In Islam it says Jesus is just a prophet and nothing more, but I have an issue with this because we know from 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 it talks about how Satan and his companions masquerade as an angel of light, and in 1 John 4:1-3 it talks about demons not admitting Jesus is Lord/God. It clearly shows demons are bypassing this by reducing him to just a prophet to trick Muhammad which seems to me is just a way to sound more believable because to me a revelation saying he wasn’t true at all just seems pretty unbelievable. It all seems too convenient to me.

Recently there’s been some discussion about what the Injil/Gospel in the Quran is referring to. Here I wanted to focus in on the word itself, الإنجيل.

The Greek word from which it originates which is euangélion (εὐαγγέλιον), perhaps through the intermediary of the Amharic wängel or the Syriac ewangellīōn. The original word in Greek means good news. It goes back to an expression that was used to refer to announced victories by the ruler. So, if a battle was won, an announcer would go back to the city crying out euangélion, good news, i.e. the king has won.

The Romans used this word in reference to their emperor, who was claimed to be divine. There's an inscription called the Priene calendar inscription that reads:

It seemed good to the Greeks of Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: “Since Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior, both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance (excelled even our anticipations), surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings [εὐαγγέλιον] for the world that came by reason of him,” which Asia resolved in Smyrna.

So in the above it's declaring Augustus to be the savior of the world and a god sent by Providence, who will end war and whose birth marks good news (gospel) for the world.

Scholars have pointed out the possible parallel here with the beginning of the Gospel according to Mark which reads:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (Mark 1:1)

One might read this as a counter response against the Roman claims about the emperor. The emperor is not in fact divine, not the savior of the world, rather, it's Jesus Christ who is. And it's his kingdom that will last forever, with the good news of his conquering of death in the resurrection. Whether Mark's opening sentence here is an intentional response against Roman propaganda or not, it's clear that the world for gospel here has significant meaning that makes sense in the context of the Christian story.

But for Islam? It doesn't make any sense at all. There's no resurrection of Jesus following his crucifixion (both of which they reject), no sense that he is divine, that he is the Son of God. In fact, 'Isa's mission from the Islamic point of view comes across as a complete failure, since they believe the book he was given is nearly completely lost, with the religion that follows after him committing shirk in worshipping him, pretty much right from the beginning too as recent scholarship has been demonstrating. If the Muslim will try arguing that belief in Christ's divinity was only a later invention (which reading the next two verses Mark 1:2-3 would dispel, since the author is applying a prophesy about the coming of YHWH to Christ himself), then the worship of Jesus as only a human prophet and not God would be even worse and blatantly shirk, since it's now worshipping someone that the worshipper doesn't even believe to be God.

The word injil itself in Arabic is meaningless. Muhammad likely just assumed it was the name of the book he thought Jesus had received like he was claiming to have received the Quran.

Out of curiosity I checked to see what if anything Quranic commentators used to explain its meaning (as in 3:3). Some recognize it to be a foreign word and just leave it at that (they don’t appear though to know its meaning of good news), others try to derive a meaning for it from the Arabic root word نجل, like in al-Tha’labi where he says it comes from that in the meaning of going out (like a child is called that because a child comes out, i.e. from the womb), and that Allah called it that because by it he drew up lessons of the truth. You can find other such creative interpretations out there (which is often what Quranic interpreters would resort to in trying to figure out what their book means).

So to get back to the pain point, the Quran's author not has a mistaken understanding of what the Gospel actually is, he doesn't appear to understand the meaning of the word itself. You can find a possible parallel to this with his appellation of 'Isa as al-Maseeh, possibly thinking it part of his personal name like in 3:45, and not having any apparent understanding of the significance of the title (as Muslim commentators didn't either after him, coming up with other creative interpretations as to what it could mean).

What do you guys think of halal ideology? Why are muslims always making fuss about what they can or cannot eat?

I want to have another go at an argument I thought of against Islam, and it is one where I attempt to prove that any position other than agnosticism towards Islam leads to absurdity.

Let’s agree on the following axioms:

Islam’s authenticity/truthfulness hinges on the Quran.

There are sets of letters in the Quran like كهيعص which, from the epistemic side, are unknown, undefined and have no semantical or syntactical coherency.

A proposition is assigned a truth value if and only if it can be verified against reality (for synthetic propositions) or logical consistency (for analytical propositions). For example, if I were to give you a proposition with an open variable such as “x>5” and we know that the open variable can possibly mean anything, it is just that we do not know of its specific meaning/definition. If you were to assign ANY truth value to the aforementioned proposition, such as “True” for example, you can possibly have a contradiction as the “x” may have a value of “2” and you’d have “2>5” which is false by virtue of the definition of 2 & 5 respectively. Furthermore, I can also give you the following set of letters "egtnioegoer" which is semantically incoherent but you still assign a truth value of "True" to it, even though it can possibly be an imperative sentence, and imperative sentences do not hold neither truth values, as that attribute is only for declarative sentences.

The argument goes like this:

If we know that the Quran contains no contradictions, then every declarative sentence that we know of within the Quran can be assigned a specific truth value.

It is not the case that every declarative sentence that we know of within the Quran can be assigned a specific truth value.

Therefore, it is not the case that we know that the Quran contains no contradictions.

The argument for premise 2:

If كٓهيعٓصٓ [19:1] contains any meaning, then it can be assigned or not assigned a truth value.

It is not the case that [19:1] contains any meaning.

Therefore, it is not the case that it can be assigned or not assigned a truth value.

Final argument:

If we do not know that the Quran contains no contradictions, then we cannot know that the Quran is logically consistent.

We do not know that the Quran contains no contradictions

Therefore, we cannot know that the Quran is logically consistent.

And thus we can say that one would be justifiable in taking an agnostic position towards the truthfulness of the Quran (and thus Islam) as long as they hold an epistemic view in which they affirm that contradictions are necessarily false.

TL;DR: We cannot assert that the Quran contains no contradiction(s).

I want all of humanity to live in bliss.

"Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own scriptures"

In this Quran verse, it says that Muhammad SAW is mentioned in the previous scriptures. Now, many non-muslims have understandably been asking "where?"

I will show one of the most underrated prophecies of the prophet Muhammad SAW

(this post is heavily based on the book | Abraham Fulfilled)

I suggest readers to read the chapter before reading further. I will make this post as simple as possible so I may miss certain parts.

We see in Songs Of Solomon 5:10-15, the beloved's physical characteristics are described. Let's compare them to the physical description of the blessed prophet SAW

Radiant

. “The sun seemed to shine in his face”

“Whenever God’s Messenger became happy, his face would shine as if it were a piece of moon, and we all knew that characteristic of him" https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4418

Ruddy (i.e. red complexion)

“The Messenger of God was a man of average height with broad shoulders, a thick beard and a REDDISH COMPLEXION...” https://sunnah.com/nasai:5232

Wavy hair.

“The Messenger of God was neither short nor tall; he had a large head, WAVY HAIR…” https://sunnah.com/ahmad:946

Hair black as a raven.

“His hair was extremely black”

Muhammad’s hair remained extremely black even at the old age of when he died. https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3548

It was reported: “When God took him unto Him, there was scarcely twenty white hairs in his head and beard”

Eyes are dove-like (i.e. intensely dark).

“The white of his eyes is extremely white, and the black of his eyes is extremely black” https://imgur.com/a/zcmnkuD

Cheeks like perfume.

“I have never touched silk softer than the palm of the Prophet nor have I smelt a perfume nicer than the sweat of the Prophet” https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3561

Muhammad’s body was naturally fragrant, even his sweat is said to have had a beautiful scent. This is one of the many blessings bestowed upon him by God.

Body like polished ivory (i.e. white). The word translated as “body” in Song of Solomon is the Hebrew ‘may-e’ which means “belly, abdomen”.

“On the day [of the battle] of al-Aḥzāb I saw the Prophet carrying earth, and the earth was covering the whiteness of his abdomen” https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2837

There are many other similarities in the physical descriptions but this should suffice.

Now the question you may be asking, this could apply to THOUSANDS of people.

This is true untill you read the final verse

"His mouth is sweetness itself; he is MUHAMMAD." Song of Solomon 5:16

Professor Abdul Ahad Dawud, formerly a Catholic priest who changed his name from David Benjamin Keldani, had this to say:

The word is derived from an archaic Hebrew - or rather Aramaic - root HMD (consonants pronounced hemed). In Hebrew hemed is generally used in the sense of great desire, covet, appetite and lust... In Arabic the verb hemida, from the same consonants HMD, means “to praise”, and so on... Whichever of the two meanings be adopted, the fact that ahmed is the Arabic form of himda remains indisputable and decisive.

This is one of the weaker prophecies but I would like to display that even these ones prove to be a prophecy of the prophet SAW.

I am aware of the classic objections like:

"The word for muhammad is plural" "muhammad is used in other verses" "its not meant to be a prophecy but are just poems"

I have already planned responses for these so make sure to send them ;)

(And from those who say, "We are Christians" We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection) Quran 5:14

Does that mean that even though they may cooperate on a crusade or make a temporary alliance against a common enemy, the Orthodox, Catholic & Protestant branches will never be reconciled under a universal church?

As far as I know Ibn Ishaq seerah is the oldest surviving seerah of Muhammad. But since its problemetic, modern Muslims play the unauthentic card.

I want my mother to read a biography that is written by early scholars and also is considered authentic by Muslim populace

Hi! This post is my finished work critiquing the claim about Pharaohs divinity in the Qurʼān to be, as some call it, a "Historical Miracle". As some of you may have noticed, I have posted similiar type of post here a two times for now, however, I wasnt quite satisfied with them so I decided to rewrite the whole thing. Any feedback or possible counterpoints are welcomed! :)

For anyone interested, the PDF version of this post can be found here.

Edit: Added the Appendix portion dealing with one counterpoint on the dating of Bereshit Rabbah advanced by M. S. M. Saifullah and his team from Islamic Awareness. Also finished the PDF version for this post.

(Also sorry for any typos, english is not my main language).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction:

A prominent claim among some contemporary Muslim apologists is that the Qurʼān’s portrayal of Pharaoh’s self-deification provides a clear indication of its divine origin. These apologists argue that the Qurʼānic passages referring to Pharaoh as a self-proclaimed god reflect knowledge of a historical fact that was lost and only rediscovered by modern Egyptology. The central point of this argument is that Prophet Muhammad could not have accessed this knowledge through any human source in seventh-century Arabia, making divine revelation the only plausible explanation for its presence in the Qurʼān.^([1])

The Qurʼān describes Pharaoh’s arrogance and claims to divinity in several verses, such as in Surah Al-Nazi'at (79:24), where Pharaoh declares, “I am your lord, the most high,” and in Surah Al-Qasas (28:38), where Pharaoh says, “I know of no other god for you but myself.” According to apologists, this portrayal corresponds with the findings of modern Egyptologists, who have confirmed that some Egyptian pharaohs, including Ramesses II, were considered gods or semi-divine figures. They argue that this rediscovered historical detail, seemingly lost to history for centuries, supports the claim that the Qurʼān could only be the word of God.

This argument, while compelling on the surface, is undermined by the fact that similar ideas about ruler-deification were well-known long before the advent of Islam, as evidenced by pre-Islamic Jewish and other ancient texts. This work seeks to examine the sources of these ideas, trace their presence in pre-Islamic literature, and assess whether the Qurʼān’s depiction of Pharaoh’s self-deification can indeed be considered a rediscovered historical fact that could only have been revealed through divine means.

The Qurʼān’s Portrayal of Pharaoh’s Self-Deification

The Qurʼānic narrative of Pharaoh’s self-deification appears in several surahs, where Pharaoh is depicted as arrogantly claiming to be a god. In Surah Al-Qasas (28:38), Pharaoh says to his people, “I have not known any other god for you but me.” Similarly, in Surah Al-Nazi'at (79:24), he proclaims, “I am your lord, the most high.” These statements are used by Muslim apologists to argue that the Qurʼān accurately portrays a historical fact that was unknown at the time of Prophet Muhammad, and therefore, the knowledge could only have come from divine revelation.

This argument is often supported by modern Egyptological studies, which confirm that some Egyptian pharaohs were indeed regarded as divine or semi-divine figures. Pharaohs were considered to be the living embodiment of gods like Ra, the sun god, and were often portrayed as being the intermediary between the gods and the people.^([2]) Specifically Ramesses II, often identified as the pharaoh during the time of Moses among Islamic apologetic circles, was known for his grandiose self-image, including depictions of himself as a god in various inscriptions and monuments.^([3])

While it is true that pharaohs were often deified, the question remains: was this knowledge truly lost by the seventh century, as apologists claim, or could it have been accessible through other pre-existing sources? To answer this, we must look at the broader context of ruler-deification in ancient civilizations and explore pre-Islamic texts that also speak of rulers claiming divinity, including Pharaoh.

The Concept of Ruler-Deification in Ancient Civilizations

The idea that rulers could be divine or semi-divine figures is not unique to Egyptian civilization. In fact, this motif is widespread in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean world. Mesopotamian rulers, for example, were often portrayed as god-like figures who ruled by divine mandate.^([4]) Nebuchadnezzar, the famous Babylonian king, is depicted in the Hebrew Bible as saying, “I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly” (Isaiah 14:13-14). This statement, although not explicitly claiming divinity, reflects a self-perception that transcends human limitations, aligning him with the divine.

