Faith Freedom International

[SMHA]

FYI:

Book:

"The Life of Muhammad The Prophet"

http://www.al-islam.org/lifeprophet/

Chapter 15

The Treaty

The Treaty of Hudaibiah and the Pledge of Ridhwan
In Dhul-Qa'dah, 6 A.H., the Prophet decided to perform the 'umrah (the lesser pilgrimage) to the Ka'bah which had been till then denied to the Muslims due to the hostility of the Meccans. Fourteen hundred Muhajirun and Ansar showed readiness to go with him. Lest there be any misgivings in any quarter about his intentions, he directed the Muslims not to carry any arms other than swords, and he himself put on the robes of ihram and took up camels to sacrifice. The Muslims camped at Hudaibiyah, ten miles from Mecca. An envoy was sent to the Meccans to obtain-their permission for visiting the Ka'bah but it was rejected. Instead, the Meccans collected a force to prevent the Muslims from entering Mecca. The Quraish sent Budayl of the tribe of Khuza'ah, to tell the Prophet that he was not allowed to visit the Ka'bah. The Prophet said that he had not gone there to fight but to perform the pilgrimage.



The Quraish deputed 'Urwah ibn Mas'ud al-Thaqafi to have a talk with the Prophet, but nothing came out of it. The Prophet then sent Karash ibn Umayyah to the Quraish, but the messenger was mistreated, and it was only with difficulty that he escaped with his life. The vanguard of the Quraish attacked the Muslims, but it was captured. The Prophet demonstrated great clemency and set the captives free. Ultimately, 'Uthman (who belonged to the same clan to which Abu Sufyan belonged) was sent to persuade the Quraish to allow the Muslims to visit the Ka'bah. News came that 'Uthman had been killed by the Quraish. The Muslims took a pledge on the hands of the Prophet, known as "Bay'atur-Ridhwan", to stand by him to the last. Referring to this pledge, the Qu'ran says:



Indeed God was well pleased with the believers when they swore allegiance to thee under the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down tranquility on them and rewarded them with a near victory. (Qur'an, 48:18)



However, it came to be known later that the news of Uthman's murder was not true. After considerable difficulty, a treaty was ultimately signed with Suhayl ibn 'Amr, Quraish's envoy, on the following terms reproduced in almost all the Arab Chronicles:


The Muslims should return to Medina that year without performing the pilgrimage.


They could return the next year but their stay should not exceed three days.


The Muslims should not bring any arms with them except sheathed swords.


There would be no war between the Quraish and the Muslims for ten years.


Muslims residing in Mecca would not be allowed to migrate to Medina, but if any Muslim wanted to settle in Mecca, he should not be prevented from doing so.


Any idolater or Meccan Muslim migrating to Medina without the permission of his clan will be sent back to Mecca, but a Muslim of Medina going back to Mecca without permission will not be allowed to return.


Any tribe in Arabia will be free to join any of the parties to the pact, and the allies also will be bound by this treaty.

Although these terms were apparently disadvantageous to the Muslims, the Prophet accepted them. No sooner had the terms been agreed upon than a critical situation arose. Abu Jundal, son of the said Suhail, had been imprisoned by his father for accepting Islam and was being severely mistreated. He managed to escape and, with his fetters on, reached Hudaibiyah just before the treaty was signed. Suhail, the emissary of the Meccans, demanded his return according to the terms of the treaty. The Muslims said that the treaty had not been signed yet. Suhail said that if his son was not returned to him, there would be no treaty at all. Abu Jundal pleaded with the Muslims in the name of mercy not to throw him back to the tyranny of the Meccans and showed the injuries they had inflicted upon him. The Muslims were moved to plead his cause and 'Umar made an impassioned appeal, but the Prophet silenced them by declaring that he could not break a treaty. He consoled Abu Jundal by saying that God would create some way for his deliverance.

Some Muslims were unhappy abut this treaty. 'Umar ibn al-Khattab talked very rudely to the Holy Prophet. Afterwards, he used to say: "Never did I have doubt (about the truth of Islam) since my acceptance of Islam except on that day (of Hudaibiyah)."



The Prophet sacrificed his animals at Hudaybiyah. Having shaved his head, he removed the robes of ihram. Many Muslims were reluctant to do so, but finally they followed suit.



After three days' stay at Hudaibiyah, the Muslims returned to Medina. On the way back, Surah 48 titled "TheVictory" was revealed. It described the treaty as an open victory for the Muslims. Later events confirmed that it was really a great victory for them.



Till then, idolaters and Muslims had not been mixing with each other. By virtue of this treaty, they started doing so freely. On account of their family relationships and trade connections, the Meccans started visiting Medina, and many of them stayed there for months. In this way, they were getting acquainted with the teachings of Islam and were deeply impressed by the righteous conduct and moral integrity of the Muslims. The Muslims of Medina who were visiting Mecca left behind them similar impressions. The result was that the Meccans were themselves attracted to Islam and many of them embraced the new religion. It is recorded that during the two years following this treaty, more people accepted Islam than during the whole nineteen years since the inception of the mission. A clear proof is found in the fact that while only 1,400 Muslims had accompanied the Prophet for the lesser pilgrimage when the treaty of Hudaibiyah was concluded, two years later, that is, when Mecca fell in the hands of the Muslims, 10,000 Muslims accompanied him.
_________________
"They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths,
but Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected,
even though the Unbelievers may detest." [Quran 9:32]

[adnan]

[SMHA]

[adnan]

so whats a sheathed sword? why dont you tell us, SMHA.

Adnan
_________________
O Muslims, Leave Islam. When Allah asks you "Why did you leave Islam?", tell him "Because, You said in Quran 2:256,'there is no compulsion in religion'."

