Tunisian women in sexual jihad return pregnant from Syria


(RT) Tunisian women have traveled to Syria to wage ‘sexual jihad’, performing intercourse with dozens of Islamist fighters and returning home pregnant, Tunisia’s Interior Minister Lotfi ben Jeddou told MPs.

A number of Tunisian girls who had travelled to Syria for "sexual jihad" have returned home pregnant, the government says. (Photo from www.febrayer.com)

A number of Tunisian girls who had travelled to Syria for “sexual jihad” have returned home pregnant, the government says. (Photo from http://www.febrayer.com)

The Tunisian girls “are [sexually] swapped between 20, 30, and 100 rebels and they come back bearing the fruit of sexual contacts in the name of sexual jihad and we are silent doing nothing and standing idle,” the minister said during an address to the National Constituent Assembly on Thursday. 

“After the sexual liaisons they have there in the name of ‘jihad al-nikah’ [sexual holy war] they come home pregnant,”
 ben Jeddou continued. 

Ben Jeddou did not elaborate on how many Tunisian women had returned to the country pregnant with the children of jihadist fighters. 

Former Mufti of Tunisia Sheikh Othman Battikh in April said that 13 Tunisian girls “were fooled” into traveling to Syria to offer their sexual services to rebels fighters. 

The mufti, who was subsequently dismissed from his post, described the so-called “sexual Jihad” as a form of “prostitution.” 

“For jihad in Syria, they are now pushing girls to go there. Thirteen young girls have been sent for sexual jihad. What is this? This is called prostitution. It is moral educational corruption,” Al Arabiya cites the mufti as saying. 

Some Sunni Muslim Salafists, however, consider sexual jihad as a legitimate form of holy war. 

The sexual Jihad Fatwa made its first appearance in Syria several months back. It allows for fighters to enter sexual relations with a woman after agreeing upon a temporary contract that loses effect after a few hours, Fars News reported in August. 

The temporary nature of the contract allows the woman to have sex with multiple partners a day. 

In August, general director of public security service in Tunisia Mostafa Bin Omar said that a “sexual jihad cell” had been broken up in an area west of the country known for its concentration of Al-Qaeda fighters. 

Bin Omar told Al Arabiya that Al-Qaeda affiliate Ansar Shariah was offering minor girls with their faces covered as sexual offerings for jihadist fighters. 

Meanwhile, Bin Jeddou said the Interior Ministry has banned 6,000 Tunisians from traveling to Syria since March 2013. Eighty-six more individuals had been arrested on suspicion of forming ‘networks’ that send Tunisian youth for ‘jihad’ to Syria. 

He also hit back at human rights groups who criticized the government’s decision to ban suspected militants from leaving the country. Many of those facing travel bans are under 35 years of age, he said. 

“Our youths are positioned in the frontlines and are taught how to steal and raid [Syrian] villages,”
 Bin Jeddou said. 

Hundreds of Tunisian men have set off for Syria to wage jihad against the government of President Bashar Assad, while thousands more have joined the ranks of militant Islamists in states like Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 15 years. 

24 thoughts on “Tunisian women in sexual jihad return pregnant from Syria

  1. Raj, don’t forget to include this too :

    French prison in the dock over child rape during visit!

    Strasbourg, France: A French mother who allegedly held down her four-year-old sowhile he was raped by his step-father in a prison visiting room went on trial in Strasbourg on Monday.
    In a case which could lead to the prison itself also facing legal action, Sabrina Bonner, 25, and the step-father, her partner Lionel Barthelemy, 31, are charged with multiple sexual assaults on the boy, who is now eight and in the care of social services.

    Barthelemy admits raping the child in the visiting room at the Toul detention centre in eastern France in February 2010.

    Bonner and Barthelemy face maximum prison terms of 20 years if convicted as charged.
    (s:ndtv)

    France suggests it is ready to give weapons to Syria rebels…because Russia gives arms to Syrian Army!!

    What does the younger generation want? The inflation to come down. Who is the best for
    best economic growth? In the debate it is all Rahul…Rahul and Rahul…not Modi…never!!

    Regards

    Plum

  2. WHY ALL SUNNI MUSLIMS ARE SODOMITES

    Satan Attends Every Muslim Childbirth; He Touches Every Infant
    Except for Mary and her Son Jesus, all babies cry during their birth, because Satan touches them… (Sahih Bukhari, 4.55.641)

    Whenever a Muslim child is born, Satan pricks it; that is why the child cries. Only Mary and Jesus were not pricked by Satan…(Sahih Muslim, 30.5837, 5838)
    Say prayer during sexual intercourse, and Satan will not touch your child…(Sahih Bukhari, 4.54.503

    Arabic poetry to glorify homosexuality, take their famous poet Abu Nuwas:

    O the joy of sodomy!
    So now be sodomites, you Arabs.
    Turn not away from it–
    therein is wondrous pleasure.
    Take some coy lad with kiss-curls
    twisting on his temple
    and ride as he stands like some gazelle
    standing to her mate.
    A lad whom all can see girt with sword
    and belt not like your whore who has
    to go veiled.
    Make for smooth-faced boys and do your
    very best to mount them, for women are
    the mounts of the devils

    ARAB POET Abu Nuwas:

    ALL SUNNI MUSLIMS FINGER F—-D BY SATAN AT BIRTH

    In a broadcast on the UK’s Fadak TV on May 24, 2012, London-based Shiite cleric named Yasser Habib calmly and dispassionately asserts that all non-Shiite males — especially the Shiites’ Muslim rivals, the Sunnis — are sodomized at birth by the devil, and grow up to become “passive homosexuals”, i.e., the “bottom” of a homosexual pair who is penetrated in anal sex.

    EVEN MOHAMMED & HIS COMPANIONS WERE FINGER F–KED!

    ISLAMIC CLERIC CONFIRMS MUSLIM MEN ARE SODOMITES

    You know how some people insult Muslims by calling them crude names that are the equivalents of sodomites and bestialists (butt- and goat-f**kers)? It turns out at least the sodomite insult is true! We have it straight from the mouth of none other than a Muslim cleric — a London-based Shiite cleric named Yasser Habib.
    In a broadcast on the UK’s Fadak TV on May 24, 2012, Habib calmly and dispassionately asserts that all non-Shiite males — especially the Shiites’ Muslim rivals, the Sunnis — are sodomized at birth by the devil, and grow up to become “passive homosexuals”, i.e., the “bottom” of a homosexual pair who is penetrated in anal sex.

    TRANSCRIPTION OF YASSER HABIB:

    “Anyone who consents to being called ‘Emir of the Believers’ is a passive homosexual. Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, for example, who willingly assumed this title, was, without a doubt, a passive homosexual. The same goes for the caliphs Othman Ibn Affan, Muawiyya, Yazid, and the rules and sultans of the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties, as well as some of the rulers and sultans of our day and age.

    For example, the king of Morocco bears this title. This is how you know that he is a passive homosexual. This is in addition to the evidence revealed by Western media, which showed that the current king of Morocco is indeed a passive homosexual who belongs to the homosexual community. This was leaked from his palace by his assistants, his servants, and his ‘boys,’ whom he would penetrate and who would penetrate him. They fled to Europe, sought asylum, and exposed all this.

    CLERIC YASSER HABIB EXPOSES UMAR

    It is told (in the hadith) that Umar Ibn Al-Khattab had an anal disease, which could be cured only by semen. One should know that this is a well-known medical condition, which is also mentioned in sacred texts. Someone who, God forbid, has been penetrated in the anus, a worm grows within him, due to the semen discharged in him…
    A disease develops in his anus, and as a result, he cannot calm down, unless. he is penetrated again and again.

    The Shiites are undoubtedly protected from this disease, and from committing this abominable and hideous act. As for the Nasibis (who hated the prophet Muhammad’s family), they are definitely afflicted with this homosexuality.
    One of the devils is present at the birth of every human being. If Allah knows that the newborn is one of our Shiites, He fends off that devil, who cannot harm the newborn. But if the newborn is not one of our Shiites, the devil inserts his index finger into the anus of the newborn, who thus becomes a passive homosexual. If the newborn is not a Shiite, the devil inserts his index finger into this newborn’s anus, and when he grows up, he becomes a passive homosexual.

    If the newborn is a female, the devil inserts his index finger into her vagina, and she becomes a whore. At that moment, the newborn cries loudly, as he comes out of his mother’s womb. Note that some children cry normally at birth, while others cry loudly and incessantly. You should know that this is the work of that devil, according to this narration.”

    Islam is NOT a religion, but an insane political system and sex cult populated by the severely mentally impaired.”

    When cleric Yasser Habib “says ‘passive homosexual’, he is referring to the receptive, submissive, female-equivalent partner. Dominant, inserting male homosexual activity is universally accepted in Islam. He has no problem with that. It’s grown men ‘catching’ that he has a problem with.”

    Hey, all you gays-lesbians-bisexuals-trannies and “liberated” women of the “Progressive” Left!According to a cleric of the religion you so vehemently defend, you had all been butt-f*cked by the devil at birth!

    THERE ARE NO INNOCENT MOHAMMEDANS! THEY ARE ALL CLOSET PERVERTS

    The recent film “Innocence of Muslims” has sparked outrage in the cult following of Islam. In a religion that states that those who insult its “prophet” Mohammad should be put to death, the insanity is self evident. Muslims have cornered the market on cult insanity. If Muhammad was a respectable individual, then maybe this would not be such an issue. The problem lies in the Quran’s documentation of its “prophet”, and the Islamic belief that the Koran is without fault or mistake. “Not one word is incorrect in the Quran”, My Mohammedan friend Ahmed tells me.

    My first response is always…”What about Aisha”????

    You see, Muhammad was a documented Pedophile. He forced his friend Abu Bakr to give him his daughter. He said he had a dream about her and since Allah made him dream about this SIX YEAR OLD GIRL, then it was “gods will” that they be married. Not wanting to offend Allah, Abu Bakr gave his six year old daughter over to Muhammad to be raped.
    (Yes! Any sex with a six year old is rape. There is no possibility for comprehension or consensual sex with a six year old.)

    So the Prophet of Allah had Pedophile dreams about a six year old girl and used god as an excuse to get her into his tent for nightly rapes.
    That is all anyone needs to know about Islam. End of story. Its a sick cult with a perverted old man originating the sick, war loving religion.
    Now let’s look at what the Quran says about the events of the criminal Pedophile act.
    First he took her from her family and married her at six years old:

    Was Muhammad a Pedophile?
    An Examination of Muhammad’s Relationship with a Nine-Year-Old Girl

    For the Western mind, perhaps the most disturbing fact about Islam is that its founder had a sexual relationship with a nine-year-old girl. Because of this, it has become increasingly popular in some circles to refer to the Prophet of Islam as a “pedophile.” This is, of course, extremely offensive to Muslims, who view Muhammad as the ideal servant of God and as the greatest example of what a man should strive to be. Nevertheless, Muhammad’s relationship with a young girl presents a problem for Muslims, especially for those who want to share their faith with others.
    Since much of the following information will come as a shock to those who are unfamiliar with this issue, we must be careful not to jump to hasty conclusions about Muhammad. Pedophilia is one of the most serious charges that can be leveled against a person, so the term “pedophile” should not be used lightly. We must also remember that, if a man has a sexual relationship with a young girl in a culture where such a union is permissible, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the man is a “sexual predator,” as the term “pedophile” implies. Christians especially should be wary of flippant name-calling. With that said, let us carefully examine Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha, recalling the Western principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

    FIRST MUSLIM DEFENSE: Aisha was older than nine years old.
    Faced with the arguments of Western critics, Muslim apologists sometimes piece together information from various accounts in an attempt to deny that Aisha was as young as critics often claim:
    The popular misconception as to Aishah’s age may be removed here. . . . Isabah, speaking of the Holy Prophet’s daughter Fatimah, says that she was about five years older than Aishah. It is a well-established fact that Fatimah was born when the Ka’bah was being rebuilt, i.e., five years before the Call. Aishah was therefore born in the year of the Call or a little before it, and she could not have been less than ten years at the time of her marriage with the Holy Prophet in the tenth year of the Call. . . . And as the period between her marriage and its consummation was not less than five years, because the consummation took place in the second year of the Flight, it follows that she could not have been less than fifteen at that time. The popular account that she was six years at marriage and nine years at the time of consummation is decidedly not correct because it supposes the period between the marriage and its consummation to be only three years, and this is historically wrong.[1]

    RESPONSE: The evidence for Muhammad’s marriage to the nine-year-old Aisha is too strong to be ignored.
    The problem with the selective and carefully edited defense just given (other than the complete lack of references) is that it ignores the numerous accounts we now possess which record Aisha’s age when Muhammad consummated his marriage to her. Many of these accounts are from Aisha herself. Indeed, the evidence for Muhammad’s marriage to the young Aisha is as strong as the evidence for just about any other fact in Islam. We have copious traditions relating Muhammad’s marriage proposal when Aisha was six or seven years old, as well as his consummation of that marriage when she was nine:
    Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated that the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) married her when she was six years old, and he consummated her in marriage when she was nine years old. Then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).[2]
    Khadijah died three years before the Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) departed to Madina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.[3]
    Urwa narrated: The Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years.[4]
    Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.[5]
    Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.[6]
    This is just a sample of the early Muslim traditions reporting Muhammad’s marriage to the young Aisha, but it is sufficient to show that she certainly wasn’t fifteen years old at the time of the consummation, as some Muslims claim.

    In addition to traditions regarding Aisha’s age, the Hadith also provides details about how the relationship began and progressed:
    Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated that the Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said to her: “You have been shown to me twice in my dream. I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and someone said (to me), ‘This is your wife.’ When I uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours. I said: ‘If this is from Allah, it will be done.’”[7]

    After having this dream about Aisha, Muhammad proceeded to ask her father Abu Bakr for her hand in marriage. Abu Bakr understandably objected at first, but Muhammad was able to persuade him to agree. Aisha was later taken to Muhammad’s house:
    The Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) asked Abu Bakr for Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said: “But I am your brother.” The Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”[8]

    Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: The Prophet (the blessing and peace of
    Allah be upon him) married me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Madina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Umm Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said: “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.[9]

    Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: When the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) married me, my mother came to me and made me enter the house (of the Prophet) and nothing surprised me but the coming of Allah’s Apostle to me in the forenoon.[10]

    Once Aisha was a part of Muhammad’s household, she became his favorite wife, even after he married several other women. Indeed, Muhammad’s other wives had to plead with him for treatment equal to that of Aisha:[11]
    The wives of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) were in two groups. One group consisted of Aisha, Hafsa, Safiyya and Sauda; and the other group consisted of Umm Salama and the other wives of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him). The Muslims knew that Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) loved Aisha, so if any of them had a gift and wished to give it to Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him), he would delay it, till Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) had come to Aisha’s home . . . The group of Umm Salama discussed the matter together and decided that Umm Salama should request Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) to tell the people to send their gifts to him in whatever wife’s house he was. . . .

    [Muhammad replied]: “Do not hurt me regarding Aisha, as the Divine Inspiration did not reveal it to me on any of the beds except that of Aisha.” . . . Then the group of Umm Salama called Fatimah, the daughter of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) and sent her to Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) to say to him: “Your wives request to treat them and the daughter of Abu Bakr on equal terms.”[12]

    Thus, Aisha held a place of special favor among Muhammad’s wives, which caused a great deal of tension among the women. Since it may be taken as historically certain that Aisha was very young when her marriage to Muhammad was consummated, critics sometimes charge that Muhammad’s preference for Aisha reveals his preference for young girls. The Hadith offers a certain amount of support for this view:

    When I took the permission of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him), he asked me whether I had married a matron. He said: “Why hadn’t you married a virgin that would play with you, and you would play with her?” I replied: “O Allah’s Apostle! My father died and I have young sisters, so I felt it not proper that I should marry a young girl like them who would neither teach them manners nor serve them.”[13]
    Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrated: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him), and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet (may the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) would call them to join and play with me.[14]

    Nevertheless, it must be noted that, if Muhammad had truly been obsessed with young girls, he could have taken many others as his wives. Muhammad eventually held complete power in Medina and later in Mecca, yet he didn’t build himself a harem of young girls. Since there isn’t enough evidence to support the charge that Muhammad had a perverted obsession with prepubescent girls, critics should be careful when making such a claim.

    To sum up, the evidence makes it abundantly clear (1) that Muhammad had sexual intercourse with Aisha when she was very young, (2) that this relationship was pursued by Muhammad after he dreamed about her, and (3) that she was his favorite wife. With so much historical data reporting the age of Aisha, it should be obvious that Muslims who deny Muhammad’s relationship with her only do so out of embarrassment.

    SECOND MUSLIM DEFENSE: Morality is relative to one’s culture.
    Another method of defending Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha is the Muslim appeal to moral relativism. According to this view, since different cultures have different standards of morality, it is wrong to criticize the standards of others based on one’s own ethical system. Consider the following responses by Maqsood Jafri and Abdur Rahman Squires:
    The Arabs practiced polygamy. In the wake of custom the Prophet Muhammad married some ladies. Hazrat Khadijah was fifteen years older [than] him at the time of marriage. Most of them were his age sake. In his fifties he married Hazrat Aiysha, the daughter of Hazrat Abu Bakr when she was just bloomed to youth. Hinting this marriage some of the orientalists charge Prophet Muhammad as a “pedophile”. It was not only the Prophet Muhammad who had married a young girl [but] even the father of Hazrat Aiysha, Hazrat Abu Bakr had also married a young girl in his sixties. It was . . . part of the prevalent Arab culture and custom. Hence not to be taken seriously.[15]

    The large majority of Islamic jurists say that the earliest time which a marriage can be consummated is at the onset of sexual maturity (bulugh), meaning puberty. Since this was the norm of all Semitic cultures and it still is the norm of many cultures today—it is certainly not something that Islam invented.[16]
    Thus, since the practice of marrying young girls was “part of the prevalent Arab culture and custom,” it is “not to be taken seriously” as a criticism of Islam.

    RESPONSE: Islam is utterly inconsistent with moral relativism.
    This defense is truly amazing, for, when defending Muhammad’s moral perfection, Muslims often maintain that Muhammad condemned the Arab culture for the prevalent immorality:

    After spending his life in such chaste, pure and civilized manner, there comes a revolution in [Muhammad’s] being. He wearies of the darkness and ignorance, corruption, immorality, idolatry, and disorder which surround him on all sides. . . . He wants to get hold of that power with which he might bring about the downfall of the corrupt and disorderly world and lay the foundations of a new and better one. . . . He wanted to change the whole structure of society which had been handed down to them from time immemorial.[17]

    Muslims are quick to point out immorality around the world, especially in the West. It seems, then, that they are suggesting a very inconsistent message. When confronted with an immoral practice in another culture, Muslims cry out in one accord, “We condemn these practices, for they are against the eternal, perfect, and unalterable Law of God!” Yet, whenever the moral character of Muhammad is being scrutinized, Muslims suddenly say, “Don’t judge Muhammad! You should remember that he was from a different culture! Marrying young girls was common in Arabia, and it still is, thanks to Muhammad’s precedent. Different people have different moral standards, so no one should worry about Muhammad’s sexual relationship with a nine-year-old girl.”
    This convenient switch from moral absolutism to moral relativism is logically unacceptable. If it is wrong to judge the practices of another culture, then both Muhammad and the Qur’an were wrong for condemning immoral practices in Arabia. But if condemning immoral practices is acceptable, then Muslim apologists need a better response to criticisms of Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha.

    THIRD MUSLIM DEFENSE: Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha was part of God’s plan.
    Muslim apologists have developed another answer to Muhammad’s critics, namely, that Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha was part of God’s divine plan (i.e. God had an important reason for it):
    It should be borne in mind that, like all acts of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him), even this marriage had a Divine purpose behind it. Hazrat Aisha was a precocious girl and was developing both in mind and body with rapidity peculiar to such rare personalities. She was admitted to the house of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) just at the threshold of her puberty, the most impressionable and formative period of her life. It was the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) who nurtured her sensibilities and directed the growth of her faculties to the most fruitful channel and thus she was made to play an eminent role in the history of Islam. Moreover, she was the only virgin lady to enter the House of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) and was thus very competent to share the feelings of other ladies of younger age who had numerous questions to ask from the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) with regard to sexual ethics and morality. These ladies felt shy of asking them through the elderly wives of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) out of modesty. They could speak out their minds comparatively more freely to Aisha who was more or less of their own age group.[18]
    Puberty is a biological sign which shows that a woman is capable of bearing children. Can anyone logically deny this? Part of the wisdom behind the Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to Aishah just after she reached puberty is to firmly establish this as a point of Islamic Law, even though it was already a cultural norm in all Semitic societies (including the one Jesus grew up in).[19]

    Here Muslim apologists argue that Muhammad married Aisha for a divine purpose. Young girls who had questions about sex needed someone to talk to, and who better for this task than the young wife of the Prophet? Further, Muhammad wanted to establish puberty as an appropriate age for marriage, so he decided to demonstrate this rule by marrying Aisha.

    RESPONSE: Muslims have failed to offer a sufficient reason for God to ordain the marriage.
    There are numerous problems with this defense. First, such a response could be used to justify nearly any behavior. Consider a husband on trial for beating his wife. When he takes the stand, he explains, “Your Honor, many women are victims of spousal abuse, and they need someone to talk to. Out of the kindness of my heart, I decided to beat my wife, so that she would be able to comfort other women whose husbands beat them.” Such an explanation would never be accepted (except, perhaps, in countries under Islamic rule, where the Qur’an guarantees a husband’s right to beat his wife[20]). Besides, if Muhammad had outlawed sex with children instead of becoming a willing participant, little girls wouldn’t have to worry about sex, and they wouldn’t need to question Aisha.

    Second, it isn’t necessary for a lawgiver to institute laws by performing actions that create a precedent. In other words, Muhammad didn’t need to marry a young girl in order establish a law about marrying girls who had reached puberty. Muhammad, as Islam’s lawgiver, could have simply issued a decree. For instance, Muhammad allowed husbands to beat their wives. Was it necessary for Muhammad to beat his wives in order to establish this as a law? Certainly not. Similarly, when an American lawmaker says that killing someone in self-defense is acceptable, no one argues that the lawmaker must go out and kill someone in self-defense if his law is to stand. Hence, the argument that Muhammad needed to marry a young girl to establish puberty as the appropriate age for marriage completely fails.

    Third, the Muslim claim that Aisha was a “precocious child” strains the evidence. Aisha herself reports that, when she was taken to Muhammad’s house, she was playing on a swing with her friends. She was also still playing with dolls. Based on the evidence, Aisha sounds like a normal little girl, not like a young adult. Besides, Muhammad didn’t marry her because she was precocious; he married her because he was dreaming about her.

    Fourth, it is unlikely that God was using Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha to establish puberty as the appropriate age for marriage, since the Qur’an itself seems to allow marriage to prepubescent girls. According to Surah 65:4, a man must wait three months to divorce a wife who hasn’t yet reached menses. If Islam allows a man to divorce a girl who isn’t old enough to have her period, it follows that Islam also allows a man to marry a girl who hasn’t yet reached menses. And if the Qur’an allows marriage to prepubescent girls, then Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha would in no way rule out such a practice. (In the spirit of interpretive charity, I’m open to alternative interpretations of the Qur’an here. That is, I’m willing to give Muslims the benefit of the doubt if they offer another reasonable view of this passage. Based solely on 65:4, I would say that several interpretations of the text are possible. However, if we consider early Muslim commentaries on the verse, the understanding I give above appears strongest.

    Fifth, Muslims search for reasons to justify Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha because they are convinced that everything Muhammad did had a divine purpose behind it. When critics point out Muhammad’s numerous murders and assassinations, Muslims claim that these violent acts were just. When critics note the extent of Muhammad’s polygamy, or his participation in the slave-trade, or his countless robberies,[21] Muslims provide answers based on the view that Muhammad was an outstanding moral example. Similarly, when Muslims are confronted with the evidence for Muhammad’s sexual encounters with Aisha, they assume that there must have been a reason for it. They then invent reasons for Muhammad’s behavior (i.e. the other little girls needed someone to talk to about sex), and they offer these reasons as a defense of Muhammad’s morality. However, non-Muslims do not share this confidence in Muhammad’s moral perfection. Indeed, when non-Muslims hear about Muhammad’s violence, his greed, his polygamy, and his support of spousal abuse, we aren’t as quick to say “He must have had a reason” as Muslims seem to be. Because of this, Muslim justifications for Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha sound hollow when presented as a logical defense of his actions.
    Finally, Muslim explanations for Muhammad’s behavior fail to take into account the dangers that accompany sex at a young age. Many Muslims claim that, as soon as a young girl gets her first period, she is ready to bear children. This “old enough to bleed, old enough to breed” mentality, aside from being disgusting, is completely false. A nine-year-old girl isn’t ready for sex or children, even if she reaches menses earlier than other little girls. Children that young are still growing; when they become pregnant, their bodies divert nutritional resources to the developing fetus, depriving the growing girls of much-needed vitamins and minerals. Further, complications often result from adolescent pregnancies, because the bodies of the young girls simply aren’t ready to give birth.

    The West has discerned the dangers posed by adolescent pregnancies. Muslim apologists often claim that marriage to young girls was common in biblical times. This may be correct, but it is because these marriages were part of the culture, not because God endorsed them. Whereas many Christian countries have recognized the potential harms brought on by pregnancies among adolescent girls and have raised the legal age for marriage, Muslim countries are often kept from such advancements because of Muhammad. This is very interesting, for Muslims often claim that Muhammad was scientifically enlightened and that the Qur’an is a scientific masterpiece.[22] In reality, Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha is injuring young girls across the Middle East and North Africa. The dangers have even been noted by the United Nations, which issued the following report in an attempt to curb the practices supported by Islam:

    Traditional cultural practices reflect values and beliefs held by members of a community for periods often spanning generations. Every social grouping in the world has specific traditional cultural practices and beliefs, some of which are beneficial to all members, while others are harmful to a specific group, such as women. These harmful traditional practices include female genital mutilation (FGM); forced feeding of women; early marriage; the various taboos or practices which prevent women from controlling their own fertility; nutritional taboos and traditional birth practices; son preference and its implications for the status of the girl child; female infanticide; early pregnancy; and dowry price. Despite their harmful nature and their violation of international human rights laws, such practices persist because they are not questioned and take on an aura of morality in the eyes of those practicing them.

    Child marriage robs a girl of her childhood-time necessary to develop physically, emotionally and psychologically. In fact, early marriage inflicts great emotional stress as the young woman is removed from her parents’ home to that of her husband and in-laws. Her husband, who will invariably be many years her senior, will have little in common with a young teenager. It is with this strange man that she has to develop an intimate emotional and physical relationship. She is obliged to have intercourse, although physically she might not be fully developed.

    Health complications that result from early marriage in the Middle East and North Africa, for example, include the risk of operative delivery, low weight and malnutrition resulting from frequent pregnancies and lactation in the period of life when the young mothers are themselves still growing.

    Early pregnancy can have harmful consequences for both young mothers and their babies. According to UNICEF, no girl should become pregnant before the age of 18 because she is not yet physically ready to bear children. Babies of mothers younger than 18 tend to be born premature and have low body weight; such babies are more likely to die in the first year of life. The risk to the young mother’s own health is also greater. Poor health is common among indigent pregnant and lactating women.

    In many parts of the developing world, especially in rural areas, girls marry shortly after puberty and are expected to start having children immediately. Although the situation has improved since the early 1980’s, in many areas the majority of girls under 20 years of age are already married and having children. Although many countries have raised the legal age for marriage, this has had little impact on traditional societies where marriage and child-bearing confer “status” on a woman.
    An additional health risk to young mothers is obstructed labor, which occurs when the baby’s head is too big for the orifice of the mother. This provokes vesicovaginal fistulas, especially when an untrained traditional birth attendant forces the baby’s head out unduly.[23]

    Contrary to Muslim claims, a nine-year-old girl just isn’t ready for sexual intercourse or for its possible ramifications (i.e. pregnancy, giving birth, breast-feeding, and raising a child). It is unnecessarily dangerous, for a much safer relationship could be crafted if the marriage were to take place several years later, when the girl reaches her late teens. Muslims may respond to this by arguing, “But Aisha never became pregnant, so none of this matters.” Yet it does matter. Every year, countless young girls, still playing with dolls, are taken to live with much older husbands. If these husbands were to be challenged, they wouldn’t respond by saying, “But it’s part of Arabic culture”; instead, they would reply, “It can’t be wrong, because Muhammad did it.” In other words, even if we grant the bizarre claim that Aisha was somehow ready for sex and marriage, most nine-year-old girls aren’t ready for sex and marriage. Yet the practice of marrying children continues to this day in many Muslim countries, largely because Muslims hold up Muhammad as their highest role model.

    FOURTH MUSLIM DEFENSE: The average lifespan in Muhammad’s day was so low that people had to marry young.
    Osama Abdallah argues that Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha was understandable because people in Muhammad’s day needed to marry early:
    Life 1400 years ago was very rough in the too hot desert. From my personal knowledge, the average life span back then was 50 years. People used to die from all kinds of diseases. Both parents of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) for instance, died natural deaths before he even knew them.[24]
    On this view, since people could die at any time in the “hot desert,” they would get married at a very early age to make sure they had as many years together as possible.

