turneywest
Yup, another right wing guy
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2024
- Posts
- 494
- Reputation
- 423
Introduction:
The purpose of this thread is to inform every person so that he knows the truth about it and to kindle hatred towards this religion. Also, the author of this thread does not support other religions in this way.
Table Of Contents:
1. Al-Isabah fi Tamyiz al-Sahabah
(Author: Ibn al-Athir, Volume 7, pages 136–137 – Chapter on Aisha)
“He married her when she was six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine.”
2. Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala’
(Author: Al-Dhahabi, Volume 2, pages 135–136 – Chapter on Aisha)
“He consummated the marriage with her in the month of Shawwal of the second year after Hijrah, and she was a girl of nine years old.”
3. Sunan Abi Dawood
(Hadith No. 3909 in the standard numbering)
“My mother wanted me to gain weight before giving me to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) in marriage, but nothing worked until she fed me cucumbers along with fresh dates, after which I became chubby in the best way.”
Incest in Islam
In Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), there have been complex and sometimes controversial discussions concerning the status of children born out of fornication (zina). While the overwhelming majority of scholars agreed that such children maintain certain legal ties with their biological parents — particularly concerning prohibitions on marriage (mahram relations) — there were minority opinions among early jurists that approached the matter differently.
It is reported that two prominent scholars, Imam Malik ibn Anas and Imam Ash-Shafi’i, held views that deviated from the mainstream on this issue. Several respected scholars from later generations, who had no interest in defaming them, transmitted these opinions in their works. Based on their reports, a child born from fornication was not seen, according to Malik and Shafi’i’s interpretations, as establishing a legal kinship that would prohibit marriage.
Below are key statements from major Islamic legal sources that describe these views:
1. From Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah:
“This is the opinion of the majority of scholars, but Malik and Shafi’i, as is well-known from their madhhabs, considered all of the aforementioned permissible.”
2. Also from Ibn Qudamah, further explanation:
“Since she is a stranger to him and does not trace her legal lineage back to him, there is no inheritance between them. If he acquires her as a slave, he does not free her. He is not obligated to provide for her, and she is not forbidden to him, just like most unrelated women.”
3. From Sharh Sahih Muslim by An-Nawawi:
“The opinion of Malik, Shafi’i, Abu Thawr, and others is that sexual intercourse through fornication does not bring about specific legal consequences. Therefore, a fornicator is permitted to marry the woman with whom he committed fornication, as well as her daughter.”
4. Specific transmission of Imam Shafi’i’s opinion as quoted by An-Nawawi:
“However, Ash-Shafi’i added, saying that it is permissible for a man to have intercourse with a daughter born from his own semen as a result of fornication.”
5. From Ikhtilaf al-A’imma al-‘Ulama by Ibn Hubayrah:
“The scholars differed regarding girls born from fornication. Is it permissible for the one who fathered her through fornication to marry her? Ahmad and Abu Hanifa said: no. But Imam Shafi’i said: it is permissible.”
The golden age of Islam
How the West Created the Narrative of the “Golden Age of Islam”
Let’s first determine the roots of the narrative about the Golden Age of Islam. First and foremost, it’s important to understand that the Golden Age of Islam is a cultural product of the post-colonial era that originated in the West. In our time, this narrative serves as a double-edged sword: in the Islamic world, it is used by da’wah preachers and apologists of Islam, while in the West it is employed by adherents of the neoliberal agenda. In the latter case, the Golden Age of Islam is one of the tools used in the cultural war against the traditional values of Western societies. It is a convenient instrument that helps impose false tolerance and erode the self-awareness of Western peoples.
From an academic standpoint, this narrative often portrays the Renaissance as a product of Islamic civilization. Today, the myth of the Golden Age of Islam holds a significant place in the curricula of humanities departments in Western Europe and North America, which are almost entirely dominated by leftist ideologies. These departments consistently produce pseudo-experts who will go on to tell you how Islam supposedly played a pivotal role in the development of progress.
We’ll come back to Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd separately later. As for Hasan Mehdi, who dresses like a model kafir, speaks English better than the average Brit, works for Western media tycoons, and graduated from the oldest educational institution in the Anglo-Saxon world — he can hardly be seen as a representative of the ummah of the Messenger of Allah. In short, Islam has been a convenient tool repeatedly used by Western elites over the past century, and there are at least a dozen more figures like Hasan Mehdi.
How did Muslims pick up the idea of an Islamic Golden Age?
What interests us much more today is how the ideological products of the Golden Age of Islam were picked up by the believers themselves. If we turn to the Islamic scene, the Golden Age of Islam is used here as a means of coping with the inferiority complex that Muslim societies experience in the face of the West’s political and technological dominance. The irony is that even in this case, Muslims try to defeat the enemy by playing by his rules and adopting his stylistic approach.
Just think about it: did Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, in the late 18th century, care that the Industrial Revolution was in full swing in Britain, while the Ottoman Empire was frantically modernizing its army by bringing in specialists from France? It’s highly unlikely that any of the Salafi scholars back then believed the Islamic world’s decline was due to falling behind in some kind of kafir science. To them, it was obvious that the Islamic ummah was mired in religious innovations (bid’ah), and whatever was going on among the unbelievers was a secondary issue.
This continued until the West penetrated not just the lands of Islam, but the minds of Muslims themselves. At that point, ignoring Western progress became impossible, and they seized upon a tool created by Western intellectual centers and repurposed it for their own use. This is how, in our time, the internet became flooded with tales about scientific miracles in the Quran, Islamic medicine, and claims that the spread of Islam supposedly influenced the development of science.
Now that we’ve clarified things a bit, let’s finally examine how Islamic the Golden Age of Islam truly was — what in this story is myth, and what is actually true. To begin with, we need to clarify Islam’s stance toward science as such.
The faithful often like to flaunt the hadith: “Seek knowledge, even if you have to go to China.” Even setting aside the fact that this hadith is weak, we’re already dealing with a distortion of meaning. When Muslims quote this phrase, they often, without realizing it, take it out of context. The issue is that in hadith literature, the word “knowledge” (‘ilm) is used in the Sharia context — and it means something completely different from the concept of “knowledge” in the Western tradition.
In the Islamic world, “knowledge” primarily refers to Sharia sciences, which have absolutely nothing to do with what we understand as science today. The phrase “seeking knowledge” is a fixed expression that specifically refers to the pursuit of Sharia knowledge from Islamic scholars. Therefore, the claim that Islam encourages the study of science is fundamentally incorrect. In fact, not only does Islam not promote science — it actively opposes it, since the scientific method is based on doubt, which in turn threatens a Muslim’s faith and is seen in Islam as a whispering from the devil or a sign of weak iman.
How Caliph Umar Burned the Books of the Persians and Greeks
The history of Islam itself can speak far more eloquently about Islam’s attitude toward science. Ibn Khaldun, who is often cited as a representative of the Golden Age of Islam, describes some very interesting things in his famous Muqaddimah, the prologue to Tarikh Ibn Khaldun.
In the section devoted to the rational sciences and their various types, where Ibn Khaldun derives the major core disciplines from philosophy and emphasizes the importance of logic, he also mentions the achievements of pre-Islamic civilizations in the field of astronomy. There, he writes that the main bearers of scientific knowledge at the time were the Persians and the Romans, and that before the advent of Islam, the sciences in those lands were like vast, overflowing seas.
Ibn Khaldun then focuses specifically on the Persians, writing that the rational sciences played an important role in their civilization, and that many scientific works reached the Greeks from the Persians through the conquests of Alexander the Great. After this, he finally turns to the period of Islamic conquests and describes how Muslims dealt with this cultural heritage.
When the Arabs invaded Persia, they seized an uncountable number of manuscripts. Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas wrote to Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab, requesting permission to distribute these books among the Muslims. Umar ordered him to throw the books into the water, saying that if they contained useful knowledge, then Allah had already given us better guidance; and if they contained harmful things, then Allah had protected us from them. So, the Muslims threw the manuscripts either into the water or into the fire, and the sciences of the Persians vanished into oblivion, never reaching us.
In a similar fashion, the Commander of the Faithful distinguished himself not only in Persia. When the forces of Amr ibn al-As captured Alexandria, they discovered Aristotle’s school, where many manuscripts were stored. When Umar ibn al-Khattab learned of this, according to the Egyptian Islamic historian al-Maqrizi, he ordered the books to be burned — a move sometimes mistakenly believed to be the destruction of the Library of Alexandria.
The Rise of Science and the Decline of Islam in the Caliphate
In general, these two examples clearly illustrate the attitude Muslims had toward science during the time of the Salaf. And really, if you think about it — what else could that attitude have been? If we start from the premise that Muslims emerged from Arabia in the 7th century, then we’re talking about a godforsaken land that neither Byzantium nor Persia had any real interest in. Naturally, the Arabs who lived there didn’t recognize the value of science, firstly because they simply had no exposure to it, and secondly because when you’re struggling to survive in the harsh conditions of the Arabian desert — in a tribal society with a raid-based economy — science is the last thing on your mind.
