As we explained in the first of our rebuttal, at times
it is necessary to mock and ridicule those who consistently blaspheme the true God and
his true Word, the Holy Bible. In this response I will be adopting the rather harsh and
direct language of Zawadi in speaking of his false prophet, even though he justifies
such language on the grounds that I insulted Muhammad for calling him what he truly is.
Zawadi claims that for most of my first response I was doing nothing more than
attacking a strawman, and yet by making this assertion he is following his pattern of
proving over and over again that he lacks basic reading comprehension which explains
why he is regularly failing to address our actual points. He then has the audacity
to lie by saying that,
I was arguing that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not CONSUMNATE [sic]
THE MARRIAGE with Aisha before she was able to do so.
That is NOT what Zawadi was trying to prove since this is what he actually wrote:
Scholars have said that children below the age of puberty may play with dolls
that are forbidden for adults. However, that doesn't mean that adults are forbidden to
play with dolls that are not haram. Thus, if Aisha's dolls had no face or if it
wasn't structured in a way that it was haram then we don't have to argue that it was
permissible for her to have them or play with them because she didn't hit puberty.
(Emphasis ours)
In light of the above the reader can see through Zawadis lies when he writes:
Now in regards to Aisha CONSUMNATING [sic] THE MARRIAGE with the Prophet (peace
be upon him), I would challenge Shamoun to prove that she wasn't physically or
mentally able to do so. He thinks he met my challenge. Let's see if that is the case.
He then proceeds to attack this straw man and tries to further lie and deceive his
readers:
In Islam, parents can betroth a child who did not hit puberty to someone else. We don't
dispute this in any way. If the child grows up and decides to divorce the one she/he was
betrothed to then fine, otherwise they can consummate the marriage since they are already
married. I am not arguing against this. If Shamoun argues that this is immoral then let
him PROVE that this is the case.
Zawadi calls me a fool and an idiot for supposedly not understanding the Islamic ruling
concerning the permissibility of playing with dolls, all the while proving that he is
actually the fool who cant help but to cover up his prophets filth:
The fool Shamoun still doesn't understand the Islamic ruling on dolls. Let us
break it down for this fool so that he may understand (truly, it is the idiots
guide to understanding Islamic fiqh):
- In Islam it is haram to play
with dolls that have certain images.
- Only those who did not hit
puberty are allowed to play with them.
- However, there are dolls that
do not have these kinds of images.
- It is permissible for both adults
and children to play with them.
- I quoted Ibn Uthaymeen and gave
other evidence that suggested that there was a good chance that the dolls that Aisha
played with are not the dolls that are forbidden for adults.
- Thus, just because Aisha was
playing with dolls (the permissible ones) that does not necessarily imply that she didn't
hit puberty.
- The burden of proof is on
Shamoun to show that Aisha played with forbidden dolls with an image during the time she
consummated the marriage with the Prophet in order to successfully prove that she didn't
hit puberty.
- Shamoun did not do such a thing.
Not only did I satisfy the burden of proof by showing that Aisha was playing with dolls
when she was married to Muhammad I further quoted Salafi sources to prove that the dolls
she was playing with were of the forbidden kind.
What makes this all the more ironic is that his very own source which he tries to
trumpet around as refuting my point is not certain whether the dolls that Aisha was
playing with were of the permissible kind or not. Let me repost what Zawadi quoted in
order to further document his desperate attempt of defending the indefensible:
But if the shape is complete, and it is as if you are looking at a person - especially
if it can move or speak - then I am not entirely at ease with the idea of them being
permissible, because this is a complete imitation of the creation of Allaah. IT SEEMS
that the dolls with which 'Aa'ishah used to play were not like this, so it is preferable
to avoid them. But I cannot say that they are definitely haraam, BECAUSE THESE ARE
CONCESSIONS GRANTED TO YOUNG CHILDREN THAT ARE NOT GRANTED TO ADULTS IN SUCH MATTERS.
It is natural for young children to play and have fun, they are not obliged to do any of
the acts of worship so we cannot say that that they are wasting their time in idle play.
But if a person wants to be on the safe side in such matters, he should cut off the head
or hold it near the fire until it softens, then he should press it until the features
disappear.(Majmoo' Fataawa al-Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Uthaymeen 2/277-278;
source;
bold emphasis ours)
Not only was this scholar not completely certain whether Aishas dolls were of the
permissible kind he candidly admits that children are permitted to play with the forbidden
types of dolls.
Despite the fact that Zawadi realizes that even his own scholar is not certain
regarding this matter he still foolishly says:
Hopefully Shamoun can stop acting like a fool and get the point and realize that the
burden of proof IS ON HIM to show that Aisha was playing with forbidden dolls.
He should stop appealing to authority and quoting Al Khattabi and start PROVING that
Al Khattabi was right. Even Ibn Hajar al Asqalani stated that Al Khattabi's opinion was
questionable.
