Sunday, March 11, 2012

Samatar Mohamed Condemns Muhammad (Again)

Samatar seems to have some trouble writing a comment without condemning his own prophet. In response to my recent post about the deleterious effects of polygamy, Samatar wrote:

Polygamy is necessary in certain instances, like when the number of women are much larger then the number of men due to battles and such. But lets not forget the clear guideline that is in the Quran with regard to polygamy.

Surah Nisa, verse 3

"If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or that which your right hands possess. That will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice."

It is quite clear that the four women should be treated equally in the Quran, and if you fear injustice then marry only one. The Quran actually does prohibit polygamy for the men who cannot treat his wives justly.

On a side note, I think Muslims are contradicting themselves here. How so? Muslims often tell us that Muhammad put an end to the rampant seventh-century practice of female infanticide. According to Muslim apologists, there was an epidemic of parents murdering female babies. Well now, if people were regularly killing their female babies, there would be fewer females than males, wouldn't there? But then these same Muslim apologists, when they defend polygamy, assure us that there were so many women in Arabia, Muslims needed to marry two, or three, or four (or far more, in Muhammad's case) to take care of all the women (and this isn't even counting all their sex slaves). Quite an inconsistency, I think. But there's a more important issue.

Samatar declares, following the Qur'an, that a Muslim must treat his wives equally. Hence, if a Muslim doesn't treat his wives equally, he is sinning. But Muhammad himself didn't treat his wives equally.

Consider this Hadith, which shows Muhammad's wives pleading with him to treat them the way he treats Aisha (who was obviously getting special treatment):

Sunan An-Nasa'i 3396—Aishah said: "The wives of the Prophet sent Fatimah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, to the Messenger of Allah. She asked permission to enter when he was lying with me under my cover. He gave her permission to enter, and she said: 'O Messenger of Allah, your wives have sent me to you to ask you to be equitable with regard to the matter of the daughter of Abu Quhafah.' I (Aishah) kept quiet and the Messenger of Allah said to her: 'O my daughter! Do you not love the one whom I love?' She said: 'Yes.' He said: 'Then love this one.' Fatimah stood up when she heard this and left the Messenger of Allah, and went back to the wives of the Prophet. She told them what she had said, and what he had said to her. They said to her: 'We do not think that you have been of any avail to us. Go back to the Messenger of Allah and say to him: Your wives are urging you to be equitable with regard to the matter of the daughter of Abu Quhafah.' Fatimah said: 'No, by Allah; I will never speak to him about her again.'" Aishah said: "So the wives of the Prophet sent Zainab bint Jahsh to the Messenger of Allah; she was one who was somewhat equal to me in rank in the eyes of the Messenger of Allah. And I have never seen a woman who was better in religious commitment than Zainab, more fearing of Allah, more honest in speech, more dutiful in upholding the ties of kinship, more generous in giving charity, and devoted in giving herself in acts of charity, by means of which she sought to draw closer to Allah. But she was quick-tempered; however, she was also quick to calm down. She asked permission to enter upon the Messenger of Allah when he was with Aishah under her cover, in the same situation as when Fatimah had entered. The Messenger of Allah gave her permission to enter and she said: 'O Messenger of Allah, your wives have sent me to ask you to be equitable with regard to the daughter of Abu Quhafah.' Then she verbally abused me at length, and I was watching the Messenger of Allah to see if he would allow me to respond. Zainab went on until I realized that the Messenger of Allah would not disapprove if I responded. Then I spoke back to her in such a way, until I silenced her. Then the Messenger of Allah said: 'She is the daughter of Abu Bakr.'"

So Muhammad showed favoritism to Aisha above his other wives. But this makes him a horrible sinner, according to Samatar.

Muhammad's companion Umar even warned his daughter Hafsa not to expect Muhammad to treat her equally, for Muhammad loved Aisha more than her.

Sahih al-Bukhari 3:648— . . . Then ‘Umar went on relating the narration and said. "I and an Ansari neighbor of mine from Bani Umaiya bin Zaid who used to live in ‘Awali Al-Medina, used to visit the Prophet in turns. He used to go one day, and I another day. When I went I would bring him the news of what had happened that day regarding the instructions and orders and when he went, he used to do the same for me. We, the people of Quraish, used to have authority over women, but when we came to live with the Ansar, we noticed that the Ansari women had the upper hand over their men, so our women started acquiring the habits of the Ansari women. Once I shouted at my wife and she paid me back in my coin and I disliked that she should answer me back. She said, ‘Why do you take it ill that I retort upon you? By Allah, the wives of the Prophet retort upon him, and some of them may not speak with him for the whole day till night.’ What she said scared me and I said to her, ‘Whoever amongst them does so, will be a great loser.’ Then I dressed myself and went to Hafsa and asked her, ‘Does any of you keep Allah’s Apostle angry all the day long till night?’ She replied in the affirmative. I said, ‘She is a ruined losing person (and will never have success)! Doesn’t she fear that Allah may get angry for the anger of Allah's Apostle and thus she will be ruined? Don’t ask Allah’s Apostle too many things, and don't retort upon him in any case, and don't desert him. Demand from me whatever you like, and don’t be tempted to imitate your neighbor (i.e. ‘Aisha) in her behavior towards the Prophet, for she (i.e. Aisha) is more beautiful than you, and more beloved to Allah’s Apostle.

Muhammad's wife Sauda even had to surrender some of her marital privileges to Aisha in order to please Muhammad.

Sahih Muslim 3451—A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Never did I find any woman more loving to me than Sauda bint Zam'a. I wished I could be exactly like her who was passionate. As she became old, she had made over her day (which she had to spend) with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to ‘A’isha. She said: I have made over my day with you to ‘A’isha. So Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) allotted two days to ‘A’isha, her own day (when it was her turn) and that of Sauda.

Sahih al-Bukhari 3:766—Narrated Aisha: Whenever Allah’s Apostle wanted to go on a journey, he would draw lots as to which of his wives would accompany him. He would take her whose name came out. He used to fix for each of them a day and a night. But Sauda bint Zam’a gave up her (turn) day and night to ‘Aisha, the wife of the Prophet in order to seek the pleasure of Allah's Apostle (by that action).

So Muhammad ended up spending more time with Aisha than with any of his other wives, and he ended up spending no time at all with Sauda!

And yet Samatar tells us that Muslims must treat their wives equally. In doing so, he condemns his own prophet. Interestingly, the Qur'an declares that Muhammad is an excellent moral example for Muslims to follow. It seems, then, that Muslims are commanded to follow the example of a man who was a horrible sinner and couldn't even follow the simplest commands of the Qur'an.

***UPDATE*** Samatar can't help himself. In his most recent comment, he writes:

The Quran says to treat your wives equally. When I said equally, I meant in the sense of food, clothing, sex etc... I did not mean favouring one wife over another, Or loving one wife more than another.

So the Qur'an calls Muslims to treat wives equally in regards to sex? But Muhammad spent an additional night for sex with one of his wives (Aisha), and had no sex with a less favored wife (Sauda). So one wife got no sex, some wives got some sex, and Aisha got the most sex. Hence, even on Samatar's modified position, Muhammad still turns out to be a hypocrite and a sinner in rebellion against Allah's clear commands in the Qur'an.

Samatar also wrote:

With regard to Sahih al-Bukhari 3:766, it is quite clear that Sauda gave up her night with the prophet willingly, so there is no injustice their. It would only be injustice if the prophet (pbuh) spent the night with Aisha against Sauda's permission.

Samatar, I beg you, please start reading your sources. Sauda gave up her night with Muhammad because he was going to divorce her, leaving her as an old and starving widow. So she made the agreement in order to survive, and Muhammad agreed because it allowed him to spend more time with his child-bride. If Muhammad were a good moral example, he would have responded, "Sauda, what do you mean you're worried that I will divorce you? I will never divorce you, because I've been commanded to care for all my wives equally. So there's no need to give up your evening with me, for that would result in unequal treatment, which the Qur'an forbids." Instead, Muhammad's response was, "What? You're giving your sex night to Aisha? Great! Okay, you can continue receiving food and shelter, and I'll have double sex with Aisha! Win/win!" And the Qur'an even condones this behavior (4:128-130).

Samatar, do you have the slightest clue what a repulsive hypocrite Muhammad was? He was a thoroughly despicable excuse for a human being, and all you do is defend him. This is what Islam does to people. It forces them to defend the indefensible.

88 comments:

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Well, we all know Samatar is not the sharpest knife in the box.

We all understand, Samatar.

betwixt said...

One of the problems Muslims, like Samatar, have is that they respond to these truths as if human nature is not a factor whatsoever. To say that it's okay for men to have more than one wife IF they can treat them equally is a specious argument. There is a reason why polygamy is OPTIONAL even in Islam. Human nature does not make it possible for us to have multiple intimate, loving relationships all at the same time.

It takes two to have a relationship, so that even if a man can arguably treat his wives equally, he does not have control over the perceptions of his wives about the equality of his treatment of them. However "good" a husband he is, problems among his wives only result in an unwholesome existence for all concerned.

Moreover, even the Qur'an's version of the creation of man talks about one man, one woman--Adam and Eve. If God meant for marriage to be polygamous in nature, He would have embedded this in our nature as well. And if that's the case, even Allah would not make monogamous marriages the norm and not make polygamy an option.

The only way I can imagine a man to have the ability to treat his wives equally is to treat them like cattle. Feed them. House them. Clothe them. Forget about loving and caring for them like human beings.

Deleting said...

I know samatar gets under our skins, but let's not make this a bash-fear. It's not necessary.

Lleychino said...

It amazes me how Muslims don't think before making comments. I really don't know why are they still Muslims because they are condemning the guy they say is their prophet again and again.
I would be embarrassed if I was a Muslim.
If Islam is the only true religion, why don't they just tell people about Islam the way it is instead of trying to hide the truth about it?

Billy said...

Samatar, you had informed us that you are trying to earn extra points to enter the Islamic heaven by executing debate Jihad here. However, your frequent condemnation of your prophet, albeit unwittingly, is sort of like the accidental/untimely detonation of the suicide vest, resulting only in the death of Islamic suicide bombers. Samatar, imagine if you were a violent jihadi, you would have blown yourself up accidentally and thereby forfeited any claim to the 72 raisins. With the debate Jihad, you get plenty of second chances. Nevertheless, “casting aspersions” on Mohammad’s reputation would get you many negative points. Samatar’s slate of deeds: Good = 100; Bad=200. Does not look so good!

Pursuant to deleting’s advice, I must add….just kidding!

Quran is Corrupt said...

The study is proof positive ONCE AGAIN that the Quran is false. What about India and China where men out number women? How are they going to marry 4 wives?

That is where violence and robbing comes in. You have to be violent war lord to have many wives. That is where the idea of raiding non-Muslims to get women came in.

The study shows that Islam is false and WRONG, and Muhmmad was a fraud.

Deleting said...

@ billy, I'm not trying to beat people up for beating up Samatar. I just don't think insults are going to help.

But Hez, you and quran is corrupt are all right: Samatar is not good at 'debate jihad'. Not even close.


This is what he wrote in the 'Surah al-fatih' post. I didn't see it until i submitted my post answering him.
"Ok, so you admitted that the prophet (pbuh) was illiterate, therefore, he could not have gotten the ideas (to plagerize Jesus) himself."

What samatar probably meant: Muhaamad had no guile in him to ever do something like this. It must have come from Allah.

What he really said:

Muhammad was illiterate but he didn't have ears, didn't hae eyes, didn't have a brain and wasn't able to function independantly. He just didn't have the mental fortitude to synthasize verses he'd overheard christians reading aloud when he went on caravan trips he took on Khadijah's behalf or when he went to go visit his (or khadijah's) cousin who was a priest.



Samatar then changed arguments and decided that I needed to answer his 'clear' question twice which was basically, "if christians pulled matt 25 from other sources outside of christianity would they pobblity, definately or maybe plagerised them."

He doesn't seem to understand that the gospel of matthew, along with luke, mark and john were accounting Jesus's ministry. They were, in essence, historians who either his disciple or an evangelist.

