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
to Part 3 and Motion to Dismiss the Case
Jury and Humanity at large, and Mr. Sina,
defense at the conclusion of this Part 3 moves to demand a motion to
dismiss the case based on the prosecutor's very self incriminating and
damaging statements. The motion also demands complete explanation from
the prosector about the real motive behind the propaganda campaign as
has now been derived from the prosecutor's own statements.
Motion is summarized based on the following two statements made by the
prosecutor (a record of which has been made and recorded/backed up
through current day technology means):
the response to Part 3, at one point the prosecutor states:
"Bukhari, the great
biographer of Muhammad, narrates the attack on Bani al-Mustaliq in
the following story (Hadith)"
statement by the defense can be taken to mean that the prosecutor
admires the biographer greatly and hence the prosecutor's ENTIRE case is
dependent upon the narrations of this biographer, one additional
narrator named Bukhari, and derived works from the two biographers.
prosecutor, then in attempt to present the case of Juwairiyah, claims
rest of the story of Juwairiyah is mixed with half-truths and exaggerations, in the manner that have tainted
most of the Hadiths."
two statements taken together throws the prosecutor's case into total
disarray, for the prosecutor has himself now impugned the same evidence
that he has used throughout the case to actually build the case in the
first place. The prosecutor, by having admitted that the evidence is
"half-truths, exagerrations, and tainted hadiths" has himself
rendered his own case null and void. The defense then has reason that
prosecutor also does not view derivative works spawned from the
"tainted" hadiths as also reliable. The defense has no reason
to now believe anything that the prosecutor will use as evidence,
because it goes against any logic in any setting of any debate or legal
discourse that the prosecutor is allowed to use the very same evidence
he claims as "tainted" and then proceeds to use it to accuse
the defendant. This tantamounts to "badfaith" in current day
legal procedures, and displays a strong personal bias by the prosecutor,
and a predisposition towards the guilt of the defendant, and actually
bordering on hostility rooted in personal disagreement with an entire
ideology. The disagreement with ideology is not the reason for this
motion to dismiss the case, but solely because the prosecutor has
exposed his own desire to render his own evidence as tainted. Such
evidence, without regard to how the defense would have liked to use it
or accepts it, cannot be used by the prosecutor anymore to further this
case. Henceforth, any evidence produced by prosecutor which is dated
after the hadiths will not be acceptable.
defense is now at a severe disadvantage because the prosecutor has left
the door WIDE OPEN for any interpretation of the evidence which has been
impugned here. Further, defense also finds it disingenuous that the
stories presented of marriages are first stated as a matter of fact
according to prosecution, and then the prosecutor turns around and calls
the events of the case himself as "half truths and exaggerations".
It is now unclear whether prosecutor is exaggerating the accounts of
marriages, is maligning the narrators Bukhari and Muslim, the derivative
works afterwards, or attempting to rewrite history himself.
absence of any clarity is prosecutor's objectivity as it relates to the
evidence being used by prosecutor, all the stories are now open to
interpretation. And therefore, defense may now wish to submit the more
accurate version of the stories, since prosecutor has invoked "half
truths and exaggerations". A paraphrased
version of one of the marriages (to demonstrate) is used here since
readers can themselves read the full hadiths themselves, which
prosecution submits as "tainted".
Volume 3, Book 46, Number 717 (Bukhari)
and Book 019, Number 4292:
During the wars of 1400 years ago, in one
of the battles, some of the opposition men were killed, and their
dependents taken as prisoners. One of them was a future wife of the
Based on the "half true and
exaggerated" story that prosecutor presented, Juwairiya's dowry was
paid and she was taken into matrimony.
