In answer to the video "Surah 65:4 and Child Marriage in Islam"
Public criticism, according to the tradition, was laid at Umar for his trying to marry Ali's daughter, because she was young and Umar was old, almost the same age difference between the Prophet and Aisha. In fact, the traditions record that this was one of the objections of Ali for the union and public criticism had gotten to the point Umar had to defend himself for the move in public. Umar made the point that he only wanted to marry her to affirm his ties with the House of the Prophet. Umar didnt use the precedent of the Prophet marrying Aisha at an alleged young age. This incident, involving the closest companions of the prophet, reveals the same inconsistencies as those noted earlier with the prophet's refusal to marry his daughter to AbuBakr.
Also, if it was a norm of Arab culture, then why would he draw the criticism of the city of Medina for such an act?
Further, in the Muwatta which is the representative work on the school of Medina, in the chapter on marrying younger women without asking them, this narration isnt even reported. And you would think, in Medina of all places, the marriage of the Prophet to a young Aisha would serve an evidence for the people of Medina.
Where are the examples to substantiate the point of view that such practice was a norm in Arab culture?
An interesting point to re-stress is that not only are there no examples to show how such practice was a norm, but also Urwa, the ultimate source of these traditions regarding Aisha's age, just so happenned to have married a 9year old.
Besides his poor memory at the time he reported Aisha's age, there is now another reason to seriously doubt his credibility, namely the blatant need to falsify a hadith to serve his interest in justifying an act that far from being the "norm" of the prophet's time, was unacceptable to many including the prophet's own entourage.
In answer to the video "Surah 65:4 and Child Marriage in Islam"
Aisha relates herself as having played an active role during the migration; getting the travelling goods together in a highly tense situation per the narrations. An 8 year old could not have acted in such a way. Again she describes herself how she reached Shajra along with the soldiers in the battle of Badr that took place in 2H. Nobody under 15 years old was allowed to join the soldiers in the battlefield. This was to avoid being captured and raised as idol-worshippers or killed and become a problem for the army. Yet she is alleged to have been 9 or 10 at the time, meaning she had absolutely no business whatsoever in being at the battlefield.
But if she was born prior to the revelation, then by that time she would be around 18 years old, which makes sense.
In fact there are reports of the prophet sending back some Muslim youths who tried, out of eagerness, to go along with the Muslim army. The very notion that the Prophet would set an age limit to 15 for people to participate in battle, but allow 9-10 year olds or 11 year old females to accompany the battlefield, especially in such situations, is against all common sense. Why would young men below 15 be forbidden to be at the battle-field, but 9-10 year old girls be allowed to take care of people wounded and on the verge of death. Does one think the Prophet would have exposed these girls to the chance of being captured and eventually mistreated and abused by masters who used to force their female slaves into prostitution?
Anas further describes Aisha along with Umm Sulaim lifting their dresses up to avoid any hindrance in their movement, at the battle of Uhud. The idea of lifting the dress in Arab tradition, as is evident in abundant pre-Islamic poetry is a reference to women fleeing the battlefield, having to raise their skirts exposing their shins. This is what happened in Uhud when Muslim men were panicking, because the unbelievers had sent them into disarray. It had reached such an extent that they abandoned the Prophet.
Yet, here is a 'nine or ten year' old girl running back and forth, to various Muslim men assisting them with their needs in the midst of battle:
“On the day (of the battle) of Uhud when (some) people retreated and left the Prophet, I saw Aisha daughter of Abu Bakr and Umm Sulaim, with their robes tucked up so that the bangles around their ankles were visible hurrying with their water skins (in another narration it is said, ‘carrying the water skins on their backs’ (7). Then they would pour the water in the mouths of the people, and return to fill the water skins again and came back again to pour water in the mouths of the people”.
How can people think that at the height of the battle, when Muslims were panicking and even leaving the Prophet, Aisha was 9-11 years old, not even slightly panicking while attending bravely wounded soldiers, and was allowed to go into battle? Dont the narrations specifically tell us the Prophet constantly warned his men not to abandon their posts on the hill? If he was so keen about that matter and so keen on males being a specific age, what makes people think he was going to take females that would burden the army?
The fact is Aisha actively participated in battles during the prophet's life, assisting the men at the battlefield along with other women, which is why by the time of Ali's reign as Caliph, she gathered enough experience and credibility that she could rally a huge fighting force.
None of the narrations saying she was 6 when engaged and 9 when moved with the prophet come from Mecca or Medina and whether from Muslim or Bukhari's sahih books combined, it is the same hadith narrated in multiple ways, which refutes the position that Aisha's age is established by multiple reliable sources. Even the two hadith in Bukhari claiming that Aisha says her age are attributed to Hisham bin Urwa, so they arent even her own words. It is only in Muslim, in the context of permissibility of marrying young women, that we find two hadith claiming to be Aisha's words. But they all report additional material from Hisham that arent reported in Bukhari. All such narrations come from Iraq, even those outside sahih Bukhari, and the majority of those are traced to Hisham bin Urwa, Asma's grandson, meaning there is no possibility to verify whether Hisham was involved in those other reports where his name isnt mentioned in the chain, directly or indirectly.
So it all goes back to one source ultimately who himself was married to a 9 year old (8).
In addition to this obvious bias, he is reported by imam Malik, his student, to have become unreliable in his Iraq period, due to changing, willingly or not, the transmission chain of certain reports going back to his father. But even if we dismiss these reservations and his bias, we would still be confronted to difficulties showing how any attempt at specifically determining Aisha's marriage age is not based upon contradiction-free information.
Asma was 10 years older than Aisha (9). Yet Hisham bin Urwa himself claims Asma lived until 100(10). Asma died in 73H (11). If she was 100 in 73H according to bin Urwa himself then it means she was 27 at the time of Hijra. Consequently Aisha was 17 at the time and 18-19 when she married 1 or 2 years later. Knowing this difficulty to harmonize the records available with bin Urwa's, the historian Imam Adh-Dhahabi tries reducing Asma's age at death in order to make it fit with the reports on Aisha's marriage age
"If this is true (Asma being 10 years older than Aisha), then the age of Asmaa when she passed away should be ninety-one".
