Zia's space

If I went on the street right now and asked non-Muslims: “What is the first word that pops into your head when the word ‘Islam’ is mentioned?” I would most definitely get one of the following answers: “Terrorism,” “9/11,” “Bin Laden,” or “Suicide Bombings.” And if I asked those same persons: “Tell me something about the core principles of Islam,” I would most probably get: “We do not know.” Ignorance is something that can be readily taken advantage of. When people ‘know’ nothing of a subject, what they are told becomes their only perception of the matter, even if it is distorted or misrepresented. The media, or any person that has influence, have the power to change what people believe and make them adopt their own views without fully revealing all the facets of the issue. Such is the case with people who are not familiar with what Islam is really about. Muslims, too, however have done an extremely poor job in conveying the true image of Islam.

Terrorism

Nowadays, this religion has become depicted by a thick-bearded Arab, standing in a desert, wired with explosives, with an AK-47 in his hands, burning an American flag. There is no denying that in all stereotypes lies some truth, but what people do – in this case Muslims who perform terrorist acts – does not necessarily reflect what the religion itself permits. If we were to do this, then we could say that Catholicism is a religion about child molestation. Islam is derived from the Arabic word Salam, which means ‘Peace’. In fact, the literal meaning of Islam is ‘Complete Submission [to God alone].’ In other words, Islam is fulfilling the will of God. Does such a religion encourage terrorist attacks like the ones on 9/11? Of course not; the women and men that worked in the World Trade Center have done nothing wrong to deserve such a death. Then why were so many Muslims happy when this attack occurred? Like westerners and all people, Muslims generalize as well. Here, however, Muslims did not rejoice about the actual deaths of the innocent people that were murdered, but for America – which is viewed as ‘The Bad Guy’ – getting hit.

Muslims and all Arabs now are being labeled as terrorists and getting discriminated against. As is the case with any religion, there are extremists who misinterpret what religion asks of them. In fact, Muslims, like others, are now killing their own brothers in religion for adopting different views – e.g. Sunni/Shi‘i conflicts. This is why Muslims today have not been able to uphold the true perfection of Islam for outsiders to see. Such acts have no place in Islam. By the very execution of these actions, extremists forfeit their title of ‘Muslims’. Terrorism contradicts the very philosophy of Islam. It is prohibited and inconsistent with Islamic principles, automatically rendering it ‘un-Islamic’.

Islam is Pro-War

War is abominable, but sometimes necessary. World War II required that Nazism be confronted. Any nation which advocates justice could not have stood idly by and watched this dangerous threat lead to the deaths of millions of innocent, undeserving people. Hitler’s regime had to be thwarted. “If God did not drive some back by means of others the earth would be completely corrupt, but God is bountiful to all.” “Those who have been attacked are permitted to take up arms because they have been wronged – God has the power to help them – those who have been driven unjustly from their homes only for saying, ‘Our Lord is God.’ If God did not repel some people by means of others, many monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, where God’s name is much invoked, would have been destroyed. God is sure to help those who help His cause – God is strong and mighty.” Fighting oppression – or aiding those who cannot defend themselves – and self-defense are the only justifiable reasons for war. Yet, when the word Jihad is mentioned, it is automatically associated with terrorism and violence. The meaning of the word Jihad is to ‘strive’, or ‘make effort [in the way of God]’. It can be both peaceful and physical. Muhammad PBUH said, “The best Jihad is when a person strives against his own self for the sake of God.” This is when a person strives in resisting and avoiding temptations to remain pure.

However, it is the misinterpreted physical Jihad which has regretfully caught the attention of non-Muslims – and, of course, unenlightened Muslims. In the Qur’an, it says, “Why should you not fight in God’s cause and for those oppressed men, women, and children who cry out, ‘Lord, rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors! By Your grace, give us a protector and helper!’?” “Fighting is ordained for you, though you dislike it. You may dislike something although it is good for you, or like something although it is bad for you: God knows and you do not.” People who falsely claim that Islam is pro-war make it sound as if Muslims and prophet Muhammad PBUH were the only servants of God who have ever fought in wars. What about David, did he not kill Goliath in war? Or Solomon, did he not have armies that fought in God’s cause? Are David and Solomon not ‘Christian’ and ‘Jewish’ prophets as well? What about Moses: did he not command the Children of Israel to fight those who occupied Jerusalem? Were they not cursed for forty years to roam in the desert because they did not fight?

With a dangerous resort such as War, however, rules and guidelines have to be instilled in order for people not to overstep the bounds of justice and become the very oppression they were fighting against. “Fight in God’s cause against those who fight you, but do not overstep the limits” – i.e. prohibition of starting hostilities, fighting non-combatants, disproportionate response to aggression, killing children, women, the sick, or the elderly (1) – “God does not love those who overstep the limits. Slay them wherever you find them(2) and drive them out from where they drove you out, for persecution is more serious than killing. Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do fight you, kill them – this is what such disbelievers deserve – but if they stop, then God is most forgiving and merciful. Fight them until there is no more persecution, and your worship is devoted to God. If they cease hostilities, there can be no further hostility, except towards aggressors. A sacred month for a sacred month: violation of sanctity [calls for] fair retribution. So if anyone commits aggression against you, attack him as he attacked you, but be mindful of God, and know that He is with those who are mindful of Him. Spend in God’s cause: do not contribute to your destruction with your hands(3), but do good, for God loves those who do good” (2:190-5).

