Temporary Marriage in Islam

In my post 125, there are a couple of spelling mistakes. Verbalize was spelled ``berba;ize`` and acceptable was spelled as ``acceptablw.`` Sorry for these lapses.

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 80
Interesting and thanks for clarifying.

In my college there were two girls, one was Gill other was Chadha.
We used to call them GeeleChadde.

HP:

Thanks for your interesting post.

There may be a fine difference between prostitution and muta`h (temporary marriage) but there isn`t a whole lot. I had mentioned in the article that the prostitutes (at least the Muslim ones) identify themselves with Shiah Islam and consider (wrongly, though) their engagement with the customers as muta`h. I don`t believe they berbalize such things. But the exploitation of muta`h provision is implied. If it gives the poor prostitutes any solace, it`s ok with me. After all, we are living with all kinds of other exploitation.

Other cases that you have mentioned can easily be sorted out and classified. Historically, muta`h existed in Islam from the beginning Sunnis have, by and large, abolished it but it still remains in practice in Iran and other Shiah societies.

If living together (without formally tying the knot) by mutual consent is socially acceptablw why do we get upset about prostitution? Prostitutes are also human beings; they like every one, also need some some respect. Why do we degrade them?

Mohammad Gill

Ramanujan aka Ajeya (various posts)

Ajeya Bhai,
I realize that you are trying to connect some pretty remote and almost invisible dots. :)
By arguing that the Holy Prophet married Ayesha when she was 6 and consummated that marriage when she was 9 would of course lead to the suspicion that he was (toba toba, aztaghfirullah) a pedophile. As aquaris posts have shown, the age of consummation was more like 14 or 12, which would make sense. In Islam, the word ``baaligh`` is used and usually refers to the age of puberty, when boys and girls attain adulthood or responsibility. Also, it is well known that pedophiles are addicted to their disgusting behavior and that they commit this evil act over and over again. There is nothing in the Holy Prophet`s (PBUH) life to support your wild allegation. Remember, there is a world of difference between 9 and 14, or even 9 and 12.

The more interesting question is whether Ayesha, who was obviously a very very young widow, remain celibate during her widowhood?

This whole article is below par and sadly Mr. Gill did not do enough research to understand the environments that encouraged the emergence of Mutah or Halah type of things in a given society.

Equating temp marriage to Prostitution is simplistic. If temp marriage is prostitution, then what are dating and living together before marriage and braking up after years of sleeping together?

By calling it prostitution one is implying that women are at fault because of temporary marriage situation that is actually forced on them. I think any reasonable person would think twice before accusing women of something they had no control over.

There is no marriage in the world that is permanent. Religions don’t decide the permanency of marriage. Religions just provided the social cover for peoples desire to have sex and raise families. People that can’t live together just move away. The societies that enforce the continuance of marriage are the worst enemies women can have.

Religions that promote one marriage for life are inherently anti women and we know which side of the gender they stand. Staying together or separating in marriage are personal decisions that two adults make.

The concept of looking at the legitimacy in marriage from religion is decadent and truly tribal. Get over it as quickly as you can.

Re: #114 by aquaris

[A Christian friend asked me once, “Will you marry your seven year old daughter to a fifty year old man?” I kept my silence. He continued, “If you would not, how can you approve the marriage of an innocent seven year old, Ayesha, with your Prophet?” I told him, “I don’t have an answer to your question at this time.” My friend smiled and left me with a thorn in the heart of my faith.]

This is good. It shows that Islam cannot COMPLETELY obliterate humanity.

Since this is a serious personal issue for you, take a few minutes and consider this:

What would it mean to you IF it is indeed true that he WANTED TO marry her when she was 6, and consummated the marriage when she was 9?

Think about that.

Huge mosques and minarets, 1.2 billion practishioners - none of this really proves a thing. Billions of people thought that the earth was flat. Billions of people DO NOT follow Muhammad as well. None of this proves anything. What matters, ultimately, is the credibility of the person who told you guys that he`d been chatting with God.


If you look at your ``evidence`` impartially, you will realize the following:

1) The volume of material supporting what I say (and Islamic scholars have always said), is OVERWHELMINGLY greater that what the article has been able to come up with.

