The question concerning Muhammad’s existence is not irrelevant, as many might think at first glance. First, consider an example closer to home: the case of Lindsay Mathis. She was an American physician who served in war zones during World War I and died in 1938. She traveled on foot for hundreds of miles, suffered hunger and thirst, and often endured harassment from lustful men. A hero, she treated every one of the wounded warriors she met. Some say she was so pious and godly that she performed supernatural healings. She died of leprosy after treating many with the same disease.  

We know of her only because of a notebook found in Nebraska in 2010 in the basement of an abandoned house. The notebook is allegedly a copy of another copy of Lindsay’s own diary, which is now lost. The copies were made by the grandchildren of Lindsay’s lesser known sister, Sara. No eyewitness testimony or other document mentions Lindsay Mathis. Did she really exist? We have no evidence. We cannot say for sure. In fact, I made this whole story up.  There was no Lindsay Mathis. My goal in telling the story is to point out the importance of credible evidence, such as an eyewitness account or contemporary documentation of an event.

So what about Muhammad? The question of his historicity is controversial. Of course, Muslims emphatically believe in a historical Muhammad whose character, deeds, and teachings are documented in the numerous Islamic sources. However, these Muslim sources are generally late (some were written centuries after Muhammad’s death) and full of contradictory information about Muhammad’s life. This is one reason why many non-Muslims doubt the claims advanced by Muslim sources, including Muhammad’s existence.

In particular, archaeologist Yehuda Nevo (1932-92) argues that there is a lack of independent evidence to indicate the existence of Muhammad. Nevo concludes, based on archaeological, epigraphical, and non-Muslim historical literature, that Arabs were pagans, not Muslims, when they conquered Byzantine lands many years after Muhammad’s reported death. If this is true, then Arab leaders were idol worshipers–not followers of Islam, as preached by someone named Muhammad–who led armies and conquered Christian lands. Nevo claims that after pagan Arab commanders subdued those lands, they sought to adopt a set of beliefs similar to that of the conquered people, who were mostly monotheistic. Nevo regards this as one reason for the similarities between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. While many scholars have commended Nevo’s rigorous research and the solid methodology he employed, some view his claims as radical due to the fact that Muhammad’s existence is reported in a few contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous non-Muslim accounts.

One way to examine the historicity of Muhammad is to consider sources written by the people who lived around Arabia during his supposed lifetime (ca. 570-632). If the Muslim sources were written too long after Muhammad’s death to be considered reliable, what about those from the seventh-century Syria, Egypt, Persia, and so forth? Do they reference the Arabian individual whom Muslims identify as their prophet? In the first few decades after Muhammad’s death, non-Muslim sources depict Muhammad as a trader, a monotheist preacher, a conquest initiator, a king, a lawgiver, or a false prophet.    

Recent academic research identified the first explicit reference to Muhammad in a non-Muslim source dating precisely to Friday, February 7, 634. This reference attributed to Thomas the Presbyter, a seventh-century Middle Eastern Christian: “There was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muhammad…. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician bryrdn, whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 POOR villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region.”¹ A few years after Muhammad’s death, another Christian preacher wrote of “the prophet who has appeared with the [Arabs]” and identified him in negative terms: “HE IS FALSE, for the prophets do not come armed with a sword.”² It appears that non-Muslims around Arabia had heard news regarding an Arabian prophet who was active in battle. Moreover, a sermon preached in 636 or 637 (four or five years after Muhammad’s death) by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius. Details “the Arabs’ atrocities and victories,” as they “overrun places which are not allowed to them, plunder cities, devastate fields, BURN DOWN VILLAGES, SET ON FIRE THE HOLY CHURCHES, OVERTURN SACRED MONASTERIES.”³ Patriarch Sophronius identified them as “vengeful and God-hating” Arabs “who insult the cross, Jesus, and the name of God, AND WHOSE LEADER IS THE DEVIL.” ³ Furthermore, Middle Eastern Syriac evidence from 637 (again five years after Muhammad’s death) mention Muhammad’s name explicitly and refers to the fact that the “Arab troops decisively defeated the Byzantine forces” and that “many villages destroyed through the killing by [the Arabs of] Muhammad.”⁴ Not only does his name appear, but it is also identified in association with military battles and religious opposition to the God worshiped by the conquered Christians.

The question remains: Did Muhammad exist? The answer is elusive. It depends on which Muhammad you mean. We should distinguish between the existence of Muhammad and the historicity of Muhammad. Non-Muslim historical accounts–contemporary or near-contemporary with Muhammad’s life and career–establish a case for his existence. However, not only are these accounts scarce but they also paint various depictions of Muhammad, so to speak. When we compare these Muhammads to the Muslim accounts written centuries after his death, we are left with a confusing image of an Arabian prophet and statesman. Therefore, while Muhammad likely existed, his historicity is debated. (Ayman S. Ibrahim, A Concise Guide to the Quran [BakerAcademic, Grand Rapids, MI 2020], Part 1: The History of the Text of the Quran, 6. Did Muhammad Really Exist?, pp. 17-20)

1. Robert Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It (Princeton: Darwin Press, 1997), 120.

2. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, 57

3. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others Saw It, 72-73.

4. Michael Penn, When Christians First Met Muslims: A Sourcebook of the Earliest Syriac Writings on Islam (Oakland: University of California Press, 2015), 22-24. (Ibid., p. 19)

And of Related Questions Pertaining to the Coming of Messiah Jesus in A. D. 33.

By Thomas Ross

1.) Is the KJV correct in translating “seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks,” or should the verse really read “seven weeks; and for sixty two weeks”?

a.) To divide the weeks changes the Hebrew.  To say “and for sixty two weeks” is to add to Scripture. The word “for” is not there. The only thing dividing the seven weeks and the sixty two weeks is wa, meaning “and.”

b.) One might object that one needs to add the word “for” and divide the two sets of weeks, although the word is not there, because a disjunctive Hebrew accent (of which there are a variety in every verse in the Bible), the athnach, is under the word “seven” (shibah) in “seven weeks” (Heb. “weeks seven”). However, this conclusion does not follow.

i.) Ancient translations, such as the LXX (Greek Old Testament; translated before the Lord Jesus’ day), as well as Theodotion, the Syriac, and the Vulgate all make the sixty-nine weeks continuous. The large majority of modern Bible versions also make the sixty-nine weeks continuous. To assert that in the Greek Old Testament (LXX), centuries before the Lord Jesus was born, people mistranslated Daniel 9 to make it a prophecy of Him is ridiculous. To assert that the body of ancient versions and modern translations all mess up the passage is an amazing assertion of universal mistranslation among those who disagree with each other on all kinds of theological issues and certainly did not get together to form some sort of conspiracy to mistranslate Daniel 9. The minority of modern versions that mistranslate the passage in question and make the seven weeks noncontinuous with the sixty two weeks generally do so because they want to destroy this Messianic prophecy, not because of the necessities of Hebrew grammar.