    RESPONSE: Muhammad was already more than fifty years old when he consummated his marriage to Aisha, so there was no need for him to marry such a young girl.
    Abdallah’s claim might make sense if Muhammad had been nine or ten years old when he married Aisha. But the Prophet of Islam was already well advanced in years. He was far closer to death than any young woman he might marry, so why not marry a young woman instead of a young girl? Why not marry a fully developed twenty-year-old instead of a little girl playing on a swing? By marrying Aisha when she was so young, Muhammad was, in effect, condemning her to a life of widowhood, for the Qur’an prohibited the marrying of Muhammad’s widows (33:53). Beyond all this, Abdallah’s argument ignores the facts. Muhammad didn’t marry Aisha because the average life span was fifty years old; instead, he married her because (1) he had been dreaming about her, and (2) he had the power to persuade Abu Bakr to give him his daughter in marriage.

    FIFTH MUSLIM DEFENSE: Other people have done it too—even Christians!
    Abdallah also employs an “everybody’s doing it, so it’s okay” defense:
    Not only was it a custom in the Arab society to Engage/Marry a young girl, it was also common in the Jewish society. The case of Mary the mother of Jesus comes to mind. In non biblical sources she was between 11-14 years old when she conceived Jesus. Mary had already been “BETROTHED” to Joseph before conceiving Jesus. Joseph was a much older man. Therefore Mary was younger than 11-14 years of age when she was “BETHROED” to Joseph. We Muslims would never call Joseph a Child Molester, nor would we refer to the “Holy Ghost” of the Bible, that “Impregnated” Mary as a “Rapist” or “Adulterer.”.[25]

    RESPONSE: Besides committing the “tu quoque” fallacy, this defense misses the point of the criticism against Muhammad.
    Tu quoque is a type of fallacy that attempts to ignore a criticism because of some hypocrisy found in the critic. For instance, suppose I’m a thief. One day, I catch someone stealing my car, and I say, “Stop, Thief!” If the person stealing my car turns to me and says, “But you’re a thief too, so it’s not wrong for me to steal,” he will be committing the tu quoque fallacy.

    Muslims rely heavily on the tu quoque. When people criticize Islam for terrorism, it’s common to hear Muslims say, “But Americans are killing Arabs!” as if this were a meaningful response to the charge. Likewise, when someone says, “Look at all the people Muhammad killed,” Muslims respond by saying, “But people were killed in the Bible too.”
    To say that Joseph married a young girl in the Bible does nothing to address the problem of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. At best, such a defense would only show that Christians are being inconsistent. But in reality, the Muslim defense doesn’t even show this, since their comparison fails for several reasons.
    First, there is no real historical data reporting the age of Mary when she married Joseph. True, given the custom of the time, she was probably fairly young, perhaps as young as twelve or thirteen. But since we have no historical references to her age, we can’t rule out the possibility that Mary was twenty years old. The point here is this: people criticize Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha based on what we know (i.e. that Aisha was nine years old), whereas Muslims reply based on what we don’t know (i.e. the age of Mary).

    Second, we must not forget that thirteen years old is very different from nine years old. Nine-year-old girls typically haven’t reached menses. In a best case scenario, a girl that young may have entered the beginning stages of puberty. A thirteen-year-old girl, on the other hand, may be coming to the end of puberty. Thus, even if we grant a young age for Mary, there would still be a world of difference between her and Aisha.

    Third, Muslim apologists seem to miss the fact that Joseph is not the standard of morality in Christianity. When critics point to the age of Aisha, they are arguing something like this: “You’re trying to tell me that Muhammad was the greatest moral example of all time and that I should believe everything he says? I can’t believe that a person who would have sex with a little girl was the greatest man ever.” More simply, Muhammad is foundational to Islam. If there is a problem with Muhammad, there is a problem with Islam. If Muhammad was immoral, then it becomes difficult to take his teachings seriously. Thus, it makes no sense for a Muslim to say, “Well, Joseph married a young girl too.” Joseph isn’t foundational to Christianity. If an ancient text were found tomorrow, and this ancient text proved that Joseph was a thief and a murderer, this wouldn’t affect Christianity at all, because Christians don’t consider him to be a prophet, or a bringer of revelation, or even an important figure in Christianity. Thus, if Muslims want to show that Christians are being inconsistent, they need to show that Jesus, or Peter, or Paul, or someone central to Christianity, did the things that Muhammad did. Fortunately, Jesus was sinless, and the apostles lived exemplary lives once they had committed themselves to Jesus.

    The internet is filled with examples of Muslims responses of this sort. Muslim websites constantly note that young girls are married in various countries and that these young girls sometimes give birth. No one doubts this. The problem is that this has nothing to do with whether or not marriage to a nine-year-old girl is morally acceptable for a mighty prophet. The fact that Muslims are forced to resort to an “everyone’s doing it” defense shows that they have run out of responses.

    ASSESSMENT: While the evidence isn’t enough to condemn Muhammad as a “pedophile,” his sexual relationship with Aisha is unacceptable.
    Muhammad has been accused of pedophilia in numerous writings, sermons, and conversations. We have seen that the earliest Muslim traditions offer support for this view. However, the evidence sustaining the charge of pedophilia is perhaps too limited to warrant such a harsh conclusion. We know that Muhammad had a sexual relationship with a young girl, and that this was reprehensible. Yet we must take cultural differences into consideration in formulating an accurate appraisal of a person’s character. In Muhammad’s society, sexual intercourse was acceptable when a girl reached menses, and Muhammad may have waited until Aisha had reached this age. (Note: There’s no good historical evidence that Muhammad waited for Aisha to reach menses. However, I think it’s important to be generous in our interpretations as much as possible, so I’m willing to grant, for the sake of argument, that Aisha had reached puberty.)
    Similarly, we don’t have enough information to call Muhammad a “pervert.” While Muhammad’s sexual acts may seem startling, we don’t know enough about the nature of these acts to condemn him as a sexual deviant or a predator.

    Nevertheless, Muslims are too hasty in dismissing Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha. We can’t simply ignore a prophet’s marriage to a nine-year-old girl. Muslims view Muhammad as the highest example of a moral life, but his marriage to Aisha conflicts with that view. If they want to put Muhammad forward as the standard of morality, Muslims need to come to terms with the many questionable things Muhammad did, as well as the awful impact of these actions.

    There is a simple, but highly explicit, way to evaluate the importance of Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. We must begin by trying to get a mental picture of a morally perfect man. For Muslims, this will include all the things they have been taught about Muhammad. According to their picture, he is kind, generous, patient, humble, and trustworthy. He protects orphans and widows, endures persecution, helps the needy, and promotes justice. He prays faithfully, fasts regularly, and obeys God in everything. He is loyal to his friends and patient with his enemies. He never gives in when tempted with evil. Now we must picture that same man in a room with an innocent little girl. He takes away her doll, climbs on top of her, and puts his penis inside her. She doesn’t know what is happening because she is too young to know much about sex. Frightened and confused, she cries because of the pain and bleeds on her bed, but she tries to remain quiet out of respect for her new husband, who, in return, endangers her life.

    If a person is able to keep the same vision of moral perfection throughout that description, he may have the faith necessary to be a Muslim. But if his vision of the perfect man is at odds with what Muhammad did on numerous occasions, he will need to look elsewhere for an ideal human being.

    Notes:
    [1] Maulana Muhammad Ali, Muhammad the Prophet (St. Lambert: Payette and Sims, 1993), pp. 183-184.
    [2] Sahih Al-Bukhari, Dr. Muhammad Matraji, tr. (New Delhi: Islamic Book Service, 2002), Number 5133. See also 5134.
    [3] Ibid., Number 3896.
    [4] Ibid., Number 5158.
    [5] Sahih Muslim, Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, tr., Number 3310.
    [6] Ibid, Number 3311.
    [7] Sahih Al-Bukhari, Number 3895. See also Number 5078.
    [8] Ibid., Number 5081.
    [9] Ibid., Number 3894.
    [10] Ibid., Number 5160.
    [11] The Qur’an commands husbands to treat their wives equally (4:3), a command that Muhammad clearly violated. Of course, the same verse also forbids husbands to marry more than four women, but Muhammad received a revelation granting him immunity from this law (33:50).
    [12] Ibid., Number 2581.
    [13] Ibid., Number 2967.
    [14] Ibid., Number 6130.
    [15] Professor Maqsood Jafri, “On The Character of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).”
    [16] Abdur Rahman Squires, “The Young Marriage of Aishah.”
    [17] Abul A’la Mawdudi, Towards Understanding Islam (Islamic Circle of North America, 1986), pp. 53, 56.
    [18] Sahih Muslim, Note 1860 (p. 716).
    [19] Squires, “The Young Marriage of Aishah.”
    [20] According to the Quran, “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great” (v. 4:34, M.H. Shakir Translation).
    [21] For references, see “Islam Beheaded.”
    [22] For more on this, see “Talking Ants and Shrinking Humans.”
    [23] Office of the High Commissioner for Human rights, Fact Sheet No. 23, “Harmful Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children.” (Online source) The actual report is much longer than the selections quoted here.
    [24] See http://www.answering-islam.com/aisha.htm.
    [25] Ibid.

  3. Hi Raj, ‘Can a leopard change its spots?’ Digvijaya Singh taunts Narendra Modi

    I doubt this guy called “Modi” as he looks an oldie with dying brain cells…NOT fit to Rule the great nation of India. every time he speaks he spits venom!!

    Not a good leader at all as he “meanders” his ways craftily, playing with people’s emotions vehemently. One time even the USA got the fish but it managed to wriggle out from it’s snare!!

    No good guy…as his utterances instil fear and doom to come…with corrupt leaders like Gardkari and others in his pouch!! How come they didn’t choose this Nitish Kumar guy of JD, who could have easily trounced the UP with one hand???

    This Modi thing is not good for India….as all these raping, murders suddenly erupted after this dude was chosen as godhead of the BJP, correct???

    Could his hand been tickling… towing… something the line???

    Maybe…..