But he doesn't seem to get that historical documents can be verified as fact whereas fictional stories are drawn from other source tales. The emperor's new clothes bt hans christian anderson is an example. It came from arabic and jewish fairy tales. The ending and theme were different from the original.


Maybe in his 'debate jihad' he's been told that the Koran borrows heavily from the bible and jewish fairytales, so he thinks by turning it around he's weaking the christian polemic but that could only work if the bible was fairytales too.

It's not. It's a series of historical documents

But he's not the only muslim who does this. Many do. It's like they love their prophet so much that they don't stop to think that what they're saying ain't really what their saying. Kim, Osama and Mahdi also go this way too.

That's my opinion. This and a buck fifty will get you a cup of coffee at the McDonald's drive thru.

Mary said...

". . . Muslims are commanded to follow the example of a man who was a horrible sinner and couldn't even follow the simplest commands of the Qur'an."

Exactly. The Qur'an and the Sunnah, if a person is allowed to actually think about what it says, sees that Mohammad and Mohammad's Allah had no consistency, only desire and fulfillment of desire when it suited Mohammad.

Lleychino said...

Simple question that needs simple answer from Muslims.

If God sent Muhammad to give people the true revelation.
Why did he compromise with other believes by saying:

"Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion." (Surah 109:6)

"No compulsion is there in religion." (Surah 2:256)"

What kind of prophet is this?

The true prophets I know NEVER compromised with false beliefs/teachings though they were persecuted, tortured, even got killed for that.

Taste Christianity said...

Please visit this blog:

http://falsreligions.blogspot.in/p/islam.html

Samatar Mohamed said...

The Quran says to treat your wives equally. When I said equally, I meant in the sense of food, clothing, sex etc... I did not mean favouring one wife over another, Or loving one wife more than another. We are human, and it is in our nature to have a greater feelings for some more than others. So when you say that the prophet (pbuh) favoured or loved Aisha more than others, that is because he cannot control his heart with regards to who he loves more. For example, I can treat my children equally, but still love one of my children more than the other. Allah (swt) knows however, that we as humans (even the prophet (pbuh)) cannot perfectly treat our wives equally, hence, the revelation of surah 4, Ayat 129.

"You will never be able to do perfect justice between wives even if it is your ardent desire, so do not incline too much to one of them (by giving her more of your time and provision) so as to leave the other hanging (i.e. neither divorced nor married). And if you do justice, and do all that is right and fear Allâh by keeping away from all that is wrong, then Allâh is Ever Oft¬Forgiving, Most Merciful. (129)"

So as you can see, Allah (swt) knows that we cannot perfectly treat our wives equally even if we tried our best, so Allah (swt) tells to not neglect the other wife like she is not a wife at all, rather put your effort into treating them equally despite our shortcomings.


With regard to Sahih al-Bukhari 3:766, it is quite clear that Sauda gave up her night with the prophet willingly, so there is no injustice their. It would only be injustice if the prophet (pbuh) spent the night with Aisha against Sauda's permission.

Derek Adams said...

Samatar might not respond to this as criticism of Mohammed is forbidden and offensive.

Samatar you got to make up your mind eventually, can you read criticisms like this or are you Muslim? If you are Muslim you have to brush this off as a hate site and never return.

Dk
www.AnsweringAbraham.com

betwixt said...

@Samatar

So Allah knows that men are incapable of treating their wives equally and yet allows polygamy anyway.

Basically, Allah says, "I know you will never be able to treat your wives equally, but go ahead and marry more than one as long as you think you can treat them equally." Does this make sense to you? It almost seems like Allah is mocking man for his shortcoming by encouraging him to fail. What's the point of telling you to "put your effort into treating them equally despite our shortcomings" when you don't have it in you (by Allah's will) to treat your wives equally?

You cannot even argue free will here, because Allah openly tells you it's alright for you to be polygamous--knowing that you will SIN because it is simply not in your nature to have a healthy, loving polygamous marriage. He gives you permission to sin! How can you not see this from the verse that you, yourself, quoted?

You will NEVER be able to do perfect justice between wives EVEN IF IT IS YOUR ARDENT DESIRE, so do not incline too much to one of them (by giving her more of your time and provision) so as to leave the other hanging (i.e. neither divorced nor married)..."

Holy tamoly, man. There is a connection to all this, you know. Those verses don't exist in isolation. Why would he tell you it's alright to do something while warning you that you will fail at it at the same time--and be condemned to sin by it to boot? With Allah, there is no absolute right or wrong.

I don't doubt your sincere desire to be close to the One True God, Samatar. I just hope and pray that you will allow Him to show you HIS truth. God reached out to us first through Jesus Christ. He did not simply sit on his heavenly throne and watch us fail in our attempts to get close to his holiness. I hope you will truly submit to His love and mercy and let Himself be known to you. That's all He asks. Don't let your fear of being led astray stop you. If you don't have confidence in God's desire to show you the way to His Kingdom, then perhaps it's time to rethink your belief of God's nature. God bless.

Nakdimon said...

Samatar, didnt you know that Muhammad was about to divorce Sauda because she became old and fat? (bukhari vol 6, book 60, number 318, muslim book 08 no. 3451) Didnt you know that the reason why she gave Aisha her night was to "please Muhammad", as the hadith says, in order for him to not divorce her? Did you? So here is your prophet, supposedly the best example of a husband to his wife/wives, marrying a woman and when she becomes old and heavy instead of taking care of her he threatens to dump her and only when she decides to give up her time for the younger cutey Aisha Muhammad decides to keeps her. More importantly, you claimed that having sex with his women was one of the criteria of "equal treatment", yet this is exactly where your prophet failed to treat his wives equally. (and we can go into more criteria if you like) Shall we therefore conclude, Samatar, that your prophet failed to meet the standards of the Quran and thus wasnt the ideal husband?

CristoTeAma said...

Samatar said: "The Quran says to treat your wives equally. When I said equally, I meant in the sense of food, clothing, SEX etc"

But the problem is that even when it came to sex,Muhammad prefered to stay with the Young Aisha than his older wives, so even on that he failed... BTW The quran doesn't specify that, it actually say you must treat them in the same way, but it also says that it is almost impossible so i don't understand why the quran would say that if it is talking about stuffs like clothes, food, etc.

cheryl_maree said...

Samatar Mohamed said...
The Quran says to treat your wives equally. When I said equally, I meant in the sense of food, clothing, sex etc... I did not mean favouring one wife over another, Or loving one wife more than another. We are human, and it is in our nature to have a greater feelings for some more than others. So when you say that the prophet (pbuh) favoured or loved Aisha more than others, that is because he cannot control his heart with regards to who he loves more. For example, I can treat my children equally, but still love one of my children more than the other. Allah (swt) knows however, that we as humans (even the prophet (pbuh)) cannot perfectly treat our wives equally, hence, the revelation of surah 4, Ayat 129

ok Samatar now you are telling us what the word equally means well I hate to be the bearer of bad news but equally means just that, EQUAL! if Muhammed's Quran meant something different, since it is supposed to be CLEAR, then I take equally to mean just that. Now Muhammed could have said it just means in taking care of there needs to be equal, no but thats not what it says, now is it?

cheryl_maree said...

Samatar said:
You will never be able to do perfect justice between wives even if it is your ardent desire, so do not incline too much to one of them (by giving her more of your time and provision) so as to leave the other hanging (i.e. neither divorced nor married). And if you do justice, and do all that is right and fear Allâh by keeping away from all that is wrong, then Allâh is Ever Oft¬Forgiving, Most Merciful. (129)"
So why say to treat them equal in the first place, for a book that claims to be clear, I have a hard time because allah of the quran keeps confusing me!

sebsite said...

Dear brother,
What about sura 4:23 "If you didn't have sex with your wife, you are allowed to marry (or to have sex with) her daughter"

Radical Moderate said...

ON a totatly un related note.

I'm sure you all have heard by now. That a US soldier is accused of going on a murderous rampage in Afgansitan killing woman and children.

If the allegations are true which they do look to be. I hope this man is brought to justice for these murders, and for betraying his fellow soldiers, and for betraying the American people and constitution he swore to defend.

A few observations I would like to make at the moment.

1. All though there is outrage over these murders, and rightfully so there should be. However at this moment there is no bloody protests and riots as there was with the Quran burning.

This could change at any momenet however it seems that the "CLERICS" are calling for Calm on this unlike the Quran burning.

2. Although I do believe this man should be brought to justice. I wonder what the Muslim response would be if the judge in this future case decided to just FORGIVE HIM. Based on his previous good deeds. Would the Muslims find this to be Just?

Rafik Responde ao Isla said...

It might be interesting for some to know that Samatar is a Somali name. We might be dealing with an Al Shabab follower.

Diana said...

I don't know if anyone else here is interested in descriptive statistics, but perhaps someone would like to make an article/video out of the following information?

First up, let us acknowledge that Mohammed was not particularly interested in supporting the widows of Medinan Muslims. He considered that an ansar problem. He expected the ansar to look after their own communities, following the example set by the Meccans.

Second, what was the gender ratio in Medina? Only six Meccan Muslims died at the Battle of Badr in 624, and one is known to have been a bachelor. Does a maximum of five extra widows really place an intolerable social burden on a community of 300?

A year later at the Battle of Uhud, four Meccan warriors died. One was single. Two of the widows were immediately remarried to bachelors, whose only wives they remained. The fourth warrior appears to have left three widows (but I'd need to check some dates to be certain of that), so in his case polygamy was the cause of, not the solution to, the problem of impoverished women. I don’t know what happened to these ladies, but that’s a maximum of just three extra widows for the 300 Meccan Muslims to support.

If we include ansar Muslims in the equation, a total of 65 warriors died at Uhud, and between them they left about thirty widows. This suggests that (at least until Uhud) there were plenty of single men in the community. I recently read in a Muslim article that the thirty Uhud widows had been "half the married Muslim women in Medina". I take this with a grain of salt as no primary source was cited, but obviously there were far more than sixty Muslim men – even after Uhud! Even if we allow for a few teenaged virgins to swell the numbers of women, it doesn't seem that there was a desperate difficulty in finding a bridegroom.

Third, the oft-cited claim that Mohammed had to marry his friends' widows in order to provide for them is doubtful. In the first place, he arrived in Medina barely able to provide for two wives and two daughters, and the situation didn't significantly improve until 628, seven wives later. So what kind of home was he providing? In the second place, only four of his thirteen wives were friends' widows. How great a strain on the community were these four widows?

Diana said...

1. Sawda lived with her father, brother and grown-up son. Her brother was verbally unkind, but she was certainly not starving. Why couldn't her father or her son have pulled their weight to keep her brother in line? She married Mohammed at a time when he was the most unpopular man in Mecca and there were hardly any single female Muslims. The fat, plain, middle-aged Sawda, whose first husband had been his cousin, was frankly the best "catch" that Mohammed could make for himself at that point in his life. Once he became a powerful man in Medina, look how he treated poor, faithful Sawda!

2. Hafsa was the daughter of Mohammed's second-best friend Umar, one of the few Muslims in Medina who actually had some financial capital. So even if there had been a shortage of eligible Muslim men in Medina, which there wasn’t, Hafsa would not have been one of the women to be left on the shelf. Wait... capital? Was that the reason 54-year-old Mohammed went around telling his friends not to court 18-year-old Hafsa as he wanted her for himself? Hard to say, as the girl is also alleged to have been good-looking...

3. Zeynab bint Khuzayma's husband had died at Badr. But how destitute was she? She had an uncle, who acted as her legal guardian in her marriage to Mohammed and underwrote her $2,000 dower. So even if Mohammed hadn't decided to become her fifth husband by making her his fifth wife, it doesn't sound as if she was on the streets. Three of her previous husbands had been Mohammed's cousins, but was marrying her the only way he could discharge his responsibilities to her?

