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

In answer to the video "Did Muhammad Respect Other People's Gods?"

Muhammad didn't punish any of the guilty in his 13 years at Mecca, almost 3 times the length of Jesus' total mission, because God had still not granted him the authority and power to do so. And before the critics raise their eyebrows thinking that he would have done it had he the power to do so, let me remind them of a pervasive pattern of the Semitic prophets, running through the Israelites and Ishmaelite.

When the prophets Moses and Muhammad emigrated from the lands where they were oppressed, their passive attitude had nothing to do with them being conscious of their weakness and therefore preferring to wait for a better time to fight back. Both the Israelites and the early Muslims were much weaker than their enemies when they were initially commanded to fight in Allah's way. What did Moses in the Torah order the Israelites to do, when they insisted on fighting after having regretted their disobedience the first time? He told them not to go to war because God wont be with them and they would all be killed

Deut9:23-24,Numbers14"Do not go up, because the LORD is not with you. You will be defeated by your enemies".

The same happenned in the times of Joshua (Joshua7).
Similarly, the prophet Muhammad was told to "wait" in the face of persecution and keep transmitting the Revelation openly, until he was commanded to take up arms against the oppressors for God will be with him 2:190,9:14,8:17. When the people of Medina secretly met with the prophet, pledging their allegiance shortly after his migration, and suggested they should lead a surprise attack by night on the Meccans, the prophet refused arguing it did not concord with his message, ie the time was not right yet. Even prior to that, some were eager to engage their persecutors in battle

"There were some companions of the Prophet who were in a hurry to wage war while they were at Mecca before hijrah. They said to the Prophet "Allow us to take (our) pickaxes in order to fight these polytheists.' And we have been told that ‘Abdu Rahman ibn ‘Awf was among those who had said it. But the Prophet forbade them to do so and said, "I have not been ordered this".

The decision frustrated his close companions including his early followers that suffered torture at the hands of the Meccans. The "timing" of counter attack was not due to the Muslims becoming stronger and the prophet consequently ordering them to take up arms. Both the ahadith and the Quran show that they were inferior in numbers and might as compared to their oppressors during most of their battles especially the first ones, and the Quran relates in Sura Baqara how they went forth reluctantly. We also read in 4:77,47:20 how the believers eagerly awaited the divine command to allow military action and how many turned their backs in terror once it came. When the decreed timing of jihad had arrived, the prophet was commanded to march towards the opressor even if he had to do it by himself 4:84. Victory is only in God's hands. That is why we read in 9:25-6 that the Muslims' vast numbers was not a factor of victory. Just as the Israelites largely outnumbering their enemies could not bring them victory in their later wars, neither avert crushing defeats, since God had withdrawn His help 2Chr24:17-24.

The early Muslims eventually came to understand that principle. In the time of the caliphate, when the Persians had gathered their forces for war, Umar sought advice from Ali about whether or not he should engage. Ali said:

"Victory or defeat in this matter does not depend on abundance or scarcity of forces. It is God’s religion which He has supported, and it is His army which He has strengthened and aided, until it has reached the point that it has reached, and has risen as it has today. We hold a promise from God, where He says: "Allah has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will most certainly make them successors in the land as He made successors those before them, and that He will most certainly establish for them their religion which He has approved for them, and that He will most certainly, after their fear, give them security in exchange(24:55)". God shall fulfill His promise and support His army...As to what you said about their [large] number, [you should know that] in the past we did not use to fight relying on number and abundance, but we used to fight relying on support and assistance from God.

The prophet's decision to fight back had thus nothing to do with a position of physical and logistical power. The "timing" was solely decreed by God, and not by his whims, nor the whims of the prophets before him. Another biblical example is when the Israelites were commanded to fight in God's way, although they were much weaker than the Amalekites and other pagan tribes

Judges6:16"And the Lord said to him...I shall be with you, and you shall strike Midian as one man".

It is in fact reported that under Gideon's leadership, God did not want the Israelites to be too numerous in their confrontation with the oppressive Midianites and so, in order not to compromise the credibility of a strictly divine victory, ordered their ranks to be trimmed down from 30.000 fighters to 300. The most fearful were the first to be sent back and then those that drank from a river by kneeling to it. This was done to expose the ISraelites influenced by pagan rituals (Judges7). Strangely enough, God did not find them too numerous and a threat to the credibility of the divine nature of their victory in their initial invasion of Canaan under Joshua where they numbered 40.000 warriors. In the times of David and as described throughout the book of Samuel, David always inquired to the Lord if the timing and strategy were right for him to engage the enemies in battle. David knew that any victory could only come with God's help, especially considering how outnumbered he and his followers were

"Shall I go up to the Philistines? will you deliver them into my hand?' And the Lord said unto David: 'Go up; for I will surely deliver the Philistines into your hand" Ps33:16-17,Ps20:8"These trust in chariots and these in horses, but we-we mention the name of the Lord our God".

David would recall the events in his latter days

Ps18:18"He delivered me from my mighty enemy, and from those that hated me, for they were too powerful for me".

On the other hand, King Saul before him decided at one point to seek military guidance using occultism instead of relying on God. This was one of the main reasons God caused him to die in battle in a violent and humiliating way, as well as caused his sons to be slain 1Sam13,28,1Chr10.

Similar biblical examples of divine orders to fight according to divine "timing", regardless of human logistical and military situation is when the weak and outnumbered Jacob was commanded to rise and confront his enemies, aided by his small army composed of his sons and servants. God promised He would make him prevail over the kings of Canaan that had united to destroy them. The divine victory, detailed in Jewish oral tradition, instilled terror in the heart of Jacob's enemies which prevented their pursuit Gen34:30,35:1-5. When the Assyrian empire of Sennacherib had completely subdued and reduced to slavery the kingdom of Israel, and was threatening to pursue its advance into the kingdom of Judea, the king Hezekiah had full trust in God's judgement, timing and promised victory despite his army's inferiority however some of his counselors who lacked faith preferred trusting their own judgement and strategy, and were thus doomed for severe chastisement 2Kings19,Isa22.

