Muhammads Marriages of Political Necessity: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
no edit summary
[checked revision][checked revision]
(-)
 
mNo edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
According to apologists, "Muhammad married most of his wives for political reasons. He only married so many women at one time out of political necessity."
According to apologists, "Muhammad married most of his wives for political reasons. He only married so many women at one time out of political necessity."


First of all, this reasoning does not convince a Jew, a Christian or a Western feminist. No matter how urgent the needs of state, they argue, nothing justifies having more than one wife at a time. If Muhammad could not see any way around his political problems except polygamy, that simply proves he was not a prophet.
This reasoning does not convince many critics. No matter how urgent the needs of state, they argue, nothing justifies having more than one wife at a time. If Muhammad could not see any way around his political problems except polygamy, that simply proves he was not a "prophet".


Secondly, we might take the line that polygamy was normal in seventh-century Arabia, and Muhammad was not doing anything wrong by the standards of his own culture. That will not convince a Jew or a Christian that he was a true prophet, but it might convince a modern Westerner that he was a decent person by the standards of his day. In that case, however, we still have to ask why Muhammad limited other Muslims to four wives each, yet at one point in his own life, he had eleven wives plus the intention of adding more. When Ghaylan ibn Salama became a Muslim, he had to divorce six of his ten wives – even though this was in early 630, when Muhammad himself had exactly ten wives! Why did Muhammad pick the apparently random number of four and enforce this as the maximum number of wives, yet break this rule himself? If the answer is that it was politically necessary, we would expect some exceptional political situation that, in order to ensure the future survival of Islam, required Muhammad to marry all those women.
You might take the line that polygamy was normal in seventh-century Arabia, and Muhammad was not doing anything wrong by the standards of his own culture. That may convince a some of them that he was a decent person by the standards of his day. In that case, however, there is still the question as to why Muhammad limited other Muslims to four wives each, yet at one point in his own life, he had eleven wives plus the intention of adding more. When Ghaylan ibn Salama became a Muslim, he had to divorce six of his ten wives – even though this was in early 630, when Muhammad himself had exactly ten wives.  


Many articles have been written by Muslim apologists to explain what these exceptional political circumstances were. Such writers do describe the political advantages of Muhammad’s marriages (at some sacrifice of factual accuracy) but they never attempt to explain why the political crisis was so urgent and compelling that Muhammad was required to break his own rules. They never face the question: “If Muhammad had ''not'' married this woman, what would have been the probable consequences for Islam?”
Why did Muhammad pick the apparently random number of four and enforce this as the maximum number of wives, yet break this rule himself? If the answer is that it was politically necessary, we would expect some exceptional political situation that, in order to ensure the future survival of Islam, required Muhammad to marry all those women.


Let us try a thought-experiment. Imagine that Muhammad’s first wife, '''[[Khadijah bint Khuwaylid]]''', had lived another 15 years. Imagine that she, and not [[Aisha]] or any other woman, had smoothed his pillow as he lay dying. Imagine that Khadija had remained his only wife ever. Would this have been a great disaster for Islam? What would have been the consequences for the great political crises of Muhammad’s life? Let us briefly list the major political disasters that Muhammad faced, together with a few words on how he handled them.
Many articles have been written by apologists to explain what these exceptional political circumstances were. Such writers do describe the political advantages of Muhammad’s marriages (at some sacrifice of factual accuracy) but they never attempt to explain why the political crisis was so urgent and compelling that Muhammad was required to break his own rules. They never face the question: “If Muhammad had ''not'' married this woman, what would have been the probable consequences for Islam?”
 
Let's try a thought-experiment. Imagine that Muhammad’s first wife, [[Khadijah bint Khuwaylid]], had lived another 15 years. Imagine that she, and not [[Aisha]] or any other woman, had been beside him as he lay dying. Imagine that Khadijah had remained his only wife ever. Would this have been a great disaster for Islam? What would have been the consequences for the great political crises of Muhammad’s life? Let's briefly list the major political disasters that Muhammad faced, together with a few words on how he handled them.


