Let me remind him what I said IN CONTEXT. I had said that Tabari placed Mariyah's
arrival at 7 A.H., with Maududi stating that Surah 33 was written or composed during
5 A.H. This means that if Muhammad had married her then he was in express violation of
Allah's command. Thus, unless a Muslim wants to say that Muhammad broke Allah's command
this shows that Mariyah could not have been his wife. In fact, this is what led Umar
to mention Ibn Kathir's comments that Sura 33:52 had been canceled, a position
which he has now abandoned! More on this later.
More importantly, it is Umar that doesn't know what he wants to argue. He admits
that there are plenty of Muslim sources affirming that Mariyah was a concubine, but
then tries desperately to refute this by posting sources contradicting these Muslim
writers and scholars. The only thing that Umar has managed to do is to further highlight
the mass confusion which exists among Muslim sources. He has yet to prove that Mariyah was
anything but a sex slave.
What else is there to say to such argumentation? If citing what Ibn Kathir
wrote elsewhere to prove that he held to the view that Mariyah was Muhammad's concubine
isn't good enough to convince Umar that the former wasn't suggesting that she was one of
Muhammad's wives, then there is nothing that will convince him. It seems that it is Umar
that is looking for Ibn Kathir to come to him in a dream or perhaps to be conjured up from
the dead in order to be convinced that Ibn Kathir's wording in his chapter on Mariyah
strongly implies that he wasn't stating that she was one of the wives.
Here is how Umar responds when I exposed his ignorance regarding the status of a concubine
who gives birth to her master's child:
He then cites irrelevant material on the status of slave women in Islam.
Let us highlight specific parts of the material in order to show how this backfires
against him:
How do these Muslims answer the charge that sleeping with captives seems to be a violation
of the Quran's condemnation of zina? By basically saying that Islam didn't create
this system but simply permitted it as it did other social ills, while allegedly providing
principles which would lead to its eventual abolishment! This is a lie which Muslims love
to use. There is nothing in the Quran which says that sleeping with (note: raping) captive
women or slaves has been abrogated.
Moreover, imagine if someone tried to use this excuse in relation to child molestation
and homosexuality, that Islam didn't create these evil immoral acts but permitted it as it
did other social ills, while providing principles for their eventual abolishment! In the meantime,
young children get molested and raped, while individuals engage in same sex relations!
Umar's source is contradicting itself since it claims that a woman is automatically freed
when she gets pregnant, but then goes on to say that she is free when her master dies!
Umar agrees with the latter position since he says in response to my highlighting the fact
that a slave is not set free upon pregnancy, but upon her master's death:
We are glad that Umar is honest enough to admit that he was wrong for initially citing
a source which claimed that a woman becomes free when she is pregnant. Anything to help
a Muslim to know his religion better!
Umar responds to my claim that the prohibition to marry Muhammad's wives
includes his slave girls:
So let me challenge Umar to address what I wrote:
Please tell your readers that you are
essentially advocating the position that it was permissible for Muslim men to marry or
have sex with the slaves of Muhammad after his death.
He tries to refute the idea of Mariyah being Muhammad's sex slave on the
grounds that she resided in the outskirts of Medina, away from the other wives:
My Response:
For the first 2 paragraphs, I already showed that the Fatwa, was wrong,
and I corrected myself. But now, its time to prove once again, that Mariyah the Copt, was
indeed Prophet (S) wife, and wasn't his concubine, for the response to the last paragraph.
