Slavs and Turks first met on the plains of Eastern Europe at the very dawn of the Middle Ages. Annals indicate the presence of the Slovak Antes in what is now southern Russia in the middle of the 4th century, and at approximately the same time the Hunnic hordes (Turks) appeared on the banks of the Volga River and began their conquest of the Pontic steppes. The conflict between the Slavs and Turks began in these dark centuries of European history.1

The Islamization of the Turkic peoples began in the 7th century when the whole Near East was transformed by the Islamic conquests. After subduing Persia in 639 Muslims spread to Transoxania in 659, and annexed the whole western Turkish world including Dzhungaria. Tashkent, Ferghana, Bukhara, etc.2 Since their Islamization, the Muslim peoples of Asia and Eastern Europe have more often identified themselves with the religion and culture of Islam than with any national or racial group.3

In the mid-thirteenth century Slovak resistance was overcome by the armies of the heirs of Genghis Khan, and for the next two hundred years the eastern Slavs were subjects of the Golden Horde which was a Muslim Turkic state. As Islamic Law does not allow forcible conversion to Islam, the Golden Horde did not force Slavs to convert to Islam.

In the 15th century, the wheel of Destiny began to turn in the opposite direction. Muslim Turks were often fighting each other because, after the death of a khan. his sons would divide the country into small estates. For this reason the Turks failed to establish stable states (except for the Ottoman imperial state) and Muslim rule over the Slavs ended and a new, very dark stage for Muslims began. During this period, the Russians gradually extendeded control over the whole of Siberia, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. By the 20th century the Muslim Turks (in the Central Asia and Caucasus) had become dependent on the Russians. In their occupation of Muslim territory, the Russians were very harsh in their dealings with the Muslim population – their methods and those of the Mongols were basically the same. Certainly, the Russians were more cruel and more brutal than other European colonial powers, and carried out massacres and wholesale expulsion of populations.4

Massive slaughter of the resisting population took place, such as the murders during the storming of Kazan in 1552, the quelling of the Nogay tribes in the late 18th century, during the Caucasian wars of the 19th century (especially in the Chechen region and in Daghestan), in the Turkmen territory at the end of the 19th century (the extermination of the entire population of Gok-tepe by General Skobelev in 1881), and the slaughter of the nomad Kazakh tribes in 1916 by the Russian army and the Russian colonists.5

After the Communist revolution, massacres reached an unprecedented level: the slaughter by the troops of the Tashkent Soviet of the Kokand population took place in February 1918. Over a million Kazakh nomads were massacred during the brutal attempts at settling them in the 1930s; another major such event was the deportation of over a million Chechens, Ingushes, Karachays, Balkars and Crimean Tatars during the unsuccessful attempt at genocide in 1943.

Massive transfers or deportations of population were the common practice of both the Tsarist authorities and the Soviets. Kazan Tatars were expelled from the main cities of the Middle Volga and from the best agricultural lands along the rivers in the sixteen century. During the nineteenth century, the Kazakh nomads were expelled from the richest areas of the northern and eastern parts of the Kazakh steppes by Russian and Ukrainian colonists. The Caucasian Chechens, Kabardians, Daghestanis, etc., were driven from the rich Caucasian lowlands. Also, between 1783 and 1914 more than a million Crimean Tatars, most of them Nogays and over a million Cherkes from the North Western Caucasus emigrated to the Ottoman empire. During the Soviet period, some two million Crimean Tatars, North Caucasians and Meshketian Turks were expelled. When the U.S.S.R. ceased to exist many of its former victims were prevented from returning to their homelands.6

In addition to the horrors of mass murder and deportation suffered by the Muslims of Central Asia, the Russians added a sinister refinement: assimilation through co-optation of the elites, extensive colonization of Muslim lands and conversion (often forced) to Christianity. This was the deadliest danger that the Muslim ummah had had to face since the first encounter with the non-Muslim world.7

During the former U.S.S.R. state terrorism reached the highest level. The Communist rulers divided the Muslims into numerous nationalities in order to scatter them, their Islamic faith being attacked at the same time. In the eyes of the Soviet rulers, science and religion, and Marxism-Leninism and religious ideologies were in-compatible and irreconcilable. In their campaign against Islam, the Soviet rulers resorted to two types of argument.

The first applies to all religion which, according to Marxism, is the ‘opiate of the people’, that is, a reactionary and anti-scientific ideology giving a false account of society. But Islam was especially targeted by the Soviet authorities because it has universal validity, is based on original and reliable sources, and because it proposes a comprehensive moral programme for the reform of all areas of individual and collective life-political, economical, legal, social, etc. Also, the mere fact that almost all the peoples of the Central Asian (Turkestan) Republics and Azerbaijan were Muslim (even now, they remain Muslim) was a threat to the Communists. In order to undermine Islam, they made a number of accusations against Islam. For example, Islam is represented as a primitive religion, a chaotic mixture of Christian, Jewish and pagan doctrines, founded by a member of the feudal trading classes of Makka.8 Muslims were taught that for centuries Islam had served imperialisms, first of the Arabs, Persians, Afghans and Turks and now of the British and Americans.9

Under Communist rule, the people were not free to find out whether these accusations were true or not. As Time magazine, in its special issue on ‘The New U.S.S.R’ (10 April 1989) points out: ‘most of the country’s 26,000 mosques and 24,000 religious schools were shut down. The vast majority of Islamic teachers were either killed or imprisoned’.10

However, this does not mean that the Muslims believed the Communists and became atheist. In fact, Islam was the strongest religion in the former Soviet Union: ‘Several sociological surveys conducted in the 1980s in the Muslim territories of the former USSR have revealed the proportion of atheists among Soviet Muslims to be around 20 per cent of the population (among the Russians the figure is 80 per cent), with the remaining 80 percent divided between various categories of believers. But even those officially listed as atheists. such as members of the Communist Party, or the Komsomol, or high-level intelligentsia who are obliged professionally to fight “obnoxious religious survival”, maintain certain ties with the religion. In particular, the majority observe the three basic religious rites which mark the private life of every Muslim and which make his behaviour so different from that of his Russian or other non-Muslim comrades: ‘circumcision, religious marriage and religious burial in a special Muslim cemetery. According to the surveys, these family rites are performed by 95 to 99 per cent of the Muslim population.’11

The surveys support the theory that absolute atheists do not exist in Muslim lands. Communist accusations failed to turn the Muslims into atheists. From the Muslim point of view Marxist atheism appears not as a rival ideology or another competing spiritual creed, but as the latest, manifestation of ignorance and backwardness. The term unbelief designates a kind of collective blemish representing cruelty, dishonesty and lack of conscience. To the Muslim a real atheist is not deemed to be a romantic rebel or a superior philosophical free-thinker, but a subhuman of limited intellect unable to grasp the concept of Allah (God) and therefore degraded to the level of bestiality, if not below.12

It is very difficult to destroy the Islamic faith permanently, as the failure of the Communist rulers to do so demonstrates. And now, the last stage is taking place. The Turkic peoples are regaining their independence, and Islam is regaining its voice in Turkestan, Azerbaijan and in the autonomous regions such as Tataristan, the Chechen Republic, Yakuts, etc. How far the recovery of Islamic identity will mean a full recovery of Islamic values, and how far it makes possible common goals and policies for the peoples of the region, remains to be seen.

References

12. Bennigsen, and Broxup, op. cit., p.60-1.

]]> https://fountainmagazine.com/all-issues/1993/issue-2-april-june-1993/biology-and-religion/ Thu, 01 Apr 1993 00:00:00 +0000 http://107.21.79.195/all-issues/1993/issue-2-april-june-1993/biology-and-religion/ Today, as the prestige of materialism and atheism declines, more and more scientists believe that religion is so essential it cannot be abandoned. Mankind will not be able to achieve happiness without it. But enemies of reality and true science still use false sciences to defend atheism.

But does religion, as the atheists claim, really conflict with science? We can tackle the question in the context of biology. Out of all sciences biology would appear to have the nearest contact with religion because it concerns ‘life’.

Man is, of all living creatures, the most complex and perfect organism. It is man who discovered science and knowledge and it is he who advances it. The first thing that even the earliest man must have been curious about is his own existence as a living creature. There is a something – which we do not know the nature of which distinguishes all living creatures from other existing entities like minerals, rocks, water etc. But all living creatures – men, animals, plants – have this something in common.

It seems reasonable to believe that all living beings are therefore subject to the same law. The Ruler who enforces this law, manifests His power among the living creatures distinctively through His different attributes or names. He who has introduced Himself to us by His personal name, Allah, also reveals His many other names. Among these, Hayy probably has a certain priority; it means the ‘life-giver’. Then, names like Rezzaq – the provider of needs – Musavvir who depicts, shapes and forms – Hafiz the protector, keeper – Mucemmil who creates perfectly and designs beautifully, and so on.