Similarly, the deification of rulers was common in the Roman Empire, where emperors were often regarded as gods after their deaths and sometimes even during their lifetimes.^([5]) Emperor Augustus, for instance, was worshiped as a god by some during his reign, and subsequent emperors continued this tradition.^([6]) These examples show that the idea of rulers being divine was not unique to Egypt or to the time of Moses but was a widespread cultural phenomenon across ancient civilizations.

Thus, the concept of ruler-deification was part of a much larger tradition that extended well beyond Egypt and long before the time of Muhammad. This raises significant questions about the uniqueness of the Qurʼānic portrayal of Pharaoh’s self-deification. Could this knowledge have been known through other sources available to Prophet Muhammad or his contemporaries?

Pre-Islamic Rabbinic Literature and Pharaoh’s Self-Deification

To further challenge the claim that the Qurʼān’s portrayal of Pharaoh’s divinity was unique or rediscovered, it is essential to examine pre-Islamic Jewish sources, particularly rabbinic literature. Jewish texts from the centuries before Islam contain numerous references to Pharaoh and other ancient rulers claiming divine status. These references suggest that the notion of Pharaoh’s self-deification was not lost knowledge, but rather a well-known theme in Jewish religious and historical writings.

One important source is Mekhilta De Rabbi Yishmael, a rabbinic commentary on the Book of Exodus that dates to the 2nd to 4th centuries CE.^([7]) In this text, Pharaoh is listed in a list of rulers who are explicitly described as claiming to be a god. The commentary on Exodus 8:16 states: 

[...] Pharaoh called himself a god, as it says in Ezekiel 29:3, “Mine is my river, and I have made it.”^([8])

This passage refers to the biblical account of Pharaoh arrogantly claiming ownership of the Nile River and presenting himself as a god who controls nature. This concept of Pharaoh’s divinity is not only present but also treated as a familiar idea in Jewish religious thought long before the time of Islam.

Another significant pre-Islamic Jewish source is Bereshit Rabbah,^([9]) a midrashic commentary on the Book of Genesis, which is believed to have been composed between the 4th and 5th centuries CE. This text also references Pharaoh’s claims to divinity. In Bereshit Rabbah, Pharaoh is described as saying “My river is mine and I made myself" (Ezekiel 29:3), as an expression of his belief in his own divinity. The rabbis used this passage to contrast Pharaoh’s hubris with the Jewish belief in a single, all-powerful God. The text states: 

"Know that the Lord is God” (Psalms 100:3) – Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon and Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon said: “Know that the Lord is God, He made us, and we did not” (Psalms 100:3) create ourselves, unlike Pharaoh, who said: “My river is mine and I made myself” (Ezekiel 29:3). Rabbi Aḥa said: “Know that the Lord is God, He made us and to Him” we devote ourselves.^([10])

This vivid portrayal of Pharaohs  self-proclaimed godhood underscores the familiarity of this motif in Jewish literature.

These pre-Islamic Jewish texts clearly demonstrate that the idea of Pharaoh’s self-deification was well-known in Jewish religious circles long before the advent of Islam. The notion that the Qurʼān’s depiction of Pharaoh as a god was a "rediscovery" of lost knowledge is therefore highly questionable. Instead, it seems more plausible that the Qurʼānic portrayal of Pharaoh draws upon a pre-existing tradition of viewing rulers, including Pharaoh, as divine figures.^([11])

Critique of the Apologetic Argument

Lost Knowledge or Pre-Islamic Cultural Influence?

The core argument advanced by Muslim apologists rests on the assumption that the knowledge of Pharaoh’s self-deification was somehow lost to history and only rediscovered by modern Egyptologists. This assumption is based on the claim that there were no available sources in seventh-century Arabia that could have provided Prophet Muhammad with this information. However, as demonstrated above, the idea of Pharaoh’s divinity was already present in pre-Islamic Jewish texts, such as Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael and Bereshit Rabbah. These texts show that Jewish scholars were familiar with the notion of Pharaoh claiming divinity, and they passed down these ideas through their religious and historical writings.

Furthermore, as demonstrated earlier, the concept of ruler-deification was not unique to Egypt or to Pharaoh. It was a widespread cultural phenomenon in the ancient Near East, as seen in the cases of Mesopotamian kings, Babylonian rulers like Nebuchadnezzar, and Roman emperors. The idea of a king or emperor being divine or semi-divine was a common feature of political and religious thought in the ancient world, and it is highly unlikely that such ideas would have been entirely forgotten by the time of Prophet Muhammad. Given the extensive trade routes and cultural exchanges that connected Arabia with the wider world, it is reasonable to assume that these ideas could have been transmitted to the Arabian Peninsula long before the advent of Islam.^([12])

The Dating of Rabbinic Sources

One of the key challenges to the apologetic argument is the dating of the pre-Islamic Jewish texts that mention Pharaoh’s self-deification. Both Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael and Bereshit Rabbah are dated to the centuries preceding the rise of Islam. The Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael is generally dated to the 2nd to 4th centuries CE,^([13]) while Bereshit Rabbah is typically dated to the 4th to 5th centuries CE.^([14]) These dates place both texts firmly in the pre-Islamic period, demonstrating that the concept of Pharaoh’s self-deification was known long before the Qurʼān was revealed.

Some scholars have raised objections to these early dates, particularly in relation to the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael. Ben Zion Wacholder, in his 1968 article, argued that the text should be dated to the 8th century CE, which would place it after the advent of Islam.^([15]) However, Wacholder’s conclusions have been largely refuted by subsequent scholarship. Daniel Boyarin, a prominent scholar of rabbinic literature, has demonstrated that Wacholder’s arguments are based on flawed assumptions,^([16]) and the consensus among contemporary scholars remains that the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael was composed in the 2nd to 4th centuries CE.^([17])

One other scholar who has raised objections to the datings presented, or at least criticized the dating of Bereshit Rabbah, has been Hans-Jürgen Becker. He has critizised the notion of Bereshit Rabbahs dating to the 5th century, and argued for it to be of much later redaction.^([18]) However, his claims, atleast to my satisfaction, have thoroughly been refuted by Chaim Miliowsky in his review essay of Hans-Jürgen Beckers work regarding the dating of the Bereshit Rabbah.^([19])

Thus, the dating of these rabbinic sources strongly supports the conclusion that the idea of Pharaoh’s self-deification was already present in Jewish literature before the rise of Islam.

Broader Cultural Context

In addition to the Jewish sources, it is important to consider the broader cultural context of the ancient world, where ruler-deification was a common motif.  As demonstrated earlier, the deification of rulers was not limited to Egypt; it was a widespread practice in many ancient civilizations. For example, in the Roman Empire, emperors were often deified after their deaths, and in some cases, even while they were alive. The worship of living emperors became particularly prominent during the reign of Augustus and continued throughout the Roman imperial period. Similarly, in the ancient Near East, Assyrian and Babylonian kings were often depicted as god-like figures, ruling by divine mandate and sometimes even claiming to be gods themselves.

These examples demonstrate that the idea of rulers being divine was a pervasive cultural phenomenon in the ancient world. As shown, given the extensive trade networks and cultural exchanges between the Arabian Peninsula and the surrounding regions, it is unlikely that such ideas would have been entirely unknown to the inhabitants of Arabia in the seventh century. Therefore, the argument that the Qurʼān’s portrayal of Pharaoh’s self-deification represents a rediscovered historical fact that could only have been revealed through divine intervention is not convincing.

Conclusions:

The argument that the Qurʼān’s depiction of Pharaoh’s self-deification provides evidence of its divine origin is unconvincing in light of pre-Islamic Jewish and other ancient sources. The idea of rulers, including Pharaoh, claiming divinity was well-known long before the advent of Islam. Jewish texts such as Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael and Bereshit Rabbah contain clear references to Pharaoh’s self-deification, demonstrating that this concept was familiar to Jewish scholars and was transmitted through religious and historical literature. Furthermore, the broader cultural context of ruler-deification in the ancient Near East and Mediterranean world suggests that the notion of divine kingship was a widespread phenomenon, not a "lost" historical fact.

Given the extensive trade routes and cultural exchanges that connected Arabia with the rest of the ancient world, it is plausible that these ideas could have been known to Prophet Muhammad and his contemporaries. Therefore, the claim that the Qurʼān’s portrayal of Pharaoh as a self-proclaimed god provides evidence of divine revelation is weak and unsupported by historical evidence. Instead, the Qurʼānic narrative appears to reflect well-established cultural motifs about ruler-deification that were already present in pre-Islamic literature and thought.

In conclusion, while the Qurʼān’s portrayal of Pharaoh’s self-deification is consistent with what we know from historical and Egyptological studies, it does not provide a unique or rediscovered insight into ancient history. The notion of Pharaoh’s divinity was part of a broader tradition of ruler-worship that was already well-known long before the advent of Islam. Thus, the argument for divine revelation based on this Qurʼānic theme is not substantiated by the available evidence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix: More Potential Objections

Some might attempt to follow the reasoning of M.S.M. Saifullah and his team from Islamic Awareness to challenge the claim that certain aspects of Bereshit Rabbah are definitively pre-Islamic.^([20]) Specifically, they could argue against the notion that the text influenced the Qurʼān in instances such as the portrayal of Pharaoh’s divinity. Instead, they might suggest that the influence could have flowed the other way, with the Qurʼān potentially shaping parts of Bereshit Rabbah.

This specific argument hinges on the fact that the earliest extant manuscript of Bereshit Rabbah dates to centuries after the emergence of Islam.^([21]) Therefore, they might assert that it is a plausible hypothesis, or at least not an unreasonable one, that some elements of Bereshit Rabbah could reflect post-Islamic developments or interactions, rather than being wholly independent or purely pre-Islamic in origin.

 However, the assumption that Bereshit Rabbah could have been influenced by the Qur'an, based solely on the late dating of its extant manuscript and the claim that someone along the transmission could have added something influenced by the Qurʼān  is unfounded and mostly just the date of a manuscript’s transcription does not determine the age of the content it preserves. Traditions within Bereshit Rabbah were well-established long before the emergence of Islam, such as the notion of Pharaoh being a god found in Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael,^([22]) making it improbable that the Qur'an influenced its composition. 

Moreover, the argument for Islamic influence suffers from a critical lack of specificity. Even if Bereshit Rabbah’s first available is from after Islam’s emergence,  the claimants would need to demonstrate direct evidence of influence. For example, they would need to show that certain themes or ideas in the text are distinctly Islamic in origin and could not have existed in Jewish thought prior to Islam. In this instance, the portrayal of Pharaoh’s divinity is not a novel theme introduced by the Qur'ān but one that already existed within Jewish exegesis, as seen in earlier texts like the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael. Without concrete proof of post-Islamic additions to Bereshit Rabbah, the claim remains speculative and unsubstantiated.

Even more broadly, this argument has methodological flaws that extend beyond this specific case. If the late dating of a manuscript were enough to presume Islamic influence, it would set a precedent for attributing Qur'ānic impact to any text written down after Islam, regardless of its actual historical origins. This undermines established historical and textual methodologies that rely on the broader context and traceable developments of religious traditions. Such reasoning dismisses the extensive evidence that Jewish ideas in texts like Bereshit Rabbah predate Islam and arise from their own cultural and religious milieu.

In conclusion, the suggestion that Bereshit Rabbah could have been influenced by the Qurʼān, based solely on the late dating of its extant manuscript and the hypothetical possibility of post-Islamic interpolation, lacks both evidence and plausibility. The established Jewish traditions preserved in Bereshit Rabbah and other rabbinic texts firmly situate its core ideas in a pre-Islamic context, making such claims speculative at best and unfounded at worst.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References & Notes:

^([1])  For sources on Muslim apologists making this claim, see: Ameri, S. (2024). براهين النبوة  سامي عامري  مركز رواسخ. Rawasekh. pp. 469-477; Ali, A. (2021). Historical Marvels in the Quran. (n.p.) pp. 31-32; Though not direct, but to similar leaning claims, see: Saifullah, M. S. M. et. al. (2006, 2008). Pharaoh And His Gods In Ancient Egypt. Islamic Awareness. (Retrieved 15.11.2024).

^([2]) For Egyptologists/historians confirming this fact, see: Baines, J., Lesko, L. H. & Silverman, D. P. (1991). Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Personal Practice. Cornell University Press. p. 64; Kitchen, K. A. (1985). Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II, King of Egypt. Aris & Phillips. p. 177; Assman, J. (2001). The Search For God In Ancient Egypt. Lorton, D. (trans.). Cornell University Press. pp. 16-17.

^([3]) Ramesses II was indeed held to be divine, and this was demonstrated through his enormous building projects. For an exhaustive discussion on Ramesses II:s deification, see: Habachi, L. (1969). Features Of The Deification Of Ramesses II. Augustin.

^([4]) For example, many ancient Mesopotamian rulers were referred to as "king of the world" (See: Stevens, K. [2014]. "The Antiochus Cylinder, Babylonian Scholarship and Seleucid Imperial Ideology". The Journal of Hellenic Studies. 134, p. 176.); Mesopotamian rulers were also sometimes identified with the creator god Marduk, which implied their ultimate divinity. (See: Abusch, T. [2016]. “Kingship in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Case of Enūma Eliš". In Lanfranchi, G. B. & Rollinger, R. (eds.). The Body of the King: The Staging of the Body of the Institutional Leader From Antiquity to Middle Ages in East and West. S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice e Libreria. pp. 59-64.); For anyone interested in a general discussion on the topic of the divinity of rulers in ancient Mesopotamia, see: Brisch, N. (2013). "Of Gods and Kings: Divine Kingship in Ancient Mesopotamia". Religion Compass. 7(2), pp. 37-46

^([5]) The deification of rulers, particularly emperors, in Rome was an active practice with a long lasting tradition up to the times of Constantine. For more on this, see: Burton, H. F. (1912). “The Worship of the Roman Emperors”. The Biblical World. 40(2), pp. 80-91; Larry, K. (1990). “Apotheosis of the Roman Emperor.” The Biblical Archaeologist. 53(4), pp. 211–217; Chaniotis, A. (2003).“The Divinity of Hellenistic Rulers”. In Erskine, A. (ed.). A Companion to the Hellenistic World. pp. 431-445.

