|
The
marriage of the Prophet Muhammad(P)
to cAishah
bint Abū Bakr when she was at quite a young age has been the
focus of quite a bit of criticism in the West. Unfortunately,
in this Neo-Colonialist Age of Smart bombs, MTV and the Big
Mac, some of those who profess to be Muslims have themselves
become critics. Many Muslims, faced with the juggernaut of
allegedly "universal" Western liberal values that have
permeated almost everyone around them, sheepishly avoid
discussion of such "embarrassing" Islamic issues. It is a
keenly true observation that even though the European powers
have pulled their colonial armies out of Muslim lands and
granted them "independence", an even worse plague
continues. This curse is "Colonialism of the Mind" and
it is more dangerous since it is much more subtle.
Insha'Allah, this article will be a contribution to making
both Muslims and non-Muslims aware of not only the objective
facts regarding the Prophet's(P) marriage
to cAishah,
but how to understand it in light of Islam and life in the
"modern" world.
Regrettably,
for those of us trying to spread the truth of Islam in the
West, we often have to agree with the Orientalist W.
Montgomery Watt when he wrote:
Of all the world's great men none has been so much maligned
as Muhammad.1
But here, for
a change, were are dealing with something that is an authentic
part of Islamic history, not an apocryphal or fabricated event
that Westerners have been duped into believing is authentic,
such as the so-called "Satanic Verses" incident. That a
man in his fifties would marry such a young girl - especially
a man who is supposed to be a living example of piety - is not
only difficult for many "modern" Westerners to come to terms
with, but it has even gone so far as to stir up disgusting
"sexual misconduct" charges amongst them. In the face of such
criticism, Muslims have not always reacted well. In the past
century, when so many Muslims were so "Westoxicated" and ready
to monkey Europeans in almost anything, the usual reaction was
to deny the sources that reported the alleged "embarrassing
problem". To Muslim "modernists", who argued that only
a legal ruling found in the Qur'ān was Islamically valid,
brushing aside this aspect of the Prophet's(P)
life was rather easy. They simply denied that it had occurred
and attacked the sources which reported it. Fortunately for
Muslims, the apologetics of these "Uncle Toms of Islam"
has faded to the periphery to a large extent. However, there
are still many Muslims out there who try to get around what
they see as a problem by ignoring authentic Islamic sources
while claiming to be followers of the Ahl as-Sunnah.
(which basically means "orthodox Sunni" Muslims, for those
unfamiliar Islamic terminology). Many other Muslims possibly
wonder whether the story is authentic and how to understand it
if it is.
The
Islamic Evidence Of
cAishah's
Marriage
Due to the
apparent ignorance of many Muslims, possibly due to reading
"modernist" apologetic literature like that mentioned above, a
look at what the authentic sources of Islam say about the age
at which cAishah
married the Prophet(P) is
in order. This way, before we move on to an analysis of the
facts, we will first establish what the authentic Islamic
facts are. At this point, it should be mentioned that it is
absolutely pointless from an Islamic standpoint to say that
the age of cAishah
is "not found in the Qur'ān", since the textual sources
of Islam are made up of both the Qur'ān and the Sunnah
- and the Qur'ān tells us that. For those wanting (or
needing) to learn more about the status of the Sunnah
in Islam, please read
An Introduction to the Sunnah,
by Suhaib Hasan. Now in regards to what the authentic
Islamic sources actually say, it may come as a disappointment
to some "modern" and "cultured" Muslims that there are four ahādīth
in Sahīh
al-Bukhārī
and three ahādīth in
Sahīh
Muslim clearly state
that cAishah
was "nine years old" as the time that her marriage was
consummated with the Prophet(P).
These ahādīth, with only slight variation, read as
follows:
cAishah,
may God be pleased with her, narrated that the Prophet(P)
was betrothed (zawaj) to her when she was six years old and
he consummated (nikah) his marriage when she was nine years
old, and then she remained with him for nine years.
(Sahīh
al-Bukhārī,
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64)
Of the four ahādīth
in Sahīh
al-Bukhari, two
were narrated from
cAishah
(7:64 and 7:65), one from Abū Hishām (5:236) and one
via 'Ursa (7:88). All three of the ahādīth in
Sahīh
Muslim have
cAishah
as a narrator. Additionally, all of the ahādīth in
both books agree that the marriage betrothal contract took
place when cAishah
was "six years old", but was not consummated until she
was "nine years old". Additionally, a hadīth
with the same text (matn) is reported in
Sunan Abū Dāwūd.
Needless to say, this evidence is - Islamically speaking -
overwhelmingly strong and Muslims who deny it do so only by
sacrificing their intellectual honesty, pure faith or both.
This evidence
having been established, there doesn't seem much room for
debate about
cAishah's
age amongst believing Muslims. Until someone proves that in
the Arabic language "nine years old" means something
other than "nine years old", then we should all be firm
in our belief that she was "nine years old" (as if
there's a reason or need to believe otherwise!?!). In spite
of these facts, there are still some Muslim authors that have
somehow (?) managed to push
cAishah's
age out to as far as "fourteen or fifteen years old" at
the time of her marriage to the Prophet(P).
It should come as no surprise, however, that none of them ever
offer any proof, evidence or references for their opinions.
This can be said with the utmost confidence, since certainly
none of them can produce sources more authentic than the hadīth
collections of Imāms al-Bukhārī and Muslim! Based on
the research that I've done, I feel that there is a common
source for those who claim that
cAishah's
age was "fourteen or fifteen years old" at the time of
the marriage. This source is
The Biographies
of Prominent Muslims which
is published in book form, on CD-ROM and is posted in several
places on the Internet. Just another example of why going to
the sources is important . . .
