SLAVERY AND CONCUBINE-SLAVES AS CONCOMITANT EVILS OF WAR.

1. It is a false accusation against the Koran, that it allows enslavement of the captives of war, and sanctions female captives to the conquerors' embrace, or, in other words, female captives are made concubines on the field of battle. There is not a single sentence in the Koran allowing either of the above allegations. Sir W. Muir, in his "Life of Mahomet," could neither quote any verse of the Koran sanctioning the enslavement of the captives of war or servile concubinage, nor was he able to relate any instance of them during the several battles described therein. Yet, in a recent work,[336] he refers boldly, but vaguely, to the Koran; and regarding the battle of Walaja fought by KhÁlid against the Persians in A.H. 12 writes, after quoting KhÁlid's oration on gaining the victory:—

I do not understand why, if such was the case, KhÁlid did not refer the believers to the so-called "cunning device" of the Koran? By referring to this imaginary device of the Koran to the lawfulness of female captives "to the conquerors' embrace," he might have struck a chord, at which every Bedouin heart would have leapt with joy, instead of referring, as he did, merely to the riches of the land and fair fields. In fact there is no such inducement in the Koran.

2. Slaves are mentioned in the Koran defacto, but not dejure. The Koran took several measures to abolish future slavery. Its steps for its abolition were taken in every moral, legal, religious, and political departments. The liberation of slaves was morally declared to be a work of piety and righteousness—(Sura XC, 13; II, 172).[337] Legally the slaves were to be emancipated on their agreeing to pay a ransom—(Sura XXIV, 33).[338] They were to be set at liberty as a penalty for culpable homicide—(Sura IV, 94);[339] or in expiation for using an objectionable form of divorce—(Sura LVIII, 4);[340] and also they were to be manumitted from the Public Funds out of the poor-taxes—(Sura IX, 60).[341] They were religiously to be freed in expiation of a false oath taken in mistake—(Sura V, 91).[342] These were the measures for the abolition of existing slavery. The future slavery was abolished by the Koran by putting hammer deep unto its root and by annihilating its real source. The captives of war were, according to the clear injunctions of the Koran contained in the 5th verse of the 47th Sura, to be dismissed either by a free grant or by exacting a ransom. They were neither to be enslaved nor killed.

These verses convey very clearly the decree of the abolition of future slavery, and do not require any further remarks. Moreover they were acted upon accordingly even in the lifetime of the Prophet.

3. None of the prisoners of Badr A.H. 2, of Karkart-al-Kadr A.H. 3, of Katan in Najd A.H. 4, of Zat-al Riqa[343] A.H. 5, of Bani Mustalik A.H. 5, of Koreiza A.H. 5, of Batan Makka A.H. 6,[344] or of Honain (HawÁzin) A.H. 8,[345] was enslaved. All, without an exception, were set free either by way of free dismissal, or by exacting ransom (in cash or in exchange of Moslem prisoners) in strict conformity with the dictates of Sura XLVII, 5. There were no prisoners in the battles of Ohad A.H. 3, Ahzab A.H. 5, and Khyber A.H. 7.[346]

4. Some will contend regarding the Bani Koreiza that their women and children were made slaves, and as such sold in Najd. Sir W. Muir quotes the judgment of SÁd in the case of the Bani Koreiza,—"That the female captives and the children shall be sold into slavery," and that it was approved of by Mohammad. He writes further:—

I have shown in para. 30 of this book (pages 37 and 38) that Mohammad never appreciated the judgment of SÁd. And I have further to add that the said judgment, according to true reports, did not contain the illegal verdict of enslaving the women and children of the Bani Koreiza, as this might have gone directly against the Koran and the precedents of the Prophet. In the collections of Bokhari, Book of Campaigns, Chapter on Bani Koreiza, there are two traditions cited on the subject. Both of them quote the words of SÁd to the effect that "the women and children be imprisoned." The same is the case in Bokhari's other chapters (Book of JihÁd, Chapter on the Surrender of Enemy, Book of ManÁkib, Chapter on the Merits of SÁd).

It is not a fact that Mohammad made certain presents to his friends of the female slaves out of the captives of Bani Koreiza. The captives were not made slaves, therefore it is wrong to confound captives with slaves. There is no proof to the effect that they were enslaved. The Koran distinctly says that they were prisoners (Sura XXXIII, 26).