Firstly, there are 2 cases of concubines:
1) Slave-girl who is living as a maid only, in which she will serve him,
but will not have any relationship with him, (which is obviously not the case with
Mariyah, since she bore him Ibraheem)
2) And the final case is if he decides to keep her as a partner, (Note:
She will still be his slave)
No.1, is obviously not the case, so we are left with no.2. But, a question
arises, how can Mariyah the Copt, who is said to be a "slave girl", render any
service to the Prophet (S), or any of his wives, when she herself resided in the outskirts
of the city. M. Tayyib Baksh Budayuni, the translator of Sirat-Un-Nabi, says something
similar, here is what he says:
" The Author discusses the report about Mariyah Qibtiyah mainly on
the basis of weak reports. As to circumstantial evidence, he only points out that it is
unthinkable in the case of a character so superbly moral and modest as of the Prophet. But
it may also be pointed out that the holy wives are said to begin their protest against
Mariyah some two years after her coming over to the Prophet, which makes the whole story
extremely doubtful. Again that Mariyah has been living as a slave-girl, is higly
improbably as was residing away from the Mosque on the outskirts of the city and could not
'therefore, render any domestic service to the Prophet or any of the other wives. The
situation of her residence also rules out the probability of Hafsa breaking into her
privacy. Moreover, the 'Allamah has already proved that Mariyah Qibtiyah was not a
slave-girl, but a duly wedded wife of the Prophet and that she came of a respectable
family of the Egyptians. To call her a slave-girl is in itself a ditortion of facts-
Translator"
(Source: Sirat Un Nabi, Vol.II, p.233-234, Footnote#2)
RESPONSE:
Umar has actually proven that Mariyah could not have been a wife, but a slave.
After all, how could Muhammad situate one of his wives far away from the place
where all of his other wives lived? Moreover, if Mariyah could not render any domestic
service to Muhammad then how could she function as his wife? If she couldn't cook or clean
for Muhammad (i.e., "domestic service") then in what way did she fulfill her
duties as a wife? If anything, this supports the position that she was nothing more than
his sex slave, his concubine which he would visit anytime he wanted to have sex with her.
More importantly, weren't all the other Muslim writers and scholars aware
that Muhammad had situated Mariyah in the outskirts of the city? Of course. And yet they
still didn't see this as a problem for their position that Mariyah was nothing more than
Muhammad's slave? Obviously not.
In light of the foregoing, we conclude that what Umar has basically shown by his comments
is just how cruel Muhammad truly was for making Mariyah reside by herself far away from
himself and his wives.
Regarding whether Sura 33:52 was abrogated or not, Umar says:
My Response:
This Part of the rebuttal will be divided into 2 sections:
1) Sura 33:52 was "abrogated"
2) Sura 33:52 wasn't abrogated
After citing the view which says that the reference has been abrogated
Umar provides a lengthy reference on the reason for Muhammad marriages, which is
irrelevant to the issues that I raised, and then asks:
So we must ask Sam Shamoun, how is marrying
to show there is no difference between two races " severely embarrasses "
Muhammad (S)??
RESPONSE:
It is easy to see why Umar needed to bring up this red herring since all
he is able to do is attack straw man. I didn't say that Muhammad's multiple marriages were
an embarrassment, but the claim that Sura 33:52 had been abrogated by Sura 33:50 is what
I said was embarrassing. After all, the sources I cited claimed that Sura 33:52 came after
33:50 chronologically, and yet 33:50 abrogated that which came afterwards! How can an
earlier verse cancel out a passage which came later, when it is supposed to be the other
way around? That was the severe embarrassment I was referring to.
But since Umar raised the issue of Muhammad's marriages, let us briefly
show why not everything is as Umar would like to make it seem. For example, it is stated
that the fact that Muhammad remained married to one wife, Khadijah, till the death of the
latter somehow proves that his multiple marriages were not motivated by sexual
gratification. In the first place, it is easy to see why Muhammad never married anyone
else while with Khadijah. Khadijah was a wealthy businesswoman who provided Muhammad the
financial stability needed to pursue his dreams and ambitions. Can you imagine how
Khadijah would have felt if Muhammad decided to marry a younger, more attractive woman?
And do you think Muhammad would want to jeopardize his relationship with Khadijah seeing
that she was the financial backbone of the family?
