Muhammad had Violated the Qur’an–2

PART 2, CONTINUES FROM PART 1

Muhammad violated Allah’s restriction on him on the number of his wives

When Muhammad married Zaynab bint Jahsh, the wife of his adopted son, Zayd b. Harith, Allah was a little bit displeased with Muhammad’s audacious crave for young, beautiful, sexy women—married or single. So, Allah clamped down on Muhammad, sternly warning him that that was enough, that he could not accumulate further, any extra wives. Allah made Zaynab Muhammad’s wife number eight or nine—the last wife. Here is the verse where Allah forbade Muhammad to marry further after marrying Zaynab bint Jahsh:

Allah put restriction on Muhammad’s marriage; he is not to take any new wife, neither exchange old wives for new…33:52

033.052 YUSUFALI: It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for (other) wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess (as handmaidens): and Allah doth watch over all things.

Let us have a look at the list of women with whom Muhammad had some kind of connection, including sexual. This list has been prepared from the book of Tabari (vol. ix, pp.120-141). Please note that this list is in chronological order. Highlighted in the list is the name of Zaynab bint Jahsh to demonstrate how flagrantly Muhammad had dishonored Allah’s restriction on him—he had collected at least 13 more wives, a sex-slave and a concubine even when Allah commanded him to restrain his wife collection.

Muhammad had 21 wives. They were:
1. Khadijah bint Khuwaylid
2. Sawdah bint Jamah
3. Aisha bint Abu Bakr
4. Hafsah bint Umar (Hafsha found Muhammad and Mariyah in her bed and she became hysterical (footnote 884, Tabari ix.131).
5. Umm Salamah
6. Juwayriyyah
7. Umm Habiba bint Abi Sufyan
8. Zaynab bint Jahsh
9. Safiyyah bint Huyayy
10. Maymunah bint Al-Harith
11. Sana bint Asma or Saba bint Asma. She died before Muhammad consummated the marriage.
12. al-Shama bint Amr al-Ghifariyaah. Muhammad divorced her for her doubting his prophethood.
13. Ghaziyyah bint Jabir. She was previously married and had a son named Sharik. She was beautiful but she refused to consummate the marriage. Muhammad found her old (ibid, p.139); so he returned her to her people.
14. Amrah bint Yazid. Some say she gave herself to Muhammad (33:50). Muhammad did not consummate the marriage.
15. Asma bint Al-Numan. Muhammad found her suffering from leprosy; so he divorced her giving her compensation.
16. Zaynab bint Khuzaymah—also called Umm al-Masakin (mother of the poor)
17. Al-Aliyaah bint Zabyan. It is alleged that she peeped through her door at the people in the mosque. So Muhammad divorced her after paying her some compensation (ibid, footnote 919, p.138).
18. Qutaylah bint Qays—but Muhammad died before he could consummate his marriage with her. She and her brother apostatized from Islam.
19. Fatimah bint Shurayh (Sara).
20. Kawlah bint Hudhayl
21. Layla bint Al-Khatim. She offered herself to Muhammad and Muhammad accepted her as his wife. Later, when her people admonished her for marrying Muhammad, she requested for a divorce and Muhammad divorced her.

People used to say that Muhammad was a womanizer (Tabari, vol.ix, p.139).

List of women to whom Muhammad proposed but did not marry
1. Umm Hani bint Abi Talib—she had a child. Previously Abu Talib had rejected Muhammad’s proposal to marry her.
2. Dubbah bint Amir—she was too old.
3. Safiyyah bint Bashshamah—she was a captive.
4. Umm Habiba bint al-Abbas—fosterage.
5. Jamrah bint Al-Harith—was suffering from leprosy.
6. Khawlah bint Hakim.
7. Amamah bint Hamzah.

Muhammad’s concubines were:
1. Mariyah bint Sham’un (Hafsah found Mariyah and Muhammad together in her bed and she was hysterical (Tabari, ix.131, footnote 884)
2. Rayhanah bint Zayd al-Quraziyaah.

Marriage not consummated:
1. Mulaykah bint Kab al-Laythi—Muhammad divorced her.
2. Bint Jundub.

Even the one of the most eminent commentators and translators of the Qur’an, Maulana Yusuf Ali admits that Muhammad had indeed transgressed the stipulation of the Qur’an.

Yusuf Ali (commentary number 3754, p.1123) writes: “This was revealed in A.H. 7. After that the Prophet did not marry again, except the handmaiden Mary the Copt, who was sent as a present by the Christians Muaqauqas of Egypt. She became the mother of Ibrahim, who died in his infancy.”

Muhammad violated the Qur’anic law on the punishment of sex offenders

Fornication and adultery are two most serious offences in Islamic societies. These acts are worse than murder and plunder. The punitive measures, as enacted in the Qur’an, are truly extremely harsh and barbaric. Let us read the verse which deals with such grave crimes:

Punishment for adultery or fornication (both man and woman) is one hundred lashes in front of the believers …24:2

024.022 YUSUFALI: The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

Strangely, when it came to a friend of Muhammad, who admitted having committed a punishable offence (illegal sex, perhaps), Muhammad did not apply this Qur’anic rule. Here is a hadis from Sahih Bukhari on this violation of the Qur’an:

Muhammad did not punish a person for illegal sexual intercourse because the person prayed with him…(Sahih Bukhari, 8.82.812)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 82, Number 812 Narrated Anas bin Malik: While I was with the Prophet a man came and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I have committed a legally punishable sin; please inflict the legal punishment on me’.’ The Prophet did not ask him what he had done. Then the time for the prayer became due and the man offered prayer along with the Prophet, and when the Prophet had finished his prayer, the man again got up and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I have committed a legally punishable sin; please inflict the punishment on me according to Allah’s Laws.” The Prophet said, “Haven’t you prayed with us?’ He said, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “Allah has forgiven your sin.” or said, “….your legally punishable sin.”

Muhammad violated the Qur’anic code of conduct between marriageable couples

Please note that a man and a woman who are not close relatives (that is, those men and women who could be married to each other, those who are not in the prohibited class for marriage purposes) cannot, under any circumstances, be alone together. This moral guardianship is endorsed in these verses of the Qur’an:

Believing men are to lower their gaze and guard modesty…24:30

024.030 YUSUFALI: Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do.

Let us observe what Muhammad did with some single women, who could be married to him.

The first such woman was none but his first cousin-sister, Umm Hani bint Abu Talib. Muhammad passionately fell in love with her, but for some unknown reason his beloved uncle, Abu Talib did not give her hand to Muhammad when Muhammad requested. Instead, Abu Talib married her to a pagan, Hibayrah. But Muhammad’s adulterous relation with Umm Hani (real name Fakitah, also known as Hind) continued. He used to sleep in her house, when no one was around. Such an incidence took place when Muhammad returned from his failed mission at Taif, after the deaths of his first wife, Khadijah and his uncle Abu Talib. Returning from Taif, he took shelter in Ka’ba. But at nightfall, when everyone was asleep, he stealthily went to Umm Hani’s house and spent the night with her. In the morning, when the people did not find him at Ka’ba, they went looking for him. They found him in the house of Umm Hani. He was embarrassed. So was Umm Hani. To hide the truth, he concocted the story of his night journey to Jerusalem and Paradise from Umm Hani’s house (more precisely, from her bed), which many converts of Islam found too incredible to believe. They left Islam then and there. This made Muhammad sad and withdrawn. Soon, after such an adulterous affair was leaked, he left Mecca and settled in Medina. But his undying love for Umm Hani remained aflame.

