Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun on Mary, Muhammad's Concubine (Round 3)

 

By Umar

 

 

 

 

 

This Article is located at: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/umar_mary2.htm  

 

I would like to post what the scholars say, on Mariyah the Copt, being a wife of Prophet Muhammad (S):

"The books of sirah (the biography of the Prophet Muhammad) differ on the number of his wives (may Allah bless all). The main reason behind the differences in the number of his wives is - in most of the cases - due to the reliance on weak non-authentic hadiths.

However, the vast majority of Muslim scholars agreed that the wives of the prophet (pbuh) were:

1. Khadijah
2. `A'isha bint Abu Bakr
3. Sawda bint Zum`ah
4. Hafsa bint `Umar
5. Zaynab bint Khuzaymah
6. Um-Habibah bint Abu Sufyan
7. Um-Salamah
8. Zaynab bint Jahsh
9. Juwariyah bint al-Harith
10. Safiyah bint Hayi ibn Akhtab
11. Maymunah al-Hilaliyah
12. Mariya al-Qibtiya (Who was from Egypt.)

(May Allah be pleased with all of them). These are the names upon whom the scholars agreed."

(Source: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996015774&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE, bold and underlined emphasis ours )

And,

"Maria al-Qibtiyya (Arabic: ????? ???????) (alternatively, especially in non-Arabic traditions, "Maria Qupthiya"), or Maria the Copt, was a Coptic Christian slave who was sent as a gift from Muqawqis, a Byzantine official, to the Islamic prophet Muhammad in 628 CE. According to most Islamic accounts, she was Muhammad's wife. However, some scholars have claimed that she stayed as a concubine. "

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_al-Qibtiyya, Bold and underlined emphasis ours )

 

Whats even more funny, is that when I showed this quote in my PM conversation on Paltalk with Sam Shamoun, he denied it, and told me my sources are wrong! Here is what he said:

 

ISLAM_THE_TRUE_DEEN:  you know, the majority of scholars, agree Mariyah was the wife of the Prophet

ISLAM_THE_TRUE_DEEN:  I hope you are aware of that

Answering Islam: no

Answering Islam: they don't

Answering Islam: that is y I am making u aware of it

Answering Islam: just check the next rebuttal

Answering Islam: and also go back to the original piece

Answering Islam: since I added more quotes and scholars

ISLAM_THE_TRUE_DEEN:  However, the vast majority of Muslim scholars agreed that the wives of the prophet (pbuh) were:

1. Khadijah

2. `A'isha bint Abu Bakr

3. Sawda bint Zum`ah

4. Hafsa bint `Umar

5. Zaynab bint Khuzaymah

6. Um-Habibah bint Abu Sufyan

7. Um-Salamah

8. Zaynab bint Jahsh

9. Juwariyah bint al-Harith

10. Safiyah bint Hayi ibn Akhtab

11. Maymunah al-Hilaliyah

12. Mariya al-Qibtiya (Who was from Egypt.)

(May Allah be pleased with all of them). These are the names upon whom the scholars agreed."

ISLAM_THE_TRUE_DEEN:  http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996015774&pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE

Answering Islam: sorry

Answering Islam: but ur source is wrong

Answering Islam: but ur source is wrong

Answering Islam: go back and see the original piece

ISLAM_THE_TRUE_DEEN:  everything that contradicts your source is wrong? lol

Answering Islam: since that is not the majority view

 

Now, let us proceed with Sam Shamouns response...

 

 

 

He Wrote:

 

On Mary, Muhammad's Concubine (Round Two)

Sam Shamoun

The following is our response to Umar's rebuttal to our initial rebuttal to his response to my rebuttal to two Muslims' accusations (1; 2) against Ali Sina!

Umar writes:

My Response:

Let us remind Sam Shamoun what he DID say:

" Since we have documented that Mariyah was indeed Muhammad's maid, his slave or concubine, this means that we certainly do have a problem. Mr. Sina stands vindicated at least in regards to her status as a maid, even though he mistakenly assumed that she was Hafsah's maid. "

(Source located at : http://www.answering-christianity.com/umar/mary_concubine_rebuttal.htm)

Sam, according to your words, it seems as if you did pretty much deny the sources which say she is Muhammad (S) wife.

 

RESPONSE:

Let me remind him what I said IN CONTEXT. I had said that Tabari placed Mariyah's arrival at 7 A.H., with Maududi stating that Surah 33:56 was written or composed during 5 A.H. This means that if Muhammad had married her then he was in express violation of Allah's command. Thus, unless a Muslim wants to say that Muhammad broke Allah's command this shows that Mariyah could not have been his wife. In fact, this is what led Umar to mention Ibn Kathir's comments that Sura 33:52 had been canceled, a position which he has now abandoned! More on this later.

More importantly, it is Umar that doesn't know what he wants to argue. He admits that there are plenty of Muslim sources affirming that Mariayh was a concubine, but then tries desperately to refute this by posting sources contradicting these Muslim writers and scholars. The only thing that Umar has managed to do is to further highlight the mass confusion which exists among Muslim sources. He has yet to prove that Mariyah was anything but a sex slave.

 

 

My Response:


Now, Sam Shamoun claims that I "abandoned" my position that Sura 33:52 was abrogated, however, even in my inital rebuttal, I made a NOTE that Abdullah Yusuf Ali (even Muhammad Asad) dated the Ayat to A.H 7, which is after the arrival of Mariah the Copt. This note was to make the reader think, and to use their noodle and try to connect dots. Unfortunately, Sam didn't realize this, so he thinks I "abandoned" my position on Sura 33:52 being abrogated, while all this time, I tried to bring up two cases of Sura 33:52, that it was either abrogated or not, and in my reply to Sams rebuttal to "Crouching Ali, Hidden Shamoun", I wrote a long discussion on this Ayat, and it is located here:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/umar/umar_mary_rebuttal.htm

Now, even though I have said, that there are sources which claim Mariyah Qibtiyya was a wife of Muhammad (S), there are others which say she wasn't his wife. However, as I showed earlier, this view, is not the majority view! Shamoun thinks this is "mass confusion" among the Muslim scholars, yet he doesnt realize that the view which he holds is in the minority.

 

 

He Wrote:


He responds to my analysis of Ibn Kathir's position with:

My Response:

Oh, yes the fun did begin, but what I find funny is that, Ibn Kathir dedicated one chapter of his book, located here>> http://www.islamic-paths.org/Home/English/Muhammad/Book/Wives/Chapter_12.htm#maria, to Mariyah the Copt, and the name of the book is " Muhammads[sic] Life: The Wives of the Prophet Muhammad". And, as I said in my previous rebuttal to Sam, on Maryiah the Copt, there is no doubt that there are sources which say she is his wife, and others which say she ISN'T his wife,

And:

My Response:

Now read what Sam Shamoun states here:

" These comments should make it evident that Ibn Kathir wasn't stating that he believed Mariyah was Muhammad's wife, but was reporting what some Muslims had said. If his comments on Sura 33:50 leave any room to doubt what Ibn Kathir believed about Mariyah's status then the following statements from his biography on Muhammad should settle it:"

Now, let us ask Sam, how does he know this? Did Ibn Kathir come in a dream of his and told him this? Or is he just making this up? He quotes the biography, which say she was his concubine, which contradicts Ibn Kathir's other book, where he dedicated one whole chapter to Maryiah Al Qibti, as being the Wife of Prophet Muhammad (S).

 

RESPONSE:

What else is there to say to such argumentation? If citing what Ibn Kathir wrote elsewhere to prove that he held to the view that Mariyah was Muhammad's concubine isn't good enough to convince Umar that the former wasn't suggesting that she was one of Muhammad's wives, then there is nothing that will convince him. It seems that it is Umar that is looking for Ibn Kathir to come to him in a dream or perhaps to be conjured up from the dead in order to be convinced that Ibn Kathir's wording in his chapter on Mariyah strongly implies that he wasn't stating that she was one of the wives.

 

 

My Response:


Now, Shamoun says that there is nothing that can convince me, that Mariyah Qibtiyya was a concubine, and he is right, because why should I agree with a view, that is not held by the majority of the scholars?

 

 

 

He Wrote:

        Here is how Umar responds when I exposed his ignorance regarding the status of a concubine who gives birth to her master's child:

My Response:

And your point is? If the Sheikh was wrong, saying that the will automatically be freed AS SOON as she delivers the baby, then so what, bottom line is, she still would've been freed:

He then cites irrelevant material on the status of slave women in Islam. Let us highlight specific parts of the material in order to show how this backfires against him:

Question of Fatwa

Is it true that Islam permits Muslim men to own slave women, and permits them to have sex with them without marrying them? And that this was carried out by the Prophet's Companions with his approval? Surely, this is in contradiction of the Qur'an's condemnation of zina. Could you please clarify this issue?

How do these Muslims answer the charge that sleeping with captives seems to be a violation of the Quran's condemnation of zina? By basically saying that Islam didn't create this system but simply permitted it as it did other social ills, while allegedly providing principles which would lead to its eventual abolishment! This is lie which Muslims love to use. There is nothing in the Quran which says that sleeping with (note: raping) captive women or slaves has been abrogated.

Moreover, imagine if someone tried to use this excuse in relation to child molestation and homosexuality, that Islam didn't create these evil immoral acts but permitted it as it did other social ills, while providing principles for their eventual abolishment! In the meantime, young children get molested and raped, while individuals engage in same sex relations!

 

 

My Response:

        Now, this is the Fatwa that Shamoun cited as "irrelevant" :

 

Dear questioner, thank you very much for having confidence in us and we hope our efforts, which are purely for Allah's Sake, meet your expectations.

When Islam was reveled to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), slavery was a worldwide common social phenomenon; it was much older than Islam. Slavery was deeply rooted in every society to the extent that it was impossible to imagine a civilized society without slaves.

In spite of this social fact, Islam was the first religion to recognize slavery as a social illness that needed to be addressed. Since slavery was deeply rooted in the society, Islam did not abolish it at once. Rather, Islam treated slavery in the same manner it treated other social illnesses. Islam followed the same methodology of gradual elimination in dealing with this social disease as it did with other social illnesses, for example: the prohibition of alcohol in three steps.


Concerning having slave women, we would like to let you know that it happens to be a practice necessitated by the condition in which early Muslims found themselves vis--vis non-Muslims, as both parties engaged in wars. Slave women or milk al-yameen are referred to in the Qur'an as "Those whom your right hand possess" or "ma malakat aymanukum"; they are those taken as captives during conquests and subsequently became slaves, or those who were descendants of slaves.

Thus, it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, rather, it was something in practice long ago before the advent of Islam. And when Islam came, it tried to eradicate this practice, bit by bit. So it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims took war captives just as the enemies did with Muslims.

But as it aimed at putting an end to such issue, Islam laid down rules which would eventually lead to eradicating the practice. So it allowed Muslims to have intercourse with slave women taken as captives of just and legitimate wars. In so doing, the woman would automatically become free if she got pregnant (NOTE: The Sheik in this fatwa, makes clear later on, how she is to get free). What's more, her child would also become free.

Not only that, Islam also ordered a Muslim to treat the slave woman in every respect as if she were his wife. She should be well fed, clothed and given due protection. In the family environment, she had the opportunity to learn about Islam and was free to accept it or reject it. She also had the opportunity to earn her freedom for she could be ransomed.

In the light of the above-mentioned facts, and the nature of the question posed by people, it's clear that some people misunderstand the wisdom behind the permissibility of having female slaves and think that it is meant to unleash men's desires and give them more enjoyment. Never! That is not the point! It is, rather, means of freeing slaves; and this is clarified above in the fact that if a master got a female slave pregnant, then he could neither sell her nor give her away as a present. And if he died, she would not be considered part of his property. She'd receive her freedom and her baby would also be free.

But, we have to stress that this case should not be confused with that of female servants or maids, for they are free and not slaves. Therefore, it is forbidden to engage in sexual relations with them except through an Islamic marriage.

Slavery has been abolished by international conventions, and goes in line with aims and objectives of Islam, as it has called for centuries ago.

As for marrying slaves, it is something permissible under two conditions: first, if one is unable to pay the dowry of a free woman. Second, if there is fear of committing adultery if one doesn't get married. This is clarified by the following verse: "And whose is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. This is for him among you who feareth to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you." (An-Nisaa': 25)

This verse shows that Muslim men should abstain from illicit relations and seek enjoyment through marriage to free women or through their female slaves.