ii.) An athnach is sometimes places where one would not normally expect it. In the words of William Wickes’s standard work in English on the Hebrew accents:

In cases of specification, we often find the proper logical or syntactical division—particularly the latter—neglected, and the main musical pause introduced between the details or particulars given. Distinctness of enunciation, and emphasis (where necessary), were thus secured. The pause was introduced where it seemed likely to be most effective. Thus the logical division is disregarded[.] . . .  Syntactical clauses are treated in the same way, and subject, object, &c. are cut in two—or members that belong together, separated—by the dichotomy. (A logical pause may occur in the verse or not).[1]

A number of instances of the phenomena described above can be adduced. For example, Wickes cites Numbers 28:19: “And ye shall offer a burnt-offering unto the LORD, two young bullocks and one ram (athnach), and seven he-lambs of the first year; they shall be unto you  without blemish.” See also Gen 7:13, 25:20, Ex 35:23, Lev 16:2, Is 49:21, 66:19. To try to use the athnach in Daniel 9:25 against the translation of the KJV is unjustified. Compare also the statement of a standard Hebrew grammar:

At the same time it must not be forgotten that the value of the accent as a mark of punctuation is always relative; thus, e. g., athnach as regards the logical structure of the sentence may at one time indicate a very important break (as in Gen 1:4); at another, one which is almost imperceptible (as in Gen 1:1).[2]

Note that in Genesis 1:1 the athnach is under Eloheim (God) and does not even receive a comma in the English text!

c.) Detaching the seven weeks from the sixty-two weeks is nonsensical. Such a division would mean that it took 434 years to build the “street . . . and the wall” (9:25), which does not fit history and demolishes the context.

d.) The city and the sanctuary were to be destroyed in the generation when the Messiah was cut off, but not for Himself, but nothing in history even comes close to making sense of this fact if one divides the seven from the sixty two weeks.

e.) The first seven weeks, or 49 years, are probably set apart because it actually took that long to restore Jerusalem from being a ruin to a thriving city (which would justify the mention of rebuilding the “street” alongside the wall; the word “street” (rechob) has special reference to breadth, and so a wide street, marketplace, or other place of similar concourse would be in view, implying a restoration of the city to her former state.

f.) It is very difficult to make the text mean anything at all if one detaches the seven weeks from the sixty-two weeks. The main reason one would divide the passage in this manner is to try desperately to avoid the Messianic conclusion intended by Daniel. Hebrew grammar or the plain meaning of the context will not stop such a person.

2.) Does the passage refer to two anointed ones, or to One who is the Messiah the Prince?

a.) Since the seven weeks and the sixty two weeks form one period, not two, the possibility that the Messiah/Anointed One of v. 25 and the Messiah/Anointed One of v. 26 are different is eliminated.

b.) It is plain in context that the Anointed One/Messiah of v. 25 and of v. 26 is the same person.  To deny this fact makes no sense at all, charges Daniel with error, and demolishes history. The only reason one would cut the verses in pieces like this is if he desperately wishes to avoid the Messianic conclusion the God of Israel revealed through the prophet Daniel. Attempts to interpret the whole text, which try to make the Anointed One/Messiah of v. 25 different from the One of v. 26, fail miserably.

c.) “The Messiah the Prince” is a better translation than “an anointed one, a prince” in Daniel 9:24-27 for the following reasons.

i.) The word “Messiah” means “anointed one.” The Messiah is a very special Anointed One prefigured by the others who bore this title. The priests were “anointed” because they foreshadowed Jesus Christ, the Anointed One or Messiah; David also typified Him, as did Solomon and others. First Samuel 2:10, 35; Ps 2:2, etc. also refer to Jesus as the Anointed or the Messiah. For example, in Psalm 2, the Anointed One must be the Messiah, and not just king David, because all the unconverted and wicked men and their kings do not take counsel against king David, nor are they under his “bands” and “cords” (v. 1-3), but the wicked and their kings are certainly all against the Lord and His Messiah, and they are under His “bands” and “cords.” King David did not ask for or get “the uttermost parts of the earth” for his possession (v. 8), but the Messiah, the Son of God in Psalm 2 (cf. Dan 3:25), will. Nor did David break with a rod of iron and dash in pieces like a potter’s vessel nations that he never conquered at the uttermost parts of the earth (v. 9). Nor is it true that all the kings of the earth needed to tremble before David, and “Kiss the Son, let He be angry, and ye perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little” (v. 12). Most of the kings of the earth had no idea who David was; what was he to the king of Japan? Such kings certainly did not need to worry that they would perish if they kindled David’s wrath but a little. But all the kings of the earth do need to fear the Son of God, the Messiah. Furthermore, “blessed are all they that put their trust in Him” (v. 12) is ridiculous if it were to refer to David; the Bible consistently says that we should not trust in fallible men, but in the Lord our God. How could all be blessed by trusting in David? Such a notion would contradict the rest of the Bible. However, both the Old and New Testaments teach salvation by trusting in the Son of God, Jesus the Messiah. All who trust in Him are blessed, for they are saved by faith alone, not by works, just as Abraham was saved by faith alone (Gen 15:6), not by works. Clearly the word anointed in Scripture can refer to the Great Anointed One, the Messiah. Such a reference in Daniel 9:25-26 is clear from the associated word “Prince.” This title refers to Christ, the Son of David, in Is 55:4 (KJV “leader”) as well. Daniel 9:25 is the only place where the words “Anointed One/Messiah” and “Prince/Ruler” are found together and used of the same individual. The passage does not refer to any old anointed one; it speaks of the Messiah, the Prince.

ii.) “The Messiah, the Prince” is a better translation than “an anointed one, a prince.” Hebrew does not have a definite and an indefinite article; it simply has an article, h. The use of this article usually means nouns are definite, and Mashiach Nagid does indeed lack the article. However, to equate nonarticularity and indefiniteness is to misunderstand Hebrew grammar. If it were an invalid adding of words to the passage to say “the” Messiah, “the” Prince, it would also be adding words to say “an” Anointed One, “a” Prince, for Hebrew has no indefinite article to correspond to the words “a/an,” and so such an article is obviously absent from the text. The lack of the h does not necessarily mean that the words are indefinite; indeed, since a noun without an article “is definite if it is definite in itself, [like] . . . a title . . . [or] a common noun that has acquired the value of a proper noun,”[3] the requirements of grammar make the translation “the Messiah the Prince” far superior to “an anointed one a prince” here. The phrase is a title and the word mashiach is a common noun that acquires the value of a proper noun. Compare “Omri, the captain of the host” (1 Kings 16:16, sar shaba), where neither “captain” nor “host” have a h to indicate they are definite, but their status as titles makes them so. See also 1 Sam 2:8, “the world,” for an instance of a common noun made definite because of its acquisition of proper noun value, despite the lack of a h. To say that the KJV is in error in its translation in Daniel 9:25-26 is either to indicate a lack of understanding of Biblical Hebrew or intentional dishonesty with the text by one who refuses to accept that the Messiah the Prince is Jesus of Nazareth.