4. Hind bint Suhayl, aka Umm Salama bint Abi Umayya, was by contrast truly destitute. She had no money and four young children. Her family were hostile to her because she was a Muslim, and as her first husband had been both her first and her second cousin, she didn't have any in-laws who were not her own family. Abu Bakr, Umar and Mohammed all kindly invited her to join their harems, but Hind refused them. She had loved her first husband and didn't want to remarry. Mohammed had to pressure her quite hard before she reluctantly accepted him. (Did we mention that Hind was so beautiful that Ayesha was seriously worried?) Was remarriage really the grieving Hind’s only possible passport out of poverty? She would have made a superb journalist or civil judge. Perhaps the community that boasted of its respect for women could have found a way to pay her to do those jobs.

Oh, and those other nine wives of Mohammed? Everyone agrees that Khadija, Ayesha and Zeynab bint Jahsh are exceptions to the “destitute widow” rule. Rayhana, Juwayriya and Safiya were only widows because Mohammed had killed their husbands; the hadiths make it very clear that these three women hated him. Ramla was living in luxury in Abyssinia until Mohammed proposed marriage in order to help bring down her father. She was so devoted to Islam that she wasn’t at all bothered that Mohammed had already tried to assassinate her father once and that his warriors had killed her brother at Badr. There was no particular reason for the marriage with Maymuna, who was living in bourgeois comfort with her Meccan family. Mariya was a very beautiful slave, and Mohammed for some reason decided that she could earn her keep more efficiently by sleeping with him than by continuing to do light housework for Hafsa. He could also have manumitted her and let her choose her own husband, but this option doesn’t seem to have occurred to anyone.

Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Posted this on another post by mistake. Anyway


Looks like Samatar won't be coming back he got knocked out of the ball park.



"Take me out to the ball game,
Take me out with the crowd.
Buy me some peanuts and cracker jack,
I don't care if I never get back,
Let me root, root, root for the home team,
If they don't win it's a shame.
For it's one, two, three strikes, you're out,
At the old ball game."

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Hezekiah

Lol, I've been busy, I am not obliged to reply everyday you know. Now, the main point that David brought up would be that the prophet (pbuh)did not treat the wives equally because he did not distribute time with each of them fairly. But what is important to note is that the night was actually for Sauda, but she willingly gave it up in her fear that the prophet (pbuh) would divorce her. This is not the first time that a wife of the prophet (pbuh) had willingly given up their night that the prophet (pbuh) had intended for them.

" Sahih Bukhari

Volume 3, Book 47, Number 766:

Narrated Aisha:

Whenever Allah's Apostle wanted to go on a journey, he would draw lots as to which of his wives would accompany him. He would take her whose name came out. He used to fix for each of them a day and a night. But Sauda bint Zam'a gave up her (turn) day and night to 'Aisha, the wife of the Prophet in order to seek the pleasure of Allah's Apostle (by that action)."

"The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was, once, angry with Safiyyah and so Safiyyah went to Aisha and said to her, "Could you make the Prophet (peace be upon him) forgive me and I would give up my day for you?" Aisha said, "Yes." Aisha then took her yellow veil and perfumed it and then sat beside the Prophet (peace be upon him) who said, "O Aisha, keep away from me, it is not your day". Aisha said, "It is Allah's Grace and He bestows it upon whomever He wants," and then she told him the whole matter and he forgave Saffiyyah. (Ibn Majah, An-Nikah, vol. 1 p.634, Cited in Muhammad Fathi Mus'ad, The Wives of the Prophet Muhammad: Their Strives and Their Lives, p.174)."

As you can see, the prophet (pbuh) set specific days for his wives, and was therefore providing equal treatment. Only when a wife would voluntarily give up their night would the prophet (pbuh) not engage with them as was originally planned.

I have yet to come across a narration without gaps that shows that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce Sauda. And those of you that believe that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce her because she got older and less pretty should be aware that Sauda was never perceived as an attractive lady yet he married her. And those who claim that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce her because of her age would have to be aware that the prophet at the age of 25 married Khadija who was 40 at that time. My point is, just because Sauda feared divorce, does not mean that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce her. And just to repeat, Sauda willingly gave up their night, that does not mean that the prophet was being unjust with her.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Derek Adams

"Samatar you got to make up your mind eventually, can you read criticisms like this or are you Muslim? If you are Muslim you have to brush this off as a hate site and never return."

The reason I show up to this site is because I personally have a level of respect for David wood although I've never met him. I enjoy listening to debates by David wood and I think he an incredibly smart guy.

@Rafik

I am Somali if you were wondering. However, I do not support Al-shabab at all.

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

========= quote ========

The Quran says to treat your wives equally. When I said equally, I meant in the sense of food, clothing, sex etc...

I did not mean favouring one wife over another, Or loving one wife more than another.

========= reply ========

But, that was part of the implication of being equal. Are you changing your view to escape the implications of what was pointed out to you?



========= quote ========

We are human, and it is in our nature to have a greater feelings for some more than others.

So when you say that the prophet (pbuh) favoured or loved Aisha more than others, that is because he cannot control his heart with regards to who he loves more.

========= reply ========

That is part of the reason to have one wife only. That also condemns Mohammad, Islamic marriages, as well as right hand posessions. Don't you think that female sex slaves are also human and have certain needs that need to be addressed in the same manner as with wives? I don't condone that activity; but, for the sake of discussion, don't you think that the right hand posessions should be equals too?



========= quote ========

For example, I can treat my children equally, but still love one of my children more than the other. Allah (swt) knows however, that we as humans (even the prophet (pbuh)) cannot perfectly treat our wives equally, hence, the revelation of surah 4, Ayat 129.

"You will never be able to do perfect justice between wives even if it is your ardent desire, so do not incline too much to one of them (by giving her more of your time and provision) so as to leave the other hanging (i.e. neither divorced nor married). And if you do justice, and do all that is right and fear Allâh by keeping away from all that is wrong, then Allâh is Ever Oft¬Forgiving, Most Merciful. (129)"

========= reply ========

If Allah knew that you couldn't treat them equally, then he should have never allowed polygamy. Furthermore, he should have outlawed relationships with right hand possessions. They would just as detrimental to a man.

Loving your children is not the same as loving your wife; so, I caution any attempt to extract any true comparison to a wife. There is no real problem with loving your children differently since they are all different in beharior, needs, expectations, etc. and are related to the parents on a totally different level. Marriage, however, is totally different. It is a unique relationship that is supposed to exemplify the order of creation that God made. In the book of Genesis (Bible), God made man, then woman, and then married the man and woman and they produced children. One man married to one woman was the optimal situation.

simple_truth said...

continued............

Samatar Mohamed said...

========= quote ========

So as you can see, Allah (swt) knows that we cannot perfectly treat our wives equally even if we tried our best, so Allah (swt) tells to not neglect the other wife like she is not a wife at all, rather put your effort into treating them equally despite our shortcomings.

========= reply ========

But, as you say, it is impossible; so, why did Allah place Muslims in that impossible situation? Why didn't he just outright outlaw it? I have an answer for that. He had no wisdom to realize what a problem it would cause, and he had alterior motives to satisfy Mohammad by getting him out of difficult situations where he was confronted with a dilema that he couldn't otherwise get out of. It was almost always a matter of conveneince to bring these type of revelations to prevent Mohammad from looking like a hypocrite and an immoral example. Allah couldn't afford to let Mohamamd look like fraud of a prophet.



========= quote ========

With regard to Sahih al-Bukhari 3:766, it is quite clear that Sauda gave up her night with the prophet willingly, so there is no injustice their. It would only be injustice if the prophet (pbuh) spent the night with Aisha against Sauda's permission.

========= reply ========

As already pointed out, Mohamamd wanted to divorce her because she was old and probably unattractive at her age. In fact, in order to remain in the marriage, she gave some concessions to Mohammad and Mohammad took them. This is stated in ibn Kathir's tafsir below concerning 4:129.

"Allah states, and thus legislates accordingly, that sometimes, the man inclines away from his wife, sometimes towards her and sometimes he parts with her.

In the first case, when the wife fears that her husband is steering away from her or deserting her, she is allowed to forfeit all or part of her rights, such as provisions, clothing, dwelling, and so forth, and the husband is allowed to accept such concessions from her. Hence, there is no harm if she offers such concessions, and if her husband accepts them.

This is why Allah said, there is no sin on them both if they make terms of peace between themselves; He then said, and making peace is better, (than divorce)."

So, Sawda didn't willingly agree; for, she was forced to accept Mohammad's solution to remain his wife. Please represent your religion honestly. It doesn't make me feel comfortable when I have people telling half truths and/or being deceptive.

Nakdimon said...

@Hez,

Thats what you get when you want to treat a mere human being as if he is some deity. Human beings sin, hence Muhammad was a sinner. Muslims want to elevate Muhammad to the status of Yeshua, the Divine Son who became the Perfect Man.

Untill and unless Muslims come to grips with this tiny little fact that Muhammad was as flawed as the average human being, they will have a mountain of endictments as a testimony against Muhammad to deal with.

cheryl_maree said...

Samatar Mohamed said:
So as you can see, Allah (swt) knows that we cannot perfectly treat our wives equally even if we tried our best, so Allah (swt) tells to not neglect the other wife like she is not a wife at all, rather put your effort into treating them equally despite our shortcomings.
So is that why Muhammed gave two nights to Aisha so he wouldn't have to sleep with his wife that wasn't as young anymore. What about her needs as a woman, did your prophet think he was being fair? I don't think so and he just wanted to be the pediphile that he was.

cheryl_maree said...

@Samatar Mohamed
How can you keep defending that nasty man you call a prophet? You know he was a immoral pig and yet you act like it's ok. What is wrong with you?

ixthus said...

Narrated Aisha posted by Samatar

"The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was, once, angry with Safiyyah and so Safiyyah went to Aisha and said to her, "Could you make the Prophet (peace be upon him) forgive me and I would give up my day for you?"

So Aisha allows herself to be prostituted out to get forgiveness for another woman..that mohammed wouldn't forgive on his own (how very merciful of him). It seems this woman knew who mohammed would listen to..his favorite Aisha. In the same comment he left he mentions a woman giving Aisha her day to gain favor with mohammed..why didn't giving up her day to Aisha get favor with mohammed..mmmm.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Simple truth

"If Allah knew that you couldn't treat them equally, then he should have never allowed polygamy. Furthermore, he should have outlawed relationships with right hand possessions. They would just as detrimental to a man."

It seems that many people in this blog like you are questioning why Allah (swt) would command muslims to treat their wives equally only to inform them that would not be able to do it in a perfect sense. Is it actually not that hard to understand really. When God almighty tells us to treat them equally, God does not mean it in the perfect sense, and he even emphasizes it when he says that we cannot achieve equality even if we desired it. Therefore, Allah (swt) gives us a more specific understanding as to what he means by treating our wives equally. He does not mean that if I spend 10 hours, 42 minutes, and 25 seconds with my first wife, that I must do the same for the other. Rather, Allah (swt) means that we must not neglect our other wives, but rather treat them fairly. And from the sources I provided you can see that the prophet (pbuh) did actually set specific nights for his wives equally. Only when a wife would willingly give up her night would the prophet (pbuh) not engage with her. God almighty knows our shortcomings, and says that if we strive to treat our wives equally, then God is all merciful.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Simple truth

"As already pointed out, Mohamamd wanted to divorce her because she was old and probably unattractive at her age. In fact, in order to remain in the marriage, she gave some concessions to Mohammad and Mohammad took them. This is stated in ibn Kathir's tafsir below concerning 4:129."

I already responded to this claim. I'll repost it again.

"I have yet to come across a narration without gaps that shows that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce Sauda. And those of you that believe that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce her because she got older and less pretty should be aware that Sauda was never perceived as an attractive lady yet he married her. And those who claim that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce her because of her age would have to be aware that the prophet at the age of 25 married Khadija who was 40 at that time. My point is, just because Sauda feared divorce, does not mean that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce her. And just to repeat, Sauda willingly gave up their night, that does not mean that the prophet was being unjust with her."

And the narration in the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir does explicitly say that the prophet (pbuh) was intending to divorce her, and that in fact, he sent sauda a message to divorce her. However, Ibn Kathir says that it is a mursal (unnatached, or contains gaps) narration. Therefore, muslims such as me hold no authority to mursal/ ghareeb hadiths. Unless you can show me a strong narration showing that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce Sauda, I will not hold that the prophet (pbuh) determined to divorce her, especially because of her old age and lack of attractiveness which I already commented on.

