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