Leaving Islam



Rape 3 


Humanity vs. Muhammad bin Abdallah 

Part V 

Nov 26, 2003

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

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

Defendant: Muhammad bin Abdallah

Plaintiff:  Humanity (The non-Muslim portion)

Prosecutor: Ali Sina  

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

Courtroom: Public Opinion

Jury: You 


This response is needed because defense had in good faith anticipated that the prosecution will find a certain way of still examining the same evidence to further the case. Hence, the defense did not in good faith anticipate that prosecution will actually agree to the Motion, but the motion to dismiss had to be brought as a matter of discourse because prosecutor himself came across as somewhat dazed and confused, and then proceeded to add charges of rape and misrepresentation to the case. The defense finds it amusing that prosecution is upping the ante on the charges as we are proceeding, without making a full case. Now rape has been accused, without even the current day standards kept in mind. Even in a court of law in USA, it takes months for certain rape trials to conclude, and prosecutor actually now accuses the defendant, posthumously,  of rape, which even in today's society has certain elements to be presented before an accused is found guilty. If rape was such an open and shut case, all you would need is a woman or man who comes forward and says “I was raped”. In fact the first requirement is that the person come forward and claim that rape occurred. The merits of the claim then make up the case against any accused person, and the accused has the right to present evidence to counter the claim. In fact, the muslim holy scriptures require four witnesses of rape (but the scripture is not being used here as defense, only to state what the standards are.)

If prosecutor accepts that Bukhari and Muslim are two great biographers, then either he accepts their impartiality, or he does not. There's no logical sense made by using the two individuals to present a case, and then at other times to turn around and suspect the motives of the same two people. Either Bukhari and Muslim were good objective people or they were not. Defense demands that prosecution make this ABSOLUTELY clear, in no uncertain terms. If prosecution wishes to pursue this case objectively, then defense demands a declaration of statement from prosecution:

"I Ali Sina hereby declare that Bukhari and Muslim, the two most revered hadith writers whose works are cited as the basis for a lot of current day Islamic jurisprudence, or the so called "way of life till eternity", were two individuals of sound morals and aptitude, and their work has then been used by other historians as analysis of many ideas and events. These two individual's accounts and narrations are accurate and not filled with any sort of personal bias on their part. Hence, if the narrations do not have any irrefutable factual basis for any crime committed and explicitly stated, then defense is allowed to seek relief from the same source as a matter of reasonable inference that no crime occurred."

If Ali Sina makes the declaration, then defense moves once again that there are no accusations of rape in Bukhari and Muslim, and hence the defense cannot defend what does not exist in the same evidence being used. If Ali Sina wishes to not make the above declaration, then their use of the evidence presented by Bukhari and Muslim is not allowed.

Otherwise the case is once again being fought on the personal opinions of the prosecution, without any documented proof of rape or misrepresentation. If rape is being accused, then first the woman has to come forward and claim it. Otherwise this amounts to prosecution bringing out a claim to which there really is no grieving party. If Juwairiya was in any way "raped", then defense demands as to what historical account of this claim exists. If Bukhari and Muslim are mentioning this, defense needs to see it. If other independent sources of 1400-1200 years ago are saying this, defense needs to see these too.

If prosecution fails to produce a single source where the word “rape” is used, or any author of a thousand years ago is alleging or inferring “rape” in different verbage, or a source exists of Juwairiya's own claim that rape occurred, then defense is prepared to defend it. Otherwise, this tantamounts in today's society as bringing a charge that cannot be established in any way possible. If prosecutor just wants to continue pursuing the "rape" charge without providing a single source of 1200 year ago literature that claims that such was the case, then prosecution is accusing with prejudice and bad faith, knowing full well that there is no evidence to state clearly or inferring from any authority, Islamic or otherwise.

Hence defense cannot defend "rape" charges unless prosecution presents solid proof that any source of 1400-1200 years ago mentions this in any way, shape or form, except what can be inferred from “privacy in the tent”.

Defense finds prosecution being severely prejudiced not only against the defendant, but also to the sources being used as evidence, including all the derivative works. Prosecution cannot build a case by mocking the same sources being used to bring the case.

However, if Ali Sina is allowed to make inferences by reading the historical account through Bukhari and Muslim’s works and derivatives, then defense is now also allowed to make inferences, and the jury, which includes the “entire” humanity, except those who have a predisposed bias towards the defendant and the ideology of Islam or other religions based on some spiritual existence of a perfect God, now has to conclude as to whose inference is more apt in a situation where matters of divine intervention are involved. Defense hereby, as a matter of inference and objective application of the same logic used by prosecution, hereby submits that the Juwairiya case, as cited in Bukhari and Muslim, did not involve sex in “privacy in the tent”.

