In Qur'an 33:1-8, Allah tells Muhammad not to listen to the unbelievers and hypocrites (v. 1), but rather to follow divine inspiration (v. 2). We get a hint of what this is about when Allah says that no man has two hearts, a man cannot make his wife his mother, and a man cannot make an adopted son a real son (v. 4). In those days men would divorce their wives by telling them, “You are to me like the back of my mother” – the Qur’an is here saying that this doesn’t affect any real change or make them actually into their mothers, but the point here is not about divorce. Rather, the passage is intended to end the practice of adoption, starting with Muhammad’s own family. Ibn Kathir explains: “This was revealed concerning Zayd bin Harithah…the freed servant of the Prophet. The Prophet had adopted him before prophethood, and he was known as Zayd bin Muhammad. Allah wanted to put an end to this naming and attribution.” An adopted son should be known by the name of his natural father: he can never truly enter into his adoptive household (v. 5).
Why was Allah so intent on ending the practice of adoption? Because Muhammad wanted to marry Zayd’s ex-wife, Zaynab bint Jahsh — and as a result of his dalliance with his former daughter-in-law, says Maulana Maududi, “the hypocrites and the Jews and the mushriks [unbelievers] who were already bent on mischief would get a fresh excuse to start a propaganda campaign against Islam.” So Allah here emphasizes that an adopted son cannot be a true son, and so by extension Zaynab was never really Muhammad’s daughter-in-law at all, and there is no cause for scandal.
Qur'an 33:36-37 refer obliquely to this notorious incident. According to the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Muhammad asked for Zaynab’s hand on behalf of Zayd; Zaynab and her brother “were loathe” to agree, “for they had thought that the Prophet (s) wanted to marry her himself.” But they ultimately agreed because of the admonition that “it is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path” (v. 36).
The Tafsir al-Jalalayn says that Muhammad “caught sight” of Zaynab “and felt love for her,” while Zayd “lost his affection for her” and told Muhammad, “I want to part with her.” But Muhammad told him: “Keep thy wife to thyself, and fear Allah” (v. 37). Aisha later remarked, “If Allah’s Apostle were to conceal anything (of the Quran) he would have concealed this Verse” – because it shows him unwilling to accept Allah’s will, which was that he marry Zaynab. Then one day, according to Tabari, Muhammad went to Zayd’s house and found her wearing only a chemise. Muhammad hastened away, murmuring, “Glory be to God the Almighty! Glory be to God, who causes hearts to turn!”
Soon afterward, according to Tabari, Muhammad was talking with Aisha when “a fainting overcame him.” Then he smiled and asked, “Who will go to Zaynab to tell her the good news, saying that God has married her to me?” He then recited the revelation Allah had just given him, scolding him for being concerned about what people might think and thus refusing to marry Zaynab (v. 37). The Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains what Allah is telling Muhammad here: “But you had hidden in your heart what God was to disclose, [what] He was to manifest of your love for her and of [the fact] that should Zayd part with her you would marry her, and you feared people, would say, ‘He has married his son’s wife!’, though God is worthier that you should fear Him, in all things, so take her in marriage and do not be concerned with what people say.”
According to Tabari, Aisha said: “I became very uneasy because of what we heard about her beauty and another thing, the greatest and loftiest of matters—what God had done for her by giving her in marriage. I said that she would boast of it over us.” Zaynab did, saying to Muhammad’s other wives: “You were given in marriage by your families, while I was married (to the Prophet) by Allah from over seven Heavens.”
Soon afterward, Aisha said acidly to Muhammad: “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.” But according to Islamic theologians, this whole incident was all meant to end the process of adoption. And why? What was so immoral about adoption?
"Dewan Rakyat: 'Muslim kids can't use name of adoptive dad,'" by V. Vasudevan, Eileen Ng, Joseph Sipalan, Irdiani Mohd Salleh and Ili Liyana Mokhtar for NST Online, July 10 (thanks to Twostellas):
MUSLIM parents will no longer be allowed to give their names to their adopted children.Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said instructions to this effect had been given to the National Registration Department yesterday.
