I contend that Money has acquired a character, a personality, if you like. So there you are, you have Mr. and Mrs. Average on the street, and then there is Money. It is best to keep Money otherwise anonymous, for it has become uppity enough. In the old days, people would say that “money talks” and that inference has been made fact. Nowadays, Money makes a dialogue to fit its own ends and Money knows where it is going, with whom it is having dinner tonight, whom it is going to embarrass due to its immediate absence, and the person or company it is going to ruin in the morning.

Money, you might say, has got Greece on the skids. It is not really the fault of Greece or Grecians in general, because, you see, Money has become sly, altogether its own boss.

Nevertheless, despite the awful Cloud of Unknowing hovering over Athens, the Greeks of our acquaintance have been generous to a fault. We have been offered many a meze (a small plate of olives, feta, sausage, etc.), coffee or glass of ouzo free of charge. There has been a bon vivant air to our relationships, but we are convinced that due to the rather cavalier handling of their monetary means, these jolly persons do not wish to have a mainland psyche.

Who was it who said that “only a millionaire can afford to be a communist”? Never mind, the notion is perfectly applicable to Greece and its very nice people. It could mean that either they are all transcended souls and have seen something that we have not, or simply don’t give two figs for the idea of poverty. This is true on the islands, that is! Athens is another matter altogether.

In much the same way that there are countries in which poverty means a less strenuous existence than in some others. (Being poor in Austria, for example, is bearable. Poverty in some other countries, which we do not name, would be quite horrid.) Life for the Greek islanders is obviously less affected than life for those living in Athens. In the islands in other words, Money has none of the packed dependents that a metropolis offers to exert its lack of presence. Athens may well be the seat of government, but the islands seem to require little governing. One can’t shake off the feeling that Money has made itself essential to the running of a financial capital and nowhere else, because that is what financial capitals are for. See? The capital cities of this world are all a home-from-home for Money. We shudder at the thought of Brussels, which obviously needs paying for, going the same way.

My wife and I have decided to have no truck with money (we have de-capitalised it for a start). Should money stray our way, we will toss it into a corner and let it sulk for a bit; we may send it to a Third World country, which is where it belongs, but we will NOT go out and spend it. Moreover, we will excommunicate it from our feelings; we will not thrill at the thought of it; we will not indulge in sprees, thereby refusing to have a good time on the strength of money. Above all, we will resist the attraction of what money can buy. (There is a lovely little chrome-vanadium ratchet-spanner set that keeps beckoning to me when I pass its shop window.) We have pierced this monetary fog of collusion with the searchlight of our mind. We may want something but we rarely need it. That may sound like a pretty ordinary thought process, but one does require a certain resolve to carry the cross. Thus, down with glitter, down with sell, and back to the village life that serves us well.

The lady (one’s financially bemused wife) is a bit unsure of all this, despite the fact that she can circulate through a supermarket (“they always give me a headache”) and emerge with a full trolley in ten minutes flat, while one is still wrestling with the urge to buy a needless gadget.

The answer is obvious! We must drop out! We may be in the world but we will not be of it! We will say “get thee behind me – thou shalt follow and not lead.”

But can one avoid money? The machine one writes on was purchased with money. We may feel smug and contend that it is paid for and that’s that! But money has induced some manufacturers to produce goods that are set to implode within three years. Thus, money needs to circulate to feel OK, to do the rounds, check out the joints and the venues, get fluttered every so often, muscle in on things and throw its weight about, get turned into cheques and then get cashed, get wired somewhere, get bought and sold. My goodness, can one really buy and sell money? If so, what does one use in the process of buying and selling? A popular brand of beer sold in Greece is called Mythos. Go figure!

Lawrence Brazier is a writer living with his wife in rural Austria. His main interest is mystical experience.

“It’s very hard to grow a tree,” he said. “Just like it’s very hard to grow a person.”

“Well” my brother said, “if you and mom could grow me, I can grow a tree.” He was eleven at the time.

By the end of the summer, only one of his sprouts was still alive. He’d forgotten what kind of tree it was – in his enthusiasm, he hadn’t time for labels. On a Sunday in early September, after church, my family went out to our backyard with hand shovels and a rake. On our hands and knees, we took turns digging in the soft, wet earth. It was a warm day, and the late-season sun spilled like gold filigree through the leaves of our large oak tree. My brother and father, rich earth worked into the fissures of their hands, tenderly planted the sapling. I could tell, by my father’s face, that he didn’t give the tree a chance. But my brother believed completely, and when the planting was finished to his satisfaction, he stood and said a prayer, a brief benediction and blessing for our house.

He spent that autumn tending to the sapling. He would water it daily, and measure its progress with a ruler. Against all odds, it continued to grow.

So, too, did my brother. As the years passed, and the tree grew thicker, my brother grew taller. He fell in love, had his heart broken, lost his way. By the time he left home, seven years later, the tree had grown into a healthy, albeit small, tree. It had claimed its unceremonious space in our backyard. But it hadn’t borne fruit, and we had mostly forgotten to notice that the tree was there. We still had no idea what kind of tree it was.

“A defective tree,” my father said one night, bitterly. “A tree incapable of growing fruit.” My brother had been gone a year then, and we heard word of him sparingly – a postcard from Louisiana, or a phone call from a hotel in Oklahoma. I left home the next year. I took my first trip to Paris, where I fell in love with the city, and a woman, my future wife. Another year passed, and my brother and I did not speak.

When I received word that my brother had died in a car crash in Texas, I was living in the south of Spain with my wife. She was pregnant by then, a small sapling growing inside her, and when I hung up the phone on my father, the first thing I thought of was what my brother had said all those years before: There’s a whole tree in this little seed. I looked at her and thought: There’s a whole person in this little seed. Then, naturally, I cried.

It was late June. We arrived in Philadelphia just in time for the funeral. It was a small affair at a church outside the city, on a small plot of land overlooking a creek. The grave had already been dug, the fresh earth piled high beside it. I remembered my brother’s small hands, their crevices grooved with dirt. Afterwards we returned to our house. It had grown quiet in the years since my brother and I had left, and my parents would soon sell it.

That night at dusk, my father took me out to the backyard. “I have something to show you,” he said. We walked barefoot through the grass, the cicadas murmuring in the dense, sultry summer air. When we got to my brother’s tree, I noticed something moist and wet beneath my foot. I knelt down. It was a plum. There were plums all over the ground, and more on the tree.

“It’s the first year it blossomed,” my father said. “I couldn’t believe it.”

We roamed through the gloaming, prospecting the luscious, purple globes from the low branches, biting into the soft flesh, the juices spilling down our chins. They tasted good. As I ate, I picked out the seeds, put a few of them in my pocket. They came with me on the plane back to Spain. I planted them in cups all over our house, much to my wife’s amusement. I watered them diligently, checked them daily for growth. When we planted one of the seedlings at the end of the summer, my wife’s stomach was already large, and while I worked in the earth, she sat on our porch and watched. “It will never grow,” she called out to me. “Seedlings never grow.”

As I write this, our son is playing in our backyard, his small, growing body shaded by the small, growing branches of a plum sapling.

Abraham

Abraham is a figure mentioned in the Torah, Bible, and Qur’an whom Jewish, Christian and Muslim believers regard as the founding patriarch of the Israelites and Ishmaelites. In the Jewish tradition, God promised Abraham that through his offspring, all the nations of the world would come to be blessed (Genesis 12:3), interpreted in Christian tradition as a reference to Christ. Abraham’s generations are presented as part of the crowning explanation of how the world has been fashioned by the hand of God and how relationships of peoples were established by Him. Biblical narratives represent Abraham as a wealthy, powerful and supremely virtuous man. In the New Testament, Abraham is mentioned prominently as a man of faith and an obedient man of God (Hebrews 11). For Muslims, he is a prophet and the ancestor of the Prophet Muhammad through his son Ishmael. He is commonly termed “Khalil Ullah,” the friend of God. Those who maintained the pure monotheistic beliefs of Abraham after him were said to be Hanif, people who rejected idolatry and retained some of the tenets of the religion of Abraham. Well after God’s covenant relationship with Abraham had been established (Gen 13:14-18), he meets with a mysterious character, “… Melchizedek king of Salem …priest of God Most High” (Gen 14:18). Melchizedek blessed Abraham who paid him tithes. On his covenant pilgrimage, Abraham is aided and supported by someone outside of God’s newly formed covenant with him. Both figures benefit from each other and respect the Divine connection each has, even though different kinds of relationships with God are evident. Abraham believed in God and was accordingly called to be the father of many nations; Melchizedek was the king of Salem and a priest. Both individuals were God’s people and though different, one could bless the other, and the other paid worshipful respect with a tithe in response.

Because Abraham’s wife Sarah continued to be infertile, in accordance with custom she gave to Abraham her handmaid Hagar as his wife (Gen 16:3). Sarah found that Hagar was expecting a child, and unable to endure the reproach of barrenness, she dealt harshly with Hagar and forced her to flee (16:1-14). God heard Hagar’s sorrow and promised her that her descendants will be too numerous to count (17:20).

Hagar

Hagar, according to the Abrahamic faiths, was a handmaiden of Sarah, wife of Abraham. Her story is reported in the Book of Genesis in Judeo-Christian tradition. In Islam, her story is mentioned in the Qur’an. Hagar was the daughter of the King of Maghreb, a descendant of the Islamic prophet Salih. Her father was killed by Pharaoh and she was captured and taken as slave. Later, because of her royal blood, she was made mistress of the female slaves and given access to all of Pharaoh’s wealth. Upon conversion to Abraham’s faith, the Pharaoh gave Hagar to Sarah.

After Sarah gave birth to Isaac, she told Abraham to cast out Hagar with her son Ishmael, and according to Judaic teachings, God commanded Abraham to obey his wife’s wishes and expel Hagar and Ishmael into the desert alone. Abraham was reluctant to send his son away, but God promised to make a great nation out of Ishmael because he was Abraham’s offspring. So early one morning, Abraham took bread and a container of water and sent Hagar and his son Ishmael away.

According to the Islamic tradition, Abraham brings Hagar and Ishmael to Mecca where angel Gabriel shows him the Ka‘ba. The objective of this journey is to “resettle” rather than “expel” Hagar. The journey begins in Syria, when Ishmael is still suckling. Finally, upon reaching the site of the Ka‘ba, Abraham leaves Hagar and son Ishmael under a tree and provides them with water. Hagar, learning that God had ordered Abraham to leave her in the desert, respects his decision. Muslims believe that God ordered Abraham to leave Hagar in order to test his obedience to God’s commands. However, soon Hagar runs out of water, and baby Ishmael is about to die of thirst. Hagar panics and climbs two nearby mountains repeatedly in search for water. After her seventh climb, Ishmael scratches the ground, and water gushes forth from a spring.

Ishmael

Both Jewish and Islamic traditions consider Ishmael as the ancestor of the Arab people. Judaism maintains that Isaac rather than Ishmael was the true heir of Abraham. Chapters 16-25 of the book of Genesis contain the stories of Ishmael which was partly mentioned above. The New Testament contains few references to Ishmael (Galatians 4).

The circumcision of Muslims has its roots in the tradition that Abraham and Ishmael were circumcised. Abraham and Ishmael are also said to have built the foundations of the Ka‘ba. Islamic traditions hold that the Ka‘ba was first built by the first man, Adam. Abraham and Ishmael rebuilt the Ka‘ba on its foundations. In addition, Ishmael was the actual son that Abraham was called on to sacrifice. To support this view Muslims believe that at the time Ishmael was his only son and the promise to Sarah of Isaac followed by Jacob excluded the possibility of a sacrifice of Isaac.

Sarah at first loved Ishmael, but when she herself had borne Isaac, she was not willing that Ishmael should be brought up together with Isaac. She persuaded Abraham to send Ishmael and his mother to some distant country. But Ishmael was very dear to Abraham. He initially refused to do as Sarah asked, but he finally gave in to his wife’s request when God told him that He would take care of Ishmael, since he was a descendant of Abraham.

Being a loving father and husband, Abraham did not want to send Hagar and Ishmael away (or leave them). However, he was a Prophet, and he knew that Divine message was much more important that anything else, even his own family. He had spent many lonely nights praying and asking for God to give him a child. God gave him Ishmael, the first child to be named by God, and now he was sending that child away. In addition, at least in the Islamic tradition, he was commanded to sacrifice the same child for His sake. I believe that as ordinary human beings, we cannot imagine his sorrow and sadness. He left Hagar and Ishmael in the wilderness, and then prayed:

“O our Lord! I have settled my offspring (Ishmael) in an uncultivable valley near Your Sacred House (Ka‘ba), so that, our Lord, they may establish the prayer; so make the hearts of people incline towards them, provide them with the produce of earth (by such means as trade), so that they may give thanks” (Abraham 14:37).

Ishmael’s wives

Hagar lived in the valley near the Ka‘ba until some people from the Arab tribe of Jurhum, or a family from Jurhum, passed by her and her child as they were passing by the Ka‘ba. They landed in the lower part of Mecca where they saw a bird that was known for flying around water circling over a particular spot. They said: “This bird must be flying around water, though we know that there is no water in this valley.” They sent one or two messengers who discovered the source of the water and returned to inform the others. When they all came towards the water, Ishmael’s mother Hagar was sitting near it. They asked her: “Do you allow us to stay with you?” She replied: “Yes, but you will have no right to possess the water.” They agreed. Ishmael’s mother was pleased with the whole situation, as she loved to enjoy the company of people. So, they settled there, and later on they sent for their families, who came and settled with them so that some families became permanent residents there. Ishmael grew up and learned Arabic from them and his virtues and manners made the rest of the tribe love and admire him as he grew up, and when he reached the age of puberty, they made him marry a woman from among them.

According to the book of Genesis (21:21), Ishmael lived in the wilderness of Paran, a mountain range in Mecca, and his mother made him wed someone from Egypt. His wife’s name is never mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. However, when we look at The Book of Jasher, a Hebrew midrash, which is named after the Sefer HaYashar mentioned in Joshua and 2 Samuel, we find that her name is Ribah (or Meribah) (Jas 25:15) (Parry 2005, 68). After Ishmael divorced Ribah, he wed someone else from the land of Canaan, and her name was Malchuth (Jas 25:18) (Parry 68). The reason for the divorce was because his first wife, Ribah was rude to Abraham when he came to visit Ishmael, she beat her children, and she cursed and reproached Ishmael. Abraham left a message for Ishmael to put her away. His second wife, Malchuth was a woman of Canaan who honored Abraham and was approved by him as a good wife. Although most of the Islamic sources do not mention the names of Ishmael’s wives, let us listen to their stories as recounted by the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him:

“After Ishmael’s mother had died, Abraham came after Ishmael’s marriage in order to see his family that he had left before, but he did not find Ishmael there. When he asked Ishmael’s wife about him, she replied: ‘He has gone in search of our livelihood.’ Then he asked her about their way of living and their condition, and she replied: ‘We are living in misery; we are living in hardship and destitution,’ complaining to him. He said, ‘When your husband returns, convey my salutation to him and tell him to change the threshold of the gate (of his house).

