Apostate prophet wont have a second mum; who are the mothers of believers?

In answer to the video "Islamic Polygamy"

The prophet's wives had the title of mothers of the believers

33:6"The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers".

That sanctified title carried several implications to those that were willing to uphold it. It is not a title of nobility but rather denotes responsibility and care towards the community. For example Zaynab one of the prophet's wives was called Barrah/pious. The prophet told her to keep her name instead of that nickname to avoid her

"giving herself the prestige of piety".

He further told his wives

"Don't hold yourself to be pious. It is God alone who knows the people of piety among you".

They had to restrain their social activities to their own houses as much as possible in order to dedicate themselves to piety and religious study, pray intensely, solidify in their memories the recitations and wisdom of the revelation so that they become means of preserving the right way 33:33-4. During their spiritual counseling activities, they had to watch for the tone of their voice when addressing the opposite sex so that they leave no ambiguity as to their intentions, or cause those with an indecent inclination to harbor inapropriate thoughts. They had to speak to males outside their close relatives from behind a curtain 33:32,53-55.

This injunction, besides it being a logical demand of modesty whenever opposite sexes interract, becomes all the more relevant if one considers the Quran's description in sura ahzab/33 of the atmosphere of rumour mongering, provocations and other verbal abuses the prophet, and the righteous members of the Muslim community at large were either already the targets of, or were potentially at risk of. There were elements within the community and outside of it that were on the look out for any opportunity to spew their malice and discredit and dishearten the Muslims. Consequently the prophet's household and the Muslims at large are given reassurance of the nobility of their status in God's eyes, and told in which manners to fend off those with evil inclinations. The best way to fend off these attacks were with ethics becoming of the nobility of their moral status as well as by adopting a modest dresscode.

The religious duties the prophet's wives had to shoulder were such, that willingly faltering in that respect would make them deserving of a more severe chastisement in the hereafter 33:30. This was meant to stress their spiritual responsibilities and the fact they had to exemplify piety, and so their moral conduct should be corresponding. As stated in 33:32, their difference with other Muslim women consisted in them maintaining and propagating moral, ethical and spiritual uprightness. On the other hand their reward will be more intense than regular people due to their higher sacrifices 33:31. This is just like Allah's addressing the prophet warning him not to falter in his righteousness and upright conduct lest he should face a double/more severe punishement than regular people 10:15,17:73-4,39:65,68:9.

There is a simple reason behind that principle, leaders in a society are the ones that establish moral standards and are emulated. Their evil does not remain their own but spreads fast and creates further evil, just as their goodness. One and the same sin may thus be requited according to different levels of severity depending on the person comitting it as well as the social repercussions of that sin.

Finally, in consequence of their designation and duties as mothers of the believers, they were not allowed to remarry after the prophet's death, contrary to regular muslim women divorcees 33:53.
The difference between the prophet's wives and others is that obviously none would ever marry and sleep with Moses', Solomon's, Abraham's or Muhammad's wives had the prophets passed away. This sanctified status is not one that was decreed because some believers would potentially desire to unite with one of them after the prophet's demise, it was addressed to the wives he already had and those in the future that would enter into a marriage with him, making clear to them the conditions of marrying him, and the consequences. To those that were already married to him, they could at anytime prior to his death, relinquish that status and be given the opportunity to leave this life of sacrifices and socio-religious responsibilities. Some of them did, prior to even consuming the marriage, unable to bear the burden of responsibility and an austere life. In 33:28-29 they are told that if their desire for this world and its adornment is preferable in their eyes than a life of sacrifices dedicated to their spiritual duties

"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".

After divorce the woman would have stood excluded from the category of "mothers of believers", and she would not be forbidden to any other Muslim; for she would have chosen divorce from the prophet only for the sake of the world and its adornments of which she had been given the choice.

The prophet's wives had thus the option of requesting and getting a just and kind divorce for even such petty reasons like their desire to pursue this wordly life which God's prophet could not afford giving them in his household. No shame or stigma was put on those that did nor on those that would afterwards. Divorces with prophet occured, as already said. Also, enemies of Islam were all around Medina and within the city itself. Had there been such a potential negative consequence on a divorced woman's personal life she could have joined any opposing community just as former polytheist Meccan women joined the Medina Muslims for shelter after conversion to Islam. Furthermore, in relation to 33:28-9 referred to earlier, no muslim, and no man of any culture is required to go out of his way and ask his wife if she is happy and satisfied enough in all material aspects, especially when one is just with the wife in relation to one's financial capabilities. Further, no muslim or man in general is required to offer divorce if the wife is unhappy. On top of it, not simple divorce, with each partner going his/her way, which would be fairest in this case, but a "gracious" divorce, where the wife is free to leave as well as receive compensation if she chooses to. Yet this is what was required of the prophet, contrary to all muslims, a man supposedly seeking multiple marriages of lust.

