In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."
YEs the Quran prescribes some harsh punishments, including the death penalty. How does that undermine its legitimacy as a divine religion? It doesnt. The only time the Quran allows death to a crime (without specifiying the execution method) as an extreme measure, among other severe measures, is murder 2:178 and spreading corruption in the land 5:33. And even in such cases, as well as others like theft where violent punishment is prescribed 5:38-40, physical punishement or death are only used against criminals who insist on transgression before the government is able to seize them. This speaks of criminals who actually have to be subdued by force so as to safeguard society. This is corroborated in the Arabic language where sariq (masc) and sariqa (fem) are adjectives and denote thoroughness and completeness in the characteristics of the word they qualify.
An important thing to keep in mind is that this punishement is one that is prescribed within a society where the just Islamic system is implemented as a whole, where its members earn their living fairly and have the entire right to enjoy it freely and securely, where a portion of their wealth is used to meet the needs of the less fortunate, and where such crime is totally unjustified. That is why when the Muslim state was stricken by famine under the second caliphate, that the government could not guarantee the needs of all of its citizen, Umar suspended the enforcement of the punishment for theft. When a camel belonging to a man of the tribe of Muzaynah was stolen by 2 men, Umar ordered their hands to be cut off. But when he learned that their master kept them hungry, he punished their master instead, imposing on him a fine equivalent to the price of two camels. But when the Islamic law is implemented to its fullest and that should a person shouldnt have to resort to theft to answer his basic needs, then it means the crime was meant at increasing one's wealth and status at the expense of others. The thief in that case is one that deems legitimate aqcuisition of wealth and status to difficult, so he seeks it through easier but illegitimate means. The Quran then counters that perverse mindframe by making it even harder for the one proven guilty to seek wealth in a legitimate manner, permanently reducing him, both in his appearance and abilities.
In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."
The prophet did not "trade" in slavery. Under the hudaybiya treaty, any Muslim from Meccan fleeing to Medina where the Muslim community was established, had to be returned to the Meccans. It was in such circumstances that a person whom the prophet did not know was someone's slave, sought refuge with him. When the Meccan master came looking for him, he would not return until the prophet gave him 2 of his own, and of his, the Meccan's, choice. The 2 chosen by the Meccan were black. He chose the best in his sight and although the bargain was not ideal for the prophet, he showed that he valued his own much more than his opponents valued theirs.
A report from Zad al Maad by ibn Qayyim, speaking of the prophet buying and selling slaves, gives a single example of such "transaction" which is none other than the one already spoken of by Bukhari above. As to the prophet buying slaves this is of course attested many times in the authentic reports, he bought them from other Muslims following their capture as war prisonners, to immediately emancipate them and set the example. The report from Zad al Maad gives other details which are dismissed by the hadith scholars, including Bukhari as inauthentic. This is mentionned in the footnotes of ibn Qayyim's complete version of Zad al Maad p163-165.
In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."
All the prophet's practices and utterances, outside of the Quran, cannot be automatically assumed as divinely inspired, and the Quran itself sometimes disapproves of some of his deeds and words 66:1,80:1-10.
The same is the case of other prophets, including as eminent as Ibrahim who, despite of being an illustrious example to emulate, immitating him does not include all aspects of his life deeds 60:4.
That is why the Quran repeatedly announces obedience to the messenger instead of 'Muhammad', albeit they are the same person. The 'message' remained connected to the 'messenger' and it was in this capacity of the 'messenger' that Muhammad needed to be obeyed.
The Prophet forbade Muslims to write down anything other than the Quran. And effectively, the traditions weren't compilled until centuries following his death. The reason was that he used to make statements and deal with people in different ways that were the result of particular circumstances, which narrators might believe to be of universal and permanent bearing. From divine knowledge, the prophet Muhammad had only access to what His Lord granted him 6:50,7:203,72:26-7. That knowledge took the form of a divine scripture to
16:64"make clear to them that about which they differ, and (as) a guidance and a mercy for a people who believe".
Muhammad believed
7:158"in Allah and His words (the Quran)" this is why Allah tells us to "follow him so that you may be guided".
To follow Muhammad means to follow what was sent to him from signs and/or revelation
7:157"and follow the light which has been sent down with him".
This reflects in the hypothetical scenario of a people not having received a messenger, complaining that had they had one in their midst, then they would have followed God's signs, not necessarily the messenger
28:47,20:134"..O our Lord! Why did You not send to us a messenger so we would have followed YOUR SIGNS (not the messengers) before we were humiliated and disgraced?".