Deleting said...

samatar said, " Ibn Kathir says that it is a mursal (unnatached, or contains gaps) narration. Therefore, muslims such as me hold no authority to mursal/ ghareeb hadiths. Unless you can show me a strong narration showing that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce Sauda, I will not hold that the prophet (pbuh) determined to divorce her, especially because of her old age and lack of attractiveness which I already commented on."

So....you're going to keep making excuses for him.
Glad to see nothing has changed.

Kangaroo said...

Seems like the only repulsive hypocrite here is David (and his dead brained zombie followers).

Billy said...

Samatar wrote: With regard to Sahih al-Bukhari 3:766, it is quite clear that Sauda gave up her night with the prophet willingly, so there is no injustice their. It would only be injustice if the prophet (pbuh) spent the night with Aisha against Sauda's permission.

David wrote: Samatar, I beg you, please start reading your sources. Sauda gave up her night with Muhammad because he was going to divorce her, leaving her as an old and starving widow. So she made the agreement in order to survive, and Muhammad agreed because it allowed him to spend more time with his child-bride.

Samatar wrote: I have yet to come across a narration without gaps that shows that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce Sauda.

My question: Smatar, If Sauda had “willingly” transferred her conjugal rights to Ayesha to preclude divorce and subsequent destitution, would you consider that behavior of Mohammad worthy of contempt? Or is that type of behavior acceptable for Mohammad and his followers?

Diana said...

So let me see if I have this... Muhammad was not required to love all his wives equally because one cannot control emotion. But he was required to give them all an equal formula.

(1) An equal-sized cottage next to the mosque. (Tick. None of them ever complained that her cottage was smaller than another's.)

(2) Equal rations of food. (Cross. Ayesha was given more food and better-quality food. Yet she still complained that, until the fall of Khaybar, she never had quite enough to eat!)

(3) Equal rations of clothes. (No information about this one.)

(4) Equal time with Muhammad. (Cross. When Sawda waived her rights, Muhammad did not divide the days equally by his other wives. He simply gave twice as much time to Ayesha.)

Yes, it is possible that Muhammad never seriously considered divorcing Sawda and the problem was only her own imagination. But why did he accept the deal she offered? Why didn't he say, "Sawda, you are my wife, and you will continue to have equal rights, just like all my other wives"? The fact that he accepted the bargain so readily actually suggests to me that Muhammad did not intend to deal fairly with Sawda.

Actually Muhammad received a special revelation from Allah stating that the equal-time rule only applied to ordinary Muslims and not to himself. He could put off the turn of any wife he liked for any reason he liked. It was at this revelation that Ayesha made her famous remark: "It seems to me that Allah is very quick to accommodate your convenience!"

But if the perfect man could not manage polygamy without special concessions, why should any other man be able to manage it?

Yes, Safiya voluntarily gave up her night with Muhammad in exchange for forgiveness. And Ayesha pleaded Safiya's case in exchange for Muhammad's attention. Frankly, that was a win/win bargain in a situation that was otherwise very grim. Ayesha should have had the right to be Muhammad's only wife (technically, he had married her even before he married Sawda) so why should she have had to tolerate Safiya at all? And Safiya should have had the right to prevent Muhammad's ever touching her at all. After the way he had treated every other man she had ever loved, her statement in Al-Baihaqi 4:230 is totally unsurprising.

"I hated Muhammad more than any other man in the world..."

Deleting said...

Kangaroo said, "Seems like the only repulsive hypocrite here is David (and his dead brained zombie followers)."

And what have you contributed to the conversation other than nasty polemic rebuttals and insults?

Keep spewing your verom while us who are dead brained zombies engage in conversation.

Kangaroo said...

@ Diana

She said that because the Prophet had successfully defeated the filthy and rebellious Jewish tribe of hers. But she changed her mind later on when she actually met him.

Diana said...

@ Kangaroo

(I know you're being sarcastic, but I'll play along...)

Then why didn't she jump into bed with him the same day he tortured her second husband to death? Why did she refuse to dismount her camel without giving a single word of apology (not even that she was menstruating, which actually appears to have been the truth)? Why did it take her 24 hours to think up the story that she needed to save him from the vengeful Jews?

Well, if you don't like the "she hated him" theory (perhaps Safiya was a very shallow person who only pretended she had once hated Muhammad in order to appear dutiful towards her father... I don't think!), I do have an alternative hypothesis.

Safiya was captured in the war and assigned to a common soldier. She was presumably dragged out of Khaybar with no luggage or possessions, and if she had a purse at her belt or a wedding ring on her finger, these would have been forfeit to the Islamic state.

Yet a couple of weeks later, we find her eating lunch with Muhammad's daughter Fatima, desperately trying to befriend her by making her a gift of a beautiful gold necklace and earrings. Later on, she also gives valuable jewellery to Muhammad's other wives.

Come again? How did she carry all those valuables out of Kyabar - presumably without Muhammad's knowledge?

Why wouldn't she let him touch her?

It seems to me that her husband Kinana knew exactly where (at least some of) the treasures of Khaybar were. And the "treasure" that he actually died to defend was not the gold and jewels.

Does that theory not break your heart?

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

============== quote ===============

"If Allah knew that you couldn't treat them equally, then he should have never allowed polygamy. Furthermore, he should have outlawed relationships with right hand possessions. They would just as detrimental to a man."

It seems that many people in this blog like you are questioning why Allah (swt) would command muslims to treat their wives equally only to inform them that would not be able to do it in a perfect sense. Is it actually not that hard to understand really. When God almighty tells us to treat them equally, God does not mean it in the perfect sense, and he even emphasizes it when he says that we cannot achieve equality even if we desired it.

============== reply ===============

That still doesn't change the fact that he creates a situation that is impossible to obtain instead of limiting to one wife so that the problem goes away--at least the part concerning equal treatment. Do you see what I mean?

Surely, I know that we can't keep commandments perfectly; but why would Allah, in turn, promote the circumstances that put Muslims in that position where they are guaranteed to fail? If Allah had wisdom, wouldn't he have just prohibited multiple wives and took the burden off of Muslim men? Wouldn't that make sense to you? Even with the prohibition with alcohol, Allah eventually outlawed it altogether so that the problem was dealt with. He left no room to abuse and to be tempted by it. If you don't see, Allah is tempting you to sin by leaving the door open to engage in something that is impossible for you to do. The solution is very simpe: limit to one wife. Let me remind you that relationships with right hand possessions also pose the same problem, although they are not considered wives.




============== quote ===============

Therefore, Allah (swt) gives us a more specific understanding as to what he means by treating our wives equally. He does not mean that if I spend 10 hours, 42 minutes, and 25 seconds with my first wife, that I must do the same for the other. Rather, Allah (swt) means that we must not neglect our other wives, but rather treat them fairly. And from the sources I provided you can see that the prophet (pbuh) did actually set specific nights for his wives equally. Only when a wife would willingly give up her night would the prophet (pbuh) not engage with her. God almighty knows our shortcomings, and says that if we strive to treat our wives equally, then God is all merciful.

============== reply ===============

I understand what you are saying, but equally means equally. That means that each wife needs to get her turn equally and fairly. Also, fairness is not based upon what the husband feels without the wife being totally satisfied too. The hadith quoted supporting 4:129 states that it was Mohammad who seem to lack interest in Sawdah and threatened to divorce her. Upon the threat of divorce, she gave up concessions just to remain his wife. I don't see how you can say that she freely accomodated Mohammad. How is it fair treatment to threaten divorce on a wife because he has lost interest in her? A marriage is not some disposable, circumstantial institution where the man gets to call the shots like we see with Mohammad. At least Bibically, when one marries, it is supposed to be for life and through thick and think. Not liking how someone looks or because she is old is not a grounds for divorce. Jesus says that divorce was not intended and should only be an option in cases of adultery, fornication and similar immoral sexual situations.

I don't see how you can claim that was fair since she gave up concession that were due to her otherwise?

simple_truth said...

Samatar Mohamed said...

============ quote =============

I already responded to this claim. I'll repost it again.

"I have yet to come across a narration without gaps that shows that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce Sauda. And those of you that believe that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce her because she got older and less pretty should be aware that Sauda was never perceived as an attractive lady yet he married her. And those who claim that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce her because of her age would have to be aware that the prophet at the age of 25 married Khadija who was 40 at that time. My point is, just because Sauda feared divorce, does not mean that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce her. And just to repeat, Sauda willingly gave up their night, that does not mean that the prophet was being unjust with her."

============ reply =============

Her attractivenes really is irrelevant except that is was mentioned in the tafsir as a reason for the fear of divorce. If this is not one of the reasons, then is not explained is why did she fear this and why did Mohammad accepted her concessions if it weren't true? Even if it weren't true, why didn't Mohamamd do the right thing and turn the concessions down and made sure that she didn't have anything to fear and continued his regular relationship with her? No matter how you look at it, with the information we have available, Mohammad acted incorrectly and immorally towards her and failed to keep Allah's commands in the process.

Again, Sawdah gave up her time with Mohammad based upon a fear. You can say that it wasn't because she was found unattractive and/or old; but, that really doesn't answer the question of why she felt fear and why Mohammad treated her unfairly. She didn't give up her time because she was being such as nice and considerate wife. She felt some negative motive on Mohammad's part. This kind of coercion is similar to the topic of rape when Mohammad's army captured their enemy. How much power and authority does the other party have in providing an amicable and fair outcome? Do both sides have equal authority to refuse concession and to request concessions? The answer in both cases is NO. It is crystal clear from the tafsir that the woman is the one that has to concede. The wife does not have such authority to approach the husband to divorce and to ask the husband to give concession to her for missing his turn with her. Do you not see that inequality and unfairness in the whole situation?


============ quote =============

And the narration in the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir does explicitly say that the prophet (pbuh) was intending to divorce her, and that in fact, he sent sauda a message to divorce her. However, Ibn Kathir says that it is a mursal (unnatached, or contains gaps) narration. Therefore, muslims such as me hold no authority to mursal/ ghareeb hadiths. Unless you can show me a strong narration showing that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce Sauda, I will not hold that the prophet (pbuh) determined to divorce her, especially because of her old age and lack of attractiveness which I already commented on.

============== reply ===============

Ok, let's look at it this way: Mohamamd accepted the terms given by Sawdah. Now, if he is fair as Allah commands, why did he accept? Why did sawdah fear divorce? Evidently, she saw something happening that lead her to fear this. Why did Mohammad accept her concession if he found favor in her? Don't you see that no matter which way you try to explain this, you leave you and your prophet condemed by his act. There is no evidence that I have read that indicates that Sawdah had done any wrong; so, why would Mohammad even consider a presumably faithful wife to give concessions to him for something that she was rightfully owed according to Allah? Your prophet has some moral issues to explain to his followers. Of course, he can't defend himself since he is dead.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Cheryl

"How can you keep defending that nasty man you call a prophet? You know he was a immoral pig and yet you act like it's ok. What is wrong with you?"

I understand you clearly hate the prophet (pbuh) but insulting him will not prove anything. I assume you are a christian and you believe that Islam is false. If you want to show people the falsehood of their religion, you do not drive out darkness with darkness. You do it by turning the switch and bringing light. It's better to light a candle then to curse the dark. Insulting gets no where. Therefore, I encourage you to bring up points showing refutations in a civil manner without resorting to insults.

simple_truth said...

Kangaroo said...

"Seems like the only repulsive hypocrite here is David (and his dead brained zombie followers)."

That is if we don't include the dimwit that responds with the above state of mind. The first name caller is normally the one guilty of the offense. Looks like you, Kangaroo.

By your response, you concede that you can't defend the topic and has forfeited into defeat by not offering a quality reply to the points. How about presenting some intelligible, rational and persuasive reply instead of looking like some jackass. I suppose you like your personality too much to actually think and act like a mature adult, that is, of course, if you can be classified as such. Grow up for once!!

BTW, if you are simply attempting to get us off the topic, you have failed.

Billy said...