“Both non-Muslims eager to criticize Islam and some Islamic extremists have repeatedly used qur’anic verses to put them out of context and give them new meaning. They distort what the verses say by omitting parts and masking further explanations. This technique has been frequently used to justify erroneous views, especially for the previously mentioned verses. ‘Slay them wherever you find them’ taken out of context implies that Muslims may kill non-Muslims wherever they find them. As mentioned above, the only situations where the Qur’an allows Muslims to fight are in self-defense or the defense of the oppressed who call for help; but even then, this is restricted to those with whom the Muslims do not have treaty obligations: ‘If they seek help from you against persecution, it is your duty to assist them, except against people with whom you have a treaty: God sees all that you do’ ” (Haleem, 2004). Not even breaking treaties is permissible in Islam, so how can people claim that murder is?

(Back to the verses 2:190-5) “The pronoun ‘them’ refers to the words ‘those who fight you’. Here, Muslims are here being allowed to fight the Meccans who attacked them. ‘Wherever you find them’ or ‘come up against them’ is also misunderstood. As exegetes and commentators explain, the Muslims were anxious that if their enemies attacked them in Mecca, which was and is a sanctuary – in which no Muslim is allowed to fight, or kill even an animal or plant – and they retaliated and killed, they would be breaking the law. The Qur’an simply reassured the Muslims that they could defend themselves when attacked, even if they killed their attackers, whether within the sanctuary or outside it. However, the six verses that concern war (2:190-5) contain many restrictions and are couched in restraining language that appeals strongly to the Muslims’ conscience. In six verses we find four prohibitions; seven restrictions (one ‘until,’ four ‘if,’ two ‘who fight you’); as well as such cautions as ‘in God’s cause,’ ‘be mindful of God,’ ‘God does not love those who overstep the limits,’ ‘He is with those who are mindful of Him,’ ‘loves those who do good,’ and ‘God is most forgiving and merciful.’ ” (Haleem, 2004).

“Equally misinterpreted and taken out of context is the following qur’anic verse: ‘When the [four] forbidden months are over, wherever you find the polytheists, kill them, seize them, besiege them, ambush them – but if they turn [to God], maintain the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms, let them go on their way, for God is most forgiving and merciful.’ The hostility and bitter enmity of the polytheists and their persecution of the Muslims during the time of the Prophet PBUH became so great that the disbelievers were determined to convert the Muslims back to paganism or finish them off: ‘They will not stop fighting you [believers] until they make you revoke your faith, if they can.’ It was these hardened polytheists in Arabia, who would accept nothing other than the expulsion of Muslims or their reversion to paganism, and who repeatedly broke their treaties, that the Muslims were ordered to treat in the same way – either to expel them or to accept nothing from them except Islam. But, even then, the Prophet PBUH and the Muslims were not simply pounce on such enemies, reciprocating by breaking the treaty themselves: an ultimatum was issued, giving the enemy notice that, after the four sacred months, the Muslims would wage war on them.” (Haleem, 2004).

“Yet the main clause of the sentence – ‘Kill the polytheists’ – is singled out by some non-Muslims as representing the Islamic attitude to war, even some Muslims take this view and allege that this verse abrogated many other verses, including ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ and even, according to a possible extremist, ‘God is forgiving and merciful.’ This far-fetched interpretation isolates and decontextualizes the many reasons given in order to fight such polytheists: they continually broke their agreements and aided others against the Muslims, they started hostilities against the Muslims, barred others from becoming Muslims, expelled them from the Holy Mosque and even from their own homes. Moreover consistent with restrictions on war elsewhere in the Qur’an, the polytheists who do not break their agreements and keep the peace with the Muslims are granted security: ‘If any one of the polytheists should seek your protection [Prophet], grant it to him so that he may hear the word of God – then take him to a safe place – for they are people with no knowledge.’ ” (Haleem, 2004).

War in Islam is only resorted to in order to establish justice. It is something God has ordained on His faithful servants who seek to do good in the lands. As for killing in general, the Qur’an explains: “Do not kill each other, for God is merciful to you”; “Never should a believer kill another believer, except by mistake […]. If anyone kills a believer deliberately, the punishment for him is Hell, and there he will remain: God is angry with him, and rejects him, and has prepared a tremendous torment for him.” “On account of [his deed], We decreed […] that if anyone kills a person – unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land – it is as if he kills all mankind, while if any saves a life it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind.” 