Again with the example of the qiblah, we are told to only follow Muhammad in what Allah has commanded him
2:143"and We did not make the Qiblah that you observed in the past except that We know who follows the messenger from the one who turns back upon his heels".
It is very compelling to read how the Quran says that it is itself the best hadith.
39:23"Allah has revealed the best HADITH, a book conformable in its various parts, repeating, whereat do shudder the skins of those who fear their Lord, then their skins and their hearts become pliant to the remembrance of Allah; this is Allah's guidance, He guides with it whom He pleases; and (as for) him whom Allah makes err, there is no guide for him"
45:6"These are the communications of Allah which We recite to you with truth; then in what HADITH would they believe after Allah and His communications".
Anything besides that best hadith, Allah tells us that the rightly guided are those people who use their brains and reflect over them, following only the best and discarding what is inapplicable or that contradicts the Quran
39:18"Those who listen to the word (qawl or saying), then follow the best of it; those are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding".
The Quran contains such warning because
31:6"of men is he who takes instead frivolous hadith to lead astray from Allah's path without knowledge, and to take it for a mockery".
These verses warning to keep the best hadith and discard all frivolous and counterproductive talks, useless and misleading narratives, provide clear evidence that idle tales were even being disseminated at the Prophet's time. If this was then already a problem reaching such levels that the Quran had to correct it, then how much worse did the problem potentially manifest after the prophet's death? It further tells us to investigate thoroughly any information of importance related by an untrustworthy source 49:6.
It does not request the outright dismissal of the report based on the unreliability of the source but simply advises utmost caution in the authentication process of the narration itself which doesnt only include reliability of the transmitor but also of the information in light of certain established facts.
This opens the way to the possibility that the source might be telling the truth despite its untrustworthiness. Hadith scholars mostly stress on scrutinizing the narrator and do not give much importance to scrutinizing the content of the report. It should also be noted, a few verses down in 49:12 it warns not to harbour ill thoughts of others who have not shown through their words or deeds any misapropriateness or imorality.
People should first and foremost think well of one another, abandon the kind of outright suspicion and ill founded inquisitiveness (with harmful objectives).
In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."
Just as Muhammad was uswa hasana, Ibrahim and the believers in his nations are called uswa hasana 60:4-6 and to follow the prophet 3:31 means to follow the revelation sent to him 6:106,33:2. Muhammad and the Muslims are told to follow the way of Ibrahim, this can only be achieved through the Quran which is the reminder of his way 16:123,4:125,3:95. It was indeed the Quran that guided Muhammad to the way of Ibrahim 6:161.
The Quran also says to follow the pious, humble believers 31:15 and this again only means to follow them in their obedience to Allah's commands, in their belief in His revelation because
6:116"if you obey most of those in the earth, they will lead you astray from Allah's way; they follow but conjecture and they only lie".
The prophetic sunna is thus the manner in which the prophet applied the timeless ordinances of the Quran in his own time and place. It does not necessarily include his personal likes and dislikes, or particular recommendations which in the vast majority of cases the prophet himself never claimed were inspired.
He gently declined eating a roasted lizard out of personal taste, leaving those around him to freely eat as they wished.
Certain of his own standards of body hygiene, like trimming the mustache, letting the beard grow, using the toothstick, sniffing water into the nose, clipping the nails, washing the knuckles, removing hair from the underarms, shaving pubic hair, cleaning the private parts with water, rinsing the mouth etc, or the manner he slept, ate or dressed, all reflected the needs, culture and manners of a specific time in history.
A case in point would be the instance where the Prophet allowed an adopted freed slave who had reached puberty to drink his adoptive mother's breast milk, to put the husband at ease. As adoption in Islam doesn't entail blood relationship, this action created a fostership link, making it impossible for them to be married afterwards. This was an exception to the general rule that fostership is only possible prior to 2years old, and was allowed by the prophet to bring peace within this household where the young man had been living for years prior to reaching puberty. Neither he could be turned out, nor was his adoptive mother to have to veil in his presence. The solution was relevant to the Arabian culture of the time. Furthermore, the situation in which this household found itself, occured while the Quranic restrictions as regards adoption and veiling were being revealed. No cases would thus arise in the future where the permission of the prophet as regards late fostership would apply. Of course, and as understood by the hadith commentators the servant did not touch his mistress or drink from her breast, as it would have defeated the purpose of the act from the start. The hadith doesn't say to drink FROM her breast but her breast MILK.