^([6]) Though denied by the man himself, emperor Augustus can be said to have been the most famous of all the Roman emperors to be worshiped, though only mostly after his death. For more on this, see: Taylor, L. R. (1920). “The Worship of Augustus in Italy during His Lifetime.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association. 51, pp. 116–133; Burton, op. cit., pp. 83-83.

^([7]) The dating of the Rabbinic works cited shall be discussed in The Dating of Rabbinic Sources portion. For now, I will be naming the accepted date without any direct citations.

^([8]) Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael. Tractate Shirata 8:7; Quoted from: Mekhilta De-Rabbi Ishmael (JPS Classical Reissues). Jewish Publication Society. p. 208.

^([9]) Also sometimes referred to as Genesis Rabbah. For now, I will be calling it by its romanized name, Bereshit Rabbah.

^([10]) Bereshit Rabbah. 100:1; Quoted from Sefaria.org. (Another portion of the Bereshit Rabbah that could indeed be interpreted as describing Pharaoh to be divine is 89:3, where it mentions Pharaoh saying “I over my god [the Nile] , or my god over me.” For this, see: Ulmer, R. [2009]. Egyptian Cultural Icons in Midrash. De Gruyter. p. 74.)

^([11]) Some more material that could be provided for pre-islamic Rabbinc texts discussing the notion of the godhood of the Pharaoh would mostly be from the Midrash Tanhuma. However the problem with that is that, its date as pre-islamic, is rather hard to establish, and the estimates have in scholarship been ranging anywhere from the 4th century to the medieval times. Regardless, for anyone interested in the material that I'm referring to, see: Midrash Tanhuma. Vaera 5:6, 9:1, 9:5, 14:1 & Bereshit 7:12. (See also: Midrash Tanhuma Buber Tzav 3:1 & Vaera 8:1.)

^([12]) The Arabian Peninsula was a melting pot of different religions and ideologies, and hence, it isn't far fetched to argue that information about, say Pharaohs divinity in this case, would have been information floating around. Now my goal in this work is not to prove or argue for the possible sources of knowledge on these things, because it isn't my objective in this work. However, maybe later. For more on possible Judeo-Christian sources that could have been available for the author of the Qurʼān in the 7th century Hejaz, see: Sinai, N. (2024). “The Christian Elephant in the Meccan Room: Dye, Tesei, and Shoemaker on the Date of the Qurʾān.” Journal of the International Qur’anic Studies Association. 9(1), pp. 57-118; Lindstedt, I. (2024). Muhammad and His Followers in Context: The Religious Map of Late Antique Arabia. Brill. pp. 54-117. (Also for direct arguments regarding this, see: Hamidovic, D. [2019]. “Les Écrits Apocryphes Juifs Et le Coran.” In Amir-Moezzi, M. L. & Dye, G. [eds.].  Le Coran Des Historiens. Les Éditions Du Cerf. vol. 1, pp. 499-505.)

^([13]) For a 2th-4th century dating of the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, see: Tilly, M & Visotzky, L. B. (2021). Judaism II: Literature. Kohlhammer. p. 105; Stemberger, G. & Strack, H. L. (1996). Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Fortress Press. p. 255; Cecil, R. & Geoffrey, W. (eds.). (1978). Encyclopaedia Judaica: Volume 11 Lek-Mil. Encyclopaedia Judaica. p. 1269; Perdue, L. G. (2008). The Sword and the Stylus: An Introduction to Wisdom in the Age of Empires. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 400; Harrington, H. K. (2002). Holiness: Rabbinic Judaism in the Graeco-Roman World. Taylor & Francis. p. 9. (This dating can most certainly be said to be the most accepted among contemporary scholarship today. See: Teugels, L. M. & Eenennaam, E. V. [2019]. The Meshalim in the Mekhiltot: An Annotated Edition and Translation of the Parables in Mekhilta de Rabbi Yishmael and Mekhilta de Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai. Mohr Siebeck. p. 67.). The date of the particular narrative of discussing the list of rulers, such as Pharaoh, King of Tyre etc., as divine may in its origins even go back to the days of the famous church father Origen (2th-3th century). For more on this, see: Patmore, H. M. (2012). Adam, Satan, and the King of Tyre: The Interpretation of Ezekiel 28:11-19 in Late Antiquity. Brill. pp. 27, 76.

^([14]) For a 4th-5th century dating the Bereshit Rabbah, see: Stemberger & Starck, op. cit., p. 279; Woolstenhulme, K., Woolstenhulme, D. K. J. (2020). The Matriarchs in Genesis Rabbah.  Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 22, 222; Neusner, J. (1997). Genesis Rabbah. Scholars Press. p. xliii; Tilly & Vitsotzky, op. cit., pp. 134-135. Joseph Witztum in his doctoral thesis has also used this dating of the Bereshit Rabbah to argue for parallenomia between it and the Qurʼān. See: Witztum, J. (2011). The Syriac Milieu of the Quran: The Recasting of Biblical Narratives. Princeton University (Doctoral Dissertation. p. 5. (This date for the Bereshit Rabbah can be said to be the most accepted in today's scholarship. See: Niehoff, M. [2016]. “Origen's Commentary on Genesis as a key to Genesis Rabbah.” In Gribetz, S. et. al. [eds.]. Genesis Rabbah in Text and Context. Mohr Siebeck. p. 129, Footnote 4.)

^([15]) For the article of Wacholder mentioned, see: Wacholder, B. Z. (1968). “The Date of Mekhilta De-Rabbi Ishmael”. Hebrew Union College Annual. 39, pp. 117–144.

^([16]) Anyone interested in Boyarins direct critique, see: Boyarin, D. (1992). “Review: On the Status of the Tannaitic Midrashim:” Journal of American Oriental Society. 112(3), pp. 464-465.

^([17]) Many scholars have acknowledged the critique presented by Boyarin to be a total refutation of Wacholders arguments and stances on the date of the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael. See for example: Boustan, R. S. (2005). From Martyr to Mystic: Rabbinic Martyrology and the Making of Merkavah Mysticism. Mohr Siebeck. p. 63, Footnote 37; Teugels & Eenennaam, op. cit, p. 67, Footnote 274. (Though not directly quoting Boyarin, for more statements on how the views and arguments of Wacholder hold close to no water in contemporary scholarship, see: Stemberger & Starck, op. cit., p. 255; Tilly & Vitsotzky, op. cit., pp. 104-105.)

^([18]) For a comprehensive english version of Becker's work, see: Becker, H. (2000). "Texts And History: The Dynamic Relationship Between Talmud Yerushalmi And Genesis Rabbah". In Cohen, S. J. D. (ed.). The Synoptic Problem In Rabbanic Literature. Brown Judaic Studies: Providence. pp. 145-160; Though in german, for more detailed and longer version of Becker's work on this topic, see: Becker, H. (1999). Die grossen rabbinischen Sammelwerke Palästinas: zur literarischen Genese von Talmud Yerushalmi und Midrash Bereshit Rabba. Mohr Siebeck. (On a side note, this particular work by Becker has been the most often cited by the apologists when attempting to refute the dating of the Bereshit Rabbah to be pre-islamic. See for example: Saifullah, M. S. M. et. al. [2002, 2006]. The Story Of Abraham And Idols In The Qur'an And Midrash Genesis Rabbah. Islamic Awareness. [Retrieved 16.11.2024.].)

^([19]) For Miliowskys critique of Becker's arguments, see: Miliowsky, C. (2002). "On the Formation and Transmission of Bereshit Rabbah and the Yerushalmi: Questions of Redaction, Text-Criticism and Literary Relationships." Jewish Quarterly Review. 92(3), pp. 521-567.

^([20]) For the direct arguments, see: Saifullah, M. S. M. et. al. (2002, 2006). The Story Of Abraham And Idols In The Qur'an And Midrash Genesis Rabbah. Islamic Awareness. (Retrieved 22.11.2024); For similar lines of argumentation, see also: Ameri, S. (2018). هل القرآن الكريم مقتبس من كتب اليهود والنصارى. Rawasekh. pp. 221-224. (One other argument presented by the Islamic Awareness team in the same article regarding the overall redaction date by citing Hans-Jürgen Becker has already been addressed in the Dating of Rabbinic Sources portion.)

^([21]) The earliest full manuscript of the Bereshit Rabbah is the Vatican 30 (Also referred to as Vat. 30). There doesn't exist any direct consensus on the exact date of the Vat. 30, however, it still most likely post-dates the Qurʼān by at least a couple of hundred years. For more discussion on the manuscript, see: Barth, L. M. (1973). An analysis of Vatican 30. Hebrew Union College Press. 

^([22]) Many later Rabbinic texts often utilize/use many of the traditions and material found in the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael (See: Tilly & Vitzosky, op. cit., p. 105.), and hence, it isn't far off to assume it being the case in this instance regarding Pharaohs divinity too. Someone may try to argue with the similar line of reasoning about the manuscripts of Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael as the Islamic Awareness team in regards to the Bereshit Rabbah, however, this line of reasoning more so doesn't work in this instance, because the tradition that the divinity of Pharaoh in the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael is a part of can be independently be said to come at least from the 2th-3th century. (See: Footnote 13.)

Many Muslims believe that the Torah and Injeel (Old&New Testament) are corrupted. So according to you, the verses in the Quran that talks about these books are talking about their original versions.

Then, this question comes to my mind: Why the Quran doesn't talk about who corrupted them and when? For example, even Christians say that the Gospel today is a collection of writings from 4 different people, who they believe were divinely inspired.

The Quran mentions how God gave Jesus a book called Injeel, many times, yet, NEVER says something like "People couldn't protect that book. After some time,Satan came to some of them, they wrote a book by their hands and said 'This is from Allah'. So Christians! The book you have today is not correct. Believe in the Quran which does not have any human word in it."

If the Quran doesn't say something like this, it can be concluded that according to Quran, the New Testament which the Christians held at prophet Muhammad's time was the same book as the book of Jesus, and it's actually a big mistake that the Quran is possibly confusing the writings of 4 authors with the original book of Jesus.

Riyad as-Salihin 422

Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "By the One in Whose Hand my soul is, were you not to commit sins, Allah would replace you with a people who would commit sins and then seek forgiveness from Allah; and Allah would forgive them".

This is the only explanation I've been able to find

This hadith is about the mercy of Allah and how He forgives those who repent and seek forgiveness for their sins. It is narrated by Abu Hurairah, a companion of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, that the Prophet said “By the One in Whose Hand my soul is, were you not to commit sins, Allah would replace you with a people who would commit sins and then seek forgiveness from Allah; and Allah would forgive them”. This hadith teaches us that even though we may make mistakes or sin, if we sincerely repent to God and ask for His forgiveness then He will accept our repentance. We should never give up hope in God's mercy as He loves to forgive us when we turn back to Him in repentance.

Allah prefers sinners because He loves it when they break his rules and beg him for forgiveness?

Due to the character limit, i can only post some of them, the full version is in PDF format: Arabic version, English version.