    Regards

    Plum

    • EDUCATING MOHAMMEDANS: THE CULT OF DEATH! MUHAMMAD THE MASS MURDERER BOASTING ABOUT MURDER When the Apostle returned to Medina after his raid on Ta’if, word spread that he had killed some of the men who had satirized and insulted him. The poets who were left spread in all directions. Ishaq:597 Muhammad on Murder Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’ Ishaq:327 Individuals Assassination of Musaylimah Narrated Abdullah ibn Mas’ud: Harithah ibn Mudarrib said that he came to Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and said (to him): There is no enmity between me and any of the Arabs. I passed a mosque of Banu Hanifah. They (the people) believed in Musaylimah. Abdullah (ibn Mas’ud) sent for them. They were brought, and he asked them to repent, except Ibn an-Nawwahah. He said to him: I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say: Were it not that you were not a messenger, I would behead you. But today you are not a messenger. He then ordered Qarazah ibn Ka’b (to kill him). He beheaded him in the market. Anyone who wants to see Ibn an-Nawwahah slain in the market (he may see him). Abu Dawud 38:4348 Assassination of `Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul al-`Aufi Narrated ‘Aisha: Whenever Allah’s Apostle intended to go on a journey, he used to draw lots amongst his wives, and Allah’s Apostle used to take with him the one on whom lot fell. He drew lots amongst us during one of the Ghazwat which he fought. The lot fell on me and so I proceeded with Allah’s Apostle after Allah’s order of veiling (the women) had been revealed. I was carried (on the back of a camel) in my howdah and carried down while still in it (when we came to a halt). So we went on till Allah’s Apostle had finished from that Ghazwa of his and returned. When we approached the city of Medina he announced at night that it was time for departure. So when they announced the news of departure, I got up and went away from the army camps, and after finishing from the call of nature, I came back to my riding animal. I touched my chest to find that my necklace which was made of Zifar beads (i.e. Yemenite beads partly black and partly white) was missing. So I returned to look for my necklace and my search for it detained me. (In the meanwhile) the people who used to carry me on my camel, came and took my howdah and put it on the back of my camel on which I used to ride, as they considered that I was in it. In those days women were light in weight for they did not get fat, and flesh did not cover their bodies in abundance as they used to eat only a little food. Those people therefore, disregarded the lightness of the howdah while lifting and carrying it; and at that time I was still a young girl. They made the camel rise and all of them left (along with it). I found my necklace after the army had gone. Then I came to their camping place to find no call maker of them, nor one who would respond to the call. So I intended to go to the place where I used to stay, thinking that they would miss me and come back to me (in my search). While I was sitting in my resting place, I was overwhelmed by sleep and slept. Safwan bin Al-Muattal As-Sulami Adh-Dhakwani was behind the army. When he reached my place in the morning, he saw the figure of a sleeping person and he recognized me on seeing me as he had seen me before the order of compulsory veiling (was prescribed). So I woke up when he recited Istirja’ (i.e. “Inna lillahi wa inna llaihi raji’un”) as soon as he recognized me. I veiled my face with my head cover at once, and by Allah, we did not speak a single word, and I did not hear him saying any word besides his Istirja’. He dismounted from his camel and made it kneel down, putting his leg on its front legs and then I got up and rode on it. Then he set out leading the camel that was carrying me till we overtook the army in the extreme heat of midday while they were at a halt (taking a rest). (Because of the event) some people brought destruction upon themselves and the one who spread the Ifk (i.e. slander) more, was ‘Abdullah bin Ubai Ibn Salul.” (Urwa said, “The people propagated the slander and talked about it in his (i.e. ‘Abdullah’s) presence and he confirmed it and listened to it and asked about it to let it prevail.” Urwa also added, “None was mentioned as members of the slanderous group besides (‘Abdullah) except Hassan bin Thabit and Mistah bin Uthatha and Hamna bint Jahsh along with others about whom I have no knowledge, but they were a group as Allah said. It is said that the one who carried most of the slander was ‘Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul.” Urwa added, “‘Aisha disliked to have Hassan abused in her presence and she used to say, ‘It was he who said: My father and his (i.e. my father’s) father and my honor are all for the protection of Muhammad’s honor from you.”). ‘Aisha added, “After we returned to Medina, I became ill for a month. The people were propagating the forged statements of the slanderers while I was unaware of anything of all that, but I felt that in my present ailment, I was not receiving the same kindness from Allah’s Apostle as I used to receive when I got sick. (But now) Allah’s Apostle would only come, greet me and say,’ How is that (lady)?’ and leave. That roused my doubts, but I did not discover the evil (i.e. slander) till I went out after my convalescence, I went out with Um Mistah to Al-Manasi’ where we used to answer the call of nature and we used not to go out (to answer the call of nature) except at night, and that was before we had latrines near our houses. And this habit of our concerning evacuating the bowels, was similar to the habits of the old ‘Arabs living in the deserts, for it would be troublesome for us to take latrines near our houses. So I and Um Mistah who was the daughter of Abu Ruhm bin Al-Muttalib bin Abd Manaf, whose mother was the daughter of Sakhr bin ‘Amir and the aunt of Abu Bakr As-Siddiq and whose son was Mistah bin Uthatha bin ‘Abbas bin Al-Muttalib, went out. I and Um Mistah returned to my house after we finished answering the call of nature. Um Mistah stumbled by getting her foot entangled in her covering sheet and on that she said, ‘Let Mistah be ruined!’ I said, ‘What a hard word you have said. Do you abuse a man who took part in the battle of Badr?’ On that she said, ‘O you Hantah! Didn’t you hear what he (i.e. Mistah) said? ‘I said, ‘What did he say?’ Then she told me the slander of the people of Ifk. So my ailment was aggravated, and when I reached my home, Allah’s Apostle came to me, and after greeting me, said, ‘How is that (lady)?’ I said, ‘Will you allow me to go to my parents?’ as I wanted to be sure about the news through them. Allah’s Apostle allowed me (and I went to my parents) and asked my mother, ‘O mother! What are the people talking about?’ She said, ‘O my daughter! Don’t worry, for scarcely is there a charming woman who is loved by her husband and whose husband has other wives besides herself that they (i.e. women) would find faults with her.’ I said, ‘Subhan-Allah! (I testify the uniqueness of Allah). Are the people really talking in this way?’ I kept on weeping that night till dawn I could neither stop weeping nor sleep then in the morning again, I kept on weeping. When the Divine Inspiration was delayed. Allah’s Apostle called ‘Ali bin Abi Talib and Usama bin Zaid to ask and consult them about divorcing me. Usama bin Zaid said what he knew of my innocence, and the respect he preserved in himself for me. Usama said, ‘(O Allah’s Apostle!) She is your wife and we do not know anything except good about her.’ ‘Ali bin Abi Talib said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Allah does not put you in difficulty and there are plenty of women other than she, yet, ask the maid-servant who will tell you the truth.’ On that Allah’s Apostle called Barira (i.e. the maid-servant) and said, ‘O Barira! Did you ever see anything which aroused your suspicion?’ Barira said to him, ‘By Him Who has sent you with the Truth. I have never seen anything in her (i.e. Aisha) which I would conceal, except that she is a young girl who sleeps leaving the dough of her family exposed so that the domestic goats come and eat it.’ So, on that day, Allah’s Apostle got up on the pulpit and complained about ‘Abdullah bin Ubai (bin Salul) before his companions, saying, ‘O you Muslims! Who will relieve me from that man who has hurt me with his evil statement about my family? By Allah, I know nothing except good about my family and they have blamed a man about whom I know nothing except good and he used never to enter my home except with me.’ Sad bin Mu’adh the brother of Banu ‘Abd Al-Ashhal got up and said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! I will relieve you from him; if he is from the tribe of Al-Aus, then I will chop his head off, and if he is from our brothers, i.e. Al-Khazraj, then order us, and we will fulfill your order.’ On that, a man from Al-Khazraj got up. Um Hassan, his cousin, was from his branch tribe, and he was Sad bin Ubada, chief of Al-Khazraj. Before this incident, he was a pious man, but his love for his tribe goaded him into saying to Sad (bin Mu’adh). ‘By Allah, you have told a lie; you shall not and cannot kill him. If he belonged to your people, you would not wish him to be killed.’ On that, Usaid bin Hudair who was the cousin of Sad (bin Mu’adh) got up and said to Sad bin ‘Ubada, ‘By Allah! You are a liar! We will surely kill him, and you are a hypocrite arguing on the behalf of hypocrites.’ On this, the two tribes of Al-Aus and Al Khazraj got so much excited that they were about to fight while Allah’s Apostle was standing on the pulpit. Allah’s Apostle kept on quietening them till they became silent and so did he. All that day I kept on weeping with my tears never ceasing, and I could never sleep. In the morning my parents were with me and I wept for two nights and a day with my tears never ceasing and I could never sleep till I thought that my liver would burst from weeping. So, while my parents were sitting with me and I was weeping, an Ansari woman asked me to grant her admittance. I allowed her to come in, and when she came in, she sat down and started weeping with me. While we were in this state, Allah’s Apostle came, greeted us and sat down. He had never sat with me since that day of the slander. A month had elapsed and no Divine Inspiration came to him about my case. Allah’s Apostle then recited Tashah-hud and then said, ‘Amma Badu, O ‘Aisha! I have been informed so-and-so about you; if you are innocent, then soon Allah will reveal your innocence, and if you have committed a sin, then repent to Allah and ask Him for forgiveness for when a slave confesses his sins and asks Allah for forgiveness, Allah accepts his repentance.’ When Allah’s Apostle finished his speech, my tears ceased flowing completely that I no longer felt a single drop of tear flowing. I said to my father, ‘Reply to Allah’s Apostle on my behalf concerning what he has said.’ My father said, ‘By Allah, I do not know what to say to Allah’s Apostle .’ Then I said to my mother, ‘Reply to Allah’s Apostle on my behalf concerning what he has said.’ She said, ‘By Allah, I do not know what to say to Allah’s Apostle.’ In spite of the fact that I was a young girl and had a little knowledge of Quran, I said, ‘By Allah, no doubt I know that you heard this (slanderous) speech so that it has been planted in your hearts (i.e. minds) and you have taken it as a truth. Now if I tell you that I am innocent, you will not believe me, and if confess to you about it, and Allah knows that I am innocent, you will surely believe me. By Allah, I find no similitude for me and you except that of Joseph’s father when he said, ‘(For me) patience in the most fitting against that which you assert; it is Allah (Alone) Whose Help can be sought.’ Then I turned to the other side and lay on my bed; and Allah knew then that I was innocent and hoped that Allah would reveal my innocence. But, by Allah, I never thought that Allah would reveal about my case, Divine Inspiration, that would be recited (forever) as I considered myself too unworthy to be talked of by Allah with something of my concern, but I hoped that Allah’s Apostle might have a dream in which Allah would prove my innocence. But, by Allah, before Allah’s Apostle left his seat and before any of the household left, the Divine inspiration came to Allah’s Apostle. So there overtook him the same hard condition which used to overtake him, (when he used to be inspired Divinely). The sweat was dropping from his body like pearls though it was a wintry day and that was because of the weighty statement which was being revealed to him. When that state of Allah’s Apostle was over, he got up smiling, and the first word he said was, ‘O ‘Aisha! Allah has declared your innocence!’ Then my Mother said to me, ‘Get up and go to him (i.e. Allah’s Apostle). I replied, ‘By Allah, I will not go to him, and I praise none but Allah. So Allah revealed the ten Verses:– “Verily! They who spread the slander Are a gang, among you………….” (24.11-20) Allah revealed those Quranic Verses to declare my innocence. Abu Bakr As-Siddiq who used to disburse money for Mistah bin Uthatha because of his relationship to him and his poverty, said, ‘By Allah, I will never give to Mistah bin Uthatha anything after what he has said about Aisha.’ Then Allah revealed:– “And let not those among you who are good and wealthy swear not to give (any sort of help) to their kinsmen, those in need, and those who have left their homes for Allah’s cause, let them pardon and forgive. Do you not love that Allah should forgive you? And Allah is oft-Forgiving Most Merciful.” (24.22) Abu Bakr As-Siddiq said, ‘Yes, by Allah, I would like that Allah forgive me.’ and went on giving Mistah the money he used to give him before. He also added, ‘By Allah, I will never deprive him of it at all.’ Aisha further said:.” Allah’s Apostle also asked Zainab bint Jahsh (i.e. his wife) about my case. He said to Zainab, ‘What do you know and what did you see?” She replied, “O Allah’s Apostle! I refrain from claiming falsely that I have heard or seen anything. By Allah, I know nothing except good (about ‘Aisha).’ From amongst the wives of the Prophet Zainab was my peer (in beauty and in the love she received from the Prophet) but Allah saved her from that evil because of her piety. Her sister Hamna, started struggling on her behalf and she was destroyed along with those who were destroyed. The man who was blamed said, ‘Subhan-Allah! By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, I have never uncovered the cover (i.e. veil) of any female.’ Later on the man was martyred in Allah’s Cause.” Sahih Bukhari 5:59:462 Assassination of Abu `Afak Abu Afak was one of the B. Amr b. Auf of the B. Ubayda clan. He showed his disaffection when the apostle killed al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit and said: “Long have I lived but never have I seen an assembly or collection of people more faithful to their undertaking and their allies when called upon than the sons of Qayla when they assembled, men who overthrew mountains and never submitted, a rider who came to them split them in two (saying) “Permitted”, “Forbidden”, of all sorts of things. Had you believed in glory or kingship you would have followed Tubba. The apostle said, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?” Whereupon Salim b. Umayr, brother of B. Amr b. Auf, one of the “weepers”, went forth and killed him. Umama b. Muzayriya said concerning that: You gave the lie to God’s religion and the man Ahmad! [Muhammad] By him who was your father, evil is the son he produced! A “hanif” gave you a thrust in the night saying “Take that Abu Afak in spite of your age!” Though I knew whether it was man or jinn who slew you in the dead of night (I would say naught). Ishaq:675 Then occurred the “sariyyah” [raid] of Salim Ibn Umayr al-Amri against Abu Afak, the Jew, in [the month of] Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijrah [immigration from Mecca to Medina in AD 622], of the Apostle of Allah. Abu Afak, was from Banu Amr Ibn Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle of Allah, and composed (satirical) verses [about Muhammad]. Salim Ibn Umayr who was one of the great weepers and who had participated in Badr, said, “I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu Afak or die before him. He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people who were his followers, rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him. Ibn Sa’d, Vol. 2, P. 32 Assassination of Abu Rafi’ (Sallam Ibn Abu’l-Huqayq) Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.” Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, “That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you.” On that, Kab said, “By Allah, you will get tired of him!” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food.” (Some difference between narrators about a camel load or two.) Kab said, “Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me.” Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, “What do you want?” Ka’b replied, “Mortgage your women to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the ‘Arabs?” Ka’b said, “Then mortgage your sons to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people’s saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you.” Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Kab that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Kab at night along with Kab’s foster brother, Abu Na’ila. Kab invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, “Where are you going at this time?” Kab replied, “None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na’ila have come.” His wife said, “I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him, Ka’b said. “They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed.” Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some narrators mention the men as ‘Abu bin Jabr. Al Harith bin Aus and Abbad bin Bishr). So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail to them, “When Ka’b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head.” Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. ” have never smelt a better scent than this. Ka’b replied. “I have got the best ‘Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume.” Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka’b “Will you allow me to smell your head?” Ka’b said, “Yes.” Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka’b again, “Will you let me (smell your head)?” Ka’b said, “Yes.” When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), “Get at him!” So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf.” Sahih Bukhari 5:59:369 Narrated Al-Bara bin Azib: Allah’s Apostle sent a group of persons to Abu Rafi. Abdullah bin Atik entered his house at night, while he was sleeping, and killed him. Sahih Bukhari 5:59:370 Narrated Al-Bara bin Azib:Allah’s Apostle sent some men from the Ansar to ((kill) Abu Rafi, the Jew, and appointed ‘Abdullah bin Atik as their leader. Abu Rafi used to hurt Allah’s Apostle and help his enemies against him. He lived in his castle in the land of Hijaz. When those men approached (the castle) after the sun had set and the people had brought back their livestock to their homes. Abdullah (bin Atik) said to his companions, “Sit down at your places. I am going, and I will try to play a trick on the gate-keeper so that I may enter (the castle).” So ‘Abdullah proceeded towards the castle, and when he approached the gate, he covered himself with his clothes, pretending to answer the call of nature. The people had gone in, and the gate-keeper (considered ‘Abdullah as one of the castle’s servants) addressing him saying, “O Allah’s Servant! Enter if you wish, for I want to close the gate.” ‘Abdullah added in his story, “So I went in (the castle) and hid myself. When the people got inside, the gate-keeper closed the gate and hung the keys on a fixed wooden peg. I got up and took the keys and opened the gate. Some people were staying late at night with Abu Rafi for a pleasant night chat in a room of his. When his companions of nightly entertainment went away, I ascended to him, and whenever I opened a door, I closed it from inside. I said to myself, ‘Should these people discover my presence, they will not be able to catch me till I have killed him.’ So I reached him and found him sleeping in a dark house amidst his family, I could not recognize his location in the house. So I shouted, ‘O Abu Rafi!’ Abu Rafi said, ‘Who is it?’ I proceeded towards the source of the voice and hit him with the sword, and because of my perplexity, I could not kill him. He cried loudly, and I came out of the house and waited for a while, and then went to him again and said, ‘What is this voice, O Abu Rafi?’ He said, ‘Woe to your mother! A man in my house has hit me with a sword! I again hit him severely but I did not kill him. Then I drove the point of the sword into his belly (and pressed it through) till it touched his back, and I realized that I have killed him. I then opened the doors one by one till I reached the staircase, and thinking that I had reached the ground, I stepped out and fell down and got my leg broken in a moonlit night. I tied my leg with a turban and proceeded on till I sat at the gate, and said, ‘I will not go out tonight till I know that I have killed him.’ So, when (early in the morning) the cock crowed, the announcer of the casualty stood on the wall saying, ‘I announce the death of Abu Rafi, the merchant of Hijaz. Thereupon I went to my companions and said, ‘Let us save ourselves, for Allah has killed Abu Rafi,’ So I (along with my companions proceeded and) went to the Prophet and described the whole story to him. “He said, ‘Stretch out your (broken) leg. I stretched it out and he rubbed it and it became All right as if I had never had any ailment whatsoever.” Sahih Bukhari 5:59:371 Narrated Al-Bara: Allah’s Apostle sent ‘Abdullah bin ‘Atik and ‘Abdullah bin ‘Utba with a group of men to Abu Rafi (to kill him). They proceeded till they approached his castle, whereupon ‘Abdullah bin Atik said to them, “Wait (here), and in the meantime I will go and see.” ‘Abdullah said later on, “I played a trick in order to enter the castle. By chance, they lost a donkey of theirs and came out carrying a flaming light to search for it. I was afraid that they would recognize me, so I covered my head and legs and pretended to answer the call to nature. The gatekeeper called, ‘Whoever wants to come in, should come in before I close the gate.’ So I went in and hid myself in a stall of a donkey near the gate of the castle. They took their supper with Abu Rafi and had a chat till late at night. Then they went back to their homes. When the voices vanished and I no longer detected any movement, I came out. I had seen where the gate-keeper had kept the key of the castle in a hole in the wall. I took it and unlocked the gate of the castle, saying to myself, ‘If these people should notice me, I will run away easily.’ Then I locked all the doors of their houses from outside while they were inside, and ascended to Abu Rafi by a staircase. I saw the house in complete darkness with its light off, and I could not know where the man was. So I called, ‘O Abu Rafi!’ He replied, ‘Who is it?’ I proceeded towards the voice and hit him. He cried loudly but my blow was futile. Then I came to him, pretending to help him, saying with a different tone of my voice, ‘ What is wrong with you, O Abu Rafi?’ He said, ‘Are you not surprised? Woe on your mother! A man has come to me and hit me with a sword!’ So again I aimed at him and hit him, but the blow proved futile again, and on that Abu Rafi cried loudly and his wife got up. I came again and changed my voice as if I were a helper, and found Abu Rafi lying straight on his back, so I drove the sword into his belly and bent on it till I heard the sound of a bone break. Then I came out, filled with astonishment and went to the staircase to descend, but I fell down from it and got my leg dislocated. I bandaged it and went to my companions limping. I said (to them), ‘Go and tell Allah’s Apostle of this good news, but I will not leave (this place) till I hear the news of his (i.e. Abu Rafi’s) death.’ When dawn broke, an announcer of death got over the wall and announced, ‘I convey to you the news of Abu Rafi’s death.’ I got up and proceeded without feeling any pain till I caught up with my companions before they reached the Prophet to whom I conveyed the good news.” Sahih Bukhari 5:59:372 Narrated Al-Bara bin Azib: Allah’s Apostle sent a group of Ansari men to kill Abu-Rafi. One of them set out and entered their (i.e. the enemies) fort. That man said, “I hid myself in a stable for their animals. They closed the fort gate. Later they lost a donkey of theirs, so they went out in its search. I, too, went out along with them, pretending to look for it. They found the donkey and entered their fort. And I, too, entered along with them. They closed the gate of the fort at night, and kept its keys in a small window where I could see them. When those people slept, I took the keys and opened the gate of the fort and came upon Abu Rafi and said, ‘O Abu Rafi. When he replied me, I proceeded towards the voice and hit him. He shouted and I came out to come back, pretending to be a helper. I said, ‘O Abu Rafi, changing the tone of my voice. He asked me, ‘What do you want; woe to your mother?’ I asked him, ‘What has happened to you?’ He said, ‘I don’t know who came to me and hit me.’ Then I drove my sword into his belly and pushed it forcibly till it touched the bone. Then I came out, filled with puzzlement and went towards a ladder of theirs in order to get down but I fell down and sprained my foot. I came to my companions and said, ‘I will not leave till I hear the wailing of the women.’ So, I did not leave till I heard the women bewailing Abu Rafi, the merchant pf Hijaz. Then I got up, feeling no ailment, (and we proceeded) till we came upon the Prophet and informed him.” Sahih Bukhari 4:52:264 “The killing of Abu Rafi’, ‘Abdullah bin Abi Al-Huqaiq and he was also called Salam bin Abi Al-Huqaiq who used to live in Khaibar, and some said the he used to live in his castle at the land of Hijaz. Az-Zhuri said, ‘He (Abu Rafi’) was killed after Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf.” Bukhari vol.5 book 59 chapter 15 When the fight at the trench and the affair of the B. Qurayza were over, the matter of Sallam b. Abu’l-Huqayq known as Abu Rafi` came up in connexion with those who had collected the mixed tribes together against the apostle. Now Aus had killed Ka`b b. al-Ashraf before Uhud because of his enmity towards the apostle and because he instigated men against him, so Khazraj asked and obtained the apostle’s permission to kill Sallam who was in Khaybar. Muhammad b. Muslim b. Shihab al-Zuhri from `Abdullah b. Ka`b b. Malik told me: One of the things which God did for His apostle was that these two tribes of the Ansar, Aus and Khazraj, competed the one with the other like two stallions: if Aus did anything to the apostle’s advantage Khazraj would say, “They shall not have this superiority over us in the apostle’s eyes and in Islam” and they would not rest until they could do something similar. If Khazraj did anything Aus would say the same. When Aus had killed Ka’b for his enmity towards the apostle, Khazraj used these words and asked themselves what man was as hostile to the apostle as Ka’b? And then they remembered Sallam, who was in Khaybar and asked and obtained the apostle’s permission to kill him. Five men of B.Salima of Khazraj went to him: ‘Abdullah b.`Atik; Mas`ud b. Sinan; `Abdullah b. Unays; Abu Qatada al-Harith b. Rib’i; and Khuza`i b. Aswad, an ally from Aslam. As they left, the apostle appointed `Abdullah b.`Atik as their leader, and he forbade them to kill women or children. When they got to Khaybar they went to Sallam’s house by night, having locked every door in the settlement on the inhabitants. Now he was in an upper chamber of his to which a ladder led up. They mounted this until they came to the door and asked to be allowed to come in. His wife came out and asked who they were and they told her that they were Arabs in search of supplies. She told them that their man was here and that they could come in. When we entered we bolted the door of the room on her and ourselves fearing lest something should come between us and him. His wife shrieked and warned him of us, so we ran at him with our swords as he was on his bed. The only thing that guided us in the darkness of the night was his whiteness like an Egyptian blanket. When his wife shrieked one of our number would lift his sword against her; then he would remember the apostle’s ban on killing women and withdraw his hand; but for that we would have made an end of her that night. When we had smitten him with our swords `Abdullah b. Unays bore down with his sword into his belly until it went right through him, as he was saying Qatni, qatni, i.e. it’s enough. We went out. Now `Abdullah b.`Atik had poor sight, and fell from the ladder and sprained his arm (729) severely, so we carried him until we brought him to one of their water channels and went into it. The people lit lamps and went in search of us in all directions until, despairing of finding us, they returned to their master and gathered round him as he was dying. We asked each other how we could know that the enemy of God was dead, and one of us volunteered to go and see; so off he went and mingled with the people. He said, “I found his wife and some Jews gathered round him. She had a lamp in her hand and was peering into his face and saying to them ‘By God, I certainly heard the voice of `Abdullah b.`Atik. Then I decided I must be wrong and thought, “How can Ibn`Atik be in this country?”‘ Then she turned towards him, looking into his face, and said, ‘By the God of the Jews he is dead!’ Never have I heard sweeter words than those.” Then he came to us and told us the news, and we picked up our companion and took him to the apostle and told him that we had killed God’s enemy. We disputed before him as to who had killed him, each of us laying claim to the deed. The apostle demanded to see our swords and when he looked at them he said, “It is the sword of `Abdullah b. Unays that killed him; I can see traces of food on it” . Hassan b. Thabit mentioning the killing of Ka`b and Sallam said: God, what a fine band you met, O Ibnu’l-Huqayq and Ibnu’l-Ashraf! They went to you with sharp swords, brisk as lions in a tangled thicket, until they came on you in your dwelling and made you drink death with their swift-slaying swords, despising every risk of hurt. Ishaq:714-715 In this year, the killing of Abu Rafi the Jew took place. The Messenger sent some Ansar under the command of Abd Allah and Abd Allah against the Jew. Abu Rafi used to injure and wrong the Prophet…. Abd Allah said to the others, ‘Stay where you are, and I will go and ingratiate myself with the doorkeeper to gain entrance.’ Al-Tabari, Vol. 7, p. 99 Every time I opened a door, I shut it behind me from the inside, saying to myself, ‘If they become aware, they will not have time to stop me from killing him.’ When I reached Rafi, he was in a dark room with his family. As I did not know where he was in the room, I said, ‘O Abu Rafi.’ When he replied, I proceeded toward the voice and gave him a blow with my sword. He shouted and I came back, pretending to be a helper. I said, ‘O Abu,’ changing the tone of my voice. He asked me, ‘I don’t know who came to strike me with his sword.’ Then I drove my sword into his belly and pushed it forcibly till it touched the bone. I hit him again and covered him with wounds, but I could not kill him, so I thrust the point of my sword into his stomach until it came out through his back. At that, I knew that I had killed him [in front of his wife and children]. I came out, filled with puzzlement, and went towards a ladder in order to get down but I fell into a moonlit night and sprained my foot. I bound it with my turban and moved on. I came to my companions and said, ‘By Allah, I will not leave till I hear the wailing of their women.’ So, I did not move till I heard them crying for the Jewish merchant. I said, ‘Deliverance! Allah has killed Abu Rafi.’ I got up, feeling no ailment, and proceeded till we came upon the Prophet and informed him. Al-Tabari, Vol. 7, p. 100 The Khazraj asked the Prophet for permission to kill Sallam Huqayq, who was in Khaybar. He granted this. Al-Tabari, Vol. 7, p. 101 One of the favors which Allah conferred upon his Prophet was that these two tribes of the Ansar, the Aws and the Khazraj, used to vie with one another like stallions to carry out the will of Muhammad. The Aws did not do anything which benefited him without the Khazraj saying, ‘By Allah they will not gain superiority over us in Islam in the eyes of the Messenger by doing this.’ And they would not cease until they had done something similar. Thus when the Aws killed Ka’b Ashraf on account of his hostility to Muhammad, the Khazraj conferred to find a man comparable to Ka’b in hostility and called to mind Sallam Huqayq in Khaybar. They asked the Prophet for permission to kill him, and it was granted. Ishaq:482 Sallam’s wife came out and we told her that we were Arabs in search of supplies. When we entered, we bolted the door on her so she gave a shout to warn him of our presence. We rushed upon him with our swords as he lay in his bed. He took his pillow and tried to fend us off. Abd Allah thrust his sword into his stomach and transfixed him while he was shouting, ‘Enough! Enough!’ At once we went out but Abd Allah had bad eyesight, and he fell off the stairway, bruising his leg or arm. ‘How shall we know that the enemy of Allah is dead?’ one of us asked. ‘I will go and look,’ one replied. He set off and mingled with the people. He said, ‘I found him with the men of the Jews, and with his wife, who had a lamp in her hand, peering into his face. She said, ‘By the God of the Jews, he is dead.’ I never heard any more pleasing words than these. We went to the Messenger of Allah and told him that we had killed the enemy of Allah. We disagreed in his presence about the killing of Sallam, each of us claiming to have done it. The Prophet said, ‘Bring me your swords.’ We did and he looked at them. He said, ‘This sword of Abd Allah killed him. I can see the marks left by bones on it.’ Al-Tabari, Vol. 7, p. 101, See Also Ishaq:483 Allah, what a fine band you have, one willing to kill Sallam and Ashraf! We went with sharp swords, like fighting lions. We came upon their homes and made them drink death with our swift-slaying swords. Looking for the victory of our Prophet’s religion, we ignored every risk. Ishaq:483 Assassination of Ka’b bin Ashraf Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Who would kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf as has harmed Allah and His Apostle? Muhammad bin Maslama (got up and) said, ‘I will kill him.’ So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to Ka’b and said, ‘I want a loan of one or two Wasqs of foodgrains.’” After dickering over what to hold as mortgage, they agreed that Muhammad bin Maslama would mortgage his weapons. So he promised him that he would come with his weapons next time.” Sahih Bukhari 3:45:687 Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: The Prophet said, “Who is ready to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has really hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Do you like me to kill him?” He replied in the affirmative. So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to him (i.e. Ka’b) and said, “This person (i.e. the Prophet) has put us to task and asked us for charity.” Ka’b replied, “By Allah, you will get tired of him.” Muhammad said to him, “We have followed him, so we dislike to leave him till we see the end of his affair.” Muhammad bin Maslama went on talking to him in this way till he got the chance to kill him. Sahih Bukhari 4:52:270 “Narrated Jabir : The Prophet said, ‘Who is ready to kill Ka’b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew).’ Muhammad bin Maslama replied, ‘Do you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say what I like.’ The Prophet replied ‘I do (i.e. allow you).’” Sahih Bukhari 4:52:271 Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: Allah’s Apostle said, “Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?” Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?” The Prophet said, “Yes,” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). “The Prophet said, “You may say it.” Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Kab and said, “That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you.” On that, Kab said, “By Allah, you will get tired of him!” Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food.” (Some difference between narrators about a camel load or two.) Kab said, “Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me.” Muhammad bin Mas-lama and his companion said, “What do you want?” Ka’b replied, “Mortgage your women to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the ‘Arabs?” Ka’b said, “Then mortgage your sons to me.” They said, “How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the people’s saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms to you.” Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Kab that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Kab at night along with Kab’s foster brother, Abu Na’ila. Kab invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, “Where are you going at this time?” Kab replied, “None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na’ila have come.” His wife said, “I hear a voice as if dropping blood is from him, Ka’b said. “They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Naila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed.” Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some narrators mention the men as ‘Abu bin Jabr. Al Harith bin Aus and Abbad bin Bishr). So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and sail to them, “When Ka’b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strip him. I will let you smell his head.” Kab bin Al-Ashraf came down to them wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said. ” have never smelt a better scent than this. Ka’b replied. “I have got the best ‘Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume.” Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka’b “Will you allow me to smell your head?” Ka’b said, “Yes.” Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka’b again, “Will you let me (smell your head)?” Ka’b said, “Yes.” When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), “Get at him!” So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him. (Abu Rafi) was killed after Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf.” Sahih Bukhari 5:59:369 It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Who will kill Ka’b b. Ashraf? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger. Muhammad b. Maslama said: Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him? He said: Yes. He said: Permit me to talk (to him in the way I deem fit). He said: Talk (as you like). So, Muhammad b. Maslama came to Ka’b and talked to him, referred to the old friendship between them and said: This man (i. e. the Holy Prophet) has made up his mind to collect charity (from us) and this has put us to a great hardship. When be heard this, Ka’b said: By God, you will be put to more trouble by him. Muhammad b. Maslama said: No doubt, now we have become his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his affairs will take. I want that you should give me a loan. He said: What will you mortgage? He said: What do you want? He said: Pledge me your women. He said: You are the most handsome of the Arabs; should we pledge our women to you? He said: Pledge me your children. He said: The son of one of us may abuse us saying that he was pledged for two wasqs of dates, but we can pledge you (cur) weapons. He said: All right. Then Muhammad b. Maslama promised that he would come to him with Harith, Abu ‘Abs b. Jabr and Abbad b. Bishr. So they came and called upon him at night. He came down to them. Sufyan says that all the narrators except ‘Amr have stated that his wife said: I hear a voice which sounds like the voice of murder. He said: It is only Muhammad b. Maslama and his foster-brother, Abu Na’ila. When a gentleman is called at night even it to be pierced with a spear, he should respond to the call. Muhammad said to his companions: As he comes down, I will extend my hands towards his head and when I hold him fast, you should do your job. So when he came down and he was holding his cloak under his arm, they said to him: We sense from you a very fine smell. He said: Yes, I have with me a mistress who is the most scented of the women of Arabia. He said: Allow me to smell (the scent on your head). He said: Yes, you may smell. So he caught it and smelt. Then he said: Allow me to do so (once again). He then held his head fast and said to his companions: Do your job. And they killed him. Sahih Muslim 19:4436 Ka’b’s body was left prostrate [humbled in submission]. After his fall, all of the Nadir Jews were brought low. Sword in hand we cut him down. By Muhammad’s order we were sent secretly by night. Brother killing brother. We lured him to his death with guile [cunning or deviousness]. Traveling by night, bold as lions, we went into his home. We made him taste death with our deadly swords. We sought victory for the religion of the Prophet. Ishaq:368 We carried Ka’b’s head and brought it to Muhammad during the night. We saluted him as he stood praying and told him that we had slain Allah’s enemy. When he came out to us we cast Ashraf’s head before his feet. The Prophet praised Allah that the poet had been assassinated and complimented us on the good work we had done in Allah’s Cause. Our attack upon Allah’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.’ Al-Tabari, Vol. 7, p. 97, See Also Ishaq 368 [Ka`b bin al-Ashraf said] “Is this true? Did Muhammad actually kill these whom these two men mention? These are the nobles of the Arabs and kingly men; by God, if Muhammad has slain these people it were better to be dead than alive.” When the enemy of God became certain that the news was true he left the town and went to Mecca to stay with al-Muttalib who was married to `Atika. She took him in and entertained him hospitably. He began to inveigh against the apostle and to recite verses in which he bewailed the Quraysh who were thrown into the pit after having been slain at Badr. . Then he composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about the Muslim women. The apostle said – according to what Abdullah Burda told me, “Who will rid me of Ibnu’l-Ashraf?” Maslama said, “I will deal with him for you, O apostle of God, I will kill him.” He said, “Do so if you can.” So Maslama returned and waited for three days without food or drink, apart from what was absolutely necessary. When the apostle was told of this he summoned him and asked him why he had given up eating and drinking. He replied that he had given him an undertaking and he did not know whether he could fulfil it. The apostle said, “All that is incumbent upon you is that you should try.” He said, “O apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies.” He answered, “Say what you like, for you are free in the matter.” Thereupon he and Silkan [Abu Na’ila], and Abbad, and Harith, and Abu `Abs b. Jabr conspired together and sent Silkan to the enemy of God, Ka`b, before they came to him. He talked to him some time and they recited poetry one to the other, for Silkan was fond of poetry. Then he said, “O Ibn Ashraf, I have come to you about a matter which I want to tell you of and wish you to keep secret.” “Very well”, he replied. He went on, “The coming of this man is a great trial to us. It has provoked the hostility of the Arabs, and they are all in league against us. The roads have become impassable so that our families are in want and privation, and we and our families are in great distress.” Ka`b answered, “By God, I kept telling you, O Ibn Salama, that the things I warned you of would happen.” Silkan said to him, “I want you to sell us food and we will give you a pledge of security and you deal generously in the matter.” He replied, “Will you give me your sons as a pledge?” He said, “You want to insult us. I have friends who share my opinion and I want to bring them to you so that you many sell to them and act generously, and we will give you enough weapons for a good pledge.” Silkan’s object was that he should not take alarm at the sight of weapons when they brought them. Ka`b answered, “Weapons are a good pledge.” Thereupon Silkan returned to his companions, told them what has happened, and ordered them to take their arms. Then they went away and assembled with him and met the apostle. Thaur b. Zayd told me the apostle walked with them as far as Gharqad. Then he sent them off, saying, “Go in God’s name; O God help them.” So saying, he returned to his house. Now it was a moonlight night and they journeyed on until they came to his castle, and Abu Na’ila called out to him. He had only recently married and he jumped up in the bedsheet, and his wife took hold of the end of it and said, “You are at war, and those who are at war do not go out at this hour.” He replied, “It is Abu Na’ila. Had he found me sleeping he would not have woken me.” She answered, “By God, I can feel evil in his voice.” Ka`b answered, “Even if the call were for a stab a brave man must answer it.” So he went down and talked to them for some time, while they conversed with him. then Abu Na’ila said, “Would you like to walk with us to Shi`b al-`Ajuz, so that we can talk for the rest of the night?” “If you like”, he answered, so they went off walking together; and after a time Abu Na’ila ran his hand through his hair. Then he smelt his hand, and said, “I have never smelt a scent finer than this.” They walked on farther and he did the same so that Ka`b suspected no evil. Then after a space did it for the third time and cried, “Smite the enemy of God!” So they smote him, and their swords clashed over him with no effect. Maslama said, “I remembered my dagger when I saw that our swords were useless, and I seized it. Meanwhile the enemy of God had made such a noise that every fort around us was showing a light. I thrust it into the lower part of his body, then I bore down upon it until I reached his genitals, and the enemy of God fell to the ground. Harith had been hurt, being wounded either in his head or in his foot, one of our swords having stuck him. We went away, passing by the Umayya and then the Qurayza and then both until we went up the Harra of Urayd. Our friend Harith had lagged behind, weakened by loss of blood, so we waited for him for some time until he came up, following our tracks. We carried him and brought him to the apostle OT the end of the night. We saluted him as he stood praying, and he came out to us and we told him that we had killed God’s enemy. He spat upon our comrade’s wounds, and both he ad we returned to our families. Our attack upon God’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.” Ishaq:365 Then they cut his head and took it with them. … they cast his head before him [Muhammad]. He (the prophet) praised Allah on his being slain. Ibn Sa’d, Vol. 1, P. 37 Attempted Assassination of Abu Sufyan Abu Sufyan was the commander of the Meccan forces. Amr was sent by Muhammad to kill Abu Sufyan [the Quraysh leader and merchant]. The Prophet said, ‘Go to Abu Sufyan and kill him.’ …When I entered Mecca I had a dagger ready to slay anybody who laid hold of me. My Ansar companion asked, ‘Should we start by circumambulating the Ka’aba seven times and praying two rak’ahs?’ I said, ‘I know the Meccans better than you do.’ But he kept pestering me until in the end we went to the Ka’aba, circumambulated it seven times, and prayed. One of the Meccans recognized me and shouted, ‘That is Amr!’ They rushed after us, saying, ‘By Allah, Amr has not come here for any good purpose! He has come for some evil reason.’ Amr had been a cutthroat and a desperado before accepting Islam. Amr said, ‘Let’s wait here until the cry has died down. They are sure to hunt for us tonight and tomorrow. I was still in the cave when Uthman bin Malik came riding proudly on his horse. He reached the entrance to our cave and I said to my Ansar companion, ‘If he sees us, he will tell everyone in Mecca.’ So I went out and stabbed him with my dagger. He gave a shout and the Meccans came to him while I went back to my hiding place. Finding him at the point of death, they said, ‘By Allah we knew that Amr came for no good purpose.’ The death of their companion impeded their search for us, for they carried him away. I went into a cave with my bow and arrows. While I was in it, a one-eyed man from the Banu Bakr came in driving some sheep. He said, ‘Who’s there?’ I said [lied], ‘I’m a Banu Bakr.’ ‘So am I.’ Then he laid down next to me, and raised his voice in song: ‘I will not believe in the faith of the Muslims.’ I said, ‘You will soon see!’ Before long the Bedouin went to sleep and started snoring. So I killed him in the most dreadful way that anybody has ever killed. I leant over him, struck the end of my bow into his good eye, and thrust it down until it came out the back of his neck. After that I rushed out like a wild beast and took flight. I came to the village of Naqi and recognized two Meccan spies. I called for them to surrender. They said no so I shot and arrow and killed one, and then I tied the other up and took him to Muhammad. I had tied my prisoner’s thumbs together with my bowstring. The Messenger of Allah looked at him and laughed so that his back teeth could be seen. Then he questioned me and I told him what had happened. ‘Well done!’ he said, and prayed for me to be blessed. Al-Tabari, Vol. 7, pp. 147-150 The Apostle heard that Abu Sufyan [a Meccan merchant] was coming from Syria with a large caravan containing their money and their merchandise. He was accompanied by only thirty men. Al-Tabari, Vol. 7, p. 29, See Also Ishaq:289 Abu Sufyan and the horsemen of the Quraysh were returning from Syria following the coastal road. When Allah’s Apostle heard about them he called his companions together and told them of the wealth they had with them and the fewness of their numbers. The Muslims set out with no other object than Sufyan and the men with him. They did not think that this raid would be anything other than easy booty. Al-Tabari, Vol. 7, p. 29 Murder of `Asma’ Bint Marwan `UMAYR B. `ADIYY’S JOURNEY TO KILL `ASMA’ D. MARWAN She was of B. Umayyya b. Zayd. When Abu `Afak had been killed she displayed disaffection. `Abdullah b. al-Harith b. Al-Fudayl from his father said that she was married to a man of B. Khatma called Yazid b. Zayd. Blaming Islam and its followers she said: I despise B. Malik and al-Nabit and `Auf and B. al-Khazraj. You obey a stranger who is none of yours, one not of Murad or Madhhij. {1} Do you expect good from him after the killing of your chiefs like a hungry man waiting for a cook’s broth? Is there no man of pride who would attack him by surprise and cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him? Hassan b. Thabit answered her: Banu Wa’il and B. Waqif and Khatma are inferior to B. al-Khazrahj. When she called for folly woe to her in her weeping, for death is coming. She stirred up a man of glorious origin, noble in his going out and in his coming in. Before midnight he dyed her in her blood and incurred no guilt thereby. When the apostle heard what she had said he said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” `Umayr b. `Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, “You have helped God and His apostle, O `Umayr!” When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her”, so `Umayr went back to his people. Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when `Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, “I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don’t keep me waiting.” That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was `Umayr b. `Adiy who was called the “Reader”, and `Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam. {1} The note reads “Two tribes of Yamani origin.” Ishaq:675 ‘You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?’ Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, ‘Will no one rid me of this woman?’ Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, ‘You have helped Allah and His Apostle.’ Umayr said. ‘She had five sons; should I feel guilty?’ ‘No,’ the Prophet answered. ‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.’” Ishaq:676 Sariyyah Of `Umayr Ibn `Adi Then (occurred) the sariyyah of `Umayr ibn `Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against `Asma’ Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. `Asma’ was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: “Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?” He said: “Yes. Is there something more for me to do?” He [Muhammad] said: “No. Two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him `Umayr, “basir” (the seeing). Ibn Sa`d, Vol. 2, p. 31 The Killing of the King of Dumah’s Brother When the Messenger of God reached Tabuk, Yuhannah b. Ru’bah, governor of Aylah, came to him, made a treaty with him, and offered him the poll tax [jizyah]. The people of jarbi’ and Adhruh also offered him the poll tax, and the Messenger of God wrote a document for each of them which is still in their possession. Then the Messenger of God summoned Khalid b. al-Walid and sent him to Ukaydir at Dumah. This was Ukaydir b. ‘Abd al-Malik, a man from Kindah who was a king of Dumah and a Christian. The Messenger of God told Khalid that he would find him hunting wild cows . Khalid b. al-Walid rode out until he came within sight of his fort. It was a moonlit summer night and Ukaydir was on the roof terrace with his wife. The wild cows had been scratching the palace gate with their horns all night. His wife asked him if he had ever seen anything like that, and he said, “No indeed.” Then she said, “Who would allow this?” He responded, “No one.” He then came down and called for his horse, which was saddled. A group of men from his family , among them his brother Hassan, took their hunting spears, mounted [their horses], and rode off. On their way they encountered the Messenger of God’s cavalry, and [Ukaydir] was seized and his brother Hassan was killed. Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, pp. 58-59 Assassination of Amr b. Jihash One of Yamin’s family told me that the apostle said to Yamin, ‘Have you seen the way your cousin has treated me and what he proposed to do?’ Thereupon Yamin gave a man money to kill `Amr b. Jihash and he did kill him, or so they allege. Ishaq:438 Assassination of Khalid b. Sufyan “He (the prophet) said, :Go and kill him. I saw him when the time of the afternoon prayer had come. I said : I am afraid if a fight takes place between me and him (Khalid b. Sufyan), that might delay the prayer. I proceeded walking towards him while I was praying by making a sign. When I reached near him, he said to me : Who are you? I replied : A man from the Arabs ; it came to me that you were gathering (any[sp] army) for this man (i.e. the Prophet). Hence I came to you in connection with this matter. … I then walked along with him for a while; when it became convenient for me, I dominated him with my sword until he became cold (dead).” Abu Dawud 1:1244 “The Messenger of God called me and said, ‘It has reached me that Khalid b. Sufyan b. Nubayh al-Hudhali is gathering a force to attack me. He is either in Nakhlah or ‘Uranah, so go to him and kill him.’” Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 121 The Killing of Khubaib Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle sent a Sariya of ten men as spies under the leadership of ‘Asim bin Thabit al-Ansari, the grandfather of ‘Asim bin Umar Al-Khattab. They proceeded till they reached Hadaa, a place between ‘Usfan, and Mecca, and their news reached a branch of the tribe of Hudhail called Bani Lihyan. About two-hundred men, who were all archers, hurried to follow their tracks till they found the place where they had eaten dates they had brought with them from Medina. They said, “These are the dates of Yathrib (i.e. Medina), “and continued following their tracks When ‘Asim and his companions saw their pursuers, they went up a high place and the infidels circled them. The infidels said to them, “Come down and surrender, and we promise and guarantee you that we will not kill any one of you” ‘Asim bin Thabit; the leader of the Sariya said, “By Allah! I will not come down to be under the protection of infidels. O Allah! Convey our news to Your Prophet. Then the infidels threw arrows at them till they martyred ‘Asim along with six other men, and three men came down accepting their promise and convention, and they were Khubaib-al-Ansari and Ibn Dathina and another man So, when the infidels captured them, they undid the strings of their bows and tied them. Then the third (of the captives) said, “This is the first betrayal. By Allah! I will not go with you. No doubt these, namely the martyred, have set a good example to us.” So, they dragged him and tried to compel him to accompany them, but as he refused, they killed him. They took Khubaid and Ibn Dathina with them and sold them (as slaves) in Mecca (and all that took place) after the battle of Badr. Khubaib was bought by the sons of Al-Harith bin ‘Amir bin Naufal bin ‘Abd Manaf. It was Khubaib who had killed Al-Harith bin ‘Amir on the day (of the battle of) Badr. So, Khubaib remained a prisoner with those people. Narrated Az-Zuhri: ‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Iyyad said that the daughter of Al-Harith had told him, “When those people gathered (to kill Khubaib) he borrowed a razor from me to shave his pubes and I gave it to him. Then he took a son of mine while I was unaware when he came upon him. I saw him placing my son on his thigh and the razor was in his hand. I got scared so much that Khubaib noticed the agitation on my face and said, ‘Are you afraid that I will kill him? No, I will never do so.’ By Allah, I never saw a prisoner better than Khubaib. By Allah, one day I saw him eating of a bunch of grapes in his hand while he was chained in irons, and there was no fruit at that time in Mecca.” The daughter of Al-Harith used to say, “It was a boon Allah bestowed upon Khubaib.” When they took him out of the Sanctuary (of Mecca) to kill him outside its boundaries, Khubaib requested them to let him offer two Rakat (prayer). They allowed him and he offered Two Rakat and then said, “Hadn’t I been afraid that you would think that I was afraid (of being killed), I would have prolonged the prayer. O Allah, kill them all with no exception.” (He then recited the poetic verse):– “I being martyred as a Muslim, Do not mind how I am killed in Allah’s Cause, For my killing is for Allah’s Sake, And if Allah wishes, He will bless the amputated parts of a torn body” Then the son of Al Harith killed him. So, it was Khubaib who set the tradition for any Muslim sentenced to death in captivity, to offer a two-Rak’at prayer (before being killed). Allah fulfilled the invocation of Asim bin Thabit on that very day on which he was martyred. The Prophet informed his companions of their news and what had happened to them. Later on when some infidels from Quraish were informed that Asim had been killed, they sent some people to fetch a part of his body (i.e. his head) by which he would be recognized. (That was because) ‘Asim had killed one of their chiefs on the day (of the battle) of Badr. So, a swarm of wasps, resembling a shady cloud, were sent to hover over Asim and protect him from their messenger and thus they could not cut off anything from his flesh. Sahih Bukhari 4:52:281 The Torture and Murder of Kinanah b. al-Rabi b. al-Huqyaq Kinanah b. al-Rabi b. al-Huqyaq who had the treasure of B. Nadir was brought to the Messenger of God, who questioned him; but he denied knowing where it was. Then the messenger of God was brought a Jew who said to him, “I have seen Kinanah walk around this ruin every morning.” The Messenger of God said to Kinanah: “What do you say? If we find it in your possession, I will kill you.” “All right,” he answered. The Messenger of God commanded that the ruin should be dug up, and some of the treasure was extracted from it. Then he asked him for the rest of it. Kinanah refused to surrender it; so the Messenger of God gave orders concerning him to al-Zubayr b. al-‘Awwam, saying, “torture him until you root out what he has.” Al-Zubayr kept twirling his firestick in his breast until Kinanah almost expired; then the Messenger of God gave him to Muhammad b. Maslamah, who beheaded him to avenge his brother Mahmud b. Maslamah.” Al-Tabari, Vol. 8, p. 123 “Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says “was brought”), to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, “Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?” He said “Yes”. The apostle gave
    • EDUCATING MOHAMMEDANS:

      MUTA PROSTITUTION FOR ALL MOHAMMEDANS!