Many non-believers have tried to offer a rational, ‘scientific’ explanation for the original transition form inorganic matter to organic life form. But science is also subject to relativity. Philosophers, scientists – from ancient Greece to today’s biology theorists – have written hundreds of books and contrived many theories about how life began, but that is all they have ever been able to do – offer theories and speculations. They have taken a roundabout route because, up to now no-one has come up with an explanation contrary to the reality of the Qur’an.

The act of creation and giving life belongs only to God. It has not been and will not be explained otherwise. Qur’an, the last holy book, unlike the other holy books, has preserved and protected its originality. One evidence of its superiority to all philosophies and theories is that not one of the accepted hypotheses conflicts with the realities of the Qur’an.

It is encouraging that today many scientists believe that religion has the main role in explaining creation. The biology theorists in particular are trying to build new explanations for the origin of life in accordance with religion.

Despite the great developments in fields like genetic engineering, molecular biology, DNA and immunology, scientists have still not been able to close the immense gap between organic and inorganic matter. ‘Life’ remains the biggest miracle in the universe. False theories like Darwinism and other evolution theories that refuse to accept the miracle of creation are collapsing one after another.

Heinsberg’s theory of ‘indeterminism’ in quantum mechanics, smashed materialism completely, in particular the stubborn notion of ‘cause’ and ‘result’. Later the American philosopher Thomas S. Kuhn, put forward the argument that there are not, and cannot be, any final scientific theories. This is true as, throughout history, we have witnessed that almost all theories have lost their ‘truth’ and been replaced by new theories.

A paradigm, as Kuhn calls it, or a way of seeing, dominates every branch of science for a certain period and then gives way to a new one. According to Kuhn, there is no perfect paradigm in any branch of science. For example a group of researchers begin to work in a certain field within their own paradigm, using their own special methods. In time, an explanation in this field becomes accepted by most or all scientists. Then, the researchers who believe strongly in this paradigm try to develop it as far as they can. Then begins a period of solving problems and riddles, in which the researchers proceed to new discoveries within the boundaries of the paradigm. Kuhn says that this is a stage in which scientific progress is made without cuts. After a while, however, the researchers come face to face with new data which conflict with their paradigm, precisely because all paradigms have certain boundaries. For this reason, there is no paradigm into which you can fit the whole of scientific knowledge at any one time. Arguments amongst the scientists about the data that do not fit the paradigm continue until someone comes up with a new paradigm that can cope with the new data.

So far, all theories, put forward as paradigms, have only explained part of the reality or facts. These paradigms have not all been completely wrong, but they have never been completely right either. For example, certain natural phenomena can still be explained with the physics of Aristotle, while most of the time we use Newton’s laws or, in some situations, Einstein’s theory of relativity. And as regards biology, there are some cases where even Darwin was right.

However, man cannot close his eyes to the reality of creation, as a whole and like an ostrich bury his head in the sand.

The famous philosopher of science, Karl Popper, has a different view on the matter. He measures the health of a theory by checking whether it has too many gaps or missing links, or not. On this ground he states emphatically that ‘Darwinism is not a scientific theory’.

What we can derive from Popper’s ideas or Kuhn’s theory of paradigms is that reality cannot be fully explained by scientific knowledge. Science can only shine a light on some few of the hidden facts of the universe.

Nicholas Maxwell thinks that science will not advance only by increasing the number of experiments for each theory. To explain the purity and the beauty of nature, scientists have to offer theories as pure and as perfect as nature itself. Is it possible to come up with a theory like this? Does man have to push the reality of creation aside – which brings an explanation of everything – to get lost in the mazes of the theories?

The Qur’an explains the origin of life, the ecological balance in nature, the development of the embryo and many other facts so perfectly, that any biologist who reads it must place his head on the ground to worship God.

We expect all scientists to read and respect the Qur’an, because, up to now, no one has proved the knowledge it contains to be wrong. The Qur’an is the word of God and cannot he wrong.

The latest aircraft are still clumsier than birds and, by comparison with birds, have less agility. Moreover, upward flight affects pilots badly, while birds can do this very easily since the air between their feathers their bodies and wings is absorbing and reducing air pressure. Their mobile tail feathers enable them to turn sharply and even do somersaults. They are capable of steep descent or ascent without the risks aeroplanes face in doing the same. Land birds can fly or glide for long periods as well as land without heating their wings, whereas aeroplanes cannot sustain flight with stopped engines.

An important recent achievement in aircraft technology is vertical take off and landing – something many flying animals such as bees have been able to do for millions of years. Wing design, following the models of wing design in birds, has also been improved recently. The wings of birds follow hundreds of different designs, each with its peculiar advantages. They have many facilities. The most significant ability of birds’ wings is that they can be opened or folded up at will, thus giving flexibility in different flight conditions. This inspired engineers to design some aircraft like the F-14, F-18 and MIG-25 with wings that can be adjusted to some degree. The forward-arrow-angled wing is another projected innovation of recent technology in pursuit of what was given to birds in their creation. The airflow possible between the feathers of birds’ wings which significantly reduces air pressure is also being imitated. The producers of one model of the Boeing-747 have designed thousands of small cavities in the wings: the trials have been successful and the technique has been recommended for adaptation for use in all aircraft.

The scientist and engineer, whose final aim is to attain the flying technique of birds, know full well that they are just at the start of their quest. Birds and other flying animals do not have a consciousness like ours. How is it that they have achieved such a perfect compatibility with the air? It is true that producing an aircraft requires elaborate skills and elaborate knowledge, but is it not marvellous that birds demonstrate perfect flight? How is this? How does the possibility, the very idea, of flight arise?

Bayezid-i Bestami gives an account from his experience:

In my time there were thousands of saints. They prayed intently, and trained and disciplined themselves in the way of Allah, living an austere routine; some had even been workers of miracles. But the leading saint of the age was a blacksmith. There seemed to be nothing extraordinary about him. He had been doing nothing but shaping metal, hammering at his anvil to make his living. I asked myself how such a person could be kutb, the leading saint, of the age. Out of curiosity, I went and visited him in his shop. When he saw me he became extremely happy, held my hands, kissed them repeatedly, and begged me for a special prayer for himself. Since he did not enter that realm where miracles are possible or experience anything of it, he was unaware of how great a saint he was. When I earnestly asked him to pray for me, he replied: ‘I cannot be relieved from my own worries and troubles by praying for you.’ When I asked for an explanation, he said, ‘I wonder at and am troubled about how the people will manage when they are to give account of their lives before Allah on the Day of Judgement; I am deeply concerned and sorrow for those who will not easily be able to do so. Other than this, I have no worries or troubles.’ Even as he said this he burst into tears. His demeanor and sincerity caused my own tears to flow too. And I heard a voice within my self, proclaiming, ‘This man is not of those who say “my self, my self” but of those who say “my people, my people, my people”.’ And then I understood why he was so great and why he was the leading saint of the age. He seemed to me to be directly on the path of the Prophets. ‘But the people, the account they give of themselves, and their chastisement, these are not your burden.’ I said. He answered: ‘The most inward part of my being, the very nature of my self, was kneaded by compassion. I can only be happy and free from the burden of worries and troubles if all people in Hell are forgiven and only then if I could suffer in Hell on their behalf.’ I sat and conversed for hours with the blacksmith in his shop. He knew only enough verses of the the Qur’an to perform the obligatory prayers. However, I realized while in his presence that I received such Divine Blessings and attained such a station as I had been unable to acquire for years. I also realized that being a kutb was not a matter of only prayers, knowledge, and asceticism, but also a matter of such profound understanding, and depth of feeling and dependence upon the blessings of Allah.

How fortunate are those who show concern for, sensitivity to, and understanding of, the sufferings of the ummah and all mankind. And how blessed are those who suffer on account of others’ sufferings. How lucky, too are those who try to be with such people and share in their feeling.

Viking I was launched from earth orbit in August 1975. It traced seven hundred million kilometres in an interplanetary spiral to reach Martian orbit the following June. In July 1976 a car size tripod lander, dropped from the space craft, alighted on the rocky surface of Mars some 1200 miles from the Martian Mariner canyon system. This was the location of man’s first on-site search for life on another planet.

The successful Viking missions to Mars supplied us with most valuable scientific information. Although Mars is a rock-strewn desert, its rocks are enriched with minerals that may support life forms with water, air, and raw materials. This was the verdict of the Viking 1 and 2 missions to Mars. Mars may once have had rivers and lakes, but now the temperatures and the atmospheric pressures are so low that water can only exist in the form of vapour or ice. Scientists also suspect that the planet’s giant volcano, Olympus Mons, overlies a hot spot. Although this volcano may still erupt every 10,000 years, the red planet has essentially been frozen to death. However, there is still hope, because the experiments conducted with Martian soil produced significant results. During the experiments, Martian soil was fed with nutrients and water. The results were most surprising. Unlike the lunar dust, Martian soil consumed the nutrients. Not only did apparent consumption of the nutrients give ‘rise to a steady rate of carbon dioxide production but the introduction of water vapour resulted in a most unexpected surge in oxygen levels.

