Chapter 1--The
Status of Women in Public and Social Roles
1. Women are invalid
witnesses
As brought in
Tractate Shvuot 30a: "The vows of testimony apply to men but not
women…[for women are invalid as witnesses--Rashi]. The Torah says 'And the two
men stood' [Deuteronomy 19:17] when speaking of witnesses [to teach you that
women do not bear witness--Rashi]."
Similarly, it is
written in Bava Kama 88a: "A woman, who may marry into the community, is
invalid to give testimony."
Thus ruled
Maimonides in Laws of Testimony, chapter nine, halacha two: "Women are
invalid to testify. This is from the Torah, for it says, 'based on two
witnesses,' using masculine nouns and not feminine." (See the Kesef
Mishneh and Ridbaz for why Maimonides came up with this innovative
explanation.)
And thus it is
written in the Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, Laws of Testimony, paragraph
35, section 14: "A woman is invalid [to testify]."
We find that in
every case which requires two witnesses a woman is invalid to testify, be it in
monetary suits or in capital suits, and she is even invalid to witness a
marriage. There is no greater discrimination and insult--a thoughtful and wise
person is not allowed to testify before the beit din about things that person
witnesses simply because that person is of the female gender!
Some rabbis are not
comfortable with this grave discrimination which takes the right to testify
away from women. These rabbis go and find excuses which do not match the
explicit Halachic stance, and they say that a woman is invalid to give
testimony because it is not the way of women to leave their homes and go to the
beit din, for "all the honor of the king's daughter is inward." Not
only does this argument not solve the existing discrimination, it does not even
explain why women are invalid to witness marriages, since they are, in any
case, at the wedding ceremony to gladden the hearts of the bride and groom.
Also, there is an explicit Tosfot which says that were it not expressly
forbidden by the Scriptures, women would have to testify, even though it is
"her nature to stay home" (in those ancient days). The Tosfot on
Tractate Shvuot 30a, commented on the Gemara: "All the honor of the king's
daughter is inward -- and if you say: even now, that it deals with bearing a
testimony, where do we find that the Scripture excludes women? It may be that
the Scripture specified men because all the honor of the king's daughter is
inward [so it would not be honorable to mention women in this regard, but this
does not mean they cannot testify in court] -- it should be answered that [this
consideration is irrelevant] to witnesses because they must, in any event, come
to the court for hearsay evidence is not valid; but when a woman is one of the
parties in a case, she may set her claims forth through an agent."
2. Women are invalid
to judge
Tractate Niddah 49b:
"All who are valid to judge are valid to give testimony, and there are
those valid to give testimony who are not valid to judge." Since women are
invalid to bear testimony, they are invalid to sit in judgement as judges. As
the Tosfot wrote on Tractate Yevamot 45b, s.v. mi lo: "Women are not
suitable to serve as judges as it says, 'All who are valid to judge are valid
to bear testimony' (Niddah 49b). In the Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Yoma, it is
explicitly stated that since women do not testify they do not judge."
The Shulchan Aruch
ruled similarly in Choshen Mishpat paragraph seven, section four: "Women
may not judge."
Even though we have
found in the Scripture that Deborah was a judge, as written in Judges 4:4,
"Deborah, wife of Lappidoth, was a prophetess; she judged Israel at that
time," the Tosfot on Tractate Bava Kama 15a explain: "The verse
(Judges 4:4) about Deborah, 'she judged Israel,' should not serve as proof that
a woman may judge; people only accepted her because of the Shechinah."
Similarly, the Tosfot on Tractate Shvuot 29b: "The Scriptures (Judges 4:4)
write that she judged Israel. It means that she taught them laws. Since she was
a prophetess, they accepted her upon themselves." In the Igrot Moshe
responsa, Yoreh Deah, paragraph 45, it is clarified: "They accepted
Deborah of their own free will, that is, they were not forced. What is meant by
invalid to judge isn't the actual judgement, but the enforcement of the
verdict."
We see that a woman
may not serve as a judge who enforces her verdicts and rulings. Let us compare
this discrimination to the civil courts: female judges preside on all levels,
from district courts to the Supreme Court, and they rule with wisdom and justice
and enforce their rulings and verdicts.
To illustrate how
illogical it is to make women invalid to judge, we will bring the law of a
non-Jewish woman who wishes to convert. The ritual immersion of a convert must
be before a beit din, as brought in the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, 288,
section four. But how will the judges watch the naked
female convert immerse herself? Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah paragraph 288,
section two: "And if she is a woman, women place her in the water up to
her neck with the judges outside, and [the judges] teach her some lenient and
some strict laws while she is sitting in the water. Afterwards she immerses
herself in front of them [the male judges--one hopes the water is cloudy…] and
they turn back around and leave so as not to see her rising from the
water."
The excuses by
various rabbis that women are not accustomed to leaving their homes fall to
naught with this law, for the opposite is true. It is obvious that women are
accustomed to visit the ritual bath and could testify easily that the female
convert had immersed herself. It is the male rabbis who are not usually in the
women's ritual bath.
And since a woman is
invalid to judge, she is invalid to revoke vows, as brought in Pitchei
Teshivah, Yoreh Deah, paragraph 228, subsection two: "See the responsum of
R' Akiva Eiger, in the omissions from paragraph 73, where he wrote that it
looks reasonable that relatives [can revoke vows], for they are not personally
disqualified in this regard since they may judge others; and [it] also [looks
reasonable that vows may be revoked] at night, for only time differentiates in
this case [between court sessions, which may not be held at night, and revoke
of vows] -- but this is not the issue with women [who cannot revoke
vows]."
3. Women cannot be
heads of state or queens or fulfill any other role of authority,
As brought in Sifri
(Deuteronomy, section 157): "'You shall place,' and if he dies, appoint
another instead. 'A king,' and not a queen." And thus it is in Midrash
Tannaim (HaMidrash HaGadol) on Deuteronomy 17:15: "'You shall place upon
yourself a king' -- and not a queen; this teaches that one may not appoint a
women to reign and all positions of authority over Israel are filled only
by men."
How the Hebrew
Scriptures (Old Testament) generally viewed women:
Women's behavior was
extremely limited in ancient times, much as the women of Afghanistan during the
recent Taliban oppression. They were:
Unmarried women were not allowed to leave the home of their father without
permission.
Married women were not allowed to leave the home of their husband, without
permission.
They were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority.
They could not testify in court.
They could not appear in public venues.
They were not allowed to talk to strangers.
They had to be doubly veiled when they left their homes. 1
Women were
considered inferior to men:
Genesis 1:27 to 3:24:
In the first creation story (Genesis 1:27) God is described as creating man,
both male and female at the same time: "So God created man in his own
image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he
them." 2 This might be interpreted as implying equality between the two
genders.
But in the second creation story, (Genesis 2:7) God formed only a man:
"...the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Realizing that
he needed a helper (Genesis 2:18), God marched all of the animals past Adam
(Genesis 2:19-20) looking for a suitable animal. Finding none suitable, God
created Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. The term "helper" has
historically been interpreted as implying an inferior role for Eve, although
some modern interpreters believe that the word can mean a companion of equal
status. "...the Hebrew word translated "helper" is used
twenty-one times in the Old Testament: twenty of these cases refer to help from
a superior." (3) In Genesis 2:27, Adam later asserts his authority over
Eve by naming her: "...she shall be called Woman, because she was
taken out of Man." In ancient times, one was believed to have authority
over a person or thing by naming it.