If a Muslim man is tired of his old, fat wife, he can threaten to divorce her. However, if the old wife wants to avoid divorce, she can give up her marital rights to the younger wife. This is a perfectly acceptable code of conduct in Islam because Muhammad did it, and he received Q 4:129 revelation to back up his behavior—how convenient.

Conclusion: Islamic morality is a perverted and depraved morality.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Unjust_Treatment_of_Wives_(Qur'an_4:129)

simple_truth said...

Billy said...

"If a Muslim man is tired of his old, fat wife, he can threaten to divorce her. However, if the old wife wants to avoid divorce, she can give up her marital rights to the younger wife. This is a perfectly acceptable code of conduct in Islam because Muhammad did it, and he received Q 4:129 revelation to back up his behavior—how convenient.

Conclusion: Islamic morality is a perverted and depraved morality.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Unjust_Treatment_of_Wives_(Qur'an_4:129)"

Well, Billy, I echo what you state; but, how many Muslims are objective enough to think outside of the Islamic paradigm and try to see reality of their religion and prophet as seen by us? They are told not to question Mohammad but to accept his actions as morally adequate and mandatory for all times. They are caught in a cultist mindset that trumps common sense and objectivity.

From reading excerpts of the Qu'ran, I can easily discern that they are trapped into obeying Mohammad reardless of reality.

Nakdimon said...

Samatar wrote: But what is important to note is that the night was actually for Sauda, but she willingly gave it up in her fear that the prophet (pbuh) would divorce her. This is not the first time that a wife of the prophet (pbuh) had willingly given up their night that the prophet (pbuh) had intended for them.

REPLY: Samatar, why do you think Muhammad wanted to divorce her other than the only reason given by the Islamic sources, namely, that she became old and unattractive to Muhammad? Please site your source(s) upon which your opinion is based.

Samatar wrote: "The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was, once, angry with Safiyyah and so Safiyyah went to Aisha and said to her, "Could you make the Prophet (peace be upon him) forgive me and I would give up my day for you?" Aisha said, "Yes." Aisha then took her yellow veil and perfumed it and then sat beside the Prophet (peace be upon him) who said, "O Aisha, keep away from me, it is not your day". Aisha said, "It is Allah's Grace and He bestows it upon whomever He wants," and then she told him the whole matter and he forgave Saffiyyah. (Ibn Majah, An-Nikah, vol. 1 p.634, Cited in Muhammad Fathi Mus'ad, The Wives of the Prophet Muhammad: Their Strives and Their Lives, p.174)."

As you can see, the prophet (pbuh) set specific days for his wives, and was therefore providing equal treatment. Only when a wife would voluntarily give up their night would the prophet (pbuh) not engage with them as was originally planned.

REPLY: Well, this shows that Aisha was Muhammad’s soft spot in all matters, for Muhammad was willing to do almost anything for sex with his child-bride. Aisha knew this and took full advantage of it too. The basis for Muhammad forgiving Safiyyah was nothing Safiyyah could do herself, other than to get Aisha to sleep with Muhammad. I mean, what does it tell YOU, Samatar, that the first thing Aisha did to get Muhammad to forgive Safiyyah is to seduce him with sex? And it immediately paid off too!

Nakdimon said...

2/3

Samatar wrote: I have yet to come across a narration without gaps that shows that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce Sauda.

REPLY: Samatar, the top Islamic scholars almost all agree that the reason for Muhammad’s planned divorce of Sauda is because she was getting old and fat. Such is the case with Ibn Kathir:

“Making peace is better than separation. An example of such peace can be felt in the story of Sawdah bint Zam'ah who when she became aged the prophet wanted to divorce her, but she made peace with him by offering the night he used to spend with her to A'isha so that he would keep her…In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that 'A'ishah said that when Sawdah bint Zam'ah BECAME OLD, she forfeited her day to 'A'ishah and the Prophet used to spend Sawdah's night with 'A'ishah” [Ibn Kathir Surat An-Nisa, Verse 147]

Al Tabari:
“Umra bin Ali & Zaid bin Ahram said: second by Abu Dawud, said: second by Sulaiman bin Mu'ath, from Simak bin Harb, from Ikrimah, from Ibn Abbas, said: Saudah feared divorce by the messenger of Allah, so she said: Do not divorce me, and do not share with me! And he did, and this verse was revealed: And if a woman fears ill usage or desertion on the part of her husband.
Muhammad bin Husain said: He claimed that this verse came down in reference to the messenger of Allah, and Saudah bint Zama'h who became old, then the messenger of Allah wanted to divorce her, but they agreed that he will keep her but give her day to Ai'sha.”

Ibn Al Arabi:
when Sauda bint Zam’ah became old, the Prophet of Allah wanted to divorce her. However, she preferred to remain amongst his wives, so she said, ‘Keep me, and my day shall belong to ‘Aisha’, and he did, and thus she died as one of his wives.”

Shaykh ul-Islam, Ibn Taymiyah says the following about Al-Tabari’s commentary:
“With regard to the Tafseers that are in circulation among the people, the most sound of them is the Tafseer of Muhammad ibn Jareer al-Tabari, for he mentions the views of the salaf with proven isnaads, and there is no bid’ah (innovation) in it, and he does not transmit reports from dubious sources such as Muqaatil ibn Bukayr and al-Kalbi.” (http://islamqa.info/en/ref/43778)

And we have already seen that Tabari confirms the intent of Muhammad to divorce Sauda because she became old.

Also, combining the two Sahih hadiths with eachother the Bukhari Hadith mentions the fear of Sauda of being divorced by Muhammad trying “to seek his pleasure”, while the Muslim Hadith fills in the blanks telling us that she did so when she became old.

Nakdimon said...

3/3

Samatar wrote: And those of you that believe that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce her because she got older and less pretty should be aware that Sauda was never perceived as an attractive lady yet he married her. And those who claim that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce her because of her age would have to be aware that the prophet at the age of 25 married Khadija who was 40 at that time. My point is, just because Sauda feared divorce, does not mean that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce her. And just to repeat, Sauda willingly gave up their night, that does not mean that the prophet was being unjust with her.

REPLY: And just to address your repetition, Sauda’s ONLY REASON to give up her night and give it to Aisha was to prevent Muhammad from divorcing her. The very fact that Muhammad never even tried to set Sauda straight when she begged him to keep her, never contended the thought of Sauda fearing his intent to divorce her shows that Sauda’s fear was warranted and that Muhammad intended to divorce her. And Muhammad marrying Khadija at 40 doesn’t say a thing about him wanting to divorce Sauda because of her age. Muhammad wasn’t a spring chicken himself at that time. Having younger wives, a popular Muhammad apparently wanted no part of an older Sauda. Also, to claim that Sauda was never perceived as an attractive lady is merely speculation. She was at least Muhammad’s age when he married her, so basically Muhammad went from Khadija (68) to Sauda (50). And even if she was unattractive, that doesn’t take away from the fact that she was his wife, whom Muhammad treated unequal to his other wives thereby violating the Quranic command.

Nakdimon

Kangaroo said...

Note that I only used the same insult by Wood against the Prophet back on him. And look at the zombies ^^ getting mad.
"

Kangaroo said...

Diana lol.

Ahh.. Just do your research please from reliable sites, instead of parroting what the repulsive hypocrites of this site tell you.

Kangaroo said...

He gave her the choice if she wanted to stay with her kin or get married to the Prophet, and guess what she chose? Calltomonotheism and learn more.

Deleting said...

Kangaroo said "And look at the zombies getting mad." good thing for you, roo, the zombies aren't dead brained enough to eat your brains. There's really not enough there to spread on ritz much less be impressed by it.

Deleting said...

Forgot to add that roo also said "Note that I only used the same insult by Wood against the prophet back on him...."
And you call us dead brained zombies.

David Wood said...

Kangaroo said: "Note that I only used the same insult by Wood against the Prophet back on him."

Nonsense. My "insult" against Muhammad was to call him out for commanding his followers to treat their wives equally while treating his own wives unequally. This is a classic example of a repulsive hypocrite.

But Kangaroo simply called me a name in response, without showing any blatant hypocrisy on my part.

So how is this the "same" insult? I've been called a hypocrite, but Muhammad actually was a hypocrite.

Billy said...

Hey Samatar and Kangaroo, I think I understand this treating your wives equally thing in the Quran. Here is my take:

When Muslims says that the Quran instructs them to treat their wives equally, it means that if one is married women such as Kim Kardashian and (young) Pam Anderson, he will naturally treat them equally—just like how Ayesha and the other chick were treated equally in status (equal rank). However, if you are married to Kim Kardashian and poor, old, overweight Sauda, then Allah understands that you can’t treat them equally, so it is okay to treat them unequally and unjustly (Q 4:129).

A confused Muslim: That would seem really unfair.

Learned Imam: What Allah has legislated, no one questions. Allah knows best. So shut up and submit!

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Simple truth

Sorry Nakdimon, I do not have time right now to comment your post, but I will sometime this week for sure.

“That still doesn't change the fact that he creates a situation that is impossible to obtain instead of limiting to one wife so that the problem goes away--at least the part concerning equal treatment. Do you see what I mean?

Surely, I know that we can't keep commandments perfectly; but why would Allah, in turn, promote the circumstances that put Muslims in that position where they are guaranteed to fail?”

I have explained this point multiple times simple truth. God tells us to put our effort into treating our wives equally even though we will fall short. For example, Allah (swt) commands muslims to avoid satan from misleading us, as I also believe is the same in Christianity. But you know that from time to time, we will listen to satan and he will mislead us for we are all sinners. So although God almighty desires we not sin, God knows that we in our nature are bound to sin, hence, when he tells us to put our effort into his commands even though we will fall short. You even pointed out that you cannot perfectly follow the Ten Commandments that God has given you yet you do not rebuke him for providing commandments that you cannot achieve perfectly. It is simple, God wants us to exert our effort, and if we try our best, then God will have mercy on us. The ones who should not have more than one wife is the person who neglects his other wife as if she is not even a wife. Hope I clarified this point.

“I understand what you are saying, but equally means equally. That means that each wife needs to get her turn equally and fairly. Also, fairness is not based upon what the husband feels without the wife being totally satisfied too. The hadith quoted supporting 4:129 states that it was Mohammad who seem to lack interest in Sawdah and threatened to divorce her. Upon the threat of divorce, she gave up concessions just to remain his wife. I don't see how you can say that she freely accomodated Mohammad. How is it fair treatment to threaten divorce on a wife because he has lost interest in her?”

I have addressed what Allah (swt) means by equally in my past answer. With regard to the fact that Muhammad (pbuh) threatened to divorce Sauda, I addressed that also. I have not come across a sahih narration that shows that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce Sauda. The sahih narrations only show that Sauda feared divorce. Why did she fear divorce, I have absolutely no idea as it is quite clear that she was given equal nights as the other wives, and there is no indication showing that she was not given equal rights to food, clothing, etc… That point remains unclear to me. Please provide me a sahih narration showing that Muhammad (pbuh) lost interest in Sauda, and that he was intending to divorce her, because I do not believe that for one second.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@simple truth


“Again, Sawdah gave up her time with Mohammad based upon a fear. You can say that it wasn't because she was found unattractive and/or old; but, that really doesn't answer the question of why she felt fear and why Mohammad treated her unfairly.”

Yes, I just pointed out that it most likely wasn’t the typical claim she feared divorce because she was not attractive anymore (she wasn’t even when Muhammad (pbuh) married her) and that she was old (as Muhammad (pbuh) married Khadija who was 15 years older than him at the time). Also, Nakdimon said that Muhammad (pbuh) was not really that young when he married her. Lol, Muhammad (pbuh) was only 25, I might be wrong but men at the age of 25 do not usually marry women who are 40, so age could not have been the problem. And some will claim that Muhammad (pbuh) did not have much women to choose from then. But we all know that as Islam was starting to grow, the meccans offered Muhammad (pbuh) riches and some of the most BEAUTIFUL WOMEN. Yet he declined and stayed loyal to his wife Khadija.