      ISLAM TEACHES THAT RAPE IS ORDAINED OF ALLAH.

      ALLAH & MOHAMMED SANCTIONED THE RAPE OF FEMALE CAPTIVES:

      RAPE JIHAD:

      Sahih Muslim Book 08. N 3371Marriage

      Chapter: Al-Azl (incomplete sexual intercourse): Coitus Interruptus.

      Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (May peace be upon him) mentioning al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (May peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women;

      and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them.
      So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him?

      So we asked Allah’s Messenger (May peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

      REMEMBER:

      ISLAM TEACHES THAT RAPE IS ORDAINED OF GOD

      ALLAH & MOHAMMED SANCTIONED RAPE

      Al-‘Azl
      Al-‘Azl, (العزل) also known as coitus interruptus, is the practice of having sexual intercourse with a woman but withdrawing the penis before ejaculation. Apparently al-‘Azl with female captives and slaves was a pretty important topic for Muhammad and his companions as evidenced by the abundance of Hadith material on the subject.
      Practiced during Muhammad’s lifetime & ALL OVER EUROPE TODAY
      Narrated Jabir: We used to practice coitus interruptus during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle .
      Sahih Bukhari 7:62:135
      Narrated Jabir: We used to practice coitus interrupt us while the Quran was being revealed. Jabir added: We used to practice coitus interruptus during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle while the Quran was being Revealed.
      Sahih Bukhari 7:62:136
      When RAPING your captive, it’s better if you do not pull out at the end
      THIS IS ISLAM

      Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allah’s Apostle he said, “O Allah’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus(RAPE WITHOUT PREGNANCY)?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to PULL OUT. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.”

      Sahih Bukhari 3:34:432

      Abu Said said, “We went with Allah’s Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Barli Al-Mustaliq and we captured some of the ‘Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah’s Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, “It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence.”
      Sahih Bukhari 3:46:718

      We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. ………
      We asked (him) about it and he said, “It is better for you not to PULL OUT, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist.”
      Sahih Bukhari 5:59:459

      Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured females and wanted sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interruptus. He said, “It is better that you leave it in, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.” Qaza’a said, “I heard Abu Sa’id saying that the Prophet said, ‘No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it.”
      Sahih Bukhari 9:93:506

      RAPE JIHAD
      Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah’s Apostle about it and he said, “Do you really do that?” repeating the question thrice, “There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection.”
      Sahih Bukhari 7:62:137

      THE REASON WHY THERE ARE FEW VIRGINS LEFT!

      Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: That while he was sitting with the Prophet a man from the Ansar came and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! We get slave girls from the war captives and we love property; what do you think about coitus interruptus?” Allah’s Apostle said, “Do you do that? It is better for you not to pull out, for there is no soul which Allah has ordained to come into existence but will be created.”
      Sahih Bukhari 8:77:600
      Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
      Sahih Muslim 8:3371, See also: Sahih Muslim 8:3372
      Yahya related to me from Malik from Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman from Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Habban that Ibn Muhayriz said, “I went into the mosque and saw Abu Said al-Khudri and so I sat by him and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said al-Khudri said, ‘We went out with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, on the expedition to the Banu al-Mustaliq. We took some Arabs prisoner, and we desired the women as celibacy was hard for us. We wanted the ransom, so we wanted to practise coitus interruptus. We said, ‘Shall we practise coitus interruptus while the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is among us before we ask him?’ We asked him about that and he said, ‘You don’t have to not do it. There is no self which is to come into existence up to the Day of Rising but that it will come into existence.’ ”
      Al-Muwatta 29 32.95b
      It’s okay to practice ‘azl when having sex with your slave-girl
      Narrated AbuSa’id al-Khudri: A man said: Apostle of Allah, I have a slave-girl and I withdraw the penis from her (while having intercourse), and I dislike that she becomes pregnant. I intend (by intercourse) what the men intend by it. The Jews say that withdrawing the penis (azl) is burying the living girls on a small scale. He (the Prophet) said: The Jews told a lie. If Allah intends to create it, you cannot turn it away.
      Abu Dawud 11:2166
      Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a man came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I have a slave-girl who is our servant and she carries water for us and I have intercourse with her, but I do not want her to conceive. He said: Practise ‘azl, if you so like, but what is decreed for her will come to her. The person stayed back (for some time) and then came and said: The girl has become pregnant, whereupon he said: I told you what was decreed for her would come to her.
      Sahih Muslim 8:3383
      Your slave-girl is your field, so water it or leave it thirsty if you want
      Yahya related to me from Malik from Damra ibn Said al-Mazini from al-Hajjaj ibn Amr ibn Ghaziya that he was sitting with Zayd ibn Thabit when Ibn Fahd came to him. He was from the Yemen. He said, “Abu Said! I have slave-girls. None of the wives in my keep are more pleasing to me than them, and not all of them please me so much that I want a child by them, shall I then practise coitus interruptus?” Zayd ibn Thabit said, “Give an opinion, Hajjaj!” “I said, ‘May Allah forgive you! We sit with you in order to learn from you!’ He said, ‘Give an opinion! ‘I said, ‘She is your field, if you wish, water it, and if you wish, leave it thirsty. I heard that from Zayd.’ Zayd said, ‘He has spoken the truth.’ ”
      Al-Muwatta 29 32.99b
      “You don’t need your slave-girl’s permission to practice ‘azl with her.”
      Yahya related to me from Malik from Humayd ibn Qays al-Makki that a man called Dhafif said that Ibn Abbas was asked about coitus interruptus. He called a slave-girl of his and said, “Tell them.” She was embarrassed. He said, “It is alright, and I do it myself.” Malik said, “A man does not practise coitus interruptus with a free woman unless she gives her permission. There is no harm in practising coitus interruptus with a slave-girl without her permission. Someone who has someone else’s slave-girl as a wife, does not practise coitus interruptus with her unless her people give him permission.”
      Al-Muwatta 29 32.100b
      Additional Hadith about ‘azl
      Sahih Muslim
      Sa’d b. Abu Waqqas (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a person came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I do ‘azi with my wife. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Why do you do that? The person said: I fear harm to her child or her children. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (way peace be upon him) said: If that were harmful it would harm the Persians and the Greeks.
      Sahih Muslim 8:3394
      Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported: We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl with them. We then asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) about it, and he said to us: Verily you do it, verily you do it, verily you do it, but the soul which has to be born until the Day of judgment must be born.
      Sahih Muslim 8:3373
      Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) (was asked if he had heard it himself), to which he said: Yes. (I heard) Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: There is no harm if you do not practise it, for it (the birth of the child) is something ordained (by Allah).
      Sahih Muslim 8:3374, See also: Sahih Muslim 8:3375
      Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) was asked about ‘azl, whereupon he said: There is no harm if you do not do that, for it (the birth of the child) is something ordained. Muhammad (one of the narrators) said: (The words) La ‘alaykum (there is no harm) implies its Prohibition.
      Sahih Muslim 8:3376
      Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that mention was made of ‘azl in the presence of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) whereupon he said: Why do you practise it? They said: There is a man whose wife has to suckle the child, and if that person has a sexual intercourse with her (she may conceive) which he does not like, and there is another person who has a slave-girl and he has a sexual intercourse with her, but he does not like her to have conception so that she may not become Umm Walad, whereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: There is no harm if you do not do that, for that (the birth of the child) is something pre- ordained. Ibn ‘Aun said: I made a mention of this hadith to Hasan, and he said: By Allah, (it seems) as if there is upbraiding in it (for ‘azl).
      Sahih Muslim 8:3377, See also: Sahih Muslim 8:3378 and Sahih Muslim 8:3379
      Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported: Mention was made about al-‘azl in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), whereupon he said: Why any one of you practises it? (He did not say: One of you should not do it), for there is no created soul, whose creator is not Allah.
      Sahih Muslim 8:3380
      Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) was asked about ‘azl, whereupon he said: The child does not come from all the liquid (sermen) and when Allah intends to create anything nothing can prevent it (from coming into existence).
      Sahih Muslim 8:3381, See also: Sahih Muslim 8:3382
      Jabir b. ‘Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported that a person asked Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) saying: I have a slave-girl and I practise ‘azl with her, whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: This cannot prevent that which Allah has decreed. The person then came (after some time) and said: Messenger of Allah, the slave-girl about whom I talked to you has conceived, whereupon Allah’s Messeuger (may peace be upon him) said: I am the servant of Allah and His Messenger.
      Sahih Muslim 8:3384
      Al-Muwatta
      Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu’n-Nadr, the mawla of Umar ibn Ubaydullah from Amir ibn Sad ibn Abi Waqqas from his father that he used to practise coitus interruptus.
      Al-Muwatta 29 32.96b
      Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu’n-Nadr, the mawla of Umar ibn Ubaydullah from Ibn Aflah, the mawla of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari from an umm walad of Abu Ayyubal-Ansari that he practised coitus interruptus.
      Al-Muwatta 29 32.97b
      Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar did not practise coitus interruptus and thought that it was disapproved.
      Al-Muwatta 29 32.98b
      Yahya said that Malik related from Ibn Shihab from Salim ibn Abdullah ibn Umar from his father that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, “What’s the matter with men who have intercourse with their slave-girls and then dismiss them? No slave-girl comes to me whose master confesses that he has had intercourse with her but that I connect her child to him, whether or not he has practised coitus interruptus or stopped having intercourse with her.”
      Al-Muwatta 36 23.24b
      Malik related to me from Nafi that Safiyya bint Abi Ubayd informed him that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, “What is the matter with men who have intercourse with their slave-girls and then leave them to go? No slave-girl comes to me whose master confesses that he has had intercourse with her but that I connect her child to him, whether or not he has practised coitus interruptus or left off from intercourse with her.” Yahya said that he heard Malik say, “What is done in our community about an umm walad who commits a crime is that her master is liable for what she has done up to her value. He does not have to surrender her, and he cannot be made to bear more than her value for her crime.”
      Al-Muwatta 36 23.25b

          • Oogenhand, dude, temporary marriage is not a substitute for prostitution. Well, if the wife of an oil sheikh wants to marry someone else, she can’t do so because she’s already in a relationship with her husband. ^_^

        • Muta (Temporary marriage Or Legalised Prostitution)

          “MUTA” MEANS TEMPORARY MARRIAGE WITH UNMARRIED WOMEN. IN THESE MARRIAGES AGENT AND WITNESSES ARE NOT REQURIED. MUTA COULD BE FOR A NIGHT OR A FEW DAYS OR EVEN A FEW HOURS, MONTHS OR YEARS AS MAY BE FIXED. AS SOON AS THE PERIODIS OVER, THE WIFE ISCONSIDERED AUTOMATICALY DIVORCED.

          MUTA IS THE ARABIC WORD, THE LITERAL MEANING OF WHICH IS “ENJOYMENT” BUT TECHNICALLY IT MEANS A MARRIAGE CONTRACTED FOR A FIXED PERIOD IN RETURN FOR A RECOMPENSE OR AJR.

          THIS SORT OF TEMPORARY MARRIAGE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN IN VOGUE IN THE PRE-ISLAMIC DAYS AND THE PROPHET PERMITTED IN THE BEGINNING IN CERTAIN COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES BUT LATER ON PROHIBITED IT.

          ACCORDING TO AHADITH MUTA WAS LAWFUL IN THE EARLY EPOCHS OF ISLAM IN THE CASE OF NECESSITY AND WAS FORBIDDEN BY THE PROPHET ON THE DAY OF THE CONQUEST OF MAKKAH.

          THE MUSLIMS MAINTAIN THAT THERE CAN BE NO REFERENCE TO SUCH A TEMPORARY MARRIAGE OF PLEASURE IN THE QUR’AN WHICH STANDS FOR MORAL EXCELLENCE AND DEALS ONLY WITH NIKAH OR REGULAR MARRIAGE, THE SHITTES CONTEND THAT THERE IS A REFERENCE TO THIS FORM OF MARRIAGE I.E. MUTA IN THE VERSE 24 OF SURAH AL-NISA. THE CORRECT POSITION IS THAT THE SAID VERSE HAS COME TO SPECIFY THE AJR OR RECOMPENSE WHICH BECOMES PAYABLE IN FULL WHEN THE WIFE IN A REGULAR MARRIAGE IS GONE IN. “BUT GIVE THEM THEIR RECOMPENSE I.E. DOWER FOR WHAT YOU HAVE ENJOYED OF THEM” ARE THE ACTUAL WORDS AND BY ENOYMENT IS MENT THE SEXUAL INTERCORSE AFTER MARRIAGE THAT MAKES THE RECOMPENSE OR DOWER PAYABLE IN FULL WHILE ONLY THE HALF OF IT IS TO BE PAID, IF THE MARRIAGE IS DISSOLVED BEFORE SUCH INTERCOURSE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS VERSE IN THEREFORE, TO CLARIFY THE OBLIGATION OF THE HUSBAND IN CASE THE MARRIAGE IS EONSUMATED BY SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.

          MUTA IS NEITHER NIKAH (REGULAR MARRIAGE) NOR IS IT APPLICABLE TO THE CAPTIVE WOMEN AND ACCORDING TO AL-DAR QUTNI, ALI IBN ABI TALIB IS REPORTED TO HAVE SAID THAT MUTA IS FORBIDDEN BY THE PROPHET AS IT WAS FOR HIM WHO COULD NOT FIND (ANY ALTERNATIVE) AND WAS ABROGATED WHEN THE REVELATION CAME WITH REGARD TO NIKAH OR MARRIAGE, TALAQ OR DIVORCE, IDDAT OR WAITING PERIOD, AND MIRATH OR INHERITENCE.

          AS REPORTED BY TIRMIDHI AND OTHERS IT (MUTA) WAS IN VOGUE IN THE EARLY EPOCHS OF ISLAM ESPECIALY WHEN A MAN CAME TO A STRANGE TOWN HE WOULD MARRY A WOMAN FOR A PERIOD OF HIS STAY SO THAT SHE MIGHT LOOK AFTER HIM AND HIS PROPERTY. AND AS SUCH IT WAS IN USE WHILE A MAN WAS ON HIS JOURNEY. IT WAS ALSO PERMITTED ON PERTICULAR OCCASIONS SUCH AS WAR WHEN IT IS HARD FOR MEN TO KEEP AWAY FROM WOMEN FOR A LONG TIME. MUTA WAS PERMITTED BY THE PROPHET (SAW) IN THE PERIODOF TRANSITION FROM THE JAHILIYYA TO ISLAM AND FOR THOSE WHO WERE ON THE MILITARY EXPEDITIONS AND THEN HE FORBADE IT ONCE FOR ALL.

          THE PROHIBITION OF MUTA BY THE PROPHET (SAW) IS PROVED TO BE FOR EVER AND IT IS ON THIS GROUND THAT UMAR FORBADE IT AS IT WAS FORBIDDEN BY THE PROPHET (SAW) HIMSELF. PERHAPS SOME OF THE COMPANIONS LIKE JABIR, IBN ABBAS AND OTHERS WHO ACTD UPON MUTA WERE UNAWARE OF ITS PROHIBITION BY THE PROPHET UNTIL IT WAS PROCLAIMED BY UMAR.

          USQALANI SAYS THAT JABIR’S STATEMENT “WE ACTED UPON MUTA” REFERS TO NONE EXCEPT HIS OWN SELF AND IBN HAZM ADMITTED MUTA TO E UNLAWFUL IN OBEDIENCE TO THE SAYING OF THE PROPHET THAT IT WAS FORBIDDEN UPTO THE DAY OF RESURRECTION, AND SAID, WE HAVE FAITH IN THIS SAYING WHICH ESTABLISHES THE UNLAWFULNESS OF MUTA, (FATH AL-BARI, VOL. 9, Pp. 166–174, CAIRO).

          ALL IBN TALIB IS REPORTED TO HAVE SAID TO HAVE SAID THAT THE PROPHET ON THE DAY OF KHAYBER, FORBADE MUTA WITH WOMEN AND EATING OF THE MEAT OF THE DOMESTICATED DONKEYS. FURTHER, IT IS REPORTED OF ALI BY THE SAME CHAIN OF NARRATORS THAT HE ASKED IBN ABBAS TO ABSTAIN FROM ALLOWING MUTA FOR THE PROPHET HAD FORBIDDEN IT AND THE MEAT OF THE DOMESTICATED DONKEYS ON THE DAY OF KHAY BER.

          THE UNLAWFULNESS OF MUTA IS AGREED UPON BY THE UMMAH I.E. CONSENSUS EXCEPT THAT OF THE SHITTES HOLD IT LAWFUL WHILE JAFIR AL-SADIQ, THEIR SIXTH IMAM, IS REPORTED TO HAVE SAID THAT MUTA WAS EXACTLY ZINA OR FORNICATION (BAIHAQI, SUNAN AL-KUBRA, VOL. 7, HYDERABED, 1353 A.H.).

          AS TO THE VARYING STATEMENTS IN THE BOOKS OF AHADITH REGARDING THE DATE OF PROHIBITION OF MUTA, WE FIND THAT WHAT IS PROVED IS THAT MUTA WAS PERMITTED ON THE DAY OF KHAYBER AND THEN PROHIBITED AGAIN; IT WAS PERMITTED ON THE DAY OF KHAYBER AND THEN PROHIBITED AGAIN; IT WAS PERMITTED IN THE YEAR OF CONQUEST OF MAKKAH AND THEREAFTER FORBIDDEN FOR EVER.

          IN THE FACE OF FACTS THAT MUTA WAS DEFINITELY FORBIDEN BY THE PROPHET THERE CAN BE NO CHARGE AGAINST THE CALIPH UMAR THAT HE WAS FIRST TO FORBID IT. WHAT UMAR DID WAS IN OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMAND OF THE PROPHET (SAW) WHO DID NOT SPEAK OF (HIS OWN) DESIRE UNLESS IT WAS A REVELATION THAT WAS REVEALED (AL-QUR’AN, 53 : 3-4). AND ABOUT WHOM IT IS SAID IN THE QUR’AN : “OBEY ALLAH AND THE MESSENGER: (4: 35). “WHATEVER THE MESSENGER GIVES YOU TAKE IT, AND WHATEVER HE FORBIDS, ABSTAIN FROM IT” (59 :7).

          TO CUT THE STORY SHORT, UMAR COULD NOT DECLARE THE UNLAWFULNESS OF MUTA EARLIER AS NO SUCH CASE CAME TO HIM BEFORE. IF UMAR’S DECLARATION WAS NOT RIGHT, WHY WAS IT NOT OPPOSED BY THE DIGNIFIED PERSONS LIKE ALI AND OTHER COMPANIONS INCLUDING JABIR? THEY ABSTAINED FROM MUTA WHICH IS A CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF THE FACT THAT THEY WERE CONVINCED OF ITS UNLAWFULNESS. EVEN ALI DURING HIS CALIPHATE DID NOT MAKE MUTA LAWFUL. THE INVALIDITY OF MUTA IS THUS ESTABLISHED BY IJMA OR CONSENSUS, WHILE ITS PROHIBITION IS PROVED BY THE MOST RELIABLE AHADITH OF THE PROPHET (SAW). ITS VICIOUSNESS AND INVALIDITY ARE THEREFORE DOUBLY CONFIRMED. SHAIKH ABDUL WAHAB IS HIS BOOK DECLARES:

          “THE IMAMIAH ARE, NOT ONLY OUTSIDE THE PALE OF AHLE-SUNNAH BUT ALSO OUTSIDE PALE OF UMMAH. THEY INDULGE IN ZINA. BY USING THE RECTUM OF WOMAN THEY HAVE OPENED SEVERAL GATES OF ZINA FOR THEM. ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH SENSUALITIES THEY ARE PRODUCTS OF ZINA. WE PRAY TO ALLAH TO SAVE US ALL FROM FOLLOWING THE FOOTPRINTS OF SATAN.”

          NAIKAH (MARRIAGE) VERSUS MUTA

          IT IS RATHER STRANGE THAT IN SHIA RELIGION GREAT BLESSINGS AND REWARDS ARE PROMISED ON PERFORMANCE OF UNLAWFUL ACTS LIKE MUTA WHILE THERE ARE NO SUCH BLESSINGS AND REWARDS ON LAWFUL ACTS LIKE NIKAH (REGULAR MARRIAGE). IT IS STATED IN ONE OF THEIR BOOKS THAT: “WHOSO DOES MUTA ONCE WILL RECEIVE THE RANK AND STATUS OF HUSSAIN; WHOSE DOESIT TWICE THAT OF HASAN AND WHOSO THRICE THAT OF ALI AND WHOSO FOUR TIMES THAT OF THE PROPHET (SAW) HIMSELF.” (TAFSEER MINHAJ-US-SADIQUEEN, VOL. V, P. 493 BY MULLAH FATHULLAH KASHANI, PUBLISHED FROM TEHRAN).

          CAN THERE BE ANY GREATER AUDACITY? AND CAN THERE BE ANY OTHER RELIGION WHICH PROMOTES LICENTIOUSNESS IN SUCH A NAKED FASHION?

          THE IMAMIS (SHITTES) GO EVEN FURTHER AND SAY “THE BELIEVER IS ONLY PERFECT WHEN HE HAS EXPERIENCED A MUTA (SHORTER ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF ISLAM, LONDON 1961).

          ACCORDING TO SHIAS, MUTA IS AN ACT OF GREAT MERIT, IF INDULGED IN FOR THE PLEASURE OF ALLAH. WITH LOVING CONVERSATION, WITH INTERCOURSE, MERITS ARE RECORDED, AND WITH A BATH AFTER COITION ALL HIS SINS PARDONED. (ISLAHUR RUSUM — p. 164).

          IMAAM BAQAR SAID THAT THERE ARE THREE RECREATIONS FOR MOMINS (SHIAS): MUTA, JOKING AMONG THEMSELVES AND PRAYERS AT NIGHT (ISLAHUR RUSUM — P. 164) HAZRAT OMAR (R.A) DECREED THAT MUTA IS PROSTITUTION AND ILLEGAL IN ISLAM. IN ORDER TO CONTROVERT HAZRAT OMAR (R.A), THE SHIAS LAY GREAT STRESS ON ITS LEGALITY AND MERIT.

          AS WOULD BE SEEN FROM THE FOREGOING ACCOUNT, ALTHOUGH THERE IS A GREAT LAXITY IN SHIA RELIGION IN SATISFYING SEXUAL LUST BY WAY OF MUTA, THERE IS ONE SEVERE RESTRICTION IN CASE OF NIKAH. SOME INSTANCES OF THIS RESTRICTION ARE:

          (1) IT IS STATED IN AL-KAFI (P. 350) : “NO SHIA MALE CAN MARRY A SUNNI FEMALE; AND NEITHER A SUNNI MALE CAN MARRY A SHIA FEMALE. EVEN A WEAK (IN FAITH) SUNNI CANNOT MARRY A SHIA WOMAN.”

          (2) “IT IS NOT LAWFUL FOR ANY MUSIM ADULT THAT HE SHOULD MARRY WITH A SUNNI WOMAN. A SHIA FATHER SHOULD NOT GIVE IN MARRIAGE HIS DAUGHTER TO A SUNNI MAN. IF PER CHANCE THE NIKAH HAS TAKEN PLACE; HE SHOULD NOT ALLOW HIS DAUGHTER TO LIVE IN UNION WITH THE SUNNI. WHOSO HAS OPPOSED THE PROGENY OF MUHAMMAD (SAW) (AS THE SUNNIS DO) HAS NO SHARE IN ISLAM. THAT IS WHY NIKAH (MAN LA YAHDHURUHU! FAQAH).

          (3) FAISAL SAYS THAT HE ASKED IMAM BAQIR WHETHER HE CAN MARRY A SUNNI LADY. THE IMAMREPLIED: NO, NEVER BECAUSE NASIBIES (I.E. THOSE WHO CONSIDER THAT ABU BAKR, UMAR, USMAN HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER ALI) ARE KAFIRS (INFIDLS). (7: 303 TAHZIB-UL-AHKAAM).

          (4) IT WAS NARRATED BEFORE IMAM BAQIR ABOUT THE NASIBIS: THEREUPON HE SAID: YOU SHOULD NEITHER TAKE THEM IN MARRIAGE, NOR TAKE THEIR ZABI’AH (MEAT OF SLAUGHTERED ANIMALS) AND NOR LIVE IN THEIR COMPANY.” (7 : 303 TAHZIB UL-AHKAAM).

          (5) “ALMIGHTY ALLAH HAS NOT CREATED ANY THING MORE NASTASTING ( ) THAN THE DOG. BUT THE SUNNI IS EVEN MORE POLLUTED( ) THAN THE DOG.” ( 5: 234 ).

          THE SHIA CONSENSUS IS THAT SUNNI MUSLIMS ARE THE WORST OF THE CREATED BEINGS !

          “LO ! HEREIN IS INDEED A LESSON FOR THOSE WHO SEE.” (24 : 44)

          IT IS VERY SAD AND DISTRESSING TO NOTE THAT SOME OF THE PEOPLE OF ALLAH SUNNAH OUT OF IGNORANCE ENTER INTO MARTIMONIAL BONDS WITH THE SHIAS THINKING THAT THEY ARE MUSLIMS WITH THE RESULT THAT IN THE LONG RUN THEY HAVE TO FACE DIRE CONSEQUENCES.

          THERE IS NO DENYING THE FACT THAT IT IS VERY HAND TO SAY SOMEONE WHO RECITES THE KALIMAH AS KAFIR AND ULAMA OF ISLAM HAVE BEEN VERY CAREFUL IN THIS REGARD. IMAM ABU HANIFA HAS EVEN WARNED THAT ONE WHO FACES THE QIBLA OF MUSLIMS SHOULD NOT BE DUBBED AS KAFIR UNLESS HE DENIES THE FUNDAMENTALS OF ISLAM. BUT NOW WHEN THE SHIA BELIEFS ABOUT IMAMATE WHICH IS A NEGATION OF THE FINALITY OF PROPHETHOOD AND TAHRIF (PERVERSION OF THE TEXT) IN THE QUR’AN HAVE BECOME IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT ONE WHO SUBSCRIBES TO THE VIEW OF TAHRIF IN THE QUR’AN IS A KAFIR (INFIDEL) ACCORDING TO ALL SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT OF THE SUNNI MUSLIMS.

          A PERUSAL OF THE BRIEF BUT AUTHENTIC FATAWA OF THE ULAMA GIVEN AT APPENDIX — V ABOUT THE KUFR AND IRTIDAD (APOSTACY) OF SHIAS WILL HOPEFULLY MAKE THE CARE-FREE SUNNI MUSLIMS REALISE THE TRUE STATE OF AFFAIRS AND THEREBY ENABLE THEM TO REFRAIN FROM ENTERING INTO MATRIMONIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SHIAS OR EAT THEIR ZABIAH (MEAT OF ANIMALS SLAUGHTERED BY THEM) OR PARTICIPATE IN EACH OTHER FUNERAL PRAYERS.

          FOR AN INSIGHT INTO THE SHIA RELIGION, THE READERS ARE ALSO ADVISED TO SEE VARIOUS ARTICLES IN URDU OF MAULANA ABDUS SHAKOOR PUBLISHED IN BOOK FORM UNDER THE TITLE ” . ” THIS COLLECTION IS AVAILABLE FROM: JAMIA HANAFIA TALIMUL ISLAM, MADANI MOHALLAH, JHELUM, (PAKISTAN).

          THE SUBSTANCE OF SHIA TEACHINGS AND PROPAGANDA IS THAT THE COMPANSIONS OF THE HOLY PROPHET WHO WERE MORE THAN 1,00,000 IMMEDIATLEY AFTER THE DEMISE OF THE PROPHET (S.A.W) WITH THE EXPECTIONS OF FOUR PERSONS. THE REST BECAME MURTADS ( ). THE SHIA BELIEVE THAT THE QUR’AN HAS BEEN PERVERTED AND CORRUPTED OR INERPOLATED AND CHANGED WHEREAS FALSEHOOD (THE SO CALLED TAQIYA) IS THE SOLE ANS DISTINCT DOCTRINE OF THE SHIA. THEY CONSIDER IT AS THE NOBLEST OF ALL WORKS AND GREATEST OF ALL MEANS OF SEEKING NEARNESS TO ALLAH.