Eighteen years have passed since these experiments and mankind has not taken a step on Mars yet. Will it ever be possible for man to achieve a settlement on Mars in the future? Firstly, such settlements on the planet need to be as self-sufficient as possible. The first Mars invaders will need to begin a search for crucial supplies such as water and oxygen. Since Mars has little nitrogen in its soil to sustain plants, scientists would need to inject the soil with earthly micro-organisms to free up the crucial element. A base independent from earth is impossible without these necessities of life, particularly water and power sources and raw materials for building an ecosystem. Although the atmosphere is only 0.03 % water, the air is saturated with water most of the time, due to the low temperature. However, rain is impossible because the atmosphere is too thin and it is generally cloudless.

A Martian day is 24 hours and 37 minutes, which is very close to earth’s. The fact that gravity is one third of earth’s, is also an advantage. However, what is important is to produce resources like ammonia (a plant nutrient), hydrazine (for rocket fuel), formic acid (for storing electricity), nitric acid (for oxygen storage) and methane (natural gas). We do not know what will actually be found on Mars when it is completely explored, but the important fact about Mars is that, unlike the moon, it contains all the raw materials that are crucial for a Martian base.

At present the planet is an Arctic wasteland, but scientists say this has not always been the case. Much can be learned from a small core sample of the planet’s polar ice. Scientists need to know what happened to its climate, if it resembled the earth’s in the distant past. The topographical features and the river channels suggest that a few million years ago Mars was a warm planet and probably had a thick atmosphere. The Viking findings and the analysis of some of the data suggest that Mars contains more water than once thought. We must also keep in mind that the Viking probes did not completely rule out the possibility of life on the planet. It might still be possible that Mars supports some kind of microbes. It may be that we have not yet looked in the right place. There are many questions about Mars that remain to be answered. For example: we do not know anything about the interior of the planet, whether its core is liquid or frozen or maybe an earth-like core or if the largest volcanoes in the solar system are still alive. A manned mission to Mars and building bases on its surface is quite possible but we are not sure when it will actually take place.

When we think about the planets in our solar system and their conditions, it is impossible to overlook the fact that the earth was designed purposely for life forms to exist. One has to be out of one’s mind to assume that all this order and harmony is completely coincidental. One important thing we have to understand is that we (living organisms) need the earth and its conditions to survive. It is the only planet in the solar system that could support us. For all we know, it might even be the only one in the galaxy. It is obvious that the earth was specifically designed for human beings, because all other life forms on earth serve mankind. By this token we can even claim that the whole universe was created for the benefit of man. The only reason for this claim is that everything would be completely meaningless without an intelligent thinking being.

Our neighbour, the red planet, might be a hope for the future. Whether we will indeed be able to build bases, grow plants, produce valuable gases and materials, begin settlements and colonies or maybe even achieve the birth of the first human being on Mars, remains to be seen, but until then we have to take care of this blue planet of ours and its inhabitants, since we are its trustees.

Rise up, because my heart is lamenting…

During the days having passed without you,

I went back over the yesterdays,

Grieving all the while, and saddened

Since you had deserted your country.

O my valiant one, appear now!

Appear, for we are depressed.

Our hearts come into our mouths;

Our last words are on our lips…

The people need your smile,

And we are thirsty for your zeal.

No more strength is left to us;

We, a multitude of orphans,

Are pushed to and from,

And detained along the way…

Wasting time in distractions,

We cannot bear anything extra…

You appear in dreams every night,

You are in words and in hearts…

This is so the whole life long;

Come to make your influence felt,

Have some pity upon us, please;

We go down on our bended knees…

First comment

Man has some relationship with, and stands in some need of, most of the species of creation. His needs spread throughout all parts of the cosmos, and his desires extend to eternity. As he desires a flower, so he desires a whole spring. As he wishes for a garden, so he wishes for eternal Paradise. As he longs to see a friend of his, so he longs to see the Graceful One of Glory. As he needs to knock at the door of his beloved friend in order to visit him, so he needs to take refuge in the court of an Omnipotent One Who will close the door of his world and will open that of the hereafter, Who will remove the world and establish in its place the world – to – come, in order that he should be delivered from unending separation from the ninety-nine per cent of his friends who have departed for the intermediate world.

The true object of worship of a being in this position can only be an Omnipotent One of Glory, a Compassionate One of Perfection, in Whose Hand are the reins of all things, in Whose possession is the provision for all things, in Whose sight everything, and in Whose presence everywhere, is, unbounded by space or time, free of all weakness or deficiency. For the one to meet the limitless needs of man can only be One with infinite power and all-embracing knowledge. Thus, He is the sole One worthy of worship.

Now, o man, if you see yourself as a servant of His, and of none else, you will acquire a rank above all creation. If you refuse to be such, you will become a mean slave to powerless creation. Or, if you rely on your selfhood and strength abandon prayer and trust in God, and arrogantly claim to have power, then you will fall lower than a bee or an ant, and become weaker than a spider or a fly, with respect to positive acts and constructiveness. In negative acts and destructiveness, however, you will weigh heavier than a mountain and be more harmful than an epidemic disease. This is your being; it has two aspects: one of them is positive and active and has to do with constructiveness, invention, existence and goodness; the other is negative and passive and has to do with destructiveness, non-existence and evil.

Regarding the first aspect of your being, you cannot in yourself match a bee or a sparrow, nor have the strength of a fly or a spider. Regarding the second aspect, you surpass mountains, even earth and the heavens, for you bear a burden from which they hold back because of lack of strength; and your acts therefore show their effect in a wider realm than theirs.1 When you do an act of goodness, or construct something, this does not go beyond the reach of your hand and your strength. Your evil and destructive acts, by contrast, are aggressive and expandable. For example, unbelief is an evil, a nonexistence of affirmation, and is destructive. Though it seems a simple, single sin, it implies an insult to all creation, an aggression against all the Divine Names and an affront to all mankind. For all beings in creation have lofty ranks and important tasks in virtue of their nature as letters of the Lord, mirrors of His orders. Unbelief denies them the rank bestowed by these functions, reduces them to the state of instruments of coincidence, to the degree of insignificance, valuelessness and nothingness, and makes them perishable objects doomed to decay and separation. An unbeliever denies and thus offends the Divine Names, Whose beauties, impressions and manifestations are observed on the mirrors of beings throughout the cosmos.

Man is a work of poetry, praising God’s wisdom and beautifully displaying the manifestations of all the Divine Names, a manifest miracle of Power like a seed that contains the members of an eternal tree, holding the rank of the Divine vicegerent on earth, superior to angels and in ascendancy over mountains, over the earth and the heavens by virtue of the trust he holds. Unbelief throws him into a degree that is lower than that of the lowest animal, more helpless, and impotent, and more wretched, and degrades him to the state of a speedily perishable tablet on which are scribbled meaningless, confused things.

To conclude: the concupiscent soul can commit numerous crimes in wrongdoing and destructiveness; but it has little power in goodness and constructiveness. It can destroy a city in a single day, but cannot build one in a hundred. However, if it abandons selfhood and requests from God goodness and fertility, if it turns from arrogance, wrongdoing and destructiveness, and accepts the form of a perfect slave of God, it then becomes the referent of the Qur’anic verse: ‘God will change their evil into good’ (25.70).

The infinite capability for wrongdoing inherent in man then changes into an infinite disposition to goodness, and he thus ascends to the highest of the high, and gains the value of the best pattern of creation.

Now, o heedless man! Behold the grace and munificence of God Almighty: while it would be perfect justice on His part to do the reverse, He records a single sin only once, and records a single act of goodness as ten, or seventy, or seven hundred, or seven thousand. Also draw from this comment, some understanding that to enter Hell is the punishment of crime and mere justice, but to enter Paradise is the result of His perfect grace.

Second comment

Again, man has two faces: one is related to his selfhood and turned to the worldly life; the other concerns his nature as a slave of God and gazes upon the eternal life. With respect to the former, he is so wretched a creature that he has nothing of free will beyond a brief and fast-ending period, and nothing of existence beyond a small, decaying body. In this state, he appears as no more than one of many feeble members of just one of the innumerable species that are spread over all levels of the whole of creation. With respect to his other, better nature, however, and by virtue of the impotence and poverty that lead him to worship, man has a comprehensiveness and a great importance. Indeed, the Wise Creator has purposefully included in him infinite impotence and poverty so that he should be a large and comprehensive mirror for the endless manifestations of the infinite power of the Compassionate One and the infinite richness of the Munificent One. In other words, man resembles a seed that is given ideal and important faculties by Power, and a delicate, precious programme by Destiny, in order that it will work under the ground to leave that narrow world of soil and enter the wide world of the air, request from its Creator through the tongue of its disposition to become a tree and to reach the perfect state that will befit it. If that seed, because of its bad temperament, employs the faculties that are given to it in attracting some harmful substance contained in soil, it will soon decay in that narrow place and become nothing. If, in compliance with the cosmic decree expounded in the verse- “It is God Who causes the seed-grain and the date-stone to split and sprout” (6.95), it uses its ideal faculties in their proper places, it will then emerge from that narrow world, become a big, fertile tree, and thus its small, particular nature will take the form of a great, comprehensive truth. The nature of man is likewise equipped with important faculties by Power and with precious programmes by Destiny.

