Social Reforms & Teachings of Prophet: Treatment Towards Women/Wife

Akbar Salahuddin Ahmed defines this event in his book “Discovering Islam – Making Sense of Muslim History and Society”:

The Prophet’s kindness to women forms the content of many stories. One concerns his wife, Maria, the Christian Coptic slave girl, sent to him by the head of the Coptic church in Cairo. His attentiveness towards her had provoked his other wives into arguments and bad temper. They made life unbearable for him. In protest he withdrew from them for a month, sleeping on the floor of a small, mud store-room and refusing to see anyone. Umar ibn Khattab, when he finally succeeded in seeing him, broke into a cry of anguish, threatening to cut off his own daughter’s head for having brought the Prophet to this point. But by now the women had learnt a lesson. They promised there would be harmony in the home if he came back. Another man in those times and in that society would have been excused for taking the cane to his wives.

 

 

Prophet Muhammad’s [SAW] Clemency: Charter of Privileges

Background:

On the migration to Medina, Prophet Muhammad SAW faced a host of interminable opposition from Jews and Christians day to day. The formidable coalition formed by the Jews and the idolaters in Makkah to compass the destruction of the commonwealth of Medina had utterly failed. But the surrounding tribes of the desert, in Medina, wild and fierce, were committing depredations, acompanied with murders, on the Medinite territories: and the existence of Medina required the employment of stern measures for their repression. Several expeditions were dispatched against these marauders, but the slippery sons of the desert generally evaded the approach of the Muslims of Medina.

Their treachery and evilness was such that once the tribe of Bani Lihyan requested Prophet Muhammad SAW to send few of His disciples among them to teach the precepts of Islam. When Prophet Muhammad SAW send the missionaries to teach them, the Bani Lihyan killed some of the missionaries and sold the rest to Mekkans (Kuffar-e-Makkah). Following this event, Prophet Muhammad SAW, the same year, marched against the Bani Lihyan with the body of Muslim troops under His personal command.

The marauders of Bani Lihyan, however, receiving timely notice of the Prophet’s approach, fled into the mountains, and the Muslims returned to Medina without having accomplished their purpose.

A few days had only elapsed when a chief of the Bani-Fizara, a branch of the nomade horde of Ghatafan, (Khail-Ghatafan), suddenly fell upon the open suburbs of the city, and drove off a large herd of camels, murdering the man who had charge of them, and carrying off his wife. The Muslims were immediately on their track, and a few of the animals were recovered; but the Bedouins escaped into the desert with the larger portion of their booty.

Charter of Privileges:

It was about this time that the Prophet Muhammad SAW granted to the monks of the monastery of St. Catherine, near Mount Sinai, and to all Christians, a Charter, commonly named as Charter of Privilages, which has been justly designated as one of the noblest monuments of enlightened tolerance that the history of the world can produce. The marauders were awe-struck with such a demonstration of compassion and tolerance of Prophet Muhammad SAW.

This remarkable document, the Charter of Privileges, which has been faithfully preserved by the annalists of Islam, displays a marvellous breadth of view and liberality of conception. By it the Prophet Muhammad SAW secured to the Christians privileges and immunities which they did not possess even under sovereigns of their own creed; and declared that any Muslim violating and abusing what was therein ordered, should be regarded as a violator of God’s testament, a transgressor of His commandments, and a slighter of His faith.

Prophet Muhammad SAW undertook Himself, and enjoined on his followers, to protect the Christians, to defend their Churches, the residences of their priests, and to guard them from all injuries.

