Abu Basir al-Tartusi Lecture: Method of Establishing an Islamic State

Abu Basir al-Tartusi (Abu al-Mun'im Mustafa Halima), a prominent Salafi Sunni jihadi religious scholar and ideologue, discusses the process of establishing an Islamic state and why it is necessary.  He speaks in Arabic but a translator then translates into English.  Al-Tartusi is currently in Syria fighting alongside Syrian rebels, including a number of British citizens whom he is alleged to have recruited.

'Abdullah 'Azzam: "Join the Caravan", Part 3: Clarifications about the Issue of Jihad Today

CLARIFICATIONS ABOUT THE ISSUE OF JIHAD TODAY

Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds. Blessings and peace be upon the noblest of Messengers, Muhammad and upon all his family and companions.
1. We have spoken at length about the status of jihad today in Afghanistan, Palestine, and other usurped Muslim lands of the like. We have confirmed what has been agreed upon by the earlier (salaf) and latter (khalaf) generations of hadith scholars, exegetes, jurists, and scholars of religious principles (usul), namely that : "When a span of Muslim land is occupied jihad becomes individually obligatory (fard `ayn) on the inhabitants of that piece of land. The woman may go out without her husband's permission with a mahram, the one in debt without the permission of the one to whom he owes, the child without his father's permission. If the inhabitants of that area are not sufficient in number, fall short, or are lazy, the individually obligatory nature of jihad extends to those around them, and so on and so on until it covers the entire Earth, being individually obligatory (fard `ayn) just like salah, fasting, and the like so that nobody may abandon it."
2. The obligation of jihad today remains fard `ayn until the liberation of the last piece of land which was in the hands of Muslims but has been occupied by the Disbelievers.
3. Some scholars consider jihad today in Afghanistan and Palestine to be fard kifayah. We agree with them in that jihad in Afghanistan for the Arabs was initially fard kifayah. But the jihad is in need of men and the inhabitants of Afghanistan have not met the requirement which is to expel the Disbelievers from Afghanistan. In this case, the communal obligation (fard kifayah) is overturned. It becomes individually obligatory (fard `ayn) in Afghanistan, and remains so until enough Mujahideen have gathered to expel the communists in which case it again becomes fard kifayah.
4. There is no permission needed from anybody in the case of an individual obligation (fard `ayn), according to the principle,"there is no permission necessary for an individual obligation (fard `ayn)".
5. A person who discourages people from jihad is like the one who discourages people from fasting. Whoever advises an able Muslim not to go for jihad is just like the one who advises him to eat in Ramadan while he is healthy and in residence.
6. It is best to shun the company of those who hold back from jihad and not to enter into arguments with them, for this would lead to idle disputation and hardening of the heart. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah says, "And avoidance comprises: avoiding evil and evil people, and similarly shunning those who call for innovation in religion, and sinful people and those who associate with such people or assist them in those endeavours. Similar is the case of the person who abandons jihad and from whom there is no benefit in associating with, for in this case we are liable to punishment for not having helped him by co-operating in matters of righteousness and piety.
The adulterers, homosexuals, those who abandon jihad, the innovators and the alcoholics, as well as those who associate with them are a source of harm to the religion of Islam. They will not cooperate in matters of righteousness and piety. So whoever does not shun their company is, in fact, abandoning what he has been commanded to do and is committing a despicable deed."

