Maria was the prophet's only mulk yamin, or concubine as the Judeo-Christian critics like saying with their distorted Biblical paradigms of what concubines are. He had no other "concubine". Maria was offered to him, as described earlier, and he accepted for the sake of a greater socio-political aim. The prophet could have acquired many more such women as a result of his military victories, as other prophets did before him, including Moses, David or Solomon, and on a much larger scale, without damaging his legitimacy as a true prophet of God in the least. He could have even, out of lust, resorted to murdering an innocent man so as to marry his widow, just as the noble and pious prophet-king David supposedly did, as shamefully transmitted by the Biblical scribes. 

Finally, Nasa'i gives 2 occasions of revelation for the verse, both of them graded sahih. He first cites the incident with Maria without saying anything about Hafsa or anyone else "finding out" about the prophet's legal intercourse with his concubine. All it says is that Hafsa and Aisha would continuously harass the prophet about Maria out of jealousy until he promised them not to be intimate with her. This more authentic version of the supposed event agrees with the Quran's wording, contrary to the weaker, convoluted report described earlier. The second occasion of revelation per Nasa'i also involved Aisha and Hafsa, both of them are again described as harassing the prophet to give up on something, but this time the object of their jealousy was Zaynab bint Jahsh. As a loving wife who knew the likes and dislikes of her husband, she used to offer him a variety of honey he very much appreciated each time he visited her. Aisha and Hafsa disliked that pleasant connection they had and thus schemed to put an end to it. As the prophet once came out of Zaynab's place, and knowing that the prophet would always pay attention to the manner he presented himself at all occasions so as to not offend anyone, Aisha told him that his breath smelled like maghafeer (a sweet drink that leaves a pungent smell). 

Being the sensitive and tactful person as described earlier, the prophet unsuspectedly promised not to drink this honey although he was very fond of it and had every right to it. Nasa'i further says that because these 2 reports are graded sahih it might be that they happened very close to eachother prior to the revelation of the verse. 

Whether it is Al Qurtubi, al Tabari, Ibn Arabi, Imam al Nawawi, among many other scholars, they all state that the prophet's overstaying at Zaynab to have his favorite drink, against Aisha and Hafsa's desire, is the reliable opinion for the opening verse of al Tahrim being revealed.

Further articles answering Sam Shamoun "Allah Abdul-Muhammad (“Slave of Muhammad”)"

dontconvert2islam tries handling Quran AND hadith, Maria/Hafsa affair?

dontconvert2islam wont break an oath; but can one ever be justified in doing so?  

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

Acts17apologetics discuss divine military planning; What is the right "timing" of jihad? 

Islam critiqued accuses Muslim state; Expulsion of Jews? 

Apostate prophet deepens the search; a closer look at the sura tawba?

Apostate prophet finds the austere prophet; Muhammad living like a king?

Sam Shamoun "Islam’s Doctrine of Imputation of Righteousness and Vicarious Death"

Sam Shamoun "Islam’s Doctrine of Imputation of Righteousness and Vicarious Death"

In Islam, dead people, believers and disbelievers alike, are alive in an intermediary realm until the day of resurrection 2:154,3:169,40:46. An inviolable barrier is placed between us and them preventing any type of interaction between these parallel realms 23:99-100. 

The only manner for those alive in that realm to know of things happening in our world, is indirectly. If God decides to convey to them information from the present world. For instance the prophet said 

"‘Allah has angels who travel around on Earth conveying to me the Salams of my Ummah". 

In addition, there are deeds they have left behind that can benefit them.

Things such as an ongoing benevolent action that benefit people down the line (like planting a tree or digging a well) or beneficial knowledge, or a righteous child who will pray for his dead parent. As made clear in the Quran and hadith however, such good deeds left in this world only benefit the one in the afterlife who has worked to sincerely build a relationship with his Creator. Ongoing good deeds therefore act as catalysts only upon a righteous person. 

Aisha reported: I said, “O Messenger of Allah, the son of Jud’an would maintain family ties and feed the poor in the time of ignorance. Will it benefit him?” The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “It will not benefit him, for he never said even for one day: My Lord, forgive my sins on the Day of Judgment". 

The prophet also said 

"Whoever calls to guidance will have a reward similar to those who follow him, without detracting from their reward at all. Whoever calls to misguidance will have sin upon him similar to those who follow him, without detracting from their sins at all".

However the deceased wont be aware of those deeds while they are performed in his name, including prayers, until they are raised 

"A man's status will be raised in paradise and he will ask, How did I get here? He will be told, By your sons' duaa for forgiveness for you". 

For children or friends to honor someone's memory by spending from their own selves and possessions, says a lot about the righteousness of the person that passed away. Inciting goodness from others whether while one is alive or after death is a continuous source of reward from Allah, the best of Judges. Even if one's children would be to die before puberty, then they will earn that person forgiveness and reward in the hereafter. Provided the person has sown the seeds of goodness in them prior 

"There is no man whose two daughters reach the age of puberty and he treats them kindly for the time they are together, but they will gain him admittance to Paradise". 