[yeezevee]

The Wives of the Muhammad

dear SMHA I am copy pasting the stuff from your favorite website http://www.al-islam.org with the addition of some comments. It is O.K. to copy paste from a website, but my suggestion is, it is worth to read, think and add your own opinion on the article.

[SMHA]

www.almizan.org

An Academic discourse on many marriages of the Prophet

(Al-Mizan, Volume 7)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another target of their objection is the many marriages of the Prophet. They say: Plurality of marriage in itself points to avidity and to yielding to lust and desire; and the Prophet was not content with four wives which he had allowed to his ummah, but exceeded even that limit and married nine women.

This question is related to many different verses of the Qur'an, and detailed discussion of its every aspect should be given under those verses. Therefore, we are leaving the details for the relevant places, restricting ourselves to a short description here in a general way.

It is necessary to point out that the plurality of the Prophet's marriages is not such a simple matter as to be dismissed in a sentence that 'he was inordinately fond of women, so much so that he married nine wives.' The fact is that he had married each one of his wives for some particular reason in particular circumstances during his long life. His first marriage was with Khadijah (may Allah be pleased with her), and he lived with her alone for more than twenty* years, and it constitutes two-thirds of his married life— and covered [almost] the whole Meccan period of the prophethood. Then he immigrated to Medina and began spreading the Call and raising the words of religion. Thereafter he married several women—virgin and widows, young, old and middle-aged. This continued for about ten years, then the women were prohibited to him other than those who were already in his marriage. Obviously, these happenings with these peculiarities cannot be explained just by love of women or desire and passion for them, because his early life and the later period both contradict this assumption.

Just look at a man with a passion for women who is infatuated with carnal desire, and enamored of female companionship, with a sensual lust for them. You will find him attracted to their adornment, spending his time in pursuit of beauty, infatuated with coquetry and flirtation, and craving for youth tender age and fresh complexion.

But these peculiarities were diametrically opposite of the Prophet's character. He married widows after virgin, old-aged women after young girls. He married Umm Salamah (an aged woman) and Zaynab bint Jahsh (who was more than fifty years of age) after marrying 'A'ishah and Umm Habibah, and so on.

Then he offered his wives a choice that he should give them a provision and allow them to depart gracefully (i.e., divorce them) if they desire this world and its adornment, or they should renounce the world and abstain from adornments and embellishments if they desired Allah and His Messenger and the latter abode. It may be seen in the following words of Allah: O Prophet! say to your wives: "If you desire this world's life and its ornature, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing. And if you desire Allah and His Messenger and the latter abode, then surely Allah has prepared for the doers of good among you a mighty reward" (33: 28 - 29). As you see this is not the attitude of a man who is enamoured of women's love and infatuated with carnal desire.

If a scholar, after deeply studying this matter, follows the dictates of justice, he will have to look for some reasons, other than avidity and lust, for his plurality of wives, beginning with his early life to the latter days.

In fact he (s.a.w.a.) had married some of them to add to his strength by increasing relationships and helping hands; some of them were taken into marriage to win the enemies' hearts and as a protection from some of their evils. He married some others to maintain and protect them, in order that it might become a regular practice among the believers for the protection of widows and aged women against poverty and degradation. Some marriages were performed to practically affirm and enforce a lawful order, for abolition of evil traditions and false innovations, which were prevalent in the society. This was the case of his marriage with Zaynab bint Jahsh; she was first married to Zayd ibn Harithah, then Zayd divorced her; this Zayd was called "son of the Messenger of Allah" by the [pre-Islamic] custom of adoption; the pagans considered wife of an adopted son like the wife of an actual son and the "father-in-law" could not marry her. Therefore the Prophet married her [to confirm abrogation of adoption and the related customs], and several verses were revealed on this subject.

The first woman to be married to the Prophet after the death of Khadijah, was Sawdah bint Zam'ah, whose husband had expired after returning from the second migration of Abyssinia. Sawdah was a believing lady who had migrated [for her faith] . If she were left to return to her own family who at that time were unbelievers, they would have tortured and tormented her as they were doing with other believing men and women using suppression and killings and forcing them to renounce their faith.

He married Zaynab bint Khuzaymah after her husband, 'Abdullah ibn Jahsh, was martyred in Uhud. She was one of the most generous ladies even in the era of ignorance, and was called "Mother of the poor", in recognition of her generosity and kindness towards needy people. The Prophet, with this marriage, preserved her prestige and dignity.

He also married Umm Salamah, whose actual name was Hind. Before that, she was married to 'Abdullah Abu Salamah, who was a cousin" of the Prophet (son of his paternal aunt) and his foster brother; Abu Salamah [and his wife] were among the first to emigrate to Abyssinia. She had renounced the worldly pleasure and was highly distinguished in piety and wisdom. When her husband died she was very advanced in age and had many orphan n children. That is why the Prophet married her.

Safiyyah was daughter of Huyayy ibn Akhtab, the chief of Banu 'e-Nadir. Her husband was killed in the battle of Khaybar, and her father with Banu Qurayzah, and she was among the captives of Khaybar. The Prophet chose her for himself and married her after emancipating her. With this marriage he protected her from humiliation and established affinity with the Children of Israel.

The marriage with Juwayriyyah, i.e., Barrah, daughter of al-Harith, the chief of Banu 'l-Mustaliq, was performed after the battle of Banu 'l-Mustaliq. The Muslims had arrested two hundred of their families together with women and children. The Prophet married Juwayriyyah; so the Muslims said: "These are the relatives of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) by marriage; they should not be held captives." So they freed all of them. Impressed by this nobility, the whole tribe of Banu 'l-Mustaliq entered into the fold of Islam. It was a very large tribe, and this [generosity of the Muslims as well as the Islam of that tribe, created a good impression throughout Arabia.