What is further important noting is that under the prophet of Islam, contrary to the Jewish prophets' genocidal warfares, Islam did not resort to wiping out and oppressing comunities and populations so as to assert its dominance following victory. Yet, contrary to Judaism, Islam supplanted all surrounding ignorant communities in terms of spiritual, moral and social aspects. And this despite Islam's enemies always outnumbering the Muslims, better equipped, enjoying greater material resources, whether in the Arabian peninsula or beyond. The unique Islamic system is what made it prevail over and crush ignorance, first in Arabia and then in the two adjacent superpowers of Byzantium and Persia.

God did not command Jesus to fight just as He did not command Noah and other prophets to fight in His way, because God intended to bring down His punishment on the rejectors differently, and He did so quite severely after Jesus' departure. If God had willed to punish the transgressors through his prophet Jesus as He did through the Israelite prophets before him, Jesus would have taken up arms and fought in Allah's way, like his predecessors did, and like the Ishmaelite prophet did after him

47:4"and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others".

This method of punishement upon the rejectors of a prophet is therefore a trial for the sake of men and does not mean Allah needs men to accomplish a task He is unable to do by Himself. Had He willed, He would have destroyed them Himself by sending a disaster from the heavens or from within the earth. Before them, many nations have been destroyed by His torment in the blink of any eye. He could have similarly routed them as well. The Quran draws an interesting parallel in sura hadid, between the sending of prophets and Iron. This metal is a symbol of the forceful establishement of the natural balance of justice if needs be, and the verse 57:25, after speaking of both the prophets and iron, ends with God's attributes of might and strength. See also 22:40-41.

CIRA International at the notary; flawed Quranic inheritence?

In answer to the video "Islamic Inheritance Math in the Quran - Scientific Miracles of the Quran Ep. 5"

4:11
Allah enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females; then if they are more than two females, they shall have two-thirds of what the deceased has left, and if there is one, she shall have the half; and as for his parents, each of them shall have the sixth of what he has left if he has a child, but if he has no child and (only) his two parents inherit him, then his mother shall have the third; but if he has brothers, then his mother shall have the sixth

4:12
And you shall have half of what your wives leave if they have no child, but if they have a child, then you shall have a fourth of what they leave after (payment of) any bequest they may have bequeathed or a debt; and they shall have the fourth of what you leave if you have no child, but if you have a child then they shall have the eighth of what you leave after (payment of) a bequest you may have bequeathed or a debt; and if a man or a woman leaves property to be inherited by "kalala" neither parents nor offspring, and he (or she) has a brother or a sister, then each of them two shall have the sixth, but if they are more than that, they shall be sharers in the third

The above 2 verses, along with 4:176 cover every possible family configuration thanks to the Quran's unique ability to eloquently concentrate its speech. This is why in this matter, as well as many others, it is crucial to study and be familiar with the Quranic style and choice of words before drawing any conclusions.

As clearly stated as early as Ibn abbas the default law of inheritance (after the payment of eventual debts, followed by the execution of the deceased' will 2:180. The will cannot compromise the financial rights and security of the mentioned inheritors) is based upon:
1- those that take from the total amount before other inheritors, their portion is therefore fixed and is distributed first
2- those that take from what is left

The parents' share must be based on the total because it is dictated upon whether the deceased has children or not:

"and as for his parents, each of them shall have the sixth of what he has left if he has a child, but if he has no child and (only) his two parents inherit him, then his mother shall have the third; but if he has brothers, then his mother shall have the sixth"

The "no children" clause cannot refer to the amount left after the children have been paid out, because obviously there are no children.

So the parents' share must be based on the total amount of inheritance.

The same is the case for spouses:

"and they shall have the fourth of what you leave if you have no child, but if you have a child then they shall have the eighth of what you leave"

By ordaining shares of a group (parents, spouses) based on the conditional existance of some family members (children), the Quran is telling you that there is a group that must come first (parents, spouses), meaning the second (children) will get from the remaining balance of what the deceased left.

4:11 is not sequential, ie first the children then the parents. It starts with a general statement regarding the children and does not end there. 4:11-12 goes on to mention the parents and the spouse's shares and the words used in describing their shares clearly imply that they are to be given a fixed proportion of the total inheritance first, then the children are to share the balance remaining.
It is the same as saying: "Give 2/3 of what the deceased left to the children; if there are children, give 1/6th to each of the parents. If there are no children, give 1/3rd to the mother (ie the rest to the father)." It simply means that, we must first look if there are children or not then give the parent's share based on the total amount. Then the children will get 2/3 of the remaining amount that has now decreased.

So because the parents and spouses' shares must come first, then it follows that the children's share must be based on the balance of what the deceased left after the first group get their shares.

The words employed in both the parents and the children's cases is "ma tarak"/he (the deceased) left. The children's share is based upon what the owner has left behind, just as the parent's share is based upon what the owner has left behind.

How much of that "ma tarak" is conditional to what relatives still exist in relationship to the deceased. Again, it is not defining the inheritance sequentially, i.e. first you distribute to the children then the parents, it is defining the shares in terms of kinship.

Now with this in mind, if there are parents still existing, then the children's share would be determined after the parents inheritance is determined from the "ma tarak"/he (the deceased) left. This means that the balance of the "ma tarak"/he (the deceased) left has now decreased, but it is still "ma tarak"/he (the deceased) left.

So how is the inheritance split between three daughters, two parents and one wife?

In this case, the deceased has children, so the parents inherit each 1/6 of the total. The wife also gets 1/8 of the total while the daughters get 2/3 out of what is left.

A man dies leaving 25.000$:

Wife 1/8 = 3.125$
Father 1/6 = 4.166$
Mother 1/6 = 4.166$

25.000$ - (3.125$ + 4.166$ + 4.166$) = 13.543$

Daughters 2/3 of 13.543$ = 9.028$

25.000$ - (3.125$ + 4.166$ + 4.166$ + 9.028$) = 4.515$ remaining.

