Monday, August 26, 2013

Paul vs the disciples Part 2

Sam is forgetting that there were other apostles who disagreed with Paul regarding major issues of doctrine...

Galatians 1:6

6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel
Galatians 3:1-3
1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish?
2 Corinthians 11:4-5
4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. 5But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles."

2 Corinthians 11: 22-24

What anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about. 22Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I. 23Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.
Lets also not forget the incident of Paul opposing Peter at Antioch...
Galatians 2:11-21
Paul Opposes Peter
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. (why did people such as the Apostle James still believe that the law regarding food should still be applied? If Jesus came to replace the law, then why are they still following the law?) 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. (so, Peter, James and Barnabas are wrong?)
 14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
15"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. (why are they arguing over following the law or not? Why are they not in agreement of doctrine?)
 17"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"[d]
Paul condemns all Jewish Christians including Peter and Barnabas. We only have Paul’s side of the story but Peter’s recollection of this story is not given to us in the New Testament.
Peter truly would have known Jesus better than Paul. There is dispute whether 1 Peter is a letter written by Peter and almost all scholars, ancient and modern agree that 2 Peter is not a letter written by Peter. Sam may argue and quote his scholars to prove that 2 Peter is written by Peter, however there are still many major Christian scholars who don't think that 2 Peter was written by Peter so at the end of the day we are not going to be 100% sure and therefore cannot use 2 Peter as evidence to prove that he agreed with Paul. 
Acts 4:31
31After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.
If Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit then why is Paul calling Peter a hypocrite for eating with the Gentiles and then when people came from James he got up. James is Jesus’ half brother, he lived and stayed with Jesus. Why did he still think that people have to eat kosher meat? We don’t have any account of Peter’s story regarding this incident. Barnabas is also called a hypocrite in verse 13. Look how in verses 15 thought 17 Paul is arguing with them about the law. That means the disciples wanted to follow the law and suggested following it. Otherwise Paul wouldn’t have mentioned it. How could he say those things to Peter and look what Jesus said about Peter

The Quraysh break the Treaty of Hudaybiya

According to Ibn Humayd – Salamah – Ibn Ishaq, who said: After sending his expedition to Mut’ah, the Messenger of God stayed in Medina during Jumada II and Rajab. Then the Banu Bakr b. ‘Abd Manat b. Kinanah assaulted [the tribe of] Khuza’ah while the latter were at a watering place called al-Watir belonging to Khuza’ah in Lower Mecca. The cause of the strife between Banu Bakr and the Banu Khuza’ah was a man from the Banu al-Hadrami named Malik b. ‘Abbad. This man of the Banu al-Hadrami had a covenant of protection at that time with al-Aswad b. Razn. Malik set out on a journey as a merchant. When he was in the middle of Khuza’ah territory, THE KHUZA’AH ASSAULTED HIM, KILLED HIM, AND TOOK HIS PROPERTY. The Banu Bakr therefore attacked and killed a man from Khuza’ah. Just before Islam, the Khuza’ah in turn assaulted Salma, Kulthum, and Dhu’ayb, the sons of al-Aswad b. Razn al-Dili – they were the leading men and dignitaries of the Banu Bakr – and killed them at ‘Arafah, by the border markers of the sacred territory.

According to Ibn Humayd – Salamah – Muhammad b. Ishaq – a man from the Banu al-Dil, who said: In pagan times two payments of blood money would be paid for each of the sons of al-Aswad, while a single payment of blood money would be paid for us; and that because of their excellence [compared with us].
Matters stood thus between the Banu Bakr and Khuza’ah when Islam intervened to separate them and occupy people’s minds. When the peace of al-Hudaybiyah was concluded between the Messenger of God and Quraysh (this information is according to Ibn Humayd – Salamah – Muhammad b. Ishaq – Muhammad b. Muslim b. ‘Abdallah b. Shihab al-Zuhri – ‘Urwah b. al-Zubayr – al-Miswar b. Makhramah, Marwan b. al-Hakam, and other learned men of ours), among the terms they imposed on the Messenger of God and that he granted to them was that whoever wanted to enter into a treaty and pact with the Messenger of God might do so, and whoever wanted to enter into a treaty with Quraysh might do so. The Banu Bakr entered into a pact with Quraysh, and Khuza’ah entered into a pact with the Messenger of God.

The truce having been concluded, the Banu al-Dil of the Banu Bakr took advantage of it against Khuza’ah. To RETALIATE for the sons of al-Aswad b. Razn they wanted to kill the persons from Khuza’ah WHO HAD KILLED THEIR MEN. Nawfal b. Mu’awiyah al-Dili set out with the Banu al-Dil (at that time he was a leader of the Banu al-Dil, though not all the Banu Bakr followed him). He made a night raid on the Khuza’ah while the latter were at their watering place of al-Watir, and they killed a man [of the Khuza’ah]. They tried to drive each other away and fought. Quraysh aided the Banu Bakr with weapons, and some members of Quraysh fought on their side under cover of darkness until they drove Khuza’ah into the sacred territory.

