So how many wives are you allowed?

Frank Grimes

Wibbs wrote:

As I pointed out, from the biological and psychological standpoint the marriage of a 9yr old to a 50 yr old is unsafe at best. That would be a truth that most cultures would see as a given.

What do mean by "most cultures"? We've had this discussion already, marriage at a young age has not been limited to one man in Arabia, yet again you're applying today's moral standards to a completely different time and culture.

The most dangerous cultures are those that think they have a monopoly on being right(especially when they have faith to back it up).

All you seem to be doing is dismissing his actions based on the fact that they don't comply to our ideas of what is morally right or wrong.

Yet the first and greatest Muslim did with apparently the blessings of Allah. As I've said, if it wasn't divinely mandated what were his reasons for doing it?

Surely you've read about the political reasons why he married her? Why do you assume that it was solely to set some moral example?

No, but they may not be aware of some of these issues or chose to ignore many dubious aspects of it.

Do you honestly think that so many people have either missed this fact or have been deluding themselves for the past 1400 years?

Wibbs

Frank Grimes wrote:

What do mean by "most cultures"? We've had this discussion already, marriage at a young age has not been limited to one man in Arabia, yet again you're applying today's moral standards to a completely different time and culture.

Yes, but that "one man in Arabia" claimed to be the last prophet of Allah and founded a religion and set of universal moral guidelines on that premise. Not exactly your average man. Surely we can question the morals of such a man? As for applying today's modern standards to a completely different time and culture. Fine, but why then should we respect the faith that sprung from such a moral framework of that time and culture when such ideas seem incompatible to our own? Again you can't have it both ways.

All you seem to be doing is dismissing his actions based on the fact that they don't comply to our ideas of what is morally right or wrong.

So do you think that having sexual relations with a 9yr old is correct?

Surely you've read about the political reasons why he married her? Why do you assume that it was solely to set some moral example?

All I can find is that she appeared to him in a dream and as a consequence he had to marry her. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/087.sbt.html#009.087.140

What political reasons were there? From what I can find out, he just asked one of his followers if he could marry her. In fact judging by this passage it seems that there was some issue arising from the marriage(But she is lawful for me to marry).
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.018

He seemed to prefer them young and virginal if this is advice to another man is anything to go by. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.016

Do you honestly think that so many people have either missed this fact or have been deluding themselves for the past 1400 years?

It's possible. People have deluded themselves about many things over many years in the past.

Zaph0d

Wibbs wrote:

Seems on the surface to be practical, but does it not smack a little of chauvinism? It assumes women exist in an unequal society.

The same logic would apply to polyandry. Kylie Minogue could have multiple husbands as she can afford to keep them and should be propagating her pop princess genes.

Wibbs

Zaph0d wrote:

The same logic would apply to polyandry. Kylie Minogue could have multiple husbands as she can afford to keep them and should be propagating her pop princess genes.

I'd offer to help but I don't like sharing.

Polyandry or polygamy would still show an unequal society as the power would lie with one gender over the other.

Anyhoo polyandry is AFAIK not allowed in Islam. The bias in this seems to be favouring men.

Frank Grimes

Wibbs wrote:

So do you think that having sexual relations with a 9yr old is correct?

What I think is irrelevant. What is relevant is the context in which it happened which you are completely ignoring or dismissing.

What political reasons were there?

To create family ties with Abu Bakr. (link)

He seemed to prefer them young and virginal if this is advice to another man is anything to go by

Might be true if you ignore the age and virginity of most of his other wives I guess.

Do you only base your opinions on Islam on the Qur'an/Hadith database on that usc.edu site? it's only a reference point - as that site's own disclaimer puts it:

Today, technology is helping bring Islam into the homes of millions of people, Muslim and otherwise. There is a blessing in all this of course, but there is a real danger that Muslims will fall under the impression that owning a book or having a database is equivalent to being a scholar of Islam. This is a great fallacy. Therefore, we would like to warn you that this database is merely a tool, and not a substitute for learning, much less scholarship in Islam.

There is no commentary on the site to explain or contextualise the verses/hadiths, there are no rulings from the various Madhabs, no scholarly input classical or contemporary etc. etc.
Like I said earlier. If you think being a Muslim means following everything blindly and exactly "to the letter" of what is in the Qur'an and Hadith etc. as if it were completely static, then I believe you're missing the reality of what following that religion means. The sort of view of how to be a "proper" Muslim that you appear to be putting forward is only shared by a small minority of it's adherents.

Blub2k4

Wibbs wrote:

So do you think that having sexual relations with a 9yr old is correct?