For a 17-18 years old to be playing on a swing the day of her wedding with her friends or playing with toys during her marriage isnt an extreme oddity (12). This may be referring to the early period of her marriage. Today married men regularly spend hours playing video games. The contention that she played with dolls even after the campaign of Khaybar or Tabuk (13) which would mean around the age of 26 is flawed. The same narration is found in Bukhari and Muslim without the part about the prophet coming from Khaybar or Tabuk, as well as other differences. They have both rejected these parts because they are attributed to Yahya bin Ayyub who was deemed confused in the chain and content of this hadith. Even if one were to accept the passage as true for argument's sake, as well as Aisha's age of marriage at 6years old, then this means she was still playing with dolls after the battle of Khaybar when she was 15-16. Playing with dolls is not an indication of age or stage of physical development.
In answer to the video "Surah 65:4 and Child Marriage in Islam"
It is well documented in the works of historians, like Tabari, that Aisha, along with all of Abu Bakr's children were born in Jahilliya (1) and this despite the fact that Tabari is aware of the 6-9 hadith as he quotes it in the same book (2). This refers in Islamic terminology to the period prior to the beginning of Muhammad's prophethood.
The hijra, or migration towards Medina occured 13 years later, the same year which it is alleged that Aisha was married to the prophet, or the year after according to al-Nawawi (3). This means there is no way possible she could have been less than 13 years old at the time of Hijra as some ahadith suggest.
The proponents of Aisha's early age at the time of hijra ignore that statement of Tabari. This is significant because Tabari says that following their engagement, the prophet waited before consuming the marriage. But not because he wanted her to first reach puberty as implied in Bukhari or Muslim. It was rather due to his poor financial situation, inability to arrange a proper home for her and establish himself.
This is just one of the blatant examples of tension that exists within the hadith corpus as regards Aisha's age at the time of marriage, let alone the established marital pattern of the prophet. There perhaps exists no other topic within the sahih compilations which is at such a high level of contradictory tension with the rest of the remaining traditions.
Another noteworthy observation in that regard is that the prophet himself denied his daughter Fatima's marriage to AbuBakr, then Umar, because she was comparatively too young to either of them (Sunan an-Nasa’i 3221). He instead married her to Ali who was 21 while it is reported that Fatima was 9. What better occasion was there for AbuBakr to mention the precedent of his own daughter marrying the prophet at 6 and expecting the prophet to reciprocate? The prophet would not have used the age argument to deny his daughter's hand to AbuBakr seeing that he married the latter's daughter at even a younger age and with an age gap exceeding that between Fatima and AbuBakr. This refusal can be understood in different ways; the age of 9 is not a benchmark for girls marriage, rather a combination of factors must be taken into account, including physical and mental readiness, which can occur at 9 or later but also compatibility in regards to personality. The other way to understand it is that the reports about Aisha's age of marriage are inaccurate.
According to a narrative in sahih Bukhari the revelation of al qamar:46 occured when Aisha was a young girl/jariya. Jariya never refers to a 4 years old. But if she was 12 then her reference as jariya by bukhari makes sense. The chapter ends a mere 9 verses later at v55 and it is obvious from the topic that v46 to v55 were revealed together and could not have been cut off. So the argument that some suras were revealed in portions with long intervals of time in between verses is moot. Besides all scholars agree this is a Meccan sura, whose finalization the opinion varies between the 4th and 8th year (4) of the call to prophethood.
But even if we consider Aisha's traditionally accepted date of birth in the 5th year of revelation as true, and in addition accept the latest estimation for the date when sura al-qamar was finalized on the 8th year of revelation as true, then this would mean Aisha was able to memorize with precision a verse and its reference when she was merely 3, which is highly unlikely.
Other historians such as Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham say she accepted Islam before Umar, who himself converted in the 9th year of revelation. These historians both say she was among the earliest converts. Ibn Ishaq places her at the 18th and ibn Hisham places her approximately at the 20th place chronologicaly. This takes us back during the 1st or at most the 2nd year of revelation. Aisha isnt supposed to have even been breathing at the time if she was truly born in the 5th year of revelation.
Even if we assume that this date of birth is true, how can anybody reasonably argue that someone willingly accepts a religion 3 years later at 3 years old (ie before Umar's conversion in the 9th year)?
Aisha describes her vivid memory of events that supposedly happened when she was but an infant, such as Abu bakr's migration to Ethiopia in the 5th year of revelation, the year she was supposedly born in (5). This shows again, her birth could not have been later than the pre-islamic era, as confirmed in Tabari's reports.
As said in introduction, before her union with the prophet she was engaged to Jubayr ibn Mut'im ibn Adi. This is found, among others in Ibn saad's tabaqaat with authentic asanid. His father was a vehement enemy of the prophet, before Abu Bakr accepted Islam. The engagement was broken off by Jubayr's father when Abu Bakr converted and planned to go to Abyssinia in the 5th year of revelation, the year of Aisha's alleged birth (6).
Even if we were to argue that this arrangement happened while both Aisha and Jubayr were toddlers, even infants, as would sometimes happen in ancient times among families seeking to strengthen their bonds, then this still doesnt allow for Aisha being born anytime than prior to the revelation. Mut`im bin Adi and his wife were polytheists when the engagement was made and resented the idea that their son would become Muslim if he married Aisha.
Abu Bakr on the other hand was among the most zealous companions calling people towards Islam. This makes it highly unlikely that the staunch pagan Mut`m bin Adi mentioned his interest to Abu Bakr after the revelation.
In answer to the video "Surah 65:4 and Child Marriage in Islam"
There are several physiological reasons for otherwise normally menstruating women that might cause them to fail having their courses, including pregnancy, medical conditions, hormonal dysfunctioning, stress, too much physical exertion, diet etc. It can be delayed and some women may not bleed very much, to the point its hardly noticeable such as what happens in the menopausal stage, before the postmenopause which is the period where women cannot get pregnant anymore. Those women "who have not had their courses" therefore covers all these categories.
The verse also speaks of those that might be in postmenopause and unable to carry children anymore but one isnt 100% sure they have reached such stage, hence the words "if you have a doubt" in the phrase
"And (as for) those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, if you have a doubt".
It speaks of women in a condition of despair as regards their monthly courses, women who are beyond the normal age limit and who have not had their courses anymore as they should. Any woman who has seen the effects of that natural phase in other women knows how well off she was during her menstrual phase and relatively mild bothersome symptoms that she experienced. In comparison there are much more increased risks of health issues to a postmenopausal woman, like heart and bone diseases among many other conditions, not to speak of the mental factor of having to accept infertility, especially for those women witout children and who married late.
