Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Volume 7: Surah An-Nisaa, Verses 2-6

وَآتُوا الْيَتَامَىٰ أَمْوَالَهُمْۖ وَلَا تَتَبَدَّلُوا الْخَبِيثَ بِالطَّيِّبِۖ وَلَا تَأْكُلُوا أَمْوَالَهُمْ إِلَىٰ أَمْوَالِكُمْۚ إِنَّهُ كَانَ حُوبًا كَبِيرًا ﴿٢﴾ وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تُقْسِطُوا فِي الْيَتَامَىٰ فَانكِحُوا مَا طَابَ لَكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاءِ مَثْنَىٰ وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَۖ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْۚ ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰ أَلَّا تَعُولُوا ﴿٣﴾ وَآتُوا النِّسَاءَ صَدُقَاتِهِنَّ نِحْلَةًۚ فَإِن طِبْنَ لَكُمْ عَن شَيْءٍ مِّنْهُ نَفْسًا فَكُلُوهُ هَنِيئًا مَّرِيئًا ﴿٤﴾ وَلَا تُؤْتُوا السُّفَهَاءَ أَمْوَالَكُمُ الَّتِي جَعَلَ اللَّـهُ لَكُمْ قِيَامًا وَارْزُقُوهُمْ فِيهَا وَاكْسُوهُمْ وَقُولُوا لَهُمْ قَوْلًا مَّعْرُوفًا ﴿٥﴾ وَابْتَلُوا الْيَتَامَىٰ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغُوا النِّكَاحَ فَإِنْ آنَسْتُم مِّنْهُمْ رُشْدًا فَادْفَعُوا إِلَيْهِمْ أَمْوَالَهُمْۖ وَلَا تَأْكُلُوهَا إِسْرَافًا وَبِدَارًا أَن يَكْبَرُواۚ وَمَن كَانَ غَنِيًّا فَلْيَسْتَعْفِفْۖ وَمَن كَانَ فَقِيرًا فَلْيَأْكُلْ بِالْمَعْرُوفِۚ فَإِذَا دَفَعْتُمْ إِلَيْهِمْ أَمْوَالَهُمْ فَأَشْهِدُوا عَلَيْهِمْۚ وَكَفَىٰ بِاللَّـهِ حَسِيبًا ﴿٦﴾

And give to the orphans their property, and do not substitute worthless (things) for (their) good (ones), and do not devour their property (as an addition) to your own property; this is surely a great crime (2). And if you fear that you can not act equitable towards orphans, then marry such (other) women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is nearer that you may not deviate from the right course (3). And give women their dowries as free gift but if they of themselves be pleased to give up to you a portion of it, then eat it with enjoyment (and with) wholesome (result) (4). And do not give away your property which Allah has made for you a (means of) support to the weak of understanding, and maintain them out of it, and clothe them and speak to them with kind words (5). And test the orphans until they reach (age of) marriage, then if you find in them maturity of intellect, make over to them their property, and do not consume it extravagantly and hastily, lest they attain to full age; and whoever is rich, let him abstain altogether, and whoever is poor, let him eat reasonably; then when you make over to them their property, call witnesses in their presence; and Allah is enough as a Reckoned (6).

GENERAL COMMENT

The verses are part of the prologue, which began with the first verse. The aim is to pave the way for the laws of inheritance and basic rules of marriage like the number of wives allowed and the women within prohibited degree. These two are among the greatest and most important laws governing human society; and they have profound effect on its formation and continuation. Matrimony controls affinity and genealogy of society members, and deeply affects other constituent factors. Inheritance regulates the distribution of wealth existing in the world - the factor on which a society depends for its life and continuity.

As a sine qua non the chapter prohibits fornication and illicit sexual relations, and forbids devouring others' property unlawfully - except that it is a trade deal with the parties' consent. In this way two fundamental principles have been established for regulating the two most important aspects of society, i.e., the subjects of affinity and property.

We may now understand why it was necessary to prepare the minds before promulgating the laws for these subjects which concerned the whole society and which were enmeshed with the roots of the social system. It is really not an easy thing to divert the people from the social norms which they are accustomed to and which have nurtured their ideas and ideals; to make them discard the systems which they grew up believing in, and which the generations of ancestors had sanctified by faithful adherence; to cast off the customs and traditions which had molded their character and outlook.

It was in this difficult situation that the laws revealed at the beginning of this chapter were promulgated. It may easily be appreciated if we look just briefly at the world's situation at that time, and particularly at the condition of Arabia - the place of the revelation of the Qur'an and rise of Islam. Also, it will make it clear why the Qur'an was sent down piecemeal, and why the Islamic laws were promulgated gradually.

THE ERA OF IGNORANCE

The Qur’ān calls the pre-Islamic days of Arabia the Era of Ignorance.

It is a clear indication that at that time they were in the grip of ignorance, and knowledge was a thing alien to them. Falsehood ruled over them, and truth was an unknown commodity. This fact appears from what the Qur’ān describes of them. Allāh says: they entertained about Allāh thoughts of ignorance quite unjustly [3:154]; Is it then the judgment of (the times of) ignorance that they desire? [5:50]; When those who disbelieve harboured in their hearts chauvinism, the chauvinism of (the days of) ignorance [48:26]; and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of you [33:33].

At that time, Arabia was surrounded by three big powers: In the south ruled Christian Ethiopia; the west lorded over by the Romans, again a Christian Empire; in the north was Fars, the Zoroastrian Empire. At some distance were India and Egypt, both idol-worshippers. There were also a few tribes of the Jews in Arabia. However, the Arabs were idolaters and most of them lived tribal life. All this together had created a barbaric nomadic society that had some traces of Judaism, Christianity and Mazdaism - and they were intoxicated of their ignorance. Allāh says:

And if you obey most of those in the earth, they will lead you astray from Allāh’s way; they follow but conjecture and they only (falsely) guess [6:116].

The nomadic tribes, with their despicable and miserable lives, lived on foray and plunder; they forcibly seized others’ property and tarnished their honour. There was neither safety nor integrity, neither peace nor security. The authority belonged to whoever subdued others, and the sceptre of power to whoever snatched it.

As for the menfolk, their superiority and excellence consisted of bloodshed and chauvinism of ignorance; pride and hauteur; cooperation with the oppressors and devouring the rights of the oppressed; mutual antagonism and rivalry; gambling games, intoxicating drinks and illicit sexual relations; and feasting on dead animals, blood, and inferior quality dates.

As for the women, they were deprived of every privilege of society. They had no will of their own, nor did they possess any of their work. They had no right in inheritance; and men married as many of them as they liked; the position was the same as with the Jews and some idolaters: there was no limit to the number of the wives. On the other hand, they appeared in public adorned with fineries, inviting to themselves anyone who caught their fancy. Fornication and adultery was their morality; their love of displaying themselves sometimes led them to go on pilgrimage completely naked.

As for the children, they were affiliated to their fathers, but the minor ones had no share in inheritance, which was taken away by the elder ones - and the widow was a part of the inheritance. In short, the minor children - both male and female - and the women did not inherit.

Of course, if the deceased left only a minor, he inherited him, but an elder relative acting as his guardian devoured the orphan’s property; and if it was a daughter, he took her as his wife, swallowed her property and divorced her; she was thus left in the lurch: neither she had any money to live on nor there was anyone willing to marry and maintain her. Most of the time there were problems concerning one orphan or the other, because the chains of wars, battles and forays were unending, and consequently people lost their lives like flies.

One of the misfortunes fatally affecting their children was the country’s terrain - a desolate desert and barren wasteland, where famine and hunger were norms of the day. Therefore, people killed their children for fear of poverty (vide 6:151); and buried their daughters alive (81:78); to them the most disgusting thing was the news of the birth of a daughter (43:17).

As for their governmental system, sometimes some rulers established their monarchies in the periphery of Arabian peninsula under protection or suzerainty of some strongest neighbouring power, for example, under Iran in the northern region, and under Rome and Ethiopia in the western and southern regions, respectively. Yet the central towns, i.e., Mecca, Yathrib and Tā’if, etc., lived under a system which was the nearest thing to democracy - but it was not exactly that. The tribes in the desert, and even in the towns, were ruled by oligarchies of chiefs and shaykhs, which sometimes changed into monarchy.

This was the chaotic muddle which appeared in every group in a new colour, in every quarter in a new form - with all the strange myths and superstitious rites prevelant among them. Add to it the scourge of ignorance and lack of teaching and learning that blighted their towns, let alone the nomadic tribes.

All that we have mentioned above concerning the prevailing conditions, activities, customs and rites, may be clearly inferred from the context of the Qur’ānic verses which it has addressed to them. Just ponder on the themes of the verses revealed at Mecca and then of those revealed after triumph of Islam at Medina; then look at the characteristics it attributes to them, the affairs it criticizes and blames them for, the prohibitions of various customs and habits - with varying degrees of stricture. If you meditate on these lines, you will see the truth of what we have described above. Of course, the history records all these things in detail, but we have not given their specificities, because the verses have not gone into detailed description. The shortest, yet most comprehensive, word used to describe their situation was coined by the Qur’ān when it called that period, ‘the era of ignorance’. All the details are compressed in this name. So, this was the situation in the Arab world in those days.

As for the countries surrounding them like Rome, Fars, Ethiopia, India, etc., the Qur’ān mentions them only briefly.

As for the People of the Book among them, i.e., the Jews, the Christians and their fellows, their societies were controlled and managed by despotic desires and individual vagaries of the emperors, lords, officials and bureaucrats. Consequently, the society was divided in two classes: 1) The ruling class which was all-powerful; it did whatever it liked, and played with people’s lives, honour and property; 2) The subjects, enslaved and oppressed; they had no security for their property, honour or life, nor had they any freedom of will - except the freedom to agree with their overlords. The ruling class had won over the religious scholars and the guardians of sharī‘ah and joined hands with them. In this way, it had captivated the masses’ hearts and minds. This class was the real ruler that ruled over the religion of the people as well as their worldly life; it ruled over their religion as it thought expedient, through the tongues and pens of religious scholars; and over their worldly life with whip and sword.

The subjects, in their turn, were likewise divided in two strata, according to their strength and wealth (and people follow the system adopted by their rulers!). There was a class of wealthy people living in ease and luxury; and another of weak and poor as well as of slaves. The same was the situation within a household where the head of the family lorded over the women and children. Another division was between the males and the females: the men were privileged to have freedom of will and action in every walk of life while the women were deprived of it all; they were merely adjuncts of men; they served their men in all their (men’s) whims, without having least independence.

These historical facts may clearly be seen in miniature in the words of Allāh: Say: ‘‘O People of the Book! come to a word common between us and you that we shall not worship any but Allāh and (that) we shall not associate anything with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allāh’’; but if they turn back, then say: ‘‘Bear witness that we are submitting ones’’ [3:64]. The Prophet had included these words in his letter to Heraclius, the Roman Emperor, and also reportedly in those written to the kings of Egypt, Ethiopia and Fars as well as to the people of Najrān.

There are also other verses that throw light on their condition at that time. For example: O you people! surely We have created you of a male and a female and made you nations and tribes that you may recognize each other; surely the most honourable of you with Allāh is the one among you who guards himself most (against evil) [49:13]. Also see the instruction concerning marriage with slave-girls and other believing maidens: you are (sprung) the one from the other; so marry them with the permission o f their people [4:25]; and about the women in general: That I will not waste the work of a worker among you, whether male or female, the one of you being from the other [3:195]; there are many other verses relevant to this topic.

As for others than the People of the Book, i.e., the idol-worshippers and those similar to them, their condition was more unfortunate and disastrous then the People of the Book. The verses revealed in rebuttal of their ‘‘arguments’’ show clearly how their endeavours had failed and their ambitions frustrated in all affairs of life and means of happiness. For example:

And certainly We did write in the Zabūr after the reminder that the earth, shall inherit it My righteous servants. Most surely in this is a message to a people who worship (Us)... Say: ‘‘It is only revealed to me that your God is one God; will you then submit?’’ But if they turn back, say: ‘‘I have given you warning all alike [21:105 - 109]; and this Qur’ān has been revealed to me that with it I may warn you and whomsoever it reaches [6:19].

* * * * *

ISLAM ARRIVES ON THE SCENE

So, this was the condition of human society at that time - in the era of ignorance; people were blissfully inclined to falsehood, and mischief and injustice dominated all aspects of life. It was in this situation that Islam, the religion of monotheism and truth, came on the scene. Its aim was to put sceptre of power in the hand of truth and give it absolute authority over mankind, in order that their hearts might be cleansed of the filth of polytheism and their actions and activities be purified; the goal was to establish an ideal social order at a time when corruption and decay had completely destroyed its roots and shoots, its exterior and interior.

In short, Allāh wished to guide them to the clear truth; He did not want to put any difficulty on them but He wished to purify them and that He might complete His favours on them. They were at that time steeped in falsehood, and Islam wanted them to join together on the word of truth. The two positions were poles apart, diametrically opposed to each other. What was Islam to do? Should it have tried to gain favour with a few people among them and then use them to reform other adherents of falsehood? Then used some to transform some others - all this in its eagerness to make the truth prevail in any way possible, through any means available? After all, people say: The end justifies the means - however objectionable it may be. It is the normal way of politics which the politicians always use.

This method seldom fails to achieve its aim - whatever the goal might be. But it is not suitable for arriving at the clear truth, which the Islamic call aims at. The end is obtained through its means, the result from its premises; how could a falsehood bring forth the truth, or a rotten tree bear good healthy fruits - when a child is a composite originating from its parents.

Politics desires and aspires to acquire authority and domination; to go ahead and enjoy fruits of power, no matter how it is achieved, or whatever shape it takes - whether it is good or evil, whether it is based on truth or falsehood. But the mission of truth does not want any goal except the truth. If it were to achieve that goal through falsehood it would be a confirmation of falsity, and then it would no longer remain a mission of truth - it would become one of falsehood.

