Quote from Abu Al-‘Aliyah about Salat of Allah.

Does Allah pray? – Addressing a common Missionary argument.

So I just spent the last 2 weeks preparing a 85 plus powerpoint lecture about the subject of “Does Allah pray?” And in it I approach the topic from almost every angle possible. But in reality the only reason I’m doing this is because our Missionary friends don’t really understand the concept of the Salaf and the weight to which the statements of the first 3 generations hold on our religion. But in all honesty any Muslim with a mustard seed of knowledge will know that this one quote will destroy the argument that the Salat of Allah means anything other than that Allah mentioning the person in high regard.

So the narration I’m about to present is from a man named:

أبو العالية: رفيع بن مهران

Abu al-’Aaliyah Rafeea’h bin Mahraan.

So who is Abu al-’Aaliyah?

He is a scholar of Islam who learned under the companions of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh). He was born during the lifetime of the prophet Muhammad (saws) but since he was young he didn’t manage to become Muslim until the Califate of Abu Bakr.

So he’s considered from the التابعين Tabi’een, meaning those that met the companions of the prophet Muhammad (saws). And this isn’t just an average person, this man met everyone from the great companions for example:

قال أبو عمرو الداني : أخذ أبو العالية القراءة عرضا عن أبي ، وزيد ، وابن عباس.

“It is narrated from Abu ‘Amro ad-Daani: Abu Al-’Aaliyah took his recitation (of the Quran) from Ubai (ibn Ka’ib), and Zaid, and Ibn Abaas.

عن حفصة بنت سيرين ، قالت : قال لي أبو العالية : قرأت القرآن على عمر – رضي الله عنه- ثلاث مرار

It was narrated from Hafsah bint Sireen who said: Abu Al-’Aaliyah told me: “I recited the Quran to ‘Umar (ra) three times.

قال أبو بكر بن أبي داود : وليس أحد بعد الصحابة أعلم بالقرآن من أبي العالية

Abu Bakr ibn Abi Dawud said: There is no one after the Sahabah more knowledgeable about the Quran than Abu Al-’Aaliyah.

Suffice it to say Abu Al-’Aaliyah is the most credible source of Tafsir for the Quran after a direct quote from either the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or the companions. So what does he says about the verse?

عن أبي العالية في قوله: (إن الله وملائكته يصلون على النبي)

It was narrated from Abu al-’Aaliyah about the verse:

قال : صلاة الله – عز وجل عليه – ثناؤه عليه،

For which he said: Allah’s Salat (means) speaking highly of him.

وصلاة الملائكة عليه الدعاء، ( أي يدعون للناس ويستغفرون لهم )

And the Salat of the Angels is that they make Du’ah for him.
(Meaning they pray and (ask Allah) to forgive them.)

الألباني( صحيح ) أنظر: فضل الصلاة على النبي [1 / 79 ].

[And this narration was authenticated by Shaykh Al-Albani as Saheeh]

Now let me be honest, this is a mic drop type of quote. If a person cannot understand the weight of this statement, then there is no hope for them. They simply don’t understand how religion and narrations work. So you’re better off first teaching them the fundamentals of Hadeeth, and the status of the Sahabah before you touch upon these subjects.

Hope this helps everyone who faces this argument in the future. And inshallah I should be releasing my first lecture in about a week, so be on the look out for that as well.

Jizak Allah Khair.

Using the Toulmin Model to Debate instead of Syllogisms

Slide.jpg

For most of my life I’ve used the simple Syllogistic Model to dissect and analyze many people’s arguments against Islam.  The best book on this topic is “A Concise Introduction to Logic,” written by Patrick J. Hurley.  [Found here]  For those that forgot what they learned in college studying Logic, or just never found the time to study Argumentation, a Syllogism is basically a way to form arguments using 2 connecting premises and a conclusion. Continue reading Using the Toulmin Model to Debate instead of Syllogisms

BBC Story on Halala Marriage

Last month the BBC decided to release a program about a very rare practice in the Islamic community of the UK known as “Halala Marriage.”  Along with the interview, the BBC released an article on their website entitled “The women who sleep with a stranger to save their marriage.”

As expected, the story first starts out with how the poor Muslim woman was facing domestic violence (which is not sanctioned by Islam) and then concludes with the woman explaining how her Husband divorced her thrice saying “Talaq, Talaq, Talaq” (i.e. I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you.)

Now for the people at the BBC, (whose reporters are mostly  made up of Christians and Atheists) it appears that every time they approach the Islamic community in any fashion, it is always as an ill informed outsider looking in.  And as we know, most of the time things that are extremely rare in a community is what is going to be covered instead of normal acceptable things.  So right off the bat we need to identify this problem before we delve any further into the story.

Marital-Love-in-Islam

Now personally I believe the BBC was doing lazy reporting, either on purpose or accident, but nevertheless it is unacceptable that we keep seeing such news organizations refusing to go to Islamic Scholars in the community to ask them to clarify the issue.  Because I know as a Muslim, if the BBC had done so they would’ve realized that this is actually a practiced condemned by Islam through and through.

But of course if the reporter, whoever he or she is, had done this then there wouldn’t be a story.  No one wants to report about regular old Islamic marriages and divorces.  That isn’t what is going to get views and clicks.  No, they need something that will catch the eye of the average Britain or westerner, who most of the time are looking for another reason to scoff at Muslims and say to themselves, “Look how backwards and barbaric those people are.”

And of course, as we in the Islamic community have grown accustomed to, the Islamophobic Christians were quick to pick up such a story and run with it to help further cement their false notion of Religious superiority.  And like clockwork, we saw this exact thing play out last Sunday at Speakers Corner where the ironically so-called Christian feminist slash oblivious Christian preacher Lizzie Scholfied, decided to try her luck at attacking the Islamic faith because of the rare, Islamically prohibited practice known as Halala.

Here we see Lizzie in action, debating a well known and learned Muslim Apologist Adnan Rashid.  Skip to 4:40 minutes to hear the beginning of the debate.

Now for those that don’t wish to watch the video, I’ll summerize what happen.  Basically the Christian Apologist Lizzie is asking if Halala marriage is allowed in Islam.  (i.e. is it allowed for Muslim Women to pay to marry another man with the sole intention of divorcing him later?) This is her premise.  She then goes on to just assume that it is indeed part of Islam and concludes her argument saying:

“Don’t you think this is abhorrent?”

And of course since this is against Islam we say “Yes, we do consider it abhorrent.”  But this isn’t what she’s trying to say, she is already presenting the assumption that indeed this is a part of Islam.  So when she says, “Don’t you think this is abhorrent?” what she really is trying to say is, “Don’t you think this Islamic concept is abhorrent?”  And therefore shouldn’t the Muslim consider Islam in totality as abhorrent.  Sorry but this is nothing more that a “Hasty Generalization” fallacy.

Adnan, to give him credit, tried to explain this from the very beginning to Lizzie, but of course as we’ve seen time and time again from people at Pfander Ministries and other Islamophobic Christian organizations, truth is not based on facts, but only on what you can make your audience believe.

Ironically even in the BBC story it states that this isn’t a popular opinion saying:

“It (i.e. Halala) is banned in most Muslim countries but still happens, though it is impossible to know exactly how many women are “divorced” like this in the UK.”

And….

“It’s a practice the vast majority of Muslims are strongly against and is attributed to individuals misunderstanding the Islamic laws around divorce.”