The Prophet's(P)
Marriages In Perspective
To put all of
this in perspective - hopefully without undue apologetics -
the first thing that one should be aware of is that
cAishah
was the third wife of the Prophet(P),
not the first. Prior to this, the Prophet's(P)
first and only wife for twenty-four years was Khadijah
bint al-Khuwaylid, who was about nineteen years older
than him. He married Khadijah when she was forty and
he was twenty-one - which might be called the years of a
male's "sexual prime" - and stayed married only
to her until her death. Just after Khadijah's death,
when he was round forty-six years old, the Prophet(P)
married his second wife Sawdah bint Zam'ah. It was after this
second marriage that the Prophet(P)
became betrothed to
cAishah,
may God be pleased with her. She was the daughter of Abū Bakr,
one of the Prophet's closest friends and devoted followers.
Abū Bakr, may God be pleased with him, was one of the earliest
converts to Islam and hoped to solidify the deep love that
existed between himself and the Prophet(P)
by uniting their families in marriage. The betrothal of Abu
Bakr's daughter
cAishah
to Muhammad(P),
took place in the eleventh year of Muhammad's(P)
Prophethood, which was about a year after he had married
Sawdah bint Zam'ah and before he made his hijra
(migration) to al-Madinah (Yathrib). As
mentioned above, the marriage with
cAishah
bint Abū Bakr was consummated in Shawwāl, which came
seven months after the Prophet's hijra from Makkah to
al-Medinah. At the time of his marriage to
cAishah,
the Prophet(P)
was over fifty years old.
It should be
noted about the Prophet's(P)
marriage to
cAishah was
an exceedingly happy one for both parties, as the hadīth
literature attests.
cAishah,
may God be please with her, was his favourite wife and the
only virgin that he ever married. After emigrating to al-Madinah,
Muhammad(P)
married numerous other wives, eventually totaling fifteen in
his lifetime. Even though we do not have time to go into the
details of each one of them here, each of these marriages was
done either for political reasons, to strengthen the ties of
kinship or to help a woman in need. Quite a few of the wives
were widows, older women or had been abandoned thus were in
need of a home. Additionally, it should be mentioned that the
same collection of Muslim hadīth literature that tells
us that cAishah
was only nine years old at the time of the marriage tells us
that the marriage was Divinely ordained:
Narrated
cAishah,
may God be pleased with her: The Messenger of God(P)
said (to me): "You have been shown to me twice in (my)
dreams. A man was carrying you in a silken cloth and said to
me, 'This is your wife.' I uncovered it; and behold, it was
you. I said to myself, 'If this dream is from God, He will
cause it to come true.'"
(Sahīh
al-Bukhārī,
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 15)
Thus like
everything that the Prophet(P)
did, there was wisdom behind it and lessons to be learned from
it. The wisdom behind such incidents provides us guidance on
the basis of human morality, exposes the double standards of
misguided hypocrites from other religions that criticize Islam
and much more. But more on that subject below. . .
Criticism Addressed & Entertained
Myself and
many other Muslims should no longer be surprised by the double
standard that Christians display when they criticize the
conduct of Prophet Muhammad(P)
, since we've heard it for so long. To have an atheist,
agnostic - or anyone else who does not believe in a Divinely
revealed basis for morality - criticize something that is
"politically incorrect" by today's moral standards comes as no
surprise. Such people will always find something to
criticize, since they simply have a bone to pick with
"religion" in general. All of this "absolute morality" talk
gets in the way of them having a good time, so they want to
mock it, discredit it and do away with it. The criticism of
Christians, however, is another matter. While it is true that
Christians speak out against the "moral relativity" which is
spreading amongst the increasingly secular society today, they
too are unconscious victims of it. The values of most
Christians today come from the humanist values of Western
Europe (or, at a minimum, are heavily influenced by them).
Their values do not come straight out of the Bible - in
theory or in practice - regardless of what they may claim.
That Christians today try to take credit for the so-called
"Freedom", "Human Rights", "Democracy" and "Women's Rights" in
Europe and America is nothing short of a joke. It may impress
uneducated people in so-called Third World countries, but
anyone who has studied history knows that these things came
about in spite of the Church, not because of it. The way in
which many Christians uncritically mix non-Christian values
with (allegedly) Biblical values has always fascinated me.
One interesting example of this is how nationalism and
patriotism are supported amongst the majority of Evangelical
Protestant (and even other) Christians in the United States.
In America, good Christians are flag wavers. Few, if any, of
these fiercely patriotic minds ever seem to realize that
narrow-minded patriotism is both selfish and non-universal at
its core. That patriotism and Christianity go hand-in-hand in
the minds of many people is just an example of how we can be
blindly sucked into "moral relativism" without even realizing
it.
According to
Judaism, Christianity and Islam, right and wrong are ordained
by Almighty God. As such, morality does not change over time
based on our whims, desires or cultural sensitivities. In
cultures where there is no Divinely revealed ruling on an
issue, what is right and what is wrong is determined by
cultural norms. In such cases, a person would only be
considered "immoral" if they violated the accepted norms of
their society. As we will demonstrate, the Prophet Muhammad's(P)
marriage to
cAishah,
viewed both in the light of Absolute Morality and the cultural
norms of his time, was not an immoral act, but was an act
containing valuable lessons for generations to come.
