Regarding: muhammad's marriage to his daughter in-law

  • Thread starter Thread starter Irene72
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Irene72

Guest
I read on a thread that Muhammad married his daughter in law.
I cannot find the thread.
Anyways;
someone mentioned that the daughter in law said she would not marry him unless allah permitted it and after that there was a sura saying it was ok.
I was wondering how the muslims here felt/ feel about muhammad’s timing with the sura? Is it disputed?
 
That’s a silly article. Sheesh. It starts out with a lie! :mad:

Islam does NOT prohibit adopting children, in fact it ENCOURAGES it!

Islam forbids people who are closely related to marry each other–closely related by either blood or breastfeeding. Adoption is an exception (unless there is breastfeeding.)

Seriously, who comes up with this stuff, I wonder?

I want to answer your question, Irene. This hadith which is being quoted has not been validated or authenticated, about Muhammad “lusting” after Zaynab. And frankly it doesn’t even make sense!

Zaynab was married to Zayd, but she was not happy with him as her husband. That’s why they divorced.

The Qur’an is clear that certain relatives (by birth or breastfeeding) absolutely cannot be married to each other. However, because adoption is not that same kind of bond, the marriage between Muhammad and Zaynab was valid in front of God! Because this is legislation from God, mind you, and not the legislation of men which is fickle and subject to the times and whims of the people.

Saying that Muhammad just fell in love with Zaynab is nothing but a fantasy created by those who aren’t interested in really understanding the truth and legal perspectives of Islam. It’s a shame that kind of nonsense was even posted here on the forum.
 
And further clarification.

Zaynab was not his daughter-in-law.
 
Sister_Amy said:
And further clarification.

Zaynab was not his daughter-in-law.
Click to expand...
IF Zayd was his adopted son; then does’nt that make her his daughter in law?

He essentially had marital relations with a women who was married to a “boy” he called “son”.
??

:confused:
 
Sister_Amy said:
That’s a silly article. Sheesh. It starts out with a lie! :mad:

Islam does NOT prohibit adopting children, in fact it ENCOURAGES it!

Islam forbids people who are closely related to marry each other–closely related by either blood or breastfeeding. Adoption is an exception (unless there is breastfeeding.)

Seriously, who comes up with this stuff, I wonder?

I want to answer your question, Irene. This hadith which is being quoted has not been validated or authenticated, about Muhammad “lusting” after Zaynab. And frankly it doesn’t even make sense!

Zaynab was married to Zayd, but she was not happy with him as her husband. That’s why they divorced.

The Qur’an is clear that certain relatives (by birth or breastfeeding) absolutely cannot be married to each other. However, because adoption is not that same kind of bond, the marriage between Muhammad and Zaynab was valid in front of God! Because this is legislation from God, mind you, and not the legislation of men which is fickle and subject to the times and whims of the people.

Saying that Muhammad just fell in love with Zaynab is nothing but a fantasy created by those who aren’t interested in really understanding the truth and legal perspectives of Islam. It’s a shame that kind of nonsense was even posted here on the forum.
Click to expand...
**The article says “****Adoption in the technical sense is not allowed in Muslim Shriah law.” This is accurate, because the rules for taking care of an orphaned child in Islamic law is similar to what we would call “fostering” a child:

**
  • An adopted child retains his or her own biological family name (surname) and does not change his or her name to match that of the adoptive family.
  • An adopted child inherits from his or her biological parents, not automatically from the adoptive parents.
  • When the child is grown, members of the adoptive family are not considered blood relatives, and are therefore not muhrim to him or her. “Muhrim” refers to a specific legal relationship that regulates marriage and other aspects of life. Essentially, members of the adoptive family would be permissible as possible marriage partners, and rules of modesty exist between the grown child and adoptive family members of the opposite sex.
  • If the child is provided with property/wealth from the biological family, adoptive parents are commanded to take care and not intermingle that property/wealth with their own. They serve merely as trustees.
    From :
islam.about.com/cs/parenting/a/adoption.htm

Muhammad saw his “foster/adopted” son’s wife Zainab in a state of undress and desired to take her as his own wife, which he did.