Talk about being a blatant hypocrite! Zawadi chides me for appealing to his OWN Salafi
authorities but has no shame of doing the very same exact thing. To make matters worse he
cites one single witness whereas I provided multiple witnesses refuting the position of
this particular scholar. We suggest that the readers consult our initial rebuttal and read
their comments for themselves.
Moreover, he conveniently tries to shift the burden of proof on to me by asking me to
prove that Aisha was prepubescent when it is his duty to show that she was not since he is
making the assertion that she was pubescent. I have already quoted Muslim authorities such
as al-Bukhari, Salafi sources etc. that all agree with me that Aisha was not a maiden when
Muhammad married her.
Here is Zawadis response to the context of my statements from Ibn Hajar:
Just because Ibn Hajar quoted the opinion of someone that does not mean that he agreed
with him. Ibn Hajar clearly stated that Al Khattabi's opinion was questionable:
"To say with certainty 'that she was not yet at the age of puberty'
is questionable"'
He then has the audacity of calling me a liar for claiming that al-Asqalani stated that
the strongest view was that Aisha hadnt reached puberty by the time of the expedition
against Khaibar:
Shamoun is a liar. I CHALLENGE Shamoun to show us where in the entire commentary
Asqalani said that the strongest opinion was that Aisha did not hit puberty. Asqalani did
not say this. He said that the strongest opinion was that the incident took place at the
time of Khaibar. However, Asqalani did not state that Aisha did not hit puberty at the
time of Khaibar. He only said that it was possible because she didn't hit the age of
fifteen yet. It was only the translator of the hadith that inserted in brackets his
assertions, not Asqalani's. So the translator was mistaken while Shamoun is a liar since
he continues to push forth the translator's mistake.
Does Zawadi have amnesia? Did he forget what he wrote concerning Ibn Hajar being a
Shafi`i, and how Shafiis believe that a person reaches puberty at 15, which
accounts for why Ibn Hajar thought that Aisha may have been still prepubescent at the
age of 14?
Moreover, did he even read the source I provided which said the following?
Al-Haafiz goes on to say:[43. Fath al-Baaree 10/400, Baab (91), related to Hadeeth
no.5954, 5955.]
Abu Daawood and An-Nasaa'ee have narrated with another chain (wajh aakhar) from
'Aa'isha (may Allah be pleased with her) that she said:" The Messenger of Allah
(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) returned from the battle of Tabook or Khaibar...".
Here he mentioned the Hadeeth about his (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) tearing
down the curtain which she (may Allah be pleased with her) attached to her door. She (may
Allah be pleased with her) said:" Then the side of the curtain which was over
the dolls of 'Aa'isha (may Allah be pleased with her) was uncovered. He (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him) said: What is this, O 'Aa'isha? She said: My dolls. She
then said: then he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saw amongst them a winged
horse which was tied up. He (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: What is this?
I said: A horse. He said: A horse with two wings? I said: Didn't you hear that Sulaiman
(Solomon - peace be upon him) had horses with wings? Then he (peace and blessings of Allah
be upon him) laughed"[44. Abu Daawood 3/1373, no.4914; Saheeh Sunan Abu
Daawood 3/932, no.4123/4932.].
Al-Khattaabee said: From this Hadeeth it is understood that playing with dolls
(al-banaat) is not like the amusement from other images (suwar) concerning which the
threat (wa'eed) of punishment is mentioned. The only reason why permission in this WAS
GIVEN TO 'AA'ISHA (may Allah be pleased with her) is because SHE HAD NOT, at that time,
REACHED THE AGE OF PUBERTY.
[AL-HAAFIZ says:] I say: To say with certainty, [that she was not yet at
the age of puberty] is questionable, though it might possibly be so. This, because
'Aa'isha (may Allah be pleased with her) was a fourteen year old girl at the time of the
Battle of Khaibar - either exactly fourteen years old, or having just passed her
fourteenth year [and entering into the fifteenth year], or approaching it (the fourteenth
year).
As for her age at the time of the Battle of Tabook - she had by then definitely reached
the age of puberty. Therefore, THE STRONGEST VIEW is that of those who said: "It
was in Khaibar" [i.e. WHEN SHE WAS NOT YET AT THE AGE OF PUBERTY], and made
reconciliation (jam') [between the apparent contradictory rulings, of permissibility of
dolls, in particular, and the prohibition of images, in general] with what al-Khattaabee
said (above).
[al-Khattabee said that images are prohibited, except in the case of dolls for young
girls]. This, because to reconcile (make jam') is better than to assume the ahaadith to be
in contradiction (at-ta'aarud). Here Shaykh Bin Baaz concludes his quotation from
al-Haafiz, saying: THE ABOVE IS THE ESSENCE OF THE WORDS OF AL-HAAFIZ IBN HAJAR.
