Aisha: The Child Bride of Muhammad

Aisha: The Child Bride of Muhammad

The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is disturbing. The only name for that is pedophilia – one of the most despicable crimes imaginable.

All humans, including animals, are protective of children. A child’s cry for help, any child, even the child of other species, arouses tenderness in most animals.

Pedophiles are amongst the sickest people because they violate the trust of children.

It is hard to believe that the prophet of Islam, the man literally worshipped and emulated by over a billion benighted souls was indeed a despicable pedophile.

Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6-years-old and consummated his “marriage” (read raped her) when she was nine. He was then, 54 years old.

The evidence is overwhelming, it is reported by Aisha in dozens of hadiths and never Muslims questioned it up until now that people have started raising an eyebrow.

Let it be clear that Muslims are not ashamed of the fact that their prophet was a pedophile. They themselves have practiced this heinous act for over a thousand year and many of them are still doing it. They are only embarrassed that the world is questioning them for it. But the proof is overwhelming.

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:

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

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64

Narrated ‘Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65

Narrated ‘Aisha:

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that ‘Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).” what you know of the Quran (by heart)’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88

Narrated ‘Ursa:

The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Some Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad asking him to marry his daughter. This is not true.

Sahih Bukhari 7.18

Narrated ‘Ursa:

The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”

Arabs were a primitive lot. Yet they had some code of ethics that they honored scrupulously. For example, although they fought all the year round, they abstained from hostilities during certain holy months of the year. They also considered Mecca a holy city and did not make war against it. An adopted son’s wife was deemed to be a daughter in law and they would not marry her. Also it was customary that close friends made a pact of brotherhood and considered each other as true brothers. The Prophet disregarded all of these rules anytime they stood between him and his interests or whims.

Abu Bakr and Muhammad had pledged to each other to be brothers. So according to their customs Ayesha was a niece to the Muhammad. Yet that did not stop him to ask her father to give her to him even when she was only six years old.

But this moral relativist Prophet would use the same excuse to reject a woman he did not like.

Sahih Bukhari V.7, B62, N. 37

Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:

It was said to the Prophet, “Won’t you marry the daughter of Hamza?” He said, “She is my foster niece (brother’s daughter)”

Hamza was Muhammad’s half uncle. In Islam marrying first cousins is acceptable. Muhammad refused to marry Hamza’s daughter, not on the ground that he was his Uncle, but with the excuse that Hamza was his foster brother. Abu Bakr was also Muhammad’s foster brother. So what was the difference? Aisha was a pretty little girl whereas Hamza’s daughter was not.

The moral relativism of Muhammad becomes further evident from this hadith.

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: What is unlawful by reason of consanguinity is unlawful by reason of fosterage.

In the following Hadith the self proclaimed prophet confided to Ahisha that he had dreamed of her.

Sahih Bukhari 9.140

Narrated ‘Aisha:

Allah’s Apostle said to me, “You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, ‘Uncover (her),’ and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.

Whether Muhammad had actually such dream or lied is not the point. Dreams are revelations of our own sub-conscience and not messages from the world of spirits. This shows that Aisha must have been a baby being carried by an angel when Muhammad lusted for her.

There are numerous hadiths that explicitly reveal the age of Ayesha at the time of her marriage.

Sahih Bukhari 5.236.

Narrated Hisham’s father:

Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari 5.234

Narrated Aisha:

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

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 41, Number 4915, also Number 4916 and Number 4917

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:

The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr’s version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging.

They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.

In the above hadith we read that Aisha was playing on a swing when she was taken to Muhammad’s house, which proves there is no mistake that she was indeed a child.

Some Muslims claim that since all these stories are recorded in hadith we should ignore them altogether. This is nonsense. Child marriage is permitted in the Quran. 65:4

Now as for such of your women as are beyond, the age of monthly courses, as well as for such as do not have any courses, their waiting-period – if you have any doubt [about it] – shall be three [calendar] months.

This verse is saying if you want to marry a widow or a divorcee, wait for three menstruations to make sure she is not pregnant. This applies also to those who do not have any monthly courses, i.e. prepubescent girls.

Aisha was so small that she had no knowledge of sex when Muhammad “surprised” her by going to her.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 90

Narrated Aisha:

When the Prophet married me, my mother came to me and made me enter the house (of the Prophet) and nothing surprised me but the coming of Allah’s Apostle to me in the forenoon.

It must have been quite a surprise!

The following hadith demonstrates that she was just a kid playing with her dolls. Pay attention to what the interpreter wrote in the parenthesis. (She was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty)

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151

Narrated ‘Aisha:

I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for ‘Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3311

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

Muhammad died when he was 63 years old. So he must have married Aisha when he as 51 and went to her when he was 54.

Muhammad had many wives and concubines, but he was not in love with anyone of them. These young girls were his sex toys. Muhammad’s real love was Khadijah. If you want to know why you have to read my book, Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allah’s Prophet. The relationship between Muhammad and Khadijah was not based on love, but on co-dependency. These two individuals were both needy and sick

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 33

Narrated ‘Aisha:

I never felt so jealous of any woman as I did of Khadija, though she had died three years before the Prophet married me, and that was because I heard him mentioning her too often, and because his Lord had ordered him to give her the glad tidings that she would have a palace in Paradise, made of Qasab and because he used to slaughter a sheep and distribute its meat among her friends.

Yemeni women hold up the Quran and Arabic placard reading “yes to the legal rights of the Muslim woman” as they take part in a protest outside the parliament in San’a, Sunday, March 21, 2010. Some of Yemen’s most influential Islamic leaders, including one the U.S. says mentored Osama bin Laden, have declared supporters of a ban on child brides to be apostates. The religious decree, issued Sunday, deeply imperils efforts to salvage legislation that would make it illegal for those under the age of 17 to marry. (AP Photo) (AP)

Khadija died in December of 619 AD, two years before Hijra. At that time Muhammad was 51-years-old. In February 618 AD Muhammad married Aisha and took her to bed 3 years later.

Muslims are not ashamed of the fact that their prophet was a pedophile, but embarrassed for everyone knowing it some of them claim that Aisah was older, maybe 16 or 18 years old when she married Muhammad. That is not true. Aisha said that as long as she could remember her parents were always Muslims.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 245

Narrated ‘Aisha:

(the wife of the Prophet) I never remembered my parents believing in any religion other than the true religion (i.e. Islam),

If Ayesha was older, she would have remembered the religion of her parents prior to becoming Muslims.

Now someone may still claim that all these hadiths are lies. Muslims are free to say whatever they want. But truth is clear like the Sun for those who have eyes to see.