It was a different story when the Arabs moved beyond their natural environment. Upon leaving Arabia, Muslims didn’t end up just anywhere — they reached the very center of the known world. In just over a century, as they conquered one country after another, the Caliphate absorbed Sassanid Persia, Byzantium, and the southern part of the Western Roman Empire — along with the peoples who carried their ancient cultural legacies. And while the first 120 years saw the generations of the Sahabah and Tabi’un behaving like the Arabian tribe of Muhammad, with each new generation they increasingly blended with the conquered peoples and came under their cultural influence.
This explains the decline of Islam in the understanding of the righteous predecessors and its contamination by foreign philosophy and science brought in by disbelievers — Persians and Christians. It’s worth noting here that the beginning of the so-called Golden Age of Islam is typically dated to the late 8th and early 9th centuries, a time when the Islamic community was more divided than ever, and the Islamic state itself, under the rule of the Abbasids, saw a surge in anti-Arab sentiment and the growing influence of non-Arabs.
That was when science briefly flourished — but Islam had nothing to do with it, as we’ll now see. By the time of Harun al-Rashid’s rule, the ministries of the caliphate were firmly occupied by Persians from the ancient Barmakid family, who had held high positions even under the Sassanids before Islam. Under the Umayyads, Persians and other non-Arabs were treated as second-class citizens, but after the Abbasid revolution — in which the Persians played a major role — they gained such influence that the Arab Muslim caliph became, if not a symbolic figure, at least heavily dependent on the political experience of the Persian elite.
What’s even more important is that, based on a range of indirect signs, we can infer that the Persian elite merely used Islam as a cover to access power and advance their own agenda. This was well observed by their contemporaries. The Hanbali scholar Ibn Qutaybah quotes the court Arabic language teacher of Harun al-Rashid, Abu Sa’id al-Asma’i, who described the Barmakids in this way: “When polytheism is mentioned in gatherings, the faces of the Barmakids light up with joy, but when the Qur’an is recited in their presence, they start mumbling stories about Marw (Merv).”
Caliph al-Mamun - patron of sciences and Taghut
If during the time of Harun al-Rashid the Barmakids were still kept somewhat in check, then under his son, Caliph Abdullah al-Ma’mun, they began to feel even more confident. Incidentally, Caliph al-Ma’mun himself was conceived by Harun through a Persian slave woman named Marajil — the influence of Persian disbelievers was clearly present.
Al-Dhahabi, in Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala’, gives us the following description of Caliph al-Ma’mun: He was fond of literature, studied the rational sciences and the knowledge of those who came before Islam, and he ordered that their books be translated into Arabic. Al-Ma’mun repeatedly transported books of Greek philosophers from Cyprus to Damascus.
We also learn about al-Ma’mun’s sympathy for the misguided Mu‘tazilite sect — innovators and followers of Greek philosophy.
What do you think—does it befit the Commander of the Faithful to study the sciences of disbelievers and spread their books among the believers, while Caliph ‘Umar burned their manuscripts in his struggle to preserve the purity of this religion? Beyond al-Ma’mun’s passion for innovation and studying the forbidden, in his ambition to spread among Muslims beliefs that contradict the Qur’an and the Sunnah, he founded an entire academy in Baghdad called the “House of Wisdom.”
And what was done in this House of Wisdom? Were they copying out the sacred pages of the Qur’an? Were they collecting the authentic hadiths passed down from the Messenger of Allah? Oh no! In this House, al-Ma’mun gathered Persians and Christians and generously rewarded them with gold for translating into the language of the Messenger of Allah the works of Plato, Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen, and mathematicians and philosophers from among the polytheist Indians.
And was this not influenced by the hypocritical Barmakids, who had already supported such initiatives under their own king, Khosrow I, who encouraged the study of sciences and gave shelter to fugitive Syrian Nestorian scholars?
Bayt al-Hikma was essentially a direct copy of the Academy of Gondishapur in the Khuzestan province of modern Iran, which was a major scientific center under the Sassanids. Also worth noting is that the patron of sciences, al-Ma’mun, initiated the so-called Mihna — an inquisition testing the loyalty of Sunni scholars to the regime. And among its targets was none other than Ahmad ibn Hanbal himself, who surely needs no introduction.
The end of the golden age
The reign of al-Ma’mun was perhaps the only period when sciences received a boost and experienced a revival in the lands ravaged by the Arabs. However, this did not last long. With the arrival of al-Mutawakkil, the pursuit of knowledge waned, and the Muslim elite returned to their usual activities—ethnic conflicts, power struggles, and intra-religious disputes. Meanwhile, science continued to develop only on the periphery of the Islamic world, and even there, it faced criticism from scholars. To understand this, let’s briefly review the biographies of the scholars who lived in Islamic countries and whose fame Muslims often try to claim for themselves.
Al-Farabi
If we mentioned Aristotle’s metaphysics, we should also mention the author of its commentary, Al-Farabi, who was either a Turk or a Sogdian Persian, and whom Az-Zahabi calls the “wise sheikh of philosophy,” who, as you might have guessed, was involved in philosophy. In addition to this, he also managed to write a whole treatise on music, “Kitab al-Musiqa al-Kabir.” And if you thought that in this book he discusses the prohibition of music, I must disappoint you. Not only does he not prohibit it, but he also teaches it.
Ibn Rushd
The next, equally prominent figure of the Golden Age is Ibn Rushd, also known as Averroes, born into a family of Maliki jurists in Andalusia. Although Ibn Rushd’s grandfather was a distinguished faqih (Islamic jurist) of the Cordoban Emirate, his grandson would go down in history as a noble representative of Eastern Aristotelianism. Al-Farabi refers to Ibn Rushd as the philosopher of the era and notes that he studied medicine as well as the sciences of those who came before Islam, mastering them to perfection. Some, as Al-Farabi points out, criticized Ibn Rushd for engaging in philosophy, yet this did not prevent him from writing a dozen works, most of which were treatises on the philosophy of Aristotle and Galen, as well as commentaries on the works of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Al-Farabi—again, on philosophy. Moreover, Ibn Rushd not only faced criticism but, in his final years, was completely shunned for his heretical statements. In the end, he died alone, under house arrest in his own home.
Yet al-Khwarizmi had virtually no connection to Islam, let alone the humanities. Apart from his work on history (*tarikh*), all his other writings were devoted to mathematics, geography, and astronomy. Moreover, al-Khwarizmi derived the foundation of his mathematical knowledge in Central Asia from the works of Greek and Indian scholars.
“The opinion of many scholars is that this verse refers to the People of the Book who entered their religion before it was abrogated and replaced, and who paid the jizya tax.”
“Others have said that this ruling was abrogated by the verse of fighting, since it is necessary to call all nations to the acceptance of the true religion — the religion of Islam.”
“And if any of them refuses to accept Islam without paying or surrendering the jizya, then they are to be fought until they are killed.”
“And that is the meaning of compulsion, as Allah the Almighty has said: ‘You will be called to fight a people of great might. You will fight them, or they will submit to Islam.’"
“The Almighty also said: ‘O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh with them.’”
“And again the Almighty said: ‘O you who believe, fight those disbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.’”
“And as stated in an authentic hadith, Allah will marvel at people who enter Paradise in chains — meaning that captives brought to Muslim lands in shackles and collars will later accept Islam, and their deeds and sins will be rectified so that they will become among the people of Paradise.”
Beautiful, isn’t it, dear friend? As for the verse ‘Whoever saves one life…’, and so on — here, my friends, you didn’t even bother to read what was written a few verses earlier, or what follows this verse. Allah recounts the biblical story of Cain killing Abel and then quotes a Jewish legal tract — the Sanhedrin — which the author of the Quran, in his ignorance, presents as the direct speech of God. That’s where your favorite quote, addressed to the Children of Israel, actually comes from.
And the next verse already announces the Islamic order, promising for anyone who wages war against Allah and His Messenger and seeks to cause corruption on earth — execution by crucifixion or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides.
As for all the hadiths of varying authenticity about Muhammad visiting a sick Jew, it is enough to recall the narration found in Sahih Muslim from Umar ibn al-Khattab, in which Muhammad promises to expel all Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula. And yet, a Muslim will still speak about how a Muslim should live in peace with others. Moreover, some everyday Muslims even manage to befriend kuffar and call them brothers.
From a human perspective, this is completely normal and right — but the deity Muslims worship does not wish for that. “Believers cannot take disbelievers as allies or friends, for whoever does so has nothing to do with Allah.” This verse — which, as you might guess, is from Medina — is one of the foundations of the doctrine of Al-Wala’ wal-Bara’ (“Loyalty and Disavowal”), which obligates Muslims to show loyalty to fellow Muslims and disavowal toward disbelievers.
The only exception to this rule is when a Muslim is genuinely afraid of the disbelievers. On this, Imam Ibn Kathir gives the following commentary:
“If you fear them — being in certain lands and under certain circumstances — a believer may outwardly show friendship, but should not intend it in their heart.”
In other words, Islam teaches you deceit and cunning — gently called precaution. And to reinforce this point, Ibn Kathir cites the hadith of At-Tirmidhi from Abu Ad-Darda:
“Indeed, we smile in the faces of some people, while our hearts curse them.”