He then goes on to say:
If you have understood what al-Haafiz (rahimahu'llah ta'aala) has mentioned,
then the safest position (al-ahwat) is to avoid possession of dolls (al-lu'ab
al-musawwarah) (three dimensional). This, because its lawfulness is doubtful, due to the
possibility that the approval of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him),
for 'Aa'isha (may Allah be pleased with her) to possess the three dimensional dolls
(al-lu'ab al-musawwarah), was before the order came to obliterate and efface images
(suwar). (The Beneficial Response Concerning the Islamic Ruling of Pictures/Images,
by Shaykh Abdul-Azeez Ibn Abdullah Ibn Baaz, rendered in English by Abu Muhammad
Abdur-Ra'uf Shakir; source;
capital and underline emphasis ours)
Did this Salafi source deliberately mislead me into thinking that it was Ibn Hajar
who stated that the strongest view is that Aisha didnt hit puberty at Khaibar even
though she was 14, despite having some uncertainty regarding this fact? Or is this simply
more of Zawadis lies at work since he cannot deal with the fact that his own Muslim
authorities clearly teach that Aisha didnt hit puberty even at the age of 14, which
means that Muhammad was sleeping with a minor for at least five years?
More importantly, regardless of whether Ibn Hajar said this or some other Muslim did,
does Zawadi even bother to mention that the reason why these Salafi scholars were arguing
for the fact that Aisha may have not reached puberty even at that time IS BECAUSE SHE WAS
STILL PLAYING WITH UNLAWFUL DOLLS WHICH WAS ONLY ALLOWED FOR PREPUBSECENT GIRLS, THERBY
REFUTING THE SCHOLAR HE KEEPS USING TO SHOW OTHERWISE, SPECIFICALLY SHAYKH UTHAYMEEN?
And will he admit to his readers that this very same source acknowledges that Muslim
scholars debated among themselves whether there is abrogation concerning the
permissibility of playing with three-dimensional dolls due to the fact that Aisha was
still playing with them when she was 14 years old even though Muhammad condemned such
images? Some of the scholars stated that young girls were originally allowed to play with
such images until Muhammad later abrogated it:
As for the toys which have body (three dimensional), in the shape of that which has a
soul - the scholars have differed about the permissibility or non-permissibility of their
possession by little girls.
It has been affirmed in the two books of Saheeh (al-Bukhaaree and Muslim), from
'Aa'isha (may Allah be pleased with her) who said: "I used to play with dolls
in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). And I had
girl-friends (playmates) who played along with me. They would hide (feeling shy) from him
(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) whenever he entered. But, he (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him) would call them to join and play with me"
[al-Bukhaaree 8/95 #151, Muslim 4/1299 #5981].
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said in Fath al-Baaree: [40. Fath al-Baaree 10/400 no.5954 - 5955,
Kitaab at-Tasweer, Baab: Ma Wuti'a Min at-Tasaaweer; also 10/544, no.6130, Kitaab:
al-Adab, Baab: al-Inbisaat ilaa an-Naas.]
This Hadeeth has been used as a proof for the permissibility of possessing (suwar - of)
dolls and toys, for the purpose of the little girls playing with them. This has been
especially exempted from the general prohibition of possession of images (suwar).
Al-Qaadee 'Iyaad has stated this position with definiteness, and transmitted it as the
position of the Majority (Jumhoor) of the Scholars; and that they declared permissible the
selling of toys/dolls (al-lu'ab) for little girls, to train them from childhood for the
household responsibilities and child-rearing.
He (al-Qaadee 'Iyaad) then says: Some of the scholars hold that this permission is
abrogated (mansookh). Ibn Battaal was inclined to this opinion. It was also narrated
from Ibn Abi Zaid, from Maalik that he disliked (kariha) that a man would buy for his
daughter images (suwar) [dolls]. From this ad-Daawoodee considered stronger the opinion
that this permission is abrogated.
Ibn Hibban entitled the chapter: "The allowance (ibaahah) of young women [41. Perhaps
the meaning here of 'young women' is young girls who married at an early age, as was
the case with 'Aa'isha (may Allah be pleased with her), whose marriage to the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was contracted at the age of six and
consummated at the age of nine [al-Bukhaaree 7/65, no.88].] to play with toys
(al-lu'ab) [dolls]".
An-Nasaa'ee entitled the chapter: "A man's allowing his wife to play with dolls
(al-banaat)". He didn't restrict it to childhood, and this (on his part) is
questionable.
Al-Bayhaqee - after narrating this Hadeeth and its sources (takhreej) - said:
"The prohibition of possessing images (suwar) is firmly established. Therefore,
the permission given to 'Aa'isha (may Allah be pleased with her) in this matter should be
understood to have been before the prohibition [and therefore abrogated]" Ibn
al-Jawzee has firmly stood on this position.
This is why these Muslims were trying to prove that Aisha, at 14, was still a
prepubescent girl since they didnt want to opt for the position that playing with
three-dimensional dolls was abrogated in order to explain away the contradiction within
these narratives. They want to keep the view that such images are only lawful for
prepubescent girls, and since Aisha was still playing with them at the age of 14 she must
have not reached puberty even at that age!