Why would so many devout Muslims fabricate so many false hadiths about the age of Ayisha, to make their prophet look like a pedophile? These hadiths cannot be denied.

I can tell you why people would attribute false miracles to their prophet. Babis believe that Bab started to praise God as soon as he was born. There is a Hadith like that also about Muhammad too. Christians believe the birth of the Christ was miraculous and the Jews believe Moses opened a dry passageway through the Red Sea. Believers love to hear miraculous stories about their prophet even if they may not be true, but no one would fabricate lies to portray his prophet as a villain. If such stories are told in such large number, they must be true.

Controversies about the age of Aisha

The majority of Muslims agree that Aisha was only 9 years old when Muhammad married her and allow marriage to children in their laws.

Most Islamic sites make no apology for her young age and accuse the modernists for humbugging the Westerner’s morality and denying the truth.

The site explains: “It should be noted that in the hot regions, it’s normal for a girl to attain maturity at a very early age” and argues that the marriages of Muhammad were to foster political alliances with their fathers and tribes. This is nonsense. Muhammad married Safiya after beheading her father, torturing to death her husband and massacring her entire tribe. He married Juwariyah after raiding her people, massacring the men and robbing their wealth and taking the women and children as slaves. He took Rayhana, the 15 year old Jewish girl of Bani Quraiza after massacring all the men and boys who had reached puberty. With whom he wanted to make alliance? What a shameful excuse to defend a war criminal. What Muhammad did was disgusting, but it is just as disgusting when Muslim apologists try to acquit him of his crimes with such a shameless excuses.

As for Aisha, she was the daughter of Abu Bakr who was a friend and the primary supporter of Muhammad. Muhammad did not need to have sex with that fool’s daughter to foster more friendship with him.

Muhammad was cult leader. He had brainwashed Abu Bakr. That benighted man would have done anything to please Muhammad. When you submit to a cult leader, you submit your intelligence and your conscience. To understand the dynamism in the relationship between the cultist and his leader I invite you to read my book Understanding Muhammad.

Despite all these evidence, some Muslims deny that their prophet was a pedophile. This is not because they don’t know it. Pedophilia is the law in most Islamic countries. They want to save face.

On one hand it is good that they know what Muhammad did was shameful and don’t try to defend it, but to do so they lie. They are the true hypocrites. Instead of coming to their senses, they hide the facts and twist the truth. Muslims have no shame. Muslims do not have human qualities. They are brain dead zombies. This is what cults do to people.

The following is one example of the kind of arguments Muslims present to deny the obvious.


According to the generally accepted tradition, Aisha (ra) was born about eight years before Hijrah. But according to another narrative in Bukhari (kitabu’l-tafseer) Aisha (ra) is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur’an, was revealed, “I was a young girl”. The 54th surah of the Qur’an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Aisha (ra) had not only been born before the revelation of the referred surah, but was actually a young girl (jariyah), not an infant (sibyah) at that time. Obviously, if this narrative is held to be true, it is in clear contradiction with the narratives reported by Hisham ibn `urwah. I see absolutely no reason that after the comments of the experts on the narratives of Hisham ibn `urwah, why we should not accept this narrative to be more accurate.


Why should we believe in this narrative and not in those detailed about Aisha herself, describing she and her friends was playing with dolls who hid when Muhammad entered the room, or her memories of playing on the swing when her mother called her and washed her face and took her to Muhammad? She said how ignorant she was in matters of sex when Muhammad started touching her and “surprised” her. These things are more likely to be remembered by a child than when a particular Surah was revealed. The site continues:

According to a number of narratives, Aisha (ra) accompanied the Muslims in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Furthermore, it is also reported in books of hadith and history that no one under the age of 15 years was allowed to take part in the battle of Uhud. All the boys below 15 years of age were sent back. Aisha ‘s (ra) participation in the battle of Badr and Uhud clearly indicate that she was not nine or ten years old at that time. After all, women used to accompany men to the battle fields to help them, not to be a burden on them.


This is a weak excuse. When the Battle of Badr and Uhud occurred Aisha was 10 to 11 years old. She did not go to be a warier, like the boys. She went to keep Muhammad warm during the nights. Boys who were less than 15 were sent back, but this did not apply to her.

According to almost all the historians Asma (ra), the elder sister of Aisha (ra) was ten years older than Aisha (ra). It is reported in Taqri’bu’l-tehzi’b as well as Al-bidayah wa’l-nihayah that Asma (ra) died in 73 hijrah when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma (ra) was 100 years old in 73 hijrah she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah. If Asma (ra) was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Aisha (ra) should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Aisha (ra), if she got married in 1 AH (after hijrah) or 2 AH, was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.


When someone gets that old, people don’t care too much about her exact age. It is very easy to say she was 100 years old when in fact she was only 90. The difference is not noticeable to the younger folks and 100 is a round figure. Younger people always think older people are much older. Assuming the Hadith is authentic, it could be an honest mistake. People did not have birth certificates. Asma was not an important person and it did not occur to anyone that 1300 years later it would become the subject of a controversy.

Tabari in his treatise on Islamic history, while mentioning Abu Bakr (ra) reports that Abu Bakr had four children and all four were born during the Jahiliyyah — the pre Islamic period. Obviously, if Aisha (ra) was born in the period of jahiliyyah, she could not have been less than 14 years in 1 AH — the time she most likely got married.


Tabari’s narratives do not have the distinction to be known Sahih. The person narrating it was wrong. There are many hadiths narrated by Aisha herself that have more weight.

People remember important events better than those that are insignificant. The date of the birth of the children of Abu Bakr was not an important subject for Muslims to record. But the details of Muhammad’s life and his marriages were important. As you can read in the story of Safiyah’s wedding even the kind of food served is recorded.

According to Ibn Hisham, the historian, Aisha (ra) accepted Islam quite some time before Umar ibn Khattab (ra). This shows that Aisha (ra) accepted Islam during the first year of Islam. While, if the narrative of Aisha ‘s (ra) marriage at seven years of age is held to be true, Aisha (ra) should not have been born during the first year of Islam.


The apologist fails to provide the references to the hadithes that he quotes. In any case this is an error. To understand and accept a religion, one must be at least intelligent enough to make such decision. That is about 15 years old. But let us be generous and say that age is about 12. If Aisha accepted Islam during the first year of Islam, she must have been 26 years old when Muhammad married her. (12 + 14) Are we then supposed to believe that Aisha at the age of 26 used to play with her dolls?

Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr planned on migrating to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut`am — with whose son Aisha (ra) was engaged — and asked him to take Aisha (ra) in his house as his son’s wife. Mut`am refused, because Abu Bakr had embraced Islam, and subsequently his son divorced Aisha (ra). Now, if Aisha (ra) was only seven years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time Abu Bakr decided on migrating to Habshah. On the basis of this report it seems only reasonable to assume that Aisha (ra) had not only been born 8 years before hijrah, but was also a young lady, quite prepared for marriage.


It was an Arab tradition to betroth a girl to a boy even when the girl was a newborn. This tradition is still carried on in many Islamic countries. This is no proof that Aisha was a grown up.

According to a narrative reported by Ahmad ibn Hanbal, after the death of Khadijah (ra), when Khaulah (ra) came to the Prophet (pbuh) advising him to marry again, the Prophet (pbuh) asked her regarding the choices she had in her mind. Khaulah said: “You can marry a virgin (bikr) or a woman who has already been married (thayyib)”. When the Prophet (pbuh) asked about who the virgin was, Khaulah proposed Aisha ‘s (ra) name. All those who know the Arabic language, are aware that the word “bikr” in the Arabic language is not used for an immature nine year old girl. The correct word for a young playful girl, as stated earlier is “Jariyah”. “Bikr” on the other hand, is used for an unmarried lady, and obviously a nine year old is not a “lady”.


This explanation is incorrect. Bikr means virgin and, virginity is not age specific. In fact Aisha was the second wife of Muhammad (after Khadijah) but Muhammad did not consummate his marriage with her for three years because she was too young and Abu Bakr begged him to wait. So he married Sauda bint Zamah, whom he mistreated because she was not pretty.

According to Ibn Hajar, Fatimah (ra) was five years older than Aisha (ra). Fatimah (ra) is reported to have been born when the Prophet (pbuh) was 35 years old. Thus, even if this information is taken to be correct, Aisha (ra) could by no means be less than 14 years old at the time of hijrah, and 15 or 16 years old at the time of her marriage.


Of course this information cannot be taken as correct. If Aisha was five years older than Fatimah, and Fatimah was born when the Prophet was 35 years old, then Aisha must have been 30 years younger than Muhammad. So at the time of her marriage when he was 54, she must have been 24 years old. This is not certainly correct, for the reasons explained above and also it contradicts the Hadiths that the apologist quoted about the age of Asma, who according to that Hadith was 10 years older than Aisha and died in 73 Hijra. In that case at the time of Hijra Asma must have been 100 –73 = 27 years old, but according to this Hadith she was 34 years old. The truth is that she was 17 years old. The two hadiths presented by the same apologist contradict each other and all other hadiths because both of them are wrong.

It all goes to show that in those days numbers did not mean much. It is more likely that people were wrong on dates that events. The reports of the tender age of Aisha is consistent with the stories of her childhood, playing with her toys, her girlfriends hiding when Muhammad entered the room, the Prophet playing with her, her ignorance about sex and her “surprise” when Muhammad came to her. All these confirm that she was a little girl.

This apologist argues:

It is the responsibility of all those who believe that marrying a girl as young as nine years old was an accepted norm of the Arab culture, to provide at least a few examples to substantiate their point of view. I have not yet been able to find a single dependable instance in the books of Arab history where a girl as young as nine years old was given away in marriage. Unless such examples are given, we do not have any reasonable grounds to believe that it really was an accepted norm.

I could not have said it better. Not only marring children was not part of the culture of any nation, it is actually contrary to human nature. Psychologically sane men don’t find little children sexually attractive. Muhammad was not psychologically healthy. He was a pedophile. He was a victim of childhood abuse. To understand him and what went on in his sick mind, please read my book.

How he got away with it? He claimed to be a prophet and as such put himself above the scrutiny of mortals. Who dared to question Allah and his messenger? He had control over the life and death of the people in Medina. He acted very much like other cult leaders such as Jim Jones in his Jonestown, who slept with any woman he pleased, and like David Korsh in his compound, who had sex with every woman and even with the teen daughters of his followers while prohibiting them to touch their own wives. People who fall prey to cults do stupid things. They kill, like the followers of Charles Manson, Shoko Asahara and Muhammad; they commit suicide like the followers of Jim Jones, David Koresh or the Heaven’s Gate. Islam is a cult and Muhammad was a cult leader. I have explained this point extensively in my book.

“In my opinion, neither was it an Arab tradition to give away girls in marriage at an age as young as nine or ten years, nor did the Prophet (pbuh) marry Aisha (ra) at such a young age. The people of Arabia did not object to this marriage, because it never happened in the manner it has been narrated.”


It may not have been a tradition then, but since Muhammad set the example, every Muslim pedophile finds justification and validation for taking children as brides and the ignorant parents, who are often poor, let their little girl to be raped for the greed of money.

Spread the Word of Truth!

7 thoughts on “Aisha: The Child Bride of Muhammad

  1. Forget Aisha folks. We all know that Muhammad raped her. Lets talk on something new as below:

    Why don’t more Muslims speak out against the wanton destruction of Mecca’s holy sites?

    Saudi Arabia’s Wahabists are tearing down buildings that have links to the Prophet and replacing them with skyscrapers and shopping malls.

    Why are Wahhabis determined to destroy all the holy shrines? For example, why in 1216 AH Sa’ud ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, on the order of his father, assaulted Karbala’ and after killing and plunder, destroyed the holy shrine there? Or, why in 1217 and 1218 AH did they attack the holy city of Mecca and engage in demolishing the religious relics there? Or, why in 1220 AH under the slogan of “Kill the polytheists” did they invade an-Najaf al-Ashraf? Or, why in later years did they assault the holy city of Medina and raze the holy shrines to the ground in that blessed place—the shrines of great personages such as the father of the Prophet (s), the Imams (‘a) buried in Baqi’, and the descendants and wives of the Prophet (s)

    But on account its distance from Masjid an-Nabi, opposition to the Shi`ah and the gathering of the pilgrims, they destroyed the Baqi’ cemetery. In 1344 AH corresponding to 1912-1913 CE, the Wahhabis razed to the ground all the domes around Medina such as the domes of the four Imams (‘a) (buried in Medina such as al-Hasan, as-Sajjad, al-Baqir, and as-Sadiq (‘a)); ‘Abbas the uncle of the Prophet (s); the wives of the Prophet (s); ‘Abd Allah the father of the Prophet (s); ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan; Isma’il ibn Ja’far as-Sadiq; and Malik.