This act of planting a good pattern in this world is so highly regarded, that the prophet uses the beautiful description of pre-pubescent children preceding the righteous into paradise, only to await them at its gates so as to honor them. 

"There are no two Muslims, three of whose children die before reaching puberty, but Allah will admit them to Paradise by virtue of His mercy toward them. It will be said to them: 'Enter Paradise.' They will say: 'Not until our parents enter.' So it will be said: 'Enter Paradise, you and your parents."'

Then the Quran mention the case of the righteous' offspring, those that pass the age of puberty, and their situation in the hereafter. Should they merit paradise because of their own deeds, they will be reunited with the righteous even though they might be lower in spiritual rank 52:21-7. This means that as a rule the unification process will be made by upgrading some of those lower in rank, unto the higher stations in which a family member is dwelling, not by downgrading those higher in rank 

"and We will not diminish to them aught of their work". 

This is the intricate precision of Quranic eloquence.

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "Islam’s Doctrine of Imputation of Righteousness and Vicarious Death"

-Islam critiqued refuses paying for others' sins; Ransoming Muslims from hell?

-Sam Shamoun "The Quran’s Divine Corporation: Unveiling the Reason Why Allah Speaks in the Plural" (3)

-Apostate prophet after the mythical paradise; 72 virgins?

Sam Shamoun "Islam Testifies: Jesus is Alive in Heaven Whereas Muhammad is Not!"

Sam Shamoun "Islam Testifies: Jesus is Alive in Heaven Whereas Muhammad is Not!"

Jesus taken to Allah doesnt mean in God's physical presence. An entity going back to God means to where He commands it to be, and for the achievement of a specific purpose. Like a summoning, and it doesnt need to be a few inches away. It gives a sense of exclusivity to God only, complete control, dominion over that thing. It is used both in an abstract and concrete sense, for matters pertaining to both this world and the next 2:156,281,3:109,154,180,8:44etc. 

Jesus' gathering back to God, to be under His complete control, fits perfectly the context of Jesus' tawfiya in 3:55. It is usually translated as "causing to die" but lexically means "to receive fully". It is used multiple times for Jesus and many others 10:104,16:70,22:5,5:117. Jesus had no power to influence his ascension to Allah. He remained in God's grasp in the process, as he was since his miraculously conception and throughout his life. Further, no matter how one views the process by which Allah made Jesus to ascend, whether he was made to die or not in the process, Jesus, like every creature will eventually taste death prior to his resurrection on the day of judgement 

19:33"And peace is on me the day I was born and the day I will die and the day I am raised alive". 

It is interesting to note that the Quran, consistent as it always is in its concepts, similarly describes the prophet Muhammad as God's slave during his miraculous ascent throughout space and time 17:1.

The Quran unambiguously states that Jesus 3:45 like the angels is from those who are muqarrabin/brought near and yet

4:172"The messiah will never be proud to be Allah's servant, nor the angels who are near to Him, and whoever disdains His service and is proud, He will gather them all together to Himself".

Jesus' nearness to God, just like the angels' nearness doesnt hint in anyway to divinity. In fact the nearer a creature like Jesus, the angels or any other 21:19 is to God the more eager it/he becomes to bow down in servitude to the mighty King. Here again, the gathering to Himself, just as in 5:18 and many other places, does not mean a few inches away. It means in a place where Allah commands them to be, and where they are entirely in God's control, exclusively in His posession. This control can either be for the purpose of judging them, protecting them, punishing them, disposing of them as He deems fit, etc.

Jesus in fact didnt even have to wait to be raised up to heaven, to be in Allah's presence. The Quran describes him and others as among those near Allah while on earth 3:45. In Quranic usage, being near to Allah, as is used throughout the book implies several things and none of them hinting to physical nearness. It can be honoring, both in this world and the next 3:45,4:172,5:35,54:55,56:11,88,83:28,89:28etc. or it can imply to receive God's attention and care 2:186,11:61 or it conveys the sense of God's deep, intimate knowledge of His creation 50:16. 

Finally, everything in the heavens and the earth, whether hypotethically close to the Divine Being or far, are ultimately perishing save His Glorious Self 28:88. This takes away any hint at independance, intrinsic power and will to any creature that ever existed and that ever will 

5:17"Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely, Allah-- He is the Messiah, son of Marium. Say: Who then could control anything as against Allah when He wished to destroy the Messiah son of Marium and his mother and all those on the earth? And Allah's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them; He creates what He pleases; and Allah has power over all things"

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "Islam Testifies: Jesus is Alive in Heaven Whereas Muhammad is Not!"

Acts17apologetics praise only Jesus; Is Muhammad over praised?