Leaving Islam



Lewdness, Immorality , indecency and promiscuity

Humanity vs. Muhammad bin Abdallah 

Part VII 

Dec. 03, 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  



The defense will now tackle the issue of the sexual orientation in light of the multiple marriages of the defendant, and since the objection over the age of one of the wives has already been discussed above, Ayesha will be included as the lawfully wedded wife of the defendant, together with the others he had married. According to popular sources, he may have married as many as 13 women. (More if other obscure sources are also taken) 

Mr Sina, allow me to change my tone to more informal now. 

Why have you somehow perceived the prophet as not a man who had sexual desires just like any other man of todayís time (we know there are exceptions.. but thatís another debate). Do you somehow wish that for a man to be chosen a prophet, he had to first be not sexual at all? Or is it your conviction that he should not enjoy sex with his wife just like another man is allowed to? If the defendant wished to have privacy and enjoy his wifeís company, why is such a big concern of yours? Are you somehow elevating him to the point that for you to have accepted him, he should have had no sexual desire or activity whatsoever? 

Even the most moral men these days can enjoy their wifeís body in the privacy of their homes, and a woman has the full right to enjoy her husband too, as long as the wife is not compelled or forced into any situation (and Iíll address this aspect separately because you may invoke some Quranic verse here, but I think I know the one you will use). Having sex multiple times by itself does not make a marriage full of lust. Neither does the desire for having sex with different women over the course of a manís life make it automatically immoral. A personís own sexual view of the world can make even the simple act be viewed as having been done for lust. And why is it such a big deal if a man has lust for his wife? Is a man and woman not allowed to have lust for each otherís body in the confines of privacy? 

Also, you actually have witnessed yourself that each marriage actually has sex as part of it? A marriage cannot be a marriage of convenience for the society, or to achieve some good? If you went out today and married a girl/woman, itís compulsory on you that you need to have sex too 90 times each day? So you actually have absolutely proofs that the defendant actually had each marriage to perform the act, and there was no chance absolutely that the marriages could have been in deed and not for the reasons you think they happened? Just like I cannot provide proof that he didnít ďdoĒ it, you also cannot provide the proof that he actually did. You may bring those sources that list his manly prowess as that of x-number of men, and that he visited each house every night, you actually have pictures of the acts? And so did all the scholars? You have detailed accounts of each one of his marriages actually being his bodily desire? You in one article go at length about his marriage to his adopted sonís wife. And you actually have proof that this was a marriage that produced some body outcome? Thereís no room for the idea that in a complex time and state of affairs, that there could have been something else at work and the womanís protection was desirable? You may take all these hypotheticals and invoke a gazillion books and sources and say that I am apologizing, and I am not. Iím asking you if you have proof that all 13 marriages (or more) actually had no other socially relevant aspect except for the conclusion you have made. If 300 scholars come together, they still cannot convince me that there was sex involved in each marriage. It all depends on what a personís disposition is and how you learn a subject matter. In the absence of photo albums and other videos of 1400 years ago, Iím supposed to infer as an imbecile that 13 marriages equal 13 ejaculations in 8 hours. If one has to obviously find all the text and infer lust, then you have satisfied yourself. And if I want to read all the same sources and infer that thereís probably more than one way of looking at this, then I have satisfied myself too. All the salacious stories are predisposed to bring out a person in a certain light anyway. Anyway, the point is that privacy of bedrooms rarely gets exposed. And a marriage may not have the automatic element that you want to find. You will give references of his marriage on whims.. etc.. I have read all of them. And I can present all of them to you with the same words but come to a different conclusion within norms of reasoning. 

But if you MUST insist on him being very interested in sex, then Iíll continue along those lines: 

Consider the present day situation; Millions of men in USA even today may go through as many as 8 to 10 women with whom they have had sexual relations. Many boys these days start sexual activity at 15 or 16, and by the time they are 60, may have been with various women. This of course is not looked by mainstream America today as an anomaly or injurious to the moral fabric of USA. Men today, regardless of who they are with, are genuine partners in that relationship, and sex is just one aspect of it. Girls have boyfriends in high school, teen pregnancy is fairly common, and even many Christian men may have many sexual experiences throughout their life. The same men today hold places of responsibility and their moral code is not challenged, regardless of them having had 30 partners through course of life. Even Bill Clinton succumbed to the lust aspect, but that didnít stop people from viewing him as President. If some war had happened after the Monica Lewinsky fiasco, soldiers still would have taken him to be Commander In Chief, and soldiers would have been willing to die for the country and cause at the direction of Bill Clinton. At some point, his discretion with a girl did not really tarnish his position to the point where he just could not lead a nation. All kept things in perspective and he served 2 terms in office. And not only he, presidents of the past also didnít have many problems keeping their women and the leadership as separate ideals. JFKís tendencies are not hidden, yet he is one of the most revered people today. 