In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."
When a prophet of God, the last human capable of willfully sinning, asks for God's mercy not even following a sin, but out of fear of not performing an act of worship to its full extent, then how much more so should the regular believer be conscious of his shortcomings in regards to God?
This is the characteristic of the men of God, who never become complacent and arrogant, whether in their duties towards fellow men or towards God, especially so when they reach the climax of their power and glory and that before that point they were constant and steadfast upon the straight path regardless of their ordeals. Success instead causes them increase in spirituality and far sightedness in their dealings with men and their duties towards God. The prophet, and the Muslims through him, is told to do the following, after seeing the unfolding of the prophecy of entire victory
110:3"Then celebrate the praise of your Lord, and ask His forgiveness; surely He is oft-returning (to mercy)".
In addition to teaching man spiritual humbleness, this also conveys the idea that should one attain some victory, it should not lead to pride and vanity, but to remembrence of God and gratitude, as well as seeking ghafr/covering, protection from sins. Even if the prophecy proved true in the days of Muhammad, and even more so today as Islam is still spreading worldwide, a believer shouldnt be boastful about it as many Muslims usually are when speaking of the spread and success of their religion.
The prophet was therefore certainly not "uswa hasana" in how he ate (with the right hand because the left was used for relieving in cleaning oneself after), slept or saw the nature around him. Anyone is free to imitate his lifestyle and adopt his worldviews as found in extra Quranic writings, if one finds any personal benefits in doing so but that isn't a religious requirement nor relevant to it, and that is explicitly stated in the Quran itself.
With that in mind, when the prophet made deductions as related in the ahadith, pertaining to his natural environement, general causality and basic observation of certain phenomenon, it is only expected from him that they would fit what the ancients of his time would find "plausible". These views however, right or wrong, no matter how extraordinary they might seem in light of our current knowledge, have no bearing on the Quran itself, which is again, pledged to be fully protected. It would have been interesting to have had written records of how the previous prophets saw the world, as we have with Muhammad, and see who among them held the most "unscientific" personal views.
In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."
The critics often make use of particular ahadith related to specific events in order to paint them as a general rule applicable for all times. The misunderstanding stems from the idea that it is mandatory for Muslims to emulate every single deed of the prophet outside the religious sphere and that in everyday life, prophets in Islam are thought to be infaillible.
As is explicit in the Quran, the divine protection of the carriers of the revelation pertains strictly to the revelation itself. But in everyday affairs, the messengers, who are still humans endowed with freewill and thus the potential, if not to sin due to their heightened level of spiritual awareness, to make mistakes, they are left to their own devices in their everyday lives to fight off the assaults of evil forces. No prophet was in a constant state of communication with the divine realm.
The hadith and Quran itself speak of long periods where revelation had stopped, and the subsequent taunting of his enemies on the issue, the questions of his followers and his anxious anticipation.
The Quran never came to correct the prophet's worldviews in terms of knowledge of nature and general causality, neither of his contemporaries but rather guide him and the rest of humanity through him, to the most complete, advanced human spiritual knowledge. The divine protection therefore only pertained to the Quran which is the source of that perfect spiritual knowledge.
The prophet was "uswa hasana" in his application of the Quran, just as following Jesus' way, as he is quoted saying in the NT, meant following his footsteps in his application of the Torah. I will go into a slight digression here in order to parallel what is meant, in religious terminology, to follow a prophet. "The way" of Jesus Jn14:6 is outlined in Lk10:25-28 where he commands strict observance of Jewish laws. In that passage from Luke he is asked about the conditions of salvation and the questionner quotes from 2 passages. The first is Lev19 which details certains laws like the observence of the sabbath and admonishes to "Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the LORD". The 2nd passage quoted by the questionner is Deut6 which speaks of loving the One God and obeying His commandements
"keep the commands of the LORD your God and the stipulations and decrees he has given you. Do what is right and good in the LORD's sight..obey all this law before the LORD our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness".
