Bassam Zawadi has written a response (*)
to my analysis of Muhammads marriage to Safiyyah (*).
Zawadi will attempt to point out my so-called inconsistent method of argumentation, i.e.
that I pick and choose narrations that support my argument (a case of the pot calling the
kettle black!), and expose me for citing sources which even I deem to be lies on the basis
that they were narrated by deceivers (i.e. al-Waqidi). Let us see how well he does.
Banu al-Mustaliq: Oppressors or Oppressed?
Zawadi justifies Muhammads actions against the tribe of Juwayriyyah, the Banu
al-Mustaliq, on the grounds that her people were planning to attack the Muslims.
He cites sources which make this claim but conveniently overlooks what the so-called
sound narratives say about this (this is the same gent who accuses me of selectively
citing my sources!):
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. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 46,
Number 717)
Here is another version of this hadith:
2403. It is related that Ibn 'Awn said, "I wrote to Nafi' and then he wrote to me
that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had launched A SUDDEN
ATTACK on the Banu'l-Mustaliq WHILE THEY WERE UNWATCHFUL and their
herds were being watered at the watering-place. He killed their fighters and took their
women and children captive. He got Juwayriyya [in his share] on that day. 'Abdullah ibn
'Umar reported it to me, and he was in that army."
(Aisha Bewley, Sahih Collection
of al-Bukhari, Chapter 52. Book of Setting Free, XIII: The one who owned Arab slaves
and gave, sold or had intercourse with them or took their ransom and their offspring as
captives; source)
And now this one from Muslim:
Chapter 1: REGARDING PERMISSION TO MAKE A RAID, WITHOUT AN ULTIMATUM, UPON THE
DISBELIEVERS WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN INVITED TO ACCEPT ISLAM
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 engaging 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. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019,
Number 4292)
The English translator of Muslim says regarding this specific narrative:
2220. According to Imam Nawawi, this hadith shows that those unbelievers who have
received the message of Islam can be attacked UNAWARE if the need so arises.
The correct view is that those who have not received the message of Islam, it is essential
to give them the Divine Message before giving them the ultimatum of war, but for those who
have received this message, it is desirable to inform them before entering the battle.
Exception can, however, be made in this case, when there is a dire necessity (Vol. II, p.
81).
(Sahih Muslim by Imam Muslim, Rendered into English by Abdul Hamid Siddiqi
[Kitab Bhavan, New Delhi, India, 11th reprinted 1995], Volume III & IV,
Kitab Al-Jihad Wal-Siyar (The Book of Jihad and Expedition), Chapter DCCIV:
Regarding Permission To Make A Raid, Without An Ultimatum, Upon The Disbelievers Who Have
Already Been Invited Accept Islam, p. 942, fn. 2220; bold, capital and italic emphasis
ours)
In other words, Muhammads example set precedence for other Muslims to attack
unsuspecting victims who refused to embrace Islam!
And here is what even one of Zawadis own sources says:
The Banu Mustaliq, a branch of Banu Khuza'a occupied the
territory of Qadid on the Red Sea shore between Jeddah and Rabigh. In 527 [sic]
C.E. news was brought to Madina that the Banu Mustaliq in
alliance with some other tribes were gathering to make a raid on Madina. The policy of the
Holy Prophet was that the Muslims should not lose the initiative in such cases, and should
take such tribes BY SURPRISE. Another aspect of the policy was that action
against individual tribes should be taken BEFORE they could effect an
alliance.
It is hard to accept that Banu al-Mustaliq posed a threat to the Muslims in light of
the fact that when Muhammads band of thugs came upon them they were busy tending
their flocks! One would think that the Banu al-Mustaliq would be readying themselves for
battle and arming their men with weapons if the Muslim assertion was true.
Zawadi also tries to justify Muhammads murdering the family of Safiyyah on the
grounds that her father had instigated the Arabs against him. He then cites a quote which
says that Safiyyah was satisfied by this answer:
As for the issue of Saffiyah and her being widowed, the Prophet (peace be upon him)
explained the situation to Saffiyah...
Here is Umm al- Mu'minin, Safiyyah, relates those
moments when she hated the Prophet for killing her father and her ex-husband. The Prophet
apologized to her saying, "Your father charged the Arabs against me and
committed heinous act," he apologized to the extent that made Safiyyah
get rid of her bitterness against the Prophet.
(Al-Bayhaqi, Dala'il
an-Nubuwwah, vol. 4, p. 230, Cited in Muhammad Fathi Mus'ad, The Wives of the
Prophet Muhammad: Their Strives and Their Lives, p. 166)
Even though it was her father and brother that got killed, she did realize [sic]
and understand [sic] that it was their crime that led to their death.
In response to such assertions, one needs to put things into perspective which Zawadi
conveniently fails to do. Even supposing that Juwayriyyahs tribe and Safiyyahs
family were planning to attack Muhammad and his band of killers one still needs to ask the
reason why they would want to fight the Muslims in the first place.
A careful examination of the Islamic sources reveals that the Arab tribes, specifically
the Meccans, were fed up with Muhammads threats and hostile attitude towards them.