“Ok, let's look at it this way: Mohamamd accepted the terms given by Sawdah. Now, if he is fair as Allah commands, why did he accept? Why did sawdah fear divorce? Evidently, she saw something happening that lead her to fear this. Why did Mohammad accept her concession if he found favor in her?”

Whatever her reasons were, it surely was not because she was not receiving equal (not in a perfect sense) treatment as she never complained that she was not having her share of nights, or that the prophet (pbuh) was neglecting her, or that she was not receiving food. If the prophet (pbuh) was not neglecting herm and was fulfilling her desires sexually, and caring to her with regard to food, shelter, clothes. Then who are you to condemn the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) just because Sauda feared divorce. I really do not know why she feared divorce; I haven’t seen a sahih narration that explains why exactly she feared divorce. If you find one, please let me know.

David Wood said...

Muhammad married a rich woman who was much older than he was. Normally, people would look at such a marriage with extreme suspicion. But Muslims somehow see this marriage as evidence that Muhammad's intentions were pure.

This is the pattern in Islam. Regardless of what Muhammad did or said, it's evidence for Islam, never against Islam.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@David

"Muhammad married a rich woman who was much older than he was. Normally, people would look at such a marriage with extreme suspicion. But Muslims somehow see this marriage as evidence that Muhammad's intentions were pure."

Khadija inquired about a marriage to marry Muhammad (pbuh) through her friend though, and the prophet (pbuh) accepted, not the other way around.

Diana said...

Kangaroo, I am not at all inspired by the choice: "Marry me or rejoin your people." Muhammed had just KILLED Safiya's people!

Arabic is a context-based language. Literal translations often sound like: "We could do this or that, and you know what the result would be." Without being present in the original context, it's difficult to know what was meant.

Now, I don't know whether Mumhammad was actually proposing to kill Safiya. I would actually say not, because he disliked direct violence to pretty girls, and Safiya would have made a very useful hostage whether he slept with her or not. But everyone agrees that Safiya was in a state of shock - a state that apparently lasted for the next eight months. She did not know why she had been brought before the terrifying conqueror, so how was she likely to understand his words?

She had a few minutes earlier walked past the decapitated bodies of her husband, brother-in-law and grand-uncle. Her first husband (probably only what we would consider an ex-fiancé; but he was her cousin, and there's no evidence she didn't love him as such) had a few days earlier been slain in battle because he had been too ill to fight but had done his duty anyway. A year earlier, Muhammad had decapitated her father, brother, paternal uncle and every adult male on her mother's side of the family. The thug who had actually killed her second husband at Muhammad's orders a few hours earlier was the same man who, four years earlier, had killed their other cousin, Kaab ibn Al-Ashraf; and, a year after that, had brought the arrogant message that her tribe must leave Medina because Muhammad wanted their orchards. Remember, Safiya's clan lived alongside Muhammad in Medina for three years. Surrounded by all these horribly familiar faces, what was she supposed to infer from "rejoin your people"?

Actually I have never read the Baihaqi quote in any polemic from either side of the debate. Neither Muslims nor non-Muslims seem very aware of it. I read it in a secondary source written by a Muslim, and of course checked the primary source before I used it.

I am not aware of any other person who has the same theory about where the treasures of Khaybar were hidden. That is my own theory, inferred from my reading of the hadiths. You might call it original research. People who wanted to use the theory in a scholarly context that required citation of sources would actually have to cite me.

Diana said...

David Wood, are you aware of this essay? http://www.kister.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/khadija.pdf

Kister argues quite convincingly that, although Khadija's life is poorly documented, she was probably only 28 and not 40 when she married Muhammad. That certainly makes more sense to me of (a) how she managed to bear him so many children and (b) why he was so madly in love with her.

Raising the age of an important historical figure is a hagiographic convention designed to indicate the person's wisdom. Saying Khadija was married at 40 is like the Chinese tradition that Confucious was born at the age of 80. You are not meant to take it literally.

Similarly, when any female historical character is described as "beautiful", this should probably be taken as a hagiographic compliment attached to any woman who was not actually ugly. There is evidence that Ayesha, Zaynab, Rayhana, Juwayriya, Safiya and Mariya were actually gorgeous women. But Khadija, Hafsa, Zaynab b Khuzayma, Umm Salama, Ramla and Maymuna were probably only attractive in the ordinary way.

Was Sawda "elderly"? What hypocrisy! Her age is never recorded; but if she had been even one day older than Muhammad, she would have lived to be 104 years old. So I suspect she was actually about ten years younger than he was.

It is true that Sawda was obese. We learn this from Ayesha, who loved her devotedly as an auntie-figure (who was zero threat to Ayesha's own standing with Muhamamd), but admitted that Sawda was too fat and heavy to keep up with other people's normal walking pace.

Come to think of it, I wonder if Muhammad agreed to keep on Sawda primarily as a favour to Ayesha?

Billy said...

Samatar, you continue to hold that Mo might not have intended to divorce old Sauda, despite evidence to the contrary, perhaps because you acknowledge that that type of behavior would be morally reprehensible. However, that is a moot point because the Islamic deity condones that behavior. Therefore, whether Mo intended or not to divorce his aging wife is of no consequence. Again, Allah comes to Mo’s rescue by allowing one (older) wife, motivated by the fear of divorce, to transfer food, clothing, or sex to another (younger) wife.

Now with respect to Mo’s marriage to his older first wife, Mo was working for this wealthy noblewoman, and Mo did not even have money to get married. She was getting a young man, and he was marring into money, nobility, and prestige. It was a step up for Mo and he took advantage of it.

Will you make excuses for Mohammad no matter how depraved he was?

Samatar Mohamed said...

at Diana

"Was Sawda "elderly"? What hypocrisy! Her age is never recorded; but if she had been even one day older than Muhammad, she would have lived to be 104 years old. So I suspect she was actually about ten years younger than he was."

And whats your point Diana. That excuse would be used by christians not muslims anyways. Some say that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce Sauda because she was getting old. If you believe the contrary is true, then that only helps my position, not hinders it.

Diana said...

@ Samatar, my point was that although Muhammad did indeed wish to divorce Sawda for being "too old", he himself was older still. If he didn't want an "older" woman in his bed, why should all his teenaged wives have wanted an "older" man? His sense of entitlement really was very repulsive. Let us list his wives.

1. Khadija - about 3 years older, but married when they were both young enough for loss of physical attractiveness not to be an issue. Probably a woman who had significant bargaining power in the marriage, i.e. her wealth in exchange for his monogamy.

2. Ayesha - 44 years younger. Selected in preference to her unmarried but post-pubescent sister, so one questions whether "alliance with Abu Bakr" was the sole motive for the union, especially as unbiased witnesses refer to her beauty.

3. Sawda - probably around 10 years younger. Unattractive, but married at a time when Muhammad's social status in Mecca was so low that no other woman would have had him.

4. Hafsa - 36 years younger, and her father was one of the few Muslims with money. Even if Hafsa was only of average beauty, the ageing Muhammad did rather well to get her.

5. Zaynab b K - about 24 years younger. Again, even if Zaynab was only modestly pretty and conferred only modest political connections, Muhammad was lucky that this younger woman, living in a community where the men apparently outnumbered the women 2:1, agreed to accept the position of fourth wife.

6. Hind - 27 years younger. Appears to have been charming rather than ravishingly beautiful; Ayesha was stung with jealousy, but Hafsa pronounced her "not stunning, only pretty".

7. Zaynab b J - 23 years younger. Married after Muhammad had become "Duke" of Medina (and after he had seen her in her petticoat) so Muhammad no longer had to worry about women being unwilling to have him. Zaynab was the first bride to break the "four wives only" rule; indeed, it may have been the desire to marry Zaynab that inspired Muhammad to attempt to get rid of Sawda. When she persuaded him to keep her, he had to conjure up a new revelation allowing him to take extra wives regardless.

8. Rayhana - about 42 years younger. Selected solely because she was the most attractive woman in a crowd of 600.

Diana said...

9. Juwayriya - 37 years younger. Ayesha was sick with jealousy over her beauty. It was the same week that Muhammad was honeymooning with Juwayriya that Ayesha was nearly ousted from her position because she was merely accused of sleeping with another man. What's sauce for the gander...

10. Ramla - 23 years younger. Her father claimed that she was the most beautiful woman in Mecca; but we'll allow that he was a biased witness, as the match also offered significant political advantages, and Muhammad proposed about a dozen years after he had last seen Ramla in the flesh.

11. Safiya - 41 years younger. Two unbiased witnesses claimed that she had extraordinary beauty, and Muhammad's decision to marry her (as opposed to keeping her as a political hostage) seems to have dated from the moment he actually saw her. Safiya, Sawda and Hafsa were the only co-wives whom Ayesha actively liked.

12. Maymuna - probably 23 years younger. There doesn't seem to have been any particular reason for this marriage, other than that Muhammad was by this time in the habit of marrying. Muhammad received soon afterwards a revelation saying he was not to marry again, not even to a woman who was very beautiful. This suggests to me that Ayesha had said a few choice words about the marriage to Maymuna.

13. Mariya - about 40 years younger. Selected solely for her looks; Ayesha nearly died of jealousy. Muhammad said that, although he wasn't allowed any more wives, he was still allowed unlimited concubines.

Over the next three years, Muhammad tried to acquire at least eight extra concubines, but only two of them actually made it as far as his bed. At least two of them were sneakily disposed of by Ayesha; at least two used their own wits to escape him; at least one, requested for political reasons, was rejected by Muhammad because she was ugly; and at least one was pimped out to him by another wife.

My point about these would-be concubines is simply that the whole situation seems very miserable all round.

Deleting said...

@diana....that sounds plausible but I also heard of a hadith narrated by Aisha where she in eassence mentions to Mo that he's married to a much younger woman and not that toothless old bitty that Khadijah was.
I have only heard the hadith once so I don't know if it's muslim or bukihari.

Nakdimon said...

Samatar wrote: You even pointed out that you cannot perfectly follow the Ten Commandments that God has given you yet you do not rebuke him for providing commandments that you cannot achieve perfectly. It is simple, God wants us to exert our effort, and if we try our best, then God will have mercy on us.

There is a fundamental difference between Allah and the God of the Bible. Allah WANTS you to sin because if you don’t he will destroy you:

Sahih Muslim Chapter 1, Book 37, Number 6620: Abu Sirma reported that when the time of the death of Abu Ayyub Ansari drew near, he said: I used to conceal from you a thing which I heard from Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as sayirig: Had you not committed sins, Allah would have brought into existence a creation that would have committed sin (and Allah) would have forgiven them.

Sahih Muslim Chapter 1, Book 37, Number 6621: Abu Ayyub Ansari reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: If you were not to commit sins, Allah would have swept you out of existence and would have replaced you by another people who have committed sin, and then asked forgiveness from Allah, and He would have granted them pardon.

Sahih Muslim Chapter 1, Book 37, Number 6622: Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said: By Him in Whose Hand is my life, if you were not to commit sin, Allah would sweep you out of existence and He would replace (you by) those people who would commit sin and seek forgiveness from Allah, and He would have pardoned them.”

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Nakdimon

I think you are taking those hadiths too literally. Now, I do not want to shift the discussion as we are engaging about Sauda, and I have yet to receive a response on my two earlier posts. But just to quickly adress this, Its not that Allah (swt) loves sinners, rather it is that Allah (swt) loves those who repent of their sins. The purpose of the hadiths was to emphasize the importance of repentance. Not encouraging those without sin to sin, As there are no people who do not commit sin. Again, I don't want to shift the discussion with this post so we can get into detail with that matter after our present discussion.

Nakdimon said...

Samatar wrote: I think you are taking those hadiths too literally. Now, I do not want to shift the discussion as we are engaging about Sauda, and I have yet to receive a response on my two earlier posts. But just to quickly adress this, Its not that Allah (swt) loves sinners, rather it is that Allah (swt) loves those who repent of their sins. The purpose of the hadiths was to emphasize the importance of repentance. Not encouraging those without sin to sin, As there are no people who do not commit sin. Again, I don't want to shift the discussion with this post so we can get into detail with that matter after our present discussion.

