RespondIslam.net

Allah PRAYS for Muhammed?

Allah praying for Prophets

We are told in the Quran that the Islamic deity prays for his followers, especially Muhammad:

“They are those on whom are the prayers (salawatun) from their Lord and mercy, and it is they who are the guided-ones.” (Q 2:157)

“He it is who prays (yu-sallee) for you and His angels too, to bring you forth out of the darkness into the light, for He is merciful to the believers.” (Q 33:43- Palmer)

“Verily, God and His angels pray (“yuṣallūna”) for the prophet. O ye who believe! pray for him (salloo) and salute him with a salutation!” (Q 33:56- Palmer)

The meaning of the word Sulla

Muslims pray 5 times a day and call it by the same word “salat”. Many English translations we find use “blessings” instead. But there is already a word for “blessings” in the Arabic which is: “barakah“. An Arabic speaker will know exactly what it means, the issue is not confusing to him!

Ibn Kathir gives the meaning of the word in the very first page of his Tafsir (to verse 1:7)!:

“The last Hadith used the word Salah `prayer’ in reference to reciting the Qur’an, (Al-Fatihah in this case) just as Allah said in another Ayah, (And offer your Salah (prayer) neither aloud nor in a low voice, but follow a way between.”

There is no doubt or controversy regarding the meaning of the word sulla for prayer, although I have heard some Muslims argue it. They merely need look up their own commentators and Hadith which repeatedly recommend believers to “send the Salat” upon their prophet. We mentioned all these hadith in the article on prayers to Muhammed (). Or look up the repeated mentions of Ibn Kathir in his commentary on 33:56 itself (just Google “ibn Kathir 33:56”), the evidence is overwhelming.

How do Muslims answer this?

The typical answer is to either state that same word in the same sentence has a different meaning when applied to Allah. We’ve shown that if this were the intent of the author, then he has committed a linguistic error.

Linguistic Analysis verse 33:56

In the sentence construction of surah 33:56 as well as 33:43 we observe the use of a single instance of: “yasaloona” as the activity of both Allah as well as the angels, with Mohammed as the common recipient. This is as close as one can get to a common activity being ascribed to both subjects. To restate it Allah and the angels cannot be said to be performing a different activity in that sentence construction, not only is there a common verb, there is a single instance of that verb. Has there been two instances of the common verb, the meaning and implication would still be the same eg: “allah prays and the angels pray”. The same word cannot have two different meaning in the same sentence. The very next sentence also has the same word with the same implied meaning, this time with humanity as the subject. Finally we see in these passages the presences of God, humans and angels on one side and Mohammed as the sole object. This is an aspect of worship. The presence of a human being as object of adoration is idolatory and the presence of God as one of the subjects makes it also a blasphemy.

What do the Hadith say?

The hadith admit that Allah does indeed pray. For example:

“Narrated Abu Umamah Al-Bahili: “Two men were mentioned before the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). One of them a worshiper, and the other a scholar. So the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘The superiority of the scholar over the worshiper is like my superiority over the least of you.’ Then the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘Indeed Allah, His Angels, the inhabitants of the heavens and the earths – even the ant in his hole, even the fish – say Salat upon the one who teaches the people to do good.'” (Jami at-Tirmidhi 2685)

Two further hadith are as follows:

Abu Hurayra reported that the Messenger of Allah, (), said, “If anyone prays once on me, Allah will pray ten times on him.'” Graded “Sahih” (Al-Albani) Al-adab al-Mufrad 645 “

Anas ibn Malik reported that the Prophet (), said, “If anyone says the prayer on me once, Allah prays on him ten times and removes ten errors from him.” Graded “Sahih” (Al-Albani) Al-adab al-Mufrad 643

What do Islamic scholars say?

This is taken from the official website of the Kingdom of Jordan’s original Arabic translation of Ibn Kathir, as presented by Rob Christian, a native Arabic ex-Muslim YouTuber. It has seemingly been removed from other online English versions. This is what it says:

“The people of Israel said to Moses: “Does your Lord pray?” His Lord called him (saying) “O Moses, they asked you if your Lord prays. Say (to them) “Yes I do pray. And my angels (pray) upon my prophet and my messengers”, and Allah sent down on his messenger (the verse 33:56) “Allah and his angels pray…”

Muslims must pray for Muhammed

Why is the practice problematic?

The ubiquitous invocation that we have now become familiar with as a mark of all Muslims religious conversations Salla Allah alaihi wa sallam, which is usually translated into English as “peace and blessings of Allah be upon him (Muhammad)”.

Whatever the meaning of “salla” here, whether prayers, peace or blessings, the point is that the prayer is made mandatory, every time the name of Muhammed is mentioned throughout the day, as well as during the 5 times a day prayers. In the latter, Muhammed is addressed directly “peace and blessings be upon you O prophet”. So the problems are threefold:

1. No other individual is prayed for in this manner. Why does the holiest person need the most prayers?
2. There is expected intercession in return. This we address in a different section here itself. Among other things, this is the problem of bootstrapping. How does the neediest person also help you the most?
3. When you pray for someone, you pray to God for them, not to them and for them. So why is Muhammed addressed directly in the prayer that is meant for his blessing?

All this is concerning because it has the markings of the rituals of the cult of a human being, and this becomes idolatrous. No particular individual may be the focus of cultic prayer in monotheism, such a practise is unsupportable in religion which is defined by the focus upon God and the worship of him alone.

The Meaning of the Invocation for “Sulla”

You will have heard Muslims saying the “blessing” for their prophet each time his name is mentioned which in English would usually take the form of : “peace and Allah’s blessings be on him (pbuh)”. The Arabic version is

صلي الله عليه وسلم

This is transliterated as “Salla Allah alaihi wa sallam” (SAWS) and this actually has an important difference- the first word sulla, for which English translations tend to use “blessings” in Arabic which rather should read “prayers”. So Sulla Allah is literally “prayers of Allah” rather then “blessings of Allah”. Let’s analyze the Qur’anic verse it is based upon:

“Indeed, Allah and his angels pray for the Prophet, and His angels. O you who have believed, pray for him and ask peace.”– Surat Al- Ahzab 33:56

This is actually quite non- controversial for Arabic speakers, since they are not even using a different word here. “Sulla” is exactly the same word used for the 5 times a day prayer of Muslims worldwide “salat“. The word for “blessing” is different, it is “barakat“. Muslims are well aware of this because they use this when they employ the long form of the interpersonal greeting, in wishing God’s blessings upon another: “long version Assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh.”

(The second operative word in the verse and in the “pbuh” salutation is salam is a familiar word translated commonly as “peace”, but it too could be translated differently as any of peace/salutation/submission since they all have the same root s-l-m and so have to be interpreted in context. We shan’t stress on that in this particular section, but as we shall see it has important connotations when we analyze some other verses.)

The Imperative to “Send Prayers” – Hadith

The dominant opinion is that conferring prayers, peace, and blessings on the Prophet is mandatory based on this hadith:

“Abu Huraira narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: “May the man before whom I am mentioned — and he does not send Salah upon me — be humiliated. And may a man upon whom Ramadan enters and then passes, before he is forgiven, be humiliated. And may a man whose parents reached old age in his presence, and they were not a cause for his entrance to Paradise, be humiliated.” _— Jami’ at-Tirmidhi, Book 48, Hadith 176_, also documented by Ahmad ibn Hanbal

and: ‘Ali bin Abi Tālib narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: “The stingy person is the one before whom I am mentioned, and he does not send Salat upon me.”_— Jami’ at-Tirmidhi, Book 48, Hadith 177

Abu Hurairah narrated that : Allah’s Messenger said: “Whoever sends Salat upon me, Allah sends Salat upon him ten times.” (Jami` at-Tirmidhi 485 [sahih], Muslim 408, Dawud 1530 [sahih]; this is also repeated in another collection al-adab al-mufrad, graded sahih by al-Albani, narrated by Abu Hurayra and Anas ibn Malik in 643 and 645 respectively)

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr: that the Messenger of Allah said: “If you hear the Muadh-dhin then say as he says. Then send Salat upon me, because whoever sends Salat upon me, Allah will send Salat upon him ten times due to it. Then ask Allah that He gives me Al-Wasilah, because it is a place in Paradise which is not for anyone except for a slave from the slaves of Allah, and I hope that I am him. And whoever asks that I have Al-Wasilah, then (my) intercession will be made lawful for him.” (Tirmidhi Vol. 1, Book 46, Hadith 3614, graded sahih, Arabic ref: Bk. 49, Hadith 3974).

“Abdullah bin Mas’ud narrated that : Allah’s Messenger said: “The person closest to me on the Day of Judgement is the one who sent the most Salat upon me.” (Jami at-Tirmidhi 484)

We can see Muhammed insrtucting his followers to pray to him in their prayers:

“Narrated Shaqiq bin Salama: `Abdullah said, “Whenever we prayed behind the Prophet (ﷺ) we used to recite (in sitting) ‘Peace be on Gabriel, Michael, peace be on so and so. Once Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) looked back at us and said, ‘Allah Himself is As-Salam (Peace), and if anyone of you prays then he should say, at-Tahiyatu li l-lahi wa ssalawatu wa t-taiyibat. As-salamu `alalika aiyuha n-Nabiyu wa rahmatu l-lahi wa barakatuh. Assalamu `alaina wa `ala `ibadi l-lahi s-salihin. (All the compliments, prayers and good things are due to Allah; peace be on you, O Prophet, and Allah’s mercy and blessings [be on you]. Peace be on us an on the pious subjects of Allah). (If you say that, it will reach all the subjects in the heaven and the earth). Ash-hadu al-la ilaha illa l-lah, wa ash-hadu anna Muhammadan `Abduhu wa Rasuluh. (I testify that there is no Deity [worthy of worship] but Allah, and I testify that Muhammad is His slave and His Apostle). (Bukhari 831)

and again in Muslim:

“Abdullah (b. Mas`ud) said: While observing prayer behind the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) we used to recite: Peace be upon Allah, peace be upon so and so. One day the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to us: Verily Allah is Himself Peace. When any one of you sits during the prayer, he should say: All services rendered by words, by acts of worship, and all good things are due to Allah. Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and Allah’s mercy and blessings. Peace be upon us and upon Allah’s upright servants, for when he says this it reaches every upright servant in the heavens and the earth. (And say further): I testify that there is no god but Allah and I testify that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger. Then he may choose any supplication which pleases him and offer it.” (Muslim 402a)

A slave is wretched if he does not send salat upon the prophet upon hearing his name even during his lifetime. This is the third part of a longer hadith:

“…Then he said, ‘Wretched is a slave who does not bless you when you are mentioned in his presence,’ and I said, ‘Amen.’”” (graded: sahih al-Albani al-Adab al- Mufrad 644,646)

Ibn Kathir recounts all these Hadith and more in his commentary on verse 33:56 (just Google Ibn Kathir 33:56 and it’ll come up), and he adds a few of his own recording such as:

Imam Ahmad, Abu Dawud and At-Tirmidhi reported the following Hadith and graded it Sahih; An-Nasa’i, Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban recorded in their Sahihs that Fadalah bin `Ubayd, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “The Messenger of Allah heard a man making supplication in his prayer when he had not praised Allah or said Salah upon the Prophet. The Messenger of Allah said: (This man is rushing.) Then he called him over and said, to him or to someone else, (When any one of you supplicates, let him start by praising and glorifying Allah, may He be exalted, then let him send Salah upon the Prophet, and after that let him make supplication as he wishes.)”

When are the Prayers for Muhammed invoked?

The blessing for Muhammed is repeated several times a day in the life of a typical Muslim. It is invoked every time the name of or even reference to Muhammed is made, plus is mandatory during the daily prayers.

This is the structure of Muslims daily prayers: Essentially there are two components-

1. Reciting Quranic verses and
2. then saying the invocation (tashahhud)

It is allowed to adjoin some personal prayers on to these should they wish to. Regarding the verses, Surah Al fateha is said at each prayer and repeated 2,3, or 4 times depend on the time day. Along with that a shorter verse like al kaffirun/ al ikhlas/ an nas could be recited too. One or two “tashahhud” are recited, depending upon time of day and length of the prayer. “Tashahhud” is like a statement of faith, and is compulsory to say at each of the five daily prayers. Muslim prayers are considered at best deficient without this. It is based upon the following hadith:

“Ibn Mas’ud is reported to have said that the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) taught me tashahhud taking my hand within his palms, in the same way as he taught me the chapter of the Quran, and we also read it after his passing away.” (Muslim Bk.4 796-799)

This is how it is said as given in the popular islamqa website:

First Tashahhud

“All compliments, prayers and pure words are due to Allaah. Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and the mercy of Allaah and His blessings. Peace be upon us and upon the righteous slaves of Allaah. I bear witness that there is no god except Allaah and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger.” (al-Bukhaari, 831; Muslim, 402, Nasa’i 1162)

Second Tashahhud

“O Allah, send prayers upon Muhammad and upon the family of Muhammad, as You sent prayers upon Ibraaheem and the family of Ibraaheem, You are indeed Worthy of Praise, Full of Glory. O Allaah, bless Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as You blessed Ibraaheem and the family of Ibraaheem, You are indeed Worthy of Praise, Full of Glory.” (al-Bukhaari, 3370, 6358; Muslim, 406).  

Then he should recite the following du’aa’:

“O Allaah, I seek refuge in You from the torment of Hell, and I seek refuge in You from the torment of the grave, and I seek refuge in You from the tribulation of the Dajjal, and I seek refuge in You from the trials of life and death, and I seek refuge in You from falling into sin and debt.” (al-Bukhaari, 833; Muslim, 588).

Then after that he may make du’aa’ as he likes, asking for good in this world and in the Hereafter. And if he recites some of the du’aa’s narrated in the Sunnah, that is better.

These are some Islamic websites that explain to Muslims how to pray:https://islamqa.info/en/answers/26889/tashahhud-in-a-two-rakah-prayer-what-to-say?fbclid=IwAR29SdWMSGER8wiZwQNeTiqOamq7_RB_onLxeey1n6A6Ciid1X2ycBDUg0I

and another place: https://www.milligazette.com/news/islamic-perspectives/10632-salaah-english-transliteration-and-translation-namaaz-meaning-prayer/?fbclid=IwAR1c2zfri_x2XMgv23HGL1PIZXX0La9uEws-zYKoDFabqTDpDGVOuutOUCs.

An Analysis of Muhammed’s Prayer Requirements

One hears on of two possible explanations for the prayer requirement “for” Muhammed:

“To ensure that he gets the “highest spot” in Heaven” (Wasilah, see hadith above).  

This seems problematic, for does this imply that if not for the trillions of prayers offered up incessantly he would get the lowest place in heaven? Or does it not mean that since he was, in return meant to be interceding for the entire Muslim nation, they should all get higher places than him, if it was prayers that determined places and his were the most powerful? Most pertinently, can it really be that the seating arrangement in Heaven is determined according to the volume of requests received from Earth? And who is being competed with, is it the other prophets? Why? Jesus is quite clear that this is not the case when he states “Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.” (Matthew 20:23) and that certainly seems to make more sense. One might still try to get around this my stating that the greatest person is likely to get the most prayers anyway, which again brings us to the question of why if he were the greatest that he would then need other’s prayers in the first place, and why ask for them at all. Would the time not be better spent on praying on those that do need them. The reason invariably circles back to what we discuss again below- the purpose of the prayers is to correctly dispose the mind of the one praying toward the person that is being prayed for.

A Mutually Beneficial Arrangement?- Pulling one’s self up by the Bootstraps

Is the practice no more than a mutually beneficial agreement- the believers lifting their prophet into Heaven, and in return the prophet interceding for them too? In this model, rather than praying to God that one’s self and others be saved, one prays instead that a certain index individual be saved, who solely charged with praying for everyone else. That’s theological “bootstrapping”. Even Roman Catholic Christians are never meant to pray “for” Mother Mary. In Christianity one prays for the salvation of others in general, and near and dear ones in particular, as does one also ask others for their prayers too. Traditional Christians like the Orthodox and Catholics also ask the angels and saints in Heaven to pray for them. They might also pray for those souls in the place of waiting and purification called Purgatory, that their time of waiting might be expedited.

It is hard to see how the recipient of subject prayers is likely to draw any spiritual benefit from them, for surely no one person could possibly require such prayers of almost infinite volume. It is much more likely that the recipient of those intercessory prayers derives no other benefit other than that by them, it is ensured that the believer mind is correctly disposed toward him, which is that he is given the appropriate elevation. The repeated banal invocation would serve this purpose extremely well. The adulatory prayers that we related above would corroborate this point of view.

To try and model this form of prayer, we have the following possibilities: either all of the Muslims nation is praying for one person to be taken into Heaven because if he isn’t, then he obviously cannot facilitate anyone else going into Heaven. This raises two questions- why are Muslims required to intercede for their own prophet? The Qur’an by no means states that Muhammed requires anyone’s interceding on his behalf. If we look at the hadith, Muhammed is the only person in the Universe that has an intercessory role, as we see here How to Go to Islamic Heaven. That simply needs to be discarded as an option. How can someone with the greatest need of intercession also be the greatest interceder, those are contraries, anyway. There is a reason that neither the Qur’an nor the hadith request that Muhammed is interceded for, it would be ab obvious absurdity.

Conclusion- “Reprogramming”

This banally repetitive invocation cannot serve any other purpose than programming. It is rather ironic that the Chinese use exactly the same techniques to foster “love” for the PPP leaders in the “re-education” camps where dissenters against the regime get relocated. Every cult has its mantras, but for a Divine cult it would be a reasonable expectation that the chief mantra had as its subject the divinity, rather than a human figure. That is precisely where the Islamic mantra fails- not that it is a mantra, but that it is misdirected.

Surrender to and Obey Mohammed

Surrender and Submit to Mohammed

“And when the believers saw the companies, they said, “This is what Allah and His Messenger had promised us, and Allah and His Messenger spoke the truth.” And it increased them only in faith and acceptance (tasliman).” (Q 33:22)

“Indeed, Allah confers blessing upon the Prophet, and His angels [ask Him to do so]. O you who have believed, ask [Allah to confer] blessing upon him and ask [Allah to grant him] peace (tasliman) (Q 33:56)

“But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit (wayusallimū)  in [full, willing submission (taslīman).” (Q 4:65)

Obey Mohammed to go to Heaven

“Whoso obeyeth the messenger hath obeyed Allah, and whoso turneth away: We have not sent thee as a warder over them.” (Q 4:80)

“Those who swear fealty to thee swear fealty in truth to God; God’s hand is over their hands. Then whosoever breaks his oath breaks it but to his own hurt; and whoso fulfils his covenant made with God, God will give him a mighty wage.” (Q 48:10)

“O believers, obey God and His Messenger, and do not turn away from Him, even as you are listening” (Q8:20)

 O you who have believed, respond to Allah and to the Messenger when he calls you (daʿākum– he calls you) to that which gives you life. And know that Allah intervenes between a man and his heart and that to Him you will be gathered. (Q 8:24)

Those are God’s bounds. Whoso obeys God and His Messenger, He will admit him to gardens underneath which rivers flow, therein dwelling forever; that is the mighty triumph. But whoso disobeys God, and His Messenger, and transgresses His bounds, him He will admit to a Fire, therein dwelling forever, and for him there awaits a humbling chastisement. (Q 4:13,14)

O believers, obey God, and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. If you should quarrel on anything, refer it to God and the Messenger, if you believe in God and the Last Day; that is better, and fairer in the issue. (Q 4:59)

Whosoever obeys God, and the Messenger — they are with those whom God has blessed, Prophets, just men, martyrs, the righteous; good companions they! (Q 4:69)

Plus Q8: 27, 9:80, 9:62-63

and the hadith state:

“Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “All my followers will enter Paradise except those who refuse.” They said, “O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! Who will refuse?” He said, “Whoever obeys me will enter Paradise, and whoever disobeys me is the one who refuses (to enter it).” (Bukhari 7280)

Obey Muhammed for the Forgiveness of Sins

Muhammad is to be obeyed and needs to pray for you in order that you be forgiven:

“We sent not a messenger, but to be obeyed, in accordance with the will of Allah. If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-hmareturning, Most Merciful.” (Q 4:64)

He will forgive “some” of your sins in return for obedience:

“O our people, answer God’s summoner, and believe in Him, and He will forgive you some of your sins, and protect you from a painful chastisement. (Q 46:31)

Muhammad is told to ask for the forgiveness of believer’s sins in other places like Q 47:19

Love Mohammed above all else    

“Allah Almighty said, ‘Say, if your fathers and sons and your brethren and your wives and your kinsfolk and the wealth you have acquired and the trade whose dullness you fear and the dwellings which you love are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger and striving in His cause, then wait until Allah brings about His judgment; and Allah guides not the disobedient people” (Q 9:24)

Narrated Abu Huraira: “Allah’s Apostle said, “By Him in Whose Hands my life is, none of you will have faith till he loves me more than his father and his children.” (Sahih Bukhari 14)

Narrated Anas: The Prophet said “None of you will have faith till he loves me more than his father, his children and all mankind.”(Sahih Bukhari 15)

When love for Allah is spoken of, it is much more subdued:

“And [yet], among the people are those who take other than Allah as equals [to Him]. They love them as they [should] love Allah. But those who believe are stronger in love for Allah. And if only they who have wronged would consider [that] when they see the punishment, [they will be certain] that all power belongs to Allah and that Allah is severe in punishment.”(Q 2:165)

You can remember God as much as your father, or optionally, some more;

“And when you have performed your holy rites remember God, as you remember your fathers or yet more devoutly….” (Q 2:200)

If Muhammed were truly following Allah’s commands, he should have taught to love those commands above all else, not commanded to love his prophet above all else! This command to love the leader in exclusion of all else is the definitive mark of a cult. It doesn’t end here, for Muslims also have to constantly “pray upon” Mohammed and depend upon his intercession for entry into Heaven. Many verses and Hadith can be quoted in this regard.

There is not a single scrap of any prophet of God commanding to love them above all else, or rely upon their intercession. For the love of a creature above all else is the definition of idolatry, nor can idolatry have a better definition than this. Does the Shema not say “you shall love the love your God with all your heart. with all your soul and with all your strength”? There is not mention of “and love Moses above all else” Of course not!

Not just that, even the Heaven of Islam is idolatry. Those idols which tempted you away from God on Earth, now fulfil you in Heaven. Heaven is where you fulfil the earthly desire for idols (we’re talking about the sensual pleasures)

The simple definition of Idolatry is that which occurs when the mind desires that which is not God. This theology- to desire to serve God on Earth temporarily in order to not have to serve him eternally, is shared with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

as Jesus said, said ““No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” (Matthew 6:24)

“…We were with the Prophet when he was holding the hand of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab. ‘Umar said to him: “O Messenger of Allaah, you are dearer to me than everything except my own self.” The Prophet said: “No, by the One in Whose hand is my soul, not until I am dearer to you than your own self.” ‘Umar said to him: “Now, by Allaah, you are dearer to me than my own self.” The Prophet said: “Now (you are a true believer), O ‘Umar.”…” (Bukhari 6257)

Muhammed’s Intercession is required for Salvation

(Repeated in the contradictions)

In the Qur’an:

These Qur’anic verses clearly attest to the Mohammed being able to intercede for Muslims:

“On that Day shall no intercession avail except for those for whom permission has been granted by (Allah) Most Gracious and whose word is acceptable to Him (Q 20:109)

No intercession can avail in His Presence, except for those for whom He has granted permission. So far (is this the case) that, when terror is removed from their hearts (at the Day of Judgment, then) will they say, ‘what is it that your Lord commanded?’ they will say, ‘That which is true and just; and He is the Most High Most Great’.”34:23 YA,

10:3 YA “The unbelievers say: ‘This man is a skilled enchanter.’ Yet your Lord is God…None has the power to intercede for you, except him who has received his sanction.”

These Quranic verses contradict the above:

“You have no guardian or intercessor besides Him (Allah), will you not take heed?” (Q 32:4)

“Give this warning to those in whose (hearts) is the fear that they will be brought (to judgment) before their Lord: except for Him they will have no protector nor intercessor: that they may guard (against evil)” (Q 6:51)

“(It will be) the Day when no soul shall have power (to do) aught for another: For the command, that Day, will be (wholly) with Allah (Q82:19)

“Unquestionably, for Allah is the pure religion. And those who take protectors besides Him [say], “We only worship them that they may bring us nearer to Allah in position.” Indeed, Allah will judge between them concerning that over which they differ. Indeed, Allah does not guide he who is a liar and [confirmed] disbeliever.” (Q39:3)

Muhammed Omniscient?