IMPORTANT NOTES REGARDING APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE
1. When we call people for jihad and explain to them its ordinance, it does not mean that we are in a position to take care of them, advise them, and look after their families. The concern of the scholars is to clarify the Islamic legal ruling. It is neither to bring people to jihad nor to borrow money from people to take care of the families of Mujahideen. When Ibn Taymiyyah or Al-`Izz Ibn `Abd As- Salam explained the ruling concerning fighting against the Tartars they did not become obliged to equip the army.
2. Carrying out religious obligations is necessary according to one's capability. Pilgrimage, for example, is compulsory on those who are able to perform it.
"And it is an obligation on mankind towards Allah to perform the Pilgrimage of the House for whoever is able to do so."
Similarly, jihad must be performed according to one's ability, as mentioned in the Qur'an,
"There is no blame on the weak, nor on the ill, nor on those who cannot find anything to spend, when they have shown goodwill toward Allah and His Messenger. There is no censure upon the righteous. Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Nor (is there any blame) on those who, when they came to you to be mounted, you said to them,
" I cannot find anything on which to mount you.' They turned away, their eyes flowing with tears, out of grief that they did not have anything to spend (in the path of Allah)."
Ibn al-`Arabi said,
"This second verse is the strongest of evidence for the acceptability of the excuse of one who is in poverty or has a valid need which holds him back from jihad, provided goodwill has been identified in his conduct while claiming the inability."
Qurtubi said in his tafsir,
"The verse is a basis for the dismissal of obligation from the incapable, so that whoever is incapable of performing a deed is exempted from it, sometimes by doing something else in its place, and sometimes by merely having the resolution and will to do it. There is no difference in this respect between a person who is incapable physically, and one who is financially unable. This verse is explained by the words of Allah, (translated) 'Allah does not impose upon any soul a burden beyond its capability' "
In Sahih Muslim, it is reported that the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) said,
"In Madinah are people who are with you whenever you travel any distance or traverse a valley. They were held back by (valid) excuses."
According to another narration, "they were held back by illness."
Qurtubi said,
"The majority of scholars are of the view that anybody who cannot find anything to spend in jihad is not obliged to spend."
Tabari inferred,
"There is no blame (i.e. sin) on those with chronic diseases, who are incapable of travelling and fighting, nor on the ill, nor on those who do not find anything to spend to take them to jihad."
Ibn Taymiyyah said,
"The commands, retributions, expiations and so on of the Islamic law are intended to be implemented according to capability."

ADDING TO THE TEXTS OF SCHOLARS ALREADY MENTIONED:
1. Those with valid excuses are absolved of the sin of sitting back from jihad. Those validly excused include:
a) somebody with a wife and children who do not have income from any other source nor have anybody besides him who could support and maintain them. But if he is able to allocate provision for them for the duration of his absence, then he is sinful if he sits back. Every Muslim should reduce his spending and be frugal with his earnings until he is able to go out for jihad.
b) somebody who was unable, after much effort, to obtain a visa to come to Pakistan.
c) somebody whose government denied him a passport or prevented him from leaving from the airport.
d) somebody who has parents who do not have anybody besides him to support and maintain them.

COMMENTARY: Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, "The Taliban’s Line of Reasoning"

 The Taliban’s Line of Reasoning

The self-appointed warriors of God known to the world as the Taliban have killed countless innocent people in the last ten years. They insist that they are doing all this for God and in submission to His directives. They have restated this stance of after their cowardly attack on Malalah Yusufsai. In support of this stance, they present the Qur’an and Hadith and certain incidents that occurred in the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (sws). Since people are generally unaware of religion and religious disciplines, they may be influenced by this line of reasoning. We, therefore, would like to present some facts in the following paragraphs in consideration of this scenario.

1. No doubt jihad is a directive of Islam. The Qur’an requires of its followers that if they have the strength, they should wage war against oppression and injustice. The primary reason for which this directive is to curb persecution which is the use of oppression and coercion to make people give up their religion. Those having insight know that Muslims are not given this directive of jihad in their individual capacity; they are addressed in their collective capacity regarding this directive. They are not individually addressed in the verses of jihad which occur in the Qur’an. Thus in this matter only the collectivity has the right to launch any such armed offensive. No individual or group of Muslims has the right to take this decision on their behalf. It is for this reason that the Prophet (sws) is reported to have said: A Muslim ruler is a shield; war can only waged under him.1 Even a little deliberation is enough for a person to conclude whether the Taliban are following this principle or blatantly violating it.

2. The directive of jihad given by Islam is war for the cause of God; therefore, it cannot be waged while disregarding moral restrictions. Ethics and morality supersede everything in all circumstances and even in matters of war and armed offensives, the Almighty has not allowed Muslims to deviate from moral principles. Hence, it is absolutely certain that jihad can only be waged against combatants. It is the law of Islam that if a person attacks through his tongue, then this attack shall be countered through the tongue and if he financially supports the warriors then he will be stopped from this support; however, unless a person picks up arms to wage war, his life cannot be taken. So much so, if right in the battle field the enemy throws down his arms and surrenders, he shall be taken a prisoner; he cannot be executed after this. The words of the verse which mention the directive of jihad are: “and fight in the way of Allah with those who fight against you and do not transgress bounds [in this fighting]. Indeed, God does not like the transgressors,” (2:190). The Prophet (sws) forbade the killing of women and children during war.2 The reason for this is also that if they have embarked upon jihad with the army, it is not in the capacity of combatants. At best, they can boost the morale of the combatants and urge them through the tongue to fight.

