Leaving Islam



Rape 2 

Humanity vs. Muhammad bin Abdallah 

Part IV 

Nov 20, 2003

Preamble Part V Rape 3
Part I  Assassination Part VI Pedophilia 
Part II Religion and Morality  Part VII Lewdness & Immorality , 
Part III Rape 1 Part VIII Misogyny 
Part IV Rape 2

This is the long overdue trial of Islam and here are the protagonists

Defendant: Muhammad bin Abdallah

Plaintiff:  Humanity (The non-Muslim portion)

Prosecutor: Ali Sina  

Defense Attorney: Raheel Shahzad  (Any one else is welcome to join)

Courtroom: Public Opinion

Jury: You 


Rebuttal to Part 3 and Motion to Dismiss the Case

Dear Jury and Humanity at large, and Mr. Sina, 

The 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. 

The 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): 

In 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)"

This 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. 

The prosecutor, then in attempt to present the case of Juwairiyah, claims the following:

"The rest of the story of Juwairiyah is mixed with half-truths and exaggerations, in the manner that have tainted most of the Hadiths." 

The 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. 

The 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. 

In 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: (Muslim)

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 defendant. 

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 of things. 

Furthermore, prosecution yielded a few answers, in light of which the stories of multiple marriages once again are irrelevant.



Mr Sina submitted:
"I 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." 

Defendant 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?"

(Sidenote: This is called a classic Catch 22) 

Defense 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 tainted. 

So either is evidence is good, or it is not. Prosecution cannot have it both ways.

The defense actually wishes to rest the entire case at this point, pending a further response to this rebuttal. 

Thank you.
R Shahzad

From Ali Sina to Rahee Sjahzad

The 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. 

Had 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. 

Nevertheless 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”.  

Hence 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.  

The 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.  

The 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  

It 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.    

The 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.  

When 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?  

We 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 trial.       



The defense council also seems to be confused about the questions raised by the prosecutor. The questions raised however are very clear. The prosecution asked.  


a-      Muhammad claimed to have sublime morals and a good example to follow.

b-      Muhammad 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. 

c-      As 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.   

Based 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.   

This 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.  

The 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. 


next  > 

The Jury may comment here






Articles Op-ed Authors Debates Leaving Islam FAQ
Comments Library Gallery Video Clips Books Sina's Challenge

  ©  copyright You may translate and publish the articles in this site only if you provide a link to the original page.