You have also objected to his marriage at advanced age and then referred all his marriages (especially that to Ayesha) in that context too. The defense finds that extremely odd, given the sexual freedom and medical advances of western nations. Defense submits ďViagraĒ as one of the exhibits, that is being used today to prolong the sexual cycle of aging men. And the jury can itself find plenty of over 50 men all over the world who want to enjoy sex in a marriage. Some men, even without marriage, still want to feel vibrant about their bodies well into their later years. So if the defendant wanted to continue to feel vibrant sexually into his 50ís, why is he being prosecuted so hard by the prosecutor? Hence, if I understand Mr. Sinaís position, then I guess all 50 year-olds who want to have sex within a marriage are immoral, just as the defendant is being accused. The age difference between the man and woman is not for the prosecutor to decide, but for the world jury. If a 50-year-old wanting to marry a 20-year-old girl and trying to have a family; is obscene to the prosecutor, then as a matter of principle, the defense would like to ask the prosecutor to make another declaration here. Using this standard, if the prosecutor will find the defendant guilty, the defense then reserves the right to make inferences from the declaration at a later point in this case:

ďI Ali Sina, hereby declare under penalty of perjury, that I find it totally acceptable and obscene that a man of over 50 years of age should have sex or have feelings of love for any woman, old or young, in any society, past of present or future, and that such man, if ever having been documented of practicing polygamy or having married more than once, or having sexual desires of any kind for anyone, male or female, shall be declared deficient in all other regards, for having displayed a normal bodily desire to engage in sex. I further declare that it is counter to any accepted norms of any time for a man of that age to have been involved in fondling his wife within the privacy of his house, and if the man is found guilty of any of these, then he be rendered incapable of leading any nation, company, or any group of people, on account of having a morally deficient code, unworthy of any consideration, and downright insane. This statement shall apply to all men of all races, past present and future, and to all men who have claimed themselves as prophets too. I further declare that any US President, past present or future, if documented to have had sex at an advanced age, and the word advanced to mean 53 according to me, shall be impeached in the congress and declared mentally insane. If sex is committed with a slave, or with a girl who I will define as not of age because the society has no real legal statute for the definition of young or child, then this man be not considered morally fit. I also as the leader of this mission, hereby declare that whoever agrees to my mission and is above 50 years of age and will have sex with his wife or wives over the course of time, will not be considered part of the mission anymore, on grounds of being immoral. If the over 50-person ever married more than three times, he would be rendered insane by FFI. Since this mission is lynching a man 1400 years ago for having married many women and having been a sexually active person after 50, no missionary of FFI will ever be found of having similar moral fortitudeĒ 


Now of course you will invoke that a prophet is above all this and should have had the moral fortitude to have rejected sex in the name of God or a cause. And I would have to ask again.. WHY? What does a personís sexual orientation, or his desire for sex, or desire to have various women, have to do with being a leader? Even if you forget the prophet aspect totally, just on the basis of him being a leader, if people today 1400 years later can keep the message and the person separate (People vs Clinton), what makes you think that the defendantís leadership was undermined just because he had 12 wives? And why are you employing the double standard of lynching the defendant on account of him being an unfit leader, but still are mentally capable today of living in a country where sexual freedom is so near and dear to many. If you yourself were told that you could not marry more than once EVER, and that during one month you could only have sex once, would that moral code be acceptable to you? And if not, why should the defendant be judged as a leader for having had sex more than once in the same night (according to some sources). So itís OK 1400 years later for men to be leaders and have sex even outside marriage, but it should have been a taboo 1400 years ago for a man to want to enjoy sex. I just donít understand this double standard at all that you are displaying so eloquently throughout your site. I further read on the site, through invocation of various sources, that the defendant had the manliness of 10 (or more) men. And then I wonder, ok so how does that mean that he was any less of a moral man. In fact, I wonder why he had the manliness of 10 men, why not 10,000? Many men probably wish they could perform as one man, let alone 10. And maybe the wives and girlfriends can shed some more light on this, cos Iím a guy, and Iím not 100% sure about the manliness aspect today. And so if someone is capable of performing at the strength of 10 men as it relates to a wife in a marriage, how is the prosecutor equating that to deficiency in moral fortitude. In fact, maybe being a man 1400 years ago was proven by how much a person can actually perform, because without this prowess, maybe the society 1400 years ago just did not really take that leader seriously. Maybe wimps were just not in fashion, and hence to continue to demonstrate to society that a man is endowed with a natural power to perform at home was an important aspect of being a leader. If today the qualities of leadership have shifted with time, is it now the responsibility of ancient civilizations to come back and cry over it? If today the western societies have morally allowed men to perform in bed without the necessity of any marriage contract and perform it with zeal and vigor and even display it openly on TV and movies, well how do the men 1400 years ago fare in comparison? The only difference I find is the absence of marriages then, because otherwise the acts are fairly similar. So all men 1400 years ago, prophet or not, if we found today to have engaged in sex totally outside of marriage, will that improve the defendantís case? And letís even go further, by your own conclusion, you have accused the defendant of performing outside of marriage too. And that STILL is wrong according to your conclusion. So you are indecisive in your own conclusion. Theyíre damned if they do within marriage, and damned if they do without, so in essence, they should just not have had any desire of sex whatsoever, which I wonder how we even exist 1400 years later, if every man 1400 years ago was supposed to be celibate.