In fact, the women and children were not guilty of treason, and deserved no punishment. SÁd's judgment must be either wrong regarding them, or applied only to those who were guilty. "One woman alone," according to Sir W. Muir, "was put to death; it was she who threw the millstone from the battlements" (Life of Mahomet, Vol. III, page 277). I conclude, therefore, that all the women and children were released afterwards; some ransomed themselves, others went off with their freedom. But nobody was ever sold in slavery. The assertion of Hishamee, quoted by Sir W. Muir, that the women and children were sent to be sold among the Bedouin tribes of Najd in exchange for horses and arms (Vol. III, page 279), is void of all authority, and is in direct contradiction of what Abul Mo'tamar Soleiman bin Tarkhan (died 143 A.H. and was prior to Hishamee) says, and whose account seems to be more probable. His version is that the horses of Bani Koreiza were sent by Mohammad to Syria and Najd for the purpose of breeding, and that they got big horses. Vide WÁkidi Campaigns of Mohammad, page 374, Calcutta, 1855. This shows that only horses, and not women and children, were sent to Najd. The words of Hishamee (page 693) are "sabÁya min sabÁya Bani Koreiza." SabÁya, plural of sabi, applies to both person and property, as they say sabal adÚvva vaghairohu, he made captive, captured or took prisoner the enemy, and other than an enemy. (Vide Lane's Arabic Dictionary, page 1303, col. 1.) So probably Hishamee had in view only the horses captured of the Bani Koreiza and sent to Najd, but not the women and children of the captives of Koreiza.

5. RihÁna, a woman of the captives of Koreiza, is said by Sir W. Muir to have been taken by Mohammad "for his concubine." He always confounds prisoners with slaves, and female captives as well as slaves with concubines. There are several conflicting and contradictory traditions regarding RihÁna. Mohammad bin SÁd KÁtib Wakidi has related various traditions from Omar-bin-al Hakam, Mohammad bin KÁb, and from other various sources that Mohammad had married RihÁna. The KÁtib says "this tradition is held by learned men. But he has also heard some one relating that she was his concubine."[348] But Sir W. Muir chooses the latter uncertain and unauthentic traditions. He writes in a footnote:—

Even if this tradition be a genuine one, he is not authorized in his remarks in the text, where he says—

She was neither enslaved, nor made a concubine. It is to be regretted that the writer of the "Life of Mahomet" most absurdly confounds slavery and concubinage.

6. During the sovereignty of Omar, the second Khalif, in accordance with the injunctions of Mohammad to abolish slavery, all the existing Arab slaves were set free. It will appear that the wishes of Mohammad to that effect were but partially carried out. In ages that succeeded the death of Mohammad, they were altogether lost sight of, and even Arabs were allowed to be enslaved by the later jurists. Sir W. Muir, in his latest work, entitled "The Annals of the Early Caliphate," says:—

Even this speech of Omar shows that no one was enslaved during the wars of Mohammad, as he only refers to the captives of the days of Ignorance before the Prophet, and those taken in wars against the apostate tribes after him having been enslaved.

7. The Koran has never allowed concubinage with female captives. And after the abolition of future slavery enjoined in the Koran, there is no good in discussing the subject of concubinage, which depends on the legality or otherwise of slavery. The Koran had taken early measures for preventing the evil directly and indirectly, positively and negatively. In the first place, it recognizes marriage as the only legal condition of the union of both sexes. Marriage was also enjoined with the existing female slaves. (Vide Sura IV, 3, 29; and XXIV, 32, 33.) The prevention of concubinage is set forth in plain terms in Sura V, 7. The verses run thus:—

The 28th verse of the fourth Sura does by no means sanction concubinage. It has nothing to do with it. It only treats of marriage. It, together with its preceding verse, points out whom we can marry and whom not. Its next verse interdicts concubinage when it enjoins marriage with the then existing slaves.

8. I will here take the opportunity of noticing Maria the Coptic, who is alleged to have been a concubine-slave of Mohammad, although she does not come under the category of prisoners made slaves. According to Sir W. Muir, the Roman Governor of Egypt had written to Mohammad:—"I send for thine acceptance two damsels, highly esteemed among the Copts."[352] The writer converts them at once into "two slave-girls," and remarks, "a strange present, however, for a Christian Governor to make."[353] She was neither a captive, nor a slave, nor was she described as such in the Governor's letter. I am at a loss to know why or how she has been treated by the biographers of the Prophet as a slave or a concubine.

(1) I have great doubts regarding the truth of the story that Mokowkas the Governor had sent two maids to Mohammad, and taking it for granted they were so sent, that one of them was the alleged Maria; (2) it is not a fact that she was a slave; (3) nor a concubine-slave of the Prophet; (4) nor she as such bore a son to him; (5) and lastly, the notorious scandal about her much talked of by European writers is a mere calumny and a false story.

