D-I-V-O-R-C-E (see suras 65 and 66)
Sura 63 excoriates the hypocrites who opposed Muhammad in Medina (vv. 1-6). According to Maududi, it came to Muhammad in response to the machinations of one of the leaders of the hypocrites, Abdullah bin Ubayy. When the Jewish Qaynuqa tribe surrendered to the Muslims, some of the Qaynuqa who had made alliances among the Muslims came forward to plead their case before Muhammad. According to Tabari, Muhammad wanted to have all the men of the tribe put to death. However, Abdullah bin Ubayy implored Muhammad: “O Muhammad, deal kindly with my clients.” Muhammad ignored him, so Abdullah repeated the request, whereupon the Prophet of Islam turned his face away from Abdullah. Abdullah bin Ubayy then impetuously caught Muhammad by the collar of his robe, whereupon, according to Ibn Ishaq, “the apostle was so angry that his face became almost black.” Muhammad said to Abdullah, “Confound you, let me go.”
But Abdullah replied, “No, by God, I will not let you go until you deal kindly with my clients. Four hundred men without mail and three hundred mailed protected me from all mine enemies; would you cut them down in one morning? By God, I am a man who fears that circumstances may change.” Muhammad then granted him his request, agreeing to spare the Qaynuqa as long as they turned over their property as booty to the Muslims and left Medina, which they did forthwith.
Still, Muhammad was unhappy with the alliance Abdullah had made with the Jewish tribe. It was at this point that he received a key revelation about the relationships that should prevail between Muslims and non-Muslims: “O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust” (5:51). And Allah scolded in harsh terms those who, like Abdullah bin Ubayy, feared a loss of business prospects because of the misfortune of the Qaynuqa (5:52). In sura 63, Allah criticizes them for discouraging people to contribute money to the cause of Islam (vv. 7, 9-10).
The Meccan sura 64 repeats oft-repeated themes: Allah has dominion over all things (v. 1); he knows the secrets of every person’s heart (vv. 2, 4); those who reject Allah’s messengers will suffer a terrible punishment (vv. 5-6); they doubt that they will be raised from the grave and judged (v. 7), but they will, and the righteous will enter Paradise (v. 9) while the damned will go to hell (v. 10). No calamity befalls anyone unless it is Allah’s will (v. 11), so obey Allah and Muhammad, but Muhammad is not responsible for those who reject his message (v. 12). The warning that one’s enemies may be his own wives and children (v. 14) arose from an incident recounted by Ibn Abbas: “There were men who embraced Islam in Makkah and wanted to migrate to Allah’s Messenger. However, their wives and children refused to allow them. Later when they joined Allah’s Messenger, they found that those who were with him (the Companions) have gained knowledge in the religion, so they were about to punish their wives and children” – whereupon Allah counseled them to forgive them (v. 14 also).
The sura ends with another appeal to give money for the cause of Islam (vv. 16-17).
The Medinan sura 65 lays down rules for divorce. If a man wishes to divorce his wife, he has to wait through two menstrual periods to make sure she isn’t pregnant first (v. 1) – or three months for those who are post-menopausal (v. 4). The talk about taking them back (v. 2) refers to the fact that in Islamic law a man can take his wife after divorcing her twice, but after the third divorce he cannot take her back so easily. Muhammad directed that in such a case, the divorced woman would have to consummate a marriage with another man and be divorced by him – only then could she return to her first husband if he wished her to do so:
The wife of Rifa'a Al-Qurazi came to the Prophet and said, “I was Rifa‘a’s wife, but he divorced me and it was a final irrevocable divorce. Then I married AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair but he is impotent.” The Prophet asked her, “Do you want to remarry Rifa‘a? You cannot unless you had a complete sexual relation with your present husband.”
Then the sura concludes with more warnings of the destruction of unbelieving populations (v. 8) and the impending, unavoidable Judgment (v. 10).
Ibn Abbas once asked Umar, the renowned Companion of Muhammad and his second successor as leader of the Muslim community, about the beginning of the Medinan sura 66: “O Chief of the believers! Who were the two ladies from among the wives of the Prophet to whom Allah said: ‘If you two return in repentance (66.4)’?”
Umar replied, “I am astonished at your question, O Ibn Abbas. They were Aisha and Hafsa.” According to Umar, Hafsa, one of Muhammad’s wives, had been angering Muhammad by talking back to him. So when Umar learned that Muhammad had divorced all his wives, he was not surprised; in fact he was jubilant and exclaimed: “Hafsa is a ruined loser! I expected that would happen some day.”