3.) Who are “the people of the prince that shall come?” The people are the Romans, the fourth empire of Daniel 2 & 7, and the prince the coming Antichrist. The “prince that shall come” of v. 26 is the one who confirms the covenant in v. 27. It is not Jesus Christ, and cannot be any other good man, because his people destroy Jerusalem and the sanctuary. It is not Christ because he never “confirmed” an already-existing covenant, never broke such a covenant, and while His death did render animal sacrifices inoperative it did not cause them to cease immediately; men continued to sacrifice until the City was destroyed in A. D. 70. The one in view in v. 27 causes the sacrifices to cease in the midst of the 70th week. The person in view in Daniel 9:27 correlates very well with the wicked person of Daniel 7:25, who there “changes times and laws” for “a time and times and the dividing of time,” that is, for a year, two years, and half a year, or 3 1/2 years, exactly the same length of time as the one in Daniel 9:27 changes times and laws by causing the sacrifice and oblation to cease; half of a “week” of seven years is also 3 1/2 years. Notice also Daniel 12:7, which also describes the second half of Daniel’s 70th week as “a time, times, and an half,” and indicates that this time period will be associated with a bodily resurrection (Daniel 12:2)—an event certainly yet future!

4.) It is necessary that a gap exists between the end of the 69th week and the commencement of the 70th week in Daniel 9. First, both the city and sanctuary are destroyed after the 69th week, but they are around again in the 70th week (v. 27). Second, the text records a great deal between the last mention of the 69th week and the first mention of the 70th week. Third, v. 24, which states what will happen at the end of the 70 weeks, is clearly yet future. Jews and Jerusalem still sin, so the transgression is not yet finished; permanent reconciliation for iniquity has not yet happened;  sins are not yet brought to an end; it is obvious that the world is not ruled by an everlasting righteousness; all vision and prophecy in Daniel (and elsewhere) has not yet been “sealed up” or fulfilled (cf. Dan 12:4, 9, only other appearances of Mtj in Daniel, translated “seal” and “sealed”), and the Most Holy Place in the Temple is certainly not anointed (since there is no temple yet at all, nor will the Shekinah glory enter there again until the Messiah’s Millennial kingdom; cf. Eze 43:1-4, chaps. 40-48). Finally, the Messiah is cut off “after” the sixty ninth week, not “during” the seventieth week, providing even more proof that a gap is present.

---

[1] Pgs. 40-41, Two Treatises on the Accentuation of the Old Testament, William Wickes. Brooklyn, NY: KTAV Publishing, 1881 (orig. ed.).

[2] Pg. 58, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, Wilhelm Gesenius, ed. E. Kautzch, trans. Cowley, 2nd. ed, Oxford, 1910.

[3] Pgs. 187-188, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar, C. van der Merwe, J. Naude, & J. Kroeze, Sheffield, England:  Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

FURTHER READING

MESSIANIC TIMELINE OF DANIEL REVISITED AGAIN

The Time of Messiah’s Advent Pt. 1

The Time of Messiah’s Advent Pt. 2

MORE ON DANIEL’S MESSIANIC TIMELINE

A Divine Messiah That Suffers and Reigns! Pt. 2

The following exegesis of the timeline of the appearance of the Messiah found in Daniel 9:20-27 is taken from the late Dr. Gleason L. Archer’s Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, published by Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1982, pp. 292-295. All bold emphasis mine.

How can we make any sense out of Daniel’s prophecy of Seventy Weeks?

The prophecy of the Seventy Weeks in Daniel 9:24-27 is one of the most remarkable long-range predictions in the entire Bible. It is by all odds one of the most widely discussed by students and scholars of every persuasion within the spectrum of the Christian church. And yet when it is carefully examined in the light of all the relevant data of history and the information available from other parts of Scripture, it is quite clearly an accurate prediction of the time of Christ’s coming advent and a preview of the thrilling final act of the drama of human history before that advent.

Daniel 9:24 reads: “Seventy weeks have been determined for your people and your holy city [i.e., for the nation Israel and for Jerusalem].” The word for “week” is sabuac, which is derived from seba`, the word for “seven.” Its normal plural is feminine in form: sebu`ot. Only in this chapter of Daniel does it appear in the masculine plural sabu`im. (The only other occurrence is in the combination sebu`e sebu`ot [“heptads of weeks”] in Ezek. 21:28 [Ezek. 21:23 English text]). Therefore, it is strongly suggestive of the idea “heptad” (a series or combination of seven), rather than a “week” in the sense of a series of seven days. There is no doubt that in this case we are presented with seventy sevens of years rather than of days. This leads to a total of 490 years.

At the completion of these 490 years, according to v.24b, there will be six results: (1) “to finish or bring transgression [or `the sin of rebellion’] to an end”; (2) “to finish [or `seal up’] sins”; (3) “to make atonement for iniquity”; (4) “to bring in everlasting righteousness”; (5) “to seal up vision and prophecy”; and (6) “to anoint the holy of holies.” By the end of the full 490 years, then, the present sin-cursed world order will come to an end (1 and 2), the price of redemption for sinners will have been paid (3); the kingdom of God will be established on earth, and all the earth will be permanently filled with righteousness, as the waters cover the sea (4); and the Most Holy One (Christ?), or the Most Holy Sanctuary (which seems more probable, since Christ was already anointed by the Holy Spirit at His first advent), will be solemnly anointed and inaugurated for worship in Jerusalem, the religious and political capital of the world during the Millennium (5 and 6).

Daniel 9:25 reads: “And you are to know and understand, from the going forth of the command [or `decree’; lit., `word’– dabar] to restore and [re] build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince [nagid] will be [or `there are; the Hebrew omits the verb `to be’ in this case] seven heptads and sixty-two heptads.” This gives us two installments, 49 years and 434 years, for a total of 483 years. Significantly, the seventieth heptad is held in abeyance until v.27. Therefore we are left with a total of 483 between the issuance of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the coming of the Messiah.

As we examine each of the three decrees issued in regard to Jerusalem by kings subsequent to the time Daniel had this vision (538 B.C., judging from Dan. 9:1), we find that the first was that of Cyrus in 2 Chronicles 36:23: “The LORD, the God of heaven,…has appointed me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah” (NASB). This decree, issued in 538 or 537, pertained only to the rebuilding of the temple, not of the city of Jerusalem. The third decree is to be inferred from the granting of Nehemiah’s request by Artaxerxes I in 446 B.C., as recorded in Nehemiah 2:5-8. His request was “Send me to Judah, to the city of my fathers’ tombs, that I may rebuild it.” Then we read, “so it pleased the king to send me, and I gave him a definite time [for my return to his palace]” (NASB). The king also granted him a requisition of timber for the gates and walls of the city.