Additionally, this marriage followed the norms for all Semitic
peoples, including those of Biblical times. Based on this, and
other information that we will provide below, it is grossly
hypocritical for Christians to criticise the Prophet's(P)
marriage to
cAishah at
such a young age. In case Christian readers are under the
false impression that their values today are timeless and
somehow reflect those of Biblical times, please consider the
following points which are directly related to the question of
at what age a person is properly ready to be married:
Keeping in
mind the ideas of "political correctness" and "absolute
morality", in Biblical times the age at which a girl could
marry was puberty. However, during the Middle Ages it was
usually twelve years old. Now in most "Christian" countries
it is between fourteen and sixteen years old. I live in
country where some states allow partners of the same sex to
legally marry, but consider an eighteen year old boy who
sleeps with a sixteen year old girl a "statutory rapist". So
even though Christians might disagree with much of what is
becoming all too prevalent in Western society today -
whether it be drug abuse, gay marriages or abortion - they
too have been swallowed up (possibly unknowingly) by the
ugly monster of "moral relativism" Certainly, they might be
giving in less quickly than people who have no Divine basis
for their morality, but they're giving in nonetheless.
Historically, the age at which a girl was considered ready
to be married has been puberty. This was the case in
Biblical times, as we will discuss below, and is still used
to determine the age of marriage in what the culturally
arrogant West calls "primitive societies" throughout the
world. As the ahādīth about
cAishah's
age show, her betrothal took place at least three years
before the consummation of the marriage. The reason for
this was that they were waiting for her to come of age (i.e.
to have her first menstrual period). Puberty as a
biological sign shows that a women is capable of bearing
children. Can anyone logically deny this? Part of the
wisdom behind the Prophet's marriage to
cAishah
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(P)
grew up in). The large majority of Islamic jurists say that
the earliest time a marriage can be consummated is on the
onset sexual maturity (bulugh), meaning puberty.
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 Muhammad's marriage to
cAishah
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(P)
practice of polygamy, but not the marriage to
cAishah.
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 Muhammad
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
cAishah's
marriage to the Prophet Muhammad(P)
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
cAishah's
young age. On the contrary, the marriage of
cAishah
to the Prophet(P)
was encouraged by
cAishah's
father, Abu Bakr, and was welcomed by the community at
large. It is reported that women who wanted to help the
Prophet(P),
such as Khawlah bint al-Hakīm, encouraged him
to marry the young
cAishah.
Due to the Semitic culture in which they lived, they
certainly saw nothing wrong with such a marriage.
Society's
ideas of love, family and marriage are much different in the
so-called "modern" and "civilized" West of today than they
were in Biblical or Qur'ānic times. Unfortunately, many of
us carry the baggage of "romantic love" and ideas about sex
that have managed to poison our minds since the Europeans
(and their ideas) came to dominate the globe. These ideas
have not only penetrated into the minds of Muslims, but
actually permeate many of them. The European colonial
powers have pulled out of almost all Muslim lands, but the
colonization of the minds continues! As we mentioned above,
the sad part is that most people do not even realize that
they are under such un-Godly influences. Just to reference
the way things have changed, a statement in
The New
Encyclopaedia Britannica
makes it clear that values regarding the proper age of
marriage have been changing over the years:
. . . in the
United States and parts of Europe the association of adult
status with sexual maturity as expressed in the
term puberty rites has been unwelcome".2
The
significance that sex and sexuality are thought to play in
human psychology has its roots in Freudian thought. Even
though many of Freud's ideas are being heavily challenged
today, many of his ideas still play a role in the thinking
of many people. Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) taught that
humans are basically "sexual beings" whose childhood sexual
urges are the key to understanding them. He developed the
methodology of psychoanalysis and his ideas on sex,
repressed guilt and sexuality, the unconscious sex drive,
the Oedipus complex and other ideas have come to almost
haunt the Western view of sexuality (almost as much as the
repressive views of the Roman Catholic Church). Needless to
say, Freud's ideas have been criticized by believing Jews,
Christians and Muslims since they basically deny human moral
responsibility. In Freud's view of things, human beings are
prisoners to the effects of unconscious forces and their sex
drive. Such ideas are always welcomed by "liberals",
"humanists" and others like them. The point of all this in
regards to young marriage, however, might be less
clear. What needs to be pointed out is the contradictory
"modern" Western view of sexuality. They are taken aback by
the thought of marriage at the age of puberty, even though
it's an age old custom. However, they have junior high
schools where sex education is taught and a society where
sexually promiscuous "dating" is considered the norm.
Sometimes sex is simply a natural pleasure to be enjoyed,
but at other times it is a psychological demon of far
reaching consequences. In short, everything from their
private lives to their court systems, have fallen victim to
the moral relativity of the psychiatrists and
psychologists. The attitude that any experience in life can
be seen as some sort of "trauma" is very widespread. Many
people go through life constantly obsessed about what sort
of "complex" they may be suffering from due to experiences
they've had in their relatively normal life. The morality
which is produced by such attitudes all but does away with
human responsibility. People who are guilty of serious
crimes, instead of being held responsible for their actions,
are themselves considered "victims", since they are only
doing what their psychological makeup causes them to do.