By the time this verse was revealed, and as shown in the direct context, the Muslims had conquered the rich agricultural region of Khaybar, and the community had grown more prosperous. But while life was becoming easier for most of its members, this ease was not reflected in the household of the Prophet. As was always his habit, he only allowed himself and his family only the absolute minimum necessary for the most simple living

28:83"that future abode, We assign it to those who have no desire to exalt themselves in the earth nor to make mischief and the good end is for those who guard (against evil)".

His prestigious status as a prophet and ruler never came in the way of that humble principle of living. Not only was he not ever one to ask for any kind of reward from his addressees 6:90,25:56-7,12:104etc but every occasion where he could make use of his status and deep knowledge for material benefit, he would do it for the sake of the needy

58:12"when you consult the Messenger, then offer something in charity before your consultation; that is better for you and purer". 

The prophet's wives on the other hand naturally were longing for a share in the comparative luxuries which other Muslim women could now enjoy. His wives often stated that they had little on their shelves besides bread flour and dates. But it is reported that all of them rejected a possible seperation with the prophet and resumed their spiritual duties as "mothers of the believers", and were promised a great reward in the Hereafter for having denied themselves the ordinary comforts of life by remaining in the Prophet's house 33:31. Their voluntary worldy sacrifices can only be understood from a spiritual perspective.  Umm Habiba, one of the prophet's wives had such awareness for that spiritual favor despite the sacrifices that she even proposed the hand of her own sister to the prophet 

“Are you interested in my sister, Apostle of Allaah?” He said “What should I do?” She said “You marry her” He said “Your sister?” She said “Yes”. He said “Do you like that?” she said “I am not alone with you of those who share me in this good, my sister is most to my liking. He said “She is not lawful for me.”

Apostate prophet scrutinizes Muhammad; the prophet had more wives?

In answer to the video "Islamic Polygamy"

Sure he had more, because he had more responsibilities, as well as responsibilities to share.

The marital history of the Prophet reveals that all of the women he married were either divorced or widowed with the exception of Aisha. Although the prophet willfully chose this despite having had the full power and Quranic right to have much more women that were much younger, yet he did not necessarily push his followers to shoulder the same responsibilities and self-restraint.

For example when the prophet learned that his young companion Jabir, who had lost his father in battle, married a woman older than him, in addition previously married, he told him he could and should have chosen among the virgins, who would playfully interact with someone like minded and of similar age. Virgins tend to be young, especially in ancient societies where girls married early. Girls still lose their virginity young today, but for the wrong reasons as compared to older times. Also, for a young girl to be infertile is very uncommon, under normal circumstances. Jabir's purpose was to have someone care for his younger siblings, and thus thought that marrying an experienced woman would help him from that perspective. The prophet was a fatherly figure to the community and was here giving a common sense advise to a young man who should be looking for a more cheerful, playful female companion.

In having more than one wife, Muhammad was no different than previous prophets such as Ibrahim, Musa, Yaqub, Dawud, Solomon etc.

In a time where the average life expenctancy was 60, the multiple marriages of the Prophet started when he was 54-56, and 7 years before his death, after 2 years of celibacy, and in the middle of the fierce struggle to establish Islam. The calumny that he suddenly had the libido that only 11 women could satisfy is grotesque and not grounded in reality. In addition these marriages came at a time where he had to balance his extraordinary responsibilities as a spiritual leader and statesman, with his personal life, and the Quran relates how he had so little room for privacy as the believers would enter his home at all times to seek counseling. Sura Ahzab as shown above, extends the prophet's spiritual responsibilities to his wives who had to dedicate themselves to studying the Quran and help propagate it in words, thoughts and deeds. His extraordinary schedule and responsibilities, his regular lengthy night prayers, his amazing achievements in such a short time, all that precludes any notion of obsession with worldly pleasures as the critics and those who hate him try to portray.

By contracting most of these marriages, the prophet meant to eliminate the cast or class system, racial and national superiority, and religious prejudices that were all baseless and unjust factors preventing marriages. He married some of the humblest and poorest women and widows, most of them having attained and advanced age, as a way of paying back his due to some of the companions who had perished in battles leaving behind widows with children. He created bonds with conflicting tribes, helping them to settle their disputes, just as prophet Solomon did through his multiple marriages as depicted in the Bible. The Arabs had extreme respect for their son-in-laws and fighting them was considered a great shame therefore many tribes were at peace with others merely due to inter-tribal mariages.

So through these marriages, the prophet strengthened the bonds between muslims, made peace with his ennemies, released some women from slavery. From the pattern of the prophet's marriages, none can deny that social and reforming purposes were the priority, and physical attraction, although perfectly legitimate, was not the primary criteria. The restrictions regarding polygamy that were placed on Muslims in general had to be lifted for these goals to be achieved. The verse 33:50 says that this exception was to allow the tasks which he, the prophet and statesman shall encounter

"for you exclusively, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that there should be no difficulty for you; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful".

Had the prophet been guided by his lusts, or primarily by physical attraction, when seeking marriage he could have had any captive he wanted from the different wars or any Muslim woman from among the most beautiful ones. He would at least have shown a pattern in his behavior, especially in his younger years where he had every opportunity to show which qualities were the ones he primarily sought in women.Given the ruling as regards right hand possessions, the prophet did not need to loosen up the restriction on the number of wives, thereby "exposing" himself as using revelation for personal "convenience".

Wars and persecution burdened the Muslims with many widows, orphans and divorcees. They had to be protected and maintained by the surviving Muslim men. It was his practice to help these women become resettled by marriage to his followers. They rejected some women and so some of those women sought his personal protection. Realizing fully their conditions and sacrifices for the cause of Islam, he had to do something to relieve them.

One course of relief was to take them as his own wives and accept the challenge of heavy liabilities. He had to take part in the rehabilitation of those widows, orphans and divorcees because he could not ask his companions to do things that he himself was not prepared to do or participate in. These women were trusts of the Muslims and they had to be looked after jointly. What he did, then, was his share of responsibility, and as always his share was the largest and heaviest. That is why he had more than one wife and more than any of his Companions, with all the restrictions and responsabilities on himself and his wives.

There were also many prisoners of war captured by the Muslims who were entitled to security and protection. They were not killed or denied their rights: human or physical. On the contrary, they were helped to settle down through legal marriages to Muslims instead of being taken as concubines and common mistresses. That also was another moral burden on the Muslims, which had to be shouldered jointly as a common responsibility.

Apostate prophet shocked by Jesus; Christian polygamy?

In answer to the video "Islamic Polygamy"

Mosaic Law made no prohibition on male premarital or extramarital sexual activity so long as the women involved were not the property of another Jew. A Jewish male could acquire as many wives as he could afford, and also avail himself of the services of concubines, female war captives of any age regardless of them being married or not Deut21:10-17,Num31:17-18.

This was the case with the most eminent of their religious figures, including Abrahama, Moses, David or the wise king Solomon who were all polygamists, down to the regular members of society, including the priestly clan of the Levites 1Sam1:1-2. Jacob counted 2 living sisters among his wives, which is against Torah law hence the various rabbinic explanations to the problem of having the father of the Jewish nation violating a future prohibition. Torah sets no limits to the number of wives Ex21:10,Deut21:15 although it vaguely warns Israelite rulers (not common people) against having "too many" wives Deut17:17. Some Jewish comentators have argued, based on rabbinical discussions in the Talmud, that the maximum number of wives in all cases shouldnt exceed 18. Polygamy is at the foundation of the Jewish nation.

It even was and is still seen as a good deed, the best fulfillement of the eternally binding command to

"be fruitful and multiply",

so much so that it can hasten the messianic age. It was practiced throughout the Talmudic period, with the legislation saying that a man can have as many wives as are willing to marry him (as long as he can support them) without any hint to it being an immoral or abnormal practice. It was such a well established part of the social system that Mosaic law is not even critical of it. We find only certain regulations with respect to it but that were not practiced in reality as seen with David and Solomon's cases whose prophethood and kingship are never questionned despite their "transgressions".

It was not until the 10th century and the rabbinic ban upon it specifically on the Ashkenazic fringe, that made the issue controversial. If it wasnt a widespread practice, there would be no need to issue such a forceful amendment. Jews needed to accomodate for the Christian host nations that forbade the practice, fearing further isolation and persecutions from a people that already resented them. Contrary to their other host nations, namely the Muslims, Christian tradition isnt a continuation of Jewish tradition but of Greek and Roman pagan traditions, society and morality.

Ancient Greeks, including the likes of Plato and Socrates, the supposedly great philosophers saw homosexuality, which they practiced and lauded, as the highest symbol of manhood. Women were inconvenient breeders, not ideal partners. Although Christianity somewhat discouraged homosexuality, it adopted this Greek attitude towards women and normal relations between men and women, adding the whole negative, evil spin to it.

Christians try interpreting the polygamy verses as if it is talking of marriage after divorce or death of a wife which is absurd since it says such marriage should not lead one to diminish any of the wife's conjugal rights, ie the first wife's of which the preceding verse clearly speaks of. Jesus does not oppose polygamy and even uses it in his parable to make his point about readiness for the kingdom Matt25. This was the perfect occasion for him to oppose it or criticize it, but doesnt at all. He features it, meaning giving it tacit approval. From this noninterference attitude Luther, as late as the 16th century, arrived at the conclusion that he could not forbid the taking of more than one wife.

The Quran clearly alludes to the fact that as per the norms of human nature, the real benefits and advantages of the institution of family manifest themselves in a monogamous family. And despite fully endorsing, and not limiting polygamy neither quantitatively nor contextualy, the HB too speaks of the preference for a man to be united with a single wife Gen2:24.

