The economic situation has toughened views on immigration, the overwhelming majority now believe immigration should be halted as it is bad for the country.  48% are favourable to supporting an anti-immigration party on the right of the political spectrum as long as it is not overtly fascist and eschews violence.  This suggests England is moving closer to the rest of Europe which has seen a rise in support for far-right parties in recent years.

43% of respondents say in response to a campaign to oppose the building of a mosque, they would support such a campaign, whilst 19% would oppose a campaign.

The most shocking response was to the statement ‘Muslims create problems in the UK’, to which 52% agreed.

The negative perception of Muslims is not without its causes, by understanding these we can start to redress the balance and change attitudes.

Blame Game

There are some within our community that look inwards and lay the blame on the Muslims.  They say it is the irresponsible actions of Muslims that has created the poisonous atmosphere of distrust and animosity.

No one can doubt some Muslims exhibit behaviours not in keeping with Islamic character, Muslims can sometimes act in a way that does not allow others to visibly see the strenth of Islamic values.  We can all agree we need to do more to become ambassadors of the message of Islam by exhibiting the true characteristics of the Messenger of Allah, SalAllahu alaihi wasallam.  By doing so we will inevitably please our creator and sustainer, Allah subhanahu wa ta’aala, and as a result for example we would be the best neighbour that does not feign concern for his neighbour but takes real steps to help and support them.  The Muslim  would be a conscientious worker for his employer, who does not divorce Islam from his work and in so doing fulfils his trusts.  If we embodied Islam we would be concerned for the comunity around us, for the non-Muslims just as much for the Muslims, just like the Messenger of Allah, SalAllahu alaihi wasallam had mercy and concern for others and showed this in his very mission.

We realise that we do sometimes act out the worst of characteristics and that is something we must accept in order to start to correct our behaviour and character.

If the behaviour of Muslims were the sole reason for negative attitudes of English society towards Muslims, the same level of scrutiny would be applied to other communities that exhibit negative traits, but we see that the spotlight is entirely on the Muslims.

Media Manipulation

The problem is that the reporting of Muslims has been far from objective.  A non-story can easily be turned into news just by adding the word ‘Muslim’.  If a non-Muslim were to do the same action it would not be deemed newsworthy and usually by picking apart the exaggeration and fabrication one can conclude most of these stories deserve to be labelled fiction.

Much of the discourse of the tabloid press has made its way into the mainstream.  The Muslim community is continually pilliaried for not having done enough to combat terrorism within the Muslim community.  Muslims from every conceivable spectrum have spoken out against terrorism and it is not clear what more is required of us, short of donning the policeman’s cap what more can we do.  Despite this we are continually asked to unequivocally confront radicalised youths in our midst.  The media paint the picture of mosques as centres of extremism and anti-liberal ideas are conflated with terrorism at every turn, this then fiters out into the public consciousness.

The tabloid press have been at the forefront of radicalising the public, each story is a piece of the jigsaw, but the overall message to the public is clear,  Muslims are trying to change the British way of life and one day you will become a minority in your own home.

Over the past decade, anti-Muslim sentiment  has become more and more acceptable and lazy, sensationalist journalists out to increase circulation embellish, miscontrue and sometimes fabricate in order to match the prevailing narrative of a Muslim takeover.

Even reputable documentaries that pride themselves on groundbreaking investigative journalism add to the sense of Muslim separateness.  Not unlike their tabloid counterparts they take a few instances they label wrongdoing and then plant the message that these examples are widespread.

Posturing Politicians

By the far the most shameless posturing comes from politicians.  Elections come every four to five years and the campaign proper does not start until the election is announced, but between elections politicians are still trying to garner a supporter base which can translate into votes in the long-term.  This makes the business of politics all the more cynical.  As there is a growing section of the electorate to the right of the political spectrum, at least in matters related to identity and integration, it is a section that needs to be wooed.  Although a significant section of these people may hold far-right views, as the poll by Searchlight suggests they do not wish to align themselves with the BNP or EDL.  Therefore it is important for any party looking to win votes from this grouping to use the language of the far-right whilst seemingly attacking them.  Sarkozy and Merkel have used this tactic in France and Germany, the latter even went as far as to announce the failure of multiculturalism and Sarkozy has used cynical anti-immigration measures to shore up his position against a resurgent far-right Front Nationale.

Across Europe, in countries in which the far-right have not made much of an impact, they are now garnering a great deal of support and therefore parties occupying  the traditional centre ground have had to lurch right to compete against this changing tide.

The far-right use scare tactics of a Muslim takeover to shore up their supporter base, even if that means fabricating lies, for example the Dutch far-right poitician, Geert Wilders talks of a Muslim takeover of Europe through force of numbers and a rising birth rate.  The projected figures may or not back these claims but then in an effort to show the existing power of Muslims and the surrender of the West, he gives an example of shariah law in England,

In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system.

Of course, this is factually wrong but these politicians do not want a small detail like the truth get in the way of their poisonous narrative.

In February, the British Prime Minsister delivered a speech which did nothing but give succour to the EDL and the BNP, for whom it provided an opportunity to declare to their supporters that their policies had been adopted by the coalition government.  This was Cameron’s attempt to align himself with the European trend and send a clear message to the Muslim community, you will have to conform to British values and government funding and support will follow those organisations that conform.  Although most Muslim organisations have a disdain for government funding, and even more since the failed PVE debacle, but it adds to the pressure on an already besieged Muslim community.

The new radicalised centre ground in British politics

Cameron, through his speech, was aiming at the prejudices of the new centre ground in British politics that has hardened towards Muslims as a result of the radicatlisation nexus between the media and the political class.  Rather than challenging this extremism, Cameron cynically panders to it, this is because this grouping forms the largest section of the electorate and can be viewed as the key support base to win power.

Clouding the debate

Much of the vocabulary and assumptions of integration used in speeches and regurgitated by the media are poorly or ambiguously defined and never backed up by evidence, what does integration mean? What is an extremist thought?  Do the carriers of ideas that contradict western liberalism necessarily become terrorists?

Radicalisation

The Searchlight Education Trust poll results are a vindication of Cameron’s muscular liberalism because a clear constituency of voters has been identified which politicians can pander to through increasingly alarmist rhetoric.  Yet if such a poll were conducted within the Muslim community and 52% of Muslims agreed with the statement ‘non-Muslims are the cause of all problems’, there would be a flurry of disapproval and calls for an anti-extremism strategy and even in an age of austerity funding would be released to spawn an anti-extremism industry to combat this attitude.  Isn’t that what happened in the Muslim community?  Then you would have think thanks set up with the funds to rubber stamp the prevailing narrative and provide evidence of the ‘reality’ in order to secure their funding and the grubby cycle would continue.  Instead we will be told that we must heed Cameron’s message and assimilate because unless we do so we will remain as pariahs.

Opportunity or threat?

It is a given that Muslims must be better at combatting these erroneous messages whether they come from the media or politicians.

We must illustrate that Muslims are a force for good and it is through the Islamic values that we can be of service to the society around us.  We must support the work of organisations such as IERA that interface with non-Muslims upon Islam.  We must be more willing to be vocal about what we believe and not believe.  In a society where religion as a whole is downplayed and not seen as important this poses a significant challenge to Muslims.

The report does suggest that Muslims are singled out because we are seen as different and the average Brit cannot identify with Muslims.  This should not mean we attempt to make ourselves more like the mainstream especially if that means giving up our values, all it means is that we need to bridge the gap of understanding and be more adept at explaining who we are and what we believe.  This is a responsibility for all within the Muslim community.

Yet, we must also be suspicious of the calls for silence within the Muslim community, that Muslims should watch their words lest they are used against them.  As Muslims we already have a filter, it is called the shar’iah, this defines the usefulness or irrelevance of our words from the perspective of our Creator and His Messenger, in the face of injustice silence is not an option and when necessary we have to speak out.  The prophetic example encourages us to speak the truth even if it bitter, and even if that means condemning British foreign policy or to support the plight of Muslims globally, supporting them in their time of need or to speak out against immorality within this society.

The government announced yesterday that there will be new measures for wellbeing which will go beyond economic prosperity and touch on happiness in general.

The current measure boils down to three initials GDP – which is solely an economic measurement.

Either because of the tough economic times we are living in or as a result of realising that money does not in itself bring happiness the government is thinking wider than the old paradigm.

There will be a consultation/study by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to look at what makes people happy and how to measure this and then the ONS will collect annual figures to evaluate the state of wellbeing or happiness in Britain.

I was listening to the radio the other day and people were saying what would make them more happy.

• A closer link to nature by planting more trees.
• Better job opportunities.
• Not penalising the middle classes.
• Withdraw from Afghanistan and spend the money at home.

There were some who argued the government is not responsible for making people happy and this would be nothing more than a waste of money.

Arguably it is part of human nature to want to be happy, who wants to be unhappy right!

So why is it clear that the present happiness drive is doomed to failure?

2 reasons

1) There is a lack of consensus on what the ingredients of true happiness are. This is so subjective as to make this exercise futile, one man’s happiness is another’s misery!

There needs to be one test for all.

2) True happiness cannot be achieved let alone measured in a secular society. By removing man’s purpose from its impact on life you are removing the true ingredients for happiness. The result of this in a capitalist society is the prioritisation of accumulating wealth which leads to the culture of consumerism.

Happiness is still measured in society by the material.

In this celebrity obsessed society over a quarter of children (26 per cent) want to become celebrities when they grow up.

They believe this would make them happy.

How many people yearn to win the lottery and make a million or two.  The checking of numbers becomes a weekly ritual.

Anas reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: If the son of Adam were to possess two valleys of riches, he would long for the third one. And the stomach of the son of Adam is not filled but with dust. And Allah returns to him who repents.

If the accumulation is wealth is a goal in life it will never lead to happiness as man’s appetite to possess will never keep up with his hunger for more.  How much wealth is enough, right!

Consumerism is the accumulation of more and more, but the realisation that this cannot satisfy man’s true purpose will not be realised until he enters his grave.

“Two greedy people are never satiated: one who is greedy for knowledge can never get enough of it, and one who is greedy for worldly possessions can never get enough of them.” (Bayhaqi)

There is a crisis of values in this society. Over time traditional Christian values have been downgraded. The sense of community that once existed has been replaced by individualism.

This is not to say that society a hundred years ago was perfect but it was arguably more cohesive.

Removing the purpose of life from the question of how to achieve happiness is both arrogant and self defeating.

If we read Surah Humazah we would realise the futility of our race for wealth as our objective in life.

Surah Al-Humazah

Muhammad bin Ka`b said concerning Allah’s statement

عَدَّدَهُوَ مَالاً جَمَعَ

Who has gathered wealth and counted it,

“His wealth occupies his time in the day, going from this to that. Then when the night comes he sleeps like a rotting corpse.”

أَخْلَدَهُ مَالَهُ أَنَّ يَحْسَبُ

He thinks that his wealth will make him last forever!

الْحُطَمَةِ فِى لَيُنبَذَنَّ كَلاَّ

Nay! Verily, he will be thrown into the crushing Fire.

الْمُوقَدَةُ اللَّهِ نَارُ – الْحُطَمَةُ مَا أَدْرَاكَ وَمَآ

الاٌّفْئِدَةِ عَلَى تَطَّلِعُ الَّتِى –

And what will make you know what the crushing Fire is?

The fire of Allah, kindled,

Which leaps up over the hearts,

Verily, it shall be closed in on them,

In pillars stretched forth (i.e. they will be punished in the Fire with pillars, etc.).

Wealth accumulation as an objective in life leads to misery rather than happiness.

Fitra

Separating a thing from its purpose is not something we do in the mundane but we accept this in the arena of the fundamental question of life.  Every household appliance has a purpose and to use something for other than the purpose it was intended leads to dangerous if not fatal consequences.

We must recognise that our purpose is intrinsically linked with our fitrah. We have an innate nature that motivates us to resolve the mystery of creation. This is our fitra. It is an instinct often denied, but it is deeply embedded within our conscience and has since the dawn of time drawn man to search for a creator and the worship of god.

“…verily in the remembrance of Allah do the hearts find solace”. (13: 28)

Happiness is unique for a Muslim in that is truly attained by believing in Allah, by worshipping and obeying Allah, by glorifying him, by seeking his forgiveness and mercy, and through emulating his blessed Messenger salAllahu alaihi wasallam.

حَيَوةً طَيِّبَةً

“Whoever does good whether male or female and is a believer, We will most certainly make him live a happy life, and We will most certainly give them their reward for the best of what they did.” Noble Qur’an (16:97)

Whilst awaiting news on the sighting of the moon of Ramadan this year I received a viral text that we have all become accustomed to reading, but this one struck a chord because of its multi-dimensional meaning. It goes something like this:

All Deeobandi, Salafi, Barelwi, Ikhwani and Sufi imams as well as the Islam Channel unanimously are in agreement that tomorrow is… [followed by a large gap building the anticipation of a united start to Eid)

Wednesday!

Some would disregard this as a funny text others an annoying interruption, but humour is often used to disguise an important point and convey a serious point. The lack of unity locally as well as globally and the accompanying sectarianism which transforms the spiritual to nothing more than a political football is frustrating and anger inducing in equal measure.

It is clear that the wide array of days to herald the start of Ramadhan and Eid causes a number of problems as communities are divided by their choices; examples of some of the problems are the following:

• It creates conflict within families on what should be a celebration that brings together the entire family.
• It creates conflict, animosity and unnecessary and often heated arguments between Muslims.
• It exacerbates sectarian conflict.

This is besides the ritual humiliation we experience in explaining these differences to non-Muslims at work and in our communities.

Overall, it places individuals in an unenviable position in deciding which criteria to use to determine the correct day and how one will inevitably be labelled based on this choice.

• Do we use local or global sighting?
• Can we trust the Saudi sighting?
• How can we verify sighting in faraway lands by corrupt governments with vested interests?
• How can local sighting be promoted in countries in which it is too cloudy to make moonsighting meaningful?
• Can we use calculations to determine a date to bring certainty?

