Muhammad in the Quran, Vol. 1: Chapter 4
15 Dec. 2015
MUHAMMAD'S PERSONAL PROBLEMS (WOMEN PROBLEMS) HANDLED IN THE QURAN
Muhammad was in that lucky position that if his personal or family - and other - problems became too difficult, Allah intervened - or Muhammad appealed to him. And always Allah backed him. Well, there were a few times when Allah scolded him, but this only happened in cases where this was the psychologically correct way to back up what Muhammad really wanted or intended.
You will meet Muslims claiming that the fact that the Quran sometimes scolds Muhammad or mention negative things about him (f.x. the "Satanic verses"), is a proof for that the Quran is not made by Muhammad, because nobody would mention negative points about oneself. But Muhammad knew a lot more than most about how to handle people. Ask them to read a little psychology before they use that claim again. (As for the Satanic Verses everybody knew them, so that he had to use a strong explanation to remove them when he regretted them. There were few if any other possible explanations or "explanations" which would make it possible to drop those verses, and at the same time give him sympathy from his followers.
A few samples:
¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
001 22/42-44: Muhammad was not generally accepted as a prophet until late in his career. Here Allah(?) claims that to be disbelieved was the norm for prophets, and lists a number of biblical and other claimed prophets which he claimed all had got the same treatment as he - implication; Mohammad got a treatment normal for prophets and thus was a normal prophet. For one who in reality was no prophet at all (he did not have the gift making him able to make prophesies) it was a brash claim.
002 24/11b: The background for this verse was that Muhammad's wife Aishah - his child wife - in one occasion spent several hours alone in the wilderness together with a young man, and there were a lot of rumors because of this. According to our point of view it is highly unlikely that anything happened between them, but the only "proof" for that it was so, was that Muhammad some weeks later claimed he received verses from Allah saying she was not guilty - hardly a strong proof as it came from a man with Muhammad's morality and reliability. An extra point here is that this child - around 626 AD - was Muhammad's favorite wife, and he could hardly keep her if her reputation was tarnished, so he had a strong motif for getting (?) such verses. This was one of the not few times Allah(?) was a nice helper for Muhammad. But remember that when Muslims say Aishah was proved not guilty, it is not true - neither the Quran nor Muhammad is reliable witnesses/proofs. It is likely she/they told the truth, but nothing was ever proved. Also see 24/11-16 below. It also is very clear from Hadiths that Muhammad himself suspected her - his behavior the first weeks clearly shows that. So when he scolds others for suspecting immoral things had happened, it was double moral form his side. Not a very sympathetic side of human nature.
Another point: The Quran claims it is a copy of the "mother book" in Heaven - revered by Allah and made before the Earth was created. How come that this insignificant episode in the then distant future could be noted down in such a book some billion years before it happened? - especially so if man has free will, so Allah could know nothing for sure? And how much did the 124ooo (according to Hadiths) earlier prophets understand from these verses in their copies of the "mother book"/Quran?
003 24/11-16: This refers to the incident with Aishah - Muhammad’s child wife - and a young man. The slander afterwards was not an obvious lie like Muhammad later liked to claim. That it was not obvious - something also his own initial reaction clearly demonstrated - was and is so obvious that it is clear an intelligent man like Muhammad knew he was not telling the truth when he said it was obvious. (He used many days to decide to believe her.) Also they were not really proved innocent - there only were some convenient verses in the Quran some weeks later, and the Quran far from is reliable. (But there is a fair chance that the two told the truth). Also see 24/11b above.
Muhammad in this case definitely did not behave like a gentleman, and it is very unlikely that his behavior did not "put wood to the fire" and provoke more and/or stronger slander. Not the right man to blame others for bad conduct.
The story also tells not a little about the person Muhammad.
004 24/12d: "This (charge against Aishah) is an obvious lie". It might have been a lie, but it was not an obvious lie, something Muhammad's own reaction very clearly prove - so clearly that an intelligent person like Muhammad understood he was lying when he used the word "obvious" - and it is not the only time he lies in the Quran. He also was intelligent enough to know that as it far from was an obvious lie, he here was slandering those he talked to.
But like you see here, Allah solved the day for him.
Another point: How did this episode end up in "the Mother of the Book", made billions of years ago and revered by Allah in his Heaven? - the claimed book the Quran is claimed to be an exact copy of?