When Ishmael came, he seemed to have felt something unusual, so he asked his wife: ‘Has anyone visited you?’ She replied: Yes, an old man of such-and-such description came and asked me about you, and I informed him, and he asked about our state of living, and I told him that we were living in a hardship and poverty.’ On that Ishmael said: ‘Did he advise you anything?’ She replied: ‘Yes, he told me to convey his salutation to you and to tell you to change the threshold of your gate.’ Ishmael said: ‘It was my father, and he has ordered me to divorce you. Go back to your family.’ So, Ishmael divorced her and married another woman.

Then Abraham stayed away from them for a period as long as God wished and called on them again, he did not find Ishmael. So he came to Ishmael’s wife and asked her about Ishmael. She said: ‘He has gone in search of our livelihood.’ Abraham asked her: ‘How are you getting on?’ asking her about their sustenance and living. She replied: ‘We are prosperous and well-off (we have everything in abundance).’ Then she thanked God.

Then Abraham said to Ishmael’s wife: ‘When your husband comes, give my regards to him and tell him that he should keep firm the threshold of his gate.’ When Ishmael came back, he asked his wife: ‘Did anyone call on you?’ She replied: Yes, a good-looking old man came to me,’ so she praised him and added: ‘He asked about you and I informed him, and he asked about our livelihood and I told him that we were in a good condition.’ Ishmael asked her: ‘Did he give you any piece of advice?’ She said: Yes, he told me to give his regards to you and ordered that you should keep firm the threshold of your gate.’ On that Ishmael said: ‘It was my father, and you are the threshold (of the gate). He has ordered me to keep you with me.” (Khan 1996, #583)

Ishmael’s children

According to the Bible, Ishmael had 12 sons who became twelve tribal chiefs. The twelve sons of Ishmael, were named Nebaioth, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah (Gen 25:12-16). The descendants of Ishmael are described as “Arabian” people. Some Biblical scholars also believe that the area outlined in Genesis as the final destination of Ishmael and his descendants (from Havilah to Assyria) refers to the Arabian Peninsula. The Ishmaelites were a confederation of tribes like early Israel.

Nebaioth: More information is known about Ishmael’s eldest son Nebaioth than any of the others. The name Nebaioth is said to mean “prophecies” or possibly fruitful (this is the reason why the list of names here have begun with the one signifying prophecy because a prophet, Prophet Muhammad, was going to come from among Ishmael’s descendants). Nabataeans, a pastoral tribe was named after him. Nabataeans conferred their names on the Arabian nations. These Nabataeans spoke and wrote an early form of Arabic and thus they were often referred to as “Arabs” by Greek and Roman historians.

Arabic inscription form Jebel Ghunaym, dating to the sixth century BC or significantly later, speak of a war between the people of Nebaioth and the people of Tema, another son of Ishmael (Knoppers 2003, 278). They must have disliked each other because they were not from the same mother. On the other hand, even though they were from different mothers, there was a marital relationship between the people of Nebaioth and Edomite groups who were also known as the descendants of Mishma, the son of Ishmael. In the Bible, the tribe of Nebaioth and Kedar were renowned for sheep raising (Isaiah 60:7). Isaiah says that Nabataeans first settled in the country southeast of Palestine, and wandered gradually in search of pasturage till they came to Kedar.

Nabataeans established bases in a number of seaports. While most of us think of the Nabataeans as people who transported goods in the desert by camel caravan, it has become increasingly evident that the Nabataeans were also a sea trading people. The Nabataeans built an impressive civilization based on merchant trade and their capital was originally the city of Petra, southern Jordan.

Kedar: The sons of Kedar became known as the Kedarites. They were the most powerful tribe of northern Arab tribes (Klein 2006, 72). The Kedarites were the main military power of the sons of Ishmael. They were known for their fighters and particularly their archers. Evidently, the Kedarites occupied a position of power and glory in the ancient near east. The Kedarites and the Nabataeans attacked the western borders of Assyria, kingdom of northern Mesopotamia that became the centre of one of the great empires of the ancient Middle East, but were defeated. The commercial routes in northern Arabia were under the dominion of the Kedarites, too. Because of that great power, Ezekiel 27:21 associates Arabia with all of the princes of Kedar, suggesting a confederation under their leadership.

Kedar means “blackness or sorrow.” The tribes of Kedar are said to have lived in villages, a mode of life also characteristic of all 12 twelve Ishmaelite tribes. Some of them lived alone (Jer 49:31) in tents which were black in color (Cohen 1962, 9:3).

Adbeel: The name Adbeel is said to mean “vapor,” and this signifies that Islam puts emphasis on works, and according to the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, working is equal to worshipping. The people of Adbeel also had great military power like the Kedarites. They were given the duty as the Assyrian king’s agent on the borders of Egypt (Cohen 1:45).

Mibsam: The name Mibsam which means “sweet odor” underlines the sensitivity of Islam. It is said that this tribe may be involved in the spice trade, too.

Mishma: The name Mishma means “hearing.” Islam is a religion which has a scripture, the Qur’an, and Qur’an means recitation. The revelations given to the Prophet Muhammad were by hearing. Some historians have wondered if the descendants of Mishma were the founders of the villages around Jebel Mishma. It is thought that these two tribes, Mibsam and Mishma may have intermarried with the Simeonites (I Chronicles 4:24-27) and disappeared from history as a separate entity.

Dumah: Dumah is mentioned in the Biblical records as a city in Canaan (Joshua 15:52). It is also associated with Edom and Seir in Isaiah 21:11. Dumah, which means “silence”, was in ancient times a very important and strategic junction on the major trade route between Syria, Babylon, Najd and the Hejaz. This area has water, and was a stopping place for caravan traders coming from Tayma, before proceeding on to Syria or Babylonia. This strategic location effectively made Dumah the entrance point to north Arabia.

Massa: Massa means “touch or produce.” Archeologists Winnett and Reed discovered some graffiti texts mentioning the tribe Massa, in connection with Dedan and Nebaioth. These texts refer to the war against Dedan, the war against Nebaioth and the war against Massa. Therefore, these tribes appear to have been close to each other at this time (Cohen 3:299).

Some expositors of the scripture have taken notice of the signification of those last three names (Mishma, Dumah, and Massa) which are put together (Gen 25:14), as containing good advice to us all, Mishma, Dumah, and Massa, that is, hear, keep silence, and bear; we can see them together in the same order in James 1:19, “Be swift to hear, slow to speak, and slow to wrath.”

Hadad: Some historians speculate that this tribe may have become known as the Harar, or the Hararina people that lived near the mountains northwest of Palmyra (Cohen 2:507). It is also interesting to notice that there is a Hadad tribe in Arabia. Most of the Hadads are now Christians, and are located throughout Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine.

Tema: Tema is usually associated with the ancient oasis of Tayma, located northeast of the Hejaz district. Tiglath Pileser III, the king of Assyria, received tributes from Tayma, as well as from other Arabian oasis. A coalition was made up of Massa, the city of Tayma, the tribes of Saba, and Adbeel. Once defeated, these tribes had to send tribute of gold, silver, camels and spices of all kinds (Cohen 4:533). Isaiah 21:13-14 invites the people of Tayma to provide water and food for their fugitive countrymen, in an apparent allusion to Tiglath Pileser’s invasion of North Arabia. By the first century BC, the Nabataeans began to dominate Tayma and it slowly became a part of their trading empire.

Jetur: A tribe descended from Ishmael which was at war with the Israelites of Transjordan.

Naphish: The name Naphish means “one who refreshes himself.” The people of Jetur and Naphish were the enemies of the Reubenites, Gadites, and Manasseh (I Chr 5:19).

Kedemah: The name Kedemah means “eastward.”

Basemath or Mahalath: Besides these 12 sons, Ishmael had a daughter. According to Gen 28:9, her name is Mahalath, but Gen 36:3 says that her name is Basemath. Rebekah, the wife of Isaac, complained about the Hittite wives of Esau, and Isaac charged Esau, “You shall not marry one of the Canaanite women” (Gen 28:6). In order to please his father, Esau went to Ishmael and took Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, and sister of Nebaioth. We could say that Esau looked for happiness among the descendants of Ishmael because he knew that like his father Isaac, Ishmael was also the subject of the Divine promises.

It is interesting that as considered true heir of Abraham, Isaac had just two sons, yet Ishmael had 12 sons and one daughter. After many years passed, Abraham came to visit Ishmael, checked up on his family and their well being, and showed that he never forgot Ishmael because he knew who Ishmael was. Ishmael was the first son of Abraham, and the first child named by God and regarded as the fulfillment of a Divine promise.

References

• Cohen, S. “Nebaioth.” 1962. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
• Khan, Muhammad Muhsin. 1996. The English Translation of Sahih Al Bukhari with the Arabic Text, Al Saadawi Publications.
• Klein, Ralph W. 2006. I Chronicles. ed. Thomas Kruger. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
• Knoppers, Gary N. 2003. I Chronicles 1-9: The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday.
• Parry, J. H. 2005. The Book of Jasher. New York: Cosimo, Inc.
• Unal, Ali. 2006. The Qur’an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English. New Jersey: Tughra Books.
• Wenham, Gordon J. 1994. Genesis 16-50: Word Biblical Commentary. ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Dallas: Word Books.

A man is willing to die (why?), his family seems to have no objections (how come?), there is an institution assisting this family (how come?), it is being recorded and broadcast (what?!).

The controversial documentary stirred up a reaction in some religious circles and pro-life charities, as viewers discussed the ethics of broadcasting euthanasia in the days following this program. But what is so chilly about this video is not whether a network should broadcast it, but a man’s willingness to end his own life. If life had any meaning for this person, he would not be willing to cause his own death. If he meant anything to his family, they would never allow him to do it. This story is so desperate, so heartbreaking, that it leaves us without words.

Mary Lahaj of Boston shares with us a story in this issue that would counterbalance the hopelessness and dispel the dark clouds the above-mentioned documentary caused. “At God’s Door” is the story of a woman who was able to stand up on her own feet after a traumatic youth. Hers is a source of inspiration for many of us who have failed, or feel on the edge of a cliff at times, to rise up in belief for a new life.

Professor Anwar Alam from India reviews a book on a global movement of education and dialogue: The Gulen Movement, Civic Service Without Borders is one of a handful of must-read books that authoritatively deals with this social phenomenon—called the Hizmet movement—affiliated with successful schools, dialogue activities, and relief organizations around the world.

An interview with Paul Davies lays down some of the “Great Questions of Existence” and shares with us how science can contribute to our making sense of them.

The Lead Article expounds on the rights of God and human rights, and how they are related. “Life” is one such right, and the Giver of Life certainly has something to say about this.

He was few minutes late for the meeting, but not so late as to be unacceptable. After the meeting was over, Adam went to his office. He had a lot of things to do: a report was due in two weeks, there was to be a presentation for a project he had just finished, a proposal for a new project, and a bunch of minor office tasks. However, he did not feel like doing any of them at the moment; moreover, they all could wait a few minutes. He was curious about the up-coming election, so he decided to read the news online. Then he felt the need to look up on the latest technology news. Without noticing, he spent nearly an hour reading the news.

Adam then felt compelled to start preparing his presentation. He was intelligent and the project was innovative; now was the time to prepare the best possible presentation. He outlined the presentation in his mind and started working on the first slide. He spent quite a bit of time on the first slide, but he could not get it right; every time he tried something, he saw that it was not perfect and started again from scratch. Finally, he exhausted his energy and motivation and decided that preparing the presentation for this project was too difficult and postponed working on it later that day.

He decided to move to the report task, but first he needed a break. It was around 1 p.m. and it was time for the noon prayer, but this was not urgent, he thought; he could do it later. He decided to take a break and check his emails. He quickly checked his three email accounts to see if he had any unread messages-there was a message in one of the accounts. It was from his high school friend asking how he was doing. He was busy right now, and decided that he did not have the time to answer; he signed out. Finally, he started writing something for the report. Even though he had planned to work on the report last week, he had not been able to do it, not because he did not have enough time, but because it had not been due and he decided that it could wait. He started working on the report, but he noticed that the software he was using to write the report was notifying him of a feature update. Because he did not feel like working on the report, he went ahead and downloaded the update. Installing it took some time. Even though it was completely unnecessary at that moment, he convinced himself that it was worthwhile, at least for the future.

He jotted down some notes for the report. While he was working on it, his friend from the next office came and asked him if he could join them to play basketball at the weekend. He told him that even though he would very much like to join them, he was very busy and had no time nowadays. The time for the noon prayer was nearly over. He hurried up and performed the obligatory part of the prayer quickly. As for the voluntary prayers, he had no time for them right now.

After the prayer he remembered that he still needed to write the proposal for next week. He was planning to work on it this week, but, because he had not worked on the report last week, he had to work on that now instead of the proposal.

Without having realized it, it was nearly 6 p.m. already. He was married, so he did not want to stay in the office. After all, he could work on the report at home, he thought. He went back home, had dinner with his wife; his wife mentioned that it had been a long time since they had seen a movie together and wondered if they could go and see one. He told his wife that even though he would very much like to, he was too busy this week; perhaps they could go next week. He remembered that he said the same thing last week; he had worked well last week so he would have time this week. He knew that he was not working very efficiently, and he was not able to do so, even though he wanted to. He condemned himself of being lazy and not a very good husband.

Weeks passed. Adam continued the same style of lethargic life; he was carrying out all his duties (his job, volunteering tasks, duties as a husband, etc.) at the bare minimum; he was neither satisfied nor completely unhappy. However, his wife was not happy with the whole process; every time she asked something from Adam, he would promise to do it later; however this would almost always be delayed indefinitely. Once at the weekend she asked Adam whether they could go out. Adam said that he was very busy; perhaps they could go out later that day or next week. This time, his wife told Adam that she no longer had confidence in him. He was shocked; he had not expected such a response. He tried to explain himself to his wife by saying that every promise he had made was with sincere intentions, but his wife did not believe even this explanation. He said he was sorry, but his wife did not accept his apology as this was the hundredth time he had apologized. Adam felt that the most important thing between a husband and a wife was trust; losing this meant losing everything. He felt terrible; he tried to explain everything, but nothing pleased his wife. He felt exhausted; he blamed his wife not being more understanding and left.

Adam spent hours thinking about what had gone wrong. Indeed, his wife was right; every time she asked for something, he would promise to do it and even though he was sincere in his promise, he would put it off indefinitely. He felt awful about the whole situation, but he was not able to rectify it. Then he thought about all the promises that he had made to God, almost all of which he had broken. Then, he shivered with the thought of “what if God also says that He does not trust me anymore?” And what if God told him that He had given Adam enough chances and that he had used them all up, that he had none left and therefore, there is no need for him to be alive any longer? That would be a horrible end indeed.