This then is the shari‘ah of God. But what are the Taliban doing? Men of learning like Mawlana Hasan Jan, Mawlana Sarfaraz Na‘imi and Dr Muhammad Faruq Khan never undertook to wage war against them. Malalah Yusufza’i is an innocent girl. She never took up arms against them. In spite of this, the Taliban insist that all these people deserve death. Is this merely because they had dared to differ with them? There is no doubt that in the presence of political authority in a place that authority has the right to punish criminals; it also is true that in this regard there cannot be any difference between a man and a woman. The Qur’an very explicitly states that whether a woman or a man is guilty of theft both will be punished and both have the same punishment. The same is true for an adulterer and an adulteress. However, when did the Taliban have political authority on the persons just mentioned and when did these persons commit crimes which are punishable by death as per the Islamic shari‘ah? The Qur’an very explicitly states that the death punishment can be meted out only in cases of murder and spreading anarchy in the land and not in any other crime. Who among the people pointed out above is guilty of murdering someone or was guilty of spreading anarchy by threatening the life, wealth or honour of someone? In reality, the Taliban themselves are guilty of these crimes and testify to their confessions every day.

3. Polytheism, disbelief and apostasy are indeed grave crimes; however, no human being can punish another human being for these crimes. This is the right of God alone. In the Hereafter too, He will punish them for these crimes and in this world it is He Who does so if He intends to do so. The matter of the Hereafter is not under discussion here. In this world, this punishment takes place in the following manner: when the Almighty decides to reward and punish people in this very world on the basis of their deeds, He sends His messenger towards them. This messenger conclusively communicates the truth to these people such that they are left with no excuse before God to deny it. After that the verdict of God is passed and those people who even after the conclusive communication of the truth insist on disbelief and polytheism are punished in this world. This is an established practice of God which the Qur’an describes in the following words: “And for each community, there is a messenger. Then when their messenger comes, their fate is decided with full justice and they are not wronged.” (10:47)

This punishment is generally given in the manner it was given to the people of Noah (sws), the people of Hud (sws), the people of Salih (sws), the people of Lot (sws), the people of Shu‘ayb (sws) and to some other nations. However, if a messenger has a substantial number of companions and after migrating from their people, they are also able to gain political authority at some place, then this punishment is implemented through the swords of the messenger and his companions. It is this second situation which arose in the case of Muhammad (sws). Thus the active adversaries among his opponents first met their fate; after this a general order of killing the rest of the adversaries was given. For them the declaration of this punishment came in 9th hijrah on the day of hajj-i akbar. Following are the words of this directive mentioned in the Qur’an: “Then when the sacred months [after the hajj-i akbar] have passed, kill these Idolaters wherever you find them, and [for this objective] capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But if they repent and are diligent in the prayer, and give zakāh, then leave them alone.” (9:5)

This is the punishment of God which was meted out to the Idolaters of Arabia. When such a punishment descends on the perpetrators, no exception is given to women and children and they are destroyed the way the nations of Noah (sws) Hud (sws), Salih, Lot (sws) and Shu‘ayb (sws) were destroyed. It is thus mentioned in various narratives that when troops were sent to implement this punishment, he was asked what to do about the women and children of the Idolaters who would also be there; at this, the Prophet (sws) replied that they were from among them.3 It was these people about whom he had directed that if they embraced faith at that time and then became apostates and later adopted disbelief they would deserve this same punishment of death.4

In spite of conclusive communication of the truth, the punishment of these people was deferred till 9 AH because they were not active adversaries and there was a chance that they might repent and hence be saved from punishment. On the other hand, people who besides their rejection of the truth became open and active adversaries were not given this respite. They were killed whenever it became possible. Abu Rafi‘, Ka‘b ibn Ashraf, ‘Abdullah ibn Khattal, his slave-girls and from among the prisoners of the battles of Badr and Uhud ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Mu‘it, Nadr ibn al-Harith and Abu ‘Izzah et al. were killed for this very reason.