In conclusion, Allah has forbidden certain types of behavior and permitted other kinds of behavior as a safeguard to the individual and to the society. Allah has forbidden fornication and adultery. However, in the case of captives whom your right hands posses, it's something necessitated by the special circumstances which were created when the Muslims were at war."

(Source: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544596)

 

It is no doubt, that the issue of slavery in Islam has been thrown alot of mud on by missionaries. However, they all seem to forget, that in the Holy Qur'an, a slave can request for freedom, and get it, and with the freedom, they receive an amount of money to start their life!:

 Noble Verse 24:33 "Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),"

And in Islam, a slave CAN NOT be forced to have relations with the master:

"Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My master forces me to commit fornication. Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity). (24:33)" (Translation of Sunan Abu Dawud, Divorce (Kitab Al-Talaq), Book 12, Number 2304)"

Also, In Islam, a slave CAN NOT be beaten:

Abu Mas'ud al-Ansari reported: "When I was beating my servant, I heard a voice behind me (saying): Abu Mas'ud, bear in mind Allah has more dominance over you than you have upon him. I turned and (found him) to be Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). I said: Allah's Messenger, I set him free for the sake of Allah. Thereupon he said: Had you not done that, (the gates of) Hell would have opened for you, or the fire would have burnt you. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Oaths (Kitab Al-Aiman), Book 015, Number 4088)"

Compare the Hadith with this biblical verse:

Exodus 21:20-21 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

Prophet Muhammad (S) even said that the slaves are your brothers:

Narrated Al-Ma'rur: At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, "I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names." The Prophet said to me, 'O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29)"

Also:

"The masters were obliged not to put slaves under hardship; slaves were not to be tortured, abused or treated unjustly. They could marry among themselves - with their master's permission - or with free men or women! They could appear as witnesses and participate with free men in all affairs. Many of them were appointed as governors, commanders of army and administrators. In the eyes of Islam, a pious slave has precedence over an impious free man." Al-Tabataba'i, Tafsir (16:338-358).

And lastly, slaves are kept only during the times of War, after the war is finished, the slave is either set free, or ransomed:

" Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), 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." ( The Holy Qur'an, Sura 4 Ayat no. 74)

Sheikh Abdullah Yusuf Ali, comments on this verse saying:

" When once the enemy is brought under control, generosity ( i.e., the release of prisoners without ransom) or ransom is reccomended)"

(Source: The Qur'an: Text, Translation, and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, p. 1379, Footnote#4822, Fourth U.S Edition, 2002)

And, Ibn Kathir states:

"(tighten their bonds.) `This is referring to the prisoners of war whom you have captured. Later on, after the war ends and the conflict has ceased, you have a choice in regard to the captives: You may either act graciously toward them by setting them free without charge, or free them for a ransom that you require from them.' It appears that this Ayah was revealed after the battle of Badr. At that time, Allah reproached the believers for sparing many of the enemy's soldiers, and holding too many captives in order to take ransom from them"

(Source: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=47&tid=48912, bold and underlined emphasis ours)

 

Reccommended links:

http://answering-christianity.com/umar/slave_girls.htm 

http://answering-christianity.com/karim/no_rape_of_female_slaves.htm 

http://answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/can_muslim_men_rape_their_slave_girls.htm 

http://www.answering-christianity.com/equality.htm 

 

Shamoun comments and says that there is not a single ayat in the Holy Qur'an, that says that sexual relations with a slave is abrogated, but looking at how Islam gave solutions to getting rid of this social illness named slavery, it is evident that Islam respects slaves, and when compared to the Bible, it is way better.

 

 

 

He Wrote:


Umar's source also stated:

But as it aimed at putting an end to such issue, Islam laid down rules which would eventually lead to eradicating the practice. So it allowed Muslims to have intercourse with slave women taken as captives of just and legitimate wars. In so doing, the woman would automatically become free if she got pregnant (NOTE: The Sheik in this fatwa, makes clear later on, how she is to get free). What's more, her child would also become free...

In the light of the above-mentioned facts, and the nature of the question posed by people, it's clear that some people misunderstand the wisdom behind the permissibility of having female slaves and think that it is meant to unleash men's desires and give them more enjoyment. Never! That is not the point! It is, rather, means of freeing slaves; and this is clarified above in the fact that if a master got a female slave pregnant, then he could neither sell her nor give her away as a present. And if he died, she would not be consiered part of his property. She'd receive her freedom and her baby would also be free.

Umar's source is contradicting itself since it claims that a woman is automatically freed when she gets pregnant, but then goes on to say that she is free when her master dies! Umar agrees with the latter position since he says in response to my highlighting the fact that a slave is not set free upon pregnancy, but upon her master's death:

My Response:

Okay, we obviously agree on that.

We are glad that Umar is honest enough to admit that he was wrong for initially citing a source which claimed that a woman becomes free when she is pregnant. Anything to help a Muslim to know his religion better!

 

 

 

My Response


Sam Shamoun needs to read the *NOTE* I gave in the Fatwa, and that is that the Sheikh will further elaborate (make clear) more clearly on how the slave is to receive her freedom. And, I would like to remind Sam Shamoun, that human beings make mistakes, it is common for them to make mistakes, I am NOT God! So, if I corrected myself, how does that make me wrong? Also, Shamoun says that he helped me " know my religion better", well if you knew my religion better then me Mr. Shamoun, how come you didn't know that the majority of the scholars agree that Mariyah Qibtiyya was a wife of the Blessed Prophet Muhammad (S)?

 

 

 

He Wrote:

Umar responds to my claim that the prohibition to marry Muhammad's wives includes his slave girls:

My Response:

Is it me, or is Sam Shamoun blind, and can't read the Ayat properly? It clearly says his "wives"... Sam Shamoun is making his own Tafsir of the Holy Quran.

 

RESPONSE:

It is really Umar who can't read what I had written:

Although the text says wives, this would also include his female slaves since no Muslim would dare sleep with women whom their prophet had been sexually intimate with.

So let me challenge Umar to address what I wrote:

Please tell your readers that you are essentially advocating the position that it was permissible for Muslim men to marry or have sex with the slaves of Muhammad after his death.

 

 

 

My Response:

   The Ayat, which I am referring to, is this Ayat:

O ye who believe! Enter not the Prophet's houses,- until leave is given you,- for a meal, (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation: but when ye are invited, enter; and when ye have taken your meal, disperse, without seeking familiar talk. Such (behaviour) annoys the Prophet: he is ashamed to dismiss you, but God is not ashamed (to tell you) the truth. And when ye ask (his ladies) for anything ye want, ask them from before a screen: that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs. Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy God's Apostle, or that ye should marry his widows after him at any time. Truly such a thing is in God's sight an enormity. ( The Holy Qur'an, Sura 33, Ayat no. 53)

The Ayat itself, is self explanatory, it clearly forbids the believers to marry any of the "Mother of Believers", after the death of the Holy Prophet (S), it has nothing to do with slaves! But, Sam Shamoun concludes, that even though this ayat speaks only about the Mother of Believers, it will also include his slaves, since the believers wouldn't dare sleep (or marry?) a woman the Prophet (S) had relations with. But how can I advocate a position, that it was permissible for Muslim men to marry or have sex with slaves of Muhammad (S) after his death, when he left no slaves!

" 'Amr bin Hawairith has reported in Sahih Bukhari:

The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not leave anything at his death, neither dirhams nor dinars nor a servant or a maidservant nor anything except his white mule, arms and land which he gave in charity"

(Source: Sirat Un Nabi by Syed Sulaiman Nadvi rendered into English by Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui, Vol.III, p.120, Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi)

So Shamoun, please tell your readers that:

Since Prophet Muhammad (S) left no slaves after his death, how can I advocate a position that it was permissible for Muslim men to marry the slaves of the Prophet, when there WERE NO SLAVES LEFT BY THE PROPHET (S)!

 

 

 

He Wrote:

He tries to refute the idea of Mariyah being Muhammad's sex slave on the grounds that she resided in the outskirts of Medina, away from the other wives:

My Response:

For the first 2 paragraphs, I already showed that the Fatwa, was wrong, and I corrected myself. But now, its time to prove once again, that Mariyah the Copt, was indeed Prophet (S) wife, and wasn't his concubine, for the response to the last paragraph. Firstly, there are 2 cases of concubines:

1) Slave-girl who is living as a maid only, in which she will serve him, but will not have any relationship with him, (which is obviously not the case with Mariyah, since she bore him Ibraheem)

2) And the final case is if he decides to keep her as a partner, (Note: She will still be his slave)

No.1, is obviously not the case, so we are left with no.2. But, a question arises, how can Mariyah the Copt, who is said to be a "slave girl", render any service to the Prophet (S), or any of his wives, when she herself resided in the outskirts of the city. M. Tayyib Baksh Budayuni, the translator of Sirat-Un-Nabi, says something similar, here is what he says:

" The Author discusses the report about Mariyah Qibtiyah mainly on the basis of weak reports. As to circumstantial evidence, he only points out that it is unthinkable in the case of a character so superbly moral and modest as of the Prophet. But it may also be pointed out that the holy wives are said to begin their protest against Mariyah some two years after her coming over to the Prophet, which makes the whole story extremely doubtful. Again that Mariyah has been living as a slave-girl, is higly improbably as was residing away from the Mosque on the outskirts of the city and could not 'therefore, render any domestic service to the Prophet or any of the other wives. The situation of her residence also rules out the probability of Hafsa breaking into her privacy. Moreover, the 'Allamah has already proved that Mariyah Qibtiyah was not a slave-girl, but a duly wedded wife of the Prophet and that she came of a respectable family of the Egyptians. To call her a slave-girl is in itself a ditortion of facts- Translator"

(Source: Sirat Un Nabi, Vol.II, p.233-234, Footnote#2)

 

RESPONSE:

Umar has actually proven that Mariyah could not have been a wife, but a slave. After all, how could Muhammad situate one of his wives far away from the place where all of his other wives lived? Moreover, if Mariyah could not render any domestic service to Muhammad then how could she function as his wife? If she couldn't cook or clean for Muhammad (i.e., "domestic service") then in what way did she fulfill her duties as a wife? If anything, this supports the position that she was nothing more than his sex slave, his concubine which he would visit anytime he wanted to have sex with her.

More importantly, weren't all the other Muslim writers and scholars aware that Muhammad had situated Mariyah in the outskirts of the city? Of course. And yet they still didn't see this as a problem for their position that Mariyah was nothing more than Muhammad's slave? Obviously not.

In light of the foregoing, we conclude that what Umar has basically shown by his comments is just how cruel Muhammad truly was for making Mariyah reside by herself far away from himself and his wives.

 

 

 

My Response:

Shamoun concludes, that because Mariyah resided away from Medina, in her own house, that infact, she wasn't a wife (because she didn't live where all the other wives lived), but a "sex slave", due to the location of her residence. Shamoun then comments and says that how can Mariyah function as a wife, when she couldn't cook or clean for him, and fulfill the duties of a wife. Well again, then how can she be his slave, when the situation of her residence, outrules a possibility of her rendering any service to the Holy Prophet (S)?

Also, by Brother Karim:

" Actually Shamoun doesn't understand that the Prophet was fair in dealing with his wifes, since the Quran commands Muslim men who are married to more then one wife, to deal fair/equal and just with them. The Prophet's wifes had each an own house/ livingroom, and the Prophet gave each wife a day of the week, for example the Prophet spend time with aicha together on friday, and on saterday he spend time with Safiyya. So the prophet could very well for example on sunday spend his time with his wife Mariyah. So the fact that a wife doesn't live in the same street of the prophet doesn't mean she can never be his wife. Actually a slave has to work for the household, which means for the man and woman of the house (many hadith bear witness to this) , so if Mariyah was slave, it means she also had to work for the prophet's wifes, if they aksed her to do something in the house or on the land. So Mariyah could never be the Prophet's slave, since she couldn't do any work for the prophet and his wifes. However the prophet as her husband could easily spend one day of the week with mariya, as her husband"

 

 

 

He Wrote:

Regarding whether Sura 33:52 was abrogated or not, Umar says:

My Response:

This Part of the rebuttal will be divided into 2 sections:

1) Sura 33:52 was "abrogated"

2) Sura 33:52 wasn't abrogated

After citing the view which says that the reference has been abrogated Umar provides a lengthy reference on the reason for Muhammad marriages, which is irrelevant to the issues that I raised, and then asks:

So we must ask Sam Shamoun, how is marrying to show there is no difference between two races " severely embarrasses " Muhammad (S)??

