aware of Mohammed’s sultry passion for women and apologists of this cult
often make excuses to conceal the flaw of their prophet. The most commonly
used, and the best possible, defense that they present is so astonishing
that it should be added to the agenda of “Ripley’s believe it or not”.
Muslim apologists argue Mohammed married women from different tribes to
create relationships with them and expand the sphere of Islam.
Just one example
would suffice to blow apart their house of cards. Mohammed had to make a
strategic retreat from his first attempt of invading Mecca and was forced
to make a humiliating settlement – the ‘Treaty of Hudaibya’. Evidently,
Mohammed’s mercenaries were deprived from possible looting. So, with an
intention of robbing, he decided to attack the Jewish tribes who settled
in Khyber after being expelled from Medina. It was an unexpected attack
and the innocent people of Khyber did not get a chance to defend
themselves. According to one of Mohammed’s companions, “We met the workers
of Khyber coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets” (Sira,
757). Although Muslim apologists put the burden on the Jews, claiming a
defensive war for the Muslims, they refuse to admit that people don’t
attack with spades and baskets. Even the people of the Stone Age used to
fight with spears made of stones.
After the massacre,
“The women of Khyber were distributed among the Muslims” (Sira, 758), and
Mohammed chose Safiya d. Abul-Huqayq, the newlywed wife of the tribe’s
chief. Mohammed took her to his bed after a brief pretense of a wedding.
Perhaps, if the thesis of Muslim apologists is correct, Mohammed must have
tried hard to build a bridge between Muslims and the Jews of Khyber. The
only problem was that none of the relatives of the poor girl Safiya were
Ibn Ishaq reports in
Sirat Rasul Allah, “Abu ayyub, Khalid b. Zayd, brother of B. al-Najjar,
passed the night girt with his sword, guarding the apostle and going round
the tent until in the morning the apostle saw him there and asked him what
he meant by this action. He replied, ‘I was afraid for you with this woman
for you have killed her father, her husband, and her people,
and till recently she was in unbelief, so I was afraid for you on her
account’” (Sira, 766).
If the marriage
between Mohammed and Safyia was meant to develop a relationship with other
tribes, I don’t know how Mohammed could have made friends with the
deceased people, especially with those whom he killed!
It’s human nature to
seek revenge when a loved one is killed, and the people of Khyber were no
exception. A Jewish woman, Zaynab d. al-Harith, put poison in a roast lamb
that was offered to Mohammed (Sira, 764). The Muslim who took the first
bite died immediately; however, Mohammed only had a morsel of the meat and
he survived. Still, it must have been a deadly poison because Mohammed
suffered the rest of his life because of the poison. He even admitted, “O
Umm Bishr, this is the time in which I feel a deadly pain from what I ate
with your brother at Khyber” (Sira, 765).
Unlike “The Last
Supper”, Mohammed indeed danced “The Last Dance” not joyfully but because
of the pain. Ibn Ishaq records, “Then the Messenger of God’s illness
intensified, the pain became fierce, so he said, ‘Pour seven skins of
water over me from different wells so that I may go out to the people and
instruct them.’ Aisha states: We made him sit in a tub (mikhdab) belonging
to Hafsah bt. Umar and poured water over him until he began saying,
‘Enough, enough’” (al-Tabari, 1801).
I don’t enjoy making
fun of a dead person, specifically someone who died with such a pain, but
it’s about time to clear the fabricated impression created by Muslim
apologists. They have changed the history and altered the truth, they have
turned a monster into an angel, and they have succumbed to lies and
deception. Had Mohammed been a historical figure and remained as a shrewd
warrior, we would not have to worry about him. Sadly, innocent Muslims
perceive Mohammed as the symbol of a perfect human, mentor of morality and
the role model to follow. It’s fascinating how a person who snatched women
and slept with them after killing their loved ones could become a paradigm
of morals and ethics!