Some unsuccesfully tried to argue that since postmenopausal women must wait 3 idda despite them not having had their courses for a long time and having only a slight chance at pregnancy, then nothing negates that prepubescent girls must also wait 3 idda since, just like the former case, they too have not menstruated for long and in addition they too have a little chance of pregnancy about a month prior to their first courses.
However the wording denies their inclusion. Although one may "doubt" whether a pre-pubescent girl with whom one had intercourse is pregnant or not, just like one may doubt if a woman in postmenopause is pregnant, a pre-pubescent girl is certainly not one who has
"despaired of her menstruation".
Only one who is well into, if not already passed the normal age range at which women become postmenauposal, qualifies as "despaired of her menstruation". And besides, to include prepubescent girls among those who have "despaired of their menstruation" would entail they are well into, if not passed the normal age limit at which girls get their first period, ie the very late teens.
This of course, doesnt serve the purpose of those claiming the Quran allows marriages at very early ages.
An important thing to note here, in regards to the precision of the verse's wording, is that "doubt" over "possible" menstruation doesnt cover
"those too who have not had their (menstrual) courses".
The advocates of prepubescent marriage need the "doubt" to cover them but it doesnt. It only concerns the women who are in postmenopause as described earlier. "those who havent had their courses" are women, agaoin, flagged as NISAA', of menstrual age and in addition have already actually menstruated. They are fully expected to keep on menstruating, but they are not currently for the physiological reasons already given.
The purpose of the 3 month waiting period of idda is to determine if the woman about to divorce is pregnant 2:228. For a woman who is expected to menstruate normally, such delay might almost certainly mean pregancy and also the womb starts to take on visible signs of pregnancy at that stage. This is why 33:49 states those that are divorced prior to sexual intercourse do not have to go through the idda waiting period. Obviously without sexual intercourse, there is no possibility of pregnancy.
That the issue of idda is all about ascertaining potential pregnancy via menstruation is also seen with the second part of the verse 65:4 which mentions the case of confirmed pregnant women, while the first part dealt with those that were potentialy pregnant, saying their waiting period is no longer 3 months, but the whole length of the pregnancy. In light of the above, the lack of menstruation concerns specifically women who are EXPECTED to have their period, which isnt the case of pre-pubescent girls.
There is a reason the Quran contrasts the menstruation in terms of expectation (potential pregnancy) versus non-expectation (confirmed pregnancy). The fact that one claims such a verse refers to girls that can't even get pregnant is the utmost absurdity, because nobody expects them to get pregnant.
Additionally, if one argues it does refer to pre-pubescent girls, then it renders the whole argument that consummation can only happen after puberty as null and void.
During both cases -that of a woman potentially pregnant having to wait for 3 idda and a confirmed pregnant woman having to wait until delivery- the man must fully sustain the woman without any kind of oppression, though they are going through a hard phase that will probably end in divorce 65:6-7.
In answer to the video "Surah 65:4 and Child Marriage in Islam"
The Quran ties puberty with intellectual maturity together as a prerequisite for starting one's own life, showing that marriage is not only a question of physical maturity 4:5-6. Wealth is handed back to them when they reach maturity/rushd, determined intellectually, as well as a mariageable age, determined physically. If, by the way, the "reaching" of that age isnt determined through observable physical signs as occurs at puberty, but rather the reaching of a specific age, why doesnt the verse simply give that age? The reason is that these bodily changes occur at different ages. Further, to specify an age of marriage would be unpractical. Life expectancy varies depending on many factors. Some countries' average is in the 30s, even today. These conditions necessitate childbearing to happen at the earliest possible time so as to avoid demographic decline. Also, this marriageable age does not have to be at the very start of puberty. It is left to the parent's appreciation who must also evaluate mental readiness. This is done by talking and interacting socially with a person. By their behaviours in different situations and answers to topics like married life, one can evaluate readiness. Anyone who has children understands this process of maturity. The approach to marriageable age in Islam is thus holistic, instead of arbitrary as is the case in modern, secular societies. Muslim fathers, and traditional fathers in general are very protective towards their children and girls in particular. They will never just give away their daughters in marriage without making sure they are ready for full marital life, which includes being capable of shouldering multiple household tasks. Neither would they accept anyone marrying their daughters who is not in the best interest, spiritual, physical, material, to their daughter.
Age of consent in non-muslim countries has varied greatly throughout recent history. It went from "undefined" (ie during puberty) to around 15 years old. The reason they began raising the age was to avoid abuse and child prostitution. On the flip side, these unnatural regulations generated other problems. A child of 8-15 hitting puberty starts experiencing strong sexual desires. The best course of action is to have the consensual option of channeling those desires within the safe bonds of marriage. But modern societies prefer having their children engaging in hidden deviations including fornication, masturbation, pornography. Abstinence is a known failure in this age range and especially in our time of overexposure to information and temptations, as well as almost limitless gender mixing. The true fact is that in these Judeo-Christian liberal societies, by the time a girl reaches what is considered an acceptable marriage age in her mid 20s, she would have already accumulated multiple sex partners. The burden is thus on Judeo-Christian and secular societies to propose an alternative to the Islamic solution.
Also, and as is obvious in our modern times, mental maturity occurs much later than it did in earlier societies. In Islam however there is no such thing as age of consent. Sex is only possible if both parties enter into marriage agreement. And this necessitates mental readiness as amply seen from the Quran and sunna. Neither the Quran nor the prophet ever allowed abusing anyone.
The verses 4:5-6 state that the orphans about to live independently are to be put through intellectual trials prior to their reaching the age of nikah
"And test the orphans until they attain mariageable age".
If the orphan reaches the age but fails those tests then he cannot be left to fully unite with another and consume the marriage, since starting a life of married couple necessarily includes managing a family and property. A woman receives the dower agreed upon with the husband, either before or after the marriage but always before there can be sexual contact 2:236-7,4:4,19,24-25,5:5. This is a very important point. The husband cannot retain this amount under any circumstances unless the wife willingly chooses to remit some part of it. An immature woman cannot freely dispose of her wealth, not even a portion of it, meaning her mental maturity is a prerequisite for releasing the dower which must happen before sexual contact.
This shows again that mental and physical maturity are tied together as a prerequisite for living together as a married couple and starting one's own life.
All this is demonstrated in the case of female orphans whom the guardian is taking care of and managing the property. The verses 4:5-6 are part of a passage dealing with the well being of orphans. It urges the guardian to make sure the orphans under his care are fully able to enter independently into society. Why would the same guardian do any differently with his own children? This is why commentators including ibn Abbas and ibn Kathir argue for the general application of the verse 4:5-6 to any immature individual. Similarly in 60:12 there is nothing specific for believing women. Bukhari reports that the Prophet, based on this verse addressing women, used to take pledge from believing men on exactly the same terms as believing women.