    “No one has the balls to stand up and condemn this cultural vandalism,” says Dr Irfan al-Alawi who, as executive director of the Islamic Heritage Research Foundation, has fought in vain to protect his country’s historical sites. “We have already lost 400-500 sites”

    Mecca and Medina, the two holiest cities in Islam, are being systematically bulldozed to make way for gleaming sky scrapers, luxury hotels and shopping malls. The Saudis insist that the expansion of these two cities is vital to make way for the growing numbers of pilgrims in a rapidly expanded and inter-connected world. And they’re right.

    But does it really need to be done in a way where luxury apartments and $500-a-night rooms now overlook the Ka’aba in Mecca, the one place on earth that all Muslims are supposed to be equal?

    Much of this cultural vandalism is inspired by Wahabism – the austere interpretation of Islam that is the Saudi kingdom’s official religion. Wahabis are obsessed with idol worship and believe visiting graves, shrines or historical sites that are associated with the Prophet encourages shirq (the worship of false gods). The rampant commercialism meanwhile is inspired by something much simpler – greed.

    It must by now be obvious that the objective of the Islamic Jihad is to eliminate the rule of an
    un-Islamic system, and establish in its place an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not
    intend to confine this rule to a single state or to a handful of countries. The aim of Islam is to
    bring about a universal revolution.

    The important point to note is that Islam’s call for belief in One God and devotion to Him (Allah) alone. Hence the call of Islam – to turn away from heresy, polytheism and idolatry, and to offer worship and devotion to One God alone. It. It is because of this that whenever any of the Prophets (upon all of whom be peace) proclaimed: “O my people! worship Allah: you have no other god but Him.” (Al-Qur’an 11:84)

    So there is only god and we know only him. Muhammad was just a slave of Allah as mentioned by Quran and we dont need his grave. Because if we do then we will turn Pagans. So lets support Saudi Arabia and the Sauds and demolish whatever is in the name of Muhammad. We will only remember him as Prophet that too in memory and will never pray or raise our hands for him because if we do then we will treat him as greater than Allah and it will be an insult to Allah itself and to Muhammad as well as he only told us to demolish the idolaters and dont keep any of their memories. so how can we keep memories of Muhammad?

    We have only one god and he is Allah. No one is superior to him. He is Al Knoweth, All Wise.




    Mauweyah invited Ayesha for dinner, and he got a ditch dug in the ground, filling it up with sharp knives and swords, with their blades facing upwards. According to Alama Ibn Khaldoon, Mauweyah masked that ditch with lanky pieces of wood, and spread a carpet on top of it all to camouflage it. He placed a wooden chair over it for Ayesha to sit. No sooner Ayesha sat on the chair, the whole set up retrieved and she fell in the pit, injuring herself from head to toe, and breaking a lot of bones. To hide his felony, Mauweyah got the ditched filled up with lime. That is how he murdered Ayesha; she was sixty four years old when Mauweyah murdered her towards the end of 57 Hijri. This proves, with out a doubt, that Mauweyah was an enemy of Prophet Mohammed (p), and he proved his enmity towards the Prophet (p) by murdering his (p) wife. The only reason that Mauweyah performed this heinous act was that Ayesha stopped him from making fun of Islam from the pulpit of Masjid-e-Nabvi.. This is why no one knows the exact location of Ayesha’s grave in Medina.”

    He killed the Mother of the Believers Ayesha in cold blood after ordering the killing of her brother Muhammad bin Abu Bakar. He was also responsible for the killings of many other companions of the Prophet (p) including Hajar bin Adi and Ammar Yasir.

    Following the death of Muhammad bin ‘Abu Bakr the people of Egypt gave bayya to Muaweyah. It was following this (event) that Ummul Mu’mineen Ayesha would curse Muaweyah and Amr bin Aas after every Salaat.

    Tadhkira ul Khawass page 62

    Sunni References:

    Musharriful Mahbubin by Hazrat Khuwaja Mehboob Qasim Chishti Mushrrafi Qadri Pages 216-218

    Kokab wa Rifi Fazal-e-Ali Karam Allah Wajhu, Page 484, By Syed Mohammed Subh-e-Kashaf AlTirmidhi, Urdu translation by Syed Sharif Hussein Sherwani Sabzawari, Published by Aloom AlMuhammed, number B12 Shadbagh, Lahore, 1st January 1963.

    Habib Alseer Rabiyah AlAbrar, Volume 1, Alama JarulAllah Zamik (530 Hijri),

    Hadoiqa Sanai, by Hakim Sanai (Died 525 Hijri, at Ghazni), Page 65-67,

    Namoos Islam, by Agha Hashim Sialkoti, Published Lahore, 1939 – Pages 66-67

    Tazkarah Tul-Aikram Tarikh-e-Khulafa Arab-Wa-Islam by Syed Shah Mohamed Kabir Abu Alalaiyi Dana Puri, Published Le Kishwar Press, Lakhnow, April 1924/ 1346 H
    Sipah e Sahaba and other Wahabi scum have introduced Muaweyah as a companion of the Prophet using narrations fabricated by Muaweyah and his filthy descendants.

    One very clever move by the Wahabis was to declare Muaweyah a scribe (katib e Wahi) who wrote down the revelations of Allah’s Messenger.

    All praise be to Allah swt, the leading Sunni scholars realising this conspiracy of the Wahabis, have declared all hadith praising Muaweyah as fabricated.

    Not a single hadith in praise of Muaweyah is Sahih (authentic)

    Many classical Sunni scholars whilst listing those individuals honored as writer of the revelation did not count Mu’awiya. For evidence see the following texts:

    Fathul Bari page 450 Volume 2
    Irshad Saneed Volume 9 page 22
    Umdhathul Qari Volume 9 page 307
    Nasa al Kafiya page 170
    Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 197
    al Isaba Volume 3 page 413


    The story of Ashura and the great sacrifice made by Imam Hussain (a.s.) to save the religion of Islam was a classic tale of good versus evil. The evil in these events was personified by Yazid ibn Muawiya (may Allah curse him), a man who was simply a despicable human, let alone a so-called Muslim.

    His reign as “caliph” was short but painful. In his first year of rule he commanded his forces to kill the grandson of the Prophet, along with his family and friends and in the second year he attacked the Kaa’ba and set fire to it. He was a power-hungry, selfish and arrogant man but tracing through history, he was not the real brains behind the attempt to destroy Islam, the real brains was his father – Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan. Of the trio of the founding Umayyad fathers, Abu Sufyan, Muawiya and Yazid, Muawiya is the most significant, the most influential and most cunning.

    Sunnis lay a lot of credit on Muawiya’s door. They have a lot invested in him. They don’t really take note of Abu Sufyan and condemn the actions of Yazid, on the whole (apart from fools like Dr. Zakir Naik). Muawiya on the other hand is treated with a lot of respect. They call him Hazrat Muawiya – rasiallahu-anhu (may Allah be pleased with him) amongst other respectful titles. He has been bizarrely sanctified by the Ahle Sunnah over the centuries, his reputation has been shrouded in myths, legends and propaganda.

