Umar has come out with round five
in his series of responses to the question of whether Mariyah the Copt was Muhammads
wife or his concubine. Although we had stated that our fourth
response would be our final one since Umar didnt introduce anything new or relevant
to the discussion, but merely repeated himself ad nauseam, we have decided to address some
aspects of his current rebuttal since he did manage to introduce a few new arguments.
But before addressing his new claims we want to first expose Umars deliberate
misrepresentation of our purpose in writing an article that discussed the status of
Mariyah. Sensing that he is fighting a losing battle Umar gets desperate and decides to
attack a straw man:
In this article, we will ignore the usual "He Wrote" "My Response"
arguments and just focus on the facts. First however, I should make clear that in all of
Sam Shamoun's rebuttals to me, nowhere could he help and defend the original argument of
the alleged story of Hafsa (R) running into the Holy Prophet Muhammad (S) with Mariyah
(R). Instead, he rather argues from the view that Mariyah (R) is the Holy Prophet (S)
slave. We never denied that there is evidence that Islamic sources say Mariyah (R) was
a slave of the Prophet (S), however, I would like to apologize firstly because I made
it look as if that evidence never mattered. It was not good for me to do that, and the
Muslim thing to do was admit one was wrong, and I have no problem to admit infront of the
masses that I made a mistake.
And:
We will prove new evidence in this article that was never provided in the older ones,
as well as the previous sources cited to prove our point. Please note again, nowhere in
Sam Shamoun's articles does he defend the story of Hafsa running into the Holy Prophet
(S), rather he argues by just saying Mariyah was the Prophet (S) concubine. Allah SWT only
knows why Sam Shamoun would have a problem with this seeing that even YHWH told the Jews
to take the spoils for themselves (the slaves), and David (A) had many concubines. Thus,
Sam Shamoun not only insulted his own God by arguing its wrong to have a slave (after
throwing a lot of negative image on Mariyah), but he insulted the Prophets of God. So we
thank Shamoun, for proving our point that the story in Ibn Sa'd's work cited by Ali Sina
is false, since he couldn't prove otherwise. Now continuing with the article.
Umar is deceiving his readers by distorting the facts of the matter. The readers may
recall that Umar was responding to this article.
Here is what I said regarding my purpose in writing this rebuttal:
It has become quite popular for Muslims to slander Ali Sina, the founder of
www.faithfreedom.org, by accusing him of being a liar or an Islamophobe because he
supposedly distorts Muslim sources. For example, this following article was written to
"expose" Ali Sinas "lie" that Muhammad had intercourse with
Mariyah the Copt, "one of the prophets wives maids", specifically
Hafsas maid(*), without being properly married to her:
So this Muslim ADMITS that if Mr. Sina were right that Mariyah was ONLY A MAID,
then there would be a problem, thereby vindicating Mr. Sina. Fair enough.
Another Muslim writes (quite passionately I might add):
However, both of these Muslim reactions PROTEST AGAINST THE STATEMENT THAT SHE
WAS ONLY A SLAVE OR MAID, and instead claim that she was Muhammads wife.
Sina made a mistake. Mariyah was not Hafsas maid, she was Muhammads slave
girl. But those Muslims do not attack this mistake, i.e. whose maid she was, but attack
the claim that she was only a concubine and not a proper wife.
Are these Muslims correct that Mariyah WASNT A MAID AT ALL? Is it
true that Mariyah was Muhammads wife AND NOT HIS CONCUBINE? Or could
it be THAT THESE MUSLIMS ARE NOT REVEALING EVERYTHING by quoting only
partially what is found in the early sources of Islam?
Since we have documented that Mariyah was indeed Muhammads maid, his slave
or concubine, this means that we certainly do have a problem. Mr. Sina
stands vindicated at least in regard to her status as a maid, even though he
mistakenly assumed that she was Hafsahs maid. (Emphasis added)
As the readers can clearly see, I never claimed that I was setting out to prove whether
the story of Hafsa catching Muhammad sleeping with Mariyah on the day designated to her
was true. Rather, my purpose was to show that the accusations of these Muslims that Ali
Sina was somehow lying or distorting the facts for claiming that Mariyah was a slave was
itself a distortion since there are plenty of Islamic sources that say she was
Muhammads concubine. I even repeated this in my first rebuttal to Umar:
Finally, EVEN IF Muhammad had set her free at some later time he still slept with her
while she was a slave for a considerable time. He did not marry her and then have
intercourse with her, but FIRST had intercourse with her without being properly married. The
original claim was that Muhammad slept with a maid. And that is true, even if
Muhammad changed the matter of her status later on. However, reading the Muslim sources
carefully, it seems that he never set her free while alive, but she only became free after
his death. Yet, what did that freedom mean if she was not able to marry and have a family?
Umar writes a response citing references to show that Mariyah was Muhammads wife,
as if this somehow is relevant in refuting my article even though I never denied that
there were sources stating this point. In fact, my article was written to balance
out the one sided Muslim presentations of Bahagia and Zawadi who chose to focus only on
those sources affirming Mariyahs status as a wife. Therefore, Umar's
response is nothing more than a red herring, a straw man. (Source;
our emphasis)
As if this wasnt clear enough I repeated it again in my third response:
Moreover, despite the fact that the data overwhelmingly supports the position that
Mariyah was Muhammads slave, not his wife, that is still not the real issue.
As we have seen throughout these series of exchanges there are Muslim sources which do say
that Muhammad married Mariyah.
Here is the real issue: Recall that in our initial and first rebuttal we
were addressing the assertions of two Muslims who DENIED that Mariyah was Muhammads
slave Hence, the issue at hand is whether there is evidence from Islamic
sources which emphatically say that Muhammad never married Mariyah and that she remained
his slave until he died. As we have demonstrated, and as Umar himself had to concede,
there is plenty of evidence for this view. These Muslims were therefore wrong for claiming
otherwise or for selectively choosing data which supported their position while ignoring
other references which disagreed with their claim. THAT WAS THE POINT OF OUR REBUTTAL.
Whether Mariyah was Muhammads slave or his wife, or even a slave whom he later
married, is beside the point. (Source;
emphasis ours)
Even more, in my first article I did not condemn Muhammad for having a slave whom he
had sex with. I did not say that Muhammad could not be a prophet because he had a
concubine. It was actually one of the Muslims I was responding to who asserted that what
Muhammad did would be a problem if in fact Mariyah were his slave.(1)
See the above quotes for the details.
The thesis of that article was very simple. Some Muslims denied that Mariyah was a
slave and claimed she was his wife, and they accused Ali Sina to be a liar for claiming
that she was a concubine. I responded to that attack by providing plenty of evidence from
the Islamic sources that Mariyah had the status of a slave, not a proper wife. My response
had only the purpose of giving a clarification of this fact. I have written many articles
where I present reasons why Muhammad could not be a prophet from God. This article is not
one of them. The point of the article was not that I had a problem with Muhammad having a
concubine, but that I had a problem with some Muslims calling Ali Sina a liar for claiming
Mariyah was a slave despite the fact that this is stated all over the Muslim sources.
Despite the claim of Umar, in my response I did not make any argument that it is wrong to
have a maid. Thus, Umars charge is a misrepresentation of my article, and it is a
straw man argument to bring up the question of Davids concubines and the existence
of slaves in the Old Testament.
But since Umar wants me to prove that Hafsa did catch Muhammad with Mariyah I am only
too willing to oblige. Here is a host of Muslim sources that affirm that Hafsah caught
Muhammad in her house with Mariyah, with some of them also claiming that Q. 66:1–5 was
"revealed" in connection with this event:
O Prophet! Why do you prohibit what God has made lawful for you, in terms of your Coptic handmaiden Mariya - when he
lay with her in the house of Hafsa, who had been away, but who upon returning [and finding
out] became upset by the fact that this had taken place in her own house and on her own
bed - by saying, 'She is unlawful for me!', seeking, by making her unlawful
[for you], to please your wives? And God is Forgiving, Merciful, having forgiven you this
prohibition. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn;
source;
bold and italic emphasis ours)
Verily God has prescribed, He has made lawful, for you [when necessary] the absolution
of your oaths, to absolve them by expiation, as mentioned in the surat al-Ma'ida [Q. 5:89] and the
forbidding of [sexual relations with] a handmaiden counts as an oath, so did the Prophet (s) expiate? Muqatil [b. Sulayman] said,
'He set free a slave [in expiation] for his prohibition of Mariya'; whereas al-Hasan
[al-Basri] said, 'He never expiated, because the Prophet (s) has been forgiven [all
errors]'. And God is your Protector, your Helper, and He is the Knower, the Wise.