####005 24/13c: "Why did they (see 24/13f just above*) not bring the (4*) witnesses, such men, in the sight of Allah (stand forth) themselves as liars". This is one of the really black spots on Islam, and one of the 100% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god: The lack of witnesses does not only make the ones speaking suspect, but it is a proof for that they are liars - if they speak the truth or not, does not matter. (For some reason or other Islam and its Muslims seldom claim that Islam is the religion of honesty.) If they do not have the witnesses, it is a proof for that they are lying. If this was lying for men, this was bad enough. #######But it is a valid proof for Allah!!: "- - - in the sight of Allah, (stand forth) themselves as liars!". ########This in spite of that if they spoke the truth, an omnipotent god would know they spoke the truth!. And all the same, without the witnesses they were liars to Allah!
This tells volumes about Allah, about Islam, and about Muhammad.
###006 24/15c: "- - - it (this refers to the hours his child wife Aishah spent alone in the desert with a young man, and the - probably wrong - slander this caused*) was most serious in the sight of Allah". Slander may be a serious, but not a most serious sin - that word you have to reserve for robbery, rape, dishonesty, slave taking, torture, terrorism, murder, mass murder, betrayal, false oaths, etc., etc. - and if you are religious; for the gravest sins against the god(s) like f.x. making up competing gods and/or disusing a god/gods for personal gains like riches for keeping or for use (f.x. for bribes), respect and power.
If on the other hand Allah was a made up platform of power for Muhammad and his co-workers, well, then it might have been most serious for him (Muhammad) as it touched Muhammad, at least if there exists a real god somewhere. F.x. if Muhammad started off originally wanted to serve the old Jewish and Christian god he had heard about, but somewhere stumbled out from "the narrow road" of Yahweh and on to "the straight and easy road". #####(This is one of the possible explanations, especially as science tends to think that Muhammad believed in something when he started his mission, but over time became more "relaxed ”and scheming and like so many a leader was morally destroyed by his success and power.
But honestly: What has the family problems of Muhammad to do in a claimed holy book for all times and the entire world, not to mention: How is it possible for a god to revere texts like this? (Remember that the Quran is an exact copy of "the Mother of the Book" which according to the Quran is revered by Allah and his angels in Heaven.) ###Yes, how is it possible that this episode is described in a "mother book" billions of years before it happened, unless predestination is total, free will exactly zero point zero zero, and we all just are puppets-on-strings? ##########And where is then the justice in rewards and punishments?
But Allah(?) definitely solved a case for Muhammad here - like in some other cases.
007 33/2c: "- - - by inspiration - - -". A very convenient way to get information, at least if you need some extra help from your god f.x. in your family life. Also impossible for others to check. The word is not mentioned in connection with the prophets in the Bible Yahweh only used direct contact, visions, and dreams for giving information (4. Mos. 12/6-8).
Muhammad received most of his claimed information by means of inspiration.
008 33/33f: "- - - obey (o consorts of Muhammad*) Allah and His Messenger - - -". A stronger version of Muhammad's standard, but never proved mantra to glue himself to his platform of power, Allah.
####Note how close Muhammad attaches himself to the power of his claimed god - in plain words: "Obey me - Muhammad". You find this many, many places in the Quran. Power was the main thing Muhammad sought - and riches to gain more power. The Quran clearly indicates that power - and respect - meant even more for him than women. And he was eager for (young) women - willing ones and not willing ones - and at least one child.
In this case also a very nice order for Muhammad!
009 33/33i: "- - - Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you (Muhammad's women, included his wives*) - - -". Does this private matter (included trouble with Muhammad's women) belong in a holy book sanctified and revered by a god? - or in a religion? And are texts like this something for an omnipotent god to revere?
010 33/34a "- - - in your (Muhammad's women's) homes (they had one each*) - - -". The women are time anomalies for everyone reading a copy of the timeless claimed "Mother Book" - like the Quran - before this took place. There are legion such anomalies in the Quran.
011 33/52a: “It is not lawful for thee (Muhammad*) (to marry more) women after this - - - except any thy right hand should possess - - -”. Slave women did not count, so Muhammad still had a way out if he wanted more women.
012 33/52c: (A64 – in 2008 edition A65): “It is not for thee (Muhammad*) (to marry more) women after this - - -.” Does this relate to no more than the 4 categories women that he in verse 52 was told were lawful for him? Or does it refer to all women – except slaves? Islam tends to believe the last, but f.x. Tabari said the first. And no-one will ever know. Clear language? (This verse is from 629 AD or later according to Islam - it has to be, as he married his last wives, Maymuna bint al-Harith, in February 629 AD, and Safiyya bint Huayay around the same time, and if the verse is older, he broke the rule of the Quran on this point). Muhammad then was nearly or around 60. May be he felt the pressure from having to satisfy a dozen wives and concubines? - plus short-time wives and women one does not know if he was married to or not. (Muhammad over the years had 11 wives, 2 concubines, 16 short-time wives and 7 with unclear status known by name = 36 all together who are known by name.)) All the same some Muslim scholars believe this verse is from 627 AD - before he married Zainab. Not good in case. (Surah 33 is from sometime between 625 and 629 AD, so that this prohibition may be from as early as 625 AD. If it is from any time before 629 AD, Muhammad broke this order from Allah.
