Why do I not believe in the existence of a god (and not just any god), but a personal and all-powerful theistic God, that being Allah? I reject both a theistic and deistic god on the same grounds: lack of evidence for any sort of supernatural and transcendent creator. I remember being interested in cosmology and Quantum Mechanics at the time, and I came across a debate which included physicist Sean Carroll and William Lane Craig on the existence of a God. It was a debate which caused me to rethink a lot of the things that I previously held concerning the nature of what we know of our Universe. It was a great turning point for me. Sean Carroll went through the supposed, “fine-tuning” of the universe, what this means, and how theists have misunderstood it (one example is the fact of there being low-entropy in our early universe, and how this shows that the Universe could not have been made for the purpose of life to exist). The link to the debate:
https://youtu.be/Ja-sZD8SUSMTherefore, if God made the universe with the purpose of it to allow for life and to support us, then why does the physics state otherwise? Why does it state that the entropy in the early universe was very, very, very low (which had to change with time for it to allow life to form?). If the Universe was finely-tuned and made for the purpose of humans surviving, why have we been placed on a small earth, on the corner of one galaxy against another 200 billion to two trillion galaxies (and these huge numbers are only of what we know of the known observable universe?). Why is there much on this earth that is hostile to our lives (and even our own atmosphere, when we leave it?). Is that fine-tuning? The Earth’s orbit drifting away from the sun and the moon’s orbit drifting away from the Earth — is that fine-tuning? About 4.5 billion years ago, a Mars-sized object (or perhaps a series of many smaller objects) crashed into Earth, sending bits of Earth's crust into space. They fell into the planet's orbit and eventually coalesced, forming our moon. Was that fine-tuning? Asteroids threatening our solar system and Earth, coming straight towards our direction — is that fine-tuning? Another interesting point to make, is even though, yes, it can be conceded that the physical world would be vastly different compared to ours if the physical parameters and constants were changed, but this does not necessitate that our Universe would then not allow for life. The majority of physicists do not accept this.
The ‘God theory’ is a bad one that makes no predictions and produces no results like how a scientific theory does. What can we learn from the world from a book that does not change? From a book that, by majority, focuses/and makes claims of metaphysical issues that cannot be demonstrated to be true in any way?
The philosophical arguments for the existence of a transcendent being (such as that of the Kalam Cosmological argument and that of the Contingency argument), are also based on many assumptions, primarily (when concerning with the Kalam Cosmological argument), that: “Everything that begins to exist must have a cause”. This is an appeal to intuition, which is not the best method for one to acquire knowledge, as if we were to follow this premise, then our conclusions would be based on a small sample. Two, this premise only focuses on things that have begun to exist, whilst it ignores that things can come into existence without a prior cause, for e.g. virtual particles; radioactivity; etc.
The second premise: “The Universe began to exist”. This premise is based on an assertion — it has not been demonstrated in any way. The premise boils down to our local-space time reality, a reality that we can only observe that which we can observe. Yes, the Big Bang model is indeed a definitive fact, but the Big Bang model and the Big Bang event, are two different things (which should not be at all, conflated). The Big Bang model states that the Universe has been expanding from a hot, and dense, early stage. It, however, does not state that the larger cosmos had a finite beginning. The, “singularity”, or, “the moment” is an event which cosmologists do not understand. Physicists see this event of the Universe, as more of a reference point when talking about the Universe — nothing more!
So for the theist to definitively state that the Universe had a finite beginning, I would regard that, as intellectual treason. The majority of physicists are of the notion that the Universe did not have an external cause — no transcendent being which brought it into existence. But that the Universe itself, with its physical make-up, allowed for the Universe to exist. This is what the multiverse model states — that the larger cosmos may be eternal. As against ones intuition it may sound, it cannot be ruled out. Concerning the curvature of the universe, if the universe has a positive curvature, then it definitively cannot be infinite (because it will curve back on itself, thus be finite, as it will have no edges). If the universe, however, is flat/has a negative curvature, then the possibility of the Universe being able to be infinite, arises.
For us to be definitive on the, ‘shape’ of the universe, we need to know its topology. However, this may be impossible, as we can only take measurements of our local-space time reality (what is observable), which is much more smaller than the true size of the larger cosmos. However, what saddens me, is that theists understand that the scientific position concerning such an area is restricted, because of our measurements being limited only to the observable Universe (or ‘local space-time reality) — we can see what we can only see and even then (the more earlier we go, for e.g. the ‘Quark Epoch’ and of the ‘Electroweak Epoch’) what we know, then begins to become more speculative. Theists take advantage of this, and then insert their God and masquerade it as, ‘irrefutable fact’. It is highly dishonest. NASA made a statement saying, “NASA stated: “This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe”, the link:
https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html and the link to the curvature of the universe:
https://www.space.com/amp/24073-how-big-is-the-universe.htmlIf a theist wants to argue that the universe is contingent upon something else prior, then one can easily make the argument that this does not prove the existence of a monotheistic God. This is because a deistic god could have created the universe (and thus the universe was contingent to it at a given point in the early history of our universe, and before that), but then after, he could have ceased himself from existing (therefore, the Universe is not contingent upon that very deistic god, now). Hence arguments from contingency do not necessitate that the only conclusion is that a monotheistic God exists, let alone a deistic god that still exists today. But again, this contingency argument falls on the assumptions that the larger cosmos had a finite beginning, which again, as I have went into, has not been proven. Physicists again, are of the notion that the larger cosmos itself, with its physical make-up, is what is necessary. Thus, no external cause being needed. A series that goes through the Kalam Cosmological argument:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6M9lJ0vrA7E17ejxJNyPxRM7Zki-nS6G and a video going through the Contingency argument:
https://youtu.be/l6esL6yz52QThe evidence of evolution also was a major factor for me. Before, I was a staunch Salafi that held the opinion that if anybody even entertained the idea of human beings evolving, then they have committed major disbelief, and thus have their Islam nullified. This was the conflict: evidence says that evolution meets the definition of what a, ‘fact’ is, but my religion says that if I accept evolution, then I am not a Muslim anymore. It was between me accepting what my heart wanted, Islamic version of creation, and what my brain (with its logic) wanted — i.e. evolution. evidence showed — From what the scholars have said, these two ideas cannot both exist in ones mind. Tel great books to read on the evidences of Evolution are, “The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins” and, “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne. Evidences of the homo erectus, of the homo habilis, etc:
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-erectus https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=evidence+of+homo+erectus&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DmcJVnSc5qe8J https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=evidence+of+homo+erectus&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DRBM9izKeKmkJ https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=evidence+of+homo+erectus&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DRBM9izKeKmkJ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248407001066 http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-habilis Aron Ra’s series on the evidence for evolution:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLnubJLPuw0dzD0AvAHAotW and
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMLFpoqxC5gLK4grEGqFt8oJThen there are the other philosophical issues with the nature of Allah (his self-contradicting qualities) and relatable to this, the problem of evil (why does Allah allow natural evil, which has no human agency producing that very evil? These natural evils occur solely because of how the universe is, with its physical make-up that Allah himself supposedly
designed and fine-tuned. Therefore, the universe did not have to be this way — it did not have to produce this much evil. As Allah is all-powerful, the power is at his disposal for him to create a universe that does not have these imperfections, but he chose to do the latter. Why? Why would an all-loving God do that? If a theist was to say, “It is so that Allah can test us”. Well then, why are you assuming that this is the only way that Allah could be testing us, by killing us through natural disasters; diseases; viruses; etc? Could Allah not test us another way if he so wanted to? If yes, then Allah is evil.
The issue of free-will. Islam teaches that Allah has already predestined and willed our lives (therefore we had no control or say over what we would do), so we are essentially enacting Allah’s divine script (and our lack of knowledge of what acts we will do is irrelevant to the fact that what Allah has written for us WILL STILL OCCUR — there is no escape from Allah’s divine will, because it is superior to our human will. Therefore, we cannot do anything in this life that can trump what Allah already had in store for us (which he already decided over 50,000 years ago), that being the acts that we commit, and our abode in Jannah or Jahannam. In Surah an-Nisa (4), ayah 88, it says that people are misguided and fall into disbelief because of Allah. He (arkasahum) or “casted us” with these acts of disobedience which led to our disbelief. Why does Allah do this? His reasoning is given in the ayah, because of, “what they have earned”, (the acts of disobedience, which goes AGAIN back to Allah, for it was Allah that made us partake in these acts in the first place). It is a never ending circle. Allah’s reasoning for our disbelief is him causing us to disbelief — where does that leave me when wanting to try and attain Jannah? What if Allah has willed a certain act/thought for me later in my life, after 30, 40 or so more years of being a good and pious Muslim, which would then lead me to hellfire?
A few verses around this topic:
Surah Yunus (10), ayah 99-100: “And if your Lord had pleased, surely all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them; will you then force men till they become believers? And it is not for a soul to believe except by Allah’s permission; and He casts uncleanness on those who will not understand.”, so Allah could have guided us all to be believers, but he chose to will some people to be believers and for some people to not be disbelievers. How is this in any way fair? Even given the scenario of a child dying (before their rationale has developed), provided that the Islamic worldview is correct, how is it fair for Allah to have took the life of this young child, not allowing him to live his life to commit sins? Why did he not do the same for me, or for you? Why do some people have advantages, and some others have disadvantages?
Surah al-A’raf (7), ayah 178: “Whomsoever Allah guides, he is the one who follows the right way; and whomsoever He causes to err, these are the losers.”, thus Allah can guide and misguide whomsoever he wants. It is not down to us — what we think or do, is ultimately because of Allah.
Surah al-Fatir (35), ayah 8: “Then is one to whom the evil of his deed has been made attractive so he considers it good [like one rightly guided]? For indeed, Allah sends astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. So do not let yourself perish over them in regret. Indeed, Allah is Knowing of what they do.”, again, Allah sends, “astray whom He wills” and Allah also makes our evil deeds seem, “attractive”, again, so that we can be misguided. How is that fair? Did we choose to think and act in the way we wrongfully do now, for Allah to increase us in our evil deeds, and then ultimately punish us in hellfire because of it?
Now going onto hellfire, take into context the above-mentioned verses, and now also take into context this ayah found in Surah as-Sajdah (32), ayah 13: “If We had so willed, We could certainly have brought every soul its true guidance: but the Word from Me will come true, “I will fill Hell with Jinns and men all together.”, here Allah is clear in stating that he had the choice of making everybody on Earth believe, but opted in for the option of guiding some, and misguiding others. What is Allah’s justification for this? So that his, “Word” (promise” can, “come true” (be fulfilled) — this being to fill men and jinn in hellfire. What person can defend a God that destined people to go to hellfire, just because he wants to burn and punish people? What can we do to stop ourselves from falling into such a damned fate? The question also arises, “If Allah is all-knowing, he would have known that X person and Y person would disbelieve in him, so then why did Allah create X person and Y person, other than that Allah just truly wants to burn them? For Allah did not have to create them.”
The externality of hellfire. Why would an all-loving God create us, a creation that did not choose to be created, but were forced into being created by the all-powerful God, Allah, why did this God create a realm, a hellfire, that burns people for eternity? Why in Islam is the average, everyday non-Muslim, that helps others and gives in charity, compared in the same light to an evil individual such as, Hitler (just because of their disbelief?). Allah says in Surah al-Baqarah (2), ayah 167: “Those who followed will say, "If only we had another turn [at worldly life] so we could disassociate ourselves from them as they have disassociated themselves from us." Thus will Allah show them their deeds as regrets upon them. And they are never to emerge from the Fire.”
Allah says in Surah al-Kahf (18), ayah 103-105: “Say, [O Muhammad], "Shall we [believers] inform you of the greatest losers as to [their] deeds? [They are] those whose effort is lost in worldly life, while they think that they are doing well in work. Those are the ones who disbelieve in the verses of their Lord and in [their] meeting Him, so their deeds have become worthless; and We will not assign to them on the Day of Resurrection any importance.”
Allah says in Surah az-Zukhruf (43), ayah 75-76: “Indeed, the criminals will be in the punishment of Hell, abiding eternally. It will not be allowed to subside for them, and they, therein, are in despair.”, are we supposed to believe that Allah, a God that presents himself in other ayat of the Qur’an that he is the most merciful, the most compassionate, and the most loving, that this God would stand idle to the eternal screams of the inhabitants of hellfire? That he would not even lessen their punishment in any given time, but that their punishment will be the same, forever and ever, and ever...? Does this sound like a God that deserves to be worshipped? Even to the Muslim reading this: the stakes of the eternal hereafter are very high. Do you think that it was just for Allah to have created you, placing you in this game which he did not consult you of (for if you wanted to become created or not), and that he has already predestined the acts that you will do in your life? Do you think it is just for Allah to do that, when he has also created an eternal abode, one being eternal punishment?
A person is summoned to hellfire solely because of their disbelief, irrespective of all the other acts that they have committed in their lives. The question on if one believed or disbelieved, is the most important issue. This is what renders an individual to eternal bliss, or eternal damnation. Thus, the ‘eternal justice system’ in Islam seems to be very flawed. But not only for this reason. Why did Allah not opt in for a punishment that corresponds exactly to the same punishment/s that the person in question did onto others (this including all of the physical and emotional pain that they caused?). Even if one was to imagine the most evil human-being on earth, let’s say somebody like Hitler, even then, an eternal punishment for him is not just. This is simply because of the fact that, what Hitler did, was finite. Therefore, an infinite punishment is not in anyway just.
Allah says in Surah an-Nisa (4), ayah 56: “Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses - We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted in Might and Wise.”, imagine having your skins, “roasted through” for as little as 5 seconds and the pain it will cause. Now imagine having your skins roasted through, again and again, for a minute, now an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year, an entire 100 years, 1,000 years... It is a very scary thought, is it not? But even that is nothing compared to what Allah is offering us: eternal skin-roasting. THIS NEVER ENDS! Allah also says in Surah al-Kahf (18), ayah 29: “And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." Indeed, We have prepared for the wrongdoers a fire whose walls will surround them. And if they call for relief, they will be relieved with water like murky oil, which scalds [their] faces. Wretched is the drink, and evil is the resting place”.
The chances of going to Jannah are not that great either, but very slim! In a hadīth found in Sahih al-Bukharī 3348, we read that for every 1,000 people, 999 go to hellfire and only 1 achieves Jannah. If the ratio of being able to obey Allah, through understanding his revelation correctly is that difficult as the limited human-beings we are (which is how Allah made us), then is this entire test just? How could it be when the majority are going to hellfire? Allah already had the knowledge that the majority of human beings would go to hellfire, and then burn eternally and be subjected to other punishments too, then why did he create them? Link:
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/60/28 and a video by the The Masked Arab on Gog and Magog (where he also mentions this hadīth):
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ty_2G_esUvIHassan Radwan made two great videos on this topic, and they can be watched here:
https://youtu.be/d36iPUgJBH4 and
https://youtu.be/ra9QQ58b7JYThen you have the moral problems of Muhammad’s character. The perfect (or let’s say, flawless) role-model sent by the creator of the universe, that married a pre-pubescent girl — Aisha (and then consummated the marriage for her at 9 years old). Refer to:
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/63/122 Many state that this act is not Sunnah, so it does not have to be practiced today. This is irrelevant to the fact of Muhammad doing what he did with Aisha. Two, whilst it is true, that marrying minors is not a Sunnah, or a faraid (obligation), it is however, halal to even be practiced today. Surah al-Baqarah (2), ayah 228 was the first ayah revealed that concerned itself with the ‘iddah (waiting period after being divorced), which states: “Divorced women remain in waiting for three periods, and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have more right to take them back in this [period] if they want reconciliation. And due to the wives is similar to what is expected of them, according to what is reasonable. But the men have a degree over them [in responsibility and authority]. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise”.
However, the people of Medina were confused as to the specifics of the ayah found in Surah al-Baqarah (2), ayah 228, as Allah did not specifically state who this ayah referred to, so Allah then clarified this issue by revealing another verse, Surah at-Talaq (65), ayah 4, which says, “And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women - if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah - He will make for him of his matter ease”.
Now, for a woman to be able to divorce, she must first be married. The ayah found in Surah at-Talaq (65) ayah 4 mentions that the ‘iddah of divorce ruling applies to girls that have, “not menstruated” (hence are girls before puberty that have not achieved womanhood). Therefore, pre-pubescent girls can be married. Do you think that an all-loving God would allow for young minors to be married? Do you think that an all-loving God would allow for these young children to be married at their ages, whilst they have not consented? Do you think that an all-loving God would place young children at the risk of those that abuse children? Maududi (Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi), in his tafsīr book, ‘Tafhim al-Qur'an’ of Surah at-Talaq (65), ayah 4, says that these girls, that have, “not yet menstruated” can be given, “away in marriage” and that the husband can, “consummate” the marriage with her too.
Does this really sound like something that would come from the creator of the Universe that has everybody’s interests at heart? The problems to an early consummation should be clear, whether morally or when talking from a scientific perspective on risk. Just because a girl has a period, this does NOT mean that the girl can now also bear pregnancy. A period happens when the body begins releasing eggs (which can start before the pelvic bones have grown large enough to fit a baby through). As a result, a young girl can get pregnant at this age, but the process of child birth would surely kill her. This is why many child brides die from delivery, which is also a very painful way to die. Allah knew that this would harm many children, but still allowed it.
Young girls, also, do not have a uterus that is thick enough to withstand the thrusts of a penis. The penis can pass the cervix and push onto the epithelium and endothelium cells of the inside of the uterus, and cause it to tear. This would cause the child to die, either of imminent infection, or because of extreme blood loss. Allah could have chosen, and permitted, an age where the body of the female has been fully physically developed, which would allow it to withstand penetration. But Allah believes that somebody can have sexual intercourse with a young girl that has just begun puberty. Do you also agree with that? I would pay you the upmost respect to not agree with that, only just because, “Allah revealed it as so, hence by fiat, it is right”. It was only until we advanced in our knowledge of anatomy and physiology that we determined that this is a harmful practice that should not be done. and a link by the World Health Organisation (or, WHO) which really show how great of an issue this really is:
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/adolescent-pregnancy and another link to where WHO, when discussing maternal mortality, state that: “Young adolescents (ages 10-14) face a higher risk of complications and death as a result of pregnancy than other women.”, the link:
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/maternal-mortality https://www.livescience.com/19584-10-year-birth.html and the other links to the tafasīr’s of the ahadīth:
http://www.recitequran.com/tafsir/en.ibn-kathir/2:228 and
https://quranx.com/tafsirs/65.4If you are to say that what Muhammad did was only a representation of his time, then that means that Muhammad is not the perfect (or flawless) role-model for all times. If you are to say that marrying pre-pubescent young girls in his time was being done by many others, then the mere fact that others did do this, does again, not necessitate that the marriage of Aisha was in any way a moral act. He was the Prophet of God. In Surah al-Qalam (68), ayah 4 (when talking of Muhammad), says: “And indeed, you are of a great moral character”, and the same is said in Surah al-Ahzab (33), ayah 21: “There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often”. Do you think so too?
Another thing that Muhammad did, was (and I would be of the position of it being the most vile act ever performed by Muhammad), was his bloody torture and murder of the men of Uraynah. According to Muslim sources, there was a group of men that converted to Islam and then travelled to Medina. These men were not used to the climate of Medina — they found it excessively hot. Hence, they went to Muhammad and asked him if he had any milk at his disposal (out of thirst). There was a herd of camels in the area, so Muhammad recommended that the group of men join the herd (how nice of him). The Uraynians took this advice onboard, and then joined the herd. They drank the milk from the available camels (and they also drank one of Muhammad’s favourite delicacies — camel urine), until their hearts were content. But after they did this, they then left the religion; killed the herdsman; and took off with the flock of camels. What was Muhammad’s choice of action? He sent a military expedition to the group of men, and once the men were successfully captured, Muhammad had them brutally tortured and killed. The amount of brutality that Muhammad ordered to be implemented upon this group of people, is unprecedented. The hadīth that I am referring to, that mentions this event, is found in Sahīh al-Bukharī (but this event is also mentioned in other books). Link:
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/56/227Muhammad ordered to have their hands and feet cut off (and if that was not enough), he then also ordered for metal nails to be heated and placed on the eyes of the captives, and they were then left in this state, suffering from excruciating pain, and then all died. Before dying, the group of men also cried out and asked for water. They were ignored. Yes, the group were undoubtedly criminals for murdering the herdsman and for stealing the herd of camels (which they were wrong in doing), but they are still human-beings. What justification is there to such brutal torture? Or even merely to the point of ignoring somebody’s crying calls of wanting water? What so-called, “epitome” of mercy can ignore such a call? We are not talking about any individual implementing these violent acts and punishments. The individual in question, however, is the prophet of God — the, “perfect role-model” sent by the creator of the universe.
