Is Surah 2:238 Not Complete According To Aisha?

By

Bassam Zawadi

Note: FIRST READ THIS ARTICLE (*)

Here are the hadiths which speak about this supposed controversial verse...

Saheeh Muslim

Book 004, Number 1316:Abu Yunus, the freed slave of 'A'isha said: 'A'isha ordered me to transcribe a copy of the Qur'an for her and said: When you reach this verse:" Guard the prayers and the middle prayer" (ii. 238), inform me; so when I reached it, I informed her and she gave me dictation (like this): Guard the prayers and the middle prayer and the afternoon prayer, and stand up truly obedient to Allah. 'A'isha said: This is how I have heard from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him).

Book 004, Number 1317:Al-Bara' b. 'Azib reported: This verse was revealed (in this way):" Guard the prayers and the 'Asr prayer." We recited it (in this very way) so long as Allah desired. Allah, then, abrogated it and it was revealed:" Guard the prayers, and the middle prayer." A person who was sitting with Shaqiq (one of the narrators in the chain of transmitters) said: Now it implies the 'Asr prayer. Upon this al-Bara' said: I have already informed you how this (verse) was revealed and how Allah abrogated it, and Allah knows best. Imam Muslim said: Ashja'i narrated it from Sufyan al-Thauri, who narrated it from al-Aswad b. Qais, who narrated it from 'Uqba, who narrated it from al-Bara' b. 'Azib who said: We recited with the Prophet (may peace be upon him) (the above-mentioned verse like this, i. e. instead of Salat al- Wusta, Salat al-'Asr) for a certain period. as It has been mentioned (in the above-quoted hadith).

Malik's Muwatta

Book 8, Number 8.8.26:Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam from al-Qaqa ibn Hakim that Abu Yunus, the mawla of A'isha, umm al-muminin said, ''A'isha ordered me to write out a Qur'an for her. She said, 'When you reach this ayat, let me know, "Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and stand obedient to Allah." ' When I reached it I told her, and she dictated to me, 'Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and the asr prayer and stand obedient to Allah.' A'isha said, 'I heard it from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.' "

Book 8, Number 8.8.27:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam that Amr ibn Rafi said, "I was writing a Qur'an for Hafsa, umm al-muminin, and she said, 'When you reach this ayat, let me know, "Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and stand obedient to Allah." When I reached it I told her and she dictated to me, 'Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and the asr prayer and stand obedient to Allah.' "

Commentator 'Abd al-Rahman al-Mubarkafuri said in his commentary on Sunan Al Tirmidhi...

قال الباجي : يحتمل أنها سمعتها على أنها قرآن ثم نسخت كما في حديث البراء الذي رواه مسلم , فلعل عائشة لم تعلم                                           

بنسخها أو اعتقدت أنها مما نسخ حكمه وبقي رسمه , ويحتمل أنه ذكرها صلى الله عليه وسلم على أنها من غير القرآن لتأكيد فضيلتها فظنتها قرآنا فأرادت إثباتها في المصحف . لذلك قاله الزرقاني في شرح الموطأ                                                                                                                  

Al Baaji said: It is possible that she (Aisha) heard that it is Quran then it was abrogated in the hadith of Bara'a as reported by Muslim. So its possible that Aisha did not know that it was abrogated or she thought that only its ruling was abrogated and its recitation remained, and its possible that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) reminded her that it was not part of the Qur'an to ensure its specialty so she thought that it was part of the Qur'an so she wanted to have it established in the manuscript. That is what al Zarqaani said in the commentary of Muwaat'a. ('Abd al-Rahman al-Mubarkafuri, Tuhfat Al-Ahwadhi Bi Sharh Jami` Al-Tirmidhi, Kitab: Tafseer al Qur'aan A'an Rasool Allah, Bab: Wa Man Soorat Al Baqara, Commentary on Hadith no. 2908, Source)

Al Baji says in his commentary on Malik's Muwatta'...

يقتضي أن يكون قبل جمع القرآن في مصحف وقبل أن يجمع الناس على المصاحف التي كتب بها عثمان إلى  الأمصار لأنه لم يكتب بعد ذلك من المصاحف إلا ما وقع الإجماع عليه وثبت بالخبر المتواتر أنه قرآن فأما غير ذلك   مما كان يكتب من معنى التفسير فأجمعوا على المنع                    منه .                                                                                                                                                                               

Its possible that it was before the collection of the Quran in a manuscript and before the people began collecting the manuscripts that were written by Uthman to the Amsaar because he did not write after that in the manuscripts except what was agreed upon by consensus and proven by Mutawaatir narrations that it is part of the Qur'an. Other than that from what was written from the commentaries, they formed a consensus on its prohibition.

She ordered to be excused when she wanted him to write down the extra part that wasn't established in the manuscript that he was copying from and any other than that, which he can copy from. And she narrated that she heard that extra part from the Prophet (peace be upon him) so she wanted to have it established in the manuscript for that purpose.  (Abû al-Walîd Sulaymân ibn Khalaf al-Bâjî, Al Muntaqaa Sharh Muwata' Maalik, Kitab: Nidaa' Al Salaah, Bab: Al Salaatul Wusta, Commentary on Hadith no. 288, Source) 

So it seems pretty clear that in the beginning there was a verse that had the extra added words regarding Asr prayer and then it was removed and replaced with another verse that only mentioned the "middle prayer", which implied the Asr prayer. This is just another example of an abrogated verse which no longer belongs in the Quran. It seems pretty clear that Aisha was not aware of the verse's abrogation. Otherwise; we would have found several other companions arguing that this verse should belong in the Qur'an. However, the Qur'an could only be established by consensus and not by the opinion of one person. 

It seems that some other brother, Dr Ahmad Shafaat, has already written a detailed article on this topic. He argues that the hadith are unreliable and cannot be used as a proof to suggest that this abrogated verse ever existed in the first place. Even though I don't support his views, I still find it to be a worthwhile and professional article that is worth reading and pondering about. 