Let us not forget that the Meccans tried to work out a peaceable solution with Muhammad
while the latter was in Mecca, one which he refused to accept. On top of that, Muhammad
started sending his men on raids against Meccan caravans, looting and (at times) murdering
helpless victims who were carrying property and merchandise back to their tribes and
peoples. For more details please read the following articles:
Basically, Muhammad was the problem since he was the one who threatened and then later
attacked people who didnt want to be bothered by his prophetic ambitions and
aspirations. But Muhammad couldnt leave well enough alone and had to meddle into
other peoples lives.
Is it any wonder that these tribes all got fed up with Muhammad and wanted to do
something about him? Were these people wrong for wanting to put an end to the harassment
by the Muslims? Were they wicked for wanting to insure the safety of their tribes and
families from the bloodlust and greed of Muhammad and his henchmen?
Zawadi shouldnt have a problem with grasping this logic since he uses this same
line of reasoning to justify Muhammads violent actions against others. Zawadi wants
his readers to believe that Muhammad was just in attacking pagans, Jews and Christians on
the grounds that these groups fought and threatened the lives and safety of the Muslims.
Yet Zawadi needs to be consistent and accept the fact that these same groups were
completely justified in wanting to exterminate the Muslims since it was Muhammads
men, not them, who started the aggression and hostilities.
Moreover, it will not do to say that Muhammad was a true prophet and therefore had
every right to interfere in the lives of people since Muslims have yet to prove that he
was a prophet. In fact, all the evidence shows that he was actually a false prophet who is
under the wrath of the true God of the Holy Bible.
This is precisely why the Jewish tribes rejected Muhammad since they knew from their
Scriptures that the true God that spoke to Abraham and Moses didnt commission him
to be his spokesperson. They had no choice but to reject him as an imposter.
For more on this issue we recommend the following articles:
Zawadi wants us to believe that Muhammad married Juwayriyyah because he wanted to save
her and her tribe from their fate:
Although Juwayriyya was young and beautiful and
of noble lineage, Prophet Mohamed (PEACE BE UPON HIM) was not thinking of all that,
he was thinking of how to save her and all her tribe from an ignoble fate.
This response basically ignores or overlooks the fact that it was Muhammads
decision to attack the Banu al-Mustaliq that led to her dire situation! Neither
Juwayriyyah nor her tribe would have been in such a predicament, i.e. captivity, had
Muhammad decided not to attack them.
Moreover, there was no need for Muhammad to marry her in order to free her since he
could have simply paid the price of her ransom and she would have gained her freedom.
Better still, Muhammad could have simply commanded the Muslims to set her and her
entire tribe free and they would have done exactly as they were told. After all, the
Muslims would have no choice but to obey Muhammads orders since the Quran likens
obedience to Islams prophet to obedience to Allah himself, and even threatens those
who disobey Muhammad with severe punishment:
And obey God and the Apostle; that ye may obtain mercy. S. 3:132
Those are limits set by God: those who obey God and His Apostle will be
admitted to Gardens with rivers flowing beneath, to abide therein (for ever) and that will
be the supreme achievement. But those who disobey God and His Apostle and
transgress His limits will be admitted to a Fire, to abide therein: And they shall have a
humiliating punishment. S. 4:13-14
All who obey God and the apostle are in the company of those on whom is
the Grace of God, - of the prophets (who teach), the sincere (lovers of Truth), the
witnesses (who testify), and the Righteous (who do good): Ah! what a beautiful fellowship!
S. 4:69
It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by
God and His Apostle to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys
God and His Apostle, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path. S. 33:36
In light of the foregoing doesnt it become obvious that the real reason why
Muhammad didnt order Thabit ibn Qays ibn Shammas to free Juwayriyyah is because he
was too mesmerized by her beauty and wanted her for himself? This leads us to our next
point.
Did Muhammad Marry Women For Their Beauty?
Zawadi asserts that Muhammad didnt marry Juwayriyyah only for her beauty. He
quotes:
The Prophet did not marry for beauty only
The aim of the Messenger of Allah to marry
Juwayriyah was mainly to propagate and extend the word of Monotheism to every corner. Even
though Juwayriyah was beautiful, and some of the Prophet's wives were even more beautiful,
the criteria for marriage, according to the Islamic legal system, must not be based
on one's physical beauty only.
We are at least thankful that he qualified his statement by adding the word
"only," which is an implicit admission that her beauty was part of the reason
Muhammad married her. He also cites the following:
Had it been that the Prophet wanted her for
her beauty, he would have selected her before distributing the booty. However, the
Prophet's marriage to her as far beyond that. It was for a noble cause, to influence her
tribe to embrace Islam.
Zawadi conveniently ignores Aishas own words which corroborate the fact that it
was Juwayriyyahs beauty which led Muhammad to propose marriage:
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
Juwayriyyah, daughter of al-Harith ibn al-Mustaliq, fell to the lot of Thabit ibn Qays
ibn Shammas, or to her cousin. She entered into an agreement to purchase her freedom.
She was a very beautiful woman, most attractive to the eye.
Aisha said: She then came to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) asking him for
the purchase of her freedom. When she was standing at the door, I looked at her with
disapproval. I realised that the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) would look at
her in the same way that I had looked.