If he wastes his spiritual means on this narrow world, under the ground of the worldly life and for the sake of his desires, he will leave from this world with a burden on his unfortunate soul that will be his responsibility before God. If, on the other hand, man waters the seed of his disposition with Islam, feeds it in the soil of worship, exposes it to the Qur’anic decrees, directs his spiritual means to their true purposes, he will of a certainty become a seed containing the essentials of a permanent truth and of an everlasting tree that extends its branches in the physical and intermediate worlds and yields endless blessings in the hereafter and in Paradise. He will, in fact, become a blessed, luminous fruit of the tree of creation. The actual progress of man is possible only by turning his heart, spirit, intelligence, imagination and other inner faculties to the eternal life, so that each of them will be occupied by its own kind of worship. For what the misguided imagine to be progress, which is to put one”s faculties at the disposal of the concupiscent soul in order to penetrate into all the details of the worldly life and to taste all its lowly pleasures, is not progress, but decline. I once observed this truth in a vision that was as follows: I was in a large city full of big palaces. Outside some of the palaces were spectacles to attract and entertain everyone.

As I came close to one of them, I saw that the master of the palace was at the door, playing with the dog. Women were absorbed in sweet conversation with young strangers, and grown-up girls were supervising children”s play. It was when I was the doorkeeper acting as the head of all the other people that I realized the inside of the palace was empty, and the important posts in the palace, obviously, had become so corrupted that their officials had left their duties and appeared in such a state outside the palace. I then came across another large palace. This time, a faithful dog was lying at the door, and beside it was standing a doorkeeper with a serious, stern and calm appearance. The palace seemed so quiet that I wondered why it was so, while the other palace was not. I entered the palace, and saw that the inside was, contrary to the outside, a scene of activity: one floor on another, different people with different, intricate tasks on each floor. Those on the first floor were conducting the management of the palace. On the second floor, girls and small children were studying; on the third were ladies occupied with fine arts and beautiful embroidery. On the top floor, the master of the palace was corresponding with the king in order to maintain the well-being of his people, and was also performing his own noble duties for his advancement and progress. As they did not see me, no one stopped me, so I was able to walk about. After I had left the palace, I realized that everywhere in the city there were palaces of these two kinds. I asked about this, and I was told that those palaces with empty insides and crowded outsides belonged to the notorious ones among the unbelievers and the people of misguidance, and the others to upright, eminent Muslims. Afterwards, I encountered another palace that attracted my attention, as my name Said was written on it. When I looked at it closely, I felt as if I were seeing my own shape on it. I was so bewildered that I began to cry, and at this point I woke up. I will now interpret this vision, may God make its outcome fortunate! That city is the social life of humanity and the terrain of human civilization. Each palace is the faculties and organs, such as eyes, ears, heart, spirit and intelligence, the self, desires, the sense of anger and carnal appetites. Each faculty of man has a different task in worship; it has also different pleasures and different sorrows. From among them, the soul and desires, the sense of anger and carnal appetites are like doorkeepers and dogs in the palace of the being of man. Thus, to put the other lofty senses at the disposal of the self and desires, and to cause them to forget their innate duties, is by all means a decline, not progress. You may now interpret for yourself the other details of the vision. R. Nur Collection (23rd Word)

References

1) The burden is described as the trust in the following verse: —Verily We offered the trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains; but they refused to undertake it, being afraid thereof. But man undertook it; he was indeed unjust and foolish— (Qur’an, 33:72), and one of its aspects concerns self as explained in detail in the Thirtieth Word. [Tr.]

Hostility to Islam and Muslims was an integral part of most of the travellers’ mental makeup. David Roberts, a painter of the idealized landscapes of classical ruins, expresses his frustration in a dislike and hatred of Arabs whose forms litter the otherwise perfect scene: ‘Splendid cities, once teeming with a busy population and embellished …with temples, now deserted and lonely, or reduced by mismanagement and the barbarism of the Muslim creed to a state as savage as wild animals by which they are surrounded. Often have I gazed on them till my heart actually sickened within me.’1

As ‘the idea of travel as a means of gathering and recording information is commonly found in societies that exercise a high degree of political power, the traveler begins his journey with the strength of a nation or an empire sustaining him (albeit from a distance) militarily, economically, intellectually and, as is often the case, spiritually…’2

In 19th century travel accounts, the more routine designation of the Orient is feminine; its main symbols are sensual women, the harem, and the despotic -but curiously attractive- ruler. Moreover, Oriental women, like Victorian housewives, were confined to silence and to unlimited service. The English woman traveller, Miss Irby, who travelled throughout the Ottoman regions, defines the proper place of the oriental women:

‘To the Musulman, a woman was an inferior being, a chattel, to be bought and sold, kept secluded behind the screens of the women’s quarters, or, if produced in public, to be hidden behind the draperies of the litter, or muffled and secreted in long shapeless robes, face covered by the veil; the property of the man as was his dog, his servant, his horse, to wait on his pleasure, to sleep at his feet; yet withal, if the husband be rich, to be cossetted and adorned with jewels and fed with sweetmeats, to spend days in idleness and chatter.’3

In various 19th century Oriental books and tales like Vathek, the Giaour and Don Juan (especially Cantos 5-8) which are more or less fixated on the images of the Oriental harem, the figure of the veiled Eastern girl symbolising the colonial Other is created by a narrative structure in which a male subject’s attempts to liberate a female object from the tyranny of the harem is interrupted or arrested by a stereotypical patriarchal aggressor who prevents the achievement of narrative desire in the possession of the woman. In other words, the Orient is thus refigured as the harem fantasy of European imperialism that shows ‘the East’ as the obscure object of Western desire. The narrative structure of Vathek designates the Orient as a feminized place invaded by the masculine subject.

Reza Hammani and Martina Rieker criticize Ghoussoub’s Marxist approach which deprecates Islam as not good for women. However, they agree that Middle Eastern feminism is vitiated by its involvement in debates whose agenda was set in 19th century travel writing. They develop this idea further with the following explanation:

‘Two issues have dominated Western discourse about Middle Eastern women since the 19th century; the veil and the harem. The harem continues to be treated as a contemporary reality in popular mythology. Thus, Gloria Steiner cites freeing Saudi women from harems as one of her fantasies in her autobiography – we wish her luck in finding a harem in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, it is above all the veil which remains a central preoccupation… The veil is not always imposed; in many contemporary instances women have been instrumental in assuming it. This is not a matter of relativist interpretations but of power… In the case of women in Egypt since Sadat’s Open Door Policy, large numbers of working-class women have themselves mobilized to veil to signify their opposition to the regime.’4

Irene L. Szyliowicz remarks that historians and social scientists arc demonstrating that the traditional portrayal of women in these societies has been biased and based on Western judgements. European ethnocentrism and male chauvinism have combined to account for this phenomenon.5 As she thinks that French travel writer, Pierre Loti’s attitude toward Oriental women is particularly worth studying for several reasons, she points out in her Pierre Loti and the Oriental Woman (1988) that ‘since all the Oriental women essentially support and ratify their Occidental lovers, it is proper to conclude that Loti created these fictional characters as wish-fulfilment fantasies, to simultaneously reinforce and magnify his manhood.’6 When Loti made a speech titled ‘La Femme Turque’ (the Turkish Woman) before a large gathering of European women in the conference on ‘Feminine Life’, he concluded with a message: ‘Open the cages, open all the harems. Yet, don’t open them too quickly, for fear that the young, imprisoned birds should take a frantic flight before knowing properly where their inexperienced and fragile wings will take them.’7 According to Loti’s interpretation of Oriental women, which is quite similar to that of Byron, one might imagine that ‘they could be manipulated easily by their dominating masters, and further, this masculine paradigm presented these women, like their Occidental sisters as actually craving male domination.’8 Eventually, in the case of Oriental or exotic women created by Loti, the reader faces a different form; they are simple, primitive, dependent, often helpless, and they worship the hero as though he was God. ‘And despite the fact that he was still a product of his Occidental milieu and the prejudices with which he was raised, he prided himself on his objectivity toward various lands which he visited.’9

In sum, from the previously quoted remarks by 19th century travellers, it may be concluded that the most general point about travel literature (something also confirmed by Sir John Mandeville’s Travels) is that travel is undertaken for a great variety of purposes; the specific purpose involved in a given case is always, to a greater or lesser degree, determinant of what is noted or considered noteworthy. Consequently, the attention paid by the writer of a travel book is always ideological. A traveller usually comes from somewhere – from a country from a language community, class – and consciously writes the record of his journey for a particular public in the country he came from.10

Notes

1. As quoted in BALLANTINE, J. The Life of David Roberts, R.A. Compiled from his journals and other sources, Edinburgh, 1986, pp. 104-5.