One of his wives was Maymunah, whose name was Barrah bint al-Harith al-Hilaliyyah. She was the one who gifted herself to the Prophet after the death of her second husband, Abu Ruhm ibn 'Abdi 'l-'Uzza (al-'Amir;). The Prophet then married her, and a verse was revealed regarding her marriage.

Also he married Umm Hablbah, i.e., Ramlah daughter of Abu Sufyan. She was married to 'Ubaydullah ibn Jahsh and had emigrated with him to Abyssinia in the second Migration. While there, 'Ubaydullah was converted to Christianity, but she remained steadfastly on Islam; while her father, Abu Sufyan, in those days, was gathering army after army to annihilate the Muslims. Therefore, the Prophet married her and afforded protection to her.

Hafsah bint 'Umar was married to him after her husband, Khunays ibn Hudhafah, was killed in Badr, and she was left a widow.

And he married 'A'ishah bint Ab; Bakr, and she was a virgin.

When one looks at these details, and ponders on what we have mentioned above regarding the Prophet's life from his early days to the end, and on his self-denial and rejection of worldly embellishments, and his exhortation to his wives to do the same, one can have no doubt that the marriages which he had contracted with these women were not like those done by other people. And to it the benevolence with which he treated the womanhood, revived their rights, which the centuries of ignorance and barbarism had put to sleep, and restored their prestige and honor in the society. [He was so much concerned with women's welfare that] reportedly the last words he uttered were addressed to the men about their women. He had said: "(Be careful about) prayer, (be careful about) prayer; and (about) what your right hands possess, do not impose on them what they have no strength for; (fear) Allah, (fear) Allah about the women, because they are helpless in your hands . . . "

His behavior was matchless in dealing equitably with his wives, living with them gracefully and paying regard to their feelings and wishes (as we shall describe some aspects of it when writing on his characteristics in the coming discourses, God willing.) As for the permission to marry more than four, it was, like the fasting continuously for two days without any break at night, an order exclusively reserved for the Prophet—the ummah was prohibited it. It was these especial characteristics—and the fact that all people were clearly aware of them—that did not have any room for objection to his enemies, although they were always on the look out for some openings to attack him.
_________________
"They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths,
but Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected,
even though the Unbelievers may detest." [Quran 9:32]

[SMHA]

POLYGAMY

As far as we have observed, the question of "monogamy or polygamy" in the animal world is not definitely settled. In cases where the male and the female have to live together (because the male remains busy whole time in helping his mate in "domestic" affairs, raising the children and looking after them) "monogamy " is the rule, i.e.; the female remains exclusively attached to the male. Yet sometimes the system may be changed through skill, planning and guarantee of security, i.e., by domestication and training, as is seen between cock and hens and even pigeons, etc.

Coming to our own species, polygamy was a custom prevalent in most of the ancient nations like Egypt, India, China and Persia; and even Rome and Greece, who supplemented the wife with concubines who lived with her in the same house. Some nations, like the Jews and the Arabs, observed no limit; some married ten, twenty or even more wives; reportedly the king Solomon had married hundred of women.

Mostly, polygamy was prevalent in tribal and other similar communities, like villagers and highlanders. A head of family in such societies always felt a pressing need for a large coterie of followers Polygamy was his way of achieving this goal; increased births gave him a large number of sons, who in some years became a force for defending his interests—a necessary part of life in those communities — and raising him to the leadership of the community. Also, the increased number of marriages increased the circle of relatives through affinity.

Some scholars have said that the main factor leading tribesmen or villagers to polygamy was their preoccupation with a lot of back-breaking jobs, like carrying and transporting loads; shepherding and cattle grazing; farming and irrigation; hunting, cooking and weaving; and things like that.

This theory is correct to a certain extent; but contemplation of their psychological traits proves that these factors had a secondary importance in their eyes. What we have mentioned earlier was the primary and basic concern or a nomad. Also it was this factor which led them to gather adopted sons around themselves.

There was one more basic reason which increased the number of wives in those societies, and that was the presence of women in much greater number than men. In those tribal societies battle and war was a never-ending phenomenon, as was assassination and murder. Such killings continued to decrease the male population, and women's number increased to a level where the only way to fulfill their natural needs was through polygamy. Think over it.

Islam has ordained marriage with one wife, and allowed marrying up to four, provided the man is able to treat them equitably; it has at the same time taken steps to remove the difficulties and shortcomings found in polygamy, as we shall mention later. Allah says: and they (women) have rights similar to those upon them in a just manner (2:228).


OBJECTIONS AGAINST POLYGAMY:

First Objection: It creates evil effects in society. It hurts the feelings of women, frustrates their hopes and stops the fountainhead of love in their hearts. The love is transformed into a desire for revenge. They neglect the household, do not look after children's welfare, and pay their men in their own coin. Thus they indulge in adultery, embezzle their property, and tarnish their honor. The society immediately sinks to the lowest level possible.

Second Objection: Polygamy goes against the system, which the nature has obviously established. Census figures, obtained from various communities generation after generation, show that the male and female populations are almost equal. It means that nature provides only one woman for one man. To disturb this balance goes against the nature's programmed.

Third Objection: Allowing polygamy encourages men to lust and avidity, and gives boost to such tendencies in society.

Fourth Objection: Polygamy degrades women in society, as it counts four women as equal to one man; and it is an unjust assessment, even from Islamic point of view which treats two women as equal to one man, e.g., in inheritance and evidence, etc. On that basis too, marriage with only two women should have been allowed—not with four. Marriage with four is deviation from justice, however we look at it.