It was time for the afternoon prayer. After the prayer, he made the following supplication over and over again: “Should He not know what He created? And He is the Subtle, the Aware” (Mulk 67:14). Thus, he asked for help from the One Who is aware of everything, Who is the All-Compassionate, the All-Merciful, and the All-Powerful.

This time, he was determined to solve the lethargy problem. First, he contemplated about what were the causes of being lethargic.

Indeed, Adam was very lethargic and there were many reasons for it. It was not that he wanted to be a lazy person; on the contrary, he wanted to succeed; he could be smart and successful when he put his energy into a task. However, he was very disorganized; because he did not assign tasks to different time slots, he could easily spend those times on tasks that seemed necessary but actually were unnecessary, such as spending long minutes or even hours reading the news, installing feature updates, etc. He was a perfectionist; he wanted to make the final product (report, presentation, etc.) perfect; this is a good habit to have. However, being a perfectionist made him overcritical of himself, and this dampened his desire to work. He procrastinated; procrastination made his tasks pile higher and deeper; delaying one task caused delays to others. The constant thought of piled-up tasks constantly preoccupied him and as a result he had no time to reply to his emails, no time for the optional prayers, no time for sports, no time for entertainment, and no time to read books, etc. However, had he set aside some time to do sports; however to support hard work he would have to have a healthier body and mind, he needed to set aside an hour for relaxation, and not spend long hours on the web surfing while thinking “I should not be doing this right now” at the back of his mind, yet at the same time he had to be able to relax and start the next day with a fresh mind.

To solve these problems, he would have to eliminate the causes; however, most importantly, he needed energy and determination. He had neither. Then, he remembered: “My Lord would not care for you were it not for your prayer” (Furqan 25:77). Indeed, he was too weak to depend on himself alone, but he had learned that if he depended on God he could be the most powerful person in the world. He remembered all the things he had read and learned… The importance of “In the Name of God,” the need to put his trust in God, the fact that the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, had a prayer for almost every occasion, that it is very important not to sleep at dawn, that one should perform their daily prayers as early as one can, that one should eat, sleep and talk less, and that eating much meant sleeping much, that our Prophet used to go to bed after the night prayer, the importance of lawful earning and legitimate food, that the work between two prayers is counted as worship, that he should not leave today’s task for tomorrow, that he should know the value of free time before he became too busy, and so on. He felt that he could not do all of these; but once again, he remembered the verse above. However, he did not know where to start. Then, he recited: “Should He not know what He created? And He is the Subtle, the Aware” (Mulk 67:14) and while making the prayer, he knew that God knew everything about him and that Adam had to extricate himself from this problem but he was not successful. He asked for help; he asked for solutions to all his problems, dilemmas, troubles and obstacles.

He thought of starting a new life-style tomorrow morning, but then he remembered that it was Satan who was whispering him to start “tomorrow”; he needed to put an end to this miserable life right now. He went back home; dinner was waiting. He thought “what a patient wife I have; we had a quarrel, yet she still prepared dinner for me.” The food was very good, but he did not eat much. First of all, he was not feeling well, but he also wanted to practice the “eat less” principle. When it was time for the night prayer, he immediately rushed to his prayer rug; he knew that if he does not pray now, he will delay it at least two hours. After the prayer, he went to bed.

He woke up early in the morning; he was able to wake up early because he had not slept with a full stomach, and he had gone to bed early. He made the supplication “All praise belongs to God; He gave me life after my death; we shall return to Him. There is no god but God. O God; increase my knowledge. Do not let me go astray after you have guided me to the straight path. Grant me mercy. Indeed You are the Bestower.” He thanked God for giving him another chance.

He performed the morning prayer and he thought about some of the wisdoms inherent in the morning prayer: By nature man is extremely weak, yet everything touches him, saddens and grieves him. Also, he is utterly lacking in power, yet the calamities and enemies that afflict him are extremely numerous. Also, he is extremely wanting, yet his needs are indeed many. Also, he is lazy and incapable, yet the responsibilities of life are most burdensome. Also, his humanity has connected him to the rest of the universe, yet the decline and disappearance of the things he loves and with which he is familiar continually pains him. Also, his reason shows him exalted aims and lasting fruits, yet his reach is short, his life brief, his power slight, and his patience little. Thus, it can be clearly understood how essential it is for a spirit in this state to have recourse to and present a petition to the Court of an All-Powerful One of Glory, an All-Compassionate All-Beauteous One at the time of prayer in the early morning through prayer and supplication, to seek success and help from Him; this is an essential support so that one can face the things that will happen to them in the coming day and bear the duties that will be loaded on them. He then sought refuge in God from laziness. He was feeling energetic, but still very deep in thoughts of all the things that had happened yesterday.

He felt very sleepy, but he resisted going to bed; in order to wake himself up, he took a shower. After the shower, he recited a few pages from the Qur’an. He was feeling very ashamed every moment he felt he was in the presence of God, but interestingly, he was also feeling very close to God.

After having a light breakfast, Adam left for the office. It was pretty early in the morning. When he arrived at work, he made a list of the things he needed to do. Then, he divided his day into five, according to the five daily prayers; he put the prayers down on his list first. He was determined to perform them as early as he could. Then, he arranged the other tasks between the prayers.

Now, it was the time to start the first task. It was a new project and it was always difficult to take the first step. He pushed himself to start the task, but he could not start. He was about to give up; then, he remembered the power and the treasures hidden inside “bismillah” (in the name of God).” He recited it and he also recited “O God, make it easy for me, not difficult. O God, finish it with a good and beneficial end.” Adam felt a little better; he recited the words a few more times. He was able to take the first step and the rest just followed.

When he tired of one task, he said “All Praise belongs to God, Alhamdulillah” for each task, and he moved onto the next with bismillah. But, after about two hours, he felt very tired. He was inclined to read the news, to relax; but he resisted. He asked himself “What purpose does reading the news serve right now? Relaxation? I don’t remember ever being relaxed after reading news. Being up to date about current events? Well, I’ll do that towards the end of the day when my mind is more tired.” He then went outside to get some fresh air. After a 10-minute break, he returned and realized that he could complete one more task before the prayer. He started the task with bismillah and before he knew it, it was time for the prayer and the task had been complete.

Now it was time for the noon prayer. This was the moment he had been waiting for. Adam thought about some of the wisdom of the noon prayer: the time of noon prayer, just past midday is the time of the day’s zenith and the start of its decline; the time when daily labors approach their achievement, the time of a short rest from the pressure of work, when the spirit needs a pause from the heedlessness and insensibility caused by toil, and a time when Divine bounties are manifest. Everyone can then understand how fine and agreeable, how necessary and appropriate it is to perform the midday prayer for the human spirit, as it is a means to be released from the pressure, to shake off the heedlessness, and leave behind those meaningless, transient things, clasping one’s hands at the Court of the True Bestower of Bounties, the Eternally Self-Subsistent One, offering praise and thanks for all His gifts, and seeking help from Him; through bowing one display one’s impotence before His Glory and Tremendousness, and prostrates and proclaims one’s wonder, love, and humility. He performed his prayer with great humility and submission. He was able to refresh himself with the prayer; he reminded himself of the source of the power and he reminded himself that the work between two prayers counted as a type of worship. While praying, Adam forgot all about work and his mind was rested. He made a supplication at the end of the prayer, thanking God for all the things He had given him and thanking Him for the work he had been able to complete in the morning; he also asked for help for the rest of the day and the rest of his life.

After the noon prayer, Adam continued his tasks that had not been finished in the morning. When he became tired, he took a book out of his bag and spent some time reading it as a break and then he returned back to work. When it was time for the final task on his list for that day, he remembered that the task was not due for another week, so he thought about delaying it. However, he remembered that he should not leave today’s tasks for tomorrow.

The day passed. It was a very productive day; he felt that time had expanded. Maybe, it had expanded because he had recited prayers in the morning, maybe it had expanded because he had not remained asleep at dawn, or perhaps there was some other reason. Whatever the reason was, it was a bounty from God and he thanked Him for it. Adam once again felt a great humility in front of God.

A few days passed like this. Adam would perform the night prayer on time and he would go to bed after the prayer, making supplications when he woke up; he would not sleep after the morning prayer, but rather recited supplications before he left for work. He was very happy throughout this time, but it was not easy. He felt that he did not have the same motivation or energy that he had had at the beginning. He was about to lapse again. He knew that to remain on this track would not be easy. From all his experience he knew that every time he made a resolution to adopt a new style of life, it would only last a few days. But, this time, Adam was more determined than ever. First of all, he was sick of being lethargic and all the results of this lethargy. It was destroying his life; his time was passing unused and he was not fulfilling his promises to his wife or those to God. He really wanted to put an end to all of this and he was successful for a few days. Adam was now afraid that he would revert to his former life-style. Then, he prayed: “Our Lord! Let not our hearts deviate now after You have guided us, but grant us mercy from You; for You are the Grantor of bounties without measure.”

He finally decided to talk to his wife about the situation. He explained things to her, he discussed the lethargy and that he had constantly been fighting it for so long, but that he had not been successful. It was the cause behind all the broken promises. But, this time, he was very determined; he was constantly praying and he was also looking for different sources of information to solve the problem. He also told his wife that solving this problem would not be easy and it was possible that he would revert to his old habits on occasion, more frequently in the beginning than towards the end. He asked for her help in the entire process; he asked for her encouragement and he asked her to support him lest he stumbled. His wife felt the great pain that her husband was experiencing and she also felt the great determination he had. Additionally, she had witnessed very positive changes within the last few days. She said she would always be with him. Adam also talked about the process that he was going through with his best friend and he asked for help from him as well.

Things got better with every passing day; he was stumbling every now and then, but the frequency of such events was decreasing. He was very happy about all the goodness that had emerged from the “good work and determination” and he was very grateful to God for this blessing.

Finally, this manner of life became the norm, and his earlier life-style now seemed quite unnatural. In fact, Adam started wondering why he had led such a life. He repented all those lost days and hours. He decided to help his friends who were struggling with the same problem.

He knew that merely relating his journey to his friends would not help them much. They needed to find the causes, they need to be determined, etc., but most importantly of all, they needed to take action. However, he also knew from experience that taking action and continuing it for a long time was the most difficult part and that his friends might be too weak to do so. Well, they were human beings and this is the way things are; they were meant to feel weak without the help of God, for what value is anything if we do not have prayer?

And, as a first step in helping his friends, Adam changed the tone of his prayers; the “me” was replaced with “us” and he felt his friends’ pain in his supplications. He then remembered “O you who believe! If you will help (the cause of) God, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly.” (Muhammad 47:7).

International Women’s Day is March 8th. In recognition of this event, we present the following article on women’s rights according to the Abrahamic traditions.

Since modern Western thought and paradigms are based on the Western cultural heritage, what is meant by religion has been the Judeo-Christian tradition. Western thinkers, Orientalists, and “Westernized” intellectuals in the Muslim world, all out of their ignorance of Islam, have tended to criticize Islam from the perspective of criticisms directed toward the Judeo-Christian tradition. What follows is of great importance, especially in correcting and clarifying this important matter from the viewpoint of women’s status in Islam.

Introduction

Do Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have the same conception of women? Are they different in their conceptions? Do Judaism and Christianity really offer women better treatment than Islam? What is the truth?

It is not easy to search for and find answers to these difficult questions. The first difficulty is that one has to be fair and objective or, at least, do one’s utmost to be so. This is what Islam teaches. The Qur’an instructs Muslims to say the truth, even if those who are very close to them do not like it: Whenever you speak, speak justly, even if a near relative is concerned (6:152) and: O you who believe, stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor (4:135).

Throughout this research, I have striven to approach the Qur’anic ideal of speaking justly. I would like to emphasize that my purpose for this study is not to denigrate Judaism or Christianity. As Muslims, we believe in the Divine origins of both. No one can be a Muslim without believing in Moses and Jesus as great Prophets of God. My goal is only to vindicate Islam and pay a tribute, long overdue in the West, to the final truthful Message from God to humanity.

Eve’s fault?

The Judeo-Christian conception of Adam and Eve’s creation is narrated in detail in Genesis 2:4-3:24. God prohibited both of them from eating the fruits of the forbidden tree. However, the serpent seduced Eve to eat from it and Eve, in turn, seduced Adam to eat with her. When God rebuked Adam for what he did, Adam put all the blame on Eve: The woman you put here with me_she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it. Consequently, God said to Eve: I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing. With pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. He told Adam: Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree …. Cursed is the ground because of you. Through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.

The Qur’an relates the creation account in several places. The Qur’an, contrary to the Bible, places equal blame on both Adam and Eve (7:19:23) and nowhere gives even the slightest hint that Eve tempted Adam to eat from the tree or that she ate before he did. In other words, Eve is not a temptress, a seducer, or a deceiver. Moreover, she is not to be blamed for the pains of childbearing. God, according to the Qur’an, punishes no one for another’s faults. Both Adam and Eve committed a sin and then asked for and received God’s forgiveness.

Eve’s legacy

The Biblical image of Eve as a temptress has had an extremely negative impact on women throughout the Judeo-Christian tradition. All women were believed to have inherited from their mother, the Biblical Eve, both her guilt and her guile. Consequently they were all untrustworthy, morally inferior, and wicked. Menstruation, pregnancy, and childbearing were considered the just punishment for the eternal guilt of the cursed female sex. In order to appreciate the extent of the negative impact that this has had on all of Eve’s female descendants, we have to look at the writings of some of the most important Jews and Christians writers.

Let’s start with the Old Testament. Looking at excerpts from what is called the “Wisdom Literature,” we find: I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare…. while I was still searching but not finding, I found one upright man among a thousand but not one upright woman among them all (Ecclesiastes 7:26-28). In another part of the Jewish literature found in the Catholic Bible, we read: No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman….. Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die (Ecclesiasticus 25:19, 24).

