Was Wealth A Motive For The Prophet Muhammad

Was Wealth A Motive For the Prophet Muhammad (peace
be upon him) To Fabricate Islam?

By
Bassam Zawadi
There are those that try to claim that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) might have
possibly had wealth as a motive to fabricate Islam and his Prophethood.
However, when one examines the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) one would see that this
does not seem at all to be plausible.
One argument that opponents put forth is the fact that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)
had several houses and they would quote Surah 33:53 in order to demonstrate this. However, just
because one has several houses this does not necessarily imply that the houses are luxurious or
are filled with luxurious possessions.
The Prophet's house was not built of any precious stones just like the Kings of the past:
Nearby, rooms reserved for the Prophet's household were built of stones and adobe bricks
with ceilings of palm leaves. [Bukhari 1/71,555,560; Za'd Al-Ma'ad 2/56], cited here)
Umar ibn Al Khattab (arguably, the second greatest companion of the Prophet (peace be upon
him) and is also the second caliph after Abu Bakr) states that:
Saheeh Muslim
Book 009, Number 3507
I visited Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he was lying on a mat. I sat
down and he drew up his lower garment over him and he had nothing (else) over him,
and that the mat had left its marks on his sides. I looked with my eyes in the storeroom of
Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). I found only a handful of barley equal to
one sa' and an equal quantity of the leaves of Mimosa Flava placed in the nook of the
cell, and a semi-tanned leather bag hanging (in one side), and I was moved to tears (on
seeing this extremely austere living of the Holy Prophet), and he said: Ibn Khattab, what
wakes you weep?
I said: Apostle of Allah, why should I not shed tears? This mat has left its marks on your
sides and I do not see in your storeroom (except these few things) that I have seen;
Caesar and Chosroes are leading their lives in plenty whereas you are Allah's Messenger.
His chosen one, and that is your store! He said: Ibn Khattab, aren't you satisfied that for
us (there should be the prosperity) of the Hereafter, and for them (there should be the
prosperity of) this world? I said: Yes.
So here we observe that the Prophet (peace be upon him) definitely did not live in a palace nor
slept on luxurious beds.
Others argue that Allah made the Prophet (peace be upon him) wealthy through conquests and
they put forth the following narration:
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 3, Book 37, Number 495
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Whenever a dead man in debt was brought to Allah's Apostle he would ask, "Has he left
anything to repay his debt?" If he was informed that he had left something to repay his
debts, he would offer his funeral prayer, otherwise he would tell the Muslims to offer
their friend's funeral prayer. When Allah made the Prophet wealthy through
conquests, he said, "I am more rightful than other believers to be the guardian of the
believers, so if a Muslim dies while in debt, I am responsible for the repayment of his
debt, and whoever leaves wealth (after his death) it will belong to his heirs."
They would also state that the Qur'an says that the Prophet would receive a fifth of the war booty
and cite verses from the Qur'an such as Surah 8, Verses 1 and 41.
However, as we can see the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not take this money in order to live
luxuriously. He used to take that money and give it away in charity instead of keeping it for
himself. (See Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 4, Book of One-fifth of Booty to the Cause of Allah,
Hadith number 326, where Umar ibn Al Khattab says "So this property was especially
given to Allah's Apostle, but, by Allah, neither did he take possession of it and leave your,
nor did he favour himself with it to your exclusion, but he gave it to all of you and
distributed it amongst you till this property remained out of it. Allah's Apostle used to
spend the yearly expenses of his family out of this property and used to keep the rest of its
revenue to be spent on Allah's Cause. Allah's Apostle kept on doing this during all his
lifetime.")
The Prophet (peace be upon him) would use whatever wealth was necessary in order to take care
of his family. Now one may argue that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used this (i.e. fabricating
Islam) as a means to take care of himself and family.
However, this doesn't seem to be very convincing. Couldn't the Prophet (peace be upon him) find
an easier way to earn a living? Why did he go through years of persecution in Mecca and endure
humiliation and ruin his reputation amongst his friends and relatives for this purpose?
The Prophet (peace be upon him) used to actually be wealthy before his Prophethood (while he
was trading with his wife Khadija). Thus, why the need to fabricate a religion?
Also, the Meccans offered the Prophet (peace be upon him) wealth and fame in return for him to
stop preaching Islam, but he refused. To this offer he replied:
By Allah, if they put the sun on my right and the moon on my left to leave this matter, I
would not, until Allah shows me otherwise or I die trying for its sake. (Ibn Hisham, AsSirah an-Nabawiyyah, Volume 1, page 265)
If his motive really was for wealth then he would have taken the deal.
Also, it's not like the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his wives were living luxuriously:
Saheeh Muslim
Volume 7, Number 324
Narrated Abu Hazim:
I asked Sahl bin Sad, "Did Allah's Apostle ever eat white flour?" Sahl said, "Allah's
Apostle never saw white flour since Allah sent him as an Apostle till He took him unto
Him." I asked, "Did the people have (use) sieves during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle?"
Sahl said, "Allah's Apostle never saw (used) a sieve since Allah sent him as an Apostle
until He took him unto Him," I said, "How could you eat barley unsifted?" he said, "We
used to grind it and then blow off its husk, and after the husk flew away, we used to
prepare the dough (bake) and eat it."
Book 024, Number 5185:

A'isha reported that the pillow on which Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)
reclined was of leather stuffed with palm fibre. (See also Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 8,
Book Pertaining to Making the Heart Tender, Hadith number 463)
Despite his responsibilities as a prophet, a teacher, a statesman, and a judge, Muhammad (peace
be upon him) used to milk his goat, mend his clothes, repair his shoes, help with the household
work, (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith number 23606 and declared authentic by Shaykh Albani
in Saheeh Al Jaami', Hadith number 4937)
Opponents would cite the following verse from the Qur'an:

Surah 93:6-8
Did He not find you (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)) an orphan and gave you a
refuge? And He found you unaware (of the Qur'an, its legal laws, and Prophethood, etc.)
and guided you? And He found you poor,and made you rich?
They would then argue that this refers shows that Allah made the Prophet (peace be upon
him) wealthy.
However, we have to put into consideration that this Surah was revealed early
in Mecca and that is why Ibn Abbass was of the opinion:
And he also said: (Did He not find thee) O Muhammad (destitute) poor (and
enrich (thee)) with the wealth of Khadijah; and it is also said this means: and
made you content with that which He gave you? The Prophet (pbuh) said: "Yes, O
Gabriel!" (Tanwr al-Miqbs min Tafsr Ibn ?Abbs, Commentary on Surah
93:8, Source)
The Prophet (peace be upon him) married Khadija who was wealthy. However, the
Prophet married Khadija way before he became a Prophet. So it's not like the Prophet
(peace be upon him) used Islam to gain wealth.
Or it could simply mean that Allah made him rich in a spiritual sense:
: ,
And Ibn Attaa' said: And He found you poor in spirit, so He enriched your heart. (Abu
'Abdullah Al-Qurtubi, Tasfir al Jami' li-ahkam al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah
93:8, Source)
Furthermore, the Prophet (peace be upon him) could have easily stolen the goods of the Meccan
Kuffar that he had in his possession (since one of his jobs was being a caretaker of people's
goods) while migrating to Medinah. Rather, he ensured that their property was fully returned to
them despite their ill treatment of him. (This also goes to show how the Kuffar still trusted him
with their property even though they accused him of fabricating Islam):
On the night of the Hijrah, Muhammad confided his plan to 'Ali ibn Abu Talib and asked
him to cover himself with the Prophet's green mantle from Hadramawt and to sleep in the
Prophet's bed. He further asked him to tarry in Makkah until he had returned all things
left with Muhammad to their rightful owners.(Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of
Muhammad, Chapter: Al Hijrah or the Prophet's Emigration, Source)
This event is also recorded by Al-Bayhaq in As-Sunan Al-Kubr Volume 6, page289 and Sheikh AlAlbn declared it to authentic (hasan) in Erwaa Al Ghaleel, Hadith no.1546.
In conclusion, the argument that money could have been a motive for the Prophet (peace be upon
him) to fabricate Islam does not really hold any water. If he was really in it for the money then
we would expect to have seen him living a lavish life, yet this is far from reality. Just because the
Prophet (peace be upon him) had much wealth in his possession, that doesn't mean that he spent
it on himself. Rather, he used it for the benefit of society (e.g. helping orphans)
Christian Missionaries On Surah 61:6

By
Bassam Zawadi
Christian Missionary Argument:

Surah 61:6 shows Jesus saying that there will be another Prophet to come after him whose
name is Ahmad. This cannot be referring to Muhammad because his name is not Ahmad.
My Response:
Imam Al Qurtubi said...
" " .
;
. " "
.
,
. ,
;
. .
.
. ,
.
, ;

. .
.
,
;

: " " .
: , :
.
,
.
The name 'Ahmad' is the name of our Prophet (peace be upon him), which is derived
from an adjective not a verb. The structure of this adjective in grammar gives the
meaning of preferable ness. Therefore, 'Ahmad' means: the one who praises his lord
(Allah) the most. All prophets are praising Allah but our prophet (peace be upon him) is
the most one who praises Allah. On other note, the name "Muhammad" is derived from
an adjective, as well, which gives the meaning of being praised by others frequently and
excessively. Muhammad as a name means: is the one who is praised once over and over...
thus, the name Muhammad matches it's meaning.
Allah named him before he is named by others, which is one of the signs of his
Prophethood as his name matched his status and character because he is praised in this
life due to the guidance, wisdom and knowledge that he obtained and benefited from
others with and he is praised in the here-after because of the intercession that he was
honored with by Allah. Therefore the meaning of praising was used as suitable.
He was never " Muhammad" (praised by others) until he was Ahmad (praising Allah a
lot). He praised Allah so much so that Allah granted him prophecy and honored him. That
is the reason why the name Ahmad comes before the name Muhammad. This is noticed
when Issa (peace be upon him) used "Ahamd" when he mentioned him by saying:" his
name is Ahmad" and so did Musa (peace be upon him) when Allah said to him " that is
the nation of Ahmad" which upon Musa (peace be upon him) said: "O Allah let me be one
of the ummah of Ahmad". So, as you notice the name Ahmad is always used before
Muhammad because the Prophet's praising of Allah happened before people start praising
him. Thus, when he was born and sent as a messenger he became for real
'Muhammad'. (Abu 'Abdullah Al-Qurtubi, Tasfir al Jami' li-ahkam alQur'an, Commentary on Surah 15:9, Source)
So Jesus was predicting the coming of someone not by his actual name but by the feature or
characteristic of the person. For example, Abdul Rahman is a great companion of the Prophet
(peace be upon him), but he was nicknamed Abu Hurayrah, which means "father of the kitten"
because he had a habit of holding a kitten with him wherever he went. So his nickname was
given based on a characteristic that he had.
Also, the reason why the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was called Ahmad first is
because he first used to praise God and then in return he was praised. Thus he was called Ahmad
before Muhammad.
Secondly, it's not wrong to say that Ahmad was actually another name of the Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him) for he had several names that he claimed for himself and Ahmad is only one
of them:
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 56, Number 732:
Narrated Jubair bin Mutim:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have five names: I am Muhammad and
Ahmad; I am Al-Mahi through whom Allah will eliminate
infidelity; I am Al-Hashir who will be the first to be resurrected,
the people being resurrected there after; and I am also Al-'Aqib
(i.e. There will be no prophet after me)."
Narrated Jubair bin Mutim:
I heard Allah's Apostle saying, 'I have several names: I am
Muhammad and I am Ahmad, and I am Al-Mahi with whom Allah
obliterates Kufr (disbelief), and I am Al-Hashir (gatherer) at whose
feet (i.e. behind whom) the people will be gathered (on the Day of
Resurrection), and I am Al-Aqib (i.e. who succeeds the other
prophets in bringing about good)."
Saheeh Muslim

Jubair b. Mut'im reported on the authority of his father that he
heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I am
Muhammad and I am Ahmad, and I am al-Mahi (the obliterator)
by whom unbelief would be obliterated, and I am Hashir (the
gatherer) at whose feet mankind will be gathered, and I am 'Aqib
(the last to come) after whom there will be no Prophet.
Jubair b. Mut'im reported on the authority of his father that he
heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I
have many names: I am Muhammad,I am Ahmad, I am al-Mahi
through whom Allah obliterates unbelief, and I am Hashir (the
gatherer) at whose feet people will be gathered, and I am 'Aqib
(after whom there would be none), and Allah has named him as
compassionate and merciful.
Abu Musa Ash'ari reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be
upon him) mentioned many names of his and said: I am
Muhammad, Ahmad. Muqaffi (the last in succession), Hashir, the
Prophet of repentance, and the Prophet of Mercy.
Malik's Muwatta
Book 61, Number 61.1.1:
Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab from Muhammad ibn Jubayr
ibn Mutim that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him
peace, said, "I have five names. I am Muhammad. I am Ahmad. I
am al-Mahi (the effacer), by whom Allah effaces kufr. I am alHashir (the gatherer), before whom people are gathered. I am alAqib (the last)."
If Christian missionaries become stubborn and still refuse to accept this argument then you can
use this argument against them from their own Bible.
In the Bible it says...
Matthew 1:22-23
22
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The
virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him
Immanuel"- which means, "God with us."
Matthew is quoting Isaiah 7:14 in order to show that this prophecy is fulfilled in Jesus. However,
notice that the prophecy says that the child will be called Immanuel. Nowhere in the Bible is
Jesus called Immanuel and nowhere in the Bible does Jesus claim the name Immanuel to be one
of his names. However, Christians like this one would simply argue back what I just did in this
article.
However, the argument from the Muslim side is stronger because at least Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him) claimed to be Ahmad. Nowhere does Jesus claim to be Immanuel
Was Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon

him) An Idol Worshipper?
By
Bassam Zawadi
The article will be divided into the following sections:-
-Did the Prophet sacrifice or eat food sacrificed to idols?

-The Muslims used to pray towards the direction of the Ka'bah when the Idols were filling
it. Is this idol worship?
-The Prophet kissed the Black Stone. Does that mean he worshipped it?
Did the Prophet sacrifice or eat food sacrificed to idols?

The hadith presented to show this is...
Saheeh Bukhari
Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said that he met Zaid bin 'Amr Nufail at a place near Baldah and this had
happened before Allah's Apostle received the Divine Inspiration. Allah's Apostle presented a dish
of meat (that had been offered to him by the pagans) to Zaid bin 'Amr, but Zaid refused to eat of
it and then said (to the pagans), "I do not eat of what you slaughter on your stonealtars (Ansabs)
nor do I eat except that on which Allah's Name has been mentioned on slaughtering."
Here we see the hadith in a different version...

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
The Prophet met Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail in the bottom of (the valley of) Baldah before any
Divine Inspiration came to the Prophet. A meal was presented to the Prophet but he refused
to eat from it. (Then it was presented to Zaid) who said, "I do not eat anything which you
slaughter in the name of your stone idols. I eat none but those things on which Allah's Name has
been mentioned at the time of slaughtering." Zaid bin 'Amr used to criticize the way Quraish
used to slaughter their animals, and used to say, "Allah has created the sheep and He has sent the
water for it from the sky, and He has grown the grass for it from the earth; yet you slaughter it in
other than the Name of Allah. He used to say so, for he rejected that practice and considered it as
something abominable.
Here we see that the meal was presented to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and then it was
presented to Zayd unlike the first hadith, which only shows that the Prophet (peace be upon him)
presented the meal. So it appears that BOTH the Prophet and Zayd refused to eat from the dish.
Imam Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani mentions several different narrations regarding this event (Fathul
Bari, Kitab: Al Zhabaa'ih wal Sayd, Bab: Ma Zhabaha A'ala Nasab wal Asnaam,
Commentary on Hadith no. 5075, Source)and (Fathul Bari, Kitab: Al Manaqib, Bab:
Hadeeth Zayd bin Amro bin Nafeel, Commentary on Hadith no.3540, Source) He gives
different possibilities that the Prophet (peace be upon him) never ate that food nor sacrificed
food to idols.
HOWEVER, ONLY FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT so that Christian missionaries won't
accuse us of trying to run away from the issue, let's agree with them ONLY FOR THE SAKE OF
ARGUMENT and say that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did do these things.
The hadith make it clear that this incident happened before Muhammad's (peace be upon him)
Prophethood...

Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said that he met Zaid bin 'Amr Nufail at a place near Baldah and this had
happened before Allah's Apostle received the Divine Inspiration. Allah's Apostle presented a
dish of meat (that had been offered to him by the pagans) to Zaid bin 'Amr, but Zaid refused to
eat of it and then said (to the pagans), "I do not eat of what you slaughter on your stonealtars
(Ansabs) nor do I eat except that on which Allah's Name has been mentioned on slaughtering."
At this time the Prophet (peace be upon him) was not even guided with the truth. He did not
know who God was and did not truly worship Him the way He should be worshipped. Secondly,
the verse prohibiting the eating of food sacrificed under anything besides God's name came much
later and therefore there wasn't a law that the Prophet (peace be upon him) broke in this situation.
Once the Prophet (peace be upon him) was guided to the truth by having revelations sent down
to him, he did nothing but promote against idol worship.
I don't understand how Christians have a problem with Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)
eating food sacrificed to idols (assuming that he even did) before his Prophethood when he
wasn't guided but don't have a problem with Prophet Solomon worshipping idols during his
Prophethood according to the Bible and yet he was one of the authors of the Bible, which is
allegedly a book that demotes idol worship!!! Read this article for clarification. These are double
standards from Christians. If this disproves the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him)
then this also disproves the Prophethood of Solomon portrayed in the Bible.
Do the following Hadith show that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was someone who liked or
venerated idols?...
Saheeh Bukhari
Then I asked you what he ordered you to do. You replied that he ordered you to worship Allah
and Allah alone and not to worship any thing along with Him and forbade you to worship
idols and ordered you to pray, to speak the truth and to be chaste.

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Masud:
The Prophet entered Mecca and (at that time) there were three hundred-and-sixty idols around
the Ka'ba. He started stabbing the idols with a stick he had in his hand and reciting: "Truth
(Islam) has come and Falsehood (disbelief) has vanished."
Volume007, Book 066, Hadith Number 382.

Narated By Abu Huraira : The Prophet said, "Neither Fara' nor 'Atira (is permissible):" Al-Fara'
nor 'Atira (is permissible):" Al-Fara' was the first offspring (of camels or sheep) which the
pagans used to offer (as a sacrifice) to their idols. And Al-'Atira was (a sheep which was to be
slaughtered) during the month of Rajab.
Saheeh Muslim
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported: Some people during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (may
peace be upon him) said: Messenger of Allah! shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?
The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Yes, and added: Do you feel any trouble
in seeing the sun at noon with no cloud over it, and do you feel trouble in seeing the moon (open)
in the full moonlit night with no cloud over it? They said: No, Messenger of Allah! He (the Holy
Prophet) said: You will not feel any trouble in seeing Allah on the Day of Resurrection any more
than you do in seeing any one of them. When the Day of Resurrection comes a Mu'adhdhin (a
proclaimer) would proclaim: Let every people follow what they used to worship. Then all who
worshipped idols and stones besides Allah would fall into the Fire, till only the righteous and
the vicious and some of the people of the Book who worshipped Allah are left..........
'Amr b. 'Abasa Sulami reported: I in the state of the Ignorance (before embracing Islam) used to
think that the people were in error and they were not on anything (which may be called the right
path) and worshipped the idols. In the meanwhile I heard of a man in Mecca who was giving
news (on the basis of his prophetic knowledge) ; so I sat on my ride and went to him. The
Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) was at that time hiding as his people had made life
hard for him. I adopted a friendly attitude (towards the Meccans and thus managed) to enter
Mecca and go to him (the Holy Prophet) and I said to him: Who are you? He said: I am a Prophet
(of Allah). I again said: Who is a Prophet? He said: (I am a Prophet in the sense that) I have been
sent by Allah. I said: What is that which you have been sent with? He said: I have been sent to
join ties of relationship (with kindness and affection), to break the Idols, and to proclaim the
oneness of Allah (in a manner that) nothing is to be associated with Him..........

Jabir b. 'Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon
him) as saying in the Year of Victory while he was in Mecca: Verily Allah and His Messenger
have forbidden the sale of wine, carcass, swine and idols, It was said: Allah's Messenger, you
see that the fat of the carcass is used for coating the boats and varnishing the hides and people
use it for lighting purposes, whereupon he said: No, it is forbidden, Then Allah's Messenger (may
peace be upon him) said: May Allah the Exalted and Majestic destroy the Jews; when Allah
forbade the use of fat of the carcass for them, they melted it, and then sold it and made use of its
price (received from it).

Abd al-Rahman b. Samura reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:Do
not swear by idols, nor by your fathers.

It has been narrated by Ibn Abdullah who said: The Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him)
entered Mecca. There were three hundred and sixty idols around the Ka'ba. He began to
thrust them with the stick that was in his hand saying:" Truth has come and falsehood has
vanished. Lo! falsehood was destined to vanish" (xvii. 8). Truth has arrived, and falsehood can
neither create anything from the beginning nor can It restore to life
Muwatta Malik
Book 20, Number 20.51.176:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Hisham ibn Urwa that Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr used to say,
"Know that the whole of Arafa is a standing-place except for the middle of Urana, and that the
wholeof Muzdalifa is a standing-place except for the middle of Muhassir."
Malik said, "Allah, the Blessed and Exalted says, 'There is to be no rafath, no fusuq and no jidal
during the hajj.' " (Sura 2 ayat 197).
He added, "Rafath is sexual relations with women, and Allah knows best. Allah, the Blessed and
Exalted says, 'Rafath with your women is permitted to you on the night of the fast.' (Sura 2 ayat
197). Fusuq are sacrifices made to idols, and Allah knows best. Allah, the Blessed and Exalted,
says, 'Or a fisq offered up to other than Allah.' (Sura 2 ayat 197) Jidal (arguing) during the hajj
refers to when the Quraysh used to stand near the mashar al-haram at Quzah in Muzdalifa, while
the Arabs and others would stand at Arafa, and they would argue about who was the more
correct. Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, says, 'And we appointed a method of sacrifice for every
nation, which they followed, so let them not dispute with you about the matter, and call to your
Lord. Surely you are on a straight guidance.' (Sura 22 ayat 67) This is what jidal refers to in our
opinion, and Allah knows best. This I have heard from the people of knowledge."
The Muslims used to pray towards the Ka'bah when the

Idols were filling it. Is this idol worship?
Some argue that while the Muslims were in Madinah and before they conquered Makkah to
destroy the idols, the Ka'bah was filled with idols and the Muslims used to pray towards the
Ka'bah knowing that the idols were in it. So they argue that this is idol worship.
This is indeed a ridiculous argument. I already quoted hadith showing that once the Muslims
conquered Makkah the idols surrounding the Ka'bah were destroyed...
Saheeh Bukhari
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Masud:
The Prophet entered Mecca and (at that time) there were three hundred-and-sixty idols around
the Ka'ba. He started stabbing the idols with a stick he had in his hand and reciting: "Truth
(Islam) has come and Falsehood (disbelief) has vanished."
Saheeh Muslim
It has been narrated by Ibn Abdullah who said: The Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him)
entered Mecca. There were three hundred and sixty idols around the Ka'ba. He began to
thrust them with the stick that was in his hand saying:" Truth has come and falsehood has
vanished. Lo! falsehood was destined to vanish" (xvii. 8). Truth has arrived, and falsehood can
neither create anything from the beginning nor can It restore to life
If it was the Muslim's intention to worship the idols surrounding the Ka'bah then why did they go
and destroy them once they conquered Makkah? It makes no sense.
Moiz Ahmad was asked regarding this issue and he replied back very logically...
All that I can say about your statements cited above is that you have very successfully criticized
your own interpretation of the referred incident. However, a more honest and a more academic
approach of criticizing Islam, in my opinion, would rather have been to first understand the
implication of facing theKa`bah (with or without the idols) according to the Muslim mind, and
then to criticize that implication. Nevertheless, rather than going through this academic exercise,
you have ascribed a certain implication to the act of facing the Ka`bah during the Muslim
prayers and have criticized that implication, as if it were the real implication held and ascribed to
by the Muslims as well as promoted by the Prophet (pbuh). Do you consider this as being
intellectually honest?
Idolatry, I am sure you know, is to worship idols. Had Mohammed (pbuh) been so fond of
worshiping idols, as you have implied in your comments, he would have made the necessary
adjustments and compromises in his message, while he was still in Mekkah, and thereby avoided
his own and his family's persecution, when the time was right for it. After all, what benefits
would now have accrued of worshiping idols, when he had already enflamed the enmity and
hatred of all of the Arab nations against himself, in particular, and his followers, in general.
If your interpretation of the incident is held to be correct, then facing the Ka`bah, with or without
the idols, is itself idolatry. However, contrary to what you have interpreted from the incident,
when Muslims offer their prayers facing the Ka`bah, it is not the Ka`bah that they worship, but
the one God. Facing the Ka`bah symbolizes a number of things, but worshiping the Ka`bah is
definitely not one of them, just as the Jews did not worship the Ark, when they turned toward it,
during Amidah[1]. In exactly the same manner, when the Prophet (pbuh), according to the
directives of the Qur'an, turned toward the Ka`bah in his prayers, even while it was filled with
idols, it did not signify worshiping or paying homage to the idols. It only signified worshiping
the one God, facing the direction ordained by Him. (Source)
Recommended Readings
http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/fatwah_story.asp?service_id=517
http://www.islamawareness.net/Islam/misconcep.html (read misconception #9)
http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=13932&ln=eng
The Prophet kissed the Black Stone. Does that mean he

worshipped it?
This has to be one of the lamest arguments yet. Just because the Prophet (peace be upon him)
kissed the Black Stone does not necessarily imply that he worshipped it.
Saheeh Bukhari
Narrated 'Abis bin Rabia:
'Umar came near the Black Stone and kissed it and said "No doubt, I know that you are a
stone and can neither benefit anyone nor harm anyone. Had I not seen Allah's Apostle kissing
you I would not have kissed you."
Narrated Zaid bin Aslam from his father who said:

"Umar bin Al-Khattab addressed the Corner (Black Stone) saying, 'By Allah! I know that you are
a stone and can neither benefit nor harm. Had I not seen the Prophet touching (and kissing)
you, I would never have touched (and kissed) you.' Then he kissed it and said, 'There is no
reason for us to do Ramal (in Tawaf) except that we wanted to show off before the pagans, and
now Allah has destroyed them.' 'Umar added, '(Nevertheless), the Prophet did that and we do not
want to leave it (i.e. Ramal).'
We can see that Umar was even acknowledging that this stone had no power to do anything. So if
the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) truly worshipped this stone then he should have at
least informed his companions that this stone was an idol and that they should pray to it.
However, we see that the companions did not do such a thing because the Prophet (peace be
upon him) did not promote or believe in such a thing.
Why Did Prophet Muhammad (peace be

upon him) Have More Than Four Wives?
By
Bassam Zawadi
Some Islamic critics tend to criticize Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) because he had
more than four wives. They ask, "If the Quran limited each man to have 4 wives (Surah 4:3) then
how come the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was able to have more?"
Some people may see this as a privilege to the Prophet (peace be upon him). However, with
privileges did come restrictions as well.
There were several differences between the Prophet and the rest of the Muslims regarding
obligations and privileges. For example, Qiyam Al Layl (prayers at two thirds of the night) is not
compulsory on Muslims; however they were compulsory on the Prophet Muhammad (peace be
upon him).
Allah told the Prophet (peace be upon him)...
Surah 17:79
And during a part of the night, pray Tahajjud beyond what is incumbent on you; maybe your
Lord will raise you to a position of great glory.
This verse is directly addressed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Ibn Kathir has it in his commentary on this verse...
(And in some parts of the night (also) offer the Salah with it as an additional prayer for
you.) Here Allah commands him (the Prophet ) to offer further prayers at night after the
prescribed prayers.It was reported in Sahih Muslim from Abu Hurayrah that when the
Messenger of Allah was asked which prayer is best after the prescribed prayers, he said,
(The Night prayer) Allah commanded His Messenger to pray the Night prayer after offering the
prescribed prayers, and the term Tahajjud refers to prayer that is offered after sleeping. This was
the view of Àlqamah, Al-Aswad, Ibrahim An-Nakhaì and others. It is also well-known from the
Arabic language itself. A number of Hadiths report that the Messenger of Allah used to pray
Tahajjud after he had slept. These include reports from Ibn Àbbas, À'ishah and other
Companions, may Allah be pleased with them. This has been discussed in detail in the
appropriate place, praise be to Allah. Al-Hasan Al-Basri said, "This is what comes after Ìsha', or
it could mean what comes after sleeping.''
(an additional prayer (Nawafil)) means the Night prayer has been made an extra prayer
specifically for the Prophet , because all his previous and future sins had been forgiven. But for
other members of his Ummah, offering optional prayers may expiate for whatever sins they may
commit. This was the view of Mujahid, and it was reported in Al-Musnad from Abu Umamah AlBahili.(Tafsir Ibn Kathir,Source)
So here we see an example of God making exceptions to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon
him) in certain situations. If the Prophet (peace be upon him) forged Islam and started giving
himself privileges then why did he also force himself to stay up late at night and pray? Does this
sound like an individual who is trying to benefit himself?
Back to the issue of the exception of why the Prophet (peace be upon him) was allowed to keep
more than four wives. Well there was wisdom behind the marriage to each of the wives of the
Prophet (peace be upon him) (seehttp://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/why-was-theprophet-polygamous/) Thus for the Prophet peace be upon him to maintain those marriages were
essential.
Dr Jamal Badawi said...
It should be noted that the special exception to the prophet concerning the maximum number of
wives [Qur'an, 33: 50] includes also special restrictions on him and his wives from privileges
available to all others. For example, his wives as "mothers of the believers" were not allowed to
remarry after him [Qur'an 33: 53]. If the Prophet were required to divorce wives beyond the
maximum of four, it would have done them injustice; to be divorced and disallowed to remarry.
Furthermore, for each of the Prophet's marriages there was a specific lesson, social or legislative.
By divorcing some of his wives, those lessons are effectively negated, especially the unifying
function of marrying women from different clans and backgrounds. This diversity allowed close
observation of his private life and teachings and communicating them to their respective folks.
Also, unlike any ordinary Muslim, the Prophet was not allowed to divorce any of his wives and
marrying others [33:52]. (Jamal A. Badawi, Marriages of Prophet Muhammad (peace be
upon him), Source)
People may ask why the Prophet's wives were not allowed to remarry. Well just think about how
much fitna (corruption) would have occurred when people would want to fight over who was
going to marry the Prophet's former wives. Also imagine the fitna that might occur when people
might begin to idolize children being born from the Prophet's wives just like how Shias today do
with the Prophet's grandchildren.
We can try and guess the wisdom behind Allah's rulings; however no one has any right to
criticize the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) for being a hypocrite in any way for
having more than four wives
Does the Quran Say That Prophet

Muhammad (peace be upon him) Did Not
Perform Any Miracles?
By
Bassam Zawadi
Christian missionaries try arguing that the Qur'an teaches that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be
upon him) did not perform any miracles.
They would not be disproving the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) this way
since Christians themselves believe that John the Baptist was a Prophet who performed no
miracles (John 10:41). So because it's possible to be a Prophet and not perform miracles
according to the Bible, then the only thing that Christians are challenging is the authentic hadith
which state that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did perform miracles.
Hesham Azmy in his article has proven that the Quran says that the Prophet (peace be upon him)
did perform miracles and that when the Prophet (peace be upon him) did perform miracles the
Quraysh would then just claim that it was magic. Also read Brother Sami Zaatari's article
regarding this issue here.
However, I noticed that brother Azmy did not deal directly with some of the verses that the
missionaries put forth.
Missionaries have presented 11 verses from the Quran to try and show that the Quran says that
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) never performed a miracle.
I will be addressing them one by one to see if this claim is true or not.
Verse # 1
Surah 2:118
And they that know not say, 'Why does God not speak to us? Why does a sign (ayatun) not come
to us?' So spoke those before them as these men say; their hearts are much alike. Yet We have
made clear the signs (bayyanna al-ayati) unto a people who are sure.
Notice what the verse is saying...

And they that know not say, 'Why does God not speak to us? Why does a sign (ayatun) not
come to us?' So spoke those before them as these men say; their hearts are much alike. Yet We
have made clear the signs (bayyanna al-ayati) unto a people who are sure.
The verse is saying that the disbelievers just as the disbelievers before them have said that no
sign has come to them. It does not show that the Qur'an itself is saying this.
This verse does not show that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not perform miracles. This
verse was sent down in Madinah and the majority opinion was that this was referring to the Jews
and Christians. This was especially referring to the Jews who told Prophet Muhammad (peace be
upon him) to have God talk to them. When they said this, God revealed this verse. (See Tabari's
commentary here) This happened after Mecca when the Prophet (peace be upon him) would
have performed the miracle of splitting the moon in front of the pagan Arabs.
Other opinions state that it was the disbelievers of Mecca that were being referred to. However,
this is irrelevant. For this verse does not show that the Qur'an states that Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him) did not perform miracles, but it shows that the disbelievers accused the
Prophet (peace be upon him) of not performing miracles and there is a big difference between the
two.
Verse # 2
Surah 2:145
Yet if thou shouldst bring to those that have been given the Book every sign (ayatun), they will
not follow thy direction; thou art not a follower of their direction, neither are they followers of
one another's direction. If thou followest their caprices, after the knowledge that has come to
thee, then thou wilt surely be among the evildoers.
Again this does not deny that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) performed miracles. God
is simply telling the Prophet (peace be upon him) that if he came with every kind of proof and an
unlimited number of miracles then they still would not believe in him. (Tafsir of Ibn
Kathir, Source) The verse does not show that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not perform
any miracles.
Verse # 3
Surah 6:37
They also say, 'Why has no sign (ayatun) been sent down upon him from his Lord?' Say: 'Surely
God is able to send down a sign (ayatan), but most of them know not.'
Again, notice the verse...

