A Critical Exposition of the Popular 'Jihad' Part 36

4. Some will contend regarding the Bani Koreiza that their women and children were made slaves, and as such sold in Najd. Sir W. Muir quotes the judgment of Sad in the case of the Bani Koreiza,--"That the female captives and the children shall be sold into slavery," and that it was approved of by Mohammad. He writes further:--

"A fifth of the booty was, as usual, reserved for the Prophet, and the rest divided. From the fifth Mahomet made certain presents to his friends of female slaves and servants; and then sent the rest of the women and children to be sold among the Bedouin tribes of Najd in exchange for horses and arms."[347]

I have shown in para. 30 of this book (pages 37 and 38) that Mohammad never appreciated the judgment of Sad. And I have further to add that the said judgment, according to true reports, did not contain the illegal verdict of enslaving the women and children of the Bani Koreiza, as this might have gone directly against the Koran and the precedents of the Prophet. In the collections of Bokhari, Book of Campaigns, Chapter on Bani Koreiza, there are two traditions cited on the subject. Both of them quote the words of Sad to the effect that "the women and children be imprisoned." The same is the case in Bokhari's other chapters (Book of _Jihad_, Chapter on the Surrender of Enemy, Book of _Manakib_, Chapter on the Merits of Sad).

It is not a fact that Mohammad made certain presents to his friends of the female slaves out of the captives of Bani Koreiza. The captives were not made slaves, therefore it is wrong to confound captives with slaves.

There is no proof to the effect that they were enslaved. The Koran distinctly says that they were prisoners (Sura x.x.xIII, 26).

In fact, the women and children were not guilty of treason, and deserved no punishment. Sad's judgment must be either wrong regarding them, or applied only to those who were guilty. "One woman alone,"

according to Sir W. Muir, "was put to death; it was she who threw the millstone from the battlements" (Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 277). I conclude, therefore, that all the women and children were released afterwards; some ransomed themselves, others went off with their freedom. But n.o.body was ever sold in slavery. The a.s.sertion of Hishamee, quoted by Sir W. Muir, that the women and children were sent to be sold among the Bedouin tribes of Najd in exchange for horses and arms (Vol.

III, page 279), is void of all authority, and is in direct contradiction of what Abul Mo'tamar Soleiman bin Tarkhan (died 143 A.H. and was prior to Hishamee) says, and whose account seems to be more probable. His version is that the horses of Bani Koreiza were sent by Mohammad to Syria and Najd for the purpose of breeding, and that they got big horses. _Vide_ Wakidi Campaigns of Mohammad, page 374, Calcutta, 1855.

This shows that only horses, and not women and children, were sent to Najd. The words of Hishamee (page 693) are "_sabaya min sabaya Bani Koreiza_." _Sabaya_, plural of _sabi_, applies to both person and property, as they say _sabal aduvva vaghairohu_, he made captive, captured or took prisoner the enemy, and other than an enemy. (_Vide_ Lane's Arabic Dictionary, page 1303, col. 1.) So probably Hishamee had in view only the horses captured of the Bani Koreiza and sent to Najd, but not the women and children of the captives of Koreiza.

[Sidenote: Rihana.]

5. Rihana, a woman of the captives of Koreiza, is said by Sir W. Muir to have been taken by Mohammad "for his concubine." He always confounds prisoners with slaves, and female captives as well as slaves with concubines. There are several conflicting and contradictory traditions regarding Rihana. Mohammad bin Sad Katib Wakidi has related various traditions from Omar-bin-al Hakam, Mohammad bin Kab, and from other various sources that Mohammad had married Rihana. The Katib says "this tradition is held by learned men. But he has also heard some one relating that she was his concubine."[348] But Sir W. Muir chooses the latter uncertain and unauthentic traditions. He writes in a footnote:--

"She is represented as saying, when he offered her marriage and the same privileges as his other wives: 'Nay, O Prophet! But let me remain as thy slave; this will be easier both for me and for thee.'"[349]

Even if this tradition be a genuine one, he is not authorized in his remarks in the text, where he says--

"He invited her to be his wife, but she declined; and chose to remain (as indeed, having refused marriage, she had no alternative) his slave or concubine."

She was neither enslaved, nor made a concubine. It is to be regretted that the writer of the "Life of Mahomet" most absurdly confounds slavery and concubinage.

[Sidenote: Omar, the second Khalif, liberated all the Arab slaves.]