As one can clearly see, one is justified before God, not by faith alone but by deeds too. Consequently the Nazarenes, Jesus' early group of small band of followers, observed all Jewish customs outlined in the Torah but differed from Jews in that they recognized Jesus as the Messiah. The Nazarenes grew among the Israelites but persecutions forced them to go into hiding, with Paul playing a central role in their persecution prior to his conversion. After joining their ranks, he influenced the group leaders, namely Peter and James, to reach out to the Gentiles. With more non-Jews entering the fold, Jewish laws binding on the community were abandoned Acts15:1-29 and so was Jesus' "way". The Nazarenes who were centred in Jerusalem gradually became isolated. It is interesting noting that upon his arrest by the Jews and Romans, Paul was assumed to be Acts24"a ringleader of the Nazarene sect". Paul doesnt confirm the accusation, as it obviously did not conform to reality, and instead claims he follows the original path of Jesus. Paul's missionary activities progressively gained him a following among the gentile population which was more inclined looking up to Paul for leadership, instead of Jesus' brother James, a strict observer of Jewish Law, considered to be Jesus' successor in non-canonical Gospels.
With the establishment of Christianity as a state religion in Rome by Constantine in the 4th century, this small original band definitely fled Jerusalem, in the surrounding deserts and managed to survive outside Palestine as they are mentioned by Jerome upto 380AD to have lived in the Syrian desert. Among them the Ebionites (who claimed to descend from the original Jewish disciples led by James) and Elchasites who rejected Paul as a charlatan and his teachings as falsehood, as well as the Zadokites, Essenes, Rechabites, Sabeans, Mandaeans etc. They had their own writing which they considered scripture, composed of an oral tradition attributed to Jesus, and some HB books. Their writings are known, among others as Gospel of the Nazareans, Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Ebionites. They would later write that Paul was a false apostle who taught heresy based on the fact he was a failed convert who was disappointed with Judaism and therefore motivated to teach against its laws, all the laws that constituted Jesus' "way".
Unfortunately the group that opposed them and their practices gained more converts, obviously as it appealed much more to non-Jews, more particularly the hellenized Romans and Greeks. The Nazarenes and similar groups were inevitably marginalised while the more and more dominant groups decided what the Church’s organizational structure would be, as well as its official creeds, or which books would be accepted as Scripture. The group that became "orthodox", further sealed its victory, by the pens of early writers like Iraeneus Justin Martyr and Tertullian, claiming that it had always been the majority opinion of Christianity, Jesus and his apostles.
This uswa hasana in no way implies that the prophet was a perfect creation. For example, After describing their outstanding moral and spiritual qualities, the Quran nevertheless asks the prophets to keep seeking istighfar/protection (from sins), for themselves and their followers too 47:19 and several prophets are quoted throughout the Quran asking for ghafr 30:24,35,71:28. This way the Quran teaches an important lesson; when the foremost among God's servants are denied any sense of complacency, then how far should regular believers be from harboring a feeling of perfect righteousness or prideful accomplishment in front of God
53:32"therefore do not attribute purity to your souls; He knows him best who guards (against evil)".
The believer should keep in mind that only God is perfection and as a demonstration of his understanding of such concept, should constantly seek God's forgiveness for any shortcoming as well as protection for future potential flaws and blemishes. This concept is pervasive throughout the Quran, starting with the single most repeated sura, sura fatiha. This type of spiritual humility is requested even from those that perform the most commendable deeds of the religion, so that they never fall into arrogance and self-righteousness 73:1-20. It was under this state of mind that the prophet implored his Lord for ghafr in this world, just as he will do in the hereafter 66:8. Some reports say he used to implore Allah for protection one hundred times every day, as he was commanded by the Quran itself.
And he used to do so even after 48:2 was revealed telling him his past, present and future sins are forgiven. He did so out of humility and to set the standard of modesty in face of divine perfection
"The Prophet used to offer night prayers till his feet became swollen. Somebody said, to him," "Allah has forgiven you, your faults of the past and those to follow." On that, he said, "Shouldn't I be a thankful slave of Allah?"
No human, no matter how close to Allah in terms of revelational experience, will ever be faultless. This verse 48:2 does not say what type of sin, intentional or not, major or minor, was committed by the prophet. No indication of major sins, let alone intentional, are found concerning the prophet, anywhere in the hadith corpus or the Quran. Yet we find the Quran reproaching him even the slightest unfitting action for a man of his standing, actions which none would find problematic.
