Humanity vs. Muhammad bin
Nov 20, 2003
This is the long overdue trial of Islam and here are
Defendant: Muhammad bin Abdallah
Plaintiff: Humanity (The non-Muslim portion)
Defense Attorney: Raheel
Shahzad (Any one else is welcome to join)
Courtroom: Public Opinion
Shahzad to Ali Sina
Now let me
address, some of the additional response you had:
the next court session, I invite you to refute my charge
against Muhammad being a lecherous womanizer. I contend that
considering his lack of moral fortitude Muhammad could not be
a messenger of God. He was simply a successful and ruthless
cult leader who beguiled the foolhardy ignorant people of his
time to satisfy his own ambitions and lusts.
This is a
matter of interpretation which actually is the core of this entire
case, so I think stating the conclusion before intelligently having
made your case very clear and not based on a handful of simplistic
articles here and there, or based on very limited materials even
rejected by most Muslims, is not entirely appealing. We will obviously
address your charges one by one, won't we?
Marrying multiple times in our environment today is absolutely a
problematic moral, and a vast majority of Muslims do not practice it.
They have the commonsense to decipher what needs to be followed and
what just cannot be replicated in today's society. Most of the
advancing Islamic nations do not have sanctioned slavery. America
abolished it 140 years ago, even tough it existed and was practiced by
Christians. The consequences of that are being felt by African
Americans today, but it will take time for racism from USA to go away
completely. Morality shifted. So did it in Islam. And Muslims are
capable of recognizing that. So instead of apologizing (as the 5th
article above), I undoubtedly agree that the prophet married 12 times,
and maybe more as some other "scholars" may find in some
obscure sources. And he married a slave too, maybe more than one.
Thomas Jefferson had slaves yet is revered. I suspect all founding
fathers of USA had slaves. So what can we do today? Now one may argue
that a prophet is above marrying more than once, because Jefferson and
Washington did not claim to be prophets, hence the prophet should have
shown a stronger moral fortitude. My question then is, why? Has it
been established somewhere that marrying multiple times 1400 years ago
was somehow immoral?? Says who? Was keeping slaves immoral 1400 years
ago? Says who? Was slavery viewed 200 years ago in USA as an immoral
or evil act? Where is that documented that most people hid their
slaves in undergrounds? It was a generally accepted practice, and
people displayed the moral fortitude of their time. Were the prophets
and Jefferson and Washington supposed to be knowledgeable about moral
fortitude of 2003? Where is THAT documented? I want to read about
their ability to foretell the future. Does Quran say anywhere "In
2003, the morals will be that you will view multiple wives as morally
correct".. And where is it documented that multiple wives was an
extraordinary measure employed by very few men hence making it immoral
in some way back then for the prophet to have done it. If Mormons in
Utah today want to marry 4 women, are they morally wrong? Hence, if
Muhammad married 12 women, or 35 women, or 400 women, he was
displaying the normal fortitude of his time. Where are the articles
that somehow make Mecca and Medinah the centers of current day morals
about marriage? No apologies absolutely. Muhammad married many women
and you can pick any number you wish. The number is not of concern. He
displayed moral fortitude of this time in relationship to multiple
marriages and married some slave girl too. So the point of multiple
marriages and to slaves is???
Even if you
brought 13000 articles of his multiple marriages, what is that
supposed to prove? I just stated without any apology that he married
multiple times and to some slave girls and kept with the normal code
of his time, and vast majority of Muslim men do not marry multiple
times today because of moral and societal shifting as it relates to
Sunnah does not equal marrying 12 wives exactly by all Muslim men. In
fact, if one has to stretch it, the Muslim men can only keep 4 women
at a time (according to Quran) which precludes then the desire of
Muslim men to emulate the prophet. Hence, this is a sunnah which
actually cannot be practiced even if a Muslim wants to do it.
employed by most Muslim men in this regard, and so is employed by most
Muslim women who will not agree to be the 9th wife of some
no matter how closely following sunnah he may declare himself. Many
urban Muslim women in countries like Pakistan today will beat the
Muslim guy out cold if he went around emulating 12 marriages and kept
insistence that Muhammad married multiple times then only proves one
thing, that he married multiple times and had slaves. You want to
bring him back in 2003 and force the moral fortitude onto him, and
that's unfair to not only the prophet, but to all the founding fathers
of USA (which gives the freedom of religion in the first place for us
to even discuss this in an open environment)
do not want to sound timumphalist as I know this is one of the
"virtues" of Muslims. However judging by your poor
performance in this first round I invite you to gang up with
other Muslims and build up a stronger defense.
I also am not
triumphant at all. The case has not been concluded by either side, so
I ask for patience in declaring triumph.
invite any other Muslim who wants to join the defense team and
salvage the lost honor of their prophet to pitch in.
Yes if other
intellectual Muslims want to join in, I would feel delighted too. I
request that those Quran-thumping, irrational, narrow minded, blind,
and morally unfit Muslims please refrain from joining in. If there's
an intellectual and spiritually uplifting aspect to this and makes
some reasonable sense even though it can be argued by some, then yes
please join in. Love and compassion, as I said, should not be
monopolized by non-Muslims only :)
are a Muslim who are dismayed and think someone else can do
better a job than Mr. Shahzad, please invite him. Tell him it
is vital because the honor of Islam is at stake.
that the honor of Islam is at stake. Who is staking the honor? FFI? In
that regard yes I agree that it might be challenged here, but as a
religion on the whole, I doubt Islam's honor is at stake. But since I
also came to this site to learn some more about the world, I really
would like someone to do a better job than me, but please let me know
first what groundbreaking revelation will be employed. Because if
there's none, I can suffice myself here using the same sources that
anyone else will use, and employing the same commonsense and style
that is used to further the mission.
hereby promise once again; should anyone prove my charges
against Muhammad to be false. I will not only withdraw this
site but also will appear in any television and radio and
announce to the world that I was wrong and Islam is true.