As a side issue, one might ask why the regulation doesnt apply to women as well (polyandry). Aside from the basic issues of uncertain descendancy, a woman becomes undisposed to satisfy the most basic physical or sexual needs of her multiple husbands. IT is the case during her menstrual period or while pregnant. Also, from a strict biological viewpoint, a woman can only carry and conceive one child at a time and from one man only, for nine months before she can conceive another. A man on the other hand can beget a child every time he cohabits with a woman. Polyandry opposes these very elementary socio-biological issues. That is why it is practiced by very few societies that seek to limit population growth, with a purely materialistic outlook. For example, polyandry in the Himalayan mountains is related to the scarcity of land. The marriage of all brothers in a family to the same wife allows family land to remain intact and undivided.

Apostate prophet sees an odditiy; polygamy a failing proposition?

In answer to the video "Islamic Polygamy"

One might ask, why would it be allowed to marry more than one with the condition to deal equitably with all wives when the Quran itself states in 4:129 that such condition cannot be fulfilled even if one sincerely tries?

The fact is the two verses together 4:3,129 are addressing that conditional clause of equity towards wives from two perspectives to create mutual understanding from all parties involved:

- the perspective of the women, by saying in 4:3 that they have the right to equitable treatement and the man must be aware of that right regardless of his will to care for the orphans

- the perspective of the man, by saying in 4:129 that he will not be able to be perfectly just with all wives no matter how hard he sincerely tries. The women should be aware of the husband's sincere will to be just between them even he fails. They should keep in mind that the true objective of such unions is caring for the orphans. Allah is this way absolving the husband's shortcomings who is sincerely trying to be just with his wives for the sake of orphans and at the same time creating an understanding from the part of the wives, again for the sake of orphans. Although the verse absolves the husband from shortcomings, and the wives implicitly asked to be understanding, the husband then is explicitly warned he may not abuse of that forbearance to the point of injuring emotionally the wife he is less inclined to

"but be not disinclined (from one) with total disinclination, so that you leave her as it were in suspense".

This shows that the conditional clause of equity between wives in 4:3 covers the obvious and basic rights, not the shortcomings of a man sincerely trying to make a complex union work for the sake of orphans. From the point of view of the woman who fears she might be disdained, left aside, then there is the option of finding an arrangement, with one party compromising on its position so as to maintain the marriage ties 4:128. If none are willing to compromise then a divorce procedure is initiated.

Apostate prophet takes a lesson; caring for orphans with polygamy?

In answer to the video "Islamic Polygamy"

In the verse 4:3, orphans is in the plural, that is because a Muslim guardian could take multiple orphans under his care, especially during times of war as in the context of revelation, or any other situation where the number of men is largely reduced. The Quran has stated that the limitation of this permission is left to a maximum of four women because

"this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course".

A person may come under the impression that he can marry however many of these women he wants, in order to take care of orphans, but the Quran states that the very purpose of the injunction can be compromised the more woman that are married. Quantity isnt always the best, and people need to take into account their own abilities when trying to help other people. Another important statement in the verse, in connection to determining the number of wives, is the phrase

"Ma Taba Lakum".

TABA is related to goodness, rather than liking. So the guardian's decision cannot be dictated by mere desire/liking, but for what brings more goodness to the person and what brings more goodness is what brings the person closer to God, in this case, reinforcing the idea that the wife must be most suited in securing the orphan's rights, and this primarily means the orphan's mother. Because of these very reasons, that they were marriages with a moral reason, more so compatibility or personal liking, it often led to situations where the husband would leave this new wife in a state as if she wasnt necessarily wanted. The Quran warns the man not to do this a little later on in 4:127. He must do his best to give her rights, material, physical, emotional, as a married woman. All married women deserve such rights, not only mothers of orphans, as stated earlier in the sura. 4:127 reminds the men of these things, while refocusing them on equity towards the orphans of those very women, so as to restress the sensitivity of the issue

"And they ask you a decision about women. Say: Allah makes known to you His decision concerning them AND that which is recited to you in the Book concerning yatama annisa'/the orphans of "the women whom you do not give what is appointed for them while you desire to marry them", and concerning the weak among children, and that you should deal towards orphans with equity; and whatever good you do, Allah surely knows it".

It isnt because he has done her a favor by improving her socio-economical situation, that the guardian is to forgo the marital rights of the orphans' mother. It is a marriage contract like with any other woman and her subsequent treatment must be just and fair like with a regular wife. And if the situation results in injustice to another party, then it should not be resorted to

"but if you fear that you will not do justice between them, then marry only one or what your right hands possess; this is closer that you be just".

Apostate prophet and sociology; is Islamic polygamy always bad?

In answer to the video "Islamic Polygamy"

4:3"And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry from the women that seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice between them, then marry only one or what your right hands possess; this is closer that you be just".