She said: Apostle of Allah, I am Juwayriyyah, daughter of al-Harith, and something has
happened to me, which is not hidden from you. I have fallen to the lot of Thabit ibn Qays
ibn Shammas, and I have entered into an agreement to purchase of my freedom. I have come
to you to seek assistance for the purchase of my freedom.
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Are you inclined to that which is
better? She asked: What is that, Apostle of Allah? He replied: I shall pay the price of
your freedom on your behalf, and I shall marry you.
She said: I shall do this. She (Aisha) said: The people then heard that the Apostle of
Allah (peace_be_upon_him) had married Juwayriyyah. They released the captives in their
possession and set them free, and said: They are the relatives of the Apostle of Allah
(peace_be_upon_him) by marriage. We did not see any woman greater than Juwayriyyah who
brought blessings to her people. One hundred families of Banu al-Mustaliq were set free on
account of her. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 29,
Number 3920)
As one translator noted:
Similar frankness appears in the account in A.H. 6 of Muhammads marriage
to Juwayriyah, "a sweet, beautiful woman, who captivated anyone who looked at
her" (the words of Aishas). She had been captured during the raid
on the Banu al-Mustaliq and, in accordance with custom, became the slave of one of her
captors. The latter agreed to free her in exchange for a sum of money. Juwariyah
approached Muhammad for help, and the latter, CAPTIVATED BY HER BEAUTY, offered her
"something better" then payment of the price of her freedomnamely,
marriage with himself
(The History of al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam,
translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1997],
Volume VIII (8), p. xiii; capital emphasis ours)
As for Muhammad not selecting Juwayriyyah before distributing the booty is concerned,
there is a very logical reason why he didnt do so. He may have not seen her at the
beginning since if he had he would have immediately set her aside for himself. In fact,
Aishas own reported words substantiate the fact that Muhammad hadnt seen her
at first, and only saw her after she had been taken captive:
According to Ibn HumaydSalamahMuhammad b. Ishaq Muhammad b.
Jafar b. al-Zubayrthe Prophets wife Aishah, who said:
When the Messenger of God divided the captives of the Banu al-Mustaliq, Juwayriyah bt.
Al-Harith fell to the share of Thabit b. Qays b. al-Shammas (or to a cousin of his),
and she contracted with him for her freedom. She was a sweet, beautiful woman who
captivated anyone who looked at her. She came to the Messenger of God seeking
his help in the matter of her contract. By God, as soon as I saw her at the door of my
chamber, I took a dislike to her, and I knew that he would see in her what I saw
(The History of al-Tabari, Volume 8, pp. 56-57; bold and italic emphasis ours)
Aishas statement, that Muhammad would see her as she did, implies that he was
seeing Juwayriyyah for the first time.
Interestingly, this is similar to the situation with Safiyyah since Muhammad only found
out about her after Dihya had selected her for himself. When he was told about her
nobility and beauty Muhammad demanded that Dihya give her to him in exchange for other
slave girls:
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 Apostle! 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." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8,
Number 367)
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
We arrived at Khaibar, and when Allah helped His Apostle to open the fort, the
beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtaqwhose husband had been killed while she was
a bride,was mentioned to Allah's Apostle. The Prophet selected her for himself
(Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59,
Number 522)
Zawadi brings up the example of Sauda bint Zamah as further evidence that Muhammad
didnt necessarily marry women for their beauty:
The Prophet married Sauda bint Zuma [sic] when she was 50 years old andshe
was a widow.She was also not an attractive woman.
Ibn Kathir says...
There was great surprise in Mecca that the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would choose to marry a widow who was neither
young nor beautiful.
(Ibn Kathir, Wives of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW),
Source)
Zawadi couldnt have chosen a worse example to support his case than that of Sauda
bint Zamah, for at least two reasons. First, Zawadi conveniently forgot to quote the
reason that Ibn Kathir provided for this marriage:
And so it happened. After three years of constant struggle, a relative of his, called
Khawla, went to him and pointed out that his house was sadly neglected and that his
daughters needed a mother to look after them. "But who can take the place of
Khadijah?" he asked. "Aisha, the daughter of Abu Bakr, the dearest of people to
you," she answered. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) had been the first man
to accept Islam and he was the Prophet's closest companion. Like Khadijah, he had done all
that he could do to help the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and had
spent all his wealth in the way of Allah. However, while the Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him) was now fifty-three years old, Aisha as only a little girl
of seven. She was hardly in a position to look after either the Prophet's household
or children. "She is very young." Replied the Prophet. Khawla had
a solution for everything. She suggested that he marry at the same time a lady called
Sawda, the widow of Al-Sakran ibn 'Amr Sawda bint Zam'a, may Allah be
pleased with her had been the first woman to immigrate to Abyssinia in the way of Allah.
Her husband had died and she was now living with her aged father. She was middle-aged,
rather plump, with a jolly, kindly disposition, and just the right person to take
care of the Prophet's household and family Sawda went to live in Muhammad's
house and immediately took over the care of his daughters and household,
while Aisha bint Abu Bakr became betrothed to him and remained in her father's house
playing with her dolls.
(Wives of the Prophet Muhammad;
source;
bold and underline emphasis ours)
We, therefore, see that Muhammads reason for marrying Sauda was out of purely
selfish reasons, since he needed a caretaker for his young daughters.