Moreover, many do not realize that there is a passage in the Quran which
gave Muhammad sanction to mistreat and neglect any wife he no longer deemed attractive:
And if a woman fears ill usage or desertion on the part of her husband,
there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and
reconciliation is better, and avarice has been made to be present in the (people's) minds;
and if you do good (to others) and guard (against evil), then surely Allah is aware of
what you do. You will not be able to be equitable between your wives, be you ever so
eager; yet do not be altogether partial so that you leave her as it were suspended. If you
set things right, and are godfearing, God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. But if they
separate, God will enrich each of them of His plenty; God is All-embracing, All-wise.
S. 4:128-130
In the above text, instead of warning the men against mistreating their
spouses, women who fear mistreatment or desertion are told that they can seek a means of
reconciliation. According to Muslim sources this text actually refers to Muhammad’s
mistreatment of his wife Sauda bint Zamah because she had gotten old:
Making peace is better than separation. An example of such peace can be
felt in the story of Sawdah bint Zam'ah who WHEN SHE BECAME AGED, THE PROPHET WANTED TO
DIVORCE HER, but she made peace with him by offering the night he used to spend with her
to A'isha so that he would keep her. The Prophet accepted such terms and kept her.
Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded that Ibn ‘Abbas said, "Sawdah
feared that the Messenger of Allah might divorce her and she said, ‘O Messenger of
Allah! Do not divorce me; give my day to 'A'ishah.’ And he did ...
In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that 'A'ishah said that when
Sawdah bint Zam'ah BECAME OLD, she forfeited her day to 'A'ishah and the Prophet used to
spend Sawdah's night with 'A'ishah ...
<And making peace is better>. IT REFERS TO THE WIFE
RELINQUISHING SOME OF HER MARITAL RIGHTS and his acceptance of the offer. Such compromise
is better than total divorce, as the Prophet did when retained Sawdah bint Zam'ah. By
doing so, the Prophet set an example for his Ummah to follow as it is a lawful act ...
(the preceding citation taken and adapted from Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Abridged, Volume 2,
Parts 3, 4 & 5, Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, Verse 147
[Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; first
edition March 2000], pp. 599-601, and Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Part 5, Sura An-Nisa, ayat
24-147, abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafa’i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London,
2000 first edition], pp. 193-194; bold and capital emphasis ours)
One recent Muslim author says in a caption that:
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; capital and underline emphasis ours) {1}
Commentator Al-Tabari stated that:
Umra bin Ali & Zaid bin Ahram said: second by Abu Dawud, said: second
by Sulaiman bin Mu'ath, from Simak bin Harb, from Ikrimah, from Ibn Abbas,
said: Saudah feared divorce by the messenger of Allah, so she said: Do
not divorce me, and do not share with me! And he did, and this verse was
revealed: And if a woman fears ill usage or desertion on the part
of her husband.
Muhammad bin Husain said: He claimed that this verse came down in reference
to the messenger of Allah, and Saudah bint Zama'h who became old, then
the messenger of Allah wanted to divorce her, but they agreed that
he will keep her but give her day to Ai'sha.
(Arabic source;
translated by Mutee’a Al-Fadi)
Al-Qurtubi wrote:
In this verse there are four issues: the first, Al-Tirmidhi told that Ibn
Abbas said: Saudah feared that the messenger of Allah will divorce
her so she said, "Do not divorce me and keep me, and give my day
with you to Ai'sha." He did and this verse came down:
"there is no blame on them, if they effect a reconciliation between them, and
reconciliation is better." He said: this is a good and strange hadith.