6. During the sovereignty of Omar, the second Khalif, in accordance with the injunctions of Mohammad to abolish slavery, all the existing Arab slaves were set free. It will appear that the wishes of Mohammad to that effect were but partially carried out. In ages that succeeded the death of Mohammad, they were altogether lost sight of, and even Arabs were allowed to be enslaved by the later jurists. Sir W. Muir, in his latest work, ent.i.tled "The Annals of the Early Caliphate," says:--

"Yet great numbers of the Arabs themselves were slaves, taken prisoner during the apostasy, or in the previous intertribal warfare, and held in captivity by their fellow-countrymen. Omar felt the inconsistency. It was not fit that any of the n.o.ble race should remain in bondage. When, therefore, he succeeded to the Caliphate, he decreed: 'The Lord,' he said, 'hath given to us of Arab blood the victory, and great conquests without. It is not meet that any one of us, taken in the days of Ignorance,[350] or in the wars against the apostate tribes, should be holden in slavery.' All slaves of the Arab descent were accordingly ransomed, excepting only such bondmaids as had borne their masters' children. Men who had lost wives or children now set out in search, if haply they might find and claim them. Strange tales are told of some of the disconsolate journeys. Ashath recovered two of his wives taken captive in Nojeir. But some of the women who had been carried prisoners to Medina preferred remaining with their captors."[351]

Even this speech of Omar shows that no one was enslaved during the wars of Mohammad, as he only refers to the captives of the days of Ignorance before the Prophet, and those taken in wars against the apostate tribes after him having been enslaved.

[Sidenote: Concubinage.]

7. The Koran has never allowed concubinage with female captives. And after the abolition of future slavery enjoined in the Koran, there is no good in discussing the subject of concubinage, which depends on the legality or otherwise of slavery. The Koran had taken early measures for preventing the evil directly and indirectly, positively and negatively.

In the first place, it recognizes marriage as the only legal condition of the union of both s.e.xes. Marriage was also enjoined with the existing female slaves. (_Vide_ Sura IV, 3, 29; and XXIV, 32, 33.) The prevention of concubinage is set forth in plain terms in Sura V, 7. The verses run thus:--

3. "And if ye are apprehensive that ye shall not deal fairly with orphans, then of _other_ women who seem good in your eyes marry, _but_ two or three or four, and if ye _still_ fear that ye shall not act equitably, then (marry) one only; or (marry) the slaves whom ye have acquired. This will be more proper that ye may not have numerous families or households. And give women their dowry as a free gift; but if of their own free will they kindly give up aught thereof to you, then enjoy it as convenient _and_ profitable."

29. "And whoever of you is not rich enough to marry free-believing women, then let him marry such of your believing maidens as have fallen into your hands as slaves. G.o.d well knoweth your faith. Ye are sprung, the one from the other. Marry them then with the leave of their masters, and give them a fair dower; but let them be chaste and free from fornication, and not entertainers of lovers."--Sura IV.

32. "And marry those among you who are single, and your good servants and your handmaidens. If they are poor, G.o.d of his bounty will enrich them. And G.o.d is all-bounteous, knowing. And let those who cannot find a match live in continence till G.o.d of his bounty shall enrich them."

33. "And to those of your slaves who desire a deed of _manumission_, execute it for them, if ye know good in them, and give them a portion of the wealth of G.o.d which He hath given you."--Sura XXIV. "And _you are permitted to marry_ virtuous women, who are believers, and virtuous women of those who have been given the Scriptures before you, when you have provided them their portions, living _chastely with them_ without fornication, and not taking concubines."--Sura V.

The 28th verse of the fourth Sura does by no means sanction concubinage.

It has nothing to do with it. It only treats of marriage. It, together with its preceding verse, points out whom we can marry and whom not. Its next verse interdicts concubinage when it enjoins marriage with the then existing slaves.

[Sidenote: Maria the Coptic.]

8. I will here take the opportunity of noticing Maria the Coptic, who is alleged to have been a concubine-slave of Mohammad, although she does not come under the category of prisoners made slaves. According to Sir W. Muir, the Roman Governor of Egypt had written to Mohammad:--"I send for thine acceptance two damsels, highly esteemed among the Copts."[352]

The writer converts them at once into "two slave-girls," and remarks, "a strange present, however, for a Christian Governor to make."[353] She was neither a captive, nor a slave, nor was she described as such in the Governor's letter. I am at a loss to know why or how she has been treated by the biographers of the Prophet as a slave or a concubine.