You may have
set yourself up for triumph before the case actually is fully made, by
virtue of having made up your mind about guilt. Hence, any refutation,
no matter how logical or strong, will be rejected on grounds of being
not absolute, which will each time yield you the same result, namely
your triumph. So in this regard, I sincerely request you to be honest
with yourself, just based on your own moral code. Ignore me as a
Muslim, I am saying personally on a fellow human level that you
espoused honesty, so certainly in your mind if that is not tugging at
your conscience, then we're both ok.
So as a matter
of fact, I will ask you to yield the following:
1- Do you
agree that employing the logic of injecting marriage morals of 2003
and then writing articles to discount and debase the multimarriage
practice of ancient Arabia is a stretch?
2- Do you
agree that in terms of moral fortitude in regards to marriage, that
fortitude is to be judged based on the time and place in history?
3- Do you
agree that the abolishing of slavery in America and it's nonpractice
in many advancing nations today is a moral shift due to passage of
4- Do you
agree that by the prophet marrying many times, he did not violate a
moral norm of his time and today 12 marriages by Muslim men is
probably only practiced in the remotest mountain villages?
5- Do you
agree that marrying a slave may have had no moral or societal
consequences 1400 years ago but today the moral code of marrying and
keeping slaves is a societal shift seen in most Muslims nations?
In above I am
not arguing the ages of the wives, because the issue of Ayesha's age
is for a separate discussion, so I do not want to muddle this multiple
marriage issue by using that. Hence I request not to jump at that. I
am shedding light on circumstances of the multiple marriages. If a
slave was married after a war ended, I am including that here that in
reference to societal norm 1400 years ago, which I have admitted will
seem quite strange in today's environment, hence I do not hear about
slaves being married after a battle in today's world. Moral shift, not
a change of religion.
been honest in my perspective Mr. Sina on issues of multiple
marriages. I can from my own experiences insist that 12-15 marriages
by Muslim men is just not happening today, and if someone is doing it,
then it is the exception, not the norm among Muslim men of most
advancing nations. Further, I cannot imagine marrying 10 women myself
today coz I'll just go plain nuts tending to them. So in this context,
yes if the prophets married multiple times, it is no compulsion on me
to emulate THAT aspect today, and I am part of the vast majority of
Muslim men who will agree with me on this. The Ahl-e-Sunnat themselves
can attest that they are just not emulating this aspect at all and we
all agree that the prophet married many times and kept slaves, based
on the norms of his society and times. So if the Ummah has got with
the program, why the insistence that we should all somehow ridicule
the prophet for his marriages today. That's not to say that everything
else is hunky dory, but as far as multiple marriages of the prophet go
and him marrying a slave, we really just really do not emulate that.
It's not an apology but a statement of fact. The prophet married many
women and some were slaves and that's all there is to it. I really
then do not want to read a gazillion articles on it, even tough I have
most on this site. No matter how many I read, the bottomland
implication or accusation is the same: He married x lady and he's not
And I think at
the end of each article.."ok so what?".. He married many
women and had slaves. So I should convert to atheism today because
Muhammad as a human being married multiple times? An immense
ideological and logical stretch for me at least.
In my next
response, I shall write on the age of wives and then maybe tackle the
issue of Quran, which the defendant is being accused having concocted
single handedly, as a team, or maybe Satan was responsible. Either
way, I shall ask some straightforward questions of the prosecutor and
hope to learn more.
are over a billion Muslims in this planet. Is there not just
one who can prove me wrong?
Well that also
is a matter of perspective. If one truly wants to be proven wrong will
all the goodness of their heart and really prescribes to high morals
and knows how to keep things within perspective and context, then yes
plenty will have some intellectually appealing aspect for you. But if
a mind is made up about a certain aspect, a predetermined outcome is
envisioned, then I will concede that there's not a single living human
today or ever in future who you will find capable of proving you
wrong. I call this the circular motion logic based on some poster I
once saw. It went something like this:
Rule 1- I am
Rule 2- If I
am ever wrong, Please see Rule #1
I myself do
not subscribe to this logic because there's a lot that I can challenge
and there's a lot I can learn and adjust. Of course, all aspects of
faith to me are not black/white things. There's a lot involved. So to
me, confidence and stubbornness are two different things.
the hypocrite and the paid western apologists of Islam are
welcome to join the defense. Please tell your Saudi sponsors
to fill up your bank accounts again as you are going to defend
Islam once more and shut down this pesky site that has brought
so much humiliation and disgrace to the religion of Allah and
I can only hope. But in seriousness, I don't know how this all works
dude. I'm presenting a response to you as a Muslim guy who has learned
a lot and has thought about faith and have come to realize that Islam
itself or any religion is not the problem, it is the handful of
practitioners and those pesky jihaadi followers of theirs that are the
bad seed. Maybe some governments too, but those dictators are
following their own style of religion, which MAY be called Islam, but
I just don't know what that religion can be called. I saw Saddam
praying in a TV news item once. I cringed and then thought... Wait,
who and what is he praying to? And what exactly is he asking for? cos
to him being a Muslim was probably not the burning desire, but power
certainly was.. So he prayed to something for even more power.
Don't know if
anyone was really listening.