It should be noted that when Nehemiah first heard from his brother Hanani that the walls of Jerusalem had not already been rebuilt, he was bitterly disappointed and depressed–as if he had previously supposed that they had been rebuilt (Neh. 1:1-4). This strongly suggests that there had already been a previous decree authorizing the rebuilding of those city walls. Such an earlier decree is found in connection with Ezra’s group that returned to Jerusalem in 457, the seventh year of Artaxerxes I. Ezra 7:6 tells us: “This Ezra went up from Babylon,…and the king granted him all he requested because the hand of the LORD his God was upon him” (NASB; notice the resemblance to Neh. 2:8, the last sentence). According to the following verse, Ezra was accompanied by a good-sized group of followers, including temple singers, gatekeepers, temple servants, and a company of laymen (“some of the sons of Israel”). After arriving at Jerusalem, he busied himself first with the moral and spiritual rebuilding of his people (Ezra 7:10). But he had permission from the king to employ any unused balance of the offering funds for whatever purpose he saw fit (v.18); and he was given authority to appoint magistrates and judges and to enforce the established laws of Israel with confiscation, banishment, or death (v.26). Thus he would appear to have had the authority to set about rebuilding the city walls, for the protection of the temple mount and the religious rights of the Jewish community.

In Ezra 9:9 Ezra makes reference to this authority in his public, penitential prayer: “For we are slaves; yet in our bondage, our God has not forsaken us, but has extended lovingkindness to us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us reviving to raise up the house of our God, to restore its ruins, and to give us a wall in Judah and Jerusalem” (NASB; italics mine). While this “wall” may have been partly a metaphor for “protection,” it seems to have included the possibility of restoring the mural defenses of Jerusalem itself. Unfortunately, we are given no details as to the years that intervened before 446; but it may be that an abortive attempt was made under Ezra’s leadership to replace the outer wall of the city, only to meet with frustration–perhaps from a lack of self-sacrificing zeal on the part of the Jewish returnees themselves or because of violent opposition from Judah’s heathen neighbors. This would account for Nehemiah’s keen disappointment (as mentioned above) when he heard that “the wall of Jerusalem is broken down and its gates are burned with fire” (Neh. 1:3, NASB).

If, then, the decree of 457 granted to Ezra himself is taken as the terminus a quo for the commencement of the 69 heptads, or 483 years, we come out to the precise year of the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah (or Christ): 483 minus 457 comes out A.D. to 26. But since a year is gained in passing from 1 B.C. to A.D. 1 (there being no such year as zero), it actually comes out to A.D. 27. It is generally agreed that Christ was crucified in A.D. 30, after a ministry of a little more than three years. This means His baptism and initial ministry must have taken place in A.D. 27–a most remarkable exactitude in the fulfillment of such an ancient prophecy. Only God could have predicted the coming of His Son with such amazing precision; it defies all rationalistic explanation.

Daniel 9:25 goes on to say, “It will again be built with street and moat, even when times are difficult.” It is fair to deduce from this that the actual completion of the reconstruction of the city, both walls and interior appointments of the city, would take up about seven heptads, or forty-nine years. Soon after 400 B.C., then, the walls, the defensive moat, and all the streets and buildings behind those walls had been completely restored.

Daniel 9:26 goes on to foretell the tragic death of the Messiah: “And subsequent to the sixty-two heptads [ensuing upon the earlier installment of forty-nine], the Messiah will be cut off and shall have no one [or `nothing’].” This suggests that the Messiah would be violently put to death, without any faithful followers to protect Him. He would die alone! This refers to the great event that took place on Golgotha in A.D. 30. There are some able scholars who prefer the date 33 but the calendrical data seem to favor the earlier date. At all events, the earlier statement “until Messiah the Prince” in v.25 refers to His first appearance to Israel as the baptized and anointed Redeemer of Israel; it does not refer to the year of His death, since His “cutting off” is not mentioned until v.26.

Daniel 9:26 b then foretells what will happen by way of retribution to the “holy city” that has rejected Jesus and voted to have Him “cut off”: “And the people of the prince who shall come [i.e., Titus, the victorious commander of the Roman troops in A.D. 70] will destroy the holy city, and its end will come with a flood [of disaster], and war is determined down to the [very] end, with devastation.” These vivid terms point to the total destruction that overtook Jerusalem in that fateful year.

Daniel 9:27 reads: “And he will confirm a covenant with the many for one heptad [i.e., seven years], but in the middle of the heptad he will terminate sacrifice and offering.” The subject of “confirm” is indefinite in the Hebrew, for no subject is expressed; but it is easily inferred from the last personal subject mentioned in the previous verse: “the prince who shall come,” that ruler who will establish a covenant or concordat with the Jewish community (“the many”–a term originating in Isa. 53:11-12) is an antitype of the Roman general who destroyed Jerusalem after the termination of the sixty-ninth heptad (i.e., Titus in A.D. 70). That antitype has already appeared back in Daniel 7:25 as the Little Horn of the last days who will persecute “the saints of the Most High” for “a time [Aramaic `iddan], times, and half a time,” i.e., for three and a half years. This same period recurs in Daniel 12:7, where the mighty angel swears to Daniel that “it will be for a time [Heb. mo`ed), times, and a half; and as soon as they finish shattering the power [lit., `hand’] of the holy people, all these things will come to an end”–i.e., that final heptad of years will be over. The data of v.26 indicate that a long but indeterminable interval is intended between A.D. 27 (the end of the sixty-ninth heptad)–after Messiah appears; then the Crucifixion occurs; Jerusalem is destroyed by the Romans; and finally there is a period of overwhelming disaster, war, and desolation–and the inception of the final seven years of the last days (v.27), in the midst of which the antitypical prince or supreme dictator covenants with the Jewish people for seven years of religious tolerance, only to revoke his promise after three and a half years.

By the use of proper grammatical exegesis, then, it is possible to make perfect sense of the Seventy Weeks prophecy of Daniel 9 and see a remarkable correspondence with subsequent history up through the sixty-ninth heptad and the events that have ensued between then and now. But the reference to “sacrifice and offering” in 9:26 does seem to presuppose the prior erection of a valid temple and altar on the Temple Mount as a feature at the inception of the final seven years before the Battle of Armageddon and the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth in the millennial rule of Christ on the throne of David.

FURTHER READING

A Justification of the Translation of Dan. 9:24-27 in the KJV

The Time of Messiah’s Advent Pt. 1

The Time of Messiah’s Advent Pt. 2

MORE ON DANIEL’S MESSIANIC TIMELINE

A Divine Messiah That Suffers and Reigns! Pt. 2

EXPOSING MORE OF ISLAM’S SEXUAL FILTH AND PERVERSITY

According to many renowned Muslim scholars, the following verse was “revealed” to permit anal sex:

Your wives are as fields for you. You may enter your fields from any place you want. Reserve something good for your souls (for the life hereafter). Have fear of God and know that you are going to meet Him. (Muhammad) give the glad news to the believers. S. 2:223 (Muhammad Sarwar https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/2/st23.htm)

One prominent Muslim that held this view was Ibn Umar, the son of the second caliph ‘Umar bin al-Khattab, even though there are conflicting reports denying that he did.