This reality clearly shines in the life histories of the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) and his purified progeny (a.s.).

This was what his Lord ordered the Prophet; and which was reiterated by the Qur’ān whenever the misguided people tried to tempt him to show some indulgence or go easy (even a little) in matters of religion. Allāh says: Say: ‘‘O unbelievers! I do not worship that which you worship, nor do you worship Him Whom I worship; nor am I going to worship that which you worship, nor are you going to worship Him Whom I worship; unto you be your religion and unto me my religion’’ [109:1 - 6]. Also He says in a somewhat threatening tone: And had it not been that We had already firmly established you, you would certainly have been near to incline to them a little; in that case We would certainly have made you to taste a double (punishment) in this life and a double (punishment) after death [17:74 - 75]. Again He says: nor could I take those who lead (others) astray for aiders [18:51]. Also He says - and it is a parable of wide application: And as for the good land, its vegetation springs forth (abundantly) by the permission of its Lord, and (as for) that which is bad (its herbage) comes forth but scantily [7:58].

As the truth cannot mix with falsehood, Allāh ordered the Prophet - when the mission’s burden made him weary - to proceed gradually in this respect on three sides: concerning the mission itself, those to whom

the call was addressed and the mode of approach.

First: Concerning the mission itself with all its true knowledge and ordained laws. These are intended to reform the society’s condition and uproot the decay and depravity. As we know, it is extremely difficult to change people’s ideas and beliefs, especially if they are enmeshed with their character and activities; if they have become the norms of the day, entrenched by passage of centuries, sanctified by convention of ancestors, faithfully followed by succeeding generations. The task becomes even more herculean if the religion which is intended to replace the ancient system is all-encompassing, if it covers all affairs of life and ordains laws for all human movements and stillness; if it looks at the exterior as well as the interior, at all times and for all individuals and societies without any exception - as the Islam does. It is a venture that boggles the minds and looks practically impossible.

The task is even harder and tougher in actions than in beliefs. Because man becomes familiar with customs and rites and becomes habituated to them long before he starts believing in any thing. Action is perceived by perceptions more clearly and is more closely attached to man’s desires and cravings. That is why, in the beginning, the Mission announced only the true beliefs - and that too in general terms. It was later that it gradually unfolded the divine laws and rules one after another.

In short, Islam revealed its secrets, step by step, so that people do not balk at accepting them, and hearts do not tremble at stacking one rule upon another. This fact is clear to anyone who meditates on these realities. He will see a clear difference between Meccan and Medinite verses of the Qur’ān, so far as exposition of divine knowledge and ordained laws is concerned. The Meccan verses call to the basic principles couched in general terms, while the Medinite ones (i.e., those revealed after hijrah [emigration], wherever they might have been revealed) explain the matters and give the details of the commandments which were communicated in general or vague terms during Meccan period. Allāh says: Nay! man is most surely inordinate, because he sees himself free from want. Surely to your Lord is the return. Have you seen him who forbids a servant (of Allāh) when he prays? Have you considered if he were on the Guidance, or enjoined guarding (against evil)? Have you considered if he (i.e., this unbeliever) gives the lie to the truth and turns (his) back? Does he not know that Allāh does see? [96:6 - 14]. These verses were revealed at the beginning of the Messengership after the Prophethood, as was mentioned in the second volume under the verses of the Fast32 and they point out in general terms to the Oneness of God and the resurrection, as well as to piety and worship.

Also He says: O you who are enwrapped! Arise and warn, and your Lord do magnify [74:1 - 3]. These verses too were revealed at the beginning of the Call. Again He says: And (I swear by) the soul and Him Who made it perfect, then He inspired it to understand what is wrong for it and right for it, he will indeed be successful who purifies it, and he will indeed fail who corrupts it [91:7 - 10]; He indeed shall be successful who purifies himself, and remembers the name of his Lord and prays [87:14 - 15]; Say: ‘‘I am only a human being like you; it is revealed to me that your God is one God, therefore follow the right way to Him and ask His forgiveness’’; and woe to the polytheists, who do not give zakāt and they are unbelievers in the hereafter. (As for) those who believe and do good, for them surely is a reward never to be cut off [41:6 - 8]. All these verses were revealed during the early days of the Call.

Also Allāh has said: Say: ‘‘Come, I will recite what your Lord has forbidden to you - (remember) that you do not associate anything with Him and do good to (your) parents, and do not slay your children for (fear of) poverty - We provide for you and for them - and do not draw near to indecencies, those of them which are apparent and those which are concealed, and do not kill the soul which Allāh has forbidden except for (the requirements of) justice; this He has enjoined you with, that you may understand. And do not approach the property of the orphan except in the best manner until he attains his majority; and give full measure and weight with justice - We do not impose on any soul a duty but according to its ability; and when you speak, then be just though it be (against) a relative, and fulfil Allāh’s covenant; this He has enjoined you with, that you may be mindful. And (know) that this is My path, the straight one, therefore follow it; and follow not (other) ways, for they will scatter you away from His way; this He has enjoined you with, that you may guard (against evil)’’ [6:151 - 153].

Look at the style of these verses; how they speak about religious prohibitions in general terms, and also about religious commandments in the same manner. See how all prohibitions have been summarized in one word which even a layman’s mind will not balk at, because no sane person will hesitate in admitting that ‘‘indecencies’’ are bad and man should desist from them. Likewise, no one can doubt that uniting on the straight path is a good thing, as it prevents division and weakness and protects the society from destruction and decay. The Qur’ān in this way has appealed to the natural instincts of its audience. It is for this reason that some prohibited things have been described in detail, for example, disobedience of, and misbehaviour towards the parents, killing the children for fear of poverty, unjustified slaying of a human being, devouring an orphan’s property and other such things; human instinct supports this call because in normal conditions it baulks from committing these sins and crimes. There are other verses of this type, and on meditation one will find the same style and the same condition in all of them.

In any case, the Meccan verses give only a general outline, details of which were filled by the Medinite ones; and the same gradual approach is seen within the Medinite verses themselves, because not all the religious laws and rules were sent down there at once - they were revealed little by little, step by step.

Only one example - mentioned earlier - will suffice here, and that is of the verses prohibiting the intoxicants. Allāh said: And of the fruits of the palms and the grapes - you obtain from them intoxication and goodly provision [16:67]. It is a Meccan revelation; it mentiones intoxication and remains silent - except putting it vis-a-vis the phrase, ‘‘goodly provision’’, and thus hinting that intoxicants were not goodly provision. Then came another verse: Say: ‘‘My Lord has only prohibited indecencies, those of them that are apparent as well as those that are concealed, and sin ...’’ [7:33]. This too belongs to the Meccan period; it prohibits ‘‘sin’’ clearly but does not say that drinking liquor is a sin. It treads softly, preparing the minds gradually to leave a bad habit to which they were pulled by their desires, and on which their flesh had grown and bones strengthened. Then came the Medinite verse: They ask you about intoxicants and games of chance. Say: ‘‘In both of them there is a great sin and (some) profit for men; and their sin is greater than their profit’’ [2:219]. The verse pointed out that drinking liquor was a sin which had earlier been prohibited by the verse 33 of the chapter seven. Yet, you may see that the language of the verse is advisory, its tone gentle. Lastly it was revealed: O you who believe! intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to) stones set up and (dividing by) arrows are only an abomination of Satan’s handiwork; shun it therefore that you may be successful. The Satan only desires to cause enmity and hatred to spring in your midst by means of intoxicants and games of chance, and to keep you off from the remembrance of Allāh and from prayer. Will you then desist? [5:90 - 91]. This verse revealed at Medina finally sealed the prohibition.

The same gradual approach is seen in the matter of inheritance. The Prophet first established brotherhood between his companions and ordained that one such brother would inherit from the other. It was in the beginning and the aim was to prepare the Muslims to readily accept the laws of inheritance which were soon to be promulgated. Then came the revelation: and the possessors of relationship have the better claim in the ordinance of Allāh to inheritance, one with respect to another, than (other) believers and (than) those who have fled (their homes) [33:6]. It is this same consideration which is seen in many abrogated and abrogating verses.

In these and other similar matters, the Call went ahead step by step in promulgation and enforcement of the laws. It dealt with people gently in order that they might easily and gladly accept and obey the orders. Allāh says: And a Qur’ān which We have revealed in portions so that you may read it to the people by slow degrees, and We have sent it down in portions [17:106]. If the Qur’ān had been revealed to the Prophet all at once, he would have been obliged to explain the deails of his sharī‘ah to the people (as the divine words clearly show: and We have revealed to you the Reminder that you may make clear to men what has been revealed to them [16:44]). Then it would have been necessary for him to describe in the very early day all the matters concerning the belief and ethics, as well as the whole set of the acts of worship and the rules regarding mutual dealings, social affairs, political matters, penal codes and other factors. Obviously, the minds at that time could not even imagine and tolerate such subjects, let alone accepting and practising them - and the sharī‘ah could never control their hearts (in their will and intentions) nor their limbs and bodies (in their actions). It was the gradual revelation which prepared the way for the religion to be accepted and to capture the hearts. Allāh says: And those who disbelieve say: ‘‘Why has not the Qur’ān been revealed to him all at once?’’ Thus, that We may strengthen your hearts by it and We have arranged it well in arranging [25:32]. This verse shows that Allāh had intended the graudal revelation to be a kindness to His Messenger (s.a.w.a.) as well as to his ummah. Ponder on this point and especially on the last clause, and We have arranged it well in arranging.

It is necessary to point out here that proceeding from general to particular, and going step by step in promulgation of law - for using gentle approach towards people and training them effectively stage by stage, keeping the ultimate good before one’s eyes - is completely different from compromise and indulgence; and this distinction, needs no elaboration.

Second: Gradual increase in the circle of people to whom the call is addressed. We know that the Prophet was sent to the whole mankind; his call was not meant for a particular nation to the exclusion of the others;

nor was it confined to a specific time or place. (The latter clause in effect means the same as the former.) Allāh says: Say: ‘‘O people! surely I am the Messenger of Allāh to you all, of Him Whose is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth [7:158]; and this Qur’ān has been revealed to me that with it I may warn you and whomsoever it reaches [6:19]; And We have not sent you but as a mercy to the worlds [21:107].

Apart from that, the history records his invitations to the Jews (and they were Israelites) as well as the rulers of Rome, Persia, Abyssinia and Egypt, and they were non-Arabs. Among the well-known believers were Salmān (from Persia), his mu’adhdhin, Bilāl (from Abyssinia), and Suhayb (from Rome). Thus the fact, that his prophethood was universal and meant for the whole world since his own days, is beyond doubt; the abovequoted verses too are not confined to any time or place.

Also there are following two verses which prove universality of his prophethood and show that it is meant for all times and all places. Allāh says: and most surely it is a Mighty Book: Falsehood shall not come to it from before it nor from behind it; a revelation from the Wise, the Praised One [41:41 - 42]; but he is the Messenger of Allāh and the Last of the Prophets [33:40]. Detailed descriptions of these verses shall be given in their Commentaries.

In any case, his prophethood is all-encompassing and universal. If we ponder on the vast range of Islamic knowledge and laws, and see the condition the world was in, the day Islam came on the scene - the dark ignorance, the repulsive depravity and the filthy transgression - then we shall certainly realize that it was just impossible to face the whole world at once, or to struggle against polytheism and depravity all at one go.

The reason demanded that, to begin with, the Call should be addressed to only a small portion of humanity - and that it should be the people of the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) himself. After they were well-imbued with religion, the Call could be extended to others - and that is what was done. Allāh says: And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly [14:4]; And if We had revealed it to any of the foreigners, so that he should have recited it to them, they would not have believed therein [26:198 - 199]. The verses that imply some link between the Call and the Arabs, show only that they were included among those to whom the Call and the Warning were addressed. The same is the position of the verses which offer the Qur’ān as a challenge to the mankind - if there were anything in them which implied the restriction of the challenge to rhetorics, then it would be just because rhetoric was one of the aspects of its miraculousness; it does not mean that the Call was confined to only the Arabs.

Of course, language by itself plays a very important role in communication and explanation, as has been described in several verses;

for example: And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly [14:4]; We narrate to you the best of narratives, by Our revealing to you this Qur’ān [12:3];

And most surely this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. The faithful Spirit has descended with it upon your hearts, that you may be of the warners, in plain Arabic language [26:192 - 195]. The Arabic language has unparallelled capacity of expressing the ideas and mental images in the most perfect style. That is why Allāh selected it from among all languages for His Mighty Book, and said: Surely We have made it an Arabic Qur’ān so that you may understand [43:3].

However, Allāh ordered the Prophet, when he took up the Call, to begin with his nearest relations: And warn your nearest relatives [26:214]. The Prophet, obeying the command, gathered his relatives and called them to what he was sent with; he further promised them that the first one to answer his call would be his successor after him. ‘Alī (a.s.) answered his call; the Prophet appreciated his response while the others mocked him for it - as the correct traditions and books of history and biography have recorded33 . Then other people from his family adhered to him, like his wife, Khadījah, his uncle, Hamzah ibn ‘Abdi ’l-Muttalib, ‘Ubayd, and his uncle, Abū Tālib - as is recorded in Shī‘ite traditions, and declared and implied in his own poems34 , (although he did not announce his acceptance of faith in order that he could continue protecting the Prophet.

Then Allāh ordered him to extend the circle of the mission to the whole nation, as is shown by the following verses: And thus have We revealed to you an Arabic Qur’ān, that you may warn the mother city (i.e., Mecca) and those around it [42:7]; that you may warn a people to whom no warner has come before you, that they may follow the right direction [32:3]; and this Qur’ān has been revealed to me that with it I may warn you and whomsoever it reaches [6:19]. This last verse is a clear proof that the Call was not confined to them, although it had begun with them for underlying benefits.