2) Also, saying that someone`s memory is failing doesn`t prove that he is wrong, ESPECIALLY WHEN AYESHA HERSELF SAID SO MUCH ABOUT THE TIME AND DATE OF HER MARRIAGE TO HIM.

3) Getting the consent of the woman was the custom, but remember - the good dictator pretty much did what he wanted - for other people - 4 wives, for himself - 12.


The most important factor, dear aquaris, is that THERE ARE TOO MANY THINGS IN THAT EXEMPLARY MAN`S LIFE THAT YOU GUYS HAVE TO COME UP WITH TORTURED EXCUSES FOR. One can only give the benefit of doubt once or twice.

You have been betting on the wrong horse, my friend.

But cheer up. The good news is that, in reality, THERE ARE NO HORSES TO BET ON. There is no horse race. Nobody is winning or losing above anybody else. We are all humans - saying a few magic words changes nothing between two fellow humans. We are all EXACTLY the same - in reality there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US. Religion is a mental crutch - useful to the metally weak if it`s benign, otherwise dangerous and malignant. Beyond that, we only have our intellects to fall back on - scary though that might be.

``Belonging`` to a religion is an extension of our tribal tendencies. Comforting and reassuring, but ultimately worthless. If you have a philosophy about metaphysical things - then well, that`s just philosophy - a branch of knowledge like geometry or metallurgy - you cannot BELONG to a branch of knowledge.

Overcome the medieval dogmas and come join the ``religion`` of humanity. You don`t have to ``convert`` - you are already a member!


:-)

Let’s not call it “temporary marriage”, call it what it is – prostitution.

Is there anything comparable for married muslim women? Where they can do a little jiggy by hiring a clean shaven handsome dude?

re:#40 by conman73
(The question to ask is not what is wrong with Islam, as one can give cruel and barbaric examples from every major religion, the practice of Sati (burning the wife upon the death of her husband) is still prevailant in Hinduism, the attrocities that church has committed in the last three hundred years are still fresh and we should all remember that no other race or religous group has inflicted as much pain as Jews did on Jesus, and this is not even the tip of the Iceberg.)
Now, now calm down.
You are going on the wrong path. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Sati is terribly wrong and every educated well meaning hindu will admit this. It is also rarely practised in present day india, so much so that when someone tried to do it (in a village in Rajasthan i think), it became a big media event. Does not mean there are not people who believe in that kind of BS but then it is illegal. William Bentick, the governor of Bengal outlawed it more than 150 years ago.
So, try and figure out why some of the Islamic practices are not in touch with modernity. In Saudi Arabia (where Islam originated), women are not allowed to drive cars. have to wear ``hijab``, etc etc. No non-muslim can enter that country with religous materials of faith other than Islam, else it is confiscated. A non-muslim walking on the road to Kaaba can risk execution.
So, what is Islam afraid of? It is as if it is hiding some dirty secrets and does not want anybody else to know about it?
What Islam needs today is debate and more transparency and wresting control of power from the hands of mullahs.
Sridhar

re:#92 by tahmed32
Tahmed,
You say:
(why does every goddam stupid custom get the label ``Islam`` just because it is practiced by some damned ``muslims`` somewhere?? why not just call it what it is: legalized exploitation of poor women by rich men.)
That is very convenient. When it suits u, u say: this is not religion but custom.
In Islam, both are closely intertwined. What are shariat courts anyway and why do mullahs come out screaming for everything they find offensive, be it the cartoon of the Prophet or the dress sense of Sania Mirza? What is more important, Islam (as interpreted by men with obvious faults) or human compassion? Why was Shah Bano denied her rightful alimony (as ordered by Supreme Court but objected by the Shariat courts of India)?
Read the following article, written by Salman Rushdie. Rushdie talks with 2 heads (one for India, another more liberal head for Pak) but still makes sense.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/opinion/10rushdie.html?ex=1278648000&en=01750671ad5026a8&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
(India and Pakistan`s Code of Dishonor
By SALMAN RUSHDIE
Published: July 10, 2005
IN honor-and-shame cultures like those of India and Pakistan, male honor resides in the sexual probity of women, and the ``shaming`` of women dishonors all men. So it is that five men of Pakistan`s powerful Mastoi tribe were disgracefully acquitted of raping a villager named Mukhtar Mai three years ago. Theirs was an ``honor rape,`` intended to punish a relative of Ms. Mukhtar for having been seen with a Matsoi woman. The acquittals have now been suspended by the Pakistan Supreme Court, and there is finally a chance that this courageous woman may gain some measure of redress for her violation.

