Rape 1

Humanity vs. Muhammad bin Abdallah 

Part III 

Nov 20, 2003

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 

From Rahee Shahzad to Ali Sina

Now let me address, some of the additional response you had:

This is a matter of interpretation which actually is the core of this entire case, so I think stating the conclusion before intelligently having made your case very clear and not based on a handful of simplistic articles here and there, or based on very limited materials even rejected by most Muslims, is not entirely appealing. We will obviously address your charges one by one, won't we? 

I did. Marrying multiple times in our environment today is absolutely a problematic moral, and a vast majority of Muslims do not practice it. They have the commonsense to decipher what needs to be followed and what just cannot be replicated in today's society. Most of the advancing Islamic nations do not have sanctioned slavery. America abolished it 140 years ago, even tough it existed and was practiced by Christians. The consequences of that are being felt by African Americans today, but it will take time for racism from USA to go away completely. Morality shifted. So did it in Islam. And Muslims are capable of recognizing that. So instead of apologizing (as the 5th article above), I undoubtedly agree that the prophet married 12 times, and maybe more as some other "scholars" may find in some obscure sources. And he married a slave too, maybe more than one. Thomas Jefferson had slaves yet is revered. I suspect all founding fathers of USA had slaves. So what can we do today? Now one may argue that a prophet is above marrying more than once, because Jefferson and Washington did not claim to be prophets, hence the prophet should have shown a stronger moral fortitude. My question then is, why? Has it been established somewhere that marrying multiple times 1400 years ago was somehow immoral?? Says who? Was keeping slaves immoral 1400 years ago? Says who? Was slavery viewed 200 years ago in USA as an immoral or evil act? Where is that documented that most people hid their slaves in undergrounds? It was a generally accepted practice, and people displayed the moral fortitude of their time. Were the prophets and Jefferson and Washington supposed to be knowledgeable about moral fortitude of 2003? Where is THAT documented? I want to read about their ability to foretell the future. Does Quran say anywhere "In 2003, the morals will be that you will view multiple wives as morally correct".. And where is it documented that multiple wives was an extraordinary measure employed by very few men hence making it immoral in some way back then for the prophet to have done it. If Mormons in Utah today want to marry 4 women, are they morally wrong? Hence, if Muhammad married 12 women, or 35 women, or 400 women, he was displaying the normal fortitude of his time. Where are the articles that somehow make Mecca and Medinah the centers of current day morals about marriage? No apologies absolutely. Muhammad married many women and you can pick any number you wish. The number is not of concern. He displayed moral fortitude of this time in relationship to multiple marriages and married some slave girl too. So the point of multiple marriages and to slaves is???

Even if you brought 13000 articles of his multiple marriages, what is that supposed to prove? I just stated without any apology that he married multiple times and to some slave girls and kept with the normal code of his time, and vast majority of Muslim men do not marry multiple times today because of moral and societal shifting as it relates to married life.

Following Sunnah does not equal marrying 12 wives exactly by all Muslim men. In fact, if one has to stretch it, the Muslim men can only keep 4 women at a time (according to Quran) which precludes then the desire of Muslim men to emulate the prophet. Hence, this is a sunnah which actually cannot be practiced even if a Muslim wants to do it.

Commonsense is employed by most Muslim men in this regard, and so is employed by most Muslim women who will not agree to be the 9th wife of some

mullah dude, no matter how closely following sunnah he may declare himself. Many urban Muslim women in countries like Pakistan today will beat the Muslim guy out cold if he went around emulating 12 marriages and kept slaves.

Your insistence that Muhammad married multiple times then only proves one thing, that he married multiple times and had slaves. You want to bring him back in 2003 and force the moral fortitude onto him, and that's unfair to not only the prophet, but to all the founding fathers of USA (which gives the freedom of religion in the first place for us to even discuss this in an open environment)

I also am not triumphant at all. The case has not been concluded by either side, so I ask for patience in declaring triumph. 

Yes if other intellectual Muslims want to join in, I would feel delighted too. I request that those Quran-thumping, irrational, narrow minded, blind, and morally unfit Muslims please refrain from joining in. If there's an intellectual and spiritually uplifting aspect to this and makes some reasonable sense even though it can be argued by some, then yes please join in. Love and compassion, as I said, should not be monopolized by non-Muslims only :)

I disagree that the honor of Islam is at stake. Who is staking the honor? FFI? In that regard yes I agree that it might be challenged here, but as a religion on the whole, I doubt Islam's honor is at stake. But since I also came to this site to learn some more about the world, I really would like someone to do a better job than me, but please let me know first what groundbreaking revelation will be employed. Because if there's none, I can suffice myself here using the same sources that anyone else will use, and employing the same commonsense and style that is used to further the mission.

You may have set yourself up for triumph before the case actually is fully made, by virtue of having made up your mind about guilt. Hence, any refutation, no matter how logical or strong, will be rejected on grounds of being not absolute, which will each time yield you the same result, namely your triumph. So in this regard, I sincerely request you to be honest with yourself, just based on your own moral code. Ignore me as a Muslim, I am saying personally on a fellow human level that you espoused honesty, so certainly in your mind if that is not tugging at your conscience, then we're both ok.