And this is the religion that Zawadi foolishly believes is from God!
After claiming that his examples of girls reaching puberty at 9 are not red herrings
(despite the fact that they are), Zawadi thinks he caught me in a lie and that I am a fool
since I quoted a Muslim poster who said that someone mentioned that they knew a
twenty-three year old girl who was still playing with a teddy bear (which is another red
herring since this has no bearing on the reason why Aisha was still playing with dolls
when Muhammad slept with her).
Zawadi proceeds to show that I was wrong to accuse him of following in the footsteps of
his prophet by plagiarizing the material of others (*)
since he is the one who actually shared this story with that particular Muslim whom I cited.
I thank Zawadi for pointing out my mistake and gladly accept correction since I never
claimed to be infallible. I am pretty certain that this will not be the last error I make
in my writings.
Yet in order to get the full picture and to put things in perspective Zawadi
didnt bother mentioning the fact that he has the habit of taking the comments
of Muslims from this very forum, just as I documented
here.
Which led me to suspect that this was another time where Zawadi took the statements
of others and tried to pass them off as his own experiences. But I was mistaken and accept
full responsibility for my error.
Besides, did Zawadi bother apologizing for accusing me of deceptively putting comments
in brackets when I was merely reproducing the exact statements of the Salafi source? Will
he apologize here for again calling me a liar concerning Ibn Hajars position when it
turns out that I am correct once again and that Zawadi is the liar or ignoramus who cannot
read the quotations carefully? I doubt it.
Now with that red herring out of the way, Zawadi justifies Muhammads cruelty on
creating legislation that forced his widows to remain unmarried and without children for
all the days of their lives on the grounds that this was Gods Law and that there
was some wisdom behind it that he is not aware of!
As if he couldnt get any more desperate he tries to compare Muhammads
cruelty with the following Biblical commandment:
Can't I argue the same thing against Christianity? Christianity teaches that if a woman
gets married to a man and then after a couple of years she finds out that he can't satisfy
her in bed or has a bad personality, SHE IS FORCED TO STAY MARRIED TO HIM. This
won't be a valid reason for her to divorce him. She has to put up with him until the day
he dies (1 Corinthians 7:39)or cheats on her (Matthew 5:32).
There are several major problems with Zawadis appeal to this Biblical text. First
off, all that Zawadi is proving at this point is that both the Holy Bible and the Quran
are immoral in their instructions concerning marriages and the treatment of women. This
example does nothing to justify Muhammad banishing his wives to house arrest and to a life
of widowhood, giving them no hope of remarriage and of ever having children. So this is
nothing more than the fallacy of tu-quoque.
Second, in order to make his point Zawadi has to come with the worst case scenario
imaginable. How many of these marriages suffer from the problems that Zawadi imagines?
What are the percentages of impotent couples, or men who are not capable of performing
sexually, in relation to those who can?
Furthermore, arent there other ways to satisfy a spouse in the case of impotency,
such as oral sex?
And what does this say of Zawadis mind that he has to think of marriage purely
in terms of sexual performance? Is that the only or main reason for marriage? Although a
vitally important part, isnt marriage supposed to be more than that? Isnt it
the intention in marriage to create a bond between a man and woman where they become one
and virtually inseparable, being best of friends, loving one another unconditionally, and
sacrificing for the benefit of the other? At least this is the definition of marriage
according to Gods true Word, the Holy Bible (cf. Ephesians 5:21-33).
Moreover, this is precisely why the Holy Bible commands Christians to marry fellow
believers since this will serve as a safety measure to insure that the husband is honoring
his wife and satisfying all of her needs to the best of his ability. After all, the Bible
warns husbands not to mistreat their wives since this will hinder their relationship with
God:
"Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them."
Colossians 3:19
"Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat
them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of
life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers." 1 Peter 3:7
It further commands husbands to satisfy their wives sexually:
"Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since
there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own
husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and
likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to
her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but
also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time,
so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will
not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." 1 Corinthians 7:1-5
The foregoing indicates that, in the case of a husband later becoming impotent,
he must find other lawful means of fulfilling his wifes sexual desires.
More importantly, as we just noted the Holy Bible lays down principles which can be
adapted to address certain situations that are not explicitly mentioned in the Holy
Scriptures. For instance, if it is no longer safe for a woman to live with her husband due
to some type of abuse then she can follow the law which allows her to seek separation in
order to protect her life. These are principles which are clearly laid out in the Holy
Bible. As the apostle Paul wrote concerning honoring the laws of the government (provided
that they dont cause you to break Gods commands):
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for
there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist
have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is
rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on
themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.
Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he
will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid,
for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to
bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the
authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This
is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full
time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if
revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Romans 13:1-7
He even envisioned a scenario where believing spouses may be separated due to some
reason:
"To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not
separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried
or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife."