It will be a very tedious and irksome task to copy the various traditions bearing on the above subjects and to discuss their authenticity, and criticise their genuineness, on the principles of the technicalities peculiar to the Science of Traditions, as well as on the basis of scientific and rational criticism. Therefore I will notice only briefly each of the above subjects.

9. (1) That Mohammad had sent a dispatch to Mokowkas, the Roman Governor of Egypt, and that in reply he had sent Maria the Coptic maid, together with other presents, to Mohammad, is not to be found in the traditions collected by the best critics of Mohammadan traditions like Bokhari and Muslim, who had sifted the whole incoherent mass of genuine and apocryphal traditions regarding the Prophet, and had picked up but a very small portion of them which they thought to be relatively genuine. We can fairly conclude that such a tradition, which is related by other non-critics and story-tellers, who have indiscriminately narrated every tradition—whether genuine or apocryphal—like WÁkidi and Ibn SÁd, was surely rejected by these Imams (Doctors in the Science of Tradition) as having not the least possibility of its genuineness. Even Ibn Ishak (died 150),[354] Hisham-bin-Abdul Malik (died 213 A.H.),[355] and Abul Mo'tamar Soleiman (died 143 A.H.[356])[357] have not inserted the portion of the tradition of Maria the Coptic maid being sent by the Egyptian Governor to Mohammad. The tradition narrated by Ibn SÁd—(1) through WÁkidi and Abd-ul-HamÍd from JÁfar, (2) and Abdullah bin Abdur RahmÁn bin Abi SÁsÁta—is undoubtedly apocryphal, WÁkidi and Abd-ul-HamÍd are of impeached integrity, or no authority at all. Ibn Khallikan, in his Biographical Dictionary, translated by Slane, writes regarding WÁkidi:—"The Traditions received from him are considered of feeble authority, and doubts have been expressed on the subject of his (veracity.)"[358] Ibn Hajar AskalÁnÍ writes regarding WÁkidi in his Takrib, that "he has been struck off as an authority (literally left out), notwithstanding his vast knowledge." Zahabi's opinion of WÁkidi in MizÁn-al-Etedal is that Ahmed bin Hanbal said "he was the greatest liar." Bokhari and AbÚ HÁtim say he is struck off (or left out as an authority).

Regarding Abd-ul-HamÍd, Zahabi writes that Abu HÁtim said he is not quoted as an authority, and SofiÁn said he was a weak authority.

JÁfar and Abdullah bin Abdur RahmÁn bin Abi SÁsÁta are of the middle period in the Tabaeen's class, and do not quote their authority on the subject.

10. (2) Supposing that the Governor of Egypt had sent two Coptic maids, with other presents, to Mohammad, it does not follow necessarily that they were slave-girls. It is never stated in history that they were captives of war, or, if they were so, that they were enslaved subsequently. There is no authority for a haphazard conjecture that they were slave-girls.

11. (3) Even if it be admitted that Maria the Coptic was a slave-girl, there is no proof that she was a concubine-slave. It is a stereotyped fabrication of traditionists, and the unpardonable blunder on the part of European writers, that they almost always confound female-slaves, and even sometimes captives, with concubine-slaves. None of the six standard collectors of traditions—Imams Bokhari (died 256 A.H.), Muslim (died 261 A.H.), Aboo Daood (died 275 A.H.), Tirmizee (died 279 A.H.), NasÁee (died 303 A.H.), and Ibn MÁja (died 273 A.H.)—has narrated that Maria the Coptic was a concubine-slave of the Prophet. Even the early biographers—Ibn Ishak (died 150 A.H.) and Ibn Hisham (died 213 A.H.) have not made any mention to this effect. It is only Mohammad bin SÁd, the Secretary to WÁkidi, who narrates the tradition,—firstly through WÁkidi, Abd-ul-HamÍd, and JÁfar, and secondly through WÁkidi, Yakoob bin Mohammad, and Abdullah bin Abdur RahmÁn bin Abi SÁsÁta. These both ascriptions are apocryphal. I have already quoted my authorities against WÁkidi and Abd-ul-HamÍd. Yakoob bin Mohammad has been impeached by Abu ZaraÁ, a critic in the Science of Traditions.[359] JÁfar and Abdullah both flourished after the first century. Their evidence to the supposed fact about a century ago is inadmissible.