"This is to adhere to the fatwa issued by the National Fatwa Council in 2000," he said.
Adopted children must carry the names of their biological fathers with a "bin" or a "binti"....
I just had a relevation; Mohmmad was a lying, machiavellian fraud.
(Bin fraud, if they prefer. )
On one hand, they can't use the names of their adaptive parents. OTOH, let's say a Mohammedan adapted a Buddhist child. Ya think the Malays will even allow the child to take on the religion of his/her biological parent, as opposed to the adaptive? Actually, I take that back - if a child has even 1 Mohammedan parent - let's say the adaptive mother, while everyone else was, say, Christian, that child would have to embrace Islam.
Islam as usual
"Allah says that no man has two hearts"
Hmmm... Obviously, if this "Allah" guy were God, he wouldn't have contradicted himself by making George Lippert.
Yup, that's quite a conundrum...
Cheers
Muhammad: The eternal poster-child for bad behavior.
"Soon afterward, according to Tabari, Muhammad was talking with Aisha when “a fainting overcame him.” Then he smiled and asked, “Who will go to Zaynab to tell her the good news, saying that God has married her to me?” He then recited the revelation Allah had just given him, scolding him for being concerned about what people might think and thus refusing to marry Zaynab (v. 37). The Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains what Allah is telling Muhammad here: “But you had hidden in your heart what God was to disclose, [what] He was to manifest of your love for her and of [the fact] that should Zayd part with her you would marry her, and you feared people, would say, ‘He has married his son’s wife!’, though God is worthier that you should fear Him, in all things, so take her in marriage and do not be concerned with what people say.”
-- from the article above
Oh, better than Elmer Gantry. Much better.
The true Almighty God bestows adoption on all of humanity and differentiates not between them...
What a contrast between our Creator and Allah, the alter ego of Mohammed, who in screwtape-letter fashion, added onto the Qu'ran every time he had a wet dream.
I gotta say that I agree with the fatwa. The fiction of issuing a “Certificate of Live Birth” declaring a child emerged from the uterus of a post-hysterectomy woman, fathered by a man with ZERO biological connection to the child is cruel beyond imagining. The cruelty is exacerbated by courts refusing to allow the child to ever see his own Birth Certificate, as if knowledge of his own identity was a national security secret. Meanwhile anonymous county clerks have access to the child’s heritage, including its real name, but are barred by law from revealing it to them. For all the complaining you all do about forged identity documents, no one utters a peep at the false documents adoptees are forced to endure until the day they die, a constant reminder that they aren’t quite human enough to be allowed to know their own identity.
Good point, Capitalist Gig, what a contrast--"This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased" versus "Allah has no Son." It follows, then, that Muslims think Christian belief that we are God's sons and daughters, created in His image, and Co-Heirs with Christ by spiritual adoption and identification with Him is SHIRK.
That 250 million souls have been murdered by followers of this disgusting lecher is evidence of satan's handiwork.
Hugh, Robert, et al:
Just the other day, I wrote about this event on an Muslim internet site. Of course, my point was that muhammad was a very immoral man.
I got back the following posts from someone named "Blessings" from Saudi Arabia. She rationalized this immoral act with all kinds of mental gymnastics and intellectual back flips. It's too good not to share here! I mean its an example of the kind of moral compromise and intellectual dishonesty and machinations that are necessary to keep the myth of muhammad alive.
----------------------------------------------
From "Blessings"
The marriage of the prophet to Zaynab has its significance and lessons.
This version you use draws its details not from facts but from fiction and from the mythology of Arabian Nights, I suppose, to add some spice to the reader.
But the true story is quite different!
Zaynab is one of the prophet's cousins and a well known to him, and who shares his Qurashi lineage.
The prophet is the one who asked her to marry Zaid, his "adopted" son.
Zaynab agreed but unwillingly because Zaid was not "comely to look at" and his lineage is unknown to them. She kept on looking down at him and that turned Zaid's life into a misery and he considered letting her free.