2. KABBANI, R. Europe’s Myths of the Orient, Macmillan, London, 1986, p.1.

3. ANDERSON. D. Miss Irby and her Friends, Hutchinson, London, 1966, pp. 52-3.

4. HAMMANI, R. and RIEKER, M. ‘Feminst Orientalism and Orientalist Marxism’, New Left Review, 170, 1988, p. 93.

5. SZYLIOWICZ, I. L. Pierre Loti and the Oriental Woman, Macmillan, London, 1988, pp.1-3.

6. ibid.

7. ‘Et je dis avec eux, mais non sans inquietude: out ouvrez toutes les cages ouvrez tous les harems. Cependant ne les ouvrez pas trop vite, de peur que les jeunes piseaux prisonniers…’ P. Loti ‘La Femme Turque in Quelques aspect du vertige mondial, Ernest Flammarion, Paris, 1917, p. 182.

8. SZYLIOWICZ, p. 3.

9. ibid, p. 12.

10. PARKER, D. ‘Orientalism and its Problems’ in BOOLE, F. (ed.) The Politics of Theory, University of Essex, John Fletcher.

Introduction

Around the middle of this century, influential voices in the West began to say that unlimited exploitation of natural resources could not continue much longer. They questioned the viability of the prevailing ethic based on laissez faire capitalism and unlimited economic growth at the expense of others and of the environment. The main outcome of such Western self-criticism has been the emergence, since the 1950s, of two broad schools of thought.1 The first arose out of efforts to re-examine and re-present the stewardship ethic of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. The second, ironically enough, grew as a critique of that same Judaeo-Christian tradition, accusing it of being the cause of the problem. This second school of thought is generally known as the ‘deep ecology’ school:

The ‘deep ecology’ approach

Here the inspiration is from Hindu and Buddhist religious philosophy which contains the oldest known ecological teachings.2 The Hindu-Buddhist world-view regards all creatures, including the non-human (perhaps also the inanimate), as holy, as possessed of intrinsic value, and therefore to be respected. This view is based on the idea that the soul leaves the body after death only to move into another, different body, the cycle of transmigration continuing from every level of existence to every other, possibly including inert existents like stones, minerals, etc. Because a human being’s soul might be embodied in, for example, a plant or animal, every element of the global ecosystem is respected as sacred. Respect for the ecosystem must be independent of any utilitarian value human beings may derive from the non-human species. In sum, ‘deep ecologists’ reject the attitude that values ecosystems only to the extent that they contribute to human survival or human quality of life. Humans have no right to reduce the richness and diversity of the environment except to satisfy basic needs.3 The most well-known advocate of this school is Aldo Leopold who maintains that ‘a thing is right when it tends to preserve the stability and integrity of the biotic community; it is wrong when it tends otherwise.’4

This non-Western attitude has achieved a widespread following among Western environmentalists since the 1950s. They reject the Judaeo-Christian ethic which, as they believe, is centred on human domination of the non-human and so promotes an uncaring, rapacious attitude.5 Lynn White, a famous historian of technology, was the first to voice this critique.6 Hooker, commenting on the passage in Genesis ch. 1, felt that the Bible urged an imperialist attitude to nature.7 The Bible there orders man, created in God’s image, to go forth and multiply, and to subdue the earth. In so doing, it appears to encourage a despotic human rule over the ‘lower orders’ of creation. Passmore says that the despotic elements in the Christian concept became more intense in the 17th century, around the time of Descartes.8

While we do not support the Christian view, we must protest that it is a historical misunderstanding to claim that Western European attitudes and actions have been securely based on Christianity. As Murphy rightly says, Western materialism has always disguised in the name of Jesus, the Evangelism of conquistadors and missionaries and the acquisitive Calvinism of the merchant burghers.9

It is not God’s will that mankind should use up natural resources in a self-centred, exploitative manner.10 Western writers themselves have realized this: ‘The phrase “conquest of nature” is certainly one of the most objectionable and misleading expressions of Western languages. It reflects the illusion that all natural forces can be entirely controlled, and it expresses the criminal conceit that nature is to be considered primarily as a source of raw materials and energy for human purposes.’11

Whether ‘conquest of nature’ is inspired by Christianity is doubtful. It is certainly the case, however, that (whatever Christianity’s influence) international law shows no awareness of ecological considerations in the exploration and exploitation of the world’s natural resources.12 The cardinal principles of international law such as freedom of exploitation of international spaces or permanent sovereignty over natural resources have been ‘primarily based upon the concept of successful sharing rather than conservation itself.’13

The stewardship ethic

It was inevitable, given the self-assertiveness of Western culture, that Christians, as a part of that culture, should search for a Christian teaching that did not propose ‘conquest of nature’. In the last twenty years or so, a new ethic has been outlined on the basis of the Protestant Doctrine of ‘good stewardship’. An advocate of this approach, Kevin Kelly, writes:

It has been fashionable to blame our Judaeo-Christian ancestry for our woeful behaviour toward Gaia. Outrageous figures like James Watt convinced most people that good Christians believed that they were obliged to loot the Earth. All the while a congregation of believing environmentalists has been steering toward an ethic of ecology based on the Bible-the key word is ‘stewardship’… Their directive is the Eleventh Commandment: ‘The Earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof; thou shall not despoil the Earth, nor the life there-on.’14

The stewardship ethic is human-centred, erected upon human choices not choices within the domain of other species, entities or systems. This view denies the belief that human beings are simply one other species sharing the planet with the rest. But, the superiority of mankind or the Biblical call for dominion cannot be a justification for cruelty to animals or for the destruction of nature. Human beings, as the stewards of God, have responsibilities not only for the other creatures, but also for the generations to come.

In many areas of collective activity, Christians struggle to find a secure basis for a sustainable ethic which can win and hold the adherence of the mass of people. The neo-Christian stewardship ethic is but the latest example. The Islamic teachings on the issue are, by contrast, unequivocal and have the authority of tradition, of ‘custom and practice’. 

The Islamic stewardship ethic

Man, in Islam, has no dominion over the earth, but is charged, as a khalifah or steward, with the protection and preservation of the environment, and permitted the use of its natural resources without undue waste. As khalifah, he has responsibilities to creation as well privileges over it. In other words, man was not created in order to let loose a consuming, selfish destructiveness on the earth. Everything in the sky and on earth has been put at the disposal of man as a trust or amanah,15 for the use of any particle of which he is answerable to its true Owner, Allah. The human duty to protect the biosphere has been succinctly expressed in these words: God”s wisdom has ordained to grant man inheritance on earth. Therefore, in addition to being part of the earth and part of the universe, man is also the executor of God”s instructions and commands. And as such he is a mere manager of the earth and not a proprietor; a beneficiary and not a disposer or ordainer. Man has been granted inheritance to manage and utilize the earth for his benefits and for the fulfilment of his interests. He, therefore, has to keep, maintain and preserve it honestly, and has to act within the limits dictated by honesty.16 The duties and privileges of stewardship extend to all human beings as such, not to a particular nation excluding others, nor to particular classes excluding others. In other words, management of these resources must be sustainable: the resources belong to mankind as a whole, not just to the present generation. It follows that Muslims should not regard use of any resource as a right of full possession which would legitimize the individual exhausting that resource.17 Man is, so to speak, a tenant, not a proprietor – and even as tenant, Islam traditionally recognizes only a right of usufruct. Man is entitled to benefit from, to produce from, the use of natural resources. But this entitlement does not, as Locke and Nozick claim,18 extend to any absolute right to dispose and use up natural resources, even if there is a legitimate “property” right as recognized in modern legal systems. Tenancy of the biosphere prohibits present generations from disregarding and threatening the interests of future generations. This is well illustrated in one of the sayings of the Prophet, upon him be peace: If the Hour is imminent and anyone of you has a palm shoot in his hand and is able to plant it before the Hour strikes, then he should do so and he will be rewarded for that action That hadith is clear evidence that a concern for future generations was on the public agenda as early as the seventh century, whereas in the Western world this concern, ushered in by John Rawls and his followers,19 is as recent as the early 1970s. That Western concern, although modern, need not be any the less serious for being so. In the 1970s it contributed significantly to the development of the public trust doctrine. This doctrine can be said to be a natural consequence of the stewardship ethic by which the present generation are regarded as trustees, charged with protecting and passing on, for the benefit of future generations, all the resources they inherited from their ancestors. The historical roots of this doctrine are claimed to date back to the Roman concept of trust.20 However, Roman law did not develop the trust concept as a tool for environmental protection. We should accept that the contemporary origin of this doctrine originates from the American Charity Trust Law.21 Since the 1970s, the public trust or charitable trust device became the most viable way of tackling global environmental problems.22 Today, there are numerous international environmental conventions which incorporate the doctrine.23 As for international application of the public trust doctrine, states and governmental or nongovernmental organizations act, on behalf of the international community and of future generations, as trustees for those natural and cultural re-sources within their effective jurisdiction. And they are morally and legally responsible to the rest of mankind for the trust they hold. It is a pity that the Western advocates of this doctrine have not had access to the vast archives of Ottoman vaqf (Trust) Law.24 If they had had access, they would have realized that the first historical precedents for charitable trusts for precisely this purpose, date back to the era of the Prophet, upon him be peace. He was the first to donate two date-yards as a charitable trust specifically for the benefit of succeeding generations. This tradition later found its mature and magnificent form in the Ottoman vaqfs which included trusts set up to protect local birds and to facilitate the settlement and migration of storks. Unfortunately, it must be admitted that the historic Ottoman vaqfs 25 situated in modern Turkey are not as effective as they used to be, and cannot therefore be demonstrated as precedents. Nevertheless, it would be of great value to do serious research on Islamic vaqfs related to environmental purposes, in order to develop practical legal models to deal with this problem in the future.