But of course these little points mean nothing to the likes of Lizzie and others when their agenda is to simply try to smear the Islamic faith at all costs.  Even if that means one’s own credibility in the academic community.  This is why Pfander and other Islamophobic organizations are considered on the fringes of society, tantamount to Tabloid news or Racist Propaganda.  You’ll never see the likes the Joseph Smith (aka Jay Smith) ever giving a lecture on History or Theology at an accredited University.  This is because most of their arguments are based on faulty knowledge and logic, and can only survive in the shadows of their Churches and internet forums.  Because as soon as you bring these arguments to the forefront and in the spotlight, all the inaccuracies and contradictions begin to unravel and unfold.

So let us shed some light on this concept of Halala from an Islamic perspective and prove without a shadow of a doubt that the BBC, Lizzie and her cohorts are completely wrong when they assume that this practice is allowed in Islam.

Types of Divorce in Islam:

Before we begin the first thing we need to clarify is “What is Divorce is Islam and what types are there?”

So in Islam there are three types of Divorce known as:

  1. Talaaq (طلاق)
  2. Faskh (فسخ)
  3. Khul’ (خلع)

Now each one of these versions of divorce have a specific definition, reason for being and religious steps on how to carry them out, along with different consequences for each category.

As for Talaaq, then this is when the Husband tells his wife that he wishes to divorce her.  This the main definition which is agreed upon by all Islamic schools of thought.

Where the difference of opinion lies is in the concept of being able to pronounce three divorces at one time.  (i.e. like in the BBC story where the man said, “I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you.”)  This is something considered controversial and many scholars differ as to if it’s allowed or not in the first place.

Divorce

Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) for example says:

“If a man divorces his wife three times with one word, such as saying, “You are thrice divorced”, the majority of scholars are of the view that the woman is indeed thrice divorced and becomes forbidden for her husband until she has been married to another man in a serious marriage in which the new husband has intercourse with her and they only separate as a result of death or divorce, not a tahleel marriage (i.e., a marriage of convenience aimed at making it permissible for her to remarry her former husband). 

They quoted as evidence for that the fact that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) counted such a divorce as being three and judged among people accordingly. 

Other scholars were of the view that this is to be regarded as a single divorce, and the husband may take her back so long as the ‘iddah has not yet ended. If the ‘iddah has ended then she may marry him with a new marriage contract. They quoted as evidence for that the report narrated in Saheeh Muslim from Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) who said:  “At the time of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), the time of Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him) and the first two years of the caliphate of ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him), a threefold divorce was counted as one. ‘Umar said: “People are being hasty with regard to a matter in which they should not rush. Let us count it as three and judge between people accordingly .”

According to another report narrated by Muslim: Abu’l-Sahba’ said to Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with them): “Was not three counted as one at the time of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and the time of Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him) and the first three years of the time of  ‘Umar (may Allaah be pleased with him)?” He said: ‘Yes,'”  [Link to quote]

In addition to this, Shaykh Muhammad al-Munajjid was also asked the same question in which he replied::

“The fuqaha’ differed concerning the threefold divorce (talaaq). The correct view is that it counts as one divorce, whether it is uttered in a single phrase, such as saying “You are thrice divorced” or in repeated words such as saying, “You are divorced, you are divorced, you are divorced.” This is the view favoured by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) and was the view regarded as most correct by Shaykh al-Sa’di (may Allaah have mercy on him) and Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him). 

They quoted as evidence the hadeeth narrated by Muslim (1472) from Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) who said: At the time of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), Abu Bakr and the first two years of ‘Umar’s caliphate, a threefold divorce was counted as one. Then ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab said: People have become hasty in a matter in which they should take their time. I am thinking of holding them to it. So he made it binding upon them. “ [Link to quote]

Now even though the scholars such as Ibn Tamiyyah consider the 3 divorce statement as 1 single divorce, nevertheless we see the core reason why some scholars considered it valid.  (i.e. so that people take divorce seriously and not a game) As we see in the narration from ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab in which he said:

“People have become hasty in a matter in which they should take their time. I am thinking of holding them to it. So he made it binding upon them. “

Getting divorced in Anger:

Setting aside the concept of whether the 3 divorce statement is valid or not, we also need to take into consideration if the divorce is even allowed if the person is angry.

Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) for example was once asked about a man who was insulted by his wife and therefore divorced her at the moment of anger, in which he replied:

“If you uttered the words of divorce at a moment of intense anger and without realizing it, and you could not control yourself, because of her bad words and insults etc., and you did that at a moment of intense anger and without realizing it, and she acknowledges that, or you have a witness of good character, then divorce has not taken place, because the shar’i evidence indicates that divorce does not take place if the words are spoken at a moment of intense anger – and if it is accompanied by not realizing what is happening then the ruling applies even more so. 

For example, Ahmad, Abu Dawood and Ibn Maajah narrated from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There is no divorce and no manumission in the event of ighlaaq.” The majority of scholars said that ighlaaq means compulsion or anger, i.e., intense anger. For his anger made him unaware of what he was saying, so he is like one who is unconscious, insane or drunk, because of the intensity of his anger. So divorce does not take place in this instance. If he does not realize what he is doing and cannot control his words or actions because of the intensity of his anger, then divorce does not take place.” [Link to quote]

14438017704558_700

The second view of Anger not being valid was also held by such prominant scholars like Ibn Taymiyah and  Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on them both). Ibn al-Qayyim for example wrote a famous work on this topic entitled Ighaathat al-Lahfaan fi Hukm Talaaq al-Ghadbaan, in which he said the following:

Anger is of three types:

1 – That which is not so intense as to affect a person’s mind or rational thinking; he knows what he is saying and what he means. There is no dispute that in this case divorce, manumission and contracts are valid.

2 – Where his anger reaches such a limit that he no longer knows what he is doing or saying. There is no dispute that in this situation divorce does not take place. If his anger is so intense that he does not know what he is saying, there is no doubt that none of his words should be implemented in this case. The words of the mukallif (adult of sound mind) are only to be implemented if he knows what he is saying and what it means, and if the speaker really means that.

3 – The kind of anger that falls between the two categories mentioned above, where the anger goes beyond the ordinary level but not so far as to make him behave like a madman. This is an area of scholarly differences of opinion. The shar’i evidence indicates that divorce, manumission and contracts in such cases are not valid, and this is a kind of ighlaaq as the imams explained.

From Mataalib Ooli al-Nuha, 5/323; see also Zaad al-Ma’aad, 5/215. [Link to quote]

What happens in Talaaq divorce?:

Now that we clarified the rarity of he 3 divorce statement, and how it actually can be considered invalid if done in the moment of anger, the last thing that is left is to explain “What exactly happens in a Talaaq divorce?”

So let’s just say that the Husband is not happy with his wife for whatever reason, he then verbally states his desire for divorce in a sane and calm state.  Is that the end of it?  Is there no way back from there?

Actually there is.  So after the verbal pronouncement of divorce from the Husband they two have 3 months (i.e. 3 menstrual cycles) to see if they really want to follow through with the divorce.  If at anytime in those 3 months the two make up and decide to cancel the divorce, then they are permitted to return to one another without renewing the marriage contract.

If the divorce were to continue until the very end, then it’ll be considered as a complete divorce.  After which both parties will need to go and renew their marriage contract if the wish to remarry.

As for Faskh Marriage:

Faskh marriage is usually identified as the path for the women to get a divorce.  So instead of just verbally stating their desire for divorce to her spouse, instead she goes to the local Judge (i.e. Qadhi) and requests him to inform the husband.