1. Ibn Abd al-Barr (Al-Tamhid 40/12): "The scholars have unanimously agreed that a father can marry off his little daughter without consulting her."
2. Ibn al-Mundhir (Al-Ijma' 78): "The scholars unanimously agree that it is permissible for a father to marry off his little daughter to a suitable match."
3. Ibn al-Mundhir (Al-Ishraf 5/21): "All the scholars we have learned from among the scholars agree on the permissibility of a father marrying off his little daughter."
4. Ibn Qattan (Masa'il Al-Ijma' 2/8): "The scholars unanimously agree that a father can marry off his little daughter without seeking her consent. They differed on whether the adult daughter can be forced into marriage or not."
5. Al-Qurtubi (Al-Mufhim 4/118): "There is consensus that a father can marry off his little daughter and compel her to it without her permission."
6. Bakr ibn al-‘Ala’ (Ahkam al-Qur'an 2/218): "As for the father, he is not included in the meaning of the Hadith which says 'a virgin must be consulted,' because the father can marries her off while she is little, whether she likes it or not."
7. Al-Jawhari (Nawadir al-Fuqaha’ 83): "They unanimously agreed that it is permissible to marry off a little girl."
8. Ibn Abd al-Barr (Al-Tamhid 12/21): "The father has the right to marry off his little daughter by the consensus of the Muslims."
9. Al-Baghawi (Sharh al-Sunnah 9/37): "The scholars agreed that it is permissible for the father and grandfather to marry off a little virgin."
10. Al-Maziri (Ikmal al-Mu’lim 4/572): "There is no dispute among the scholars on the permissibility of a father marrying off his little daughter."
11. Ibn Rushd (Bidayat al-Mujtahid 3/34): "They unanimously agree that a father can compel a prepubescent virgin."
12. Al-Baghawi (Al-Tahdhib 5/256): "Abu Hanifa said that all guardians are allowed to marry off a little girl, whether she is a virgin or previously married. However, the marriage conducted by the father and grandfather is binding, while the marriage by others is not binding, and she has the right to reject it after reaching puberty."
13. Ibn al-‘Arabi (Aridat al-Ahwadhi 5/22): "As for the little virgin, there is no dispute that her father can marry her off, and there is no need to consult her, as she has no opinion to consider."
14. Ibn Hubayra (Ikhtilaf al-A’imma 2/123): "The scholars agreed that the father has the right to compel his little daughter into marriage."
15. Ibn al-‘Arabi (Ahkam al-Qur'an 3/506): "If she is little, he marries her off without her consent, as she has no consent or agreement."
16. Al-Nawawi (Sharh al-Nawawi ‘ala Muslim 9/206): "The Muslims have unanimously agreed on the permissibility of a father marrying off his little virgin daughter."
17. Ibn Hajar (Fath al-Bari 9/124): "Ibn Battal said that it is permissible to marry off a little girl to an older man by consensus, even if she is in the cradle."
18. Abu Shaybah (Musannaf Abi Shaybah 17340): "From ‘Urwa ibn al-Zubayr that he married off a little daughter to Mus‘ab."
19. Abu Shaybah (Musannaf Abi Shaybah 17341): "From Ali ibn Abi Talib that ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab proposed to his daughter Umm Kulthum. Ali said: 'She is little, look at her,' so he sent her a message. He joked with her, and she said, 'If you were not old or the commander of the believers...' 'Umar admired the alliance and proposed to her, so Ali married her to him."
20. Qatadah (Al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh 34): "{And those who have not menstruated yet} refers to the virgin who has not reached menstruation, and her waiting period is three months."
21. Muqatil ibn Sulayman (Tafsir Muqatil): "{And those who have not menstruated yet} refers to the waiting period of girls who have not reached menstruation, who were married and then divorced."
22. Ibn al-Hasan (Al-Asl 6/2): "{And those who have despaired of menstruation among your women, if you doubt, then their waiting period is three months, and those who have not menstruated yet}" – if she does not menstruate due to old age or young age, then her waiting period is three months.
23. Ibn al-Hasan (Al-Asl 4/393): "The waiting period of the woman who has despaired of menstruation and the one who has not reached menstruation, as stated in the Book of Allah, is three months."
24. Al-Shafi'i (Al-Umm 5/227): "For women who have despaired of menstruation and those who have not reached menstruation, their waiting period is months, as Allah says, {And those who have despaired of menstruation, if you doubt, then their waiting period is three months, and those who have not menstruated yet}."
25. Al-Farra’ (Ma’ani al-Qur'an 3/163): "Mu‘adh ibn Jabal asked the Prophet: 'We know the waiting period of the menstruating woman, but what is the waiting period of the older woman who has despaired of menstruation?' So it was revealed: 'Their waiting period is three months.' A man asked: 'O Messenger of Allah, what is the waiting period of the young girl who has not menstruated?' So it was revealed: '{And those who have not menstruated yet}.'"
26. Al-Bayhaqi (Al-Sunan al-Kubra 7/680): "When the waiting period for women was revealed in Surat al-Baqarah, Ubayy ibn Ka‘b said: 'O Messenger of Allah, some people in Medina say there are women who have not been mentioned.' The Prophet asked: 'What are they?' Ubayy replied: 'The young and the elderly.' Then it was revealed: '{And those who have despaired of menstruation, if you doubt, then their waiting period is three months, and those who have not menstruated yet}.'"
27. Al-Bukhari (Sahih al-Bukhari 17/7): Chapter on a man marrying off his little children, based on the verse {And those who have not menstruated}, where their waiting period is made three months before puberty. Aisha reported that the Prophet married her when she was six years old, and consummated the marriage when she was nine, and she remained with him for nine years.
28. Al-Muzani (Mukhtasar al-Muzani 323/8): If the young girl menstruates after the expiration of the three-month waiting period, her waiting period has ended. But if she menstruates before its completion, she is no longer considered among those who have not menstruated, and the menstrual cycles become her waiting period.
29. Al-Tabari (Tafsir al-Tabari 52/23): And similarly, the waiting period for littlegirls who have not yet menstruated, if their husbands divorce them after consummation.
30. Al-Tabari (Tafsir al-Tabari 54/23): {And those who have not menstruated} refers to those who have not yet reached the age of menstruation.
31. Ibn Ishaq (Sirat Ibn Ishaq 255): The Messenger of Allah married Aisha three years after the death of Khadijah, and at that time, Aisha was six years old. The Prophet consummated the marriage with her when she was nine years old, and she was eighteen when he passed away.
32. Al-Shaybani (Al-Asl 186/10): It has reached us from the Messenger of Allah that he married Aisha when she was a young girl of six years, and consummated the marriage with her when she was nine years old.
33. Ibn Wahb (Al-Muwatta 88): Aisha said: The Messenger of Allah married me when I was six years old after the death of Khadijah, and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine years old.
34. Al-Shafi'i (Al-Umm 18/5): Aisha said: The Prophet married me when I was six or seven years old, and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine. The marriage of Abu Bakr giving Aisha to the Prophet at the age of six, and the consummation at nine, shows that the father has more authority over the little virgin than she does over herself.
35. Abd al-Razzaq (Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq 10349): Urwah ibn al-Zubayr said: The Prophet married Aisha when she was six years old, and she was sent to him when she was nine years old, with her toys with her. He died when she was eighteen years old.
36. Ibn Hisham (Sirat Ibn Hisham 644/2): The Messenger of Allah married Aisha, the daughter of Abu Bakr, in Mecca when she was six years old.
37. Ibn Sa’d (Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra 61/10): The Messenger of Allah married Aisha when she was six years old, and consummated the marriage with her when she was nine years old.
38. Al-Kawsaj (Masā'il al-Imām Aḥmad wa Ibn Rāhawayh 3648/7): Ahmad said, "If a girl is nine years old, her accuser of adultery should be flogged, as the Prophet married Aisha when she was nine years old."
39. Al-Dārimī (Sunan al-Dārimī 1451/3): Chapter on Marrying little Girls if Their Fathers Arrange the Marriage: We were told by Aisha that she said, "The Messenger of Allah married me when I was six years old, and I was delivered to him when I was nine years old."
40. Ibn M jah (Sunan Ibn M jah 603/1): Chapter on Marrying Young Girls Arranged by Their Fathers: We were told by Aisha that she said, "The Messenger of Allah married me when I was six years old. We arrived in Medina, and I was delivered to him when I was nine years old."
41. Al-Nasa’i (Sunan al-Nasa’i 82/6): Chapter on a man marrying off his little daughter: Aisha reported that the Messenger of Allah married her when she was six years old and consummated the marriage with her when she was nine.
42. Al-Maturidi (Tafsir al-Maturidi 59/10): It has been established that if you have doubts about the waiting period for women who are past childbearing age or little girls, it is three months.
43. Al-Qasab (Al-Nukat al-Dalah 334/4): The age of maturity for women, according to me, based on the Quranic evidence, is the age at which they can endure intercourse and give birth. Do you not see that it says, "If you have doubts," and doubt can only occur after intercourse with someone who can become pregnant, which was the case with Aisha when the Prophet married her.
44. Ibn al-Arabi (Ahkam al-Qur’an 68/2): {And those who have not menstruated} indicates the validity of divorcing a little girl who has not yet menstruated. Since divorce only occurs in a valid marriage, this verse implies that marrying a little girl is permissible.
45. Al-Jassas (Sharh Mukhtasar al-Tahawi 293/4): The verse {And those who have despaired of menstruation among your women, if you are in doubt, their waiting period is three months, and those who have not menstruated} ruled on the validity of divorcing a little girl and required her to observe the waiting period if she was consummated with. Divorce only occurs in a valid marriage, and according to the Sunnah, the Prophet married Aisha when she was little, and her father Abu Bakr married her to him.
46. Bakr ibn al-'Ala (Ahkam al-Qur’an 218/2): The Prophet married Aisha when she was six years old and consummated the marriage with her when she was nine. Scholars have unanimously agreed that it is permissible for a father to marry off his little daughter.
47. Ibn Hibban (Sahih Ibn Hibban 56/16): Aisha reported that the Prophet married her when she was a little girl and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old. She stayed with him for nine years.
48. Al-Khatabi (Ma'alim al-Sunan 213/3): On the topic of marrying little girls, Abu Dawood reported that Aisha said: The Messenger of Allah married me when I was seven years old, according to some reports, or six years old according to others, and he consummated the marriage with me when I was nine years old. The scholar mentioned that this indicates that the virgin girl whose consent is required for marriage is an adult, not a little girl who has not reached puberty, as consent from someone who is not of age is meaningless, and their approval or disapproval is not considered.
49. Ibn al-Arabi (Ahkam al-Qur’an 285/4): {And those who have not menstruated} refers to little girls.
50. Al-‘Amrani (Al-Bayan 178/9): The waiting period for those who have not menstruated is only for the wife to observe the waiting period after intercourse. This indicates that a little girl who has not menstruated can be married off, and her marriage is valid as long as her father marries her. Aisha reported that the prophet married her when she was seven years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine. It is evident that her consent was not required in this situation, so it is understood that her father married her without her consent, and it is the father or grandfather to compel her into marriage.
51. Al-Razi (Tafsir al-Fakhr 563/30): When the verse "And those who have despaired of menstruation among your women, if you are in doubt, their waiting period is three months" was revealed, a man asked, "O Messenger of Allah, what is the waiting period for a little girl who has not menstruated?" The response was that "And those who have not menstruated" means that it is equivalent to the waiting period of a mature woman who has despaired of menstruation, which is three months.
52. Ibn Qudamah (Al-Mughni 40/7): If a man marries his virgin daughter and places her with a suitable match, the marriage is valid even if she dislikes it, whether she is mature or little. There is no dispute regarding the marriage of a little virgin; Ibn al Mundhir reported that all scholars agree that it is permissible for a father to marry off his litte daughter if he marries her to a suitable match. He is also allowed to marry her off even if she dislikes it or refuses.
53. Ibn Qudamah (Al-Mughni 40/7): The verse "And those who have despaired of menstruation among your women, if you are in doubt, their waiting period is three months, and those who have not menstruated" shows that the waiting period for those who have not menstruated is three months. This implies that such girls can be married and divorced, and their consent is not required for the marriage to be valid.
54. Ibn Qudamah (Al-Mughni 40/7): Aisha said: The Prophet married me when I was six years old and consummated the marriage when I was nine, which is agreed upon. It is known that she was not of an age where her consent was required. Al-Athram reported that Qudamah ibn Mazu’un married the daughter of Al-Zubair when she had just been birth. He said, "She is the daughter of Al-Zubair If I die, she will inherit from me, and if I live, she will be my wife." Ali also married off his daughter Umm Kulthum, who was little, to Umar ibn al-Khattab.
55. Ibn Hajar (Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari 101/5): Ibn Batal said that it is unanimously agreed that marrying a little girl to an older man is permissible, even if she is still in the cradle, but sexual relations cannot take place until she is of an appropriate age.
56. Al-Shawkani (Nayl al-Awtar 252/6): The hadith also indicates that it is permissible to marry a little girl to an older man. Al-Bukhari included this in his chapter and mentioned the hadith of Aisha. It was reported in Al-Fath that there is a consensus on the permissibility of this, even if the girl is still in the cradle, though sexual relations cannot occur until she is mature.
57. Al-Nawawi (Sharh Muslim 206/9): Regarding the timing of consummating the marriage with a little girl, if the husband and guardian agree on a time that does not harm the girl, then that should be observed. If they disagree, Ahmad and Abu Ubaidah said that a nine-year-old girl can be compelled to do this, unlike others. Malik, Al-Shafi’i, and Abu Hanifa said that it depends on the girl's ability to endure intercourse, which varies among individuals and is not fixed by age, and this is the correct view.
58. Al-Nawawi (Rawdat al-Talibin 379/4): It is permissible to endow something that is used for its direct benefit, such as trees for their fruit, animals for milk, wool, and eggs, and properties for their utility. It is not required for the benefit or use to be immediate; thus, it is permissible to endow a little slave or a young donkey, and even a woman who is still an infant.
59. Al-Nawawi (Rawdat al-Talibin 459/5): Ibn al-Ḥaddād said: "If a man says to his wife, 'You are divorced three times,' he may immediately marry her sister, as the separation has occurred. The same ruling applies if she apostasizes and he divorces her during her apostasy. If he has both a little wife and an older wife whom he has consummated the marriage with, and the older wife apostasizes, and her mother breastfeeds the little wife during her waiting period, the marriage to the little wife is suspended."
60. Al-Nawawi (Rawdat al-Talibin 425/6): If a man has a little wife and five nursing mothers, and each one nurses the little wife with her milk, the marriage to the little wife is not annulled according to the first view but is annulled according to the second view, which is more accurate. The husband is not liable for the dower if the milk was given sequentially, as the annulment of the marriage pertains to the last nursing. If the nurse is a slave, there is no liability; if she is a wife, the husband is responsible for the dower.
61. Al-Nawawi (Rawdat al-Talibin 434/6): If a man has a little wife and an older wife, and the mother of the older wife nurses the little wife, the marriage to the little wife is definitively annulled, and so is the marriage to the older wife according to the more apparent view. If the grandmother, sister, or niece of the older wife nurses the little wife, the same ruling applies. It is permissible to marry either of them afterward, but not both simultaneously. If the older wife’s daughter nurses the little wife, the ruling on annulment is as previously mentioned. The older wife remains forbidden permanently, and the little wife is forbidden if the older wife had been consummated with, as she becomes the little wife’s stepmother. The dower of the little wife is the responsibility of the husband, and the nursing costs are borne by the nurse, as previously stated.
62. Ibn Hazm (Al-Muhalla 458/9): A father has the right to marry off his little virgin daughter without her permission, and she has no choice in the matter when she reaches puberty.
63. Ibn Hazm (Al-Muhalla 460/9): Abu Muhammad Ibn Hazm argued that the legitimacy of a father marrying off his little virgin daughter is supported by the marriage of Aisha to the Prophet Muhammad at six years old. This is a well-known fact and does not require a chain of narration. Claims that this was a specific case are disregarded in light of the Quranic verse: "There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day" (Al-Ahzab: 21). Thus, we are to follow the Prophet’s example unless a specific text indicates otherwise.
64. Al-Bayhaqi (Ma’rifat al-Sunan wa al-Athar 41/10): Aisha said, "The Messenger of Allah married me when I was six or seven years old and consummated the marriage when I was nine, and I used to play with dolls. "Al-Shafi’i, in a narration from Abu Said, stated that the marriage of Aisha at six and the consummation at nine indicates that a father has more authority over a virgin daughter than she does over herself, and it is more appropriate that the father can act on behalf of the little girl until she reaches puberty.
65. Ibn Abd al-Barr (Al-Tamhid 116/12): The difference between Maimuna and Umm Salama, where Aisha was allowed to look at the Ethiopians, is that Aisha, at that time, was not yet of age, as she was married off as a child of six years.
66. Ibn Abd al-Barr (Al-Istidhkar 405/5): Ahmad ibn Hanbal said that neither a judge nor a guardian should marry off an orphan until she is nine years old. If she is married before nine, he should not consummate the marriage until she reaches nine. Ibn Abd al-Barr mentioned that this ruling was derived from the marriage of Aisha, but Allah knows best.