Just as prosecutor is allowed to make judgement calls on what really happened by picking a few choice words, defense then presents the following as a more plausible account:

There is not a single mention of the word “sex”, or “intercourse”, or “fondling”, or “advances”, or “noises” in the entire historical account of Bukhari or Muslim. The only thing mentioned is that the defendant wanted some privacy, and Juwairiya had been a captive of war, and defendant paid ransom for her to the father. The “captive” at this point was a free woman, given away by her dad in lieu of the ransom received, and herself then asked to move forward to a safer place where the defendant could have “privacy” with her. (Now the defense inference is invoked) The defendant did this because it is documented that Juwairiya was quite good looking, and the defendant was afraid that she may be abused if left unguarded in time of hostilities. The defendant then at a later point in the travel, went into the tent and consoled her about the events that had taken place, and explained to her that her protection was necessary on account of her above average beauty. She was then given a thorough explanation of the entire ideology and told that divine intervention is at play here. After a few hours, the defendant and the newly freed “captive” slept peacefully without getting involved in any physical acts. In the morning, when the defendant went outside the tent, he saw a sentry guarding the place and asked why it was so. The sentry explained that in this time of hostilities, personal safety of the defendant and that of his new wife were of paramount importance. The defendant then thanked the sentry, and the entourage later moved to a safer place. The next day a “walima” was given and many people attended. The new wife was given a place to live, and the other wives became somewhat jealous. Through the course of the balance of his lifetime, the defendant always remained compassionate about the ex-jew, and asked her to tell the other jealous wives that Juwairiya is of a respectable lineage, even though she had been a jew. Juwairiya did not produce a child 9 months later, which is another fact inferring that sex never took place in the tent earlier. When the times became peaceful, and Juwairiya was viewed respectably by the community as a dignified wife of the defendant, she may have had a normal wife relationship with the defendant. Her own accounts of the story never revealed that she was “raped” at any point, and all scholars and biographers have no reason to suspect as such. No Islamic, jewish or Christian source exists that may have heared Juwairiya claiming that such was the case. The defendant kept her as a wife till his death, and Juwairiya even at an old age never said that she was ever humiliated sexually or deprived of dignity as a wife. She died a peaceful death, and today remains as an accepted companion of the defendant, with all the dignity that she deserved back then and today. She bore the defendant no children at all. Her soul rests in peace today, even though during one point of her lifetime, she did have to face a terrible tragedy of having lost her kin in war. However, even with today’s standards, people of all religions and races, do in fact face tragedies of greater magnitude, but the world is a complex set of conflicting forces, and there’s no reason to believe that the society of 1400 years ago had complete harmony, and was utterly homogenous. Just as today, then also was the world subject to human differences of opinion on a lot of issues, and also of difference in religious ideologies. May Juwairiya find eternal peace. Amen. 

The defense hereby once again invokes that if prosecutor is allowed to make all kinds of inferences from the sources used, the defense has taken the exact same liberty. If the defense position is not going to be accepted as a possible inference from the evidence submitted, the prosecutor’s inference also then is ridden with the same problem. If the “privacy in the tent” is going to be used to infer that sex did in fact take place, the defense wants absolute, irrefutable evidence that such was the case. If prosecution cannot prove beyond doubt that sex, forced or otherwise, took place in the tent, then there’s no objective reason to believe it did. At this point, the prosecution’s position is mere conjecture and opinionated, and the words “lust” and “slaves” are nothing more than tools of propaganda against the defendant. Prosecution is possibly employing his own view of the sexual world today, and may possibly even suffer from a certain psychological deficiency in matters of sex. Defense also then would state that Ali Sina’s position on homosexuality, teen pregnancy, sex outside of marriage, pornography, sex at advanced age, minimum age requirements for sex, abortion, same sex marriages, sex paraphernalia, and other sexual topics, has not been stated anywhere in the case or this site. There is not a single article on this entire website that somehow states the prosecution’s position on sexuality in current societies. The jury and defense is at an extreme disadvantage because prosecutor has not stated anything about his own views on sexual matters. It can be assumed reasonably that prosecutor may see a 50 year-old-person and a sobbing younger lady walk into a hotel room, “the tent”, and immediately conclude that rape is about take place behind closed doors. Such psychological state of mind needs to be examined by the jury and defense. 