Nowhere in the Quran or in the prophet Muhammad's sunna is it stated that the total inheritance must be distributed in all cases

4:7"Men shall have a portion of what the parents and the near relatives leave, and women shall have a portion of what the parents and the near relatives leave, whether there is little or much of it; a stated portion".

This system forces the surviving family to consider other relatives and weak members of society 4:8,33 as well as serves to securize a minimum portion of inheritence for each family member. Also, as per 4:11-12 and 2:180 the deceased knows what will be in some familial configurations each of his close inheritors' minimum share and can, before the division, assign to anyone he wants a specific amount in order not to leave an important balance after division. This is the foremost rule of the division of inheritence; paying debts and if there is a will, it must be taken out of the total before the division. This opens up the possibility to the deceased to balance as he deems fit the portion of his wealth to be distributed among family members on one hand, and to society as a whole on the other hand.

4:12 continues the same theme as 4:11 but covers also the division of the inheritence when there are no descendants nor ascendants (children or parents), which is the meaning of kalala. Then, those next in line to inherit are the siblings. While 4:176 also speaks of a kalala situation, it is slightly different as it is more general, speaking for siblings on the father’s side or sharing both parents. If a person leaves siblings on the mother’s side and the father’s side then the ones on the mother side are still guaranteed their portion as per 4:12 and the rest goes to the others. The 2 kalala verses should then be read together, with 4:176 applying after having given the spouse their portion of the inheritance as per 4:12.

Another possible interpretation is that kalala may mean, depending on the context, either a situation where no descendants and ascendants are left, as in 4:12, or when only the descendants are missing as in 4:176, hence the starting clause "If a person dies not having children.."
Based on this understanding, the 2 verses 4:12,176 should be seperated as they prescribe rules for 2 different situations.

An important thing of note, the husband is bound by the Islamic sacred law to take care of his parents, wife, children even if mature enough to work but are still unmarried. So the income he makes isnt really his income but belongs to the welfare and maintenance of his family. That is besides his other, religious duties for which he must contribute, including governement taxes and military jihad if required for the safeguard of his community.
The wife is not bound by Shariah to provide any kind of material need to the family or husband, and any income she makes belongs to her and no one else. She will even benefit from the wealth passed on by her deceased husband to other close family members. The inheritance is based on those presuppositions. If these presuppositions dont apply, in cases where a woman is sustaining herself and the family instead of a man, then the law doesnt prevent the wealth to be distributed as anyone deems it fit prior to death. As a final note, the portion of a woman varies, it isnt fixed, and depends on whether she is a wife, mother, only sister or one of the sisters. Sometimes she may get the double of a man. If a woman dies and is survived only by her husband, mother and father, then the husband inherits 1/2, the mother 1/3 and the father 1/6.

Apostate prophet the stoic; how to deal with sexual arousal?

Muhammad Sees a Woman... (The Lustful Prophet)

The code of interaction between opposite genders in the Quran isnt meant at discouraging or prohibiting it at all. The prophet's own wives interacted with visitors on a daily basis seeking their religious counsel. What the Quran does, as with every aspect of human life, is to infuse it with God-consciousness so as to elevate the human being above the mere animalistic, material aspect of his existence. The Quran injects intergender interaction with modesty, chastity, pragmatic caution that is beneficial for all involved and society at large. 

For example it is disallowed to greet the opposite gender through physical contact (handshake or kiss) instead of reciprocal smiles, good words and courteous gestures. This is clear through the wording

24:30-31"yaghuddun min absarihim/to cast down of/from their look".

Its not saying to avoid looking altogether but to avoid staring, men and women alike. Looking at oneanother for a legitimate need like communication or identification does not constitute unhealthy staring with lustful motives. Neither is physical contact forbidden in the absolute sense, as the prophet would not take his hand away from a slave girl seeking his help and comfort 

"Any of the female slaves of Medina could take hold of the hand of Allah's Messenger and take him wherever she wished".

As can be seen, the Quran in intergender relationships focuses on self-restraint. This is not an unrealistic demand that suppresses or prevents social development. On the contrary it gives it a healthy turn, reducing the chance for misplaced thoughts and misunderstandings, many times leading to harassment and sexual abuse, as is so common in any culture when opposite genders interact. The verse sets a standard for Muslim men and women, starting from the first contact which is visual, telling them both to approach the opposite gender with the correct mindframe, regardless of the person's suggestive or explicit behavior towards them. This not only helps the person itself to keep his morality in check, but also sends the right signal to the other person who is in turn morally stimulated in case of misbehavior. The Islamic dresscode has the same twofold purpose, it conditions the person wearing modest clothing to adopt a healthy attitude when about to go in public, as well as sends a healthy signal to other people who are in turn influenced to modify their own behavior when interacting with the opposite gender. Women in addition, because they tend to wear ornaments, are told to put an additional level of caution

“They should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments”24:31.

The dangers to the general atmosphere of chastity in any society, in any culture, are very real and observable nowadays as it was the case throughout times past, whenever these elementary rules of opposite gender interaction are neglected. The prophet even refered to as devils those women who arouse sexual attraction through their misbehavior

"Allah’s Messenger – may peace be upon him – saw a woman, then he came to his wife, Zainab, who was tanning leather, and fulfilled his desire, then he went out to his Companions and said: “A woman comes in the form of a devil and goes in the form of a devil. If one of you sees a woman, let him go to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart".

In Arabic the word for devil can be used for any entity that causes evil. As noted by the scholars of hadith, this narration is speaking of women dressed inappropriately in the public space. During the advent of Islam, more specifically in Medina where the hadith is supposed to have been spoken, sexual promiscuity and prostitution were known features of that society. It is ironic, as a side note, that Christians "haters of the flesh" and anything sexual, often raise the aforementioned hadith to undermine the prophet's credibility.  As if the embodiment of piety, as reflected by their priests who cannot marry, is the one who denies himself the pleasures of the flesh, regardless of it being legitimate or not. They forget what is stated in their own books as regards the 50 year old prophet David who murders a brave soldier to satisfy his uncontrollable lust towards the married Batsheba (younger than 10 in Jewish tradition). The incident did not reduce an iota of his truthfulness as a prophet of YHWH.