This was the verdict of God which is necessarily implemented after conclusive communication of the truth by His messengers. It is about this verdict that the Qur’n has said: “You shall never see any change in this practice of God,” (17:77). Its nature is the same as of the sacrifice of Ishmael (sws) and the incident of Khidr. It is not related to us human beings. Just as we cannot drill a hole in the boat of a poor person to help him and cannot kill a disobedient boy nor embark upon slaughtering any of our sons on the basis of a dream as Abraham (sws) did, similarly, we cannot undertake this task except if a revelation comes from God or if He directly gives an order. Everyone knows that the door to this has permanently been closed.
The incidents which the Taliban are presenting to support their measures are of the nature just described. This is nothing but audacity to generalize for themselves what specifically rests in the hands of God. There can be no greater a crime than this on God’s earth. Every believer should seek God’s refuge from this.


1. Abū ‘Abdullāh Muhammad ibn Ismā‘īl al-Bukhārī, Al-Jāmi‘ al-sahīh, 2nd ed. (Riyād: Dār al-salām, 1999), 489, (no. 2957).
2. Al-Bukhārī, Al-Jāmi‘ al-sahīh, 498, (no. 3015); Abū al-Husayn ibn Hajjāj Muslim al-Nīsabūrī, Al-Jāmi‘ al-sahīh, 2nd ed. (Riyād: Dār al-salām, 2000), 303, (no. 1744).
3. Al-Bukhārī, Al-Jāmi‘ al-sahīh, 497, (no. 3012); Muslim, Al-Jāmi‘ al-sahīh, 303, (no. 1745).
4. Al-Bukhārī, Al-Jāmi‘ al-sahīh, 498, (no. 3017).
______________________________________________

 See the Urdu version HERE.

Saudi Salafi Shaykh 'Abd al-Rahman al-Barrak's Juridical Opinion on Voting re: Egypt's New Constitution

 The Islamic Ruling on Voting for the New Egyptian Constitution

By:
Shaykh ’Abdur Rahman Al-Barrak

All praise is due to Allah, and may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon His servant and messenger Muhammad, his descendants and his companions.

To proceed:

The difference of opinion among our brothers from the people of the sunnah in Egypt regarding the question of voting for the proposed new constitution that is about to be put to a referendum has been brought to my attention.

Their difference in the matter is regarding its legal ruling, as to whether voting for the constitution is to be considered prohibited, permissible or even obligatory. It is well known that in this issue, each side has its own reasoning to support the opinion it holds. I have examined the arguments - which are so exhaustive as to almost confound a person and prevent judgement - which I have been able to analyse from both sides and have found them to be well reasoned and compelling as supporting evidence for their respective positions.

The source of this controversy lies in the following causal factors:

1. Those clauses of the constitution that amount to disbelief (kufr); which none of our brothers disagree upon with regards to their falsehood or the prohibition of voluntarily including them in the constitution.
2. Those clauses of the constitution which are praiseworthy and facilitate ruling by the shari’ah and due to which those who are antagonistic to the shari’ah oppose this constitution.

What has become apparent to me after assessing the various perspectives regarding this issue among our brothers from the sunnah is that voting in favour of this constitution is permissible, if not obligatory. Neither would this amount to condoning/assenting to disbelief (kufr) nor would it entail its acceptance or sanctioning it. To vote for this constitution amounts to merely removing the greater of two harms, or selecting the lesser of two evils. This is because those who ask regarding this issue have no viable option other than this and the alternative is worse as well as unwise from the legal, shari’ah perspective. Moreover, from a purely logical point of view, to relinquish the issue would be to leave the field open for the people of falsehood like the disbelievers and hypocrites to achieve their ends.

There can be no doubt that all those who desire the shari’ah and are eager for its implementation – and that is the objective of every Muslim who believes in Allah and His messenger – irrespective of their difference in this matter are within the bounds of valid scholarly opinions, and their cases vary between attaining the one reward or the two that such differences earn. What is paramount is for them to strive to maintain unity in the face of an enemy that does not want the establishment of Islam in the land.