Shaykh Muhammad al-Munajjid explains the most common reasons for a women to annul their marriage:

  1. Lack of compatibility between the spouses, according to those scholars who regard that as one of the conditions for the marriage contract to be valid.
  2. If one of the spouses apostatizes from Islam and does not come back to it.
  3. If the husband becomes Muslim and his wife refuses to become Muslim, and she is a mushrik (polytheist), not one of the people of the Book (i.e., Jewish or Christian).
  4. When li‘aan occurs between the spouses [li‘aan is a process done where the husband accuses the wife of adultery and she denies it, and each swears oaths invoking the curse of Allah if he or she is lying].
  5. Financial difficulty on the part of the husband, and inability to spend on his wife’s maintenance, if the wife requests annulment of the marriage.
  6. Presence of a defect in either spouse that prevents intimacy or creates revulsion between them.  [Link to quote]

Now I’d like to note a important point here, a large number of Christians around the world believe divorce is completely unlawful in the eyes of God.  Especially the Catholic Church.  And in most instances, even when the other spouse has become abusive, mentally ill, or even if the marriage was based on a lie (e.g. the person said they were financially stable, or mentally and physically able.)

It’s such commonly overlooked concepts like these found in Christianity that make Muslims wonder how Christians can even criticize Islamic marriage in the first place.  But again, as I stated before, most of these people do not wish to live in the world of facts, instead they prefer to remain oblivious to reality while at the same time demand we take them seriously in debates.

Finally what is Khul’?:

Khul’ is an interesting concept in Islam.  It’s a version of divorce which doesn’t count as actually one of the three divorces when done correctly.

So what is Khul’?  Khul’ is when the Husband and Wife both agree to get divorced, after which there is an agreed upon compensation.  Most of the time being a return of the initial Mahr (i.e. dowry) or a part of it.  If this is done in the presence of an Imam, then both are allowed to be separated as if they were never married.  Which includes not having counted a divorce between the two.  This is the majority opinion in the matter.

There is a minority opinion that if someone where to verbally call their divorce Talaaq, that then this would be counted as an actual Talaaq instead of Khul’ even if there is compensation.  But  scholars such as Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said this isn’t correct and instead that:

“…the more correct view is that khula’ is not talaaq, even if the actual word talaaq is used. This is indicated by the Holy Qur’aan. Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted, said (interpretation of the meaning):

“The divorce is twice, after that, either you retain her on reasonable terms or release her with kindness” [al-Baqarah 2:229] ” [Link to quote]

Bringing it all together:

So what does all this mean?  Why am I explaining the different meanings and approaches when it comes to divorce?  Well, because I want the reader to understand that in Islam there are many different methods of how one can get divorced from their spouse.  And depending on what message he or she wants to send to their partner, they have a pretty large selection of steps to take.

So when we’re talking about such characters as Lizzie and her Pfander organization, when they say such things as:

“Doesn’t this seem abhorrent?”

Or cry crocodile tears asking shouldn’t Islam or Allah take into consideration the children and the relationship?  I’m sorry but this is incredibly faulty logic, because if the couple were truly concerned about the children then they wouldn’t get divorced in the first place.  And they wouldn’t get divorced three times (each waiting 3 months of grace period) at that!

Not to mention the various types of divorce that could take place without having to have it marked as 1 of the 3 divorces allowed in the Quran.

So why does Allah allow these types of divorces in the first place?

Well, because each type sends a certain message to the other spouse.  If a husband decides to get divorced for instance with Khul’ instead of Talaaq, then what he is indirectly saying is something to the effect of, “I’m upset with you and we need time apart, but we might get back together in the future.”

Whereas if a man uses the Talaaq version of divorce, then the message is significantly more serious.  And sadly if he uses the 3 verbal Talaaqs in one statement, then this is the equivalent of saying “I never want to see you again.”

Because in all truths no man would ever want the women they love to have to go and marry another man before they get back together.  This is completely unthinkable, especially when it comes to Muslim men, even if some try to create some fake Islamic way of doing it with such terms as Halala or whatever else.

Which brings us to the crux of the issue.

What is Halala Marriage and is it allowed in Islam?:

Halala Marraige (which is also known as Tahleel) is when a woman goes and pays for a man to marry her so that then she can go and remarry her previous husband that divorced her three times.  So the question that should be asked, “Is this allowed in Islam by any school of thought? (i.e. Hanfai, Maliki, Shafi’ee or Hanbali).  As I will prove to you in the following paragraphs, the answer in an unequivocal “NO!”  No one, I mean no one permits this.

But don’t take my word for it, let use look at what the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said on this topic.  Before I quote what he (pbuh) said though, it’s imperitive to clarify for the reader two Arabic terms which are:

  1. Muhallil: is the one who hired to marry a woman with the intention of divorcing her, just so that she go back to her first husband.
  2. Muhallal lahu: is the first husband who hires the man for the marriage.

Ok so now that we got these two terms clarified, we can move on with quoting the ahadeeth which relate to this topic:

“It was narrated that ‘Abdullah ibn Mas‘ood said: The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) cursed the muhallil and the muhallal lahu. “

Narrated and classed as saheeh by at-Tirmidhi (1120); also narrated by an-Nasaa’i (3416).

Another Hadeeth with similar terms goes as follows:

It was narrated that ‘Uqbah ibn ‘Aamir said: The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: “Shall I not tell you of a borrowed billy-goat?” They said, Yes, O Messenger of Allah. He said, “He is al-muhallil. May Allah curse al-muhallil and al-muhallal lahu.”

Narrated by Ibn Maajah (1936); classed as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh Ibn Maajah.”

So here we’re seeing a clear indication from the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that in no shape or form is it allowed for this type of practice to be done.  Amusingly enough, Lizzie tried to argue in the debate posted above that actually something could be cursed by the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) but not necessarily be considered Haram or impermissible in Islam.  Well, let’s keep moving forward and see if her claim is correct.

For example in relation to the above hadeeth about the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) cursing the Muhallil and the Muhallal lahu, Ibn al-Qayyim said:

“With regard to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) cursing them [the muhallil and the muhallal lahu], this is either telling that Allah, may He be exalted, has cursed them, or it is a supplication for them to be cursed. This indicates that it is haraam and is a major sin. End quote from Zaad al-Ma‘aad fi Hadiy Khayr al-‘Ibaad (5/672)”

So here we see that the concept of Allah or the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) cursing some action means clearly that it it considered impermissible.

In addition to the past scholars forbidding such practices, we also have modern Islamic countries not only banning the practice, but also considering it as fornication.  Take for instance the previous Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Shaykh ibn Baaz who said about Halala marraige:

“This is one of the most abhorrent kinds of falsehood, and one of the gravest kinds of corruption. He is in effect a zaani (fornicator or adulterer), because he did not marry her so that she could be a wife to him, and keep him chaste and stay with him, and so that he might hope to have children from her. No, rather he came as a borrowed billy-goat, to make her permissible for the one who came before him, by having intercourse with her once, then leaving her and finishing with her. This is the muhallil; his marriage is invalid and is not legitimate, and she does not become permissible for the first husband so long as (the second husband) married her with this intention and for this purpose. It is an invalid marriage and she is not permissible for him or for the first husband, because this is not a marriage, and Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “until she has married another husband” [al-Baqarah 2:230]. This is a borrowed billy-goat, not a legitimate husband, and he does not make her permissible for the first husband .”