Elsewhere the Quran refers to marriage as a covenant/mithaq 4:21. As there can be no agreement unless both parties give their consent to it, marriage in Islam can only be contracted with the free consent of the two parties. The fiqh of even the classical schools argue that a female needs to be consulted regarding her marital status.
There is absolutely no such concept as a forced marriage in Islam and every female enters into the contract willingly and mentally capable to understand the situation she is getting into. The actual complete expression is mithaq ghaleezan/a solemn covenant and is used elsewhere to denote a serious bilateral agreement unbefitting of a child 4:154,33:7.
A Girl once came to the prophet, anxious and saying she dislikes the man her father has arranged for her, the Prophet answered
“If you do not like him, that is an end to the matter. You have full authority. Go and make the choice of man whom you would like to marry.”
This attitude from the Prophet was unheard of in a time where girls had nothing to say in that matter. His daughters married the men of their choice, when Ali came to him asking the hand of Fatima, he answered
"Several persons have come to me to ask the hand of az-Zahraa but by the displeasure of her countenance she has refused them. Now I shall inform her of your request.”
65:4"And (as for) those of your women/nisaa who have despaired of menstruation, if you have a doubt, their prescribed time shall be three months, and of those too who have not had their courses; and (as for) the pregnant women, their prescribed time is that they lay down their burden; and whoever is careful of (his duty to) Allah He will make easy for him his affair".
The verse comes in the context of divorce obviously as seen from the preceding verses, and is an expounding of the general rule mentioned prior in 2:228. It speaks of nisaa. Nisaa' only means mature women, not atfal/children who havent reached puberty 24:58, and obviously only nisaa can menstruate 2:222.
Even the commentators often quoted to support child marriages never speak of children in their analysis of 65:4 and "those who have not had their course". Ibn Kathir or ibn Abbas for instance infer that the reason for delayed menses is them being young. Since when did youth only cover children? ibn Abbas himself states that the age of nikah spoken of in 4:6 is puberty. Girls can reach puberty without menstruation. Body changes like body shape, breasts or pubic hair happen around 2 years before the first period. Sometimes menstruation is delayed longer due to medical and environmental reasons. But the girl will still be of marriageable age despite the delay, provided that she is also mentally ready. Those who often accuse Islam of allowing "pedophilia" have in mind sex with non-menstruating girls. The age of consent in some European countries today like Italy, France or Germany is 14-15. Yet, as stated earlier, many girls reach those ages without menstruation. Would this entail that even those most secular countries allow pedophilia? Those who defend that system would then argue that consent only applies to boys and girls of similar ages. It is thus better morally, spiritually and for the fabric of society to have 2 minors fornicating than a minor marrying an adult with her and her guardians' consent? Where are the parents in the equation, can they disagree and prevent a girl of 15 to have sex with another teenage boy? Does "age of consent" implies knowing what is good for oneself, especially in our modern societies where boys and girls are everything but mentally mature at this stage? Also, a 17 year old boy fornicating with a non menstruating girl of 14 is fine but if the boy is 18 he becomes a pedophile? Even more absurd is that a girl of 17 marrying a man of 25 is pedophilia while the same girl at 18 marrying a man of 50 is fine.
Yes, even in the patriarchal model, abuse is possible. Parents can be corrupt or careless and agree to a bad marriage. Just as they could be abusive and irresponsible to their children even while under their care. But at least they always are part of the equation whenever it comes to deciding for their well being, contrary to secular Judeo-Christian societies. And parents, for the most part will always do and agree only for what is best for their children. The premise of parenthood and guardianship in the Quran and every healthy society is that of care and protection of those under authority. These are the people who are intended in the spirit of the shariah, not abusive and careless guardians.
From a purely medical perspective, pelvic and general body size, as well as fat deposits are almost complete when the first period occurs, mostly between the 8-13 age range. In other words a girl reaches her adult shape at menarche, hence the reason they generally appear bigger than boys of the same age. There is no evidence of minor marriage and consummation at menarche intrinsically causing any more psycho-physical harm than for a girl in her mid 20s, especially not in a traditional backgrounds where girls are safeguarded by their guardians, only married depending on their overall readiness. The statistics showing harmful early marriages do not occur in such contexts and are most often due to poverty, improper medical care, absence of specialists, trained midwives etc. Such social factors elevate the risks of pregnancy and delivery across all age ranges. Spiritually, even evolutionary speaking it makes no sense that a girls' body is made capable of childbearing but that this potential is negated. Peak attractiveness of females is considered to be youth and fertility, not maturity, status or college education. Clear studied have shown that the majority of mature men have sexual thoughts and desires at the sight of minor and early pubescent girls. Due to post-modern social stigma, these men for the most part did not openly admit it, unless the ages of the girls were hidden. Attractiveness of males generally occurs in the late 20s, with features such as status, maturity, and general manliness like facial hair, bone and muscle density.
The secular and modern Judeo-Christian argument boils down to saying that humanity has only now discovered that early marriages are harmful, even deadly due to physical and mental effects, than later marriages.
Going back to the classical jurists, al Shafi'i states that no virgin is to be given in marriage "until she reaches the age of puberty and they ask her permission". Same for ibn Taymiyya. This is based on the Quran's clear statement in 4:5-6 as well as the prophetic practice, who disolved arranged marriages where the bride wasnt asked permission and seemed unhappy. An nawawi quotes al Shafi'i and agrees with him "what they said does not go against the hadith of Aisha". Of course the classical scholars used ijtihad to apply the verse to marriages of interest done very early on in the ancient times. These unions were contracted but not consummated until both parties were physically and mentally mature. As ibn battal says "The scholars agreed that it is permissible for fathers to marry off their young daughters even if they are in the cradle, except it is not permissible for their husbands to consummate the marriage with them until they are prepared to safely have intercourse".
The jurists stipulate that in such situation, the girl remains in her guardians' home until they deem her mature enough to consummate the marriage. This is established on physical appearance and mental development, which varies depending on many factors, internal to the person and environmental. At that point, and as shown earlier, the girl is free to reject the marriage proposal, prior to consummation as unanimously agreed. The prophet said
"A previously married woman has more right (to decide) about herself (with regard to marriage) (than her guardian), and a virgin should be consulted by her father. [Sunan an-Nasa’i 3264]"
"A virgin should not be given in marriage until her permission is granted. [Sahih al-Bukhari 6970]".
