Mr. Shahzad Saleem, in his editorial of April 1995, has
taken up the issue of the marriages of the Prophet (s.w.s). In his clear and
straight forward manner he has successfully elucidated the problem with
reference to the emerging Islamic ethos and against the historical back drop of
the socio-dynamics of the tribal society of the 7th century Arabia. What
distinguishes his exposition from similar attempts in the past, which usually
stopped short at political, sociological, biological, and
sentimental arguments, is
that he has not only given due attention to the historical details of the
problem but has also tried to situate it in the perspective defined by the twin
functions of Nabi (prophet) and Rasul (messenger) joined in the person of the
Prophet of Islam.
In what follows we offer a few additional comments that may
help to elucidate some intrinsic aspects of the problem that have not received
sufficient emphasis due to other considerations, perhaps, but which still remain
in need of further elaboration for a proper understanding of the matter.
Through out the centuries generations of Muslims have loved
and venerated their prophet, in accordance with their varying degrees of
understanding and capabilities, with out entertaining any qualms over the number
of marriages of the Prophet in particular or his attitude towards the
concomitant issues that invariably arise whenever the topic is approached in
discussion. Reflection should, therefore, be done to discern the reasons that
gave rise to all sorts of objections concerning the issue of the marriages of
the Prophet at a particular stage in history. It
should also be considered that critics included both Muslims and non-muslims
alike as Shahzad Saleem has mentioned at the beginning of his editorial.
According to our estimations the criticism, grosso modo stems from two
shortcomings on the part of the critics. Firstly, there is a lack of real
familiarity with the life of Muhammad (S.W.S) according to the traditional
sources. We say `traditional sources' because the profane biographers of the
Prophet, whether Muslim, Jew or Christian, always seek to 'excuse him, the
former in a lay and anti--christian sense and the latter, even in favourable
cases, with a sort of psychological condescension. Any how, when one has
acquired a real familiarity with the life of the Prophet the elements that stand
out and which testify to
his (S.W.S) supreme sanctity and saving power, also explain the occurrence of
all sorts of family and political vicissitudes. This real familiarity also
leaves no room for having doubts about
the fact that through his marriages the Prophet (S.W.S) made a dilebrate entry
into the earthly and
social sphere and ipso facto an integration of collective human life into the
spiritual realm given the nature of the prophetic substance. This last mentioned
point calls for a certain digression.
Every divine messenger apart from bringing a message,
lawgiving or other wise, is a human respectable par excellence of divine
qualities which are subsequently deployed on the earthly and human plane in
accordance with the circumstances of his times. Emphasis differs in the case of
different divine messengers allowing us to bring out a fundamental distinction:
there are those Revealers who represent exclusively the other world (i.e.
nubuwwah), there are also those whose attitude is at the same time divinely
contemplative and humanly combative and constructive (risalah). In the latter
case the spiritual reality of the messenger is wrapped in certain human and
earthly veils, and this is because of the function of the messenger as a
legislator "for this world". Former type is represented by Jesus, Buddha, some
prophets of Israel and Hindu Avatars where as the latter type is represented by
Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon and above all Muhammad (S.W.S)
Shehzad Saleem has tried to remove the `veils', mentioned
above, by looking at the marriages of the Prophet from outside and,
consequently, arrived at the result that, from this angle, most of the marriages
had a political aspect, politics having here a sacred significance connected
with the establishing on earth of a reflection of the City of God which formed a
part of his function of Rasul. But to say that much only leaves the crux of the
matter untouched and stops short at an other, though refined, kind of
`utilitarianism' -----
provisionally termed as educational/political or at the most, religious
utilitarianism. It does point toward the fact that, in the case of the Prophet
marriage has a spiritualized character, as indeed has everything in the life of
such a being because of the metaphysical transparency which phenomenon then
assume. But the
`transparency of phenomenon or the spiritualized character of marriages is taken
into consideration only upto a certain extent. The treatment , does not extend
itself to the more fundamental and intrinsic aspect of relationship between the
male and female sexes which manifest itself in the polarisation of being at its
deepest levels--- metaphysical, androgynec, archetypal and psychological. This
brings us to consider the second shortcoming of the critics that we mentioned
earlier. It comprises in the limitations of a moralistic theology, Christian in
origin but which, nevertheless, has influenced Muslim minds as well. It works on
the premises that, in principle, to realize God one must reject the world, since
the latter moves as away form God in a variety of ways.
Thus a spiritualized character is denied to such a fundamental aspect of human
psyche as the sexual union between the male and female. According to their
logic, marriage and especially polygamy are opposed to spirituality, more to a
asceticism. A prophet
being a spiritual figure par excellence should consider it below his dignity to
participate in this activity, more so in its multiplicity i.e. polygamy. This is
completely at the antipodes of the Islamic perspective and the worldview that
informs it which regards marriage and thereby the union of sexes as having a
sacramental quality. Islamic
perspective is founded on the following principle: everything that has a natural
and positive character is
compatible, in principle if not always in fact, with the highest spirituality
and may thereby assume the role of support or aid with respect to contemplation
and realization. In other words, no positive or natural thing removes us from
god by its nature as such. This is the perspective incarnated by the prophet (S.W.S).
