Bomb attack kills 22 Shia pilgrims in Pakistan


At least 22 Shia pilgrims returning from Iran are killed when a powerful bomb explosion hit their bus in the restive Balochistan Province in southwest Pakistan.shia killing

The deadly bomb attack took place at Dringhar village on the Pakistan-Iran highway some 60 kilometers west of Quetta, the capital of Balochistan Province.

Sources say at least 51 passengers were onboard at the time of the blast. At least twenty pilgrims have been injured as the result of the fatal explosion.

“At least 22 people were killed and 20 others were wounded,” media outlets quoted a local security official as saying.

The fate of nine other passengers is still unclear due to the extent of carnage caused by the blast.

In a similar attack on January 1st, several people were killed when a bomb targeted a bus carrying Shia pilgrims.

Every year, millions of Muslim pilgrims flock to the holy shrines in the Iranian cities of Mashhad and Qom.

Pro-Taliban groups have launched a violent campaign against Shia Muslims and several Shia religious gatherings have been targeted in different parts of the country over the past few months.

Shia Muslims in Pakistan say the government must take decisive action against the forces involved in the targeted killings, accusing Islamabad of failing to provide security for the Muslim community.

The killing of Shias has caused an international outrage, with rights groups and regional countries expressing concern over the ongoing deadly violence.

Shias make up about a third of Pakistan’s population of over 180 million.

5 thoughts on “Bomb attack kills 22 Shia pilgrims in Pakistan

  1. YO HO HO MO, YOU DUMB, KUFER SHIA,

    THE SUNNI UMAR KILLED THE SHIA FATIMAH & HER UNBORN CHILD!

    THAT WAS MUHAMMAD’S DAUGHTER & HIS GRANDCHILD!

    AND THE THEN THE SHIT THE FAN & SUNNI & SHIA HAVE BEEN SLAUGHTERING ONE AN OTHER FOR 1400 YEARS!

    THAT MUST BE THE LONGEST WAR IN THE WORLD!

    THE “CRUCIFIXION” OF MOHAMMED

    MOHAMMED WAS MURDERED
    Prophet Muhammad was murdered!

    Section : Articles || Date : 2010 / 06 / 17 || Reading : 15601

    This article is the transcription of a lecture delivered by His Eminence Shaykh Yasser Al-Habib, on “Who Killed Allah’s Messenger?”

    Even today the Muslims know very little of their Prophet’s history (Peace be upon him and his pure family). Therefore, they believe he died a natural death, but in fact, he had been assassinated. This fact should not come as a surprise to anyone, given the fact that the Holy Quran had predicted it clearly in Chapter Aal Imran as Allah the Almighty said:

    “And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him; if then he died or is killed will you then turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah; and Allah will reward the grateful.” (144:3).

    Let’s pay particular attention to this section: “if then he died or is killed”. It confirms that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) would not die a natural death. Rather, it confirms that he would be killed. The conjunctive (or) in this verse means “Rather”. In Arabic, sometimes (or) indicates uncertainty and probability. In other contexts, it imparts correction. Since it is next to impossible that anyone should suspect Allah’s word, since He has insight into the unknown, Allah must have intended to impart the other meaning. Accordingly, the meaning of the verse is: “If he died, rather, he is killed, you turn upon your heels.” By analogy, Allah said in Chapter Al Saffat, speaking of Prophet Yunis (Peace be upon him); “And We sent him to a hundred thousand, or they exceeded.” (37:147) That is, “And We sent him to a hundred thousand, rather they exceeded.”

    In Hadiths, even those reported by the Bakri sect, it is confirmed that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) was martyred. For example, Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Al-Tabarani and Al-Sanaani among other famous scholars of the Bakri sect, reported Abdullah Ibn Massoud, a companion to Allah’s Prophet, saying: “I am willing to take an oath nine times that the Prophet was murdered, but I am not willing to take an oath even once that he was not. This is because Allah made him a Prophet and a martyr as well.”(Refer: Masnad Ahmed, Vol I, Page 408; Mojam Al-Tabrani, Vol X, Page 109; Musannaf Al-Sanaani, Vol V, Page 268).

    How then was the Prophet murdered, and who were the perpetrators of such a heinous crime? In fact, it is from this point that the paths of Shiites and the Bakri sect diverge. While Bakri sect claim that the Prophet was poisoned by the Jews, Shiites stress that he was poisoned by his two wives Ayesha and Hafsa, as commanded by their fathers Abu Bakr and Omar. Let us take a look at the evidences of each party to decide which one is true.

    Bakri sect says that when the Prophet’s army won the Kheibar battle defeating the army of the Jews, a Jewish woman, Zeinab Bint Al-Harith invited him and his companions to a banquet. That woman wanted to take revenge upon the Prophet because her brother Murhab Bin Al-Harith, who was commander of the Jewish Army, had been killed by Imam Ali (Peace be upon him) and this had led to the victory of the Muslim Army. The Jewish leaders used the woman’s desire to take revenge and goaded her into assassinating the Prophet. She poisoned the meat she cooked for the Prophet and his fellows. The Prophet died after having the poisoned meat.

    This is the belief of Bakri sect, but it can easily be refuted by the following scientific evidence:

    Firstly, the Khaibar Battle took place in the seventh year of Hegira. While the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) died in the eleventh year. This means that there is a time gap of four years between the two incidents. It is very unlikely that a person dies because of a poison he had taken so many years ago. It is also because generally the effect of poison is immediate and even if it takes time it cannot exceed a few months in which the health condition deteriorates gradually. In the case of the Prophet, we notice that he had been in the peak of his health and throughout the said four years he had no unusual health complaints. He would participate in the battles to defend Muslims as usual. Thus, it defies any logic that his health deteriorated suddenly and he died of a poison he had had taken more than four years ago despite the fact that he enjoyed good health throughout that intervening period.

    Secondly, if we accept that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) consumed that poisoned food, it will be a proof of his not being a true Prophet– May Allah forbid! This is because it was the Jews and the woman who wanted to put the Prophet under trial by means of their scheme. Is he truly a Prophet who gets revelation from Allah? If he was a Prophet, he would know that this food was poisoned and would not consume it. If not, he would consume it. Authentic Hadiths provide that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) knew it and did not consume the food. He admonished his retinue not to consume it either. This was one of his miracles due to which the Jewish woman was so impressed that she converted to Islam, for that she earned the Prophet’s forgiveness and exemption from punishment.

    Al-Bukhari and Al-Darami and other famous scholars of Bakri Sect relate that “When Muslims won the battle of Kheibar, the Jews invited the Prophet to a banquet in which they had served poisoned mutton. The Prophet ordered his followers to call up all the Jews to speak to them. When they were present, he asked them: “If I ask you something, will you answer me honestly?” “Yes”, they answered. “Have you put poison in this mutton?” he asked. “Yes”, they answered. “Why?” he wondered. “We wanted to know whether you are a true prophet or not” they answered. “If you are a true prophet, this would not hurt you. But, if you are not, we would get rid of you”. (Refer: Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol IV, Page 66; Sunan Al-Darmi, Vol I, Page 33).

    Al-Khateb relates: “A Jewish woman cooked poisoned mutton and offered it to the Prophet and his retinue. The Prophet said to his retinue: “Do not consume this food. It is poisoned. He then asked the woman: “Why have you done this?”, to which question she answered, “So that I can tell whether you are a true or false prophet? If you are true, Allah will reveal you that this food is poisoned so you won’t consume it. But, if you were false, you would eat it and die. Thereby, I would relieve people of you.” (Refer: History of Baghdad, Vol VII, Page 384).

    Contrary to these Hadiths, there are other Hadiths that tell that the Prophet actually consumed some of that food. In the process, he admonished his followers to stop eating, and that one of them did really die. The Prophet ordered to have the woman killed. Obviously, these Hadiths are not authentic, and cannot be trusted. As we have already pointed out, this is because they mean that the Prophet was false, having discovered that the food was poisoned so late that one of his followers had already become a victim.

    It should be noted that Al-Baihiqi and Abu Dawood and other famous scholars of the Bakri Sect confirmed that the Prophet neither killed, nor punished Zeinab Bint Al-Harith. (Refer: Sunann Al-Baihiqi Vol VIII, Page 46; Sunan Abu Dawood , Vol II, Page 369).

    Al-Zohri, a great ancient scholar, confirmed that the Jewish woman was not killed although this was commonly believed by some people. Rather, she converted to Islam, and was forgiven by the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family). (Refer: Musannaf Al-Sanaani, Vol XI, Page 29, Prophet’s Biography by Ibn Kathier, Vol III, Page 389).

    Third: a most significant Hadith as maintained by the Bakri sect to ascribe Prophet’s sudden death to the poisoning attempt by the Jews four years ago, is one that was reported by Bukhari from Ayesha. She relates: “Allah’s Prophet told me on his death bed, ‘Ayesha, since I consumed that poisoned food after the Kheibar Battle, I have been in pain. Now it is the time for my heart to stop beating because of that poison.” (Refer: Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol V, Page 137).

    We cannot trust that Hadith for many reasons: one of which is the fact that Ayesha is an infamous liar. She would lie even to the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family). Al-Bukhari reported Ayesha saying: “Allah’s Prophet was eating honey at Zeinab Bint Jahsh place. So Hafsa and I agreed to tell him, upon his return that he smelled of Maghafeer”. (Refer: Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 6, Page 68. Maghafeer is a substance extracted from a tree. It has a sweet taste but very foul smell.)

    Ayesha knew that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) had taken honey from his other wife, Zeinab Bint Jahsh. Being jealous of her, she agreed with her friend, Hafsa, to hurt the Prophet by claiming that he smelled foul when he consumed that honey. Thereby, he would stop eating it, and consequently stop visiting his wife, Zeinab.

    That was a lie. A woman, who would not abstain from lying to the noblest prophet, would not abstain from lying to ordinary people, either. Therefore, the Hadiths reported by her cannot be trusted, especially when she, herself, was accused of being involved in the murder of the Prophet. Naturally, she would try to divert suspicion by pointing fingers at others.

    Let us not forget that the Holy Quran stated that Ayesha and Hafsa were sinful wrongdoers whose hearts deviated from the true path. Allah warned them that by merely marrying the Prophet, they would not be exempted from going to hell. This was set forth in the Chapter Al Tahreem: “If you both turn to Allah, then indeed your hearts are already inclined (to this); and if you back up each other against him, then surely Allah is his Guardian, and Jibreel and the believers that do good, and the angels after that are the helpers. (…) Allah sets forth an example to those who disbelieve the wife of Nuh and the wife of Lut: they were both under two of our righteous servants, but they acted treacherously towards them so they availed them naught against Allah, and it was said: Enter both the fire with those who enter.” (66:10 &4)

    Two women who lie and receive harsh words from Allah in a full chapter would not abstain from lying. Undoubtedly, they were poised to commit any misdeed, even if it was the assassination of the Prophet himself.