From Ali Sina to Rahee Shahzad
Dear Mr. Shahzad,
I am afraid you either did
not read the articles on the wives of Muhammad or you missed the point
Your whole argument was
about multiple marriages and why in your opinion it is irrelevant
because the Muslims generally do not marry more than one wife at the
The problem I presented is
far more complex than the fact that Muhammad had a lot of women.
The problem is that he raided innocent civilians with no warning, killed
the men and then chose the prettiest women for himself and had sex
with them on the same day he killed their husbands, fathers and loved ones. This is the case of Jwairyah, Rayhanah and
Safiyah. The stories of these women are extremely revealing as much as
they are disturbing.
I will narrate the stories
of Jwairiyah and Safiyah in this part. About Rayhanah there is little detail
All we know is that she was a
member of the Jewish tribe Bani Qurayza. Muhammad surrounded that town
and shut the flow of water to them. They had to surrender and then he
ordered all the men to be beheaded, their belongings confiscated and
their wives and children sold as slaves.
Rayhanah was the most
beautiful woman of this tribe. She became the sex slave of Muhammad.
She refused marrying the mass murderer of his people. However, she had to
accept the humiliation of being raped by her captor, the messenger of Allah.
There is more documentation
available about Juwairiyah and Safiyah and the details of their
capture and rape are shocking.
In continuation we will read
their tale and your job, should you decide
to continue as the defense attorney, is to justify the actions of
Muhammad and acquit him of the charge of rape.
These stories also contain
evidence of the Prophet committing war crimes, treachery, plundering,
slavery and utmost cruelty. However we will talk about these other
charges in another time when I will present more horrendous evidence
to back my claims.
In the history of
the Arabs that predates the arrival of Islam, never before had there
been such wars, certainly none on the scale and magnitude of those
that were instigated by Muhammad the founder of Islam. Previous
battles in Arabia had mainly centered on tribal differences and were
confined to bouts of squabbling with some fights. With the
introduction of Islam came not only war, but also an unrelenting
genocide and terror that would quickly become integral components in
furthering Islam’s expansionism.
The early years
of Muhammad’s prophetic carrier, in his native town Mecca, were
peaceful. After 13 year of preaching no more than 70 or 80 people had
embraced his cause. Not all of them were able fighting men. That
explains why those early years were peaceful. Muslims did not have the
strength to fight. However soon after Muhammad migrated and settled in
Medina, and the Arab population of that town accepted his religion, he
began invading and looting first the merchant caravans and then the
human settlements to survive and to provide for his followers who had
accompanied him and because of their lack of expertise had a difficult
time finding employments in Medina.
The fifth year of
hijrah (migration to Medina) was an eventful year. That was the year
that Muslims fought the famous war of the ditch against the Meccans
and soon after that they surrounded the Jewish quarter of Bani Qaynuqa
of Medina who were a prosperous population of goldsmiths and
blacksmiths and after confiscating their properties (vineyards and
homes) and belongings (jewelry and arms) they were banished from their
ancestral home. After that he set his sight on another Jewish tribe,
the Bani Nadir. He did a similar thing to them. He killed their
leaders and many of their able-bodied men and after confiscating their
properties and much of their wealth, expelled the rest from Medina. In
neither of these cases the Jews offered any resistance. They were
taken by surprise and simply surrendered under the superior forces of
Emboldened by his
victories over these weaker, non-combative and non-threatening people
who agreed to give up their wealth in exchange for their lives and
goaded by an insatiable greed and his lust for power this self styled
messenger of Allah then set his eyes upon other Jewish tribes of
Arabia living outside of Medina. This time it was the turn of Bani al-Mustaliq.
great biographer of Muhammad, narrates the attack on Bani al-Mustaliq
in the following story (Hadith)
I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the
Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they
were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of
water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children
were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi
said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar
was in that army.” Volume
3, Book 46, Number 717:
This same Hadith
is recorded in the Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4292, which validates
the claim of its authenticity.
his religion after Judaism and had great expectations that the Jews
would be the first to heed his call. Nevertheless, to his chagrin, the
Jews had no interest in his religion and he never forgave them for
that. You cannot reject a narcissist without invoking his rage.
Muhammad was so upset that he changed the direction of the Qiblah (the
direction towards which the Muslims pray) from Jerusalem to Kaaba,
which at that time was just a temple of idols and said Allah
transformed the Jews were transformed into apes and swine because of
their transgression (Q.
5:60) and (Q. 2:65).
Muhammad made the Jews the scapegoat to rally his followers around
himself. He was an expert of that old trick known as “divide n’
conquer”. The Arabs of Medina were generally a bunch of
illiterate folk with little skills and often poor who made their
living by working in the vineyards of the Jews and rendering other
services to them. They where originally immigrants from Yemen while
the Jews were the masters of trades and the owners of the lands who
had called Medina home, for 2000 years. They were easy targets.
Prowling their wealth and making more money by enslaving their women
and children and distributing them among the poor Arabs while giving
them the assurance that killing their masters and bread givers is not
only ethical but also sanctioned by God proved a very lucrative
enterprise for Muhammad, one that would change his fortunes, and set
this new religion on its eventual path of war and military conquests.
Muhammad sent one
of his companions; Bareeda bin Haseeb, to spy on the Bani al-Mustaliq
and after assessing the situation he ordered his men to attack.
Muslims came out of Madina on 2nd Shaban of 5 A.H. and encamped at
Muraisa, a place at a distance of 9 marches from Medina.
quote from an Islamic site states:
news of the advance of Muslim forces had already reached Haris. In
panic, his men deserted him and he himself took refuge in some unknown
place. But the local population of Muraisa took up arms against the
Muslims and rained showers of arrows in a sustained manner. The
Muslims launched a sudden and furious attack and routed the enemy, who
suffered huge casualties and nearly 600 were taken prisoners by the
Muslims. Among the booty there were 2,000 camels and 5,000 goats.