Lastly Allāh ordered him to spread the Call to the whole world, to include followers of every religion and creed, as the earlier quoted verses show. See for example: Say: ‘‘O people! surely I am the Messenger of Allāh to you all ...’’ [7:158]; but he is the Messenger of Allāh and the Last of the prophets [33:40]; and other verses quoted above.

Third: Proceeding step by step in calling and guidance as well as in enforcement of the law. [It has three stages:] Inviting them by word of mouth, passive resistance and jihād.

Invitation by Word: It is seen throughout the Qur’ān, all by itself. Allāh had directed the Prophet to pay regard to human dignity and observe good manners in his missionary activities. He says: Say: ‘‘I am only a mortal like you; it is revealed to me ...’’ [18:110]; and make yourself gentle to the believers [15:88]; And not alike are the good and the evil Repel (evil) with what is best, when lo! he between whom and you was enmity would be as if he were a warm friend [41:34]; And bestow not favours that you may receive again with increase [74:6]. There are numerous verses of similar theme.

Also, Allāh told him to use all methods and levels of explanation having regard to the understanding and mental capacity of the individuals. He says: Call to the way of Thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner [16:125].

Passive Resistance: It means that the believers were to cut themselves off from the unbelievers in their belief and activities. In this way there were to establish an Islamic social order unalloyed with any nonmonotheistic belief or non-Islamic action (e.g., sins and ethical shortcomings) - except mingling with non-Muslims to the extent required by dictates of life. Allāh says:

Unto you be your religion and unto me my religion [109:6].

Stand fast then (in the right path) as you are commanded, as also he who has turned (to Allāh) with you, and be not inordinate (O men!), surely He sees what you do. And do not incline to those who are unjust, lest the fire touch you, and you have no guardians herides Allāh, then you shall not be helped [11:112 - 113];

To this then go on inviting, and go on steadfastly (on the right path) as you are commanded, and do not follow their low desires, and say:

‘‘I believe in what Allāh has revealed of the Book, and I am commanded to do justice between you: Allāh is our Lord and your Lord; we shall have our deeds and you shall have your deeds; no plea need there be (now) between us and you: Allāh will gather us together, and to Him is the return’’ [42:15];

O you who believe! do not take My enemy and your enemy for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you o f the truth Allāh does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from you homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allāh loves the doers of justice. Allāh only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust [60:1, 8 - 9].

There are numerous verses with the theme of keeping aloof and remaining separate from, and clear of, the enemies of religion; and as you see they explain the meaning of this aloofness, its method and its particulars.

Jihād: This subject has already been explained under the verses of jihād in the Chapter of The Cow.35

However, these three stages are the special feature and exclusive property of Islam. The first is inseparably included in the latter two, and the second in the third one. The Prophet, in all his battles, invariably always called the unbelievers to the right path and exhorted them to submit to the One God - before the hostilities started, as he was commanded by his Lord to do: But if they turn back, say: ‘‘I have given you warning all alike ...’’ [21:109].

One of the vulgarest charges against Islam is the cliche that it is a religion of sword, not of preaching. The Qur’ān, the biographies of the Prophet and the history, all together throw light on the reality, but ‘‘to whomsoever Allāh does not give light, he has no light.’’

Many of these critics belong to a Church that had established the Inquisition and run it for centuries to convict the so-called heretics and bum them alive - as if it were the divine court on the Day of Resurrection ! Its agents roamed the Christian countries and caught and sent to the Inquisition whomsoever they accused of atheism or heresy - often it meant only having modem views in the fields of physics and mathematics which went against the ‘‘philosophy’’ of scholasticism propagated by the Church.

Would that I knew which was more important in the eyes of the reason: spreading the monotheism, uprooting idol-worship and cleansing the earth of depravity [as Islam did], or strangling a scholar who said that the earth revolved round the sun, or who denied the Ptolemaic sky.

Also, it was the Church that incited and agitated the Christian world against Islam, in the name of fighting against ‘‘idolatry’’. Thus began the wars known as Crusade which continued for about two hundred years; it devastated the regions, annihilated millions of lives and tarnished the dignity of countless women.36

There are other detractors, outside the Church, who are supposedly imbued with ideals of civilization and freedom. These are the very people who have no hesitation in detonating the fuse of world wars and turning the world upside down whenever they perceive some of their material interests threatened by a small danger. The question is: What is more disastrous to the mankind: Consolidation of polytheism in the world, moral decadence, lapse of virtue and suffocation of world with depravity and corruption? Or losing one’s grip on a few yards of land or incurring loss of a few dollars? Yes, ‘‘certainly man is ungrateful to his Lord.’’

Here I would like to quote what one of the great scholars has written on this subject in one of his booklets. He says:

The methods used for reforming social order, uprooting injustice and establishing justice, and fighting against corruption and evil are almost confined to three categories:

1. Methods of propagation and guidance through lectures, articles, books and publications. It is the noble way pointed to by Allāh as He says in His Book: Call to the way of Thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner. Also, He says: Repel (evil) with what is best, when lo! he between whom and you was enmity would be as if he were a warm friend. This was the method used by Islam in the beginning of the mission ...

2. Methods of peaceful and passive resistance, like demonstrations, strikes, economic boycott, and non-cooperation with the tyrants by remaining aloof from their services and governments. Believers in this method do not agree with methods of killing, war and violence. This is the way pointed out by Allāh in His words: And do not incline to those who are unjust, lest the fire touch you. Again He says: Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends. There are a lot of verses in the Qur’ān pointing to this method. Prominent among its advocates were the Indian prophet, Buddha and ‘Īsā (a.s.) as well as the Russian writer, Tolstoy and the Indian leader, Mahatma Gandhi.

3. War, uprising and fighting.

Islam proceeds by degrees in these three methods. First comes good exhortation and peaceful invitation. If it fails to repulse the unjust people and to remove their corruption and despotism, then the second method is adopted, and that is peaceful boycott, passive resistance and noncooperation with them, withholding all assistance from them. If this too proves ineffective, then the only alternative is the third one, that is, armed confrontation, because Allāh is never pleased with injustice; and he who silently agrees with an unjust person, is his partner in injustice.

Islam is a belief. He is completely mistaken and has crossed the limits of reason who says that Islam was spread by sword and wars. Islam is a faith and belief, and faith cannot be created by compulsion and coercion; it comes from proofs and arguments. The Honoured Qur’ān announces this fact in many verses, e.g., There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error [2:256].

Even when Islam drew sword and took up arms against the unjust people (who had disregarded the divine communications and proofs), it used the force only to remove those who had become like stumbling blocks in the way of the Call of the truth. In other words, it used the arms to repel the enemies’mischief, not to make them enter the fold of Islam. Allāh says: And fight with them until there is no more mischief [2:193]. Thus the fighting was resorted to, for erasing mischief, not for compelling them to accept the faith and religion.

Islam therefore does not wage war arbitrarily or by its own choice. It is the enemies who push it into a corner and then it has to resort to war. Even then it uses noble ways to fight. It has forbidden - both in war and in peace - destruction and arson, poisoning and cutting off water from enemy. Likewise, it prohibits killing of women, children or prisoners - instead it orders the Muslims to deal with them gently, to do good to them, no matter how much enmity and hatred towards the Muslims they might have shown. It disallows assasination in war and in peace, as well as killing aged men and women or him who had not participated in the war. It does not allow attacking the enemy at night; [and if you fear treachery on the part of a people,] then throw back to them on terms of equality [8:58]. It forbids killing someone just on suspicion, or punishing him before he has committed a sin. It has prohibited many such practices which are rejected by sense of nobility and ideals of manhood, and which spring from meanness and cruelty, vileness and barbarity.

All the above-mentioned deeds which Islam in its nobility refused to do against its enemies in any of its battles or wars, have been committed, in their most heinous form and in the most horrid way, by the ‘‘civilized’’ nations of this era - the era of enlightenment. Yes, this enlightened era has allowed massacre of women and children, old and sick; it practises nightsorties, and attacks in middle of night with arms and bombs against defenceless civilians. In short, it has ligalized murder in all its various shapes.

Did not Germany in World War II send rocket on London, demolishing the buildings and killing the women, children and civilian population? Did not they exterminate thousands of prisoners? And did not the Allies [in their turn] send thousands of bombers against Germany to destroy its cities and towns? Did not the U.S.A. drop atomic bombs on the Japanese towns?

Now that even more modern means of destruction have been invented, like the missiles and atomic and hydrogen bombs, nobody - except Allāh - knows what disasters and destructions, tragedies and calamities would fall on the earth if a World War III were to erupt and the fighting parties resorted to these bombs37 May Allāh guide the man to the right path and lead him to the straight way.38

COMMENTARY

QUR'AN: And give to the orphans their property . a great crime:

It is an order to return to the orphans their property, and it paves the way for the next two sentences (and do not substitute. .. and do not devour. .); or the latter two serve as explanation of the former. But as the reason given at the end (this is surely a great crime) refers to the latter two or the last one sentence, it supports the view that the first sentence is put here as a prologue to the next two.

The main prohibition that one should not use an orphan's property in a manner detrimental to his interest, in itself prepares the ground for the soon-coming laws of inheritance, and of the marriage described in the next verse.

The words, “and do not substitute worthless for good”, mean: Do not substitute your worthless things for their good ones; if there is any good property belonging to them, you should not keep it for yourself returning to them some worthless property of yours in exchange. Some people have explained it as follows: Do not substitute unlawful things for lawful ones. But the former meaning is more obvious, because apparently the two sentences (do not substitute. ., and do not devour. .) describe a particular type of unlawful management, and the first sentence (And give the orphans. .) paves the way for both. In the last clause, “this is surely a great crime “, al-hub (sin; crime) is infinitive verb and also verbal noun.

QUR'AN: And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such (other) women as seem good to you:

We have mentioned previously that there was always a great number of orphans among the Arabs of the era of ignorance - who were seldom free from war, fighting, murder and forays, and among whom death by killing was a very common occurrence. Usually, the leaders of tribes and people of power and influence took the orphan girls (with properties) as wives; they devoured their (i.e., the orphans') properties with their own and then behaved with them unjustly. Often they turned them out after swallowing their property; the helpless girls became poverty stricken destitute; neither they had any money to live on, nor was there anyone willing to marry and maintain them. The Qur'an has reproached them very severely for this evil habit and disgusting injustice, and prohibited very strongly doing any injustice to orphans or devouring their property. For example, Allah says:

(As for) those who swallow the property of the orphans unjustly, surely they only swallow fire into their bellies and soon they shall enter burning fire (4:10).

And give to the orphans their property, and do not substitute worthless (things) for (their) good (ones), and do not devour their property (as an addition) to your own property; this is surely a great crime (4:2).

As a result, the Muslims reportedly became afraid for their own souls and were so panic-stricken that they turned out the orphans from their own homes in apprehension, lest they inadvertently do something wrong with those orphans' property or fail to give them their just dues. If someone kept an orphan with him, he set apart the orphan's share in food and drink; if the orphan could not finish it, nobody else would touch it - it remained as it was until it was spoiled. It caused difficulties for the people; and they complained to the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) asking for his guidance. Then Allah revealed: And they ask you concerning the orphans. Say: “To set right for them (their affairs) is good; and if you mingle with them, they are your brethren; and Allah knows the mischief-maker from the well doer; and if Allah had willed, He would certainly have made it harder for you; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise” (2:220). Thus, Allah allowed them to give shelter to orphans and to keep them with themselves for looking after their affairs, and to mingle with them because they were their brethren. In this way, their difficulties were removed and their worries dispelled.

When you ponder on this fact, and then look at the verse under discussion (And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such (other) women as seem good to you. .) - and remember that it comes after the verse, “And give to the orphans their property. . “ - it will be clear to you that the verse raises the prohibition a degree higher. Its connotation will be as follows - and Allah knows better: Be careful regarding the orphans and do not substitute your bad or worthless property with their good ones; nor should you devour their property with your own; so much so that if you are afraid that you would not be able to treat the orphan girls equitably and therefore you do not like to take them as your wives, then better do not marry them; instead you should marry other such women as seem good to you - two, three or four.

The conditional sentence (And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such (other) women as seem good to you. .), actually means: If you do not like to marry the orphan girls because you fear that you cannot act equitably towards them, then do not marry them, and marry such women as seem good to you. Obviously the clause, “then marry . “ is substitute of the real al-jaza' (second construct of the conditional sentence), (i.e., then do not marry the orphans); the clause, “such women as seem good to you “, makes further description (i.e., women other than the orphans) unnecessary. The verse does not say, those women who seem good to you; instead it says: such women as seem good to you; it is because it points to the number mentioned later: two and three and four. The verse begins with the clause, “if you fear that you cannot act equitably “, while it actually means, if you do not like to marry the orphans because of fear; thus it has allegorically put the cause in place of the effect, pointing to the deleted effect later where it says: “as seem good to you”.

Many other things have been written in explanation of this verse, as may be seen in bigger exegeses. They are in short as follows:

1. The Arabs used to marry four, five or more wives; their thinking was as follows: Why should I not marry as has Mr. X done? When his own property was finished, he spent the property of orphans under his care. Therefore, Allah forbade them to marry more than four wives, so that they should not be compelled by circumstances to unjustly use the orphans' property.

2. They were strictly honest in matters affecting the orphans, but did not observe the same standard in affairs of women; so they married numerous wives without maintaining equity and justice. Therefore, Allah said: If you are afraid about orphans, you should likewise be careful about women; you should marry only one or up to four.