In this post I will share sources that mention those reputable Muslim authorities who permitted and/or personally engaged in anal sex.

Malik ibn Anas’ Verdict

Ibn Jarir reported from ibn Abi Mulayka that he was asked about having sex with a women in her rear, so he said: “I wanted to do that last night with a slave girl of mine, but it was hard for me (to penetrate), hence I sought the assistance of oil.”

Al-Khatib reported in Ruwati Malik from Abi Sulayman Al-Juzjani, who said: I asked Malik bin Anas about sex with women in their rear, so he said: “(I just did this act) and have just washed my head.” (Al-Suyuti Al-Durr Al-Manthur Fi Tafsir Bil-Ma’thur, Volume 2, p. 612)

Scholars have disputed on anal sex, and that was after having made an Ijma (“consensus”) on having pleasure with all parts of the woman’s body (to be permissible) except from the anus. Malik said: “It is okay for a man to have anal sex with his woman the same as it is okay for him to have vaginal sex.”

Yunis narrated this from Ibn Wahab from Malik. (Al-Tabari, Kitab Ikhtilaf al-Fuqaha (Book of the Disagreement among Muslim Jurists), p. 304)

Tahawi said: Asbagh bin Al-Faraj narrated from Abdul Rahman bin Al-Qasim that he [Malik] said: “I never met someone I deem a role model in religion who doubts that it is Halal, means entering a woman in her anus.” Then he [Malik] recited, “your women are a tilth for you},” then he [Malik] said: “What could be more clear than this?” (Al-Shawkani, Fath Al-Qadir, Volume 1, p. 397)

Malik said, “I never met someone I deem a role model in religion who doubts that it is Halal (permissible/allowed).” (Ibn Qudamah, Al-Mughni, Volume 10, p. 226)

Abu Bakr said: “It is well known that Malik allowed it, but his companions deny it because it was a very nasty statement. In fact, it is well known and cannot be denied by their denial.” (Abu Bakr Al-Jasas Al-Hanafi, Ahkam Al-Quran, Volume 2, p.  40)

The verdicts of Muhammad bin Sha’ban and Muhammad bin Sahnoon

“Muhammad bin Sahnoon and Muhammad bin Sha’ban authored a book in proving its permissibility and they narrated the permissibility from a large number of Tabi’in (the followers of Muhammad’s companions).” (Ibn Hajar, Talkhis Al-Habir fi Takhrij Al-Rafi’i Al-Kabir, Volume 3, p. 379) 

Ibn Sahnoon: The Faqih (“Jurist”) of Morocco, Muhammad Abu Abdallah, the son of the Faqih of Morocco, Abd As-Salaam Sahnoon bin Sa’id Al-Tanukhi Al-Qayrawani. The Shaykh (“Leader”) of the Maliki’s, got educated by his father. He narrated from Abi Mus’ab Al-Zuhri and his contemporaries. And he was a scholar of Hadith and insightful in narrations, very knowledgeable, masterly in investigation, a scholar, has great value and it was said to Isa: “Who was the best you’ve seen when you were young?” He said: “Ibn Sahnoon.” (Al-Dhahabi, Siyar A’lam Al-Nubala, Volume 13, P. 60)

Ibn Sha’ban: Shaykh of the Maliki’s. His name is Muhammad bin Al-Qasim bin Sha’ban bin Muhammad bin Rabi’a Al-Ammari Al-Misri. He is of the offspring of Ammar bin Yasir. He has marvelous works, such as, ‘Kitab Al-Zahi‘ about Fiqh, and this is a famous one, and the book ‘Ahkaam Al-Qur’aan,’ and ‘Manaqib Malik,’ and ‘Al-Manasik.’ (Ibid., Volume 16, p. 78)

Abu Muhammad Abdullah’s Verdict 

“Qadhi Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Ibraheem Al-Asili permits it and deemed it not to be Haram (‘Forbidden/Prohibited’).” (Ibn Hajar, Talkhis, Volume 3, p. 379)

The Imam, and the Shaikh of the Maliki’s, and the scholar of Andalus, Abu Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Ibrahim Al-Asyli. Al-Qadhi Ayyadh said: Al-Daraqutni said: “I talked with Abu Muhammad Al-Asyli and I haven’t seen anyone like him.” Ayadh said: “He was a Maliki narrator, and one of the scholars concerned about the Hadith and its Rijal, and he opined that anal sex is Makruh (‘Disliked’).” (Al-Dhahabi, Siyar A’lam Al-Nubala, Volume 16, p. 560)

Al-Shafi’s Verdict

Al-Shafi’ said: “Some of our companions deem it permissible to have sex in the rear of women, while others deem it impermissible.” (Abi Ibrahim Al-Mazuni, Mukhtasar Al-Mazuni fi Furu Al-Shafi’i, p. 234)

Al-Tahawi, Al-Hakim and Al-Khatib reported from Muhammad bin Abdallah bin Abd Al-Hakam, that Al-Shafi’ was asked about it, and said: “There is NO AUTHENTIC NARRATION from the Prophet that permits it or prohibits it, therefore according to conjecture (qiyas) it is permissible.” (Al-Suyuti, Al-Durr Al-Manthur, Volume 2, p. 613)

As for the difference of opinion regarding this, then Muhammad bin Ka’b Al-Qaradhi, Sa’id bin Yasaar Al-Madani and Malik have said that it is permissible. And they prove that by what Abu Sa’id has narrated: That a man had sex with his wife in her rear and then the people rebuked him for that. They said: “Her behind?” So Allah revealed: “Your women are your tilth, so approach your tilth as you wish.” And they said: “As you wish, means both the front part and the rear.” Ayadh said: “Those who permit it base it on the apparent meaning of the verse.”

Ibn Al-Arabi said in his book ‘Ahkam Al-Qur’an‘: “A LARGE group permitted it, and ibn Sha’ban gathered that in his book ‘Jima Al-Niswan‘ and he assigned the permissibility of this to a large group of the Sahaba and the Tabi’in, and to Malik from many narrations.” Abu Bakr Al-Jisas said in his book ‘Ahkaam Al-Qur’an‘: “The most popular verdict from Malik is that he permits it, and his companions reject this verdict due to its ugliness and shamefulness, but his verdict is well known so it can not be denied by them.” Muhammad bin Sa’d narrated from Abi Sulayman Al-Juzjani, who said: I asked Malik bin Anas about sex with women in their rear, so Malik struck his head and said: “(I just did this act) and have just washed my head.”