They also say, 'Why has no sign (ayatun) been sent down upon him from his Lord?' Say: 'Surely
God is able to send down a sign (ayatan), but most of them know not.'
The Qur'an is quoting what the disbelievers are saying. It is not the Qur'an itself that is saying
that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not perform miracles.
The sign that they are saying that has not been sent down to them are from the signs that they
are specifically asking for like the ones they demanded in Surah 17:90-93. However, God is
saying that he could send them down if he wished but 'they know not'. 'They know not' means
that they don't know what trial and infliction they will go through if God did indeed send down
the signs they are asking for and rejected them. (Tafsir of Jalalyn, Source)
So the verse does not deny that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) ever showed them
signs. The verse only says that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not show the
signs that they specifically asked for. This was just like how the people of Thamud asked Prophet
Salih (peace be upon him) to have God make a she-camel to come out of the mountain (Surah
17:59) or like how the disciples asked Jesus (peace be upon him) to have God send them down a
table from heaven (Surah 5:112) and God warned that if anyone of them ever disbelieved after
He sent down the sign then He would punish them worse than anyone (Surah 5:115).
So the verse is basically saying that they don't know the consequences of what they are getting
themselves into for asking for such specific signs. (Tafsir of Jalalyn, Source)
Verse # 4
Surah 6:109
They have sworn by God the most earnest oaths if a sign (ayatun) comes to them they will
believe in it. Say: 'Signs (al-ayatu) are only with God.' What will make you realize that, when it
comes, they will not believe?
This is the same thing as the previous verse. They are asking for specific signs. (Tafsir of
Jalalyn, Source) This does not deny the fact that the Prophet (peace be upon him) performed
miracles. One reason we see that God is not sending down the signs they are requesting is
because due to His omniscience, He knows that they won't believe just like how the previous
generations never believed and out of His mercy, He doesn't want to punish them for rejecting
His signs.
Verse #s 5, 6 and 7
Surah 10:20
They say, 'Why has a sign (ayatun) not been sent down upon him from his Lord?' Say: 'The
Unseen belongs only to God. Then watch and wait; I shall be with you watching and waiting.'
Surah 13:7
The unbelievers say, 'Why has a sign (ayatun) not been sent down upon him from his Lord?'
Thou art ONLY a warner, and a guide to every people.
Surah 13:27
The unbelievers say, 'Why has a sign (ayatun) not been sent down upon him from his Lord?' Say:
'God leads astray whomsoever He will, and He guides to Him all who are penitent.'
Again, notice that the verses above state that this is what the disbelievers are saying and not the
Qur'an itself.
Three possible explanations....
One is that they keep demanding the signs that they were specifically asking for. (Tafsir of
Qurtubi, Source) They would demand signs like turning Safa into gold, making the mountains
surrounding Mecca disappear and in its place put rivers and gardens etc. (Tafsir of Ibn
Kathir, Source)
Secondly, just because the disbelievers keep asking for a sign that does not mean that a sign has
never been sent down to them. Disbelievers will keep asking for a sign and they will never
believe, just like I mentioned when explaining Verse #2.
Thirdly, even if the sign is given to them they want to persist and be stubborn and ask for a
miracle that they specifically want.
Here is a good example for Christians from the Gospel of Mark 8:11-12...
Mark 8:11-13
11
The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from
heaven.12He sighed deeply and said, "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell
you the truth, no sign will be given to it."
Here is the commentary.....
1. (11-12) They ask for a sign from heaven

a. They are not looking simply for an earthly miracle, but a dramatic sign from the
sky; for something like Elijah's fire from heaven
i. Tested should be tempted
ii. This unbelief caused Jesus pain
b. Jesus refuses, because His miracles are not for the sake of convincing hardened
unbelievers, but they show the power of God in the context of mercy (David Guzik,
Study Guide for Mark Chapter 8, Source)
They would still persist in asking Jesus for a miracle even after he performed several miracles
such as raising the dead back to life, curing the blind etc.
Read this article to see the Biblical difficulties regarding whether Jesus performed miracles or
not.
Verse # 8
Surah 17:59
Naught prevented Us from sending the signs (bial-ayati) but that the ancients cried lies to them;
and We brought Thamud the She-camel visible, but they did her wrong. And We do not send the
signs, except to frighten.
Again, this is referring to sending the signs that the Quraysh specifically asked for just like how
Thamud specifically asked for the she camel. (Tafsir of Qurtubi, Source) God did not send it
down to them as a mercy because God knows that if He sent down the signs they asked for they
would still disbelieve. If God sent it down to them and they still disbelieved then He would be
obliged to destroy them in order to fulfill His promise. It was for their own good.
Further proof that this is referring to specific miracles is when God mentions in the verse the
example of Thamud and the she camel because the people of Thamud specifically asked for this
miracle to be given to them. Read the story of Prophet Salih (peace be upon him) here.
Again the verse does not state that no signs have ever been sent down.
Verse # 9
Surah 17:90-93
They say, 'We will not believe thee till thou makest a spring to gush forth from the earth for us,
or till thou possessest a garden of plants and vines, and thou makest rivers to gush forth
abundantly all amongst it, or till thou makest heaven to fall, as thou assertest, on us in fragments,
or thou bringest God and the angels as a surety, or till thou possessest a house of gold ornament,
or till thou goest up into heaven; and we will not believe thy going up till thou bringest down on
us a book that we may read. Say: 'Glory be to my Lord. Am I aught BUT A MORTAL, a
Messenger?'
They asked the Prophet (peace be upon him) to do all this and the Prophet (peace be upon him) is
simply telling them that he is only a human being just like them. He couldn't perform these
things and his only task was to deliver the message of God to them. Only God can do these
things and not the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself (Tafsir of Tabari, Source)
How does this verse show that the Quran says that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not do
any miracles? Yes, it shows that the Prophet (peace be upon him) could not do miracles on his
own and only by the permission of God. But where does it show that the did not do any miracles
at all?
Plus this verse furthermore supports what I have been previously saying and that is that the
disbelievers were asking for specific miracles to be shown to them.
Verse # 10
Surah 28:48
Yet when the truth came to them 'from Ourselves, they said, 'Why has he not been given the like'
of that Moses was given?' But they, did they not disbelieve also in what Moses was given
aforetime? They said, 'A pair of sorceries mutually supporting each other.' They said, 'We
disbelieve both.'
Again they are demanding specific signs. They are demanding signs similar to Moses's such as
the locusts, the stick turning into a snake miracle, the white hand miracle, the parting of the sea
etc. (Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Source)
Verse # 11
Surah 29:48-51
Not before this didst thou recite any Book, or inscribe it with thy right hand, for then those who
follow falsehood would have doubted. Nay; rather it is signs, clear signs (ayatun bayyinatun) IN
THE BREASTS of those who have been given knowledge; and none denies Our signs but the
evildoers. They say, 'Why have signs (ayatun) not been sent down upon him from his Lord?' Say:
'The signs (al-ayatu) are only with God, and I am only a plain warner.' What, is it not
SUFFICIENT for them that We have sent down upon thee the Book that is recited to
them? Surely in that is a mercy, and a reminder to a people who believe.
Certain Christian missionaries are trying to use this verse to show that Allah is saying that the
Quran is a sufficient enough sign, thus no other sign should be sent down by Him because if God
did send down a sign, then it would contradict this verse. However, we have to understand that
indeed the Quran is sufficient enough a sign for any objective truth seeker. However, the
Quraysh were too stubborn to seek the truth and that is why God sent down other signs. For
example, a teacher may explain something very clearly to a classroom of students, however the
students still do not understand and therefore the teacher had to spend extra time teaching these
students. Now just because the students didn't initially understand what the teacher was saying
does not necessarily imply that the teacher did not teach properly or that what he said in the
beginning wasn't enough. Similarly, just because the Quran was not enough to convince the
Quraysh does not mean that the Quran itself is not sufficient enough to be a sign.
Again the sign of the moon splitting was shown to them but they just called it magic. (Tafsir of
Ibn Kathir,Source) To them, these were not signs. It was just magic.
As for verse 51, well this is talking about a different situation and is not referring to the same
people in verse 50.
Verse 51 was sent down because there were a group of people from the companions of the
Prophet (peace be upon him) who copied some things from the books of the Jews and then used
to read it. Then verse 51 came down rebuking them and saying that the Quran is enough for their
salvation. Even the Prophet (peace be upon him) said that if Moses were alive today then he
would follow him. (Tafsir of Tabari, Source) and (Tafsir of Qurtubi,Source)
Some may say that for us to argue that verse 51 is talking about a different group of people than
the ones in verse 50 is desperate. However, I don't think so. Notice that the evil doers say "Why
have signs (ayatun) not been sent down upon him from his Lord?" The response to them is 'The
signs (al-ayatu) are only with God, and I am only a plain warner." So the response to the evil
doers ends right there. Then verse 51 is talking about a different group of people. There are no
desperate interpretations going on here.
Conclusion
The Quran needs to be read as a whole and in context and the contexts of the verses need to be
known as well. By connecting all the dots together and reading the verses all together and with
understanding we see that the Quran does indeed confirm that the glorious Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him) did perform miracles, however in the eyes of the disbelievers this was
nothing more than magic and they still kept on demanding specific signs. Just because they did
not receive the specific signs that they asked for does not mean that no signs were showed to
them at all
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)

and the Satanic Verses
By
Bassam Zawadi
There is no greater lie than the lie of the Satanic Verses. The Prophet (peace be upon him) never
uttered those verses. To sum it all up, the story basically states that when the Prophet (peace be
upon him) was leading the prayer one time near the Ka'bah, he was reciting Surah 53:19-20 and
then immediately after he recited those verses, he said "those are the high-flying cranes and
indeed their intercession is to be hoped for" so the Quraysh tribe were so thrilled that the Prophet
(peace be upon him) spoke so positively about their Gods that they also prostrated with the
Muslims after he recited those verses. Afterwards, Allah sent down a verse rebuking the Prophet
Muhammad (peace be upon him) (Surah 17:73-75) and also sent down a verse abrogating the
"Satanic Revelation" (Surah 22:52)
Let's see if this could make any sense.

Surah 53 was revealed in the 5th year of Prophethood...
Ibn Sad says that before this, in the Rajab of the 5th year of Prophethood, a small group
of the Companions had emigrated to Abyssinia. Then, when in the Ramadan of the same
year this incident took place the news spread that the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings
of Allah be upon him) had recited Surah An-Najm publicly in the assembly of the
Quraish and the whole assembly, including the believers as well as the disbelievers, had
fallen down in prostration with him. When the emigrants to Abyssinia heard this news
they formed the impression that the disbelievers of Makkah had become Muslims.
Thereupon, some of them returned to Makkah in the Shawwal of the 5th year of
Prophethood, only to learn that the news was wrong and the conflict between Islam and
disbelief was raging as furiously as before. Consequently, the second emigration to
Abyssinia took place, in which many more people left Makkah.
Thus, it becomes almost certain that this Surah was revealed in the Ramadan of 5th
year of Prophethood. (Syed Abu-Ala' Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur'an,
Commentary on Surah 53, Source)
The alleged verse that was revealed rebuking the Prophet (peace be upon him) was sent down
years later:
The very first verse indicates that this Surah was revealed on the occasion of Mi`raj (Ascension).
According to the Traditions and books on the life of the Holy Prophet, this event happened one
year before Hijrah. Thus, this Surah is one of those, which were revealed in the last stage of
Prophethood at Makkah. (Syed Abu-Ala' Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur'an,
Commentary on Surah 17, Source)
And the verse that supposedly abrogated the 'satanic revelation' was revealed in 1 A.H, which is
approximately 8 years after the incident:
The sudden change of the style from v. 25 shows that probably vv. 25-78 were sent down in the
month of Zul-Hijjah in the very first year afterHijrah. This is indicated by vv. 25-41 and
confirmed by the occasion of the revelation of vv. 39-40. (Syed Abu-Ala' Maududi, The
Meaning of the Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 22, Source)
Are they trying to say that the Muslims believed that the Satanic revelations were true
revelations for approximately eight years? That would mean that the Quraysh would have
believed that the Muslims were pagan worshippers. So if the Quraysh did believe this, then why
did they keep on persecuting the Muslims for their beliefs, which is the reason why the Hijra
took place anyway?
Obviously, one should also continue reading the remainder of the Surah:
Surah 53:21-25
What! for you the male sex, and for Him, the female? Behold, such would be indeed a
division most unfair! These are nothing but names which ye have devised, - ye and your
fathers, - for which God has sent down no authority (whatever). They follow nothing but
conjecture and what their own souls desire! - Even though there has already come to
them Guidance from their Lord! Nay, shall man have (just) anything he hankers after?
But it is to God that the End and the Beginning (of all things) belong.
It clearly condemns the deity of these idols, so why would we need a verse abrogating it?
Surah 22:52 is only a general statement...
Prophets and messengers (the distinction is explained in n. 2503 to xix. 51) are but
human. Their actions are righteous and their motives pure. But in judging things from a
human point of view, the suggestion may come to their mind (from Satan) that it would
be good to have power or wealth or influence for furthering Allah's cause, or that it may
be good to conciliate some faction which may be irreconcilable. In fact, in Allah's Plan, it
may be the opposite. Allah, in His mercy and inspiration, will cancel any false or vain
suggestions of this kind, and confirm and strengthen His own Commands and make
known His Will in His Signs or revelations. (Yusuf Ali's Commentary on the Quran,
Commentary on Surah 22:52)
(Never sent We a messenger or a Prophet before thee) O Muhammad (but when he) the Prophet
(recited (the message)) or spoke (Satan proposed (opposition) about that which he recited thereof)
such that he does not act upon it. (But Allah abolisheth) but Allah elucidates (that which Satan
proposeth) on the tongue of His Prophet such that he does not act upon it. (Then Allah
establisheth) then He clarifies (His revelations) for His Prophet in order that he acts upon them.
(Allah is Knower) of that which Satan proposes, (Wise) He decrees to abolish it; (Ibn
Abbaas, Tanwr al-Miqbs min Tafsr Ibn 'Abbs, Commentary on Surah

22:52, Source)
Ibn Kathir also happens to mention that the narrations regarding this story are weak...
At this point many of the scholars of Tafsir mentioned the story of the Gharaniq and how many
of those who had migrated to Ethiopia came back when they thought that the idolators of the
Quraysh had become Muslims, but these reports all come through Mursal chains of
narration and I do not think that any of them may be regarded as Sahih. (Tafsir Ibn
Kathir, Source)
Here we see that the narrations are classified as mursal hadith. A mursal hadith is...
mursal or "unattached" hadeeth is one that contains a gap of one generation (according to both
Azami and Hasan it is a hadeeth reported by a Successor who drops the Companion from whom
he learned it in the isnad).
among them ghareeb ("scarce" or "strange"), (Source)
Gibril Fouad Haddad does a great job listing the scholars who graded the narrations weak...
1. Ibn Sa`d (d. 230) in his al-Tabaqat al-Kubra
(reprint Beirut: Dar Sadir), vol. 1 said:
[p. 205] Muhammad ibn Ùmar(*) narrated to us: (1) Yunus ibn Muhammad ibn Fadala al-Zafari
narrated to me: From his father who said: (2) From Kathir ibn Zayd: From al-Muttalib ibn Àbd
Allah ibn Hantab who said:[(*) Muhammad ibn Ùmar al-Waqidi (d. 207), Ahmad ibn Hanbal said of him: "He is a liar." AlBukhari and Abu Hatim al-Razi said: "Discarded." Ibn Àdi said: "His narrations are not
retained, and their bane comes from him." Ibn al-Madini said: "He forges hadiths." Al-Dhahabi
said: "Consensus has settled over his debility." Mizan al-I`tidal (3:662-666 #7993).]
Allah's Messenger - Allah bless and greet him - saw rejection coming from his people, so he sat
in isolation, wishing to himself: Would that nothing is revealed to me that would drive them
away from me. Thereafter Allah's Messenger - Allah bless and greet him - approached his people
again and made overtures to them, and they responded to him. One day he sat with them in one
of the usual public gatherings around the Ka`ba and he recited to them "By the Star when it
setteth" (Sura 53, al-Najm). When he reached the words:
19. Have ye thought upon Al Lat and Al Uzza? 20. And Manat, the third, the other?
the devil interjected two phrases (kalimatayn) upon his tongue:
"Those are the elevated cranes: truly their intercession is dearly hoped!"
Allah's Messenger spoke these two phrases then went on to finish the entire Sura, then he
prostrated and all those in attendance prostrated. Al-Walid ibn al-Mughira took a handful of earth
and [applying it to his forehead] prostrated on it, for he was an aged old man who could not
prostrate. It is also said that Abu Uhayha Saìd ibn al-Às was the one who did this.... and some
say both did it.
They [the Quraysh] were elated at what Allah's Messenger - Allah bless and greet him - had
spoken, saying: "We definitely know that Allah gives life and gives death as well as creates and
sustains, but these our gods intercede for us before Him, so if you give them their share, we are
with you." This statement of theirs bore heavily on the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - and
he withdrew to his house. When evening came, Gibril came to him and rehearsed the Sura with
him, whereupon Gibril said: "Did I bring you those two phrases (al-kalimatayn)?" Allah's
Messenger said: "Have I said on Allah's part something He never said?" Whereupon Allah
revealed to him [p. 206] the verse: { And they indeed strove hard to beguile thee (Muhammad)
away from that wherewith We have inspired thee, that thou shouldst invent other than it against
Us; and then would they have accepted thee as a friend.} (17:73)
2. Imam al-Baghawi (d. 510) said in his commentary of the Qur'an entitled Lubab al-Ta'wil fi
Maàlim al-Tanzil (Dar al-Fikr ed. vol. 3) concerning the story of the cranes (qissat algharaaneeq):
[p. 293] Ibn Àbbas, Muhammad ibn Ka`b al-Qurazi and others of the commentators of Qur'an
said that when the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - saw the turning away of his people from
him and it bore heavily on him to see the distance grow between them and what he brought them
on Allah's part, he desired in his soul (tamanna fi nafsihi) that there come from Allah something
that would bridge the gap between him and his people, for he was deeply concerned that they
should have faith. As he was in a gathering of the Quraysh one day, Allah revealed Sura al-Najm
(53), whereupon Allah's Messenger - Allah bless and greet him -- began to recite it, until he
reached His saying:
19. Have ye thought upon Al Lat and Al Uzza?