The reference to the Asr prayer in 2:238

We earlier noted that traditions alleging variant readings of the Qur`an without textual evidence are not trustworthy. We illustrate this point by a detailed look at one such tradition that has relatively early attestation. This is the tradition where 'Aishah allegedly dictated the addition of and 'asr prayer in 2:238. This tradition is found in Muwatta and Muslim, both versions being almost identical. We quote from Muwatta:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam from al-Qa'qa' ibn Hakim that Abu Yunus, the mawla of 'Aishah, umm al-muminin said: 'Aishah ordered me to write out a copy of the Qur`an for her. She said, "Let me know, when you reach this verse, 'Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and stand obedient to God' [2:238]." When I reached it I told her, and she dictated to me, "Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and the 'asr prayer and stand obedient to God." 'Aishah said, "I heard it from the Messenger of God."

Notice the words of 'Aishah: "'Let me know, when you reach this verse ." These words admit that the verse in question was known without any reference to the 'asr prayer and it was written without that reference in the manuscript from which copy was being made at the request of 'Aishah. The basis on which 'Aishah tells the scribe to make an addition is that she heard it from the Messenger of God. The question is why the existing manuscripts did not have these additional words. If they were part of the Qur`an, as this story implies, then the Messenger was duty bound to tell about the additional words to every one (2:159-160, 5:67). One may say that they were abrogated, as a tradition from Muslim suggests. But what is there to abrogate in an exhortation to guard one of the prayers that remains obligatory any way? And why would 'Aishah want to add the abrogated words? Perhaps, she was ignorant of the fact of abrogation? But if we admit 'Aishah's ignorance about the Prophet's intention about the additional words, the tradition looses much of its credibility. More importantly, the story is discredited above all by the fact that it is found in Muwatta in another version in which both the wife of the Prophet and the scribe have changed:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam that 'Amr ibn Rafi' said: I was writing a copy of the Qur`an for Hafsah, umm al-muminin, and she said, "Let me know when you reach this verrse, 'Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and stand obedient to God'." When I reached it I told her and she dictated to me, "Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and the 'asr prayer and stand obedient to God." (Muwatta; in some late versions Hafsah just like 'Aishah in the previous tradition adds that she heard these additional words from the Prophet).

Here the wife of the Prophet who requests a copy of the Qur`an and dictates the verse with an addition is not 'Aishah but Hafsah and the scribe is not Abu Yunus but 'Amr ibn Rafi', probably two different persons. Malik hears both versions from the same source, Zayd bin Aslam, who does not seem to remember, which wife dictated the additional words and which scribe recorded them. The story therefore has little credibility and it seems that Bukhari who does not include it in his Sahih thought the same. Despite this a late tradition reports Nafi' as saying that he saw with his own eyes a copy of the Qur`an with the additional words.

Muslim gives another somewhat similar story in which the variant reading has changed:

Al-Bara' bin 'Azib reported: "The following verse was revealed: 'Guard the prayers and the 'asr prayer.' We recited it (in this way) so long as God desired. Then God abrogated it and it was revealed: 'Guard the prayers, and the middle prayer'." A person who was sitting with Shaqiq (one of the narrators in the chain of transmitters) said: Now this implies the 'asr prayer. Upon this al-Bara' said: "I have already informed you how this (verse) was revealed and how God abrogated it, and God knows best." Imam Muslim said: Aisha' narrated it from Sufyan al-Thawri, who narrated it from al-Aswad bin Qays, who narrated it from 'Uqbah, who narrated it from al-Bara' bin 'Azib who said: "We recited with the Prophet for a certain period" as mentioned in the above hadith (Muslim).

Here we have a clearer admission that the reference to 'asr prayer was never a part of the Qur`an in the form that the Prophet left it with the community, whether in writing or in recitation. We are told here that the words about `asr prayer were abrogated and replaced by those that we now find in our copies of the Qur`an. In other words, in the Qur`an as it was completed by the Prophet, 2:238 was exactly as it is today.

Notice that in this story the variant is simply

"Guard your prayers and the "asr prayer"

and this is replaced after abrogation by:

"Guard your prayers and the middle prayer"

This is different from what we read earlier in the ahadith about 'Aishah and Hafsah. In those ahadith the variant is:

"Guard your prayers and the middle prayer and the "asr prayer".

Also, the theory of abrogation invoked in the hadith attributed to al-Bara` bin 'Azib to justify the variant reading is not present in the ahadith about 'Aishah and Hafsah. There the phrase is added to the Qur`an as something that should be there. Clearly these contradictions do nothing to build any confidence in the trustworthiness of any of these ahadith.

Comparing the various versions and looking at the other traditions about the middle prayer, we can actually see how these stories came to be formed. To begin with we can clearly see that the "middle prayer" became at some point a subject of discussion. Some identified it with the zuhr (noon) prayer, some with the subh or fajr (morning) prayer, and some with the 'asr (afternoon) prayer.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Da`ud ibn al-Husayn that Ibn Yarbu al-Makhzumi said, "I heard Zayd ibn Thabit say, 'The middle prayer is the prayer of zuhr.' " (Muwatta)

But in another tradition we read:

Two men sent by a group of people from Quraysh asked Zayd bin Thabit about the middle prayer. He answered that it was 'asr. Then two other men asked him the same question and he answered that it was zuhr. Then the two asked Usamah who said it was zuhr.

Once, some people were sitting in the company of Zayd bin Thabit. The question of the middle prayer came under discussion. People sent a man to Usamah to find out. He answered that this is the zuhr prayer that the Messenger of God used to pray as soon as its time started (Tayalsi).

The earliest statement of the view that the middle prayer is the morning (subh) prayer is found in Muwatta:

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that 'Ali ibn abi Talib and 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas used to say, "The middle prayer is the prayer of subh." (Muwatta)

Malik himself preferred the same view:

Malik said, "Out of all that I have heard about the matter, I prefer what 'Ali ibn abi Talib and 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas said."

But while according to Malik 'Ali identified the middle prayer with the morning prayer, in a hadith narrated on the authority of 'Ali in both Muslim and Bukhari the Holy Prophet identifies it with the 'asr prayer:

Narrated 'Ali bin Abi Talib: We were in the company of the Prophet on the day (of the battle) of al-Khandaq (the Trench). The Prophet said, "May God fill their (the infidels') graves and houses with fire, as they have kept us so busy that we could not offer the middle prayer till the sun had set; and that prayer was the 'asrprayer" (Bukhari).