The defense does not want to address all
the derivations that the prosecutor has made, since all the subjective
opinions are of the prosecutor himself, without any real evidence
presented which also submits the same conclusions. Obviously, if the
story is "half true and exagerrated", it can mean any number
Furthermore, prosecution yielded a few
answers, in light of which the stories of multiple marriages once again
Mr Sina submitted:
agree that the moral fortitude of a person should be judged with the
morality of his contemporaries and his people" and "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."
lived 1400 years ago amongst and arab culture where multiple marriages
and slave keeping were normal, and defendant married a slave, and
prosecutor admits that in most Islamic nations the practice of slavery
is gone. So once again, the stories of multiple marriages is by the
prosecutor as irrelevant to the ideology, and prosecutor recognizes that
certain norms that the prophet subscribed to, do not exist in current
Islamic societies (multi-marrying or keeping slaves). The prosecution
then once again says that the prophet was a "prophet of God for all
times and for all the Humanity" but then concedes that one of the
practices attributable to him is given up by the same people who
actually are being blamed for accepting a fallacy according to the
prosecution. The defense, including the entire jury, is now confused as
to which direction the prosecutor's whims are going. On one hand the
objection is that Muhammad had no business being a model for all times,
and then on the other, complains why he is not, since most Islamic
nations have stopped emulating one of the norms of ancient Arabic
societies. Prosecutor is asking, "Muhammad should not be emulated
because he was not fit for current times, but why are you not emulating
him and keeping slaves and marrying them?"
This is called a classic Catch 22)
hereby demands a clarification on the position of prosecution as it
relates to "half-truths and
exaggerations, in the manner that have tainted
most of the Hadiths", and failure to yield a satisfactory
answer by prosecution about the evidence, throws the case into nothing
more than a hodgepodge of subjective rulings made by prosecution by
reading more into the evidence that prosecution himself concedes as
either is evidence is good, or it is not. Prosecution cannot have it
defense actually wishes to rest the entire case at this point, pending a
further response to this rebuttal.
From Ali Sina to Rahee Sjahzad
defense council is presenting a motion to dismiss the case of rape
against the defendant. He is contending that since the prosecutor himself doubts
that the evidence presented is entirely true and it contains half truths
and exaggerations the entire case against the defendant should be thrown
out of the court and the defendant be found innocent.
these evidences been produced by the enemies of the defendant, the
defense council would be right. One must not give too much credence to
the evidence presented by the enemies of an accused especially if those
testimonies are shown to be half-truth and exaggerations. Had this been
the case, i.e. if the prosecution had relied entirely on some half-truth
evidence concocted by the biased enemies of the defendant then the
motion presented by the defense council could be taken seriously.
this is not the case, the evidence presented here by the prosecution is
entirely taken from the confessions of the followers of
the defendant. There is no reason to believe that they lied to accuse
their beloved prophet of crimes such a rape, genocide, torture, child
molestation, lewdness or assassination if these thing never happened.
However it is in the nature of the followers of any religion or cult to
exaggerate the virtues of the man they believe to be a superior being
such as a messenger of God or a prophet especially if he has let them to
believe that he is endowed with “sublime morals” and a “Mercy of
God for all the Creation”.
the prosecutor has the right to focus on those parts of the confessions of
the believers that incriminate the defendant and dismiss as half-truth
and exaggeration the parts that extol the defendant's virtues or border
fantasy and hocus pocus such as miracles performed by the defendant.
This however does not invalidate the entire testimony.
prosecutor calls Bukhari “great” because this is how he is perceived
by the great majority of the Muslims. The books of Bukhari are the
repository of the Sunnah and constitute the backbone of the Sharia. They are also invaluable sources of historic facts about
Muhammad. Those books were read and followed by 90% of the Muslims for
the last 1200 years and without them the practice of the Sharia and even
the correct comprehension of the Quran would become impossible. The
rituals of prayers, fast and hajj that are the pillars of Islam are only
described in these books. Without the hadith, the practice of Islam
would be impossible. As a matter of fact, without them, the very
historic existence of Muhammad could be cast into doubt.