Intolerance of Other Religions

Many people critique Islam by saying that it does not tolerate other religions when it clearly states in the Qur’an: “[…] and He does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with anyone who has not fought you for your faith or driven you out of your homes: God loves the just.” Perhaps the qur’anic verse they rely on the most is verse 5:51 which says: “You who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as allies: they are allies only to each other. Anyone who takes them as an ally becomes one of them – God does not guide such wrongdoers.” However, the Jews and Christians talked about here are clearly just the ones who are against the Muslim camp, as is clear from the following verses up to 5:59 : “You who believe, do not take as allies those who ridicule your religion and make fun of it – whether people who were given the Scripture before you, or disbelievers – and be mindful of God if you are true believers. When you make the call to prayer, they ridicule it and make fun of it: this is because they are people who do not reason. Say [Prophet], ‘People of the Book, do you resent us for any reason other than the fact that we believe in God, in what was sent down to us, and in what was sent before us, while most of you are disobedient?’ ”

Non-Muslims who want to show how Islam is intolerant of others also use the following qur’anic verse: “He that chooses a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted of him and in the world to come, he will be one of the lost.” However, as mentioned before, “the word ‘Islam’ in the Arabic of the Qur’an means complete devotion/submission to God, unmixed with worship of any other. All earlier prophets are thus described by the Qur’an as Muslims. Those who read this word ‘Islam’ in the sense of the religion of prophet Muhammad PBUH will illegitimately set up a barrier between Islam and other monotheistic religions.” (Haleem, 2004). Logically, for Islam to be the true religion of God, it has to be attainable by any person, at any time, anywhere. It is this fundamental principle of one surrendering his will to God which makes Islam universal and not constrained to a certain type of people.

Further proof that Islam does not oppose peoples’ different beliefs can be seen in the following qur’anic verses: “The [Muslim] believers, the Jews, the Christians, and the Sabians – all those who believe in God and the Last Day and do good – will have their rewards with their Lord. No fear for them, nor will they grieve”; “Some of the People of the Book believe in God, in what has been sent down to you and in what was sent down to them: humbling themselves before God, they would never sell God’s revelation for a small price. These people will have their rewards with their Lord: God is swift in reckoning”; “You [Prophet] are sure to find that the most hostile to the believers are the Jews and those who associate other deities with God(1); you are sure to find that the closest in affection towards the believers are those who say, ‘We are Christians,’ for there are among them people devoted to learning and ascetics. These people are not given to arrogance, and when they listen to what has been sent down to the Messenger, you will see their eyes overflowing with tears because they recognize the truth [in it]. They say, ‘Our Lord, we believe, so count us amongst the witnesses. Why should we not believe in God and in the truth that has come down to us when we long for our Lord to include us in the company of the righteous?’ For saying this, God has rewarded them with Gardens graced with flowing streams, and there they will stay: that is the reward of those who do good.”

Hence, the verse “He that chooses a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted of him and in the world to come, he will be one of the lost” cannot be interpreted as shunning off any person who is not a Muslim. The Qur’an simply underlines the fact that there are differences between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity which sets them apart – depending on what the followers of each religion believe. “We have assigned a law and a path to each of you. If God had so willed, He would have made you one community, but He wanted to test you through that which He has given you, so race to do good: you will all return to God and He will make clear to you the matters you differed about.”

“The Qur’an clearly defines its relationship with earlier scriptures by saying: ‘He has sent the Scripture down to you [Prophet] with the Truth, confirming what went before: He sent down the Torah and the Gospel earlier as a guide for people.’ ” In ‘Consultation’, it says, “In matters of faith, He has laid down for you [people] the same commandment that He gave Noah, which We have revealed to you [Muhammad] and which We enjoined on Abraham and Moses and Jesus: ‘Uphold the faith and do not divide into factions within it’ – what you [Prophet] call upon the idolaters to do is hard for them; God chooses whoever He pleases for Himself and guides towards Himself those who turn to Him. They divided, out of rivalry, only after knowledge had come to them […]. Those after them, who inherited the Scripture, are in disquieting doubt about it. So [Prophet] call people to that faith and follow the straight path as you have been commanded. Do not go by what they desire, but say, ‘I believe in whatever Scripture God has sent down. I am commanded to bring justice between you. God is our Lord and your Lord – to us our deeds and to you yours, so let there be no argument between us and you – God will gather us together, and to Him we shall return.’ ”

“The Qur’an forbids arguing with the People of the Book except in the best way and urges the Muslims to say, ‘We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you; our God and your God are one [and the same].’ And in another verse, it says, ‘Say, “People of the Book, let us arrive at a statement that is common to us all: we worship God alone, we ascribe no partner to Him, and none of us takes others beside God as Lords.” ’ ” (Haleem, 2004).