So as a matter of fact, I will ask you to yield the following: 

1- Do you agree that employing the logic of injecting marriage morals of 2003 and then writing articles to discount and debase the multimarriage practice of ancient Arabia is a stretch?

2- Do you agree that in terms of moral fortitude in regards to marriage, that fortitude is to be judged based on the time and place in history?

3- Do you agree that the abolishing of slavery in America and it's nonpractice in many advancing nations today is a moral shift due to passage of time?

4- Do you agree that by the prophet marrying many times, he did not violate a moral norm of his time and today 12 marriages by Muslim men is probably only practiced in the remotest mountain villages?

5- Do you agree that marrying a slave may have had no moral or societal consequences 1400 years ago but today the moral code of marrying and keeping slaves is a societal shift seen in most Muslims nations? 

In above I am not arguing the ages of the wives, because the issue of Ayesha's age is for a separate discussion, so I do not want to muddle this multiple marriage issue by using that. Hence I request not to jump at that. I am shedding light on circumstances of the multiple marriages. If a slave was married after a war ended, I am including that here that in reference to societal norm 1400 years ago, which I have admitted will seem quite strange in today's environment, hence I do not hear about slaves being married after a battle in today's world. Moral shift, not a change of religion. 

So, I’ve been honest in my perspective Mr. Sina on issues of multiple marriages. I can from my own experiences insist that 12-15 marriages by Muslim men is just not happening today, and if someone is doing it, then it is the exception, not the norm among Muslim men of most advancing nations. Further, I cannot imagine marrying 10 women myself today coz I'll just go plain nuts tending to them. So in this context, yes if the prophets married multiple times, it is no compulsion on me to emulate THAT aspect today, and I am part of the vast majority of Muslim men who will agree with me on this. The Ahl-e-Sunnat themselves can attest that they are just not emulating this aspect at all and we all agree that the prophet married many times and kept slaves, based on the norms of his society and times. So if the Ummah has got with the program, why the insistence that we should all somehow ridicule the prophet for his marriages today. That's not to say that everything else is hunky dory, but as far as multiple marriages of the prophet go and him marrying a slave, we really just really do not emulate that. It's not an apology but a statement of fact. The prophet married many women and some were slaves and that's all there is to it. I really then do not want to read a gazillion articles on it, even tough I have most on this site. No matter how many I read, the bottomland implication or accusation is the same: He married x lady and he's not morally fit. 

And I think at the end of each article.."ok so what?".. He married many women and had slaves. So I should convert to atheism today because Muhammad as a human being married multiple times? An immense ideological and logical stretch for me at least. 

In my next response, I shall write on the age of wives and then maybe tackle the issue of Quran, which the defendant is being accused having concocted single handedly, as a team, or maybe Satan was responsible. Either way, I shall ask some straightforward questions of the prosecutor and hope to learn more.

Well that also is a matter of perspective. If one truly wants to be proven wrong will all the goodness of their heart and really prescribes to high morals and knows how to keep things within perspective and context, then yes plenty will have some intellectually appealing aspect for you. But if a mind is made up about a certain aspect, a predetermined outcome is envisioned, then I will concede that there's not a single living human today or ever in future who you will find capable of proving you wrong. I call this the circular motion logic based on some poster I once saw. It went something like this: 

Rule 1- I am always Right

Rule 2- If I am ever wrong, Please see Rule #1 

I myself do not subscribe to this logic because there's a lot that I can challenge and there's a lot I can learn and adjust. Of course, all aspects of faith to me are not black/white things. There's a lot involved. So to me, confidence and stubbornness are two different things.

:) Alas..  I can only hope. But in seriousness, I don't know how this all works dude. I'm presenting a response to you as a Muslim guy who has learned a lot and has thought about faith and have come to realize that Islam itself or any religion is not the problem, it is the handful of practitioners and those pesky jihaadi followers of theirs that are the bad seed. Maybe some governments too, but those dictators are following their own style of religion, which MAY be called Islam, but I just don't know what that religion can be called. I saw Saddam praying in a TV news item once. I cringed and then thought... Wait, who and what is he praying to? And what exactly is he asking for? cos to him being a Muslim was probably not the burning desire, but power certainly was.. So he prayed to something for even more power. 

Don't know if anyone was really listening. 

Thank you.  

From Ali Sina to Rahee Shahzad

Dear Mr. Shahzad, 

I am afraid you either did not read the articles on the wives of Muhammad or you missed the point completely. 

Your whole argument was about multiple marriages and why in your opinion it is irrelevant because the Muslims generally do not marry more than one wife at the time. 

The problem I presented is far more complex than the fact that Muhammad had a lot of women. The problem is that he raided innocent civilians with no warning, killed the men and then chose the prettiest women for himself and had sex with them on the same day he killed their husbands, fathers and loved ones.  This is the case of Jwairyah, Rayhanah and Safiyah. The stories of these women are extremely revealing as much as they are disturbing. 

I will narrate the stories of Jwairiyah and Safiyah in this part. About Rayhanah there is little detail available. 

All we know is that she was a member of the Jewish tribe Bani Qurayza. Muhammad surrounded that town and shut the flow of water to them. They had to surrender and then he ordered all the men to be beheaded, their belongings confiscated and their wives and children sold as slaves. 

