I am a Canadian ex-Muslim. In Part 4 of this series of articles I will address the impermissibility of common child adoption in Islamic theology.
Parts 1, 2 and 3 of series of articles can be found here and here and here.
The laudable tradition of child adoption as commonly practiced in non-Islamic societies is sadly considered to be an impermissible act in Islamic societies ruled by Sharia. And of course, Islamic law is based studiously upon Islam’s canonical texts (the Qur’an, hadith and sira).
The forbiddance of common child adaption in Islamic theology and law is based upon, in part, the following Qur’anic passage:
33:4: Allah has not made for a man two hearts in his interior. And He has not made your wives whom you declare unlawful your mothers. And he has not made your adopted sons your [true] sons. That is [merely] your saying by your mouths, but Allah says the truth, and He guides to the [right] way.
It is interesting to analyze the origins of this deplorable Qur’anic passage. The shameful reality of common child adoption being made impermissible in Islam traces back to the prophet of Islam’s adulterous desires for his daughter-in-law. This scandalous occurrence in Muhammad’s life is found in the hadiths and Muslim biographies.
The traditional Islamic story goes as follows: One day the prophet of Islam went to visit his adopted son (Zayd) at Zayd’s family home. Upon arrival, Muhammad discovered that Zayd was not at home, but Zayd’s wife (Zaynab) was. Upon seeing a beautiful and partially dressed Zaynab, Muhammad discovered that he was attracted to her. Soon afterwards, the marriage ended in divorce, Zaynab became another one of Muhammad’s wives, and adoption was made impermissible in Islam.
It is worthwhile to quote what Ibn Sa’d and al-Tabari said concerning this story:
Muhammad Ibn Yahya Ibn Hayyan narrated, “The Messenger of God came to Zaid Ibn Haritha’s house seeking him. Perhaps the Messenger of God missed him at that time, that is why he said, ‘Where is Zaid?’ He went to his house seeking him and, when he did not find him, Zainab Bint Jahsh stood up to [meet] him in a housedress, but the Messenger of God turned away from her. She said, ‘He is not here, Messenger of God, so please come in; my father and mother are your ransom.’ The Messenger of God refused to come in. Zainab had hurried to dress herself when she heard that the Messenger of God was at her door, so she leapt in a hurry, and the Messenger of God liked her when she did that. The heart of the Prophet was filled with admiration for her He went away muttering something that was hardly understandable but for this sentence: ‘Praise be to God who disposes the hearts.’ When Zaid came back home, she told him that the Messenger of God came. Zaid asked, ‘You asked him to come in, didn’t you?’ She replied, ‘I bade him to, but he refused.’ He said, ‘Have you heard [him say] anything?’ She answered, ‘When he had turned away, I heard him say something that I could hardly understand. I heard him say, “Praise be to God who disposes the hearts.” ‘ Zaid went out to the Messenger of God and said, ‘O Messenger of God, I learned that you came to my house. Did you come in? O Messenger of God, my father and mother are your ransom. Perhaps you liked Zainab. I can leave her.’ The Messenger of God said, ‘Hold on to your wife.’ Zaid said, ‘O Messenger of God, I will leave her.’ The Messenger of God said, ‘Keep your wife.’ So when Zaid left her, she finished her legal period after she had isolated herself from Zaid. While the Messenger of God was sitting and talking with `A´isha, he was taken in a trance, and when it lifted, he smiled and said, ‘Who will go to Zainab to tell her that God wedded her to me from heaven?’ The Messenger of God recited; ‘Thus you told someone whom God had favoured and whom you yourself have favoured: “Hold on to your wife.” ‘ `A´isha said, ‘I heard much about her beauty and, moreover, about how God wedded her from heaven, and I said, “For sure she will boast over this with us.” ‘ Salama, the slave of the Messenger of God, hurried to tell her about that. She gave her some silver jewellery that she was wearing.”