End quote from Fataawa ash-Shaykh Ibn Baaz (20/277, 278) [Link to quote]

We also have Shaykh Muhammad Al-Munajid who when asked about such marraiges said:

“It is not permissible for the man who issued the divorce, or for the woman, to use tricks to get around the laws of Allah and get back together by means of what is called a tahleel marriage. This kind of marriage takes several forms, including the following:

  1. where the husband who had issued the divorce, or the woman, or her guardian, hire a human “billy-goat”, and stipulate that he must marry the divorced woman, consummate the marriage with her, then divorce her, and they give him a sum of money in return for that!
  2. Where a man marries that divorced woman without making any agreement with anybody, but his aim is to make her permissible for the first husband, then he divorces her.

Tahleel marriages are haraam and invalid, and those who do that deserve to be cursed.”

These are two prominent scholars from the Hanbali school of thought, and these rulings reflect a general opinion held by the majority of people in the Gulf States and North Africa.  So if this is the case, then how can people such as the BBC and Lizzie at Pfander Ministries still feel like this is something that Islam could be blamed for?

Lizzie’s Scapegoat:

In the debate posted above we saw that after Adnan had quoted the ahadeeth mentioned here, that Lizzie then quickly sought to shift the conversation and quote a Hanafi opinion saying at 14:00 minutes she says:

“You mentioned that Allah cursed the Muhalli and the Muhalal lahu.  You have a point there…”

Wow, Lizzie appears to be actually using her mind here, but sadly we spoke too soon.  She then continues saying:

“However, is a curse a prohibition? A curse is not the same as a prohibition.  A curse does not make something unlawful.  In fact, if you look at the Hanafi (School of thought), I’m going to read to you from the Hanafi school of Fiqh that says this:

‘According to the Hanafi Madhab if a woman enters into a marriage with another man with the condition verbally that he divorces her after consummating, then the marriage is valid.'”

Do you see what she did here?  She mixed the concept of intending an eventual divorce with the concept of purposely marrying a man to be able to marry your first husband later (i.e. Halala).  The two are not the same, and if Lizzie had done her homework she’d know that even in Hanafi Fiqh they don’t permit Halala marriage.

But again don’t take my word for it, let’s hear what Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam, a well known Hanafi scholar from the UK has to say about this:

“Many people with regards to this are mistaken. The general misconception is that marrying another man (Halala) is a solution provided by Shariah in order for the husband and wife to get back together.

This is, however, not the case. The meaning of Halala is that, if the woman after being divorced and after observing her waiting period wished to marry another man, she can do so. This second husband by total coincidence and on his own accord also divorced her after having sexual intercourse with her, then after observing the full waiting period, she can remarry her first husband.

It should be remembered that, this is not a solution provided by Shariah. Once three divorces are pronounced, the marriage is over and there is no getting together again. But if by coincidence, she married another man and he to by coincidence (after having sexual intercourse with her) divorced her, then she, after the Iddah is over, can remarry her first husband.

If Nikah was performed on the condition of Halala or by fixing a fee to be paid to the second man, then this is a grave sin and unlawful. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“Allah’s curse is on the one who makes a contract or agreement for Halala (Both the one who carries out Halala and the one who it is done for.” (Sunan al Darami / Mishkat al Masabih)

However, if there is only an intention of Halala in the heart and no verbal agreement was made, then according to the majority of Fuqaha, this is permissible and valid (Radd al-Muhtar)” [Link to quote]

So here we see a clear distinction between Halala Marriage and when a man that marries a women, or a woman marries a man, where one party has the intention in the heart to eventually divorce the other person.

I know that these things seem technical, but they are like night and day when you really understand the arguments put forward.  Yes we all agree that if a person intends to eventually divorce their spouse that it’s something very disliked, but that is completely different to Halala, which is tantamount to male prostitution.  Which is why the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) called such men “Billy-goat” (i.e. it’s as if he’s a rented animal.)

Now I’d like to mention here that the Maliki, Shafi’ee and Hanbali schools of thought don’t even accept this concept of having the intention of divorce when marrying (as I will quote a little later), but as stated before, even in Hanafi Fiqh you’re not allowed to tell the other person your intention of Divorce or put it in the marriage contract.

Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam explains this issue in great detail saying:

“…The absence of a fixed time-period. It is a basic requirement of a valid marriage contract that it does not entail any agreement of it being limited to a specified time such as two moths or five days, since it is essentially the Mut’a marriage that has been explicitly prohibited by the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace).

Classical jurists (fuqaha) have clearly stated the impermissibility and invalidity of time-limited (mu’aqqat) marriages. Imam al-Haskafi, the renowned Hanafi jurist, states:

“A Mut’a and time-limited marriage (nikah mu’aqqat) is invalid, even if the period [of marriage] is unknown to the wife or is prolonged…” (Radd al-Muhtar ala ‘l-Durr al-Mukhtar 3/51. Also see for the Shafi’i School: Mughni al-Muhtaj Sharh al-Minhaj 4/231, for the Hanbali School: Kashshaf al-Qina’ 5/96-97, and the Maliki School: Hashiyat al-Dasuqi ala ‘l-Sharh al-Kabir 2/238-239)

As for when there is no explicit mention of the marriage being limited to a specified time, but both or one of the spouses intend to terminate the marriage some time in the future, the position of the majority of classical scholars is that such a marriage is valid, and the couple will not be guilty of involving themselves in an unlawful relationship.

It is stated in al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya, a renowned Hanafi reference work:

If a man marries a woman unconditionally [i.e. without it being limited to a specified time], and it is in his intention to remain with her for a time that he intends [and then divorce her], then the marriage is valid…” (al-Fatawa al-Hindiyya 1/283)

Likewise, Imam Ibn al-Humam (Allah have mercy on him) states in his Fath al-Qadir:

As for when the husband marries and it is in his intention to divorce her after a period that he intends, then the marriage is valid.” (Fath al-Qadir, 3/152)

The Shafi’is also state that if one marries, and it is in his intention to divorce the wife after a period of time he has in mind, the marriage is considered valid. As for the Hanbalis, they have explicitly stated that if a person marries with the intention of divorcing the woman, even without stating it explicitly in the marriage contract itself, then the marriage is invalid, because it is a temporary marriage, which is invalid by explicit primary texts. (See: al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, Kuwait)” [Link to quote]

Other Schools of Thought:

In relation to the other schools of though when it comes to a person, male or female, who intends to eventually divorce the other person they’re marrying, then they consider this completely impermissible.

For example Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) was once asked about what he thinks of a person who travels abroad and marries a women with the intention of eventually divorcing her, in which he replied:

“One of two scenarios must apply to this marriage that is done with the intention of divorce. Either he stipulates in the marriage contract that he is marrying her for a month or a year or until his studies end, which is a mut’ah marriage and is haraam, or he is intending that without stipulating it. The well known Hanbali view is that it is haraam and the marriage contract is invalid, because they say that that which is intended is like that which is stipulated, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Actions are but by intentions and each person will have but that which he intended.” And because if a man marries a woman who was divorced thrice by her husband for the purpose of making her permissible for him, then he divorces her, then the marriage is invalid, even if that is done without any stipulation, because that which is intended is like that which is stipulated. If the intention is tahleel (making it permissible for the woman to go back to her first husband) then the contract is invalid. Similarly the intention of mut’ah renders the marriage contract invalid. This is the view of the Hanbalis. The other scholarly view concerning this issue is that it is valid to marry the woman with the intention of divorcing her when he leaves the country, like those who go abroad to study and so on. They said: Because this is not stipulated, and the difference between this and mut’ah is that when the time stipulated comes, separation is automatic, unlike this, because he may like this wife and want her to stay with him. This is one of the two views of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah.

