1

Response on the allegations made on Muhammad (SAW) by an apostate

This document consists of one hundred and fifteen pages only, and this is the first
page.

In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the merciful…

First of all, I would like to start off by thanking all my friends who have helped me in
making this possible, I appreciate your concerns very much, and I have learned many new
things along the way, things which I never even knew before.

Having said that, let us continue without wasting much time:

I will only respond to the future posts if you remain sincere and give us satisfying
responses (logical refutations). But if you remain closed minded after this, then we’re not
in need of responding to someone who wants to remain ignorant without knowledge.

Issues relating to the: wives of the Prophet Muhammad(SAW), gender in general and the
rulings of islam on it, rules regarding war and Jihad etc is covered intensively throughout
this document, as per the pattern of the original allegations made.

Remember, before you even begin to start, try to put your particular bias on hold, and try to
be openminded and rational

If you make a response to this document, then you have to answer a particular issue
on a whole, and not just parts of it. The use of valid history only, will be accepted. If
your personal views contradict with valid history, and/or what the majority of the
Scholars/Historieans/Islamic jurists have said about a particular issue, that will not
be acceptable. This is because we by no chance consider you a historiean, a master of
Arabic and oriental studies, a scholar of Islamic fiqh, and a scholar on the Quran
itself…so as per your lack of knowledge on the vast, complex subjects, you are not
considered an authority to make your own personal conclusions, and therefore you
can only quote Islamic jurists, valid historiens and Islamic scholars. And this is only
fair, because we have done the same in this entire document. But something quoted
from the opposite side, will surely be considered.

Let me demonstrate what I have stated above:

If you want to infer that Muhammad (SAW) married khadijah for wealth, then you would
have to answer the following using valid history:

1) Why then Khadijah proposed to Muhammad (SAW) and not the vice versa?
2) Why Muhammad (SAW) never used her money on his personal use, and kept doing
trade on what was his own only when she was present and even after her death?
3) Why then, when the quraish came to abu talib, and offered wealth, wife and power,
Muhammad (SAW) rejected it.
1
 2
4) Why did he always lead the simplest lifestyle, even after he was set the governor
of medinah?
5) Can you prove to us that besides he had a wealthy wife and had been a governor of
the state of medinah, that he ever had a life style of a king/statsman/rich person
which was even present in his own times outside and even inside Arabia?
6) If not, then what is the basis for the claim that he married khadijah for wealth,
besides your own personal opinions and biases?

This was just an example, please read on now.

To proceed:

- Misconceptions: One of the biggest confusions which arise when debating with anti-
Islamic people is there viewpoint that the Western system is the only perfect paradigm, and
therefore we can only view everything in life and history from such a perspective for it to
be neutral and biased.

- The flaw in this is that the Western paradigm itself has continuously changing morals and
ethics, where something may be disliked at one time and liked at another time etc.
Therefore by default, the person who brought these allegations will have to try to be as
neutral as possible, and he cannot use Western values alone as a criterion for right and
wrong.

Now i'll continue with addressing the allegations ;(in red)

The charges laid before the jury are: Prophet Muhammed was a racist, homophobe, wife
beater, falsifier, paedophile, fabricator, misogynist, rapist & rape sympathiser, apostate
slayer, superstitious bedouin, forceful converter, despot, barbarian, extortionist,
philanderer, bigamist, despot, delusional, control freak, liar, barbarian, opportunist, bully &
conman. The defendant claims this man remains a perfect role model for mankind...

You had your say, and this is what some of the famous people, including world renowned
historians said about him:

 “If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the
three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in
modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws
and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material
powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not
only armies, legislations, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men
in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the
altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls... the
forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea
2
 3
and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic
conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death; all these attest
not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to
restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold, the unit of God and the
immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter telling what
God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting
an idea with words.
 “Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer
of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial
empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all
standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is
there any man greater than he?”(Lamartine, Histoire de la Turquie, Paris
1854, Vol II, pp. 276-77)

 “It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our
wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and
Medina is preserved, after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the
African and the Turkish proselytes of the Quran...The Mahometans have uniformly
withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level
with the senses and imagination of man. ‘I believe in One God and Mahomet the
Apostle of God’, is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual
image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honors of the
prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living
precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason
and religion.”( Edward Gibbon and Simon Ocklay, History of the Saracen
Empire, London, 1870, p. 54)
 “He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope’s pretensions,
Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a
bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right
to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power
without its instruments and without its supports.” ( Bosworth Smith, Mohammed
and Mohammadanism, London 1874, p. 92)
 “It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet
of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but
reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme.
And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to
many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new
sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher.” ( Annie Besant, The Life and
Teachings of Muhammad, Madras 1932, p. 4)
 “His readiness to undergo persecutions for his beliefs, the high moral character of
the men who believed in him and looked up to him as leader, and the greatness of
his ultimate achievement – all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose
Muhammad an impostor raises more problems than it solves. Moreover, none of
the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.”
( W. Montgomery, Mohammad at Mecca, Oxford 1953, p. 52)
 “Muhammad, the inspired man who founded Islam, was born about A.D. 570
3
 4
into an Arabian tribe that worshipped idols. Orphaned at birth, he was
always particularly solicitous of the poor and needy, the widow and the
orphan, the slave and the downtrodden. At twenty he was already a
successful businessman, and soon became director of camel caravans for a
wealthy widow. When he reached twenty-five, his employer, recognizing his
merit, proposed marriage. Even though she was fifteen years older, he
married her, and as long as she lived, remained a devoted husband.“Like
almost every major prophet before him, Muhammad fought shy of serving as
the transmitter of God’s word, sensing his own inadequacy. But the angel
commanded ‘Read’. So far as we know, Muhammad was unable to read or
write, but he began to dictate those inspired words which would soon
revolutionize a large segment of the earth: “There is one God.”“In all things
Muhammad was profoundly practical. When his beloved son Ibrahim died,
an eclipse occurred, and rumors of God’s personal condolence quickly arose.
Whereupon Muhammad is said to have announced, ‘An eclipse is a
phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to attribute such things to the death or
birth of a human-being.’“At Muhammad’s own death an attempt was made
to deify him, but the man who was to become his administrative successor
killed the hysteria with one of the noblest speeches in religious history: ‘If
there are any among you who worshipped Muhammad, he is dead. But if it
is God you worshipped, He lives forever.’”
( James A. Michener, ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion’ in Reader’s Digest
(American Edition), May 1955, pp. 68-70)
 “My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential
persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the
only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular
level.”
( Michael H. Hart, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in
History, New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc. 1978, p. 33)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Racist:

I never knew that Christianity is a race, also the Jews referred to, are 'Jewish' people
meaning followers of Judaism! It seems you are struggling to get an idea about racism. The
Hadith is from Saheeh of Imaam Muslim, Book 26, here's more complete version of the
hadith from saheeh Muslim:

Bk 26, Number 5386:

'A'isha reported that some Jews came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and
they said: Abu'l−Qasim (the Kunya of the Holy Prophet), as−Sam−u−'Alaikum, (let
there be death upon you) whereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Wa 'Alaikum. A'isha
reported: In response to these words of theirs, I said: But let there be death upon you
and disgrace also, whereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said:
4
 5
'A'isha, do not use harsh words. She said: Did you hear what they said? Thereupon he
(the Holy Prophet) said: Did I not respond to them when they said that; I said to them:
Wa'Alaikum (let it be upon you).

1) Muslims are not to greet non-Muslims first as none knows what are their intentions? If
they were to be an Islamophobe like the one in the Hadith , he would reply our good
greetings with something bad and evil, which may lead to quarrel between the two, hence
in order to reduce the risk of quarreling and save the poor Islamophobe from uttering
something bad Islam asks Muslims not to greet them first.
If a non-Muslim, greets a Muslim with AsSalaamu alaykum we reply with Wa alaykum,
that's as simple it is...

Sahih Muslim 26:5389 The Prophet said: “Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before
they greet you and when you meet any one of them on the roads force him to go to the
narrowest part of it”.

2) Forcing a jew or christian to go down the narrowest part of the road , is due to the
enmity of those people against Islaam and Muslims .They plotted against Muslims and also
joined the enemies of Muslims despite having a a treaty with Muslims(historical facts) , so
this was to show that honesty is the best policy. This was a sign to tell those Jews and
Christians that if they cannot stick to their treaty and word they should LEAVE.Like bani
Qurayzah...etc joined and helped the Mushrikks(polytheists) of Makkah, despite having a
treaty.

Quran 5:51 "O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they
are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he
is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
Correct translation of the Meanings of the verse is as follows :

" O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliyâ' (friends,
protectors, helpers), they are but Auliyâ' of each other. And if any amongst you takes
them as Auliyâ', then surely, he is one of them. Verily, Allâh guides not those people
who are the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong doers and unjust)." 5:51

The verse has been taken out of context, the very next verse explains us the reasons why
this verse warns us about friendship with these people.

And you see those in whose hearts there is a disease (of hypocrisy), they hurry to their
friendship, saying: "We fear lest some misfortune of a disaster may befall us." Perhaps
Allâh may bring a victory or a decision according to His Will. Then they will become
regretful for what they have been keeping as a secret in themselves.[5:52]

And those who believe will say: "Are these the men (hypocrites) who swore their
strongest oaths by Allâh that they were with you (Muslims)?" All that they did has been
5
 6
in vain (because of their hypocrisy), and they have become the losers.[5:53]

These verses clearly indicate the hypocritical nature of few so-called friends of
Muslims(during prophets time) who rushed to Jews and Christians so that if the Muslims
are defeated, in Makkah they would have the favor of Jews and Christians, these people
with their hypocritical nature who claimed to be friends of Muslims had doubled-crossed
Muslims claiming to be friends and supporters of Muslims yet had secretly and some
openly befriended the enemies , hence the verse 5:51 is warning us from such so-called
friends and their friendship.

Also its is not prohibited to be friends with non-Muslims. Basically there are 6 levels of
friendships or relationships :

1) Mowalat
2)Mowasat
3)Madarat
4)Mu'amalaat

These 4 types were stated by ibn taymiyyah in his Kitaab ul Eeman.

Only Mowasat is prohibited, which means heart to heart relationship, this is prohibited as
this could lead Muslims into ambushes and traps for Muslims prepared by non-Muslims. A
Famous example is of Ayodhya , where on the day of breaking of babri Masjid, there were
riots...etc the Hindus entered the houses of their neighbours looted, raped them and then
left with all the valuables, they were allowed to enter the houses as the poor Muslims
thought these were their neighbors and were there to help, some Muslims were infact so
close to their non-Muslims friends and neighbors that the neighbors knew where the safe
was...etc and hence looting became simple.

Hence such heart to heart relationship with non-Muslims is not possible due to some non-
Muslim’s hypocritical nature, also there are good non-Muslims but how can a person
ascertain that he is a good one, hence it better to be on the usage side.

Quran 5:70 “As you can clearly see, the Jews are cursed till the end of time. Allah tried to
help them.”

This is 5:70: " Verily, We took the covenant of the Children of Israel and sent
Messengers to them. Whenever there came to them a Messenger with what they
themselves desired not, – a group of them they called liars, and others among them they
killed."

1) The Jews are cursed by God in their OWN book the Old Testament.

2) The Jews (and anyone from any race) who defies God and opposes Him and His
Messenger are cursed by God in the Quran, because the Quran and the Torah given to
Moses is from the same God.

3) The Jews force the Muslims in Palestine to live in a state of extreme poverty, where
6
 7
they are always living a life of fear and can be raided, killed and assassinated at any time
for any reason. And no-one in the world, including the USA does anything about it.

Yet even still, we see the USA supporting Israel in their war crimes of taking over the
Palestinians land. Aiding them with billions and billions of dollars annually to sustain their
aggression against innocent Palestinians in their own land.

Forceful converter

Sahih Bukhari 4:53:392 While we were in the mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let
us go to the Jews." We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you
embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His
Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some
property, he is permitted to sell it. Otherwise, you should know that the Earth belongs to
Allah and His Apostle."

See the above response to understand why this was the only option left for jews!...even
after they had no regard of the treaties they made with muslins, even when they plotted
against the one who let them practice their religion freely under the Islamic state, even
when they helped the outsiders in order to undermine muslims, was it too much to ask
them to leave, or convert to islam if they wanted, still, to live in madinah?

Furthermore, to refute your claim of racism, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)
himself said;
“O people! Your God is one and your forefather (Adam) is one. An Arab is not better
than a non-Arab and a non-Arab is not better than an Arab, and a red (i.e. white tinged
with red) person is not better than a black person and a black person is not better than a
red person,except in piety.”
Narrated in Mosnad Ahmad, #22978.

Homophobe

SAD 38:4447 If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did (homosexual acts), kill the one
who does it, and the one to whom it is done.

Quran 26:160-171 “Allah the Almighty revealed: The people of Lot (those dwelt in the
towns of Sodom in Palestine) belied the Messengers when their brother Lot said to them:
"So fear Allah, keep your duty to Him, and obey me. No reward do I ask of you for my
message of Islamic monotheism, my reward is only from the Lord. Go you unto the males,
and leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your wives? Nay, you are a
trespassing people!"
They said: "If you cease not, O Lot! Verily, you will be one of those who are driven out!"
He said: "I am indeed, of those who disapprove with severe anger and fury over this evil
action of sodomy. My Lord! Save me and my family from what they do. So we saved him
and his family, all except an old woman (his wife) who was among those who remained
7
 8
behind.”

Quran 7.080 And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit
abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Ye come with lust unto men instead
of women.

Quran 4:16 If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both.

We are against Homosexuality, period. Having homosexual feelings is nothing evil. Even
liking men is nothing evil. ”having homosexual sex”, is considered wrong only. And it is
not just for the homosexuals. I also have to control my desires for the sake of my religion. I
can not rape women, have incest, drink alcohol, eat pork, no matter how much I wanna do
them!...so if you wanna be Muslim, then you have to control your inner desires which goes
against Islam, and if you can’t, keep repenting and trying your best to gain control over
yourself and make genuine efforts to do so. and Allah forgives(this applies to every single
ideology on planet earth)…but even if that seems very hard, then Islam has no need of
followers which are so impotent to abide by its strict rules and regulations either.

Misogynist

i) “Men are in charge of women” Quran 4:34

ii) “And men are a degree above women" Quran 2:228

Men are in charge of women, so they do what exactly? They earn and provide for their
women whilst their women have a relaxing free lifestyle within the home.What does Islam
ask as a result from the women? That they respect their men who provide for them. This is
simple psychology and conclusively talked about in the famous book; Men are from Mars
and Women are from Venus, where the author summarized that Men require respect, and
women require love. Through such practise, a household is in perfect harmony. Islam has
produced such positive results in it’s glorious past(details can be provided if asked),
something which the western world craves for today.
And men have more physical strength than women (scientific fact), so yes; men actually
DO have a degree above women!

iii) A woman, according to Quran 43:18 “is a creature who in dispute cannot make herself
clear”,

-Im not really a woman, so I cant say much on the subject, because I cant feel like that. But
I think it is due to the fact that men are generally 30% or so more strong(strength as in,
lifting up weights) than women (scientific fact), so women can be easily suppressed if there
is not a just system of government, and if the men involved want to suppress them! This is
why you see it happening with much of the women in countries like Pakistan, they are
suppressed by the male elites!

8
 9
And Prophet Muhammad felt women were “lacking in intelligence”’

-Men are smarter than women, according to a controversial new study that adds another
cinder to the fiery debate over whether gender impacts general intelligence.
(http://www.livescience.com/7154-men-smarter-women-scientist-claims.html)

“So, here goes: one of the main reasons why there are not more female science professors
or chief executives or Cabinet ministers is that, on average, men are more intelligent than
women.” Says Baroness Susan Greenfield who is one of Britain's best-known female
scientists; she's a professor of neurophysiology at the University of Oxford

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1274952/Men-ARE-brainy-

women-says-scientist-Professor-Richard-Lynn.html#ixzz1OD3BeECt

These are the statistical results:

(http://www.statcrunch.com/5.0/viewreport.php?reportid=12038)

My intention is not to show that women are dumb and only men are geniuses(of course to
say this would be entirely wrong, and neither did the prophet himself said this), my
intention is to demonstrate, that: “we do not yet fully understand the human brain. Our
current knowledge on the human mind is way too limited. There is definitely still more
then enough room for other interpretations. Right now we have no idea how the brain
stores memories, how we make decisions, and so on. All we have researched so far is that
there is a certain correlation between certain areas’s of the brain and certain thoughts.
We've established this by monitoring brain activity during certain thoughts the test subject
has. But the interpretation given to the results are very biased. And statistics on the other
hand, actually can be very biased as well (though I’ve seen men on the top every time
while it’s even basic IQ, as I have shown above)…but still, even if you take intelligence as
being able to solve complex mathematics, understand physical dimensions, and able to
comprehend nature…there are more men in science then women!...even in totally free
societies like Britain and USA.

and the “majority of Hell's residents were women.”(Sahih Bukhari 1:301 and 2:541)

-And you forgot to quote why many women are in hell. And what is mentioned is because
some of them are ungrateful to their husbands (even when the husband provides for them,
in the Islamic paradigm), so that if he does not do one good thing to her - she says,
"You’ve never ever done anything good for me.”. But this is relative. This is therefore a
warning to women to be grateful to their husbands, so that a healthy household is formed.
Islam preserves society, and does not encourage broken homes like is the norms in the
Western world. Furthermore, most inhabitants of hell could potentially be women
according to other ahadeeth, because a huge population of the world is women in ratio to
men!(statistical fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio)

iv) When it comes to testimony in courts, women must testify in pairs, as one man’s
9
 10
testimony is equivalent to two women in Islamic courts. (Sahih Bukhari 1:301)
Yes, that is part of Islam. I have demonstrated above the difference between a man’s brain
and a woman’s…and therefore this contention can be easily understood. Keeping in mind
only the fact that in general men and 30% or so more strong than women, and therefore,
can suppress women for their own whims. But even if women and men were 100%
congruent in everything, can you please enlighten me, what exactly is wrong with this law?
Where’s the so called “oppressions of women” that you all seem to shout about? I don’t get
it.

v) According to Sharia law, four men are required to have witnessed and testified to a rape
in order for a woman to have her rapist convicted. As a direct result, we have a situation
where (according to a report by Pakistan's National Commission on the Status of Women
(NCSW)) an estimated 80% of women in jail in 2003 in that country were there because
"they had failed to prove rape charges and were consequently convicted of adultery."

1) Pakistan is not an example for Islamic law. There is alot of corruption there, not due to
Islam, but due to corrupt leaders and rulers.

2) No, when a woman is raped - she is not punished.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Allah has pardoned my people for the acts they
do by mistake, due to forgetfulness, and what they are coerced [forced] into doing”
[Related by Ibn Mâjah and authenticated by al-Nawawî, Ibn Hajr, and al-Albânî].

Also, it was related by Ibn Abî Shaybah through Târiq b. Shahâb that a woman
accused of adultery was taken to Caliph `Umar. The woman pleaded that she was
asleep and woke up to find the man over her. `Umar released the woman. [The
narration was approved by al-Albâni]. Ibn Qudâmah stated in his book al-
Mughnî:“There is no punishment on the woman who was coerced into adultery.”

vi) Also, women inherit half as much as their male counterparts. (Quran 4:11-12)

Because, under the Islamic paradigm, men provide for the women of the household. So he
will have to spend his inheritance on the woman, whereas the woman can keep their share
to themselves and spend their money on what they want! That means women have even
more rights than men when it comes to inheritance!...you can’t just take one part of the
system and point fingers at it…what you say seems similar to what the layman creationists
say to dawkins about evolution, and you’ve heard it many times.

vii) They are not allowed to travel without a male companion. (Bukhari 1763)
Yes. If I give you 2 bodyguards with you so that they can travel around with you all the
time, will it be “oppression”, or “V.I.P status”?...this is solely for a woman’s own security
(since they are physically less strong, and in most cases will not be able to properly defend

10
 11
herself when a man attacks, and this is why women are raped in the first place…didn’t
you know?)

viii) A woman should not fast without the permission of her husband

-ammm, so?...what’s wrong with asking your husband before fasting? If this happens,
won’t it be considered love and loyalty between the couple? How is this even an allegation,
lol?

nor can she marry someone without the permission of her father, brother or male guardian.
(Sahih Bukhari 5192)

-yes, and if she wants to marry a character who is of a good character and religion - then
her guardian should let her marry him.There are alot of guys who play girls and entice
them into marriage, use them, and then run away from them. This is the norms in Western
society and this is why there are a HUGE number of single mothers.Islam prevents this by
making the guy who will marry her be responsible, and her guardian ensures this by
supporting her and protecting her as necessary…what seems to be the problem? Are you
not familiar with the majority of guys?

ix) Women can only marry Muslims and have a single partner (Quran 4:22-24),

-Yes. There are alot of reasons for this;

1) If she marries a non Muslim, he may force her to do unIslamic acts i.e. sex during
menses which is not allowed. Or he may force her to remove her Hijab [covering and
modest clothes] in public, or he may force her to make their children of another religion
etc. and much more unIslamic things - which would make it unsuitable to be his wife who
is a good Muslim. So Islam prevents that due to its greater harm.

Furthermore, one of the main reasons why Muslim women do not marry alot of men at the
same time is because;

1) people won't know who the father is (Islam is for all times and places, and all people do
not have DNA checking tools.)

2) the woman will become old quick due to continuous relations with many different men,
so they will all leave her most probably.

3) The men would also become aggressive against each other when competing over one
woman. And they may all divorce her, or simply fight each other.

Islam is practical and removes all such obstacles and conflicts.

11
 12
x) while men, on the other hand, don’t have to marry Muslims and can marry up to four
women. (Quran 4:3). It is ok for men to sleep with captured slaves, servants and hoors but
not the other way around.

2) On the other hand, the Muslim male can marry a Christian or Jewish wife because they
are people of the Book and have past knowledge of revelation from God. And he will make
his children upon the true religion of God [this is based on an Islamic premise.]

So he will not find it as difficult in comparison to a Muslim woman married to a non-

Muslim.

-and these are some commonly known. Statistical and scientific facts:

1) 1. Men think more about sex.

The majority of adult men under 60 think about sex at least once a day, reports Laumann.
Only about one-quarter of women report this level of frequency. As men and women age,
each fantasize less, but men still fantasize about twice as often.

In a comprehensive survey of studies comparing male and female sex drives, Roy
Baumeister, a social psychologist at Florida State University, found that men reported more
spontaneous sexual arousal and had more frequent and varied fantasies.

2. Men seek sex more avidly.

"Men want sex more often than women at the start of a relationship, in the middle of it, and
after many years of it," Baumeister concludes after reviewing several surveys of men and
women. This isn't just true of heterosexuals, he reports: gay men also have higher
frequency of sex than lesbians at all stages of the relationship. Men also say they want
more sex partners in their lifetime, and are more interested in casual sex.

Men are more likely to seek sex even when it is frowned upon or even outlawed:

 About two-thirds say they masturbate, even though about half also say they feel
guilty about it, Laumann says. By contrast, about 40% of women say they
masturbate, and the frequency of masturbation is smaller among women.
 Prostitution is still mostly a phenomenon of men seeking sex with women, rather
than the other way around.
 Nuns do a better job of fulfilling their vows of chastity than priests. Baumeister
cites a survey of several hundred clergy by Sheila Murphy in which 62% of priests
admitted to sexual activity, compared to 49% of nuns. The men reported more
partners on average than the women.

(http://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare)

• Men need women more than women need men. Studies show that widows live longer and
can take better care of themselves than widowers, who easily become overwhelmed by
12
 13
loneliness and depression.

(http://www.dightonrock.com/Woman%20stronger.htm)

Islam is a religion based on nature of both men and women. Therefore, it allows men to
marry upto 4 wives!...this is “just the upper limit”, it is not necessary…and even if you
allow women to marry more than 1 husband, I don’t think many will do so, will they?

x) It is ok for men to sleep with captured slaves, servants and hoors but not the other way
around.

-this is reality:

“An estimated one hundred thousand to four hundred thousand female sex slaves were
forced to deliver sexual services to Japanese soldiers, both before and during World War II.
They have been variously called "comfort women," "military sex slaves," "MSS," "military
comfort women," and -- in Japanese -- "jugun ianfu." This program was approved by the
Imperial Conference, which was composed of the emperor, representatives from the armed
forces and the main Cabinet ministers. The conference was formed after Japan invaded
Manchuria in 1937.”(an Amazon book review)

“Comfort women is a euphemism for women forced to serve as prostitutes for the
Japanese military during World War II.[1][2]

Around 200,000 are estimated to have been involved, with estimates as low as 20,000 from
some Japanese scholars[3] and estimates of up to 410,000 from some Chinese scholars,[4]
but the exact numbers are still being researched and debated. A majority of the women
were from Korea, China, Japan and Philippines,[5] although women from Thailand,
Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan, Indonesia and other Japanese-occupied territories were used
for military "comfort stations". Stations were located in Japan, China, the Philippines,
Indonesia, then Malaya, Thailand, then Burma, then New Guinea, Hong Kong, Macau, and
what was then French Indochina.[6]”

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women)

“Throughout history, one of the most tragic fates of any woman was to be captured in
warfare because the treatment of female prisoners by victorious armies has been nearly
uniformly barbaric.”( http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/spoils-of-
war-an-examination-of-the-treatment-of-captive-women-in-deuteronomy-2110-14/),
lol I don’t have the statistics at hand right now, but I know this for a fact.

And this is how islam deals with reality:

13
 14
When Islam was reveled to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him),
slavery was a worldwide common social phenomenon; it was much older than Islam.
Slavery was deeply rooted in every society to the extent that it was impossible to imagine a
civilized society without slaves.

In spite of this social fact, Islam was the first religion to recognize slavery as a social
illness that needed to be addressed. Since slavery was deeply rooted in the society,
Islam did not abolish it at once. Rather, Islam treated slavery in the same manner it
treated other social illnesses. Islam followed the same methodology of gradual
elimination in dealing with this social disease as it did with other social illnesses, for
example: the prohibition of alcohol in three steps.

Concerning having slave women, we would like to let you know that it happens to be a
practice necessitated by the condition in which early Muslims found themselves vis-a-vis
non-Muslims, as both parties engaged in wars. Slave women ormilk al-yameenare referred
to in the Qur’an as“Those whom your right hand possess”or“ma malakat aymanukum”;
they are those taken as captives during conquests and subsequently became slaves, or those
who were descendants of slaves.

Thus, it was a war custom in the past to take men and women as captives and then turn
them into slaves. Islam did not initiate it, rather, it was something in practice long ago
before the advent of Islam. And when Islam came, it tried to eradicate this practice, bit by
bit. So it first restricted it to the reciprocal practice of war, in the sense that Muslims took
war captives just as the enemies did with Muslims.

But as it aimed at putting an end to such issue, Islam laid down rules which would
eventually lead to eradicating the practice. So it allowed Muslims to have intercourse with
slave women taken as captives of just and legitimate wars. In so doing, the woman would
automatically become free if she got pregnant. What’s more, her child would also become
free.

Not only that, Islam also ordered a Muslim to treat the slave woman in every respect as if
she were his wife. She should be well fed, clothed and given due protection. In the family
environment, she had the opportunity to learn about Islam and was free to accept it or
reject it. She also had the opportunity to earn her freedom for she could be ransomed.

In the light of the above-mentioned facts, and the nature of the question posed by people,
it’s clear that some people misunderstand the wisdom behind the permissibility of having
female slaves and think that it is meant to unleash men’s desires and give them more
enjoyment. Never! That is not the point! It is, rather, means of freeing slaves; and this is
clarified above in the fact that if a master got a female slave pregnant, then he could neither
sell her nor give her away as a present. And if he died, she would not be considered part of
his property. She’d receive her freedom and her baby would also be free.

But, we have to stress that this case should not be confused with that of female servants or
maids, for they are free and not slaves. Therefore, it is forbidden to engage in sexual
relations with them except through an Islamic marriage.
14
 15
Slavery has been abolished by international conventions, and goes in line with aims and
objectives of Islam, as it has called for centuries ago.

As for marrying slaves, it is something permissible under two conditions: first, if one is
unable to pay the dowry of a free woman. Second, if there is fear of committing adultery if
one doesn’t get married. This is clarified by the following verse:“And whose is not able to
afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom
your right hands possess. This is for him among you who feareth to commit sin. But to
have patience would be better for you.”(An-Nisaa’: 25)

This verse shows that Muslim men should abstain from illicit relations and seek
enjoyment through marriage to free women or through their female slaves.

In conclusion, Allah has forbidden certain types of behavior and permitted other kinds of
behavior as a safeguard to the individual and to the society. Allah has forbidden fornication
and adultery. However, in the case of captives whom your right hands posses, it’s
something necessitated by the special circumstances which were created when the Muslims
were at war.

-yes, a Muslim free woman does not have intimate relations with a slave because her status
is above such. And if they have babies, who’re going to earn for them, the father is the
mother’s slave already!

-in islam a married woman, has no other obligation, and notice the word obligation, other
than to feed and educate her children. every other issue, whether it be doing the dishes,
cooking, earning, cleaning etc etc, are not an obligation for her. it is the man's job!...it is
obligatory on the man, not the woman!...but if the woman co-operates, its her kindness and
love...now this does not mean that islam oppresses men, this is because man is made
physically more strong, so he should take care of all the exhaustive and lifting work,
naturally. and thus it is a concession for woman!

having said that lets come to the hooris:

that particular "70" number(which most non-muslims shout about) appears only here:

It is outlined in the authentic Hadeeths that every man in Paradise will be

married to two Hooris, but martyrs will be married to 70.

first of all, it is a hadeeth...not the Quran, which is the first authority. and there is always a
certain element of doubt about any haddeth, since they were fabricated and so on. but even
then, if someone leaves his family, leave everything else, and fight those who fight and do
injustice to the islamic society and dies in the meanwhile, this reward is worthwhile for
him!...now you should check out the upper hand any army of any country enjoys even
today!...they deserve extra rewards, since they're willing to die for the cause...and nothing
else is more precious to anybody than their own life!...btw, I dont think a lot of men are
personally interested in that much reward, including me.
15
 16
but the story does not end here. The word hoor is actually the plural of "ahwar" (applicable
to man) and of "haura" (applicable to woman) and signifies a person having eyes
characterized by "hauar" a special quality bestowed upon a good soul, male or female in
paradise and it denotes the intense whiteness of the white part of the spiritual eye. The
Quran describes in several other verses that in paradise you will have azwaj which mean a
pair or spouse or companion which means you will have spouses or companions pure and
holy (mutaharratun means pure, holy).

In Surah Dukhan chapter 44, verse 54 “Moreover, We shall join them to companions
With beautiful, big and lustrous eyes.”

In Surah Al-Tur chapter 52 verse 20

“…And We shall join them to companions, with beautiful, big and lustrous eyes.”

In Surah Rahman chapter 55 verse 72

“Companions restrained (as to their glances), in goodly pavilions.”

In Surah Al-Waqiah chapter 56 verse 22

“And (there will be) companions with beautiful, big and lustrous eyes.”

Therefore the word hoor has no specific gender. Mohammad Asad has translated the
word hoor as spouse and Abdullah Yusuf Ali as companion. Therefore according to some
scholars a man in paradise will have a hoor that is a beautiful maiden with beautiful big
and lustrous eyes and a woman in paradise will get a man with beautiful big and
lustrous eyes.