Rayhanah was the most beautiful woman of this tribe. She became the sex slave of Muhammad. She refused marrying the mass murderer of his people. However, she had to accept the humiliation of being raped by her captor, the messenger of Allah. 

There is more documentation available about Juwairiyah and Safiyah and the details of their capture and rape are shocking. 

In continuation we will read their tale and your job, should you decide to continue as the defense attorney, is to justify the actions of Muhammad and acquit him of the charge of rape. 

These stories also contain evidence of the Prophet committing war crimes, treachery, plundering, slavery and utmost cruelty. However we will talk about these other charges in another time when I will present more horrendous evidence to back my claims.  

Juwairiyah

By Ali Sina  

In the history of the Arabs that predates the arrival of Islam, never before had there been such wars, certainly none on the scale and magnitude of those that were instigated by Muhammad the founder of Islam. Previous battles in Arabia had mainly centered on tribal differences and were confined to bouts of squabbling with some fights. With the introduction of Islam came not only war, but also an unrelenting genocide and terror that would quickly become integral components in furthering Islam’s expansionism. 

The early years of Muhammad’s prophetic carrier, in his native town Mecca, were peaceful. After 13 year of preaching no more than 70 or 80 people had embraced his cause. Not all of them were able fighting men. That explains why those early years were peaceful. Muslims did not have the strength to fight. However soon after Muhammad migrated and settled in Medina, and the Arab population of that town accepted his religion, he began invading and looting first the merchant caravans and then the human settlements to survive and to provide for his followers who had accompanied him and because of their lack of expertise had a difficult time finding employments in Medina.  

The fifth year of hijrah (migration to Medina) was an eventful year. That was the year that Muslims fought the famous war of the ditch against the Meccans and soon after that they surrounded the Jewish quarter of Bani Qaynuqa of Medina who were a prosperous population of goldsmiths and blacksmiths and after confiscating their properties (vineyards and homes) and belongings (jewelry and arms) they were banished from their ancestral home. After that he set his sight on another Jewish tribe, the Bani Nadir. He did a similar thing to them. He killed their leaders and many of their able-bodied men and after confiscating their properties and much of their wealth, expelled the rest from Medina. In neither of these cases the Jews offered any resistance. They were taken by surprise and simply surrendered under the superior forces of Muhammad’s men.  

Emboldened by his victories over these weaker, non-combative and non-threatening people who agreed to give up their wealth in exchange for their lives and goaded by an insatiable greed and his lust for power this self styled messenger of Allah then set his eyes upon other Jewish tribes of Arabia living outside of Medina. This time it was the turn of Bani al-Mustaliq. 

Bukhari, the great biographer of Muhammad, narrates the attack on Bani al-Mustaliq in the following story (Hadith) 

"Narrated Ibn Aun:
I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.” Volume 3, Book 46, Number 717:    

This same Hadith is recorded in the Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4292, which validates the claim of its authenticity. 

Muhammad molded his religion after Judaism and had great expectations that the Jews would be the first to heed his call. Nevertheless, to his chagrin, the Jews had no interest in his religion and he never forgave them for that. You cannot reject a narcissist without invoking his rage. Muhammad was so upset that he changed the direction of the Qiblah (the direction towards which the Muslims pray) from Jerusalem to Kaaba, which at that time was just a temple of idols and said Allah transformed the Jews were transformed into apes and swine because of their transgression (Q. 5:60) and (Q. 2:65). Muhammad made the Jews the scapegoat to rally his followers around himself. He was an expert of that old trick known as “divide n’ conquer”.  The Arabs of Medina were generally a bunch of illiterate folk with little skills and often poor who made their living by working in the vineyards of the Jews and rendering other services to them. They where originally immigrants from Yemen while the Jews were the masters of trades and the owners of the lands who had called Medina home, for 2000 years. They were easy targets.  Prowling their wealth and making more money by enslaving their women and children and distributing them among the poor Arabs while giving them the assurance that killing their masters and bread givers is not only ethical but also sanctioned by God proved a very lucrative enterprise for Muhammad, one that would change his fortunes, and set this new religion on its eventual path of war and military conquests.  

Muhammad sent one of his companions; Bareeda bin Haseeb, to spy on the Bani al-Mustaliq and after assessing the situation he ordered his men to attack. Muslims came out of Madina on 2nd Shaban of 5 A.H. and encamped at Muraisa, a place at a distance of 9 marches from Medina.   

The following quote from an Islamic site states:  