Second, Zawadi also forgot to mention that Muhammad later wanted to divorce Sauda
because he was no longer attracted to her. Sauda worked out a deal with Muhammad to remain
his wife by relinquishing her visitation rights to Aisha, a proposal Muhammad all too
happily accepted:
Making peace is better than separation. An example of such peace can be felt in the
story of Sawdah bint Zam'ah who WHEN SHE BECAME AGED, THE PROPHET WANTED TO DIVORCE
HER, but she made peace with him by offering the night he used to spend with her to A'isha
so that he would keep her. The Prophet accepted such terms and kept her.
Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded that Ibn Abbas said, "Sawdah feared that the
Messenger of Allah might divorce her and she said, O Messenger of Allah! Do not
divorce me; give my day to 'A'ishah. And he did
In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that 'A'ishah said that when Sawdah bint
Zam'ah BECAME OLD, she forfeited her day to 'A'ishah and the Prophet used to spend
Sawdah's night with 'A'ishah
<And making peace is better>. It refers to the wife relinquishing some of
her marital rightsand his acceptance of the offer.Such compromise is
better than total divorce, as the Prophet did when retained Sawdah bint Zam'ah. By
doing so, the Prophet set an example for his Ummah to follow as it is a lawful act ...
(the preceding citation taken and adapted from Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Abridged, Volume 2,
Parts 3, 4 & 5, Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, Verse 147
[Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; first
edition March 2000], pp. 599-601, and Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Part 5, Sura An-Nisa, ayat
24-147, abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafai [Al-Firdous Ltd., London,
2000 first edition], pp. 193-194; bold and capital emphasis ours)
And:
One day, while the Prophet was staying with 'A'ishah, his other
wives delegated Zaynab, daughter of Jahsh, to go in and, in their name, to accuse him of
injustice and unfairness to them, and to plead that his love for `A'ishah was a violation
of the code which he himself had set down of a day and night for each of his wives. On
the other hand, realizing that the Prophet did not care very much for her charms, and
being no longer anxious to please him, Sawdah had given up her day and night to `A'ishah
(Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, tran. Isma'il Raji al-Faruqi
[American Trust Publications, USA 1976; Malaysian edition by Islamic Book Trust], Chapter
26: Ibrahim and the Wives of the Prophet, "The Rebellion", p. 437;
source;
bold emphasis)
Thus, Saudas example provides further corroboration for the fact that most, if
not all, of Muhammads marriages were done out of selfish motives and/or lustful
desires. It is little wonder that Muhammads contemporaries accused him of being
a womanizer:
Layla bt. al-Khatim b. Adi b. Amr b. Sawad b. Zafar b. al-Harith b.
al-Khazraj approached the Prophet while his back was to the sun, and clapped him on his
shoulder. He asked who it was, and she replied, "I am the daughter of one who
competes with the wind. I am Layla bt. al-Khatim. I have come to offer myself [in
marriage] to you, so marry me." He replied, "I accept." She went back to
her people and said that the Messenger of God had married her. They said, "What a bad
thing you have done! You are a self-respecting woman, but the Prophet is a womanizer.
Seek an annulment from him." She went back to the Prophet and asked him to revoke the
marriage and he complied with [her request]
(The History of Al-Tabari: The Last
Years of the Prophet, translated and annotated by Ismail K. Poonawala [State
University of New York Press, Albany, 1990], Volume IX, p. 139; bold emphasis ours)
And if being fifty is a reason to complain then Muhammads wives had plenty
of reasons to be angry in light of the fact that some of them were still teenage
girls (with Aisha being a girl of nine!) when Muhammad, who was well into his fifties,
decided to marry them!
A Question On Juwayriyyahs [Lack Of] Piety
Zawadi gets upset at me for paraphrasing Ali Sinas statement that Muhammad
changed Juwayriyyahs original name Barra, on the grounds that he was convicted
and felt guilty for what he did to her and to her tribe
(*).
He even claims to have refuted Sinas article
(*).
How does Zawadi attempt to explain the name change? By quoting hadiths that say that
Muhammad changed the names of one of his wives, Zainab, who was also named Barra, on
the grounds that this was a sign of arrogance on her part. To think that a person would
actually have the audacity to name herself pious!
Zawadi then makes the bold assertion that Muhammad was trying to teach them humility.
It is truly amazing how Zawadi doesnt see that such assertions only further
undermine Muhammads credibility.
In the first place, how can a birth name be a sign of arrogance when a person
doesnt have a say in the name that the parents decide to give him or her? In what
way does the name Barra imply that Zainab or Juwayriyyah were arrogant when this name
would have been given to them by their parents at birth? Was this a sign of arrogance on
their parents part?
Furthermore, if this reasoning is sound then does this mean that Muhammad and Abu Bakr
were arrogant individuals in light of their names and titles? For instance, Muhammad gave
Abu Bakr the title As-Siddiq ("The Truthful/Upright") whereas Muhammad was
allegedly called Al-Amin ("The Faithful/Trustworthy ", see also the discussion
in this article).
Moreover, Muslim sources say that the name Muhammad itself is an honorific title taken
from one of Allahs own names, thereby associating Islams prophet with deity:
Yet he has preferred our Prophet Muhammadsince He has adorned him with a
wealth of His names in His Mighty Book and on the tongues of His Prophets We
have recorded some of these names in this section. There are about thirty of them
One of His names is the Praiseworthy (al-Hamid). This means the One who is
praised because He praises Himself and His slaves praise Him. It also means the One who
praises Himself and praises acts of obedience. The Prophet is called Muhammad and Ahmad.