Genesis 3:16: Adam's role is to be Eve's master. The King James Version (KJV),
New International Version (NIV), and Revised Standard Version (RSV) use the
term "rule" to describe Adam's role over Eve: "...thy desire
shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." The Living Bible
uses the term "master". The Modern Language Bible uses
"dominate". By implication, all of their descendents are would have
the same power imbalance between spouses.
A man could marry (literally "become the master of the woman") as
often as he desired. In Genesis 4:19, Lamech became the first known polygamist
when he took two wives. Subsequent men who took multiple wives included: Esau
with 3 wives; Jacob: 2; Ashur: 2; Gideon: many; Elkanah: 2; David: many;
Solomon: 700 wives of royal birth; Rehaboam: 3; Abijah: 14. Jehoram, Joash,
Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.
Genesis 16:2 : Sarah gave permission to her husband Abraham to engage in sexual
intercourse with her maid, Hagar: "Sarai said unto Abram...I pray thee, go
in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her." Presumably
this was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the
society of the day that she was required to submit to multiple rapes at her
owner's command.
Genesis 19:8: The men of Sodom gathered around Lot's house, and asked that he
bring his two guests out so that the men can "know" them. This is
frequently interpreted as a desire to gang rape the visitors, although other
interpretations are possible. Lot offers his two virgin daughters to be raped
instead: He is recorded as saying: "I have two daughters which have not
known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is
good in your eyes." Yet, even after this despicable act, Lot is still
regarded as an honorable man, worth saving from the destruction of the city.
Allowing one's daughters to be sexually assaulted by multiple rapists appears
to be treated as a minor transgression, because of the low status of the young
women. More details on Genesis 19.
Genesis 21:10: A man could simultaneously keep numerous concubines. These were
sexual partners of an even lower status than a wife was. As implied in this
verse she could be dismissed when no longer needed: Sarah is recorded as
saying: "...Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this
bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac." Abraham had two
concubines; Gideon: at least 1; David: many; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz: 1;
Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60;
Solomon: 300; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.
In Exodus 1:15-16, the Pharaoh ordered the midwives to kill all Jewish boys at
birth, because of the threat that they might pose to the kingdom. "And he
said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon
the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter,
then she shall live." The girls, being considered less important, were not
seen as a threat; they were allowed to live.
Exodus 20 & 21: This is perhaps the most misogynistic pair of chapters in
the Bible. A number of verses describe a woman as the property of her father.
At marriage, her ownership was transferred to her new husband:
Exodus 20:17 lists the last of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not covet
thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his
manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is
thy neighbour's." It is important to realize that a manservent and a
maidservant were male and female slaves. They were not a hired butler and maid.
The tenth commandment forbids coveting your neighbor's house, wife, male slave
female slave, animals or anything else that the neighbor owns. The wife is
clearly regarded as equivalent to a piece of property.
Exodus 21:2-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve:
and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing....If his master have given
him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children
shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself." A slaveowner was
permitted to give a woman to his male slave as a wife. There is no indication
that women were consulted during this type of transaction. After serving six
years, he would leave, but his wife and children would remain slaves of the
slaveowner. Again, there is no indication that the woman was consulted on this
arrangement.
Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she
shall not go out as the menservants do." A father could sell his daughter
as a slave. Even though a male slave is automatically given his freedom after 6
years, a female slave remained a slave forever.
Exodus 22:16-17: The first seventeen verses of Exodus 22 deal with restitution
in case of stealing, or damage to, a person's property. Verses 16 and 17 deal
with the case of a man who seduces a virgin. This was viewed as a property
offense against the woman's father. The woman was expected to marry the
seducer. If her father refused to transfer ownership of his daughter to the
seducer, the latter was required to required to pay money to her father. The
money would be in compensation for the damage to the father's property - his
daughter. It would be difficult for a non-virgin to marry.
Exodus 21:22-25 describes a situation in which two men are fighting and one
hits a pregnant woman. If the woman has a miscarriage because of the blow, the
man is punished as the husband decides and must pay a fine for their act - not
to the woman, but to her husband, presumably because he has been deprived of a
child. The woman had no involvement. Exodus 21:22: "...he shall be surely
punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay
as the judges determine."
Exodus 23:17 states that only men are required to take part in the feasts of
unleavened bread, of harvest and of ingathering: "Three times in the year
all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD."
Leviticus: This book deals mainly with the duties of the priesthood, the
Levites. Women were not allowed to become priests.
Leviticus 12:1-5 Quotes God as stating that a woman who has given birth to a
boy is ritually unclean for 7 days. If the baby is a girl, the mother is
unclean for 14 days. "If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man
child: then she shall be unclean seven days...But if she bear a maid child,
then she shall be unclean two weeks..." It would appear that the act of
having a baby is a highly polluting act. To give birth to a girl is twice as
polluting as is giving birth to a boy.
In Leviticus 18:20 adultery was defined as a man having sexual intercourse with
his neighbor's wife. "Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy
neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her." Leviticus 20:10 "And
the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that
committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress
shall surely be put to death." Deuteronomy 22:23 extends this prohibition
to a man sleeping with a woman who is engaged to be married. If a man has an
affair with an unmarried woman, the act is not considered adultery. Married men
were free to visit prostitutes. A man who committed adultery did not commit a
wrongful act against his own wife, but rather against his male neighbor.
Leviticus 27:6 A child aged 1 month to five years of age was worth 5 shekels if
a boy and 3 shekels if a girl. "And if it be from a month old even unto
five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of
silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of
silver."
Numbers 3:15 shows that a census counted only male infants over the age of one
month, boys and men. "Number the children of Levi after the house of their
fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou
number them." Females were not considered worthy of being included.
Numbers 5:11-31 describes a lengthy magical ritual that women were forced to
perform if their husbands suspected them of having had an affair. A priest
prepared a potion composed of holy water mixed with sweepings from the floor of
the tabernacle. He proclaimed a curse over the potion and required the woman to
drink it. If she were guilty, she would suffer greatly: her abdomen would swell
and her thighs waste away. There is no similar magical test for husbands suspecting
of having an affair with another woman.
In Numbers 27:8-11, Moses describes the rules of inheritance that God has
stated. If a man dies, his son inherits the estate; his daughter gets nothing.
Only if there is no son, will his daughter inherit. If there are no children,
then the estate is given to the man's brothers; his sister(s) get nothing. If
he had no brother, the estate goes to his nearest male relative. "...If a
man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his
daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto
his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance
unto his father's brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall
give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his
family...."
Numbers 30 describes that a vow taken by a man is binding. But a vow taken by a
woman can be nullified by her father, if she is still living in her family of
origin, or by her husband, if she is married.
Deuteronomy 21:10-13 describes how a soldier can force a woman captive to marry
him without regard for her wishes. "When thou goest forth to war against
thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and
thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman,
and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou
shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her
nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall
remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and
after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy
wife."
Deuteronomy 22:13-21 requires that a woman be a virgin when she is married. If
she has had sexual relations while single in her father's house, then she would
be stoned to death. There were no similar virginity requirements for men.
"If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give
occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I
took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid....if this
thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then
they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men
of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought
folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put
evil away from among you."
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a virgin woman who has been raped must marry
her attacker, no matter what her feelings are towards the rapist. "If a
man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on
her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall
give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his
wife...."
Deuteronomy 24:1 describes the procedure for obtaining a divorce. This can only
be initiated by the husband, not by the wife: "When a man hath taken a
wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes,
because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of
divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house."
