<Many of the People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)
wish that they could turn you away as disbelievers after you have believed, out of envy
from their own selves, even after the truth has become manifest unto them. But forgive and
overlook, till Allah brings His command> 2:109.
The Prophet used to implement the pardon that Allah commanded him UNTIL HE GAVE
HIS COMMAND (to fight the disbelievers). When the Messenger fought at Badr, and
Allah killed, by his hand, the leaders of the disbelievers from Quraysh, `Abdullah bin
Ubayy bin Salul and the Mushriks and idol worshippers who were with him said, `This
matter has prevailed,' and they gave their pledge to the Prophet and became Muslims.
Therefore, every person who stands for truth, enjoins righteousness and forbids evil,
will be harmed in some manner. In such cases, there is no cure better than being patient
in Allah's cause, trusting in Him and returning to Him. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir;
source;
bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)
Whether Q. 3:186 has been abrogated or not, this point is clear: the command of Q. 9:12
to fight those who taunt Islam, which naturally includes those who mock Muhammad, provides
corroboration that the murders of Abu Afak and Asma most likely occurred.
This now leads us to our next section.
Do the Murders of Abu Afak and Asma Violate
The Prohibition of Killing Women and the Elderly?
Bismikaallahuma appeals to specific statements in the hadith literature which forbid
the killing of women and the elderly in order to disprove the veracity of the stories of
Abu Afak and Asma bint Marwan:
Interdiction against Killing Women
Let us now take the cases individually. The first case cited is that of Asma’ of
the tribe of Aus. She is said to have been a poetess who wrote some verses stating that
the ProphetP) was an upstart who had slain many of their chiefs, referring to the battle
of Badr. It is stated that she was brutally murdered for this abuse by a Muslim named
`Umair, and that the Prophet not only approved of this murder but also praised `Umair for
the deed. The authorities quoted are Waqidi, Ibn Hisham and Ibn Sa’d. That this is
not a reliable record is shown not only by what has been stated above — that the Holy
Qur’an never allowed the murder of an abuser — but also by clear directions
repeatedly given by the Prophet(P) that no woman was to be killed even though she took
part in actual war with the Muslims. No less an authority than Bukhari has a chapter on
the "Murder of Women during War" (Kitab al-Jihad) in which the following
report from Ibn `Umar is recorded: "A woman was found killed in one of the battles
fought by the Holy Prophet, so the Holy Prophet forbade the killing of women and
children." If the Holy Prophet forbade the killing of women even when they were
actually accompanying the enemy forces, how could he approve or applaud the killing of a
woman for simply abusing or composing some annoying verses? Even the Companions of the
Holy Prophet were so well aware of his strict orders against the killing of women that
when Abul Huqaiq’s wife interposed herself between them and Abul Huqaiq, they had to
withhold their raised swords "because they remembered that the Holy Prophet had
forbidden the killing of a woman"1. In the face of this clear testimony,
none but a biased mind can accept as reliable a report which relates that the Holy Prophet
had ordered and applauded the killing of a woman simply for the offence that she composed
annoying verses. This report is undoubtedly a forgery.
The fact is thus established beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Holy Prophet gave a
clear interdiction against the murder of women even in wars. In this connection, a saying
of the Holy Prophet has been quoted from the most reliable traditionist of Islam, the Imam
Bukhari. The heading under which Bukhari quotes this saying is "Murder of Women
during Wars," thus showing that the interdiction against the murder of women was to
be observed even in wars. Bukhari is not alone in reporting the incident and the
interdiction; it is contained in all the books of the Sahih as-Sittah2
with the exception of only one, and therefore its authenticity is beyond dispute.