According to al-Waqidi: Among the members of Quraysh who helped the Banu Bakr against Khuza’ah that night, concealing their identity, were Safwan b. Umayyah, ‘Ikrimah b. Abi Jahl, Suhayl b. ‘Amr, and others, along with their slaves.

Resumption of the account of Ibn Ishaq, who said: When they reached the sacred territory, the Banu Bakr said: "Nawfal, we have entered the sacred territory. Be mindful of your God! Be mindful of your God!" To which he replied blasphemously: "Today he has no God! Banu Bakr, TAKE YOUR REVENGE! By my life you steal in the sacred territory; WILL YOU NOT TAKE YOUR REVENGE IN IT?"

The night that the Banu Bakr attacked the Khuza’ah at al-Watir, they killed a man of Khuza’ah named Munabbih. Munabbih was a man with a weak heart. He had gone out with a tribesman of his named Tamim b. Asad. Munabbih said to him: "Tamim, save yourself! As for me, by God, I am a dead man whether they kill me or spare me, for my heart has ceased beating." Tamim ran away and escaped; Munabbih they caught and killed. When the Khuza’ah entered Mecca, they took refuge in the house of Budayl b. Waqa’ al-Khuza’i and the house of one of their mawlas named Rafi‘.

When Quraysh leaguered together [with Banu Bakr] against Khuza’ah and killed some of their men, breaking the treaty and covenant that existed between them and the Messenger of God by violating the Khuza’ah, who had a pact and treaty with him. ‘Amr b. Salim al-Khuza’i, one of the Banu Ka‘b, went to the Messenger of God in Medina. This was one of the things that prompted the conquest of Mecca… (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany, 1997], Volume VIII, pp. 160-163; capital emphasis ours; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

My Response:
I want to thank Sam Shamoun for doing the research for me and even strengthening my arguments by providing more sources of information to back up my claims.

First of all if Banu Bakr had to avenge for their leader's deaths caused by Banu Khuza'ah, they should have refused to enter the treaty. They should have said, "no we will not enter this treaty because that would mean that we would have to have peace with Banu Khuza'ah and we don't want that because we want to avenge our leader's deaths". They should have known that the treaty stated that anyone siding with the Meccans should not be attacking anyone siding with the Muslims.

Secondly, notice what Tabari said:

They tried to drive each other away and fought. Quraysh aided the Banu Bakr with weapons, and some members of Quraysh fought on their side under cover of darkness until they drove Khuza’ah into the sacred territory.

According to al-Waqidi: Among the members of Quraysh who helped the Banu Bakr against Khuza’ah that night, concealing their identity, were Safwan b. Umayyah, ‘Ikrimah b. Abi Jahl, Suhayl b. ‘Amr, and others, along with their slaves.

When Quraysh leaguered together [with Banu Bakr] against Khuza’ah and killed some of their men, breaking the treaty and covenant that existed between them and the Messenger of God by violating the Khuza’ah, who had a pact and treaty with him.

So this even goes to show that the Quraysh did help Banu Bakr in attacking the Banu Khuza'ah and this went against the truce they made with the Muslims.

So the Quraysh did break the treaty by helping in the attack on the allies of the Muslims.
Shamoun goes on to criticize that the Prophet let Banu Khuza'ah to enter into a treaty with the Muslims. However, some one's past does not necessarily mean that they would do the same in the future. The Prophet would never have allowed them to do what they did if he was in a treaty with them. Plus, notice that ever since Khuza'ah entered into a treaty with the Prophet they did not break it, but it was the Banu Bakr that did.

Its clearly obvious that the Quraysh were furious at Banu Khuz'a for having a treaty with the Muslims and therefore assisted Banu Bakr to massacre the tribe at night. Its not logical that TWENTY years later the Banu Bakr finally decided to avenge their comrades deaths. 

Rape in Islam is completely forbidden. See (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4366)

Is Original Sin Taught in Islam

Is Original Sin Taught in Islam?

Christians believe in original sin while Muslims do not. There are some hadith that people misuse in order to try and show that original sin is taught in Islam. I will seek to debunk that false charge Inshallah. 
What is original sin? 
a sin inherited by all descendants of Adam; "Adam and Even committed the original sin when they at the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden"

Christians believe that everyone is born a sinner. Everyone is born condemned and the only way to redeem yourself is that you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. Is that really fair? I mean you are born condemned from the beginning. So even a poor innocent baby that is newly born is a sinner. If that baby does not redeem itself by putting its faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and dies then the poor baby is condemned to hell. How can you expect a baby that cannot comprehend or think to accept Jesus as its Lord? What if the poor baby dies before it grows up to become able to rationalize and accept a religion. What about a mentally retarded person that cannot think for him self? He is a sinner by nature and will be doomed to Hell for not recognizing Jesus as Lord and Savior simply because his mind cannot!
Unlike Islam, which is a just religion does not teach original sin. Islam teaches that everyone is born pure and it is us who corrupt our selves. Islam gives the Muslims time to grow up and be able to use our rationality and reason in order to choose a religion. 
This time is the age of puberty. 
Puberty is the age when people begin to use their reason and distinguish between what is right and wrong. 

10-12 years of age marks the phase of reasoning (ratiocination) with a sense of critic to the instinctive activities and reflexive activities. 

