"O Prophet! Why hast thou forbidden thyself that which G.o.d hath made lawful unto thee,[363] out of desire to please thy wives; for G.o.d is forgiving and merciful?"[364]

[Sidenote: The affair not noticed in the early biographies.]

14. Now this is perfectly a fict.i.tious story. Neither there was any such affair, nor is there anything on this head mentioned in the Koran. It is very strange that Sir W. Muir has abruptly left aside, in this instance, all his princ.i.p.al authorities, the Arabian biographers, Ibn Ishak, Wakidi (his secretary), and Tabari. The story is not to be found in any of these biographies, nor in the canonical collections of Bokhari, Muslim, and Tirmizee. Sir W. Muir had himself laid down the rule that only these original authorities are to be depended upon, and the later authors are to be rejected. He writes:--

"To the three biographies by Ibn Hisham, by Wackidi his secretary, and Tabari, the judicious historian of Mahomet will, as his original authorities, confine himself. He will also receive with a similar respect such traditions in the general collections of the earliest traditionists--Bokhari, Muslim, Tirmizi, &c.--as may bear upon his subject. But he will reject as _evidence_ all later authors, to whose so-called traditions he will not allow any historical weight whatever."[365]

[Sidenote: Sir W. Muir's authorities not valid.]

15. But in this instance, Sir W. Muir, being anxious to quote his fict.i.tious story to calumniate Mohammad, has ceased to be a judicious historian, and deviates from his self-imposed rule. He does not reject the story as he ought judiciously and conscientiously to have done, as it is not to be found in any of the earliest and original authorities mentioned by him; on the contrary, he compromises himself by condescending to quote from secondary and later authors. He writes in a footnote without quoting his original authority:--

"The version given in the text is accredited by Jelalood-deen, Yahia, Beizawi, and Zamakshari, &c." (Vol. III, page 163.)

These authors were neither biographers nor historians, and are therefore no authorities at all. Zamakshari and Beizawi were commentators in the sixth and seventh centuries respectively. They give two stories, one regarding Maria and another to the effect that the oath or promise of Mohammad had been to the effect that he would not again partake of a species of strong-scented honey disliked by his wives. Jelal-ud-deen Mahalli was a commentator of the ninth century of the Hejira. Yahia is not known among the commentators. He may be one of the latest authors.

The commentators are generally no authority in the matter of traditional literature. "To ill.u.s.trate allusions in the Coran, they are always ready with a story in point, but unfortunately there are almost always different tales, all equally opposite to the same allusion. The allusion, in fact, was often the father of the story. What was originally, perhaps, a mere conjecture of supposed events that might have given rise to an expression in the Coran, or was a single surmise in explanation of some pa.s.sage, by degrees a.s.sume the garb of fact. The tradition and the facts which it professes to attest thus, no doubt, often rest on no better authority than that of the verse or pa.s.sage itself."[366]

[Sidenote: The best commentators and traditionists refute the story.]

16. Those commentators who are well versed in the Science of Traditions, as well as doctors in the traditional literature, have rejected the story of Maria as the subject-matter of Sura LXVI, as apocryphal.

Baghvi, the author of _Misbah_ (the text of Mishkat), says that the Sura was revealed on the subject of honey, and not in the case of Maria. The latter story is neither in the _Sahihain_ (Bokhari and Muslim), nor has it been narrated in any authentic way.

Hafiz Ishmael Ibn Kaseeral Qarashi, as quoted by Kustlanee (notes on Bokhari, Vol. VII, page 313), says that the Sura was certainly in the case of honey.

Imam Noavee, in his notes on Muslim, (Vol. I, page 463,) says:--"In fact it was revealed in the case of the honey, and not in the case of Maria."

[Sidenote: The story not accredited by the Koran.]

17. Sir W. Muir himself admits that the earliest biographers do not relate the story, but gives a false excuse for his not following their example. He writes:--

"The biographers pa.s.s over the scene in decent silence, and I should gladly have followed their example, if the Coran itself had not accredited the facts, and stamped them with unavoidable notoriety."[367]

The allegation is absurdly false, as everybody can satisfy himself by referring to the Koran, which does not contain the fict.i.tious and spurious story.

[Sidenote: The story when fabricated.]