You're desperately trying to promote an idea of Mohammed that should abhor people in a modern context, but in fairness you seem to be very narrowminded. The reality of the situation is that the cultures are not in any way comparable to one another.
You are sitting at a pc in a high tech society with nothing to worry about and the ability to partake in this manner of cerebral discussion which gives a lot of time to hone morality, i.e. when the reality of having to live hand to mouth leaves the equation people can tend to masturbate a lot mentally (this is an observation and not a personal criticism, please see it as such). In a desert environment where the climate is harsh animals need to use the small fertile windows to reproduce, man is also an animal, once a girl was fertile she was game, so to speak, the necessity to reproduce quickly and strike while the iron is hot carried itself over as a cultural element and has been maintained.
The tabloid mentality gets you though and you are outraged at the idea of an older man taking a younger mate, there is nothing particularly dangerous about this but it is taboo in most cultures, accepting that the danger of childbirth is a little higher among children in the greater scale of things that does not make it morally wrong, I daresay it is Darwin in action.

In any case look at it a little differently and consider man as an animal with a need to reproduce, also on the point of women not having the rights to practice polyandry, in what society did a woman ever have the power or means to support a number of husbands and families? The reality of the world is that the man is generally the provider and while it may not be politically correct it is reality, I didn't make man the provider and woman the bearer of children, it's amazing how it can morally disturb you but not the people who practice it.

In any case think a little more outside the box and stop trying to judge it all in a modern context, it doesn't work.

Wibbs

Frank Grimes wrote:

Do you only base your opinions on Islam on the Qur'an/Hadith database on that usc.edu site.......

TBH I want to go back to source. The unchanging Quran as it were. While I grant you that many areas need greater study to be put into context, many others seem very clear. In any case, how does one follow a faith, any faith if it's not clear?

What I think is irrelevant. What is relevant is the context in which it happened which you are completely ignoring or dismissing.

No I take the context into account. What I don't understand is how a Prophet and his God didn't see the context and act accordingly. BTW what you think is very relevant.

Blub2k4 wrote:

You're desperately trying to promote an idea of Mohammed that should abhor people in a modern context, but in fairness you seem to be very narrowminded.

I'm grateful that you took the time to measure the circumference of my desperate mind by remote control. Anyway desperation suggests some effort and I'm too lazy to consider it except in extremis.

That aside, of course that "idea"(and reality if Hadeeth are to be believed) of Mohammed would abhor people in a modern context. Of that there can be no doubt.

The reality of the situation is that the cultures are not in any way comparable to one another.

Yet this is the same culture which is the wellspring from which the tenets of Islam sprung. How can you reconcile the two?

You are sitting at a pc in a high tech society with nothing to worry about and the ability to partake in this manner of cerebral discussion which gives a lot of time to hone morality

Well Buddha, Confucious, Socrates, Jesus, Aristotle, Krisna, Descartes, and a multitude of other philosphers were quite capable of honing morality in harsher environments than our own without recourse to a computer. I would have thought someone who had a direct line to God would have found it very much easier.

when the reality of having to live hand to mouth leaves the equation people can tend to masturbate a lot mentally (this is an observation and not a personal criticism, please see it as such).

Don't worry Blub2k4, I won't take it as criticism. It wouldn't be the first time I've been called a w*nker and I warrant it won't be the last. .

In a desert environment where the climate is harsh animals need to use the small fertile windows to reproduce, man is also an animal, once a girl was fertile she was game, so to speak, the necessity to reproduce quickly and strike while the iron is hot carried itself over as a cultural element and has been maintained.

Partially true(though debatable), yet when the Prophet married Aisha he was a powerful man with many followers. Hardly a man reduced to a hand to mouth existence. He had married quite well to his first wife(who he was very devoted to) and wouldn't have been the poorest by a long shot. Again there are examples of equally harsh climates where what we would consider underage marriages didn't go on. The culture that Mohammed strode was not as backward as many think. There were vast trade routes bringing wealth and knowledge from far and wide. The Arabs have one of the oldest cultures in the world. In fact many consider that whole area to be the birthplace of civilisation. Islam didn't simply come along and fill a vacuum.

The tabloid mentality gets you though and you are outraged at the idea of an older man taking a younger mate, there is nothing particularly dangerous about this but it is taboo in most cultures, accepting that the danger of childbirth is a little higher among children in the greater scale of things that does not make it morally wrong, I daresay it is Darwin in action.

"Tabloid mentality" notwithstanding, would we be having this debate quite so strongly if it was a 50 yr old priest(of any religion) having a sexual relationship with a 9 yr old girl? I suspect not and rightly so. If not, why not? Is it that we know more now and our morals have grown accordingly? If that's the case, how could a messenger of Allah(the last and greatest one) not know this and act as an example to his followers, regardless of the cultural norms? From what I can see most of the other prophets and holy men down the ages loved nothing but bucking the cultural status quo.

The idea that the danger of childbirth to a barely developed child does not make it morally wrong "in the greater scale of things" frankly disturbs me. If not where do we draw the line? Again I say, surely a Prophet of Allah would realise that danger and as an example to the faithful, be against it?