          THE SHIA ALSO BELIEVE THAT ALI AND HIS CHILDREN ARE NOLBER ANS MORE VIRTUOUS THAN THE PROPHET (S.A.W)! REITERATING THIS BELIEF, A SHIA ALIM HAS SAID RECENTLY TO T.V TAHT RASUL-ALLAH (SAW) HAD BEEN BLESSED BY ALMIGHTY ALLAH WITH EVERY THING EXPECT MARTYRDOM. AS IT WAS ORDAINED TO COMPLETE THIS DIVINE BLESSING, IT WAS ACCOMPLISHED WITH THE MARTYRDOM OF HADRAT HUSSAIN.

          UNFORTUNATELY MOST OF THE SIMPLE-MINDED SHIAS HAVE BEEN BEGUILED BU THEIR LIVE FOR THE AHL-AL-BAIT (PEOPLE OF THE HOUSE OF THE PROPHET — SAW) AND THEIR HOLINESS. ALAS! WOULD THEY EVER CARE TO KNOW THE TRUTH AND TO HAVE INSIGHT INTO THE AFFARIS! BUT MOST OF THEM DO NOT KNOW THE REALITY OF THEIR FAITH AS IT IS PURPOSELY KEPT HIDDEN FROM THEM BY THEIR HIGH PRIESTS FOR ULTERIOR MOTIVES. THE BOOK IN URDU3 ——————– ————————————————— BY MAULANA ABUL HASAN ALI NADWI WOULD BE ABLE TO ILLUMINATING, INSTRUCTIVE AND HELPFUL FOR THEM IN THE DISCOVERY OF TRUTH.

          THERE IS A DIRE NEED TO ENLIGHTEN AND WIN OVER MISQUIDED SHIAS TO THE PATH OF AHLE-SUNNAH BUT THE TRAGEDY IS THAT SOME OF THE ISLAMIC GROUPS IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES HAVE BEEN ENAMOURED BY THE OUTWARD GLAMOUR OF THE SO-CALLED “ISLAMIC REVOLUTION” IN IRAN. THEY ARE MISLEADING SIMPLE-MINDED MUSLIMS IN THEIR AREA WITHOUT STUDYING DISPASSIONATELY THAT THE MUCH-PUBLICISED “ISLAMIC REVLOUTION” OF IRAN IS FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES A SHIITE REVOLUTION AND IN FACT A TROJAN HORSE FOR PLATING THE SEEDS OF SHIA BELIEFS AND DOCTRINES IN MUSLIMS LANDS. LET THEM READ THE BOOK “IRANIAN REVOLUTION” AVAILABLE FROM SIDDIQUI TRUST, G.P.O. BOX 609 KARACHI (PAKISTAN) WHICH WILL UNVEIL THE CURTAINS FOR THEM. ON THE CULTURAL AND POLITICAL FRONT LET THEM SEE AND REALISE THAT SUNNI MUSLIMS IN TEHRAN ALONE NUMBERING HALF A ILLION HAVE SO FAR NOT BEEN PERMITTED TO BUIL A MASJID OF THEIR OWN DESPITE THEIR LONG STANDING DEMAND AND APPEAL TO THE AUTHORITIES INCLUDING KHOMENI. ON THE OTHER HAND, COUNTLESS SUNNI MUSLIMS HAVE BEEN KILLED SINCE THE REVOLUTION IN FEB. 1979.*

          THE SUNNI MUSLIMS IN IRAN WHO ARE OVER 1/3 OF THE TOTAL POPULATION DO NOT HAVE THE FREEDOM TO BUILD A MASJID IN THE CAPITAL OR CALL ADHAN ALTHOUGH OTHER MINOURITIES LIKE HINDUS, SIKHS, CHRISTIANS AND JEWS HAVE THEIR PLACES OF WORSHIP IN TEHRAN. SUCH ID THE “ISLAMIC REVOLUTION” OF IRAN WHERE SUNNI MUSLIMS LIKE KURDS, TURKS, BALUCHIS ETC. WHO ARE IN MAJORITY IN ALL THE BORDER AREAS ARE PERSECUTED AND DENIED OF THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS!

          NOTES:

          1. MUTA DR. MUHAMMAD MUSLEHUDDIN, ISLAMIC PUBLICATIONS LTS; 13-E, SHAH ALAM MARKET, LAHORE (PP. 67-69).

          2. THIS SHIITTEE TRADITION ALONE IS ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IN THE VIEW OF SHIAS MUTA IS THE HIGHEST AND MOST EXCELLENT WORSHIP. NOWHERE IN THEIR BOOKS IT IS MENTIONED THAT BY ACTS OF DEVOTION LIKE SALAT, ZAKAT OR HAJ ONE CAN ATTAIN THE RANK OF IMAM OR MESSENGER (NABI) EXCEPT BY DOING MUTA. THIS ABSURDITY ALONE IS THE SPECIALITY OF SHIA RELIGION.

          3 THIS BOOK IN URDU LANGUAGE IS AVAILABLE FROM MAKTA NADWATUL ULAMA, P.O BOX 93, LUCKNOW, INIDA.

          4 TILL THE FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF IRANIAN REVOLUTION (I.E. FEB. 1980) TWENTY THOUSAND SUNNI MUSLIMS ALONE HAD BEEN KILLED IN ISPHAN AND KURDISTAN WHERE 95% OF THE POPULATION IS AHLE-SUNNAH. FOR DETAILS PLEASE SEE “KHOMENISM AND ISLAM” BY ABU RAHAN FAROOQI, (PP. 92–102) PUBLISHED BY ISHAAT AL-MAARIF, RAILWAY ROAD, FAISALABAD, (PAKISTAN).

          • ALL MOHAMMEDANS ARE SEXUAL PERVERTS!

            SLAVE GIRLS & THEIR RIGHTS IN ISLAM

            The following was posted by a young Australian convert to Islam in a club called “Islamic Sisterhood.” This is a club that is mostly made up of Western female converts to Islam. A couple of days ago this woman came upon the passage in the Quran which makes it legal for Muslim males to keep female prisoners of war as slaves (“whom thy right hand possess”) and rape them. She was “confused” about it. Today she posted some scholarly Islamic comments on this peculiar provision of the sharia. I reproduce this commentary below.
            This scholarly commentary makes plain what is going on. Those women whom “thy right hand possess” are slaves who have no human rights and must submit sexually to anyone who “owns” them. Such actions toward female prisoners of war is, today, considered a war crime under the Geneva Convention.
            There are nearly 700 hundred women in Islamic Sisterhood. Most of them are products of the Western democracies whom, you would think, would react with horror at this type of behavior being considered “God’s Law”.
            Yet, NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THESE LOVING “SISTERS” MADE ANY COMMENT AT ALL ON THIS POST:
            About Slave girls and what the right hand possesses:
            “It is not lawful for you (to marry other) women after this, nor to change them for other wives even though their beauty attracts you, except those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses. And Allah is Ever a Watcher over all things.” Surah 33:52
            Tafsir of this ayat take from Mawdudi’s The Meaning of the Qur’an:
            Book 10, page 137, footnote no. 94
            “This verse explains why one is permitted to have conjugal relations with one’s slave-girls besides the wedded wives, and there is no restriction on their number. The same thing has also been stated in Surah An-Nisa:3; Al-Mu’minun:6; and Al-Ma’arij:30. In all these verses the slave-girls have been mentioned as a separate class from the wedded wives, and conjugal relations with them have been permitted. Moreover, verse 3 of Surah An-Nisa lays down the number of the wives as four, but neither has Allah fixed the number of the slave-girls in that verse nor made any allusion to their number in the other relevant verses. Here, of course, the Holy Prophet is being addressed and told: ‘It is no more lawful for you to take other women in marriage, or divorce any of the present wives and take another wife in her stead; slave-girls, however, are lawful.’ This shows no restriction has been imposed in respect of slave-girls.
            This however does not mean that the Divine Law has provided the rich an opportunity to purchase as many slave-girls as they like for their carnal indulgence. This is in fact how the self-seeking people have exploited and abused the Law. The Law had been made for the convenience of the people; it had not been made to be abused……..The Shari’ah made all these laws keeping in view human conditions and requirements for the convenience of men.”
            And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts from illegal sexual acts). Except with their wives and the (women slaves and captives) whom their right hand possess,–for (then) they are not to be blamed.” Surah 70:29-30
            Tafsir on this ayat refers you to Tafsir of Surah 23:6

            “Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess,–for then, they are free from blame;” Surah 23:6
            “(1) Two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one’s possession, i.e. slave-girls. Thus the verse clearly lays down the law that one is allowed to have sexual relations with one’s slave-girl as with one’s wife, the basis being possession and not marriage. If marriage had been the condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately…..” Meaning of the Qur’an Book 8, page 10, footnote 7.

            “Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you…..” Surah 4:24

            Tafsir of Mawdudi, Book2, page 112, footnote 44:
            “That is, ‘Those women, who became prisoners of war, while their husbands are left behind in the War Zone, are not unlawful because their marriage ties have been broken by the fact that they have come into the Islamic Zone. It is lawful to marry such women and make them wives, and it is also lawful for those, in whose possession they are, to have sexual relations with them.
            There was, however, a difference of opinion as to whether such a woman is lawful if her husband has also been captured along with her. Imam Abu Hanifah and those of his way of thinking are of the opinion that the marriage tie of such a pair should remain intact but Imam Malik and Shafi’ee are of the opinion that it should be broken.’
            As there exist many misunderstandings in the minds of people concerning the slave-girls taken as prisoners of war, the following should be carefully studied:
            (1) It is not lawful for a soldier to have conjugal relations with a prisoner of war as soon as she falls into his hands. The Islamic Law requires that all such women should be handed over to the government, which has the right to set them free or to exchange them with the Muslim prisoners in the hands of the enemy or distribute them among the soldiers. It is lawful for a soldier to cohabit only with that woman who has been formally given to him by the Islamic government.
            (2) Even then, he shall have to wait for one monthly course before he can cohabit with her in order to ensure whether she is pregnant or not; otherwise it shall be unlawful to cohabit with her before delivery.
            (3) It does not matter whether the female prisoner of war belongs to the People of the Book or not. Whatever her religion, she becomes lawful for the man to whom she has been given.
            (4) None but the one whom the slave-girl is given has the right to “touch her”. The offspring of such a woman from his seed shall be his lawful children and shall have the same legal rights as are given by the Divine Law to children from one’s loins. After the birth of a child she cannot be sold as a slave-girl and shall automatically become free after her master’s death.
            (5) If the master marries his slave-girl with another man, he forfeits his conjugal rights over her, but retains other rights such as service from her.
            (6) The maximum limit of four has not been prescribed for slave-girls as in the case of wives for the simple reason that the number of female prisoners of war is unpredictable. The lack of limit does by no means provide a license for the well-to-do people to buy any number of slave-girls for licentious purposes.
            (7) The proprietary rights over a slave male or female as given to a person by the government are transferable like all other legal proprietary rights.
            (8) The handing over of the proprietary rights over a slave-girl to a man formally by the government makes her as much lawful for him as the giving of a hand of a free woman to a man by her parents or guardian by means of nikah (marriage ceremony). Therefore there is no reason why a man who does not hold marriage in detestation should hold sexual intercourse with a slave-girl in detestation.
            (9) When once the government hands over the female prisoner of war to someone, it has no right whatever to take her back from him, just as the parent or guardian has no right after the woman is handed over to a man through nikah.
            (10) It should also be noted well that if a military commander temporarily distributes female prisoners of war among the soldiers for sexual purposes, or permits them to have sexual relations for the time being, such an act shall be unlawful and there is absolutely no difference between this and fornication, and fornication is a crime according to the Islamic code.”

        • THE BACKBONE OF PROSTITUTION IN PAKISTAN

          If you ever go to red light areas of Sindh, Punjab and especially that of Lahore just take a look at the rooftops of the evil palaces you will see Alams of SHIAs. This is a very minute factor usually ignored to be noticed but it reveals the hidden stories which tells us the dangers of SHIA culture and its real ugly face.

          Prostitution is such areas as Heera Mandi cannot be stopped or prevented not due to the bribery of our police dept. but in fact it is due to Mutta. Thanks to SHIAism in which Mutta is valid and permitted. In the times of Bhutto’s rule this industry grew because of free sex policies of Bhutto but in the Govt. of Zia-ul-Haq the govt. machinery commenced the crack down on red light areas against such evils of society but due to the fact that the majority of the sex workers were from SHIA community the govt. was unable to cut the roots of this evil. Initially those sex workers transferred them selves to the population centers and Mohallas but they later started claiming that they are doing mutta which is not only permitted but also a very gaining and favorable act in SHIA religion hence the crack down against sex industry faced a failure because by the law govt. was unable to crack down against sex workers because according to their religion they were not committing a crime but were considered to a be very religious personalities. As this crack down was commenced there was a severe resistance from SHIA renowned figures and crypto racy. The weakness of crack down due to SHIA community resistance and spread of sex workers in social centers resulted in the downfall of moral values of the society. The influence and backing of these sex workers from the SHIA politicians was always powerful which gave them the chance of survival. During the times of Bhutto there used to be a Jaloos of Tazia by the SHIA prostitutes in Sukkur which used to be the one of the largest jaloos in Pakistan.

          This sex industry of Pakistan also contributed a lot to the film industry of Pakistan. It can easily be observed that 98% of actresses of our industry are from sex industry and also SHIAs by religion. Any of the civilized person who observes can see that how our moral and cultural values are being spoiled by the film industry. The honorable status of woman given by Islam to women is badly betrayed by our film industry. Our film industry is showing women as a mean of entertainment. Is woman just for entertainment? What status women would like to choose for them selves, just a mean of entertainment for men. If Hollywood & Bollywood is showing such stuff then it is their culture but our culture is much different from what is being shown by our film industry. After the Zia-ul-Haq govt. this industry again got a boost and SHIAs dragged the innocent and needy Sunnis by financial & moral blackmailing in the sex industry.

          Even today if govt. decides to crack down on sex workers it would face clear failure because the sex workers will say that they are doing mutta & it is their right according to their religion. So it is clear that the backbone of sex industry are SHIAs. This act is not only committed in Pakistan but also in the areas or countries where SHIA population is in present. Dr. Hairi in her research paper of “The Law of Desire” says that SHIA religion has given the prostitution a legal cover. She gave an inside view of the betrayal of women under the mutta, which is only one minute evil aspect of SHIAism.

          Haq Char Yaar Media Services

          • Lucky, stop spreading lies here. Those prostitution centers have not a single link with our temporary marriage. That’s an old accusation made on us. You’re living in Middel Ages.

          • EDUCATING MOHAMMEDAN SAVAGES:

            THE MOHAMMEDAN LIE:

            ISLAM IS THE RELIGION OF PEACE

            We must analyze Islam critically and unflinchingly, since many Muslims in their websites argue that Islam is the religion of peace and that it has perfected Christianity (Sura 5:3). Critically analyzing Islam and its claim of perfecting Christianity is not the same as condemning Islam.
            We have all heard of rumors that some Muslims, perhaps in the obscure corners of the Islamic world, practice extreme punishments, such as chopping off the hands of thieves. Is this rumor or fact? Where does this gruesome practice come from, originally?
            Sad to report, the policy of chopping off the hands of thieves comes directly from the Quran itself, in Sura 5:38. As we will see, Muhammad incorporated a seventh-century Arab pagan custom into his Quran, claiming that God revealed to him that Islam, the perfected religion for all humankind, should uphold this atrocity.
            To show how “divinely endorsed” mutilation is prescribed in the Quran, a specific method of exegesis (detailed analysis of a text) is followed.
            First, various translations of Sura 5:38 are cited to set the table for further analysis and to prevent confusion over the wording circulating around the worldwide web.
            Second, the historical and literary contexts are explained so that the most accurate interpretation can be obtained. This step is also intended to prevent the reflexive, standard “out of context” defense from Muslim apologists.
            Third, we explore how the earliest Muslims interpreted the verse in the hadith (Muhammad’s words and deeds outside of the Quran), which sheds light on Muhammad’s practice.
            Fourth, influential modern Muslim translators and commentators speak for their own sacred book, but then we critique their views.
            Fifth, we can get some insight into early Islam by contrasting the Quran with the Bible. Finally, we apply our findings to today’s world.
            As to the fifth step in our method, it may be stated here that for Bible-educated Christians, this barbarity is completely unacceptable, especially when it comes six hundred years after Jesus Christ showed us the better way and demonstrated the love of God.
            Translations of Sura 5:38
            MAS Abdel Haleem (The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004) translates Sura 5:38 as follows:
            5:38 Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—a deterrent from God: God is almighty and wise. 39 But if anyone repents after his wrongdoing and makes amends, God will accept his repentance: God is most forgiving and merciful. (Haleem)
            The standard verb “to cut” (q-T-c) is used, and the object of the cutting is “their hands.” For this crime, early Islam punishes both male and female thieves. Evidently, the purpose is to purify the Islamic community and to deter future thieves. Verse 39 is included because it seems that Muhammad is providing a way of repentance before the penalty is exacted. But traditional Islam says the opposite. The bloody penalty is carried out, which helps the thief to purify his or her heart, and then he or she is in better state to repent (more on this below, “Early interpretations”).
            Some Muslim apologists, especially on the worldwide web, seek to squirm out of the plain and harsh meaning of Sura 5:38 with dubious translations. To counter this confusion and subterfuge, the following long list of Muslim translations anchor the key words and prevent endless disputes.
            “As for the thief, whether man or woman, cut off the hand of either of them” (Muhammad Akbar, translator of Maududi); “And (as for) the male thief and the female thief, cut off their hands” (team of translators of Ibn Kathir); “Cut off the hand of the man who steals and of the woman who steals” (Zafrulla Khan); “As for the thief, both male and female, cut off both their hands” (Pickthall); “And as for the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands” (Sher Ali); “And (as for) the male thief and the female thief, cut off (from the wrist joint) their (right) hands” (Hilali and Khan); “As for the thieves, whether male or female, cut off their hands” (Fakhry); “As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hand” (Yusuf Ali); “And as for the man addicted to theft and the woman addicted to theft, cut off their hands” (Nooruddin); “And as for the man and the woman addicted to theft, cut off their hands” (Maulana Muhammad Ali, his word “addicted” is analyzed below); “And (as for) the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands” (Shakir); “And as for the male and female thief, cut off their hands” (Mufti Afzal Hoosen Elias, translator of Mufti Muhammad Aashiq’s commentary); “As for the man or woman who is guilty of stealing, cut off their hands” (Salahi and Shamis, translators of Sayyid Qutb’s commentary); “Now as for the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off the hand of either of them” (Asad).
            Thus, the vast majority of Muslims, to their credit, translate the verse straightforwardly. With these basic facts in mind, we now explore the historical and literary contexts.
            PUT YOUR HAND IN THE HAND OF THE MAN WHO CHOPPED IT OFF!
            Put your hand in the hand of the man who killed the kuffers
            Put your hand in the hand of the man who dammed with glee
            Take a look at yourself and you can look at Mohammed differently
            By puttin’ your hand in the hand of the man from Mecca, near the Red Sea .

            Every time I look into the “Holy Book” I wanna tremble
            When I read about the part where Mohammed cleared the “temple”
            For the buyers and the sellers were no different fellers than what Mo confessed to be
            And it causes me shame to know he was not the guy that he should have been.

            Put your hand in the hand of the man who killed the kuffers
            Put your hand in the hand of the man who dammed with glee
            Take a look at yourself and you can look at Mohammed differently
            By puttin’ your hand in the hand of the man from Mecca, near the Red Sea.

            Mama taught me how to pray before I reached the age of seven
            And when I’m down on my knees I thank God I’m not Muslim
            Daddy lived his life for eight kids and Mama loved him to
            But he showed me enough of Love to get me through.

            Put your hand in the hand of the man who killed the kuffers
            Put your hand in the hand of the man who dammed with glee
            Take a look at yourself and you can look at the Mohammed differently
            By puttin’ your hand in the hand of the man from Mecca, near the Red Sea.

            Put your hand in the hand of the man who killed the kuffers
            Put your hand in the hand of the man who dammed with glee
            Take a look at yourself and you can look at Mohammed differently
            By puttin’ your hand in the hand of the man from Mecca, near the Red Sea.