    Let us not forget that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) had described Ayesha as “The spearhead of disbelief and the horn of Satan”. Ahmed Ibn Hanbal and other famous scholars of Bakri Sect related: “The Prophet, (Peace be upon him), emerged from Ayesha’s room saying this is the spearhead of disbelief! It is from here that Satan’s horn emerges”! (Refer: Masnad Ahmed, Vol II, Page 23).

    A woman condemned by Allah as wrongdoer, and threatened to be tortured in hell if she does not repent, and one described by the Prophet as the spearhead of disbelief and Satan’s horn; one who confesses to having lied to the Prophet is a woman whose Hadiths cannot be trusted, especially if they seem to be in her favour.

    One of the reasons why we should not believe in Ayesha’s Hadith about poisoning the Prophet is that she contradicts herself in another Hadith. She claimed that the Prophet did not die because of the Jewish woman’s poison. Rather, the cause of his death was because of another disease! According to Abu Yoalla, Ayesha also said that: “Allah’s Prophet, (Peace be upon him), died of an ailment Dhatul Janb”! (Refer: Masnad Abu Yoalla, Vol. VIII, Page 258. Dhadul Janb is an internal tumour that forms on man’s side. It leads to death when it explodes.)

    Ayesha claimed that, although the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) had ruled out the possibility of the Prophet developing such a tumour due to its being a demonic one that a Prophet would not develop. The Prophet said of that tumour: “It is Satanic, and I cannot develop it because Allah has delivered me from any of Satan’s powers”. (Refer: The Beginning and the End, Ibn Katheir, Vol. V, Page 245).

    It seems that Ayesha was confused while putting her point before the general public with regard to the issue of Prophet’s killing. When she claimed he died because of that Jewish woman’s poison consumed four years ago, people did not find that very plausible. Therefore, she came up with another cause of death. Therefore, she made up another reason, namely that of the lateral tumor. Thereby, she contradicted herself. This confusion itself points fingers at her and even gives rise to suspicions about her.

    Now that we are sure of the implausibility of the Bakri version of the Prophet’s murder (Peace be upon him and his pure family) due to the shortcomings, contradictions and poor evidence. Now, we can move on to the Shiite version.

    Generally, Shiite Hadiths are more credible. They are a set of the statements by the Imams from the Prophet’s family (Peace be upon them all). Undoubtedly, those Imams were far better informed of their grandfather’s, the Prophet’s, history and of his religion. None of them may lie, because the Quran confirmed their innocence against the sins. The Prophet had ordered that their words and deeds be followed. All Muslims agree to the fact that those Imams were very truthful, noble, faithful and chaste.

    The Imams confirmed that their grandfather, the Prophet, had been poisoned in his last days by Ayesha and Hafsa, at the order of their fathers, Abu Bakr and Omar. Abu Bakr and Omar were conspiring to usurp the throne after the demise of the Prophet. However, the Prophet would also stress that his rightful successor would be his cousin, and the husband of his daughter, Imam Ali (Peace be upon him). He even coerced them once to pledge allegiance to him on the Ghadir Day.

    At the same time, the Prophet brought to light the fact that some of his companions and wives would turn against his successor. He warned his followers against this, stressing that it would be their test from Allah. Those who would show their allegiance to the rightful successor would pass the test and go to heaven. While those who would let him down and support the rebels, would go to the eternal hell since they would be apostates. That is, deserters who converted back to disbelief, even if they called themselves Muslims.

    Sometimes, the Prophet would confront Abu Bakr, Omar, Ayesha and Hafsa with the fact that they hated his heir, predicting in their presence that their conspiracy would succeed to oust him from power. The Prophet did that as ordered by Allah to put those four into a further test.

    One of the famous ancient Shia interpreters of Quran relates a Hadith as reported by the Imams that further elaborates on the Prophet’s assassination. That interpreter is Ali Ibn Ibrahim Al-Qommi, a great scholar who lived in the days of Imam Al-Hassan Al-Askry (Peace be upon him). He was known among Shias for his veracity and honesty in the way he related Hadith from Imams.

    The Hadith reported by Ali Ibn Ibrahim says: “The Prophet said to Hafsa: I will tell you a secret. If you divulge it, Allah, His Angels and people will curse you. So, what is it? wondered Hafsa. The Prophet said: Abu Bakr will be able to seize the Caliphate and power after me, and will be succeeded by your father, Omar. Hafsa wondered: Who informed you of this? Allah, the Omnipresent, the Omniscient informed me. On the same day, Hafsa divulged the secret to her friend, Ayesha. In turn, Ayesha divulged the secret to her father, Abu Bakr. So, Abu Bakr came to Omar and said: My daughter Ayesha told me a secret reported by Hafsa, but I cannot always trust what Ayesha says. So, you ask your daughter Hafsa, make sure and tell me. Omar went over to Hafsa, and asked her. In the beginning, she was startled and denied it. But, Omar said to her: If you have indeed heard this secret, then, tell us so we can immediately seize power and get rid of Muhammad”. So, Hafsa said, yes, he told me that. At this point, those four got together and conspired to poison the Prophet” (Refer: Tafseer al-Qommi, Vol II, Page 367, Bihar-ul-Anwar by Allama al-Majlisi, Vol XXII, Page 239).

    There is another great ancient scholar of the Quran, Muhammad Ibn Massoud al-Ayashi who also belonged to the Bakri sect, but was later divinely guided to the true faith and converted to Shia faith and believed in the Imams. That scholar lived till the end of Third Century Hegira. Scholars have ever since relied on his book that he wrote to interpret the Holy Quran (Tafseer).

    When this great scholar reaches the point where he interpreted the verse I have referred to earlier, he relates a Hadith reported by al-Imam al-Sadiq (Peace be upon him) in which he confirms that Abu Bakr, Omar, Ayesha and Hafsa had committed the crime. Imam al-Sadiq (Peace be upon him) was sitting with a group of his followers, and asked them: “Do you know whether the Prophet died a natural death or was murdered? Allah the Almighty says: “if then he died or is killed”. The truth is that the Prophet was poisoned in his last days before he died. Ayesha and Hafsa administered poison in his food. Upon hearing this, the Imam Sadiq’s followers said that they and their fathers were among the worst villains ever created by Allah.” (Refer: Tafseer al-Ayashi, Vol I, Page 200; Bihar-ul-Anwar, by Allama Al-Majlisi, Vol XXII, Page 516)

    Al-Ayshi relates another Hadith attributed to Imam Al-Sadiq (Peace be upon him) in which he says: “al-Hussein Ibn Munther asked Imam Al-Sadiq about Allah’s words “if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels”. Does it mean that the Prophet died a natural death or was murdered? Imam Al-Sadiq said: In this verse, Allah refers to the Prophet’s companions who committed the misdeed”. (Refer: Tafseer Al Ayash, Vol I, Page 200; Bihar-ul-Anwar, By Allama Al-Majlisi, Vol XX, Page 91)

    These Hadiths confirm beyond doubt that the Supreme Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) was killed by poison administered in his last days and not which was allegedly given four years prior to his death. They also confirm that the crime was an act of treachery by his two wives and their fathers. Jews had nothing to do with this.

    If we take a closer look at the Quranic verse that speaks of the Prophet’s death, we notice its consistency with these Hadiths. The verse says: “And Muhammad is no more than an apostle; the apostles have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah and Allah will reward the grateful.” (3:144).

    In that verse, Allah addresses the Prophet’s companions and not the Jews. The verse associates the (Prophet’s death) and the (turning back), which means apostasy. We hereby understand that the assassination of the Prophet was to be followed by turning back and apostasy. This actually happened, and turned in favour of the rebels who seized power, i.e. Abu Bakr and Omar. Thus, it was addressed to the accused in the first place and not to the Jews who were no longer a threat in Medina .

    It is true that the verse was quoted in relation to the Uhud battle, to reprimand the Prophet’s companions who had let him down, by fleeing and leaving him alone with Imam Ali amidst the non-Muslim warriors. But, the verse also speaks of the future. It says that a group of people would turn back and become apostates. They would bring no harm to Allah, because they would actually be harming themselves as they would go to hell. On the other hand, another group of people would keep their faith and would be well rewarded by Allah and enter the Heaven. This is because they were grateful to Allah for His blessings by keeping their allegiance to His Prophet and his rightful successor.

    It is now evident that the crime was described by these Hadiths and this is in consistence with the Quran. Therefore, it is obvious that the Shiite version of the Prophet’s assassination is trustworthy.

    But is there any evidence in the resources of Bakri sect, that supports the Shiite version and shows involvement of the Prophet’s two wives in the crime?

    In fact, most of the Hadiths that reach us through the pious Imams from among the Prophet’s descendants (peace be upon all of them) are supported by Hadiths in Bakri resources, even if implicitly. It is here that the power of Shiism, as it does not rely only on Shiite resources. Rather, it brings forth supporting evidence from the sources of other sects for the facts put forth by the Imams.

    There is a Hadith related by the famous scholars of Bakri sect like Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmed Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Kathier. In that Hadith, Ayesha confesses that when the Prophet was sleep during his illness she put a strange substance into his mouth with the help of the other wives. Ayesha did it intentionally despite Prophet’s prohibition. When the Prophet woke up, he saw the residuals of the substance that they had put into his mouth. He angrily asked what it was and who had disobeyed his orders. Ayesha and her collaborators justified their action saying that it was just a medication. Following that, they accused the Prophet’s uncle, Al-Abbas Ibn Abdul Muttalib. However, the Prophet acquitted his uncle and ordered that those who were with him in the room should be punished by having the same substance put into their mouths.

    Ayesha relates: “When Allah’s Prophet contracted the terminal disease, he told us: Don’t put the medicine in my mouth. But we disobeyed him on the ground that every patient dislikes medication! So, we put the substance in his mouth. When he
    regained his senses, he wondered: Who did that? Have I not admonished you not to do that? So, we said: It is your uncle Al-Abbas who thought that you might have contracted a lateral tumour! The Prophet said: This disease is caused by the Devil. I cannot contract it. The Prophet ordered that everyone in the house must put the same substance into their mouths, except Al-Abbas, as the Prophet said: He was not with you”. (Refer: Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol VIII, Page 42; Sahih Muslim, Vol VII, Page 42; Masnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Vol VI, Page 53; Prophet’s Biography by Ibn Kathier, Vol. IV, Page 446).

    It seems that people were confused about what had happened to the Prophet. This was the matter that forced Ayesha to relate this Hadith in an attempt to falsify and conceal the truth. She wanted to hide the truth of the substance that she put into the mouth of the Prophet, claiming that it was a medication. She explained that what she made was “lad”, which means administering medication to a side of the mouth.

    What exactly was that strange substance? Why did Ayesha and her collaborators intend to put it into the Prophet’s mouth during his sleep? Why did Ayesha and her collaborators falsely accuse Al-Abbas of the crime? Why did the Prophet order to have them punished by putting the substance into their mouth? Basically… how could Ayesha and her collaborators disobey the word of the Prophet?