The last two arguments you may hear from everyday Muslims are:
1. That all of the above concerns only the polytheists who were hostile to Muslims.
2. That it was only relevant during the Prophet’s time and that of his companions.
The second argument shows that you are not paying attention and do not read your sources. Islam is a religion that does not recognize time limits or territorial boundaries: “Jihad will continue until the Day of Judgment.”
What was revealed in verse 29 of Surah At-Tawbah is the final ruling for believers concerning the kuffar. The consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah mufassirs is that this verse was revealed as an irrevocable command for Muslims to uncompromisingly establish the will of Allah and His Messenger across all corners of the earth. Ibn Kathir writes the following:
“This noble verse was revealed as a command to fight the People of the Book, after the affairs with the polytheists had been settled and people were entering Allah’s religion in crowds.”
“And when the Arabian Peninsula had been set aright, Allah and His Messenger commanded the fighting of the People of the Two Books — the Jews and the Christians. This occurred in the ninth year of the Hijrah. And that is why the Messenger of Allah prepared for war with the Romans and called the people to it.”
So, returning to the first argument: as we have seen, neither Christians nor Jews are to be considered friends or brothers by Muslims — they are to be fought until they either accept Islam or pay tribute in humiliation.
Moreover, you must understand that this command essentially applies to all non-Muslims, since during Muhammad’s time, Allah was apparently unaware that, in addition to Christians, Jews, and pagans, there were also Buddhists and people who simply don’t believe in God or worship anyone.
Later, Muslims found a rather elegant solution to this oversight: they divided the kuffar into three main groups — Christians, Jews, and polytheists. Into the last category, alongside pagans, they continue to lump in virtually anyone they don’t understand but who must, in the Muslim mind, be shoved into one of the categories of disbelievers.
We will talk about the story of the Prophet’s marriage to one of his thirteen wives, Zaynab bint Jahsh. Before turning to the sources, let’s first familiarize ourselves with the main characters. I believe the Prophet Muhammad needs no introduction, so we will immediately move on to the other important figure in this story, Zayd ibn Harithah.
Zayd ibn Harithah was a slave who, as a young child, was taken captive and passed from hand to hand until he was gifted to Muhammad and his first wife, the merchant Khadijah bint Khuwaylid. Muhammad grew so fond of Zayd that he granted him freedom and adopted him, after which Zayd became known as Zayd ibn Muhammad—at least until a certain point, which we will discuss later.
The central figure of the conflict in this story is Zaynab bint Jahsh, a woman from the noble Asad clan of the Quraysh tribe. Muhammad arranged her marriage to his adopted son, Zayd. This caused resentment both among her relatives and within Zaynab herself, who was not eager to marry Zayd. Nevertheless, the word of the Messenger of Allah was law, and the marriage was carried out.
All might have been well, and we might not even have paid attention to this story, if not for one crucial detail. To understand it properly, we need to turn to the primary sources. The story in question can be found in Volume Two of Tarikh al-Tabari, specifically in the section dedicated to the events of the fifth year of the Hijrah. There, al-Tabari writes:
“Then came the fifth year of the Hijrah, and in this year, the Messenger of Allah married Zaynab bint Jahsh.”
I draw your attention to the fact that at that time, Zaynab was already married to Zayd.
“The Messenger of Allah decided to visit Zayd ibn Harithah, who was then called ‘Zayd, the son of Muhammad.’ Apparently, they missed each other by an hour. Muhammad came to Zayd’s house, called for him, but did not find him there. Instead, Zayd’s wife, Zaynab bint Jahsh, came out to greet him, lightly clothed.”
And here the most interesting part begins.
Muhammad turned away from her, and she said that Zayd was not home, inviting him inside, saying:
“Come in, O Messenger of Allah, for you are dear to me as my father and mother.”
Muhammad refused to enter. When Zayd found out that the Messenger of Allah had been at his door, he hurried home, hastily throwing something on, and Muhammad was pleased by what he saw—it sparked admiration in him. Muhammad turned away and began to murmur something unintelligible, from which only the phrases could be understood:
“Blessed be Allah, the Almighty. Blessed be Allah, the One who guides hearts.”
When Zayd returned home, his wife told him that the Messenger of Allah had come. Zayd asked:
“You invited him in, didn’t you?”
She replied:
“I did, but he refused.”
Zayd then asked:
“Did he say anything else?”
She answered:
“When he turned away, I heard him say: ‘Blessed be Allah the Almighty, blessed be Allah who guides hearts.’”
Now, how did Zayd react to this situation, which at first glance seemed unremarkable? He went to the Messenger of Allah and said:
“O Messenger of Allah, I heard you came to my house but refused to enter. O you who are dearer to me than my own father and mother. Perhaps you admired Zaynab, and I should divorce her?”
Muhammad, portraying nobility, replied, encouraging Zayd to keep his wife.
At first glance, it seemed as if no one was forcing anything. But remember for a moment who Muhammad was. Put yourself in Zayd’s place and imagine how you would feel.
Al-Tabari notes:
“From that day, Zayd could no longer approach her.”
He would come to Muhammad to discuss it, and Muhammad would repeat:
“Keep your wife.”
Eventually, Al-Tabari writes:
“Zayd divorced Zaynab, and she became permissible (for marriage).”
That is, her waiting period (’iddah) ended.
Of course, after 1400 years, it’s impossible to know exactly what happened, but it’s probably not a coincidence that Al-Tabari’s narrative emphasizes the phrase:
“She pleased the Messenger of Allah.”
Most likely, someone—maybe even Zaynab herself—told Zayd about Muhammad’s feelings. It’s possible that Zaynab, being from a noble family, preferred to become the wife of the Prophet rather than remain the wife of a former slave. Maybe she hinted to Zayd herself. Who knows.
What matters most is how the Messenger of Allah himself behaved after this incident.
Miraculously, verse 37 of Surah Al-Ahzab was revealed:
“And [remember, O Muhammad], when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor [meaning Zayd, whom Muhammad freed from slavery]: ‘Keep your wife and fear Allah.’ But you concealed within yourself that which Allah was to disclose, and you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him.”
If you still don’t understand what’s going on here, let’s turn to one of the most authoritative Sunni commentators, Ibn Kathir.
On the phrase “You concealed within yourself that which Allah was to disclose,” Ibn Kathir writes:
“This verse was revealed concerning Zaynab bint Jahsh and Zayd ibn Harithah.”
More precisely:
“Allah informed His Prophet that Zaynab would become one of his wives even before he married her. When Zayd would complain about his wife, the Prophet would tell him: ‘Fear Allah and keep your wife,’ even though Muhammad already knew Allah’s decree and kept it hidden in his heart.”
Remarkable, isn’t it? Even when Allah himself had allegedly granted him such a favor, Muhammad still tried to preserve Zayd’s marriage.
So what else was revealed in that verse?
“When Zayd had finished with her [whether through consummation or divorce], We married her to you…”
Read the Qur’an yourself, reread the verse thoughtfully, and ask yourself: do you really believe the Qur’an is the Word of God? Are you truly ready to believe that the Creator of the Universe would, in His sacred and final message to mankind, provide an excuse for Muhammad, who happened to become aroused at the sight of lightly clothed Zaynab bint Jahsh?
Ibn Kathir comments further:
“When Zayd fulfilled his desire with her and divorced her, Allah married Zaynab to the Messenger of Allah. Her guardian in marriage was Allah Himself, and Muhammad married her without a guardian, without a marriage contract, dowry, or witnesses.”
Before we move to the final part of the verse, it’s worth mentioning something else Ibn Kathir tells us:
“When Zaynab’s waiting period ended, the Messenger of Allah told Zayd ibn Harithah: ‘Announce to her that I wish to marry her.’ Zayd went to her while she was kneading dough. He said: ‘When I saw her, I felt such awe that I couldn’t even look at her and deliver the message.’ So he turned away and said: ‘O Zaynab, good news—the Messenger of Allah wishes to marry you.’ She responded: ‘I will not do anything until I seek guidance from my Lord.’ Then she prayed, and revelation came down, and Muhammad came to her without seeking permission.”
Ibn Kathir further describes the celebration that followed.
Thus, not only did Muhammad shamelessly take advantage of the situation while justifying it as divine will, but he also made Zayd—who clearly suffered from the separation—personally deliver the proposal to Zaynab.
When you read all this, you can’t help but remember the claim that Muhammad is “the best of mankind” and “the ultimate role model.” Learning what Muhammad did and said, while hearing such statements, naturally leads to deep disgust.
Even more troubling is the fact that some people are so entrenched in their ignorance that they feel no discomfort whatsoever reading this story. Worse, they feel obliged to harm anyone who criticizes their “infallible” authority.
This is pure sectarianism: no matter how disgraceful the actions are, the believers will still compromise their conscience to defend their prophet.
At the end of the verse, Muhammad justifies himself:
“…so that there would be no blame upon the believers concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they have no longer any need of them. And the command of Allah must be fulfilled.”
It would seem strange if Allah sent down a divine revelation solely to provide moral justification for Muhammad’s desires without offering something to the broader Muslim community as well.