            Historical and literary contexts of Sura 5:38
            To judge from the content of Sura 5, most scholars agree that its historical context takes place after the Treaty of Hudaybiyah in 628 and even as late as Muhammad’s farewell pilgrimage to Mecca in 632, the year Muhammad dies of a fever. (Some regard Sura 5:3, which states that Muhammad has finally perfected religion, as the last verse in the entire Quran.) The details of these four years are largely irrelevant to this article because all we need to know is the following:
            [N]ow Islam had become an invulnerable power …. [I]t had become quite obvious to the Arabs that no power could suppress the Islamic Movement. Now Islam was not merely a creed which ruled over the minds and hearts of the people, but had also become a State which dominated every aspect of the life of the people who lived within its boundaries. (S. Abdul A’la Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 141)
            At this time in Islam’s history, depending on the exact date of Sura 5 between 628 and 632, Muhammad had or was about to subjugate his enemies, such as the Jews and the Meccans. So he must lay down more rules for his community, wherever it may be found in the Arabian Peninsula, in order to control his community. Ibn Kathir, a highly respected Medieval commentator, points out (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, ed. Shafi Mubarakpuri, vol. 3, p. 172, Riyadh and New York: Darussalam) that cutting the hands off of thieves was carried out in pagan Arabia before Muhammad conquered the land, and that Islam upheld this punishment under Allah’s guidance—but only when Islam was strong militarily. Comparing this revelation with the pagan custom and the Bible (see below, “Biblical view”) questions whether the true God would send Gabriel down with such a gruesome law.
            Be that as it may, Maududi’s quotation, above, accurately describes early Islam. The more power it accumulates, the more control it exerts over “every aspect” people’s lives. As we just read in 5:38, one of the laws that Allah and Muhammad lays down, though absorbed from pagan Arabia, commands the severing of hands of male or female thieves for certain thefts; it now becomes a timeless law that reflects Allah’s will and blessing for all humankind; hence Islam’s goal is to impose its own version of holiness on society.
            In four ways, the literary context shows a confused, selective use of the Torah, which breeds severity and harshness.
            First, Muhammad implies that he is better than Moses, so his religion fulfills Judaism (and Christianity) (vv. 15-19).
            Second, Muhammad seems to elaborate on his replacement of Moses in his story about the early Hebrews in the desert just before they conquer Canaan (vv. 20-26). Moses and “two men” (presumably Joshua and Caleb) were fearless, but the people were fearful, so Allah cursed them. In the same way, Muhammad is fearless in his battles and leadership, and his Muslims must not disobey him.
            Third, however, he confuses the story of Cain and Abel, saying that God at that time instituted the death penalty. But Genesis 4 says explicitly that Cain was spared the death penalty and that he was to wander around as a fugitive, untouched. (The death penalty was actually instituted in the Flood narrative in Gen. 9:6) (vv. 27-34). In these same verses, he flies over, as it were, a long sweep of Old Testament history and says that even after all the prophets had come and gone, the people still committed “excesses” (v. 32); hence, he is allowed to curtail any excesses in his community as well, so he commands the cutting off of hands or feet for corruption (v. 33) and hands for theft (v. 38).
            As usual with Muhammad, he takes things too far, because the Bible never orders cutting off the hands of thieves (see below, “Biblical view”).
            Fourth and finally, out of the blue, so it seems, Muhammad condemns the non-Muslims to an eternally painful torment, even if they were to gather up all the riches of the world and offer them to Allah in order to ransom or redeem themselves out of hell. Ransoming prisoners of war and victims of kidnapping was a hard custom in seventh-century Arabia, and Muhammad uses the practice to illustrate the inescapability of non-Muslims from Allah and his eternal flames—not an odd metaphor since Allah enriched Muhammad and his Muslims with their prisoners of war in real life (vv. 35-37).
            Thus, reading the literary context of Sura 5:38—in fact, reading the entire Quran where it references the Old and New Testaments and the torment of hell—one gets the impression that Muhammad twists and distorts the earlier sacred Books both out of ignorance and out of an agenda to make himself powerful and controlling; he also frequently promises the disobedient hell fire, in order to scare them into obeying him. Hence, the entire literary context of Sura 5:38 reveals a practical harshness and severity and personal power that coincides with his military power.
            To sum up the historical and literary contexts, then, Muhammad is powerful militarily, so he is powerful socially, and this double-edged power shows up in his harsh and severe practical commands. Holy men stalked the Arab Peninsula in the seventh century, but none backed up their prestige with an army in the same convincing way that Muhammad did. Hence, he decides how people should be punished because his military prowess supports his harsh and severe practices.
            Early interpretations of Sura 5:38
            How did the earliest Muslims apply Muhammad’s severe command? Literally and gruesomely, as they followed his example.
            The hadith corpus, so Muslims believe, did not come down from Gabriel, so it occupies a secondary, yet sacred place in Islam. It reveals and interprets Muhammad’s policy outside of the Quran. The following passages (representing others) indicate that the penalty cannot be explained away as anything but literal and physical. This is a quick compilation taken from the two most reliable collectors and compilers of the Hadith, Bukhari (AD 810-870) and Muslim (c. AD 817-875):
            Aisha [favorite wife of Muhammad] reported Allah’s Messenger as saying, “The hand of a thief should be cut off but for a quarter of a dinar and what is above that.” (Bukhari 8:6789; Muslim 3:4175-79)
            A dinar, a word taken from the Roman denarius, was not a small sum, but not exorbitant, either. It could buy a shield, and many of the very poor in Muhammad’s army could not afford one.
            Abu Huraira reported the Prophet as saying, “God curses the thief who steals an egg, for which his hand is to be cut off, or steals a rope for which he has his hand cut off!” (Bukhari 8:6799; Muslim 3:4185)
            Some commentators say that an “egg” was really a helmet, and the rope was a ship’s rope, which was sizable and costly. However, the translation above is usually accepted, and this means that the penalty could be imposed for trivial thefts. But even if the more expensive items are in view here, are they still worth a human hand?
            Next, it should be recalled that 5:39 says that Allah accepts the repentance of a thief, and it seems to imply that the repentance before the penalty blocks the mutilation that a court imposes. However, the earliest Muslim sources interpret the verse more accurately.
            Ibn Kathir, referencing two hadiths from Bukhari and Muslim, summarizes an application of the punishment in early Islam (vol. 3, pp.175-76). A woman committed theft during Muhammad’s conquest of Mecca, and she was brought to him. A devout Muslim interceded for her, wanting her repentance to be accepted before the penalty. But Muhammad’s face turned red with anger and he rebuked the intercessor, saying that even if his own daughter were to steal, he would have her hand cut off. Allah’s command must be carried out no matter what. So Muhammad had the woman’s hand cut off, and Aisha reported that her repentance afterwards was sincere.
            Narrated Aisha: The prophet cut off the hand of a lady … and she repented, and her repentance was sincere. (Bukhari 8:6800; Muslim 3:4187 and 4188)
            Finally, we end our analysis of the early Muslim interpreters with further support of the policy of accepting repentance only after the penalty, not before, with this short passage:
            Abu Abudallah said: “If a thief repents after his hand has been cut off, then his witness will be accepted” …. (Bukhari 8:6801)
            To sum up this section, the earliest Muslims had no doubt that Muhammad intended this command to be taken literally and that he actually carried it out—before their very eyes. And repentance was more effective after the thief’s hand was cut off and cauterized, not before.
            Modern interpretations of Sura 5:38
            We now turn to modern interpretations. Millions of copies of the Quran in multiple Muslim translations are circulating around the English-speaking world, and some provide brief commentaries. We analyze five of the most popular translations that provide brief comments on Sura 5:38, which represent other views circulating around the worldwide web.
            Incredibly, modern interpreters do not deny that Allah sent down this verse. It is beyond them to challenge such a (gruesomely) divine policy, so most of them acknowledge the plain reading of Sura 5:38 and conclude that the will of Allah should be imposed. However, a few interpreters strain credulity and distort the straightforward language in the verse, attempting to explain it away.
            First, Maulana Muhammad Ali belongs to the Ahmadiyyah sect, which is considered a heresy by most Muslims, but his translation and commentary (The Holy Qur’an, 1917, 2002) are discussed here because his version of the Quran is so widespread and because he puts forth a strong effort to defend the brutality of Sura 5:38. He translates the key clause: “And (as for) the man and woman addicted to theft,” which implies habitual, unreformed thieves—possibly kleptomaniacs. In reply, though, the hadith states that one offense is enough, which he rightly acknowledges in his commentary. And he fails to ask that even if addiction to theft or kleptomania were the correct translation, does this amount to losing a hand? Next, he says in his lengthy commentary on 5:38 that the punishment may be taken metaphorically. Thus, in Arabic someone may “cut off a tongue,” which means “cut off” a speaker in the middle of his speech, to silence him. This interpretation as it applies to cutting the hand, says Maulana Ali, amounts to putting the thief in prison. Again, though, the earliest traditions do not support this soft and dubious interpretation. They correctly take “cut off” as literal. Finally, as to 5:39, he points out that repentance can be accepted before the punishment, so a judge should not be hasty. To find mercy anywhere near a cruel passage like 5:38 is a nice effort on his part, but this only reveals a tacit admission that the Quran is severe and unmerciful; also, the hadith does not support this soft interpretation. A thief first gets punished, and only then his repentance is accepted by Allah.
            Thus, Maulana Ali struggles with the verse, shifting his ground. But at least he is straightforward enough to admit that the literal meaning of “cut off” is found in the verse. He wrongly maintains, however, that this extreme punishment expresses a divine command—unless he means a pagan divine command.
            Second, Yusuf Ali, in his translation (The Holy Qur’an, 1934, 11th ed., 2004) says that this verse was sent down so that later law could be built on it, possibly implying that literal mutilation should be seen as archaic and irrelevant, though he is unclear on this matter. If this is so, then this is a step in the right direction. However, as we will explain more fully in our analysis of Muhammad Asad, below, this explanation does not help ultimately, for he implies that God sent down the bloody punishment as the root that feeds other laws. Apparently, he does not see that the root is rotten. Yusuf Ali then deflects the obvious extremity of Sura 5:38 that is found in a legal context by quoting Matthew 18:8, which tells people to cut off their hands if they cause people to sin. As usual with Muslim apologists, who too often completely miss the point of Biblical passages, Yusuf Ali also misses the point of Matthew 18:8, which will be explained in the next section.
            Third, Muhammad Asad in his translation and commentary (The Message of the Qur’an, 1980, 2003) first provides the social and economic background to early Islam and hence to Sura 5:38, and then he interprets the verse. Clauses, words and phrases as the following are laced throughout, describing an Islamic socialist paradise: “every citizen is entitled to a share in the community’s economic resources”; “social security”; “Islam … demands a society that provides … for his bodily and intellectual needs as well”; “available resources are so unevenly distributed” that group A lives in wealth, while group B lives in poverty—this is unjust. But then Asad shifts his ground to discuss the bare minimum material goods for everyone in an Islamic society. Why does he write a long commentary on such matters? He must elevate an ordinary theft to “an attack against the system as a whole, and must be punished as such” (emphasis original). Hence, a thief deserves to get his hand cut off. However, Asad warns us that in a society which is not discharging its duties to care for its citizens (e.g. not providing social security), theft should not be punished with cutting off a hand. Asad then references a time of famine under Caliph Umar’s reign, who suspended the practice. So the application of the punishment shifts around according to such circumstances as the economy.
            Asad is partially right about this; it would indeed be wrong to cut off the hands of thieves if they stole bread in a famine, just to eat. However, we must step back and look at the big picture he lays out for us. First, he says that this punishment should not be applied in less-than-ideal societies, but this implies that it should be applied in fully functioning socialist paradises. So should it be applied in Canada, Sweden, or France? Has Saudi Arabia reached the status of a socialist utopia yet? Who decides? Second, he does not deny that Allah sent down the verse; rather, he must rationalize this atrocity that an ordinary and reasonable thinker rightly sees as extreme and unacceptable in any society, at any time, and in any circumstance six hundred years after Jesus Christ came to show us a better way—whether in poverty or in the infinite riches of socialism. Thus, he only hurts his case, not helps it—which also applies to Yusuf Ali, analyzed above. Cutting off the hands of thieves is wrong at all times and in all places after Jesus Christ. The root law in Sura 5:38 is rotten, ipso facto.
            Fourth, we can easily answer Rashad Khalifa’s comment in his translation (Quran: the Final Testament, 3rd ed., 2001). He claims that the punishment of cutting off hands for theft was decreed by “false Muslims” and is a “satanic practice without Quranic basis.” To support this, he mysteriously plays with the reference numbers of Suras 5:38 and 12:31. This last verse, appearing in the context of Muhammad inaccurately retelling the story of Joseph the Biblical patriarch, also has the word “cut” in it, when women at a banquet cut their hands upon seeing the beauty of Joseph. Khalifa adds up the references, like so: 5:38 = 5+38 = 43; 12:31 = 12+31 = 43. He concludes that “to cut” in 5:38 cannot mean to cut off completely because in 12:31 women merely cut their hands, not cut them off; “nobody can,” he says. (He goes further with this silliness, but enough.) So this sincere but outlandish belief leads him to mistranslate “cut off their hands” as “mark their hands.” According to him, then, marking hands entails a cut that leaves only a mark.
            Unfortunately for Khalifa, Ockham’s (non-literal) razor, which says that the plainest and clearest explanation is the best one, applies to such convoluted reasoning. The plain meaning of Sura 5:38 says in a legal context that hands must be cut off for theft, so the vast majority of Muslim translations cited above is right. So the “satanic practice” does indeed have “a Quranic basis.” Moreover, the prophet Muhammad practiced this atrocity; his first generation of followers practiced it. Are these the “false Muslims” Khalifa was referring to? Finally, he makes two true statements in his short comment on 5:38. The first is that the punishment is “satanic.” Objectively speaking, the practice is satanic—it emerges from pagan Arab custom, after all. So to his credit, his intuition is sound and right. The second is that false Muslims promote the practice, but it may be more accurate to say that only false prophets would promote it, so his intuition about falsehood is headed in the right direction, though he holds back from stating the obvious truth.
            Fifth and finally, Orooj Ahmed Ali (Al-Qur’an, Princeton UP, 1984, 4th ed. 2001) commits the same interpretive error that Maulana Ali does. He looks up the words “to cut” in an Arabic dictionary and cites meanings that have nothing to do with 5:38, like being “cut off the road” or hands being “wounded” (Sura 12:31). So he mistranslates the clause as follows: “As for the thief, whether man or woman, cut his hand,” which does not say, “cut off their hand.”
            In reply to this mistranslation and the irrelevant meanings that Ahmed Ali cites, Sura 5:38 plainly and clearly in a legal context speaks of cutting off hands for stealing; it does not speak of traveling down a busy road only to be cut off, or of being swept away by beauty only to accidentally cut one’s hand. To repeat, 5:38 is found in a legal context, and the context of any passage determines the meaning of words. Thus, Ockham’s (non-literal) razor applies here as well, and 5:38 clearly says that hands should be cut off, not only cut.
            Moreover, Ahmed Ali would like to believe that Sura 5:39 allows a thief to repent before the penalty, and this is a commendable attempt to find kindness in an excessive passage, but the hadith do not allow it. The punishment helps the thief to repent, according to the earliest traditions concerning punishments. Clearly, an apologist’s agenda, not objective scholarship, guides Ahmed Ali in his mistranslation and commentary.
            To sum up these five commentators, they cannot bring themselves to admit that this Quranic command is wrong and misguided. In a way, this is understandable because they have the prior belief in Muhammad’s complete reliability and in the Quran’s inerrancy. However, Muslims must have the courage to challenge this belief, especially when they compare it to reality, which says that mutilating a thief is far too extreme and hence wrong. Muhammad simply absorbed a seventh-century Arab pagan custom.
            Biblical view
            Contrasting the Quran with the Bible can bring out the differences in the two books, as we examine the Biblical view in this order: the Torah, Jesus, and Paul.
            The Torah, traditionally ascribed to Moses, does not order the cutting off of the hands of thieves; rather, it commands that they should make restitution and work off the debt. These two passages represent others:
            Exodus 22:3 A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.
            Leviticus 6:4 … He must return what he has stolen …. He must make restitution in full and add a fifth of the value of it ….
            Restitution is appropriate and just—we all sense it (just as we all sense that Muhammad’s punishment is cruel and unjust). However, at first glance, Exodus 22:3 appears troubling because if a thief does not have the goods to restore what he has stolen, then he is to be sold. But at bottom the verse is not as troubling as it seems for two reasons, once we understand this law in its historical and literary context.
            First, Exodus 21:2—part of the literary context—says that a sold Hebrew must work for only six years, and on the seventh year he is to go free without having to pay for his freedom. So the thief must become a laborer or indentured servant and work off his debt, but only for a prescribed time.
            Second, the law in Exodus 22:3 should be taken in its historical context. The code or law of Hammurabi, named after the emperor of Babylon (ruled 1792-1750 BC), commands that a thief unable to make restitution should be put to death. Hammurabi’s Laws (trans. MEJ Richardson, Sheffield Academic P, 2000) says:
            If a man has stolen an ox, or a sheep … he shall repay ten times its value if it belongs to a workman. If that thief does not have enough to pay, he shall be killed. (p. 45)
            A thief “shall be killed” if he does not have the means to restore the value of the stolen property. Per contra, when the Law of Moses says that a thief must work off his debt and not be put to death if he is unable to make restitution, this law is much more generous than and improves on the law of Hammurabi. Working off the debt is better than rotting in prison or chopping of the thief’s hand so that he cannot work.
            To cite another example, the code of Hammurabi commands that a barber have his hand cut off if he shaves away the mark of a slave.
            If a barber has shaved away the mark of a slave which is not his own without the slave owner’s knowing, they shall cut off the hand of that barber. (p. 107)
            Evidently, without this mark on the slave, no one would know that he was a slave, so class hierarchy would be confused, or he could possibly escape, or he could be stolen by another slave-owner; the last two possibilities entails a big financial loss for the original owner, an indirect theft, of sorts. But regardless of the monetary amount or the rationale behind this law, the Mosaic Law rejects this barbarity circulating around the greater Middle East in the second millennium BC. The Torah does not command a hand to be cut off for trivial reasons, even for the loss of an expensive slave, initiated by a barber.
            In contrast, Muhammad did not reject this barbarity circulating around the pagan Arabian Peninsula in the seventh century. He incorporated the punishment into his Quran because he erroneously believed that the true God told him to uphold the pagan custom. However, objectively speaking, it is far better that a thief in Old Testament culture or in any culture should keep his hand and work off his debt; he should not get his hand cut off so that he cannot work to make restitution—and he certainly should not get killed. The Law of Moses makes much more sense than the law of Muhammad, not to mention the law of Hammurabi.
            Therefore, for Christians, one of the difficulties with Muhammad and his old-new law—the Quran—is that they appear six hundred years after Jesus Christ, who ushered in a new way of salvation that improves on the Old Testament much more clearly and decisively than Muhammad and the Quran allegedly improve on it. In light of the historical fact that Muhammad arrives late on the world stage and that he recycles the Law of Moses and a pagan custom, in no way do he and his Quran improve on or perfect Jesus and the New Testament—that is an empirical fact. Again, the true God says nothing about cutting off the hands of thieves. For this and many other reasons, the New Testament is the final, once-and-for-all Covenant and Testament for all humankind.
            This brings us to Jesus and Paul and the New Covenant, which makes the debate between the Torah, the Quran, and the law of Hammurabi obsolete. Christians live under the law of love and the law of the Spirit.
            Jesus did not order this bloody punishment for thieves. Since the Torah itself does not prescribe it, why would Jesus be crueler than it, which was sacred to him and which orders restitution?
            It should be recalled that Yusuf Ali (second commentator, above) quotes Matthew 18:8, which says that if people’s hands cause them to sin, the people should cut them off. He intends to deflect the harsh punishment in the Quran—found in a legal context—by showing that Jesus endorses this practice. Why therefore would Christians complain? Yusuf Ali is completely wrong.
            During His earthly ministry, as Jesus went about preaching and teaching, He frequently used parables – cf. Matthew 13:1-3, 13:34-35
            a. It has been estimated that at least one-third of Jesus’ recorded teaching is found in the parables.
            b. Certainly many of the most often remembered sayings of Jesus are His parables
            Jesus said that if one’s right eye or hand causes one to sin, one should gouge it out or cut it off and throw it away (Matthew. 18:8; cf. 5:30 and Mark 9:42-47), but Jesus realized that neither the hand nor the eye really and literally causes one to sin.
            “But the things that come out of the mouth [words] come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean’” (Matthew. 15:18). Thus, Jesus knew “the heart” causes one to sin, but did he mean the physical heart? Should one cut that out too? He later clarifies for his disciples in private what he means:
            “For out of the heart come evil thoughts” and then he lists some sins like adultery and theft (Matthew. 15:19). Therefore, in Matthew 15 Jesus takes the common meaning of “the heart” as the deepest part of the human, not the physical heart. Likewise, in Matthew 18:8, he merely says that one should treat sin so drastically that one should cut it—the sin—out of one’s life no matter how deeply one may cherish it, or no matter how deeply it has sunk its claws into one’s soul. To use modern examples, an alcoholic should cut off all access to alcohol, and a sex addict must cut off all exposure to the sex industry. This is what Jesus means by cutting off and gouging out—dealing with sin drastically and decisively.
            Finally, Paul the Apostle offers good advice. Even though Muslims recognize only the four Gospels, Christians regard the entire New Testament as inspired. In the last half of the Epistle to the Ephesians, Paul outlines the ethical conduct for his fellow Christians. Paul recommends a remedy for thieves:
            4:28 He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.
            The verb tense in “[h]e who has been stealing” signifies that the thief has been stealing habitually. Evidently, Paul believes that a thief like that can undergo reform if he works with his own hands, so that he can share his product with the needy. The irony is rich: his hands should be employed, not cut off. The New Testament does not shift from severity to mercy in a flash. Thus, in this matter (and in many others), Paul excels Muhammad.
            To sum up, the Torah improved on the code of Hammurabi. The Law of Moses never endorsed the brutality of chopping off the hands of thieves. On the other hand, Muhammad did not improve on the seventh-century Arab custom, but inserted it into his Quran. More important than all of these, never did Jesus or the New Testament authors support this butchery in a penal code or as an “exemplary” punishment for society in order to impose external righteousness. He and they sought to convert people by preaching alone, not to execute them or to maim and mutilate his church and the larger society.
            Application to us today
            The hard facts presented in this article are relevant to us today.
            First, sharia, which is Islamic law rooted in the Quran and the hadith, is not a benefit to society. It contains too many harsh rules and punishments. One of the most tragic and under-reported occurrences in the West in recent years is the existence of a sharia court in Canada. Muslims are pushing for a sharia divorce court in Australia, as well. Having a court of arbitration if it is based on western law and legal theory is legitimate, but sharia does not hold to this standard. So Canada should promptly shut down any sharia court, and Australia should never allow one. Most importantly, such a court should never be permitted in the US. Sharia ultimately degrades society and diminishes freedom.
            Second, traditional Muslims believe that Allah sent down the Quran through Gabriel. Would they break the letter of Gabriel’s command if they were to ignore the literal meaning of cutting off hands in Sura 5:38? The five Muslim commentators critiqued in this article seem to zigzag between an intuition that cutting off hands is excessive and a deep belief that the Quran is completely inerrant and universally relevant. It seems that the cognitive dissonance or the mental shock may be too great for them to reform, if they have to deny the plain meaning of Sura 5:38 and that Allah sent it down.
            Third, the violent radicals who are now slithering around the world would gladly impose their Quran’s severe law on non-Muslim nations, if the radicals could ever conquer them by force or by gradual means. If the terrorists do not hesitate to cut off heads, why would they not cut off hands to make society pure and holy before Allah, who gave this rule in the first place? The war on terror must continue, in order to preserve western civilization and an assortment of nonwestern nations struggling with Islam.
            Fourth, we on the outside of Islam are allowed to ask whether the Quran’s punishments are better than Paul’s recommendation that thieves work with their hands or better than Jesus’ unwillingness to impose mutilation. Does the Quran guide society better than the New Testament does? Would the true God send Gabriel down to Muhammad with such a message that is found in pagan Arabia six hundred years after Jesus? Should this message supercede the New Testament?
            Given the hard evidence, Bible-educated Christians realize that the true God would not send down such a violent verse in the new era of salvation which Jesus ushered in. They realize that the Quran is empirically and factually worse than the New Testament.
            Jesus Christ came with good news and the love of God. Muhammad came with harsh rules and mutilation. Christianity advances society forward. Absorbing a seventh-century Arab pagan custom of butchery, Islam drags society backwards.
            Excursus
            Occasionally, Muslims attempt to defend or justify the Quranic punishment of cutting off the hands of thieves by referring to Deuteronomy 25:11-12 which states that if a woman sees her husband and another man fighting, and she grabs the other man’s genitals to defend her husband, then her hand is to be cut off. This objection distracts from the topic of this article, but it deserves a brief answer here. There are three replies to this objection, based on the historical and literary contexts of the two verses in the Law of Moses.
            First, we consider the historical context. In the second millennium before Jesus Christ, in Middle Eastern cultures generally and Hebrew culture specifically, a man who has lost his reproductive ability is nearly dead, for his name dies out when he actually dies. So already we are far beyond the punishment for the theft of physical items in the Quran.
            Second, this brings us to the literary context of Deuteronomy 25:11-12. Verses 5-10 discuss the marriage rules for a man who dies childless. His brother is to marry his wife, so the deceased man’s name may be carried on. (This is called a levirate marriage, from the Latin word levir, meaning “brother-in-law.”) So the literary context of vv. 11-12 clarifies the two target verses. The woman robs a man of his future children or posterity, committing murder, as it were. Again, we are far beyond the punishment for the theft of physical items in the Quran.
            Third, the Mishnah (Baba Kamma 8:1, Danby’s translation), an early source of rabbinic discussions of the Torah, recognizes this connection between a woman permanently wounding a man’s reproductive ability and the punishment. However, the Mishnah passage adds that the punishment was never applied, but the woman was fined a monetary amount instead. But even if the punishment were applied, it is very different from Muhammad’s cruel law. He orders the chopping off of the hand of a female or male thief for stealing an “egg” or a rope—even if the more expensive items are in view (an egg is really a helmet and a rope is a ship’s rope), then Muhammad’s rule is quite out of proportion to the crime. A woman who robs a man of his name living on in his children in ancient Israel commits a far worse crime than a woman who steals an egg or a helmet in seventh-century Arabia, after Jesus Christ came.
            To repeat, unlike Muhammad’s law, the Law of Moses for thieves is fair and appropriate, for it orders that the thief should work off his debt with both hands intact.
            Jesus saves. Muhammad mutilated.

          • LuckyRaj, The verse 4:24 was wrongly interpreted purposefully, in the 1515 or thereby, by the Sufis called Safavids, who brought about the School of Twelvers, thus establishing Shi’ism, as relating to temporary marriage which tries to legalise temporary marriage equating to legalising prostitution. But the verse following that replaces the same verse!!!

            The former verse : 4:24 “…And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done)..”

            4:25 (SI) : And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable.

            Refer also to : 24:32 (SI) : And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male slaves and female slaves. If they should be poor, Allah will enrich them from His bounty, and Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.

            This former verse 4:24 which the Safavids “fixed” to legalise prostitution, misunderstood and misinterpreted due to it ambiguity was replaced by verse just following that and reinforced by 24:32!!!!

            Verse 4:25 and 24:32 say : Marry free believing women, marry the Maid, Slave or the War Captives…but MARRY.

            Remember, divorce rules are very strict and the pronouncement of it is in 3 stages, by either party, is a waiting period for ‘reconsideration’ time. The Quran is very clear on that! Refer : 24:33

            And do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek [thereby] the temporary interests of worldly life.

            The Quran does NOT advocate for Temporary marriage nor for indirect Prostitution…and NO bloody ball should interpret it otherwise!!!!

            Regards

            Plum

          • LuckyRaj, Very interesting!!!!

            Quran 2:75 (SI) : Do you covet, that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were knowing?

            2:77 Yusuf Ali: Know they not that Allah knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? (Allah knows that the scribes distorted the verses of the Bible!!!)

            Now refer to Jeremiah : 8:8

            “‘How can you say, “We are wise,
            for we have the law of the Lord,”
            when actually the lying pen of the scribes
            has handled it falsely?
            (God in Bible says that the scribes distorted the verses of the Bible!)

            Then isn’t the verse 2:77 true when it says : “Know they not that Allah knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal?” ???

            Kindly revert

            Plum

          • WHY MUSLIMS LOVE ANIMALS & HATE FAIRIES!

            Zoophilia

            Abu Dawud 38:4448 prescribes the death sentence for an unmarried man who commits sodomy but there is no prescribed punishment for having sex with an animal:
            Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: There is no prescribed punishment for one who has sexual intercourse with an animal.
            Abu Dawud 38:4450

            Sahih Muslim Book 019, Hadith Number 4366.
            Sahih Muslim Book 19. Jihad and Expedition

            Chapter : Evacuation of the Jews from the Hijiz.
            It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattib that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.

            THE CAVE-BOY

            Mutt lived in a cave for 9 months. He was happy & content in there, but one day, out of the blue, he was evicted. He kicked up and screamed as they pulled him out of the cave & then someone slapped him on the arse for good measure. “F–king c–t, you”, Mutt muttered to himself, “I’ll get back in some day”! Mutt was distraught & angry as he made his way out into the world. Mutt felt rejected & wandered about looking for a new cave.
            He tried cow caves, camel’s caves, sheep caves, goat caves & even chicken caves. He was desperate, and sad to say, he became the butt of a joke & the people called him “cave-boy”!

            An old crone who knew about Mutt & his need for a cave called him one day & told him that she had an old cave & would he like to see it. Mutt was delighted & said YES! “Come home with me & I will show you my lovely cave & you can be my toyboy, oh I mean, my cave-boy”!

            Mutt thought all his birthdays had come together! For the first time in years he felt happy & contented. When they reached the old crone’s house, she told Mutt to have a shower & meet her in her bedroom & then she would show Mutt her cave. Mutt showered quickly & ran to the bedroom, where the old crone was standing there stark naked. She pointed to a BIG, BLACK, BUSHY CAVE between her thighs that scared the shit outta Mutt.
            “Come on “Ali Baba”& enter the lovely cave” she croaked. Mutt was nervous, so he peeked inside with his Willie! He could see nothing; it was pitch black & then the walls of the cave closed in on him & nearly squeezed the life outta his Willie. Then outta the blue a snake-like creature attacked his Willie & thumped the life outta him. It seemed to be saying “Excite-Excite-Excite”!

            Mutt didn’t know how long the horrible experience lasted, but he swore an Oath, “I will NEVER, EVER again enter a BIG, BLACK, BUSHY CAVE, so help me Allah”!
            And that dear friends is the reason Mohammedan women today have to shave their pubic hair & are circumcised. Mohammedan men prefer small, hairless, circumcised vaginas & so did Mohammed after his terrible experience.

            Sahih Bukhari:Volume 7, Book 62, Number 173:
            Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
            The Prophet said, “If you enter (your town) at night (after coming from a journey), do not enter upon your family till the woman whose husband was absent (from the house) shaves her pubic hair and the woman with unkempt hair, combs her hair”
            Allah’s Apostle further said, “(O Jabir!) Seek to have offspring, seek to have offspring!”

            Five practices of fitra
            1. Circumcision;
            2. Shaving pubic region;
            3. Clipping nails
            4. Cutting mustache short;
            5. Removal of arm pit hair…7.72.777

            Mohammed ordered that ALL Mohammedan women:
            (1) Always keep their vagina shaved!
            (2) Be circumcised
            (3) And that the Mohammedan men have the hoody of their Willies removed, so they can see where they’re going & see if there is a snake-like creature in the cave.
            Islamic Law on Female Circumcision
            The following quotation is taken from Reliance of the Traveller, Revised edition, amana publications, Beltsville, 1997.

            DON’T CIRCUMCISE IT – CUT IT OFF
            The Arabic actually says:
            Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female)
            by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male,
            but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris
            (this is called HufaaD).
            The Arabic word bazr does not mean “prepuce of the clitoris”, it means the clitoris itself (cf. the entry in the Arabic-English Dictionary).
            The deceptive translation by Nuh Hah Mim Keller, made for Western consumption, obscures the Shafi’i law, given by ‘Umdat al-Salik, that circumcision of girls by excision of the clitoris is mandatory. This particular form of female circumcision is widely practiced in Egypt, where the Shafi’i school of Sunni law is followed.

            Aisha — 9 year-old bride
            Sahih Bukhari

            Narrated Aisha:

            The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.

            Sahih Bukhari
            Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234

            Narrated ‘Aisha:

            I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for ‘Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.)

            (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151
            Sahih Muslim

            Chapter 10:
            IT IS PERMISSIBLE FOR THE FATHER TO GIVE THE HAND OF HIS DAUGHTER IN MARRIAGE EVEN WHEN SHE IS NOT FULLY GROWN UP.

            ‘A’isha: Allah’s Messenger married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah’s Messenger (, may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him.

            Sahih Muslim

            Book 8, Number 3309.

            ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

            Book 8, Number 3310

            ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

            Book 8, Number 3311

            Sunan Dawud

            Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:
            The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr’s version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.

            Book 41, Number 4915:

            Narrated AbuUsamah:
            The tradition mentioned above (No. 4915) has also been transmitted by AbuUsamah in a similar manner through a different chain of narrators. This version has: “With good fortune. ” She (Umm Ruman) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and redressed me. No one came to me suddenly except the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) in the forenoon. So they entrusted me to him.

            Book 41, Number 4916:
            Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:
            When we came to Medina, the women came to me when I was playing on the swing, and my hair were up to my ears. They brought me, prepared me, and decorated me. Then they brought me to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and he took up cohabitation with me, when I was nine.
            Book 41, Number 4917

            As an older man of fifty-plus years, Muhammad married a mere child of six years old and co-habited with her when she was 9 years old. As quoted above, the most trusted collections of hadiths establish the authenticity of this oral tradition. But still, Western Muslims are embarrassed by these hadiths. Sometimes they use a Weak hadith defense to excuse Muhammad’s child marriage. At other times, they use an Arabic culture defense by claiming that no one has the right to judge Oriental culture by Occidental norms. Now, this is a strange defense to make, since Muslims frequently criticized Western culture as being morally decadent. If another culture cannot be morally evaluated, then other cultures must not be judged as morally decadent. But, this conclusion is not acceptable to Muslims, since they argue that an Islamic culture is the better culture. So, we must conclude that cultures may be evaluated morally, or that, someone is hypocritically judging others while not permitting themselves to be judged by the same standard.

            However, if hypocrisy is not a good alternative, then it is concluded that cultures may be evaluated morally. In fact, it is permissible, and even desirable, to have moral discussions on cultural issues. Moral discussions on cultural issues occur in many different cultures. So, the problem of Muhammad marrying a child cannot be defended on Eastern cultural grounds. The issue remains as to whether or not Muhammad acted rightly in marrying a six year old. Certainly, it is wrong according to the natural order of Allah’s creation. In fact, many nations of the world list such behavior as a crime against nature. Thus, it is concluded that Muhammad committed a grave moral sin against the moral order of Allah’s creation. And, his behavior is no example for others to follow. It is tragic to read news reports of old men marrying children in some Islamic countries, because they believe they are following the example of Muhammad who married a child. Muhammad had an interest in fondling young girls, so he criticized the lawful marriage union of two grown adults.

            Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
            When I got married, Allah’s Apostle said to me, “What type of lady have you married?” I replied, “I have married a matron’ He said, “Why, don’t you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?” Jabir also said: Allah’s Apostle said, “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?’

            Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 17.

            In the classic history of “The Life of Muhammad” (Sirat Rasul Allah) by Ibn Ishaq, there is an account in which Muhammad expressed a marital interest in a crawling baby. This event seems to have occurred around the time of the Battle of of Badr which would have made Muhammad approximately 55 years old. He had married Ayesha two years earlier, when he was 53 years of age.

            (Suhayli, ii. 79: In the riwaya of Yunus I
            I. recorded that the apostle saw her (Ummu’lFadl) when she was a baby crawling before him and said, ‘If she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her.’ But he died before she grew up and Sufyan b. al-Aswad b. ‘Abdu’l-Asad al-Makhzumi married her and she bore him Rizq and Lubab…1

            So, Muhammad’s interest in young girls extended beyond Ai’sha (‘Ayesha). Why would anyone think that Muhammad’s sexual interest in babies be “the timeless expression of the Will of Allah?” How does such a prurient desire support Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet of Allah? Such a desire by an old man is contrary to nature, and it is a perversion against the moral order of Allah’s universe.

            ISLAMIC SANCTION OF BESTIALITY.

            That is if it can fit in or be grabbed, the Muslim can have sex with it, if not expressly forbidden. Restrictions apply:
            A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels & so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.
            Khomeini’s book, “Tahrirolvasyleh” fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990

            THE SWEET TASTE OF HALAL MEAT

            If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrement become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed and as quickly as possible and burned.
            The Little Green Book, Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, Political, Philosophical, Social and Religious, ISBN number 0-553-14032-9, page 47
            I presume Khomeini thought the word “marry” was just a euphemism.

            THE MAN WHO LOVES GOATS

            BBC News, Feb. 24,2006
            A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his “wife”, after he was caught having sex with the animal.
            The goat’s owner, Mr Alifi, said he surprised the man with his goat and took him to a council of elders.
            They ordered the man, Mr Tombe, to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) to Mr Alifi.
            “We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together,” Mr Alifi said.
            More Facts @ wikiislam.ne t & prophetofdoom.ne t

            MOHAMMEDAN HYPOCRISY

            3 FORMS OF JIHAD:
            STEALTH JIHAD=QURAN 3:28. PRETEND FRIENDSHIP.
            DEFENSIVE JIHAD=QURAN 2:217; QURAN 22:39; CLAIM VICTIM STATUS
            OFFENSIVE JIHAD=QURAN 9:29-73-123 BUKHARI 6924 MUSLIM 30 MUSLIM 4366
            ATTACK & KILL NON MOHAMMEDANS, BECAUSE THEY ARE NON MOHAMMEDANS.
            MOHAMMEDANS ARE HYPOCRITES!
            MOHAMMEDANISM MUST BE OUTLAWED!
            ALL MOHAMMEDANS TO HAVE RIGHT OF RETURN TO ARABIA!
            ALL MOHAMMEDAN MOSQUES TO BE CLOSED.
            THERE IS NO LOVE IN MOHAMMEDANISM!
            JUST PURE HATE!
            WHEN A CHRISTIAN MURDERS AN INNOCENT PERSON, HE ACTS CONTRARY TO WHAT JESUS TAUGHT!
            WHEN A MOHAMMEDAN KILLS AN INNOCENT PERSON, HE ACTS JUST LIKE MOHAMMED ACTED!