Jewish Rabbis listed nine curses placed upon women because of the Fall: “To the woman He gave nine curses and death: the burden of the blood of menstruation and the blood of virginity; the burden of pregnancy; the burden of childbirth; the burden of bringing up the children; her head is covered as one in mourning; she pierces her ear like a permanent slave or slave girl who serves her master; she is not to be believed as a witness; and after everything–death.”1 Until today, orthodox Jewish men in their daily morning prayer recite: “Blessed be God King of the universe that Thou has not made me a woman.” Women, on the other hand, thank God every morning for “making me according to Thy will.”(2)

The Biblical Eve has played a far larger role in Christianity than in Judaism. Her sin has been pivotal to the whole Christian faith, because the Christian conception of the reason for Jesus Christ’s mission on Earth stems from Eve’s disobedience to God. She had sinned and then seduced Adam to follow her in sin. Consequently, God expelled both of them from Heaven to Earth, which then became cursed because of them. They bequeathed their sin, which had not been forgiven by God, to all of their descendants and, thus, all humans are born in sin. In order to purify human beings from their “original sin,” God had to sacrifice Jesus, who is considered to be the Son of God, on the cross. Therefore, Eve is responsible for her own mistake, her husband’s sin, the sin into which all people are born (Original Sin), and the Son of God’s death. In other words, one woman acting on her own caused the fall of humanity.(3)

St. Tertullian was even blunter than St. Paul. While talking to his “best beloved sisters” in the faith, he said: “Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the Devil’s gateway: You are the unsealer of the forbidden tree: You are the first deserter of the divine law: You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert even the Son of God had to die.”(4)

St. Augustine (d. 430) was faithful to the legacy of his predecessors when he wrote to a friend: “What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman…. I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.” Centuries later, St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) still considered women defective: “As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence.” The renowned reformer Martin Luther (d. d. 1546) saw no benefit in women other than giving birth to as many children as possible regardless of any side effects: “If they become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that’s why they are there.”

When we turn our attention to the Qur’an, we soon realize that the Islamic conception of women is radically different from the Judeo-Christian one. For instance: For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah’s praise_for them all has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward (33:35); The believers, men and women, are protectors, one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil, they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey Allah and His Messenger. On them will Allah pour His Mercy: for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise (9:71); And their Lord answered them: “Truly I will never cause to be lost the work of any of you, Be you a male or female, you are members one of another” (3:195); Whoever works evil will not be requited but by the like thereof, and whoever works a righteous deed_whether man or woman_and is a believer. Such will enter the Garden of bliss (40:40); and: Whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has faith, verily to him/her we will give a new life that is good and pure, and we will bestow on such their reward according to the best of their actions (16:97).

It is clear that the Qur’an views the women in the same way as it does men: Both genders are God’s creatures whose sublime goal on Earth is to worship their Lord, do righteous deeds and avoid evil, and then be judged accordingly. The Qur’an never mentions that woman is the devil’s gateway or a deceiver by nature, or that man is God’s image, for it proclaims that all men and all women are His creatures. According to the Qur’an, a woman’s role is not limited only to childbirth, for she is required to do as many good deeds as a man is required to do. The Qur’an even gives examples of ideal and upright women of the past, such as the Virgin Mary and Pharaoh’s wife, and instructs all believers, women as well as men, to follow their example: God sets forth, as an example to those who believe, Pharaoh’s wife. Behold, she said: “O my Lord, build for me, in nearness to you, a mansion in the Garden. Save me from Pharaoh and his doings, and save me from those who do wrong.” And Mary the daughter of Imran who guarded her chastity. We breathed into her body of Our spirit, and she testified to the truth of her Lord’s words and Revelations and was one of the devout (66:11-13).

Shameful daughters

The Bible states: The period of the mother’s ritual impurity is twice as long if a girl is born than if a boy is (Leviticus 12:2-5). The Catholic Bible states explicitly: The birth of a daughter is a loss (Ecclesiasticus 22:3). In contrast, boys receive special praise: A man who educates his son will be the envy of his enemy (Ecclesiasticus 30:3).

Rabbis made it an obligation upon all Jewish men to produce offspring in order to propagate the race. At the same time, they did not hide their clear preference for male children: “It is well for those whose children are male but ill for those whose are female,” “At the birth of a boy, all are joyful … at the birth of a girl all are sorrowful,” and: “When a boy comes into the world, peace comes into the world… When a girl comes, nothing comes.”5A daughter is considered a painful burden, a potential source of shame to her father: Your daughter is headstrong? Keep a sharp look-out that she does not make you the laughing stock of your enemies, the talk of the town, the object of common gossip, and put you to public shame (Ecclesiasticus 42:11), and: Keep a headstrong daughter under firm control, or she will abuse any indulgence she receives. Keep a strict watch on her shameless eye, do not be surprised if she disgraces you (Ecclesiasticus 26:10-11).

This same idea of treating daughters as sources of shame led pagan Arabs, before the advent of Islam, to practice female infanticide. The Qur’an condemned this heinous practice: When news is brought to one of them of the birth of a female child, his face darkens and he is filled with inward grief. With shame does he hide himself from his people because of the bad news he has had! Shall he retain her on contempt or bury her in the dust? Ah! What an evil they decide on? (16:58-59). This sinister crime would never have ended in Arabia were it not for the power of the scathing terms the Qur’an used to condemn it (16:59, 43:17, and 81:8-9). Moreover, the Qur’an makes no distinction between boys and girls, for it considers the birth of a girl, as well as the birth of a boy, to be a gift and a blessing from God. It even mentions the gift of a daughter’s birth first: To God belongs the dominion of the heavens and Earth. He creates what He wills. He bestows female children to whomever He wills, and bestows male children to whomever He wills (42:49).

In order to wipe out all traces of female infanticide in the nascent Muslim society, Prophet Muhammad promised those who were blessed with daughters a great reward if they would bring them up kindly: “He who is involved in bringing up daughters, and directs benevolent treatment toward them, they will be a protection for him against Hell-Fire” (Bukhari and Muslim), and: “Whoever maintains two girls till they attain maturity, he and I will come on the Resurrection Day like this; and he joined his fingers” (Muslim).

Female education

The difference between the Biblical and the Qur’anic conceptions of women extends far beyond the newly born female. Let’s compare their attitudes toward a woman trying to learn her religion. The heart of Judaism is the Torah (the law). However, according to the Talmud, “women are exempt from the study of the Torah.” Some rabbis firmly declared: “Let the words of Torah rather be destroyed by fire than imparted to women” and: “Whoever teaches his daughter Torah is as though he taught her obscenity”(6)

The attitude of St. Paul in the New Testament is as follows: As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church (I Corinthians 14:34-35).

One short story narrated in the Qur’an concisely sums up Islam’s view: Khawlah was a Muslim woman whose husband, Aws, exclaimed in a moment of anger: “You are to me as the back of my mother.” Pagan Arabs considered this to be a statement of divorce that freed the husband from any conjugal responsibility but did not allow the wife to leave the husband’s home or marry another man. Hearing these words, Khawlah was in a miserable situation. She went straight to the Prophet to plead her case. The Prophet thought that she should be patient, since there seemed to be no way out. Khawla kept arguing with him in the hope of saving her suspended marriage. Shortly thereafter, Revelation descended and her plea was accepted. The Divine verdict abolished this iniquitous custom. Surat al-Mujadilah (The Women Who Argues), the Qur’an’s fifty-eighth chapter, was named after this incident: God has heard the statement of the woman who pleads with you (the Prophet) concerning her husband and carries her complaint to God. He hears the arguments between both of you, for He hears and sees all things (58:1).

A woman in the Qur’anic conception has the right to argue even with the Prophet. No one has the right to tell her to be silent, and she is under no obligation to consider her husband the one and only reference in matters of law and religion.

Unclean and impure women

The Old Testament considers any menstruating woman to be unclean and impure. Moreover, her impurity “infects” others, for anyone or anything she touches becomes unclean for a day: When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening (Leviticus 15:19-23).

Due to her contaminating nature, a menstruating woman was sometimes banished so that there would be no possibility of having any contact with her. She was sent to a special house, the house of uncleanness, until her period ended.7 Furthermore, the husband of a menstruating woman was forbidden to enter the synagogue if he had been made unclean by her, even by the dust under her feet. A priest whose wife, daughter, or mother was menstruating could not recite a priestly blessing in the synagogue.(8)

Islam does not consider a menstruating woman to possess any contagious uncleanness. She lives her normal life with only one restriction: The couple cannot have sexual relations during her menstrual period. Any other physical contact between them is permissible. A menstruating woman also is exempted from some rituals, such as the daily prayers and fasting.

Bearing witness

The Qur’an and the Bible also disagree on the issue of women bearing witness. The Qur’an instructs those believers who are engaged in financial transactions to get two male witnesses or one male and two female witnesses (2:282). However, in other situations the Qur’an accepts the testimony of a woman as equal to that of a man. In fact, sometimes a woman’s testimony can invalidate that of a man. For example, if a man accuses his wife of unchastity, he must solemnly swear five times as evidence of the wife’s guilt. If the wife denies and swears similarly five times, she is not considered guilty. In either case, however, the marriage is dissolved (24:6-11).

In early Jewish society, women were not allowed to bear witness at all,(9) for the rabbis considered this to be one of the nine curses inflicted upon all women because of the Fall (see the section on “Eve’s legacy”).(10) In modern Israel, women are not allowed to give evidence in rabbinical courts.(11) The rabbis justify this by citing Genesis 18:9-16, where it is stated that Abraham’s wife Sara lied. According to the rabbis, this incident is evidence that women are unqualified to bear witness. The Qur’an also narrates this account, but without any hint of Sara lying (11:69-74 and 51:24-30). In the Christian West, both ecclesiastical and civil law debarred women from giving testimony until the late nineteenth century.(12)

If a man accuses his wife of unchastity, the Bible says that her testimony cannot be considered at all. Rather, the accused wife has to be subjected to a trial by ordeal. In this trial, she faces a complex and humiliating ritual that was supposed to prove her guilt or innocence (Numbers 5:11-31). If she is found guilty after this ordeal, she is sentenced to death. If she is found innocent, her husband is considered innocent of any wrongdoing.

If a man marries a woman and then accuses her of not being a virgin, her own testimony will not count. Her parents have to prove her virginity to the town elders. If they cannot prove their daughter’s innocence, she is to be stoned to death on her father’s doorstep. If the parents cannot prove her innocence, the husband is to be fined only 100 silver shekels and cannot divorce her as long as he lives (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).

Vows

According to the Bible, a man must fulfill any vow he makes to God and must not break his word. However, a woman’s vow is not necessarily binding, for it has to be approved by her father, if she is living in his house, or by her husband, if she is married. If the father or husband do not endorse his daughter’s or wife’s vows, all of her pledges become null and void: But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand…. Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself (Numbers 30:2-15).

A woman’s word is not binding per se because she is owned by her father before marriage and by her husband after marriage. Her father’s control over her was so absolute that he could, if he wished, sell her. Rabbinic literature indicates that: “The man may sell his daughter, but the woman may not sell her daughter; the man may betroth his daughter, but the woman may not betroth her daughter.” (13) This literature also indicates that marriage represents the transfer of the father’s control to the husband: “Betrothal, making a woman the sacrosanct possession_the inviolable property_of the husband…” Obviously, if women are considered somebody else’s property, they cannot make any pledges of which her owner does not approve.

History shows that this Biblical instruction concerning women’s vows had negative repercussions on Judeo-Christian women until the early twentieth century. A wife in the Western world had no legal status, none of her acts had any legal value, and her husband could repudiate any contract, bargain, or deal that she had made. Women in the West, the largest heir of the Judeo-Christian legacy, were considered unable to make a binding contract because they were practically owned by someone else. (14)

In Islam, the vow of every Muslim, male or female, is binding upon him or her, and no one can repudiate another person’s pledge. If a man or a woman fail to keep their solemn oath, each of them has to make the proper expiation, as outlined in the Qur’an: He [God] will call you to account for your deliberate oaths. For expiation, feed ten indigent persons on a scale of the average for the food of your families, or clothe them, or free a slave. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths you have sworn. But keep your oaths (5:89).

Male and female Companions of the Prophet would come to him independently and present their oath of allegiance to him personally. O Prophet! When believing women come to you to make a covenant with you that they will not associate in worship anything with God, nor steal, nor fornicate, nor kill their own children, nor slander anyone, nor disobey you in any just matter, then make a covenant with them and pray to God for the forgiveness of their sins. Indeed God is Forgiving and most Merciful (60:12). No man could swear the oath on his wife’s or daughter’s behalf, and no man could repudiate an oath made by any of his female relatives.

A wife’s property

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam share an unshakeable belief in the importance of marriage and family life. Nevertheless, clear differences do exist with respect to the limits of male leadership. The Judeo-Christian tradition virtually extends the husband’s leadership into ownership of his wife. The Talmud describes a wife’s financial situation as follows: How can a woman have anything? Whatever is hers belongs to her husband. What is his is his and what is hers is also his…. Her earnings and what she may find in the streets are also his. The household articles, even the crumbs of bread on the table, are his. Should she invite a guest to her house and feed him, she would be stealing from her husband… (San. 71a, Git. 62a).

In a Jewish family, the daughter’s property was meant to attract suitors. A Jewish family would assign their daughter a share of her father’s estate to be used as her dowry when she got married. This practice made a daughter an unwelcome burden to her father, for he had to raise her for years and then provide a large dowry so that she could get married. Thus, a Jewish girl was a liability instead of an asset. (15)

The dowry was the wedding gift presented to the groom under terms of tenancy. The husband acted as its practical owner, but could not sell it. The bride lost all control it at the moment of her marriage. While the groom had to give her a marriage gift as well, he was its practical owner as long as they were married. (16) Moreover, she was expected to work and give all of her earnings to her husband in return for his maintenance of her, which was his duty. She could regain her property only in the cases of divorce or her husband’s death. If she died first, he inherited her property. If he died first, she could regain her premarital property but could not inherit any of her deceased husband’s property.

Until recently, Christianity has followed the same tradition. Both religious and civil authorities in the post-Constantine (d. 337) Christian Roman Empire required a property agreement as a condition for recognizing the marriage. Under canon and civil law, a married woman in Christian Europe and America lost her property rights until late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For example, women’s rights under British law were compiled and published in 1632. These “rights” included: “That which the husband hath is his own. That which the wife hath is the husband’s.” (17) In addition to losing her property upon her marriage, the wife also lost her legal personality as well. None of her acts had any legal value, for her husband could repudiate any sale or gift made by her. The person with whom she had made a contract was held as a criminal for participating in a fraud. Moreover, she could not sue, be sued in her own name, or sue her husband.(18) A married woman was practically treated as an infant in the eyes of the law. She simply belonged to her husband and therefore lost her property, legal personality, and family name.(19)

From the beginning of its revelation, Islam granted married women the independent personality denied to them in the Judeo-Christian West until very recently. In Islam, the bride and her family are under no obligation to present a gift to the groom, and so a Muslim daughter is not considered a liability. A woman is so dignified by Islam that she does not need to present gifts to attract a potential husband; rather, the groom must present a marriage gift to the bride. This gift is considered her property, for the groom or her family have no share in or control over it, and she retains it even if she is later divorced. The husband has no share in his wife’s property except what she offers him with her free consent.(20)     

Divorce

The three religions have remarkable differences in their attitudes towards divorce. Christianity abhors divorce altogether. The New Testament unequivocally advocates the indissolubility of marriage based upon the attribution of Jesus’ words: But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery (Matthew 5:32). This uncompromising ideal is unrealistic, for it assumes a state of moral perfection that human societies have never achieved. When a couple realizes that their marriage is beyond repair, a ban on divorce will do them no good. Forcing ill-mated couples to remain together against their wills is neither effective nor reasonable. No wonder the Christian world has been obliged to sanction divorce.