Contrary to popular opinion, the verse is not addressing the issue of polygamy in a general sense, a pre-existing practice, but that of polygamy in a narrowed down context, that of safeguarding the orphans' rights. The reason the Quran only speaks of and limits polygamy in that context, is because these types of relationships hardly if ever run smoothly and therefore should be reserved for the achievement of higher objectives. It is clear from the opening statement, positing the situation of one with orphans under care, fearing for the just management of their rights

4:3"And IF you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, THEN marry..."

The verse is therefore silent on polygamy in a general sense, neither allowing nor forbidding it, but by only mentioning one case to which it applies, clearly hints to the preferred way to apply the practice, moralizing it, laying down the basis for the intricate perspective that must be considered if a man wishes to marry more than one woman.  However it is to be noted, this doesnt mean that polygamy outside the context of caring for orphans, which is the subject of the verse, is useless.

Outside caring for orphans, polygamy can potentially be an answer to many problems one can think of, so to outright ban it would deprive the believers from a solution to potential social difficulties.

Women around the world, not necessarily in Muslim societies are confronted to situations where they are left to fend for themselves and their children without the help of the family or the support of a father. But because polygamy is regulated and moralized in the Quran, by mentioning only one case to which it applies, along with its conditions, the Quran is explaining to the God-conscious that this familial configuration is not to be abused for selfish motives, the gratification of sexual desires. There will always be people that will take advantage of the system, just as there are Muslims that will disregard that limitation to make it subservient to their own whims.

Polygamy is thus not the norm but the exception in Islamic societies. It is a license granted to men to alleviate problems that have existed and will keep on existing in human societies.

From a modernist perspective, feminists often denounce the practice as legalized cheating. 2 things dont become the same because of superficial similarities. Is a regular marriage legalized prostitution because a man gains sexual access conditionally to spending from his resources? In a marriage, there are many more implications, rights and obligations beyond sex which is just one of the rights of both parties on another. A feminist may now be tempted to say that a wife is just a long term prostitute with more rights and duties. But then is any unmarried woman that has sex with a man prostituting herself because, besides money, there always exists an exchange without which the man would not have sexual access, including emotional, physical, intellectual etc. attractiveness? This extends to lesbianism and on a deeper level, even to self-sex where a woman is essentially a prostitute to her desire. 

Feminists see genders as conflicting opposites rather than completing one another. This is why they loath systems that bind genders together whether monogamous or polygamous. They will prefer situations that paradoxically oppress them, like prostitution and adultery, because of the limited rights the opposite gender has on them in these cases.

Yateem, (plur. yatama) is derived from Y-T-M meaning alone. It is used for a child who lost one or both parents, or for a widow.

The verse answers the guardian's fear with a solution; marrying up to four women, not any, but specific ones preceded by the definite article

"..marry from THE women...".

Which specific women are best suited to share that burden of responsibility? The mother of the orphan first and foremost. By taking them in his household, the husband is bound to provide for them as he would do with a regular wife and children, as well as giving them increased advantages, which includes, possible inheritence in case the adoptive father dies and leaves a will for them, in addition to what must be given to the orphan even if there is no will 4:8. The mother of the orphan could also use her dower for the orphan's wellbeing, if she wishes. Marrying the mother of an orphan taken under care, may also fill the emotional gap of a child with no father. Marrying these widows, or taking another woman or maiden (whose job included raising the children of a household) in case the orphan's mother is dead with the purpose of caring for one's orphan, solves the conditional clause of fear not to

"act equitably towards orphans".

The difficult responsibility of sustaining the orphan physically and emotionally, protecting his/her rights, wealth and property is this way shared by both parents. Something to keep in mind is that Muslims are urged and obligated, per the divine law, to help the weak in society, including widows and orphans. Marriage isnt and never was a precondition to get the needed help. The verse is addressing a group among those that already have orphans under their wing, those who fear for the slightest inadvertent injustice towards them. These highly pious guardians are given a solution, in the form of a recommendation to help solve that fear. One can always involve himself further in a charitable endeavor and this can be argued to be amongst the most advanced manners of doing so.

Another thing to keep in mind while trying to understand the verse, simply is the context. 4:3 is speaking of orphans in general, not gender specific, and is a continuation of

4:2"And give to the orphans their property, and do not substitute worthless (things) for (their) good (ones), and do not devour their property (as an addition) to your own property; this is surely a great crime".

Therefore the next verse must be at least talking about the same orphans, whom one fears not to act fairly towards and the solution to that problem is given in the same verse

"marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four".

The whole passage until v6 is speaking of orphaned children and how the trustee is to manage their lives and property the best possible way. Should these instructions not be enough to satisfy a believer's fear of not being fair towards orphans under his care, then as proposed in 4:3 one may marry women who would share the burden of responsibility, these women being first and foremost the widowed mothers of these orphans.

Islam critiqued delves into the irrational; The illusive Trinity doctrine?

In answer to the video "Islam Hinders the Intellect- Comments"

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 seperate 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 separate 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".