In reviewing the passage above, we see that it was Muhammad’s lust for his adopted sons wife that initiated the destruction of his adopted son Zayd’s marriage to Zaynab and set a tragic precedent regarding the religion of Islam’s treatment of adoption.
Soon after the occurrence of the notorious incident above, Muhammad began receiving “convenient revelations” from Allah about matters related to Muslim men marrying their adopted sons wives and explicit passages informing Muslims’ that adoption is to be considered a forbidden practice for Muslims (e.g. Qur’an 33:4).
This perverse matter was such a scandal within the early Muslim community that Muhammad’s child bride and favorite wife, Aisha, is recorded as commenting upon it caustically, saying:
Narrated Aisha: I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah’s Apostle and I used to say, “Can a lady give herself (to a man)?” But when Allah revealed: “You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).’ (Q 33.51) I said (to the Prophet), “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.” — Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 311
The sordid story of Muhammad marrying his son’s wife and in turn bringing an end to adoption in Islam is all the more disturbing when one considers the fact that the Qur’an proclaims that Muhammad is to be considered the model man for Muslim believers to emulate (33:21).
Jihad Watch host Robert Spencer’s series, Blogging the Quran, extensively details the disturbing and convoluted Qur’anic passages pertaining to adoption being made impermissible for the followers of Mohammedanism.
Logic&Reason says
What kind of “loving god” would call for this nonsense?
Muhammad, like Joseph Smith, deemed his polygamist lust to be ordained by his “god”.
He clearly became a tyrannical warlord…a maniacal cult leader whose Golden Rule was “submit or suffer the consequences”…which is the “mental illness” excuse works on the gullible.
The height of taqiyya.
Logic&Reason says
Correction: ….which is WHY the “mental illness” excuse works on the gullible.
(I wish we could delete/edit our posts on this site.)
jayell says
Muslim ‘ethics’? What ‘ethics’? Like the Mafia ‘ethics’ perhaps?
StellaSaidSo says
Unsurprisingly, Mafia ‘ethics’ come from the same source. The Sicilians learned everything from their Muslim overlords.
Gotta love the image of the three screaming morons. So culturally-enriching…
gravenimage says
This is true–including the payment of “protection money”.
jayell says
Absolutely! So the wbole world can become one big, happy, proto-Nazi downtown Chicago with Eliot Ness in on the game and the whole show being run from the Boss in City Hall. Well, strangely, that’s pretty well exactly what we’ve already got in London right now. How did that happen?
JM says
Yes. And those teeth! They look as if they could tear you to pieces with them!
J D S says
That picture has been around a long time..I have referred to them as Muslim carolers..heralding the ills of islam.
b.a. freeman says
*EXACTLY* like the mafia, jayell!
last year, i read a post by a british lady who said that there were christian neighbors of hers who were thugs as violent as any muslims, and went on to say that they were refugees from the middle east. this illustrated to me that when people grow up with and live among thugs, they tend to adopt many of the thuggish practices of same, most likely because the dominant cult/gang tirelessly promotes it vile behavior as “good.” being victimized by those thugs does not excuse their thuggish behavior, but that kind of behavior is *all that they have known* for their entire lives. the mafia started in sicily, which, as it happens, was occupied – by PIOUS MUSLIMS – for some 260 years. “la cosa nostra” – “our thing” – may indicate that the dhimmi christians of sicily adapted the behavior of their islamic thug masters.
what a surprise; the mafia was schooled by pious muslims!
FYI says
Would you check out those rabid,hate-filled,delusional faces?
It’s easy to see how far removed from the Actual God these muslims are.
They don’t know God,they don’t obey His laws, preferring instead to follow the warped murderous teachings of their counterfeit god “allah”,the “best of deceivers” koran 3:54,and they certainly wouldn’t recognise an actual prophet if they saw or heard one.
Moses;What the hell is wrong with you muslims?How hard is it to obey God’s Commandments?Answer me that,huh?