Islam Spread By The Sword

Jihad is usually translated by the Western media as ‘Holy War’. There is no term in Arabic which means ‘Holy War’. War is not ‘Holy’ in Islam. It was terms like this which were used to justify the slaughter and pillages of many towns and cities. How many wars have raged during the Middle Ages because of Popes who sought more power or were intolerant of other beliefs? “When it is said to them, ‘Do not cause corruption in the land,’ they say, ‘We are only putting things right,’ but they are really causing corruption, though they do not realize it.” As shown previously, Islam cannot force people to convert. It did not spread by the sword unlike other religions. There were military confrontations between the Muslim state and the existing world powers of Byzantium and Persia. The areas conquered were put under Muslim administration and the populations were free to maintain their own beliefs. (Khaled, 2005). Anyone familiar – familiar is the key word here – with the early history of Islam will know that all those nations and empires which came under the fold of Islam were indeed previously oppressed. “When the companions of prophet Muhammad PBUH went out for the offensive jihad against the Egyptians, the Persians, and the Byzantines, we find that the peoples there did not resist against them at all. Rather, they accepted Islam and considered it a liberation from centuries of tyranny. In fact, with the Byzantine Egyptians and the people of Spain, the Muslims were even beckoned to come and liberate these lands from the oppression of their kings.” (Phillips, n.d.).

This is the glorious historical track of Islam. Compare this with the brutal record of other religions and you will see that only Islam has a clean slate. Even true non-Muslim historians cannot deny the truth in what is written here. “The largest Muslim country in the world today is Indonesia, having over 200 million citizens. It never saw a Muslim soldier. Islam spread there and in Malaysia and Philippines by trade. That was also the case of Islam’s spread in West African countries like Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Chad and Niger.” (Phillips, n.d.). Today, Islam is the fastest growing religion. Are Muslim soldiers still forcing people to convert?

Suicide

Unfortunately, many misguided Muslims have taken suicide bombings as being a virtuous act by which one gets rewarded with Heaven. They believe that the courage it takes to end one’s own life is the courage needed for Muslims to reinstate the glorious days of Islamic rule. They consider it martyrdom when, in fact, it is a terrible sin by which they end what God has ordered them to cherish. The Prophet PBUH said, “Those who go to extremes are destroyed.” In another quote, he says, “He who kills himself with anything, God will torment him with that until the Day of Judgement, and then he will be hurled into the Fire for a more severe punishment.” During the battle of Uhud, there was a man, in the Muslim army, who fought ferociously. He did a lot of damage to the opposing party. But when he got struck by a sword and did not die, he killed himself – either for honour, or to end his suffering. So the Prophet PBUH said, “He is an inhabitant of the Fire.” The companions were surprised to hear this, for the man had killed many disbelievers. So Muhammad PBUH said, “A person may perform deeds which might appear to be deeds befitting for a dweller of Paradise, when, in fact, that person is one of the dwellers of the Fire. He has wrongly taken his own life and could not wait for God’s Mercy.” Life is something precious which God has given to humans. Taking it away is considered a great sin, whether it be one’s own life, or the lives of others. Suicide bombings are not only forbidden because they are suicidal, but because they also unjustly end the lives of innocent people, or people who do not deserve death. They are acts of rebellion and are considered to be a claim of divinity in God’s eyes. It is as if the person is saying to God, “Yes, You have the power to give Life, but I have the power to end it.”

Status of Women

Islam has also been accused by many outsiders of lowering the status of women in the community. But the truth escapes these attackers, for they always fail to acknowledge all the facts. Before the time of the Prophet PBUH, women had no rights. In Europe, they used to question whether a woman had a soul or was an animal. In pre-Islamic Arabia, women were treated like pieces of property. If a man died leaving a widow, her stepson or another man of his family could inherit her, even against her will. Only women of noble families were not discarded like mere objects. In the Qur’an, however, it says, “You who believe, it is not lawful for you to inherit women against their will, nor should you treat your wives harshly […]. Live with them in accordance with what is fair and kind: if you dislike them, it may well be that you dislike something in which God has put much good.” (Khaled, 2005).

Pagan Arabs were also known for their habit of female infanticide. Whenever a father was given the news that his wife bore him a daughter, he would feel disgraced and shamed. So men, back then, used to bury their baby girls alive. The Qur’an describes this as follows: “When one of them is given news of the birth of a baby girl, his face darkens and he is filled with gloom. In his shame he hides himself away from his people because of the bad news he has been given. Should he keep her and suffer contempt or bury her in the dust? How ill they judge!” “[…] when the baby girl buried alive is asked for what sin she was killed [...] then every soul will know what it has brought about.” “God has control of the heavens and the earth; He creates whatever He will – He grants female offspring to whoever He will, male to whoever He will, or both male and female, and He makes whoever He will barren; He is all knowing and all powerful.”

When Muhammad PBUH was sent with the Message, he forbade killing infant girls and was quoted on saying, “Whosoever brings three daughters upon this religion, and has raised them well, and taught them well, and treated them well, will be granted Paradise.” So a man asked the Prophet PBUH, “O Prophet of God, what if a man had only two daughters?” He replied, “Even if he has only two.” Then the Prophet PBUH was asked again, “And what if a man had only one daughter?” On that, the Prophet PBUH smiled.