 

RESPONSE:

It is easy to see why Umar needed to bring up this red herring since all he is able to do is attack straw man. I didn't say that Muhammad's multiple marriages were an embarrassment, but the claim that Sura 33:52 had been abrogated by Sura 33:50 is what I said was embarrassing. After all, the sources I cited claimed that Sura 33:52 came after 33:50 chronologically, and yet 33:50 abrogated that which came afterwards! How can an earlier verse cancel out a passage which came later, when it is suppose to be the other way around? That was the severe embarrassment I was referring to.

 

 

My Response:

I brought up 2 cases in my previous article, where I showed if Sura 33:52 was abrogated or not. Shamoun comments on what I put under "Sura 33:52 was "abrogated". First, here is what Sam Shamoun previously wrote:

"Next, the author now thinks he has me but in reality he has only helped to further expose just how chaotic and contradictory the Quran and the sources of Islam truly are:

My Response:

Now, watch this missionary tactic, first Sam quotes Ibn Kathirs[sic] commentary, for Sura 33 Ayat no 50. But lets ask Sam why he didn't[sic] quote the commentary for Ayat no 52? Heres[sic] why :

"More than one of the scholars, such as Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Ad-Dahhak, Qatadah, Ibn Zayd, Ibn Jarir and others stated that this Ayah was revealed as a reward to the wives of the Prophet expressing Allah's pleasure with them for their excellent decision in choosing Allah and His Messenger and the Home of the Hereafter, when the Messenger of Allah, gave them the choice, as we have stated above. When they chose the Messenger of Allah their reward was that Allah restricted him to these wives, and forbade him to marry anyone else or to change them for other wives, even if he was attracted by their beauty -- apart from slave-girls and prisoners of war, with regard to whom there was no sin on him. Then Allah lifted the restriction stated in this Ayah and permitted him to marry more women, but he did not marry anyone else, so that the favor of the Messenger of Allah towards them would be clear. Imam Ahmad recorded that `A'ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, said: "The Messenger of Allah did not die until Allah permitted (marriage to other) women for him.'' It was also recorded by At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasa'i in their Sunans. On the other hand, others said that what was meant by the Ayah "

(Source: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=33&tid=41988)

Ibn Kathir also says:

"(nor to change them for other wives even though their beauty attracts you, ) He was forbidden to marry more women, even if he were to divorce any of them and wanted replace her with another, except for those whom his right hand possessed (slave women)."

So this will silence Sam on his interpretation.

 

RESPONSE:

Speaking presumptuously, Umar doesn't realize that this severely embarrasses Muhammad. Not only have I actually quoted in my articles what Ibn Kathir said regarding Sura 33:52 being abrogated, I even used this to expose Muhammad's inconsistency and the corrupt nature of the Quran. I had written in response to one Muslim writer:

What is even more astonishing is that S. 33:50 was revealed before 33:52 and yet the earlier verse canceled a verse that came later! The late Iranian Muslim scholar Ali Dashti writes:

"In Zamakhshari's opinion, ?A'esha's words show that verse 52 was abrogated by custom and by verse 49 (?O Prophet, We have made lawful for you .'). But an abrogating verse ought to come after the abrogated one. Nevertheless Soyuti, in his treatise on Qor'anic problems entitled ol-Etqan, maintains that in this case the earlier verse abrogated the later one." (Ali Dashti, 23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, Mazda Pub; ISBN: 1568590296, p. 128; bold emphasis ours)

Talk about confusion! (Source)

Since Umar wanted some fun we will now give him plenty of it! The following Christian source notes that there are two places where the abrogated verses come before the verses that they abrogate!

The Abrogative Before the Abrogated

Strangely enough, we find two incidents in the Quran where the abrogative comes before the abrogated. Sura al-Baqara 2:234, "Such of you as die and leave behind them wives, they [the wives] shall wait, keeping themselves apart, four months and ten days," .

Abrogated Sura al-Baqara 2:240, which says: "Those of you who die and leave widows should bequeath for their widows a year's maintenance and residence if they leave." .

The second case is Sura al-Ahzab 33:50: "O Prophet, We have made lawful to you your wives.and those whom your right hand possesses.and daughters of your paternal uncles.and any believing woman if she give herself to the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage." .

According to Muslim theologians, this verse abrogated Sura al-Ahzab 33:52, which says: "Thereafter women are not lawful [for] you, neither for you to take other wives in exchange for them, though their beauty please you." .

Strangely enough, Muslim theologians placed the nasikh before the mansukh. Ibn al-Arabi said: "A peculiar thing about the mansukh is what the Quran says in Sura al-A?raf 7:199: ?Take the abundance, and bid to what is honourable, and turn away from the ignorant.' The first and the third parts of this verse are abrogated, while its middle is not. Another strange verse is Suras 5:105: ?Guard your own souls [an abrogated part]; if you follow guidance, no hurt can come to you [the abrogative part]'" (Al-Itqan by al-Suyuti; chapter on the abrogative and the abrogated verses). (True Guidance: An Introduction to Quranic Studies [Light of Life P.O. Box 13, A-9503, Villach, Austria, 1981], part 4, pp. 89-90)

It is little wonder that the following writer could incredulously ask:

1) The abrogator precedes the abrogated

In part 3, p. 69 the Suyuti remarks,

"In the Qur'an there is no abrogator (verse) without being preceded by an abrogated (verse) except in two verses, and some added a third one, while others added a fourth verse" (Al Itqan).

Then the Suyuti recorded these verses. We tell him that even if there is only one verse (not four) this matter is incomprehensible and unacceptable. Why should an abrogating verse (with which Muslims are to comply) precede the abrogated verse? How would an abrogating verse abolish something which is not yet in existence, then later, the abrogated verse is revealed and recorded in the Qur'an? Why should it be recorded if it is already abrogated? (Behind The Veil, Chapter Ten, "The Abrogator and Abrogated Qur'anic Verses"; online edition)"

(Taken from: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/umar_mary.htm  )

First, if we are to say that Sura 33:52 wasn't revealed in A.H. 7, that means that Mariyah couldn't have been the wife of the Holy Prophet (S) (thats unless she wasn't sent to be his handmaiden), since she came after this Ayat was revealed. However, Ibn Kathir comments on this Ayat, and says:

 

"More than one of the scholars, such as Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Ad-Dahhak, Qatadah, Ibn Zayd, Ibn Jarir and others stated that this Ayah was revealed as a reward to the wives of the Prophet expressing Allah's pleasure with them for their excellent decision in choosing Allah and His Messenger and the Home of the Hereafter, when the Messenger of Allah, gave them the choice, as we have stated above. When they chose the Messenger of Allah their reward was that Allah restricted him to these wives, and forbade him to marry anyone else or to change them for other wives, even if he was attracted by their beauty -- apart from slave-girls and prisoners of war, with regard to whom there was no sin on him. Then Allah lifted the restriction stated in this Ayah and permitted him to marry more women, but he did not marry anyone else, so that the favor of the Messenger of Allah towards them would be clear. Imam Ahmad recorded that `A'ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, said: "The Messenger of Allah did not die until Allah permitted (marriage to other) women for him.'' It was also recorded by At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasa'i in their Sunans. On the other hand, others said that what was meant by the Ayah "

(Source: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=33&tid=41988)

So, if we are to go with the idea that Sura 33:52 was abrogated, that means the Holy Prophet (S) was allowed to mary Mariyah the Copt. And through this marriage, it is shown that there is no difference between 2 races:

"5. By contracting most of these marriages, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) meant to eliminate the caste or class system, racial and national pride and superiority, and religious prejudices. He married some of the humblest and poorest women. There was his marriage to Mariyah from Egypt, a Jewish woman of a different religion and race, and a Negro girl from Abyssinia. He was not satisfied with merely teaching brotherhood and equality: actions speak louder than words. "

(Source: Islam in Focus by Hammudah Abdallati, p. 177-179)

Now, after showing this, THAT is when I asked Sam Shamoun:

"So we must ask Sam Shamoun, how is marrying to show there is no difference between two races " severely embarrasses " Muhammad (S)?? "

Now, Sam Shamoun claims he used Ibn Kathir's Tafsir for Sura 33:52, trying to show that since there is abrogation, the Qur'an isn't right, thus, it "severly embarasses" the Holy Prophet (S). He then quotes from scholars like Ali Dashti, trying to prove that "the earlier verse abrogated the later one". But now, the tables have turned, and we've proven that if Sura 33:52 was abrogated, then it was for a good reason, because this marriage with Mariyah the Copt, showed brotherhood and equality, and that there is no difference between two different races!

Again, we would like to ask Sam Shamoun:

Is Marrying a person from a different race, to show there is no difference between the 2 races, "severely" embarassing?



 

He Wrote:

But since Umar raised the issue of Muhammad's marriages, let us briefly show why not everything is as Umar would like to make it seem. For example, it is stated that the fact that Muhammad remained married to one wife, Khadijah, till the death of the latter somehow proves that his multiple marriages were not motivated by sexual gratification. In the first place, it is easy to see why Muhammad never married anyone else while with Khadijah. Khadijah was a wealthy businesswoman who provided Muhammad the financial stability needed to pursue his dreams and ambitions. Can you imagine how Khadijah would have felt if Muhammad decided to marry a younger, more attractive woman? And do you think Muhammad would want to jeopardize his relationship with Khadijah seeing that she was the financial backbone of the family?

 

 

 

My Response:

Folks, the answer given by Sam Shamoun has to be one of the worst, and one of the most biased answers I have ever seen today! He assumes, that the marriage with Khadijah was just for money, but let us allow Syed Sulaiman Nadvi, to correct him:

" After the death of  'Atiq, Hadhrat Khadijah was married with the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). She bore the Holy Prophet's (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) six children; two sons died in infancy and four daughters. Hadhrat Fatimah, Hadhrat Zainab, Hadhrat Ruqayya, Hadrat Umm-i-Kalthum (May Allah be pleased with them), The detailed events of their lives will be described in the next pages. Hadhrat Khadija (May Allah be pleased with her) had a sister named Hala. She survived after her death. The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) loved Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) intensely. She was forty years of age at the time of her marriage with the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) who was twenty-five at that time but he did not marry any other woman till her death.

  'Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) reported: Never did I feel jealous of the wives of Allah's messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) but in the case of Khadija although I did not see her. Whenever Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) slaughtered a sheep, he said: Send it to the companions of Khadija. I annoyed him one day and said: (It is) Khadija only who always prevails upon your mind. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: Her love had been nurtured in my heart by Allah himself,

  'Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) reported that Hala b. Khuwalid (sister of Khadijah) sought permission from Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to see him and he was reminded of Khadija's (manner of) asking leave to enter and (was overwhelmed) with emotion thereby and said : O Allah, it is Hala, daughter of Khuwailid, and I felt jealous and said: Why do you remember one of those old women of the Quraish who is lond dead, while Allah has given you a better one in her stead. In Istiab it has been mentioned that Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said in reply: When the people disbelieved me, she affirmed her belief in the sincerity of Islam and when there was none to support me, she offered me help and support."

(Source: Sirat Un Nabi by Syed Sulaiman Nadwi rendered into English by Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui, Vol.III, p. 275-276, Kitab Bhavan New Delhi)

So as we can see, the Prophet (S) loved his first wife Khadijah with all his heart, he loved her so much, that even Aisha (R) became jealous!

 

 

 

He Wrote:

Moreover, many do not realize that there is a passage in the Quran which gave Muhammad sanction to mistreat and neglect any wife he no longer deemed attractive:

And if a woman fears ill usage or desertion on the part of her husband, there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and reconciliation is better, and avarice has been made to be present in the (people's) minds; and if you do good (to others) and guard (against evil), then surely Allah is aware of what you do. You will not be able to be equitable between your wives, be you ever so eager; yet do not be altogether partial so that you leave her as it were suspended. If you set things right, and are godfearing, God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. But if they separate, God will enrich each of them of His plenty; God is All-embracing, All-wise. S. 4:128-130

In the above text, instead of warning the men against mistreating their spouses, women who fear mistreatment or desertion are told that they can seek a means of reconciliation.