For example, ordinary believers are only allowed four wives, while Muhammad had up to twelve. People might start to suspect something, so it was necessary to provide some concessions for the community too.
Finally, it should be noted that this whole story had far-reaching consequences. From this point on, Allah decided that adopted sons could no longer bear the names of their adoptive fathers.
On this point, Ibn Kathir comments:
“Before prophethood, Muhammad adopted Zayd ibn Harithah, and people called him Zayd ibn Muhammad. Allah abolished this by saying: ‘He has not made your adopted sons your [true] sons. Call them by their [biological] fathers’ names; that is more just in the sight of Allah.’”
And this was further confirmed and clarified by Muhammad’s marriage to Zaynab after Zayd’s divorce. Thus were the morals of the man considered the best to ever walk the earth.
I won't comment much here either. I'll give you arguments.
1. The Qur’an permits marriage to girls who have not yet reached puberty.
Evidence:
Let’s open Surah At-Talaq (65:4):
“And those of your women who no longer expect menstruation—if you doubt [their waiting period], their prescribed waiting time is three months, as well as for those who have not yet menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah – He will make matters easy for him.”
This verse mentions a waiting period (iddah) not only for women past menopause but also for those who have not yet menstruated, meaning prepubescent girls.
Since the waiting period is to determine whether a woman is pregnant after divorce, it implies that sexual intercourse could have taken place even with such girls.
2. The Tafsir confirms that the verse concerns marriage to prepubescent girls.
Evidence:
Referring to the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir:
“Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period (iddah) for women whose menstruation has stopped due to their age. Their waiting period is three months, different from those who still menstruate, for whom the waiting period is three menstrual cycles. The same applies to those who have not yet menstruated.”
Ibn Kathir clearly states that the rule also applies to girls who have not yet reached menstruation. Thus, traditional Islamic scholarship acknowledges the possibility of marriage and sexual relations with prepubescent girls.
3. The Qur’an does not establish a minimum age for marriage.
Evidence:
Let’s examine Surah An-Nisa, verses 23–24:
“Prohibited to you [for marriage] are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your paternal aunts, your maternal aunts, daughters of your brother, daughters of your sister, your milk-mothers who nursed you, your milk-sisters, mothers of your wives, your stepdaughters under your guardianship born of your wives unto whom you have gone in—but there is no blame upon you if you have not gone in to them—and [the] wives of your sons who are from your own loins. And [also prohibited is] to take two sisters in marriage simultaneously…”
“And [also prohibited are] married women, except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, provided that you seek them [in marriage] with your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation…”
In these verses, Allah enumerates the categories of women prohibited for marriage but makes no mention of any age restrictions. Therefore, the Qur’an does not set a minimum age for marriage.
4. The Sunnah of the Prophet confirms the practice of marrying prepubescent girls.
Evidence:
From Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 5133:
“Narrated Aisha: The Prophet married me when I was six years old, and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine years old. Then I remained with him for nine years.”
This hadith clearly states that the marriage contract was made when Aisha was six years old, and consummation took place when she was nine — which, by modern standards, is before full physical maturity.
5. Modern claims that Aisha was older are unfounded.
Commentary:
Some contemporary authors argue that Aisha was actually eighteen or nineteen at the time of her marriage, based on indirect historical indications. However, this contradicts the authentic narrations reported directly by Aisha herself and authenticated in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.
Thus, attempts to reinterpret Aisha’s age are deliberate historical distortions.
I have already discussed the story of how Muhammad took the wife of Zayd ibn Harithah, conveniently receiving a revelation from Allah at just the right time to justify it. Today, we will continue this topic and examine a few more examples that clearly demonstrate how the Messenger of Allah manipulated people, using Quranic verses to justify his personal desires. There are quite a few examples of this.
Let’s take the Surah Al-Ahzab, for instance, where Allah “married” Muhammad to Zayd’s wife, Zaynab bint Jahsh, who Muhammad had taken a liking to. In addition to this, there are several verses in that Surah that would seriously shake the faith of any reasonable person in the idea that Muhammad had any sincere prophetic mission. Despite the Quran being regarded in Islam as the final message from God to mankind, expressing His will until Judgment Day, Muhammad had no problem using “divine revelation” to address his everyday needs.
For example, when reading verses 30–33, we see that Muhammad was very concerned about controlling his wives. So much so that the Lord of the Worlds, in His revelation, sternly warns Muhammad’s wives to be obedient if they do not want to face heavenly consequences:
“O wives of the Prophet! If any of you commits a clear immorality, her punishment will be doubled. That is easy for Allah.”
“But whoever of you devoutly obeys Allah and His Messenger and does righteousness – We will give her her reward twice, and We have prepared for her a noble provision.”
In other words, Muhammad was very familiar with the “carrot and stick” method.
“O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other women. If you fear Allah, then do not be soft in speech, lest he in whose heart is disease should covet, but speak in an appropriate manner.”
“And stay in your houses, and do not display yourselves like the display of the former times of ignorance. Establish prayer, give zakat, and obey Allah and His Messenger.”
Since Muhammad himself struggled with such desires, he measured others by his own standards and feared falling into the same kind of situation Zayd ibn Harithah did. Therefore, Allah intervened to remind the Prophet’s wives that it would be safer for them to limit their outings and contact with the outside world.
Just three verses later, we come across Muhammad’s scandalous story with Zayd’s wife, and after some clumsy justifications — or whether Allah himself excuses him, it’s hard to tell — we find a very telling verse where Muhammad’s authorship behind the words attributed to Allah becomes glaringly obvious:
“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 given you, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and aunts who emigrated with you, and any believing woman who offers herself to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to marry her. This is only for you, excluding the [other] believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess. But We have made this concession for you in order that there be no discomfort upon you…”
How about that? Pretty “convenient,” right?
There’s another point to clarify here. It’s often argued — and not without basis — that the Arabic word اِسْتَنْكَحَ (translated here as “to marry”) doesn’t necessarily mean “to marry” in the legal sense, but rather “to have sexual intercourse.” The basic verb ناكَحَ can, according to dictionaries, mean both “to marry” and “to have sex.”
Thus, the verse could more accurately be translated as:
“The Prophet is permitted any believing woman who offers herself to him if he wishes to sleep with her.”
You can easily verify this interpretation: go up to any Arab and say أريد أن أنكح بنتك (“I want to have sex with your daughter”) — and watch the reaction you get. It will not be pleasant.
Moreover, the context of debauchery is also supported indirectly through verse 230 of Surah Al-Baqarah and through a hadith recorded by Al-Bukhari regarding divorce. Verse 230 says:
“If he divorces her [for the third time], she is not lawful for him until she has married another husband…”
But many translations — such as Kuliyev’s — sneakily render it “until she marries another,” hiding the implication.
However, in Sahih al-Bukhari, there’s a hadith where a woman comes to the Prophet after divorcing her first husband and marrying a second, who turned out to be impotent. The second husband denies it, claiming he is potent and blaming her rebelliousness. Muhammad, understanding that the woman wants to return to her first husband, tells her:
“You cannot return to your first husband until the second one tastes your sweetness.”
I’m sure you get the metaphor.
So, through simple reasoning, it becomes clear that Allah supposedly granted Muhammad an exclusive right to have intercourse with any woman who offered herself to him.
On the other hand, if you consult the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, he does say it refers to marriage, albeit a very peculiar kind of marriage:
“Meaning: any believing woman who offers herself to the Prophet — if the Prophet wishes, he may marry her without paying a dowry.”
But here’s the problem: in Sahih Muslim, another hadith clarifies that the word نكاح (from نكح) — usually translated as “marriage” — absolutely refers to sexual intercourse. In this hadith, Muhammad commands Muslims to abstain from intercourse with their wives during menstruation, saying:
“اصنعوا كل شيء إلا النكاح” — “Do everything with her except intercourse.”
Therefore, considering the broader hadith context and the fact that in the verse being discussed, Muhammad is exempt from paying mahr (the bridal gift), it heavily suggests that what was actually intended here was straightforward sexual access.
Finally, even those close to Muhammad seemed to realize how self-serving these “revelations” were. In a hadith from Muslim, Aisha says she was jealous of the women who offered themselves to the Prophet and would mockingly say:
“Can a woman offer herself?”
To which, conveniently, Allah would immediately “reveal” another verse:
“You may defer [the turn of] any of them you wish, and you may take to yourself any you wish. And if you desire any of those you had set aside, there is no blame upon you.”
Aisha sarcastically noted:
“By Allah, I see that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desires.”
I might release part 2 if you like this analysis.
The purpose of this thread is to inform every person so that he knows the truth about it and to kindle hatred towards this religion. Also, the author of this thread does not support other religions in this way.
Table Of Contents:
- So how old was Aisha?
- Incest in Islam
- The Golden Age of Islam
- Islam is a religion of peace?
- How Prophet Muhammad Stole Someone Else's Wife
- Permissibility of child marriages
- how the prophet justified passions with the Quran
So how old was Aisha?
At this point I will not comment, I will present reliable traditional Islamic sources.