(Tafsir al-Jalalayn;
source;
bold and italic emphasis ours)
And, mention, when the Prophet confided to one of his wives, namely, Hafsa, a certain
matter, which was his prohibition of Mariya,
telling her: 'Do not reveal it!'; but when she divulged it, to
'Aisha, reckoning there to be no blame in [doing] such a thing, and God apprised
him, He informed him, of it, of what had been divulged, he announced part of it, to Hafsa,
and passed over part, out of graciousness on his part. So when he told her about it, she
said, 'Who told you this?' He said, 'I was told by the Knower, the Aware', namely, God.
(Tafsir al-Jalalayn;
source;
bold and italic emphasis ours)
If the two of you, namely, Hafsa and 'Aisha, repent to God for your hearts
were certainly inclined, towards the
prohibition of Mariya, that is to say, your keeping this secret despite
[knowing] the Prophet's (s) dislike of it, which is itself a sin (the response to the
conditional ['if the two of you repent to God'] has been omitted, to be understood as, 'it
will be accepted of both of you'; the use of [the plural] qulub, 'hearts', instead of [the dual] qalbayn, 'both [your]
hearts', is on account of the cumbersomeness of putting two duals together in what is
effectively the same word); and if you support one another (tazzahara: the original
second ta' [of tatazahara] has been assimilated with the za'; a
variant reading has it without [this assimilation, tazahara])
against him, that is, the Prophet, in what he is averse to, then [know that] God, He
(huwa, [a pronoun] for separation) is indeed his Protector, His supporter, and Gabriel,
and the righteous among the believers, Abu Bakr and 'Umar, may God be pleased with both
of them (wa-Jibrilu wa-salihu'l-mu'minina is a supplement to the [syntactical]
locus of the subject of inna [sc. 'God']), who will [also] be his supporters,
and the angels furthermore, further to the support of God and those mentioned,
are his supporters, assistants of his, in supporting him [to prevail] over both of you.
(Tafsir al-Jalalayn;
source;
bold and underline emphasis ours)
And from his narration on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that he said regarding the
interpretation of Allah's saying (O Prophet!): '(O Prophet!) i.e. Muhammad (pbuh). (Why
bannest thou that which Allah hath made lawful for thee) i.e. marrying Maria the
Copt, the Mother of Ibrahim; that is because he had forbidden himself from marrying her,
(seeking to please thy wives) seeking the pleasure of your wives 'A'ishah and Hafsah by
forbidding yourself from marrying Maria the Copt? (And Allah is Forgiving) He
forgives you, (Merciful) about that oath. (Tanwr al-Miqbs min Tafsr Ibn Abbs;
source;
bold and italic emphasis ours)
(Allah hath made lawful for you (Muslims) absolution from your oaths (of such a kind))
and so the Prophet (pbuh) absolved himself from his oath and married Maria the Copt, (and
Allah is your Protector) and Helper. (He is the Knower) He knows that you forbade
yourself Maria the Copt, (the Wise) in that which He enjoined about the expiation
of oaths. (Tanwr al-Miqbs min Tafsr Ibn Abbs;
source;
bold and italic emphasis ours)
(When the Prophet confided a fact unto one of his wives) i.e. Hafsah (and when she
afterward divulged it) Hafsah divulged to 'A'ishah what the Prophet (pbuh) told her in
confidence (and Allah apprised him thereof) and Allah informed him that Hafsah informed
'A'ishah, (he made known (to her) part thereof) part of what she said to 'A'ishah
regarding the leadership of Abu Bakr and 'Umar; and it is said: about seeing Maria
the Copt on his own (and passed over part) he did not mention making forbidding Maria the
Copt on himself nor what he told her concerning the leadership of Abu Bakr and
'Umar after him, for he did not reproach him for this. (And when he told it her) when the
Prophet (pbuh) informed Hafsah about what she said to 'A'ishah (she said) Hafsah said:
(Who hath told thee) that I informed 'A'ishah? (He said) the Prophet (pbuh) said: (The
Knower, the Aware hath told me) what you divulged to 'A'ishah. (Tanwr al-Miqbs min
Tafsr Ibn Abbs;
;
bold and italic emphasis ours)
Their Rebellion
One day Hafsah went to her father's house
complaining about this situation. While the Prophet was in her room, Mariyah came to him
and stayed with him some time. Upon Hafsah's return she found the Prophet and Mariyah in
her quarters and, as she waited for them to come out, her jealousy broke all bounds. When,
finally, Mariyah left the quarters and Hafsah entered, she said to the Prophet: "I
have seen who was here. By God, that was an insult to me. You would not have dared do that
if I amounted to anything at all in your eyes." At the moment Muhammad realized that
such deep-lying jealousy might even move Hafsah to broadcast what she had seen among the
other wives. In an attempt to please her, Muhammad promised that he would not go unto
Mariyah if she would only refrain from broadcasting what she had seen. Hafsah promised to
comply. However, she could not keep her promise as jealousy continued to affect her
disposition. Hence, she intimated the secret to `A'ishah, who in turn reported it to the
Prophet. He took it as evidence of Hafsah's failure to keep her promise. Perhaps the
affair did not stop with Hafsah and `A'ishah but spread to the other wives. Perhaps, too,
all of them had noticed the high esteem in which Mariyah was held and sympathized with
`A'ishah and Hafsah's opposition to the Prophet. There is nothing unusual in the whole
story, such gossip and petty jealousies being commonplace between man and his many
wives. A man's affection belongs where he puts it within his household, and the
controversy which the daughters of Abu Bakr and 'Umar had woven around the Prophet's
affection for Mariyah was utterly groundless. Previously we had seen that some
disaffection had risen between the Prophet and his wives on various occasions because of
the pocket money he allocated to them, or because of the honey Zaynab used to serve.
Therefore, they had all the more reason to feel slighted and no little alienated when they
discovered their husband's inclination toward 'A'ishah or his esteem for Mariyah.
An explosion was soon to come. One day, while the Prophet was staying with 'A'ishah,
his other wives delegated Zaynab, daughter of Jahsh, to go in and, in their name, to
accuse him of injustice and unfairness to them, and to plead that his love for `A'ishah
was a violation of the code which he himself had set down of a day and night for each of
his wives. On the other hand, realizing that the Prophet did not care very much for her
charms, and being no longer anxious to please him, Sawdah had given up her day and night
to `A'ishah. But Zaynab was not satisfied with expressing the other wives' indignation at
this apparent injustice. She attacked `A'ishah personally. The latter was anxious to
defend herself, but kept still in response to the Prophet's reconciliating pleas. Seeing
that `A'ishah was defenseless, Zaynab went to excess in her accusations, and the Prophet
finally had to permit his favorite wife to take her defense into her own hands. `A'ishah
spoke out with great eloquence in refuting Zaynab's claims. The Prophet listened with
obvious satisfaction and admired the perspicacity of Abu Bakr's daughter.
Indeed, favoritism for some of his wives had created such controversy and antagonism
among the "Mothers of the Believers" that Muhammad once thought of divorcing
some of them, but they soon agreed to let him distribute his favors as he pleased. When
Mariyah gave birth to Ibrahim, their jealousy was at its strongest, especially in the case
of `A'ishah. Certainly, Muhammad's leniency and gentleness encouraged rebellion, and the
new status which he had conferred upon women in society fanned their vanity. Muhammad,
however, was not free to spend his time dealing with household problems. The need soon
came to be felt for a decisive lesson to reestablish discipline and to liberate him for
teaching the message and fulfilling the mission of his prophethood. Hence, he decided to
ignore his wives and, indeed, to threaten them with divorce. A lesson had to be taught to
them, and the time had apparently come for a decision. Either these women were to return
to reason or they would be given their freedom in a mutually convenient divorce.
The Prophet's Separation
from His Wives
Muhammad isolated himself from all his
women for a full month and refused to talk about them to anyone. Nor did anyone dare talk
to him concerning them. During this month, his mind was absorbed by his mission and the
requirement of carrying the message of Islam beyond the Arabian Peninsula. Abu Bakr,
`Umar, and his other in-laws as well, were deeply concerned over the sad fate that awaited
the "Mothers of the Believers" now that they had exposed themselves to the anger
of the Prophet and the consequent punishment of God. It was even said that Muhammad had
divorced Hafsah, `Umar's daughter, after she had divulged the secret she had promised to
keep. The marketplace of Madinah hummed with rumors about the impending divorce of the
Prophet's wives. The wives, for their part, were repentent and apprehensive. They
regretted that their jealousy of one another had carried them away, that they had abused
and harmed their gentle husband who was to each one of them at all times an elder brother,
a compassionate father, a nearest kin, and the best of everything that might be hoped for
in this life and the next. Muhammad spent most of his time in a storeroom he owned,
placing his servant Rabah at its doorstep as long as he was inside. Therein he used to
sleep on a very hard bed of coarse date branches. (Muhammad Husayn
Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, tran. Isma'il Raji al-Faruqi [American Trust
Publications, USA 1976; Malaysian edition by Islamic Book Trust], pp. 436-438;
source)
And:
The Judgment of Critical
Historiography
In my opinion, the foregoing is the true
account of the story of Muhammad's self-imposed isolation from his wives, of the choice he
gave them, of the incidents which led to his isolation as well as of its causes and
consequences. This account is confirmed by all the evidence of the books of Qur'anic
exegesis and of Hadith, as well as by the accounts of various biographies. The fact
remains, however, that not one of these biographies has presented all these data in the
proper sequence, beginning with the causes and ending with the consequences in the manner
we have done here. Most of the biographers have passed by this matter too quickly and too
simplistically. They give the impression that they found the material too rough to handle.