 

 

My Response:

Sam Shamoun now shows how ignorant he is of Sura 4:34, where Allah Almighty tells men, that they are the "protectors and maintainers of women":

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what God would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For God is Most High, great (above you all). ( The Holy Qur'an, Sura 4 Ayat no. 34)

So the Qur'an is clear, that men aren't to mistreat, but to protect their wives. And regarding Sura 4:128-130, Sheikh Abdullah Yusuf Ali comments:

" To protect the woman's economic interests, various rules are prescribed for dower in marriage. But the sanctity of marriage itself is greatner than any economic interests. Divorce is, of all things permitted, most hateful to God. Therefore if a breach between husband and wife can be prevented by some economic consideration, it is better to make that concession than to imperil the future of the wife, the children, and probably the husband also. Such concessions are permissible, in view of the love of wealth ingrained in unregerate man, but a recommendation is made that we should practise self-restraint, and do what we can to come to an amicable settlement without any economic sacrifice on the part of the woman.

 In this material world there are two principal causes of division between man and wife, money and "the other woman" or "the other man". Money was dealt with in the last verse. Here is the case of "the other woman". Legally more than one wife (up to four) are permissible on the condition that the man can be perfectly fair and just to all. But this is a condition almost impossible to fulfill. If, in the hope that he might be able to fulfill it, a man puts himself in that impossible position, it is only right to insist that he should not discard one but at least fulfill all the outward duties that are incumbent on him in respect of her."

(Source: The Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Footnote# 638-639, Fourth U.S. Edition, 2002)

And, Muhammad Asad comments and says:

" This refers to cases where a man has more than one wife - a permission which is conditional upon his determination and ability to "treat them with equal fairness", as laid down in verse 3 of this surah. Since a man who is fully conscious of his moral responsibility might feel that he is committing a sin if he loves one of his wives more than the other (or others), the above verse provides a "judicial enlightenment" on this point by making it clear that feelings are beyond a human being's control: in other words, that the required equality of treatment relates only to outward behaviour towards and practical dealings with one's wives. However, in view of the fact that a man's behaviour towards another person is, in the long run, almost inevitably influenced by what he feels about that person, the above passage - read in conjunction with verse 3, and especially its concluding sentence - imposes a moral restriction on plural marriages.(Quran Ref: 4:129 ) "

(Source: http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/ )

 

 

 

He Wrote:

According to Muslim sources this text actually refers to Muhammad's mistreatment of his wife Sauda bint Zamah because she had gotten old:

Making peace is better than separation. An example of such peace can be felt in the story of Sawdah bint Zam'ah who WHEN SHE BECAME AGED, THE PROPHET WANTED TO DIVORCE HER, but she made peace with him by offering the night he used to spend with her to A'isha so that he would keep her. The Prophet accepted such terms and kept her.

Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded that Ibn ?Abbas said, "Sawdah feared that the Messenger of Allah might divorce her and she said, ?O Messenger of Allah! Do not divorce me; give my day to 'A'ishah.' And he did ...

In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that 'A'ishah said that when Sawdah bint Zam'ah BECAME OLD, she forfeited her day to 'A'ishah and the Prophet used to spend Sawdah's night with 'A'ishah ...

<And making peace is better>. IT REFERS TO THE WIFE RELINQUISHING SOME OF HER MARITAL RIGHTS and his acceptance of the offer. Such compromise is better than total divorce, as the Prophet did when retained Sawdah bint Zam'ah. By doing so, the Prophet set an example for his Ummah to follow as it is a lawful act ... (the preceding citation taken and adapted from Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Abridged, Volume 2, Parts 3, 4 & 5, Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, Verse 147 [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; first edition March 2000], pp. 599-601, and Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Part 5, Sura An-Nisa, ayat 24-147, abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafa'i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London, 2000 first edition], pp. 193-194; bold and capital emphasis ours)

The two Sahih collections confirm that Sauda gave up her conjugal rights in order to please Muhammad:

Narrated Aisha:
Whenever Allah's Apostle wanted to go on a journey, he would draw lots as to which of his wives would accompany him. He would take her whose name came out. He used to fix for each of them a day and a night. But Sauda bint Zam'a gave up her (turn) day and night to ?Aisha, the wife of the Prophet in order to seek the pleasure of Allah's Apostle (by that action). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 47,
Number 766)

?A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Never did I find any woman more loving to me than Sauda bint Zam'a. I wished I could be exactly like her who was passionate. As she became old, she had made over her day (which she had to spend) with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to ?A'isha. She said: I have made over my day with you to ?A'isha. So Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) allotted two days to ?A'isha, her own day (when it was her turn) and that of Sauda. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3451)

The Salafi scholars that write for www.islamqa.com cite references agreeing that Sura 4:128 referred to Muhammad's mistreatment of Sauda:

Al-Tirmidhi reported via Sammaak from ?Ikrimah from Ibn ?Abbaas that he said: "Sawdah was afraid that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would divorce her, so she said: ?O Messenger of Allaah, do not divorce me; give my day to ?Aa'ishah.' So he did so. Then this aayah was revealed." Al-Tirmidhi said: "(This is) hasan ghareeb." I say: there is corroborating evidence in a hadeeth from ?Aa'ishah narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim, without referring to the revelation of the aayah. (From Fath al-Baari).

The hadeeth mentioned by al-Haafiz ibn Hijr (may Allaah have mercy on him) is in Sunan al-Tirmidhi, 2966, where it is reported that Ibn ?Abbaas said: "Sawdah was afraid that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would divorce her, so she said: ?Do not divorce me. Keep me and give my day to ?Aa'ishah.' So he did so, then Allaah revealed the aayah: ?. there is no sin on them both if they make terms of peace between themselves; and making peace is better.' [al-Nisaa' 4:128]. So whatever they agreed upon was permissible." It is as if the last sentence was the comment of Ibn ?Abbaas. Abu ?Iesa said: this is a hasan ghareeb hadeeth.

Al-Mubaarakpoori said, commenting on this hadeeth:

?Sawdah was afraid.' This refers to Sawdah bint Zam'ah ibn Qays al-Qurashiyyah al-?Aamiriyyah. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) married her in Makkah after Khadeejah had died, and consummated the marriage there. The scholars agree that he consummated his marriage to her before he consummated his marriage to ?Aa'ishah, and she migrated to Madeenah with him. She died at the end of the khilaafah of ?Umar ibn al-Khattaab.

?.was afraid that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would divorce her, so she said.' Al-Bukhaari and Muslim reported from ?Aa'ishah that Sawdah bint Zam'ah gave her day to ?Aa'ishah, so the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to give ?Aa'ishah her own day and that of Sawdah. Al-Haafiz said in al-Fath: Abu Dawood reported this hadeeth (from ?Aa'ishah): ?The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) never used to prefer any of us over others in sharing his time (i.e., he was fair in dividing his nights among his wives, and each one of them had her allotted night). When Sawdah bint Zam'ah grew old and feared that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) might divorce her, she said: ?O Messenger of Allaah, my day is for ?Aa'ishah,' and he accepted this from her. Then concerning this and similar cases, the aayah was revealed (interpretation of the meaning): ?And if a woman fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part.' [al-Nisaa' 4:128]. These reports agree that she feared divorce and so gave her day to ?Aa'ishah.

Then al-?Allaamah al-Mubaraakpoori said: The aayah may be explained thus: ?If a woman fears' means if she expects. ?Cruelty' means that he spurns her by refusing to sleep with her or by spending less on her than he should, because he dislikes her and wants to marry someone more beautiful. ?Desertion' means that he turns his face away from her. ?There is no sin on them both if they make terms of peace between themselves' means with regard to the sharing of his time and his spending on her, i.e., he should still give her something in this regard (sharing time or spending) in order to preserve the relationship: if she accepts, this is OK, otherwise the husband must either give her her full rights or divorce her. ?Making peace is better' means better than separation, cruelty and desertion. Whatever they agree upon between themselves is permissible. (Tuhfat al-Ahwadi Sharh Jaami' al-Tirmidhi). (Question #2218: A man doesn't want to live with his wife but doesn't want to divorce her for the sake of the children; online source; bold and underline emphasis ours)

The hadiths also mention that Sauda was an overweight woman:

Narrated Aisha:
Sauda (the wife of the Prophet) went out to answer the call of nature after it was made obligatory (for all the Muslims ladies) to observe the veil. She was a fat huge lady, and everybody who knew her before could recognize her. So ?Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her and said, "O Sauda! By Allah, you cannot hide yourself from us, so think of a way by which you should not be recognized on going out. Sauda returned while Allah's Apostle was in my house taking his supper and a bone covered with meat was in his hand. She entered and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I went out to answer the call of nature and 'Umar said to me so-and-so." Then Allah inspired him (the Prophet) and when the state of inspiration was over and the bone was still in his hand as he had not put in down, he said (to Sauda), "You (women) have been allowed to go out for your needs." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60,
Number 318)

The foregoing proves that Muhammad essentially abandoned Sauda because he no longer desired her sexually due to her being old and "fat"! In fact, Muhammad's treatment of Sauda provides support for what we stated earlier regarding the reason for his remaining monogamous during his marriage with Khadijah. After all, had Khadijah not been wealthy Muhammad may have treated her the same way he treated Sauda.

Furthermore, this means that Sura 4:128-130 gives Muslim men the sanction to simply ignore any wife whom they no longer feel attracted to, thereby denying them the pleasure of love and intimacy!

 

 

 

My Response:

Here is the response by Brother Bassam Zawadi:

Was Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) Unfair In His Treatment To His Wife Sauda?

By
Bassam Zawadi

Some people are trying to accuse Prophet Muhammad of not being fair to Sauda because he did not spend nights with her and instead did so with Aisha.

Here are the following hadith...

Sahih Bukhari

Volume 3, Book 47, Number 766:

Narrated Aisha:

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

Volume 3, Book 48, Number 853:

Narrated Aisha:

Whenever Allah's Apostle intended to go on a journey, he used to draw lots among his wives and would take with him the one on whom the lot fell. He also used to fix for everyone of his wives a day and a night, but Sauda bint Zam'a gave her day and night to 'Aisha, the wife of the Prophet intending thereby to please Allah's Apostle.

Sahih Muslim

Book 008, Number 3451:

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

The reason why Sauda gave up her day to the Prophet was because of her old age she thought that the Prophet would not be interested in her anymore and that he would divorce her. Therefore, in order to remain the Prophet's wife and to please him she gave up her day and night to Aisha.

First thing to note is that there is no evidence that the Prophet (PBUH) ever intended to divorce Sauda.

The missionaries cite this as a proof...

Some reports say that Mohammad did actually divorce Sauda but she negotiated a settlement with him which he accepted.

Al-Qasim ibn Abi Beza said the prophet sent to Sauda a message divorcing her. So she waited for the prophet on his way to ?Aisha. When she saw him she said I implore you by Him who revealed His words to you and chose you above all his creation why did you divorce me. I have become old and have no need of men but I wish to be resurrected amongst your wives in the last day. So he changed his mind and she said I have given my day and night to [?Aisha] the prophet's beloved... (See Ibn Kathir on Q. 4:128)

However, Ibn Kathir says at the end of the narration...

Source: http://quran.al-islam.com/Tafseer/DispTafsser.asp?l=arb&taf=KATHEER&nType=1&nSora=4&nAya=128

And this is mursal ghareeb.

That means that the hadith is a mursal and ghareeb hadith.

What does that mean?

mursal or "unattached" hadeeth is one that contains a gap of one generation (according to both Azami and Hasan it is a hadeeth reported by a Successor who drops the Companion from whom he learned it in the isnad).

among them ghareeb ("scarce" or "strange"),

Source: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/historyandhadeeth/azzamcomparison.html

So you can't use a hadith that has a gap in it and is scarce to prove a point.

Plus the Prophet would not have divorced her just because she became old and was not attractive anymore. Sauda was not even attractive in the first place...

Sahih Bukhari

 

Volume 2, Book 26, Number 740:

Narrated 'Aisha :

Sauda asked the permission of the Prophet to leave earlier at the night of Jam', and she was a fat and very slow woman. The Prophet gave her permission.

Sahih Muslim

 

Book 007, Number 2958:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Sauda (the wife of the Holy Prophet) who was bulky sought the permission of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the night of Muzdalifa to move from (that place) ahead of him and before the multitude (set forth). He (Allah's Apostle) gave her the permission. So she set forth before his (Holy Prophet's) departure. But we stayed there until it was dawn and we moved on, when he departed. And if I were to seek the permission of Allah's Messenger. (may peace be upon him) as Sauda had sought permission, I could have also gone with his permission and it would have been better for me than that for which I was happy.