1. Al-Isabah fi Tamyiz al-Sahabah
(Author: Ibn al-Athir, Volume 7, pages 136–137 – Chapter on Aisha)
“He married her when she was six years old and consummated the marriage when she was nine.”
2. Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala’
(Author: Al-Dhahabi, Volume 2, pages 135–136 – Chapter on Aisha)
“He consummated the marriage with her in the month of Shawwal of the second year after Hijrah, and she was a girl of nine years old.”
3. Sunan Abi Dawood
(Hadith No. 3909 in the standard numbering)
“My mother wanted me to gain weight before giving me to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) in marriage, but nothing worked until she fed me cucumbers along with fresh dates, after which I became chubby in the best way.”
Incest in Islam
In Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), there have been complex and sometimes controversial discussions concerning the status of children born out of fornication (zina). While the overwhelming majority of scholars agreed that such children maintain certain legal ties with their biological parents — particularly concerning prohibitions on marriage (mahram relations) — there were minority opinions among early jurists that approached the matter differently.
It is reported that two prominent scholars, Imam Malik ibn Anas and Imam Ash-Shafi’i, held views that deviated from the mainstream on this issue. Several respected scholars from later generations, who had no interest in defaming them, transmitted these opinions in their works. Based on their reports, a child born from fornication was not seen, according to Malik and Shafi’i’s interpretations, as establishing a legal kinship that would prohibit marriage.
Below are key statements from major Islamic legal sources that describe these views:
1. From Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah:
“This is the opinion of the majority of scholars, but Malik and Shafi’i, as is well-known from their madhhabs, considered all of the aforementioned permissible.”
2. Also from Ibn Qudamah, further explanation:
“Since she is a stranger to him and does not trace her legal lineage back to him, there is no inheritance between them. If he acquires her as a slave, he does not free her. He is not obligated to provide for her, and she is not forbidden to him, just like most unrelated women.”
3. From Sharh Sahih Muslim by An-Nawawi:
“The opinion of Malik, Shafi’i, Abu Thawr, and others is that sexual intercourse through fornication does not bring about specific legal consequences. Therefore, a fornicator is permitted to marry the woman with whom he committed fornication, as well as her daughter.”
4. Specific transmission of Imam Shafi’i’s opinion as quoted by An-Nawawi:
“However, Ash-Shafi’i added, saying that it is permissible for a man to have intercourse with a daughter born from his own semen as a result of fornication.”
5. From Ikhtilaf al-A’imma al-‘Ulama by Ibn Hubayrah:
“The scholars differed regarding girls born from fornication. Is it permissible for the one who fathered her through fornication to marry her? Ahmad and Abu Hanifa said: no. But Imam Shafi’i said: it is permissible.”
The golden age of Islam
How the West Created the Narrative of the “Golden Age of Islam”
Let’s first determine the roots of the narrative about the Golden Age of Islam. First and foremost, it’s important to understand that the Golden Age of Islam is a cultural product of the post-colonial era that originated in the West. In our time, this narrative serves as a double-edged sword: in the Islamic world, it is used by da’wah preachers and apologists of Islam, while in the West it is employed by adherents of the neoliberal agenda. In the latter case, the Golden Age of Islam is one of the tools used in the cultural war against the traditional values of Western societies. It is a convenient instrument that helps impose false tolerance and erode the self-awareness of Western peoples.
From an academic standpoint, this narrative often portrays the Renaissance as a product of Islamic civilization. Today, the myth of the Golden Age of Islam holds a significant place in the curricula of humanities departments in Western Europe and North America, which are almost entirely dominated by leftist ideologies. These departments consistently produce pseudo-experts who will go on to tell you how Islam supposedly played a pivotal role in the development of progress.
We’ll come back to Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd separately later. As for Hasan Mehdi, who dresses like a model kafir, speaks English better than the average Brit, works for Western media tycoons, and graduated from the oldest educational institution in the Anglo-Saxon world — he can hardly be seen as a representative of the ummah of the Messenger of Allah. In short, Islam has been a convenient tool repeatedly used by Western elites over the past century, and there are at least a dozen more figures like Hasan Mehdi.
How did Muslims pick up the idea of an Islamic Golden Age?
What interests us much more today is how the ideological products of the Golden Age of Islam were picked up by the believers themselves. If we turn to the Islamic scene, the Golden Age of Islam is used here as a means of coping with the inferiority complex that Muslim societies experience in the face of the West’s political and technological dominance. The irony is that even in this case, Muslims try to defeat the enemy by playing by his rules and adopting his stylistic approach.
Just think about it: did Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, in the late 18th century, care that the Industrial Revolution was in full swing in Britain, while the Ottoman Empire was frantically modernizing its army by bringing in specialists from France? It’s highly unlikely that any of the Salafi scholars back then believed the Islamic world’s decline was due to falling behind in some kind of kafir science. To them, it was obvious that the Islamic ummah was mired in religious innovations (bid’ah), and whatever was going on among the unbelievers was a secondary issue.
This continued until the West penetrated not just the lands of Islam, but the minds of Muslims themselves. At that point, ignoring Western progress became impossible, and they seized upon a tool created by Western intellectual centers and repurposed it for their own use. This is how, in our time, the internet became flooded with tales about scientific miracles in the Quran, Islamic medicine, and claims that the spread of Islam supposedly influenced the development of science.
Now that we’ve clarified things a bit, let’s finally examine how Islamic the Golden Age of Islam truly was — what in this story is myth, and what is actually true. To begin with, we need to clarify Islam’s stance toward science as such.
The faithful often like to flaunt the hadith: “Seek knowledge, even if you have to go to China.” Even setting aside the fact that this hadith is weak, we’re already dealing with a distortion of meaning. When Muslims quote this phrase, they often, without realizing it, take it out of context. The issue is that in hadith literature, the word “knowledge” (‘ilm) is used in the Sharia context — and it means something completely different from the concept of “knowledge” in the Western tradition.
In the Islamic world, “knowledge” primarily refers to Sharia sciences, which have absolutely nothing to do with what we understand as science today. The phrase “seeking knowledge” is a fixed expression that specifically refers to the pursuit of Sharia knowledge from Islamic scholars. Therefore, the claim that Islam encourages the study of science is fundamentally incorrect. In fact, not only does Islam not promote science — it actively opposes it, since the scientific method is based on doubt, which in turn threatens a Muslim’s faith and is seen in Islam as a whispering from the devil or a sign of weak iman.
How Caliph Umar Burned the Books of the Persians and Greeks
The history of Islam itself can speak far more eloquently about Islam’s attitude toward science. Ibn Khaldun, who is often cited as a representative of the Golden Age of Islam, describes some very interesting things in his famous Muqaddimah, the prologue to Tarikh Ibn Khaldun.
In the section devoted to the rational sciences and their various types, where Ibn Khaldun derives the major core disciplines from philosophy and emphasizes the importance of logic, he also mentions the achievements of pre-Islamic civilizations in the field of astronomy. There, he writes that the main bearers of scientific knowledge at the time were the Persians and the Romans, and that before the advent of Islam, the sciences in those lands were like vast, overflowing seas.
Ibn Khaldun then focuses specifically on the Persians, writing that the rational sciences played an important role in their civilization, and that many scientific works reached the Greeks from the Persians through the conquests of Alexander the Great. After this, he finally turns to the period of Islamic conquests and describes how Muslims dealt with this cultural heritage.
When the Arabs invaded Persia, they seized an uncountable number of manuscripts. Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas wrote to Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab, requesting permission to distribute these books among the Muslims. Umar ordered him to throw the books into the water, saying that if they contained useful knowledge, then Allah had already given us better guidance; and if they contained harmful things, then Allah had protected us from them. So, the Muslims threw the manuscripts either into the water or into the fire, and the sciences of the Persians vanished into oblivion, never reaching us.
In a similar fashion, the Commander of the Faithful distinguished himself not only in Persia. When the forces of Amr ibn al-As captured Alexandria, they discovered Aristotle’s school, where many manuscripts were stored. When Umar ibn al-Khattab learned of this, according to the Egyptian Islamic historian al-Maqrizi, he ordered the books to be burned — a move sometimes mistakenly believed to be the destruction of the Library of Alexandria.
The Rise of Science and the Decline of Islam in the Caliphate
In general, these two examples clearly illustrate the attitude Muslims had toward science during the time of the Salaf. And really, if you think about it — what else could that attitude have been? If we start from the premise that Muslims emerged from Arabia in the 7th century, then we’re talking about a godforsaken land that neither Byzantium nor Persia had any real interest in. Naturally, the Arabs who lived there didn’t recognize the value of science, firstly because they simply had no exposure to it, and secondly because when you’re struggling to survive in the harsh conditions of the Arabian desert — in a tribal society with a raid-based economy — science is the last thing on your mind.
It was a different story when the Arabs moved beyond their natural environment. Upon leaving Arabia, Muslims didn’t end up just anywhere — they reached the very center of the known world. In just over a century, as they conquered one country after another, the Caliphate absorbed Sassanid Persia, Byzantium, and the southern part of the Western Roman Empire — along with the peoples who carried their ancient cultural legacies. And while the first 120 years saw the generations of the Sahabah and Tabi’un behaving like the Arabian tribe of Muhammad, with each new generation they increasingly blended with the conquered peoples and came under their cultural influence.
