Tuesday, 24 November 2020

The Incomplete Quran: Whom Did Muhammad See?

 

Despite the Quran’s claim to being a clear, perspicuous book, which explains everything in detail,

[Say (O Muhammad)] “Shall I seek a judge other than Allah while it is He Who has sent down unto you the Book (The Qur’an), explained in detail.” Those unto whom We gave the Scripture [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] know that it is revealed from your Lord in truth. So be not you of those who doubt.S. 6:114 Hilali-Khan

Indeed in their stories, there is a lesson for men of understanding. It (the Qur’an) is not a forged statement but a confirmation of the Allah’s existing Books [the Taurat (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel) and other Scriptures of Allah] and a detailed explanation of everything and a guide and a Mercy for the people who believe. S. 12:111 Hilali-Khan

And (remember) the Day when We shall raise up from every nation a witness against them from amongst themselves. And We shall bring you (O Muhammad) as a witness against these. And We have sent down to you the Book (the Qur’an) as an exposition of everything, a guidance, a mercy, and glad tidings for those who have submitted themselves (to Allah as Muslims). S. 16:89 Hilali-Khan

A Book whereof the Verses are explained in detail; A Qur’an in Arabic for people who know. S. 41:3 Hilali-Khan

The fact is that it is one of the most incoherent, unintelligible pieces of literature ever produced.

For instance, the Muslim scripture testifies that Allah sent it down in its entirety on a specific night in the month of Ramadan:

The month of Ramadan in which was revealed the Qur’an, a guidance for mankind, and clear proofs of the guidance, and the Criterion (of right and wrong). And whosoever of you is present, let him fast the month, and whosoever of you is sick or on a journey, (let him fast the same) number of other days. Allah desireth for you ease; He desireth not hardship for you; and (He desireth) that ye should complete the period, and that ye should magnify Allah for having guided you, and that peradventure ye may be thankful. S. 2:185

Verily! We have sent IT (this Qur’an) down in the night of Al-Qadr (Decree). S. 97:1 Hilali-Khan

Here’s where the confusion comes in. Since the foregoing texts presuppose that the entirety of the Quran was sent down all at once, this raises a series of question, such as who exactly brought down the revelation? In other words, we want to know who exactly revealed the Quran to Muhammad.

Looking to the Quran for the answer doesn’t solve the problem, but adds to the confusion, since the Islamic text paints a contradictory picture.

ALLAH

It seems reasonably certain from the following texts,

Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled. Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him: He was taught by one Mighty in Power (shadeedu al-quwa), Endued with Wisdom (Thoo mirratin): for he appeared (in stately form); While he was in the highest part of the horizon: Then he approached and came closer, And was at a distance of but two bow-lengths or (even) nearer; So did (God) convey the inspiration to His Servant – (conveyed) what He (meant) to convey. The (Prophet’s) (mind and) heart in no way falsified that which he saw. Will ye then dispute with him concerning what he saw? For indeed he saw him at a second descent, Near the Lote-tree beyond which none may pass: Near it is the Garden of Abode. Behold, the Lote-tree was shrouded (in mystery unspeakable!) (His) sight never swerved, nor did it go wrong! For truly did he see, of the Signs of his Lord, the Greatest! S. 53:2-18 Y. Ali

That this is in truth the word of an honoured messenger, Mighty, established in the presence of the Lord of the Throne, (One) to be obeyed, and trustworthy; And your comrade is not mad. Surely he beheld Him on the clear horizon. And he is not avid of the Unseen. S. 81:19–24 Pickthall

That it was Allah who supposedly appeared to Muhammad in order to convey the Quran to him.

THE HOLY AND FAITHFUL SPIRIT

However, these next verses claim that it was actually the Holy and Faith Spirit who revealed the Quran to Muhammad:

Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims. S. 16:102 Y. Ali

Truly it is the revelation of the Lord of all Being, brought down by the Faithful Spirit upon thy heart, that thou mayest be one of the warners, S. 26:192–194 Arberry

GABRIEL

And yet elsewhere, Gabriel is said to be the one that came down with the Muslim scripture:

Say (O Muhammad, to mankind): Who is an enemy to Gabriel! For he it is who hath revealed (this Scripture) to thy heart by Allah’s leave, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, and a guidance and glad tidings to believers; S. 2:97 Pickthall

ANGELS

As if it couldn’t get any more confusing, other texts imply that it was a group of angels that brought down the revelation:

And they say: “O you (Muhammad) to whom the Dhikr (the Qur’an) has been sent down! Verily, you are a mad man. “Why do you not bring angels to us if you are of the truthful ones?” We send not the angels down except with the truth (i.e. for torment, etc.), and in that case, they (the disbelievers) would have no respite! S. 15:6-8 Hilali-Khan

And the angels will say to them, `We do not come down save by the command of thy Lord. To HIM belongs all that is before us and all that is behind us and all that is between; and thy Lord is not forgetful;’ 19:64 Sher Ali

But then we are told that a group of angels brought down the revelation: Then I swear by the angels who bring down the revelation, S. 77:5 Shakir

The late Dr. Robert A. Morey sums up the foregoing contradictions quite well:

In the Quran, we are told that Allah called Muhammad to be a prophet and an apostle. But, as Dr. William Montgomery Watt observed:

Unfortunately, there are several alternative versions of these events.6

The Quran gives us four conflicting accounts of this original call to be a prophet. Either one of these four accounts is true and the others are false or they are all false. They cannot all be true.

In the Quran Muhammad described his initial call to be a prophet and apostle on four different occasions.

We are first told in Sura 53:2–18 and Sura 81:19–24 that Allah personally appeared to Muhammad in the form of a man and that Muhammad saw and heard him.

This is later abandoned, and we are then told in Sura 16:102 and Sura 26:192–194 that Muhammad’s call was issued by “the Holy Spirit.”

Since Muhammad does not really discuss who or what this “Holy Spirit” is, this is also later abandoned.

The third account of his original call is given in Sura 15:8 where we are told that “the angels” were the ones who came down to Muhammad and announced that Allah had called him to be a prophet.

Even this account is later amended in Sura 2:97, so that it is only the angel Gabriel who issues the call to Muhammad and hands down the Quran to him.

This last account of his original call was influenced by the fact that Gabriel had played a significant role in the birth both of Jesus and John the Baptist.

Some scholars believe Muhammad assumed that it was only appropriate that the next great prophet in line, being himself, should also be issued the call by Gabriel.