Puberty = Maturity = Marriage
These points
having been presented, some additional details on a few of
them is worthwhile. An interesting article on the age at
which people married in Biblical times is
Ancient Israelite Marriage
Customs, by Jim
West, ThD - a Baptist minister. This article states that:
The wife was to be taken from within the larger family
circle (usually at the outset of puberty or around
the age of 13) in order to maintain the purity of the family
line;
This is just
one reference to the fact that the onset of puberty was
considered the age at which young people could marry. That
people in Biblical times married at an early age is widely
endorsed. While discussing the meaning of the word 'almah,
which is the Hebrew word for "young woman" or
"adolescent female", Gerald Segal says:
It should be noted, however, that in biblical times
females married at an early age.3
In spite of
its somewhat arrogant Western talk of "primitive cultures",
An Overview of the World's
Religions makes it
clear that puberty is an age old symbol of adulthood:
Almost all primitive cultures pay attention to puberty
and marriage rituals, although there is a general tendency
to pay more attention to the puberty rites of males than of
females. Because puberty and marriage symbolize the fact
that children are acquiring adult roles, most
primitive cultures consider the rituals surrounding these
events very important. Puberty rituals are often
accompanied with ceremonial circumcision or some other
operation on the male genitals. Female circumcision is less
common, although it occurs in several cultures. Female
puberty rites are more often related to the commencement of
the menstrual cycle in young girls.
Some female
authors agree:
Puberty is defined as the age or period at which a person is
first capable of sexual reproduction, in other eras of
history, a rite or celebration of this landmark event was a
part of the culture. (Rites
of Passage: Puberty,
by Sue Curewitz Arthen)
"Getting your period" marks a rite of passage for young
girls entering womanhood.
(From the
Women's Resource Center)
Another
contemporary reference relating marriage age to puberty is an
article on Central Africa, which says:
. . . women marry soon after puberty4.
There are many
other references which should prove to any intelligent person
what anthropologists and historians already know: in
centuries past, people were considered ready for marriage when
they reached puberty.
It should be
mentioned that from an Islamic point of view, many problems in
society today can be traced back to the abandonment of early
marriage. Due to the way that Almighty God has created man
and woman, i.e., with strong sexual desires, people should
marry young. In the past, this was even more true since life
expectancy was very low (i.e. you were considered "old" if you
made it to 40!) Not only does marriage provide a legal
outlet for people with strong sexual desires, but it usually
produces more children. One of the main purposes of marriage
is to produce children -"be fruitful and multiply" as
the Bible says (Genesis 8:17). This was especially important
in the past, when people did not live as long as they do now
and the infant morality rate was much higher.
The
Age Of Puberty
Even though we
have established that puberty has been the historical,
cultural and religious norm for indicating readiness for
marriage, some may wonder at which age puberty normally takes
place. This is somewhat meaningless in regards to our
specific discussion of Muhammad(P)
and cAishah,
since the hadith literature makes it clear that she had
reached puberty. However, in regards to puberty and at what
age most girls have their first menstrual cycle,
cAbdul-Hamīd
Siddiqī says:
Islam has laid
down no age limit for puberty for it varies with countries and
races due to the climate, hereditary, physical and social
conditions. 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,
"is considered the chief factor here, not only with regard
to menstruation but as regards the whole of sexual development
at puberty."5
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.6
Additionally,
an article entitled
Puberty in Girls
by an Australian government Public Health organization, says:
The first sign of puberty is usually a surge of growth: you
become taller; your breasts develop; hair begins to grow in
the pubic area and under the arms. This may start from 10
years to 14 years - even earlier for some and later for
others.
An article
Physical Changes in Girls
During Puberty has
this to say:
During puberty, a girl's body changes, inside and out,
into the body of a woman. The changes don't come all at
once, and they don't happen at the same time for everybody.
Most girls start showing physical changes around age 11, but
everyone has her own internal schedule for development.
It's normal for changes to start as early as 8 or 9 years of
age, or not until 13 or 14. Even if nothing looks or
feels different yet, the changes may have already begun
inside your body.
Many will
readily agree with the information above, but still might
harbour reservations about whether a marriage to an older man
could be happy for such a young girl. Putting aside the
modern Western notions of "happiness" for a moment, the
marriage of
cAishah
and the Prophet(P)
was a mutually happy and loving one as in expressed in
numerous hadīth and seerah books. That happy marriages
occur between people with a fairly large difference in ages is
known among psychologists:
When the differences (in ages) is great, e.g. exceeds
fifteen to twenty years, the results may be happier. The
marriage of an elderly (senescent) not, of course, an old
(senile) man to a quite young girl, is often very successful
and harmonious. The bride is immediately introduced and
accustomed to moderate sexual intercourse.
7
More
Wisdom Behind It
In his
comments on the ahadith in
Sahīh Muslim
which mention
cAishah's
young marriage to the Prophet(P),
cAbdul-Hamīd
Siddiqī shows three other reasons for this marriage:
cAishah's
marriage to the Prophet Muhammad(P)
at an early age allowed her to be an eyewitness to the
personal details of his life and carry them on to the
succeeding generations. By being both spiritually and
physically near to the Prophet(P),
the marriage prepared 'Aishah to be an example to all
Muslims, especially women, for all times. She developed
into a spiritual teacher and scholar, since she was
remarkably intelligent and wise. Her qualities help support
the Prophet's work and further the cause of Islam. cAishah,
the Mother of the Believers, was not only a model for wives
and mothers, but she was also a commentator on the Qur'ān,
an authority on hadīth and knowledgeable in Islamic
Law. She narrated at least 2,210 ahādīth that give
Muslims valuable insights into the Final Prophet's daily
life and behaviour, thus preserving the Sunnah of Muhammad(P).