This is the etiquette that Islam has taught to man. A man might have performed the highest possible service to Allah's Religion, might have offered countless sacrifices in its cause, and might have exerted himself extremely hard in carrying out the rites of His worship, yet he should never entertain the thought that he has fulfilled the right his Lord had on him wholly, the Sustainer who maintains him and the universe at each instant. Rather he should always think that he has not been able to fulfill what was required of him.
This reveals an important point, something the prophets have always been aware of as seen in their constant prayers for forgiveness and protection, the inherent imperfection of humans, their shortcomings in the face of divine perfection. One should therefore never feel self-righteous or self-sufficient in any endeavour.
In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."
The ratio of 1 man equivalent to 2 women's testimonies mentioned in 2:282 is a general advice
"so that IF one of them errs, the other can remind her".
It is a conditional statement, which makes the second female a passive witness unless the primary witness is forgetful. Therefore if a women is sound and competent, then she would need no other woman to remind her of something she knew but forgot. Her single testimony becomes equal in value to that of the man. The testimony is not gender based as one expert is not sufficient for a transaction to be binding; it requires 2 men as is clear from the verse's beginning
"get two witnesses out of your men".
The verse actually favors a woman witness who wouldnt automatically be dismissed for incompetence but would be supported in case of error while the single male witness would be replaced in the same case. The verse addresses the issue of financial matters and the fact is that on average, women are much less qualified than men in financial expertise, even in western societies.
As well, women are almost all affected, sometimes completely debilitated by PMS symptoms during and around the times of their menstrual cycles, in their emotional-intellectual and physical capacities, all of which might potentially compromise female testimony in such a situation. To dismiss that condition as potentially affecting every single woman simply for the sake of preserving a facade of progressive thinking, is a denial of an objective reality.
The Quran doesnt deny human nature and instead approaches everyday matters realistically and pragmatically. It only accepts the testimony of a person affected by a psycho-emotional condition that could potentially influence the objectivity of a case, when it is a woman -hence the 2nd woman to remind her. It is clearly referring to a condition not to the presumed intellectual capacities of a woman, hence the 2nd woman's role to remind her of something she knows but was mislead into forgetting.
If what the Quran meant was that a man's testimony is equal to 2 women's, the Quran in other instances ie when a woman is accused of adultery, would be saying that one woman's testimony is equal to 4 men's because if 4 men are not brought forth then their testimony will not be valid and they will be lashed for lying 24:4. Also, in the case a husband accuses his wife of adultery without bringing forth eyewitnesses, her testimony has the same value as her husband's, contrary to the Bible where the accused wife is immediately considered guilty by default and is made to undergo humiliating and strange rituals to prove her innocence Numbers5:11-31.
Without forgetting the fact that in Jewish law, women arent even allowed to serve as witnesses in legal matters in a court of law. The famous hadith, gladly picked up by the critics if Islam, where the prophet reportedly admonishes a group of women for their "deficiencies" isnt speaking of mental IQ, that notion is bellied by the description of the inquisitive woman as jazlah/wise,intelligent.
The second part of the hadith, with the word ghalaba which means to overcome, plainly states that women might outsmart "dhi lubbin”—a very intelligent, or wise, or resolute man. How can an intellectually inferior individual outwit one of superior intellect?
The word 'aql does not always equate with general mental capacities. That is why the prophet corroborated his statement "'aql deficiency" with the verse 2:282 spoken of earlier which deals with the issue of 2 women witnesses replacing one male witness. And neither does naqs necessarily equate with deficiency but also "to reduce". This is like telling them that though they have been reduced in their worldly and religious duties, this does not mean in any way that they are of lesser mental/spiritual capacities since they can overcome the smartest of men.
The statement within the hadith that most of hell dwellers will be women is not due to an inherent spiritual flaw but because of them cursing more and being more ungrateful. In another hadith and using the same wording it says that most of the dwellers of Paradise will be women too. Imam Muslim quotes ibn Sireen as sayong that there was discussion between men and women as to which gender will be the majority in Heaven. Abu Hurayra answered, based on the prophet's statement that women will be more (Fath al Baari 6/325). By applying the same misunderstanding one would interpret this latter hadith as saying that women are spiritually superior to men.
A woman is commanded by Allah not to pray or fast during her menses, which are the 2 examples the prophet gives of how they are reduced in religion. And though they are exempted from these rituals, by obeying these commands they will still receive their rewards. Seeing that a woman on her way to perform was sad, Aisha asked
"What is wrong with you?' I replied, ' I do not offer the prayers (i.e. I have my menses).' He said, ' It will not harm you for you are one of the daughters of Adam, and Allah has written for you (this state) as He has written it for them. Keep on with your intentions for Hajj and Allah may reward you that."