This fourth and last account of his initial call is the one that most Muslims and non-Muslims have heard. (Morey, The Islamic Invasion: Confronting the World’s Fastest Growing Religion [Christian Scholars Press, 1992], pp. 81-83)

6 For a full treatment of this contradiction, see W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad’s Mecca, pp. 54–68. (Ibid., p. 82)

And:

The Quran contradicts itself in many ways. Since the Quran claims in Sura 39:23, 28 to be free from all contradictions, just one contradiction is sufficient to show that it is not God’s Word.

1. As we have already shown, the Quran gives us four conflicting accounts of Muhammad’s reception of the Quran:

·         We are first told that Allah came to Muhammad in the form of a man and that Muhammad saw him (Suras 53:2–18; 81:19–24).

·         Then we are told that it was “the holy Spirit” who came to Muhammad (Suras 16:102; 26:192–194).

·         Later on, the Quran says that the angels were the ones who came down to Muhammad (Sura 15:8).

·         The last and most popular version is that it was the angel Gabriel who delivered the Quran to Muhammad (Sura 2:97). (Ibid., pp. 165-166)

In light of the foregoing, should we assume that Muhammad thought that Allah, the Holy Spirit, and a group of angels that included Gabriel all came down together at the same exact time to reveal the Quran to his heart?

Another question that this raises is, where does the Quran tell us what the Quran actually is? I.e., the Muslim scripture nowhere informs us as to the exact number of chapters and verses that make up the revelation. Therefore, how can we know what was sent down when we have no information from within the Islamic text telling us what it actually consists of? In fact, where does the Quran tell us the precise year that it was sent down?

That’s not all. The Quran states that it includes verses that cancel each other out:

Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things? S. 2:106 Hilali-Khan

And when We change a Verse [of the Qur’an, i.e. cancel (abrogate) its order] in place of another, and Allah knows the best of what He sends down, they (the disbelievers) say: “You (O Muhammad) are but a Muftari! (forger, liar).” Nay, but most of them know not. S. 16:101 Hilali-Khan

Does this even make sense? How can a book that was sent down whole, in its entirety, on a specific night, in a specific month, at a specific year, contain verses that abrogate one another?

More importantly, where does the Quran even provide a list of the verses that have been abrogated and the texts that abrogated them? Since it doesn’t include such information, how can a person know which passage has been canceled out and which text did the canceling?

The problem gets far worse since the Muslim scripture further contradicts itself in that it states that Allah did not send it down all at once, but in successive stages:

And (it is) a Qur’an that We have divided, that thou mayst recite it unto mankind at intervals, and We have revealed it by (successive) revelation. S. 17:106 Pickthall

And those who disbelieve say: Why is the Qur’an not revealed unto him all at once? (It is revealed) thus that We may strengthen thy heart therewith; and We have arranged it in right order. S. 25:32 Pickthall

How can the Muslim scripture say in one place that the Quran as a whole was revealed in Ramadan, but then claim that it was revealed at specific intervals over an unspecified period of time?

Now the moment a Muslim consults sources outside of the Quran to answer these gross, irreconcilable contradictions and problems, s/he ends up inadvertently falsifying their own scripture, which claims to be a revelation that completely explains all that it contains. After all, a text that is supposed to provide a fully detailed exposition of all of its passages does not need any other source to properly understand and/or make sense of its contents.

So much for the Quran being the word of God.

FURTHER READING 

The Angel Gabriel – Allah’s Other Divine Partner (https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/gabriel_partner.html)

The Incompleteness and Incoherence of the Quran (https://answeringislam.net/Quran/Incoherence/index.html

Source: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/25/the-incomplete-quran-whom-did-muhammad-see/

IHS

Wednesday, 28 October 2020

Muhammad the Womanizing Sensualist

 

The following lengthy excerpt is taken from Iranian Muslim scholar Ali Dashti’s book, “23 Years: A Study of Prophetic Career of Mohammad”. This happens to be one of the best treatments on Muhammad and Islam ever produced. In what follows, Dashti highlights the fact of Muhammad being a womanizer who used his god to give himself a license to indulge his carnal, lustful passions.

Ignaz Goldziher remarked that no other religion’s scriptures and records contain anything like the frank and detailed information which the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the biographies give about the career and private life of Islam’s founder. The remark is made appreciatively in Goldziher’s valuable book Le dogme et la loi de 1’1slam, in the course of a chapter in which the historical and well documented fact of the Prophet Mohammad’s growing appetite for women is mentioned. About the lives of Jesus and Moses, let alone Abraham and Noah, whatever information we possess is clouded by dusts of popular mythology and religious and racial prejudice. About the life of Mohammad, hundreds of reports which have not undergone tendentious deformation are available to us in Qur’anic verses, reliable Hadiths, and early biographies. The most important of these sources is the Qur’an, through which knowledge of many contemporary events can be obtained both directly, from certain verses, and indirectly, from the accounts of occasions of revelations given by commentators. The number of verses concerning the Prophet’s private life is quite large.

All the commentators agree that verse 57 of sura 4 (on-Nesa) was sent down after the Jews had criticized Mohammad’s appetite for women, alleging that he had nothing to do except to take wives. The verse says, “Or do they envy the people for what God in His bounty has given them? We gave scripture and wisdom to Abraham’s descendants, and We gave them a great realm.” The Jews were jealous of Mohammad for God’s gifts of prophethood and many wives to him. The second sentence replies to their argument that a genuine prophet would not take so many wives, and obviously refers to the prophets David and Solomon, who were supposed to have had ninety nine wives and a harem of one thousand women respectively, but had not suffered any consequent loss of prophetic status. These suppositions, like other stories of the kings of the children of Israel, were of course embroidered with the exaggerations of fable.

European critics have viewed this appetite for women as excessive and irreconcilable with the spiritual role of a man who preached moderation and renunciation. Some have surmised that Mohammad’s fondness for women prompted those elements of the Islamic legislation which improved women’s status and rights.

Such objections lose weight when the matter is considered from a purely rational, and not emotional, viewpoint. Mohammad was a human, and no human is without weak points. The sexual appetite is a necessary human instinct and an important factor in any person’s thinking and behaviour toward others; it is only reprehensible when it induces socially harmful behaviour. Otherwise there is no point in discussing merits and demerits, or strengths and weaknesses, of a person’s private life. The ideas of Socrates radiated from Athens to all of Greece and to all of mankind; the question whether he led a perverted private life is irrelevant unless he thereby did harm to society. Adolf Hitler could be called chaste because he either lacked or had only a feeble sexual instinct, but instead he had pernicious notions which plunged the world into bloodshed and ruin.