    During Muharrum I heard an excellent lecture about Muawiya. From my notes and further research on the man, I want to explore who Muawiya was, we need to be aware of who he was and what he represented. The lecturer carefully explored his real record, the truth about his life and deeds and ambitions. We have to know who these people are in order to represent our faith in a better light and even enlighten our brethren in the Ahle Sunnah about the truth behind Muawiya.

    The Ahle Sunnah like to give him three main claims to fame. Firstly, he was a great companion of the Holy Prophet. Looking at history, he was in the Holy Prophet’s midst only for the last 2 years of the Prophet’s life. Any hadith claiming words of praise about Muawiya from the Holy Prophet have been fabricated by Muawiya himself. He was a great propaganda machine and spent much of his time in power creating new hadiths about himself and Bani Ummaya. He also created other hadiths trying to discredit Imam Ali (a.s.) and Bani Hashim in an attempt to legitimise his rule.

    The reality is that he was not a great companion of the Prophet, and the Prophet enunciated not one word of praise or merit about Muawiya. Many Sunni scholars have come to this conclusion in their research, including Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Jalaluddin Al-Suyuti and Abdul-Haqq Dehlavi who all attest to there being no hadiths in praise of Muawiya in their books.

    The Ahle-Sunnah also believe Muawiya to have been a legitimate ruler, caliph of the Muslims. He obtained the Caliphate by ousting the 2nd Holy Imam, Imam Hasan (a.s.) through bribery and blackmail of Imam Hasan’s supporters. He negotiated a peace treaty with Imam Hasan (a.s.) and then systematically broke every single article of the treaty. He broke the central condition of the treaty – regarding succession to his rule, by appointing his cursed son Yazid as Caliph.

    He is, in effect, Islam’s first tyrant. He was the man who created structures of kinship and autocracy. He dug the roots of tyranny, terror and totalitarianism that defaces Islam today. Famous Sunni scholar, Abul Ala Maududi, in his 1973 book “Caliphate and Kingship”, outlines in detail the numerous ways in which Muawiya enriched himself at the expense of the people, how corrupt he was, how many companions and innocent Muslims he killed and how he amassed both power and wealth. He turned the Caliphate into a Kingship. (After all that criticism, Maududi still managed to end the book with “Hazrat Muawiya, (r.a.)”!!)

    If he is a true Caliph and deserved the title, why is he not one of the Khulafa-e-Rashideen – the four rightly guided Caliphs? Why does it end with Imam Ali (a.s.), why wasn’t Muawiya added to this list? They know the truth, but cannot bring themselves to admit as much. The irony is that how could he be a great Caliph when some of his own companions refused to pray behind him? A companion of Abu Huraira, no friend of the Shia, claims in Sirat-e-Halabiya that “On the plains of Siffin, Abu Huraira would pray Salat behind Ali, but would go and eat with Muawiya. Someone asked why he did this, to which he replied
    “Food with Muawiya is better, but Salat under Ali is better.””

    In fact, Muawiya himself made it obvious that he was only interested in power and material gain. He didn’t even pretend to have any inclination towards the spiritual, the moral and the Islamic aspects of caliphate and leadership of the Muslim community. Sunni scholar Sibt ibn al-Jawzi writes in his book, Mir’at al-Zaman that Muawiya openly claims

    “I did not fight you to pray, fast and pay charity, but rather to be your leader and to control you!”

    From the horses mouth himself.

    His last claim to ‘fame’, say the Ahle-Sunnah, was that he was a writer of the Quran when it was first revealed – ‘Writer of the Revelation.” Before analyzing this claim further, in and of itself it’s not that big a deal to be the Writer – one of the writers became an apostate in later life, as claimed by Sunni scholar Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani who writes in his book “Fath al-Bari”:

    “The first man from the Quraysh who was the writer of the revelation was Abdullah bin Saad. After this he apostatized and became a kaffir.”

    Was Muawiya a Writer of the Revelation? As I mentioned earlier, he converted to Islam in 630 AD, just 2 years before the death of the Prophet. How could he be the writer, when most of the Quran had already been revealed and transcribed by the companions of the Prophet? Sunni scholar Allama Zahabi in his book “Tareekh ul Islam” states that “Muawiya was the writer of the Prophet’s correspondence, his letters between the Prophet and the Arabs.” I guess “Writer of Letters” doesn’t quite have the same ring to it. This is further backed up by notorious Egyptian Sunni scholar Sayyid Qutb, the forefather of Al-Qaeda, who writes in his book “Social Justice in Islam”

    “The erroneous fable still persists that Mu’awiya was a scribe who wrote down the revelations of Allah’s Messenger. The truth is that when Abu Sufyan embraced Islam, he besought the Prophet to give Mu’awiya some measure of position in the eyes of the Arabs; thus he would be compensated of being slow to embrace Islam and of being one of those who had no precedence in the new religion. So the Prophet used Mu’awiya for writing letters and contracts and agreements. But none of the companions ever said that he wrote down any of the Prophet’s revelations, as was asserted by Mu’awiyas partisans after he had assumed the throne. But this is what happens in all such cases.”

    So Muawiya was not the man who wrote down the Quran. He was however the man who made his army place 500 copies of the Quran on spears and lances during the Battle of Siffin when he was losing and yet he is still praised by Sunnis today. He’s not the writer of the Quran, he is an abuser of the Quran.
    Setting the path for many Muslim leaders today, he was the first ruler to publicly drink alcohol.

    Sunni scholar Ahmad ibn Hanbal writes in his famous collection of Hadtih: “Musnad” “”Abdullah bin Buraida said:

    ‘I entered on Muawiya with my father, then he (Mu’awiya) made us sit on a mattress then he brought food to us and we ate, then he brought a drink to us, Muawiya drank it and then he offered that to my father, thus (my father) said:

    ‘I never drank it since the messenger of Allah made it [that drink] Haram’….”

    However, his greatest claims to infamy are the harsh treatment and even the killings of several companions of the Prophet & Imam Ali (a.s.) for which he was responsible. Abu Dharr al-Ghifari was a great companion of the Prophet, who stated that:

    “The earth has not borne nor has the sky covered, a man more truthful than Abu Dharr”- as narrated by Sunni scholar Allama Muhammed ibn Saad in his book Tabqat Ibn-e-Saad.