Far from behaving in such a shameful manner as described by the lying pens of Israel, the prophet Muhammad provides the most rational and upright manner to satisfy one's natural urges. Not through murders, rape or adultery but by coming together with one's own wife. Notice also the contrast between David's incident and the one in the hadith; Batsheba did not purposefully provoke David's lust but was simply making her toilet in her private area while the hadith talks of unchaste women in public provoking men. 

Returning to the issue of Islamic modesty, the dress code isnt only meant for women, but both men and women whenever opposite sexes outside the familiar circle interact 24:30-31. The Quran uses Khumur and Julbab, a kind of head covering, for the woman's clothing 33:59. Far from being a form of subjugation rather it is the degradation of women judged on their looks and overexposed physically, in the Western media which is a form of subordination to the lust of men, and insulting to women. As said earlier, the hijab conditions both men and women to adopt a proper inter gender attitude, leading even those that tend to be abusive among the men, those who do not, as per the passage's instruction, lower FROM their gaze, to regard women in a dignified manner and value them for their character, intelligence, moral qualities

“That they should be known as such and not molested”33:59.

For the woman, and the men too whom the Quran commands to dress with modesty, the adoption of such a dress code leads to more positive body image, less reliance on media messages about beauty ideals and appearance, than those who do not. Again, to emphasize the fact women, regardless of their suggestive or explicit behavior, their respect or not of the Islamic dress code, are not to be looked at in a lustful manner, men are to

24:30"cast down from their looks"

as well as

"guard their modesty".

This injunction comes before addressing even the issue of wearing the hijab. This puts first the responsibility on men and how they must behave towards women

 "The Prophet said, 'Beware! Avoid sitting on the roads." They (the people) said, "O Allah s Apostle! We can't help sitting (on the roads) as these are (our places) here we have talks." The Prophet said, ' l f you refuse but to sit, then pay the road its right ' They said, "What is the right of the road, O Allah's Apostle?" He said, 'Lowering your gaze, refraining from harming others, returning greeting, and enjoining what is good, and forbidding what is evil".

Notice once more the realism of the  Quran; it emphasizes lowering the gaze when addressing men, regardless of what the woman is wearing, because naturally, a woman's attractiveness is primarily in her physical features. But of course, not all men abide by this ordinance and thus to further protect women in the public sphere, it tells them to observe a modest and covered dresscode. Men too should dress modestly, but men do not need to go to the extent of wearing a head cover so as to avoid lecherous staring. Contrary to women, male attractiveness is not primarily in his physical features, but in his status, wealth, ambition, capacity to provide protection etc. 

There is a reason why even modern secular societies, which do not impose modesty and censorship in interaction between the genders and who in consequence experience tension, including harassments, as well as clashes between sexes are resorting more and more to physical separations between the 2 in the public sphere.  These rules of modesty apply across the social spectrum, to both free people and slaves who adopt Islam as their religion, and who, through their code of living signal to the outside world that they are not open to indecency. Nothing in the Quran's wording indicates an exemption of the rules of modesty for any member of the Muslim community, men or women. In the prophet's time, war prisoners, including women were non-Muslims in the vast majority of cases and so were not required to wear and follow the Islamic code against their will. There were also Muslim servants of course who, out of convenience were exempt from covering their head as they went about doing their work in and out of the house, which obviously entailed being frequently seen by men. This however left them vulnerable to molestation by the hypocrites and the non-Muslims of Medina who didnt abide by the rules of lowering their gaze and avoiding unnecessary gender interaction. Regular Muslim women were obligated to observe the dresscode, screening their appearance. This constitutes an advantage in such mischievous atmosphere, as it dissuades lechery but at the end, regardless of a woman's attire, if a man is bent on acting inappropriately towards women and disregard the prescribed code of conduct, he will still abuse any type of woman he comes across. When commentators spoke of the female dresscode as a means by which free and slave women were separated, they were stating a fact related to how such society worked as described earlier. None of them said that Muslim slave women were generally forbidden or exempt from the same dresscode as regular Muslim women. Commenting on 33:59 ibn Hazm writes 

"The nakedness of a woman is her entire body excluding the face and palms only. The free man and male servant, the free woman and maidservant are equal in this respect; there is no difference… As for differentiating between the free woman and maidservant, then the religion of Allah Almighty is one, creation and nature are one. All of that in respect to free women and maidservants is the same, unless there is an explicit text to distinguish between them in any way such that it can be applied". 

This view is the default one in accordance with the wording of the Quran. Later jurists, to accommodate their leaders and environments used precedents from the time of the prophet and the companions to allow more flexibility in regards the dresscode of the servants. The accommodation most in line with the prophet's time was to allow women servants to unveil their hair and other minor body parts during their household activities. Just as mistresses are allowed, in the Quran itself 24:31 and for convenient reasons to unveil in front of their male servants 

"The Prophet brought Fatimah a slave which he donated to her. Fatimah wore a garment which, when she covered her head, did not reach her feet, and when she covered her feet by it, that garment did not reach her head. When the Prophet saw her struggle, he said: There is no harm to you: Here is only your father and slave".

No prophetic precedent exists however for the practice of letting slaves show their naked breasts, chests, or backs in public. And this, despite the prophet having several of those servant girls helping around his wives, just as many Muslim households had. Had there been a clear precedent, or that the Quran allowed it, Imam Malik ibn Anas wouldnt have publicly revolted against the practice in Medina to the point he asked the caliph to prevent it. As other schools of law had already allowed it, the caliph did not go against it. The jurists that came after the time of the companions, pushed these rulings of convenience to unhealthy extents, as seen with imam Malik's disapproval. But it seems the jurists themselves felt the need to introduce a caveat, as noted by ibn Taymiyya 

"Slave women during the Prophet’s time didn't use to cover themselves like free women, while their chances of spreading Fitna were less, and their ruling was like of the old women who didn’t need to take Hijab as Quran said in verse 60 of Surah Noor. But as far as the beautiful Turkish slave women of today are concerned, then they could not be compared with the slave women of the time of prophet Muhammad. These beautiful Turkish slave women should thus cover whole of their bodies and to safeguard themselves from the eyes of men".