More on slavery is coming under neath.

xi) A wife should never deny her husband sex.

Allah's Apostle said, " If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relations)
and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning."
(Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol. 4 Hadith No. 460 & Sahih Muslim Vol. 2 Hadith No. 3368)

"When a man calls his wife to satisfy his desire she must go to him even if she is occupied
at the oven" (Al Tirmidhi Hadith No. 1160 & Ibn Ma'jah Hadith No. 4165)

Yes, and that is what constitutes a good marriage life. That each partner fulfills the other
partners desires when they are in need for sex.

Similarly, if a Muslim woman requires intimate relations, it is the male’s duty to fulfill
them for her.
16
 17
Ibn Taymiyah said: “It is obligatory for the husband to have intercourse with his wife as
much as is needed to satisfy her, so long as this does not exhaust him physically or keep
him away from earning a living… If they dispute over this matter, the judge should
prescribe more in the way of intercourse just as he may prescribe more in the way of
spending.” (Al-Ikhtiyaaraat al-Fiqhiyyah min Fataawa Shaykh al-Islam Ibn
Taymiyah, p. 246) …this is necessary and should be considered as an obligation from both
sides…men have rights over their women, and women have rights over their men!...and
they should try their best to fulfil each other’s rights. Since under Islamic paradigm, a man
has to earn, and do everything things else for the woman…and a woman can just sit and
watch tv or do whatever she likes (yes, in islam, women are free from much of the
headaches)…don’t you think when the man requires her wife to be intimate after having
said that, it’s his right, and the wife should’nt say no to him, if the wife does this, where
else is he gonna go?...whats the next step? What do you think?

xii) Women have to follow a very modest dress code and should “Cast their outer garments
over their persons” Quran 33:59. Men need only cover their private parts.

More Sexualized Women Viewed as Less Human.

Several studies further demonstrate the link between viewing pornography and committing
violence against women, including rape and sexual assault.

According to a lay summary of Fiske’s study provided to IslamOnline.net, when a man’s

mentalizing network shuts down, this means he views sexualized women as “less
human.” (Cikara)This type of dehumanization is something Fiske says has rarely been
observed in the laboratory setting-only “once before,” according to a recent National
Geographic article, which cited a study in which people were shown “off-putting
photographs of homeless people and drug addicts.” (Dell’Amore)

In the case of scantily clad women, however, men do not demonstrate the same feelings of
avoidance as they do with populations like the homeless, which are often shunned by
society. Instead, they wish to act on them as one would “push,” “handle,” or “grab” an
object-first-person action verbs that men associated with the images of women in
swimsuits.
(Dell’Amore, Landau)

Furthermore, men are also required to dress modestly in Islam. But we see that men are
potentially able to rape women who dress up immodestly.

It is a fact that if a woman is walking down bare chested, she might get arrested, but for
men, it is universally considered to be O-K-A-Y!

xiii) A nation headed by a woman will never succeed, and the worst sin and distraction
from virtue is by women. (Sahih Bukhari 4425)
You should quote the whole text, not your own interpretation of the text.

17
 18
The word "Fitnah" is used, which means "trial/temptation/test". If you are a guy, you
should know that women are the greatest temptation for man, especially when he is trying
to avoid sex outside of marriage.

And the above can once again be understood, given that men and women work differently,
they have fundamental differences in their biologies and neurologies. Moreover, as we all
know, that nations under men also do fail many a times. So based on this, I would argue
that a man or a woman, whoever governs the society, have equal chance of failing, unless
they run the society on universal principles of justice and honesty. But since women are
more emotionally active than men, their decisions have a higher chance of getting
influenced by their emotions and therefore have a higher chance of failing to prevail total
justice and harmony. And notice the phrase “higher chance”, not that they will fail
completely on every individual level.

Wife beater

Quran note 15 in Sura 38 (Rodwell) ‘Thy wife; on whom he had sworn that he would
inflict a hundred blows, because she had absented herself from him when in need of her
assistance, or for her words. The oath was kept, we are told, by his giving her one blow
with a rod of a hundred.’

Funny lol, why was such an odd translation quoted? Hardly anyone even knows the
'Rodwell translation', and funnily enough it is by a non Muslim translator, who probably
has an anti-Islamic agenda. No?

Let's quote a common translation, i.e. Yusuf Ali;

"And take in thy hand a little grass, and strike therewith: and break not (thy oath)."
Truly We found him full of patience and constancy. How excellent in Our service! ever
did he turn (to Us)!

[Quran 38:44]

Prophet Job made an Oath that he would beat his wife who abandoned him. When his wife
returned, he had to fulfill his oath. God told him to get a little bit of grass and tap her with
that so that the oath can be fulfilled.

Now tell me, if you tapped your wife with grass, are you punishable by law? If not - then
this is not a crime even according to the law of your own times.

"Hang your whip where your wife can see it." (Hadith Musannaf, Abdul Razzaq)
Prove to me that this hadeeth is authentic. Infact, I can prove it to be the contrary based on
the Prophetic teachings which forbid harming the wife (to the extent that a mark is left),
and if the need for discipline (due to her trying to be lewd, i.e. tempting other men etc),
then only to tap the wife to show her that you are not pleased with her. And that if she
persists, you’d divorce her.

18
 19
In other words in certain circumstances it is ok to beat your wife.

Quran 4:34: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to
excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore
obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you
fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them;
then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is great.

(see above)
Ata’ asked ibn Abbas, how can a beating be without harming? he said; with the Siwak or
the like. [Tafseer al-Tabari on 4:36]

And this is a siwak: [http://idawah.com/refutations/siwak.jpg]

can you show me where did the prophet said you can beat her, like you think it’s
permissible in islam, and you know what Im talking about. This is the most he taught…tap
her lightly, so that it doesn’t even leave a mark, only if it becomes the last resort.

And sadly, even the Prophet is reported to have hit his young wife. One night while
sleeping with Aisha, Muhammad surreptitiously left their bed and went to the graveyard at
Baqi.
Aisha followed and watched what the Prophet was doing. When he found out, Aisha
describes,“He struck me on the chest which caused me pain.” (Sahih Muslim, Book
4:2127)

Mistranslation: The arabic word, which has been used in the hadith is " ‫[ " يندهل‬Luhda-
nee]. this is a word which means Pushing with a full hand.
Luhda- = Push with a full hand. -Nee = Me.

Keep in mind, this is a type of Teaching not harming so it is not considered as hitting as it
is perceived in accordance with nowadays peoples understanding.

Furthermore, Aisha herself says in another hadeeth when describing Prophet Muhammad;

`A'ishah said, "The Messenger of Allah never struck a servant of his with his hand,
nor did he ever hit a woman. He never hit anything with his hand, except for when he
was fighting Jihad in the cause of Allah.

(Tafsir Ibn Kathir – Surah Qalam)

Paedophile

Sahih Bukhari 7.18

The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your
brother."
19
 20
The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His book, but she is lawful
for me to marry."
There are numerous hadiths that explicitly reveal the age of Aisha at the time of her
marriage. Here are just some of them:
Sahih Bukhari Bk. 62, No. 64 - The Prophet married her when she was six years old and he
consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.
Sahih Muslim Bk. 008, No. 3310 - Aisha reported: Allah's Apostle married me when I was
six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.”
Sahih Bukhari Bk. 62, No. 88 - 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
Sahih Bukhari 5.236 - 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 consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.
This evidence is further supported by the following events:
Sahih Bukhari 5.234
Narrated Aisha: The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six. 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 on 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 alright, 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 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.
In the above hadith we read that Ayesha was on a swing.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Bk. 73, No. 151
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 home they used to hide themselves, but
the Prophet would call them to join and play with me.
Incidentally, playing with dolls and any human/animal depictions was forbidden for adults,
but as the above shows it was allowed for Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl having
not yet reached the age of puberty (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13).
It is no surprise the age of consent for marriage in Iran has been set at 9
Sahih Muslim Bk. 008, No. 3311
Aisha reported that Allah's Apostle married her when she was seven years old, and she was
taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he
died she was eighteen years old.

Selective reading?

Imam Al-Nawawi said:

Aisha said;
(‫ اﷲِ رَﺳُﻮلُ ﺗَﺰَوَّﺟَﻨِﻲ‬-‫وَﺳَﻠَّﻢَ ﻋَﻠَﯿﮫِ اﷲُ ﺻَﻠَّﻰ‬- ِّ‫ ﻟِﺴِﺖ‬،َ‫ﺳِﻨِﯿﻦَ ﺗِﺴْﻊِ ﺑِﻨْﺖُ وَأَﻧَﺎ ﺑِﻲ وَﺑَﻨَﻰ ﺳِﻨِﯿﻦ‬
‫ةفينح وبأو واﻟﺸَّﺎﻓﻌﻲُّ كلام لاقو‬: ُّ‫عامجلا قيطت نأ كلذ ﺣﺪ‬
‫اﻟﺪَّاوديُّ لاق‬: ‫ ﺣﺴﻨﺎً ﺷﺒﺎﺑﺎً ﺖﺷﺒَّ دق ةشئاع تناكو‬-َ‫'ﻋَﻨْﮭَﺎ اﷲُ رَﺿِﻲ‬
20
 21

Aishah said: "The Messenger of Allah married me when I was six years old and was
with me (i.e. began to live together) when I was 9 years old."

Malik (Ibn Anas), Imam Abu Hanifa and Ash-Shafi'ie have said: A Limit (should be
placed between marriage partners until maturity) that is able for Sexual intercourse.

"Al-Dawudi said: "And Aishah’s body had been matured. [i.e. reached ‘good
Youthfulness’ (Shabaaban husna)] – may Allah be pleased with her"

("Sharh al-Nawawi" 9/207 [Explanation of Sahih Muslim]).

Albrecht von Haller (1775), for example, claimed that girls in the southerly regions of
Asia, where the climate was warm, were marriageable in their eighth year and gave
birth in their ninth or tenth year; conversely, women in Arctic regions did not
menstruate until age 23 or 24. This view was shared by other eighteenth-century writers,
most notably J.F. Freind (1738), Herman Boerhaave (1744), and Montesquieu (1751).

The average temperature of the country or province is considered the chief factor
here, not only with regard to menstruation but as regards the whole of sexual
development at puberty.

Reference: (Herman H. Ploss, Max Bartels and Paul Bartels; Women: An Historical,
Gynecological, and Anthropological Compendium, Volume I, Lord & Bransby, 1988,
p.563;
Woman. An historical, gynaecological and anthropological compendium. Volume 3
only by PLOSS, Herman Heinrich, BARTELS, Max & BARTELS, Paul Find or Buy
Book Now!)

What you need to understand is, that it was “o-k-a-y” by their standards back then!...and
this is why it is not an article of faith to marry girls, even if they’re able to reproduce, at a
young age!...now you could very well come back that “he was a prophet and he should
have ben universal”…I would argue, that if he ate dates, pumpkins, and drank from the
zam zam, you could do it or not…it doesn’t make any difference, since he did things which
were not prohibited by Islam and also were not universal…because they were
customary!...I could also very well say that scientifically, a normal man’s sexual desires
are inversely proportional to his age. And a woman’s age is directly proportional to his
desires to her, in a general sense…and atleast until when the woman’s in her late 20s!(for
most normal men, so the lesser is the woman’s age, the lesser desirable she is because of
her bodily growth to a man)…so based on this evidence, and given the fact that
Muhammad(SAW) was a normal, infact perfectly normal human being, I would say that
21
 22
if he was a pedophile, then his marriage to khadijah makes no sense…and his marriage
to ayesha at his late 50s or so also makes no sense…and unless…you prove to me that he
was medically and mentally ill, and that he had medical symptoms of pedophilia(I did not
provide the list of medical symptoms of pedophelia, otherwise it would have been much
long, you can search it yourself), I would argue that the purpose behind ayesha was to build
ties with his family friend abu bakr. Which was customary back in those days.

Fabricator

However, the Prophet was already married to the limit of four wives prescribed in the
Quran. So Allah sent him a revelation which set an unlimited exemption for the Prophet
alone:
Quran 33:50 "O Prophet (Muhammad)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to
whom you have paid their Mahr, and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand
possesses -- whom God has given to you, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the
daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the
daughters of your maternal aunts who migrated from Mecca with you, and a believing
woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her; a privilege
for you only, not for the rest of the believers.”
Upon this revelation, Prophet Muhammad married her. At the time this turned into quite a
scandal among the Arabs, who equated Muhammad's actions with incest. Undeterred, the
Prophet continued to marry more women, until he had reached eleven in total.
Sahih Muslim - Book 008, Number 3454
Allah revealed:" You may defer any of them you wish and take to yourself any you wish."
Aisha said: “It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire. “

And please quote me the scandal based on this verse? we had this talk before as well, isn’t
it saif?:))

Furthermore, yes - he did marry upto 11 based on the verse of the Quran. And what type of
women did he marry?

He married women who were;

- Divorced
- whose husbands had died.
- who needed support.
- to cause Allegiances between different tribes, so there is less warfare.

The only virgin wife he had was Aa'isha, and the rest of his wives fitted the above
descriptions.

This is something praiseworthy, and shows his sincerety in wanting less bloodshed, and
this is why he formed peace-contracts and covenants through marriage(historical fact), to
produce security. Unless you prove to me historically, that his purpose behind marrying
22
 23
more than one woman was his sexual desires, money, resources, wealth, power (and I
said, “Historically”, not your own personal opinions on the subject), I would argue that he
married more than one wife because of several other purposes, but those that I mentioned
above….much more is coming underneath on why did he mary more than one wives. And
only showing that he had sex with his wives, doesn’t count. There’s a difference between a
man who marries to have sex, and a man who have sex after marriage, they are 2 totally
different things. And let us refute the illogical argument that many non-muslims like to
make (as I said, your own opinions will never carry any weight whatsoever; you have to
provide valid history).

When Muhammad (s.a.w) married Khadija, there was a huge age difference on the basis that
Khadija was quite older then the Prophet. At the time this marriage took place it was not even
imaginable to do so. The Arabs only married with women of lesser age. But Prophet Muhammad
(s.a.w) broke this tradition. And well what wrong do you find in it? He never used his wife's money
for his own personal use which is evident from the events that took place before the marriage,
Khadija was so much impressed by his excellent behavior and pious trading that she became her
admirer, even her best servant admired Muhammad (s.a.w). And after that Muhammad (s.a.w)
didn't propose her, it was the opposite! So make correction, he didn't marry her for her money and
status but she married him for something!! They both lived an excellent life as evident from his this
Hadith in Sahih Bukhari narrated by Ali (r.a)
The Prophet said, "The best of the world's women is Mary (at her lifetime), and the best of the
world's women is Khadija (at her lifetime)."
And look what Ayesha (r.a) had to say for her:
I did not feel jealous of any of the wives of the Prophet as much as I did of Khadija (although) she
died before he married me, for I often heard him mentioning her, and Allah had told him to give
her the good tidings that she would have a palace of Qasab (i.e. pipes of precious stones and
pearls in Paradise), and whenever he slaughtered a sheep, he would send her women-friends a
good share of it.
And it is also clear from the history that he continued to trade on his own during the time
of his marriage with Khadija (r.a) and even after her death.

Much more is coming on his wives underneath.

Muhammad married his daughter, Fatima, to his first cousin, Ali. Despite the following
verse and his own polygamy, Muhammad only allowed one wife for his son-in-law Ali.
When Ali wanted to take a second wife, Muhammad insisted he first divorce his daughter.
Quran 4:3 "Marry other women of your choice, two, or three, or four, but if you fear that
you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (the captives and the
slaves) that your right hands possess.”
Sahih Bukhari 7:62:157 I heard Allah's Apostle who was on the pulpit, saying, "Banu
Hisham bin Al-Mughira have requested me to allow them to marry their daughter to Ali
bin Abu Talib, but I don't give permission, and will not give permission unless 'Ali bin Abi
Talib divorces my daughter in order to marry their daughter, because Fatima is a part of my
body, and I hate what she hates to see, and what hurts her, hurts me."
This shows us that if a man does not want his daughter to go through a polygamous
marriage (because she isn't happy with it), she can get a divorce. What's wrong with that?

We learn 2 things;
1) Polygamy is allowed.
2) If the wife isn't happy with polygamy, she can ask for a divorce.

Is that so difficult to understand? 23

 24
Rape sympathiser

Quran 33:50 - We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their
dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as
spoils of war"

With regards to spoils of war some muslims contend that the concept of Muttah or
‘temporary marriage’ comes into play here, as Abd-Allah ibn Mas'ud , one of the closest
companions to the prophet reported "We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by
the Prophet and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said (to the Prophet). "Shall we
castrate ourselves?" But the Prophet forbade us to do that and thenceforth he allowed us to
marry a woman (temporarily) by giving her even a garment, and then he recited: "O you
who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you."

This bit below rather shockingly shows that Muslim jihadists actually had sex with
captured and enslaved women, whether married or not.
Please don't come up with ignorant conclusions.
though shia muslims consider Mu’ta to be lawful today, according to sunni muslims Mu'ta
has now been forbidden, but at that time - marriage took place with women who were
willing to marry. Nowhere is there a mention of them being forced. We don’t have a shred
of evidence to suggest that it was “rape”.

Given that many men want sex more vividly (scientifically, see above), whats so difficult
to understand in these relaxations that Islam gives/gave? Islam says you can have more
sex, but lawfully, and with that comes the responsibilities of the other person, you can’t
just have the fun and then leave. But then what do I see being prevelant in the west today?
Most highschool kids are non-virgins (and I suspect sicne many of you are non-muslims,
and also westerns, you might have lost your virginities when you were highschooling, a lot
of you maybe…but still, I am a virgin, because I am not ready to accept the responsibilities
that comes with having sex yet!...but this is subjective talk, I agree)…so, you guys love
having sex, but when a religion permits this, with being able to uphold with the
responsibilities and making it lawful and legal, how is that immoral, or this or that? Whats
so wrong about me being able to have all the sex that I want, lawfully, and legally…when I
don’t have to hide to carry out my natural instincts and pratcie my natural desires, while
not harming the society and actually contributing to it? (Remember something, this is what
open-minded people today say, lol)…and you cant just have 4 wives…no, sorry
mates…you gotta fulfil their desires equally…if you can’t do that, then you can not marry
them, and if you can, and if the women happily agree to marry the person( the only 2
required contentions), then who’re you or I to say anything?...these relaxations were given
mostly because in wars most men would die,, and islam doesn’t want women to live a
single mother life...so they could marry men who already had wives, for support!...

Quran 4:3 and 33:50 (see Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319) “And forbidden to you are wedded
wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands as prisoners of war. “

The slaves issue has been addressed early, and also is coming down underneath.

24
 25
This is what maududi says, as per your own request, on 4:3, read it yourself please:

(a) Hadrat 'A ' ishah says that this was revealed to remedy an evil that was prevalent in the
days of "Ignorance." The guardians of the orphan girls used to marry them for their wealth
and beauty, with the intention of keeping them under their power because they had no one
to defend their cause; then they treated them unjustly without any fear. Therefore when
they became Muslims, they had misgivings about marrying orphan girls. Accordingly, the
Qur'an advised them to marry women of their choice other than orphan girls in their
charge, if they feared that they would not be able to do justice to them. Verse 127 of this
Surah also supports this comment.

(b) In commenting on this, Hadrat Ibn-i-`Abbas and his disciple `Ikrimah assert that this
Commandment was given to eradicate an injustice that was prevalent at that time. In pre-
Islamic days, there was no limit to the number of wives and some people would marry
even a dozen of them but when they could not meet the increasing expenses, they were
forced to grab the property of their orphan nephews and other helpless relatives. Therefore,
Allah restricted the maximum number of wives to four, and enjoined that this too, was
subject to the condition that one should do justice to all of them.

(c) SaÆid bin Jubair, Qatadah and some other commentators declare that this Command
was given to safeguard the interests of wives. They say that even before the advent of
Islam, injustice to the orphans was looked upon with disfavor, but in regard to wives, it
was different; they would marry as many as they liked and would treat them cruelly and
unjustly without any fear of the society or pangs of conscience. Therefore Allah warned
them that they should refrain from doing injustice to their wives as they did in the case of
the orphans. Therefore they should not marry more than four wives and that too, only if
they would do justice to them.

The words of the verse bear all the three meanings and probably all three are meant.
Another meaning also can be: "If you cannot treat the orphans justly as they normally
should be, you may marry the women who have orphan children."

5The consensus of opinion of all the scholars of the Muslim law is that this verse limits the
number of wives and prohibits the keeping of more than four at one and the same time.
Traditions also support this. It is related that at the time when Ghailan, the chief of Ta`if,
became a Muslim, he had nine wives. The Holy Prophet asked him to keep only four of
them and divorce all the others. There is another instance of Naufal bin Mu`aviyah, who
was ordered by the Holy Prophet to divorce one of his five wives.

It should also be noted that this verse restricts polygamy with the provision of justice to all
the wives; therefore whoever abuses this permission without fulfilling the condition of
justice and marries more wives than one tries to deceive Allah. The courts of an Islamic
State are, therefore, empowered to enforce justice in order to rectify the wrong done to a
wife or wives. At the same time it is absolutely wrong to conclude from the proviso of
justice, attached to this Commandment, that this verse was really meant to abolish
polygamy. This is not the view of the Qur'an, but of those Muslims who have been
overawed by the Christians of the West. They say that the Qur'an is also against polygamy
but it did trot abolish it directly because it did not consider it expedient at the time for
25
 26
the custom had become very common. Instead of this, it allows polygamy provided that
justice is done to all the wives. As this condition is most difficult to fulfill, the
recommendation is towards monogamy. Obviously, this way of thinking is the result of
mental slavery, because polygamy in itself is not an evil for in some cases it becomes a real
cultural and moral necessity. There are Borne people, who, even if they wished, cannot
remain content with one wife. Polygamy comes to their rescue and saves them and the
society in general from the harms of unlicensed sexual indulgences. That is why the Qur'an
allows polygamy to such people with the explicit condition of doing justice to all the
wives.

As regards those who consider polygamy to be an evil, they are free to oppose the Qur'an
and condemn polygamy, but they have no right to ascribe their own perverted views to the
Qur'an, for it makes this lawful in very clear language without employing any words that
might be stretched in any way to imply that the Qur'an means to abolish it. (For further
explanation, please consult my book .Snnat ki A 'ini Hathiyyat, pp. 307-3161.

6"Those women": slave girls captured in war and distributed among the people by the
government. It tray either mean: "If you cannot bear the expenses of a free woman, you
may marry a slave girl as permitted in.v. 25," or it may mean: "If you need more wives
than one but are afraid that you might not be able to do justice to your wives from among
the free people, you may turn to slave girls because in that case you will be burdened with
less responsibilities. (For details please refer to E.N. 44 below).

And this is what he says on 33:50:

Besides making the fifth wife lawful for the Prophet, Allah in this verse also granted him
the permission to marry a few other kinds of the women:

(1) The woman who came into his possession from among the slave-girls granted by Allah.
According to this the Holy Prophet selected for himself Hadrat Raihanah from among the
prisoners of war taken at the raid against the Bani Quraizah, Hadrat Juwairiyah from
among the prisoners of war taken at the raid against the Bani al-Mustaliq, Hadrat Safiyyah
out of the prisoners of war captured at Khaiber, and Hadrat Mariah the Copt, who was
presented by Maqauqis of Egypt. Out of these he set three of them free and married them,
but had conjugal relations with Mariah on the ground of her being his slave-girl. In her
case there is no proof that the Holy Prophet set her free and married her.

(2) The ladies from among his first cousins, who emigrated along with him. The words
"who emigrated with you"do not mean that they accompanied the Holy Prophet in his
migration journey but this that they also had migrated in the way of Allah for the sake of
Islam. The Holy Prophet was given the choice to marry any one of them he liked.
Accordingly, in A.H. 7 he married Hadrat Umm Habibah. (Incidentally, in this verse it has
been elucidated that the daughters of one's paternal and maternal uncles and aunts are
lawful for a Muslim. In this regard the Islamic Law is different both from the Christian
Law and from the Jewish Law. Among the Christians one cannot marry a woman whose
line of descent joins one's own anywhere in the last seven generations, and among the Jews
it is permissible even to marry one's real niece, i.e. daughter of one's brother or sister).
26
 27
(3) The believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet, i.e. who is prepared to give
herself in marriage to the Prophet without a dower, and he may like to marry her. On
account of this permission the Holy Prophet took Hadrat Maimunah as his wife in
Shawwal, A.H. 7, but he did not think he should have conjugal relations with her without
paying her the dower. Therefore, he paid her the dower even though she did not demand or
desire it. Some commentators say that the Holy Prophet did not have any wife who had
offend herself to him; but this in fact means that he did not keep any wife without paying
her the dower although she offered herself to him.

89If this sentence is taken to be related with the preceding sentence, it will mean that it is
not permissible for any Muslim to take in marriage a woman who gives herself to him,
without paying her the dower; and if it is taken to be related with the whole preceding
passage, it will imply that the concession to marry more than four wives is only reserved
for the Holy Prophet, not for the other Muslims. This verse also shows that certain
commandments are specifically meant for the Holy Prophet to follow and are not
applicable to the other Muslims. A study of the Qur'an and Sunnah reveals several such
commandments. For example, the Tahajjud prayer was obligatory for the Holy Prophet but
is voluntary for the Ummah. It is unlawful for him and his family to receive charities
though it is not so for others. The inheritance left by him cannot be divided; as for the
inheritance left by others relevant commandments have been given in Surah An-Nisa'.
Keeping of more than four wives was made lawful for him though he was not enjoined to
do equal treatment with them. He was permitted to marry a woman who gave herself to
him without any dower, and after his death his wives wen forbidden for the Ummah. None
of these privileges could be enjoyed by any other Muslim. Another special thing that the
commentators have mentioned in this regard is that it was forbidden for the Holy Prophet
to marry a woman from among the people of the Book though it is lawful for the Muslims
to do so.

90This is the reason why Allah made the Holy Prophet an exception to the general
rule. "So that there may be no restraint on you" does not mean that he was, God
forbid, a very lustful person, and therefore, he was permitted to marry several wives
so that he might not feel any hindrance due to the restriction to four wives. This
meaning will be understood only by the person who, blinded by prejudice, forgets
that the Holy Prophet at the age of 25 married a lady who was 40 years old, and lived
a happy, contented married life with her for full 25 years. Then, when she died, he
marred another old lady Hadrat Saudah, who remained his only wife for the next
four years. Now, no sensible and honest person can imagine that when he became
over fifty-three he was suddenly filled with lust and needed to have more and more
wives. In fact, in order to understand the meaning of "no restraint", one should, on the one
hand, keep in view the great task whose responsibility Allah had placed on the Holy
Prophet, and on the other, understand the conditions and circumstances under which he had
been appointed to accomplish the great task. Anyone who understands these two things
with an unbiased mind, will certainly realize why it was necessary to grant him freedom in
respect of the wives and what 'hindrance" was there for him in the restriction to tour wives.

The task entrusted to the Holy Prophet was that he should mold and chisel by all-round
education and training an uncouth, uncultured nation which was not uncivilized only from
the Islamic point of view but from a general viewpoint as well, into a highly civilized,
27
 28
refined and virtuous nation. For this purpose it was unbiased mind, will certainly realize
why it was necessary to grant him freedom in respect of the wives and what "hindrance"
was there for him in the restriction to four wives.

The task entrusted to the Holy Prophet was that he should mold and chisel by all-round
education and training an uncouth, uncultured nation which was not uncivilized only from
the Islamic point of view but from a general viewpoint as well, into a highly civilized,
refined and virtuous nation. For this purpose it was not enough only to train men but the
training of the women also was equally necessary. However, the principles of social life
and civilization which he had been appointed to teach forbade free mixing of the sexes
together, and it was not possible for him to impart direct training to the womenfolk himself
without violating this rule. Therefore, for imparting education to the women the only
alternative left for him was that he should marry several women of different ages and
mental capabilities and should prepare them by education and training to become his
helpers, and then employ them to give religious instructions to the young, middle-aged and
old women of the city and desert and teach them the new principles of morality and
civilization.

Moreover, the Holy Prophet had also been appointed to abolish the system of life of the
pre-Islamic days of ignorance and replace it with the Islamic system of life practically. For
the accomplishment of this task a conflict was inevitable with those who upheld the system
of ignorance, and this conflict was being encountered in a country where the tribal system
of life was prevalent with all its peculiar customs and traditions. Under these conditions,
besides other devices, it was also necessary that the Holy Prophet should marry in different
families and clans in order to cement many ties of friendship and put an end to enmities.
Thus, the selection of the ladies whom he marred was to some extent determined by this
object besides their personal qualities. By taking Hadrat 'A'ishah and Hadrat Hafsah to wife
he further strengthened and deepened the relations with Hadrat Abu Bakr and Hadrat
'Umar. Hadrat Umm Salamah was the daughter of the family to which Abu Jahl and Khalid
bin Walid belonged, and Umm Habibah was the daughter of Abu Sufyan. These marriages
neutralized the enmity of these families to a large extent; so much so that after Umm
Habibah's marriage Abu Sufyan never confronted the Holy Prophet on the battlefield.
Hadrat Safiyyah, Hadrat Juwairiah and Raihanah belonged to Jewish families. When the
Holy Prophet married them, after setting them free, the hostile Jewish activities against him
subsided. For according to the Arab traditions when the daughter of a clan or tribe was
married to a person, he was regarded as the son-in-law of not only the girl's family but of
the entire tribe, and it was disgraceful to fight the son-in-law.

Practical reformation of the society and abolition of its customs of ignorance was also
included among the duties of his office. Therefore, he had to undertake one marriage for
this purpose also, as has been related in detail in this surah Ahzab itself.

For these reasons it was essential that there should be no restriction for the Prophet
in respect of marriage so that in view of the requirements of the great mission
entrusted to him he could marry as many women as he wanted.

This also brings out the error of the view of those people who think that polygamy is
permissible only under special personal requirements and apart from these there can be
28
 29
no other object for which it may be permissible. Evidently, the reason for the Holy
Prophet to marry more wives than one was not that the wife was sick, or barren, or that he
had no male child. or that there was the question of the bringing up of some orphans.
Without these restrictions he married all his wives either in view of the educational
requirements, or for the reformation of society, or for political and social objectives. The
question is, when Allah Himself has not kept polygamy restricted to a few particular needs,
which arc being mentioned these days and the Messenger of Allah took several wives for
many purposes other than these, how is another person entitled to propose some restrictions
in the law and then claim that he is imposing these in accordance with the Shari'ah? As a
matter of fact, the root cause for the imposition of these restrictions is the Western concept
that polygamy is an evil in itself. That very concept has given rise to the idea that this
unlawful thing can become lawful only in case of extreme circumstances. Now, however
hard one may try to label this imported concept with Islam artificially. it is entirely alien to
the Qur'an and ,Sunnah and the whole Muslim literature.

Sahih Bukhari 5:59:637 Ali (Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law) had taken a bath after a
sexual act with a slave-girl from the war booty, and the Prophet’s response to the person
who hated Ali for this sexual act was, ‘Do you hate Ali for this? Don’t hate him, for he
deserves more than that from the war booty’.

Although the above practise could be considered dubious, the sexual rights of domestic
servants seems to be less that captives of war:

Quran 70:29 And those who preserve their chastity with their wives and those whom their
right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy
Quran 33:52 It is not permitted thee to take other wives hereafter, nor to change thy present
wives for other women, though their beauty charm thee, except slaves whom thy right hand
shall possess.