These objections have been written by Christians or by those sociologists who advocate equal rights for both sexes in society.

Reply to the First Objection: We have repeatedly explained that Islam has laid the foundation of human society on rational, not emotional, life. In sociological field, it follows what is good for the society in reason, not what is desired by emotions or feelings.

It does not mean that Islam kills the emotions and feelings, or negates the divine gift of natural instincts. It is accepted in the Psychology that difference in education and training creates difference quantitatively and qualitatively in psychological traits and inner feelings and emotions. For example, many rites and customs that are highly appreciated by the Orientals are looked down upon by the Occidentals, and vice versa. Every community differs from the others in one way or the other.

Religious education and training in Islam raises the woman to a level where her feelings are not injured with such things. Of course, the Western woman has become accustomed since many centuries to being the only wife, and has been taught this idea generation after generation. This has created in her a psychological aversion against polygamy. Proof of this may be found in the shocking licentiousness and promiscuity of men and women prevalent in the "advanced" nations nowadays.

Do not their men satisfy their lust with anyone they like and who responds favorably to their advances —no matter whether she is within prohibited degree or outside, is virgin or deflowered, is married or unmarried. It has reached a stage where one cannot find among them a single man or woman in a thousand who has not indulged in illicit sexual relations. Not only that; now they have plunged into sodomy to the extent that no one seems clean of it. The debauchery has become a norm of the day, so much so that just last year it was proposed in the British parliament to legalize the sodomy - after it had spread among them "illegally". As for the women, and especially virgins and spinsters, their affairs are even more amazing and more shocking.

Would that I knew why the women in those countries are not sorry for this state of affairs? Why are they not embarrassed by it? Why are their hearts not broken by it? Why are their feelings not injured when they see all this debauchery from their men? Also, why is the man not annoyed when he marries a girl and finds her deflowered and comes to know that she had already been bedded not only by one or two men? Why does he start boasting in the morning that her bride had been so popular with men that tens, rather hundreds, had vied with each other to win her favors? Why this insensitivity? Is there any reason except that this wantonness and immorality has been going on for so long, and this licentiousness and lasciviousness has so captured their minds, that now it has become a second nature to them; now it neither hurts their feelings nor looks strange or objectionable to them. It is as we had mentioned earlier that the prevalent customs mould the feelings and emotions in their own mould, and do not let them take any other shape.

As for the claim that polygamy makes the women neglect their house, ignore the children's education and incline towards illicit sexual relations and embezzlement, experience shows hollowness of such talks. This law was ordained and enforced in the early days of Islam, and no scholar of history can claim that it had caused any disturbance in the social order. The reality was poles apart from such claims.

Moreover, the women who marry a man as his second, third or fourth wife—in Islamic or other polygamous societies—enter into marriage contract willingly, with their open eyes. They belong to the same society, they are not captured from other countries, nor have they been brought here for this purpose from outer space. Yet they willingly agree to such marriage for one or the other sociological reason. It follows that woman by nature is not against polygamous marriage; nor are her feelings injured by it. If there is any resentment it should be shown by the first wife; when a woman has remained alone with her husband, she would not like intrusion of another woman in her house, lest her husband show more attachment to the new wife, or the new wife acquire more authority, or differences raise their heads between the two wives' children, or things like that. It shows that unhappiness and resentment, if there be any, springs not from natural disposition, but from an incidental situation, that is, remaining for sometime alone with the husband.

Reply to the Second Objection: The argument by the equality that nature supposedly maintains between numbers of males and females are untenable for many reasons:

1. Marriage does not depend on equa1 rates of birth alone; there are many other factors and conditions that control it. First of all, maturity of mind and capability of marriage appears sooner in girls than in boys. Girls, and especially in hot climates, are ready for marriage as soon as they reach the age of nine; while boys do not attain puberty before the age of sixteen (and this is what Islam has kept in view for deciding the age of marriage).

Its evidence may be found in the behavior prevalent among the girls in the "civilized" countries: Rarely does a girl remain virgin up to the age of the "legal adulthood"; and the only reason is that nature makes her ready for marriage long before bestowing that ability on boys.

Now, let us look at a group of boys and girls born during the last sixteen years—and supposedly both sexes are equal in number. How many marriageable boys will be there in the group? Only those who are sixteen years old, that is, those born in the first year of the period under study. But how many girls of marriageable age will be there in the group? All those who were born from the first to the seventh year of this period [i.e., the marriageable girls will be seven times more than the marriageable boys]. Increase the period under study to twenty-five years (the age when men usually reach their full maturity and strength). How many men and women of marriageable age you get in this group? The men who were born during the first ten years, and the women who were born during the first fifteen years. It gives us an average of two women for each man, by natural law.

2. Census reportedly shows that expectancy of life is greater in woman than in man. In other words, men die earlier, leaving some women who would remain alone, with no man to marry them if monogamy is to be the rule.*

3. The ability to procreate continues longer in men than in women. Usually women reach menopause at the age of fifty, while men's virility continues for years and years after that. Sometimes his ability to procreate continues to the end of his natural age, i.e., a hundred years. Accordingly a man's reproductive period, about 80 years, would be double of that of a woman (which is about 40 years). This premises in conjunction with the preceding one proves that the creative nature allows the man to marry more than one wife. How can nature bestows the ability to reproduce and then prohibit the use of receptacles suitable for that reproduction? Such contrariness is not the way natural causality works.

4. The carnages like battles and wars liquidate mainly the male population, compared to which women remain almost unaffected. As mentioned above, it was a strong factor in the spread of polygamy in the tribal societies. If those widows and spinsters are not cared for through polygamous marriages, then what are the alternative available to them? Either fornication or negation and nullification of their natural faculties!