Moreover, their interdiction is accepted as a basic principle by later jurists. Thus
according to Malik and Auza’i, the killing of women and children is not allowed under
any circumstances whatsoever, and according to Shafi’i and Kufis, a woman may be
killed only when she is a combatant, while according to one authority, even when a woman
is a combatant it is not lawful to kill her intentionally unless she is about to kill or
attack a man with the intention of killing him. 3. According to Malik and
Auza’i, however, as already stated, a woman should not be killed under any condition,
so much so that if a fighting force takes the shelter of women and children or takes
shelter in a fort or a boat in which there are also women and children with them, it is
not lawful to shoot at or set fire to the fort or the boat 4. In the face of
these facts it is simply unthinkable that the Prophet should have ordered the
assassination of a woman, under peaceful conditions, for no other fault than singing
certain annoying verses.
It goes on to say regarding Abu Afak that:
Abu Afak
The next incident is that relating to the alleged assassination of Abu Afak,
"an aged Jewish proselyte, whose offence was similar to that of Asma’." We
have no hesitation in calling this story as baseless a fabrication as that relating to the
murder of Asma’. Our reason for doing this is that the interdiction against the
murder of women also included two other classes, viz., children and old men. It is true
that the saying of the Prophet as reported in the Bukhari mentions only women and
children, and not aged persons, but there is a hadith in Abu Dawud5 reported by
Anas, son of Malik, according to which the Holy Prophet said: "Do not kill an aged
person, nor a child, nor a minor, nor a woman." That the Prophet expressly forbade
the killing of old men appears also from the directions given by Abu Bakr, the first
Caliph, to Yazid, son of Abu Sufyan, when he sent him in command of an army to Syria. In
the directions given to him the following relates to our subject: "Do not kill
children, nor women, nor old men."6. It is clear that Abu Bakr could give
such directions only on the authority of the Holy Prophet. Hence there was an interdiction
against the killing of old men as there was against the killing of women. And it is
impossible, we repeat, that the Holy Prophet should have given such clear injunctions and
then himself ordered the killing of "an aged Jewish proselyte," as Abu Afak is
said to have been, and for no offence but that he composed some annoying verses.
Hesham Azmy uses this same argument
(*).
In the first place, both Bismikaallahuma and Hesham Azmy are operating under the false
assumption that Muhammad acted consistently and that he faithfully carried out his own
commands. The fact of the matter is that Muhammad often acted contrary to his own directives
and failed to live up to his standards (*).
To, therefore, quote certain texts where Muhammad prohibited the killing of older persons
and women doesn’t mean that the stories of Abu Afak and Asma are fabrications; it
simply means that Muhammad failed to comply with his own moral and ethical standards. The
arguments of the Muslims are simply non sequitur.
Illustration: For centuries the German people have been known as "das Volk der
Dichter und Denker" (the nation of poets and philosophers). Looking at their history
and highly developed culture, including the ethical and legal traditions, it is simply
inconceivable that they would commit the atrocities that happened in the Third Reich under
Hitler. Moreover, for the last fifty years Germany had a stable democracy and was clearly
committed to peace. Does that imply the holocaust never happened? Certainly not! Neither
admirable traditions nor moral values of the past, nor exemplary behavior afterwards can
undo or disprove horrible crimes like the holocaust nor any other historical event.
Germany did start World War II, the Nazi regime did kill millions of Jews (and other
people as well). Having had or preached high values or principles doesn’t disprove
a historical fact. Muhammad was neither the first nor the last person who acted
inconsistently, who said one thing and did another.
More importantly, in the case of Muhammad, this issue is not really a case of
inconsistency. These murders were not simply two horrible exceptions, completely out
of character for this otherwise peaceful and tolerant ruler. No, Muhammad had his
critics killed rather regularly, see the section on Muhammad and his enemies
(1; 2).
In fact, the ahadith literature contains statements which allow Muslims to murder older
persons, women and children. Certain narrations claim that Muhammad permitted his soldiers
to engage in night raids that would have exposed innocent women and children to physical
harm:
Narrated 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."
(Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52,
Number 256)
I.e., they are all the same—both the women and children are nothing more than
pagans! This tradition testifies that some of Muhammad's fighters had apparently a more
sensitive conscience. They felt uneasy about night raids and the consequence of killing
innocent people during those attacks. Muhammad disregarded this concern and explicitly
allowed their killing despite the objection of some of his followers. The above narration
is repeated in several, different hadith collections:
Chapter 9: 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. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019,
Number 4321)
It is narrated by Sa'b b. Jaththama that he said (to the Holy Prophet): Messenger of
Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night raids. He said: They are
from them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019,
Number 4322)
Sa'b b. Jaththama has narrated that the Prophet (may peace be upon him) asked: What
about the children of polytheists killed by the cavalry during the night raid? He said:
They are from them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019,
Number 4323)
NOTE: The statement found in the subheading regarding the killing of women and
children being permissible as long as it isn’t deliberate is not part of the
narration. The hadiths do not explicitly say this, and yet the compiler assumed that this
was the clear implication and meaning of these narrations.
One Muslim apparently was so troubled by this concession on the part of Muhammad that
he claimed that the killing of women and children was abrogated!
Al-Sa‘b b. Jaththamah said that he asked the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon
him) about the polytheists whose settlements were attacked at night when some of their
offspring and women were smitten. The Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: They are of
them. ‘Amr b. Dinar used to say: They are regarded in the same way as their parents.
Al-Zuhri said: Thereafter the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) prohibited to
kill women and children. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2666)
Not all Muslims share al-Zuhri’s conviction. The English translator makes the
following comments regarding the above narration:
2018. This tradition allows to kill women and children of the infidels IN THE BATTLE.
The other traditions indicate that it is prohibited to kill women and children in the
battle. These CONTRADICTORY traditions have been reconciled by saying that the tradition
of al-Sa‘b b. Jaththamah has been abrogated. The other interpretation
is that it is allowable to kill women and children when the settlements of the infidels
are attacked AT NIGHT, as they cannot be distinguished from the fighting men in the dark.
(Sunan Abu Dawud, English translation with explanatory notes by Prof. Ahmad Hasan
[Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters; Lahore, Pakistan, 1984],
Volume II, p. 739; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)
Ahmad Hasan’s explanation is no excuse and provides absolute no comfort for the
women and children who were killed, or for their surviving families. A true God-inspired
prophet would be more cautious and not allow such night raids so as to prevent the
unnecessary killing of women and children.
Nearly all cultures have the honor codex that in wars the women and children are to be
spared, i.e. the fight only goes against the men of a group or nation. The very fact that
Muhammad is asked this question shows that the questioner had doubts in his mind about it.
Maybe Muhammad had ordered such a raid or attack, and the Muslim wanted to be sure that
Muhammad knew the consequences if they went ahead with it. It was going against his
conscience, but if Muhammad would order it anyway, knowing of the parameters, then he
would obey. The answer of Muhammad shows that these women and children were of little
concern to him. The advantage gained by a surprise attack in the night was more important
to him, even if it meant the killing of women and children.
Abu Dawud provides a couple of more examples of women being killed for disparaging
Muhammad:
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and
disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up
her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So
he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came
between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came,
the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.
He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action
and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the
people and trembling the man stood up.
He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her
master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and
I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from
her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So
I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.
Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is
payable for her blood. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38,
Number 4348)
Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:
A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. A man
strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) declared
that no recompense was payable for her blood. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38,
Number 4349)
Noted Islamic commentator and historian Al-Tabari mentioned another:
In this year a raiding party led by Zayd b. Harithah set out against Umm Qirfah in the
month of Ramadan. During it, Umm Qirfah (Fatimah bt. Rabi‘ah b. Badr) suffered a
cruel death. He tied her legs with rope and then tied her between two camels until they
split her in two. She was a very old woman.