What about the madman? Is he also a sinner? According to original sin he is. How can God condemn a madman who cannot use his reason and be able to make a rational decision? Truly this is unjust. Islam does not hold these kind of people accountable. 

The evidence from the Hadith...

Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 1, Book 3, Number 101:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Some women requested the Prophet to fix a day for them as the men were taking all his time. On that he promised them one day for religious lessons and commandments. Once during such a lesson the Prophet said, "A woman whose three children die will be shielded by them from the Hell fire." On that a woman asked, "If only two die?" He replied, "Even two (will shield her from the Hell-fire)."
Volume 1, Book 3, Number 102:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
as above (the sub narrators are different). Abu Huraira qualified the three children referred to in the above mentioned Hadith as not having reached the age of committing sins (i.e. age of puberty) .

Abu Dawud
Book 38, Number 4387:
Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:
Ibn Abbas said: A lunatic woman passed by Ali ibn AbuTalib. He then mentioned the rest of the tradition to the same effect as Uthman mentioned. This version has: Do you not remember that the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) has said: There are three whose actions are not recorded: a lunatic whose mind is deranged till he is restored to consciousness, a sleeper till he awakes, and a boy till he reaches puberty?
Book 38, Number 4388:
Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:
AbuZubyan said: A woman who had committed adultery was brought to Umar. He gave orders that she should be stoned.
Ali passed by just then. He seized her and let her go. Umar was informed of it. He said: Ask Ali to come to me. Ali came to him and said: Commander of the Faithful, you know that the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: There are three (people) whose actions are not recorded: A boy till he reaches puberty, a sleeper till he awakes, a lunatic till he is restored to reason. This is an idiot (mad) woman belonging to the family of so and so. Someone might have done this action with her when she suffered the fit of lunacy.
Umar said: I do not know. Ali said: I do not know.
Book 38, Number 4389:
Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: There are three (persons) whose actions are not recorded: a sleeper till he awakes, a boy till he reaches puberty, and a lunatic till he comes to reason.

There are certain Hadith that people try to misuse in order to show that Islam believes in original sin. Here they are...

Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 55, Number 547:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "But for the Israelis, meat would not decay and but for Eve, wives would never betray their husbands."
Volume 4, Book 55, Number 611:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Were it not for Bani Israel, meat would not decay; and were it not for Eve, no woman would ever betray her husband."
Volume 8, Book 77, Number 611:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Adam and Moses argued with each other. Moses said to Adam. 'O Adam! You are our father who disappointed us and turned us out of Paradise.' Then Adam said to him, 'O Moses! Allah favored you with His talk (talked to you directly) and He wrote (the Torah) for you with His Own Hand. Do you blame me for action which Allah had written in my fate forty years before my creation?' So Adam confuted Moses, Adam confuted Moses," the Prophet added, repeating the Statement three times.

Saheeh Muslim
Book 008, Number 3471:
Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Had it not been for Eve, woman would have never acted unfaithfully towards her husband.
Book 008, Number 3472:
Hammam b. Munabbih said: These are some of the ahadith which Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) narrated to us from Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and one of these (this one): Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Had it not been for Bani Isra'il, food would not have become stale, and meal would not have gone bad; and had it not been for Eve, a woman would never have acted unfaithfully toward her husband.
Malik Muwatta
Book 46, Number 46.1.1:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu'z-Zinad from al-Araj from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Adam and Musa argued and Adam got the better of Musa. Musa rebuked Adam, 'You are Adam who led people astray and brought them out of the Garden.' Adam said to him, 'You are Musa to whom Allah gave knowledge of everything and whom he chose above people with His message.' He said, 'Yes.' He said, 'Do you then censure me for a matter which was decreed for me before I was created?' "
When one reads the Hadith he might get the impression that the Prophet was putting the blame on Adam and Eve for us becoming sinners. 

This is taken from "Divine Will and Predestination: In The Light of the Quran and Sunnah" by Umar S. al-Ashqar, p115-116
There is no evidence in the hadith to support those who use predestination as an excuse for evil actions and sins. Adam did not use the Divine Will and Predestination (Qadaa' wal-Qadar) as an excuse to justify his sin, and Moosa did not blame his father Adam for a sin from which he had repented and Allah has forgiven him, and subsequently chosen him and guided him. What Moosa was blaming for, was the disaster which had led Adam and his progeny to be expelled from Paradise.
Adam cited predestination as the cause of the calamity, not the sin, because predestination is an acceptable explanation for callamities, but it is not a reasonable justification for sins. (Sharh at-Tahaawiyah, p. 154. This was also the response of Shaykh al-Islam. See Shifaa' al-'Aleel, p. 35)
Ibn al-Qayyim responded differently to those who misunderstood the hadith about Adam defeating Moosa in argument. He said: "Using predestination as a reason for sin is useful in some cases and is harmful in others. It is useful when it is cited after one has fallen into sin then repented and given up the sin, as Adam did. In such cases, mentioning predestination is part of Tawheed and acknowledging the names and attributes of Allah in a manner that benefits both the one who mentions them and the one who hears them, because predestination should not be used as an excuse to cancel out a command or a prohibition, or to cancel out shari'ah, it should be mentioned as pure truth and to demonstrate the concept of Tawheed, and to show that one has no power and strength of one's own.
What makes this clear is that fact that Adam said to Moosa: "Are you blaming me for doing something that Allah had decreed I would do before I was created?" If a man commits a sin, and then repents, and the matter is settled as if it never happend, then someone blames him for that, it is acceptable in such case to cite predestination as a reason and say, "This is something which was decreed before I was created," because here he is not using predestination to cancel out the rulings of Allah or as a justification for falsehood or wrongdoing. (Shifaa' al-'Aleel, p. 35)