In my view, it is valid and is not mut’ah, because the definition of mut’ah does not apply to it. But it is haraam because it is deceiving the wife and her family, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade deceiving and cheating. If the wife knew that this man only wanted to marry her for this period, she would not have married him and her family would not have agreed. Just as he would not want to give his daughter in marriage to a person who intends to divorce her when he no longer has any need of her, how can he agree to treat others in a way that he would not like for himself? This is contrary to faith, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “No one of you is a believer until he likes for his brother what he likes for himself.” And because I have heard that some people use this opinion as a means to do something which no scholar would approve: they go to other countries just to get married, so they go and get married, and they stay there for as long as Allaah wills with this wife whom they intended to marry for a short time only, then come back. This is also a grave wrong and closing the door to it would have been better because of the deceit and betrayal involved in it, and because it opens the door to such things, as most people are ignorant and most people’s whims and desires encourage them to transgress the sacred limits of Allaah. End quote.”

Fataawa al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah (2/757, 758). [Link to quote]

In addition to this the Standing Committee in Saudi Arabia was asked about a similar case in which they issued the following ruling (which mind you is then becomes the official government opinion): 

“Getting married with the intention of divorce is a temporary marriage, and a temporary marriage is an invalid marriage, because it is mut’ah, and mut’ah is haraam by consensus. Valid marriage is where a man gets married with the intention of keeping his wife and staying with her if she proves to be a good wife and he gets along with her, otherwise he may divorce her. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “either you retain her on reasonable terms or release her with kindness” [al-Baqarah 2:229]. 

And Allaah is the Source of strength. May Allaah send blessing and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions. 

Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allaah Aal al-Shaykh, Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ghadyaan, Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan, Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd.”

Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (18/448, 449). [Link to quote]

Christians and their Obvious Hypocrisy: 

So as we see really the BBC and Pfander Ministries has nothing to stand on when it comes to this concept.  And as stated by brother Adnan in the video above, it’s utterly amazing that Christians act stand there with a straight face and completely ignore the last 1900 plus years of Christianity.  I mean not only do we have such biblical passages as:

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”  [Ephesians 5:22–24]

Or, for more interesting passages here’s a list of the top 15 Misogynistic quotes from the Bible [taken from here…]

  1. A wife is a man’s property: You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. Exodus 20:17
  2. Daughters can be bought and sold: If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. Exodus 21:7
  3. A raped daughter can be sold to her rapist: 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Deuteronomy 22:28-29
  4. Collecting wives and sex slaves is a sign of status: He [Solomon] had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 1 Kings 11:3
  5. Used brides deserve death: If, however the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. Deuteronomy 22:20-21.
  6. Women, but only virgins, are to be taken as spoils of war: Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. Numbers 31:17-18
  7. Menstruating women are spiritually unclean: 19 “‘When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. 20 “‘Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 22 Anyone who touches anything she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, . . . 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge. 31 “‘You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place,[a] which is among them.’” Leviticus 15: 19-31
  8. A woman is twice as unclean after giving birth to girl as to a boy: A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. ‘ 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. 6 ” ‘When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. Leviticus 12: 1-8
  9. A woman’s promise is binding only if her father or husband agrees: 2 When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said. 3 “When a young woman still living in her father’s household makes a vow to the LORD or obligates herself by a pledge 4 and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. 5 But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her. . . . . A woman’s vow is meaningless unless approved by her husband or father. But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the LORD will release her. 13 Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself. Numbers 30:1-16
  10. Women should be seen not heard: Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 1 Corinthians 14:34
  11. Wives should submit to their husband’s instructions and desires: Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Colossians 3:18
  12. In case you missed that submission thing . . . :  Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Ephesians 5:22-24.
  13. More submission – and childbearing as a form of atonement: A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. 1 Timothy 2: 11-15
  14. Women were created for men: For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 1 Corinthians 11:2-10
  15. Sleeping with women is dirty: No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as first-fruits to God and the Lamb. Revelation 14:3-4

In addition to these interesting Bible verses, we also have statements from early Church fathers who appear to go even further in their Misogynistic fervor.  For example:

Clement of Alexandria: (Theologian and Greek Father, 2nd century)

“Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman. . . . the consciousness of their own nature must evoke feelings of shame.”

Paedagogus (The Instructor) Book 2, 33.2 (?)

Origen: (Theologian and Greek Father, 2nd-3rd centuries)

“Men should not sit and listen to a woman . . . even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since it came from the mouth of a woman.”

Fragments on 1 Corinthians

Tertullian: (The Father of Latin Christianity, 155-245)

”And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert—that is, death—even the Son of God had to die. And do you think about adorning yourself over and above your tunics of skins?”

De Cultu Feminarium (On the Apparel of Women)

Chrysostom: (Archbishop of Constantinople and Doctor of the Church,  4th century 

“God maintained the order of each sex by dividing the business of life into two parts, and assigned the more necessary and beneficial aspects to the man and the less important, inferior matter to the woman.”

The Kind of Women who ought to be taken as Wives 

Jerome: (Priest, Theologian, Doctor of the Church and Latin Father, 4th-5th centuries)

“Woman is the root of all evil.”

Augustine: (Bishop of Hippo, Doctor of the Church and Latin Father, 354-430)

“I don’t see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?”

“. . . the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one.”

On the Trinity, Book 12 7.10 

Thomas Aquinas: (Doctor of the church, 13th century

“But woman is naturally of less strength and dignity than man . . .”
Summa Theologica, Volume 1, Question 92, Article 1, Objection 2.

“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence.”
Summa Theologica, Vol. I, Q. 92, Art. 1, Reply to objection 1.

Martin Luther: (German priest, theologian and Protestant Reformer, 16th century)

“For woman seems to be a creature somewhat different from man, in that she has dissimilar members, a varied form and a mind weaker than man. Although Eve was a most excellent and beautiful creature, like unto Adam in reference to the image of God, that is with respect to righteousness, wisdom and salvation, yet she was a woman. For as the sun is more glorious than the moon, though the moon is a most glorious body, so woman, though she was a most beautiful work of God, yet she did not equal the glory of the male creature.”
Commentary on Genesis, Chapter 2, Part V, 27b. 

John Calvin: (French theologian, pastor and Protestant Reformer, 1509-1564)

On the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to women rather than to men: “I consider this was done by way of reproach, because they [the men] had been so tardy and sluggish to believe. And indeed, they deserve not only to have women for their teachers, but even oxen and asses. . .  . Yet it pleased the Lord, by means of those weak and contemptible vessels, to give display of his power.”
Commentary on the Gospel of John (John 20) 

“On this account, all women are born that they may acknowledge themselves as inferior in consequence to the superiority of the male sex.”
Commentary on 1 Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11) 

John Knox: (Scottish clergyman and Protestant Reformer, 16th century)

“Woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man . . .”

“Nature I say, paints [women] further to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble and foolish: and experience has declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment [or, leadership].”

The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women.

[Quotes taken from here…]

Conclusion: 

So to conclude, I believe it’s imperative upon our Christian friends in both the Church and the Media to stop their childish games of trying to make themselves morally (and sometimes racially) superior to Muslims around the world.  Islam considers itself a continuation of Judaism, and that is why many of the marital and governmental laws in Islam are similar to Judaism.

Sadly, most Christian refuse to recognize this concept and essentially end up indirectly refuting their own faith when trying to attack Islam.  I think Churches need to start giving their Missionaries exams and test them to see if they really know the History of their own Church and religion so that they don’t end up stepping on their own feet when trying to attack Muslims.

But of course like I said in the beginning, this isn’t about facts or truth, it’s about who can appear to be the most truthful to the ill-informed audience.  As the saying goes:

“In the land of the blind, the one eye man is king.”