20. And Manat, the third, the other?
whereupon the devil interjected upon his tongue (alqa al-shaytan àla lisanihi) in connection
with that of which he spoke to himself and was hoping for:
"Those are the elevated cranes:

truly their intercession is dearly hoped!"
When the Quraysh heard this, they rejoiced greatly. Allah's Messenger proceeded with his
recitation until the end of the Sura, at which point he prostrated, and the Muslims prostrated with
him as well as all those of the pagans that were in the mosque. There remained no-one in the
mosque, neither believer nor non-believer, except he prostrated, but for al-Walid ibn al-Mughira
and Abu Uhayha Saìd ibn al-Às who took a handful of earth and applied it to their foreheads,
prostrating on it, for they were aged old men who could not prostrate. Then the Quraysh
dispersed in elation at the way they had heard their gods mentioned, saying: "Muhammad has
mentioned our gods in the best way possible." They also said: "We definitely know that Allah
gives life and gives death as well as creates and sustains, but these our gods intercede for us
before Him, so if Muhammad gives them their share, we are with him." When evening came,
Gibril came to Allah's Messenger - Allah bless and greet him - and said: "O Muhammad! What
have you done? You have recited to the people something which I never brought you from Allah
Exalted and Almighty." Hearing this, the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - was deeply
grieved and feared much from Allah (swt). So Allah revealed to him the following verse in which
he consoled him , as He was ever merciful towards him:
{ Never sent We a messenger or a Prophet before thee but when He recited (the message) Satan
proposed (opposition) in respect of that which he recited thereof. But Allah abolisheth that which
Satan proposeth. Then Allah establisheth His revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise} (22:52)
Meanwhile those of the Prophet's Companions who were in Abyssynia heard the news of the
prostration of the Quraysh and the rumor that the Quraysh and the Meccans had accepted Islam,
so most of them returned to their kindred. But when they neared Mecca the news reached them
that what they had heard of the Islam of the Meccans was false. So no-one actually entered
Mecca except under protection or stealthily. When the above verse was revealed, the Quraysh
said: "Muhammad regrets his words about the status of our gods before Allah and has now
changed them." The two phrases that the devil had interjected upon the tongue of Allah's
Messenger - Allah bless and greet him - by then were in the mouth of every idolater, and their
hostility increased in intensity against those who had accepted Islam.
3. Al-Tabari (d. 310) said in his commentary entitled Jami` al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an (30 vols.)
Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1405/1985, reprint of the Bulaq 1322-1330/1904-1911 ed. vol. 17:
[p. 186] The sayings concerning the interpretation of the verse:
Satan proposeth. Then Allah establisheth His revelations. Allah is Knower, Wise} (22:52):
It was said that the reason for which this verse was revealed upon the Messenger of Allah - Allah
bless and greet him - is that the devil had interjected upon the Prophet's tongue - Allah bless and
greet him - during some of his recitation of the Qur'an as it had been revealed to him by Allah,
something which Allah had not revealed. Then this bore heavily on Allah's Messenger - Allah
bless and greet him - who became despondent, whereupon Allah Almighty comforted him by
revealing to him the above....
[Then al-Tabari proceeds to narrate reports to that effect, all of them weak, but the collective
weight of which suggests authenticity as stated by Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari (see below).]
[p. 190] The gist of the interpretation of the verse is: "We never sent before you any Messenger
nor Prophet except that, when he uttered Allah's Book in recitation, or discoursed and spoke, the
devil interjected something into what he uttered of Allah's Book in recitation or into his discourse
and speech, { But Allah abolishes that which the devil interjects} , i.e. He removes whatever
suggestion the devil interjects upon the Prophet's tongue and nullifies it."
[Al-Tabari goes on to state that the verses that follow make explicit the fact that the reason for
this incident was to test the belief of those who harbored a disease in their hearts and increase the
belief of those who were rightly-guided - and this test continues until our time:
22:53 { That He may make that which the devil proposeth a temptation for those in whose hearts
is a disease, and those whose hearts are hardened. Lo! the evil-doers are in open schism.}
22:54 { And that those who have been given knowledge may know that it is the truth from thy
Lord, so that they may believe therein and their hearts may submit humbly unto Him. Lo! Allah
verily is guiding those who believe unto a right path.}
22:55 { And those who disbelieve will not cease to be in doubt thereof until the Hour come upon
them unawares, or there come unto them the doom of a disastrous day.}
22:56 { The Sovereignty on that day will be Allah's. He will judge between them. Then those
who believed and did good works will be in Gardens of Delight,}
22:57 { While those who disbelieved and denied Our revelations, for them will be a shameful
doom.} ]
4. Al-Jassas (d. 370), Ahkam al-Qur'an (5 vols.), ed. Muhammad al-Sadiq Qamhawi (Beirut: Dar
Ihya' al-Turath al-Àrabi, 1405/1985) 5:83-84:
Concerning the verse:
It was narrated from Ibn Àbbas, Saìd ibn Jubayr, al-Dahhak, Muhammad ibn Ka`b, and
Muhammad ibn Qays that the circumstance of revelation fof this verse was that when the
Prophet - Allah bless and greet him recited { Have ye thought upon Al Lat and Al Uzza? And
Manat, the third, the other?}(53:19-20), the devil interjected (alqa) into his recitation: "Those are
the elevated cranes: truly their intercession is dearly hoped!"
There is difference of opinion over the meaning of "the devil interjected." Some said that when
the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - recited this sura and mentioned in it the idols, the
pagans knew that he would vilify them and so one of them said, at the time the Prophet - Allah
bless and greet him - reached the words { Have ye thought upon} etc. "Those are," etc. in full
presence of the multitude of the Quraysh in the holy Mosque. At that time the generality of the
pagans who were far back said: "Muhammad just praised our divinities!" and they conjectured
that this was part of his recitation. Thereafter, Allah declared this claim of theirs false, and
showed that the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - never recited it in the first place, but that it
was only recited by one of the pagans. Allah named that person "Satan" because he was one of
the devils of humankind... "shaytan" being a name for every obdurate rebel among jinn and
humankind. It was also said that it is possible that he was one of the devils of the jinn.
5. Al-Thaàlibi's (d. 876) al-Jawahir al-Hisan fi Tafsir al-Qur'an (4 vols.), Beirut: Mu'assasa alA`lami li al-Matbuàt, 1970, Reprint of the original 1323/1905 Algerian edition, 3:84:
Al-Qadi Ìyad said [in al-Shifa]: "Suffice it for you that this narration was not documented by
any of the scholars of sound hadith, nor have any of the trustworthy narrators related it with a
healthy, uninterrupted chain. The only ones to be interested in it are the type of commentators
and historians who are interested in every strange matter, blindly compiling from the books
everything their hands fall upon, whether it is sound or feeble." Qadi Abu Bakr told the truth.
6. Abu al-Suùd's (d. 951) Irshad al-Àql al-Salim ila Mazaya al-Qur'an al-Karim (9 vols.), Dar
Ihya' al-Turath al-Àrabi, 6:113:
Concerning the verse:
It was said that he [the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him] hoped, because of his yearning that
his people should have faith, that there be revealed to him something that would bring them
nearer to him, and he persisted in this until he was among them and Sura al-Najm was revealed;
whereupon he began to recite it, and when he reached { And Manat, the third, the other} , the
devil whispered to him with the result that his tongue tripped in inattention and he said "Those
are the elevated cranes: truly their intercession is dearly hoped!" Whereupon the pagans rejoiced
and joined him in prostration when he prostrated at the end of the Sura, and there remained none
in the Mosque - whether believer or pagan - except they all prostrated. After this, Gibril - upon
him peace - warned him of the mistake, then Allah the Exalted rebuked him with this verse. This
account is rejected by the scholars of verification.
7. Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari, 1959 ed. vol. 8:

[p. 439] All the paths of this hadith are either weak or cut off, except for that of Saìd ibn
Jubayr... However, the profusion of the chains show that the story has a basis, furthermore, there
are two other "mursal" chains whose narrators are those of Bukhari and Muslim. The first one is
that narrated by al-Tabari through Yunus ibn Yazid from Ibn Shihab [al-Zuhri]: "Abu Bakr ibn
Àbd al-Rahman ibn al-Harith ibn Hisham narrated to me," etc. The second is what al-Tabari also
narrated through al-Mu`tamir ibn Sulayman and Hammad ibn Salama from Dawud ibn Abi Hind
from Abu al-Àliya.... Contrary to what Abu Bakr ibn al-Àrabi and al-Qadi Ìyad have claimed
whereby the story has no basis at all.... When the paths of a hadith are many and distinct, it
shows that the report has a basis.... So, as I said, there are three sound but 'mursal' chains for it,
among them what meets the criteria of the two Sahihs but for the fact that they are 'mursal'.
These constitute proof for both those that accept 'mursal' reports as proofs and those that do not,
due to the mutual strengthening of the chains.
This said, it is required to interpret the incident and address what appears to be reprehensible,
namely the statement "the devil interjected upon the Prophet's tongue - Allah bless and greet him
- the words 'Those are the elevated cranes: truly their intercession is dearly hoped.'" Such a thing
is precluded from being accepted in literal terms for it is impossible for the Prophet - Allah bless
and greet him - to add something to the Qur'an that does not belong to it whether deliberately
(àmdan) or erroneously (sahwan). ...
[p. 440] Al-Qadi Ìyad did well when he said: "It is possible the Prophet - Allah bless and greet
him - was mentioning the belief of the pagans by way of derision, noting that at that time it was
permitted to speak in the midst of prayer. To this position leaned Ibn al-Baqillani. It was also said
that when he reached the words { Have ye thought upon Al Lat and Al Uzza? And Manat, the
third, the other?} the pagans feared lest he would add something to mock their gods, so they
hastened to interject and jeer so as to cover up what was coming next, as was their habit stated in
the verse { Those who disbelieve say: Heed not this Quran, and drown the hearing of it; haply ye
may conquer} (41:26). This act on their part was attributed to the devil as it was he that inspired
it to them. Or, what was meant by the devil was the devil of humankind.... It was also said that
the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him used to recite the Qur'an slowly, so that the devil lay in
wait for one of the pauses and uttered the words in question with the same timbre of voice. Those
that were near him heard it as if coming from the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - and
attributed it to him. This is the best of all interpretations."
Ibn al-Àrabi also approved of the latter interpretation, saying: "This verse [{ Never sent We a
messenger or a Prophet before thee but when He recited (the message) Satan proposed
(opposition) in respect of his amaniyya (="that which he recited thereof")} (22:52)] is an explicit
proof-text, in our school, to the innocence of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - of what
was imputed to him. The meaning of 'amaniyya' in the verse being: 'recitation'. Allah Almighty
therefore informed us in this verse that His way with His Messengers is that when they say
something, Satan adds something to it on his part. This is an explicit proof-text that it is Satan
that conveys this statement inside the Prophet's words - Allah bless and greet him - and it is not
the latter that says it. A precedent for this view was given by al-Tabari, in keeping with his high
erudition, vast learning, and perspicuous analysis, and HE DECLARED IT THE CORRECT
INTERPRETATION, AND SETTLED ON IT."
-There are two recent booklets from the late Nasir Albani's printing house, al-Maktab al-Islami
out of Beirut, on the topic:
1- Nasb al-Majaniq li-Nasf Qissat al-Gharaniq ("The Hoisting of Catapults for the Destruction of
the Story of the Cranes") by M. Nasir al-Albani, 3rd ed. 1996.
2- Al-Gharaniq: Qissatun Dakhilatun àla al-Sirati al-Nabawiyya ("The Cranes: A Story
Interpolated into the Prophetic Sira") by Albani's student Salih Ahmad al-Shami, 1st ed. 1998.
The first work argues for the invalidity of the story from the viewpoint of isnad, a weak
argument as shown in the preceding discussion.
The second work argues for the invalidity of the story from the viewpoint of chronology, a strong
and conclusive argument from the face of it, making the following points:
- Surat al-Najm (in which the disputed verses were purported to belong) was revealed in one
whole in the tenth year of the Hijra.
- The First Hijra to Abyssinia took place in the fifth year, between Rajab and Shawwal.
- How then could the revelation of Surat al-Najm and the subsequent events - prompting the
rumors of mass conversion in Mecca - that all took place in the tenth year, be a cause for the
return of the Abyssinian Emigrants in the fifth?
- The true reason for the return of the Muslims from the first Abyssinian Emigration was
alienation and difficult conditions as spoken by Asma' bint Ùmays in the narration of al-Bukhari
in his Sahih: "Asma' bint Ùmays went in to see Hafsa the wife of Rasulullah Sallallahu àlayhi
wa Alihi wa Sallam, and she was one of those who had emigrated to the Negus. Whereupon
Ùmar came in to see Hafsa while Asma' was with her. He asked who she was and Hafsa told
him. Ùmar said: She is the Abyssinian? The one from accross the sea? Asma' said yes. Ùmar
said: We all [emigrants to Madina] made Hijra before you all [emigrants to Abyssinia], so we are
more entitled to the Messenger of Allah than you - Allah bless and greet him. She became angry
and said: Not at all, by Allah! You were with the Messenger of Allah - Allah bless and greet him at a time he fed your hungry ones and admonished your ignorant ones, while we were in the
abode of alienation and detestation (dar al-buàda' wa al-bughada') in Abyssinia, all for the sake
of Allah and for the sake of Rasulullah! And, by Allah, I shall not eat one morsel of food nor
drink one drop of water until I mention what you said to Rasulullah! And how much did we
suffer, and how we lived in fear! But I shall mention this to the Prophet! Etc."
- All the above does not preclude the fact that the Meccan unbelievers did prostrate upon hearing
Sura al-Najm exactly as it was revealed, due to its majesty and the fear caused in them by the
invocation of punishment pronounced towards its end. One needs only to imagine them gathered
together with the Muslims before the Ka`ba as the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - himself
recited this newly-revealed Sura to them from beginning to end. Similar examples are the
reactions of the unbelievers at the invocations of punishment they heard from the believers. For
example, Ùtba ibn Rabià's reaction when he heard the verse { If they turn away, tell them I
have warned you of a destruction similar to that of Àd and Thamud} (Fussilat 13). Upon hearing
this Ùtba placed his hand on the mouth of the Prophet - Allah bless and greet him - so that the
threat of punishment would be averted. And when Khubayb ibn Àdi pronounced a similar threat,
Abu Sufyan lied down on the ground together with his son Muàwiya to deflect its harm.
Al-Shami also makes note of the book "Hadha al-Habib" by the late Abu Bakr al-Jaza'iri in
which the author advocates the position that the story did take place and that the Prophet - Allah
bless and greet him - was in fact mislead. This is the same man who used to sit in the Haram of
Madina attacking the Awliya and Sufis, and who wrote that the father and mother of the Prophet
- Allah bless and greet him - are in Hellfire. He was refuted among others by the two Moroccan
authors of the book Waìzun Ghayru Muttaìz ("A Heedless Admonisher").
The late al-Sayyid Àbd Allah Siraj al-Din al-Halabi (died this March 2002 rahimahullah) also
has a long, extremely detailed treatment of the story of the cranes in his masterful book _Hady
al-Qur'an al-Karim ila al-Hujjati wal-Burhan_ 2nd edition, 1994, p. 155-182. He too concludes
that it is a forgery. (Source)
Imam Razi in his commentary stated that the hadith scholars have declared this story to be weak
and that when Ibn Khuzayma was asked regarding this story, he declared it to be forged from
heretics. He also mentions that Imam Al Bayhaqi stated that this story was not narrated reliably
and that the narrators have been condemned by hadith scholars. (Fakhar ad-Din ar-Razi, Tafsir
Al Kabir, Commentary on Surah 22:52, Source)
Ibn Hazm also declared the Satanic verses story as a forgery and that there is no reliable chain of
transmission for it. (Ibn Hazm, Al Fasl Filmalal, 2/308-309, 311)
Some may try to appeal Ibn Hajar's argument regarding the story being authentic because the
many weak chains when looked at together gives the story a basis. However, Sheikh Dr. Emad
Sayed Al Sharbeeni in his book Radd Al Shubuhaat Hawl 'Asmatil Nabi Fi Daw' al Qur'an wal
Sunnah, pp. 355-356 responds back to Ibn Hajar by presenting the two following points.
1) As Ibn Hajar admits himself, not all accept mursal narrations. Imam Muslim in his
introduction to Saheeh Muslim said that mursal narrations cannot be held as
authoritative. (Bab: Sihhatil Ehtijaaj bil Hadeeth Al Mu'n'in, 1/163) Ibn Salaah said
that mursal narrations are just like weak hadeeth, they cannot be used as evidence unless
you have authentic narrations from somewhere else to strengthen it. ('Uloom Al
Hadeeth, p. 49) Different schools of thought have put different conditions in regards to
accepting mursal narrations. Thus, not all Muslims are required to believe this story, for it
cannot be proven to be authentic in a clear-cut manner.
2) Acceptance of mursal narrations are only debated when it comes to matters of Fiqh
(jurisprudence) and not matters in Aqeedah (theology) that demand clear cut proof
and certainty, which the mursal narrations solely cannot provide despite having a good
chain of transmission. If one were to visit this linkand see the different opinions of
scholars regarding mursal narrations, you will realize that it is in relation to matters of
acts of worship (jurisprudence) and not theology.
Thirdly, pp. 696-698 of Dr. Mohar Ali's book The Biography of the Prophet and the Orientalists,
shows that the matn (content) of the narrations are different when they are compared with each
other. Keeping minor differences aside, there are major differences in regards to the occasion of
the incident, nature of the Prophets' alleged act, wording of the alleged "satanic verses" and their
effect or sequel. Thus, this gives us greater confidence in the fact that the missing person in the
mursal narration is indeed a weak narrator.
I would like to make it known that missionaries don't (either due to forgetfulness, deceitfulness
or ignorance) inform their readers about the other versions of the Satanic verses stories that have
come down to us (all of them are unreliable by the way), which would refute the main thesis of
their arguments.
One version of the story states that the Prophet (peace be upon him) never uttered the Satanic
verses. It also states that the Muslims did not hear it. It was only Satan who deceived the pagans
into making them hear the verses. So both Pagans and Muslims bowed down together (pagans
hearing Satan's revelation, while the Muslims were hearing the true Qur'an) and both were
surprised at the other side for bowing down.
Dr. Mohar Ali interestingly points out in his book The Biography of the Prophet and the
Orientalists, page 700:
Significantly enough, some versions of the story clearly state that the "satanic verses"
were uttered not by the Prophet but by satan or some unbelievers at the time of the
Prophet's recitation of the surah. Even the version said to have been transmitted by
Urwah ibn al-Zubayr says first that it was "thrown in" by satan without mentioning "on
the tongue of the Prophet", and later on specifically stating that "the Muslims did not hear
what
satan
threw
in
on
the
tongues
of
the
polytheists" (
) [2]. The same information is given