Ibn Hajar says in his commentaries...
qadar_1.jpg (3941 bytes)
And this is of their nature so there is no blame on her for what she (Eve) did unintentionally
qadar_2.jpg (6478 bytes)

If there were no eating from the tree then there would have been no expulsion from heaven.
And the meaning that should be derived is the actual occurring of this sin, and there is no blame on who committed it

Imam Malik said in his commentary...
qadar_3.jpg (12710 bytes)
However, when Adam rebuked Moses for blaming him, he said: “Are you blaming me for doing something that Allah had decreed”? Adam already had repented from his sin. Allah said: “And Adam disobeyed his Lord, so went astray. Then his Lord chose him, and relented toward him, and guided him.” And guided the repented (Adam) from his sin. If he repented and his repentance was good then there is no blaming him.


So as we see Islam does not teach that we are born condemned sinners. It does not place the blame on Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were the first humans to sin. We are supposed to learn that it is human nature to sin and that the devil is going to try and trick us into committing sin just like how he did with our fore parents. Then after we sin we do like our fore parents did and then turn to God in sincere repentance. So this is a lesson of original forgiveness and not original sin. If we sin, then it is our fault and not our fore parents fault. God does not create us as sinners. He creates us pure and then it is us who sin and make our selves impure.

Was Noah a Sinless Man?

Biblical Difficulty: Was Noah A Sinless Man?

Certain verses in the Old Testament describe Noah as being a perfect and righteous person before God during his generation...
Genesis 6:9
This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless (tamiym) among the people of his time, and he walked with God.
The word tamiym could mean...
1) complete, whole, entire, sound
a) complete, whole, entire
b) whole, sound, healthful
c) complete, entire (of time)
d) sound, wholesome, unimpaired, innocent, having integrity
e) what is complete or entirely in accord with truth and fact (neuter adj/subst)

We can see that there were people who were considered perfect. We can also see that this word is used to describe the perfection of God's works...
Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his works are perfect (tamiym), and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong,
  upright and just is he.

Genesis 7:1
 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous (tsaddiyq) in this generation.

The word tsaddiyq could mean...
1) just, lawful, righteous
a) just, righteous (in government)
b) just, right (in one's cause)
c) just, righteous (in conduct and character)
d) righteous (as justified and vindicated by God)
e) right, correct, lawful

So the Bible portrays Noah as such a great man during his time. He is supposed to be complete and righteous in character. However, can one still think this when they read the following passage?...

Genesis 9:20-25
20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers."

How can the Bible say that Noah was a righteous and blameless person before the Lord during his generation when he goes around getting drunk and lying naked in his drunkenness? Either those verses about Noah being blameless are incorrect or the Bible simply has no problem with people getting drunk and lying naked in public.

Reasons for Hijab

Arabs Semities were Black Skinned/Dark

The Arab Crows (أغربة العرب)are the famous Arab poets of the past who were so dark-skinned that their color resembled the color of a crow. Some of the Arab Crows lived in Pre-Islamic times and others lived during the period between Pre-Islamic times and Islamic times.  Ibn Mandhour says in his book Lisan Al-Arab that the Arab Crows areAntarahKhafaf ibn Nadba from the tribe of  Sulaym,  Abu Umair ibn Al-Hubaab from the tribe of SulaymSulaik ibn SulakaHisham ibn Uqba ibn Abi Mu'eetAbdellah ibn Khaazim from the tribe of SulaymUmair ibn Abu Umair ibn Al-Hubaab from the tribe of SulaymHammaam ibn Mutarraf from the tribe of Taghlib, Muntashir ibn Wahb Al-Baahili,Matar ibn Awfaa Al-MaziniTaabbata Sharra, and Al-Shanfara. Many people today make the mistake of assuming that since these "Arab Crows" are so black-skinned, they must be descended from "Africans". For example, read what was said about Khaffaf ibn Nadba from the tribe of Sulaym:

قال خفاف بن ندبة - وهي أمه، وكانت حبشية..."

"Khafaf the son of Nadba - and Nadba was an Ethiopian slave-girl - said..."