3. They were reluctant to accept guardianship of orphans or to eat their property. So Allah said: If you are reluctant of these things, you should also desist from fornication; instead you should marry such women as seem good to you.

4. If you fear that you cannot act equitably towards the orphans brought up under your care, then marry other lawful women from the orphans among your relatives, two and three and four.

5. If you are reluctant of eating together with orphans, then likewise avoid marrying more than one wife; if you are afraid of not acting equitably with them, do not marry except her whom you can treat with justice and equity.

These were the explanations given by them. But it is clear that none of them properly fits the wordings of the verse. Therefore the only interpretation is the one we have written.

QUR'AN: two and three and four: the paradigms, maf'al and fu'al , when applied to numbers, signify repetition of the root word; thus the clause, mathna wa thulatha wa ruba'a, means, two two and three three and four four (or twos, threes and fours). The verse is addressed to all individuals, and the numbers have been separated by “and “ which implies choice; these factors together show that every believer has a right to marry two wives, or three, or four. When looked at together, they would be grouped as twos, threes and fours.

The above explanation, coupled with the next clause, but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them) then (marry) only one or what your right hands posses, together with the following verse, And all married women. .(4:247), disproves the idea that the verse allows to marry two, three or four wives in one contract of marriage; or that it permits to marry two together, then two together and so on, and likewise three or four together, then other three or four together; or that it approves polyandry - marriage of several men with one woman. These are ideas, which the verse does not tolerate at all.

Apart from that, it is a self-evident truth that Islam does not allow a man to gather more than four wives at a time, or a woman to have more than one husband at a time.

Likewise, there is no room for the hypothesis that the word, “and”, between the numbers, is for conjunction, and that the verse accordingly allows marrying nine (i.e., 2 + 3 + 4) wives at a time. Majma'u'l-bayan says as follows: Using the total in this manner is not a possibility at all. If someone says, “The people entered the town in twos, threes and fours”, does not mean the total of these numbers - in other words, it does not imply that they entered in-groups of nine. Moreover, there is a proper word, “nine”, to denote that number; so leaving the correct word and changing it to 'two and three and four', shows an incapability of proper expression - Too exalted and sanctified is His speech from such defects.

QUR'AN: but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them) then (marry) only one:

That is, marry only one, not more. Allah has made this order conditional on fear, not on knowledge, because knowledge in such matters is usually difficult to achieve, especially when thought is clouded by temptation; the underlying benefit would be lost if the rule were made dependent on knowledge.

QUR'AN: or what your right hands possess:

That is, slave-girls. If a man is afraid that he will not do justice between many wives, then he should marry only one; and if he wants more, then he should take slave-girls, because they are not entitled to division of nights.

Obviously, the provision of the alternative - taking the slave girls - does not mean that one may misbehave with, or do injustice to them; Allah does not like the unjust, nor is He unjust to His servants. It only means that it is easier to maintain justice with them because they are not included in the rule of division of nights. This very reason shows that this clause refers to taking, and living with them by virtue of possession, not by marriage; the matter of marrying them has been described later in the verse: And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens. . (4:25).

QUR'AN: this is nearer, that you may not deviate from the right course:

“al-Awl” (to deviate from the right course). The law as ordained above brings you nearer to the point whence you shall not deviate from justice or transgress the women's rights.

Someone has written that al-'awl means burden; but it is a far-fetched interpretation, both in word and in meaning.

This sentence - which mentions the underlying reason of this legislation - proves that the foundation of the marriage laws is laid on justice and equity as well as on rejection of oppression and usurpation of rights.

QUR'AN: And give women their dowries as a free gift. . with enjoyment (and with) wholesome (result):

as-Saduqah, as-sadaqah, as-sadaq and as-sidaq, all mean dowry; an-nihlah (gift, a thing given freely without bargaining).

The possessive construction, “their dowries”, shows that the order to give dowry to woman is based on the usage prevalent among the people: it was customary in marriage to reserve for the wife some property or anything of value as her dowry. Seemingly it has the same position vis-à-vis the conjugal relationship as the price does vis-à-vis the commodity sold; and as we shall describe in the forthcoming Academic discourse, customarily it is the man who proposes and asks for marriage as a buyer brings the price to the seller and receives the purchased item. In any case, the verse endorses this prevalent custom.

It was possible to think that the husband was not allowed to use the dowry at all - even if the wife was pleased with it. Probably it was to remove that possible misunderstanding that the conditional clause was added: “but if they of themselves be pleased to give up to you a portion of it, then eat it with enjoyment (and with) wholesome (result).” The imperative, “eat it”, is qualified with the words, 'with enjoyment and with wholesome result.' It puts emphasis on the previous sentence containing basic rule and also shows that the order is elective, not compulsory.

al-Hana' (being easily digested, being agreeable); it is used for food. al-Mari, is derived from ar-riyy (quenching of thirst); it has some connotation regarding drinks as al-hand' does about food, but with one difference: al-Hana' may be used for food and drink both; but when the combined phrase, han`'an mari 'an is used, the former word refers exclusively to food and the latter to drink.

QUR'AN: And do not give away your property which Allah has made for you a (means of) support to the weak of understanding:

“as-Safah “ (feeble-mindedness; weakness or slightness of understanding). Probably, its basic meaning was lightness of a thing which by nature should not be light; thus they say: az-Zamamu 's-saf'ih (a rein or halter that shakes too much); thawb safih (a badly-woven cloth); now it is mostly used for lightness of soul, and its implication varies with context; in worldly affairs, as-safih means feeble-minded, weak of understanding; in religious context, it means a dissolute person, one who does not follow religious commandments; and so on.

It is obvious from the verse that one should not spend too much of feeble-minded persons, should not give them more than is needed for their necessary expenses. But the context - the verse is among the ones dealing with orphans' property which is managed and looked after by guardians - provides a definite association that “the weak of understanding” refers to the orphans of immature mind; and that “your property “ actually means the orphans' property, although it has been ascribed to the guardians because of a certain consideration; this explanation is further supported by the clause, “and maintain them out of it, and clothe them.” If one insists on interpreting the word, “the weak of understanding”, in general terms, then it should be generalized to include orphans and non-orphans both. Yet the former meaning carries more weight.

In any case, if the word refers to the orphans of feeble understanding, then “your property” means the orphans' property; it has been ascribed to the guardians - whom the verse addresses - keeping in view the fact that all the property and riches found in the world are for the whole mankind. Some individuals keep some portions of these riches, and others some other portions; it is done for general good, on which is based the principle of ownership and exclusive possessive relationship. Accordingly, it is necessary for people to grasp this reality and appreciate that they are all members of a single society, and the whole property belongs to the whole society. Consequently, it is each one's responsibility to protect and preserve it, one should not let it be wasted or squandered by people of weak understanding, nor should it be left under the management of such persons (like minor children or insane people) as are not capable of administering it properly. So this is the significance of the possessive case here; it is not unlike the verse: And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to marry free believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your right hands possess from among your believing maidens (4:25), as it is known that the phrase, “your believing maidens”, does not refer to the slave-girls owned by the one who wants to marry them.

The verse contains a general rule ordained for the whole society. The society is a single entity - or let us say a (legal) personality - that owns all the riches which Allah has given it for its livelihood, and with which He has strengthened it. Accordingly, it is the society's responsibility to manage it and to keep it in good order; it should invest it in profitable ventures and use the profit for one's sustenance on a medium scale; it is also obliged to protect it from waste and loss. This basic principle gives rise to the rule that the guardians are obliged to look after, and manage, the affairs of the people of weak understanding; they should not hand over their wards' property to them, lest they waste it through mismanagement. The guardians must hold back the property, manage it profitably and let it grow through earning, trades and profit-sharing; they should maintain those feeble-minded wards with its profit and growth - not with its capital. This law has been laid down, so that the capital is not decreased little by little until a time comes when the ward is left in wretched poverty without any means of livelihood.

It appears from the above explanation that the clause, “and maintain them out of it and clothe them”, implies that a feebleminded ward should be maintained from the growth and profit of the capital, not from the capital itself. He should not be allowed to start eating from the capital, keeping it idle without circulation, lest it is eaten up completely. As az-Zamakhshari has said, it was to show this fine point that Allah has said, “out of it”, and not, 'from it'.

Also it is not unreasonable to infer from the verse the principle of general guardianship of the wards, that is, Allah is not pleased that the affairs of such wards be neglected; nay! the Islamic society is obliged to look after their affairs: If there is any guardian in the family, like the father and paternal grandfather, he will be his guardian and will manage his affairs; otherwise the responsibility falls on the Islamic government, and lastly on other believers, to look after his affairs - detailed rules of which are given in the books of jurisprudence.

ALL THE RICHES BELONG TO THE WHOLE MANKIND

The above is a Qur’ānic reality which forms the basis of many important rules and laws in Islam, and which is inferred from the verse under discussion:

All property and riches belong to Allāh in real ownership; He has made it a means of support and a source of livelihood for the human society, without bequeathing it on a particular person to the exclusion of the others (as a permanent irrevocable endowment); without bestowing it on someone as a gift transferring the authority of lawful management to the new owner. Then Allāh allowed individual members to have exclusive relation with a portion of the riches (which was originally bestowed to the whole humanity), provided that that possessive relationship is established through lawful means, like inheritance, taking possession, and trade, etc. He then laid down some conditions which have to be fulfilled before the individual might be allowed to manage his property, e.g., sanity, majority and so on.

The firm root which has to be respected at all times and which has developed many branches is this: All property belongs to all men. The individuals’ interest should be respected if the common interest of the society is protected, i.e., if the private interest is not in conflict with the public weal. Otherwise, public welfare will take precedence over private one, definitely and without any hesitation.

Numerous important laws and rules in Islam are solidly based on this foundation; for example, the regulations related to maintenance, and most of the rules governing mutual dealings and other such aspects of life. Allāh has confirmed it in many places in His Book, e.g., He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth [2:29]. We have written some things related to this topic under the verses of maintenance in the second chapter which may be referred to.

QUR'AN: and maintain them out of it, and clothe them and speak to them with kind words:

We have fully explained the meaning of sustenance or maintenance under the verse: and Thou givest sustenance to whom Thou pleases”, without measure (3:27).39

The clause, “and maintain them out of it and clothe them”, has the same significance here as does the one in 2:233: and their maintenance and their clothing must be borne by the father. The maintenance refers to the food that nourishes man; and clothing is the dress that protects him from heat and cold. But the phrase, “maintenance and clothing”, as used in the Qur'anic language (as in our own) metaphorically points to all the things that together fulfill man's material needs in life; it thus covers all necessities of life including house and other such things. It is not unlike the word, eating, which has a particular meaning, yet metaphorically refers to the use (in general), as the Qur'an says: “but if they of themselves be pleased to give up to you a portion of it, then eat it with enjoyment (and with) wholesome (result). “

QUR'AN: and speak to them with kind words:

It is an ethical guidance for improving the standard of guardianship. The wards may be weak of understanding who are prevented from managing their own properties, yet they are neither dumb animals nor grazing cattle; they are human beings, and they should be treated as such; they should be spoken to in good manner, not harshly or insultingly; and dealt with, dignity.

Apparently it is possible to take this clause as a metaphorical expression for good dealing and commendable social intercourse - not objectionable one, as was explained under the verse: . and speak to men good (words) . (2:83).

QUR'AN: And test the orphans until they reach (age of) marriage; then if you find in them maturity of intellect, make over to them their property: “al-Ibtila' “ (to test); reaching age of marriage, thus it contains a rational allegory; al-'inas (to see, to find); the word has a connotation of “friendliness” and “geniality” because its root is al-uns (friendly atmosphere); ar-rushd (translated here as maturity of intellect) is opposite of al-ghayy and means to find way to the goals of life. Handing over to the orphans their property means to give it back to them, into their possession; (the verb used is ad-daf (to repulse, to push away); it is as though the guardian pushes the property away from himself; thus it is in spite of its triteness, a very fine metaphor.

The clause, “until they reach (age of) marriage”, is related to the verb, “test”; it thus shows that the testing should be a continuous exercise. The guardian should start testing the orphan as soon as he shows some discretion and appears ready for such tests, it should continue until he reaches marriageable age and becomes a “man”. The order by nature demands this continual process, because one cannot find out whether the child has attained maturity of intellect just by testing him once or twice; the test must be repeated again and again until the guardian finds out the orphan's maturity of mind and it becomes a part of his nature until he reaches puberty and then the marriageable age.

The words, “then if you find in them maturity of intellect”, branches from the imperative verb, “And test”; and the meaning is as follows: Test them, and if you find in them maturity of intellect, hand over their property to them. The wording shows that the orphan's reaching the age of marriage is the basis of returning his property to him and of bestowing on him the power to manage his estate independently. Maturity of intellect is the necessary condition for bestowal of authority of independent management.

Islam has laid down two different standards regarding al-bulugh (majority, adulthood) for two different sets of responsibilities: As for the acts of worship and matters like penal code the majority begins on reaching a prescribed age, but for financial affairs, acknowledgements and other such dealings (details of which are given in the books of jurisprudence) mere attainment of age is not enough, he must also achieve maturity of intellect. This differentiation throws light on the highest refinement and sophistication, which Islam has maintained in its legislative programs. Had it disregarded the maturity of intellect in financial and similar dealings, the social life would have suffered disorder and chaos - as far as orphans and other wards were concerned. Had they been given power (just on reaching a certain age) to independently manage their finance or to make agreements or acknowledgments, etc.; it would have given a chance to mischief-makers to mislead and deceive them. Cunning hoaxes could have defrauded them of all their means l of livelihood, with their smooth talks, false promises and swindling deals. Therefore, it was essential to impose the condition of maturity of intellect in such matters. But obviously there was no need to put this condition in the things like acts of worship, etc.; also it was not necessary in such affairs as penal code. One does not need sharp mind or maturity of intellect to understand and perceive the evil of these crimes and sins or to realize that one should desist from them. Man understands such things long before attaining maturity of intellect, and one finds no difference, in these matters, between the perception gained before maturity of intellect and that achieved afterwards.

