48,466
edits
Khadijah bint Khuwaylid: Difference between revisions
m
→Controversial Wedding
| [checked revision] | [checked revision] |
m (→Children) |
|||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
Khadijah asked for a dower of 20 camels.<ref>Guillaume/Ishaq 82; Ibn Hisham note 918.</ref> Twenty camels would have been worth about £8,000,<ref>Numerous ''ahadith'' such as {{Bukhari|2|24|528}} and {{Muslim|10|3893}} indicate that a camel cost about 80 ''dirhams'', although this varied with the age and health of the camel. Hence 20 camels would be worth 1,600 ''dirhams''. {{Bukhari|5|59|357}} indicates that an annual income of 5,000 ''dirhams'' was a comfortable living, so Khadijah’s dower was equivalent to four months’ (middle-class) income. However, it seems that a frugal person could survive on a ''dirham'' a day ([http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Muir/Life4/chap25.htm/ Muir (1861) vol. 4 p. 156]), so the same sum came to over four years’ wages for a labourer. While it is almost impossible to calculate equivalent prices for such a different culture, the ''dirham'', a silver coin, was the price of a wooden bowl or a ground-sheet ({{Abudawud|9|1637}}) or a cheap necklace ({{Abudawud|14|2704}}), so we might, very roughly, think of a ''dirham'' as £5. A ''dinar'', a gold coin worth 10 ''dirhams'', was the price of a sheep.</ref> which was four times the dower that Muhammad gave to any of his subsequent wives.<ref>{{Tabari|39|p. 189}}. See also Ibn Hisham note 918. The same 400 ''dirhams'' (£2,000) was also the ransom for a war-captive ({{Abudawud|14|2685}}) or the starting price for a slave ({{Tabari|39|p. 6}}).</ref> This suggests that Khadijah was “worth four women” to him, i.e. that it was part of their marriage contract that he would not take another wife in her lifetime. A poor man like Muhammad would have had some trouble amassing such a hefty gift, even if he returned all the beasts that Khadijah had personally given him (she had paid his commissions in camels).<ref>[http://www.soebratie.nl/religie/hadith/IbnSad.html#Book 34.1/ Ibn Saad, ''Tabaqat'' 1:34:2.]</ref> His good fortune in attracting the wealthiest woman in Mecca must have delighted the investment-seeking Abu Talib, and we can only assume that the family combined resources to raise the dower. | Khadijah asked for a dower of 20 camels.<ref>Guillaume/Ishaq 82; Ibn Hisham note 918.</ref> Twenty camels would have been worth about £8,000,<ref>Numerous ''ahadith'' such as {{Bukhari|2|24|528}} and {{Muslim|10|3893}} indicate that a camel cost about 80 ''dirhams'', although this varied with the age and health of the camel. Hence 20 camels would be worth 1,600 ''dirhams''. {{Bukhari|5|59|357}} indicates that an annual income of 5,000 ''dirhams'' was a comfortable living, so Khadijah’s dower was equivalent to four months’ (middle-class) income. However, it seems that a frugal person could survive on a ''dirham'' a day ([http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Muir/Life4/chap25.htm/ Muir (1861) vol. 4 p. 156]), so the same sum came to over four years’ wages for a labourer. While it is almost impossible to calculate equivalent prices for such a different culture, the ''dirham'', a silver coin, was the price of a wooden bowl or a ground-sheet ({{Abudawud|9|1637}}) or a cheap necklace ({{Abudawud|14|2704}}), so we might, very roughly, think of a ''dirham'' as £5. A ''dinar'', a gold coin worth 10 ''dirhams'', was the price of a sheep.</ref> which was four times the dower that Muhammad gave to any of his subsequent wives.<ref>{{Tabari|39|p. 189}}. See also Ibn Hisham note 918. The same 400 ''dirhams'' (£2,000) was also the ransom for a war-captive ({{Abudawud|14|2685}}) or the starting price for a slave ({{Tabari|39|p. 6}}).</ref> This suggests that Khadijah was “worth four women” to him, i.e. that it was part of their marriage contract that he would not take another wife in her lifetime. A poor man like Muhammad would have had some trouble amassing such a hefty gift, even if he returned all the beasts that Khadijah had personally given him (she had paid his commissions in camels).<ref>[http://www.soebratie.nl/religie/hadith/IbnSad.html#Book 34.1/ Ibn Saad, ''Tabaqat'' 1:34:2.]</ref> His good fortune in attracting the wealthiest woman in Mecca must have delighted the investment-seeking Abu Talib, and we can only assume that the family combined resources to raise the dower. | ||