When Zaid consults the prophet about his decision, he (the prophet) asks him to wait and not to rush in making such a decision. The prophet felt embarrassed by such unhappiness as if caused by him.
Eventually, the divorce took place and an order from Heaven that the prophet marries Zaynab. It was a shock to everyone but with so many lessons to learn from. It is meant to draw the attention to certain points that should be considered regarding ADOPTION."
This marriage is meant to highlight and emphasize certain points:
I. Adoption in its former widespread form is no more allowed in Islam for several reasons:
* An "adopted" son SHOULD NOT be given the name of the adoptee parents or family.
*The "adopted" son SHOULD keep his real father's name. This would be JUST and FAIR for both parties.
*If their father's names are unknown then just consider them as "brothers in faith".
* "Adopted" sons are genetically not related as biological real sons. It is important not to deliberately call another one his "son" or "father", who is not really his son or father.
If a man calls another's son as "his son", it might create complications with natural and normal relationships if taken too literally.
This marriage destroys the superstition of erecting false relationships to the determinate or loss of true blood relation.
* Zaid was first called "Zaid bin (son of) Muhammed" but when his father came and showed up, Zaid was then called by his real father's name "Zaid bin Al-Harith".
II. Those who have been "wives of your sons proceeding from your loins" are within the prohibited Degrees of marriage. But since "adopted" sons are not truly connected to the adoptee with blood or biological relations, their wives are not included within this prohibition.
III. Muhammad is not the father of any man but he is the Messenger of God and the seal of prophets.
Points to ponder:
Incompatibility in marriage can be a source of misery where God's plan is to not torture people in a bond which should be a source of happiness.
When the marriage is unhappy, Islam permits the bond to be dissolved, provided that all interests concerned are safeguarded.
God establishes facts to people in various ways. Some facts are just there laid plainly and easily obtained. Other facts might require some of our thinking and consideration. Few might shock us to evoke our attention to what might remain hidden or to abolish what is falsely widespread but should not be taken as true.
If someone still does not believe that "adopted" sons should not be considered as if they were genetically related or biological sons because it is a statement coming from the 7th century, then just think of any people who have "adopted" sons now and ask them to have a DNA test. If this 21st century test and tool pronounced and proved them as biologically or genetically related sons, then kindly come and tell me!
---------------------------------
Read it all
How does one, read it all, Ynkedoodl? Do you have a link?
Just think of all the precedents Muhammed set--in so many cases, some selfish, passing whim of the "Prophet's" has set up centuries--millenia--of horrors.
They have included robbing, expelling, and murdering unbelievers, signing treaties with his enemies which he had no intention of honoring, "marrying" and deflowering under-aged girls--the case of little Aisha, and requiring four witnesses to prove rape--Aisha again.
He was used to coveting, and easily obtaining, all sorts of women. Unlike the wives of those he killed in battle, though, getting Zaynab was trickier. It might have been a bit impolitic even for the "Prophet" to kill his own adopted son to get at his wife.
Hence the "revelation" of the ban on true adoption (one cannot help but wonder what Aisha's response to her husband's pronouncement, after coming out of his epileptic fit, of this "good news" to Zaynab was).
Despite all of Islam's nattering about orphans, this one stricture has damned generations of children to a second-class status in adoptive families. In fact, it has discouraged the practice of adoption altogether--many Islamic "scholars" consider *all* adoption to be "un-Islamic".
dm60462, I'm sorry you have had some sort of bad experience with adoption. Certainly, not all practices surrounding adoption, even in the West, have been perfect. Many of those issues have been addressed in the past few decades, though, with a growth in "open" adoption, or adoptees' records being unsealed when they reach age 18. And it is true that, even in the best of situations, that adopted kids can often wonder at how they "fit in".
But for kids who find themselves--for whatever reason--without their immediate families able to care for them, the best chance they have for a loving and safe childhood is through adoption, where they will be fully accepted as a member of the family, and will consider their adoptive parents to be *their* parents, and their adopted siblings to be *their* brothers and sisters.
@krazykafir
I used the verb "read" in past tense...i.e. "you've read it all."
Sorry about that confusion. That was the whole thing.