(Arabic source;
translated by Mutee’a Al-Fadi)
The two Sahih collections confirm that Sauda gave up her conjugal rights
in order to please Muhammad:
Narrated Aisha:
Whenever Allah's Apostle wanted to go on a journey, he would draw lots as
to which of his wives would accompany him. He would take her whose name came out. He used
to fix for each of them a day and a night. But Sauda bint Zam’a gave up her (turn)
day and night to ‘Aisha, the wife of the Prophet in order to seek the pleasure of
Allah's Apostle (by that action). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 47,
Number 766)
‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Never did I find
any woman more loving to me than Sauda bint Zam'a. I wished I could be exactly like her
who was passionate. As she became old, she had made over her day (which she had to
spend) with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) to ‘A’isha. She said: I
have made over my day with you to ‘A’isha. So Allah's Messenger (may peace
be upon him) allotted two days to ‘A’isha, her own day (when it was her turn)
and that of Sauda. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008,
Number 3451)
The Salafi scholars that write for www.islamqa.com cite references agreeing that
Sura 4:128 referred to Muhammad’s mistreatment of Sauda:
Al-Tirmidhi reported via Sammaak from ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbaas
that he said: “Sawdah was afraid that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) would divorce her, so she said: ‘O Messenger of
Allaah, do not divorce me; give my day to ‘Aa’ishah.’ So he did so. Then
this aayah was revealed.” Al-Tirmidhi said: “(This is) hasan ghareeb.”
I say: there is corroborating evidence in a hadeeth from ‘Aa’ishah narrated by
al-Bukhaari and Muslim, without referring to the revelation of the aayah.
(From Fath al-Baari).
The hadeeth mentioned by al-Haafiz ibn Hijr (may Allaah have mercy on him)
is in Sunan al-Tirmidhi, 2966, where it is reported that Ibn ‘Abbaas said:
“Sawdah was afraid that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)
would divorce her, so she said: ‘Do not divorce me. Keep me and give my day to
‘Aa’ishah.’ So he did so, then Allaah revealed the aayah: ‘…
there is no sin on them both if they make terms of peace between themselves; and making
peace is better…’ [al-Nisaa’ 4:128]. So whatever they agreed upon was
permissible.” It is as if the last sentence was the comment of Ibn ‘Abbaas. Abu
‘Iesa said: this is a hasan ghareeb hadeeth.
Al-Mubaarakpoori said, commenting on this hadeeth:
‘Sawdah was afraid…’ This refers to Sawdah bint Zam’ah
ibn Qays al-Qurashiyyah al-‘Aamiriyyah. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) married her in Makkah after Khadeejah had died, and
consummated the marriage there. The scholars agree that he consummated his marriage to her
before he consummated his marriage to ‘Aa’ishah, and she migrated to Madeenah
with him. She died at the end of the khilaafah of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab.
‘…was afraid that the Prophet (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him) would divorce her, so she said…’ Al-Bukhaari and Muslim
reported from ‘Aa’ishah that Sawdah bint Zam’ah gave her day to
‘Aa’ishah, so the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used
to give ‘Aa’ishah her own day and that of Sawdah. Al-Haafiz said in al-Fath:
Abu Dawood reported this hadeeth (from ‘Aa’ishah): ‘The Messenger of Allaah
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) never used to prefer any of us over
others in sharing his time (i.e., he was fair in dividing his nights among his wives, and
each one of them had her allotted night). When Sawdah bint Zam’ah grew old
and feared that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)
might divorce her, she said: ‘O Messenger of Allaah, my day is for
‘Aa’ishah,’ and he accepted this from her. Then concerning this and similar
cases, the aayah was revealed (interpretation of the meaning): ‘And if a woman fears
cruelty or desertion on her husband’s part…’ [al-Nisaa’ 4:128]. These
reports agree that she feared divorce and so gave her day to ‘Aa’ishah.
Then al-‘Allaamah al-Mubaraakpoori said: The aayah may be explained
thus: ‘If a woman fears’ means if she expects. ‘Cruelty’ means
that he spurns her by refusing to sleep with her or by spending less on her than he
should, because he dislikes her and wants to marry someone more beautiful. ‘Desertion’
means that he turns his face away from her. ‘There is no sin on them both if they
make terms of peace between themselves’ means with regard to the sharing of his
time and his spending on her, i.e., he should still give her something in this regard
(sharing time or spending) in order to preserve the relationship: if she accepts, this is
OK, otherwise the husband must either give her her full rights or divorce her. ‘Making
peace is better’ means better than separation, cruelty and desertion. Whatever
they agree upon between themselves is permissible.