If the vast majority of muslim men are just not judged anymore on basis of how many wives they have and how much ďmanlinessĒ they possess, why do you want to impose on them that they SHOULD. If someone is in fact marrying more than once in rural areas, well there are more factors involved than just reading Hadees and following Quran. Polygamy in western societies has not been eradicated, so why do you insist it be eradicated from every other place? Thereís a way of bringing about the change in attitude in rural areas, but denouncing a 1400-year-old practice probably will not yield the result there.


In effect what you have done is you have first developed your own moral code, of which the sexual aspect has a certain ideal. Then you have raised the bar even further for the defendant. And now you have made him somehow above the need for sexual activity. To you, the defendant probably had to be a eunuch for him to even have a bit of credibility. Hence, any atheist today can be gay, bisexual, have 15 sexual encounters in a year, or even a week, and basically have total sexual freedom. Yet then you restrict the leadership of a different ideology to only one woman? Why are you being unfair to yourself and the jury? For the same sexual freedom that people fight today, where even a gay priest can now be part of a church in USA, you somehow in your mind want the prophet to be limited by your own standard. Why? I have already addressed his multiple marriage issue, and also the age of one of the wives that your site so vehemently objects to, but for argumentís sake, letís say all his wives were over 30, would that have been ok for you? Can he get some respect then? In fact, he displayed the same sexual freedom 1400 years ago that you and I see being fought for practiced today in a free country. And you say that he was ancient? 

You also then insist that he married for lust, and even if someone took that to be the case, HE STILL MARRIED! Can you say that about a lot of Christian men today? So single moms I guess, is your ideal situation? About 45% African American women mothers are single (you can research, Iím giving estimate). So should I then start blaming all this on lustful behaviors? 

But itís actually not really your or my fault. With as much sex as we see around us in movies, TV, etc, itís not tough to find lust quickly J I read ALL your articles and read the versions of Orientalists, Apologists, etc etcÖ And I keep thinking, where do you all hide the pictures of bedrooms from 1400 years ago? Whether an apologist or Syed Kamran Mirza or whoever else, the defense wants access to the pictures all of you have been hiding. 

But back to a more reasonable discourse, 

People dislike polygamy. Agreed. But thatís like a technicality in todayís environment. If a man is married and had sex with 2 women in same day, then itís polygamy. If a 21 year old in USA has sex with 4 different girls during one year, then thatís ok. Fine. You can continue to invoke this technicality. To me it just doesnít appeal at all. 

Thatís not to say that I have some hidden agenda against sex in USA. But for me to view the marriages of the defendant, even by todayís western standards, donít seem that big of a deal, and neither to a good portion of the muslims who just do not emulate this aspect, no matter how much you want to believe it. I never view him as a man who should have been devoid of any sexual desire. Thatís why in Part1; I invoked the definition of ďHumanĒ. He was a human first. Then he was a prophet. And you want him to have had the sexual fortitude of a celibate monk! 

The defense then rests on the case of his multiple marriages, the inconclusiveness of his very young wifeís exact age and the absence of any objection at that age of marriage in historical records, the absence of all 4 elements of pedophilia, his image as a person who somehow was solely driven by sexual desires, and his age at time of marriages. 

The defense hereby submits to the jury, that you view the case with all the reasonable judgement of an impartial group. If you are predisposed to the defendant being a certain way, and no amount of commonsense analysis is supposed to make any sense, then I have done what is humanly capable in giving you to consider. I did not even use sources or invoke Quran or any other scripture, Hadees or any scholar. I made an argument based purely on commonsense and with the same liberty that you and I fight for in free nations. If you want to ridicule the defendant and now find him guilty of the charges addressed by defense so far, of course then our commonsense is never going to meet. I hereby ask the jury to impart an unbiased decision, insofar as the charges of polygamy, pedophilia and sexual activity are concerned, exhibited by the defendant as the normal traits that are found in men today of most countries. If you are incapable of doing so given all the reasons stated so far and your own conscience and intellectual capability, then I guess we can respectfully agree to disagree. Please note that I am not asking you to accept the ideology that the defendant fought for. If you find the defendant guilty of certain moral deficiency based on what the defense has addressed so far, then that also carries a lot of responsibility for you. Hence, the reader is urged to keep things in perspective.  