Men do not receive rewards for not praying or fasting and although the divine law stipulates different rights and obligations to men and women their ultimate reward is the same.
Anyone who knows the character and eloquence of the prophet with which he was able to effectively change the hearts and minds of his addressees, knows that he would never utter such hurtful, insulting speech, much less on a festive day of Eid. He would never put anyone down, especially due to gender, race, class or any other matter, and this is something the Quran forbids anyone to do.
Furthermore had the prophet been a proponent of such notion of women being mentally and spiritually inferior then he would never have entrusted his wives with safeguarding, transmitting and teaching the most sacred knowledge to both men and women. He is also reported as giving precedence to his wife Umm Salama's opinion in a very crucial matter, during the treaty of Hudaybiya over that of his closest male companions. The caliphs would later emulate the prophet in this behavior, on certain occasions. Aisha would even issue fatwas.
In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."
I wont go into details as regards the passage dealing with domestic violence from a Quranic perspective, as the objection of this youtuber is in relation to an incident in the prophet's life.
Firstly The prophet himself never hit any of his wives, and in fact approved of a woman's divorce request following physical and verbal domestic abuse from her husband. It was only expected by him given that he would not tolerate even the beating of women maid-servants
"one of us slapped her and Allah's messenger ordered us to set her free".
As unambiguously stated by Aisha
"The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, did not strike a servant or a woman, and he never struck anything with his hand".
This statement made long after the prophet's death, by itself is enough to negate any attempt at misrepresenting any related incident from the prophet's life and cast it in a bad light. But this isnt enough to the hatemongerers.
The intellectual dishonesty is such that they quote and misrepresent an incident involving the same Aisha who said the prophet never hit a woman, in their bid to disparage him. The part of the hadith in question which is misunderstood is
"He struck me on the chest which caused me pain".
The Arabic lahaza does not denote striking, rather a nudge, and neither does the complete hadith justify the malicious misinterpretation of the critics. Being of gentle, forbearing character with his wives, as attested by too many ahadith to list, and even echoed in the Quran, the prophet in that hadith is depicted as silently leaving Aisha's quarter at night so as to not wake her up and going to a cemetery to pray for the dead, then hastily returning to the conjugal bed where he encountered Aisha suspicious of him.
That is when he engaged Aisha physically by pushing her chest, not with the intention of beating or causing pain but to grab her attention as he is reported to have done in other cases ("The Prophet struck my chest with his hand and he said.."sahih Muslim 1825 or Bukhari V4,B52,N310 "I informed the Prophet that I could not sit firm on horses, so he stroke me on the chest with his hand and I noticed his finger marks on my chest. He invoked, 'O Allah! Make him firm and a guiding and rightly-guided man.." Etc.), before teaching the important lesson that follows. In another narration the prophet said
"The most complete of the believers in faith are those with the best character, and the best of you are the best in behavior to their women".
Many ahadith are of the same import. For example the prophet used a particular expression in reference to women nature
"Treat women nicely, for a women is created from a rib, and the most curved portion of the rib is its upper portion, so, if you should try to straighten it, it will break, but if you leave it as it is, it will remain crooked. So treat women nicely".
According to al albani and sheikh al arnaout, the allusion to a rib is metaphorical, and this is obvious for several reasons. "ka dhilaa/like ribs" is used in other narrations figuratively. Even the Quran alludes to nature rather than physical origin when it says that 21:37"man has been created from hastiness". Also, Had the hadith been speaking of the physical origin of women then it would have mentionned the first or a particular woman as created from a rib. The prophet here is giving a subtle and pragmatic lesson in gender relationships. Just as a rib would break if one uses force against its naturally curved shape, a woman will break, and the relation with her husband as well, should one try to forcefully change her particular nature and character so as to fit one's tastes. And just as leaving the rib undisturbed will make it retain its natural shape, complete passivity in a relationship will make the woman keep her natural character (regardless of whether that character is good or bad). If a man therefore wants to try changing some traits in a woman, so as to make her more suited to his own personal disposition, then one should neither use force, nor be disinterested and detached, rather one should always be tactful.
In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."