In fact, the Prophet’s son, Ibrahim, was born by Maria al-Qibtiyya- not one of his eleven
wives at the time, but his slave. Maria al-Qibtiyya was actually an Egyptian Coptic
Christian who was a gift from Muqawqis, a Byzantine official, to Muhammad in the year
628.
Allah knew that there would be warfare throughout history, and that the enemy Combatant
Men would get killed. This would leave the territory, as well as its Wealth and Property to
be captured. There would be women and children amongst them who would be left;
without wealth, property or husbands.

The Victors would therefore own all the wealth of the defeated, leaving these women and
children to fend for themselves. Or they could move to unknown territories – through
which they could face more hardship.

Instead of leaving them with nothing - Allah put all of them under the authority of the
Believers. Along with this, Allah has given the believers’ guidance which will show them
the perfect way to treat those caught in war.

29
 30

Slavery in Rape, Expulsion, or Prison:

A nation who faces war, their men will be killed [in the war], and their women will go
through either of these 3 circumstances;
1 - Imprisonment - because she was part of her people who were at war with the Victor.
(she will most likely be raped in prison, and this happens even in the modern world.
[search Abu Ghraib prison if in doubt.] )

2 - Exhile - because the defeated peoples property has all been taken by the enemy. (so she
will have to run to another land, where she will probably also face harm and probably rape
. And she will not have a male provider. [if in doubt - study the effects of the Iraq war on
Muslim women. (many have had to become prostitutes because their men have been killed)
.])

3 - Being a Concubine - this is the best solution. She has a Believing male provider , she
has similar rights to a wife. She learns about the Justice of Islam from the Muslims in an
Islamic society. She soon earns her freedom [see Um al Walad underneath ]. And the
male who is Responsible over her may even; teach her, free her and marry her (since that is
rewardable for him - as stated in the Qur'an and Ahadith [see surah Nur 24:32 )

Practical Islamic Solution :

Islam guides mankind to the best Practical teachings, which will ensure the betterment for
humans in all situations.
In the scenario of people taking over enemy territory – Muslims will NOT be permitted to
Harm (i.e. kill, rape etc.) non-combatants (i.e. women, children, old men etc.) according to
the teachings of Islam.

Women Beautify themselves before War:

John McClintock said:
Women who followed their father and husbands to the war put on their finest dresses and
ornaments previous to an engagement, in the hope of finding favor in the eyes of their
captors in case of a defeat.

(John McClintock, James Strong, "Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and

Ecclesiastical Literature" [Harper & Brothers, 1894], p. 782)

Matthew B. Schwartz said:

. Women have always followed armies to do the soldiers' laundry, to nurse the sick and
wounded, and to serve as prostitutes

They would often dress in such a way as to attract the soldiers who won the battle .
The Bible recognizes the realities of the battle situation in its rules on how to treat female
captives, though commentators disagree on some of the details.

The biblical Israelite went to battle as a messenger of God. Yet he could also, of course, be

30
 31
caught up in the raging tide of blood and violence. The Western mind associates
prowess, whether military or athletic, with sexual success.

The pretty girls crowd around the hero who scores the winning touchdown, not around the
players of the losing team. And it is certainly true in war: the winning hero "attracts"
the women.

(Matthew B. Schwartz, Kalman J. Kaplan, "The Fruit of Her Hands: The Psychology
of Biblical Women" [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007] , pp. 146-147)
What will happen
What will happen to the Prisoner Women in Islam? to the Prisoner Women in ?
Step 1: The Ameer [Leader] of the Believers will gather the Property of the territory
after the War has ended (including; the Women, Children and Wealth etc.) & take them
back to the Islamic state.
Note: This is the only case in which ‘slave women’ are taken (i.e. through the Ameer and him distributing them in an Islamic state.)
Step 2: The Ameer will fairly distribute the Wealth (including the Women and Children)
amongst the Believers within the Islamic state.
NOTE: If the woman’s husband is still alive, her marriage will automatically become Annulled [cancelled] once the Believers have
returned to the Islamic state.*
Step 3: The woman will become the Property of the Muslim male # who she was
distributed to. *
NOTE: Wisdom should be taken by the Ameer in recognising the status of the woman before her slavery when pairing her up with a
Muslim. (i.e. the slavery of Safiyyah bint Huyayy to Allah’s Messenger was decided based on her Nobility amongst the Jews. [Allah’s
Messenger later freed her and married her.])

*We see that these two steps are taken to ensure that the woman does not have intimate relations with two men at one
time. Since that could cause confusion on whom the child belongs to.
It also shows that Islam does not encourage Prostitution of slave women as that brings. more evils in society.
# Muslim Free women do not have Male Slaves for sexual intercourse. (And would be an insult to her status of being a
free woman.)

Options instead of Force :

It seems clear from Research that Women would beautify themselves before battle for two
reasons;
1) to Support their Men and 'Cheer them on'.
2) If their men lost - they would be beautiful and therefore valuable and Expensive for
the one who caught her.
But like real life, it is possible that a woman may not be pleased with the one who takes
her.

Could he then force her to have Intimate relations?

As we have mentioned already - slaves are a Responsibility who Muslims are required to
take care of and cannot abuse. There are more options for the male than just forcing her to
have Intimate relations.
Other Options:
1 - Isn't it possible that if he saw her unwilling to get along - he could have sold to her to
another Muslim for a price?
2 - He could have purchased another slave girl who was willing to have sex with him?
3 - Or he would have waited for her to consent, for by that time he would have treated
her very nicely and convinced her that Islam is true and that it was her tribe's fault for
starting the battle, etc. Yes these things are possible.
31
 32
Similarities between a Wife and a Slave Woman

They both virtually enjoy similar rights;

1 – Intimate Care:

Allah has permitted Intimate relations (sexual intercourse) with both the Wife and the
‘Right hand slave woman’ for the Muslim male;

َ ‫َاﻓِﻈُﻮنحَ ﻟِﻔُﺮُوﺟِﮭِ ْﻢ ھُﻢْ وَاﻟﱠﺬِﯾ‬. ‫ﻣَﻠُﻮﻣِﯿﻦَ ﻏَﯿْﺮُ ﻓَﺈِﻧﱠﮭُﻢْ أَﯾْﻤَﺎﻧُﮭُﻢْ ﻣَﻠَﻜَﺖْ ﻣَﺎ أَوْ أَزْوَاﺟِﮭِﻢْ ﻋَﻠَﻰٰ إِﻟﱠﺎ‬
‫ﻦ‬
And they who guard their private parts. Except from their wives [aZwaaj] or those their
right hands possess [malakaT aYmaan] , for indeed, they will not be blamed – [Surah
Mu’minun 23: 5-6]

This would be fair since they are women, both the wife and the ‘Right hand possessed’
woman deserve a trustworthy partner who can take care of her in all ways (financially,
emotionally, intimately etc.) This is a much better alternative for the 'right hand woman' in
comparison to a Prison.

2 – Honorable Titles:

Wives are called ‘Zawwaaj’ from the word ‘Zawjah’ = the one you Mix with and are a
Partner to.
Slaves are called; MalakaT aYmaanaK = Your Right hand Woman. The ‘Right hand
woman ’ signifies that which is ‘blessed’ which supports you.

3 – An Agreement:

Wives: When you marry a Woman – you do a Nikah contract, which establishes that you
have taken Guardianship from the woman’s father. (i.e. you will; Care for her, Provide
etc.) and as a consequence – she will only have intimate relations with you.
Slaves: When you take a Slave woman – she does not have a Guardian. So no Nikah
(transferal of Guardianship) takes place. Instead, when you take a slave, you are ensuring
that she will only have intimate relations with you.

It is all a matter of ‘Responsibility.’

4 – Waiting Period:

Wives: When a free woman (wife) is divorced, she has an ‘Iddah [waiting period] of 3
months to see if she is pregnant from the previous husband.
32
 33
Slaves: When a slave woman is sold, she has an ‘Istibraa’ [waiting period] for 1 month,
to see if she is pregnant from her previous owner or not.

If Pregnant: In both cases – the free and slave women do not get married again until they
deliver (give birth to) the child. After that they can get married again.

5 – Inheritance for Children from the Father:

Children from both the Wife and the Slave woman are born as Free (and not slaves) and
Inherit wealth off the father.

Are Slave women allowed to be Raped?

Based on the huge rights Islam has placed upon Slaves (in which Prophet Muhammad
said (meaning); “they [slaves] are your brothers..”, we see that Rape would not be
allowed.

Prophetic Statements in regard to Slaves and their Rights:

Narrated Al-Ma'rur:
At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was
wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, "I abused a
person by calling his mother with bad names."

The Prophet said to me, 'O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother
with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are
your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a
brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of
what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity
(power) and if you do so, then help them.' "

Sahih al Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 30.

Hilal b. Yasaf reported that a person got angry and slapped his slave-girl.
Thereupon Suwaid b. Muqarrin said to him: You could find no other part (to slap)
but the prominent part of her face. See I was one of the seven sons of Muqarrin,
and we had but only one slave-girl. The youngest of us slapped her, and Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded us to set her free.

Saheeh Muslim Book 015, Number 4082.

Refer to: Prophetic Statements in regard to Slaves and their

Rights(http://idawah.com/refutations/slaves.html#slave_rights)

33
 34
If slapping a slave on the face can require you to free your slave, then Rape is an
even more severe offense.

Further Reading:
There are those who argue that since Islam permits Muslim men to have sexual intercourse
with their slave girls, this then means that they also have the right to rape them.

This is absurd. The right to have sex with a woman does not necessarily imply that one has
the right to rape her as well. To say that a Muslim man has the right to rape his slave girl is
like saying that a man has the right to rape his wife; which is not true. Refer to this article
(http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/no_marital_rape.htm).

Rape in Islam is completely forbidden. See [http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/72338] and

[http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-
Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1125407868541].

Imam Maalik said:

‫اﻷﻣﺮ ﻋﻨﺪﻧﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﯾﻐﺘﺼﺐ اﻟﻤﺮأة ﺑﻜﺮاً ﻛﺎﻧﺖ أو ﺛﯿﺒﺎ‬: ‫ ةرح تناك نإ اهنأ‬: ‫ اهلثم قادص هيلعف‬, ‫وإن ﻛﺎﻧﺖ‬
‫ أﻣَﺔ‬: ‫ اهنمث نم صقن ام هيلعف‬، ‫ بصتغملا ىلع كلذ يف ةبوقعلاو‬، ‫ىلع ةبوقع الو‬
‫هلك كلذ يف ةبصتغملا‬

In our view the man who rapes a woman, regardless of whether she is a virgin or not, if she
is a free woman he must pay a "dowry" like that of her peers, and if she is a slave he must
pay whatever has been detracted from her value. The punishment is to be carried out on
the rapist and there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the
case. (Imam Maalik, Al-Muwatta', Volume 2, page 734)

Imam Al Shaafi'i said:

‫دح هيلع ميقأو رقعلاو ةيراجلا هنم تذخأ ةلاهجلا لهأ ريغ نم وهو بصغلا دعب اهئطو مث ةيراجلا لجرلا بصتغا اذإو‬
‫انزلا‬

"If a man acquires by force a slave-girl, then has sexual intercourse with her after he
acquires her by force, and if he is not excused by ignorance, then the slave-girl will be
taken from him, he is required to pay the fine, and he will receive the punishment for
illegal sexual intercourse." (Imam Al Shaafi'i, Kitaabul Umm, Volume 3, page 253)

Notice that both of these top classical scholars have stated that a man is to be punished for
raping a slave girl. Of course this not our ultimate proof that Islam forbids rape, but this is
to show that the early classical scholars surely did not understand Islam to be teaching it.
34
 35
In an authentic narration from Sunan Al Bayhaqi, Volume 2, page 363, Hadith no. 18685
we read the following story:

Abu al-Hussain bin al-Fadhl al-Qatan narrated from Abdullah bin Jaffar bin Darestweh
from Yaqub bin Sufyan from al-Hassab bin Rabee from Abdullah bin al-Mubarak from
Kahmas from Harun bin Al-Asam who said: Umar bin al-Khatab may Allah be pleased
with him sent Khalid bin al-Walid in an army, hence Khalid sent Dharar bin al-Auwzwar in
a squadron and they invaded a district belonging to the tribe of Bani Asad. They then
captured a pretty bride, Dharar liked her hence he asked his companions to grant her to
him and they did so. He then had sexual intercourse with her, when he completed his
mission he felt guilty, and went to Khalid and told him about what he did. Khalid said: 'I
permit you and made it lawful to you.' He said: 'No not until you write a message to Umar'.
(Then they sent a message to Umar) and Umar answered that he (Dharar) should be
stoned. By the time Umar's message was delivered, Dharar was dead. (Khalid) said: 'Allah
didn't want to disgrace Dharar'

Notice that Umar ibn Al Khattab (the second caliph) ordered the man who captured the
slave girl and had sex with her to be stoned for this crime, for he took the slave girl
unjustly.

Do these critics who raise these arguments know Islam better than Umar ibn al Khattab?

We anticipate what our opponents might say in response. They will say that the scholars
whom I just cited and the story of Umar ibn Al Khattab only refer to someone who raped a
slave girl who did not belong to him, however one may rape the slave girl that is his
property. Even though the story in Sunan Al Bayhaqi makes it clear that the man had sex
with the girl after possessing her, we will accept this response only for the sake of
argument.

It is nonsense to suggest that one could rape the slave girl he possesses because the Prophet
(peace be upon him) warned us that we must take good care of those under our authority:

"There is no person to whom Allaah has given people to take care of, and he fails to take
care of them properly, but he will not smell the fragrance of Paradise." (Saheeh Bukhari
no. 6731; Saheeh Muslim, no. 142)

'Umar ibn al-Ahwas (may Allaah be pleased with him) reported that he heard the
Messenger of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say during his
Farewell Pilgrimage:

"Verily, you have rights over your women, and your women have rights over you. As
for your rights over your women, they are that they should not allow anyone to sit on your
beds whom you dislike, or allow anyone into your houses whom you dislike. Verily, their
rights over you are that you should treat them well with regard to their clothing
35
 36
and food." (Reported by al-Tirmidhi, 1163, and Ibn Maajah, 1851).

The Prophet (peace be upon him) made it clear that we shouldn't harm slaves:

Saheeh Bukhari

Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29

Narrated Al-Ma'rur: At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his
slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, "I abused
a person by calling his mother with bad names." The Prophet said to me, 'O Abu Dhar! Did
you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of
ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command.
So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress
him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power)
and if you do so, then help them.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said that our slaves are like our siblings. Who would rape
his own sister?

The Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade causing physical harm to slaves:

Saheeh Muslim

Book 015, Number 4082:

Hilal b. Yasaf reported that a person got angry and slapped his slave-girl. Thereupon
Suwaid b. Muqarrin said to him: You could find no other part (to slap) but the prominent
part of her face. See I was one of the seven sons of Muqarrin, and we had but only one
slave-girl. The youngest of us slapped her, and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon
him) commanded us to set her free.

Book 015, Number 4086

Abu Mas'ud al-Badri reported: "I was beating my slave with a whip when I heard a voice
behind me: Understand, Abu Masud; but I did not recognise the voice due to intense anger.
He (Abu Mas'ud) reported: As he came near me (I found) that he was the Messenger of
Allah (may peace be upon him) and he was saying: Bear in mind, Abu Mas'ud; bear in
mind. Abu Mas'ud. He (Aba Maslad) said: threw the whip from my hand. Thereupon he
(the Holy Prophet) said: Bear in mind, Abu Mas'ud; verily Allah has more
dominance upon you than you have upon your slave. I (then) said: I would never beat
my servant in future.

36
 37
If the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade slapping and whipping slaves then it's
unthinkable that he would have permitted raping them. It just makes no sense.

Thus, our argument is as follows:

- The Prophet (peace be upon him) has prohibited causing harm to and oppressing those
under our authority.

- Rape is causing harm to someone and is considered a form of oppression

- If the critic says that the Prophet (peace be upon him) made an exception to this general
prohibition by allowing one to rape his slave girl, the burden of proof is upon him to
show evidence for this exception.

- If he is not able to show evidence for this exception then we must assume that the
Prophet's (peace be upon him) general command is upheld, thus proving that Islam forbids
one to rape his slave girl.

Critics would reply back and say that it's unthinkable that slave girls back then would hae
willingly consented to having sex with their Muslim captors who just killed their family
members. They would usually point to the specific example of Banu Al-Mustaliq.

The narration states:

Sahih al-Bukhari 4138 -Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the mosque and saw Abu Sa'id
Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e., coitus interruptus). Abu
Sa'id said, "We went out with Allah's Messenger for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq, and
we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy
became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So, when we intended to do
coitus interruptus, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus without asking Allah's
Messenger while he is present among us?' We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better
for you not to do so. There is no person that is destined to exist, but will come to existence,
till the Day of Resurrection.'" (Sahih Bukhari, no. 4138)

Here the critic's argument goes something like this:

- The Islamic traditions show that Muslims had sex with their slave girls

- According to my subjective logic it is inconceivable that slave girls would consent to

having sex with the captors that just killed members from their tribe
37
 38
- In conclusion, the Islamic traditions show that Muslims raped their slave girls

These critics are ignorant of history, for slave girls did consent to having sex with their
captors back in the past.

John McClintock said:

Women who followed their father and husbands to the war put on their finest dresses and
ornaments previous to an engagement, in the hope of finding favor in the eyes of their
captors in case of a defeat.(John McClintock, James Strong, "Cyclopædia of Biblical,
Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature" [Harper & Brothers, 1894], p. 782)

Matthew B. Schwartz said:

The Book of Deuteronomy prescribes its own rules for the treatment of women captured in
war [ Deut 21:10-14 ] . Women have always followed armies to do the soldiers' laundry, to
nurse the sick and wounded, and to serve as prostitutes

They would often dress in such a way as to attract the soldiers who won the battle.
The Bible recognizes the realities of the battle situation in its rules on how to treat female
captives, though commentators disagree on some of the details.

The biblical Israelite went to battle as a messenger of God. Yet he could also, of course, be
caught up in the raging tide of blood and violence. The Western mind associates prowess,
whether military or athletic, with sexual success.

The pretty girls crowd around the hero who scores the winning touchdown, not around the
players of the losing team. And it is certainly true in war: the winning hero "attracts"
the women.(Matthew B. Schwartz, Kalman J. Kaplan, "The Fruit of Her Hands: The
Psychology of Biblical Women" [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007] , pp. 146-147)

Thus we see from two non-Muslim authors that slave girls back in the past would consent
to having sex with their captors. So if we put aside our 21st century mindset and look at
history objectively, there is nothing wrong with saying that slave girls back then consented
to having sex with their captors.

One might object to the fact that the above authors are only speaking about the Israelite
era. However, that is really not a good response. The point I am trying to make is that the
idea of the possibility of slave girls willingly having sex with their captors is not absurd.
38
 39
Thus, one is required to provide proof that those slave girls who had sex with their
Muslim captors did not consent. This is especially due to the fact that 1) It was possible for
slave girls back in the past to consent to having sex with their captors and 2) Muslims were
prohibited from harming their slave girls.

If the critic says that not all of the slave girls felt this way and there were bound to be some
who didn't want to have sex, I would agree with him. However, how does this prove that
the Muslims raped their slave girls? How does the critic know whether the Muslim back
then actually raped the slave girl who was unwilling to have sex with him? Isn't it possible
that if he saw her unwilling he would have sold to her to another Muslim at a cheaper
price? Or he would have purchased another slave girl who was willing to have sex with
him? Or he would have waited for her to consent, for by that time he would have treated
her very nicely and convinced her that Islam is true and that it was her tribe's fault for
starting the battle, etc. Yes these things are possible.

How does the critic know that none of these things happened? What is his proof that the
Muslims raped their slave girls?

The narration doesn't show:

- How many Muslim captors decided to go through with having sex with the slave girls?

- How many women actually ended up having sex with their Muslim captors?

- Most importantly, whether any slave girls were raped

Even if the critic is successful in showing that the Muslims raped them, what is his proof
that this was approved by the Prophet (peace be upon him)? It's possible that Muslims
committed sins back then and disobeyed the Prophet (peace be upon him). So where could
the critic show us the Prophet (peace be upon him) approving of such behavior?

He cannot and I challenge him to.

Another narration that the critics appeals to is this:

Sunan Abu Dawud

Volume 2, Number 2150

Abu Said al-Khudri said: The apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military
expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and
fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of
the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the
female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the
Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, 'And all married women (are forbidden) unto you
save those (captives) whom your right hands possess'. That is to say, they are lawful for
them when they complete their waiting period.

39
 40
The critics would argue that no slave girl would consent to having sexual intercourse in
the presence of her husband.
However, this is a completely false translation of the hadith. The words "in the presence
of" are no where to be found in the Arabic text.

The full Arabic text (found here: http://www.call-to-

monotheism.com/does_islam_permit_muslim_men_to_rape_their_slave_girls_/edit/478/ha
dith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=4&Rec=2571) states:
‫نع ةداتق نع ديعس انثدح عيرز نب ديزي انثدح ةرسيم نب رمع نب هللا ديبع انثدح‬
‫يردخلا ديعس يبأ نع يمشاهلا ةمقلع يبأ نع ليلخلا يبأ حلاص‬

‫مهودع اوقلف ساطوأ ىلإ اثعب نينح موي ثعب ملسو هيلع هللا ىلص هللا لوسر نأ‬
‫هللا ىلص هللا لوسر باحصأ نم اسانأ نأكف ايابس مهل اوباصأو مهيلع اورهظف مهولتاقف‬
‫كلذ يف ىلاعت هللا لزنأف نيكرشملا نم نهجاوزأ لجأ نم نهنايشغ نم اوجرحت ملسو هيلع‬

‫مكناميأ تكلم ام الإ ءاسنلا نم تانصحملاو‬

‫نهتدع تضقنا اذإ لالح مهل نهف يأ‬

If the reader does not know how to read Arabic, let him bring someone who does and ask
him whether he can point out to him the words "in the presence of". He won't be able to.
The translation in Saheeh Muslim seems more accurate:

Saheeh Muslim

Book 008, Number 3432:

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hunain
Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the
enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the
Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) seemed to refrain from
having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists.
Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except
those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their
'Idda period came to an end).

So here we see that the Muslim soldiers were feeling uncomfortable with engaging in
sexual intercourse with women who were already married. However, the verse was
revealed saying that it is permissible to engage in sexual intercourse with slave girls even if
they are married.

Imam Al Tabari in his commentary on Surah 4:24 cites several of the companions and
second generation Muslims stating that the marriage of a woman is annulled after she has
been captured and made a slave.

Imam Nawawi in his commentary on this hadith states:

‫رفاكلا اهجوز حاكن خسفني هنإف‬
40
 41
It (i.e. to come to own a slave girl) annuls the marriage between her and her disbeliever
husband. (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Ridaa', Bab: Jawaaz Wati'
Al Missbiyyah Ba'd Al Istibraa' wa en Kaana laha Zawj Infasakh, Commentary on
Hadith no. 2643, [ http://hadith.al-islam.com/Loader.aspx?pageid=261])

Thus, we see that in the eyes of Islam this marriage becomes invalid (some opinions like
that of the Hanafi school state other conditions required for the annulment to occur). The
critic would definitely argue back stating "what gives your religion the right?" but that is
not the point of discussion. This is an external critique of Islam and the basis for this
discussion really isn't about this topic in particular but about whether Islam really is true
and whether this is God's decree. To debate the specifics is just useless. The Muslim sees
this decree to be internally consistent and submits to God's law that states that action x
results in a divorce.

One might shout out to the Christian as well, "What gives your Bible the right to declare a
woman an adulteress if she happened to marry a man who divorced her by not following
the proper procedures (Matthew 5:2)?" The Christian really has nothing to say except the
fact that he believes that this is God's decree and submits to it. He believes that God has the
power and right to determine how divorce should take place (e.g. what conditions are valid
for divorce) and submits to them. Well, the Muslim says the same thing in this regard.

Imam Nawawi goes on to say:

‫نم مهريغو ناثوألا ةدبع نم ةيبسملا نأ ءاملعلا نم هلوقب لاق نمو يعفاشلا بهذم نأ ملعاو‬
‫يهف اهنيد ىلع تماد امف ملست ىتح نيميلا كلمب اهؤطو لحي ال مهل باتك ال نيذلا رافكلا‬
‫ ةمرحم‬, ‫ ناثوألا ةدبع برعلا يكرشم نم نك تايبسملا ءالؤهف‬, ‫ىلع ههبشو ثيدحلا اذه لوؤيف‬
‫ نملسأ نهنأ‬, ‫ملعأ هللاو هنم دب ال ليوأتلا اذهو‬

And know that the school of thought of Al Shafi'i and who agreed with him from amongst
the scholars have stated that the idol worshipper and those whom have no religious book
cannot be approached for sexual intercourse unless they convert to Islam first. As
long as they are following their religion they are forbidden to approach. These slave girls
(i.e. in the particular narration) are idol worshippers. This hadith and whatever resembles it
must be interpreted as implying that the slave girls accepted Islam. There is no other choice
but to interpret the hadiths this way and Allah knows best. (Ibid)

So here we see that a great number of scholars have argued that just as Muslims are
forbidden to marry idol worshippers, they are forbidden as well from engaging in sexual
intercourse with idol worshipping slave girls. In order to engage in the sexual act, the
Muslim must wait for the slave girl to convert to Islam and in Islam there is no shred of
evidence whatsoever that the Muslim can force or compel his slave girl to convert to Islam.

We see cases in the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) where slave girls willingly
prefer to accept Islam over returning to their tribe due to recognizing the truth of Islam
41
 42
and injustice of their own tribe for provoking the Muslims to war. The most famous case
being that of
Safiyyah[http://www.authenticsunnah.org/bassam_zawadi/safiyyah_the_wife_of_the_prop
het.htm], one of the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

Furthermore, when analyzing the particular story mentioned in the hadith we see that no
rape could have reasonably taken place.

Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri states:

The Enemy's March and their Encampment at Awtas

When Malik bin 'Awf - the general leader - decided to march and fight the Muslims, he
made his countrypeople take their wealth, women and children with them to Awtas -
which is a valley in Hawazin land and is quite near Hunain. It differs from Hunain in its
being adjacent to Dhi-Al-Majaz which is around ten miles from Makkah in 'Arafat's
direction. [Fath Al-Bari 8/27,42]
The War-experienced Man wrongs the Leader's Judgement

As soon as they had camped in Awtas, people crowded round Malik. The old sane Duraid
bin As-Simmah, who was well-known as a war-experienced man, and who was among
those who gathered round Malik, asked: "What valley are we in?" "In Awtas," they said.
"What a good course it is for horses! It is neither a sharp pointed height nor a loosed soiled
plain. What? Why do I hear camels' growling, the donkeys' braying, the children's cries and
the sheep bleating?" asked Duraid. They said: "Malik bin 'Awf had made people bring
their women, properties and children with them." So he called Malik and asked him
what made him do such a thing. Malik said that his aim was to have everybody's
family and properties around them so that they fight fiercely to protect them." "I
swear by Allâh that you are nothing but a shepherd," answered Duraid, "Do you believe
that there is anything whatsoever, can stand in the way of a defeated one or stop him from
fleeing? If you win the battle you avail nothing but a man with a sword and a spear; but if
you lose you will bring disgrace on your people and properties," then he resumed his talk
and went on wondering about some septs and their leaders. "O Malik, thrusting the
distinguished people of Hawazin into the battlefield will avail you nothing. Raise them up
to where they can be safe. Then make the young people mount their horses and fight. If
you win, those whom you tarried will follow you, but if you were the loser it would be a
loss of a battle, but your kinsmen, people and properties would not be lost."(Saifur
Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar): The Third
Stage, [ http://www.witness-
pioneer.org/vil/Books/SM_tsn/ch7s1.html#The%20Enemy%27s%20March%20and
%20their%20Encampment%20at%20Awtas])

So here we see that it was the disbeliever's fault for bringing their own women and children
to the battle field. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was not interested in invading their
lands and taking their women as it would be made clear as we read on:

A similar battalion of horsemen pursued the idolaters who threaded the track to Nakhlah
42
 43
and caught up with Duraid bin As-Simmah, who was killed by Rabi'a bin Rafi'. After
collecting the booty, the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] left for Ta'if to face the greatest
number of the defeated idolaters. The booty was six thousand captives, twenty four
thousand camels; over forty thousand sheep and four thousand silver ounces.

So here we see that the Muslims were victorious and obtained an impressive amount of war
booty.

Continuing on:

The Distribution of the Booty at Al-Ji'ranah

Upon returning and lifting the siege in Ta'if, the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] had stayed
over ten nights at Al-Ji'ranah before starting to distribute the booty. Distribution delay
was due to the Prophet's hope that Hawazin's delegation might arrive and announce
their repentance and consequently reclaim their loss. Seeing that none of them arrived,
he started dividing the booty so as to calm down the tribes' chiefs and the celebrities of
Makkah. The first to receive booty and the ones who obtained the greatest number of
shares were the people who had recently embraced Islam.

Notice this crucial point. The Prophet (peace be upon him) intentionally delayed
distributing the booty because he wanted the Hawazin to come back and surrender and then
collect their lost war booty.

Notice how the Prophet (peace be upon him) was not eager to keep the women and have
his men rape them as some critics allege.

What happens next is amazing:

Arrival of the Hawazin Delegation

Hawazin's delegation arrived a Muslims just after the distribution of spoils. They were
fourteen men headed by Zuhair bin Sard. The Messenger's foster uncle was one of them.
They asked him to bestow upon them some of the wealth and spoils. They uttered so
touching words that the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] said to them: "You surely see who are
with me. The most desirable speech to me is the most truthful. Which is dearer to you, your
wealth or your women and children?" They replied: "Nothing whatsoever compares with
kinship." Then when I perform the noon prayer, stand up and say: "We intercede with the
Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] to exhort the believers, and we intercede with the believers to
exhort the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] to forego the captives of our people fallen to their
lot." So when the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] performed the noon prayer, they stood up and
said what they had been told to say. The Messenger [pbuh], then, said: "As for what
belongs to me and to the children of Abdul Muttalib, you may consider them, from
now on, yours. And I will ask my folksmen to give back theirs." Upon hearing that
the Emigrants and the Helpers said: "What belongs to us is, from now on, offered to
the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh]." But Al-Aqra' bin Habis said, "We will grant none of
what belongs to me and to Bani Tamim,"; so did 'Uyaina bin Hisn, who said: "As for me
and Bani Fazarah, I say 'No'." Al-'Abbas bin Mirdas also refused and said: "No" for Bani
43
 44
Saleem and him. His people, however, said otherwise: "Whatever spoils belong to us we
offer to the Messenger of Allâh ([pbuh].)" "You have undermined my position." Said Al-
'Abbas bin Mirdas spontaneously. Then the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] said: "These people
have come to you as Muslims. For this I have already tarried the distribution of the booty.
Besides, I have granted them a fair option but they refused to have anything other than
their women and children. Therefore he who has some of theirs and will prefer willingly to
give them back, let them do. But those who favours to keep what he owns to himself, let
them grant them back too, and he will be given as a recompense six times as much from
the first booty that Allâh may provide us." People then said, "We will willingly offer them
all for the sake of the Messenger of Allâh." The Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] said: "But in
this way we are not able to find out who is content and who is not. So go back and we will
be waiting for your chiefs to convey to us your decisions." All of them gave back the
women and children. The only one who refused to comply with the Messenger's desire
was 'Uyaina bin Hisn. He refused to let an old woman of theirs go back at first. Later on he
let her go back. The Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] gave every captive a garment as a gift.