Sura (33:37) - “But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We gave her to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their want of them; and Allah’s command shall be performed.” No doubt millions of young Muslims, trying to outdo one another at memorizing the Qur’an, have wondered about what this verse means and why it is there. In fact, this is a “revelation” of convenience that Allah just happened to hand down at a time when Muhammad lusted after his daughter-in-law, Zaynab, - an state of affairs that disturbed local customs. The verse “commands” Muhammad to marry the woman (following her husband’s gracious divorce). As for why this should be part of the eternal word of God…?

More about Muhammad and lust:

thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/025-Muhammads-sex-life.htm
 
Irene72 said:
IF Zayd was his adopted son; then does’nt that make her his daughter in law?

He essentially had marital relations with a women who was married to a “boy” he called “son”.
??

:confused:
Click to expand...
No. Zaid was not his son.

Zaid was a boy he took in to his household as a servant, whom his wife (Khadeeja) paid to free. He was not a biological son of Muhammad. Muhammad did not call Zaid his son nor consider him to be his son. Zaid knew who his father was. Zaid’s father came to get him actually, and when he asked Muhammad for Zaid to be returned to him, Muhammad said to let Zaid choose, to choose whether he wanted to go with his father, or stay with Muhammad.

And Zaid chose to stay with Muhammad, the messenger of God. Not as his son, not in the same way that Muhammad had 4 daughters and 3 sons with his wives.

Zaid bin Harithah was not the son of Muhammad. That is precisely what this marriage shows us. And in fact, anyone who argues with the marriage of Muhammad to Zaynab binti Jahsh should really consider that–why did he marry her? What are Muslims saying this proves? It proves that biological relationships are not equivalent to adopted relationships, not in marriage, not in inheritance, nor any other way.

Take heed.
 
Once again, Eden, there has not been any authentic proof to validate the claim that Muhammad saw Zaynab in a state of undress.
 
Sister_Amy said:
Once again, Eden, there has not been any authentic proof to validate the claim that Muhammad saw Zaynab in a state of undress.
Click to expand...
“One day the Messenger of God went out looking for Zayd. Now there was a covering of haircloth over the doorway, but the wind had lifted the covering so that the doorway was uncovered. Zaynab was in her chamber, undressed, and admiration for her entered the heart of the Prophet. (Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, vol. 8, p. 4)”

Are you saying the renowned Quranic commentator, Al-Tabari, a liar?
 
Eden said:
“One day the Messenger of God went out looking for Zayd. Now there was a covering of haircloth over the doorway, but the wind had lifted the covering so that the doorway was uncovered. Zaynab was in her chamber, undressed, and admiration for her entered the heart of the Prophet. (Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, vol. 8, p. 4)”

Are you saying the renowned Quranic commentator, Al-Tabari, a liar?
Click to expand...
Of course I’m not calling At-Tabari a liar. What he did though, just like many other commentators, was collect the relevant stories pertaining to certain passages in the Qur’an. He did not authenticate them. Meaning that this story does not (apparently) have a chain of narration (like hadith) with known narrators who have been checked for being trustworthy and having a good memory. For that reason, this does not count as authentic proof.
 
Sister_Amy said:
Of course I’m not calling At-Tabari a liar. What he did though, just like many other commentators, was collect the relevant stories pertaining to certain passages in the Qur’an. He did not authenticate them. Meaning that this story does not (apparently) have a chain of narration (like hadith) with known narrators who have been checked for being trustworthy and having a good memory. For that reason, this does not count as authentic proof.
Click to expand...
His commentary is more authentic than yours. He’s a respected Muslim scholar.
 
Eden said:
His commentary is more authentic than yours. He’s a respected Muslim scholar.
Click to expand...
He is more knowledgeable than I am, that’s for sure.