Her story is as follows. According to Ibn Humayd – Salamah – Ibn Ishaq –
‘Abdallah b. Abi Bakr, who said: The Messenger of God sent Zayd b. Harithah to Wadi
al-Qura, where he encountered the Banu Fazarah. Some of his companions were killed there,
and Zayd was carried away wounded from among the slain. One of those killed was Ward b.
‘Amr, one of the Banu Sa‘d b. Hudhaym: he was killed by one of the Banu Badr [b.
Fazarah]. When Zayd returned, he vowed that no washing [to cleanse him] from impurity
should touch his head until he had raided the Fazarah. After he recovered from his wounds,
the Messenger of God sent him with an army against the Banu Fazarah. He met them in Wadi
al-Qura and inflicted causalities on them. Qays b. al-Musahhar al-Ya‘muri killed
Mas‘adah b. Hakamah b. Malik b. Badr and took Umm Qirfah prisoner. (Her name was
Fatimah bt. Rabi‘ah b. Badr. She was married to Malik b. Hudhayfah b. Badr. She was a
very old woman.) He also took one of Umm Qirfah’s daughters and ‘Abdallah b.
Mas‘adah prisoner. Zayd b. Harithah ordered Qays to kill Umm Qirfah, and he killed
her cruelly. He tied each of her legs with a rope and tied the ropes to two camels, and
they split her in two. Then they brought Umm Qirfah’s daughter and ‘Abdallah
b. Mas‘adah to the Messenger of God. Umm Qirfah’s daughter belonged to Salamah
b. ‘Amr b. al-Akwa‘, who had taken her - she was a member of a distinguished
family among her people: the Arabs used to say, "Had you been more powerful than Umm
Qirfah, you could have done no more." The Messenger of God asked Salamah for her, and
Salamah gave her to him. He then gave her to his maternal uncle, Hazn b. Abi Wahb and she
bore him ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Hazn. (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam,
translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1997],
Volume VIII, pp. 95-97; bold emphasis ours)
The above story is also found in Ibn Hisham’s recension of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat
Rasulullah:
The Attack of Zaid bin Harithah against Bani Fazarah and the fate of Um Qarfah
Ibn Ishaq narrated: When Zaid bin Harithah came back (from a battle), he vowed not to
wash himself up until after he retaliated against Banu Fazarah. Once his wounds were
healed, the messenger of Allah sent him to Bani Farazah with an army. Then Zaid fought
them at al-Qura Valley, and he inflicted them with losses. And Qays bin Al Ma’shar
Al Ya’mary killed Mas’adah bin Hakamah bin Malik bin Hudhayfah bin Badr. Also
captured was Umm Qarfah Fatima bint Rabee’ah bin Badr, and she was a very old lady;
her daughter and Abdullah bin Mas’adah were captured too. Then Zaid bin Harithah
ordered Qays bin Al Ma’shar to kill Umm Qarfah. And he did kill her in a violent way.
Then they came to the messenger of Allah and they brought with them her daughter and
the son of Mas’adah. (Sirat Ibn Hisham, Part 2, translated by
Mutee抋 Al-Fadi;
source)
As if this weren’t bad enough, al-Tabari mentions that Muhammad ordered the
beheading of the young boys of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayzah:
The Messenger of God had commanded that all of them who had reached puberty should be
killed. (The History of Al-Tabari, Volume VIII, p. 38)
Abu Dawud informs us as to how the Muslims were able to determine whether a person had
reached puberty:
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those
who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I
was among those who had not grown hair. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38,
Number 4390)
Moreover, both al-Tabari and Abu Dawud confirm that Muhammad had one of the women of
Banu Qurayzah beheaded:
According to Ibn Ishaq, the conquest of the Banu Qurayzah took place in the month of
Dhu al-Qa‘dah or in the beginning of Dhu al-Hijjah. Al-Waqidi, however, said that the
Messenger of God attacked them a few days before the end of Dhu al-Qa‘dah. He
asserted that the Messenger of God commanded that furrows should be dug in the ground for
the Banu Qurayzah. Then he sat down, and ‘Ali and al-Zubayr began cutting off
their heads in his presence. He asserts that the woman whom the Prophet killed that
day was named Bunanah, the wife of al-Hakam al-Qurazi- it was she who had killed Khallad
b. Suwayd by throwing a milestone on him. The Messenger of God called for her and
beheaded her in retaliation for Khallad b. Suwayd. (The History of Al-Tabari,
Volume VIII, pp. 40-41; bold capital ours)
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
No woman of Banu Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on
her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) was killing
her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said:
I. I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man
took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely
although she knew that she would be killed. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14,
Number 2665)
Abu Dawud also records Muhammad’s command to kill old men:
Narrated Samurah ibn Jundub:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Kill the old men who are polytheists,
but spare their children. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14,
Number 2664)
There is more. When Muhammad conquered Mecca he ordered the murder of a couple of
singers solely because they had made fun of him in song!