Umar then went to Muhammad, who initially declines to receive him and then relents. “I greeted him and while still standing, I said: ‘Have you divorced your wives?’ He raised his eyes to me and replied in the negative.” Umar explained to Abdullah that “the Prophet did not go to his wives because of the secret which Hafsa had disclosed to Aisha, and he said that he would not go to his wives for one month as he was angry with them when Allah admonished him (for his oath that he would not approach Maria). When twenty-nine days had passed, the Prophet went to Aisha first of all.”
The background of this is that Hafsa had caught Muhammad in bed with his concubine, Maria the Copt, on the day he was supposed to spend with Hafsa. Muhammad promised to stay away from Mary and asked Hafsa to keep the matter a secret, but Hafsa told Aisha. Then Allah stepped in with the revelation of the threat of divorce that we now find in vv. 1-6, freeing Muhammad from his oath to stay away from Mary.
Another tradition explains the same verses as concerning only his wives’ jealousy (or perhaps Muhammad’s bad breath) and his oath to stop drinking honey. In this case what the Prophet has held forbidden that Allah has made lawful for him would be honey. That is, Muhammad tried to please his consorts by promising to give up honey, and Allah is allowing him to break this oath and threatening the errant wives with divorce.
Then vv. 7-12 conclude sura 66 with more warnings of hell for the unbelievers. Allah tells Muhammad to “strive hard” (jahidi, جاهد) against the unbelievers and hypocrites. Ibn Kathir explains: “Allah the Exalted orders His Messenger to perform Jihad against the disbelievers and hypocrites, the former with weapons and armaments and the later by establishing Allah's legislated penal code.”
(Here you can find links to all the earlier “Blogging the Qur’an” segments. Here is a good Arabic Qur’an, with English translations available; here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)
Mr. Spencer,
The Qur’an states in 65:1:
O Prophet! when you divorce women, divorce them for~ their prescribed time, and calculate the number of the days prescribed, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, your Lord. Do not drive them out of their houses, nor should they themselves go forth, unless they commit an open indecency; and these are the limits of Allah, and whoever goes beyond the limits of Allah, he indeed does injustice to his own soul. You do not know that Allah may after that bring about reunion.
At this point and time in history were women considered property? This reads like civic law for proper conduct of something that you own.
On another note, in Sura 66 once again it seems that Allah is making rules up as he goes along just for Muhammad.
Thank you for this marvellous resource. I hope the whole completed series finds acceptance for publication as a useful reference work.
By the way, the links are fine except in the final paragraph they do not work. They return the message 'not found'. Maybe it's just a local problem.
Many thanks.
"Four hundred men without mail..."
-- quote from Abdullah bin Ubayy adduced by Isalmic commentators -- see the link to Maududi -- in their exegesis of Sura 63
From the unrelieved horror of some of this, a little twentieth-century musical relief:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlE2puOCLTY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEVgAEICFks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7W9cMNWQE0
Heh. I'm sad to admit that I kind of like the idea that men can treat they're wives like dirt under sharia law. It would never happen, because I love my wife and family, but still, it would be fun.
"If you ask me to do the dishes or take out the trash ONE MORE TIME, I'm divorcing you."
"The septic tank is overflowing! Take care of it, honey, or I'll divorce you."
Marriage is like getting a personal slave to worshipers of islam. The idea is kind of appealing in a very sick way.
I see a parallel here between Abdullah bin Ubayy and Oscar Schindler. I'm often met with responses of indignation when I tell people that I couldn't consider him "righteous." Certainly Schindler's actions to save those people were good.
However, he, and others like him, advocated, advanced, supported, and made possible a system based on an ideology that destroyed individual rights. He was completely comfortable with taking away his victims' physical and economic freedom, their property, and their ability to pursue happiness. He favored a system that denied people equality before the law. He was successful not through production but through political pull and favoritism.
Oscar Schindler drew the line at murder, as if destruction of all other rights and rule by force instead of reason would not lead to just that. What would Oscar Schindler have accomplished for those he saved had the system he advocated been successful? What would have happened to the Schindler Jews had Germany won WWII?
What happened to the Qaynuqa and their posterity after their expulsion from Medina? Abdullah bin Ubayy may have saved them from Muhammad's sword but did he save them from Muhammad's successors? From Islam? If you accept a system of evil how much good can you really do?
I would imagine that throughout 1400 years of Islamic history there have been many Islamic Oscar Schindlers (or Abdullah bin Ubayys) but how much can they really accomplish when they contradict the very system they embrace?