This is what they say about Khafaf's mother, but the reality is his mother was a pure Arab from the tribe of Bani Al-Harith ibn Ka'ab. Ibn Sa'ad says in his book Al-Tabaqaat: 

خفاف بن عمير 

ابن الحارث بن شريد واسمه عمرو بن رباح بن يقظة بن عصية بن خفاف بن امرئ القيس بن بهثة بن سليم وكان شاعرا وهو الذي يقال له خفاف بن ندبة وهي أمة بها يعرف وهى ابنة الشيطان بن قنان سبية من بني الحارث بن كعب ويقال إن ندية كانت سوداء وشهد خفاف فتح مكة مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وكان معه لواء بني سليم الأخر‏.‏

"Khafaf the son of Umair the son of Al-Harith the son of Amru (Shuraid) the son of Rabbah the son of Yaqidha the son of Asiyya the son of Khafaf the son of Imr Al-Qais the son of Bahtha the son of Sulaym. He was a poet and was called Khafaf the son of Nadba and Nadba is a slave-girl and Khafaf was known by her. She (Nadba) is the daughter of Al-Shaytan the son of Qanan and she was captured from the tribe of Bani Al-Harith ibn Ka'ab. It is said that Nadba was black-skinned. Khafaf was present with the Prophet (SAWS) during the conquest of Mecca and he carried the flag of the tribe of Sulaym."

Ibn Hajar says in his book Al-Isaaba Fi Tamyeez Al-Sahaaba:

خفاف بن عمير بن الحارث بن الشريد 

بن رياح بن يقظة بن عصية بن خفاف بن امرئ القيس بن بهثة بن سليم وهو المعروف بابن ندبة بنون وهي أمه قال بن الكلبي شهد الفتح وكان معه لواء بني سليم وكان شاعرًا مشهورا وقال الأصمعي شهد حنينًا وثبت على إسلامه في الردة وبقي إلى زمن عمر وقال أبو عبيدة أغار الحارث بن الشريد يعني جد خفاف هذا على بني الحارث بن كعب فسبي ندبة فوهبها لابنه عمير فولدت له خفافا فنسب إليها قال المرزباني هي ندبة بنت أبان بن شيطان بن قنان بن سلمة.

Khafaf the son of Umair the son of Al-Harith the son of Shuraid the son of Rabbah the son of Yaqidha the son of Asiyya the son of Khafaf the son of Imr Al-Qais the son of Bahtha the son of Sulaym. He was a famous poet. Al-Asma'ee said that he was present at the battle of Hunain and that he remained a Muslim during period of apostasy and he was still alive during the reign of Umar. Abu Ubayda said that Al-Harith the son
of Shuraid - the grandfather of Khafaf - raided the tribe of Bani Al-Harith ibn Ka'ab and captured Nadba and gave her to his son Umair and she gave birth to Khafaf through Umair and Khafaf was called the son of Nadba. Al-Mirzbaani says that she is Nadba the daughter of Abaan the son of Al-Shaytan the son of Qanan the son of Salama. Bani Al-Harith ibn Ka'ab is a large Arab tribe and Al-Harith ibn Ka'ab is the son of Amru the son of 'Illa the son of Khalid the son of Midhhaj.

Read what is said about another Arab Crow - Shanfara:

ويعني اسمه (غليظ الشفاه ) ، ويدل أن دماء حبشية كانت تجري فيه

"And his name means 'thick-lipped', which shows that Ethiopian blood ran through his veins."

Read what another person said is a reason that he hopes that Al-Shanfara is not from the Arab tribe of Shihr:

انه كان اسودا ونحن جميعا لآدم ولا فضل لاحد على احد الا بالتقوى ولكنه كان كافرا وفوق هذا من اصول افريقية اما من ناحية الاب او الام والعرب ليس فيهم السواد الوارد في الشنفرى 

"...Because he (Al-Shanfara) was black-skinned - we are all from Adam and no one is any better than the next except according to piety - but he was an unbeliever and to make matters worse, he was of African origin either from his father or from his mother and the Arabs are not black-skinned like Al-Shanfara was described".

This is what they say about Al-Shanfara, but the truth of the matter is that his father was from the pure Arab tribe of Al-Azd and his mother was from the pure Arab tribe of Fahm. Read what Al-Shanfara said about himself:

"انا من خيار الحجر بيتاً ومنصباً ** وامي ابنة الاحرار لو تعرفينها"
"I am from the best of the clan of Hujr (a clan of the tribe of Al-Azd) in origin and status. And my mother is the daughter of the freemen - if you only knew her!"

There is also the Arab Crow Taabbata Sharra. His real name is Thaabi the son of Jaabir the son of Sufyan the son of 'Umaythil the son of 'Udayy the son of Ka'ab the son of Hazin the son of Tamim the son of Sa'ad the son of Fahm the son of Amru the son of Qais 'Ailan the son of Mudar the son of Nizaar. His mother - Umayma - was from the Bani Qain branch of the Arab tribe of Fahm the son of Amru the son of Qais 'Ailan the son of Mudar the son of Nizaar.

As you can see, Taabbata Sharra, too, was a pure Arab from the pure Arab tribe of Fahm.