QUR'AN: and do not consume it extravagantly and hastily, lest they attain to full age . and Allah is enough as a Reckoned:

“al-Israf” (extravagance, immoderateness) is exceeding the medium course of action. al-Badar (hurry, haste). The clause, “and hastily, lest they attain to full age “, means: and hastily fearing that they would grow up and then would not allow you to consume their property. (The phrase, “lest they attain”, begins in Arabic with an (that) and has no particle of negation; thus it may also be translated, 'that they attain'). Omission of particle of negation before an or in (that) is consistent with norms of language, as grammarians have said: Allah says: Allah makes clear to you, lest you err (4:176), i.e., fearing that you would err.

The two phrases, “extravagantly” and “hastily; lest they attain. .”, have been put parallel to each other. This setting points to their difference.

Consuming the orphans' property extravagantly refers to the situation when the guardian eats it without needing or deserving it, unjustly and carelessly. Consuming it hastily, to the condition where the guardian takes from the estate only the normal and usual fee for his services, but with an eye on the possibility that the orphan might stop it when he grows up. All such consumption's are forbidden, except when the guardian is poor and in such a position that either he earns his livelihood somewhere else or looks after the orphan's affairs and meets his necessities of life from his ward's estate. It would be just like a worker in trade or construction, etc. taking his wages from his employer. It is this aspect which Allah mentions in the sentence: “and whoever is rich” (i.e., is not in need of taking from the orphan's property for his livelihood). “let him abstain altogether” (i.e., he should follow and adhere to the path of abstinence and continence, and should not take anything from the orphan), “and whoever is poor, let him eat reasonably”.

An exegete has opined that it means that the poor guardian should eat as usual from his own property, not from that of the orphan. But if that was what Allah had intended to say, then why did He bring in the difference between rich and poor?

The words, “then when you make over to them their property, call witnesses in their presence; and Allah is enough as a Reckoned”, ordain the law to call witnesses at the time of handing over the estate to the wards. It is done to affect the transition in proper way and to remove the danger of dispute and controversy (in future); lest the orphan - after attaining maturity and receiving the property - makes claims against the guardian. The verse ends on the words, “and Allah is enough as a Reckoned”; and it relates the order to its original and basic source - the fountainhead of every rule from Allah's names and attributes. Allah is the Reckoned; He would not leave His servants' affairs without meticulously accurate reckoning - and that is His clear legislation. Also the clause completes the Islamic training, because Islam aims at training the people on the basis of monotheism. Although calling the witnesses removes strife and difference in most of the cases, yet sometimes it fails to do so, either because the witnesses deviate from justice or because of other factors. Islam reminds the parties that the spiritual reason (of this law), which is also higher and stronger, is the fear of Allah Who is enough as a Reckoned. There would never be any discord and difference, if the guardian, the witnesses and the orphan (who is receiving the property) keep this reality before their eyes.

Look at these two verses and see how singularly and marvelously they explain the subject in such a lovely style:

First, they give basic rules of guardianship over orphans' and other wards' properties; then they explain other important factors: how the property should be taken in trust and protected, how it should be managed to let it grow and bring in profits, how it should be returned to the ward; when the orphans or other wards should be put under guardianship and when should they be given independent authority to manage their affairs.

All this has been reinforced by describing its underlying common benefit, i.e.; all property belongs to Allah Who has made it a means of support for mankind - as we have explained above.

Second, they point to the basic ethical value which man is expected to attain through these laws; it is given by Allah in these words: “and speak to them with kind words”.

Third, they show that all these rules are based on the foundation of monotheism. This factor affects and governs all practical laws and ethical values; and its good influence remains effective always and everywhere - even when practical laws and ethical values are enfeebled and their hold on minds and hearts loosened. This reality is described in the last clause, “and Allah is enough as a Reckoned”

TRADITIONS

Ibn Abi Hatim has narrated from Sa'id ibn Jubayr (about the verse, And give to the orphans their. .) that he said: “A man from (the tribe of) Ghatfan had with him a great wealth of an orphan nephew of his. When the orphan attained majority, he demanded his property, but (the uncle) held it back from him. So he (the orphan) sued him before the Prophet; then the verse was revealed: And give to the orphans their property. .” (ad-Durru 'I-manthur)

as-Sadiq (a.s.) said: “It is not lawful for man's water to flow into more than four wombs of free women.” (at-Tafsir, al-'Ayyashi)

The same Imam said: “When a man has gathered four (wives) and divorces one of them, then he should not marry the fifth until the waiting period of the woman he has divorced comes to an end.” (al-Kafi)

The author says: There are many traditions on this subject.

It is narrated from Muhammad ibn Sinan that ar-Rida (a.s.) wrote to him inter alia in reply to his questions: “The reason, why man has right to marry four women and why woman is forbidden to marry more than one, is that when a man marries four women, the child would be affiliated to him; but if a woman had two or more husbands, it would not be known to whom the child belonged, because all of them (i.e., the husbands) would be sharing her marriage, and this would lead to perversion in relationship, inheritance and identification.” Muhammad ibn Sinan said: “One of the reasons of free women (sic) and permission of four women to one man is that they are more (in number) than men. So when (Allah) saw it - and Allah knows more - He said: 'then marry such (other) women as seem good to you, two and three and four.' So this is the determination which Allah has done, to give amplitude to rich and poor, so that man may marry according to his ability. . “ ('ilalu 'sh-shara 'i')

as-Sadiq (a.s.) said inter alia in a hadith: “And jealousy is (a characteristic) of men; and for this reason a woman is forbidden (all men) except her husband, and man is allowed four (wives); because Allah is too gracious to afflict them with jealousy and then allow the man to have three (other wives) with her.” (al-kafi)

The author says: It may be explained as follows: Jealousy, in the meaning of sense of honor, is a commendable characteristic and noble instinct; it changes equilibrium of man's nature, and it is this emotional agitation that exhorts him to defend what he reveres or holds dear, be it religion, honor or dignity, and provokes him to take revenge on anybody who violates its sanctity. This trait is found - more or less - in every human being, because it is a part of human nature. Now, Islam is a natural religion. It looks at all the natural instincts and traits and moderates them, restricting them to what is good for human life, and omitting that which is not necessary, e.g., the defective and imperfect ways of obtaining or hoarding the wealth, or matters connected with food and drink, clothes and spouses, and so on.

Now suppose that Allah allowed man to marry three more wives in addition to the one he had before - and we know that this religion pays full attention to the dictates of nature. It follows that what is seen of a woman's reaction when her husband brings another wife, and the change that occurs in her attitude towards her husband, is in fact envy, not jealousy. Further explanation will be given in the forthcoming discourse on polygamy, to show that this reaction of theirs is not a part of their nature, it is an extraneous accident.

Zurarah narrates from as-Sadiq (a.s.) that he said: “The man shall not take back whatever he gives in gift to his wife, nor shall she do so regarding whatever she gifts to her husband - whether she was compensated for it or not. Does not Allah, the Blessed, the High, say: 'and it is not lawful for you to take any part of what you have given them' (2: 229)? Again He says: 'but if they of themselves be pleased to give up to you a portion of it, then eat it with enjoyment (and with) wholesome (result)'; and it is applicable to dowry and gift (both).” (al-Kafi)

'Abdullah ibn al-Qaddah narrates from Abu 'Abdillah (a.s.) who narrates from his Father (a.s.) that he said: “A man came to the Leader of the faithful (a.s.) and said: 'O Commander of the faithful! I have got stomach pain.' The Commander of the faithful (a.s.) asked him: 'Do you have a wife? He said: 'Yes.' He said: 'Ask her to give you in gift something from her property which she be pleased to give you; then buy with it some honey; then pour on it some rainwater and drink it. Because I have heard Allah saying in His Book: “And We send down from the cloud water abounding in good. .” (50:9); and He has said: “There comes forth from within it (i.e., the bee) a beverage of many colors, in which there is healing for men” (16:69); and He says: “but if they of themselves be pleased to give up to you a portion of it, then eat it with enjoyment (and with) wholesome (result)”. You will be cured, God willing.”' (The Imam, a.s.) said: “So he did it and was cured.” (at-Tafsir, al-'Ayyashi)

The author says: Also as-Suyuti has narrated it in ad-Durru 'I-manthur from 'Abd ibn Humayd, Ibn al-Mundhir and Ibn Abi Hatim from the Imam (a.s.). It is a fine inference, and is based on extension of meaning. There are many traditions, based on the same principle, narrated from the Imams of Ahlu 'I-bayts (a.s.), some of which shall be quoted in appropriate places.

al-Baqir (a.s.) said: “When I tell you something, ask me (where it is) in the Book of Allah.” Then he said in one of his talks: “Verily the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) has forbidden idle talk, spoiling of property and asking too many questions.” He was asked: “Where is it in the Book of Allah? O Son of the Messenger of Allah!” He said: “Verily Allah, the Mighty, the Great, says: 'There is no good in most of their secret talks except (in his) who enjoins charity or goodness or reconciliation between people (14:114); and He has said: 'And do not give away your property which Allah has made for you a (means of) support to the weak of understanding'; and He has said: 'do not put questions about things which if declared to you, may trouble you' (5:101).” (al-Kafi)

Yunus ibn Ya'qub said that he asked Abu 'Abdillah (a.s.) about the words of Allah, And do not give away your property . to the weak of understanding'; he said: “Whom you do not trust.” (at-Tafsir, al-'Ayyashi)

Ibrahim ibn 'Abdu 'I-Hamid said that he asked the same Imam (a.s.) about the same verse, and he said: “Anyone who drinks intoxicant is weak of understanding.” (ibid).

'Ali ibn Ab; Hamzah narrates from Abu 'Abdillah (a.s.). He says: “I asked him about the verse, And do not give your property... He replied: 'They are the orphans; do not give them their property until you recognize maturity of intellect in them.' So I said: 'Then how will their property become our property? ' He said: 'If you are their heirs.' “ (ibid).

al-Baqlr (a.s.) said about this verse: “So the weak of understanding are the woman and child. When a man knows that his woman is foolish and spoils (the property), and his child is foolish and spoils (the property), he should not give any of them control of his property which Allah has made for him a support - i.e., a means of livelihood . “ (at-Talsir, al-Qummi).

The author says: There are may traditions on this subject, and they support what we have described earlier that as-safah has a wide range of meaning, having different grades, like the weak of understanding who is prevented by law to administer his estate, a child before attaining maturity of intellect, a woman who is fond of amusement and fantasy, one who drinks intoxicants, and generally the one whom you do not trust. The implications of giving the property will change with change of context, and so will do the possessive case of “your property”; you should apply the meanings accordingly.

The Imam's words in the tradition of Ibn Abi Hamzah, “If you are their heirs “, point to the reality we had mentioned earlier that all the property primarily belongs to the whole society, and then it comes to individuals and particular interests secondarily; it is because the whole society primarily shares the property that it is transferred from one person to another.

as-Sadiq (a.s.) said: “Orphan-hood of an orphan ends with nocturnal discharge and that is his maturity; and if he got nocturnal discharge, but no maturity of intellect was found in him - he was foolish or weak - then his guardian should hold back his property from him. “ (Man la yahduruh 'I -faqih)

The same book narrates from the same Imam (a.s.) about the verse, And test the orphans. ., that he said: “To find the maturity of intellect is protection of property.”

The author says: We have described earlier how the verse points to this meaning.

The same Imam (a.s.) said about the verse, and whoever is poor, let him eat reasonably: “He is the man who holds back himself from (earning his) livelihood; there is no harm (for him) in eating (from his ward's property) reasonably, if he makes (things) better for them (i.e., the wards); but if the property is small then he should not eat anything from it.” (Tahdhibu 'l-ahkam)

Ahmad, Abu Dawud, an-Nasa'i, Ibn Majah, Ibn Abi Hatim and an-Nahhas (in his an-Nasikh) have narrated from Ibn 'Umar that he said: “A man asked the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) and said: 'I do not have any property, and I have an orphan (under my guardianship).' (The Prophet) said: 'Eat from the property of your orphan, (but) not extravagantly nor wastefully; neither consolidating (your) property, nor protecting your property with his property.' “ (ad-Durru 'I -manthur)

The author says: There are numerous traditions of this theme from the Ahlu 'I-bayts (a.s.) and others. There are relevant laws of jurisprudence, and also traditions related to them. Anyone, who wants them, should look in the collections of traditions and books of jurisprudence.

Rifa'ah narrates from the Imam (a.s.) about the verse, .. Iet him eat reasonably, that he said: “My father used to say that it was abrogated.” (at-Tafsir, al-'Ayyashi)

Abu Dawud and an-Nahhas (both in an-Naisikh) and Ibn al-Mundhir have narrated through the chain of 'Ata' from Ibn 'Abbas about the verse, and whoever is poor, let him eat reasonably, that he said: “It has been abrogated by (the verse), (As for) those who swallow the property of the orphans unjustly, surely they only swallow fire into their bellies.” (ad-Durru 'l-manthur)

The author says: The claim that this verse was abrogated does not agree with the criteria of abrogation. No verse in the Qur'an could stand vis-à-vis this verse in the way an abrogating verse does with the abrogated one. The verse, (As for) those who swallow the property of the orphans unjustly, surely they only swallow fire into their bellies, does not go against the theme of this verse, because the eating allowed in this verse is conditional to being “reasonable”, while the eating forbidden in the other verse is conditional to being unjust; and there is no contradiction between permission to eat reasonably and prohibition to eat unjustly. Therefore, the truth is that the verse is not abrogated, and the two above-mentioned traditions are not in agreement with the Qur'an - it is apart from their weakness.