Consent, which obviously implies mental maturity, is therefore always understood as part of the equation whenever the jurists discussed marriage procedures. Even if she accepts the marriage, no complete intercourse is allowed to occur if there is fear of physical and mental harm. And this can be due to many reasons besides youth, including illness or thinness. What is allowed then, are other type of harmless sexual acts husband and wife normally happily consent to.
When the classical jurists practiced ijtihad to determine the minimum age of marriage, they did not use Aisha's age as reference. Hanafi for instance define it as puberty based on 65:4. Hanbali, Shafi'i and Maliki place it at what they deem the average age of mental/physical maturity as per Quran 4:5-6, at around 15years old. Marrying a 9, 15 or 40 year old is not more of a command Muslims must follow than riding camels for transport or searching for a well to fill a bucket with water, just because the prophet did what was appropriate to his time, needs, context.
Thus the Muslim layman, scholars and jurists never saw the early marriage of Aisha to the prophet as sunna, a practice incumbent on Muslims to emulate. This is seen by the fact that statistically and since the beginning of Islam, girls being fully married around the early age of 9 was very rare. The numbers are dwarfed in comparison to the rapes and abuses of prepubescent boys and girls and minors, institutionalized and covered for centuries by the Catholic Church throughout the world and till this day. Yet these are the people who would like to paint Muslim societies in light of their own failures.
The words of the Quran have no specificity of age and are interested in dealing with determination of pregnancy via menstruation -a device that cannot cover prepubescent girls, unless they are well into the age of puberty but did not have their first period yet- and in addition the conditions are attached to the word nisaa in the beginning of the sentence, which only means mature women.
The 2 potential roots of the word nisaa denote either forgetfulness (n-s-y) or delay (n-s-hamza) and the manner in which these meanings relate to a physically mature women is that she has either forgotten when she had her last period or that her period is delayed. Both situations describe a woman who is potentially pregnant or that may become one. In the verse, there is no shift from talking about women to talking about children. A woman divorced prior to having her period should wait 3 menstrual periods to significantly reduce the chance of a pregnancy wrongly associated with the new husband.
In answer to the video "Surah 65:4 and Child Marriage in Islam"
Aisha was the daughter of Abu Bakr. The prophet Muhammad married her 2 years after Khadija's death.
As a prelude, it is important to note, the companions of the prophet were cconcerned for his emotional health, seeing how his sadness wouldnt go away following Khadija's passing away, even after marrying Sawda. It was Khawla, a prominent Muslim female companion that suggested Aisha. Being a known tactful person the prophet did not approach Abu Bakr directly but told Khawla to go back and
"mention me to them".
Abu Bakr then doesnt object, otherwise he would have simply said that she was already engaged at the time to Jubayr, whose family was non-Muslim. The only objection voiced by him was
“Is she good for him? She is his brother’s daughter”.
Nothing about inapropriatness based on age, rather Abubakr assumed that the false preislamic notion that assigned blood ties between people which do not actually exist, such as in adoption, still applied. The prophet corrected that false notion, again through Khawla. Abu Bakr was honored but never broke his pledge to Jubayr's father, it is he who later broke it as he did not want his son to be married in a Muslim family. Jubayr's father knew nothing of Abu Bakr's desire to give his daughter to the prophet. Even the consummation itself was urged by Abu Bakr, which disproves any reluctance from his side.
Not only did Abu Bakr consent, but the initial idea, the engagement and the consummation were all initiated and urged by people other than the Prophet. As to Aisha, in her own words, not only did she consent but actually overjoyed at the initial idea.
The prophet Muhammad proposed to her father Abu Bakr at a time when Muslims were facing the most tormented time of their history. Muslims had to be closer than ever and the Prophet, after being rejected by all influential men and tribes had to strengthen his ties with his few companions. Abu Bakr was still a respected man among the Quraysh and could therefore provide Muhammad with some protection. After Khadija's death, and following his marriage to Sawda, the widow of a companion that died in Abyssinia, he thus asked Aisha's hand.
In answer to the video "Deuteronomy 6:4 - Scripture Twisting 101"
In the HB, the term "holy spirit" (in which "holy" is an adjective) never appears. But there is ruach hakodesh (lit. the spirit/wind of holiness). It is the pre-condition for prophethood, endowing an individual with divine intuition, wisdom Job32:8, warnings and glad tidings, as well as the ability to communicate God's direct words 2Sam23:2. Such person becomes God's representative on Earth and then either reforms or leads the Israelites to victory.
As a side note, Trinitarians claiming that this ruach is a divine entity separate from God the Father must explain verses like Judges9:23,1Sam16:14,Isa19:14 speaking of
"an evil spirit from God"
and of
"a spirit of perverseness".
If, as trinitarians say, God's holy spirit is a divine entity, God's evil spirit should also be a different divine entity. 1Kings19:11 is even more damning to this idea
"And He said: "Go out and stand in the mountain before the Lord, Behold! the Lord passes, and a great and strong wind (b'ruach) splitting mountains and shattering boulders before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind (ha-ruach). And after the wind an earthquake-not in the earthquake was the Lord".
This spirit of God first appears in Gen1. It is neither qualified as holy nor evil, it could be any of the 2 since God directly creates both good and evil Deut30:15,Isa45:7,1Sam16:14, and neither is it described as taking part independently in the act of creation. In fact its mention is preceded by the presence of already created worldly entities, like the waters and the earth.
The spirit/wind of holiness in the talmud is an agent sent by God to allow prophecy and revelation (Midrash Rabbah, Song of Songs 1.1,Sotah 16d). A well known teaching in rabbinic 2nd temple literature is that the end of prophecy was accompanied with the departure of the holyspirit "From the time that the last prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, died, the holy spirit was withdrawn from Israel". The RUACH is always at the disposal of God to bestow upon whomever He chooses Num11:17,25,29,Isa42:1,44:3,Joel3:1.
All this parallels in many ways with the Quran's description of the RUH that descends to the prophets to give them inspiration. The spirit of God is certainly an agent of God, separate from Him and fully encompassed by His will. The spirit being of/from God, does not entail him being a separate divine entity, anymore than the hand, arm or eyes of God are separately divine. Even if one turns to the highly esoteric and cryptic Zohar, believed to have originated somewhere in the 1st-2nd century CE when Judaism had been infiltrated by Graeco-Roman concepts, one might find notions of God having different aspects through which He interacts with the world. However none of those aspects are ever manifested in human form and neither are they separate entities to be individually worshipped.