Sunday, August 18, 2013

Refuting arguments against the Prophet's marriage to Aisha

It is also interesting to note that Aisha considered herself to be a woman at the age of nine when she stated:
When the girl reaches nine years of age, she is a woman. (Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Kitab: al-Nikah, Bab: Maa Jaa'a fee Ikraah Al Yateemah 'alaa al tazweej, Hadith no. 1027, Source)
Shaikh Abdur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri in his commentary on Sunan al-Tirmidhi said:

أن عائشة قد كانت أدركت وهي بنت تسع سنين

Aisha knew (that she hit puberty) when she became nine years old. (Shaikh Abdur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri,Tuhfat AI-Ahwadhi, Kitab: al-Nikah, Bab: Maa Jaa'a fee Ikraah Al Yateemah 'alaa al tazweej, Hadith no. 1027, Source)

Thus, we have a statement from Aisha herself that clearly seems to indicate that she was aware of hitting puberty at age nine.
One may argue that this still doesn't mean that all nine year old girls are physically or psychologically capable of engaging in sexual intercourse and could be physically or psychologically harmed if they did so.
However, we must remember the "don't harm yourself or cause harm to others" principle in Islam.
Something might generally be deemed to be permissible or even recommended, yet could be forbidden at times.
For instance, fasting could be prohibited for a person with diabetes:
If fasting is difficult for him and will cause him harm, such as a man who has kidney disease or diabetes and similar cases where fasting will cause harm. In this case fasting is haraam. (Source)
We must remember to apply this principle to all situations. Therefore, if it happens to be that a woman will undergo physical or psychological harm if she were to engage in sexual intercourse at an early age, then doing so will be haram for her.
We have no reason to believe that Aisha has undergone such problems. Thus, why can we object then?
Also, regarding the narration that stated that when Aisha was fourteen the Prophet (peace be upon him) found her dolls; the narration does not say that she was playing with them. It only says that they were in her possession. The only way the Prophet (peace be upon him) found out was because they were uncovered by the curtain covering her storage room. So this narration only shows that she was still in possession of them, but not necessarily playing with them. Plus, if she was in a habit of playing with them, why would she cover them up with a curtain in her storage room and why did the Prophet (peace be upon him) just find out about them? He would have seen her always playing with them.
There was nothing immature about playing with dolls. Interestingly one says:
The toy dolls that existed before the 1700's served chiefly as playthings for adults as well as for children.At that time, adults and children were more alike in their attitudes and interests than they are today, and childhood as we know it did not really exist. Youngsters were regarded as little adults and were expected to act like them. They shared the work of supporting the family with their parents. People of nearly all ages enjoyed the same simple toys, including dolls and jack-in-the-boxes. Most of the dolls were shaped and dressed like adults.
Adults first came to regard childhood as a special time during the 1700's and especially the 1800's. The first dolls specifically for children probably were made in the 1700's. The dolls themselves looked the same but could be dressed as babies, children, women, or men. In the West, the first doll to be designed as a baby appeared at the London Exhibition of 1851 and came from Japan. (Source)

Many over aged girls even today still keep their Barbie dolls. Look at what this individual says:

Wednesday, March 12, 2008 1:29:00 PM  
I love Barbie. As an only girl, I played with her a lot. When I got Ken, Barbie's first boyfriend, they would go out on dates in Barbie's car. Barbie was very independent & she always wanted to pick Ken up.

Thanks to my special niece I could continue to play with Barbie as an adult...we would have a lot of fun! My niece is getting older now and I'm afraid it's true that the Brat dolls have all but taken over her playroom. I like the Bratz dolls but I will always be most fond of Barbie :)
Happy Birthday Barbie xoxo


I also personally know of a 23 year old girl in my Masters class who is very intelligent and still keeps a teddy bear in her car.

Thus, to argue that Aisha must have not hit puberty because she played with or was in possession of dolls is not a strong nor is it a convincing argument.

Companions of the Prophet Thought That Aisha Was Immature
Sam Shamoun said:
There are other narrations which provide additional (albeit implicit) support that Aisha was too young for consummation due to the fact that she was prepubescent:
Narrated Urwa bin Al-Musayyab, Alqama bin Waqqas and Ubaidullah bin Abdullah:

About the story of 'Aisha and their narrations were similar attesting each other, when the liars said what they invented about 'Aisha, and the Divine Inspiration was delayed, Allah's Apostle sent for 'Ali and Usama to consult them in divorcing his wife (i.e. 'Aisha). Usama said, "Keep your wife, as we know nothing about her except good." Buraira said, "I cannot accuse her of any defect except that she is still A YOUNG GIRL who sleeps, neglecting her family's dough which the domestic goats come to eat (i.e. she was too simpleminded to deceive her husband)." Allah's Apostle said, "Who can help me to take revenge over the man who has harmed me by defaming the reputation of my family? By Allah, I have not known about my family anything except good, and they mentioned (i.e. accused) a man about whom I did not know anything except good." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, 
Number 805)
. Buraira said, 'No, by Allah Who has sent you with the Truth, I have never seen in her anything faulty except that she is a girl of IMMATURE AGE, who sometimes sleeps and leaves the dough for the goats to eat.' . (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 829)
'A'isha said. The women in those days were light of weight and they did not wear much flesh, as they ate less food; so they did not perceive the weight of my haudaj as they placed it upon the camel as I was A YOUNG GIRL at that time. Barira said: By Him Who sent thee with the truth, I have seen nothing objectionable in her but only this much that she is A YOUNG GIRL and she goes to sleep while kneading the flour and the lamb eats that. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6673)
Many years after Muhammad had married Aisha and she is still described as being young and immature! Obviously, a girl who is described in such a manner is far from being ready for consummation with a grown man. The question that should be asked is what business did a fifty-four year old man have marrying such a girl in the first place?
My Response:
Looking at the Arabic text أنها جارية حديثة السن , I don't see word "immature" anywhere. It only states that she is a young girl, which we will already know. But if someone is young that doesn't necessarily imply that he or she is immature.
Secondly, the companion was not criticizing Aisha for her age. Rather, he was saying that her fault was that she:
goes to sleep while kneading the flour and the lamb eats that
Imam Nawawi states in his commentary:

ومعنى هذا الكلام : أنه ليس فيها شيء مما تسألون عنه أصلا , ولا فيها شيء من غيره إلا نومها عن العجين .