The Prophet Mohammad saw himself as a human who had submitted to God and undertaken to rescue his people from the sink of idolatry. His fondness for women and his marriages to many wives did not impair the validity of his mission or infringe the rights of other persons. The actions and ideas of great leaders of communities should be assessed in the context of the social environment and by the criteria of their benefit to the community and to mankind. Seen in this light, the denial of intellectual and religious freedom to others, which results from giving them only the choice between acceptance of Islam and payment of tribute on humiliating terms, is much more open to question. Moslems also have made misappraisals, but of a very different kind. In order to glorify Islam’s founder, they have said and written things which contradict clear verses in the Qur’an and reports in the reliable early sources. The learned modern Egyptian author Mohammad Hosayn Haykal, who in his Life of Mohammad set out to examine matters with the methods of twentieth century scholarship, took such umbrage at the Western criticisms that in one chapter he even tried to defend the Prophet by denying that he had any great fondness for women at all. A passage from the chapter is quoted below: “Mohammad had twenty years of conjugal life with Khadija and did not then desire to take another wife. . . . . . This was natural and inevitable. Khadija was a wealthy and distinguished woman who had married a poor, but hard-working and honest, employee. She had taken him into her house because, either by nature or by dint of his straitened circumstances, he was free from the frivolous and licentious proclivities of other Qorayshite youths. It was for these reasons that the mature and experienced Khadija devotedly cared for her husband, who was fifteen years younger than herself, and from her own resources helped him to achieve a prosperity in which he could forget his childhood experiences of hardship and dependence on his uncle. The peace and comfort of Khadija’s house enabled him to ripen the thoughts which he had been nurturing for ten or twelve years. Khadija herself certainly concurred with his austere ideas, because as a cousin of Waraqa b. Nawfal she sympathized with ascetics (hanifs) 68 After Mohammad’s appointment to the prophethood, she believed in the truth and divine inspiration of his vision, and became the first convert to Islam. Furthermore Khadija was the mother of the Prophet’s four daughters, Zaynab, Roqayya, Omm Kolthum, and Fatema.69 In such a situation, how could Mohammad take another wife while Khadija was living? Only after her death did he proceed to ask for the hand of A’esha, and as A’esha was then a seven year-old child, to marry Sawda, the widow of os-Sakran b. Amr.” Haykal then states, in an evident attempt to absolve Mohammad of desire for women, that “Sawda possessed neither beauty nor wealth. The Prophet’s marriage to her was an act of charity and helpfulness to the lonely widow of one of the Moslem emigrants to Abyssinia.”

Surely Haykal would have done better to write that the Prophet married Sawda because, being a mature person, she was well fitted to do his housekeeping and look after his four young daughters; though this theory is open to the objection that the Prophet first thought of A’esha, a child whom he could not marry until two years later because she was so young, and then married Sawda because he could not live without a wife– a reason which is in no way blameworthy. Perhaps a further reason was the lack of any other available women at that time, when the Qorayshites would have been unwilling to give a daughter to Mohammad and the Moslems probably did not have any marriageable daughters. The time was the period of two or three years in which the Prophet remained at Mecca after Khadija’s death.

After the move to Madina, however, opportunities arose and the Prophet Mohammad’s strong appetite for women found ample scope. This fact cannot be denied and is sufficiently demonstrated by the following more or less complete list of his wives:

1 Khadija, daughter of Khowayled. She was a distinguished and wealthy woman, and Mohammad was her third husband. She bore him four daughters as well as two sons, named (ol-) Qasem and (ot- )Taher, both of whom died in infancy.

2 Sawda, daughter of Zam’a. She was the widow of a Meccan Moslem emigrant who had died in Abyssinia. M. H. Haykal’s opinion that the Prophet married her out of compassion for a lonely Moslem widow has been discussed above.

3 A’esha, daughter of Abu Bakr os-Seddiq. She was seven years old when she was betrothed and nine years old when she was married to the Prophet, the gap between them being more than forty years. Her age when he died in 11 A.H./632 was sixteen or seventeen years. She was the Prophet’s favourite wife. She was also one of the persons who learned the Qur’an by heart. She was considered an important source of information on words and deeds of the Prophet (Hadith) and customs of the Moslems (Sanna). After the assassination of Othman, she opposed the accession of Ali b. Abi Taleb to the caliphate and was one of the prime movers of the force which unsuccessfully challenged Ali at the battle of the camel in 36/656.

4 Omm Salama, the widow of a Meccan Moslem emigrant to Madina who had died of wounds suffered in the battle of Ohod.

5 Hafsa, daughter of Omar b. al-Khattab. She too was married to the Prophet after she had been left a widow. There is evidence that this marriage had a pragmatic aspect.

6 Zaynab, daughter of Jahsh and former wife of the Prophet’s adopted son Zayd b. Haretha. This marriage can be counted as one of the Prophet’s love-matches. There is a long narrative poem about Zayd and Zaynab. The Prophet’s affection and care for Zaynab were such as to make her a rival of A’esha.

7 Jowayriya, daughter of ol-Hareth b. Abi Derar, the chief of the Mostaleq tribe, and former wife of Mosafe’ b. Safwan. She had been taken prisoner at the time of the defeat of the Banu’l- Mostaleq in 5A.H./627 and given to one of the Moslem warriors as his share of the booty. Her owner wanted to ransom her for a certain price, but she found the price too high and beyond her means. She therefore went to the Prophet’s house to plead for his intercession to get the price lowered. What happened next has been told by A’esha: “Jowayriya was so beautiful and charming that anyone who caught sight of her was captivated. When I saw Jowayriya outside the door of my room, I felt worried because I was sure that God’s Apostle would be carried awayas soon as his eye fell on her. And so he was. After she had gained admission to the Prophet’s presence and made her plea, he said that he would do something better for her; he would pay for her ransom himself and then ask her to marry him. Jowayriya was pleased, and she consented. Asa result of her marriage to the Prophet, the Moslems freed many of the Mostaleq captives because they had become the Prophet’s brothers and sisters in law. I can think of no other woman who did so much good and caused so many blessings for her own kinsfolk.”

8 Omm Habiba, daughter of Abu Sofyan. She had been left a widow when her first husband Obaydollah b. Jahsh died in Abyssinia.   