in the version coming from Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri wherein it is stated: "The Muslims did
not hear what the devil threw in the hearing of the unbelievers" (

) [3] Rightly, therefore, Ibn Taymiyyah categorically states that the
alleged couplet was put by satan into the hearing of the unbelievers. [4]
2) Al-Tabarani, Majma' etc., VI, 32-34; VIII, 70-72, Also quoted in Al-Albani, op.cit., 1213
3) Ibn Kathir, Tafsir,
4) Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmu' at Fatawa, II, 282.
Dr. Mohar Ali also notes on page 697:

Yet other versions state that it was neither the Prophet, nor Satan, but someone from
among the unbelievers who uttered the alleged verses when the Prophet had just
completed the recitation of ayah 19 of the surah.
He argues on page 700:
A second fact which needs emphasizing in this connection is that the text of the so-called
"satanic verses" was no new composition made on the occasion mentioned. It was an old
couplet which the Quraysh pagans used to recite in praise of their goddesses while
circumambulating the Ka'ba. [1] It is also to be remembered that the unbelievers used to
create noise and disturbances whenever the Prophet or the Muslims recited the Qur'an
publicly. Therefore, it is very likely that when the Prophet recited the surah and
mentioned Al-Lat and Al-'Uzza in the course of his recitation and in a denunciatory
strain, some of the Quraysh unbelievers instantly interrupted and protested by shouting
out the couplet.
1) Ibn al-Kalbi, Kitab al-Asnam, ed. Ahmad Zaki Pasha, p.19, Yaqut, Mu'jam al-Buldan,
IV, 116.
So here we see that other versions
missionaries' conclusions and arguments.
of the Satanic
What objective
Verses story destroy the

scientific and historical
methodology are they utilizing for insisting that the version of the story that he appeals to is
correct and not these other versions? (PS: I don't accept any of these stories).
Since we are familiar with the low quality argumentation of missionaries, we anticipate
what they might say. They might argue back and say that there is good reason to believe that
Muslims made up the other versions, which vindicate Muhammad (peace be upon him) because
they are biased. Therefore, they aren't reliable. However, if we were to utilize the historical
method and apply the principle of embarrassment we can conclude that the story which portrays
Muhammad (peace be upon him) as uttering the Satanic verses as more reliable, since Muslims
wouldn't make up such a story.
However, there are problems with these kinds of responses. First of all, the person arguing this
way is committing the fallacy of circumstantial ad hominem. Just because it appears that the
Muslims would have a motive to lie, that is not evidence that they did. Also, the missionary
would be applying double standards here since one can then easily argue back that we don't have
any enemy testimony from the first Christian century, but only Christian testimony. Therefore,
since Christians would have a bias towards speaking positively about Paul we should assume that
anything they say is not trustworthy! But of course no Christian would accept that sort of logic
now would he?
As for the principle of embarrassment, this can only be applied once we know for a
certainty who the person is. As I demonstrated in my article on the Satanic verses here, the
chains regarding the story are broken and there are missing people in the chain. We don't know
who these missing people are. We don't know if they are Muslims, non-Muslims, hypocrites
acting as Muslims and purposely spreading lies, etc. So if we are not sure who the people in the
missing links are, how can we apply the principle of embarrassment? We can only apply this
principle if we were to know that the person is a trustworthy Muslim who would definitely have
no motive to lie and make up something derogatory about the Prophet (peace be upon him).
However, for all we know, the people in the missing link could be people known for fabricating
narrations. You can't apply this principle to these people. In conclusion, since we are not sure
who the people in the missing link are, we can't confidently go ahead and apply this principle to
this case.
Some missionaries might reply back and say that there is several independent testimonies
narrating the event. But again, we don't know the people in the missing links. For all we
know it can be the same person that is missing in all the broken chains. If that is the case,
then this wouldn't make all these narrations truly independent. So again there is no shred of
objective evidence that can show that all these narrations truly are independent.
Secondly, ONLY FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT let's actually say that this whole incident is
true and actually happened. This in no way disproves the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be
upon him). It actually does nothing but convince me even more that he truly was a Prophet from
God! The funny thing is that if the Quran was truly authored by Satan as many critics claim then
why on earth would Satan abrogate the 'satanic revelations' of Surah 53 and then expose himself?
If the Quran is truly inspired by Satan then Satan should have just let people believe in that
Satanic revelation. If the Quran is truly authored by Satan then why would Satan only bother to
expose himself on that specific verse? The truth of the matter is that this is absolute nonsense. If
we want to accept the story we could only accept this conclusion:
Satan deceived the Prophet (peace be upon him) for those few seconds by whispering those
verses into him and tricking him into saying it. However later on God protected His
Prophet (peace be upon him) and rebuked Satan and exposed Satan's failure in his attempt
to bring people into idol worship. This could only show that the author of the Quran truly
is God and no one else!
Of course, I reject the story. However, if people want to be stubborn and keep shoving it down
my throat then fine. It does nothing more than prove to me that the Quran is indeed a revelation
of God by exposing the plots of Satan!
The same arguments above apply even if the Islamic critic takes the position that it was
Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself who was the author of the Qur'an and not Satan
The Narration of the Prophet's (peace be upon him)