CIRA International inadvertendly reveal Islamic higher viewpoint; human opposites or complementarity?

In answer to the video "The Unknown History of Islam 07 - Islamic Slavery Introduction, Part 1"

This system, previously detailed of having diversity in all aspects of nature, creates a web of interdependence, crucial for the divine testing scheme; our dealings with eachother. Many fail to perceive this ultimate reality and they are referred to in

36:47"And when it is said to them: Spend out of what Allah has given you, those who disbelieve say to those who believe: Shall we feed him whom, if Allah please, He could feed? You are in naught but clear error".

God does indeed will for the deprived and weak to be helped, but according to the laws He has established and that benefit both the one who freely offers his help (emotional, material, physical, spiritual, intellectual), as well as the receiver of that help. Others raise an outcry and question divine justice in light of the fact that people are born with varying degrees of socio-economical as well as psycho-physical conditions. That questioning is answered through the divine scheme explained above, as well as the Quranic concept that

2:156"Indeed, we belong to Allah and indeed we towards Him will return".

Our whole self belongs to Him and He in reality doesnt owe us a single thing, whatever we receive from Him, since birth and throughout life, little or big, is a favor from Him and serves a higher purpose which can only be beneficial if one accepts God's supreme ownership

11:9"If We make man taste mercy from Ourselves, (and) then take it off from him, verily he is despairing ungrateful".

Neither self-conceit nor despair are appropriate if one admits that all things belong to God and return to Him when He decides.

The unbelievers of the time of the prophet disregarded lower social classes, disrespected and discriminated them. They mocked the assemblies of poor people and ex-slaves listening to the prophet, just like prophets were reproached before, the likes of Nuh 11:27-30, assuming that if Allah had truly sent revelation then why didnt He address the elite and rulers of whom Muhammad was not 43:31? In their limited, materialistic mindframe they considered themselves more deserving of divine favors

6:53"And thus do We try some of them by others so that they say: Are these they upon whom Allah has conferred benefit from among us? Does not Allah best know the grateful?".

Verses speaking of things created in 43:12,36:36,51:49"azwaj" means "in pairs". This refers to the complementarity prevalent in every single thing. This may include but is not exclusive to, sexual complementarity as in 30:21,16:72. There the Quran addresses the human specie, saying the availability of azwaj (maleor female) from among ourselves is meant as a source of security, love and compassion. "azwaj" may be used interchangibly between male and female spouses 2:232,234.
In the context of creation, some verses 53:45,92:3 mention the creation of the sexual pairs by specifying both genders created; male/dhakar and female/untha. But such verses do not make an absolute assertion that all things have been created that way -in opposite genders- or that all living things reproduce sexually. All languages inherently accept exceptions unless the statement is clearly absolute (see for eg. 7:25 vs 55:33 or 100:6 vs 2:152,14:7,54:35 or 6:59 vs 2:255,72:26-27 or 39:44 vs 20:109,34:23,21:28). The Original Creator may create whatever He wills then modify His original creation as He pleases and deems fit 24:45,35:1. 

He may even create without the mating of sexual pairs as with Jesus' case.

The primary meaning of zawj (plur.azwaaj) in the Quran, is alien to the sexual pairs, as seen in many instances where it is used 13:3,15:88,20:53,131,26:7,38:58,56:7-10. It denotes the kinds or types -some of them unkown to us 36:36- having common points, linked in a way or the other when used in the plural form. This is just as in any language that speaks of pairs without specifying if the pairing is gender based.

The root is Z-W-J and it means when two or more things or people form a unit. The use of azwaj in those verses is one of the devices used by the Quran to emphasize the concept of interconnection and complimentarity between all kinds created, even when these thing seem to be opposites. The context of pairing in 43:12 for example has God saying how He made the earth a "resting place" for us, water coming down from the sky to allow life, ships, that man ingenuisly builds using the material put at his disposal by Allah, and cattle for mobility among other uses. In 15:88 and others, the Quran tells the believers not to grieve or pay much attention to some kind (azwaj) of people -having in common their unbelief and hatred for Islam-. In 13:3-4 Allah says He made from all that the earth produces (thamaraat), 2 types. Just as day and night are 2 opposites but remain complimentary, the earthly products come in 2 opposites but complementary types. Those better than others, remain, from a higher viewpoint complementary although apparently opposites. The better one is apreciated thanks to its lesser counterpart it can be compared to, which in turn is the result of a process the plant goes through so as to reduce competition and bring the crop to fruition. 

Even among opposites there is interconnection on all levels, physical or spiritual, and that is the pervasive notion in all the verses speaking of pairing in nature.

The more profound message of the verses speaking of the "azwaj" in creation is understood by their context, which is always that of divine justice and providing proof for the resurrection of the dead and judgement in the next life. 

The Quran is essentially saying that everything in this varied nature has a complement, without which it is incomplete. If such a thing is the case and that all things have a complement, then how can one deny that this world has its complement in the next life?