Ibn Kathir says...

There was great surprise in Mecca that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would choose to marry a widow who was neither young nor beautiful. (Ibn Kathir, Wives of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), Source)

It was a habit of the wives of the Prophet to give up their days in order to try and satisfy the Prophet. Here is an example...

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

This shows that the Prophet was strict in keeping his days to his wives. The only reason why he agreed to not give it to Sauda is because SHE IS THE ONE that offered to give up her day. Read the hadith carefully...

Sahih Bukhari

Volume 3, Book 47, Number 766:

Narrated Aisha:

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

Volume 3, Book 48, Number 853:

Narrated Aisha:

Whenever Allah's Apostle intended to go on a journey, he used to draw lots among his wives and would take with him the one on whom the lot fell. He also used to fix for everyone of his wives a day and a night, but Sauda bint Zam'a gave her day and night to 'Aisha, the wife of the Prophet intending thereby to please Allah's Apostle.

Sahih Muslim

Book 008, Number 3451:

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

These women of such high faith would do anything to keep their husbands happy. Especially if your husband happens to be the glorious Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

The Prophet thought highly of Sauda...

Sahih Bukhari

Volume 2, Book 24, Number 501:

Narrated 'Aisha:

Some of the wives of the Prophet asked him, "Who amongst us will be the first to follow you (i.e. die after you)?" He said, "Whoever has the longest hand." So they started measuring their hands with a stick and Sauda's hand turned out to be the longest. (When Zainab bint Jahsh died first of all in the caliphate of 'Umar), we came to know that the long hand was a symbol of practicing charity, so she was the first to follow the Prophet and she used to love to practice charity. (Sauda died later in the caliphate of Muawiya).

So there is no evidence at all that the Prophet was ever unfair to Sauda. On the contrary, his marriage to her was nothing but an act of mercy...

The Wisdom Behind This Marriage

Imagine what the situation would have come to if the Prophet (peace be upon him) had not married Saudah. Had she been safe from the torture and persecution of her relatives who were still disbelievers?

She belonged to a disbelieving family; her father was an aged disbeliever; and so was her brother. Her husband died and she became a widow having a little girl without a supporter or a provider.

No doubt, her marriage to the Prophet (peace be upon him) was mercy and protection for her from the torture of her family. Perhaps if she had stayed, they would have killed her or tried her in her belief.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) sympathized with this faithful widow immigrant. Her married her to save her from the oppression of her family. (Muhammad Fathi Mus'ad, The Wives of the Prophet Muhammad: Their Strives and Their Lives, p.32)

(Article located at: http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/treatment_to_sauda.htm )

Also, look at this missionary twist:

"Furthermore, this means that Sura 4:128-130 gives Muslim men the sanction to simply ignore any wife whom they no longer feel attracted to, thereby denying them the pleasure of love and intimacy!'

Now, here is what (again) Sura 4:128-130 says:

"If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire: But turn not away (from a woman) altogether, so as to leave her (as it were) hanging (in the air). If ye come to a friendly understanding, and practise self-restraint, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. But if they disagree (and must part), God will provide abundance for all from His all-reaching bounty: for God is He that careth for all and is Wise."

(The Holy Qur'an, Sura 4 Ayat no. 128-130)

Sam Shamoun please show us:

Where in the Noble Ayats, does it give sanction (Authoritative permission) to ignore your wife? Infact, what it does say is to NOT TURN AWAY FROM A WOMAN, SO AS TO LEAVE HER HANGING..

 

 

 

He Wrote:

Finally, even Aisha realized that Muhammad's marriages weren't as innocent as Umar wants us to believe. The Quran says that Muhammad could have any woman who voluntary gave herself to him and defer from spending time with any wife he chose:

O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her -- specially for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may attach to you; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. You may put off whom you please of them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you; this is most proper, so that their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be plased, all of them with what you give them, and Allah knows what is in your hearts; and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing. S. 33:50-51 Shakir

To which Aisha responded:

Narrated Aisha:
I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily)." (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60,
Number 311)

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: I felt jealous of the women who offered themselves to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Then when Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, revealed this: "You may defer any one of them you wish, and take to yourself any you wish; and if you desire any you have set aside (no sin is chargeable to you)" (xxxiii. 51), I ('A'isha.) said: It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3453)

Interestingly, Sura 33:52 itself shows that Muhammad married women for their beauty:

Thereafter women are not lawful to thee, neither for thee to take other wives in exchange for them, though their beauty please thee, except what thy right hand owns; God is watchful over everything. Arberry

For more on Muhammad's marriages please read the following articles:

http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol1/2c.html
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/privileges.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/mhd_marriages.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/zaid_zaynab.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/zaynab.htm
http://debate.domini.org/newton/sauda.html

 

 

 

My Response:

First of all, the reasons as to why the Holy Prophet (S) conducted these marriages, have been discussed alot in the previous rebuttal, where it was proven, that these marriages conducted by the Holy Prophet (S) were for good reasons, and not to satisfy sexual pleasure. After these purposes (of the marriage) were achieved, Allah Almighty placed the restriction, that it wasn't lawful anymore for the Holy Prophet (S) to marry anyone else. Abdul Hameed Siddiqui says:

" The Quranic verse: "It is not allowed to take wives after this, nor to change them for others, (xxxiii:52) inplies that the Holy Prophet, like all his other acts, contracted those marriages perfectly in accordance with the will of the Lord. There was a divine purpose behind them and when it was achieved, a restriction was placed upon him"

(Source: The Life of Muhammad PBUH, by Abdul Hameed Siddique, Islamic Publications LTD, p.240, bold and underlined emphasis ours)

Also, I would like to note that the Holy Prophet (S) NEVER married anyone, who presented herself to him:

" (You can postpone whom you will of them, and you may receive whom you will. And whomsoever you desire of those whom you have set aside, it is no sin on you) I said, `I see that your Lord hastens to confirm your desires.''' Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that Ibn `Abbas said: "The Messenger of Allah did not have any wife who offered herself to him. '' This was recorded by Ibn Jarir. In other words, he did not accept any of those who offered themselves to him, even though they were lawful for him -- a ruling which applied to him alone."

(Source: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=33&tid=41924 )

Sam Shamoun was kind enough to give us some links, so here is my set of links:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/rebuttaltosamshamoun29.htm

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544000

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503546160

 

 

 

He Wrote:

Umar concludes his section with the following interesting remarks:

According to Ibn Kathir, and common sense, Sura 33:52 prohibited the Prophet (S) from marrying free women, except those whom his right hand possessed. So he was allowed to mary Mariyah the Copt, as Yusuf Ali says in his commentary for Sura 33:52:

"This was revealed in A.H. 7. After that the Prophet did not marry again except the handmaiden Mary the Copt, who was sent as a present by the Christian Muqauqas of Egypt. She became the mother of Ibrahim, who died in his infancy.

(Source: The Quran: Text translation and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Footnote#3754)

But.. Contradiction! Mr. Umar you said that Mariyah wasn't a slave (handmaiden etc.), you quoted from Allama Shibli Numani's book which said she was "highly respected among the Qibtis, you also posted the footnote, where he says that the words "highly respected" dont apply to slave girls, now you say Muhammad (S) WAS allowed to marry those who his right hands possessed, and you quote Yusuf Ali who calls Mariyah a "hand maiden", please explain yourself!

Answer: First of all, let us examine Sura 33:52 again. According to Abdullah Yusuf Ali, some Ayats in Sura 33 were revealed in A.H. 7, particularly Sura 33 Ayat 52. This itself refutes the fact that Muhammad (S) was going against Holy Quran to marry Mariyah, since we believe that Mariyah the Copt arrived in the year 6 A.H:

And:

In Sura 33:52, we read that Prophet (S), could only marry women who were his right hand possessions, his servants. We already showed, that Sura 33:52, does not mean that Mariyah The Copt couldn't have been his wife, since according to Sheikh Abdullah Yusuf Ali, that particular Ayat was revealed in A.H. 7, which is AFTER Mariyah the Copt, arrived in Medina. We also proved in the above paragraphs, that Mariyah the Copt, couldn't have been a slave, since she herself resided outside of Medina, therefore she couldnt render any domestic service to the Prophet (S). But, Yusuf Ali, however, calls Mariyah a "handmaiden", he also says " the Prophet did not marry again except the handmaiden Mary the Copt". In my previous article, I showed that Mariyah was a respected person among the Qibtis, and not a handmaiden, I posted the letter of Muqauqas, and the commentary of it, found in the biography "Sirat Un Nabi by Allama Shibli Nu'Mani". I will post it again:

It is really hard to address such distortions and contradictions. Umar approvingly cited Yusuf Ali's position that Muhammad married Mariyah after Sura 33:52 was "revealed" in 7 A.H. Now he wants to argue for the fact that Muhammad married Mariyah before Sura 33:52 was given, which means that Ali was wrong. But if Ali was wrong regarding Muhammad marrying Mariyah after the giving of this verse then it is also possible that he was wrong regarding the dating of this verse. With this being a possibility then this means that Maududi's dating may be the correct one:

Period of Revelation

The Surah discusses three important events which are: the Battle of the Trench (or Al-Ahzab: the Clans), which took place in Shawwal, A. H. 5; the raid on Bani Quraizah, which was made in Dhil-Qa'dah, A. H. 5; and the Holy Prophet's marriage with Hadrat Zainab, which also was contracted in Dhil-Qa'dah, A. H. 5. These historical events accurately determine the period of the revelation of this Surah. (Source)

Yet Maududi's position means that Muhammad took Mariyah in sometime after Sura 33:52 was given, and shows that no matter how Umar wants to argue his case he is left with major problems. Since he seems to not want to see how confusing and contradictory his arguments truly have been, and just how chaotic and confusing Muslim sources really are, we will highlight them for him:

Muslim sources present contradictory dates for Surah 33, specifically 33:52.

Muslim sources contradict one another regarding whether Sura 33:52 was abrogated by Sura 33:50 or not.

Muslim sources indicate that Sura 33:50 was given before Sura 33:52, which means that the abrogating verse actually came before the verse which it was suppose to abrogate!

Muslim sources contradict one another whether Mariyah was Muhammad's wife or concubine.

We will address the quotes from Sirat Un Nabi later on in the rebuttal.

 

 

 

My Response:

For one thing, Yusuf Ali says this:

"This was revealed in A.H. 7. After that the Prophet did not marry again except the handmaiden Mary the Copt, who was sent as a present by the Christian Muqauqas of Egypt. She became the mother of Ibrahim, who died in his infancy.

(Source: The Quran: Text translation and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Footnote#3754)

And here is Sura 33:52 (again...) :

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

So, even though Yusuf Ali says "After that the Prophet did not marry..", the Ayat says he can marry any women that the Prophet (S) possesses (as handmaidens). So Yusuf Ali, agrees with us, when he calls Mariyah a wife of the Holy Prophet (S), however, he differs with us, regarding if she was a handmaiden or not. So let us highlight the bottom line:

Yusuf Ali agrees, as well as the majority of the scholars, that Mariyah Qibtiyya was a wife of the Holy Prophet (S)!

 And its not just Yusuf Ali who says that Sura 33:52 was revealed in A.H. 7, but the late Muhammad Asad says the same himself!