            DON’T THEY UNDERSTAND?
            MOHAMMEDANISM, an Arabian Psychosis!
            MOHAMMED, a Psychopathic Sociopath!
            MECCA, a vast open Asylum!
            MOHAMMEDANS, Mental Retards!
            QURAN, a Retard’s Diary!
            ALLAH IS DEAD! HE IS BURIED WITH MOHAMMED
            MOHAMMEDANISM IS THE CULT OF THE DEAD!

            WHAT WERE MOHAMMED’S LAST WORDS?

            MOHAMMED’S LAST WORDS:
            “IT MUST HAVE BEEN SOMETHING I ATE”!
            “I F–KING HATE JEWISH COOKING”!
            YO,HO, HO, HO

            Islam Exists Only Because People Fear Being Murdered if They Leave

            HEAD OF MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, YUSUF AL-QARADAWI STATED:

            If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn’t exist today. Islam would have ended since the death of the prophet, peace be upon him. Opposing apostasy is what kept Islam to this day.

            Surah 5:33 says: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle is that he should be murdered or crucified.”According to Abi Kulaba’s narration this verse means the apostates.

            And many hadiths, not only one or two, but many, narrated by a number of Muhammad’s companions, state that any apostate should be killed.

            Ibn ‘Abbas’s hadith: “Kill whomever changes his faith [from Islam].”

            Ibn Masud’s hadith: “Kill these three criminals: the adulterer, the murderer, and the apostate that leaves [our] community.”

            This in addition to a big number of other narrations, by other companions, about apostasy.

            The most striking thing about his statement, however, was that it was not an apology; it was a logical, proud justification for preserving the death penalty as a punishment for apostasy. Al-Qaradawi sounded matter-of-fact, indicating no moral conflict, nor even hesitation, about this policy in Islam. On the contrary, he asserted the legitimacy of Islamic laws in relying on vigilante street justice through fear, intimidation, torture & murder against any person who might dare to leave Islam.

            Pakistan Ulema Permits Suicide Attacks
            Sat, 02 March 2013
            by Abdul Haq Omari

            The Chairman of the Pakistan Ulema Council on Friday said that suicide attacks in Afghanistan are permitted as long as US forces are present in the country.

            “Palestine is occupied by Israel, Kashmir by India, & Afghanistan by the US. So if the Muslims don’t have the atomic bomb, they should sacrifice their lives for God,” head of Pakistan Ulema Council Alama Tahir Ashrafi said in an interview with TOLOnews.
            “We are asking America to leave the region in order for the region to become peaceful,” he added.
            Afghanistan’s Ulema Council has rejected his comments, stressing that suicide attacks are unlawful under Islam.
            “Pakistan does have the atomic bomb, so why are they carrying out suicide attacks? Suicide bombing is unlawful in Islam religion,” member of Afghanistan’s Ulema council Abdul Qayoub Hafiz told TOLOnews.

            Afghan political analyst Mir Ahmad Joyenda said Ashrafi’s comments show that Pakistan’s Ulema supports the insurgency.
            “I think they don’t know enough about Islam or they are supporting Pakistan’s intelligence office jobs. There is nothing about the suicide attacks in Islam. They [the Ulema] are permitting suicide bombings and showing their support,” he said.

            It comes after Pakistan’s council of religious clerics recently announced that they will not attend a planned joint Ulema summit between the two countries to build support against suicide bombings and facilitate the Afghan peace process.
            In an official letter addressed to the Afghan clerics, Mufti Abu Huraira Mohiuddin, head of the Pakistani clerics, said they are not willing to criticise any of the Afghan Taliban’s past activities, nor would they issue a fatwa against them.

            The Pakistani council had previously said that they wanted the Taliban to also attend the conference.
            The religious conference between Kabul and Islamabad was agreed on about three months ago in a meeting between Afghan and Pakistani government officials.

            CANCER OF ISLAM:

            CANCER SPREADS LIKE LIGHTENING THROUGH A SICK BODY!
            MOHAMMEDANS ARE MODERN DAY BARBARIANS!
            IT’S ALL HAPPENED BEFORE!
            EUROPE & AMERICA BECAME DECADENT & ARE IMPLODING, BECAUSE THEY HAVE REFUSED TO OBEY THE WORD OF JESUS MESSIAH.
            THE ANTICHRIST HAS COME IN THE PLACE OF CHRIST.
            DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
            THERE IS A SPIRITUAL LAW IN MATTHEW CH 12:43-45 THAT IS NOW BEING APPLIED.

            Mohammedanism is PURE evil. It is anti-Christ.
            But it couldn’t have spread in the West, unless the West was SICK — SPIRITUALLY SICK.
            Look at Matthew 12:43-45. This is a Spiritual Law & it has come into affect in the West.
            When a society becomes decadent, it IMPLODES!
            It has happened before.
            All the Empires of the World became decadent & IMPLODED.
            When you look at the Spiritual characters of Western leaders, you know we are in deep trouble – MORALLY BANKRUPT.

            ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION

            Islam is not a religion. It is a political system that was invented by one man – Mohammed. Why did he claim it was a religion? Upon a careful reading of the Koran and Hadith, it becomes clear that Mohammed was like any other charlatan claiming an exclusive relationship with God. He was neither the first charlatan to claim this, nor the last. In the past few decades itself, we saw many “mini-Mohammeds”.
            David Koresh in Texas (USA) made similar claims. He too was having sexual relationships with many women. David Koresh lived in an age where he could not get away with it. The FBI attacked his compound where he was practicing Mohammed-like things, and he was killed. In Mohammed’s time, a few desperadoes could impose this new “religion” called Islam upon many unsuspecting Arabs, at the threat of death. That is the ONLY difference between these two charlatans.

            Would God – who has the entire universe to worry about – be bothered to send verse after verse covering for Mohammed’s sexual misdeeds? Would God send verses allowing Mohammed to bed any “believing woman who offers herself”, and at the same time threaten Mohammed’s wives with dire consequences if they indulged in adultery? What kind of “God” is this Allah, anyway? The answer is – Allah is not God. Allah is just the ventriloquist dummy of a charlatan named Mohammed.
            You see, this charlatan never had any spiritual experiences. He made up this whole act. It is absolutely clear that this is the case when you read the Kuran and Hadith. The happy ending for Mohammed was that he had a LOT of sex (66 women in total, not bad for a bedouin camel driver), and a LOT of power. His henchmen murdered men and women who so much as uttered any doubt about Mohammed’s “prophethood.”

            MOHAMMED WAS A PEDOPHILE.
            ABU BAKR WAS A PIMP.
            HE PIMPED HIS DAUGHTER TO THE PEDOPHILE.
            UMAR WAS A WOMEN BEATING THUG, WHO ALSO ASSAULTED FATIMA, KILLING HER UNBORN CHILD.
            AND FROM THESE FLOWED MOHAMMEDAN PERVERSION FOR 1400 YEARS.

            THE MAGIC FLY.
            Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said “If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease.”
            Sahih Bukhari 4:54:537
            Look at “Musnad Ahmad,” Hadith number: 16245, Volume Title:
            “The Sayings of the Syrians,” Chapter Title: “Hadith of Mu?awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan,”
            Narrated by Hisham Ibn Kasim, narrated by Huraiz, narrated by Abdul Rahman Ibn Abu Awf Al Jarashy,
            and narrated by Muawiya who said,
            “I saw the prophet (pbuh) sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali ,
            may the prayers of Allah be upon him . For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire).

            BOYS LIKE PEARLS
            Surah 76:19 And round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness: if thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered pearls.
            Surah 52:24: “And there shall wait on them the men young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls.

            LITTLE SERVANT BOYS
            Quran 052.024
            Round about them will serve, (devoted) to them, youths (handsome) as Pearls well-guarded.

            LITTLE SERVANT BOYS FOR PROSTITUTION
            Quran 056.017-019
            Round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness). (17) With goblets, (shining) beakers, and cups (filled) out of clear-flowing fountains: (18) No after-ache will they receive therefrom, nor will they suffer bleeding (la yanzefouna):(19)

            Links to prove what Muslims put into practice
            http://en.sevenload.com/photos/Qtzcn5d-M…

            http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/may/14us…

            This is from a book called “Kanz Al Umal” (The Treasure of the Workers), in the chapter of “The issues of women”, authored by Ali Ibn Husam Aldin, commonly known as Al-Mutaki Al-Hindi. He based his book on the hadiths and sayings listed in “Al-Jami Al-Saghir,” written by Jalal ul-Din Al-Suyuti.
            Narrated by Ibn Abbas:
            “I (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that she may wear the clothes of heaven, and I SLEPT with her in her coffin (grave) that I may lessen the pressure of the grave. She was the best of Allah’s creatures to me after Abu Talib”… The prophet was referring to Fatima, the mother of Ali.

            Musnad of Ibn Hanbal: “Muhammad would not sleep until he sucked the tongue of his daughter Fatima and nuzzled his face in her bosom.”

            Allah Wants to See You…Naked
            Narrated Ibn Abbas: The Prophet said, “You will meet Allah barefooted, naked, walking on feet, and uncircumcised.” Sahih Bukhari 8:76:531

            Islamic Heaven: “Appetizing Vaginas” and “Ever-Erect” Penises

            Abu Umama narrated: “The Messenger of God said, ‘Everyone that God admits into paradise will be married to 72 wives; two of them are houris and seventy of his inheritance of the [female] dwellers of hell. All of them will have libidinous sex organs and he will have an ever-erect penis.’ ”
            Sunan Ibn Maja, Zuhd (Book of Abstinence) 39

            Aminah and her vagina light

            According to accepted sirat, Mohammed’s mother had light coming out of her vagina when giving birth to Mohamed.
            When the prophet came out of his mothers vagina, the light covered the east and the west which reached all the way to Sham (Syria today) sirat ibn hisham 166

            Oh yes!

            There is NO Satan! This idea comes from Zoroastrianism.

            I will show you the ESSENCE OF EVIL: Jeremiah 17:9-10 THE HEART IS DECEITFUL, ABOVE ALL THINGS & PURE EVIL! James 1:12-18 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. THERE IS NO SATAN! ITS JUST OUR SELFISH DESIRES THAT CAUSE US TO SIN
            RELIGION OF PEACE

            The spread of Islam outside of the Arabian Peninsula can be linked to the extensive trade routes connecting the Middle East to China. Arab Muslim traders exported their religion along with their goods. The conquest of non-Muslim lands by Muslim empires during the Golden Age of Islam was because they were technologically and militarily superior to many other Asian civilizations. The conquered was given a chance to either convert to Islam, become a slave or to be killed.
            Ishaq:587 reads
            “Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace.”
            There is not a SINGLE idea in the Quran that has not been plagiarized, pirated, plundered or perverted from the belief of others! The only new items in the Quran are the enormous amounts of hate, war, torture & Hellish verses that permeate through its pages.
            Mohammedanism is the Cult of Mohammed & both Quran & Hadithss instruct his followers to slavishly emulate his deeds, thoughts, manner & ideas. This is Cultism.

            Most Muslims are not terrorists. But if they were truly good people, then they wouldn’t be Muslims. The seeds of terrorism are planted deep within the theology & psyche of Islam. This theology, when free to grow & blossom, will show itself in the actions of Muslims who are faithful to the example of Muhammad. And as was demonstrated in “Not Without My Daughter”, who knows when a peaceful, liberal or moderate Muslim will turn to fundamentalism and embrace the violence of Islam?

          • 1. Deuteronomy 31:25-29 : Moses predicts the Jews will corrupt the Bible!

            2. Jeremiah 8:8 Jews are NOT wise and their ‘scribes’ DISTORTED the Bible!!

            3. 1 Samuel 15 : 2-4 : slay both man and woman, INFANT AND SUCKILING, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
            4. Numbers 31:17 Kill all, save for yourself virgin girls.
            (why kill innocent babies, women, children…hmmm… like the way Bush did???)
            —————————————————————–

            Luke 22:36 Jesus said to them,

            “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

            (Jesus tells his disciples to buy SWORDS!!!…why?…to cut apples???.. Very peaceful this Prince of peace!!!)
            ——————————————————————
            Revelation 2 : 22-23 : 22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.

            (Jesus WILL KILL!!!–he will STRIKE her children DEAD!!!)
            —————————————————————–
            Read this proof of virginity!! Deuteronomy 22:13-18 Father giving proof of virginity!!

            ____________________________________

            Psalms 137 : 9 9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

            ________________________________________

            Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

            Quran 5:32 Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.
            _______________________________________

            Matthew 10 : 34 “Do NOT suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did NOT COME to BRING PEACE, but A SWORD!!!!!

            (Is that a statement from a Terrorist or a prince of peace??????)

            Regards

            Plum

          • LuckyRaj, haha…that is funny the cave boy story!! Very hilarious and fanny stick!!

            Wow, the fanny stick. Where did you get that from, fanny adorer??

            plum

          • EDUCATING MOHAMMEDANS:

            MENTAL ILLNESS AND HALLUCINATORY EXPERIENCE WAS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING ALLAH, QURAN AND ISLAM

            [The sources reveal that Muhammad was a thief, a liar, an assassin, a pedophile, a shameless womanizer, a promiscuous husband, a rapist, a mass murderer, a desert pirate, a warmonger but a spineless coward, and a calculating and ruthless tyrant. It’s certainly not the character profile of the founder of a true religion.]

            THE PERFECT MUSLIM

            And surely thou hast sublime morals
            (Surat Al-Qalam 68:4).

            Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar
            (Surat Al-Ahzab 33:21).

            Muslims believe that the Koran is the eternal word/laws of god to acts as a divine guidance for mankind about how to live a moral, righteous life. Prophet Muhammad, the highest perfection of human life and the prototype of the most wonderful human conduct in Islamic belief, emulated the guidance of Allah perfectly.

            Islam stands or falls on the credibility of Muhammad on which we do not have single evidence but unfathomable doubts because his conduct was immoral. But he successfully twisted the sense of morality of his followers, distorted their sense of ‘Humanness’ and linked “doing good” and “a service to God” to all ungodly things. Briefly, he had given a sacred aura to crime and terrorism.

            Was Muhammad truthful and sincere when he claimed to the title of prophet? Or, was he a vulgar imposter, who posed as a prophet with his eyes upon a throne from the beginning? Where we can find some concrete evidence that Qur’anic revelations were not Muhammad’s delusions or his conscious fabrications? Where is the ‘divine’ verification for ‘divine’ revelations?

            If we put the Qur’an in chronological order and correlate it with the context of Muhammad’s life as was reported in Sira, Sunnah and Hadith we find Allah mirrored Muhammad’s character. Allah was too dumb to be the Creator God and too immoral to be Divine.

            I want to test Muhammad’s claim to the title of messenger of God because I cannot blindly accept his claim. Muhammad may be a true prophet or he may be an imposter. We must test him to see which he is. Anyone who claims to be a prophet must be prepared to have his prophecy tested.

            Towards the beginning of last century, there was a rising interest among the Western scholars to investigate the origins of Islam and its founder, i.e., Prophet Muhammad. For this they had used highest standard of historical scholarship available at that time. Their aim was to collect authentic information about Muhammad and the rise of early Islam by carefully separating the facts from fictions. In some ways the research on Muhammad was inspired by a similar type of investigation of Christianity made famous by Albert Schweitzer’s famous work ‘The Quest of the Historical Jesus’.

            As Spencer (2006, p.19) commented,

            “Most Western non-Muslims know virtually nothing about the Prophet of Islam”,

            but the question is, how many practicing Muslims know their Prophet well? Has an honest biography of Muhammad yet been written? There are enough pious and totally un-objective traditions of Muhammad preserved by the Muslim religious community, but what is lacking in these sources is honesty. Even today, numerous works in Arabic and other Muslim majority languages appear each year which try to portray Muhammad as a holy man, a seer, visionary and miracle worker. But in reality these are far from the truth. The reason no Muslim can write an honest biography of their Prophet, is that the biography of Muhammad is a subject that is taboo and as Rodinson (1981, p.24) commented,

            “… is permitted only when written as apologetic and edifying literature”.

            Hence, objective historical research on Muhammad has long been severely handicapped both by the resistance of the Muslim societies to Western analysis of their sacred traditions and by the apologetic approaches of many Western scholars, who had compromised their investigation for fear of offending Muslim sensibilities.
            But in recent time, thanks to both Western and ex-Muslim writers; a lot of scholarly work had been produced ‘which could offend certain readers’. With the help of these scholars, we can trace Muhammad’s fluctuation of thought year by year, his actions, his achievements, family life, abnormal sexual behavior, strength and weaknesses.

            If we compare our findings with that of modern development of psychological studies, the image of Muhammad that surfaces is far away from any holy religious figure but that of a person who was suffering from severe mental illness. And if we probe further deep into the mystery of Allah and carefully make a distinction between superstition and science, we have hardly any doubt left that it was his mental illness and hallucinatory experience which was solely responsible for creating Allah, Qur’an and Islam altogether.

            The Flashback of a False Prophet

            Muhammad’s Prophetic Claim

            Islam is a religion which had developed from the Prophetic claim, preaching and life of Muhammad early in the seventh century of the Christian era. During that time, the old Arabian paganism was in a process of slow disintegration and Judaism and Christianity were widely gaining popularity. Several self-proclaimed Prophets had arisen with various degrees of success in convincing people. In the beginning Muhammad was such a self-proclaimed Prophet, but with time he successfully synchronized certain basic elements of Judaism and Christianity with the pagan practices and added some nationalistic Arab pride and it has become a world religion today.

            From the authentic Islamic sources it appears that Muhammad thought of himself as in the succession of the Old Testament men of faith who was sent on a Divine mission by the one and only God, Allah. Like Noah, Jonah, and Elijah he preached a religious message in the name of this Supreme Lord, like Moses he also issued legislation in His name, and like Abraham he was not only a maintainer of righteousness but the founder of a community of the righteous. But unlike Christianity or Buddhism, his religious endeavor was an utter failure unless he was able to draw the sword and use it successfully to impose his religion on others.
            Muhammad declared himself a Prophet of Allah when he was about forty years old. Bukhari’s Hadith (1:3) recorded Muhammad’s first experience with the angel Gabriel.

            But this Divine confrontation was less heavenly and more demonic.

            Once in the cave of Hira, the angel Gabriel came to him with some written messages from Allah and asked him to read. Muhammad replied, “I do not know how to read”. Three times Muhammad expressed his inability to read but Gabriel forcefully gave him the message of Allah, the famous first revelations of Qur’an.

            “Read (Prophet Muhammad) in the Name of your Lord who created the human from a (blood) clot. Read! Your Lord is the Most Generous, who taught by the pen, taught the human, what he did not know” (Quran: 96.1-5).

            So the truth of Allah’s message started descending upon Muhammad in a violent way. This is entirely sufficient for a rational person to seriously doubt about the truthfulness of Qur’anic message and Muhammad’s reliability as a Prophet. Surprisingly, Muhammad himself was the first person to doubt the genuineness of the revelation. He hurried back to his wife bewildered and terrorized,

            “What’s wrong with me?” he asks his wife.

            Just as kids hide under the covers when they are afraid of monsters in the dark, so Muhammad had his wife wrap him in a blanket; he did not want to see the cause of terror again. He thought he was either going mad or possessed by an evil spirit.

            SUCIDE ATTEMPTS

            After this first revelation Allah was silent for about three years. Muhammad was so sad that he preferred to commit suicide. Several times he intended to throw himself from the top of high mountains but every time he went up the top of mountain in order to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear before him and said, “O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah’s Apostle in truth.” This is how Muhammad began to believe that he was a messenger of God.

            A messenger of such a demonic God who’s influence caused him to attempt suicide.

            Few people are aware of Muhammad’s suicide attempts. Few Islamic leaders will teach this to their fellow Muslims because it casts a stain upon Muhammad; it brings doubt to his trustworthiness and the credibility of his assumed “Prophetic” experience. Some Muslims deny the sources of the story. Other more intelligent Muslims, knowledgeable about the sources, respond by saying that the shock of the experience caused him to attempt suicide.

            According to Qur’an, Muhammad was the seal of the Prophets.
            “Muhammad is not the father of any of your men. He is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets. Allah has knowledge of all things” (Quran: 33.40).

            SEAL OF THE PROPHETS WAS A MOLE

            According to Islamic sources (Bukhari: 1.4.189; Muslim: 30.5790; Sunan of Abu Dawud 32:4071), Muhammad had a big mole on his back between the shoulders which was as big as a pigeon’s egg. He claimed that the big mole is the proof of his Prophethood. There is no religious scripture which confirms that a mole between the shoulders is a sign of Prophethood. What he claimed to be a proof of Allah’s seal was a physical deformity which anyone can have. There is no ‘divinity’ in this. It is simply beyond the capacity of a logical thinker how this is supposed to be one of the proofs that convince people of Muhammad’s Prophethood!

            Muhammad gave no solid proof of his Prophethood. He only claimed to the title of Prophet of Allah.

            Did he lie?

            Was he under delusion?

            The validity of Islam is closely dependent on the reliability of Muhammad. If there is no solid reason to conclude that Muhammad was the true messenger of God, we may reasonably suppose that Islam is false. If we can prove that Muhammad was untrustworthy, Islam self-destructs. The scholars, who are most familiar with Arabic sources and had clear understanding of the life and time of Muhammad; like Margoliouth, Hurgronge, Lammens, Caetani are the most decisive against Muhammad’s Prophetic claim. The more we read their valuable research works, the more we find it difficult to disagree with them.

            How can we be sure that Muhammad did not lie?

            Muhammad declared that lying is acceptable if it is used to propagate the cause of Islam by killing the enemy. This particular statement should make us wonder how often Muhammad took advantage of this principle while claiming his title of a Prophet and preaching his message.

            If we take Qur’an as a primary foundation of Muhammad’s Prophethood, the doubt is still not dispelled at all. The next question is to ascertain how firm the ground it provides is. There are serious doubts about the trustworthiness of Qur’an also. Like Muhammad’s Prophetic claim, Qur’an itself is self-declarative. It describes itself by various generic terms, comments, explains, distinguishes, puts itself in contrast with other religious books and claims to be holy. The Qur’anic claims are great, but what is miserable is that, this supposed holy book fails to prove either Muhammad’s Prophetic claim or its Divine origin.

            Ultimately, it becomes a circular reasoning. Qur’an is God’s words because Muhammad said so and Muhammad was God’s messenger because Qur’an says so. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. We are not happy with this.

            The Embarrassment of Satanic Verses

            Traditional Islamic sources admit that Muhammad was at one time inspired by Satan to put some verses into the Qur’an.

            When Muhammad first began preaching in Mecca he thought that the Meccans would accept his religion. But the Meccans were not receptive to him. This made Muhammad angry and he started taunting them for years by insulting their religion and Gods. Meccans refused all dealings with him and his followers. Eventually to appease the Meccans, Muhammad recited the following Qura’nic verses,

            “Have you then considered the al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the last … these are the exalted Gharaniq (a high flying bird) whose intercession is approved” (Quran: 53.19-20)

            Al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat were some of the local idols worshiped in Mecca. Previously Muhammad had spoken against them in his monotheist preaching but now he recited that their “intercession is approved”. This made the Meccans very pleased and the boycott was lifted shortly.
            Soon Muhammad realized that by acknowledging the local idols al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat he had made a terrible blunder. He had undermined his own position that as the sole intermediary between Allah and the people and by doing so he made his new religion indistinguishable from pagan beliefs and hence redundant. So he retracted and said the two verses acknowledging pagan idols were satanic verses i.e., the verses inspired by Lucifer, the Biblical Satan. This is Muhammad’s most embarrassing moment.

            Islam crumbled in the wake of the Prophet’s satanic indulgence. Muhammad desperately tried to make amends for the satanic verses and recited the following verse.

            “Surely Allah does not forgive setting up partners with Him; and whoever associates anything with Allah, he indeed strays off into remote error. They call but upon female deities. They call but upon Satan, the persistent rebel!” (Quran: 4.116)

            Subsequently, the relevant verses were also modified with the final form what is now in the modern Qur’an,

            “Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-‘Uzza. And Manat, the third, the other? Are yours the males and His the females? That indeed were an unfair division!” (Quran: 53:19-22).

            Many of the Muhammad’s followers left him on this account realizing that Muhammad was making up the Qur’an (Sina, 2008, p. 16). Muhammad had to run away from Mecca in shame. The shame of defeat was so much that Muhammad and Abu Bakr had to flee through a window. On their way out of town, both had to hide in a cave for fear the Meccans would find them (Winn, 2004. p. 587).

            “When the Messenger decided upon departure, he went to Bakr and the two of them left by a window in the back of Abu’s house and went to a cave in Thawr, a mountain below Mecca”.
            (Ishaq: 223)

            “The Messenger came back to Mecca and found that its people were more determined to oppose him and to abandon his religion, except for a few weak people who believed in him”.
            (Tabari: VI. 118)

            However, after this blunder Muhammad was more careful not to make the mistake again. He just hammered a nail into his own Prophetic coffin.

            Muslims are very uncomfortable with the satanic verses episode and this had been the subject of endless and bitter controversy (Walker, 2002, p. 111). But if we have to believe the authentic Muslim sources there is no reason to reject this occurrence. This incident was recorded by devout Muslims like Al-Wikidi, Al-Zamakshari, Al-Baydawi, Al-Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham, Ibn Sa’d and Bukhari. It is unthinkable that such a story would have been fabricated by all of them.

            While this event is well documented in Islamic sources, current day Islamic leaders rarely tell Muslims or the general public about it.

            We can make three logical conclusions from this satanic verses incident.

            Firstly, a Qur’anic verse can be modified or deleted at a later date.

            Secondly, it casts a shadow over the veracity on Muhammad’s entire claim to be a Prophet.

            Finally, Satan proves that Qur’an is not a miracle. Qur’an challenges “bring a Sura like it”. (Quran: 2.23) and Satan took the challenge and did it.

            Did Muhammad carefully plan a ploy to win the hearts of the Meccans, or was it his subconscious that had suggested to him a sure formula which provided a practical road to unanimity?

            The Traditional Sources

            It seems logical, and also agreeable to Muslims, to say that if we have solid reasons to believe that Muhammad was a reliable messenger of God, we may conclude that Islam is a true religion and, in case there are strong reasons to question Muhammad’s trustworthiness, Islam self-destructs.

            In the West, Muhammad’s critics are quick to claim that he was either possessed by demons or suffering from mental illness or he was a conscious fraud. We have no concrete evidence to support one of these claims and discard others; but at least we all agree to the point that, there was certainly something wrong with Muhammad.

            The Western scholars judge the Prophet by the standards of human morality and conscious. But Muslims’ thinking is different. From their point of view they have accepted Muhammad as a ‘superior being’ and ‘the mercy of God among mankind’ (Sina, 2008, p. 6).

            Though Muslims dismiss all attacks on their faith as anti-Islamic polemic and a calculated and deliberate misrepresentation of their religion from Christian prejudice and Zionist-instigated ill will but the irony is that; even if we reject and leave aside all these Western scholars and depend only on authentic traditional sources for information, we still cannot find anything which suggests that Muhammad was a ‘superior being’ or ‘the mercy of God among mankind’ but we have thousands of accounts that do portray him a psychopath criminal.

            But, are the traditional sources reliable?
            The Reliability of Traditional Sources

            Our knowledge and understanding of early Islam and its founder mainly rests on the writings we call Sira, Al-Maghazi, Qur’an, Qur’anic exegesis (Tafsir), Tabari’s history, and Shahi Hadith collections.

            Sira means ‘biography’, and likewise Sirat Rasul Allah is the biography of Muhammad, the messenger of Allah written by Ibn Ishaq (CA 85/704 – 150/767(?)), which is the earliest life of Muhammad of which we have any trace. He was one of the main authorities on the life and times of the Prophet. Amongst the early Muslim critic, Ishaq had a very high reputation (e.g., Al-Zuhri spoke of him as ‘the most knowledgeable man in Maghazi’). Ishaq’s Sira or biography provides the sole account of Muhammad’s life and the formation of Islam written within 200 years of his death. The work of Ibn Ishaq is very important for the researchers not only because it is the earliest biography, but also for the reason that Ibn Ishaq was a free thinker and he was free from any influences of later idealizing tendencies. While the character, message, and deeds portrayed within its pages are the direct opposite of Jesus Messiah’s and his disciples, the Sira’s chronological presentation is similar in style to the Christian Gospels. His work contains too much information of a character that is devastatingly unfavorable to the Prophet.
            Al-Maghazi is the early Muslim military expeditions or raiding parties in which Muhammad took part in the Medinan period. But this term seems to have been more or less often used synonymously with term Sira.

            The history of al-Tabari is a mine of information for historical and critical research by Western scholars. This Persian historian was a devout Muslim, a commentator of Qur’an and widely traveled. He had not only devoted much time to history but even mathematics and medicine.

            Tabari derived much of his material from oral traditions and literary sources like the works of Abu Miknaf, al-Wiqidi, Ibn Sa’d and of course Ibn Ishaq.

            Qur’an’s claim to Divine origin rests on the Ahadith (plural of Hadith).

            The Hadith, or the book of tradition, are the records of what Muhammad did, what he enjoined, what was done in his presence and what he did not forbid. Hadith collections also include the authoritative sayings and doings of the companions of Muhammad. Muhammad was aware that people were taking note of all his casually uttered words and that stories of what he did were being passed around. He was aware of the dangers and warned against the practice because some of his casually uttered word may get included in Qur’an by mistake (Brahmachari, 1999, p. 131). But the trend once started could not be stopped and was accelerated after his death (Walker, 2002, p. 172) The Hadith contains material from pre-Islamic times also. Much was added to it after Muhammad’s death with fresh material with the growth of Islamic empire.