"The news of the advance of Muslim forces had already reached Haris. In panic, his men deserted him and he himself took refuge in some unknown place. But the local population of Muraisa took up arms against the Muslims and rained showers of arrows in a sustained manner. The Muslims launched a sudden and furious attack and routed the enemy, who suffered huge casualties and nearly 600 were taken prisoners by the Muslims. Among the booty there were 2,000 camels and 5,000 goats.
    The prisoners of war included Barra, the daughter of Haris, who later on became Hazrat Juwairiyah, the consort of the Holy Prophet. According to the prevailing practice all the prisoners were made slaves and distributed among the victorious Muslim soldiers. Hazrat Juwairiyah fell to the lot of Thabit bin Qais. She was the daughter of the leader of the clan, and therefore, very much felt the discomfiture and disgrace of being made slave of an ordinary Muslim soldier. Therefore, she requested him to release her on payment of ransom. Thabit agreed to this, if she could pay him 9 Auqias of gold. Hazrat Juwairiyah had no ready money with her. She tried to raise this amount through contributions, and approached the Holy Prophet also in this connection. She said to him "0' Prophet of Allah! I am the daughter of Al Haris bin Zarar, the Lord (chief) of his people. You know that it is by chance that our people have fallen captive and I have fallen to the share of Thabit bin Qais and have requested him to release me considering my status, but he has refused. Please do an act of kindness and save me from humiliation". The Holy Prophet was moved and asked the captive woman if she would like a thing still better. She asked as to what was that thing. He said that he was ready to pay her ransom and marry her if she liked. She agreed to this proposal. So the Holy Prophet (sallal alaho alahie wasallam) paid the amount of ransom and married her.”     www.trueteachings,com

The above is the story how Muhammad married Juwairiyah as recorded by Muslim historians. Interestingly Muhammad makes his Allah praise him with verses such as the following: "And surely thou hast sublime morals" (Quran 68:4). and  “Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow" (Quran 33:21). The question that begs an answer is; was he really the standard of sublime morals and good example to follow?  

First he attacks a population without warning and only because they were easy targets and wealthy. As usual he kills the unarmed able-bodied men, plunders their belongings, then enslaves the rest. Is this behavior befitting of a messenger of God? The narrator says,  “According to the prevailing practice all the prisoners were made slaves and distributed among the victorious Muslim soldiers.” As we read the history of Islam, we see this WAS indeed the prevailing practice of the Muslim Mujahedin, throughout the bloody history of Islam. Yet the question remains unanswered. Is this how a messenger of God should behave?  In another place Muhammad called himself the mercy of God for all the worlds 21:107 . What is the difference between this “mercy of God” and a ruthless marauding gangster and a tyrant? If Muhammad were not the “mercy of God” and if he were not “a good example to follow”, how else would he have then behaved?  

If this was the prevailing practice of the Arabs, couldn’t the messenger of God change it? Why engage in such a barbaric practice at all?  Did he not say that his is the example to follow? Why should a man with such a claim behave in so brutal a fashion? Was he merely following the customs of his people or was he attempting to set an example for them to follow?

It is very clear that Muhammad was not "moved" by compassion but by lust. Muhammad did not set free Juwairiyah because he felt sorry for her. He was a man incapable of such feelings. He wanted Juwairiyah for himself. And this is the man 1.2 billion people follow as the perfect example and a messenger of God. 

Unlike what most people may think, Muhammad’s intentions were not to convert people to his religion. His real aim was power, wealth and domination. Religion was just the pretext he used to subdue and conquer those he first sought to have dominion over. He weighed each case differently and considered its financial benefits. In most cases it was more profitable if the people did not convert to Islam, but killed and their belongings taken as spoils of war and their wives and children enslaved and soled with huge profits. This could bring sudden wealth to this “messenger of God” that otherwise he could not have. If people were given the choice they could have feared defeat and the harsh consequences and they could have accepted Islam. This would have impeded Muslims of looting them, which meant loss of profit. That is why Muhammad did not deem appropriate to warn the Bani Mustaliq just as he never warned his other victims but attacked them by surprise.  

Muslim, another biographer of Muhammad narrates:

Ibn 'Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi' said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.”  Book 019, Number 4292:  

Muslim warriors carried on this sunnah (examples set by Muhammad) after his death.

When a Muslim army invaded a town, they would not allow anyone to convert to Islam for three days.  During these three days they could kill as many men as they liked, pillage their properties, then rape and enslave their women and children. Only after a town had been decimated and all the young women and children that could be sold as slaves were captured would the brutal campaign of Islamization, with its brutal mandate that all must convert or die, began.  However the Jews and the Christians were given protection to live provided they pay a penalty tax called Jizyah and enter into dhimmitude. Dhimmi means protected. But the dhimmis had to pay a hefty jizyah for their protection.  This Jizyah was the source of livelihood of the Muslims who through it were able to live like parasites off the labor of the dhimmis. The following Hadith, reported by Bukhari, records the source for this practice based on the admonitions of Muhammad toward the dhimmi: 

Narrated Juwairiya bin Qudama At-Tamimi:
We said to 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, oh Chief of the believers! Advise us." He said, "I advise you to fulfill Allah's Convention (made with the Dhimmis) as it is the convention of your Prophet and the source of the livelihood of your dependents (i.e. the taxes from the Dhimmis.) "  Volume 4, Book 53, Number 388:      

Continuing the story of Juwairiyah, Aisha who accompanied the prophet on this expedition related: 

"when the prophet-peace be upon him- distributed the captives of Banu Almustaliq, she (Barrah) fell to the lot of Thabit ibn Qyas. She was married to her cousin, who was killed during the battle. She gave Thabit a deed, agreeing to pay him nine okes of gold for her freedom. She was a very beautiful woman. She captivated every man who saw her. She came to the prophet-peace be upon him-, to ask for his help in the matter. As soon as I saw her at door of my room, I took a dislike to her, for I knew that he would see her as I saw her. She went in and told him who she was, the daughter of al-Harith ibn Dhirar, the chief of his people. She said: "you can see the state to which I have been brought. I have fallen to the lot of Thabit, and have given him a deed for ransom, and I have to come to ask your help in the matter.' He said: 'would you like something better than that? I will discharge your debt, and marry you.' she said: 'yes. O then it is messenger of Allah! Done.' he replied.”  