Also among them was ‘Abdallah b. Khatal, a member of the Banu Taym b. Ghalib. The
Messenger of God ordered that he should be killed only for the following reason: He was a
Muslim, and the Messenger of God sent him to collect alms, sending with him one of the
Ansar. With him went a mawla of his, also a Muslim, to serve him. He halted at a
resting place and commanded the mawla to slaughter him a goat and make him a meal;
then he went to sleep. When he woke up, the mawla had done nothing for him; so he
attacked him and killed him. He had two singing girls, Fartana and another with her. The
two used to sing satire about the Messenger of God; so the latter commanded that the two
of them should be killed along with him…
Also among them were ‘Ikrimah b. Abi Jahl and Sarah, a mawla of one of the
sons of ‘Abd al-Muttalib. She was one of those who used to molest the Messenger of
God in Mecca…
‘Abdallah b. Khatal was killed by Sa‘id b. Hurayth al-Makhzumi and Abu Barzah
al-Aslami: the two shared in his blood. Miqyas b. Subabah was killed by Numaylah b.
‘Abdallah, a man of his own clan…
As for Ibn Khatal’s two singing girls, one was killed and the other fled. The
Messenger of God later was asked to grant her a promise of safety, and he did so. [As for
Sarah, he was asked to grant her a promise of safety, and he did so.] She lived until
someone in the time of ‘Umar b. al-Khattab caused his horse to trample her at
al-Abtah and killed her. Al-Huwayrith b. Nuqaydh was killed by ‘Ali b. Abi Talib.
According to al-Waqidi: The Messenger of God commanded that six men and four women
should be killed. Of the men, [al-Waqidi] mentioned those whom Ibn Ishaq named. The women
he mentioned were Hind bt. ‘Utbah b. Rabi‘ah, who became a Muslim and swore
allegiance; Sarah, the mawla of ‘Amr b. Hashim b. ‘Abd al-Muttalib b.
‘Abd Manaf, who was killed on that day; Quraybah, who was killed on that day; and
Fartana, who lived until the caliphate of ‘Uthman. (The History of Al-Tabari,
Volume VIII, pp. 179-181; bold emphasis ours)
Muhammad’s command to kill women for mocking him conclusively shows that he was
more than willing to have people murdered who would dare satirize him, and therefore
corroborates the historical veracity of his ordering the death of Asma bint Marwan for
writing poems against him.
We now turn to Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri’s Reliance of the Traveler: A
Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law In Arabic English Text, Commentary And Appendices
edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller (Amana Publications, Beltsville Maryland,
revised edition 1994). It is one of the more respected, classical works in Islamic
theology. This 1200+ page volume contains fundamentals of Islamic jurisprudence compiled
by "the great 13th century hadith scholar and jurisprudent", Imam
Nawawi, and others. Keep in mind that this work was not written with a Western
audience in mind since Imam Nawawi wanted to produce a book on Islamic law that was
precise, and accurate, one that taught true Islamic values, specifically for a Muslim
audience. All bold, capital and underline emphasis is ours:
O9.3 Jihad is also (O: personally) obligatory for everyone (O: able to perform it, male
OR FEMALE, old or YOUNG) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims… A woman too has a
choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected
to an indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will be safe from such an act, she
is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible).