Judaism, on the other hand, allows divorce even without any cause. The Old Testament gives the husband the right to divorce his wife even if he just dislikes her: If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

The above verses have caused considerable debate among Jewish scholars because of their disagreement over the interpretation of displeasing, indecency, and dislikes. The Talmud records their different opinions: The school of Shammai held that a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some sexual misconduct, while the school of Hillel says he may divorce her even if she has merely spoiled a dish for him. Rabbi Akiba (21) says he may divorce her even if he simply finds another woman more beautiful than she (Gittin 90a-b).

The Talmud has recorded several specific actions by wives that obliged their husbands to divorce them: If she ate in the street, if she drank greedily in the street, if she suckled in the street, in every case Rabbi Meir says that she must leave her husband (Git. 89a). The Talmud also has made it mandatory to divorce a wife who has born no children after 10 years: Our rabbis taught: If a man took a wife and lived with her for ten years and she bore no child, he shall divorce her (Yeb. 64a).

A Jewish wife cannot initiate divorce under Jewish law, but she can claim the right to a divorce before a Jewish court provided that a strong reason exists. Such reasons include a husband who has a physical defect or a skin disease, or who cannot fulfill his conjugal responsibilities. The court might support her request for a divorce, but only the husband can dissolve the marriage by giving his wife a bill of divorce. The court can scourge, fine, imprison, and excommunicate him to force him to deliver this bill of divorce, but he can refuse to do so and keep her tied to him indefinitely.

Even worse, he can desert her without granting her a divorce and thus leave her unmarried and undivorced. He can remarry or live with a single woman out of wedlock, and Jewish law will recognize the children as legitimate. On the other hand, the deserted wife cannot remarry because she is still legally married and will be considered an adulteress if she does so. If she has any children from another man, her children will be considered illegitimate for 10 generations. Such a woman is an agunah (chained woman).(22) In the United States today, there are approximately 1,000 to 1,500 Jewish women in this condition. In Israel, number might be as high as 16,000. Husbands may extort thousands of dollars from their trapped wives in exchange for a Jewish divorce.(23)

Islam occupies the middle ground between Christianity and Judaism, for it views marriage as a sanctified bond that can be broken only for compelling reasons. Couples are instructed to pursue all possible remedies to save their marriages, for divorce is the last resort. In a nutshell, Islam recognizes divorce but discourages it by all means. Let’s focus on the recognition side first. Islam recognizes the right of both partners to end their marriage. Islam gives the husband the right to divorce (talaq) and, unlike Judaism, allows the wife to dissolve the marriage through khula’.(24) If the husband dissolves the marriage, the Qur’an explicitly prohibits his from taking back their marriage gifts, regardless of their value: But if you decide to take one wife in place of another, even if you had given the latter a whole treasure for dower, take not the least bit of it back. Would you take it by slander and a manifest wrong (4:20).

If the wife ends the marriage, she may return the marriage gifts to her husband, for in this case doing so would be a fair compensation for a husband who wants to keep his wife while she chooses to leave him. The Qur’an instructs men not to take back any of the gifts they have given to their wives, unless she chooses to end the marriage: It is not lawful for you (men) to take back any of your gifts except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by God. There is no blame on either of them if she gives something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by God, so do not transgress them (2:229).

Once, a woman came to the Prophet and asked him to dissolve her marriage. She told him that she had no complaints against her husband’s character or manners, but that she honestly disliked him so much that she could no longer live with him. Prophet asked her: “Would you give him his garden (the marriage gift he had given her) back?” She said: “Yes.” The Prophet then instructed the man to take back his garden and accept the marriage’s dissolution (Bukhari). In some cases, a wife might be willing to keep her marriage but find herself obliged to get a divorce for such compelling reasons as her husband’s cruelty or inability to fulfill his conjugal duties, desertion without a reason, and so on. In these cases, the court dissolves the marriage.(25) In short, Islam offers women some unequalled rights: the rights to end the marriage and to sue for divorce. Thus, a recalcitrant husband can never chain his wife to him.

Let’s now focus our attention on how Islam discourages divorce. The Prophet told the believers that: “Among all the permitted acts, divorce is the most hateful to God” (Abu Dawud). A man should not divorce his wife just because he dislikes her. The Qur’an instructs men to be kind to their wives even in cases of lukewarm emotions or feelings of dislike: Live with them (your wives) on a footing of kindness and equity. If you dislike them it may be that you dislike something in which Allah has placed a great deal of good (4:19). Prophet Muhammad gave a similar instruction: “A believing man must not hate a believing woman. If he dislikes one of her traits, he will be pleased with another” (Muslim). He also emphasized that the best Muslims are those who are best to their wives: “The believers who show the most perfect faith are those who have the best character, and the best of you are those who are best to their wives” (Tirmidhi).(26)

However Islam, being a practical religion, recognizes that there are circumstances in which a marriage is on the verge of collapsing. In such cases, advice to be kind or self-restrained is no longer viable. Given this, then, how can such marriages be saved? The Qur’an offers some practical advice for the spouse (husband or wife) whose partner (wife or husband) is the wrongdoer.

If the wife’s bad conduct is threatening the marriage, the Qur’an gives the husband four types of advice: As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, and beat them (lightly without slapping their faces). But if they return to obedience, do not seek against them means of annoyance, for God is Most High, Great. If you fear a break between them, appoint two arbiters, one from his family and the other from hers. If they wish for peace, God will cause their reconciliation (4:34-35).

The first three are to be tried first. If they fail in this effort, the help of the families concerned should be sought. In the case of beating the rebellious wife, we should recognize the fact that this is no more than a temporary measure that is to be resorted to only as third in line in cases of extreme necessity in hopes that it might remedy the wife’s wrongdoing. If this measure is successful, the husband must not continue to annoy his wife. If this measure fails, the husband must resort to the final measure: family-assisted reconciliation.

Prophet Muhammad instructed husbands to use these measures only in extreme cases, such as a wife’s open lewdness. Even in these cases the punishment should be slight and, if his wife desists, he must not irritate her: “In case they are guilty of open lewdness you may leave them alone in their beds and inflict slight punishment. If they are obedient to you, do not seek against them any means of annoyance” (Tirmidhi).     Furthermore, the Prophet condemned any unjustifiable beating. Some wives complained to him that their husbands had beaten them. Hearing that, he stated that: “Those who do so (beat their wives) are not the best among you” (Abu Dawud) and: “The best of you is he who is best to his family, and I am the best among you to my family” (Tirmidhi). He even advised Fatimah bint Qais not to marry a known wife-beater: “I went to the Prophet and said: ‘Abul Jahm and Mu’awiyah have proposed to marry me.’ The Prophet (by way of advice) said: ‘Mu’awiyah is very poor, and Abul Jahm beats women” (Muslim).

The Talmud sanctions wife-beating as a method of discipline.(27) A husband can beat his wife even for reasons that are not considered extreme, such as is she refuses to do the housework. In addition, his punishment does not have to be light, for he can whip or starve her if he so wishes.(28)

In the case of a wife who is seeking divorce, the Qur’an offers the following advice: If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best (4:128). In this case, she is advised to seek reconciliation with her husband (with or without family assistance). The Qur’an does not advise her to deny sex to her husband or to beat him. The reason for this disparity might be to protect the wife from a violent physical reaction by her already misbehaving husband, for such a reaction would only harm the wife and damage the marriage even further. Some Muslim scholars have suggested that the court can apply these measures on the wife’s behalf. In other words, the court first admonishes the rebellious husband, then forbids him his wife’s bed, and finally executes a symbolic beating.(29)

To sum up, Islam offers married couples much viable advice to save their marriages during times of trouble and tension. If one partner jeopardizes the marriage, the Qur’an advises the other partner to do whatever possible to save this sacred bond. If all measures fail, Islam allows the partners to separate peacefully and amicably.

Mothers

The Old Testament commands the kind and considerate treatment of parents and condemns those who dishonor them. For example: If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death (Leviticus 20:9) and: A wise man brings joy to his father but a foolish man despises his mother (Proverbs 15:20). Although honoring the father alone is mentioned in some places, such as in: A wise man heeds his father’s instruction (Proverbs 13:1), the mother alone is never mentioned. Moreover, there is no special emphasis on treating the mother kindly as a sign of appreciation for her great suffering during childbearing and suckling, and they inherit nothing from their children. (30)

Some New Testament verses can easily be misinterpreted if read literally with respect to the mother’s status (Luke 14:26 and Mark 3:31-35). Jesus was trying to teach his audience the following important lesson: Religious ties are just as important of family ties, and real virtue lies with belief in and servanthood to God.

Islam gives motherhood unparalleled honor, respect, and esteem. The Qur’an places the importance of kindness to parents as second only to worshipping God Almighty: Your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him, and that you be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in your life, do not say to them a word of contempt or repel them, but address them in terms of honor. And out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility, and say: “My Lord, bestow on them Your Mercy, for they cherished me in childhood (17:23-24).

The Qur’an also puts special emphasis on the mother’s great role in giving birth and nursing: We have enjoined upon man to be good to his parents. In travail upon travail did his mother bear him and in two years was his weaning. Show gratitude to Me and to your parents (31:14). The Prophet eloquently described the very special place of mothers: “A man asked the Prophet: ‘Whom should I honor most?’ The Prophet replied: ‘Your mother.’ ‘And who comes next?’ asked the man. The Prophet replied: ‘Your mother.’ ‘And who comes next?’ asked the man. The Prophet replied: ‘Your mother.’ ‘And who comes next?’ asked the man. The Prophet replied: ‘Your father’” (Bukhari and Muslim).

Among the few Islamic precepts that Muslims still faithfully observe is the considerate treatment of mothers. The honor that Muslim mothers receive from their sons and daughters is exemplary. The intensely warm relations between Muslim mothers and their children, and the deep respect with which Muslim men approach their mothers, usually amaze Westerners.(31)

Female inheritance

One of the most important differences between the Qur’an and the Bible is their attitude toward female inheritance of a deceased relative’s property. The Biblical attitude has been succinctly described by Rabbi Epstein: “The continuous and unbroken tradition since the Biblical days gives the female members of the household, wife and daughters, no right of succession to the family estate. In the more primitive scheme of succession, the female members of the family were considered part of the estate and as remote from the legal personality of an heir as the slave. Whereas by Mosaic enactment the daughters were admitted to succession in the event of no male issue remained, the wife was not recognized as heir even in such conditions.” (32)

The Biblical rules of inheritance are outlined in Numbers 27:1-11. A wife is given no share in her husband’s estate, while he is her first heir_even before her sons. A daughter can inherit only if no male heirs exist. A mother cannot inherit anything, while the father can. Widows and daughters, in the case of surviving male children, were at the mercy of the male heirs for provision. Christianity followed suit for a long time. Both the ecclesiastical and civil laws of Christendom barred daughters from sharing with their brothers in their father’s patrimony. Moreover, wives were deprived of any inheritance rights. These iniquitous laws survived until the late nineteenth century.(33)

Among the pagan Arabs before Islam, inheritance rights were confined exclusively to the male relatives. The Qur’an abolished all of these unjust customs and gave all female relatives specific inheritance shares: From what is left by parents and those nearest related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large_a determinate share (4:7).

Muslim mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters received inheritance rights 1,300 years before Europe recognized that these rights even existed. Inheritance is a vast subject (4:7, 11-12, 176). The general rule is that the woman’s share is half the man’s, except in cases where the mother receives a share equal to that of the father. If taken in isolation from other related legislation, this general rule may seem unfair. In order to understand the rationale behind this rule, one must consider that in Islam the financial obligations of men far exceed those of women (see the “Wife’s property” section). For example, a groom must provide his bride with a marriage gift, which remains her exclusive property even if she is later divorced. The bride does not have to present any such marriage gift.

Moreover, the husband must maintain his wife and children. The wife is under no obligation to help him do so. Her property and earnings belong to her only, except for what she may voluntarily offer her husband. Besides, one has to realize that Islam strongly advocates family life. It strongly encourages young people to get married, discourages divorce, and does not regard celibacy as a virtue (exceptional cases always exist). In a truly Islamic society, family life is the norm and living a single life is a rare exception. Thus almost all marriage-aged Muslim women and men are married. In light of these facts, one must appreciate that men generally have greater financial burdens than women and that the Qur’an’s inheritance rules are meant to offset this imbalance. As a consequence, the society is not burdened with gender or class warfare. After a simple comparison between the financial rights and duties of women, one British Muslim woman concluded that Islam treats women not only fairly but generously.(34)

The plight of widows

Given that the Old Testament recognizes no inheritance rights for widows, these women were among the most vulnerable members of their societies. The male relatives, who inherited all of a woman’s deceased husband’s estate, were to use that estate to take care of the widow. However, widows had no way to ensure this provision was carried out, and so lived on the mercy of others. They were among the lowest classes in some ancient societies, and widowhood was considered a symbol of great degradation (Isaiah 54:4). But the plight of a widow in the Biblical tradition extended even beyond her exclusion from her husband’s property. According to Genesis 38, a childless widow must marry her deceased husband’s brother, even if he is already married, to produce offspring for him so that his name will not die out: Then Judah said to Onan: “Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother” (Genesis 38:8).

The widow’s consent is not required, for she is treated as part of her deceased husband’s property and her main function is to ensure her husband’s posterity. This Biblical law is still practiced in some places today.(35) For example, a childless widow is bequeathed to her husband’s brother. If the brother is too young to marry, she has to wait until he comes of age. Should the deceased husband’s brother refuse to marry her, she is set free and then can marry any man of her choice.

The pagan Arabs before Islam had similar practices. A widow was considered a part of her husband’s property to be inherited by his male heirs. In addition, usually she was given in marriage to the deceased man’s eldest son from another wife. The Qur’an scathingly attacked and abolished this degrading custom: Do not marry women whom your fathers married, except for what is passed, for it was shameful, odious, and abominable custom (4:22).

Widows and divorced women were so looked down upon in the Biblical tradition that the high priest could not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a prostitute: The woman he (the high priest) marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, so he will not defile his offspring among his people (Leviticus 21:13-15).

According to the Qur’an, however, widows and divorcees have the freedom to marry whomever they choose. Also, the Qur’an attaches no stigma to divorce or widowhood: When you divorce women and they fulfill their terms [three menstruation periods], either take them back on equitable terms or set them free on equitable terms. Do not take them back to injure them or to take undue advantage. If anyone does that, he wrongs his own soul. Do not treat God’s signs as a jest” (2:231); If any of you die and leave widows behind, they shall wait four months and ten days. When they have fulfilled their term, there is no blame on you if they dispose of themselves in a just manner (2:234); and: Those of you who die and leave widows should bequeath for their widows a year’s maintenance and residence. But if they [the widows] leave (the residence) there is no blame on you for what they justly do with themselves (2:240).    

Polygamy

Polygamy, a very ancient practice, is found in many human societies. The Bible does not condemn it; rather, the Old Testament and Rabbinic writings frequently attest to its legality. King Solomon and King David are said to have had many wives and concubines (1 Kings 11:3 and 2 Samuel 5:13). The Old Testament does contain some injunctions on how to distribute the property of a man among his sons from different wives (Deuteronomy 22:7). The only restriction on polygamy is that a man cannot take a wife’s sister as a rival wife (Leviticus 18:18). The Talmud advises a maximum of four wives.36 European Jews continued to practice it until the sixteenth century, while Oriental Jews regularly practiced it until they arrived in Israel, where it is forbidden under civil law. However, it is permissible under religious law, which overrides civil law in such cases.(37)

What about the New Testament? According to Father Eugene Hillman in his insightful Polygamy Reconsidered:<em> “Nowhere in the New Testament is there any explicit commandment that marriage should be monogamous or any explicit commandment forbidding polygamy.” (38) Moreover, Jesus did not speak against polygamy although it was practiced by the Jews of his society. Father Hillman stresses the fact that the Church in Rome banned polygamy in order to conform to the Greco-Roman culture (which prescribed only one legal wife, while tolerating concubinage and prostitution). He cited St. Augustine: “Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife.” (39)

The Qur’an also allows polygamy, but with certain restrictions: If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four. But if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one (4:3).

The Qur’an limits the number of wives to four under the strict condition that each wife be treated equally and justly. Thus it is not exhorting the believers to practice polygamy or representing it as an ideal, but only tolerates or allows it. For example, there might be times and places during which compelling social and moral reasons make polygamy more acceptable. As the above verse indicates, this issue cannot be understood apart from the Muslim community’s obligations toward orphans and widows. Islam, which is a universal religion suitable for all places and all times, cannot ignore such compelling obligations.

In most human societies, women outnumber men. In the U.S. there are, at least, eight million more women than men. In Guinea, there are 122 women for every 100 men. In Tanzania, there are 95.1 men for every 100 women. (40) What can a society with such unbalanced sex ratios do? There are various solutions: celibacy, female infanticide (which still happens in some societies), or to tolerance of sexual permissiveness (e.g., prostitution, extramarital sex, and homosexuality).

For other societies, like most African societies today, the most honorable outlet is to allow polygamy as a culturally accepted and socially respected institution. People in the West often do not understand that women in other cultures do not necessarily consider polygamy to be a sign of women’s degradation. For example, many young African brides, whether Christians or Muslims or otherwise, would prefer to marry a married man who has proven himself to be a responsible husband. Many African wives urge their husbands to get a second wife so that they do not feel lonely. (41) A survey of over 6,000 women, ranging in age from 15 to 59, conducted in Nigeria’s second largest city showed that 60% of them would be pleased if their husbands took another wife. Only 23% expressed anger at the idea of sharing with another wife. In a survey conducted in Kenya, 76% of the women viewed polygamy positively. In a survey undertaken in rural Kenya, 25 out of 27 women considered polygamy to be better than monogamy and that it could be a happy and beneficial experience if the co-wives cooperate with each other. (42)

Polygamy in most African societies is such a respectable institution that some Protestant churches are becoming more tolerant of it. An Anglican bishop in Kenya declared that: “Although monogamy may be ideal for the expression of love between husband and wife, the church should consider that in certain cultures polygyny is socially acceptable and that the belief that polygyny is contrary to Christianity is no longer tenable.” (43) After a careful study of African polygamy, the Anglican Reverend David Gitari concluded that polygamy, as ideally practiced, is more Christian than divorce and remarriage as far as the abandoned wives and children are concerned. (44) I personally know of some highly educated African wives who, despite having lived in the West for many years, have no objection to polygamy.

The problem of the unbalanced sex ratios becomes truly problematic during times of war. Native American Indian tribes used to suffer highly unbalanced sex ratios after wartime losses. Women in these tribes, who in fact enjoyed a fairly high status, accepted polygamy as the best protection against indulgence in indecent activities. After the Second World War, there were 7.3 milliion more women than men in Germany (3.3 million of them were widows). There were 100 men aged 20 to 30 for every 167 women in that age group. (45) Many of these women needed a man not only as a companion but also as a provider for the household during a time of unprecedented misery and hardship. Many young girls and widows had liaisons with members of the occupying forces in return for cigarettes, chocolate, and bread, and children were overjoyed at the gifts these strangers brought.(46) Today in places where ethnic cleansing has been conducted, like in Bosnia, there is 1 man for every 10 women; in Kosovo, there is 1 man for every 5 women. We have to ask our own conscience at this point: What is more dignifying to a woman? An accepted and respected second wife as in the native American Indians’ approach, or a virtual prostitute due to her and her children’s starvation?

Interestingly, participants in an international youth conference held in Munich in 1948 discussed the problem of Germany’s highly unbalanced sex ratio. When it became clear that no solution could be agreed upon, some participants suggested polygamy. The gathering’s initial reaction was a mixture of shock and disgust. However, after a careful study of the proposal, participants agreed that it was the only possible solution. Consequently, polygamy was included among the conference final recommendations. (47)

Today, the world possesses more weapons of mass destruction than ever before. Father Hillman has thoughtfully recognized this fact: “It is quite conceivable that these genocidal techniques (nuclear, biological, chemical) could produce so drastic an imbalance among the sexes that plural marriage would become a necessary means of survival…. Then contrary to previous custom and law, an overriding natural and moral inclination might arise in favor of polygamy. In such a situation, theologians and church leaders would quickly produce weighty reasons and biblical texts to justify a new conception of marriage.”(48)

Even in our own time, polygamy continues to be a viable solution to some of modern society’s social ills. The communal obligations that the Qur’an mentions in association with the permission of polygamy are more visible at present in some Western societies than in Africa. For example, in the United States today there is a severe gender crisis in the black community. One out of every 20 young black males may die before reaching their twenty-first birthday. For those between 20 and 35, homicide is the leading cause of death. (49) In addition, many young black men are unemployed, in jail, or on dope. (50) As a result, 25% of black 40-year-old women have never married. (51) Moreover, many young black women become single mothers before the age of 20 and find themselves in need of providers.

The end result of these tragic circumstances is that an increasing number of black women are engaged in “man-sharing,” (52) which means that they are involved in affairs with married men. The wives are often unaware of the fact that other women are “sharing” their husbands. Some obser-vers of this crisis in the black community strongly recommend consensual polygamy as a temporary answer to the shortage of black men until more comprehensive reforms in the American society at large are undertaken. (53) The problem of man-sharing in the black community was the topic of a panel discussion held at Temple University in Philadelphia on January 27, 1993.(54) Some of the speakers recommended polygamy as a potential remedy. They also suggested that polygamy should not be banned by law, particularly in a society that tolerates prostitution and mistresses.

In his Plural Marriage for Our Time, Philip Kilbride, a Catholic American anthropologist, proposes polygamy as a solution to some of the ills of American society at large. He argues that plural marriage may serve as a potential alternative for divorce in many cases in order to obviate the damaging impact of divorce on many children. (55)                                                           

In 1987, a poll conducted by the student newspaper at the University of California at Berkeley asked students whether they agreed that the law should allow men to have more than one wife in response to a perceived shortage of marriageable men in California. Almost all of the students polled approved of the idea. One female student even stated that a polygamous marriage would fulfill her emotional and physical needs while giving her greater freedom than a monogamous union. (56) In fact, this same argument is also used by the few remaining fundamentalist Mormon (57) women who still practice polygamy in the U.S. They believe that polygamy is an ideal way for a woman to have both a career and children, since the wives help each other care for the children. (58)

In Islam, polygamy is a matter of mutual consent. No one can force a woman to marry a married man. Moreover, a wife has the right to stipulate that her husband cannot take a second wife.(59) On the other hand, the Bible sometimes resorts to forcible polygamy. For example, a childless widow must marry her husband’s brother, even if he is already married (see the “Plight of widows” section) regardless of her consent (Genesis 38:8-10).

Billy Graham, the eminent Christian evangelist, has recognized this fact: “Christianity cannot compromise on the question of polygamy. If present-day Christianity cannot do so, it is to its own detriment. Islam has permitted polygamy as a solution to social ills and has allowed a certain degree of latitude to human nature but only within the strictly defined framework of the law. Christian countries make a great show of monogamy, but actually they practice polygamy. No one is unaware of the part mistresses play in Western society. In this respect Islam is a fundamentally honest religion, and permits a Muslim to marry a second wife if he must, but strictly forbids all clandestine amatory associations in order to safeguard the moral probity of the community.” (60)

Many Muslim and non-Muslim countries have outlawed polygamy. Taking a second wife, even with the first wife’s free consent, is a violation of the law. But cheating on the wife, without her knowledge or consent, is perfectly legitimate as far as the law is concerned! What is the legal wisdom behind such a contradiction? Is the law designed to reward deception and punish honesty? This is one of the unfathomable paradoxes of our modern “civilized” world.

The veil

Finally, let’s shed some light on what is considered in the West as the greatest symbol of women’s oppression and servitude: the veil or the head-covering. Is it true that there is no such thing as the veil in the Judeo-Christian tradition?

According to Rabbi Dr. Menachem M. Brayer, a professor of Biblical Literature at Yeshiva University and author of The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature, it was the custom of Jewish women to go out in public with a head covering that sometimes left only one eye free. (61) He quotes some famous ancient rabbis who said that: “It is not like the daughters of Israel to walk out with heads uncovered” and “Cursed be the man who lets the hair of his wife be seen … a woman who exposes her hair for self-adornment brings poverty.”

Rabbinic law forbids the recitation of blessings or prayers in the presence of a bareheaded married woman, since uncovering the woman’s hair is considered to be nudity.(62) He also mentions that: “During the Tannaitic period the Jewish woman’s failure to cover her head was considered an affront to her modesty. When her head was uncovered she might be fined four hundred zuzim for this offense.” Dr. Brayer also explains that a Jewish woman’s veil was not always considered a sign of modesty. Sometimes, it symbolized a state of distinction and luxury, for it personified the dignity and superiority of noble women. It also represented a woman’s inaccessibility as a sanctified possession of her husband. (63)

The veil signified a woman’s self-respect and social status. Women of the lower classes would often wear it to give the impression of a higher standing. Given that the veil was the sign of nobility, prostitutes were not permitted to cover their hair in the old Jewish society. However, they often wore a special headscarf in order to look respectable.(64) Jewish women in Europe continued to wear cover their hair until the nineteenth century, when their lives became more intermingled with the surrounding secular culture. The external pressures of nineteenth-century European life forced many of them to go out bareheaded. Some Jewish women found it more convenient to replace their traditional head-covering with a wig as another form of hair covering. Today, most pious Jewish women only cover their hair in the synagogue.(65) Some of them, such as the Hasidic (66) sects, still use the wig.(67)

What about the Christian tradition? Catholic nuns have been covering their heads for hundreds of years. But there is even more, as we learn from St. Paul’s very interesting statements about the veil: Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head. It is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head (I Corinthians 11:3-10).

St. Paul’s rationale for veiling women is that the veil is a sign of the authority of man, who is the image and glory of God, over the woman, who was created from and for man. In his famous treatise “On the Veiling of Virgins,” St. Tertullian wrote: “Young women, you wear your veils out on the streets, so you should wear them in the church, you wear them when you are among strangers, then wear them among your brothers…” Among the canon laws of the Catholic Church today is a law that requires women to cover their heads in church. (68) Some Christian denominations, such as the Amish and the Mennonites, still retain a head-covering for their women today. (69)

From all the above evidence, it is obvious that Islam did not invent, but rather endorses, the head-covering. The Qur’an urges believing men and women to lower their gaze and guard their modesty, and urges believing women to cover the neck and bosom: Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty…. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms (24:30-31).

The Qur’an is quite clear that such covering is essential for modesty, and that modesty is important: O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their bodies (when abroad) so that they should be known and not molested (33:59). This is the whole point: Modesty is prescribed to protect women from molestation or simply, modesty is protection. Thus, its only purpose in Islam is to offer protection. Unlike its status in other traditions, such covering is not a sign of man’s authority over woman, of woman’s subjection to man, or of luxury and the distinction of some noble married women. It is no more than a sign of modesty designed to protect women. The Islamic philosophy is that it is always better to be safe than sorry.

In fact, the Qur’an is so concerned with protecting a woman body and reputation that a man who dares to falsely accuse a woman of unchastity will be severely punished: And those who launch a charge against chaste women and do not produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations), flog them with eighty stripes and reject their evidence ever after, for such men are wicked transgressors (24:4).

Some people, especially in the West, tend to ridicule the whole argument of modesty for protection. Their argument is that the best protection is the spread of education, civilized behavior, and self-restraint. We say “Fine, but that is not enough.” If civilization is enough protection, then why do women in North America dare not walk down a dark street alone or even across an empty parking lot? If education is the solution, then why does a respected Canadian university like Queen’s have a walk-home service mainly for female students on campus? If self-restraint is the answer, then why are cases of sexual harassment in the workplace reported on the news media every day? A sample of men recently accused of sexual harassment includes naval officers, managers, university professors, Supreme Court justices, and even the top officers.

I could not believe my eyes when I read the following statistics, written in a pamphlet issued by the Dean of Women’s office at Queen’s University: “In Canada, a woman is sexually assaulted every 6 minutes; 1 in 3 women in Canada will be sexually assaulted at some time in their lives; 1 in 4 women are at the risk of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime; and 1 in 8 women will be sexually assaulted while attending college or university; and a study found that 60% of Canadian university-aged males said they would commit sexual assault if they were certain they wouldn’t get caught.”

Something is fundamentally wrong in the society in which we live. A radical change in the society’s life style and culture is absolutely necessary. A culture of modesty is badly needed_ modesty in the dress, speech, and manners of both men and women. Otherwise, the grim statistics will grow even worse day after day and, unfortunately, women alone will be paying the price.