    These controversies prove that a serious crime was perpetrated against the Prophet. If there had been no crime, the Prophet would not have ordered to punish the perpetrators. If that substance had been indeed a medicine, the Prophet would not have forbidden it to be put into his mouth. This would not have stirred his anger.
    Therefore, that substance must have been the poison that the Prophet’s children spoke of later. Those who helped Ayesha prepare it must have been Hafsa, Abu Bakr and Omar whose names were not revealed by Ayesha in her Hadith on that strange substance. Their interest was associated with the Prophet’s homicide, as they were going to seize power and oust his family from there.

    There remains a question unanswered: Can the two wives of the Prophet dare to kill him? Is it possible that Abu Bakr and Omar, who were among the Prophet’s companions, dared to commit such a crime?

    The answer is: It is not unlikely at all, because the Quran mentioned that the two wives of the prophets, Noah and Lut betrayed them and would go to hell. These verses in the Chapter Al Tahreem were revealed in the first place to address Ayesha and Hafsa by citing this example. In the same chapter, Allah testified the infidelity and wrongdoing of Ayesha and Hafsa. He threatened them strongly should they fail to repent, as I explained earlier.

    Quran predicted that the Prophet’s companions would turn against him as I have said earlier. The Prophet had also predicted in his several Hadiths that most of his companions would go to hell. History reveals that most betrayals and acts of treacheries that occurred after the Prophets were committed by their wives and companions.

    Al-Bukhari related that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) said: “On doomsday, when I will be at the water pond delivering water to those who will be thirsty among my followers, a group of my followers will come to drink but the angels will drive them away and take them to Hell! And I’ll say: Oh, God! They are my companions! But God will tell me: You do not know what they did after your death. They degraded themselves to apostasy. Following that, another group of my companions will come to drink but the angels will drive them away and take them to Hell. And I’ll say: Oh, God! They are my companions! But God will tell me: You do not know what they did after your death. They degraded themselves to apostasy. Thus, only small number of my companions will escape like deserted camels in the desert.” (Refer: Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol VII, Page 206).

    No one can claim that Abu Bakr cannot be among those people who will be driven to Hell, since the Prophet himself did not exempt him from that.
    Imam of the Malki school of thought, Malik Ibn Anas, relates that the Prophet prophesied to the Muslim martyrs of Uhud that they would go to Heaven. So, Abu Bakr wondered: “Aren’t we their brothers who have submitted to Islam just as they did, and fought in jihad just as they did; so, why don’t you give us the good news that we will go to heaven? The Prophet said: “It is absolutely true that you are their brothers, but I do not know what you will do after my death”. (Refer: Al Muatta of Malik Ibn Anas, Vol II, Page 642).

    Therefore, we should not exempt Abu Bakr and Omar from the crime of having taken the life of the Prophet, especially when they had tried that once before when the Prophet was on his way back from the city of Tabuk. He had to go past a rough road up a mountain. That road is called Al-Aqaba by Arabs. Those who have to go down it, on a camel for example; must choose a camel with a very quiet disposition. Should it panic, it will trip and its rider will fall and die. Abu Bakr and Omar conspired with a group of the Prophet’s hypocrite companions. They would lie in wait for the Prophet at the time of his crossing this Aqaba to frighten his camel so that she falls and he dies. This fact was reported also by the Bakri resources in clear terms, but the Bakri people try to hide and deny this fact.

    Ibn Hazm Al-Alndulsi, a famous scholar of Bakri Sect, lashed at Al-Waleed Ibn Jamia, dismissing him as a liar. But why? Ibn Hazm says: “Because he related Hadiths that state that Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, Talha and Sa’ad Ibn Abi Waqqas wanted to kill the Prophet and made sure that he met with the accident in Tabuk”. (Refer: Al Mohalla of Ibn Hazm, Vol. IX, Page 224).

    Al-Walid Ibn Jamia was not a Shiite. He belonged to the Bakri sect. Contrary to what Ibn Hazm said about him, he is so widely known for veracity and credibility that Ibn Habban would say “May Allah be pleased with him”, whenever his name was mentioned. The famous scholar of Bakri Sect in this field, “Al-Thahabi” also testified the truthfulness and credibility of this man. If he had not been honest, he would not have his Hadiths related by the famous compilers of Hadith like Muslim, Al-Baihiqi, Ahmed Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Shabba.

    So, Al-Walid Ibn Jamia is not a liar. This proves that Abu Bakr, Omar and their group indeed tried to murder the Prophet as he was passing through Al-Aqaba on his way back from Tabuk. This is a famous incident in which Allah saved the life of His Prophet by a miracle. The Prophet forgave the perpetrators and refrained from punishing them.

    Thereby, we can be sure that Abu Bakr and Omar indeed wanted to kill the Prophet. Though, their plan in Aqaba failed, their next plan succeeded by collusion with their daughters Ayesha and Hafsa who administered poison to the Prophet during his sleep. Just as the Prophet forgave those who tried to kill him in Al-Aqaba, Imam Ali did the same after the martyrdom of the Prophet, fulfilling the will of the Prophet so that Allah’s test continues for them and for the humanity as a whole.

    In fact, the Prophet was just a normal patient. During his sleep, Ayesha and Hafsa administered this poison in the Prophet’s mouth, in order to hasten the seizure of power by their fathers, while ousting the rightful successor, Ali Ibn Abi Talib. It was in this way the greatest and the noblest Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) fell prey to the treachery of his two wives and companions. This is a fact that most Muslims are not aware of.

    ASSASSINATION OF MUHAMMAD

    Assassination of Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him and his pure family)

    ( Section : Explanation )

    QUESTION:

    Dear Shaykh Yasser

    Can you cite the sources of your assertion that Aysha and Hufsa were involved in assassination of Mohammed (SAW)?

    Jaweed Ahmed

    ANSWER:

    In His Name the Most High,
    All praise is due to Allah, may peace be upon Muhammed and his pure progeny and may the curse of Allah be upon their enemies.

    Assalamu Alaikum,

    The Office Answer:

    There are a number of traditions from the Shi’ah and Bakri sources concerning the involvement of Aysha and Hafsa in assassination of Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him and his pure family) as previously stated by the Sheikh in many lectures. However, in order for us to cite the sources of these traditions, it might be useful to look at the following verse first.

    “And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him; if then he died or is killed will you then turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah; and Allah will reward the grateful.” (003:144).

    If we pay a closer attention to this section: “if then he died or is killed.” We find that it confirms that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his pure family) would not die a natural death. Rather, it confirms that he would be killed. For the reason that the conjunctive (or) in this verse means “Rather” In Arabic, sometimes (or) indicates uncertainty and probability. In other contexts, it imparts correction.

    Since it is next to impossible that anyone should suspect Allah’s word, since He has insight into the unknown, Allah must have intended to impart the other meaning. Accordingly, the meaning of the verse is: “If he died, rather, he is killed, you turn upon your heels.”

    We hereby understand that the Prophet was to be killed and his assassination was to be followed by turning back and apostasy. This actually happened, and turned in favour of the rebels who seized power, i.e. Abu Bakr and Omar. Thus, it was particularly addressed to figures who were followers of Islam at the time of the Prophet and not to the Jews who were no longer a threat in Medina as the Bakries believe.

    How then was the prophet killed? And who were those involved in such a heinous crime? Was it really, as Aysha narrates, the Jewish woman Zainab Bint al-Harith who invited the Prophet (peace be upon him and his pure family) and his companions after gaining victory over the Jews in the battle of Khaibar to a banquet; when she poisoned the meat she cooked causing the Prophet to die four years later!

    Ignoring the fact that the Battle of Khaibar actually took place in the seventh year of Hijra, while the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) died in the eleventh year. Is it really likely for a person to die because of a poisoned food he had consumed four years ago! Regardless of the fact that the effect of poison is immediate and even if it takes time it cannot exceed a few months in which the health condition deteriorates gradually; In addition to the fact that the prophet had no unusual health complaints and would participate in the battles throughout that intervening period!

    Or rather was the prophet poisoned by Aysha and Hafsa as commanded by their fathers Abu Bakr and Omar, which is evidenced in the Bakries’ as well as Shi’as’ books of Hadith? If we look at the following hadith reported by Bukhari from Aysha regarding the prophet’s death, She relates: “Allah’s Prophet told me on his death bed, ‘Aysha, since I consumed that poisoned food after the Khaibar Battle, I have been in pain. Now it is the time for my heart to stop beating because of that poison.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol V, Page 137).

    Regardless of the fact that the Quran described Aysha and Hafsa as sinful wrongdoers whose hearts deviated from the true path in Chapter (66:04), we cannot trust Aysha’s tradition about poisoning the Prophet for three important reasons.

    The first of which is because Aysha was an infamous liar. Al-Bukhari reported Aysha saying: “Allah’s Prophet was eating honey at Zainab Bint Jahsh place. So Hafsa and I agreed to tell him, upon his return that he smelled of Maghafeer”. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 6, Page 68. Maghafeer is a substance extracted from a tree. It has a sweet taste but very foul smell.)

    Aysha knew that the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) had taken honey from his other wife, Zainab Bint Jahsh. Being jealous of her, she agreed with her friend, Hafsa, to hurt the Prophet by claiming that he smelled foul when he consumed that honey. Thereby, he would stop eating it, and consequently stop visiting his wife, Zainab. That was a lie. A woman, who would not abstain from lying to the noblest prophet, would not abstain from lying to ordinary people, either. Therefore, the Hadiths reported by her cannot be trusted.

    The second of which is because the Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) had described Aysha as “The spearhead of disbelief and the horn of Satan”. Ahmed Ibn Hanbal and other famous scholars of Bakri Sect related: “The Prophet, (Peace be upon him), emerged from Aysha’s room saying this is the spearhead of disbelief! It is from here that Satan’s horn emerges”! (Musnad Ahmed, Vol II, Page 23). Hence, we cannot trust her Hadiths.

    The third and most important reason of which why we should not believe in Aysha’s Hadith about poisoning the Prophet (peace be upon him and his pure family) is because Aysha contradicts herself in another Hadith. She claimed that the Prophet did not die because of the Jewish woman’s poison. Rather, the cause of his death was because of another disease! According to Abu Yoalla, Aysha also said that: “Allah’s Prophet, (Peace be upon him), died of an ailment Dhatul Janb”! (Masnad Abu Yoalla, Vol. VIII, Page 258. Dhadul Janb is an internal tumour that forms on man’s side. It leads to death when it explodes.)

    Our Imams (peace be upon them) confirmed that their grandfather, the Prophet (peace be upon him and his pure family), had been poisoned in his last days by Aysha and Hafsa, at the order of their fathers, Abu Bakr and Omar. One of the famous ancient Shia interpreters of Quran by the name of Ali Ibn Ibrahim Al-Qummi, who lived in the days of Imam al-Hassan al-Askry (Peace be upon him), relates a Hadith as reported by the Imams regarding the assassination of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his pure family).