CIRA International keep sinking; why Allah allows social inequalities?

In answer to the video "The Unknown History of Islam 07 - Islamic Slavery Introduction, Part 1"

From a higher perspective, the Quran explains the reason for there being differences socio-economical, or even psycho-physical differences among humans. All human beings were created with the aim of being Allah's vicegerents on earth. We have been endowed with freewill -which asserts itself through tests and trials- and are compelled to use it to fulfill our role of vicegerency according to our degrees in this world

6:165"And He it is Who has made you successors in the land and raised some of you above others by (various) grades that He might try you by what He has given you".

This is according to the divine principles of the Greatest of Judges 11:45,95:8 that what is expected of a person is directly in correlation to that person's condition 65:7.

Just like some trees are made to excell others in fruits 13:4, we are raised in degrees and some of us made to excell others in certain aspects, whether physical or mental, social or economical etc, but it is all done according to an all encompassing wisdom and knowledge that takes into consideration every aspect of our being 6:83. However, if one disregards the materialistic mindframe that blurs the higher realities of existence, the level of difficulty in all cases can be said to be the same; the one with less worldly benefits (financially, in his health etc) has less avenues by which to be religiously and morally accountable but he is required to have a high level of inner discipline, patience and trust in God while the reverse is the case for the more advantaged in terms of worldly benefits; the burden on his inner discipline and steadfastness is less while the means given to him by which to be morally tested are manifold. He can be tested in his wealth, his health and other privileges.

A great part of Allah's scheme of testing the people through their choices in order to gradually purge the hearts, is to test us through our dealings with eachother

25:20"and We have made some of you a trial for others; will you bear patiently? And your Lord is ever Seeing".

One of the obvious proof for this is how most often individuals are endowed with benefits, material, physical or abstract, surpassing the basic and reasonable needs. All else will either vanish or be left behind after their passing away for others to benefit from. Through this scheme every human being becomes by virtue of his social existence, a means whereby the moral qualities of his fellow men are put to a test

"I saw Abu Dharr al-Ghifâri wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a cloak. We asked him about that (how both were wearing similar cloaks). He replied: Once I abused a man, and he complained of me to the Prophet. The Prophet asked me, Did you abuse him by slighting his mother? You are a man who has jahiliyah. He added: Your slaves are your brethren upon whom Allah has given you authority. So if one has one’s brethren under one’s control, he should feed them with the like of what he eats and clothe them with the like of what he wears. You should not overburden them with what they cannot bear, and if you do so, help them (in their hard job)".

As the HB puts it in

Prov22:2"The rich and poor meet together: the LORD is the maker of them all".

God is not only the maker of every human, but also of their conditions, through the laws of the material and physical world He has created, in which almost every outcome is the result of a previous action. The people should therefore, regardless of their circumstances keep in view that ultimate reality in their dealings with oneanother instead. These wise words however are clearly bellied by other passages in the HB discriminating among the people solely on the basis of appearance and physical condition Lev21:16-24.

The Quran parallels the diversity in nature, as in the earlier metaphor of the fruit trees, with the system by which mankind is equally subjected to 6:165,11:118,30:22. 

As said many times in the Book, mankind could have been made a single nation, equal in all aspects, and spiritually upright 42:8. But Allah has decreed there will be diversity in creation whether physical, cultural, material or spiritual through the process of freechoice which was divinely established, sustained every step of the way and encompassed by Allah's power. God is thus ultimately the cause of these differences. To illustrate;

- Some people have been made by Allah to resist better to diseases, others are stronger, taller or more intelligent. This is due to the natural biological processes He established, that can either be triggered by internal reactions and mutations or/and influenced by external, environmental factors that are themselves subject to the divinely decreed law of causation which God dominates with His all encompassing wisdom and power at each instant.

- Some people have been made by Allah to believe, and others to err and this is due to the system of freewill He established and fully controls, according to which one's moral choices shape his spiritual condition and destiny, either darkening his inner spiritual receptivity or enlightening it and making it further receptive to external guidance.

- Some people have been made by Allah to enjoy more worldly, material benefits than others. This again, is the consequence of a chain of causality in God's grasp. 

This diversity however isnt viewed in the Quran as a stain purposefully put on the human race. Neither is it allowed by God in order to confuse and seperate people, or oppose them. Rather it is allowed, as an outcome of the established system of causality, because it is a driving force that creates interraction, interdependency, exchanges and positive understanding 4

9:13"We have created you of a male and a female and made you nations and tribes that you may know each other. Indeed, the most honourable among you in the sight of Allah is the most fearful (of Allah) among you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing, Aware".

This is one of the most compelling Quranic proof man is repeatedly told to ponder upon; the divine unity in the face of an interdependant diversity

43:32"it is We who distribute their means of livelihood among them in the life of this world, and raise some of them by degrees above others, to the end that they might avail themselves of one another's help".