This problem had raised its head in West Germany a few months before writing these lines. There the spinster women spoke about the hardships and difficulties they were facing because they could not find any man free to marry them; they demanded from the government to allow them to contract polygamous marriage—in Islamic manner. The idea was to permit the men to marry more than one wife in order that those spinsters should not be deprived of their natural rights. But the government rejected the demand, and the Church refused to agree—although tacitly they agreed to the spreading of adultery and fornication and to the ruining of would-be generation.

5. Even if we close our eyes from all the above factors, the argument of equality of the numbers of both sexes would stand only if we suppose that every man in the society marries polygamous - up to four wives. But nature has not prepared every man for it; only a few, and not all, can marry more than one wife. Islam has not made it compulsory for every man to enter into many marriages; it has only made it lawful—for him who is able to treat all wives equitably. This permission does not create any difficulty or disturbance; and its clearest proof may be found in the Muslim and other polygamous societies where it has not created any shortage of women and no man fails to find a wife for him. In contrast with that, we find in the monogamous societies thousands of women who are left in the lurch, as they cannot find anyone to marry them and provide them a chance to settle in life; their only outlet is fornication.

6. Apart from that, this objection could only be advanced if Islam had not had provided this rule with checks and balances for keeping it safe from those imaginary defects. Islam has made it compulsory for a man who wants to marry more than one wife to behave with them with justice and equity, to live with them in fairness, and divide the nights between them; it has obliged him to maintain them and their children equitably. Obviously, not every man can easily spend on, let us say, four wives and their offspring, keeping within the circle of justice and fairness in his dealings with them; it may be done only by some of the well-to-do people.

Moreover, there are some lawful Islamic ways which may be used by a woman to encourage and oblige her man not to marry another wife after her.

Reply to the Third Objection: This objection springs from not looking attentively at the Islamic way of education and training or at the goals of this shari'ah. The education given to women in an Islamic society—as approved by religion—trains them to keep themselves covered, makes chastity and modesty their second nature, and protects them from breach of decency. Consequently, a Muslim woman grows up with far less sexual desire than is found in a man. This is in spite of common belief that sexual desire in a woman is stronger and greater. Why has this idea spread? Just because by nature a woman seems more concerned with her adornment and beauty. But the fact is otherwise; and no Muslim man (who has married women grown up in Islamic atmosphere) can have an iota of doubt about it. In reality, an average man's sexual desire far exceeds that of a single woman —even of two or three of them.

Let us look at it from another angle. Islam is very concerned that none should be deprived of necessary natural desires or essential biological demands. From religious point of view, it is not good for a man to dam up his sexual desire and remain frustrated, as it would lead him to indecency and immorality. But a woman remains justifiably incapable of sexual relations for about a third of her married life, e.g., during monthly periods, advanced stages of pregnancy, delivery, breast-feeding and for similar other reasons. But it is necessary to provide for prompt satisfaction of the husband's desire. It is the necessary conclusion of the repeatedly mentioned principle that Islam has laid the society's foundation on rational, not emotional, basis. It is therefore a great danger from Islam's point of view to leave the man unmarried or in his above-mentioned sexual frustration, as it would lead him to lustful thoughts and immoral activities.

Apart from that, the Law-giver of Islam considers it very important that the Muslims should have lots of offspring, in order that the Earth should flourish with goodly prosperity at the hands of a Muslim society, erasing polytheism and mischief from the World.

It is these and similar other considerations which have led the Islam to legalize the institution of polygamy; it was not for spreading lustful ways or encouraging lecherous behavior. Had our detractors followed the dictates of justice, their own social customs—popular among them who have built their society on the foundation of material enjoyment — more deserving to be accused of spreading immorality and encouraging licentiousness, than the Islam which has based its social order on the foundation of religious bliss and felicity.

Furthermore, just the fact, that man has the permission to marry other wives, pacifies and calms down the avidity, which a sense of deprivation could have agitated. Every deprived one is greedy; when one is forbidden a thing, his mind remains continually busy in devising plans to get that thing. Every Muslim — even if he has only one wife —is satisfied and contended that he is not prevented from satisfying his sexual desires if a need; arose in future to do so. This in a way calms down his such desires, and protects him from inclining towards indecency and tarnishing other's honors.

A Western scholar has rightly said that the strongest factor that has contributed in spreading adultery and immorality in the Christian nations is the Church's prohibition of polygamy.**

Reply to the Fourth Objection: This allegation is totally unacceptable. We have described in a previous discourse, when writing on the rights of women in Islam***, that no social system whatsoever —be it religious or secular, ancient or modern—has ever honored the women as much, and cared for their rights so comprehensively and perfectly, as the Islam has done; and we shall further explain it somewhere else. As for allowing a man to marry more than one woman, it is not intended to be a negation of women's social prestige, nullification of their rights or degradation of their status in life; it is founded on several underlying benefits, some of which have been mentioned above.

A lot of the Western scholars—both men and women—have admitted the goodness and perfectness of this Islamic law, and the social disorder and dangers inherent in prohibition of polygamy. Interested readers should look for their comments in their books.

The strongest argument used by the Western detractors of polygamy, which they offer before their audience with much embellishment, is the condition found in those Muslim families where there are two or more wives. Such houses are devoid of happy life and good living. No sooner do the two rival wives enter the house than they start envying each other. (People call envy, the disease of rival wives.) Thereafter all the kind of feelings and noble characteristics which are ingrained in woman's nature— love and tender-heartedness, kindness and gentleness, compassion and affection, good advice and looking after husband's honor in his absence, faithfulness and devotion, mercy and sincerity for husband and his children from other women, and care for the house and household — are changed to their opposites.