Some commentators (e.g., Tabari) assume that this restriction relates to the four categories of women enumerated in verse 50 above: it is, however, much more probable that it is a prohibition barring the Prophet from marrying any woman in addition to those to whom he was already married (Baghawi, Zamakhshari). Some of the earliest, most outstanding authorities on the Qur'an, like Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Ad-Dahhak, Qatadah, Ibn Zayd (all of them cited by Ibn Kathir), or Al-Hasan al-Basri (quoted by Tabari in his commentary on verses 28-29), link this prohibition of further marriages with the choice between the charms of worldly life and the good of the hereafter with which the wives of the Prophet were confronted on the strength of verses 28-29, and their emphatic option for "God and His Apostle" (cf. note 32 above). All those early authorities describe the revelation of verse 52 and the assurance which it was meant to convey to the wives of the Prophet - as God's reward, in this world, of their faith and fidelity. Since it is inconceivable that the Prophet could have disregarded the categorical injunction, "No [other] women shall henceforth be lawful to thee", the passage in question cannot have been revealed earlier than the year 7 H., that is, the year in which the conquest of Khaybar and the Prophet's marriage with Safiyyah - his last marriage - took place. Consequently, verses 28-29 (with which, as we have seen, verse 52 is closely connected) must have been revealed at that later period, and not, as some commentators think, in the year 5 H. (i.e., at the time of the Prophet's marriage with Zaynab).(Quran Ref: 33:52 )

(Source: http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/ , bold and underlined emphasis ours)

As per Muhammad Asad and Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Maududi is wrong in his dating. Now, let us examine what Sam says:

" It is really hard to address such distortions and contradictions. Umar approvingly cited Yusuf Ali's position that Muhammad married Mariyah after Sura 33:52 was "revealed" in 7 A.H. Now he wants to argue for the fact that Muhammad married Mariyah before Sura 33:52 was given, which means that Ali was wrong. But if Ali was wrong regarding Muhammad marrying Mariyah after the giving of this verse then it is also possible that he was wrong regarding the dating of this verse. With this being a possibility then this means that Maududi's dating may be the correct one:"

I approvingly cited Yusuf Ali, because he said the right thing, which is that Mariyah was a wife of the Holy Prophet (S), and not a concubine. However, Yusuf Ali is of the position that Mariyah was sent as a handmaiden, I do not support that position (However, I do not outrule it as a possibility). And as proven in the previous article, Mariyah arrived before 7 A.H, therefore this marriage didn't go against Noble Ayat 33:52 which was revealed in A.H. 7, as per Yusuf Ali and Muhammad Asad. So if Mariyah arrived before this verse was revealed, then how did this marriage go against the Qur'an, and what good evidence do we now have to say that Mariyah was never even a wife of the Holy Prophet?? We will have to disagree (not fully) with Yusuf Ali, when he says that the marriage was after A.H. 7 (Note: Yusuf Ali is of the position that Mariyah was a "handmaiden" see above), however we agree with him when he says that she was indeed a wife of the Holy Prophet (S). Also, since Yusuf Ali claims Mariyah was a handmaiden, then again, it wouldn't matter when the marriage took place, since Sura 33:52 allowed the Holy Prophet to marry those who he possessed as handmaidens. So here are the points made:

1) Either Mariyah was never a handmaiden, but a wife of the Holy Prophet

2) She was sent as a handmaiden, then she was married to the Prophet (S) when she arrived

Either case, the majority agree, she was married to the Holy Prophet (S)!

 

 

 

He Wrote:

We will address the quotes from Sirat Un Nabi later on in the rebuttal.

We now turn our attention to part 2 of his rebuttal (here). When I exposed him and his colleagues for contradicting one another, Umar responds with:

My Response:

Whatever you just said was refuted, in Part 1 where I showed 2 cases,

1) Sura 33:52 was "abrogated"

2) Sura 33:52 WASN'T abrogated

Reason why I divided it into 2 sections, was so that people can see both side of the story, and quite honestly, the second part made more sense. It was proven that Sura 33:52 wasnt abrogated, and Muhammad (S) didn't go "against" the Quran.

And:

My Response:

(Yawn)..... This was already dealt with above.

 

RESPONSE:

And this gent claims to have refuted us!

 

 

My Response:

(Yawn).. Nothing important here.

 

 

 

He Wrote:


My Response:

First of all, the first link given by Shamoun, isnt Brother Osama's own article, infact he made it pretty clear that the information was from http://www.usf.edu.pk/wives.html.

The second link given by Shamoun is also not Brother Osama's own article, Brother Osama also made it clear that the information was from another website, specifically http://www.usf.edu.pk/wyw-42.html.

 

RESPONSE:

First, to say that these articles are not Osama's is irrelevant and does nothing to refute my position. It only provides additional evidence that Muslims cannot help but contradict one another. Second, a person normally places a disclaimer in order to indicate to his readers that he or she doesn't accept everything written in a given link or article. Osama provided no such disclaimer, showing that he was in full agreement with these Muslim links. It seems that it is Umar who can now read minds since he seems to know what was or wasn't in Osama's mind when he approvingly posted these links!

 

 

 

My Response:


Here is what brother Osama feels about Mariyah the Copt:

 

Date:

Tue, 4 Apr 2006 13:49:05 -0700 (PDT)

From:

 

To:

"Osama Abdallah" <quransearch_com@yahoo.com>,

 

 "Umar Bin Nasir Mirza" <islamttd786@yahoo.com>

CC:

b_zawadi@hotmail.com, just_flow11@hotmail.com

Top of Form 1

 

Bottom of Form 1

Please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Prophet Muhammad manument (free) Mariya, married her, and had his son Ibrahim from her, who died in his early childhood?

Best regards,

Osama

 

Brother Osama asked me a question on if what he stated above is correct. Thus, it shows he advocates the position that Mariyah was a wife of the Holy Prophet (S), only he wanted to be extra sure.

 

 

 

He Wrote:

Umar quotes another source which admits that Muslims are confused and contradicting one another regarding Mariyah's status. Shaykh Abdurrahman ibn Yusuf Mangera admits that:

There seems to be some difference of opinion regarding whether she remained a slave or was she taken as a wife. BOTH OPINIONS ARE TO BE FOUND AMONG THE SCHOLARS AND BIOGRAPHERS.

In the year 6 AH, after the treaty of Hudaibiya, the Messenger of Allah (upon him be peace) sent letters to the various rulers and governors around the world. The Roman governor of Alexandria, Muqawqas, sent two slave girls to the Messenger of Allah (upon him be peace) as a gift with Hatim ibn Abi Balta'a who was the courier of the Messenger (upon him be peace). The two slave girls were Mariya and Shirin Qibtiyya. On the way to Madina, both embraced Islam at the preaching of Hatim (may Allah be please with him). Shirin Qibtiyya was given to Hassan ibn Thabit and the Messenger of Allah (upon him be peace) kept Mariya Qibtiyya and married her (according to one opinion) or kept her as a slave girl (according to the other opinion). (About Mariya Qibtiyya: Source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Since Umar has essentially been conceding throughout his "responses" that Muslims are contradicting one another we again need to ask him what was the reason for writing a paper on this issue?

 

 

 

My Response:

It doesn't matter if the different views are found among the scholars, here is the bottom line:

The majority agree, that she is indeed a wife of the Holy Prophet (S) !

Also for Sam's question, why did I write a paper on this issue.

Answer: To refute the dirty lie that the Wife of the Holy Prophet (S), Mariyah, was a 'sex slave', as claimed by Ali Sina, and Sam Shamoun.

 

 

 

He Wrote:
 

My Response:

I am glad that Sam Shamoun posted Muhammad Asad's commentary, since Muhammad Asad himself says the Ayat was revealed in 7 A.H. And once again, as shown in Part 1, Mariyah arrived before this Ayat was revealed, so Prophet Muhammad (S) didn't violate anything.

 

RESPONSE:

First, to say that Mariyah was sent to Muhammad before this verse was composed tells us absolutely nothing about her status up to that point, i.e. whether she was a slave whom he later married etc. In fact, Umar initially tried to say that Mariyah became Muhammad's wife upon giving birth to their son Ibrahim, who was born 9 A.H., two years after Sura 33:52 is said to have been recited according to Asad. Furthermore, the noted historian and commentator al-Tabari stated that Mariyah arrived in the year A.H. 7:

Mariyah, the Prophet's CONCUBINE and the mother of his son, Ibrahim.

Al-Muqawqas, lord of Alexandria, gave her with her sister Sirin and other things as a present to the Prophet.

According to Ibn ?Umar [al-Waqidi] - Ya?qub b. Muhammad b. Abi Sa?sa?ah - ?Abdallah b. ?Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Sa?sa?ah: IN THE YEAR 7/May 11, 628-April 30, 629, al-Muqawqas, lord of Alexandria, sent to the Prophet Mariyah, her sister Sirin, a thousand gold coins, twenty fine robes, his mule Duldul, and his donkey ?Ufayr, or Ya?fur. With them was Mariyah's brother, a very old eunuch called Mabur. Al-Muqawqas sent all this [to the Prophet] with Hatib b. Abi Balta?ah. The latter suggested to Mariyah that she embrace Islam and made her wish to do so; thus she and her sister were converted, whereas the eunuch adhered to his religion until he was [also] converted later in Medina, while the Prophet was [still] alive.

The Prophet admired Umm Ibrahim, who was fair-skinned and beautiful. He lodged her in al-?Aliyah, at the property nowadays called of Umm Ibrahim. He used to visit her there and ordered her to veil herself, [but] he had intercourse with her BY VIRTUE OF HER BEING HIS PROPERTY. (The History of Al-Tabari: Biographies of the Prophet's Companions and Their Successors, translated by Ella Landau-Tasseron [State University of New York Press (SUNY) Albany 1998], Volume XXXIX, pp. 193-194; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

 

 

 

My Response:

That is a lie! I never said that Mariyah became Muhammad (S) wife after the birth of Ibrahim! This has to be one of the worst lying I have ever seen. I initially said that Mariyah was FREED after the birth of Ibrahim, however I later on corrected my stance on this.

Also, as for Tabari, it really doesn't matter what he says, since he advocates the position that Hafsa ran into the Holy Prophet (S) and Mariyah the Copt, which has already been refuted (see Sirat Un Nabi Vol. II p. 234).

Also, from what we know, Mariyah the Copt entered the household of the Prophet (S) just after he returned from signing the Treaty of Hudaybiyya:

" Maria was born in upper Egypt of a Coptic father and Greek mother and moved to the court of the Muqawqis when she was still very young. She arrived in Medina to join the Prophet's household just after the Prophet returned from the treaty with Quraish which was contracted at al-Hudaybiyya"

(Source: http://www.anwary-islam.com/women/pwife_maria.htm, bold and underlined emphasis ours)

And,

" The year 6 A . H.

Treaty of Hudaibiya, Bait-e-Ridwan
In the beginning of the month Zi Qa'ad in 6 A.H., the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) made up his mind to go to Mecca for performing Umrah, and put on Ihram for that purpose. About fourteen to fifteen hundred Sahabah are also stated to have accompanied him.

Hudaibiya is in fact the name of a well at some short distance from Mecca and the name its village also goes by the name Hudaibiya. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions had a stop there before proceeding to Mecca.

His Miracle
There was an absolutely dry well, which was so much filled with water by the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) that all of them used its water to their complete satisfaction.

On their arrival at Hudaibiya, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) sent Hadrat Uthman to Mecca with the message that they had come only for visiting the Baitullah (Ka'bah) and for performing Umarah without any political interest involved therein. When Hadrat Uthman reached Mecca, the infidels detained him, but rumour spread in Hudaibiya that Uthman was murdered by the infidels. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) apprehending it a factual news, assemble his Sahabah and took the oath of allegiance is called " Bait-e-Ridwan". The news was later on found a false one. On the contrary, the Quraish sent Sohail bin Amr as their representative for setting the conditions of treaty. And a treaty was written for ten years' reconciliation under the following conditions:

Muslims shall go back this time without entering Mecca.

Next year they would come for three days stay in Mecca in order to perform Umrah.

They shall not come equipped with weapons except their swords and they too will be sheather.

They shall not take alongwith them any Muslim from Mecca.

If any of the Muslims wanted to stay in Mecca he shall not be prohibited from doing so.

If any Muslim reached Medina from Mecca he shall be sent back.

If any one came from Medina to Mecca he should not be returned.

Although all these conditions were apparently below the dignity of the Muslims, Almighty Allah called this Treaty as the Victory and during the same journey Surah Fateh (Victory) was revealed. The Sahabah very much disliked any Treaty under duress. Hadrat Umar insistingly submitted his aversion before the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) but he replied that he was ordained so by Almighty Allah and their future success and victory was hidden in this very Treaty. The future events unveiled this secret, because it was due to this Treaty that there was a free traffic between Mecca and Median. The infidels started meeting the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and other Muslims. The Islamic conduct had a magnetic attraction for them. The historians have stated that never before had so many people embraced Islam as after this Treaty. And the fact is that this Treaty proved as a precursory step for the victory of Mecca.

Letters to the Kings inviting them towards Islam

        After the Treaty of Hudaibiya the travel had become safe. So the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) made up his mind to convey the truth of Islam to all the Kings of the world. Accordingly he sent Amr bin Umayyah to Ashama, called Negus, the King of Abyssinia with a letter of initiation towards Islam. He respected the letter from the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) by touching his both eyes to it and stepping down from his throne. He gladly embraced Islam and later died during the life-time of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him).