'Abdullah ibn al-Mughirah narrates from Ja'far ibn Muhammad (peace be on them both) about the words of Allah, then if you find in them maturity of intellect, make over to them their property, that he said: “If you see them loving the progeny of Muhammad, then raise them up in grade.” (at-Tafsir, al-'Ayyashi)

The author says: It is based on the flow of the Qur'an, of the esoteric meaning of the Book. The Imams of the religion are the fathers of the believers; and the believers, when they are unable to reach the Imams, are orphans of the knowledge. Therefore, if their affiliation to the Ahlu 'l- bayt is established by their love, they should be raised in status and degree by teaching them true knowledge - which is the inheritance of their fathers.

AN ACADEMIC ESSAY IN THREE CHAPTERS

1. Marriage is one of the Goals of Nature

The basic reality of sexual relation between man and woman is most clarly established by human - nay, even animal - nature; Islam being the religion of nature, confirms it without any doubt. Procreation - the goal nature wants to achieve with this union - is the basic factor and the only reason which has transformed cohabitation into marriage, and raised it from mere carnal relation to a durable union. That is why we see that the species of animals in which both parents jointly bring up their offspring - like the birds in their guarding the eggs and feeding and bringing up the chicks, and those animals who need a den or lair for giving birth to and bringing up their offspring and for preparation and protection of which the female needs cooperation of the male - have opted for a constant attachment and exclusive relationship between the male and the female. In this manner they come together, and share the tasks of guarding and hatching the eggs, and this cooperation continues till the chicks grow up and go their own way; then the parents separate (if they separate at all), then a new cycle begins. It shows that the real cause of marriage and the rationale for matrimony is the instinct of procreation and bringing up the children. As for the satisfaction of sexual urge or joining hands in struggle of life, like earning and saving money, preparation of food and drink, obtaining household effects and, in short, managing the domestic life - these things are not a part of the goal of nature; they are mere preliminaries of, or benefits accruing from, marriage.

It is clear from the above that:

Freedom and licentiousness shown by the couples - husband or wife cohabiting with other than his or her spouse without any restraint whenever and wherever he/she desires, like animal world where male mounts female wherever he gets the chance - as is the norm of the day in ‘‘civilized’’ countries; likewise fornication and particularly adultery;

Treating the marriage as a permanent union; and prohibition of divorce and separation, not allowing either party to dissolve the marriage and marrying another spouse - as long as the couple is alive;

Elimination of procreation and refusal to rear children; laying the foundation of marriage-tie on sharing the domestic life, as is prevelant in ‘‘advanced’’ countries; and consequently sending the newborn children to public nurseries established for their nursing and bringing up; All this goes against the laws of nature. The nature has equipped human being with instincts and organs which totally oppose these ‘‘modern’’ habits, as we have mentioned above.

Of course, there are animals in whose birth and rearing male’s continued presence is not needed. Once the female becomes pregnant, she takes on herself all the duties of pregnancy, and of nursing and rearing the offspring. In such cases there is no natural need of durable union between male and female. Such animals are free to cohabit as and when they feel the urge, to the extent that does not disturb the nature’s aim of preserving the species.

It would be a folly to think that it won’t harm man to disturb the system ordained by creation, to go against the dictates of nature, provided one compensated for the resulting defects with thought and deliberation; and that in this way he would freely enjoy the life and its blessings.

But such thought is nothing short of madness. These natural structures - including the human personality - are composites made of innumerable parts. When each part is kept in its proper place, following the laid down conditions, it creates an overall effect agreeable to the goal of nature, the aim of creation. This effect leads the species to its perfection. It is not unlike the medical mixtures and compounds, which require particular ingredients with especial qualities and prescribed measure and weights, and are dispensed with laid down process; and if changes are made even slightly in its weight or quality it will lose its effects.

Man is a being, naturally created of various parts compounded in a particular way; this especial process results in some inner qualities and psychological characteristics, which in their turn produce various actions and activities. If some of these actions are changed from their natural position, it will badly disturb the alignment of those qualities and characteristics, which in its turn will dislocate all the intrinsic characteristics and qualities from their natural position, will deviate the whole being from the path of nature; this would severe man’s link with his natural perfection, and turn him from the destination the nature was urging him to reach.

If we look at the general calamities mankind is submerged in nowadays, which render people’s endeavours to achieve comfortable and happy life null and void, and which are threatening the humanity with downfall and ruination, we shall find that it has been caused, in the main part, by the total absence of piety, and by the mastery that stupidity and cruelty, violence and greed, have got over human psyche; and the biggest factor in this mastery is this licentiousness and permissiveness, this discarding of natural laws concerning marital responsibilities and rearing of children. The system adopted nowadays for domestic life and for bringing up the children, kills the instincts of mercy and kindness and erases the traits of chastity, modesty and humility from man’s psyche, from the first moment of his awareness to his last breath.

Can’t we compensate for these deficiencies through our reason and contemplation? Forget it. Reason and understanding, like other faculties of life, is a tool acquired by nature as a means to bring the deviating factors back to the natural path. It is not meant to negate the endeavours of creation and dictates of nature; otherwise it would be tantamount to killing the nature by the very sword it had given in man’s hand to defend himself. Moreover, if the reason (a tool of nature) is used to support the depravity and decay of other natural faculties, this tool also would be damaged and misaligned like those others.

We are witnessing today that whenever man tries to remove, through his thinking, one of the catastrophes threatening the society, he opens the gate of a greater and more disastrous calamity; and sufferings and travails extend their tentacles some more.

Someone among these people might say: The psychological traits like chastity, generosity, modesty, kindness and truthfulness, which are called spiritual virtues, are relics of the era of superstition and barbarity; they are not good for the modern advanced man. Chastity puts fetters on man’s many desires. Generosity negates man’s endeavours for gathering money, and disregards all the troubles he had undergone in earning it; moreover, it encourages the poor to remain idle and degrade himself by begging here and there. Modesty is a bridle that prevents man from freely expressing his ideas or demanding his rights. Kindness weakens the heart; and truth does not agree with demands of today’s life.

COMMENT: This talk in itself is an example of the deviated thinking which we have mentioned above. This man is oblivious of the fact that these virtues are essential for a human society; if they are removed, the society cannot remain alive as society even for an hour.

What will happen if these characteristics were removed from the society? Everyone will exceed his limits to snatch others’ rights, properties and honour; nobody will offer any help to meet dire needs of society; nobody will feel any shame in breaking the laws of the land; no one will show any mercy to weaker groups - who cannot be held responsible for their weakness - like children and others; everyone will lie to everyone else, giving him wrong information and false promises. The society will disintegrate at once.

This man should understand that these virtues have not gone, nor will they ever go, away from this world. Human nature adheres to them and it will keep them alive as long as it is calling the mankind to live in society.The most important thing is to arrange and moderate these traits, so that they conform with the goal of nature, which invites man to a happy life. If the attitudes reigning nowadays over the advanced societies were really virtuous or truly well-balanced, they would not have pushed the society to such depravity and disaster; instead they would have led mankind to safety and peace, comfort and happiness.

To come back to our original topic: Islam has put the institution of matrimony in its natural place - as we have mentioned earlier. It has allowed marriage and forbidden fornication and illicit sexual relations. It has established the marriage tie, putting up with possibility of its dissolution, that is, divorce; and made this bond exclusive to a certain extent, as we shall explain below. The foundation of this bond was laid on procreation and bringing up the children; there is a well-known saying of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.): ‘Marry, procreate, increase your number ’’

2. Domination of Males over Females

Observation of animals’ sexual behaviour shows that the males have a sort of domination and authority over the females in this matter. It is as though the male considers himself to be the master of the female, possessing the right to mount her. That is why we see the males fighting each other for the females, but not vice versa; the female does not stand up to fight another female if the male goes to the latter. Likewise, loverites, the equivalent of proposals in our society, are initiated in animal kingdom by the males, not the females. It only means that the female is by nature aware that in this respect the male is the active and dominant agent, while she is only a passive receiver. Do not be mislead by occasional ingratiating behaviour of the male with the female when he fawns on her by doing whatever would please her; it is but a part of love- play, which he does to heighten the desire and increase the pleasure. But as far as the domination and mastery is concerned, it springs from his virility and its natural function.

The idea that strength and power are inseparable concomitants of the males, and softness and submissiveness, the characteristics of the females, is found more or less in all nations, and has filtered into various linguistic idioms and expressions. They call a tough unbendable thing as ‘‘male’’, and a tender pliable item as ‘‘female’’; e.g., [in Arabic] they say: Male iron, male sword, male grass, male place, and so on.

This idea is generally common to the whole human species, prevalent in different societies and various nations - although there might be some difference in degrees.

Islam has kept this reality in view in its legislation. Allāh says: Men are the maintainers of women, because of that with which Allāh has made some of them to excel the other [4:34]. Islam has made it obligatory for a wife to submit to her husband if he wants to cohabit with her - whenever possible.

3. Polygamy

As far as we have observed, the question of ‘‘monogamy or polygamy’’ in the animal world is not definitely settled. In cases where the male and the female have to live together (because the male remains busy whole time in helping his mate in ‘‘domestic’’ affairs, raising the children and looking after them) ‘‘monogamy’’ is the rule, i.e., the female remains exclusively attached to the male. Yet sometimes the system may be changed through skill, planning and guarantee of security, i.e., by domestication and training, as is seen between cock and hens and even pigeons, etc.

Coming to our own species, polygamy was a custom prevalent in most of the ancient nations like Egypt, India, China and Persia; and even Rome and Greece, who supplemented the wife with concubines who lived with her in the same house. Some nations, like the Jews and the Arabs, observed no limit; some married ten, twenty or even more wives; reportedly the king Solomon had married hundred of women.

Mostly, polygamy was prevalent in tribal and other similar communities, like villagers and highlanders. A head of family in such societies always felt a pressing need for a large coterie of followers. Polygamy was his way of achieving this goal; increased births gave him a large number of sons, who in some years became a force for defending his interests - a necessary part of life in those communities - and raising him to the leadership of the community. Also, the increased number of marriages increased the circle of relatives through affinity.

Some scholars have said that the main factor leading tribesmen or villagers to polygamy was their preoccupation with a lot of backbreaking jobs, like carrying and transporting loads; shepherding and cattle grazing; farming and irrigation; hunting, cooking and weaving; and things like that.

This theory is correct to a certain extent; but contemplation of their psychological traits proves that these factors had a secondary importance in their eyes. What we have mentioned earlier was the primary and basic concern or a nomad. Also it was this factor which led them to gather adopted sons around themselves.

There was one more basic reason which increased the number of wives in those societies, and that was the presence of women in much greater number than men. In those tribal societies battle and war was a never ending phenomenon, as was assasination and murder. Such killings continued to decrease the male population, and women’s number increased to a level where the only way to fulfil their natural needs was through polygamy. Think over it.

Islam has ordained marriage with one wife, and allowed marrying upto four, provided the man is able to treat them equitably; it has at the same time taken steps to remove the difficulties and shortcomings found in polygamy, as we shall mention later. Allāh says: and they (women) have rights similar to those upon them in a just manner [2:228].

Objections against Polygamy:

First Objection: It creates evil effects in society. It hurts the feelings of women, frustrates their hopes and stops the fountain-head of love in their hearts. The love is transformed into a desire for revenge. They neglect the household, do not look after children’s welfare, and pay their men in their own coin. Thus they indulge in adultery, embezzle their property, and tarnish their honour. The society immediately sinks to the lowest level possible.

Second Objection: Polygamy goes against the system which the nature has obviously established. Census figures, obtained from various communities generation after generation, show that the male and female populations are almost equal. It means that nature provides only one woman for one man. To disturb this balance goes against the nature’s programme.

Third Objection: Allowing polygamy encourages men to lust and avidity, and gives boost to such tendencies in society.

Fourth Objection: Polygamy degrades women in society, as it counts four women as equal to one man; and it is an unjust assessment, even from Islamic point of view which treats two women as equal to one man, e.g., in inheritance and evidence, etc. On that basis too, marriage with only two women should have been allowed - not with four. Marriage with four is deviation from justice, however we look at it.

These objections have been written by Christians or by those sociologists who advocate equal rights for both sexes in society.

Reply to the First Objection: We have repeatedly explained that Islam has laid the foundation of human society on rational, not emotional, life. In sociological field, it follows what is good for the society in reason, not what is desired by emotions or feelings.

It does not mean that Islam kills the emotions and feelings, or negates the divine gift of natural instincts. It is accepted in the Psychology that difference in education and training creates difference quantitatively and qualitatively in psychological traits and inner feelings and emotions. For example, many rites and customs that are highly appreciated by the Orientals are looked down upon by the Occidentals, and vice versa.

Every community differs from the others in one way or the other.

Religious education and training in Islam raises the woman to a level where her feelings are not injured with such things. Of course, the Western woman has become accustomed since many centuries to being the only wife, and has been taught this idea generation after generation.

This has created in her a psychological aversion against polygamy. Proof of this may be found in the shocking licentiousness and promisquity of men and women prevalent in the ‘‘advanced’’ nations nowadays.

Do not their men satisfy their lust with anyone they like and who responds favourably to their advances - no matter whether she is within prohibited degree or outside, is virgin or deflowered, is married or unmarried. It has reached a stage where one cannot find among them a single man or woman in a thousand who has not indulged in illicit sexual relations. Not only that; now they have plunged into sodomy to the extent that no one seems clean of it. The debauchery has become a norm of the day, so much so that just last year it was proposed in the British parliament to legalize the sodomy - after it had spread among them ‘‘illegally’’. As for the women, and especially virgins and spinsters, their affairs are even more amazing and more shocking.