Deuteronomy 25:5-10: states that if a woman is widowed, she would be required
to marry her former brother-in-law. This was called a "levirate"
marriage. Their first-born son will later be considered to be the son of the
deceased husband. The man could refuse to marry her. Women were not given a
choice in the matter. " If brethren dwell together, and one of them die,
and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a
stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to
wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her."
Deuteronomy 25:11: If two men are fighting, and the wife of one of them grabs
the other man's testicles, her hand is to be chopped off. There is no penalty
if a male relative were to grab the other man. "When men strive together
one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her
husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand,
and taketh him by the secrets. Then thou shalt cut off her hand..."
Judges 19:16-30 describes an event similar to Genesis 19. Some men in the city
wanted to "know" a visiting Levite. The owner of the house offered
his virgin daughter and the Levite's concubine so that the men could rape them.
Verse 24 states: "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine;
them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth
good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing." The man sent his
own concubine outside to the gang, who proceeded to serially rape her. She died
of the attacks. The man only learned of her death when he was leaving the house
in the morning and stumbled across her body. The woman was clearly considered
expendable and of little value.
2 Chronicles 36:23 mentions the Second Temple which was constructed after some
Jews returned from exile in Babylon. It was rebuilt by Herod late in the 1st
century BCE. One of its features was women's court, considered the least sacred
area. Next was the court of the Israelites (reserved for males), then the court
of the Priests, and finally the Temple itself. The courts were laid out in this
order to separate the women as far as possible from the Temple.
During the Second
Temple period, women were not allowed to testify in court trials. They could
not go out in public, or talk to strangers. When outside of their homes, they
were to be doubly veiled. "They had become second-class Jews, excluded
from the worship and teaching of God, with status scarcely above that of
slaves."
---------
Woman
have no wisdom misogynist not intelligent woman stay silent
Talmud prayer
to keep away from EVIL WOMANS !!
Mar
the son of Rabina on concluding his prayer added the following: My God, keep my
tongue from evil and my lips from speaking guile. May my soul be silent to them
that curse me and may my soul be as the dust to all. Open Thou my heart in Thy
law, and may my soul pursue Thy commandments, and deliver me from evil hap,
from the evil impulse and from an EVIL WOMAN !!!!!!!
(Talmud:
Tractate Berakoth Folio 17a)
----------
It
is forbidden for dogs, women or palm trees to pass between two men, nor may
others walk between dogs, women or palm trees. Special dangers are involved if
the women are menstruating or sitting at a crossroads. (Talmud Pesahim 111a)
----------
A
Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God
for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave. (Talmud Menachot 43b-44a)
---------
“The
voice of a woman is nakedness; a handbreadth of a woman is nakedness”
(Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Berachot 24a)
--------
[Rabbi
Eliezer] said to her: ‘There is no wisdom in women other than the spinning
wheel, as it is written: And all the women who were wise in heart spun with
their hands (Exodus 35).’
[Rabbi
Eliezer] said to him, ‘The words of Torah should burn rather
than be taught to women.'”
(Yerushalmi,
Sotah 3:4. A version of this story also appears in the Bavli, Yoma
66b)
Rambam’s
very first halakha regarding the laws of Talmud Torah unabashedly
confirms my suspicion that the Rabbis never intended their texts to be read by
women. “Women, slaves and children are exempt from the obligation to
study Torah,” Rambam writes. (Rambam, Hilkhot Talmud Torah 1:1)
The most important thing that we need to know about the great endeavor of Torah study
– is who is excluded from it. Women are patronizingly paired with our usual
partners in crime and halakhicdiscourse: slaves and children, the
Others, the p’turim (exempt ones). But unlike our compatriots,
we do not have the ability to grow up and out of our damning status, nor can we
achieve liberation at the yovel and acquire the privileges previously denied
us. No, our alienation is singularly permanent and irrevocable, a reflection
not only of our social standing, but also of our character. As Rambam
revealingly notes: “most women simply do not have the mental capacity to
learn.” (ibid, 1:13)
(See,
for example, Bavli, Brakhot 24a and Hilkhot Talmud
Torah 1:5) Consider the implications of such a portrait: If Torah is
life, and women are obstacles to Torah, then women are obstacles to
life itself! Woman, the embodiment of sexual guile, is worse than invisible –
she is a force of destruction!
----------------------
Looking
R.
Josiah said: He who gazes at a woman eventually comes to sin, and he who looks
even at a woman's heel will beget degenerate children. R. Joseph said: This
applies even to one's own wife when she is a
niddah
.
R. Simeon b. Lakish said: 'Heel' that is stated means the unclean part, which
is directly opposite the heel.
(Talmud
Tractate Nedarim folio 20a)
Exodus
35:35 woman have no wisdom
The Gemara cites another question posed to Rabbi Eliezer. A wise
woman asked Rabbi Eliezer: Since all bore equal responsibility for
the incident of the Golden Calf, due to what factor were their
deaths not equal? Some of the people were killed by the sword of Moses and
the Levites, some were killed in a plague, and others were struck with an
intestinal illness. He said to her: There is no wisdom in a woman except
weaving with a spindle, and so it states: “And any woman who was
wise-hearted spun with her hands” (Exodus 35:25). Therefore, it is unbefitting for a woman to concern herself with such
questions. (Talmud Yoma
66b:12)
----------------------------
The Gemara cites
another question posed to Rabbi
Eliezer. A wise woman asked Rabbi Eliezer:
Since all bore equal responsibility for the incident of the
Golden Calf, due to what factor were their deaths not equal? Some
of the people were killed by the sword of Moses and the Levites, some were
killed in a plague, and others were struck with an intestinal illness. He
said to her: There is no wisdom in a woman except weaving with a
spindle, and so it states: “And any woman who was wise-hearted spun with her
hands” (Exodus 35:25). Therefore, it is
unbefitting for a woman to concern herself with such questions.
---------------------
Rabbi Eliezer: There
is no wisdom in a woman except weaving with a spindle, and so it states: “And
any woman who was wise-hearted spun with her hands” (Exodus 35:25). Therefore,
it is unbefitting for a woman to concern herself with such questions. (Talmud
Yoma 66b)
If they have any
questions, they should ask their husbands at home, for it is improper for women
to speak in church meetings. (1 Corinthians 14:35)
Women are to be
silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in
submission, as the law says. (1 Corinthians 14:34)
We know the oral law
has something to say
“A woman’s voice is
prohibited because it is sexually provocative” (Talmud, Berachot 24a)
I do not permit a
woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. ( 1
Timothy 2:12)
the woman transmits
impurity to the man with whom she engaged in intercourse, just as she
retroactively transmits impurity to any pure items she touched (Talmud Niddah
15a)
Talmud Women
are invalid to judge
Tractate
Niddah 49b: "All who are valid to judge are valid to give testimony, and
there are those valid to give testimony who are not valid to judge." Since
women are invalid to bear testimony, they are invalid to sit in judgement as
judges. As the Tosfot wrote on Tractate Yevamot 45b, s.v. mi lo: "Women
are not suitable to serve as judges as it says, 'All who are valid to judge are
valid to bear testimony' (Niddah 49b). In the Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Yoma,
it is explicitly stated that since women do not testify they do not
judge."
Moses passed before
all the wet nurses in Egypt, and rejected them all. And why did he reject them?
The Holy One, Blessed be He said “should the mouth that will in the future
speak to me suckle from that which is impure?”