'Ali reported: The Messenger of God said on the day (of the battle) of al-Ahzab: They diverted us from saying the middle prayer. May God fill their houses and graves with fire; he then observed this prayer between the evening prayer and the night prayer (Muslim).

There are other versions of this hadith that conflict with the above version. Thus while in the above version the 'asrprayer was delayed till after the sunset, the following version delays it to a time before the sunset:

'Abd Allah (bin Mas'ud) reported that the polytheists detained the Messenger of God from observing the 'asrprayer till the sun became red or it became yellow. Upon this the Messenger of God said: They have diverted us from (offering) the middle prayer. May God fill (mal`a) their bellies and their graves with fire, or he said: May God stuff (hasha) their bellies and their graves with fire (Muslim).

More importantly, both Muslim and Bukhari give a hadith in which it is 'Umar who scolds the polytheists for causing through battle a delay in the `asr prayer and there is no mention of the middle prayer:

Jabir bin 'Abd Allah reported that 'Umar bin al-Khattab had been cursing the pagans of the Quraysh on the day (of the battle) of al-Khandaq. (He came to the Holy Prophet) and said: "Messenger of God! By God, I could not perform the 'asr prayer till the sun set." Upon this the Messenger said: "By God, I, too, have not performed it." So we went to a valley. The Messenger of God performed ablution and we too performed ablution, and then the Messenger of God performed the 'asr prayer after the sun had set and then performed the maghrib prayer after it (Muslim).

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abd Allah: On the day of al-Khandaq 'Umar bin al-Khattab came cursing the disbelievers of Quraysh after the sun had set and said, "O God's Messenger, I could not perform the 'asr prayer till the sun had set." The Prophet said, "By God! I, too, have not prayed." So we turned towards Buthan, and the Prophet performed ablution and we too performed ablution and offered the 'asr prayer after the sun had set, and then he offered the maghrib prayer (Bukhari).

Even more, Bukhari gives a version of this last tradition in which the Prophet is not explicitly involved:

Narrated Jabir: 'Umar came cursing their disbelievers on the day of al-Khandaq and said, "I could not offer the 'asr prayer till the sun had set. Then we went to Buthan and he offered the prayer after sunset and then he offered the maghrib prayer (Bukhari).

Here there is no talk of the Prophet also being unable to perform the 'asr prayer in time due to engagement in battle. Thus it seems that the historical event underlying the above traditions may be nothing more than the simple fact that in about the battle of al-Khandaq some Muslims could not perform 'asr prayer in time and had to perform it after its appointed time. This incident was used to make various points of fiqh and also to identify the 'asr prayer with the middle prayer. This identification becomes much more explicit in some traditions found in relatively late or less reliable documents:

Abu Hurayrah was once asked about the middle prayer. He said: We also once differed about it. Abu Hashim bin 'Utbah rose from the gathering and went to the house of the Messenger of God. After seeking permission, he entered and obtained the information. He came out and told us that it was 'asr (al-Tabari, Tafsir).

Once in the company of 'Abd al-'Aziz bin Marwan the question of the middle prayer came up. He said, "Go and ask such and such companion." But one person in the gathering said: "Listen! When I was young I was sent by Abu Bakr and 'Umar to the Prophet to ask the same question. The Prophet took my little finger and said: 'Look, this is the fajr prayer.' Then he took the finger next to it and said: 'This is the zuhr prayer.' He took the thumb and said: 'This is the magrib prayer.' He took the finger used for shahadah in prayer (the finger next to the thumb) and said: 'This is the 'isha prayer.' He then asked: 'Which finger remains.' I said, 'the middle finger.' He asked: 'Which prayer remains.' I said: 'Asr.' He said: 'Well, that is the middle prayer'." (Al-Tabari, Tafsir).

The Prophet recited the verse [2:238] and said: This is the 'asr prayer (Musnad Ahmad).

There are still more traditions in the literature attributing different views to different companions, sometimes opposite views to the same companions. Thus 'Ali, Ibn Mas'ud, Abu Ayyub, Ibn 'Umar, Ibn 'Abbas, Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, and Abu Hurayrah are said to identify the middle prayer as the 'asr prayer. Traditions attributed to 'Ali, 'Umar, Ma'adh bin Jabal, Ibn 'Abbas, Ibn 'Umar, Jabir, 'Ata, and  'Akramah identify the middle prayer as the subh orfajr prayer. Tradtiions attributed to Zayd bin Thabit, Usamah bin Zayd, Abu Sa'id al-Khudri, and 'Aishah identify it as zuhr prayer. Among the later generations, we again find contradictory views attributed to the same scholar. Iman Malik is known only to favor the subh prayer. Shafi'i probably held the same view, but later scholars of the Shafi'i school argued that since Shafi'i was bound by every hadith, therefore had he known the ahadith identifying the middle prayer with the 'asr prayer he would have revised his view. But if Shafi'i (died 204) did not know these ahadith, then it is probable that they are relatively late. Hasan Basri, Ibrahim Nakh'i, Qatadah, Dahhak, Kalbi, Maqatil, Abu Hanifah, Ahmad, Abu Da`ud, Ibn Mundhar were of the opinion that the middle prayer was the 'asrprayer, although one tradition from Abu Hanifah identifies it as zuhr prayer. There are also other opinions, e.g. that the middle prayer is the maghrib prayer (attributed to Ibn 'Abbas) or 'isha` prayer, or jum'ah prayer, or one of the 'Idprayers or an unidentifiable prayer.

From this one should not get the impression that the middle prayer was never clearly understood. What this means is that in the early period the question was not discussed, probably because it was clear to the well-informed companions what prayer was the middle prayer. For, the companions who counted the start of the day from sunset the middle prayer was probably understood as the morning prayer and this is probably also how it is understood in the Qur`an. Its special mention can be explained because sleep can easily prevent people from praying the morning prayer on time. But outside Arabia people counted the start of the day in other ways and this gave rise to other interpretations of the middle prayer. Thus those who started the day from some point in the night (e.g., midnight) the middle prayer will be either zuhr prayer or the 'asr prayer, depending on whether they counted the night prayer or the morning prayer as the first prayer of the day. If one started the day from sunrise the middle prayer will be themaghrib prayer. The identification with the maghrib prayer is also suggested by the fact that it divides 24-hour period into day and night, with two prayers before it during the day and two prayers after it during the night. But it is the identification with the 'asr prayer that became a popular alternative to the earlier view that correctly identified the middle prayer with the subh prayer.