What part of God’s Sixth commandment do you muslims with your “prophet” muhammed and your god allah just not understand?Thou-shalt-NOT KILL.
C’mon repeat after me..
THOU SHALT NOT K…
{BANG BANG BANG}
Gary says
But didn’t Moses live 2000 years before Islam began and therefore no muslims could have existed during his lifetime?
gravenimage says
Of course, Muslims absurdly claim that Moses–“Musa”–was himself Muslim, as they do with all the Jewish prophets.
Kepha says
Better to say “You shall not murder” (and to King James’ translators, one “slew” enemies on the battlefield and slaughtered sheep and cattle).
Walter Sieruk says
Islamic “ethics” when it come down to the hard core reality are nothing but a fiction . For example, the brutal ,cruel vicious and murderous actions of Islamic misogyny which is so inappropriately called “honor killing.” This heinously wicked misogynists Islamic tradition reaches such n demonic extent of evil and madness that in number of Muslim nations ,as Afghanistan , if a girl or woman is raped she then might undergo being murdered in an “honor killing.” This is worse that a terrible miscarriage it’s an outright outrageous affront to all that is decent, good right as well as sane. To actual punish the victim of raped and not the rapists is most hideous, vile and wrong. very wrong. The Bible teaches in Proverbs 17:15. “The Lord hates two things, punishing the innocent and letting the guilty go free.” [E.R.V.]
Oneiria says
Amen to the biblical verse mentioned. There’s nothing honorable in murdering the innocent and blameless because of “family honor.” Those who do deserve the same punishment they mete out to their victims.
Walter Sieruk says
“Islamic ethics” is really a contradiction in terms and many example may be given reveal this .One example of the Islamic doctrine of MURUNA which is the Muslim dogma that doing evil is good if i’ts for the betterment of Islam. This explains such totally unconscionable, ruthless, vicious actions and murderous are committed by the Muslim terrorists who compose the brutal and deadly jihad entity ISIS , as well al Qaeda ,Hezbollah and Hamas, For the jihadists are engaging in the Islamic doctrine of “Muruna” which is the dogma of Islam that teaches committing evil for the greater good is a noble part of the jihad for Islam. This is, in essence, the same type of “philosophy” that the communists had gone by in the twentieth century. That it’s a “good thing “ to commit many evils to obtain a “worker’s paradise.” Likewise, during World War II even the Nazis had this line of thinking.” To express, as in to illustrate this idea, even more, is by using a twenty-first century movie. Near the end of this movie, just before the final defeat of the super-arch –villain General Zod , that super villain said “No matter how brutal and deadly I was I did it for the greater good.” That is the common mindset of many villains including those of ISIS as well as with other jihad terror organizations . In conclusion “Islamic ethics ” are a myth.
Wellington says
Mohammed did not like music so it is haram. Mohammed did not like alcohol so it is haram. Mohammed did not like adoption so it is haram. And on and on and on with this nonsense based upon the dislikes of a seventh-century psychopathic control-freak.
faraway says
There’s a good book on this: It’s all about mohammed by F W Burleigh.We should be calling them mohammedans like in the past.
Wellington says
I often call them Mohammedans and their religion Mohammedanism since Allah was just Mo’s alter ego. Hell, you’d think by now everyone would have figured this out but there’s one and half billion Muslims who haven’t and hundreds of millions of dhimmis (examples being the current Pope, the current PM of Canada and the current PM of the UK) who also haven’t.
Beyond pathetic. Dangerous too.
Kepha says
After all, they are adherents of the “Din Muhammad”
gravenimage says
All true.
Kepha says
Had Zaynab not caught Muhammad’s fancy, Muhammad would’ve accepted adoption.