And ibn Al-Qasim narrated from him: “I have not met anyone I deem a role model in religion that doubts it permissibility,” and then he recited the verse. As for the stance of Al-Shafi’, then it is what Al-Tahawi said: Muhammad bin Abdallah bin Abd Al-Hakam told us that he heard Al-Shafi’ say: “There is no authentic narration from the Prophet that permits it or prohibits it, therefore according to conjecture [Qiyas] it is permissible.” Al-Hakim said: “Perhaps Al-Shafi’ held this opinion in his early days, but later he explicitly prohibited it.” (Badr Al-Din Al-Ayni, Umdat Al-Qari Sharh Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 18, p. 155)

Al-Bukhari

XLI: “Your women are fertile fields for you, so come to your fertile fields however you like. Forward good for yourselves.” (2:223)

4253. It is related that Nafi’ said, “When Ibn ‘Umar recited Qur’an, he would not speak to anyone until he had finished it. One day I held the Qur’an and he recited Surat al-Baqara until he reached a certain place. He asked, ‘Do you about what it was revealed?’ I replied, ‘No.’ He said, ‘It was revealed about such-and-such.’ Then he continued.”

It is related that Ibn ‘Umar said about, “Come to your fertile fields however you like” (2:223) means “comes to her in …” (Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, Chapter 68. Book of Tafsir)

Here’s another version:

Narrated Nafi’: Whenever Ibn ‘Umar recited the Qur’an, he would not speak to anyone till he had finished his recitation. Once I held the Qur’an and he recited Surat-al-Baqara from his memory and then stopped at a certain Verse and said, “Do you know in what connection this Verse was revealed? ” I replied, “No.” He said, “It was revealed in such-and-such connection.” Ibn ‘Umar then resumed his recitation. Nafi added regarding the Verse:–“So go to your tilth when or how you will,” Ibn ‘Umar said, “It means one should approach his wife in …” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 50 https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=60&translator=1&start=0&number=50)

Suspiciously and quite conveniently, al-Bukhari left out Ibn Umar’s full answer. Thankfully, the leading and premiere commentator of the sahih collection of al-Bukhari fills out the gaps for us:

Abi Bakr bin Al-Arabi in his Siraj Al-Muridin has said: “Al-Bukhari has narrated this Hadith in his Tafsir and said: ‘He approaches her in the …’ and he left it blank.” And the issue is well-known. Muhammad bin Sahnun wrote a part about it, and Muhammad bin Shi’ban wrote a book and explained that the Hadith of ibn Umar is about having sexual intercourse in the anus of a woman. (Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Fath al-Bari Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, p. 682)

And:

في إتيان المرأة في دبرها

“Approach the woman in her anus.” (Ibid., Volume 8, p. 190)

Again: 

فقد أخرجها إسحاق ابن راهويه في مسنده وفي تفسيره بالإسناد المذكور ، وقال بدل قوله حتى انتهى إلى مكان ” حتى انتهى إلى قوله نساؤكم حرث لكم فأتوا حرثكم أنى شئتم فقال : أتدرون فيما أنزلت هذه الآية ؟ قلت لا . قال : نزلت في إتيان النساء في أدبارهن

Ishaq bin Rahiweh recorded it in his Musnad and his Tafsir with the same chain, when it reached the part “your wives are tilth to you, so go to your tilth anyhow you will,” he said: “Do you know why this verse has been revealed about?” They said: “No.” He replied: “It has been revealed in regards to approaching women in their anuses.”  

Tafsir al-Tabari

Others said, “Rather, it means that you may have intercourse whenever you want and in whatever manner you want.” Of those who narrated this:

It was narrated Yaqub, Narrated by Hushaim, narrated by Ibn A’wn, narrated by Nafi’ who related that whenever Ibn Umar read the Quran he would not speak, but one day I read the verse, “Your wives are as a tilth unto you: so approach your tilth when or how you will”. So he said, “Do you know about whom this verse was revealed?” I replied, “No.” He said, “This verse was revealed about PENETRATING WOMEN IN THEIR ANUS.”

It was narrated by Ibrahim Ibn Abdullah Ibn Muslim Abu Muslim, narrated by Abu Umar Al-Dariri, narrated by Ismail Ibn Ibrahim (owner of) Al-Karabisi, narrated by Ibn A’wn, narrated by Nafi’ who said, “I used to (inquire) from Ibn Umar whenever he read the verse in the Quran, ‘Your wives are as a tilth unto you: so approach your tilth when or how you will’, he would say, ‘Meaning to have intercourse with women IN THEIR ANUS.”

It was narrated by Abdul Rahman Ibn Abdullah Ibn Abdul Hakam, narrated by Abdul Malik Ibn Maslama, narrated by Al-Darawardi who stated that it was related to Zaid Ibn Aslam that Muhammad Ibn al-Munkadir used to forbid penetrating women through their anus so Zaid responded, “I bear witness against Muhammad that he informed me that he performed this.”

It was related about Al Harith Ibn Yakub that he narrated about Abi Al-Habab Sa’id Ibn Yassar that he asked Ibn Umar and said, “O Abu Abdul Rahman! We buy slave girls, so may we commit Nahmid with them?” So he replied, “And what is this Nahmid?” He responded, “(penetrating) the ANUS.” Ibn Umar said, “Wow, Wow! Does a believer do that?”

It was narrated by Abu Kilaba, narrated by Abdul Samad, who said that it was narrated by his father who narrated from Ayub, narrated from Nafi’, narrated by Ibn Umar who said that, ‘Your wives are as a tilth unto you: so approach your tilth when or how you will,’ WAS REGARDING THE ANUS.

Al-Suyuti

It is narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas that he said: ‘Umar came to The Messenger of Allah and said: “O Messenger of Allah! I have mistaken!” He asked him about the reason and ‘Umar replied: “Tonight I had sexual intercourse with my wife FROM HER BACK (rather than from the front)”. He gave no reply at once. Later on, Allah Almighty revealed this Qur’anic Verse. That is, approach her from front or from the back, but avoid the anus and the time of menses [Ahmad and At-Tirmidhi]

It is narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas that he said: Ibn ‘Umar, may Allah forgive Him, was mistaking… (Jalal Al-Din Al-Suyuti, Reasons and Occasions of Revelation of the Holy Qur’an (Lubab An-Nuqul Fi Asbab An-Nuzul), translated by Dr. Muhammad Mahdi Al-Sharif [Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, Beirut 2015], p. 57; bold and capital emphasis mine)(1)

The following are from Al-Dur al-Manthur Fi Tafsir Bil-Ma’thur:

Al-Bukhari, Ibn Jarir stated according to Ibn Umar it is transmitted that the word of verse fa’tooharthakum anna shi’tum (“so go into your tilth when you like”) means having sex in anus.

Al-Khatib stated in Ravimak from the reference of Nasir bin Abdullah al-Azadi, who took from Mutraf, and he from Malik, and he from Nafi, who stated that Ibn Umar used the words of the verse nisaokum harthun lakum fa’tooharthakum anna shi’tum (“your wives are a tilth for you; so go into your tilth when you like”), in regards to having sex either from the front passage or back passage.

Hasan bin Sufyan in his Musnad, Tabarani in al-Awsat, Hakim and Abu Naeem in Al-Mastakhraj with a Hasan (“Good”) chain of narration narrated from Ibn Umar who said: “This verse was revealed upon the Prophet in respect of the permissibility of performing sex in the anus of a woman.