1 Corinthians 7:10-11
The foregoing establishes the basis that a woman can seek a legal separation,
especially when it is no longer safe for her to live with her abusive husband, and where
both her life and the lives of their children (if they have any) may be at stake. And if
the husband continues to exhibit such behavior then he can be classified as an unbeliever
for failing to comply with the commands of the Lord concerning the treatment of spouses.
And under those circumstances the following command would apply:
"To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer
and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband
who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.
For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife
has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean,
but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man
or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.
How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband,
whether you will save your wife?" 1 Corinthians 7:12-16
The above establishes the principle that a believing woman whose husband is considered
an unbeliever and is abusive is free from him in the case that she is forced to legally
separate.
This understanding of the aforementioned texts is based on the explicit teachings of
our Lord that the spirit of the Law is to save life, not destroy it, which may require
interpreting the literal meaning of the Biblical text in a manner that does not hinder
the good and preservation of life:
"Another time he went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was
there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely
to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand,
Stand up in front of everyone. Then Jesus asked them, Which is lawful on
the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill? But
they remained silent. He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their
stubborn hearts, said to the man, Stretch out your hand. He stretched it out,
and his hand was completely restored. 6Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with
the Herodians how they might kill Jesus." Mark 3:1-6
"On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, and a woman was there
who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not
straighten up at all. When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her,
Woman, you are set free from your infirmity. Then he put his hands on her, and
immediately she straightened up and praised God. Indignant because Jesus had healed on the
Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, There are six days for work. So
come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath. The Lord answered him, You
hypocrites! Doesn't each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and
lead it out to give it water? Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham,
whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from
what bound her? When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people
were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing." Luke 13:10-17
Finally, if couples cant have children due to a defect or some inability then
they always have the option of adopting, something that Muslims cannot do since Muhammad
abolished adoption in order to save face for stealing his adopted sons wife! For
the details please consult the following articles:
Now does this justify Muhammad coming up with legislation prohibiting his widows from
finding men who were not impotent and who could love and care for them? No. Is this at all
similar to Muhammad robbing his wives of the pleasure of having and raising children of
their own, or of even adopting some? Not in the least. And does this excuse Muhammad from
banishing his widows to their homes till the day they died? Absolutely not.
So much for Zawadis counter-example.
Zawadi claims that he addressed the point of the physiological and psychological
damages that such marriages can cause to minors in his initial rebuttal. He obviously
didnt since we would have addressed it. And if he thinks he did then we kindly
advise him to point it out to us since we will be more than happy to show why he failed
to defend the indefensible.
We omit Zawadis failed attempt of refuting Muhammad Muhsin Khans English
version of al-Bukhari where Aisha is said to be an immature girl since Zawadi does nothing
more than to compare apples and oranges with his analogy of bachelors having messy rooms
as well!
Notice Zawadis evasion tactics to the sources I provided which stated quite
clearly that Ali objected to Umars marriage to his daughter on the grounds that she
was too young:
Can't Shamoun the fool see that these narrations work against him and not for him? If
Ali truly believed that it would be immoral for Umar to marry his daughter when she was
that young then why did he eventually allow it to occur?
Cant Zawadi the moron see how these narratives emphatically demonstrate that even
the Muslims instinctively knew that having sex with minors was wrong, but they really
couldnt object to such relationships since their own false prophet and false
religion condoned and even sanctioned such marriages?
Sensing that he is in a losing battle Zawadi tries to come up with a reason for
Alis objection to the marriage.
First, it is possible that Ali thought that Umar wanted to get married and consummate
the marriage with Umm Kulthum right away. Thus, Ali stated her age because he believed
that his daughter was still not ready for intercourse (which was true since Umar
consummated the marriage a year after marrying Umm Kulthum).
Zawadi doesnt see that he is actually the fool for trying to explain away
Alis hesitation. After all, why would Ali object to Umar consummating the marriage
with Umm Kulthum when the Quran permits men to consummate marriages with minors? See our
initial response for the details.
Was it because she was too immature to have sex at the age of 11? If so then does
Zawadi really expect us to believe that Aisha, who was younger than her, was really
prepared to have sex with a man old enough to be her greatgreat-grandfather? And
what proof does he have that this was the real reason why Umar delayed consummating the
marriage when the hadiths state otherwise?
Secondly, Ali did not want Umar to marry his daughter and only used the age of his
daughter as an excuse. This might be an argument that Shias use since they hate Umar,
however I believe that it is possibly the case for a different reason. As I argued in my
previous article, there are sources that indicate that the companions did not want Umar to
get married to another woman for fear that she might distract him from his duties as a
Caliph. Thus, it is very likely that Ali didn't want Umar to get married for the same
reasons and only used the age of his daughter as an excuse. However, his excuse was
wrong/bad and he knew it, therefore he eventually married his daughter to Umar.
We want to thank Zawadi for making the case for the Shias that the Sunnis cannot help
but slander Ali and his family! For the details please consult
this Shia article.