Mr. Spencer I have read all your Quran blogs so far and find them quite enjoyable and unfortunately, uniquely honest. Unfortunate only because I don't find to many honest discussions of Islam in public discourse. I have found one glaring failure in your work here. You haven't logically explained how these Sura's illustrate a message and model of peace. Your fans at CAIR and the MSA aren't going to be too pleased with your work here.
"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust"
Would this be the origin of the "you can't trust Jews and Christians" theme in Islam?
Regardless, it's yet another example of the separationist, cult-like aspect of early Islam. The similarities to what have been called "cults" in the last few years is striking.
So the last verses in surah 63 & 64 are just fund raising appeals? Given that they are in the Qur'an, that makes them more mandatory than voluntary.
Surah 64 title - haggling - did this arise out of the new converts wanting a better 'deal' for their infidel wives and children? Says a lot about what Allah thinks of family ties.
Surah 65 - say a man wants to divorce his wife and finds out that she is pregnant with his child - does he still get to divorce her if he wants to?
Surah 66 - is this the only place in the Qur'an where the term '“strive hard” (jahidi, جاهد)' appears? This question is in context of Mohammedan apologists who call Jihad an inner struggle. Are the words 'jahidi' and 'jihad' the same, or different? If the word 'jihad' doesn't appear in other surahs like surah 9, how exactly do Mohammedans conflate the term 'qatil' with 'jihad'? Wouldn't apologists then be technically accurate when they state that the term 'jihad' doesn't surface in the Qur'an?
Note: I recall reading about this Surah 66 incident in the book 'Truth about Muhammad' in the preface to the hadith.
Some time ago I blogged the following about Surah 66 - "Tahrim", or Prohibition:
Poetry in Motion
Muslims believe that one of the "miracles" of the Quran is its poetry. How could an illiterate man, they ask, write such exquisite poetry unless he was inspired by God?
The grammatical structure of Arabic lends itself to being a poetic language. Many nouns or adjectives, for example, end with the syllable "....eem". Muhammad could create a few lines each ending with one of these words that would be poetry to his listeners. As an example, Sura 66 is called "The Prohibition". The title as well as the final or penultimate words of the first few lines are "tahreem...raheem...aleem...hakeem." The English translation of these words, "prohibition...merciful...all-knowing...wise", of course do not rhyme at all.
The "story behind the story" is often more interesting than the story itself. Muhammad often created Quranic suras to get himself out of a tight spot. In the case of sura 66, he had literally been caught with his pants down. While visiting one of his wives, 20 year old Hafsah, he noticed her beautiful Egyptian Christian slave Mary. Muhammad had already legitimized sex with slaves for his followers, and told Hafsah that her father wanted to see her. As soon as Hafsah left the house, Muhammad had intercourse with Mary. When Hafsah realized her father had not called her and returned home to a locked door, she suspected the worst. Muhammad admitted what he had done, but promised Hafsah he would not sleep with Mary again. Hafsah was still upset, and told another of Muhammad's wives, Aisha, what had happened. Muhammad then claimed that Allah had revealed to him that Hafsah had complained to Aisha, and that Allah had also told him that he was free of his promise not to sleep with Mary again.
Now read the entire sura carefully. Notice who is at fault, who is to blame, who is threatened, and who is exonerated by Allah.
What, Muhammad would exonerate himself? Huh? He would need to do that? Nah, surely you are mistaken. I mean, after all, we know he was a child pedophile rapist in the case of Aisha, among a host of others. So why would he have to excuse himself for raping a slave? Sheesh.
This happens throughout the Quran. Muhammad was not a prophet; he was a self-serving rat.
The uplifting story of Muhammed and Hafsa:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RobTCmuKWIY
(not for children)
but good for a giggle
dentalque:
Essentially, yes.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Again another section about women. This from the original divine revealed text in the Bible springs to mind:
Daniel 11:37Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
Mohammed seems scared of women and must oppress them, they are not regarded in any way. How any woman can convert to Islam amazes me.
So I agree with Zakariyah Bostros that Mohammed is extolled and allows himself to be magnified above his own god.
I forgot to say thank you for this, Mr. Spencer, your work is valuable and ought to be used in schools - one day, perhaps.
StephenA55:
I really can't figure out what is wrong with them, but I will keep trying.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Fixed 'em. Try them now. Thanks.