Footnotes

1. Leonard J. Swidler, Women in Judaism: The Status of Women in Formative Judaism (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1976), 115.
2. Thena Kendath, “Memories of an Orthodox Youth,” in Susannah Heschel, ed. On being a Jewish Feminist (New York: Schocken Books, 1983), 96-97.
3. Rosemary R. Ruether, “Christianity,” in Arvind Sharma, ed., Women in World Religions (Albany: SUNY Press, 1987), 209.
4. For all the sayings of the prominent saints, see Karen Armstrong, The Gospel According to Woman (London: Elm Tree Books, 1986) 52-62. See also Nancy van Vuuren, The Subversion of Women as Practiced by Churches, Witch-Hunters, and Other Sexists (Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1973), 28-30.
5. Bukhari, “Talaq,” 25, “Adab,” 24; Muslim, “Zuhd,” 42.
6. Denise L. Carmody, “Judaism,” in Sharma, Women in World Religions, 197.
7. Swidler, Women in Judaism, 140.
8. Ibid., 138.
9. Ibid., 115.
10. Louis M. Epstein, The Jewish Marriage Contract (New York: Arno Pres, 1973), 149.
11. Lesley Hazleton, Israeli Women: The Reality Behind the Myths (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1977), 41.
12. Matilda J. Gage, Woman, Church, and State (New York: Truth Seeker Company, 1893), 142.
13. Swidler, Women in Judaism, 141.
14. Gage, Woman, Church, and State, 141.
15. Epstein, Jewish Marriage Contract, 164-65.
16. Ibid., 112-13. See also Sally Priesand, Judaism and the New Woman,(New York: Behrman House, Inc., 1975),p.15.
17. R. Thompson, Women in Stuart England and America (London: Routledge &amp; Kegan Paul, 1974), 162.
18. Mary Murray, The Law of the Father (London: Routledge, 1995), 67.
19. Gage, Woman, Church, and State, 143.
20. El-Sayyed Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah, 11th ed. (Cairo: Darul Fatah li al-&amp;#8216;Alam al-&amp;#8216;Arabi, 1994), 2:218-29.
21. Akiba ben Joseph: (50?-132) a Jewish scholar of religion who had a significant influence on Judaism. (Ed.)
22. Swidler, Women in Judaism, 162-63.
23. The Toronto Star, 8 Apr. 1995.
24. Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah, 2:318-29. See also Muhammad al-Ghazali, Qadayah al-Mar’ah bayn al Taqalid al-Rakidah wa al-Wafidah, 4th ed. (Cairo: Dar al Shuruq, 1992), 178-80.
25. Ibid., 313-18.
26. Tirmidhi, “Rada,” 11; Abu Dawud, “Sunnah,” 15; Darimi, “al-Riqaq,” 74.
27. Epstein, Jewish Marriage Contract, 219.
28. Ibid., 156-57.
29. Muhammad Abu Zahra, Usul al-Fiqh al-Islami (Cairo: al-Majlis al-A&amp;#8216;la li Ri&amp;#8216;ayat al-Funun, 1963), 66.
30. Epstein, Jewish Marriage Contract, 122.
31. Armstrong, The Gospel, 8.
32. Epstein, Jewish Marriage Contract, 175.
33. Gage, Woman, Church, and State, 142.
34. B. Aisha Lemu and Fatima Heeren, Woman in Islam ( London: Islamic Foundation, 1978 ), 23.
35. Hazleton, Israeli Women, 45-46.
36. Swidler, Women in Judaism, 144-48.
37. Hazleton, Israeli Women, 44-45.
38. Eugene Hillman, Polygamy Reconsidered: African Plural Marriage and the Christian Churches (New York: Orbis Books, 1975), 140.
39. Ibid., 17.
40. Ibid., 88-93.
41. Ibid., 92-97.
42. Philip L. Kilbride, Plural Marriage for Our Times (Westport, CT: Bergin &amp; Garvey, 1994), 108-9.
43. The Weekly Review, 1 Aug. 1987.
44. Kilbride, Plural Marriage, 126.
45. Ute Frevert, Women in German History: From Bourgeois Emancipation to Sexual Liberation (New York: Berg Publishers, 1988), 263-64.
46. Ibid., 257-58.
47. Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah, 191.
48. Hillman, Polygamy Reconsidered, 12.
49. Nathan Hare and Julie Hare, eds., Crisis in Black Sexual Politics (San Francisco: Black Think Tank, 1989), 25.
50. Ibid., 26.
51. Kilbride, Plural Marriage, 94.
52. Ibid., 95.
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid., 95-99.
55. Ibid., 118.
56. Jeffrey Lang, Struggling to Surrender (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 1994), p. 172.
57. A member of the religious movement founded in 1830 by Joseph Smith ((1805-1844) in New York. (Ed.)
58. Kilbride, Plural Marriage, 72-73.
59. Sabiq, Fiqh al-Sunnah, 187-88.
60. Abdul Rahman Doi, Woman in Shari&amp;#8216;ah (London: Ta-Ha Publishers, 1994), 76.
61. Menachem M. Brayer, The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature: A Psychosocial Perspective (Hoboken, N.J: Ktav Publishing House, 1986), 239.
62. Ibid., 316-17. Also see Swidler, Women in Judaism, 121-23.
63. Ibid., 139.
64. Susan W. Schneider, Jewish and Female (New York: Simon &amp; Schuster, 1984), 237.
65. Ibid., 238-39.
66. A mystical Jewish movement that first emerged in Poland and neighboring countries in 18th century, based upon prayer, love, and joy. (Ed.)
67. Alexandra Wright, “Judaism,” in Holm and Bowker, ed., op. cit., 128-29.
68. Clara M. Henning, “Cannon Law and the Battle of the Sexes,” in Rosemary R. Ruether, ed., Religion and Sexism: Images of Woman in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974), 272.
69. A group of Christians from The Netherlands and northwestern Germany who were organized in 1540 around an approach to baptism that differed from the mainstream Protestants. They migrated to America in 1540, and are very tolerant toward other religious groups and faiths. (Ed.)

A: Some critics of Islam have reviled the Prophet as a self-indulgent libertine. They have accused him of character failings that are hardly compatible with being of average virtue, let alone with being a Prophet and God’s last Messenger, as well as the best model for humanity to follow. However, based on the easily available scores of biographies and well-authenticated accounts of his sayings and actions, it is quite clear that he lived the most strictly disciplined life, and that his marriages were part of the numerous burdens he bore as God’s last Messenger.

The reasons for his multiple marriages vary. However, all of them were related to his role as leader of the Muslim community, and his responsibility to guide the new Muslims toward the norms and values of Islam.

Q: Can you be more specific?

A: When Muhammad was 25, before he was called to his future mission, he married Khadija, his first wife. Given the surrounding cultural environment, not to mention the climate and such other considerations as his youth, it is remarkable that he enjoyed a reputation for perfect chastity, integrity, and trustworthiness. As soon as he was called to Prophethood, he acquired enemies who did not hesitate to raise false calumnies against him, but not once did any of them dare invent something unbelievable about him. Khadija was 15 years his senior.

This marriage was very high and exceptional in the eyes of the Prophet and God. For 23 years, their life was a period of uninterrupted contentment in perfect fidelity. In the eighth year of Prophethood, however, she passed away, leaving the Prophet as the sole parent of their children for 4 or 5 years. Even his enemies are forced to admit that, during these years, they can find no flaw in his moral character. The Prophet took no other wife during Khadija’s lifetime, although public opinion would have allowed him to do so. When he began marrying other women, he was already past 55, when very little real interest and desire for marriage remains.

Q: How could a Prophet be polygamous?

A: People often ask how a Prophet can have more than one wife. This question is usually asked by those people who know next to nothing about Islam; their question is based either on genuine ignorance or the desire to spread doubt among believers.

Many of those who reproach the Prophet’s polygamous family life are usually involved in casual relations and liaisons with numerous sexual partners. Considering themselves free, they engage in what most societies consider to be immoral behavior. One wonders why believers of other religions attack the Prophet for his multiple marriages. Have they forgotten that the great Hebrew patriarchs, considered Prophets in the Bible and in the Qur’an and revered by Jews, Christians, and Muslims as exemplars of moral excellence, all practiced polygamy? Moreover, as in the case of Prophet Solomon, they had far more wives than Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace. One wonders if they are moved more by their anti-Islam bias than genuine concern or interest.

Polygamy did not originate with the Muslims. Furthermore, in the case of the Prophet this practice has far more significance than people generally realize. In a sense, the Prophet had to be polygamous to transmit his Sunna (the statutes and norms of Islamic law). As Islam covers every part of one’s life, private spousal relations cannot remain untouched. Therefore, there must be women who can guide other women in these matters. There is no room for the allusive language of hints and innuendoes. The chaste and virtuous women of the Prophet’s household were responsible for explaining the norms and rules of such private spheres to other Muslims.

Q: How did the Prophet select his wives?

Some of the Prophet’s marriages were contracted for specific reasons:

Since his wives were young, middle-aged, and old, the requirements and norms of Islamic law could be exemplified in relation to their different life stages and experiences. These were learned and applied first within the Prophet’s household, and then passed on to other Muslims by his wives.

* Each wife was from a different clan or tribe, which allowed the Prophet to establish bonds of kinship and affinity throughout the rapidly expanding Muslim community. This also enabled a profound attachment to him to spread among all Muslims, thereby creating and securing equality and brotherhood in a most practical way and on the basis of religion.

* Each wife, both during and after the Prophet’s life, proved to be 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, and the qualities, manners, and faith of the man whose life was the embodiment of the Qur’an-Islam in practice. In this way, all Muslims learned about the Qur’an, hadith, Qur’anic interpretation and commentary, and Islamic jurisprudence, and so became fully aware of Islam’s essence and spirit.

* Through his marriages, the Prophet established ties of kinship throughout Arabia. This gave him the freedom to move and be accepted as a member in each family. Since they regarded him as one of their own, they felt they could go to him in person and ask him directly about this life and the Hereafter. The tribes also benefited collectively from their proximity to him: they considered themselves fortunate and took pride in that relationship, such as the Umayyads (through Umm Habiba), the Hashimites (through Zaynab bint Jahsh), and the Bani Makhzum (through Umm Salama).

Part of that discipline was providing each wife with the most meticulously observed justice, dividing equally whatever slender resources he allowed for their subsistence, accommodation, and allowance. He also divided his time with them equally, and regarded and treated them with equal friendship and respect. The fact that all of his wives 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 also a friend and companion.

Q: If a Muslim man is allowed only four wives, why did the Prophet have eleven?

A: The number of the Prophet’s wives was a dispensation unique to him. Some of the merits and wisdom of this dispensation, as we understand them, have been explained. All other Muslims are allowed a maximum of four wives at one time. When that Revelation restricting polygamy came, the Prophet’s marriages had already been contracted. Thereafter, he married no other women.

The governor explained the reason why he came to his office late in the morning:

It is not proper to explain it, but since you want me to, I consent to do it: I do not have any servants and my wife is ill. I knead the dough myself and make the bread, and only after doing other work at home am I able to leave for my office.

In answer to the second complaint of the people, the governor said:

Although it is not proper to explain this either, I will explain it since you want me to. I spend all my day among them to attend to their work and needs. When it is night, shall I not worship my Lord and accuse myself before Him for what I did during the long day?

The third complaint of the people was that Sa’id ibn ‘Amir stayed at home one day a week and did not come out among the people. The governor answered that complaint:

As I said before, I do not have any servants and my wife is ill. I have only one suit of clothes and wash it on that day. That is why I cannot go out among them one day in the week.

The last complaint was that the governor sometimes lost his senses and almost went mad. The explanation was as follows:

When Hubayb was martyred by the Makkan polytheists I had not yet become a Muslim and was present on the scene. [Hubayb was among the deputation the Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, sent to the tribes of Adal and al-Qarah to teach them the Qur’an upon their request. However, when the deputation halted to have a rest in the area where the Hudayl tribe lived, and while sleeping, they were all at once attacked by the Hudayli unbelievers. Three of the deputation were martyred, the rest, among whom were Hubayb and Zayd ibn Dasina were submitted to the Makkans. The Makkans kept Hubayb and Zayd as prisoners for some time and then took them out of the city to kill them.] When Hubayb was about to be killed, Abu Sufyan stepped forward and said to him:

I adjure you by God, Hubayb, don’t you wish that Muhammad was with us now in your place so that we might cut off his head, and that you were with your family?’

‘By God,’ said Hubayb, ‘let alone wishing that Muhammad were here in my place so that I were with my family, I do not wish that even a thorn should hurt his foot in Madina.’

Abu Sufyan was astonished by this answer. He turned to those present, and said:

‘By God, I swear I have never seen a man who was so loved as Muhammad’s Companions love him.’

I could have helped Hubayb then, but since I was then among those who associated partners with God, I did not. So, whenever I remember this event, thinking that God will never forgive me, I lose my senses and go almost mad.

‘Umar, may God be pleased with him, was content with his governor’s conduct and gave him one thousand gold pieces to meet his needs. However, the pious, righteous governor turned to his wife and said: ‘Let us spend this for a day when we will need it more than at any other time. Let us distribute it among those poorer than us.’

The governor handed the gold pieces to one among his family to distribute them among the poor, which he did.

Almost all the governors of Caliph ‘Umar were of a like quality in belief, conduct and understanding of administration. God-fearing, piety and righteousness were the lights by which they made their decisions and conducted their lives. It was the golden age in human history, or ‘the Happy Time’ as it is called in Islamic tradition.

‘Between my two wrinkled fingers,

a mess of fading, fretted threads

without particular line or colour

or order or significance: What is it?

(And his feet said.) your memories.

A servant as negligent as he can be

while still clinging to his job.

who answers my simplest needs

with slow, mocking disdain: Who is that?

your body.

Long-winded phrases that flap

aimlessly around my head

at home or in my office till (at last)

they find an open window and jump out:

What are these?

Your passions, loves or hates.

A dozen or so strangers who visit

if and only if I’ m very ill,

lay hypocritical hands on my forehead,

feeling my temperature and

their inheritance, then leave

holding their noses.’ Who are they?

your near relatives.

A narrow rectangular edifice

sinking on shallow foundations

designed to that servant’s specification,

open to any scavenging maggot or worm

that happens by: What is that?

The neat sum, the very grand total

of a lifetime’s shrewd, successful

property management – your grave.

The old man huddled his face in his hands, crumpled up like a lost or abandoned child. He heard his wife calling him once again, and complaining that his breakfast was getting cold. But he sat silent, listening to thoughts that voiced themselves inside his head or heart, from far off, as if from another life, a time long gone. And now and again his feet would answer those thoughts, taunting him: 

Before at last the great trumpet sounds

and sounds again,’ before its mighty echo

converts to an irresistible hail that blasts

open each anguished grave: before the hour

when every individual cell, howsoever

dispersed or decomposed. shall by Decree

be re-joined to every other individual cell.

down to the re-perfecting of a fingerprint:

before that hour, may be long before.

you shall hear the angels’ interrogations

howl in your marrowless, hollowed bones:

what is your religion and your worth?

Run, old man, run!

Where will you run?

Who came with clear warnings, reiterated,

and truth you recognized? Offered forgiveness

and you preferred your sins? Pointed you

to eternal light and you ran in to darkness?

Whose teaching called you the many times

you turned

away to make a killing in the market-place,

or to play hide and seek with your intentions.

promising to be virtuous after you were

wealthy?

or shame you dare not name him, still less

claim a corner/n his protecting shade!

Run, old man, ran!

Where will you run?

The order of things is not as it was.