WHO IS OBLIGED TO FIGHT IN JIHAD
O9.4 Those called (O: to perform jihad when it is a command obligation) are every
able-bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane. (p. 601)
THE RULES OF WARFARE
O9.10 It is not permissible (A: in jihad) to kill women or children UNLESS they are
fighting against the Muslims. Nor is it permissible to kill animals, unless they are
being ridden into battle against the Muslims, or killing them will help defeat the enemy.
It is permissible to kill old men (O: old man (shaykh) meaning someone more than
forty years of age) and monks. (p. 603)
Let us not forget that Islam views any criticisms of its prophet as a type of fighting,
as even Ibn Taymiyyah, the darling of Salafi anthropomorphists and cultists, admitted:
"As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women,
children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they
shall not be killed, unless they actually fight with words [e.g. by propaganda]
and acts [e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare]. Some [jurists] are
of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are
unbelievers, but they make an exception for woman and children and they constitute
property for Muslims." (Sheikh Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, The Religious and Moral
Doctrine of Jihad, p. 28; source;
bold and underline emphasis ours)
According to this Shaykh, to speak against Islam and Muslims is considered fighting and
anyone engaging in this type of warfare can be killed, which agrees with Q. 9:12. Thus,
any man, woman or child who has made comments and/or written articles or books disagreeing
with Muhammad and Islam, or has publicly exposed and called into question Muhammad’s
actions, is an enemy that can be murdered, their blood being lawful for a Muslim to shed
without impunity!
This puts to rest the claims of Bismikaallahuma that Islam only permits the killing of
women that are engaged in combat against Muslims, which they take to mean physical or
military action, since the Islamic source material defines criticisms of Muhammad as
fighting which thereby justifies the killing of such persons.
Moreover, Ibn Taymiyya’s comments demonstrate that the reason why some scholars
stated that women and children should not be killed is because they are nothing more than
the property of the Muslims to do with them as they see fit! In other words, the reason
for sparing them has nothing to do with the sanctity of life, that human life is precious
and sacred because humanity bears the divine image of its Creator (cf. Genesis 1:26-27;
5:1-3; 9:4-6). Since Islam views them as nothing more than property, chattel, they have no
real value in the eyes of Muslim terrorists and Jihadists.
This is why the Quran allows for the raping of married women that have been taken
captive by the Muslims:
Forbidden to you are your mothers and your daughters and your sisters and your paternal
aunts and your maternal aunts and brothers' daughters and sisters' daughters and your
mothers that have suckled you and your foster-sisters and mothers of your wives and your
step-daughters who are in your guardianship, (born) of your wives to whom you have gone
in, but if you have not gone in to them, there is no blame on you (in marrying them), and
the wives of your sons who are of your own loins and that you should have two sisters
together, except what has already passed; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
And all married women EXCEPT THOSE WHOM YOUR RIGHT HANDS POSSESS (this is)
Allah's ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that
you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication.
Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no
blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is
Knowing, Wise. S. 4:23-24 Shakir
It makes economic sense to spare the women and children since their Muslim overlords
could either sell them into slavery or, in the case of the women, enjoy them sexually.
Dealing with One Muslim’s Inconsistency
What makes this even more interesting, in fact intriguing, is that one of the main
writers of Bismikaallahuma named Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi (MENJ) tried to defend
Muhammad’s order to murder Asma bint Marwan, which means that he accepts the
historicity of this event. In a reply to a Buddhist which he posted on the Bismikaallahuma
forum (*), MENJ writes:
She thus proceeds to quote from the following link, of which she claims
....is a Buddhist "Hadith" of how the Buddha advised his disciples on how
to deal with criticism directed against him.
and then attempts to "contrast" the above with the missionary polemic on Asma'
bint Marwan. Of her comments on the Christian missionary polemic surrounding the incident
of Asma' bint Marwan, she says
Here we'll see how Muhammad gave an ultimate example to his followers on how to treat
anyone critical against him/Islam that is still devotedly practiced by Muslims around the
globe to the horror of the rest of humanity.