# '''616-619'''. The Quraysh enforced a trade blockade against the Hashim clan in Mecca. The Muslims survived by living off Khadijah’s wealth. Although the Muslim historians do not state this directly, the blockade was ''probably'' lifted because Muhammad agreed to the Satanic Verses compromise.
# '''616-619'''. The Quraysh enforced a trade blockade against the Hashim clan in Mecca. The Muslims survived by living off Khadijah’s wealth. Although the Muslim historians do not state this directly, the blockade was ''probably'' lifted because Muhammad agreed to the Satanic Verses compromise.
Line 15: Line 17:
# '''627'''. The Meccans, together with a few Bedouin chiefs and exiled Jews, besieged Medina, hoping to kill Muhammad in the battle. Muhammad dug a trench around Medina and so the siege failed. Muhammad then conquered a Kilab tribe and secured from them a trade blockade against Mecca. By the time Muhammad agreed to end the blockade (the date is not given, but the Meccans had become hungry), the Meccans had learned not to attack Muhammad directly. If Khadijah had been alive, Muhammad would have probably conquered the Kilabites and blockaded Mecca in exactly the same way.
# '''627'''. The Meccans, together with a few Bedouin chiefs and exiled Jews, besieged Medina, hoping to kill Muhammad in the battle. Muhammad dug a trench around Medina and so the siege failed. Muhammad then conquered a Kilab tribe and secured from them a trade blockade against Mecca. By the time Muhammad agreed to end the blockade (the date is not given, but the Meccans had become hungry), the Meccans had learned not to attack Muhammad directly. If Khadijah had been alive, Muhammad would have probably conquered the Kilabites and blockaded Mecca in exactly the same way.
# '''628'''. Meanwhile, Muhammad took a pre-emptive strike against the surviving Jews. After a war of conquest against Khaybar, every Jew in Arabia was reduced to vassalage. There was a danger that their Ghatafan allies would retaliate, so Muhammad stock-piled weapons in anticipation. If Khadijah had been alive, perhaps she and not Hind would have been the one who carried the first aid box to Khaybar.
# '''628'''. Meanwhile, Muhammad took a pre-emptive strike against the surviving Jews. After a war of conquest against Khaybar, every Jew in Arabia was reduced to vassalage. There was a danger that their Ghatafan allies would retaliate, so Muhammad stock-piled weapons in anticipation. If Khadijah had been alive, perhaps she and not Hind would have been the one who carried the first aid box to Khaybar.
# '''630'''. After Mecca was starved out, Muhammad mustered an army of ten thousand and marched in to conquer the city. The “Duke” of Mecca was converted at swordpoint, and the city surrendered. This served as a warning to the Ghatafans, and even the Yemenites negotiated an “alliance” (surrender) rather than face the Muslim armies. If Khadijah had been alive it’s really difficult to imagine how anything at all would have been different.
# '''630'''. After Mecca was starved out, Muhammad mustered an army of ten thousand and marched in to conquer the city. The “Duke” of Mecca was converted at sword-point, and the city surrendered. This served as a warning to the Ghatafans, and even the Yemenites negotiated an “alliance” (surrender) rather than face the Muslim armies. If Khadijah had been alive, it’s really difficult to imagine how anything at all would have been different.
# '''630–632'''. Muhammad conquered whatever was left of Arabia. By the time of his death, he was effectively “King”. If Khadija had been alive, she would have been “Queen”.
# '''630–632'''. Muhammad conquered whatever was left of Arabia. By the time of his death, he was effectively “King”. If Khadijah had been alive, she would have been “Queen”.


NONE of these political crises was solved by a marriage alliance. If Khadijah had survived, it would have made little difference to the fortunes of Islam. Muhammad would have conquered the peninsula and imposed his religion upon it just the same.  
None of these political crises was solved by a marriage alliance. If Khadijah had survived, it would have made little difference to the fortunes of Islam. Muhammad would have conquered the peninsula and imposed his religion upon it just the same.  


So let’s try a different thought-experiment. What would Islam have lost if Muhammad had failed to marry any of the other women?  
So let’s try a different thought-experiment. What would Islam have lost if Muhammad had failed to marry any of the other women?  


# If he hadn’t married '''Aisha''', '''Sawdah''' or '''Hafsah''', he might have had to think of a different way of raising money. However, what with begging, plundering and taxing, Muhammad seemed to have had that problem worked out.  
# If he hadn’t married Aisha, Sawdah or Hafsah, he might have had to think of a different way of raising money. However, what with the plundering and taxing, Muhammad seemed to have had that problem worked out.  
# If he hadn’t married '''[[Zaynab bint Jahsh]]''', he would have saved himself quite a bit of trouble, as this marriage – the first to break his “four wives only” rule – caused him social embarrassment on several fronts.
# If he hadn’t [[Cousin Marriage in Islam|married his cousin]] Zaynab bint Jahsh, he would have saved himself quite a bit of trouble, as this marriage – the first to break his “four wives only” rule – caused him social embarrassment on several fronts.
# If he hadn’t married '''Mulaykah''', '''Fatima''', '''Asma''' or '''Amrah''', he wouldn’t have had to divorce them, which might have kept his relations with their families smoother. But never mind about this – only Asma was of any political importance, and the divorce proved that even she was not as important as her family had hoped.
# If he hadn’t married Mulaykah, Fatima, Asma or Amrah, he wouldn’t have had to divorce them, which might have kept his relations with their families smoother. But never mind about this – only Asma was of any political importance, and the divorce proved that even she was not as important as her family had hoped.
# If he hadn’t married '''Zaynab bint Khuzaymah''', '''Hind''' or '''Maymunah''', nothing at all would have changed.
# If he hadn’t married Zaynab bint Khuzaymah, Hind or Maymunah, nothing at all would have changed.
# If he hadn’t taken four '''slave-concubines''' who were of no political importance of all, it’s just possible that he could have avoided the accusation of being a womaniser.
# If he hadn’t taken four slave-concubines who were of no political importance of all, it’s just possible that he could have avoided the accusation of being a womanizer.


