Muhammad's Marriages: Difference between revisions

Although it was obvious that Zaynab had no economic need of a new husband, modern historians sometimes claim that she might have had a social or moral need to remarry. They report such claims as, “Before Islam, the Arabs did not allow divorcees to remarry,”<ref>Abdallati, H. ''Islam in Focus'', pp.177-179, cited in “Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun’s Article Muhammad’s Multiplicity of Marriages” in ''Answering Christianity''.</ref> and that her divorce “made her unfit to marry a status conscious Arab.”<ref>[http://www.scribd.com/doc/133159128/The-Real-Men-of-the-Renaissance-Badreddine-Belhamissi/ Aly, A. (1999). ''The Real Men of the Renaissance'', p. 26. Belhamissi.]</ref> This is an imaginary problem. There is no evidence that the Arabs forbade divorced women to remarry. On the contrary, Abu Sufyan’s favourite wife, Hind bint Utbah, had been a divorcée.<ref>Bewley/Saad 8:165; Al-Suyuti, ''Tarikh al-Khulafa''. Translated by Jarrett, H. S. (1881). ''History of the Caliphs'', pp. 200-201. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society.</ref> Abu Sufyan's clan, the Umayyads, had been the dominant clan of the Quraysh even before Abu Sufyan became the high chief of Mecca;<ref>E.g., see Guillaume/Ishaq 82.</ref> what was socially acceptable for the Umayyads was, by definition, acceptable for everyone. Muhammad did not marry Zaynab to rescue her from social disapprobation; rather, he created significant social disapprobation in order that he might marry her.<ref>{{Tabari|39|p. 9}}. "The ''Munafiqun'' made this a topic of their conversation and reviled the Prophet, saying, 'Muhammad prohibits (marriage) with the (former) wives of one's own sons, but he married the (former) wife of his son Zayd.'"</ref>

To claim that Muhammad married Rayhanah because she was “a poor widow” is perverse. Rayhanah was a member of the [[Jews|Jewish]] [[Banu Qurayza|Qurayza]] tribe,<ref>{{Tabari|39|pp. 164-165}}.</ref> whom Muhammad besieged in 627. When the tribe surrendered, Muhammad ordered that every adult male should be decapitated, that every woman and child should become his [[Slavery|slave]] and that all the property was forfeit to the Islamic state.<ref>Guillaume/Ibn Ishaq 689-692.</ref> So Rayhanah was only a widow because Muhammad had killed her husband and she was only poor because Muhammad had appropriated her property.

If Muhammad had made enquiries about how to help the Qurayza slaves, he would have quickly realized that Rayhanah was one of the least destitute, for she was only a Quraziya by marriage. By birth she belonged to the Nadir tribe,<ref>{{Tabari|39|pp. 164-165}}.</ref> who were currently residing in the date-farms of Khaybar.<ref> Guillaume/Ishaq 437-438.</ref> If Muhammad had wanted to provide for Rayhanah, he would have sent her back to her own family. The Nadir were making every effort to assist the surviving Qurayza. They searched the Arabian slave-markets and they bought back as many Qurayza women and children as they found there.<ref>Cited in [http://www.kister.huji.ac.il/content/massacre-ban%C5%AB-quray%E1%BA%93-re-examination-tradition?lang=english/ Kister, M. J. (1986). The Massacre of the Banū Qurayẓa: A Re-Examination of a Tradition. ''Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 8'', 61-96.]</ref> Since Rayhanah was a Nadriya by birth, her tribe would certainly have ransomed her too if only she had been for sale.

Ramlah and her first husband, Ubaydullah ibn Jahsh, were among the early [[converts]] to Islam who emigrated to Abyssinia in 615.<ref>Guillaume/Ishaq 146; {{Tabari|39|p. 177}}.</ref> “They were safely ensconced there and were grateful for the protection of the ''Negus'' [King]; could serve Allah without fear; and the ''Negus'' had shown them every hospitality.”<ref>Guillaume/Ishaq 148.</ref> It is not known how the exiles earned their living, but they must have found a means of subsistence, for they all stayed at least four years. Forty of them returned to Arabia in 619, only to discover that Mecca was still not a safe place for Muslims.<ref>Guillaume/Ishaq 167-168.</ref> After the Muslim victory at Badr in 624, however, the exiles realized that they would be safe in Medina, and they began to leave for Arabia in small groups.<ref>Guillaume/Ishaq 527-529.</ref> About half of them remained in Abyssinia, Ramlah and Ubaydullah among them.<ref>Guillaume/Ishaq 527.</ref> There is no obvious reason why they could not have gone to Medina, where all of Ubaydullah’s siblings lived,<ref>Guillaume/Ishaq 214-215. Ubaydullah’s eldest brother was married to Ramlah’s sister.</ref> so presumably their continuation in Abyssinia was voluntary.

Ubaydullah died in Abyssinia.<ref>Bewley/Saad 8:68.</ref> This should not have made much difference to Ramlah’s economic position. If he had been running some kind of business, she could have taken it over; and if he had had any savings, she would have inherited them. In fact he had been an [[Alcohol|alcoholic]],<ref>Bewley/Saad 8:68: “He gave himself over to drinking wine until he died.”</ref> so it is possible that she had already needed to fend for herself for several years. She had chosen to remain in Abyssinia rather than join her family in Medina, so presumably she could have continued to do whatever she was doing indefinitely. Widowhood now gave her the option of remarriage. There were twelve single men in the community but only four single women, of whom two were elderly, so Ramlah and her teenaged daughter could have easily found suitors had they wished to marry.<ref>Guillaume/Ishaq 526-527. This list shows that the group also included four married couples and six children under 13.</ref>

Muhammad must have heard from the returned emigrants about their lives in Abyssinia, so he could not have been under any wrong impression that Ramlah was in need of “rescuing”. In fact, even if she had needed to be rescued, there is no real reason why she would have had to marry Muhammad; she could have simply gone to Medina and lived with her family. Further, if Muhammad had for some reason believed that Ramlah needed to marry, and to marry himself, as a matter of survival, this opens the question of why he did not also propose marriage to the other two widows. They were elderly and of the peasant class,<ref>Guillaume/Ishaq pp. 179, 526-528. The details here show that the two ladies had been married to a pair of brothers, i.e. were probably of a similar age. One of them was the older sister of the mother of Ramlah’s foster-mother. Hence she must have been ''at least'' 30 years, and more likely 40 years, older than Ramlah, who was then 35. The family is described as “freed”, i.e. ex-slaves.</ref> but this should not have mattered to someone who did not care about youth, beauty, rank or wealth.

Muhammad’s family – not only his wives and descendants, but his extended family too – lived off the wealth of Khaybar for the rest of their lives.<ref>Guillaume/Ishaq 521-523.</ref> Since Safiyah represented the leading family of Khaybar,<ref>Guillaume/Ishaq 437-438.</ref> there is a very real sense in which Muhammad’s whole clan was living at her expense. Muhammad was not providing for Safiyah; it was she who provided for him.