9 Safiya, daughter of Hoyayy b. Akhtab and former wife of Kenana b. Abi Rabi’, one of the leaders of the Jews at Khaybar. After being taken prisoner, she was selected by the Prophet as his share of the booty. He married her on the eve of his return from Khaybar to Madina.

10 Maymuna, daughter of ol-Hareth of the Helal tribe. One sister of hers was married to Abu Sofyan, and another to Abbas b. Abd ol-Mottaleb. Maymuna was the maternal aunt of Khaled b. ol-Walid (the future conqueror of Syria); reportedly it was after her marriage to the Prophet that Khaled walked into the Moslem camp and professed Islam, and the Prophet made a gift of horses to Khaled.

11 Fatema, daughter of Shorayh.

12 Hend, daughter of Yazid. 13 Asma, daughter of Saba.

14 Zaynab, daughter of Khozayma.

15 Habla, daughter of Qays and sister of ol-Ash’ath b. Qays (a South Arabian chief, subsequently prominent in the conquest of Iran).70

16 Asma, daughter of No’ man. The Prophet did not consummate this marriage.

17 Fatema, daughter of od-Dahhak. This marriage was also left unconsummated.

18 Mariya the Copt, a slave-girl who was sent from Egypt as a gift to the Prophet.71 She bore him a son, Ebrahim, who died in infancy.

19 Rayhana, like Mariya the Copt, fell into the Qur’anic category of “those whom your right hands have acquired”, i.e. she was a slave-girl with whom contractual marriage was unnecessary but concubinage was permissible. She was one of the captives from the Jewish Banu Qorayza and the Prophet’s share of the booty taken from that tribe. She was unwilling to profess Islam and enter into a contractual marriage with the Prophet, preferring to retain the status of a slave in his house.

20 Omm Sharik, of the Daws tribe, was one of four women who gave themselves to the Prophet. In addition to contractual wives and concubines, there were some women in the Prophet’s harem who fell into this third category. Marriage to contractual wives, up to the limit of four, requires formalities such as the provision of dower, the presence of witnesses, and the approval of the woman’s father or other guardian. Concubinage with slave-women is permissible to Moslems if the woman’s husband was a polytheist or other unbeliever. For the Prophet only, marriage to a woman who gave herself was permitted by the last part of verse 49 of sura 33 (ol-Ahztib). The other three women who gave themselves to the Prophet were Maymuna, Zaynab, and Khawla.

Omm Sharik’s gift of herself disturbed A’esha, because Omm Sharik was so beautiful that the Prophet immediately accepted the gift. In extreme jealousy and indignation, A’esha reportedly said, “I wonder what a woman who gives herself to a man is worth.” The incident is cited as the occasion of the revelation of the last part of verse 49, which sanctioned Omm Sharik’s gift and the Prophet’s acceptance. On hearing this, A’esha was reportedly so impertinent as to say, “I see that your Lord is quick to grant your wishes.” Another well authenticated report, quoted by the “Two Shaykhs” Jalal od-Din ol-Mahalli and Jalal od-Din os-Soyuti) in the Tafsir ol-Jalalayn, gives a different version of A’esha’s row with the Prophet. According to this, it was after the affair of Omm Sharik and the revelation of verse 49 that A’esha indignantly said, “I wonder what a woman who gives herself to a man is worth.” Verse 51 was then sent down to rebuke her, and it was after the revelation of verse 51 that she made her remark about the Lord’s quickness to grant the Prophet’s wishes.

Verse 49 of sura 33 defines the Prophet’s rights in the acquisition of wives and concubines: “O Prophet, We have made lawful for you your wives to whom you have paid their rewards, those whom your right hand has acquired out of the booty which God gave you, daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts and daughters of your maternal uncles and aunts who emigrated with you, and (any) female believer if she gives herself to the Prophet (and) if the Prophet wishes to enter into marriage with her – for you only, not for (other) believers.”

Verse 50 continues: “We know well what duties We have imposed on them in the matter of their wives and those whom their right hands have acquired. (This exemption is) in order that no blame shall fall on you. And God is forgiving, merciful.”

A’esha’s protest against the last part of verse 49 brought down the warning in verse 51, which sets forth, or rather sets no limits on, the Prophet’s powers over his wives, depriving them of any sort of right or redress against him: “You may postpone (the turns) of whomsoever of them you will, and you may take to bed whomsoever you will. And if you want (back) any of those whom you have laid off, it will not be a sin (held) against you. That is more likely to make them happy, not sad, and to make all of them content with what you give them. God knows what is in your hearts, and God is knowing, forbearing.”

Zamakhshari, in his Qur’an-commentary entitled ol-Kashshaf, explains the revelation of verse 51 as follows. The Prophet’s wives, who were jealous rivals of each other, began to demand higher subsistence allowances. (This was after the massacre of the men of the Qorayza tribe, when the Moslems had acquired much booty and the Prophet’s wives naturally hoped that part of his one fifth share of this booty might be spent on them). According to A’esha’s account, which Zamakhshari quotes, the Prophet then boycotted his wives for one month until the revelation of verse 51 gave him a free hand in his relations with them. The wives became apprehensive and asked him to give them whatever personal attention and financial help he pleased.

This means that the wives acknowledged the Prophet’s absolute discretion to deal with each of them in any way that he might choose. Zamakhshari in his detailed study interprets verse 51 as giving the Prophet freedom to approach, shun, retain, or divorce each or all of his wives and to marry other women of his community whenever he pleased. Furthermore, according to a statement by Hasan b. Ali which Zamakhshari quotes, if the Prophet wanted a woman’s hand, no other man would have the right to pay court to that woman unless the Prophet changed his mind. Zamakhshari adds that at that time the Prophet had nine wives and was not taking turns regularly or at all with five of them, namely Sawda, Jowayriya, Safiya, Maymuna, and Omm Habiba, but was granting favour and regular turns to the other four, namely A’esha, Hafsa, Omm Salama, and Zaynab. A’esha is again quoted as saying, “There were few days when the Prophet did not call on each of us, but he showed special consideration to the one whose turn had come and with whom he would be spending the night. Sawda b. Zam’a feared that the Prophet might divorce her and therefore said to him, ‘Do not keep my turn! I have given up hope of conjugal relations with you, and I cede my night to A’esha. But do not divorce me, because I would like to be counted as a wife of yours on the Judgement Day!’”