Sometimes picking a method out a hat sounds more reasonable than some of the convoluted solutions that are often proffered. Undoubtedly confusion is widespread and this is exacerbated by the mutual finger pointing and the accusations of ‘Wahhabi’ or ‘innovator’ we have become accustomed to from opposing sides of the argument.

It is not my intention to discuss an issue upon which there are divergent opinions, some of which are islamically legitimate.

What is clear is that this is a minefield for all Muslims; individual Muslims should not be blamed for how they choose to navigate this impossible situation, we all muddle along, sticking to Islamic principles, following the local imam or relying on those whose opinion we trust.

What is clear is that these discussions have been raging for decades amongst scholars of every shade. They are played out by Muslims on the street corner as well as the twenty-first century’s answer to it – the blogosphere. The passing of time has not drawn us any nearer to a resolution than it has in any time in the recent past. The bottom line is that no scholar or group has the support base, popularity or ability to compel everyone to follow one opinion or sighting declaration, with all due respect their pronouncements are nothing more than non-binding opinions. If unity is to be achieved there needs to be an ability to bind others to follow one declaration, without which our present situation of multiple eids will remain with us.

Searching for a solution necessitates looking beyond the local, it must unite, be based on a process built on authority, transcend national difference, and most importantly stem from Islam.

Difference of opinion in fiqh is not a bad thing, our past scholarly luminaries differed in areas where the Islamic texts were not definitive, different scholarly approaches to texts have always led to divergent opinions and that is fine as long as this is within the remit of the divine text and the prophetic way, but when differences lead to societal fragmentation one opinion must be adopted for all Muslims. The very matter of who chooses this one opinion in areas of conflict is the main sticking point for Muslims, yet the shari’ah deems this to be the remit of the khaleefah whose responsibility is to ensure Islam is applied. This is best illustrated in the historic discussion on what constitutes divorce.  At the time of the khilafah of Abu Bakr as-siddiq (radiAllahu anhu) there were differences on what constitutes divorce.  Divorce, albeit a personal matter is liable to lead to social breakdown if the husband and wife adopt different opinions on how many pronouncements constitutes the ending of a marriage. This is why Abu Bakr (radiAllahu anhu) adopted an opinion on divorce which was binding upon all Muslims, and although Umar (radiAllahu anhu) held a different opinion he followed the binding opinion in obedience to khaleefah Abu Bakr (radiAllahu anhu), thereby elucidating the shariah principle ‘the order of the imam settles the difference”.

It is clear therefore that we must not add to the animosity, argumentation and sectarianism on an issue upon which our present situation does not afford a resolution. Our energies must instead be focussed on supporting the global calls for unification, the work for the restoration of the rule of Allah and the prophetic way and the appointment of ‘the shade of Allah on earth’ upon the way of  the prophethood.

Note to the reader: the statements of Sheikh Hamza Yusuf and Professor Tariq Ramadan are in bold to distinguish them from my own thoughts. They are not verbatim transcripts of what was said and are not necessarily in the order they were spoken. Please refer to the original audio for the exact contents of both speeches. Any errors are my own and as a result of the deficiencies of my own notes, which I would welcome being corrected on. Any observations are not meant to disparage either speaker but are merely my thoughts which can be freely challenged in the comments section.

Sheikh Hamza Yusuf began by stating that it is always difficult to address an audience of Muslims and non-Muslims.

Muslims believe in a 1400 year old text, whilst non-Muslims do not.

Muslims believe in the impact of human actions on what happens around us.

He quoted Arnold J Toynbee, the Oxford educated British historian who wrote ‘a Study of History’ charting the rise and fall of civilizations,

Toynbee refers to the reaction of Muslims following the destruction of Islamic rule, he points to the two extremes of people in the aftermath of invasion and occupation,

Herodianism: Imitates the culture of the occupier, the example is of the vanquished Japanese after World War Two, they have imitated and overtaken American culture for example in their adoption of Rock ‘n Roll and their idolisation of Elvis Presley.

Zealotism: Falling back on the past with nostalgia. Saudi Arabia, Yemen & Afghanistan.

The former leads to a pale imitation of the occupiers whilst the latter is a dead end.

Reformation is from Islam, Islah is centred on rectifying something that has been corrupted.

The term reform is problematic. The better term is Islah, meaning reform. It stems from the hadith of the strangers. The Messenger salAllahu alaihi wasallam said, “blessed are the strangers, blessed are the strangers.” And who are the strangers? The people that rectify what has been corrupted of my sunnah (my way).

The shariah has the propensity to be corrupted by the people.
People can repair Islam.

Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayyah preferred to use the term ‘renovation’, rather than ‘reformation’, because it is closer to tajdid. It is not about reformulating or restructuring Islam, because it already has a sound foundation, but requires renovation. This process has been ongoing for centuries.

He mentioned how there are competing interests calling for reform. You have gay Muslims, progressive Muslims all looking for a reform of Islam.

Lord Cromer, the British governor of Egypt, and a close friend of Muhammad Abduh, said: “A reformed Islam is not Islam” (“Islam reformed is Islam no longer.”)

Islam was a reformist movement to begin with, it challenged Christian sectarianism and the Jewish rejection of Jesus.
He talked about how the Islam practiced today would be unrecognizable to the Muslims of the 19th Century. The Arabs (Muslims) believe in Ghairah (jealousy), of women, a want to protect them. If you look at Arab MTV it is just as racy as MTV, this is incredibly traumatic to see something like this happening in your culture.

The Muslim world has lived through an entirely different history to the west.

A few years back there was a big controversy surrounding the issue of women leading the prayer. Imam Tabari and Ibn Taymiya held the view that it is permissible for women to lead men in salah, Ibn Taymiya allowed this in nafilah salah if she had more knowledge than the men present and she led the prayer from behind the men so as not to distract them.

A minority of scholars believe it is permissible for a woman to lead men in salah, some argued that it is valid only for supererogatory prayers where the woman has greater knowledge than any man present.

This is based upon a weak hadith that has been misinterpreted to suggest the Messenger salAllahu alahi wasallam consented to a woman leading men and women in prayer.

The minority opinion of eminent scholars such as Imam Tabari and ibn Taymiya that accepted the legal permissibility of women leading men in prayer are not definitive. This is due to the fact that their schools did not continue after their deaths, therefore the transmission of this opinion and the process used to derive them cannot be fully verified. Imam Zaid Shakir discusses this in great detail.

The other point is that we do not seek out the opinions of the a’immah in minority opinions unless we are searching for a loophole. In the case of the Amina Wadud initiative in America that was replayed in Oxford last year, this was nothing more than the politicization of the salah. There was a fringe movement that wanted to challenge ahkaam in Islam about women, it was the Muslim re-enactment of the age old debates of feminism that men and women should be equal in everything, there should be no glass ceilings and if they exist, they should be challenged.

These discussions are nothing but a disease that left unchallenged would encourage weak/invalid opinions in order to bridge the gap between western liberalism and Islam. Although it is well know that Sheikh Hamza has a particular style of speaking that leans heavily on anecdotes and digressions, but how should the audience respond to the claim of a minority opinion allowing a woman to lead men in prayer? Should they encourage the sisters to lead or should they merely be tolerant of the opinion? Does the latter mean this should not be challenged? It is difficult to see how this fits into the discussion.

Sheikh Hamza talked about the existence of many ayaat that were non-qat’ii (not clear-cut in meaning), therefore there are many interpretations of the qur’an. He also said in the west we are very liberal in our tolerance of different interpretations as opposed to the Muslim world.

He did not say whether this was a good or a bad thing.

He quoted Ibn Qayyim’s prohibition of calling a fatwa of a scholar the rule of Allah. It is the mujtahid’s understanding based upon time and place.

Once the mujtahid exerts his effort to understand the text with sincerity, he considers this as the strongest opinion obtained through effort and is for him the hukm of Allah, this does not mean other opinions are not possible for other mujtahideen, who may prioritise some Islamic texts over others and reach a different opinion. It is well known that the mujtahid who reaches the correct answer after striving achieves two rewards and one who strived and did not achieve the correct answer gets one reward. If we trust in the ability of Imam Abu Haneefah and the ahnaaf in salah for example, we are trusting them to reach the hukm of Allah, this does not take away the correctness of the madhab of Imam shafi’i. In the current day and age these quotes have been misused by people that play fast and loose with the Islamic texts in order to bridge the gap between Islamic ahkaam and western liberal norms. I am by no means inferring this is what Sheikh Hamza was saying, because it isn’t, as is illustrated from the rest of what he mentioned, but in a time where there are competing pressures to accept every wacky opinion as Islamic from the legitimization of homosexuality to the acceptance of riba transactions to the permissibility of consuming alchohol that is derived from other than grapes and dates, scholars that have a following must exercise caution in how some of what they say may be interpreted or misinterpreted for spurious ends by the insincere.

He mentioned how there have always been reformist trends, Hasan al-Banna, Muhammad Abduh and Wahhabi reformers.

Sheikh Hamza focused some time on Al-Qaeda. Firstly he talked about a conference held in Makkah after the destruction of the Uthmani Khilafah in 1924, in which Ayman al-Zawahir’s grandfather, Muhammad, participated. The aim of the conference was to elect a khaleefah for the Muslims. After it was clear that consensus on a khaleefah could not be reached Muhammad suggested they should commence the janazah prayer in recognition of the death of the ummah. His grandfather was a scholar who helped write the Egyptian constitution and was from an aristocratic family. What happened in the inventing period for his grandson?

He also recounted being continually asked what his opinion of “sheikh” Osama bin Laden is? He commented he did not know how to answer, “he is a great guy”? Instead he rounded on the lack of Islamic credentials of Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri, the former is an accountant and the latter a paediatric surgeon. Who gave them the authority to give fataawa.

In a candid part of his speech, Sheikh Hamza spoke about his regrets at how his visit to George W Bush was used for nefarious ends. He made it clear he was invited to speak to Bush, he was not paid, and he was advised by his Sheikh to do it. George W Bush addressed a joint session of the Congress and the wider audience throughout the world, 9 days after the September 11 terrorist attacks, Sheikh Hamza Yusuf was asked to attend. When Bush used his speech to assuage the Muslim world that the war to come was not a war on Islam by calling Islam a religion of peace and the terrorists blasphemers against god, the camera focused on Sheikh Hamza. Sheikh Hamza said that he was used and he showed regret.

He delivered this in his discourse on how scholars should not visit rulers. He said nothing taints your reputation in the Muslim community more than being attached to a government. He talked about the scholars of the past who ran away from working for the state. If leaders want to see scholars they should visit them and not the other way round. He highlighted that government’s are not altruistic, there are strings attached with government support.

He mentioned the Mardin Fatwa of Ibn Taymiyah, which was used as a justification for killing Anwar Sadat. Ibn Taymiyah was asked in the year 1302 about the status of the city of Mardin which had been overtaken by the Mongols. He was asked whether it was considered Dar al-Islam (the abode of Islam) or Dar al-Harb (the abode of peace), as there was a question mark over whether the Mongols had embraced Islam faithfully and were adhering to it or did so to legitimise their occupation. Research by Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayyah suggests that the fatwa has been misapplied and suffers from mistranslation. It was meant to answer the question about occupied land where resistance is necessitated rather than terrorist actions seven centuries later.

Sheikh Hamza was happy with Obama being elected, when he was inaugurated, his hijab wearing grandmother, on his maternal side, was with him. He tried to illustrate this was good for Muslims living in America, a positive view of Muslims would be shown.

I found this very disappointing, my view of Obama from the beginning, if you take away the euphoria that followed his electoral victory, is that he is Bush with a smiling face. He has inherited and continued many of Bush’s policies such as the increase in drone attacks on Pakistan, the sabre rattling against Iran, the surge in Afghanistan that replicates the Iraq surge etc. He is nurturing the next generation of terrorists. As I took the train back to London from Oxford, I read an article in the Independent that summed up my feelings of Obama.

One of my problems with praising Obama is, that to do so prioritises the local and sacrifices the global. The Obama foreign policy of killing in the Muslim world is far more important than making life more comfortable for Muslims in the west. You cannot take a perspective which prioritises the latter in favour of the former. Unfortunately much of the discussion about what Muslims should do downplays global problems Muslims are facing and focuses instead on furthering parochial British Muslim community interests

His answer to the question about the khilafah was just as perplexing. He argued that the Islamic state is a dream, and that it was only envisaged for 30 years. The problem with these types of statements is that they are perplexingly vague.

Firstly, claiming that the khilafah is a dream is to discount a great deal of ayaat and ahadith that would be abandoned without a state that implements them, whether you choose to call this the khilafah, imamah, riyasah etc. It is not what you call it that matters but what is at stake is the standing of an age old consensus institution. Do we believe the shariah in its entirety ought to be implemented? If not we should edit the Qur’an, the ahadith, ijma and the mass of traditional scholarship that establishes the norm of implementation of the shariah and the unity of the Muslims as an ummah. The narrations which mention 30 years refer to the Khilafah Rashida, the rightly guided khulafa’a not the khilafah per se.

The fact that Sheikh Hamza chose to abstain from providing an opinion on the ‘work’ of the Quilliam Foundation is also disappointing, but this has been dealt with elsewhere.  Although Tariq Ramadan did say 90% of the Foundation’s work is useless, I wonder which 10% he was referring to.

TARIQ RAMADAN

Tariq Ramadan talked about there being many interpretations of the Qur’an.

He mentioned that our motivation for reform must be driven by faithfulness.

Radical reform is not to adapt to the west but to return to fundamentals.

It is not Islam that needs reforming, it is people that needs reforming.

Tajdeed al-Fahm – reforming our understanding.

We cannot reform the pillars of Islam, its injunctions and duties or its prohibitions.

How can we live in 21st century Britain whilst remaining faithful to Islam.

We have to reform ourselves.

Reform is not to please the people of power, there has to be faithfulness of our intention.

There are people accepting money to call for a fake reform.

We have to have knowledge of the text and the context.

We need to understand the context in which we live.