Furthermore, note how Zawadi contradicts himself after getting caught since he first
tried to deny that the narration which stated that Umm Kulthum was too young was the
actual reason for the people objecting to Umars marriage to her. He asserted that
the people objected to this marriage on the grounds that they were afraid that Umar would
be distracted from fulfilling his duties. Now, however, he tries to find an excuse to
justify this marriage since he can no longer deny that the people complained about Umm
Kulthums young age!
And does anyone really believe that Umars marriage to Umm Kulthum would distract
him from his duties when his other marriages didnt affect his position as the
Islamic ruler? Isnt this simply more evidence that Zawadi is desperately trying to
salvage his prophets reputation and religion by coming up with the flimsiest of
excuses and explanations?
The fact of the matter is that the reason why the Muslims, specifically Ali, objected
to this marriage is due to Umm Kulthums young age. See our initial rebuttal for the
narrations.
Therefore, the reports that we provided should sufficiently put to rest Zawadis
assertion that Alis hesitance in giving his daughter to Umar was because he may have
felt that this would affect the latter s responsibilities as caliph.
More importantly, one of the Sunni narrations cited by the Shias indicates that the
main reason why Ali even acquiesced to this marriage is because Umar FORCED him to do so:
"Umar asked for the hand of 'Ali's daughter. 'Ali replied that she is too
young. Umar eventually made 'Ali desperate, and he [Umar] climbed the pulpit
declaring 'By Allah, I have made 'Ali desperate as I heard Rasulullah (s)
say that on the Day of Judgement all family trees shall me severed save those of my
family'. By the orders of 'Ali Umme Kalthum was then groomed and sent to Umar. When Umar
saw her, he got up, took her in his lap, kissed her, and showered blessings on her. When
she got up to leave, he grabbed her ankle and said, 'Tell your father that I am willing'.
When she returned home and told her father about what had transpired, Ali married her to
Umar". (Sawaiqh al-Muhriqa, p. 280; bold and underline emphasis ours;
1,
2)
Notice Umars rather shameful conduct in kissing a young minor and touching her
ankle at a time when he wasnt even married to her! Here are three other sources
that confirm this event:
"'Umar asked Ali for the hand of Umme Kalthum. 'Ali replied that she was too
young. 'Umar said, Marry her to me and do as I say for I wish to attain to
that position which no one else has attained. 'Ali then said, 'I shall send Umme Kalthum
to you. If you like her then I shall marry her to you.' 'Ali then sent the girl with a
cloth and told her to say [to 'Umar] 'This is the scarf that I was talking about'. She
conveyed these words to Umar, who said, 'Tell your father that I accept'. Umar then
touched the girl's calf. She exclaimed, 'You have done this to me? If it had not been the
fact that you were Khalifa of the Muslims I would have broken your nose'. The girl
went home and repeated the episode to her father, stating, 'You sent me to a foul
man', with that 'Ali said, 'He is your husband'. Umar then attended a gathering of
the Muhajireen and said, 'Congratulate me'. They said, 'Why?' He said, 'I have married
Umme Kalthum binte 'Ali.'" (Al-Istiab, Volume 4, p. 467; bold and underline
emphasis ours)
And:
"'Umar asked 'Ali for the hand of his daughter, Umme Kalthum in marriage. 'Ali
replied that she has not yet attained the age (of maturity). 'Umar replied, 'By Allah,
this is not true. You do not want her to marry me. If she is underage, send her to me'.
Thus 'Ali gave his daughter Umme Kalthum a dress and asked her to go to 'Umar and tell him
that her father wants to know what this dress is for. When she came to Umar and gave him
the message, he grabbed her hand and forcibly pulled her towards him. 'Umme Kalthum
asked him to leave her hand, which Umar did and said, 'You are a very mannered
lady with great morals. Go and tell your father that you are very pretty and you are not
what he said of you'. With that 'Ali married Umme Kalthum to 'Umar." (Tareekh
Khamees, 'Dhikr Umm Kalthum,' Volume 2, p. 384; see also Zakhair Al-Aqba,
p. 168; bold and underline emphasis ours)
Finally:
"'Umar asked for the hand of 'Ali's daughter. 'Ali ordered her to groom herself.
He sent her to 'Umar, who grabbed her calf, kissed her, and said 'Tell your father that I
am happy.' Upon her return she said to her father, 'He kissed me, grabbed my calf and told
me to convey to you that he was happy'". (Tareekh Baghdad, Volume 6, p. 182)
Also, Zawadi conveniently ignored my comment that the peoples objection to this
marriage demonstrated that even they knew it was morally wrong for grown men to marry
minors even though it was made lawful by their prophet.
Thus, Zawadi has shot himself in the foot for trying to explain away narrations which
show that even people back then had the good sense to know and see why it was immoral
for grown men to marry minors.
I omit some of his statements at this juncture since they are simply irrelevant.