    “The Prophet said to Hafsa: ‘I will tell you a secret. If you divulge it, Allah, His Angels and people will curse you.’ ‘So, what is it?’ wondered Hafsa. The Prophet said: ‘Abu Bakr will be able to seize the Caliphate and power after me, and will be succeeded by your father, Omar.’ Hafsa wondered: ‘Who informed you of this?’ ‘Allah, the Omnipresent, the Omniscient informed me.’

    “On the same day, Hafsa divulged the secret to her friend, Aysha. In turn, Aysha divulged the secret to her father, Abu Bakr. So, Abu Bakr came to Omar and said: ‘My daughter Aysha told me a secret reported by Hafsa, but I cannot always trust what Aysha says. So, you ask your daughter Hafsa, make sure and tell me.’

    “Omar went over to Hafsa, and asked her. In the beginning, she was startled and denied it. But, Omar said to her: ‘If you have indeed heard this secret, then, tell us so we can immediately seize power and get rid of Muhammad’. So, Hafsa said: ‘yes, he told me that.’ At this point, those four got together and conspired to poison the Prophet” (Tafseer al-Qommi, Vol II, Page 367, Bihar-ul-Anwar by Allama al-Majlisi, Vol XXII, Page 239).

    There is another great ancient scholar of the Quran, Muhammad Ibn Massoud al-Ayashi who also belonged to the Bakri sect, but was later divinely guided to the true faith and converted to Shia faith.

    He narrates that: “Imam al-Sadiq (Peace be upon him) was sitting with a group of his followers, and asked them: ‘Do you know whether the Prophet died a natural death or was murdered? Allah the Almighty says: “if then he died or is killed”. The truth is that the Prophet was poisoned in his last days before he died. Aysha and Hafsa administered poison in his food.’ Upon hearing this, the Imam Sadiq’s followers said that they and their fathers were among the worst villains ever created by Allah.” (Tafseer al-Ayashi, Vol I, Page 200; Bihar-ul-Anwar, by Allama Al-Majlisi, Vol XXII, Page 516)

    Al-Ayshi relates another Hadith attributed to Imam Al-Sadiq (Peace be upon him) in which he says: “al-Hussein Ibn Munther asked Imam Al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) about Allah’s words “if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels”. Does it mean that the Prophet died a natural death or was murdered? Imam Al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) said: In this verse, Allah refers to the Prophet’s companions who committed the misdeed”. (Tafseer Al Ayash, Vol I, Page 200; Bihar-ul-Anwar, By Allama Al-Majlisi, Vol XX, Page 91)

    These Hadiths confirm beyond doubt that the Supreme Prophet (Peace be upon him and his pure family) was killed by poison administered in his last days and not which was allegedly given four years prior to his death. They also confirm that the crime was an act of treachery by his two wives and their fathers. Meaning that Jews had no involvement.

    There are also evidences in the Bakries’ books of Hadith, that support the Shi’ahs’ Hadiths and demonstrate involvement of the Prophet’s two wives in the crime. One of which is a Hadith reported in Sahih al-Bukhari, Muslim and others from Aysha who confesses that when the Prophet was asleep during his illness she put a strange substance into his mouth with the help of the other wives.

    Aysha did it intentionally despite Prophet’s prohibition. When the Prophet woke up, he saw the residuals of the substance that they had put into his mouth. He angrily asked what it was and who had disobeyed his orders. Aysha and her collaborators justified their action saying that it was just a medication.

    Following that, they accused the Prophet’s uncle, Al-Abbas Ibn Abdul Muttalib. However, the Prophet acquitted his uncle and ordered that those who were with him in the room should be punished by having the same substance put into their mouths. Aysha narrates:

    “When Allah’s Prophet contracted the terminal disease, he told us: ‘Don’t put the medicine in my mouth.’ But we disobeyed him on the ground that every patient dislikes medication! So, we put the substance in his mouth. When he regained his senses, he wondered: ‘Who did that? Have I not admonished you not to do that?’

    “So, we said: ‘It is your uncle Al-Abbas who thought that you might have contracted a lateral tumour!’ The Prophet said: ‘This disease is caused by the Devil. I cannot contract it.’ The Prophet ordered that everyone in the house must put the same substance into their mouths, except Al-Abbas, as the Prophet said: He was not with you”. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol VIII, Page 42; Sahih Muslim, Vol VII, Page 42; Masnad Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Vol VI, Page 53; Prophet’s Biography by Ibn Kathier, Vol. IV, Page 446).

    As I have previously mentioned, the Quran predicted ,as stated by Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him), that the Prophet’s companions would turn against him. The Prophet had also predicted in his several Hadiths that most of his companions would go to hell. One of which is a Hadith reported by Bukhari who narrates that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his pure family) said:

    “On doomsday, when I will be at the water pond delivering water to those who will be thirsty among my followers, a group of my followers will come to drink but the angels will drive them away and take them to Hell! And I’ll say: Oh, God! They are my companions! But God will tell me: You do not know what they did after your death. They degraded themselves to apostasy ….. Thus, only small number of my companions will escape like deserted camels in the desert.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol VII, Page 206).

    No one can claim that Abu Bakr for example cannot be among those who will be driven to Hell, since the Prophet himself did not exempt him from that. Malik Ibn Anas, relates that the Prophet prophesied to the Muslim martyrs of Uhud that they would go to Heaven.

    “So, Abu Bakr wondered: “Aren’t we their brothers who have submitted to Islam just as they did, and fought in jihad just as they did; so, why don’t you give us the good news that we will go to heaven? The Prophet said: “It is absolutely true that you are their brothers, but I do not know what you will do after my death”. (Al Muatta of Malik Ibn Anas, Vol II, Page 642).

    Therefore, we should not exempt Abu Bakr and Omar from the crime of having taken the life of the Prophet, especially when they had tried that once before when the Prophet was on his way back from the city of Tabuk. (Refer to Al Mohalla of Ibn Hazm, Vol. IX, Page 224).

    In conclusion we say that we can now be sure that Abu Bakr and Omar indeed wanted to kill the Prophet (peace be upon him and his pure family). Though, their plan after Tabuk failed, their next plan succeeded by collusion with their daughters Aysha and Hafsa who administered poison to the Prophet during his sleep in order to hasten the seizure of power by their fathers, while ousting the rightful successor, Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (peace be upon him).

    26th Rajab 1431
    The Office of Sheikh al-Habib in London

    Reading : 7232

    • There’s nothing like Shia-Sunni war in the world. The terrorists incite Shia and Sunni Muslims to hate and kill each other. Nothing else!