But he is including a report without authenticity. A report which you can’t seem to verify. If you’re going to accuse Muhammad of lusting after Zaynab, based on a report like this, then why don’t you believe the even more authentic reports, like the one about a moaning tree?

Seriously, if THAT is true then why even worry about this one? Just become Muslim!🙂
 
Sister_Amy said:
He is more knowledgeable than I am, that’s for sure.

But he is including a report without authenticity. A report which you can’t seem to verify. If you’re going to accuse Muhammad of lusting after Zaynab, based on a report like this, then why don’t you believe the even more authentic reports, like the one about a moaning tree?

Seriously, if THAT is true then why even worry about this one?
Click to expand...
If Al-Tabari is unreliable, why is his commentary provided on the official website of Saudi Arabia?
Just become Muslim!🙂
Click to expand...
Believe me, I would never be that foolish.
 
Eden said:
Sister Amy;3926467:
Once again, Eden, there has not been any authentic proof to validate the claim that Muhammad saw Zaynab in a state of undress.
Click to expand...
“One day the Messenger of God went out looking for Zayd. Now there was a covering of haircloth over the doorway, but the wind had lifted the covering so that the doorway was uncovered. Zaynab was in her chamber, undressed, and admiration for her entered the heart of the Prophet. (Al-Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, vol. 8, p. 4)”

Are you saying the renowned Quranic commentator, Al-Tabari, a liar?
Click to expand...
No, no one dare to say Al-Tabari is a liar here in Saudi Arabia or in any other Islamic country, he is authentic Quranic commentator, even his Tafseer is being taught in our elementary and high schools.
 
Sister_Amy said:
Zaid was a boy he took in to his household as a servant, whom his wife (Khadeeja) paid to free. He was not a biological son of Muhammad. Muhammad did not call Zaid his son nor consider him to be his son. Zaid knew who his father was. Zaid’s father came to get him actually, and when he asked Muhammad for Zaid to be returned to him, Muhammad said to let Zaid choose, to choose whether he wanted to go with his father, or stay with Muhammad.

And Zaid chose to stay with Muhammad,
Click to expand...
👍 That is correct, but why you didn’t continue the story till Muhammed himself said that Zaid is his son in front of many people !!!

“and because Zaid said that, Muhammed was so happy by Zaid decision, therefore, Muhammed went out to Kabba in front of Qurish tribe, and shouted “to all who came, Zaid is my son he inherits me and I inherit him”, here is the Arabic verse for that:
" يا من حضر، اشهدوا أن زيدًا ابني يرثني وأرثه”"

Source1:
ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%AF_%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AB%D8%A9
Source2:
islam.aljayyash.net/encyclopedia/book-9-11
Source3:
masrawy.com/islameyat/sahaba/sahaba/Zaied_ben_haretha.aspx
 
Irene72 said:
Isn’t this hadith proof that muhammad gave in to “lust” among other things?
Click to expand...
Surely lust if you link it to these authentic hadiths:

Performing sex for all his 9 wives in a single night:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 6:
“*The Prophet I used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives. *”
(E) (A)

Performing sex during his wives menses:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 299:
“'Aisha said: “Whenever Allah’s Apostle wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an Izar and start fondling her.” 'Aisha added, "None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet could.”
(E) (A)

Marring a 6 years old girl:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64:
“that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).”
(E) (A)
 
Irene72 said:
I just read that article (and printed it for safe keeping)

Isn’t this hadith proof that muhammad gave in to “lust” among other things?
Click to expand...
am sure he did not give in to “fatherly” love.
 
Sister_Amy said:
And further clarification.

Zaynab was not his daughter-in-law.
Click to expand...
he was like his son, only not biologically…but the feelings were that of a father to a son. This must have applied to Zainab…it is not blood that gives father love/affection but the fact that she was married to his “spiritual son” and was supposed to be like a daughter to him for heaven’s sake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top