The prisoners of war included Barra, the daughter
of Haris, who later on became Hazrat Juwairiyah, the consort of the
Holy Prophet. According to the prevailing practice all the prisoners
were made slaves and distributed among the victorious Muslim soldiers.
Hazrat Juwairiyah fell to the lot of Thabit bin Qais. She was the
daughter of the leader of the clan, and therefore, very much felt the
discomfiture and disgrace of being made slave of an ordinary Muslim
soldier. Therefore, she requested him to release her on payment of
ransom. Thabit agreed to this, if she could pay him 9 Auqias of gold.
Hazrat Juwairiyah had no ready money with her. She tried to raise this
amount through contributions, and approached the Holy Prophet also in
this connection. She said to him "0' Prophet of Allah! I am the
daughter of Al Haris bin Zarar, the Lord (chief) of his people. You
know that it is by chance that our people have fallen captive and I
have fallen to the share of Thabit bin Qais and have requested him to
release me considering my status, but he has refused. Please do an act
of kindness and save me from humiliation". The
Holy Prophet was moved and asked the captive woman if she would
like a thing still better. She asked as to what was that thing. He
said that he was ready to pay her ransom and marry her if she liked.
She agreed to this proposal. So the Holy Prophet (sallal alaho alahie
wasallam) paid the amount of ransom and married her.”
The above is the
story how Muhammad married Juwairiyah as recorded by Muslim
historians. Interestingly Muhammad makes his Allah praise him with
verses such as the following: "And surely thou hast sublime
morals" (Quran 68:4).
and “Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good
example to follow" (Quran 33:21).
The question that begs an answer is; was he really the standard of
sublime morals and good example to follow?
First he attacks
a population without warning and only because they were easy targets
and wealthy. As usual he kills the unarmed able-bodied men, plunders
their belongings, then enslaves the rest. Is this behavior befitting
of a messenger of God? The narrator says, “According to the
prevailing practice all the prisoners were made slaves and distributed
among the victorious Muslim soldiers.” As we read the history of
Islam, we see this WAS indeed the prevailing practice of the Muslim
Mujahedin, throughout the bloody history of Islam. Yet the question
remains unanswered. Is this how a messenger of God should behave?
In another place Muhammad called himself the mercy of God for all the
. What is the difference between this “mercy of God” and a
ruthless marauding gangster and a tyrant? If Muhammad were not the
“mercy of God” and if he were not “a good example to
follow”, how else would he have then behaved?
If this was the
prevailing practice of the Arabs, couldn’t the messenger of God
change it? Why engage in such a barbaric practice at all? Did he
not say that his is the example to follow? Why should a man with such
a claim behave in so brutal a fashion? Was he merely following the
customs of his people or was he attempting to set an example for them
It is very clear
that Muhammad was not "moved" by compassion but by lust.
Muhammad did not set free Juwairiyah because he felt sorry for her. He
was a man incapable of such feelings. He wanted Juwairiyah for
himself. And this is the man 1.2 billion people follow as the perfect
example and a messenger of God.
Unlike what most
people may think, Muhammad’s intentions were not to convert people
to his religion. His real aim was power, wealth and domination.
Religion was just the pretext he used to subdue and conquer those he
first sought to have dominion over. He weighed each case differently
and considered its financial benefits. In most cases it was more
profitable if the people did not convert to Islam, but killed and
their belongings taken as spoils of war and their wives and children
enslaved and soled with huge profits. This could bring sudden wealth
to this “messenger of God” that otherwise he could not have. If
people were given the choice they could have feared defeat and the
harsh consequences and they could have accepted Islam. This would have
impeded Muslims of looting them, which meant loss of profit. That is
why Muhammad did not deem appropriate to warn the Bani Mustaliq just
as he never warned his other victims but attacked them by surprise.
biographer of Muhammad narrates:
'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was
necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept
(Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that
it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah
(may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were
unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed
those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured
Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related
to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding
019, Number 4292:
carried on this sunnah (examples set by Muhammad) after his death.
When a Muslim
army invaded a town, they would not allow anyone to convert to Islam
for three days. During these three days they could kill as many
men as they liked, pillage their properties, then rape and enslave
their women and children. Only after a town had been decimated and all
the young women and children that could be sold as slaves were
captured would the brutal campaign of Islamization, with its brutal
mandate that all must convert or die, began. However the Jews
and the Christians were given protection to live provided they pay a
penalty tax called Jizyah and enter into dhimmitude. Dhimmi means
protected. But the dhimmis had to pay a hefty jizyah for their
protection. This Jizyah was the source of livelihood of the
Muslims who through it were able to live like parasites off the labor
of the dhimmis. The following Hadith, reported by Bukhari, records the
source for this practice based on the admonitions of Muhammad toward
Juwairiya bin Qudama At-Tamimi:
We said to 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, oh Chief of the believers! Advise
us." He said, "I advise you to fulfill Allah's Convention
(made with the Dhimmis) as it is the convention of your Prophet and the
source of the livelihood of your dependents (i.e. the taxes from
4, Book 53, Number 388:
Continuing the story of Juwairiyah, Aisha who accompanied the prophet
on this expedition related:
the prophet-peace be upon him- distributed the captives of Banu
Almustaliq, she (Barrah) fell to the lot of Thabit ibn Qyas. She was
married to her cousin, who was killed during the battle. She gave
Thabit a deed, agreeing to pay him nine okes of gold for her freedom. She
was a very beautiful woman. She captivated every man who saw her.