At that
time, this marriage refuted the notion that a man could not
marry the daughter of a man who he had declared to be his
"brother" (even in the religious sense). Since the
Prophet(P)
and Abu Bakr had declared each other to be "brothers",
this notion was done away with. This is demonstrated in the
following hadīth:
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet(P)
asked Abu Bakr for
cAishah's
hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said, "But I am your brother."
The Prophet(P)
said, "You are my brother in God's religion and His Book,
but she (cAishah)
is lawful for me to marry."
(Sahīh
al-Bukhārī, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18)
The marriage
did away with the pagan Arab superstition that it was a bad
omen to be married in the month of Shawwal. They
thought that the month carried this omen since the word
Shawwal was derived from Shaala, which carried a
bad omen. The authentic ahadith indicate that the Prophet(P)
and cAishah
were married in this lunar month.
Not
Much Ado Back Then
Above, we
established the fact that getting married at puberty was an
accepted practice amongst not only today's "primitive
cultures", but specifically amongst the Semitic (i.e.
Hebrew, Arab, Syriac, etc.) peoples of the Middle East. In
order to provide additional proof that Muhammad's(P)
marriage to
cAishah did
not raise any eyebrows at that time, I submit here quotations
from two Western female scholars who have studied Islam in
detail:
It is not clear just when the marriage actually took place.
According to some versions, it was in the month of
Shawwal of the Year 1, that is, some seven or eight
months after the arrival at Medina; but, according to
others, it was not until after the Battle of Badr, that is,
in Shawwal of the second year of the Hijrah. In
no version is there any comment made on the disparity of the
ages between Mohammed and Aishah or on the tender age of the
bride who, at the most, could not have been over ten
years old and who was still much enamoured with her play."8
In the above
quotation, the sources which are given for the latter are "Nawawi"
and "Tabari". Both Imāms al-Nawāwī and al-Tabarī
were great Muslim scholars, but their works contain material
that is less than authentic by Islamic standards, which is
probably the reason over her questioning which date is
authentic. This is all beside the point, since we've already
shown that authentic Islamic sources state that
cAishah,
may God be pleased with her, was "nine years old". The
main point to note is that "no version" was any comment
made on their age difference or on
cAishah's
young age. Why? Such an early marriage was normal in all
Semitic societies - such as the ones that Abraham(P),
Moses(P),
Jesus(P)
and Muhammad(P)
grew up in!
Another
author, Karen Armstrong, has this to add:
Tabari says that she was so young that she stayed in her
parents' home and the marriage was consummated there later
when she had reached puberty.9
This further
establishes that the marriage took place at puberty and that,
as such, no eyebrows were raised. "Tabari", it should
be mentioned, refers to Abū Jacfar
Muhammad ibn Jarīr al-Tabarī (225-310 AH /
839-923 CE), who was a great Muslim scholar who is well known
in the West for his Qur'ānic commentary and history of the
world.
It is no
surprise that both of the above authors agree on the fact that
the marriage of
cAishah
and Muhammad(P)
took place when the former had reached puberty and that this
was normal at the time. This is no surprise, since anyone who
studies the Muslim sources and Semitic culture would be forced
to come to the same conclusion, since it is simply a
historical fact. It should be pointed out that both of the
above quoted female authors do not hesitate to misrepresent
Islam (intentionally or unintentionally) in their other
writings. Suffice it to say that if there was some other
"damaging" information available, they would not hesitate to
bring it to light. Nabia Abbott, who has done some useful
research on Islam in some areas, was basically an "Orientalist"
in the classic sense. Her book which was quoted above,
Aishah-The Beloved of Mohammed,
is actually nothing but a disgusting second-guessing of
cAishah's
life. If a book with a similar mix of speculation and
inauthentic sources were written about someone of significance
in the West, it certainly would not be sitting on scholarly
bookshelves. It has long been established that Orientalists
with a bone to pick with Islam liked to decide on the
authenticity of a story based on their preconceived notions.
If an inauthentic story seemed to belittle the Prophet of
Islam, it became oft quoted. However, any authentic material
that contradicted their theories was simply ignored. It's
analogous to writing a historical biography of Jesus(P)
and using quotations from apocryphal gospels to override the
Canonical ones whenever whimsically deemed appropriate. This
is how Orientalists and Christian missionaries have been
treating Muhammad(P)
for centuries. For those who want to know more about this,
please read our article
Orientalism, Misinformation
and Islam.
So
What's The Verdict?
Overcoming
cultural bias or admitting your own double standards is not
always easy. For some people, it takes years for them to
admit that they've been hypocritical. Hopefully, the thoughts
presented here will plant the seed of reflection in some
people so that they may reflect on the truth. Admitting that
there's a problem is often half the battle, so before the
reader heads off to make a final personal judgment on where
they stand on this issue, I want to provide some more food for
thought. Montgomery Watt, a long time scholar of Islam, had
some choice words on how the West should judge Muhammad(P).
I have never agreed with many of Watt's conclusions about
Islam, but I have always viewed him as one of the more
open-minded and open-hearted Orientalist scholars. Possibly,
this is because he was more of a promoter of understanding
than a narrow-minded Christian missionary. Years of studying
Islam brought Watt to this conclusion:
The other main allegations of moral defect in Muhammad are
that he was treacherous and lustful . . . Sufficient has
been said above about the interpretation of these events to
show that the case against Muhammad is much weaker than is
sometimes thought. The discussions of these allegations,
however, raises a fundamental question. How are we to judge
Muhammad? By the standards of his own time and country? Or
by those of the most enlightened opinion in the West today?