We earlier noted that often the variants of the Qur`an arose when some explanatory words were by mistake made part of the Qur`anic verses and then, out of enthusiasm for those explanations and willful clinging to the mistakes, stories were created to justify the mistakes. Thus the view that the middle prayer was the 'asr prayer made some half-informed over-enthusiastic imam to read the verse with the "middle prayer" replaced by "'asr prayer". The wrong reading when confronted with the standard correct reading did not result in a correction of the mistake but in willful insistence on it. Stories were fabricated to show that the reading was indeed once a part of the Qur`an. The absence of the phrase from all the written copies of the Qur`an and from its recitation by everyone else is explained in two ways: by the theory of abrogation and by assuming that it somehow got omitted from all the copies of the Qur`an. The first approach gave rise to the story attributed to al-Bara` bin 'Azib while the second approach led to the story of 'Aishah/Hafsah.

These stories, though they were probably created to identify the middle prayer with the 'asr prayer, inadvertently left a loophole. In the hadith of al-Bara` bin 'Azib the abrogation of "guard your prayers and the "asr prayer" by "guard your prayers and the middle prayer" can suggest that the middle prayer is not the 'asr prayer, for otherwise abrogation merely substitutes one name of the prayer by another, hardly a meaningful change. This explains the exchange in the hadith between Shaqiq and his companion, in which the question whether the middle prayer is the 'asr prayer is not clearly resolved.

The same ambiguity characterizes the variant given in the story about 'Aishah or Hafsah. In fact the variant has been used to argue that the middle prayer is not the 'asr prayer. This is because the statement "guard . the middle prayer and the 'asr prayer" can be understood in two ways. One way is that the middle prayer is identical to the 'asr prayer. This is possible in Arabic as in English. For example, a person could say, "I saw my friend and my collegue," referring to one and the same person. The second interpretation is that the middle prayer and the 'asr prayer are not the same prayer. It is perhaps using this last interpretation that Malik can record this story and still prefer the view that the middle prayer is the subh prayer, although admittedly the earlier Muslim scholars often quoted traditions without necessarily fully accepting them. In any case, the ambiguity left by the earlier form of the alleged variant reading of the Qur`an was removed at some stage. Thus al-Tabari in his Tafsir gives the following variant reading:

Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer -- and this is the 'asr prayer (wa hiya salat al-'asr)--and stand obedient to God.

This variant leaves little doubt about which prayer was the middle prayer!

How some explanatory words could be made variants of the Qur`an by some ill-informed or over-enthusiastic people is illustrated by examples in the Hadith. We need not go further from the subject of the middle prayer for an example. The versions in Bukhari of the hadith about the delay in the 'asr prayer on the day of al-Khandaq provide and example. We quote these versions again for the sake of convenience of the reader:

1) Narrated Jabir bin 'Abd Allah: On the day of al-Khandaq 'Umar bin al-Khattab came cursing the disbelievers of Quraysh after the sun had set and said, "O God's Messenger, I could not perform the 'asrprayer till the sun had set." The Prophet said, "By God! I, too, have not prayed." So we turned towards Buthan, and the Prophet performed ablution and we too performed ablution and offered the 'asr prayer after the sun had set, and then he offered the maghrib prayer.

In this version there is no mention of the middle prayer; the delayed prayer is simply called the 'asr prayer. The same is the case in the next version:

2) Narrated Jabir: 'Umar came cursing the disbelievers on the day of al-Khandaq and said, "I could not offer the 'asr prayer till the sun had set. Then we went to Buthan and he offered the prayer after sunset and then he offered the maghrib prayer (Bukhari).

But in the following version the delayed prayer is called the middle prayer:

3) Narrated 'Ali: On the day of al-Khandaq, the Prophet said "God fill their houses and graves with fire as they have prevented us from offering the middle prayer till the sun had set."

4) Narrated 'Ali bin abi Talib: We were in the company of the Prophet on the day (of the battle) of al-Khandaq. The Prophet said, "May God fill their (the infidels') graves and houses with fire, as they have kept us so busy (in battle) that we could not offer the middle prayer till the sun had set; and this (was) the 'asrprayer (wa hiya salat al-'asr)"

In both versions attributed to 'Ali (number 3 and 4) it is clear that the middle prayer is understood to be the afternoon ('asr) prayer, since it is said to be delayed till sunset. But notice that in the version number 4 we have the words "and this (was) the 'asr prayer" that are not found in the version number 3. It is probable that these words were added to the more original version to further clarify the identification of the middle prayer with the 'asr prayer. And in view of the ahadith attributed to Jabir in which the middle prayer is not even mentioned, it is likely that even in the version number 3 the reference to the middle prayer is secondary. We can thus see two developments: First 'asr prayer was changed to middle prayer and then the identification between the two was made more explicit.

It seems fairly certain that something similar happened during the transmission of the Qur`an at some places at the hands of some careless people: First the middle prayer was explained as 'asr prayer and then this explanation was made a variant reading of the Qur`an. Indeed, in Arabic the additional words (wa hiya salat al-'asr) in the version number 4 are identical to the additional words in alleged variant of the Qur`anic verse as given in al-Tabari.