His domestic and personal life, which has been recorded down to the minutest
details, and his relationship with this wifes all testify to the fact that in
case of his marriages, the intrinsic aspect of union took precedence over other
considerations that were of a secondary and contingent nature. As said earlier,
like every thing else, marriage also assumed a spiritualized character, not
because it served as a means to an end but for its fundamentally sacramental
nature based on the metaphysical transparency of things. We understand that
given the special mind -set of our critics as sell as the prevailing climate of
opinion, it is quite difficult to make people accept the point of view that we
have adopted here without entering into a detailed elaboration of all the
concomitant questions of human sexuality, relation between sanctity and
sexuality on the one hand and beauty and love on the other, and the message and
significance of human body. This is an obvious impossibility within the limits
of the present discourse. However, two points are to be mentioned here which
make an explicit reference to the precedence of the spiritual, archetypal and
psychic over the more outward aspects of masculine -feminine relationship. One
of these points is, infact, quoted by Mr Shehzad Saleem but he could not work
out its implications for our theme. When the Prophet (S.W.S) was given final
directives on these matters (Qur'an, 33:50-2) it was said that, ".... All other
women besides these are not lawful for you nor can you change them for other
wives, even though their beauty attracts you except those who are your
slave-girls". The raison de etre of marriage is clear. It is primarily the
attraction that exists between the human male and female and which is itself an
earthly and pale reflection of the Divine love and mercy. That
is to say that, in this connection, man is the instrument of the Divine will
concerning terrestrial expansion. The purpose of sexuality is consequently the
preservation of the species and the multiplication of individuals; but it has
also a contemplative function by virtue of its prototypes in divinis or, what
amounts to the same thing, by virtue of the metaphysical transparency of symbols
In the second place mention may be made of the famous
hadith which says that "Women, perfumes and prayer were made (by God) worthy of
love to me". People who have no idea either of oriental symbolism in general or
of the Islamic perspective in particular attribute it to an astonishing
arbitrariness and worldliness. The usual response given to the criticism made of
this ternary mentioned in the saying of the Prophet (S.W.S), though plausible,
does not seem sufficient enough. It says that since the Christian ascetics
abstained from these things they were explicitly mentioned to elucidate the
Islamic perspective in contradistinction to the christian---ascetical
perspective. While admitting that this could be true on a certain level me would
like to add that, firstly, one may not lose sight of the fact that the third
element of the ternary i.e. prayer, was the sole vocation of the monks and
its mention cannot possibly serve as a point of distinction. Secondly, in our
view, the statement should be interpreted on a level higher than that of
historical exigency. This saying of the Prophet (S.W.S) provides us with a
doctrine which, far from being arbitrary, is entirely homogeneous and which is
once again founded on the metaphysical transparency of things, mentioned
earlier in our comments. Its symbolism provides us with a concise doctrine of
the outward reverberations of the love of the Inward. Woman synthesizes in her
substance what is most lovable for man; in her highest aspect, she is the formal
projection of merciful and infinite Inwardness in the outward; and in this
regard she assumes a quasi--sacramental and liberating function. As
for `perfumes", they represent qualities or beauties that are formless; that is
to say that side by side with the formal projection of Inwardness, there exists
also a complementary formless projection, symbolized, not by visual or tangible
qualities, but by olfactory ones.
As for `prayer', the third element mentioned in the hadith,
its function is precisely to lead from the outward to the Inward, and it both
consecrates and transmutes the qualitative elements of the outward realm.
The nature of the three elements of the ternar can be
further delineated with the help of the notions---enumerated in the
corresponding order---of `beauty', love' and `sanctity': it is beauty and love
that reflect the Inward in the outward, and it is sanctity, or the sacred, which
establishes the bridge---in both directions---between the outward and inward
planes.
To put another way: things are accursed ---or
perishable ----in so far
as they are purely outward and externalizing, but not in so far as they
actualize the remembrance of God and manifest the archetypes contained in the
inward and Divine Reality. And
every thing in the world that surrounds us which gives vise to a concomitance of
our love of God or of our choice of the `inward dimension' is at the same time
a concomitance of the love which God shows towards us. This is precisely what is
expressed by the turn of phrase: `They (women and perfumes) were made (by God)
worthy of love to me.
Compiled by: Muhammad al-Murid
form `Isa Nur al-Din's Understanding Islam and Dimensions of Islam.
Moreover, it could be asserted that Christ, without any doubt, was not
opposed to marriage, nor was he, perhaps, opposed to polygamy either. The
former is testified to by his consecrating or blessing marriage at Cana and to
the latter the parable of the ten virgins bears a witness.
Ashraf `Ali Thanawi, who advocated the `biological argument' in his treatise
on the Prophet's marriages, takes a different position regarding the attraction
mentioned in the text; a stance which is more in accordance with our point of
view. In one of his sermons, he said that the reason that the people of God (ahl
Ullah) were more strongly attracted towards conjugal love is that while for the
ordinary man carnal ecstasy was an end in itself, the godly men received `the
unveiling of (divine) love' (tajalli Hubbi) in it.
|