This story ends any further arguments about to the real motives of Muhammad in marrying only the young and beautiful women. As it can be seen Muhammad murders the husband of Juwairiyah, who was also her cousin. Captivated by her beauty, he offers to free her, but only on the condition she marry him. After having come to Muhammad to plead for his help, this self declared Messenger of God, this self proclaimed “mercy of God for humanity”, this self styled “example to follow” by all the Muslims presents her with a most unwelcome choice, for whose price is that she must surrender her freedom.  What other choice could there possibly be for her?  Muslims apologetics insists that most of Muhammad’s wives were widows. They try to give the impression Muhammad married them as an act of charity. However as it becomes clear these women were young and beautiful. If they were widows, is because Muhammad murdered their husbands. Juwairiyah was just 20 years old then while Muhammad was 58. 

Interestingly, the name of Juwairiyah was originally Barra (Pious). Apparently Muhammad did not like this name and so changed her name to Juwairiyah. Even the two Zeinabs who were his wives were previously called Barra and he changed their names as well to Zeinab, It would appear the Prophet had some guilt in becoming sexually intimate with women that were called “Pious”. These seemingly incidental incidents reflect a certain hitherto humanity, a conscience, if you will, to his character, and perhaps hint at his own real, but hidden religiosity. Muhammad was certainly convinced of his own cause. However his understanding of reality was distorted as he had difficulty to distinguish between what is real and what is imagined. In fact Muhammad was more motivated by fear and superstitions than by conscience and ethics. 

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

It is said that when the Prophet-peace be upon him- departed from the raid with Juwairiyah and was at Dhuljaysh, he entrusted her to one of the Ansar and went forward to Madinah. Her father, al-Harith, discovered that she was held captive and went back o Madinah, bringing his daughter's ransom. When he reached al-Aqia, he looked at the camels he had brought as her ransom and admired the two of them greatly, so he hid them in one of the passes of al-Aqia. Then he came to the Prophet-peace be upon him- dragging the camels behind him, and told him: "My daughter is too noble to be taken as a captive. Set her free by this ransom." the Prophet-peace be upon him- replied: "Isn't it better that we let her choose her self?" that is fair enough," said al-Harith. He came to his daughter and said: "This man is letting you chose so do not dishonor us!" "I choose Allah's messenger," she replied calmly. "What a disgrace!" he exclaimed.

The Prophet-peace be upon him-, then said "where are two camels which you have hidden in al-Aqia in such -and- such a pass?" al-Harith exclaimed: "I bear witness that there is no God but Allah, and that you Muhammad are the messenger of Allah! For none could have know of this but Allah."

Ibn-i-S'ad in his 'Tabaqat', states that the father of Juwairiyah paid her ransom amount, and when she became free, the Holy Prophet married her. As a result of this marriage a11 the prisoners of war numbering about 600 were freed by the Muslims as they did not like that any member of the family in which the holy Prophet was married, be made a slave."  

It is hard to determine which part of these stories is true and which part is not. However, what is not so difficult to notice are the many contradictions contained within the main storyline. For instance, we read that Muhammad paid the ransom to Thabit the captor of Juwairiyah, and then married her after freeing her. Then we read that Hairth, the father of Juwairiyah also paid the ransom to set her free.  As to the claims of Muhammad having some sort of psychic power, that empowered him to know or tell certain things in advance, for instance knowing certain information such as the whereabouts of camels, we can safely conclude that these claims are false. On many occasions Muhammad demonstrated precisely the opposite, and proved that he was by no means psychic, let alone prescient, as he failed to discern or to obtain through divine blessings the information he so desired. For instance, when he raided Khaibar, he tortured the treasurer of that town, even to the point of death, just so he could extract from him the information that would lead to the whereabouts of the city’s treasures. 

It is important to understand the character of the Arab peoples. In this particular instance it was the Arabs who exhibited higher moral standards than their prophet. They released the relatives of Juwairiyah after they learned that Muhammad had married her. Muhammed was devoid of common decency, of having or showing even a hint of the virtues reflective of a moral leader.  Without any empathy for those whose misfortune it was to become his victim. 

Muslims claim that Juwairiyah became a very devout believer and would spend all of her days praying. The source of this claim can be found in the book Usud-ul-Ghaba. There the author writes that whenever the Prophet used to come to Juwairiyah he would find her praying, then when he would return at a later time he still found her praying. One day he said to her: “Shall I tell you few words, if you say them they will be heavier in the scale than what you have done? You say: 'subhaana allahe 'adada khalqihi, subhana allahe ridhaa nafsehe, subhana allahe zinata 'arshehe, subhana allahe zinata 'arshehe,subhana allah midadda kalimaatihi.' (Praise Allah as many times as number of his creatures, and as much as pleases him, and as much as the weight of his throne, and as much as the ink for his words). 

One wonders why Muslims spend 5 times a day praying and waste that much man hours unproductively when they have such a simple and unbeatable formula to praise Allah?   