Some accounts have pondered the story of the honey and maghafir at length but have
omitted to point to the affair of Hafsah and Mariyah. As for the Orientalists, they regard
the story of Hafsah and Mariyah and the former's divulgence to `A'ishah of the secret she
promised to keep as the cause of all that had happened. Their purpose is precisely to add
to their already alienated readers further occasion to condemn the Arab Prophet by
presenting him as a shameless runner after women. It is also my considered opinion that
the Muslim historians are not justified in ignoring these incidents, or in omitting to
examine all the data available with a view to giving them an objective interpretation.
That is what we have sought to do here, though only in part. While the mistake of the
Muslim historians was to underestimate the importance of these events, that of the western
Orientalists is to exaggerate their importance, to violate historiographic precision, and
to vent their Christian prejudice. Genuine historical criticism will not attribute to any
man as great as Muhammad such a petty conduct as would be implied by referring his
self-imposed exile solely to Hafsah's divulgence of a domestic secret to `A'ishah. In
fact, Muhammad had nothing to hide since the women in question were all his own legitimate
wives. Indeed, whatever the nature of that domestic secret, it is too insignificant to
cause Muhammad to threaten to divorce all his wives. Genuine historical criticism would
also refuse to explain these events as due to the "honey" affair. A man as
great, forbearing, and compassionate as Muhammad, as all historians and biographers
acknowledge, would not regard such incidents as justifying a whole month's isolation, let
alone divorce. The critical attitude is satisfied only when all these incidents are
arranged in such historical sequence as would not violate the causal interrelationships
between them. Only such history-writing satisfies the requirements of objectivity and
presents its data as elements in factual interrelationships acceptable to reason. The
arrangement we have given these events seems to us to have achieved precisely this, and to
accord perfectly with what is known of Muhammad's wisdom, greatness, determination and
farsightedness. (Ibid., 440-441)
Muhammad's personal and family life were not always smooth. His wives sometimes
bickered amongst themselves and even once engaged in a petty plot against him. A'ishah,
for example, disliked her Jewish co-wife, Safiyah, and insulted her periodically. Muhammad
had to defend her status and honor a number of times and scold the youthful A'ishah. Hafsah
became jealous of her co-wife, Maria, when she found her and Muhammad resting[sic] in her
apartment one day. Sawdah gave up her allotted day with the Prophet when she realized
he was not really attracted to her. As for the conspiracy, A'ishah agreed with two other
co-wives to convince the Prophet that eating honey made him unpleasant to be around. When
Muhammad vowed to never eat honey again, she privately repented to her co-conspirators.
Though these incidents were not the norm, they demonstrate that the women in Muhammad's
life were as human as the rest of us. (Yahiya Emerick, Critical Lives: Muhammad
[Alpha Books, A Member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2002], p. 263; underline emphasis
ours)
2- At one time, because of one of his wives complaint, he swore that he
would stay away from Mariya then Allah Most High ordered him to cancel that oath
without kaffara. (This may have been confused with a revocable divorce by some; in reality
it confirms that a self-pronounced tahrim of mulk al-yamin is inconsequential. Imam Malik
said: "Haram is halal with regard to slavewomen.") (Shaykh Gibril F Haddad, Was
Mariya al-Qibtiyya ever a spouse?; source;
bold an italic emphasis ours)
And now our final quote:
'Umar told the whole story (about his wife). "On that the Prophet smiled."
'Umar further said, "I then said, 'I went to Hafsa and said to her: Do not be tempted
to imitate your companion ('Aisha) for she is more beautiful than you and more beloved to
the Prophet.' The Prophet smiled again. When I saw him smiling, I sat down and cast a
glance at the room, and by Allah, I couldn't see anything of importance but three hides. I
said (to Allah's Apostle) "Invoke Allah to make your followers prosperous for the
Persians and the Byzantines have been made prosperous and given worldly luxuries, though
they do not worship Allah?' The Prophet was leaning then (and on hearing my speech he sat
straight) and said, 'O Ibn Al-Khattab! Do you have any doubt (that the Hereafter is better
than this world)? These people have been given rewards of their good deeds in this world
only.' I asked the Prophet . 'Please ask Allah's forgiveness for me. The Prophet did not
go to his wives because of the secret which Hafsa had disclosed to 'Aisha, and he said
that he would not go to his wives for one month as he was angry with them when Allah
admonished him (for his oath that he would not approach Maria). When twenty-nine
days had passed, the Prophet went to Aisha first of all. She said to him, 'You took an
oath that you would not come to us for one month, and today only twenty-nine days have
passed, as I have been counting them day by day.' The Prophet said, 'The month is also of
twenty-nine days.' That month consisted of twenty-nine days. 'Aisha said, 'When the Divine
revelation of Choice was revealed, the Prophet started with me, saying to me, 'I am
telling you something, but you needn't hurry to give the reply till you can consult your
parents." 'Aisha knew that her parents would not advise her to part with the Prophet.
The Prophet said that Allah had said:-- (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 43,
Number 648)
The parenthetical comments of Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, the translator of
al-Bukharis work in English, presupposes that this hadith refers to the incident
between Hafsah and Mariyah. Khan obviously accepts that Muhammad did make a promise to
Hafsah after she had caught him with Mariyah.
Moreover, Umar must have forgotten that we had actually quoted his own article to show
that Ali Sinas assertion (*)
regarding Mariyah being Hafsas maid was essentially correct:
What makes this all the more interesting is that Umar, in his latest rebuttal, has
actually come to vindicate Sina and provided support for his statements. Umar quotes his
brother Karim who says:
Brother Karim replies to this already, here is his response:
" Actually Shamoun
doesn't understand that the Prophet was fair in dealing with his wifes[sic], since
the Quran commands Muslim men who are married to more then one wife, to deal fair/equal
and just with them. The Prophet's wifes[sic] had each an own house/ livingroom, and
the Prophet gave each wife a day of the week, for example the Prophet spend time with
aicha[sic] together on friday, and on saterday[sic] he spend time with
Safiyya. So the prophet could very well for example on sunday spend his time with his wife
Mariyah. So the fact that a wife doesn't live in the same street of the prophet doesn't
mean she can never be his wife. Actually a slave has to work for the household, which
means for the man and woman of the house (many hadith bear witness to this) , so if
Mariyah was slave, IT MEANS SHE ALSO HAD TO WORK FOR THE PROPHETS WIFES[SIC], IF
THEY AKSED[SIC] HER TO DO SOMETHING IN THE HOUSE OR ON THE LAND. So Mariyah could
never be the Prophet's slave, since she couldn't do any work for the prophet and his
wifes[sic]. However the prophet as her husband could easily spend one day of the
week with mariya, as her husband"
We repeat the relevant portion for all to see the slip made by
the authors:
so if Mariyah was slave, IT
MEANS SHE ALSO HAD TO WORK FOR THE PROPHETS WIFES[SIC], IF THEY AKSED[SIC]
HER TO DO SOMETHING IN THE HOUSE OR ON THE LAND
What this essentially means is that Mariyah was not only
Muhammads slave but the servant of all of his wives as well, WHICH BASICALLY IMPLIES
THAT SHE WAS ALSO HAFSAS SLAVE! These authors have now vindicated Ali Sina, proving
that he was correct to identify Mariyah as Hafsas maid! After all, if she were
obligated to serve his wives then she would have been a servant of Hafsa as well.
(Source)
In light of the foregoing we want to personally thank Umar for allowing us another
opportunity to expose him and to help vindicate Ali Sina.
As far as Yahweh sanctioning concubinage and captive women as spoils of war are
concerned, these points have already been thoroughly addressed:
We find that Muhammad once again fails the moral and ethical standards of the true God
of the Holy Bible.