This explains the decline of Islam in the understanding of the righteous predecessors and its contamination by foreign philosophy and science brought in by disbelievers — Persians and Christians. It’s worth noting here that the beginning of the so-called Golden Age of Islam is typically dated to the late 8th and early 9th centuries, a time when the Islamic community was more divided than ever, and the Islamic state itself, under the rule of the Abbasids, saw a surge in anti-Arab sentiment and the growing influence of non-Arabs.
That was when science briefly flourished — but Islam had nothing to do with it, as we’ll now see. By the time of Harun al-Rashid’s rule, the ministries of the caliphate were firmly occupied by Persians from the ancient Barmakid family, who had held high positions even under the Sassanids before Islam. Under the Umayyads, Persians and other non-Arabs were treated as second-class citizens, but after the Abbasid revolution — in which the Persians played a major role — they gained such influence that the Arab Muslim caliph became, if not a symbolic figure, at least heavily dependent on the political experience of the Persian elite.
What’s even more important is that, based on a range of indirect signs, we can infer that the Persian elite merely used Islam as a cover to access power and advance their own agenda. This was well observed by their contemporaries. The Hanbali scholar Ibn Qutaybah quotes the court Arabic language teacher of Harun al-Rashid, Abu Sa’id al-Asma’i, who described the Barmakids in this way: “When polytheism is mentioned in gatherings, the faces of the Barmakids light up with joy, but when the Qur’an is recited in their presence, they start mumbling stories about Marw (Merv).”
Caliph al-Mamun - patron of sciences and Taghut
If during the time of Harun al-Rashid the Barmakids were still kept somewhat in check, then under his son, Caliph Abdullah al-Ma’mun, they began to feel even more confident. Incidentally, Caliph al-Ma’mun himself was conceived by Harun through a Persian slave woman named Marajil — the influence of Persian disbelievers was clearly present.
Al-Dhahabi, in Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala’, gives us the following description of Caliph al-Ma’mun: He was fond of literature, studied the rational sciences and the knowledge of those who came before Islam, and he ordered that their books be translated into Arabic. Al-Ma’mun repeatedly transported books of Greek philosophers from Cyprus to Damascus.
We also learn about al-Ma’mun’s sympathy for the misguided Mu‘tazilite sect — innovators and followers of Greek philosophy.
What do you think—does it befit the Commander of the Faithful to study the sciences of disbelievers and spread their books among the believers, while Caliph ‘Umar burned their manuscripts in his struggle to preserve the purity of this religion? Beyond al-Ma’mun’s passion for innovation and studying the forbidden, in his ambition to spread among Muslims beliefs that contradict the Qur’an and the Sunnah, he founded an entire academy in Baghdad called the “House of Wisdom.”
And what was done in this House of Wisdom? Were they copying out the sacred pages of the Qur’an? Were they collecting the authentic hadiths passed down from the Messenger of Allah? Oh no! In this House, al-Ma’mun gathered Persians and Christians and generously rewarded them with gold for translating into the language of the Messenger of Allah the works of Plato, Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen, and mathematicians and philosophers from among the polytheist Indians.
And was this not influenced by the hypocritical Barmakids, who had already supported such initiatives under their own king, Khosrow I, who encouraged the study of sciences and gave shelter to fugitive Syrian Nestorian scholars?
Bayt al-Hikma was essentially a direct copy of the Academy of Gondishapur in the Khuzestan province of modern Iran, which was a major scientific center under the Sassanids. Also worth noting is that the patron of sciences, al-Ma’mun, initiated the so-called Mihna — an inquisition testing the loyalty of Sunni scholars to the regime. And among its targets was none other than Ahmad ibn Hanbal himself, who surely needs no introduction.
The end of the golden age
The reign of al-Ma’mun was perhaps the only period when sciences received a boost and experienced a revival in the lands ravaged by the Arabs. However, this did not last long. With the arrival of al-Mutawakkil, the pursuit of knowledge waned, and the Muslim elite returned to their usual activities—ethnic conflicts, power struggles, and intra-religious disputes. Meanwhile, science continued to develop only on the periphery of the Islamic world, and even there, it faced criticism from scholars. To understand this, let’s briefly review the biographies of the scholars who lived in Islamic countries and whose fame Muslims often try to claim for themselves.
Ibn Sina
The first of them is Ibn Sina, better known as Avicenna. An ethnic Persian from the village of Afshana in the Bukhara region, Ibn Sina gained fame primarily as a physician and philosopher. His father was a preacher of the Ismaili sect of Shi’ism. Ibn Sina studied Euclid and Aristotle’s metaphysics, and, as reported by Az-Zahabi, to study the latter, Ibn Sina had to recite it 40 times before he memorized it, and then, in order to fully understand it, he had to study the commentaries of Al-Farabi on metaphysics. From his biography, we see that he spent most of his life practicing medicine among the rulers of Persian cities, and he had little interest in Islamic sciences, not to mention that the philosophy he studied directly contradicted Islamic beliefs, for which he was criticized not only by Sunni scholars but even by Sufis.
Al-Farabi
If we mentioned Aristotle’s metaphysics, we should also mention the author of its commentary, Al-Farabi, who was either a Turk or a Sogdian Persian, and whom Az-Zahabi calls the “wise sheikh of philosophy,” who, as you might have guessed, was involved in philosophy. In addition to this, he also managed to write a whole treatise on music, “Kitab al-Musiqa al-Kabir.” And if you thought that in this book he discusses the prohibition of music, I must disappoint you. Not only does he not prohibit it, but he also teaches it.
Ibn Rushd
al-Khwarizmi
Finally, we must mention the Persian mathematician al-Khwarizmi, who is credited with coining the terms 'algorithm' and 'algebra.' What’s surprising is that he doesn’t even appear in *Sier-an-Nubol*. Despite living much earlier than Dagobi—during the reign of the well-known Caliph al-Ma’mun—he even headed the Baghdad branch of the Academy of Gundishapur under him.
Yet al-Khwarizmi had virtually no connection to Islam, let alone the humanities. Apart from his work on history (*tarikh*), all his other writings were devoted to mathematics, geography, and astronomy. Moreover, al-Khwarizmi derived the foundation of his mathematical knowledge in Central Asia from the works of Greek and Indian scholars.
Islam is a religion of peace?
Let’s turn to the interpretations of the Quran. Concerning the words of the Almighty in Surah Al-Baqarah — “There is no compulsion in religion” — we find the following explanation from the prominent Sunni mufassir Ibn Kathir:
“The opinion of many scholars is that this verse refers to the People of the Book who entered their religion before it was abrogated and replaced, and who paid the jizya tax.”
“Others have said that this ruling was abrogated by the verse of fighting, since it is necessary to call all nations to the acceptance of the true religion — the religion of Islam.”
“And if any of them refuses to accept Islam without paying or surrendering the jizya, then they are to be fought until they are killed.”
“And that is the meaning of compulsion, as Allah the Almighty has said: ‘You will be called to fight a people of great might. You will fight them, or they will submit to Islam.’"
“The Almighty also said: ‘O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh with them.’”
“And again the Almighty said: ‘O you who believe, fight those disbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.’”
“And as stated in an authentic hadith, Allah will marvel at people who enter Paradise in chains — meaning that captives brought to Muslim lands in shackles and collars will later accept Islam, and their deeds and sins will be rectified so that they will become among the people of Paradise.”
Beautiful, isn’t it, dear friend? As for the verse ‘Whoever saves one life…’, and so on — here, my friends, you didn’t even bother to read what was written a few verses earlier, or what follows this verse. Allah recounts the biblical story of Cain killing Abel and then quotes a Jewish legal tract — the Sanhedrin — which the author of the Quran, in his ignorance, presents as the direct speech of God. That’s where your favorite quote, addressed to the Children of Israel, actually comes from.
And the next verse already announces the Islamic order, promising for anyone who wages war against Allah and His Messenger and seeks to cause corruption on earth — execution by crucifixion or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides.
As for all the hadiths of varying authenticity about Muhammad visiting a sick Jew, it is enough to recall the narration found in Sahih Muslim from Umar ibn al-Khattab, in which Muhammad promises to expel all Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula. And yet, a Muslim will still speak about how a Muslim should live in peace with others. Moreover, some everyday Muslims even manage to befriend kuffar and call them brothers.
From a human perspective, this is completely normal and right — but the deity Muslims worship does not wish for that. “Believers cannot take disbelievers as allies or friends, for whoever does so has nothing to do with Allah.” This verse — which, as you might guess, is from Medina — is one of the foundations of the doctrine of Al-Wala’ wal-Bara’ (“Loyalty and Disavowal”), which obligates Muslims to show loyalty to fellow Muslims and disavowal toward disbelievers.
The only exception to this rule is when a Muslim is genuinely afraid of the disbelievers. On this, Imam Ibn Kathir gives the following commentary:
“If you fear them — being in certain lands and under certain circumstances — a believer may outwardly show friendship, but should not intend it in their heart.”