The scholars of nussus (texts) need to work closely with the scholars of the Waaqi’ (reality).

The event as a whole was interesting for what was not mentioned rather than what was.  No one could disagree with the thrust of what was mentioned, so what was the hype all about?

The topic was skated over rather than dealt with head on. Why is reform necessary? What does it look like?

The question and answer session was not very clear. Tariq Ramadan came across as sincere but with all due respect, his speech and his answers to questions from the audience seemed like he was thinking about the answers whilst he was answering, this seems like an experiment whose parameters, red lines and modus operandi have yet to be determined let alone a conclusion reached with clarity. Is Islamic reform/renewal/revival driven by the west, which seeks Muslims that reject the uncomfortable Islamic baggage of shariah, affinity to and with the Islamic ummah and a closer fit with western liberalism and the values that correspond with that? Or is it driven by a reaction to Al-Qaeda’s twisted interpretations of the texts, thereby justifying the targeting of civilians? Surely the pressure from the west needs to be resisted and the latter position has been challenged ad nauseam.

Those that attended the event to listen to Sheikh Hamza Yusuf’s unique spoken style will have been satisfied, those that came to listen to Tariq Ramadan’s academic thoughts on the subject will have left with a small summary of an aspect of his book on the subject. Those that attended to understand the subject will have left with more questions than answers.

The government announced plans on 24th October that will make the teaching of Sex & Relationship Education (SRE) compulsory in schools from the age of 5…  http://sreislamic.wordpress.com/

Sherry Jones has, in the past few weeks, conducted a number of interviews to manage the backlash her book has stirred up.  She has gone to great lengths to try and paint her book as innocuous, declaring her intentions were good.

Jones will have heard of the commonly used phrase ‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions’, what matters is the end product not the intended aims.

One of the outcomes of this book is the restating of slander against Rasool Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam).  For a very long time a motley crew of anti-Islam/pro Christianity proponents and self-proclaimed defenders of ‘Judeo-Christian civilization from the global jihad’ have made allegations against the relationship between the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) and his wives.  In particular the attack has centred on what is perceived as being the Achilles heel of the Muslims, namely the Prophet’s (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) marriage to Aisha.  Although Sherry Jones does not dwell into the subject, she does choose to use the term “child bride”.

In a recent interview, Jones was asked,

You keep repeating that ‘Aisha was a child bride, reinforcing that she was a child, which is contrary to the belief back then, which is that when a woman reached puberty, she was a woman and thus eligible for marriage.

Her response to this was,

When she married Mohammad she was a child. ..She was a child when she married him, she had not reached puberty she was 9 in my book. And if you count [...] engagement which was considered as binding as marriage so if you count that then by our western term she was married at age 6.

Jones positions herself as a ‘neutral bridge builder’.  Remember, she claims she was driven to write this book after September 11, as a result of the distorted outlook of Islam.  What she ends up doing, is to both display her ignorance and play on stereotypes.

It is important to defend the honour of the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) against the re-hashed claims that he married a ‘child bride’, I will seek to do this through a number of arguments: 

The historical evolution of the age of consent points to the clear fact that throughout history, societies have chosen arbitrary ages for marriage.  The fact that countries to this day differ on the age at which sexual interaction can occur, whether through marriage or outside of marriage, indicates that there is no universal consensus on what delineates maturity and thus capacity for marriage or sexual relations.

Secondly, the Messenger of Allah’s (SalAllahu alaihi wasallam) marriage to Aisha was an exception to his other marriages.  I do not argue this because I am ashamed of the Prophet’s (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) marriage to Aisha, but merely to counteract the orientalist lie that Rasool Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) was driven by base desires in his decision to marry.

Before we begin, I feel it is important that Muslims argue well to respond to the spurious lies and propaganda and realise that the ones that spread them do so, not out of a want to discover the truth, but to try and create doubt into the minds of Muslims in order to weaken our resolve.  It is important that we acknowledge the lies of the ones that harbour deep animosity towards Islam and Muslims.  The response to these lies must not be defensive, revisionist and apologetic. We cannot be ashamed of the Messenger’s (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) actions because they have been placed in the dock and accused of being out of the step with the age in which we live.

Some Muslims have sought to question the authenticity of the narrations that state very clearly that the Messenger of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) married Aisha (radiAllahu anha) at the age of 6 and consummated the marriage at the age of 9.

Narrated by Aisha:

The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:

Narrated by Hisham’s father:

Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old. 

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:

‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported:

Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

There is no dispute over this matter.  Some Muslims have tried to argue using a mixture of logic, hearsay and questionable assertions, despite the good intentions of these Muslims, there was never any controversy over this matter, except when the orientalists started to deluge the Muslims with questions designed to shake their certainty in Islam.

The Age of Consent

It is very clear that historically there has been a wide variation on the age at which consent through marriage is deemed meaningful.

In the Talmud, the primary book of law of the Jews, it is noted,

GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: A girl of the age of three years may be betrothed by intercourse; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: Only one who is three years and one day old. What is the practical difference between them? – The school of R Jannai replied: The practical difference between them is the day preceding the first day of the fourth year.³⁵  R. Johanan, however, replied: The practical difference between them is the rule that thirty days of a year are counted as the full year.  An objection was raised: A girl of the age of three years and even one of the age of two years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: Only one who is three years and one day old.

The age of consent is recognised in Jewish law as being 3 years and one day

The influential founder of Canon law, Gratian, in the twelfth century, accepted the traditional age of puberty for marriage (understood as being between 12 and 14) but he also said consent was “meaningful” if the children were older than seven.

Canonical (Christian Law) interpretation judges “meaningful” consent above the age of seven.

The seventeenth-century lawyer Henry Swinburne distinguished between the marriages of those under seven and those between seven and puberty. He wrote that those under seven who had said their vows had to ratify it afterwards by giving kisses and embraces, by lying together, by exchanging gifts or tokens, or by calling each other husband or wife.

Philip Stubbes, wrote that in sixteenth-century East Anglia, infants still in swaddling clothes were married. The most influential legal text of the seventeenth century in England, that of Sir Edward Coke, made it clear that the marriage of girls under twelve was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband’s estate was nine even though her husband be only four years old.

When historian Magnus Hirschfeld surveyed the age of consent of some fifty countries (mostly in Europe and the Americas) at the beginning of the twentieth century, the age of consent was twelve in fifteen countries, thirteen in seven, fourteen in five, fifteen in four, and sixteen in five. In the remaining countries it remained unclear. In England and the United States, feminist agitation in the late nineteenth century called attention to the young age of consent and called for changes in the law. By the 1920s the age of consent, a state issue in the United States, was raised in every state and ranged from fourteen to eighteen, with most states settling on sixteen or eighteen.

During the latter part of the last century and the early part of the present one, attitudes towards sexual activity began to change in America and so did attitudes toward the age of consent. California was one of the first states to raise the age of consent. It raised it from ten to fourteen in 1889 and then from fourteen to sixteen in 1897.  Then, in 1913, California again raised it from sixteen to eighteen.

In the sixteenth century, canonist Egidio Bossi argued for this interpretation on the grounds that a child could hardly be considered as being in a position to give consent.  However, he recommended that the age of consent be fixed at only six or seven years of age. ["Rape and Marriage in the Medieval Canon Law," in James A. Brundage, ed., Sex, Law and Marriage in the Middle Ages (Brookfield, Vermont: Ashgate, 1993), 67.]

When Victoria came to the throne, the age of consent for girls was effectively 10.

Therefore a little over one hundred years ago in the United States and under two hundred years ago in England, the age at which marriage was legal was ten years old.

To this day, there exist a wide array of ages at which consent is deemed lawful, these variations reflect, the fact that the determination of the age of consent through marriage or otherwise will always be an arbitrary judgement when human beings define the demarcation between legal and illegal.  This is why Paraguay defines 12 as the age of consent, whilst neighbouring Brazil opts for 14.  In Europe the Vatican, at 12, has the lowest age of consent, whilst the rest of Italy specifies 14 years of age.  The USA define the age of consent state by state, which is why there is a discrepancy between the lowest age, 14 in South Carolina, to the highest, 18 in North Dakota.

Again, this illustrates the wide variance between countries in our present age and is demonstrative of the stab in the dark legislating that effectively arbitrates on such sensitive of matters.  On the whole, internal pressures, affected changes in age of consent laws – the prevalence of child prostitution, the changes in public opinion towards child abuse all contributed to legislation that effectively raised the age of consent.  At different points in the history of nations, a number of groups lobbied for changes to occur, most prominently in England, feminists, social purity groups and reformers.  Today, some feminists argue that the age of consent laws have gone too far, they have criminalised those they were meant to protect, and balance can only be restored by bringing the age down to 12.

What makes one view better than another, or more correct?  There is no objective standard which validates any one opinion. 

Some may accuse me of veering down a tangent in order to obfuscate, others may have lost the plot paragraphs ago, but what I am saying is, how can people look at the marriage of Rasool Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) and objectively argue that this was wrong.

If the marriages of RasoolAllah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) were depraved and exploitative, his pagan adversaries would have used his actions in their propaganda campaign.  The fact they didn’t coupled with the reality of multiple reports that record the prophet’s marriages point to the realisation that criticism in this regard is a modern phenomenon.

William Montgomery Watt contextualises the Western antagonism to Islam in general and the Rasool Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) in particular,

From the standpoint of Muhammad’s time, then, the allegations of treachery and sensuality cannot be maintained. His contemporaries did not find him morally defective in any way. On the contrary, some of the acts criticized by the modern Westerner show that Muhammad’s standards were higher than those of his time. In his day and generation he was a social reformer, even a reformer in the sphere of morals.  He created a new system of social security and a new family structure, both of which were a vast improvement on what went before…. he established a religious and social framework for the life of many races of men. That is not the work of a traitor or ‘an old lecher’. [Prophet and Statesman, William Montgomery Watt, p.234)

The prophet's wives

Sherry Jones shows her ignorance when she says,

I read that Mohammad's wives were beautiful. He's a man, a flesh and blood man so what's wrong with him having desires for his wife? That's perfectly holy and perfectly legal, there's nothing wrong with that. He explains every single time to 'Aisha the political importance of these marriages. I'd also like to add that this is all from 'Aisha's point of view. She was known to be a very jealous wife. She was jealous of his wives.

There is no quality in any of his (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) wives that is shared by them all so as to infer a single reason why our Rasool salAllahu alaihi wasallam married nine wives at any one time.  It is reported that some of his wives possessed beauty, whilst others were not noted for this characteristic.   

What we can say is the reality of his marriages, indicate they were marriages of a Prophet, not the marriages of a man marrying for sex and satisfaction of the base instinct. By returning to the historical reality we find that he married Khadija (radiAllahu anha) while he was twenty-three years of age, he was in the prime of his youth, whilst Khadija (radiAllahu anha) was a widow, 15 years his senior.  Yet Khadija (radiAllahu anha) remained his sole wife for twenty-eight years.

He did not consider, whilst married to Khadija (radiAllahu anha), marrying more than one wife, despite living in a time when marrying more than one wife was widely practiced amongst the Arabs. Before he was sent with the Message, he spent seventeen years with Khadija (radiAllahu anha) sharing a quiet and tranquil life. And he lived with her approximately eleven years after the Prophethood (Bi'tha), in a life of da'wa and struggle against the kufr thoughts; in spite of this he did not consider marrying again. It was not known of him during his life with Khadija (radiAllahu anha) or before his marriage to her that a man tempted by the alluring charms of women in an age where the Tabarruj (display of beauty) of the Jahiliyya used to tempt the people.  It is strange indeed to believe after passing the age of fifty a sudden change took place in him (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) which drove him to marry until he had taken ten wives. Within five years in the sixth decade of the Prophet's life he gathered more than seven wives, and in the remaining seven years of the sixth decade and beginning of the seventh the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) gathered nine wives. At such an age can these marriages be attributable to a sexual desire for women or to motives linked to satisfying the base instincts of man? Or were there other motives, which were required by the Prophetic mission? In order to understand this issue, let us examine the incidents surrounding the Prophet's marriages.

In the eleventh year of the Prophethood, i.e. the year Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) died, the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) considered getting married. He was fifty, so he proposed to 'A'isha, the daughter of Abu Bakr, his friend and the first one who believed in his Prophethood from the men. When she was just a child of six he contracted a marriage with her but did not consummate it for a period of three years until she was nine, which was after the Hijra. However, at the time in which he contracted the marriage with 'A'isha he married Sawda bint Zam'a. Sawda was a widow of al-Sukran b. 'Amr b. 'Abd Shams, who was one of the Muslims who had migrated to Abbysinia but died on his return to Makkah. Sawda had embraced Islam with her husband and she had emigrated with him. She had suffered the same difficulties and hardships he suffered and faced the same harm he had faced.

After the death of her husband he (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) married her. It has not been reported that Sawda was beautiful, or that she possessed wealth or standing, that would make any of the worldly aspects influence the Prophet's marriage to her. Since the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) had married her after the death of her husband, the only thing we can deduce from this is that he married her to support her and raise her to the position of the mother of the believers. When he migrated he positioned the house of Sawda close to the masjid.

This was the first house the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) built for any of his wives.

The Messenger of Allah was very close to his companions Abu Bakr and Umar, they were his two wazeerain (assistants/ministers).

The Messenger of Allah salAllahui alaihi wasallam said,

"My two wazirs from the people of the earth are Abu Bakr and ‘Umar." (Tirmidhi)

The Messenger hoped to strengthen his relationship with them both, the most pronounced way of achieving this would be through marriage.

Therfore, in the first year of the Hijra, after the brotherhood between the Ansar and Muhajirin had been instituted, the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) consummated his marriage with 'A'isha (radiAllahu anha) and he housed her next to the house of Sawda (radiAllahu anha), close to the masjid. He allowed his first Wazir (assistant) and friend Abu Bakr as-siddiq (radiAllahu anhu) to visit him at his daughter's home.