Would that I knew why the women in those countries are not sorry for this state of affairs? Why are they not embarrassed by it? Why are their hearts not broken by it? Why are their feelings not injured when they see all this debauchery from their men? Also, why is the man not annoyed when he marries a girl and finds her deflowered and comes to know that she had already been bedded not only by one or two men? Why does he start boasting in the morning that her bride had been so popular with men that tens, rather hundreds, had vied with each other to win her favours? Why this insensitivity? Is there any reason except that this wantonness and immorality has been going on for so long, and this licentiousness and lasciviousness has so captured their minds, that now it has become a second nature to them; now it neither hurts their feelings nor looks strange or objectionable to them. It is as we had mentioned earlier that the prevalent customs mould the feelings and emotions in their own mould, and do not let them take any other shape.

As for the claim that polygamy makes the women neglect their house, ignore the children’s education and incline towards illicit sexual relations and embezzlement, experience shows hollowness of such talks. This law was ordained and enforced in the early days of Islam, and no scholar of history can claim that it had caused any disturbance in the social order. The reality was poles apart from such claims.

Moreover, the women who marry a man as his second, third or fourth wife - in Islamic or other polygamous societies - enter into marriage contract willingly, with their open eyes. They belong to the same society, they are not captured from other countries, nor have they been brought here for this purpose from outer space. Yet they willingly agree to such marriage for one or the other sociological reason. It follows that woman by nature is not against polygamous marriage; nor are her feelings injured by it. If there is any resentment it should be shown by the first wife; when a woman has remained alone with her husband, she would not like intrusion of another woman in her house, lest her husband show more attachment to the new wife, or the new wife acquire more authority, or differences raise their heads between the two wives’ children, or things like that. It shows that unhappiness and resentment, if there be any, springs not from natural disposition, but from an incidental situation, that is, remaining for sometime alone with the husband.

Reply to the Second Objection: The argument by the equality that nature supposedly maintains between numbers of males and females is untenable for many reasons:

1 - Marriage does not depend on equal rates of birth alone; there are many other factors and conditions that control it. First of all, maturity of mind and capability of marriage appears sooner in girls than in boys. Girls, and especially in hot climates, are ready for marriage as soon as they reach the age of nine; while boys do not attain puberty before the age of sixteen (and this is what Islam has kept in view for deciding the age of marriage).

Its evidence may be found in the behaviour prevalent among the girls in the ‘‘civilized’’ countries: Rarely does a girl remain virgin upto the age of the ‘‘legal adulthood’’; and the only reason is that nature makes her ready for marriage long before bestowing that ability on boys.

Now, let us look at a group of boys and girls born during the last sixteen years - and supposedly both sexes are equal in number. How many marriageable boys will be there in the group? Only those who are sixteen years old, that is, those born in the first year of the period under study. But how many girls of marriageable age will be there in the group? All those who were born from the first to the seventh year of this period [i.e., the marriageable girls will be seven times more than the marriageable boys]. Increase the period under study to twenty-five years (the age when men usually reach their full maturity and strength). How many men and women of marriageable age you get in this group? The men who were born during the first ten years, and the women who were born during the first fifteen years. It gives us an average of two women for each man, by natural law.

2 - Census reportedly shows that expectancy of life is greater in woman than in man. In other words, men die earlier, leaving some women who would remain alone, with no man to marry them if monogamy is to be the rule.40

3 - The ability to procreate continues longer in men than in women.

Usually women reach menopause at the age of fifty, while men’s virility continues for years and years after that. Sometimes his ability to procreate continue to the end of his natural age, i.e., a hundred years.

Accordingly a man’s reproductive period, about 80 years, would be double of that of a woman (which is about 40 years). This premises in conjunction with the preceding one proves that the creative nature allows the man to marry more than one wife. How can nature bestows the ability to reproduce and then prohibit the use of receptacles suitable for that reproduction? Such contrariness is not the way natural causality works.

4 - The carnages like battles and wars liquidate mainly the male population, compared to which women remain almost unaffected. As mentioned above, it was a strong factor in the spread of polygamy in the tribal societies. If those widows and spinsters are not cared for through polygamous marriages, then what are the alternative available to them?

Either fornication or negation and nullification of their natural faculties!

This problem had raised its head in West Germany a few months before writing these lines. There the spinster women spoke about the hardships and difficulties they were facing because they could not find any man free to marry them; they demanded from the government to allow them to contract polygamous marriage - in Islamic manner. The idea was to permit the men to marry more than one wife in order that those spinsters should not be deprived of their natural rights. But the government rejected the demand, and the Church refused to agree - although tacitly they agreed to the spreading of adultery and fornication and to the ruining of would-be generation.

5 - Even if we close our eyes from all the above factors, the argument of equality of the numbers of both sexes would stand only if we suppose that every man in the society marries polygamously - upto four wives. But nature has not prepared every man for it; only a few, and not all, can marry more than one wife. Islam has not made it compulsory for every man to enter into many marriages; it has only made it lawful - for him who is able to treat all wives equitably. This permission does not create any difficulty or disturbance; and its clearest proof may be found in the Muslim and other polygamous societies where it has not created any shortage of women and no man fails to find a wife for him. In contrast with that, we find in the monogamous societies thousands of women who are left in the lurch as they cannot find anyone to marry them and provide them a chance to settle in life; their only outlet is fornication.

6 - Apart from that, this objection could only be advanced if Islam had not had provided this rule with checks and balances for keeping it safe from those imaginary defects. Islam has made it compulsory for a man who wants to marry more than one wife to behave with them with justice and equity, to live with them in fairness, and divide the nights between them; it has obliged him to maintain them and their children equitably. Obviously, not every man can easily spend on, let us say, four wives and their offspring, keeping within the circle of justice and fairness in his dealings with them; it may be done only by some of the well-to-do people.

Moreover, there are some lawful Islamic ways which may be used by a woman to encourage and oblige her man not to marry another wife after her.

Reply to the Third Objection: This objection springs from not looking attentively at the Islamic way of education and training or at the goals of this Sharī‘ah. The education given to women in an Islamic society - as approved by religion - trains them to keep themselves covered, makes chastity and modesty their second nature, and protects them from breach of decency. Consequently, a Muslim woman grows up with far less sexual desire than is found in a man. This is in spite of common belief that sexual desire in a woman is stronger and greater. Why has this idea spread? Just because by nature a woman seems more concerned with her adornment and beauty. But the fact is otherwise; and no Muslim man (who has married women grown up in Islamic atmosphere) can have an iota of doubt about it. In reality, an average man’s sexual desire far exceeds that of a single woman - even of two or three of them.

Let us look at it from another angle. Islam is very concerned that none should be deprived of necessary natural desires or essential biological demands. From religious point of view, it is not good for a man to dam up his sexual desire and remain frustrated, as it would lead him to indecency and immorality. But a woman remains justifiably incapable of sexual relations for about a third of her married life, e.g., during monthly periods, advanced stages of pregnancy, delivery, breastfeeding and for similar other reasons. But it is necessary to provide for prompt satisfaction of the husband’s desire. It is the necessary conclusion of the repeatedly mentioned principle that Islam has laid the society’s foundation on rational, not emotional, basis. It is therefore a great danger from Islam’s point of view to leave the man unmarried or in his abovementioned sexual frustration, as it would lead him to lustful thoughts and immoral activities.

Apart from that, the Law-giver of Islam considers it very important that the Muslims should have lots of offspring, in order that the Earth should flourish with goodly prosperity at the hands of a Muslim society, erasing polytheism and mischief from the World.

It is these and similar other considerations which have led the Islam to legalize the institution of polygamy; it was not for spreading lustful ways or encouraging lecherous behaviour. Had our detractors followed the dictates of justice, their own social customs - popular among them who have built their society on the foundation of material enjoyment - more deserving to be accused of spreading immorality and encouraging licentiousness, than the Islam which has based its social order on the foundation of religious bliss and felicity.

Furthermore, just the fact, that man has the permission to marry other wives, pacifies and calms down the avidity, which a sense of deprivation could have agitated. Every deprived one is greedy; when one is forbidden a thing, his mind remains continually busy in devising plans to 'get that thing. Every Muslim - even if he has only one wife - is satisfied and contended that he is not prevented from satisfying his sexual desires if a need arose in future to do so. This in a way calms down his such desires, and protects him from inclining towards indeceny and tarnishing other’s honours.

A Western scholar has rightly said that the strongest factor that has contributed in spreading adultery and immorality in the Christian nations is the Church’s prohibition of polygamy.41

Reply to the Fourth Objection: This allegation is totally unacceptable. We have described in a previous discourse, when writing on the rights of women in Islam42 , that no social system whatsoever - be it religious or secular, ancient or modern - has ever honoured the women as much, and cared for their rights so comprehensively and perfectly, as the Islam has done; and we shall further explain it somewhere else. As for allowing a man to marry more than one woman, it is not intended to be a negation of women’s social prestige, nullification of their rights or degradation of their status in life; it is founded on several underlying benefits, some of which have been mentioned above.

A lot of the Western scholars - both men and women - have admitted the goodness and perfectness of this Islamic law, and the social disorder and dangers inherent in prohibition of polygamy. Interested readers should look for their comments in their books.

The strongest argument used by the Western detractors of polygamy, which they offer before their audience with much embellishment, is the condition found in those Muslim families where there are two or more wives. Such houses are devoid of happy life and good living. No sooner do the two rival wives enter the house than they start envying each other. (People call envy, the disease of rival wives.) Thereafter all the kind of feelings and noble characteristics which are ingrained in woman’s nature - love and tender-heartedness, kindness and gentleness, compassion and affection, good advice and looking after husband’s honour in his absence, faithfulness and devotion, mercy and sincerity for husband and his children from other women, and care for the house and household - are changed to their opposites. The home - the place intended for man’s comfort, where he expects to rest and relax after his daily toils and troubles, when he is dead tired in body and mind after the drudgery of earning his livelihood - is transformed into a battlefield where life and honour, wealth and prestige are freely attacked and violated; nothing is safe from any side; horizon of life becomes cloudy, pleasant existence, a thing of the past. In place of bliss and happiness, appear hitting and slapping, abuse, invective and curse, backbiting and tale-bearing, spying, intrigue and trickery. Children quarrel and dispute with one another. Things sometimes reach a stage where the wife plans to kill the husband, and some children kill the others or even their father. Kinship is metamorphosed into a never ending feud that for generations causes bloodshed, genocide and downfall of the house. Add to it the effects it brings to the society: unhappiness, moral corruption, cruelty, injustice, transgression, indecency and lack of security and trust. [There is also another dimension to this problem,] when you add legality of divorce to the permission of polygamy. These two factors, combined together, create in the society connoisseurs, who live luxurious lives and whose interest is centred on satisfaction of their lust and avidity; their passion revolves around getting this woman and discarding that one, raising one’s status and lowering the other’s. It is nothing less than thwarting and frustrating a half of the mankind, i.e., the females, and submerging them into sorrow and grief. Their degradation results in depravity of the other half [and the whole society is demoralized].

COMMENT: This was the gist of what they have said, and the objection is true - but its targets are the Muslims, not the Islam or its teachings.

When have the Muslims truly followed the Islamic teachings, that Islam could be held responsible for the consequences of their misdeeds?

Centuries have passed that there is no good government which could train them with noble teachings of the sharī‘ah. On the contrary, the first people to rip apart the curtain put up by the religion, to break the laws of the sharī‘ah and to violate its limits were the very Muslim rulers and people in power - and people follow the customs of their rulers. It is not possible to narrate here even a small portion of the life style in the ‘‘Muslims’’ Kings’ palaces, or the scandals indulged into by the sultans and governors, since the days the religious government turned into monarchy and sultanate; otherwise we will have to write a complete book on this subject. In short, the objection, if valid, can be laid against the Muslims: that they adopted a way of life which could not bring any happiness in their homes, and followed a policy which they could not prevent from deviating from the straight path. The whole blame lies on the men, not on their women or children - although every soul is responsible for what it has earned of sin. Why? Because it was these men’s behaviour - they thought nothing of sacrificing their own happiness, and that of their families and children together with the clean environment of the society, on the altar of their greed, lust and ignorance - that was the root cause of all these disasters and fountan-head of all these destructive troubles.

As for the Islam, it has not legislated polygamy as a compulsory and obligatory duty of every man. It looked at the people’s nature and at the difficulties some of them faced now and again, and so it concluded that polygamy contained definite goodness [for solving those problems], as was described above in detail. Then it looked minutely at the negative effects of polygamy and its dangers. Consequently, it allowed polygamy for the underlying benefit of humanity, but at the same time imposed such a restiction on it as to remove the chances of all those disgraceful depravities - that the man should be confident that he would live with them in equity and treat them justly and fairly. Islam allows plurality of wives only to him who is sure of himself in this respect. As for those who do not care for their own or their families’ and children’s happiness and felicity, whose only mark of honour is satisfaction of their stomachs and genitals, and in whose eyes woman is only a means to satisfy man’s lust and to give pleasure to him, Islam is not concerned with them, nor does it allow them to marry more than one - if we say that they are allowed to marry even the one, with that mentality of theirs!

Moreover, there is a mix-up in this objection between two completely separate aspects of religion, i.e., the legislation and the governmental authority. It may be explained as follows:

According to modern scholars the criterion to judge about a laid down law or prevalent tradition whether it is a good law and tradition or bad, is to look at the acceptable or unacceptable effects and results obtained from enforcement of that law in the societies, and whether or not the societies in the prevalent condition accept the law faithfully. I do not think they are oblivious of the fact that society sometimes is fettered by some customs, traditions or accidents that do not agree with the law under study; in such a condition, the society should be reformed in a manner as not to hamper or negate the said law or tradition, in order that it may be seen how the law works, and what effect it brings in its wake - whether it is good or bad, beneficial or harmful. The only difference is that their criterion for a laid down law is the currently prevailing desire and demand of the society - whatever that demand may be. Thus what agrees with their current wishes and demands is considered a good law, and what goes against it, is bad.