Umar makes another accusation:
(NOTE: It is indeed rather interesting that on the same page Sam Shamoun quotes, the
author of the fatwa even refutes the baseless lie paraded by Shamoun and his crowd that
Mariyah (R) is a sex slave by saying:
However, to regard Maariya al-Qibtiyyah as the
sex slave of Rasulullah
(Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) as is presented by the west is a gross
misrepresentation of the noble personality of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi
Wasallam). Such statements are motivated by hatred and animosity. Kindly
refer to the Polygamous Marriages
http://www.jamiat.org.za/polygamy.html
and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
FATWA DEPT.
No explanation is given as to why this part of the Fatawa was cut
off)
I am quite perplexed as to how the Muftis comments help Umars case when the
former candidly admitted that Mariyah was Muhammads slave:
Maariya al-Qibtiyya WAS A SLAVE FEMALE and was given as a gift to Rasulullah
(Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) by the Roman king. She bore the son of Rasulullah
(Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) who passed away during infancy.
However, to regard Maariya al-Qibtiyyah as the sex slave of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi
Wasallam) as is presented by the west is a gross misrepresentation of the noble
personality of Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam). Such statements are motivated by
hatred and animosity.
Now did Muhammad have sex with his slave Mariyah? Yes he did.
Wouldnt this make her his sex slave? Yes it would, unless Umar wants us to
believe that having a slave for sex doesnt mean that she is a sex slave!
In light of this, isnt it rather apparent that the Muftis denial that
Mariyah was a sex slave is based more on wishful thinking and embarrassment rather than on
the facts of the situation? It seems obvious that this is indeed the case, at least to
those of us who have not been programmed into believing that Muhammad was a paradigm of
moral virtue.
With this now behind us we can proceed to examine some of the new points Umar raised to
support his view that Mariyah was Muhammads wife.
He says that:
In Islam, if a slave reverts to Islam, he or she is automatically freed. We know this
because it is reported:
Sahih Muslim
Book 8, Number 1094:
Mu'awiya b. al-Hakam said: While I was praying with the Messenger of Allah (may
peace be upon him), a man in the company sneezed. I said: Allah have mercy on you! The
people stared at me with disapproving looks, so I said: Woe be upon me, why is it that you
stare at me? They began to strike their hands on their thighs, and when I saw them urging
me to observe silence (I became angry) but I said nothing. When the Messenger of Allah
(may peace be upon him) had said the prayer (and I declare that neither before him nor
after him have I seen a leader who gave better instruction than he for whom I would give
my father and mother as ransom), I swear that he did not scold, beat or revile me but
said: Talking to persons is not fitting during the prayer, for it consists of glorifying
Allah, declaring his Greatness, and recitation of the Qur'an or words to that effect. I
said: Messenger of Allah. I was till recently a pagan, but Allah has brought Islam to us;
among us there are men who have recourse to Kahins. He said: Do not have recourse to them.
I said. There are men who take omens. That is something which they find in their breasts,
but let it not turn their way (from freedom of action). I said: Among us there are men who
draw lines. He said: There was a prophet who drew lines, so if they do it as they did,
that is allowable. I had a maid-servant who tended goats by the side of Uhud and
Jawwaniya. One day I happened to pass that way and found that a wolf had carried a goat
from her flock. I am after all a man from the posterity of Adam. I felt sorry as they
(human beings) feel sorry. So I slapped her. I came to the Messenger of Allah (may peace
be upon him) and felt (this act of mine) as something grievous I said: Messenger of Allah,
should I not grant her freedom? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Bring her to me. So I brought
her to him. He said to her: Where is Allah? She said: He is in the heaven. He said: Who am
I? She said: Thou art the Messenger of Allah. He said: Grant her freedom, she is a
believing woman.
Umar also quoted Abdul Hameed Siddiqui who stated that some captives who embraced Islam
were set free. Umar wishes to conclude from this that Mariyah couldnt have been a
slave since she embraced Islam, or that she was freed after converting.
The readers will recall our repeated assertion that Umars rebuttals introduce
more problems than solutions since he manages to expose how truly chaotic and
contradictory the sources of Islam happen to be. His claim that Muslims were to set free
any of the captives that converted is another example of this point.
After all, if converts had to be freed by the Muslims then how does Umar explain the
fact that the Quran refers to believing slaves, that there were Muslims who were slaves to
other Muslims? Note, for instance, the following quotes:
And do not marry the idolatresses until they believe, and certainly a believing
maid is better than an idolatress woman, even though she should please you; and do
not give (believing women) in marriage to idolaters until they believe, and certainly a
believing servant (laabdum-muminun) is better than an idolater, even
though he should please you; these invite to the fire, and Allah invites to the garden and
to forgiveness by His will, and makes clear His communications to men, that they may be
mindful. S. 2:221 Arberry
Any one of you who has not the affluence to be able to marry believing freewomen in
wedlock, let him take believing handmaids that your right hands own; God
knows very well your faith; the one of you is as the other. So marry them, with their
people's leave, and give them their wages honourably as women in wedlock, not as in
licence or taking lovers. But when they are in wedlock, if they commit indecency, they
shall be liable to half the chastisement of freewomen. That provision is for those of you
who fear fornication; yet it is better for you to be patient. God is All-forgiving,
All-compassionate. S. 4:25 Arberry
The Quran is making it lawful for Muslims to marry a slave who happens to be a
believer, i.e. one can marry a Muslim slave. But in order for a Muslim to be able to
choose a spouse from among believing slaves there must have been Muslims who were slaves
to begin with! Otherwise, how could anyone marry them if there were no Muslim slaves?
This is where the problem lies for Umar. Why would Muhammad automatically set free any
slave who converted without demanding the same for the Muslim slaves? Isnt this
unfair and cruel to these Muslims? Why didnt he exhort the free Muslims to release
their believing slaves? It is to be noted that neither the Quran nor the Sunna of Muhammad
make it mandatory to set slaves free:
A Muslim can choose to do so, but isnt required to release their slaves.
Umar may wish to say that this rule only applied to the spoils of war, that only those
slaves who were taken captive could be set free upon their conversion. But this, too,
introduces problems for his entire position since Mariyah wasnt from the spoils of
war, she wasnt a captive. Rather, she was a gift, a present, which al-Muqawqis of
Egypt sent to Muhammad. Hence, if Umar does wish to raise this objection then this would
only refute his claim that by converting to Islam Mariyah would have been set free since
this rule only applies to captives of war.
Moreover, here is the real reason why the slave girl was set free:
Chapter 8: HOW SHOULD THE MASTERS TREAT THEIR SLAVES AND EXPIATION IF THEY SHOW
HIGH-HANDEDNESS
Zadhan Abi Umar reported: I came to Ibn 'Umar as he had granted freedom to a stave.
He (the narrator further) said: He took hold of a wood or something like it from the earth
and said: It (freedom of a slave) has not the reward even equal to it, but the fact that I
heard Allah's Messenger (way peace be upon him) say: he who slaps his slave or beats
him, THE EXPIATION FOR IT IS THAT HE SHOULD SET HIM FREE. (Sahih Muslim, Book 015,
Number 4078)
Zadhan reported that Ibn Umar called his slave and he found the marks (of beating) upon
his back. He said to him: I have caused you pain. He said: No. But he (Ibn Umar) said: You
are free. He then took hold of something from the earth and said: There is no reward for
me even to the weight equal to it. I heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as
saying: He who beats a slave without cognizable offence of his or slaps him (without any
serious fault), THE EXPIATION FOR IT IS THAT HE SHOULD SET HIM FREE. (Sahih Muslim, Book 015,
Number 4079)
Mu'awiya b. Suwaid reported: I slapped a slave belonging to us and then fled away. I
came back just before noon and offered prayer behind my father. He called him (the slave)
and me and said: Do as he has done to you. He granted pardon. He (my father) then said: We
belonged to the family of Muqarrin during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be
upon him. and had only one slave-girl and one of us slapped her. This news reached Allah's
Apostle (may peace be upon him) and he said: Set her free. They (the members of the
family) said: There is no other servant except she. Thereupon he said: Then employ her and
when you can afford to dispense with her services, then set her free. (Sahih Muslim, Book 015,
Number 4081)
Hilal b. Yasaf reported that a person got angry and slapped his slave-girl. Thereupon
Suwaid b. Muqarrin said to him: You could find no other part (to slap) but the prominent
part of her face. See I was one of the seven sons of Muqarrin, and we had but only one
slave-girl. The youngest of us slapped her, and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon
him) commanded us to set her free. (Sahih Muslim, Book 015,
Number 4082)
Suwaid b. Muqarrin reported that he had a slave-girl and a person (one of the members
of the family) slapped her, whereupon Suwaid said to him: Don't you know that it is
forbidden (to strike the) face. He said: You see I was the seventh one amongst my brothers
during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and we had but only one
servant. One of us got enraged and slapped him. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may
peace be upon him) commanded us to set him free. (Sahih Muslim, Book 015,
Number 4084)
Sidenote: Notice how the above two reports conflict with one another since they are
unable to decide whether the slave was male or female!