    He goes on to narrate how Abu Dharr constantly used to criticize the corrupt and lavish rule of the third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan. On Muawiya’s say so, Uthman had him flogged and whipped and then exiled outside Madina, to Al-Rabathah, where he died alone a few years later.

    Muawiya was responsible for the death of the great companion of the Prophet, Ammar ibn Yasir. There are many Sunni narrations praising the status of Ammar ibn Yasir. According to the Sunni book Sunan ibn Majah (one of the Sunni six major Hadith collections), the Prophet said:

    “Ammar is filled with faith, with imaan, from the crown of his head, to the soles of his feet.”

    He was the son of Yasir and Sumaya, who were amongst the first people that were martyred in the name of Islam.

    When it came to his death, it was prophesied by the Prophet and is mentioned in both Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim (the 2 most important Sunni books of hadith). Sahih Bukhari narrates:

    “Ibn ‘Abbas said to me and to his son ‘Ali, “Go to Abu Sa’id and listen to what he narrates.” So we went and found him in a garden looking after it. He picked up his Rida’, wore it and sat down and started narrating till the topic of the construction of the mosque reached. He said, “We were carrying one adobe at a time while ‘Ammar was carrying two. The Prophet saw him and started removing the dust from his body and said, “May Allah be Merciful to ‘Ammar. He will be inviting them (i.e. his murderers, the rebellious group) to Paradise and they will invite him to Hell-fire.” ‘Ammar said, “I seek refuge with Allah from affliction.” (Volume 1, Book 8, Number 438). And in Sahih Muslim: “This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Umm Salama that Allah’s Messenger said to ‘Ammar: A group of rebels would kill you.” (Book 041, Number 6968).

    Who were these rebels that would kill Ammar ibn Yasir? History is clear when it records the death of Ammar in the Battle of Siffin. He fought in the ranks of Imam Ali (a.s.) and was killed by the army of Muawiya. The famous English translator of Sahih Muslim, Abd-al-Hamid Siddiqui goes on to add a footnote to the above hadith about Ammar:

    “This narration is clearly indicative of the fact that in the conflict between Hadrat Ali and his opponents, Hadrat Ali was on the right as Ammar Ibn Yasir was killed in the Battle of Siffin fighting in the camp of Hadrat Ali.” It does not, therefore, make much sense to say that both Imam Ali (a.s.) and Muawiya were in the right.

    Muawiya then went on to have Ammar ibn-Yasir beheaded and mutilated. It was Muawiya who first introduced such immoral and un-Islamic practices that his cursed son Yazid would then continue at Karbala and that so many Muslim terrorists continue around the world today – with their beheadings of hostages and mutilations of the bodies of their enemies.

    Muawiya was also responsible for the deaths of other Muslims such as Hujr ibn Adi. Abul Ala Maududi writes in “Caliphate and Kingship” that Muawiya had Hujr ibn Adi buried alive for refusing to curse Imam Ali (a.s.). He also killed Muhammed ibn Abu Bakr – son of the first caliph and foster son of Imam Ali (a.s.), and then wrapped him in the carcass of a dead donkey and burned it to ashes. It was following this incident as narrated by Allama ibn Athir, in his book Tarikh-e-Kamil, that Ayesha, wife of the Prophet and sister of Muhammed ibn Abu Bakr, began cursing Muawiya after every salat.

    His greatest crime was killing the grandson of the Prophet – Imam Hasan (a.s.). Muawiya paid Imam Hasan’s wife, Jada 100,000 dirhams and his son, Yazid’s hand in marriage if she would kill her husband. She poisoned his water, causing him to suffer for 40 days before dying. This has been reported in many major Sunni hadith books, including works by Abul Fida, Abdul Rahmān bin Abd Rabbāh, Ibne Shahnah and Ibne Abdul Birr. Muawiya went on to pay Jida the money, but refused to marry his son to her – if she could kill one husband, what would stop her killing her next husband?

    Muawiya is arguably the greatest contributor to the Sunni-Shia split that exists today. His hatred of Imam Ali (a.s.) and the Ahlul Bayt continues to this day from his followers, from those Sunnis who ignorantly respect him. The Sunnis who try to build up Muawiya are living in denial. Muawiya was a corrupt, greedy and un-Islamic leader and should be treated as such. The lecturer covered a lot of detail and discussed the truth behind Muawiya and some of his hideous actions. I hope I’ve been able to explain what I’ve learnt from the lecture and further research in a clear manner. I encourage you to open your eyes and hearts and come to realize who Muawiya really was.


  3. NOW! NOW! NOW!
    Don’t be running away with yourselves!
    Rabbi Shallum, son of Resh Gelutha, in Babel, aka Abu Bachr al Chaliva al Zadik, Abu Bakr, the first Caliph.

    The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia
    Palestinian geographer; born at Flosz, Bavaria, Oct. 22, 1804; died at Jerusalem
    Feb. 5, 1865. When he was seventeen years old he graduated as teacher
    from the Königliches Schullehrerseminar of Colberg, after which he joined his brother Israel at the University of Würzburg, where for five years he devoted himself to the history and geography of the Holy Land, and published a map of Palestine (1829; republished at Vienna, 1831, and Triest, 1832). It was his ardent desire, however, to study in Palestine itself the physical history and geography of the Holy Land, where his knowledge of Talmudic sources and early Jewish writers would be of more service. Accordingly he decided to settle in Jerusalem, whither he went in 1833. Schwarz then began a series of journeys and explorations in various parts of Palestine, to which he devoted about fifteen years.
    The results of his investigations and researches into the history, geography, geology, fauna, and flora of that country have placed him in the front rank of Palestinian explorers and geographers. HE IS THE GREATEST JEWISH AUTHORITY ON PALESTINIAN MATTERS SINCE ESTORI FARHI (1282-1357), the author of “Kaftor wa-Feraḥ.”

    (Be sure to Google this article)
    614-1096 C.E.
    From the Accession of the Mahomedans to that of the Europeans.
    By Rabbi Joseph Schwarz, 1850

    Rabbi Shallum, son of the then Resh Gelutha, in Babel, aka Abu Bachr al Chaliva al Zadik, Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, was in fact: [A JEWISH RABBI] Rabbi Shallum, son of the then Resh Gelutha, in Babel, perceiving this dreadful predicament, went to Mahomed, and offering him his submission, friendship, and services, endeavoured to enter with him into a friendly compact. Mahomed accepted his proposition with pleasure, conceived a great affection for him, and took his daughter, a handsome young girl (A 6 YEAR OLD CHILD), for wife; he made him also a general in his army, and gave him the name of Abu Bachr al Chaliva al Zadik, literally:

    The father of the maiden, the descendant of the righteous; this means, that of all his wives, who were either widows or divorced women, this one was the only one who had never been married before, and then she was the granddaughter of the celebrated chief of the captivity; therefore, the descendant of the righteous. This occurrence induced Mahomed to give up his terrible intention to destroy the Jews in his country, and thus did Rabbi Shallum save his people.