Regardless of whether one accepts the above explanation of how the traditions about an alleged variant of 2:238 referring to 'asr prayer came to be formed, it is clear from the above review of the various traditions that we are not dealing here with a reliable set of reports. Muslim scholars in earlier times reached the same conclusion. Thus Ibn Kathir wrote in his Tafsir:

This khabar wahid [about the variant reading of 2:238] does not establish the reading in the absence oftawatur. This is why 'Uthman did not accept it in his mushaf of the Qur`an. Nor are these additional words found in the recitation of any of the seven reciters or even any other trusted reciter. Moreover, another hadith establishes the abrogation of this reading. (Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, PRESERVATION OF THE REVELATIONS RECEIVED BY THE PROPHETS MUHAMMAD AND JESUS, Chapter 6, Source)

Allah neither needs the obedience of his servants, nor harmed in any way by their disobedience – Imam Ibn Rajab

by AbdurRahman.org

Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī’s book, “Jāmi’ al-‘Ulūm wal-Ḥikam,” is an explanation of the forty-two famous ḥadīth collected by Imām an-Nawawī. The part of the  ḥadīth explained in this article is ḥadīth number twenty-four of that book.

The Explanation of:

يَا عِبَادِي إِنَّكُمْ لَنْ تَبْلُغُوْا ضُرِّي فَتَضُرُّوْنِي، وَلَنْ تَبْلُغُوْا نَفْعِي فَتَنْفَعُوْنِي

“Oh my servants, you will never be able to harm me, and you will never be able to benefit me.”

People are incapable of ever reaching a state in which they could benefit or harm Allah, for Allah is the Self-Sufficient, the Praiseworthy. He neither needs the obedience of his servants, nor does any benefit of such obedience reach him. It is only the servants who benefit from their obedience. Likewise, he is not harmed in any way by their disobedience, but it is they who harm themselves therewith. Allah ( تَعَالَى ) says:

وَلا يَحْزُنكَ الَّذِينَ يُسَارِعُونَ فِي الْكُفْرِ إِنَّهُمْ لَن يَضُرُّوا اللَّهَ شَيْئًا

And do not be grieved by those who hasten into disbelief. They will certainly never harm Allah at all.[Sūrah Āli ‘Imrān, 3:176]

And he says:

وَمَن يَنقَلِبْ عَلَى عَقِبَيْهِ فَلَن يَضُرَّ اللَّهَ شَيْئًا

And he who turns back on his heels will never harm Allah at all.[Sūrah Āli ‘Imrān, 3:144]

And Allah ( عَزَّ وَجَلَّ ) says:

وَإِن تَكْفُرُوا فَإِنَّ لِلَّهِ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الأَرْضِ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَنِيًّا حَمِيدًا

But if you disbelieve, then to Allah belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on earth. And ever is Allah free of need, praiseworthy. [Sūrah al-Nisā, 4:131]

And he says, quoting the prophet Moses:

وَقَالَ مُوسَى إِن تَكْفُرُوا أَنتُمْ وَمَن فِي الأَرْضِ جَمِيعًا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ لَغَنِيٌّ حَمِيدٌ

And Moses said, “If you should disbelieve, you and whoever is on the earth entirely, indeed, Allah is Free of need, praiseworthy.” [Sūrah Ibrāhīm, 14:8]

And Allah says:

وَمَن كَفَرَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَنِيٌّ عَنِ الْعَالَمِينَ

And whoever disbelieves, certainly Allah free of need from all creations.[Sūrah Āli ‘Imrān, 3:97]

And:

لَن يَنَالَ اللَّهَ لُحُومُهَا وَلَا دِمَاؤُهَا وَلَٰكِن يَنَالُهُ التَّقْوَىٰ مِنكُمْ

Neither their meat, nor their blood (e.g., of animals slaughtered for charity) reaches Allah; but what reaches him is piety from you.[Sūrah al-Ḥajj, 22:37]

Allah ( تَعَالَى ) loves his servants to remain conscious of him and obey him, just as he dislikes them to disobey him. For this reason, Allah is happier with people’s repentance than the happiness felt by a person who, having lost his riding animal in a vast desert upon which are his food and drink, searches desperately for his mount to the point of exhaustion and finally, giving up all hope of ever finding it, gives in to certain despair that his life is as an end, and he abandons himself to death. As he succumbs to his exhaustion and sleeps, he later wakes up to find his riding animal standing right before him. This is one of the highest levels of happiness imaginable among creation.[51]

Allah is even happier than such a person despite the fact that he is in no way in need of his servants’ obedience or their repentance. Rather, he returns the benefit thereof back to them out his generosity and kindness toward his servants and his love for their well-being and his desire to prevent harm from reaching them. And in return, he loves for his servants to know him, love him, fear him, remain constantly aware of him, and to obey him and exert effort in getting closer to him. He loves for them to know that no one else can forgive their sins and that he is fully capable of showing forgiveness for the sins of his servants.

And in another narration of this ḥadīth from ‘Abdul Raḥmān Ibn Ghanam from Abū Dharr, it is reported that Allah said, “Whoever among you knows that I am capable of showing forgiveness and were he to ask for my forgiveness, I would forgive him and would not mind at all.”

---

The Explanation of:

يَا عِبَادِي لَو أَنَّ أَوَّلَكُمْ وآخِرَكُمْ وَإِنْسَكُمْ وَجِنَّكُمْ كَانُوْا عَلَى أَتْقَى قَلْبِ رَجُلٍ وَاحِدٍ مِنْكُمْ مَا زَادَ ذَلِكَ فِي مُلْكِي شَيْئًا، يَا عِبَادِي لَو أَنَّ أَوَّلَكُمْ وآخِرَكُمْ وَإِنْسَكُمْ وَجِنَّكُمْ كَانُوْا عَلَى أَفْجَرِ قَلْبِ رَجُلٍ وَاحِدٍ مِنْكُمْ مَا نَقَصَ ذَلِكَ مِنْ مُلْكِي شَيْئًا

“Oh my servants, if the first of you and the last of you, the people and jinn among you, were all to have hearts as righteous as the most righteous man among you, that would not increase my kingdom in anything. Oh my servants, if the first of you and the last of you, the people and jinn among you, were to have hearts as wicked as the most wicked man among you, that would not decrease my kingdom in anything.”

This shows that the kingdom of Allah will not increase in anything even if all creatures were as pious and had hearts as the most righteous person among them. Similarly, his kingdom will never decrease by the sins of sinners even if all the jinn and humans were to be as cruel and evil, having hearts as evil as the most wicked person among them. Allah ( سُبْحَانَهُ ) is self-sufficient, having no need whatsoever of anyone else. There is absolute perfection in his self, his characteristics, and in his actions. His dominion and authority is also perfect with no weakness or flaws to diminish it in any way.