Later, when Muhammad became militarily strong and conquered Mecca, he went to Umm Hani’s house and stayed with her overnight, praying and chit-chatting with her. Hubayrah, Umm Hani’s husband had foreseen the fall of Mecca and had fled to Najran. So, Umm Hani was living in her house, separated from her pagan husband, and Muhammad was there comforting her, in open transgression of the Qur’anic code. (Please consult: Martin Lings, p.33, 101, 103-104, 299; Ibn Ishaq, p.184, Tabari, vol.viii, p.186)

Here is a hadis from Sahih Bukhari which demonstrates Muhammad’s way with single women, divorced or widowed, rich or poor, for sex, which clearly violates the Qur’an.

A dignified woman, Jauniyaa (a princess) was brought to Muhammad to have sex with him but she was reluctant to give herself to him; Muhammad was angry and raised his hand to beat her…(Sahih Bukhari, 7.63.182)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 63, Number 182 Narrated Abu Usaid: We went out with the Prophet to a garden called Ash-Shaut till we reached two walls between which we sat down. The Prophet said, “Sit here,” and went in (the garden). The Jauniyya (a lady from Bani Jaun) had been brought and lodged in a house in a date-palm garden in the home of Umaima bint An-Nu’man bin Sharahil, and her wet nurse was with her. When the Prophet entered upon her, he said to her, “Give me yourself (in marriage) as a gift.” She said, “Can a princess give herself in marriage to an ordinary man?” The Prophet raised his hand to pat her so that she might become tranquil. She said, “I seek refuge with Allah from you.” He said, “You have sought refuge with One Who gives refuge. Then the Prophet came out to us and said, “O Abu Usaid! Give her two white linen dresses to wear and let her go back to her family.”

Narrated Sahl and Abu Usaid: The Prophet married Umaima bint Sharahil, and when she was brought to him, he stretched his hand towards her. It seemed that she disliked that, whereupon the Prophet ordered Abu Usaid to prepare her and to provide her with two white linen dresses. (See Hadith No. 541).

Readers should note that the woman mentioned in the above hadis was a minor, because her ‘wet nurse’ was with her when Muhammad wanted to have free sex with her. Also note that this child girl was perhaps naked when she met Muhammad, because Muhammad instructed Abu Usaid to cover her with white linen.

Muhammad violated the Qur’anic rule on sex and fondling with menstruating women

On menstruating women, the Qur’an says:

Menstruation is a disease; can’t have sex during a woman’s period; after the period is over have sex in any manner, at any time and at any place…2:222

022.222 YUSUFALI: They ask thee concerning women’s courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean. But when they have purified themselves, ye may approach them in any manner, time, or place ordained for you by Allah. For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly and He loves those who keep themselves pure and clean.

Please note that in verse 2:222 the Qur’an clearly says: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean.

Let us examine what Muhammad did to his wives when they were in heavy menstruation:

During Aisha’s period Muhammad used to fondle her in bath. When menstruating Aisha used to wash Muhammad’s head…(Sahih Bukhari 1.6.298)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6 Number 298 Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses).

Muhammad used to fondle his wives when they were menstruating…(Sahih Bukhari 1.6.299)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 299 Narrated ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Aswad: (on the authority of his father) ‘Aisha said: “Whenever Allah’s Apostle wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an Izar and start fondling her.” ‘Aisha added, “None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet could.”

Muhammad used to embrace his menstruating wives after covering their private parts…(Sahih Muslim 3.0578)

Sahih Muslim Book 003, Number 0578 ‘A’isha reported: When anyone amongst us was menstruating the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) asked her to tie waist-wrapper during the time when the menstrual blood profusely flowed and then embraced her; and she (’A'isha) observed: And who amongst you can have control over his desires as the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) had over his desires.

Muhammad put his cheek and chest in between the naked thighs of a menstruating Aisha…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 1.0270)

Sunaan Abu Dawud Volume i, Number 0270 Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: Umarah ibn Ghurab said that his paternal aunt narrated to him that she asked Aisha: What if one of us menstruates and she and her husband have no bed except one? She replied: I relate to you what the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) had done. One night he entered (upon me) while I was menstruating. He went to the place of his prayer, that is, to the place of prayer reserved (for this purpose) in his house. He did not return until I felt asleep heavily, and he felt pain from cold. And he said: Come near me. I said: I am menstruating. He said: Uncover your thighs. I, therefore, uncovered both of my thighs. Then he put his cheek and chest on my thighs and I lent upon he until he became warm and slept.

END OF PART 2, CONTINUES ON PART 3

Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/09/29/muhammad-had-violated-the-quran-2/

IHS

Muhammad had Violated the Qur’an-1

(Note: This essay is an updated of version of the above article first posted on December 9, 2005. Due to much request from the readers the author has decided to re-write and update the essay in light with the new information glimpsed from the Qur’an and ahadith.)

PART 1

Introduction

TODAY’S JIHADISTS are murdering innocent, ordinary Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia and other parts of the world to establish Allah’s laws. By Allah’s law they mean to institute the rules and regulations prescribed principally in the Qur’an, and in other Islamic holy books of Islam, such as ahadiths. These ardent soldiers of Allah staunchly believe Qur’an to be the infallible words of Allah, which are so sacrosanct that even Muhammad could have never violated.

But this is just a fib. When we diligently study the biography of Muhammad and the ahadith we find quite a few examples where Muhammad had openly transgressed the provisions in the Qur’an. Sex was an important aspect of Muhammad’s life. His unbridled indulgence in sex had, on many occasions, forced him to violate Allah’s rule overtly. To suppress his breach of the Qur’anic laws on sex and sexuality, he, as usual, concocted stories of Allah’s exemption to His dearest friend. In this essay I am exposing the hypocrisy of some Islamists who claim adamantly that Muhammad could have never violated the Qur’an. Besides sex, we also learn from the history of Islam that Muhammad had flagrantly violated many aspects of the Qur’an. It is important to learn about this aspect of Muhammad to characterize him as person of conniving, cunning and opportunistic disposition. This essay will expose the Islamic hypocrisy that Muhammad was a divine person, commanded by Allah to implement Allah’s laws on humanity.

Here are a few examples of how Muhammad had violated the sacred book of Allah, the Qur’an.

Muhammad broke the rule on sex and foreplay during fasting

What the Holy Qur’an says about sex during fasting time: During fasting, sexual activity is for the night only…2:187

002.187 YUSUFALI: Permitted to you, on the night of the fasts, is the approach to your wives. They are your garments and ye are their garments. Allah knoweth what ye used to do secretly among yourselves; but He turned to you and forgave you; so now associate with them, and seek what Allah Hath ordained for you, and eat and drink, until the white thread of dawn appear to you distinct from its black thread; then complete your fast Till the night appears; but do not associate with your wives while ye are in retreat in the mosques. Those are Limits (set by) Allah: Approach not nigh thereto. Thus doth Allah make clear His Signs to men: that they may learn self-restraint.

Here is what Muhammad did while observing fast:

Muhammad slept with Umm Salama during her period, kissed her while fasting and used to take bath from the same pot after having sex…(Sahih Bukhari,1.6.319)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 319 Narrated Zainab bint Abi Salama: Um-Salama said, “I got my menses while I was lying with the Prophet under a woollen sheet. So I slipped away, took the clothes for menses and put them on. Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Have you got your menses?’ I replied, ‘Yes.’ Then he called me and took me with him under the woollen sheet.” Um Salama further said, “The Prophet used to kiss me while he was fasting. The Prophet and I used to take the bath of Janaba from a single pot.”

While fasting, Muhammad kissed and embraced his wives…(Sahih Bukhari,3.31.149)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 31, Number 149 Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet used to kiss and embrace (his wives) while he was fasting, and he had more power to control his desires than any of you. Said Jabir, “The person who gets discharge after casting a look (on his wife) should complete his fast.”