That is why when those Westerners saw the Muslims wandering in the valley of error, steeped in immorality in this life and wickedness in the next, they attributed to the Islamic sharī‘ah (which the Muslims supposedly followed) all the evils found among the Muslims, e.g., falsehood and embezzlement, indecency and usurpation of rights, prevalent transgression and ruined homes, and in short the whole spectrum of corrupted social order. They thought that the Islamic tradition and system is like other social systems in its implementation and effects. The other systems conform with their members’ desires and demands. So, those scholars thought that Islam too has the same quality, and that all these social disorders have been generated by Islam; that it is this religion that gives rise to depravity and corruption (and among them are found the most depraved and the most immoral persons; as they say, there are all kinds of game in the belly of the wild ass). Had it been a real religion, and its laid down laws really good and containing people’s welfare and felicity, it would have produced good and beautiful effects in the society, instead of becoming a curse for it.

But these people have confused the nature of a good and beneficial law with the nature of a corrupt and harmful people. Islam is a composite unit of spiritual knowledge, moral teachings and practical laws - all of which are interrelated. If one part is damaged or tampered with, the whole is damaged, and its effects are changed. It is not unlike the medical compounds and mixtures which require, for their health-restoring effects, their proper ingredients and a proper place to prepare them. If some ingredients are spoiled or adulterated, or if the directions for its use are not properly followed, it will not bring the desired effect; rather it may produce opposite result [and harm the patient].

At this juncture let us admit, for the sake of argument, that the Islamic system could not reform the people, and could not erase common social vices and depravities - because its legislative base was unsound. But why is it that the democratic system has not succeeded in our eastern countries as it has in Europe? Why is it that the more we try to go ahead on this path the farther back we fall? No one has any doubt that the vices and depravities have taken deeper roots in our society today (when we have become civilized and enlightened) than it was fifty years ago (when we were uncivilized barbarians!). Today our society is devoid of social justice; we trample on human rights; we do not give higher education to our masses; and we lack all the social benefits and blessings - for us these are merely names without substance, words without meaning.

Ask them the reason, and they will say: This good system has not worked among you because you have not really put it into practice, have not tried to implement it properly. Well, why this excuse is acceptable in case of democracy, but not in case of Islam?

Let us suppose that Islam, because of the weakness of its foundation (God forbid!), could not capture the people’s hearts and could not take deep roots in the society; and consequently its rule could not continue, it lost its vitality in the Muslims’ social order and was discarded at the first opportunity. But why did the democratic system - the universally appreciated system - go away, after the World War I, from Russia?

Why were its traces lost there? Why was it replaced by the communist system? Again, why did it give way, after the World War II, to the communist system in China, Lithuania, Estonia, Albania, Rumania, Hungary, Yugoslavia, etc.? Why does it pose a danger to other countries, after having established considerable influence in them?

Now let us look at the communist system. It flourished for about forty years; and spread to, and ruled over, nearly half of the mankind. Its rulers and champions are never tired of boasting of its excellence and superiority. According to them it is the only clean stream that is unpolluted by dictatorial tendencies and democracy’s exploitation; the countries where it has taken roots have turned into Utopia. If this claim is correct, then why did the same rulers and champions, some two years back, stand up to condemn the rule of its matchless leader, Stalin, who had led and governed Russia for thirty years? Why did they announce that his rule was despotic and dictatorial, and that it was nothing but enslavement in the guise of communism? Everyone agrees that Stalin had great influence in legislation of the laid down laws and their enforcement and all that follows. In other words, all this was produced by the will of an enslaving dictator; it was a one man’s rule, which revived thousands and killed thousands; made some people happy and kept others oppressed, deprived and unhappy. Only Allāh knows who will come after these [present rulers] to condemn them as they had done with their predecessors.43

Look into history books and you will find mention of a lot of systems, civilizations and cultures that governed the societies for sometime; some were good, others bad; then they passed away because of various factors - the strongest being the treachery of the leaders and feeble will of the masses.

Would that I knew what is the difference between Islam (as a social system) and those other transformed and changed systems, that the excuse [of leaders' treachery and followers’ weak-willedness] is accepted in their case and rejected in the case of Islam? Yes, today the word of truth has fallen between a formidable western might and an imitative eastern ignorance; neither any sky shelters over it nor any earth raises it up. However, it should be clear from what we have mentioned above that whether a system is effective or not, and whether its hold on the people remains strong or it loosened, depends not so much on its correctness or incorrectness - so that this aspect could be used to prove its truth or falsity. It is rather affected by so many other causes and reasons. There was not a single system in the long human history but it produced results for sometimes and then became barren; it ruled over the society for a stretch of time and then passed away - all this for some factors acting for or against it; and We bring these days to men by turns, and that Allāh may know those who believe and takes witnesses from among you [3:140].

In short, the Islamic sharī‘ah and its laws differ in their fundamental philosophy from all other social orders prevalent in various human societies. These [man-made] social systems go on changing with change of times and policies, but not so the Islamic laws. The Islamic laws - consisting of obligatory, prohibited, like, disliked and permissible - never change. Of course, those actions which a person has the choice to do or not to do, and every disposition which he has right to enact or leave, the Islamic ruler has got authority to order the people to do it or forbid them doing it; he can dispose such matters as if the society were a single body and the ruler its thinking mind and soul.

Had there been an Islamic ruler there, he could have prevented the people from the inequities and injustices they commit in the name of polygamy or for other pretexts, without affecting any change in the divinely given permission. It would have been a general executive order based on an underlying benefit, just as a man might decide for his personal reasons not to marry more than one wife - not because the rule had changed but because it was only a permission which he had full right not to avail himself of.

ANOTHER RELATED ACADEMIC DISCOURSE ON MANY MARRIAGES OF THE PROPHET

Another target of their objection is the many marriages of the Prophet. They say: Plurality of marriage in itself points to avidity and to yielding to lust and desire; and the Prophet was not content with four wives which he had allowed to his ummah, but exceeded even that limit and married nine women.

This question is related to many different verses of the Qur’ān, and detailed discussion of its every aspect should be given under those verses. Therefore, we are leaving the details for the relevant places, restricting ourselves to a short description here in a general way.

It is necessary to point out that the plurality of the Prophet’s marriages is not such a simple matter as to be dismissed in a sentence that ‘he was inordinately fond of women, so much so that he married nine wives.’ The fact is that he had married each one of his wives for some particular reason in particular circumstances during his long life. His first marriage was with Khadījah (may Allāh be pleased with her), and he lived with her alone for more than twenty44 years, and it constitutes two-thirds of his married life - and covered [almost] the whole Meccan period of the prophethood. Then he emigrated to Medina and began spreading the Call and raising the words of religion. Thereafter he married several women - virgin and widows, young, old and middle-aged. This continued for about ten years, then the women were prohibited to him other than those who were already in his marriage. Obviously, these happenings with this peculiarities cannot be explained just by love of women or desire and passion for them, because his early life and the later period both contradict this assumption.

Just look at a man with a passion for women who is infatuated with carnal desire, and enamoured of female companionship, with a sensual lust for them. You will find him attracted to their adornment, spending his time in pursuit of beauty, infatuated with coquetry and flirtation, and craving for youth, tender age and fresh complexion.

But these peculiarities were diametrically opposite of the Prophet’s character. He married widows after virgin, old-aged women after young girls. He married Umm Salamah (an aged woman) and Zaynab bint Jahsh (who was more than fifty years of age) after marrying ‘Ā’ishah and Umm Habībah, and so on.

Then he offered his wives a choice that he should give them a provision and allow them to depart gracefully (i.e., divorce them) if they desire this world and its adornment, or they should renounce the world and abstain from adornments and embellishments if they desired Allāh and His Messenger and the latter abode. It may be seen in the following words of Allāh: O Prophet! say to your wives: ‘‘If you desire this world’s life and its ornature, then come, I will give you a provision and allow you to depart a goodly departing. And if you desire Allāh and His Messenger and the latter abode, then surely Allāh has prepared for the doers of good among you a mighty reward’’ [33:28 - 29]. As you see this is not the attitude of a man who is enamoured of women’s love and infatuated with carnal desire.

If a scholar, after deeply studying this matter, follows the dectates of justice, he will have to look for some reasons, other than avidity and lust, for his plurality of wives, beginning with his early life to the latter days.

In fact he (s.a.w.a.) had married some of them to add to his strength by increasing relationships and helping hands; some of them were taken into marriage to win the enemies’ hearts and as a protection from some of their evils. He married some others to maintain and protect them, in order that it might become a regular practice among the believers for the protection of widows and aged women against poverty and degradation. Some marriages were performed to practically affirm and enforce a lawful order, for abolition of evil traditions and false innovations which were prevalent in the society. This was the case of his marriage with Zaynab bint Jahsh; she was first married to Zayd ibn Hārithah, then Zayd divorced her; this Zayd was called ‘‘son of the Messenger of Allāh’’ by the [pre-Islamic] custom of adoption; the pagans considered wife of an adopted son like the wife of an actual son and the ‘‘father-in-law’’ could not marry her. Therefore the Prophet married her [to confirm abrogation of adoption and the related customs], and several verses were revealed on this subject.

The first woman to be married to the Prophet after the death of Khadījah, was Sawdah bint Zam‘ah, whose husband had expired after returning from the second migration of Abyssinia. Sawdah was a believing lady who had migrated [for her faith]. If she were left to return to her own family who at that time were unbelievers, they would have tortured and tormented her as they were doing with other believing men and women using suppression and killings and forcing them to renounce their faith.

He married Zaynab bint Khuzaymah after her husband, ‘Abdullāh ibn Jahsh, was martyred in Uhud. She was one of the most generous ladies even in the era of ignorance, and was called ‘‘Mother of the poor’’, in recognition of her generosity and kindness towards needy people. The Prophet, with this marriage, preserved her prestige and dignity.

He also married Umm Salamah, whose actual name was Hind. Before that, she was married to ‘Abdullāh Abū Salamah, who was a cousing of the Prophet (son of his paternal aunt) and his foster brother; Abū Salamah [and his wife] were among the first to emigrate to Abyssinia. She had renounced the worldly pleasure and was highly distinguished in piety and wisdom. When her husband died she was very advanced in age and had many orphan children. That is why the Prophet married her.

Safiyyah was daughter of Huyayy ibn Akhtab, the chief of Banū ’n- Nadīr. Her husband was killed in the battle of Khaybar, and her father with Banū Qurayzah, and she was among the captives of Khaybar. The Prophet chose her for himself and married her after emancipating her.

With this marriage he protected her from humilitation and established affinity with the Children of Israel.

The marriage with Juwayriyyah, i.e., Barrah, daughter of al-Hārith, the chief of Banū ’l-Mustaliq, was performed after the battle of Banū ’l- Mustaliq. The Muslims had arrested two hundred of their families together with women and children. The Prophet married Juwayriyyah; so the Muslims said: ‘‘These are the relatives of the Messenger of Allāh (s.a.w.a.) by marriage; they should not be held captives.’’ So they freed all of them. Impressed by this nobility, the whole tribe of Banū ’l- Mustaliq entered into the fold of Islam. It was a very large tribe, and this [generosity of the Muslims as well as the Islam of that tribe] created a good impression throughout Arabia.

One of his wives was Maymūnah, whose name was Barrah bint al- Hārith al-Hilāliyyah. She was the one who gifted herself to the Prophet after the death of her second husband, Abū Ruhm ibn ‘Abdi ’l-‘Uzzā (al- ‘Āmirī). The Prophet then married her, and a verse was revealed regarding her marriage.

Also he married Umm Habībah, i.e., Ramlah daughter of Abū Sufyān. She was married to ‘Ubaydullāh ibn Jahsh and had emigrated with him to Abyssinia in the second Migration. While there, ‘Ubaydullāh was converted to Christianity, but she remained steadfastly on Islam; while her father, Abū Sufyān, in those days, was gathering army after army to annihilate the Muslims. Therefore, the Prophet married her and afforded protection to her.

Hafsah bint ‘Umar was married to him after her husband, Khunays ibn Hudhāfah, was killed in Badr, and she was left a widow.

And he married ‘Ā’ishah bint Abī Bakr, and she was a virgin.

When one looks at these details, and ponders on what we have mentioned above regarding the Prophet’s life from his early days to the end, and on his self-denial and rejection of worldly embellishments, and his exhortation to his wives to do the same, one can have no doubt that the marriages which he had contracted with these women were not like those done by other people. And to it the benevolence with which he treated the womanhood, revived their rights which the centuries of ignorance and barbarism had put to sleep, and restored their prestige and honour in the society. [He was so much concerned with women’s welfare that] reportedly the last words he uttered were addressed to the men about their women. He had said: ‘‘(Be careful about) prayer, (be careful about) prayer; and (about) what your right hands possess, do not impose on them what they have no strength for; (fear) Allāh, (fear) Allāh about the women, because they are helpless in your hands ...’’

His behaviour was matchless in dealing equitably with his wives, living with them gracefully and paying regard to their feelings and wishes (as we shall describe some aspects of it when writing on his characteristics in the coming discourses, God willing.) As for the permission to marry more than four, it was, like the fasting continuously for two days without any break at night, an order exclusively reserved for the Prophet - the ummah was prohibited it. It was these especial characteristics - and the fact that all people were clearly aware of them - that did not have any room for objection to his enemies, although they were always on the look out for some openings to attack him.

* * * * *