But for our Christian friends it appears that the one who can most convincingly pretend to have one eye is the one who is believed.  Even if that means they are leading their flock straight towards a Theological Cliff.  Which here is Atheism, and the massive hole in their logic is the wars and marriage in the Old Testament.

 

A Brief Insight into the New Testament’s Prototyping

The New Testament of today is described as follows regarding the NA28 GNT:

“The intention of this edition lies not in reproducing the “oldest text” presented in the oldest manuscript but in reconstructing the text of the hypothetical master copy from which all manuscripts derive, a text the editors refer to as the initial text.”1

We should therefore understand the New Testament not to be the word of God, but the hypothetical reconstruction of the “word of God”, a prototype, a possibility of what the reconstruction of the initial text may have looked like. When one examines the earliest manuscripts, we quickly find a trend that cannot be sidelined or ignored, the earliest witnesses place us in the late 2nd to 4th centuries CE:

new-testament-diagram-final-1.png

The graph above concisely breaks down what books of the New Testament have as their earliest surviving (extant) witnesses. It also conveniently breaks down the New Testament into its genres and text types. The vast majority of manuscripts are from the 3rd century CE, meaning that the reconstructed prototypes give us a picture of what these completed texts may have looked like during or beyond the 3rd century CE. What is most notable, is that one of the earliest surviving sources attests to 9 books. That does not bode well for multiple attestation. Other books find their earliest witnesses in the 4th century including 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, 2 John and 3 John. These all indicate an intermediate or initial text projected into the 3rd century, some may say the 2nd century. Scholars have long noticed this trend of a later developed text, with one notable scholar explicitly stating:

Our critical editions do not present us with the text that was current in 150, 120 or 100—much less in 80 CE.2

Regarding new methods and changes in the NA28, a 2016 publication by the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society confirms the following:

The application of the CBGM resulted in 34 changes to the main text of
the Catholic Epistles and a slight increase in the number of passages marked as
uncertain. In most cases the changes are of minor significance for interpretation
or translation, but in several cases the changes should not be ignored. At the
difficult variation in Jude 5, for example, the text now reads that it was “Jesus”
(Ἰησοῦς) who once saved a people from Egypt instead of “the Lord” (ὁ κύριος). In
another important change, 2 Pet 3:10 now prints a reading that is not found in any
known Greek witness. Where the previous edition read that the last days would
mean that the earth and all that is in it “will be found” or perhaps “exposed” (εὑρεθήσεται), the text now reads the opposite: the earth and all that is in it “will not
be found” (οὑχ εὑρεθήσεται). The latter reading sits much easier with the surrounding context, but is only attested in a few Coptic and Syriac manuscripts.3

What the data, methods and current status of New Testament Textual Criticism indicates is that we have a text that is much later than is traditionally espoused. The stemmata indicate we currently have reconstructions of a textual form between the late 2nd to 4th centuries CE. There is now an increase in uncertainty regarding the variant units, in other words confidence has been lost in several cases. In other cases we find texts that affect theology or which textual critics indicate are important changes which are labelled as “difficult”, the consequences of which cannot and “should not be ignored”.

We also see in the aforementioned quote that texts now essentially teach the opposite of what they once said! All exegeses commentating on the previous reading have now been rendered invalid by a text reading in the opposite direction altogether. In one other notable case, we also now find a reading in the text that has no manuscript support whatsoever among any known Greek witnesses. All of these trends do not paint a good picture for the state of the New Testament’s reliability. The text of the New Testament today, is not the text known to those at any other time in the past, which brings into doubt their salvation. If  believing in scripture is a criterion for salvation, and the text believed then is not the text now, can we say those in the past truly believed in and embraced the “living word of God”? If the text that penetrated them for guidance is not the text of today, then does it matter at all what the New Testament says?4

Article Taken from: CallingChristians.com

Sources:

1 – Trobisch, David. A User’s Guide to the Nestle-Aland 28 Greek New Testament. 9th ed. (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), 10.

2 – Petersen, William Lawrence., and Jan Krans. Patristic and Text-Critical Studies: The Collected Essays of William L. Petersen. (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 410.

3 – Gurry, Peter J. How Your Greek NT Is Changing: A Simple Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (CBGM). Vol. 59. Series 4. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 2016, 684-685.

The title of this journal’s essay should not be ignored. The text of the New Testament is indeed changing, to say otherwise is to ignore the very existence of the critical editions.

4 – Hebrews 4:12.

Many commentators have said that the Bible is the living word of God, a scripture that penetrates us spiritually and guides us. If that is the case, then if the text changes, we have to ask, what form of the text is actually the living word of God? If an edition previously caused spiritual changes but is now changed, does that invalidate its spiritual guidance or does it indicate that the changes are wrong and the edition is correct? It’s a dilemma either way, which definitely brings into severe doubt the ideas of scripture, salvation and the work of a living word of God among Christian believers.

Christian and Islamic view of the man on the cross

The Qur’an is not a work of literary narrative, as is the Bible. As a scripture that provides guidance (huda) and a reminder (tadhkira) to humankind, it gives more emphasis to spiritual edifications than to providing a full account of facts. So, the Quran’s main concern with the Jesus story, too, is not to give a full account of the Jesus story, but rather to put it in the right theological perspective. That is probably why, although it contains detailed narratives about the birth and mission of Jesus, it tells us almost nothing about his passing. For it does not consider the passing of Jesus—just like that of Abraham, Moses, or Muhammad himself—as an event with major theological significance.

In contrast, the passing of Jesus—or, more precisely, his Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension—is crucial for Christianity. “If Christ has not been raised,” Paul famously wrote to the Corinthians, “then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:14) No wonder what ultimately became the very symbol of Christianity was the sign of the cross, which stands for the crucifixion—and not the sign of the fish, as it was among the earliest Christians.

In fact, the Qur’an does mention the cross, but only in passing, and only in an unaffirmative way. This mention, which led to disputes between Muslims and Christians for centuries, occurs in a Qur’anic passage that condemns a group of Jews that was apparently present in Medina. They are cursed, because “they disbelieved and uttered a terrible slander against Mary.” Furthermore:

And [they] said, “We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God.” They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear like that to them. Those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition. They certainly did not kill him. God raised him up to  Himself. God is almighty and wise. Quran 4:157-158

The key statement here, “it was made to appear like that to them,” or shubbiha la-hum, has led to endless speculations. Most Muslim exegetes, both in the classic era and the modern age, inferred from this phrase a theory of “substitution.” Accordingly, Jesus was not crucified, but somebody was “substituted” in his place— perhaps one of his disciples, or Judas Iscariot who betrayed him, or Simon of Cyrene who helped him carry the cross.

Yet this “substitution” theory, which is still almost the standard view among Muslims today, raises lots of questions. Fakhraddin al-Razi, the medieval scholar, addressed some of them frankly in his major exegesis of the Qur’an. “God was no doubt capable of delivering Jesus from the hands of his enemies by simply taking him up to heaven,” he first reminded. “What then,” he asked, “is the purpose of casting his likeness on another man, except to condemn an innocent man to death to no purpose?” He also made the following observation, which is in fact a good reminder for all religious believers that their arguments against the rival tradition can turn back on themselves:

All Christians in the world, with all their great love for Jesus and their extremist beliefs concerning him, have reported that they witnessed him being crucified and killed. If we were to deny this, we would cast doubt on the principle of tawatur [universally accepted transmission]. Casting doubt on this principle would also necessitate casting doubt on the prophethood of Muhammad and Jesus, and even on their very existence, as well as the existence of all other prophets, and that would be untenable.