Contemplation of Suicide is Inauthentic in Terms of
Its Transmission and Textual Content
By
Sheikh Saalih Al-Munajjid
Translated by:
Abu Nadm al-Zahiri
Translation Revised by:
Bassam Zawadi
Question:
During my research online, I found a comment stating that in the historical collection of
Bukhari, the Prophet (peace be upon him) is reported to have attempted suicide, but I
didn't find the specific report in the collection, which was necessary in order to dismantle
this doubt. If you would be so kind, I would like to know the specific report in Bukhari's
collection along with a detailed explanation. Thanks so much.
Answer:
Praise the Lord.
First of all:
The narration about which our brother is asking about is present in Bukhari's collection as
narration number 6581 in the chapter of "Interpretation of Dreams" under the section heading
"Commencement of the Divine Revelation to Allah's Messenger (saws) was in the form of good
dreams" The exact wording is:
"Az-Zuhri said: 'Urwah informed me on the authority of A'isha (may God be pleased with her)
that she said:. the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while and the Prophet (peace be upon
him) became so sad as we have heard that he intended several times to throw himself from the
tops of high mountains and every time he went up the top of a mountain in order to throw
himself down, Gabriel would appear before him and say, "O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah's
Messenger () in truth" whereupon his heart would become quiet and he would calm down and
would return home. And whenever the period of the coming of the inspiration used to become
long, he would do as before, but when he used to reach the top of a mountain, Gabriel would
appear before him and say to him what he had said before."
Second of all:
This addition is not from the speech of A'isha, rather it is the statement of Az-Zuhri. He was from
the second generation of Muslims and did not witness any of these incidents, nor did he remark
that any of the companions of the Prophet informed him of this. He clarifies this in the very
narration itself with his statement: "in what has reached us."
Ibn Hajar (may God have mercy on him) said:
"Thus, the one who made the statement 'in what has reached us' was Az-Zuhri, and the meaning
of his statement is: in this sentence is that which has reached us regarding the Prophet (peace be
upon him) in regards to this story. It is merely an addition from what has reached Az-Zuhri and is
not actually connected back to the original narration, as Al-Kirmani said: this is what is
apparent."(Fath al-Bari, volume 12, page 359)
Abu Shama al-Maqdisi (may God have mercy on him) said:
"This is the statement of Az-Zuhri or someone else other than A'isha - God knows best - due to
the phrase: 'in what has reached us,' and Aisha did not say anything from what was mentioned in
the hadith." (Sharh al-Hadith al-Muqtafa fi Mab'ath an-Nabi al-Mustafa, page 177)
Third of all:
Additions of Az-Zuhri from that which reached him are not accepted because their chain of
narration is disconnected to begin with, thus they are considered to be "hanging" narrations in
both the terminological and practical sense. The mere presence of hanging narrations like this in
the collection of Bukhari doesn't mean that Bukhari considered them to be authentic, or that it
would be accurate to say that Bukhari narrated them, because that which Bukhari is said to have
narrated authentically is only in regards to that which he narrated with a complete chain from
beginning to end.
Sheikh Albani (may God have mercy on him) said:
"To ascribe this narration as being one of Bukhari's is a manifest error, because one who ascribes
such a thing imagines that this story of jumping off the mountain is authentic according to the
conditions of Bukhari himself. This is not the case, and the proof is that Bukhari narrated this
event himself at the end of A'isha's statement in the chapter of "How the Revelation Began".
[Albani goes on to quote the full narration].
"This narration along with Az-Zuhri's addition has been recorded by Ahmad (volume 6, pages
232-233), Abu Nu'aym (ad-Dalaìl, pages 68-69), and Al-Baihaqi in his ad-Dalaìl, volume 1,
pages 393-395), via Abdur Razzaq on the authority of Ma'mar. It has also been narrated via this
route by Muslim (volume 1, page 98), but he did not narrate the expression; rather, he only
referred to the expression narrated by Yunus on the authority of Ibn Shihab without Az-Zuhri's
addition. Muslim and Ahmad (volume 6, page 223) both narrated it this way via Aqil bin Khalid
on the authority of Ibn Shihab without Az-Zuhri's addition. Bukhari also narrated it this way in
the beginning of his collection via Aqil.
"Thus I [Albani] say: we may conclude, from the above, that the addition to the narration
contains two defects:
The first: only Ma'mar narrated it this way, while Yunus and Aqil did not; thus it is rendered an
oddity (shaadha).
The second: its chain of narration is disconnected at two consecutive levels (mursala mu'adalla).
The phrase "in what has reached us" is the addition of Az-Zuhri, as is clear from the expression,
as Ibn Hajar declared in his al-Fath.
So I [Albani] say: this is something which the Dr. [meaning: Dr. Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti, author
of the book which Albani is criticizing] has either forgotten or failed to realize, as he seems to
think that every letter of Bukhari's collection must be authentic according to his own conditions.
Perhaps he has failed to differentiate between that which has a complete chain of narration and
that which has an incomplete chain, just as he failed to differentiate between the authentic
narration which contains additions and the inauthentic narration which contains some authentic
information. An example of this is the narration of A'isha, which contains at the end of it this
inauthentic addition. So know that this addition is not present in any of the narrations with
complete authentic chains, which are accepted as proof as I clarified in my book Silsila alAhadith ad-Da'ifa, number 4858, and as I pointed out in my commentary on my summarized
version of Bukhari's collection." (Difa' 'an al-Hadith an-Nabawi, pages 40-41)
Fourth of all:
Other chains of narration are available wherein we find the story about the Prophet (peace be
upon him) attempting suicide after the revelation ceased for the first time. All of these chains are
rejected and are either falling into the categories of inauthentic or fabricated.
From them:
1) The chain of Ibn Mardawayh:
Ibn Hajar (may God have mercy on him) said: "there is to be found in the book at-Tafsir of Ibn
Mardawayh, via Muhammad bin Kathir on the authority of Ma'mar, the narration without the
phrase "in what has reached us", but with the rest of the statement "led him to the cliffs of a
mountain." and so forth. Thus, it was rendered as an insertion into the narration of Az-Zuhri on
the authority of 'Urwa on the authority of A'isha, and the first version is the reliable one." (Fath
al-Bari, volume 12, pages 359-360)
The meaning of Ibn Hajar's statement "and the first version is the reliable one" refers to the
narration of Az-Zuhri which includes the phrase "in what has reached us" and this phrase is not
authentically linked to the chain of narration.
Albani (may God have mercy on him) commented in regard to Ibn Hajar's judgment: "he is
supported by two points. The first is that Muhammad bin Kathir is a weak narrator - due to his
defective memory - and he is also known as as-San'ani al-Masisi. Ibn Hajar said he is honest, but
very error-prone, and he is not the same person as Muhammad bin Kathir al-Abdi al-Basri, who
is a strong narrator. The second is that this narration contradicts the narration of Abdur Razzaq
who narrated from Ma'mar,which distinguished the beginning of the whole quote from the end,
and clearly signified the end of it as an addition by Az-Zuhri. All this points to the error of
Muhammad bin Kathir as-San'ani for including this addition and it's weakness has been
established." (Silsila al-Ahadith ad-Da'ifa wal-Maudu'a, volume 10, page 453)
2) The chain of Ibn Sa'd:
Muhammad bin Sa'd said: Muhammad bin Umar informed us that Ibrahim bin Muhammad bin
Abi Musa narrated from Dawud bin al-Hussain from Abu Ghatafan bin Tarif from Ibn Abbas that
the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) would spend days without seeing Gabriel and was
befallen by a great sadness when the revelation would descend upon him at the cave of Hira. So
great was his sadness that he would go to Thubair, or sometimes Hira, wanting to throw himself
from them. So he (peace be upon him) would take himself to the top and would hear a voice
from the sky at which point the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) would freeze where he
was upon hearing the voice, and would then raise his head. Lo and behold, Gabriel was on a
chair between the sky and the earth closing in around him and said "O Muhammad, you truly are
the Messenger of God and I am Gabriel." Ibn Abbas said: So the Messenger of God (peace be
upon him) would leave. God would open his eyes and cause his soul to become firm and the
revelations would again continue and satiate his desire. (at-Tabaqat al-Kubra, volume 1, page.
196)
Albani (may God have mercy on him) said: "This chain of narration is fabricated. This is either
from one of two people. Muhammad bin Umar - and he is al-Waqidi - is accused of fabrication,
as Ibn Hajar said in his book at-Taqrib: 'He is abandoned, despite the depth of his knowledge.'
The verdicts of the scholars regarding him have preceded more than once.
The other person is Ibrahim bin Muhammad bin Abi Musa - and he is Ibn Abi Yahya - and his
real name is: Sam'an Al-Aslami the freed man of Abu Ishaq al-Madani. He is abandoned as well
just like al-Waqidi or even worse. Ibn Hajar also said about him: 'abandoned,' and narrated in atTaqrib the critical statements of the scholars regarding him, and they almost constitute absolute
consensus on his dishonesty. From those statements is that of al-Harbi: 'The scholars of prophetic
tradition loathe his narrations; al-Waqidi narrated on his authority that which resembles
fabrication, though al-Waqidi made things worse.'
And al-Harbi's statement regarding the chain itself: 'Ibn Abi Musa - and I believe he is in
actuality Ibn Abi Yahya, but his name was changed intentionally by al-Waqidi as he has done
with others - was stated by Abd al-Ghani bin Sa'id al-Masri to be Ibrahim bin Muhammad bin
Abi 'Ata who was criticized by Ibn Juraij. He is also Abd al-Wahhab who was criticized by
Marwan bin Mu'awiya and he is Abu adh-Dhi`b who was criticized by Ibn Juraij.'" (Silsila alAhadith ad-Dai'fa wal-Maudu'a, volume 10, page 451)
3) The chain of at-Tabari:
Ibn Jarir at-Tabari said: Ibn Humaid said that Salama narrated on the authority of Muhammad bin
Ishaq from Wahb bin Kaisan freedman of the people of az-Zubair who heard from Abd Allah bin
az-Zubair who said to 'Ubaid bin 'Umair bin Qatada al-Laithi who said: O 'Ubaid, what was the
beginning of the prophetic revelation to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) like back
when Gabriel (peace be upon him) came to him? So 'Ubaid said - and Abd Allah bin az-Zubair
said that he and those with him were present - that the Messenger of God (peace be upon him)
would take off to the cave of Hira for a month every year. Gabriel came to him by the order of
God and the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) said: "he came to me, while I was sleeping,
with a sort of silk wrapping with a book inside it and said: Read. I asked what I should read, so
he seized me until I thought I would face death, and then released me and said: Read. I asked
what I should read, and I only said that so he wouldn't grab a hold of me again. He said: {Read in
the name of your Lord Who created} up to {He taught man that which he did not know}." The
Prophet said: "So I recited it," and then said: "Then it ended and he left me in my sleep and it
was as though he had written that book in my heart." He then said: "There was nothing from all
of God's creation more hated to me than a poet or a madman; I couldn't even look at such people.
He said: I said: indeed this is the furthest person - meaning himself! - from a poet or a madman,
as the Quraish never said that about me, to intentionally go to the high barren mountain to throw
myself from it in order to kill myself and gain some sort of peace." He said: "So I went out
wanting to do exactly that until I was halfway to the mountain when I heard a voice from the sky
saying: O Muhammad, truly you are the Messenger of God and I am Gabriel." He said: "I lifted
my head to the sky and lo and behold, Gabriel was there in the image of a man with his feet
resting at the horizon saying: O Muhammad, you are the Messenger of God and I am Gabriel."
(Tarikh at-Tabari, volume 1, pages 532-533)
The text of this narration is rejected in light of its contradiction of the authentic versions, for in
this version there is a meeting of the Prophet (peace be upon him) with Gabriel in a dream rather
than being awake! Also, therein is the statement "what should I read!" Both of these are false.
The meeting between the two messengers wasn't during sleep, and that which he (peace be upon
him) said was "I can't read," cancelling the ability to read at all, yet this rejected narration holds
that he was literate.
As for the chain of narration, then Albani (may God have mercy on him) said: "However in this
chain there is nothing to be happy about, especially with its contradiction to that which has
preceded from the strong narrators. There are several defects. The first is Irsaal, as 'Ubaid bin
'Umair was not from the first generation of Muslims, rather he was from the older members of
the second generation having been born during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
The second: Salama - and he is Ibn al-Fadl al-Abrash - was said by Ibn Hajar to be an honest
man, but very error prone. I [Albani] say: In addition to that, he is contradicted by Ziyad bin Abd
Allah al-Bakkaaì who narrated the book "as-Sira" on the authority of Ibn Ishaq,. Also, via this
same route narrated Ibn Hisham, and Ibn Hajar said regarding him: he is an honest man as
affirmed in al-Maghazi. Ibn Hisham recorded this narration in as-Sira (volume 1, pages 252-253)
from him from Ibn Ishaq without the addition, which I placed between the two brackets [], and
between them is the rejected story about considering suicide.
It is possible that al-Abrash alone included it in opposition to al-Bakkaaì and it is thusrejected
from another angle due to this opposition, as the narration is recorded without this addition by
Ibn Ishaq, as the previous statement of Ibn Hajar indicates.
And it is also possible that Ibn Hisham himself left it out of the book due to the narration's false
meaning and due to its contradicting the notion of the Prophet's (peace be upon him) infallibility.
Ibn Hisham did imply this in the introduction of his book, as he said in volume one, page four:
'.leaving out some of what Ibn Ishaq recorded in this book from that which is not authentically
reported about the Messenger of God (peace be upon him).and things which indicate the
narration's weakness.'
And this is all said in regards to the possibility of the narration's being free from the following
third defect: Ibn Humaid - and is name is Muhammad ar-Razi - is a very weak narrator. A group
of scholars have declared him to be a liar, from them Abu Zur'ah ar-Razi.
In short: the narration is inauthentic both in terms of the soundness of its chain and the accuracy
of the text. The heart of the believer is not comfortable with the claims of these weak narrators in
regards to that which is attributed to the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) as far as
considering killing himself by jumping off a mountain. And the Prophet is the one who said - in
that which actually is authentically linked to him - that "whoever throws himself from a
mountain and kills himself will be in the fires of Hell throwing himself within it forever and
ever." This is agreed upon by the two collections of Bukhari and Muslim and in at-Targhib
(volume 3, pages 205). This lack of comfort in accepting these claims is especially strong in light
of the fact that these weak narrators contradicted the trustworthy scholars whose narrations are
accepted and who also transmitted this report." (Silsila al-Ahadith ad-Da'ifa wal-Maudu'a
volume 10, pages 455-457)
Fifthly:
The weakness of the chains of narration in which it is claimed that the Prophet (peace be upon
him) attempted suicide has been confirmed; even the falsehood and fabrication of these chains,
in fact. It is not hidden that the text is also false and rejected and that is from several angles:
1) The period in which the revelation ceased was in order to allow for the subsiding of the fear,
which our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) endured from the first time the revelation
came to him. It was also for the sake of preparing for what would come after it. How could he
possibly have faced such a cessation while contemplating suicide? Ibn Tulun as-Salihi (may God
have mercy on him) said:
"The wisdom in the cessation of revelation - and God knows best - was so that
what he (peace be upon him) experienced in terms of fear could subside, and so a
desire for that revelation to return could develop." (Subul al-Huda war-Rashad fi
Sira Khair al-'Ibad volume 2, page 272)
2) The Prophet (peace be upon him) never doubted his own status as a prophet for one minute, as
Almighty God made his heart firm via the revelation and the fear he felt the first time he
experienced revelation merely indicates his humanity and the intensity of the revelation. After
that (i.e. the first revelation) he (peace be upon him) would sometimes suffer during particular
forms of revelation.
Conclusion:
The narration regarding the Prophet's (peace be upon him) contemplation of suicide due to the
delay of further revelations after the first one is inauthentic and the addition in the collection of
Bukhari does not meet his own conditions and thus cannot be attributed to his own personal
reports. Indeed, Bukhari himself affirmed this addition as being the statement of none other than
Az-Zuhri, as it is an inauthentic addition with a disconnected chain of transmission. We
explained here that the report has numerous other narrations and all of them confirm the
weakness of the story, both in terms of its chain and its textual accuracy
Does Prophet Muhammad's Contemplation

of Suicide Disprove His Prophethood,
Assuming He Did?
By
Bassam Zawadi
This article will be divided into the two following sections: 1) The Reliability of the Narrations that Speak About the Prophet's Alleged Suicide Attempts
2) Even if the Narrations Were True, They Don't Disprove Muhammad's Prophethood
The Reliability of the Narrations that Speak About the

Prophet's Suicide Attempts
This incident is recorded in a number of sources.
Source 1:
First one is in Ibn Sa'ad's book, Kitab Al Tabaqaat. The chain of transmission is Muhammad ibn
Umar al-Waqidi - Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Musa - Dawud ibn Al Husayn - Abi Ghatfan
bin Turayf - Ibn Abbass.
Problem with Narration:
It contains the infamous Al Waqidi, who has been condemned. Interestingly a Christian has done
some impressive research on this individual in one of his articles and I will therefore be copying
this short piece from his article...
Abd Allah Ibn Ali al Madini and his father said: "Al-Waqidi has 20,000 Hadith I
never heard of." And then he said: "His narration shouldn't be used" and
considered it weak.
Yahya Ibn Muaen said: "Al-Waqidi said 20,000 false hadith about the prophet."
Al-Shafi'i said, "Al-Waqidi is a liar."
Ibn Hanbal said, "Al-Waqidi is a liar."
Al-Bukhari said he didn't write a single letter by Al-Waqidi. (Siar Aalam al
nublaa - althagbi - biography of Al-Waqidi)
The following Muslim author writes:
As a report of history, this narration suffers from two fatally

serious defects. The first is the UNIVERSALLY RECOGNISED
UNTRUSTWORTHINESS OF AL-WAQIDI. Details of his
unreliability as a narrator would probably fill several pages,
but all of it may be suitably condensed into a statement by Imam
ash-Shafi'ee, who was his contemporary, and who knew him
personally. Ash-Shafi'ee has the following to say: "In Madeenah
there were seven people who used to forge chains of narration. One
of them was alWaqidi."3 (Sources:http://www.allaahuakbar.net/shiites/vicious_uns
crupulous_propaganda_of_shiia-2.htmand http://www.ansar.org/en
glish/hasan.htm; bold emphasis ours)
Others say:
Al-Waqidi (130/747-207/822-23), who wrote over twenty works of
an historical nature, but only the Kitab al-Maghazi has survived as
an independent work. His reputation is marred by the fact that he
relied upon story tellers; viz., those who embellished the stories of
others. Al-Waqidi did such embellish, such as by adding dates and
other details onto the account of Ibn Ishaq (at pages 25-29)
(http://jeromekahn123.tripod.com/enlightenment/id3.html)
Even the English translator of Ibn Sa'd's work had this to say about al-Waqidi:
... The chain of the narrators is not reliable because the person who
narrated to Ibn Sa'd was Waqidi WHO IS NOTORIOUS AS A
NARRATOR OF FABRICATED hadithes. The next one Ya'qub is
unknown and 'Abd Allah Ibn 'Abd al-Rahman is not a Companion.
Consequently this narration is not trustworthy. (Ibn Sa'd's Kitab AlTabaqat Al-Kabir, Volume I, English translation by S. Moinul Haq,
M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan
Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi,
110 002 India], p. 152, fn. 2; capital emphasis ours)
And the list goes on of those who called him a liar.
Al-Waqidi was also one of those that narrated the story of the Satanic Verses. The
most amazing part of this is that the authors' friend, MENJ has a response on the
same web site where this rebuttal appears from G.F. Haddad seeking to deny the
historicity of the Satanic Verses where he calls into question al-Waqidi's
reliability! Here is what Haddad says about al-Waqidi:
[(*) Muhammad ibn Ùmar al-Waqidi (d. 207), Ahmad ibn Hanbal
said of him: "He is A LIAR." Al-Bukhari and Abu Hatim al-Razi
said: "DISCARDED." Ibn Àdi said: "His narrations ARE NOT
RETAINED, AND THEIR BANE COMES FROM HIM." Ibn alMadini said: "HE FORGES HADITHS." Al-Dhahabi said:
"CONSENSUS HAS SETTLED OVER HIS DEBILITY." Mizan
al-I`tidal (3:662-666 #7993).]
(Source: http://bismikaallahuma.org/Polemics/haddad.htm; capital
emphasis ours)
So as we can see, this narration is unreliable.

Second Narration:
From Al Tabari's book, Al Tarikh. The first chain of transmission is Ibn Humayd - Salamah Muhammad ibn Ishaq - Wahb ibn Keesan - Abdullah ibn Zubayr - Ubayd ibn 'Umary ibn
Qatadah Al Laythi. The second chain of transmission is Ahmad b. 'Uthman, known as Abu al-Jawza
- Wahb b. Jarir - his father - al-Nu'man b. Rashid - al-Zuhri - 'Urwah - 'A'ishah.
Problem with Narration

The first chain contains two weak narrators.
First one is Ibn Fadl Al Abrash and Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani said regarding him "Trustworthy, but
makes many mistakes".
Second one is Ibn Humayd Al Raazi and the majority of scholars have declared him a liar.
The second chain contains al-Nu'man b. Rashid. This narrator is weak according to Al Nasai, Ibn
Ma'een and Ibn 'Udai (see Tahdheeb Al Tahdheeb, Volume 10, page 425). In Tahdheeb alKamal, al-Mizzi states:
Imam Ahmad says: His Hadeeth are Mudtarib and he narrates Munkar hadeeths.
Yahya bin Sa'eed: he is very weak.
Bukhari: he has alot of wahm in his hadeeth.
Abu dawud: he is weak.

al-Nasai: he is weak and makes alot of mistakes
Third Narration:
Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 87, Hadith Number 111
Problem with Narration:
This narration is doubtful for a number of reasons.
First, there are several other sound narrations that speak about the revelation being sent to the
Prophet (peace be upon him) and none of them speak about his suicide attempts.
Secondly, notice what the narration says...
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 009, Book 087, Hadith Number 111.
Waraqa said, "This is the same Namus (i.e., Gabriel, the Angel who keeps the
secrets) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to
the time when your people would turn you out." Allah's Apostle asked, "Will they
turn me out?" Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said: "Never did a man come
with something similar to what you have brought but was treated with hostility. If
I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would
support you strongly." But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine
Inspiration was also paused for a while and the Prophet (peace be upon him)
became so sad as we have heard that he intended several times to throw
himself from the tops of high mountains and every time he went up the top of
a mountain in order to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear before him
and say, "O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah's Apostle in truth" whereupon his
heart would become quiet and he would calm down and would return home. And
whenever the period of the coming of the inspiration used to become long, he
would do as before, but when he used to reach the top of a mountain, Gabriel
would appear before him and say to him what he had said before. (Ibn 'Abbas said
regarding the meaning of: 'He it is that Cleaves the daybreak (from the darkness)'
(6.96) that Al-Asbah. means the light of the sun during the day and the light of the
moon at night).
Notice that Aisha said that she only "heard" how the Prophet (peace be upon him) intended to
commit suicide. We don't know who she heard this from and therefore we cannot judge whether
it came from a trustworthy source or not.
Thirdly, in an authentic hadith the Prophet (peace be upon him) was asked when he felt
depressed the most...
Saheeh Bukhari
Narrated 'Aisha:
That she asked the Prophet (peace be upon him), 'Have you encountered a day
harder than the day of the battle) of Uhud?" The Prophet (peace be upon him)
replied, "Your tribes have troubled me a lot,and the worse trouble was the
trouble on the day of 'Aqaba when I presented myself to Ibn 'Abd-Yalail bin
'Abd-Kulal and he did not respond to my demand. So I departed,
overwhelmed with excessive sorrow, and proceeded on, and could not relax till I
found myself at Qarnath-Tha-alib where I lifted my head towards the sky to see a
cloud shading me unexpectedly. I looked up and saw Gabriel in it. He called me
saying, 'Allah has heard your people's saying to you, and what they have replied
back to you, Allah has sent the Angel of the Mountains to you so that you may
order him to do whatever you wish to these people.' The Angel of the Mountains
called and greeted me, and then said, "O Muhammad! Order what you wish. If
you like, I will let Al-Akh-Shabain (i.e. two mountains) fall on them." The
Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "No but I hope that Allah will let them beget
children who will worship Allah Alone, and will worship None besides Him."
Here we see that the Prophet (peace be upon him) stated that the worst trouble or depression that
he had ever undergone was during the time he went to the city of Taif and was rejected by the
people. Yet, nowhere do we see that he tried to commit suicide after this incident. Therefore, for
the Prophet (peace be upon him) to have attempted to commit suicide in the previous incident
would have to mean that he was more depressed than he was after his trip to Taif. However, we
see that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said that he was most depressed at this incident. This
causes us to doubt the Bukhari narration even more.
Fourthly, the part of the narration given regarding the Prophet peace be upon him going on top of
the mountains is reported by Imam Zuhri (d. 52-124 A.H.) who relates it from unknown sources
on the authority of Aisha. There is a gap in the chain of transmission between Aisha and Imam
Zuhri, thus we don't know if the missing link in the chain is a reliable narrator or not.
Shaykh GF Haddad said:
This conclusion [that Bukhari is 100% authentic] excludes the chainless, broken-chained reports,
or unattributed reports sometimes adduced by al-Bukhari in his chapter-titles or appended to
certain narrations. An example of the latter is the so-called "suicide hadith" - one of alZuhri's unattributive narrations (balaghat) which is actually broken-chained and therefore
weak. It does not meet the criteria of hadith authenticity used by the lesser and greater
hadith Masters, much less that of al-Bukhari who mentioned it only to show its discrepancy
with two other chains whose versions omit the attempted suicide story, and Allah knows best.
The above conclusion is proof that the position that everything that is found in the two Sahihs is
rigorously sound refers only to full-chained reports positively attributed to the Prophet
Muhammad.(Source)
Even if the Narrations Were True, They Don't Disprove