Muhammad used to kiss and suck Aisha’s tongue while they were fasting…(Sunaan Abu Dawud,13.2380)

Sunaan Abu Dawud, Book 13, Number 2380 Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) used to kiss her and suck her tongue when he was fasting.

Muhammad violated the Qur’anic rules on dower (mehr) and the time of waiting (idda)) in marrying a divorced/widowed woman

When Muhammad captured Khaybar, he took as a captive, Safiyyah bt Huyayy, a very pretty teenage-girl and purportedly married her without paying her any dowry (mahr). The payment of mahr is compulsory in every Islamic marriage.

First, we shall examine how Muhammad violated the rule of dower. This rule is stipulated in the Qur’an thus:

To marry a woman, pay her dowry as a free-gift…4:4

004.004 YUSUFALI: And give the women (on marriage) their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, Take it and enjoy it with right good cheer

To hide his deception, Muhammad claimed that marrying Safiyyah was in itself a good honour for her, her dowry was her manumission from being a sex-slave to Muhammad.

Let us read the following hadith

Muhammad consummated his marriage with Saffiyah by staying with her for three days on way from Khaybar; he ordered her to wear a veil…(Sahih Bukhari, 5.59.523, 524)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 523 Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet stayed with Safiya bint Huyai for three days on the way of Khaibar where he consummated his marriage with her. Safiya was amongst those who were ordered to use a veil.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 524 Narrated Anas: The Prophet stayed for three nights between Khaibar and Medina and was married to Safiya. I invited the Muslim to his marriage banquet and there was neither meat nor bread in that banquet but the Prophet ordered Bilal to spread the leather mats on which dates, dried yogurt and butter were put. The Muslims said amongst themselves, “Will she (i.e. Safiya) be one of the mothers of the believers, (i.e. one of the wives of the Prophet) or just (a lady captive) of what his right-hand possesses” Some of them said, “If the Prophet makes her observe the veil, then she will be one of the mothers of the believers (i.e. one of the Prophet’s wives), and if he does not make her observe the veil, then she will be his lady slave.” So when he departed, he made a place for her behind him (on his and made her observe the veil.

Muhammad stayed with Safiyyah for three nights consummating his marriage…(Sunaan Abu Dawud, 2.11.2118)

Sunaan Dawud:Volumel. ii, Book 11, number 2118 Anas b Malik said: When the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) married Safiyyah, he stayed with her three nights. The narrator ‘Uthman added: She was non-virgin (previously married). He said: This tradition has been narrated to me by Hushaim, reported by Humaid, and transmitted by Anas.

Saffiya’s dower for marriage was her manumission…(Sahih Muslim, 8.3326) Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3326

This hadith has been narrated through another chain of transmitters on the authority of Anas that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) emancipated Safiyya, and her emancipation was treated as her wedding gift, and in the hadith transmitted by Mu’adh on the authority of his father (the words are):” He (the Holy Prophet) married Safiyya and bestowed her emancipation as her wedding gift.”

Please note that nowhere in the Qur’an we find that Allah has made it legal to use manumission of a slave-woman to be used as her dowry (mahr). Muhammad simply invented this rule according to his convenience.

Ibn Sa’d provides further information on this lustful marriage with a 19-year-old Jewish beauty with 60-year-old Muhammad. Please note that before falling into the hands of Muhammad, a Jewish man had married this pretty girl. Muhammad had already beheaded Safiyaah’s husband and her father after subjecting them to brutal torture. Having satiated his lust for blood, on the same night he killed her closest relatives, Muhammad took Saffiyah into his tent to have sex with her.

We learn from Ibn Sa’d that Muhammad purchased Safiyyah from Dhiyah for seven camels (around US$ 2,100). On the same night that Muhammad took possession of Safiyyah, he hastened to his tent to sleep with her. Here is what Ibn Sa’d writes:

“….when it was night, he entered a tent and she entered with him. Abu Ayyub came there and passed the night by the tent with a sword keeping his head at the tent. When it was morning and the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, perceived (somebody) moving, he asked: Who is there? He replied: I am Abu Ayub. He asked: Why are you here? He replied: O Apostle of Allah! There is a young lass newly wedded (to you) with whose late husband you have done what you have done. I was not sure of safety, so I wanted to be close to you. Thereupon the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said twice: O Abu Ayyub! May Allah show you mercy.” (ibn Sa’d vol.ii, p.145)

To hide the lascivious character of Muhammad, Muslim biographers often mention that he married Safiyyah before he slept with her. But they forget to state that Muhammad did not follow the rule of waiting period (three monthly periods) to sleep with Safiyyah.

We shall now see how Muhammad had violated the rule of idda (waiting period) in marrying a woman. These rules are stipulated in the Qur’an thus:

Before marrying another man, divorced women must wait three monthly periods…2:228

002.228 YUSUFALI: Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise

Widows wait four months and ten days for re-marriage…2:234

002.234 YUSUFALI: If any of you die and leave widows behind, they shall wait concerning themselves four months and ten days: When they have fulfilled their term, there is no blame on you if they dispose of themselves in a just and reasonable manner. And Allah is well acquainted with what ye do.

Clearly, when Muhammad wanted to sleep or to have sex with Safiyyah, she was a widow, as Muhammad had already killed her husband. Therefore, as per the Qur’an, Muhammad had to wait at least four months and ten days before he could even touch her. But Muhammad did not at all observe this rule; instead, he took Safiyyah, straight from the battlefield to his bed in the war camp. Having spent the night with her, Muhammad took her to another, safer location, stayed there for three days and consummated his marriage with Safiyyah.

Let us read a hadis on this:

Muhammad selected Safiyyah because of her beauty, made her his wife and gave a banquet at the wedding; then he had sex with Saffiyah at Sa`d-AsSahba…(Sahih Bukhari 4.52.143)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 143 Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said to Abu Talha, “Choose one of your boy servants to serve me in my expedition to Khaibar.” So, Abu Talha took me letting me ride behind him while I was a boy nearing the age of puberty. I used to serve Allah’s Apostle when he stopped to rest. I heard him saying repeatedly, “O Allah! I seek refuge with You from distress and sorrow, from helplessness and laziness, from miserliness and cowardice, from being heavily in debt and from being overcome by men.” Then we reached Khaibar; and when Allah enabled him to conquer the Fort (of Khaibar), the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab was described to him. Her husband had been killed while she was a bride. So Allah’s Apostle selected her for himself and took her along with him till we reached a place called Sad-AsSahba,’ where her menses were over and he took her for his wife. Haris (a kind of dish) was served on a small leather sheet. Then Allah’s Apostle told me to call those who were around me. So, that was the marriage banquet of Allah’s Apostle and Safiya. Then we left for Medina. I saw Allah’s Apostle folding a cloak round the hump of the camel so as to make a wide space for Safiya (to sit on behind him) He sat beside his camel letting his knees for Safiya to put her feet on so as to mount the camel. Then, we proceeded till we approached Medina; he looked at Uhud (mountain) and said, “This is a mountain which loves us and is loved by us.” Then he looked at Medina and said, “O Allah! I make the area between its (i.e. Medina’s) two mountains a sanctuary as Abraham made Mecca a sanctuary. O Allah! Bless them (i.e. the people of Medina) in their Mudd and Sa (i.e. measures).”

Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/09/21/muhammad-had-violated-the-quran-updated-and-re-written/

CONTINUES ON PART 2

IHS

The benefits of drinking camel Urine

FaithFreedom received the following inquiry from one of our good readers:

Is there any one to clarify this point that drinking of camel urine is curative in Hepatitis C. Few weeks ago I met with a doctor who was master of Muslim medicine. He told me that Camel Urine is very effective in so many physical problems specially Hepatitis “C”. He gave reference of many Ahadiths about it. I want to ask the Muslims whether they drink camel urine or not and if not why not when Prophet Peace be Upon him has ordered Muslims to drink it. Fanatic Hindus love Cow Urine but Muslims believe in true religion so they drink the Urine of largest domesticated animals for bigger advantages.