In other words, Islam teaches you deceit and cunning — gently called precaution. And to reinforce this point, Ibn Kathir cites the hadith of At-Tirmidhi from Abu Ad-Darda:
“Indeed, we smile in the faces of some people, while our hearts curse them.”
The last two arguments you may hear from everyday Muslims are:
1. That all of the above concerns only the polytheists who were hostile to Muslims.
2. That it was only relevant during the Prophet’s time and that of his companions.
The second argument shows that you are not paying attention and do not read your sources. Islam is a religion that does not recognize time limits or territorial boundaries: “Jihad will continue until the Day of Judgment.”
What was revealed in verse 29 of Surah At-Tawbah is the final ruling for believers concerning the kuffar. The consensus of Ahl al-Sunnah mufassirs is that this verse was revealed as an irrevocable command for Muslims to uncompromisingly establish the will of Allah and His Messenger across all corners of the earth. Ibn Kathir writes the following:
“This noble verse was revealed as a command to fight the People of the Book, after the affairs with the polytheists had been settled and people were entering Allah’s religion in crowds.”
“And when the Arabian Peninsula had been set aright, Allah and His Messenger commanded the fighting of the People of the Two Books — the Jews and the Christians. This occurred in the ninth year of the Hijrah. And that is why the Messenger of Allah prepared for war with the Romans and called the people to it.”
So, returning to the first argument: as we have seen, neither Christians nor Jews are to be considered friends or brothers by Muslims — they are to be fought until they either accept Islam or pay tribute in humiliation.
Moreover, you must understand that this command essentially applies to all non-Muslims, since during Muhammad’s time, Allah was apparently unaware that, in addition to Christians, Jews, and pagans, there were also Buddhists and people who simply don’t believe in God or worship anyone.
Later, Muslims found a rather elegant solution to this oversight: they divided the kuffar into three main groups — Christians, Jews, and polytheists. Into the last category, alongside pagans, they continue to lump in virtually anyone they don’t understand but who must, in the Muslim mind, be shoved into one of the categories of disbelievers.
How the Prophet Stole Someone Else's Wife
We will talk about the story of the Prophet’s marriage to one of his thirteen wives, Zaynab bint Jahsh. Before turning to the sources, let’s first familiarize ourselves with the main characters. I believe the Prophet Muhammad needs no introduction, so we will immediately move on to the other important figure in this story, Zayd ibn Harithah.
Zayd ibn Harithah was a slave who, as a young child, was taken captive and passed from hand to hand until he was gifted to Muhammad and his first wife, the merchant Khadijah bint Khuwaylid. Muhammad grew so fond of Zayd that he granted him freedom and adopted him, after which Zayd became known as Zayd ibn Muhammad—at least until a certain point, which we will discuss later.
The central figure of the conflict in this story is Zaynab bint Jahsh, a woman from the noble Asad clan of the Quraysh tribe. Muhammad arranged her marriage to his adopted son, Zayd. This caused resentment both among her relatives and within Zaynab herself, who was not eager to marry Zayd. Nevertheless, the word of the Messenger of Allah was law, and the marriage was carried out.
All might have been well, and we might not even have paid attention to this story, if not for one crucial detail. To understand it properly, we need to turn to the primary sources. The story in question can be found in Volume Two of Tarikh al-Tabari, specifically in the section dedicated to the events of the fifth year of the Hijrah. There, al-Tabari writes:
“Then came the fifth year of the Hijrah, and in this year, the Messenger of Allah married Zaynab bint Jahsh.”
I draw your attention to the fact that at that time, Zaynab was already married to Zayd.
“The Messenger of Allah decided to visit Zayd ibn Harithah, who was then called ‘Zayd, the son of Muhammad.’ Apparently, they missed each other by an hour. Muhammad came to Zayd’s house, called for him, but did not find him there. Instead, Zayd’s wife, Zaynab bint Jahsh, came out to greet him, lightly clothed.”
And here the most interesting part begins.
Muhammad turned away from her, and she said that Zayd was not home, inviting him inside, saying:
“Come in, O Messenger of Allah, for you are dear to me as my father and mother.”
Muhammad refused to enter. When Zayd found out that the Messenger of Allah had been at his door, he hurried home, hastily throwing something on, and Muhammad was pleased by what he saw—it sparked admiration in him. Muhammad turned away and began to murmur something unintelligible, from which only the phrases could be understood:
“Blessed be Allah, the Almighty. Blessed be Allah, the One who guides hearts.”
When Zayd returned home, his wife told him that the Messenger of Allah had come. Zayd asked:
“You invited him in, didn’t you?”
She replied:
“I did, but he refused.”
Zayd then asked:
“Did he say anything else?”
She answered:
“When he turned away, I heard him say: ‘Blessed be Allah the Almighty, blessed be Allah who guides hearts.’”
Now, how did Zayd react to this situation, which at first glance seemed unremarkable? He went to the Messenger of Allah and said:
“O Messenger of Allah, I heard you came to my house but refused to enter. O you who are dearer to me than my own father and mother. Perhaps you admired Zaynab, and I should divorce her?”
Muhammad, portraying nobility, replied, encouraging Zayd to keep his wife.
At first glance, it seemed as if no one was forcing anything. But remember for a moment who Muhammad was. Put yourself in Zayd’s place and imagine how you would feel.
Al-Tabari notes:
“From that day, Zayd could no longer approach her.”
He would come to Muhammad to discuss it, and Muhammad would repeat:
“Keep your wife.”
Eventually, Al-Tabari writes:
“Zayd divorced Zaynab, and she became permissible (for marriage).”
That is, her waiting period (’iddah) ended.
Of course, after 1400 years, it’s impossible to know exactly what happened, but it’s probably not a coincidence that Al-Tabari’s narrative emphasizes the phrase:
“She pleased the Messenger of Allah.”
Most likely, someone—maybe even Zaynab herself—told Zayd about Muhammad’s feelings. It’s possible that Zaynab, being from a noble family, preferred to become the wife of the Prophet rather than remain the wife of a former slave. Maybe she hinted to Zayd herself. Who knows.
What matters most is how the Messenger of Allah himself behaved after this incident.
Miraculously, verse 37 of Surah Al-Ahzab was revealed:
“And [remember, O Muhammad], when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor [meaning Zayd, whom Muhammad freed from slavery]: ‘Keep your wife and fear Allah.’ But you concealed within yourself that which Allah was to disclose, and you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him.”
If you still don’t understand what’s going on here, let’s turn to one of the most authoritative Sunni commentators, Ibn Kathir.
On the phrase “You concealed within yourself that which Allah was to disclose,” Ibn Kathir writes:
“This verse was revealed concerning Zaynab bint Jahsh and Zayd ibn Harithah.”
More precisely:
“Allah informed His Prophet that Zaynab would become one of his wives even before he married her. When Zayd would complain about his wife, the Prophet would tell him: ‘Fear Allah and keep your wife,’ even though Muhammad already knew Allah’s decree and kept it hidden in his heart.”
Remarkable, isn’t it? Even when Allah himself had allegedly granted him such a favor, Muhammad still tried to preserve Zayd’s marriage.
So what else was revealed in that verse?
“When Zayd had finished with her [whether through consummation or divorce], We married her to you…”
Read the Qur’an yourself, reread the verse thoughtfully, and ask yourself: do you really believe the Qur’an is the Word of God? Are you truly ready to believe that the Creator of the Universe would, in His sacred and final message to mankind, provide an excuse for Muhammad, who happened to become aroused at the sight of lightly clothed Zaynab bint Jahsh?
Ibn Kathir comments further:
“When Zayd fulfilled his desire with her and divorced her, Allah married Zaynab to the Messenger of Allah. Her guardian in marriage was Allah Himself, and Muhammad married her without a guardian, without a marriage contract, dowry, or witnesses.”
Before we move to the final part of the verse, it’s worth mentioning something else Ibn Kathir tells us:
“When Zaynab’s waiting period ended, the Messenger of Allah told Zayd ibn Harithah: ‘Announce to her that I wish to marry her.’ Zayd went to her while she was kneading dough. He said: ‘When I saw her, I felt such awe that I couldn’t even look at her and deliver the message.’ So he turned away and said: ‘O Zaynab, good news—the Messenger of Allah wishes to marry you.’ She responded: ‘I will not do anything until I seek guidance from my Lord.’ Then she prayed, and revelation came down, and Muhammad came to her without seeking permission.”
Ibn Kathir further describes the celebration that followed.
Thus, not only did Muhammad shamelessly take advantage of the situation while justifying it as divine will, but he also made Zayd—who clearly suffered from the separation—personally deliver the proposal to Zaynab.
When you read all this, you can’t help but remember the claim that Muhammad is “the best of mankind” and “the ultimate role model.” Learning what Muhammad did and said, while hearing such statements, naturally leads to deep disgust.
Even more troubling is the fact that some people are so entrenched in their ignorance that they feel no discomfort whatsoever reading this story. Worse, they feel obliged to harm anyone who criticizes their “infallible” authority.