The salient features of the Charter of Privileges are as follows:

1- They (Christians) were not to be unfairly taxed

2- No bishop was to be driven out of his bishopric

3- No Christian was to be forced to reject his religion; no monk was to be expelled from his monastery; no pilgrim was to be detained from his pilgrimage

4- Nor were the Christian Churches to be pulled down for the sake of building Mosques or houses for the Muslims

5- Christian women married to Muslims were to enjoy their own religion, and not to be subjected to compulsion or annoyance of any kind on that account

6- If Christians should stand in need of assistance for the repair of their Churches or Monasteries, or any other matter pertaining to their religion, the Muslim were to assist them. This was not to be considered as taking part in their religion, but as merely rendering them assistance in their need

7- Should the Muslims be engaged in hostilities with outside Christians, no Christian resident among the Muslims should be treated with contempt on account of his creed. Any Muslim so treating a Christian should be accounted recalcitrant to the Prophet Muhammad SAW

The “Kafir” Dispute

Sad but true: In a country where the coffin of Prem Chand, who was a member of Youth Parliament and victim of Islamabad plane crash, was marked as “Kafir”, can we expect some progression in the country when there is a presence of such an utmost religious intolerance and bigotry? I don’t think so we can have any progression under such circumstances where Islam in an “Islamic” country is manipulated and practiced in an extreme manner.

I had a detailed argument on this issue with some of my friends. An absolute majority condemned the act of tagging the coffin as “Kafir”. And I am happy that people are disapproving such an act of bigotry. During the debate an disputation, a friend of mine had a very interesting yet coherent statement on this issue. In his words:

The man who wrote this on his coffin was illiterate, uneducated and we all know the workers at this level carry what education.

We all saw one side of the picture and started maligning the whole Pakistan, but the other side of the picture can be that, the marker used the word just to identify the dead to his choice, and did so, so that like other bodies may not this body also gets buried in some Muslim ritual and the family of this poor soul remain wanting to bury their son to their tradition, customs and value.

The argument that “we all know what standard of education people, people carry at such level” is a very strong one. Coherent and acceptable. However, the latter part can be argued that the name “Prem Chand” was suffice to give a hint to the Muslims.

Another friend argued, which in my understanding is a demonstration of extremism, that calling Prem Chand a “Kafir” is very much according to Islamic teachings.

What “I” have been taught since childhood is:

After anyone’s death, one should avoid talking if he died as non-Muslim or he didn’t; or would he be a “Jahannumi” or a “Jannatti”. The affair of the deceased is solely with Allah now. Moreover, you never know if the deceased had embraced Islam in the plane, do you? That is one little reason why we are not allowed to speak about the deceased .. about any such thing. We must avoid it. My parents have taught me that since childhood. They taught me this because my religion Islam teaches so. Did your parents teach you this in your childhood, I ask the ones who are happy in calling Prem Chand a “Kafir” after his demise?

Another friend of mine has to say this:

I don’t know but some people have a very sad state of mind. Can somebody answer me since first voyage from the known world to the Americas (new world) took place in 1492 A.D, approximately 600-800 years after the arrival of ISLAM, what would have been the status of those people (Inca’s and Aztec’s) who had no clue that final Prophet Muhammad SAW with the final message has arrived in the world? Why there is a need to term someone as “Kafir” that too on the coffin? You can ask his religious views from his relatives but there is absolutely no need to label someone as “Kafir”, whether Hindu or follower of any other religion.

There are a number of possibilities that the deceased could be a converted Muslim. Even we’re not allowed to call an alive person as “Kaafir” unless we’re 100% sure that he’s really the one. Some Non-Muslims at some point in life embrace Islam, but they don’t reveal it until a certain time for various reason like family problems or security issues. It had happened in the era of Prophet Muhammad SAW too. A couple of friends of the concerned person may know about the conversion — the rest of the society, with tens of thousands of people “may not” know about it. Calling someone as “Kafir”, without having a personal knowledge of that person, is something that Islam strictly prohibits us to do. There’s no controversy regarding this matter. Rejecting it is, to be sure, a demonstration of sheer bigotry and religious intolerance. We must understand this!

Another guy says:

Because Muslims are degraded in India, UK, USA and other western countries, we must disgrace them in our “Islamic” Republic of Pakistan.

For the above person:

Two wrongs do not constitute a right, dearie.