The home — the place intended for man's comfort, where he expects to rest and relax after his daily toils and troubles, when he is dead tired in body and mind after the drudgery of earning his livelihood—is transformed into a battlefield where life and honor, wealth and prestige are freely attacked and violated; nothing is safe from any side; horizon of life becomes cloudy, pleasant existence, a thing of the past. In place of bliss and happiness, appear hitting and slapping, abuse, invective and curse, backbiting and tale bearing, spying, intrigue and trickery. Children quarrel and dispute with one another. Things sometimes reach a stage where the wife plans to kill the husband, and some children kill the others or even their father. Kinship is metamorphosed into a never-ending feud that for generations causes bloodshed, genocide and downfall of the house. Add to it the effects it brings to the society: unhappiness, moral corruption, cruelty, injustice, transgression, indecency and lack of security and trust. (There is also another dimension to this problem) when you add legality of divorce to the permission of polygamy. These two factors, combined together, create in the society connoisseurs, who live luxurious lives and whose interest is centered on satisfaction of their lust and avidity; their passion revolves around getting this woman and discarding that one, raising one's status and lowering the other's. It is nothing less than thwarting and frustrating a half of the mankind, i.e., the females, and submerging them into sorrow and grief. Their degradation results in depravity of the other half (and the whole society is demoralized).

COMMENT: This was the gist of what they have said, and the objection is true—but its targets are the Muslims, not the Islam or its teachings. When have the Muslims truly followed the Islamic teachings, that Islam could be held responsible for the consequences of their misdeeds? Centuries have passed that there is no good government, which could train them with noble teachings of the shari'ah. On the contrary, the first people to rip apart the curtain put up by the religion, to break the laws of the shari'ah and to violate its limits were the very Muslim rulers and people in power—and people follow the customs of their rulers. It is not possible to narrate here even a small portion of the life style in the "Muslims " Kings' palaces, or the scandals indulged into by the sultans and governors, since the days the religious government fumed into monarchy and sultanate; otherwise we will have to write a complete book on this subject. In short, the objection, if valid, can be laid against the Muslims: that they adopted a way of life, which could not bring any happiness in their homes, and followed a policy, which they could not prevent from deviating from the straight path. The whole blame lies on the men, not on their women or children—although every soul is responsible for what it has earned of sin. Why? Because it was these men's behavior—they thought nothing of sacrificing their own happiness, and that of their families and children together with the clean environment of the society, on the altar of their greed, lust and ignorance — that was the root cause of all these disasters and fountain-head of all these destructive troubles.

As for the Islam, it has not legislated polygamy as a compulsory and obligatory duty of every man. It looked at the people's nature and at the difficulties some of them faced now and again, and so it concluded that polygamy contained definite goodness [for solving those problems], as was described above in detail. Then it looked minutely at the negative effects of polygamy and its dangers. Consequently, it allowed polygamy for the underlying benefit of humanity, but at the same time imposed such a restriction on it as to remove the chances of all those disgraceful depravities—that the man should be confident that he would live with them in equity and treat them justly and fairly. Islam allows plurality of wives only to him who is sure of himself in this respect. As for those who do not care for their own or their families' and children's happiness and felicity, whose only mark of honor is satisfaction of their stomachs and genitals, and in whose eyes woman is only a means to satisfy man's lust and to give pleasure to him, Islam is not concerned with them, nor does it allow them to marry more than one—if we say that they are allowed to marry even the one, with that mentality of theirs!

Moreover, there is a mix-up in this objection between two completely separate aspects of religion, i.e., the legislation and the governmental authority. It may be explained as follows:

According to modern scholars the criterion to judge about a laid down law or prevalent tradition whether it is a good law and tradition or bad, is to look at the acceptable or unacceptable effects and results obtained from enforcement of that law in the societies, and whether or not the societies in the prevalent condition accept the law faithfully. I do not think they are oblivious of the fact that society sometimes is fettered by some customs, traditions or accidents that do not agree with the law under study; in such a condition, the society should be reformed in a manner as not to hamper or negate the said law or tradition, in order that it may be seen how the law works; and what effect it brings in its wake—whether it is good or bad, beneficial or harmful. The only difference is that their criterion for a laid down law is the currently prevailing desire and demand of the society—whatever that demand may be. Thus what agrees with their current wishes and demands is considered a good law, and what goes against it, is bad.

That is why when those Westerners saw the Muslims wandering in the valley of error, steeped in immorality in this life and wickedness in the next, they attributed to the Islamic shari'ah (which the Muslims supposedly followed) all the evils found among the Muslims, e.g., falsehood and embezzlement, indecency and usurpation of rights, prevalent transgression and ruined homes, and in short the whole spectrum of corrupted social order. They thought that the Islamic tradition and system is like other social systems in its implementation and effects. The other systems conform with their members' desires and demands. So, those scholars thought that Islam too has the same quality, and that all these social disorders have been generated by Islam; that it is this religion that gives rise to depravity and corruption (and among them are found the most depraved and the most immoral persons; as they say, there are all kinds of game in the belly of the wild ass). Had it been a real religion and its laid down laws really good and containing people's welfare and felicity, it would have produced good and beautiful effects in the society, instead of becoming a curse for it.

But these people have confused the nature of a good and beneficial law with the nature of a corrupt and harmful people. Islam is a composite unit of spiritual knowledge, moral teachings and practical laws—all of which are interrelated. If one part is damaged or tampered with, the whole is damaged, and its effects are changed. It is not unlike the medical compounds and mixtures, which require, for their health-restoring effects, their proper ingredients and a proper place to prepare them. If some ingredients are spoiled or adulterated, or if the directions for its use are not properly followed, it will not bring the desired effect; rather it may produce opposite result (and harm the patient).