As to Gen16:7-13 The Hebrew for angel/malak means a messenger, as noted by one of those youtubers. It is not "the" angel/messenger, as deceptively rendered in most Christian translations (see also Zech1:12). It is just "an" angel/messenger, one among the many which God dispatches to perform a specific task. By definition, one cannot be the sender of a message, as well as the messenger itself. This angelic messenger was acting as God's agent to Hagar. He was given the power to do what he said he would do in the verse. After telling her that he will multiply her progeny exceedingly, the messenger tells her to name the first of that progeny, Ishmael
"for the Lord/YHWH has heard your affliction".
The messenger's promise to make her progeny fruitful came as a result of her affliction, which YHWH, not the messenger, saw and solved, through His messenger. As previously noted, there are different such angelic messengers of God, elsewhere said to be under God's command or asking for information 2Sam24:16,Zech1:12-13.
This is nothing strange for the HB, including the Quran to have God acting in this world through different means, without him being actually present, or having agents speaking on His behalf. That is why for instance no Jew reading Isa48:16 would even remotely think that God is sending His own self. Rather it is the prophet relating God's speech, who interjects. This is seen from the next verse
"So said the Lord your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; "I am the Lord your God..."
There is thus an interjection by the prophet, from the end of v16 to the beginning of v17 before the prophet re-introduces God's direct speech. There is no confusion of characters in the Abrahamic traditional understanding of these passages, portraying the entity through whom God manifests His will in the world as God Himself.
The notion of a God with multiple persons in One, or Who manifests in separate entities with a common divine essence, never crossed the minds of those that wrote these stories. Yet out of all people, the Israelites are known for their propensity to stray from strict monotheism into the worship of deities besides God. Nothing should have stopped them from similarly worshipping those entities through whom God acts in the world, as divine distinct persons, had there been any hint in their minds to such concepts from their scriptures. But until the emergence of Christianity in a Roman theological background, no Jew is ever found holding such beliefs. Much less Abraham and Hagar as depicted in the aforementioned passage, nor Jacob Gen31:13 who was similarly visited in dreams by God's angelic messenger, spoken to in a very similar manner as Hagar was. They never worshipped these supposed divine manifestations yet it is claimed that they saw different entities, sometimes simultaneously, identifying themselves as divine?
One only finds that kind of confusion among the Helenized people transposing their Greco-Roman theological background into these passages, disregarding the rules of the language and the culture of those that penned them. This disconnect between Trinitarian theology and the scriptures that should support it, if not, foreshadow it, does not deter Christians from repeating such passages in their arguments. What is worse is their seeking confirmation in rabbinic writings, those very people that abhor their theology as idolatry. The Quran, although it insists on dissociating Jesus from the false teachings attributed to him, never labels Christians as idolaters. Among those rabbinic sources in which Christians attempt finding confirmation for beliefs, which those very rabbis actually loath, is the Zohar. This mystical and cryptic book is known for its complexity and ambiguity, hence the rabbis highly discouraging the layman approaching it. Christians will claim for instance that the 10 "sefirot" are aspects of God just like the 3 persons of the Trinity. In a nutshell, the sefirot are neither aspects of God nor distinctly divine. They are 10 different ways a person can perceive the one and the same entity of God. For example when light is seen through a prism, this one beam of light is perceived in different colors, but it is still the same one and only beam of light. That is why, again, no Jew ever worshipped 10 different divine "aspects" of God. And if Christians are so keen in seeking traces of polytheism in the Zohar, then such passages abound, depending on how one understands certain bizarre esoteric concepts. The first cause of the universe is depicted as a male god than united with a female counterpart, resulting in male and female lesser gods. Their purpose in turn is to unite sexually, and their union is either prevented or allowed depending on the level of righteousness and unity of the first humans, which failed, then of the Jewish people throughout history. The words of the Torah itself are extensions of the divine source, manifesting within the Jews that read and recite it.
Christians in short have nothing explicit pre-christianity endorsing something close to a multiplicity of the godhead. They will thus either rely in their apologetics on non-Jews or on academics, who by definition need to make unconventional, controversial observations to hope to be published. Had the notion of trinity, incarnation or anything christological been floating among 1st century Jews then Jesus would have been explicit in claiming his supposed divinity. Yet Christians themselves will say that the reason Jesus kept his true identity secret was because his contemporaries, including his own followers were unprepared to hear such ideas.
Alan F Segal's best selling work, unsurprisingly among the missionaries, is one of those aforementioned controversial works. It is based on a misunderstanding of rabbi Akiva, who lived in the 2nd century CE and who was murdered by the Romans. He is rebuked in the Talmud for misrepresenting the aggadah, which wasnt his field of expertise. He is corrected, not for speaking of 2 powers among 2 different heavenly personalities, much less of Jesus or the messiah, but for making
"the Divine presence profane, presenting it as though one could sit next to him. Rather the 2 thrones are designated for 2 different purposes; one for judgement and one for righteousness" (Chagigah14a:5).
His misrepresentation of the aggadah, due to his lack of experience in it, made it seem to the layman, especially with a hellenistic theological baggage as was the case with many Christian converts among the greco-roman population, and even the hellenized Jews, as if the 2 thrones are meant for God and another entity next to him. The 2 thrones however are not meant for 2 entities rather for 2 purposes.
After the good news is conveyed to her, Hagar gratefully turns to God who told her, through His messenger that He had seen her suffering
"You are the God of seeing".
This is a similar expression as the one ending Muslim prayers
"You are the Seeing, the Hearing".
She continues with an expression of amazement that can be translated in different ways, the closest to the literal wording being
"have I seen him here also after I have seen?"
Hagar is wondering to have seen God's emissary in her situation and location, a second time just as she had previously seen him. According to Jewish understanding, she had seen such agents of God in Abraham's house, which she assumed to be normal since he was a prophet. She was not expecting they would come to her specifically. Hagar's amazement was unrelated to seeing God Himself. At the end of the passage, she names the location
"the living One who sees me".
The place isnt named after Hagar's supposed experience of seeing God Himself, which would have certainly been more pertinent. Instead she labels it the place where God saw her, because this is where He saw her affliction, then sent her glad tidings through His angelic messenger. Seeing God is a unique experience, and much more significant than God seeing His creatures and answering their afflictions, which is a common belief in Abrahamic religions. Why would then the place be named after her relatively insignificant experience?