When the sources are closely scrutinized, it is clear that
those of Muhammad's actions which are disapproved by the
modern West were not the object of the moral criticism of
his contemporaries. They criticized some of his acts,
but their motives were superstitious prejudice or fear of
the consequences. If they criticized the events at Nakhlah,
it was because they feared some punishment from the offended
pagan gods or the worldly vengeance of the Meccans. If they
were amazed at the mass execution of the Jews of the clan of
Qurayzah, it was at the number and danger of the blood-feuds
incurred. The marriage with Zaynab seemed incestuous, but
this conception of incest was bound up with old practices
belonging to a lower, communalistic level of familial
institutions where a child's paternity was not definitely
known; and this lower level was in process being eliminated
by Islam . . . From the standpoint of Muhammad's time,
then, the allegations of treachery and sensuality cannot be
maintained. His contemporaries did not find him
morally defective in any way. On the contrary, some of the
acts criticized by the modern Westerner show that Muhammad's
standards were higher than those of his time. In his
day and generation he was a social reformer, even a reformer
in the sphere of morals. He created a new system of social
security and a new family structure, both of which were a
vast improvement on what went before. By taking what was
best in the morality of the nomad and adapting it for
settled communities, he established a religious and social
framework for the life of many races of men. That is not the
work of a traitor or 'an old lecher'.10
From Abraham(P)
To "Pick-And-Choose / Feel Good Religion"
Everything
that we have discussed above logically frees Muhammad(P)
from the unjust criticism that he has received (at least
amongst those who can be intellectually honest and
fair-minded). One point, however, still needs to be made a
bit more clear. Even though we've mentioned it in passing,
the hypocrisy and double standards of Christians who criticize
Muhammad(P)
for his morality needs to be more thoroughly analysed and
exposed.
Before moving
on to an analysis of Biblical morality, I would like to offer
some advice and encouraging words to my fellow Muslims. My
main piece of advice is to not be discouraged by slanderous
attacks on Islam or how it is distorted in the media.
Certainly, we all hate to see such things occur, but in the
"Information Age" which was brought about by a culture that
(allegedly) places a supreme value on freedom of speech, there
is not much that we can do to stop it. The flip side to this
coin is the fact that the Truth of Islam is still out there
and people are finding it. Yes, Islam is spreading in
spite of these hypocritical methods that Christians and others
are using to stop it. From the "moon god" lies of Robert Morey
to the almost daily distortions in the media, Islam is still
spreading in the West. Actually, the fact that those who make
a career out of attacking Islam, such as Christian
missionaries, have to resort to lies and distortions when they
discuss Islam, is a good sign. Certainly, if they discussed
Islam as it was meant to be understood, they would only be
hurting their own cause. When Islam is presented by
non-Muslims in the West, usually matters of peripheral
importance are addressed and criticised. The core beliefs of
Islam, if discussed at all, are presented in a distorted
manner. If Islam was just some ridiculous "Third World"
religion with no appeal, they would not have to treat it this
way. As a matter of fact, a great deal of the anti-Islamic
literature that fills Christian bookstores (and the Internet)
is not designed to convert Muslims, but to turn Westerners off
to Islam. The people who write these lies are just trying to
poison the minds of people so that they won't be receptive to
the message of Islam when they hear it.
Their methods,
however, are failing. In Europe especially, the Christian
religion is in a severe state of stagnation and people are
looking for truth elsewhere. Christians have always been
embarrassed by their almost complete inability to convert a
notable Muslim to Christianity. Certainly, they have their
converts that they hold up as examples, however all of them
seem to have been only nominal Muslims (at best) when they
converted. However, many notable Westerners have embraced
Islam, recently as well as in the past. One of the most
interesting things about this is many (if not all) of these
people could be called "Searchers for the Truth". By this I
mean that they were the type of people who were spiritual,
open-mined and read books on many subjects. They were not
brainwashed simpletons who simply wanted to join an easy
religion and the dominating culture of the time. They were
people who knew a lot not only about religion, but about
history, philosophy and other disciplines. Suffice it to say
that the truth of Islam is out there, in spite of all the
negative press that it gets today. The following is just one
testimony that Islam is spreading in the West:
Unprecedented numbers of British people, nearly all of them
women, are converting to Islam at a time of deep divisions
within the Anglican and Catholic churches. The rate of
conversions has prompted predictions that Islam will rapidly
become an important religious force in this country . . .
Within the next 20 years the number of British converts will
equal or overtake the immigrant Muslim community that
brought the faith here", says Rose Kendrick, a religious
education teacher at a Hull comprehensive and the author of
a textbook guide to the Koran. She says: "Islam is as much a
world faith as is Roman Catholicism. No one nationality
claims it as its own". Islam is also spreading fast on the
continent and in America.
