The marriage of the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عايه وسالم to
'Aishah bint Abu 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, CNN 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'llah, this article
will be a contribution to making both Muslims and non-Muslims aware of not
only the objective facts regarding the Prophet's صلى الله عايه وسالم marriage
to 'Aishah, 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'an was Islamically valid, brushing aside this aspect of the Prophet's
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 into 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 'AISHAH'S AGE
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 'Aishah married the Prophet صلى الله عايه وسالم 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 'Aishah is "not found in the Qur'an", since
the textual sources of Islam are made up of BOTH the Qur'an and the Sunnah
- and the Qur'an 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 and/or The Sunnah and Its Position in Islamic Law. 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 ahadith in Saheeh al-Bukhari and three ahadith in Saheeh Muslim which
clearly state that 'Aishah was "nine years old" at the time that
her marriage was consummated with the Prophet صلى الله عايه وسالم.
These ahadith, with only slight variation, read as follows:
'Aishah, may God be pleased with her, narrated that the Prophet 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. (Saheeh al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64)
Of the four ahadith in Saheeh al-Bukhari,
two were narrated from 'Aishah (7:64 and 7:65), one from Abu Hishaam (5:236)
and one via 'Ursa (7:88). All three of the ahadith in Saheeh Muslim have
'Aishah as a narrator. Additionally, all of the ahadith in both books agree
that the marriage betrothal contract took place when 'Aishah was "six years old", but was not consummated
until she was "nine years old". Additionally, a hadeeth with basically
the same text (matn) is reported in Sunan Abu Dawood. 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 'Aishah'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 'Aishah's age out to as far
as "fourteen or fifteen years old" at the time of her marriage
to the Prophet صلى الله عايه وسالم.
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 hadeeth collections of Imams al-Bukhari and Muslim! Based
on the research that I've done, I feel that there is a common source for
those who claim that 'Aishah'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 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 'Aishah was the third wife
of the Prophet صلى الله عايه وسالم,
not the first. Prior to this, the Prophet's صلى الله عايه وسالم 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 صلى الله عايه وسالم married
his second wife Sawdah bint Zam'ah. It was after this second marriage that
the Prophet صلى الله عايه وسالم became
betrothed to 'Aishah, may God be pleased with her. She was the daughter of
Abu Bakr, one of the Prophet's closest friends and devoted followers. Abu
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 صلى الله عايه وسالم by
uniting their families in marriage. The betrothal of Abu Bakr's daughter
'Aishah to Muhammad صلى الله عايه وسالم,
took place in the eleventh year of Muhammad's 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
'Aishah bint Abu Bakr was consummated in Shawwal, which came seven months
after the Prophet's hijra from Makkah to al-Medinah. At the time of his marriage
to ''Aishah, the Prophet صلى الله عايه وسالم was
over fifty years old.
It should be noted that the Prophet's صلى الله عايه وسالم marriage
to 'Aishah was an exceedingly happy one for both parties, as the hadeeth
literature attests. 'Aishah, may God be please with her, was his favourite
wife and the only virgin that he ever married. After emigrating to al-Madinah,
Muhammad صلى الله عايه وسالم married
numerous other wives, eventually totalling 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 and thus were in need of
a home. Additionally, it should be mentioned that the same collection of
Muslim hadeeth literature that tells us that 'Aishah was only nine years
old at the time of the marriage tells us that the marriage was Divinely
ordained:
Narrated 'Aishah, may God be pleased
with her: The Messenger of God 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.'" (Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62,
Number 15)
Thus like everything that the Prophet صلى الله عايه وسالم 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 AND ENTERTAINED
Myself and many other
Muslims should no longer be surprised by the double standards that Christians
display when they criticize the conduct of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عايه وسالم,
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, at its core,
both selfish and non-universal. 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 صلى الله عايه وسالم marriage
to 'Aishah, 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 صلى الله عايه وسالم marriage
to 'Aishah 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 do not believe in a Divine basis for 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 ahadith about 'Aishah'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 is a biological sign which shows that a women
is capable of bearing children. Can anyone logically deny this? Part of the
wisdom behind the Prophet's Muhammad's صلى الله عايه وسالم marriage
to 'Aishah 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 'peace be upon him' grew up in). The large
majority of Islamic jurists say that the earliest time which a marriage can
be consummated is at the onset of 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 صلى الله عايه وسالم marriage
to 'Aishah 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 'Aishah. Certainly, those from a Middle Eastern
Semitic background would not have found anything to criticize, since nothing
abnormal or immoral took place. It was European Christians who began to
criticize Muhammad on this point, not ones who were in touch with their
Semitic roots.