They will excuse themselves to you, when you return to them. Say: ‘Do not excuse yourselves; we will not believe you. God has already told us tidings of you. God will surely see your work, and His Messenger, then you will be returned to Him who knows the unseen and the visible, and He will tell you what you were doing.’” (Q9:94)

The Prophet is nearer to the believers than their selves; his wives are their mothers. Those who are bound by blood are nearer to one another in the Book of God than the believers and the emigrants; nevertheless you should act towards your friends honourably; that stands inscribed in the Book. (Q 33:6)

Muhammed needs to be Appeased like the Deity

They swear by Allah to you (Muslims) to please you, but Allah, with His messenger, hath more right that they should please Him (yur’ḍūhu 3^rd person masc. sing.) if they are believers.” (Q 9:62)

Muhammed will reward you from his Bounty like a Deity

 If only they had been content with what Allah and His Messenger gave them, and had said, “Sufficient unto us is Allah! Allah and His Messenger will soon give us of His bounty: to Allah do we turn our hopes!” (Q 9:59)

They swear by Allah that they said nothing (evil), but indeed they uttered blasphemy, and they did it after accepting Islam; and they meditated a plot which they were unable to carry out: this revenge of theirs was (their) only return for the bounty with which Allah and His Messenger had enriched them! If they repent, it will be best for them; but if they turn back (to their evil ways), Allah will punish them with a grievous penalty in this life and in the Hereafter: They shall have none on earth to protect or help them. (Q9:74- Yusuf Ali)

Here is seems that while God sends raid, Muhammed and God both co-operate in making the vegetation grow:

“And it is He who sends down rain from the sky, and We produce thereby the growth of all things. We produce from it greenery from which We produce grains arranged in layers. And from the palm trees – of its emerging fruit are clusters hanging low. And [We produce] gardens of grapevines and olives and pomegranates, similar yet varied. Look at [each of] its fruit when it yields and [at] its ripening. Indeed in that are signs for a people who believe.” (Q 6:99)

Mohammed’s deity-like Attributes and Names

INDEED, there has come unto you [O mankind] an Apostle from among yourselves: heavily weighs – upon him [the thought] that you might suffer [in the life to come]; full of concern for you [is he, and] full of compassion and mercy towards the believers.” (9:128)

The words raoof raheemun appear only five other times, and always in relation to the Islamic deity:

God has pardoned the prophet and the emigrants and the supporters that followed him in the darkest moment, even though the hearts of some of them nearly deviated, but then He pardoned them. He is towards them Kind, Compassionate. S. 9:117 QRT

All this is from God ‘s favour upon you and His mercy. God is Kind, Compassionate. S. 24:20 QRT – cf. Q. 16:7, 47; 59:10

“… the objectification of Muhammad reaches its peak in Surah 9, which is indubitably one of the latest Madinan surahs. It repeatedly refers to ‘Allah and His Messenger’ (9.1, 3, 7, 16, 24, 29 etc.) and the penultimate ayah (9.128) describes the Messenger as ‘all-pitying all-merciful’, qualities which are elsewhere ascribed to Allah.” (Neal Robinson, Discovering the Qur’an: A Contemporary Approach to a Veiled Text, 2^nd edition, [Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C. 2003], p. 244)

“Allah’s Apostle: the Lord of the Muslims, Leader of the Allah Fearing, Messenger of the Lord of the Worlds, the Peerless and Unequalled.” Sahih Bukhari 1:2:14

Analysing another verse Q 48:9, we can see that the mention of Muhammed is immediately followed by a train of praises and adulatory terms. Arabic grammar rules state that adjectives are attributable to the last mentioned person in a sentence. Even Muslim commentators struggle to explain this vessel and play down the role of Muhammed in it:

“that you may believe in God and His Messenger and honour (watuʿazzirūhu –  وَتُعَزِّرُوهُ only 3 occ.) Him, and reverence (1 occurrence-watuwaqqirūhu– وَتُوَقِّرُوهُ ) Him, and that you may give Him glory (watusabbiḥūhu –وَتُسَبِّحُوهُ, several occ.) at the dawn and in the evening.” (Q 48:9)

Only Muhammed may interrupt your prayers

When a Muslim is engaged in the prayer (salat), it is forbidden for him to respond to people who try to speak to him while he is praying until he is finished. However, from the following Hadiths you will see that Muhammad wanted to be an exception to the rule. He tells Muslims that even if they are performing salat to Allah, they must respond to him (Muhammad) if he calls them. He invokes Qur’an 8:24 to prove his case:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Mualla: While I was praying, the Prophet passed by and called me, but I did not go to him till I had finished my prayer. When I went to him, he said, “What prevented you from coming?” I said, “I was praying.” He said, “Didn’t Allah say” “O you who believes Give your response to Allah (by obeying Him) and to His Apostle.”(8.24)…” Sahih al-Bukhari 4703 Book 65, Hadith 225 Volume 6. Book 60. Number 226

Do not leave Muhammed’s presence without permission

“Those only are believers, who believe in God and His Messenger and who, when they are with him upon a common matter, go not away until they ask his leave. Surely those who ask thy leave — those are they that believe in God and His Messenger; so, when they ask thy leave for some affair of their own, give leave to whom thou wilt of them, and ask God’s forgiveness for them; surely God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.” (Q 24:62)

Muhammad owns the World

This wins first prize: “While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, “Let us go to the Jews” We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.” (Bukhari 3167)

Muhammed Encouraged the Cult of his Person

Anas b. Malik (Allah be pleased wish him) reported that Allah’s Messenger came to Mina; he went to the Jamra and threw pebbles at it, after which he went to his lodging in Mina, and sacrificed the animal. He then called for a barber and, turning his right side to him, let him shave him; after which he tiimed his left side. He then gave (these hair) to the people. (He called for) the barber and, pointing towards the right side of his head, said: (Start from) here, and then distributed his hair among those who were near him. He then pointed to the barber (to shave) the left side and he shaved it, and he gave (these hair) to Umm Sulaim (Allah be pleased with her). And in the narration of Abu Kuraib (the words are):” He started from the right half (of his head), and he distributed a hair or two among the people. and then (asked the barber) to shave the left side and he did similarly, and he (the Holy Prophet) said: Here is Abu Talha and he gave these (hair) to Abu Talha.” Allah’s Messenger threw stones at Jamrat al-‘Aqaba. He then want to his sacrificial animal and sacrificed it, and there was sitting the barber, and he pointed with his hand towards his head, and he shaved the right half of it, and he (the Holy Prophet) distributed them (the hair) among those who were near him. And he again said: Shave the other half, and said: Where is Abu Talha and gave it (the hair) to him. When Allah’s Messenger had thrown pebbles at the Jamra and had sacrificed the animal, he turned (the right side) of his head towards the barber, and i. e shaved it. He then called Abu Talha al-Ansari and gave it to him. He then turned his left side and asked him (the barber) to shave. And he (the barber) shaved. and gave it to Abu Talha and told him to distribute it amongst the people.

Narrated Abu Juhaifa: I came to the Prophet while he was inside a red leather tent, and I saw Bilal taking the remaining water of the ablution of the Prophet, and the people were taking of that water impatiently and rubbing it on their faces; and whoever could not get anything of it, would share the moisture of the hand of his companion (and then rub it on his face). (Bukhari 376 and also 5859)

Introduction

I have tried to summarize the Qur’anic advice on violence and peace here. The question I am trying to answer is whether instigating violence in the name of religion can be justified solely based on the Qur’anic text or not.

Why I focus solely on the Qur’anic text

I’ve been asked why I base my arguments primarily on the Qur’anic text. There are various traditions, commentaries, commentators hold varying degrees of weight in Islam, but these are not my primary concern here. In Islam every interpretative teaching must first and foremost, align with the sentiment of the Qur’an, and so we shall stick to the Qur’an. Further, if the Qur’an is a meaningful work of a single author, then analysing it in of itself can provide the most pure and uncorrupted insight into that author’s mind. Muslims seemingly expend much energy examining possible hidden scientific or numerological implications of various Qur’anic verses, so one hopes just examining the message of those same words will also be considered a fruitful exercise. That’s what I’m doing here.

My conclusions will show that through this analysis, a natural reading of the relevant Qur’anic verses yields the general dictum that peace comes only when Islamic domination is attained, and this through violent means if necessary, and depending on one’s disposition, even when not. There are some verses that enjoin the believers to employ more peaceful means, however, such verses are few in number and generally run in direct conflict with verses to the contrary. The overall result is a text that is predominantly a call to violence, with possible mitigations that need not be employed in every case.

When we do look at wider Islamic traditions and commentaries, it is still unusual to get mitigations, rather the stance is generally further hardened toward violence. I go into some of this literature in the appendix. Further, based on certain verses in the Qur’an itself, there arises a principle of “abrogation”. Because a certain obscurity is maintained with respect to just what teachings these refer to, it is possible for Muslims, when they find contradictory teachings to infer that the “peaceful” verses have been abrogated into the violent ones.

The article is under the following simple subheadings:

1. Violence is prescribed for difference in Religion
2. Violence even when peaceful option/ surrender is an option
3. Peaceful approach is looked down upon and discouraged
4. Xenophobic Profiling of non-Muslims
5. Apparent Mitigating verses contradict and don’t go far enough themselves.

IMO, the Qur’an’s main drawbacks are the contradictions in morals, not the textual contradictions, those are secondary. The way to choose religion is not by preservation of text, rather the preservation of love. “Love never fails” (he agape oudepote piptei, 1Cor.13:12). But it seems to me there is an unfortunate trend to accept dubious morals as long as the text is consistent, “it was memorised”.

Principles of Islamic Violence

Violence Specifically for difference in Belief

Here we look at verses in which there is a specific prescription of violence for holding non-Muslim beliefs.

Q 8:13 advices: “strike off their heads…because they defied Allah and his apostle”, (8:39)”Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is God’s entirely”

(Q 9:29) “Fight those People of the Book who do not forbid what God and his apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith”,

Q 9:123 “O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that God is with the godfearing.” Q 9:120 gives the context to it as: “the people of Medina and the neighbouring desert Arabs should not have held back from following God’s Mesenger, nor should they have cared for themselves more than him…” (AH).

In Q 9:1-7 Muslims are clearly commanded unprovoked aggression upon completion of the term of a treaty, even though the “idolators” have kept to its terms “have honored their treaties” (v.4)

Only those adopting Islamic practises in the face of such aggression can hope for mitigation granted, i.e. those that “take to prayer”, “seek your protection”, “pay the tax” “so they can hear the words of Allah”. In this context the “levy” certainly sounds like the quintessensial protection racket.

What cements this interpretation of the passage is the very fact that Muslims are only permitted self-defensive fighting in the four sacred months, which if not alread obvious, is also stated clearly, just in case some Muslims felt they should allow people to walk over them for four months:

“do not wrong yourselves in these months- though you ay fight the idolators at any tome- of they fight you first…”(9:36)

It seems obvious that the author intends that offensive fighting be permitted in the remainder 8 (or 11, as we see later) months:

“… those unbelievers who have honoured their treaties with you in every detail and have aided none against you. With these keep faith, until their treaties have run their term.. God loves the righteous. When the sacred months are over slay the idolators wherever you find them (…) Arrest them, besiege them, and lay in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer (“salah”) and render the alms levy¸ allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful. And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety…” (Q 9:1-7 excerpts).

Later we perform a full analysis of this important passage of the Qur’an.

Here, Muslims are “called upon” to fight some nation, and are warned punishment if they back down. This certainly sounds like instigated aggression. How can you “turn your backs” on self-defense? That would have just been called “surrender” If Allah had been concerned about Muslims giving in to an aggressor, the advise would have been to fight to the death and never surrender or something along those lines, but ths is nothing like that:

“Say to the Bedouins who were left behind: ‘You shall be called against a people possessed of great might’ to fight them, or they surrender. If you obey, God will give you a goodly wage; but if you turn your backs, as you turned your backs before, He will chastise you with a painful chastisement.’ (Q 48:16)

Clearly the author of the Qur’an is narrowing his concern to Muslim lives in this verse:

“He that kills a believer by design shall burn in Hell forever. He shall incur the wrath of God, who will His curse on him and prepare for him a mighty scourge.” (4:93, cf 4:91)

An attitude of constancy in hate based upon religious differences is advised, and such advise cannot be taken as merely situational because of the “until” clause, which effectively makes it universal and eternal:

“enmity and hate shall reign between us until you believe in God only..” (Q 60:4).

Violence even when Peace/ Surrender is an Option

Again this type of advise goes beyond mere “necessary use” or “proportionate” force. 8:67 literally has “take no prisoners” – type advise “not..to have prisoners until…wide slaughter”, Q 47:35 advises “do not falter and sue for peace when you have gained the upper hand”, 47:4-7 “until you have thorougly subdued”, implying going beyond simple surrender.

Torture is recommended as punishment for “defiance”: “they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned…” (5:33) and we have already seen Q 8:13 above.

Terms of surrender in Muslim fighting seem to involve the “triple choice” (Q 9:6, 29): either convert to Islam (“repent and say the prayers”), pay the tribute/levy (9:5,29), or face the consequences. One can infer that there is no option 4: “just leave us alone”.

Violent response to Peaceful Critique

Verses that famously suggest “persecution is worse than slaughter” (Q 2:190-3, 216-7) are significant because it is not clear whether the persecution is necessarily violent or threatening to Muslims’ lives, yet it can be met with lethal response. Q 5:33 has a another widely applicable pretext, a violent response even extending to torture for “making mischief in the land”. This can be and has been used against perceived dissidents in an Islamic state in order to intimidate minorities. For example, preaching a different religion, or peaceful criticisms of Islam and Muhammed in particular can be taken as ” making mischief in the land”. A recent example would have been the violent murders of peaceful Charlie Hebdo cartoonists who mocked Muhammed.

Peaceful approach is looked down upon and discouraged

If there were any doubt in the Muslims’ minds as to the clarity of the call to violence, then it seems there are further verses which put the issue beyond doubt. We’ve already seen that in general, peaceful approaches seem to follow upon aggression and intimidation rather than being the initial or primary intent.

Muslims Advised to Overcome your dislike of violence

The passage from 2:216-7 seems to be goading the Muslims to reject the inerent dislike of unecessary violence that human beings have. Fighting is grievous/ heinous only in the sacred month. Apart from that fighting per se is “good for you, although you dislike it”. This sort of attitude is reminiscent of gangster movies where the mob killers are at some point repulsed by their own actions, but have no option to stop, so they pray, go to Church and Confession and so on. Or of prison guards under tryrranical regimes who were required to be unecessarily cruel, in well-known fascist/communist regimes too many and too obvious to need mention here. One must consider here that persons typically find killing uncomfortable and experience the prick of the conscience only when the victim is innocent, rather than when it is in self-defence:

“Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. (2:216 YA) They will question thee concerning the holy month, and fighting in it. Say: ‘Fighting in it is a heinous thing…They will not cease to fight with you, till they turn you from your religion, if they are able…” (2:217 YA)

Further, there is threat of divine retribution for neglecting to adopt a beligerrent attitude:

“when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling heavily to the earth Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place” (9:38-41).

“If anyone on that day turns his backs to them….he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home: an evil fate.” (8:16).

9:81 (D) …They say to each other: ‘Do not go to war, the heat is fierce.’ Say to them: ‘More fierce is the heat of Hell-fire!’ Would that they understood.

Clearly, the belligerent are favoured by “Allah” over those who are reluctant, or merely “sit still” like Buddihst monks, perhaps:

9:86 Whenever a chapter was revealed, saying: ‘Believe in God and fight alongside his apostle,’ the rich among them excused themselves to you saying, ‘Leave us with those who are to stay behind.’

9:93 The offenders are those that seek exemption although they are men of wealth. They are content to be with those that stay behind.

9:120 (D) No cause have the people of Madina and the desert Arabs who dwell around them to forsake God’s apostle or to jeopardise his life so as to safeguard their own.

4:95 (Pickthall) “Those of the believers who sit still, other than those who have a (disabling) hurt, are not on an equality with those who fight in the way of Allah with their wealth and lives. Allah hath conferred on those who fight with their wealth and lives a rank above the sedentary. Unto each Allah hath promised good, but He hath bestowed on those who strive a great reward above the sedentary.” (AYA uses ‘strive and fight’, and Dawood ‘Fight in the cause of Allah’).

Xenophobic Profiling of non-Muslims

In Q 2:217 Muslims are told that the disbelievers “will not stop fighting you until you have turned away from your religion”. This is mandates against ceasing hostilities by creating an attitude of suspicion- even if the enemy hostilities cease, it is only temporary, they “will not stop”, so neither should you.

We find exhortation to adopt an unforgiving, malicious, and unmerciful nature towards those of other religions. Entire communities are being painted with the same brush here, even though 60:8 has a seeming mitigation, but we speak of that in the contradictions:

(60:1-4) “O believers, take not My enemy and your enemy for friends, offering them love, though they have disbelieved in the truth that has come to you, expelling the Messenger and you because you believe in God your Lord. If you go forth to struggle in My way and seek My good pleasure, secretly loving them, yet I know very well what you conceal and what you publish; and whosoever of you does that, has gone astray from the right way. (2) If they come on (gain dominance over- SI) you, they will be enemies to you, and stretch against you their hands and their tongues, to do you evil, and they wish that you may disbelieve (4) You have had a good example in Abraham, and those with him, when they said to their people, ‘We are quit of you and that you serve, apart from God. We disbelieve in you, and between us and you enmity has shown itself, and hatred for ever, until you believe in God alone…” (Arberry 60:1,2,4 excerpts)

“They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn back (several occ. = tawallaw-  تَوَلَّوْا), seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.” (4:89) 

“O ye who believe! Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you?” 4:144 (Pickthall)

Dawood 5:51 “Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. God does not guide the wrongdoers.” 

“your friend can only be Allah, and his messenger, and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poor-due, and bow down (in prayer)” (Q 5:55)

5:57  (YA) O ye who believe! take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport, – whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye God, if ye have faith (indeed)“

There is clearly an attampt at character denigration which we’ve looked at in the analysis on surah Tawbah. Non-Muslims are looking to betray, even those in your own family, while conversion automatically is automatically a sign of trustworthiness “then they are your brothers”:

“if they were to gain the upper hand over you, they would not respect any tie of…kinship…they please you with their tongues but their hearts are against you…(11) if they repent, keep up the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms, then they are your brothers in the faith…(23) do not take your fathers or brothers as allies if they prefer disbelief to faith” (9:8,11)

Apparent Mitigating verses Contradict, and don’t go Far enough

A few Qur’anic verses do convey a conciliary sentiment: 2:256, 2:191, 4:90. 8:61 and 60:8. The question is whether they really do serve to temper the statedly opposite intent of several other verses. If one arguably much smaller set of verses should be seen as superceding another set, one must be able to give concrete reasons for this. If none are forthcoming, then the natural human tendency is to follow whatever is the more convenient path, and the ambiguity of the text remains. The second question is as to why the two sets of instructions contradict in the first place. I think that apart from the question of violence, there is the question of ambiguity that Islam must answer for.

We can set up the following verses in direct conflict:

1) “there should be no compulsion in religion” (2:256)

even though in other places we have seen that fighting must proceed “unless they repent and take up the prayer or take up the levy” which certainly does sound like compulsion. It is possible to make life very hard for a religious mionority without directly compelling them to change their faith, perhaps this is what is meant:

“Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the last day, who do not forbid what God and his apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith among the people of the Book, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.” (Q 9:29)

2) Verse 4:90 seemingly offers NO WAY for violence. “if they withdraw and do not fight you and offer you peace”, Muslims have “no way (repeat: NO WAY) against them”:

“If they withdraw and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God give you no way against them…if they neither withdraw nor offer you peace… If they withdraw not from you, and offer you peace, and restrain their hands, take them, and slay them wherever you come on them; against them We have given you a clear authority.” (Q 4:90)

we see this again:

(8:61) “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.”

However in 8:67, clearly peaceful surrender is not to be accepted:

“It is not for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter (yuth’khina- يُثْخِنَ tha-kha-na root only 1 other occ.- 47:4, also a slaughter verse- “smite their heads….”) in the land.” (Q 8:67)

and yet again, we see the FORBIDDING OF PEACE:

“do not falter and sue for peace when you have gained the upper hand.” (Q 47:35)

3) “Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes – from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (Q 60:8)

Again 60:8 does not say “Allah forbids you from fighting those who…” (are nice to you etc.), rather it says “does not forbid you from being righteous and acting justly” toward them. That is different from “Allah forbids you from fighting/ being stern toward them”. On the surface, there is motivation here for being nice: “Allah loves those who act justly”.

Further perhaps we must also not lose sight of the fact that “dealing justly” in Islam refers to the justice of Islam rather than the Western concept of justice, so there’s quite a wide room for interpretation there. It is that very justice that we are debating here, after all, so we can hardly presume that it is indeed just.

There is not a single verse that says “Leave other nations alone, do not try to subjugate the nations”. That is why this never happened in Islamic history.

Analysis of Individual verses

“the Cow”

2:190-3

Analysis: Most of Surah 2 is believed to have been revealed in Medina over a long period.

The passage talks about fighting with seemingly special reference to the “sacred months”. There is clear edict against initiating fighting during this period, or in the actual location of the “sacred mosque”. However the believers are still exhorted to violent resistance to perceived opression, the famous/notorious “persecution is worse than slaughter” (Q 2:193, 216) dictum. As AH states in the footnote to v.216: “to persecute people for believing in God is a worse offence than for the aggrieved party to fight back in the sacred month, This further explains verse 191”.

What constitutes a “persecution” being left open to interpretation, and here lies the real danger: It could range from genuine oppression, to milder forms of proscription of the more peripheral aspects of religious life like a burkhas, pictural depictions of Muhammed and so on. This ends up mandating disproportionately violent reprisals that have unfortunately become a hallmark that has come to be associated with Islam in the modern world. This for example would typically be the mandate for Hamas’ violence against Israeli civilians, or of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in France.

The verse:

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress (taʿtadū– always the same meaning); for Allah loveth not transgressors (l-muʿ’tadīna). Slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution (of Muslims) is worse than slaughter (of non-believers). And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- îaram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.” (2:190-193 Yusuf Ali).

Early Muslim Commentary- Ibn-Khatir: Shirk is worse than killing- Since Jihad involves killing and shedding the blood of men, Allah indicated that these men are committing disbelief in Allah, associating with Him (in the worship) and hindering from His path, and this is a much greater evil and more disastrous than killing.

2:216,7

Analysis

Here we again see the refrain “persecution is worse than slaughter” and also that while “fighting is grievous” (mind you, apparently only fighting in the sacred months is grievous, on the other hand, fighting per se is “good for you, although you dislike it”. I’m honestly reminded of gangster movies where the mob killers are at some point repulsed by their own actions, but have no option to stop. Here is it not just persecution that is grievous, but disbelief, and fighting is to be preferred again, alarmingly.

“Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye knoweth not…persecution is more grievous than slaughter.” (2:216 YA) They will question thee concerning the holy month, and fighting in it. Say: ‘Fighting in it is a heinous thing, but to bar from God’s way, and disbelief in Him, and the Holy Mosque, and to expel its people from it — that is more heinous in God’s sight; and persecution is more heinous than slaying.’ They will not cease to fight with you, till they turn you from your religion, if they are able…” (2:217 YA)

Alternate translations: “Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it” (Dawood), “Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you” (Pickthall), YA substitutes ‘persecution’ for ‘tumult and oppression’, Dawood curiously substitutes ‘idolatory’ for ‘persecution’, but an equivalent ‘bloodshed’ for ‘slaughter’ and finishes with “  …and God’s religion reigns supreme”.

Muslim Commentators: Ibn Abbas: This was revealed (…) regarding ‘Abdullah Ibn Jahsh and his companions who killed ‘Amr Ibn al-Hadrami and their asking about warfare during the sacred month (…) for the unbelievers had censored them from doing so.  Ibn Kathir: “Jihad is made obligatory” In this Ayah, Allah made it obligatory for the Muslims to fight in Jihad against the evil of the enemy who transgress against Islam. Az-Zuhri said, “Jihad is required from every person, whether he actually joins the fighting or remains behind. Whoever remains behind is required to give support, if support is warranted; to provide aid, if aid is needed; and to march forth, if he is commanded to do so. If he is not needed, then he remains behind.” It is reported in the Sahih: (Whoever dies but neither fought (i.e., in Allah’s cause), nor sincerely considered fighting, will die a death of Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic era of ignorance).) (…though you dislike it) means, `Fighting is difficult and heavy on your hearts.’ Indeed, fighting is as the Ayah describes it, as it includes being killed, wounded, striving against the enemies and enduring the hardship of travel. Allah then said:(. ..and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you) meaning, fighting is followed by victory, dominance over the enemy, taking over their lands, money and offspring. Allah continues (…and that you like a thing which is bad for you.) This Ayah is general in meaning. Hence, one might covet something, yet in reality it is not good or beneficial for him, such as refraining from joining the Jihad, for it might lead to the enemy taking over the land and the government.

4:84, 89-90, 93 “the Women”: an-Nis’a

(Late Medinan)

Analysis: This is a complex sequence of four verses. The second of these, v.10 gives a seemingly clear edict against fighting those who “do not fight you”: “God assigns to you no way against them”. This would seemingly run contrary to verses advocating that “unbelievers” be subdued in an unqualified sense, for eg. surah 9:29. In Islam when there is a contradiction of this sort, the principle of abrogation is sought and it is assumed that the later edict rules over the previous one.

“They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn back (turn back, several occ. = tawallaw-  تَوَلَّوْا), seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.

Except those that betake themselves to a people who are joined with you by a compact, or come to you with breasts constricted from fighting with you or fighting their people. Had God willed, He would have given them authority over you, and then certainly they would have fought you. If they withdraw from you, and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God assigns not any way to you against them.

You will find others desiring to be secure from you, and secure from their people, yet whenever they are returned to temptation, they are overthrown in it. If they withdraw not from you, and offer you peace, and restrain their hands, take them, and slay them wherever you come on them; against them We have given you a clear authority.” (Q 4:89-90)

Other Translations: The ‘Turn renegades’ is translated by Yusuf Ali as the same, Pickthall says “turn back (to enmity)”, Sahih international ‘if they turn away’, Shakir ‘turn back’, Mohsin Khan and Hilali Khan ‘Turn back (from Islam), Arberry ‘turn their backs’.

Ibn Abbas: (if they turn back) from faith and migration (then take them) as prisoners (and kill them wherever you find them) in the Sacred Precinct or anywhere else, (and choose no friend) in religion or for seeking assistance and backing (nor helper) a protector (from among them)

Ibn Khatir: So take not Awliya’ from them, till they emigrate in the way of Allah. But if they turn back, take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Awliya’ nor helpers from them.)“On Surah 4.88: “Zaid b. Thabit reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) set out for Uhud. Some of those persons who were with them came back. The Companions of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) were divided in two groups. One group said: We would kill them, and the other one said: No, this should not be done, and it was on this occasion that this verse was revealed:” Why should you, then, be two parties in relation to hypocrites?” Sahih Muslim 38:6684, See also: Sahih Bukhari 5:59:380, Sahih Bukhari 6:60:113 & (Sahih Bukhari 3:30:1)

“He that kills a believer by design shall burn in Hell forever. He shall incur the wrath of God, who will His curse on him and prepare for him a mighty scourge.” (4:93, cf 4:91) 

Analysis: Punishment is only for killing believers. Clearly the killing of an innocent non-Muslims has been ignored here. Would that not imply that disbelievers are not innocent by definition according to the author, and guilty of a capital offence by virtue of theor disbelief in Islam.

5:33,38 “The Table”

The last ever Surah in some traditions, most have it as Surah 9

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.” (5:33)

Analysis: “making mischief in the land” is famously applied to any form of resistance to or criticism of Islam and the prophet, and can spell tragedy for religious minorities in religous countries.

The Hadith say: Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar Some people raided the camels of the Prophet (peace be upon him), drove them off, and apostatised. They killed the herdsman of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) who was a believer. He (the Prophet) sent (people) in pursuit of them and they were caught. He had their hands and feet cut off, and their eyes put out. The verse regarding fighting against Allah and His Prophet (peace be upon him) was then revealed. These were the people about whom Anas ibn Malik informed al-Hajjaj when he asked him. Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4356, See also: Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4357, Sunan Abu Dawud 38:4359.