67. Ibn Abd al-Barr (Al-Istidhkar 405/5): Abu Hanifa and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan said that it is permissible for a guardian to marry off a little girl, whether her father or someone else, but she has the right to choose when she reaches maturity. This is the view of Al-Hasan, Ataa, Tawus, Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, Qatadah, Ibn Shubrumah, and Al-Awza’i. Abu Yusuf said that the little girl has no choice if her father or another guardian marries her. All of these scholars agree that if it is permisible to marry off an adult girl, then it is permissible to marry off a little girl.
68. Al-Ruyani (Bahr al-Madhab 48/9): As for little virgins, their fathers have the right to compel them into marriage without considering their choice. The contract is binding on them both when they are young and when they mature. Similarly, the paternal grandfather can take the father’s place in marrying off the little virgin if the father is absent. The evidence for this, even though it is a consensus, is the verse: "And those who have despaired of menstruation among your women, if you are in doubt, their waiting period is three months, and those who have not menstruated" which refers to little girls. A little girl must observe a waiting period for divorce, indicating that her marriage is permissible even when she is little. Aisha said that the Prophet married her at seven and consummated the marriage at nine.
69. Al-Baghawi (Tafsir al-Baghawi 152/8): "And those who have not menstruated" refers to little girls who have not menstruated, and their waiting period is three months.
70. Ibn Rushd (Al-Bayan wa al-Tahsil 388/5): Three months is the waiting period for a little girl who has not reached menstruation.
71. Al-Marzi (Al-Mu’allim 144/2): "{And those who have not menstruated}" This indicates that the marriage contract with those who have not menstruated is valid before puberty.
72. Al-Zamakhshari (Tafsir al-Zamakhshari 557/4): "{And those who have not menstruated}" refers to little girls.
73. Ibn al-Jallab (Al-Tafri' fi Fiqh al-Imam Malik 361/1): Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, said: "It is permissible for a father to contract marriage for his little daughter, whether she is a virgin or previously married, and it is permissible for him to contract marriage for an adult virgin without her consent."
74. Ibn Hazm (Al-Muhalla 38/9): "The father has the right to marry off his little daughter who has not reached puberty without her consent, and she has no choice when she reaches puberty. The proof for allowing the father's marriage of his little daughter is the marriage of Aisha by Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, to the Prophet when she was six years old."
75. Abu Dawood (Sunan Abu Dawood 4933): Aisha said, "Umm Ruman came to me while I was on a swing, took me, prepared me, and presented me to the Messenger of Allah. He consummated with me when I was nine years old."
76. Al-Nasa'i (Al-Sunan al-Kubra 5542): According to Urwah bin al-Zubair, "She was brought to him when she was nine years old, and he played with her."
77. Abdullah Ibn Qudamah (Al-Mughni 210/9): "If a man marries a mature woman and a little girl and has not consummated the marriage with the mature woman, and she breastfed the little girl within the first two years period, the mature woman becomes forbidden to him. The marriage with the little girl remains valid. If he has consummated the marriage with the mature woman, both become forbidden to him, and he can claim half the dowry of the little girl from the mature woman. Ahmad has confirmed this."
78. Abdullah Ibn Qudamah (Al-Mughni 214/9): "If the daughter of the mature woman breastfeeds the young girl, the prohibition and annulment of the marriage are as if the mature woman herself had breastfed her, as she becomes her grandmother. The dowry should be returned to the wet nurse who caused the annulment. If the mature woman’s mother breastfeeds the young girl, their marriage is annulled because they become sisters. If he has not consummated the marriage with the mature woman, he may marry either of them."
79. Abdullah Ibn Qudamah (Al-Mughni 159/9): "As for the little girl who cannot be consummated, it is clear from al-Khuraqi’s statement that kissing and touching her for pleasure are forbidden before her purification, and this is the apparent opinion of Ahmad. In most reports from him, it is said: 'She should be purified even if she is in the cradle.'"
80. Abdullah Ibn Qudamah (Al-Mughni 160/9): "It is reported from him that he said: 'How can a little girl be purified if she is an infant?' In another narration, he said: 'She should be purified with a menstruation if she is one who menstruates, otherwise by three months if she is one who can be consummated and conceive.' This implies that she does not need purification, and there is no prohibition on touching her. This is the opinion of Ibn Abi Musa and Malik, and it is the correct view because the reason for permissibility is established, and there is no evidence for prohibition. Prohibition of touching an adult woman is due to it leading to unlawful intercourse or fear of her bearing a child for someone else, which does not apply here, so permissibility should be observed."
81. Ibn Nujaym al-Misri (Al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 210/3): "There is disagreement about the time of consummating the marriage with a little girl. Some say he should not consummate the marriage until she reaches puberty. Others say he may do so when she reaches nine years old, and others say if she is mature enough to endure intercourse, he may consummate the marriage; otherwise, he should not."
82. Ibn Nujaym al-Masri (Al-Bahr al-Ra'iq 267/3): “Al-‘Afl” is something round that exits from the vagina, and if she is so young that she cannot bear intercourse, it is not permissible for him to have intercourse with her before she is able to. The age of maturity is specified by puberty, or in this case, nine years old. It is preferable not to set a specific age as previously mentioned. If the husband wishes to have intercourse and the father denies, the judge should show her to women for examination without considering her age, as stated in the summary.
83. Ibn Omar al-Shafi'i (Nihayat al-Zain 1/334): The term “full consent” excludes incomplete consent, such as if the girl is small and cannot bear intercourse, even if he engages in preliminary acts like kissing, embracing, and other pleasures.
84. Al-Rafi'i (Al-Aziz 435/9): “Those who do not menstruate” due to youth or menopause, their waiting period after divorce is three months. Allah says: “And those who have despaired of menstruation among your women, if you doubt, then their term is three months, and for those who have not menstruated.”
85. Baha' al-Din al-Maqdisi (Sharh al-‘Umdat 393): The father has the right to marry off his little virgin daughter without disagreement, as Allah says: “And those who have despaired of menstruation among your women, if you doubt, then their term is three months, and for those who have not menstruated.” The waiting period of three months is only from a divorce in a valid marriage, indicating that she can be married and divorced without her consent being required, as was the case when Abu Bakr married Aisha to the Prophet when she was six without seeking her consent.
86. Al-Qurtubi (Tafsir al-Qurtubi 165/18): “And those who have not menstruated” means little girls. Their waiting period is three months.
87. Ibn al-Samman (Rawdat al-Qudat 853/2): Abu Bakr married Aisha when she was a small girl, seven years old, and the Prophet consummated the marriage when she was nine. Similarly, Ali married Umm Kulthum to Umar ibn al-Khattab while she was still little. According to our scholars, Shafi’i, Malik, and most jurists, it is permissible for the father to marry off a little girl, and if she were supposed to have a choice, then Aisha would have been given a choice.
88. Al-Hakim (Al-Mustadrak 3821): When the verse in Surah al-Baqarah regarding the waiting period for women was revealed, they said that there were women not mentioned: the little and the old, those who had ceased menstruation, and those who were pregnant. Allah then revealed the verse in Surah al-Nisa: “And those who have despaired of menstruation among your women, if you doubt, then their term is three months, and those who have not menstruate, and those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth.”
89. Abdul Wahhab al-Qadi (Al-Mu’ina 718): Regarding “those who have not menstruated,” it was established that for those who have not menstruated, the waiting period is set. Waiting periods are required only after separation in a valid marriage. The Prophet married Aisha when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was nine.
90. Makkī ibn Abī Ṭālib (Al-Hidāyah 7544/12): The address to men indicates that the ruling applies if there is doubt about the waiting period. Moreover, “and those who have not menstruated” refers to little girls who have not reached puberty. Their waiting period is three months.
91. Ibn Abī Shaybah (Sharh Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 247/7): According to Aisha, the Prophet married her when she was six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine. She stayed with him for nine years. Scholars unanimously agree that it is permissible for a father to marry off his little daughter, as per the general interpretation of the verse “and those who have not menstruated,” and that it is permissible to marry someone who has not menstruated from the moment she is born.
92. Al-Baghaw (Shar al-Sunnah 35/9): Aisha said, “The Prophet married me when I was seven years old and consummated the marriage when I was nine years old, and I used to play with dolls.”
93. Al-Nasafi (Talabatu Al-Talaba 42): "It is narrated that the Prophet married Aisha when she was a little girl of six years old."
94. Iyad Al-Sabti (Ikmal Al-Mu'allim 4/573): "Aisha said, 'The Prophet married me when I was six years old, and consummated the marriage when I was nine years old.' This hadith is foundational for determining the appropriate time for consummation in cases of disagreement. Some scholars have ruled that a nine-year-old girl can be forced to consummate the marriage. This is the opinion of Ahmad and Abu Ubayda. Malik and Al-Shafi'i stated that the criterion is her ability to bear intercourse, and Al-Shafi'i added that it should be near puberty. Abu Hanifa said the criterion is the ability to bear intercourse, even if she is not yet nine."
95. Al-'Imrani (Al-Bayan 9/178): "Aisha narrated, 'The Prophet married me when I was seven years old, and consummated the marriage when I was nine years old.' It is known that her consent had no bearing at that age, and it is clear that her father arranged the marriage without her consent. It is permissible for a father or grandfather to force a little girl into marriage, but no other guardian may do so until she reaches maturity."
96. Ibn Qudamah (Al-Mughni 1/151): "If the one having intercourse or the one being consummated is a little, Imam Ahmad ruled that both are required to perform ghusl (ritual purification). He said, 'If a girl reaches nine years old and is fit for intercourse, she must perform ghusl.' He was asked about a boy who had intercourse with a woman but had not reached puberty: does he and the woman both need to perform ghusl? He replied, 'Yes, whether or not ejaculation occurred,' and cited the example of Aisha, who would perform ghusl after the Prophet had intercourse with her."
97. Ibn Qudamah (Al-Mughni 7/40): "Ibn al-Mundhir stated that there is consensus among all the scholars we know that a father can marry off his little virgin daughter, and it is permissible to do so even if she dislikes and refuses it. The permissibility of marrying off a little girl is based on Allah’s statement {And those who have not yet menstruated} [Quran 65:4], indicating that she can be married and divorced, and that her consent is not required."
98. Al-Jama'ili (Al-Sharh Al-Kabir 7/386): "The permissibility of marrying a little girl is derived from Allah's statement {And those who have not yet menstruated}, which assigns a waiting period of three months for such girls. Since the waiting period is only applicable in the case of divorce from a valid marriage or annulment, this indicates that the girl can be married and divorced without her consent. Aisha said, 'The Prophet married me when I was six years old and consummated the marriage when I was nine.'"
99. Al-Baydawi (Tafsir Al-Baydawi 5/221): "{And those who have not yet menstruated} refers to those who have not menstruated due to their young age."
100. Al-Tanukhi (Al-Mumt’a 3/553): "As for the permissibility of a father marrying off his little virgin daughters who are under nine years old without their consent, there is no dispute on this matter. This is supported by Allah’s statement {And those who have not yet menstruated} [Quran 65:4], which indicates that their waiting period is also three months. The waiting period of three months is only applicable after a divorce in a valid marriage or annulment, indicating that marriage and divorce are permissible without her consent. Aisha said, 'The Prophet married me when I was six years old and consummated the marriage when I was nine.'"
101. Al-Qastalani (Irshad Al-Sari 8/52): "{And those who have not yet menstruated} refers to little girls, and their waiting period is three months before reaching puberty, indicating that marriage before puberty is permissible."
102. Zakariya Al-Sanniki (Minhat Al-Bari 8/370): "{And those who have not yet menstruated} means their waiting period is three months, which indicates that marriage before puberty is permissible."
103. Abu Saud Al-‘Imadi (Tafsir 8/262): "{And those who have not menstruated} due to their young age, meaning their waiting period is also three months."
104. Al-Suyuti (Al-Durr Al-Manthoor 8/202): "{And those who have not menstruated} are the young girls who have not reached puberty; their waiting period is three months."
105. Al-Kurani (Al-Kawthar Al-Jari 8/468): "The permissibility of marrying little girls is supported by the verse: {And those who have not menstruated}."
106. Al-Suyuti and Al-Mahalli (Tafsir Al-Jalalayn 749): "{And those who have not menstruated} due to their young age; their waiting period is three months."
107. Ibn Hammam (Fath Al-Qadeer 3/274): "It is permissible to marry a little girl if her guardian marries her, according to the verse {And those who have not menstruated}. This establishes the waiting period for a little girl and shows that the marriage of little girls is not restricted by the specific case of Aisha, as evidenced by the marriage of Qudamah bin Mazyun’s daughter on the day she was born, was known to the Companions."
108. Badr Al-Din Al-Ayni (Al-Binaya 5/90): "The verse {And those who have not menstruated} clarifies the waiting period for a little girl. The waiting period is determined by marriage, which confirms the permissibility of marrying little girls. The well-known Hadith about Aisha, who was married at six and consummated the marriage at nine, is close to being mutawatir (widely accepted)."
109. Nizamuddin Al-Qummi (Tafsir Al-Nisaburi 1/624): "If menstruation does not occur due to extreme youth, the waiting period is three months, as stated in {If you are in doubt, then their waiting period is three months, and those who have not menstruated}."
110. Al-Siwasi (Sharh Fath Al-Qadeer 3/383): "There is no maintenance due for a little girl who cannot consummate the marriage until she reaches an age where she can endure intercourse, whether she is in her husband's house or her father's. There is disagreement about the minimum age: some say seven years, while Al-‘Atabi says the opinion of our scholars is nine years. The correct view is that there is no fixed age, as it varies with physical development."
111. Al-Sarakhsi (Al-Mabsut 4/212): "The Prophet married Aisha when she was a little girl of six years and consummated the marriage when she was nine years old. This Hadith indicates the permissibility of marrying little girls by their parents. Additionally, Qudamah bin Mazyun married the daughter of Al-Zubair when she was born, and Ibn Umar married his little daughter to ‘Urwa bin Al-Zubair. Also, ‘Urwa bin Al-Zubair married his niece while both were little, and a man gifted his little daughter to Abdullah bin Al-Hasan, which was approved by Ali. A woman married her little daughter to a son of Al-Musayyib bin Nukhba, and Abdullah approved it."
112. Al-Sarakhsi (Al-Mabsut 4/213): "This provides evidence that a little girl can be married off if she is suitable for marriage. Aisha was married at nine years old. Although she appeared little, they nourished her, and when she was mature enough, she was married to the Prophet."
113. Ibn Abidin (Hashiyat Rad Al-Muhtar 3/223): "It is stated that a little wife who cannot bear intercourse should not be handed over to her husband until she is capable of it. The correct view is that this is not determined by age but by the judge's assessment of her physical development, such as whether she is well nourished or emaciated. It has been previously mentioned that a mature girl who cannot endure intercourse should not be delivered to her husband either. This includes situations where the inability is due to weakness, emaciation, or the size of the husband's organ. The judge should ensure that the intercourse is within the girl's capacity or the size of a moderately proportioned man."
114. Abdul Rahman bin Qudamah (Al-Sharh Al-Kabir 9/206): "If a man marries a mature woman and has not yet consummated the marriage, and marries three little girls, if the mature woman nurses one of the little girls within the two years period, the mature woman becomes permanently forbidden to him and the marriage to the young girl is valid. If he marries a mature woman and a little girl, and the mature woman nurses the little girl before consummating the marriage, the marriage to the mature woman is invalidated immediately and she is permanently forbidden to him. This is the view of Al-Thawri, Al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the followers of Abu Hanifa."
115. Abu Al-Manaqib Al-Zanjani (Takhreej Al-Furu' Ala Al-Usul 1/193): "There is a disagreement among scholars about the nature of a marriage contract. Al-Shafi'i believed that the contract is about the benefits, including the benefits of the sexual relationship, supported by two arguments. Abu Hanifa believed that the contract pertains to the described permissible individual, and thus the ownership of the individual. He argued that if the contract were about the benefits, then marrying an infant would not be valid."
116. Al-Buhuti (Kashaf Al-Qina' 5/524): "If a man marries a mature woman who has milk from another man, whether the second is a husband or otherwise, and he has not yet consummated the marriage with her, and then marries three little girls under the age of two, if the mature woman nurses one of the little girls, the mature woman is forever forbidden to him because she becomes one of his 'mothers-in-law.' The marriage to the little girl remains valid because she is a stepchild and he has not consummated the marriage with her mother. The situation differs from if he had started the marriage contract with both. The continuation of the marriage is stronger than the initiation. If the mature woman nurses two little girls, either separately or together, their marriages are annulled."
117. Ibn Abidin (Hashiyat Rad Al-Muhtar 3/630): "He pointed out that, as mentioned in Al-Zaylai, there is no age limit for assessing whether a girl is suitable for intercourse. A well-nourished little girl, even if young in age, may be capable of intercourse."
118. Muhammad bin Al-Sharbini (Mughni Al-Muhtaj 3/182): "The term 'no child' might imply that there is no requirement for the wife to be of a certain age; thus, intercourse with her is permissible even if she is a child who cannot be sexually consummated."