Pakistan, however, has little to be proud of. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan says that there were 320 reported rapes in the first nine months of last year, and 350 reported gang rapes in the same period. The number of unreported rapes is believed to be much larger. The victim pressed charges in only one-third of the reported cases, and a mere 39 arrests were made. The use of rape in tribal disputes has become, one might say, normal. And the belief that a raped woman`s best recourse is to kill herself remains widespread and deeply ingrained.

For every Mukhtar Mai there are dozens of such suicides. Nor is courage any guarantee of getting justice, as the case of Shazia Khalid shows. Dr. Khalid was raped last year in the province of Baluchistan by security personnel at the hospital where she worked. A Pakistani tribunal failed to convict anyone of the crime.

Dr. Khalid says that she was subsequently ``threatened so many times`` that she was forced to flee Pakistan. ``I was hounded out,`` she says, expressing dissatisfaction that the government neither brought her attackers to justice nor protected her from the threats that followed.

That is the same government, led by President Pervez Musharraf, that confiscated Mukhtar Mai`s passport because it feared she would go abroad and say things that would bring Pakistan into disrepute; and it is the same government that has allied with the West in the war on terrorism, but seems quite prepared to allow a war of sexual terror to be waged against its female citizens.

Now comes even worse news. Whatever Pakistan can do, India, it seems, can trump. The so-called Imrana case, in which a Muslim woman from a village in northern India says she was raped by her father-in-law, has brought forth a ruling from the powerful Islamist seminary Darul-Uloom ordering her to leave her husband because as a result of the rape she has become ``haram`` (unclean) for him. ``It does not matter,`` a Deobandi cleric has stated, ``if it was consensual or forced.``( My comments: IImrana was actually ordered by mullahs to leave her husband, who, the mullahs added, should from now on be treated like her son and she should now marry her rapist father-in-law! )

Darul-Uloom, in the village of Deoband 90 miles north of Delhi, is the birthplace of the ultra-conservative Deobandi cult, in whose madrassas the Taliban were trained. It teaches the most fundamentalist, narrow, puritan, rigid, oppressive version of Islam that exists anywhere in the world today. In one fatwa it suggested that Jews were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Not only the Taliban but also the assassins of The Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl were followers of Deobandi teachings.

Darul-Uloom`s rigid interpretations of Shariah law are notorious, and immensely influential - so much so that the victim, Imrana, a woman under unimaginable pressure, has said she will abide by the seminary`s decision in spite of the widespread outcry in India against it. An innocent woman, she will leave her husband because of his father`s crime.

Why does a mere seminary have the power to issue such judgments? The answer lies in the strange anomaly that is the Muslim personal law system - a parallel legal system for Indian Muslims, which leaves women like Imrana at the mercy of the mullahs. Such is the historical confusion on this vexed subject that anyone who suggests that a democratic country should have a single, unified legal system is accused of being anti-Muslim and in favor of the hardline Hindu nationalists.

In the 1980`s, a divorced woman named Shah Bano was granted ``maintenance money`` by the Indian Supreme Court. But there is no alimony under Islamic law, so orthodox Indian Islamists like those at Darul-Uloom protested that this ruling infringed the Muslim Personal Law, and they founded the All-India Muslim Law Board to mount protests. The government caved in, passing a bill denying alimony to divorced Muslim women. Ever since Shah Bano, Indian politicians have not dared to challenge the power of Islamist clerical grandees.