Ibn Umar's "inspection" of slave girls at the market, as he put his hand in between their breasts and the area of their lower hips, was done above their clothes. Although this practice, which never occurred in the prophet's time or that of the companions is certainly questionable, it was obviously not done with sexual motive; it was done over the clothes and not directly on the breasts themselves. Slaves were seen as a commodity which had to be physically inspected by the buyer. As stated by ibn Taymiyyah 

"The default position is that the nakedness of a maidservant is like a free woman, just as the nakedness of a male servant is like a free man. When she takes on an occupation and duties, her prohibitions are reduced in comparison to a free woman, as a concession to her in showing only what needs to be shown… As for the back and chest, it remains in the default position". 

The misunderstood notion that slave girls were totally exempt from wearing the veil, and even forbidden from doing so is unfounded in the Quran, in the practice of the prophet and his companions. What one may find at most is a disputed statement showing Umar, during his caliphate, forbidding a slave girl from covering her head. This could have been to differentiate her as a servant inside the household, in which the incident occurred and where guests were received. Due to a servant's function of attending the guests and household chores, the ample Julbab would have been inconvenient, and hence the exemption from wearing it. This means the servants were now wearing clothes more revealing of their body features, not because these features were openly exposed but because their clothes were closer to the body to allow better movements 

"Anas bin Malik said: “The servants of Umar, may God be pleased with him, served us, revealing their hair, and their breasts were moving". 

A point to note is that Umar only requested his servant woman's head be uncovered and no other body part, neither did he make a general statement about slave women. Also, having female servants dressed for their work does not entail the Muslim guests are allowed to transgress the command of lowering their gaze,ie looking beyond what is necessary, which applies to all situations beyond their wives and own servants. Ibn Taymiyyah continues elsewhere 

"As for attractive Turkish maidservants, this cannot possibly be as it was in the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him. It is an obligation for them to cover their whole bodies from being looked at".

Dontconvert2islam finds compromising hadith; the prophet accepts the Torah as true?

In answer to the video "Proof Muhammad believed in the Torah"

I will now address the hadith brought up by this youtuber. 

As shown earlier the notion of upholding equity and justice at all costs 4:58 and never knowingly siding with the guilty 4:105-7 was reflected in the orders given to the prophet, to judge equitably between all people approaching him be it from the Muslim munafiqeen (hypocrites) or the people of the book. This is because in Islam good and evil are absolute values. They don’t depend on who does them or who these are done to. Human values apply to all humans, not only to Muslims. The Quran itself enforces that principle, as in the aforementioned verses, or in its examples of relatives of illustrious people who will be judged impartially for their deeds. The prophet himself told his daughter

"O! Fatima, don’t think that you will be favored by Allah because you are the daughter of His Messenger. You will stand before your Creator on the basis of your own deeds".

Members of the Jewish community were sent to the prophet Muhammad, by their religious authorities, with a hidden agenda, trying to settle grave disputes in matters heavily punishable in the light of the Torah. This was just another of their ploys to avoid its harsh laws, hoping that the prophet might have a different ruling

"they alter the words from their places, saying: If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious".

This compromising, complacent attitude is a deeply ingrained transgression they have been committing ever since the law was bestowed upon them and throughout their history, despite the scolding of the prophets and the few righteous remnants among them whom the Quran mentions and praises

7:169-170"Then there came after them an evil posterity who inherited the Book, taking only the frail good of this low life and saying: It will be forgiven us. And if the like good came to them, they would take it (too). Was not a promise taken from them in the Book that they would not speak anything about Allah but the truth, and they have read what is in it; and the abode of the hereafter is better for those who guard (against evil). Do you not then understand? And as for those who hold fast by the Book and keep up prayer, surely We do not waste the reward of the righteous"

Virtually all prophets that came to them decried the corruption of their elite, their neglect towards their own justice system. Yet the prophet was not under any obligation to judge their matters when their intent was to use him as a pawn for their low desires 5:41-43. The prophet was nevertheless commanded to judge between them with equity should he decide so, notwithstanding their severe enmity towards him and the fact they were always plotting with the enemies of Islam with the hope of uprooting and exterminating it.

One famous incident is that of 

"A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess". 

 According to another version, when the Torah was brought to the prophet who was now seeking to expose the innovations of the rabbis in the specific matter of punishment for adultery, he first respectfully put it on a cushion then said 

"I believed in you and in Him Who revealed you". 

A holistic understand of both the hadith corpus and the Quran demonstrates that this statement of the prophet is not to be taken in the absolute sense. When in Medina he noticed that Jews would come and read the Torah and explain it to the Muslims, he advised them to adopt a neutral stance, neither believing nor disbelieving in it 

"Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' " 

This is because the scriptures of the Jews are an amalgam of truth and falsehood, the truthful parts being covered by the statement "whatever is revealed to you". Ibn Abbas would reprimand the Muslims who would seek information from the people of the book in religious matters, on the basis that

 "Allah has told you that the people of the scripture changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything?" 

The Quran, the prophet, the companions therefore all advise caution when approaching the previous scriptures, as they contain both truth, which the prophet confirmed and revered in the aforementioned statements, and falsehood.

The prophet then proceeded with exposing the learned ones by making them read by themselves the truthful part of the Torah which they had been hiding 

"Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning". 

This hadith depicting the prophet's reverence for the Torah should this be understood in light of other ahadith, as well as the many Quran passages stating that the Torah isnt absolutely corrupt, that despite the manipulations it still contains remnants of truth, hence the Quran being its guardian/muhaymin. The prophet declared his belief not in the entire Torah, but in the specific ruling on the punishment for adultery, and which Ibn Salam, the Jewish convert to Islam instantly recognized as the "divine verse".

It is this corruption in the absolute sense, which some scholars might have been referring to when they said, while commenting on the above report 

"if the Torah was corrupted he would not have placed it on the pillow and he would not have said: I believe in you and in the one who revealed you". 

