Islam made it Halal for the foster Muslim father to marry his minor adopted daughter by force (without even her consent) if he got lust for her due to her beauty:

Quran 4:3:
And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four ...

Why Muhammad was forced to claim the revelation of this verse? The following tradition of ‘Aisha makes it clear:

Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 5064:
('Urwa narrated from ‘Aisha that she said about this verse 4:3) "O my nephew! (This Verse has been revealed in connection with) an orphan girl under the guardianship of her guardian who is attracted by her wealth and beauty and intends to marry her with a Mahr (i.e. money for dowry) less than what other women of her standard deserve. So they (such guardians) have been forbidden to marry them unless they do justice to them and give them their full Mahr (i.e. Dowry).

In Islam, a foster father (or guardian) is not needed to ask for the consent from the minor girl child before giving her into Nikah of any man (Link). 

The incident of marriage of Muhammad with the ex-wife of his adopted son was later used by one greedy Sahabi (companion of Muhammad) who got lust for her minor adopted daughter due to her beauty and her wealth, and he took her into her Nikah by force. (Note: No forster mother, and no Islamic court, is able to stop the Muslim foster father to marry his minor adopted daughter). 

Nevertheless, it seems that the Arab Society (which Islam and Muslims blame to be from the time of Ignorance) protested upon it, as they had already protested in case of Muhammad, when he first wished to marry his daughter-in-law. Moreover, that greedy companion also wished to loot that little orphan girl by giving less money as dowry, and secondly, to take complete control of her wealth as her husband.

Nevertheless, no one was able to stop that companion directly, as Muhammad had already set the complete precedence himself for this before, by committing two actions:

  1. Firstly, Muhammad did Nikah with 6 years old minor ‘Aisha, and her father Abu Bakr didn’t need any consent from little ‘Aisha.
  2. Secondly, Muhammad had destroyed the bond between the adopted children and the foster parents and had married his own daughter-in-law.

Therefore, despite the protest, Muhammad didn’t stop him or punish him from taking the minor adopted daughter into his Nikah, but in order to avoid the criticism, he only asked him to pay the full money for the dowry, and he also tried to lure his companion by inviting him to marry 2 or 3 or 4 of others women, who pleased him, but to leave the orphan girl apart if he fears to not to do justice with her wealth (i.e. due to money for dowry, or due to taking full control over her wealth). Nevertheless, this was also only a “recommendation” and if a greedy Muslim foster father still wishes to marry the minor adopted daughter in order to take full control over her wealth, then NO Islamic Court could stop him from doing it. 

Natural Bond between parents and adopted children

A child does not care who gave birth to him, but he will go towards the one who fosters him, who loves him, who takes care of him. 

Remember, when a woman or a man fosters a child, then a natural bond is created between them. In the whole world, in each and every nation, all the modern psychiatrists accept this natural bond, except Islam. 

The “bond of fostering” is stronger than the “bond of blood”.

This thing exists even among the animals too. If you keep the eggs of duck under the hen, then the ducklings will consider that hen to be their mother and follow her while she takes care of them. Even if a cat takes care of ducklings, then they will consider that cat to be their mother. 

The status of the one who fosters the child is HIGHER than the status of the one who gave birth to the child.

A Fatwa: Adopted son should be separated from mother after becoming an adult

If you want to see more cruelty of this Islamic ruling, then look at this fatwa (link), where a Muslim mother was crying and she refused to be separated from her adopted son (while he became an adult at age of 12-13 years).

But the relatives wanted to forcefully separate them (i.e. the mother and the adopted child) from each other, and the Muslim Mufti supported the action of the relatives while it is indeed the order of Allah in Islam, as Allah fears that it will cause the Fitna of fornication if both Na-Mahrams (i.e. mother and her 12-14 years old adopted son) stay together under one roof.

Islam snatched away the whole FAMILY from an orphan child

Not only an adopted male child is separated from his mother (after becoming adult), but he is also separated from his sisters too, while they are also counted as Na-Mahrams. He is kicked out of the house.

And the case of an orphan girl is even worse. She is not only a Na-Mahram to her brothers, but also to her father right from the beginning. Not only could her father look at her with lust right from the beginning, but also her brothers could also look at her with lust right from the beginning (i.e. they never look at her as a daughter, or a sister, but as a sexual object right from the beginning).
In simple words, Islam snatched away the right of any family from the poor orphan children.

(PS: Islam also denied the orphan children any inheritance from their parents. In this case, other relatives (like brothers, nephews etc.) will take control of the whole wealth and inheritance, while the adopted children will get nothing).

Human Psychology: No natural bond will be created even by suckling MILK to an adult man with beard, except for the bond of LUST

Islam has a strange ruling i.e. if a woman suckles an adult man with beard with her milk, then he becomes her adopted child and they become Mahram and could stay alone under one roof.

