Some critics have used an unreliable story, dismissed by the commentators for its weak transmission chain, in order to discredit the prophet. The verse supposedly alludes to Hafsa, to whom the prophet promised not to be intimate with his mulk yamin/right hand possession Maria the Copt.
Maria was given to him out of reverence by an Egyptian prefect or notable. It is interesting to note that there are at least 2 similar precedents in prophetic history, with the Egyptian daughter of royalty, Hagar who was given to Abraham, and Solomon's unnamed Egyptian wife 1Kings3. The Egyptian notable wanted to establish political relations with the prophet, and this gesture was considered normal as per the decorum of ancient societies. Some reports say that two women were given, Maria and Sirin. The prophet freed Sirin whom he married to a close follower and took Maria as his concubine and lodged her in one of his followers' houses temporarily, Haritha, although some weak commentaries state she was lodged in Hafsa's house in the beginning. When Hafsa entered in her own private quarter that she had left for the day, and surprised the prophet and Maria in her own bed, she was angered. Not because, as the critics claim without the slightest shred of a proof that she was Hafsa's temporary slave but because that day was reserved for her.
However the weak reports used by those very critics say that what the prophet had allegedly done with Maria in Hafsa's house was HALAL, meaning she must have been his own concubine, not a slave given to Hafsa temporarily. The prophet then requested her not to repeat what had occured, to avoid stirring up the already existing jealousy of the wives towards Maria, as depicted in several reports, who was given precedence over one of them on a day supposedly reserved for a wife. Besides its unreliability, the Quran itself refutes that story, due to several reasons including the fact that the prophet had complete liberty in matters of division of time among wives and concubines, something all his wives were aware of much prior to the alleged incident. He was not therefore bound by any time restriction and did not need to make any such promise not to be with his lawful concubine, as depicted in the incident.
Also per the Quran, the object of what God's prophet forbade upon himself was to please his wives (plural). In this report, the object of the oath was to please one wife only (singular), the one that allegedly entered in her room and found him with his lawful concubine. Also, 66:3 says that a secret was divulged by God's prophet to one of his wives. Why would he need to tell what had just happened to Hafsa and cause all the commotion if she hadnt had a clue of what had occured, and instead keep that perfectly legal act to himself?
This negates the story from yet another angle because in it, the prophet's "secret" was found out by one of the wives who surprised him in bed with Maria. He was thus in no need to share that "secret" with her. There are several theories regarding what that secret was, some of them being concerning his succession, but that is another issue.
In conclusion it should be stressed that the prophet, assuming those convoluted reports on Maria and Hafsa as true, he did not do anything wrong or inappropriate for a prophet, as even clearly stated in those accounts. Per the Quran, mulk yamin are a category of lawful women not covered by the regulation on the division of time between multiple wives. The prophet was even absolved from these time restrictions with his wives, although he always divided his time as equally as possible between them.
It should also be reminded that Maria was the prophet's only mulk yamin, or concubine as the Judeo-Christian critics like saying with their distorted Biblical paradigms of what concubines are. He had no other "concubine". Maria was offered to him, as described earlier, and he accepted for the sake of a greater socio-political aim. The prophet could have acquired many more such women as a result of his military victories, as other prophets did before him, including Moses, David or Solomon, and on a much larger scale, without damaging his legitimacy as a true prophet of God in the least. He could have even, out of lust, resorted to murdering an innocent man so as to marry his widow, just as the noble and pious prophet-king David supposedly did, as shamefully transmitted by the Biblical scribes.
Finally, Nasa'i gives 2 occasions of revelation for the verse, both of them graded sahih. He first cites the incident with Maria without saying anything about Hafsa or anyone else "finding out" about the prophet's legal intercourse with his concubine. All it says is that Hafsa and Aisha would continuously harass the prophet about Maria out of jealousy until he promised them not to be intimate with her. This more authentic version of the supposed event agrees with the Quran's wording, contrary to the weaker, convoluted report described earlier. The second occasion of revelation per Nasa'i also involved Aisha and Hafsa, both of them are again described as harassing the prophet to give up on something, but this time the object of their jealousy was Zaynab bint Jahsh. As a loving wife who knew the likes and dislikes of her husband, she used to offer him a variety of honey he very much appreciated each time he visited her. Aisha and Hafsa disliked that pleasant connection they had and thus schemed to put an end to it. As the prophet once came out of Zaynab's place, and knowing that the prophet would always pay attention to the manner he presented himself at all occasions so as to not offend anyone, Aisha told him that his breath smelled like maghafeer (a sweet drink that leaves a pungent smell).
Being the sensitive and tactful person as described earlier, the prophet unsuspectedly promised not to drink this honey although he was very fond of it and had every right to it. Nasa'i further says that because these 2 reports are graded sahih it might be that they happened very close to eachother prior to the revelation of the verse.
Whether it is Al Qurtubi, al Tabari, Ibn Arabi, Imam al Nawawi, among many other scholars, they all state that the prophet's overstaying at Zaynab to have his favorite drink, against Aisha and Hafsa's desire, is the reliable opinion for the opening verse of al Tahrim being revealed.
Further articles answering Sam Shamoun "Allah Abdul-Muhammad (“Slave of Muhammad”)"
No comments:
Post a Comment