This is pure sectarianism: no matter how disgraceful the actions are, the believers will still compromise their conscience to defend their prophet.
At the end of the verse, Muhammad justifies himself:
“…so that there would be no blame upon the believers concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they have no longer any need of them. And the command of Allah must be fulfilled.”
It would seem strange if Allah sent down a divine revelation solely to provide moral justification for Muhammad’s desires without offering something to the broader Muslim community as well.
For example, ordinary believers are only allowed four wives, while Muhammad had up to twelve. People might start to suspect something, so it was necessary to provide some concessions for the community too.
Finally, it should be noted that this whole story had far-reaching consequences. From this point on, Allah decided that adopted sons could no longer bear the names of their adoptive fathers.
On this point, Ibn Kathir comments:
“Before prophethood, Muhammad adopted Zayd ibn Harithah, and people called him Zayd ibn Muhammad. Allah abolished this by saying: ‘He has not made your adopted sons your [true] sons. Call them by their [biological] fathers’ names; that is more just in the sight of Allah.’”
And this was further confirmed and clarified by Muhammad’s marriage to Zaynab after Zayd’s divorce. Thus were the morals of the man considered the best to ever walk the earth.
Permissibility of child marriages
I won't comment much here either. I'll give you arguments.
1. The Qur’an permits marriage to girls who have not yet reached puberty.
Evidence:
Let’s open Surah At-Talaq (65:4):
“And those of your women who no longer expect menstruation—if you doubt [their waiting period], their prescribed waiting time is three months, as well as for those who have not yet menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah – He will make matters easy for him.”
This verse mentions a waiting period (iddah) not only for women past menopause but also for those who have not yet menstruated, meaning prepubescent girls.
Since the waiting period is to determine whether a woman is pregnant after divorce, it implies that sexual intercourse could have taken place even with such girls.
2. The Tafsir confirms that the verse concerns marriage to prepubescent girls.
Evidence:
Referring to the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir:
“Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period (iddah) for women whose menstruation has stopped due to their age. Their waiting period is three months, different from those who still menstruate, for whom the waiting period is three menstrual cycles. The same applies to those who have not yet menstruated.”
Ibn Kathir clearly states that the rule also applies to girls who have not yet reached menstruation. Thus, traditional Islamic scholarship acknowledges the possibility of marriage and sexual relations with prepubescent girls.
3. The Qur’an does not establish a minimum age for marriage.
Evidence:
Let’s examine Surah An-Nisa, verses 23–24:
“Prohibited to you [for marriage] are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your paternal aunts, your maternal aunts, daughters of your brother, daughters of your sister, your milk-mothers who nursed you, your milk-sisters, mothers of your wives, your stepdaughters under your guardianship born of your wives unto whom you have gone in—but there is no blame upon you if you have not gone in to them—and [the] wives of your sons who are from your own loins. And [also prohibited is] to take two sisters in marriage simultaneously…”
“And [also prohibited are] married women, except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, provided that you seek them [in marriage] with your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation…”
In these verses, Allah enumerates the categories of women prohibited for marriage but makes no mention of any age restrictions. Therefore, the Qur’an does not set a minimum age for marriage.
4. The Sunnah of the Prophet confirms the practice of marrying prepubescent girls.
Evidence:
From Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 5133:
“Narrated Aisha: The Prophet married me when I was six years old, and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine years old. Then I remained with him for nine years.”
This hadith clearly states that the marriage contract was made when Aisha was six years old, and consummation took place when she was nine — which, by modern standards, is before full physical maturity.
5. Modern claims that Aisha was older are unfounded.
Commentary:
Some contemporary authors argue that Aisha was actually eighteen or nineteen at the time of her marriage, based on indirect historical indications. However, this contradicts the authentic narrations reported directly by Aisha herself and authenticated in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.
Thus, attempts to reinterpret Aisha’s age are deliberate historical distortions.
how the prophet justified passions with the Quran /Or how Muhammad composed the Quran on the fly.
I have already discussed the story of how Muhammad took the wife of Zayd ibn Harithah, conveniently receiving a revelation from Allah at just the right time to justify it. Today, we will continue this topic and examine a few more examples that clearly demonstrate how the Messenger of Allah manipulated people, using Quranic verses to justify his personal desires. There are quite a few examples of this.
Let’s take the Surah Al-Ahzab, for instance, where Allah “married” Muhammad to Zayd’s wife, Zaynab bint Jahsh, who Muhammad had taken a liking to. In addition to this, there are several verses in that Surah that would seriously shake the faith of any reasonable person in the idea that Muhammad had any sincere prophetic mission. Despite the Quran being regarded in Islam as the final message from God to mankind, expressing His will until Judgment Day, Muhammad had no problem using “divine revelation” to address his everyday needs.
For example, when reading verses 30–33, we see that Muhammad was very concerned about controlling his wives. So much so that the Lord of the Worlds, in His revelation, sternly warns Muhammad’s wives to be obedient if they do not want to face heavenly consequences:
“O wives of the Prophet! If any of you commits a clear immorality, her punishment will be doubled. That is easy for Allah.”
“But whoever of you devoutly obeys Allah and His Messenger and does righteousness – We will give her her reward twice, and We have prepared for her a noble provision.”
In other words, Muhammad was very familiar with the “carrot and stick” method.
“O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other women. If you fear Allah, then do not be soft in speech, lest he in whose heart is disease should covet, but speak in an appropriate manner.”
“And stay in your houses, and do not display yourselves like the display of the former times of ignorance. Establish prayer, give zakat, and obey Allah and His Messenger.”
Since Muhammad himself struggled with such desires, he measured others by his own standards and feared falling into the same kind of situation Zayd ibn Harithah did. Therefore, Allah intervened to remind the Prophet’s wives that it would be safer for them to limit their outings and contact with the outside world.
Just three verses later, we come across Muhammad’s scandalous story with Zayd’s wife, and after some clumsy justifications — or whether Allah himself excuses him, it’s hard to tell — we find a very telling verse where Muhammad’s authorship behind the words attributed to Allah becomes glaringly obvious:
“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 given you, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and aunts who emigrated with you, and any believing woman who offers herself to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to marry her. This is only for you, excluding the [other] believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess. But We have made this concession for you in order that there be no discomfort upon you…”
How about that? Pretty “convenient,” right?
There’s another point to clarify here. It’s often argued — and not without basis — that the Arabic word اِسْتَنْكَحَ (translated here as “to marry”) doesn’t necessarily mean “to marry” in the legal sense, but rather “to have sexual intercourse.” The basic verb ناكَحَ can, according to dictionaries, mean both “to marry” and “to have sex.”
Thus, the verse could more accurately be translated as:
“The Prophet is permitted any believing woman who offers herself to him if he wishes to sleep with her.”
You can easily verify this interpretation: go up to any Arab and say أريد أن أنكح بنتك (“I want to have sex with your daughter”) — and watch the reaction you get. It will not be pleasant.
Moreover, the context of debauchery is also supported indirectly through verse 230 of Surah Al-Baqarah and through a hadith recorded by Al-Bukhari regarding divorce. Verse 230 says:
“If he divorces her [for the third time], she is not lawful for him until she has married another husband…”
But many translations — such as Kuliyev’s — sneakily render it “until she marries another,” hiding the implication.
However, in Sahih al-Bukhari, there’s a hadith where a woman comes to the Prophet after divorcing her first husband and marrying a second, who turned out to be impotent. The second husband denies it, claiming he is potent and blaming her rebelliousness. Muhammad, understanding that the woman wants to return to her first husband, tells her:
“You cannot return to your first husband until the second one tastes your sweetness.”
I’m sure you get the metaphor.
So, through simple reasoning, it becomes clear that Allah supposedly granted Muhammad an exclusive right to have intercourse with any woman who offered herself to him.
On the other hand, if you consult the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, he does say it refers to marriage, albeit a very peculiar kind of marriage:
“Meaning: any believing woman who offers herself to the Prophet — if the Prophet wishes, he may marry her without paying a dowry.”
But here’s the problem: in Sahih Muslim, another hadith clarifies that the word نكاح (from نكح) — usually translated as “marriage” — absolutely refers to sexual intercourse. In this hadith, Muhammad commands Muslims to abstain from intercourse with their wives during menstruation, saying:
“اصنعوا كل شيء إلا النكاح” — “Do everything with her except intercourse.”
Therefore, considering the broader hadith context and the fact that in the verse being discussed, Muhammad is exempt from paying mahr (the bridal gift), it heavily suggests that what was actually intended here was straightforward sexual access.
Finally, even those close to Muhammad seemed to realize how self-serving these “revelations” were. In a hadith from Muslim, Aisha says she was jealous of the women who offered themselves to the Prophet and would mockingly say:
“Can a woman offer herself?”
To which, conveniently, Allah would immediately “reveal” another verse:
“You may defer [the turn of] any of them you wish, and you may take to yourself any you wish. And if you desire any of those you had set aside, there is no blame upon you.”
Aisha sarcastically noted:
“By Allah, I see that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desires.”
I might release part 2 if you like this analysis.