The defense emphatically demands that a position be stated on this site about all sexual matters as listed above, without which, the jury and defense is left with nothing but to guess only about the moral aptitude of the prosecutor, since it is he and sympathetic to his cause who are bringing the charges of “rape” in the first place by citing the “privacy in the tent” accounts of Bukhari and Muslim. Mere conjecture is not sufficient for jury to take prosecutor’s words as a matter of fact. Hence, defense, in absence of any document claiming to the contrary, and also at the disadvantage of knowing the prosecutor and FFI’s stated position on matters of sex, hereby rejects all accusations of “rape” of Juwairiya. Even by current legal standards, mere accusations or charges brought by a private entity or governments are not automatic finding of guilt of the defendant. Since prosecutor lives in a western environment himself, he is fully aware that accusations need to be supported by preponderance of the evidence, and in cases of rape, by a unanimous finding of guilt based on evidence supporting the claim beyond all reasonable doubt (The Kobe Bryant case for example). If hearsay, conjecture, assumptions, and inferences were allowed, then any woman or man today can claim that they were raped and the accused be found guilty. If current standards do not allow this, why should it be allowed for a defendant 1400 years later? It seems hypocritical and not based on any objectivity. 

Also as a matter of assumption, if the prosecutor was to find homosexuality immoral, then it stands to reason that the entire christian church system may be ridiculed by him for having allowed a gay priest to be part of the clergy and hence being immoral. On this site, there’s no opinion stated on this matter too. 

The defense now in summary rejects the entire premise of “rape”, which is solely based on the prosecution’s inference that sex was involved in the “privacy in the tent”. The defense has presented a counter inference also, and now it is up to prosecution to prove that the defense inference is flawed. If defense inference is flawed and rejected, the prosecutor automatically negates his own inference too, and then the “jury of humanity” can pick and choose. Defense emphatically states that those of the organized religion section of humanity will want to see the “good” in matters of divinity (regardless of positions on other matters of complexity), and those already opposed to the entire idea of divinity will find the “lust” aspect as true. In final analysis on the multiple marriage issue and charges of “rape” and slaves, there is no decision to be made, because the jury has already made up their mind, hence there’s nothing to adjudicate. If defense was to really push the issue, the Virgin Mary can be accused of also not being a virgin at all. But defense does not wish to go against the sensibilities of the largest organized religion of humanity (maybe at a later point in the case, the prosecutor will have to address the issue of “virgin” mother and his belief about that too) 

Defense summarily rejects all charges of “rape”, immorality of multiple marriages and slave keeping, and will not address this issue again unless prosecutor brings some groundbreaking new source to light. Else, defense respectfully agrees to disagree and rests, regardless of any further discussion on these charges by prosecution, and not withstanding all the articles posted on this site. 

As a matter of record of the defense position on ALL articles on this site about marriages, slaves, and defendant’s wives, the motivation by the defendant was one of  “compassionate protection of women” in times of hostilities. The prosecutor’s position is one of  “lust”, based on inferences. Where prosecution infers that  sex was involved in all cases, defense states that sex was not necessarily involved in all cases, unless proven absolutely wrong by some new evidence of graphical nature (which the defense knows in advance does not exist). It can be argued that the prosecutor is exhibiting the same “extremism” that he ostensibly hates in the organized religion of Islam. And defense finds no benefit for the jury to side with the prosecutor, subscribing to one extreme element over another perceived extreme element. 


Thank you. 

R Shahzad


Mr. Shazad, after realizing that dismissing the charge of rape against his client is not a reasonable defense has now moved to disprove it.

The defense claims that since there are no victims of rape coming forward to accuse the defendant, and since there were no witnesses to the rape then we should not find the defendant guilty posthumously.

The purpose of this trial is not to find the defendant guilty in order to sentence him. Obviously the defendant is dead and that would not be possible. The objective is however academic and we want to present the evidence that is available to us to prove that the defendant was not as holy as he claimed to be and hence unworthy of the station that he attributed to himself.

Finding the defendant guilty of rape and other charges is not only of historic value, it also has tremendous implication on how a billion of people think and behave today. This is of utmost importance since in the opinion of the prosecutor the belief in the defendant is the cause of much bloodshed, poverty and turmoil. Once the truth about the defendant surface, the belief in him and his violent teachings will diminish and the world will become a more peaceful place to live for all mankind. The defendant has claimed to be a messenger of God, of sublime morals and an example to follow. Since in the views of the prosecutor those are bogus claims, and in fact misleading, the followers of the defendant engage in the most despicable acts of violence while honestly they believe that such acts are divinely ordained and will attract the pleasure of the almighty God. The prosecution hopes to raise reasonable doubt about the defendant and prove that he was not a noble man but a vile criminal and hence open the eyes of his benighted followers, lead them out of fundamentalism and into the fold of humanity. 