Muhammad means praised, and that is how his name occurs in the Zabur of Daud. Ahmad
means the greatest of those who give praise and the most sublime of those who are praised.
Hassan ibn Thabit indicted this when he said:
It is taken for him FROM HIS OWN NAME in order to exalt him.
The One with the Throne is praised (Mahmud) AND HE IS MUHAMMAD.
(Qadi Iyad
Musa al-Yahsubi, Muhammad Messenger of Allah (Ash-Shifa of Qadi 'Iyad), translated
by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K. 1991; third reprint,
paperback], pp. 126-127; capital and underline emphasis our)
Why would Muhammad allow himself to be called by such names and titles and why would he
give his companion the title as-Siddiq if proper nouns that convey a spiritual or moral
quality imply arrogance and pride? Or is it only pride and arrogance when women are given
such names and titles, but completely justifiable for men to have them?
And since we are on the subject of humility, note just how arrogant the following
assertions truly are:
Ye have indeed in the Apostle of God a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose
hope is in God and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of God. S. 33:21
And thou (standest) on an exalted standard of character. S. 68:4
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I shall be
pre-eminent amongst the descendants of Adam on the Day of Resurrection and I will be
the first intercessor and the first whose intercession will be accepted (by Allah).
(Sahih Muslim, Book 030,
Number 5655)
The Prophet said, "I will be the master of the people on the Day of Rising."
He will be their master in this world and on the Day of Rising.
However, the Prophet indicated that he alone will have mastery and intercession on that
day since people will take refuge with him and will not find anyone but him. On that day
he will be the only master among mankind. No one will compete with him about it or lay
claim to it, as Allah says, "Whose is the Kingdom today? Allahs, the One,
the Conqueror." (40:16) The Kingdom is His in this world and the Next World.
However, in the Next World the claims of those who made them in this world will be cut
off. Furthermore, all people will seek refuge with Muhammad to intercede for them. He will
be their master in the Next World without any pretension.
Anas said that the Messenger of Allah said, "On the Day of Rising, I will come to
the Gate of the Garden and ask it to be open. The Guardian will say, Who are
you? I will reply, Muhammad. He will say, Because of you I was
commanded not to open the door to anyone before you."
(Qadi Iyad, p. 109)
Muhammads boasting that he has an exalted character that should be emulated and
that he is pre-eminent among all human beings is the height of pride and arrogance. Thus,
if anyone needed to die to arrogance and pride and learn humility it was Muhammad, not
Juwayriyyah or Zainab.
Al-Waqidi: A Case of Selectively Citing My Sources?
Or Further Evidence of A Muslims Inability to Address the Real Issues?
Zawadi chides me for quoting narrations to support my position, without first assessing
whether such sources are reliable, while ignoring other statements which justify
Muhammads murderous ways.
He writes:
Shamoun the[sic] forgets his own articles that he has written.
Notice the narration Shamoun quoted...
Actually, it is Zawadi who has forgotten what he has written and failed to carefully
read what I stated (a common habit of his). After quoting from one of my articles where I
cited Muslim authorities that questioned the reliability of al-Waqidi, he states that:
Notice what Shamoun says in the end regarding this unreliable narrator...
It may be the case that this narration from al-Waqidi is
sound. But the burden of proof is upon the authors to show that it is, especially when the
other so-called "sound" collections do not report this version of the
story.
So the burden of proof is on Shamoun to show that these versions of the story
are reliable.
Let me repeat the specific part of my article that Zawadi cited:
However, we do need to put this in perspective. Al-Waqidi may have been considered a
liar without this necessarily implying that everything he reported was a lie. As the
following Muslim writes:
Al-Waqidi is reliable for purely historical reports. Ahl al-Hadith consider him too
honest and too rich a source to be discarded especially in light of Ibn Sa`d's
accreditation, which lent him huge credit--but they unanimously discard him with regard
to ahkam reports which are uncorroborated by other narrators e.g. wiggling the index
finger in Salat. It is the latter category they meant when they called him a liar, i.e.
thoroughly unreliable and/or inaccurate in his isnads, not at all that he was
dishonest. Al-Dhahabi said: "I have no doubt in his sidq." And Allah knows best.
It may be the case that this narration from al-Waqidi is sound. But the burden of proof
is upon the authors to show that it is, especially when the other so-called
"sound" collections do not report this version of the story.
As I stated, and as Zawadi himself noted, I clearly said that not everything that
al-Waqidi narrated can be considered unreliable, especially when we have corroborating
evidence to support his reports.
Moreover, if Zawadi bothered to read carefully what I said in my initial article he
would have found that I did supply the burden of proof to show that these quotes from
al-Waqidi have a very high degree of probability of being reliable.