Walter Sieruk says
The term Islamic ethics are an idea that is a hoax. For example Islam has a history of slavery ans worse yet Islam stills continues the practice of slavery
For slavery is a heinous part of Islam is a topic that the apologists for that religion don’t like have people bring up .Nevertheless one writer revealed that “The senior clerics of Saudi Arabia’s highest body declared “Slavery is part of Islam and whoever wants it abolished is an infidel.” [1] Likewise, a former Muslim had exposed in his book that “Slavery is recognized as an institution and slave is considered both a thing as a person.” [2] In addition, two Christian writers in their book had also informs their readers that “Islam has enslaved more people than any other culture.” [3] Therefore Islam regardless of what the apologist for this religion do claim has not regard for human rights
[1] THEY MUST BE STOPPED by Brigitte Gabriel page 187
[2] THE ISLAM IN ISLAMIC TERRORISM by Ibn Warraq page 85
[3] Jesus and the Jihadis, by Craig A Evens and Jeremiah J Johnston page 125.
Walter Sieruk says
Two awful empty and meanness word and have no genuine vale at all are the words “Islamic ethics”.As for example concerning 9/11. .For on the day of September 9 2016 some man I know who works as a security guard at a public place told me a Muslim actually had the narve to walk over to him and said to him two Muslim “Jokes” about 9/11. As if it was a funny subject. It’s wrong to even try to “joke” about 9/11. Talk about bad “jokes” those two are the very much worst of all. The first was “What is the difference between September 11, 20001 and a cow?” answer “You don’t keep milking a cow after fifteen years.” Not only is that “joke” awful but those Muslims trying to be funny by say that cruel thing do have some gall because they have no room to talk . For they are still are “milking” the topic of the crusades and the crusades have been over for well more than seven hundred years. What gall they have! The second “Muslim “joke” about 9/11 is “On September 11, 2001 the people trapped on the upper floors of the WTC had ordered their pizza sent to them plane.” To say that such “humor” is terrible is an understatement. Furthermore, those Muslim who say those “jokes” are really only exposing their own sick, vicious, callous and heartless Islamic mindset.” “Islamic ethics” that term is the real joke..
Walter Sieruk says
The very idea of the term “Islamic ethics” is nothing but a hoax of a term. As seen in the cruel murdering Islamic practice of the brutal vicious and murderous action that is so inappropriately called “honor killing.” This malicious misogyny is so heinous callous and malice- filled that it’s an affront to all that is good, decent and right. In addition, the author, Brigitte Gabriel had revealed in her book which is entitled THEY MUST BE STOPPED on pages 171,172 , that “The shocking reality is that most Muslim men ,including those educated in the West ,have no objection to the degradation of women in their countries .Across the Muslim world, even in moderate Islamic countries, women’s’ rights are almost nonexistent…Women is Islam are considered unclean ,deemed inferior even to dirt.” Furthermore, as for Islamic violence against girls and women in Canada. In this just cited book it explains on page 176 that “Honor killings have also come to the West thanks to the rise of Islamic immigration. “
Indeed, they must be stopped!
Walter Sieruk says
In reality there is no such this as “Islamic ethics” as shown in that cruel, brutal and vicious Islamic tradition of female butchery which some Muslims so inappropriately call “female circumcision.” This heinous Islamic custom of misogyny has been exposed in the book by Brigitte Gabriel which is entitled THEY MUST BE STOPPED. For on page 178 it reveals to the reader that “One of the most devastating practices to young girls of the Islamic world is female genital mutilation. Young girls have their clitoris removed without anesthesia…” To reiterate “there is no such this as “Islamic ethics.”
Walter Sieruk says
One last thing that is worth noting about the farce of the term “Islamic ethics. Which is that on September 11,2001 many Muslims rejoiced in different countries around the world then they found about the outcome of those al Qaeda jihad attacks in which so many people died . They were so glad and happy about all those people who died in such terrible ways. The reason they felt so happy with joy is because ,as the Bible explains such people have had “their conscience seared with a hot iron.” First Timothy 4:2. {K.J.V.] For them that “hot iron” is Islam
The ignorance and the gall of some people of talk about “Islamic ethics”” as if such a thing was an actual reality.
gravenimage says
Islamic ethics do exist, Walter–they are just evilo.
gravenimage says
evil
Peter WF says
There is the assumption that ethics is an absolute value. Ethics are a mater of opinion by the beholder. Opinion changes with time and people.