“As for the man or woman who is guilty of theft, cut off their right hands to punish them for their crimes” (5:38)

Analysis: Surah 5:45 gives a seeming option for atonement from the harsh punishment prescribed in 5:38, but it seems both options are valid and left at the discretion of the victim. Further, this is more of a sharia edict which is administering justice among Muslims, since it is dealing with criminality and theft: “We ordained therein for them: “Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal.” But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers.“

8:5-16, 30-39, 67 “the Spoils of War”

Late Medinan

8:5-16 (Dawood) “The Lord bade you leave your home to fight for justice but some of the faithful were reluctant…God revealed his will to the angels saying:’ I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror in the hearts of the infidels. (12) Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers.’(13) That was because they defied (shāqqū, 7occ. this form, “opposed”) God and his apostle. He that defies God and his apostle shall be sternly punished by God. We said to them: ‘Taste this. The scourge of the Fire awaits the unbelievers….(16) If anyone on that day turns his backs to them….he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home: an evil fate.”

8:30-39 (Dawood) “Yet it is but just that he should punish them; for they have debarred others from the sacred mosque, although they have no right to be it’s guardians. It’s only guardians are those who fear God, though most of them do not know it.’ Their prayers at the Sacred House are nothing but whistling and clapping of hands. ‘Taste the scourge, because you disbelieved…if they persist in sin, let them reflect upon the fate of bygone nations.Make war on them until idolatory (‘persecution’ in most translations) shall cease and Allah’s religion shall reign supreme. But if they desist, God is cognisant of their actions.’

“It is not for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter (yuth’khina- يُثْخِنَ- “battled strenuously”?- tha-kha-na root only 1 other occ.- 47:4, also a slaughter verse- “smite their heads….”) in the land.” (Q 8:67)

Analysis: This is a chilling set of verses. 8:5-16 commands murder and mutilation for “defying Allah and his prophet”. Needless to say, people like me who consistently criticize M-.would be automatic targets. 8:38,39 states the end of violence only comes when Islam is the only religion left. 8:67 is a “take no prisoners” edict.

33;27, ‘Muhammed’ 47:4-7, 35

“And He caused you to inherit their land and their homes and their properties and a land which you have not trodden. And ever is Allah , over all things, competent.” (Q 33:27)

6th Medinan surah

“Those that disbelieve and debar others from God’s path and in the end die unbelievers shall not be shown forgiveness by God. Therefore do not falter and sue for peace when you have gained the upper hand. God is on your side and will not grudge you the recompense of your labours.” (Q 47:35[D])

Sahih International: So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior; and Allah is with you and will never deprive you of [the reward of] your deeds. Pickthall: So do not falter and cry out for peace when ye (will be) the uppermost, and Allah is with you, and He will not grudge (the reward of) your actions. Yusuf Ali: Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost: for Allah is with you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds.

Analysis: These verses command that in war, the massacre must be ruthless, and only stop “at length when ye have thoroughly subdued them”. This is clearly unecessarily harsh and uncalled for. The word athkhantumūhum (أَثْخَنْتُمُوهُمْ- root- ث خ ن), the only time this form is used, the only other time the root is used is in 8:67 which is literally a “take-no-prisoners”- type verse.

“Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers, smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been God’s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of God, – He will never let their deeds be lost.” (Q 47:4-7 [YA])

Other translations: Pickthall: ‘when ye have routed them’, Hilali Khan: ‘till when you have killed and wounded many of them’, S A: ‘and, when you have overcome them, by causing great slaughter among them’, “Ar” translates ‘then, when you have made wide slaughter among them’, Palmer: ‘then striking off heads until ye have massacred them’. “and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly (D), R ‘till ye have made a great slaughter among them’, Sale ‘until ye have made a great slaughter among them’. The verse is emphasised by going on to reward the killers, which I have quoted in the rewards section.

48:16,29 “Victory”

Surah 48 ‘Victory’ is The seventh from last Medinan surah. An important verse that epitomises the intent and criteria of fighting. The aggression is clearly instigated, since the verse implies that if no one was bothered what religion the ‘mighty nation’ embraced, then the ‘unless’ clause could be invoked and there would not be a fight.

“You shall be called upon to fight a mighty nation, unless they embrace Islam” (Q 48:16)

“Mohammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless (strong, hard, forceful, firm of heart, stern, severe,hard in other translations) to the unbelievers but merciful (compassionate, kind) to one another.” (Q 48:29)                 

60:1,4; 61:11- on making friends

I think what the Qur’anic author is doing here is like racial profiling. Surely it cannot be theh case that every single one of the “disbelievers” was responsible for whatever animosity Muhammed and his followers may hahve experienced, yet they are being painted with teh same brush here.

“O believers, take not My enemy and your enemy for friends, offering them love, though they have disbelieved in the truth that has come to you, expelling the Messenger and you because you believe in God your Lord. If you go forth to struggle in My way and seek My good pleasure, secretly loving them, yet I know very well what you conceal and what you publish; and whosoever of you does that, has gone astray from the right way. (2) If they come on (gain dominance over- SI) you, they will be enemies to you, and stretch against you their hands and their tongues, to do you evil, and they wish that you may disbelieve (4) You have had a good example in Abraham, and those with him, when they said to their people, ‘We are quit of you and that you serve, apart from God. We disbelieve in you, and between us and you enmity has shown itself, and hatred for ever, until you believe in God alone…” (Arberry 60:1,2,4 excerpts)

The hadith

Narrated ‘Ali: Allah’s Apostle sent me, Az-Zubair and Al-Miqdad saying, “Proceed till you reach Rawdat Khakh where there is a lady carrying a letter, and take that (letter) from her.” So we proceeded on our way with our horses galloping till we reached the Rawda, and there we found the lady and said to her, “Take out the letter.” She said, “I have no letter.” We said, “Take out the letter, or else we will take off your clothes.” So she took it out of her braid, and we brought the letter to Allah’s Apostle . The letter was addressed from Hatib, bin Abi Balta’a to some pagans of Mecca, telling them about what Allah’s Apostle intended to do. Allah’s Apostle said, “O Hatib! What is this?” Hatib replied, “O Allah’s Apostle! Do not make a hasty decision about me. I was a person not belonging to Quraish but I was an ally to them from outside and had no blood relation with them, and all the Emigrants who were with you, have got their kinsmen (in Mecca) who can protect their families and properties. So I liked to do them a favor so that they might protect my relatives as I have no blood relation with them. I did not do this to renegade from my religion (i.e. Islam) nor did I do it to choose Heathenism after Islam.” Allah’s Apostle said to his companions.” As regards him, he (i.e. Hatib) has told you the truth.” ‘Umar said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Allow me to chop off the head of this hypocrite!” The Prophet said, “He (i.e. Hatib) has witnessed the Badr battle (i.e. fought in it) and what could tell you, perhaps Allah looked at those who witnessed Badr and said, “O the people of Badr (i.e. Badr Muslim warriors), do what you like, for I have forgiven you. “Then Allah revealed the Sura:– “O you who believe! Take not my enemies And your enemies as friends offering them (Your) love even though they have disbelieved in that Truth (i.e. Allah, Prophet Muhammad and this Quran) which has come to you ….(to the end of Verse)….(And whosoever of you (Muslims) does that, then indeed he has gone (far) astray (away) from the Straight Path.” (60.1) Sahih Bukhari 5:59:572, See also: Sahih Bukhari 6:60:412 & Sahih Bukhari 6:60:413.

61:11

“…and fight for God’s cause with your wealth and with your persons…” (Q 61:11)

Conclusion: Can Violent Religion be from God?

If there was one reason for God to say anything to us in terms of teaching, then it was that it were OK to take a peaceful approach. That of course, is because the greatest problem in the world today is the lack of it. A parent teaching his squabbling children how to coexist, what else is the point of the parent being there. This is why a Christian will always feel that Islam does not get off the ground as a religious option. Sure there are perceived problems in Christianity, but that doesn’t mean that any other religion is true purely by default.

When it coems to the history of violent religion, we find that the old pagan religions typically sanction violence, because there’s a different god for everything, including one for war. At the end of the day the point of the religion is to help the monarch to get the job done, get people to submit to his random will, expand his empire and so on, so the gods and priests are tailored to that effect. However a true teaching from God is unikely to sound primarily like a principle of violent enforcement, because this can only be a sign of the poor quality of the actual content. That is, you would expect something that is truly high quality and backed by the divine will to be sustainable even in the absence of violent human support.

In Christianity the whole point of the non-negotiable call to peaceful evangelisation is so that choices can truly be based upon the appeal of the teaching rather than the appeal of the mode of spread. How else does God choose between those that go to Heaven and those that go to Hell?

In this passage, the apostle James speaks about such disordered motivations, and Paul also goes into this extensively, for example in Romans. James is expressing how people pray for power and wealth, engage in violence as though this was from God, and end up with nothing of meaning “you ask with wrong motives… friendship with the world is enmity against God”:

“You crave what you do not have; you kill and covet, but are unable to obtain it. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask. And when you do ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may squander it on your pleasures. You adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore, whoever chooses to be a friend of the world renders himself an enemy of God.” (James 4:2,3)

As for Christianity, we know that there are violent teachings in the Old Testament, but we believe that that was preparing the world for the coming of Jesus: ““All these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect” (Heb. 11:39–40)

Compare the contrasting advise of the Qur’an and Bible, in just these two examples:

First these Biblical verses:

“By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:35)

“Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” (John 15:13)

“The hired hand, who is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. The hired hand runs away because a hired hand does not care for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own, and my own know me, just as the Father knows me, and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep.” (John 10:12-15)

And now contrast them with these Qur’anic verses:

“Mohammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless (or stern, severe, hard- in other translations) to the unbelievers but merciful (or tender, compassionate, kind) to one another.” (Q 48:29)

“…they fight in the way of Allah, kill, and are killed. A promise binding upon Him in the Torah and the Evangel and the Qurʾān….” (Q 9:111, excerpt)

(Q 9:120) “No cause have the people of Madina and the desert Arabs who dwell around them to forsake God’s apostle or to jeopardise his life so as to safeguard their own.”

God bless, Jesus loves you

Appendix

The “Context” Argument

One way of reconciling such a discrepancy is to assume that the verses that advice a violent approach are to be read in the context of the time in and for which they are written, which is a common approach among the more liberal minded and Westernised Muslims like those of the English speaking world, which also seems to serve the purpose of soothing their own cnsciences regarding the issue. The problems with this is that the Qur’an itself maintains that it is a book for all time, being the last ever and final message of God, so it is hard to validate such an approach from the text itself. Further, if the original context for Islamic violence, which is perceived oppresssion has not necessarily changed in the present day, then obviously the verses are very much applicable. For example, the very fact that Muslims are unable to establish a caliphate at the international level, as they had in the days of Mohammed and his immediate successors and more recently in the time of the Ottomans can itself be seen as a form of oppression, and this is exaclty what has given rise to the most vioent Islamist groups in recent times. In fact the Ottoman caliphate was abolished with the help of estern influence.

Note: Qatala is “fight”, and qatala is “kill”, the difference is only the presence of a long first “a”, through the addition of a “dagger alif” in the former. If I learnt anything from Dan Brubakker’s work at all, it is that the variants in early Qur’anic manuscripts involved small discrepancies such as these and the “dagger alif” addition was a common one, especially since it was a later addition to the script.

Direct contradictions in the verses

QUR’AN’S PEACE/VIOLENCE CONTRADICTION?

The Qur’an’s confusing verses seem to fight first of all against each other, leave alone against anything else.

BE PEACEFUL!:

4:90 says if someone offers peaceful terms, Muslims have “no way” (repeat: NO WAY) against them:

“If they withdraw and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God give you no way against them…if they neither withdraw nor offer you peace… If they withdraw not from you, and offer you peace, and restrain their hands, take them, and slay them wherever you come on them; against them We have given you a clear authority.” (Q 4:90)

2:265 “there should be no compulsion in religion”

CONTRADICTION- BE VIOLENT!

When one takes prisoners in war, it is unversally accepted as a merciful option to killing those who have surrendered. This is forbidden in 8:67:

“It is not for any Prophet to have prisoners until he make wide slaughter (yuth’khina- يُثْخِنَ tha-kha-na root only 1 other occ.- 47:4, also a slaughter verse- “smite their heads….”) in the land.” (Q 8:67)

again, we see the FORBIDDING OF PEACE, even when the option is available:

“do not falter and sue for peace when you have gained the upper hand.” (Q 47:35)

AND AGAIN, Muslims are clearly meant to fight until their terms are accepted, NOT until peace is offered:

“Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the last day, who do not forbid what God and his apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith among the people of the Book, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.” (Q 9:29)

This is repeated from the main section:

In 9:1-7, Muslims are commanded unprovoked aggression upon completion of a treaty, even though clearly the “idolators” have clearly not violated it. This verse has some mitigation for those that convert “take to prayer” and “pay the levy”, as well as those who “seek your protection”, “so they can hear the words of Allah”. Clearly these mitigations are in the scenario of ongoing Islamic aggression, and contain elements of religious coercion/ restrictions “levy”. The unbelievers would not require to seek the Muslims’s protection had they not provoked the aggression in the first place.

In fact the verse is clearly contradictory and it seems that an editor may have tried to soften the effect. Clearly in the first half of the verse non-Muslims are being killed “slay them wherever you find them”, so how are the terms of peace supposed to apply to the dead? Is the Muslim invader supposed to ask at the point of “slaying”: “do you accept Islam?”, in which case it is religious coercion anyway, and the verse does not stipulate that the question be asked anyway. For example, in obedience to this verse, the Muslim goes to war when the treaty is run. Why would the other side sue for peace unless they felt threatened or if casualties had already been inflicted?:

“… those unbelievers who have honoured their treaties with you in every detail and have aided none against you. With these keep faith, until their treaties have run their term.. God loves the righteous. When the sacred months are over slay the idolators wherever you find them.

Arrest them, besiege them, and lay in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer (“salah”) and render the alms levy¸ allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful. And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety…” (Q 9:1-7 relevant section)

The politics of the Ongoing Islamic Violent debate

While the debates that rage in Christianity and have even led to wars among Christians are typically and quite foolishly related to the finer points of theology, in Islam the debates over the finer theological points like the relation of the attributes of God to his essence that raged in the early years has largely become uninteresting to modern Muslims. Rather what characterises the global political posturing among Muslims today is the issue of whether to be peaceful or violent. Namely the essential stand-off between the emirs and sultans of Islamic states which do not favour global dominion, but rather are interested in maintaining their local and considerable hegemonies, and on the other hand Islamist group which see no role of local fiefdoms, but rather a single ever-expanding and essentially practically unrealizable single world empire. The latter by dint of being practically unrealizable makes for eternal war and terrorism, while the former wil mean that the fundamental model of early Islam is never aspired to, and on top of that alliances with other nations are sought against the Islamist forces in the interest of the local fiefdoms.

Introduction

The Allah who we are constantly informed by Muslims apologists requires no Atoning Sacrifice, and “just forgives”, apparently “requires” to actually torture people in Hell before accepting them at all.

The Qur’an suggests it

Surah 19:71 says everyone goes there for a while

“So by your Lord, We will surely gather them and the devils; then We will bring them to be present around Hell upon their knees…Not one of you there is, but he shall go down (“وَارِدُهَا– waridhuha) to it; that for thy Lord is a thing decreed, determined” (Q 19:68,71)

The word for “go down” or “come” “وَارِدُهَا– waridhuha is quite rare in Quranic usage, is used in verb form a couple of times, and participial form a couple times more, and each time with the meaning of “coming”. In fact in the only other participial usage it refers to those disbelievers who are indeed going to Hell forever! I make this word-study because some moderate translations try to use “pass over”, instead of “come” or “enter”. This is that other participial usage:

Indeed, you [disbelievers] and what you worship other than Allah are the firewood of Hell. You will be coming to [enter] (“وَارِدُهَا– waridhuha) it. (Q21:98)

Plus in the verb form, Moses “comes” to the well of Midian, in a parallel of the Biblical narrative (Q28:23)

you can check the full word-study here: https://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=wrd#(19:71:4)

Here is the Lexical entry for wa-ra-dha: http://lexicon.quranic-research.net/data/27_w/089_wrd.html

Surah 101- Depends on how your scales tip

The notion is conveyed in surah 101 that all those whose scales are tipped the wrong way are dumped into Hell, seemingly forever.

“Then as for him whose balance (of good deeds) will be heavy, 7. He will live a pleasant life (in Paradise). 8. But as for him whose balance (of good deeds) will be light, 9. He will have his home in Hawiyah (pit, i.e. Hell). 10. And what will make you know what it is? 11. (It is) a hot blazing Fire!” (Q 101:6-11)

Only a few/Unintentional sins are Forgiven

To start with, not all Muslim’s sins are forgiven anyway, in fact few are. Safe to assume that this might have Hellish consequences. his verse states that only unintentional sins are forgiven:

“The repentance accepted by Allah is only for those who do wrong in ignorance [or carelessness] and then repent soon after. It is those to whom Allah will turn in forgiveness, and Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.” (Q 4:17)

Just to add to the confusion, this is then also contradicted by other verses that state that all (except major sins) will be forgiven eg. 39:53, 53:32, and 4:48 that shirk is unforgiveable, which is then also contradicted in other verses.

The Hadith are Mixed

Muhammed was apprehensive of his own Outcome

‘A’isha reported: The Prophet entered my house when a Jewess was with me and she was saying: Do you know that you would be put to trial in the grave? The Messenger of Allah trembled (on hearing this) and said: It is the Jews only who would-be put to trial. ‘A’isha said: We passed some nights and then the Messenger of Allah said: Do you know that it has been revealed to me:” You would be put to trial in the grave”? ‘A’isha said: I heard the Messenger of Allah  seeking refuge from the torment of the grave after this.”  (Muslim 584)

He asked protection from various punishments: (Bukhari 6375, 8379) “Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet used to say, “O Allah! I seek refuge with You from laziness and geriatric old age, from all kinds of sins and from being in debt; from the affliction of the Fire and from the punishment of the Fire and from the evil of the affliction of wealth; and I seek refuge with You from the affliction of poverty, and I seek refuge with You from the affliction of Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal. O Allah! Wash away my sins with the water of snow and hail, and cleanse my heart from all the sins as a white garment is cleansed from the filth, and let there be a long distance between me and my sins, as You made East and West far from each other.”

A proportion of Muslims experience Hell

This is an important Hadith, VERY long, hence I have only included excerpts that are relevant here. You will notice that only Muhammed “and his apostles”, whatever that means pass over the bridge over Hell without becoming entrapped. This certainly does not sound that the average lay-Muslim is out of trouble:

“Narrated Abu Huraira:…On the Day of Resurrection, people will be gathered…only this nation (Muslims) will be left with its hypocrites…Allah will call them, and As-Sirat (a bridge) will be laid across Hell and I (Muhammad) shall be the first amongst the Apostles to cross it with my followers. Nobody except the Apostles will then be able to speak and they will be saying then, ‘O Allah! Save us. O Allah Save us.’ There will be hooks like the thorns of Sa’dan [??] in Hell. Have you seen the thorns of Sa’dan [??]?” The people said, “Yes.” He said, “These hooks will be like the thorns of Sa’dan [??] but nobody except Allah knows their greatness in size and these will entangle the people according to their deeds; some of them will fall and stay in Hell forever; others will receive punishment (torn into small pieces) and will get out of Hell, till when Allah intends mercy on whomever He likes amongst the people of Hell, He will order the angels to take out of Hell those who worshipped none but Him alone. The angels will take them out by recognizing them from the traces of prostrations, for Allah has forbidden the (Hell) fire to eat away those traces. So they will come out of the Fire, it will eat away from the whole of the human body except the marks of the prostrations. At that time they will come out of the Fire as mere skeletons. The Water of Life will be poured on them and as a result they will grow like the seeds growing on the bank of flowing water. Then when Allah had finished from the Judgments amongst his creations, one man will be left between Hell and Paradise and he will be the last man from the people of Hell to enter paradise. He will be facing Hell, and will say, ‘O Allah! Turn my face from the fire as its wind has dried me and its steam has burnt me.’…”

-Bukhari 806, this “last man standing” as a long conversation with Allah which is not relevant here.

Again, Aisha seems has a conversation with Muhammad which seems to cast doubt over whether anyone will really have an easy ticket to Heaven upon their deaths

Narrated `Aisha: Allah’s Messenger, said, “None will be called to account on the Day of Resurrection, but will be ruined.” I said “O Allah’s Messenger! Hasn’t Allah said: ‘Then as for him who will be given his record in his right hand, he surely will receive an easy reckoning? (84.7-8) — Allah’s Messenger said, “That (Verse) means only the presentation of the accounts, but anybody whose account (record) is questioned on the Day of Resurrection, will surely be punished.” (Bukhari 103)

Finally this one states that the believers will cross the Bridge over Hell at varying speeds according to how good they were. Some receive no injury, some minor, some serious injury. This “injury” must mean an injury received from Hell, and therefore signify the believer suffering the torments of Hell to varying degrees, but described figuratively. If its not figurative, then it’s hard to know what the purpose of this “rite of passage” is, that is, if “Allah” had willed that no Muslim suffer the torment of Hell, then why are they receiving these injuries anyway:

Saheeh al-Bukhaari (7439) and Muslim (183) “it is narrated from Abu Sa‘eed al-Khudri:……Then the bridge will be laid across Hell.’ We said, “O Messenger of Allah! What is the bridge?’ He said, ‘It is a slippery (bridge) on which there are clamps and (hooks like) thorns which are wide at one side and narrow at the other and have bent ends. A plant with such thorns is found in Najd and is called al-Sa’daan. Some of the believers will cross the bridge as quickly as the wink of an eye, some others as quick as lightning, a strong wind, or fast horses or she-camels. So some will be safe without any harm; some will be safe after receiving some scratches, and some will fall down into Hell (Fire). The last person will cross by being dragged (over the bridge).” Muslim added: Abu Sa‘eed said: I heard that the bridge is narrower than a hair and sharper than a sword.

In this hadith Mohammed asserts that 70,000 of his followers will not taste Hellfire. This is a paltry number in light of population figures for Islam today and across the ages.

Imaam al-Bukhaari narrated in his Saheeh from Ibn ‘Abbaas that the Prophet said: “I was shown the nations, and some Prophets passed by with a few followers, and some Prophets passed by with no followers. Then I was shown a great multitude, and I said, ‘What is this? Is this my ummah?’ It was said, ‘No, this is Moosa and his people.’ It was said, ‘Look at the horizon.’ There I saw a huge multitude filling the horizon. And it was said, ‘Look there, and there, on the horizons of the sky.’ There was a multitude filling the horizons. It was said, ‘This is your ummah, and of these, seventy thousand will enter Paradise without being brought to account.’” Then he went inside, without explaining further. The people started to discuss what he had said, saying, “We are the ones who have believed in Allaah and followed His Messenger; we are they” or, “It is our children who were born in Islam whilst we were born in Jaahiliyyah.” The Prophet heard about what was being said, so he came out and said: “They are the ones who do not seek ruqya, do not believe in bad omens and do not use branding; they put their trust in their Lord…”

The Commentaries are Mixed

Ibn Abbas explains Q. 11:107-108 (which seems to say that there are exception to the permanence of Hell) this way:

(Abiding there) they will stay in the Fire forever (so long as the heavens and the earth endure) for as long as the heavens and the earth remain, from the moment they were created until the moment they lapse (save for that which thy Lord willeth) and your Lord has willed that they will abide in the Fire forever; it is also said: those who are damned will abide therein forever for as long as the heavens, the earth and the children of Adam subsist, except those whom Allah wills to change from damnation to felicity by His saying: (Allah effaceth what He will, and establishes [13:39]); it is also said that this means: they will abide in the Fire for as long as the heavens and the earth subsist: the heaven of the Fire and the earth of the Fire unless Allah wills to get the people who believed in Allah’s divine Oneness out of it, those whose wretchedness was caused by a sin less than disbelief. Allah will enter these into Paradise because of their pure faith. (Lo! thy Lord is Doer of what He will) as He will. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs)

“There is not one of you shall come to it that is but shall enter hell. Inevitability already decreed by your Lord something which he made he decreed. He will not alter it” -Tafsir al Jalalyn on 19:71.

Ibn Kathir, on the other hand, states on 19:71 that only those with serious sins endure temporary hellish torture, and quotes another hadith stating that the martyrs at a certain Mohammedan battle are assured of not tasting hellfire.

Summary- To be Tortured or Not to Be?

“Allah just forgives” is at the very least, a massive over-simplification of the matter. The Qur’an gives no indication of any such notion, and it should not be pre-supposed. It is quite well -known for “improving” traditions to arise in subsequent years, examples of this are the sinlessness of Muhammad, the Second Coming of Jesus, the allegation of corruption against the Judeo-Christian Scriptures among others. All in all, total confusion reigns over the matter of whether believers spend time in Hell or not and for how long, and whether and how it is that Hell can be avoided altogether. As usual the hadith seem to contradict the Qur’an and the Muslim believer is bound to feel rather left in the lurch here as to whether they will be tortured or not.

ts’s obvious that there’s total confusion among Muslims as to whether they will be tortured or not, and they have no clue how to escape from that torture. Surah 101 just says that if their scales tip, and their bad deeds outweigh their good deeds, then they will literally go to Hell, period. I’m starting to understand why even Muhammed was terrified of what his outcome would be.

The mark of major prophetic figures in the Bible like Elijah, Elisha, Moses, King David, Samson and others perform incredible feats and miracles. Thus in the Qur’an itself we see that many do not believe the prophetic claims of Mohammed, and demand signs of him. Without being uncharitable, the excuses do come across as being a bit lame. Subsequently various traditions have grown up around Muhammed ascribing numerous “miracles” to him, enough to fill several volumes of books. If the Qur’an had been silent on the matter it would have been one issue.

But not only is the Qur’an completely naïve of any miraculous deeds of Muhammed, it actively denies the possibility of there being any. The entire claim of authenticity is based on Muhammed being a “good example” for Muslims, and the literary excellence of the Qur’an. Not only do we not find assertions in the Qur’an that Muhammed performs miracles, we do not even find a suggestion of it. On the contrary, we will see, there are about 8 or nine reasons given by the Qur’an itself as to why Muhammed is not given any signs to perform by Allah. This sort of evidence is quite overwhelming.

But here are the “excuses”, so many that I enumerate them by category.

Allah did not give Muhammed miracles because:

You killed the Miracle-working Prophets of the past

(Q 3:183) “To those that declare: ‘God has commanded to believe in no apostle unless he brings down fire to consume an offering,’ say ‘Other apostles before me have come to you with veritable signs and worked that miracle that you asked for. Why did you slay them, if what you say be true?’”

Well, they would not believe anyway

“they solemnly swear by God that if a sign be given them they would believe in it. Say: ‘Signs are only vouchsafed by God.’ And how can you tell that if a sign be given them they will indeed believe in it?”” (Q 6:109)

“If we sent the angels down to them, and caused the dead to speak with them, and ranged all things in front of them, they would still not believe, unless God willed otherwise, but most of them are ignorant men” (Q 6:111)

This is followed later on in the chapter by a verse that states “when we send a sign”, which Abdel Haleem translates “revelation” since it is the same word and in the context that the people are still asking for a miracle in the same verse, it cannot be that they have also been given on in the same, in addition to what has already been said in the foregoing:

(Q 6:124) “When a sign/revelation (ayah) is given to them they say ‘We will not believe it unless we are given that which God’s apostles have been given’ But God knows best whom to entrust with His message”.