Other Muslim commentators took a second and less radically rejectionist interpretation of “appearance,” arguing that Jesus was indeed crucified but he did not die on the cross. He rather secretly survived his execution, they suggested, despite his “appearance” of death. Ahmadiyya Muslims, an unorthodox sect of Islam, take this line. They even believe that after surviving the cross, Jesus moved to Kashmir, an area in the northern Indian subcontinent, to live there and ultimately to die a natural death. Hence in the Kashmirian city of Srinagar, there is still a highly revered “tomb of Jesus.”

Yet there is a third and radically different interpretation of the Qur’an’s verdict on the cross—a road much less taken. It begins by noting the context of the statement “They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him.” The context is a polemic against certain Jews— not Christians—who, apparently, both slandered Mary and also took pride in claiming “We killed the Messiah.” (No wonder in Talmudic literature there is a narrative which “proudly proclaims Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ execution.”66) To these people the Qur’an says, no, “They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear like that to them.”

In other words, the Qur’an is only telling us that Jews did not crucify and kill Jesus. It does not say nobody did that. It does not say, for example, that Romans did not crucify and kill Jesus, which was, of course, what really happened according to the canonical gospels.

Some scholars think that this third interpretation of the Qur’an’s interpretation of the cross may be compatible with the Christian version of the story. One was the late William Montgomery Watt, one of the most eminent Western scholars of Islam. He argued that a Christian could in fact accept the Qur’an’s statement on the crucifixion, “since the crucifixion was the work of Roman soldiers… [and] since the crucifixion was not a victory for the Jews in view of [Jesus’] resurrection.”

However, while this third interpretation makes it possible to reconcile the Qur’an with the story of the cross related in the canonical gospels, it probably cannot be reconciled with the theology of the cross related in Paul’s letters. Accordingly, the crucifixion was a cosmic event in which Jesus suffered as an atonement for the sins of all humankind. This theology not only has no trace in the whole Qur’an, it also goes against some of its core doctrines—such as that sin is strictly personal, and “no burden-bearer can bear another’s burden.” (Qur’an 35:18 53:38) It also is theologically unnecessary, for the Qur’an does not share the theology of the Fall as well, which according to Christianity made every human being inherently sinful and thus in need of a savior.

 

Excerpted from the book “The Islamic Jesus” by Mustafa Akyol

Does Allah command evil and indecency?

Bismillah_FullThis is in response to an article published on a notorious anti-Islamic site. (Read it in full Here)

In that article the heathen writer has written that Allah in Qur’an 17:16 commands people to commit indecency and then punish them for doing so. The translation he has given to the verse goes as;

“And when We desire to destroy a city, WE COMMAND its men who live at ease, AND THEY COMMIT UNGODLINESS therein, then the Word is realized against it, and We destroy it utterly.” S. 17:16

It does not seem odd of a Christian playing with the Word of God for this is their ancestrally profession, The Arabic wording of the verse goes as;

وَإِذَا أَرَدْنَا أَنْ نُهْلِكَ قَرْيَةً أَمَرْنَا مُتْرَفِيهَا فَفَسَقُوا فِيهَا فَحَقَّ عَلَيْهَا الْقَوْلُ فَدَمَّرْنَاهَا تَدْمِيرًا
Now I give some well known translations of this verse;
Taqi Usmani: “And when We intend to destroy a habitation, We command its affluent people (to do good), then they commit sins therein, and thus the word (of punishment) becomes applicable to it (habitation), and We annihilate it totally.”

Yusuf Ali: “When We decide to destroy a population, We (first) send a definite order to those among them who are given the good things of this life and yet transgress; so that the word is proved true against them: then (it is) We destroy them utterly.”

Shakir Ali: “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.”

Pickthal: “And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its folk who live at ease, and afterward they commit abomination therein, and so the Word (of doom) hath effect for it, and we annihilate it with complete annihilation.”

Hilali/Mohsin Khan: “And when We intend to destroy a city, We command its affluent but they defiantly disobey therein; so the word comes into effect upon it, and We destroy it with [complete] destruction.”

Maududi: “When We decree that a habitation should be destroyed, We give Commands to its well-to-do people and they show disobedience; then that habitation incurs just torment and We totally exterminate it.”

Asad: “But when [this has been done, and] it is Our will to destroy a community, We convey Our last warning” to those of its people who have lost themselves entirely in the pursuit of pleasures; and [if] they [continue to] act sinfully, the sentence [of doom] passed on the community takes effect, and We break it to smithereens.” 

Infact even other orientalists have translated this verse in a way that does not leave any room for the liars to play with fire:

George Sale: “And when We resolved to destroy a city, We commanded the inhabitants thereof, who lived in affluence, to obey our Apostle; but they acted corruptly herein: Wherefore the sentence was justly pronounced against that city; and We destroyed it with an utter destruction.”

Further let’s see the commentary of Abdullah Yusuf Ali on this verse. He writes;
“Allah’s Mercy gives every chance to the wicked to repent. When wickedness gets so rampant that punishment becomes inevitable, even then Allah’s Mercy and Justice act together. Those who are highly gifted from Allah-it may be with wealth or position, or it may be with talents and opportunities-are expected to understand and obey. They are given a definite order and warning. If they still transgress there is no further room for argument. They cannot plead that they were ignorant. The command of the Lord is proved against them, and its application is called for beyond doubt. Then it is that their punishment is completed.”

All these famous and authentic translations and commentaries prove that the true meaning of this verse is that when a people have become too stubborn in their opposition to Allah’s commandments, He gives them the commandment to correct their way of life, but as they transgress therein Allah punishes them. This is what it means.

Trickery of the writer:
The insane writer has brought up a little known translation here and hasn’t used any of the well known translations as they leave no room for him to twist the real meanings of the verse. He uses the Translation of Yusuf Ali, Pickthal and Asad later on but here he plays the trick to pollute the innocent minds.

He has used the translation of A.J. Arberry who was an Orientalist and a non-Muslim whose translation is very rarely, in fact hardly ever, referred to in the Islamic word for there are certain mistakes of omission and mistranslation with him. I don’t claim that he has intentionally mistranslated here but because of his less knowledge compared to the Muslim translators he has not been able to give the real meaning in exclusive sense. Even his translation does not actually give the meaning that the author of the article has tried to, but it does leave a slight room for the heathens like him.

Islamic divorce law:

Further he gives the wrapped view of the some divorce laws in Islam. Islam says that if a husband and wife divorce then they cannot remarry until the woman has married another person and that person either dies or divorces her after having consummated the marriage. He says that this is another point where Allah, to his understanding, commands indecency.

Why such a Law? To see whether he is right or wrong, lets see the rationale of this Law.

Firstly, Islam gives such a mechanism of family life that if strictly followed, there are quite less chances of divorce. In case some differences arise even then Islam’s prescribed way of divorce as laid down in the Holy Qur’an surah 2, ayah 229-230 and Ahadith give a lot of time for the rapprochement between the spouses. But if done Islam does not allow them to remarry unless the woman marries with someone else and the marriage is consummated and then either she is divorced or widowed. Islam prescribes this in order to make the couple think before making any emotional or out bursting decision and to ensure that marriage and divorce does not become a child play.

Having said this, Islam allows them still to marry under the above mentioned rules. I wonder how can one can call this indecency or lewdness as the other person with whom the woman will have relations meanwhile will be her husband then legally married to her. Yes, if somebody tries to play with the law and marries a person with a pre-condition of divorce then definitely it will be lewdness and Allah has forbidden this. Such an act is called Hilala which has been condemned in strongest terms.

أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ لَعَنَ اللَّهُ الْمُحَلِّلَ وَالْمُحَلَّلَ لَهُ

Narrated Ali, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Cursed be upon the one who marries a divorced woman with the intention of making her lawful for her former husband and upon the one for whom she is made lawful. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 2076. Classified as Sahih by Albani)

 

But there is no rationality in not allowing the remarriage even after woman has married another man and got widowed or divorced. It has no reason to be banned. But for remarriage between those two people such a condition is attached only to have deterrence against divorce which is, though lawful, but abhorred in the sight of Allah.

عن عبد الله بن عمر رضي الله عنهما ، قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : « ما أحل الله شيئا أبغض إليه من الطلاق

 

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Of all the lawful acts the most detestable to Allah is divorce. (Mustadrak Hakim, Hadith 2745. Classified as Sahih by Al-Hakim. Dhahbi agreed with him)

 

On the meaning of word “Rafath”:

In the end the writer has poured out his ignorance about the Qur’anic language. He says that it means obscenity and lewdness and Qur’an allows Muslims “Rafath” to their wives in 2:187 thus he says Allah has commanded Muslims obscenity.

If we read the commentary of this word in Tafsir Ibn Kathir, that this person himself mentioned, we read;

“Whatever might lead to sexual intercourse, such as embracing, kissing and talking to women about similar subjects, is not allowed. Ibn Jarir reported that Nafi` narrated that `Abdullah bin `Umar said, “Rafath means sexual intercourse or mentioning this subject with the tongue, by either men or women.” `Ata’ bin Abu Rabah said that Rafath means sexual intercourse and foul speech. This is also the opinion of `Amr bin Dinar. `Ata’ also said that they used to even prevent talking (or hinting) about this subject. Tawus said that Rafath includes one’s saying, “When I end the Ihram I will have sex with you.” This is also the same explanation offered by Abu Al-`Aliyah regarding Rafath. `Ali bin Abu Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas said, “Rafath means having sex with the wife, kissing, fondling and saying foul words to her, and similar acts.” Ibn `Abbas and Ibn `Umar said that Rafath means to have sex with women. This is also the opinion of Sa`id bin Jubayr, `Ikrimah, Mujahid, Ibrahim An-Nakha`i, Abu Al-`Aliyah who narrated it from `Ata’ and Makhul, `Ata Al-Khurasani, `Ata’ bin Yasar, `Atiyah, Ibrahim, Ar-Rabi`, Az-Zuhri, As-Suddi, Malik bin Anas, Muqatil bin Hayyan, `Abdul-Karim bin Malik, Al-Hasan, Qatadah and Ad-Dahhak, and others.”

(Tafsir Ibn Kathir under Ayah 197, Surah 2)
.

In this passage the writer has emphasized the words, “foul speech” and “foul words” etc. and then gives the impression that it means lewdness and obscenity as understood generally. Infact it only refers to the intimate words that a husband may say to his wife during their intimate relation. Infact Abdullah b. Umar’s statement in this passage conveys the very same meaning. i.e. “Rafath means sexual intercourse or mentioning this subject with the tongue, by either men or women.”

So what we find is that the word Rafath means intimate relation (physical or in words) and when Qur’an says that its allowed in Ramadan during nights (2:187), it clarifies by saying;

أُحِلَّ لَكُمْ لَيْلَةَ الصِّيَامِ الرَّفَثُ إِلَى نِسَائِكُمْ

“Permitted to you, on the night of the fasts, is the approach (Rafath) to your wives.”

Mark the words “to your wives”. And no sane would ever call this obscenity or lewdness. But definitely same when out of marital contract will be lewdness and obscenity without doubt.

Edward William Lane gives its meaning as; “He went into his wife, he compressed her, or was with her alone in private.” (Arabic-English Lexicon part 3 p. 1118)

And in Qur’an 2:197 Rafath is forbidden during Hajj i.e. all intimate relations are disallowed, with wives of course, others are always forbidden in Islam.

So the heathen writer makes really a poor case and lacks reason and rationality and is merely trying to play with people not aware of the dirty missionary tactics.

But surely falsehood has no feet to stand on.

“Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish.” (Qur’an 17:81)

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

Written by LetMeTurnTheTables.com

Why Quran calls Mary, a Sister of Aaron ?

Bismillah_FullThe verse in question is;

“O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!” (Al-Qur’an 19:28)

It does not mean that here Qur’an calls Mary, the real sister of Aaron, the Prophet who was hundreds of years before her. Here she is only being called a female person of the family, from the Noble lineage of Prophet Aaron.

The Qur’anic usage:


In order to understand Qur’anic language one must look into other Qur’anic passages.

Qur’ans calls Prophet Shoaib as the brother of the people of Midian. Qur’an says;

“And unto Midian (We sent) their brother, Shu’eyb.” (Al-Qur’an 7:85)

And similarly Qur’an calls Prophet Salih, the brother of the people of Thamud. It says;

“And unto Thamud (We sent) their brother Salih.” (Al-Qur’an 11:61)

In both these examples it is never meant that the Prophets were the real brothers of the each and every person of that tribe. It’s only way to address them. It means that Shu’aib was a (male) person from the people of Midian and similarly Salih from the people of Thamud.

So in the very same manner when Qur’an describes Mary, the mother of Christ as ‘Sister of Aaron’, It means that she is being referred to as a (female) person from the people, the lineage of Prophet Aaron.
This is infact an Arabic idiom, a way to address. In Arabia a person from the tribe Banu Mudhar may be addressed as Ya Akha Mudhar, meaning ‘O the brother of Mudhar’.

The Prophetic answer to this question:

Mughira b. Shu’ba reported: When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read” O sister of Aaron”, whereas Moses was born much before Jesus. When I came back to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) I asked him about that, whereupon he said: “The (people of the old age) used to call names (of their persons) after the names of the Prophets and pious persons who had gone before them.” (Sahih Muslim, Book on General Behaviour, Hadith 3962)

The Holy Prophet (PBUH) meant to say that Mary’s relationship with Prophet Aaron was mentioned because she was of his lineage for among Semites it was common to associate a person with his lineage.

This fits the context as well. The people thought that Mary had done something unworthy of a chaste woman and thus as they rebuked her, they first made a reference to her noble ancestry and then testified that even her own father was no wicked person (verse 28).

Observations from the Bible:

1- One thing we need to consider is that Qur’an does not call Mary ‘Sister of Moses’ but ‘Sister of Aaron’.

2- Aaron (PBUH) we know was the first in line for the Israelite priesthood.

3- New Testament clearly tells us that Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist (PBUH) was from the lineage of Aaron (Luke 1:5). Also it tells that Mary was a cousin of Elizabeth (1:36). Therefore we can easily call them both ‘Sisters of Aaron’ i.e. from the lineage of Aaron.

4- Infact we have evidence of the similar usage from the Bible. In Genesis 13:8 Abraham and Lot are called brothers while certainly they did not come from loins of one individual. It reads;

“And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.”

A certain Christian commentator, Adam Clarke says in his commentary to this verse;

‘[It means] we are of the same family, worship the same God in the same way, have the same promises, and look for the same end.’

Was the same not true in case of Mary and Aaron? Were they both not from the same priestly family and of same faith?

So the conclusion is that this is only a beautiful way of expression in the Arabic language and to try to twist it some other way speaks only of ones inner wickedness and that’s all!

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

Taken from LetMeTurnTheTables.com