As a certain adage goes: ďIn disagreeing with the message, donít shoot the messengerĒ 

In my next section, I will move to the case of the Quran as the objections raised here at FFI.


Thank you.


Dear Mr. Shahzad,


I am afraid you have missed the point of this trial. I am not accusing your client of being a sexual person. All of us humans are sexual beings as much as we are intellectual or spiritual beings. Sex is a function of us. This is what ensures the survival of our species. Sex is also a strong bound between a man and a woman who have to provide a loving and nurturing home for our future generations. 

I am accusing your client of lewdness, impropriety, indecency, lustfulness and promiscuity.   

Take the example of Mariyah. Mariyah was a maid of Hafsa, the daughter of Omar and one of the wives of Muhammad.

One-day Muhammad goes to Hafsaís house and upon setting gaze at her maid Mariyah, he finds her attractive and decides to get laid. He sends Hafsa to Omarís house, telling her that her father wanted to see her (a lie). When Hafsa leaves, Muhammad takes Mariyah to bed and has intercourse with her. Meanwhile Hafsa, who finds out that her father was not expecting her, returns home much sooner than expected, and to her surprise finds her illustrious husband in bed with her maid.

She becomes hysteric and forgetting the station of the prophet she shouts and causes a scandal. The prophet pleads with her to calm down and promises not to sleep with Mariah again and bades her also not to divulge that secret to others.

Hafsa would not control herself and relays everything to Ayisha who also turns against the prophet and jointly with his other wives cause him much anguish. So the prophet decides to punish all of them by not sleeping with them for one month. Depriving oneís wives sexually is the second step of punishment recommended in the Quran. The first step is admonishing them, the second step is depriving them of sex and the third step is beating them. Q.4:34.

Of course when a Muslim man decides to punish a wife through sexual deprivation he still can satisfy his sexual urges with his other wives. However Muhammad was angry with all of his wives for having ganged up against him and on the spur of the moment he made the oath not to sleep with any of them for one month. That of course would have been too much hardship for the beloved messenger of God. Therefore God in his mercy comes to the aid of his prophet and reveals the Surah Tahrim (Banning). In this Surah Allah gently rebukes Muhammad for being so hard on himself and for depriving himself from what he really likes and has been made lawful to him, in order to please his wives.

The following is the text of this funny Surah: Q. 66:1-5.

1. O Prophet! Why do you ban (for yourself) that which All‚h has made lawful to you, seeking to please your wives? And All‚h is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
2. All‚h has already ordained for you (O men), the dissolution of your oaths. And All‚h is your Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.) and He is the All-Knower, the All-Wise.
3. And (remember) when the Prophet (SAW) disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his wives (Hafsah), so when she told it (to another i.e. 'Aishah), and All‚h made it known to him, he informed part thereof and left a part. Then when he told her (Hafsah) thereof, she said: "Who told you this?" He said: "The All-Knower, the All-Aware (All‚h) has told me".
4. If you two (wives of the Prophet SAW, namely 'Aishah and Hafsah) turn in repentance to All‚h, (it will be better for you), your hearts are indeed so inclined (to oppose what the Prophet SAW likes), but if you help one another against him (Muhammad SAW), then verily, All‚h is his Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.), and Jibrael (Gabriel), and the righteous among the believers, and furthermore, the angels are his helpers.
5. It may be if he divorced you (all) that his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you, Muslims (who submit to All‚h), believers, obedient to All‚h, turning to All‚h in repentance, worshipping All‚h sincerely, fasting or emigrants (for All‚h's sake), previously married and virgins.

Although Muhammad gave his word to Hafsa, not to have sex with her maid, he could not resist the temptation. Especially now that he had taken another oath not to sleep with all of his wives. It was a difficult situation. On one hand he had to keep up his word or risk losing face and on the other he was not the kind of man that liked to deprive himself of pleasures. A solution had to be found and no one but Allah could help him. Well, nothing is impossible when you are the prophet of Allah. Leave everything in the hands of the Almighty and let him take care of it. And that is exactly what Muhammad did. Allah himself intervened and gave his favorite prophet the green light to follow his heart's desire. In the Surah Tahrim God licensed his beloved prophet to have his fling and not pay attention to his wives. What can a prophet ask more? Allah was so concerned about Muhammad's carnal pleasures that he even allowed ALL MEN to break their oaths as a bounty. Subhanillah. Isn't Allah great?