(The
Times , London,
Tuesday, November 9th, 1993, Home-News page)
Thanks be to
God that many of us who are former "pew warmers" finally
decided to go out and investigate what they try to spoon feed
us from the pulpit and TV. Why does Islam succeed in
attracting Christians and others? Because it's the Clear
Way of Abraham. No other religion today can honestly
claim this! Islam isn't just a "feel good" religion
where they just tell you what you want to hear and read
selected verses from the Bible. Most Christians today approach
religion like they do Sunday brunch: they take what they like
and leave what they don't like. They have this attitude in
spite of the fact that Abraham is held up in their Bible as a
towering example of faith. Abraham(P),
who was going to sacrifice his own son because Almighty God
commanded it, certainly knew the basis of morality. It is
clear in both the Bible and the Qur'ān that Abraham knew that
whatever God commands is the right thing to do. However, how
many Christians today can say that they honestly believe that
on all issues? How many of them have reflected on the moral
ramifications of what is contained in their Bible? Seemingly,
not even their learned apologists who attack Islam have
reflected on it too deeply!
The question
"What is our basis for morality?" is an easy one for
those who follow the faith of Abraham(P)
- and that's what Islam is. Islam is submission to the Will
of Almighty God - "We hear and we obey"- the faith of
our father Abraham. If it was good enough for Abraham(P),
Moses(P),
Jesus(P)
and Muhammad(P),
then it's good enough for me! It is this truth and this
attitude that attracts people to Islam. The entire basis of
Islam, which produces this attitude, is Unity - the Unity of
Almighty God and the unity of mankind. To be sure, the
message of Islam appeals to the very nature of man. No wonder
it is spreading! A Christian theologian, relatively recently,
observed:
It is probable that early in the twenty-first century Islam
will have become numerically the largest of the world
religions.
11
Quite
possibly, if you count only Sunni Muslims (which are at least
85% of Muslims), we are already the largest religion in the
world when compared not to "Christians" as a whole, but to
either the Orthodox, Roman Catholics or Protestants each
separately.
A
Case Study In Biblical Morality
Now that we've
taken a detailed look at an alleged moral difficulty in the
life of Muhammad(P),
for the sake of balance, let's take a look at a moral
difficulty in the Bible. We've already made statements above
concerning the nature of Biblical morality, but many readers
may be unaware of some of its "difficulties". For
better or for worse, in Sunday school they generally skip the
verses which we are going to deal with below. However, these
verses certainly are useful tools in putting intellectually
honest Christians in the same "moral dilemna" that they think
Muslims should be in due to Muhammad's(P)
young marriage to
cAishah,
may God be pleased with her. It should be kept in mind that
the purpose of this discussion is the basis for morality, not
the inspiration of the Bible (or lack thereof). For the
purposes of this discussion, we accept the Bible "as is".
However, this should not be interpreted to mean that we are
endorsing it as the "Word of God" in toto. On the other
hand, it should not be interpreted to mean that we are
attacking the "Word of God", since we are discussing it simply
because Christians consider it to be the "Word of God"
(whatever their particular definition might be). For those
wanting more detailed information on the Muslim view of the
Bible, please click
here.
The portion of
the Bible that we want to look at begins with the Book of
Numbers, Chapter 31, verses 17 and 18. Here, Moses(P),
following the Lord's command, orders the Israelites to
kill all the Midianite male children. The order continues with
the following:
". . . kill
every woman who has known man by lying with him, but all the
female children, that have not known a man by lying
with him, keep alive for yourselves."
One can only
guess how the Israelites determined who the virgins were.
Most probably, they did it based on age and maturity, assuming
that all of the female "children" who had not reached
puberty were virgins. Keep in mind that this was done,
according to the Bible, on God's command to "Avenge the
Israelites on the Midianites". Later, God gives Moses(P)
instructions on how to divide up the booty, "whether
persons, oxen, donkeys, sheeps or goats". Based on
this command, "thirty-two thousand persons in all, women
who had not known a man by lying with him" were divided
up. This was done so that the Israelite soldiers could have
these young girls "for themselves". I do not suspect
that anyone reading this is either so naive or ignorant of
King James English to not know what this means!
Moving along
to another great example of Biblical morality, . . . in
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 the Biblical "God of Love" gives
the following command:
"When thou
goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy
God hath delivered them into thine hands and thoust has
taken them captive, and seest among the captives a
beautiful woman, and had a desire unto her, that
though would have her to thy wife, then though shalt bring
her home to thine house . . . and after that you may go
into her and be her husband, and she shall be your
wife. But if though have no delight in her, then thou shalt
let her go".
This should
serve as sufficient proof that the morality that is taught in
the Bible often is not what Christians make it out to be. In
spite of what they teach in Sunday school, the above mentioned
verses demonstrate the following:
* Almighty
God, at least according to the Bible, ordered innocent
babies to be killed; and
* He allowed
young women to be forced into sex against their will.
Before moving
on, it should be noted that killing women and children in war
is never permitted under Islamic Law (the actions of
some ignorant Muslims around the world notwithstanding). Some
Christians may take issue with the words "innocent babies"
above, since they believe that even babies are tainted with
"Original Sin". However, this is not the topic of the
discussion at hand. Suffice it to say that Biblical support
for the Doctrine of Original Sin is contradictory at best.
There are some verses that seem to support it, but there are
others that seem to clearly deny it. One strike against
"Original Sin", besides the fact that it's simply unjust, is
the fact that the Jews - who read the Old Testament - never
believed in it the way Christians do. But anyway . . .
when faced with the problematic parts of the Old Testament,
Christians react in various ways. Many offer up the ill
thought out "Well-That's-in-the-Old-Testament" defense.