In the Imrana case, the All-India Muslim Law Board has unsurprisingly backed the Darul-Uloom decision, though many other Muslim and non-Muslim organizations and individuals have denounced it. Shockingly, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Mulayam Singh Yadav, has also backed the Darul-Uloom fatwa. ``The decision of the Muslim religious leaders in the Imrana case must have been taken after a lot of thought,`` he told reporters in Lucknow. ``The religious leaders are all very learned and they understand the Muslim community and its sentiments.``

This is a craven statement. The ``culture`` of rape that exists in India and Pakistan arises from profound social anomalies, its origins lying in the unchanging harshness of a moral code based on the concepts of honor and shame. Thanks to that code`s ruthlessness, raped women will go on hanging themselves in the woods and walking into rivers to drown themselves. It will take generations to change that. Meanwhile, the law must do what it can.

In Pakistan, the Supreme Court has taken one small but significant step in the matter of Mukhtar Mai; now it is for the police and politicians to start pursuing rapists instead of hounding their victims. As for India, at the risk of being called a communalist, I must agree that any country that claims to be a modern, secular democracy must secularize and unify its legal system, and take power over women`s lives away, once and for all, from medievalist institutions like Darul-Uloom.)
Sridhar

No this is still the law of the land.

He did make some amendments to it I believe vis a vis the importance of arbitration council... when these laws came out first ... they made it extremely hard to marry more than once... he relaxed that I believe.

Mantolives:
Muslim Family Laws Ordnance that you referred to was of 1961. Are you sure, Zia-ul-Haq did not change these laws?
Mohammad Gill

Re: # 69

Another Article worth consideration is.. at..

http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=discussion&did=89


this article has the Arabic.....and then its interpretations as well...

Shias have their own collection of Hadith. And the two supporting Temporary marriage are;

A `Hadith` attributed to Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) reads, `Whosoever does Mut`a once reaches the rank of Imaam Husian, whoever does it twice reaches the rank of Imaam Hassan, whoever does it thrice reaches the rank of Hadhrat Ali and whoever does it four times attains my rank.

Another purported `Hadith` states, `Anyone doing Mut`a with a believing woman is like one who has made the journey to the Ka`abah 70 times.`

Re: # 69

I am no Scholar ... neither do I know Any thing much about Islam..

But this issue ....with so many references ....from Sahih Hadith Books.... has always been a pricky one....
.. I have My doubts about the Hadiths ..... Most of them were collected at least 200 Years after the Death of Prophet ( mpuh).... and I will always take them.... with a rather Open Mind...


any way.... this is what I found { Google Ofcourse } ..... about a possible valid refutations about this... issue..


http://www.studying-islam.org/articletext.aspx?id=935



Was Ayesha A Six-Year-Old Bride?
The Ancient Myth Exposed
by T.O. Shanavas

A Christian friend asked me once, “Will you marry your seven year old daughter to a fifty year old man?” I kept my silence. He continued, “If you would not, how can you approve the marriage of an innocent seven year old, Ayesha, with your Prophet?” I told him, “I don’t have an answer to your question at this time.” My friend smiled and left me with a thorn in the heart of my faith. Most Muslims answer that such marriages were accepted in those days. Otherwise, people would have objected to Prophet’s marriage with Ayesha.

However, such an explanation would be gullible only for those who are naive enough to believe it. But unfortunately, I was not satisfied with the answer.

The Prophet was an exemplary man. All his actions were most virtuous so that we, Muslims, can emulate them. However, most people in our Islamic Center of Toledo, including me, would not think of betrothing our seven years daughter to a fifty-two year-old man. If a parent agrees to such a wedding, most people, if not all, would look down upon the father and the old husband.

In 1923, registrars of marriage in Egypt were instructed not to register and issue official certificates of marriage for brides less than sixteen and grooms less than eighteen years of age. Eight years later, the Law of the Organization and Procedure of Sheriah courts of 1931 consolidated the above provision by not hearing the marriage disputes involving brides less than sixteen and grooms less than eighteen years old. (Women in Muslim Family Law, John Esposito, 1982). It shows that even in the Muslim majority country of Egypt the child marriages are unacceptable.

So, I believed, without solid evidence other than my reverence to my Prophet, that the stories of the marriage of seven-year-old Ayesha to 50-year-old Prophet are only myths. However, my long pursuit in search of the truth on this matter proved my intuition correct. My Prophet was a gentleman. And he did not marry an innocent seven or nine year old girl. The age of Ayesha has been erroneously reported in the hadith literature. Furthermore, I think that the narratives reporting this event are highly unreliable. Some of the hadith (traditions of the Prophet) regarding Ayesha’s age at the time of her wedding with prophet are problematic. I present the following evidences against the acceptance of the fictitious story by Hisham ibn ‘Urwah and to clear the name of my Prophet as an irresponsible old man preying on an innocent little girl.