013 33/53b: "Enter not the Prophet's (Muhammad's*) house - - -". Special rules for Muhammad here, too. Not uncommon for self proclaimed prophets in many a sect/emerging religion, like Islam was at that time.
And note: It is said "the Prophet" not "a prophet" - a special rule just for Muhammad. In a book for all prophets and all humans through the times?
014 33/53f: “And when ye (Muslim men*) ask (his (Muhammad’s*)) ladies for anything ye want, ask them from before a screen - - -.” Note: #######A screen, not a veil. This is all that is said about the hiding of women's head/face in the Quran, except that a woman should cover her hair. Nothing more: A screen, not a veil, and only concerning the wives – and likely also his other women – of Muhammad. (But you find veils in the Hadiths – which is written 200 – 250 years later, and where it is very clear that a lot is made up stories (the Quran f.x. proves that all the stories in the Hadiths about miracles and foretelling around Muhammad are made up ones)).
Further: Read 33/28-29 through 33/33 + 33/50 and 33/51 together to get a picture of his – and very many other dominant religious persons in strong and dark religious societies – technique. One of the much used – and proved efficient – ways of manipulating dependant persons. Even the use or disuse of the god is typical for such persons. All this formally is about Muhammad’s private intimate life, but as what he said and did was and is the correct ethical and moral code in Islam, this is the norm for all women concerning this aspect of life under Islam.
015 33/53j: "Truly - - -". Definitely not a proved truth - only a not proved claim. See 2/2b above.
016 33/53k: This entire verse is about Muhammad's private life. It does not belong in a claimed "holy" book. It also does not belong in a claimed "Mother Book" copied to 124ooo (= 620 at any time for 5ooo years or 12-15 for 160ooo-200ooo. No traces found. Believe it if you can.) earlier prophets for whom this was totally irrelevant. Not to mention that no god would revere texts like this in his Heaven, like claimed in the Quran (13/13b, 43/4, 85/21-22).
017 33/59c: “O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad) - - -.” What is “outer garments”? – the veil at least is neither mentioned nor indicated. And what is “when abroad”? - his wives never left Arabia.
018 66/3b: "When the Prophet (Muhammad*) disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his consorts, and she divulges it (to another) - - -". It is not known who the two were or what it was all about. But it was a private family problem - does that belong in a holy book? And how come it is possible to find this in "the Mother of the Book" in Heaven and written at least billions of years ago, of which the Quran is a copy?
###### Not to mention: How could Allah and his angels revere texts like this in Allah's own home/heaven, like Islam claims?
019 66/3-5: These are family problems in Muhammad's family. Do they belong in a holy book? And: The Quran is a copy of the "mother book" (13/39, 43/4, 85/21-22) which Allah and his angels revere ("high in dignity" - 43/4) in his "home". For one thing, how did Muhammad's family problems end up in the "mother book" written may be billions of years earlier? - and for another; would really a god revere texts like this?
020 66/5a: "It may be, if he (Muhammad*) divorced you (all (his wives*)), that Allah will give him in exchange Consorts better than you - who submit (their will's), who believe, who are devout, who turn to Allah in repentance, who worship (in humility) - - -". This verse simply does not belong in a "Mother Book" (of which the Quran is claimed to be an exact copy) revered by an omnipotent, omniscient god in Heaven.
Also: Women seem to be gifts to men.
021 66/5b: "- - - if he (Muhammad*) divorced you (all (his wives*)), that Allah will give him in exchange Consorts better than you - - -". Try to find something even remotely similar in NT!. One more at least 200% proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and Jesus and Muhammad not on the same line of anything essential in the moral world.
022 111/1-5: "Perish the hands of the Father of Flames! Perish he! No profit to him from all his wealth, and all his gains! Burnt soon will he be in a Fire of blazing Flame! His wife shall carry the (crackling) wood - as fuel! - A twisted rope of palm-leaf fiber round her (own) neck." This is said against Muhammad's uncle, called Father of Flame because of reddish skin.(See 111/1 just above) The scholars say that for one thing a surah like this does not belong in a holy book, and for another is not worthy of a god, and consequently must be wrong. (Also f.x. some verses concerning Muhammad's private affairs have a doubtful reputation among some scholars.)
Sub-total Chapter 4 = 22 + 290 = 312.
>>> Go to Next Chapter
>>> Go to Previous Chapter
This work was upload with assistance of M. A. Khan, editor of islam-watch.org and the author of "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery".