A Muslim Dawagandist double-crosses his readers by covering up the truth

Sam Shamoun

Muslim propagandist Jalal Abualrub has decided to repost and update his article where he seeks to refute the charge that his prophet was a cross-dresser.

We encourage the readers to cull through our responses to his original version (1, 2, 3). Seeing that he really didn’t add anything substantial to his newer version there will be no need for us to interact with it.

He did, however, produce a second reply where he does try to engage some of our points (*). In light of this we have decided to respond to his criticisms in order to see whether Jalal was able to refute the charge against his prophet being a cross-dresser.

As we have come to expect of his pseudo-scientific argumentation and shallow research, Jalal once again produced an eighteen-page rant which didn’t refute any of my points. He spent the great bulk of the article trying to prove that thawb doesn’t necessarily refer to women’s clothing. He proceeds to distort my words to give the misleading impression that I somehow claimed that thawb only means women’s clothing, a gross lie which I am about to expose by God’s grace. I will demonstrate here that Jalal’s eighteen-page bluster is nothing more than a classic textbook example of strawman argumentation as well as an exercise in utter desperation and futility.

Jalal presented a list of verses from the Arabic translation of the Holy Bible where men such as his true Lord and Master Jesus Christ are said to have worn a thawb in order to show just how absurd my claim is concerning Muhammad being a cross-dresser since this would imply that Jesus Christ, his Judge and Ruler, was also a cross-dresser for wearing women’s clothing!

He also presents a slew of Islamic narrations to show that thawb can refer to the clothing, covering and shroud worn by men.

Jalal asserts that,

These select Hadeeths all use Thaub in the context of men's clothing, covering, even in the context of a shroud. It seems that the Arabs not only did not know their own language, but also their men used to wear women's clothing and they used women's clothing to shroud their male dead. This is the mighty discovery that only AnsweringIslam could reach. Better yet, and the truth indeed, AnsweringIslam is a lying deceitful team and their statement that "thawb do indeed refer to women’s clothing., is a blatant lie.

He further writes that,

Mirt and Thaub have various contexts including gender-neutral garments used by both men and women, as well as, gender-neutral bed covering. AnsweringIslam insists that "mirt and thawb do indeed refer to women’s clothing.. Well, if AnsweringIslam thinks this is how they prove that Prophet Muhammad used to wear women's clothing, then they also prove that Jesus used to wear women's clothing. Or, they lie in both accounts, and indeed, this is the truth.

Here, I will quote from my article which Jalal claims to be refuting in order to expose his deliberate perversion of my words. All emphasis will be mine:

What makes his “rebuttal” rather amusing is that, despite his rants and raves against our assertions concerning Muhammad wearing women’s garments, Abularub had to admit that the words used in the hadith DO REFER TO CLOTHING. Note, for instance, what he writes concerning the terms thawb and kisaa:

And after quoting several Quranic passages I wrote:

In all of the foregoing examples thawb clearly refers to clothing ONESELF with something, whether actual garments one wears or wearing something in a metaphorical sense such as being clothed in fire…

It is interesting that Abualrub admits that these specific words CAN MEAN CLOTHES as well as un-sewn garments, since an un-sewn garment doesn’t have to necessarily mean a blanket but can in fact refer to a woman’s garment much like a dress.

Later I wrote that,

Note: In his haste to “refute” me Abualrub once more ends up confirming my point. In response to this same narration Abualrub again admits that thawb means clothing:

Again:

One quick point here. Abualrub again agrees that words such as izar and thawb refer to apparel, specifically to a PERSON’S waist garment and long shirt.

And here is what I said concerning the application of this word to women’s clothing:

It gets worse for Abualrub. We now produce statements from Muslim authorities that not only admit that mirt and thawb do indeed refer to women’s clothing, but also acknowledge that the use of these very words in the specific hadiths which we cited definitely prove that Muhammad was in fact wearing women’s garments.

Again:

Moreover, we posted the views of authentic Muslim sources admitting that the terms such as mirt and thawb do refer to women’s garments, providing substantiation that the hadiths are indeed stating that Muhammad wore the clothes of his wives. In other words, Muhammad put on women’s clothing according to the Islamic sources, and thereby comes under the condemnation of the Torah which rebukes any man who wears women’s dresses and vice-versa.

As the readers can see for themselves I never once said that thawb ONLY refers to women’s clothing! My purpose was to show that thawb refers to the clothes that a person wears, and therefore by extension can and does refer to women’s clothing.

I also went on to provide several lexical sources in the appendix to prove that thawb means clothing in general without ever limiting it to women’s clothes. In fact, the very Quranic verses which I cited in my reply to prove that the word refers to clothes in general should have been a signal to Jalal that I wasn’t arguing that thawb only means the clothes that women wear since some of these Quranic passages also included men.

So this is nothing more than a blatant lie on Jalal’s part and proves that he wasn’t able to refute my actual arguments and therefore decided to attack a strawman.

The readers may be left wondering that since the word can also refer to men’s clothing how can I therefore be so certain that Muhammad was wearing women’s clothes. The answer comes from one of the very hadiths which I cited:

… So Um Salamah went and talked with the prophet but he did not respond to her. When the group asked her what the prophet said she told them that he did not respond. So they asked her to go talk to him again until he responds… then the prophet said to her, “Do not hurt me with Aisha, for the inspiration did not come upon me when I was IN A WOMAN’S GARMENT (fee thawb imra’ah) EXCEPT THAT OF AISHA.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith Number 2393)

The above narration clearly specifies that Muhammad was wearing a WOMAN’s thawb or dress, specifically the garment of his child bride.

In light of the above this means that Muhammad was guilty of violating the command of the true God which expressly prohibits men wearing WOMEN’S thawb or clothes. Here is the Biblical text as it appears in Jalal’s “rebuttal”:

"Neither shall a man put on A WOMAN’S THAUB: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God" (Deuteronomy 22:5).

Now I could simply end my rebuttal here since this sufficiently shows that Jalal couldn’t refute my actual points and so decided to spend the bulk of his “reply” attacking a strawman, refuting an argument I never made.

Yet there are some other points which he raised that I would like to address. For instance, Jalal claims that Q. 11:5 proves that Aisha’s mirt which Muhammad wore was her bed covering!

No doubt! They did fold up their breasts, that they may hide from Him. Surely, even when they cover themselves with their garments (thiyabahum), He knows what they conceal and what they reveal. Verily, He is the All-Knower of the (innermost secrets) of the breasts.

He writes:

First, having sexual intercourse under the cover of a Thuab, i.e., a blanket. They used to dislike getting naked without a cover between them and heaven so they used to use bed covering, Thiyab, to cover their nakedness. It would be rather silly for someone to get naked by taking off their clothes then feel shy to have sexual intercourse without a cover between them and the sky, so they would wear their clothes again. Thus, they would "cover themselves with their … (thiyabahum)" i.e., cover themselves under their bed-covering while having sexual intercourse. Normal men, whether believers or disbelievers, may cover themselves in bed under their bed covering while having sexual intercourse. Likewise, Prophet Muhammad used to go under the bed covering of his wives, including Aishah, when he was in bed with one of them.

And:

This Ayah proves my statement that Aishah’s Mirt was not a woman’s dress, but her bed covering. The Prophet used to spend the night with his wife in her bed covered under her blanket. This is what normal men do. A normal man would not refrain from sleeping under his wife’s blanket at night for fear that a man who calls himself Esther may accuse him of wearing a women’s dress.

In point of fact this ayah proves the exact opposite and shows that Muhammad was indeed wearing his child bride’s dress or clothing. In the first place, the ayah doesn’t use the word mirt but thiyab, the plural of thawb. So Jalal is being deceptive here.

Secondly, Jalal assumes that the verse refers to people having sexual intercourse, something which is uncertain since the text itself doesn’t come right out and say that this is the explanation. In fact, the Muslim commentators themselves weren’t sure whether this was the meaning of the verse as we shall see.

Third, even those who accepted that this passage referred to the “shyness” that Muslims felt during sexual intercourse didn’t interpret thiyab to mean bed sheets, but explained this in reference to the actual clothing worn by these parties while in their beds!

Notice, for instance, how some of the Muslim expositors exegeted this text:

Allah is Aware of All Things

Ibn `Abbas said, “They used to dislike facing the sky with their private parts, particularly during sexual relations. Therefore, Allah revealed this verse.” Al-Bukhari recorded by way of Ibn Jurayj, who reported from Muhammad bin `Abbad bin Ja`far who said, “Ibn `Abbas recited, (أَلَا إِنَّهُمْ تَثْنَونِي صُدُورُهُمْ) "Behold their breasts did fold up.” So I said: `O Abu Al-`Abbas! What does -their breasts did fold up- mean?' He said, `The man used to have sex with his woman, but he would be shy, or he used to have answering the call of nature (in an open space) but, he would be shy. Therefore, this verse…

<No doubt! They did fold up their breasts,> was revealed.’” In another wording of this narration, Ibn `Abbas said, “There were people who used to be shy TO REMOVE THEIR CLOTHES while answering the call of nature in an open space and thus be naked exposed to the sky. They were also ashamed of having sexual relations with their women due to fear of being exposed towards the sky. Thus, this was revealed concerning them.”' Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn `Abbas said that …

<they cover themselves> means that they cover their heads. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir; capital and underline emphasis ours)

And:

As reported by al-Bukhārī [by way of an isnād] from Ibn ‘Abbās, the following was revealed regarding those who were embarrassed to withdraw [to relieve nature] or to have sexual intercourse [WITHOUT THEIR CLOTHES] and become exposed to the heaven. It is also said: [that it was revealed] regarding the hypocrites: Lo!, they fold up their breasts that they may hide from Him, that is, [from] God; lo! the moment they cover themselves with their garments, wrapping themselves up therewith, He, God, exalted be He, knows what they keep hidden and what they proclaim, and so their hiding is to no avail. Truly He knows what is in the breasts [of men], that is, what is in the hearts. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; bold and underline emphasis ours)

Finally:

(Lo! now they) i.e. Akhnas Ibn Shurayq and his followers (fold up their breasts) conceal in their hearts their hatred and enmity for Muhammad (that they may hide from him) that they may hide from Muhammad their hatred and enmity by keeping his company and pretending to him that they love him. (At the very moment when they cover themselves with their clothing) at the moment they cover their heads with their clothes, (Allah knoweth that which they keep hidden) among themselves as well as that which they conceal in their hearts (and that which they proclaim) of fighting and antipathy; it is also said that this refers to that which they proclaim of love and keeping company. (Lo! He is Aware of what is in the breasts (of men)) whether it is good or evil. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; bold and underline emphasis ours)

Thus, far from proving Jalal’s case this Quranic reference actually corroborates our point that Muhammad was wearing his child bride’s thawb or clothes while in her bed!

It is only someone with the mind of Jalal who can take a text that explicitly refers to men covering themselves with their clothes and use that to somehow prove that Muhammad wasn’t wearing the clothes of his child wife!

Jalal went on to say that no one prior to us ever came to the conclusion that Muhammad wore women’s clothing:

1. No one before the wicked team ever came to the conclusion that Prophet Muhammad used to wear women's clothing.

2. No non-Muslim who saw Prophet Muhammad ever said that he used to wear women’s clothing.

This is another boldfaced lie since the truth of the matter is that Arabic speaking Christians have raised the question of Muhammad’s cross-dressing long before I ever decided to write on this subject. In fact, I first came across this argument from my Arabic Christian brothers and sisters in their debates with Muslims!

And just recently Father Zakaria Boutrus mentioned this in one of his segments on Arabic satellite television. Here are some excerpts taken from the comments of one of the writers for www.jihadwatch.org who happened to view the program:

In this episode, he began with the prophet’s “transvestite” tendencies. He read from several hadiths, including Sahih Bukhari—Fr Botros claims that there are no less than 32 different references to this phenomenon in Islam’s books—wherein Muhammad often laid in bed dressed in women’s clothes, specifically his child-bride Aisha’s.

Fr. Botros: “Perhaps Muslims think that he only dressed in Aisha’s clothes? Being that she was his “favorite,” perhaps after being intimate with her, he would merely lay in bed with her clothes?” (Here the priest put his face in his hands lamenting that he had to talk of such shameful things.)

Then he offered an interesting and revealing hadith, from Sahih Bukhari (2/911), which records Muhammad saying, “Revelations [i.e., the Koran] never come to me when I’m dressed in women’s clothing—except when I’m dressed in Aisha’s,” implying that it was something of a habit for the prophet to dress in female clothing.

Fr Botros next moved on to some commentaries in the Tafsir of al-Qurtubi—an authoritative exegesis in Islam. He read one anecdote where Aisha said that, one day, while Muhammad was lying naked in bed, Zaid came knocking; Muhammad, without getting dressed, opened the door and “hugged and kissed him”—in the nude. Elsewhere, Qurtubi concludes that, “the prophet—prayers and blessings upon him—was constantly preoccupied with women.” (Father Zakaria Botros on "The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet" Part III, translated by Raymond Ibrahim; underline emphasis ours)

How interesting to find Father Zakaria using some of the very same hadiths which we quoted to prove that Muhammad was a cross-dresser! This shows that non-Mulim Arab speakers clearly see that the hadiths do teach that Muhammad wore women’s clothing. It is the Muslim Arabs like Jalal who are too ashamed to admit this and so have to come up with alternate explanations and meanings in order to salvage their prophet’s reputation.

We now move on to some other issues which Jalal raised which need to be put to rest.

The serious moral ramifications of Muhammad’s marriage to a child bride

Jalal is offended that we are “sticking our noses” into Muhammad’s marriage with a minor:

Why wouldn't any normal human being be offended at Shamoun and his cohorts at AnsweringIslam for 'sticking their nose' between a man and his wife? Their hatred for Prophet Muhammad seems to blind their sight and mind as it blinded their hearts. Why is it strange that Prophet Muhammad would marry a young girl by agreement from her parents and from her, her tribe and his tribe? I was told that Sam Shamoun’s own grandmother married at a young age yet he does not feel ashamed to use such abusive words that could easily be used against his own grandfather. He uses anything that he thinks defames Muhammad even if, by using his sick logic, he defames his own false deity and his own grandparents.

The reason why we tend to make it our business is because Muhammad is supposed to be the moral example for his followers to emulate. As a result of his cohabitation with a young prepubescent girl Muhammad set the precedence for other grown men to marry physically immature minors who could then be divorced and married off again to some other grown man after their waiting period or iddah is over:

And if you are in doubt as to the prescribed period for such of your women as have despaired of monthly courses, then know that the prescribed period for them is three months, and also for such as do not have their monthly courses yet. And as for those who are with child, their period shall be until they are delivered of their burden. And whoso fears ALLAH, HE will provide facilities for him in his affair. S. 65:4 Sher Ali

Here is how Ibn Kathir explains this verse:

<divorce them at their `Iddah>, "The `Iddah is made up of cleanliness and the menstrual period." So he divorces her while it is clear that she is pregnant, or he does not due to having sex, or since he does not know if she is pregnant or not. This is why the scholars said that there are two types of divorce, one that conforms to the Sunnah and another innovated. The divorce that conforms to the Sunnah is one where the husband pronounces one divorce to his wife when she is not having her menses and without having had sexual intercourse with her after the menses ended. One could divorce his wife when it is clear that she is pregnant. As for the innovated divorce, it occurs when one divorces his wife when she is having her menses, or after the menses ends, has sexual intercourse with her and then divorces her, even though he does not know if she became pregnant or not. There is a third type of divorce, which is neither a Sunnah nor an innovation where one divorces A YOUNG WIFE WHO HAS NOT BEGUN TO HAVE MENSES, the wife who is beyond the age of having menses, and divorcing one's wife before the marriage was consummated. (*; bold and capital emphasis ours)

And:

The `Iddah of Those in Menopause and Those Who do not have Menses

Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her `Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. [see 2:228] The same for THE YOUNG, WHO HAVE NOT REACHED THE YEARS OF MENSTRUATION…

<Those in menopause among your women, for them the `Iddah, if you have doubt, is three months; and for those who have no courses. And for those who are pregnant, their `Iddah is until they lay down their burden.> Ibn Abi Hatim recorded a simpler narration than this one from Ubay bin Ka`b who said, "O Allah's Messenger! When the Ayah in Surat Al-Baqarah was revealed prescribing the `Iddah of divorce, some people in Al-Madinah said, `There are still some women whose `Iddah has not been mentioned in the Qur'an. There are THE YOUNG, the old whose menstruation is discontinued, and the pregnant.' Later on, this Ayah was revealed… (*; bold and capital emphasis ours)

It must be kept in mind that the Quran teaches that there is no waiting period for marriages that have not been consummated:

O you who believe: When you marry believing women and then divorce them before you have touched them, no period of idda (waiting) have you to count in respect of them: so give them a present and set them free in a graceful manner. S. 33:49

This shows that the waiting period could only be applicable if the man has actually slept with the young prepubescent girl! In other words, Islam is allowing men to have sex with minors, legally sanctioning pedophilia!

In light of the above, how can Jalal not be appalled and offended with a fifty-four year old man marrying a child? How can he not feel upset with the Quran condoning grown men marrying prepubescent minors? How can he not speak against the physical, psychological and emotional damages that such relations have on young girls? The following links will give the readers an idea of the kind of damage such relations have on these poor innocent minors:

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/01/child-brides-in-nigeria.html
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/02/child-bride-debacle-continues.html

And if Islam really did come to honor and liberate women then why didn’t Muhammad prohibit his followers from marrying children? Why didn’t he refrain himself from taking a nine-year old bride who was still playing with her dolls to his bed and set an example that grown men shouldn’t be marrying minors? In this way he could have saved countless number of young immature Muslim girls from all the damage and harm that such relations inflict on them.

As far as my grandmother is concerned her husband wasn’t a prophet who was supposed to be the moral example for others to imitate; nor was he fifty-four years old when he married her! So Jalal’s appeal to my grandparents is simply a further example of his utter desperation to defend the indefensible.

The raping and degradation of women in Islam

Jalal can’t help himself from blaspheming the true God and for perverting what his inspired Scriptures actually teach. In this “rebuttal” he again raises the issue of the virgins who were spared in Numbers 31:17-18 and reads into this act of mercy the vilest of intentions. He also mentions God commanding the annihilation of entire people groups, which is nothing more than a smoke screen to draw focus away from the gross immorality and violent teachings of Muhammad.

Even though all of these have been fully answered time and time again:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/virginity.html
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_amalekites.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/pedophilia.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zaatri_amalikites.htm

Jalal isn’t interested in engaging the arguments since he knows he can’t do so. He would rather spend his time perverting and misinterpreting the message of the Holy Bible and complain about people being wicked for scrutinizing the highly questionable moral aspects of his prophet’s life.

The readers shouldn’t be surprised to find a dawagandist like Jalal interpreting certain Biblical texts in the worst possible light. This is to be expected from a man who follows a demonized, bewitched, and suicidal prophet who condoned the raping of female captives, even though their husbands were still alive,

Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property, - desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise. S. 4:24 Y. Ali

Here is how the Muslim jihadists put this injunction into practice:

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri: O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371)

And:

Abu Said al-Khudri said: The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess’. That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume 2, Number 2150)

Ibn Kathir wrote:

<except those whom your right hands possess> except those women whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant.

Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed…

<Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess> Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women." This is the wording collected by AT-Tirmidhi, An-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 2, Parts 3, 4 & 5 (Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, Verse 147), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First edition, March 2000], p. 422; bold emphasis ours)

Here we see that Muhammad’s companions had more honor and dignity than even their own god and prophet since they were ashamed to rape captive women whose husbands were still alive. Muhammad and his god, however, had no shame since they went ahead and condoned and permitted such rape and adultery.

Immoral teachings such as these are unlike what we find in the Holy Bible which expressly prohibits the raping of captive women and condemns adultery completely. Here is what the true Word of God says concerning the treatment of women taken captive:

“When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her AS YOUR WIFE. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.” Deuteronomy 21:10-14

Muhammad also permitted his men to prostitute women in the guise of temporary marriage (known as mut’a) just because they weren’t able to control their sexual desires.

Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah and Salama bin Al-Akwa': While we were in an army, Allah's Apostle came to us and said, “You have been allowed to do the Mut’a (marriage), so do it.” Salama bin Al-Akwa' said: Allah's Apostle's said, “If a man and a woman agree (to marry temporarily), their marriage should last for three nights, and if they like to continue, they can do so; and if they want to separate, they can do so.” I do not know whether that was only for us or for all the people in general. Abu Abdullah (Al-Bukhari) said: ‘Ali made it clear that the Prophet said, “The Mut’a marriage has been cancelled (made unlawful).” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 52)

Narrated Abdullah:
We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah's Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, “Shall we get ourselves castrated?” He forbade us that and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract and recited to us: -- ‘O you who believe! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.’ (5.87) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 13o)

This is nothing more than prostitution, plain and simple.

 

Muhammad's Sexual Privileges

To top it off, Muhammad’s god granted his messenger certain sexual favors which he did not permit for anyone else, such as taking another’s man’s wife and forcing himself on women against their will!

وَأَمَّا مَا أُحِلَّ لَهُ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَجُمْلَته سِتَّة عَشَرَ : الْأَوَّل : صَفِيّ الْمَغْنَم . الثَّانِي : الِاسْتِبْدَاد بِخُمُسِ الْخُمُس أَوْ الْخُمُس . الثَّالِث : الْوِصَال . الرَّابِع : الزِّيَادَة عَلَى أَرْبَع نِسْوَة . الْخَامِس : النِّكَاح بِلَفْظِ الْهِبَة . السَّادِس : النِّكَاح بِغَيْرِ وَلِيّ . السَّابِع : النِّكَاح بِغَيْرِ صَدَاق . الثَّامِن : نِكَاحه فِي حَالَة الْإِحْرَام . التَّاسِع : سُقُوط الْقَسْم بَيْن الْأَزْوَاج عَنْهُ , وَسَيَأْتِي . الْعَاشِر : إِذَا وَقَعَ بَصَره عَلَى اِمْرَأَة وَجَبَ عَلَى زَوْجهَا طَلَاقهَا , وَحَلَّ لَهُ نِكَاحهَا . قَالَ اِبْن الْعَرَبِيّ : هَكَذَا قَالَ إِمَام الْحَرَمَيْنِ , وَقَدْ مَضَى مَا لِلْعُلَمَاءِ فِي قِصَّة زَيْد مِنْ هَذَا الْمَعْنَى . الْحَادِيَ عَشَرَ : أَنَّهُ أَعْتَقَ صَفِيَّة وَجَعَلَ عِتْقهَا صَدَاقهَا . الثَّانِي عَشَرَ : دُخُول مَكَّة بِغَيْرِ إِحْرَام , وَفِي حَقّنَا فِيهِ اِخْتِلَاف . الثَّالِث عَشَر : الْقِتَال بِمَكَّة . الرَّابِع عَشَر : أَنَّهُ لَا يُورَث . وَإِنَّمَا ذُكِرَ هَذَا فِي قِسْم التَّحْلِيل لِأَنَّ الرَّجُل إِذَا قَارَبَ الْمَوْت بِالْمَرَضِ زَالَ عَنْهُ أَكْثَرُ مِلْكه , وَلَمْ يَبْقَ لَهُ إِلَّا الثُّلُث خَالِصًا , وَبَقِيَ مِلْك رَسُول اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَلَى مَا تَقَرَّرَ بَيَانه فِي آيَة الْمَوَارِيث , وَسُورَة " مَرْيَم " بَيَانه أَيْضًا . الْخَامِسَة عَشَر : بَقَاء زَوْجِيَّته مِنْ بَعْد الْمَوْت . السَّادِس عَشَر : إِذَا طَلَّقَ اِمْرَأَة تَبْقَى حُرْمَته عَلَيْهَا فَلَا تُنْكَح .

" أَنْ يَسْتَنْكِحهَا " أَيْ يَنْكِحهَا , يُقَال : نَكَحَ وَاسْتَنْكَحَ , مِثْل عَجِبَ وَاسْتَعْجَبَ , وَعَجِلَ وَاسْتَعْجَلَ . وَيَجُوز أَنْ يَرِد الِاسْتِنْكَاح بِمَعْنَى طَلَب النِّكَاح , أَوْ طَلَب الْوَطْء .

And any believing woman who dedicates herself to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed (nikah) her; this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large).

As for what was granted and made lawful (by Allah) to the prophet they are 16 issues…

Second: To (forcefully) take a fifth of a fifth or just a fifth (of the spoils of war)…

Fourth: To take more than four women.

Fifth: To marry, yastankih (or have intercourse) with a woman who verbally pronounces her dedication (to the prophet).

Sixth: To marry, yastankih, without the presence (or permission) of a legal guardian.

Seventh: To marry, yastankih, without a dowry.

Eighth: To marry (and have intercourse) during a state of ritual consecration and purification.

Ninth: The annulment of an oath he may make to his wives.

Tenth: If Muhammad looks at a woman (and desires her) THEN IT IS NECESSARY FOR HER HUSBAND TO DIVORCE HER AND FOR MUHAMMAD TO MARRY HER. Ibn al-Arabi said, “This is what the servant of the two holy mosques has also said, as was clear to the scholars FROM THE STORY OF ZAID which also had this meaning.”

Eleventh: That the prophet released Safiyyah (from her captured status) and he considered her release as her dowry.

Twelfth: To enter Mecca without being in a state of ritual purification.

Thirteenth: To fight in Mecca.