This is like trying to prove scientifically that the world is flat, but here is our FFI effort.

I googled “Camel Urine” and got a bunch of hits:

From “Answering Christianity” we are given the hadith involved and added to that is the generalized view from Islamic believers. Most of the discussion is dedicated to one chemical derived from Animal Urine but it seems to revolve around Mares (female horse) urine not camel.

At best it was the same old drivel trying to prove just how “scientific” the Quran really is. In another link titled “Camels could help cure humans” they make the following quote:

“Writing in the British Institute of Biology’s magazine, The Biologist, Dr Jassim says the small size of camel antibodies would also allow them to penetrate deep into human tissue and cells that would not be otherwise accessible.”

Now anyone who has three hours in microbiology understands that antibodies are specialized cells in our bodies that attack foreign bodies and kills the invading disease (germs or virsus or even a splinter) or any other foreign object. We are not aware that antibodies come in smaller packages than others that can ‘penetrate deep into human tissue and cells’. To the untrained eye this sounds great, but all one has to do is google the subject and this statement soon becomes rubbish.

From “muhammadanism.org” we get some very inspiring insight into a concept that drinking camel urine will cure human ills. It basically comes down to whether one has faith in what the Prophet said. Here is the meat of the article:

Of course, many Muslims find the idea of drinking camel’s urine to be repulsive; and, as a result, they reject this hadith, even though it is Muttafaq ‘Alaih. Others justify the hadith, and point out that horse urine is the source of conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) and available as Premarin®. It is an estrogen treatment for menopausal and premenopausal women. For them, it is reason to praise Muhammad whom, they claim, had miraculous foreknowledge of modern medicine. However, there is no specific evidence that those who were ill were menopausal women or that Muhammad suggested that camel urine would cure a woman who had a low level of estrogen.

Furthermore, those Muslims who think that Muhammad was given miraculous scientific knowledge only give lip service to this hadith. They would never put camel urine to their lips and drink it themselves. This shows that they don’t really believe the so-called miracle in their hearts. If they did, they would be asking to drink camel’s urine whenever they were ill. Since they neither believe nor follow Muhammad’s advice in this hadith, their verbal praise of Muhammad’s miraculous medical knowledge rings hollow and hypocritical.

In “Islam Question and Answer” the question seems to be answered definitely, if one is gullible enough to believe it. This page is really an important read because the Doctors at “Sudanese al-Jazeerah university” are so far ahead of say a world leading research institution like “Johns Hopkins” that they apparently lead the world in learning. (Of course I have never known of any real research coming out of “Sudanese al-Jazeerah university”. Have you?)

The only problem with this page is that all Mammal urine has similar qualities and it is not restricted to just a Camel; however, if animal urine was a miracle cure the world could save trillions of dollars a year by all world doctors simply prescribing Camel Urine for the cure. But it is fine to just think how great the health of the world’s people would be if we simply took the Prophets word and drank Camel milk and urine. Of course all mammalian milk is good food; I just don’t want to entertain drinking an animal’s waste stream.

While I point out these web sites that tout the benefits of drinking camel urine it is hard to find real science establishing the merits of ingesting untreated camel urine. But one must remember that all animals (including Homo sapiens) are large chemical factories and our bodies respond to many chemicals. Mammal metabolism in all advanced species is similar and on the face of the issue it seems highly unlikely that drinking raw camel urine, a waste product from another mammal, would include any chemical that our own bodies would not expel. In fact the urea (a source of nitrogen), potassium and other chemicals and proteins in camel would simply be rejected by our bodies also. But we cannot rule out the placebo effect that a true believer in Islam may experience by drinking camel urine.

The argument that Muslims make for justifying the drinking of camel urine is quite simple: the Muslim world must prove that Mohammad did not lie to them and in someway Allah had revealed to Mohammad some science that all Muslim must accept at face value. So they seek to find any little thread of truth to a blatant lie or at best an ancient ‘wives tale’ about the benefits of drinking such a vile waste product. As hard as I tried I could not find any non-Islamic source for the vast benefits of drinking Camel Urine. The data on treatments for Hepatitis “C” with Camel urine was only found at the Islamic motivated sites. So I don’t think that the New England Journal of Medicine is going to make a camel urine drinking recommendation in the near future.

So my conclusion is that there may well be some trace chemical in any waste product that could lead to scientific discovery as all drugs are nothing more than chemicals; however, the thought that Allah invented camels to be a movable pharmacy is quite far fetched.

Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/2009/09/19/the-benefits-of-drinking-camel-urine/

IHS

Has a Woman the Right to Hit Her Husband in Self-Defense?

Prominent Shi'ite Ayatollah Fadhlallah, Prominent Sunni Scholar 'Obikan:

Following the execution, in late October 2008, of a Saudi convicted of the violent murder of his wife, Sunni sheikh 'Abd Al-Muhsin Al-'Obikan, an advisor at the Saudi Justice Ministry, issued a fatwa permitting a wife to use force against her husband in response to violence on his part. The fatwa stated that the wife may even kill her husband to prevent him from killing her. Explaining his fatwa at Islamonline.net, 'Obikan said: "A woman may respond to violence with violence, in self-defense: If [her husbands] hits her she may hit back, and if he tries to kill her, she may kill him... if this is the only way she can save her life." In addition, 'Obikan also permitted a woman to leave her husband's bed and to deny him sex if he is not fulfilling his matrimonial duties towards her. [1]

A similar fatwa was issued a year earlier by Lebanese Shi'ite scholar Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadhlallah, to mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. He too ruled that a woman beaten by her husband is allowed to hit him back, and that a woman whose husband does not honour her rights, as stipulated in the marriage contract, such as the right to sustenance or marital relations, may withhold these rights from her husband as well. [2]

'Obikan's and Fadhlallah's fatwas evoked many responses among religious circles in the Arab world. Some supported the fatwas, citing the right to self-defense and the principle of gender equality. Others objected to them, claiming that the Koran permits only the husband to hit his wife and to withhold sexual relations from her, as a means of disciplining her, and that a fatwa permitting the wife to hit back would destroy families.

It should be noted that many Muslim religious scholars hold that it is permitted for a husband to beat his wife, though only as a last resort and under specific conditions. [3] This position was reiterated at a recent symposium of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, held April 26-30, 2009 in the UAE and attended by some 200 Muslim scholars from around the world. A decision issued at the symposium stated that a disobedient wife should be treated according to the guidelines of the Muslim Shari'a: the husband must first admonish her, then withdraw from her bed, and only then, if all else fails, administer a beating. The decision stipulated that the beating must be light, must not be on the face or sensitive parts of the body, and must not be administered in anger or in revenge. [4]

Following are excerpts from Ayatollah Fadhlallah's fatwa, and from responses to his and Sheikh 'Obikan's fatwas.

Ayatollah Fadhlallah: A Married Woman is an Independent Legal Entity

Fadhlallah's fatwa stated: "Despite the progress in the humane treatment of the woman; despite the respect attained by the woman [today] as compared to her condition in the past in most Eastern and Western societies; despite the woman's advancement up the social and political ladder - so much so that nowadays women occupy the highest positions in government and other [domains]; despite the fact that women have joined and even surpassed men in resistance movements - [despite all this,] women are still subjected to violence of various forms, and this [phenomenon] is not confined to specific [social] circles. This is happening not only in the East, but is worldwide, even though the form and extent of violence may vary from place to place... The woman - be it as sister, daughter, or wife - is still subordinate to the man - be it her brother, her father, or her husband..."