EVIDENCE #1: Reliability of Source

Most of the narratives printed in the books of hadith are reported only by Hisham ibn `Urwah, who was reporting on the authority of his father. First of all, more people than just one, two or three should logically have reported. It is strange that no one from Medina, where Hisham ibn `Urwah lived the first 71 years of his life narrated the event, despite the fact that his Medinan pupils included the well-respected Malik ibn Anas. The origins of the report of the narratives of this event are people from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have shifted after living in Medina for most of his life.

Tehzibu’l-Tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet, reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: “He [Hisham] is highly reliable, his narratives are acceptable, except what he narrated after moving over to Iraq” (Tehzi’bu’l-tehzi’b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala’ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, 15th century. Vol 11, p. 50).

It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people in Iraq: “I have been told that Malik objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq” (Tehzi’b u’l-tehzi’b, Ibn Hajar Al-`asqala’ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol.11, p. 50).

Mizanu’l-ai`tidal, another book on the life sketches of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet reports: “When he was old, Hisham’s memory suffered quite badly” (Mizanu’l-ai`tidal, Al-Zahbi, Al-Maktabatu’l-athriyyah, Sheikhupura, Pakistan, Vol. 4, p. 301).

CONCLUSION: Based on these references, Hisham’s memory was failing and his narratives while in Iraq were unreliable. So, his narrative of Ayesha’s marriage and age are unreliable.

CHRONOLOGY: It is vital also to keep in mind some of the pertinent dates in the history of Islam:

pre-610 CE: Jahiliya (pre-Islamic age) before revelation
610 CE: First revelation
610 CE: AbuBakr accepts Islam
613 CE: Prophet Muhammad begins preaching publicly.
615 CE: Emigration to Abyssinia
616 CE: Umar bin al Khattab accepts Islam
620 CE: Generally accepted betrothal of Ayesha to the Prophet
622 CE: Hijrah (emigation to Yathrib, later renamed Medina)
623/624 CE: Generally accepted year of Ayesha living with the Prophet
EVIDENCE #2: The Betrothal

According to Tabari (also according to Hisham ibn ‘Urwah, Ibn Hunbal and Ibn Sad), Ayesha was betrothed at seven years of age and began to cohabit with the Prophet at the age of nine years.

However, in another work, Al-Tabari says: “All four of his [Abu Bakr’s] children were born of his two wives during the pre-Islamic period” (Tarikhu’l-umam wa’l-mamlu’k, Al-Tabari (died 922), Vol. 4, p. 50, Arabic, Dara’l-fikr, Beirut, 1979).

If Ayesha was betrothed in 620 CE (at the age of seven) and started to live with the Prophet in 624 CE (at the age of nine), that would indicate that she was born in 613 CE and was nine when she began living with the Prophet. Therefore, based on one account of Al-Tabari, the numbers show that Ayesha must have born in 613 CE, three years after the beginning of revelation (610 CE). Tabari also states that Ayesha was born in the pre-Islamic era (in Jahiliya). If she was born before 610 CE, she would have been at least 14 years old when she began living with the Prophet. Essentially, Tabari contradicts himself.

CONCLUSION: Al-Tabari is unreliable in the matter of determining Ayesha’s age.

EVIDENCE # 3: The Age of Ayesha in Relation to the Age of Fatima

According to Ibn Hajar, “Fatima was born at the time the Ka`bah was rebuilt, when the Prophet was 35 years old... she was five years older that Ayesha” (Al-isabah fi tamyizi’l-sahabah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Vol. 4, p. 377, Maktabatu’l-Riyadh al-haditha, al-Riyadh, 1978).

If Ibn Hajar’s statement is factual, Ayesha was born when the Prophet was 40 years old. If Ayesha was married to the Prophet when he was 52 years old, Ayesha’s age at marriage would be 12 years.