Just look at the mercy of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Indeed, this is the true definition
of the word "mercy". Mercy is only real when one is in power to not be merciful yet
willingly decides to be, just as we see the Prophet (peace be upon him) do in this situation
(and many other situations as well).

So here we see that the Muslims weren't raping savages, but merciful human beings.

Thus, for this particular narration we can conclude that:

-Muslims are not permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with idol worshippers unless
they convert to Islam first and once they have converted to Islam it would make their
consenting to sexual intercourse much easier.

-There is no evidence of any ill treatment of the slave girls by the Muslim soldiers.

-There is no evidence of any slave girls engaging in sexual intercourse with any Muslim
soldier. The Muslims might have returned them back to their tribe before they had the
chance to.

-There is no evidence of any Muslim soldier raping his slave girl.

-Even if there is evidence, there is no evidence that the Prophet (peace be upon him)
approved of it.

The Islamic critic would also appeal to the following narration, which states:

Jami At-Tirmidhi 1137 - Jabir bin Abdullah narrated: "We practiced Azl while the Qur'an
was being revealed." . . . Malik bin Anas said: "The permission of the free woman is to be
requested for Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus), while the slave woman's permission need not be
requested."
44
 45

He would argue that this narration shows that one could engage in coitus interruptus
without the permission of his slave girl, which means that he could rape her.

The first and most important thing to note is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) didn't
say that, Imam Maalik said that. The Prophet (peace be upon him) is our final authority.

Imam Maalik's reasoning was that the free woman has the right to have a child. The man
doesn't have the right to forbid his wife from having a child, thus he must ask her
permission before doing azl. However, if the Muslim gets his slave girl pregnant, she
seizes to become his slave girl and he must marry her. The Muslim therefore, doesn't have
to ask for her permission to do azl when they make consensual sex.

Again, where is the rape? Even if Imam Malik said that you can rape her (which he didn't),
he is not my final authority, the Prophet (peace be upon him) is. So what evidence did
Imam Maalik use then from the Qur'an and Sunnah to justify his statement that one can
rape his slave girl (which he didn't say, it's only for the sake of argument)?

The critic might reply back and say that the fact that the man has a "right" to have sex with
his slave girl indicates that the man is permitted to do "all it takes" to take his rights.

Even if we say that it is his right, it is his right just like how it is his right to receive
obedience from his children. Just like how it is his right to get inheritance if his father
passes away.

Now is the critic seriously trying to argue that Islam would permit a man to physically
abuse his children if they didn't give him his right of respect? Is he also trying to say that
he can physically abuse and harm his sister if she were to try and steal some of his
inheritance money?

In Islam, one of the rights that a Muslim has over his brother is to be visited when he is
sick and to be greeted with peace. If my Muslim brother does not greet me with peace or
visit me when I am sick, does that mean that I can physically abuse him until he does, so
that "he gives me my right"?

It seems like this is what he is saying if he were to be consistent. According to this logic, if
the Qur'an says someone is entitled to something or has a right to something that means
that the person can do whatever he wants - even if it was forbidden - in order to obtain that
right.

This is something absolutely ridiculous, which no Muslim scholar in antiquity has stated. I
am really speechless and don't really know how to reply back to such a laughable
argument.

Plus, this could also work against the Christian. I can argue that the Bible states that the
man has the right to have sex with his wife, thus if she refuses then he can hurt her! The
45
 46
Christian would reply back and say that he can't hurt his wife because there are other
verses that state that he can't do so and this is exactly what we have shown in this article
in regards to the slave girl.

Conclusion
Islam forbids one to harm those under his authority. Since rape is considered a form of
harm that would mean that rape is forbidden. We have also seen that history shows that
slave girls in the past did consent to having sex with their captors; hence we must keep our
subjective emotions aside and agree with this objective fact. In light of this fact, there is
nothing absurd in believing that the Muslims did not rape their slave girls especially since
they were forbidden from doing so. And even if some of the Muslims back then did rape
their slave girls, this would only show that they committed a sinful act and not that the
Prophet (peace be upon him) approved of such behavior. In conclusion, Islam does not
permit the Muslim man to rape his slave girl.

Um al Walad:
If a female slave had a child [boy or girl] from the master, she is then freed after the death
of her Master.

(i.e. Mariyya al Qibtiyya became free at the death of Allah’s Messenger because she had a son called Ibraheem from Prophet
Muhammad – Ibraheem died within the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad).
If she does not have a child, then she does not be freed, and still remains a slave in the family. However, she could find another means of
freeing herself; :

Means for Freedom:

There are 3 ways a Slave could earn his/her freedom;

Al Mudabir: The Master promised freedom for the slave when the Master died.

Al Mukaatab: The slave made contract to free himself when he pays an agreed amount of
money to the Master. [see tafsir of Surah Nur 24:33.]

Sahl bin Hunaif narrated that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said; "He who assists a Mujahid (one who fights in Allah's
cause), a debtor who is in distress (being unable to pay his debt), or a slave who made an agreement to buy his freedom, Allah will
shade him, with His Shade, on the Day when there will be no shade but His." [Judgment Day]. [Related by Ahmad, and al Hakim
graded it Sahih (Authentic)].

Um al Walad: If a female slave had a child [boy or girl] from the master, she is then freed
after death of her Master.
(i.e. Mariyya al Qibtiyya became free at the death of Allah’s Messenger because she had a son called Ibraheem from Prophet
Muhammad – Ibraheem died within the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad).

Free a slave for Allah's Pleasure: The slave will be freed by the owner for no cost or favour, except to please Allah and earn His reward.

Why is there no Limit to the Amount of Slave Women?

Islam encouraged cohabitation with slaves as another avenue to liberation for them and
their children. This may be particularly significant if it is realized that the slave's 46
 47
offspring were often the children of wealthy owners who kept slaves for domestic
purposes (i.e. for household help.) It is further suggested that, to enhance the cause of
liberation, Islam did not limit the number of slaves with whom a master may cohabit
because the greater the number - the closer to freedom they become. [seeUm al
Walad].

By placing no limit - it is increasingly beneficial to the slave women because instead of

having to become Prostitutes for earning money or fulfilling their sexual needs, all slave
women -effected by war- will have a household in which the male responsible over her
will; provide for her, and fulfills all her needs for her (including; food, shelter, clothing,
and also fulfill her emotional and intimate needs etc.)

The Strong Encouragement from the Quran & Sunnah to Free & Marry your Slave:

Narrated Abu Burda's father:

Allah's Apostle said "Three persons will have a double reward:

1. A Person from the people of the scriptures who believed in his prophet (Jesus or Moses) and then believed in the
Prophet Muhammad (i .e. has embraced Islam).
2. A slave who discharges his duties to Allah and his master.
3. A master of a woman-slave who teaches her good manners and educates her in the
best possible way (the religion) and manumits [frees] her and then marries her."
Sahih Al Bukhari Volume 1, Book 3 [book of knowledge], Number 97.

In the Qur’an, Allah urged the believers to marry the Slave believers;
And marry the unmarried among you and the righteous among your male slaves and female slaves. If they should
be poor, Allah will enrich them from His bounty, and Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.
[Surah Nur 24: 32]

Through the revealing of these verses, it is a well-known Fact – that the masses of people of Medinah –at the time of
Prophet Muhammad- had freed their slaves in order to Marry them.

Encouraging Free people to Marry Slaves Aayaat/verses: al Baqarah 2:221, an-Nur

24:32-33, an-Nisa 4:25.

Apostate slayer

Sahih Bukhari 4:260 The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.’

In fact it later goes into detail and mentions the practical methods employable in disposing
of such apostates.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:

Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he BURNT them. The news of this
event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt
them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's
47
 48
punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's
Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then KILL HIM.'

1) that is actually showing that you should not kill people with Fire. So it's a good thing,
not negative as you portray it.

2) All people have their laws on Apostasy/Treason, Islam has its own laws on Treason.
And will implement them.

Further more, there is no “fixed law” on apostacy in islam. Muhammad(SAW) himself left
an apostate on its own. This law of apostacy can be only applied when 1)you live in an
Islamic state, which has sharia implemented. 2) You revolt against it (treason). You are
free to ask questions under sharia. And if you’re not happy with the Islamic system of law,
then you’re also free to leave. But if you’re caught planning against islam, and if you’re
caught revolting and trying to overthrow islam, from a muslim nation, where sharia is
implemented, while living in it…you will be executed, sorry.

Barbarian

Quran 024.002 The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a
hundred stripes
And the prophets wives get double this punishment if they got involved with other men:

And double for his wives:

Quran 33:30 O ye wives of the Prophet! Whosoever of you committeth manifest lewdness,
the punishment for her will be doubled, and that is easy for Allah. The wives of
Muhammad will be punished double for lewdness.

And? Each people have their own punishments for Adultery and Fornication. Islam
prevents Public Fornication/Adultery so that Households do not break down, through
which society breaks down as a whole.

Tell me, why is the UK called 'Broken Britan'? Because of the huge rate of adultery and
fornication, so the children don't have fathers, and therefore resort to crimes more.

43 percent of prison inmates grew up in a single-parent household -

39 percent with their mothers, 4 percent with their fathers - and an additional 14
percent lived in households without either biological parent. Another 14 percent had spent
at last part of their childhood in a foster home, agency or other juvenile institution.
Source: US Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of State Prison Inmates. 1991

Much more Statistics continued here:

http://www.manslife.com/family/fatherfacts/

Islam prevents the evil from its root, and that is Adultery and Fornication. And yes, this is
48
 49
through harsh punishments which are deterrents. So as to prevent greater harms from
taking place in society…

Quran 5.038 As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of
their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Quran 2:178 O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the
murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the
female.
I want you to look at this UN survey of burglaries between 1998-
2000*[http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur-crime-burglaries]. Tell me who is
at the bottom of the list? Who is at the top?

1. United States 2,099,700 burglaries (year 1999)

2. United Kingdom 836,027 burglaries (year 2000)
.
.
.
54. Saudi Arabia 11 burglaries (year 2000)!!!!

REFERENCE: *Burglaries by country. Definition, graph and map.

[http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur-crime-burglaries]

Which law is more successful?

These are concrete statistics here. There is no doubt when the UN conducts a survey and
the country implementing Islamic law has the fewest burglaries, it demonstrates which is
the most successful law in this regard. Now please don’t make excuses that Muslims don’t
report statistics correctly!

Bully

Sahih Bukhari Vol. 1, Bk. 11, No. 626 The Prophet added, "Certainly I decided to order a
man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their
houses so far for the prayer along with their houses."

1) This did not actually take place.

2) It shows the importance of prayer in congregation in Islam.

Sahih Muslim Book 38, Number 4349: A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet and disparage
him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah declared that no recompense
was payable for her blood.
49
 50
Anyone who insults the Messenger of Allah publically could be liable to the death
penalty according to Islamic Law. Because he is the pillar by which Islam stands.

Every nation has something which is sacred, including Democracy in the western world
today. If you go into the taboo areas, you will be liable to punishment.

For example, if someone says something 'anti-semitic' today, it is a crime. To the extent
that it is illegal to say that the 'holocaust did not happen' in some countries [i.e. Austria],
and you can be jailed or fined.

i.e. see this article;

BBC NEWS | Europe | Holocaust denier Irving is jailed

This shows that even the Jews, are against freedom of speech.

Moreover, this hadeeth was not from saheeh muslim, it was from sunan abu dawood, book
38, kitab-ul-hudood!...

And even in that hadeeth, it was not the Prophet himself who killed the woman like that, he
didn’t even know!!...it was later when he came to know, and then he actually inquired that
person about this, and he explained that he could not bear her bashing the
prophet(saw)…so he did what he had done. Muhammad (SAW) just said: no recompense
was payable for her blood…this is violence?

Quran 2.216 “Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen
that ye hate a thing which is good for you..”
Yes, because you might hate struggling against an oppressor. Although it is good for you
and others to remove their oppression…much more on war is coming underneath…

Extortionist

Quran 9:29 "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective
tax in submission."

It makes me wonder how Muslims would feel if they had to pay a separate tax to the
Christians for living in the West?
This is another quote from the scriptures of what some describe as the religion of peace.

Quran 9:29 "Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given and
believe not in God, or in the Last Day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle
have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of
hand, and they be humbled. Yet if they turn to God and observe prayer, and pay the tax,
then are they your brethren in religion. We make clear our signs to those who understand."
Muslims have to pay Zakaah in an Islamic state, something which the Non Muslims do not
have to pay.

50
 51
Sometimes Zakaah is even more expensive than Jizyah. So is this then an injustice
against Muslims?

I see muslims getting oppressed here, not the non-muslims, but you see, we don’t
complain, because we don’t consider it as an oppression. Jizyah is a security tax…it is the
same as if you paid it to your homeland security!...muslims then take responsibility of the
non-muslims in every respect and they will cut loose their own lives to defend them in
war!!I’ll give you one example:

Abu Yusuf gives the following report:

After getting on peaceful terms with the people of Syria and collecting the dues of the
Jizya and the Kharaj, news reached Abu ‘Ubeida that the Byzantines had amassed their
troops to attack him. The effect of this was great on Abu ‘Ubeida and the Muslims. He
sent messages to the rulers of cities with whose citizens he had made peace, asking them
to return to their subjects the paid dues of the Jizya and Kharaj with an instruction to tell
them: ‘We hereby return to you the money you have paid us, because of the news of the
enemy troops amassed to attack us, but, if God grants us victory against the enemy, we
will keep up to the promise and covenant between us.’ When this was delivered to the
dhimmis and their money returned to them, they told the Muslims: ‘May God bring you
back to us and grant you victory over them!’

While these “jihad=violence” allegations of yours have been thoroughly refuted over and
over again, but still let me address this issue in a bit detail first!

The word ‘Jihād’ is commonly translated into English as ‘the Holy War’ and for a long
while now the word has been interpreted so that it has become synonymous with a ‘mania
of religion’. The word ‘Jihād’ conjures up the vision of a marching band of religious
fanatics with savage beards and fiery eyes brandishing drawn swords and attacking the
infidels wherever they meet them and pressing them under the edge of the sword for the
recital of Kalima. The Artists have drawn this picture with masterly strokes and have
inscribed these words under it in bold letters:
‘The History of this Nation is a tale of Bloodshed’.
The irony is that the painters are no other than those benefactors of ours who themselves
have been engaged in an extremely unholy war for centuries on end. They themselves
present the picture of robbers who armed to the teeth with all kinds of deadly weapons,
have set upon the world pillaging it for the capture of new markets of trade, resources of
raw material, open lands for colonisation and mines yielding valuable metals, so that they
may procure fuel for their everburning fire of avarice. They fight not for the cause of God
but for the satisfaction of their lust and hunger. For them, it is a sufficient excuse for
invading a nation because the territory of that nation contains mines, or their lands yield
bumper crops, or oil has been struck there or they can be exploited as profitable markets
for their manufactured goods or that their surplus population can be settled on the lands
belonging to the intended victims. In the absence of all the other excuses, they consider it
a grave crime on the part of a nation if she happens to live en route to a country already
captured by them or the one they plan to capture. Whatever we did is now part of
history, past and gone, but their deeds are a present matter witnessed by the world day and
night. Asia, Africa, Europe and America—which portion of this planet has been spared 51
 52
from bloodbath resulting from their unholy war? Their skill is, however, commendable
that they have painted our picture so gory and dark that their own picture was
overshadowed and was completely hidden from the view. Our own simplicity is amazing
too. When we saw this picture of ours painted by the foreigners, we were so taken aback
that we never thought of looking behind the canvas and seeing the visage of the painter.
Instead we started offering apologies in this manner—Sir, what do we know of war and
slaughter. We are pacifist preachers like the mendicants and religious divines. To refute
certain religious beliefs and convert the people to some other faith instead, that is the be-
all and end-all of our enthusiasm. What concern have we with sabres! Yes, indeed, we
plead guilty to one crime, though, that whenever someone else attacked us, we attacked
him in self-defence. Now, of course, we have renounced that also. The crusade which is
waged by swords has been abrogated for the satisfaction of your honour. Now ‘Jihad’ only
refers to waging war with the tongue and pen. To fire cannons and shoot with guns is the
privilege of your honour’s government and wagging tongues and scratching with pens is
our pleasure.

Causes of Misunderstanding about the Holy War

In any case, this is a part of political tactics. But from a purely scholastic standpoint when
we analyse the causes due to which the red nature of the ‘Holy War for the Cause of God’
has become difficult to understand not only for non- Muslims but Muslims themselves,we
discover two major and basic misconceptions.The first misunderstanding is that they
consider Islam to be a religion in the conventional sense of the term ‘religion’.

The second misconception is that they take Muslims to be a ‘Nation’ in the technical sense
of this term. These two misunderstandings have not only mixed up the concept of Jihād’
but have changed the picture of Islam as a whole and have wholly misrepresented the
position of the Muslim people.
In common terminology ‘religion’ means nothing more than a hotch potch of some beliefs,
prayers and
rituals. If this is what ‘religion’ means, then, it should, indeed, be a private affair. You
should be free to entertain any belief and worship any deity whom your conscience is
ready to accept. If you are over-zealous and ardent devotees of this type of religion, go
and preach it to the whole world and engage yourselves in declamations with the
protagonists of other religions. There is no reason why you should take up a sword? Do
you wish to convert people to your faith by killing them? We are forced to admit the point
that if you regard Islam as a religion in the conventional meaning of the term and if,
indeed, Islam be a conventional type of religion, the necessity for ‘Jihad’ cannot be
justified.
Similarly, the term ‘Nation’ connotes no more than a homogeneous group of men who
have joined themselves in a distinct entity on the basis of fundamental and shared
traits. A group of people who attain to nationhood according to this definition of
the term, rises or can rise to arms under two circumstances: either when some other
group of people with the intention of depriving them of their lawful rights attack them
or when they themselves wishing to usurp other people’s rights launch an attack on
them. There is an unassailable moral justification for taking up arms in the first case 52
 53
(although some saintly personages have declared even armed self-defence a sin). But
launching an armed attack on other people with the purpose of snatching away their
lawful rights can be justified by no one except a few dictators. Even statesmen of vast
Empires like those of Britain and France dare not to justify this course of action.

What Jihad Really is?

So if Islam be a ‘Religion’ and the Muslims are a ‘Nation’. ‘Jihad’ (on account of which it
has been accorded the dignity of ‘The Best of all Prayers’ in Islam) becomes useless
term. But the truth is that Islam is not the name of a ‘Religion’, nor is ‘Muslim’ the
title of a ‘Nation’. In reality Islam is a revolutionary ideology and programme which
seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own
tenets and ideals. ‘Muslim’ is the title of that International Revolutionary Party organized
by Islam to carry into effect its revolutionary programme. And ‘Jihād’ refers to that
revolutionary struggle and utmost exertion which the Islamic Party brings into play to
achieve this objective.(I know this sems extremist on the surface, but please read on)
Like all revolutionary ideologies, Islam shuns the use of current vocabulary and
adopts a terminology of its own, so that its own revolutionary ideals may be
distinguished from common ideals. The word ‘Jihad’ belongs to this particular
terminology of Islam. Islam purposely rejected the word ‘harb’ and other Arabic words
bearing the same meaning of ‘war’ and used the word ‘Jihad’ which is synonymous with
‘struggle’, though more forceful and wider in connotation. The nearest correct meaning of
the word ‘Jihād’ in English can be expressed as under:
‘To exert one’s utmost endeavour in promoting a cause’.

The question is why was the use of this new word preferred to the exclusion of all older
synonyms? The answer to this question is none else than that the word ‘war’ was and is
still being used for struggles between Nations and States which are waged for the
achievement of individual or national self-interest. The motive forces behind these
conflicts are such individual or collective purposes as are completely devoid of any
ideological bias or support for certain principles. Since Islamic War does not belong to
this category, Islam shuns the use of the word
‘war’ altogether. Islam has no vested interest in promoting the cause of this or that Nation.
The hegemony of this or that State on the face of this earth is irrelevant to Islam. The sole
interest of Islam is the welfare of mankind. Islam has its own particular ideological
standpoint and practical programme to carry out reforms for the welfare of mankind.
Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth
which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or
the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of
its own ideology and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the
standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process
of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. Islam requires the earth—not just a
portion, but the whole planet—not because the sovereignty over the earth should be
wrested from one nation or several nations and vested in one particular nation, but because
the entire mankind should benefit from the ideology and welfare programme or what
would be truer to say from ‘Islam’ which is the programme of well-being for all 53
 54
humanity. Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can
bring about a revolution and a composite term for the use of all these forces is ‘Jihad’. To
change the outlook of the people and initiate a mental revolution among them through
speech or writing is a form of ‘Jihad’. To alter the old tyrannical social system and
establish a new just order of life by the power of sword is also ‘Jihad’ and to expend
goods and exert physically for this cause is ‘Jihad’ too.
‘For the Cause of God’—the Essential Condition
But the ‘Jihad’ of Islam is not merely a ‘struggle’; it is a ‘struggle for the Cause of God’.
‘For the Cause of God is an essential condition for ‘Jihad’ in Islam. This expression is
also part of the special terminology of Islam to which I have alluded above. Its literal
meaning is ‘In the way of God’. It is this translation which misled the people into
believing that ‘Jihad in the way of God’ enjoined forcible conversion of other people to
the faith of Islam, for the limited intellects of the people could take the expression ‘in the
way of God’ to mean nothing else than that. But in the terminology of Islam this
expression bears wider meaning. All such work as is undertaken for the collective well-
being of mankind and in which the functionary has no vested interest in the present world,
his sole interest being to win the favour of

God, is regarded in Islam as an ‘act in the way of God’. To take an instance, if you
give away something in charity in anticipation of receiving some material or moral
dividend in this world, it would not be regarded as an ‘act in the way of God’. But if it is
your desire to win the pleasure of God by affording assistance to a poor man, this
charitable act would be deemed to have been done ‘in the way of God’. Hence the term ‘in
the way of God’ is reserved for such deeds only as are undertaken with perfect sincerity,
without any thought of gaining a selfish end, and executed on the understanding that to
afford benefit to other human beings is a means of winning the pleasure of God and the
sole purpose of human life is to win the favour of the Creator of the universe.
The condition ‘in the cause of God’ has been attached to ‘Jihād’ for the same reason. It
strictly implies that when a person or a group arises to carry out a revolution in the system
of life and to establish a new system in conformity with the ideology of Islam, he or they
should keep no selfish motives in mind while offering sacrifices and executing acts of
devotion for the Cause. The aim should not be to knock out an Emperor and occupy the
vacant throne i.e., to become a Caesar replacing another Caesar. The objectives of the
struggle should be completely free from the taint of selfish motives like gaining wealth or
goods, fame and applause, personal glory or elevation. All sacrifices and exertions
should be directed to achieve the one and the only end i.e., the establishment of a just and
equitable social order among

human beings; and the only reward in view should be to gain the favour of God. The
Holy Qur’an says:
‘Those who believe fight in the way of God and the unbelievers fight in the way of
Tāghūt (Devil)’. (4: 76)
54
 55
The word Tāghūt is derived from ‘Tughian’ (the deluge) which bears the meaning ‘to
cross the limit’. When the river crosses its boundaries we say ‘the deluge has come’.
Similarly, when man transgresses all lawful bounds and exerts himself to assume the
position of the Lord over human beings or to expropriate more goods than are rightfully
his due, this is called as ‘fighting in the way of Tāghūt’. In contrast to this ‘fighting in the
way of God’ refers to the struggle for the establishment of God’s just order in the world.
The fighter’s aim is to abide by the law of God himself and enforce it among other human
beings. In connection with this point, the Holy Qur an says:
‘We shall confer dignity in the Eternal world upon those who do not seek to establish
their might in the world and do not wish to create strife. Success in the world
Hereafter awaits those who are God-fearing’. (28:83)
It is reported in the Traditions that an individual enquired from the Holy Prophet (peace
be upon him), "What does ‘war in the cause of Allah’ imply? A man fights to obtain
goods. Another engages in battle to secure a reputation for valour. A third man fights to
wreak vengeance upon the other or is impelled to fight for national honour. Who, among
these men, is a fighter ‘in the way of God" The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him)
answered: "None. Only he fights in the way of the Lord who holds no other purpose than
the glorification of God".
Another tradition relates: "If a man engaged in battle entertains in his heart a desire to
obtain out of the war only a rope to tie his camel with, his reward shall be forfeited".
God accepts only such needs as are executed for the purpose of obtaining His Goodwill
and the doers seek to serve no personal or collective objectives. Hence from the
standpoint of Islam, the condition ‘in the way of God’ is of utmost importance in
relation to ‘Jihad’. Mere striving is done by all living creatures in the world. Every
one is doing his utmost to secure his purpose. But the most important, nay, the
fundamental ideal among the revolutionary doctrines of that Revolutionary Party called
‘Muslims’ is to expend all the powers of body and soul, your life and goods in the fight
against the evil forces of the world, not that having annihilated them you should step into
their shoes, but in order that evil and contumacy should be wiped out and God’s Law
should be enforced in the world. After having briefly elucidated the meaning of Jihad
and the significance of the clause ‘in the way of God’, I wish to explain in brief
terms the Revolutionary Creed which Islam upholds so that it may be easily
understood why Jihād is needed and what is the objective of Jihad?

THE REVOLUTIONARY CREED OF ISLAM

The Revolutionary Creed of Islam, in a nutshell, is:
‘O people! Offer worship to that God alone Who created you’. (2: 21)
The call of Islam is not addressed to the workers, landholders, peasants or industrialists; it
is directed to the whole of human race. Islam addresses man in his capacity as human
being. If you entertain the conceit that you are a demi-god, dispel it because none of you
has the right to demand worship and unconditional submission from fellow human beings.
55
 56
All of you should affirm devotion to one God and in the devotion to the divine, you
should all stand on a level of equality.
"Come to a word equal between us and you that we worship none but Allah, and that
we associate no partner with Him, and that some of us take not others for Lords beside
Allah. But if they turn away, then say, ‘Bear witness that we have submitted to
God".(3:64)
This was the call for a universal and complete revolution. It loudly proclaimed
‘Sovereignty belongs to no one except Allah.’ No one has the right to become a self-
appointed ruler of men and issue orders and prohibitions on his own volition and
authority. To acknowledge the personal authority of a human being as the source of
commands and prohibitions is tantamount to admitting him as the sharer in the
Powers and Authority of God. And this is the root of all evils in the universe. God has
instilled the correct spirit in man and has shown him the right way of life. The reason why
human beings deviate from this straight path is that they forget God and consequently
forget their own real worth. This state of affairs inevitably encourages some persons,
dynasties or classes to claim Divine rights for themselves and taking undue advantage of
their might they reduce general humanity to the status of their creatures. On the other hand
also, this forgetfulness of God and of self leads a portion of mankind to affirm the Divinity
of the Mighty of the World. They acquiesce in the right of the powerful men to issue
commands and their own obligation to carry out those commands with servile devotion.
This is the root-cause of tyranny, conflict and unlawful exploitation in the world and
this is the target upon which Islam directs its first assault. Islam issues a clarion call:
"And obey not the dictate of those who transgress the bounds, who mischief in the earth
and promote not order". (26: 151-152)
"And obey not him whose heart We have made heedless of Our Remembrance, who
follows his low desires, and his case exceeds all (legitimate) bounds". (18: 28)
"Certainly Allah’s curse is on the wrong-doers who obstruct (mankind)
from the path of Allah and seek to make it crooked." (11: 18, 19)

Islam puts it to the people:

"Are many lords differing among themselves better or Allah, the One, the
Almighty." (12: 39)
If you do not offer devotion to the One God, you shall never be free from the bondage of
these small and false gods; in one form or another they shall obtain power over you
and will inevitably create strife:
"Verily, the monarchs, when they enter a land, despoil it, and render the highest of its
people into the lowest". (27: 34)
"And when he captures power he creates strife on earth. He spoils the fields and
annihilates generations. And God disapproves of strife". (2: 35)
This is not the occasion to go into all the details. I wish to explain to you in brief terms
and I want you to note the point that Islam’s call for the affirmation of faith in one God
and offering devotion to Him alone was not an invitation to follow a creed in the same 56
 57
conventional sense as the call of other religious creeds. In reality, it was an invitation to
join a movement of social revolution. Its main brunt fell directly on those classes who, as
divines in the religious sphere, kings, nobles and ruling classes in the political domain and
as usurers, landholders and monopolists in the economic field of life, had reduced
common humanity to the status of their slaves. At some places they had openly declared
themselves to be lords besides Allah. They demanded obedience and devotion from the
people as their hereditary rights or privileges based on class distinctions and

brazenly declared:

"Who besides me is the deity of yours". (28: 38)

and
"I am your highest Lord"; (79: 34)
and
"I give life and cause death"; (2: 258)
and
"Who is greater in strength than us". (15: 41)

temples in order to exploit the ignorance of the common people and taking over behind
these idols and temples they hoodwinked mankind to acquiesce in their own divine
rights.
Hence the call of Islam against heresy, polytheism and idolatry, and invitation to offer
worship and devotion to one God only—all this came into direct conflict with the
interests of the Government and of the classes which either supported its authority or
drew support from it. It was because of this that whenever a prophet (peace be on
him) proclaimed:
O people, obey Allah; none is your deity except God; (11: 84)
the Government of the day hastened to bar his way with all its might and main and the
degenerate exploiting classes opposed him tooth and nail, for the call of the Prophet
was never a metaphysical proposition; it was a charter of social revolution. Hence the
ruling and exploiting classes smelt the menace of a political upheaval in the very first
pronouncement of a prophet (peace be on him).