Abu Mas'ud al-Ansari reported: When I was beating my servant, I heard a voice behind me
(saying): Abu Mas'ud, bear in mind Allah has more dominance over you than you have upon
him. I turned and (found him) to be Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). I said: Allah's
Messenger, I set him free for the sake of Allah. Thereupon he said: Had you not done
that, (the gates of) Hell would have opened for you, or the fire would have burnt you.
(Sahih Muslim, Book 015,
Number 4088)
Abu Mas'ud reported that he had been beating his slave and he had been saying: I seek
refuge with Allah, but he continued beating him, whereupon he said: I seek refuge
with Allah's Messenger, and he spared him. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace
be upon him) said: By Allah, God has more dominance over you than you have over him (the
slave). He said that he set him free. This hadith has been narrated on the
authority of Shu'ba with the same chain of transmitters, but made no mention of (these
words) of his: I seek refuge with Allah, I seek refuge with Allah's Messenger (may peace
be upon him). (Sahih Muslim, Book 015,
Number 4089)
In light of the foregoing we can now see why Muhammad demanded that Mu'awiya b.
al-Hakam set his female slave free, not because she had converted to Islam but because he
had abused a believing slave by slapping her in the face. (In order to be fair we must
admit that this practice of Muhammad is admirable and shows that he had some concern for
slaves, at least for the believing ones. It is rather unfortunate, however, that he
didnt extend that same concern to others, especially to those whom he took to be his
enemies for rejecting his prophetic ambitions (1;
2).)
Unless Umar wants to argue that Muhammad similarly had to set free Mariyah
because he had been beating her, the above traditions are simply not applicable
to the case of Mariyah.
Umar then tries to use Muhammad commanding Mariyah to veil herself as further proof
that she was his wife:
Mariyah (R) just like the other Mother of Believers was told to cover up. We know that
the Mother of Believers did this because:
Sahih Muslim
Book 8, Number 3328:
Anas (Allah be pleased with him) reported: I was sitting behind Abu Talha on the
Day of Khaibar and my feet touched the foot of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him),
and we came (to the people of Khaibar) when the sun had risen and they had driven out
their cattle, and had themselves come out with their axes, large baskets and hatchets, and
they said: (Here come) Muhammad and the army. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)
said: Khaibar is ruined. Verily when we get down in the valley of a people, evil is the
morning of the warned ones (al-Qur'an, xxxvii. 177). Allah, the Majestic and the Glorious,
defeated them (the inhabitants of Khaibar), and there fell to the lot of Dihya a beautiful
girl, and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) got her in exchange of seven heads,
and then entrusted her to Umm Sulaim so that she might embellish her and prepare her (for
marriage) with him. He (the narrator) said: He had been under the impression that he had
said that so that she might spend her period of 'Iddah in her (Umm Sulaim's) house. (The
woman) was Safiyya daughter of Huyayy. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) arranged
the wedding feast consisting of dates, cheese, and refined butter, and pits were dug and
tiers were set in them dining cloths, and there was brought cheese and refined butter, and
these were placed there. And the people ate to their fill, and they said: We do not know
whether he (the Holy Prophet) had married her (as a free woman), or as a slave woman.
They said: If he (the Holy Prophet) would make her wear the veil, then she would be a
(free married) woman, and if he would not make her wear the veil, then she should be a
slave woman. When he intended to ride, he made her wear the veil and she sat on the hind
part of the camel; so they came to know that he had married her. As they
approached Medina, Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) drove (his ride) quickly and
so we did.' Adba' (the name of Allah's Apostle's camel) stumbled and Allah's Messenger
(may peace be upon him) fell down and she (Radrat Safiyya: also fell down. He (the Holy
Prophet) stood up and covered her. woman looked towards her and said: May Allah keep away
the Jewess! He (the narrator) said: I said: Aba Hamza, did Allah's Messenger (may peace be
upon him) really fall down? He said: Yes, by Allah, he in fact fell down. Anas said: I
also saw the wedding feast of Zainab, and he (the Holy Prophet) served bread and meat to the people, and made them eat to
their heart's content, and he (the Holy Prophet) sent me to call people, and as he was
free (from the ceremony) he stood up and I followed him. Two persons were left and they
were busy in talking and did not get out (of the apartment).He (the Holy Prophet) then
proceeded towards (the apartments of) his wives. He greeted with as-Salamu 'alaikum to
every one of them and said: Members of the household, how are you? They said: Messenger of
Allah, we are in good state 'How do you find your family? He would say: In good state.
When he was free from (this work of exchanging greetings) he came back, and I also came
back along with him. And as he reached the door, (he found) that the two men were still
busy in talking. And when they saw him having returned, they stood up and went out; and by
Allah ! I do not know whether I had informed him, or there was a revelation to him (to the
affect) that they had gone. He (the Holy Prophet) then came back and I also returned along
with him, and as he put his step on the threshold of his door he hung a curtain between me
and him, and (it was on this occasion) that Allah revealed this verse: ("O you who
believe), do not enter the houses of the Prophet unless permission is given to 'you"
(xxxiii. 53).
This hadith also says clearly that if she were to wear a veil, then she would be a
freed woman, and married woman. Sheikh GF Haddad himself says:
1- The Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, made her
wear hijab (contrary to the normal ruling for slaves). (Source)
Sam Shamoun's own source even admits that Mariyah (R) wore a veil,
845. That is, Mariyah was ordered to veil herself as did the Prophet's wives, BUT HE
DID NOT MARRY HER . (Ibid., p. 194) (Quoting from History of Al-Tabari)
Yet then concludes that "HE DID NOT MARRY HER"??!! This is another reason to
believe that Mariyah (R) was most likely a freed woman, and a Wife of the Holy Prophet
(S).
This argument, much like the prior one, also introduces some problems for Umars
case. The Quran commands all the women of believers to cover themselves, not just the
wives:
O Prophet! Tell your wives (li-azwajika) and your
daughters and the women of the believers (wa nisa-i al-mumineena) to draw
their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely
except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known
(as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever OftForgiving, Most
Merciful. S. 33:59 Hilali-Khan
Note that the text refers to two distinct groups, i.e. Muhammads wives (azwaj)
and the women (nisa) of believers, which can also be understood as a reference to
believing women:
O Prophet, say to thy wives and daughters and the believing women,
that they draw their veils close to them; so it is likelier they will be known, and not
hurt. God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. S. 33:59 Arberry
Now nisa, unlike azwaj, can refer to any women, whether wives, daughters,
slaves etc., which implies that by women of the believers the Quran means the believers wives,
daughters, concubines and so on. In fact, if the author of the Quran wanted to insure that the readers
understood from this that only the wives of believers were being referred to then he could have
applied the same term he used earlier in reference to Muhammads wives, i.e. azwaj.
That he used a different word in the same context, as opposed to employing the identical word
for wife which he had just used, strongly implies that by nisa the author intended to include
all believing women irrespective of whether they are married or not. What this, therefore, implies is
that the above passage is commanding all believing women to be covered, which would obviously
include believing slaves as well.(2)
To show that this is not merely our interpretation note what the Muslim scholar
Mufti Shafi Uthmani says here:
On the one hand, the Shariah of Islam has maintained a difference between free
women and bondwomen in the matter of Hijab. The limits of Hijab prescribed for
bondwomen are the limits observed by the free women before their mahrams (marriage
with whom is forbidden), for example, as leaving the face open before their mahrams is
permissible for free women, the same was permissible for bondwomen even when they
went out of their homes, because their job was to serve their masters, an
occupation that took them out of the home repeatedly which made it difficult for them to
keep their face and hands hidden. (Uthmani, Maariful Quran, Volume 7, p. 239;
source;
bold and underline emphasis ours)
The Mufti basically admits that, even though there are some differences in ruling,
both free and bondwomen are required to wear the veil or hijab. And since Mariyah was a
believing slave who belonged to Muhammad she would also have to observe hijab without this
necessarily implying that she had become his wife.
Now if the hadiths are teaching something contrary to the above, namely that slaves
were not required to wear veils, then this only shows that Muhammad taught something
contrary to the express teachings of the Quran. It provides further attestation that
Muhammad didnt follow the directives of his own Quran, see
this section.
Interestingly, Umar provides another plausible explanation for the veiling of Mariyah
which serves to refute his own case:
Let's even argue for arguments sake that Mariyah (R) was a slave. If
this is the case, then she became an umm walad, and was freed. And the fact that
she was even a slave woman, and she was possessed, it is amounted to marriage. Infact [sic],
this is the view that Maududi, the same scholar which Sam Shamoun quoted supports:
"The proper granting of the rights of possession by the State is just as
legal an action as marriage. Therefore, a person who does not show the
slightest aversion to marriage, there is no reasonable ground for him to show unnecessary
aversion to living with a slave girl" (Tafhim-ul-Qur'an, Vol.1, under verse 4:24,
p.340)
Also,
"He has, however, given fair chance to Maulana Maududi to present his case, who
(Maududi) believes that when one becomes the owner of a slave girl, the mere fact of one's
possessing her amounts to marriage with her-no formal matrimonial ceremony is needed at
all."