I'm currently doing some research on religion, I've read the Quran and nearly 50.000 hadeeths in the past, now I'm reading the Torah with explanations, and some things really confused me.

Since the Qur'an mentions that the same God both sent the Torah and the Qur'an, what's written in them must be in line with each other. Let me explain:

C: My commentary

1. The devil and hell in the Quran vs the Torah

It is mentioned in the Qur'an, that, chronogically, God created Adam and ordered the angels to bow down to him. Only Iblees(Satan) refused to do it. Then God asked:

"He said: What hindered thee that thou didst not fall prostrate when I bade thee? (Iblis) said: I am better than him. Thou createdst me of fire while him Thou didst create of mud.He said: Then go down hence! It is not for thee to show pride here, so go forth! Lo! thou art of those degraded.**He said: Reprieve me till the day when they are raised (from the dead).He said: Lo! thou art of those reprieved.**He said : Now, because Thou hast sent me astray, verily I shall lurk in ambush for them on Thy Right Path. Then I shall come upon them from before them and from behind them and from their right bands and from their left hands, and Thou wilt not find most of them beholden (unto Thee). He said: Go forth from hence, degraded, banished. As for such of them as follow thee, surely I will fill hell with all of you." (Surah Al-Araf/7:12-18)

C: It is very clear from these verses that, God got angry at Satan after he said prideful things. Then Satan asked for a respite in order to lead people astray and God gave it to him, and said " As for such of them as follow thee, surely I will fill hell with all of you". It's obvious that hell was created after this event, or became useful to punish people who follow Satan.

After Adam and Eve were put in the paradise, Satan, according to his duty/purpose, did this:

"Then Satan whispered to them that he might manifest unto them that which was hidden from them of their shame, and he said: Your Lord forbade you from this tree only lest ye should become angels or become of the immortals.And he swore unto them (saying): Lo! I am a sincere adviser unto you.Thus did he lead them on with guile. And when they tasted of the tree their shame was manifest to them and they began to hide (by heaping) on themselves some of the leaves of the Garden. And their Lord called them, (saying): Did I not forbid you from that tree and tell you: Lo! Satan is an open enemy to you?"(Same Surah, 20-23)

C: According to this, Adam and Eve didn't have the intention of committing a sin before Satan was given power to lead them astray. It all comes to this : If Satan were not to argue with God, Adam and all mankind were not to commit sins against God. But, since God gave respite to a creature who argued with him, now humans are battling with that creature all the time. Also, God says that he will put Satan's followers in hell, so we can easily say that he didn't plan to put humans in hell before Satan's disobedience.

In short, we can say,according to Quran:

1.God created Adam

2.He ordered the angels to bow down to him

3.Iblees(Satan) refused to do it and argued with God

4.God cursed him

5.Satan wanted to have some time in order to lead people astray

6. God gave it to him and threatened people who follow him to put them in hell

Now, according to Torah, there's not a single verse that mentions a creature like Satan and his discussion with God. As a result, there's also not a punishment to threaten disbelievers like the hell, since according to Islam, the hell is linked to Satan's followers, as he made God angry with his actions. It is claimed by Rabbis that some words imply Hell and Afterlife, but if we were to stay strictly to Torah, there's no mentioning of Hell and avoiding Satan at all.

I know some Muslims will claim that the Torah was corrupted,which I don't agree with, but even if I were to consider a corruption, I can't stop asking myself how big of a corruption had to be done in order to compeletely erase two major figures like Satan and Hell from the Torah. It's completely pointless. To me, it is obvious that hell and satan were not included in Judaism at all, yet the Qur'an all of a sudden talks about them and says that it's from the same source as the source of the Torah.

Note: I have had this conversation with Muslims so many times so yes, unfortunately we do have to go here...

"The climate of Medina did not suit some people, so the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered them to follow his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine (as a medicine)." Sahih al-Bukhari, 5686

The above hadith makes a very specific and testable scientific claim, namely that drinking camel urine is beneficial to a person's health. Following various Islamic speakers, blogs and websites, when challenged on this it is not uncommon for Muslims online to show you scientific papers, which they assert provides proof for these claims. However, ALL studies showing beneficial effects of camel urine were done in vitro (on cell cultures). Consequently, these are not even measuring the correct thing; what we want are in vivo studies, or trials of people DRINKING camel urine.

What do well-designed trials in which people actually drunk camel urine say:

A study publishedd in the Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal (EMHJ), a publication of the World Health Organization (WHO) found:

"Camel urine had NO CLINICAL BENEFITS for any of the cancer patients, it may even have caused zoonotic infection. The promotion of camel urine as a traditional medicine SHOULD BE STOPPED because there is no scientific evidence to support it." (https://www.emro.who.int/emhj-volume-29-2023/volume-29-issue-8/use-of-camel-urine-is-of-no-benefit-to-cancer-patients-observational-study-and-literature-review.html )

So, not only did this trial find no clinical benefit of drinking camel urine - TWO OF THE CANCER PATIENTS (10% OF THE SAMPLE) CONTRACTED BRUCELLOSIS (a serious bacterial disease). That they became sicker should be unsurprising; the observational data tell us the following:

Camel urine contains dangerous bacteria:

• Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar typhimurium. Can be coinfected with salmonellosis and theileriosis (https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ovj/article/view/190204)

Camel urine can carry brucellosis, which can be transmitted via its urine and milk

"Brucellosis is very common in the Middle East region, and it has been directly linked to contact with camel urine and consumption of unheated camel milk [28,29,30,31,32,33]. The fatal Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) has been linked to contact with camels and consumption of raw camel milk [34, 35]... Among CAM (users in this study, 94.1% of those who drink camel urine also use camel milk. In the Middle East region, it is paramount for health care workers, especially those caring for cancer patients, to discuss with their patients the potential risks of using camel products." (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12906-018-2150-8)

See also:

• https://www.cdc.gov/brucellosis/index.html
• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12906-018-2150-8
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167587702000557
• https://journals.asm.org/doi/abs/10.1128/jcm.25.8.1384-1387.1987
• https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/215/11/1702/3111108

Signs and Symptoms of Brucellosis

https://www.cdc.gov/brucellosis/symptoms/index.html

Brucellosis can cause of range of signs and symptoms, some of which may present for prolonged periods of time.

Initial symptoms can include:

• fever
• sweats
• malaise
• anorexia
• headache
• pain in muscles, joint, and/or back
• fatigue

Some signs and symptoms may persist for longer periods of time. Others may never go away or reoccur.

These can include:

• recurrent fevers
• arthritis
• swelling of the testicle and scrotum area
• SWELLING OF THE HEART (ENDOCARDITIS)
• neurologic symptoms (in up to 5% of all cases)
• chronic fatigue
• depression
• swelling of the liver and/or spleen

In conclusion, Muhammad was wrong that camel urine should be drunk as a medicine. It turns out that camel urine is not fit for human consumption. It is not enough that some beneficial effects can be shown using studies of cell cultures. The research indicates you can contract zoological diseases from drinking it, which can even cause serious, persistent, and in some cases, life-threatening effects.

Context: When Muslims, especially Dawah guys, say that there's no such thing as converting to Islam but rather reverting, and that "Abraham was Muslim", "Jesus was Muslim", etc.

• The foundation of this idea is Fitra; that people are born Muslim but the environment strays them away

Sahih al-Bukhari 1359:

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Every child is born with a true faith of Islam (i.e. to worship none but Allah Alone) but his parents convert him to Judaism, Christianity or Magainism, as an animal delivers a perfect baby animal. Do you find it mutilated?" Then Abu Huraira recited the holy verses: "The pure Allah's Islamic nature (true faith of Islam) (i.e. worshipping none but Allah) with which He has created human beings. No change let there be in the religion of Allah (i.e. joining none in worship with Allah). That is the straight religion (Islam) but most of men know, not." (30.30)

Sahih Muslim 6426:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:

The mother of every person gives him birth according to his true nature. It is subsequently his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Magian. Had his parents been Muslim he would have also remained a Muslim. Every person to whom his mother gives birth (has two aspects of his life) ; when his mother gives birth Satan strikes him but it was not the case with Mary and her son (Jesus Christ).