In answer to the video "Deuteronomy 6:4 - Scripture Twisting 101"
Jesus nowhere made any claim to be God, neither does the bible say anywhere to confess Jesus is God. He isnt called YHWH anywhere and neither did Abraham or Isaac worship a trinity, a god called Jesus or holy spirit. Nobody ever misunderstood God's unique, indivisible essence, nor misapplied divinity to terms such as messiah or "son of God".
Ambiguities arose when the Graeco-Roman world merged with the Abrahamic, Semitic religion of the HB. Gentile Greeks and Romans, the main targets for conversion by post-Jesus missionary activity, found a fertile ground for continuity of their ancient religions in those various terminologies and events describing the functioning of the God of the HB. Those passages however never hinted at a possible multiplicity of godhead in Semitic thought.
There is a well established pattern of God, repeatedly identifying Himself whether in the Hebrew scriptures or the Quran with phrases such as "I am the Lord". The literal terminologies "tawhid" or "Jewish monotheism" arent found in the Quran or the HB, but just as tawhid/divine transcendance is a concept stamped on every page of the Quran, Jewish monotheism is unambiguous. The God of the HB makes clear that worship is His prerogative only, and no entity besides Him is seen making the same claim. So much so that the HB uses sometimes crude imageries to refer to Israel's spiritual "adultery" whenever it worshiped something else than its "jealous" God. It is then legitimate for those opposing the Trinitarian doctrine to demand from Trinitarians an explicit, unambiguous statement from Jesus, or any of the other members of their godhead like the holy ghost, independently claiming divinity, or asking to be worshiped. No such statements exist, leaving Trinitarians with a doctrine built from assumptions, suppositions and by piecing ambiguous verses together. Its called "proof texting."
This method violates two of the paramount points of scriptural understanding: 1) Use clear verses to explain the unclear ones, and 2) gather all of the pertinent verses and study them completely before reaching a conclusion on a doctrine. And even if one were to grant Trinitarian apologist's interpretations of these scattered and isolated verses as correct, still these verses together only provide fractional support for the doctrine. The same can be said of other foundational Christian themes like inherited sin and forgiveness through blood atonement exclusively, which are all based on incomplete references.
None of the verses where God is identified, either by Himself or others, state that a multiplicity of beings is meant, nor whether these separate divine entities are co-equal or subservient to God, nor whether one is to worship each of those entities separately. The vague verses and passages used as a basis for the potential multiplicity of beings can perfectly be understood without references to Trinity or the incarnation, as was always the case in Semitic thought. Again, there are clear and unambiguous verses denying that God can be seen Ex33:20,Jn1:17 that He has a form Isa40:17,25, or that any representation of Him is to be worshiped Deut4:15.
Although God's unlimited attributes are by essence beyond human comprehension, God's identity however is not. Beyond understanding doesnt entail inherently contradictory. For example to notion of God being eternal is humanly unfathomable, but not inherently contradictory. But a single one and same entity, Jesus, who is at the same time omniscient and ignorant is contradictory. God is thus certainly beyond comprehension but not illogical and absurd as a square circle or a trinity would be.
It is obvious that the primary reason for revelation is to identify the Entity requiring exclusive worship. Only one and the same being is found identifying itself and by others as God. As there are no cases of a multiplicity of beings identified, by themselves or others as God then it follows that only One and the same being is always meant whenever the Bible speaks of God. This is the logical premise of the Bible. If Trinitarians on the other hand want to identify a separate set of beings as one and the same God, they are then forced to accept the Biblical premise that no 2, 3 or 4 DIFFERENT beings are identified as God in their Bible, only One and the same being everytime. It follows that these separate beings must be identical to one another if they are identified with God. In a nutshell, if D has the value 1 and that A, B, C are all equal to D then it must mean that A, B, C have the value of 1, making them all identical to one another. Trinitarians however need to keep the 3 components of the godhead distinct from one another. To do so, they have no choice but to conjecture outside Biblical patterns to formulate their beliefs. They begin with the unbiblical notion that a seperate set of beings can identify as God all the while remaining distinct and different from one another. This however results in the problem of non transferability of attributes within 2 identical entities. If for instance father and son have all the attributes of God but that Father and son have different attributes then it must mean that they each possess attributes God does not have.
By rejecting the biblical premise above, Trinitarians begin piling up more problems until the greatest of their scholars end up admitting their ignorance of the concept, it being an impenetrable mystery. Some will even hail that mystery as evidence of their God's superiority since He is above any human concept, although in reality it is the Bible's own premises that conflict with this notion. Again, the problem stems from Christian terms and proposed solutions that do not add up. The external observer merely shows the inconsistencies of those attempts, so the comparison between the "Christian God" with the One others worship isnt appropriate. Further, if the superiority of the triune concept of a god resides in its incompatibility with human understanding, then no Trinitarian has grounds to criticize other beliefs if they are found to be illogical and contrary to empirical data. In fact with that line of reasoning, the more absurd a belief system is, the superior it becomes. Sure, a supreme and transcendental God is a simple concept in comparison. "God is One" was never meant to be a complicated statement. Christian thinkers know this, and have been wrestling with the logical inconsistencies of their creed for 2000 years, yet no progress has been made in resolving the contradictions of the notion of incarnation.
Even at a most basic level of the doctrine, Trinitarians have been struggling, since the first councils of the church fathers down to our times and the Phd thesis of Christian apologists and philosophers, to get around the charge of tri-theism; how does 3 distinct "persons", each fully divine, not result in 3 distinct gods? To add to the problem, these 3 distinct persons have 3 distinct wills/consciences. Although traditionally, trinitarians have held that the trinity has one mind/conscience, this position in unsubstantiated scripturally and logically. In the Bible, each person of the godhead speaks in terms of "I" which cannot be mutually shared. For example when the Father states "you are my son with whom i am well pleased" this proposition cannot be shared in the mind of the son or the holyspirit. This results in 3 minds and 3 wills with each being separately divine. Those among Christendom that argued against Social trinitarians precisely did so on the basis that it would result in tritheism.