There, in this life, your heart knew

it’s deepest need for forgiveness.

and you couldn’t careless. Here too,

your heart knows it’s deepest need,

but here the order is truth and justice.

A command joins every conscience 

to every sin, forgotten in this life or

remembered, slight or significant.

the whole chain of it’s circumstance.

antecedent or consequent, actual or

potential. Here your closest secrets

are opened. elaborated, pronounced out loud!

old man, old man!

those you betrayed know it now:

those you robbed know it now:

those you could have helped

but did not help, they are here

staring in your face! Where now,

Where will you run?

Here no hiding or seeking, no turning

aside from the Command: your limbs.

Eyes, ears, tongue, heart, brain, each

obedient, each omniscient tells all

it enacted or endured. Self-accused.

self-condemned, you sit whimpering

like a kitten trapped in traffic ,lost.

desolate, in a pool of shame smelling

worse than your own excrement!

Stinking, stupid feet! Why did you

lead me astray?’ Stinking, stupid man.

we obeyed your every command!

Run, then, if you can, run!

And do you remember the kitten?

Remember the blind man at the roadside

who, gesturing wildly with his stick,

made you stop your important car.

delayed your important appointment

You got out shouting at the blind man.

He only pointed down and said:

I can hear but cannot see to help

the poor thing, it’s hurt. You do it.’

Only then you saw the kitten, it’s tail

broken, it’s nerves shattered by the noise

of passing cars, trembling dreadfully.

covered in the dust of the road.

Do not deny that you considered

carrying the little thing to safety.

Do not deny that you knew what to do.

You knew. But wouldn’t dirty your hands

on it’s dusty fur, not before a business

appointment .So you drove round it

fast leaving the kitten in it’s little agony

and the blind man in confusion.

Run, old man run!

But you have nowhere to run!

The man took his hands from his face

and stared at his feet and said: ‘I will run

to the forgiveness of my Lord. There is no

sin so great that it is greater than His

mercy’. His feet did not reply. Then, much to

his surprise, the old man saw bed and bed

ding disappear from beneath his feet Two

shackles of massive iron rose up and locked

upon each of his ankles: from the shackles

enormous chains, likewise made of massive

iron, descended into a bottomless dark

ness. But the man kept his wits about him

and said in his heart atubu ilayk,

Allahumma, atubu ilayk. The chains fell

away and the darkness closed up. Only the

shackles remained and their weight was

such that the man could not move his legs.

let alone his feet. So he repeated what he

had said in his heart, ever more earnestly.

until the shackles opened. He could now

move his feet but dared not waiting for the

shackles to disappear as the chains had.

But they remained open upon his bed. his

ankles resting in them. Indeed, no matter

how often he urged the words of repen

tance, the shackles remained. So he accepted

them as they were, to serve as a

reminder of the jaws of death.

He heard his wife call him a third time to

come down for breakfast. He got up from bed

briskly and went to wash himself. Not in

preparation for work but, for the first time since (so

long ago, alas) his father had given him a choice

in the matter, in preparation for

prayer.

It was at this time, before his call to prophethood, that Muhammad said to his uncle, al-‘Abbas:

‘Your brother, Abu Talib, has a large family. People, as you see, have been afflicted by this severe drought and are facing starvation. Let us go to Abu Talib and take on the care of some members of his family. I am ready to look after one of his sons and you might do the same for another’

Al-‘Abbas agreed; they went together to Abu Talib and made their offer Abu Talib accepted:

‘If you allow me to keep ‘Aqil [one of his sons older than Ali], you may do otherwise as you please.

In this way ‘Ali came into the household of the future Prophet, upon him be peace, Jafar into the household of al-‘Abbas.

Ja’far closely resembled the Prophet. It is said there were five men from the Hashim clan who resembled the Prophet, so much as to mistaken for him. They were: his two cousins Abu Sufyan ibn al-Harith and Qutham ibn al-‘Abbas; Al-Sa’ib ibn ‘Ubayd, the grandfather of Imam al-Shafi’-i; Hasan ibn ‘Ali, the grandson of the Prophet, who resembled him most of all; and Ja’far ibn Abi Talib.

Ja’far stayed with his uncle, al-‘Abbas, until he was a young man. Then he married Asma bint Umays, a sister of Maymunah, later to become a wife of the Prophet. After his marriage, Ja’far went to live on his own. He and his wife were among the first persons to accept Islam. He became a Muslim at the hands of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, may God be pleased with him.

The young Ja’far and his wife were devoted to Islam. They bore the harsh persecution of the Quraysh with steadfast patience, because they understood that the way to Paradise must pass through hardship.

The Quraysh made life intolerable for them as for all their brothers and sisters in faith. They would prevent them from observing the duties and rites of Islam or, failing that, from tasting the sweetness of worship undisturbed. They would waylay them and hamper their freedom of movement.

Ja’far eventually went to the Prophet, peace be upon him, and sought permission for himself and a small group of the companions, including his wife, to emigrate to Abyssinia. With great sadness, the Prophet gave his permission. It pained him that these pure, upright souls should be forced to leave their homes, the cherished scenes of their childhood and youth, not for any crime but only because they said, ‘Our Lord is One. God is our Lord’.

The group of Muhajirin (Emigrants) left Makka under the leadership of Ja’far and settled down in Abyssinia under the protection of the Negus, its just and righteous ruler. For the first time since becoming Muslims, they enjoyed freedom and security, and could practise their worship undisturbed.

When the Quraysh learnt of the departure of this small group, and of the peace they enjoyed, they made plans to secure their extradition back to Makka. They sent two of their most formidable men, ‘Amr ibn al-‘As and ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Rabi’a, providing them with many valuables to aid their ‘persuasion’ of the Negus and his bishops.

In Abyssinia, the two Quraysh emissaries first presented their gifts to the bishops and to each of them they said:

‘There are some wicked young people moving about freely in the King’s land. They have attacked the religion of their forefathers and caused disunity among their people. When we speak to the King about them, advise him to surrender them to us without troubling to ask about their religion. The respected leaders of the people [meaning the bishops] are more knowledgeable of them and understand better what they believe.’ The bishops agreed.

‘Amr and ‘Abdullah then went to the Negus and presented him with gifts which he greatly admired. They said to him;

‘O King, there is a group of evil persons from among our youth who have escaped to your kingdom. They practice a religion which neither we nor you know. They have forsaken our religion and have not entered into your religion. The respected leaders of their people, their own parents and uncles included, and from their own clans – have sent us to you to request their return. They know best what trouble they have caused.’

The Negus looked towards his bishops who said:

‘They speak the truth, O King. Their own people know them better and are better acquainted with what they have done. Send them back so that they themselves may judge them.’

The Negus was incensed at this suggestion and said:

‘No, by God, I will not surrender them to anyone until I myself call them and question them about what they have been accused of. If what you two men have said is true, I will hand them over. If not, I will protect them so long as they desire my protection.’

The Muslims were summoned. Before appearing in the King’s court, they consulted one another and agreed that Ja’far lbn Abi Talib and no one else should speak for them all.

In the court, the bishops, dressed in green surplices and impressive headwear, were seated on the right and left of the Negus. The Quraysh emissaries were also seated when the Muslims entered and took their seats. The Negus turned to them and asked:

‘What is this religion which you have introduced for yourselves and which has led you to be cut off from the religion of your people? You have not adopted my religion nor the religion of any other community.’

Ja’far ibn Abi Talib then delivered a most moving, eloquent speech, still considered a most compelling brief account of Islam, of the appeal of the noble Prophet, and of the condition of Makkan society at the time. He said:

‘O King, we were a people in a state of ignorance and immorality, worshipping idols and eating the flesh of dead animals, committing all sorts of abomination and shameful deeds, breaking the ties of kinship, treating guests badly, and the strong among us exploited the weak. We remained in this state until God sent us a Prophet, one of our own people whose lineage, truthfulness, trustworthiness and integrity were well-known to us.

‘He called us to worship God alone and to renounce the stones and the idols which we and our ancestors used to worship besides God.

‘He commanded us to speak the truth, to honour our promises, to be kind to our relatives, to be helpful to our neighbours, to desist from all forbidden acts, to abstain from bloodshed, to avoid obscenities and false witness, and not to appropriate an orphan’s property or slander chaste women.

‘He ordered us to worship God alone and not to associate anything with Him, to uphold salah, to give zakah and fast in the month of Ramadan.

‘We believed in him and what he brought to us from God and we follow him in what he has asked us to do and we keep away from what he has forbidden us from approaching.

‘Thereupon, O King, our people attacked us, visited the severest punishment upon us to make us renounce our religion and take us back to the old immorality and the worship of idols. They oppressed us, made life intolerable for us, and obstructed us from observing our religion. So we left for your country, choosing you before anyone else, desiring your protection and hoping to live in justice and peace in your midst.’

The Negus was impressed and eager to hear more. He asked Ja’far:

‘Do you have with you something of what your Prophet brought concerning God?”

‘Yes,’ replied Ja’far

‘Then read it to me,’ requested the Negus.

Ja’far, in his rich, melodious voice recited for him the first portion of sura Maryam which deals with the story of Jesus, the son of Mary, upon him be peace. The Negus was moved to tears and said to the Muslims: ‘The message of your Prophet and that of Jesus came from the same source.’

Turning to ‘Amr and his companion, he said: ‘Go. For, by God, I will never surrender them to you.’

That, however, was not the end of the matter. The wise and determined ‘Amr made up his mind to go to the King the following day ‘to mention something about the Muslims’ belief which will certainly fill his heart with anger and make him detest them’.

‘O King, these people, to whom you have given refuge and protection, say something terrible about Jesus the son of Mary [that he is a slave]. Send for them and ask them what they say about him.’

The Negus summoned the Muslims once more with Ja’far again acting as their spokesman. The Negus put the question:

‘What do you say about Jesus, the son of Mary?’

‘Regarding him, we only say what has been revealed to our Prophet,’ replied Ja’far.

‘What is that?’ enquired the Negus.

‘Our Prophet says that Jesus is the servant of God and His Prophet, His spirit and His word which He cast into Mary the Virgin.’

The Negus was obviously excited by this reply and exclaimed:

‘By God, Jesus the son of Mary was exactly as your Prophet has described him.’

The bishops around the Negus grunted in disgust at what they had heard, but were reprimanded by the Negus. He turned to the Muslims and said:

‘Go, for you are safe and secure. Whoever obstructs you will pay for it and whoever opposes you will be punished. For, by God, I would rather not have a mountain of gold than that anyone of you should come to any harm.’

Turning to ‘Amr and his companion, he instructed his attendants:

‘Return their gifts to these two men. I have no need of them.’

‘Amr and his companion departed broken and frustrated. The Muslims stayed on in the land of the Negus who proved to be most generous and kind to his guests.

Ja’far and his wife Asma spent about ten years in Abyssinia which became a second home for them. There, Asma gave birth to three children whom they named ‘Abdullah, Muhammad and ‘Awn. Their second child was possibly the first child in the history of the Muslim ummah to be called Muhammad after the noble Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace.

In the seventh year after the Hijra, Ja’far and his family left Abyssinia with a group of Muslims and headed for Madina. When they arrived there, the Prophet was just returning from the conquest of Khaybar. He was so overjoyed at meeting Ja’far that he said:

‘I do not know what fills me with more happiness, the conquest of Khaybar or the coming of Ja’far

Muslims in general and the poor among them especially, were just as happy with the return of Ja’far as the Prophet was. Ja’far was so concerned for the welfare of the poor and indigent that he got the nickname, the ‘Father of the Poor’. Abu Hurayrah said of him:

‘The best of men towards us indigent folk was Ja’far ibn Abi Talib. He would pass by us on his way home and give us whatever food he had. Even if his own food had run out, he would send us a pot in which he had placed some butter-fat and nothing more. We would open it and lick it clean…’

Ja’far’s stay in Madina was not long. At the beginning of the eighth year after the Hijra, the Prophet mobilized an army to confront Byzantine forces in Syria after one of his emissaries, who had gone there in peace, had been treacherously killed by a Byzantine governor. He appointed Zayd ibn Haritha as commander of the army and gave the following instructions:

‘If Zayd is wounded or killed, Ja’far ibn Abi Talib must take over the command. If Ja’far is killed or wounded, then your commander must be ‘Abdallah ibn Rawaha. If Abdullah ibn Rawaha is killed, then let the Muslims choose for themselves a commander.

The Prophet had never given such instructions to an army before. The Muslims took it as an indication that he expected a tough battle with major losses.

When the Muslim army reached Muta, a small village situated among hills in Jordan, they discovered that the Byzantines had amassed a hundred thousand men hacked up by a massive number of Christian Arabs from the tribes of Lakhm, Judham, Quda’a and others. The Muslim army numbered only three thousand.

Despite the great odds against them, the Muslim forces engaged the Byzantines in battle. Zayd ibn al-Haritha, the beloved companion of the Prophet, was among the first to fall. Ja’far ibn Abi Talib then assumed command. Mounted on his ruddy-complexioned horse, he penetrated deep into the Byzantine ranks. As he spurred his horse on, he called out:

‘How wonderful is Paradise as it draws near!

How pleasant and cool is its drink!

Punishment for the Byzantines is not far away!’

Ja’far continued to fight vigorously but was eventually slain. The third in command, Abdullah ibn Rawaha, also fell. Khalid ibn al-Walid, the inveterate fighter who had recently accepted Islam, was then chosen as commander. He made a tactical withdrawal, redeployed the Muslims and renewed the attack from several directions. Eventually, the bulk of the Byzantine forces fled in disarray.

The news of the death of his three commanders reached the Prophet in Madina. The pain and grief he felt was intense. He went to Ja’far’s house and met his wife Asma. She was getting ready to receive her absent husband. She had prepared dough and bathed and clothed the children. Asma said:

‘When the Messenger of God approached us, I saw a veil of sadness shrouding his noble face and I became very apprehensive. But I did not dare ask him about Ja’far for fear that I would hear some unpleasant news. He greeted and asked, “Where are Ja’far’s children?” I called them for him and they came and crowded around him happily, each one wanting to claim him for himself. He leaned over and hugged them while tears flowed from his eyes.

“O Messenger of God,” I asked, “Why do you cry? Have you heard anything about Ja’far and his two companions?”

“Yes,” he replied. “They have attained martyrdom.”

The smiles and the laughter vanished from the faces of the little children when they heard their mother crying and wailing. Women came and gathered around Asma.

‘O Asma,’ said the Prophet, ‘don’t say anything objectionable and don’t beat your breast.’ He then prayed to God to protect and sustain the family of Ja’far and assured them that he had attained Paradise.

The Prophet left Asma’s house and went to his daughter Fatima who was also weeping. To her, he said:

‘For such as Ja’far, you can (easily) cry yourself to death. Prepare food for Ja’far’s family, for today they are beside themselves with grief.