Lewdness, Immorality , indecency and
promiscuity
Humanity vs. Muhammad bin
Abdallah
Part VII
Dec. 03, 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
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 today’s time (we know there are
exceptions.. but that’s 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 wife’s 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 wife’s 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 I’ll
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 man’s
life make it automatically immoral. A person’s 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 other’s 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, it’s 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 didn’t “do” 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 son’s wife. And you actually have proof
that this was a marriage that produced some body outcome? There’s 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 woman’s
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. I’m 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 person’s
disposition is and how you learn a subject matter. In the absence
of photo albums and other videos of 1400 years ago, I’m 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 there’s 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 I’ll
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 didn’t 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 didn’t have many
problems keeping their women and the leadership as separate ideals.
JFK’s 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 “Viagra” 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 50’s, why is he being prosecuted so hard by the
prosecutor? Hence, if I understand Mr. Sina’s 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:
“I
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 fortitude”
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 person’s 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 defendant’s 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 it’s 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 don’t 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 I’m a guy, and I’m
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
defendant’s case? And
let’s 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. They’re
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 “manliness” 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? There’s
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 argument’s sake, let’s 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,
I’m giving estimate). So should I then start blaming all this on
lustful behaviors?
But
it’s actually not really your or my fault. With as much sex as we see
around us in movies, TV, etc, it’s not tough to find lust quickly J I read ALL your articles and read the
versions of Orientalists, Apologists, etc etc… 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 that’s like a technicality in today’s
environment. If a man is married and had sex with 2 women in same day,
then it’s polygamy. If a 21 year old in USA has sex with 4 different
girls during one year, then that’s ok. Fine. You can continue to
invoke this technicality. To me it just doesn’t appeal at all.
That’s
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 today’s western
standards, don’t 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. That’s why in Part1; I invoked
the definition of “Human”. 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 wife’s 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: “In disagreeing with the message, don’t shoot
the messenger”
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 Hafsa’s house and upon setting gaze at her maid
Mariyah, he finds her attractive and decides to get laid. He sends Hafsa
to Omar’s 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 one’s 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 Allâh
has made lawful to you, seeking to please your wives? And Allâh is
Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
2. Allâh has already ordained for you (O men), the dissolution
of your oaths. And Allâh 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 Allâh 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 (Allâh) has told me".
4. If you two (wives of the Prophet SAW, namely 'Aishah and
Hafsah) turn in repentance to Allâh, (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, Allâh
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 Allâh),
believers, obedient to Allâh, turning to Allâh in repentance,
worshipping Allâh sincerely, fasting or emigrants (for Allâh's sake),
previously married and virgins. “
Comment:
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 Muhammad’s 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 Muhammad’s
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.
Didn’t
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:
“Whoever
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.”
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 Muhammad’s 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 `A´isha, 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:
“As soon as the
marriage was contracted, there arose a storm of propaganda against the
Holy Prophet. …Therefore, 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.”
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 “revealed”.
`
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).”
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:
“It 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 Jesus’
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: “Muhammad'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 Prophet’s 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 can’t 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 can’t 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
|