      • WHY AISHA POISONED MUHAMMAD

        Aisha and Muhammad

        Both the Quran and Islamic history give strong evidence that Aisha, who was married to Muhammad at the age of 9, was never happy with her husband—over 8 times older than her at the time of contracting the marriage. There are evidences that Aisha and Muhammad both quarreled with each other over many issues so much so that Muhammad was on the verge of divorcing all his wives, just because of Aisha and Hafsa, who had shared the truth about Muhammad’s lecherous habit with their co-wives. On another occasion, Muhammad had separated himself from Aisha on the suspicion of sleeping with another young disciple of his.
        As Muhammad was very old and a fatherly figure to Aisha, the young and immature Aisha certainly could never like and love him in a romantic way. When young Aisha was dreaming for her charming prince of her age, with whom she could play, do emotional talking and share jokes—she had sleep with a stinky old man. She probably was not happy of her parent’s decision either that they arranged her marriage with the person nearly of her father’s age. For about nine years, she bore Muhammad’s presence and sexual oppression.
        So, it is possible that when Muhammad had become too much of annoyance and even older, she planned to get rid of old Muhammad, nearing death. Murdering Muhammad was only way Aisha could get rid of him. Her plans for killing Muhammad, however, might have been instigated when Muhammad was showing greater interest in Maria, a Coptic slave of exquisite beauty. The fact that only Maria amongst his dozen wives had borne him a child named Abraham—this might have had made Maria a favorite to Muhammad. He started cheating his wives, whereby he would send them away so that he could go to bed with Maria in their absence.
        Muhammad’s accusation on Aisha of adultery
        Aisha’s hatred and bitterness of Muhammad had certainly intensified after he accused her of adultery—a story, supported by both the Quran and historical texts. Aisha, a young and immature girl, was certainly easy to be manipulated by Muhammad’s young companions. When a rumour about her sleeping on one occasion with a young companion of Muhammad became popular in Medina, he lost his interest in her. He sent her back to her parent’s house. Ali, the close cousin and husband of Muhammad’s daughter Fatimah, had eagerly advised him to divorce her.
        Allah (aka Muhammad) maintained silence for about a month as the scandal kept on spiraling. It was important for Muhammad not to alienate Abu Bakar, who had many trusted friends and a strong power-base. At the same time, he had to somehow prove that Aisha was innocent, not to tarnish his prophetic credential. So, only after about a month had passed and Aisha’s menses returned, proving that she hadn’t fallen pregnant from the alleged adulterous affair that Allah sent down verses to declare that the rumour was false and Aisha was innocent. Thus, she returned to Muhammad’s house.
        Nonetheless, Aisha’s father Abu Bakar, the first caliph of Islam, grew a grudge against Muhammad, because he brought shame and insult to his daughter and family by accusing her of adultery. Muhammad’s absolving Aisha of the accusation was not good enough to assuage Abu Bakar’s hatred toward him, not enough to pacify him. He certainly wanted to take revenge of this humiliation from Muhammad, whom he had supported utmost in his darkest hours. For this reason, Abu Bakar also probably encouraged Aisha to murder her husband, and also that he confiscated the state of Fadak from Ali and Fatimah as revenge.
        A ‘cold war’ between Muhammad and Abu Bakar began to appear after the incident, and he perceived that some confederations had developed between Abu Bakar and his associate to conspire against him. So, he stopped trusting Abu Bakar, Umar and others, who were close associates. Then on, he adopted a new strategy and started focusing on and supporting his son-in-law, Ali.
        Umar bin Al-Khatab
        Umar, the second caliph of Islam, was well-known for his rowdy and arrogant behavior, and often disagreed with Muhammad’s close companions and stayed besides Abu Bakar. It is well known that Umar behaved in a very rude manner with Muhammad when he signed the Treaty of Hudaybia with the Quraish.
        The reason Umar got infuriated with Muhammad was because his daughter Hafsa, one of Muhammad’s wives, caught him red handed with his slave-girl Maria in her Hafsa’s bed, after he had sent Hafsa to her father Omar’s house that he wanted to see her. Despite Muhammad’s best efforts to calm Hafsa down, she started shouting and went back to her father’s house; she told everyone about his lecherous husband.
        When she told Aisha of Muhammad’s lechery, they ganged up and started insulting Muhammad. Muhammad, though guilt-stricken, took a macho approach by refusing to sleep with his wives for their berating of him. However, the truth was probably that he quit sleeping only with Aisha and Hafsa, who had shown strong displeasure with him over the incident, and he might have feared threats or physical on his life from them.
        Accordingly, an anti-Muhammad pact was formed, comprised mainly of Abu Bakar, Umar, Uthman, Talha and Saad bin abi Waqas. Muhammad knew he had been trapped, thanks to his ridiculous and lecherous actions; he could only prolong the drama to drag on, but could not find a way out of it. The silent breach between the two Muslim camps kept growing deeper and deeper with every passing day, but its control was neither within the power of Muhammad nor his alter-ego Allah.
        Given that Muhammad led a healthy and able life for three years after the Khaibar attack, carrying no disability or ailment from the alleged poisoning incident there by the Jewish woman, it is very likely, given the enmity that existed between Muhammad and his opponents, including some of his wives—that if Muslim historians’ claim of Muhammad death from poisoning is true, then it was done by someone closer to him and just before his death, not by the Jewish woman three years earlier. And we can only point fingers at Aisha, given her personal unhappiness and angst, plus her father’s enmity against Muhammad.
        In the previous part of this article, we discussed that an anti-Muhammad confederation, led by Abu Bakar and Umar, had developed during the last days of the Prophet in Medina. In this part, we will see how tactically this gang tricked Allah and his prophet Muhammad in order to achieve their goals.
        As mention, Muhammad had quit sleeping with Aisha and Hafsa because of their compliant to his lecherous actions. Allah sent down strict verses, warning them of divorce and cursing them. Since people were observing the ‘cold war’ between Abu Bakar/Umar and Muhammad, they easily realized that those verses were solely directed at Aisha and Hafsa. Scandals were spiraling all around.
        Conquest of Mecca, January 630
        Muslims, as a cover-up for the credential of Muhammad and his prophethood, tell us that the Hudaibiya treaty between Muslims and the Pagan Quraish was violated by the Quraish. Thus, Muslims had to wage war against the Quraish to teach them a lesson for breaking the treaty.
        Muhammad and his army of 10,000 to 12000 heads — comprised mainly of Ansar — attacked Mecca. He showed much greater his amnesty toward the Quraish, his clansmen, than he had shown to the Jews at Khyber, whom he treated with extreme barbarism. The Ansar (helpers) of Medina figured out that Muhammad was not a prophet, but a selfish warlord, hungry for money, women and power.
        Muhammad did another stupid mistake when, after the conquest of Mecca, he distributed all the booty among the people of Quraish. The poor Ansars — who helped Muhammad and his companions in their dire situations and stayed beside him in many battles — got nothing at all from the captured booty. Muhammad’s bias towards the Quraish made it clear to his Medinan followers that he had no regard for them; he still missed his relatives, the Quraish, and was favorable of them. Hence, the Ansars lost their interest in Islam, and participated in intrigues alongside Abu Bakar and Umar. Thus, it is no surprise that many of the Ansars, after returning from the conquest of Mecca, became scattered in different groups.
        When the Ansars, dismayed by Muhammad flawed action, returned from Mecca, Abu Bakar perceived their dissatisfaction with Muhammad. This was the golden chance for Bakar and Umar to take the Ansars in confidence in pursuance of their tactical moves against Muhammad.
        Failure of Attempted Assassination of Muhammad at Tabuk
        Islamic literature informs us that when Muhammad was returning from the expedition of Tabuk, some of his companions devised a plot to kill him. They decided to hide at Aqabah, a narrow path through mountains, which Muhammad had to pass riding his camel. They planned to throw stones at his camel, so that she would be sacred and fall down from mountain along with Muhammad.
        But Muhammad’s spies got the wind that some men had already approached the area. Muhammad also recognized the 14 men, who devised the plot. Among the plotters, according to records of Shia and Bakri sects, were Abu Bakar and Umar. The plot thus failed. Allah sent down revelations targeting hypocrites (conspirators) as thus:
        And Muhammad is no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him; if then he died or is killed, will you then turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah; and Allah will reward the grateful. (Qur’an 144:3)
        Since both the Quran and other Islamic literature affirm this, the story appears authentic; more so because Muhammad stopped participating in further Jihad expeditions after Tabuk, until his mysterious death. The failed attempt of assassinating Muhammad made him scared that his life was now in danger from his own companions. He feared that if he went to Jihad, he might get killed by his own men amidst the upheavals of fighting. Thus, Allah started to reveal chapters about hypocrites condemning what the conspirators were planning against His prophet. Allah came to His prophet’s support, threatening the conspirators with catastrophic calamity.
        Last Days of Muhammad
        Muhammad was certain that something terrible would happen to him through the hands of his followers or his wives (Aisha and Hafsa). To reduce the threat and collective companionship of his opponents, he started sending the conspirators amongst Muslims away on Jihad expeditions for a certain period of time. Muhammad was sure that his opponents amongst his followers were not only against him and wanted to kill him, but also wanted to bring affliction to his son-in-law Ali and daughter Fatima.
        Muhammad Husain Haykal writes in his book:
        The Muslims did not stay long in Madinah following their return from the Farewell Pilgrimage in Makkah. The Prophet had immediately ordered the mobilization of a large army and commanded it to march on al-Sham. He sent along with that army a number of the elders of Islam, the earliest Muhajirun, among whom were Abu Bakr and Umar. He gave the command of the army to Usama ibn Zayd ibn Harithah. (The Life of Muhammad, Cairo, 1935)
        Muhammad undertook those steps, to avoid death at the hands of his followers, as he wanted that his drama of prophethood that he started at the age of forty be proven true, and to put himself in history-books as a true messenger. As Muhammad had already lost only his male-heir Abraham, he now focused on Ali ibn Abu Talib to his seat of power, if something happened to him.
        This event reflects Muhammad’s intention, given the situation that he did not want to send his trusted companions to the Jihad expedition of al-Sham; he, instead, wanted to send his opponent away, not only to ensure his safety, but also to work on nominating Ali, his son-in-law, as his successor.
        It appears that the conspiracy to end Muhammad’s life had been ripe. So, despite Muhammad’s repeated orders, the appointed army deliberately delayed the departure. Meanwhile, Muhammad fell terminally sick and the army departed only after Muhammad’s death was confirmed and the issue of succession was resolved, which went to the favor of his opponent camp of Abu Bakar and Umar. It appears that Aisha did her job well upon her father’s directions to poison her husband.
        Umar and Abu Bakar could not show him their antagonism openly during his lifetime. Once they were in control of the government in Medina, they were resolved not to let it fall, through miscalculation, into the hands of Ali. Had they obeyed Muhammad’s order to depart for the Jihad expedition, they would have definitely lost power to Ali through Muhammad’s stratagem.
        In fact, in Muhammad’s last days, when he was terminally ill, nearly all control was seized by Umar and Abu Bakar. Consequently, Umar, the arrogant character of the scene, dismissed all orders given by Muhammad. The issue of the Pen and Paper — which Muhammad had demanded in his deathbed for giving the final direction to his Ummah — was dismissed by Umar. Umar claimed that the Quran had been already declared fulfilled; therefore, there was no need of any new verses from Allah, although the prophet was still alive. To this, Umar said:
        “The prophet has lost his mind and is uttering rubbish”.
        Upon this, Islamic history holds records, that Muhammad uttered curses on his followers, and got them out of his room where he eventually died.
        Soon after their master’s death and before his burial, the struggle for settling the succession of power started. Abu Bakar and Umar didn’t attend the prophet’s interment, but were busy in plotting to gain power. There was protest from Muhammad’s trusted followers; but their number was small, because most knew that Muhammad was not a true prophet. As a result, Allah, Ali and his family were so weak that they couldn’t get what their prophet wanted. The death of Muhammad also proves that Allah was impotent, who couldn’t avert the situation; all he could do is to watch, like a silent spectator, the revolt against His apostle unfurl. All of Allah’s swears and promises — which he kept mentioning in the verses and His boastings about his powers that He punishes those who trespassed their limits — seemed nothing but fabricated fairytales.
        It is also on record that six months after Muhammad’s death, his daughter Fatima, was “accidentally” by Umar. Abu Bakar sent some men along with Umar to get Ali’s vote. Umar, known for his rough personality, broke the door of Ali’s house as he wanted to drag Ali out of his house get his vote for Abu Bakar. Fatima, pregnant, was standing behind the door. The door, swung with brute force by Umar, fell upon her, which caused her to miscarry and she died 6 months later.
        Today, no one knows where the grave of Ali and Fatima is. However, the conspirators are still buried within the vicinity of Masjid-e-Nabwi, in Medina, where their master is buried.
        After Muhammad was successfully delivered from earth, the Fadak estate, given to Fatimah and Ali by the prophet, was confiscated from them.
        Islamic literature depicts Muhammad as playing an innocent role in this event, in which he was conspiratorially murdered, most likely poisoned by his wives. But to the world, he will never enjoy the character of innocence, given his barbaric personality and creed brought immense brutality and sufferings upon mankind. He was ‘Villain par excellence’ in the history of humankind. He deserved no better.
        Muhammad’s wife Ayesha was the daughter of Abu Bakr, one of the Prophet’s first followers and the first Caliph after his death. Wife Hafsah was the daughter of Umar bin Khattab, another Meccan convert and Islam’s second Caliph. Along with another dozen wives, Ayesha and Hafsah are known as Umahat Al Mumineen, the Mothers of the Belivers. Abu Bakr and Umar bin Khattab, as well as the other Meccans who migrated to Medina with Muhammad, are the Sahabah, or companions of the Prophet.

        Ayesha was nine years old when Muhammad consummated his marriage with her. Hafsah had been married at ten but widowed eight years later, and was twenty when Muhammad married her. Their young age in comparison to Muhammad’s other wives and the fact that their fathers were both friends of the Prophet and leaders in the community led to a close friendship. When Muhammad slept with one of Hafsah’s slaves, Ayesha was the one in whom Hafsah confided. As a result they were both the temporary objects of their husband’s wrath.
        Sura 66
        The “story behind the story” is often more interesting than the story itself. Muhammad often created Quranic suras to get himself out of a tight spot. In the case of sura 66, he had literally been caught with his pants down. While visiting one of his wives, 20 year old Hafsah, he noticed the beautiful Egyptian Christian slave Mary. Muhammad had already legitimized sex with slaves for his followers, and told Hafsah that her father wanted to see her. As soon as Hafsah left the house, Muhammad had intercourse with Mary. When Hafsah realized her father had not called her and returned home to a locked door, she suspected the worst. Muhammad admitted what he had done, but promised Hafsah he would not sleep with Mary again. Hafsah was still upset, and told another of Muhammad’s wives, Aisha, what had happened. Muhammad then claimed that Allah had revealed to him that Hafsah had complained to Aisha, and that Allah had also told him that he was free of his promise not to sleep with Mary again.