(Q 52:44) “If they saw a part of heaven falling down, they would still say ‘it is but a mass of clouds!” 

Allah will not give any signs until the Last Moment

Q 6:158) – Are they waiting for the angels or your Lord to come down to them, or for a sign from your Lord to be given them? On the day that a sign from your Lord is given them, faith shall not avail the soul that had no faith before or did not put its faith to good uses.

This either means that a sign will be given to each person at the time of his death, when of course a reprobate person will see eternity unfold and their own damnation. In any case it would be absurd for Muhammed to be going around giving persons signs only at the time of their death, this is a sign directly of God, and the unfolding of Eternity to the Soul. Either that or this is referring to the Last Day and the Common Judgement of the whole world, which again, is too late for the 7th century claim.

Because Allah does not guide the Ignorant

(Q 13:27) ”The unbelievers ask: ‘Why has no sign been sent down to him by his Lord?’ Say: ‘God leaves in error whom He will,..’.

(Q 6:37) ‘Why has no sign been sent down to him from his Lord? Say: ‘’God is well able to send down a sign.’ But most of them are ignorant men.“

In the above sequence once again, there seems to be an active denial to give Muhammed any sign. This is remarkable, because it seems as though Muhammed would really desire some miracle be given him so that the people might be impressed. Reading between the lines, a skeptic might consider that such a verse might have been a response to Muhammed’s inner circle asking whether he could not perform any miracle so as to stave off people’s ridicule and make their task of gaining followers easier. I use the Sahih International translation here:

“And if their evasion is difficult for you, then if you are able to seek a tunnel into the earth or a stairway into the sky to bring them a sign, [then do so]. But if Allah had willed, He would have united them upon guidance. So never be of the ignorant.  Only those who hear will respond. But the dead – Allah will resurrect them; then to Him they will be returned. And they say, “Why has a sign not been sent down to him from his Lord?” Say, “Indeed, Allah is Able to send down a sign, but most of them do not know.” (Q 6:35-37)

He is a “Warner”, giving Written Signs only

“Neither have you read before this, nor have you transcribed one with your right hand. Had you done either, the unbelievers might have doubted. But to those who are endowed with knowledge it is an undoubted sign. Only the wrongdoers deny our signs. They ask: ‘Why have no signs been sent down to him by his Lord?’ Say: Signs are in the hands of God. My mission is ONLY to give plain warning.’ Is it not ENOUGH for them that we have revealed this book for their instruction? Surely in this there is a blessing and an admonition for true believers.” (Q 29:49,50)

This again is a “time factor”. Muhammad is stating he is “only a warner”. The use of “only” here seems to imply that he will never perform a sign. Should he then go on to perform a sign then he would cease to “only be a warner”. “Signs are in the hand of God“, as Muhammed says, they are for God to display, not him. Further Allah says that the written revelation is “ENOUGH”. That seems to indicate Allah feels there is no need for signs anymore either, unlike in the past.

“Then, it may be that you will give up part of what is revealed to you and your breast will become straitened by it because they say: Why has not a treasure been sent down upon him or an angel come with him? You are only a warner; and Allah is custodian over all things.” (Q 11:12)

Consider the importance of this verse in which the people list a number of possibilities for miracles that they have not seen Muhammed perform and the author of the author of the Qur’an does not give any pushback, rather seems accepting of it. For example, “water miracles”, “ascending to Heaven”, causing angels to appear, all of which are later claimed in the hadith literature in some form, receive a general denial here.

“They say, ‘We will not believe for you [Muhammad] until you make a spring gush out of the ground for us; or until you have a garden of date palms and vines, and make rivers pour through them; or make the sky fall on us in pieces, as you claimed will happen; or bring God and the angels before us face to face; or have a house made of gold; or ascend into the sky- even then, we will not believe in your ascension until you send a real book down for us to read.’ Say, ‘Glory be to my Lord! Am I anything but a mortal, a messenger?’” (Q 17:90-93)

Here the text seemingly asserts it is not necessary that all messengers have miracles, rather that they warn etc.:

“we send messengers only to give good news and to warn, so for those who believe and do good deeds there will be no fear, nor will they grieve” (Q 6:48)

No angelic sign is given

“‘Why has an angel not been sent down on him?’ they say; yet had We sent down an angel, the matter would have been determined, and then no respite would be given them.  And had We made him an angel, yet assuredly We would have made him a man, and confused for them the thing which they themselves are confusing.” (Q 6:8,9)

again:

“Even if We sent the angels down to them, and the dead spoke to them, and We gathered all things right in front of them, they still would not believe, unless God so willed, but most of them are ignorant [of this].” (Q 6:111)

Nobody witnessed the angel that appeared to Muhammed:

(Q 25:6) fables of the ancients he has written: They are dictated to him morning and evening…why has no angel been sent down with him to give warning…”

Here Allah is imploring the people to believe what Muhammed is telling them about seeing an angel:

(Q 53:11,12) “His own heart did not deny his vision. How can you then, question what he sees?”

You have a “Poetic Challenge” Instead

Challenges to the Qur’an’s authenticity are repeatedly made and met not with spectacular signs, rather with the “poetic challenge”:

(Q 10:38,39) If they say ‘He invented it himself’, say, ‘Bring me one chapter like it. Call on whom you may besides God to help you, if what you say be true!’ Indeed they disbelieve what they cannot grasp, for they have not seen it’s prophecy fulfilled (What prophecy?)

(Q 11:13) “If they say “He has invented it himself,” say to them: ‘Produce ten invented chapters like it. Call on whom you will among your idols if what you say be true. But if they fail you, know that it is revealed by God’s knowledge…”

(Q 28:49) Say:’ Bring down from God a scripture that is a better guide than there and I will follow it, if what you say be true. If they make no answer, know that they are led by their desires.

Not that the previous wager of ‘Bring me one chapter like it’ has been changed to 10 chapters! These two suras are actually in chronologic sequence, both being late Meccan. I can just envisage some poor Arab actually managing to scribble a verse in response to the first challenge, causing an increase in the stakes! The obvious counter to this is that verses composed by godless or pagan poets and writers like Tennyson, Wallace, Kipling, and orientals like Buddha, Vivekananda and others would seriously challenge the Qur’an for style and beauty, and in the English-speaking world, there would be no doubt as to who would win.

Jesus and even Maryam’s signs are mentioned?

the Quran documents the miracles of Jesus. So it has no problems documenting miracles for a prophet. That means if Muhammed had miracles there would be no problem in saying so. The whole tone of the Quran is signs signs signs cant you see our signs. So why on earth would it leave out the main man’s signs, meaning Muhammed?

Here is a sign given to Mary (apart from the virgin birth). Mary is a very young girl with no possible source of income, yet she is always “provisioned”, we are told:

“Her Lord received the child with gracious favour, and by His goodness she grew up comely, Zachariah taking charge of her. Whenever Zachariah went in to her in the Sanctuary, he found her provisioned. ‘Mary,’ he said, ‘how comes this to thee?’ ‘From God,’ she said. Truly God provisions whomsoever He will without reckoning.” (Q 3:37)

What are the signs Allah does give?

Destruction of previous nations

(Q 32:26) Do they not know how many generations we have destroyed before them? They walk among their ruined dwellings. Surely in this there are conspicuous signs. Have they no ears to hear with?

Creation itself (this is the favourite)

“Do they not see what is behind them and before them in heaven and earth? If we will, We can cause the earth to cave in before their feet or let fragments of the sky fall upon them, Surely there is a sign in this for every penitent man.” (Q 34:9)

(Q 50:4) Yet they denied the truth when it was preached to them and now they are perplexed. Have they never observed the sky above them, and marked how We built it up and furnished it with ornaments, leaving no crack in it’s expanse…a lesson and admonishment to penitent men.”

(Q 45:13) He has subjected to you what the heavens and the earth contain; all is for Him. Surely there are signs in this for thinking men.

Sleep?

I think what Muslims say here is that the soul of man returns to Allah in sleep, then if Allah so wishes, he returns it back:

(Q 39:42) Allah takes away men’s souls upon their death, and the souls of the living during their sleep. Those that are doomed he keeps with him, and restores the others for a time ordained. Surely there are signs in this for thinking men.

Is Muhammad accused of sorcery for his miracles?

Many accusations are levelled against Muhammad in the Qur’an instead, and so we would expect that were he really performing signs, then sorcery or fraud would be among those accusations (from those who rejected those miracles). However the only time that Muhammad is accused of sorcery is with relation to his verses:

“And even if We had sent down to you, [O Muhammad], a written scripture on a page and they touched it with their hands, the disbelievers would say, “This is not but obvious sorcery.” (Q 6:7)

 Remember that the words of the Qur’an are called signs. We see the idea that the Qur’an is magic words elsewhere.

And when Our verses (signs) are recited to them as clear evidences, those who disbelieve say of the truth when it has come to them, “This is obvious magic.” (Qur’an 46:7)

And he said, “This is merely retold magic” (Qur’an 74:24)

Muhammad is called a magician because he is reciting words just as magicians have their special words they recite not because he is doing miracles.

Further, in contrast, Moses and Jesus are both accused of sorcery specifically in relation to their miracles (10:76,77 for Musa, 5:110 for Eisa)

This is a general statement about the people, clearly not in a praticular context of Muhammed having said or done anything. Again, “signs” is used for verses too, as we have seen above:

“and when they see a sign would scoff and say “this is not but manifest sorcery.  What, when we are dead and become dust and bones, shall we indeed be raised up?” (Q 37:14-16, Arberry)

A Time Factor Loophole?

The only way in which a Muslim can try to get around the Qur’ans repeated iterations that Mohammed is to be miracle-less, is to try to point out that it does not explicitly state that Muhammed will “never” perform miracles. Therefore it is legitimate for the Hadith to pitch in with a numerous abundance of miraculous claims based on this supposed lack of clarity. At this stage if the sheer weight of evidence to the contrary is still only meeting with denials, I would ask:

“The Qur’an is a holy book which denies that Muhammed performs any miracles, yes or no?”

And although I hate being asked yes/no questions, I feel it brings clarity here, because the answer is clearly “yes” from the verses we have seen. Therefore any literature that claims otherwise is adding a significant aspect to Muhammed that is denied in the Qur’an. That is a sufficient contradiction. Further, it is not entirely correct to state that there is not permanence to the denial either. We have seen this in our analysis of verses 29:49 and 6:158, and so in this case there is a permanence of the denial as well.

Lastly, can the claim be made that the verses were given in the early part of Muhammed’s career and therefore could be irrelevant? My brief analysis of the timing of these verses shows that only Surah 3 is in the Medinan period, if we are going by Noldeke’s chronology of all of the above verses. However the chronology of the verses in the Quran is conjectural and hotly debated, and there is no agreement on the original sequence. Further to simply brush aside what had been revealed earlier is not undermine the significance of the “revelations” themselves which are purportedly being sent by God himself. Lastly, it is not as though there is a “later” rescinding of what has previously been said either and in such a case it is reasonable that what has been said earlier should stand, and nor do the later verses record any miracles.

Claims of Miracles/ Verses pertaining to Miracles

These are some of the miracles that are claimed to be references in the Qur’an itself. On examination the evidence for that is pretty thin, and the “reference” seems more “Midrashic”, see for yourself:

A Moon Miracle?

There is no reference to a single miracle performed by Muhammed in the Qur’an. It seems that some Muslims commentators have tried to stake a miraculous claim based upon Surah 54:1-2.

Surah 54:1 refers to Judgement Day

The chief contender for a reference in the Qur’an to a miracle of Muhammad is, we are told, the Moon-splitting miracle. When we look at the verse itself (54:1) at face value, we do not see anyone performing a miracle here. It speaks of some of the signs that will be seen on Judgement Day- the “hour is nigh and the Moon is split”.

It is clear that the straight reading of this verse is apocalyptic, because one would expect this sort of planetary destruction in an end-of-the-world scenario. This “Hour” is always used in relation to Judgement Day in every other usage in the Qur’an. It could not possibly be referring to sometime around the time of Muhammad since obviously Judgement Day is not here yet, and further Muhammad himself admits in a well-known hadith that he does not know when the Hour is to come.

The moon splitting and the hour being nigh are two halves of the same sentence, so a literal reading of the text would imply a relation between the two.

It is hard to see why a single sentence would be referring to two literally different tenses: “the hour is nigh (sometime in the distant future, at least 1400 years and counting) and the moon has split (today)…”. Rather a straight reading of verse 54:1 would be “(prophetically at a distant future time) the hour is imminent, and the moon has split (as a sign of the imminence of the hour)…”

The other possible explanation is that these persons that are rejecting the signs are those of the previous nations, since the narrative immediately moves into the manner in which the people of Noah and of Ad also rejected Allah’s messengers and were destroyed (v.9,18). That would seem to cover all the possible Islamic contexts for this passages.

This is the verse:

“The Hour has drawn nigh: the moon is split. Yet if they see a sign they turn away, and they say ‘A continuous sorcery!’ They have cried lies, and followed their caprices; but every matter is settled.” (Q 54:1-3)

The verse is castigating those who even on seeing the signs in the Heavens of the end-times do not take heed. It is obviously only on Judgement Day that “every matter is settled” (v.3- Abdel Haleem writes that this literally translates as “fixed”)

Regarding the tense of the verse

I’ve seen it argued that the tense of the event is in the past (perfect tense). However this is common in prophecy, since in the vision itself, there is flow of time- events occurring and falling into the past within it (like watching a movie set in the future). So one might prophesy as: “(in my vision) the heavenly bodies were/had been shaken”. I heard from Samel Green that Allah speaks of the hereafter in the past tense about 500 times, although many English translations render this in the future.

Are the “disbelievers” contemporaneous to Muhammed?

Muslims who want to claim a miracle might assert that the persons present there are being admonished for not heeding Allah in spite of Muhammad’s miracle. However the admonition is addressed to detractors in general rather than to persons present at a hypothetical scene being enacted at Muhammed’s time.

Further the Hour is said to be “nigh”, so how can this be directed at people in the 7th century when the Hour was not “nigh”?

What the verse really implies is the following: Judgement Day is coming and the Moon will be split (in the future), yet when the disbelievers (in general, not at any particular time) see a sign they reject them as sorcery. Thus it is a general indictment of disbelievers. Abdel Haleem’s in the footnote to this verse in his Qur’an translation gives this interpretation too, although mentioning that some commentators had attempted to assign the event to Muhammed’s time. He references to verses 55:37 and 84:1 where there are other signs of the end times. Jesus describes similar signs in the Heavens in the Bible, as we have seen.

There is a shift from the particular event of the Last Day and the end of the World to a general criticism of disbelievers. The relation is still there of course, there’s no disconnect: “ALTHOUGH the Last Day is near, disbelievers continue in their evil ways, disregarding our signs”. That’s why it says “…when the disbelievers see A sign…”. It’s not referring to “THIS” sign necessarily but signs in general. The very next verses also entail the shift to general comments. V.3,5 are about those who reject the writings, vv. 6,7 are indeed talking about the Last Day, and v.9 has shifted to Noah and the “sign” given to him (v.15) that they rejected as an example that this is about general disbelief down the ages rather than at a particular moment. In fact the Moon being split is not necessarily a “sign” in the usual sense, it is literally the end of the world, when all the heavenly bodies will be affected, Muhammed only mentions one here, but the others are mentioned in the other verses, and of course, in the Bible, as we see below.

The rest of the surah continues a similar there, berating the previous peoples that did not accept the messengers that were sent to them and therefore courted destruction. It goes through the peoples of Noah, “Thamud”, Lot and Pharaoh, mentioning once again the specific case of the last rejecting Allah’s signs (v.41).

Is the verse even addressed to Muhammed?

It is perhaps possible to take v.6 as referring to Muhammed “so turn away from them”, although this does not imply that he his turning away from them because they did not believe that he split the Moon, rather he (if indeed this is addressed to Muhammed rather than a general direction to Muslims) is to shun disbelievers in general.

When the referent does seemingly, and for the first time shift to the disbelievers at the time of Muhammed “your disbelievers” (v.43), no mention is made of signs given to them, only that they seemingly “rejected Scripture” (v.43), threatening defeat in battle (v.44,45). Finally the focus shifts once more to the “the Hour” (v.46), and the Hellish final outcome of such people which pretty much takes us to the end of the surah (vv.47-55). Again this is similar to the manner in which current disbelief is being contrasted with disastrous outcome on the Last Day as a threat, just like in the first two verses of the surah, also providing the symmetry for the surah.

No “intentionality” on Muhammed’s part

There’s no indication that there is any “intentionality” on the part of Muhammed, that he played any active part, physical or mental in this “event”.

His is the problem in a nutshell. The author of the Qur’an does not indicate that Muhammed even lifted a finger in this supposed “event”. Nobody else in the world saw the Moon split. So we are only left with the Hadith writers.

All its elements run parallel to the NT account

The end-of-the-world appearance are in fact very similar to what is in the New Testament, and it does seem like these verses are merely echoing those, as is the manner of the Qur’an to mirror previous writings in many other places:

“But in those days, after that suffering, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory. Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.” (Mark 13:24-27, also Matt. 24, Lk.21)

Further in the end-times once again we have the repeated refrain that the people refuse to believe in spite of the signs that they are shown. We see this in Revelations (also 9:20,21 apart from these below):

“The fourth angel poured his bowl on the sun, and it was allowed to scorch people with fire; they were scorched by the fierce heat, but they cursed the name of God, who had authority over these plagues, and they did not repent and give him glory.” (Rev.16:8,9)

The fifth angel poured his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness; people gnawed their tongues in agony and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and sores, and they did not repent of their deeds.” (Rev.16:9-10)

Any Christian would automatically know what such signs are referring to, especially when the verse itself gives you the biggest possible indication. Only a Muslim who typically neglects the previous scriptures would read their prophet into it, lacking any scriptural referent.

Judgement Day is a Christian concept

In fact the whole concept of Judgement Day is from the New Testament, it is not seen in the Hebrew Tanakh, nor is it found in any other religion! Judgement Day is exclusive to Jesus, and indeed even Muslim tradition holds that Jesus is “returning” to Judge on that Day. See my article on other borrowed concepts in Islam.

Did anyone see it?

This brings us to the question of who really saw the Moon split. A few Hadith writers do allude to it. In fact in favor of Muhammed here the point is made by Muslims that there is no disagreement among the early companions that this event took place at the time of Muhammed as an interpretation of the verse, even if there is somewhat varying emphasis in the narrations as we will see below.

There are many narrations, they seem to chiefly come form Anas, ibn Abbas, and ibn Masud. Many of the narrations state simply that “the moon was split during the lifetime of the prophet”, not according agency for the split specifically to him. Only Anas narrates in three of these that Muhammed did show then the split moon in response to their request to show them a miracle. Then some talk of the pieces of the moon ending up over different mountains, like this one from ibn Masud:

Narrated Ibn Masud: During the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger the moon was split into two parts; one part remained over the mountain, and the other part went beyond the mountain. On that, Allah’s Messenger said, “Witness this miracle.” (Sahih Bukhari 4864, also Muslim 2800b and c)

Tirmidhi states that the pieces were even over different mountains: Narrated Muhammad bin Jubair bin Mut’im: from his father who said: “The moon was split during the time of the Messenger of Allah until it became as two sections, one above this mountain and one above that mountain. So they said: ‘Muhammad has cast a spell upon us.’ Some of them said: ‘If he could cast a spell upon us, he can not cast a spell upon all of the people.'” (Jami’at-Tirmidhi 3289)

We can see that this is even more than a split, the pieces of the Moon are flung far apart, each atop a separate mountain. It’s like a two-moon sky. Was it a silent splitting or was it a thunderous split?

The only other person in the solar system who seems to have witnessed this apart from the hadith writers is a certain Indian King from the state of Kerala. There is said to be a record of this king converting to Islam as a result and building a mosque in 629 AD resulting from it. We are told that we do not find any more reports because people were in bed at the time.

All these places should be seeing the moon at the same time. That means astronomers in Greece, Italy, Istanbul, Persian empire, all should see it. On top of that, most countries Moon can also be seen in the daytime, not just night. Due to he lensing of light by the Earth’s atmosphere, more than half the world map sees the moon in the sky, some of those places in the daytime. So if you look at the world map, mark out half of the map on either side of Mecca and all those regions should be able to see the Moon at the same time as it.

Muslims try to counter that the hour might be in the future, but the splitting is present. It’s the same sentence, I would say that obviously the two halves of the same sentence should at least have some relation to each other. I know the Qur’an is confusing but it can’t be that bad that even a sentence cannot maintain focus on a topic

A “Night Journey”?

“Glory be to Him, who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque to the Further Mosque the precincts of which We have blessed, that We might show him some of Our signs. He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing.” (Q 17:1)

I will elaborate later, but the first and most blatant problem with the “might journey” is that the “furthest mosque” which is claimed to be Al Aqsa in Jerusalem in the same hadith that claims it as a miracle, had not even been built until much after the time of Muhammed. As a result of this glaring problem there is genuine guardedness even among Muslims regarding its authenticity and many regard it as a dream or a vision, which is really how it is presented anyway. It is not a “sign” per se even were it true, since once again, no one but Muhammed saw it.

Duststorm, and other military “Miracles”

A Muslim posted the following list of military miracles:

This was about Battle of Badr:

“You did not slay them, but God slew them; and when thou threwest, it was not thyself that threw, but God threw, and that He might confer on the believers a fair benefit; surely God is All-hearing, All-knowing.” (Q 8:17)

Once again, this is touted as a miracle, when all that the Qur’an seems to be alluding to is that which is obviously “thrown” in battle which is weapons like spears and arrows.

Numbers of Soldiers Illusion:

“Then when your armies met, God made them appear as few in your eyes, and made you appear as few in theirs, so God may establish what He had destined. And to God ˹all˺ matters will be returned ˹for judgment˺.” – The Qur’an 8:44.

Help of Angels:

“(Remember) when you sought help of your Lord and He answered you (saying): “I will help you with a thousand of the angels.” – Qur’an 8:9.

Army doubled?:

“Indeed, there was Sign/Miracle for you in the two armies which met on the battlefield. One was fighting for the cause of God, the other a host of Unbelievers. The faithful saw with their very eyes that they were twice their own number. But God strengthens with His aid whom He will. Surely in that there was a lesson for the discerning.” – Qur’an 3:13.

I’ve heard a Muslim claim this was a miraculous doubling, but Abdul Haleem clarifies that what it means is that the faithful saw that the other army was twice in number, which is a generally accepted fact by Muslims anyway. What was remarkeable was that the Muslims won although they were outnumbered.

Invisible help?:

“Truly, God has given you victory on many battlefields, and on the day of Hunayn (battle) when you rejoiced at your great number, but it availed you naught and the earth, vast as it is, was straitened for you, then you turned back in flight. Then God did send down His Tranquillity on His Messenger, and on the believers, and sent down forces which you saw not, and punished the disbelievers.” – Qur’an 9:25-26

“Believers, remember God’s favour to you when there came against you hosts. We unleashed against them a wind and forces you could not see. God saw all that you were doing.” – Qur’an 33:9.

These miracles that are claimed for the Battle of Badr, wind and dust flying and rain in 8:11,17, these are obviously common or at least natural and not even unusually uncommon, so while they could be miraculously invoked as timely intervention, they could just as easily be described as poor conditions, like when you’re hoping for clear weather for a hike, or for a picnic and it rains or there’s snow or storm conditions.

Again supposedly about the Batte of Badr, 8:44 “made them appear as few in your eyes” makes sense, it can increase courage. But what’s the point of “made you appear as few in theirs”? This would increase the enemies’ courage, it makes no sense. And anyway these are not miracles. I can claim Israel appeared few in Hamas’ eyes and Hamas appeared few in Israel’s eyes, this could just be normal human misjudgement, what does it mean anyway. 3:13 says that their own army appeared double to them, with some extras thrown in. I’m not sure what to make of that, this could have just been describing reinforcements.

Q9:25-26 supposedly about the battle of Hunayn and again it literally says that they “could not see” the angels that were claimed to be sent in both verses (and also in 8:9), and again in 33:9 supposedly with regards to the battle of the Trench.

Creation, Intellect, Morality– Ontological Inferiority

Besides Mary, NO woman is mentioned by Name

The creation of the first human being, Adam is pieced in several places in the Quran in chapters 2,4,,20,21, 38 and also others. The creation of Eve does not receive special mention, she can be taken to be part of the creation of “all humankind” being created from clay (eg 3:59, 15:26, 32:7,8). Again we can infer that Eve is created from Adam because of verses that assert humankind was created “from a single person” (7:189, 4:1). But Adam also receives a special creation ex-nihilo account: “it (referring to the birth of Jesus) was like that of Adam- “Be! And it was”..”  The creation of Eve is referred to without naming here in 7:189 “it is he who created you form a single person and made his mate of like nature, in order that he might dwell with her”. Following on from this, the “Adam and Iblis” story is retold with variations 7 times, with Iblis being commanded to bow down to Adam. Once again, quite far from receiving Satan’s obeisance, Eve is not even mentioned in any of these. It all seems to have taken place before the creation of Eve, which is a Midrashic take-off on the Biblical narrative of Adam giving names to the animals before Eve was created, without the attached angelic interrogation and command to obeisance.

Eve arrives into the narrative in a peripheral manner, when following one of the several Adam and Iblis stories, Adam is told (Q 2:35) “dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and eat of the bountiful things therein as ye will, but approach not this tree…” seeming to indicate that they are the only humans alive at this point, yet not naming Eve. Following this there is a Fall narrative(2:37-39, also with more detail in 20:116-128). Once again Adam is mentioned in the ensuing expulsion from the Garden, but the presence of his “wife” is only hinted at when “all” are told to leave, or when they “both” are described or spoken to. Subsequently once again, only Adam is depicted as repenting and receiving forgiveness and mercy in the second Surah. We can summarize this by observing that in the most glorious book of God, the first woman remains unnamed, and I think it is fair to say, side-lined. This forms a profound pattern of and template for women being subsequently side-lined from active roles in Islamic society.