It is also worthy of mention that Muhammad who came to know that Hafsa did reveal the secret to Aisha, lied to her by pretending that it was Allah who told him so (verse 3) while he actually learned it from Aisha.

In reaction to the above verses, Ayisha, who was not only young and pretty but also clever, is reported to have said to Muhammad, "Your God indeed rushes in coming to your aid!"

Explaining the Surah Tahrim (66) Omar is reported to have said:

Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 648:

The Prophet did not go to his wives because of the secret which Hafsa had disclosed to 'Aisha, and he said that he would not go to his wives for one month as he was angry with them when Allah admonished him (for his oath that he would not approach Mariyah). 

This story must have been embarrassing for Muhammadís followers even when they gobbled mindlessly everything he told them. So they made other hadiths to explain those verses of the Quran that were already explained by Omar. 

Sahih Muslim Book 009, Number 3496:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) narrated that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) used to spend time with Zainab daughter of Jahsh and drank honey at her house. She ('A'isha further) said: I and Hafsa agreed that one whom Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) would visit first should say: I notice that you have an odour of the Maghafir (gum of mimosa). He (the Holy Prophet) visited one of them and she said to him like this, whereupon he said: I have taken honey in the house of Zainab bint Jabsh and I will never do it again. It was at this (that the following verse was revealed): 'Why do you hold to be forbidden what Allah has made lawful for you... (up to). If you both ('A'isha and Hafsa) turn to Allah" up to:" And when the Holy Prophet confided an information to one of his wives" (lxvi. 3). This refers to his saying: But I have taken honey.

Also Sahih Muslim Book 009, Number 3497:


The existence of the above Hadith and its difference with the one narrated by Omar reveals yet another fact that the companions of Muhammad were willing to lie, (as Muslims are today) to preserve the image of their prophet from blemish. It would be foolish to accept the excuse of drinking honey to justify those verses. Honey does not leave a bad smell. It is also inconceivable that a trivial incident like drinking honey could cause such an uproar in the household of the prophet to the extend that he decides to divorce all of his wives or to punish them for one month by not sleeping with them. Could such an insignificant incident like drinking honey provoke so much hue and cry that the creator of this universe had to intervene with a warning to Muhammadís wives that Muhammad would divorce all of them and He (Allah) would give him virgins and faithful wives? This explanation is absurd unless honey is the code word for something else that the prophet found between the legs of Mariyah.

The low moral standards and lack of ethical values of the defendant can be revealed by his examples and stories of his life. Like this one:

 Bukhari Volume 7, Book 63, Number 182: 
Narrated Abu Usaid
We went out with the Prophet to a garden called Ash-Shaut till we reached two walls between which we sat down. The Prophet said, "Sit here," and went in (the garden). The Jauniyya (a lady from Bani Jaun) had been brought and lodged in a house in a date-palm garden in the home of Umaima bint An-Nu'man bin Sharahil, and her wet nurse was with her. When the Prophet entered upon her, he said to her, "Give me yourself as a gift." She said, "Can a princess give herself to an ordinary man?" The Prophet raised his hand to pat her so that she might become tranquil. She said, "I seek refuge with Allah from you." He said, "You have sought refuge with One Who gives refuge. Then the Prophet came out to us and said, "O Abu Usaid! Give her two white linen dresses to wear and let her go back to her family. 

Didnít Muhammad have enough women already? Did he have to mount every beautiful woman whom he met? Pay attention to his temper. In one moment he is overtaken by lust asking his hostess to "give herself to him as a gift". When he is rejected he becomes violent and raises his hand to beat her. Then when she seeks refuge with Allah the self-acclaimed prophet comes to his senses and feels guilty for his despicable behavior. And to alleviate his conscience decides to compensate his victim by bribing her. Is this the profile of a mentally stable man? 

I am not accusing Muhammad of liking women. I accuse him of lusting after married women. I accuse the defendant of being a lecherous man who was ready to sacrifice anything to satisfy his quirks.

In the story of Aisah and the case of pedophilia I said that Arabs were a primitive lot with little rules to abide. Yet they had some code of ethics that they honored scrupulously. The Arabs prior to Islam had the noble costume of adopting orphans and raising them as their own.

Maududi, the commentator of the Quran writes:

ďWhoever was adopted by the Arabs as a son was regarded as one of their own offspring: he got share in inheritance; he was treated like a real son and real brother by the adopted mother and the adopted sister; he could not marry the daughter of his adopted father and his widow after his death. And the same was the case if the adopted son died or divorced a wife. The adopted father regarded the woman as his real daughter-in-law.Ē

Muhammad did away with this noble tradition to justify his marriage with his daughter in law Zainab who was married to his adopted son Zaid. .