And of course, here is where we beg to differ. The reason why Asma' bint Marwan was treated
as such was nothing to do with the freedom to criticise or criticism of Islam, but
rather, it was her incitement and her behaviour in sowing distress and resentment amongst
Muslims which leads to her killing. Islam's history is replete with people
speaking their mind and even openly disagree with the Prophet (P), to which he(P) would
listen their views and calmly answers them if their views are in contrast to what Islam
teaches. (MENJ, A Point-By-Point Response To A Buddhist Inquiry Into The Character of
Muhammad(P); source;
bold and underline emphasis ours)
MENJ went on to say the following on September 05, 2003, 05:07:36 PM:
Good claim, but a really bad understanding of the polical[sic] situation
at the time. Since Asma' bint Marwan was a war criminal, she would not bow down to
the judgement of the Prophet (P) and yet she would still remain under the protection of
her tribe and free to do her mischief… (Bold emphasis ours)
Note how MENJ justifies her murder on the basis that she was a war criminal, which
essentially confirms what we stated earlier, namely that Islam does permit the killing
of women who criticize Muhammad since this is classified as warfare or fighting.
Yet here is where MENJ exposes his blatant inconsistency. Notice that if MENJ or his
Bismikaallahuma team can show that the story of Asma bint Marwan is based on weak sources
he or they will then try to adopt the position that such murders are implausible on the
grounds that Islam prohibits the killing of women. But if he thinks that Asma’s
murder is based on historically credible sources he will conveniently adopt the stance
that her killing was justified on the grounds that she was a war criminal who incited
unbelievers against the Muslims! Thus, MENJ is not basing his arguments on absolute
justice but on whatever answer serves his purpose in defending Islam. MENJ will basically
adopt whatever explanation happens to absolve Muhammad from his crimes, which shows that
he is not interested in truth.
Moreover, MENJ wants us to accept that Muhammad was right to kill Asma on the grounds
that she was trying to incite individuals against him, even though she was simply seeking
justice for his murders. MENJ wants his readers to believe Muhammad was completely
righteous in killing Abu Afak and Asma for speaking out against his atrocities whereas
Asma was wicked for demanding that Muhammad suffer for his crimes!
Finally, MENJ conveniently avoids mentioning that the reason Asma incited people to
fight Muhammad is because he had ordered the bloody murder of Abu Afak (at least according
to the version of Ibn Ishaq). Asma was demanding justice since she knew that Muhammad
couldn’t be allowed to continue with his murdering spree. Unfortunately, there was no
one who was willing to hold Muhammad responsible for his crimes against humanity.
Concluding Remarks
The preceding data demonstrates that the assertion that Islam prohibits the killing
of women and older individuals cannot be conclusively proven from the primary Islamic
sources. Specific narrations do allow Muslims to kill women and elderly people under
certain circumstances, especially when such persons compose songs and/or recite poems
mocking Muhammad.
What the foregoing basically means is that there is nothing in Muhammad’s orders
to murder Abu Afak and Asma bint Marwan that go against the Islamic directives. Thus,
whereas we have a solid basis to accept the historical veracity of these events we have
no good reasons to reject them. At the very least, Bismikaallahuma and Hesham Azmy
haven’t provided any valid arguments which would lead us to question whether these
murders ever happened.
Further Reading
http://answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/abuafak.html
http://answering-islam.org/Muhammad/Enemies/asma.html
http://answering-islam.org/Green/assassins.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/abu-afak.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/asma.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/dead_poets.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/mockers.htm
Responses to Bismikaallahuma
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page