        Now read the entire sura carefully. Notice who is at fault, who is to blame, who is threatened, and who is exonerated by Allah.
        Surat At-Taĥrīm (The Prohibtiion) – سورة التحريم
        66:1

        Sahih International
        O Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
        66:2
        to top

        Sahih International
        Allah has already ordained for you [Muslims] the dissolution of your oaths. And Allah is your protector, and He is the Knowing, the Wise.
        66:3
        to top

        Sahih International
        And [remember] when the Prophet confided to one of his wives a statement; and when she informed [another] of it and Allah showed it to him, he made known part of it and ignored a part. And when he informed her about it, she said, “Who told you this?” He said, “I was informed by the Knowing, the Acquainted.”
        66:4

        Sahih International
        If you two [wives] repent to Allah , [it is best], for your hearts have deviated. But if you cooperate against him – then indeed Allah is his protector, and Gabriel and the righteous of the believers and the angels, moreover, are [his] assistants.
        66:5

        Sahih International
        Perhaps his Lord, if he divorced you [all], would substitute for him wives better than you – submitting [to Allah ], believing, devoutly obedient, repentant, worshipping, and traveling – [ones] previously married and virgins.
        66:6

        Sahih International
        O you who have believed, protect yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is people and stones, over which are [appointed] angels, harsh and severe; they do not disobey Allah in what He commands them but do what they are commanded.
        66:7

        Sahih International
        O you who have disbelieved, make no excuses that Day. You will only be recompensed for what you used to do.
        66:8

        Sahih International
        O you who have believed, repent to Allah with sincere repentance. Perhaps your Lord will remove from you your misdeeds and admit you into gardens beneath which rivers flow [on] the Day when Allah will not disgrace the Prophet and those who believed with him. Their light will proceed before them and on their right; they will say, “Our Lord, perfect for us our light and forgive us. Indeed, You are over all things competent.”
        66:9

        Sahih International
        O Prophet, strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.
        66:10

        Sahih International
        Allah presents an example of those who disbelieved: the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot. They were under two of Our righteous servants but betrayed them, so those prophets did not avail them from Allah at all, and it was said, “Enter the Fire with those who enter.”
        66:11

        Sahih International
        And Allah presents an example of those who believed: the wife of Pharaoh, when she said, “My Lord, build for me near You a house in Paradise and save me from Pharaoh and his deeds and save me from the wrongdoing people.”
        66:12

        Sahih International
        And [the example of] Mary, the daughter of ‘Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into [her garment] through Our angel, and she believed in the words of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient.
        WHO WROTE SURA 66?
        66:3. And when the Prophet confided to one of his wives a certain matter; and then, when she told of it, and God disclosed that to him, he made known part of it, and turned aside from part; then, when he told her of it, she said, ‘Who told thee this?’ He said, ‘I was told of it by the All-knowing, the All-aware.’”
        Note: Allah is Muhammad’s spy/intelligence agency
        “66:4. If you two repent to God, yet your hearts certainly inclined; but if you support one another against him, God is his Protector, and Gabriel, and the righteous among the believers; and, after that, the angels are his supporters.”
        2 women=I man myth busted. Hats off to Hafsa and Aisha. To tackle two women–Allah, angels, believers—all needed. These two ladies made Allah eat his own words!!!!
        “66:5. It is possible that, if he divorces you, his Lord will give him in exchange wives better than you, women who have surrendered, believing, obedient, penitent, devout, given to fasting, who have been married and virgins too.”
        It is possible that, if he divorces you………
        Is this Allah talking?Allah is all-knowing. He should know whether Mo will divorce them or not. And Almighty Allah isnt sure whether he will give Mo better wives in exchange.
        THE HONEY TRAP
        I’d read about the honey incident before reading about the having-sex-in-another-wife’s-bed thing. Just so everyone else knows what we’re talking about:
        Mohammed was spending too much time with one of his wives (because her honey was delicious). In some stories its Maria the Copt, in others its Zainab. The only thing the two have in common is that Aisha and Hafsa, the two youngest wives, were totally jealous of both. So the two of them started telling him that the honey gave him bad breath. That’s how he had the revelation about f–king whichever wife he wants and divorcing the rest if they don’t shape up.
        But something about it doesn’t hold up. Read this bit again:
        66:3. And when the Prophet confided to one of his wives a certain matter; and then, when she told of it, and God disclosed that to him, he made known part of it, and turned aside from part; then, when he told her of it, she said, ‘Who told thee this?’ He said, ‘I was told of it by the All-knowing, the All-aware.’
        In the honey incident, the math doesn’t even add up. This verse is about one of his wives. The honey story features two of his wives.
        And in the honey story, two of them conspired against him — they made allegations against him. The Quran verse doesn’t say anything about that. In the honey story, he didn’t confide anything to anyone. They told him his breath stank because of the honey, because they were jealous of the honey-making wife.
        Also, in the Quran verse, he actively tells ONE of his wives something; note the use of the word confided, as if it’s a secret. Straight from the verse above: “and then, when she told of it”. She didn’t keep the secret.
        Plus there’s that bit about why would you forbid yourself the pleasure God has made lawful for you. That’s referring to honey eating? Eh. Call me cynical, but I think not.
        It just reeks of apologetics. And the more I read about both sides of that story, the more I became convinced that the honey story’s connection to surah 66 is an apologetic fabrication.
        See, it’s downright embarrassing to have a prophet lusting after his Christian slave girl like that. So what can you do? You can spin it. Oh, he wasn’t there f–king her brains out every night. He was there because she made good honey, and, man, did he love honey! It’s a great way to take something R-rated and knock it down to PG, while still retaining the basic story. Ta-da! The magic of a cover-up!
        Muhammad and Mary the Copt
        The cause of this conflict is what I find interesting. English translations of Prohibition quote a Hadith in which Aisha explained that Muhammad stayed overtime one day with wife number six Zainab because she had some honey he really liked. Aisha, Hafsah, and the other wives, who were jealous about the amount of time he spent with Zainab, agreed among themselves that when the prophet came to them they would claim the honey had given him bad breath. When they did this, Muhammad promised he would never eat honey again. That night, however, Allah came to his rescue with surah 66, releasing him of his promise to not eat honey and adding the threat that these complaining wives could easily be replaced with some who were better.

        It’s really quite a silly story, but accepted as truth by millions of non-Arabic speaking Muslims who know little of their own history and have never read the original accounts of Muhammad’s life written by the first historians. The actual account, as written by historian Ibn Sa’d and noted in Arabic renditions of the Quran, is quite different. It has a lot to do with sex, deception, lies and threats, and nothing at all to do with honey.

        As Muhammad’s armies succeeded in one raid after another against the Arab tribes of Arabia, he was finally able to put into plan the dream he had harbored since the first days of announcing his Prophethood. One of his initial messages to his early converts was that if they followed him, the treasures of the Roman and Sassanid Empires would be theirs. When Muhammad reached the point of being able to put his plan of expansion into action, he began writing letters to the leaders of neighboring countries giving them the choice of either accepting Islam or preparing for invasion.

        Muhammad’s letter to the Roman ruler in Egypt, known as Muqawqas, contained the following,

        “I invite you to accept Islam if you want security. If you refuse to do so, you will bear the burden of the transgressions of all the Coptic Christians.”

        Since the Quran had already stated in 5:72 that all who believed Jesus was the Son of God were kafirs or infidels, the transgressions of millions of Christian Copts over 600 years would have been quite high.

        In his response to Muhammad, Muqawqas diplomatically declined the offer to accept Islam, and informed the Prophet he was sending him as a gift two young girls who came from noble Coptic families (incidentally, Muqawqas paid dearly for his refusal to accept Islam; within a dozen years Muslim armies had invaded and conquered Egypt). Muhammad was smitten with the black hair and fair skin of one of them, Mary, and gave her as a slave to one of his wives, Hafsah.

        Historian Ibn Sa’d relates the rest of the story. Muhammad went to Hafsah’s room one day and was again overwhelmed with the beauty of Mary the Copt. He informed Hafsah that her father, Umar Ibn al-Khattab, wanted to see her and Hafsah left for his house. After she arrived there and realized that Muhammad had lied to her, Hafsah returned to her room to find the door locked. When the door was opened, it was apparent that her husband had just had sex with her slave. Muhammad responded to her anger by promising her he would never do this again, but warned her not to repeat the story to any of his other wives. In disobedience to Muhammad, Hafsah informed Aisha of the incident. Muhammad found out and very quickly received the surah of Prohibition, which not only absolved him of his promise to not again sleep with Mary but also threatened all of his wives with divorce if they did not shape up.