She came to the prophet-peace be upon him-, to ask for his help in the
soon as I saw her at door of my room, I took a dislike to her, for I
knew that he would see her as I saw her.
She went in and told him who she was, the daughter of al-Harith ibn
Dhirar, the chief of his people. She said: "you can see the state
to which I have been brought. I have fallen to the lot of Thabit, and
have given him a deed for ransom, and I have to come to ask your help
in the matter.' He said: 'would you like something better than that? I
will discharge your debt, and marry you.' she said: 'yes. O then it is
messenger of Allah! Done.' he replied.”
This story ends
any further arguments about to the real motives of Muhammad in
marrying only the young and beautiful women. As it can be seen
Muhammad murders the husband of Juwairiyah, who was also her cousin.
Captivated by her beauty, he offers to free her, but only on the
condition she marry him. After having come to Muhammad to plead for
his help, this self declared Messenger of God, this self proclaimed
“mercy of God for humanity”, this self styled “example to
follow” by all the Muslims presents her with a most unwelcome
choice, for whose price is that she must surrender her freedom.
What other choice could there possibly be for her? Muslims
apologetics insists that most of Muhammad’s wives were widows. They
try to give the impression Muhammad married them as an act of charity.
However as it becomes clear these women were young and beautiful. If
they were widows, is because Muhammad murdered their husbands.
Juwairiyah was just 20 years old then while Muhammad was 58.
the name of Juwairiyah was originally Barra (Pious). Apparently
Muhammad did not like this name and so changed her name to Juwairiyah.
Even the two Zeinabs who were his wives were previously called Barra
and he changed their names as well to Zeinab, It would appear the
Prophet had some guilt in becoming sexually intimate with women that
were called “Pious”. These seemingly incidental incidents reflect
a certain hitherto humanity, a conscience, if you will, to his
character, and perhaps hint at his own real, but hidden religiosity.
Muhammad was certainly convinced of his own cause. However his
understanding of reality was distorted as he had difficulty to
distinguish between what is real and what is imagined. In fact
Muhammad was more motivated by fear and superstitions than by
conscience and ethics.
The rest of the
story of Juwairiyah is mixed with half-truths and exaggerations, in
the manner that have tainted most of the Hadiths. We read:
is said that when the Prophet-peace be upon him- departed from the
raid with Juwairiyah and was at Dhuljaysh, he entrusted her to one of
the Ansar and went forward to Madinah. Her father, al-Harith,
discovered that she was held captive and went back o Madinah, bringing
his daughter's ransom. When he reached al-Aqia, he looked at the
camels he had brought as her ransom and admired the two of them
greatly, so he hid them in one of the passes of al-Aqia. Then he came
to the Prophet-peace be upon him- dragging the camels behind him, and
told him: "My daughter is too noble to be taken as a captive. Set
her free by this ransom." the Prophet-peace be upon him- replied:
"Isn't it better that we let her choose her self?" that is
fair enough," said al-Harith. He came to his daughter and said:
"This man is letting you chose so do not dishonor us!"
"I choose Allah's messenger," she replied calmly. "What
a disgrace!" he exclaimed.
Prophet-peace be upon him-, then said "where are two camels which
you have hidden in al-Aqia in such -and- such a pass?" al-Harith
exclaimed: "I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and
that you Muhammad are the messenger of Allah! For none could have know
of this but Allah."
in his 'Tabaqat', states that the father of Juwairiyah paid her ransom
amount, and when she became free, the Holy Prophet married her. As a
result of this marriage a11 the prisoners of war numbering about 600
were freed by the Muslims as they did not like that any member of the
family in which the holy Prophet was married, be made a slave."
It is hard to
determine which part of these stories is true and which part is not.
However, what is not so difficult to notice are the many
contradictions contained within the main storyline. For instance, we
read that Muhammad paid the ransom to Thabit the captor of Juwairiyah,
and then married her after freeing her. Then we read that Hairth, the
father of Juwairiyah also paid the ransom to set her free. As to
the claims of Muhammad having some sort of psychic power, that
empowered him to know or tell certain things in advance, for instance
knowing certain information such as the whereabouts of camels, we can
safely conclude that these claims are false. On many occasions
Muhammad demonstrated precisely the opposite, and proved that he was
by no means psychic, let alone prescient, as he failed to discern or
to obtain through divine blessings the information he so desired. For
instance, when he raided Khaibar, he tortured the treasurer of that
town, even to the point of death, just so he could extract from him
the information that would lead to the whereabouts of the city’s
It is important
to understand the character of the Arab peoples. In this particular
instance it was the Arabs who exhibited higher moral standards than
their prophet. They released the relatives of Juwairiyah after they
learned that Muhammad had married her. Muhammed was devoid of common
decency, of having or showing even a hint of the virtues reflective of
a moral leader. Without any empathy for those whose misfortune
it was to become his victim.
that Juwairiyah became a very devout believer and would spend all of
her days praying. The source of this claim can be found in the book
Usud-ul-Ghaba. There the author writes that whenever the Prophet used
to come to Juwairiyah he would find her praying, then when he would
return at a later time he still found her praying. One day he said to
her: “Shall I tell you few words, if you say them they will be
heavier in the scale than what you have done? You say: 'subhaana
allahe 'adada khalqihi, subhana allahe ridhaa nafsehe, subhana allahe
zinata 'arshehe, subhana allahe zinata 'arshehe,subhana allah midadda
kalimaatihi.' (Praise Allah as many times as number of his creatures,
and as much as pleases him, and as much as the weight of his throne,
and as much as the ink for his words).