The Characteristic Feature of the Revolutionary Creed of Islam

There is no doubt that all the Prophets of God (peace be on them) without exception were
Revolutionary Leaders, and the illustrious Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was
the greatest Revolutionary Leader. But the point at which a clear line of demarcation
can be drawn between these God-worshipping Revolutionary Leaders and the general run
of worldly revolutionaries is that these worldly revolutionaries, however, honest their
intentions may be, can never attain to a correct level of justice and moderation. The
revolutionaries of the world either rise from oppressed classes themselves or stand for
upholding the rights of the oppressed. They, therefore, look at all matters from the
standpoint of these classes alone The natural result is that their viewpoint is never
impartial and purely humane. On the contrary their outlook is heavily biased in favour of
one class and bears hatred and resentment for the other class. They prescribe a remedy 57
 58
for tyranny which is itself tyrannical and is revengeful in effect. It is not possible for
them to shake off feelings of vendetta, jealousy and ill-will and plan an equitable
and balanced social order which ensures the wellbeing of all persons. In striking contrast
to this, whatever the severity of persecution to which the Prophets (peace be on
them) were subjected, whatever the agonies they and their companions had to suffer at
the hands of the oppressors, the Prophets (peace be on them) did not allow their personal
feelings to influence the course of their revolutionary movements. They acted under direct
Guidance of their Lord. Since the Lord is above all human passions and He has no special
connexion with any human group or class, nor does He entertain any grudge or feelings
of animosity against any other class of human beings, so under His direct guidance the
Prophets (peace be on them) viewed all matters with impartial justice in order to
discover ways for securing collective well-being. They strove to devise a system in which
each individual might feel content to remain within the limits of his rights, in which every
man might fully enjoy his lawful rights and secure a perfect balance in the relationship
between man and man and man and society. For this reason, the Revolutionary
Movements launched by the Prophets (peace be on them) never assumed the character of
class war They did not effect social reconstruction so as to secure the dominance of one
class over the other but establish a just pattern of society which afforded equal
opportunities to all human beings for self improvement and for obtaining material and
spiritual excellence.
The Need and Objective of Jihad
It is an uphill task to describe in this brief treatise the details of the social order envisaged
by Islam. I hope an occasion to do so will shortly present itself. Here, confining myself
within the limits of the subject, the only point which I wish to elucidate is this: Islam is
not merely a religious creed
or compound name for a few forms of worship, but a comprehensive system which
envisages to annihilate all tyrannical and evil systems in the world and enforces its own
programme of reform which it deems best for the well-being of mankind. Islam addresses
its call for effecting this programme of destruction and reconstruction, revolution and
reform not just to one nation or a group of people, but to all humanity. Islam itself calls
upon all the classes which oppress and exploit the people unlawfully, its call is
addressed even to the kings and the noblemen to affirm faith in Islam and bind themselves
to remain within the lawful limits enjoined upon them by their Lord. Islam impresses upon
them that if they accept this just and righteous system, they will gain peace and salvation.
This system harbours no animosity against any human being. Our animosity is directed
against tyranny, strife, immorality and against the attempt of an individual to transgress
his natural limits and expropriate what is not apportioned to him by the natural law of
God. Those who affirm faith in this ideology become members of the party of Islam and
enjoy equal status and equal rights without distinction of class, race, nation or the country
to which they belong. In this manner, an International Revolutionary Party is born to
which Qur’an gives the title of ‘Hizb Allah’ and which alternatively is known as Islamic
Party or the Ummah of Islam’. As soon as this party is formed, it launches the struggle to
obtain the purpose for which it exists. The rationale for its existence is that it should en-

58
deavour to destroy the hegemony of an un-Islamic system and establish in its place
the rule of that social and cultural order which regulates life with balanced and humane
laws, referred to by the Qur’an with the comprehensive term ‘the word of God’. If this
party does not strive to effect a change in the government and establish the Islamic
system of government, the very basis on which this party exists is knocked out, for
this party comes into existence to secure no other purpose than the above and
there is no use for this party save that it should struggle for the cause of God. The
Holy Qur’an enunciates only one purpose of the genesis of this party and that is:
"You are the best people, raised for mankind, exhorting good and warding off evil and
believing in Allah." (3: 110)
These men who propagate religion are not mere preachers or missionaries, but the
functionaries of God, (so that they may be witnesses for the people), and it is their duty
to wipe out oppression, mischief, strife, immorality, high handedness and unlawful
exploitation from the world by force of arms. It is their objective to shatter the myth of
the divinity of demi-gods and false deities and reinstate good in place of evil.
(1) "And fight them until there is no persecution and religion is professed for
Allah." (2: 193).)
(2) "If you do not do (that you are enjoined) there will be mischief in the earth and
tremendous disorder". ( 8: 73)
(3) "He is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, he
may make it dominant over all religions, even if the polytheists resent it". ( 9: 33)
Hence this party is left with no other choice except to capture State Authority, for
an evil system takes root and flourishes under the patronage of an evil government and a
pious cultural order can never be established until the authority of Government is
wrested from the wicked and transferred into the hands of the reformers. Apart from
reforming the world, it becomes impossible for the party itself to act upon its own
ideals under an alien state system. No party which believes in the validity and
righteousness of its own ideology can live according to its precepts under the rule of a
system different from its own. A man who believes in communism cannot order his life
on the principles of communism while in England or America, for the capitalistic state
system will bear down on him with all its power and it will he quite impossible for him
to escape the retribution of the ruling authority. Likewise, it is impossible for a Muslim
to succeed in his intention of observing the Islamic pattern of life under the authority of a
non-Islamic system of government. All rules which he considers wrong; all taxes that he
deems unlawful; all matters which he believes to be evil; the civilization and way of life
which, in his view, are wicked; the education system which seems to him as fatal—all
these will be so inexorably imposed on him, his home and his children that evasion will
become impossible. Hence a person or a group of persons are compelled by the innate
demand of their faith to strive for the extirpation of the rule of an opposing ideology
and setting up a government which follows the programme and policies of their own
faith, for under the authority of a government professing inimical doctrines, that person
or group of persons cannot act upon their own belief. If these people evade their duty of

59
actively striving for this end, it clearly implies that they are hypocrites and liars in their
faith.
"May Allah forgive you (O Muhammad) Why didst you permitted them (to remain
behind) till had become manifest to you those who were truthful and who were
liars. Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day, will not seek permission (for
exemption) from striving with their riches and their lives. And Allah knows the
righteous Only those will seek permission from you (to be exempted) who do not believe
in Allah and the Last Day and whose hearts are full of doubts and in their doubts they
waver." (9: 43-45)
In these words, the Qur’an has given a clear and definite decree that the acid test of the
true devotion of a party to its convictions is whether or not it expends all its resources of
wealth and life in the struggle for installing its faith as the ruling power in the State. If
you suffer the authority of an inimical doctrine in the State, it is a proof positive that
your
faith is false and the natural result of this is, and can only be this, that your
nominal devotion to the doctrine of Islam will also finally wear off. To begin with,
you will endure the rule of an inimical system with disdain. Gradually, however, you
will learn to live with it until your contempt will change into a liking for this rule.
Finally, it will come to such a pass that you will serve as a pillar of support for the
establishment and maintenance of the State rule of an opposing ideology. You will then
expend your wealth and life in the struggle for the installation and upholding the un-
Islamic doctrines in place of the ideology of Islam. Your own resources will be
utilised in resisting the establishment of Islamic ideology as ruling power in the State.
At this stage, no other difference except hypocritical professions of devotion to Islam, an
abominable falsehood and a deceitful title will distinguish you from the infidels. The
Holy Prophet (peace of Allah be upon him) has clearly explained this fact in the
Traditions:
"I swear by God Who has Power over my life, you shall have to enforce good and crub
[curb] evil and arrest the hand of the evil-doer and turn it by force to do right or the
inevitable consequences of the natural law of God will be manifested in this fashion that
the intentions of the hearts of the evil-doers will influence your hearts and like them you
shall also be damned"

A WORLD REVOLUTION
It must be evident to you from this discussion that the objective of the Islamic ‘ Jihād’ is
to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic
system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single
state or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution.
Although in the initial stages it is incumbent upon members of the party of Islam to
carry out a revolution in the State system of the countries to which they belong, but their
ultimate objective is no other than to effect a world revolution. No revolutionary
ideology which champions the principles of the welfare of humanity as a whole
instead of upholding national interests, can restrict its aims and objectives to the

60
limits of a country or a nation. The goal of such an all-embracing doctrine is naturally
bound to be world revolution. Truth cannot be confined within geographical borders.
Truth demands that whatever is right on this side of the river or the mountain is also
right on the other side of the river or mountain; no portion of mankind should be
deprived of the Truth; wherever mankind is being subjected to repression,
discrimination and exploitation, it is the duty of the righteous to go to their succour.
The same conception has been enunciated by the Holy Qur’an in the following words:
"What has happened to you? Why don’t you fight in the way of God in support of men,
women and children, whom finding helpless, they have repressed; and who pray, "O
God! liberate us from this habitation which is ruled by tyrants". (4: 75)
Moreover, notwithstanding the national or country-wise divisions of mankind, human
relations and connexions have a universal significance so that no state can put her
ideology into full operation until the same ideology comes into force in the neighbouring
states. Hence it is imperative for the Muslim Party for reasons of both general welfare
of humanity and self-defence that it should not rest content with establishing the
Islamic System of Government in one territory alone, but to extend the sway of Islamic
System all around as far as its resources can carry it. The Muslim Party will inevitably
extend invitation to the citizens of other countries to embrace the faith which holds
promise of true salvation and genuine welfare for them. Even otherwise also if the
Muslim Party commands adequate resources it will eliminate un-Islamic Governments
and establish the power of Islamic Government in their stead. It is the same policy
which was executed by the Holy Prophet (peace of Allah be upon him) and his
successor illustrious caliphs (may Allah be pleased with them). Arabia, where the
Muslim Party was founded, was the first country which was subjugated and brought
under the rule of Islam. Later the Holy Prophet (peace of Allah be upon him) sent
invitations to other surrounding states to accept the faith and ideology of Islam. When
the ruling classes of those countries declined to accept this invitation to adopt the true
faith, the Prophet (peace of Allah be upon him) resolved to take military action against
them. The war of Tubuk was the first in the series of military actions. When Hadrat
Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) assumed leadership of the Muslim Party after
the Prophet (peace of Allah be upon him) have had left for his heavenly homes he
launched an invasion of Rome and Iran, which were under the dominance of un-Islamic
Governments. Later, Hadrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) carried the war
to a victorious end. The citizens of Egypt, Syria, Rome and Iran initially took these
military actions as evidence of the imperialist policy of the Arab nation. They believed
that, like other nations, this nation had also set out on a course of enslaving other nations
under the yoke of imperialism. It was owing to this misconception that they advanced
under the banners of Caesar and Khosros to give battle to the Muslims. But when they
discovered the revolutionary ideology of the Muslim Party; when it dawned on them
that Muslim armies were not the champions of aggressive nationalism that they had no
nationalistic objectives; that they had come with the sole object of instituting a just
system; that their real purpose was to annihilate the tyrannical classes which had
assumed divine powers and were trampling down their subjects under the patronage of
despotic Caesars, kings, the moral sympathies of those downtrodden people turned
towards the party of Islam. They began to forsake their allegiance to the flags of their
own monarchs and when they were conscripted by force and driven to fight against the

61
Muslims, they had no heart in the fight. This is the main cause of those astounding
victories won by the Muslims in the early period. It is on this account also that after the
establishment of Islamic governments in their countries when they saw the social system
of Islam in action, they willingly joined this international party and became the
upholders of its ideology and set out to other countries to spread its message.
The Terms "Offensive" and "Defensive" are Irrelevant
If you carefully consider the explanation given above you will readily understand that the
two terms ‘offensive’ and ‘defensive’ by which the nature of welfare is differentiated
are not at all applicable to Islamic ‘Jihad’. These terms are relevant only in the context
of wars between nations and countries, for technically the terms ‘attack’ and ‘defence’
can only be used with reference to a country or a nation. But when an international
party rises with a universal faith and ideology and invites all peoples as human beings
to embrace this faith and ideology and admits into its fold as equal members men of all
nationalities and strives only to dismantle the rule of an opposing ideology and set up in
its place a system of government based on its own ideology, then in this case the use of
the technical terms like ‘offence’ and ‘defence’ is not germane. Even if we stop thinking
about these technical terms, the division of Islamic ‘Jihad’ into offensive and
defensive is not admissible. Islamic Jihad is both offensive and defensive at one and
the same time. It is offensive because the Muslim Party assaults the rule of an
opposing ideology and it is defensive because the Muslim Party is constrained to
capture state power in order to arrest the principles of Islam in space-time forces. As a
party, it has no home to defend; it upholds certain principles which it must protect.
Similarly this party does not attack the home of the opposing party, but launches an
assault on the principles of the opponent. The objective of this attack, moreover, is not to
coerce the opponent to relinquish his principles but to abolish the government which
sustains these principles.

THE STATUS OF THE DHIMMIS

(Non-Believers) under the Protection of an Islamic Government
This also answers the question relating to the status of the votaries of other faiths and
ideologies when an Islamic government has been set up in their countries. Islamic
‘Jihad’ does not seek to interfere with the faith, ideology, rituals of worship or
social customs of the people. It allows them perfect freedom of religious belief and
permits them to act according to their creed. However, Islamic ‘Jihad’ does not
recognize their right to administer state affairs according to a system which, in the view
of Islam, is evil. Furthermore, Islamic ‘Jihad’ also refuses to admit their right to
continue with such practices under an Islamic government which fatally affect the
public interest from the viewpoint of Islam. For instance, as soon as the Ummah of
Islam captures state power it will ban all forms of business prosecuted on the basis of
usury or interest; it will not permit the practice of gambling; it will curb all forms of
business and financial dealings which are forbidden by Islamic law; it will close down
all dens of prostitution and other vices and for all; it will make it obligatory for
non-Muslim women to observe the minimum standards of modesty in dress as
required by Islamic law and will forbid them to go about displaying their beauty like the

62
days of ignorance; the Muslim Party will clamp censorship on the Cinema. The
Islamic government with a view to securing general welfare of the public and for
reasons of self-defence will not permit such cultural activities as may be permissible in
non-Muslim creeds, but which, from the viewpoint of Islam are corrosive of moral
fibres and fatal. In this connection, if a man feels inclined to level charges of
intolerance at Islam, he should consider that no creed in the world has shown more
tolerance to the votaries of other faiths as has been practised by Islam. In other places,
protagonists of another faith are so repressed that finding existence unbearable they are
constrained to emigrate from their homes. But Islam provides full opportunity for self-
advancement to the people of other faiths under conditions of peace and tranquillity
and displays such magnanimity towards them that the world has yet to show a parallel
example.

THE CHARGE OF IMPERIALISM

At this point, I must reiterate that Islam regards only that war as ‘Jihad’ which is fought
in the service of Allah—a war to fulfil the Will of God. When an Islamic government is
founded at the conclusion of this war, the Muslims are categorically barred from
assuming the despotic powers which the old despots wielded upon the people. A Muslim
does not fight and as a Muslim he must not fight to establish a personal rule and to turn
the people of God into his own creatures and to build a Paradise on earth for himself by
expropriating the hard- earned wealth of the people. This is not a war to fulfil the Will
of God, but a war to fulfil the will of devil; and Islam has no use for such a government.
The ‘Jihad’ of Islam is a dry labour, devoid of pleasure. It is nothing but a sacrifice of
life, wealth and carnal desires. When this ‘Jihad’ is crowned with victory and an Islamic
government is instituted, the responsibilities of an honest and truly Muslim head of State
are so onerous that sleep during the night and ease during the day time both are denied
to him. But as a reward for these titanic labours he is not entitled to indulge in
pleasures which power and authority may call for and for the sake of which bids are
usually made in the world for securing governments. A Muslim ruler is not a superior
being, distinct from or any more privileged than the common man; he cannot sit on the
throne of Exaltedness or Highness; he cannot command any one to prostrate before him;
he cannot execute the slightest move without the sanction of Islamic law; he has no
power to shield any of his relatives, friends or himself against the lawful claim of the
most ordinary man in the community; he cannot take even the most insignificant thing
or even an inch of land from any one else without justification and he is forbidden by
law to draw half a penny more from the public exchequer as his salary than is necessary
for a Muslim of average means to subsist. This God-conscious head of state cannot
occupy a magnificent palace, nor can he live with pomp and glory nor can he procure
means of pleasure and merriment. At all hours, he is seized with the fear that one day he
will be severely called to account for every deed he commits in this world and if it is
found that he received a single penny as illicit gains, or snatched away the smallest patch
of land from any one by force, or displayed the slightest measure of pride or
haughtiness, or practised tyranny or injustice in a single instance or succumbed even for
one moment before carnal pleasures, he would be condemned to endure the most
dreadful torture. The world has not seen a greater fool than the man who truly loves to

63
gain the world and yet is willing to carry the burden of state responsibility under Islamic
law. The worldly position of a small shopkeeper is far better than the ruler of an Islamic
State. He earns more during the day than the Caliph does and enjoys a sound sleep at
night. The Caliph neither earns as much as he, nor enjoys peace during the night.
This is the cardinal difference between the Islamic and un-Islamic system of
government. In an un-Islamic State, the ruling classes establish themselves as divine
powers and exploit the means and resources of the country to their personal
aggrandisement. In striking contrast to this, the governing class in an Islamic State serves
without any thought of personal motives, and secures no greater personal advantage for
itself than is readily available to the common man. Compare the scale of salaries
granted to civil service cadres under the government of Islam with the incomes
received on account of salaries by civil servants under modern imperialist governments
or imperialist powers which were contemporary of the Islamic State, you will soon
discover that there is an immeasurably vast difference both in spirit and nature of the
worldly conquests of Islam and the world-wide dominance of imperialism.
In the Islamic State, the governors of Khurasan, Iraq, Syria and Egypt were paid a
lesser amount of money as salary than is drawn by a low-grade Inspector today. The first
Caliph Hadrat Abu Bakr Siddique (may Allah be pleassed with him) ran the
administration of such a vast empire on a salary of Rs.
100/- per mensem. Hadrat ‘Umar’s (may Allah pleased with him) emoluments did
not exceed Rs. 150/-per month, notwithstanding the fact that the coffers of the Islamic
State were full with the wealth of the two empires of the known world. Although
seemingly, imperialism conquers countries and so does Islam, yet between the two there
is an elemental difference which is equal to the space between heaven and earth. Verse:
"Both fly in space, yet the world of the Eagle is far removed from the
Crow’s".

This, then, is the true meaning of ‘Jihad’, a term about which you have heard much.
If you ask me now where is that Islam, the Muslim Party and the
‘Jihad’ whose ideology you have enunciated before us and why no trace of these
may be discovered today among the Muslims of the world, I shall entreat you not to
confront me with this question but ask it of those who have deflected the attention of
the Muslims from their real mission to magical preparations like talismans,
incantations, superstitious rites and supererogatory offerings. Ask it of those who
prescribed short-cuts to salvation, reform and the attainment of the objective, so that all
this may be obtained by no more striving or hard labour than is necessary for telling the
beads or propitiating a soul lying asleep in a grave. Ask it of those who wrapped up the
tenets, ideology and objectives of Islam and consigned them to the dark corners and
engaged the Muslim mind in the polemics over the most insignificant things of Divine
Faith or visits to the tombs or such other minor issues with the consequence that the
Muslim people lost all sense of their true identity, the objective of their creation and the
real character of Islam? If they fail to deliver a satisfactory answer, then put this question
to the wealthy, the officials and the ruling authorities who profess faith in Qur’an and
the divine ministry of the Holy Prophet (peace of Allah be upon him), but believe
that they owe to the Qur’anic injunctions and the guidance of the Holy Prophet (peace

64
of Allah be upon him) nothing more than holding assemblies for the recitations of the
Qur’an from corner to corner and calling meetings to celebrate the birth of the Prophet
(peace of Allah be upon him) or sometimes praising God for the beauty of His verse
(may God forgive them and us!).
With regard to the enforcement of the Islamic law and the introduction of Islamic
reforms in practical polity, these gentlemen deem themselves utterly free from any
responsibility. For, as a matter of fact, the soul of these gentlemen is unprepared to
accept the restraints and sustain the burden of duty imposed by Islam. They are suitors
of a very easy salvation.

Despot

Sahih Bukhari 8:82:795 The Prophet cut off the hands and feet of the men belonging to
the tribe of 'Uraina and did not cauterise (their bleeding limbs) till they died.
Yes, in Islam, The Law is; a Life for a Life, a Tooth for a Tooth.

These people of Uraina did the exact same torture to the Shepherds of Prophet
Muhammad, so they got an equal like-for-like punishment.

The only thing this shows is, that Islam does not compromise on justice, you wanna call it
“barbaric”, please do so…but if those people did not do this with Muslims, this would
have never happened.
Quran 8:39-40 “Say to the infidels: If they desist from their unbelief, what is now past
shall be forgiven them, but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of
the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it
God's.”
Banu Qurayza massacre

Sahih Muslim 19:4368 The people of Qurayza surrendered. The Messenger of Allah said
to Abu Sa'id al-Khudri: These people have surrendered accepting your decision. He
(Sa'id) said: You will kill their fighters and capture their women and children. Hearing
this, the Prophet said: You have adjudged by the command of Allah.

Sahih Muslim 19:4370 Sa'd was wounded on the day of the Battle of the Ditch. When the
Messenger of Allah returned from the Ditch and laid down his arms and took a bath, the
angel Gabriel appeared to him and said: You have laid down arms. By God, we haven't
yet laid them down. So march against them. The Messenger of Allah asked here. He
pointed to Banu Qurayza. So the Messenger of Allah fought against them. They
surrendered at the command of the Messenger of Allah but referred the decision about
them to Sa'd, who said: I decide about them that those of them who can fight be killed,
their women and children taken prisoners, and their properties distributed among the
Muslims.

Sunan Abu Dawud 38-4390 Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of
Banu Qurayza. The Muslims examined us, and those who had begun to grow pubic hair

65
were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not
grown hair.

(a detailed account on banu qurayza is coming underneath)

The Banu Qurayza was about to kill; the Muslim men, women and children en masse
when the Muslims were surrounded by enemies from all around them in the battle of al
Ahzab.

and btw, they were killed according to their own book of law, which they themselves
insisted upon(I’ll demonstrate later on)

Delusional

Sahih Bukhari 1:5:277: The Prophet said, The (people of) Bani Israel used to take bath
naked (all together) looking at each other. The Prophet Moses used to take a bath alone.
They said, By Allah! Nothing prevents Moses from taking a bath with us except that he
had a scrotal hernia.
So once Moses went out to take a bath and put his clothes over a stone and then that stone
ran away with his clothes. Moses followed that stone saying, My clothes, O stone! My
clothes, O stone! till the people of Bani Israel saw him and said, By Allah, Moses has got
no defect in his body. Moses took his clothes and began to beat the stone.
while all of this may seem funny to you, but what you have to understand is, “we believe
in something called the miracles”!...and though I may not find any logical answer to how
can a stone run!...I may believe in the saying because I have other stronger reasons to
believe that Muhammad (SAW) was a prophet!...and moreover, for you to even make a
case, you need to provide us with evidence that it did not happen.

2 things can be said about miracles though. 1) that they are just natural acts, and can be
explained by the scientific method. But the problem with this is, how can we be sure that
they were miracles in the first place when they could have been a slight shift in the
already re-occuring patterns in the universe? So number 2 comes into place 2) they are an
act of impossibility, which science can not explain. And that is what I believe. But still in
quantum mechanics, there is also a probability that you can pass through a wall, though it
is very, very small…but the point is, weird things can happen if God wills, according to
our belief, and we believe, because again, we have more stronger reasons to infer that
God does exist and Muhammad (SAW) was his prophet.(God’s existence will be
discussed again inshAllah). So the stone might have moved on his will according to the
laws of nature(which I don’t believe, this explanation is just for those readers who can
not even begin to imagine that something “supernatural” can happen)

It might also be possible that Moses was taking a bath on an inclined plane, and he put
his clothes on a stone lying near by. After some time, the static friction between the stone
and the plane is reached and the stone began to “run” downwards, and when Moses

66
noticed he followed the stone (probably in aguish, since he was shy and then he was
naked). Why not?

But apart from all of this, you might ask, why the heck was there even a need for this to
be shown to the people in the first place?...and this is a genuine question, so here you go:

Before I start off with this, I would like to add the following points.

If you read about Moses (as) in the Quran you will notice that even stranger events took
place.

1) Moses turns his staff into a snake and makes his hand turn white. Quran reference: -
26:32

2) Moses throws his staff down which turns into a huge serpent and it swallows the
wizards' ‘serpents’. Quran reference: -26:45

3) Moses turns his staff into a serpent. Quran reference: - 20: 18-20

4) He split the Red Sea by striking it with the staff that he was holding.

So the point is, if we can believe in all of this, a moving stone certainly does not bother
much…and we have reasons why we believe these to be factual incidents…but anyway,
if you want to point fingers at them, you need to bring evidence!...you see, when muslims
begin dawah, they do not start off by saying moses turned his staff to snakes, and
Muhammad split the moon, therefore, you should believe…we start off by discussing
Allah’s existence, his oneness, our philosophical arguments on it, evidences from various
other religions, our evidences from the whole universe itself. Then we discuss the
character of Muhammad(SAW) and prove that he could not have been delusional, a liar,
and only a prophet. After all of this has been settled already, THEN comes the beliefs in
such “stories”(and that’s only because the previous debate has been settled)…this is the
common methodology of muslims who do dawah to non-muslims!...so you can not even
make an argument that we want you to believe in these things first, so we need to produce
evidence. We don’t! Atleast not until the major things are settled and the other person
sees no contradictions in beliving them to be true.. So you’re the one inferring that these
things “did not happen”, and atheists, a lot of them redicule these parts of religion, before
even moving onto the major debate. So burden of proof logically is on your
shoulders!...show us they did not happen, ratherf than lauhing and jerking about on pure
doubt!

Now coming to the hadith that you have questioned; there is another more detailed hadith
covering the same incident is as follows:

67
Narrated Abu Huraira:- Allah's Apostle said, "(The Prophet) Moses was a shy person
and used to cover his body completely because of his extensive shyness. One of the
children of Israel hurt him by saying, 'He covers his body in this way only because of
some defect in his skin, either leprosy or scrotal hernia, or he has some other defect.'
Allah wished to clear Moses of what they said about him, so one day while Moses was
in seclusion, he took off his clothes and put them on a stone and started taking a bath.
When he had finished the bath, he moved towards his clothes so as to take them, but
the stone took his clothes and fled; Moses picked up his stick and ran after the stone
saying, 'O stone! Give me my garment!' Till he reached a group of Bani Israel who
saw him naked then, and found him the best of what Allah had created, and Allah
cleared him of what they had accused him of. The stone stopped there and Moses took
and put his garment on and started hitting the stone with his stick. By Allah, the stone
still has some traces of the hitting, three, four or five marks. And I think this is how it
relates to the Quran: -- "O you who believe! Be you not like those Who annoyed Moses,
But Allah proved his innocence of that which they alleged, And he was honorable In
Allah's Sight." (33.69) - Sahih Al-Bukhari - Volume 4, Book 55, Number 616

The children of Israel mistreated Moses (pbuh) a lot. His agony was not limited to
mutiny, stupidity, chattering, ignorance, and idolatry; it exceeded this and went as far as
inflicting personal harm on him.

Allah wished to clear Moses of what they said about him, so one day while Moses was in
seclusion, he took his clothes and put them on a s tone and started taking a bath.

When he had finished the bath, he moved towards his clothes so as to take them, but the
stone took his clothes and fled (remember that inclined plane explanation, in this case, the
static friction may have reached with the extra force exerted by his hand, while he tried to
take his clothes). Moses picked up his stick and ran after the stone saying: 'O stone! Give
me my garment!' till he reached a group of children of Israel who saw him naked then,
and found him in the best shape of what Allah had created, and Allah cleared him of what
they had accused him of.

Shias too have this hadeeth, so it’s a prominent one:

great (Shia) Mufassir Abul-hasan Ali ibn Ibrahim al-Qummi in his Tafsir of Quran
‘Tafsir-ul-Qummi’ of Sura Al-Ahzab records this where he says the following:

"Abu Abdullah (Imam Jaffar) reported that that Banu Israil were saying that Mosa
doesn't have what men have and when Musa wanted to take a bath he would go to a
place where nobody could see him. One day he was taking a bath at a river, so he
put his clothes on a stone so Allah (swt) ordered the stone (to go away) so it went
away from him until Banu Israil saw him and knew that it was wrong what they

68
said about him."

The prominent Shia scholar al-Fadl b. al-Hasan al-Tabrisi has confirmed this event in his
Majma' Al-Bayan.

Another prominent Shia scholar, Ni'matallah al-Jaza'iri, has defended this report, too.

You can confirm with Shia scholars of the references given from the Shias books.

And the point is, good plausible explanations do exist.

Sahih Bukhari 7:62:30: Allah's Apostle said, "Evil omen is in the women, the house and
the horse.'
Abu-Hassan reports that two people came to A’ishah and said to her that Abu
Hurayrah narrates that the Prophet used to say that bad luck is to be found only in
women, horses and houses. At this A’ishah replied: By the God who revealed the
Qur’an to the Prophet! The Prophet never said this; what he did say was that the
People of the Jahilliyyah [ignorance] hold this opinion…

It is evident from this text of the Hadith that this saying has been erroneously attributed to
the Prophet (sws). He had actually quoted the views held by the people of Jahilliyyah
(age of ignorance).

Sahih Bukhari Bk. 9, Number 490: Narrated 'Aisha: The things which annul the prayers
were mentioned before me. They said, "Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a
woman (if they pass in front of the praying people)." I said, "You have made us (i.e.
women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and
the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away. for I disliked to face
him."

When a woman passes infront of a man in prayer, he can get distracted, and this is being
emphasised in the hadeeth. And if the “They said” part refers to Muhammad(SAW)(since
I don’t know), he did not classify them as dogs, it was her own interpretation, Prophet
(SAW) never said it…on the contrary, it might be the case that he actually did tell her
that women are never equal to dogs, since she is silent on what he/they(whoever was
saying this to her) replied. And my assumption is based on the fact that Islam has taught
me to respect women; my mother is the highest authority over me after God and his
Prophet!!...so his eqating women with dogs (which he did not, even in the hadeeth) would
go contrary to all the other teachings of Islam.

Sahih Bukhari Bk. 54, Number 516: If anyone of you rouses from sleep and performs the
ablution, he should wash
his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out thrice, because Satan has stayed in

69
the upper part of his nose all the night

Sahih Bukhari 21:245 Those who keep on sleeping till morning and did not got up for
Fajr, Satan urinates in their ears.

And how is this difficult to believe in the realm of the supernatural/metaphysical? I

challenge you to prove this erroneous!...just because you or I don’t know whats beyond
the 3 dimensions, doesn’t mean we have to negate everything that’s been said about it so
far. I shall believe in this hadeeth, because I have more strong reasons to believe that he
was a Prophet, and could not have been a liar!

You’re making the same mistake!...when the big bang was first under discussion, atheist
scientists like fred hoyle also made fun of the theory, why? Just because they were
atheists and could not imagine the universe being “started/initiated”.

Moreover, who knows this was a metaphorical statement like he made a lot others about
the days near the end of times? For example consider what he said about the future:

Hadhrat Abu Musa Ash'ari (R.A.) narrates that Rasulallah (Sallallahu

Alayhii Wassallam) said, "Qiyamah will come...

1. When it will be regarded as a shame to act on Quranic injunctions.

2. When untrustworthy people will be regarded as trustworthy and the

trustworthy will be regarded as untrustworthy.

3. When it will be hot in winter (and vice versa).

4. When the length of days is stretched, i.e. a journey of a few days is covered
in a matter of hours.

5. When orators and lecturers lie openly.

6. When people dispute over petty issues.

7. When women with children come displeased on account of them bearing

offspring, and barren women remain happy on account of having no
responsibility of offspring.

8. When oppression, jealousy, and greed become the order of the day.

9. When people blatantly follow their passions and whims.

70
10. When lies prevail over the truth.

11. When violence, bloodshed and anarchy become common.

12. When immorality overtakes shamelessness and is perpetrated publicly.

13. When legislation matters pertaining to Deen is handed over to the worst
elements of the Ummat, and if people accept them and are satisfied with their
findings, then such persons will not smell the fragrance of Jannat.

14. When the offspring become a cause of grief and anger (for their parents)

The following is part of a lengthy Hadith narrated by Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn

Mas'ood (R.A.) when he inquired from Rasulallah (Sallallahu Alayhi
Wassallam) about the Signs of Qiyamah.

1. Music and musical instruments will be found in every home.

2. People will indulge in homosexuality.

3. There will be an abundance of illegitimate children.

4. There will be an abundance of critics, tale-carriers, back- biters and

taunters in society.