• The idea is therefore that when someone is becomes Muslim, they have returned to their natural state

Now here's the issue.

Issue #1: the definition of Muslim fluctuates depending on the context

Ask a Muslim: "what makes someone Muslim?"

The Muslim will answer: "submitting to Allah, believing the Quran is the final revelation and the word of God, and believing that Mohammad is his final messenger"

Therefore there are 2 problems: those who came before the Quran even existed could not have been Muslim and those who came before Mohammad's existence could not have been Muslim. How would they believe in Quran as the final revelation and Mohammad as the final messenger, if they both weren't even there yet?

Now Ask a Muslim: "why were Abraham, Jesus, etc. Muslims?"

The Muslim will answer: "because a Muslim simply means one who submits to Allah"

Here we have 2 contradictory definitions, depending on which fits the context.

So which one is it?

Issue #2: saying "revert" has no value or coherence outside the internal logic of the hadith

The issue is really just as simple as it is.

For someone outside Islam, holding a belief is a position that is formed and therefore one converts to Islam (adopt a new set of belief; a new position, different to the prior one).

Therefore, the word "revert" absolutely makes no sense whatsoever to use outside the context of Islam, where Mohammad arbitrarily declared "yeah, we all start Muslim", which is logically incoherent to begin with. It just has a pseudo-poetic value that Dawah guys like to instrumentalize as a way of saying "Islam is the natural way of life".

You even have threads on r/Islam where a lot of Muslims there seem not like the word either and prefer to use "convert", even saying that it stems from arrogance: https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/16wtsfq/why_are_people_who_accept_islam_referred_to_as/

The issue isn't a massive theological issue, it's more so a public discourse issue, like when it comes up in debates and it's instrumentalized by the Dawah guys, and it also confuses people because of the 2 issues I brought up.

In my previous post on Islam and Quran, I spoke about the contradictions of the theology within the religion.

If interested you can find the post here - Allah and Quran.

The tl;dr:

There is a contradiction in belief of Quran being “uncreated” or “created” thing and this is rooted on the framework of the Tawhid (“Oneness of Allah”). In addition, this is also tied the Quran being burnt by third Caliph Uthmann to centralize multiple ahrufs into a single Qurayshi dialect.

These contradictions make it confusing to reconcile the “attribute” (Kalam Allah, or “speech or word” Allah) which is the Quran with Allah himself.

The scholar will say “the Quran itself, the book is created” and it’s somehow “a proxy” or “bridge” to the real thing but this twisting of it also presents many other contradictions.

Yet many others will say “it is uncreated and sent down by Jibril (Gabriel)”.

This is especially true when you start to look into the Hadith and know more about “the Quran”.

One of those is regarding “intercession” made by the Quran.

In the Hadith, it speaks about how the Quran will make “intercessions” (Shafa'ah) for believers (Muslims).

Allah and Intercession

And Allah allows for this to happen.

Allah! There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him, the Ever-Living, All-Sustaining. Neither drowsiness nor sleep overtakes Him. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. Who could possibly intercede with Him without His permission? He ˹fully˺ knows what is ahead of them and what is behind them, but no one can grasp any of His knowledge—except what He wills ˹to reveal˺. His Seat encompasses the heavens and the earth, and the preservation of both does not tire Him. For He is the Most High, the Greatest.

Surah Al-Baqarah Ayat 255

Quran and Intercession

In addition, the Quran itself speaks for believers before Allah and intercedes for them.

‘Abdallah b. ‘Amr reported God’s messenger as saying, “Fasting and the Qur’an intercede for a man. Fasting says, ‘O my Lord, I have kept him away from his food and his passions by day, so accept my intercession for him.’ The Qur’an says, ‘I have kept him away from sleep by night, so accept my intercession for him.’ Then their intercession is accepted."

Mishkat al-Masabih 1963

It also says, chapter of the Quran will become “two clouds or two shades or two flocks of birds” pleading before Allah for Muslims.

So, if the physical chapter will come to “intercession“ for Muslims then how can fit the thinking of their scholars who say its “the book is created” and its a “bridge” or “proxy” to the Quran.

Recite the Qur'an, for on the Day of Resurrection it will come as an intercessor for those who recite It. Recite the two bright ones, al-Baqara and Surah Al 'Imran, for on the Day of Resurrection they will come as two clouds or two shades, or two flocks of birds in ranks, pleading for those who recite them. Recite Surah al-Baqara, for to take recourse to it is a blessing and to give it up is a cause of grief, and the magicians cannot confront it. (Mu'awiya said: It has been conveyed to me that here Batala means magicians.)

Sahih Muslim 804a

Various Contradictions

• Created or not created ?
  • Did it get “sent down by Jibril” or was it created (written down or recited) ?
• Eternal or not eternal ?
  • is Quran the Kalam Allah or not ?
  • If both are uncreated and eternal... then you may have two divine entities (or two Gods) ?
• Aligning with Tawhid (“oneness of Allah”)
  • It says Quran (Allah’s attribute, Kalam Allah) intercedes for Muslims before Allah
  • So, Allah’s attributes (the Quran, Kalam Allah) is either separated from Allah or one ? which is it ?

This just shows their scholars will often make up a whole bunch of things to combat one argument.

However, their answer or argument leads them into further contradictions within their theological framework that makes no sense.

Basically, its like a house of cards.

Context: One of the critiques often used by Muslims towards, notably, Christians, is that they follow the words of men.

• The Quran is considered the direct word of God
• In the Quran, it is written that in the Quran everything has been revealed (i.e. 16:89)
• In the Quran, it is written that the Quran is the perfect message and the guidance of Allah (i.e. 39:23)
• In the Quran, it is written that the Quran supersedes all previous scripture (i.e. 5:48)
• In the Quran, it is written to judge by what Allah has revealed (i.e. 5:48)
• In the Quran, it is written that the Quran ordains the the code of law and way of life (i.e. 5:48)
• In the Quran, it is written that Islam has been perfected and completed (i.e. 5:3)
• In the Quran, it is written to follow what has been revealed by God only (i.e. 7:3 & 6:153)
• In the Quran, it is written that none can change the word of Allah, which is not limited to removing but also adding (i.e. 18:27)

All of this indicates that the Quran is final word of God, and as Muslims often like to point out, they follow the word of God, not the words of men.

The issue is the following (I will only cite a few out of many):

• The number of daily prayers are not in the Quran
• The number of rak'ahs are not in the Quran
• Tashahhod is not in the Quran
• Salat al Eid is not in the Quran
• Janazah is not in the Quran
• Mawlid is not in the Quran
• Sirat is not in the Quran
• The Mahdi is not in the Quran
• Miraj is not in the Quran
• The Dajjal is not in the Quran
• Intricacies of the stories of Yajuj and Majuj are not in the Quran (*corrected)
• Prohibition of wearing gold for men is not in the Quran
• Certain of Shaitan's behavior (i.e. fleeing when the Adhan is recited) are not in the Quran

These are beliefs, rules and rites, if even only one of them, that are an integral part of the faith.

They are not considered suggestions.

Yet these beliefs, rules and rites are prescribed to Muslims, not by the word of God, but by the word of men.

Not only that, but there are levels of trust associated to various hadiths; recognizing the fallibility of men.

And not only that, but Bukhari, Muslim, abu Dawood and the rest, all came 200 years after Mohammad, and in some cases even up to 500 years like in the case of ibn Hibban.

And to double-down on this idea, here's a Sahih graded hadith, in Bukhari, where Mohammad himself is said to have forgotten parts of the Quran: https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5038

It is therefore strange to me why Muslims are not Quranists and accept the words of men which are the hadith, and also turn around and use "the words of men" as an argument against, notably, Christians.

Man cannot refute God. God is all-knowing, man is not.

This means if man is able to logically refute ANYTHING in the Quran, that is a clear sign that the Quran is NOT the word of God.

In this verse the author of the Quran refutes Jesus divinity

Surah 5:75

The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.

Ibn Kathir exegesis supported by every Tafsir

(They both used to eat food) needing nourishment and to relieve the call of nature. Therefore, they are just servants like other servants, not gods as ignorant Christian sects claim, may Allah's continued curses cover them until the Day of Resurrection. Allah said next,

As we can see, the author of the Quran refutes the deity of Jesus with "they both used to eat food" implying he could not be a deity because he had a nourishment dependency. Allah gave us a clear sign YOU SEE?

Before I begin I want to make clear, I'm not refuting whether Jesus was divine.

My argument is, if for whatever reason God were to decide to take on flesh, God's existence is not dependent on the nourishment needs of the flesh, therefore eating is NOT a sign of anything.

To make my point, I'm going to use the author of the Qurans own logic.

The author of the Quran describes to us how Allah created man. He makes it clear man is composed of material flesh and an immaterial soul.

Quran 15:28

˹Remember, O  Prophet˺ when your Lord said to the angels, “I am going to create a human being from sounding clay moulded from black mud.

Quran 15:29

So when I have fashioned him and had a spirit of My Own ˹creation˺ breathed into him, fall down in prostration to him.”

In the following hadith the author of the Quran explains this in more detail, man is composed of material flesh and an immaterial soul. The human souls existence is NOT dependent on the flesh, neither at conception of the flesh nor after the flesh expires (death).

Riyad as-Salihin 396

'Abdullah bin Mas'ud (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), the truthful and the receiver of the truth informed us, saying, "The creation of you (humans) is gathered in the form of semen in the womb of your mother for forty days, then it becomes a clinging thing in similar (period), then it becomes a lump of flesh like that, then Allah sends an angel who breathes the life into it; and (the angel) is commanded to record four things about it: Its provision, its term of life (in this world), its conduct; and whether it will be happy or miserable. By the One besides Whom there is no true god! Verily, one of you would perform the actions of the dwellers of Jannah until there is only one cubit between him and it (Jannah), when what is foreordained would come to pass and he would perform the actions of the inmates of Hell until he enter it. And one of you would perform the actions of the inmates of Hell, until there is only one cubit between him and Hell. Then he would perform the acts of the dwellers of Jannah until he would enter it."

This clearly establishes, God can take on flesh in the same manner the human soul can with no dependencies on the flesh if he deemed it necessary to do so**.**

Any argument offered against this is sophistry because you have to believe the human soul can do something God CANNOT.

Case and Point:

• If you believe God CANNOT take on flesh you believe the human soul can do something God CANNOT.
• If you believe God would cease to exist if he takes on flesh and the flesh dies, you believe the human soul can do something God CANNOT.

Conclusion: Allah did give us a clear sign, the Quran is authored by Muhammad, not God.

People like to say that the "ma meleket Aymanikum" is talking about slaves, where hadith mufasirs change the word "aymakimum" which means oaths to possession, which is weird, if it wanted to say slaves owned, it could just say 'ebadikum', which talks about people being under bondage.

Surah 24 is good example of clear distinction between slaves (ebadikum), from "oath/right own" (Aymanikum) in the same next verse:

• And marry off those among you that are single, and the good from among your male and female servants/slave (ebadikum) 24:31

In the very next verse talks about different people, yet somehow considered the same.

• And let those who are not able to marry continue to be chaste until God enriches them of His Bounty. And if those who are maintained by your right hand/oaths (Aymanikum) seek to consummate the marriage 24:33

Somehow these people are the same? Make no sense, plus we know form the quran that there is suc thing as people who you have pledge your oaths (aymanikum) with:

• And those whom pledged your right hands - then give them their share 4:33

I am sharing my personal views. Do kindly provide your rational judgement. Have I missed something?? Or is my position a valid one??

Muhammad, the man from Sirah, is a figure of varieties. When we read his story, it is just a consolidated version of various Muhammads of different clergymen from different regions and distinct times.

Think again. Consider this following example.

At the start of Muhammad's story, we are told that his great grand father was a big name in makkah, and his was a strong family. Rulers, one may say.

At the near end of the story, Caeser of Rome received two messengers from the prophet Muhammad, who informed him, upon his inquiry, that Muhammad had humble origins and his family never held power.

Was it the same writer at the beginning and ending?? Or did he forget what he wrote 100-200 pages earlier??

The story of Muhammad has such inconsistencies. Although it takes a careful examination, they are found.

Moreover, what strengthens my position is that his first biography was written 150 years after he died.

And if you read it, it is full of narratives by this person or that person who had heard it from another this or that, who from another......

All of this is Conclusive of the fact that Muhammad is a product of imagination of various clergymen.

The final nail on the coffins of credibility of Muhammad, the man in Sirah, is by sectoral divisions. Muhammad of one sect had a Hadith, and Muhammad of other sects didn't or possibly the other Muhammad had a Hadith contrary to first Muhammad.

It seems that the story of Muhammad is the least reliable of all famous men known to us from the past.

Am I right to conclude that Muhammad is a variety figure?? That there are, in fact, many Muhammads, the prophets??

I love it when men of Islam will proudly say we have equality, and our woman love it.

They (the woman) too enjoy such freedom as we do.

However, when you really dig into the teaching of the prophet Muhammad, it paints such a drastically different story.

Either, people are ignorant or they are denying the truth.

Many the verses below demonstrate the sheer sexism.

Even the point of view the teaching of the prophet is written to be directed at men and not woman — “tell your woman” or “tell the woman”.