In spite of the fact that they usually don't brush the Old
Testament aside so quickly when they are being shown alleged
prophecies which match Jesus(P),
a few other thoughts can be presented. Some of the things that
make brushing aside the Old Testament a bit more difficult (at
least for Christians who want to remain intellectually honest)
are:
1) the same
God that "inspired" the Old Testament "inspired" the New
Testament;
2) this same
God is "unchanging" according to the Bible;
3) Jesus(P)
in the New Testament endorses the "Law and the prophets" (i.e.
the Old Testament) in several places; and
4) without the
Old Testament there is no basis for Christianity.
When put in
this predicament, Christians have one of two choices:
1) Stop
thinking about it and fall back on a liberal "pick-and-choose"
religion that just makes them "feel good" but does not answer
any of life's more difficult questions; or
2)
Accept the Divinely Revealed morality of the Bible "as is".
There are
Christians out there who claim to accept the Divinely Revealed
morality of the Bible. They understand what's at stake and the
issues at hand. If people are allowed to whimsically decide
what is right and what is wrong, there would be chaos. Just as
importantly, if people decide what is "God's Word" and what is
not His word based on their preconceived notions and "modern"
sensibilities, nothing would be left of the Bible. As such,
there are Christians who, in principle, say that killing
babies is "moral" as long as God clearly commands it. For
someone who understands the nature of Divinely Revealed
morality, we would have to agree in principle but with certain
reservations. As mentioned above, Almighty God - according to
Islam - never commands the killing of innocent children. That
is one "difficulty" that I am glad that Muslims don't
have to explain their way out of! Killing babies is okay as
long as God commands it!?! So much for having Christians as
baby-sitters!
The bottom
line is that morality comes from Almighty God and from Him
alone. However, if ones studies the Bible, it is plain to see
that it is not a foundation for morality. The examples above
are just a few that can be provided from both the Old and
the New Testament. The people who promote "Biblical
morality" pick and choose from the text as they please.
Only in Islam can one with good conscience accept "the
whole package" without ignorantly or hypocritically
denying things that they don't like. This is how true
internal peace and balance are achieved. If one belongs to a
religion without accepting everything in its scripture (real
or alleged) one is not only bearing false witness against
oneself but against God Himself. With all the false ideas in
the modern age, it's easy to be lead astray. The liberal
Western morality that has now touched all corners of the globe
is, culturally speaking, something like an eight-hundred pound
gorilla. It's very hard to stand in its way or speak out
against it. However, being encouraged by others to follow
"vain desires" has been an eternal problem for mankind, as
Almighty God makes clear in the Qur'ān:
Say: 'I will
not follow your vain desires: if I did I would stray from
the path and be not of the company of those who receive
guidance.'
[Qur'ān
- Surah al-An'aam - 6:56]
Guideposts To Be Thankful For
The Prophet Muhammad(P)
was a great example for all of humanity and peoples of
different cultures (from "modern" Europeans to the aborigines
of Australia). Not only was he a great Prophet and Messenger,
but he was also a statesman, military leader, ruler, teacher,
neighbor and friend. Family life was one of the most
important areas where he was a great example, since he was
both a husband and a father. Due to God's wisdom, His last
and final prophet experienced a wide array of marriages and
family situations. Due to this, he is an example for people
who are monogamous, for those who are polygamous, for those
wishing to marry those older than themselves and for those
wondering how early someone can rightfully marry. Muhammad(P)
reestablished the Religion of Abraham(P)
so that it would continue to the Last Day.
As Muslims, we
should be thankful for these guideposts in our moral journey
through life. Reflecting on them aids us in avoiding being
led astray into "moral relativism". This is a very
dangerous thing, since it can lead to the worst of all sins -
associating others with Almighty God in worship, belief and/or
Lordship. By knowing the Prophet's(P)
life we can see how to stay within the boundaries laid by
Almighty God and stay on the Natural Religion of Islam which
was made to suit the natural disposition (fitrah) of
mankind. I pray that we, as Muslims, make Almighty God's
limits our limits, and that we are not influenced by other
societies and cultures. If it was good enough for Abraham(P)
and Moses(P),
then it's good enough for me . . .
That's the way
I see it, but God knows best . . .
Article taken (with Thanks) from Islam-awareness.org
References
1
W. Montgomery Watt,
Muhammad at Medina,
Oxford University Press, 1956.
2
"Rites and Ceremonies",
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica,
15th Edition (1987), Volume 26, page 850.
3
Gerald Sigal,
The Jew and the Christian
Missionary, Ktav
Publishing House,1981, page 28.
4
"Central Africa",
The New Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 15th
Edition (1987), Volume 15, page 646. See also "Aboriginal
Australia",
The New Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 15th
Edition (1987), Volume 14, page 425. For additional
references to the marriage customs in Biblical times, see
Israel: Its Life and Culture,
by Johannes Pedersen, Volume 1, page 60ff.
5
Herman H. Ploss, Max Bartels and Paul Bartels,
Woman,
Volume I, Lord & Bransby, 1988, page 563.
6
English-translation of
Sahih Muslim,
Volume 2, International Islamic Publishing House, Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia, page 715.
7
Theodor H. Vandevelde,
Ideal Marriage : Its
Physiology and Technique,
Greenwood Publishing Group, 1980, p. 243.
8
Nabia Abbott,
Aishah-The Beloved of Mohammed,
Al-Saqi Books, London, 1985, page 7.
9
Karen Armstrong,
Muhammad: A Biography of the
Prophet, Harper
San Francisco, 1992, page 157.
10
W. Montgomery Watt,
Muhammad: Prophet and
Statesman, Oxford
University Press, 1961, page 229.
11
John Hick,
The Metaphor of God Incarnate,
Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993, page 87. |