5. People will establish ties with strangers and sever relations with their near
and dear ones.

6. Hypocrites will be in control of the affairs of the community and evil,

immoral people will be at the helm of business establishments.

7. The Masjid will be decorated, but the hearts of the people will be devoid of
guidance.

8. The courtyards of Masjids will be built beautifully and high mimbars (pulpits)
will be erected.

9. Gangsters and evil people will prevail.

10. Various wines will be consumed excessively.

Auf bin Malik (R.A.) says: I came to Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi

Wasallam) while he was in his skin tent during the Tabuk expedition. He
said to me, "Count six things before the advent of Qiyamah:

1. My death

71
2. The conquest of Jerusalem

3. Mass deaths amongst you people, just as when sheep die in large numbers
during an epidemic

4. Abundance of wealth to such an extent that if a person were to be given a

hundred Dinars he will still not be satisfied

5. General anarchy and bloodshed, that no Arab household will be spared

from it

6. Then a life of peace as a result of a peace agreement between you and the
Banil Asfaar
(Romans) which they will break and attack you with a force consisting of eighty
flags and under each flag will be an army of twelve thousand men." (Hadith:
Sahih Bukhari).

many of those are already here, aren’t they? I can quote plethora of other similar
hadeeths!...for example consider these:

The Prophet Muhammad prophesized Jerusalem would be conquered after his

death.(saheeh bukhari) The prophecy was fulfilled when, according to Encyclopedia
Britannica: “In 638 the Muslim Caliph, Umar I, entered Jerusalem.”( “Jerusalem.”
Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service.
(http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-61909))

The Prophet Muhammad prophesized the conquest of Persia.[ Saheeh Muslim.] It

was conquered by Umar’s commander, Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqas. In the words of
Encyclopedia Britannica:

“…raids into Sasanian territory were quickly taken up by Muhammad’s Caliphs,

or deputies, at Medina - Abu Bakr and Umar ibn al-Khattab… an Arab victory at
Al-Qadisiyyah in 636/637 was followed by the sack of the Sasanian winter capital
at Ctesiphon on the Tigris. The Battle of Nahavand in 642 completed the
Sasanids’ vanquishment.”[ “Iran.” Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia
Britannica Premium Service. (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-32160)]

The Prophet Muhammad prophesized the conquest of Egypt.[ Saheeh Muslim.] In

the words of Encyclopedia Britannica:

“Amr… undertook the invasion in 639 with a small army of some 4,000 men (later
reinforced). With what seems astonishing speed the Byzantine forces were routed
and had withdrawn from Egypt by 642… Various explanations have been given

72
for the speed with which the conquest was achieved.”[ “Egypt.” Encyclopædia
Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service.
(http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-22358)]

The Prophet foretold confrontation with the Turks.[ Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Saheeh Muslim.]
The first conflict took place in the caliphate of Umar in 22 AH.[ Ibn Kathir’s ‘al-Bidaya
wal-Nihaya.’]

The Prophet foretold the first maritime battle to be undertaken by Muslims would
be witnessed by Umm Haram, the first woman to participate in a naval
expedition. He also prophesied the first assault on Constantinople.[ Saheeh Al-
Bukhari, Saheeh Muslim.]

The first maritime battle in Muslim history was in 28 AH in the rule of Mu’awiya.
It was witnessed by Umm Haram as foretold by Prophet Muhammad, and Yazid
ibn Mu’awiya led the first attack on Constantinople in 52 AH.[ Ibn Kathir’s ‘al-
Bidaya wal-Nihaya.’]

The prophecy that Rome, Persia, and Yemen will be conquered was made during
the Battle of Confederates in 626 CE,[ Saheeh Al-Bukhari.] under extreme
circumstances, as is described by the Quran:

“[Remember] when they came at you from above you and from below you, and
when eyes shifted [in fear], and hearts reached the throats and you assumed about
God [various] assumptions. There, the believers were tested and shaken with a
severe shaking. And [remember] when the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is
disease said, ‘God and His Messenger did not promise us except delusion.’”
(Quran 33:10-12)

Prophet Muhammad prophesized an imposter claiming to speak in the name of God

would be killed at the hands of a righteous man in Muhammad’s lifetime.[ Saheeh Al-
Bukhari.] Al-Aswad al-Ansi, an imposter prophet in Yemen, was killed in the Prophet’s
lifetime by Fayruz al-Daylami.[ Encyclopedia of Islam.]

What do you have to say about these?

And the last point, if you ponder upon the metaphorical implications of the hadeets you
cited, this is what they say: “If anyone of you rouses from sleep and performs the
ablution, he should wash his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out thrice”

And “Those who keep on sleeping till morning and did not got up for Fajr,”

73
So still what are the implications, wash your nose thrice when you wake up from sleep
and don’t wake up late in the morning, try to wake up on time for fajar prayers….does
something click?

Currently 7 to 10% of the human population is left handed, yet:

Sahih Muslim Bk. 023, Number 5008: Ibn Umar reported Allah's Messenger as saying:
When any one of you intends to eat, he should eat with his right hand. And when he
(intends) to drink he should drink with his right hand, for the Satan eats with his left hand
and drinks with his left hand.

Yes, and you should eat with your right hand.

In Islam, we do good things with our right hand i.e. eat, drink, shake hands etc. and we do
the unclean things with our left hand [i.e. clean ourselves after the bathroom with tissues
in the left hand etc.]…so even if you are left handed, you should practice and make
yourself right handed, it wont take much long….was this even an argument?

Sahih Muslim: Book 041, Number 6985: “Judgment Day will come only when the
Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jew hides behind the tree and the stone,
and the tree and the stone say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind
me, come and kill him!’ – except for the Gharqad tree, which is a Jewish tree.”
I challenge you to prove this statement wrong! It’s in the future, and will be seen in due
time, haven’t you noticed already, whatever you brought up on your claims that he was
delusional, whether had good plausible explanations, or had good implications, or were in
the past or in the future(something which is already long gone or is yet to come)??

Sahih Muslim Bk. 4 Number 1032 The Messenger of ‘Allah said: … prayer would be cut
off by (passing of an) ***, WOMAN, and black Dog. When he was asked about the
specialty of black dog, he said: The black dog is a devil.
Yes, the black dog is a devil according to the hadeeth. So what is wrong in it exactly? It
could have been said in a comic way, as in urdu when we want to highlight that a child is
naughty, we say ”ye tu poora shytan he”…”he’s a devil”, and have a decent laugh!!
Frankly, this does not bother me at its very least. But even if that’s not the case, whats
hard to accept that a black dog is evil? Some scholars say dogs are “literally” evil and
they’re unclean and they should not be kept in homes etc etc. yet others argue that dogs
are mentioned in the Quran several times, and their loyalty is highlighted therefore they
are useful animals and should be kept, if not inside the home, and be used for hunting and
security etc etc. but just because dogs are mentioned to be unclean in some hadeeths, it
does not mean that we should hate them and kill them, it only means we should not be
very close. For example consider this:

74
In two separate hadiths narrated by Abu Hurayrah (the cat-loving Companion), the
Prophet told his Companions of the virtue of saving the life of a dog by giving it water
and quenching its thirst: one referred to was a man who was blessed by Allah for giving
water to a thirsty dog. The other was a prostitute, who filled her shoe with water and gave
it to a dog that was lolling its tongue in thirst. For this deed she was granted the ultimate
reward: eternal Paradise.”…

I have no additional insights on this subject. And quite frankly have little interest in such
details of religion. And I see no benefit in speculating over which of those explanations
are closest to the truth. What matters is, there do exist plausible explanations, and so this
should again not be a "source" of doubt, but is much more likely to be merely a "catalyst"
of emotional doubts which are residing within yourself.

And when any woman passes a man in prayer, she can distract him due to the nature of
men being attracted to women.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Bk. 58, Number 188: During the pre-Islamic period of
ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all
stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with
them.

The basic premise of your “charge” is that the Prophet(P) had ordered the stoning of a
she-monkey, and that lapidation for zina (fornication) is extended to animals as well, and
that he was deluded to say that monkeys were stoning the donkey.

The full citation of the hadith as recorded by al-Bukhari is as follows: Muhammad bin
Isma’il ‘Abdallah al-Ja’far (Imam al-Bukhari), Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, Bk. 58, No. 188

On closer scrutiny of the above-recorded hadith, anyone proficient in the sciences of the
Hadith (ulum al-hadith) would immediately see the fallacy of such a claim when the matn
(text) and isnad (chain of transmission) of the hadith is studied.

Firstly, the person who uttered the above words was not the Prophet Muhammad (P)
himself, but by one of his Companions by name of ‘Amru bin Maimun (R).

The following is the chain of transmission for this hadith:

The hadith is categorized as mauquf (lit. “stopped”), meaning that it is a saying traced to
that of a Companion(R). Therefore, since it is clear that this hadith is not a saying of the
Prophet (P), much less ascribed to him, it cannot be a basis for a ruling in Islam.

75
Secondly, the key phrase in the above hadith is “During the pre-lslamic period of
ignorance”, which the critics had obviously overlooked. While we concede that above
hadith is indeed accepted as authentic, we would also argue that according to the
principles of criticism of the hadith, the matn of the hadith above would be rejected even
if it had been ascribed to the Prophet (P). ‘Abdur Rahman I. Doi has outlined this
principle by stating that:

As far as the Matn is concerned, the following principles of criticism of the Hadith are
laid down:

(1) The Hadith should not be contrary to the text or the teaching of the Qur’an or the
accepted basic principles of Islam.
(2) The Hadith should not be against the dictates of reason or laws of nature and common
experience.
(3) The Hadith should not be contrary to the Traditions which have already been accepted
by authorities as reliable and authentic by applying all principles.
(4) The Hadith which sings the praises and excellence of any tribe, place or persons
should be generally rejected
(5) The Hadith that contains the dates and minute details of the future events should be
rejected.
(6) The Hadith that contains some remarks of the Prophet which are not in keeping with
the Islamic belief of Prophethood and the position of the Holy Prophet or such
expressions as may not be suitable to him, should be rejected.‘(Abdur Rahman I. Doi,
Introduction to the Hadith (A.S. Nordeen, 2001), p. 15)

Interestingly, Ibn Hajar in his Fath al-Bari had discussed at length the exegesis of the
above hadith. He quotes from Ibn Abd al-Barr as follows:

Ibn Abd al-Barr has denounced this report of ‘Amru Ibn Maimun and said: “It includes
attributing adultery to a creature not assigned (with distinction between lawful and
unlawful) and implementation of legal punishment on animals. This is denounced before
scholars”.[ Ahmed Ibn `Ali Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Fath al-Bari]

Then Ibn Hajar responds to the above argument of Ibn Abd al-Barr:

…I answer that the event being similar to that of adultery and stoning does not
necessitate that it is really adultery or legal punishment. It is called so because it is
similar to it, so it does not necessitate assignment of animals (with distinction between
lawful and unlawful)[ ibid]

76
In other words, even if we assume for the sake of the argument that the claims of the
apostates are true and the above hadith is indeed ascribed to the Prophet(P), the critics
will still not be able to make the charge that the Prophet(P) had ordered the stoning of a
she-monkey.

Ibn Qutaiba makes further commentary on the above hadith as follows:

They said: You narrated that some monkeys stoned a she-monkey for fornication. If the
monkeys stoned her while she is married, the hadith would be funnier. According to this
example, you cannot be sure for perhaps monkeys implement many rulings of the Torah!
Or probably they embrace Judaism! So, if the monkeys are Jews, then perhaps the pigs
are Christians!

Abu Muhammad ['Abdullah Ibn Qutaiba, d. 276 A.H.] said: In response to this sneer we
state that the narrative of monkeys is neither on authority of Allah’s Messneger (peace be
upon him) nor any of his Companions; it is merely something mentioned by ‘Amr Ibn
Maimon. Muhammad Ibn Khalid Ibn Khadash told me that Muslim Ibn Qutaiba said on
authority of Hashim on authority of Hasin on authority of ‘Amr Ibn Maimon that he said,
“A she-monkey had committed fornication during Jahiliyyah, so the monkeys stoned her
and I stoned her with them”.

Abu Muhammad said: He could have seen the monkeys stoning a she-monkey, so he
imagined that they were stoning her because she committed fornication, this cannot be
known except by supposition because monkeys do not express themselves and the one
who sees them gathering cannot tell whether they fornicate or not. This is a supposition.
Perhaps, the old man knew she had fornicated for some reason we do not know for
monkeys are the most fornicating animals. Arabs refer to them as examples of
(exaggerated) fornication and say: “fornicating more than a monkey”. Unless
fornication is common among them, they would not be used as an example. There is none
closer to man in marriage and jealousy than them. The animals get hostile with one
another, jump over and punish one another. Some bite, some scratch, some break and
some smash. Monkeys stone with their hands whom Allah created as man stones. If they
stoned one another for a cause rather than fornication and the old man thought it is
fornication, it would not be far. If the old man knew about fornication by some evidence
and that stoning was for it, it would not be far either because – as I have informed you –
they are the most jealous among animals and the closest to man regarding
understanding.[ Ibn Qutaiba, Ta’wil Mukhtalaf Al-Hadith, pp. 255-256]

The points we have made should make it clear that ‘Amru bin Maimun was relating his
thinking or perception prior to the advent of Islam – how he had foolishly believed that
even monkeys had committed adultery! It happened during a period whereby the pre-
Islamic Arabs would indulge in the most detestable acts such as burying their daughters

77
alive and doing the tawaf while they were naked. Thus this means that Islam has elevated
the status of mankind by making them more rational and mindful of their actions, a
conclusion that the haters and enemies of Islam would certainly not like to admit.

If the above hadith is used to condemn Islam with regards to treatment towards animals,
then the Bible has the following to say:

If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill
the animal. If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the
woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own
heads.[ Leviticus, 20:15-16]

In other words, an animal that has committed its sin of adultery is liable to be punished
for a “crime” it is unaware of in the first place, according to the Bible.

Conclusions

It is clear that where the hadith regarding the stoning of a she-monkey for adultery is
concerned, it is simply a recollection of a Companion (R) of the Prophet (P) regarding
this maltreatment of animals during the pre-Islamic period of jahiliyyah, which is in total
contradiction to Islamic principles and norms.

Sahih Muslim, Bk. 026, Number 5562: on the authority of his father that Allah's Apostle
commanded the killing of geckos, and he called them little noxious creatures... He said he
who killed a gecko with the first stroke for him is such and such a reward, and he who
killed it with a second stroke for him is such and such reward less than the first one, and
he who killed it with the third stroke for him is such and such a reward less than the
second one.
Showing that you if you want to kill an insect or something, the early you kill them, the
more you get rewarded. And the earlier you kill them, the less pain they might feel. I
have no additional insights on this subject.

Control freak

Sahih Bukhari 1:7368 The Prophet forbade laughing at a person who passes wind as well
as his hadith against laughing (which I cant find right now)
It is immature to laugh at someone who farts, when you yourself fart.

That is the message. It is a sign of maturity.

I mean, seriously? These are your “allegations”?

Liar

78
Are there really things like talking snakes and a flying donkeys (Quran 17:1)

This is 17:1: Glorified be He Who carried His servant by night from the Inviolable Place
of Worship to the Far distant place of worship the neighbourhood whereof We have
blessed, that We might show him of Our tokens! Lo! He, only He, is the Hearer, the Seer.

And while it doesn’t mention the “flying snakes” or “the flying donkey”…here’s its
explanation:

The event referred to in this verse is known "Mi`raj" and "Isra"'. According to authentic
traditions, this took place a year before Hijrah. In the traditional and biographical
literature, its details have been related by a large number (25) of the Companions. Anas
bin Malik, Malik bin Sa`asa`ah, Abuzar Ghifari, and Abu Hurairah (Allah be pleased
with them all) have related details of the event. Besides them, `Umar, `Ali, `Abdullah bin
Mas`ud...........(Allah be pleased with them) have also related some parts of this event.

In this verse, the Qur'an mentions only a part of the Journey, i.e., from Masjid-i-Haram to
the Temple at Jerusalem. The object of this journey as stated here was that Allah willed
to show His servant some of His signs. The Qur'an does not give any details other than
this but we find further details in the traditions, which are to this effect:

One night the Angel Jibril transported the Holy Prophet on al-Buraq from Masjid-i-
Haram to Masjid-i-Aqsa (the Temple). There the Holy Prophet offered his prayers along
with the other Prophets. Then he took him towards the higher spheres, where he met
some of the great Prophets in different spheres. At last he reached the Highest Place in
the Heavens, and was received in audience by Allah. It was there that besides other
important instructions five daily Prayers were prescribed. Then he returned to the Temple
and from there came back to Masjid-i-Haram. During this Journey, according to many
traditions, Paradise and Hell were shown to him. We also learn from authentic traditions
that on the following day when he mentioned this event, the disbelievers of Makkah
scoffed at him, and some of the Muslims also were skeptical about this.

The above additional details based on the traditions cannot be said to be against the
Qur'an, for these are additions to the details given in the Qur'an; therefore, the details
related in the traditions cannot be. rejected on the plea that they are against the Qur'an.
Nevertheless, if one rejects any part of those details which are given in the traditions, one
cannot be declared a renegade. On the other hand, if one rejects the details given in the
Qur'an, one does become a renegade.

There are different versions of this Journey. Some say that this happened in a dream,
while others are of the opinion that the Holy Prophet was fully awake and went on the
Journey with his own physical body; some others say that it was merely a mystic vision
which was shown to him. The opening words of this verse: "Glory be to Him, who
transported His Servant..." however, clearly show that it was a super-natural event which
was brought about by the unlimited power of Allah. It is quite obvious that if the event

79
had been merely a mystic vision, it would not have been introduced by the words which
imply that the Being Who brought about this event is free from each and every kind of
weakness and defect. Again the words "transported His servant one night" also show that
this was not a dream or a vision but a physical journey in which Allah arranged that the
Holy Prophet should make observation of His Signs with his physical eyes. Therefore,
one is bound to admit that this was not a mere spiritual experience but a physical journey
and visual observation which Allah arranged for His Prophet.

It is strange that some people are of the opinion that this extraordinary journey could not
be possible, but now when man with his limited-very limited power has been able to
reach the moon, it is absurd to deny that Allah with His limitless powers could enable His
Messenger to make this journey in the extraordinary short time it took.

Above all, the question whether a thing is possible or not, can arise only in the `case of
human beings whose powers are after all limited, but such questions cannot be raised
where the All-Powerful Allah is concerned. Only such a person who does not believe that
Allah is able to do everything can raise objections against this wonderful Journey about
which Allah Himself says that He transported His Servant one night from Masjid-i-
Haram to Masjid-i-Aqsa. Likewise all the objections raised against the various details
which are given in the traditions are frivolous, except two, which are plausible:

First, if we accept these details, then we shall have to admit drat Allah is confined to a
certain place: otherwise there was no need that His Servant should be transported for this
purpose to a certain place. Secondly, according to traditions, the Holy Prophet was
enabled to observe Paradise and Hell where he saw some people suffering from torment.
The objection is: why should sane people be awarded punishments or rewards before the
Final Judgment after Resurrection?

As regards the first objection, it is true that Allah is Infinite by Himself, but in dealing
with His creation, He employs those means which suit His imperfect creation not because
of any limitation of His, but because of the limitations of His creation. For instance, when
He speaks to any of His creature, He adopts the same limited mode of conversation as the
addressee can understand, though He has limitless modes of speech. Likewise, when He
desires to show some of the wonderful Signs of His Kingdom to a servant. He transports
him to the place where the' Signs are to be shown. It is obvious that the servant cannot
see at one and the same time the whole of the universe as Allah does, for Allah has no
need to go to any place at all for this purpose but the servant has. The same applies to the
appearance of the servant before the Creator. Though Allah is not confined to any
locality, it is necessary for the servant to go to the place where His manifestations have
been concentrated for his observation because it is not possible for the servant with his
limited powers to go in His Presence in His Infinite Capacity.

As regards the second objection, it is based on the lack of understanding the thing: many
of the Signs which were shown to the Holy Prophet were symbolical. For instance, a
small hole from which a fat ox came out but could not go back into it, represented
mischief personified. In the same way the adulterers were shown as if they had fresh meat

80
before them but instead of that they were eating rotten flesh. Similarly punishments for
evil deeds shown to him were only symbolic observations of the punishments in the
Hereafter so that he might see in advance the things which would take place in the
Hereafter.

In regard to the Mi `raj it should be kept in view that all the Prophets were enabled by
Allah to see His Signs in the heavens and the earth according to their ranks. And for this
purpose all the material curtains were lifted so that they could see with their naked eyes
the unseen realities, to which they were required to invite the people.

This was done so that the Prophets could say with full conviction what they had seen with
their own eyes. For this experience would distinguish there from a philosopher who bases
all his theories on guess-work and cannot say that he bears witness to what he claims. In
contrast to philosophers, Prophets could say that they bore witness to the things which
they presented because they had seen them with their own eyes.

and did a Bedouin really split the moon 1400 years ago, with hundreds of followers
standing in awe?

This is what the Quran says about the certainly miraculous event of the splitting of the
moon:

Quran 54:1 “The moon has split and the hour has drawn closer. Then they saw a great
miracle; but they turned away and said, “Old magic.” They disbelieved, followed their
opinions, and adhered to their old traditions.”

Note it uses the word split here, and not the Arabic word for shadow or cover.
Muhammad claimed this to be a miracle and a sign for the Meccans.

In fact a quick search on NASA’s records (JavaScript Solar Eclipse Explorer for ASIA &
ASIA MINOR ; enter MECCA for the city, and then look for July 23rd 613CE at 06:01-
07:00am for a 0.934 annular eclipse) proves this was not Muhammad splitting the moon.

It shows there was a solar eclipse at July 23, 613AD at 8.13am for 2.5 hours, which
correlates pretty well (in terms of date, time and length) with what is recorded in Islamic
literature.
First of all, you gave me the solar eclips, but it does not necessarily coincide with the
moon split, since we don’t know the exact date, sorry.

Then since we don't know which method that Allah made this miracle occur, we cannot
know wheter or not the rest of the world should have seen this. and if you believe that
Allah subhana wa ta'ala can make this occur to begin with, then it is not a great added
difficulty to believe that Allah can make it occur in such a way that it wasn't noted
somewhere else. Also, I don't think it is that implausible to imagine that at that specific
time nobody was watching. Sure there were some scholars who might have watched the
night's sky occasionally, but not constantly.

81
Then, we DO have an independent source, out of the whole Islamic literature to suggest
that it actually did happen, read this:

CHAKRAWATI FARMAS KING OF MALABAR, INDIA

The incident relating to King Chakrawati Farmas is documented in an old manuscript in

the India Office Library, London, which has reference number: Arabic, 2807, 152-173. It
was quoted in the book "Muhammad Rasulullah," by M. Hamidullah:

"There is a very old tradition in Malabar, South-West Coast of India, that Chakrawati
Farmas, one of their kings, had observed the splitting of the moon, the celebrated miracle
of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) at Mecca, and learning on inquiry that there was a prediction
of the coming of a Messanger of God from Arabia (Detail given bellow), he appointed his
son as regent and set out to meet him. He embraced Islam at the hand of the Prophet, and
when returning home, at the direction of the Prophet, died at the port of Zafar, Yemen,
where the tomb of the "Indian king" was piously visited for many centuries."

The old manuscript in the 'India Office Library' contains several other details about King
Chakrawati Farmas and his travel[See: "CHAKRAWATI FARMAS King of Malabar
India" by Dr. Z. HAQ at Chakrawati Farmas, King of Malabar, India].

The king spent weeks in seclusion. In the midst of his quiet life, he set out on the journey
along with the Arab travelers who'd promised him earlier. On the way, they stopped by
Koylandi and from there to Dharmapatnam where they halted for 3 days. Then they set
out to Shehr Muqalla. On reaching there, they set for the Hajj pilgrimage and thereafter
returned to Malabar. He aspired to spread the message of Islam. But on the way, he fell
sick and breathed his last.

A tradition of the Holy Prophet has also been reported from one of the companions, Abu
Saeed al Kaudri, regarding the arrival of Cheraman Perumel. "A king from India
presented the Messenger of Allah with a bottle of pickle that had ginger in it. The Holy
Prophet distributed it among his companions. I also received a piece to eat ". (Hakim
reports in 'Al Musthadrak )

Umar Qazi's poem on Cheraman Perumal.

Umar Qazi was well aware of the story of Cheraman Perumal - the first Indian to accept
Islam. He narrates it thus in one of his poems inscribed on the walls of Ponnani Juma
Masjid.

Kodungallur was a center of festivals established by the great Emperor Cheraman

Perumal .....
The major part of all the minor kingdoms were under his rule ...
As such, one day he saw he saw the moon split into two (a miracle of Holy Prophet
performed in Arabia) on a clear cloudless night ....
As a result the love for Holy Prophet grew in his heart and he became the earliest Muslim
of this nation....[ See: "Cheraman Perumal The First Indian To Accept Islam" at

82
http://jaihoon.com/watan/perumalfirst.htm.]

Moon Splitting in The Quran

The splitting of the moon is mentioned in the Holy Qur'an, Surah Al-Qamar (54), Verses
1-3:

The hour drew nigh and the moon was rent in twain.
And if they behold a portent they turn away and say:
Prolonged illusion.
They denied (the Truth) and followed their own lusts.
Yet everything will come to a decision.

Moon Splitting in Hadiths

Narrated Abdullah bin Masud: "During the lifetime of the Prophet the moon was split
into two parts and on that the Prophet said, 'Bear witness (to thus).' (Translation of Sahih
Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book
56, Number 830)"

Narrated Anas: "That the Meccan people requested Allah's Apostle to show them a
miracle, and so he showed them the splitting of the moon. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari,
Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book 56,
Number 831)"

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: "The moon was split into two parts during the lifetime of the
Prophet. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his
Companions, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 832)"

Narrated Anas bin Malik: "The people of Mecca asked Allah's Apostle to show them a
miracle. So he showed them the moon split in two halves between which they saw the
Hiram' mountain. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah
(Ansar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 208)"

Narrated 'Abdullah: "The moon was split ( into two pieces ) while we were with the
Prophet in Mina. He said, "Be witnesses." Then a Piece of the moon went towards the
mountain. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansar),
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 209)"

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas: "During the lifetime of Allah's Apostle the moon was
split (into two places). (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah
(Ansar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 210)"

Narrated 'Abdullah: "The moon was split (into two pieces). (Translation of Sahih
Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 211)"[
See: "Did Prophet Muhammad really split the moon with his index finger" at The moon
has appeared to split in half according to MANY eye witnesses!]

83
According to Maududi, the traditionists and commentators have agreed that this incident
took place at Mina in Makkah about five years before the Holy Prophet's Hijra
(migration) to Madinah.

The Moon had split into two distinct parts in front of their very eyes. The two parts had
separated and receded so much apart from each other that to the on-lookers (in Makkah)
one part had appeared on one side of the mountain and the other on the other side of it.
Then, in an instant the two had rejoined. This was a manifest proof of the truth that the
system of the universe was neither eternal nor immortal, it could be disrupted.

This incident indicated that huge stars and planets could split asunder, disintegrate,
collide with each other, and everything that had been described in the Qur'an on the
Resurrection could happen. The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)
invited the people's attention to this event only with this object in view and asked them to
mark it and be a witness to it. But the disbelievers described it as a magical illusion and
persisted in their denial. They were reproached in Surah Al-Qamar (The Moon) for their
stubbornness.

Other Relevant Notes

It is due to this incident about their king, the people of Malabar became the first
community in India to accept Islam. Subsequently, they increased their trade with Arabs,
as the Arab ships used to pass by their shores on the way to China before the advent of
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Before Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), Malabar also had a Christian community dating back
from the earliest followers of Prophet Jesus ('Isa), pbuh. St. Thomas is believed to have
migrated to India and died there. This community remained untouched by later
theological developments in Christianity until the arrival of Portugese traveler Vasco da
Gama.

When the British were consolidating their stronghold in India, they deployed the largest
naval operation (on the shores of India) against the Muslims of Malabar[See:
"CHAKRAWATI FARMAS King of Malabar, India" by Dr.Z.HAQ at Chakrawati
Farmas, King of Malabar, India].

So, what is your evidence that it “did not” happen? Once again, we’re not asking you to
believe in this “before” you accept that there is a God, and that he can do whatever he
wills…you’re the one who’re pointing fingers at these incidents while your campaing
against religion as a whole…The most plausible explanation I’ve seen so far is, that
moon’s gravity has enormous impacts on the earth’s oceans, so a moon split would have
made a chaos…but when I asked the person, how does moon splitting for a split second
do all this within known laws of physics, he ran away.

Sahih Muslim Vol. III, Nos. 5113 A believer eats in one intestine whereas a non-believer
eats in seven intestines

84
this is purely a metaphorical statement. Meaning the believer eats abit (which is sufficient
to sustain him), and the disbeliever eats alot. Again, look at the implication if you are so
blind to neglect even the basics of idiom in any language.

Sahih Bukhari 592: I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "There is healing in black seed for all
diseases except death."

Can I safely say that a strong person can do everything? While this can and will not be
correct, but this is how we use generalizations in language. And according to the
medicine of ancient times, black seed was infact considered a remedy for many diseases
(http://www.kitchendoctor.com/herbs/black_cumin.php)

But the second argument can be made that, he was not a doctor, not a physician…he was
a prophet and a reformer. And there were things which he spoke about from the current
knowledge of that time alone. But it was on such trivial issues. So there can be nothing
wrong, since he was not God, and his knowledge was still not complete about many
things(excluding what knowledge has been given to him). But still, he did not say, black
seed “cant” cure anything!...atleast he said that it can.

There is a hadeeth(which I cant find right now) which goes something like this, that some
sahaba took prophet’s advice on how should they cultivate some date palms, so he shared
his opinions, but when theose palms were ready, they did not produce well…so they
came back and told him and he said something like, Im the prophet of God, and my
profession is to deliver what has been told to me…other than that, you people know more
about these worldly matters than me…something like that. The point is, he was not
God!...and speaking “somethings”(I said something because there are things which he
was told by God that came out to be true, the housefly example which is next on line)
about medicine from the knowledge prevelant in his own times would not contradict
anything. Quarn is the word of God, and there can not be any errors (and we will discuss
every single contradiction and mistake that you come up with in the Quran in detail
inshAllah)

Sahih Bukhari Vol. 7, Number 614: A man came to the prophet and said, “My brother
has got loose motions. The Prophet said, Let him drink honey. The man came again and
said, “I made him drink honey but that made him worse?” The Prophet said, “Allah has
said the Truth, and the abdomen of your brother has told a lie”
while honey is one of the best used home remedies for this, I would not argue on it since
what you were pointing towards was is this: “and the abdomen of your brother has told a
lie”...whence I have already mentioned that he was not a modern day physician, and

85
neither was he appointed to be one, he was simply chosen to deliver a message, but
still…you can not made a case against this hadeeth till you prove that that particular
person(who was advised to drink honey) was not lying.

Here the Prophet Mohammed advocated using camel’s urine as medicine

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Bk. 82, No.794 “Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to
the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet
ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and
urine. They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they
turned renegades and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The
Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, he
ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded
with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till
they die”
1- those people whom he prescribed camel urine, got perfectly fine, they became healthy.
So what’s your case?

2-in times of emergency, or disease Muslims are allowed to eat or drink unlawful food,
such as alcohol, only to the amount which is needed.