            It is true that much of the Ahadith was fabricated before Imam Bukhari made his compilation. As example, Ibn Abi-I-Awja (executed 772 CE for apostasy) confessed before his death that he had fabricated more than four thousand Ahadith, in which he forbade Muslims what was in fact permitted and vice versa and he made Muslims to break the fast when they should have been fasting (Warraq, 2003, p. 45). Awja’s case is just one example.

            There are instances where many Ahadith were invented to serve the political purposes of the Umayyad, the Abbasids and later dynasties of Caliphs and handing down of the traditions went downwards to the level of a business enterprise (Goldziher, 1971, p. 169) as a means of livelihood. A large amount of non-Islamic material was drawn into by the compilers which even included sayings of Buddhist wisdom, Roman stories and verses from the Zoroastrians, Jewish and Christian scriptures and even Greek philosophy (Gibb, 1969, p. 51). Soon the number of Ahadith already in circulation and still being invented became unimaginable. As one Muslim authority wrote, ‘in nothing do we see pious man more given to falsehood than in the traditions’ (Nicholson, 1969, p.145).

            So it was urgently necessary to compile an authentic collection. The best-known and most authoritative compilation is by Bukhari. It is said that Bukhari had examined a total of 600,000 traditions. He preserved some 7,000 (including traditions), which means he rejected some 593,000 as inauthentic (Crone, 1987, p. 33).
            But since many of them were repeated, there remained only about 2760 in total. Second only to Bukhari’s collection is the work of Muslim Ibn al-Hajaj, which contains three thousand traditions. These compilations are believed to be Sahih Hadith (authentic traditions).

            With much disappointment to the Muslims, the above five oldest and most trusted Islamic sources don’t portray Muhammad a ‘superior being’ or any kind of ‘the mercy of God among mankind’.

            The sources reveal that he was a thief, a liar, an assassin, a pedophile, a shameless womanizer, a promiscuous husband, a rapist, a mass murderer, a desert pirate, a warmonger but a spineless coward, and a calculating and ruthless tyrant. It’s certainly not the character profile of the founder of a true religion.

            Moreover, there is no reason to believe that these authentic collections of Bukhari were later additions by religious rivalries. Bukhari was a devout Muslim and his sincerity was beyond doubt.

            Other traditional books were written by pious Muslims, the copies are preserved and certainly it would not be the characteristic of believers to portray their Prophet as a villain. After all Muhammad had promised them Paradise in exchange of their acceptance of Muhammad as a Prophet. How can they malign him?
            Similarly the trustworthiness of Christian sources cannot be doubted either. By the time Muhammad received his first revelation early in the seventh century; Christianity was already an established religion and had been in law of the exclusive faith of the Roman Empire, the superpower of the Mediterranean for some two centuries. Christianity also had been planted from Ethiopia to Ireland and Morocco to Georgia and in Mesopotamia, i.e., modern Iraq (Fletcher, 2003, pp. 4, 6). The multiplicity and diversity of the Christian texts stands as a proof of an intellectual life of Christendom within the Roman world. In fact this was a new era when this faith was slowly coming out of the religious orthodoxy. As the grip of the Orthodox Church was relaxed, there was a wave of theological deviants and the contemporaneous Christians evaluated Muhammad and his sect as yet another such group which had gone astray. It was unthinkable to them that Islam might be ‘a new religion’ in the strict sense of the term.

            The Islamic leadership remained on friendly terms with the Christian populations of the land they conquered. Qur’an (29:45) requires Muslims should respect the Ahl al-Kitab, the people of the book, that is to say the Christians and Jews. Hence we hardly have any doubt on the authenticity of early Christian sources. It was too late for the Christian to realize the fact about Islam.

            Discrediting Muhammad using Traditional Sources

            The original book of Ibn Ishaq is lost to history and all we know of it is what is quoted from it by the later writers, particularly Ibn Hisham and al-Tabari. These quotations are fortunately quite reliable. Ibn Hisham edited and abridged Ibn Ishaq’s work about sixty-five years later. In his edition, Hisham (Guillaume, 1955, p. 691) wrote,

            “I am omitting things which Ishaq recorded in this book. I have omitted things which are disgraceful to discuss and matters which would distress certain people.”

            This particular comment of Hisham speaks volumes. Today we need to know, what were those ‘disgraceful to discuss’ discussions Hisham omitted from Ishaq’s original works and what were those ‘matters which would distress certain people’.

            We understand Hisham’s position. He was actually compromising with the truth to save his life, which was dependant upon not offending the cleric-kings during his time. But he was honest enough to admit that he had compromised with the truth.

            However, a few modern historians have attempted to recover the lost portion of Ishaq’s work. They applied the Biblical criteria of ‘Form and Redaction criticism’ (Form criticism is an analysis of literary documents, particularly the Bible, to discover earlier oral traditions as example, stories, legends, myths, etc upon which they were based. Redaction Criticism is concerned with when and by what process (of collecting and editing) did a particular section or book of the Bible reach its final literary form) to the basis historical assemblage of Ishaq. To quote Margoliouth (cited Warraq, 2000, p. 340),

            “The character attributed to Muhammad in the biography of Ibn Ishaq is exceedingly unfavorable… for whatever he does he is prepared to plead the express authorization of the deity. It is however, impossible to find any doctrine which he is not prepared to abandon in order to secure a political end. At different points in his career he abandons the unity of God and his claim to the title of a Prophet. This is a disagreeable picture for the founder of a religion and it cannot be pleaded that it is a picture drawn by an enemy.”

            The Pagan Meccans were wise enough not to believe Muhammad’s gigantic claim because they had seen many such imposters. There are more than a dozen verses which confirm that Muhammad and the ‘voice’ he had heard were ridiculed by the pagans. They thought that Muhammad was fabricating verses or in the parlance of those days, he was demon-possessed. The contemporaries of Muhammad called him ‘majnoon’ (Lunatic, crazy, possessed by jinn) (Sina, 2008. p. 6) or a soothsayer ‘kahin’. This is very explicit in the ten Qur’anic verses 15.6, 23.70-72, 34.8, 34.45/46, 37.35/36, 44.13/14, 52.29, 68.2, 68.51 and 81.22. In a few instances, there are verses 21:5, 36:69, 37:36/35, 52:30 where an alternative explanation was given that Muhammad was an ambitious but fanciful poet who had merely invented it all.

            To defend himself Muhammad added several references to Biblical Prophets likewise accused of ghost-possession, as example earlier Prophets in general (Quran: 51.52), Noah (Quran: 23.25), Moses (Quran: 26.26/27, Quran: 51.39). Let it be on record that the Bible nowhere mentions such an allegation against Noah, Moses or most other Prophets. The one exception is Hosea, a Prophet apparently unknown to Muhammad:

            “They call the man of the spirit a madman: so great is their guilt that their resistance is likewise great” (Hosea: 9.7).

            Undoubtedly, Muhammad, whose knowledge of the Bible was only sketchy, was merely projecting his own plight onto Noah and Moses.

            Muhammad’s argument was very silly and stands on a slippery ground. His reason was something like this, – ‘I am a Prophet but am not acknowledged by my narrow-minded contemporaries, just as the ancient genuine Prophets were not given due recognition either at first instance. Hence I am also a genuine Prophet’. Muhammad lost many of his followers on this account.

            Bukhari (9:87:111) recorded that Muhammad’s Prophetic mission was confirmed by a cousin of Khadija, a Christian convert from Judaism named Waraqa Bin Naufal. After a few days of confirming Muhammad’s Prophethood, Waraqa died mysteriously. The fact that Waraqa was a Christian had been a source of embarrassment to the Muslims. Hence they often deny it to get rid of this shame. Some overenthusiastic Muslim sources say that, by recognizing the Prophet, Waraqa converted to Islam. However, some modern scholars contend that Waraqa actually rejected Muhammad and the text of Ibn Hisham’s version of the Sira was later corrupted (Spencer, 2006, p. 53). There is no account in voluminous Hadith that Waraqa converted to Islam and the details of his mysterious death. From the Hadith collections we can find minutest details of Muhammad’s activities and the events of early Muslim communities. The conversion of a Christian priest who was a cousin of Muhammad and his wife would have been a momentous event. Waraqa was the most revered holy man in Mecca. Why the cause of his death was not recorded in the Hadith? Today the mainstream Islam accepts that Waraqa recognized
            Muhammad’s Prophetic status, but this is baseless. Nowhere is it recorded that Waraqa’s appreciation was witnessed by anyone.

            Though it appears shocking, but I believe that Waraqa was murdered by Muhammad. This is a possibility which we cannot ignore. After Muhammad and Khadija had used him, he became a liability—someone who could and would profess that Muhammad’s claims were untrue. Once Waraqa was dead, Muhammad felt free to concoct any lies and attribute them to him and the deception continued unabated.

            Strange but true that, even there is mention in Hadith (Bukhari 4. 56.814) that Muhammad was once challenged by a Christian convert who reverted back to Christianity by seeing that Muhammad was actually faking the Qur’anic revelations and declared,

            “Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him”.

            There was a similar type of observation by one of the Muhammad’s scribes; Abdullah Ibn Abi Sarh, who used to write down Allah’s revelations. When Abdullah suggested some changes to Muhammad’s dictation, Muhammad readily agreed with Abdullah. This led Abdullah to suspect Muhammad’s claim of reception of messages from God, apostatized and left Medina for Mecca. He then proclaimed that he (Abdullah) too could easily write the Qur’anic verses by being inspired by Allah (Caner & Caner, 2002, p. 45).

            In the Christian view, the gospel concerning Jesus Messiah was final. The Bible exclusively cautioned that any other teaching is false even if an angel from heaven (here meaning Gabriel) came down to preach it, was not to be accepted (Galatians.1:8). Jesus Messiah specifically spoke of false Prophets yet to come, and warned that if people report that such a one in the desert – ‘do not go there’ (Matthew. 24:26). But in spite of this clear warning in the Gospel, many early Christians did not recognize this false Prophet. Muhammad and his sect were most believably understood as yet another wave of theological deviants of Christendom who had gone astray.

            When Muhammad advised a small group of his followers to flee Mecca, the Christian king of Abyssinia received them and gave them refuge. In biographies of Muhammad, there are many references of a Christian monk named Bahira who is said to have recognized in Muhammad the signs of a Prophet. The idea that Islam might be ‘a new religion’ was in the strict sense of the term was unthinkable to the Christians. When Jerusalem was surrendered to Muslims in 638, Sophronius (Patriarch of Jerusalem), who had negotiated the surrender of the city to the Muslims, explained the invasion of Palestine as Divine punishment for the sins of the Christians. The notion was that the Muslims were the instruments of the God’s wrath (Fletcher, 2003, p. 16). But slowly the early Christians recognized Muhammad as a man of blood and his followers as irredeemably violent.

            Throughout the medieval period, all of the characteristics of Muhammad that confirmed his authority in the eyes of Muslims were reversed by Christian authors and turned into defects. When Christians recognized Islam as a rival religion to Christianity, they simply refused the notion of a new Prophet after Jesus Messiah (Ernst, 2005, p. 14). The traditional doctrine that Muhammad was illiterate, which to Muslims was proof of Divine origin of Qur’an, indicated to the Christians that he must have been a fraud. When challenged by the Meccans to produce miracles, Muhammad said that Qur’an was his only miracle. While Muslims viewed this as proof of the spirituality of his mission, Christian antagonists considered this lack of miracles as clear evidence that Muhammad was a fake.

            In 850, a monk called Perfectus went shopping in the capital of Muslim state of al-Andalus. Here he was stopped by a group of Arabs who asked him whether Jesus or Muhammad was the greater Prophet. There was a trick in the question because it was a capital offence in the Islamic empire to insult Muhammad and Perfectus knew it very well. So at first he responded cautiously. He gave an exact account of the Christian faith respecting the Divinity of Christ. But suddenly he snapped and burst into a passionate stream of abuse, calling Muhammad a charlatan, a sexual pervert and the antichrist himself and a false Prophet spoken of in the Gospel (Foxe, 1827, p. 76¬7). Perfectus was thrown into the prison but later released because the judge realized that he was provoked by the Muslims. However after few days of his release, the Muslims’ pranks provoked him once more and Perfectus cracked a second time and insulted Muhammad in such crude terms that he was again taken and later on executed (Armstrong, 2006, p. 22).
            Few days later, another Christian monk by the name Ishaq appeared before the same judge and attacked Muhammad and his religion with many crude and disgusting words. His insulting words to Muhammad and Islam were so strong that the Judge, thinking him drunk or deranged, slapped him to bring him to his senses. But Ishaq persisted in his abuse and the Judge ordered his execution also. A few days after Ishaq’s execution, six monks from the same monastery arrived and delivered yet another venomous attack on Muhammad. There were executed too. That summer, about fifty Christian monks died this way (Armstrong, 2006, p. 23).

            But those Christian monks had the right to call Muhammad a fake. They were well educated, wise and they had studied Muhammad and his religion thoroughly. The two biggest Christian criticisms of Muhammad were undoubtedly in relation to his military activities, marriages and sexual perversions. For Christians, the celibacy and nonviolent approach of Jesus were generally seen as indispensable characteristics of true spirituality. The cruelty of Muhammad and his sexual perversion were taken as clear proof that Muhammad could not be on the same exalted level as Jesus. The early Christian critics of Muhammad generally described him as motivated by a combination of political ambition and sensual lust. But the success of Islam raised a disturbing theological question: How had God allowed this impious faith to prosper? Could it be that God had deserted His own people?

            The earliest reference to Muhammad in Christian literature is found in the writings of the seventh century. The Armenian ‘Chronicle of Sebeos’ says the Muhammad was an ‘Ishmaelite’, who claimed to be a Prophet. In the coming years many Biblical scholars realized that though Islam and Christianity has many similarities, like, praying, fasting, giving alms, pilgrimage etc, but actually Islam is against Christianity. During the middle ages of Christian Europe, Christians had a very strong negative feeling against Muslims. As example, Bede, a monk and Biblical scholar described Qur’an as ‘a parody of sacred scripture of Christianity [i.e. Bible]’ and Muhammad as a pseudo-Prophet, who and his followers has made war on Christians and seized their Holy places. In a work of Biblical commentary completed in 716, Bede described Muslims as ‘enemies of the Church’ (Fletcher, 2003, p. 19).

            Like Bede, another prolific writer of theology was John of Damascus. He hailed from an ethnic Arab family and whose three generations had served Muslim rulers. He was one of the earliest Christian writers to concern himself at any length and in a systematic way with Islam. John was the first scholar who had explained the Biblical deviation of the Ishmaelites. He went on to castigate Muhammad as a false Prophet who cribbed part of his teaching from the Old and New Testaments and also from the sayings of a heretic Christian monk, Bahira. According to John, Muhammad wrote down ‘some ridiculous compositions in a book of his’ (Chase, 1958, p. 153), which he claimed had been sent down to him from heaven. Somewhere around 745, John composed a play, ‘Dialogue between a Saracen and a Christian’. This dialog envisages a situation in which a Muslim puts awkward questions to a Christian on such matters as the nature of Christ, creation, free will and many others. The Christian parries these questions so skillfully that at the end of the play it is mentioned ‘the Saracen went his way surprised and bewildered, having nothing more to say’ (Seale, 1978 p. 70). John also quoted at length but selectively from Qur’an and mocked the faith of the Ishmaelites.

            During late eighth or early ninth century, a short work was composed probably in southern Spain by an anonymous writer which is known as ‘Ystoria de Mahomet’ where Muhammad was called as ‘a son of Darkness’ who stole some Christian teaching and claimed to be a Prophet. He put together an absurd farrago of doctrine delivered to him by a vulture claiming to be the angel Gabriel. He incited his followers to war. He was a slave to lust, which he justified by laws for which he falsely claimed Divine inspiration. He foretold his resurrection after his death but in the event his body was fittingly devoured by dogs (cited Wolf, 1990, p. 97-9). Like the John of Damascus, this anonymous author was very knowledgeable of Islam. He was well-versed with the Qur’an and often gave fairly recondite references from this book.

            In a Christian work named ‘Doctrina Jacobi Nuper Baptizati’ (The teaching of Jacob the newly-baptized) a tract of anti-Jewish literature written in dialog form composed probably in Palestine round about the time of the surrender of Jerusalem. At one point the following words were attributed to one of the speakers, ‘Abraham’ a Palestinian Jews (Fletcher, 2003, pp. 16-7),

            “A false Prophet has appeared among the Saracens… They say that the Prophet has appeared coming with the Saracens, and is proclaiming the advent of the anointed one who is to come. I, Abraham referred to the matter to an old man very well-versed with the scriptures. I asked him: ‘What is your view; master and teacher, of the Prophet who has appeared with the Saracens?’ He replied groaning mightily: ‘He is an impostor. Do the Prophets come with sword and chariot? Truly these happenings today are works of disorder… But you go off, Master Abraham, and find out about the Prophet who has appeared.’ So I, Abraham, made enquiries, and was told by those who had met him: ‘There is no truth to be found in the so-called Prophet, only bloodshed; for he says he has the keys of Paradise, which is incredible’.”

            Muhammad’s Prophetic life can be divided into two distinctive periods, the Meccan period and Medinan period. During the first period i.e., Meccan period, Muhammad was a simple preacher and warner. But his preaching was clearly, from the worldly point of view, an utter failure and as a result of thirteen years of propaganda he had won no more than a handful of converts. But the scene completely changed at Medina where he gained in power and his message lost its beauty. Here he was what one might simply call a robber baron. After conquering Mecca, he entered as a political leader rather than a religious leader, and was recognized by Meccans as such. So Muhammad was changing his colors like a lizard, as situations dictated. Throughout his Prophetic mission, he dealt with Jews and Christians keeping strict political aims in view. At the initial stage, Islam was an absurd truth claim like a practical joke, but when Muhammad was able to draw the sword and successfully used it, the whole thing became serious.

            So while estimating the significance of Muhammad, we should not judge him solely as a mystic or religious reformer, though he may have the elements of both, but rather as a ruthless politician and opportunist pressed with peculiar political problems amongst barbarous people and at a critical moment of history.

            Therefore the picture that emerges of the Prophet in the above traditional accounts is not at all favorable to Muhammad. The Muslims cannot complain that this representation of their beloved Prophet was drawn by an enemy. The early Arabs did not believe in his Prophetic claim and there is sufficient proof that Muhammad was taken aback when those intellectuals of Mecca pointed to the weaknesses of the Qur’an. They fell heavily on Muhammad and pressed him hard demanding answers and explanations to the irrationalities they spotted in the Qur’an, but Muhammad and Allah stood there wordless and powerless like two ‘Divine fools’.

            By seeing the irrationalities, there was apostasy in large scale during Muhammad’s time and after his death. Many early Muslims were just opportunists and not at all religious. They joined Muhammad only for booty and captured women for sex. Those tribal Arabs lacked any deep religious sense. They only wanted worldly successes. Many confessed their belief but had no inclination towards Islam and its dogma and ritual. It is estimated that at the death of Muhammad the number who really converted to Muhammad’ doctrine did not exceed a thousand (Warraq, 2003, p. 41). Present day cultists perform much better than Muhammad in gaining followers.

            The Qur’an itself confirms that there were Arab skeptics in Mecca who did not accept the ‘fables’ recounted by Muhammad. They doubted the ‘Divine’ origin of the revelations and certainly, they had every right to do so. They even accused him of plagiarizing the pagan Arab poets. Some verses of the Qur’an were attributed to al-Qays (a.k.a Imra’ul Qays) a famous pre-Islamic Arabian poet (Warraq, 2003, p. 41). Muhammad had plagiarized several poems from the work of this poet and added them to his Qur’an. It was the custom of the poets’ and the orators to hang up the composition of their literary work upon the Ka’aba. One day, Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad was repeating two passages from Sabaa Mu’allaqat. Suddenly she met the daughter of Imra’ul Qays, who cried out,

            “O that’s what your father had taken from one of my father’s poems and calls it something that has come down to him out of heaven” (Warraq, 1998, p. 235-6).

            Even today this story is told amongst Arabs. The Qur’anic plagiarism is so prominent that Muslims cannot deny this. But how can they explain this incident? Were the poems of Imra’ul Qays also divinely inspired like the Qur’an?

            Discrediting Muhammad using the Modern-day Sources

            In 1843, a work on the life of Muhammad was published by Gustav Weil. This work was based on historical analysis and the author put forward the idea that Muhammad was suffering from epilepsy. Weil’s conclusion was supported by Sprenger. According to Sprenger, Muhammad was also a psychopath (Schimmel, 1985, p. 248). Another author, Franz Buhl described that, in his Medinan phase, Muhammad revealed the unattractive side of his character: cruelty, slyness, dishonesty, untrustworthiness; someone whose leading principle was ‘the end justifies the means’ (Warraq, 1995, p. 86, 89).

            Muir’s work on Muhammad was based on original Muslim sources and published between 1856 and ’61. Muir specialized in debating Muslim clerics and entertained the suggestion that Muhammad was inspired by the devil. He also adopted the more scientific criticism (originally advanced by the German physician Aloys Sprenger) that Muhammad’s Prophetic experiences were due to epilepsy (Ernst, 2005, p. 22). However another two scholars, Margoliouth and Macdonald believed (cited Walker, 2002, p. 315) that Muhammad’s seizures were artificially produced and those acts were merely a device by which he secured sanction for his revelations.

            In his work Muir had passed a judgment on Muhammad’s character that was repeated over and over again by subsequent scholars. According to him, Muhammad though religiously motivated during the Meccan period but showed his ‘feet of clay’ during Medinan period where he was corrupted by power and worldly ambitions (cited Warraq, 1995, p. 87). The inconsistencies in Muhammad’s character was specifically pointed out by Muir,

            “He [Muhammad] justified himself by ‘revelations’ releasing himself in some cases from social proprieties and the commonest obligations of self restraint”.

            It is of course shocking that Muhammad transformed to a bandit chieftain, who was unwilling to earn an honest living, after he gained power at Medina, as Caetani (cited Warraq, 1995, p. 88) observed,

            “If Muhammad deviated from the path of his early years, that should cause no surprise; he was man as much as, and in like manner as, his contemporaries, he was a member of a still half-savage society deprived of any true culture, and guided solely by instincts and natural gifts which were decked out by badly understood and half-digested religious doctrines of Judaism and Christianity.”

            Jeffrey (cited Warraq, 2000, p. 347) concluded that Margoliouth had done the most brilliant study of the life of Muhammad that has yet appeared. According to Margoliouth, Muhammad was a patriot, keenly alive to the opportunities of his time. Islam was created as a method to unite the Arabs and make them a strong military force. In this process the religious appeal played an important part but there was also a complete absence of moral scruple. On the success of Muhammad, Margoliouth commented that Muhammad’ success was not due to the objective truth of the Qur’an but to his skill as an organizer and military leader. Muhammad was thoroughly familiar with the shortcomings of the Arabs and utilized them to the utmost advantage and he was able to seize opportunities and distrusted loyalty when not backed by interest.

            Hume referred to Muhammad as a ‘pretended Prophet’ and wrote,

            “[The Qur’an is a] wild and absurd performance.”

            Also Hobbes concluded,

            “… [Muhammad] to set up his new religion, pretended to have conferences with the Holy Ghost in form of a dove. ”

            Also, Gibbon (1941, p. 240) concluded that Muhammad’s claim that he was the apostle of God was ‘a necessary fiction’. Will Durant, the famous historian and philosopher had the same opinion. According to Durant, Muhammad was a conscious fraud. He (1950; p. 176) concluded,

            “Muhammad felt that no moral code would win obedience adequate to the order and vigor of a society unless men believed the code to have come from God.”

            Carlyle wrote,
            “His Qur’an has become a stupid piece of prolix absurdity; we do not believe like him that God wrote that” (Warraq, 1995. p. 10, 24).

            Becker, another prominent critic of Islam commented (1909, p. 29) that the companions of Muhammad had very little interest in religion and most of them were utterly ignorant about the fundamental; tenets of the religion preached by Muhammad. For these early Muslims, as Becker commented,

            “… the new religion was nothing more than a party cry of unifying power, though there is no reason to suppose that it was not a real moral force in the life of Muhammad and his immediate contemporaries”.

            It is true that Muhammad’s companions lacked religious values. A Hadith from Bukhari gives us a clue, how Muslims during the time of Muhammad use to keep their mosques.
            Narrated Hamza bin `Abdullah: My father said.

            “During the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle, the dogs used to urinate, and pass through the mosques (come and go), nevertheless they never used to sprinkle water on it (urine of the dog)” (Bukhari: 1.4.174).

            Elsewhere Becker (cited Warraq, 2000, p. 554) commented,

            “… bursting of the Arabs beyond their native peninsula was, like earlier irruptions in which the religious element was totally lacking due to economic necessities”.

            According to Shaikh (1995, p. 24), Muhammad had a strong dominance urge. He was not only a Prophet but also the builder of an Arab empire and this was an integral part of his supposed to be Prophethood. Islam was built around the sanctity and significance of his own person which he had achieved by various means. Islam is an Arab national movement and Muhammad was possibly the greatest national leader born anywhere on earth.

            Shaikh completely discredits Muhammad as a messenger of God. According to him, Qur’an is highly contradictory. Therefore instead of leading, it misleads the people. Prophethood has nothing to do with guidance; it is simply a political doctrine.

            “God’s messenger is God’s servant by name only. In practice he is God’s superior… Islam is less a religion and more an Arab national movement” (1995, p. 12).

            Rodinson, the latest biographer of Muhammad does not believe in Muhammad’s Prophetic claim. According to him, Muhammad really did experience sensory phenomena translated into words and phrases which he interpreted as messages from God and subsequently he developed an idea of receiving those messages in a particular way. These experiences were his hallucinations. Muhammad was sincere but sincerity is not a proof. At Medina this inspired visionary transformed into an imposter. Rodinson (1980, p. 218) wrote,
            “[Muhammad was] driven by necessity to produce a convenient revelation at the appropriate moment and at no other, in the way the mediums have been known to resort to fraud in similar cases”.

    • Are the SHIAs Kafir (Infidel)?

      Q: I have read the explanation you have given about the expulsion of SHIAs from the faith of Islam in this web site. But these are things they (the SHIAs) already know & wrongly believe. Is there some way you could help me by giving references from the Holy Quran that very clearly justify our view & defy theirs. Some hard evidence which the Quran has with which I can relate to & convince my SHIA friends who wrongly follow Shiaism. One of my friends is a very strong Muslim (SHIA) and is very scared to go against his teachings of Islam (SHIA theories). He believes that he is following the right path & we are wrong. He says that since we don’t follow the Imams we are not proper Muslims. Kindly give references that clearly states the Finality of the Prophet & no need for any Imams to preserve the religion of Islam. He believes that the Imams are Masoomeens i.e. unable to do any sin. Please quote references that reflect shortcomings in their decision makings. Please give me some evidence from the Quran to present my view more strongly upon him & save at least one person from going to hell.

      ——————————————

      A: SHIAs are not Muslims. Kindly refer attached, ‘Unbridgeable Divide’.

      and Allah Ta’ala Knows Best

      Mufti Ebrahim Desai
      FATWA DEPT.

      UNBRIDGEABLE DIVIDE
      —————————–
      The protracted contrariety between Islam and Shiaism is but a clear reflection of fundamental differences between the two. The only common denominator between Islam and Shiaism is the Islamic Kalima. The rest of Shiaism has very little in common with mainstream Islam. The unbridgeable divide between the two is entrenched in some of the core fundamentals of this sect, such as:

      * THE TWELVE IMAMS

      Imamate is a divine station like Nabuwwat. This implies that Sunnis, who do not believe in Imamate, are unbelievers. According to their beliefs, Allah had chosen twelve men to success Nabi (SallALLAHo Alayhi Wasallam). The Twelfth Imam however disappeared at the age of five. He is believed to be the awaited Mahdi.

      * THE STATUS OF THE IMAMS

      The Imams possess more knowledge than the Ambiya (a.s). They are superior to the Ambiya and the entire creation. The Imams can bring the dead back to life. No knowledge of the heavens and the earth is hidden from them.

      * THE INTERPOLATION OF THE NOBLE QURAN

      The Quran is incomplete and distorted in its present form. This tenet had been explicitly propounded by the classical scholars of Shiaism, but frugally denied by the contemporary scholars.

      * VILIFICATION AND APOSTASY OF THE SAHABAH (R.A)

      The Sahabah were guilty of willfully distorting and corrupting the Deen of Muhammad (SallALLAHo Alayhi Wasallam). They turned renegade after the demise of Nabi (SallALLAHo Alayhi Wasallam) except the immediate household of Nabi (SallALLAHo Alayhi Wasallam).

      * THE PERMISSIBILITY OF MUT’A

      * VIRTUES OF TAQIYA

      Islam and Shiaism are two parallel streams of thought that can never converge. They are as distinct from each other, as is Islam to the Ahl-e-Kitaab. To ignore these differences is to ignore the stark reality.

      The often repeated hallowed call for “Muslim Unity” simply serves as a smokescreen, behind which SHIA missionaries penetrate Muslim societies. Any attempt to resist this imposition is branded as “divisive”. Would it be divisive to protect Islam from a sect that inherently debases the Quran, the Ambiya and the Sahabah? Unity can only be forged on the basis of Aqeedah (belief). To label these differences as ‘hair splitting issues’ is to undermine the sanctity of the Quran, the Ambiya and the Sahabah unity at the cost of the Quran is tantamount to blasphemy.

      The constitution of our country guarantees religious freedom. The SHIAs therefore have the right to propagate their beliefs. However, they need to come out of the closet and do so under the banner of Shiaism.

      Issued by: UUCSA

      Haq Char Yaar Media Services

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s