This scandalous story of Muhammadís lust and immorality is reported in Kitab al Tabaqat. 

Muhammad Ibn Yahya Ibn Hayyan narrated, "The Messenger of God came to Zaid's house seeking him. [Zaid was then called Zaid Ibn Muhammad]. Perhaps the Messenger of God missed him at that time, that is why he said, 'Where is Zaid?' He went to his house seeking him and, when he did not find him, Zainab Bint Jahsh stood up to [meet] him in a light housedress, but the Messenger of God turned away from her. She said, 'He is not here, Messenger of God, so please come in; my father and mother are your ransom.' The Messenger of God refused to come in. Zainab had hurried to dress herself when she heard that the Messenger of God was at her door, so she leapt in a hurry, and the Messenger of God was deeply moved by her when she did that. He went away muttering something that was hardly understandable but for this sentence: 'Praise be to God who disposes the hearts.' When Zaid came back home, she told him that the Messenger of God came. Zaid asked, 'You asked him to come in, didn't you?' She replied, 'I bade him to, but he refused.' He said, 'Have you heard [him say] anything?' She answered, `When he had turned away, I heard him say something that I could hardly understand. I heard him say, "Praise be to God who directs the hearts." ' Zaid went out to the Messenger of God and said, 'O Messenger of God, I learned that you came to my house. Did you come in? O Messenger of God, my father and mother are your ransom. Perhaps you liked Zainab. I can leave her.' The Messenger of God said, 'Hold on to your wife.' Zaid said, 'O Messenger of God, I will leave her.' The Messenger of God said, 'Keep your wife.' So when Zaid left her, she isolated herself and finished her legal period. While the Messenger of God was sitting talking with `Aīisha, he was taken in a trance, and when it was lifted, he smiled and said, 'Who will go to Zainab to tell her the good news that God wedded her to me from heaven?' The Messenger of God recited, 'Thus you told someone whom God had favoured and whom you yourself have favoured: "Hold on to your wife."?' " (Tabaqat, 8:101-102). 


Muhammad already had four other wives: Sawda, Aisha, Hafsa and Umma Salama. Yet he was becoming powerful and by now confident that his brainwashed followers would accept any indecency from him and thus he felt no need for self-control.

Despite that many Arabs including his followers were shocked and found his conduct questionable. Maududi explains:

ďAs soon as the marriage was contracted, there arose a storm of propaganda against the Holy Prophet. ÖTherefore, they seized the question of this marriage as a godsend for themselves and thought they would put an end to his moral superiority, which was the real secret of his power and success. Therefore, stories were concocted that Muhammad, God forbid, had fallen in love with his daughter-in-law, and when the son had come to know of this, he divorced his wife, and the father married his daughter-in-law.Ē

As the Jury can see Muhammad lusted after his own daughter in law when he laid eyes on her scantly dressed body. He pretended receiving a revelation from his handy Allah that he married her to him in the heaven, so he entered upon her and possessed her with no further ado. The following narrative shows that the motive was nothing but lust.

`Aisha said, "I heard a great deal about her beauty and, moreover, about how God wedded her from heaven, and I said, 'For sure she will boast over this with us.'" ( Tabaqat, 8:101-102). 

It was in this occasion that the verse known as curtain was ďrevealedĒ.   `

Sulaiman Ibn Harb narrated, quoting Hammad Ibn Zaid, quoting Ayyub Ibn Abi Qulaba that Anas said, "I know about this verse, 'the verse of the curtain', more than anyone else. When Zainab was given to the Messenger of God, he held a banquet on the night he married Zainab, invited the people and served them a meal. He wished that they leave afterward, because his mind was set on his bride. He stood up to let them know he wanted to leave, so some left. He stood up once more, but some stayed. He stood up a third time, and then they all left. So he entered his house [where the bride was] and Anas followed him, but he prevented him [from coming in] by letting down the curtain and said,

"O ye who believe! Enter not the Prophet's houses,- until leave is given you,- for a meal, (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation: but when ye are invited, enter; and when ye have taken your meal, disperse, without seeking familiar talk. Such (behaviour) annoys the Prophet: he is ashamed to dismiss you, but Allah is not ashamed (to tell you) the truth. And when ye ask (his ladies) for anything ye want, ask them from before a screen: that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs. Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy Allah's Messenger, or that ye should marry his widows after him at any time. Truly such a thing is in Allah's sight an enormity. " 33.53 

The people arose and he let the curtain down. al-Simt al-thamin, p.110; al-Isti`ab, 40:1851; al-Isaba, 9:83.