The Qur’an provides clear proof of gender equality: “Whoever does evil will be repaid with its like; whoever does good and believes, be it a man or a woman, will enter Paradise and be provided for without measure”; “To whoever, male or female, does good deeds and has faith, We shall give a good life and reward them according to the best of their actions”; “For men and women who are devoted to God – believing men and women, obedient men and women, truthful men and women, steadfast men and women, humble men and women, charitable men and women, fasting men and women, chaste men and women, men and women who remember God often – God has prepared forgiveness and a rich reward.” Notice how the Qur’an makes no distinctions between the two sexes: they both perform good deeds as well as bad ones. There is no biasness or discrimination against women. On the contrary, God has put forth the examples of Mary the Virgin and the Pharaoh’s wife as role models for believing women to follow: “God has also given examples of believers: Pharaoh’s wife, who said, ‘Lord, build a house in Your Garden for me: save me from Pharaoh and his actions; save me from the evildoers,’ and Mary, daughter of ‘Imran. […] She accepted the truth of her Lord’s words and Scriptures: she was truly devout.” 

The reason why some people believe that Islam holds women’s status to be inferior to that of men is because of verses like 2:228 of the Qur’an, which states “ ‘husbands have a degree [of right] over them [their wives].’ This verse has been variously interpreted by Muslims and non-Muslims to relegate women in general to a lower status, when in fact it is not true. The reference here is not to ‘women’ and ‘men’ but to ‘wives’ and ‘husbands’. The context is in questions of divorce, between wives and husbands. Partly based on the misinterpretation of this verse, most traditional scholars came to the view that Muslim women could not be judges, for instance. A further example of discrimination against women due to disregard of context is found in the way some scholars interpreted verse 2:282. In urging the recording of a debt in writing, the Qur’an says: ‘Call in two men as witnesses. If two men are not there, then call one man and two women out of those you approve as witnesses, so that if one of the two women should forget the other can remind her.’ The majority view was to generalize this testimony and all other situations as women being unequal to men. The fact is that the verse should be seen in its context, where the Qur’an is insisting on the protection of people’s property. What some interpreters forget is that the Qur’an calls on people to do this in a cultural environment where women generally were less involved in money matters and calculations than men, and less literate. Modern interpreters take the view that the cultural context is different now and that a woman can be as well educated as a man, or even better. Therefore, they confine this verse to its cultural context and allow a woman now to give witness alone, just as she is allowed to be a judge on her own.” (Haleem, 2004).

“Another of His signs is that He created spouses from among yourselves for you to live with in tranquility: He ordained love and kindness between you.” The Qur’an describes marriage as something filled with love, mercy, and tranquility, not oppression and injustice. A wife plays a crucial role in supporting her husband, but she can also have an impact on society and the people around her as well. Why are the numbers of divorces in Muslim societies significantly smaller than those of western societies if all Muslim women are truly being treated unfairly by their husbands? Only ignorant Muslims, Islam-critics, and Feminists (in general) believe that Islam confines the role of women to that of housewives. Believers, both men and women, are encouraged by God to be proactive; so what right do husbands have to restrict their wives from quenching their need to work, or learn, or interact with society? Unlike what is portrayed by mainstream stereotypes, women in Islam are not forced to marry men they do not desire. A Muslim woman marries the man of her choice. Her parents can play a role in determining who she marries, but the ultimate decision goes back to her – although, there are always exceptions.

The way Muslim women dress has also been criticized negatively. Westerners have often portrayed it as being outdated and oppressive, but when did conservatism, bashfulness, and chastity become things that repress freedom or productivity? Wearing a headscarf is also seen in Christianity and Judaism – e.g. Nuns. In fact, with all the exposure to sex and the increasing number of sexual harassments, rapes, and unsafe environments, women now need to cover themselves even more than before. It is ironic how the people, who oppose women wearing a veil, come from the very same societies where all the problems stated above are frequent and on the increase. It is more pure and modest for women to cover themselves. Not only do they protect themselves, but they also avoid temptation and the lustful eyes of men around them. (Al-Sunnah.com).

“Prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and women believers to make their outer garments hang low over them so as to be recognized and not insulted.” “[Prophet], tell believing men to lower their gaze and guard their private parts: that is purer for them. God is well aware of everything they do. And tell the believing women that they should lower their gaze, guard their private parts, and not flaunt their charms beyond what [is acceptable] to reveal; they should let their headscarves fall to cover their necklines and not reveal their charms.” God wants to protect women from sins, harm, and insults. In fact, badmouthing a woman’s reputation is a severely punishable offense: “As for those who accuse chaste women of fornication, and then fail to provide four witnesses, strike them eighty times, and reject their testimony afterwards: they are the lawbreakers, except for those who repent later and make amends: God is most forgiving and merciful.” If Islam is not a religion that honours women, then I do not know a religion that does.