Notes and References

1. There have, of course, been several different schools of concern about this issue-for example, the North American Indian trend represented by Chief Seattle, or the “ecofeminists”. See, in general, DIAMOND, E. AND ORENSTEIN, G. (eds) Reviewing the World: the Emergence of Ecofeminism, 1990.

2. See in general, NAESSA, A. “The shallow and the deep. Long range ecology movement: a summary”, Inquiry, (1973) 16, p.95.

3. For more detail see DALY, E. and COBB, B., For the Common Good, Green Print, London, 1989, ch.20, pp.376-400, p. 377.

4. In 1949 Aldo Leopold wrote a slender volume, A Sand Country Almanac and Scythes Here and There. The quotation is the core message of his ethical understanding.

5. HOOKER, C. A., “Responsibility, Ethics and Nature” in The Environment in Question, pp.147-164, 151.

6. See WHITE, L., “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis”, originally published in Science, March 1967, but reprinted many times throughout the 1970s, e.g. BELL, G. (ed.) Environmental Handbook, Ballantine Books Inc., 1970, p.14.

7. HOOKER, p.151.

8. PASSMORE, J., Man’s Responsibility for Nature, 1974, p. 114.

9. MURPHY, E. E, “The Diminishing World of Western Law”, 1981, 16/1, Texas International Law Journal, pp.1-10, p.2.

10. WHITE, ibid.

11. DUBES, R., A God Within; quotation was taken from PORRIT, J., “A New International Order: One World and Beyond” in Save the Planet, 1991, p.41.

12. KU, C., “The Concept of Res Communis in International Law”, 1990, 12/4 History of European Ideas, pp.459-77, p.459.

13. BROWNLIE, I., “A Survey of International Customary Rules of Environmental Protection” in TECLAFF, I. & UTTON, A., (eds) International Environmental Law, pp.1-12, p.1.

14. Quoted in REINHART, P., “The Eleventh Commandment”, 1986, 50 Whole Earth Review, pp.83-4, p.83.

15. See HAMID, A., Islam: the Natural Way, MELS Publication, London, 1989, 22, pp.160-2.

16. IUCN, “Islamic Principles for the Conservation of the Natural Environment”, 1983, 11 Environmental Policy and Law, pp.83-6, p.83.

17. ibid.

18. See Liberal Locke and Nozick’s entitlements theories of justice over natural resources and their consequences in LOCKE, Two Treaties on Civil Government, Cambridge University Press, 1960 (Second Treatise) and NOZICK, R., Anarchy, State and Utopia, Blackwell, Oxford, 1974, pp.174-5.

19. See Rawls” “The just saving and different principles” in RAWLS, j., A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, 1971. 20. The progenitor of this school is Joseph Sax, a jurist: SAX, J., “The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Interventio”, 1970, 68, Michigan Law Review, pp.470-565.

21. See SAX, ibid.

22. See for more information NANDA, V. and KIS, W. K., “The Public Trust Doctrine: A Viable Approach to International Environmental Protectio”, 1976, 5 Ecology Law Quarterly, pp.291-320; also WEISS, E. B., In Fairness to Future Generations: Common Patrimony, International Law, Inter-generational Equity, 1989, University of United Nations, Tokyo.

23. See NANDA and KIS, ibid.

24. See for more information YEDIYILDIZ, B., Institution du vaqf au XVIIeme siedle en Turquie”. Etude socio-historique, Minist. de la Culture, Ankara, 1990.

25. The establishment of institutionalized vaqfs took place at the time of Sulaiman the Magniflicent, in the 15th century. The vaqf institution lost its historic meaning when the Ottoman Empire collapsed in the early 20th century. See AKGUNDUZ, A, Belgeler Gercekleri Konusuyor (2), Nil Nesriyat, Izmir-Turkey, 1990, pp.107-10.

The reasons behind the Prophet’s several marriages are various, but even in the privateness of some of those reasons, they all had to do with his role as the leader of the new Muslim ummah, guiding his people towards the norms and values of Islam. In the following pages we shall try to explain some of those reasons and, in so doing, demonstrate that the charges levelled against the Prophet on this count are as vile and indecent as they are utterly false.

The Prophet, not at that time called to his future mission, first married at the age of twenty-five. Given the cultural environment in which he lived, not to mention the climate and other considerations such as his youth, it is remarkable that he should have enjoyed a reputation for perfect chastity as well as integrity and trustworthiness generally. As soon as he was called to the Prophethood he acquired enemies who did not hesitate to publicize false calumnies against him but not once did any of them (and in their jahiliyya (ignorance) they were not scrupulous men) dare to invent against him what no-one could have believed. It is important to realize that his life was founded upon chastity and self-discipline from the outset, and so remained.

At the age of twenty-five, then, and in the prime of life, Muhammad, upon him be peace, married Khadijah, a woman much his senior in years. This marriage was very high and exceptional in the eyes of the Prophet and Allah. For twenty-three years, his life with Khadijah was a period of uninterrupted contentment in perfect fidelity. In the eighth year of prophethood. however, Khadijah passed away and the Prophet was once again single, as he had been until the age of twenty-five, though now with children. His enemies cannot deny, but are forced to admit that, during all these long years, they cannot find a single flaw in his moral character. During the lifetime of Khadijah, the Prophet took no other wife, although public opinion among his people would have allowed him to do so had he wished to. After Khadijah’s death, he lived a single life for four or five years. All his other marriages began after he reached the age of fifty-five, an age by which very little real interest and desire for marriage remains. The allegation that his marriages after this age were an expression of licentiousness or self-indulgence, is as groundless as it is foul.

A question people often ask is: How can the plurality of his marriages be in accord with his role as Prophet? There are three points to be made in answering this question, but first let us recognize that those who continually raise such questions are either atheists (who themselves have no religion) or are people of the Book i.e. Christians or Jews. Both these classes of critics are equally ignorant of Islam and religion, or wilfully confuse right with wrong in order to deceive others and spread doubt and mischief.

1. Those who neither believe in nor practise any religious way of life have no right to reproach those who do. They have relations and unions with many women without following any rule or law or ethic. However they may pretend otherwise, what they do is unrestrained self-indulgence with, in practice, little regard for the consequences of their life-style upon the happiness and wellbeing of even their own children, let alone of the young in general. In certain circles who advertise themselves as the most free, sexual relations which most societies condemn as incestuous are regarded as permissible; homosexuality is as normal for them as any other kind of relationship; some even practise polyandry – that is, one woman having at the same time many husbands – the agony of any children from such unions who may never be sure of who their father is, we leave to the reader’s imagination. The only motive that people who live in this way can have for criticising the Prophet’s marriages is the foolish hope that they can drag Muslims down with them into the mess of moral confusion and viciousness in which they themselves are trapped.

Jews and Christians who attack the Prophet for the plurality of his marriages can only be motivated by their fear and jealous hatred of Islam. They plainly forget that the great patriarchs of the Hebrew race, named as Prophets in the Bible as well as the Qur’an, and revered by the followers of all three faiths as exemplars of moral excellence, all practised polygamy and indeed on a far greater scale than the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace.

Polygamy was not originated by the Muslims. Furthermore, in the case of the Prophet of Islam, as we shall see, polygamy (or, more strictly, polygyny) has, from the viewpoint of its function within the mission of Prophethood, far more significance than people generally realize.

In a sense, the plurality of wives was a necessity for the Prophet through whose practice (or Sunna) the statutes and norms of Muslim law were to be established. Religion may not be excluded from the private relations between spouses, from matters that can only be known by one’s partner. Therefore, there must be guidance from women who can give clear instruction and advice without using an allusive language of hints and innuendoes which leaves the meaning obscure and incomprehensible. The chaste and virtuous women of the Prophet’s household were the teachers responsible for conveying and communicating to the people the norms and rules that concern the conduct of Muslims in their private lives.