If we reduce our action to pure Darwinism(as some would understand it) then we may throw away our moral compass to boot. A moral compass that evolved for a reason.

In any case look at it a little differently and consider man as an animal with a need to reproduce,

By that logic we would give in to our baser instincts. Is not one of the purposes of religion is to help us rise above them?

also on the point of women not having the rights to practice polyandry, in what society did a woman ever have the power or means to support a number of husbands and families?

I'm sure there are quite a few female monarchs in the past that would have bought and sold us both many times over(apologies. couldn't resist).

The reality of the world is that the man is generally the provider and while it may not be politically correct it is reality, I didn't make man the provider and woman the bearer of children, it's amazing how it can morally disturb you but not the people who practice it.

True, but many things may morally disturb me(and indeed you), but not the people who do it. Hardly an argument for leaving things the way they've always been.

In any case think a little more outside the box and stop trying to judge it all in a modern context, it doesn't work.

If it doesn't work in a modern context, where does that leave Islam? Do we take the bits we want, when we want them. Ok, but what do we do with those who chose to follow the more dubious parts(to modern eyes) and follow the life of the prophet as much to the letter as possible? Are they wrong? Who decides that? Who may listen if someone does decide? Hardly the basis for a universal philosphy, is it?

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

...

You are going around in circles in your debate. If you haven't copped what they are trying to get across so far you never will.

I will say this, if you believe that it was somehow the norm then why didn't Allah have all his wives at a young age? As far as I have read he was far from having a lack of women wanting to be his wife. Also why wait until she was 9 before allowing her in to his house, despite marrying her at 6.

The desert part and what I have seen so far ties up with documentation I've seen via what people have linked off to.

If you continue to keep repeating yourself the threads getting locked.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

You are going around in circles in your debate. If you haven't copped what they are trying to get across so far you never will.

I'm repeating certain points because the only real response has been, "it was a cultural/historical thing and you don't get the context". Many brutal things have been done in the past that could be passed of as "cultural". Human life in some cultures in the past was considered less worthy than it is now. Does this make it right, at the time or now? Simply put, if a faith is universal, for all times and peoples, surely the morals of that faith and the man who preached them should also be universal?

Also why wait until she was 9 before allowing her in to his house, despite marrying her at 6.

Equally why not wait until she was more mature again before allowing her into his house?

The desert part and what I have seen so far ties up with documentation I've seen via what people have linked off to.

The link Frank Grimes provided stated that in hot countries girls mature faster and have early menses. Time of menses occurs at different rates according to different circumstances. Nutrition, genetics etc. "Heat" is a very small influence, if any. In fact the Inuit reach menses quite early and they live in a significantly different climate(child marriage is not the cultural norm there). In rare cases menses can occur in girls as young as 6. Would this make them "fair game" as well, as Blub2k4 suggests? Humans are physically capable of reproduction long before the mental processes have caught up. Most cultures understand this and accordingly have laws and traditions that protect the immature.

If he wanted to cement political relations, could he have not found another way? Adoption, "make" Abu Bakr his brother?

Anyway, on this point we'll just have to agree to disagree. Good debate though.

Hobbes

Wibbs wrote:

Equally why not wait until she was more mature again before allowing her into his house?

As already pointed out to you that maturity was defined by puberty. The girl was at this stage, hence the reason she was moved then.

Just because she wasn't moved at age 18 (to keep it to our current moral statndards) is rule you are setting based on two seperate times in history.

Time of menses occurs at different rates according to different circumstances.

Which means absolutly nothing to your argument. It has already been documented that she reached puberty at age 9.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Just because she wasn't moved at age 18 (to keep it to our current moral statndards) is rule you are setting based on two seperate times in history.

No, I'm basing it on physical, mental and behavioural differences between a 9yr girl and a 50 yr old man. That's pretty clear at any time or place in history. If it wasn't, how can a claim of divine inspiration be made?

Which means absolutly nothing to your argument. It has already been documented that she reached puberty at age 9.

I would contend that it has got something to do with my argument. If she had reached puberty at 6, 7 or 8(which is possible) would she still be considered "fair game"? A child of 9 is clearly physically capable of driving a car on the road, pulling the trigger of a gun, tending to a newborn etc. Would we be comfortable to let her/him? No, because it's obvious that maturity of decison making would preclude them from many such actions. Apparently though, marriage is within the remit of a 9yr old. Fair enough, that's your take. I'll keep my own counsel on this.

Anyway, I don't agree with the opposing take on this and no point either side makes will likely convince me or anyone else otherwise. Nonetheless it was educational.

Let sleeping dogs lie and all that kinda thang.