Sahih Muslim, Hadith 5064:
'A'isha reported that Sahla bint Suhail came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, I see on the face of (my husband) Abu Hudhaifa (signs of disgust) on entering of Salim (who is an ally) into (our house), whereupon Allah's Apostle said: Suckle him. She said: How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man? Allah's Messenger smiled and said: I already know that he is a young man.

Human Rationale clearly guides us that this Islamic Ruling is full of fault (ridiculously faulty), while:

  • The chances of fostering milk to an adult man will not produce the natural bond of mother/son between them, but thousands of times more chances are there, that it will create the bond of LUST only. 
  • Of course, there could be a bond of respect between a young woman and a young man, but fostering him with woman’s milk is the worst method of achieving this respect. 
  • For example, if a woman takes care of the younger brother of her husband, and behaves with him like her own real younger brother, then it will automatically create a relationship of “respect” between them. That is why, in millions of Muslim households in Pakistan and India, they are living together in a joint family system. But Islam denies this bond of respect between a woman and her brother-in-law, and consider it to be a cause of fornication. 

Islam apologists present the following lame excuse here:

Atheists are dishonest. The Prophet didn’t tell that woman to foster her milk to that adult man with a beard directly from her breasts, but from the cup (i.e. she pumps out her milk in a cup and then gives it to that adult man with beard to drink).

Answer:

Firstly, this excuse has nothing to do with our present topic, which is limited only to the comparison of how Islam denies the bond between the mother and the adopted children, but it considers that natural bond of motherhood to be created if woman fosters her milk to an adult man with beard.

Secondly, if it was not about feeding him her milk directly from the breasts, but only about pumping the milk in the cup, why did the prophet “smile”? And why did she ask this question how she could suckle a grown-up man? This question from her, and the “smiling” of the prophet are proofs enough that Muhammad was telling her to suckle him directly from her breasts. 

Strange Islam: An adult Slave automatically becomes Mahram to the woman, but not her adopted son

Contradictions !!! Contradictions !!! Contradictions !!!

On one hand, Islam rejected the natural bond between the mother and the adopted son, and they could not stay under one roof except of fitna of fornication, but on the other hand, it claims if she (or her husband) buys an adult slave, then he automatically immediately becomes a Mahram to her, and both of them could stay alone under one roof. 

Quran 24:31:
And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their head covers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, that which their right hands possess (i.e. slaves)

Quran 24:58:
O you who have believed, let those whom your right hands possess (i.e. slaves) and those who have not [yet] reached puberty among you (i.e. children) ask permission of you [before entering in your rooms] at three times: before the dawn prayer and when you put aside your clothing [for rest] at noon and after the night prayer. [These are] three times of privacy for you. 

Also see the following tradition, where Muhammad was telling her daughter Fatima that she didn’t need to do Hijab in front of her slave.

Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith 4106 :
Narrated Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet brought Fatimah a slave which he donated to her. Fatimah wore a garment which, when she covered her head, did not reach her feet, and when she covered her feet by it, that garment did not reach her head. When the Prophet saw her struggle, he said: There is no harm to you: Here is only your father and slave.

There is no Islamic Allah present in the heavens, and Muhammad was making these revelations at his own, therefore we see the colour of “human mistakes” in form of clear Contradictions in the Sharia rulings. 

Islamic Logic: Brother-in-law is ahead of all others in doing fornication with the wife of his brother

According to Islam, the brother-in-law, who grew up whole of his life along with his brother, will be ahead of all others when it comes to doing the fornication with his brother’s wife. 

Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 5232 & Sahih Muslim, Hadith2172a :
Uqba b. `Amir reported Allah's Messenger as saying: Beware of getting into the houses and meeting women (in seclusion). A person from the Ansar said: Allah's Messenger, what about husband's brother, whereupon he said: Husband's brother is like death (i.e. he will be ahead of all others in indulging in fornication with her sister-in-law).

Human Rationale and the humanity within us guide us clearly that a man, who grew along his brother and loves him, will protect the honour of his brother as compared to any other outsider man, even if he is a slave. 

It seems that the inventor of Islam (i.e. Muhammad himself) didn’t even consider the slaves to be a human, but only animals. And as the pet animals are unable to do fornication with their mistresses, in the same way slaves are also unable to do the fornication with their mistresses. 

Are you able to see these strange contradictions in Islam where a slave automatically becomes immediately a Mahram for a woman, but the brother-in-law is considered the most dangerous person for involving in fornication with her? 

People who live in human societies also respect human bonds too. Millions of Muslim families themselves live joint family system in Pakistan/India/Bangladesh, and it is a proof enough that this Islamic ruling is totally wrong. 

We see these contradictions in Islam, while it is neither a religion of Nature, nor a religion of humanity, but it is only a “human Drama of revelation”, and there is no divine God present in the heavens. That is why it is full of “human mistakes”.