(Source)
Basically, what Maududis claim shows is that by being Muhammads intimate
slave Mariyah would be treated as a wife, not that she became or was
his spouse, and therefore explains why she would be commanded to observe the veil.
And since Umar again raises the issue of the status of an umm walad (a slave
who mothers a child), an issue which we had addressed already in our previous rebuttals,
we will briefly respond to it here. As we had documented elsewhere
(*),
Islamic law doesnt make it obligatory for the master to marry a slave that gives
birth to his child:
Yes, the word concubine literally means bed-mate and applies to any female slave that
shares the bed of her master. The man is liable to support any child of his and whatever
need of its mother that is related to that liability. He is not obliged to marry her
but is definitely held to the responsibilities of a father including
inheritability whether the mother is a Muslim or not, her child being Muslim. Nor is she
entitled to any inheritance unless he decides to marry her AND she is Muslim. Allah knows
best
And when the slave gets pregnant there why doesn't the man have to marry her?
She and her child do obtain other rights as already mentioned but this is not one
of them. (Sex with slaves and women's rights, answered by Shaykh Gibril F
Haddad; source;
bold and italic emphasis ours)
Then what does it mean when certain Islamic narrations say that Mariyahs son
freed her? We will let the following Muslim answer that:
The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, mentioned two signs of the Hour.
First, "That the female slave should give birth to her mistress." What is meant
by mistress is her lady and her female owner. In the hadith of Abu Hurairah, may Allah be
pleased with him, there is, "her lord". This is an indication of the conquest of
the lands and the great number of slaves gained so that female slaves and their children
are in great numbers. The female slave is owned by her master, but his children by her are
of his status, for the child of a master has the status of the master, and thus the female
slave's child's status is that of her [his mother's] lord and master.
Al-Khattabi mentioned that some find a proof for the position they take that the
slave-mother of the master's child is only set free at the expense of her child out
of his portion from the inheritance of his father, and that her ownership is transferred
to her children by inheritance and she is freed by them, and that she may be sold
before the death of her owner, but he said, "There are views on this proof."
I say that some of them try to prove the opposite, that the slave-mother of the child
is not sold and that she is freed on the death of her owner IN EVERY CASE,
because he made the child of the slave-woman her owner, so that it is AS IF her child is
the one who frees her and her becoming free is ascribed to him, because it is AS IF he
were the cause of her being set free and so becomes AS IF he were her mawla [the
master who had set her free]. This is like what is related of the Prophet, may Allah bless
him and grant him peace, that he said about Mariyah, the mother of his child, when she
gave birth to Ibrahim, peace be upon him, "Her son set her free."
Imam Ahmad sought a proof in this, for he said in the narration of Muhammad ibn
al-Hakam from him, "That the slave woman gives birth to her mistress: i.e. there will
be a great number of slave-mothers of children by their masters," saying, "When
she gives birth she is freed because of her child," and he said, "In it
there is a proof that the slave-mothers of children by their masters may not be sold."
His words, "The slave-woman gives birth to her mistress" has been explained as
meaning that trade in slaves will increase so much that a daughter will be transported for
the sake of trade and later freed, and then later her mother will be transported for the
sake of trade and the daughter will buy her and make use of her services unaware that she
is her own mother, and this has indeed happened in Islam. (The Jibril Hadith Explained
- Essentials of Islam, Iman & Ihsan, answered by Imam Ibn Rajab Al-Hanbali;
source;
bold, capital and italic emphasis ours)
This explains what Mariyahs son setting her free means, i.e. she gave birth to a
free child who could use his inheritance to emancipate her.
Others took this to mean that the birth of the child meant that Mariyah could not be
sold and would automatically go free upon the death of her master. In the words of Shaykh
G.F. Haddad:
3- When Ibrahim, alyhi as-Salam, was born the Prophet said of her, upon him blessings
and peace: "Her son freed her." (This may have been interpreted as a
cancellation of her slavehood tantamount to a declaration of marriage but is
CONFIRMED by the narrations to apply to her status AFTER THE PASSING OF THE HOLY PROPHET,
upon him blessings and peace.) (Haddad, Was Mariya al-Qibtiyya ever a spouse?;
source;
bold, capital and italic emphasis ours)
Moreover, the very fact that Mariyahs son Ibrahim is said to have freed her proves
that she wasnt Muhammads wife, but his slave for all those years leading up to
the birth of the child!
What makes this rather amusing is that Umar quotes the Muslim translator of Ibn
Saads work Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir:
"Handmaids gained the status of wedded wives if they bore children. They
were called umm walad and became free."
(Source: Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir by Ibn Sa'd, translated by S. Moinul Haq p. 152,
Vol. I, Parts I&II)
But didnt bother to produce what Ibn Saad himself said regarding this
matter:
He (Ibn Sad) said: Muhammad Ibn Umar informed us: Yaqub Ibn Muhammad
Ibn Abi Sasaah informed us on the authority of Abd Allah Ibn Abd
al-Rahman Ibn Abi Sasaah; he said: The Apostle of Allah liked Mariyah who was
of white complexion and curly hair and pretty. The Apostle of Allah lodged her and her
sister with Umm Sulaym Bint Milhan. Then he went there and asked them to embrace Islam,
and they joined the fold of Islam. Then he cohabited with Mariyah AS A HANDMAID
and sent her to al-Aliyah to his property which he acquired from Banu al-Nadir; here
she lived in summer. She also lived at Khurafat al-Nakhl. He (Prophet) visited it her
there and she was faithful in her (new) creed and Mariyah bore a male child to the
Apostle of Allah He gave him the name of Ibrahim The wives of the Apostle of
Allah became jealous and it was unbearable for them that she gave birth to a male child.
(bn Saad's Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, Volume I, Parts I & II, English
translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan
Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi - 110 002 India], pp.
151-152; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)
Ibn Saad expressly stated that Mariyah was a handmaid, not a wife! It is little
wonder that Umar didnt bother quoting him.
Umar erroneously assumes that since Mariyahs grave was located in the same place
where Muhammads wives were buried this somehow proves that she too was his wife:
It is reported that the graves for the Wives of the Holy Prophet (S) were at a place
called Al-Baqi:
Sahih al-Bukhari
Volume 2, Book 23, Number 474:
Narrated 'Urwa:
When the wall fell on them (i.e. graves) during the caliphate of Al-Walid bin 'Abdul
Malik, the people started repairing it, and a foot appeared to them. The people got scared
and thought that it was the foot of the Prophet. No-one could be found who could tell them
about it till I ('Urwa) said to them, "By Allah, this is not the foot of the Prophet
but it is the foot of Umar." Aisha narrated that she made a will to 'Abdullah bin
Zubair, "Do not bury me with them (the Prophet and his two companions) but bury
me with my companions (wives of the Prophet (p.b.u.h) ) in Al-Baqi as I would not like to
be looked upon as better than I really am (by being buried near the Prophet)."
Yet, we also know that Mariyah (R) was also buried there, as
Sheikh GF Haddad says:
5- Our liege-lords Abu Bakr and `Umar in their caliphates spent lavishly on her
(in resemblance of the duty to support the Mothers of the believers) until she died in
Muharram of the year 16. `Umar gathered the people himself, she was buried in
al-Baqi`, and he prayed over her. Allah be well-pleased with her. (Source)
And, the scholars of Islamonline.net say:
After her death, `Umar ibn al-Khattab - the second caliph -led her funeral prayer and
she was buried in al-Baqi, like many other companions and the rest of the wives of the
prophet. Because she was the prophet's wife and the mother of his son Ibrahim,
Caliph Mu`awiyah ibn abi-Sufyan exempted her hometown in Egypt from taxation, as a sign of
honor. (Source)
Umars point is simply non sequitur since, as even the above quotes show,
Muhammads wives werent the only ones buried at this location; so were some of
his companions:
Al-Baqi` is the principal cemetery of the people of
Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah and has been so since the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings be upon him). Of all of the historic places in Madinah, it is the closest to
Al-Masjid An-Nabawi (the Prophets Mosque). It is located opposite the southeastern
section of the wall of the masjid. Recently, some contiguous property was added to it to
increase the land area available for burials This cemetery has been the final
resting place of the residents of Madinah, as well as those of nearby neighboring areas
and of visitors, since the time of Hijrah. It was the preferred final resting place
of the noble Companions (may Allah be pleased with them all). This is
evidenced by the fact that about ten thousand of the noble Companions (may Allah be
pleased with them) are buried within. Among the notable Muslims interred there are
the Mothers of the Believers (the Prophets wives), with the exclusion of Khadijah
and Maymunah (may Allah be pleased with them all). Also buried there are the
Prophets daughters, the Prophets son Ibrahim, the Prophets uncle `Abbas,
the Prophets aunt Safiyyah, and the Prophets grandson Al-Hasan ibn `Ali (may
Allah be pleased with them all). There are many, many other respected Muslims from
throughout the history of Islam buried here who are too numerous to mention.