Let us look at this situation from a more realistic perspective. Put yourself in the shoes of a young woman who has just fallen into the lot of a murderer of her husband who also happened to be her cousin!  As relatives, they grew up together. They were more than just husband and wife. They were first playmates, then lovers and  companions for life.  If you were a woman in Juwairiyah’s situation, how would you feel about the killer of your husband and many of your relatives and loved ones? Suppose further you don’t have anywhere to go to. Without any viable options for escape, your only choice would be to surrender as a sex slave to this old man, one who is the king of his people and has plenty of money or to be given away to one of his soldiers. Under whose captivity would you rather be?  I believe the answer is clear. Juwairiah had no choice but to accept Muhammad’s offer to marry her. Now what would any woman do if such an old man as this came to her for sex or company? She probably would devise a survival ploy. That is what Juwairiyah did. Any time she noticed Muhammad is coming, she pretended that she was busy praying, hoping that he would leave her and go to his other wives to satisfy his wretched lust. Yet, as we see, Muhammad was a cunning old man. He soon prescribed a sentence and told her that this “will be heavier in the scale” than praying all day long, robbing her from excuses to shun him when he desired her.  

Safiyah

By Ali Sina

The following is the story of Safiyah Bint Huyeiy Ibn Akhtab, the Jewish woman who was captured when Muhammad’s troops attacked Kheibar and brought her to the Prophet as part of his share of the booty.  This story, is reported in the Book of Tabaqat and is published also in the trusted Islamic site. http://www.prophetmuhammed.org/ (This site seems to be shut down now. The story was published is several Islamic sites when I wrote this article, but now not a single site carries it. However the story can be traced from the hadith easily. I suspect soon all Islamic literature will be withdrawn from the site as more and more it becomes evident that they are far more damaging to the reputation of Islam than anything I can write)

Safiyah was seventeen and very beautiful when Muslims killed her father, husband and many of her relatives. In the same day the Prophet of Allah wanted to sleep with her. Here is the exact text of the story in gree.

“Safiyah was born in Medinah. She belonged to the Jewish tribe of Banu 'I-Nadir. When this tribe was expelled from Medinah in the year 4 A.H, Huyaiy was one of those who settled in the fertile colony of Khaibar together with Kinana ibn al-Rabi' to whom Safiyah was married a little before the Muslims attacked Khaibar. She was then seventeen. She had formerly been the wife of Sallam ibn Mishkam, who divorced her. One mile from Khaibar. Here the Prophet married Safiyah. She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of the Prophet the whole night. When, in the early dawn, the Prophet saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: "I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account". The Prophet prayed for Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (Ibn Hisham, p. 766) Safiyah had requested the Prophet to wait till he had gone a stage away from Khaibar. "Why?" asked the Prophet. "I was afraid for you on account of the Jews who still happened to be near at Khaibar!" 

The reason Safiyah rejected the sexual advances of the 57-year-old Muhammad should be obvious to any objective person. I believe most women prefer to mourn than jump into bed with the killer of their father, husband and many relatives on the same day of their death. But the fact that the prophet of Allah could not contain his sexual urges for one day to let this young girl grieve, says a lot of his thinking and moral character. However as for the rest of the story we are not sure whether it is true or was fabricated by Muslim historians to wipe the impression of rape. But this is all we have and to find the truth we have to rely on these biased documents written by Muslim historians.  The story goes on to say that Abu Ayyub was concerned for the safety of the prophet because he (Muhammad) had killed Safiyah's father, husband and many of her relatives. This is logical. It is foolish to sleep with a woman after killing her loved ones. But Safiyah’s excuse for rejecting Muhammad’s advances towards her seems unreasonable. When Muhammad took this young girl into his tent, he had already killed many Jews and was winning the war. If there were any Jews left, they probably were more worried for their own lives than Safiyah’s chastity. Also she was already in the tent alone with Muhammad, how the Jews would have known if they were engaged in sex or not? I wonder what other excuse could she make to a man who was the murderer of her father, husband and many of her relatives to let her alone at least that night? 

“The next day a Walima (we dding-feast) was arranged on behalf of the Prophet… 

Note that the historian is saying that the wedding took place one day after the prophet got private with Safiyah and made his moves to have sex with her. This presented no problem for the prophet as he had his Allah reveal a verse saying it is okay to sleep with women captured in war without marrying them even if they are married. 

“And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess…” (Q. 4:24 )

The above verse shows that the Holy prophet did not believe that slaves have any right. You could be a happily married woman living your own life, but if Muhammad and his devout followers attacked your town and captured you, you would lose all your rights, and while your husband was being killed or enslaved you would be given to a Muslim Mujahid who would rape you all with Allah’s blessings.   

This is confirmed in another place.  

(Q. 23: 1-7) 

 1-The believers must (eventually) win through,-
2- Those who humble themselves in their prayers;
3-Who avoid vain talk;
4- Who are active in deeds of charity;
5- Who abstain from sex,
6- 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,
7- But those whose desires exceed those limits are transgressors;-

Let us continue with the story of Safiyah. 