But eve’s case is hardly unique, in fact apart from Mary, NO WOMAN is named in the Qur’an. This is includes even women whose role is crucial to Islam like Ishmael’s mother Hagan or Muhammad’s own mother or any of his wives. In spite of having married at least 11 women, their existence in the Qur’an is only even acknowledged because of the disputes he was having with them. Without someone like Fatima and her own wealth and influence it is unlikely that Muhammed would have even gained to the position that he did. Mary on the other hand is there because the Qur’anic author, for reasons few can claim to understand, decides to borrow almost verbatim the Lucan account of Jesus’ miraculous birth and the them of Mary’s own exaltation. Which is great, but poses more questions for Islam than it solves.

Inferior Role in Procreation of Children

The woman’s contribution in giving birth to a child is simply overlooked in the Qur’an, the baby is said to be formed purely from the sperm, and no mention is made of the contribution of the woman’s egg. This is on top of the fact that everyone is said to come “from a single person”, obviously Adam, not from a single couple! It doesn’t matter that Eve is made from the rib of Adam Biblically, humanity comes from both partners of the couple equally, not more from one and less from the other. Sure, one of the partners is “made from” the other, but that does not take away from the fact that every single human being is equally from them both. From that stage on, neither partner has a lesser or greater role in fostering the rest of the human race. We see here that not only embryology but also possible genetic inheritance is being ignored in favour of the man, whether wilfully or not.

Inferior status

Allah prefers men, in general

“Instead of Him, they pray not except to female beings; they pray not except to a rebel Satan accursed by God.” (Q 4:117)

There seems to be some unspecified problem with calling angels female names:

“Ask the unbelievers if it be true that God has daughters while they themselves choose sons. Did we create the angels females?…Would he choose daughters rather than sons? What has come over you that you should judge so ill?” (37:149)

“And if one of them is informed of the news of (the birth of) that which he set forth as a parable to the Most Beneficent (Allah) (i.e. of a girl), his face becomes dark, gloomy, and he is filled with grief! (Do they then like for Allah) a creature who is brought up in adornments (wearing silk and gold ornaments), and in dispute cannot make herself clear?” (H-K 43:17,18)

(Ibn Kathir comments that this verse is indeed referring to the birth of women, which is obvious in that they are adorned with ornaments)

“Those that disbelieve in the hereafter call the angels by the names of females” (53:46) 

To receive only half the inheritance

“Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females… (Pickthall 4:11)

  “…and if they be brethren, men and women, unto the male is the equivalent of the share of two females. Allah expoundeth unto you, so that ye err not. Allah is Knower of all things” (Pickthall 4:176, also in YA)

Men are managers of the affairs of women because Allah has made the one superior to the other. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 329)

Inferior Intellect, Morality & Religion, Go to Hell

This inferior perspective toward women is already evidenced in this Qur’anic verse, where they are termed forgetful. Its a very long verse, this is the pertinent part:

“And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not (at hand) then a man and two women, of such as ye approve as witnesses, so that if the one should forget (AH- the classic meaning of dalla) the other will remember (…) Allah is teaching you. And Allah is knower of all things.” (Pickthall, 2:282)  

And again, the multiple hadith that decry women receive their mandate in probably this qur’anic verse:

“O you who have believed, indeed, among your wives and your children are enemies to you, so beware of them. But if you pardon and overlook and forgive – then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” (64:14, SI)

The Hadith:

This hadith seems to summarize all the rest. See an example also of circular reasoning in it:

“It is narrated on the authority of ‘Abdullah b. Umar that the Messenger of Allah observed: O womenfolk, you should give charity and ask much forgiveness for I saw you in bulk amongst the dwellers of Hell. A wise lady among them said: Why is it, Messenger of Allah, that our folk is in bulk in Hell? Upon this the Prophet observed: You curse too much and are ungrateful to your spouses. I have seen none lacking in common sense and failing in religion but (at the same time) robbing the wisdom of the wise, besides you. Upon this the woman remarked: What is wrong with our common sense and with religion? He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Your lack of common sense (can be well judged from the fact) that the evidence of two women is equal to one man, that is a proof of the lack of common sense, and you spend some nights (and days) in which you do not offer prayer and in the month of Ramadan (during the days) you do not observe fast, that is a failing in religion.” (Muslim 79a)

Deficiency in religion and intellect:

Once Allah’s Messenger went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) of `Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Messenger ?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Messenger! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.” (Bukhari “Menstrual Periods” 304, bk6/9 or vol.1 Bk.6/301)

Equal to beasts and unholy?

These are the words of Muhammad’s favourite wife, complaining of the role assigned to women under Islam. This is an alarming sequence of hadith in which Aisha narrates that “they” have told her that Islamic prayers are invalidated by dogs, donkeys or women passing in front of the praying person. For this reason she disliked getting in between Muhammed and the qibla (mosque direction) while he prayed:

“Narrated `Aisha:The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, “Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people).” I said, “You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet (ﷺ) praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away. for I disliked to face him.”” (Bukhari 511, also 519, Muslim 512e)

Root of Evil

The Prophet said, “But for the Israelis, meat would not decay and but for Eve, wives would never betray their husbands.” (Bukhari 3330)

This lengthy hadith is initially talking about an unrelated issue but ends in the decrial (underlined section). It is a strange construction and seems to be missing a full stop and possibly a translator’s parenthetical note:

“Narrated ‘Urwa: that he asked `Aisha regarding the Verse: ‘If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans (4.3) She said, “O my nephew! This Verse refers to the orphan girl who is under the guardianship of her guardian who likes her beauty and wealth and wishes to (marry her and) curtails her Mahr. Such guardians have been forbidden to marry them unless they do justice by giving them their full Mahr, and they have been ordered to marry other than them. The people asked for the verdict of Allah’s Messenger after that, so Allah revealed: ‘They ask your instruction concerning the women . . . whom you desire to marry.’ (4.127) So Allah revealed to them that if the orphan girl had beauty and wealth, they desired to marry her and for her family status. They can only marry them if they give them their full Mahr. And if they had no desire to marry them because of their lack of wealth and beauty, they would leave them and marry other women. So, as they used to leave them, when they had no interest, in them, they were forbidden to marry them when they had such interest, unless they treated them justly and gave them their full Mahr Apostle said, ‘If at all there is evil omen, it is in the horse, the woman and the house.” a lady is to be warded off. And the Statement of Allah: ‘Truly, among your wives and your children, there are enemies for you (i.e may stop you from the obedience of Allah)’ (64.14) (Bukhari 5092. Volume 7, Book 62, Number 29)

“‘Umar b. Muhammad b. Zaid reported that he heard his father narrating from Ibn ‘Umar that Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) had said. If bad luck is a fact, then it is in the horse, the woman and the house.” (Muslim 2225d)

Narrated Abdullah bin ‘Umar: Allah’s Apostle said, “Evil omen is in the women, the house and the horse.‘ (Bukhari 2858, 5093, 5094, 5772)

“It was narrated from ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: “Omens are in houses, women and horses.” (, Sunan an Nasa’i 3568, 3569, 3570, Ibn Majah 1993, 1994 all graded sahih [darussalam], and 1995 not graded)

Muwatta Malik has it from Sa’d Saidi (54:21/1786) and ibn Umar (5422/1787) Miskath al Masabih 4586 from Sa’d b. Malik, from Ibn Umar 3086, and Ibn. Umar in Riyadh as Salihin 1675

“Narrated Sahl bin Sa`d /Sa’d Saidi: Allah’s Messenger said, “If at all there is bad omen, it is in the horse, the woman, and the house.” (Bukhari 2859, 5095)

“Narrated Sa’d ibn Malik: The Prophet (ﷺ) said: There is no hamah, no infection and no evil omen; if there is in anything an evil omen, it is a house, a horse, and a woman.” (Sunan abi Dawud 3921, sahih [al-Albani])

This has a horrible line at the end, but I do not know the grading of this hadith

It was narrated from ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “An omen is in a dwelling, a woman or a horse.” Abu Dawud said: This tradition was read out to al-Harith b. Miskin and I was witness. It was said to him that Ibn Qasim told him that Malik was asked about evil omen in a horse and in a house. He replied: There are many houses in which people lived and perished and again others lived therein and they also perished. This is its explanation so far as we know. Allah knows best. Abu Dawud said: ‘Umar (ra) said: A mat in a house better than a woman who does not give birth to a child.“ (Sunan abiDawud 3922, not graded on sunnah.com)

The Majority of Those in Hell are Women

Narrated Usama: The Prophet said, “I stood at the gate of Paradise and saw that the majority of the people who entered it were the poor, while the wealthy were stopped at the gate (for the accounts). But the companions of the Fire were ordered to be taken to the Fire. Then I stood at the gate of the Fire and saw that the majority of those who entered it were women.” (found in Sahih Bukhari: 5196, 5198, 6547, Sahih Muslim: 2736, Musnad Ahmad: 21275, 21318)

“Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: The Prophet (ﷺ) said: “I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful.” It was asked, “Do they disbelieve in Allah?” (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, “They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, ‘I have never received any good from you.” (Bukhari 29)

www.answering-islam.com gives a useful analysis of this last passage:

The Arabic word used for “the majority” here is ‘aammah, and it indicates beyond any shred of a doubt (in Arabic) the *vast majority*. You see, I don’t think that “the majority” is a good translation. The translation for aamah that I found was “the general public”. So Mohammed was actually saying that the “general public” of the people of hell are women.

Number of occurrences in Bukhari (both Hadiths): 11 times
Number of occurrences in Muslim (both Hadiths): 6 times
Number of occurrences in Ahmad (both Hadiths): 27 times
Total number of occurrences (of both Hadiths in ALL nine books): 53 times

Based on it being reported in many of the authentic books and also by many different chains of narrators, it is not possible to argue that this hadith is not authentic in its essential meaning.

Violence against Women

Wife-beating is allowed

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allah and to their husbands), and guard in the husband’s absence what Allah orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband’s property, etc.). As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them [Pickthall: ‘scourge’ YA: ‘chastise (lightly)] , but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great” (Q 4:34)

Pickthall/Dawood: “men have authority over/are in charge of women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them”.

The word for beat (wa-idribuhuna) is the same that is used for “strike their heads off” used in verse 8:12. See the lexical entry: http://lexicon.quranic-research.net/data/15_D/028_Drb.html.

Note also that the man is spending “from his means”. There is not even the acknowledgement that the wife has any share in ownership in this verse, the sense is that the husband is “keeping” her.

Why is it wrong to beat one’s wife?

Just like some of the other difficult abusive issues in this article, I have often found that one has to also explain to Muslims why these things are wrong in the first place, not just point out that they’re there. It’s wrong to beat one’s wife because fear and threat is how one trains a beast of burden or a pet, with the use of reward and punishment. To train one’s wife in this manner is to remove her agency and with it her human dignity. And that’s just the briefest approach to the problems of beating other people. For example, the Qur’an never says that the manner to resolve conflict between another man in the community is to beat them. This would be impractical, all the followers would descend into chaos. But seemingly its allowed against the weaker sex, so this is bullying, in the worst way. At the end of the day, one shouldn’t have to spend too much time on trying to prove why beating another person is evil. Even were it said that the reason is to resolve conflict, who decides who is correct in that conflict, what if the man is about to make a terrible decision? Should the woman not be able to discuss it openly? Lastly we must say that even hitting “as a last recourse, to save the family” which is the way in which it is interpreted by the jurists hardly serves to save a family, and will only lead to even more bitterness the next time that there is a dispute. It is just really bad marriage counselling advice, if that is really what its meant to be, at least as its put out by the interpreters. That is not the way the verse reads, though, as can be seen.

The Hadith

Rifa`a divorced his wife whereupon `Abdur-Rahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. `Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Messenger came, `Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When `Abdur-Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment, `Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s Messenger! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa`a.” Allah’s Messenger said, to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa`a unless `Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” Then the Prophet saw two boys with `Abdur- Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that `AbdurRahman said, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,” (Bukhari 5825)

Narrated `Abdullah bin Zam`a: The Prophet forbade laughing at a person who passes wind, and said, “How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?” And Hisham said, “As he beats his slave” (Bukhari 6042)

“Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn Abu Dhubab reported the Messenger of Allah as saying: “Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Messenger of Allah and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Messenger of Allah complaining against their husbands. So the Messenger of Allah said: Many women have gone round Muhammad’s family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.” (Abi Dawud 2146)

The Jurists

This is from Reliance of the Traveller, which is the standard Shafi’i manual for Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence):

M.lO.12 When a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife (nushuz. dis: p42) (whether in words, as when she answers him coldly when she used to do so politely. or he asks her to come to bed and she refuses. contrary to her usual habit; or whether in acts, as when he finds her averse to him when she was previously kind and cheerful). he warns her in words (without keeping from her or hitting her, for it may be that
she has an excuse. The warning could be to tell her, “Fear Allah concerning the rights you owe to me,” or it could be to explain that rebelliousness nullifies his obligation to support her and give her
a turn amongst other wives, or it could be to inform her, “Your obeying me [def: (3) below] is religiously obligatory”). If she commits rebelliousness, he keeps from sleeping (and having sex) with her without words, and may hit her, but not in a way that injures her, meaning he may not (A: bruise her,) break bones, wound her, or cause blood to flow. (It is unlawful to strike another’s face.) He may hit her whether she is rebellious only once or whether more than once, though a weaker opinion holds that he may not hit her unless there is repeated rebelliousness.

(N: To clarify this paragraph, we mention the following rulings: (1) Both man and wife are obliged to treat each other kindly and graciously.

(2) It is not lawful for a wife to leave the house except by the permission of her husband, though she may do so without permission when there is a pressing necessity. Nor may a wife permit anyone to enter her husband’s home unless he agrees, even their unmarriageable kin. Nor may she be alone with a nonfamily-member male, under any circumstances.

(3) It is obligatory for a wife to obey her husband as is customary in allowing him full lawful sexual enjoyment of her person. It is obligatory
for the husband to enable her to remain chaste and free of want for sex if he is able. It is not obligatory for the wife to serve her husband (dis: 45.1); if she does so, it is voluntary charity.

(4) If the wife does not fulfill one of the above-mentioned obligations, she is termed “rebellious” (nashiz), and the husband takes the following steps to correct matters:

(a) admonition and advice, by explaining the unlawfulness of rebellion, its harmful effect on married life, and by listening to her viewpoint on
the matter;

(b) if admonition is ineffectual, he keeps from her by not sleeping in bed with her, by which both learn the degree to which they need each other;

(c) if keeping from her is ineffectual, it is permissible for him to hit her if he believes that hitting her will bring her back to the right path, though if
he does not think so, it is not permissible. His hitting her may not be in a way that injures her, and is his last recourse to save the family;

(d) if the disagreement does not end after all this, each partner chooses an arbitrator to solve the dispute by settlement, or divorce.)

Muslim responses

Response 1: The beating should only be light, using the stick with with one brushes one’s teeth.

Reply- we’ve already commented on the word used for “strike” here. These mitigations come from later teachings and commentaries. There is no such amelioration in the Quran.

Response 2: “But the man is responsible for the family”

Reply: It is true that even in Christian teaching the family is structured with the man as the head (see in 1Corinthians), however such great love is commanded, that men are literally taught to treat their spouses as they would treat their own bodies. It does not make sense for one human being to beat another human being into avoiding sin. Every human being answers before God for their own sins, they stand alone before God on Judgement Day. It would be absurd to suppose that God, in view of the wife having committed the sin of willful disobedience, did not punish her, but rather the husband for not beating her in submission. If woman has responsibilities in the family, so does the man and both are equally responsible for carrying out those responsibilities before God. Further if the family situation becomes so untenable, then Islam also provides the option for a no-questions-asked type divorce for the man. Therefore there is literally no remaining justification for the violence. Beating does not improve the relationship between husband and wife, it merely creates a basis of fear in the relationship.

Compulsory Veiling

Even when Muslim women wear hijab willingly , it is unwittingly supporting those who force their women to do so. The reason is that they are literally wearing the sign of the oppression of others, so to speak. But there is a case to be made that even women who claim to wear hijab willingly, they do privately experience social pressure to wear it. But that defeats the purpose of religous observance. This is unfortunately commonly the case in a religion like Islam where teh ingrained coercion is difficult to disocciate from any genuine sense of piety. In any coercive form of government, ultimately the ruling class too is caught up in the web of the system they have installed to control the masses and and not really free to break away from it either.

This is the main verse that is used to justify the use. The key phrasing is typically obscure language with several translations to select from “and reveal not their adonrment/ charms/ ornaments except what is acceptable/ necessary/ apparent…except their husbands, parents, etc.”.

“Arberry: And say to the believing women, that they cast down their eyes’ and guard their private parts, and reveal not their adornment save such as is outward; and let them cast their veils over their bosoms, and not reveal their adornment save to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands’ fathers, or their sons, or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or what their right hands own, or such men as attend them, not having sexual desire, or children who have not yet attained knowledge of women’s private parts; nor let them stamp their feet, so that their hidden ornament may be known. And turn all together to God, O you believers; haply so you will prosper.” (Q 24:31)

Shaikh Asim, who is a popular Imam currently says that the there is widespread agreement based on this verse that the wives of the prophet were fully covered, and based on the next, this is extented to all other women as well. The reason he believes is for the safety of women, that they will thereby be proteced from evil glances of men.

“O believers, enter not the houses of the Prophet, except leave is given you for a meal, without watching for its hour. But when you are invited, then enter; and when you have had the meal, disperse, neither lingering for idle talk; that is hurtful to the Prophet, and he is ashamed before you; but God is not ashamed before the truth. And when you ask his wives for any object, ask them from behind a curtain; that is cleaner for your hearts and theirs. It is not for you to hurt God’s Messenger, neither to marry his wives after him, ever; surely that would be, in God’s sight, a monstrous thing.” (Q 33:54)

“O Prophet, say to thy wives and daughters and the believing women, that they draw their veils close to them; so it is likelier they will be known, and not hurt. God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.” (Q 33:59)

Shaykh Asim then makes the argument based on this hadith that the women of Medina and Mecca were fully covered, which explains the conversation with the prophet:

“It was narrated from Anas bin Malik that: Mughirah bin Shubah wanted to marry a woman. The Prophet said to him: “Go and look at her, for that is more likely to create love between you.” So he did that, and married her, and mentioned how well he got along with her” (Ibn Majah 1865, graded sahih,; [Darussalam], also sahih in An-Nasa’i 3246)

Why veiling is not mandatory for morality:

This is the most wonderful description of how expternal appearence is viewe in the eyes of God, and it is found in the Bible:

“1 Peter 3:3-4  Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.”

Hair is an adornment upon the body, rather than the body itself, to which notions of shame and sexuality can be assigned, hair is an appendage, like nails. It can be beautified, of course, or it can be worn au naturel without additional adornment. Hair, again like other appendages like nails does not even have any nerve fibres running through it by which it is conncected to the nervous system whereby it can be stimulated for feelings of pleasure (if hair is touched without pulling at the root, there is no sensation).

Modesty is related to avoiding titillating display of one’s body, or body parts, and what “titillation” consists in can be subjective, certainly. But “modesty” certainly does not necessarily entail covering from head to toe, an attempt to avoid the possibility of any display of beauty of form by completely rubbing out a person’s identity. Thus display of beauty is not a violation of modesty, and it is not beauty tself that is indecent. Beauty is the majesty of God’s creation and he created beautiful things that they might be admired and through them he might be given glory. That is what the spiritual life is, which is to view things for what they are truly worth which worth comes from God rather than as means to saisfy our own ends. Thus the role of the hijab is not to curtail indecency, since there is nothing indecent about head-hair. Rathar itis to curtail beauty, or to uglify. But that is the problem, beauty is not indecent in and of itself.

The same occurs in Islam’s use of violence, both in the marital relationship as well as in iner-personal relationships. Sure, sin must be curtailed, but not through the commission of even greater or even equivalent sins, which defeats the purpose of any spiritual journey which is the point of spirituality.

Thus also the mandate for the use of violence in the propagation of religion is contrary to spirituality itself, creating conditions whereby the notion of choice is removed from religion is spreading the message that the service of God is not a choice, since that is literally what is being carried out in practise.This is going to directly contardict any notion of love of God being part of that message. Again, when a wife needs to obey the husband at the pain of a beating it negates any notion of the inculcation of love in human relationships too. Loving relationships are then localised to the relationships between men who are going out to fight so as to avoid them fighting each other, beyond that there is no room for love.

I understand the underlying sentiment of the hijab/niqab, but it seems to be an over-reaction to one of the many problems that face humanity. Covering up a problem does not make it go away. The place of the sex organs is for sex, and sex is not all the time and with everyone, so those need to be put away. But our bodies are for work and our faces are for communication, and those are all the time, that is the meaning of life itself- work/ communicate, is it not? When I say “many problems of humanity”, I actually mean four: sex, power, pleasure, wealth and you could add violence, which is a by-product of an inordinate desire for all the four. We don’t deal with those by covering them up- we don’t eat in the dark, or go sight seeing at night with the lights off, or cover up our scenic spots, or drape our comfortable homes or fast cars in order to prevent us lusting after them and perpetrating violence as a result, do we? God gave us beauty both to behold for the praise of his glory and to struggle with, so that we too may attain holiness- a Crown and a Cross. That’s the spiritual battle that we face- spiritual jihad, if you may.

These sorts of measures, like a band-aid on an infected wound, do not take away the problem, only mask it. Only one manifestation of that masking and the fact that it creates other problems is in the manner that as a consequence, women who do not cover up can then be demonized. I hear Ayn Hirsi, a famous women’s rights activist speak of her experiences and her conversations with Muslims men and how they view women who do not follow the Islamic dress code. They are often themselves seen as evil, and the cause of evil and therefore can be seen as “fair game” and deserving of punishment. This tends to the psychology of Muslim rape and grooming gangs that have predominantly prey on white women and have caused scandal in multiple locations in the United Kingdom.

The Christian form of chastity and the indissolubility of Marriage as a Holy Sacrament is the perfection of the relation between the sexes. There was not need to “correct” what has been perfected.You marry one woman, and your temptation for all the rest is your spiritual jihad for you to overcome. What is jihad, if not struggling against your greatest temptations? A Muslim should be able to understand that.You struggle against your desire for every other woman you might have, and you struggle against your desire to leave the one woman that you do have- that is the perfection of the spiritual struggle and spiritual jihad and spiritual journey, or in other words: spiritual growth.Same for every other pleasure and desire, including the desire for violent resolution to conflict.That’s how Christians go to Heaven.”27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5)”3 Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”” (Matthew 19) God bless, Jesus loves you.

Is Hijab a form of Praying and Devotion?

In addition to the intention of modesty this is another argument in favor of the hijab. Now no doubt I admire the woman that adopts this sacrifice out of a genuinely loving devotion to God, however that personal aspect of this practice must be weighed up against its public consequences we have outlined. In addition, there are problematic aspects even from the personal aspect as follows.

here is no religious reason for a minor to wear a hijab even in Islam, so this seems to clearly represent an effort at indoctrination, and an unfortunate loss of at least a part of the freedom of what it means to be a child.

My main issue is theological: If life is a “test”, then why force the result? How is that “testing”?

In Christianity there really is a test, it is the test of whether a woman will decide to dress modestly or not and whether a man will decide whether to lust after women who do not dress modestly or not. That’s the reason that you have all the visible the moral degradation that you see in western countries, it’s a sign of the test.

In Muslim we have the appearance of uniformity, but where’s the “test”? There is no teaching that prevents you from lusting after other women in Islam even when you’re married, right? Since you can marry other women too and even recycle the pervious ones for variety. Sorry, I put that a bit harshly, but it’s the truth, right? That’s just what atheists do normally anyway, except for the polygamy.

So the whole burkha system seems to be just top-dressing really, Allah never really stated its purpose in the first place, because it obviously does not serve any deeper purpose other than what seems the obvious intent of subjugation. This sort of subjugation reaches its full intent and purpose in societies like Saudi, Iran and under the Taliban. Hijab is only the start of it, but it is the most visible symbol of it.

Sexual Objectification while On Earth

Disposable and Interchangeable

“Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins” (66:5) There is no equivalent command for women “we will give you better husbands”.

A Hadith supporting adultery?

“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying. Allah fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge in. There would be no escape from it. The adultery of the eye is the lustful look and the adultery of the ears is listening to voluptuous (song or talk) and the adultery of the tongue is licentious speech and the adultery of the hand is the lustful grip (embrace) and the adultery of the feet is to walk (to the place) where he intends to commit adultery and the heart yearns and desires which he may or may not put into effect.” (Muslim 2658a)

Jurisprudential Teaching that supports Incest

Qurtubi’s Tafsir is not available online English, at least. Once again, Qurtubi states that Shafi’i, the founder of one of the four schools of islamic jurisprudence.

Ibn Al-Arabi said, “Lineage is an expression referring to the mixture of fluids between a male and a female from a religious legal point of view. However, if this union (between male and female) occurs through disobedience (fornication) then the resulting child is not considered part of a person’s true lineage. That is why a daughter born from zina is not mentioned in Allah’s saying, ‘Prohibited to you (for marriage) are: your mothers and daughters’ (Surah 4:23) because she is not considered a daughter according to the most authentic teaching of our religion.. If there is no legal lineage then there is no legal relationship; for zina does not prohibit (from marriage) the daughter of the mother (you committed zina with) nor the mother of a woman (you committed zina with).

[…]I (Qurtubi) said: The scholars have differed on the permissibility of a man marrying his daughter who was the result of an adulterous relationship; or for that matter marrying his sister or granddaughter who was the result of zina. Some prohibited this type of relationship; among them was Ibn Al Qasim, which is also the saying of Abu Hanifa and his companions. Others however allowed this type of marriage such as Abdul Malik Al Maj’shun, which is also the opinion of Al-Shafi’i. This was detailed in the explanation of Surah 4 (Al Nisa’).

Tafsir Al Qurtubi 25:54

Several Wives

“If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans girls, what seems suitable to you of the women, two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.” (Q 4:3) (We’ll look at this further in the prepubescent section).

23:5 “…who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful to them: transgressors are those who lust after other than these)…”

70:29-31 “And those who guard their private parts Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed But whoever seeks beyond that, then they are the transgressors” This sounds like an almost exact repeat of the previous.