(1) I have great doubts regarding the truth of the story that Mokowkas the Governor had sent two maids to Mohammad, and taking it for granted they were so sent, that one of them was the alleged Maria; (2) it is not a fact that she was a slave; (3) nor a concubine-slave of the Prophet; (4) nor she as such bore a son to him; (5) and lastly, the notorious scandal about her much talked of by European writers is a mere calumny and a false story.

It will be a very tedious and irksome task to copy the various traditions bearing on the above subjects and to discuss their authenticity, and criticise their genuineness, on the principles of the technicalities peculiar to the Science of Traditions, as well as on the basis of scientific and rational criticism. Therefore I will notice only briefly each of the above subjects.

[Sidenote: Dispatch to Mokowkas.]

9. (1) That Mohammad had sent a dispatch to Mokowkas, the Roman Governor of Egypt, and that in reply he had sent Maria the Coptic maid, together with other presents, to Mohammad, is not to be found in the traditions collected by the best critics of Mohammadan traditions like Bokhari and Muslim, who had sifted the whole incoherent ma.s.s of genuine and apocryphal traditions regarding the Prophet, and had picked up but a very small portion of them which they thought to be relatively genuine.

We can fairly conclude that such a tradition, which is related by other non-critics and story-tellers, who have indiscriminately narrated every tradition--whether genuine or apocryphal--like Wakidi and Ibn Sad, was surely rejected by these Imams (Doctors in the Science of Tradition) as having not the least possibility of its genuineness. Even Ibn Ishak (died 150),[354] Hisham-bin-Abdul Malik (died 213 A.H.),[355] and Abul Mo'tamar Soleiman (died 143 A.H.[356])[357] have not inserted the portion of the tradition of Maria the Coptic maid being sent by the Egyptian Governor to Mohammad. The tradition narrated by Ibn Sad--(1) through Wakidi and Abd-ul-Hamid from Jafar, (2) and Abdullah bin Abdur Rahman bin Abi Sasata--is undoubtedly apocryphal, Wakidi and Abd-ul-Hamid are of impeached integrity, or no authority at all. Ibn Khallikan, in his Biographical Dictionary, translated by Slane, writes regarding Wakidi:--"The Traditions received from him are considered of feeble authority, and doubts have been expressed on the subject of his (_veracity_.)"[358] Ibn Hajar Askalani writes regarding Wakidi in his _Takrib_, that "he has been struck off as an authority (literally left out), notwithstanding his vast knowledge." Zahabi's opinion of Wakidi in Mizan-al-Etedal is that Ahmed bin Hanbal said "he was the greatest liar." Bokhari and Abu Hatim say he is struck off (or left out as an authority).

Regarding Abd-ul-Hamid, Zahabi writes that Abu Hatim said he is not quoted as an authority, and Sofian said he was a weak authority.

Jafar and Abdullah bin Abdur Rahman bin Abi Sasata are of the middle period in the Tabaeen's cla.s.s, and do not quote their authority on the subject.

[Sidenote: Maria neither a slave;]

10. (2) Supposing that the Governor of Egypt had sent two Coptic maids, with other presents, to Mohammad, it does not follow necessarily that they were slave-girls. It is never stated in history that they were captives of war, or, if they were so, that they were enslaved subsequently. There is no authority for a haphazard conjecture that they were slave-girls.

[Sidenote: nor a concubine-slave.]

11. (3) Even if it be admitted that Maria the Coptic was a slave-girl, there is no proof that she was a concubine-slave. It is a stereotyped fabrication of traditionists, and the unpardonable blunder on the part of European writers, that they almost always confound female-slaves, and even sometimes captives, with concubine-slaves. None of the six standard collectors of traditions--Imams Bokhari (died 256 A.H.), Muslim (died 261 A.H.), Aboo Daood (died 275 A.H.), Tirmizee (died 279 A.H.), Nasaee (died 303 A.H.), and Ibn Maja (died 273 A.H.)--has narrated that Maria the Coptic was a concubine-slave of the Prophet. Even the early biographers--Ibn Ishak (died 150 A.H.) and Ibn Hisham (died 213 A.H.) have not made any mention to this effect. It is only Mohammad bin Sad, the Secretary to Wakidi, who narrates the tradition,--firstly through Wakidi, Abd-ul-Hamid, and Jafar, and secondly through Wakidi, Yakoob bin Mohammad, and Abdullah bin Abdur Rahman bin Abi Sasata. These both ascriptions are apocryphal. I have already quoted my authorities against Wakidi and Abd-ul-Hamid. Yakoob bin Mohammad has been impeached by Abu Zaraa, a critic in the Science of Traditions.[359] Jafar and Abdullah both flourished after the first century. Their evidence to the supposed fact about a century ago is inadmissible.