(Al-Baqi`: The Madinah Cemetery;
source;
bold and underline emphasis ours)
Does this, therefore, mean that the companions of Muhammad were also married to him
simply because they happened to be buried there? Of course not! Thus, just because Mariyah
happened to be buried there doesnt prove that she was a spouse anymore than the
companions being laid to rest there proves that they too were his wives!
Moreover, at least one of Muhammads wives was buried in some other place:
Narrated 'Ata:
We presented ourselves along with Ibn 'Abbas at the funeral procession of Maimuna
at a place called Sarif. Ibn 'Abbas said, "This is the wife of the Prophet so
when you lift her bier, do not Jerk it or shake it much, but walk smoothly because the
Prophet had nine wives and he used to observe the night turns with eight of them, and for
one of them there was no night turn." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62,
Number 5)
'Ata related that when they were with Ibn 'Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) at
the funeral of Maimuna in Sarif, Ibn 'Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) said:
This is the wife of Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him); so when you lift her bier, do
not shake her or disturb her, but be gentle, for Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)
had nine wives, with eight of whom he shared his time, but to one of them, he did not
allot a share. 'Ata said: The one to whom he did not allot a share of time was Safiyya,
daughter of Huyayy b. Akhtab. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008,
Number 3455)
By employing Umars reasoning we could argue that Maimuna wasnt
Muhammads spouse since she wasnt laid to rest in the place where the rest of
his wives were buried, which would be nonsensical.
What the above example shows is that just because a woman was buried in al-Baqi this
doesnt necessarily prove that she was Muhammads wife anymore than Maimuna
being buried somewhere else disproves that she was married to Muhammad.
It is obvious why Mariyah would be buried in that location, not because she was a
spouse, but because she had been intimate with Muhammad and had conceived his son.
Now if the sources had said that this was a place where only Muhammads wives
could be buried then Umar would have had a rather strong case. But unfortunately for him,
this isnt what the Muslim sources say.
Here is the final point of Umars rebuttal we want to address.
The Holy Prophet (S) said concerning the People of Egypt:
Book 31, Number 6174:
Abu Dharr reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: You would
soon conquer Egypt and that is a land which is known (as the land of al-qirat). So
when you conquer it, treat its inhabitants well. For there lies upon you the
responsibility because of blood-tie or relationship of marriage (with them). And
when you see two persons falling into dispute amongst themselves for the space of a brick,
than get out of that. He (Abu Dharr) said: I saw Abd al-Rahman b. Shurahbil b. Hasana and
his brother Rabi'a disputing with one another for the space of a brick. So I left that
(land).
Imaam Nawawi commenting on this hadith says:
328. Abu Dharr reported that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him
peace, said, "You will conquer a land in which the qirat will be mentioned."
In one variant, "You will conquer Egypt which is a land in which the qirat is
used, so command its people to good. They have right to security and ties of
kinship."
In one variant, "When you conquer it, be good to its people.
They have right to security and ties of kinship," or he said, "right to security
and ties of marriage."
The scholars say, "The ties of kinship come from the fact that Hajar, the mother
of Isma'il, was one of them, and the ties of marriage come from the fact that Maria
the mother of Ibrahim, the son of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant
him peace, was one of them."
(Source: Riyadh Us Saliheen 40. Chapter: On dutifulness to parents and maintaining ties
of kinship)
We highlight the relevant part of al-Nawawis comments in order to show how this
will refute Umars position, while establishing our own:
The scholars say, "The ties of kinship come from the fact that
Hajar, the mother of Isma'il, was one of them, and the ties
of marriage come from the fact that Maria the mother of Ibrahim, the son of the Messenger
of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was one of them."
As anyone having read the Holy Bible clearly knows, Hagar wasnt Abrahams
wife in the sense that Sarah was (1;
2).
Rather, she was Sarahs slavegirl whom Abraham had a child with, something which was
permitted and acceptable at that time.
Moreover, even the Islamic narrations agree that Hagar was Sarahs slave:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Abraham did not tell a lie except on three occasion. Twice for the Sake of Allah when
he said, "I am sick," and he said, "(I have not done this but) the big idol
has done it." The (third was) that while Abraham and Sarah (his wife) were going (on
a journey) they passed by (the territory of) a tyrant. Someone said to the tyrant,
"This man (i.e. Abraham) is accompanied by a very charming lady." So, he sent
for Abraham and asked him about Sarah saying, "Who is this lady?" Abraham said,
"She is my sister." Abraham went to Sarah and said, "O Sarah! There are no
believers on the surface of the earth except you and I. This man asked me about you and I
have told him that you are my sister, so don't contradict my statement." The tyrant
then called Sarah and when she went to him, he tried to take hold of her with his hand,
but (his hand got stiff and) he was confounded. He asked Sarah, "Pray to Allah for
me, and I shall not harm you." So Sarah asked Allah to cure him and he got cured. He
tried to take hold of her for the second time, but (his hand got as stiff as or stiffer
than before and) was more confounded. He again requested Sarah, "Pray to Allah for
me, and I will not harm you." Sarah asked Allah again and he became alright. He then
called one of his guards (who had brought her) and said, "You have not brought me a
human being but have brought me a devil." The tyrant then gave Hajar AS A
GIRL-SERVANT TO SARAH. Sarah came back (to Abraham) while he was praying. Abraham,
gesturing with his hand, asked, "What has happened?" She replied, "Allah
has spoiled the evil plot of the infidel (or immoral person) AND GAVE ME HAJAR FOR
SERVICE." (Abu Huraira then addressed his listeners saying, "That (Hajar)
was your mother, O Bani Ma-is-Sama (i.e. the Arabs, the descendants of Ishmael,
Hajar's son)." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55,
Number 578;
see also Volume 3, Book 34, Number 420)
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Prophet Abraham migrated with Sarah. The people (of the
town where they migrated) gave her Ajar (i.e. Hajar). Sarah returned and said to Abraham,
Do you know that Allah has humiliated that pagan and he has given A SLAVE-GIRL
FOR MY SERVICE?" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 47,
Number 803)
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said: Abraham did not tell lies except three. (One of them was) when
Abraham passed by a tyrant and (his wife) Sara was accompanying him (Abu Huraira then
mentioned the whole narration and said:) (The tyrant) gave her Hajar. Sara said,
"Allah saved me from the hands of the Kafir (i.e. infidel) and gave me Hajar TO
SERVE ME." (Abu Huraira added:) That (Hajar) is your mother, O Banu
Ma'-As-Sama' (i.e., the Arabs). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62,
Number 21)
Thus Hagar was Abrahams wife in the sense that she had conjugal relations with him,
which resulted in their having a son.
In light of the foregoing, it can be rightly said that the Israelites have ties with
the Egyptians since Abraham had intimate relations with Hagar, an Egyptian, and had a son
from her, Ishmael who happened to marry an Egyptian (cf. Genesis 21:21). Thus, Abraham had
an Egyptian daughter-in-law because of Ishmael! Yet this doesnt mean that Hagar was
Abrahams wife, since she wasnt. She was a slave-girl whom Abraham
"married" in the sense of sleeping with her.
In a similar fashion, Muhammad had marriage ties with the Egyptians not because he had
married Mariyah, but because he slept with her and had a child from her. This would imply
that the word marriage is being used in the sense of one sleeping or being intimate with
another, much like Abraham "married" Hagar. In fact, this is precisely how the
renowned Muslim exegete and historian al-Tabari uses the term:
God granted Rayhanah bt. Zayd of the Banu Qurayzah to his Messenger [as booty]. Mariyah
the Copt was presented to the Messenger of God, given to him by al-Muqawqis, the ruler of
Alexandria, and she gave birth to the Messenger of Gods son Ibrahim. These were
the Messengers wives; six of them were from the Quraysh. (The History of
Al-Tabari: The Last years of the Prophet, translated and annotated by Ismail K.