2. Some of the marriages of the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace, were contracted for specific reasons to do with his wives:

1. Since there were young, middle-aged and old women amongst them, the requirements and norms/ statutes of Islamic law could be exemplified in relation to their different life stages and experiences. These provisions of the law were first learnt and applied within the Prophet’s household and then passed on to other Muslims through the teaching of his wives.
2. Since each of his wives was from a different clan or tribe, the Prophet established bonds of kinship and affinity throughout the ummah. This enabled a profound attachment to him to spread amongst the diverse peoples of the new ummah, creating and securing equality and brotherhood amongst them in a most practical way and on the basis of religion.
3. Each of his wives, from their different tribes, both whilst the Prophet was living and after he passed away, proved of great benefit and service to the cause of Islam. They conveyed his message and interpreted it to their clans; the outer and inward experience, the qualities, the manners and faith of the man whose life, in all its details, public and intimate, was the embodiment of the Qur’an, Islam in practice. In this way, all the members of their clan, men and women, learnt about the Qur’an, Hadith, tafsir (interpretation and commentary on the Qur’an), and fiqh (understanding of the Islamic law), and so became fully aware of the essence and spirit of the Islamic religion.
4. Through his marriages, the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace, established ties of kinship throughout the Arabian peninsula. What this meant was that he was free to move and be accepted as a member in each family, each of whose members regarded him as one of their own. For that reason each felt that they could go to him in person to learn about the affairs of this life and of the life hereafter, directly from him. Equally, the tribes benefited collectively also from this proximity to the Prophet; they esteemed themselves to be fortunate and took pride in that relationship, such as the Ummayads through Umm Habibah, the Hashimites through Zaynab bint Jahsh, and the Banu Makhzum through Umm Salamah.

3. What we have said so far is general and could, in some respects, be true of all the Prophets. However, now we will deal with the life sketches of ummahat-al-muminin, the mothers of believers, not in the order of the marriages but in a different perspective.

I. Khadijah, radi Allahu anha, was the first among the Prophet’s wives. At the time of her marriage, she was forty years old and Muhammad, upon him be peace, was twenty-five. She was the mother of all his children except a son, Ibrahim, who did not live long. As well as being a wife, Khadijah was also a friend to her husband, the sharer of his inclinations and ideals to a remarkable degree. Their marriage was wonderfully blessed; they lived together in profound harmony for twenty-three years. Through every contumely and outrage heaped upon him by the idolaters, through every persecution, Khadijah was his dearest companion and helper. He loved her very deeply and did not marry any other woman during her lifetime. This marriage is the ideal of intimacy, friendship, mutual respect, support and consolation, for all marriages. Though faithful and loyal to all his wives, he never forgot Khadijah after her death and mentioned her virtues and merits extensively on many occasions. The Prophet did not marry for another four to five years after Khadijah’s death. Providing their daily food and provisions, bearing their troubles and hardships, Muhammad, upon him be peace, looked after his children and performed the duties mother as well as father. To allege of such a man that he was a sensualist or suffered from lust for women, is as disgraceful and as stupid a lie as can be imagined. For if there were even the least grain of truth in it, he could not have lived as we know that he did.

II. Aishah, radi Allahu anha, was his second wife, though not in the order of marriages. She was the daughter of his closest friend and devoted follower, Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr, one of the earliest converts to Islam had long hoped to cement the deep attachment that existed between himself and the Prophet, by giving to him his daughter in marriage. By marrying Aishah the Prophet accorded the highest honour and courtesy to a man who had shared all the good and bad times with him throughout his mission. In this way, Abu Bakr and Aishah Siddiqa acquired the distinction of being spiritually and physically near to the Prophet.

Moreover, Aishah, who proved to be a remarkably intelligent and wise woman, had both the nature and temperament to carry forward the work of prophetic mission. Her marriage was the schooling through which she was prepared as a spiritual guide and teacher to the whole of the Female world. She became one of the major students and disciples of the Prophet and through him, like so many of the Muslims of that blessed time, her skills and talents were matured and perfected, so that she joined him in the abode of bliss both as wife and as student. Her life and her services to Islam after her marriage prove that such an exceptional person was worthy to be the wife of the Prophet. For, when the time came, she proved herself one of the greatest authorities on Hadith, an excellent commentator on the Qur’an and a most distinguished and knowledgeable expert (Faqih) in Islamic law. She truly represented the inward and outward qualities and experiences (zahir and batin) of the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace, through her unique understanding. This is surely why the Prophet was told in his dream that he would marry Aishah, and thus, when she was innocent and knew nothing about men and worldly affairs, she was prepared and entered into the Prophet’s household.

III. Umm Salamah, radi Allahu anha, was from the clan of Makhzum. She was first married to her cousin. The couple had embraced Islam at the very beginning and emigrated to Abyssinia, to avoid the persecutions of the Quraysh. After returning from Abyssinia, the couple and their four children migrated to Madinah. Her husband participated in many battles and received severe wounds at the battle of Uhud from which he later died. Abu Bakr and Umar proposed marriage to Umm Salamah, aware of her needs and suffering as a widow with children to support and no means of doing so. She refused because, according to her judgement, no-one could be better than her late husband.

Some time after that, the Prophet himself offered to marry her. This was quite right and natural. For this great woman who had never shied from sacrifice and suffering for her faith in Islam was now alone after having lived many years in the noblest clan of Arabia. She could not be neglected and left to beg her way in life. Considering her piety, sincerity and all that she had suffered, she certainly deserved to be helped. By taking her into his household, the Prophet was doing what he had been doing since his youth, namely befriending those who were lacking in friends, supporting those who were unsupported, protecting those who were unprotected. In the circumstances in which Umm Salamah found herself, there was no kinder or more gracious way to give her what she lacked.

Umm Salamah was intelligent and quick in comprehension just as Aishah was. She had all the capacities and gifts to become a spiritual guide and teacher. When the gracious and compassionate Prophet took her under his protection, a new student to whom all the female world would be grateful, was accepted into the school of knowledge and guidance. Let us recall that, at this time, the Prophet was approaching the age of sixty. For him to have married a widow with many children, to have accepted the expenses and responsibilities that that entailed, cannot be understood otherwise than in humble admiration for the infinite reserves of his humanity and compassion.

IV. Umm Habibah, radi Allahu anha, was the daughter of Abu Sufyan who, for a long time had been the most determined enemy of the Prophet”s mission, and the most determined supporter of kufr, unbelief. Yet his daughter was one of the earliest converts to Islam. She emigrated to Abyssinia because of persecution by the unbelievers. Whilst there, her husband converted to Christianity. As she remained a Muslim, she separated from him. When, shortly after that, her husband died she was all alone, and desperate, in exile. The Companions of the Prophet were then few in number and had little in the way of material wealth to support themselves, let alone to support others. What then were the practical options open to Umm Habibah? She might convert to Christianity and so obtain support from the Christians, but that was unthinkable. She might return to her father”s home, now a headquarters of the war against Islam, but that too was unthinkable. She might wander from household to household as a beggar, but again it was an unthinkable option for one who belonged to one of the richest and noblest Arab families to bring shame upon her family name by doing so. Allah recompensed Umm Habibah for all that she lost or sacrificed in the way of Islam. She had suffered a lonely exile in an insecure environment among people of a race and religion different from her own; she was made wretched too by her husband”s conversion and death. The Prophet, on learning of her plight, responded by sending an offer of marriage through the King Negus. This was an action both noble and generous, and a practical proof of the verse: “We have not sent you save as a mercy for all creatures [beings ]” (Al-Anbiya, 21. 107). Thus Umm Salamah joined the Prophet”s household as wife and student, and contributed much to the moral and spiritual life of the Muslims who learnt from her and, in their turn, passed on their knowledge to future generations. Through this marriage, the powerful family of Abu Sufyan came to be linked with the person and household of the Prophet, something that led them to adopt a different attitude to Islam. It is also correct to trace the influence of this marriage, beyond the family of Abu Sufyan, on all the Ummayads, who ruled the Muslims for a hundred years. The clan whose members had been the most fanatical in their hatred of Islam produced some of Islam”s most renowned warriors, administrators and governors in the early period. Without doubt it was the marriage to Umm Salamah that began this change: the Prophet”s depth of generosity and magnanimity of soul surely overwhelmed them.