Marriage required the consent of the bride’s guardian, and Khadijah’s father had refused her previous suitors. She therefore plotted to secure his permission through trickery. She plied | Marriage required the consent of the bride’s guardian, and Khadijah’s father Khuwaylid had refused her previous suitors. She therefore plotted to secure his permission through trickery. She plied her father with wine until he was drunk. Then she slaughtered a cow, covered his shoulders with a new striped robe and sprinkled him with perfume, whereupon Muhammad and his uncles entered the house. Khadijah extracted the legally binding words from her father while he was too inebriated to know what he was saying. As the day wore on and the wedding party was in full swing, Khuwaylid recovered his sobriety enough to ask, “What is this meat, this robe and this perfume?” Khadijah replied, “You have given me in marriage to Muhammad ibn Abdullah.” Khuwaylid was as furious as his daughter had expected, protesting that he had never consented to any such thing and even unsheathing his sword. Muhammad’s kin also brandished weapons before everyone realised that the matter was not worth actual bloodshed. It was too late. Muhammad was Khadijah’s husband.<ref>{{Tabari|6|p. 49}}. [http://www.soebratie.nl/religie/hadith/IbnSad.html#Book 35.4/ Ibn Saad, ''Tabaqat'' 1:35:4, 5.] See also Guillaume/Ishaq 83 and Ibn Hisham note 918.</ref> | ||
[[File:Bridal Henna.jpg|right|thumb|{{Tabari|39|p. 190}} mentions the Arab custom of painting a bride’s hands with henna.|250px]] | [[File:Bridal Henna.jpg|right|thumb|{{Tabari|39|p. 190}} mentions the Arab custom of painting a bride’s hands with henna.|250px]] | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
Although the Muslim historian Waqidi denied this embarrassing story (even while reporting it), the British historian Muir points out that nobody had any reason to fabricate it. The tradition is from two independent sources, both of whom were biased in Muhammad’s favour and neither of whom had any reason to disparage Khadijah’s father or his clan. Two further independent sources, without mentioning the drunken party, state that it was Khuwaylid who married Khadijah to Muhammad. Although Waqidi claims that it was Khadijah’s uncle who gave her away because her father had died before the Sacrilegious War (591-594), his pupil Ibn Saad names Khuwaylid as a commander in that war. Muir therefore concludes that the tradition of Khuwaylid’s death “has been invented, to throw discredit on the story of his drunkenness.”<ref>[http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Muir/Life2/chap2.htm/ Muir (1861) vol. 2 p. 24f]. See also {{Tabari|6|pp. 48-50}}; Ibn Hisham note 918.</ref> | Although the Muslim historian Waqidi denied this embarrassing story (even while reporting it), the British historian Muir points out that nobody had any reason to fabricate it. The tradition is from two independent sources, both of whom were biased in Muhammad’s favour and neither of whom had any reason to disparage Khadijah’s father or his clan. Two further independent sources, without mentioning the drunken party, state that it was Khuwaylid who married Khadijah to Muhammad. Although Waqidi claims that it was Khadijah’s uncle who gave her away because her father had died before the Sacrilegious War (591-594), his pupil Ibn Saad names Khuwaylid as a commander in that war. Muir therefore concludes that the tradition of Khuwaylid’s death “has been invented, to throw discredit on the story of his drunkenness.”<ref>[http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Muir/Life2/chap2.htm/ Muir (1861) vol. 2 p. 24f]. See also {{Tabari|6|pp. 48-50}}; Ibn Hisham note 918.</ref> | ||