This is speaking of complete corruption, which is not what the Muslims believe happened to previous scriptures and traditions. 

 These scholars also stated that the Torah cannot be corrupted, based on the verse saying God's words cannot be changed 6:115. 

Obviously any worldly copy of the Torah can be altered. But so long as there exists the possibility for the original to be reproduced, God's words remain unaffected, only the copy of these words. 

The Quran is the speech of Allah, and that speech is with Allah, uncreated, eternal, unchanged like any other attribute of His. The analogy of God's speech to the Quran we touch with our hands or recite from our minds, is as God's mercy which manifests in tangible and abstract things. Both types of manifestations are created means through which God's uncreated attributes of speech and mercy are made known to humans. These attributes arent limited to those particular manifestations 

31:27"and If all the trees on the earth were pens, and the sea replenished with seven more seas [were ink], the words of Allah would not be spent". 

God's speech is therefore inexhaustive. It can potentially bring into existence a limitless number of words of revelation, among them the Hebrew Torah of Moses or the Arabic Quran of Muhammad 

14:4"And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly". 

Allah further states about the revelation to Muhammad, that He 

43:3"made it an Arabic Quran". 

The eternal speech of Allah takes on in this world the form that is relevant to the divine purpose. The Arabic Quran was thus not continuously spoken since eternity. It is the manifestation in time of God's eternal attribute of speech. Just like we may say a healthy newborn is the manifestation in time of God's eternal attribute of mercy.

Assuming for argument's sake that all things in the heavens and the earth are destroyed, including all Torahs and Qurans, the mother of the book that contains all revelations, and even the preserved tablet/lawh mahfuz. So long as the potential to generate a true Quran and Torah exists, then Allah's words that were revealed to Moses and Muhammad remain unaffected. As stated earlier, the physical and abstract things in which God's attributes manifest in this world do not exhaust the attributes themselves, neither do these manifestations share the uncreated essence of the attributes they are representing. This is the problem of Trinitarians. Jesus, a created being, is not merely a manifestation of God's word, rather he incarnates it fully, becoming this divine "person" with contradictory attributes Trinitarian thinkers have been struggling to explain for over 2000 years. Christians are quick to try and parallel the notion of uncreatedness of God's speech as manifested in the Quran, with their idea derived from the Gospel of John where God's uncreated word manifested in Jesus. The two concepts, arent comparable.  Further, why would trinitarians even need the Quran to explain the logical and philosophical problems of their theology.

Not a single group within Islam says the Quran was a separate entity floating around next to God since eternity past. This is how some Christians, with their trinitarian worldview, misrepresent the statement that the word of Allah is uncreated. In Christianity, the word is not an attribute but a divine person among others like the father and holy spirit, each with distinct attributes. One man with multiple attributes isnt many men just as One God with multiple attributes isnt many gods. This is tawhid. Yet Trinity says each person is divine but with different attributes, resulting in 3 different gods. The analogy Christians attempt between tawhid and trinity stops at the word of God being eternal. Christians made that word a person with attributes among other distinct persons, while Muslims kept the word as an attribute among others within the essence of the One God. As an aside, since the word or speech of God is not an attribute within the divine essence but a separate divine entity along with 2 others, does it mean that only this divine entity called "word or speech" has the ability to speak and that the other 2 divine entities are mute?

 If God's word is a separate divine entity that became flesh in Jesus, what about the words uttered by Jesus who is now divine? Are his words separate divine entities? Further, if the Torah is God's word, as Jews and Christians believe, does that make it divine as Jesus is? These are the kinds of problems Trinitarians are entangled with due to their conjectures on ambiguous matters, instead of relying on firm statements on God's oneness and unity. Muslims on the other hand, despite the early disputes as to whether the Quran was created or not, never went out of the way to declare the attributes of God, like His word, separate divine entities. No Muslim ever believed God's speech to be a separate conscious part. The reason why this issue is often brought up by Trinitarians is that the Quran is the only book that claims to be Allah's direct speech. The Bible doesnt make that claim. The closest one finds is an anonymous claim made about Jesus being God's word. Muslims on the other hand stick to clear and firm statements of scriptures to define their cardinal beliefs, including that "nothing is like a likeness of Him".

A statement attributed to ibn abbas says 

“No one can corrupt the text by removing any of Allah’s words from his Books, but they corrupted it by misinterpreting it”. 

This is a known defective narration and is not even a commentary on verse 2:79 speaking of textual corruption. It is in reference to the verse about the preserved heavenly tablet, where all the revealed scriptures are inscribed. None can change the words therein but only twist their meaning. In an authentic hadith however, Ibn Abbas said 2:79 was in reference to the people of the book corrupting the words of their scriptures that are in their hands.

Objectively speaking anyone can remove and alter words from any text at any point in time. And if that is done when not enough human and textual witnesses can independently detect that corruption, then it can easily be disseminated and passed off as true. That is what happened during the successive destructions of the Israelite nation, followed by the attempts of their scribes to re-write what was lost.

While agreeing with that opinion, al-Razi said 

"It is impossible to have a conspiracy to change or alter the word of God in all of these copies without missing any copy. Such a conspiracy will not be logical or possible". 

Al-Razi here is talking of a time when previous scriptures, although in their corrupt state (see his commentary on 5:41), were already widely disseminated and could be independently attested by countless witnesses. Nobody could remove Allah's word nor any other man-made word from it then, without being detected. Corruption of the Torah at that point became only possible through misinterpretation.

When he respectfully put the Torah on a cushion, the prophet did not speak in absolute terms (I believe in all of you) nor name the Torah in his declaration (I believe in the Torah..). We do not even know if he was looking at it while he spoke. He might have very well been thinking of the stoning verse while saying "I believed in you and in Him Who revealed you" before turning his gaze towards the Torah on the cushion. Also, the Torah that was brought to him was a scroll

 "they spread it out (the Torah) and one of them placed his hand over the ayat of stoning". 