In the Biographical Dictionaries of the contemporaries of the Prophet, there are three persons named Maria.[360] One is said to have been a housemaid of the Prophet; the second was a housemaid whose kunniat (patronymic) is given as Omm Rabab (mother of Rabab). The third is called Maria the Coptic. It appears there was only one Maria; she may have been a female servant in the household of the Prophet. The narrators have, by citing different circumstances regarding them, made them three different persons, and one of them a concubine-slave, as they could not think a house or family complete without a slave-girl or a concubine-slave. The biographers often commit such blunders. In giving different anecdotes of really the same persons, they make as many persons as they have anecdotes. That anyone of the Marias was a concubine-slave is a mere conjecture, or a stereotyped form of traditional confusion in mixing up maidservants with slaves or concubine-slaves.

12. (4) Those who have converted Maria into a slave or a concubine-slave have furnished her—the creature of their own imagination—with a son. There are various traditions as to the number and names of the Prophet's sons, all of whom died in infancy. Some traditions give different names to one, and others give as many sons as the names are reported. There might have been a son of Mohammad by the name of Ibrahim, but that he was born of Maria the Coptic is a perfect myth. This piece of the story is the continuation of the traditions of Ibn SÁd, which I have already criticized in paras. 9 and 11. Ibn SÁd has related another tradition through Omar bin Asim and KatÁda to the effect that Mohammad's son Ibrahim was born of a captive woman. Asim has been condemned by Abu Hatim, a doctor and critic in the Mohammadan traditional literature;[361] and KatÁda (died 117 A.H.) was not a contemporary witness of what he relates. Thus he fails in giving any authority to his narration. There are two more traditions in Ibn SÁd from similar authorities like KatÁda, namely, Zohri (died 124 A.H.) and Mak-hool (died 118 A.H.)—not contemporaries of Mohammad, but of the class of Tabaeen—to the effect that Mohammad had said, "Had Ibrahim lived, the capitation-tax would have been remitted to every Copt!" and that "Had Ibrahim lived, his maternal uncles would never have been enslaved!" They do not say who was Ibrahim!

Another and the last tradition in Ibn SÁd through Yahia bin HammÁd, Abu AvÁna, Soleiman-al-Aamash, Muslim, and Bara is to the effect that Ibrahim was born from a Coptic maid of the Prophet. The narrator Soleiman-al-Aamash was a modallis (Takrib in loco), or in other words, a liar. Besides the whole chain of the narration is Mo-an-an.

In none of the canonical collections of traditions like those of Bokhari, Muslim, and others Ibrahim is said to have been born of Maria. Therefore any of their traditions regarding Ibrahim is not against us.

It is also related in some genuine traditions that an eclipse of the sun took place on the day of Ibrahim's death.[362] The historians have related only one eclipse, which occurred in the sixth year of the Hejira, when Mohammad was at Hodeibia. This shows that Ibrahim could not be Maria's son. She only could come to Arabia a year later, as the dispatches to several princes were sent only in the seventh year. YÁfaee, in his history MirÁt-uz-ZamÁn, has noted that the sun was eclipsed in the sixth year of the Hejira. In the tenth year, he says,—"A genuine tradition has that the sun was eclipsed on the day of Ibrahim's death, and it has been stated above that it was eclipsed in the sixth year. There is some difficulty. It was noted once only during the time of the Prophet. If it occurred twice, there is no difficulty; and if not, one of these two events must be wrong, either the eclipse took place in the tenth year, or the Prophet's son died in the sixth year." But historically the eclipse was noticed only in the sixth year. There are different dates of Ibrahim's death reported by the biographers—the fourth, tenth, and fourteenth of lunar months, but in none of them can an eclipse take place.

13. (5) Lastly, I have to notice the infamous calumny against Mohammad concocted up by his enemies, that Haphsa surprized the Prophet in her own private room with Maria. "She reproached her lord bitterly, and threatened to make the occurrence known to all his wives. Afraid of the exposure and anxious to appease his offended wife, he begged of her to keep the matter quiet, and promised to forego the society of Maria altogether." But he afterwards released himself from it by a special revelation—(Sura LXVI, 1). Sir W. Muir remarks:—

The passage in the Koran relating to the affair is as follows:—

14. Now this is perfectly a fictitious 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 principal authorities, the Arabian biographers, Ibn Ishak, WÁkidi (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:—

15. But in this instance, Sir W. Muir, being anxious to quote his fictitious 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:—

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 illustrate 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 passage, by degrees assume 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 passage itself."[366]

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.

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

Imam NoÁvee, 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."

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

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.