“The other wives of the Prophet showed their jealousy by making slights upon her Jewish origin. But the Prophet always defended her. Once Safiyah was vexed to the extreme by the t aunts of all the Arab wives of the Prophet. She took the complaint to the Prophet, who felt great compassion for her. He consoled her. He encouraged her. He equipped her with logic. He said: "Safiyah, take courage and be bold. They are in no way superior to you. Tell them: I am a daughter of the Prophet Harun, a niece of the Prophet Musa, and a wife of the Prophet Muhammad".  

When she was brought along with other prisoners-of-war, the Prophet said to her, "Safiyah, your father always maintained enmity with me until Allah made the final decision." She said, "But Allah does not catch one for the sins of another." 

This of course contradicts Muhammad’s own behavior who annihilated the entire Bani Qainuqa with the pretext that few of them had killed a Muslim in retaliation . That is despite the verse that says "Namely, that no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another" (Q. 53:38)  Also it was not Allah who made the final decision. Safiyah's father was killed by Muhammad's men not by Allah. This would be the same as Hitler claiming that God killed all the Jews in the holocaust. If God wanted to kill all those people that Muhammad and his army killed He could have done it on his own. God needs no mercenaries to do his will.

“The Prophet then gave her the choice of joining her people after freedom or accepting Islam and coming into a matrimonial relationship with him” 

We have to remember that Muhammad killed most of her people and banished the rest of them. So giving the choice to join her people is not much of a choice.  

“She was very intelligent and gentle and said, "O Allah's Messenger, I had hoped for Islam, and I confirmed you before your invitation. Now when I have the honour to be in your presence, I am given a choice between kufr and Islam I swear by Allah, that Allah and His Messenger is dearer to me than my own freedom and my joining with my people." (Tabaqat). 

Was this confession, if true, sincere? Was she safe to speak out her mind? She was enslaved by a man who had exterminated her family and could do with her the same. See the reference made to her "freedom". This shows clearly that she was not free. In fact she must have been very intelligent to fabricate those lies to save her own life. 

“When Safiyah was married, she was very young, and according to one report she was hardly seventeen years old and was extremely beautiful. Once A'isha said a few sentences about her short stature, at which the Prophet said, "You have said a thing that if it were left in the sea, it would mix with it (and make its water dirty). " (Abu Dawud). She not only deeply loved the Prophet but also greatly respected him as Allah's Messenger, for she heard the conversations of her father and uncle after they went to Medinah. When the Prophet migrated to Medinah, they came to see him and find out whether he was the true Messenger of Allah spoken of in the Scriptures. When they got back and talked together that night, Safiyah was in her bed listening to them. One of them said, "What do you think about him?" He replied, "He is the same Prophet foretold by our Scriptures." Then the other said, "What is to be done?" The reply came that they must oppose him with all their might.” 

Is this story, narrated by Abu Dawud, credible? How can two Jews recognize Muhammad as the prophet foretold by their scriptures and decide to oppose him with all their might? It defies all logic. It takes a "deficient in intelligence" to believe in this nonsense. It is not clear whether Safiyah lied to conform and make her self accepted among her enemies or it is another fabrication of a zealot believer. Why would someone decide to oppose with all his might the one who he has found out to be the promised one of his own scriptures? But this is not all! Where in the Bible it says anything about Muhammad? How come Safiyah’s father and uncle could decipher their scriptures and find about Muhammad while for 1400 years all Muslim scholars have been unable to do it? 

“So Safiyah was convinced of the truth of the Prophet. She spared no pain to look after him, care for him and provide every comfort that she could think of. This is evident since she came into his presence after the fall of Khaibar." 

See how the writer contradicts himself in one page? Just a few lines above we read that she was captured and was taken to Muhammad as a prisoner. She didn’t come on her own. She was taken to the prophet because she was young and the prettiest of other women captured. 

“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). At the next halt, the Prophet had privacy with her and spent all night with her. When she was asked by Umm Sulaim, "What did you see in Allah's Messenger?" She said he was very pleased with her and did not sleep at all but was talking to her all night. He had asked her, 'Why did you refuse at the first stage when I desired privacy with you?' She had said, 'I was afraid for you because of the nearness of the Jews. "'This thing further increased my merit in his eyes." (Tabaqat). 

Bukhari also has recorded some Hadithes telling the invasion of Kheibar and how Muhammad met Safiyah. 

Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz:
Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her."

Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet .  (Sahih Bukhari 1.367)

Mahr or dowry is a money that a bride receives from her husband when he marries her. Muhammad did not pay Safiyah her Mahr because he had to pay it to himself for manumitting her. Of course the irony is that he did not buy her but enslaved her by raiding her town. This story is significant because it gives us an insight into the moral and ethical values of the Prophet of God (Peace be upon his immaculate soul).

Our modern sensibility makes us cringe with stories like this, yet amazingly Muhammad taught that he is going to receive two rewards by marrying Safiyah. One for manumitting someone whom no one but himself had enslaved and the other for marrying the prettiest girl who was 40 years younger.   

Abu Musa reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said about one who emancipated a slave woman, and then married her, that for him there are two rewards. (Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3327)

Also in another part

Narrated Anas:
The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned." Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet . The Prophet made her manumission as her 'Mahr'. (Sahih Bukhari V.5 B.59 N.512)

In this session, you posed a series of questions. I will try to answer them to the best of my ability.