PS Hobbes, It wasn't Allah that had his wives all at a young age. That's a statement that could confuse everything. Sorry, being cheeky there

Osman

Greetings,

The most comprehensive take I've seen on this (except for wikipedia's of course ) is that of Dr. Zakir Naik who is a leading Islamic scholar and an expert on Comparative religion. You may find his answer here: http://www.drzakirnaik.com/pages/qanda/1.php

Concerning the age of Aisha at marriage, her age was most likely to be around 18 contrary to what many people might believe.

The hadith* which states that she was nine is not accurate. A more authentic hadith lists the names of the earliest believers of Islam and Aisha was amongst the. Before mentally accepting some ideology or belief, someone will have to be something like 5, 6, 7 or 8? For arguments sake, lets say that the lowest age someone can be before mentally accepting some ideology or belief is 5 (at least). Muhammad spent 13 years in Mecca before migrating to Medina. They got married in Madina. 13+5=18. This shows that she must have been at least 18.

More information:

http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=question&qid=375

Peace

*Hadith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith

Hagar

Osman wrote:

The hadith* which states that she was nine is not accurate. A more authentic hadith....

I thought all hadith were supposed to be "bang on" accurate.
Now there's degrees of accuracy?
Would that be like degrees of truth?
If it's not total truth, it must be partial lies.

Osman

Greetings Hagar,

Forgive me, I phrased my sentence incorrectly. All authentic ahadith are 100% accurate. However, there was some doubt as to the credibility of the hadith which states that Aisha was nine at the age of joining Muhammad as his wife. In light of new found evidence, we can say that this hadith is fabricated. There are many ahadith that are fabricated. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. An example of another fabricated hadith would be:

"The Holy Prophet (Peace be Upon Him) says when Hazrat adam (On him be Peace) erred by eating from the prohibited tree, he pleaded to Allah Almighty through the medium of the Holy Prophet (Peace be Upon Him) to pardon him. In reply Allah Almighty asked:” Oh Adam! Who is Muhammed (Peace be Upon Him) ? How do you know about him? “ The reply of Adam (On him be Peace) was. “Oh Allah! After you had created me and I raised my head for the first time and gazed upon the Holy Throne I saw the name of Muhammad joined with Your blessed name. From this I understood that Hazrat Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) is the most auspicious and blessed creation to You, so much so, that You have joined his blessed name with Yours upon the Throne."

We know that this hadith is fabricated because it constitutes Shirk (associating partners with Allah) which is a major sin. We sometimes also know that a hadith is fabricated when the person who narrates it is unreliable. Here, the narrator is not mentioned.

Peace

marco murphy

Do you listen to Zakir Naik Osman?

Osman

Salaam Poblachtach,

Yes, of course I listen to Zakir Naik! He is, no doubt, a great scholar of our time. May Allah reward him!

Peace

marco murphy

He is very interesting and VERY understandable.
But i have a few elements of my freinds that say he is wahabi, why do they think this?

EamonnKeane

3 points:

1. For every man with four wives, aren't there 3 men with no wife? Does that seem fair to men?

2. A man having many wives makes more sense, biologically speaking, than a woman having many husbands. Men are by their nature more protective of wives than women are of husbands. Why? Because a woman always knows a child is hers, whereas a man can't be certain. In evolutionary terms, the worst thing a man can do is raise and provide for a child carrying another man's genes. So it's not sexism, it's human nature.

3. In any case, only 2% of Muslim marriages are polygynous.

Qadri

Polygamy in Islam is permission not an injunction.
Historically, all the prophets except Jesus, who was not married, had more than one wife.

For Muslim men to have more than one wife is a permission which is given to them in the Quran, not to satisfy lust, but for the welfare of the widows and the orphans of the wars.

In the pre-Islamic period, men used to have many wives. One person had 11 wives and when he became Muslim, he asked the Prophet Muhammad (P), "What should I do with so many wives?" and he said, "Divorce all except the four." The Quran says, "you can marry 2 or 3 and up to 4 women if you can be equally just with each of them" (4:3). Since it is very difficult to be equally just with all wives, in practice, most of the Muslim men do not have more than one wife. Prophet Muhammad (P) himself from age 24 to 50 was married to only one woman, Khadija.
In the western society, some men who have one wife have many extramarital affairs. Thus, a survey was published in "U.S.A. Today" (April 4, 1988 Section D) which asked 4,700 mistresses what they would like their status to be. They said that "they preferred being a second wife rather than the 'other woman' because they did not have the legal rights, nor did they have the financial equality of the legally married wives, and it appeared that they were being used by these men."

=============================

Regarding Dr. Zakir Naik ,tough he is a Wahhabi he is still a Muslim. Islam teaches Unity and not disunity! Dr. Nayk is a student of the late Shaykh Ahmad Deedat (r.a.) in comperetive religion. He is an MBBs doctor but he has specialized in comperative religion (Taqabi-e-Adyaan) and Ilm-e-Munazirah (debates). He is an debater but not an qualified Islamic Scholar. Still he is doing a great job which some qualified scholars have not done.