At this juncture let us admit for the sake of argument, that the Islamic system could not reform the people, and could not erase common social vices and depravities—because its legislative base was unsound. But why is it that the democratic system has not succeeded in our eastern countries as it has in Europe? Why is it that the more we try to go ahead on this path the farther back we fall? No one has any doubt that the vices and depravities have taken deeper roots in our society today (when we have become civilized and enlightened) than it was fifty years ago (when we were uncivilized barbarians!). Today our society is devoid of social justice; we trample on human rights; we do not give higher education to our masses; and we lack all the social benefits and blessings — for us these are merely names without substance, words without meaning.

Ask them the reason, and they will say: This good system has not worked among you because you have not really put it into practice, have not tried to implement it properly. Well, why this excuse is acceptable in case of democracy, but not in case of Islam?

Let us suppose that Islam, because of the weakness of its foundation (God forbid!), could not capture the people's hearts and could not take deep roots in the society; and consequently its rule could not continue, it lost its vitality in the Muslims' social order and was discarded at the first opportunity. But why did the democratic system—the universally appreciated system— go away, after the World War I, from Russia? Why were its trace lost there? Why was it replaced by the communist system? Again, why did it give way, after the World War II, to the communist system in China, Lithuania, Estonia, Albania, Rumania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, etc.? Why does it pose a danger to other countries, after having established considerable influence in them?

Now let us look at the communist system. It flourished for about forty years; and spread to, and ruled over, nearly half of the mankind. Its rulers and champions are never tired of boasting of its excellence and superiority. According to them it is the only clean stream that is unpolluted by dictatorial tendencies and democracy's exploitation; the countries where it has taken roots have turned into Utopia. If this claim is correct, then why did the same rulers and champions, some two years back, stand up to condemn the rule of its matchless leader, Stalin, who had led and governed Russia for thirty years? Why did they announce that his rule was despotic and dictatorial, and that it was nothing but enslavement in the guise of communism? Everyone agrees that Stalin had great influence in legislation of the laid down laws and their enforcement and all that follows. In other words, all this was produced by the will of an enslaving dictator; it was a one man's rule, which revived thousands and killed thousands; made some people happy and kept others oppressed, deprived and unhappy. Only Allah knows who will come after these (present rulers) to condemn them as they had done with their predecessors. ****

Look into history books and you will find mention of a lot of systems, civilizations and cultures that governed the societies for sometime; some were good, others bad; then they passed away because of various factors—the strongest being the treachery of the leaders and feeble will of the masses.

Would that I knew what is the difference between Islam (as a social system) and those other transformed and changed systems, that the excuse (of leaders' treachery and followers' weak-willedness) is accepted in their case and rejected in the case of Islam? Yes, today the word of truth has fallen between a formidable western might and an imitative eastern ignorance; neither any sky shelters over it nor any earth raises it up. However, it should be clear from what we have mentioned above that whether a system is effective or not, and whether its hold on the people remains strong or it loosened, depends not so much on its correctness or incorrectness—so that this aspect could be used to prove its truth or falsity. It is rather affected by so many other causes and reasons. There was not a single system in the long human history but it produced results for sometimes and then became barren; it ruled over the society for a stretch of time and then passed away—all this for some factors acting for or against it; and We bring these days to men by turns, and that Allah may know those who believe and takes witnesses from among you (3: 140).

In short, the Islamic shari'ah and its laws differ in their fundamental philosophy from all other social orders prevalent in various human societies. These [man-made] social systems go on changing with change of times and policies, but not so the Islamic laws. The Islamic laws — consisting of obligatory, prohibited, like, disliked and permissible—never change. Of course, those actions which a person has the choice to do or not to do, and every disposition which he has right to enact or leave, the Islamic ruler has got authority to order the people to do it or forbid them doing it; he can dispose such matters as if the society were a single body and the ruler its thinking mind and soul.

Had there been an Islamic ruler there, he could have prevented the people from the inequities and injustices they commit in the name of polygamy or for other pretexts, without affecting any change in the divinely given permission. It would have been a general executive order based on an underlying benefit, just as a man might decide for his personal reasons not to marry more than one wife—not because the rule had changed but because it was only a permission which he had full right not to avail himself of.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* It is supported by a report published recently in a newspaper (Ittila 'at, Tehran, 11th Day, 1335 A.H. Solar (= 1st January,1957), quoting the Census report of France as follows: The census shows that in France 105 boys are born for every 100 girls Yet the women have a plurality of 1,765,000 over men in a population of about 40 million. The reason for this disparity lies in the fact that the boys have less resistance to diseases than the girls, and consequently by the age of nineteen boys' number decreases by 5 per cent. Then their number continues to decrease up to the age of 25 - 30, and by the time they reach 60 - 65 years of age, only 750,000 males remain alive vis-à-vis 1,500,000 females. (Author's Note)

** Vide John Davenport, An Apology for Mohammed and the Koran, which has been translated into Persian by the scholar, Sa'idi. (Author's Note)

Mr. Sa'idi has translated the title of the said work of Davenport as: which if retranslated into English would mean 'Offering Apology to Muhammad and the Qur'an'. He seems unaware of the difference between 'apology for' end 'apology to', and of the fact that the word 'apology' as used in this title, means, explanation or defense of belief', etc. The title, therefore, means 'In Defense of Muhammad and the Qur'an'. ( tr. )

*** Vide al-Mizan (English Translation) vol 4, pp. 61 - 83. ( tr.)
_________________
"They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths,
but Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected,
even though the Unbelievers may detest." [Quran 9:32]

[yeezevee]

SMHA copy paste from www.almizan.org

[adnan]

SMHA

You ignored questions raised by yeezevee, who has refuted all your pastings. Your pasting will be considered refuted and FALSE, unless you discuss these issues with us here.
It shows you dont have answers to questions raised about Islam and thus, it is confirmed that Islam is a false religion.
No one reads long articles without discussion. You are wasting your time and space on this discussion board.
Are you also from Pakistan?