The point of the last part of verse 51 is that deprivation of conjugal rights would make the Prophet’s wives happier. Even though the divine command had endowed him with absolute discretion and deprived them of any right to claim their due from him, the new dispensation was better for them because it would end their rivalry and make them contented in future. 

Perhaps it was to soothe the hurt feelings and wounded pride of the wives that verse 52 of sura 33 was sent down, as the words certainly seem to be a message of consolation and reassurance to them: “It is not permissible for you (to marry) women hereafter, nor to replace them with (other) wives even if their beauty pleases you, with the exception of those whom your right hand has acquired. And God is watchful over everything.” This verse presents a problem, because in the words of A’esha, which every Hadith compiler quotes and deems authentic, “the Prophet did not die without all his wives being permissible for him” (i.e. all his marriages were permissible for him). In Zamakhshari’s opinion, A’esha’s words show that verse 52 was abrogated by custom and by verse 49 (“O Prophet, We have made lawful for you. . . . . . “). But an abrogating verse ought to come after the abrogated oneNevertheless Soyuti, in his treatise on Qur’anic problems entitled ol-Etqan, maintains that in this case the earlier verse abrogated the later one.

When the Prophet’s marital privileges, specified in numerous verses of sura 33, are added up, their astonishing range becomes apparent. He could have more than four wives, the maximum allowed to other believers; he was permitted to marry first cousins who had emigrated to Madina with him; he could take as a wife, without payment of dower and presence of witnesses, any female believer who gave herself to him; he was exempt from the obligation of respect for the equal rights of co-wives; he might postpone or terminate the turns of any of his wives; if he sought a woman’s hand, any other suitor must desist; and after his death, no other men might marry his widows. Moreover the Prophet’s wives had no right to demand higher subsistence allowances. 

In contrast with the privileges and freedoms given to the Prophet, exceptional restrictions were imposed on his wives. They were not like other women; they must not let themselves be seen by the people; they must speak to men from behind curtains; they must abstain from wearing ornaments customary in pagan times; they must be content with whatever subsistence allowances might be granted to them; they must not complain if their turns were not kept; and they must never remarry. The last sentence of verse 53, which is addressed to male believers, states categorically: “It would not be (right) for you to offend God’s Apostle by marrying his wives after him at any future time. That would be an enormity in God’s sight.” In the Talmud there is a similar ban on remarriage of widows of Jewish kings.

Abdolah b. ol-Abbas72 is reported to have said that a man went to see one of the Prophet’s wives, and the Prophet ordered him not to do so again. The man protested that she was the daughter of his paternal uncle and that he and she had no wrong intentions. The Prophet replied, “I am well aware of that, but there are none so jealous as the Lord and myself.” The man took umbrage and walked out, muttering “He forbids me to speak to my cousin. Anyway I shall marry her after his death.” It was then that the revelation of verse 53 of sura 33 took place. (Dashti, pp. 90-95; bold emphasis mine)

One of the verses that Dashti commented on is the following:

Or do they envy men (Muhammad and his followers) for what Allah has given them of His Bounty? Then We had already given the family of Ibrahim (Abraham) the Book and Al-Hikmah (As-Sunnah – Divine Inspiration to those Prophets not written in the form of a book), and conferred upon them a great kingdom.S. 4:54 Hilali-Khan

Here’s how the Muslim expositors interpreted this text:

Or nay are they jealous of people namely of the Prophet for the bounty that God has bestowed upon them in the way of prophethood and abundance of women? In other words they wish that he be deprived of such things saying ‘If he were truly a prophet he would not be concerned with women’. For We gave the House of Abraham his forefather the likes of Moses David and Solomon the Book and wisdom and prophethood and We gave them a mighty kingdom David had ninety–nine women and Solomon had a thousand free women and slavegirls. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=4&tAyahNo=54&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2; bold emphasis ours)

(Or are they jealous) nay, they are jealous (of mankind) of Muhammad and his Companions (because of that which Allah of His bounty hath bestowed upon them?) the Scripture, prophethood and marrying many wives. (For We bestowed upon the house of Abraham) David and Solomon ((of old) the Scripture and Wisdom) knowledge, understanding and prophethood, (and We bestowed on them a mighty kingdom) We honoured them with prophethood and Islam and bestowed upon them sovereignty over the Children of Israel. David had 100 legitimate wives, and Solomon had 300 legitimate wives plus 700 concubines. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=4&tAyahNo=54&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2; bold emphasis mine)

The problem with appealing to the examples of David and Solomon is that this ignores the further revelation brought by the Lord Jesus and his inspired emissaries:

“Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these sayings, that He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there. The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’ And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the TWO shall become one flesh”? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.’ They said to Him, ‘Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, ‘Moses, BECAUSE OF THE HARDNESS OF YOUR HEARTS, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.’ His disciples said to Him, ‘If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.’  But He said to them, ‘All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given:For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.’” Matthew 19:1-12 New King James Version (NKJV)

The words of the Lord here clearly indicate that God didn’t approve of such marriages, not even divorce, but simply tolerated them for the time being until the complete and perfect revelation would arrive. This is why the blessed Apostle Paul would write that a man is to have only one wife, in the same way that a woman is to have only one husband:

“Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 NKJV

Besides, the Hebrew Scriptures themselves testify that God was not pleased with what Solomon did, and even chastened him for having so many women that enticed his heart away from the worship of the one true God:

“But King Solomon loved many foreign women, as well as the daughter of Pharaoh: women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites—from the nations of whom the LORD had said to the children of Israel, ‘You shall not intermarry with them, nor they with you. Surely they will turn away your hearts after their gods.’ Solomon clung to these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart. For it was so, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned his heart after other gods; and his heart was not loyal to the LORD his God, as was the heart of his father David. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and did not fully follow the LORD, as did his father David. Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, on the hill that is east of Jerusalem, and for Molech the abomination of the people of Ammon. And he did likewise for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods. So the LORD became angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned from the LORD God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he did not keep what the LORD had commanded. Therefore the LORD said to Solomon, ‘Because you have done this, and have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom away from you and give it to your servant. Nevertheless I will not do it in your days, for the sake of your father David; I will tear it out of the hand of your son. However I will not tear away the whole kingdom; I will give one tribe to your son for the sake of My servant David, and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen.’” 1 Kings 11:1-13 NKJV

This is precisely why God had forewarned that Israel’s kings should not multiply wives, lest their hearts turn away from Jehovah their God:

“When you come to the land which the LORD your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,’ you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the LORD has said to you, ‘You shall not return that way again.’ Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself. Also it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this law in a book, from the one before the priests, the Levites. And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God and be careful to observe all the words of this law and these statutes, that his heart may not be lifted above his brethren, that he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left, and that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel.” Deuteronomy 17:14-20 NKJV

To, therefore, appeal to the example of the Old Testament prophets, merely highlights how desperate Muslims are in justifying Muhammad’s lustful, perverted sexual escapades, and further demonstrates the imperfection and backwardness of their prophet’s so-called revelations.