(Tuhfat al-Ahwadi Sharh Jaami’ al-Tirmidhi). (Question #2218:
A man doesn’t want to live with his wife but doesn’t want to divorce her for the sake of the children;
online source;
bold and underline emphasis ours)
The hadiths also mention that Sauda was an overweight woman:
Narrated Aisha:
Sauda (the wife of the Prophet) went out to answer the call of nature
after it was made obligatory (for all the Muslims ladies) to observe the veil. She
was a fat huge lady, and everybody who knew her before could recognize her. So
‘Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her and said, "O Sauda! By Allah, you cannot hide
yourself from us, so think of a way by which you should not be recognized on going out.
Sauda returned while Allah's Apostle was in my house taking his supper and a bone covered
with meat was in his hand. She entered and said, "O Allah’s Apostle! I went out
to answer the call of nature and 'Umar said to me so-and-so." Then Allah inspired him
(the Prophet) and when the state of inspiration was over and the bone was still in his
hand as he had not put in down, he said (to Sauda), "You (women) have been allowed to
go out for your needs." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60,
Number 318)
The foregoing proves that Muhammad essentially abandoned Sauda because he
no longer desired her sexually due to her being old and "fat"! In fact,
Muhammad's treatment of Sauda provides support for what we stated earlier regarding the
reason for his remaining monogamous during his marriage with Khadijah. After all, had
Khadijah not been wealthy Muhammad may have treated her the same way he treated Sauda.
Furthermore, this means that Sura 4:128-130 gives Muslim men the sanction to simply
ignore any wife whom they no longer feel attracted to, thereby denying them the pleasure
of love and intimacy!
Finally, even Aisha realized that Muhammad's marriages weren't as innocent
as Umar wants us to believe. The Quran says that Muhammad could have any woman who
voluntarily gave herself to him and defer from spending time with any wife he chose:
O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have
given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has
given to you as prisoners of war, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the
daughters of your paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the
daughters of your maternal aunts who fled with you; and a believing woman if she
gave herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet desired to marry her -- specially
for you, not for the (rest of) believers; We know what We have ordained for them
concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess in order that no blame may
attach to you; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. You may put off whom you please of
them, and you may take to you whom you please, and whom you desire of those whom you had
separated provisionally; no blame attaches to you; this is most proper, so that
their eyes may be cool and they may not grieve, and that they should be plased, all of
them with what you give them, and Allah knows what is in your hearts; and Allah is
Knowing, Forbearing. S. 33:50-51 Shakir
To which Aisha responded:
Narrated Aisha:
I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah’s
Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But
when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of
them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on
you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily)." (33.51) I said
(to the Prophet), "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and
desires." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60,
Number 311)
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: I felt jealous of the
women who offered themselves to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and
said: Then when Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, revealed this: "You may defer any
one of them you wish, and take to yourself any you wish; and if you desire any you have
set aside (no sin is chargeable to you)" (xxxiii. 51), I ('A'isha.) said: It
seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008,
Number 3453)
Interestingly, Sura 33:52 itself shows that Muhammad married women for their beauty:
Thereafter women are not lawful to thee, neither for thee to take other
wives in exchange for them, though their beauty please thee,
except what thy right hand owns; God is watchful over everything. Arberry
For more on Muhammad's marriages please read the following articles:
http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol1/2c.html
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/privileges.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/mhd_marriages.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/zaid_zaynab.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/zaynab.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Newton/sauda.html
Umar concludes his section with the following interesting remarks:
According to Ibn Kathir, and common sense,
Sura 33:52 prohibited the Prophet (S) from marrying free women, except those whom his
right hand possessed. So he was allowed to mary Mariyah the Copt, as Yusuf Ali says in his
commentary for Sura 33:52:
"This was revealed in A.H. 7. After that the Prophet did
not marry again except the handmaiden Mary the Copt, who was sent as a present by
the Christian Muqauqas of Egypt. She became the mother of Ibrahim, who died in his
infancy.