CONCLUSION: Ibn Hajar, Tabari an Ibn Hisham and Ibn Humbal contradict each other. So, the marriage of Ayesha at seven years of age is a myth.

EVIDENCE #4: Ayesha’s Age in relation to Asma’s Age

According to Abda’l-Rahman ibn abi zanna’d: “Asma was 10 years older than Ayesha (Siyar A`la’ma’l-nubala’, Al-Zahabi, Vol. 2, p. 289, Arabic, Mu’assasatu’l-risalah, Beirut, 1992).

According to Ibn Kathir: “She [Asma] was elder to her sister [Ayesha] by 10 years” (Al-Bidayah wa’l-nihayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, p. 371, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah, 1933).

According to Ibn Kathir: “She [Asma] saw the killing of her son during that year [73 AH], as we have already mentioned, and five days later she herself died. According to other narratives, she died not after five days but 10 or 20, or a few days over 20, or 100 days later. The most well known narrative is that of 100 days later. At the time of her death, she was 100 years old.” (Al-Bidayah wa’l-nihayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, p. 372, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah, 1933)

According to Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani: “She [Asma] lived a hundred years and died in 73 or 74 AH.” (Taqribu’l-tehzib, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, p. 654, Arabic, Bab fi’l-nisa’, al-harfu’l-alif, Lucknow).

According to almost all the historians, Asma, the elder sister of Ayesha was 10 years older than Ayesha. If Asma was 100 years old in 73 AH, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of the hijrah.

If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Ayesha should have been 17 or 18 years old. Thus, Ayesha, being 17 or 18 years of at the time of Hijra, she started to cohabit with the Prophet between at either 19 to 20 years of age.

Based on Hajar, Ibn Katir, and Abda’l-Rahman ibn abi zanna’d, Ayesha’s age at the time she began living with the Prophet would be 19 or 20. In Evidence # 3, Ibn Hajar suggests that Ayesha was 12 years old and in Evidence #4 he contradicts himself with a 17 or 18-year-old Ayesha. What is the correct age, twelve or eighteen?

CONCLUSION: Ibn Hajar is an unreliable source for Ayesha’s age.

EVIDENCE #5: The Battles of Badr and Uhud

A narrative regarding Ayesha’s participation in Badr is given in the hadith of Muslim, (Kitabu’l-jihad wa’l-siyar, Bab karahiyati’l-isti`anah fi’l-ghazwi bikafir). Ayesha, while narrating the journey to Badr and one of the important events that took place in that journey, says: “when we reached Shajarah”. Obviously, Ayesha was with the group travelling towards Badr. A narrative regarding Ayesha’s participation in the Battle of Uhud is given in Bukhari (Kitabu’l-jihad wa’l-siyar, Bab Ghazwi’l-nisa’ wa qitalihinna ma`a’lrijal): “Anas reports that on the day of Uhud, people could not stand their ground around the Prophet. [On that day,] I saw Ayesha and Umm-i-Sulaim, they had pulled their dress up from their feet [to avoid any hindrance in their movement].” Again, this indicates that Ayesha was present in the Battles of Uhud and Badr.

It is narrated in Bukhari (Kitabu’l-maghazi, Bab Ghazwati’l-khandaq wa hiya’l-ahza’b): “Ibn `Umar states that the Prophet did not permit me to participate in Uhud, as at that time, I was 14 years old. But on the day of Khandaq, when I was 15 years old, the Prophet permitted my participation.”

Based on the above narratives, (a) the children below 15 years were sent back and were not allowed to participate in the Battle of Uhud, and (b) Ayesha participated in the Battles of Badr and Uhud

CONCLUSION: Ayesha’s participation in the Battles of Badr and Uhud clearly indicates that she was not nine years old but at least 15 years old. After all, women used to accompany men to the battlefields to help them, not to be a burden on them. This account is another contradiction regarding Ayesha’s age.

EVIDENCE #6: Surat al-Qamar (The Moon)

According to the generally accepted tradition, Ayesha was born about eight years before hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari, Ayesha is reported to have said: “I was a young girl (jariyah in Arabic)” when Surah Al-Qamar was revealed (Sahih Bukhari, kitabu’l-tafsir, Bab Qaulihi Bal al-sa`atu Maw`iduhum wa’l-sa`atu adha’ wa amarr).