Polygamy

Polygamy is another sensitive issue which has sparked much debate and attacks directed at the morality of Islam. It is a very ancient practice found in many societies, both present and past. It was not something established by Islam. It is neither mandatory, nor encouraged, but merely permitted. “Permission to practice polygamy is not associated with mere satisfaction of passion. It is rather associated with compassion toward widows and orphans. Islam, in fact, regulated this practice, limited it, made it more humane, and instituted equal rights and status for all wives. It established conditions and rules in a time where Arabs used to have as many as ten – or even more – wives and considered them to be ‘property’. A man is only allowed, at most, four wives on the condition that he can fulfill the stringent conditions of treating each fairly, as well as providing each with separate housing. “Marry of the women that please you, two, three, or four, but if you fear that you will not be able to deal justly with them, then only one […] that is more likely to make you avoid bias.” It is also evident that the general rule in Islam is monogamy and not polygamy: only 2% of Muslims practice it over the world.” (Al-Sunnah.com).

Other religions have legitimized the practice of polygamy too. There are no scriptural accounts of Jesus prohibiting it, though the Jewish society around him exercised it. On the contrary, the Old Testament states that prophet Solomon “had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines” (1 Kings 11:3). David is also said to have many wives and concubines in Samuel 2, 5:13 : “And David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came from Hebron; and more sons and daughters were born to David.” Similar to Muslims, early Christians were engaged in polygamous relationships, following Jewish tradition.

The point that is often misunderstood is that women in other cultures do not necessarily see polygamy as something unacceptable or degrading. The proof of that is that some of these women are in polygamous relationships themselves. No woman can be forced into this kind of marriage if she does not wish it. Women also have the right to exclude it in their marriage contract. Furthermore, the environmental settings of the past are ignored once again by critics who view polygamy as immoral. The fact is that, back then, there were more women than men due to the constant state of war people lived in. Husbands would get killed, and widows would be left with no one to provide for them. Polygamous relationships were considered normal. Now, polygamy is impractical and almost absent, much less frequent than extramarital affairs in the West. (Al-Sunnah.com).

Slavery

‘Slavery’ is a scary word, but so was ‘Independence’ when it was referred to as ‘Revolution’. The word ‘Revolution’ then became ‘Separation’. But that was a scary word too. So ‘Separation’ became ‘Autonomy’, and ‘Autonomy’ became ‘Independence’. Words can be deceiving. In Arabic, the word ‘Abd means ‘Slave’. It also means ‘Servant’(2). That is why in many translations, be it of the Holy Qur’an or of historical events, you will find that the word ‘Slave’ is often used: “There is no god but God and Muhammad is His slave and Messenger”; “God is merciful towards His slaves”… Obviously, the word ‘slave’ here is used in the best of meaning: servant of God. Like any person who is against slavery, I was appalled and chocked to learn that Islam tolerated this horrible act. At first, this news violently shook my beliefs and faith in this religion. But in order to not ignorantly pre-judge the situation, I searched for information, which is what this whole section is about: knowledge. Slavery is indeed a heinous thing, so how come Islam tolerates it when it also states that all humans are equal?

Slavery existed long before Islam came. It probably originated with war, which is how slaves were usually acquired. The triumphant party ransacked the town or city it conquered and either killed or took its people as slaves. As frictions between polytheists and Muslims escaladed, wars ignited. This inevitably led to one outcome: one side had to lose, and the other had to decide what to do with the people they had defeated. There are many reasons why ‘Slavery’ was practiced by Muslims, the first being that if Muslims set all their enemy-prisoners free, and tolerated their fellow Muslims being captured and enslaved by those same enemies, it would have had disastrous consequences on the survival of Islam. Muslim military forces would have decreased, and Muslim enemies, which already significantly outnumbered Muslim soldiers, would have gained a huge advantage. ‘Slavery’ had to be exercised to maintain a balance of power. Thus, wartime diplomacy necessitated the ‘enslaving’ of captives, which brings me to my next point: what should they have done with the people they have defeated? (Dhorat, 2005).

Sometimes, women and children were taken as captives, alongside men, by Muslim armies. They were distributed among the soldiers as part of the spoils of wars. This sounds horrible but as further explanations are provided, hopefully this will make more sense. The Muslims had three choices on how to deal with the women and children: kill them, ‘enslave’ them, or set them free. Muslim armies have never killed neither women nor children in war. So they were faced with only two options: to ‘enslave’ them, or set them free. If a woman was not against Islam, she would have no problem in living with Muslims. Still, however, with their husbands held captives or dead, they had no one to provide for them. If left unattended to, they would be left to wander the streets, in a strange city, with no money, and probably with children to look after. Such treatment would have ultimately forced them to take up evil occupations such as prostitution to make end’s meat, both for themselves, and their children. Of course, how they are treated in this ‘enslavement’ will determine whether it is, in fact, better than being left on the streets with no provider. (Dhorat, 2005).