18. The currency of the story did neither take place during the time of Mohammad, its proper age, nor during the lifetime of the companions. It was fabricated and imposed on some of the _Tabaee_ of weak authority in the second century.[368] There is no doubt that the whole story is a sheer fabrication from beginning to end.

[Sidenote: Zeinab's case.]

19. In conclusion, I will offer a few remarks in pa.s.sing regarding Sir W. Muir's reference here to Zeinab's case. He writes:--

"The charms of a second Zeinab were by accident discovered too fully before the Prophet's admiring gaze. She was the wife of Zeid, his adopted son and bosom friend; but he was unable to smother the flame she had kindled in his breast, and by _divine_ command she was taken to his bed."[369]

The story is from the beginning to end all untrue. Mohammad knew Zeinab from her infancy, she was his cousin; and he had himself arranged her marriage with Zeid. When Zeid divorced her, she was thirty-five years old, and possibly could have no charms to fascinate even a stranger. Had she been charming or fair to look upon, Zeid should not have separated himself from her. There is no historical authority for this, or for any other version of the story. The Koran, while treating the subject, has not the slightest reference to any of the stories afterwards made out to the effect that Mohammad had been to Zeid's house, and, having accidentally seen the beauty of Zeinab's figure through the half-opened door; or that the wind blew aside the curtain of Zeinab's chamber, and disclosed her in a scanty undress, was smitten by the sight.[370]

[Sidenote: The story a spurious one.]

20. These stories, and I believe a few more varied accounts of the same, like those of the story of Maria the Coptic, were originally mere conjectures of supposed events that might have given rise to an expression in the Koran (Sura x.x.xIII, verse 37)--if not wilful misrepresentations of story-tellers and enemies of Islam--which the European writers represent in the garb of facts. The words of the Koran which have been the father of the story are:--

"And when thou saidst to him unto whom G.o.d had shewn favour, and unto whom thou also hadst shewn favour, 'keep thy wife to thyself, and fear G.o.d,' and thou didst hide in thy mind what G.o.d would bring to light, and thou didst fear men; but more right it had been to fear G.o.d."

This shows Mohammad dissuaded Zeid from divorcing his wife, notwithstanding the great facility of divorce common at that time in Arabia.

Sir W. Muir is not justified in copying these stories from Tabari. They are not related by earliest biographers from any authentic and reliable source. He ought to have rejected them as spurious fabrications under historical criticism, as he rejects other traditions which are on a better footing of truth than these false and maliciously forged stories.

[Sidenote: Sir W. Muir's conjectures not justified.]

21. Sir W. Muir has exceeded the limit he himself had marked out for a judicious historian of Mohammad when he abounds in his wild fancies, and observes--

"Zeid went straightway to Mahomet, and declared his readiness to divorce Zeinab for him. This Mahomet declined: 'Keep thy wife to thyself,' he said, 'and fear G.o.d.' _But Zeid could plainly see that these words proceeded from unwilling lips, and that the Prophet had still a longing eye for Zeinab._"[371]

Now this is a mere libellous surmise. He goes on still with his defamatory conjectures, and writes:--

"Still the pa.s.sion for Zeinab could not be smothered; it continued to burn within the heart of Mahomet, and at last bursting forth, scattered other considerations to the wind."[372]

Mohammad never professed to have received a divine command to marry Zeinab. It was not necessary for him to have done so. The outcry raised by the Pagan Arabs was not because they suspected an intrigue on the Prophet's part to secure a divorce, but because they looked upon an adopted son in the light of a true son, and considered, therefore, the marriage with Zeinab, after her divorce from Zeid, as falling within the prohibited degrees. This adoptive affinity was already abolished in the Koran (Sura x.x.xIII, 4): "G.o.d hath not made your adopted sons as your own sons."

Sir W. Muir gravely mistakes in his remarks when he says:--

"The marriage caused much obloquy, and to save his reputation, Mahomet had the impious effrontery to sanction it by special Revelation from on high, in which the Almighty is represented as formally recording a divine warrant for the union."[373]

He quotes verse 36, Sura x.x.xIII. But he has himself admitted (Vol. III, page 229 footnote) "that this verse is rather in a recitative style of a past event," and not a divine command to marry Zeinab. The words "we joined thee in marriage unto her" in the verse do not mean a command for marriage. They simply mean that the marriage had taken place. The phrase "we joined thee in marriage unto her" is a mere form of expression.