Moreover, I do not find there to be a significant difference between voting in elections for the president and voting for this constitution as it is a matter of common knowledge for every sane person with even the slightest sense of realism that any elected Muslim president would be significantly limited in his ability to implement the shari’ah, much less implement it to the extent desired by the people of sincerity and piety, due to the power and influence wielded by standard bearers of corruption in the land and due to what is known about how the international community is run by the United Nations under the control of the United States America.

Thus, the elected Egyptian president – may Allah protect him and give him success – does not have anyone in the international community to support him. It is therefore upon you to support him in whatever he is able to implement from the shari’ah and to ratify this constitution while the president is unable to present one better than it.

All of you know well that not voting for this constitution will inevitably gratify the domestic enemy as well as those abroad for all of them are anticipating this from you - So fear Allah and rectify your affairs amongst yourselves.

What is apparent is that none of you would ever accept what would contradict the shari’ah in this constitution nor approve of it, but you would nonetheless ratify it out of necessity and in order to avoid what is worse.

If presented a choice between a Communist or a Christian as a ruler over the land, then the shari’ah as well as common sense would dictate that you choose the one who would cause less harm and harbour less enmity towards the Muslims.

Moreover, it is well known that if an act overwhelms the one obligated to perform it, then it takes the ruling of that which is no longer obligatory.

Know that all of the Muslims are with you with their hearts and actions, so let not the differences between you become a source of distress for them. I ask Allah to guide you and to bring your hearts together.

If we suppose that this difference of opinion continues to remain between you, then you must at least be careful not to prevent others from voting for this constitution and beware of transgressing upon others by excommunicating them from the faith (takfir), accusing them of being traitors or declaring them to be ignorant, for sin is certainly not incurred due to differing in issues where valid scholarly differences exist but is only due to the transgression that we inflict upon others. May Allah always protect you from this, rectify your hearts and intentions, make correct your decisions and give victory to his religion through you.

May the peace and blessings of Allah be upon His servant and messenger Muhammad, his descendants and his companions.

Dictated by: Abdur Rahman bin Nasir Al-Barrak.
Dated: 28/1/1434 H.

 _______________________________

حكم التصويت للدستور المصري 

الحمد لله وصلى الله وسلم على عبده ورسوله محمد وآله وصحبه، أما بعد:

فقد بلغني ما وقع من اختلاف بين إخواننا أهل السنة في مصر حول مسألة التصويت على «الدستور» الذي سيطرح للاستفتاء؛ واختلافهم في حكمه: تحريماً وجوازاً ووجوباً، ومعلوم أن لكل منهم استدلالات يؤيد بها ما ذهب إليه، وقد نظرت فيما وقفت عليه من استدلالاتهم فوجدتها كلها استدلالات قوية في تأييد مذهب المستدل، يحار الناظر فيها، ومنشأ النزاع:

1ـ  ما في الدستور من المواد الكفرية التي لا يختلف إخواننا في بطلانها وتحريم وضعها اختياراً.

2ـ  ما في الدستور من المواد الحسنة المقربة لتحكيم الشريعة، والتي من أجلها لا يرضى المعارضون لتحكيم الشريعة بهذا الدستور.

والذي ظهر لي بعد الوقوف على وجهات نظر إخواننا أهل السنة أن التصويت على هذا الدستور إن لم يكن واجباً فهو جائز، وليس في ذلك إقرار بالكفر ولا رضا به، فما هو إلا دفع شر الشرين واحتمال أخف الضررين.

وليس أمام المستفتَين من المسلمين إلا هذا أو ما هو أسوأ منه، وليس من الحكمة عقلاً ولا شرعاً اعتزال الأمر بما يتيح الفرصة لأهل الباطل من الكفار والمنافقين من تحقيق مرادهم.

ولا ريب أن الطامحين والراغبين في تحكيم الشريعة ـ وهو مطلب كل مسلم يؤمن بالله ورسوله ـ  مع اختلافهم في هذه النازلة؛ مجتهدون، فأمرهم دائر بين الأجر والأجرين، ولكن عليهم أن يجتهدوا في توحيد كلمتهم أمام العدو الذي لا يريد أن تقوم للإسلام في بلادهم قائمة.