Finally, even the Islamic sources testify that Muhammad’s contemporaries accused him of being a womanizer, whose god seemed to rush to fulfill his prophet’s sexual passions and fantasies:

“… Layla bt. al-Khatim b. ‘Adi b. ‘Amr b. Sawad b. Zafar b. al-Harith b. al-Khazraj approached the Prophet while his back was to the sun, and clapped him on his shoulder. He asked who it was, and she replied, ‘I am the daughter of one who competes with the wind. I am Layla bt. al-Khatim. I have come to offer myself [in marriage] to you, so marry me.’ He replied, ‘I accept.’ She went back to her people and said that the Messenger of God had married her. They said, ‘What a bad thing you have done! You are a self-respecting woman, but the Prophet is a womanizer. Seek an annulment from him.’ She went back to the Prophet and asked him to revoke the marriage and he complied with [her request]…” (The History of Al-Tabari: The Last Years of the Prophet, translated and annotated by Ismail K. Poonawala [State University of New York Press, Albany, 1990], Volume IX (9), p. 139; bold emphasis ours)

Even Muhammad’s childbride Aisha noticed this to be the case:

Narrated Muadha:

’Aisha said, “Allah’s Apostle used to take the permission of that wife with whom he was supposed to stay overnight if he wanted to go to one other than her, after this Verse was revealed:–

‘You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives) and you may receive any (of them) whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).’” (33.51) I asked Aisha, “What did you use to say (in this case)?” She said, “I used to say to him, ‘If I could deny you the permission (to go to your other wives) I would not allow your favor to be bestowed on any other person.’” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 312 https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=60&translator=1&start=0&number=312)

The foregoing makes it very hard to avoid coming to the conclusion that the main purpose of Allah’s existence was to satisfy Muhammad’s perverted desires and sexual lusts.

FURTHER READING

Muhammad’s Sexual Privileges (https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2019/07/03/muhammads-sexual-privileges/)

Revisiting the Age of Aisha Pt. 4 (https://www.answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/jonathan_brown/aisha_age_4.html)

Muhammad’s multiple marriages

Never Shall He Be Satisfied

Muhammad’s Marriage to Safiyyah: A Case Study in Allah’s Mercy

Muhammad’s Marriage to Safiyyah Revisited

Muhammad and Safiyyah Revisited 3a3b

Source: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/25/muhammad-the-womanizing-sensualist/

IHS


A Muslim Defense of Muhammad’s Marrying A Prepubescent Minor Pt. 2

This is a follow up to my previous post (https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/25/a-muslim-defense-of-muhammads-marrying-a-prebuscent-minor-pt-1/) where I again republish a leading Muslim scholar’s refutation (https://www.abc.se/home/m9783/ir/d/aam1_e.pdf) to the attempts by some Muslims to deny that Muhammad had sexual relations with a 9-year-old minor.

‘Ā’isha’s Age at the Time of Her Marriage

by GF Haddad – Shawwāl 1426 / November 2005

Our Mother ‘Ā’isha was between four and five years old the year both Abū Tālib and Khadīja died – three years before the Hijra – and the Prophet remarried both with her and with Sawda between one and two years later, when she was six, cohabiting with her when she was nine as explicitly reported from her in the books of SahīhSunan, and Musnads.

Al-Bukhārī narrates from ‘Ā’isha in two places of his Sahīh – the book of Tafsīr and the one directly after it titled Fadā’il al-Qur’ān – that verse 46 of Sūrat al-QamarNay, but the Hour (of doom) is their appointed tryst, and the Hour will be more wretched and more bitter (than their earthly failure) (54:46), “descended upon Muhammad in Makka when I was still a mere little girl playing” (wa’innī lajāriyatun al‘abu). Since the hadīth Masters, Sīra historians, and Qur’anic commentators agree that the splitting of the moon took place about five years before the Holy Prophet’s  Hijra to Madīna, it is confirmed that she was born between seven and eight years before the Hijra and the words that she was a jāriya five years before the Hijra match the fact that her age at the time Sūrat al-Qamar was revealed was around 2.1

The Prophet recounted to ‘Ā’isha how he was first inspired to ask her in marriage:

You were shown to me in dream for three nights. The angel brought you wrapped in a silk cloth, saying, ‘This is your wife.’ I would lift the veil from your face and there you were! I would say, ‘If this [sign] is from Allāh then He shall make it take place.”2

More Wisdoms to the Prophet’s Marriage with ‘Ā’isha

The marriage of our Mother ‘Ā’isha with the Holy Prophet at an early age, together with her exceptional intelligence, allowed her to be an eyewitness to the personal details of his life and carry them on to the succeeding generations with precision, clarity, detail, abundance, and acumen generally unsurpassed by anyone who ever related from a Prophet in the history of mankind. Imām Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhrī said: “If the knowledge of ‘Ā’isha were added to the knowledge of all women, the knowledge of ‘Ā’isha would still be better.”3 No doubt, this everlasting benefit is the greatest wisdom to be deduced from this marriage.