Anas bin Malik also narrated this other hadīth, and differed with the amount of people, of the Uraynians, that were brutally tortured and killed. He mentions in this hadīth, the detail of there actually being a total of 80 men from the Uraynah tribe! He also mentions another detail of Muhammad having, “left them in the sun to die” after being tortured. Link:
https://sunnah.com/nasai/37/59However, what is interesting to note, is that the group of men did NOT have such a violent set of punishments implemented upon them because of their crime of murder (of the herdsman) and theft (of the herdsman’s flock of camels being stolen). In fact, the reason for their capture; brutal torture; and slow and painful death, was merely because they apostated from Islam! Link:
https://ahadith.co.uk/permalink-hadith-7587Interestingly enough, even Allah himself (supposedly) rebuked Muhammad for what he did to the people of Uraynah. He revealed Surah al-Mā’idah, ayat 53-54, concerning this event (the 53’rd ayah focuses on what the CORRECT punishment should be concerning such crimes). In the tafsīr of Ibn Kathir concerning Surah al-Mā’idah, ayat 33-34, it states what the punishment should be in this situation, and other similar situations to it, that the accused should be: killed; or crucified; or have their hands and feet cut off from opposite sides; or be exiled from the land. Muhammad thought that this selection was not good enough. The links to the tafsīr’s:
https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/5.33 and of the evidence that Allah revealed this ayah because of the punishment implemented on the tribe of the Uraynians, which Muhammad ordered:
https://sunnah.com/abudawud/40/16Islam also teaches that slavery is permitted. No-where in the Qur’an or Sunnah is slavery denounced. It is true to say that there are ahadīth which permit the slaves to buy their, “freedoms” from their masters if they wanted to, or for when they are hit when they should not be (yes according to the ahadīth, they can be, “disciplined” in some situations when they disobey their masters. In one hadīth, a slave is given a, “painful beating” for a mistake that he did). This is true. But this does not remove from the issue that Islam is the justification to which has placed this man and woman, for e.g., and many others, into slavery in the first place.
The Qur’an makes mention of slavery in the Qur’an, for e.g. in Surah al-Mu’minum (23), ayah 5-6, it says: “And they who guard their private parts, Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed -“. Ibn Kathīr in his tafsīr of this ayah, says, “... and do not approach anyone except the wives whom Allah has made permissible for them or their right hand possessions from the captives. One who seeks what Allah has made permissible for him is not to be blamed and there is no sin on him” and, “Allah says: فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَفَمَنِ ابْتَغَى وَرَآءَ ذلِكَ (they are free from blame. But whoever seeks beyond that) meaning, other than a wife or slave girl,”.
The Qur’an also makes mention of it in another ayah, in Surah al-Ahzab (33), ayah 50: “O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives]...”. The tafsīr of Ibn Kathīr on this ayah: “وَمَا مَلَكَتْ يَمِينُكَ مِمَّآ أَفَآءَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكَ (those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses whom Allah has given to you,) means, `the slave-girls whom you took from the war booty are also permitted to you.' He owned Safiyyah and Juwayriyah, then he manumitted them and married them, and he owned Rayhanah bint Sham`un An-Nadariyyah and Mariyah Al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his son Ibrahim, upon him be peace; they were both among the prisoners”. So essentially, what this says, is that Muhammad manumitted the woman that he fancied, and concerning the other woman that he did not fancy (but still had sexual intercourse with repeatedly), left them to not be married and freed on his accord.
Ibn al-Qayyim also said, in Zaad al-Ma'aad, 1/114: “With regard to his female slaves, he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had four female slaves.” Ibn al-Qayyim added that: “Abu 'Ubaydah said: He had four: Maariyah who was the mother of his son Ibraaheem; Rayhaanah; another beautiful slave women who he got among some of the prisoners of war; and a slave woman who was given to him by Zaynab bint Jahsh.” (and other similar statements of the scholars concerning how many slave girls Muhammad had). There is also evidence to show that, generally, manumission (freedom of slaves) is discouraged, and that one can get more, “rewards” for keeping the slaves in slavery.