This story highlights the Arab assumption that marriage was a contract between bridegroom and father-in-law in which they transferred the guardianship of a woman. It was somewhat similar to buying a camel: the purchase required the consent of the vendor. Muhammad never questioned this view of marriage. It would have been highly convenient for him to perceive some of his marriages, including the one to Khadijah, as purely a contract between husband and wife. Yet there is no evidence that this concept ever occurred to him, even after he declared himself the final prophet who was wise for all time and had authority to change all the rules. To the end of his life, he was particular about meeting the legal requirement to contract with a guardian;<ref>E.g., see Bewley/Saad 8:63, 65; {{Tabari|39|pp. 178-179}}; Bewley/Saad 8:105.</ref> he never questioned that every woman belonged to | This story highlights the Arab assumption that marriage was a contract between bridegroom and father-in-law in which they transferred the guardianship of a woman. It was somewhat similar to buying a camel: the purchase required the consent of the vendor. Muhammad never questioned this view of marriage. It would have been highly convenient for him to perceive some of his marriages, including the one to Khadijah, as purely a contract between husband and wife. Yet there is no evidence that this concept ever occurred to him, even after he declared himself the final prophet who was wise for all time and had authority to change all the rules. To the end of his life, he was particular about meeting the legal requirement to contract with a guardian;<ref>E.g., see Bewley/Saad 8:63, 65; {{Tabari|39|pp. 178-179}}; Bewley/Saad 8:105.</ref> he never questioned that every woman belonged to a man. | ||
This story also reveals how Khadijah and Muhammad understood consent. It did not need to be “free” or “informed”; any type of consent was legally binding. This theme was to recur in Muhammad’s life. He was to extract consent at sword-point,<ref>E.g., Guillaume/Ishaq 547.</ref> under duress,<ref>E.g., Guillaume/Ishaq 314-315. Bewley/Saad 8:87-88.</ref> from an immature or unsound mind,<ref>E.g., Bewley/Saad 8:43.</ref> by withholding essential information,<ref>E.g., Guillaume/Ishaq 463-464. {{Tabari|39|p. 165}}.</ref> by offering a false dichotomy between two bad alternatives,<ref>Bewley/Saad 8:40. Guillaume/Ishaq 493.</ref> by exploiting spiritual beliefs,<ref>[http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=36&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0/ Jalalayn, ''Tafsir'' Q33:36]. See also {{Quran|33|36}}. {{Bukhari|3|43|648}}, {{Muslim|4|3511}}.</ref> through bribery<ref>Guillaume/Ishaq 438; 594-597.</ref> or by making promises that he intended to break.<ref>E.g., Guillaume/Ishaq 504, 509. Bewley/Saad 8:181-182.</ref> Yet he never suggested there was any kind of ethical problem in extracting consent in whatever manner might succeed; it was the one who consented to Muhammad, no matter how, who was morally obliged to stand by his word. | This story also reveals how Khadijah and Muhammad understood consent. It did not need to be “free” or “informed”; any type of consent was legally binding. This theme was to recur in Muhammad’s life. He was to extract consent at sword-point,<ref>E.g., Guillaume/Ishaq 547.</ref> under duress,<ref>E.g., Guillaume/Ishaq 314-315. Bewley/Saad 8:87-88.</ref> from an immature or unsound mind,<ref>E.g., Bewley/Saad 8:43.</ref> by withholding essential information,<ref>E.g., Guillaume/Ishaq 463-464. {{Tabari|39|p. 165}}.</ref> by offering a false dichotomy between two bad alternatives,<ref>Bewley/Saad 8:40. Guillaume/Ishaq 493.</ref> by exploiting spiritual beliefs,<ref>[http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=33&tAyahNo=36&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0/ Jalalayn, ''Tafsir'' Q33:36]. See also {{Quran|33|36}}. {{Bukhari|3|43|648}}, {{Muslim|4|3511}}.</ref> through bribery<ref>Guillaume/Ishaq 438; 594-597.</ref> or by making promises that he intended to break.<ref>E.g., Guillaume/Ishaq 504, 509. Bewley/Saad 8:181-182.</ref> Yet he never suggested there was any kind of ethical problem in extracting consent in whatever manner might succeed; it was the one who consented to Muhammad, no matter how, who was morally obliged to stand by his word. | ||