Re Female Genital Mutilation/Modification –
Why is the male circumcision acceptable?
Why is the jewish male circumcision and its ceremony acceptable? I have made an assumption – that you know what happens in the ceremony. See link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkpeHqCSzIo. I won’t / haven’t watched it.
I should point out that there are a number (yes plural) of infant deaths due to infections carried by the “priest” transferred to the infant by body fluids.
It is simply pedophilia sanctioned by a “chain of command” for want of a better description. I point this out because in the carriage of a crime by a group, in some jurisdictions, means that all involved can be prosecuted as if all carried out the crime.
1) go to article https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/09/robert-spencer-in-pj-media-muslim-cop-who-shot-woman-was-hired-after-being-found-unable-to-handle-stress-of-job
2) search “frank anderson”
3) read atleast the first few of the contributions from Frank.
The above is likely an unintended consequence in getting tough on mob violence.
There is something basically wrong with the Middle East.
Jake says
Might have been a later insertion in order to cut off any claims of leadership of the Islamic community by the family of the adopted son.
The Ulema inserted all kinds of nonsense into the Koran and Hadiths in order to ensure their primacy. But they this is what they believe
Hugh Fitzgerald says
Those faces, contorted unforgettably in idiocy and hatred.
StellaSaidSo says
Just some of the regulars at Speakers’ Corner…
gravenimage says
This is the true face of Islam.
JM says
They look like wild beasts, ready to rend and savage you with their teeth. The only difference: wild beasts are beautiful, innocent creatures of God, whereas these morons are repulsive creatures of Satan.
Darryl Kerney says
I have a Pakistani Christian friend, he and his wife adopted a baby “muslim” girl that nobody wanted, they had to flee to Thailand because of death threats…..
gravenimage says
That does not surprise me, Darryl. Madness. I’m glad your friend and her family got out.
gravenimage says
The Grotesque Immorality of Mainstream Islamic Ethics (Part 4)
…………………
Thank you, Saleem Smith.
How many needy children have suffered over the centuries because the “Prophet” Muhammed wanted to get hold of his adopted son’s wife? *Ugh*.
Kepha says
Thanks, Salim.
I actually think that the quote from Sahih Bukhari (from Aisha) is historical. This is exactly what a saucy young wench secure in her place with her husband might say to him.
Indeed, Islamic ethics seem to always bless the desires and lusts of dominant, in-group males. You have this from someone who has little sympathy for the feminist movement apart from equal pay for equal work.
Mark Spahn says
Like so much Islamic scripture, it’s hard to figure out what the author of Quran 33:4 is trying to say.
“Allah has not made for a man two hearts in his interior.” Okay, so adult human males have only one heart, unlike octopuses and squid; see http://mentalfloss.com/article/52337/3-creatures-more-one-heart
So what? What is so important about this datum of Islamic science that it is cluttering up the Quran, while information about the number of women’s hearts is lacking?
“And He has not made your wives whom you declare unlawful your mothers.” What does it even mean to declare someone unlawful? Is Allah trying to say that a man should not marry his mother? If so, he’s pretty dyslexic about expressing this idea.
“And he has not made your adopted sons your [true] sons.” Of course, an adopted son is not a natural son, purely as a matter of definition, which not even an omnipotent deity can contradict.
“That is [merely] your saying by your mouths, but Allah says the truth, and He guides to the [right] way.” *What* is merely your saying by your mouths?
I wish the author of the Quran were at least coherent.
And in the quoted hadith, four people (the parents of Zaid and the parents of his wife Zainab) are Muhammad’s “ransom”. What does this mean? Is Muhammad holding the parents hostage?
Mark Spahn says
In a Sharia state, what happens to minor children whose parents have died?