And the meaning of this statement is that there are no faults about her (Aisha) to begin with. There is nothing wrong about her except that she sleeps while kneading the flour. (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Tawbah, Bab: Fee Hadeeth Al Ifk Wa Qubool Tawbat Al Qaazhif, Commentary on Hadith no. 4974,Source)

The companion might have attributed her carelessness due to the fact that she was young and did not take seriously her responsibility over her tasks. However, this does not imply she was immature or psychologically incapable of being married.
Even in my workplace when we bring in new marketing research trainees who are fresh graduates and are in their early twenties, our managers would criticize them for being careless in their jobs, since they haven't matured and are too young for these kind of responsibilities and tasks. Now, in no way would that imply that these individuals are immature or incapable of being married. However, their age and inexperience does play a role in them not being efficient and serious at the work place like someone who has been working for several years.
I believe that the companion who spoke about Aisha had the same intentions when he uttered that statement regarding Aisha.
Nevertheless, nothing that Shamoun has presented shows that Aisha was too incompetent to have been married to the Prophet (peace be upon him)

The Companions Condemned Umar ibn Al Khattab For Marrying a Young Girl
Sam Shamoun said:
In fact, Haddad himself cites a reference where Umar spoke out against those who would ridicule him for marrying a girl so young:
He came to the Muhajirun among the Companions as they sat between the Grave and the Pulpit ? their usual place for meeting `Umar to discuss news: "Felicitate this newlywed!" Then he told them he had married `Ali's daughter Umm Kulthum and said: "I heard the Messenger of Allah say, upon him blessings and peace: 'Every lineage and means will be severed on the Day of Judgment except my lineage and my means.' I have kept company with him and wished to add this also." Later he again said, on the pulpit: "DO NOT DISPARAGE ME [FOR MARRYING A YOUNG GIRL], for I heard the Prophet say may upon him blessings and peace: 'On the Judgment Day every means will be cut off and every lineage severed except my lineage.'" (Source; bold and capital emphasis ours)
The sharp reader should be able to see why the foregoing data poses problems for the claim that such marriages were culturally acceptable at that time. If marrying nine-year-old girls were permissible during that time then why did Ali and the other Muslims vehemently oppose and object to Umar's marriage proposal to Ali regarding his daughter? If Umm Kulthum was too young for Umar even though she was approximately 11 years old at that time, and Umar was roughly 58 years of age, then wouldn't this prove that Aisha was too young for Muhammad in light of her age being nine and Muhammad was fifty-four years old when they consummated their marriage?
My Response:
I visited the link for Dr. Haddad's article and I saw that Dr. Haddad has not provided a reference for this story. No where can I find this story.
Secondly, notice that Dr. Haddad put "FOR MARRYING A YOUNG GIRL" in brackets. This seems to indicate that it is not part of the original text and is only an interpretation of Umar's statement. Where is the evidence that this is what Umar ibn Al Khattab intended to say? Other evidence suggests that the reason why Umar ibn Al Khattab might have uttered this statement is because the companions were concerned that him getting married would distract him from his duties as a Caliph. Nothing is mentioned about the age difference.
Thirdly, evidence from other sources seems to indicate that the companions received the news quite well. Instead of opposing Umar, they all prayed that Allah blessed their marriage. (Sunan Al-Bayhaqi al- Kubra: Volume 7, page 64. However, this narration is mursal)
Thus, unless we can see that the narration regarding Umar's statement is authentic I am going to doubt it.
Another good reason to doubt that the companions objected to Umar's marriage is that they would not do such a thing if they already knew that it was something that the Prophet (peace be upon him) would do (i.e. his marriage to Aisha).
It was also a normal habit of the Arabs at that time:
- Imam Al-Shafi'e said in Siyar A'lam Al-Nubala', Volume 10, p. 91 "During my stay in Yemen I have come across girls at the age of nine whom menstruated so often"
- Imam Al-Bayhaqi in Sunan Al-Bayhaqi Al-Kubra, Volume 1, p. 319 narrated that Imam Al-Shafi'e said: "I have seen in the city of Sana'a a grandmother while she was twenty one. She menstruated at the age of nine and gave birth at the age of 10"
- Ibn Al-Jawzi narrated similar stories from Ibn U'qail and U'bad Al-Mahlby in his Tahqeeq Fi Ahadith Al-Khilaf, Volume 2, p. 267
[Quick Acknowledgement: Thanks to brother Ayman bin Khaled for the above quotes]

Thus, it doesn't make sense that the companions would object to Umar's marriage as being immoral.
Shamoun is required to find the reference for that statement for Umar and to provide the authentic chain of transmission for it as well if he wants to convince us Muslims about the effectiveness of his "rebuttal".

