The Marriage of Mohammed PBUH and Aisha RA

In this climate of hysteria, I've taken this article by Myriam Francois-Cerrah from the Guardian. It makes a key point on a recurring criticism non-Muslims have of Islam. The article gives an important insight:

Writing about Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, the Orientalist scholar W Montgomery Watt wrote: "Of all the world's great men, none has been so much maligned as Muhammad." His quote seems all the more poignant in light of the Islamophobic film Innocence of Muslims, which has sparked riots from Yemen to Libya and which, among other slanders, depicts Muhammad as a paedophile.

This claim is a recurring one among critics of Islam, so its foundation deserves close scrutiny.

Critics allege that Aisha was just six years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad, himself in his 50s, and only nine when the marriage was consummated. They base this on a saying attributed to Aisha herself (Sahih Bukhari volume 5, book 58, number 234), and the debate on this issue is further complicated by the fact that some Muslims believe this to be a historically accurate account. Although most Muslims would not consider marrying off their nine-year-old daughters, those who accept this saying argue that since the Qur'an states that marriage is void unless entered into by consenting adults, Aisha must have entered puberty early.

They point out that, in seventh-century Arabia, adulthood was defined as the onset of puberty. (This much is true, and was also the case in Europe: five centuries after Muhammad's marriage to Aisha, 33-year-old King John of England married 12-year-old Isabella of Angoulême.) Interestingly, of the many criticisms of Muhammad made at the time by his opponents, none focused on Aisha's age at marriage.

According to this perspective, Aisha may have been young, but she was not younger than was the norm at the time. Other Muslims doubt the very idea that Aisha was six at the time of marriage, referring to historians who have questioned the reliability of Aisha's age as given in the saying. In a society without a birth registry and where people did not celebrate birthdays, most people estimated their own age and that of others. Aisha would have been no different. What's more, Aisha had already been engaged to someone else before she married Muhammad, suggesting she had already been mature enough by the standards of her society to consider marriage for a while. It seems difficult to reconcile this with her being six.

In addition, some modern Muslim scholars have more recently cast doubt on the veracity of the saying, or hadith, used to assert Aisha's young age. In Islam, the hadith literature (sayings of the prophet) is considered secondary to the Qur'an. While the Qur'an is considered to be the verbatim word of God, the hadiths were transmitted over time through a rigorous but not infallible methodology. Taking all known accounts and records of Aisha's age at marriage, estimates of her age range from nine to 19.

Because of this, it is impossible to know with any certainty how old Aisha was. What we do know is what the Qur'an says about marriage: that it is valid only between consenting adults, and that a woman has the right to choose her own spouse. As the living embodiment of Islam, Muhammad's actions reflect the Qur'an's teachings on marriage, even if the actions of some Muslim regimes and individuals do not.

Sadly, in many countries, the imperatives motivating the marriage of young girls are typically economic. In others, they are political. The fact that Iran and Saudi Arabia have both sought to use the saying concerning Aisha's age as a justification for lowering the legal age of marriage tells us a great deal about the patriarchal and oppressive nature of those regimes, and nothing about Muhammad, or the essential nature of Islam. The stridency of those who lend credence to these literalist interpretations by concurring with their warped view of Islam does not help those Muslims who seek to challenge these aberrations.

The Islamophobic depiction of Muhammad's marriage to Aisha as motivated by misplaced desire fits within a broader Orientalist depiction of Muhammad as a philanderer. This idea dates back to the crusades. According to the academic Kecia Ali: "Accusations of lust and sensuality were a regular feature of medieval attacks on the prophet's character and, by extension, on the authenticity of Islam."

Since the early Christians heralded Christ as a model of celibate virtue, Muhammad – who had married several times – was deemed to be driven by sinful lust. This portrayal ignored the fact that before his marriage to Aisha, Muhammad had been married to Khadija, a powerful businesswoman 15 years his senior, for 25 years. When she died, he was devastated and friends encouraged him to remarry. A female acquaintance suggested Aisha, a bright and vivacious character.

Aisha's union would also have cemented Muhammad's longstanding friendship with her father, Abu Bakr. As was the tradition in Arabia (and still is in some parts of the world today), marriage typically served a social and political function – a way of uniting tribes, resolving feuds, caring for widows and orphans, and generally strengthening bonds in a highly unstable and changing political environment. Of the women Muhammad married, the majority were widows. To consider the marriages of the prophet outside of these calculations is profoundly ahistorical.

What the records are clear on is that Muhammad and Aisha had a loving and egalitarian relationship, which set the standard for reciprocity, tenderness and respect enjoined by the Qur'an. Insights into their relationship, such as the fact they liked to drink out of the same cup or race one another, are indicative of a deep connection which belies any misrepresentation of their relationship.

To paint Aisha as a victim is completely at odds with her persona. She was certainly no wallflower. During a controversial battle in Muslim history, she emerged riding a camel to lead the troops. She was known for her assertive temperament and mischievous sense of humour – with Muhammad sometimes bearing the brunt of the jokes. During his lifetime, he established her authority by telling Muslims to consult her in his absence; after his death, she went to be become one of the most prolific and distinguished scholars of her time.