Almost all human actions are attributed to G.o.d in the Koran, and whatever occurs in the world by the ordinary course of nature, and by the free agency of men, is referred in the Koran to the immediate agency of G.o.d.

[Sidenote: A wrong translation of Sir W. Muir.]

22. In the next verse--"There is no offence chargeable to the Prophet in that which G.o.d hath enjoined upon him"--he wrongly translates _Faraza_ as enjoined, and thus conveys an idea of a divine command. _Faraza_ means he made (a thing) lawful or allowable. [See Lane's Arabic Dictionary, Bk. I, Pt. VI, page 2373.] In giving the above meaning Mr.

Lane quotes this very verse.[374] Such unions were made lawful not only to Mohammad, but for all the Moslems, and there was nothing partaking of a special prerogative for him. No special sanction is conveyed by these verses. No special revelation from on high was brought forward to secure his own object or to give him an exceptional privilege. It was merely said that no blame attached to the Prophet for doing what was lawful.

The word "_Amr_," translated "command" and "behest," in x.x.xIII, 37 and 38, by Sir W. Muir and others, in fact means here and in other similar pa.s.sage (XIX, 21; IV, 50; XI, 76; and VIII, 43, 46),--G.o.d's foreknowledge of future contingencies and not a legal command. The same is the case with the word "_Qadr_" in x.x.xIII, 38, as well as in XV, 60, and LXXIII, 20, which means G.o.d's prescience and not a predestinated decree.

[Sidenote: In Zeinab's case no exceptional privilege was secured.]

23. In conclusion, Sir W. Muir remarks:--

"Our only matter of wonder is that the Revelations of Mahomet continued after this to be regarded by his people as inspired communications from the Almighty, when they were so palpably formed to secure his own objects, and pander even to his evil desires. We hear of no doubts or questionings, and we can only attribute the confiding and credulous spirit of his followers to the absolute ascendency of his powerful mind over all who came within its influence."[375]

The verses 37 and 38 of the thirty-third Sura had not in any way "secured the objects of Mohammad, much less pandered to his evil desire." As his marriage with Zeinab had taken place long before they were published, they could not be said to confer any exceptional privilege upon him.

[Sidenote: The false story traced to Mukatil.]

24. The story copied by commentators that Mohammad had accidentally seen Zeinab and admired her is traced to Mukatil,[376] a commentator of the Koran in the second century, who died at Basra 150 A.H. "The doctors (_in traditions_)," writes Ibn Khallikan in his Biographical Dictionary, translated by Slane, "differ in opinion respecting Mukatil: some declare that, as a traditionist, he was worthy of confidence, and others accused him of falsehood."

... Ahmed bin Saiyar says:--

"Mukatil Ibn Sulaiman, a native of Balkh, went to Marw, whence he proceeded to Irak. His veracity is suspected; his Traditions should be left aside and declarations should be rejected. Speaking of the divine attributes, he said things which it would be sinful to repeat." Ibrahim Ibn Yakub-al-Juz-Jani called Mukatil an audacious liar. Abu Abd ar-Rahman an Nasai said:--"Liars notorious for forging Traditions and pa.s.sing them off as coming from the Prophet were four in number: Ibn Abi Yahya, at Medina; Al-Wakidi, at Baghdad; Mukatil Ibn Sulaiman, in Khorasan; and Muhammad Ibn Said, surnamed _Al-Maslub_, in Syria." Waki Ibn al-Jarrah said of Mukatil that he was a confirmed liar. Abu Bakr al-Ajurri said: "I asked Abu Dawud Sulaiman Ibn al Ashath concerning Mukatil, and he answered:--'All Traditions given by him should be rejected.' According to Omar Ibn al-Ghallas, Mukatil Ibn Sulaiman was a liar, and his traditions were to be rejected." "As for Mukatil Ibn Sulaiman," said Al-Bukhari, "pa.s.s him over in silence." In another place, he says of him: "He is just nothing at all." Yahya Ibn Moin declared that Mukatil's traditions were of no value; and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said: "As for Mukatil Ibn Sulaiman, the author of the Commentary, I should not like to cite anything on his authority." "His Traditions are to be rejected," said Abu Hatim ar-Razi. According to Zakariya Ibn Yahya as-Saji, people said of Mukatil Ibn Sulaiman, the native of Khorasan, "that he was a liar, and that his traditions should be rejected."[377]