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

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]

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 XXXIII, 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:—

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.

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—

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

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 XXXIII, 4): "God hath not made your adopted sons as your own sons."

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

He quotes verse 36, Sura XXXIII. 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 God 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 God.

22. In the next verse—"There is no offence chargeable to the Prophet in that which God 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 XXXIII, 37 and 38, by Sir W. Muir and others, in fact means here and in other similar passage (XIX, 21; IV, 50; XI, 76; and VIII, 43, 46),—God's foreknowledge of future contingencies and not a legal command. The same is the case with the word "Qadr" in XXXIII, 38, as well as in XV, 60, and LXXIII, 20, which means God's prescience and not a predestinated decree.

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

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.

24. The story copied by commentators that Mohammad had accidentally seen Zeinab and admired her is traced to MukÁtil,[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 MukÁtil: some declare that, as a traditionist, he was worthy of confidence, and others accused him of falsehood."

... Ahmed bin SaiyÁr says:—

"MukÁtil Ibn SulÁimÁn, a native of Balkh, went to Marw, whence he proceeded to IrÁk. 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." IbrÁhÍm Ibn YÁkÚb-al-Juz-JÁni called MukÁtil an audacious liar. Abu Abd ar-RahmÁn an NasÁi said:—"Liars notorious for forging Traditions and passing them off as coming from the Prophet were four in number: Ibn Abi Yahya, at MedÍna; Al-WÁkidi, at Baghdad; MukÁtil Ibn SulÁimÁn, in KhorÁsÁn; and Muhammad Ibn SaÍd, surnamed Al-MaslÚb, in Syria." WakÍ Ibn al-JarrÁh said of MukÁtil that he was a confirmed liar. Abu Bakr al-Ajurri said: "I asked AbÚ DÁwÚd SulÁimÁn Ibn al AshÁth concerning MukÁtil, and he answered:—'All Traditions given by him should be rejected.' According to Omar Ibn al-GhallÁs, MukÁtil Ibn SulÁimÁn was a liar, and his traditions were to be rejected." "As for MukÁtil Ibn SulÁimÁn," said Al-BukhÁri, "pass him over in silence." In another place, he says of him: "He is just nothing at all." Yahya Ibn MoÍn declared that MukÁtil's traditions were of no value; and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said: "As for MukÁtil Ibn SulÁimÁn, the author of the Commentary, I should not like to cite anything on his authority." "His Traditions are to be rejected," said AbÚ HÁtim ar-RÁzi. According to Zakariya Ibn Yahya as-SÁji, people said of MukÁtil Ibn SulÁimÁn, the native of KhorÁsÁn, "that he was a liar, and that his traditions should be rejected."[377]

Ikrama (died 107 A.H.), another liar, had only surmised before MukÁtil that Mohammad might have admired Zeinab. His words, as related by the traditionists, Abd bin HamÍd and Ibn-al-Munzar, are "as if she had fallen deep in his mind."[378] But MukÁtil has converted this hazardous conjecture into a fact.

Abd Allah Ibn al-Harith relates as follows:—

Mohammad bin Yahya bin HabbÁn[380] (died 121 A.H.) has also given the tradition of Mohammad's admiring Zeinab at Zeid's house, but does not give his authority. He was not a contemporary narrator, therefore his narration is apocryphal and technically Mursal.

25. All these silly fables, wild romances, and scandalous conjectures have their origin in KatÁda's improper interpretation of these words, "and thou didst hide in thy mind what God would bring to light" (Sura XXXIII, 37). KatÁda (died 117 A.H.) conjectured that the Prophet concealed his desire that Zeid should divorce Zeinab. But all other authors[381] have found fault with KatÁda in his surmise, which is not supported by any word in the text or by any contemporary evidence. This interpretation of KatÁda is contradicted by the very words of Mohammad to Zeid in the same verse: "Keep thy wife to thyself and fear God."

26. Many have been the conjectures as to what did Mohammad hide in his mind. There is one by KatÁda already explained. Another is this, that he knew Zeid would divorce her, but concealing this in his mind, he interdicted Zeid from doing so. A third conjecture is this, that he concealed in his mind that if Zeid, contrary to his (Mohammad's) advice, were to divorce her (Zeinab), he (Mohammad) would marry her. These conjectures are all far-fetched and arbitrary, but it appears more probable that the social inharmony and domestic disturbances between Zeid and Zeinab, and their resolve of separation, were withheld from the public by Mohammad, fearing the scandal it might give rise to among his enemies. This is the only secret referred to in the verse so often cited.