In the second year of the Hijra, after the battle of Badr and before Uhud, he married Hafsa (radiAllahu anha) the daughter of 'Umar b. al-Khattab.(ra) Hafsa, before being married to the Prophet, was the wife of Hanish who was one of the early converts to Islam. He died leaving her for seven months before the Messenger married her. By marrying Hafsa he (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) enabled his second Wazir, his companion 'Umar b. al-Khattab (radiAllahu anhu) to visit him at Hafsa's home. So the marriages to A'isha (radiAllahu anha) and Hafsa were marriages to the daughters of his two Wazirs (assistants), the daughters of two companions who persevered with him in Da'wah, fought alongside him, assisted him  the task of ruling in Madinah. So such marriages were not only for the purpose of marriage. Although 'A'isha (radiAllahu anha) was beautiful and the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) found her attractive this was not the case with Hafsa (ra), which indicates that his marriage to both of them was for a purpose other than sexual gratification.

During the battle of Banu Mustaliq, in the fifth year of the Hijra, he (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) married Juwayriyya bint al-Harith ibn Abi Dirar. The reason behind his marriage to her was for the purpose of drawing her father closer to the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) and raising her position. Juwayriyya was from the captives of Banu Mustaliq, and had fallen in the hands of one of the Ansar. She was the daughter of the leader of Banu Mustaliq, so she wanted to free herself from her master to whom she had become a slave-girl. Her master increased the ransom money knowing that she was the daughter of the leader of Banu Mustaliq. So her father approached the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) with the ransom required to free her, which he did. Then after believing in the Message of the Prophet he became a Muslim, and he took his daughter Juwayriyya to the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) and she too embraced Islam, so the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) asked her father for her hand in marriage. He married her to the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) himself so the Prophet's marriage to her was in fact a marriage to the daughter of a leader of a tribe, which he had subdued. His (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) objective was to win the friendship of its leader through marrying his daughter.

In the seventh year of the Hijra after the victory of Khaybar he (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) married Safiyya daughter of Huyai ibn al-Akhtab who was one of the leaders of the Jews. The story of his marriage to her began when she was taken along with other captives which the Muslims seized from the fortress of Khaybar. Some of the Muslims advised the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam): "Safiyya is a noble lady of Banu Qurayza and Banu Nadhir. She is not suitable for anyone other than you", hence the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) freed and married her. This was therefore done for her protection and to free her from the bondage of slavery, and as well to raise her status. It has been narrated that Abu Ayyub Khalid al-Ansari feared that Safiyya harboured hatred against the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) who had killed her father, husband and people. For this reason he spent the night, girded with his sword, around the tent in which the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) consummated the marriage with Safiyya on the way back from Khaybar. When the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) woke up in the morning he noticed him outside the tent and asked him: "What is the matter?" He replied: "I feared for you from this woman. You have killed her father, husband and her people and she has just recently come out of kufr." So the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) set Abu Ayyub's mind at rest, and Safiyya remained loyal to the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam)  until Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) took his soul.

Later, in the eighth year of Hijra he (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) married Maymuna the sister of Umm al-Fadhl, the wife of al-'Abbas b. 'Abd ul-Muttalib. He married her at the end of the pilgrimage [Umra al-qada]. The account of his marriage to her began when Maymuna was twenty-six years of age and that she had delegated her sister Umm al-Fadhl to find a suitor for her, but when she saw the predicament of the Muslims at the pilgrimage she herself yearned for Islam.

Therefore al-’Abbas proposed to his nephew, our Master Muhammad (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) on her behalf. He proposed to the Prophet at her behest and the Messenger agreed to marry her. The three days which the treaty of Hudaybiyah had stipulated had expired, but the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) wished to use his marriage to Maymuna as a means to increase the understanding between himself and the Quraish. When Suhayl b. ‘Amr and Huwayteb b. ‘Abd ul-’Uzza came to him representing Quraish they said to Muhammad (salAllahu alaihi wasallam): “Your time in Makkah has expired, so leave us.” He (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) said to them: “What is the matter with you? Why do you not leave me? I will hold a wedding feast amongst you. We will prepare food for you so why not attend it?” Their response to him was “we have no need of your food so depart from us”; the Messenger _ did not hesitate; he left along with the Muslims behind him. As for his (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) marriage to Zaynab bint Khuzayma and Umm Salama, they were marriages to the two wives of his companions who had been martyred on the battlefield. Zaynab was the wife of ‘Ubayda b. al-Harith b. al-Muttalib who was martyred on the day of Badr, she was not of marked beauty, but she was known for her good nature and kindness to the extent that she became known as the ‘mother of the needy.’ She had passed her youth, but the Messenger of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) married her in the second year of the Hijra, after the battle of Badr and after the martyrdom of her husband. She stayed with him for only two years until Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) took her soul. Which meant after Khadija, she was the only one who died before the Prophet.

As for Umm Salama, she was the wife of Abu Salama, who had a number of sons with her. Abu Salama was injured in Uhud then recovered from it, so the Prophet agreed to let him fight Banu Asad. He defeated them and returned to Madinah victorious with the booty that had been captured but the injury he sustained at Uhud worsened and he remained ill until his death shortly thereafter. The Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) was present while he was on his deathbed, and he remained by his side, praying for his well-being until he died. The Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) then closed Abu Salama’s eyes. Four months after his death, the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) proposed to Umm Salama herself, but she made excuses that she had a big family and that she had passed her youth. The Prophet however persisted until he married her and he himself saw to her children’s upbringing. So it is clear that the Messenger married those two wives to care for the family of two of his companions after their death.

As for his marriage to Umm Habiba bint Abu Sufyan, this was a marriage to a believing woman who had emigrated to Abbysinia fleeing with her deen intact. She had remained patient in the path of Islam after her husband had apostatised. That is because this Umm Habiba was Ramla the daughter of Abu Sufyan, the leader of Makkah and head of the Mushrikin. She was the wife of a cousin (son of a paternal aunt) of the Messenger of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam), ‘Ubayd Allah b. Jahsh al-Asadi. ‘Ubayd Allah embraced Islam with his wife Ramla whilst her father was still upon kufr. She was afraid of hurting her father so she migrated, encumbered by her pregnancy, with her husband to Abbysinia. There in the place of refuge, Ramla gave birth to her daughter Habiba bint ‘Ubayd. Thereafter, she was known as Umm Habiba although her husband ‘Ubayd Allah b. Jahsh did not take long before he left the fold of Islam and professed his belief in Christianity, the religion of the Abbysinians and tried to take his wife Ramla away from Islam, but she patiently persevered in her deen. Then the messenger of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) sent for al-Nejashi (the Negus) delegating him to perform the marriage of Umm Habiba to the Messenger of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam). Al-Nejashi informed Umm Habiba of this, so she delegated Khalid b. Sa’id b. al-’As to give her in marriage, and her marriage contract with the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) took place. Khalid undertook the marriage contract on her behalf and al-Nejashi for the Messenger of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam). When the Muhajirin of Abbysinia returned to Madinah after the battle of Khaybar, Umm Habiba returned with them and entered the house of the Messenger of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam). Madinah celebrated the wedding of the Messenger to Umm Habiba and she lived in his house.

As for his (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) marriage to Zaynab bint Jahsh this challenged the legal/tribal norms in two ways.

Firstly, by challenging the concept of equivalence or matching in marriage.  The tribal society in which the Messenger of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) inhabited believed a man of a noble class or standing should marry a woman similar noble upbringing and could not marry a freed slave.  Islam came to challenge this and sought to build taqwa as a key feature for difference between people. 

Secondly, it established a distinction between adoption and paternity.  At the time if a man adopted a son or daughter, they would take the name of the adopted father, they would inherit, to all intents and purposes they would replicate the biological relationship between birth parents and children.  Islam destroyed this practice and established a new set of legal norms.  A man could not adopt a son and usurp the biological ties of kinship.  The adopted son could not inherit, the relationship between the adopted son’s wife and adopted father would not be the same as those enjoyed by a biological father and his daughter in-law.  The Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) married Zaynab, the wife of Zayd, his adopted son after Zayd divorced her. 

The Messenger of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) married his cousin (daughter

of his paternal aunt), who was from the leaders of the Quraish to Zayd, a former slave that had been freed and his adopted son.  Zaynab bint Jahsh was a daughter of Umayma bint ‘Abd al-Muttalib, the paternal aunt of the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam). She was raised under his care and attention and because of this, she was to him like a daughter or a younger sister. He used to know her and knew whether she was attractive or not

before she had married Zayd, and he had seen her from the time she was an infant crawling, until her childhood and through to her adolescent years.

She was not a stranger to the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam), but rather she was similar in position to his daughter. He (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) proposed to her on behalf of his freed slave Zayd but her brother ‘Abd Allah b. Jahsh refused for his sister, being that she was from Quraish and a Hashimite in addition to being a daughter of the aunt of the Messenger of Allah, to be the bride of a slave bought by Khadija and later freed by Muhammad. He felt that this was a great shame for Zaynab as it used to be a great dishonour for the Arabs, as daughters of the nobility did not marry slaves even if they were given their freedom. But Muhammad (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) wanted these baseless considerations, which existed within people solely on the basis of tribalism to be erased and for them to comprehend that there is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab except in Taqwa and to understand Allah’s saying:

“Verily, the most honourable of you with Allah is that (believer) who has more taqwa”.[Al- Hujurat: 13]

He did not consider it right that a woman from other than his family should set the precedent, in relation to the demolition of tribal traditions. So, Zaynab bint Jahsh, daughter of his aunt, became the one to depart from the traditions of the Arabs and to destroy their customs, paying no attention to what the people may say about her, which she was afraid to hear. He (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) let Zayd, his slave whom he had adopted and who gained the right, due to the customs and traditions of the Arabs, to inherit from him like the rest of his sons, to be the one who would marry Zaynab. This was so that he would be ready for the sacrifice that the All-Wise Legislator had prepared for those who were adopted and taken as sons. The Messenger _ insisted that Zaynab and her brother ‘Abdullah accept Zayd, his freed slave, as her husband. However Zaynab persisted in her refusal as did her brother ‘Abdullah. As a result Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam), it was revealed:

“It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error” [Al- Ahzab: 36]

Hence, nothing remained for ‘Abdullah and Zaynab other than to submit to Allah’s will, so they said: ‘We consent O Messenger of Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam).’ Zayd consummated his marriage with Zaynab after the Prophet had sent her the dowry.

However, married life between Zayd and Zaynab was not good; on the contrary, from the start it was unsettled and embittered and continued to be unsettled and embittered. Zaynab, herself was not happy with this marriage after it had taken place even though it was a command from Allah and His Messenger. She did not obey her husband, and she did not soften in her approach towards him. Rather, she used to boast to Zayd that the bondage of slavery had not befallen her and she made life difficult for him. Zayd complained to the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) on numerous occasions and explained to him about her bad treatment of him. He sought permission from the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) a number of times to divorce her.

The Prophet used to reply: “Hold on to your wife”. Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) revealed to the Messenger that Zaynab will be one of his wives. This was distressing for the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) who feared that people will say that Muhammad has married his son’s wife and will censure him for that since he (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) had adopted Zayd as a son. Therefore, he did not want Zayd to divorce her, but Zayd urged the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) to allow him to divorce her. Despite the fact that the Prophet knew that she would be one of his wives as Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) had informed him by way of revelation, he still said to Zayd: “Keep your wife to yourself, and fear Allah”. As a result of this Allah mildly reproached him since Allah had already informed him Zaynab would be his wife.

This is the meaning of the verse,

“But you did hide in yourself that which Allah will make manifest, you did fear the people whereas Allah had a better right that you should fear Him.” [Al- Ahzab: 37]

Ibn Jarir narrated that `A’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, said, “If Muhammad were to have concealed anything that was revealed to him of the Book of Allah, he would have concealed this Ayah.

The matter that he concealed was the knowledge that Zaynab will be his wife even though she was the wife of someone he had adopted. This is what Allah would make manifest afterwards, which was his marriage to a divorcee of someone he had adopted as his son.  So when Allah informed the Messenger that Zaynab, the wife of his freed slave whom he had adopted will be his wife he hid this knowledge and strictly insisted that Zayd hold on to his wife and not to divorce her, despite Zayd’s insistence, his complaints about her, and the discord in their marital life ever since they married.

However, Zayd insisted on divorcing her so the Messenger gave him permission, and he eventually divorced her without any knowledge that the Messenger would marry her and without Zaynab herself knowing that the Messenger would take her as his wife.  This is illustrated by what Ahmad, Muslim and an-Nisa’i have reported via Sulayman b. al-Mughira on the authority of Thabit that Anas said: “When the ‘Iddah (divorce period) of Zaynab was over, Allah’s Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) asked Zayd to mention to this to her. So I (Zayd) went to her and said: “O Zaynab rejoice! Allah’s Messenger sent me to propose to you on his behalf.” She said: “I do not do anything until I see my Lord order me.” So she stood at her place of worship and Allah’s Messenger came to her without permission when the verses of the Qur’an (pertaining to her marriage) were revealed:

“So when Zayd had accomplished his desire from her (i.e. divorced her), We gave her to you in marriage, so that (in future) there may be no sin to the believers in respect of (the marriage of) the wives of their adopted sons.”[Al- Ahzab: 37]

Zayd did not know about the command for Rasool Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) to marry Zaynab until he was told and Zaynab was unaware of this also and responded “I do not do anything until I see my Lord order me.”  i.e. she left the matter to Allah to guide her in this marriage. The ‘Illa (reason) of this marriage is so that there is no sin on the believer in marrying the wife of someone they had adopted.

This is the account of the Messenger’s marriages to his wives. It is clear from the account of the marriages that each one was for an objective other than the mere aim of marrying. The intent of the Prophet’s marriage to more than four wives and why this number is unique to him from the rest of his Ummah becomes clear. The fact that the objective was not the agitation of the procreation instinct of a man who had passed the age of fifty is quite evident, since he was a man who was busy with the Da’wa, engaged in conveying the Message of his Lord to the world so that he may revive a people and mould them into an Ummah whose only aim in life was to carry the Message of Allah to the world. His aim was to build the society anew after he had demolished the previous edifice, and establish a state pushing ahead the world before it, in order to carry the Call of Islam to the people.