------------------------------
In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful
It is incorrectly claimed that women are ‘deficient in intelligence and religion’ or ‘lacking common sense’ according to Islam, and that for this reason restrictions are placed upon a women’s testimony and intellectual activity. This unfortunate misconception is based upon a misinterpretation or poor translation of the following prophetic tradition:
Abu Sa’id al-Khudri reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:
You curse others often and you are ungrateful for your livelihood. I have not seen anyone with reductions in mind and religion more capable of removing reason from a resolute man than you.
They said, “What are our reductions in mind?” The Prophet said:
That is the reduction in your mind. Is it not that when you menstruate you do not pray, nor fast?
They said, “Of course.” The Prophet said:
فَذَلِكِ مِنْ نُقْصَانِ دِينِهَا
That is the reduction in your religion.
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 298, Grade: Sahih
There are two important points that are misunderstood in this tradition: the reason why there is a majority of women in Hellfire, and the meaning of a ‘reduction’ in intellect and religiosity. The first misconception has been answered in a separate article.
The ‘reduction’ (nuqsan) in mind and religion is related to a woman’s legal obligations. It is not an ontological statement that women are always less intelligent or religious than men. As applied to religion, women are not obligated to pray or fast while menstruating or enduring post-natal bleeding. As applied to mind, women are not obligated to perform some functions such as testifying before a judge in a criminal case.
Some authors have mistranslated nuqsan by using derogatory terms like ‘deficient in intelligence,’ or ‘lacking common sense.’ This rendition is inappropriate because the word in this context means a ‘reduction,’ as it is used in the Quran:
Then do they not see that We set upon the land, reducing it from its borders?
Surat al-Anbiya 21:44
The reduction for women is a manifestation of Islam’s leniency towards women, by not burdening them with the same obligations as men while they have their own particular duties and concerns.
In the case of testimony, women in early Islam did not customarily involve themselves in business contracts, debts, and other matters. They were usually doing other important work, caring for their children and elderly parents, and so on. As a result, the verse was revealed to lessen a woman’s obligation to testify in such matters.
O you who believe, when you contract a debt for a specified term, write it down, and let a scribe write it between you in justice… and bring two witnesses from among your men. If there are not two men available, then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses, so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her.
Surat al-Baqarah 2:282
The purpose of this rule was a practical matter to achieve justice in business by having two women support each other’s memories in matters outside of their regular duties. It is not a universal rule that women are half as intelligent as men or that their testimony is always half of a man.
By default, men and women are equal to each other in terms of honesty and piety, but because women in this context were afraid that they might forget some details of the contract, they were told to include another woman to help one another remember. In fact, the testimony of two women outweighs the testimony of one man.
The woman is equal to the man in truthfulness, honesty, and piety; otherwise, if it is feared that she will forget or misremember, she is strengthened with another like herself. That makes them stronger than a single man or the likes of him. There is no question that the benefit of the doubt given to the testimony of Umm Darda and Umm ‘Atiyyah is stronger than the benefit of the doubt given to a single man without them or the likes of them.
Source: al-Ṭuruq al-Ḥukmīyah 1/136
The increased possibility of error, due to customary gender roles in society, necessitated the addition of another woman’s testimony. But if there is no fear of error, the testimony of men and women return to the default position of equality, because the intention of the rule is to achieve fairness between business partners and truthful witness, not to devalue women’s intelligence.
Whatever there is among the testimonies of women, in which there is no fear of habitual error, they are not considered as half of a man.
Source: al-Ṭuruq al-Ḥukmīyah 1/128
This dynamic can be seen in the way early jurists approached women’s testimony. They mostly did not accept, or obligate, a woman to testify in criminal investigations, legal punishments, and other matters outside of their customary purview, but they accepted a woman’s testimony as equal in her ordinary duties.
As for the testimony of individual women, meaning women without men, it is accepted by the majority in personal rights which are usually not the purview of men, such as pregnancy, consummation, and ailments affecting women.
Source: Bidāyat al-Mujtahid 4/248
In this regard, the classical rules were largely based upon the customary gender roles of the time and were not indicative of an universal deficiency in women’s intelligence, testimony, or truthfulness.
In other cases, a woman’s testimony was accepted in important matters of family law without any men present at all.
Imam Ahmad said regarding a man who writes his will and none are present except women: I permit the testimony of women. Thus, this shows that he affirmed the will by the testimony of individual women even if no men were present.
Source: al-Ṭuruq al-Ḥukmīyah 1/135
By analyzing the sources and appreciating their historical contexts, we find that the classical rules related to women’s testimony are not a statement about her inherent intelligence or truthfulness. Perhaps the single most important fact to contradict this claim is that women excelled in narrating the traditions of the Prophet (ṣ).
In particular, Aisha (ra) was considered to be a scholar by the righteous predecessors. Even the most senior male companions would come to her seeking religious and legal verdicts.
We never had a problem occur to us, the companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and asked Aisha about it but that we found her knowledgeable of it.
By the one in whose hand is my soul, I saw the learned elders among the companions of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, ask her about the religious obligations.
Source: Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah 30387, Grade: Hasan
Many more women, not to mention wives of the Prophet (ṣ), were scholars of the prophetic traditions known for their honesty and reliability. The confirmation of many practices of the Sunnah rely on the testimony of just one woman; the scholars never rejected their testimony merely because of their gender.
If you say that statement from Umar contains a flaw in Fatimah’s narration of his statement because we do not know whether a woman remembers or forgets, I say this itself is flawed and false by the absolute consensus of the Muslims. It has not been reported from any scholar that he rejected the report of a woman on the basis of her being a woman. How many prophetic traditions has the Ummah received from a single woman among the companions?
Source: Nayl al-Awṭār 6/359-360
And Al-Dhahabi writes:
وما علمت في النساء من اتهمت ولا من تركوها
I do not know among women narrators anyone accused of lying, nor anyone abandoned.
Source: Mīzān al-I’tidāl 4/604
Al-Dhahabi then lists over one hundred and twenty women who narrated prophetic traditions.
If a woman’s testimony were always half of a man or she was always less intelligent than him, that would have applied even more so to narrating prophetic traditions. After all, relating the words and actions of the Prophet (ṣ) is an awesome responsibility requiring the foremost intelligence, memory, and trustworthiness, yet many women excelled in this field just as men did.
Moreover, women have unique and complementary perspectives, in their own right, that can inform men of their blind spots. For instance, the Prophet (ṣ) once consulted his wife Umm Salamah (ra) on a serious matter, and she provided him with a key insight into his problem.
Marwan reported: After the treaty of Hudabiyyah was concluded, the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said to his companions:
قُومُوا فَانْحَرُوا ثُمَّ احْلِقُوا
Get up and offer your sacrifices, then shave your hair.
None of them stood up, and the Prophet repeated his order three times. When none of them stood up, the Prophet left them and went to Umm Salamah, and he told her about their attitude. Umm Salamah said:
O Prophet of Allah, would you like your order to be carried out? Go out and do not speak to them until you have offered your own sacrifice and have called the barber to shave your head.
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 2731, Grade: Sahih
The Prophet (ṣ) followed the advice of his wife and made his preparations to end the pilgrimage. The companions would soon follow his lead.
In this example, it was his wife whose exceptional intelligence provided him with guidance and resolution. Intelligence is not simply a linear matter of more or less. There are varieties of intelligence, such as emotional and personal intelligence, which women can excel at and benefit men with their advice.