Moreover:

“Premarin (including Prempro, Premphase, Prempac, and Premelle) is a drug made up of

conjugated estrogens obtained from the urine of pregnant mares -- put out in many forms
(pills, creams, injections, patches, vaginal rings) and is used to reduce the symptoms of
menopause in women or women who have had a hysterectomy. It is also prescribed to
nearly eliminate the risk of osteoporosis (the brittling of bones) and reduce the chance of
heart disease in women over 50." www.premarin.org

"Estrogen product called PREMARIN is given to postmenopausal Women. This

PREMARIN is extracted from HORSE URINE. The Estrogen product is hormones
given to women."

See(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premarin#Pharmacology)

Camels could help cure humans

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1702393.stm)

86
Secondly, the reason their eyes were branded with pieces, was because according to uns
in sahih Muslim, those people did the same to Muslim shepherds, and “qisas” was taken
from them justly. This has been reported also by abu-azzannad from abduALlah ibn umer
and mentioned in nsai and abu-dawood. 'like-for-like' punishment, islam is justice, and
but nothing else. And this was not done to these people without telling them the rules to
play the game, they were already common knowledge, here:

The Constitution of Medina (Arabic: ‫هنیدملا ةفیحص‬, Ṣaḥīfat al-Madīna), also known
as the Charter of Medina, was drafted by the Islamic prophet Muhammad. It constituted
a formal agreement between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families of
Yathrib (later known as Medina), including Muslims, Jews, Christians[1] and pagans.[2][3]
This constitution formed the basis of the future caliphate. The document was drawn up
with the explicit concern of bringing to an end the bitter inter tribal fighting between the
clans of the Aws (Aus) and Khazraj within Medina. To this effect it instituted a number
of rights and responsibilities for the Muslim, Jewish, Christian and pagan communities of
Medina bringing them within the fold of one community—the Ummah.[4]

The precise dating of the Constitution of Medina remains debated but generally scholars
agree it was written shortly after the Hijra (622).[5] It effectively established the first
Islamic state. The Constitution established: the security of the community, religious
freedoms, the role of Medina as a haram or sacred place (barring all violence and
weapons), the security of women, stable tribal relations within Medina, a tax system for
supporting the community in time of conflict, parameters for exogenous political
alliances, a system for granting protection of individuals, a judicial system for resolving
disputes, and also regulated the paying of blood money (the payment between families or
tribes for the slaying of an individual in lieu of lex
talionis).(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina)

The reason behind killing them was clear: “and after they had recovered from their
ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades and killed the shepherd of the camels
and took the camels away”…the moment someone tries to destroy the internal peace of
Muslim ummah, we are ordered to be harsh with them, this is our religious, and humane
right!...we take our religion, and the balance in our society very seriously. if they did not
commit such and such, muslims were already hospitable with them, and they would have
remained like that till their deaths.

Sahih Bukhari No 673: Allah's Apostle said, "If a fly falls in the vessel of any of you, let
him dip all of it into the vessel and then throw it away, for in one of its wings there is a
disease and in the other there is healing (an antidote for it)
R. J. Dillon of the University of Bath, Department of Biology and Biochemistry,

87
mentions that new kingdoms of life have been found among the microorganisms living
on or within insects. He writes:
Molecular studies have revealed unrecorded microbial sequences in many natural
samples to the extent that new kingdoms of life have been discovered in the Domain
Archaea.
He also writes, discussing how some of the microbiota of the housefly (Musca domestica)
has the ability to suppress disease-causing bacteria:
A few studies have examined the impact of the gut microbiota on the establishment of
human pathogens and parasites in their insect vectors. Gnotobiotic insects (Greenberg et
al, 1970) were used to provide evidence of the bacterial pathogen-suppressing ability of
the microbiota of Musca domestica and Lucilia sericata.
http://en.islamtoday.net/node/1809

much more details can be provided on the readers request, if made, on this topic.

Opportunist

Quran 33.053 O Ye who believe! Enter not the dwellings of the Prophet for a meal
without waiting for the proper time, unless permission be granted you. But if ye are
invited, enter, and, when your meal is ended, then disperse. Linger not for conversation.
Lo! that would cause annoyance to the Prophet
[53-54] O you who have believed, do not enter the houses of the Prophet
without permission,95 nor stay watching for the meal time; but if you are
invited to meals, do come,96 and when you have taken food, disperse. Do
not engage in talk and discussion,97 for such behavior causes trouble to
the Prophet but he is shy of saying anything, and Allah does not feel shy in
telling the truth.

and here’s the explanation:

95This is an introduction to the general Command that was given in Surah An-Nur: 27
about a year later. In the ancient times the Arabs would enter one another's house
unceremoniously. If a person had to see another person he did not drink it was necessary
to call at the door or take permission for entry, but would enter the house and ask the
womenfolk and children whether the master was at home or not, This custom of
ignorance was the cause of many evils and would often give rise to some serious evils.
Therefore, in the beginning a rule was made in respect of the houses of the Holy Prophet
that no person, whether a close friend or a distant relative, could enter them without
permission. Then in Surah An-Nur a general command was given to enforce this rule for
the houses of all the Muslims.

96This is the second command in this connection. An uncivilized practice prevalent

among the Arabs was that the visitors would call on a friend or acquaintance right at the
time of the meals, or would come and prolong their stay till the meals time approached.
This would often cause the master of the house great embarrassment. He could neither be
so discourteous as to tell the visitors to leave because it was his meals time, nor could

88
feed so many unexpected guests together. For it is not always possible for a person to
arrange meals immediately for as many visitors as happened to call on him at a time.
Allah disapproved of this practice and commanded that the visitors should go for meals to
a house only when invited. This Command did not in particular apply to the Holy
Prophet's house only but the rules were in the beginning enforced in that model
household so that they become general rules of etiquette in the houses of the other
Muslims as well.

97This was to reform yet another foolish practice. The guests at a feast, after they had
finished eating, would sit down to endless gossip and discussions much to the
inconvenience of the people of the house. They would often embarrass the Holy Prophet
also by this practice, but he would forbear and forget. At last on the day of the marriage
feast of Hadrat Zainab the embarrassment thus caused crossed all limits. According to the
Holy Prophet's special attendant, Hadrat Anas bin Malik, the feast was held at night.
Most of the people left after taking food but a couple or two of them got engaged jn
gossip. Disconcerted the Holy Prophet rose and went round to his wives. When he
returned he found the gentlemen still sitting. He turned back and sat in Hadrat 'A'ishah's
apartment. When a good deal of the night had passed he came to know that the gentlemen
had left. Then he returned and went to the apartment of Hadrat Zainab. After this it
became inevitable that Allah Himself should warn. the people of these evil practices.
According to Hadrat Anas these verses were sent down on this occasion. (Muslim, Nasa'i
Ibn Jarir).

Good manners Sire!!...

Sahih Muslim Book 041:No. 7050 (& 7051,7052,7053 say the same)
Aisha reported that when the desert Arabs came to Allahs Messenger they asked about
the Last Hour as to when that would come. And he looked towards the youngest amongst
them and said: If he lives he would not grow very old that he would find your Last Hour
coming to you.
The minor Judgment Day is at death. He told them that 'YOUR' Judgment Day will come,
when he goes older.

Sahih Bukhari Vol 1, Bk 3, No 116

Once the Prophet led us in the Isha prayer during the last days of his life and after
finishing it he said: "Do you realize (the importance of) this night? Nobody present on the
surface of the earth tonight will be living after the completion of one hundred years from
this night”
you have to prove to us first hand, that anyone present on the face of the earth on that
particular night, “did not” die exactly hundred years afterwards, otherwise, you have no
case.

Superstious bedouin

Sahih Bukhari Vol.7, Bk.65, No356: Allah's Apostle said, "He who eats seven Ajwa
dates every morning, will not be affected by poison or magic on the day he eats them."

89
Allah is supposed to have created them “And the jinn he created from a smokeless flame
of fire.” (Quran 55:15)

well, once again, I challenge you to disprove them. You can not. But even then I have
heard more claims that “ghosts” actually do exist(besides the fact that they are personal),
and not that they don’t. it’s all over the globe dude, not just islam!...just because science
has not been able to capture them, does not therefore infer that they can not exist. What
about the so called “God partical”? what about the extra dimensions? What about the
“beings” that might be living in those extra dimensions according to the most brilliant
scientists today? Should I make fun of it all just because it is still theoretical? Of course
not, Im no ignorant…never undermine the ability of science, it can make your wildest
imaginations come true. So the topic of jinns is subjective. And about magic, islam is not
the only religion which says that it does exist. Why don’t you go ask aleister Crowley
who actually practiced it? There are many religions and ideologies except Islam in which
it is actually practiced. Islam only prohibits its practice, so you should really check them
out who claim to do it, and make it work, not us who just infer that it should not be
practiced. But no evidence so far to suggest that it isn’t reality.

Conman

Sahih Bukhari Vol.6, Bk. 61, No 558 Narrated Aisha: Allah’s Apostle heard a man
reciting the Quran at night, and said, May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has
reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such-and-such Suras, which I was caused to
forget.
Those verses which were ALREADY existent, this is not trickery. It is simply
remembering verses.

Quran 5:101 O you who believe! Do not put questions about things which if declared to
you may trouble you.
[101-102] O Believers, do not ask questions concerning such things, which,
if made known to you, would only vex you116 but, if you will ask such
questions at the time when the Qur'an is being sent down, they will be
made known to you. Allah has forgiven what you have done so far : for He
is Forgiving and Forbearing. Some people before you asked such
questions : then they were involved in disbelief because of those very
things.117

Atleast quote the full verse, sir!

And here’s the explanation:

116This verse forbids people to ask useless and unnecessary questions because some
people used to put such questions to the Holy Prophet as were of no practical good for
mundane affairs nor for spiritual up-lift. For example, once a certain person while sitting
in a gathering asked him, "Who is my real father?'' Likewise, sometimes, some people

90
put unnecessary questions concerning legal matters so as to get these defined, whereas
they had been purposely kept undefined for the good of the people. Far example, when
Hajj was made obligatory by a commandment in the Qur'an a certain person heard it, and
instantly asked. "Has it been made obligatory to perform Hajj every year'" The Holy
Prophet did not make any reply. The man repeated the question, but he again kept quiet.
When the man put the question for the third time, he replied, "Woe to you! If I had said:
'Yes', the performance of Hajj every year would have become obligatory and people like
you would have been unable to perform it and been guilty of disobedience. "

The Holy Prophet himself forbade people to ask questions for the sake of it and to probe
into things aimlessly. In a Tradition he warned, "The worst offender against the Muslims
is the person who asked a question about something that had not been made unlawful but
was made so because of his question." In another Tradition he said, "Allah has prescribed
some obligatory duties for you; let not these go unfulfilled, and He has made certain
things unlawful, so do not go near them. He has prescribed certain limits, do not
transgress them. He has been silent concerning certain things, but not because He has
forgotten them; so do not try to probe into such things."

In these two Traditions a warning has been served against a very serious matter. There
are certain things and commandments which have been left vague and without details.
This is not because the Law-giver had forgo ten to give details or to make them specific
but because He did not intend to limit these in order to leave a wide scope for the people.
Therefore if a person goes on creating one issue after the other, by putting unnecessary
and useless questions and thus creates limitations and specifications, he puts the people to
unnecessary trouble. Likewise if he tries to deduce the details by the force of his
"reasoning". and does trot rest content till .he has made the vague things specific and the
indefinite definite. he in reality puts the Muslims in a very awkward position. This is
because the more details we otter for the Unseen and the Next World, the more will be
the chances for creating doubts about them and, likewise, the more limitations are
imposed concerning the Commandments, the greater will be the chance for their
violation.

117The people, who were involved in disbelief because they asked useless and
unnecessary questions, were the Jews. At first they were involved in hairsplitting, which
led them to put unnecessary questions about the details of the Faith and the
Commandments. Consequently, they helped to impose upon themselves such restrictions
as they could not observe and so became guilty of disobedience and disbelief, What a pity
that the Muslims are following the Jews, step by step, in spite of these warnings by the
Qur'an and the Holy Prophet!

91
Falsefier

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Bk. 55, Number 546: "When Abdullah bin Salam heard the
arrival of the Prophet at Medina, he came to him and said, " Why does a child resemble
its father, and why does it resemble its maternal uncle?"
Allah's Apostle said,": If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets discharge
first, the child will resemble the father, and if the woman gets discharge first, the child
will resemble her." On that Abdullah bin Salam said, "I testify that you are the Apostle of
Allah."

I don’t know much about embryology, so I mentioned this hadeeth to a friend of mine
and here’s what he said:

“Yes, well there's a whole lot of issues concerning this hadeeth. first of all the meaning of
"discharge" does it refer to the discharge of an eggcell or the sexual discharge. Secondly
there's the issue of what is meant by "resembling". Whether it means the gender of the
child, or just some characteristics. Since I'm no scholar on hadeteh, I don't even speak
Arabic, I won't comment on any of that, apart from pointing out that these are issues to be
considered.

Now, what I can say, from a scientific point of view. There are several factors which
influence how a child looks. A layman, who knows a bit of genetics will be quick to
conclude that this hadeeth contradicts scientific knowledge, since the looks of a child will
be determined by the genes only. This is however incorrect. There are genes which
indeed work in a strict dominant-regressive way. This means if one of the two parents's
genes is dominant and the other regressive then the dominant one is the one that will be
seen in the child. However, many genes are not dominant-regressive. There are a whole
bunch of different ways genes can play out. Thers' the simple co-dominence, there's
genes that only work if triggered by another gene, there's gene that only work if an
environmental threshold is met and so on. Next to the genetic material, sperm also carries
other enzymes. And the eggcells, as any other cell is of course also filled with tons of
different enzymes and of course mittochondrial dna.

There's one research which was conducted on frogs that seems to indicate that this
hadeeth might actually be true. Tests have been done by pre-incubating either spermcells
or eggcells, and to examine the result on the offspring. The conclusions confirms the
trend of this hadeeth. Of course further research is needed, but it would appear that if the
spermcell sits in the womb before the woman ovulates, it already starts preparing the
celldivision which will occur if it fertilizes an eggcell. Like wise the eggcell will also
start its preparations when it sits in the womb, waiting to be fertilized. These preparations
can apparently play a significant role in genes that do not follow the strict dominant-
regressive pattern.”

92
And read this: [http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/quran-hadith-prophet-
muhammad/hadeeth-irreconcilable-scientific-viewpoints-3347/page4#post16808]

This will illustrate to you how do muslims argue…so maybe you’ll stop calling us stupids
one day!(btw, notice the big difference between this group and your own facebook group)

"Let me add Torturer to the list of Prophet Muhammed's glowing attributes.

Ibn Hisham in Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya writes about Kinana ibn al-Rabi, Safiyya's former
husband |& the prophets subsequent wife.

'Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the
Apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came
(Tabari says "was brought"), to the Apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round
a certain ruin every morning early.
When the Apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill
you?"
He said "Yes".
The Apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was
found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the Apostle gave
orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam,

"Torture him until you extract what he has." bn Hisham in Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya writes
about Kinana ibn al-Rabi, Safiyya's former husband |& the prophets subsequent wife.So
he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead.

Then the Apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head.'
Islam has mercy on non-lethal war criminals, to the extent that they are treated with
kindness by the believers. There are narrations to the effect that the Companions of
Prophet Muhammad would give the prisoners the better food while eating the lower
quality food based on the Prophetic command 'Treat the prisoners well'.

Ibn `Abbas said, "At that time their (the Muslims') captives were idolators.'' Proof for this
is that on the day of Badr the Messenger of Allah commanded his Companions to
treat the [idolator] captives respectfully. They (the Companions) would give them
preference over themselves when eating their meals.

Tafsir ibn Katheer - Surah Insan

However, War Criminals - in this case - Kinana ibn al-Rabi was a war criminal and a
head of the Jews of Khaybar who had intended to attack Medinah [the Prophetic city], so
in the case of war criminals - there would be more severity and harshness to deter people
from doing similar acts of war crimes like them. Haven’t you noticed something, all of
your allegations, all of what you claim that made Muhammad9SAW) “violent” somehow,
had either a criminal act behind, meant to b offensive to muslims, or it was simple tit for
tat!
Addendum - Banu Qurayza

93
Banu Qurayza Massacre

Once the Prophet was banished from Mecca, he took a band of followers on to Medina.
Upon reaching Medina he made a non-war pact with the Jews as his followers continued
to grow. However, this peace treaty was broken when the Medinan Jews surrounded
themselves in a compound as Meccan soldiers advanced into their territory. The Prophet
took this opportunity to surround their compound and then decided to siege and fight
them.

After the siege was lifted, Muhammad relaxed to have a bath and the angel Gabriel
appeared to him indicating that the battle had not been completed while pointing to the
direction of the Banu Qurayza tribe. Muhammad promptly marched with three thousand
men against the Qurayza Jews. The besieged Jews who were wary of this eventuality
surrendered. The men were rounded up and the women and children placed with the
spoils of war. To distinguish between man and boy, Muhammad had all those on the cusp
of manhood checked for the existence of pubic hair. He then placed the decision on the
plight of the tribe in the hands of one of his chiefs, Sa'd, who had been wounded in the
battle(do you see the twist?). His judgment was that the men should be put to death, the
women and children sold into slavery, and the spoil divided among the Muslims.
Muhammad responded ‘Truly, the judgment of Sa'd is the judgment of the Lord,
pronounced on high from above the seventh heaven.’

During the night, trenches were dug in the marketplace. As the day dawned Muhammad
commanded the male captives to be brought out in groups of five at a time. They were
made to sit in a row at the edge of the trench while the women and children witnessed the
downward swing of the sword through the necks of their husbands, fathers, sons and
brothers; their bodies then being cast into the trench. The slaughter lasted all day and
continued by torchlight into the night. An estimated 800 to 900 men met their demise on
that faithful day.

As part of his one fifth share of the booty, Muhammad selected a beautiful teenage bride,
Rehana, daughter of the Qurayza chief, for himself. A strong headed woman, she refused
to convert to Islam or marry the Prophet. Muhammad’s options were either to kill her or
add her to his list of concubines, of which he chose the latter.(fact twisting, I’ll explain
this in detail in my response inshAllah)

Source: Ibn Ishaq - Sirat Rasul Allah (the earliest surviving traditional biography, and
was written just over 150 years after Muhammad's death, and widely accepted by Islamic
scholars today)

At noon of the same day, Gabriel came to the Apostle wearing a silken turban and riding
on a mule saddled with brocade. He said, 'Hast thou put away thy arms, Apostle of
Allah?’ He replied, 'Yes,' and Gabriel said, 'But the angels have not yet put away theirs. I
have come here to call the people to follow the command of Allah and to march against
the Banu Qurayza. I go myself to make them tremble.'

94
Therefore, the Apostle of Allah ordered it to be proclaimed that none should hold
afternoon prayers until they reached the Jewish stronghold (prayers were put on hold for
the more important task of battle).

The Apostle of Allah besieged the Qurayza for twenty five days until they were
distressed, and Allah struck fear into their hearts.

In the morning the Qurayza came down from their fort to surrender to the Apostle of
Allah.
(once again, the story twists…)
Sa’d pronounced the following sentence, 'I decree that the men be killed, the property be
divided, and the women with their children be made captives.' The Apostle of Allah said,
'Thou hast decided according to the will of Allah, above the seven firmaments.'

Trenches were dug in the market place. Then he sent for the men and had their heads
struck off so that they fell in the trenches.

Aisha, the wife of the Apostle, said, “Only one of their women was killed. By Allah! She
was with me, talking and laughing, while the Apostle slaughtered her countrymen in the
marketplace; and when her name was called, I asked, ‘What is this for?’ and she replied,
‘I am going to be slain!’ I asked why and she answered, ‘For something I have done!’
Then she was taken away, and her head was struck off. But I shall never cease to marvel
at her good humour and laughter, although she knew that she was to die.”

The Apostle distributed the property of the Banu Qurayza, as well as their women and
children, to the Muslims, reserving one fifth for himself.

The Apostle dispatched an emissary to Najd with some prisoners, to barter them as slaves
in exchange for horses and camels.

The apostle of Allah selected one of the Jewish women, Rehana, for himself, and she
remained with him as his slave (concubine) until she died.

Relevant Hadiths:

Sahih Muslim 19:4368 The people of Qurayza surrendered. The Messenger of Allah said
to Abu Sa'id al-Khudri: These people have surrendered accepting your decision. He
(Sa'id) said: You will kill their fighters and capture their women and children. Hearing
this, the Prophet said: You have adjudged by the command of Allah.

Sahih Muslim 19:4370 Sa'd was wounded on the day of the Battle of the Ditch. When the
Messenger of Allah returned from the Ditch and laid down his arms and took a bath, the
angel Gabriel appeared to him and said: You have laid down arms. By God, we haven't
yet laid them down. So march against them. The Messenger of Allah asked here. He
pointed to Banu Qurayza. So the Messenger of Allah fought against them. They

95
surrendered at the command of the Messenger of Allah but referred the decision about
them to Sa'd, who said: I decide about them that those of them who can fight be killed,
their women and children taken prisoners, and their properties distributed among the
Muslims.

Sunan Abu Dawud 38-4390 Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of
Banu Qurayza. The Muslims examined us, and those who had begun to grow pubic hair
were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not
grown hair."

This was one of the biggest examples of story twisting I’ve seen so far. You have put
your own words, and you failed to provide authentic history.

Source: www.prophetmuhammadforall.org 1

HADRAT REHANA(R.A)
BINT-E-SHAM‘OON
Hadrat Rehana daughter of Sham‘oon is not considered equal to other wives of the
Hoy Prophet. According to certain historians; like Maria Qibtia, she was one of the
bondmaid. A few historians like Ibn-e-Saad and Hafiz Ibn-e-Hajar have tried to
prove that Rehana was married to the Holy Prophet; but these are un-authentic
reports and not confirmed by majority of the other historians. Barring few, all
historians have the consensus that she served the Prophet merely in the capacity
of a bondmaid.

There is no doubt that the connotation of a bondmaid is quite abhorring to the

modern mind but it was not so a few centuries back. The Europeans flourished in
slave trade even in nineteenth century. It was the Holy Prophet (SAW) who
discouraged slavery and took all steps to eliminate this inhuman system from the
society(I have explained this in great detail above).

The Holy Prophet’s concept regarding slavery can be judged by one example, that
he declared a slave named Zaid bin Harith as his son. And people took it to be
true. Every body called Zaid as Zaid bin Mohammad (Zaid son of Mohammad). He
had a great love for Zaid. The same is true of Rehana bint-e-Sham‘oon. The Holy
Prophet’s behavior and attitude towards Rehana was such that many historians
take her as his wife. But keeping in view of the conditions obtaining in that social
predicament, this does not seem very surprising. She was merely his bondmaid.

96
According to one narrative, Rehana declined the offer of marriage with the Holy
Prophet Mohammad (SAW) and said: “Let me remain a bondmaid. I don’t deserve
to be one of your wives”.

The history of Rehana coming to the service of the Holy Prophet (SAW) has a great
resemblance to that of Hadrat Safia and Hadrat Juwairai. Rehana was the daughter
of Chief of Banu-Quraiza tribe. His name was Sham‘oon bin Zaid. The Banu Quraiza
tribe mostly comprised of Jews and lived in the suburbs of Madina.
After settling down and establishment of an Islamic state in Madina the Holy
Prophet (SAW) endeavored to promote good relations with the neighbors of his tiny
Islamic state. As a result of this effort, a treaty was signed with Banu-Quraiza by
Madinites. This treaty had two clauses: firstly that both parties will not wage war
against each other, and secondly that in case of aggression from any foreign tribe,
the two parties will defend and meet the aggression jointly. But in clear violation
of the agreement, the Banu-Quraiza kept on intriguing against Muslims. They
extended secret cooperation to Makkans and anti-Islamic forces. Further they
instigated the anti-Islamic forces to attack Madina since the Muslims were weak at
that time. These nefarious activities could not remain secret and soon there was a
battle between Muslims of Madina and Banu-Quraiza. As a result, Banu-Quraiza lost
this battle and their property, lands, goods of riches, effects, chattels and wealth
were confiscated by the Muslims. According to the universally accepted custom,
the booty included bondmen and bondmaids. Rehana was brought before the Holy
Prophet (SAW) as a part of the booty. She was introduced as the daughter of the
chief of Banu-Quraiza tribe. The Holy Prophet (SAW) addressed the prisoners of
war and invited them to follow the path of Allah i.e. Islam. After the address of
the Holy Prophet (SAW) Rehana stood up and said:
“Please leave me alone”.The Prophet did not like this answer, got up and left.

Ibn-e-Saad (Famous historian) has narrated that one day, the Prophet was sitting
in a social gathering, and he heard the sound of somebody’s footsteps; instantly he
said: “Listen this is Tha ‘alba who is coming to announce that Rehana has
embraced Islam”. To the great surprise of the audience, the in-comer was Tha
‘alba and he announced what the Holy Prophet (SAW) had already revealed.
After Rehana had embraced Islam, the Holy Prophet met her and offered, “If you
like and agree, I can marry you and you may observe Hijab (Hijab means Purdah,
the tradition of hiding face and body by the Muslim women) as the rest of the
wives are doing”. Rehana replied, “Let me remain a bondmaid, I don’t deserve
to be one of your wives”.

So she remained a bondmaid in the service of the Holy Prophet (SAW) till she died.
One historian has reported that she was set free and was no longer a bondmaid.
She died during the life of the Holy Prophet (SAW) in the tenth year of Hijrah. The
Holy Prophet (SAW) had just returned from his last pilgrimage (Hijjat-ul-Wida) to
Makkah.

Also see:
(http://books.google.ca/books?id=bHLO1brCbm0C&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=Reha
na+bint+shamoon&source=bl&ots=RPPHTyYI76&sig=kk_7ODFunyuF7e_fuBSC6sb3bq

97
M&hl=en&ei=HR3pTZ-
qHo2IuAP5tfXBDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg
#v=onepage&q=Rehana%20bint%20shamoon&f=false)

Now let us see what exactly this banu qureza massacre was.

let us first see what is the information which we have at hand.

There are three places where we find this incident

1) Quran
2) Hadeeth
3) Muslim History

Who Were Banu Qurayza?

Before the Prophet of Islam arrived in Medina there were primarily two groups in
Medina, the Jews and Pagans. The Jews were subdivided into three clans, the Banu
Qainuqa, Banu Nazir and Banu Quraiza. The other inhabitants of the town were the Aws
and Khazraj. Of the two chief clans of the Jews, the Quraiza were the allies of the Aws,
while Banu Nazir joined the Khazraj. Fighting frequently broke out between the Aws and
the Khazraj , and their Jewish allies however once the Muhammad (SAW) arrived in
Medina the Aws and Kharzaj both converted to Islam.

In an effort to unite the city in peace, the Prophet Muhammad drafted the Covenant of
Medina (mithaq-i-Medina) in 622 CE, whose general terms were - Muslims and Jews
shall live as one people, each one of the parties shall keep to its own faith, and neither
shall interfere with that of the other. In the event of a war with a third party, each was
bound to come to the assistance of the other, provided the latter were the aggrieved and
not the aggressors. In the event of an attack on Medina, both shall join hands to defend it
and peace, when desirable, shall be made after consultation with each other.

Battle of the Trench (Ghazwah al-Khandaq)

In 627, the Quraish (the chief aggressors towards Muhammad) decided to go against the
Prophet Muhammad once again, after failing at the battles of Badr and Uhud. The level
of duplicity in which Banu Qurayza dealt with these circumstances varies with reports,
but whether or not it was responsible for instigating the confrontation between the
Quraish and Muhammad or merely betrayed the Prophet they did openly align themselves
with the Quraishi campaign . This act of treason was designed to encompass the Muslims
in battles on all sides, one that would eventually fail them.

After the siege ended, the Quraish defeated again, Banu Qurayza were left alone to face

98
the Muslims they betrayed (going against virtually every principle outlined within the
Covenant of Medina). Forced to surrender, the leader of Banu Qurayza was asked “Will
you be satisfied, o Aus, if one of your own number pronounces judgement on them? When
they agreed he said that Sa'd b. Mu'adh was the man...Sa'd said, Then I give judgement
that the men should be killed, the property divide, and the women and children taken as
captives.”

This incident if often recounted as the mass slaughter of between 800-1000 ‘innocent’
Jews, and is given credence as being documented by a Muslim historian. The events are
often twisted and manipulated, however, when one looks deeper it becomes clear that
there were extenuating circumstances.

Documentation – Questionable Methodology

This incident is primarily noted, or cited as recorded in Sirah Rasul Allah (Sīrat
Nabawiyya) by Ibn Isḥaq (Muḥammad ibn Isḥaq ibn Yasār, 704-767 CE). While this
work has been lost it has been recounted, at least in recensions, by that of Ibn Isḥaq’s
student Ziyad al-Bakka’i (which has also been lost) and that of Ibn Hisham (Abu
Muhammad 'Abd al-Malik bin Hisham) whose work had been based upon the work of
Ziyad al-Bakka’i; Ibn Hisham’s recounting is the only version to have survived and
subsequently has become the basis for any editions of Sīrat Nabawiyya by Ibn Ishaq.

Before we enter into discussion regarding the events surrounding Banu Qurayza we must
approach this from the view of Islamic sciences. In the Islamic sciences (such as Hadith
collection) there are very clearly defined and stringent rules regarding authenticity, and
the validity of the isnad (chain of narration) was based upon these rules. While these rules
were meticulously followed by some (most famously by the likes of Al-Bukhari and
Muslim) it was not followed by all, which is why there are varying classifications of
hadith based on their isnad.

"A Sahih hadith is the one which has a continuous isnad, made up of reporters of
trustworthy memory from similar authorities, and which is found to be free from any
irregularities (i.e. in the text) or defects (i.e. in the isnad)." As defined by Ibn al-Salah

Since the writing of Sirah (history) did not have to meet the same standards that hadith or
fiq (jurisprudence), the collection of its sources did not require the same standards of
verification and consequently the Sirah itself could not be classified as sahih as hadith
are. While the intentions of Ibn Ishaq may have been good, the veracity of his work can
be called into question, in particular his use of questionable sources. This use of
questionable sources was openly condemned by one of the most well known mujtahid
(authoritive Jurist), and author of al-Muwatta, Imam Malik ibn Anas who called him
unequivocally a liar and an impostor . Later scholars such as Ibn Hajar and Ibn
Taymiyyah also spoke out against the work of Ibn Ishaq due to his use of questionable or
spurious narrators. The validity of many of the hadith and stories relayed by Ibn Ishaq
have been called into question due to lack of source material or chain of narration.
Further complicating the issue is that Ibn Hisham’s work is based upon that of al-Bakka’i

99
who had been viewed as an unreliable or weak narrator by Abu-Hatim, Al-Nasa’i, and
even Ibn-Madini (the teacher of al-Bukhari).

There are other issues which arise upon closer inspection of ibn Ishaq’s sira and the
subsequent retelling of it, most notably “There never existed a unified text for the
traditions of ibn Ishaq to which the transmitters and later authors could have referred”
because ibn Ishaq often delivered them orally according to Sadun Mahmud al-Samuk.
This led to different people taking different aspects of his work and creating their own;
notably, besides al-Bakka’i’s recension used by ibn Hisham, there was that of Salama al-
Fadl al-Razi used by Tabari. Having noted the potential for errors, we cannot however
overlook the fact that Ibn Ishaq was known to have relied primarily on the descendants of
Banu Qurayza for details of the prophets campaign against them as handed down by their
forefathers, causing Ibn Hajar to then reject the stories in question in the strongest terms:
"such odd tales as the story of Qurayza and al-Nadir"

In a more generally historical perspective one can look at the allegations made regarding
this incident and wonder why an incident of this caliber was not preserved. The
significance of such an act, and its implications would be indelibly inscribed in the works
of Muslim and Jewish historians alike; instead it was preserved primarily in the
questionable integrity of one persons work. Having firmly established the qualifications
of the very foundation of which the story of Banu Qurayza has been built, let us now turn
our attention to the actual events in terms of Islamic precedence.