books of Bukhari and Muslim contain many inaccuracies, exaggerations and
half-truths. Those inaccuracies, exaggerations and half-truths can be
attributed to the intense love of the believers and also to sycophantism
that is part of human nature especially in oppressive cultures and backward milieus such as
Islam where the personality cult is practice. Muhammad presented himself
as the center of the universe, the only intermediary between man and God
for the rest of the existence of mankind in this planet and according to
an Iranian hadith, he is reported to have said that God would not have
created the universe if it were not for him. (quoting from memory. not
to be taken as evidence. However similar concepts of Muhammad being
special abound in the Quran and hadith such as when he says that "The
Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves and his wives
are their mothers" 33:6)
is natural and expected that the followers of any cult lie to extol
their leader and fabricate tales about his virtues. However it is not
expected that they invent stories that would incriminate their beloved
prophet. If those incriminatory stories about Muhammad exist and
especially they are in such an abundance, we have no reason to cast
doubt to their authenticity. Even though the details in these stories
vary; the very fact that different people narrated the same story is
proof that the story must be true.
defense failed to rebut the charge. He instead dismissed all the
evidence and the confessions of the followers of the defendant on the
bases that the prosecution does not buy into some of the exaggerations
made in those confessions. I doubt any jury in his right mind would
agree with the defense.
an accused and/or his followers are cross-examined, it is expected of
them to concoct stories that would make the accused look innocent. The
prosecutor and the jury do not have to agree with those statements where
the defendant and his devotees extol him. The prosecution doubts the
honesty of the defendant and his followers in telling the truth about
his virtues. However this does not invalidate their entire testimony.
When his followers say that Muhammad produced water from between his
fingers, the prosecution wants proof. However when they say that he
massacred an entire population, took their women and children as slaves
and then kept the prettiest woman for himself, the prosecution accepts
that, as fact especially when it is repeated is so many documents. It is
up to the defense to refute these confessions of the believers. Can the
defense council give us his reasons why he thinks those testimonies that
incriminate Muhammad are to be dismissed? If they were not true why for
1200 years no one disputed them? Why they are classified as Sahih
(authentic)? How is it that the same stories are repeated in several
other sources? And how he can explain off the details in those stories?
These hadiths contain names of so many people and they are so detailed
that no reasonable person can dismiss them as false. And finally WHY?
Why would the believers fabricate such stories to incriminate the man
whom they loved so much?
have enough evidence from the Quran, the hadith and the early books of
history to indict the defendant and find him guilty of all the charges
including rape that is being brought against him in this part of the
defense council also seems to be confused about the questions raised by
the prosecutor. The questions raised however are very clear. The
claimed to have sublime morals and a good example to follow.
followed the example of the people of his time whom he called ignorant.
Therefore instead of setting a good example he gave in to the vices of
the people whom he came to guide.
the result his followers are confused and believing in his words in (a) they follow his example in
(b). Consequently the vices of an "ignorant" and primitive
society of 1400 years ago is now being practiced by a billion plus of
his followers who are duped into believing his claim of being a good
example to follow. Muhammad was not a trendsetter and a good example but
a follower and a practitioner of a barbarian culture. By following him
the societies that have succumbed to his lies have become stagnant and
they are unable to liberate themselves of the morality of those primitive
people whom Muhammad called ignorant. Honor killing in Islamic countries
is just one symptom of this stagnation.
on the arguments presented the defendant must be found guilty of lying,
misrepresentation and misleading his followers. The fact that he was a
man of his time is no excuse. He was a man of his time with the same
vices of other “ignorant” men of his time, yet he claimed to
have superior morals and an example to follow for all times. He misled
his followers and he lied.
is of course another charge, distinct from the charge of rape that is
presented in this case and was not disputed by the defense except for
the fact that he tried in vain to disallow the evidence and the
confessions of the defendant’s followers.
prosecution rests and calls upon the jury to find the defendant
guilty for the charges of rape and misrepresentation.
If the defense
agrees we can close this case and move on to other topics.
The Jury may comment