In the Biographical Dictionaries of the contemporaries of the Prophet, there are three persons named Maria.[360] One is said to have been a housemaid of the Prophet; the second was a housemaid whose _kunniat_ (patronymic) is given as Omm Rabab (mother of Rabab). The third is called Maria the Coptic. It appears there was only one Maria; she may have been a female servant in the household of the Prophet. The narrators have, by citing different circ.u.mstances regarding them, made them three different persons, and one of them a concubine-slave, as they could not think a house or family complete without a slave-girl or a concubine-slave. The biographers often commit such blunders. In giving different anecdotes of really the same persons, they make as many persons as they have anecdotes. That anyone of the Marias was a concubine-slave is a mere conjecture, or a stereotyped form of traditional confusion in mixing up maidservants with slaves or concubine-slaves.

[Sidenote: Maria had no son.]

12. (4) Those who have converted Maria into a slave or a concubine-slave have furnished her--the creature of their own imagination--with a son.

There are various traditions as to the number and names of the Prophet's sons, all of whom died in infancy. Some traditions give different names to one, and others give as many sons as the names are reported. There might have been a son of Mohammad by the name of Ibrahim, but that he was born of Maria the Coptic is a perfect myth. This piece of the story is the continuation of the traditions of Ibn Sad, which I have already criticized in paras. 9 and 11. Ibn Sad has related another tradition through Omar bin Asim and Katada to the effect that Mohammad's son Ibrahim was born of a captive woman. Asim has been condemned by Abu Hatim, a doctor and critic in the Mohammadan traditional literature;[361] and Katada (died 117 A.H.) was not a contemporary witness of what he relates. Thus he fails in giving any authority to his narration. There are two more traditions in Ibn Sad from similar authorities like Katada, namely, Zohri (died 124 A.H.) and Mak-hool (died 118 A.H.)--not contemporaries of Mohammad, but of the cla.s.s of Tabaeen--to the effect that Mohammad had said, "Had Ibrahim lived, the capitation-tax would have been remitted to every Copt!" and that "Had Ibrahim lived, his maternal uncles would never have been enslaved!" They do not say who was Ibrahim!

Another and the last tradition in Ibn Sad through Yahia bin Hammad, Abu Avana, Soleiman-al-Aamash, Muslim, and Bara is to the effect that Ibrahim was born from a Coptic maid of the Prophet. The narrator Soleiman-al-Aamash was a _modallis_ (_Takrib_ in loco), or in other words, a liar. Besides the whole chain of the narration is _Mo-an-an_.

In none of the canonical collections of traditions like those of Bokhari, Muslim, and others Ibrahim is said to have been born of Maria.

Therefore any of their traditions regarding Ibrahim is not against us.

It is also related in some genuine traditions that an eclipse of the sun took place on the day of Ibrahim's death.[362] The historians have related only one eclipse, which occurred in the sixth year of the Hejira, when Mohammad was at Hodeibia. This shows that Ibrahim could not be Maria's son. She only could come to Arabia a year later, as the dispatches to several princes were sent only in the seventh year.

Yafaee, in his history _Mirat-uz-Zaman_, has noted that the sun was eclipsed in the sixth year of the Hejira. In the tenth year, he says,--"A genuine tradition has that the sun was eclipsed on the day of Ibrahim's death, and it has been stated above that it was eclipsed in the sixth year. There is some difficulty. It was noted once only during the time of the Prophet. If it occurred twice, there is no difficulty; and if not, one of these two events must be wrong, either the eclipse took place in the tenth year, or the Prophet's son died in the sixth year." But historically the eclipse was noticed only in the sixth year.

There are different dates of Ibrahim's death reported by the biographers--the fourth, tenth, and fourteenth of lunar months, but in none of them can an eclipse take place.

[Sidenote: The story of Haphsa and Maria a spurious one.]

13. (5) Lastly, I have to notice the infamous calumny against Mohammad concocted up by his enemies, that Haphsa surprized the Prophet in her own private room with Maria. "She reproached her lord bitterly, and threatened to make the occurrence known to all his wives. Afraid of the exposure and anxious to appease his offended wife, he begged of her to keep the matter quiet, and promised to forego the society of Maria altogether." But he afterwards released himself from it by a special revelation--(Sura LXVI, 1). Sir W. Muir remarks:--

"As in the case of Zeinab, Mahomet produced a message from Heaven, which disallowed his promise of separation from Mary...."

The pa.s.sage in the Koran relating to the affair is as follows:--