Fourteenth: That he is not inherited by anyone at all. This was mentioned in the oath of absolution for when a man approaches death due to illness, most of his possessions are taken away, so that he does not have more than a third left for him. But the possessions of the prophet remained for him, as is evidenced in the verse of inheritance and in Surat Mariam.

Fifteenth: His marriage is still considered effective after his death.

Sixteenth: If he divorces a woman she remains prohibited to everyone and may not be married, nikah, to someone else.

Yastankih comes from the word yan’kah. For it is said in different forms nakaha and istankaha just as it is said ajab and istajab… It is permissible to use the word istankaha to mean one whom requests marriage or one who requests sexual intercourse. (Tafsir al-Qurtubi, Q. 33:50; bold and capital emphasis ours)

And:

و من القسم الثالث القبلة في الصوم مع وجود الشهوة. فقد كان  (صلّى الله عليه و سلّم)  يقبل عائشة رصى الله تعالى عنها و هو صائم و يمص لسانها، و لعله (صلّى الله عليه و سلّم)لم يكن يبلع ريقه المختلط بريقها. والخلوة بالأجنبية، وأنه (صلّى الله عليه و سلّم) إذا رغب في امرأة خلية كان له أن يدخل بها من غير لفظ نكاح أو هبة ومن غير ولي ولا شهود ، كما وقع له  (صلّى الله عليه و سلّم) في زينب بنت جحش رضي لله تعالى عنها كما تقدم ، ومن غير رضاها ، وأنه إذا رغب امرأة متزوجة يجب على زوجها أن يطلقها له (صلّى الله عليه و سلّم) ، وأنه إذا رغب في أمة وجب على سيدها أن يهبها له. وله أن يتزوج المرأة لمن يشاء ب غير رضاها ، وله أن يتزوج في حل إحرامه ، و من ذلك نكاح ميمونة على ما تقدم. وأن يسطفي من الغنيمة ما شاء قبل القسمة من جارية أو غيرها.

"And from the third part [it is permissible for Muhammad] to kiss during the fast in front of witnesses, because [Muhammad] used to kiss Aisha while he was fasting and he sucked her tongue. And it maybe that [Muhammad] did not swallow his saliva which was united with hers. And [it is permissible for Muhammad] to be alone with a foreign woman. And if he desired a woman who is single it is then permissible for him to go in to her [to have sexual intercourse] without telling her that he wants to have sexual intercourse or without a gift and without her guardian’s permission and without witnesses; just as in the case of Zaynab bint Jahsh, which has been mentioned, [whom he took] against her will. And if he desired a married woman then her husband must divorce her and give her to him. And if he desired a slave-woman then her master must give her to him. And he can marry away a woman to whom he wants against her will. And he can marry in ihram, which happened when he had sexual intercourse with Maimuna, which has been mentioned. And he can take whatever woman slave he desires and other things even before the spoils of war have been divided.” (Nur al-Din al-Halabi, Al-Sirah al-Halabiyah, volume 3, p. 419: ISBN: 2-7451-3370-5)

Since Jalal has been saturated by the vile and immoral teachings of Muhammad it is not surprising that he can read such Islamic filth into the Biblical text. He is simply projecting what he has read from the life and example of his prophet into the inspired and holy Word of God.

Even Jalal knows deep down inside just how filthy and wicked these teachings truly are since we doubt that he would ever accept someone coming to his mother, sister or daughter and offering them money to marry them only for a short period of time for the purpose of having sex with them. We are pretty certain that he would be greatly offended by such an offer since even he can see that this means prostituting his women-folk for a sum of money so as to satisfy the sexual cravings of a man who cannot control his carnal desires.

Nor would he be pleased with a man demanding that he divorce his wife so that he can marry and sleep with her!

And yet Jalal would still have us abandon the holy teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and his blessed Apostles such as Paul to follow his prophet who permitted marriages to minors, adultery, the raping of married and unmarried women, as well prostitution which he tried to pass off as temporary marriage. God forbid that we ever do such a thing!

In conclusion, I do want to thank Jalal for one thing. I appreciate all the sources he quoted to prove that the word thawb means clothes since these references provided further corroboration for my point! Jalal's citations substantiated the fact that when the hadith says that Muhammad was in his child bride's thawb this can only mean that he was actually wearing her clothes, and thus was guilty of cross-dressing!

Lord Jesus willing, there will be more responses to Jalal’s bluster and perversion of truth to follow shortly.