Muhammad's behaviour during the incident of IFK

In the incident of Ifk, an accusation of adultery was levied against ‘Aisha. During an expedition, the Muslim caravan accidentally departed without ‘Aisha. She remained at the camp, when Safwan ibn al-Mu‘attal found her. They stayed there at night, and the next day, he brought 'Aisha back to Muhammad. Rumours that Aisha and Safwan had committed adultery were spread.

Muhammad became extremely angry upon the people who were slandering 'Aisha, as it was not only hurting Muhammad personally, but it was also indirectly hurting the Muhammad's claim of prophethood too.

After one month, Quranic verses 24:12-16 of Surah Nur were revealed, which condemned that group of people who doubted the innocence of 'Aisha, and asked them why they didn't immediately thought good of 'Aisha and denied it completely as a falsehood and a lie.

But Islam critics point out a contradiction here, while later 'Aisha also revealed the inside story at home, where Muhammad was himself doubting 'Aisha right from the beginning till even after one month.

Thus Islam critics claim that these verses were human drama of revelation by Muhammad at his own, where he wanted to shut the outside voices against his household. But at the same time, Muhammad made a human mistake and forgot that he himself doubted 'Aisha and even thought of divorcing her.

Contradiction between Quranic revelation and Muhammad's behaviour

'Aisha narrated the incident of Ifk as following:

Thus, Muhammad was extremely angry upon `Abdullah bin Ubai and the group of people who were hurting Muhammad's reputation, while slandering 'Aisha was also affecting the claim of Muhammad's prophethood too indirectly. Muhammad wanted to shut all those voices and he ordered to kill `Abdullah bin Ubai for that, but he failed as Muslims of `Abdullah's tribe defended him.

After one month, Muhammad claimed that divine revelation came to him, which condemned that group of people for not immediately believing the innocence of 'Aisha.

Islam critics object here, and point out that there is a contradiction between this Quranic revelation and the behaviour of Muhammad during this incident.

They claim that Muhammad was extremely mad upon that group of people. Thus in order to teach them a lesson, he himself did this drama of revelation after one month. And in these verses, he himself put those conditions i.e.:

• immediately thinking good about 'Aisha and Safwan,
• and immediately denying it as an obvious falsehood
• and immediately considering it to be a great lie.

But the problem occurred when later 'Aisha also told what was happening inside the house during this period, where:

• It was also Muhammad himself who neither immediately thought good about 'Aisha,
• nor Muhammad immediately denied it as an obvious falsehood,
• nor Muhammad completely rejected it immediately by saying it to be a big lie.

But contrary to this, according to 'Aisha^[1]:

• Muhammad himself started doubting 'Aisha.
• And Muhammad stopped showing KINDNESS towards 'Aisha, despite her being sick. Even if he came to 'Aisha, then only greeted her, and then left.
• Then Muhammad also started investigating about the character of 'Aisha from Ali and Zayd (the adopted son), and Barira (i.e. the maid-servant) inside the house.
• Then Muhammad also consulted them regarding giving "Divorce" to 'Aisha.
• Even after one month, Muhammad was still doubting 'Aisha and he asked 'Aisha if she had committed a sin, then she should confess it and then she should repent.
• 'Aisha said, she was so much disappointed with this behaviour of Muhammad, that she refused to even talk to him.
• 'Aisha said, she would not say anything to testify her innocence in front of Muhammad, while this slander has been planted in the heart of Muhammad, and he will not believe in her testimony.
• 'Aisha further said, but if she falsely confess that she indeed committed a sin, then Muhammad was immediately going to believe it.
• Then 'Aisha turned her face from Muhammad, and laid on the other side of bed.
• Then Muhammad claimed divine revelation came to him which proved her innocence, and 'Aisha's mother wanted her to accompany Muhammad, but 'Aisha denied to go with him.

Islam critics point out that outside the house, Muhammad was trying hard to keep the mouths shut of people in raising doubts in this incident, by even giving orders to kill 'Abdullah bin 'Ubai, but inside the house, he was himself doubting 'Aisha. But as a human being, he made a mistake and didn't anticipate that later his own behaviour would be disclosed by 'Aisha too.

Thus it is enough to understand that this was not a divine revelation, but it was the human drama of Muhammad itself, while if this revelation was really divine, then Quran would have been threatening Muhammad before threatening that group of outside people for doubting 'Aisha and not immediately rejecting it completely as a big lie.

Quranic claim that Pure Men have only the pure Women

Islam critics point out that at the same time, in this same Surah Nur, Muhammad also further claimed the revelation of verses which say that pure men have only pure women. This should also serve as an argument that 'Aisha was innocent, while she was wed to a pure man i.e. Muhammad.

But Islam critics claim that this Quranic argument is against the human rationale and the history:

• Quran itself gave the example of wife of Lut, who was not pure, while Lut himself was a pure man.
• And Quran also gave the example of wife of Pharaoh. She was a pure woman, while Pharaoh was not.
• Same is about the wife of Noah, who was not pure.
• And thousands of Muslim men commit fornication with the western girls and become impure (according to Islam). Later these Muslim men get the citizenship and they divorce their western partners, and go to their Islamic lands and marry the so-called pure Muslim girls, who didn't indulge in fornication before.

Thus according to the Islam critics, human rationale and history, both are denying this Quranic argument that pure men have only pure women. This proves only this that the revelation was Muhammad'd own human drama, and thus it was Muhammad who was making this human mistake.

Quranic order of 4 eye-witnesses in case of fornication

Muhammad also claimed the revelation of verse 24 of Surah Nur at the same time of incident of Ifk, which not only stipulated the number of witnesses to be 4 in case of fornication/adultery, but it also stipulated if there numbers were less than 4, then all those witnesses should be lashed 80 times, even if they were telling the truth.

Islam critics also point out that firstly Muhammad tried to kill 'Abdullah Ibn Ubai. But he was an influential person and Muhammad failed to incite the Muslims from his tribe to kill him.

Then there were 3 other people who also testified against 'Aisha. They were:

1. Hassan bin Thabit
2. Mistah
3. Hamna bint Jahsh

These 3 Sahaba (companions) were not influential like 'Abdullah bin Ubai. Thus after the revelation of verse 24:4, those 3 got the punishment of 80 lashes each.

Islam critics point out that human logic would always guide you that:

• This Islamic Ruling is totally against human rationale to lash the witnesses even if they are telling the truth only due to the reason that 4 eye-witnesses were not present at the time of incident of fornication/adultery.
• This proves that Muhammad was extremely angry and upset, and there was not divine revelation, but it was a human drama by Muhammad, where he was fabricating those verses himself in order to fulfil his purposes.
• The number of those witnesses was 3. But if their number were 4, then Muhammad would have still punished them by putting the condition of 5 witnesses. And if the number of witnessed were 5, then still Muhammad would have still punished them by putting the condition of 6 witnesses.

References