The above is one example of how the defendant manipulated his gullible followers and bent the rules of decency as he went on. He lusted after a married woman who was none other than his own daughter in law. He claimed that his god married her to him in heaven so he could enter upon her with no waste of time. But the greatest harm he caused is to annul the most beautiful tradition of the Arabs, which was the tradition of adopting the orphan children. Here I quote the opinion of some of the Islamic scholars in defense of what their prophet did and leave the judgment to the Jury.

Maududi writes:
This custom clashed in every detail with the laws of marriage and divorce and inheritance enjoined by Allah in Surahs Al-Baqarah and An-Nisa. It made a person who could get no share in inheritance entitled to it at the expense of those who were really entitled to it. It prohibited marriage between the men and the women who could contract marriage perfectly lawfully. And, above all, it helped spread the immoralities which the Islamic Law wanted to eradicate. For a real mother and a real sister and a real daughter cannot be like the adopted mother and the adopted sister and the adopted daughter, however one may try to sanctify the adopted relations as a custom. When the artificial relations endued with customary sanctity are allowed to mix freely like the real relations, it cannot but produce evil results.

This concept, however, could not be rooted out by merely passing a legal order, saying, The adopted son is not the real son. The centuries old prejudices and superstitions cannot be changed by mere word of mouth. Even if the people had accepted the command that these relations were not the real relations, they would still have looked upon marriage between the adopted mother and the adopted son, the adopted brother and the sister, the adopted father and the daughter, and the adopted father- in-law and the daughter-in- law odious and detestable. Moreover, there would still exist some freedom of mixing together freely. Therefore, it was inevitable that the custom should be eradicated practically, and through the Holy Prophet himself. For no Muslim could ever conceive that a thing done by the Holy Prophet himself, and done by him under Allah's Command, could be detestable. Therefore, a little before the Battle of the Trench, the Holy Prophet was inspired by Allah that he should marry the divorced wife of his adopted son, Zaid bin Harithah (may Allah be pleased with him), and he acted on this Command during the siege of the Bani Quraizah. (The delay probably was caused for the reason that the prescribed waiting period had not yet ended, and in the meantime the Holy Prophet had to become busy in the preparation for war).Ē


Heykal in his book The Life of Muhammad writes:

The All-Wise Legislator willed to undo the Arab practice of adopting children and passing onto them the adopter's genealogy and name, his investment of them with all the rights of the legitimate son including that of inheritance and the prohibition of marriage on grounds of consanguinity. The divine Legislator willed to give the adopted son only the right of a client and co-religionist. In this sense, the verse was revealed that: "God did not make your adopted son a. your own sons. To declare them so is your empty claim. God's word is righteous and constitutes the true guidance."[Qur'an, 33:4] It follows from this revelation that the adopter may marry the ex-wife of his adopted son and viceversa. But how is such provision to be implemented? Who, among the Arabs, could implement this legislation and thereby openly repudiate the ancient traditions? Even Muhammad himself, despite his tremendous willpower and profound understanding of the wisdom implicit in the divine command, found himself disinclined to implement this judgment by marrying Zaynab after Zayd had divorced her. Indeed, the criticisms of the commonplace and the vituperations with which he was indicted in the public eye for breaking down such well established custom did, for a time, influence Muhammad's judgment and affected his decision. It was at this stage that the following divine criticism was addressed to Muhammad: "Would you hide, 0 Muhammad, within yourself that which God was going to bring to light anyway? Would you fear the gossip of the people? Isn't God more worthy of being feared?" [Qur'an, 33:37] The truth is, however, that Muhammad was the exemplar of obedience to God; his life was the implementation of that which he was entrusted to convey to mankind. The outcome, therefore, was that Muhammad would not give any weight at all to the gossip of the people if he were to marry the ex-wife of his adopted son, since the fear of social condemnation is nothing comparable to that of condemnation by God, of disobedience to divine commandment. Thus, Muhammad married Zaynab in order to provide a good example of what the All-Wise Legislator was seeking to establish by way of rights and privileges for adoption. In this regard, God said: "After a term of married life with her husband, We permitted you to marry her so that it may hence be legitimate and morally blameless for a believer to marry the wife of his adopted son provided that wife has already been divorced. That is God's commandment which must be fulfilled." [Qur'an, 33:37]


The above is the typical expose of how the mind of a Muslim works. Indeed there is no narcotic more potent than religion. The fact that Muhammad annulled the most sublime human tradition does not make wonder this great scholar of Islam. He never questions what is so wrong with adopting an orphaned child and raising him like your own? Why would Allah dislike such a wonderful thing that virtually saves the life of the orphan, provides a loving home for him and allows a couple who may not be able to have children of their own have a child through adoption? Why would God want to abolish this lofty practice?