A second, timely wisdom, is that just as the Prophet, with his later marriage with Zaynab following her divorce from Zayd, abolished the pre-Islamic Arabian notion that a man could not marry the former wife of an adoptive son, similarly, he abolished once and for all the notion that a man could not marry the daughter of a man one had formally declared to be his brother. The Prophet asked Abū Bakr for ‘Ā’isha’s hand in marriage. Abū Bakr said, “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said: “You are my brother in the Religion of Allāh. and His Book, but she is lawful for me to marry.”4

A third, timely wisdom is that the marriage did away with the pagan superstition that it was a bad omen to marry in the month of Shawwāl, but the Prophet and ‘Ā’isha were married in Shawwāl and they began to cohabit in Shawwāl of the second year after the Hijra.5

Various Misconceptions over Her Youthful Marriage

There is no dispute that ‘Ā’isha had reached puberty at the time of the consummation of her marriage. However, a claim was made by Maulana Muhammad ‘Alī that she was a teenager at the time:

A great misconception prevails as to the age at which ‘Ā’isha was taken in marriage by the Prophet. Ibn Sa‘d has stated in the T.abaqāt that when Abū Bakr was approached on behalf of the Holy Prophet, he replied that the girl had already been betrothed to Jubayr [ibn Mut.‘im ibn ‘Adī ibn Nawfal ibn ‘Abd Manāf], and that he would have to settle the matter first with him [actually with his father Mut‘im]. This shows that ‘Ā’isha must have been approaching majority at the time [sic]. Again, the Isāba, speaking on the Prophet’s daughter Fātima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than ‘Ā’isha. This shows that ‘Ā’isha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be. This is further borne out by the fact that ‘Ā’isha herself is reported to have stated that when the chapter entitled “The Moon” (54th chapter) was revealed, she was a girl playing about and remembered certain verses then revealed. Now the 54th chapter was undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call. All these considerations point to but one conclusion, viz., that ‘Ā’isha could not have been less than ten years of age at the time of her nikāh, which was virtually only a betrothal. And there is one report in the Tabaqāt that ‘Ā’isha was nine years of age at the time of nikāh. Again it is a fact admitted on all hands that the nikāh of ‘Ā’isha took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwāl, while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijra in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the nikāh. and the consummation. Hence there is not the least doubt that ‘Ā’isha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and 14 or 15 years at the time of marriage.6

The above conclusion is flawed due to the following facts:

• Ibn Sa‘d’s report about the betrothal to Jubayr ibn Mut‘im has an extremely weak chain through Abū al-Mundhir Hishām ibn Muhammad ibn al-Sā’ib, from his father Abū al-Nadr al-Kūfī, from Abū Sālih, from Ibn ‘Abbās. Hishām and his father are both “discarded” (matrūk) and considered liars while the latter actually admitted to Sufyān al-Thawrī, “All I have narrated to you from Abū Sālih. is a lie.”7

• The reasoning that a betrothal to Jubayr would suggest anything about age is also faulty and shows ignorance of the fact that betrothal could take place from the cradle or even before birth. Further, the word “majority” is probably being used in an unislamic sense by Maulana Muh.ammad ‘Alī.

• The Isāba does not cite only one, but two possible dates for the birth of Fātima al-Zahrā’ (i) The year the Ka‘ba was rebuilt, five years before Prophethood, when the Prophet was 35. This is reported by al-Wāqidī alone who is, moreover, very weak or discarded as a hadīth narrator. (ii) The forty-first year of the Prophet. This is reported by al-Hākim in al-Mustadrak through two chains (1990 ed. 3:176 and 3:178), Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in al-Istī‘āb (4:1893), and alMizzī in Tahdhīb al-Kamāl (53:248). Both dates are cited in the Isāba (1992 ed. 8:54) which adds that Fātima was five years older than ‘Ā’isha. By the first date, therefore, the age of ‘Ā’isha the year the marriage was consummated (2H) would be 15; by the second date, 9 – the age confirmed by the totality of the reports in the Sahīhs and Sunan.

• The Tabaqāt of Ibn Sa‘d explicitly state (8:217) that ‘Ā’isha was six years of age at the time of nikāh. and nine at the time of consummation.

• As for Sūra 54 being “undoubtedly revealed before the sixth year of the Call” and the claimed “fact admitted on all hands that the nikāh. of ‘Ā’isha took place in the tenth year of the Call,” these are statements without basis.

Another, yet weaker claim was made that ‘Ā’isha “was not 9 but 19 at the time of her marriage” and that “the wrong age” was the “result of an error perpetuated by copying a mistake committed by Ibn Sa‘d”! However, the precise age of nine at the time of consummation is reported with at least seventeen different chains in the Six Books, nine of them in the Sahīhayn, plus three more chains in the Musnad of Imām Ahmad and one more in al-Dārimī’s Musnad, all excluding Ibn Sa‘d. The onset of menarche often took place at eight or nine in the Arabian peninsula at the time. Al-Shāfi‘ī said: “I saw in Yemen many nine-year old girls who had menses” (ra’aytu bil-yaman banāti tis‘in yahidna kathīran). 8 Al-Tirmidhī said in the “Book of the Nikāh of the Prophet” in his Sunan:

Ahmad and Ishāq [ibn Rāhūyah] said: “When the orphan reaches nine years of age and is then married upon her approval, the marriage is permissible.” ‘Ā’isha said: “When the girl reaches nine years of age she is a woman.”

The weakest claim of all is probably the attempt to suggest weakness in the narration of Hishām ibn ‘Urwa in the following terms: “Most of the hadīths about a young age for ‘Ā’isha at her marriage were transmitted by Hishām ibn ‘Urwa on the authority of his father. All of those who narrated these hadiths from Hishām are Iraqis. This is important because there are reports in Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb to the effect that Hishām’s reports are reliable except when narrated by Iraqis [!]. There is a report from Ya‘qūb ibn Shayba to that effect, and one from Mālik ibn Anas.” The reply is that none among the hadīth Masters endorsed these reservations, since they were based solely on the fact that Hishām in his last period (he was 71 at the time of his last trip to Iraq), for the sake of brevity, would say “My father, from ‘Ā’isha” (abī ‘an ‘Ā’isha) and no longer pronounced, “narrated to me” (haddathanī). Hence Ibn Hajar rejects the objections as negligible in Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb (11:45), saying: “It was clear enough to the Iraqis that he did not narrate from his father other than what he had heard directly from him.” In Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb (#7302), he states of Hishām, “thiqa rubbamā dallasa – trustworthy, may have occasionally left his narrator unnamed” but Shu‘ayb alArna’ūt and ‘Awwād Ma‘rūfsaid in their Tahrīr Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb (4:41), a thorough review of Ibn Hajar’s findings in al-Taqrīb:

It seems the words rubbamā dallasa are based on the sayings of Ya‘qūb ibn Shayba and Mālik, although his [Hishām’s] narration from his father is retained in the fundamental manuals of Islam, among them the two Sahīhs, so this [criticism] is negligible.