It is permissible to consult a meritorious woman, and the merit of Umm Salamah and her abundant intelligence were such that Imam al-Haramayn said: We do not know of a woman expressing her opinion and being correct as much as Umm Salamah.
Source: Fatḥ al-Bārī 5/347
In sum, the claim that women are ‘deficient in religion’ is based upon a misinterpretation or a poor translation of a prophetic statement. The ‘reduction’ in a woman’s intelligence is a reduction in her legal responsibilities related to it, not in her inherent intelligence itself. The preponderance of other evidence indicates that women can be just as intelligent as men and, therefore, they should be consulted and their perspectives respected.
It
is clear from the Quran Ismail As was the chosen Son to be sacrificed not Ishaq
As.Christians on the other hand insist,
the Quran makes no explicit mention on which son was taken to be sacrificed?
So from that they conclude it may have been Ishaq As as their "Torah"
claims.
This
is a false understanding of the Quran. Just because Allah Swt didn't mention
the name of the son who was to be sacrificed doesn't mean it could have been
Ishaq As.
This
false understanding and claim by Christians can be dismantled by following
verses from the Quran
-------------
Indeed
Our messengers came to Abraham, bearing glad tidings. They greeted him with
'peace', and Abraham answered back to them 'peace', and hurriedly brought to
them a roasted calf.
When
he perceived that their hands could not reach it, he mistrusted them, and felt
afraid of them.They
said: 'Do not be afraid. We have been sent to the people of Lot.
And
Abraham's wife was standing by and on hearing this she laughed.And We gave her the
good news of (the birth of) Isaac, and after Isaac, of Jacob.
She
said: 'Woe is me! Shall I bear a child now that I am an old woman and my
husband is well advanced in years.This is indeed strange!'
They
said: 'Do you wonder at Allah's decree?Allah's mercy and His blessings be upon
you, O people of the house. Surely, He is Praiseworthy, Glorious.' (Surah 11:69-73)
Here's
the evidence that Ishaq As was not the son who was to be sacrificed.Surah Hud tells us about the Angels who came
to visit Abraham Pbuh and tell him about the outcome of the people of Lot Pbuh.
In Verse 71 we are told that the Angels gave glad tidings to Sarah the wife of
Abraham Pbuh by informing her that she will give birth to a son, Ishaq and
after Ishaq of Yaqub Pbut i.e. Ishaq Pbuh will be the father of Yaqub Pbuh.
"And Abraham's wife was standing by and on hearing this she laughed.And We gave her the good news of (the birth of) Isaac, and after Isaac, of Jacob."
This
is clear proof that Ishaq As was not the chosen son to be sacrificed. If Ishaq
As was the chosen son to be sacrificied, then Abraham Pbuh could of easily
responded by saying "did you not decree Ishaq would also have a son called
Yaqub?" "how then could he be sacrificed when he would see his son as
decreed?" Makes no sense. The Quran makes is clear that Ishaq As would
have a son called Yaqub As, thus Ishaq As was not the son to be sacrificed.
Instead
it was the older son Ismail As who was the chosen son to be sacrificed. And
just for the record
The earliest manuscripts for
the Tanack are the DSS, dating back roughly 200bc. Although we have no complete
full manuscripts for the DSS, what we have are fragments of the scrolls. What’s
fascinating is the most disputed topic on who was chosen to be sacrificed
Ismael or Isaac (pbut) is not found as part of the fragments from DSS. What we
have starts from “Genesis 22:13-15”, when you read Genesis 22 you’ll find the
name of the son in verse 2,3,6,7 and 9, whereas the DSS fragment starts from
verses 13-15, so in no way the name of the child is found.
The Masoretic text was compiled
during the 10th century contradicting much of earlier manuscripts such as the
Septuagint and Samaritan. It’s possible the name was changed from Ismael to
Isaac for obvious reason. If there is no early sources to look back into, and
all we have are corrupted received text such as the Masoretic, then this
dispute certainly cannot go in the favour of Jews or Christians.
The Jews
brought [to the Prophet peace be upon him] a man and a woman among them who
committed adultery. The Prophet peace be upon him said, "Bring the two
most knowledgeable men from amongst you." The Jews brought the two
sons of Suriyya, and the Prophet peace be upon him asked them, "What
punishment do you find in the Torah regarding these two?" They said,
"In the Torah, we find that if four men testify that they saw
his male organ in her womb, similar to when the eyeliner is inserted inside the
eyeliner container; in this case they are stoned." The Prophet peace be upon him said,
"What made you stop stoning?" They said, "Our kingship
(meaning Jewish) was taken from us and we hated killing." The
Messenger of Allah asked for four witnesses and they brought four men who testified
that they saw his penis in her womb like the eyeliner is inserted in the
eyeliner container. The Messenger of Allah ordered that the two
[adulterers] are stoned. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith no. 3862, Source. Sheikh Albani declared this hadith
authentic in Sunan Abu Dawud, hadith no.4452)
Indeed, we do find in the Old
Testament today that adulterers are to be killed (Leviticus 20:10). But nowhere
do we find anything about four witnesses (interestingly Islam teaches this) or
any eyeliner.
This is indirect proof that
this section of the Torah has been distorted with.
well, interestingly we find something on that line in the
Jewish Oral ruling (Halakah).
If one has bodily contact or petting
with one of the arayot (people with whom sexual relations are forbidden), or he
hugged and had genital contact (literally kissing; c.f. Yevamot 55b) and benefited from nearness of the flesh, he receives (biblically
sanctioned) lashes, and in suspected of having relations with arayot. Note: if he had
intercourse with her, whether vaginally or anally, as soon as he begins
intercourse, which is defined as insertion of the glans, he is liable for death
or excision. And the witnesses do not need to observe closely similar to
insertion of the eyeliner in the tube, rather as soon as the witnesses see them
intertwined with one another in the manner of adulterers, they are punishable
by death (Tur),and the women is
forbidden to her husband (Nimukei Yosef, Yevamot chapter 2). An adult woman who
had relations with a minor male under the age of 9 years, is not liable for
death at his hand (Tur). It appears to me that she is similarly not forbidden
to her husband. And therefore the Rabbi, author of the Turim code wrote many
laws defining when people are liable for death or not. The modern day
repercussions of these laws (when we no longer administer capital punishment)
is that they define which relations cause a woman to become forbidden to her
husband, and see further. A female less than 3 years old, her intercourse is
not considered as intercourse, and her virginity returns (Hagahot Yevamot).
Even if the years were intercalated (e.g she had intercourse at 37 months old
in a leap year) her virginity returns (words of the Rav, based on Yerushalmi
Ketuboth chapter 1).
Let’s ignore the part where the text sanctions having
intercourse with a 3 year old child “A female less than 3 years old, her
intercourse is not considered as intercourse, and her virginity returns”(Hagahot
Yevamot).
Notice how the rabbi rules, that the “witnesses do not need
to observe closely similar to insertion of the eyeliner in the tube, rather as
soon as the witnesses see them intertwined with one another in the manner of
adulterers, they are punishable by death”. Now if we cross reference
with the Hadith it reads:
“we find that if four men testify that they saw his male organ in
her womb, similar to when the eyeliner is inserted inside the eyeliner
container; in this case they are stoned.”
This shows that the Jews interchanged the word of God for the
words of rabbis.The Hadith is clear that
the Jews testified it is written in their Torah. However this is found in the
oral rulings not Torah, proving how the Jews took the words of rabbis more
sacretly then the word of God. This can be clarified by the next authentic Hadith.