A stateswoman, scholar, mufti, and judge, Aisha combined spirituality, activism and knowledge and remains a role model for many Muslim women today. The gulf between her true legacy and her depiction in Islamophobic materials is not merely historically inaccurate, it is an insult to the memory of a pioneering woman.

Those who manipulate her story to justify the abuse of young girls, and those who manipulate it in order to depict Islam as a religion that legitimises such abuse have more in common than they think. Both demonstrate a disregard for what we know about the times in which Muhammad lived, and for the affirmation of female autonomy which her story illustrates.

 Taken from the Guardian

A Walk in the Garden

Photography by Tor Khan, 2012.

Taken using a Sony Exmor. 

Innocence of Muslims

Two things. First, it would appear that we still need a 'bogeyman'. To be able to define our own values, it seems easier to be able to point to the values that make us nervous. Secondly, history is written by those in power and power today is in the collective hands of the 'western' media. Whether this is print media or the various forms of digital media - internet, television and so on; those who control the media undoubtedly have the greatest influence on collective thought. In a media climate where sensation sells and profits comes before anything else; nothing is really sacred.

As we have previously seen and have often discussed on these pages, Muslims are repeatedly cast as the 'bogeyman' in the current media narrative. We are easily portrayed as irrational, volatile and confrontational or hopeless victims trapped by faith and in need of liberal intervention to uplift us. It's a simplistic media view and is formed by the majority with power. 

It therefore surprises few then, that an obscure amateur film targeting Islam with ridicule should now be the focus of considerable public attention. Protests linked to the film in Benghazi, Libya led to an attack on the US embassy and the killing of the US ambassador and similar protests have taken a grip in many other major cities in the Muslim world, and here in London too.

The reaction by Muslims itself generates debates on whether a response that is a violent reflex action, is wise. Do Muslims themselves send out the right signals and is this in accordance with the commonly agreed teachings of Islam? Muslims, of course, are diverse and the truth is there is little chance of a uniform response - even at the individual level, we do not all respond in the same manner to the challenges that face us. However, there is a vacant space between the those in power and the Muslim masses, so I guess, it matters not. The film was a deliberate jibe and the violence in protest to the film was fairly predictable especially since many Muslims are frustrated by injustices - some internal and stemming from the societies in which they live and others external - anti-Islamism coming from a media machinery that continues to reinforce stereotypes and irreligiosity. I think left alone, Muslims are more than able to find their own way.

Ultimately the unequal relationship between the Muslim world and the west hurts Muslims the most. From where we stand this is likely to continue to be a long and protracted power struggle.

May Allah keep us all safe and in faith.

Email Blues

Some time ago, I mentioned an interest in taking a MOOC. I had thought that by way of extending my knowledge in an area of interest of mine, this would be ideal preparation to the doctorate I wish to participate in at some point, InshAllah.

I confess that some of the knowledge aspects of the learning opportunity from the MOOC have been good, but the experience is not without some reservations. Ironically, it is the "Massive" part of the open online course that I have found to be the most challenging. Example: as part of the course, I am expected to participate in weekly forum discussions. Approved posts notch up points which are used in part to assess overall progress, so there is some incentive to take part in forum discussions. The problem I have found is that in participating, one ends up subscribing to a discussion threads - that every time a posting is made to a thread that I have participated in, it would generate an email notification. I suspected this anyway so I purposely kept my participation only to the most relevant topics of discussion. That said, with 26 thousand global participants in the Coursera MOOC, my inbox has been bursting with over a hundred posts daily.

I am a man with other responsibilities, time constraints and realistically it is near impossible to sift through all those posts and respond in detail. This must affect the learning experience, because by Week 2 of the eight week course, I am reticent to participate in new threads. 

MOOCs - the future of online learning? Put it this way, I liked the idea at the start ...

Paris, Encore Une Fois!

C'est Paris, créé avec Google Picasa.

Bienvenue à Paris!

Salaam. Paris calling. Bonjour tout le monde. Je vous écris cette lettre de Paris.

It's been complicated, and even though I should be familiar with the damp, I'm not quite over the weather shock after having moved from the Arabian deserts to Yorkshire. Whilst I've made a certain peace, I have needed to make minor escapes after feeling trapped by the terminally wet and grey skies - even if crossing the Pennines to view things differently (not that much to be honest), though most recently I had some time in the heart of London, which, of course, is a city which I have always found to be an exciting and dynamic place. 

Over the Eid break, I took the long train journey from the north of England picking up the Eurostar Service from London Kings Cross/St Pancras International to Paris, Garre du Nord. I have been staying close to the Rue de Quatre Septembre in the 2nd Arrondissement (2^e) in the area known as Opera. The summer air, tight cobbled streets and open air cafe atmosphere has been a welcome relief and yes, I've done the touristy things as well - taken an open top bus ride to see the sights - Notre Dame, the Latin Quartre, the Seine etc. I've paid a visit to the Louvre, seen da Vinci's Mona Lisa and taken the walk along the Jardin de Tuileries, the Place de la Concorde, the fashionable Champs-Élysées and the Arc de Triomphe. Of course, no trip to Paris is complete without a trip up the Eiffel Tower.  