Ibn Jarir, Tabarani in al-Awsat, Ibn Marduyah and Ibn al-Najar stated with Hasan chain. Ibn Umar stated once at the time of prophet Muhammad a man performed sex in the anus of his woman, but people disliked it and said, “Make him wear a loin cloth.” And then Allah sent this verse and the words of the verse nisaokum harthun lakum.

Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir from Zahid bin Aslam transmitted from Ibn Umar that a man performed sex in the anus of his women and then he felt bad. Then Allah sent this verse and the words verse nisaokum harthun lakum fa’tooharthakum anna shi’tum.

Daraqutni in Gharayb Malik, and according to Bashir Aldelwi who transmitted from Nafi: Ibn Umar told me: “O Nafi recite the Quran,” and when he recited and reached this verse nisaokum harthun lakum fa’tooharthakum anna shi’tum, he asked me, “What do you know of this? Why this verse was revealed?” I said, “I do not know.” Then he replied, “This was revealed about an Ansari man who performed sex in the anus of his wife. People thought of it as a very bad act. Allah then revealed this verse Nisaokum harthun lakum fa’tooharthakum anna shi’tum. I then asked, “Did he perform sex from the side of anus to the front?” He said, “No but rather in anus.”

Nasa’i, Tahawi ibn Jarir said Daraqutni said Abdulrahman bin Qasim said that Malik bin Anas transmitted: It was asked, “O Abu Ubaydallah! The people say according to Salam bin Abdullah that Al-Abad, Al-Ajalaj attributed a lie to my father.”

Then Malik said, “I testify regarding Yazid bin Romaan that he said Salam bin Abdullah said that Ibn Umar said that it is as the way you heard from Nafi, that Haras bin Yaqub stated from Abu al-Jabab Sa’d bin Yasar’s statement that he asked Ibn Umar, “When we buy slave girls should be enjoy them?” Ibn Umar said explained it.

Then he asked about having sex in the anus. Then Ibn Umar said, “Uff Uff! Can a mumin (‘believer’) do that?” Or he said, “Can a Muslim do that?” Malik said that, “I testify that Rabia said that Abu al-Jabab said from Ibn Umar’s statement, which was according to what Nafi narrated.” Daraqutni said this is a preserved hadith and Malik said, “This is Sahih.”

Nasa’i per Yazid bin Roman, according to Abdullah bin Abdullah bin Umar that bin Umar doesn’t see any harm in a man having sex with his women from the anus.

Bayhaqi stated per the sunan of Muhammad bin Ali, “I was with Muhammad bin Kab al-Quradhi when a man came and said: What do you say about having sex in the anus of a women? Then he said, “This Abdullah bin Ali bin Sayyib is the Sheikh from the Quraish.” Then he said, “This is a dirty and bad thing but it is Halal (permissible/allowed).

Ibn Jarir said according to Darurdi (الدراوردي), that it was said to Zaid bin Aslam that Muhammad bin al-Munkadir used to say, “Don’t have sex in the anus of women.” Then Zaid said, “I testify concerning Muhammad bin al-Munkadir that he himself told me that he used to do it.”

Ibn Jarir ibn Abi Malaki was asked about having sex in the anus of women. He said, “I tried to have sex with my slave girl in the anus last night and she resisted so I used oil.”

According to the statement of Al Khatib ibn Malik, Abu Sulaiman bin Jarjani said: Someone asked him about having sex in the anus with these slave girls. He said, “I just took a bath (Ghusl) because of having sex with a slave in the anus.

Ibn Abbas said that Ibn Umar stated that this verse is about having sex in the anus. But this was the understanding of Ibn Umar, and may Allah forgive him.

Here’s two more from al-Suyuti:

وأخرج الحسن بن سفيان في مسنده والطبراني في الأوسط والحاكم وأبو نعيم في المستخرج بسند حسن عن ابن عمر قال‏:‏ إنما نزلت على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏{‏نساؤكم حرث لكم‏.‏‏.‏‏.‏‏}‏ الآية‏.‏ رخصة في إتيان الدبر‏.‏

Hasan bin Sufiyan in his Musnad, Tabarani in Al-Awsat, Hakim and Abu Naeem in Al-Mastakhraj with a Hasan (good) chain of narration narrated from Ibn Umar who said: “This verse was revealed upon the Prophet in respect of the permissibility of performing sex in the anus of a woman.” (Ibid., Volume 1, p. 638)

Ibn Abdul Barr stated: “Traditions like this wherein ibn Umar believed in sexual intercourse with women in their anus are known, Sahih (authentic) and popular.” (Ibid., Volume 2, p. 610)

Tafsir Al-Qurtubi(2)

According to al-Bukhari, Nafi said: When Ibn Umar use to recite the Quran he would not talk to anyone during his recitation, until he finishes his recitation. Hence one day he was reciting Sura al-Baqara (The Cow) and he reached this verse and he stopped. He asked me, “Do you know why this verse has come down?” I (Nafi) said, “No, I do not know.” He said, “This is why it was sent down.” And he then he stated and Abdulsamad said, that his father said, that Ayub said from Nafi that Ibn Umar said this statement in the verse fa’tooharthakum anna shi’tum describes ya teeha fi (“come to her”). Hamidi said those are the openings (entrances for sexual penetration).

Abu Dawud stated according to Ibn Abbas: For sure Ibn Umar was in doubt – May Allah forgive him…

The statement of Allah anna shi’tum according to most Sahaba and Tabi’in and scholars of fatwa (means), “however you like from the front or from the back,” as described earlier (in the tafsir). And anna is used for questioning and for giving news about something. It has many dimensions. And linguistically Qaf, Ayn, and Matee are common. This anna is used in Arabic and people used this verse with anna. 

And:

And Sibawayh used this with Qaf and Ayn and then Farqh said it with Ayn and he took it as precedence that you can have sex in the anus. [Another] group [also] held the opinion that having sex in the anus is permissible. And of those to whom this opinion has been attributed are: Sa’id bin Al-Musayyib, Nafi, ibn Umar, Muhammad bin Ka’b Al-Quradhi and Abd Al-Malik bin Al-Majishoon… and Ibn Al-Arabi mentioned that Ibn Sha’ban assigned the permissibility of this to a large group of the Sahaba and Tabi’in, and also to Malik from many narrations. (Ibid., Volume 4, p. 8)

Ibn Taymiyyah

And those people (auliya) even though there was friendship and fear of Allah and His love in their hearts and seeking nearness to Him due to which they became superior to those who could not reach their position. However, they are not better than those of the great Salaf who fought in fitnah. And there were among Salaf groups who permitted intoxicant drinks and groups who permitted interest and mutah and groups who permitted intercourse in the anus, as Abdullah ibn Al-Mubarak says: “A man has been raised in Islam and he has left behind good and righteous legacies and he has errors and mistakes, but we do not follow them in their errors and mistakes.” (Al-Istiqama, Volume 1, p. 219)

Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Mujahid said: I studied the Quran from Ibn Abbas and I recited Quran to him from the start till the end – when I reached this verse and asked him about the tafsir of this verse. Then Ibn Abbas said (which was mentioned above that you can do it from the front or the back, but not from the anus), “This is the delusion of Ibn Umar.” And some transmissions state when he (Ibn Umar) recited the Quran he would not speak with anyone. But one day he was reciting the Quran and when he reached this verse, he asked his student Nafi, “Do you know why this verse was revealed?” The student said, “No.” He said, “This was revealed in regards to having sex with women from the other hole…”

And:

This opinion has been attributed to a group of jurisprudents of Madinah. (Ibid., Volume 1, p. 592)

Mahmud Al-Alusi

And the saying that this verse is a proof of allowing anal sex, is actually established through insensible interpretation of the word anna because the actual meaning of this word tells that a man can have sexual intercourse (from) wherever he wants, and not (in) wherever he wants. So the beneficial meaning of it maybe referring to generalizing the directions of having the intercourse, like from front or behind, up or down, left or right and not generalizing the places of having the intercourse. Thus, there is not any proof in this verse that supports those who allowed anal sex LIKE IBN UMAR. The traditions of allowing anal sex narrated from him are authentic and famous. (Tafsir Ruh al-Ma’ani fi Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim wa al-Sab al-Mathan, Volume 2, p. 124)

Al-Shawkani

Al-Awza’i said: “Five verdicts from the people of Hijaz must be abandoned.” And he mentioned the verdict of mut’a from the people of Makkah, and the verdict of having sex with women in their posterior from the people of Madinah. (Nayl ul-Awtar, p. 1200)

FURTHER READING

Women in Islam [Part 2]

Islam – The Religion of Pedophilia

The Quran’s Confused Stance on Sexual Ethics

REVISITING ISLAM’S GROSS SEXUAL ETHICS

Muhammad’s Adulterous Lust for a Married Woman

Muhammad: An Example of Moral Corruption and Sexual Deviancy

MUHAMMAD: AN IMMORAL ADULTEROUS MISOGYNIST

The Prophet of Sensuality and Inconsistency

Ten Questionable Aspects of Muhammad’s Life Pt. 1

Ten Questionable Aspects of Muhammad’s Life Pt. 2

Ten Questionable Aspects of Muhammad’s Life Pt. 3

Muhammad’s Vulgar Language Exposed

ENDNOTES

(1) Umar’s reaction strongly suggests that he had engaged in anal sex with his wife, which is why he was so troubled. After all, there is nothing sinful about having intercourse from behind through the vagina. This is noted by the following Christian writing in its explanation of Q. 2:223:  

Ibn Abbas said, in connection with this verse, that the Muslims from Medina had previously practiced a type of sexual relationship between husband and wife which they had learned from the Jews, in which the husband honours his wife with respect. When the Muslims from Mecca arrived, they brought a different standard of behaviour with them. This created a severe tension in the Islamic community. Muhammad answered it with the above verse and allowed men to behave as they wished. He allowed his followers anything that would satisfy their beastly lusts. (The full text of this hadith is not translated out of spiritual reservations.)

Ibn Abbas said: ‘Umar came to Muhammad and asked: ‘I have perished.’ ‘Why?’ Muhammad asked. ‘It is because I have adhered the normal position of sex tonight.’” He meant to say that he had sexual intercourse away from his usual place. At first, Muhammad gave no reply, then he claimed that Allah gave him license. Muhammad and Umar were shameless and immodest. Muhammad should have guided Umar to God’s holiness and purity.

Al-Bukhari narrated after Ibn Umar that al-Baqara 2:223 was revealed on the issue of having anal intercourse with women. Al-Tabarani narrated in Al-Awsat, with a reliable chain of traditions that “Your women are a tillage for you” was only revealed to license anal intercourse. (Asbab al-Nuzul by al-Suyuti on Sura al-Baqara 2:223). (The True Guidance (Translated from Arabic) [Light of Life, P.O. Box 13, A-9503 Villach, Austria], Part Five: Comments on Quranic Verses, pp. 48-49)

(2) Here is another translation of a specific part of al-Qurtubi’s exposition of Q. 2:223:

An-Nasā’ī related that Abu-n-Naḍr said that he said to Nāfi‘, the freedman of Ibn ‘Umar, ‘It is often said that you say that Ibn ‘Umar gave a fatwā that one can have anal intercourse with women.’ Nāfi‘ exclaimed, ‘They have lied about me! I will tell you how the business is. Ibn ‘Umar read the Qur’an to me one day while I was with him until we reached: “Your women are fertile fields for you.” Do you know what this āyah commands? We, the Quraysh, used to have women lie on their backs. When we arrived in Madīnah and married the women of the Anṣār, we wanted from them what men want from their wives and they disliked that and thought it terrible. The women of the Anṣār used to have sex on their sides. Then Allah revealed: “Your women are fertile fields for you, so come to your fertile fields however you like.”’…

So come to your fertile fields however you like.

The majority of the Companions, the Tābi‘ūn and the imams qualified to give fatwā say that it means whatever position, front or back. The word for ‘however’ (annā) has various meanings in Arabic: however, whenever, and wherever. ‘However’ refers to the manner of joining. One group who say it means ‘wherever’ say that it is permitted TO PENETRATE THE ANUS. Among those to whom this view is ascribed are Sa‘īd ibn al-Musayyab, Nāfi‘, Ibn ‘Umar, Muḥammad ibn Ka‘b al-Quraẓī and ‘Abd al-Malik ibn al-Mājishūn. It is also related from Mālik in a book called Kitāb as-Sirr. However, the astute Mālikīs and their shaykhs reject that book. Mālik is too esteemed to have a ‘Kitāb as-Sirr’. This view is found in al-‘Utbiyyah. Ibn al-‘Arabī mentioned that Ibn Sha‘bān ascribes this view to a large group of the Companions and Tābi‘ūn. There are many transmissions ascribed to Mālik in Kitāb Jimā‘ an-Niswān wa-l-Aḥkām al-Qur’ān. Aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘It is related that Muḥammad ibn Ka‘b al-Quraẓī saw nothing wrong with that. In that he interpreted the following words of Allah: “If all beings, do you lie with males, leaving the wives your Lord has created for you?” (26:165) He said that it implies: “You leave the like of that with your wives and if the like of that had not been permitted with wives, that would not be sound.” It is not the site which is permitted so that you say, “You do that and leave its like which is permitted.”’ Aṭ-Ṭabarī said, ‘This is debatable since it means: “You leave what your Lord created for you of your wives in which you still your appetite and the pleasure of intercourse is obtained by the two of them together.” According to this, the rebuke is permitted. His words: “Since they have purified themselves, then go to them in the way that Allah has enjoined on you” and “Come to your fertile fields” indicate that it is one site in particular, and it is confined to the site of childbirth.’ ((Aisha Bewley, Tafsir al-Qurtubi: Juz’ 2: Sūrat al-Baqarah 142–253 [Diwan Press Ltd., 2019], Volume 2, pp. 420-421; bold and capital emphasis mine)