In ancient times the 5 books of the Torah were many times divided into several scrolls. A specific scroll could have been brought to the prophet, containing the command of stoning, which he placed on a cushion. He declared his belief in the revealed verse he had in mind, when he asked for the Torah in the first place. In the end, whether the entire or partial Torah was presented to him, no indication in the prophet's words or deeds point to him believing in anything more than the command he was looking for, the one described as the "divine verse" by his companion ibn Salam.

Apostate prophet is mind blown; sexual endurance of the prophet?

In answer to the video "Muhammad Sees a Woman... (The Lustful Prophet)"

With such a large household combined with his prophetic duties and the turmoil of these early days in which he was involved in on a daily basis, he could not be expected to divide his time so as to satisfy each of the wives and potential concubines equally. But as the Islamic history books explicitly denote, he tried to observe equality among them as much as possible. He used to visit sometimes his 9 wives at once. In that report, the Arabic doesnt denote sexual intercourse, on the part of that humble man in his late 50s who had in addition to balance his household duties with his extraordinary responsibilities as a spiritual leader and statesman. Some of his male companions might have assumed so, but it did not have to be the case. And to further corroborate that the prophet, despite visiting all his wives, would only have intercourse with the one whose turn had arrived

"Narrated ‘Urwah: ‘A’ishah said: “O nephew! The Messenger of Allah would not prefer any one of us to another with regards to spending time with us. Hardly a day would go by without him visiting all of us. He would come close to each woman, without touching her, until he reached the one whose turn it was, then he would spend the night with her".

The flexibility of the law as regards the division of time is of course not speaking of the sustenance and rightful material needs of every wife. In this area, the prophet had to divide his resources among every household, in addition to the financial burden of taking care of the indebted of the community and the incessant guests who would be received at all moments. He is known to have been left with very little to spend on himself and his wives, leading to them often complaining about the relative ease in which other companion's wives were living. And this at a time where the community had grown more prosperous in Medina, an ease which was not reflected in the prophet's household 

33:28-9"say to your wives: If you desire this world´s life and its adornment, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing".  

The prophet thus, despite being absolved from strict obligations towards his multiple wives would nevertheless feel saddened whenever he delayed his appointed time with one of his wives

33:51"You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you".

This ordinance made sure that no reproach would be cast upon him, and neither would he be hindered by social pressures or customs. 

So although he had the peace of mind from a spiritual viewpoint that he would never be blameworthy, he still felt uneasy emotionally towards his wives whom he loved. And he did his utmost to spend as much time as he could with them all equitably. Aisha would say to him 

"If I could deny you the permission (to go to your other wives) I would not allow your favor to be bestowed on any other person". 

This statement from the prophet's youngest wife, and thus logically the most physically attractive in comparison to his other wives, shows the prophet tried as best as he could not to favor one wife over another based on his personal preference. There is an instance where he refused letting Aisha replace another wife on a day that wasnt hers 

"O Aisha, keep away from me, it is not your day".

 The prophet maintained as best he could that considerate pattern of behavior throughout his life, as narrated by Aisha:

 "When the ailment of the Prophet became aggravated and his disease became severe, he asked his wives to permit him to be nursed (treated) in my house. So they gave him the permission. Then the Prophet came (to my house) with the support of two men, and his legs were dragging on the ground, between `Abbas, and another man". 

Besides absolving the prophet, the ordinance also put all the wives and potential concubines on the same level as it concerned them all from God's perspective. Through it, they find the inner peace that the emotional sacrifice they shall endure, and which they all were fully aware of before accepting to marry the prophet, is for the accomplishment of a higher objective. Their merit with God will naturally be higher given their worldly sacrifices 

"this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be pleased, all of them with what you give them".

The verse ends with an affectionate message to the prophet's household in general, stressing that God is aware of the difficulties in all levels of life that they must endure, and their toll on their feelings

"and Allah knows what is in your hearts; and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing."

Aisha is indirectly described as expressing her initial frustration and spousal jealousy, when she supposedly stated in relation to 33:51 that

“I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires".

It is remarkable that the prophet would always abide by the restrictions divinely imposed on him but not the relaxations, as described above. In Sura Ahzab, around the verse quoted in the hadith, there are seven rules about marriage peculiar to the Prophet. Four of these granted him relaxations and three put restrictions. The Prophet certainly abided by the restrictions, but yet, for someone whose

"Lord hastens his desires"

he did not opt to benefit from two of the relaxations. Had the idea of ‘convenient revelations’ any basis in that report from Aisha as claimed by Islam's opponents, to start with, there wouldnt have been any restrictions on the Prophet neither in this sura or other suras, to the exclusion of the rest of the believers.

And neither would he have failed to take benefit of every relaxation, without having any guilty conscience as he just happened to have. It is further worthy to note that, in those relaxations pertaining to marital affairs described in 33:50-1, the prophet is a passive agent; it is the women that are given the option of seeking him in marriage, not the other way around. The bottom line is that, whichever one looks at it, nothing in the pattern of the life of the prophet supports the malicious charges against him.

Acts17apologetics wont tolerate mocking idols; Does Islam insult other gods?

In answer to the video "Did Muhammad Respect Other People's Gods?"

Muslims must avoid circles that defame the religion, after expressing their dissociation with the mockers, as well as distance themselves from gatherings where spirituality as a whole is disfigured or absent

6:68,70,4:140"until they enter into some other discourse".

So to argue that a Muslim, although he is to avoid this kind of circles, is allowed to create a similar circle where other people are defamed and mocked is baseless. The opening statement of the book of Psalms echoes this position of the Quran

Ps1:1"The praises of a man are that he did not follow the counsel of the wicked, neither did he stand in the way of sinners nor sit in the company of scorners".

Avoiding and retreating from such atmosphere does not equal to arrogance and haugtiness. Muslims should always try and speak in the most kindly manner to the followers of other faiths who do not act insiduously, seeking to undermine one's faith and community 17:53,29:46, nor should one be repulsed and turn away with contempt from those who, despite their beliefs not being in full accordance with the Quran

6:52"call upon their Lord in the morning and the evening". 