(Source: The Quran: Text translation and Commentary by Abdullah Yusuf
Ali, Footnote#3754)
But.. Contradiction! Mr. Umar you said that Mariyah wasn't a slave
(handmaiden etc.), you quoted from Allama Shibli Numani's book which said she was
"highly respected among the Qibtis, you also posted the footnote, where he says that
the words "highly respected" dont apply to slave girls, now you say Muhammad (S)
WAS allowed to marry those who his right hands possessed, and you quote Yusuf Ali who
calls Mariyah a "hand maiden", please explain yourself!
Answer: First of all, let us examine Sura 33:52 again. According to
Abdullah Yusuf Ali, some Ayats in Sura 33 were revealed in A.H. 7, particularly Sura 33
Ayat 52. This itself refutes the fact that Muhammad (S) was going against Holy Quran to
marry Mariyah, since we believe that Mariyah the Copt arrived in the year 6 A.H:
And:
In Sura 33:52, we read that Prophet (S),
could only marry women who were his right hand possessions, his servants. We already
showed, that Sura 33:52, does not mean that Mariyah The Copt couldn't have been his wife,
since according to Sheikh Abdullah Yusuf Ali, that particular Ayat was revealed in A.H. 7,
which is AFTER Mariyah the Copt, arrived in Medina. We also proved in the above
paragraphs, that Mariyah the Copt, couldn't have been a slave, since she herself resided
outside of Medina, therefore she couldnt render any domestic service to the Prophet (S).
But, Yusuf Ali, however, calls Mariyah a "handmaiden", he also says " the
Prophet did not marry again except the handmaiden Mary the Copt". In my
previous article, I showed that Mariyah was a respected person among the Qibtis, and not a
handmaiden, I posted the letter of Muqauqas, and the commentary of it, found in the
biography "Sirat Un Nabi by Allama Shibli Nu'Mani". I will post it again:
It is really hard to address such distortions and contradictions. Umar approvingly
cited Yusuf Ali's position that Muhammad married Mariyah after Sura 33:52 was
"revealed" in 7 A.H. Now he wants to argue for the fact that Muhammad married
Mariyah before Sura 33:52 was given, which means that Ali was wrong. But if Ali was
wrong regarding Muhammad marrying Mariyah after the giving of this verse then it is also
possible that he was wrong regarding the dating of this verse. With this being a
possibility then this means that Maududi's dating may be the correct one:
Period of Revelation
The Surah discusses three important events which are: the Battle of
the Trench (or Al-Ahzab: the Clans), which took place in Shawwal, A. H. 5; the raid
on Bani Quraizah, which was made in Dhil-Qa'dah, A. H. 5; and the Holy Prophet's marriage
with Hadrat Zainab, which also was contracted in Dhil-Qa'dah, A. H. 5. These historical
events accurately determine the period of the revelation of this Surah.
(Source)
Yet Maududi's position means that Muhammad took Mariyah in sometime after Sura 33:52
was given, and shows that no matter how Umar wants to argue his case he is left with
major problems. Since he seems to not want to see how confusing and contradictory his
arguments truly have been, and just how chaotic and confusing Muslim sources really are,
we will highlight them for him:
- Muslim sources present contradictory dates for Surah 33, specifically 33:52.
- Muslim sources contradict one another regarding whether Sura 33:52 was
abrogated by Sura 33:50 or not.
- Muslim sources indicate that Sura 33:50 was given before Sura 33:52,
which means that the abrogating verse actually came before the verse which it was suppose
to abrogate!
- Muslim sources contradict one another whether Mariyah was Muhammad's
wife or concubine.
We will address the quotes from Sirat Un Nabi later on in the rebuttal.
We now turn our attention to part 2 of his rebuttal
(here).