Some people believe that the creations brought about by Allah – those present now – are the most perfect forms than had Allah created them in any other way. And the evil we witness among creation is a conditional type of evil dependent on some things within creation; it is not an absolute evil existing in creation such that its nonexistence would be better than its current existence under all circumstances. Rather, the fact that such aspects of evil are present is actually better than if they were not. They say that such an understanding is the meaning of Allah’s statement:

بِيَدِكَ الْخَيْرُ

In your hand is all good. [Sūrah Āli ‘Imrān, 3:26]

And this is the meaning of the prophet’s ( صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ) statement:

الشَّرُّ لَيْسَ إِلَيْكَ

Evil is not to be attributed to you. [Muslim (no. 771)]

Meaning: Absolute evil – that which the absent thereof would be better than its presence – is not present in your dominion. This kind of absolute evil is not to be found in Allah’s kingdom because Allah ( تَعَالَى ) brings about his creation and what it requires of wisdom and justice. Sometimes he distinguishes particular people (perhaps in this life or the next) with favors which he does not give others out of his justice and what that necessitates of complete wisdom.

Yet in such an understanding there is an issue which contradicts the point being made in the ḥadīth in that were all creations to have the best characteristics of piety and righteousness, that would not increase and improve his dominion at all. And were all the creations to have wicked characteristics that would lower the status and manner in which they were initially created, that would still not decrease the dominion of Allah in any way. [In other words, perhaps it is possible to become better or worse than one’s initial creation due to belief or disbelief in Allah, obedience or disobedience, etc.] And this (the fact that people have the choice to become better or worse) shows that Allah’s dominion and kingdom are still perfect in every way; it can neither be improved, nor perfected or completed even by obedience just as it cannot be decreased by disobedience. Nothing at all affects its perfection.

These statement (of the ḥadīth) mentioning the heart also indicate that the source of righteousness and wickedness is the heart. When the heart is pious and conscious of Allah, the (actions of the) limbs will be righteous, and when the heart is evil, the limbs will be likewise.[54] Because of this, the prophet ( صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ) said:

التَّقْوَى هَا هُنَا

Righteousness is right here.

And he pointed to his chest.[Muslim (no. 2564)]

---

Footnotes:

[51] This comparison is taken from a ḥadīth in which the prophet ( صلّى الله عليه وسلّم ) said:

لَلَّهُ أَشَدُّ فَرَحًا بِتَوْبَةِ عَبْدِهِ حِينَ يَتُوبُ إِلَيْهِ مِنْ أَحَدِكُمْ كَانَ عَلَى رَاحِلَتِهِ بِأَرْضِ فَلاةٍ فَانْفَلَتَتْ مِنْهُ وَعَلَيْهَا طَعَامُهُ وَشَرَابُهُ، فَأَيِسَ مِنْهَا، فَأَتَى شَجَرَةً فَاضْطَجَعَ فِي ظِلِّهَا قَدْ أَيِسَ مِنْ رَاحِلَتِهِ فَبَيْنَا هُوَ كَذَلِكَ إِذَا هُوَ بِهَا قَائِمَةً عِنْدَهُ فَأَخَذَ بِخِطَامِهَا ثُمَّ قَالَ مِنْ شِدَّةِ الْفَرَحِ: اللَّهُمَّ أَنْتَ عَبْدِي وَأَنَا رَبُّكَ! أَخْطَأَ مِنْ شِدَّةِ الْفَرَحِ

Allah is happier with the repentance of his servant when he repents to him than if one of you were traveling on his riding animal in a vast desert but it escapes while carrying his food and drink. After giving up all hope of catching it, the man then reclines in the shade of a tree, having despaired of finding his mount. While in such a state, he suddenly finds it standing right next to him so he takes its reins and cries out from sheer joy, “Oh Allah, you are my servant and I am your lord!” He makes such a mistake only from extreme happiness.

[Recorded by Muslim (no. 4939) and al-Bukāhrī” (no. 5863).]

[54] This point has been reported in a ḥadīth in al-Bukāhrī (no. 52) and Muslim (no. 1599) in which the prophet ( صلّى الله
عليه وسلّم ) said:

أَلا وَإنَّ فِي الْجَسَدِ مُضْغَةً إذَا صَلَحَتْ صَلَحَ الْجَسَدُ كُلُّهُ ، وَإِذَا فَسَدَتْ فَسَدَ الْجَسَدُ كُلُّهُ ، ألا وَهِيَ القَلْبُ

There is within the body an organ, if it is pure the entire body will be purified, and if it is corrupt, the entire body will be corrupted. It is certainly the heart.

Posted from: The Forbiddance of Oppression - Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali, Translated by Abu az-Zubayr Harrison

Related Links:

• https://abdurrahman.org/asma-wa-sifaat-com
• https://abdurrahman.org/translations/authentic-translations-com

AbdurRahman.org | January 5, 2019 at 1:41 PM | Tags: Abu az-Zubayr Harrison, Imam Ibn Rajab | Categories: .Allaah (Azza wa Jal), Asma wa Sifaat | URL: https://wp.me/p1VJ3-e38

Blowing the Horn on a Dilemma -

written by Ijaz Ahmed

In Matthew 6:1-2 (NIV) we read:

"“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full."

Usually the verses are taught to convey the idea that boasting about doing good actions are a sin, but there is a curious case behind this passage historically. While modern translations use "righteousness" from the Greek word ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗΝ (dikaiosunen), the vast majority of Greek manuscripts actually read ΕΛΕΗΜΟΣΥΝΗΝ (elemosunen) which means the specific act of giving money in charity or almsgiving.

However the problem is that no scholar in history has been able to find where the Jews have ever blown a trumpet/ horn before giving charity in money/ almsgiving:

"...that the wealthy Pharisees had a trumpet literally blown before them, to give notice to the poor of the neighbourhood that they were distributing their alms;"

"the best scholars have found no trace of any such practice in Jewish literature, and it is hardly credible that such a thing could have been done in the synagogues;"

Source: Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers.