The animosity of those that try and paint a distorted picture of our Master, Muhammad SalAllahu alaihi wasallam is clear.  It is the same animosity that fanned the flames of the crusader venom.  It is the same enmity that motivated the west to work tirelessly to infiltrate the lands of the Muslims under the guise of science and education through missionary schools.  It is the same crusader hatred that shapes western policy towards Muslim lands, through NGOs, human rights organizations, financial institutions, aid agencies and their like. 

The realization that our unification as an Islamic Ummah can challenge the existing order is as frightening to the west as was the revolution the Messenger and his companions brought to Makkan society, and then manifested in the first Islamic State in Medina.

We need as an ummah to stand up against the attacks and realize just as the challenges of the orientlists of old were driven by a want to protect the prevalent systems, so too are the attacks we witness today, they are rehashed and less sophisticated but just as driven by the desire to protect value systems that are crumbling.  We must also realize that the only way we can defend the honour of the Prophet (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) is by working to resurrect the Khilafah that will not hesitate to practically protect the Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam), his family, his companions and all they strove, fought and died for.

On the Day when their tongues, their hands, and their legs will bear witness against them as to what they used to do.) On that Day Allah will pay them the recompense of their deeds in full, and they will know that Allah, He is the Manifest Truth.) [Al- Noor: 24-25]

Yusuf Patel

The Muslim response has differed greatly.  Some disagreed with the content of the novel but argued, in a manner Voltaire would be proud of, to allow for the freedom to offend.  Others countered, freedom of expression is a ‘fanciful idea’, that it is applied selectively rather than adhered to as the ‘sacred cow’ we are often led to believe.  There is confusion regarding how Muslims should respond to this insult on Rasool Allah (salAllahu alaihi wasallam), his family and companions. How do Muslims walk the middle path between the expectation that the controversy will blow over if we remain silent and the want in some quarters to respond to this provocation by violent action that will undoubtedly be used as a further example that Muslims have no response besides a violent one.  Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain has provided a more than adequate response to this concern. 

The choice of response I have opted for, reflects the mix of articles I have come across that have addressed the ‘substance’ of Jones’ novel as well as anecdotal evidence surrounding the wider subject amongst Muslims.  There seems to be a shying away from what are perceived as sensitive and controversial areas of Islam that we Muslims may lack confidence in addressing.  This is not necessarily a discussion that would or should figure in discussions with non-Muslims, but it plays an important part in maintaining confidence in Islam as it impacts upon such crucial creedal matters as nabuwwah (prophethood) and wahi (divine revelation) amongst other things.

I have therefore chosen to address the following areas:

1. The Ifk (slander/lie) against Aisha (radiAllahu anha). The incident which the book’s prologue introduces, albeit with a number of misrepresentations as well as clear untruths.
2. The marriage of Aisha (RadiAllahu anha), described in the ensuing media circus around the novel as his (salAllahu alaihiwasallam’s) ‘child bride’.

Jones through ‘The Jewel of Medina’ steers a dangerous course.  On the one hand the book claims to be ‘extensively researched and elegantly crafted’[i], but on the other hand the copyright section of the book points out,

The Jewel of Medina is a work of fiction.  All characters, with the exception of well-known historical figures herein, and all dialogue, are products of the author’s imagination.

Despite these claims, it is necessary to separate the fictional accounts in Jones’ novel from the first hand accounts of the key incidents which seem to act as a backdrop to the story Jones wants to tell. 

The author focuses on an imagined belief that Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) was struggling for her own freedom, whilst others decided her fate, in particular marriage.

In response, Jones explains,

“there’s a certain amount of projection that goes on when you’re writing fiction.” She argues, despite this, “Given Aisha’s strength of character I think it’s conceivable that she could have felt this way.”

Justifying making things up by claiming ‘she could have felt this way’ sweeps aside the narrations of Aisha (radiAllahu anha) herself, in favour of supposition.

Hadith al-Ifk

In the prologue to the book, Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) rides into Medina clutching Safwan al Mu’attal’s waist.[iii]  The book is premised on the false claim that Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) and Safwan (RadiAllahu anhu) were childhood sweethearts, destined to marry.

Denise Spellberg, an associate professor of history and Middle Eastern studies at the University of Texas at Austin said about the insinuation of a relationship between Aisha (radiAllahu anha) and Safwan(RadiAllahu anhu),

Scenes throughout the book involve Safwan flirting with Aisha, hugging her, and kissing her. “The stuff of tawdry, lurid romance novels, not Islamic history,”

In the prologue, Jones, writing in the voice of Aisha (radiAllahu anha) says,

How close I’d come to betraying him with that trickster! Safwan had lured me with freedom, then tied my destiny to his desires. No different than any other man.

Jones suffers from a desire to re-write history in order to make the story more juicy.  In response to the criticism of her plot claim that Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) was planning to run off with Safwan (RadiAllahu anhu), she responds,

So I used her relationship with Safwan as a metaphor. I gave her a situation where she was tempted and she overcame it. And as we all do when are able to overcome temptation, she became a wiser and more mature and more spiritually aware person.”

It would have been far better had she made up the story and not defamed individuals Muslims love more than their own parents, wives and children.  But then again, that book would not have caused the controversy and the resulting book sales.

Ummul Mu’mineen, Aisha (radiAllahu anha) describes the backdrop surrounding the slanderous false accusations levelled against her by the hypocrites. 

Aisha (radiAllahu anha) says,

Whenever Allah’s Messenger intended to go on a journey, he used to draw lots among his wives and would take with him the one on whom the lot had fallen. Once he drew lots when he wanted to carry out a Ghazwa (expedition), and the lot came upon me. So I proceeded with Allah’s Messenger after Allah’s order of veiling (the women) had been revealed and thus I was carried in my howdah (on a camel) and dismounted while still in it. We carried on our journey, and when Allah’s Messenger had finished his Ghazwa and returned and we approached Medina, Allah’s Apostle ordered to proceed at night. When the army was ordered to resume the homeward journey, I got up and walked on till I left the army (camp) behind. When I had answered the call of nature, I went towards my howdah, but behold ! A necklace of mine made of Jaz Azfar (a kind of black bead) was broken and I looked for it and my search for it detained me. The group of people who used to carry me, came and carried my howdah on to the back of my camel on which I was riding, considering that I was therein. At that time women were light in weight and were not fleshy for they used to eat little (food), so those people did not feel the lightness of the howdah while raising it up, and I was still a young lady. They drove away the camel and proceeded. Then I found my necklace after the army had gone. I came to their camp but found nobody therein so I went to the place where I used to stay, thinking that they would miss me and come back in my search. While I was sitting at my place, I felt sleepy and slept.

In Jones’ made up version of events, Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) used the loss of her necklace to remain behind purposefully so she could execute her plan of running away with Safwan (RadiAllahu anhu).  Jones utilises this interaction to feed further plot twists into her story, by claiming Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) and Safwan (RadiAllahu anhu) grew up together and were destined to be married, she veers into a true Hollywood style tale of temptation and subsequent redemption.

Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) continues to explain what happened free of Hollywood gloss,

Safwan bin Al-Mu’attil As-Sulami Adh-Dhakw-ani was behind the army. He had started in the last part of the night and reached my stationing place in the morning and saw the figure of a sleeping person. He came to me and recognized me on seeing me for he used to see me before veiling. I got up because of his saying: “Inna Lillahi wa inna ilaihi rajiun,” which he uttered on recognizing me. I covered my face with my garment, and by Allah, he did not say to me a single word except, “Inna Lillahi wa inna ilaihi rajiun,” till he made his she-camel kneel down whereupon he trod on its forelegs and I mounted it. Then Safwan set out, leading the she-camel that was carrying me, till we met the army while they were resting during the hot midday.

In subsequent interviews, Jones is adamant Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) may have fallen prey to temptation, but that’s ok, because she fought it and it made her stronger,

And so, ok, we don’t really know what happened in the desert with Safwan. People had accused her of adultery. She claims she didn’t commit adultery. God revealed to Muhammad that there was no adultery. But we don’t know if she was tempted. I thought this could be a good way to demonstrate that perhaps this is one way that Aisha became a woman. This is her coming of age tale. By being tempted and resisting, we all become stronger individuals.

It is inconceivable that Jones believes in the minutest possibility that her version of events has a semblance of truth to it, she had a very clear objective when drafting and re-writing her book and what really happened figured low in her priorities over the story she wanted to tell.

Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) continues,

Then whoever was meant for destruction, fell in destruction, and the leader of the Ifk (forged statement) was ‘Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul. After this we arrived at Medina and I became ill for one month while the people were spreading the forged statements of the people of the Ifk, and I was not aware of anything thereof. But what aroused my doubt while I was sick, was that I was no longer receiving from Allah’s Messenger the same kindness as I used to receive when I fell sick. Allah’s Messenger would enter upon me, say a greeting and add, “How is that (lady)?” and then depart.

That aroused my suspicion but I was not aware of the propagated evil till I recovered from my ailment. I went out with Um Mistah to answer the call of nature towards Al-Manasi, the place where we used to relieve ourselves, and used not to go out for this purpose except from night to night, and that was before we had lavatories close to our houses. And this habit of ours was similar to the habit of the old ‘Arabs (in the deserts or in the tents) concerning the evacuation of the bowels, for we considered it troublesome and harmful to take lavatories in the houses. So I went out with Um Mistah who was the daughter of Abi Ruhm bin Abd Manaf, and her mother was daughter of Sakhr bin Amir who was the aunt of Abi Bakr As-Siddiq, and her son was Mistah bin Uthatha. When we had finished our affair, Um Mistah and I came back towards my house. Um Mistah stumbled over her robe whereupon she said, “Let Mistah be ruined ! ” I said to her, “What a bad word you have said! Do you abuse a man who has taken part in the Battle of Badr?’ She said, “O you there! Didn’t you hear what he has said?” I said, “And what did he say?” She then told me the statement of the people of the Ifk (forged statement) which added to my ailment. When I returned home, Allah’s Messenger came to me, and after greeting, he said, “How is that (lady)?” I said, “Will you allow me to go to my parents?” At that time I intended to be sure of the news through them. Allah’s Messenger allowed me and I went to my parents and asked my mother, “O my mother! What are the people talking about?” My mother said, “O my daughter! Take it easy, for by Allah, there is no charming lady who is loved by her husband who has other wives as well, but that those wives would find fault with her.” I said, “Subhan Allah! Did the people really talk about that?”

The hypocrites conveyed a lie about the mother of the believers, in order to create mischief, some Muslims chose to relate the slanderous accusations as though they had a semblance of truth.  Then ironically, 1400 years later, Sherry Jones insinuates to the reader, there may be some truth to the claim that Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) was tempted.  And this is her treatment of someone in Islamic history she admires!  She is no better than Abdullah ibn Ubay ibn Salul, the chief of the hypocrites and the originator of the slander.

Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) relates her reaction to the false claims,

That night I kept on weeping the whole night till the morning. My tears never stopped, nor did I sleep, and morning broke while I was still weeping, Allah’s Messenger called ‘Ali bin Abi Talib and Usama bin Zaid when the Divine Inspiration delayed, in order to consult them as to the idea of divorcing his wife. Usama bin Zaid told Allah’s Apostle of what he knew about the innocence of his wife and of his affection he kept for her. He said, “O Allah’s Messenger! She is your wife, and we do not know anything about her except good.” But ‘Ali bin Abi Talib said, “O Allah’s Messenger! Allah does not impose restrictions on you; and there are plenty of women other than her. If you however, ask (her) slave girl, she will tell you the truth.” ‘Aisha added: So Allah’s Apostle called for Barira and said, “O Barira! Did you ever see anything which might have aroused your suspicion? (as regards Aisha). Barira said, “By Allah Who has sent you with the truth, I have never seen anything regarding Aisha which I would blame her for except that she is a girl of immature age who sometimes sleeps and leaves the dough of her family unprotected so that the domestic goats come and eat it.” So Allah’s Messenger got up (and addressed) the people and asked for somebody who would take revenge on ‘Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul then.

On that day I kept on weeping so much that neither did my tears stop, nor could I sleep. In the morning my parents were with me, and I had wept for two nights and a day without sleeping and with incessant tears till they thought that my liver would burst with weeping. While they were with me and I was weeping, an Ansari woman asked permission to see me. I admitted her and she sat and started weeping with me. While I was in that state, Allah’s Messenger came to us, greeted, and sat down,. He had never sat with me since the day what was said, was said. He had stayed a month without receiving any Divine Inspiration concerning my case. Allah’s Messenger recited the Tashahhud after he had sat down, and then said, “Thereafter, O ‘Aisha! I have been informed such and-such a thing about you; and if you are innocent, Allah will reveal your innocence, and if you have committed a sin, then ask for Allah’s forgiveness and repent to Him, for when a slave confesses his sin and then repents to Allah, Allah accepts his repentance.” When Allah’s Apostle had finished his speech, my tears ceased completely so that I no longer felt even a drop thereof. Then I said to my father, “Reply to Allah’s Messenger on my behalf as to what he said.” He said, “By Allah, I do not know what to say to Allah’s Messenger.” Then I said to my mother, “Reply to Allah’s Apostle.”

She said, “I do not know what to say to Allah’s Messenger.” Still a young girl as I was and though I had little knowledge of Quran, I said, “By Allah, I know that you heard this story (of the Ifk) so much so that it has been planted in your minds and you have believed it. So now, if I tell you that I am innocent, and Allah knows that I am innocent, you will not believe me; and if I confess something, and Allah knows that I am innocent of it, you will believe me. By Allah, I cannot find of you an example except that of Joseph’s father:

“So (for me) patience is most fitting against that which you assert and it is Allah (Alone) Whose help can be sought”.

Then I turned away and lay on my bed, and at that time I knew that I was innocent and that Allah would reveal my innocence. But by Allah, I never thought that Allah would sent down about my affair, Divine Inspiration that would be recited (forever), as I considered myself too unworthy to be talked of by Allah with something that was to be recited: but I hoped that Allah’s Messenger might have a vision in which Allah would prove my innocence.