ولا أجد كبير فرق بين التصويت في انتخاب الرئيس والتصويت لهذا الدستور؛ فإنه يعلم كل عاقل مدرك للواقع أن الرئيس المسلم المنتخب غير قادر على تحكيم الشريعة بقدر كبير، فضلاً عن تطبيقها بالقدر الذي يطمح إليه المخلصون الصالحون، لما يُعلم من قوة وتمكن رموز الفساد في البلاد، ولما يُعلم من حال المجتمع الدولي الذي تديره الأمم المتحدة بقيادة أمريكا.

فالرئيس المصري المنتخب -حفظه الله ووفقه-  ليس له في المجتمع الدولي من يناصره، فناصروه على مقدوره من تحكيم الشريعة، وأمِرُّوا هذا الدستور الذي لا يقدر الرئيس أن يصنع في الوقت الحاضر أفضل منه.

وأنتم تعلمون أن ترك التصويت للدستور مما يسر العدو في الداخل والخارج فكلهم يرتقبون ذلك منكم؛ فاتقوا الله وأصلحوا ذات بينكم.

ومعلوم أن أحداً منكم لا يقر ما في الدستور مما يناقض الشريعة ولا يرضاه، ولكن يُمِرُّه ضرورة؛ لدفع ما هو أسوء.

ولو خيِّر واحد منكم أن يحكم البلاد إما شيوعي وإما نصراني؛ فالشرع والعقل يقضي باختيار أخفهما شراً وعداوة للمسلمين.

ومن المعلوم أن ما يعجز عنه المكلف من الواجبات فهو في حكم ما ليس بواجب.

والمسلمون معكم بقلوبهم وجهودهم؛ فلا يكن اختلافكم سبباً في خيبة آمالهم، أسأل الله أن يلهمكم الرشد، وأن يؤلف بين قلوبكم.

وإذا قُدر أن يبقى الاختلاف بينكم؛ فيجب الحذر من تثبيط الناس من التصويت له، ومن البغي بالتكفير والتخوين والتجهيل؛ فليس الإثم باختلاف المجتهدين وإنما الإثم بالبغي، أعاذكم الله منه، وأصلح قلوبكم ونياتكم، وسدد رأيكم، ونصر بكم دينه.

وصلى الله وسلم على عبده ورسوله محمد وآله وصحبه.

                                     أملاه: عبدالرحمن بن ناصر البراك      في 28/1/1434 هـ

Pakistani Religious Scholar Javed Ahmad Ghamidi on the Age of 'Aisha When She Married the Prophet Muhammad

Age of ‘Ā’ishah (rta) at her Marriage

Social Issues Javed Ahmad Ghamidi (Tr. by:Dr. Shehzad Saleem)

It is generally believed that ‘Ā’ishah (rta), mother of the faithful, was six years old when she got married to the Prophet Muhammad (sws). The nikāh took place in Makkah after the death of Khadījah (rta). The marriage was consummated three years later in Madīnah. This is what books of hadīth and sīrah report about her. The narratives which describe these details are found in Bukhārī and Muslim and some other books of hadīth as well. There is no doubt that such marriages have taken place in the past keeping in view certain needs of tribal and rural societies. Examples can even be presented from our society. It is also true that the social attitudes that spring from basic morality can be different in different societies keeping in view their circumstances and experiences, and the moral status of one society cannot be determined by using another society as a standard. All these things can be accepted; however, the matter of ‘Ā’ishah’s (rta) marriage is different. The question which arises in every discerning mind relates to the need of this marriage: Why did it take place when the need which was present at that time could not have been fulfilled even after many subsequent years. Such marriages do take place and one can accept them taking place without any hesitation; however, it is not easy to accept marriages which take place without any reason and to fulfill a current need many years later.

Had the suggestion to marry her come from the Prophet (sws), we could have said that this was done on divine bidding. The role she would play in the Prophet’s life and the treasure of wisdom which would be transmitted to the ummah through her noble person was in the foreknowledge of God; thus it was decided that she be singled out for the Prophet (sws) since this early age. We can also say that the Prophet (sws) undertook this marriage for the betterment of his preaching mission. ‘Ā’ishah’s (rta) father was a very close companion of the Prophet (sws). In tribal life, relationships play a great role in cementing close ties. The Prophet (sws) deemed it appropriate that he engage in this association with his special companion so that ties of friendship and love were strengthened.