Muhammad's Prophethood
Even if the Prophet (peace be upon him) was truly depressed and attempted to kill himself, that
would not disprove his Prophethood. Let's try to understand in a little more detail what allegedly
happened:
Muhammad expected the revelations to guide his path from day to day, but they
subsided. Gabriel did not appear for some time, and all around him there was
nothing but silence. Muhammad fell into solitude, separated from himself as well
as from the people. His old fears recurred. It is told that even Khadijah said to
him, "Does it not seem that your Lord is displeased with you?" Dismayed and
frightened, he returned to the mountain and the cave of Hira'. There, he prayed for
God fervently, seeking assiduously to reach Him. Particularly, he wanted to ask
God about the cause of this divine displeasure. Khadijah did not dread these days
any less than Muhammad, nor was she any less fearful. Often Muhammad wished
to die, but he would again feel the call and the command of his Lord which
dispelled such ideas. It was also told that he once thought of throwing himself
down from the top of Mount Hira' or Mount Abu Qubays, thinking what good was
this life if his greatest hope therein was to be frustrated and destroyed? Torn
between these fears on one hand and despair on the other, revelation came to him
after a long interval. The word of God was as clear as it was reassuring:
"By the forenoon, and by the night as it spreads its wings over the world in peace,
your Lord has not forsaken you; nor is He displeased with you. Surely, the end
shall be better for you than the beginning. Your Lord will soon give you of His
bounty and you will be well pleased. Did He not find you an orphan and give you
shelter? Did He not find you erring and guide you to the truth? Did He not find
you in want and provide for you? Do not, therefore, oppress the orphan nor turn
away whosoever seeks your help. And the bounty of your Lord, always
proclaim."[Qur'an, 93:1-11]
The Call to Truth Alone

Oh, what divine majesty, what peace of mind, what joy of heart and exaltation to
the soul! Muhammad's fears dissolved and his dread was dissipated. He was
overjoyed with this fresh evidence of his Lord's blessing and fell down in worship
to God and praise of Him. There was no more reason to fear, as Khadijah had
done, that God was displeased with him, and there was no cause for his dread.
God had now taken him under His protection and removed from him every doubt
and fear. Henceforth there was to be no thought of suicide but only of a life
dedicated to calling men unto God and unto God alone. To the Almighty God on
High shall all men bend their brows. To Him shall all that is in heaven and earth
prostrate themselves. He alone is the True, and all that they worship besides him
is false. To Him alone the heart should turn, on Him alone the soul should depend,
and in Him alone the spirit should find its confirmation. The other realm is better
for man than this realm. In the other realm, the soul becomes aware of all being as
well as the unity of being; and in this unity space and time disappear and the
needs and considerations of this realm are forgotten. It is in the other realm that
the forenoon with its brilliant and dazzling sun, the night with its widespread
darkness, the heavens and the stars, and the earth and the mountains all become
one; and the spirit which enters into awareness of this unity is happy and
felicitous. That is the life which is the objective of this life. And that is the truth
which illuminated with its light the soul of Muhammad. When revelation subsided
for a while, it was this truth which inspired him anew to solicit and think of his
Lord and to call men unto Him. The calling of men unto God demands the
purification of oneself, the shunning of evil, and the bearing with patience all the
harm and injury with which the caller may meet. It demands that he illumine the
path of true knowledge for the benefit of ignorant mankind, that he never rebuke
the inquisitive, and that he never reject the man in need or oppress the orphan.
Sufficient unto him must be the fact that God had chosen him to convey His
message to mankind. Let this message then be the permanent subject of his
conversation. Sufficient unto him must be the fact that God had found him an
orphan and given him shelter under the protection of his grandfather, Àbd al
Muttalib, and his uncle, Abu Talib. Sufficient unto him must be the fact that God
had found him in want and provided for him through his trustworthiness, and had
shown him His favor by granting to him Khadijah, the companion of his youth, of
his solitude and retreat, of his prophetic mission, and of love and
kindness. Sufficient unto him must be the fact that God had found him erring
and had guided him to the truth through His message. All this must be
sufficient unto him. Let him now call to the truth and exert himself as
heartily as he could. Such was the command of God to His Prophet (peace be
upon him) whom He had chosen, whom He had not forsaken, and with whom
He was not displeased. (Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad
(Allah's peace and blessing be upon him), Translated by Isma'il Razi A. alFaruqi,Source)
After mentioning the coming of the Revelation, the Messenger of Allah [peace
be upon him] said: "I have never abhorred anyone more than a poet or a
mad man. I can not stand looking at either of them. I will never tell anyone of
Quraish of my Revelation. I will climb a mountain and throw myself down
and die. That will relieve me. I went to do that but halfway up the mountain,
I heard a voice from the sky saying 'O Muhammad! You are the Messenger
of Allah [peace be upon him] and I am Gabriel.' I looked upwards and saw
Gabriel in the form of a man putting his legs on the horizon. He said: 'O
Muhammad You are the Messenger of Allah [peace be upon him] and I am
Gabriel.' I stopped and looked at him. His sight distracted my attention from what
I had intended to do. I stood in my place transfixed. I tried to shift my eyes away
from him. He was in every direction I looked at. I stopped in my place without
any movement until Khadijah sent someone to look for me. He went down to
Makkah and came back while I was standing in the same place. Gabriel then left,
and I went back home. I found Khadijah at home, so I sat very close to her. She
asked: 'Father of Al-Qasim! Where have you been? I sent someone to look for
you. He went to Makkah and returned to me.' I told her of what I had seen. She
replied: 'It is a propitious sign, O my husband. Pull yourself together, I swear by
Allah that you are a Messenger for this nation.' Then she stood up and went to
Waraqa and informed him. Waraqa said: 'I swear by Allah that he has received the
same Namus, i.e. angel that was sent to Moses. He is the Prophet (peace be upon
him) of this nation. Tell him to be patient.' She came back to him and told him of
Waraqa's words. When the Messenger of Allah [peace be upon him] finished his
solitary stay and went down to Makkah, he went to Waraqa, who told him: 'You
are the Prophet (peace be upon him)of this nation. I swear by Allah that you have
received the same angel that was sent to Moses.'" [At-Tabari 2/207; Ibn Hisham
1/237,238]
Once more, Gabriel brings Allah's Revelation
Ibn Hajar said: 'That (the pause of Allah's revelation for a few days) was to relieve
the Messenger of Allah[peace be upon him] of the fear he experienced and to
make him long for the Revelation. When the shades of puzzle receded, the flags
of truth were raised, the Messenger of Allah [peace be upon him] knew for sure
that he had become the Messenger of the Great Lord. He was also certain that
what had come to him was no more than the ambassador of inspiration. His
waiting and longing for the coming of the revelation constituted a good reason for
his steadfastness and self-possession on the arrival of Allah's inspiration. (Saifur
Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (THE SEALED
NECTAR), Source)
The Prophet (peace be upon him) was depressed about Waraqa dying and on top of all that he
was also depressed about the revelation not coming down to him for a while. The Prophet (peace
be upon him) was all alone and almost everyone except a few went against him; calling him a
mad poet, magician, soothsayer, crazy etc. This all affects someone psychologically. The Prophet
(peace be upon him) would ignore them and feel confident about himself because of the
revelation that he would receive from God. However, this 'pause of revelation', known as
the Fatrahperiod, which according to some scholars lasted sometime between 6 months to three
years made the Prophet (peace be upon him) feel lonely and depressed. Some even feel that it
was only a matter of days:
Interruption of Revelation
Ibn Sa'd reported on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that the Revelation paused for a
few days. [Fath Al-Bari 1/27,12/360] After careful study, this seems to be the
most possible. To say that it lasted for three and a half years, as some scholars
allege, is not correct, but here there is no room to go into more details. (Ibid.)
Other opinions were either 15 days or 25 days or 40 days. (See Abu 'Abdullah AlQurtubi, Tasfir al Jami' li-ahkam al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 93:3, Source)
Conclusion
Assuming that the hadith is truly authentic, the whole issue of the Prophet (peace be upon him)
contemplating suicide really doesn't prove anything against his Prophethood. The Prophet (peace
be upon him) did not go around jumping from the mountain and surviving and failing to kill
himself. No, he did not throw himself because Gabriel came and stopped him. Plus who was
sending down these revelations to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) anyways? If these
were the words of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself or if he stole them from
another source then why would the Prophet (peace be upon him) purposely do such a thing to
himself? This goes to show that he was not the author of the Qur'an, nor did he plagiarize it from
anyone. This Quran must have been coming from a supernatural source. Is this supernatural
source Satan?
For more on this issue visit http://www.call-tomonotheism.com/is_the_quran_the_word_of_satan__according_to_the_biblical_jesus__that_s_a
bsurd_
The Prophet's depression and then rehabilitation does not disprove his Prophethood, as a matter
of fact it reaffirms it. If he was possessed by Satan then he would not have pulled through and
succeeded in his mission to spread the message of God
The Prophet Prohibited The Killing of

Women and Children: But What About
Those Night Raids?
By
Bassam Zawadi
This article will be divided into three sections:

1) The Prophet (peace be upon him) Prohibited the Killing of Women and Children
2) The Ruling on Fighting Enemy Warriors Intermixed With Women and Children
3) Deliberate targeted killing of women and children is sanctioned by the Biblical God
The Prophet (peace be upon him) Prohibited the Killing of

Women and Children
There are so many authentic hadith where the Prophet (peace be upon him) condemned the
killing of innocent women and children during time of war that it is impossible to deny
them. Following are some of those hadith...
Saheeh Bukhari
Narrated By 'Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed.
Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.

Narrated By Ibn 'Umar : During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found
killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.
Saheeh Muslim
Book 019, Hadith Number 4319.
Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.

It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that a woman was found killed in one of the battles
fought by the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He disapproved of the killing of
women and children.

Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.
It is narrated by Ibn 'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the
Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children.
Sunan Abu Dawud

-----------------------------Chapter : Not known.
Narated By Rabah ibn Rabi' : When we were with the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) on an expedition,
he saw some people collected together over something and sent a man and said: See, what are
these people collected around? He then came and said: They are round a woman who has been
killed. He said: This is not one with whom fighting should have taken place. Khalid ibn al-Walid
was in charge of the van; so he sent a man and said: Tell Khalid not to kill a woman or a hired
servant. (Declared authentic by Shaykh Nasr Al Deen Al Albani in Sunan Abu Dawud
Hadith no.2669)
Malik's Muwatta
Section : Prohibition against Killing Women and Children in Military Expeditions.
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that a son of Kab ibn Malik (Malik believed
that ibn Shihab said it was Abd ar-Rahman ibn Kab) said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah
bless him and grant him peace, forbade those who fought ibn Abi Huqayq (a treacherous jew
from Madina) to kill women and children. He said that one of the men fighting had said, 'The
wife of ibn Abi Huqayq began screaming and I repeatedly raised my sword against her.
Then I would remember the prohibition of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him
and grant him peace, so I would stop. Had it not been for that, we would have been rid of
her.'"

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi from Ibn Umar that the Messenger of Allah, may
Allah bless him and grant him peace, saw the corpse of a woman who had been slain in one of
the raids, and he disapproved of it and forbade the killing of women and children.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Abu Bakr as-Siddiq was sending
armies to ash-Sham. He went for a walk with Yazid ibn Abi Sufyan who was the commander of
one of the battalions. It is claimed that Yazid said to Abu Bakr, "Will you ride or shall I get
down?" Abu Bakrsaid, "I will not ride and you will not get down. I intend these steps of mine to
be in the way of Allah."
Then Abu Bakr advised Yazid, "You will find a people who claim to have totally given
themselves to Allah. Leave them to what they claim to have given themselves. You will find a
people who have shaved the middle of their heads, strike what they have shaved with the sword.
"I advise you ten things Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut
down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels
except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do
not be cowardly."
The Ruling on Fighting Enemy Warriors Intermixed With

Women and Children
There are certain hadith that appear to show that the Prophet peace be upon him made some
exceptions...
Saheeh Bukhari
Narated By As-Sab bin Jaththama : The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or
Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the
probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e.
women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The
institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle."
Saheeh Muslim
Chapter : Permissibility of killing women and children in the night raids, provided it is not
deliberate.
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon
him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night
raid, said: They are from them.
There are many possible meanings for these hadith. First of all we don't know the exact situation
or what the Prophet (peace be upon him) truly meant. Maybe those particular women and
children were planning to fight against the Muslims with the enemy.
Maybe the Muslim army just could not have blown this chance to attack the enemy that they still
had to attack them at no matter what cost in order to stop the risk of more blood shed (do a little
bad for the greater good). This is unlikely but possible.
The very fact that the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) asked his permission
shows that the Prophet (peace be upon him) used to be strict regarding his prohibition on the
killing of women and children. If the Muslims were in the habit of killing women and children
they wouldn't have asked for the Prophet's opinion. However, when a situation arises and there is
no choice, things could get ugly.
Also notice that the companions did not ask the Prophet peace be upon whether they could
deliberately target the women and children. They merely mentioned that the women and children
will be exposed to danger when they were attacking the men warriors.
Imam Ibn Hajar Al Asaqalani says in his commentary on Saheeh Bukhari that the point is not to
target the women and children intentionally but if there is absolutely no other way to kill the
enemy than by injuring the women and children because they are mixed with the men then there
is no other choice. (Read Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani's Fathul Bari, Kitab: Al Jihad wal Sayr,
Bab: Ahlul Daar Yabeetoon Fa Yusaab Al Waldaan wal Zharaari,Commentary on Hadith
no. 2790, Source)
He also said that another possibility is that the hadith has been abrogated and that even if women
and children accompany the enemy during war then they still should not be killed. (ibid.) That's
why its possible that the Prophet (peace be upon him) after this incident decided to stop attacking
the enemy at night but during the day so that he can see who he is fighting clearly...
Saheeh Bukhari
Narated By Anas : Allah's Apostle reached Khaibar at night and it was his habit that, whenever
he reached the enemy at night, he will not attack them till it was morning. When it was
morning, the Jews came out with their spades and baskets, and when they saw him(i.e. the
Prophet), they said, "Muhammad! By Allah! Muhammad and his army!" The Prophet said,
"Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be
the morning for those who have been warned.".
Saheeh Muslim
Chapter : There can be two pronouncers of Adhan for one mosque.
Anas b. Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used to attack the
enemy when it was dawn. He would listen to the Adhan; so if he heard an Adhan, he stopped,
otherwise made an attack. Once on hearing a man say: Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the
Greatest, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) remarked: He is following al-Fitra
(al-Islam). Then hearing him say: I testify that there is no god but Allah. there is no god but
Allah, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: You have come out of the Fire (of
Hell). They looked at him and found that he was a goatherd.
Imam Nawawi says in his commentary on Saheeh Muslim that women and children are only
killed if they cannot be distinguished. But because it was so dark and they could not be
distinguished, the Muslims had no choice. (Read Imam Nawawi's Sharh Saheeh Muslim,
Kitab: Al Jihad wal Sayr, Bab: Jawaz Qatl Al Nisaa' wal Sabyaan fi Al Biyaat Min Ghayr
Ta'amud, Commentary on Hadith no. 3281, Source)
The commentary of Sunan Abu Dawud by Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-Adhim Abadi says the
same thing. (Read Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-Adhim Abadi's Awn al-Mabud Sharh
Sunan Abu Dawud, Kitab: Al Jihad, Bab: Fi Qatl Al Nisaa', Commentary on Hadith no.
2298, Source)
Deliberate targeted killing of women and children is

sanctioned by the Biblical God
If Muslims ever get any trouble from a Christian that says Islam advocates for the killing of
innocent women and children then give him a taste of his own Bible...
1 Samuel 15:2,3
2
This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel
when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally
destroy [a]everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women,
children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "
Numbers 31:17,18
17
Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,18 but save for
yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 20:16
16
However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do
not leave alive anything that breathes.
Here we see the Biblical God calling for the deliberate targeted killing of women and children.
You will never find such a thing in Islamic teachings.
Why did Prophet Muhammed Marry Aisha At

a Young Age? Is that Morally Right? What
about Paedophilia?
by
Dan_1988
(This article was taken from http://dan1988.blogspot.com/2006/02/why-did-prophet-muhammedmarry-aisha.html)
Age of Marriage in the light of Authentic Hadiths