The Islamic Perspective of Banu Qurayza

From the Islamic point of view, the issue of Banu Qurayza was addressed only 3 times,
which we will examine now:

Noble Quran Surah Al-Ahzab (33:25-26)

And Allah turned back the unbelievers for all their fury: no advantage did they gain; and
enough is Allah for the believers in their fight. And Allah is full of strength, able to
enforce his will. And those of the people of Al-Kitab who aided them Allah did take them
down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts, so that some you slew, and
some you made prisoners.

Sahih Al-Bukhari (Volume 5, Book 59, Number 443)

Narrated 'Aisha: When the Prophet returned from Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench) and laid
down his arms and took a bath, Gabriel came and said (to the Prophet ), You have laid
down your arms? By Allah, we angels have not laid them down yet. So set out for them."
The Prophet said, "Where to go?" Gabriel said, "Towards this side," pointing towards
Banu Quraiza. So the Prophet went out towards them.

Sahih Muslim (Book 019, Number 4370)

100
It has been narrated on the authority of A'isha who said: Sa'd was wounded on the day of
the Battle of the Ditch. A man from the Quraish called Ibn al-Ariqah shot at him an
arrow which pierced the artery in the middle of his forearm. The Messenger of Allah
(may peacce be upon him) pitched a tent for him in the mosque and would inquire after
him being in close proximity. When he returned from the Ditch and laid down his arms
and took a bath, the angel Gabriel appeared to him and he was removing dust from his
hair (as if he had just returned from the battle). The latter said: You have laid down
arms. By God, we haven't (yet) laid them down. So march against them. The Messenger
of Allah (may peace be upon him) asked: Where? He pointed to Banu Quraiza. So the
Messenger of Allah (may peace he upon him) fought against them. They surrendered at
the command of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), but he referred the
decision about them to Sa'd who said: I decide about them that those of them who can
fight be killed, their women and children taken prisoners and their properties distributed
(among the Muslims).

From the Quran we have only a very brief mentioning of the subject, and in it we learn
nothing of slaughtering the masses, on the contrary, we actually see the word of Allah
stipulate only “so that some you slew, and some you made prisoners.” which can in no
way be seen as an endorsement for mass slaughter.

Once the view is shifted towards the hadith one will notice that of the only two hadith
available referencing of Banu Qurayza incident, one mentions nothing of killing leaving
just one reference towards the punishment faced by the tribe. This hadith as related in
Sahih Muslim refers to the punishment as “that those of them who can fight be killed,
their women and children taken prisoners and their properties distributed (among the
Muslims)”

I will use seerah ibn ishaq only because we have no other competitive histories, and
because you have also cited the same source. So lets begin.

Ibn Ishaq - Sirat Rasul Allah - Page 34:

"He was obeyed and followed by them and he kept them away from Islam until the
apostle of Allah himself emigrated to Medina, and until the battles of Badr, Uhud, and
the Ditch had been fought."

After Muhammad's migration to Medina, there were a lot of Jews there and a constitution
needed to be made. He made a peace treaty with the Jews, which both Muslims and Jews
agreed to adhere to. We read:

Ibn Ishaq - Sirat Rasul Allah - Pages 48-49:

"In Medina the apostle of Allah drew up a document concerning the Emigrants and the
Helpers, and the making of a treaty with the Jews which would ensure to both sides the
maintenance of their religion and possessions, and laid down certain conditions of the
alliance.

101
In the name of Allah the merciful, the compassionate! This concerns the Believers fled
from Mecca and those of Medina, as well as those who follow them; join with them, and
fight with them, for they are a community excluding all other men. 'The Emigrants from
Mecca shall pay blood-ransom among themselves and redeem their prisoners with the
righteousness and justice suitable among Believers. The Helper tribes of Medina shall do
the same. Believers shall not abandon him who is destitute among them, but shall aid him
with gifts, drawn either from the ransom of prisoners or the blood-ransom paid for
persons slain.

'Believers shall guard against him who rebels, or seeks to spread enmity or wickedness
among them; let every man's hand be against him, even should he be the son of a
Believer. No Believer shall kill another for the sake of an infidel nor aid an infidel
against a Believer. Verily, the protection of Allah is indivisible and extends to the
meanest Believer of all; and each must befriend other Believers above all men.

'Jews who follow us shall be given aid and equality; they shall not be oppressed, nor
shall aid be given to others against them.

'The safety of Believers is indivisible; no one shall be saved at the expense of another,
when battles are being fought in the name of Allah, save with equity and justice. In every
religious campaign, Believers must aid one another in avenging blood spilled in the way
of Allah.

No idolater is permitted to take under his protection any property, nor any person,
belonging to a Quraysh Unbeliever, or to aid a Quraysh against a Believer. He who kills
a Believer will himself be killed - unless his victim's kinsmen accept blood- -ransom and
it is the duty of all Believers to exact the penalty. He who aids or shelters a malefactor
will earn the curse and wrath of Allah on the day of resurrection, nor will there be any
escape there from. If you are at variance on any matter, refer it or to Allah or to
Muhammad.

'The Jews will share the cost with the Believers as long as they fight a common foe; the
Jews are one community with the Believers (but they have their own religion as the
Believers have theirs). As with the Jews, so with their adherents, except for him who
commits a crime.

'None shall depart to war except by the permission of Muhammad, but none shall be
hindered from avenging an injury. He who does ill only brings ill upon himself and upon
his family, unless he be oppressed; then Allah will justify his deed. There shall be
mutual aid between Believers and Jews, in face of any who war against those who
subscribe to this document, and mutual consultations and advice. No man shall injure his
ally, and aid shall be granted to the oppressed. The Jews, when fighting alongside the
Believers, will bear their own expenses. Medina shall be sacred territory to those who
agree to this covenant.

102
If there should be any differences of opinion concerning this covenant and its meaning,
they must be placed before Allah and Muhammad the apostle of Allah.

'Neither the Quraysh nor those who aid them are to be protected. Mutual aid will be
given by Believers and Jews against who may attack Medina . If the Jews are called on
by the Believers to make peace, they must comply; and if the Believers are called on by
the Jews to make peace, they must agree, except in the case of a holy war. Every man
shall be allotted his reward by his own tribe."

Ibn Abbas' tafsir - Surah Anfal 8:56:

"Then Allah explained who these are, saying: (Those of them with whom thou madest a
treaty) the Banu Qurayzah, (and, then at every opportunity they break their treaty, and
they keep not duty (to Allah)) they do not ward off breaking their treaties."

Syed Maududi's commentary - Surah Anfal 8:56:

"This refers especially to the Jews. After arriving in Madina, the Prophet (peace be on
him) concluded a treaty of mutual co-operation and good neighbourliness with
them. Not only did the Prophet (peace be on him) take the initiative in this connection, he
also tried his best to maintain pleasant relations with them. The Prophet (peace be on
him) also felt greater affinity with the Jews than with the polytheists of Makka. As a rule
he always showed preference to the customs and practices of the People of the Book over
those of the polytheists."

Muhammad Asad's commentary - Surah Anfal 8:56:

"The covenants referred to are agreements between the Muslim community and non-
Muslim political groups. Although this passage is addressed, in the first instance, to the
Prophet, the "thou" relates here to every follower of the Qur'an and, thus, to the Muslim
community of all times. With the above verse, the discourse returns to the subject of war
with unbelievers to which most of this surah is devoted. The reference to the unbelievers'
"breaking their covenants" has two implications: firstly, that the establishment of
covenants (i.e., of peaceful relations) with non-Muslims is not only permissible but, in
fact, desirable (cf. verse 61); and, secondly, that the Muslims may resort to war only IF
and when the other party is openly hostile to them."

Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani - Ma'ariful Quran - Volume 4, Pages 256-257:

"When the Holy Prophet graced the blessed city of Madinah after Hijrah, they saw the
rise of Muslim power, were impressed even somewhat overawed by it, but the fire of
their anti-Muslim feelings kept burning in their hearts all the time. Islamic political

103
wisdom demanded that, as far as possible, the Madinah should be engaged to go along
with Muslims under Jews of some sort of bilateral treaty, so that they would not come
to the assistance of Makkan disbelievers. Because of their awe of Muslims, the Jews
too wished to have this very arrangement."

The background in which the second political step was taken was marked by two
adversaries of Muslims. The first were the disbelievers of Makkah whose tortures had
compelled them to leave Makkah. The second were the Jews of Madinah who had then
become the neighbors of Muslims."

Out of these two, a treaty was concluded with the Jews and was duly documented in
details. The compliance of this treaty was made incumbent on all Jews living in and
around Madinah as well as on all Muhajirin and Ansar. The full text of this treaty can be
seen in Al-Bidayah wa an-Nihayah of Ibn Kathir and Sirah of Ibn Hisham and elsewhere.
The most significant article of this treaty was that, in the event of a mutual difference, the
decision of the Holy Prophet shall be binding for all. There was another article there
which stipulated that the Jews of Madinah shall not provide any assistance to any
enemy against Muslims, either covertly."

As we can see, a mutual agreement between the Jews and the Muslims in Medina at this
time was agreed upon, and the specific ruling had to be followed by the Jews and
Muslims because they agreed to follow it, and suffer the consequences if any members of
them purposefully broke any ruling. One of the rulings CLEARLY says that the Quraysh
(the anti Islamic tribe) and their helpers shall NOT be given protection or aid. The
contracting parties are bound to help one another against any attack on Medina, but if the
other party break the treaty (i.e. fight against Muslims) is when Muslims can fight back.
So, if ANYONE of the Muslims or Jews living in Medina broke this ruling purposefully,
they would have to suffer the consequence. For example, when a person enters a country,
he/she normally agrees to follow certain law. If you break the law, (i.e. if you murder)
you suffer the punishment.

Now, the battle of Ahzab is also known as the battle of the Trench. (*). Later on, this
battle took place, and the root of it was because Qureshi pagans were planning and
seeking to destroy the Muslim community for good. The Qureshi pagans planned to
destroy the INNOCENT Muslims as we read:

Ibn Ishaq - Sirat Rasul Allah - Pages 79-80:

"A number of Jews went to the Quraysh in Mecca and invited them to wage war
against the apostle of Allah, saying, 'We shall aid you against him until we wipe out
him and his followers.' The Quraysh replied, 'You are the possessors of the first scripture;
tell us whether our religion is better than his?' They said, 'Your religion is better than his,
and you are nearer to the truth than he.' Then the Quraysh were encouraged to accept the
invitation to fight against the apostle of Allah, and the Jews went to the Ghatafan and
invited them to wage war against the apostle of Allah, saying they would aid them,
and that the Quraysh had already consented to fight. So the Quraysh marched out under
the command of Abu Sufyan, and the Ghatafan under the command of Uyayna.

104
When the apostle of Allah heard of their intention he made a ditch around Medina,
working there himself in order to encourage the Muslims to covet reward in paradise, and
they worked diligently with him except for the Hypocrites among them, who were
dilatory, pretended to be ill, and stole away to their families without the permission or
knowledge of the apostle. Any true Muslim, faced by an unavoidable emergency, always
reported it to the apostle of Allah and obtained his permission to attend to the business.
And Allah, the most high and glorious, revealed the verse 'When Believers are engaged
with the apostle in public business, they do not depart without asking his permission. For
those who ask permission are those who believe in Allah and in His apostle. . . . But
Allah knoweth those who steal away privately; let those who resist His command take
heed, lest some calamity befall them, or grievous punishment' So the Muslims worked in
the ditch till they had fortified it."

Syed Maududi's commentary - Surah Anfal 8:56:

"But somehow the Jewish rabbis and scholars were irked by the Prophet's preaching of
pure monotheism and moral uprightness, let alone his scathing criticism of the deviations
which appeared in Jewish belief and conduct. They were constantly engaged, therefore,
in efforts to sabotage the new religious movement. In this respect, they left no stone
unturned. They collaborated with the hypocrites who were apparently an integral part
of the Muslim body-politic. To serve the same end they fanned flames to rejuvenate the
old animosities between the Aws and Khazraj which had brought about bloodshed and
fratricide in pre-Islamic times. They attempted to hatch conspiracies against Islam in
collaboration with the Quraysh and other tribes. What was all the more deplorable
was that they indulged in these nefarious activities DESPITE their treaty of
friendship and co-operation with the Prophet (peace be on him)."

Some of the Jews basically instigated the pagan Qureshis into waging a war against
Prophet Muhammad. These Jews clearly went against the treaty, so when Muhammad
heard this news, he dug a trench. It was dug north of Medina, the other parts of Medina
like east and west were covered by rocky hills & tree fields, which means there was no
need at this time to dig the trench around the entire of Medina, but only from north which
was the main opening. The tribe of Banu Qurayza were at the south of Medina.

Ibn Ishaq - Sirat Rasul Allah - Page 81:

"When the apostle of Allah had completed the Ditch, the Quraysh came and encamped at
the confluence of the Ruma torrents. Their army consisted of 10,000 men, including
their allies and followers; the Ghatafan, with their followers from Najd , also came and
encamped in the direction of Uhud; and news came that the Jewish tribe of Banu
Qurayza had broken their treaty with Muhammad. So the apostle of Allah marched
out with his Muslims, amounting to 3,000 men in all, and encamped so that Sal was
behind him and the Ditch in front, separating him from the enemy. He had ordered the
children and the women to be shut up in the forts.

105
To the followers of the apostle fear was in the air; the enemy was on all sides and the
Believers gave way to every kind of surmise. The Hypocrisy of some became manifest,
and one man even declared, 'Muhammad used to promise us that he would swallow the
treasures of Croesus and of Caesar; but at this moment, no one of us can even feel safe
when he goes to relieve himself '

Then the apostle of Allah and the idolaters remained encamped more than twenty days
opposite each other, without any hostilities taking place save for the shooting of arrows
and the siege."

Dr F Ajmeri - Dawat-Ul Quran - Surah Ahzab 33:61 commentary - Volume 3, Pages

1483-1484:
"It gives an idea that time the hypocrites and mischief makers had become very bold to
disturb the ambience of Medina, to spread panic among people by propagating
rumors of imminent fighting, and teasing respectable Muslim ladies and leveling
false allegations against them. Therefore, on the one hand the Muslims women were
given the command to observe purdah while going out in order to keep safe from their
mischief, and on the other hand those hypocrites and mischief makers were warned that if
they did not desist, then Allah would give command to His messenger to punish then and
to clear the Muslim society of these mischief makers."

Maulana Muhammad Ali commentary - Surah Ahzab 33:61 - Page 843:

"This verse and the one that follows relate to hypocrites as well as to certain Jews who
spread evil reports concerning the Muslims. Before the Prophet died, Madinah was
cleared of these mischievous elements."

Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani - Ma'ariful Quran - Volume 4, Page 258:

"Their chief, Ka'b ibn Ashraf, himself traveled to Makkah and exhorted the disbelievers
of Makkah to mount another attack on Muslims with fresh and full preparation in
which the Jews of Medinah will be with them. This was the second breach of trust
they committed against Islam. In the present verse, by mentioning this repeated breach of
trust, brought into focus is the wickedness of these people, for they were the people who
themselves made a treaty with the Holy Prophet yet they were the ones who, each time,
kept breaking their pledge to abide by the treaty."

We also see that Surah Ahzab 33:26 refers to:

Syed Maududi's commentary - Surah Ahzab 33:26:

"That is, Jews of the Bani Quraizah."

106
Dr F Ajmeri - Dawat-Ul Quran - Surah Ahzab 33:26 commentary - Volume 3, Page
1448:
"Refers to, Bani Quraizah who lived in the eastern part of Medina and were Jews."

As you can see, the Jewish tribe (Banu Qurayza) BROKE the treaty they already agreed
to follow and turned against the Muslims. This wasn't the first time they did this, because
it was previously in the Battle of Badr they did this also. The Muslims were in fear
because the enemies came from both sides during the battle of Ahzab. Because of the
trench, the pagan Qureshis found it harder to launch an attack on the Muslims.

Syed Maududi's Introduction - Surah Ahzab 33:

"Even before the enemy could reach his city, he got a trench dug out on the north-west of
Madinah in six days, and having the Mount Salat their back, took up a defensive position
with 3,000 men in the protection of the Trench. To the south of Madinah there were many
gardens (even now there are) so that it could not be attacked from that side. To the east
there are lava rocks which are impassable for a large army. The same is the case with the
south western side. The attack, therefore, could be made only from the eastern and
western sides of the Uhud, which the Holy Prophet had secured by digging a trench. The
disbelievers were not at all aware that they would have to counter the trench outside
Madinah. This kind of a defensive stratagem was unknown to the Arabs. Thus, they had
to lay a long siege in winter for which they had not come prepared."

The Jews attacked from the south and the pagan Qureshis from the north, but it was
harder for the pagan Qureshis to do so, because of the trench. The pagan Qureshis would
go and attack full in with full force first and then the Jews helped the pagan Qureshis into
wiping out the Muslims. This was their evil plan to try and overpower the Muslims.
Moreover, when the besieging army took to flight and the Quraish returned to their
fortress, it was besieged by Muhammad for 25 days because:

Maulana Muhammad Ali commentary - Surah Ahzab 33:26 - Page 830:

"...it was besieged by the Holy Prophet, for to leave such an internal enemy unpunished
would have been a source of ever-present danger to the safety of the Muslim
community."

Moreover:

Ibn Ishaq - Sirat Rasul Allah - Page 82:

"A Jew approached and began to walk round the fort. Now, the Banu Qurayza Jews had
broken their treaty with the apostle of Allah, and their fort was to the rear of ours.
There was no one to protect our side of the city, and the apostle of Allah was occupied
with the invaders and unable to come to our aid. Accordingly, I said, "0 Hassan! A Jew is
walking round the fort, and by Allah! I am not convinced that he will not report our weak
position to the Jews in our rear. The apostle is fully engaged; go thou therefore to the man
and kill him.
not a task for me." When I saw that he would do nothing, I girded.

107
"Who will go and see what our enemy is doing? Whoever goes will have a safe return,
and I shall pray to Allah to make him my companion in paradise." But not one of the
people would rise, because of their great fear, their great hunger, and the great cold; and
when no one rose the apostle of Allah called me and said, "Hudhayfa! Go forth, enter
among the enemy and see what they are doing, then return to me." Then I went out and
moved among the enemy, while the wind and the hosts of Allah so worked among them
that neither a cooking-pot nor a fire nor a tent remained unharmed. And Abu Sufyan rose
and said, "Let every man identify his neighbour!" Accordingly I took the hand of the man
next to me and asked "Who are you?" and he told me his name. Abu Sufyan continued,
"This is not our home. Our cattle and camels have perished, the Banu Qurayza have
abandoned us and their attitude is disquieting. We suffer from this violent gale; not a
cooking-pot is safe, nor a fire burning, nor a tent standing! Go, as I am going!" Then he
went to his camel and mounted, and whipped it upright.

Accordingly I went back to the apostle, whom I found praying, and told him my tidings.
In the morning, the Quraysh had vanished, and the Ghatafan, too. Then the apostle of
Allah and his army left the Ditch and returned to Medina and put away their arms."

So, Muhammad sent someone to create distrust between the pagan Qureshis and the Jews
combined with bad weather conditions, the pagans decided to retreat, which meant the
Muslims came out victorious. So, these Jews were NOT innocent, and we shall read now
the punishment yet to come:

Ibn Ishaq - Sirat Rasul Allah - Page 83:

"The apostle sent Ali ahead with his standard and the people hastened to join it. When Ali
reached the fort he heard language offensive to Islam and returned to meet the apostle,
whom he warned not to approach the Qurayza."

When Muslims arrived at the first at Banu Qurayza Even after breaking the treaty, these
Jews were still indirectly asking for a fight, by using insulting and offensive language
against the Muslims, unnecessarily. They didn't even ask for forgiveness or peace, which
further shows they were even more guilty after doing this. Now, the following is what
critics and Islamaphobes take out of context and use to prove their allegation:

Ibn Ishaq - Sirat Rasul Allah - Page 84:

"In the morning the Qurayza came down from their fort to surrender to the apostle of
Allah, and the Aus begged that - as the apostle had dealt leniently with allies of the
Khazraj - he would do the same for the allies of the Aus. The apostle said, 'Would you
like one of your own people to decide their fate' and they welcomed it. He continued,
'Then let Sad b. Muadh decide.' Sad had been struck by an arrow in the defence of the
Ditch, so his people mounted him on a donkey - with a leather pillow under him, for he
was a stout and handsome man - and brought him to the apostle. They told him, 'Deal
kindly with thy allies, because the apostle of Allah has appointed thee for this purpose.'
But they entreated him too much and he said, 'Sad will take good care not to incur the
censure of Allah by fearing the censure of men.' Then some of his people went away and

108
lamented for the men of the Banu Qurayza, before Sad even reached them, because Sad
had spoken thus.

When Sad appeared the apostle said to the Muslims, 'Arise in honour of your chief!
Then Sad asked, 'Do you covenant with Allah to abide by my decision?' and they said,
'We do!' The apostle of Allah also replied, 'Yes.' And Sad pronounced the following
sentence, 'I decree that the men be killed, the property be divided, and the women with
their children be made captives. The apostle of Allah said, 'Thou hast decided according
to the will of Allah, above the seven firmaments.'

The apostle of Allah imprisoned the Qurayza in Medina while trenches were dug in the
market-place. Then he sent for the men and had their heads struck off so that they fell in
the trenches. They were brought out in groups, and among them was Kab, the chief of the
tribe. In number, they amounted to six or seven hundred, although some state it to have
been eight or nine hundred. All were executed. One man turned to HIS PEOPLE and
said, 'It matters not! By God's will, the children of Israel were destined for this
massacre!' Then he seated himself and his head was struck off.'

The punishment which Sad b. Muadh said is also recorded in authentic Hadiths:

Sahih Bukhari, Book 52, Number 280:

"Narrated By Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri : When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to
accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came,
riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up
for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him.
"These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that
their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as
prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with
(or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah."

Sahih Bukhari, Book 59, Number 447:

"Narrated By Abu Said Al-Khudri : The people of (Banu) Quraiza agreed to accept the
verdict of Sad bin Mu'adh. So the Prophet sent for Sad, and the latter came (riding) a
donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, "Get up
for your chief or for the best among you." Then the Prophet said (to Sad)." These (i.e.
Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your verdict." Sad said, "Kill their (men)
warriors and take their offspring as captives, "On that the Prophet said, "You have
judged according to Allah's Judgment," or said, "according to the King's judgment."

So, this man named "Sad" (full name Sa'd ibn Mua'dh) who was part of an allegiance
with Banu Qurayza but later on converted to Islam when Muhammad arrived in Medina
(*) Sa'd ibn Mua'dh judged the punishment by their VERY own book: the Torah. Some
guy from the Banu Qurayza even knew and acknowledged the punishment and could see
he was getting exposed by his own law. What does their own law say? The Torah (part of
today's Bible) gives the Jews and even Christians a ruling if you besiege a city:

109
Deuteronomy 20:10-14:
"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept
and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work
for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that
city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men
in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you
may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your
God gives you from your enemies."

Moreover, Muslim scholars said:

Dr F Ajmeri - Dawat-Ul Quran - Surah Ahzab 33:26 commentary - Volume 3, Pages

1448-1449:
"Refers to, Bani Quraizah who lived in the eastern part of Medina and were Jews. The
Prophet (S.A.W.) hade made an agreement with them after migration, but they did not
keep their part of the covenant, and at the time of the Battle of the Trench they broke
their covenant and assisted the enemy. When the Prophet (S.A.W.) returned from the
Battle of the Trench, Jibril (Peace be upon him) came with the message from Allah that
he should turn to Bani Quraizah without delay and military action be taken against the
said tribe. Therefore, the Prophet at once turned to go towards their colony with his
companions, and there he surrounded their place. The siege lasted for 25 days after which
they came down from their fortress on this condition that their matter should be decided
by the chief of the tribe of Aus, Sa'ad bin Ma'az, who was their ally. Accordingly, the
judgment given by Sa'ad (R) was:

"All their males who are able to fight should be killed, their women and children should
be made captive, and their properties should be distrubuted - (Bukhari - Kitabul
Mughazi)."

On this Prophet (S.A.W.) said that he have judgment according to the divine command.
This judgment of Sa'ad bin Ma'az (R) is according to the Torah, in which this law of
fighting has been enunciated:

"When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its
answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall
do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes
war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when The Lord your God gives it into your
hand you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle,
and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and
you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which The Lord your God has given you. (Det
20 :10 to 14 - RSV.)

In this way the Jewish Bani Quraizah were removed for Medina. Such a harsh attitude
was taken against them because before this a tribe of the Jews, Bani Nadir, had also
broken their covenant and they were allowed to leave with their women and children
with some property, in spite of their conspiracies and broken promises. But from here

110
also they continued hatching conspiracies against Muslims and troubling them. The Bani
Quraizah broke their covenant in such an emergent situation that the idolaters had laid
siege with a very huge army and were about to attack Muslims, on such an occasion the
Jews stabbed their allies in the back, therefore it was inevitable that such traitors were
given the severest punishment. It may be noted that the number of those who were gives
was not more than 800 and the number of women and children who were taken into
prisoners was about 1000. - (Ghazwah Bani Quraizah - Muhammad Ahmed Bashmeel, p.
197)."

Pooya/Ali Commentary - Surah Ahzab 33:26:

"The reference is to the Jewish tribe of the Banu Qurayza. As citizens of Madina they
were bound by solemn agreement to help in the defence of the city. But on the
occasion of the siege by the Quraysh and their allies they intrigued with the enemies and
treacherously aided them. The Banu Qurayza were filled with terror and dismay when
Madina was free from the Quraysh danger. They shut themselves in their fortress about
three or four miles to the east of Madina.

Ahul Fida and Tabari in their histories and Hirwi in Habib al Siyar say that soon after his
return from the battle of Khandaq, while laying aside his armour, the Holy Prophet was
washing his hands and face in the house of his beloved daughter Fatimah whom he used
to visit before going to his own quarter on return from an expedition or excursion the
angel Jibrail brought a command from Allah to proceed immediately against the Qurayza
Jews.

The Holy Prophet instantly sent Ali with his standard, and himself following with his
army laid siege to the fortress of the Jews. The Holy Prophet himself went near the gate
of their fortress and asked them to surrender. They did not. Had they done as suggested
by the Holy Prophet they would have enjoyed the fair and lenient terms given to the tribe
of Banu Quinuqa It is said that at the command of the Holy Prophet the grove of the trees
near the walls of the fortress moved over to a place away from it so as to give shelter to
the Muslim army.

At last, after twenty five days they offered to surrender, if Sad bin Mu-az, the chief of
their allies-the Bani Aws- might be appointed to decide their fate. The Holy Prophet
agreed. Sad decreed that the male captives should be put to sword, women and children
be sold as slaves and their goods be confiscated and divided among the besiegers. This
decision was given by Sad in the light of the verses 13 and 14 of Deuteronomy 20:

"You shall put all its males to the sword, but you may take the women, the
dependants, and the cattle for yourselves."

Please refer to Deuteronomy 20: 10 to 18."

111
Yusuf Ali's Commentary - Surah Ahzab 33:26:
"The reference is to the Jewish tribe of the Banu Quraiza. They counted among the
citizens of Madinah and were bound by solemn engagements to help in the defense of the
City. But on the occasion of the Confederate siege by the Quraish and their allies they
intrigued with the enemies and treacherously aided them. Immediately after the siege was
raised and the Confederates had fled in hot haste, the Prophet turned his attention to these
treacherous "friends" who had betrayed his City in the hour of danger.
* The Banu Quraiza (see last note) were filled with terror and dismay when Madinah was
free from the Quraish danger. They shut themselves up in their castles about three or four
miles to the east (or north east) of Madinah, and sustained a siege of 25 days, after which
they surrendered, stipulating that they would abide by the decision of their fate at the
hands of Sad ibn Muaz, chief of the Aus tribe, with which they had been in alliance.
* Sad applied to them the Jewish Law of the Old Testament, not as strictly as the case
warranted. In Deut. xx. 10-18, the treatment of a city "which is very far off from thee" is
prescribed to be comparatively more lenient than the treatment of a city "of those people,
which the Lord thy God does give thee for an inheritance," i.e., which is near enough to
corrupt the religion of the Jewish people. The punishment for these is total annihilation:
"thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth" (Deut. xx. 16). The more lenient treatment
for far-off cities is described in the next note, According to the Jewish standard, then,
the Banu Quraiza deserved total extermination-of men, women, and children. They were
in the territory of Madinah itself, and further they had broken their engagements and
helped the enemy.
* Sad adjudged them the milder treatment of the "far-off" cities which is thus described
in the Jewish Law: "Thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: but
the women and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil
thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself, and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which
the Lord thy God hath given thee" (Deut. xx. 13-14). The men of the Quraiza were slain:
the women were sold as captives of war; and their lands and properties were divided
among the Muhijirs."

Maulana Muhammad Ali commentary - Surah Ahzab 33:26 - Pages 830-831:

"Sa'd was exasperated by their treachery and his judgment was that the fighting men
should be put to death and the rest made captives (B. 56:168). This was in accordance
with the Jewish Law: "And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against
thee, then thou shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine
hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword. But the women,
and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt
thou take unto thyself - 14). Three hundred men suffered death under this
sentence, and their lands fell into the hands of the Muslims."

112
Noble Quran Surah Al’An’am (6:164)

“Say: "Shall I seek a lord other than Allâh, while He is the Lord of all things? No person
earns any (sin) except against himself (only), and no bearer of burdens shall bear the
burden of another. Then unto your Lord is your return, so He will tell you that wherein
you have been differing."

Amongst the reasons that this account of Banu Qurayza can clearly be refuted are:

1.) As stated above, the authority of Islam, al Quran clearly states the rule in Islam is to
punish only those who were responsible for the sedition.
2.) Qur'anic refence to this event is minimal. An event of magnitude would have surely
been expounded upon for matter of jurisprudence.
3.) Had this slaughter actually happened, jurists would have adopted it as a precedent. In
fact exactly the opposite has been the case. The attitude of jurists, and their rulings, have
been more according to the Qur'anic rule in the verse, "No soul shall bear another's
burden."
4.) In the story of Qurayza specific people were named as having been put to death, thus
it is a reasonable conclusion that those were the ones who led the sedition and who were

113
consequently punished - not the whole tribe.
5.) The veracity of the work must come under scrutiny after the authenticity of such
events, and the integrity of the authors or their work has so clearly been shown to have
substandard quality.

While there are numerous other reasons to refute this account of the Banu Qurayza, I will
simply leave off with the fact that nowhere before, or after has such an event happened.
The very idea of such an event is diametrically opposed to the principles of Islamic
justice. Moreover, even if they were killed, they were killed according to their own
law!...and Muhammad(SAW) gave them the choice to decide who should make a
decision in their regard!...

The End of document

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

114
115