        Wahyah Kalbi was sent to Heraclus, the King of Rome. He too was convinced by solid arguments and attestation from the former Scriptures that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was indeed a Prophet of Allah. There fore he showed his willingness to embrace Islam, but all his subjects got enraged on his this gesture. Smelling the impending danger of getting himself dethroned by them, declined to embrace Islam.

        Hadrat Abdullah ibne Huzafah was sent to Chosros, Chosro Pravez, the Emperor of Iran. This wretched King tore off the Holy Prophet's (peace be upon him) Letter disgracefully When the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) came to know about it he said, " May Allah turn his empire into pieces in the same manner as he has done with our letter." how could a curse from the greatest messenger of Allah go ineffective? After a short time Chosro Parvez was cruelly killed by his own son Sheroyah.

        Hatib bin Abi Balta' was sent to Maqauqus, King of Egypt and Alexandria, He was also blessed by Almighty Allah with the truth of Islam and righteousness the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). There fore, he conducted in response very nicely, and, after showing a very good hospitality towards Hadrat Hatib, he sent to the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) some presents, including a slave-girl Maryah Qibtiyah and whit mule named ' Duldul'. According to a version, he also sent one thousand Dinars and twenty two suits as parts of his presents.

        Hadrat Amr bin Aas was sent to Oman's King Jaifar and King Abdullah. They also believed in the Pophethood of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) after verification from the former Scriptures and personal satisfaction. Both of them embraced Islam and right from that time they started collecting Zahat and handed it over to Hadtat Amr bin Aas.

Embracing Islam by Khailid bin Waleed and Amr bin Aas
Before the Treaty of Hudaibiya Khaild bin Waleed was against the Muslims in every battle and particularly in the battle of Uhad, it was due to valour and strategy that the fleeing infidels regained power and firmness in the field.

But after the Treaty of Hudaibiya, he voluntarily travelled to Medina to embrace Islam. On his way, he met Amr bin Aas and came to know that he was also travelling towards Medina with the same intentions. So both of them, after reaching Medina."

(Source: http://www.anwary-islam.com/prophet-life/holly-p-13.htm, bold and underlined emphasis ours)

So if Mariyah Qibtiyya arrived at the Holy Prophet (S) household just after the Prophet returned from signing the treaty, which occured in Dhi Qa'd of 6 A.H., then the right dating of her arrival should be around the ending of A.H. 6 and the beginning of 7 A.H.

Also, if the above is not correct, then we would have to agree with this account:

Any believing woman who dedicates herself to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her, that is only for thee and not for the believers. (Quran 33:50)

The Prophet gave her the name, Maymuna, meaning "blessed", and Maymuna lived with the Prophet for just over three years, until his death. She was obviously very good natured and got on well with everyone, and no quarrel or disagreement with any of the Prophet's other wives has been related about her. 'A'isha said about her, "Among us, she had the most fear of Allah and did the most to maintain ties of kinship." It was in her room that the Prophet first began to feel the effects of what became his final illness and asked the permission of his wives to stay in A'isha's room while it lasted.

After the Prophet's death, (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) Maymuna continued to live in Medina for another forty years, dying at the age of eighty, in 51 AH, (may Allah be pleased with her), being the last of the Prophet's wives to die. She asked to be buried where had married the Prophet at Saraf and her request was carried out. It is related that at the funeral of Maymuna, Ibn Abbas said, "This is the wife of Allah's Messenger, (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) so when you lift her bier, do not shake her or disturb her, but be gentle." It is also related by Ibn Abbas that he once stayed the night as a guest of Maymuna, who was his aunt, and the Prophet, (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) They slept on their blanket lengthways and he slept at the end, crossways. After they had all slept for awhile, the Prophet rose in the middle of the night to pray the tahajjud prayer, and Ibn Abbas joined him.

They both did wudu, and he prayed eleven rakats with the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Then they both went back to sleep again until dawn. Bilal called the adhan, and the Prophet did another two short rakats, before going into the mosque to lead the Dawn Prayer.

Ibn Abbas said that one of the dua'ahs that the Prophet made during this night was : "O Allah, place light in my heart, light in my tongue, light in my hearing, light on my sight, light behind me, light in front of me, light on my right, light on my left, light above me and light below me; place light in my sinew, in my flesh, in my blood, in my hair and in my skin; place light in my soul and make light abundant for me; make me light and grant me light."

It is commonly agreed that it was after the Prophet had married Maymuna, giving him now nine wives (A'isha, Sawda, Hafsa, Umm Salama, Zainab bint Jahsh, Juwayriyya, Umm Habiba, Safiyya and Maymuna), that the following ayat was revealed:

It is not lawful for you (O Muhammad, to marry more) women after this, nor to exchange them for other wives, even though their beauty is pleasing to you, except those whom your right hand possesses (as maid servants); and Allah is always watching over everything. (Quran 33:52)

After this, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not marry again. When however, the Christian ruler, or Muqawqis, of Egypt, sent him two Christian slave girls 0 who were sisters as a gift (in response to the Prophet's letter inviting him to embrace Islam), along with a fine robe and some medicine the Prophet, accepted one of the slave girls, Maria, into his household; he gave her sister Serene, to a man whom he wished to honor, namely Hassan ibn Thabit; he accepted the robe; and he returned the medicine with the message, "My Sunna is my medicine!" This occurred in 7 AH, when the Prophet was sixty years old and Maria was twenty years old.

(Source: http://www.anwary-islam.com/women/pwife_maymuna.htm)

Again, the highlited conclusion from both accounts is:

Mariyah the Copt was a wife of the Holy Prophet!

Also, by brother Karim:

"Even if we for the sake of argument accept tabaris time order, then still we can argue that mariyah could aslo have been a slavegirl (which is also a strong option)  , and therefor in this case it doesn't matter if she arrived in medina at 6 A.H. or 7. A.H. since the prophet after ayat 33:52 was allowed to marryy slave girls"

 

 

 

He Wrote:

In light of the foregoing, how does Umar know for certain that Mariyah arrived before the "revelation" of Sura 33:52 especially when one of his own sources, Yusuf Ali, expressly said that Muhammad married her after this verse was given?

"This was revealed in A.H. 7. AFTER THAT the Prophet did not marry again except the handmaiden Mary the Copt, who was sent as a present by the Christian Muqauqas of Egypt. She became the mother of Ibrahim, who died in his infancy.

Hence, Yusuf Ali's position means that Muhammad violated the commands of the Quran!

Finally, not all Muslims agree that Sura 33:52 was composed at 7 A.H. As we mentioned both here and in our first rebuttal to the two Muslims, Maududi placed the composition of this Sura at 5 A.H.

 

 

 

My Response:

Again, it wouldn't matter when Yusuf Ali says Mariyah arrived. Yusuf Ali is of the position that Mariyah was a handmaiden, who was later on married to the Holy Prophet (S), and although we dont drop this possibility, it doesnt mean we advocate it. Sura 33:52 says:

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

Now, read what Abdullah Yusuf Ali says:

"This was revealed in A.H. 7. After that the Prophet did not marry again except the handmaiden Mary the Copt, who was sent as a present by the Christian Muqauqas of Egypt. She became the mother of Ibrahim, who died in his infancy.

(Source: The Quran: Text translation and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Footnote#3754)

So Sam Shamoun, if you feel Yusuf Ali's position is that the Holy Prophet (S) violated the Qur'an, then you are living in your own fantasy world.

As for the dating of Sura 33:52, well again, the Late Muhammad Asad corrects the scholars regarding the dating of this Ayat, and he says:

"Some commentators (e.g., Tabari) assume that this restriction relates to the four categories of women enumerated in verse 50 above: it is, however, much more probable that it is a prohibition barring the Prophet from marrying any woman in addition to those to whom he was already married (Baghawi, Zamakhshari). Some of the earliest, most outstanding authorities on the Qur'an, like Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, Ad-Dahhak, Qatadah, Ibn Zayd (all of them cited by Ibn Kathir), or Al-Hasan al-Basri (quoted by Tabari in his commentary on verses 28-29), link this prohibition of further marriages with the choice between the charms of worldly life and the good of the hereafter with which the wives of the Prophet were confronted on the strength of verses 28-29, and their emphatic option for "God and His Apostle" (cf. note 32 above). All those early authorities describe the revelation of verse 52 and the assurance which it was meant to convey to the wives of the Prophet - as God's reward, in this world, of their faith and fidelity. Since it is inconceivable that the Prophet could have disregarded the categorical injunction, "No [other] women shall henceforth be lawful to thee", the passage in question cannot have been revealed earlier than the year 7 H., that is, the year in which the conquest of Khaybar and the Prophet's marriage with Safiyyah - his last marriage - took place. Consequently, verses 28-29 (with which, as we have seen, verse 52 is closely connected) must have been revealed at that later period, and not, as some commentators think, in the year 5 H. (i.e., at the time of the Prophet's marriage with Zaynab).(Quran Ref: 33:52 ) "

(Source: http://www.islamicity.com/QuranSearch/, bold and underlined emphasis ours)

 

 

 

He Wrote:

 

My Response:

Now, let me give you a reason, as to why Sina is a liar. Now, as made clear, there are sources which say Mariyah was a slave, and others which say she was Prophet Muhammad (S) wife, YET,,,,, YET,, I dont know of any Sheikh, Historian, Allama, etc. which says that Mariyah was Hafsa's maid. If Ali Sina, made this claim to anyone, particularly to a knowledgable Muslim, they would laugh at him in the face, that is why noone cares about his website. So yes, in this case, Sina was "mistaken", in the sense that he lied, to put more "juice" in his story, of Hafsa (R) running into Prophet (S) having private time with "Hafsah's maid" (As Ali Sina blindly states). And this story itself is ALSO refuted, read below:

" The Author discusses the report about Mariyah Qibtiyah mainly on the basis of weak reports. As to circumstantial evidence, he only points out that it is unthinkable in the case of a character so superbly moral and modest as of the Prophet. But it may also be pointed out that the holy wives are said to begin their protest against Mariyah some two years after her coming over to the Prophet, which makes the whole story extremely doubtful. Again that Mariyah has been living as a slave-girl, is higly improbably as was residing away from the Mosque on the outskirts of the city and could not 'therefore, render any domestic service to the Prophet or any of the other wives. The situation of her residence also rules out the probability of Hafsa breaking into her privacy. Moreover, the 'Allamah has already proved that Mariyah Qibtiyah was not a slave-girl, but a duly wedded wife of the Prophet and that she came of a respectable family of the Egyptians. To call her a slave-girl is in itself a distrtion of facts- Translator"

(Source: Sirat Un Nabi, Vol.II, p.233-234, Footnote#2)

 

RESPONSE:

It gets rather tiring having to constantly repeat ourselves and address gross errors in logic. To say that Sina is wrong because Umar is unaware of any source which says that Mariyah was Hafsa's slave is the fallacy of hasty generalization and the fallacy of ad argumentum ignorantiam (argument from ignorance). As we have stated, Sina could have been citing a source which (whether correctly or wrongly) claimed that Mariyah was Hafsa's maid. Until Sina comes forward and addresses this issue we simply do not know the reason why he made such a claim. We have already addressed the quote from Sirat Un Nabi so no need to repeat ourselves.

 

 

 

My Response:


Now, here is the question we all have in mind:

Why did Ali Sina in the first place say Mariyah was Hafsa's maid??!!

Now, I joined his forum, and I sent him a pvt. message, and here is the reply which he gave me:

I already gave the sources in the article. Go to the bottom of the article and read the new edition dated March 28, 2006

Now why this is so important? Was Mariyah a slave girl or not? Based on what one can deduct from the Tabaqat she was Hafsa's maid,
because Muhammad had sex with her in Hafsa's house.

Now suppose she was not Hafsa's maid. Whould that maky any difference? You missed the main point that the man you call prophet has sex with a maid. This is something shameful.

Your objectionis absurd. It is like you accuse me of murder saying you saw me killing someone with white shirt and I argue about the color of the shirt asking you to prove that it was white. This is disgusting that you miss the main issue. Forget about Hafsa. Muhammad had sex with a slave girl without marrying her and then made his imaginary Allah say it is okay and it is his right to do it. This is the point not the fact that Mariyah was Hafsa's maid or someone else's.