This is based on the wisdom that no human being should become independent of others, but everyone should remain dependent on the other in various ways. The Creator is in this way in total contrast with His creation; He is the Self-Sufficient, Sustainer of the universe at each instant. He makes  difference among His creation, through the natural processes He established, and the system of freewill on which He has full control.

CIRA International uncover Islamic social system; caring for slaves?

In answer to the video "The Unknown History of Islam 07 - Islamic Slavery Introduction, Part 1"

Islam controlled slavery in such a way that it made the maintaining of a slave a great responsibility for the master, who had to show them so much care that in many cases when the slaves were set free they did not like to leave their masters. That is why within the Islamic community, it was seen as shockingly ungrateful for a slave to suddenly desert his guardians. It is in such context that the prophet reportedly condemned as kafir/denier a slave that unexpectedly deserts his guardian who did not harm him, but instead gave him shelter when he needed it and sustenance.

In his famous sermon in 'Arafat, on 9th Dhul-hijjah 9 AH, during his last pilgrimage, the Prophet said,

"...and your slaves, see that you feed them such food as you eat yourselves and dress him with what you yourself dress. And if they commit a mistake which you are not inclined to forgive then sell them, for they are the servants of Allah and are not to be tormented..."

As a side note, the selling refered to here is certainly not in the context of trade. It is the best solution for both parties to seperate with lesser harm. The guardian is here confronted to a situation where the slave comits a grave offense. The prophet's compassionate words refer to the slave's misdeed as a mistake, although from the guardian's perspective it is unforgivable and deserving of a harsh treatment. This wording of the prophet is in line with the Quranic injuntions of being more lenient towards the weaker members of society in case of an offense 4:25.

The conditions for having a slave in Islam, as already shown, is costly. Parting with them could not be done immidiately because the guardian had to recover some of his investment somehow. He would thus be tempted to become harsh towards his slave until he could get back some of his costs and then free him. The prophet thus proposes a pragmatic solution that keeps in view justice, with the guardian recovering some of his investment, and compassion, with the slave avoiding punishment and being transferred to a new household where he could have a fresh start.

From Risalat al-Huqooq

"And the right of your subject through being your slave is that you should know that he is a creature of your Lord and is made of the same flesh and blood. And you only own him, but you are much too inferior to God and you have not created him. And you have not created his hearing and sight, nor do you provide his daily sustenance; rather it is God who gives you sufficiency for that. Then He subjugated him to you, entrusted him to you, and provisionally consigned him with you. So protect him there, and treat him well, just as He (God) has treated you well, and feed him with what you eat yourself, and clothe him with what you clothe yourself. And do not burden him with what he cannot withstand. And if you dislike him, you ought to let him go and replace him, but do not torment God's creature. And there is no power but in God".

Slaves are even covered by the law of equal retribution

"Samurah ibn Jundub narrated that the Prophet had said: “He who kills his slave shall be killed, he who amputates his slave shall be amputated and he who castrates his slave shall be castrated.”

Another repercussion of the Islamic system of "slavery", is that when captured during a battle against Muslims, those prejudiced individuals whose aim really was to annihilate Islam by all means, suddenly find themselves under the guardianship of those they believe represent evil. Instead of being mistreated or even killed as they would have done had they captured Muslims instead, they benefit from strict regulations that guarantee their well-being. These people who, like in our days, were brainswashed with a distorted image of Islam, were shocked at seeing and experiencing the truth behind the scenes, benefiting from it, and how just and fair a social system it was as compared to their own society and how they themselves treated their slaves and war prisonners. They experienced the reality of divine justice and many converted. So by restricting the acquisition of slaves to war prisonners, Islam was (and is still in case war is waged on Muslims because of their religion) actually giving them a chance of reform by introducing them to a better system on all levels

8:70"say to those of the captives who are in your hands: If Allah knows anything good in your hearts, He will give to you better than that which has been taken away from you and will forgive you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful". 

The voluntary assimilation and conversion of war prisonners because of having witnessed Islam from within, parallels with what happened during the treaty of Hudaybiyyah. It provided a relative peace era on the Meccan front which allowed Islam to spread faster than it ever did, because it allowed Muslims and non-Muslims to visit eachother and interract on account of their family relationships and trade connections. Many Meccans started visiting Medina, and stayed there for months. They got acquainted with the teachings of Islam and were deeply impressed by the righteous conduct and moral integrity of the Muslims, and how they treated the prisonners of war, integrating them into the fabric of society. Islam gained many converts in its ranks during that period.

This sense of brotherhood which Islam gave the oppressed, helped gradually bring down social barriers. As a result, in the early periods of ISlam after the prophet, we see countless slaves with high political responsibilities, including the command of armies, governorship and judgeship. Not only in administration, we find theologians, commentators of the Quran, traditionists, jurists and authors who either were slaves or the children of the slaves or ex-slaves.