In view of the above, Fadhlallah emphasized the following points: "Violence can be resorted to only in exceptional cases, as an educational tool or in response to aggression... This norm is valid in interpersonal relations in general, without distinction between man and woman, or between young and old...

"The man's guardianship over the woman does not entail control; rather, it means that the responsibility for the family is on his shoulders. [This responsibility] does not rest exclusively with the man, and he must share with the woman all [the responsibilities] that they have in common as a couple...

"The woman's willingness to engage in household chores and domestic duties [must stem] from [natural] human [feelings], love, and willingness to sacrifice - since Islam does not impose on the woman anything of the sort, even in connection to raising [children]. Islam respects [the woman's] work, and [even specifies that] she must be given material reimbursement for it. The man must appreciate the sacrifice the woman makes by taking care of him and the family, and he must not treat her arbitrarily or violently...

"According to Islam, within marriage the woman is an entity legally independent of the man with regard to material possessions. The man is forbidden to seize the woman's personal belongings, or to interfere with her commercial [dealings] or interests - if these have no bearing on him as her spouse, or on the family for whose [wellbeing] he is responsible...

"Islam does not permit the man to use any form of violence against the woman - either in respect of her Shari'a rights, which he must honor on the strength of the marriage contract, or in respect of her [right] to go out of the house.

"Furthermore, Islam prohibits cursing her or using abusive language to hurt [her]. All these are sins for which Allah will call [the man] to account, and which are punishable by the Islamic law..."

A Woman May Treat Her Husband Just As He Treats Her

"If a man has used physical violence against a woman, and if she cannot defend herself other than by resorting to similar violence against him, then she is permitted to do so by way of self-defence. Moreover, if a man has acted violently with respect to the woman's rights - i.e. by depriving her of some of the rights to which she is entitled by marriage, including sustenance and sexual relations - she is likewise allowed to deny him the rights she is required to grant him according to the [marriage] contract...

"Islam emphasizes that no one is in control of a woman who is of age, behaves properly, and conducts her affairs independently. No one is allowed to force her to [marry a man] she does not want. A marriage contract drawn without the woman's consent is invalid...

"In order to protect the family, laws regulating women's employment must strive to balance the woman's work - if she chooses to work - with her responsibilities to her family. Any imbalance in this area may lead to the destruction of the family..." [5]

In an interview with Alarabiya.net, Fadhlallah explained that the fatwa was "based on the general Shari'a principle applicable to all Muslims, male and female alike, whereby a person who is attacked has the right to act in self-defense..." He further stated: "There is no [evidence] in the Koran that the relationship between a man and a woman is like one between master and slave - rather, it is [a relationship based on] responsibility."

Fadhlallah went on to clarify the fatwa with regard to sexual relations between a man and a woman: "The sexual aspect is one of the basic aspects of marital relationship; accordingly, a woman is not permitted to deny her husband sexual relations, other than for health, emotional, or social reasons... Our understanding of the religious law is that sexual relations are the right of the woman as much as of the man. Just as the woman cannot deprive her husband of his sexual rights, if he wishes [to exercise them], so is the man is forbidden to withhold from his wife her sexual rights, if she [wishes to exercise them]..." [6]

Al-Azhar Sheikhs: A Woman May Hit Her Husband in Self-Defense

Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee head Sheikh 'Abd Al-Hamid Al-Atrash endorsed 'Obikan's fatwa, saying that under Islamic law, a wife is indeed allowed to hit her husband in self-defense. He stressed that all individuals have a right to self-defence, regardless of gender - because all human beings are equal in the eyes of Allah, and no one who is subjected to violence must let it pass without response.

Dr. Ahmad Al-Sayih, lecturer at the Al-Azhar Faculty of the Fundamentals of Religion, likewise supported 'Obikan's position, saying that, according to Shari'a and the law, a woman has the right to hit her husband in self-defense, because men and women are equal both in their rights and in their duties. [7]

Criticism of the Fatwa

Only the Husband Has the Right to Hit

Fadhlallah's fatwa generated extensive criticism in religious circles throughout the Arab world. Dr. Jawdat 'Abd Al-Ghani Basyouni, head of the comparative Islamic law department in the Shari'a faculty at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, said: "The Islamic Shari'a clearly objects to a husband severely beating his wife, since the Prophet meant that the beating should be done (with a toothpick) [sic! It’s a “weak hadith, and this co,ming from al-Azhar!!], only in order to direct her..." He added: "If it happens that a man has transgressed the Shari'a by beating his wife severely, such a man has passed from Shari'a to the law of the jungle. However, even in such a case, the woman is forbidden to hit him back, since this kind of behavior is likewise forbidden by the Shari'a..." [8]

Saudi Islamic Academy member Sheikh Dr. Muhammad Al-Nujaimi likewise objected to Fadhlallah's fatwa. In an interview with Alarabiya.net, he said: "A woman has the right to defend herself if a man has hit her in order to slay her - which is forbidden by the Koran. However, she has no such right [if he has hit her] in order to teach her [a lesson] according to the Shari'a and the Koran. A woman does not have the same right to hit a man as is given to the man [in respect of the woman] by the Koran. In other words, she is not allowed to teach him by beating, as he is allowed to do [to her].

Al-Nujaimi further explained: "Corporal punishment according to the Shari'a...is the privilege of a man [alone] - not of the woman..."

Al-Nujaimi agreed with Fadhlallah that a woman is entitled to withhold from a man the rights that he denies her - albeit only in particular cases: "If [the man] does not provide for her, [the woman] has the right to withhold herself from him [sexually] and to demand the dissolution of the marriage contract; if [the man] has resorted to violence during sexual intercourse with her, she has the right to withhold herself from him and to sue him, since he is forbidden to act in this way. However, the claim that she can withhold herself [sexually] from her husband in other cases as well is unfounded." [9]

Dr. Sa'd Al-'Anzi, imam at the Kuwaiti Ministry of Religious Endowments and member of the Kuwaiti Journalists Association, said that Fadhlallah's fatwa, which permits a woman to hit her husband, is "an extraordinary statement and an unprecedented claim that contradicts common sense and natural order." Al-'Anzi added, "Fadhlallah's view stands in contrast to [the principle of] warm marital relations, since hitting [by the wife] is a behavior that brings about neither stability nor steadiness in marriage, but rather [precipitates] conflict, quarrel, and the termination of the relationship."

Al-'Anzi further claimed: "As concerns the attitude of the Islamic Shari'a to [granting the woman permission] to hit [the man], the divine precept is addressed to the man rather than to the woman... 'To beat' means to hit lightly [sic]... as a corrective measure." [10]

'Obikan's, Fadhlallah's Fatwas Destroy the Family And Are a Symptom of Capitulation to Western Pressure

Dr. Mustafa Al-Shak'a, member of the Al-Azhar Academy of Islamic Research, said of 'Obikan's fatwa that it "destroys the Islamic family unit, and replaces the Islamic warmth and compassion with violence and beatings." He added: "The Shari'a does not allow the husband to beat his wife, except in the case of a 'morally [justifiable]' beating, for the purpose of education. Other [types of violence] constitute aggression, which is forbidden in Islam." [11]

Dr. Bassam Al-Shatti, columnist and professor at the Kuwait University's Faculty of Shari'a and Islamic Studies, also claimed that a woman was prohibited from hitting her husband. He explained: "The Prophet said: 'Had I commanded someone to worship someone [else], [it would have been] the woman to worship her husband.' Given this, how [could a woman be allowed] to raise her hand against [her husband]?"

Al-Shatti added: "If a woman should raise her hand against her husband, this would preclude reconciliation, since the husband would not find it in himself to accept the woman who had hit him... A woman's basic [traits] are softness, compassion, refinement, and grace. Should she raise her hand against her husband, she would precipitate a dangerous stage in the family life." In conclusion, Al-Shatti said: "This fatwa destroys homes; and does not promote peace between the husband and wife."