Sexual Objects

Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields whence you please.” Quran (2:223)

Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad). Pickthall

Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear God. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe. Yusuf Ali

Tilth (tĭlth) n. 1. Cultivation of land; tillage. 2. Tilled earth. 3. The fitness of soil for cultivation, as measured by its structure and composition (freedictionary.com)

Female Sex Slaves

“Those who humble themselves in their prayers; Who avoid vain talk; Who are active in deeds of charity; Who abstain from sex, Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame.” Qur’an 23:6

“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee” Qur’an 33:50

“Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek them from your property, desiring chastity, not fornication. So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due, but if you agree mutually after the requirement (has been determined), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise.” (Qur’an 4:24)

“Abu Said al-Khudri said: “The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess”. That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.” (4:24) Abu Dawud 2:2150

Abu Sa’id al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah’s Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah’s Messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:” And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran 4:. 24)” (i. e. they were lawful for them when their ‘Idda period came to an end). Sahih Muslim 8:3432

Here Mohammed prohibits coitus interruptus but not full-on sex with captives for his soldiers: “Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I saw Abu Said and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said said, “We went with Allah’s Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Barli Al-Mustaliq and we captured some of the ‘Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah’s Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, “It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence.” (Sahih Bukhari 3:46:718)

“Narrated AbuSa’id al-Khudri: A man said: Apostle of Allah, I have a slave-girl and I withdraw the penis from her (while having intercourse), and I dislike that she becomes pregnant. I intend (by intercourse) what the men intend by it. The Jews say that withdrawing the penis (azl) is burying the living girls on a small scale. He (the Prophet) said: The Jews told a lie. If Allah intends to create it, you cannot turn it away.” (Abu Dawud 11:2166)

Prostitution allowed?

“…And constrain not your slave-girls to prostitution, if they desire to live in chastity, that you may seek the chance goods of the present life. Whosoever constrains them, surely God, after their being constrained, is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.” (Q24:33)

This verse is a clear permission to forcibly prostitute one’s female slaves. The first half of the ayah (not quoted here) actually encourages the Muslims to emancipate female slaves “if  you find some good in them”. There is little comfort in this, since good people would not mistreat slave anyway rather keep them as a servant in their employ, while an evil person by definition he will not find any good in anyone else, so he is unlikely to find reason to emancipate the slave. The emancipation is made conditional upon the moral compass of the owner. This verse serves for little more than to leave open the possibility of the abuse of the slave. There is at least one Qur’anic verse which commends the freeing of one’s slave without commanding it. According to the traditions, Muhammed himself owned and traded slaves, so we can see that these verses will not be interpreted any differently than I have indicated here.

Temporary Marriage for Sex– Mut’ah

There is a rather disturbing about the possibility of contracting a temporary “marriage” with a woman purely for sex in Islam, called Nikah-al-Mut’ah. This finds Qur’anic validation from the verse 4:24, and further justification for it is to be found in the Hadith literature. As will be seen, confusion reigns as to whether the Mut’ah is to be continued or not following the death of Muhammed. But one thing is never under question- that there was a time when Muhammed allowed it:

“Then give those of these women you have enjoyed the agreed dower…And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise. Give them their dowry for the enjoyment you have had of them as a duty; but it shall be no offence for you to make any other agreements among yourselves after you have fulfilled your duty.. Surely God is all knowing and wise.” (Q 4:24)

This cannot be advice for a regular marriage, because a husband does not really pay his wife a dowry for the enjoyment he has had of her! In fact, a husband does not pay his wife for any services be them sexual or to do with the washing up,  nor does he pay her dowry, I did think that her father does. However verse 5:6 does talk about giving dowries to one’s wives, (a verse reminiscent of the Old Testament instruction of the bridal price for the seduction of a virgin in a case when the relationship had been already been illegally consummated and the father refused her hand in marriage). So there is a fee being paid by this man to this woman for enjoyment obtained. This is a prostitution of marriage. Hence the use of ‘dowry’. Even if he did absurdly pay any prescribed rates to the wife, then what is this potential mutual sin that is being overlooked after the payment has been done? Does it not allude to a parting of ways after the sum has been paid. Here you will notice, as in other places, how AYA tries to tone down the verses’ implications. What potentially sinful variations of the dowry are possible?

Alternate translations: (AYA) Seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise. (Pickthall)

The Hadith on nikah-al-mut’ah

Imam Muslim introduces this Hadith with a comment on the confusion surrounding it, and then gives his opinion that it is no longer permitted:

“Chapter: Mut’ah Marriage: It was permitted then abrograted, then permitted then abrogated, and it will remain Forbidden until the day of resurrection:

“Sabra al-Juhani reported on the authority of his father that while he was with Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) he said: O people, I had permitted you to contract temporary marriage with women, but Allah has forbidden it (now) until the Day of Resurrection. So he who has any (woman with this type of marriage contract) he should let her off, and do not take back anything you have given to them (as dower).” (Sahih Muslim 1406d)

There’s a sequence of hadith from Bukhari that relate to this, 5115-5119:

“Narrated `Ali: I said to Ibn `Abbas, “During the battle of Khaibar the Prophet (ﷺ) forbade (Nikah) Al-Mut’a and the eating of donkey’s meat.” (Bukhari 5115)

“Narrated Abu Jamra: I heard Ibn `Abbas (giving a verdict) when he was asked about the Mut’a with the women, and he permitted it (Nikah-al-Mut’a). On that a freed slave of his said to him, “That is only when it is very badly needed and women are scarce.” On that, Ibn `Abbas said, “Yes.” (Bukhari 5116)

“Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah and Salama bin Al-Akwa`: While we were in an army, Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) came to us and said, “You have been allowed to do the Mut’a (marriage), so do it.” (Bukhari 5117,5118)

“Salama bin Al-Akwa` said: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)’s said, “If a man and a woman agree (to marry temporarily), their marriage should last for three nights, and if they like to continue, they can do so; and if they want to separate, they can do so.” I do not know whether that was only for us or for all the people in general. Abu `Abdullah (Al-Bukhari) said: `Ali made it clear that the Prophet said, “The Mut’a marriage has been cancelled (made unlawful).” (Bukhari 5119)

Sex with Prepubescents

See in the dedicated article to this topic.

Halala marriage

“And if he hath divorced her (the third time), then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she hath wedded another husband. Then if he (the other husband) divorce her it is no sin for both of them that they come together again (Q 2:230)

As per this verse, if a couple regrets divorcing, they cannot get back together unless the woman has “done the job” with another man first. This marriage must actually be a consummated marriage (fiqh schools assert this eg. Hanafi, Shafi, Ibn Kathir, Sahih Bukhari 5265). I have heard Muslim commentators try to ameliorate this by stating that it is meant to deter couples taking separation lightly. This does not make just for the woman, since the task of undergoing this “consummation” falls entirely upon her. Bear in mind that in a male dominated Muslim society, divorces are male-initiated anyway, why should a women who had no desire for the separation in the first place then be made to pay the price for a reunion with the defilement of her body. To this day there have been scandals of mosques running rackets by their imams of halala marriages whereby women who have no social support on becoming divorced are desperate to go back to their spouses. They are made to marry some men who are part of the racket, and often get taken advantage of as you might expect. There has been at last one case of the imam of a mosque having a bed in a backroom where he would “provide the service”. Here: The women who sleep with a stranger to save their marriage – BBC News “The women who sleep with a stranger to save their marriage”.

Poorly Protected by Law

The story in the Hadith (Bukhari 2661) tells us that Aisha is (falsely) accused of adultery with Safwan bin al-Mu’attal, and three men testify against her. She was Mohammed’s favourite wife, though, and Mohammed “receives” a timely revelation stating that a charge of adultery requires the witness of at least four men, thus saving Aisha from a gruesome end through stoning, as in Q 24:12 asking “Why did they not produce four witnesses?” Unfortunately, in parts of the Muslim world today, this verse supposedly intended to protect Aisha has seemingly been distorted and used to protects perpetrators. This is the “Hudood ordinance”, according to which the witness of at least 4 males is required for a conviction of rape to stick. If the woman cannot produce four witnesses, she herself is convicted of adultery. There are said to be plenty of women languishing in the jails of Pakistan and other Muslim countries under this ordinance  for accusing a man of rape with “insufficient” evidence.

They’re sexual objects in Eternity

Enticements on Offer- “Houris”, etc.

We enumerate the verses offering sexual enticements in the Qur’an in numerical sequence here.

Verses 37:48 and 38:52 refer to the “companions of modest/restraining their glances (qasiratun) and of equal age” who will be given to the believers in Paradise. These are obviously women, men do no “restrain their glances”, they’re the ones doing the glancing. There is no indication that these are their wives:

“no bad effect is in it and neither will they be intoxicated (from the wine), and with them will be companions restraining their glances, as if they were hidden/protected eggs/pearls” (Q 37:47-49)

“Reclining within them (the Gardens), they will call therein for abundant fruit and drink. and with them maidens restraining their glances of equal age.” (Q 38:51,52)

Subsequently, it is evident that there is not even the pretence of these women being wives of the believers.

(Q 44:54) “Even thus: and we shall wed them to dark-eyed houris (bi-hurin aynin). Secure against all ills, they call for every kind of fruit in safety.“

(Q 52:20 AH) “They are comfortably seated on couches arranged in rows. We pair them with beautiful-eyed maidens (bi-hurin aynin)”

Probably the most sexually enticing verses in the Qur’an run from 55:54-59, 72-78 and 56:22,35-8. The refrain, “then which of your Lord’s favours would you deny!” is interspersed within this sequence no less than 30 times, a poetic device seemingly intended to heighten emotional frenzy as the objects of delight are listed one by one. It is hard for a non-Muslim to read through these and not have the mental image of a flesh-market, with maidens “restrained in pavilions” and the seller blagging on about their intimate attributes in the manner that they might expect to be sold prime cuts of meat:

“Wherein both will be those maidens restraining their glances/bashful (qasiratu l-tarfi, Arab.- “enamoured”) upon their husbands, whom no man or jinn has touched/deflowered  (“yatmithhunna” ṭā mīm thā [ط م ث] 2occ., this and v.70. For the lexical meaning of “deflowering”, see: http://lexicon.quranic-research.net/data/16_T/068_Tmv.html) before them. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you both deny?  They are like rubies and coral. Then which of the Blessings of your Lord will you both deny?” (Q 55:56-58)

In this incredible sequence, both boys and women are made available on a menu that also has food and wine:

“immortal youths going round about them with goblets, and ewers, and a cup from a spring (no brows throbbing, no intoxication) and such fruits as they shall choose, and such flesh of fowl as they desire, and wide-eyed houris as the likeness of hidden pearls, a recompense for that they labored.” (Q 56:17-22)

Finally, all pretense is abandoned. The houris are literally purpose-built:

(Q 56:34-37 AH) “and upon couches raised high (also trans. “incomparable companions”, ref : Razi) we have specially created, virginal, loving and of equal age”

Here one starts to get the feeling that the maidens are enclosed within four walls, and the feeling of objectification is only increasing:

“therein maidens good and comely –(khairatun hisanun) O which of your Lord’s bounties will you and you deny? Houris, cloistered/restrained (q-s-r, maqsuratun 1 occ., qasiratu “companions of modest gaze” 3 occ., qusuran- castle/palace 4.occ, yuqsiruna- cease 1occ.) in cool pavilions (1occ.). O which of your Lord’s bounties will you and you deny? Untouched before them by any man or jinn. O which of your Lord’s bounties will you and you deny?” (Q 55:70-74 A)

The descriptions finally reach their most intimate:

“gardens and vineyards and maidens with swelling breasts, like of age, and a cup overflowing.” (Q 78:32-33)

All the Muslim commentators support this “big-breasted” translation of “wakawāʿiba” and so also do most English translations go along with it. The word occurs only once in the Qur’an. An alternative translation is “voluptuous women” and I have also seen an explanation that it refers to a stage in the sexual development of a women related to the initial development of the breasts. Whatever the case, these are physical attributes of women on offer. Obviously from this and the previous veres, the author of the Qur’an does not consider sexual objectification a moral issue.

Islamqa Islamic website lists translations of some famous Muslim scholars:

At-Tabaree said; “And full-breasted maidens of equal age.”

Qataadah said; “Full-breasted women of equal age.”

‘Alee Ibn Abee Talhah, from Ibn ‘Abbaas (who said about ‘wakawaa’iba’); “And full-breasted maidens; and His saying ‘atraabaa’ (means) of equal age.”

Ibn Zayd said; “ ‘Al-Kawaakib’ means the woman whose breasts are raised and full/prominent” and he said ‘atraabaa’ means “of equal age.”

Ibn Katheer said; “Meaning; Full-breasted maidens, which means that their breasts are raised and full; not dropping, since they are amorous virgins of equal age.”

Islamqa with regards to the dictionary meaning kawaa’ib:

“the literal translation of the word kawaa‘ib, it is the plural of the word kaa‘ib, which refers to a female with developing breasts, as it says in Majmal al-Lughah, 1/787 

Ibn Faaris (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Ka‘b comes from a sound root that is indicative of a thing beginning to develop and emerge. From the same root comes the word ka‘b, which refers to the ankle, which is the bone on the two sides of the lower leg where it meets the foot; and the word Ka‘bah which refers to the House of Allah, may He be exalted; it is so called because of its prominence and its square shape. A woman is described as kaa‘ib when her breasts begin to develop. End quote from Maqaayees al-Lughah, 5/186. See also al-Qaamoos al-Muheet, p. 131; Lisaan al-‘Arab, 1/719. This is the literal meaning of the word in terms of linguistic roots. 

… the literal, dictionary meaning of the word kaa‘ib is the one whose breasts are beginning to develop or have begun to appear, as quoted above from Arabic dictionaries. This means that they have begun to appear and take on the feminine form, not that they have become completely developed as is implied by the word “full”. 

We may say something similar about describing a woman as kaa‘ib in Arabic; it is not intended as an erotic, physical description of any part of the woman’s body, as much as it is intended as a description of the girl in terms of the emergence of the signs of femininity in her, as an indication of her young age and youthfulness, so that men would be attracted to her. At this age the signs of femininity begin to appear in the girl. The point of using this word is not to describe the size of the breasts or to note their form or shape; rather the purpose is to highlight the woman’s youthfulness. 

Ibn al-Jawzi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The woman is a tiflah (little girl) when she is small, waleedah when she begins to walk, then a kaa‘ib when her breasts begin to appear, then a naahid when they increase in size, then ma‘sar when she reaches the age of puberty, then khawd when she reaches the age of a young woman.”- from Akhbaar an-Nisa’, p. 228. 

It says in Sharh Ma‘aani Shi‘r al-Mutanabbi by Ibn al-Ifleeli (vol. 1, 2/270): A young man is called shaabb and a young woman is called kaa‘ib.” 

Imam az-Zajjaaj – who is one of the leading scholars of the Arabic language – says: “The phrase “wa kawaa‘ib atraaban (translated above as: And full-breasted maidens of equal age)” means that they are all of the same age, which is the pinnacle of youth and beauty.” -Ma‘aani al-Qur’an wa I‘raabihi, 4/338 

Look at how the scholars explain this description, kaa‘ib, as referring to one of the stages in a girl’s life; it is not intended as an erotic description of her body, even though that may be the literal meaning. This is exactly the same as the way in which the Arabs use the word haa’id to refer to reaching the age of physical maturity; they do not mean that the woman is actually menstruating. There is further clear evidence in the fact that the Arabs use this word in both poetry and prose in the context of describing a woman’s chastity and honourable nature, not in the context of an erotic description aimed at provoking desire. When the Arab poet describes a girl as kaa‘ib, he is not referring to her breasts or their size or roundness; rather it is a description of any young girl, and this word is used in pure and refined types of love poetry that are far removed from any sexual connotations. 

ath-Tha‘labi said in al-Kashf wa’l-Bayaan (10/118):  Hence al-Maawardi (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his commentary on the word kawaa‘ib in this verse: It refers to maidens or virgins. This was stated by ad-Dahhaak.” -an-Nukat wa’l-‘Uyoon, 6/188. 

Islamqa gives some examples of translation attempts:

“And young full-breasted (mature) maidens of equal age.” Hilaali-Khan in the Translation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’an, printed by the King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’an (p. 811)

Arthur J Arberry translated it as follows: “and maidens with swelling breasts, like of age.” 

Sarwar translated it in a similar manner: “maidens with pears-shaped breasts who are of equal age” 

Another translation says: “and voluptuous women of equal age”. 

Maulana Muhammad Ali: And youthful (companions), equals in age”  

Marmaduke Pickthall: “And maidens for companions” 

Abdullah Yusuf Ali: “Companions of equal age” 

Muhammad Taqi Uthmani: “And buxom maidens of matching age”. 

The Hadith on Heaven

“It was mentioned by Daraj Ibn Abi Hatim, that Abu al-Haytham ‘Adullah Ibn Wahb narrated from Abu Sa’id al-Khudhri, who heard the Prophet Muhammad saying, ‘The smallest reward for the people of Heaven is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 houri, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine and ruby, as wide as the distance from al-Jabiyyah to San’a.” l-Tirmidhi, Vol. 4, Ch. 21, No. 2687

The Prophet Muhammad said “Every man who enters paradise shall be given 72 houris; no matter at what age he had died, when he is admitted into paradise, he will become a thirty-year-old, and shall not age any further. A man in paradise shall be given virility equal to that of one hundred men”. Tirmizi, vol. 2, pg.138

Allah’s Apostle (The blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “In Paradise there is a pavilion made of a single hollow pearl sixty miles wide, in each corner of which there are wives who will not see those in the other corners; and the believers will visit and enjoy them.” Sahih Bukhari 6:60:402

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “The first group of people who will enter Paradise, will be glittering like the full moon and those who will follow them, will glitter like the most brilliant star in the sky. They will not urinate, relieve nature, spit, or have any nasal secretions. Their combs will be of gold, and their sweat will smell like musk. The aloes-wood will be used in their centres. Their wives will be houris. All of them will look alike and will resemble their father Adam (in statute), sixty cubits tall.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 3245; Vol. 4, Bk. 55, No. 544)

Abu Umama narrated: “The Messenger of God said, ‘Everyone that God admits into paradise will be married to 72 wives; two of them are houris and seventy of his inheritance of the [female] dwellers of hell. All of them will have libidinous sex organs and he will have an ever-erect penis.’ ” Sunan Ibn Majah, Zuhd (Book of Abstinence) 4337, graded Da’if.

for the martyrs:

“Narrated Al-Miqdam bin Ma’diykarib: That the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “There are six things with Allah for the martyr. He is forgiven with the first flow of blood (he suffers), he is shown his place in Paradise, he is protected from punishment in the grave, secured from the greatest terror, the crown of dignity is placed upon his head – and its gems are better than the world and what is in it – he is married to seventy two wives along Al-Huril-‘Ayn of Paradise, and he may intercede for seventy of his close relatives.” [Abu ‘Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan Sahih” (Tirmidhi, 1663 graded hasan- Darussalam)

Comments on the concept of houris

Is sex really enjoyable with someone you don’t love, or that has no choice in their relationship with you? It is quite obvious that there is no consideration of free will in the matter of houris. Muslim commentators have struggled to explain this with some even postulating that they are taken from Hell to be used for this purpose (see Ibn Majah 39, above).

Perhaps the most accurate etymology of hur is from scholar Arthur Jeffries, who shows that the Persians had a similar word for their heavenly maidens, and which literally meant “white-skinned”. It is interesting to note that the word “whore” is given in the online Etymology dictionary as  ““one who desires”- Proto-Germanic, hypothetical prehistoric ancestor of all Germanic languages, including English., the Huora “whore” O.H.G. Old High German, the ancestor of the modern literary German language, spoken in the upland regions of Germany; German language as written and spoken from the earliest period to 750-1100 AD, O.E. hore “prostitute, harlot,” O.E. Old English, the English language as written and spoken c.450-c.1100. This concept of houri fits every Christian definition of whoring, because it is the flagrant objectification of a woman.

Famous Islamic Scholars on Heaven

“..Each time we sleep with a Houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one [i.e. Muslim] will marry seventy [sic] houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetizing vaginas.” – Al-Suyuti, reknowned Tafsir scholar, Al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Qur’an, p. 351

Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Ghazālī (c. 1058–1111); known as Al-Ghazali or Algazel to the Western medieval world, was a Muslim theologian, jurist, philosopher, and mystic of Persian descent. Al-Ghazali has sometimes been referred to by historians as the single most influential Muslim after the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Within Islam he is considered to be a Mujaddid or renewer of the faith, who, according to tradition, appears once every century to restore the faith of the community. His works were so highly acclaimed by his contemporaries that al-Ghazali was awarded the honorific title “Proof of Islam” (Hujjat al-Islam):

“A man asked the Prophet : 0 Prophet of God, will the inmates of Paradise have sexual intercourse ? He said: Anybody among them will be given sexual strength of seven, persons among you. The Prophet said : An inmate of Paradise will have five hundred hurs, four thousand unmarried women and eight thousand widowed women. Each of them will keep embracing him for the duration of his whole worldly life time. He also said: There will be markets in Paradise in which there will be no buy and sale, but there will be men and women. If any man will wish to have sexual intercourse with a woman, he will do at once. The Hurs will sing in Paradise on divine purity and praise-we are most beautiful Hurs and we are for the honoured husbands.”, Al Ghazzali, “Ihya Uloom Ed-Din (The Revival of the Religious Sciences) Vol. 4”, Death and Subsequent Events 430

Female Genital Mutilation

The historical religious view of Islam, on FGM, varies with the school of Islamic jurisprudence:

1. The Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence considers female circumcision to be wajib (obligatory).

2. The Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence considers female circumcision to be makrumah (honorable) and strongly encouraged, to obligatory.
3. The Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence considers female circumcision to be sunnah (optional) and preferred.
4. The Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence considers female circumcision to be sunnah (preferred).

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_genital_mutilation)

There are dichotomous differences of opinion among Sunni scholars in regards to female genital cutting. These differences of opinion range from forbidden to obligatory. The Shafi’i and Hanbali schools of Islamic jurisprudence consider circumcision to be obligatory for both males and females, while the Hanafi and Maliki schools of Islamic jurisprudence consider circumcision to be Sunnah (preferred) for both males and females. There is no consensus whether the hadiths support or forbid FGM. Different schools of Islamic jurisprudence have expressed different views on FGM.

The differences in jurist opinions focuses around several hadith from the Sunni collections:

Hadith Sunan Abu Dawood favoring FGM:

“A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.” (Sunan Abu Dawood, 41:5251)

Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani describes this hadith as poor in authenticity, and quotes Imam Ahmad Bayhaqi’s point of view that it is “poor, with a broken chain of transmission”  Zein al-Din al-Iraqi points out in his commentary on Al-Ghazali’s Ihya ulum al-din (I:148) that the mentioned hadith has a weak chain of transmission.” Yusuf ibn Abd-al-Barr comments: “Those who consider (female) circumcision a sunna, use as evidence this hadith of Abu al-Malih, which is based solely on the evidence of Hajjaj ibn Artaa, who cannot be admitted as an authority when he is the sole transmitter. The above hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud has been narrated by Al-Hakim and Al-Bayhaqy as well, with similar wording, but they too are considered weak chains of transmitters.

Hadith Sahih Muslim favoring FGM

“Abu Musa reported: There cropped up a difference of opinion between a group of Muhajirs (Emigrants and a group of Ansar (Helpers) (and the point of dispute was) that the Ansar said: The bath (because of sexual intercourse) becomes obligatory only-when the semen spurts out or ejaculates. But the Muhajirs said: When a man has sexual intercourse (with the woman), a bath becomes obligatory (no matter whether or not there is seminal emission or ejaculation). Abu Musa said: Well, I satisfy you on this (issue). He (Abu Musa, the narrator) said: I got up (and went) to ‘A’isha and sought her permission and it was granted, and I said to her: O Mother, or Mother of the Faithful, I want to ask you about a matter on which I feel shy. She said: Don’t feel shy of asking me about a thing which you can ask your mother, who gave you birth, for I am too your mother. Upon this I said: What makes a bath obligatory for a person? She replied: You have come across one well informed! The Messenger of Allah said: When anyone sits amidst four parts (of the woman) and the circumcised parts touch each other a bath becomes obligatory.”—Sahih Muslim, 3:684

Muhammad Salim al-Awwa states that while the hadith is authentic, it is not evidence of support for FGM. He states that the Arabic for “the two circumcision organs” is a single word used to connote two forms of circumcision. He claims that while the female form is used to denote both male and female genitalia, it should be considered to mean only the male circumcised organ. He suggests this hadith is misunderstood because “in Arabic language, two things or persons may be given one quality or name that belongs only to one of them.”

Hadith Al-Muwatta favoring FGM

One hadith from the Al-Muwatta collection states:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said from Said ibn al-Musayyab that Abu Musa al-Ashari came to A’isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said to her, “The disagreement of the companions in a matter which I hate to bring before you has distressed me.” She said, “What is that? You did not ask your mother about it, so ask me.” He said, “A man penetrates his wife, but becomes listless and does not ejaculate. She said, “When the circumcised part passes the circumcised part ghusl is obligatory Abu Musa added, “I shall never ask anyone about this after you.”

—Al-Muwatta, 2 19.75

Like the hadith from Sahih Muslim, Islamic scholars question whether circumcised parts mentioned in Al-Muwatta above are those of the wife

Read the UNICEF document:

http://www.unicef.org/esaro/FGCM_Lo_res.pdf

The UNICEF document on FGM shows that the problem is exclusively North African, and we all know that North African is overwhelmingly Muslim. You will see that Sudan is in the red, while South Sudan looks unaffected. UNICEF being what it is, does not of course focus on the religious aspects of the subject except for fleetingly. So the figures could really mean anything. For example when it says that a shocking 27 million in Egypt have been cut, this could mean 27 million Muslms or 27 million Christians ot anything in between. So apart from the geographic distribution, the figures have limited usefulness.

The document says on page 69 “FGM/C is often seen to be somehow connected to Islam, a view that is perhaps unsurprising given the frequency with which it is practised by many Muslim African groups”, and goes on to assert that it is not just Muslims, but also Jewish and Christian women that have suffered the practice. Attitudes to the practise are varied, and one do not actually find the scathing disgust for the practice that is felt by Westerners. Both men and women seem to have mixed views towards it. Pg 69 in countries such as Guinea, Mali and Mauritania, significant proportions of women and men reported that FGM/C is required by their religion. This is often closely linked to the response of cleanliness/hygiene, since

FGM/C has become understood in some Muslim communities to be a cleansing rite that enables women to pray in a proper manner. Muslims must perform elaborate ablutions before praying and even if they, for example fart during, they must re-perform the ablutions. The reason given in the Hadith for male circumcision is that urine lurking under the foreskin makes one unclean for prayer, and this is also seen as a benefit for FGM.

Anything Good?

In all fairness, there are, in the midst of all this seeming blatant sexism, one or two verses for the wives. However these do not seem adequate to compensate for all the foregoing, nor even very convincing, as I will explain why. It would seem significant that the word for kindness ihsaanan with which Muslims are told to deal with other believers is never used specifically in relation to the wives.