Another ignorant claim states that this report comes from Hishām ibn ‘Urwa only through the Iraqis and not through the Madinans. In reality, al-Zuhrī also reports it from ‘Urwa, from ‘Ā’isha; so does ‘Abd Allāh ibn Dhakwān – both major Madanīs. So is the Tābi‘ī Yah.yā al-Lakhmī who reports it from her in the Musnad and in Ibn Sa‘d’s Tabaqāt. So is Abū Ishāq Sa‘d ibn Ibrāhīm who reports it from Imām al-Qāsim ibn Muhammad – one of the Seven Imāms of Madina! – from ‘Ā’isha. Also, Sufyān ibn ‘Uyayna – from Khurāsān – and ‘Abd Allāh ibn Muhammad ibn Yahyā – from Tabarayya in Palestine – both report it from Hishām, from ‘Urwa. Nor was this hadīth reported only by ‘Urwa but also by ‘Abd al-Malik ibn ‘Umayr, al-Aswad, Ibn Abī Mulayka, Abū Salama ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn ‘Awf, Yahyā ibn ‘Abd al-Rahmān ibn Hātib, Abū ‘Ubayda (‘Āmir ibn ‘Abd Allāh ibn Mas‘ūd) and others of the Tābi‘ī Imāms directly from ‘Ā’isha. This makes the report mass-transmitted (mutawātir) from ‘Ā’isha by over eleven authorities among the Tābi‘īn, not counting the other major Companions that reported the same, such as Ibn Mas‘ūd nor other major Successors that reported it from other than ‘Ā’isha, such as Qatāda!

‘Abd al-Rahmān Squires wrote:

Part of the wisdom behind the Prophet’s marriage to ‘Ā’isha just after she reached puberty is to firmly establish this as a point of Islamic Law, even though it was already cultural norm in all Semitic societies (including the one Jesus grew up in). The large majority of Islamic jurists say that the earliest time a marriage can be consummated is on the onset of sexual maturity (bulūgh), meaning puberty.9 Since this was the norm of all Semitic cultures and it still is the norm of many cultures today: it is certainly not something that Islam invented. However, widespread opposition to such a Divinely revealed and accepted historical norm is certainly something that is relatively new.

The criticism of [the Prophet] Muhammad’s marriage to ‘Ā’isha is something relatively new in that it grew up out of the values of “Post-Enlightenment” Europe. This was a Europe that had abandoned (or at least modified) its religious morality for a new set of humanist values where people used their own opinions to determine what was right and wrong. It is interesting to note that Christians from a very early time criticized (again hypocritically) the Prophet’s practice of polygamy, but not the marriage to ‘Ā’isha. Certainly, those from a Middle Eastern Semitic background would not have found anything to criticize, since nothing abnormal or immoral took place. It is “modern” Westernized Christians who began to criticize [the Prophet] Muh.ammad on this point, not earlier pre-Enlightenment ones.

It is upon reaching the age of puberty that a person, man or woman, becomes legally responsible under Islamic Law. At this point, they are allowed to make their own decisions and are held accountable for their actions. It should also be mentioned that in Islam, it is unlawful to force someone to marry someone that they do not want to marry. The evidence shows that ‘Ā’isha’s marriage to the Prophet Muhammad was one which both parties and their families agreed upon. Based on the culture at that time, no one saw anything wrong with it. On the contrary, they were all happy about it.

None of the Muslim sources report that anyone from the society at that time criticized this marriage due to ‘Ā’isha’s young age. On the contrary, the marriage of ‘Ā’isha to the Prophet was encouraged by ‘Ā’isha’s father, Abū Bakr, and was welcomed by the community at large. It is reported that women who wanted to help the Prophet, such as Khawla bint [Hakīm], encouraged him to marry the young ‘Ā’isha. Due to the Semitic culture in which they lived, they certainly saw nothing wrong with such a marriage.10

An American “women’s 19th-century history” website states the following under the heading The Campaign to Raise the Age of Consent, 1885-1914:

In the late nineteenth century, “Age of consent” referred to the legal age at which a girl could consent to sexual relations. Men who engaged in sexual relations with girls who had not reached the age of consent could be criminally prosecuted. American reformers were shocked to discover that the laws of most states set the age of consent at the age of ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only seven. Women reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen, although their ultimate goal was to raise the age to eighteen. The campaign was eventually quite successful; by 1920, almost all states had raised the age of consent to sixteen or eighteen.11

1 The definition of jāriya in the Qāmūs is fatiyyatu al-nisā’ i.e. “the little female girl.” This appellation applies to girls from birth to pre-pubescence.

2 Narrated from ‘Ā’isha by al-Bukhārī, Muslim, and Ahmad, and by al-Tirmidhī and Ahmad through a different chain.

3 Narrated by al-Hākim (4:11).

4 Narrated from ‘Urwa by al-Bukhārī.

5 Narrated from ‘Ā’isha by Muslim, al-Tirmidhī, al-Nasā’ī, Ibn Mājah, Ahmad, and al-Dārimī.

6 Maulana Muhammad ‘Alī, The Living Thoughts of the Prophet Muhammad (p. 30, note 40, “A Brief Sketch of the Prophet’s Life”) cf. another Subcontinent rehash: http://www.pakistanlink.com/religion/97/re11-21-97.html.

7 Cf. al-Dhahabī’s Mīzān and Ibn al-Jawzī’s al-Du‘afā’ wal-Matrūkīn.

8 Cited by al-Dhahabī in his chapter on al-Shāfi‘ī in Syar A‘lām al-Nubalā’ (Fikr ed. 8:418). “Those who live in cold regions attain puberty at a much later age as compared with those living in hot regions where both male and female attain it at a quite early age. ‘The average temperature of the country or province,’ say the well-known authors of the book Woman [Herman H. Ploss, Max Bartels and Paul Bartels], ‘is considered the chief factor here, not only with regard to menstruation but as regards the whole of sexual development at puberty.’ (Woman, Volume I, Lord & Bransby, 1988, page 563.) Raciborski, Jaubert, Routh and many others have collected and collated statistics on the subject to which readers are referred. Marie Espino has summarised some of these data as follows: (a) The limit of age for the first appearance of menstruation is between nine and twenty-four in the temperate-zone; (b) The average age varies widely and it may be accepted as established that the nearer the Equator, the earlier the average age for menstruation.” http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/aishah.html.

9 Actually, there is the additional pre-condition, before initiating cohabitation, that both spouses must be physically fit for coitus.

10 See the URL cited in the next-to-previous note and also http://www.muslim-answers.org/aishah.htm.

11 http://womhist.binghamton.edu/teacher/aoc.htm.

Source: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/25/a-muslim-defense-of-muhammads-marrying-a-prepubescent-minor-pt-2/

IHS