Unequal witness

Two witness (from woman) = one witness (from man)

"O you who have believed, when you contract a debt for a specified term, write it down. And let a scribe write [it] between you in justice. Let no scribe refuse to write as Allah has taught him. So let him write and let the one who has the obligation dictate. And let him fear Allah, his Lord, and not leave anything out of it. But if the one who has the obligation is of limited understanding or weak or unable to dictate himself, then let his guardian dictate in justice. And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses—so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her. And let not the witnesses refuse when they are called upon..."

Surah Al-Baqarah 2:282

Blatant sexism

prophet Muhammad further affirms that majority of woman were “dwellers of Hell-fire” and they are less intelligent and its due to her menstruation cycles:

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

Sahih al-Bukhari 304

No Woman rulers (or leaders) allowed

No woman rulers or leaders allowed

"During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard that the people of Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their queen, he said, 'A people who make a woman their ruler will never be successful.'”

Sahih al-Bukhari (Hadith 7099).

Hitting your wife

You can hit your woman according to Hadith:

Men are the caretakers of women, as men have been provisioned by Allah over women and tasked with supporting them financially. And righteous women are devoutly obedient and, when alone, protective of what Allah has entrusted them with. And if you sense ill-conduct from your women, advise them ˹first˺, ˹if they persist,˺ do not share their beds, ˹but if they still persist,˺ then discipline them ˹gently˺. But if they change their ways, do not be unjust to them. Surely Allah is Most High, All-Great.

Surah An-Nisa verse 34

Sex slaves

Prophet Muhammad had sex slaves to have intercourse where they discussed “azl” (which essentially is pull out method not to impregnate them).

Basically, he wanted to have intercourse but then sell them after (desired ransom).

Holy moly, this is such a wild verse... I can’t even believe what I am reading with my eyes.

Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Mes- senger (ﷺ), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Sahih Muslim 1438a

I have a slave-girl who is our servant and she carries water for us and I have intercourse with her, but I do not want her to conceive. He said: Practise 'azl, if you so like, but what is decreed for her will come to her. The person stayed back (for some time) and then came and said: The girl has become pregnant, whereupon he said: I told you what was decreed for her would come to her.

Sahih Muslim 1439a 

I've heard before that the Mahdi was born on a Friday from Shia Islam, but I haven't heard anywhere that the Mahdi will be born on a Friday when it rains in all 3 Islamic holy cities. Where does this claim come from?

I'm am adding things to my compendium on how evil islam is. When researching apostasy i came across this passage from sarakhsi's al mabsoot:

page 110

https://shamela.ws/book/5423/2115

This is because killing is not a punishment for apostasy, but rather it is deserved based on persistence in disbelief.

Don’t you see that if he converted to Islam, it would be dropped due to the absence of persistence? And that which is deserved as a punishment is not dropped by repentance, such as the prescribed punishments. After the reason for them becomes apparent to the Imam, they are not dropped by repentance. And the prescribed punishment for highway robbers is not dropped by repentance, rather his repentance is by returning the money before he is caught, so the reason does not become apparent to the Imam after that. This is determined by the fact that changing religion, and the origin of disbelief, is one of the greatest crimes, but it is between the servant and his Lord, so the punishment for it is delayed until the abode of recompense, and what is hastened in this world are legitimate policies for the interests of the servants, such as retaliation to protect souls, the punishment for adultery to protect lineages and beds, and the punishment for theft to protect The wealth, the punishment for slander is to protect honor, and the punishment for drinking alcohol is to protect the mind. By persisting in disbelief, he is considered to be fighting the Muslims, so he is killed to prevent fighting. However, Allah the Most High has stated the reason in some places in His saying, {But if they fight you, then kill them} [Al-Baqarah: 191] , and the reason calling for The reason in some cases is polytheism. 

On one hand he says the punishment for changing religion is delayed to the hereafter and killing is not a punishment for apostasy. But, on the other hand he says "By persisting in disbelief, he is considered to be fighting the Muslims, so he is killed to prevent fighting" and "but rather it is deserved based on persistence in disbelief.

Don’t you see that if he converted to Islam, it would be dropped due to the absence of persistence?"

And on page 98 he says:

(He said) - may God be pleased with him - And if a Muslim apostatizes, Islam is offered to him. If he converts to Islam, then fine, otherwise he is killed on the spot, unless he asks for a delay. If he asks for that, then a delay of three days is given. The basic principle regarding the obligation to kill apostates is the Most High’s statement: {Or they submit} [Al-Fath: 16]. It was said: The verse is about apostates. And he - may God bless him and grant him peace - said: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” Killing the apostate for his apostasy is narrated on the authority of Ali, Ibn Mas`ud, Mu`adh, and others from the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them. 

Which one is it? Does he support killing apostates for merely leaving islam or for leaving islam and being hostile towards muslims? What point of view does the arabic support?

u/creidmheach

Sahih al-Bukhari 6946

Narrated `Aisha: I asked the Prophet, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Should the women be asked for their consent to their marriage?" He said, "Yes." I said, "A virgin, if asked, feels shy and keeps quiet." He said, "Her silence means her consent."

The Islamic argument is he's her father, and in this case, he could read her body language/expression to tell that's what she wanted.

I've also heard if there is no objections on her side and you can tell she can't speak due to being shy and nervous then you can take it as consent.

While there is evidence of a man named Muhammad who lived in Arabia, and declared himself to be God Sent.

However, there is, in my limited knowledge, no historically authentic account of the person Muhammad as portrayed by books about Sunnah, Sirah, or Hadith, etc etc.

The matters has roots in the fact that for 150 years, after Muhammad the Prophet of Islam died, a ban on writing his biography was in place.

The matter is aggravated when we learn that the history passed down by oral tradition may contain biases, gaps or errors.

This is especially true when no formal methods are in place to ensure that the orally transmitted history is preserved accurately over generations. And in those 150 years, there was no such mechanism.

The last nail on the coffins of credibility of Sunah, Sirah etc is by the fact that Umayyad dynasty had a thing against family of Muhammad the Prophet. Not only so, they invaded and defiled kaba at least twice.

These facts of Umayyad history are most strongly suggestive of corroboration of story of Muhammad, be it Sunah, Or Sirah.

Finally, no non Muslim ever stayed with Muhammad for most of the time to record in a credible manner his day to day activities or at least major events.

Taken all together, the ban, the shortcomings of oral tradition, the Umayyad animosity, etc, these are conclusive of the fact that Muhammad the Prophet as portrayed by Islamic clergy in their books on Sunah Sirah etc has no historical authenticity to it.

This Muhammad of clergymen is entirely, in my limited knowledge, a product of their own minds. It was a person made and used by clergymen.

My question to you is:

Do kindly inform me if this position that I have reached is indeed a valid one, given the credible information available in books??

Thank You.

al ayni commentary on al hidayah and also his own words

https://shamela.ws/book/427/3711

M: (Chapter on the rulings on apostates) Sh: That is, this is a chapter explaining the rulings on apostates, which is the plural of apostate, and it is the one who apostatizes, that is, he returns from the religion of Islam to disbelief - God Almighty forbid - and when he finished explaining the rulings on original disbelief, he began explaining the rulings on emerging disbelief, because emerging disbelief only comes after the existence of the original.

M: (He said: If a Muslim abandons Islam - God forbid - Islam is offered to him) Sh: And in most versions, if a Muslim abandons Islam Islam is offered to him M: (If he has any doubt, it is revealed to him) Sh: And in some versions of Al-Qudduri, it is revealed to him.

M: (Because) Sh: That is, because the one who apostatized M: (Perhaps) Sh: That is, perhaps M: (A doubt befell him) Sh: And in some versions, a doubt befell him, it is said that he exposed him to it, meaning if he permitted M: (So it was removed) Sh: That is, it was removed from the removal, and in some versions: So it was removed from him, that is, from the one who apostatized.

M: (And in it) Sh: That is, in the presentation of Islam M: (His evil is repelled) Sh: That is, the evil of the apostate is repelled M: (With the better of the two matters) Sh: He meant by them Islam and killing, and the better of them is Islam M: (Except that the presentation) Sh: That is, other than that Islam was presented to him.

M: (According to what they said) Sh: That is, the sheikhs. M: (Not obligatory, because the call reached him) Sh: That is, because it is an excuse, but the presentation is recommended. And in Al-Idah, it is recommended to present Islam to apostates, because the hope of his return to Islam is proven, as will come.

M: (He said: And he is imprisoned for three days. If he converts to Islam ) Sh: Then that is good and excellent. M: (Otherwise he is killed) Sh: That is, if he does not convert to Islam after three days he is killed. Up to here is the statement of Al-Qudduri with the explanation of the author of it M: (And in “Al-Jami’ Al-Saghir” the apostate is offered Islam. If he refuses, he is killed) Sh: In its place, and he mentioned in his explanation: In the case of a Muslim who apostatizes, he is killed M: (Whether he is a free man or a slave) Sh: And Fakhr Al-Islam said: And he is not delayed until we have time; because he has apostatized after being known, so there is no forgiveness for him M: (And the interpretation of the first) Sh: Which is his saying three days.

<<

M: (And because) Sh: That is, because the apostate M: (is an infidel at war who has been called to the truth, so he is killed immediately without being asked for a reprieve) Sh: He only said an infidel at war because he is not a dhimmi or a person who is granted security, since he does not accept the jizya, and he did not ask for security, so he was a combatant and is killed due to the generality of the text. And because by the apostasy itself he became a combatant against the people of Islam and is killed, unless he is asked for a reprieve, in which case he is given three days as mentioned above.

https://shamela.ws/book/427/3713

Now in this passage, it seems that mere disbelief after islam is what makes the apostate permissible to kill. But, just to make sure, when he says "and he did not ask for security" what does he mean by that? Does he mean that an apostate who refuses the security agreement is essentially declaring war on muslims and that is why he is killed and not just the apostasy alone? Or is that just my bad reading comprehension and he supports death for merely leaving islam?

I'm adding things to my compendium on everything bad about islam. So, when i add anything too it i want to make sure with out a shadow of a doubt that there is no way a muslim apologist can argue against it.

We started a livestream primarily to help people before and after leaving Islam, and secondarily to help the world better understand Islam, Muslims/ex-Muslims, and the communities we come from. Its called Deconstructing Islam. Here's the announcement post.

So we want to know from you all what kinds of things you want to know more about.

So what do you want to know?

Here are some ideas to get you started thinking...

• some want to know what the future of our world will be, with respect to how Islam fits into it. (This is the subject of our first episode scheduled 12/2/2024, Monday 2 PM central.)
• some want to know various things about Islam directly. the theology of it. the various sects and main differences between them.
• some want to know about the possibility of reformation of Islam, such that Muslims embrace peace and freedom.
• some want to know the history, as far back as a few centuries before Islam.
• some want to know about the clash between "Western" values and the values of the Muslim-majority countries.
• some want to understand how Muslims function in romantic relationships with non-Muslims.
• some want to understand the psychology of Muslims.

To be clear, since helping Muslims/ex-Muslims is the primary goal, we will prioritize those callers and topics. So we will fit in the secondary topics when we can.

What do you think?

In the Quran, we are informed that Muhammad is mentioned in the bible and the Tanakh:

"Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them." [Q 7:157]

But in both books, we find no prophecy nor description of Muhammad. The analogy is like this:

P1=Quran says Muhammad is in the Bible P2=Muhammad is not in th Bible C=Allah is a liar

Thus Quran is False. I havent seen any muslims answer this question.

I read this excerpt in reliance of a traveller:

Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (1302 - 1368 AD, Shafi'i) wrote in Umdat as-Salik (p. 236):

o11.5 “They (the Dhimmis) are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and

indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they: ... are distinguished from Muslims in

dress, wearing a wide cloth belt, are not greeted with As-Salamu Alaykum, must keep to the side of

the street, may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings - though if they acquire a

tall house - it is not razed, are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, recite the Torah or Gospel

aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays, and are forbidden to build new

churches.”

https://shamela.ws/book/37344/231#p1 Ar: p. 236, Eng: Reliance of the Traveller p. 608

I was wondering if i could have quotes of classical scholars of other schools that support stuff like the above? I'm compiling a list of everything wrong with islam, and i'm going topic by topic. Are there any more scholars that forbid christians from building churches or forcing them to the side of the road? I just like to create compilations so i only have to copy and paste it ,,instead of typing it all out again!

An interview of Alan Guth by Robert Kuhn's Closer to Truth program. No God needed! Modern Cosmology is utterly mind blowing. Nothing else to do? watch this.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrEpa16qC5nQJkoMYk0nIlQ;_ylu=c2VjA3NlYXJjaAR2dGlkAw--;_ylc=X1MDMTM1MTE5NTcwMARfcgMyBGZyA3locy1pbmZvc3BhY2UtMDg5BGZyMgNwOnMsdjp2LG06c2IscmduOnRvcARncHJpZANDZWt3bVg1UlRrMkdWQmp3ajBBU0RBBG5fcnNsdAMwBG5fc3VnZwMwBG9yaWdpbgN2aWRlby5zZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tBHBvcwMwBHBxc3RyAwRwcXN0cmwDMARxc3RybAMzNARxdWVyeQN5b3V0dWJlJTJDJTIwQ2xvc2VyJTIwdG8lMjBUcnV0aCUyMGFsYW4lMjBndXRoBHRfc3RtcAMxNzMxMTE0NDk3?p=youtube%2C+Closer+to+Truth+alan+guth&ei=UTF-8&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av%2Cm%3Asb%2Crgn%3Atop&fr=yhs-infospace-089&hsimp=yhs-089&hspart=infospace#id=3&vid=f2ad2295545326565d49e185f3bbd4e1&action=view