In the first, Allah accepts the labors of both, but it is not clear for what:

“And their Lord answers them: ‘I waste not the labour of any that labours among you, be you male or female — the one of you is as the other. (literally -one is from the other: ba’dukum min ba’din) ” (Q 3:195)

Men are told to have affection for and mercy toward their wives. The word for affection is the same as that for “love” here. However w-ja’ala is “placed/made” rather than commanded:

“And of His signs is that He created for you mates from your own selves that you may take comfort in them, and He ordained (wajaʿala) affection (mawaddatan) and mercy (warahmatan) between you. There are indeed signs in that for a people who reflect.” (Q 30:21)

There is a teaching of kindness here, but the kindness seems to be related to the terms of the divorce. l-faḍla is usually translated in other places as “bounty”, so here it might refer to generosity, though some translators use kindness:

“And if you divorce them before consummating the marriage but after deciding on a dowry, pay half of the dowry, unless the wife graciously waives it or the husband graciously pays in full. Graciousness is closer to righteousness. And do not forget graciousness (fadla) among yourselves. Surely Allah is All-Seeing of what you do.” (Quran 2:237)

In the following verse, the translations of bil-maʿrūfi range from honorably, fairly or kindly. The usual lexical meaning of عرف is a bit obscure, so I’m not sure what’s the right pick here: http://lexicon.quranic-research.net/data/18_E/072_Erf.html (click on the first meaning). However as we’ve seen elsewhere, the usual word for kindness seems to be ihsaanan. One can deal honorably with one who one considers to be honorable. That does not necessarily preclude a change in behaviour, for example in response to perceived rebellion, misdemeanor or threat.

“O believers, it is not lawful for you to inherit women against their will; neither debar them, that you may go off with part of what you have given them, except when they commit a flagrant indecency Consort with them honourably (bil-ma’rufi); or if you are averse to them, it is possible you may be averse to a thing, and God set in it much good.” (Q 4:19 [Arberry])

In this article we examine all the problems with Qur’anic transmission, from the moment of its supposed delivery via the mouth of an angel to the point of the definitive compilation, traditionally under Uthman, thus covering a period of about 4 to 5 decades. Modern scholarship is largely of the opinion that the transmission from here to the present day, 13 centuries later, is free of major issues, and this is largely based upon ongoing studies of the manuscript evidence.

The Problem with the Angel

The main problem of the Quran is really the unwitnessed encounter with the angel itself. We deal with that encounter in detail in my article here Muhammed’s Unique “Angel” in which we see that the encounter is not typically angelic by any means. The “being” remains anonymous, unseen by any other human, has an odd manner and a seemingly deleterious effect upon Muhammed. Going further on from there, we note the ad-hoc nature of many of the verses and the manner in which they seem to appear on request, seeming at face value to be serving a personal agenda, rather than anything universal. This should lead us to question if there really was any angel at all. We quote those verses here in my article on prophetic contradictions.

The problem can be summarized thus:

No one saw the angel in the cave (at the initial encounter, nor at subsequent encounters which where supposedly at least annual at Ramadan); No one saw an angel the time Muhammed revealed verses “impromptu”; Never does Muhammed state “I heard the voice of Allah revealing such-and-such verse”.

“Ahruf”-referring to the Confusion among Muhammed’s First Hearers

This section gives a summary of what seems to be various issues of uncertainty involved at the formational stage of the Qur’an. They are witnessed to in a handful of early discussions between Muhammed and his followers give us an insight into these fascinating moments which would, quite frankly go on to change the fate of the world. There isn’t much, but this is all there is.

Summary of the points of uncertainty

I quote the narratives in full next, but first a summary of inferences from them, and we see that we can identify 10 points of uncertainty:

a. There is no reference to a written text in any of these passages, nowhere does it say “go and see what we wrote earlier” or “check in the mushaf” etc.

b. On hearing of certain discrepancies, Ubayy states that he experienced an emotional disturbance on par with being an atheist! “there occurred In my mind a sort of denial which did not occur even during the Days of Ignorance (pre-Islamic paganism) … the Messenger of Allah saw how I was affected…” (Muslim 820)

c. He (Umar) reacts violently, seemingly almost throttling Hisham al-Hakim, as he himself describes: “I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper, and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it… I dragged him to Allah’s Messenger…”. (Bukhari 4992) dragging another off by hand (Bukhari 3476).

d. Mohammed himself suffers emotional disturbance, going “pale in the face” (Mustadrak Al-Hakim 2885).

e. He (Muhammed) himself reacts violently too, striking Ubayy (Muslim 820, Musnad Ahmed 21187, also 16413) and Umar (Musnad Ahmed 17577) both upon the chest.

f. Mohammed believes the problem is serious and are of a nature that has caused war and killing among nations “Don’t differ, for the nations before you differed and perished (because of their differences).” (Bukhari 3476) or “killed those who differed before you” (Mustadrak al-Hakim 2885).

g. He has no “real” solution, simply stating: “it does not matter, as long a verse of punishment is not ended with mercy and vice versa” (Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Musnad vol.5,124, no.21187, also vol.4, 30 no.16413, repeated in 17577 ). Consider that there are numerous theological issues that deal with issues that are not directly linked to mercy or punishment at all, like the nature of God, criticism of other religions, calls to fight, the meaning of prophethood and so on. Elsewhere he simply says: “recite whichever way is easier for you” (Bukhari 4992)

h. He even goes on the threaten that his followers will not even go into Heaven without his intercession! “I have deferred the third one for the day on which the entire creation will turn to me, including even Ibrahim (peace be upon him) (for intercession).” (Muslim no.820).

i. Mohammed seemingly invents an “ahruf” concept, in order to explain away discrepancies in the text (Musnad Ahmad 21187 et al, Bukhari 4992, Muslim 420). To this day, there is no agreement among Islamic scholars of what Muhammed meant by the “ahruf”, nor what the actual variants were.

j. The discrepancies could not be merely dialectical, differences in accent and so on, because Umar, Ubayy, Hisham, all those involved in these narratives belong to the same tribe and speak the same dialect, with the same accent, or at least with accents similar enough to avoid gross misunderstandings as we see in those narrative.

The Meaning of the word “ahruf”

What can we say with regards to what exactly were the variants that plague the Quran as stated in the narratives? The following are the theories based on those same narratives and some of the manuscript evidence of variants themselves. There are several intepretations of the meaning of the ahruf and no scholarly consensus. Ibn Hibban a 9^th century hadith scholar gave 40 such explanations, and Al-Suyuti listed more than 35 (Itq¯an, 1/306–335, Nasser 99, footnote). Let us examine some of the more salient explanations:

Different ways of pronouncing a word?

Critique: Ubayy and Ibn Masud are both well versed in the Qur’an, close confidantes of the Mohammed (the latter professed faith in the Meccan period itself) and ratified by the prophet himself for their knowledge of the Qur’an, as two of the four best reciters of it. Both are shocked by the differences in recitation. The doubt that is raised in Ubayy’s mind was greater than the doubt that was in his mind even at the time of jahilliya (when he did not believe in God!). Ubayy, ibn Masud were both Qurayshi, so speakers of the same dialect, and would have the same accents.  So differences in pronunciation are hardly likely to be the issue where.

Could it be differences in dialects?

This is another proffered explanation for the variants. What is a “dialect”? Language is an organic and constantly evolving phenomenon, so it might surprise the reader, but it isn’t even possible to rigorously define just what the boundaries of the dialect of the language are. New languages never arise de novo, except of course if a coomunity is living in total isolation. They are formed though migration of peoples, borrowings, trade where languages change over time, and eventually sufficiently so as to become incomprehensible and even unrecognisable to speakers of the old language so that they are now themsleves a new language. A modern reader will certainly not be able to understand a large proportino of what is red to him in the Shakespearean dialect, but he will also be able to tell that it is still English. Speakers of contemporary English dialects like Scouse oand Cockney will have even less difficulty. There is a famous record of the confusion that arose in a conversation between Mary Queen of Scots who spoke in Scots, and an Engish Nobleman, but one in which both knew the other was speaking English, that’s the point I’m making here. A French speaker in different parts of France will be able to understand each other reasonaby well, but struggle a lot more to pick up the French of Quebec in Canada. However if an English speaker hears the Pigdin English spoken in Haiti, it is barely recognisable as English.

Had Umar and Hisham known they were speaking different dialects of the same language, there would have been some sign of this recognition in the narrative. This is a non-trivial point, Hisham would say something like “I’m just speaking the Arabic of such-and-such-region”, or Umar would say “why is he speaking the Arabic of such-and-such region?” or there is a third option which is that Muhammed could have clarified “its ok to speak in the Arabic of a different region”. On the contrary, the explanation that does get given by Muhammed is not related to dialects, rather to some permissible change of meaning.

Had Mohamed “received” the dialects from the angel, he would have to speak those dialects to his followers to be written down himself. He gives no indication of being able to do this. Further in the other narrative Hisham has accepted Islam on the day that Mecca had been conquered. Umar was one of the closest companions of the prophets “like a shadow to him” and it would mean that it took 20 years for him to realise that Hisham was reading it differently and although he would have attended all the congregational prayers of the prophet and yet not realised that there were different recitals. It should also be noted that this narrative takes place in Medina, and so at this time more than 2/3rds of the Quran is already revealed and he should have realised much before about the differences in dialects. The Qur’an itself says that it has been revealed in the “in thine (Mohammed’s) own tongue” which would imply the dialect of the Quraysh (surah 19:97)”.

Finally, Uthman at his Qur’anic canonisation iterates that the Quran be confined to the Qurayshi dialect and burns what is not Qurayshi, so if the ahruf is dialects, it would mean that Uthman abrogated what Allah had revealed. This would be an incredible occurence, and even more incredible that there was no contemporary record of any reaction or justification for such an occurence. This is the reason that the “dialects” explanation is a minority view, not held by most scholars, rather it is just a canard that gets used in popular preaching and apologetics. The only reason it even gets considered is because explanations are so hard to come by in this matter of the ahruf.

What does “Harf” mean anyway?

“Harf” the word itself can be shown to have a multiplicity of meanings (Al-Zarkashi vol.1, 272 describes the stance of the famous grammarian Ibn Sadan who dies in around 201 AH, of this confusion relating to the concept of harf and the fact that an accurate meaningful explanation was elusive:

1. The Arabs refer to their poetic compositions as harf
2. The Arabs call their eulogies as harf
3. A letter of the alphabet is also called harf
4. The word harf also connotes “a meaning” or “a way” as in the Qur’an (22:11)”, or a “direction”.

the two terms qira’at and harf were almost interchangeable in early works of tafsır, Qira’at and usul. (Nasser, 98)

“Ahruf” could be taken, as some scholars have, as the ways in which a single sentence in language can vary. These variations may or may not, as we will see below, constitute differences in meaning of the sentence, and this is where all the controversy centres. Qir’at on the other hand arise from various combinations of these seven employed in a single recitation of the Qur’an and so they are unlimited. The following then are the types of variations in a sentence:

-variations in the vowel sounds which neither change the meaning nor the shape of a word

-variations in vowel sounds that don’t change the shape of a word but do change the meaning

-variations in the letters of the alphabet which change the meaning without a chance in the shape of the vowel sounds

-change the shape of a word without changing its meaning

-change the shape as well as the meaning

-change in the order of the words

-variations due to the addition or deletion or replacement11 of words

-variations in nouns viz singular, plural, masculine, feminine

-variations with regard to tenses: past, indefinite and imperative

-variations in declencions (vowel sounds)

Likely explanation of ahruf

Ref: Variant Readings of the Qur’an: A Critical Study of Their Historical and Linguistic Origins by Ahmad Ali Al-Imam

Some Muslims respond, as we have seen, that they are at least certain they have preserved one of the seven ahruf. One certainly cannot prove definitely that the version a Muslim holds today is not one of the seven original. However how likely is it that a text, that was first standardized down to one version by Uthman with no seeming cognizance of even of the existence of the seven, or their preservation, then made into five copies, once again with no regard for this nuance, then made into some say up to a 100 Qira’at, again without any such consideration, then magically end up with one of the seven perfectly preserved? Do all the Qira’at represent variants of just one harf? Or do they represent permutations of all seven? We should consider that the alternative be more likely: Uthman knowingly or unknowingly simply did away with all this ahruf business in a rather radical standardization event.

What were these mysteriously termed “ahruf” in the first place? Basically ahruf is just a cover up for variations. At the heart of Islam it seems there is an issue and a definitional term which seems completely redundant.

So can anyone really know what Muhammed originally recited? One can make a real argument for the case that there never really was an “original recitation”, rather the verses were in a constant state of flux until the Uthmanic stardardization. This is the most plausible narrative: The Qur’an was simply composed on the go. That is how oral performers composed and recited their stories (the qussas). Here it would be worth familiarizing yourself with the work of Milman Parry, Albert Lord and others. They were composed in a manner that was easy both for the listeners as well as for the one composing to remember, that’s why you have all the repetition typical to the Qur’anic text. In the process some variants would have inevitably crept in to the point that neither the composer not the listener would be able to remember what the “original” version was. Hence the concept of “ahruf” was adopted to make justification for variants. How significant were the variants? Well, again no one knows, because we do not even know what they are. This is the narrative that explains the ahruf, as well as the repetitive manner of the Qur’an. In the standard narrative neither is explained.

If Muslims claim to have preserved the Qur’an, let me set a simple task to verify this:

I hand you seven A4 sheets. Write down for me, without any discussion, the seven ahruf of a single surah, say for simplicity’s sake one of the shorter ones like al-Najm.

If this cannot be done, then I’d argue that for all the complicated discussions of your scholars, you simply do not know what the ahruf are.

How can you claim perfect preservation, when you cannot claim to know this very issue at the heart of preservation that the earliest and most reliable traditions related to Quranic transmission refer to?

Something’s been lost, and you don’t know what it is.

There seems to be this imaginary theory dogmatically held that seven versions were memorized even when no one can identify what were those versions.

Muslims might try to respond to these challenges by asking their interlocutors whether they know how to define the ahruf and then referring them to lengthy discussions by their scholars on the issue. But how is onw supposed to define something for which no definition exists. Did Muhammed give a definition of ahruf. Everything in this field is speculation and guesswork, based on the materials that you do possess: the Uthmanic rasm and the (who knows how many) Qira’at. BASED on this material, the scholars must DEDUCE what the ahruf must possibly be. HOWEVER, the ahruf story pre-dates both the Uthmanic rasm as well as the Qira’at. In that period all you have is some narrations and the rest is an information black hole that must be filled with this guesswork. The guesswork could be accurate, sure. But its also possible that its not. I would say more likely not, when you put all the narrations about the origins of the Quran together.

The Problem of the Destruction of the Ahruf

Author of the Bridges translation of the Qur’an Fadel Suleman holds the firm view that all but the one ahruf have been abrogated Allah, and so completely abrogated that even the memmory of them had been ersased from the collective Muslim memory at the time. His translation lists in teh footnotes the 30% of the Qira’at, that is, present day variant readings of the QUr’an that do change the maning of the verses, and it is available online and on an app that is really handy to use. The reasoning behind this is rather simple and yet compelling: First, the Uthman narrative does not speak of the preservation of more than one version in any sense, in fact the whole point of the exercise is to reduce it all to one “in the dialect of the Quraysh”. Secondly, and equally compelling, we don’t have any other ahruf of the Qur’an passed down anyway, so what other explanation is there?

Islamic scholars are somewhat divided on the question on whether the current versions do preserve some remnants of the presence of ahruf or not, that is, are they a sort of fudge of fragments of previous complete Qur’anic versions. Some hold that the ahruf are preserved only to the extent that the consonantal text can embrace different meanings through varying the vowels and diacriticals, since the Uthmanic text is thought to have been the consonantal rasm.

The latter sounds rather ad hoc and retro-active “we have this, so this is probably what it is”, while the former explanation would be an odd and rather irregular decision from Uthman to simplify what Allah had done. Given all that is said about hwo icredible it is that the Qur’an is revealed in sever ahruf in order to make it easy for the people and so on (as we shall see in the narratives), how does someone just come along a couple of decades later and decide that’s not the way that its going to be done? So if both those options are false we are once again left with the only plausible option that something important sounding was lost from the Quran and we don’t know what it is.

The “Ahruf” Narratives

“Narrated `Umar bin Al-Khattab: I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah’s Messenger had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper, and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, “Who taught you this Sura which I heard you reciting?” He replied, “Allah’s Messenger taught it to me.” I said, “You have told a lie, for Allah’s Messenger has taught it to me in a different way from yours.” So I dragged him to Allah’s Messenger and said (to Allah’s Messenger), “I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven’t taught me!” On that Allah’s Apostle said, “Release him, (O `Umar!) Recite, O Hisham!” Then he recited in the same way as I heard him reciting. Then Allah’s Messenger said, “It was revealed in this way,” and added, “Recite, O `Umar!” I recited it as he had taught me. Allah’s Messenger then said, “It was revealed in this way. This Qur’an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever (way) is easier for you (or read as much of it as may be easy for you). (Bukhari 4992)

Ubayy b. Ka’b reported:I was in the mosque when a man entered and prayed and recited (the Qur’an) in a style to which I objected. Then another man entered (the mosque) and recited in a style different from that of his companion. When we had finished the prayer, we all went to Allah’s Messenger (and said to him: This man recited in a style to which I objected, and the other entered and recited in a style different from that of his companion. The Messenger of Allah asked them to recite and so they recited, and the Messenger of Allah expressed approval of their affairs (their modes of recitation). and there occurred In my mind a sort of denial which did not occur even during the Days of Ignorance. When the Messenger of Allah saw how I was affected (by a wrong idea), he struck my chest, whereupon I broke into sweating and felt as though I were looking at Allah with fear. He (the Holy Prophet) said to me: Ubayy. a message was sent to me to recite the Qur’an in one dialect, and I replied: Make (things) easy for my people. It was conveyed to me for the second time that it should be recited in two dialects. I again replied to him: Make affairs easy for my people. It was again conveyed to me for the third time to recite in seven dialects And (I was further told): You have got a seeking for every reply that I sent you, which you should seek from Me. I said: O Allah! forgive my people, forgive my people, and I have deferred the third one for the day on which the entire creation will turn to me, including even Ibrahim (peace be upon him) (for intercession).” (Muslim no.820)

“Narrated/Authority of Abdullah bin Masud: “I heard a man reciting a verse (of the Holy Quran) but I had heard the Prophet reciting it differently. So, I caught hold of the man by the hand and took him to Allah’s apostle  who said, “Both of you are right.” Shu’ba, the sub-narrator said, “I think he said to them, “Don’t differ, for the nations before you differed and perished (because of their differences)“” (Bukhari 3476)

Ahmad ibn Hanbal was one of the greatest scholars of Hadith, and he compiled his “Musnad Ahmad”. This narration is indeed Sahih.

“Ubayy Ibn Ka’ab said: “I read a verse and Ibn Masud read it definitely. So I came to the Prophet and asked him:“ did you not read out this verse to me in such and such a manner clothes the Prophet said: “yes”. Ibn Masud then asked:“ did you not read out this verse to me in such an such manner?” so the Prophet said : “ yes both of you have read it correctly and befittingly ”. Then Ubayy said:“ I expressed my hesitation”. The Prophet Then struck my chest and said “O Ubayy! I have been read out The Quran and I was asked:“ do you want to read it on one harf or two ahruf?” so the Angel who was with me said that I should ask to read it on two ahruf; so I asked for two ahruf.” at this I was asked:“ do you want to read it on two ahruf or three.” the Angel who was with me said that I should ask to read it on 3 ahruf; so I asked for three until the matter reached 7 ahruf. He then said : “all these verses are enough and sufficient whether you say “God is merciful and compassionate ”, or whether you say“ God hears and knows all ”, oh whether you say“ God knows and hears all”, as long as a verse of punishment is not ended with a verse of mercy and vice versa.”  (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, vol.5,124, no.21187, also vol.4, 30 no.16413, similar to 17577 but this time striking Umar)

Abu Abdillah Al-Hakim from Nishapur was a hadith scholar from the 4th century, a student of ad-Daraqutni, and a teacher of imam al-Bayhaqi. His father who met imam Muslim was also among his first teachers. For his collection, he considered hadith which were not quoted in the two sahih books, but have the same or similar or accepted narrator chains as those in them, and also added some of his own hadith which he considered as sahih. This is to some extent described by the full title of the book “Supplement for What is Missing From al-Bukhârî and Muslim” (even the sahih books don’t exclude weak ahadith). The majority of scholars it seems do say however that he was very lenient in his qualification.

“Abdullah Ibn Masud narrated: “the Prophet had read out Suran Ha Mim to me and I went to the mosques at night and a group of people sat near me. I then asked one of them to read out the Qur’an to me and to my surprise he read out in a huruf which I did not read. So I said to him: “Who read this out to you”. He said: “Messenger of God read it out to me”. So we went over to the Messenger of God and there was a person in his presence and I said “we have differed in our reading” At this the colour of the face of God’s Messenger changed and he got disturbed when I mentioned about this difference and then he said: “it is such difference that has killed those before you”. And then he whispered in the ears of Ali, who said “the Messenger of God has directed each person to read according to what he had been taught. “so we went away and each of us was reading the Qur’an differently” (Al-Hakeem, Al-Mustadrak vol.2, 243, no.2885)

Amir ibn Shurahbil Abu Maysarah said: ” A person came over to be while I was praying and said: “May your mother lose you; I see you praying while the complete destruction of the book of God has been ordered.” I shortened my prayer and I was not one who could be stopped; I entered the house and was not stopped and I climbed (the stairs) and was not stopped and then it came to my notice that Hudayfah and ibn Mas’ud were conversing with one another and the former was saying to the latter: “hand over the mushaf to them.” He replied “By God! I will not hand over the mushaf (to them)!” He again said: “hand over the mushaf to them for they will leave no stone unturned in wanting the good of the ummah of Muhammad.” Ibn Masud responded: “By God! I will not hand over the mushaf to them; the prophet taught a little over seventy surahs to me and should I then hand over the mushaf to them. By God! I will not hand it over to them” (Mustadrak al-Hakim no.2896. Classified as Sahih by al-Hakim and al-Dhahbi)

Evidence that Muhammad Forgot Verses

Narrated Aisha: Allah’s Messenger heard a man reciting the Qur’an at night, and said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such-and-such Suras, which I was caused to forget.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 5038, repeated Bukhari 5042 with “…which I missed” instead)

A’isha reported that the Apostle of Allah heard a person reciting the Qur’an at night. Upon this he said: May Allah show mercy to him; he has reminded me of such and such a verse which I had missed in such and such a surah. (Muslim 788a, repeated “which I had been caused to forget” in Muslim 788b)

Narrated `Aisha: The Prophet heard a man (reciting Qur’an) in the Mosque, and he said, “May Allah bestow His Mercy upon him. No doubt, he made me remember such-and such Verses of such-and-such Sura which I dropped (from my memory). Narrated Aisha: The Prophet performed the Tahajjud prayer in my house, and then he heard the voice of `Abbad who was praying in the Mosque, and said, “O `Aisha! Is this `Abbad’s voice?” I said, “Yes.” He said, “O Allah! Be merciful to `Abbad!” (Bukhari 2655)

Uthman’s Qur’anic “Redaction”

Abu Bakr, Islam’s First Caliph

Mohamed never oversees nor demands the writing of a book himself, and neither does he get his scribe Zayd bin Thabit to do it. Just two years after Mohammed’s death, Muslims begin to realise that things have begun to seemingly go horribly wrong, those who are meant to have memorised the verses of the Qur’an are being killed in battle. This is the beginning of both the panic and the compilation, which are simultaneous. Until this point, there is no concept even of a book being written. This conversation occurs only two years after Mohammed’s death between Abu Bakr, the first Caliph of Islam, and Umar, who would succeed him.

“Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people! of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet’s Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), “Umar has come to me and said: “Casualties were heavy among the Qurra’ of the! Qur’an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yamama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra’ on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur’an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur’an be collected.” I said to ‘Umar, “How can you do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?” ‘Umar said, “By Allah, that is a good project. “Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which ‘Umar had realized.” Then Abu Bakr said (to Zayd who is narrating). ‘You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah’s Apostle...”

Zayd’s narration is a testimony to just how desperate and at best haphazard the compilation is.

“(Abu Bakr to Zayd)…So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur’an and collect it in one book)…”

(Zayd’s response) “…By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur’an.

…So I started looking for the Qur’an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him (At-Tauba) (9.128-129)…” (Bukhari 4986)

Uthman’s Compilation, Islam’s Second Caliph

Shift to 20 years later and it seems that variations in the Qur’anic texts are beginning to cause problems:

“During the reign of `Uthman, teachers were teaching this or that reading to their students. When the students met and disagreed about the reading, they reported the differences to their teachings. They would defend their readings, condemning the others as heretical.” [Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da’ud, K. al Masahif, the son of the famous abi Dawud himself. Admittedly some of his contemporaries have called him unreliable and a “liar”. Nevertheless it is in sync with the sahih narrations].

“Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to ‘Uthman, “O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before.”…

…’Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, “Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you.” Hafsa sent it to ‘Uthman. ‘Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, ‘Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and ‘AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. ‘Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, “In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue.” They did so, and when they had written many copies, ‘Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. ‘Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt.

Zaid bin Thabit added, “A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari…” (Bukhari-Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510)

The Choice of Committee and the ibn Masud Problem

This time round, once more we have a 20 years older Zayd, and three others on the editorial board. Significant by their absence are the “famous four”, the best narrators of the Qur’an in Mohamed’s own words (only one of these, the freed-slave Salim has died). Indeed we have records of at least one of them, Ibn Masud expressing sharp dissatisfaction with the process. We can see that the concerns related to the variants in the text are not insignificant. There is also a suggestion of nepotism in this and that the three that did get the job were the sons-in-law of Uthman:

 “Narrated Masruq: Abdullah bin Mas’ud was mentioned before Abdullah bin Amr who said, “That is a man I still love, as I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, “I heard the Prophet saying, “Learn the recitation of Qur’an from four persons: Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud, Salim the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Ubayy B. Ka’ab and Muadh bin Jabal.” (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 150).

”Narrated Abdullah (bin Mas’ud): “By Allah other than Whom none has the right to be worshipped! There is no Sura revealed in Allah’s Book but I know at what place it was revealed; and there is no verse revealed in Allah’s Book but I know about whom it was revealed. And if I know that there is somebody who knows Allah’s Book better than I, and he is at a place that camels can reach, I would go to him.”” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.488)

”The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit…. By Him besides Whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth”. (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p.444)

““How can you order me to recite the reading of Zaid, when I recited from the very mouth of the Prophet some seventy Surahs?” “Am I,” asks Abdullah, “to abandon what I acquired from the very lips of the Prophet?” (Masahif” by Ibn abi Dawood, 824-897 AD, pp. 12, 14).