When men were ‘enslaved’ – just the ones that fought and killed Muslims – they would simply be demoted to fairly treated servants. But the issue of ‘Slavery’ in Islam is centralized upon the women and children side of it. The women and children were distributed to the Muslims. If a woman had no objections against Islam, she would be freed; however, with no one to take care of them, the captured women would usually end up marrying a Muslim – i.e. usually their ‘owner’. Marriages occurred only through their consent. If a woman refused to accept Islam, she would be ‘enslaved’, first because a Muslim cannot marry a disbeliever; second because it would be wrong to forcefully marry a woman who does not want to. “You who believe, it is not lawful for you to inherit women against their will.” So in this case, Muslims had to resort to their only option, ‘Slavery’. Nonetheless, if the woman wanted to be left alone – and had some good in her – a bargain would be negotiated. “If any of your slaves wish to pay for their freedom, make a contract with them accordingly, if you know they have good in them, and give them some of the wealth God has given you.” Would an oppressing, sadistic, or evil religion suggest for its followers to free their slaves in the first place? Second, if this was true about Islam, then it would certainly not have implored Muslims to help their ‘slaves’ by giving them some of their own money!  Treating ‘Slaves’ in the best manner was an obligation. It was not allowed to beat them, nor was it allowed to insult or degrade them. As fellow humans, mistreating ‘slaves’ was unacceptable and inconsistent with the teachings of Islam. If Muslims did so, they would be in the wrong and transgressing God’s limits. The ‘slaves’ were assigned chores to do, and in return, the ‘owners’ had to provide them with food and shelter – the emphasis is on ‘had’. As a result, a ‘slave’, here, becomes similar to a paid house-maid. (Dhorat, 2005).

Evidently, there had to be strict rules to specifically describe the relationship between an ‘owner’ and his ‘slave’. The fact that Muslims were allowed to have relations with their ‘slaves’ made this issue of Islamic slavery all the more volatile. This is mainly the source of all the objections: people think that Muslims used these ‘slaves’ as sex slaves. Each Muslim was entitled to have relations only with the ‘slave-woman’ over which he was given the right of ownership – of course this being if she accepts; otherwise, it would be considered rape – and not with the ‘slave-women’ that are not in his possession. Through the right of ownership, it became lawful for an ‘owner’ to have intercourse with his ‘slave-woman’ just as marriage ceremony gives a man the legal credence to have relations with his wife. This rule makes ‘Slavery’ in Islam more civilized, but unconventional, at the same time, compared to what slavery really was in a non-Muslim community. In fact, ‘Slavery’, from an Islamic point of view, is not only similar to an employer/servant-maid relationship, but it also resembles marriage in many ways. The first, and probably most ethical similarity between marriage and ‘slavery’ is this: just as a free woman cannot have two husbands simultaneously, a ‘slave-woman’ cannot be used for intercourse by two ‘owners’. In addition, a ‘slave-woman’ cannot be forced to have sex, nor can she be forced into prostitution. The Qur’an clearly says, “Do not force your slave-girls into prostitution, when they themselves wish to be honourable in your quest for the short-term gains of this world.” (Dhorat, 2005).

In Islam, a free woman, whose marriage is on the verge of divorce, cannot marry another man until her previous marriage is nullified or terminated through divorce. Similarly, if a ‘slave-woman’ was married previously, in enemy territory, to a non-Muslim, and was then captured alone – i.e. without her husband, who is still alive in this case – it was not permissible for any Muslim to have relations with her until her previous marriage was over. Seeing how the women were in Islamic territory, and how it would be virtually impossible (back then) for them to communicate or live with their husbands, who were in enemy territory, their marriages became void by Islamic law. If the husband happened to be captured with his wife, however, it becomes unlawful to have intercourse with the woman. They would be both taken together and put as ‘slaves’ in the same house. (Dhorat, 2005).

Another resemblance between marriage and Islamic ‘slavery’ is that, just as a divorcee has to spend a period called ‘Iddat for her to be permitted to marry another man; likewise, a ‘slave-woman’ has to spend a period called Istibra’ – which is the elapse of one menstrual period – before her owner can have relations with her – remember, this is always assuming she accepts to do so. After she spends that period, it becomes permissible for her ‘owner’ to have relations with her. Also, just as marriage makes the close relatives of the wife unlawful for the husband – i.e. he cannot get married to his wife’s mother, grandmother, sister... – a ‘slave owner’ cannot have intercourse with his ‘slave woman’s’ close relatives. In case the ‘slave-woman’ becomes pregnant from the ‘owner’ and delivers a child, while still refusing Islam, she automatically gets her freedom after the death of her ‘owner’. If she converts, however, she gets her freedom by marrying her ‘owner’, thereby becoming his wife. In both cases, the child would be raised by his two parents, and the ‘owner’ would be obligated to take care of his child and the mother to the best of his abilities. (Dhorat, 2005).

Although the ‘owner’ himself cannot get married to his ‘slave-woman’, without giving her freedom, he can get her married to someone else, assuming she agrees. “Marry off the single among you and those of your male and female slaves who are fit [for marriage](3). If they are poor, God will provide for them from His bounty: for God’s bounty is infinite and He is all knowing.” If he gets her married to someone else, then only her husband will have the right to have intercourse with her. The ‘owner’s’ right comes to an end. The right to copulate with a ‘slave-woman’ is always employed by non-Muslim critics to attack Islam. However, all the conditions mentioned above prove how ‘slave-women’ did not become sex instruments to Muslims. On the contrary, their honour was upheld and they were treated with justice. (Dhorat, 2005).