V. Zainab bint Jahsh, radi Allahu anha, was also a lady of noble birth, and a close relative of the Prophet. She was, moreover, a woman of great piety, who fasted much, kept long vigils, and gave generously to the poor. When the Prophet asked for the hand of Zainab for Zaid, Zainab”s family and Zainab herself were at first unwilling. The family had hoped to marry their daughter to the Prophet. Naturally, when they realized that it was the Prophet”s wish that Zainab should marry Zaid, they all consented out of deference to their love for the Prophet and his authority. In this way, the marriage took place. Zaid had been taken captive as a child in the course of tribal wars and sold as a slave in Kahha. The noble Khadija whose slave he was, presented him to Muhammad, upon him be peace, on the occasion of her marriage to the future Prophet. The Prophet immediately gave Zaid his freedom and shortly afterwards adopted him as his son. The reason for his insistence on Zaid”s marriage to Zainab was to establish and fortify equality between the Muslims, to make this ideal a reality. His desire was to break down the ancient Arab prejudice against a slave or even freedman marrying a “free-born” woman. The Prophet was therefore starting this hard task with his own relatives. The marriage did not bring happiness to either Zainab or Zaid. Zainab, the lady of noble birth, was a good Muslim of a most pious and exceptional quality. Zaid, the freedman, was among the first to embrace Islam, and he too was a good Muslim. Both loved and obeyed the Prophet, but their marriage was unsustainable because of their mutual incompatibility. Zaid found it no longer tolerable and on several occasions expressed the wish to divorce. The Prophet, however, insisted that he should persevere with patience and that he should not separate from Zainab. Then, on an occasion while the Prophet was in conversation, the Angel Gabriel came and a divine revelation was given to him. The Prophet”s marriage to Zainab was announced in the revealed verses as a bond already contracted: We have married her to thee (al-Ahzab). This command was one of the severest trials the Prophet, upon him be peace, had yet had to face. For he was commanded to do a thing contrary to the traditions of his people, indeed it was a taboo. Yet it had to be done for the sake of Allah, just as Allah commanded. Aishah later said: Had the Apostle of Allah been inclined to suppress anything of what was revealed to him, he would surely have suppressed this verse (Bukhari and Muslim). Divine wisdom decreed the need to join so distinguished and noble a person as Zainab to the Prophet”s household, so as to provide her with true knowledge and prepare her for the task of guiding and enlightening the Muslims. In the event, after the marriage finally took place, Zainab proved herself most worthy to be the Prophet”s wife; she was always aware of the responsibilities as well as the courtesies proper to her role, and fulfilled those responsibilities to universal admiration. In the jahiliyya, the period of ignorance before Islam, an adopted son was regarded as a natural son, and an adopted son”s wife was therefore regarded as a natural son”s wife would be. According to the Quranic verse, those who have been wives of your sons proceeding from your loins fall within the prohibited degrees of marriage. But this prohibition does not relate to adopted sons with whom their is no real consanguinity. What now seems obvious was not so then. The pagan taboo against marrying the former wives of adopted sons was deeply rooted. It was to uproot this custom that the Prophet”s marriage to Zainab was commanded by the Revelation. To have an unassailable authority for future generations of Muslims, the break in the taboo had to be achieved through the authority of the Prophet”s own example. It is but one further instance of the depth of faith of the man that he accepted the divine decree, against the most established customs of his people. As a result the Arabs were rescued from their pagan confusion of a legal fiction, however worthy, with a biological, natural reality.

VI. Juwayriyah b. Harith, radi Allahu anha, was one of a large number of captives taken by Muslims in an expedition to suppress an armed revolt. She was the daughter of Harith, chief of the defeated Bani Mustaliq clan. She was held captive, like other members of her proud family, alongside the common people of her clan. When the spoils were divided, she fell to the lot of one of the Ansar (those Madinans honoured as the Helpers of the Emigrant Muslims from Makka). The Ansari agreed to set her free for a certain sum. Juwayriah came to the Prophet, upon him be peace, to plead for his intervention on her behalf. She was in considerable distress, not least because her kinsmen had lost everything and her emotions were a profound hate and enmity toward the Muslims. The Prophet understood the wounded pride and dignity and the suffering of this woman; more than that he understood also, in his sublime wisdom, how to resolve the problem and heal that wounded pride. He agreed to pay her ransom, set her free and offered to take her as his wife. How gladly Juwayriyah accepted this offer can easily be imagined. About a hundred families, who had not yet been ransomed, were all set free when the Ansar and the Muhajir (the Emigrants) came to realize that the Bani Mustaliq were now among the Prophet”s kin by marriage. A tribe so honoured could not be allowed to remain in slavery. In this way the hearts of Juwayriyah and all her people were won. A hundred families who regained their liberty blessed the marriage of Juwayriyah with Muhammad, upon him be peace. Through his compassionate wisdom and generosity he turned a defeat for some into a victory for all; what had been an occasion of enmity and distress became one of friendship and joy.

VII. Safiyyah, radi Allahu anha, was the daughter of Huyayy, one of the chieftains of the Jewish tribe of Khaybar, who had persuaded the Bani Qurayzah to break their treaty with the Prophet. From her earliest years she saw her family and relatives determined in opposition to the Prophet. She had lost her father, brother and husband at the hands of Muslims, and herself became one of their captives. The attitudes and actions of her family and relatives might have nurtured in her a deep indignation against the Muslims and a desire for revenge. But three days before the Prophet, upon him be peace, arrived at Khaybar, and Safiyyah fell captive in the battle, she had seen in a dream a brilliant moon coming out from Madina, moving towards Khaybar, and falling into her lap. She later said: “When I was captured I began to hope that my dream would come true.” Brought before him as a captive, the Prophet generously set her free and offered her the choice between remaining a Jew and returning to her people or entering Islam and becoming his wife. “I chose Allah and his Messenger”, she said. Shortly after that, they were married. Elevated to the Prophet”s household she had the title of mother of the believers. The Companions of the Prophet honoured and respected her as mother; she witnessed at first hand the refinement and true courtesy of the men and women whose hearts and minds were submitted to Allah. Her attitude to her past experiences changed altogether, and she came to appreciate the great honour of being the Prophet”s wife. As a result of this marriage, the attitude of many Jews changed as they came to see and know the Prophet closely. It is also worth noting here that it is through such close relation with others that Muslims can come to understand how those others think and feel and live. And it is through understanding that Muslims can learn how to influence and guide, if Allah wills, those others. Without a degree of trust established by such generous actions as the Prophet”s marriage to Safiyyah, neither mutual respect nor tolerance can become social norms.

VIII. Sawdah b. Zamah-bin Qays, radi Allahu anha, was the widow of one Sakran. Sakran and Sawdah were among the first to embrace Islam and had been forced to flee to Abyssinia to escape the persecution of the idolaters. Sakran died in exile and left his wife utterly destitute. As the only means of assisting the poor woman, the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace, though himself distressed for the means of daily subsistence, married Sawdah. This marriage took place some time after the death of the noble Khadijah.

IX. Hafsah, radi Allahu anha, was the daughter of Umar ibn al-Khattab, the future second Caliph of Islam. This good lady had lost her husband who emigrated to both Abyssinia and Madina and who died of wounds received in battle in the path of Allah. She remained without a husband for a while. Umar also desired, like Abu Bakr, the honour and blessing of being close to the Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter, so that the Prophet, upon him be peace, took Hafsah as his wife so as to protect and help the daughter of his faithful disciple. Such were the circumstances and noble motives of the several marriages of the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace. We see that these marriages were intended to provide helpless or widowed women with dignified subsistence in the absence of all other means; to console and honour enraged or estranged tribes people, to bring those who had been enemies into some degree of relationship and harmony; to gain for the cause of Islam certain uniquely gifted individuals, in particular some exceptionally talented women; to establish new norms of equality and relationship between different people within the unifying brotherhood of faith in Allah; and to honour with family bonds the men who were to be the first leaders of the Muslim ummah after him. These marriages had nothing at all to do with self-indulgence or personal desire or lust or any other of the absurd and vile charges laid against the Prophet by Islam”s embittered enemies. With the exception of Aisha, all of the Prophet”s wives were widows, and all his marriages (after that with the noble Khadijah) were contracted when he was already an old man. Far from being acts of self-indulgence then, these marriages were acts of self-discipline. It was a part of that discipline that the Prophet, upon him be peace, provided for each of his wives with the most meticulously observed justice, dividing equally whatever slender resources he allowed to his household for their subsistence, accommodation and allowance generally. He also divided his time with them equally, and regarded and treated them with equal friendship and respect. That his household (despite the fact that his wives came from different backgrounds and had acquired different tastes and temperaments) got on well with each other, is no small tribute to his genius for creating peace and harmony. With each of them, he was not only a provider but a friend and companion. A final point to be made is that the number of wives the Prophet had was by a special dispensation within the Law of Islam and unique to his person. Some of the merits and wisdom of this dispensation, as we understand them, have been explained. The number of wives for any other Muslim may not exceed four at any one time. When that Revelation came restricting polygamy, the Prophet”s marriages had already been contracted. Thereafter, the Prophet also was prohibited to marry again. May Allah bless him and grant him peace, and may He enable us to understand and follow his noble example.