Kuwaiti Shari'a Foundation for Human Rights director Dr. 'Adel Al-Damkhi criticized Fadhlallah's ruling that a woman is not subject to any guardianship, saying: "Fadhlallah's fatwa clearly contradicts [the prerogative] of guardianship over the woman that Allah granted the man." Al-Damkhi further explained that the man's guardianship over the woman is in line with "the Shari'a stipulation that [it is the man] who must support her, who makes decisions [in all matters related to] the household, and who is responsible for correcting the woman's misconduct." Al-Damkhi added: "This fatwa will turn the home into a battlefield... It is a sign of the Islamic countries' capitulation to the Western ways and Western pressure regarding women's issues." [12]

Fatwas Are Not the Answer - "There is a Need for New Jurisprudence Regarding Women and the Family"

Al-Sayyid Walad Abah, columnist for the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, wrote in response to 'Obikan's fatwa: "The solution to the problem of violence between husband and wife is not to exacerbate [this violence] by granting the woman the right to retaliate - for this turns the home into a battlefield and an arena of confrontation. [The solution] is to abolish the principle of punishment according to the Shari'a and of [following] the rulings of ancient scholars, who interpreted the Koranic verse [4:34] to mean that it is permissible [for a husband to beat his wife]...

"[What I say] applies not only to this narrow issue. There is a need for new jurisprudence regarding women and the family [in general], which will re-examine many [traditional] laws and rulings that stemmed from [specific] social circumstances that were at odds with the principles of [Islam] - [new laws] that will respect women and [treat them] as equal to men." [13]

[1] www.islamionline.net, October 22, 2008.
[2] Al-Diyar (Lebanon), November 28, 2007.
[3] This opinion is based on the Koranic verse: "As for those [women] from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them [Koran 4:34]."
[4] http://www.islamonline.net/arabic/news/2009-05/01/images/01.doc .
[5] Al-Diyar (Lebanon), November 28, 2007.
[6] www.alarbiya.net, November 28, 2007.
[7] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), October 29, 2008.
[8] Al-Masri Al-Yawm (Egypt), December 6, 2007.
[9] www.alarabiya.net, November 28, 2007.
[10] www.alarabiya.net, November 28, 2007.
[11] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), October 29, 2009.
[12] Al-Rai (Kuwait), November 30, 2007.
[13] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), October 31, 2008.

Source: http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD254209

Addendum

What lacks in all this anaysis is that Q 4:34

“…As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them…” Pickthall

As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly) Yussuf Ali

It suffices for the man to “fear” rebellion, in order to get from Allah permission to beat her. And nowhere does it state that the beating must be light, as added in Y. Ali translation. Actually it is mentioned, but only in a “weak” hadith, so not accepted by Sharia law.

For a more detailed analysis please refer to the following excellent article:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/beating.htm


IHS

The Qur'an's Covenant with the Jewish People

Claims to the Holy Land

by Muhammad Al-Hussaini; Middle East Quarterly; Fall 2009, pp. 9-14

Editors' preface: Who has rights to the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River? Zionists cite biblical passages in which God awarded them Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel, in perpetuity in his covenant with the children of Israel. Muslims make a counter-claim based in part on verses of the Qur'an that describe the Jews in terms of contempt and in part on rulings in Muslim law that reject Muslims relinquishing rule over a territory under Muslim rule to nonbelievers. But other Muslims cite different Qur'anic verses in support of the Jewish claim. The conflict has a religious quality that makes it the more difficult to resolve.
The Middle East Quarterly commissioned two essays presenting different views of the Qur'an and its passages dealing with the Holy Land and Jews. Here, Muhammad Al-Hussaini, a Muslim scholar, understands the text of the Qur'an to award the Holy Land to the Jews for all time, and he holds that Muslims can be convinced of this interpretation. In the second essay, Robert Spencer argues that Islamic law has not recognized and will never recognize Jewish rights to this territory.

Jewish claims to the Holy Land rest in passages of the Torah, in which the land is given to the Children of Israel in fulfilment of God's promise to them. In the book of Genesis, God promises the Holy Land to Abraham and his descendants unequivocally. Addressing Abraham, God says: "For all the land which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed for ever" (Genesis 13:15). The promise is repeated to Abraham's son Isaac: "To you and your descendants I will give all these lands and will confirm the oath which I swore to your father Abraham" (Genesis 26:3).

Muslims today derive meanings from the Qur'an that censure the Jews and exalt the city of Jerusalem through reference to the "Night Journey" when the Prophet Muhammad is said to have travelled from Mecca to Jerusalem in a single night and then ascended to heaven to come before God. Chapter 17 of the Qur'an ("The Night Journey") refers to this event: "Glory be to Him, who carried His servant [Muhammad] by night from the holy mosque to the further mosque [al-Masjid al-Aqsa]" (Qur'an 17:1). [1]This "further mosque" is generally interpreted as Jerusalem or a place within it, often claimed to be the site of Al-Aqsa Mosque, built after Muhammad's death in 632.

Until now, there has been no proper dialogue about these founding texts. But a dialogue is possible, first by recognizing that the Qur'an does, in fact, confirm the Biblical promise, then by re-reading commentaries on the Qur'anic text where the Jewish claim is strengthened. Beyond that, although the Jews come in for severe criticism in the works of Muslim apologists and theologians, there are no grounds in religious law to entertain the conceit that God's promise to the Children of Israel has been broken, and none to support the view that Israel is now the property of the Muslims. This effort involves an approach to the analysis of texts that requires Muslim scholars to take lessons from modern Biblical interpretation as practiced by Christian and Jewish exegetes working singly and together. If dialogue at this level were to become widely possible, the long-term implications for peace in the Middle East might be considerable.

Law Takes Precedence over Polemics
Illustrative of the powerful ambivalences and loose ends in Islamic interpretation is the Qur'anic commentary on the verse in Surat al-Ma 'ida (Qur'an 5:21) concerning the Israelite settlement of the Holy Land, an issue which is addressed in some detail by the classical commentators:

O my people, enter the Holy Land which God has prescribed for you, and turn not back in your traces, to turn about losers. [ya qawmi udkhulu'l-ar d al-muqaddasa allati kataba'llah lakum wa la tartadu ' ala 'adbarikum fatanqalibu khasirina.][2]

Islamic commentators simultaneously disdain and revere the Jewish roots of Islam; still some Muslim interpreters unambiguously understand the sacred territory as an Israelite inheritance through Islamic law. This kind of thinking is not uncommon. The Qur'an itself, divided between Meccan and Medinan verses, early and late, presents numerous contradictory statements that interpreters have found ways to reconcile.

In both Judaism and Islam, the status and legal rights of a Gentile or stranger dwelling among Israel, or of the non-Muslim People of the Book, are all matters governed by sacred law. These rulings fall wholly within the purview of practical jurisprudence, not theologies concerning their salvation standing with God. Among rabbinic tractates, Avodah Zarah is replete with condemnation of the idolatrous worship of Christians and pagans, [3] Tosefta Shabbat [4] and Sanhedrin [5] excoriate the falsity of the New Testament while at the same time, the rights and property of the stranger are protected and made sacred in Jewish law.[6]

For its part, the Qur'an clearly includes polemic against the Christian Trinity:

They are unbelievers who say, "God is the Third of Three." No god is there but One God. If they refrain not from what they say, there shall afflict those of them that disbelieve a painful chastisement.[7]

However, this does not detract from the judicial rights of freedom of worship historically granted in Islamic Shari'a to the Christians of Najran, allegedly by the Prophet himself:

To the Christians of Najran and the neighboring territories, the pledge of His Prophet are extended for their lives, their religion, and their property, to those present as well as those absent and others besides. There shall be no interference with the practice of their faith or their observance; nor any change in their rights or privileges.[8]

The Prophet is also said to have ordained similar rights for the monks of St Catherine's Monastery in Sinai:

No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or carry anything from it to the house of the Muslims. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet.[9]

What is important to grasp is that to the Judeo-Islamic judicial mindset, there is absolutely no inconsistency, on the one hand, between implacable polemics against idolatrous Christians in matters of religious doctrine, and on the other, legal rulings that establish the fair rights, liberties, and rightful property ownerships of these nonbelievers according to sacred law. Both Jewish and Islamic sacred texts and their vast classical traditions of reading are quite big enough to hold both concepts—just as both traditions have in practice applied justice with the same changeability.