Wibbs

Qadri wrote:

In the pre-Islamic period, men used to have many wives. One person had 11 wives and when he became Muslim, he asked the Prophet Muhammad (P), "What should I do with so many wives?" and he said, "Divorce all except the four." The Quran says, "you can marry 2 or 3 and up to 4 women if you can be equally just with each of them" (4:3). Since it is very difficult to be equally just with all wives, in practice, most of the Muslim men do not have more than one wife. Prophet Muhammad (P) himself from age 24 to 50 was married to only one woman, Khadija.

True, but why did the prophet go on to have ten wives after Khadja died especially after he tells a new convert to divorce seven of his eleven? What happened to those seven women anyway? Where they re married? Did they have a choice or was that the new male converts choice to make?

Another point, many passages in the Quran mention those "who your right hand possesses" along with wives. Are these not slaves and war captives? In fact if you read the full text of the 4:3 passage you quoted it mentions same.http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.003 . Also in this passage http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.024 it states that you may only marry unmarried women unless they're slaves or war captives, in which case it seems an existing husband is not an issue. Hardly equitable is it, especially given your example of mistresses in the US. I'm sure a slave girl/war captive would feel just as "used".

Qadri

The Holy Prophet (PBUH) married eleven wifes. This is true and He was allowed to do so for many reasons which will be mentioned below.
But one thing is for sure this is also a sign of his superiority amongst his followers (Ummat).

The other wives of the companion married man with their own choice.


I will now try to explain why Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) married many wives and who they were and the names and backgrounds of the wives (May Allah bless them all)

When people hear that the prophet had many wives the first thing which comes in mind is that the prophet was a sensuous man.
However, a quick historical review of his marriages, proves otherwise.

When he was twenty-five years old he married for the first time. His wife, Khadijah, was fifteen years older than he. She remained the only wife of the prophet for the next twenty-five years, until she died (may Allah be pleased with her).

Only after her death, did the prophet marry other women. Now, it is obvious that if the prophet was after physical pleasure he did not have to wait until he was more than fifty years old to start marrying more wives. He lived in a society in which it was quite acceptable to have many wives. But the prophet remained devoted to his only wife for twenty-five years. When she died she was sixty-five years old.

His later marriages were for various reasons. Some marriages were with the view to help the women whose husbands had been killed while they were defending their faith. Others were with a view to cement relationships with devoted followers like Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him. Yet others were to build bridges with various tribes who were otherwise at war with the Muslims. When the prophet became their relative through marriage, their hostilities calmed down, and much bloodshed was averted.

And all the wives were so happy that they concidered being His wife as one of the greatest favour on them!

Recent non-Muslim writers who had the opportunity to study the life of the prophet first-hand reach a similar conclusion about his plural marriages.

John L. Esposito, Professor of Religion and Director of the Centre for International Studies at the College of the Holy Cross, says that most of these marriages had "political and social motives" (Islam: The Straight Path, Oxford University Press, 1988, p. 19). This he explained as follows: "As was customary for Arab chiefs, many were political marriages to cement alliances. Others were marriages to the widows of his companions who had fallen in combat and were in need of protection" (John L. Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path, pp. 19-20). Esposito reminds us of the following historical fact: "Though less common, polygyny was also permitted in biblical and even in postbiblical Judaism. From Abraham, David, and Solomon down to the reformation period, polygyny was practiced" (p. 19).

Another non-Muslim Caesar E. Farah writes as follows: "In the prime of his youth and adult years Muhammad remained thoroughly devoted to Khadijah and would have none other for consort. This was an age that looked upon plural marriages with favor and in a society that in pre-Biblical and post-Biblical days considered polygamy an essential feature of social existence. David had six wives and numerous concubines (2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3) and Solomon was said to have had as many as 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines (2 Chronicles 11:21). The New Testament contains no specific injunction against plural marriages. It was commonplace for the nobility among the Christians and Jews to contract plural marriages. Luther spoke of it with toleration" (Caesar E. Farah, Islam: Beliefs and Observances, 4th edition, Barron's, U.S. 1987, p. 69). Caesar Farah then concluded that Muhammad's plural marriages were due "partly to political reasons and partly to his concern for the wives of his companions who had fallen in battle defending the nascent Islamic community" (p. 69).

KHADIJAH: She was 40 years old when she proposed to marry the Prophet when he was 25 years old. After 15years of their marriage he became a prophet. She had been married twice before she married Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Her first husband was Aby Haleh Al Tamemy and her second husband was Oteaq Almakzomy. They had both died leaving Khadijah a widower. Khadijah died in 621A.D. This was the same year the Prophet ascended into heaven (Meraj).

SAWDA BINT ZAM'A: Her first husband was Al Sakran Ibn Omro Ibn Abed Shamz. He died within a few days after his return from Ethiopia. She was 65 years old, poor, and had no one to care for her. This was why Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) married her.