One wonders why
Muslims spend 5 times a day praying and waste that much man hours
unproductively when they have such a simple and unbeatable formula to
Let us look at
this situation from a more realistic perspective. Put yourself in the
shoes of a young woman who has just fallen into the lot of a murderer
of her husband who also happened to be her cousin! As relatives,
they grew up together. They were more than just husband and wife. They
were first playmates, then lovers and companions for life.
If you were a woman in Juwairiyah’s situation, how would you feel
about the killer of your husband and many of your relatives and loved
ones? Suppose further you don’t have anywhere to go to. Without any
viable options for escape, your only choice would be to surrender as a
sex slave to this old man, one who is the king of his people and has
plenty of money or to be given away to one of his soldiers. Under
whose captivity would you rather be? I believe the answer is
clear. Juwairiah had no choice but to accept Muhammad’s offer to
marry her. Now what would any woman do if such an old man as this came
to her for sex or company? She probably would devise a survival ploy.
That is what Juwairiyah did. Any time she noticed Muhammad is coming,
she pretended that she was busy praying, hoping that he would leave
her and go to his other wives to satisfy his wretched lust. Yet, as we
see, Muhammad was a cunning old man. He soon prescribed a sentence and
told her that this “will be heavier in the scale” than praying all
day long, robbing her from excuses to shun him when he desired her.
The following is the story of
Safiyah Bint Huyeiy Ibn Akhtab, the Jewish woman who was captured when
Muhammad’s troops attacked Kheibar and brought her to the Prophet as
part of his share of the booty. This
story, is reported in the Book of Tabaqat and is published also in the
trusted Islamic site. http://www.prophetmuhammed.org/
(This site seems to be shut down now. The story was published is
several Islamic sites when I wrote this article, but now not a single
site carries it. However the story can be traced from the hadith
easily. I suspect soon all Islamic literature will be withdrawn from
the site as more and more it becomes evident that they are far more
damaging to the reputation of Islam than anything I can write)
Safiyah was seventeen and very beautiful when Muslims killed her
father, husband and many of her relatives. In the same day the Prophet
of Allah wanted to sleep with her. Here is the exact text of the story
was born in Medinah. She belonged to the Jewish tribe of Banu
'I-Nadir. When this tribe was expelled from Medinah in the year 4 A.H,
Huyaiy was one of those who settled in the fertile colony of Khaibar
together with Kinana ibn al-Rabi' to whom Safiyah was married a little
before the Muslims attacked Khaibar. She was then seventeen. She had
formerly been the wife of Sallam ibn Mishkam, who divorced her. One
mile from Khaibar. Here the Prophet married Safiyah. She was groomed
and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn
Malik. They spent the night there. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the
tent of the Prophet the whole night. When, in the early dawn, the
Prophet saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he
meant by this sentry-go; he replied: "I was afraid for you with
this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of
her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really
afraid for you on her account". The Prophet prayed for Abu Ayyub
al-Ansari (Ibn Hisham, p. 766) Safiyah had requested the Prophet to
wait till he had gone a stage away from Khaibar. "Why?"
asked the Prophet. "I was afraid for you on account of the Jews
who still happened to be near at Khaibar!"
reason Safiyah rejected the sexual advances of the 57-year-old
Muhammad should be obvious to any objective person. I believe most
women prefer to mourn than jump into bed with the killer of their
father, husband and many relatives on the same day of their death. But
the fact that the prophet of Allah could not contain his sexual urges
for one day to let this young girl grieve, says a lot of his thinking
and moral character. However as for the rest of the story we are not
sure whether it is true or was fabricated by Muslim historians to wipe
the impression of rape. But this is all we have and to find the truth
we have to rely on these biased documents written by Muslim
historians. The story
goes on to say that Abu Ayyub was concerned for the safety of the
prophet because he (Muhammad) had killed Safiyah's father, husband and
many of her relatives. This is logical. It is foolish to sleep with a
woman after killing her loved ones. But Safiyah’s excuse for
rejecting Muhammad’s advances towards her seems unreasonable. When
Muhammad took this young girl into his tent, he had already killed
many Jews and was winning the war. If there were any Jews left, they
probably were more worried for their own lives than Safiyah’s
chastity. Also she was already in the tent alone with Muhammad, how
the Jews would have known if they were engaged in sex or not? I wonder
what other excuse could she make to a man who was the murderer of her
father, husband and many of her relatives to let her alone at least
next day a Walima (we
dding-feast) was arranged on behalf of the Prophet…
that the historian is saying that the wedding took place one day after
the prophet got private with Safiyah and made his moves to have sex
with her. This presented no problem for the prophet as he had his
Allah reveal a verse saying it is okay to sleep with women captured in
war without marrying them even if they are married.
all married women (are forbidden unto you) save
those (captives) whom your right hands possess…” (Q. 4:24
above verse shows that the Holy prophet did not believe that slaves
have any right. You could be a happily married woman living your own
life, but if Muhammad and his devout followers attacked your town and
captured you, you would lose all your rights, and while your husband
was being killed or enslaved you would be given to a Muslim Mujahid
who would rape you all with Allah’s blessings.
is confirmed in another place.
believers must (eventually) win through,-
2- Those who humble themselves in their prayers;
3-Who avoid vain talk;
4- Who are active in deeds of charity;
5- Who abstain from sex,
6- Except with those joined to them in
the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,-
for (in their case) they are free from blame,
7- But those whose desires exceed those limits are transgressors;-
us continue with the story of Safiyah.
other wives of the Prophet showed their jealousy by making slights
upon her Jewish origin. But the Prophet always defended her. Once
Safiyah was vexed to the extreme by the t
aunts of all the Arab wives of the Prophet. She took the complaint to
the Prophet, who felt great compassion for her. He consoled her. He
encouraged her. He equipped her with logic. He said: "Safiyah,
take courage and be bold. They are in no way superior to you. Tell
them: I am a daughter of the Prophet Harun, a niece of the Prophet
Musa, and a wife of the Prophet Muhammad".
she was brought along with other prisoners-of-war, the Prophet said to
her, "Safiyah, your father always maintained enmity with me until
Allah made the final decision." She said, "But Allah does
not catch one for the sins of another."