Samatar, I’m seriously looking forward to the day that Muslims will have to admit that both Allah and his messenger are horrible communicators. Because it is one thing to try to communicate that Allah loves people who repent, but it’s a totally different ballgame to actually say that Allah would utterly destroy people who don’t sin AND REPLACE THEM with sinners. This communicates that Allah loves and prefers sinners, people who disobey Allah and afterwards repent, more than those who always do exactly what he says. No wonder Muslims, just like their god, love Muhammad (a sinner) more than they do Jesus (who never sinned). Again, this is a stark contrast with the God of the Bible, who has more pleasure in those that always hearken to his voice than those that bring him offerings. (offerings obviously refer to sinning, repenting and making atonement for sins) Bottom line is my God isn’t your god, the God of Abraham is not the god of Muhammad, hence Islam is not the succession or completion of previous revelations.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Diana

"@ Samatar, my point was that although Muhammad did indeed wish to divorce Sawda for being "too old", he himself was older still. If he didn't want an "older" woman in his bed, why should all his teenaged wives have wanted an "older" man? His sense of entitlement really was very repulsive. Let us list his wives."

Ok Diana, then lets put it all together then. So you agree that the prophet (pbuh) did not intend to divorce her because of her age, we know that Sauda was never an attractive lady, so it could not be because of that. We know that the prophet (pbuh) distributed times with his wives equally as I showed earlier. Sauda never complained unfair treatment such as lack of nights with the prophet (pbuh), lack of clothes, lack of food etc... There is no sahih narration that establishes that the prophet (pbuh) even intended to divorce sauda, and we know that Sauda gave up her night with the prophet (pbuh) not on the prophet's command but by her own will and the prophets (pbuh) other wives have done the same as I have established. So what is your argument then. Where exactly do you condemn the prophet (pbuh) and why. Thank you.

Billy said...

Guys, this is the typical word game Muslims play: EQUAL mean UNEQUAL!

Samatar: “It is quite clear that the four women should be treated equally in the Quran”

David: Mohammad treated his wives unequally. Here is the evidence: 'O Messenger of Allah, your wives have sent me to you to ask you to be equitable with regard to the matter of the daughter of Abu Quhafah. So the wives of the Prophet sent Zainab bint Jahsh to the Messenger of Allah; she was one who was somewhat equal to me in rank in the eyes of the Messenger of Allah (Sunan An-Nasa'i 3396) Demand from me whatever you like, and don’t be tempted to imitate your neighbor (i.e. ‘Aisha) in her behavior towards the Prophet, for she (i.e. Aisha) is more beautiful than you, and more beloved to Allah’s Apostle. (Sahih al-Bukhari 3:648)

Samatar: When Quran says EQUAL it means UNEQUAL in terms of favoring one wife over the other or loving one wife more than another. “When I said equally, ... I did not mean favouring one wife over another, Or loving one wife more than another.”
Acts17: Equal means Unequal according to the Quran. Samatar, thanks for agreeing with David’s assertion. Now, what are you arguing about?

Bye the way, if you have not had a chance to read “Osama Bin Laden's hell on Earth: Locked up with three jealous wives and more than 13 children”, take a look at it:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/03/osama-bin-ladens-hell-on-earth-locked-up-with-three-jealous-wifes-and-more-than-13-children.html

Diana said...

@ Samatar

So you agree that the prophet (pbuh) did not intend to divorce her because of her age

No, I was saying the opposite. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I believe that Muhammad DID intend to divorce Sawda because of her age. She was his oldest wife. She was about 34 years older than Ayesha, about 26 years older than Hafsa, about 17 years older than Hind and about 13 years older than his intended bride Zaynab.

I'm only saying that this age-discrimination was hypocritical, as Muhammad himself was almost certainly older than Sawda.

We know that Sauda was never an attractive lady, so it could not be because of that.

Why not? Muhammad's social prestige had increased exponentially in the seven years since he had married Sawda. Back in 620, he was poverty-stricken and unpopular. No non-Muslim would think of marrying him. Even among Muslim women, who might have felt honoured to marry a prophet despite the social hardships, Muhammad’s matchmaking aunt could only think of two who were single. (There probably were a few more than two, but certainly not many.) Sawda was the best Muhammad could do for himself in 620.

Fast forward to 627, and Muhammad was undisputed ruler of Medina. The Muslim community was almost the whole city. There were scores of women who would have been willing to marry the all-powerful Muhammad and hundreds more who would never have dared refuse him if he had asked. He no longer had to put up with a wife who didn’t attract him on the grounds that she was “better than nothing,” as he was so easily acquiring other wives whom I liked better.

Sauda never complained unfair treatment such as lack of nights with the prophet (pbuh), lack of clothes, lack of food etc...

Accepting hardship without complaint is a great virtue. This observation does not mean that Sawda suffered no injustice; it means that she did not complain of injustice. I do admire Sawda for dealing so gracefully with what was really a very unfair situation. I also admire her unselfish devotion to Ayesha, who certainly benefited from this good example.

Diana said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Diana said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Search 4 Truth said...

@ Samatar

Quote "I have explained this point multiple times simple truth. God tells us to put our effort into treating our wives equally even though we will fall short.:

So are you admitting that Mohamed fell short?


AND IF SAMATAR IGNORES ME EVERYONE, PLEASE HOLD HIM TO THIS QUESTION. BECAUSE HE MADE A BLANKET STATEMENT THAT WE WILL FALL SHORT. SO HE IS IMPLYING THAT MOHAMMED FELL SHORT.

DONT RUN SAMATAR! ARE YOU ADMITTING THAT MOHAMED SINNED AND FELL SHORT?

Diana said...

Where exactly do you condemn the prophet (pbuh) and why.

I criticise Muhammad for saying that a Muslim must treat his wives equally, then failing to treat his own wives equally. This is how a perfectly egalitarian polygamist would have handled the situation.

Muhammad. Monday night – Ayesha. Tuesday – Hafsa. Wednesday – Sawda. Thursday – Hind. Oh, Zayd! A kind citizen has just brought a gift of a lamb stew and a basket of figs. Can you please share it out equally among the four ladies?

Zayd b Thabit. Certainly, Your Holiness! By the way, Lady Sawda is at the door. Shall I show her in?

Muhammad. Yes, I always have time for Lady Sawda. What is it, my dear?

Sawda. O Prophet, I know you want to divorce me and marry Mistress Zaynab. Please don’t divorce me, for I have nowhere to go. I have a compromise to suggest –

Muhammad. My dear, what nonsense! Of course I’m not going to divorce you.

Sawda. But I know you might prefer to spend your nights with the younger women. Why don’t you from now on spend half your nights with Ayesha, a quarter with Hafsa, a quarter with Hind, and none with me? But please keep me on as your housekeeper. Ayesha may be slimmer than I am, but I’m a better cook.

Muhammad. Sawda, whatever makes you think that I would not want to spend my nights with a wife whose character is as beautiful as yours? Allah knows best, and I cannot possibly disobey him by treating my wives unequally.

Sawda. But I truly don’t mind, O Prophet. I just want our family to be happy.

Muhammad. My dear, even if you are willing to sacrifice your personal rights, unfair is still unfair. I have to be a man of justice no matter what. Besides, what do you think would happen to the Muslim community if I set an example of inequality? Some of the less mature brothers might use it as an excuse to pressure their wives into accepting unequal treatment and then claim that the wives “agreed” to it. That Abu Jahm, for example ... I wonder why his wives are always so obedient to his ridiculous instructions? Zayd, I see you’re back with the empty crock-pot and basket.

Zayd b Thabit. The Mothers of the Believers liked the present, O Prophet. But Lady Hind points out that her quarter-ration was insufficient to share among Your Holiness’s four stepchildren. And Lady Fatima desires clarification on the issue of daughter-rights...

Diana said...

There is no sahih narration...

I think this argument reflects a cultural difference in our respective understanding of research methods. Westerners believe that Muslims place far too much weight on sahih narration. We would consider a missing link in a chain of transmission to be a fairly minor criticism of a source that seemed otherwise sound. For example, consider this statement.

In the Second World War, Winston Churchill was Prime Minister of Britain.

How do I know this? Did my parents tell me from their own war memories? Did I hear it from a teacher? Did I read it in a book? To be honest, I don't remember who was the first person to tell me this.

Now, suppose I go to a class of eight-year-olds and teach them: "In the Second World War, Winston Churchill was Prime Minister of Britain." Am I giving them an unsound narration of dubious fact? Of course not. When a fact is well established, only a primary source need be cited. There is no need to detail the chain of transmission by which the information found its way to me.

Early Muslim historians understood this perfectly well. Sometimes they did not remember who had told them the well-known fact. Sometimes they had heard it from several separate sources and had no reason to name every one. Sometimes their informant was an unimportant person whose name would mean nothing to their audience, so they skipped to a more famous earlier informant. In any of these cases, it’s like saying, “I heard from my teacher, who used to work as Winston Churchill’s housemaid...” The reader doesn’t really care about the name of the housemaid-turned-teacher so long as it is established that the link with Winston Churchill is direct.

If the fact is of the type likely to be easily verifiable (“Muhammad decapitated the Qurayza in Medina Market”), and there is no contrary information (“Actually I can produce fifty Qurayza who were pre-teens at that time, and they all say there was never a massacre in Medina Market”), and some good sources are named, then the lack of a complete chain of transmission is a relatively minor criticism. It is not by itself a reason to discard a hadith included by a historian who is known to be generally reliable.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Billy

The prophet (pbuh) is quoted as saying:

" O Allah, this is how I divide what I can control. O Allah, do not blame me for what you control and I cannot control."

Now what does the prophet mean. He means that he put his best effort in treating his wives equally, but he cannot control what is in his heart. Meaning that he cannot control whether he loves one of his wife more than another. Hence, why the prophet (pbuh) asks Allah (swt) not to blame him for what he cannot control, meaning what is in his heart.

@Search for truth

The prophet (pbuh) is a human, not deity, therefore he definitely fell short of providing PERFECT justice between his wives. For if he treated his wives equally in a PERFECT sense, than he would not be a man, but God. But because he is a man, he did not and could not treat his wives equally in a PERFECT sense. I hope you understand why I caps locked the word perfect. Now did the prophet (pbuh) sin, of course he did not. The prophet (pbuh) treated his wives equally to the best of his ability. He would only be sinning if he was not exerting his effort into treating his wives justly. He set specific nights for each of his wives, he fed them all, clothed them, provided them shelter, and he did not neglect his wives.

Billy said...

Samatar: “It is quite clear that the four women should be treated equally in the Quran”

David: Mohammad did not treat his wives equally.

<<< after much discussion >>>

Samatar: “But because he is a man, he did not and could not treat his wives equally in a PERFECT sense.”

Samatar, thank you, finally, for conceding that Mohammad did not treat his wives equally.

Your next assertion is that Mohammad is not guilty as a result of treating his wives unequally (in a perfect way), after all he is just a fallible human being. I will let others address that point, but Diana has touched upon that subject.

Nakdimon said...

Samatar wrote: “Sauda never complained unfair treatment such as lack of nights with the prophet (pbuh), lack of clothes, lack of food etc... There is no sahih narration that establishes that the prophet (pbuh) even intended to divorce sauda, and we know that Sauda gave up her night with the prophet (pbuh) not on the prophet's command but by her own will and the prophets (pbuh) other wives have done the same as I have established.”

Samatar, instead of telling the whole story you conveniently leave out juicy details and fail to consider to ponder the consequences of Sauda’s reasoning.

#1. As Diana already said, just because Sauda never complained, doesn’t mean there was no unfairness involved. It is not unreasonable to see how injustice was inflicted upon her: She only gave up her day with Muhammad FOR A REASON! That reason is given by the top scholars of Islam: Sauda’s age. Hence unequal treatment. To claim that Sauda gave up her night with Muhammad “by her own will” without even considering the reason that led to that decision is simply misleading.