Although denouncing any worship directed to other than Allah isnt forbidden, yet the Quran explains that this should be done with proper arguments, not simply using insulting and obscene language

6:108"lest exceeding the limits they should abuse Allah out of ignorance".

The verse explains, such an improper manner of conducting a dialogue can only lead to harm and similar obscene language in return. This was the prophet's way of denouncing false worship since the beginning of his call. Although the pagans were offended by his arguments, it was not on account of using improper language, misplaced arguments, distortions of other people's true beliefs, but the mere fact of speaking the hurtful truth against their sacred but inherently false system. For example when the prophet, like the prophets of the HB from Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Jonah, down to Micah, Habakkuk, described false idols as worthless pieces of man made carved wood or stone, devoid of any sense of perception and incapable of fending for themselves, much less for those bowing to them, he was not using profanity but only speaking the hurtful truth. 

On the other hand when Jesus used profanity against Jewish "races of vipers" and "sons of satan", he was being expletive "when you say these things, you insult us" said the Rabbis. Jesus was in turn exposing himself to similar profanity. It is ironic that this type of personal abuse, initiated by Jesus, not even in answer to them insulting him, isnt regarded as offensive by the Christian critics of Islam. Why would they, when it is with such background that later antisemitism developped and flourished, with Jesus' example. That is not even getting into the vile language of the HB by YHWH in reference to the spiritual "harlotry" of Israel. The whole book of Jeremiah including Lamentations which is traditionaly attributed to him, and Ezekiel after him, as well as Micah are filled with metaphors of adultery, shameless exhibitionism, betrayal and divorce, senseless harlotry by paying tributes and gifts in subjugation to the "lover" instead of receiving payment as a prostitute would, fornication with foreigners endowed with donkey-like "large genitals" who ejaculate like horses, to whom her "virgin breasts" are shamelessly displayed, "scattering of ways" and "spreading of legs to every passerby" without ever being sated, in reference to Israel's unfaithfulness to God's covenant, going after false gods and forsaking the true God

Ezek16:38"And I shall judge you [with] the judgments of adulteresses and murderesses, and I shall deliver you [to those who shed] blood with fury and zeal".

In the book of proverbs, the use of a similar imagery is directed at the idolaters, compared to a lurking harlot ready to snatch the souls caught off-guard Prov23:27-8. Elsewhere, other "brides" of God have their share of metaphorical sexual debauchery, like the non-Jewish city of Nineveh that reformed itself under the prophet Jonah but returned to its evil ways afterwards and was thus condemned with equal anger and fury by God who will

Neh3:5-6"uncover your skirts upon your face-and I will show the nations your nakedness, and the kingdoms your shame. And I will cast detestable things upon you and make you vile, and I will make you like dung".

Sexual metaphors are also employed in reference to the Torah itself, supposed to be as intoxicating as a woman's love and as satisfying as her breasts Prov5:19-20.

These critics instead find fault when Abubakr answered the unjust accusations of treachery and lack of faith, with typical Arabic terminology to refer to the worthlessness of a person. He said

"go suck al-Laat's clitoris".

Abubakr's abuse in return for abuse isnt even a personal attack, as is the case with Jesus' words, but a scorn of an inanimate object. It is everyone's right to reply to a hurtful attack, verbal or physical, in a similarly painful way. Forcing someone to be passive or forgiving is a denial of that right and an injustice towards the victim. Magnanimity is always encouraged in the Quran, but never at the expense of justice, it must come freely and without pressure, by the victim itself. Even though the use of defamatory speech may be exceptionally justified in case a person has in some way been wronged, pardoning the evil which has been done is much preferable to God 4:148-9. ALJAHRA means something that is out in the open with the aim to be noticed and not missed. This includes loud expressions and anything that is flagrant and so on. The message is that Allah does not love this kind of communication unless the person was himself victim of it. In this case God hears and knows what is going on, which is a message in itself of reassurance to the victim, but still gives license to retaliate in the same manner, without transgressing himself the bounds by which he was assaulted. The verse hints to self-restraint while still not denying the person's injured self, and his natural right to answer back and defend himself. This is speaking of situations where a soft speech and forbearance, as is the general rule in Islam when one is confronted to ill mannered people and verbal attacks, is not enough to stop the harassement and abuse.

Denouncing falsehood in all circumstances, religious or else, is therefore never condemned or prevented in the Quran, but rather the manner in doing it is regulated. So in the case of one's beliefs being insulted one doesnt reply with an insult, the Quran tells the believer in such case to avoid the circles where Islam is being mocked 4:140, precisely to avoid such lowly behavior of mockery for mockery as described in

6:108,68:10-11"And yield not to any mean swearer, Defamer, going about with slander".

A righteous person should act accordingly, responding to falsehood with dignity 25:72. Ridiculing or mocking one another while arguing does not behove the God-conscious, it is the trait of those devoid of upright character. 

When the critic's aim is to objectively assess the Islamic arguments, carefully listen and evaluate the Islamic position, then a meaningful discussion can be engaged

16:125"with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner".

However when the critic takes an approach that isnt constructive, like shutting his ears or pretending to listen while preparing his counter arguments, telling others to do the same, raising irrelevant objections just for the sake of discrediting, without any solid basis for argument, isolating a word or a sentence from its context, hairsplitting it so as to make it a basis of doubts and accusations, misconstruing words so as to prevent them being properly understood 4:46,40:4-5,56,41:40 then any conversation is fruitless.  

The prophet's own life and ability to take on criticism is testimony to this. As well, Muslims can freely mingle with kindness and justice with any non-muslims who do not seek to fight Islam, do not opress Muslims unjustly 60:8-9. Although the prophet never initiated the kind of verbal attack he was calumnied with, when he was approached by a Muslim poet, Hasan bin Thabit, who proposed verbally attacking the enemy poetry that targeted him, the Muslims and Islam, he did not instruct him to steep to their lowly immoral, unwarranted standards. For example he told Hasan that his lineage shouldnt be attacked, meaning he did not want Hasan to provoke them on that point lest they in turn insult the prophet's ancestors.