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 'Aishah's marriage to the Prophet
Muhammad صلى الله عايه وسالم 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 'Aishah's
young age. On the contrary, the marriage of 'Aishah to the Prophet صلى الله عايه وسالم was
encouraged by 'Aishah's father, Abu Bakr, and was welcomed by the community
at large. It is reported that women who wanted to help the Prophet صلى الله عايه وسالم,
such as Khawlah bint al-Hakeem, encouraged him to marry the young 'Aishah.
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'anic 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 their behaviour. He developed the methodology of psychoanalysis
and his ideas on sex, repressed guilt and sexuality, the subconscious 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
permiscuous "dating" is
considered the norm. Sometime 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
The above 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 puberty"4.
The previous quotations, and plenty of others which were not used, 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 for 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 صلى الله عايه وسالمand
'Aishah, 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, 'Abdul-Hamid Siddiqi 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 ay 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 may 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 'Aishah and the Prophet صلى الله عايه وسالم was
a mutually happy and loving one as in expressed in numerous hadeeth 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
Sahih Muslim which mention 'Aishah's young marriage to the Prophet , 'Abdul-Hamid
Siddiqi shows points three other reasons for this marriage:
'Aishah's marriage to the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عايه وسالم at
an early age allowed her to be an eye witness to the personal details of
his life and carry them on the succeeding generations. By being both spiritually
and physically near to the Prophet صلى الله عايه وسالم,
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 helped support
the Prophet's work and further the cause of Islam. 'Aishah, the Mother of
the Believers, was not only a model for wives and mothers, but she was also
a commentator on the Qur'an, an authority on hadeeth and knowledgeable in
Islamic Law. She narrated at least 2,210 ahadith that give Muslims valuable
insights into the Final Prophet's daily life and behaviour, thus preserving
the Sunnah of Muhammad صلى الله عايه وسالم.
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 and Abu Bakr had declared each
other to be "brothers", this notion was done away with. This
is demonstrated in the following hadeeth:
Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet asked Abu
Bakr for 'Aishah's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said, "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You
are my brother in God's religion and His Book, but she ('Aishah) is lawful
for me to marry." (Saheeh al-Bukhari, 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 itself was
believed to carry a bad omen. The authentic ahadith indicate that the Prophet
and 'Aishah were married in this lunar month.
NOT MUCH ADO BACK THEN
Above, we established that 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 صلى الله عايه وسالم marriage
to 'Aishah did not raise any eyebrows at that time, I here submit quotations
from two Western female scholars who have studied Islam in detail:
In the above quotation, the sources which
are given for the latter date are "Nawawi" and "Tabari". Both Imams al-Nawawi and al-Tabari
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 'Aishah, may
God be pleased with her, was "nine years old". The main point to
note is that in "no version" was any comment made on their age
difference or on 'Aishah's young age. Why? Such an early marriage was normal
in all Semitic societies - such as the ones that Abraham, Moses, Jesus
and Muhammad 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 Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Jareer al-Tabari (225-310 AH / 839-923 CE), who
was a great Muslim scholar who is well known in the West for his Qur'anic
commentary and history of the world.
It is no surprise that both of the above
authors agree on the fact that the marriage of 'Aishah and Muhammad صلى الله عايه وسالم 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
hesistate 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, ,b>Aishah-The Beloved of Mohammed,
is actually nothing but a disgusting second-guessing of 'Aishah'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's 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 pre-conceived 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 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 صلى الله عايه وسالم 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 judgement 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 صلى الله عايه وسالم.
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 (AS) TO "PICK-AND-CHOOSE
/ FEEL GOOD RELIGION"
Everything
that we have discussed above logically frees Muhammad صلى الله عايه وسالم from
the unjust criticism that he has received (at least amongst those who can
be intellectually honest and fair-minided). 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 صلى الله عايه وسالم 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 Peace be Upon Him, 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'an 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 —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 Peace be Upon Him. If it was good enough
for Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, 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
theologion, 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
an detailed look at an alleged moral difficulty in the life of Muhammad صلى الله عايه وسالم,
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 صلى الله عايه وسالم young
marriage to 'Aishah, 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 interpretted 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 ref.
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, 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 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 have a desire unto her,
that though would have her to be 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
belived in it the way Chrisitnas do. But anyway . . . when faced with the
problematic parts of the Old Testatment, Christians react in various ways.
Many offer up the ill thoughtout "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,
a few other thoughts can be presented. Some of the things that make brushing
aside the Old Tesament 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 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 (allegedly) Divinely Revealed
morality of the Bible "as is" and en toto.
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 religions
without accepting everything in its scripture (real or alleged) one is not
only bearing false witness againt themself but against God Himself. With
all the false ideas in the modern age, it's easy to be lead astray. The liberal
Westeran 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'an:
" 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'an
- Surah al-An'aam - 6:56
GUIDEPOSTS TO BE THANKFUL FOR
The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عايه وسالم 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,
