Omar724: Thanks for the detailed post. Which references explicitly back point (b) about conversion en route, prior to arrival in Arabia?

Mr. Naseer Ahmad Faruqui writes about Mary the Copt: Mary the Copt: It is commonly, but quite wrongly, assumed about this lady that the Holy Prophet took her into his household without marrying her, as she was (i) a bestowed slave girl, and (ii) not a Muslim. What an awful assumption! The facts, on the contrary, are that:

(a) She was not a slave, but a lady from a noble family, sent as a present by King Maququs of Egypt as a token of his regard and esteem for the Holy Prophet. Maulana Shibli, in his famous Sirat-un-Nabi , has quoted on pages 305-306 of the first volume the letter which King Maququs of Egypt wrote to the Holy Prophet in reply to the latter's invitation to him to accept Islam. In that letter, the King, after saying that he was expecting such a prophet to appear, etc., goes on to say:

'I have given due honour to your emissary, and I send you as a gift two girls who are held in high esteem and honour among the Copts (residents of Egypt)'

Maulana Shibli goes on to say in his footnote that the expression 'they are held in great honour and esteem,' used for Mary the Copt and her sister (sent to keep her company in the new country) could never have been used for slave girls, but only for women from a noble family. Mary's sister was given by the Holy Prophet to one of his Companions in marriage.

(b) The assumption that liberties could have been taken with Mary because she was Christian is also wrong from all points of view. It is true that Mary was a Christian when she left Egypt. But during the long journey by camel to Arabia, the two sisters were much impressed by the religious observances (such as prayers five times a day, even Tahajjud prayers, and recitation of the Holy Qur'an of the Holy Prophet's emissary and his companions, and their model behaviour. And the two ladies became Muslims before reaching Madina.

On grounds (a) and (b) above, Maulana Shibli concludes that Mary the Copt could not but have been married by the Holy Prophet. But let us proceed with other evidence on the point.

(c) There is a clear Hadith on the point that the Holy Prophet did not on his death leave behind any slave -male or female (Bukhari, 55: 1). Now Mary survived the Holy Prophet for years. Had she been a female slave she would have been mentioned as such.

(d) There is further evidence that, on the Holy Prophet's death, the Caliphs fixed a maintenance allowance for his wives. The allowance given to Mary was the same as to other wives. This would not have been so, had she not been a married wife, but only a female slave.

(e) She took the veil like other wives of the Holy Prophet and of other Muslims, unlike slave girls, who did not take it when going out.

(f) When she died in the time of the second Caliph Hazrat Umar, he called the Muslims and himself led the funeral prayers, an honour shown only to the wives of the Holy Prophet (Al-Zarqani, Vol. 3, p. 272, Egyptian edition).

(g) Some people argue that there is no evidence of the Nikah (marriage) ceremony of the Holy Prophet with Mary. So what? Reports of the Nikah ceremony do not exist for all the wives, and yet they are treated as wives and not 'those whom your right hands possess.' I will show later that there is such evidence.

(h) In any case, no Muslim can dare to believe that the Holy Prophet himself could possibly have violated the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an, quoted already, that no sexual relationship can be had between man and woman except by regular marriage (4:25). The Holy Qur'an testifies that the Holy Prophet was the first to act on Divine Commands, and that is as it should have been. That is why Hazrat Ayesha, wife of the Holy Prophet, called him 'the personification of the Holy Qur'an.'

(j) Some people say that in verse 33:50 of the Holy Qur'an, talking about the wives of the Holy Prophet being taken under Divine dispensation, mention has been made of those 'whom your right hands possess.' As already shown, some of the wives of the Holy Prophet had come as prisoners of war, and were freed and married (such as Hazrats Safiyya, Juwairiyya and Maimuna), and the quoted expression refers to them for the reason already given in the last chapter under the subtitle Concubinage. But the word fay, also used in that verse, has been taken advantage of to argue that it implies, not a prisoner of war, but a woman received as a gift. As will be shown in the next paragraph, she was married by the Holy Prophet as a regular wife and not kept as a slave girl. So the argument is baseless.

(k) And now for the clear and conclusive evidence of the following Hadith:

'Hazrat Abdullah Al-Zubeiri reports: The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) then took in marriage Mary, daughter of Shamoon (after Nikah). It is the same Mary who was bestowed upon him by Maququs the Ruler of Egypt' (Sahih Al-Mustadrak Hakim, Book 4, 'Information about the Companions of the Holy Prophet: Mary the Copt,' page 38).

The doubts and unwarranted assumptions about this case should now be laid to rest for ever. May Allah forgive those who have held them so far. I have discussed this case in detail as it was a great slur on the Holy Prophet to hold the view that he had, Allah forbid, violated the clear Divine Command in 4:25 (Holy Qur'an), and even many Muslims were involved in such thinking through ignorance.

(l) Incidentally, the following historians, in addition to Maulana Shibli, already quoted, support the view that the Holy Prophet had married Mary the Copt, like his other wives:

i. Hitti's History of the Arabs
ii. Ameer Ali's The Spirit of Islam
iii. Haykal's The Life of Muhammad
iv. Bahjuzi's Muhammad and the Cause of IsIam
v. Namoos-e-Rasool by Hafiz Muhammad Sarwar of England.

Aargghh. I just wrote this long comment and it disappeared because I was not a member. Crazy naseeb.

Let me start again.

I am so glad to find a person who has read that book. I picked it up a while ago and loved it. It's well written and also brings all the characters and events of history to life in a very personal way. He does not talk of them as if they are lifeless icons, but living human beings.

He was well read (at least to a lay person like me) and presented his points very succinctly with relevant arguments.

He also represented what I have always felt to be the soul of Islam but have been unable to define in words. The level of respect and love that he wrote with was exceptional and allowed him the licence he took with some of the more intimate characterizations without sounding blasphemous.

I loved Karen Armstrong's book which was more comprehensive and detail rich, but without much more than narrative fact. Aslan's book took those facts and created a picture of Islam as complete as any in spirit and truth.

I wanted to shake everyone into reading this book and even read it outloud to my husband. Beautifully written.