AISHA SIDDIQA: A woman named Kholeah Bint Hakeem suggested that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) marry Aishah, the daughter of Aby Bakr, to form a close relationship with Aby Bakr's family. She was already engaged to Jaber Ibn Al Moteam Ibn Oday. At this time Jaber was not yet a Muslim. The people of Makkah did not object to Aishah becoming married because although she was young, she was mature enough to understand the responsibility of marriage. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was engaged to Aishah for 2 years before he married her. Aby Bakr was the first leader after Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) death.

HAFSAH BINT U'MAR: She was the daughter of Omar, the second Calipha. Omar asked Othman to marry Hafsah. Othman refused because his wife had recently died and Othman did not want to remarry. Omar then went to Aby Bakr but he also refused to marry Hafsah. Aby Bakr knew that the Prophet had already considered marrying Hafsah. Omar then went to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and complained that Othman and Aby Bakr did not want to marry his daughter. The Prophet told Omar that his daughter will marry and Othman will also remarry. Othman married the daughter of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), Om Kolthoom, and Hafsah married the Prophet. This made Omar and Othman both happy.

ZAYNAB BINT KHUZAYMA: Her husband died in the battle of Uhud, leaving her poor and with several children. She was old when Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) married her. She died 3 months after she married the Prophet 625 A.D.

SALAMA BINT UMAYYA: Her husband, Abud Allah Abud Al Assad Ibn Al Mogherah, died leaving Hend poor and with many children. Hend was at least 65 years old at the time. Aby Bakr and several others asked her to marry them, but because she loved her husband very much, she refused the marriage's offers. But finally she accepted Prophet mohammad's offer to marry her and take care of her children.

ZAYNAB BINT JAHSH: She was the daughter of Prophet Muhammad's aunt, Omameh Bint Abud Almutaleb. The Prophet arranged for Zaynab to marry Zayed Ibn Hareathah Al Kalby. This marriage did not last and the Prophet received a verse in the Quran which stated that if they became divorced, then the Prophet must marry Zaynab (Sura 33:37).

JUWAYRIYA BINT AL-HARITH: Her first husband's name was Masafeah Ibn Safuan. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) wanted Juayreah's tribe (Beni Al Mostalag)to convert to Islam. Juayreah became a prisoner after the Muslims won the Battle of Al Mostalaq. Juayreah's father came to the Prophet and offered a payment for her return. The Prophet asked her father to give her a choice. When she was given a choice she said she accepted Islam and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as the last God's Messenger. The Prophet then married her. Her tribe of Beni Almostalag accepted Islam.

SAFIYYA BINT HUYAYY: She was from the tribe of Beni Nadir, who were from the children of Levi (Israel). She was married twice before, then she married Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Her first husband Salam Ibn Moshkem, and her second husband was Kenanah Ibn Al Rabeeah.

UMMU HABIBA BINT SUFYAN: Her first husband was Aubed Allah Jahish. He was the son of the aunt of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Aubed Allah died in Ethiopia. The king of Ethiopia arranged the marriage of Ramelah to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

MAYAMUNA BINT AL-HARITH: She was 26years old when she married Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Her first husband was Abu Rahma Ibn Abed Alzey. When the Prophet opened Makkah in 630 AD , she came to the Prophet, accepted Islam and proposed to marry him. Her actions encouraged Many Makkahans to accept Islam and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

MARIA AL-QABTIYYA: She was sent to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a hand maid servant from the king of Egypt. Maria had a son from the Prophet. His name was Ibrahim.

Qadri

Another point, many passages in the Quran mention those "who your right hand possesses"

along with wives. Are these not slaves and war captives? In fact if you read the full text

of the 4:3 passage you quoted it mentions

same.http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.003 . Also in this passage

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.024 it states that you may only marry

unmarried women unless they're slaves or war captives, in which case it seems an existing

husband is not an issue. Hardly equitable is it, especially given your example of mistresses

in the US. I'm sure a slave girl/war captive would feel just as "used".



====================================


When you study Islamic Shariah you will learn that the Shariah is made from Quran & Hadith.
This is totally not following the Quran & Hadith literally. Some people get confused because they do not know this Rule of Fiqh (Islamic Jurisprudence).

1. Whenver you want to take a verse you need to ask the Ulema (scholars) about the application of that verse. How the order and commandment is apllicable and in which sutiation is the order suspended.

2. Also in the Quran and Hadith there is a special classification for Quranic Verses and Ahadith for Islamic Jurisprudence. Some verses are Nasikh (Applicable) and some Mansookh (Suspended).

I will give some examples and try to make it easy to understand for those not familiar with Islamic Shariah.