The concept of Monarchia, where only the Father is uncaused, while the Spirit and Son are "eternally" caused is an unhelpful ad hoc. This unconventional way of speaking doesnt solve tritheism as there still ultimately are three divine persons. As they have three distinct personalities they must be counted as distinct gods. Due to the unavoidable fact that counting is done based on identity, Catholic and orthodox scholars admit that in a sense, monotheism can include multiple deities. Others will try avoiding that conclusion by going to the extent of trying to redefine how to count. Counting could be done based on unity of nature. 3 distinct human persons could be considered as one man just as 3 distinct divine persons are one God. Besides the fallacy of giving a material example to explain the immaterial, how does one count the 3 appart from oneanother? If their distinct identity doesnt make them countable, as would be the case conventionally, this means we only have one divine entity, thus negating trinitarianism and resulting in basic monotheism. If we were to say that conventional counting is inapplicable to the ineffable divine being, can we then count the incarnate, material person of Jesus which contains the fullness of the divine being? If yes then we can in fact count the divine being, if not then we cannot count Jesus appart from other things like a tree or a rock. Ultimately, if the divine being is uncountable, can we even say that He is one? Trinitarians will very often put arbitrary limits, unfounded in their texts, when it comes to what applies or not to God, what is similar to Him or not, whenever an aspect of their doctrine reaches a dead end. For example the bible notoriously uses anthropomorphisms, meaning there are similitudes between God and the material world, as well as worldly concepts. We understand many things about God, otherwise we wouldnt know what we are worshiping. Why is the idea of counting God something unfathomable?
At this point trinitarians pile up more unconventional terminologies and hypothesis to salvage their doctrine, pushing the whole idea further into the realm of mystery.
The Quran gives them a simple warning out of this labyrinth of confusion
4:171"People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs"
Jesus' creed:
Mk12:29-30"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment".
Jesus, coming from a long line of messengers and prophets sent to mankind was thus confirming what Moses uttered approximately 1500 years earlier in
Deut6:4"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord"
and 600 years later came the seal of the prophets with the final reminder to mankind, the Quran repeating once more this ultimate truth
2:163"And your God is one God, there is no god but He; He is the Beneficent, the Merciful".
In answer to the video "Deuteronomy 6:4 - Scripture Twisting 101"
God in the HB is Echad/one Exod9:7,Eccl4:8. Each of the things listed are not a compound unity. And if "one" in Hebrew can also be more than one why not a trillion? Both masculine and feminine forms of echad are found in the HB almost a thousand times and Christian translators always seem to understand that echad means ONE every single place except when they choose to say that it isn't. Echad/one, as in every language can be used figuratively for a compound unity as in one nation or one family, see also Gen1:5,2:24,Numb13:23. But most often literally means an “absolute one” and not compound at all. It is the direct context that decides whether the word is used figuratively or literally. When God told Abraham to take his son to "one/echad of the mountains" did He mean to divide his son upon a compound of mountains? When Hagar put her boy under "one/echad of the shrubs" did she cut him up under multiple plants? It is the height of absurdity to suggest that a passage refuting idolatry and multiple deities, would tell the people that "your Lord is a unity of divine beings".
When husband and wife are figuratively "one" for instance, the multiplicity of subjects is made clear in the sentence.
Nothing presupposes in the Schema, that the intent is figurative
Deut6:4 "Listen, O Israel – the Lord your God, the Lord is ONE”.
Echad here is an adjective, and it describes the proper noun "the Lord", which is in the singular. This rules out the possibility of a "compound unity" in this highly relevant passage in terms of what the HB teaches on monotheism. Echad in this case assumes its primary literal meaning of "absolute one". Similar usages are found in 2Sam13:30,17:12. The Schema contains 2 core messages that are prevalent throughout the Jewish writing; nationalism and monotheism. YHWH is the God of Israel (our God), and this same YHWH is echad/one. It is one of the most blatant examples of what Biblical scholars have termed Jewish monolatry, the belief in one ethno-centered tribal deity, without excluding the existence of deities to other nations. The infamous missionary corruption of a commentary from the Zohar, where the writer supposedly wonders at the threefold repetition of God's name in the Schema is a known 20th century forgery, absent from this Jewish book. In fact there is a quote from the Zohar saying
"You are One but not in a countable sense" (Zohar petichat eliyahu).
As to Yachid, it literally means "only". See Gen22 for example. To repeat, in Hebrew the word for one is echad (masculine) and ahat (feminine). Try telling a school kid to start counting with "yachid"...
In answer to the video "Zakir Naik Declares: "Jesus Is the God of Muhammad!""
The paraclete is the spirit of truth, because of holding the correct belief in Jesus 1Jn4. He acts according to what he is inspired
Jn15:26,16:13-14"When the paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me..he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me.."
Per Jn14:16 the Father is the only sender of the paraclete and none else. Jesus saying he will send the paraclete in Jn15:26 depends entirely on the will of the Father. As Jesus says, the paraclete comes from the Father and goes out from the Father. Jesus will send him to the world through his prayers Jn14:16 to the Father. The sending of the paraclete depends entirely and exclusively on the Father and Jesus saying he will send him simply means that he will ask God to send him per Jn14:16. It doesnt say the paraclete will come to the people speaking in Jesus' name, but that the Father will send him in Jesus' name meaning at his request as reflected in other translations, because Jesus will pray the Father for this
"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another paraclete"
Muhammad the son of Ishmael is the result of the preceding prophets' prayers like Abraham' prayers to God in the Quran to raise a prophet among his descendants settled in the area that will bring them to the straight path.
Muhammad was given Al-Mizan (The Balance) and Al-Furqan (The Criterion) of truth and falsehood and told to
42:15"go on inviting, and go on steadfastly on the right way as you are commanded, and do not follow their low desires, and say: I believe in what Allah has revealed of the Book, and I am commanded to do justice between you: Allah is our Lord and your Lord; we shall have our deeds and you shall have your deeds; no plea need there be (now) between us and you: Allah will gather us together, and to Him is the return".
Through the Criterion and the Balance, Muhammad truly convicted the world of sin for rejecting Jesus, he honored and testified about Jesus' true identity; his humanity, the truthfulness of his prophethood to the Jews ONLY and a precursor of the last prophet. He reminded those claiming to be Jesus' followers of all truth regarding his message
43:59,5:14-16,75"O People of the Book, There has come to you Our messenger to explain to you much of what you have concealed of the book and pardoning much. There has come to you from Allah a light and an obvious book. Allah guides thereby those who follow His pleasure into the ways of peace and brings them out of darkness into the light by His permission and guides them to a straight path....The Messiah son of Marium is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away".
Muhammad stayed with humanity forever, obviously through the Quran. How is the holyspirit with us today and forever? What is the instant effect to an individual, of the indwelling of the holyspirit according to every single time it occurs in the HB? The person becomes a prophet and starts prophesying. Where are those prophets today?