The Bani Israel wrote a book, they followed it and left the Torah.(This hadith
was reported in Tabarani's Al Mu'jam Al Awsat and was
authenticated by Sheikh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani in hisSilsila Al
Ahaadeeth Al Saheeha, hadith no. 2832.)
Another example on how the Jews interchanged the word of God
with the words of rabbis can be found from the
Mishnah that: “Adam was created alone to teach
you that whoever takes a human life is considered by the Bible to have
destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a human life is considered by the
Bible (scriptures) as if he preserved an entire world (Sanhedrin 4.5). take attention on the second line from the saying "that whoever takes a human life is considered by the Bible to have
destroyed an entire world"
if says "whoever takes a human life of a Israeli is considered BY THE
BIBLE (SCRIPTURES) as destroying the entire world" show us from the Bible
where it says that? where can we find such a saying from the Bible which says
"killing one Israeli is like killing the whole world?"
How about this
The Gemara asks: Why does the verse say: And he said? It should say: And I said. Why does the verse say: And you spared? It should say: And I spared.Rather, Rabbi
Elazar said: David said to Saul: By Torah law, you should be killed, as you are
a pursuer who seeks to
kill me, and the Torah
says: If one comes to kill you, kill him first. But it was the modesty that you
displayed that spared you. (Talmud Berakhot Daf
62b:8)
Christians shouldn't have a problem showing us where
in the Torah it say “If one comes to kill you, kill
him first” Unless the Jews were
reading a different Torah?
We can conclude the current “Torah” which is
read the Jews and Christians, is not the actual word of God. It may contain
some words of God which was passed down orally and then written. However, calling
it the absolute word of God would be injustice.
The Jews of Medina read a different Torah then
what the modern Jews read now. The Torah which the Jews of Medina read can be
found in the oral law not the current Torah modern Jews read. This tell us not
all the Jews during the early periods held a consensus on the authenticity of
scriptures.
The age of Jacob at the birth of Joseph requires a calculation
of 130-2-7-30-17=74. This is necessary because the Bible does not explicitly
tell the age of Jacob when Joseph was born. You can take the age of Jacob when
he stood before pharaoh (Genesis 47:9). Subtract the number of years of famine
before Jacob came to Egypt (Genesis 45:6). Subtract the number of years of
plenty (Genesis 41:53), minus the number of years before Joseph interpreted the
pharaoh's dream (Genesis 41:46. Subtract the number of years before which God
first called Joseph by giving him a dream of his future (Genesis 37:2). This
formula will obtain Jacob's true age when Joseph was born.
And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my
pilgrimage are
an hundred
and thirty years:
few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not
attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days
of their pilgrimage. Genesis 47:9.
And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen
years: so the
whole age of Jacob was an hundred forty and seven years. Genesis 47:28.
For these two years hath the famine been in the land: and yet there are five years, in the which there shall neither be earing nor harvest. Genesis 45:6.
And the seven years of plenteousness, that was in the land of
Egypt, were ended. And the seven years of dearth began to come, according as Joseph had said:
and the dearth was in all lands; but in all the land of Egypt there was
bread. Genesis 41:53.
And Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh king of
Egypt. And Joseph went out from the presence of Pharaoh, and went
throughout all the land of Egypt. Genesis 41:46.
These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was
feeding the flock with his brethren; and the lad waswith the sons of Bilhah, and
with the sons of Zilpah, his father's wives: and Joseph brought unto his
father their evil report. Genesis 37:2
We know from the Bible data that Abraham was 100 years old when
Isaac was born (Gen. 21:5). Next we know that Isaac was 60 years old when Jacob
was born (Gen. 25:26). The age of Jacob when Joseph was born we derive as
follows. We know that Jacob died at age 147 (Gen. 47:28), further do we know
that Joseph was 30 years old when Pharaoh elevated him to second in power in
Egypt (Gen. 41:46). Right at that time when Joseph was 30 years of age the 7
years of plenty began (Gen. 41:47) and Joseph harvested and stored the grain.
This was followed by the 7 years of drought during which Jacob and his family
moved to Egypt when he was 130 years old (Gen. 47:9). Calculation: (147 (Gen.
47:9) - 17 (Gen. 47:28)= 130). The year Jacob moved to Egypt was after the 2nd year
in the drought (Gen. 45:6) before Jacob moved his whole family to Goshen. That
would make the age of Joseph 39 when he met his father again and 56 years of
age (39 + 17 = 56) when his father Jacob died. Joseph died when he was 110
years old (Gen. 50:22). Therefore Jacob was, 147 - 17 - 39 = 91 years of age
when Joseph was born.
Genesis 28:6 When
Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob, and sent him away to Padanaram, to take
him a wife from thence; and that as he blessed him he gave him a charge,
saying, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan;
Genesis 28:7 And
that Jacob obeyed his father and his mother, and was gone to Padanaram;
Genesis 28:8 And
Esau seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father;
Genesis 28:9 Then
went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the
daughter of Ishmael Abraham's son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife.
The verses above give an account of events right after Isaac
blesses Jacob. Recall that Jacob, the younger brother of Esau, took the
blessing meant for Esau, Jacob's eldest son. As a result, Esau was very angry
and had determined to kill his brother in revenge. However Rebekah learned of
Esau's plan and encouraged Jacob to flee to her brother Laban in Haran
(Padanaram). Rebekah also got the support of Jacob's father Isaac by reminding
him how unhappy they were with Esau's Canaanite wives (Genesis 26:35), and how
it would be better for Jacob to find a wife in the land of Haran instead
(Genesis 27:46). Now it was at this time that verse 8 indicates that Esau,
possibly in an attempt to regain favor with his father and upon learning that
his parents were unhappy with the Canaanite wives he had, decides to go to take
a wife of Abraham's son Ishmael, his father's brother. One might suspect Esau
figured if he married into the family of Abraham's descendants, that this would
satisfy his parents. In any case, we learn that Esau goes to Ishmael, and
arranges to marry Ishmael's daughter Mahalath.
So why is this important? First, recall from Genesis 25:17 that
Ishmael lived to be 137 years old. Also, Ishmael was 14 years older than Isaac
being born when Abraham was 86 years old (Genesis 16:16), while Isaac was born
when Abraham was 100 years old (Genesis 21:5). Further, we know Jacob and Esau
were born to Isaac when he was 60 years old (Genesis 25:26). From these various
ages we can determine that in the year Ishmael died (at 137 years old), Isaac
who was 14 years younger, was 123 years old. And since Jacob and Esau were born
when Isaac was 60 years old, then in the year Ishmael died they would both have
been 63 years old. This means that the oldest Esau could have been when he went
to visit Ishmael to marry his daughter Mahalath was 63 years old, and
similarly, the oldest Jacob could have been when he left for Padanaram (Haran)
was also 63 years old. Thus, we have established that the oldest Jacob could
have been when he left his parents to go to Haran was 63 years old.
Note:
The Bible said Joseph was born after Jacob served Laban 14 years
(before he served him additional 6 years) -
And it came to pass, when
Rachel had born Joseph, that Jacob said unto Laban, Send me away, that I
may go unto mine own place, and to my country. Give me my wives and my children, for
whom I have served thee, and let me go: for thou knowest my service which
I have done thee. And Laban said unto him, I pray thee, if I have found
favour in thine eyes, tarry: for I have learned by experience that the LORD hath
blessed me for thy sake. Genesis 30:25-27.