By Allah, Allah’s Messenger had not left his seat and nobody had left the house when the Divine Inspiration came to Allah’s Messenger. So there overtook him the same hard condition, which used to overtake him (when he was Divinely Inspired) so that the drops of his sweat were running down, like pearls, though it was a (cold) winter day, and that was because of the heaviness of the statement which was revealed to him. When that state of Allah’s Messenger was over, and he was smiling when he was relieved, the first word he said was, “Aisha, Allah has declared your innocence.” My mother said to me, “Get up and go to him.” I said, “By Allah, I will not go to him and I will not thank anybody but Allah.” So Allah revealed:

“Verily! They who spread the Slander are a gang among you.” (24.11-20).

 When Allah revealed this to confirm my innocence, Abu Bakr As-Siddiq who used to provide for Mistah bin Uthatha because of the latter’s kinship to him and his poverty, said, “By Allah, I will never provide for Mistah anything after what he has said about Aisha”. So Allah revealed:

“Let not those among you who are good and are wealthy swear not to give (help) to their kinsmen, those in need, and those who have left their homes for Allah’s Cause. Let them Pardon and forgive (i.e. do not punish them). Do you not love that should forgive you? Verily Allah is Oft-forgiving. Most Merciful.” (24.22)

Abu Bakr said, “Yes, by Allah, I wish that Allah should forgive me.” So he resumed giving Mistah the aid he used to give him before and said, “By Allah, I will never withold it from him at all.”

And Allah subhanahu wa ta’aala posed a question to the believers in relation to the response of the hypocrites,

And why did ye not, when ye heard it, say? – “It is not right of us to speak of this: Glory to Allah! this is a most serious slander!” [Surah an-Nur: 16)

Surely this should be our response to Jones’ attack, which is wrapped in the garbs of establishing a bridge of understanding between people.  Her work is a most serious slander.

In this day and age where gossip is more exciting than news, where reality television is preferred over reality, where newspapers infer guilt or innocence, tales of sexual misdemeanour and indiscretions, Sherry Jones enters the fray and slanders and defames the mother of the believers in a manner that trivialises who she was and how dear she is to the Muslims.  For Muslims, Allah has freed Aisha (RadiAllahu anha) of the inferences of both the leaders and conveyors of the Ifk and the present day purveyors of defamatory lies.  

Part two will bi iznillah respond to the false claims regarding the marriage of Aisha RadiAllahu anha and the slanderous accusations regarding the Messenger’s marriages

Yusuf Patel

After the demise of the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.), the Companions decided to choose someone capable of organizing and looking after the affairs of the Ummah, establishing the commandments of the Sharī’ah and continuing the work of da’wah which was promulgated by the Messenger of Allah (P.B.H.). Addressing the audience soon after the death of the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.), Abū Bakr had stressed the second aspect of the Khilāfah: the establishment of Dīn and the advancement of the laws of Sharī’ah, He said:

“O people! Muhammad has passed away. However, it is certainly necessary that someone should come forward to keep Dīn established in society.”[1]

The Companions agreed on this point and gave priority to the preservation of the Dīn by establishing the institution of the Khilāfah. Thus, the basic purpose of preserving the Dīn by enforcing its laws and implementing its rules was considered the basic and primary objective of the Khilāfah. Abū Bakr, after being chosen as Khalīfah made it clear in his first speech that he would strictly follow the Qur’ān and the Sunnah. The words of Abū Bakr, as recorded by Ibn Hishām and al-Tabarī are: “Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Messenger; if I disobey Allah and His Messenger you, then have no obligation of obedience to me.”[2] ‘Umar b. al-Khattāb and other Rāshidūn Khulafā’ also followed the same policy of implementing the rules of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah. A hadīth recorded by al-Dārimī illustrates the approach of Abū Bakr and ‘Umar when dealing with legal, social and administrative issues. Mahrān b. Maymūn reported that whenever a dispute arose, or any issue was taken to Abū Bakr or ‘Umar for settlement, they looked into the Qur’ān first to find a solution; but in those cases where they could not find an answer they referred to the Sunnah of the Prophet (P.B.H.) and settled the matter according tot eh Sunnah. If they were not content with their knowledge of the Sunnah on any particular issue, then, they called the Companions of the Prophet (P.B.H.) and asked them whether they had heard something from the Prophet (P.B.H.) concerning that particular issue. If anyone knew something, he told the Khalīfah. The Khalīfah would then decide the matter in accordance with the Sunnah. If the Khalīfah was unable to reach a decision after having consulted the Companions, because he could not find any relevant saying from the Messenger of Allah (P.B.H.), then the Khalīfah summoned the leaders and notables of the Ansār and Muhājīrun to discuss the matter with them.[3]

The Rāshidūn Khulafā’ not only followed the teachings of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah but also gave instructions to their governors and judges to decide matters according to the Qur’ān and the Sunnah. The letters of ‘Umar Fārūq to Abu Mūsā al-Asharī and Qādī Shurayh support our argument that the primary objective of the Khilāfah was to implement the rules of the Sharī’ah.[4]

The fuqahā’, even in later periods gave due consideration to this aspect of an Islamic government while discussing the institution of the Khalīfah. Al-Baghdādī (d. 429 A.H.), for example, define Khalīfah as one who implements the rules of the Sharī’ah amongst the Muslims, establishes hūdūd, dispatches expeditions, arranges marriages of widows and distributes the fay’ among the public.[5] Al-Māwardī (d. 450 A.H.) has a clearer idea about the institution of the Khilāfah; he gives a more comprehensive definition of the institution than his predecessor. To him the Khilāfah is the succession (niyābah) to the Prophet (P.B.H.) in the protection of the Dīn and looking after the worldly affairs of the people[6]. Imām al-Hramayn al-Juwaynī (d. 478 A.H.) gives a long definition, covering many aspects of the Khilāfah:

“The Imāmah is a perfect authority and general leadership over the people, commons as well as notables, in all important religious and temporal affairs; the defence of territory of Dār al-Islām, looking after the interests of the community, establishing Islamic da’wah by providing evidence and proof (or truthfulness of Islamic faith) and even by using force (if necessary), denouncing the deviation, abstaining from inequity and oppression, providing help and support to the oppressed against transgressors and recovering the dues from those who refuse to be paid to those who were deprived of their rights.”[7]

Al-Juwaynī includes the words riyāsah tāmmah, and zi’āmah ‘āmmah which made his definition slightly different from that of al- Māwardī. Al-Juwaynī, by adding these words, differentiates between the Khilāfah and imārah (governship) of provinces. The Khilāfah, according to him, is the highest authority in Muslim society.

These definitions by the fuqahā’ give us a deep insight into their concept of the Khilāfah; it is almost unanimously agreed by all the fuqahā’ that the Khilāfah deals with both religious and temporal matters. According to al-Baghdādī and al-Māwardī, the religious aspect of the Khilāfah is predominant as we have noticed above. Al-Baghdādī refers, in the same chapter, to the views of Abū al-Hasan al-Ash’arī who is of the opinion that the Imāmah and the Sharī’ah are twins, and the implementation of the Sharī’ah depends on the establishment of the Imāmah.[8]

Most of the later fuqahā’ also adopted these definitions. Their interpretation of the Khilāfah is not very much different from that of the early scholars. Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 767 A.H.), for example, advances the definition that, “Imām is a protector (rā’ī = shepherd_ of the Ummah”, a statement which is derived from a well known hadīth.[9]

Al-Taftāzānī (d. 791 A.H.) defines the Khilāfah as:

“The Imāmah is a general leadership (riyāsah āmmah) in religious and temporal affairs, as vicegerent of the Prophet (P.B.H.).”[10]

‘Adud al-Dīn al-Ījī (d. 756 A.H.), another prominent scholar and theologian, also defines the Imāmah as follows:

“It is the vicegerency of the Prophet (P.B.H.) in establishing the Dīn and looking after the affairs of the Ummah.”[11]

Ibn Khaldūn (d. 808 A.H.) also discussed the system of Khilāfah in al-Muqaddimah. His definition is not different form that of al-Mārwadī.[12] However, Ibn Khaldūn stresses the religious aspect, because the religious commitment and fervour, according to him, strengthen the powers and solidarity of the believers. The politics based on religious values, as viewed by Ibn Khaldūn, contributes to the good in this world as well as in the Hereafter.[13]

The definitions given by al- Juwaynī and al-Taftāzānī have not been accepted by many scholars, perhaps, because they add the phrase, riyāsah āmmah which, according to some of the modern critics, confers the Khalīfah with much authority. It was the Prophet (P.B.H.) who, being the Messenger of Allah, held such an extensive authority.[14] It seems that al-Juwaynī and al-Taftāzānī are misunderstood. They do not mean absolute authority for the Khalīfah. Al-Taftāzānī makes it clear that this phrase is added in the definition of the Khalīfah in order to exclude the judges and governors of provinces. The authority of the Khalīfah is general as far as the jurisdiction is concerned, while the authority and jurisdiction of governors and judges are limited to their particular areas of duties.[15] Al-riyāsah āmmah, therefore, means nothing but only higher authority or general jurisdiction in a territorial sense. Al-Taftāzānī refers to al-Rāzī (d 606 A.H.) who also includes the same phrase.[16] Not only al-Taftāzānī but some of the very late scholars have also considered it as an essential condition of the Khilāfah. Shāh Walī Allāh, for example, explains the Khilāfah, as:

“It is general authority as vicegerent of the Prophet (P.B.H.) for the establishment of Dīn by reviving the religious sciences, establishing the pillars of Islam, carrying out the jihād and what is necessary for jihād, such as organizing the armies and paying the stipends to soldiers and allocating the fay’, establishing justice, implementing the hūdūd, eliminating oppression, enjoining the Good and forbidding the Evil.”[17]

The above discussion makes it clear that Muslim scholars both of the early and the later periods agree to the point that the main responsibility of the Khilāfah is to look after both the religious and temporal affairs of the Ummah.

Al-Rayyis argues on the basis of the definition of al-Mārwadī that the function of the Khalīfah is to preserve the Dīn; he, therefore, has no right to make any change or amendment or even to introduce any new interpretation to the fundamentals of the Dīn[18] since it is the domain of the fuqahā’ and is not one of the obligations of the Khalīfah. Lambton also reaches the same conclusion. She discusses in her article on Khilāfah:

“The title Khalīfat Rasül Allah implied the assumption by Muhammad’s successors of Muhammad’s function as judge and temporal leader of the community. Muhammad’s Prophetic function, on the other hand, was held to have ceased with him and it was believed that the spiritual guidance of the community had been inherited by the community as a whole. The Khalīfah, thus, had no authority to give new interpretations to religious matters. His function was merely a delegation of authority for the purpose of applying and defending the Sharī’ah“.[19]

However, it does not seem plausible to impose any unnecessary restriction on the Khalīfah. If he is knowledgeable and has ability for giving expert opinion, he is allowed to do so in his capacity as faqih or mujtahid. Al-Mārwadī and some other fuqahā’ suggest the ability of ijtihād as a necessary qualification for the Khalīfah. In his capacity as mujtahid, the Khalīfah has the right to exercise ijtihād, like any other mujtahid in the Muslim community. Lambton quotes Ibn al-Muqaffa’ (d. 139 A.H.), who was disappointed by the differences of the fuqahā’ on legal questions, to have suggested that the Khalīfah should enjoy superceding powers to regulate and coordinate the ra’y.[20] Ibn al-Muqaffa’ attempted to convince the Khalīfah to eliminate the right of the fuqahā’ to individual opinion. He feared that the ‘ulamā’ might create a public opinion against the government. However, according to Lambton, the opinion of Ibn al-Muqaffa’ was rejected by the mainstream of Islam.[21]

The definitions of the Khilāfah, discussed above, have been derived from the Qur’ān and the Sunnah of the Prophet (P.B.H.) and the practice of the Rashidūn Khulafā’. Abū al-Hasan al-Ash’ari, while discussing the issue of Khilāfah refers to the Qur’ānic verse (22):

“O David! We did indeed make thee a vicegerent on earth: so judge, thou between men in truth (and justice): nor follow thou – the lusts (of thy heart) for they will mislead thee from the Path of God.”23

Al-Mārwadī also quotes this verse while discussing the obligations of the Khalīfah. Allah granted David (as) powers and authority, argues al-Mārwadī, to establish justice and truth.24

It will be appropriate to discuss another verse which is very important in connection with authority and government. The verse reads:

“(They are) Those who, if We establish in the land, establish regular prayer and give regular charity, enjoin the right and forbid wrong: With God rests the end (and decisions) of (all) affairs.”25

Al-Tabarī (d. 310 A.H.) argues from this verse on the authority of the Companions who succeeded the Prophet (P.B.H.) and accomplished the obligations mentioned in the verse.26 Al-Jassās (d. 370 A.H.) also establishes the legitimacy of the authority of the Rashidūn Khulafā’ on the basis of the fact that they fulfilled all these obligations.27

According to al-Dahhāk, the four functions, mentioned in the verse of al-Hajj, are the obligations incumbent upon the Khalīfah. The ‘ulamā’ who have close contact with the ruling authorities also shoulder the responsibilities imposed on the rulers.28

The fuqahā’ also consider the verse of 30 of al-Baqarah where the word Khalīfah is mentioned and a general reference is made to the divine purpose behind the creation of mankind.29 Al-Baghdādī, interpreting the verse, mentions the opinion of ‘Abd Allah b. Mas’ūd and Mujāhid that Khalīfah means that one who establishes Allah’s commandments, manifests the signs of His unity and does justice among the people.30 The verse of al-Nūr is also frequently quoted by scholars when referring to the system of Khilāfah. The verse reads:

“God has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in authority their religion – the one which He has chosen for them; and that He will change (their state), after the fear in which they (lived), to one of security and peace.”31

The term Khilāfah is not only used in the Qur’ān but is also used constantly in the hadīth literature.32 The two ahadīth which we would like to discuss here are narrated in the authentic books of hadīth. The first of these ahadīth is narrated by al-Tirmidhī, Abū Daw’ūd, Ibn Mājah and some other muhaddithūn. It states that the Holy Prophet (P.B.H.) directed the people to follow firmly the Sunnah of the Prophet (P.B.H.) and the Sunnah of the Rashidūn Khulafā’.33 According to Tirmidhī, the hadīth is authentic. The other hadīth, narrated by al-Bukhārī, al-Muslim and many others, states that the Prophet (P.B.H.) has said, “the Children of Isrā’īl were led by their Prophets; as soon as a Prophet passed away another took his place; but there would be no Prophet after me, however, there would be the Khulafā’“.34

All the above mentioned Qur’ānic verses and hadīth references are important as regards understanding the meaning of the term Khilāfah. The Companions, who chose Abū Bakr, and gave him the title of “the Khalīfah of the Messenger of Allah”, must have had in mind, when they did so, the Qur’ānic verses and the ahadīth of the Prophet (P.B.H.). The Muslims were aware of the nature of mulükiyyah (absolute mechanism) which existed in many countries around them at the demise of the Holy Prophet (P.B.H). The Companions avoided calling their ruler ‘king’. Al-Qalqashandi (d. 821 A.H.) and al-Suyūtī (d. 911 A.H.) mention a dialogue between ‘Umar, the Khalīfah, and his colleagues on the difference between Khilāfah and mulk (monarchy) which gives us an idea as to their concept of monarchy. According to that dialogue, the Khalīfah is just a trustee of public wealth and treasury, while the king is one who treats it as his own property, takes whatever he likes and gives what he wants.35

Among the later fuqahā’ especially who came after the period of the Rashidūn, this early period of governing the society is regarded as a model which is to be realized again. Thus the actions of the immediate successors of the Prophet (P.B.H.) have always been regarded as a model by the scholars. This definition of the Khilāfah, we discussed above, has, thus, been determined in the light of the Qur’ānic verses, the Sunnah of the Prophet (P.B.H.) and the practice of the Rashidūn Khulafā’.