Thus, more important even than the interpretation itself, this preparatory analysis is critical in helping form the correct reading of Qur'an 5:21, which commands, "O my people, enter the Holy Land which God has prescribed for you." It is necessary to stand this interpretation against the faulty equation that the anti-Jewish critique in the Qur'an cancels out all Jewish legal, religious, and property rights under Islamic law.

Tabari on Settlement of the Holy Land
Historically there have been two broad approaches to commentary on the Qur'an. One is to use received oral sayings of the Prophet and his Companions to interpret the text.[10] The other is the application of reason as a tool for understanding Scripture.[11] With the battles of the ninth century between the traditionalist Sunni party and the rationalist Mu'tazila school of thought, in which Sunnism emerged victorious,[12] oral tradition became the primary instrument for the interpretation and explanation of Holy Writ.[13]

In the particular case of legal questions, there is an unbending consensus that prevents anyone from expressing disagreement with a ruling based on the recorded texts of oral tradition. This is illustrated in the statement attributed to a companion of Muhammad, Ibn 'Abbas, cited by Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab:

Ibn 'Abbas said, "Stones are about to rain down upon you from the sky! For I say to you, "The Prophet of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, said…" and you say, "But Abu Bakr [first caliph] and 'Umar [second caliph] said?"[14]

This unassailable reverence for an oral tradition written down for posterity has spectacular consequences in the case of the interpretation of Qur'an 5:21. Of particular interest is the medieval commentary on this verse by Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin Jarir at-Tabari (838-923), among the earliest and certainly the most revered fathers of the science of Qur'anic commentary and interpretation.[15]

After recounting the order from Moses to the Israelites to enter the Holy Land as commanded by God, Tabari explores the differing opinions received from a number of the Prophet's companions as to the identity of the territory in question, these being respectively "At-Tur [the Qur'anic term for Mount Sinai] and that which is around it," ash-Sham (the Levant), Ariha (Jericho) or Dimashq wa Filastin wa ma ba'da'l-Urdun (Damascus, Palestine, and Trans-Jordan).

The Tabari commentary then proceeds to the critical phrase, allati kataba Allah lakum (Which God has prescribed [lit. "written"] for you) with the startling comment, "And the meaning of His saying, 'Which God has written for you' is that He 'confirmed' it in 'the Preserved Tablet' [i.e. the matrix of all scriptures, preserved in heaven] that it is yours as settlements and dwellings, in place of the oppressors who are in it."

Among the key expressions alongside the juristic term kataba lakum (has written for you) is the expression "the Preserved Tablet," a reference to the Islamic conception of a divine blueprint in heaven from which all the revealed books—the Torah, the Psalms, the Gospel, and the Qur'an—have been sent down to man. Later on, Tabari elaborates upon the linguistic implications of kataba, citing other companions of Muhammad in their use of parallel terms for it, such as wahaba (granted, bestowed) and amara (ordered, commanded), concluding with a declaration from the mouth of the companion, Abu Qatada al-Ansari: "They were commanded it, in the manner they were commanded the prayer and the alms-due and the greater pilgrimage and the lesser pilgrimage," reflecting the understanding of Jewish commandments (mitzvot) in the mind of the early Muslims.[16]

Among the key problems addressed by Tabari and in later centuries by another leading commentator, Ibn Kathir (1301-73), is the cowardly disobedience of Israel to enter Canaan and undertake jihad against its powerful inhabitants, as narrated in the succeeding verses:

"So go, you [Moses] and your Lord, and the two of you fight. We are sitting here." And this is their refusal of jihad, and disobedience of their Messenger, and dereliction of fighting the enemies. [17]

This behaviour, which provokes a furious anti-Jewish polemic in Ibn Kathir's commentary, culminates in the 40-year banishment of the stiff-necked generation until the second generation returns to claim its inheritance. Thus, Tabari concludes, "It became to them as God, majestic and glorious, said."[18] As ever, the commentators' scorn of Jewish wrongdoing stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the clarity with which they construct the legal argument for Israelite territorial ownership by forensic analysis of language.[19] Ibn Kathir comments in relation to the preceding verse recalling Israel's blessings:

The intended meaning is that they [the Israelites] were the best of their age, except that this community [i.e. that of the Muslims] is more noble than them, more favored before God, with the more perfect law, the more steadfast way of life, the more honored prophet, the greater kingdom, the more abundant bounties, the more plentiful wealth and children.[20]

For Ibn Kathir, Muslim superiority and supersession is naturally unquestionable and barely needs mention. But nowhere at any point does this classical commentator or any other dare to pretend an Islamic-Arab juristic claim upon the Holy Land, which the established and binding tradition of interpretation of the Qur'an has written for another.

Other medieval commentaries on this verse and related verses in the Qur'an (17:1-8 and 101-104) deserve mention, notably the narratives relayed in the accounts by Abu'l-Qasim Mahmud az-Zamakhshari (1074-1143) and his detractor 'Abd Allah ibn 'Umar al-Baydawi (d. 1286 or 1292), who both discuss Abraham's ascension of Mount Lebanon, from which he surveyed the promised inheritance of his descendants.[21] However, being so reverentially bound by inherited traditions, by and large, the consensus of commentators across the sectarian and historical span is strikingly consistent.

Conclusions
The educated American reader will know that the bad habit that Muslims and Christians share in their reading of Scripture is the compulsion to move swiftly from text to dogma. This bad habit might manifest itself in the verse-slinging missionary on a doorstep or the pulpit preacher whose interpretation leaps up a very sharp incline from a single verse to unassailable dogma.

However, a developing approach to a more nuanced engagement with text is a deliberately juxtaposed reading of Islamic Scriptures and traditions in parallel with Jewish and Christian sacred books by scholars from all three faiths—a process known as "Scriptural Reasoning."[22] This began as an intra-Jewish activity at Princeton, exploring how sacred texts might be an instrument for tikkun olam, or repair of the world.[23] In Britain, however, this approach has been taken out of the ivory towers and onto the streets of Muslim communities, resulting in the historic achievement of the first fatwa (religious edict) in modern times issued in 2007 by senior Islamic authorities, giving sanction for lay Muslims to meet with Jews and Christians for interfaith dialogue and frank debate around their sacred texts.[24] Thus a powerful instrument has emerged for the novel exploration of hitherto closed interpretative questions of Muslim relationships with other peoples and faiths—including those of the Middle East conflict.[25]

From a Jewish perspective, there are more important humane considerations for the sanctity of human life, of justice and rights for the Palestinian people that respect human dignity, self-determination, and parity of esteem—things safeguarded by the best of Judaism's legacy of rabbinic wisdom. At the same time, Muslims need to recognize the extent to which a vacuum has been created by the absence of any explicit Qur'anic counterclaim to the Holy Land. This missing concept has been filled instead with Judeophobia—the popular demonization of the Jewish people, embraced as a substitute for the lack of a heavenly eviction order.[26] The mass importation and translation of Western anti-Semitic materials into the Muslim milieu represents possibly the most disturbing novel development, rendering Jewish-Muslim engagement all the more critical.