Instead of asking these logical question that might lead to questioning the claim of Muhammad, the apologists of Islam accept a priory that Muhammad was a messenger of God and whatever he did was the right thing, even if it is abhorrent and disgusting to our senses.

These very apologists would denounce any other person committing these acts of immorality, yet accept happily any evil act perpetrated by Muhammad. Heikal, under the heading of Great Men and the Law continues:

ďIt is possible to refute all these claims with one argument. If supposed to be true, they constitute no flaw in the prophethood of Muhammad, in his own greatness or that of his message. The rules which are law to the people at large do not apply to the great.

Heikal goes on to explain that Moses also was a murderer yet this did not stop his prophethood and that Jesusí entire life is a flagrant violation of the cosmic law because he was born through immaculate conception and therefore one should not blame Muhammad for violating the human laws of decency and morality. Heikal adds: ďMuhammad's violation was not one of a cosmic law but one of a social law, which is permissible to every great man

According to the logic of this great Islamic scholar, not only Hitler, but all the criminals, are great men as they also violate the moral and the social laws just as the great Prophet of Islam did.  To Muslims Muhammad was superlative in everything including his lusts for women, his cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians, his assassinations or his looting and plundering. To a Muslim the evil acts perpetrated by Muhammad are not proof that Muhammad was a liar but proof that those evil acts are divine. 

The prosecution accuses Muhammad of sacrificing the lives and happiness of millions of orphans and depriving them of a loving home to justify his lust for his own daughter in law, to cover up his own immorality and save face in front of his followers. This indeed is one of the most evil acts of the defendant. This man had no conscience and could care less of the harm that he would cause to the society. Millions of orphans who could be adopted and be raised in loving families were deprived of this bounty, being not mahram (lawful) to their would be mothers and sisters, they could not be admitted in any household and were left in the streets to fend for their own survival. Millions of them perished and millions grew up as beggars and ended up in poverty. I demand justice for these wasted and perished lives.  

The prosecutor presents the verse 33.53 quoted above as an exhibit of how the defendant used Allah for his own lustfulness, caprices and selfish desires.

How foolish one must be to believe that the maker of this vast universe be so concerned about his prophet that reveal verses telling the believers, do not enter the Prophetís house without invitation, leave after you eat your meal, do not seek familiar talk with him lest you annoy him and I the maker of this universe tell you this because my prophet is shy? 

It is obvious that Muhammad, after four years of struggling with poverty in Medina, in this fifth year, had won few wars, had looted a few caravans and had taken possession of the wealth of the Jews whom he had banished and now he wanted respect from his follower. He wanted to send the message that they should not just treat him like one of their own as they used to when he was a nobody and depended on them to feed him. He wanted them to know that he is somebody. He has the wealth, can marry as many women as he wishes (in fact in that very year he married three additional wives) and now he can afford giving banquets. So they must from now on respect him. But of course it would not look very modest to ask that directly. And modesty was the image that this narcissist man wanted to project of himself. So he put words in the mouth of his handy and ever- ready-to-appease god, and makes his wishes "revealed" as divine decrees.

Muhammad knew that if he told his beguiled followers, you must respect me from now on; they could have known that he is after power and self-aggrandizement. How come he was just another companion all these years and now that he is rich, he is demanding respect? So he lets Allah to speak on his behalf and do his bidding. Certainly no man would be able to argue with that. If he lusted for a woman, he would make his god reveal a verse, if he wanted respect, his god was there to comply with his wishes, if he had quarrels with his wives, his god could put them all in their place and make them obedient.

This man took everyone for a ride. He invented a cult to fool people. Muhammad was not just a liar but a monster. It is hard to find a man as evil as him in the annals of history. I urge the jury to find the defendant guilty of lewdness, of indecency, of immorality and of deceit. I urge my Muslim brothers and sister to open their eyes. Muhammad was not a messenger of God. He lied. The proof is overwhelming. It is foolish to believe that great men need not obey the laws. Great men are the first to obey the laws of morality, ethics and the Golden Rule. Muhammad broke every law of the Golden Rule. God canít be so sadist to send us a man with such a low moral fiber, who would break all the moral laws to tell us such an immoral man as a messenger. Muhammad did not set a good example. He was not honorable. He did not have sublime morals. I urge you to condemn Muhammad, take your life in your own hand and salvage your soul.

If God and Devil are real, Allah is Devil and Muhammad is his messenger. God canít be this evil. Save your soul my friend and spread this message to save the world before this Devil blows it up.


The Jury may comment here





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

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