The Hebrew Bible sanctionned letter for letter by Jesus, allows the extermination of entire population save their virgins, regardless of age. All visibly mature women are killed while the visibly virgin, meaning children, are distributed among the invading Israelites Numbers31:17-18etc. The Hebrew speaks of "every woman who can lie with a man" in contrast to the "young girls who have no experience of intimate relation with a man". The text is thus clearly speaking in terms of physical appearance. Obviously the soldiers weren't going around verifying each captive's private parts to distinguish the virgins. Those children may be disposed of according to one's whims, as the passage gives no regulation in the matter. This is in the context of genocidal warfare, binding on Jews of all times where specific nations must be annihilated, like the Amalekites and six other Canaanite nations and any of their descendants whenever they are identified Deut20:16,25:19.
In another context, that of optional warfare, Deut21 instructs the soldiers to marry the captive he lusts for, prior to sexual intimacy. She has no choice and say in the matter. She is brought to the soldier's household, her hair trimmed (the Hebrew does not mean shaved off), nails shortenned, previous clothes put aside, and given a month to mourn her decimated family, right in front of her captors' eyes v13. The passage only mentions her murdered parents, which implies again she could be very young, or mature and unmarried (unlikely in those days for a woman that is so attractive that the soldier lusts after), or with a husband who is still alive. The altering of her physical appearance is understood differently among the commentators, some seeing it as a means by which she is beautified, and others that she is made purposefully unattractive. If after that process the Jewish man still lusts for her, he may then marry her, keeping her alongside the "preferred" wife. If not, she is simply abandonned to fend off for herself, returning to whatever is left of her ravaged home.
As already said, Numbers31 and Deut21 are contextually unrelated. This undermines the argument that marriage is always a precondition to sexual intimacy. In Numbers31 the option of forced marriage isnt given as the female captive is from among the nations whom the Israelites are to be at war with forever, whose population, men women and children, are to be mercilessly killed to the last one by divine decree. Marrying from among their captives would contradict that ordinance. In Deut21, the context is that of optional wars, whose targets are people outside those concerned by the decree of extermination, hence the option of forceful marriage. In that sub-category, the Israelites are permitted to prey on the weak nation of their choice, subdue and abuse its people as they wish. These are the wars labelled up to this day by the rabbis as wars of "national glory". This isnt a war necessary for the survival of the Jewish people, or in response to provocation, not even under divine injunction. In such a case a random nation is given the choice between a "peaceful" surrender, that would result in the enslavement and taxation of its population, or in case of their rejection of the "peace offer", a military subjugation resulting in the execution of all adult males, the capture as spoils of war of their women, children, and livestock Deut20:10-14.
Should it be necessary to completely subdue that nation
2Kings3:19"you shall fell every good tree, and you shall stop up all springs of water, and you shall clutter every good field with stones".
In the land of Canaan, those natives that werent driven out or exterminated as per the Torah's injunctions during the invasion, were subdued into slavery Josh17:13. Their descendants suffered the same fate under Solomon's rule 1Kings9:20-1. After all and as stated in both the HB and the Talmudic writings (Eleazar ben Shammua) , the purpose of creation and the reason why the heavens and earth are maintained is for the chosen race to observe Torah.
That is what the Quran would have looked like, and how it would have instructed its people to behave towards the foreign nations and the weak that come under their possession, had it been penned by the ancients of its time to whom such attitude was regarded as expected and acceptable. The Quran changed the way such categories of people that already existed in the society it came to reform, had to be treated. It did so by igniting the believers' taqwa/God-consciousness, elevating the status of such weak categories whom there was now no shame of marrying 4:3,25,24:32,33:50 and honoring them as one would honnor the closest family members 4:36.
In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."
4:23-24 expands on the categories of women that are illegal for intimate relations however it makes an exception for already married Ma Malakat aymanikum. In case a married woman embraces Islam and then decides to desert her non-Muslim husband (only for the sake of her new faith) seeking shelter in a Muslim area. If after examination she is believed to be sincere in her faith then she cannot be turned back to her previous home, not only for safety reasons but also because -in the case her husband is an idolator- her new faith has made unlawful intermarriages with idolaters 2:221.