Another commentary, the Pulpit Commentary, cites many scholars including John Calvin as thinking this was a literal claim and not a metaphorical one, whilst also quoting another famous commentator of the Gospels who indicates there was no historical evidence for a literal blowing off a trumpet before giving charity/ almsgiving:

"Others (e.g. Calvin, Bengel) have taken it of a literal trumpet; but of this practice there is no evidence whatever. "I have not found, although I have sought for it much and seriously, even the least mention of a trumpet in almsgiving" (J. Lightfoot, 'Hor. Hebr.')."

Source: Pulpit Commentary.

What is problematic here is that if taken to mean that the Jews literally blew a trumpet before doing any righteous act was a wrong and sinful act (according to the Jesus of the New Testament), then it presents a problem as the Old Testament records the Jews of having been commanded to blow a trumpet/ horn at specific times by God in Leviticus 23:24 and in Exodus 29. This would lead to the problem of missionaries believing in a God-Jesus rebuking the Jews for an act they were commanded to do by the same God in the Bible.

If taken to mean metaphorically, then there would not have been any reason to change the text from saying any good act: ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗΝ (dikaiosunen) to an act of specifically giving money for charity/ almsgiving: ΕΛΕΗΜΟΣΥΝΗΝ (elemosunen), as the majority of manuscripts read.

This leaves us with:

1. The Bible contradicting itself,
2. Jesus as a God condemning God for commanding the blowing off the horn in the first place,
3. Jesus was lying about the Jewish people,
4. The scribes and translators maliciously tampering with the Bible.

a biblical sinner

Prophecy making the biblical Jesus a sinner!

The soldiers also mocked [Jesus], coming up and offering him vinegar, and saying: "If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself!" (Luke 23:36-37)

Some Christian lady was bragging the above text is supposed to be a prophecy which is found in the book of psalm, let's find out if she's spoke the truth ?

They gave me poison in my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. (Psalm 69:22)

------------

Seems like she has a valid point, but If Jesus really fulfilled this verse why are we leaving the entire chapter? why not also include the first part, since the rest of this Psalm must also be attributed to him. For example we read from context:

O God, You know my folly; my sins are not hidden from You. (Psalm 69:6)

Yet this verse was omitted from the New Testament because it contradicts the Christian doctrine of Jesus being sinless. Now we have a serious dilemma either the prophecy fits Jesus which makes him a sinner or it doesn't which means our Christian friend lied

F

If Jesus was sinless then Yahweh is a super sinner!

Think of it Christians brag that Jesus never sinned he was a sinless lamb, he never killed anyone never hurt anyone never cursed anyone etc etc.. If this is the case then Yahweh must be a super Sinner since he cause many violence as found in the Old Testament killing people children's women's animals cursing people torturing people etc etc..

Now Christians may say well Jesus was God so God can't be a sinner, then how do you explain the God of the Old Testament was he a different God? You can't have the cake and eat it. Either Jesus was the God of the new and Old Testament which would make him a a violent evil God or he was a human and has nothing to do with the Old Testament ?

Take your pick

According to john Jesus sinned against God.

Let's study the verse with cross reference, and read how Jesus testified he sinned

------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill this passage of Scripture: 'He who shared my bread has turned against me.' (John 13:18)

The passage above tells us a prophecy was made which was fulfilled how Jesus was going to be betrayed, but the question is where in the OT is that prophecy mentioned? It's in the book of psalm

Even my close friend, someone I trusted, one who shared my bread, has turned against me. (Psalm 41:9)

Ok, We have to admit john has truly stated about the prophecy which really happened, Jesus was betrayed right. Well if that's really the case then let's read psalm 41:4

I said, "Have mercy on me, LORD; heal me, for I have sinned against you." (Psalm 41:4)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT!!! If john truly stated verse 9 talks about the prophecy Jesus will be betrayed, here in verse 4 Jesus says he sinned against God?

And I tell you if you read from chapter 41 verse 1 onwards it's about the same person!

Unless John lied, which makes the gospels false. You can't have the cake and eat it lol.

Isn't this enough to say Jesus was a sinner according to john!

Woman witnesses in Judaism

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)

 

 

 

Talmud, Yevamot 62b

“Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: Whosoever knows his wife to be a God‑fearing woman and does not duly visit her is called a sinner.”

 

 

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56763c8d1c1210f594d7084f/t/5e24f6693e92f9543988e506/1579480695863/Halachic+Positions.pdf pdf on love making

 

 

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."

 

 

 

לְפִי שֶׁהֶחֱזִירַתּוּ לְמשֶׁה עַל כָּל הַמִּצְרִיּוֹת לְהָנִיק אוֹתוֹ וּפָסַל אֶת כֻּלָּן, וְלָמָּה פְסָלָן, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁעָתִיד לְדַבֵּר עִמִּי יִינַק דָּבָר טָמֵא

 

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:

يَا مَعْشَرَ النِّسَاءِ تَصَدَّقْنَ فَإِنِّي أُرِيتُكُنَّ أَكْثَرَ أَهْلِ النَّارِ

O gathering of women! Give in charity, for I have seen you as a majority of people in Hellfire.

They said, “Why is that, O Messenger of Allah?” The Prophet said:

تُكْثِرْنَ اللَّعْنَ وَتَكْفُرْنَ الْعَشِيرَ مَا رَأَيْتُ مِنْ نَاقِصَاتِ عَقْلٍ وَدِينٍ أَذْهَبَ لِلُبِّ الرَّجُلِ الْحَازِمِ مِنْ إِحْدَاكُنَّ

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:

أَلَيْسَ شَهَادَةُ الْمَرْأَةِ مِثْلَ نِصْفِ شَهَادَةِ الرَّجُلِ

Is not the testimony of a woman like half of a man?

They said, “Of course.” The Prophet said:

فَذَلِكِ مِنْ نُقْصَانِ عَقْلِهَا أَلَيْسَ إِذَا حَاضَتْ لَمْ تُصَلِّ وَلَمْ تَصُمْ

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:

أَوَلَمْ يَرَوْا أَنَّا نَأْتِي الْأَرْضَ نَنقُصُهَا مِنْ أَطْرَافِهَا

Have they not seen that We set upon the land, reducing it from its borders?