Genesis
31:38 Now I was with you twenty years. Your
ewes and your she-goats have not failed to bear, and I have not eaten the
rams of your flock. I did not bring to you the mangled; I replaced it.
From my hand you exacted it, that stolen by day and that stolen by night.
I was there; by day the heat consumed me, and the cold by night. And my
sleep fled from my eyes. Now I have been twenty years in your house; I
served you fourteen years for your two daughters and six years for your
flock. And you have changed my wages ten times. Genesis
31:38-41
Thus, Joseph was born when Jacob was 63 + 14 = 77 years old.
------------------
Jacob’s Old Age at Marriage
How old was Jacob when he married Leah and Rachel? The answer may surprise you.
Jacob died when he was 147 years old. He had lived in Egypt 17 years (Genesis 47:28). Thus, Jacob was 130 when he went to Egypt to be with Joseph. His arrival was the second year of the famine (Genesis 45:6). Joseph was then 39 years old (compare Genesis 41:46 and add the 7 years of plenty and the 2 years of famine). This means that Jacob was 91 when Rachel gave birth to Joseph. But Leah already had six children before Joseph was born (Genesis 30:20-24). Reuben (Leah’s firstborn by Jacob) was conceived at least 7 years before the birth of Joseph. This means that Jacob was about 84 years old when he first married. Such an old age for marriage was not normal practice even in those days because people were regularly bearing children at 35 years (Genesis 11:12), 30 years (Genesis 11:14), or 29 years of age (Genesis 11:24). On his wedding night Jacob had trouble distinguishing whether his wife was Rachel or Leah. Because of this, some have jokingly said the 84 year old man was probably half blind already (Genesis 29:21-26). Could be.
Narrated by Sa'eed ibn Juabair: Ibn Abbaas said: The kings after the time of Jesus the son of Mary peace be upon him substituted the Torah and Gospel and there used to be amongst them believers who were reading the Torah. It was said to the kings: We do not find an insult greater than the insult of those that read "And those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed, they are disbelievers" and their recitation of these similar kind of verses which they shame us with in our daily activities. So tell them to read just as what we read and let them believe just as we believe.' So the king summoned them and gathered them together. He proposed either death to them or that they leave the recitation of the Torah and Gospel except what they substitute in place of it. [(Sunan Al Nisaa'i, hadith no. 5305), Source, Sheikh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani authenticated this narration in Sunan Al Nisaa'i, hadith no. 5400]
------------------------------------------------
evidence from the Jews
And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass (Exod. 4:20). This is one of the ten verses our rabbis altered when they translated the Torah into Greek for King Ptolemy.16Megillah 9a. The Septuagint, begun during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–246 B.C.E.). The ten changes are:
“God created in the beginning” (Gen. 1:1);17Instead of In the beginning God created, in order to emphasize that God alone created.
“I shall make man in My image and My likeness” (ibid., v. 26);18Instead of Let us make man in our image. etc.
“And He finished on the sixth day, and rested on the seventh day (ibid. 2:2);19Instead of And on the seventh day God finished, thus giving the impression that God actually worked on the seventh day.
“Male and female He created him” (ibid. 5:2);20Instead of Male and female He created them, etc.
“Come, let Me descend and confound their tongue” (ibid. 11:7);21Instead of Come, let us go down, etc.
“And Sarah laughed among her relatives” (ibid. 18:12);22Instead of And Sarah laughed within herself.
“For in their anger they slew an ox, and in their wrath they digged up a stall” (ibid. 49:6);23Instead of For in their anger they slew men, and in their self-will they houghed oxen.
“And Moses took his wife and his sons, and made them ride on a carrier of men” (Exod. 4:20);24Instead of… and set them upon an ass.
“Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt, and in the land of Goshen and in Canaan was four hundred and thirty years” (ibid. 12:40);25Instead of Now the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years, etc.
“And he sent the elect of the children of Israel” (ibid. 24:5);26Instead of And he sent the young men of the children of Israel.
“And against the elect of the children of Israel he put not forth his hand (ibid., v. 11);27Instead of And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand.
“Since the Lord thy God hath arranged to give light to all the peoples under the entire heavens” (Deut. 4:19);28The words “to give light” were added.
“Which I had not commanded the people to serve” (Deut. 17:3);29Instead ofWhich I have commanded not. they wrote about “the slender-footed,” but they did not write the word ‘arnevet (“the hare”) (Lev. 11:5) because the name of Ptolemy’s wife was ‘Arnevet,30Actually, her name was Arsinoe. and he might say: “The Jews are ridiculing me by writing my wife’s name in the Torah.”
Why does the Quran tell us that the Jews claim Ezra (ʿUzayr) is the son of God (Quran 9:30), when Jews do not make this claim or anything approaching it? This is not a question that arose just recently during an interfaith panel. It’s not a new question at all. Even in the ninth century, the Zaydi Imam and renowned scholar al-Qāsim b Ibrāhīm al-Rassī (d. 860 CE), who had studied Jewish and Christian scriptures in Egypt and who had engaged in debates with priests and rabbis, said that he had never encountered a Jew who believed Ezra was the son of God.1Nor was this a question that Muslims pondered at ease in the libraries of Baghdad or Cordoba. As early as the ninth century, Muslim scholars like al-Jāḥiẓ (d. 868, who wrote a famous rebuttal of Christianity) were being confronted by Christian opponents who argued that the Ezra claim was evidence that the Quran contained patent falsehoods. So is the Quran wrong in attributing this belief to Jews? Is it rebutting the belief of a community that never actually held that belief? How should we understand this?
An explanation given by Muslim scholars from the time of al-Jāḥiẓ and al-Ṭabarī (d. 923) was that this belief had, in fact, been held by a group of Jews in Arabia, but that this sect had died out. Ibn Ḥazm, the famous Andalusian scholar (d. 1064), wrote that there was a group of Jews in Yemen who believed this.2 (Interestingly, an inscription from a 4th-6th-century CE Jewish temple in South Arabia suggests possible angel worship).3A second explanation was that this Quranic verse related to the verse immediately following it: ‘They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords apart from God…’ (Quran 9:31). In other words, Jews venerated Ezra so much that it was as if he were a god to them.4]
Muslim scholars found a basis for the first claim – that some Jews actually considered Ezra to be the son of God – in a Jewish work entitled The Fourth Book of Ezra (probably composed in the first century CE), which had not been included in the Hebrew Bible but which rabbis still read and consulted (it belongs to a body of works known as the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, namely works that claimed to be written by some Old Testament figures such as Enoch but which were really produced in the Hellenistic or early Roman periods). Fourth Ezra tells how Ezra led the Children of Israel after their return from the Babylonian exile, when their scriptures had been lost (this is all in the Bible’s book of Ezra as well). Ezra is given inspiration by God to reconstitute the Torah in 451 BCE. As a reward, God tells Ezra that “You shall be taken up from among men, and henceforth you shall live with my son….” Here it is important to remember that, like the belief of the Quraysh that angels were the daughters of God (“We worship the angels, who are daughters of God,” said the Quraysh to the Prophet in Ibn Isḥāq’s Sīra; see also Quran 17:40, 37:150-53), in Jewish scriptures of this period angels were called the children of God.5
But there does not seem to be any strong evidence that the Jews of western Arabia at the time of the Prophet ﷺ believed this about Ezra. The problem is that we do not have any external sources (in other words, non-Muslim sources) for what Jews in Arabia believed. As F.E. Peters observed, the Quran is pretty much the only source we have for what Jews believed in seventh-century Arabia.6
Another possibility is that ʿUzayr as mentioned in the Quran was never a one-for-one counterpart of Ezra. First, the Quran does not actually specify that Jews believed that Ezra was the son of God; it says that they said that ʿUzayr was the son of God. The Quran provides no more information about ʿUzayr, nor do the mainstay Hadith collections. A Hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari reiterates the claim made in the Quran, and a Hadith in the Sunan of Abū Dāwūd quotes the Prophet ﷺ as saying that he does not know if ʿUzayr is a prophet or not.7 What other information we find in less critical collections of Hadiths comes from stories drawn from figures like the Successor (and Jewish convert to Islam) Kaʿb al-Aḥbār (d. circa 653) and the early collector of stories of the prophets, Wahb b. Munabbih (d. 732), without any chain of transmission to any authoritative source.8
The persona of Ezra was highly complex in the milieu in which the Quran was revealed. The figures of Enoch (Idrīs in the Islamic tradition) and Ezra were intermingled in the Hellenistic and early Roman periods (roughly 300 BCE – 100 CE), particularly in a body of religio-philosophical writing called the Hermetic Corpus (appeared in Greek circa 1st – 4thcenturies CE).9 All this occurred before Islam, so it would not have been the Quran confusing Ezra with someone else. The Quran would have been referring to a character who had already emerged as a composite figure in the overall body of Judeo-Christian material circulating in the Near East in the centuries before Islam.