Mas’ud, moved to Kufa, Iraq where he completed his own version of the Qur’an (commonly called the Kufan Codex) when he returns he runs into trouble: his version is seemingly proscribed and he is asked to give it up:

“Narrated Az-Zuhri: from Anas who said: “Hudhaifah bin Al-Yaman came to ‘Uthman…(same story here of necessity to write down the Qur’an)…’Uthman then sent order for Zaid bin Thabit, Sa’eed bin Al-‘As, ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham, and ‘Abdullah bin Az-Zubair to copy the manuscripts in the Musahif (…)Az-Zuhri said: “‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah bin ‘Utbah informed me that ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud disliked Zaid bin Thabit copying the Musahif, and he said: ‘O you Muslim people! I am removed from recording the transcription of the Mushaf and it is overseen by a man, by Allah, when I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man’ – meaning Zaid bin Thabit – and it was regarding this that ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud said: ‘O people of Al-‘Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement (3:161). So meet Allah with the Musahif.'” Az-Zuhri said: “It was conveyed to me that some men amongst the most virtuous of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah disliked that view of Ibn Mas’ud.” (al-Tabari, Sahih (Darussalam) 44:3104, English ref: Vol5, Bk44,Hadith 3104, Arabic ref:  47,3387)

‘Abdullah (b. Mas’ud) reported that he said to his companions to conceal their copies of the Qur’an and further said: He who conceals anything he shall have to bring that which he had concealed on the Day of Judgment, and then said: After whose mode of recitation do you command me to recite? I in fact recited before Allah’s Messenger more than seventy chapters of the Qur’an and the Companions of Allah’s Messenger know it that I have better understanding of the Book of Allah (than they do), and if I were to know that someone had better understanding than I, I would have gone to him. Shaqiq said: I sat in the company of the Companions of Muhammad (may peace be upon him) but I did not hear anyone having rejected that (that is, his recitation) or finding fault with it. (Sahih Muslim: bk. 31, no. 6022; also Sahih al-Bukhari: vol. 6, bk. 61, no. 522)

Az-Zuhri also narrated that Abdullah Ibn Mas’oud became upset because he was not chosen to copy the Qur’an. He said, “Oh you Muslims, how can I not be chosen …” Ibn Mas’oud also said, “Oh people of Iraq! ‘l2 ” (Sunan Al-Tirmithi, Dar Al-Kotob Al-ilmiyah, 2008, vol. 4, no. 3105, p. 134; also Ibn Sa’d, Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, vol. 2 p. 444)

The Missing Verses

We know of books that detail variant verses in the Qur’an. As far as I know these books compiled by early Muslims sources are now lost, only the names survive:

1. “The Discrepancies between the Manuscripts of the People of al-Madinah, al-Kufah, and al-Basrah” according to al-Kisa’i.
2. Book of Khalaf, “Discrepancies of the Manuscripts”.
3. “Discrepancies of the People of al-Kufah, al-Basrah, and Syria concerning the Manuscripts”, by al-Farra.
4. “Discrepancies between the Manuscripts” by Abu Da’ud al-Sijistani.
5. Book of al-Mada’ini about the discrepancies between the manuscripts and the compiling of the Qur’an.
6. “Discrepancies between the Manuscripts of Syria, al-Hijaz, and al-Iraq”, by Ibn `Amir al-Yahsubi.
7. Book of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Rahman al-Isbahani about discrepancies of the manuscripts.

(Al-Nadim, The Fihrist of al-Nadim – A Tenth Century survey of Muslim Culture, New York: Columbia University Press, 1970, p. 79)

Admissions of Incompleteness

“Abdullah b. `Umar reportedly said, ‘Let none of you say, “I have got the whole of the Qur’an.” How does he know what all of it is? MUCH OF THE QUR’AN HAS GONE. Let him say instead, “I have got what has survived.”‘ (Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. Abi Bakr al Suyuti, al-Itqan fi `ulum al-Qur’an, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, Volume 2, p. 25, Abdullah bin Umar is the son of the second caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab)

“Said Abu ‘Ubaid: Isma’il b. Ibrahim related to us from Ayyub from Nafi‘ from Ibn ‘Umar who said – Let none of you say, “I have learned the whole of the Koran,” for how does he know what the whole of it is, when much of it has disappeared? Let him rather say, “I have learned what is extant thereof.” (Abu Ubaid’s Kitab Fadail-al-Qur’an)

Arthur Jeffrey begins  his translation of Ubaid’s document with the introduction: “I was able to consult the photographs of the Berlin manuscript of Abu ‘Ubaid’s Kitab Fada’il-al-Qur’an, folios 43 and 44 of which contain a chapter on the verses which have fallen out of the Koran Abu ‘Ubaid al-Qasim b. Sallam (154—244 A.H), who studied under the famous masters of both the Kufan and the Basran schools, was the son of a Greek slave, and though born on the outskirts of the Muslim empire, became a famous teacher at Baghdad, renowned equally as a philologist, a jurist, and an authority on the Koranic sciences. By reason of his early date and the reputation he had in the eyes of later writers, his chapter on the missing verses of the Koran merits translation here…” Arthur Jeffery, The Muslim World 28 (1938): 61-65. See here https://erenow.net/common/the-origins-of-the-koran/9.php.

“Many of (the passages) of the Qur’an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama… but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur’an, nor were they found even with (one person) after them.” (Kitab al-Masahif, p.23 compiled by `Abd Allah ibn Sulayman ibn al-Ash`ath al-Sijistani, known as Ibn Abi Dawud, the son of the major early hadith master Abu Dawud. I note that there are also narrations in Muslim history that state that this person is unreliable and have called him a “liar”. Nevertheless, I include it, because it is an early source.)

Theodor Nöldeke offered a section on “Revelations missing from the Qur’an but preserved elsewhere” in his 1860 n Nöldeke-Schwally, Geschichte des Qorâns, I, 234—59 these references are gathered together and commented upon, in which he quoted from al-Suyūṭī, al-Tirmidhī, al-Bukhārī, and Hibat Allāh. University of Aberdeen professor John Burton wrote, “It was held by the most influential commentators and by a majority of the legal scholars that the entire Qur’an was never collected.” (The Collection of the Qur’an 117, 126-27)

The Missing Verse of Stoning

At Q 24:2, the Qur’an gives an explicit punishment: “The adulteress and the adulterer, flog each of them with a hundred stripes.” Islamstackexchange gives their summary of the whole affair: “Conclusion: (1) The verse of stoning was revealed, but later it was abrogated. (2) The Hadith, which says that verse of stoning was eaten by a goat (or tame sheep), is Dai’f. (3) The ruling of that verse is not abrogated and the ruling is that adulterers should be stoned to death. Stoning the adulterer is a Sunnah and the Four Rightly Guided Khalifs practiced this Sunnah after the Death of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). (4) The verse of Stoning WAS NOT written down. Even if we agree that it was written on a piece of paper (for the sake of argument), it does not make the ABROGATED VERSE part of the Quran.” The verse of Stoning was REVEALED and it was RECITED and it was also MEMORIZED by the sahaba. It attested 8 times in Bukhari, 5 times in Tirmidhi, twice in Dawud, and once each in Muslim, Ibn Majah, Muwatta Malik, Musnad Ahmed, and Ibn Ishaq’s Sira. Most of these attest that Mohammed himself stoned persons or gave direct orders to do so in other cases and his companions continued to do so after him. Stoning for adultery is therefore to this day part of the Sunnat of Mohammed.

Narrated Ibn `Abbas: `Umar said, “I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, “We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book,” and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession.” Sufyan added, “I have memorized this narration in this way.” `Umar added, “Surely Allah’s Messenger carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him.” (Bukhari 6829)

Narrated Ash-Shaibani: I asked `Abdullah bin Abi `Aufa about the Rajam (stoning somebody to death for committing illegal sexual intercourse). He replied, “The Prophet carried out the penalty of Rajam,” I asked, “Was that before or after the revelation of Surat-an-Nur?” He replied, “I do not know.” (Bukhari 6840, repeated 6813)

Narrated Ash-Sha’bi: from ‘Ali when the latter stoned a lady to death on a Friday. ‘Ali said, “I have stoned her according to the tradition of Allah’s Apostle.” (Sahih al-Bukhari Book 82 Hadith 803)

In Bukhari 6841, 4556 and 6819, Mohammed orders the stoning of Jewish couples allegedly caught in adultery based on the teaching found in the Torah.

Muslim

“Abdullah b. ‘Abbas reported that ‘Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah’s Messenger  and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah’s Messenger awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah’s Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession. (Muslim 1691 also Bukhari 6830)

Tirmidhi

“Among what was revealed to him was the Ayah of stoning.” (Jami` at-Tirmidhi Book 17 Hadith 1432)

Umar bin Al-Khattab said: “The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) stoned, Abu Bakr stoned, and I stoned…” (Jami` at-Tirmidhi Book 17 Hadith 1431)

So the Messenger of Allah stoned, and we stoned after him… Indeed stoning is the retribution for the adulterer if he was married and the evidence has been established, or due to pregnancy, or confession (Jami` at-Tirmidhi Book 17 Hadith 1432)

Abdullah bin Amr narrated: “A man asked the Messenger of Allah: ‘I shaved before slaughtering.’ So he said: ‘Slaughter, and there is no harm.’ Another man asked him: ‘I performed the sacrifice before stoning.’ He said: ‘Stone, and there is no harm.'” (ami` at-Tirmidhi 916, Graded Sahih)

Dawood

“Umar b. al-Khattab gave an address saying: Allah sent Muhammad (pbuh) with truth and sent down the Books of him, and the verse of stoning was included in what He sent down to him. We read it and memorized it.” (Sunan Abu Dawood Book 40 Hadith 4404)

The Messenger of Allah had people stoned to death and we have done it also since his death…. Stoning is a duty laid down (by Allah) for married men and women who commit fornication when proof is established, or if there is pregnancy, or a confession. (Sunan Abu Dawood Book 40 Hadith 4404).

Ibn Majah

It was narrated from Ibn`Abbas that `Umar bin Khattab said: “I fear that after a long time has passed, some will say: ‘I do not find (the sentence of) stoning in the Book of Allah’ and they will go astray by abandoning one of the obligations enjoined by Allah. Rather stoning is a must if a man is married (or previously married) and proof is established, or if pregnancy results or if he admits it. I have read it (in the Quran). “And if an old man and an old woman commit adultery, stone them both.” The Messenger of Allah stoned (adulterers) and we stoned (them) after him.’” (Sunan Ibn Majah 2553 Graded Sahih)

Muwatta Malik

The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, stoned, so we have stoned. (Muwatta Imam Malik Book 41 Hadith 10)

Musnad Ahmed

It was narrated from Mujalid that ‘Amir said: Sharahah had a husband who was absent in Syria. She became pregnant and her former master brought her to `Ali bin Abi Talib  and said: This one has committed zina, She admitted it, so he gave her one hundred lashes on Thursday and stoned her on Friday; he dug a hole for her to her navel, and I was present. Then he said: Stoning is a Sunnah established by the Messenger of Allah. If anyone saw her do it, the first one to throw a stone should be the one who witnessed it; he should give his testimony and follow his testimony with his stone. But she admitted it, so I will be the first one to stone her. He threw a stone at her, then the people stoned her and I was among them. By Allah, I was among those who killed her. (Musnad Ahmed 978)

Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat

“Verily stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married men and women who commit adultery, if proof stands or pregnancy is clear or confession is made” (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p.684).

As- Suyuti

“…Zirr ibn Hubaish reported: “Ubayy ibn Ka’b said to me, ‘What is the extent of Suratul-Ahzab?’ I said, ‘Seventy, or seventy-three verses’. He said, ‘Yet it used to be equal to Suratul-Baqarah and in it we recited the verse of stoning’. I said, ‘And what is the verse of stoning’? He replied, ‘The fornicators among the married men (ash-shaikh) and married women (ash-shaikhah), stone them as an exemplary punishment from Allah, and Allah is Mighty and Wise.”‘ (As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.524).

Is it Abrogated/ Lost?

In another tradition, ʿĀʾisha attempts to account for the loss of the verse by claiming it was eaten by an animal. This is understandable, most women would willingly feed such a verse to a goat. This tradition is not as reliable as the central 6 hadith, beign ranked one slot  below them as “Hassan” (sound,ok):

“—It was narrated that Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.” (Sunan ibn Majah 1944)

There are multiple accounts of this hadith, it is hard to know what exactly is its significance: “By He in Whose Hand my self is, had it not been that people would say that Umar ibn al-Khattab has added to the Book of Allah ta- ala, we would have written it (verse of stoning).”

(Jami` at-Tirmidhi Book 17 Hadith 1431, also same account in Sunan Abu Dawood Book 40 Hadith 4404, Musnad Aḥmad 156, Grade: Sahih, Muwatta Imam Malik Book 41 Hadith 10)

Umar seemingly asked for the permission of Prophet (pbuh) to write the verse, but the Prophet (pbuh) did not allow him to write: “Umar said, “When this was revealed, I went to the Prophet and I said: Let me write it.” Shu’bah said, “It was as if the Prophet disliked that.” (Source: Musnad Aḥmad 21086) Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani”

The “We Met Allah” verse

“Narrated Anas: (…) Gabriel informed the Prophet that they (i.e the martyrs) met their Lord, and He was pleased with them and made them pleased. We used to recite, Inform our people that we have met our Lord, He is pleased with us and He has made us pleased. Later on this Qur’anic Verse was cancelled. The Prophet invoked Allah for forty days to curse the murderers from the tribe of Ral, Dhakwan, Bani Lihyan and Bam Usaiya who disobeyed Allah and his Apostle.” (Bukhari 2801)

This verse was likely removed because possibly in Islamic doctrine no human being can meet Allah face to face before the day of judgement.

Ubayy’s Missing Verses

Umar in this passage justifies the omission of verses known to Ubayy, citing the principle of “abrogation”, verses being replaced by Allah himself:

“Narrated Ibn Abbas: Umar said “Ubayy was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur’an) yet we leave some of what he recites“. Ubayy says, “I have taken it from the mouth of Allah’s Apostle and will not leave it for anything whatever”. But Allah said: None of Our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar (2.106). (Sahih al-Bukhari 5005).

An example of such a missing verse:  

Ubayy ibn Ka’b. His version of sura 33:6 had the following extra underlined words:

“The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and he is a father of them and his wives are their mothers. …” (Qur’an 33:6, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an: Text, Translation, and Commentary, 4th ed., Brentwood, Md., U.S.A.: Amana Corp., 1989, footnote 3674)

Two Hundred++ More Missing Verses

Abu Musa one of the top Qur’an reciters says that the Sura 33 was as long as Al-Baqarah (Surah 2). That Surah in today’s Qur’an has 286 verses, while the Surah 33 has only 73. That’s around 200 missing verses. Further in the same passage, there is also an admission of another missing surah, “which resembled in length one of the Mussabihat surahs”. There are in the present-day Quran 5 such “mussabihat” surahs, with lengths from 11-29 verses, giving an average of 19 verse-length. Excerpts of the missing verses are given in the passage.

“…He (Abu Musa) said: (…) We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara’at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it:” If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust.” And we used so recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but remember (this much) out of it:” Oh people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practise” (lxi 2.) and” that is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection” (xvii. 13).” (Muslim 1050)

Supposedly the “abrogation” of this verse is described in a different hadith: “Allah’s Messenger said, “If Adam’s son had a valley full of gold, he would like to have two valleys, for nothing fills his mouth except dust. And Allah forgives him who repents to Him.” ‘Ubayy said (referring to the hadith above), “We considered this as a saying from the Qur’an till the Surah (beginning with): “The mutual rivalry (for piling up of worldly things) diverts you’ (102:1) was revealed.”(Sahih Bukhari 6439-40)

Let us recall the verse in the Qur’an which explains what this “abrogation” is (Q 2:106): “Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things.” So Muhammad and his followers forgot the longer version but some of the teaching is recapitulated elsewhere. What kind of a God would bring something similar? Or claims to protect his words but does not?

Narrated Az-Zuhri that he visited Anas bin Malik at Damascus and found him weeping and asked him why he was weeping. He replied, “I do not know anything which I used to know during the life-time of Allah’s Apostle except this prayer which is being lost (not offered as it should be).” Bukhari 930 (Vol1,9)

Verse about Breast-Sex with Strangers

Muhammad’s solution to the problem of a man and a woman who aren’t either close family or married meeting up socially is that the woman simply breastfeeds the man ten times. This, in his view, this makes them legally related (like a foster-mother). “Allah” later changed his “eternal” mind and reduced the number of necessary suckings from ten to only five. In the end it got left out of the Qur’an completely, quite possibly dispatched by a goat, and fittingly so. Remember only a minority of women are actively lactating, so usually this would just involve sucking on a dry teat. Sorry this is really cringe and gross:

There is a series of hadith in Sunan an-Nasa’i from 3312 to about 3322, which I haven’t printed here yet.

“Amra reported that she heard Aisha discussing fosterage which (makes marriage) unlawful; and she (Aisha) said: There was revealed in the Holy Qur’an ten clear sucklings, and then five clear (sucklings).”(Muslim 3422)

Aisha is quite clear that these verses are part of the Qur’an: “A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that it had been revealed in the Qur’an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated by five sucklings and Allah’s Apostle (saw) died and before that time it was found in the Qur’an.” (Muslim 1452a)

The teaching is very specific, one or two feeds wouldn’t be enough. It can also of course be argues that the length of time of each feed is not specified. But then they hadn’t invented watches anyway either so this is understandable.

“Allah’s Apostle said: Being suckled once or twice, or one suckling or two, do not make marriage unlawful.” (Muslim 3417)

But these verses aren’t in the Qur’an we have today. We have already seen that the a wise old goat dispatched them to the pit along with the stoning verse. Totally as an unrelated coincidence obviously, we also know that Aisha had been accused of adultery (!): “It was narrated that Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.” (Sunan ibn Majah 1944)

Indeed, this was a sad day in Islamic history for men. Now for a while at least, Muhammad’s wives were on board with Allah’s views concerning breastfeeding and fosterage, for we have this passage with Muhammad’s wife Hafsa ordering her sister to breastfeed Asim before he could visit her:

“Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Safiyya bint Abi Ubayd told him that Hafsa, Umm al-Muminin [Mother of the Believers], sent Asim ibn Abdullah ibn Sa’d to her sister, Fatima bint Umar ibn al-Khattab, for her to suckle him ten times so that he could come in to see her. She did it, so he used to come in to see her.” (Muwatta Malik Book 30, Hadith 8 [Arabic 30,1282]. In 30:17, Malik records a narration that the verse was “recited in the Qur’an)

Eventually, however, most of Muhammad’s wives became disgruntled over the practice, and they insisted that Allah’s command to breastfeed adults didn’t apply to them:

“Sahla bint Suhayl, who was the wife of Abu Hudhayfa, and one of the tribe of Amr ibn Lu’ayy, came to the Messenger of Allah, and said, “Messenger of Allah! We think of Salim as a son and he comes in to see me when I am uncovered. We only have one room, so what do you think about the situation?” The Messenger of Allah said, “Give him five drinks of your milk and he will be mahram [illegal to marry] by it.” She then saw him as a foster-son. Aisha, Umm al-Muminin [Mother of the Believers], took that as a precedent for whatever men she wanted to be able to come to see her. She ordered her sister, Umm Kulthum bint Abi Bakr as-Siddiq and the daughters of her brother to give milk to whichever men she wanted to be able to come in to see her. The rest of the wives of the Prophet refused to let anyone come in to them by such nursing. They said, “No, by Allah! We think that what the Messenger of Allah ordered Sahla bint Suhayl to do was only by an indulgence concerning the nursing of Salim alone. No, by Allah! No-one will come in upon us by such nursing!” (Muwatta Malik Bk.30, hadith12 [Arabic ref: 30,1287])

Aisha’s lost verse on the Middle Prayer

This is titled by Muslim: “(36) Chapter: The evidence for those who say that “the middle prayer” is the `Asr prayer”. This Hadith reads:

“Abu Yunus, the freed slave of ‘A’isha said: ‘A’isha ordered me to transcribe a copy of the Qur’an for her and said: When you reach this verse:” Guard the prayers and the middle prayer” (ii. 238), inform me; so when I reached it, I informed her and she gave me dictation (like this): Guard the prayers and the middle prayer and the afternoon prayer, and stand up truly obedient to Allah. ‘A’isha said: This is how I have heard from the Messenger of Allah” (Muslim 629)

Verses that did not come from Mohammed

“O Prophet, say to thy wives and daughters and the believing women, that they draw their veils close to them; so it is likelier they will be known, and not hurt. God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.” (Q. 33:59)

And say to the believing women, that they cast down their eyes’ and guard their private parts, and reveal not their adornment save such as is outward; and let them cast their veils over their bosoms, and not reveal their adornment save to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands’ fathers, or their sons, or their husbands’ sons, or their brothers, or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or what their right hands own, or such men as attend them, not having sexual desire, or children who have not yet attained knowledge of women’s private parts; nor let them stamp their feet, so that their hidden ornament may be known. And turn all together to God, O you believers; that you may attain bliss.” (Q 24:31)

“O Believers! enter not into the houses of the Prophet, save by his leave (…) And when ye would ask any gift of his wives, ask it from behind a veil (min wara-i hijabin). Purer will this be for your hearts and for their hearts. And ye must not trouble the Apostle of God, nor marry his wives, after him, for ever. This would be a grave offence with God.” (Q 33:53)

Narrated ‘Aisha: The wives of the Prophet used to go to Al-Manasi, a vast open place (near Baqia at Medina) to answer the call of nature at night. ‘Umar used to say to the Prophet “Let your wives be veiled,” but Allah’s Apostle did not do so. One night Sauda bint Zam’a the wife of the Prophet went out at ‘Isha’ time and she was a tall lady. ‘Umar addressed her and said, “I have recognized you, O Sauda.” He said so, as he desired eagerly that the verses of Al-Hijab (the observing of veils by the Muslim women) may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of “Al-Hijab” (A complete body cover excluding the eyes). (Bukhari 146)

Narrated Anas: `Umar said, “I agreed with Allah in three things,” or said, “My Lord agreed with me in three things. I said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! Would that you took the station of Abraham as a place of prayer.’ I also said, ‘O Allah’s Messenger! Good and bad persons visit you! Would that you ordered the Mothers of the believers to cover themselves with veils.’ So the Divine Verses of Al-Hijab (i.e. veiling of the women) were revealed. I came to know that the Prophet had blamed some of his wives so I entered upon them and said, ‘You should either stop (troubling the Prophet) or else Allah will give His Apostle better wives than you.’ When I came to one of his wives, she said to me, ‘O `Umar! Does Allah’s Messenger haven’t what he could advise his wives with, that you try to advise them?’ ” Thereupon Allah revealed:- “It may be, if he divorced you (all) his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you Muslims (who submit to Allah)..” (66.5) (Bukhari 4483)

A Muslim Response?

An attempt to ameliorate the problems that arise with the manner of the revelations is ac couple of hadith that state that “the angel Jibril”, “reviewed” the Qur’an with Mohammed to ensure accuracy. However even here the differences that the followers are experiencing is not addressed. This seems like another attempt to gloss over a problem through appeal to authority, and once again, unwitnessed.

“Fatimah reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Gabriel would come to me to revise the Quran once every year. This year he revised with me twice. I do not think it means anything but that my term will come to an end. Verily, you will be the first of the people of my house to meet me.” So I wept and the Prophet said, “Are you not pleased with be the master of the women of Paradise or the believing women?” So I laughed at that.” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 3623, 3624)

“Narrated Ibn `Abbas: The Prophet was the most generous of all the people, and he used to become more generous in Ramadan when Gabriel met him. Gabriel used to meet him every night during Ramadan to revise the Qur’an with him. Allah’s Messenger then used to be more generous than the fast wind.(Bukhari 3554)

Further there are some traditions that state that there was some rigor employed during the Uthmanic compilation:

Dr. Mustafa al-A’zami compiled a list of approximately 65 companions in “who used to write down the Revelation dictated by the Prophet, at one time or the other. They are: Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, Aban ibn Sa’eed, Abu Umama, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, Abu Sufyan, Abu Hudhaifa, Abu Salama, Abu-‘Abas, Ubayy ibn Ka’b, al-Arqam, Usaid ibn Hudair, Aws, Buraida, Basheer, Thabit ibn Qais, Ja’far ibn Abi Talib, Jahm ibn Sa’d, Juhaim, Haatib, Hudhaifa, Husain, Hanzala, Huwaitib, Khalid ibn Saeed, Khalid ibn al-Waleed, Zubair ibn al-‘Awwam, Zubair ibn Arqam, Zaid ibn Thabit, Sa’d ibn ar-Rabee, Sa’d ibn ‘Ubaada, Saeed ibn Saeed, Shurahbeel ibn Hasna, Talha, ‘Amir ibn Fuhaira, ‘Abbas, Abdullah ibn al-Arqam, Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr, Abdullah ibn Rawaha, Abdullah ibn Zaid, Abdullah ibn Sa’d, Abdullah ibn Abdullah, Abdullah ibn ‘Amr, Uthman ib ‘Affan, ‘Uqba, al-‘Alaa al-Hadrami, al-‘Alaa ibn ‘Uqba, ‘Ali ibn Abi-Talib, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas, Muhammad ibn Maslama, Mu’adh ibn Jabal, Mu’awiya ibn Abi-Sufyan, Ma’n ibn-‘Adi, Mu’aiqib, Mugheera, Mundhir, Muhaajir and Yazid ibn Abi-Sufyan. (Dr. Azami presents this list in  “The History of the Quranic Text_ From Revelation to Compilation_ A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments”, but he says to go to his work his book “Kuttaab un-Nabi” (“literally: “Scribes of the Prophet) “for a detailed study”. I cannot establish the primary source for these, not having access to that book).

Some traditions speak of proof-reading- Zayd ibn Thaabit would read out to the Prophet whatever he has written to avoid scribal errors. (As-Suuli, Aadaab al Kuttaab, pg 165; Majma’ az- Zawaid, i: 152)

Ibn Hajar relates: “Abu Bakr told Umar and Zaid, “Sit at the entrance to the (Prophet’s) mosque. If anyone brings you a verse from the Book of Allah along with two witnesses, then record it” (Ibn Abi Dawud, al-Masahif, p.6- this is the son of the more famous hadith writer Dawud, however he is said to be an unreliable narrator, one of his hadith, related elsewhere in this article is detrimental to the Qur’an in terms of its effective transmission).

Ibn Hajar gives his comment on what was meant by “to witnesses”: “as if what was meant by two witnesses was memory backed up by the written word. Or, two witnesses to testify that the verse was written verbatim in the Prophet’s presence. Or, meaning that they would testify that it was one of the forms in which the Qur’an was revealed. The intention was to accept only what was written in the Prophet’s presence, not relying on the memory alone.” (Ibn Hajjar, Fathul Bari ix:14)