#2. Given the fact that Muhammad never even attempted to reassure Sauda by correcting her fear we can conclude that he DID intend to divorce her. Either Muhammad was falsely accused by Sauda, or she was right for fearing divorce. Furthermore, you claim there are no sahih narrations? I think you mean that there are no narrations in the Sahih collections. For we have a narration, from Al Tabari’s Tafsir that says the following:

Umra bin Ali & Zaid bin Ahram said: second by Abu Dawud, said: second by Sulaiman bin Mu'ath, from Simak bin Harb, from Ikrimah, from Ibn Abbas, said: Saudah feared divorce by the messenger of Allah, so she said: Do not divorce me, and do not share with me! And he did, and this verse was revealed: And if a woman fears ill usage or desertion on the part of her husband.
Muhammad bin Husain said: He claimed that this verse came down in reference to the messenger of Allah, and Saudah bint Zama'h who became old, then the messenger of Allah WANTED to divorce her, but they agreed that he will keep her but give her day to Ai'sha.

It has been classified as follows: 8 See Tabari: Tafsir (9/276-278) through a Sound (SAHIH) chain, Abu Dawud (2/602/The Book of Marriage/H. 2135) and Albani (A Biography of the Prophet of Islam In the Light of Original Sources: An Analytical Study, by Dr. Mahdi Rizqullah Ahmad, translated by Syed Iqbal Zaheer [Darussalam Publishers and Distributors, Riyadh, Jeddah, Sharjah, Lahore, London, Houston, New York; First Edition: November 2005], Volume 2, Chapter 29: The Mothers of the Believers, pp. 866-867)

Shaykh al-Islam, Ibn Taymiyah, says about Tabari’s Tafsir that Tabari “mentions the views of the salaf WITH PROVEN ISNAADS, and there is NO BID’AH (innovation) in it, and he does NOT transmit reports from dubious sources .

It is one of the best and greatest of Tafseers. He relied on the views of three generations of mufassireen among the salaf, namely the Sahaabah, the Taabi’een, and the followers of the Taabi’een, and he quotes their opinions with isnaads going back to them.

So you are simply wrong when you claim that there are no sahih narrations that establish that Muhammad intended to divorce Sauda.

Diana said...

@ Samatar

Now what does the prophet mean. He means that he put his best effort in treating his wives equally, but he cannot control what is in his heart. Meaning that he cannot control whether he loves one of his wife more than another. Hence, why the prophet (pbuh) asks Allah (swt) not to blame him for what he cannot control, meaning what is in his heart.

We do not blame Muhammad for his failure to control what is in his heart. Liking one wife more than another is simply one of the intrinsic problems of polygamy, and if Allah wanted to stop it, he would have forbidden polygamy.

We blame Muhammad for being unfair and inconsistent in matters over which he had total control. For example:

(1) Not sharing out the food fairly. He didn't need a "controlled heart" for that. He only needed a good pair of scales.

(2) Not sharing out his nights equally among his wives. He didn't need to "control his heart" to do that. He only needed to consult a good calendar, then walk into the appropriate wife's room. It was as easy to walk into Sawda's house as into Ayesha's.

(3) Telling his disciples they could only have four wives, and forcing at least two of them to divorce excess wives, and then taking nine wives at a time for himself (eleven if you count the two major concubines).

(4) Promising his wives that he would never marry again, then casuistically advising them after the event that it was still all right for him to continue to take unlimitied concubines; yet at the same time ordering his wives never to have another husband, not even after he was dead.

Deleting said...

Samatar said, "The prophet (pbuh) is a human, not deity, therefore he definitely fell short of providing PERFECT justice between his wives."

No one C-A-R-E-S that Mohammad wasn't perfect. No. One. Cares.

The problem DOES stems however, from his humanity. He claimed revelation as divine but yet coincided with his desires.

He wanted more wives. There's a revelation for that.

He wanted to keep having sex with Hafsa's maid. There's a revelation for that.

He wanted his followers to carry out mass genocide after his death of anyone jewish, christian or pagan. There's a revelation for that.

Muhammad was human, yes, but if the Quran is clear revelation from God why does Allah's narrative sound like Mohammad?

Search 4 Truth said...

@ SAMATAR

Quote " Now did the prophet (pbuh) sin, of course he did not. The prophet (pbuh) treated his wives equally to the best of his ability."

So in your view attempting to be perfect but falling short is not a sin?

Do you understand your implication here?

So everyone who tries to do the right thing but falls short is sinless in your view.

Again a Muslim redefining words and attributes.


Does everyone see this?

A man is incapable of being sinless because he falls short of the perfection of God.

Attempting to do the right thing does not equate to being sinless.

God cannot sin, because if he attempts to do the right thing he will not fall short.

If a man attempts to do the right thing he will fall short.

Your implication that trying to do the right thing and failing is still sinless is preposterous.

And not to mention he commited terrible atrocities that contradicted Islamic law, and certainly Biblical. He was a hypocrite to his own teachings. So in your rose colors glasses even though he did not keep even keep what he preached to others, he had a special get out of jail free card and could contradict the laws of your Allah. Therefore you do elevate him to a deity! Because he is not bound by the laws of all Muslims. Absolutely preposterous!


When it comes to the idea of the Prophets committing major sins (kabaa’ir), Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said (in al-Fataawaa, 4/319): “…The belief that the Prophets are free of major sins, but not of minor sins, is the opinion of the majority of Islamic scholars and of all (Muslim) groups… It is the opinion of most mufassireen (commentators on the Qur’an), scholars of hadeeth and fuqaha’ (jurists).”

With regard to whether it is possible for the Prophets to commit minor sins, in Lawaami’ al-Anwaar al-Bahiyyah (2/214), al-Safaareeni quoted from Ibn Hamdaan who said in Nihaayat al-Mubtadi’een: “They are infallible in conveying the commands and message of Allaah, but they are not infallible in any other regard. They may make mistakes, forget things, or commit minor sins – according to the most well-known opinion (of the scholars) – but they will not be approved for these mistakes.”

The majority of scholars take the following as evidence to support their claim that the Prophets are not free from minor sins:

Adam’s sin in eating from the tree from which Allaah had forbidden him to eat. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And (remember) when We said to the angels, ‘Prostrate yourselves to Adam.’ They prostrated (all) except Iblees (Satan), who refused. Then We said, ‘O Adam! Verily, this is an enemy to you and to your wife. So let him not get you both out of Paradise, so that you be distressed in misery. Verily, you have (a promise from Us) that you will never be hungry therein nor naked. And you (will) suffer not from thirst therein nor from the sun’s heat. Then Shaytaan whispered to him, saying: ‘O Adam! Shall I lead you to the Tree of Eternity and to a kingdom that shall never waste away?’ Then they both ate of the tree, and so their private parts appeared to them, and they began to stick on themselves leaves from Paradise for their covering. Thus did Adam disobey his Lord, so he went astray.” [Ta-Ha 20:116-121]

And I guess Adam didnt sin by eating the apple. Amazing. The more I learn about this death cult the more I realize that Muslims and Islam contradicts itself in every manner. There is always exceptions. Well he didnt sin but he did do minor sins and make mistakes! LOL! So preposterous!

You have
Islam is the most contradictory illogical bunch of hypocritical nonsense I have ever encountered in my life.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Nakdimon

"Shaykh al-Islam, Ibn Taymiyah, says about Tabari’s Tafsir that Tabari “mentions the views of the salaf WITH PROVEN ISNAADS, and there is NO BID’AH (innovation) in it, and he does NOT transmit reports from dubious sources."

Well, are you aware of what Tabari said himself. Here is his quote.

IMAM TABARI'S CONFESSION:
“I am writing this book as I hear from the narrators. If anything sounds absurd, I should not be blamed or held accountable. The responsibility of all errors or blunders rests squarely on the shoulders of those who have narrated these stories to me.”

We have Tabari's own words that he transmitted them as he got them. First come, first serve. I don't hold authority to Tabari's tafseer. Now, I am not saying it is horribly corrupted, I'm just saying, when he did not check to see the authenticity of his sources, we don't know which part is true, and which part is false.

Samatar Mohamed said...

@Diana

I still cannot believe you are holding that the prophet (pbuh) did not share his night out equally. The prophet (pbuh) did spread his nights out equally. I'll show you the reference again.

Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 47, Number 766:

Narrated Aisha:

Whenever Allah's Apostle wanted to go on a journey, he would draw lots as to which of his wives would accompany him. He would take her whose name came out. He used to fix for each of them a day and a night. But Sauda bint Zam'a gave up her (turn) day and night to 'Aisha, the wife of the Prophet in order to seek the pleasure of Allah's Apostle (by that action)."

The prophet did distribute his nights equally. Only when someone would give up their night would the prophet (pbuh) not engage with her. What kind of standards are you placing on the prophet (pbuh) though. If someone voluntarily gives up their night, then you should blame the one who gave up their night, not the prophet (pbuh). Had Sauda not given up her night, guess who the prophet (pbuh) would be with on that night. YES, it would be Sauda. No saheeh narration I have come across shows that the prophet (pbuh) intended to divorce Sauda anyways, so Sauda made a mistake in her thinking. And the Quranic verse is adressing those who fear divorce, not those who have been told that they will be divorced. There is a huge distinction their.

Nakdimon said...

Samatar wrote: " Well, are you aware of what Tabari said himself. Here is his quote.

IMAM TABARI'S CONFESSION:
“I am writing this book as I hear from the narrators. If anything sounds absurd, I should not be blamed or held accountable. The responsibility of all errors or blunders rests squarely on the shoulders of those who have narrated these stories to me.”

----

Samatar, again, why dont you actually check the source where you get your quotes from? When Tabari says "I am writing THIS BOOK..." he is not talking about the Tafsir of Tabari. He is talking about the Tarikh of Tabari. Tabari said of his work Tarikh al Rasul wa al-Muluk, not of his Tafsir, that people should check the sources that he put in there. And then even still, even if what I quoted where from Tabari's history, you would still have to prove that particular story is unreliable and why as Tabari himself told you, and not just assume it is untrustworthy.


So given the fact that I quoted from Tabari's TAFSIR and NOT from his TARIKH please deal with the source. Of the Tafsir of Tabari it is said that there is NO BIDD'AH in it and that Tabari narrates with PROVEN ISNAADS going back to the Sahaabah, their successors and the successors after them. That source says that Muhammad WANTED to divorce Sauda because she was old. What do you make of that in light of your claim that there are no sahih narrations that say that Muhammad intended to do away with Sauda?

Diana said...

@ Samatar, what that Bukhari reference says is that Mohammed shared out his nights equally except when he didn't. He would have spent his nights with Sawda if he hadn't been with Ayesha, but he didn't spend his nights with Sawda and he did spend them with Ayesha.

Sawda agreed to this deal. But just because two people agree to something, it does not mean that the agreement is fair. It could be that one person didn't understand the terms of the agreement, and would not have agreed if s/he had realised what the agreement really stated. It could be that one person was threatening the other's life, and if there had been no such threat, the other would not have agreed.

I can only think of one way in which Mohammed's agreement with Sawda would have been "fair". If Sawda had found Mohammed physically repulsive and really couldn't bear to have him touch her, it would have been "fair" for them to strike this kind of agreement.

But the hadiths do not give this reason for their bargain. The only reason given by the hadiths is that "Sawda feared divorce." The clear implication is: if she had not feared divorce, she would not have offered this bargain. An agreement that you only make out of fear is not a fair bargain. Frankly, Mohammed's failure to grasp this concept is clear evidence that he was not a prophet.

Since Mohammed had no legitimate reason to divorce Sawda, it was unfair that she had to bargain to remain married. If Mohammed had been fair to Sawda, he would have kept Sawda as his wife regardless.

There is actually a second and unrelated way in which Mohammed's deal with Sawda was unfair. She gave up her nights to Ayesha. Mohammed did not reshuffle the calendar so that he saw slightly more of all his other wives in equal proportions. He spent twice as much time with Ayesha as with Hafsa, Hind, Zaynab and the rest. Were the other wives consulted about this? No. They had not agreed to this bargain of letting Ayesha have twice as much time.

We don't know whether the other wives were happy about this. We do know that when they complained about the unequal distribution of food, Mohammed simply told them not to complain and carried on being unfair. However, whether the other wives were happy with the night-time arrangement or not, from an objective point of view, it was still unfair.