We may conclude in the light of above discussion that a just government which establishes al-Dīn, implements the laws of the Sharī’ah and looks after the affairs of the Ummah is regarded as Khilāfah by the fuqahā’ of the early period (mutaqqaddinmūn).

The fuqahā’ also discuss the qualifications necessary for a candidate for the office of Khalīfah. Mostly the fuqahā’ stress knowledge (al-‘ilm), sound and just character (al ‘adālah), capacity of social and political organization, military expertise and descent from the Quraysh. Al-Baghdādī and al- Māwardī, al-Juwaynī and al-Ghazālī place much emphasis on knowledge, good character and capability of dealing with social and political matters. The condition of being descendent from the Quraysh is mentioned as the last one by al-Baghdādī, al-Māwardī and al-Ghazālī. Al-Ījī discusses the condition of descent from the Quraysh as being disputed; the Khawārij – and some of the Mu’tazilah do not accept this condition.36 Imām al-Haramayn al-Juwaynī, however, is not satisfied with the condition of Qurayshite descent; he criticises this condition in the historical context. The hadīth which states “the leaders come from the Quraysh”37, according to al-Juwaynī, is not of such standard that the doctrine of Qurayshite descent could be derived from it.38 He puts much emphasis on knowledge. He is of the opinion that the Khalīfah should have knowledge and ability of exercising ijtihād.39 Ibn al-Farrā’ puts the condition of the Qurayshite descent as the first one. He mentions a tradition from Ahmad b. Hanbal saying that the Khalīfah should not be non-Qurayshite. He is strict about this condition, and lenient about others.40 Ibn al-Farrā’ does not adduce any argument in favour of his attitude. It seems that it was a political issue to support either Qurayshite or Hashmites without producing any reason or argument.41

It seems, as we understand, that the hadīth is indicative of the socio-political standing of the Quraysh in the Arab society. The Quraysh, even in the Jāhiliyyah; held the leadership, and their social and political prestige was recognized by the neighbouring states. ‘Umar, the Khalīfah, once pointed out this unique status of the Quraysh. He said:

“O people of Quraysh! By Allah, even if you enter a hole the Arabs, following your traces, will also enter the same. Therefore, be mindful of Allah in their affairs.”42

This tradition also makes it clear that the Qraysh commanded the respect of the people and were regarded as the leaders of the Arabs. The Prophet (P.B.H.) has also obviously referred to the same thing in the hadīth. Now, it is a historical fact that the Quraysh at the time of the establishment of the Khalīfah held a pre-eminent position in the collective life of Arabia; they could keep the unity and integrity of the Ummah. We must, therefore, see the hadīth in this context. The hadīth does not seek to lay down any principle or rule that the rulers or leaders should always be from the Quraysh. Ibn al-Farrā’ mentions the argument of Abū Bakr and ‘Umar at the meeting of Thaqīfah of Banū Sā’idah in these words:

“Certainly the Arabs will not submit to anyone except this tribe of Quraysh.”43

This argument of Abū Bakr and ‘Umar also supports our contention that the hadīth only expresses the political dominance held by the Quraysh, and does not lay down any legal rule of permanent nature.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

[2] Ibn Hishām, al-Sirah (ed. Khalil Harras, Cairo, 1955) vol. 4, p. 457; al-Tabari, Tārīkh (ed. Abu al-Fadl Ibrahim, Cairo, 1961) vol. 3, p. 210.

[3] Al-Dārimī, Sunan, (Beirut, n.d.) vol. 1, p 58; Ibn al-Qayyim, I’lām al’Muwqqi’īn, (Beirut, 1973) vol. 1, p. 62.

[4] See ‘Umar’s letters to Abū Mūsā al-Asharī and Qādī Shurayh, Wakī, Akhbār al-Quqāt (Beirut, n.d.), vol. 1, pp. 283, 84, vol. 2, pp. 189-90.

[5] Al-Baghdādī, ‘Abd al-Qāhir, Usūl al-Dīn (Istanbul, 1928), p. 271.

[6] Al- Māwardī, al-Ahkām al-Sultāniyah (Cairo, 1966), p. 5.

[7] Al-Juwaynī, Imām al-Haramayn, Ghiyāth al-Umam (ed. Mustafa hilmi, Alexandria, 1979), p. 15.

[8] Al-Juwaynī, Usūl al-Din, op. cit., p. 272.

[9] Laoust, Henry, Nazriyyāt Ibn Taymiyyah fi al-Siyāsah (Arabic tr. By M. ‘Abd al-‘Azim ‘Ali, Cairo, 1979), p. 226; also ssee Bukhārī, Sahih, (9 parts in 3 vols., Cairo, n.d.), vol. 1, part 2, p. 6; Abū Daw’ūd, Sunan (ed. ‘Izzat ‘Ubayd. Hims, 1969), hadīth No 2928; Ibn Taymiyya, al-Siyāsah al- Shar’īyyah (ed. Ali al-Maghribi, Kuwait, 1986), pp. 23, 23.

[10] Al-Taftāzānī, Sharh al-Maqāsid (Lahore, 1981), vol. 2, p. 272.

[11] Al-Ījī, ‘Adud al-Dīn, al-Mawāqif, (Beirut 1979), p. 395.

[12] Ibn Khaldūn, al-Muqaddimah (Beirut, 1956), p. 38; al-Ramli, Nihāyat al-Muhtāj (Cairo, 1967), vol. 7, p. 409.

[13] Ibn Khaldūn, al-Muqaddimah, op. cit., pp. 277, 78, 337.

[14] Al-Rayyis, Diyāl al-Dīn, al-Nazriyyat al-Siyasiyyah (Cairo, 1970), p. 121.

[15] Al-Taftāzānī, Sharh al Maqāsid, op. cit., vol. 2. p. 272.

[16] Ibid., p. 272.

[17] Shāh Walī Allāh, Izālat al-Khifā, (Urdu tr ‘Abd al-Shakur, Karachi, n.d.), vol. 1, p. 28.

[18] Al-Rayyis, al-Nazriyyāt, op. cit., p. 121.

[19] Lambton, A.K.S., “Khilafah in Political Theory” in Encyclopedia of Islam.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

22 Al-Ash’arī, Abū al-Hasan, al-Ibanah (Cairo, 1977), p. 251.

23 Al-Qur’ān, 38:26; also see al-Tabarī, Jāmi’ al-Bayān (Beirut, 1972), vol. 23, p. 97; al-Zamakhsharī, al-Kashshāf (Cairo, 1966), vol. 3, pp. 371-72.

24 Al-Mārwadī, al-Ahkām al-Sultāniyah, op, cit., p 16; Ibn Jamā’ah starts the chapter of Imāmah with this verses, see Tahrīr al-Ahkām (ed. H. Kofler, Islamica 6, 1934; and 1938), p. 355.

25 Al-Qur’ān, 22:41.

26 Al-Tabarī, Jāmi’ al-Bayān, op. cit., vol. 17, p. 126.

27 Al Jassās, Abū Bakr, Ahkām al-Qur’ān, (Constantinople, 1335 A.H.), vol. 3, p. 246.

28 Al-Qurtubī, Al-Jāmi’li Ahkām al- Qur’ān (Beirut, 1969), vol. 12, p. 73; Ibn Jama’ah, Tahrīr al-Ahkām, op. cit., p. 355.

29 Al- Qur’ān, 2:30.

30 Al-Baghdādī, ‘Abd al-Rahmān b. ‘Ali, Zād al-Ma’āthir, (Damascus, 1964), vol. 1, p. 60.

31 Q. al-Nūr 24:55.

32 Wensinck, al-Mu’jam al’Mufahras see word “Khalīfah“.

33 Tirmidhī, Sunan (Hims, 1965), vol. 7, p. 320 (H. No. 2678); Abū Daw’ūd, Sunan, op. cit., (H. No. 4607); Ibn Mājah, Sunan (Cairo, 1952) h. No. 24; Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad (Beirut, n.d.), vol. 4, pp, 126; al-Dārimī, Sunan, op. cit., vol. 1. pp. 44, 45.

34 Bukhārī, Sahīh, op. cit., vol. 2, part 4, p. 206; Muslim, Sahīh (Cairo, n.d.), vol. 6, p. 17; Ibn Mājah, Sunan, op. cit., (H. No. 2871); Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 297.

35 Al-Suyūtī, Ta’rīkh al-Khulafā’ (Cairo, 1964), p. 164; al-Qalqashandi, Ma’āthir al-Ināfah (ed. A. Sattar Ahmad, Kuwait, 1964), vol. 1, pp. 13, 14.

36 Al-Baghdādī, Usūl al-Din,op. cit., p. 277, al- Māwardī, al-Ahkām al-Sultāniyah, op. cit., p. 6; al- Ghazālī, al-Iqtisād (Beirut, 1969), p. 215, al- Ījī, al- Mawāqif, op. cit., p. 398.

37 Ahmad b. Hanbal, Musnad, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 129, vol. 4, p. 421.

38 Al-Juwaynī, Ghiyāth al-Umam, op. cit., pp. 62-64.

39 Al-Juwaynī, Ghiyāth, op. cit., p. 65.

40 Ibn al- Farrā’, al-Ahkām al-Sultāniyah, (ed. M. Hamid al-Fiqi, Cairo, 1966), p. 20.

41 Al-Juwaynī, Ghiyāth al-Umam, op. cit., p.64.

42 Al-Tabarī, Ta’rīkh, op. cit., vol. 3, p. 259.

43 Ibn al- Farrā’, al-Ahkām al-Sultāniyah, op. cit., p. 19; al-Qurtubī, Al-Jāmi’li Ahkām al-Qur’ān, op. cit., vol. 1. p. 264.

Cameron is compensating for a lack of real policies and the absence of clear blue water between his party and Gordon Brown. He therefore finds it necessary to adopt populist stances to win favour with the electorate. It was Cameron that has been calling for the ban on entry of Qaradawi to this country, particularly during Prime Minister’s Questions. Cameron is trying to show he is tough on ‘radical Islam’ and tough on the causes of ‘radical Islam’. He proudly points to unelected Queen Rania of Jordan, Pakistan caretaker Prime Minister Mohammedmian Soomro as backers of his anti-radicalisation strategy (whatever it may be). Actually, he has a cunning plan,

…don’t shy off tough choices like insisting new Imams speak English and backing schools over uniform policies. Most of all, back Muslim leaders in the UK who promote moderation, tolerance and integration, not a false sense of continuous grievance.

The jury is still out on whether Cameron is being disingenuous about his lack of knowledge about the issues or whether he believes simplicity is the key to public support. Whatever the case, he believes ‘radical Islam’ is the most dangerous threat to humanity since, well, at least the last great bandwagon threat.

As for Gordon Brown, his position is analogous to a greedy son’s hope in the early demise of his father only to find he spent all his inheritance on shares in a subprime mortgage lender. Tony Blair left the sinking ship at an opportune moment for his heir to pick up the pieces. Gordon cannot make any unpopular moves at a time his poll ratings are low and an election has to be called within the next two years. The Home Office’s denial of an entry visa to Sheikh Qaradawi, despite his many previous visits under both Tory and Labour governments (including in August 1993 when Cameron was special advisor to Home Secretary Michael Howard) should be seen in this light.

Yusuf Patel

I read an article that touched upon some of the key themes of Toby Lester’s article and looking through my archived records I managed to find it and reproduce below so that it may provide much some needed context behind these recent claims.

Preservation of the Qur’an

The Atlantic Monthly is a American magazine which is over 140 years old. It recently published an article on the Qur’an addressing its credibility from a historical perspective. The writer started the article with the news of the discovery of ancient Qur’anic manuscripts in Yemen, with some texts dating back to the seventh century AD. These texts are being studied , according to the article, by two German scientists named Gerd-R Puin and H-C Graf Von Brothmer. According to the writer of the article, the Government of Yemen did not grant access to these copies to anyone except for those two German scholars. This by itself questions the credibility of the government. How can Muslim scholars be denied any access to these documents? How can such study be conducted by non-Muslims?