Chapter 54 of the Quran was revealed eight years before hijrah (The Bounteous Koran, M.M. Khatib, 1985), indicating that it was revealed in 614 CE. If Ayesha started living with the Prophet at the age of nine in 623 CE or 624 CE, she was a newborn infant (sibyah in Arabic) at the time that Surah Al-Qamar (The Moon) was revealed. According to the above tradition, Ayesha was actually a young girl, not an infant in the year of revelation of Al-Qamar. Jariyah means young playful girl (Lane’s Arabic English Lexicon). So, Ayesha, being a jariyah not a sibyah (infant), must be somewhere between 6-13 years old at the time of revelation of Al-Qamar, and therefore must have been 14-21 years at the time she married the Prophet.

CONCLUSION: This tradition also contradicts the marriage of Ayesha at the age of nine.

EVIDENCE #7: Arabic Terminology

According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of the Prophet’s first wife Khadijah, when Khaulah came to the Prophet advising him to marry again, the Prophet asked her regarding the choices she had in mind. Khaulah said: “You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)”. When the Prophet asked the identity of the bikr (virgin), Khaulah mentioned Ayesha’s name.

All those who know the Arabic language are aware that the word bikr in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine-year-old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier, is jariyah. Bikr on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady without conjugal experience prior to marriage, as we understand the word “virgin” in English. Therefore, obviously a nine-year-old girl is not a “lady” (bikr) (Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Vol. 6, p. .210, Arabic, Dar Ihya al-turath al-`arabi, Beirut).

CONCLUSION: The literal meaning of the word, bikr (virgin), in the above hadith is “adult woman with no sexual experience prior to marriage.” Therefore, Ayesha was an adult woman at the time of her marriage.

EVIDENCE #8. The Qur’anic Text

All Muslims agree that the Quran is the book of guidance. So, we need to seek the guidance from the Quran to clear the smoke and confusion created by the eminent men of the classical period of Islam in the matter of Ayesha’s age at her marriage. Does the Quran allow or disallow marriage of an immature child of seven years of age?

There are no verses that explicitly allow such marriage. There is a verse, however, that guides Muslims in their duty to raise an orphaned child. The Quran’s guidance on the topic of raising orphans is also valid in the case of our own children. The verse states: “And make not over your property (property of the orphan), which Allah had made a (means of) support for you, to the weak of understanding, and maintain them out of it, clothe them and give them good education. And test them until they reach the age of marriage. Then if you find them maturity of intellect, make over them their property...” (Quran, 4:5-6).

In the matter of children who have lost a parent, a Muslim is ordered to (a) feed them, (b) clothe them, (c) educate them, and (d) test them for maturity “until the age of marriage” before entrusting them with management of finances.

Here the Quranic verse demands meticulous proof of their intellectual and physical maturity by objective test results before the age of marriage in order to entrust their property to them.

In light of the above verses, no responsible Muslim would hand over financial management to a seven- or nine-year-old immature girl. If we cannot trust a seven-year-old to manage financial matters, she cannot be intellectually or physically fit for marriage. Ibn Hambal (Musnad Ahmad ibn Hambal, vol.6, p. 33 and 99) claims that nine-year-old Ayesha was rather more interested in playing with toy-horses than taking up the responsible task of a wife. It is difficult to believe, therefore, that AbuBakr, a great believer among Muslims, would betroth his immature seven-year-old daughter to the 50-year-old Prophet. Equally difficult to imagine is that the Prophet would marry an immature seven-year-old girl.

Another important duty demanded from the guardian of a child is to educate them. Let us ask the question, “How many of us believe that we can educate our children satisfactorily before they reach the age of seven or nine years?” The answer is none. Logically, it is an impossible task to educate a child satisfactorily before the child attains the age of seven. Then, how can we believe that Ayesha was educated satisfactorily at the claimed age of seven at the time of her marriage?