I had noted that it is rather unreasonable to assume that a woman would want to sleep
with the person responsible for killing her family. After all, what pious and moral woman
would not be repulsed, and outright disgusted, at the idea of sleeping with the very
person responsible for the death and plundering of her family and tribe? Common sense(1)
tells us that Muslims made up the story of
Safiyyah agreeing to be Muhammads wife within a few days after the murder of her
family in order to salvage their prophets reputation. Common sense further says that
people would be taken aback by a womans willingness to have sex with and be married
to the very person responsible for the death of her family.(2)
In light of this, al-Waqidis reports comport perfectly with the reality of
the situation since individuals normally do not want to sleep with their familys
murderer and that such willingness to do so would be quite shocking to people.
Finally, we would like to expose Zawadis inconsistency and outright dishonesty
by quoting a portion of his "rebuttal" to me where he approvingly cites my
reference from al-Tabari, which has al-Waqidi as a narrator, to prove his point:
Secondly, notice what Tabari said:
They tried to drive each other away and fought. Quraysh aided
the Banu Bakr with weapons, and some members of Quraysh fought on their side under
cover of darkness until they drove Khuzaah into the sacred territory.
According to al-Waqidi: Among the members of Quraysh who helped the Banu Bakr against
Khuzaah that night, concealing their identity, were Safwan b. Umayyah,
Ikrimah b. Abi Jahl, Suhayl b. Amr, and others, along with their slaves.
When Quraysh leaguered together [with Banu Bakr] against Khuzaah and killed some
of their men, breaking the treaty and covenant that existed between them and the
Messenger of God by violating the Khuzaah, who had a pact and treaty with
him.
So this even goes to show that the Quraysh did
help Banu Bakr in attacking the Banu Khuza'ah and this went against the truce they made
with the Muslims. ("Muhammad and the Treaty of
Hudaybiyya" Revisited; source)
How convenient of Zawadi to use my reference to al-Waqidi to justify Muhammads
treachery and dishonesty! Since Zawadi now demands of me to provide proof that
al-Waqidis narrations are reliable he should have likewise demanded of me to
substantiate the above quote regarding Banu Bakr and the Quraysh as well, as opposed to
merely taking it at face value.
By now it should be obvious to the readers why Zawadi didnt question this
particular narrative seeing that it provided him with what he felt was evidence that
Muhammad wasnt acting treacherously against the Quraysh. In other words, Zawadi is
not interested in whether a specific report is reliable since his real intent is to find
any piece of information that will help his cause in defending Muhammads inhumane
and barbarous crimes against humanity, even if such info happens to come from sources
which Zawadi is only too willing to reject in other contexts.
Putting it simply, that which is inauthentic to Zawadi when it proves inconvenient for
his agenda suddenly becomes authentic/authoritative when it suits his purpose.
And this is the gent who has the audacity to accuse me of doing the same!
Did Muhammads Wives Really Have A Choice To Leave?
Zawadi argues that since the Quran gave Muhammads wives the freedom to leave no
one would have the right to harm them if they decided to walk away:
At the end of the day the Prophets wives had the freedom to leave...
Surah 33:28-29
O Prophet ! say to thy wives, `If you
desire the life of this world and its adornment, come then, I will provide for you
and send you away in a handsome manner; `But if you desire ALLAH and HIS Messenger and the
Home of the Hereafter, then, truly, ALLAH has prepared for those of you, who do
good, a great reward.'
The wives were given a choice. They easily could have left and no one could have done
anything to them because a Quranic verse, a command from Allah gave them that choice. They
could have walked away. Instead, they did not. They could have easily divorced the Prophet
and still pretended to be Muslims and then travel and run away. They could have found a
way. But they didn't. They wanted to remain as Muslims.
Zawadi, once again, brushes aside comments I made regarding this very point in my
initial article. I had stated that the Quran threatens Muhammads wives with double
punishment if they chose to disobey, and even cited Q. 33:28-29 to establish my case!
Now does this specific passage support Zawadis contention that Muhammads
wives were free to leave? Not at all since implicit in this very reference is the threat
of punishment:
But if ye seek God and His Apostle, and the Home of the Hereafter, verily
God has prepared for the well-doers amongst you a great reward. S. 33:29
The Quran is basically telling the wives that to walk away from Muhammad is to lose
eternal life, to incur eternal judgment. This is what is known as the carrot or the stick
approach, the definition of which is:
Dictionary
Combining a promised reward with a threatened penalty: took a carrot-and-stick
approach to the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders.
Business Terms
Strategy often used in negotiations where one side offers the other something it
wants while threatening negative sanctions if the other side does not comply with its
requests. Thus a union could offer wage concessions in exchange for better work rule
provisions while threatening to strike if no accommodation can be reached.
Idioms
Reward and punishment used as persuasive measures, as in Management dangled the
carrot of a possible raise before strikers, but at the same time waved the stick of losing
their pension benefits. This term alludes to enticing a horse or donkey to move by
dangling a carrot before it and, either alternately or at the same time, urging it forward
by beating it with a stick. [Late 1800s]
Wikipedia
Carrot and stick is a term (idiom) used to refer to the act of simultaneously
rewarding good behaviour while punishing bad behaviour. For example, if a worker is
slacking off using a company provided privilege or asset, the company may give the worker
something similar (usually allowance of use or a certain discount) at home while
restricting his access to the privilege at work. Effectiveness generally varies per
worker.