A scientific study of any historical document must be objective and not influenced by the shade of ideology or this ideology may taint the outcome of such research. Unfortunately, the field of Islamic Studies and Religious Studies , in general, is full of “scholars” with obvious ideological agendas. Their ideology influences their scholarship and not the other way around. The Western scholars of Islam for the most part rely on secondary source material for their knowledge of Islam, and the use of primary texts are limited to translations of the few works which are available. Even the scholars who learn Arabic and make a more serious attempt to study Islam are often misguided and carry erroneous information about the basics of Islam. It is unfortunate that the Atlantic Monthly , a well-known magazine, has chosen to embark on this study of the Qur’an for the most part relying on the prejudicial and often erroneous views of such “scholars.” The entire article contains no evidence to substantiate its claims, and its arguments are constructed based on the viewpoints of highly prejudiced individuals. The individuals quoted in this article represent the extremist fringe of their fields and present their “research” through the lens of hatred and enmity toward Islam. They make no secret of this enmity and openly call for Islam’s intellectual destruction.

The article presents as its evidence several manuscripts of presumed Qur’anic text. The combined tens of thousands of fragments, according to the article, have thus far only been categorized and treated for preservation. Also, the text has thus far been open for inspection to only two people, both of whom are German orientalists. The Yemenese government has not allowed any Muslim to inspect any of these documents. Despite the lack of any available evidence, the author takes the reader down the road of fantasy, speculation, and deception attempting to deceive Muslims and non-Muslims alike in discussing the authenticity and clarity of the Qur’anic message. Regardless of this fact, the parchments are a significant historical find. The importance of this find is in the fact that it confirms that copies of the Qur’an existed in such quantities, even in the earliest days of Islamic history, that the Muslims could afford to bury the old and decrepit copies which they possessed. One should, however, compare the Qur’an which is in our hands today with the significance of these early manuscripts.

The Qur’an which Muslims read everyday is the same Qur’an that was compiled through an extensive and thorough compilation process which had multiple checks to ensure its absolute authenticity. The writer of the article in question made several serious mistakes in this regard. First, he stated that the Qur’an was originally compiled by Uthman (the third khalifah of Islam), which is a wrong conclusion. The Qur’an was first compiled during the days of the Prophet himself. Whenever the Prophet received a revelation, he used to call his companions and recite the ayah to them. He, as well as his companions, would memorize these ayahs. In addition, the Prophet used to call some specific individuals and ask them to document the ayah and write it. Those who used to memorize the Qur’an would do so in the same order as the ayahs of each surah. Thus, the “soft copy” was compiled in the hearts of many individuals. Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Zaid Bin Thabet, Ubayy Bin Ka’ab, Abdullah Bin Masoud, Musab Bin Umair, Abdullah Bin Umm Maktum, Muath Bin Jabal, Abu Hurairah, Salm, Abdullah Bin Alzubair, Anas Bin Malik are just a few names of individuals who memorized the Qur’an.

Even the “hard copy,” or the written copy of the Qur’an, was documented completely during the days of the Prophet, although during his time these documents were not compiled into a single folder. The Prophet used to call some individuals and instruct them to write the revelation. Some noted individuals who were delegated this task were: Abu Bakr, Umar, Khalid Bin Al-waleed, Zayd ibn Thabit, `Ali ibn Abi Talib, Aban, Bin Said, Mu`awiyah and others. Thus, the first compilation of the Qur’an consisted of both memorization as well as documentation of the entire book, and both were done during the time of the Prophet under his direct supervision.

The second compilation was done by Zaid ibn Thabit under the orders of Abu Bakr (the first khalifah of the Muslims) soon after the death of the Prophet (Peace and blessing of Allah upon him). He gathered the hard copy of the Qur’an and compiled the documented revelation into one folder. And the “soft copy” was still saved in the hearts of those who continued to memorize Qur’an. Zaid complied the Mushaf and collected the copies written in the days of the Prophet himself and only under his instructions.

Zaid established a committee in order to perform this task of compilation and adopted the following criterion in accepting any copy or document of the Qur’an:

a). He required the presence of two witnesses to testify that this copy was written by the order of the Prophet under his instructions and in his presence.

b). Another two witnesses must also have memorized the contents of such a copy.

c). The members of the presiding committee also memorized the contents, although none of them were accepted as witnesses.

Thus, each copy presented had at least five witnesses: the owner of the manuscript or document, the memorizers, and the two witnesses who witnessed the writing during the time of the Prophet himself. In addition, Abu Bakr and Umar supervised this entire process. Once it was agreed by this assembly of those present at the time of the Prophet Muhammad’s revelations, then the copy would be accepted and added to the folder. The combined mushaf (the Qur’anic text) was eventually given to the widow of the Prophet, Hafsah who was also the daughter of Omar (the second khalifah of the Muslims) for safekeeping and was called Hafsah’s Mushaf.

During the rule of Uthman, a series of problems occurred. The dialectal differences in Arabic among the different Arab tribes were causing disputes over the pronunciation of some ayahs of the Qur’an. The Prophet used to recite some ayahs in more than one way. He could quell any dispute that may occur as a result of this with authority, but with his death the only resource left were those who memorized the Qur’an. The Sahabah lived in different areas and started teaching the people, who began reciting the Qur’an based on the way they were taught. This caused some people to debate which recitation is the authentic one.

These differences were not significant during the days of the Prophet himself since he was the reference in any dispute or issue. But, after his death, such a dispute had the potential to continue unresolved. As a result, Uthman acted immediately to address this issue, and in 651 C.E., Uthman ordered a committee to copy the master copy that Hafsah possessed. They made six copies, which were written in such a way that they accommodated all the recitations taken from the Prophet. Once they finished these six copies, which were compared to Hafsah’s Mushaf for authenticity, all other individual copies owned by individual Sahaba were burned. Uthman sent these six copies all over the Muslim world, keeping one copy in Madinah and returning the original master copy to Hafsah. These were known as the “Uthmanic Mushaf”, and since then, Muslims duplicated all of their copies from these master copies. (In fact, three of these original six copies from this period exist today: one in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, another in the Cairo Museum, and a third in Bukhara).

The author also states that the copies found in Yemen are the oldest copies ever discovered, which is another mistake. The Uthmani copies are the oldest, and some copies still exist in the museums as mentioned earlier. The Uthmani copies of the Qur’an which exist in the various museums all date back to 647 CE, which is only fourteen years after the death of the Prophet. In the 10th century, diacritical marks and vowelling were allowed to be added as an aid in pronouncing the text. This was helpful in the recitation of a language written only using consonants. Still, not a word was changed, which further ensured the integrity of the Qur’an. All of the early historical experts of Islamic history confirm this fact.

Furthermore, the Arabs of the time of the Prophet were steeped in a tradition of oral history. In fact, many of the people would refrain from writing because they deemed it a inaccurate method of keeping facts. Arab poets used to memorize long poetry which was recited for days. Other Arabs used to memorize lineages for every tribe and knew the detailed background and history of the tribes in their area. At the instant the Qur’an was revealed, it was memorized in totality by numerous Companions of the Prophet (Sahabah). These Sahabah transmitted this Qur’an to the next generation through memorization, and this practice continued until today where millions of Muslims have memorized the Qur’an in its entirety. Numerous people memorized the Qur’an who did not read a word from the original copy of the “Uthmani Qur’an” but they learned it from previous people who had memorized the Qur’an. Such a memorization process was so successful that, assuming no hard copy existed, it would be sufficient to establish a conclusive proof with no room for doubt regarding the Qur’an’s authenticity. This unbroken chain of oral tradition is yet another check on the authenticity of the Qur’an.

The Qur’anic texts discovered by the Yemenese government were texts which were meant to be lost forever by the people who disposed of them. Obviously these Muslims would not have disposed of such copies without reason. The manuscripts which were found in this “paper grave” were most likely buried because they were worn-out , damaged , and imperfect copies. The burial of Qur’anic text was a common practice seen as the most suitable way to dispose of the text. A Muslim would not want to keep an imperfect copy of the Qur’an, especially in early Islamic history, when the order was still fresh from Uthman to dispose of such imperfect copies. Thus, the sheer bulk of the text unearthed in Yemen suggests that it was a community decision to institute a methodology to take undesirable copies out of circulation. The owners did not want to keep imperfect copies of the Qur’an, and instead of trashing these texts or burning them, they chose to bury them in keeping with their sanctity.

Also, it is known that Islam has allowed Muslims to bury any “distorted” copy. If a Muslim finds a false copy or a copy of the Qur’an with spelling mistakes, then he may either burn it or bury it. Thus, finding

these copies does not signify anything more than the existence of some mistakes in making some copies

in some areas or during a specific time. Finding these copies does not mean that the Qur’an was tampered with. It is quite odd that such inferior texts, rather than enjoying a footnote in the pages of history, are placed in the limelight by modern Orientalists who claim that these texts are a sign of the Qur’an’s inaccuracy.

A comparison of these copies can be made with a person who is typing a news article on a typewriter about a fire in a cityand makes a mistake stating that there was no fire. The journalist then throws this copy of the paper away and writes the correct article. No one can then obtain the original article and say that there was no fire. The fire is a fact and everyone knows it occurred, and the mistake is in the journalist who typed that particular copy. The journalist does not even claim that the original is correct. Instead, he cites just the opposite by claiming that the original is incorrect, and he tries to destroy that incorrect article. Similarly, these copies of Qur’anic texts cannot be claimed as anything but erroneous. The finding of these texts suggest nothing else. A scholar who is seriously interested in a study of the original copies of the Qur’an can go to the museums of Topkapi and Cairo and compare the original copies with the Qur’an which is recited today by over one billion Muslims. These copies are the authentic and oldest copies of the Qur’an available.

The author also brings in the Muatazilite scholars as a proof that even Muslims quarreled about the authenticity of the Qur’an. This is a totally erroneous concept and demonstrates that the author does not even have a true grasp of Islamic history. The Muatazilite scholars never suggested that the Qur’an was anything less than the absolute Word of God. They never debated the authenticity of Qur’an. They debated the place of the Qur’an on the metaphysical level and its effect on the Islamic ideology. Their theory circled around whether the Qur’an was created or not and the resultant philosophical arguments which came from each response, which is totally different from the issue of authenticity.

The author ends the article by mentioning John Wansborough and his study of the Qur’an. Wansborough’sconclusion is that the Koran evolved over two centuries to its current form, mostly affected in the meantime by Jewish and Christian religious thought. A natural progression on this train of thought would then suggest that there should be a dozen Qur’ans , and not just one unified book which is present today. Such versions are numerous for the Bible, and many Gospels were thrown out of the final book which Christians read today. Numerous stories are also present in the Qur’an which are not found in Biblical text , and many stories which are somewhat common add which are found nowhere else. Wansborough applies his own prejudice as a Christian to Islam and concludes that Islam must be a bastardization of Christianity and Judaism. A careful analysis of the Qur’an would eliminates such a view as its style is unique and miraculous. In fact, this view must come from a total ignorance of the original copies of the Qur’an available today in various museums. In the end, ignorance and blind prejudice come to the same false conclusions.

The author states at the end of the article that Qur’anic revisionism should not be looked at as antagonistic but rather can be done with the “aim of spiritual and moral regeneration.” This statement should be taken in the context of a statement in the first part of the article which reads “the Koran is currently the world’s most ideological influential text.” The Qur’an is the backbone of the Islamic ideology. The Islamic ideology poses the only remaining challenge to the ideology of capitalistic democracy which rules the world today. As S.Parvez Mansoor says “Only a Muslim confounded of the historical authenticity or doctrinal autonomy of the Qur’anic revelation would abdicate his global mission and hence pose no challenge to the global domination of the West.” The real aim and objective of this Qur’anic revisionism and the so-called scholars involved in it is an attack on Islam to steal it of its vitalism and rob the ideology of its compelling authenticity. In the past, this attack was directed at the Sunnah of the Prophet alone. The Sunnah was rejected totally as unreliable by these same people, and many Muslims were carried away in their arguments. This attack continues today in various devious forms, often from Muslim imams themselves who are either confused or agents of the West. These same people, not being content with attacking the Sunnah, have now drifted onwards to the Qur’an.

As Muslims, we know that we have the ultimate Truth in our hands in the form of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. We have absolute certainty that the Qur’an is the direct Word of God. It is this confidence which propels us forward to call strongly for all humanity to accept Islam and for Muslims to implement it as it should be implemented. It is the aim of the enemies of Islam to rob us of this vitality and to defeat Islam on the intellectual battlefield by discrediting both the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Truly we can look at amazement at the task of compiling this Qur’an which the Sahabah performed flawlessly and thus ensuring its truth. The job was performed so well that today over one billion Muslims recite the exact same Qur’an and read from the exact same musahif. In fact, in all of Islamic history, there was never a second version of the Qur’an, much less multiple versions which were suggested in this article.

Logically if the Qur’an was collected much later than the Sahabah’s time, it would be like the Bible with its many versions and numerous textual controversies. But Islamic history makes the Qur’an free of any textual controversy. Islam spread to half the known world in only a few years after the death of the Prophet. Surely, it would be extremely hard to fool so many people regarding the Qur’an’s authenticity. No single report from all those people exists mentioning the Muslims arguing about the Qur’an, or of multiple versions of the Qur’an, or of any battles between Muslims about this issue. If Islam expanded and encompassed so many new lands and came in contact with people from all corners of the world, then any debate regarding the Qur’an’s authenticity would have been documented.

Indeed Muslims have never experienced any controversy over the Qur’an’s authenticity in their history. The Qur’an’s authenticity is proven beyond a doubt by conclusive evidences. A Qur’an exists today from 647 CE, only 14 years after the death of the Prophet, and is available to anyone for inspection. Only recently when Islam became weak and lost its political power as an ideological state did the enemies of Islam begin to attack Islam as a whole. Thus, the Ummah must re-establish Islam as a state that will enable Muslims to establish their own think tanks, scholars, and journalistic machines which will correctly address Islam as well as all other ideologies.