Prophet's Marriage to Aisha is becoming a famous topic amongst the critics of Islam.
Whilst discussing this, they completely ignore the traditions at the time and the
fruits the blessed marriage brought. In this article we will be exploring the reasons
behind the marriage as well as affirming that Prophet Muhammed was not a
paedophile. First of all let's examine the proof from Islamic sources regarding
marriage to Aisha (RA):
"Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his
marriage when she was nineyears old, and then she remained with him for nine
years (i.e., till his death) Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64)"
From the hadith it is confirmed that engagement was done when Aisha (RA) was 6
and then marriage was consummated when she was 9 years old. It must be noted
that the marriage was extremely successful as it is evident from countless hadiths.
Indeed, from a Muslim's perspective the marriage was divine:
"Narrated 'Aisha:
Allah's Apostle said (to me), "You have been shown to me twice in (my) dreams. A
man was carrying you in a silken cloth and said to me, 'This is your wife.' I
uncovered it; and behold, it was you. I said to myself, 'If this dream is from Allah, He
will cause it to come true.' "" ( Sahih Bukhari,Volume 7, Book 62, Number 15)
Age of Marriage in the Old Ages

Morality is relative not absolute, it varies from culture to culture and society to
society. What is perceived to be moral in USA may not hold to be true in other parts
of the world, such as Africa and Asia. Morality is also relative to time,
fornication/dating little time ago was regarded as taboo and a matter of shame for
the family. However, now this is a common habit, dating could start as early as at
the age of 10. Another example would be dress code, which was very modest in
history but not so now.
Therefore, we need to analyse the age of marriage in history and judge Prophet's
marriage from there. Historically, the age at which a girl was considered ready to be
married was puberty; this also was the case in biblical times. In an article called
"Ancient Israelite Marriage Customs", by Jim West, ThD - a Baptist minister writes:
"The wife was to be taken from within the larger family circle (usually at the
outset of puberty or around the age of 13) in order to maintain the purity of the
family line;"
While discussing the meaning of the word 'almah, which is the Hebrew word for
"young woman" or "adolescent female", Gerald Segal, in his book "The Jew and the
Christian Missionary", Ktav Publishing House,1981, page 28 says:
"It should be noted, however, that in biblical times females married at an early
age."
The Campaign To Raise The Age Of Consent, 1885-1994
(http://womhist.binghamton.edu/teacher/aoc.htm) [note the education domain]
states:
"American reformers were shocked to discover that the laws of most states set
the age of consent at the age of ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware,
the age of consent was only seven."
Thus it was a norm to be married at a young age. This is why the people of Quraish
and other Arabian tribes at Prophet's time found absolutely no fault in their
marriage. On the contrary it is evident from countless narrations that the marriage
was successful. They detested Islam, they did everything to belittle the Prophet,
tried to prevent Islam from spreading and even attempted to kill the Prophet!
However, they raised no objection to the marriage of the Prophet to Aisha since at
those times such a thing was not considered 'immoral'.
Nabia Abbott, who is a western female orientalist and has written many anti-islam
materials, writes in her book Aishah-The Beloved of Mohammed, Al-Saqi Books,
London, 1985, page 7:
"It is not clear just when the marriage actually took place. According to some
versions, it was in the month of Shawwal of the Year 1, that is, some seven or eight
months after the arrival at Medina; but, according to others, it was not until after
the Battle of Badr, that is, in Shawwal of the second year of the Hijrah. In no
version is there any comment made on the disparity of the ages between
Mohammed and Aishah or on the tender age of the bride who, at the
most, could not have been over ten years old and who was still much
enamoured with her play."

Even in our times in certain parts of the world the age of marriage is still relatively
low. According to a chart on
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#Ages_of_consent_in_various_countries
) the age of consent in Mexico and Philippines is only 12. In Guyana, Japan, South
Korea, Spain and Swaziland the age of consent is 13. Hence even in ?Today's Times'
a young marriage is not abnormal, as some in the west think.
Should the people of United Kingdom, where the age limit is higher, be correct in
slandering the people of Philippines/Mexico where the age limit is much lower and
thus married at young age? Of course not! Or if within few centuries the age of
marriage rises up to 20, then should those people have a right to slander those who
lived at our times and married before 20? By the same token, we should not criticize
the marriage of the Prophet based on the norm of our time.
It ought also be noted that Aisha ( RA) was engaged to Jubayr son of Mut'im before
Prophet Muhammed. This indicates the age of marriage and engagement in
Prophet's time. However, the engagement was later nullified by Jubayr's parents
due to Abu Bakr (RA) embracing Islam. This can be read in detail
on http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Articles/companion/02_abu_bakr.htm#Holy
%20Prophet
Thus the history demonstrates that the age of the marriage was lower and relative
to olden times, the marriage of the Prophet was not abnormal and there was
nothing immoral about it. It was a norm at biblical times to be wedded at puberty or
earlier, the age of consent one century ago in a 'modern country' was as low as 10
or 12, even 7 in Delaware! Even in our times, in certain societies, the age of consent
is as low as 12 or 13. In the light of historical evidences, the marriage cannot be
criticized.
Age of Puberty, can a 9 year old be mature enough?

Age of puberty varies however in woman it is generally reached earlier. "The
average temperature of the country or province," say the well-known authors of the
book Woman (Herman H. Ploss, Max Bartels and Paul Bartels, Woman, Volume I,
Lord & Bransby, 1988, page 563.), "is considered the chief factor here, not only with
regard to menstruation but as regards the whole of sexual development at puberty."
Puberty in Girls
(http://www.population.health.wa.gov.au/Communicable/Resources/2107%20Pubert
yinGirls.pdf) by an Australian government Public Health organization, says:
"The first sign of puberty is usually a surge of growth: you become taller; your
breasts develop; hair begins to grow in the pubic area and under the arms. This
may start from 10 years to 14 years - even earlier for some and later for
others."
According to MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopaedia
(http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001168.htm):
"Precocious puberty is premature development of body characteristics that
normally occur during puberty. (Puberty is the period in life when the body changes
rapidly and develops reproductive capability). Puberty normally occurs between 13
and 15 years old in boys, and between 9 and 16 years old in girls. In girls,
precocious puberty is when any of the following develop before 8 years of age:
Breasts
Armpit or pubic hair
Mature external genitalia
First menstruation"
Indeed, there have been many cases of early puberty. For instance, Lina Medina gave birth at the
age of 5 years, 7 months and 21 days. Encyclopaedia Wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina ) says:
"Lina Medina (born September 27, 1933 in Paurange, Peru) gave birth at the age of 5 years, 7
months and 21 days and is the youngest confirmed mother in medical history. This world record
is closely followed by a similar case in Russia."
When Aisha had reached puberty the marriage was consummated, as Karen Armstrong writes in
her book Muhammad: A Biography of the Prophet, Harper San Francisco, 1992, page 157:
"Tabari says that she was so young that she stayed in her parents' home and the marriage was
consummated there later when she had reached puberty."
Therefore it is not surprising if Aisha (RA) reached puberty at an early age. The marriage was
consummated when Aisha (RA) reached puberty. Her maturity from ahadiths certainly dictates
this. In addition, let us not forget that in olden times, marriage at puberty was nothing strange.
Vital Benefits of the Marriage

In addition, Aisha (RA) was exceedingly intelligent and had a formidable memory. She had
profound knowledge of Quran and Sunnah She narrated over 2,000 hadith (at least 2,210).
Abdul-Hamd Siddiq writes in a book entitled Sahih muslim (English-translation of Sahih
Muslim, Volume 2, International Islamic Publishing House, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, page 715.):
"She [Aisha] developed into a spiritual teacher and scholar, since she was
remarkably intelligent and wise. Her qualities help support the Prophet's work and further the
cause of Islam. Aishah, the Mother of the Believers, was not only a model for wives and
mothers, but she was also a commentator on the Qur'n, an authority on hadth and
knowledgeable in Islamic Law. She narrated at least 2,210 ahdth that give Muslims valuable
insights into the Final Prophet's daily life and behaviour, thus preserving the Sunnah of
Muhammad(P)."
Abu Musa al-Ash'ari says:
"Never had we (the companions) had any difficulty for the solution of which we approached
Aisha and did not get some useful information from her". -- Sirat-I-Aisha, on the authority of
Trimidhi, p. 163.
Thus the contribution of Aisha was vital, without her perhaps much of the sunnah would have
been lost. In addition the marriage also refuted the notion that a man could not marry the
daughter of a man who he had declared to be his "brother" (even in the religious sense). Since the
Prophet and Abu Bakr had declared each other to be "brothers", this notion was done away with.
This is demonstrated in the following hadith:
"Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your
brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha)
is lawful for me to marry."" (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18)
This is another teaching, which the marriage portrayed. The marriage also strengthened the
relationship between Abu Bakr and Prophet Muhammed. Let us bear in mind that Abu Bakr was
the first Caliph.
Pedophilia and lust for women?

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1998, definition of Paedophile is:
"Pedophile: also spelled PAEDOPHILIA, psychosexual disorder in which an adult's arousal and
sexual gratification occur primarily through sexual contact with prepubescent children. The
typical paedophile is unable to find satisfaction in an adult sexual relationship and may
have low self-esteem, seeing sexual activity with a child as less threatening than that with an
adult." Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1998.
Apart from Aisha, all his wives were more than 16 (The Prophet of Islam, the Ideal Husband
(Lahore: Kazi Publications), pp. 10-12), which at those times was considered as a mature age.
Indeed, his first wife was twice widowed before and was older than him by 15 years. All his
wives except Aisha and Marya were widows. Therefore, it is evident that Prophet's marriage with
Aisha was not a norm and Prophet did indeed find adult relationship. Prophet also did not have
low self-esteem, as it is evident from his Seerah.
In addition, Harold I. Kaplan et al. (Synopsis of Psychiatry, 5th ed. [Williams and Wilkens,
1988], p. 360) writes:
"In addition to their paedophilia, a significant number of paedophiles are concomitantly or have
previously been involved in exhibitionism, voyeurism, or rape". (Voyeurism is the recurrent
preoccupation with fantasised or acts that involve seeking out or observing people who are
naked, or are engaged in grooming or in sexual activity).
It is commonly accepted by Muslims and non-muslims (un-biased) that Prophet in no sense
indulged in "exhibitionism, voyeurism, or rape" or even came close to it. There is not a single
reference to indicate that prophet was involved in any such act. In addition, Prophet waited for
Aisha to mature and reach Puberty before the marriage was consummated, this obviously is
contrary to the characteristics of a paedophile.
Hypocrisy of Jews & Christians

It is quite hypocritical of Jews and Christian to criticize the marriage of Aisha. Talmud (Jewish
scripture) says:
"Marrying off one's daughter as soon after she reaches adulthood as possible, even to one's
Slave. (From the Talmud, Pesachim 113a)"
As we discussed, in biblical times adulthood could refer to the age of Puberty or even younger
age.
Regarding the Marriage of Mary to Joseph, Catholic Encyclopaedia

(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm), says:
"When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by
others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons,
the youngest of whom was James (the Less, "the Lord's brother"). A year after his wife's death,
as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda
a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who was at
the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the
choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place."
Note: That article on Catholic Encyclopaedia obtains its information from early
Christian writing including apocryphal writings.
The Catholic Encyclopaedia goes on to conclude "...retained the belief that St. Joseph was an
old man at the time of marriage with the Mother of God." If Christians do not find any difficulty
in accepting "Mother of God" (according to Catholic Encyclopaedia), who was 12-14, marrying
a 90 year old man then why do they raise objection towards the marriage of Aisha (RA) to the
Prophet?
Consent of Aisha's Family

Let us not forget that marriage was willingly consented by Abu Bakr. If there had been anything
wrong with the marriage, Abu Bakr would have objected. If the father of Aisha found no fault
with the marriage then why should people 1400 years later raise objections? Naturally, Abu Bakr
must have had the best interests in his heart for his daughter.
Brief Summary
History demonstrates that the age of marriage was low, in olden times women married when they
reached puberty or even earlier. Even in USA, a century ago, age of consent was low, 7 in
Delaware, even Today in some countries like Mexico and Philippines, age of consent is as low as
12. It should not be too astonishing to find therefore that Aisha was mature enough, as the
medical evidences states that puberty can occur at the age of 9.
Aisha allowed the sunnah to be preserved and has quoted over 2,000 hadiths, thus playing a vital
role for Islam. The marriage also refuted the Arab notion that a man cannot marry the daughter of
a man who he had declared to be his "brother" (even in the religious sense). In addition, the
marriage also strengthened the relationship between Prophet Muhammed and Abu Bakr
[Companion of Prophet Muhammed and First Caliph). Prophet does not fulfil the characteristics
of a Paedophile. Let us not forget that Prophet waited 3 years before the marriage with Aisha was
consummated and that all his other wives were older than 16. It is quite hypocritical of Christian
to criticize the marriage of Aisha when Mary, who according to Catholic Encyclopaedia was
between 12 and 14, and yet married Joseph who was 90 years old. Let us also not forget that
consent of marriage was given by Aisha's father, who had the best interest in his heart for her

Was Wealth A Motive For The Prophet Muhammad

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Was Wealth A Motive For The Prophet Muhammad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Was Wealth A Motive For the Prophet Muhammad (peace

be upon him) To Fabricate Islam?

Book 024, Number 5185:

Opponents would cite the following verse from the Qur'an:

Christian Missionaries On Surah 61:6

Christian Missionary Argument:

Book 030, Number 5810:

In the Bible it says...

Was Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon

The article will be divided into the following sections:-

-Did the Prophet sacrifice or eat food sacrificed to idols?

Did the Prophet sacrifice or eat food sacrificed to idols?

Here we see the hadith in a different version...

Volume 5, Book 58, Number 169:

Volume 7, Book 67, Number 407:

Volume 3, Book 43, Number 658:

Volume007, Book 066, Hadith Number 382.

Book 004, Number 1812:

Book 010, Number 3840:

Book 015, Number 4043:

Book 019, Number 4397:

The Muslims used to pray towards the Ka'bah when the

The Prophet kissed the Black Stone. Does that mean he

Volume 2, Book 26, Number 675:

Narrated Zaid bin Aslam from his father who said:

Why Did Prophet Muhammad (peace be

Ibn Kathir has it in his commentary on this verse...

Dr Jamal Badawi said...

Does the Quran Say That Prophet

Notice what the verse is saying...

Again, notice the verse...

Here is the commentary.....

1. (11-12) They ask for a sign from heaven

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)

Let's see if this could make any sense.

Abbaas, Tanwr al-Miqbs min Tafsr Ibn 'Abbs, Commentary on Surah

19. Have ye thought upon Al Lat and Al Uzza?

"Those are the elevated cranes:

7. Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Bari, 1959 ed. vol. 8:

) [2]. The same information is given

Dr. Mohar Ali also notes on page 697:

Verses story destroy the

The Narration of the Prophet's (peace be upon him)

Does Prophet Muhammad's Contemplation

The Reliability of the Narrations that Speak About the

As a report of history, this narration suffers from two fatally

So as we can see, this narration is unreliable.

Problem with Narration

Abu dawud: he is weak.

Even if the Narrations Were True, They Don't Disprove

The Call to Truth Alone

The Prophet Prohibited The Killing of

This article will be divided into three sections:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) Prohibited the Killing of

Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.

Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.

Book 019, Hadith Number 4320.

Sunan Abu Dawud

Book 021, Hadith Number 009.

Book 021, Hadith Number 010.

The Ruling on Fighting Enemy Warriors Intermixed With

Deliberate targeted killing of women and children is

Why did Prophet Muhammed Marry Aisha At