1- I do not think that the morality of seventh century Arabs should be weighed by the moral standards of today.

2- I agree that the moral fortitude of a person should be judged with the morality of his contemporaries and his people.

3- I do agree that morality shifts and as I said in Part II of this debate, it is relative to time and place.  

4- I did not say that by marrying a multitude of women Muhammad violated the moral code of his time. And yes polygamy today is not the norm among the majority of the Muslims. 

5- Finally I do agree that sleeping with a slave girl 1400 years ago in Arabia was not considered immoral. And yes in “most” Islamic nation today such think is not practiced.

So as you see I agreed with all your points. Nevertheless I do not agree that these are good excuses to acquit your client.

Do you think that the example set by Muhammad as we saw in stories of Juwairiyah and Safiyah should be followed by the Muslims? 

If you say yes then of course you are saying that Muslims should raid the houses of the non-Muslims, kill them and rape their wives. If you say no and that what Muhammad did 1400 years ago should not be applied in the 21st century context, then all those above verses that tell the Muslims to follow the examples of the prophet become meaningless. 

The problem is that Muslims are not consistent. Do we have to follow the examples of the prophet or not? Did he set good examples for humanity to follow or not? 

Obviously you do not think that those examples are good for today. That is why you are excusing for him and saying that we should not judge him by our modern day standards and that what he did was not considered bad in his own time. So you do not think he is a good example for us. In that case he should not be emulated anymore. If that is your conclusion then doesn't this make Muhammad irrelevant? 

Muhammad was not just a historic figure. Washington might have slept with his maid slaves. In those days perhaps it was okay and we should not judge him harshly. But no one says that he is an example for all mankind to follow. The question here is not whether what Muhammad did was right or wrong according to the standard of the people of his time but whether he set a good example for mankind to follow. Obviously the answer is no and therefore even if Muhammad is not guilty, those verses of the Quran that eulogize him and tell us we should emulate him are wrong. You can't believe in those verses and at the same time say that today we should not follow the example of Muhammad anymore because times are changed. Does the Quran say that the Muslims should stop following him at anytime in future? 

So far we established that Muhammad is not a good example for all mankind and for all times. We also established that all those Quranic verses that say he was a good example to follow are lies. As the result we can determine that not everything in the Quran is true and hence not all of it is the word of God. 

These are two important discoveries. First of all that Muhammad is not not a good example, at least for today, and secondly those verse that say so are lies. If he lied once could he have lied more? Is it possible that the Quran is mistaken not just in this case but in other cases as well? 

You state that no Muslim in this day and age follows the example of the prophet and hence the question whether his example is good or bad is irrelevant. 

Why most Muslims do not follow the examples of the messenger anymore? Doesn't this mean that the Muslims in general have a superior moral standard than that of their prophet? Why follow a man whose standard of morality was not as high as ours? Shouldn't we follow someone better that ourselves? 

The next question is WHY Muslims do not follow the examples set by their prophet despite the fact that he told them to do so? Muslims today do not do what their prophet did because they follow their conscience and they see what he did was immoral and unethical. In other words Muslims do not follow Muhammad but their own conscience. If that is the case why hold unto him at all?

If we have to use our own logic to determine whether it is right to follow what he did or not doesn't this mean that we value our own logic more than we value him? 

Thanks heaven, most of the Muslims do not follow Muhammad, his words or his examples. But what would happen if they did? There are some Muslims who do. They do not use their conscience to decide whether what he did was right or not. They follow him in everything because they trust him more that they trust the human intelligence and human conscience. Osama bin Laden is one such Muslim. Imagine what would have happened if all the Muslims were like him? Imagine what would happen if all the Muslims followed Muhammad's examples to the letter. 

Did Muhammad came to set a good example or did he follow the example of the people he called "ignorant" Jaheliyeh? 

If he followed the example of the ignorant people of his time, by following him aren't we following those ignorant people by proxy? By telling people to follow me because I have "sublime morals", a "good example to follow" and " a most honorable Messenger" didn't he mislead people when in reality he was not setting a good example but following the bad example of the ignorant people of his time?

What is the conclusion then? The conclusion is that the moderate and good people who think they are Muslims are those who are less Muslims. Those who are real Muslims are really dangerous and evil people. Doesn't this prove that Islam is evil? I leave that to the Jury to decide. The more person is Islamic, the more seriously he takes the Quran, the more dangerous he become. Why is that so? Doesn't this prove that the Quran misleads people? 

If a book of guidance tells me to wage war against my neighbor, kill him and enslave and rape his wife, beat my wives if they are obedient, marry four but have sex with any number of women I can capture in war but I have to use my own intelligence and not do all these things, then what is the use of that book of guidance? Isn't it ironic to bring a book of guidance that misguides people and then tell them to use your own intelligence and do what is right? Is God playing joke on us? What kind of pathetic God would do such thing? 

Now I recapitulate:

Please leave every other argument aside for now and concentrate on the charge. Based on the evidence provided above and the confession made in the books of hadith and other history books, Muhammad raped his prisoners of war. I invite you to defend Muhammad of this charge. 

By definition, any nonconsensual sexual activity constitute rape. Can you tell me how a slave girl whose freedom has been taken away can consent to sex? 

The prosecution rests

Ali Sina 

  continues  >