Surat al-R’ad 13:41

And again:

أَفَلَا يَرَوْنَ أَنَّا نَأْتِي الْأَرْضَ نَنقُصُهَا مِنْ أَطْرَافِهَا

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.

Allah said:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِذَا تَدَايَنتُم بِدَيْنٍ إِلَىٰ أَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى فَاكْتُبُوهُ وَلْيَكْتُب بَّيْنَكُمْ كَاتِبٌ بِالْعَدْلِ … وَاسْتَشْهِدُوا شَهِيدَيْنِ مِن رِّجَالِكُمْ فَإِن لَّمْ يَكُونَا رَجُلَيْنِ فَرَجُلٌ وَامْرَأَتَانِ مِمَّن تَرْضَوْنَ مِنَ الشُّهَدَاءِ أَن تَضِلَّ إِحْدَاهُمَا فَتُذَكِّرَ إِحْدَاهُمَا الْأُخْرَىٰ

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.

Ibn al-Qayyim writes:

وَالْمَرْأَةُ الْعَدْلُ كَالرَّجُلِ فِي الصِّدْقِ وَالْأَمَانَةِ وَالدِّيَانَة إلَّا أَنَّهَا لَمَّا خِيفَ عَلَيْهَا السَّهْوُ وَالنِّسْيَانُ قَوِيَتْ بِمِثْلِهَا وَذَلِكَ قَدْ يَجْعَلُهَا أَقْوَى مِنْ الرَّجُلِ الْوَاحِدِ أَوْ مِثْلَهُ وَلَا رَيْب أَنَّ الظَّنَّ الْمُسْتَفَادَ مِنْ شَهَادَةِ مِثْلِ أُمِّ الدَّرْدَاءِ وَأُمِّ عَطِيَّةَ أَقْوَى مِنْ الظَّنِّ الْمُسْتَفَادِ مِنْ رَجُلٍ وَاحِدٍ دُونَهُمَا وَدُونَ أَمْثَالِهِمَا

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.

Ibn Taymiyyah writes:

فَمَا كَانَ مِنْ الشَّهَادَاتِ لَا يُخَافُ فِيهِ الضَّلَالُ فِي الْعَادَةِ لَمْ تَكُنْ فِيهِ عَلَى نِصْفِ رَجُلٍ

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.

Ibn Rushd writes:

وَأَمَّا شَهَادَةُ النِّسَاءِ مُفْرَدَاتٍ أَعْنِي النِّسَاءَ دُونَ الرِّجَالِ فَهِيَ مَقْبُولَةٌ عِنْدَ الْجُمْهُورِ فِي حُقُوقِ الْأَبْدَانِ الَّتِي لَا يَطَّلِعُ عَلَيْهَا الرِّجَالُ غَالِبًا مِثْلَ الْوِلَادَةِ وَالِاسْتِهْلَالِ وَعُيُوبِ النِّسَاءِ

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.

Ibn al-Qayyim writes:

قَالَ الْإِمَامُ أَحْمَدُ فِي الرَّجُلِ يُوصِي وَلَا يَحْضُرُهُ إلَّا النِّسَاءُ قَالَ أُجِيزُ شَهَادَةَ النِّسَاءِ فَظَاهِرُ هَذَا أَنَّهُ أَثْبَتَ الْوَصِيَّةَ بِشَهَادَةِ النِّسَاءِ عَلَى الِانْفِرَادِ إذَا لَمْ يَحْضُرْهُ الرِّجَالُ

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.

Abu Musa reported:

مَا أَشْكَلَ عَلَيْنَا أَصْحَابَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ حَدِيثٌ قَطُّ فَسَأَلْنَا عَائِشَةَ إِلَّا وَجَدْنَا عِنْدَهَا مِنْهُ عِلْمًا

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.

Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 3883, Grade: Sahih

Masruq reported: He was asked, “Was Aisha knowledgeable of the religious obligations?” Masruq said:

وَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ لَقَدْ رَأَيْتُ مَشْيَخَةَ أَصْحَابِ مُحَمَّدٍ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ الْأَكَابِرَ يَسْأَلُونَهَا عَنْ الْفَرَائِضِ

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.

Al-Shawkani writes:

فَإِنْ قُلْت إنَّ ذَلِكَ الْقَوْلَ مِنْ عُمَرَ يَتَضَمَّنُ الطَّعْنَ عَلَى رِوَايَةِ فَاطِمَةَ لِقَوْلِهِ لِقَوْلِ امْرَأَةٍ لَا نَدْرِي لَعَلَّهَا حَفِظَتْ أَوْ نَسِيَتْ قُلْت هَذَا مَطْعَنٌ بَاطِلٌ بِإِجْمَاعِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ لِلْقَطْعِ بِأَنَّهُ لَمْ يُنْقَلْ عَنْ أَحَدٍ مِنْ الْعُلَمَاءِ أَنَّهُ رَدَّ خَبَرَ الْمَرْأَةِ لِكَوْنِهَا امْرَأَةً فَكَمْ مِنْ سُنَّةٍ قَدْ تَلَقَّتْهَا الْأُمَّةُ بِالْقَبُولِ عَنْ امْرَأَةٍ وَاحِدَةٍ مِنْ الصَّحَابَةِ

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:

يَا نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ أَتُحِبُّ ذَلِكَ اخْرُجْ ثُمَّ لاَ تُكَلِّمْ أَحَدًا مِنْهُمْ كَلِمَةً حَتَّى تَنْحَرَ بُدْنَكَ وَتَدْعُوَ حَالِقَكَ فَيَحْلِقَكَ

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.

Ibn Hajar writes:

وَجَوَازُ مُشَاوَرَةِ الْمَرْأَةِ الْفَاضِلَةِ وَفَضْلُ أُمِّ سَلَمَةَ وَوُفُورُ عَقْلِهَا حَتَّى قَالَ إِمَامُ الْحَرَمَيْنِ لَا نَعْلَمُ امْرَأَةً أَشَارَتْ بِرَأْيٍ فَأَصَابَتْ إِلَّا أُمَّ سَلَمَةَ

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.

Success comes from Allah, and Allah knows best