It should in all respects be vividly apparent that it is in the interpretative relationship between Muslim peoples and Islam's sacred scripture—at this powerful and explosive nexus—that a significant part of our shared history will be written in the coming century. And it is here, therefore, that our conversations as Abrahamic believers round the family table and our reasoning together around scripture must begin.

Muhammad Al-Hussaini is fellow and lecturer in Islamic Studies at Leo Baeck Rabbinical College, London.
[1] All translations of the Qur'an from A. J. Arberry, ed., The Koran (London: Allen and Unwin, 1955, subsequently Oxford University Press).
[2] Qur'an 5:21.
[3] Avodah Zarah 26a.
[4] Tosefta Shabbat 116a.
[5] Sanhedrin 59a.
[6] Baba Kamma 113b.
[7] Qur'an 5:73.
[8] Muhammad Hamidullah, Majmu' al-Watha'iq as-Siyasiya (Cairo: Lajna at-Ta'lif wa 't-Tarjama wa 'n-Nashr, 1956), pp. 111-2.
[9] A. Zahoor and Z. Haq, trans., "Prophet Muhammad's Charter of Privileges to Christians: Letter to the Monks of St. Catherine Monastery," accessed July 26, 2009.
[10] Ibn al-Athir, An-Nihaya fi Gharib al-Hadith, Mahmud Muhammad at-Tanahi, ed. (Cairo: Dar al-Ma'arif, 1385/1965-66), 4:71.
[11] 'Abd al-Jabbar, Tanzih al-Qur'an 'an al-Mata'in (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-'Arabi, n.d.), pp. 118-9.
[12] Abu 'l-Fath Muhammad ash-Shahrastani, Kitab al-Milal wa 'n-Nihal, 3 vols. (Cairo: Dar al-Ma'arif, 1948), 2:12-3.
[13] Leah Kinberg, "Muhkamat and Mutashabihat (Koran 3/7): Implication of a Koranic Pair of Terms in Medieval Exegesis," Arabica, 35 (1988): 143-72.
[14] Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab, Kitab at-Tawhid alladhi huwa Haqq Allah 'ala 'l-'Abid, (Mecca: Muslim World League, 1400/1980), p. 63, (author's translation).
[15] Abu Ja'far Muhammad b. Jarir at-Tabari, Jami 'al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an, 12 vols. (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1412/1991-92), 15:127.
[16] Tabari, Jami', on Qur'an 2:62.
[17] Isma'il bin 'Umar Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur'an al-Karim, Yusuf 'Abd ar-Rahman al-Mar'ashli, ed. (Beirut: Dar al-Ma'arifa, 1987), on Qur'an 5:24, (author's translation).
[18] Tabari, Jami', on Qur'an 5:21, (author's translation).
[19] Abu Nasr Isma'il b. Hammad al-Jawhari, Taj al-Lugha wa sahah al-'Arabiyya, Nasr al-Hurini, ed. (Cairo: Dar al-Ma'arif, 1365/1946), 2:287.
[20] Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, on Qur'an 5:20.
[21] Abu'l-Qasim az-Zamakhshari, Al-Kashshaf 'an Haqa'iq Ghawami' at-Tanzil wa-'Uyun al-'Aqawil fi Wujuh at-Ta'wil, 4 vols. (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-'Arabi, n.d.), on Qur'an 5:21.
[22] Steven Kepnes, "A Handbook for Scriptural Reasoning," Modern Theology, June 2006, pp. 367-83.
[23] Peter Ochs, "Introduction," in Textual Reasonings: Jewish Philosophy and Text Study at the End of the Twentieth Century, Peter Ochs and Nancy Levene, eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), pp. 2-14; idem, "The Logic of Indignity and the Logic of Redemption," in God and Human Dignity, R. Kendall Soulen and Linda Woodhead, eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), pp. 143-60.
[24] Muhammad Fathallah, Salah al-Ansari and Muhammad al-Salamoni, "Fatwa on Scriptural Reasoning," Scripturalreasoning.co.uk, accessed May 1, 2009.
[25] Jenny Williams, "Sense and Spirituality," The Baptist Times (Didcot, U.K.), Mar. 12, 2009; Chad Pecknold, "Preface: The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning," Modern Theology, June 2006, pp. 339-43.

[26] See, for example, Sayyid Qutb, In the Shade of the Quran (Leicester: Islamic Foundation, 2007), on Qur'an 5.

Source: http://www.meforum.org/2464/quran-covenant-with-jewish-people


Addendum

From the Commentary of Tabari

Middle East Quarterly
Few have commented on the book purporting to be the literal word of God as successfully as Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (838-923), an Iranian scholar of considerable intellect and perception, and the author of a 30-volume commentary on the Qur'an that is widely considered to be definitive. We excerpt here its text dealing with Qur'an 5:21, in which God appears to grant the Holy Land to the Jews in perpetuity. Tabari discusses conflicting identities for the Holy Land, then examines the lexical implications of God's command that the Jews be granted the land. Translation by Muhammad Al-Hussaini — The Editors

"O my people, enter the Holy Land which God has prescribed for you, and turn not back in your traces, to turn about losers." (Qur'an 5:21)

Tabari's commentary on the verse
This is a statement by God (glorious be His remembrance) concerning the words of Moses (may God bless him and grant him peace) to his community from among the Children of Israel, and his order to them according to the order of God to him, instructing them to enter the holy land.
Thereafter, the people of interpretation differ in relation to the land which He means by the Holy Land. Some of them say, "It refers to at-Tur [the mountain, Mount Sinai] and that which is around it." This brings to mind those who have said that "The Holy Land is at-Tur and that which is around it." It has also been related [from Muhammad]: "Enter the Holy Land, namely at-Tur and that which is around it."
Others have said, "It is ash-Sham [Greater Syria]." And in another saying, "The holy land is ash-Sham."
Others have said, "It is the land of Ariha [Jericho]."
It has also been said that "The Holy Land is Damascus and Palestine and part of the Jordan. And this is meant by His saying, 'The holy, the purified, the blessed.'"
And the meaning of His saying, "Which God has prescribed for you," is what He has confirmed in the Preserved Tablet [al-lawh al-mahfuz, i.e. the eternally preserved tablet of the holy scriptures in heaven] that it is yours as settlements and dwellings, in place of the oppressors who are in it.
Assume someone were to say, "How can He say, 'Which God has prescribed for you' while you know that they [the Children of Israel] did not enter it because He said, 'So indeed it is forbidden for them.' In that case, how can it be confirmed in the Preserved Tablet that it is settlements for them while it is forbidden for them to settle in it?" [The answer is that] it is said, "Indeed it is prescribed for the Children of Israel as an abode and as settlements, and they did settle it and reside in it, and it became to them just as God, Majestic and Glorious, said."
Another narration glosses the words, "Which God has prescribed for you" as "Which God has granted to you." And as-Suddi[1] used to say, "The meaning of kataba [he wrote, he prescribed] in this context is amara [he ordered, he commanded]." Thus, "Enter the Holy Land which God has prescribed for you" is glossed as "Which God has ordered you to do."
Bishr[2] related an interpretation of "O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has prescribed for you," meaning "They were commanded it, as they were commanded the prayer and the zakat [the alms tax] and the hajj [the annual pilgrimage to Mecca] and the 'umra [the minor pilgrimage made at any time of year]."[3]

[1] One of two Qur'an commentators of the same name.—Eds.
[2] Probably Bishr ibn Musa al-Asadi.—Eds.
[3] Abu Ja'far Muhammad b. Jarir at-Tabari, Jami' al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an, 12 vols. (Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyya, 1412/1991-92), 15:127.

Source: http://www.meforum.org/2472/from-the-commentary-of-tabari

IHS