This of course
contradicts Muhammad’s own behavior who annihilated the entire Bani
Qainuqa with the pretext that few of them had killed a Muslim in
. That is despite the verse that says "Namely, that no
bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another" (Q.
53:38) Also it was not Allah who made the final decision.
Safiyah's father was killed by Muhammad's men not by Allah. This would
be the same as Hitler claiming that God killed all the Jews in the
holocaust. If God wanted to kill all those people that Muhammad and
his army killed He could have done it on his own. God needs no
mercenaries to do his will.
Prophet then gave her the choice of joining her people after freedom
or accepting Islam and coming into a matrimonial relationship with
We have to remember
that Muhammad killed most of her people and banished the rest of them.
So giving the choice to join her people is not much of a choice.
was very intelligent and gentle and said, "O Allah's Messenger, I
had hoped for Islam, and I confirmed you before your invitation. Now
when I have the honour to be in your presence, I am given a choice
between kufr and Islam I swear by Allah, that Allah and His Messenger
is dearer to me than my own freedom and my joining with my
this confession, if true, sincere? Was she safe to speak out her mind?
She was enslaved by a man who had exterminated her family and could do
with her the same. See the reference made to her "freedom".
This shows clearly that she was not free. In fact she must have been
very intelligent to fabricate those lies to save her own life.
Safiyah was married, she was very young, and according to one report
she was hardly seventeen years old and was extremely beautiful. Once
A'isha said a few sentences about her short stature, at which the
Prophet said, "You have said a thing that if it were left in the
sea, it would mix with it (and make its water dirty). " (Abu
Dawud). She not only deeply loved the Prophet but also greatly
respected him as Allah's Messenger, for she heard the conversations of
her father and uncle after they went to Medinah. When the Prophet
migrated to Medinah, they came to see him and find out whether he was
the true Messenger of Allah spoken of in the Scriptures. When they got
back and talked together that night, Safiyah was in her bed listening
to them. One of them said, "What do you think about him?" He
replied, "He is the same Prophet foretold by our
Scriptures." Then the other said, "What is to be done?"
The reply came that they must oppose him with all their might.”
this story, narrated by Abu Dawud, credible? How can two Jews
recognize Muhammad as the prophet foretold by their scriptures and
decide to oppose him with all their might? It defies all logic. It
takes a "deficient in intelligence" to believe in this
nonsense. It is not clear whether Safiyah lied to conform and make her
self accepted among her enemies or it is another fabrication of a
zealot believer. Why would someone decide to oppose with all his might
the one who he has found out to be the promised one of his own
scriptures? But this is not all! Where in the Bible it says anything
about Muhammad? How come Safiyah’s father and uncle could decipher
their scriptures and find about Muhammad while for 1400 years all
Muslim scholars have been unable to do it?
Safiyah was convinced of the truth of the Prophet. She spared no pain
to look after him, care for him and provide every comfort that she
could think of. This is evident since she came into his presence after
the fall of Khaibar."
how the writer contradicts himself in one page? Just a few lines above
we read that she was captured and was taken to Muhammad as a prisoner.
She didn’t come on her own. She was taken to the prophet because she
was young and the prettiest of other women captured.
Prophet had a slight grievance against her for she had refused when
the Prophet wanted to have privacy with her at the previous stage (of
the journey). At the next halt, the Prophet had privacy with her and
spent all night with her. When she was asked by Umm Sulaim, "What
did you see in Allah's Messenger?" She said he was very pleased
with her and did not sleep at all but was talking to her all night. He
had asked her, 'Why did you refuse at the first stage when I desired
privacy with you?' She had said, 'I was afraid for you because of the
nearness of the Jews. "'This thing further increased my merit in
his eyes." (Tabaqat).
Bukhari also has
recorded some Hadithes telling the invasion of Kheibar and how
Muhammad met Safiyah.
Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr
prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The
Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha.
The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was
touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw
the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town,
he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a
(hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who
have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for
their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our
companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar,
took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said,
'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The
Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai.
A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave
Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes
of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet
said, 'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the
Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her
from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and
asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?"
He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then
married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim
dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a
bride to the Prophet . (Sahih
Mahr or dowry is a money that a bride
receives from her husband when he marries her. Muhammad did not pay
Safiyah her Mahr because he had to pay it to himself for manumitting
her. Of course the irony is that he did not buy her but enslaved her
by raiding her town. This story is significant because it gives us an
insight into the moral and ethical values of the Prophet of God (Peace
be upon his immaculate soul).
Our modern sensibility makes us cringe
with stories like this, yet amazingly Muhammad taught that he is going
to receive two rewards by marrying Safiyah. One for manumitting
someone whom no one but himself had enslaved and the other for
marrying the prettiest girl who was 40 years younger.
Musa reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said
about one who emancipated a slave woman, and then married her, that
for him there are two rewards. (Sahih
Muslim Book 008, Number 3327)
Also in another part
The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still
dark and then said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for
whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be
the morning for those who have been warned." Then the inhabitants
of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their
warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya
was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali
but later on she belonged to the Prophet . The Prophet made her
manumission as her 'Mahr'. (Sahih
Bukhari V.5 B.59 N.512)
this session, you posed a series of questions. I will try to answer
them to the best of my ability.