_________________
Don't be a follower, but a prophet unto your own.

WOW! Ali Sina concluded, that because that the Holy Prophet (S) allegedly had intercourse with Mariyah in Hafsa's house, that she was Hafsa's maid!! And not just that, but we openly challenged Ali Sina, to bring just one Islamic historian who states Mariyah was Hafsa's maid, here is the challenge posted in his forum:

 

Assalamu Alaikum,

Wafa Sultan, someone very famous to the FFI (and the Hater) crowd has been refuted. Please visit:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/wafa_sultan.htm 

And, I have an open challenge for Ali Sina:

"The following is Muhammad's scandalous love affair with Mariyah the Copt who was one of the prophet's wives' maids."

Taken from: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/mariyah.htm

Ali Sina, bring just one biographer, Just one Islamic historian who says Mariyah the Copt was Hafsa's maid.

Thanks,
www.answering-christianity.com 

Ali Sina wasn't brave enough to join the thread, and defend his baseless claims, however, he ended up calling me a "moron", and started to insult:

What a moron! You simily have no brain to understand anything.

Mariyah was the maid of Hafsa. This is clear from the story I reported. Why else Mo would send Hafsa out to have sex with Mariyh in her house. What the hell Mariyah was doing in Hafsa's house? Did you read the new addition to my article.

YOu are too stupid for me to waste my time with. Write in the forum and don't bug me again. I will delete your messages. You are a brainless zombie and don't undersand when I explian things to you that any child would understand.

Shame on you follower of Satan

_________________
Don't be a follower, but a prophet unto your own
.

So Sam, the only person arguing from ignorance, is your co-worker in crime Ali Sina, who speaks dirty lies about the Holy Prophet (S) and his wife, in order to entertain his "shoulder above" forum members.

 

 

 

He Wrote:


My Response:

First off, read this what Shamoun states>> " To quote a source that challenges Maududi doesn't prove that the latter was wrong, but only proves that Muslims are a confused bunch!"

So, any source which contradicts Maududi shows Muslims are wrong? Is Maududi the best of the best? Everything Maududi says is true, while everything else is just hoaxes???

 

RESPONSE:

When you cannot refute someone you simply decide to attack straw man, which is what Umar has done here. I didn't say Maududi is the best of the best, or that what anyone else says is simply a hoax. As the reader can see it is actually Umar who thinks that the claims made by his source are more accurate than that of Maududi's position, or that all the other writers that I cited which agree with Maududi are hoaxes. Since Umar decided to distort my point and attack straw man, let me repeat it one more time. To cite a source (or sources) which contradicts Maududi, doesn't mean that Maududi is wrong. It doesn't even mean that the other source(s) is(are) wrong simply because they disagree with Maududi. It simply means that Muslim scholars are confused and are contradicting one another on whether Mariyah was Muhammad's wife or sex slave.

 

 

 

My Response:


"As the reader can see it is actually Umar who thinks that the claims made by his source are more accurate than that of Maududi's position, or that all the other writers that I cited which agree with Maududi are hoaxes."

Yes, my sources are more accurate then Maududis, because my sources say Mariyah was a wife of the Holy Prophet (S), a position agreed upon by the majority of the scholars of Islam!

Moreover, it is Shamoun who has elevated Maududi to a demigod position, that if there is a source that contradicts him, thus Muslims are confused, because they contradicted the "all knowing Maududi".

 

 

 

He Wrote:


Now read this>> " Moreover, Umar wants to infer from the above that Mariyah wasn't a slave due to the exalted language used to describe her and her sister. In so doing, he only exposes his low view and disdain of slaves since his comments presuppose that there is nothing highly respectable about being a slave! This slip by Umar implies that Mariyah could not be highly respected if she were a slave, which presupposes that slaves are low in class and dignity! Why can't one be a highly regarded slave, a slave known for his or her outstanding qualities and piety, as for example Muhammad's adopted son Zaid ibn Haritha who use to be Khadijah's slave that showed outstanding virtue and devotion to Muhammad? In fact, it was because of his devotion to Muhammad that the latter adopted him as a son. "

First of all, it was the Potiphar of Egypt who used the "exalted language". So whatever Shamoun says, is just gibberish and utter nonsense, since Islam respects slaves, and it was the Potiphar of Egypt who used the "exalted language".

We have to disagree on Sam, and Maududi, because proof was shown that Mariyah was indeed the Prophet (S) wife. Once again, we have to remind Shamoun that there are sources which say she was his wife, and others who disagree.

 

RESPONSE:

Umar obviously didn't bother reading either what I had written or his own source carefully. In the first place, the Muqauqis never said anything about the exalted language proving that Mariyah couldn't have been a slave, but rather Umar's source, Sirat Un Nabi, made that claim. This exposed the prejudice of Umar and this author since they obviously assumed that slaves are somehow inferior due to their status and therefore could not be spoken of in such a manner.

Secondly, neither Umar nor the author of Sirat Un Nabi have refuted Maududi, or the rest of the Muslims which agree with him for that matter. The argument which Sirat Un Nabi tried to use to prove that Mariyah wasn't a slave was shown to be prejudicial in nature and unfounded (a non sequitur), since it assumed that Mariyah could not have been spoken of in such a praiseworthy manner if she were a slave. Moreover, this logic apparently went unnoticed or unheeded by all the other Muslim writers and scholars who believed Mariyah remained Muhammad's concubine.

In light of the foregoing, we have to disagree with the position taken by Umar and Sirat Un Nabi, since neither party gave any convincing proof showing that Mariyah was Muhammad's wife. It seems that we need to once again remind Umar that there are a host of sources which say she was a slave of Muhammad's, and that those who disagree do not do so because of any convincing evidence to the contrary. Hence, all Umar has done is to expose the chaotic nature of Islamic scholarship due to all of its gross contradictions and inconsistencies.

 

 

My Response:

First of all, it is uncommon for a master of a slave, to speak of a slave using words of honour, infact it works the other way around. Missionary Shamoun doesnt feel this way, so he just goes about saying I am a prejudice, while infact, it is Sam who fails to use logic.

Secondly, Maududi has been refuted. We have brought proof, that shows Mariyah Qibtiyya was indeed a wife of the Holy Prophet (S), and we have brought quotes, saying the majority agree on that.

And, in light of the foregoing, we again disagree with Sam, and we need to remind him that YES there are sources which say Mariyah was a slave, however the majority is of the view that she is indeed a wife of the Holy Prophet (S). Hence, all Sam does, is expose his ignorance on Islam, by falsely claiming Mariyah is a "sex slave".

 

 

 

He Wrote:

Umar concludes:

My Response:

We will also summarize this rebuttal into 3 points:

1) It was proven that Mariyah was Muhammad (S) wife, common sense itself refutes that Mariyah was just a slave, since she lived in the outskirts of Medina, and therefore couldn't render to any domestic service to the Prophet (S) or his wives.

On the contrary, this argument actually proved that Mariyah must have been a slave since Muhammad would have been cruel to banish her from the company of his other wives. This shows that the only service which Muhammad sought from her was sexual in nature, since she wouldn't be able to perform all the other duties of a wife such as cooking, cleaning etc. Muhammad would only visit her for sex.

 

 

My Response:

Brother Karim replies to this already, here is his response:

" Actually Shamoun doesn't understand that the Prophet was fair in dealing with his wifes, since the Quran commands Muslim men who are married to more then one wife, to deal fair/equal and just with them. The Prophet's wifes had each an own house/ livingroom, and the Prophet gave each wife a day of the week, for example the Prophet spend time with aicha together on friday, and on saterday he spend time with Safiyya. So the prophet could very well for example on sunday spend his time with his wife Mariyah. So the fact that a wife doesn't live in the same street of the prophet doesn't mean she can never be his wife. Actually a slave has to work for the household, which means for the man and woman of the house (many hadith bear witness to this) , so if Mariyah was slave, it means she also had to work for the prophet's wifes, if they aksed her to do something in the house or on the land. So Mariyah could never be the Prophet's slave, since she couldn't do any work for the prophet and his wifes. However the prophet as her husband could easily spend one day of the week with mariya, as her husband"

 

 

 

He Wrote:

2) It was shown that Sura 33:52 WASN'T abrogated. Muhammad Asad and Abdullah Yusuf Ali both agree that the Ayat of Sura 33:52 came after the arrival of Mariyah.

It seems that Umar doesn't know what he wants his readers to believe, since he is obviously confused. He admitted that there are scholars who believe that this verse has been abrogated, which is the position he initially took since he chided me for not quoting Ibn Kathir's statements that Sura 33:52 had been canceled. But now he wants to insist that it wasn't abrogated! So we again need to ask, which position should the readers of www.answering-christianity.com take? Should they agree with Umar's initial position that the text had been abrogated? Or should they agree with his most recent stance that it isn't abrogated? And if this text has not been abrogated then why in the world did he complain about me not quoting Ibn Kathir who said that it had been?

Moreover, Yusuf Ali did not say that Sura 33:52 came after Mariyah's arrival, nor did Muhammad Asad. We already quoted Yusuf Ali in our initial response to Umar (as well as here) showing that he expressly stated that Muhammad took Mariyah after Sura 33:52 was given. Umar is deliberately distorting what these scholars wrote.

 

 

 

My Response:

Sam begins to rant about how I allegedly "abandoned" my position, to save face, however he is living in his own fantasy land by saying this, because initially in my article "Crouching Ali, Hidden Shamoun", I put a note, where I quoted Yusuf Ali's tafsir, which says the Ayat (Sura 33:52) was revealed in A.H. 7. The idea of doing this, was to see that in either case, the marriage with Mariyah was lawful and wasn't against the Holy Qur'an.

Now, Sam goes again about Yusuf Ali, and his commentary on Sura 33:52. Now, Yusuf Ali is obviously of the view that Muhammad (S) manumited Mariyah, and married her (and we do not dismiss this possibility), and Allama Shibli Nu'Mani is of the idea that Mariyah was never a slave at all, however what do they both agree on?

Answer: That Mariyah the Copt was a wife of the Holy Prophet (S)

 

 

 

He Wrote: 

3) I never contradicted my colleagues, it was made clear that I didn't contradict Brother Bassam or Brother Osama. Just because Bro Osama has some links which doesn't cite Mariyah the Copt as Prophet (S) wife, doesn't mean he doesn't think she is his wife.

Umar did in fact contradict his colleagues and to say that Osama doesn't necessarily agree with everything in the links which he posted on his own site is nothing more than a desperate attempt of trying to cover up his gross errors. A person normally places a disclaimer in order to indicate to his readers that he or she doesn't accept everything written in a given link or article. Did Osama post such a disclaimer? No, not at all. Did Osama present these links as an authoritative listing of the names of Muhammad's wives? Yes he did, since this is the title of one of the articles: Details about the history of Muhammad's wives peace be upon him. (On this page) Moreover, he did not merely link to this outside page, he thought it to be so important, that he included this table on his own site.

Umar wants us to actually believe that Osama posted an article where he claims it gives details about the history of Muhammad's wives, but which he didn't completely agree with, and yet said absolutely nothing about his disagreements! He must really think that we are all naive.

 

 

 

My Response:

Yes, Sam Shamoun is naive, since he believes he can now read Osama's mind, and conclude that Osama didn't agree with the position that Mariyah was a wife of the Holy Prophet (S), while infact, Osama said in his email conversation with me:

Bottom of Form 1

Please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Prophet Muhammad manument (free) Mariya, married her, and had his son Ibrahim from her, who died in his early childhood?

Best regards,

Osama

As clearly seen, Osama was of the view that the Prophet (S) was married to Mariyah the Copt, he only wanted clarification, that his view was right.

 

 

 

He Wrote:

So Umar, previously we responded that the joke is on you and your colleagues. In light of this rebuttal, we too will conclude with the words of your brother Osama, whom you contradicted time and time again, and add a few words of our own:

Checkmate, Buddy!

In Fact, You Need to Start Learning How to Play Chess

Before You actually Play the Game!

And the Triune God, Yahweh Elohim, always knows best!

 

 

 

My Response:

Judging by your poor attempt to refute my paper Mr. Shamoun, the readers can conclude that the joke is actually on you.

 

Checkmate, "My Man" (This is Sam's favorite word)

I know how to play Chess

However, most likely, it seems you dont know how to play it good enough!

And truly, truly, Allah Almighty Knows Best!!