Muhammad PBUH enjoined his followers to treat their ‘slaves’ kindly, gently, and, above all, to regard them as family members. He advised his companions not to address slaves with the word ‘slave’, but rather with ‘son’ or ‘daughter’. He also told the slaves not to call their masters ‘Lords’, for God alone is the Lord. Abu Dhar once abused a non-Arab slave who complained to Muhammad PBUH about this. So the Prophet PBUH reprimanded Abu Dhar and said, “Are you still ignorant? These slaves are your brothers. God has given you power over them; but if they are not suited to your temperament, sell them. Do not harm God’s creatures. Give them to eat what you eat and give them to wear what you wear. Do not give them so much work that they cannot do it by themselves, and if you do, then give them a helping hand to finish it.” The Prophet PBUH even distributed battle gains to ‘slaves’. The newly freed ones received their shares first, for they would usually be the poorest.

Never in his life did Muhammad PBUH lay a hand on a slave or a woman. He was particularly kind to them. At the time he was still married to Khadija, they had a ‘slave’ called Zayd ibn Haritha. One day, the real father of Zayd came and asked Muhammad PBUH to grant his son freedom so that they could both leave together. So Muhammad PBUH told him, “I will not sell him to you, but let him decide: if he wants to go with you, I will free him, and if he doesn’t, he’ll stay with me.” So when they went to Zayd, he told his father, “I do not choose anyone over Muhammad, for there is no one who can treat me better than the way he does.” He preferred the Prophet PBUH over his own father! That is how well he was treated. In fact, an objective researcher investigating Islam would even see that many ‘slaves’ and prisoners have willingly converted to Islam because of the merciful way they were treated.

Only Islam has raised the status of war-captives from slaves, to maids, to a wife-like position, to wives, to family members, or to free persons. This all depended on the ‘slave/slave-girls’’ decision to accept/refuse to be a ‘slave’ (this choice was given when there was some good in their heart), accept/refuse Islam, previous marital status (i.e. alive husband, dead husband, alive husband captured with his wife), pregnancy, and the willingness to marry someone else arranged by the ‘owner’. Keep in mind, no matter what status the ‘slave-woman’ reached, she would still be treated in the same way: never would she be abused or harmed. Therefore, ‘Slavery’ – solely when Muslims are involved – not only provided ‘slave-girls’ and their children with financial and social security, but it also eased the dramatic transition made at the beginning by promoting a loving and fair environment. We come to the conclusion that, technically, Islam does not tolerate real slavery. Real slavery would be what the Muslims have endured during their persecution: getting beaten up, killed, tortured, have their family members killed, and getting their backs for merely believing in God. If Muslims had repeated what they had experienced on others, the history of Islam would not have been as glorious as it is. What Muslims did was unprecedented. The Islamic treatment of enemy slaves – slaves that were captured in war – was unlike anything ever done before, but there was no name for it except to call it ‘Slavery’. That is why I have carefully put the words ‘Slavery’, ‘Slave’, ‘Slave-woman’, and ‘Owner’ inside quotes.

Over and above all this, historical data will prove that Islam not only discouraged real slavery, but it also made efforts towards its expiration. “What will explain to you what the steep path is? It is to free a slave.” (90:12-13). “The truly good are those […] who give some of their wealth, however much they cherish it, […] to liberate those in bondage.” (2:177) The Prophet PBUH said, “Whosoever liberates a slave, God will redeem all his limbs in compensation for each limb of the freed slave by saving him from the Fire of Hell.” Muhammad PBUH also said that whosoever teaches good manners to his ‘slave-woman’, or ‘slave-girl’ – through the teachings of Islam – treats her with politeness, and then frees her and gets married to her or marries her off, he will be rewarded two-folds. The promise of such rewards served as incentives for Muslims towards the emancipation of slaves. Slaves were liberated by the thousands. Muhammad PBUH personally freed 63 slaves; Abu Bakr freed 63 as well; ‘Uthman, may God be pleased with him, used to free one slave every Friday. He would declare that he would do so for anyone who was willing to perform prayers with humility; and Zul-Kilah once freed 8,000 slaves in a single day.

One question that still remains, however, is whether slavery still legally prevails anywhere in the Islamic world, and whether it can be successfully implemented in this day of age. The answer is the following: there is no prevalence of lawful slavery in any Muslim community today because, thankfully, now there are structured and civilized governments that look after the rights and welfare of their citizens. The ‘Slavery’ implemented by Muslims 1,400 years ago is not necessary anymore, nor could real slavery be exercised today when a law-abiding government is present.

"Love: a temporary insanity, curable by marriage".

"Love at first sight is easy to understand; it's when two people have been looking at each other for a lifetime that it becomes a miracle".

"I have yet to hear a man ask for advice on how to combine marriage and a career".