        Muslims have no problem with this story from the life of their Prophet, seeing nothing in his behavior to shake their belief in him as the perfect man. I see it differently. I cannot believe that a man could treat Hafsah and Mary the way Muhammad did and be a prophet of God.
        Mary the Sex Slave of the Holy Prophet
        The following is Muhammad’s scandalous love affair with Mary the Copt who was one of the prophet’s wives’ maids. Muhammad slept with her without any ceremony, which caused uproar among his wives and finally was settled by Divine intervention. This story is recorded in an authenticated Hadith and is reported by Omar.
        This Hadith is describing the reason for the revelation of verse 66: 4 of the Qur’an. The verse says:
        “If ye two turn in repentance to Him, your hearts are indeed so inclined; But if ye back up each other against him, truly Allah is his Protector, and Gabriel, and (every) righteous one among those who believe,- and furthermore, the angels – will back (him) up.”
        Qur’an 66:4
        Omar explains that these two women were Hafsa and Aisha who became disrespectful of the prophet causing him grief until he thought of divorcing all of his wives. Here is the full story.
        Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas:
        I had been eager to ask ‘Umar about the two ladies from among the wives of the Prophet regarding whom Allah said (in the Qur’an saying): If you two (wives of the Prophet namely Aisha and Hafsa) turn in repentance to Allah your hearts are indeed so inclined (to oppose what the Prophet likes) (66.4), till performed the Hajj along with ‘Umar (and on our way back from Hajj) he went aside (to answer the call of nature) and I also went aside along with him carrying a tumbler of water. When he had answered the call of nature and returned. I poured water on his hands from the tumbler and he performed ablution. I said, “O Chief of the believers! ‘ Who were the two ladies from among the wives of the Prophet to whom Allah said:
        ‘If you two return in repentance (66.4)? He said, “I am astonished at your question, O Ibn ‘Abbas. They were Aisha and Hafsa.”
        Then ‘Umar went on relating the narration and said. “I and an Ansari neighbor of mine from Bani Umaiya bin Zaid who used to live in ‘Awali Al-Medina, used to visit the Prophet in turns. He used to go one day, and I another day. When I went I would bring him the news of what had happened that day regarding the instructions and orders and when he went, he used to do the same for me. We, the people of Quraish, used to have authority over women, but when we came to live with the Ansar, we noticed that the Ansari women had the upper hand over their men, so our women started acquiring the habits of the Ansari women. Once I shouted at my wife and she paid me back in my coin and I disliked that she should answer me back. She said, ‘Why do you take it ill that I retort upon you? By Allah, the wives of the Prophet retort upon him, and some of them may not speak with him for the whole day till night.’ What she said scared me and I said to her, ‘Whoever amongst them does so, will be a great loser.’ Then I dressed myself and went to Hafsa and asked her, ‘Does any of you keep Allah’s Apostle angry all the day long till night?’ She replied in the affirmative. I said, ‘She is a ruined losing person (and will never have success)! Doesn’t she fear that Allah may get angry for the anger of Allah’s Apostle and thus she will be ruined? Don’t ask Allah’s Apostle too many things, and don’t retort upon him in any case, and don’t desert him. Demand from me whatever you like, and don’t be tempted to imitate your neighbor (i.e. ‘Aisha) in her behavior towards the Prophet), for she (i.e. Aisha) is more beautiful than you, and more beloved to Allah’s Apostle.
        In those days it was rumored that Ghassan, (a tribe living in Sham) was getting prepared their horses to invade us. My companion went (to the Prophet on the day of his turn, went and returned to us at night and knocked at my door violently, asking whether I was sleeping. I was scared (by the hard knocking) and came out to him. He said that a great thing had happened. I asked him: What is it? Have Ghassan come? He replied that it was worse and more serious than that, and added that Allah’s Apostle had divorced all his wives. I said, Hafsa is a ruined loser! I expected that would happen some day.’ So I dressed myself and offered the Fajr prayer with the Prophet. Then the Prophet entered an upper room and stayed there alone. I went to Hafsa and found her weeping. I asked her, ‘Why are you weeping? Didn’t I warn you? Have Allah’s Apostle divorced you all?’ She replied, ‘I don’t know. He is there in the upper room.’ I then went out and came to the pulpit and found a group of people around it and some of them were weeping. Then I sat with them for some time, but could not endure the situation. So I went to the upper room where the Prophet was and requested to a black slave of his: “Will you get the permission of (Allah’s Apostle) for Umar (to enter)? The slave went in, talked to the Prophet about it and came out saying, ‘I mentioned you to him but he did not reply.’ So, I went and sat with the people who were sitting by the pulpit, but I could not bear the situation, so I went to the slave again and said: “Will you get he permission for Umar? He went in and brought the same reply as before. When I was leaving, behold, the slave called me saying, “Allah’s Apostle has granted you permission.” So, I entered upon the Prophet and saw him lying on a mat without wedding on it, and the mat had left its mark on the body of the Prophet, and he was leaning on a leather pillow stuffed with palm fires. I greeted him and while still standing, I said: “Have you divorced your wives?’ He raised his eyes to me and replied in the negative. And then while still standing, I said chatting: “Will you heed what I say, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! We, the people of Quraish used to have the upper hand over our women (wives), and when we came to the people whose women had the upper hand over them…”
        ‘Umar told the whole story (about his wife). “On that the Prophet smiled.” ‘Umar further said, “I then said, ‘I went to Hafsa and said to her: Do not be tempted to imitate your companion (‘Aisha) for she is more beautiful than you and more beloved to the Prophet.’ The Prophet smiled again. When I saw him smiling, I sat down and cast a glance at the room, and by Allah, I couldn’t see anything of importance but three hides. I said (to Allah’s Apostle) “Invoke Allah to make your followers prosperous for the Persians and the Byzantines have been made prosperous and given worldly luxuries, though they do not worship Allah?’ The Prophet was leaning then (and on hearing my speech he sat straight) and said, ‘O Ibn Al-Khatttab! Do you have any doubt (that the Hereafter is better than this world)? These people have been given rewards of their good deeds in this world only.’ I asked the Prophet . ‘Please ask Allah’s forgiveness for me. The Prophet did not go to his wives because of the secret which Hafsa had disclosed to ‘Aisha, and he said that he would not go to his wives for one month as he was angry with them when Allah admonished him (for his oath that he would not approach Mary). When twenty-nine days had passed, the Prophet went to Aisha first of all. She said to him, ‘You took an oath that you would not come to us for one month, and today only twenty-nine days have passed, as I have been counting them day by day.’ The Prophet said, ‘The month is also of twenty-nine days.’ That month consisted of twenty-nine days. ‘Aisha said, ‘When the Divine revelation of Choice was revealed, the Prophet started with me, saying to me, ‘I am telling you something, but you needn’t hurry to give the reply till you can consult your parents.” ‘Aisha knew that her parents would not advise her to part with the Prophet . The Prophet said that Allah had said:–
        ‘O Prophet! Say To your wives; If you desire The life of this world And its glitter, … then come! I will make a provision for you and set you free In a handsome manner. But if you seek Allah And His Apostle, and The Home of the Hereafter, then Verily, Allah has prepared For the good-doers amongst you A great reward.’ (33.28) ‘Aisha said, ‘Am I to consult my parents about this? I indeed prefer Allah, His Apostle, and the Home of the Hereafter.’ After that the Prophet gave the choice to his other wives and they also gave the same reply as ‘Aisha did.”
        Sahih Bukhari 3:43:648, See also: Sahih Muslim 9:3511 & Sahih Bukhari 7:62:119
        The above Hadith is significant as it contains two important historic points. First it reveals, by Omar’s own admission, that “Ansari women had the upper hand over their men”. Even if we consider that to be an exaggeration, it is clear that women in Medina had more rights and authority than their Quraishy counterparts. Mecca, the home of the Quraish tribe, where Omar and Muhammad came from was a religious hob. People living in religious towns are more bigots than those living in other cities. Religion has always played a role in subjugating women and taking away their human rights. So it is natural that women in Mecca were more subdued than those living anywhere else in Arabia and especially Medina that was a more cosmopolitan city having civilized nations like Jews and Christians as its inhabitants. Omar and Muhammad’s wives enjoyed this emancipating atmosphere and were starting to exercise their relative freedom. This attitude, of course, did not sit well with the two misogynist men of Mecca, namely Omar and Muhammad and as this Hadith demonstrates, they were angry of their wives newfound liberties and rebelliousness.
        The importance of this Hadith is in the fact that it proves that women prior to Islam had much more freedom, which was taken away from them by Muhammad and his misogynistic khalifas. It becomes clear that the deplorable status of women in Islam is not a divine verdict but a reflection of how women were treated in Mecca 1400 years ago.
        The fact that there is so much emphasis in the Qur’an and in Ahadith about the importance of women being obedient to their husbands is indeed an indication of Muhammad’s own desire to control his young and rebellious wives. (See Qur’an 4:34)
        The other important point of the above Hadith is that it reveals yet another sexual scandal of the prophet.
        One-day Muhammad goes to his wife’s house Hafsa the daughter of Omar and finds her maid Mariyah attractive. He sends Hafsa to Omar’s house, telling her that he wanted to see her. When Hafsa leaves, Muhammad takes Mariyah to bed and has intercourse with her. Meanwhile Hafsa, who finds out that her father was not expecting her, returns home much sooner than expected, and to her chagrin finds her illustrious husband in bed with her maid.
        She becomes hysteric and forgetting the station of the prophet she shouts and causes a scandal. The prophet pleads with her to calm down and promises not to sleep with Mariah anymore and begs her also not to divulge this secret to anyone else.
        However, Hafsa would not control herself and relays everything to Aisha who also turns against the prophet and jointly with his other wives cause him much anguish. So the prophet decides to punish all of them and not sleep with any one of his wives for one month. Depriving one’s wives sexually is the second grade of punishment recommended in Qur’an. The first level is admonishing, the second level is depriving them of sex and the third level of punishment is beating them. Qur’an 4:34
        Of course when a man decides to punish a wife with sexual deprivation he can satisfy himself with his other wives. But Muhammad’s anger had made him make the oath not to sleep with any of them for one month. That of course would have been too much of hardship for the beloved messenger of God (peace be upon his immaculate soul), therefore God in his mercy came to the aid of his prophet and revealed the Surah Tahrim (Banning). In this Surah Allah rebukes Muhammad for being hard on himself and for depriving himself from what he really likes and has been made lawful for him, in order to please his wives.
        This is the text of the Surah Tahrim: 66:1-5.
        1. O Prophet! Why do you ban (for yourself) that which Allâh has made lawful to you, seeking to please your wives? And Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
        2. Allâh has already ordained for you (O men), the dissolution of your oaths. And Allâh is your Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.) and He is the All-Knower, the All-Wise.
        3. And (remember) when the Prophet (SAW) disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his wives (Hafsah), so when she told it (to another i.e. ‘Aishah), and Allâh made it known to him, he informed part thereof and left a part. Then when he told her (Hafsah) thereof, she said: “Who told you this?” He said: “The All-Knower, the All-Aware (Allâh) has told me”.
        4. If you two (wives of the Prophet SAW, namely ‘Aishah and Hafsah turn in repentance to Allâh, (it will be better for you), your hearts are indeed so inclined (to oppose what the Prophet SAW likes), but if you help one another against him (Muhammad SAW), then verily, Allâh is his Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.), and Jibrael (Gabriel), and the righteous among the believers, and furthermore, the angels are his helpers.
        5. It may be if he divorced you (all) that his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you, Muslims (who submit to Allâh), believers, obedient to Allâh, turning to Allâh in repentance, worshipping Allâh sincerely, fasting or emigrants (for Allâh’s sake), previously married and virgins. “
        Qur’an 66:1-5
        Although Muhammad gave his word to Hafsa, not to have sex with her maid he could not resist the temptation. Especially now that he had taken another oath not to sleep with all of his wives. It was a difficult situation and no one but Allah could help him. Well, nothing is impossible when you are the prophet of Allah. Leave everything in the hands of the Almighty and let him take care of it. And that is exactly what happened. Allah himself intervened and gave him the green light to follow his heart’s desire. In the Surah Tahrim God licensed his beloved prophet to have his flings and not pay attention to his wives. What can a prophet ask more? Allah was so concerned about Muhammad’s carnal pleasures that he even allowed ALL MEN to break their oaths as a bounty. Isn’t Allah great?
        It is also worthy of mention that Muhammad who came to know that Hafsa did reveal the secret to Aisha, lied to her by pretending that it was Allah who told him so (Ayat 3) while he actually learned it from Ayisha. But of course Muhammad is not the author of the Qur’an. It is Allah himself who is lying for his prophet.
        In reaction to the above verses, Aisha, who was not only young and pretty but also clever, is reported to have said to Muhammad, “Your God indeed rushes in coming to your aid!”
        The above story must have been also embarrassing for Muhammad’s followers even when they gobbled mindlessly everything he told them that they made other hadiths to explain away those verses of the Qur’an that were already explained by Omar.
        ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) narrated that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) used to spend time with Zainab daughter of Jahsh and drank honey at her house. She (‘A’isha further) said: I and Hafsa agreed that one whom Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) would visit first should say: I notice that you have an odour of the Maghafir (gum of mimosa). He (the Holy Prophet) visited one of them and she said to him like this, whereupon he said: I have taken honey in the house of Zainab bint Jabsh and I will never do it again. It was at this (that the following verse was revealed): ‘Why do you hold to be forbidden what Allah has made lawful for you… (up to). If you both (‘A’isha and Hafsa) turn to Allah” up to:” And when the Holy Prophet confided an information to one of his wives” (lxvi. 3). This refers to his saying: But I have taken honey.
        Sahih Muslim 9:3496
        The existence of the above Hadith and its difference with the one narrated by Omar reveals yet another fact that the companions of Muhammad were willing to lie, (as Muslims are today) to save the image of their prophet from blemish. It would be foolish to accept the excuse of drinking honey to justify those Ayat. First of all honey does not smell bad. But above all it is inconceivable that a trivial incident like drinking honey could cause such an upheaval in the household of Muhammad to the extend that he decides to divorce all of his wives or to punish them for one month by not sleeping with them. Could such an insignificant incident like drinking honey provoke so much uproar that the creator of this universe be forced to intervene with a warning to Muhammad’s wives that he would divorce all of them and He (Allah) would give him virgin and faithful wives? This explanation is absurd unless honey is a code name for what Muhammad drank from between the legs of Mariyah, which incidentally is very likely when you consider the following hadith:
        Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin: The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) was asked about a man who divorced his wife three times, and she married another who entered upon her, but divorced her before having intercourse with her, whether she was lawful for the former husband. She said: The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied: She is not lawful for the first (husband) until she tastes the honey of the other husband and he tastes her honey.