Example 1:

In the Quran there is a verse which says :

Ya Ayyuhallazina Amanu La taqrabus Salata Wa Antum Sukara...
Trans: O you who believe, Do not pray when you have consumed alcohol...(Quran)

From this verse 2 things can be understood:

1. When a person has consumed alcohol he is not allowed to pray.

2. Indirectly this verse also tells that You can consume Alcohol, but not when you are going to pray

This verse was revealed when Alcohol was not completely forbidden yet, only during praying it was prohibited.

If you would take this verse literally and practice on this it would mean you would srink alcohol but only refrain when praying.

Untill you have knowledge of the whole Quran you can not follow Islam truly. Someone who would have more knowledge could have told the person that Alcohol is totally forbidden and that this verse is Mansookh (Suspended) because in another verse its mentioned:

Innamal Khamru Wal Maysiru...
It is forbidden for you to consume alcohol, gamble (Quran)

Now when you know which Ayat is Nasikh and Mansookh than you can understand Islam truly and follow it otherwise just literally folowing the Quran is ignorance.

Example 2 (Background of revelation of the verse):
Not only Nasikh Mansookh play a big role. Also the background, situation and context of a revelation is important in Islamic Jurisprudence.

Quran says: Kill the disbelievers where you find them.

If someone takes this verse literally he would go to city centre and kill everyone around him in Dublin. So literally following the Verse is ignorance.

This specific verse was revealed during a battlefield. The Prophet (PBUH) was with his followers fighting with the pagans. Allah revealed this verse to motivate the Muslim army.
So this order during that situation can be understood. Its like during a war in Iraq the US General orders the army to kill them whereever he finds the Pro Saddam man.
But the order of the General will only be applicable there and not when he is back in New York...

My point here is that in the same way the verse you mentioned the Scholars have said that Slavery is forbidden and the verse is not applicable now. This verse is Mansookh.

Suff

Qadri.......Well down...Great knowledge
it's excellent to have you here with us please do check my topic on the "Authinticity of the holy books" and "GOD?" in the spirituality section.

Salam.

Zaph0d

Qadri wrote:

If someone takes this verse literally he would go to city centre and kill everyone around him in Dublin. So literally following the Verse is ignorance.

You seem to suggest that you can look at a holy book and pick and choose which commands to follow based on your own beliefs.

So this order during that situation can be understood. Its like during a war in Iraq the US General orders the army to kill them whereever he finds the Pro Saddam man.
But the order of the General will only be applicable there and not when he is back in New York...

You seem to be adding your own conditions to the holy commands to make them fit with your own beliefs.

Qadri

You seem to suggest that you can look at a holy book and pick and choose which commands to follow based on your own beliefs

===

No I mean to say that without having the complete knowledge and without consulting the Scholars one can not follow Quran and Sunnah.
The Ulema know Arabic Literature they know every Quranic Verse and the background of it..They have more understanding of the Quran...
In the Quran Allah said : Ask those who have knowledge
Another verse says: Some will get guidance through Quran and some will get ignorance (This is the point i want to explain, people without the proper knowledge who will follow Quran literally or with their own beliefs in mind will get ignorence).

Qadri

You seem to be adding your own conditions to the holy commands to make them fit with your own beliefs.

======

I am not adding my conditions. I am giving you a simple example of a verse of the Holy Quran. How it can be misinterprated and misunderstood if taken literally.

The conditions of Jihad are already described in the books. These are taken from Quran and Sunnah.

Wibbs

Qadri wrote:

2. Also in the Quran and Hadith there is a special classification for Quranic Verses and Ahadith for Islamic Jurisprudence. Some verses are Nasikh (Applicable) and some Mansookh (Suspended).

So does that mean that some of the verses of the Quran are to be ignored? How is that possible if it's the holy word of Allah? Surely Allah would be pretty consistent in His message?

In the Quran there is a verse which says :

Ya Ayyuhallazina Amanu La taqrabus Salata Wa Antum Sukara...
Trans: O you who believe, Do not pray when you have consumed alcohol...(Quran).../...Innamal Khamru Wal Maysiru...
It is forbidden for you to consume alcohol, gamble (Quran)

Now when you know which Ayat is Nasikh and Mansookh than you can understand Islam truly and follow it otherwise just literally folowing the Quran is ignorance.

So why pick the second verse. Again there seems to be contradiction in this. Surely Allah would be more explicit in such things without the interpretation of fallible humans to decide for Him?

My point here is that in the same way the verse you mentioned the Scholars have said that Slavery is forbidden and the verse is not applicable now. This verse is Mansookh.

Can you point me to the verse that outlaws slavery in the sight of Allah? If you take the number of verses that condone it the weight of the argument would certainly seem to be on the side of slavery as perfectly acceptable. The Quran saying " Slavery is against Allah" would be a good start.

As Zaph0d says it seems that you pick and choose those passages that suit your purpose at the time.

Suff

Read it right people!!!

Qadri said: "This verse was revealed when Alcohol was not completely forbidden yet, only during praying it was prohibited."