RS
Phineas Fahrquar:
Well, essentially, yes, but of course this verse didn't come out of the blue, either. There were many incidents that led up to it.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Infidel Pride:
No, it comes from 64:9: "The day when He shall gather you unto the Day of Assembling, that will be a day of mutual disillusion. And whoso believeth in Allah and doeth right, He will remit from him his evil deeds and will bring him unto Gardens underneath which rivers flow, therein to abide for ever. That is the supreme triumph."
"Mutual disillusion" is also sometimes rendered "haggling." As in, perhaps, the judged pleading their cause before the Judge.
Yes. If she is pregnant, the waiting period for divorce ends when she gives birth.
No, it appears many times, notably 9:73, but in many other places also.
Verb and noun.
They can't say that honestly. 9:73 is "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed." Same word.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Cunamara wrote:
I see a parallel here between Abdullah bin Ubayy and Oscar Schindler. I'm often met with responses of indignation when I tell people that I couldn't consider him "righteous." Certainly Schindler's actions to save those people were good.
However, he, and others like him, advocated, advanced, supported, and made possible a system based on an ideology that destroyed individual rights. He was completely comfortable with taking away his victims' physical and economic freedom, their property, and their ability to pursue happiness. He favored a system that denied people equality before the law. He was successful not through production but through political pull and favoritism.
Oscar Schindler drew the line at murder, as if destruction of all other rights and rule by force instead of reason would not lead to just that.
..................
Cunamara, I take your point. I think, though, there are essentially two kinds of heroes. The first are great role models--individuals who not only achieved great things, but whose lives were, in large part, models to be admired and emulated. I would consider such men as John Adams, William Wilberforce, and Winston Churchill in this category. I might have small disagreements with them on some points of philosophy, or feel that a few of their actions were weak or ill-considered, but overall I believe that they were brave, honest, forthright, far thinking, and greatly benefited their fellow man as they lived, and anyone learning about them who followed.
Then there is the other sort of hero, who is more problematic. In many cases, even their basic philosophies might be ugly and corrupt, or they might have truly ugly personal failings. However, when it counted, they acted as decent human beings, often at great threat to their own well-being, I believe that both Abdullah bin Ubayy and Oscar Schindler fall into this category.
Both embraced evil ideologies, and had no compunction at profiting by them--bin Ubayy with booty from plundering neighboring tribes, and Oskar Schindler through patronage contracts with the Nazi machine, as well as slave labor to run his operation. Both these men, though, no matter how reprehensible the milieu in which they operated, stood up when it counted. There were many times when Schindler could have lost his position, his status, and later, his life through his efforts to save his workers.
The same is true with bin Ubayy--the Qur'anic passage above makes clear how he angered Mohammed by trying to save the Qaynuqa. He persists, out of a sense of decency and honor, even when it becomes clear that he is taking a great risk in incurring "the Prophet's" wrath. Certainly, this is one definition of heroism.
You are right to point out that the systems they supported--Nazism and following a vicious caravan raider (Islam)--led inexorably to the very thing that they deplored--the murder of innocent people. A lot of people, however, give very little thought to where the values they accept will lead. This is deeply troubling, but manifestly true. When confronted with the end result of ugly creeds, though, many people just uneasily accept the consequences to others, and many more either whole-heartedly embrace those consequences, or actively participate in the savagery.
Anyone who stands up at this point, I do consider a hero. Not a full role model, certainly, but still a small light in dark places.
This article from Islam Watch is currently circulating through the Queer Muslim blogosphere. So far, no reader has expressed any objection to it.
"How the Arabs Hated the Quran"
http://www.islam-watch.org/MuminSalih/How-Arabs-Hated-Quran.htm
Excellent link, skevin!
Mr. Spencer, do you think that many Western Islamic intellectuals have discovered that it is best to keep quiet about many of the troubling suras in the Qur'an since they would appear to be indefensible? I am referring to the ayas that Mohammed reveals about Mohammed's right to discipline his unruly wives.
I don't think I have read anything more chilling in ANY other religious work.
dear tanstaafl;
For chills and thrills, read about Mohammad's child rape of nine-year old Aisha. The torture and murder of Kinana, the rape of his widow on the night of her husband's torture and murder, and the mandated treatment of apostates is always good for a few goose-bumps.
To maintain his upper body strength, Mohammad liked to grab an ax and chop off heads, the Banu Nadir being an excellent example.
Finally, he would unwind with captured women, who were automatically slaves, and he could dally with as many of them as he wished. Married or not, they became his sexual property. To spice things up, he would trade his sex slaves with other upright, moral, moslem slave owners.
This is the perfect man. Your son is compelled to mimic his every action. Kind of a Charlie Manson role model.