        Abu Dawud 12:2302
        Yet some Muslims still claim that the Hadiths quoted above narrated by Abdullah bin ‘Abbas are false and the correct version is the one about honey. This is nonsense. This hadith is recorded by both Bukahri and by Muslim. Furthermore it is the only logical explanation of the sha’ne nozool (context) of the Surah Tharim. According to Muslim scholar Asif Iftikhar “a Hadith can be regarded as a source of religious guidance only `if the basis of that Hadith exists in the Quran or the Sunnah or the established principles.” We can clearly see that the Qur’an allows having sex with the “right hand possessions” i.e. slaves (Qur’an 4:24) and it was Muhammad’s habit to have sex with his slave women. The text of the Surah makes it also clear that it is about having sex and not eating honey which is a silly explanation. Asif Iftikhar writes:
        “Imam Ibni Ali Jauzee is reported to have said: “If you find a Hadith against the dictates of common sense or contrary to a universal rule, consider it a fabrication.”
        The story of honey is ludicrous and makes no sense. Why so much ado about honey? And who said honey smells bad? This hadith has been forged because obviously even in those early days, Muslims felt embarrassed about the actions of their prophet. However the hadiths about Muhammad sending Hafsa out so he could have sex with Mariyah makes perfect sense. It is in accordance with the Qur’an and in conformity with Muhammad’s depravity of conduct. It was not unusual for Muhammad to solicit sex from women whom he found attractive.
        This story is also reported by Ibn Sa’d in Tabaqat:
        Waqidi has informed us that Abu Bakr has narrated that the messenger of Allah (PBUH) had sexual intercourse with Mariyyah in the house of Hafsah. When the messenger came out of the house, Hafsa was sitting at the gate (behind the locked door). She told the prophet, O Messenger of Allah, do you do this in my house and during my turn? The messenger said, control yourself and let me go because I make her haram to me. Hafsa said, I do not accept, unless you swear for me. That Hazrat (his holiness) said, by Allah I will not contact her again. Qasim ibn Muhammad has said that this promise of the Prophet that had forbidden Mariyyah to himself is invalid – it does not become a violation (hormat).[1]
        Qasim ibn Muhammad of course tries to find justification for Muhammad’s breach of his own premise. His words had no validity why he gave them and if they were valid why he broke them?
        My copy of the Qur’an contains the following tafseer side by side with the Surah Tahrim.
        Also it is reported that the Prophet had divided his days among his wives. And when it was the turn of Hafsa, he sent her for an errand to the house of her father Omar Khattab. When she took this order and went, the prophet called his slave girl Mariyah the Copt who bore his son Ibrahim, and who was a gift from the king Najashi and had sexual intercourse with her. When Hafsa returned, she found the door locked. So she sat there behind that locked door until the prophet finished the business and came out of the house while pleasure[?] was dripping from his face. When Hafsa found him in that condition she rebuked him saying you did not respect my honor; you sent me out of my house with an excuse so you could sleep with the slave girl. And in the day that was my turn you had intercourse with someone else. Then the Prophet said, be quiet for although she is my slave and halal to me, for your contentment I at this moment make her haram to myself. But Hafsa did not do this and when the Prophet went out of her house she knocked at the wall that separated her room from that of Aisha and told her everything. She also gave the glad tiding about what the Prophet had promised about making Mariyah haram to himself.[2]
        Mariyah was a white Coptic young woman and very beautiful. She bore Ibrahim to Muhammad. I had my doubt about Ibrahim being Muhammad’s son. As per my research, Muhammad, during the last years of his life was suffering from acromegaly. One side-effect of this degenerative disease is impotence. He had erectile dysfunction. Note that Muhammad had seven children with Khadijah who was already frothy years old when she married him, but no children with more than twenty young women with whom he had sex in the last ten years of his life. There are hadiths that show he actually did not have intercourse with his wives but “fondled” them, and often he would go from one wife to another in one night touching their genitals but not practicing the intercourse. Another hadith says he used to imagine having sex when in reality he did not (Sahih Bukhari 7:71:660). Aisha says “none of you have the self control of the Prophet for he could fondle his wives but not have intercourse” The young and inexperienced woman did not realize that her illustrious husband, was not controlling himself, but simply could not do it. Cialis and Viagra were not yet invented.
        There was a hole in my theory. If Muhammad was impotent how could he sire Ibrahim? I suspected that the child could have belonged to someone else, but had no evidence to prove it. I finally got the evidence. The same Tabaqat when talking about Mariyah says that there was a Coptic man in Medina who used to visit Mariyah and rumor circulated that he was her lover. Mariyah was relocated to a garden to the North of Medina apparently because Mo’s other wives did not like her. The rumor reached Muhammad who sent Ali to kill the man. The story says that the man exposed himself and Ali saw that he was an eunuch and spared his life.
        Apparently this was a convenient alibi to silence the crowd. Also Aisha was accused of having an affair with Safwan a young man from Medina also. Later she claimed that Safwan was eunuch. How could he become an eunuch in Medina and no one know? Only Aisha can explain that.
        The story is clearly forged. How could this Coptic man know why Ali wants to kill him? Ibn Sa’d the author of Tabaqat says that he saw Ali with his sword in his hand and climbed a date tree with fear and from there he exposed his genital (awrat). There is no conversation exchanged. The man simply knew why Ali wants to kill him. This does not sound a true story. Why would a messenger of God want to kill an innocent man and how did this man know why Ali wants to kill him? Looks like this Coptic man had a better understanding of the unknown than the prophet of Allah.
        “The sun eclipsed in the life-time of Allah’s Apostle on the day when (his son) Ibrahim died. So the people said that the sun had eclipsed because of the death of Ibrahim. Allah’s Apostle said, “The sun and the moon do not eclipse because of the death or life (i.e. birth) of some-one. When you see the eclipse pray and invoke Allah.”
        Sahih Bukhari 2:18:153
        The following hadith adds that when the sun eclipsed Muhammad…
        “he led the people in prayer,… by then the sun (eclipse) had cleared. He delivered the Khutba (sermon) and after praising and glorifying Allah he said, “The sun and the moon are two signs against the signs of Allah; they do not eclipse on the death or life of anyone. So when you see the eclipse, remember Allah and say Takbir, pray and give Sadaqa.” The Prophet then said, “O followers of Muhammad! By Allah! There is none who has more ghaira (self-respect – honor) than Allah as He has forbidden that His slaves, male or female commit adultery (illegal sexual intercourse). O followers of Muhammad! By Allah! If you knew that which I know you would laugh little and weep much.
        Sahih Bukhari 2:18:154
        Ghaira is the very thing for which Muslims commit honor killing. If you look at a Muslim’s wife or daughter, it is his ghaira that is being offended. If he does not react, it shows that he has little ghaira. The greater is his ghaira the more violent will be his reaction.
        The discussion about adultery at this time is quite revealing. Why would he choose to talk about adultery, of all things, in this moment? It’s not hard to imagine that Muhammad was thinking about it and was not very sure whether Ibrahim was his son or not. In this sermon Muhammad talked about Allah having a lot of ghaira and then speaks of prohibition of adultery. He concludes his sermon by saying he knows of very sad things that others don’t know.
        Another point to bear in mind is that despite the fact the Mariyah was the only women who bore Muhammad a child, he did not marry her. Doesn’t this tell us that he was not very sure about her loyalty?
        In another version of this hadith it says.
        “Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Abbas: “The Prophet then said, “The sun and the moon are two of the signs of Allah. They eclipse neither because of the death of somebody nor because of his life (i.e. birth). So when you see them, remember Allah.” The people say, “O Allah’s Apostle! We saw you taking something from your place and then we saw you retreating.” The Prophet replied, “I saw Paradise and stretched my hands towards a bunch (of its fruits) and had I taken it, you would have eaten from it as long as the world remains. I also saw the Hell-fire and I had never seen such a horrible sight. I saw that most of the inhabitants were women.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! Why is it so?” The Prophet replied, “Because of their ungratefulness.” It was asked whether they are ungrateful to Allah. The Prophet said, “They are ungrateful to their companions of life (husbands) and ungrateful to good deeds. If you are benevolent to one of them throughout the life and if she sees anything (undesirable) in you, she will say, ‘I have never had any good from you.’ ”
        Sahih Bukhari 2:18:161
        As these hadiths reveal, in this occasion Muhammad did not speak much about his only son’ death. The death of his only son, must have been devastating for him, especially when we know he did not have much respect for girls and thought it is degrading for Allah to have only daughters when ordinary men have sons. But on the day of death of his only son, he chooses to speak about adultery and how women will be sent to hell because they are ungrateful to their husbands.
        The story is not important especially since Ibrahim died at infancy and left no descendants. And of course I can’t prove it either. But if true, it validates my finding that Muhammad, in his advanced age suffered from acromegaly, of which he died and was impotent. His insatiable lust for sex was due to his frustrated sexual impulse.
        References
        1. Tabaqat v. 8 p. 223 Publisher Entesharat-e Farhang va Andisheh Tehran 1382 solar h ( 2003) Translator Dr. Mohammad Mahdavi Damghani
        2. Published by Entesharat-e Elmiyyeh Eslami Tehran 1377 lunar H. Tafseer and translation into Farsi by Mohammad Kazem Mo’refi

  2. And what about our security forces who attacked North Waziristan and killed many terrorists? Muslims hate terrorism and they are killing the terrorists as well. Why don’t you show their positive side, man?

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