The character of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, is often depicted as a paragon of virtue and morality within Islamic tradition. However, certain hadiths provide a different perspective, revealing actions that challenge this portrayal. One such hadith, Sunan an-Nasa’i 3959, offers a particularly troubling glimpse into Muhammad’s personal conduct, raising serious ethical questions about his character.
The Hadith in Question: Sunan an-Nasa’i Hadith 3959
The hadith, narrated by Anas, states:
“It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but ‘Aishah and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed (Quran 66:1): ‘O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you.’ until the end of the Verse.”
This hadith is graded as Sahih (authentic) by Darussalam, indicating its reliability within Islamic scholarship.
Analysis of the Hadith
- Ownership and Intercourse with a Slave: The hadith explicitly mentions that Muhammad had sexual relations with a female slave. This act, in the context of modern ethical standards, is highly problematic. It reflects a societal norm of the time where slavery was accepted, but it raises significant moral concerns about consent, power dynamics, and human rights.
- Pressure from Wives: The narrative indicates that Muhammad’s wives, ‘Aishah and Hafsah, were so disturbed by this relationship that they pressured him to end it. This reaction from his wives suggests that even within his household, the act was seen as contentious or inappropriate.
- Divine Intervention: According to the hadith, after Muhammad declared the slave forbidden to himself under pressure, Allah revealed Quran 66:1, which seems to rebuke Muhammad for forbidding what was permissible. This divine revelation implies that Allah approved of Muhammad’s initial actions, which further complicates the moral landscape.
Ethical Implications
- Consent and Power Dynamics: The relationship between a master and a slave inherently lacks mutual consent due to the imbalance of power. The female slave’s ability to consent freely is questionable, given her status and dependency on Muhammad.
- Marital Discord: The fact that his wives felt compelled to intervene suggests a lack of harmony and moral agreement within Muhammad’s household, portraying him in a less than ideal light as a husband.
- Divine Justification: The revelation of Quran 66:1 to justify Muhammad’s actions can be seen as a divine endorsement of his behavior, which many would find ethically troubling. It suggests a flexibility in divine law that appears to cater to Muhammad’s personal desires, rather than upholding a universal moral standard.
A Major Sin and the Concept of Infallibility
Additionally, this hadith highlights another critical issue regarding Muhammad’s character in Islamic theology. By forbidding himself from what is considered Halal (lawful) in Islam, Muhammad committed what is known as a Gunah-e-Qabira (major sin). In Islamic jurisprudence, unnecessarily forbidding oneself from what is lawful is considered a significant transgression, as it goes against the principle of enjoying the lawful provisions provided by Allah.
This incident also directly challenges the concept of Masoom (infallibility) attributed to prophets in some Islamic doctrines. According to the belief in Masoom, prophets are incapable of committing sins, especially major ones. However, this hadith clearly shows Muhammad engaging in an act that, by Islamic standards, would be considered sinful when he forbade himself from what was permissible. This contradiction disproves the notion that Muhammad was incapable of sin, suggesting he was not infallible as some interpretations of Islamic theology might claim.
Conclusion
This hadith from Sunan an-Nasa’i paints a picture of Muhammad that is at odds with the image of a moral exemplar. Engaging in sexual relations with a slave, under circumstances that suggest a lack of genuine consent, and then having this act seemingly justified by divine revelation, challenges the notion of Muhammad as a figure of impeccable character. Furthermore, his action of forbidding himself from something lawful, leading to a divine rebuke, indicates he committed a major sin, which directly contradicts the belief in his infallibility.
Critics argue that such actions, when scrutinized through the lens of contemporary ethics and Islamic theology, highlight significant flaws in Muhammad’s character. His willingness to engage in such a relationship, the discord it caused within his family, the subsequent divine approval, and the commission of a major sin, all contribute to a portrayal that is far from the ideal moral leader.