Had this suggestion to marry her come from Abū Bakr (rta), it could have been said that he was desirous of respect and honour for his daughter, for his own self and for his own family. He wanted to establish familial ties with the person whom he regarded to be a messenger of God; perhaps he did not get this idea at the time of the marriage of his other daughter Asmā’ (rta). After her, it was only through ‘Ā’ishah (rta) that he could attain this honour. Thus he suggested for this marriage to take place. The Prophet (sws) accepted this suggestion to honour the wish of his dear friend.

However, we know that none of these suppositions are true. If because of a divinely inspired vision such a thought for ‘Ā’ishah’s (rta) existed in the heart of the Prophet (sws), he never expressed it. The whole corpus of hadith and sīrah literature is totally devoid of a mention of any such suggestion, indication or insinuation from him. The same is the case of Abū Bakr (rta). If he wanted the marriage of his daughter to take place with the Prophet (sws), why did he resolve to solemnize her marriage with the son of Mut‘im ibn ‘Adī? Narratives mention that he had already done this before this suggestion came to him. Not only this, it is also reported that when he heard this suggestion, he expressed his wonder since he thought that the Prophet (sws) was like a paternal uncle for his children; so how could the suggestion of such a marriage be presented. His words reported are: هل تصلح له إنما هي ابنة أخيه (Is she allowed to him? She is the daughter of his brother!)1

The narratives clearly state that it was Khawlah bint hakīm who suggested that the name of ‘Ā’ishah (rta) for this marriage. It was she who directed the attention of the Prophet (sws) to the fact that after the death of Khadījah (rta), it was his need to marry again. She is reported to have said: يا رسول الله كأني أراك قد دخلتك خلة لفقد خديجة أفلا أخطب عليك (I see that you have secluded yourself after the loss of Khadījah; shall I find a match for you?).2 On inquiry by the Prophet (sws), she told him that both an unmarried and a divorced lady were available. When the Prophet (sws) asked who was the unmarried lady she had in mind, her reply was ‘Ā’ishah bint Abī Bakr (rta).3

 

A wife can be needed to satisfy one’s sexual needs, for companionship and friendship and for looking after children and household affairs. If this suggestion was given with sanity prevailing, the question which arises is: which of these needs can be fulfilled by a six year old girl? Could sexual relations be established with her? Could the companionship of a wife be available through her? Could she have been able to look after kids? Could she have looked after household affairs? The issue just raised that a marriage is taking place to fulfill needs which cannot even be fulfilled after many years of marriage is not merely a possible option that should considered in interpreting these narratives. It is the most fundamental question in this regard. Can it be logically accepted that to fulfill a need of today a suggestion be given as a result of which it is not even fulfilled after several years? Ibn Khaldūn has rightly pointed out that in the matter of historical incidents, the real thing is their possibility of taking place. They cannot merely be accepted on the basis that their chain of narration contains such and such a person and that it has been narrated through several chains.4

In current times, men of learning who are presenting their researches on this issue should first of all answer this question. They should explain how this internal contradiction of the narrative can be resolved. If this contradiction cannot be resolved, then why don’t the requisites of knowledge and intellect entail that the narrative which depicts ‘Ā’shah’s age to be six years at the time of marriage should be reconsidered and the opinion of those scholars 5  should also be reflected upon who say that the words to the effect بعد العشر were understood to be present after the words بنت ستين uttered by ‘Ā’ishah (rta) and the narrators never made an effort to understand them? Whatever research is presented without answering this question will never be worthy of any attention for any person of learning.

(Translated by Dr Shehzad Saleem)

http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/issue/content.aspx?id=1336

_________________________
1. Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Abū ‘Abdullāh al-Shaybānī, Musnad, vol, 6 (Cairo: Mu’assasah al-Qurtubah, n.d.), 210, (no. 25810).

2. See: Abū ‘Abdullāh Muhammad ibn Sa‘d al-Zuhrī, Al-Tabaqāt al-kubrā, vol. 8 (Beirut: Dār sādir, n.d.), 57.

3. Ibid.

4. ‘Abd al-Rah@mān ibn Muhammad ibn Khaldūn, Muqaddimah,  5th ed. (Beirut: Dār al-qalam, 1984), 37.
5. See, for example: Shabbīr Ahmad Azhar Mayrathī, Sahīh Bukhārī kā mutāla‘ah, 1st ed. (Lahore: Dār al-tazkīr, 2005), 252-255.