When I exposed him and his colleagues for contradicting one another, Umar responds with:
My Response:
Whatever you just said was refuted, in Part 1
where I showed 2 cases,
1) Sura 33:52 was "abrogated"
2) Sura 33:52 WASN'T abrogated
Reason why I divided it into 2 sections, was so that people can see both
side of the story, and quite honestly, the second part made more sense. It was proven that
Sura 33:52 wasnt abrogated, and Muhammad (S) didn't go "against" the Quran.
And:
My Response:
(Yawn)..... This was already dealt with above.
RESPONSE:
And this gent claims to have refuted us!
My Response:
First of all, the first link given by Shamoun, isnt Brother Osama's
own article, infact he made it pretty clear that the information was from http://www.usf.edu.pk/wives.html.
The second link given by Shamoun is also not Brother Osama's own
article, Brother Osama also made it clear that the information was from another website,
specifically http://www.usf.edu.pk/wyw-42.html.
RESPONSE:
First, to say that these articles are not Osama's is irrelevant and does
nothing to refute my position. It only provides additional evidence that Muslims cannot
help but contradict one another. Second, a person normally places a disclaimer in order to
indicate to his readers that he or she doesn't accept everything written in a given link
or article. Osama provided no such disclaimer, showing that he was in full agreement with
these Muslim links. It seems that it is Umar who can now read minds since he seems to know
what was or wasn't in Osama's mind when he approvingly posted these links!
Umar quotes another source which admits that Muslims are confused and contradicting
one another regarding Mariyah's status. Shaykh Abdurrahman ibn Yusuf Mangera admits that:
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: Source;
bold and capital emphasis ours)
Since Umar has essentially been conceding throughout his "responses"
that Muslims are contradicting one another we again need to ask him what was the reason
for writing a paper on this issue?
My Response:
I am glad that Sam Shamoun posted Muhammad Asad's commentary, since
Muhammad Asad himself says the Ayat was revealed in 7 A.H. And once again, as shown in Part 1,
Mariyah arrived before this Ayat was revealed, so Prophet Muhammad (S) didn't violate anything.
RESPONSE:
First, to say that Mariyah was sent to Muhammad before this verse was composed
tells us absolutely nothing about her status up to that point, i.e. whether she
was a slave whom he later married etc. In fact, Umar initially tried to say that Mariyah
became Muhammad's wife upon giving birth to their son Ibrahim, who was born 9 A.H., two
years after Sura 33:52 is said to have been recited according to Asad. Furthermore,
the noted historian and commentator al-Tabari stated that Mariyah arrived in the year A.H. 7:
Mariyah, the Prophet’s 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] – Ya‘qub b. Muhammad b.
Abi Sa‘sa‘ah – ‘Abdallah b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Abi
Sa‘sa‘ah: 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 Ya‘fur. With them
was Mariyah’s brother, a very old eunuch called Mabur. Al-Muqawqas sent all this [to
the Prophet] with Hatib b. Abi Balta‘ah. 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, 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
Prophet’s Companions and Their Successors, translated by Ella Landau-Tasseron
[State University of New York Press (SUNY) Albany 1998], Volume XXXIX, pp. 193-194; bold,
capital and underline emphasis ours)
In light of the foregoing, how does Umar know for certain that Mariyah
arrived before the "revelation" of Sura 33:52 especially when one of his own
sources, Yusuf Ali, expressly said that Muhammad married her after this verse was
given?
"This was revealed in A.H. 7. AFTER THAT the Prophet
did not marry again except the handmaiden Mary the Copt, who was sent as a present by the
Christian Muqauqas of Egypt. She became the mother of Ibrahim, who died in his infancy.
Hence, Yusuf Ali's position means that Muhammad violated the commands of the Quran!
Finally, not all Muslims agree that Sura 33:52 was composed at 7 A.H. As we mentioned both here
and in our first rebuttal to the two Muslims, Maududi placed the composition of this Sura at 5 A.H.