In any case, we should be reasonable with our religious views. When the issue of “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” was started, a blogger who happen to be a Christian, wrote something excellent:

However, just because I can do something which members of another religion are forbidden to doesn’t mean I have to. I don’t go up into a Jew’s face while eating a baconburger and start telling them how delicious this forbidden meat is.

This hints how one should behave ethically and morally — which of course is a part of religion likewise. Calling a Non-Muslim a “Kafir” on his face is surely going to hurt his emotions. In a general scenario: a person (believer) knows about another person that he is a non-believer, but the believer shouldn’t go tell the non-believer that your eternal life would be in Hellfire, or that the fire of Hell is waiting for you because you are a “Kafir” — an infidel. There is a manner of preaching a religion and certainly the aforementioned manner is utterly wrong. Islam, during the era of Prophet Muhammad SAW, was spread via “excellent character” of Prophet Muhammad SAW and His Companions — not via the bullies or baleful behavior. By means of this baleful behavior with regards to Islam, we are not only hurting Non-Muslims, but are giving them a free passage to think that Islam is really intolerant.

Let’s take a trip to assume-palace. Had such thing been done by some church in the west — marking of a Muslim coffin as “infidel” — the same Muslims affirming the marking of Prem Chand’s coffin as “Kafir” would have raised their intensely emotional voices in against till the skies. They would have burnt the flags and effigies too. Reminds me of Confucius who said:

What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to the others.

I think God doesn’t like those who Judge [people] when He specifically says He is the Judge! Isn’t it why we have a Judgment day for this? Hell and Heaven is to be decided by Allah. Only Allah knows who is truly a rejector and who is merely a misguided person. It is not up to us to “sentence” a person to the Hellfire. To be sure, Allah is the best Judge.

Protest, But Not As Extremist

A Protest In Pakistan Against The Facebook Hosting Blasphemous Caricatures -- Photo Courtesy: Dawn

Web and the media, nowadays both are engaged in a donnybrook fair substantially. The former one seems to be engaged more intensely than the latter one perhaps because the issue is hermetically relevant to it: the ban on Facebook in Pakistan.

There has formed four groups in Pakistan regarding the ban on Facebook: a) who support the blanket ban on Facebook, b) who don’t support the ban at all c) who don’t support the blanket ban, but believe that only the ban of particular sacrilegious page is suffice d) who support the ban till 31st May.

It merits mentioning here that those who support the total ban on Facebook exist in absolute majority. I personally ascertain that the guesstimate is depending upon the social-interactions with a number of people in the real world as well as over the web. Others have right to disagree. Besides, a poll on ProPakistani — a famous Pakistani blog — tells again that absolute majority endorses the ban on Facebook. Other than that, over the online forums, a horde of people are seen endorsing the ban on Facebook. GEO News says that 70pc Pakistanis want permanent Facebook ban.

At the present time, a lot of people are seen criticizing the verdict of Lahore High Court given on 19th May. For those people who’re constantly, and to an extent frustratingly, criticizing the court decision, I’ve this for them: once the court gives an order, it’s not open to any authority to defy it. While there’s a room for criticism and reviewals, there’s no room for defiance. Besides, the constant criticism over the decision isn’t something pragmatic. One always has a right to challenge the verdict by submiting a review petition. This is one easy solution to say the least.

Now come towards the extremists within ourselves. Extremists within ourselves are abundant. Once the Winston Churchill said: “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.” Since the time the argle-bargle over the issue has begun, all I’ve seen is the two kind of extremists on either sides: those who support the ban, and the others who don’t support the ban. Yes — even it includes the one who don’t support the ban. The extreme situation has emerged now with both the sides cunningly demonstrating their point of view and either side asserting theirs to be the right, but at times their actions during the argumentation and protestation process are nonetheless appeared extremists. The above picture decisively speaks for itself. Exclaiming that “Facebook is Filth and Filth Lovers Burn in Hell” is a blatant show of extremism. Why should a person burn in hell if he uses Facebook or loves to use Facebook? The whole web is penetrated with the filth in abundant. Banning facebook till 31st May, in order that to record a protest against the unjust done by Facebook and over the sacrilegious material, is a mere moderate way of recording the protest and since there are reports that the page has been removed, why a ban now?