Poonawala [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1990], Volume IX, p. 137;
underline emphasis ours)
The impression by the above quote is that al-Tabari believed Mariyah was a wife,
that is until we read the rest of his comments:
An Account of the Messenger of Gods
Slave Concubines
They were Mariyah bt. Shamun, the Copt, and Rayhanah bt. Zayd
al-Quraziyyah who, it is said, was of the Banu al-Nadir. An account of them has been given
above. (Ibid., p. 141; bold and underline emphasis ours)
The Messenger of God also had a eunuch called Mabur, who was presented to him by
al-Muqawqis WITH TWO SLAVE GIRLS, ONE OF THEM WAS CALLED MARIYAH, WHOM HE TOOK AS A
CONCUBINE, and the other [was called] Sirin, whom he gave to Hassan b. Thabit after Safwan
b. al-Muattal had committed an offense against him. Sirin gave birth to a son called
Abd al-Rahman b. Hassan. Al-Muqawqis had sent this eunuch with the two slave girls
in order to escort them and guard them on their way [to Medina]. He presented them to the
Messenger of God when they arrived. It is said that he was the one [with whom] Mariyah was
accused of [wrongdoing], and that the Messenger of God sent Ali to kill him. When he
saw Ali and what he intended to do with him, he uncovered himself until it became
evident to Ali that he was completely castrated, not having anything left at all of
what men [normally] have, so [Ali] refrained from killing him. (Ibid., p. 147; capital
emphasis ours)
And:
Mariyah, the Prophets CONCUBINE and the mother of his son, Ibrahim.
Al-Muqawqas, lord of Alexandria, gave her with her sister Sirin and other things as a
present to the Prophet.
According to Ibn Umar [al-Waqidi] Yaqub b. Muhammad b. Abi
Sasaah Abdallah b. Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Sasaah:
In the year 7/May 11, 628-April 30, 629, al-Muqawqas, lord of Alexandria, sent to the
Prophet Mariyah, her sister Sirin, a thousand gold coins, twenty fine robes, his mule
Duldul, and his donkey Ufayr, or Yafur. With them was Mariyahs brother,
a very old eunuch called Mabur. Al-Muqawqas sent all this [to the Prophet] with Hatib b.
Abi Baltaah. The latter suggested to Mariyah that she embrace Islam and made her
wish to do so; thus she and her sister were converted, whereas the eunuch adhered to his
religion until he was [also] converted later in Medina, while the Prophet was [still]
alive.
The Prophet admired Umm Ibrahim ["Mother of Ibrahim," Mariyahs title],
who was fair-skinned and beautiful. He lodged her in al-Aliyah, at the property
nowadays called of Umm Ibrahim. He used to visit her there and ordered her to veil
herself, [but] he had intercourse with her BY VIRTUE OF HER BEING HIS PROPERTY (The
History of Al-Tabari: Biographies of the Prophets Companions and Their Successors,
translated by Ella Landau-Tasseron [State University of New York Press (SUNY) Albany
1998], Volume XXXIX, pp. 193-194; bracketed and capital statements ours)
845. That is, Mariyah was ordered to veil herself as did the Prophets wives, BUT
HE DID NOT MARRY HER (Ibid., p. 194; capital statements ours)
With the foregoing in perspective we can fully understand what al-Tabari meant. The claim
that Mariyah was a concubine clearly indicates that al-Tabari was using the term wife in the sense
that Muhammad had sex with her.
Finally, here is what this same website has to say about Mariyahs status:
There seems to be some difference of opinion regarding whether she remained a slave or
was she taken as a wife. Both opinions are to be found among the scholars and
biographers.
In the year 6 AH, after the treaty of Hudaibiya, the Messenger of Allah (upon him be
peace) sent letters to the various rulers and governors around the world. The Roman
governor of Alexandria, Muqawqas, sent two slave girls to the Messenger of Allah (upon him
be peace) as a gift with Hatim ibn Abi Balta'a who was the courier of the Messenger (upon
him be peace). The two slave girls were Mariya and Shirin Qibtiyya. On the way to Madina,
both embraced Islam at the preaching of Hatim (may Allah be please with him). Shirin
Qibtiyya was given to Hassan ibn Thabit and the Messenger of Allah (upon him be peace)
kept Mariya Qibtiyya and married her (according to one opinion) or kept her as a
slave girl (according to the other opinion). (About Mariya Qibtiyya,
Answered by Shaykh Abdurrahman ibn Yusuf Mangera;
source)
It is rather amusing that this site could present the two views regarding
Mariyahs status without taking either side, even though they present
An-Nawawis explanation that Muhammad had marriage ties with the Egyptians due to his
relationship with Mariyah!
What this essentially demonstrates is that Umars appeal to the explanation of
an-Nawawi is another example of a non sequitur argument since the scholars comments
do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Muhammad married Mariyah. The statements of
this scholar can be understood in a different way from that proposed by Umar, one which
doesnt conflict with the view of Mariyah being Muhammads slave.
Concluding Remarks
We want to conclude our discussion by highlighting some additional problems which
Umars recent rebuttal raises. Umars response basically demonstrates that the
Muslim scholars who hold/held to Mariyah being a slave are/were either ignorant and/or
quite disrespectful towards their prophet. After all, did these scholars not know that
Mariyah,
Was a slave who converted to Islam?
Wore a veil?
Gave birth to her masters son?
Was buried in the same area where Muhammads other wives were buried?
At least some, if not all, know/knew of these details. Then why do/did they still
believe that she was Muhammads slave, not his wife? Why do/would they hold to this
view when such a position means that Muhammad failed to carry out his own directives since
he didnt set her free nor did he marry her, even though he was supposed to in light
of Umars arguments? For instance, why did Muhammad not set her free when she became
a Muslimah? Why did he force her to observe the veil if she was only his slave? Why
didnt he marry her after she gave birth to his son? And why was she buried in an
area which was the designated burial ground for Muhammads wives when she was a
concubine, not a spouse?
It should be clear from all of the above that Umar is doing nothing more than impugning
his own scholars by using such reasoning since if we accept his arguments as being valid
then we must conclude that the Muslims who believe(d) Mariyah was a slave are/were
essentially accusing Muhammad of being cruel for grossly mistreating her! In other words,
all of these Muslim scholars are/were holding a position that attacks Muhammads
character since their view portrays him as a rather merciless person for failing to grant
Mariyah her due.
In light of the foregoing, isnt it time for Umar to call it quits and move on to
something else? Shouldnt he refrain from constantly producing materials which only
manage to further discredit his prophet and his religion, providing responses that merely
help to highlight the incoherent and confusing nature of the Islamic source materials? We
already knew that Islams foundations are shaky and that Muslims really cant
give any good reasons why a person should believe in their prophet or religion. We really
dont need Umar, Osama Abdallah or the others to constantly remind us of this.
Endnotes
(1) Ironically, Umar quoted a Muslim source to contest the late al-Maududis
claims that Mariyah was Muhammads sex slave. What makes this rather amusing is that
this Muslim writer mentions a Muslim who had such a problem with Muhammad sleeping with
slaves that he devoted himself to refuting this claim:
When the author of Namus-I Rasul, Hafiz Muhammad Sarwar Quraishi of 3 Cambridge Avenue,
Greenford (Middx), UK,read this part of the commentary by Maulana Maududi for whom
he had a great respect, the whole world seemed to whirl round him. He was so
agitatedthat he could not sleep for several nights. The Prophet,
he thought, who came to teach the highest and perfect morals to the world, himself
indulged in sexual relations with a slave girl without marriage!! Then he
started in earnest studying literature on this subject and during his research he
discovered that Maulana Maududi and some other Muslim scholars have committed a grave
error against the character of the Noble Prophet. (Ibrahim B. Syed, Ph. D., Honor
of the Prophet;
source;
bold and italic emphasis ours)
More importantly, Umar must have forgotten that in his response
(*) to
my first rebuttal to him he quoted a source where a Muslim questioner was troubled by
the fact that Islam permits Muslims to sleep with slave girls since this was nothing
more than zina, sexual immorality or fornication:
Question of Fatwa
Is it true that Islam permits Muslim men to own slave women, and permits them
to have sex with them without marrying them? And that this was carried out by the
Prophets Companions with his approval? Surely, this is in contradiction of the
Quran's condemnation of zina. Could you please clarify this issue?
Thus, the Muslims themselves have problems with Muhammad or anyone else sleeping with
slave girls, not just Christians!
(2) As if it couldnt get any more confusingthan it already
is there are many Muslims who deny that the Quran commands women to wear a head
veil. They claim that the verses of the Quran only speak of covering their bosoms, not
their head or face:
I will be examining particular texts that seem to point to the punishment of unbelievers being an ongoing, never-ending experience of torment. This is known as the doctrine of eternal/everlasting conscious torment (ECT).
Synoptic Gospels
The Lord Jesus often described the punishment of the wicked as a “place” of
The Gospels and Acts speak of God sending an angel of the Lord to make his purpose known to specific individuals:
“Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord (angelos Kyriou) appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise and take the young child and his mother,