Muhammad Should Have Established a Higher Moral Standard
Sam Shamoun said:
Putting it simply, theists expect that God would inspire his prophets to set a higher ethical code for humans to emulate, not merely subscribe to the cultural norms of their time, especially when such norms are morally reprehensible. This is irrespective of whether those prophets were able to live up to such standards, so long as God didn't justify their failure to comply with his moral standard.
My Response:
Shamoun speaks and asserts, but does not prove. How does he know what constitutes a "higher ethical code" or not without God stating so Himself?

Both Muslims and Christians believe in the Divine Command Theory, which teaches that our morals are derived from God's commands. One cannot presuppose that something is moral or immoral and then judge whether something is moral or immoral. Rather, one has to know what is moral and immoral by knowing what God has said about the matter.

Dr. William Lane Craig himself states:

So the problem isn't that God ended the Canaanites' lives.  The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them.  Isn't that like commanding someone to commit murder?  No, it's not.  Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God's commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder.  The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God's command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.

On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command. (William Lane Craig, Slaughter of the CanaanitesSource)

As Dr. Craig rightfully states, we can't state that something is immoral unless we have evidence that God has not divinely approved of it.

So when Shamoun states that the Prophet's marriage to Aisha is immoral, he is begging the question that Islam is false. What Shamoun is trying to do is show that Muhammad (peace be upon him) is a false prophet by putting forth this argument. However, he can't do such a thing. What he has to do is first prove that Islam is false and then put forth this claim.

In order to put forth a successful argument Shamoun must level a stronger critique.

There are two kinds of critiques that one can form.

1)      Internal critique:

This is criticizing someone or something by pointing out its internal inconsistencies. This is usually a strong argument. Now, has Shamoun put forth an internal critique against the Prophet's marriage to Aisha? Actually, he hasn't. He has not shown how the Prophet (peace be upon him) contradicted Islamic principles when he married Aisha.

2)      External critique:

This is using an external standard to judge somebody or something in order to critique that person or thing.

There are two types of external critique:

i)                    Universal external critique:

This is appealing to universal standards and beliefs (e.g. raping a little child is wrong according to everyone) as a standard. However, has Shamoun shown that Muhammad's (peace be upon him) marriage to Aisha violates universal standards? Of course not.

ii)                  Ethnocentric external critique:

This is appealing to one's own cultural or religious beliefs as a standard for critiquing. Philosophers have stated that this form of argumentation is weak unless one can prove that the standard that he is using should be binding upon everyone.

Now, this is the kind of critique that Shamoun is launching.

Shamoun must be using a moral law in order to judge whether the Prophet's marriage to Aisha is moral or not. If he is using a moral law, then that implies that there is a moral law giver that he is appealing to.

Now, since Shamoun is a Christian we are going to assume that his moral law giver is the God of the Bible. Has Shamoun proven that Muhammad's (peace be upon him) marriage to Aisha violates biblical standards for morality? No he has not.

Secondly, even if Shamoun was able to prove that Muhammad (peace be upon him) violated Biblical standards for morality then SO WHAT?

Why should I care if Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not live up to the moral standards of the Bible? Has Shamoun shown us that the Bible is the complete true word of God and that it is binding upon us? The answer is no.

If he would like to reply back and say that the Qur'an affirms the Bible and that means that Muslims should hold the Bible as authoritative, then I ask the reader to refer here.

It is also funny how he says:

Putting it simply, theists expect that God would inspire his prophets to set a higher ethical code for humans to emulate, not merely subscribe to the cultural norms of their time,

Yet, the Biblical Jesus "subscribed to the cultural norms of his time" when he referred to the gentiles as "dogs" and spoke disrespectfully about his mother. See here.

In conclusion, Shamoun cannot provide an INTELLECTUAL AND RATIONAL argument against the Prophet's marriage to Aisha. He can only provide an EMOTIONAL argument.

However, Muslims let their rationality overcome their emotions and don't fall for these silly appeal to emotion arguments. That is probably the main reason why we aren't Christians.

What a joke! Shamoun is stating that it was okay for innocent civilians to be murdered at that time, yet it is not so in the 21st century. I can barely hold my self from laughing (and puking for that matter).

So basically Shamoun is arguing that these things are not okay today since God's laws have to adapt to changing cultures and societal behavior. Surely this is absurd and it should actually be the other way around.

In conclusion, Shamoun has not provided a rational and objective basis for any of his arguments.

NOTE: I am not going to kindly request Shamoun to stop insulting my beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). I don't kindly request anything from foolish thugs. All I am going to say is that if he continues to insult, then I will insult right back. If Shamoun removes his insults, then I would promise to edit this article and remove my harsh comments as well. He needs to be tamed and understand that in interfaith dialogue we have to be sensitive about the other person's feelings, since these topics are very sensitive to people.

We apologize for offending any other Christians, since it wasn't our intention.