AbuBakr was a more judicious man than all of us. So, he definitely would have judged that Ayesha was a child at heart and was not satisfactorily educated as demanded by the Quran. He would not have married her to anyone. If a proposal of marrying the immature and yet to be educated seven-year-old Ayesha came to the Prophet, he would have rejected it outright because neither the Prophet nor AbuBakr would violate any clause in the Quran.

CONCLUSION: The marriage of Ayesha at the age of seven years would violate the maturity clause or requirement of the Quran. Therefore, the story of the marriage of the seven-year-old immature Ayesha is a myth.

EVIDENCE #9: Consent in Marriage

A women must be consulted and must agree in order to make a marriage valid (Mishakat al Masabiah, translation by James Robson, Vol. I, p. 665). Islamically, credible permission from women is a prerequisite for a marriage to be valid.

By any stretch of the imagination, the permission given by an immature seven-year-old girl cannot be valid authorization for marriage.

It is inconceivable that AbuBakr, an intelligent man, would take seriously the permission of a seven-year-old girl to marry a 50-year-old man.

Similarly, the Prophet would not have accepted the permission given by a girl who, according to the hadith of Muslim, took her toys with her when she went live with Prophet.

CONCLUSION: The Prophet did not marry a seven-year-old Ayesha because it would have violated the requirement of the valid permission clause of the Islamic Marriage Decree. Therefore, the Prophet married an intellectually and physically mature lady Ayesha.

SUMMARY:

It was neither an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as seven or nine years, nor did the Prophet marry Ayesha at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.

Obviously, the narrative of the marriage of nine-year-old Ayesha by Hisham ibn `Urwah cannot be held true when it is contradicted by many other reported narratives. Moreover, there is absolutely no reason to accept the narrative of Hisham ibn `Urwah as true when other scholars, including Malik ibn Anas, view his narrative while in Iraq, as unreliable. The quotations from Tabari, Bukhari and Muslim show they contradict each other regarding Ayesha’s age. Furthermore, many of these scholars contradict themselves in their own records. Thus, the narrative of Ayesha’s age at the time of the marriage is not reliable due to the clear contradictions seen in the works of classical scholars of Islam.

Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the information on Ayesha’s age is accepted as true when there are adequate grounds to reject it as myth. Moreover, the Quran rejects the marriage of immature girls and boys as well as entrusting them with responsibilities.

T.O. Shanavas is a physician based in Michigan. This article first appeared in The Minaret in March 1999.

© 2001 Minaret

Extracted 09/06/02 from The Minaret





... Let me Catagorcially STATE it again... I do not have any sufficient knowledge about Islam or its Histroy..... But this article is Worth consideration.....Don`t you think so...??

For reference...

http://www.vakilno1.com/saarclaw/pakistan/muslim_family_laws_ordinance.htm


(6) Nothing shall debar a wife whose marriage has been terminated by talaq effective under his section from remarrying the same husband, without an intervening marriage with a third person, unless such termination is for the third time so effective.

Mantolives:
Thanks for the information regarding deletion of halala in Pakistan. It has a very great importance for the fact that it underlines that Shariah can, and should, be modified when a need arises.

Interactors:

In one of my posts I had mentioned that ``prostitutes are human beings and I respect them.`` I respect their humanity; that is the least I can do as a human being. I am not a sociologist and I don`t know how they can be helped. But they do need help.

I am sure that most of the Chowk readers know of Sahir Ludhianvi`s poem ``Chaklay` in which he drew the attention of the pontificators of the East. A couple of the stanzas from that poem are as follows:

Yeh koochay, Yeh neelaam ghar dilkashi kay
Yeh lut`tay hooaye carvaa`n zindgi kay
Kahan hain, kahan hain muhaafaz khuee kay
Sanakhwan-e-taqdees-e-Mashraq kahan hain?

Mad`add chaahtee haiy yeh Hawwa ki beti
Yashodha ki ham-jins, Radha ki beti
Payambbar ki ummat, Zulekha ki beti
Sanakhwan-e-taqdees-e-Mashraq kahan hain?

Bulaa`o khudaayan-e-dee`n ko bulaa`o
Yeh koochay, yeh galiyaa`n, yeh manzar dakha`o
Sanakhwan-taqdees-Mashraq ko laa`o
Sanakhwan-taqdees-Mashraq kahan hain?

Mohammad Gill