The purpose of this trial is not to just convict Muhammad but to shed light into his life and conduct, liberate his followers, foster unity of mankind by eliminating the most potent doctrine of hate and wage peace.

The defense attorney contends:

If rape was such an open and shut case, all you would need is a woman or man who comes forward and says “I was raped”. In fact the first requirement is that the person come forward and claim that rape occurred.

This is an unacceptable excuse. We do not need the testimony of the victim to establish a crime. In many cases the victims are not alive to witness against their victimizers. It is up to the prosecutors to find reasonable evidence of the crime. The evidence of crime is often found from the testimony of the accused. The prosecution is aware that much of that testimony is false. His task is to find the needle of the truth in the haystack of lies. It is through the contradictions in the declarations of the defendant that the truth will eventually be extracted. In the case of Humanity vs. Muhammad, the prosecution has ample evidence and enough confessions taken from the contradictory statements of the accused and his followers to incriminate him without any shadow of doubt. The prosecution urges the Jury to dismiss all the claims of the defendant and his followers to his innocence but solely take into consideration the evidence that incriminate him. It is of course to be expected that the accused plead innocence and his fans praise his perceived virtues. What matters to this court are the statements taken from the defendant and his followers that prove the defendant guilty of the crimes as charged.

The defense attorney objects:

If prosecutor accepts that Bukhari and Muslim are two great biographers, then either he accepts their impartiality, or he does not. There's no logical sense made by using the two individuals to present a case, and then at other times to turn around and suspect the motives of the same two people.


The prosecutor has already dismissed this objection. The prosecutor acknowledges Bukhari and Muslim as two devout followers of Muhammad and therefore biased towards him. These historians collected the stories narrated by other believers. Verified the trustworthiness of the narrators to the best of their ability and using their own human judgment chose some as 1) Sahih (authentic), 2) Hasan (sound), 3) Dha'eef (weak), 4) Dha'eef Jiddan (very weak), and 5) Mawdhoo (fabricated). They chose only the Sahih (authentic) hadith and dismissed the rest. These men dedicated their entire life to those collections. We have no reason to doubt their devotion to the man they believed to be a prophet. They may have genuinely believed in the fabricated stories of the miracles attributed to their beloved prophet and exaggerated his virtues. This is understandable. Those stories must be read with a pinch of salt and pepper. However when they tell stories about his crimes with such details we have no reason to dismiss them. If there were not enough evidence for those crimes ever happening, these devout believers would not have reported them and surely someone would have objected. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that the stories of the crimes perpetrated by Muhammad are true while those attributing extraordinary powers to him are not. 

In fact such miracles attributed to Muhammad go against the Quran. According to the Quran when the disbelievers asked Muhammad to perform miracles: 

 Q. 17: 90
They say: "We shall not believe in thee, until thou cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth,

he would reply:

Q. 17: 93
Say: "Glory to my Lord! Am I aught but a man,- a messenger?" 

Therefore just as the followers would willingly fabricate miracles attributing them to their beloved prophet, they would fabricate hadiths extolling his alleged virtues. But it is not reasonable to assume that the followers fabricate false stories that would incriminate the one whom they love and literally worship. 

Mr. Shahzad narrates the story of Safiyah (By mistake he calls her Juwairiyah. This is a minor error and not consequential) He claims that after massacring the relatives and the loved ones of Safiyah, the prophet saw how beautiful she was and hence decided to protect her from being abused. He sought privacy in the tent with her to “console” her and tell her that there is “divine intervention is at play here”. 

He states that they slept together peacefully and nothing happened. But he does not explain why a man who claimed to be a messenger of God with sublime morals should sleep in the same tend with a beautiful woman. 

Yes indeed on the first night nothing happened. But that does not mean that Muhammad did not made advances towards this grieving woman. The following passage in the story of Safiyah shows that the defendant did try to force himself on her but was rejected. 

“The Prophet had a slight grievance against her for she had refused when the Prophet wanted to have privacy with her at the previous stage (of the journey).  

The defense claims that the proof no sex was involved is that Safiyah never bore a child to Muhammad. Apart from the fact that this is absurd since not all intercourses end up in pregnancy, the answer is that Muhammad being an old man was most likely impotent. He was very much enslaved to sex and loved to fondle beautiful young women. But none of his numerous young women (with exception of Mariah who was the maid of Hafzah one of his wives) bore him any child. (It is also debatable whether the slave girl Mariyah's child who died as infant really belonged to Muhammad.)  