A Muslim man may take her under his wing in his household, thus making her his mulk yamin. They become legal for eachother and if they wish to marry, they may only do so after payment of the dower to her initial husband thus definitely annulling the previous marriage ties 60:10. Notice here the justice in the Quran where it first encourages Muslims to pay what is due to the opposite party with whom one is at war, regardless of potentially these enemies not reciprocating with the Muslims in the same situation. 60:11 then discusses that eventuality and says that should it occur, then for the next cases, a disbelieving husband will only be compensated proportionally to what his predecessor unfairly compensated the Muslim camp. By first encouraging indiscriminate justice, and then justice by deterrence, the Quran skilfully equalizes the balance of justice even in times of war.
The other case of a married woman becoming lawful to a Muslim is that of a former married war prisoner. Once the threat of war was over, the defeated enemy and their belongings brought at the battlefield were confiscated, including their women which per their customs they used to unjustly drag with them as a means by which they were emboldened to fight. They now fell under Muslim custody, as a punishment and lesson to those who do not value their own, including a lesson to these very women.
When they were integrated into the fabric of society, taken in a Muslim household and made to benefit from the strict regulations as regards right hand possessions, which includes being kind and caring with them as one would be with the remaining members of the family, these women learned that Islam gave them, even in such conditions, a value they could never have hoped for in their own communities. Their surviving husbands that in fact do not deserve to be married to them in the first place, are only hurt in their male "pride". They didnt love these women, who would treat a wife in such way, bring her to the battlefield as a motivation not to surrender? Even then, they learn that wives, and women in general, do have a value seeing how Muslims treat the wives of their enemies.
There were also cases of wars where Muslims were on the offensive, and after defeating the enemy, seized the property and families of the combatants. When a Muslim guardian takes into his home such women war captives, making them his right hand possessions, their former marriage is dissolved. After a waiting period until one menstrual cycle is cleared, she become sexually lawful to him. This in no way entails forced sex. There are no such recorded cases in history and if anything, whenever a case of mistreated and abused person was brought to the prophet, he condemned such a behavior, especially when the victims were women and slaves. The guardian may in that case either keep her in his household and stop insisting or send her away from his household by ransoming her against benefits of any kinds to her former camp, if anyone among her own people desires taking her back. For example upon the conquest of Khaybar, Safiyya fell under the prophet's possession. He offered her to return to her own people, or be freed and married to him and she chose the latter. The social contract between a guardian and his right hand possession is exclusive to them both, legalizing and regulating sexual activity as would be in a marriage contract and its accompanying responsibilities of maintenance and good treatment.
That these mulk yamin cannot be forced into intimacy by the guardian is exemplified through the story of prophet Yusuf/Joseph, bought as a slave and whom his mistress wanted to abuse sexually under the threat of emprisonnement. The Quran condemns such action, calls it an indecency/fahisha for the owner of a slave to have intercourse with him/her under compulsion 12:24 a grave fault and a manifest error 12:29-30. Yusuf desired to keep his chastity so he repeatedly refused, being God's sincere servant he was protected and guided away from transgression, even willingly preferring emprisonnement than succombing to the sin 12:24-35 (see Ps105:19). Temptation is something any human being, regardless of his uprightness, might be subject to. Merit lies in whether one acts upon that temptation when in the full capacity to do it, or restrains oneself.
Just as the Quran condemned Yusuf's mistress from acting against her servant's desire to remain chaste, the Quran prohibits the guardian from acting contrary to his mulk yamin's desire for chastity, such as by forcing her into prostitution as was the custom in pre-islamic times. If he nevertheless does so, despite the prohibition, then the abused woman is certainly not to blame due to her weak background 24:33. In 4:36 the Quran speaks of how they must be treated with kindness, without pride as one would treat the parents, neighbors or the weak in society. This means their guardians cannot abuse them in anyway just as one would not abuse the other groups mentioned in the verse
"He who slaps his slave or beats him, there is no expiation for this but to free him".
As the prophet here clearly instructs, physical abuse is a transgression that must be expiated.
The Quran thus opens many different options to those categories, besides encouraging their kind treatment. In 4:3 Allah is commanding the believers who has orphans under his care towards whom he fears not to fulfill all his responsibility to marry up to 4 women but if he thinks he cannot deal in fairness with multiple wives, to marry
"only one or/aw Ma Malakat Aymanukum",
meaning a legal wife for a man who fears not to deal justly between multiple wives can be either a regular woman who is protected and supported/muhsana OR Ma Malakat Ayman already in his possession. Therefore marrying malakat ayman according to 4:3, and other passages like 4:25, is as acceptable as marrying a normal woman and further 24:32 strongly encourages men and women to marry from their male/female slaves as an act of virtue.