An older interpretation is the use of a carrot dangling on a stick in front of an
uncooperative mule, so that the encouragement is constant, but the satisfaction is
permanently elusive. (Source)
Muhammads wives were basically being told that they could walk away and lose
eternal life, or stick with Muhammad and gain eternal bliss.
In light of such options, it is not hard to see why the wives would choose to remain in
their condition since having come to the erroneous conclusion that Muhammad was the
Messenger of God they felt that abandoning him was a sure way of going to hell. As Aisha,
Muhammads child bride, put it:
Narrated 'Aisha:
(the wife of the Prophet) when Allah's Apostle was ordered to give option to his wives,
he started with me, saying, "I am going to mention to you something, but you shall
not hasten (to give your reply) unless you consult your parents." The Prophet
knew that my parents would not order me to leave him. Then he said, "Allah
says: O Prophet (Muhammad)! Say to your wives: If you desire the life of this world
and its glitter...a great reward." (33.28-29) I said, "Then why I consult
my parents? Verily, I seek Allah, His Apostle and the Home of the Hereafter."
Then all the other wives of the Prophet did the same as I did. (Sahih al-Bukhari,
Volume 6, Book 60, Number 309)
Aisha did the only wise thing a person could do in light of her beliefs and
circumstances. Due to the fact that the wives were convinced that Muhammad was a
legitimate prophet of God, they would have been foolish to reject their only hope of
eternal bliss. (Or so they erroneously thought. The fact of the matter is that their
belief in Muhammad actually caused them to lose eternal bliss, since salvation comes from
believing and trusting in the living and risen Son of God, the immortal Lord Jesus
Christ.)
Moreover, even though this command was given to the wives during the lifetime of
Muhammad this doesnt imply that they continued to have the freedom to abandon Islam
and remarry after the death of their prophet. The evidence we presented indicates that the
wives would have been severely punished if any of them decided to leave their religion or
marry someone else.
Bassams Tirade Against the Holy Bible:
More Evidence Of Zawadis Inconsistency
Bassam posted a series of article which attempt to "expose" the Holy
Bibles inhumane and wicked teachings. All the arguments used by him are
already thoroughly refuted in the following links:
Even more, in many of the above articles we turn the very same arguments of the
Muslims against the Quran and Muhammad to show how Islams prophet and sources fail
to pass the Muslim test of decency and morality.
What makes this rather interesting is that, in the introduction to his article, Zawadi
made the following comments regarding my appeal to the Torah to analyze Muhammads
morality:
Sam Shamoun threw in several topics into this short article of his.
1) Argument of Quran affirming the Bible
2) Argument that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not foretold in the Bible
3) Argument that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) didn't adhere to the Torah
Each one of these topics will just expand and divert from the main issue, and that is
whether there was anything wrong with the Prophet's marriage to Safiyyah.
In light of his assault against the Holy Bible the readers should be able to see why
the issue of what the Quran says about the Jewish-Christian Scriptures is pertinent and
relevant to this subject. After all, if Muhammad did confirm the authenticity of the Holy
Bible then Zawadis attack on it simply provides more evidence that Muhammad was
a false prophet or wicked.
To put it another way, Zawadis position basically implies that Muhammad believed
in a book that (according to Zawadi) contains gross, immoral teaching, which shows that
either Muhammad was immoral himself or a false prophet for thinking that such a book was
from God.
But the flip side of this argument is equally damaging to Zawadis beliefs as a
Muslim: Muhammad was correct that the Holy Bible is Gods Word which means that he
was a false prophet since he contradicted and violated its express teachings.
Moreover, Zawadi must have forgotten that he was the one who provided an Islamic
reference showing how the Torah supposedly established that Muhammad was a true prophet
and that Safiyyahs Jewish tribe was, therefore, guilty for rejecting him. This
approach presupposes that the Torah is authoritative and can be used as evidence either
for or against Muhammad. Yet when this same Torah exposes Muhammad as a false prophet
Zawadi decides to abandon it as a reliable source to judge Muhammads prophethood.
In other words, Zawadi is clearly trying to have his cake and eat it too.
Finally, Zawadis onslaught on the Holy Bible is nothing more than the fallacy of
tu quoque (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque).
To argue that the Holy Bible contains evil and wicked commands, as Zawadi tries to show,
does absolutely nothing to justify Muhammads vile and immoral behaviour. The most
this proves is that both the Holy Bible and the primary sources of Islam are evil and not
worthy of our belief.
Zawadi says:
Lets hope Shamoun can come up with proper objective arguments.
Hopefully, this rebuttal will meet his standard of what he considers to be proper
objective arguments. (We know that this is wishful thinking on our part since if Zawadi
were to concede this point then he would be basically admitting that Muhammad is a false
prophet and that the religion of Islam is a fraud.)
Since Zawadi quoted me quoting Dr. James R. White regarding the inconsistency of Muslim
polemics being a sign of a failed argument, I would like to conclude with these words in
light of Zawadis dishonest and inconsistent use of Islamic sources:
Zawadi, your inconsistency is a clear sign of your failure
as an apologist and writer.
All verses from the Quran taken from the Abdullah Yusuf Ali version.