What justification is there for taking another human being as property? If you are to say that, “Allah was only controlling the concept of slavery; giving it regulations, as he knew that people would still do slavery”, do you think that a response like that is valid? Why could Allah not just reveal a clear ayah saying that slavery is forbidden? If a God, or anything else, was to disallow slavery and make it forbidden, would that thing be more morally superior compared to Allah?
Links:
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/47572/was-mariyah-al-qibtiyyah-one-of-the-mothers-of-the-believers https://sunnah.com/bukhari/51/26 https://sunnah.com/adab/9/15 https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/33.50 https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/23.5However, if allowing slavery was not bad enough, provided that the Muslims have taken over a land where there are female slaves, Islam also allows for the Muslims to take female slaves that one can have sexual inter course with, whenever he wants. The fact that the Muslims have taken over, is what by default, makes the females slaves, “1/5’th of the booty” that the Muslim armies can take for their own satisfaction. “Shaykh al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The reason why a person may be taken as a slave is his being a kaafir and waging war against Allaah and His Messenger. If Allaah enables the Muslims who are striving and sacrificing their lives and their wealth and all that Allaah has given them to make the word of Allaah supreme over the kaafirs, then He allows them to enslave the kuffaar when they capture them, unless the ruler chooses to free them or to ransom them, if that serves the interests of the Muslims.”
There are also evidences of the ahadīth which show that women can be taken as, “booty” and had sexual intercourse with by the Muslims, for e.g. the hadīth found in Sahih al-Bukhari 4138, which states: “Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Sa`id said, "We went out with Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist”.
Based on this hadīth alone, it is clear that Muhammad had no issue with the Muslim fighters having sexual intercourse with the captured female slaves because of the fighters because they, “desired woman” and because, “celibacy became hard” on them (i.e. they were getting temptations to have sex, and they had to satisfy their temptations). Muhammad only advised the Muslim fighters to not practice coitus interruptus (the withdrawal of the penis when ejaculating), but to finish, for Allah decrees whatever soul to exist, when he chooses for it to exist.
Another hadīth, found in Sahih al-Bukhari 4350, it states: “Narrated Buraida: The Prophet (ﷺ) sent `Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated `Ali, and `Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. `Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet (ﷺ) I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate `Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus”. Again, based on this hadīth, Muhammad thinks that ‘Ali taking woman as war-booty is permissible, and that ‘Ali deserves much more than those women! Link:
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/182 and
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/377Another hadīth, found in Sahih al-Bukharī 4200, states: “Narrated Anas: The Prophet (ﷺ) offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned." Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet (ﷺ) had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives...”.
Imagine this scenario: If a strong and aggressive Islamic army has taken over a land and has killed all the men in the vicinity, including the husbands of many women, and the same Islamic army has then also captured the children of these woman, do you think that these woman would be in the right mindset to think of having sexual intercourse? Would they not be psychologically affected with trauma? Do you think that these women would subject their bodies with these Muslim captors that have brutally killed their husbands? Would they not feel guilt?
The only possible explanation to how the Muslim captors where able to have sexual inter course with these women, is because of, 1. The women being afraid. Simply put, she has witnessed death and destruction and is traumatised. She would not disobey those that have captured her, for she does not know what will happen to her either if she goes against their orders. 2. As this is during a war, the Muslim armies will promise these captured woman food, water, and security (which are hard to find in a war-time scenario, as these necessities would be scarce, and also because if one was to go out and seek these things, then they would be increasing the likelihood of being killed during these conflicts), therefore, some women may think that obeying is the best solution — not for them truly wanting to let others have sexual intercourse with them, but merely because of their survival. Therefore, this is not true consent, which constitutes rape.
There are many more reasons which led me to leaving Islam, i.e. other questionable events which happened in Muhammad’s life (which he approved of); the errors found in the Qur’an; etc; which I have not touched upon. But I may add to this thread later of those reasons too, as I am sure that it will be of benefit.
Thanks!
Topic: “Why do you disbelieve in God”, they say...