The following hadith shows that the defendant loved sex:   

Bukhari Vol.7 Book.62 Number.6
Narrated Anas: The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives.   

However this does not mean that he actually could keep up to those young women. He simply content himself  to undress them and fondle them. 

Bukhari Vol.1 Book.6, Number.299
'Aisha said: "Whenever Allah's Apostle wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and start fondling her." 'Aisha added, "None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet could." 

A man who wants to be in control does not go round fondling naked women. Although this must be what he told his young wives to save face, the truth is that most likely he simply could not do it. He found pleaser touching and fondling his naked women and hallucinating about having sex with them.  

Volume 7, Book 71, Number 660:
Narrated Aisha:
Magic was worked on Allah's Apostle so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not (Sufyan said: That is the hardest kind of magic as it has such an effect).  

Could it be that the prophet’s visions of Gabriel were also hallucinations? There is enough evidence to cast doubt on the sanity of Muhammad. However that is another charge and we shall discuss it in another occasion.  

As the verses 4:24 and 23: 1-7 of the defendants own book reveal, he did encourage his followers to rape the women captured in war. No reasonable person would accept that having sex with women captured as booty is consensual sex. What kind of woman would want to have sex with the murderers of he husband, father, brothers and other loved ones? 

The fact that Muhammad committed rape is evident from the stories of Rayhanah, Safiyah and Juwairiyah and the fact that he sanctioned rape of the women captured in war is clear from the above Quranic verses. 

The verse states:4:24   

Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess:

Right hand possessions are women captured in war. 

The verses 23: 1-7 describe the virtues of a believer that include abstaining from sex 

 Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame.

The right hand possessions are women captured in war. The above verses are irrefutable proof that Muhammad sanctioned rape of the prisoners of war. 

The defense claims to be in disadvantage for not knowing the position of the prosecutor on “homosexuality, teen pregnancy, sex outside of marriage, pornography, sex at advanced age, minimum age requirements for sex, abortion, same sex marriages, sex paraphernalia, and other sexual topics”.  

Such an excuse is ludicrous. Why the position of the prosecutor on any of these issues should have any relevance to this case? We are putting on trial Muhammad for rape and other charges. Why should it matter to the defense or the jury what Ali Sina thinks about the above issues? If the defense wants to know what constitutes rape, the prosecutor will state that rape is any unconsensual sexual advance. And since the consensus of a captive woman cannot be recognized as freely obtained, sex with such woman constitutes rape. It is unreasonable to assume that a woman who has just lost her husband, father and many of her relatives would want to have sex with the murderer of her loved ones. The defense cannot present the defendant's impotence as the excuse that rape did not happen. By violating the privacy of these women, even if that means just fondling with their naked bodies Muhammad had committed rape against them. The fact that the defendant could not have erection and therefore he could not penetrate is no excuse. The intent was rape, even though he was stopped by his physical inability.  

As for the guilt of Muhammad, the evidence is overwhelming. We have historic facts narrated by his trusted followers, which prove without any shadow of doubt that rape happened. The complaint of the victims is not needed. In this case the victims could not complain to anyone. All their relatives were killed and they were hostages among the enemy.  

The defense claims that the defendant married Safiyah and other beautiful women whom he captured in war to protect them from being abused. Or as he puts it “The motivation by the defendant was one of compassionate protection of women in times of hostilities.” 

This is a lame excuse and a slap at the fact of justice. Muhammad used to fondle these women and had hallucinations of having sex with them. He prohibited them to remarry after his death even though the majority of these women were very young in their early twenties. If the defendant really cared about these women, he would not murder their husbands in the first place. The hostilities were all instigated by him. He was the aggressor. He raided the civilians with no warning, wreaked havoc and took away their peace, freedom, belongings, wives and lives. If he was motivated by compassion towards women he would not massacre their husbands and loved ones, he would not enslave them, he would not distribute them among his men as booty, he would not sanction raping them, he would not choose the prettiest ones for himself, he would not order them to take their cloths off so he could fondle them and he would not have sexual thoughts about them.

The prosecutor finds the choice of the word “compassion” attributed to this ruthless man revolting. The prosecutor has studied the entire life of the defendant and has found him to be a man bereft of human feelings, compassion and conscience.  

The prosecutor agrees with the defense to close this case and move on to other charges.  

Next we shall discuss the charge of pedophilia. The defense has already submitted his rebuttal and the prosecutor will try to respond.  


next  > 





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

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