The same way, it goes for the youtube. Why to keep youtube under a ban when it has, the very next day, removed the sacrilegious material? The web is full of blasphemous material against our beloved Prophet Muhammad SAW, or rather I should say that even in our surrounding we’ve blasphemers — the blasphemers of other kind who don’t follow His teachings. Last time I checked, the love of Prophet is in following His Shariah!

On the other side, there are people who don’t support the blanket ban. Having said that, they’re acting as a pedagogues for the people who’re in favor of a ban, saying them that ignorant (in this case the participants and subscribers of “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day”) need to be taught via a good behavior; whereas these pedagogues have simultaneously engaged themselves in a mocking-spree against the ones who support the ban. It’s that, some websites like MillatFacebook.Com and PakFacebook.Com have popped in over the surface of web — freshly developed by the facebook antagonists in Pakistan. These websites, and their developers, are fervently criticized and desperately scorned by the people who oppose the blanket ban. While I stand next to them against the blanket ban forever, I’d like to tell them that scorning and criticizing — even in a lighter vein — isn’t going to yield any lucrative result amongst the youths. It’s the responsibility of them to be toned down while attempting to address and rectify the issues within the society. Sometimes, and in some cases, I see people scream so much against extremism that they become extremists themselves.

All things considered, I daresay that we need to be moderate with the acts. Protesting is one thing which is fine, and which I’m doing too — extremism is another thing which is nervy.

Why Always Pakistan?

Extremism isn’t confined to a country, race, religion or caste. Why still Extremism and Nationalism in Pakistan is set off with hoopla every where in the world? On top of that, countries suffering from extremism, fanaticism and nationalism point fingers at Pakistan yet they themselves are victim of extremism and fanaticism. One of these countries include our neighbor country India — and our best one of the whole allies, United States of America.

India unfortunately has no shortage of extremists. There are quite a number of Hindu fundamentalists in India affiliated with a number of extremist political parties like Shiv Sina, BJP, RSS etc., that keep on disturbing the internal peace of India. These extremists not only target Muslims, but they do also target Christians. This sort of fundamentalism is quite common at many places in India. And this isn’t presumed, but convincing enough on the basis of enough and prima facie proofs. Without discussing much of the extremism transpired in past, since it’s known to many, let’s talk about the most latest one that happened just yesterday.

Promotional posters for a new Bolly-boo movie, showing an actress with unsuitable wearable, have been torn down by activists of hard-line Hindu nationalist group. They’ve called the posters an affront to Indian values.

In another event, Shiv Sena have also target Indian television station in Mumbai just because a local TV channel in India criticized Shiv Sena.

Last week, Shiv Sena’s ageing leader and figurehead Bal Thackeray criticised leading Indian batsman Sachin Tendulkar for saying that he was an Indian first and that Mumbai, his home city, ‘belongs to all Indians’.

On the other hand, since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 have happened in United States of America, many office bearer or functionary of a high rank of the religious right in America have been quite vocal against Islam, the Quran and Prophet Muhammad SAW. Excluding some anomalies, American columnists, intellectuals and political leaders have encouraged this hate campaign with their silence.

For example: Rev. Franklin Graham, Billy Graham’s son and successor who participated in the former president Bush’s inauguration ceremony, declared Islam a “very evil and wicked religion.”

If America is intolerant to religious extremism, one would hear within the public square criticism of extremists of all faiths. However, we only hear Muslim extremists being condemned. Is it not the case?

There are a lot of developing examples from many countries. Let’s truncate it: Absolute majority of Indian people want to see peace, Americans want to see peace. Everyone wants to see peace. The syllogism of all of this, again, is that extremism isn’t confined to a particular country, race, religion or caste. A handful of hatemonger and extremist bods at all don’t represent actions and thoughts of the whole state. Absolute majority of Pakistanis are product of peaceful mind. We’re adverse to extremism. Then why always Pakistan on this planet?