Only three of Muhammad’s marriages can seriously be considered “political” in any sense. These three marriages were all contracted in 628. But how crucial were the political issues in that year?
Only three of Muhammad’s marriages can seriously be considered “political” in any sense. These three marriages were all contracted in 628. But how crucial were the political issues in that year?


# '''Juwayriyah''' was the daughter of a petty chief whose tribe was flattened in a single raid. This tribe was not going to be any more trouble to Muhammad regardless of whether he married the chief’s daughter. Muhammad conquered plenty of more important tribes over the years, but he did not need to marry the chiefs’ daughters in order to maintain their submission.
# Juwayriyah was the daughter of a petty chief whose tribe was flattened in a single raid. This tribe was not going to be any more trouble to Muhammad regardless of whether he married the chief’s daughter. Muhammad conquered plenty of more important tribes over the years, but he did not need to marry the chiefs’ daughters in order to maintain their submission.
# '''Ramlah''' was the daughter of Abu Sufyan, the “Duke” of Mecca. She had defected to Islam several years earlier and had barely spoken to her father since. It did not seem to bother her that the Muslims had killed her brother at the Battle of Badr or that Muhammad had sent assassins after her father (these assassins failed their assignment, but everyone knew that Muhammad had tried it). So marrying Ramlah did not create any kind of “alliance” with Abu Sufyan. Rather, it enabled Muhammad to deliver a psychological snub to his enemy, whose own daughter had rejected her father in his favour. Even when Abu Sufyan tried to negotiate through his daughter for peace with Muhammad, she refused to cooperate. This marriage might have been a psychological blow to the unlucky father, but it is unlikely that he was so discouraged that it directly contributed to his eventual defeat.
# Ramlah was the daughter of Abu Sufyan, the “Duke” of Mecca. She had defected to Islam several years earlier and had barely spoken to her father since. It did not seem to bother her that the Muslims had killed her brother at the Battle of Badr or that Muhammad had sent assassins after her father (these assassins failed their assignment, but everyone knew that Muhammad had tried it). So marrying Ramlah did not create any kind of “alliance” with Abu Sufyan. Rather, it enabled Muhammad to deliver a psychological snub to his enemy, whose own daughter had rejected her father in his favour. Even when Abu Sufyan tried to negotiate through his daughter for peace with Muhammad, she refused to cooperate. This marriage might have been a psychological blow to the unlucky father, but it is unlikely that he was so discouraged that it directly contributed to his eventual defeat.
# '''[[Safiyah]]''' was the First Lady of Khaybar; she was related to everyone of importance in the Jewish community. Muhammad married her after he had humiliated Khaybar. This “alliance” brought no advantages to the Jews. The dying Muhammad actually stated in Safiyah’s presence that he wanted all the remaining Jews ejected from Arabia! It is highly doubtful that the marriage discouraged the Jews from further rebellion against Muhammad. The reason they gave him no more trouble was that they were not powerful enough to do so. If they had been strong enough to defy Muhammad, they would probably not have been deterred by the fact that Safiyah was a “hostage” in Medina; in true Jewish spirit, Safiyah herself would have expected her people to sacrifice her for the greater good.
# [[Safiyah]] was the First Lady of Khaybar; she was related to everyone of importance in the Jewish community. Muhammad married her after he had humiliated Khaybar. This “alliance” brought no advantages to the Jews. The dying Muhammad actually stated in Safiyah’s presence that he wanted all the remaining Jews ejected from Arabia! It is highly doubtful that the marriage discouraged the Jews from further rebellion against Muhammad. The reason they gave him no more trouble was that they were not powerful enough to do so. If they had been strong enough to defy Muhammad, they would probably not have been deterred by the fact that Safiyah was a “hostage” in Medina; Safiyah herself would have probably expected her people to sacrifice her for the greater good.


If Muhammad had not married these three women, it is practically certain that their respective tribes would not have altered their behaviour in any way. He did not ''need'' these marriages for political reasons. The brides were simply trophies.
If Muhammad had not married these three women, it is practically certain that their respective tribes would not have altered their behavior in any way. He did not ''need'' these marriages for political reasons. The brides were simply trophies.
48,466

edits

Navigation menu