Msulims were allowed to drink at that STAGE of time, but then GOD forbidden it. so I think that this aya (text) was made as refrence to us and maybe cos God knows that there will be some bad muslims out there that would break this law and drink I think he's reminding them not to pray!
cos you don't have your full Brain power and you might make mistakes in your prayer.

Suff

in regards to slavery:

as Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari: "The Prophet said,

"Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom)."

(Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Food, Meals, Volume 7, Book 65, Number 286)"

in the Quraan:

Sura 5 , Verse 89


Al Maedah, 5.89:

"Allah does not call you to account for what is vain in your oaths, but He calls you to account for the making of deliberate oaths; so its expiation is the feeding of ten poor men out of the middling (food) you feed your families with, or their clothing, or the freeing of a neck; but whosoever cannot find (means) then fasting for three days; this is the expiation of your oaths when you swear; and guard your oaths. Thus does Allah make clear to you His communications, that you may be Fateful."

Al Noor,The Light, Verse 32

24.32: "And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, Allah will make them free from want out of His grace; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing."


AL Balad 90:
"Nay! I swear by this city. And you shall be made free from obligation in this city -- And the begetter and whom he begot. Certainly We have created man to be in distress. Does he think that no one has power over him? He shall say: I have wasted much wealth. Does he think that no one sees him? Have We not given him two eyes, And a tongue and two lips, And pointed out to him the two conspicuous ways? But he would not attempt the uphill road, And what will make you comprehend what the uphill road is? (It is) the setting free of a slave, Or the giving of food in a day of hunger To an orphan, having relationship, Or to the poor man lying in the dust. Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion. These are the people of the right hand."

More??

Wibbs

Suff wrote:

Msulims were allowed to drink at that STAGE of time, but then GOD forbidden it. so I think that this aya (text) was made as refrence to us and maybe cos God knows that there will be some bad muslims out there that would break this law and drink I think he's reminding them not to pray!

I'm honestly trying to get this, but it sounds like God changed his mind. If God knows everything, past present and future, surely he'd have made the no drink rule straightaway(that said, if Muslim sheiks are anything like Christian priests you'll be told, like I was, that God/Allah moves in very mysterious ways. Thanks a bunch lads. That helps clear things up:D ).

in regards to slavery:

as Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari: "The Prophet said,

"Give food to the hungry, pay a visit to the sick and release (set free) the one in captivity (by paying his ransom)."

It may be the translation, but this could just as easily refer to a hostage as much as a slave.

in the Quraan:

Sura 5 , Verse 89


Al Maedah, 5.89:

"Allah does not call you to account for what is vain in your oaths, but He calls you to account for the making of deliberate oaths; so its expiation is the feeding of ten poor men out of the middling (food) you feed your families with, or their clothing, or the freeing of a neck; but whosoever cannot find (means) then fasting for three days; this is the expiation of your oaths when you swear; and guard your oaths. Thus does Allah make clear to you His communications, that you may be Fateful."

For a start, does "the freeing of a neck" even refer to slavery? It could be a war captive or prisoner. Lets say it does refer to a slave. Basically the passage is using the freeing of a slave as punishment for a crime(oath taking). In fact if you look at the other penalties they're bound in the handing over of property(if you don't have the means etc). It's a penalty, which means that if you have the means you've likely got a slave or two to spare. It doesn't say free all slaves by a long shot. It doesn't even say slavery is bad. It treats it as another commodity to be given up in the face of transgression.

Al Noor,The Light, Verse 32

24.32: "And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, Allah will make them free from want out of His grace; and Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing."

So one can marry what his right hand possesses and you can marry slave to slave. What happens to the children of those slave to slave marriages? are they not still slaves? Also Allah will make them free from want. Not free. You can be a happy well fed slave, but you are still a slave.

AL Balad 90:
"Nay! I swear by this city. And you shall be made free from obligation in this city -- And the begetter and whom he begot. Certainly We have created man to be in distress. Does he think that no one has power over him? He shall say: I have wasted much wealth. Does he think that no one sees him? Have We not given him two eyes, And a tongue and two lips, And pointed out to him the two conspicuous ways? But he would not attempt the uphill road, And what will make you comprehend what the uphill road is? (It is) the setting free of a slave, Or the giving of food in a day of hunger To an orphan, having relationship, Or to the poor man lying in the dust. Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion. These are the people of the right hand."

Again this seems very similar to the previous Sura 5 verse 89, in that it is considered good to free a slave as well as give charitable donations to the poor. Fine, but it doesn't go against slavery itself. A slave is just as much a commodity as the food you give to the poor. Then again that Sura is a bit complex to say the least, so it's over to Qadri on this one I reckon.

More??

Please, as even the Prophet himself had slaves which Allah himself gave to him along with an array of women that were just for him to marry. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/033.qmt.html#033.050 Which by a torturous route brings us somewhat back to the OT. Whew that debate went around the world a bit.