    [Why Muhammad hated alcohol]

    Abu Bachr and Aliman now resolved among themselves to remove the dangerous enemy of the Jews, Bucheran. One evening Mahomed, Bucheran, Aliman, and Abu Bachr, were drinking together; the latter two soon saw that Mahomed and the astrologer were strongly intoxicated, and lay stretched out in a deep and profound sleep. Abu Bachr thereupon drew the sword of Mahomed from its scabbard, cut off therewith Bucharan’s head, and put the bloody sword back into its receptacle, and both then lay themselves down quietly near Mahomed to sleep. When Mahomed awoke and saw his friend lying decapitated near him, he cried out in a fury: “This terrible deed has been done by one of us three in our drunkenness!” Abu Bachr thereupon said quite unconcernedly: “Let each one draw his sword, and he whose weapon is stained with blood, must needs be the murderer!” They all drew their swords, and that of Mahomed was completely dyed with fresh blood, which proved thus clearly to his satisfaction that he had murdered his friend. He was greatly grieved at this discovery; cursed and condemned the wine which was the cause of this murder, and swore that he never would drink any more, and that also no one should do so who wishes to enter heaven. This is the cause why wine is prohibited to the Mahomedans.

    At a later period, Mahomed learned the whole transaction, and that his father-in-law was the perpetrator of the bloody deed; wherefore, he lost his favour, and he would not permit him to come before him. Abu Bachr went thereupon and conquered sixty places, which had not yet submitted to Mahomed, and presented them to him, through which means he became again reconciled to him, was received in favour, and remained thereafter at court.


    “Mohammed, who was the only son of Abdallah, a Pagan, and Amina, a Jewess, and was descended from the noble but impoverished family of Hashim, of the priestly tribe of Koreish, who were the chiefs and keepers of the national sanctuary of the Kaaba, and pretended to trace their origin to Ismael, the son of Abraham and Hagar, was born at Mecca, August 20, A.D. 570 …’

    At that period, there were many “Jews’ in that area. Again from The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon, volume 5, page 202:

    “Seven hundred years before the death of Mahomet the Jews were settled in Arabia; and a far greater multitude was expelled from the Holy Land in the wars of Titus and Hadrian. The industrious exiles aspired to liberty and power: they erected synagogues in the cities, and castles in the wilderness; and their Gentile converts were confounded with the children of Israel [Jews] …”

    Waves of Israelites to Arabia bringing Judaism in various stages of development

    The traditional view of Arabian history centers on Yemen. It is assumed that a fairly developed civilization grew in the south of the Arabian Peninsula. For several hundred years it grew rich by exporting gold, frankincense and myrrh to the Roman Empire; as well as controlling the overland routes to India and the East. The first collapse of the Marib dam around 450 CE; the decline of the use of frankincense due to the Christianization of Rome; and the Rome success bypassing the desert by using a sea route led to the collapse of southern Arabian society. This in turn led to waves of immigration from the South to North, from the city to the desert.

    Dr. Günter Lüling proposes an alternative paradigm.[1] He proposes a “more historical picture of Central Arabia, inundated throughout a millennium by heretical Israelites”. He envisions waves of Israelite refugees headed, North to South, to Arabia bringing with them Judaism in various stages of development. Linguistic and literary-historical research in the Qur’an tends to support the notion of a more northerly origin for linguistic development of Arabic.[2] Here is a brief summary of three of these waves of Judaic immigration: Herodian, Sadducean and Zealot (explained in more detail elsewhere).[3]

    During the time of Ptolemy, the native population of Cush originally inhabited both sides of the Red Sea: on the east, southern and eastern Arabia; and on the west, Abyssinia (Ethiopia-Eritrea). During the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor (r 181–145 BCE), the Jewish High Priest Onias IV built a Jewish Temple in Heliopolis, Egypt and also one in Mecca, Arabia. He did this to fulfill his understanding of the prophecy of Isaiah 19:19, “In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord (Heliopolis) in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border (Mecca) thereof to the Lord.” The border of Ptolemy’s empire was in Arabia.

    The first wave of immigrants came with the success of the Maccabean, later Herodian, Judeo-Arab kingdom. Romanized Arabs (and Jews) from the trans-Jordan began migrating southward. The Tobiads which briefly had controlled Jerusalem extended their power southward from Petra and established the “Tubba” dynasty of kings of Himyar. Yathrib was settled during this period.

    The second wave of immigrants came before the destruction of the Temple, when refugees fleeing the war, as well as the Sadducean leadership, fled to Arabia. Khaibar was established as a city of Sadducean Cohen-Priests at this time.

    The third wave of immigrants were mostly refugees and soldiers from Bar Kochba’s revolt – fighters trained in the art of war and zealously nationalistic – sought refugee in Arabia.

    This last wave of immigrants included people who are known in Islamic literature as the Aus and the Khazraj. Around 300 CE, they were forced out of Syria by the rising strength of Christian Rome, and the adoption of the Ghassan leader, Harith I, of Christianity. At first the Aus and Khazraj lived on the outskirts of Yathrib. According to Islamic sources, the Khazraj, headed by Malik ibn Ajlan, sought and obtained military assistance from the Bani Ghasaan; and having enticed the principal chiefs of Yathrib into an enclosed tent, massacred them.[4] Then the citizens of Yathrib, beguiled into security by a treacherous peace, attended a feast given by their unprincipled foes; and there a second butchery took place, in which they lost the whole of their leaders.[5]

    1.”A new Paradigm for the Rise of Islam and its Consequences for a New Paradigm of the History of Israel” by Dr. Günter Lüling; Originally appeared in The Journal of Higher Criticism Nr. 7/1, Spring 2000, pp. 23-53.
    2.Hagarism, Crone and Cook
    3.See the authors essays “The Prophet Muhammed as a descendant of Onias III” and “From Bar Kochba to the Prophet Muhammed”
    4.See Katib at Wackidi, p. 287.
    5. “Life of Mohamet I”, by Sir Walter Muir, Chapter III, Section 6


    Onias IV described in Jewish history as someone trying to fulfill the prophecies of Isaiah 19. He was son of high priest Onias III in the Jerusalem temple, who was humiliated and booted out by the Hasmonean Jews. Josephus says about his establishing a temple in Egypt:

    “Yet did not Onias do this out of a sober disposition, but he had a mind to contend with the Jews at Jerusalem, and could not forget the indignation he had for being banished thence. Accordingly, he thought that by building this temple he should draw away a great number from them to himself.”
    “LEONTOPOLIS: Place in the nome of Heliopolis, Egypt, situated 180 stadia from Memphis; famous as containing a Jewish sanctuary, the only one outside of Jerusalem where sacrifices were offered… According to Josephus, the temple of Leontopolis existed for 343 years, though the general opinion is that this number must be changed to 243. It was closed either by the governor of Egypt, Lupus, or by his successor, Paulinus, about three years after the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem; and the sacrificial gifts, or rather the interior furnishings, were confiscated for the treasury of Vespasian (“B. J.” vii. 10, § 4), the emperor fearing that through this temple Egypt might become a new center for Jewish rebellion.
    Josephus’ account in the “Antiquities” is therefore more probable, namely, that the builder of the temple was a son of the murdered Onias III., and that, a mere youth at the time of his father’s death, he had fled to the court of Alexandria in consequence of the Syrian persecutions, perhaps because he thought that salvation would come to his people from Egypt (“Ant.” xii. 5, § 1; ib. 9, § 7). Ptolemy VI. Philometor was King of Egypt at that time. He probably had not yet given up his claims to Cœle-Syria and Judea, and gladly gave refuge to such a prominent personage of the neighboring country. Onias now requested the king and his sister and wife, Cleopatra, to allow him to build a sanctuary in Egypt similar to the one at Jerusalem, where he would employ Levites and priests of his own race (ib. xiii. 3, § 1); and he referred to the prediction of the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah. xix. 19) that a Jewish temple would be erected in Egypt (“Ant.” l.c.). The Onias temple was not exactly similar to the Temple at Jerusalem, being more in the form of a high tower; and as regards the interior arrangement, it had not a candelabrum, but a hanging lamp.

    In the Talmud the origin of the temple of Onias is narrated with legendary additions, there being two versions of the account (Men. 109b). It must be noted that here also Onias is mentioned as the son of Simon, and that Isaiah’s prophecy is referred to.

    In regard to the Law the temple of Onias (…, handed down in the name of Saadia Gaon as … ) was looked upon as neither legitimate nor illegitimate, but as standing midway between the worship of Yhwh and idolatry (Men. 109a; Tosef., Men. xiii. 12-14);”

    As you can see from the description above, this rogue high priest, Onias IV, who felt abandoned by Hasmonean Jews, constructed a temple on the border of Egypt, with a tower (pillar/ minaret), where he and his descendants performed sacrifices and dreamed of uniting his family with Egyptians and Assyrians, for the purpose of fulfilling the prophecy in ISAIAH 19. His temple was closed three years after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (the Romans fearing it could become the center for a Jewish revolt). After that, there is no mention of the whereabouts of this family among Jews.

    On the other end, we have Muhammad, claiming to be described in the Bible, leads a revolt against the Romans, fulfills Isaiah 19, worships a Jewish form of God, with an altar and a high tower, no candlebrums, lamps hanging, performing sacrifices, circling the Kabaa etc like a Jewish priest, on the border of Egypt, ministering to non Jews (as prophesised in Isaiah 19) and belonging to a tribe that was founded by a man whose DNA is identical to the Cohens and who lived at the time when Onias Temple was shut down! I don’t think it is that hard to see the connection here. All it would have taken is for the Romans to bear down on the Jews, and this Jewish family, like so many others, would have moved south, but stayed along the border of Egypt and settled down in Mecca, where they could minister to the locals, as they had in Leontopolis and fulfill Isaiah 19. It does not seem that difficult to imagine.


    Prophet Muhammad was murdered!

    Section : Articles || Date : 2010 / 06 / 17 || Reading : 20640

    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.

    • Aisha did a right thing by killing that pedophile because he fucked her so much and so deep that everything was damaged from inside and she could become a mother. And anyways instead of having so many wives, raped so many womens and having sex with so many slaves the Prophet even did have a son who was alive and carried his legacy. Why? All his sons were taken by Allah. Because Prophet Muhammad was not for that favour from Allah. Allah did a great job by killing him from the poison. Aisha was great.

  4. I Don’t know what other sinful act this satanic bastard has to do to be aknowledged for what he really was,the Messenger of Satan. Key Facts,He Commited Many Evil Acts from Theft,Rape,Murder,Adoltery,Pedophile,Fake Prophecies,Lies against The True GOD calling him a Deciever and stating God would be in agreement of all these evil acts. Muhammad must have Broken all the Commandments given to moses By the True God,Yet he dares mention Moses…What a Hipocrate. Moses came to Save His Chosen People yet Muhammad came to Kill Them. The Gospel is made up of Thousands Of Years of Witnessed Prophecies and Prophets yet it is tossed aside by one Evil illiterate man’s self proclaimed title as the Final Prophet and his holy Book Or Rephrased as Book full Of Holes. He Did no Miracles,So Followers Fabricated a Lie with no significance of him splitting the moon,(Which is what we all do when we need to use the toilet),Nothing ever witnessed By anyone in history. Mind you how big the moon is,Another thing to consider is that no Prophet has ever been attacked by an Angel or God,Never has a Prophet been possessed by Satan,Never has anyother Prophet come out of the House of Ishmael,Never has another Prophet ever had so much communication with God about his sexual Appetite,Never has another Prophet ever been Unsure of his Salvation,Never in History has a Prophet been Poisoned and die the way he said he would if he weren’t a true prophet,Yet you find So many Blind Followers Misguided to follow this sick mans ways the model of whom to follow. I ask If you really Believe this Blasphemer was a true Prophet,Then I dare you do what He Said,1.He said you can eat anything from the sea,Eat a Boxed Jelly Fish or other documented poison fish,2. He said water cannot be tainted,So drink proven fatal Infected water and to be nice Use his famous Remedy Camel Urine and Milk,which he himself failed to use as a remedy when he was poisoned,and if you survive then you can go public and testify it as being accurate,If you refuse You must admit you deep inside know that Muhammad was full of it. Muhammad Says The Gospel was Corrupted which current Historians has Found it is Accurate,Muhammad says The World is flat and The Gospel says it’s a Circle,Sphere,what do we know now? here are more Errors in the Quaran which Muslem scholars have to make up excuses for… here is part two I can go on for years,Check out Jesus or Muhammad …


    • Allah is the pigs shit !!!!because the pig is clean if we compered the poor gentle animal to him !!!!and mahoud … solman hushidie says ……is a a closet queer pedifile criminal dirty old rubbish servent of the devil terrorist writer of that book of satanism and delusion !!!!!!

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s