Zawadi proceeds to attack another straw man:
But the interesting thing is that rape entails forcibly making the person engage in
sexual intercourse with you. Where on earth has Shamoun shown that the Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him) forced Aisha into marrying her? Her parents and she consented to the
marriage! Talk about false analogies.
I didnt raise the issue of rape to show that Muhammad forced himself on Aisha, so
Zawadi is either lying or providing more evidence that he cannot comprehend what he reads.
I mentioned the issue of rape solely because ZAWADI USED IT AS AN EXAMPLE OF A UNIVERSAL
CRITIQUE which ended up backfiring against him.
As if he couldnt get any more shameless Zawadi tries to justify the fact that his
prophet was a rapist and murderer by arguing that it is possible that some of the women
who were taken as plunder and whose family had been murdered would really want to have sex
with the very people who murdered their loved ones and who had just taken them captive.
We agree that not all slave women would consent, but that doesn't mean that all of them
wouldn't [sic]. Also, there is plenty of evidence in Islam that one cannot harm
those under his authority. To say that the Muslim has the right to rape his slave girl
just because he has the right to engage in sexual intercourse with her is as good as
saying that a Muslim hasthe right to rape his wife when she refuses his bed,
which is absolutely ridiculous and absurd. (See here).
Zawadi is obviously playing word games with his readers since he redefines rape so as
to avoid admitting that what the Muslim captors did to their female captives is nothing
more than molesting helpless women. It is NOT consensual sex when a man sleeps with a
woman whom he has just taken prisoner and whose family he has just murdered; nor is it a
right for a man to have sex with a female captive, especially when her husband may still
be alive.
Zawadi obviously wants to insult our intelligence since he really wants us to believe
that a morally conscious and sane woman would actually consent to having sex with a man
who had just imprisoned her and murdered her loved ones. Talk about being pathetic and
desperate.
What makes this rather ironic is that even agnostics/atheists have better moral sense
than Zawadi and his god, both of whom have no shame to defend Muhammads bloodlust
and murder sprees:
Would you enjoy watching your wife, sister or mother being raped by her captors,
while you are shackled with a chain nearby? (Sher Khan, Run! Muslims, Run!!;
source)
In light of this here is my answer to Zawadis challenge:
ZAWADI, YOUR FILTHY, EVIL GOD CONDONES THE RAPING OF
CAPTIVE WOMEN, AND EVEN ALLOWS HIS RAPISTS AND THUGS TO COMMIT ADULTERY WITH THEM IN THE
CASE THEY ARE STILL MARRIED. YOU CAN FIND THE DOCUMENTATION FOR THIS IN Q. 4:34, AS WELL
AS IN THE LIFE OF YOUR FILTHY AND WICKED PROPHET. I KNOW THIS EATS YOU UP ALIVE SINCE THIS
IS UNLIKE THE TRUE GOD OF THE HOLY BIBLE WHO FORBIDS CAPTIVE WOMEN FROM BEING RAPED AND
SOLD AS CHATTEL. THE FACT IS THAT YOUR PROPHET AND YOUR GOD FALL UNDER THE JUST
CONDEMNATION AND WRATH OF THE ONE TRUE GOD OF ABRAHAM.
Zawadis misreading of the Bible leads him to assume that men were allowed to have
sex with slave girls. In fact he provides further proof that he is just as illiterate as
his prophet:
Yes, we agree with Shamoun that raping a little child is wrong. Actually, raping anyone
would be universally condemned. That is why Shamoun's false rapist and sex
hungry Biblical God should be universally condemned:
What a foolish and illiterate Muslim polemicist! I guess Zawadi didnt learn his
lesson when I mentioned the fact that he is dishonest and a hypocrite for inconsistently
applying his proposed methods of criticism, let alone for grossly misreading Biblical
passages to show how God "approves" of rape, all of which have been refuted in
the following links by some of the Christian posters:
1,
2,
3,
4
Interestingly, it is actually here that Zawadi was confronted with the internal and
external critiques. Note, for instance, what the following Christian apologist stated
concerning Zawadis gross distortion of what the Holy Bible says:
GeneMBridges said...
Notice the double standard in Bassam's interaction with the Bible, yet again.
He points us to a link regarding rape in the Bible.
But is this an internal critique or an external critique? (Answer, the article is an
external critique).
If the latter, what is its epistemic warrant? In other words, why should we accept its
indictment of OT ethics? Why should OT ethics be judged on the basis of Islamic ethics?
If an internal critique, how does this contradict the gospel, OT theology, OT ethics, NT
theology, or NT ethics?
A. Rape in the OT is employed by the nations as punishment on the covenant people. What's
unjust about this? God raises up the nations to invade Israel. Part of their actions
includes rape. Then God punishes the nations for their sins, including these rapes by
causing other nations to rise up and perpetrate the same sins and crimes against the
nation he previously raised up and so on.
B. Rape as part of such punishment is treating Israel as having apostatized from the
covenant. Why should God protect them from these curses? God is only obligated to protect
those who are faithful to the covenant. That's basic OT theology and NT theology too.