Endnotes
(1) Muslims may want to question our appeal to the use of common sense and say that
we are being rather subjective and unscholarly in our approach. Yet our use of logic and
common sense to sift through authentic and inauthentic material from the primary sources
of Islam is one of the criteria employed by Muslims themselves, just as the following
quotes demonstrate:
That is the very reason why, in my opinion, all narratives, even if they have been
reported by people of impeccable character, integrity and honesty should not only be
considered in the light of the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh), but also
in the light of common sense. Any narrative reporting anything against the Qur'an,
the Sunnah or common sense, even if reported by highly truthful and honest
people is wrongly ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). I would like to ask "The
Doubter" to provide me with the basis relying on which he is so sure that the saying
[under consideration] is correctly ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). I am sure that if he
has any communicable and comprehendible basis of this certainty, I will also be able to
understand these basis and the problem shall stand resolved without much discussion. Till
such time, I have no option but to repeat again that "It is not the understanding of
Mohammad (pbuh) but the understanding ascribed to Mohammad (pbuh) that has been reported
in the narrative under consideration. This ascription, obviously, may or may not be
correct".
(Moiz Amjad, Questions & Comments on 'The Length of God's Days';
source;
bold and underline emphasis ours)
And:
As far as the Matn is concerned, the following principles of criticism of the Hadith
are laid down:
(1) The Hadith should not be contrary to the text or the teaching of the Qur'an
or the accepted basic principles of Islam.
(2) The Hadith should not be against the dictates of reason or laws of nature and
common experience.
(3) The Hadith should not be contrary to the Traditions which have already been accepted
by authorities as reliable and authentic by applying all principles.
(4) The Hadith that sings the praises and excellence of any tribe, place or persons
should be generally rejected
(5) The Hadith that contains the dates and minute details of the future events should be
rejected.
(6) The Hadith that contains some remarks of the Prophet which are not in keeping with the
Islamic belief of Prophethood and the position of the Holy Prophet or such expressions as
may not be suitable to him, should be rejected. [2] 'Abdur Rahman I. Doi, Introduction
to the Hadith (A.S. Nordeen, 2001), p. 15
(Hesham Azmy & Mohd Elfie Nieshaem
Juferi, Were She-Monkeys Stoned For Adultery?;
source;
bold and italic emphasis ours)
The main problem that Muslims have with employing this criterion is that much of the
teachings of the Quran and Muhammad go against the dictates of reason, common sense and
the laws of nature!
(2) Interestingly, Zawadi himself provides a quote that corroborates the veracity
of al-Waqidis narratives. One of Zawadis sources admits that Safiyyah hated
Muhammad for killing her family. Capital and underline emphasis is ours:
Here is Umm al- Mu'minin, Safiyyah, relates those
moments WHEN SHE HATED THE PROPHET FOR KILLING HER FATHER AND HER EX-HUSBAND. The
Prophet APOLOGIZED TO HER saying, "Your father charged the Arabs against me
and committed heinous act," he apologized to the extent that made Safiyyah get rid OF
HER BITTERNESS AGAINST THE PROPHET.
(Al-Bayhaqi, Dala'il an-Nubuwwah,
vol. 4, p. 230, Cited in Muhammad Fathi Mus'ad, The Wives of the Prophet Muhammad:
Their Strives and Their Lives, p. 166)
This source expects us to really believe that Safiyyah was satisfied with
Muhammads explanation when he was the one who started the hostilities against the
Arabs and Jews, bullied the Jews into believing in him and threatened them with banishment
or violence if they didnt accept his prophetic claims:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the
Jews." We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If
you embrace Islam, YOU WILL BE SAFE. You should know that the earth belongs to
Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone
amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that
the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53,
Number 392)
Narrated Abu Huraira:
While we were in the mosque, Allah's Apostle came out to us and said, "Let us
proceed to the Jews." So we went along with him till we reached Bait-al-Midras (a
place where the Torah used to be recited and all the Jews of the town used to gather). The
Prophet stood up and addressed them, "O Assembly of Jews! Embrace Islam AND YOU
WILL BE SAFE!" The Jews replied, "O Aba-l-Qasim! You have conveyed
Allah's message to us." The Prophet said, "That is what I want (from you)."
He repeated his first statement for the second time, and they said, "You have
conveyed Allah's message, O Aba-l-Qasim." Then he said it for the third time and
added, "You should Know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I
want to exile you from this land, so whoever among you owns some property, can
sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."
(See Hadith No. 392, Vol. 4) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 85,
Number 77)
In light of these circumstances, what else could these Jews do but try to seek a means
of escaping the tyranny of Muhammad? (This assumes, of course, that these Muslim sources
are accurately relaying events as they transpired as opposed to rewriting history to their
liking.)
Be that as it may, this reference supports our argument that the last thing in a
womans mind, who has seen her family murdered and has been taken captive, is to
marry and sleep with the very person who caused the events which led to her tragic
circumstances (provided that such a woman is sane and moral!).
The Holy Bible sternly warned Israel not to intermarry with the pagan nations lest they end up worshiping their gods/goddesses:
“Be sure to keep what I am commanding you this day: behold, I am going to drive out the Amorite before you, and the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite,
In this post I will show that the true God loves all nations equally, not just Israel. I will demonstrate that God commanded the Israelites to love the foreigner or non-Israelite as a fellow, native-born Israelite, and ordered that the same Law and commands equally apply to both Israelite and