Adnan
_________________
O Muslims, Leave Islam. When Allah asks you "Why did you leave Islam?", tell him "Because, You said in Quran 2:256,'there is no compulsion in religion'."

[SMHA]

Let me clue you in on a secret. I love to read and research and specially want to hear and read what is posted by others if its is educational and clarifies his/her belief. Any one who is a true student will always read both point of views. It is this view that I sometimes disengage after posting our side of the story and I have full confidence that the reader is able to read both sides of the story and is intelligent enough to make his/her own decision. And my job is finished at this point . Do you think I will waste time answering questions which are been asked out of malice or hatred of a particular religion, when I have come to believe that ones asking these tactical questions have nothing to do with God let alone believing in a religion and Prophets…

So we have two kinds of people here first kind is naïve about Islam and are been played by the hate mongers and enough material is provided by the so-called muslim world that its easy to exploit. But They will see the point when it is presented to them. Since so far we had twisted facts been utilized to recruit and brainwash the members and visitors etc….And these are the people who will ask educational questions and will like to learn …

Second type(which does not concern me) are the ones heartened at heart, they have an agenda and will never ever engage in a civil , intellectual and educational dialogue. So they will find some twisted fact that seems hot to them and they will keep playing that card even after the facts have been explained to them. They will resort to filth and bad social behavior and curses since they can’t as I explained, face a real dialogue. So this is the reason that we find filth, curses and other tactics utilized to keep people from engaging in a dialogue. Since you know that after a while the opponent will say I can’t argue with ignorance and stupidity and leave. This is the basics of these types of forums and is encouraged to make the forum a successes. Success meaning that they are only able to post their filth and twisted facts and no one else will stay long enough in light of the ignorance and curses at this forum . Mission accomplished!!!!!!!!You should know !!!!!
_________________
"They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths,
but Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected,
even though the Unbelievers may detest." [Quran 9:32]

[adnan]

SMHA,
With the amount of copy paste you do, I wasnt even motivated to read your response and I kept thinking "is this copied too?".

You used the word "twist" 3 times .
I think "twist" and "out of context" are the most often used words in a muslim debate.

Well basically, you ignored my and yeezevee's questions again.
What impression does that make on the onlooker?

Whats a sheathed sword? Why are you afraid to answer? I'm not asking out of malice. I'm asking from curiosity.

Adnan

[yeezevee]

[baqar]

Dear Yeezeevee

Your assertion that the life of our Prophet is well documented needs to be qualified. As I have mentioned elsewhere, some denominations within Islam have rejected many historical pieces as fabrication.

[yeezevee]

[baqar]

[Karin]

First of all, SMHA, your copy paste was unattributed and ripped off. This is plaigarism and theft. Under Sharia law, your computer typing fingers should be chopped off. Do you agree?

I don't often read those long copy pastes, but the one above on Polygamy I did read through. At least until I got sick. A few choice points:

[yeezevee]

[SMHA]

[SMHA]

I will recommand a book writtenby non-muslim i don't agree with everything in this book , but the point here is to have the non-muslims read a book writen by a non-muslim so some of the misinformatin about 13 yeras of service or contribution to humanity .... etc can be calrified.


"In Search of Muhammad "
by Clinton Bennett, Clinton Bennet
_________________
"They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths,
but Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected,
even though the Unbelievers may detest." [Quran 9:32]

[baqar]

[Orenda]

what are you talking about SMHA?
there is only a difference of 2 or three yrs, if any.
there are some girls do not reach puberty until 17 yrs, and most reach about 13-14 yrs.
many boys can father a child at this age. What are you saying that boys cannot father a child until after 16 yrs old? WHAT
I KNOW this is not a fact. dont u know of the infamous young boy in USA who had 2 children with his teacher when he was 13 yrs old?
there are many young boys like this, just watch some daytime talk shows;)
so i dont know what are you on about...
And
Why do you seperate the mind from the body so distinctly, one cannot function properly without the other in its balance..
our bodies mature faster than our minds..this goes for both males and females.
it doesnt mean we are ready to take on the huge responsiblity of child bearing nor child rearing,
simply because our bodies can physically conceive.
there are stages we go through as we grow,
I guess you do not know that it is not reccommended for a young girl who has just reached menstration to conceive,
her body is not always prepared to carry a child inside her full term, nor is she prepared mentally for lifelong responsiblity of family and children.
So even if she has reached puberty at 11 yrs old , it can take another 3 or 4 yrs for her to fully develop physically, and who knows how many more years before she is ready to be a mother?
Why do muslims assume that every woman wants to and needs to have babies? This is not a womans only attribute.
Please do not see things from a pinhole,
This is not 7th century either, the world does not need to be filled and subdued ,
this world as it is now is already OVERpopulated, and is still growing every year....life expectancy is also growing.
growth has fallen in a few places but only 7% of people live in countries where the population is not growing.
Is this the answer to marry and have babies as soon as we can,
and hand over our future generations into an earth that is depleted of natural resources, nutritional food, clean air, adequate space , proper sunlight, etc.
This earth cannot sustain its people at this rate of population growth, and all sunni muslims can think of is marry 2 or 3 women, or just one who pop out them babies to fill the earth with muslims...following this type of lifestyle that is celebrated in hadith.
Thanks alot muslims, I guess you dont care about quality of life now and for your future generations? Please be reasonable...