Enoch and Ezra were closely associated with one another because both were referred to as ‘The Scribe’ and both were elevated to angelic status. But in the case of Enoch, he was not simply referred to as an angelic ‘son of God.’ In another famous Old Testament Pseudeprigrapha, The Book of Enoch (which dates early second century BCE to first century CE), Enoch is raised up to the status of the righteous ‘son of man,’ i.e., an angel with the appearance of a man (II Enoch 46.1, 71.14). But in III Enoch (which perhaps dates from 5th to the 7thcenturies CE) he is transformed into the Metatron (yes, Metatron!), a super archangel who is designated the ‘lesser God (Yahweh)’ (III Enoch 12.5).10 The figure of the Metatron appears in the Babylonian Talmud11](circa 500 CE), the predominant expression of rabbinic Judaism in the Near East at the time, as well as in the Hekhalot literature (literature of mystical ascent), which developed in the region from the 6th-7th centuries.12
While we do not have direct information from Jewish sources about what the Jews of Arabia believed at the time of the Prophet ﷺ, we do know that many of the other beliefs that the Quran mentions Jews having were, in fact, found in the Babylonian Talmud (for example, the belief that Abraham would descend into Hell to remove all the Jews, and thus that they would only be punished there ‘for an hour’, reminiscent of Quran 2:80).13 And we know that a belief in Ezra/Enoch assuming the status of a super angel was common among Jews in Babylon/Iraq, the nearest and most influential center of Jewish thought and lore in the area in which the Quran was revealed. In fact, in 8th-century Baghdad, when a Jewish movement named Karaite Judaism emerged as a response to Rabbinic Judaism, one of its criticisms of mainstream Rabbinic Judaism was that it worshiped the Metatron as a archangel and substitute for God.14
The question of what the Quran means by its mention of Jews and ʿUzayr reminds us of an important question, one that has occupied Muslims since the death of the Prophet ﷺ: Is everything in the Quran eternally binding upon Muslims? If not, how do we know which parts are and which parts aren’t? This would require volumes to answer, since it is, in truth, the single greatest engine of thought in the Islamic tradition.
But briefly, Muslims have always held that the Quran was and remains ‘suitable for all times and all places (ṣālih li-kull zamān wa kull makān).’ But this applies to the revelation as a whole, not to all its particular rules and references. To offer a blunt, non-legal example: ‘Perish the hands of Abū Lahab’ (Quran 111:1) will always be true, but it only applies to one person – Abū Lahab – and he has been dead for fourteen centuries. In the realm of law that could be binding on Muslims, the ulama have also concluded that some legal commands of the Quran applied only in the time of the Prophet. For example, in Surat al-Mumtahana, God commands the Muslims to refuse to return Meccan women who had fled to Medina as Muslims but instead to compensate their husbands by sending them the equivalent of the mahr. Although a minority of scholars has considered this ruling to have continued, so that, when believing women flee from outside the Abode of Islam to Muslims lands, Muslims might have to compensate their husbands, the vast majority of Muslim scholars consider this ruling to have ceased to apply.15 In the case of the Jews and ʿUzayr/Ezra, the same principle applies to a question of theology. The Quran’s discussion of what Jews believe ceases to be applicable once they stop believing it, and it would be sheer ignorance for Muslims to insist that our discussions with Jews hinge on obsolete tenets of faith.
Note: It’s also possible that, in the religious climate of pre-Islamic Arabia, ʿUzayr was actually a reference to Azarias, a figure connected to the Old Testament Book of Daniel. He is one of the Jews thrown into the fire by the Babylonians. But instead of burning, he looks like ‘a son of God’ (Daniel, 3:25). This story was reported by Wahb b. Munabbih and Ibn Qutayba (d. 889).16
1. Wilfred Madelung, Der Imām al-Qāsim ibn Ibrāhīm und die Glaubenslehre der Zaiditen (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1965), 90. 2. Viviane Comerro “Esdras est-il le fils de Dieu?,” Arabica, 52, no. 2 (2005): 166. 3. An scription from a synagogue in Ḥimyar says that the temple is named after Ṣūrī’īl, close to name of angel Suri’el; Christian Robin, ‘Le Judaisme de Ḥimyar,”Arabia 1 (2003): 108; José Costa, “Les Juifs d’Arabie dans la litterature talmudique,” in Le Judaism de l’Arabie critique (Brepols, 2015), 472-481. 4. Comerro, ibid. 5. Ibn Isḥāq, The Life of Muhammad, trans. A. Guillaume (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, originally published in 1955), 134; D.S. Russell, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 108-112; Viviane Comerro “Esdras est-il le fils de Dieu?,” Arabica, 52, no. 2 (2005): 165-181. 6. F.E. Peters, Muhammad and the Origins of Islam (Albany: SUNY Press, 1994), 261 (ebook). 7. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī: kitāb al-tafsīr, bāb sūrat al-furqān; Sunan Abī Dāwūd: kitāb al-sunna, bāb fī al-takhyīr bayn al-anbiyā’ ʿalayhim al-salām. 8. See, for example, Muḥammad al-Kisā’ī’s Tales of the Prophet, trans. Wheeler Thackston, Jr. (Chicago: Great Books of the Islamic World, 1997), 69. 9. Fred Lapham, An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha (New York: T&T Clark, 2003), 38-39. 10. D.R. Russell, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 42-3. 11. See Babylonian Talmud, Hagiga 125a; Sanhedrin 38b. 12. Beate Ego, “Hekhalot literature,” Brill’s New Pauly, ed. Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider. 13. From José Costa, “Les Juifs d’Arabie dans la litterature talmudique,” 472-481 14. Gordon Newby, A History of the Jews of Arabia (U. South Carolina Press, 1988), 59-61. 15. Abū Manṣūr al-Māturīdī, Ta’wīlāt al-Qur’ān, ed. Bekir Topaloğlu et al., 17 vols. (Istanbul: Dār al-Mīzān, 2006), 15:125. 16. Comerro, ibid.