Aujourd'hui, c'est ma dernière nuit à Paris. Here's taster photograph. More to follow InshAllah.

Two-Nation Theory II

... continued from previous posting ... 

Despite its vociferous campaign Muslim League could not ignite fears of Hindu domination in the support base of Bacha Khan. His comrades won the land mark elections of 1946 with a thumping majority. He opposed the Partition on the basis of religion, but it happened. His democratically elected government was dismissed 8 days after the independence, on 22 August, 1947 when Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the Governor General and Liaqat Ali Khan was the Prime Minister.

Nawabzada Liaqat Ali Khan was five-years younger to Bacha Khan. He was born in 1895 to a Muslim aristocrat family whose jagir starting at the eastern edge of Punjab (now Haryana) stretched into Uttar Pradesh. His family had cordial relations with the British. Some say the family gained fortunes and earned intimacy with the Raj, when his grandfather extended support to the British during the hard times of 1857. His father earned many a titles and honors too.

Liaqat Ali went to Aligarh and then to Oxford. On his return from London in 1923, he joined Muslim League. He contested his first elections in 1926 on a seat reserved for Muslims in the UP Assembly (Muzaffarnagar constituency) and comfortably won. He grew into an eloquent parliamentarian, pleading mostly for the causes of Muslim landlords who were a minority in that province.

He became one of the most important members of the Muslim League’s vanguard. Nawabzada is, in fact, credited to have convinced a dejected and disappointed Muhammad Ali Jinnah to end his ‘self-imposed exile’ in London and lead the movement for a separate homeland for Muslims. Liaqat Ali Khan was made the General Secretary of the Muslim League in 1936.

The party’s parliamentary committee did not award him the ticket for the 1936 elections for his home constituency which he valued highly. Despite holding a high office in the Muslim League, he contested as an independent from his home constituency and faced criticism of fellow party men.

He contested the 1946 elections for the Central Legislative Assembly on the Muslim seat of Meerut that is situated in Uttar Pradesh. Following this victory, Nawabzada won a place in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan and at independence was made the first Prime Minister with the additional charge of Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth Relations and Defense. He remained the longest serving prime minister in the history of Pakistan till Yousuf Raza Gilani exceeded him by a few weeks recently.

Prime Minister Liaqat Ali is accredited with a number of ground breaking contributions. He decided to ally with the US in the Cold War divide; quashed a coup attempt by communists; promoted General Ayub to the highest rank and fought a war with India over Kashmir to name just a select few. His government ruled on ad hoc basis under temporary laws as it could not formulate and build a consensus on a constitution for the country.

Reasons were simple. They could not dig out a monarchy to rule the country nor could they install a Caliph. The constitution has to be based on democracy. But the problem was that Meerut was now in India. The most powerful Prime Minister serving for one of the longest periods in the history of Pakistan had no constituency in the country to contest elections from. A committed democrat and an active parliamentarian, he  knew well that he and his political class had no, or at best a very shaky, future under a democracy. In contrast, Bacha Khan’s was a completely secure political position. It was impossible to democratically uproot him from his constituency. He had voters, volunteers and diehard loyalists.

The ad hoc powers were thus used to change the rules of the game.

Six months after the death of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan moved the Objective Resolution in the Constituent Assembly that introduced Islam as the raison d’être of the new country. Religion was pitched against ones linguistic and cultural identity and faith was made to rival political interests. Those loving their culture, defending their language and demanding their democratic and political rights on these bases became heretics conspiring against the last citadel of Islam in the Subcontinent. Ideological boundaries of the country became more important than the limits of electoral constituencies and principles of democracy were contrasted to injunctions of Islam as defined by the select ulema.

Bacha Khan who enjoyed a hard earned and unflinching popular support in a vast constituency went down in our official gazettes as an anti-Pakistan traitor. Red Shirts were hounded and hunted. Politicians were jailed and elections were rigged.

By declaring the entire country as one constituency and setting ones perceived Islamic credentials as the only qualification, Liaqat Ali Khan tried to create a constituency for his class – the politically insecure Muslim elite that had migrated from the Muslim minority provinces of India. But ironically, they could not sustain their hold on this constituency for long. Within a decade they were outdone by the Army in the game they had pioneered. They were declared incapable of defending the citadel of Islam. The army took over the ‘responsibility’ of keeping the country united in the name of Islam and secure from the conspirators who had strong democratic constituencies in the country.

The army did not feel the need to redraft the national narrative that was scripted in those initial years. It was found to be in perfect harmony with the Army’s own scheme to block or cripple democracy and sustain its direct or indirect rule for decades to come. The narrative persists with all its detail and corollaries and insists on its refusal to recognise Bacha Khan as a great national hero.