By: Asad Mirza
For the past fortnight, the largest minority in the country has been put at unease due to a controversy that is not political but religious. The incident is related to controversial remarks made by some ambitious politicians, trying to get noticed by their party’s leadership for creating a surcharged and divisive atmosphere in the country on religious lines. The unpleasant remarks against the most venerated personality in the Islamic community affronted the Muslims not just in India but also globally. The establishment in a hurried response had to heed the international outcry in a crisis mode. Instead of adopting a mature and sensible strategy to handle the crisis and assuage the hurt feelings of the largest minority community in the country, the media and politicians tried to portray these remarks as non-consequential and as a litmus test for the minority’s followers and refused to apologize till the courts stepped in.
Common Muslim’s unease
Related Posts:
Still worse, the controversy also exposed the common Muslim’s inability to explain their history logically and contextually. Everyone from the common Muslim to its religious leaders was mum, as they couldn’t counter the controversy contextually. Let’s try to analyze the controversy and what would have been a better strategy to handle the currently volatile situation and the response by the Muslim community.
It all started with derogatory remarks made by two spokespersons of the ruling-BJP party against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the most venerated personality amongst Muslims, blaming that he married Hazrat Bibi Aisha (RA), who was only 6-years old when married and 9-years old when the marriage was consummated, while the Holy Prophet was in his 50s. Notwithstanding the age difference, as perceived by the current generation’s mindset, it is worth mentioning that when the marriage proposal was put forward to Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA), by Hazrat Khoula (RA), he pointed out that Aisha (RA)’s marriage was already fixed with the son of Muta’im bin Jubair. But when he talked to Muta’im bin Jubair, Muta’im said that since Abu Bakr has forsaken his ancestors’ religion, he couldn’t marry his son to Aisha (RA). Abu Bakr (RA) then accepted the proposal brought by Hazrat Khoula (RA).
Historical context
Before we analyze the response of the Muslim community and its leaders to these remarks, let’s have a brief look at the current situation of girls and women in other religions and what is the minimum age prescribed in their scriptures.
Myriam Francois-Cerrah in her article written for The Guardian in 2012 on the issue opines that western and now even Indian media base their criticism on a saying attributed to Bibi Aisha herself (Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, book 58, number 3894), and the debate on this issue is further complicated by the fact that some Muslims believe this to be a historically accurate account, and indeed it is. But before levelling charges we should also analyze the reasoning or motive behind this action. She points out that, in seventh-century Arabia, adulthood was defined as the onset of puberty. (This much is true, and was also the case in Europe: five centuries after Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH), marriage to Aisha, 33-year-old King John of England married 12-year-old Isabella of Angouleme) Interestingly, of the many criticisms of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), made at the time by his opponents, none focused on Aisha’s age at marriage, as that was the norm during those days.
At the age of 25 Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) married his first wife Khadija bint Khuwaylid, who was a widow 15 years older than him. This marriage lasted for 25 years. He married her to encourage widow remarriage and care for destitute women in the emerging Muslim society, which was not a usual practice at that age. After Bibi Khadija died in 619 CE, he married a total of 12 women over the remaining years of his life. All of Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) wives were widows, except Aisha.
Italian Orientalist Laura Veccia Vaglieri in her book – “An Interpretation of Islam” writes that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was a faithful husband to Bibi Khadija for twenty-five years, and did not marry another woman, except after her death. He at that time was fifty years old. He married each of his wives thereafter for a social or political purpose; such that he wanted to honour the pious women, or wanted the loyalty of certain tribes so that Islam would spread amongst them. All the wives Muhammad married were not virgins, nor were they young or beautiful. So how can anyone claim that he was a lustful man?
Other religions’ views
Hallett JP in her book Fathers and daughters in Roman society in Rome (1984), wrote that noble women in Rome or earlier Christianity were known to marry as young as 12 years of age. Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics mentions Manusmriti, in this regard explained by other authorities in (verses 9.88-89), and Gautama (18-21) – ‘A girl should be given in marriage before puberty.’ and Vaśiṣṭha (17.70). – ‘Out of fear of the appearance of the menses, let the father marry his daughter while she still runs about naked. For if she stays in the home after the age of puberty, sin falls on the father.’
But this leads us to another issue to ponder. This relates to the physical and physiological status of our ancestors. Several scientific reports mention that our ancestors were much superior and stronger in physical health and structure than the current generation of Homo Sapiens, and thus the girls attained puberty much earlier than now. Even recently some medical reports were mentioning that girls currently reach puberty at around 13, much earlier than our and previous generations. This whole episode teaches us to adopt a sincere and respectful attitude toward different religions of the world in today’s global village based on tolerance and coexistence and respect for others’ religions and avoiding unfounded allegations. Instead, these two people, though correctly mentioned the fact, but they made the remarks in such derogatory and foul language that the Muslims all across the world were bound to feel hurt and demand action against them.
First, these people should have not adopted such uncourteous behaviour and secondly, the Muslims should have seen through their game that by using derogatory and foul language, these fringe elements were trying to provoke them and reap political benefit by unsettling them and gaining political mileage, at their cost. Also, these offenders didn’t anticipate strong international condemnation.
Additionally, since the day this controversy started no Muslim leader worth his salt has spoken candidly or correctly against these derogatory remarks. Even Muslim members of most political parties kept mum, except for two regional political parties and one individual leader. This teaches us yet again the lesson to be proactive and logic-oriented in our response instead of just being emotional. (The author is a political commentator based in New Delhi & can be reached at www.asad-mirza.blogspot.com)