C. These also typical critiques by liberals and atheists. Notice how Bassam accepts this
sort of criticism for Christianity, but he rejects it when it comes against Islam from the
same sorts of critics. That's a double standard.
D. He acts as if these haven't been answered.
E. Let's suppose that we have sins here ordained by God. That sort of argument might work
on your friendly Arminian next door. But I'm a supralapsarian Calvinist. It makes not a
dent in my theology.
F. And how would sin disprove the gospel? The gospel is predicated on sin, for sin
generates the need for the gospel.
G. It would also only apply to OT ethics, but, as I've pointed out before, what we have in
the OT are signs and shadows of the NT. The Church is obligated to NT ethics, not OT
ethics. At most, this would be a problem for ancient Judaism, not Islam.
H. I'd add that the "refutation" of Isa. 13:16 draws on John Gill's commentary,
but the writer leaves out the rest of the commentary for his readers.
Gill is explaining that these punishments are, in point of fact, "eye for an
eye" just punishments for same and similar actions of the Babylonians against the
Jews. God raises up the Medes and Persians to inflict the same/similar acts upon the
Babylonians that they enacted upon the Jews. Of course, this cycle will continue with
Greece upon the Persians and on through history. So, far from the rapists not being
held accountable, the text is saying precisely the opposite.
This, of course, is the way God often punishes sin by permitting it to continue, sin upon
sin, crime upon crime, cycle upon cycle. He gives people what they want. In hell, for
example, men and women are given absolute liberty to express whatever hatred for each
other and God they wish. So, God allows them free reign and so continues to pour out wrath
upon them.
Amazing how even this Christian clearly saw and pointed out Zawadis hypocrisy and
inconsistency, showing that I am not the only one! It is too bad that Zawadi doesnt
want to or simply cannot see all the damage he does for the cause of Islam and how he is
consistently exposing Muhammad to ridicule and shame by his so-called "apologetics
".
The fact of the matter is that the Holy Bible DOES NOT CONDONE RAPING OR PROSTITUTING
ANYONE. RATHER, IT IS MUHAMMAD AND HIS GOD WHO DO SO, just as the above links and
following articles clearly document:
As if this couldnt get anymore comical he resorts to pointing to so-called
inconsistencies in the Bible as a further example of the internal critique:
I can easily level an internal critique. For instance, the false Biblical
child-murdering God of the Old Testament contradicts Himself when He states that children
shouldn't be punished for the sins of their fathers (2 Kings 14:6 & Job 21:19), yet He ends up
doing so (Exodus 20:5-6, Leviticus 26:22, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:9 & 2 Samuel 12:13-19).
Not only has this been answered time and time again
(*), but this very example
backfires against Zawadi since we find the same problem within the Quran and ahadith
(1, 2,
3, 4).
Zawadi proceeds to provide a further illustration of his illiteracy in imitation of his
prophets sunna:
What a joke! Shamoun is stating that it was okay for innocent civilians to be murdered
at that time, yet it is not so in the 21st century. I can barelyhold my
self from laughing (and puking for that matter).
So basically Shamoun is arguing that these things are not okay today since God's laws
have to adapt to changing cultures and societal behavior. Surely this is absurd and it
should actually be the other way around.
I challenge this liar to quote where I said that these OT wars are not morally
justifiable in the 21st century. What I was doing was showing how both of
Zawadis internal and external critiques prove that these OT wars were morally
justifiable. But, again, I am not surprised that he didnt understand my point
since I have become accustomed to his gross misreading of my arguments.
And, yes, Zawadi I am having a hard time holding myself from laughing at your stupidity
and illiteracy. But, like I said, you are only imitating Muhammad at this point.
In conclusion, Zawadi has once again miserably failed to defend his prophets
marriage with a minor. The fact is that such a marriage was immoral, and no rational and
moral person should ever justify marriages with young minors who are still playing with
their dolls. And we do want to personally thank Zawadi for helping us to further expose
his immoral prophet and wicked god by showing why they fail all the critical tests that
Zawadi proposed that we should use.
With that said we want to further warn and once again remind Zawadi that he needs to
practice what he preaches and inform his fellow Muslim "terrorists" and thugs
to refrain from slandering, mocking, ridiculing and blaspheming the true God and his Word,
the Holy Bible, otherwise we will be forced to adopt similar language in exposing the
filth and wickedness of their false god and false prophet.
As the saying goes, "if you cant handle the heat then stay out of the
kitchen." And, "what is good for the goose is sauce for the gander."
Here are the instructions that Martin Luther gave his followers in relation to doing the sign of the Cross:
Morning Prayer.
01 In the morning, when you rise, you shall bless yourself with the holy cross and say:
In the name of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.
St. Augustine on the Salvation of all Men
In his work called The Enchiridion, St. Augustine denied that 1 Timothy 2:4 teaches that God desires the salvation of every single human individual. Believing that God’s will is perfect and immutable, and that no one can ever thwart his