I do not think that the morality of seventh century Arabs should be
weighed by the moral standards of today.
I agree that the moral fortitude of a person should be judged with the
morality of his contemporaries and his people.
I do agree that morality shifts and as I said in Part II of this
debate, it is relative to time and place.
I did not say that by marrying a multitude of women Muhammad violated
the moral code of his time. And yes polygamy today is not the norm
among the majority of the Muslims.
Finally I do agree that sleeping with a slave girl 1400 years ago in
Arabia was not considered immoral. And yes in “most” Islamic
nation today such think is not practiced.
as you see I agreed with all your points. Nevertheless I do not agree
that these are good excuses to acquit your client.
The point that you
missed is that Muhammad claimed to be a prophet of God for all times
and for all the Humanity. He declared himself to be the last prophet and
the best of the creation. He stated that he had "sublime
that he is a "good example to follow" 33:21,
"a Mercy for all creatures" 21:107
and "a most honorable Messenger" 81.19.
yet what we saw of him is anything but.
you think that the example set by Muhammad as we saw in stories of
Juwairiyah and Safiyah should be followed by the Muslims?
you say yes then of course you are saying that Muslims should raid the
houses of the non-Muslims, kill them and rape their wives. If you say
no and that what Muhammad did 1400 years ago should not be applied in
the 21st century context, then all those above verses that tell the
Muslims to follow the examples of the prophet become
problem is that Muslims are not consistent. Do we have to follow the
examples of the prophet or not? Did he set good examples for humanity
to follow or not?
you do not think that those examples are good for today. That is why
you are excusing for him and saying that we should not judge him by
our modern day standards and that what he did was not considered bad
in his own time. So you do not think he is a good example for us. In
that case he should not be emulated anymore. If that is your
conclusion then doesn't this make Muhammad irrelevant?
was not just a historic figure. Washington might have slept with his
maid slaves. In those days perhaps it was okay and we should not judge
him harshly. But no one says that he is an example for all mankind to
follow. The question here is not whether what Muhammad did was right
or wrong according to the standard of the people of his time but
whether he set a good example for mankind to follow. Obviously the
answer is no and therefore even if Muhammad is not guilty, those
verses of the Quran that eulogize him and tell us we should emulate
him are wrong. You can't believe in those verses and at the same time
say that today we should not follow the example of Muhammad anymore
because times are changed. Does the Quran say that the Muslims should
stop following him at anytime in future?
far we established that Muhammad is not a good example for all mankind
and for all times. We also established that all those Quranic verses
that say he was a good example to follow are lies. As the result we
can determine that not everything in the Quran is true and hence not
all of it is the word of God.
are two important discoveries. First of all that Muhammad is not not a
good example, at least for today, and secondly those verse that say so
are lies. If he lied once could he have lied more? Is it possible that
the Quran is mistaken not just in this case but in other cases as
state that no Muslim in this day and age follows the example of the
prophet and hence the question whether his example is good or bad is
most Muslims do not follow the examples of the messenger anymore?
Doesn't this mean that the Muslims in general have a superior moral
standard than that of their prophet? Why follow a man whose standard
of morality was not as high as ours? Shouldn't we follow someone
better that ourselves?
next question is WHY Muslims do not follow the examples set by their
prophet despite the fact that he told them to do so? Muslims today do
not do what their prophet did because they follow their conscience and
they see what he did was immoral and unethical. In other words Muslims
do not follow Muhammad but their own conscience. If that is the case
why hold unto him at all?
we have to use our own logic to determine whether it is right to
follow what he did or not doesn't this mean that we value our own
logic more than we value him?
heaven, most of the Muslims do not follow Muhammad, his words or his
examples. But what would happen if they did? There are some Muslims
who do. They do not use their conscience to decide whether what he did
was right or not. They follow him in everything because they trust him
more that they trust the human intelligence and human conscience.
Osama bin Laden is one such Muslim. Imagine what would have happened
if all the Muslims were like him? Imagine what would happen if all the
Muslims followed Muhammad's examples to the letter.
Muhammad came to set a good example or did he follow the example of
the people he called "ignorant" Jaheliyeh?
he followed the example of the ignorant people of his time, by
following him aren't we following those ignorant people by proxy? By
telling people to follow me because I have "sublime
morals", a "good example to follow" and " a most honorable
Messenger" didn't he mislead people when in reality he was not
setting a good example but following the bad example of the ignorant
people of his time?
is the conclusion then? The conclusion is that the moderate and good
people who think they are Muslims are those who are less Muslims.
Those who are real Muslims are really dangerous and evil people.
Doesn't this prove that Islam is evil? I leave that to the Jury to
decide. The more person is Islamic, the more seriously he takes the
Quran, the more dangerous he become. Why is that so? Doesn't this
prove that the Quran misleads people?
a book of guidance tells me to wage war against my neighbor, kill him
and enslave and rape his wife, beat my wives if they are obedient,
marry four but have sex with any number of women I can capture in war
but I have to use my own intelligence and not do all these things,
then what is the use of that book of guidance? Isn't it ironic to
bring a book of guidance that misguides people and then tell them to
use your own intelligence and do what is right? Is God playing joke on
us? What kind of pathetic God would do such thing?
leave every other argument aside for now and concentrate on the
charge. Based on the evidence provided above and the confession made
in the books of hadith and other history books, Muhammad raped his
prisoners of war. I invite you to defend Muhammad of this
definition, any nonconsensual sexual activity constitute rape. Can you
tell me how a slave girl whose freedom has been taken away can consent