My Response:
Now, let me give you a reason, as to why Sina is a liar. Now, as made
clear, there are sources which say Mariyah was a slave, and others which say she was
Prophet Muhammad (S) wife, YET,,,,, YET,, I dont know of any Sheikh, Historian, Allama,
etc. which says that Mariyah was Hafsa's maid. If Ali Sina, made this claim to anyone,
particularly to a knowledgable Muslim, they would laugh at him in the face, that is why
noone cares about his website. So yes, in this case, Sina was "mistaken", in the
sense that he lied, to put more "juice" in his story, of Hafsa (R) running into
Prophet (S) having private time with "Hafsah's maid" (As Ali Sina blindly
states). And this story itself is ALSO refuted, read below:
" The Author discusses the report about Mariyah Qibtiyah mainly on
the basis of weak reports. As to circumstantial evidence, he only points out that it is
unthinkable in the case of a character so superbly moral and modest as of the Prophet. But
it may also be pointed out that the holy wives are said to begin their protest against
Mariyah some two years after her coming over to the Prophet, which makes the whole story
extremely doubtful. Again that Mariyah has been living as a slave-girl, is higly
improbably as was residing away from the Mosque on the outskirts of the city and could not
'therefore, render any domestic service to the Prophet or any of the other wives. The
situation of her residence also rules out the probability of Hafsa breaking into her
privacy. Moreover, the 'Allamah has already proved that Mariyah Qibtiyah was
not a slave-girl, but a duly wedded wife of the Prophet and that she came of a respectable
family of the Egyptians. To call her a slave-girl is in itself a distrtion of facts-
Translator"
(Source: Sirat Un Nabi, Vol.II, p.233-234, Footnote#2)
It gets rather tiring having to constantly repeat ourselves and address
gross errors in logic. To say that Sina is wrong because Umar is unaware of any source
which says that Mariyah was Hafsa's slave is the fallacy of hasty generalization and the
fallacy of ad argumentum ignorantiam (argument from ignorance). As we have stated,
Sina could have been citing a source which (whether correctly or wrongly) claimed that
Mariyah was Hafsa's maid. Until Sina comes forward and addresses this issue we simply do
not know the reason why he made such a claim. We have already addressed the quote from
Sirat Un Nabi so no need to repeat ourselves.
When you cannot refute someone you simply decide to attack straw man,
which is what Umar has done here. I didn't say Maududi is the best of the best, or that
what anyone else says is simply a hoax. As the reader can see it is actually Umar who
thinks that the claims made by his source are more accurate than that of Maududi's
position, or that all the other writers that I cited which agree with Maududi are hoaxes.
Since Umar decided to distort my point and attack straw man, let me repeat it one more
time. To cite a source (or sources) which contradicts Maududi, doesn't mean that Maududi
is wrong. It doesn't even mean that the other source(s) is(are) wrong simply because they
disagree with Maududi. It simply means that Muslim scholars are confused and are
contradicting one another on whether Mariyah was Muhammad's wife or sex slave.
Umar obviously didn't bother reading either what I had written or his own
source carefully. In the first place, the Muqauqis never said anything about the exalted
language proving that Mariyah couldn't have been a slave, but rather Umar's source, Sirat
Un Nabi, made that claim. This exposed the prejudice of Umar and this author since
they obviously assumed that slaves are somehow inferior due to their status and therefore
could not be spoken of in such a manner.
In light of the foregoing, we have to disagree with the position taken by
Umar and Sirat Un Nabi, since neither party gave any convincing proof showing that
Mariyah was Muhammad's wife. It seems that we need to once again remind Umar that there
are a host of sources which say she was a slave of Muhammad's, and that those who disagree
do not do so because of any convincing evidence to the contrary. Hence, all Umar has done
is to expose the chaotic nature of Islamic scholarship due to all of its gross
contradictions and inconsistencies.
On the contrary, this argument actually proved that Mariyah must have been
a slave since Muhammad would have been cruel to banish her from the company of his other
wives. This shows that the only service which Muhammad sought from her was sexual in
nature, since she wouldn't be able to perform all the other duties of a wife such as
cooking, cleaning etc. Muhammad would only visit her for sex.