User:Lehrasap/Sandbox 1: Difference between revisions

The incident of Ifk, and the human errors in the revelation

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 (a companion of Muhammad) found her later. 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.

Later, Quranic verses (Surah Nur) were revealed about the innocence of 'Aisha against those slanders.

Nevertheless, Islam critics point out that there are 'human errors' present in the revelation:

1. Firstly Quranic verses 24:12-16 of Surah Nur questioned the companions (i.e.Sahaba) why they doubted 'Aisha's innocence and why they didn't 'immediately' denied those slanders at their own. But Islam critics point out that it was Muhammad himself who doubted 'Aisha, and he even wanted to divorce her, and thus those verses should have condemned Muhammad first instead of those companions.
2. Then Quran came up with this argument that 'Aisha should had been considered free of doubts as pure men could have only the pure women, and Muhammad was a pure man. But Islam critics point out that this Quranic argument shows a human error too, as there is no guarantee that pure men will always get pur women (or vice-versa).
3. Then the revelation came up with entirely new ruling that number of witnesses should be 4 in case of slandering. And another new ruling was this if number of witnesses is 3 (or less), then all of them will be lashed 80 times, even if they are telling the truth. But Islam critics consider this ruling too to be a 'human error' and illogical to punish the witnesses even if they are telling the truth.
4. Then Islam critics point out that this whole drama of Ifk, which continued for one month, happened only due to the unnatural restrictions of Islam, where it forbids any interaction between the men and the women.

Contradiction between the 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 affecting the claim of Muhammad's prophethood too indirectly. Muhammad wanted to shut all those voices and thus 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 in the innocence of 'Aisha.

At this stage, Islam critics point out that there is a contradiction between this Quranic revelation and the behaviour of Muhammad.

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 the story, which 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:

• Muhammad himself started doubting 'Aisha.
• And Muhammad stopped showing KINDNESS towards 'Aisha, despite her being ill. Even if he came to 'Aisha, then he 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 repent.
• 'Aisha said, she was so much disappointed with this behaviour of Muhammad, that she refused to even talk to him directly.
• 'Aisha even refused to testify her innocence in front of Muhammad, while she was of opinion that the slander had already been planted in the heart of Muhammad, and he would 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, but 'Aisha was still so much upset with Muhammad's behaviour when her mother asked her to accompany Muhammad, then 'Aisha refused to even go with him.

Islam critics point out that:

• Outside the house, Muhammad was trying hard to keep the mouths shut of people from 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, which would put his own behaviour in direct contradiction to this revelation.
• Thus it is enough to understand that this was not a revelation by any divine being, but it was only the human drama of Muhammad. If this revelation was really from any divine being, then this revelation would have been threatening Muhammad first 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

In this same revelation of Surah Nur, Quran also claimed that pure men have only the pure women. This Quranic claim should serve as an argument that 'Aisha was innocent, while she was wed to a pure man i.e. Muhammad.

Ibn Kathir wrote in his Tafsir under this verse 26 of Surah Nur:

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 haven't indulged in fornication before.

Therefore, 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 this revelation was not from any divine being, but it was only a human drama and Muhammad was himself making it, and that is why we see human error in this revelation.

Quranic order of 4 eye-witnesses in the case of slandering

Muhammad also claimed the revelation of verse 24 of Surah Nur at the same time of incident of Ifk:

• This verse stipulated an entirely new condition of number of witnesses to be 4 in case of slandering.
• And it also stipulated another entirely new condition if there numbers are 3 (or less), then all those witnesses should be lashed 80 times, even if they are telling the truth.

Islam critics point out that Muhammad was extremely angry upon the people who were indirectly attacking his prophethood through slandering 'Aisha and he wanted to severely punish them for 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 Sahaba (companions) who were also talking against 'Aisha. They were:

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

These 3 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.
• This illogical ruling proves that no revelation was coming from any divine being, but it was Muhammad himself, who was extremely angry upon those people who were putting his position of prophethood in danger by slandering 'Aisha. And Muhammad wanted to teach them the lesson. And for this reason he himself did this human drama of revelation, and that is why we see the colour of human error in this ruling.
• The number of those witnesses was 3. But if their number was 4, then Muhammad would have still punished them by simply raising the number of witnesses to 5. And if the number of witnesses was 5, then still Muhammad would have still punished them by putting the condition of 6 witnesses.

How did Muhammad know that Allah will 'soon' reveal the verses of innocence of 'Aisha after one month?

No revelation came for 'Aisha's innocence for the whole month. Then Muhammad came to 'Aisha (who was staying in her parent's house at that time) and he claimed that Allah will 'soon' reveal the verses about her innocence.

Islam critics point out that:

• Muhammad could only make such claim (i.e. soon revelation will come for her innocence) when it was in his own hands to make the revelations at any time that he wished.
• And it is strange that indeed the revelation came immediately after that as soon as Muhammad and 'Aisha finished their conversation.
• And regarding Muhammad's sweating due to the revelation, then Islam critics point out that all the people who show magic tricks, they play with the minds of others, and make many such dramas in order to convince the people that they are indeed talking with unseen creatures.

Why didn't the revelation come earlier for the whole month?

Islam critics question here:

• If at the end Allah had to reveal the verses of innocence of 'Aisha, why didn't then this revelation come earlier?
• The incident of 'Abdullah Ibn Ubai and the group of people was also over just in the beginning. Therefore, if Allah wanted to reveal the verses about 4 witnesses and about pure men having only the pure women, then it could have also be done immediately after the incident of 'Abdullah Ibn Ubai.
• Nothing more happened during the remaining whole month, except that Muhammad never visited 'Aisha in her parent's house to show any kindness towards her in her illness.
• So, why to torture 'Aisha for complete one month?

An intelligent investigator keeps all the doors of doubts open. Since Islam critics don't believe in the prophethood of Muhammad, and consider all this to be his human drama, thus they doubt and say that it may be that Muhammad waited for complete one month before making the claim of revelation, while he wanted to make sure that 'Aisha was not pregnant (Note: If woman doesn't bleed at time of her first period, then it is a sign that she has become pregnant).

Had Muhammad announced the revelation earlier, and later 'Aisha would have become pregnant, then it would have totally destroyed his claim of prophethood. That is why, although outside the house, Muhammad was strongly defending 'Aisha, but inside the house, he was himself keeping a distance from her and waiting patiently for one month before announcing the revelation.

Role of 'Islamic Modesty' in the incident of Ifk

Let us look at the role of 'Islamic Modesty' in this incident:

Islam critics point out that this incident of Ifk happened due to the following two reasons:

1. Firstly, Islam tried to make women disappear from the eyes of men, in name of Hijab.
2. And even conversation, and any kind of interaction between men and women is considered vulgarity, and is against the 'Islamic Modesty'.

Therefore, in this journey too, 'Aisha was made to disappear herself from the eyes of men behind the curtains of her howdah. And since men and women could not even 'greet' each other as it is also considered vulgar in Sharia, therefore those men (who were lifting her howdah) were unable to find out if she was present in the howdah or not, by simply saying 'hello' to her.

The result of this Islamic modesty came in a form, where:

• 'Aisha was weeping whole night long for one complete month and she was in pain. And even she was innocent, but still even Muhammad planted this slander in his heart and he showed no kindness towards her.
• And the rivers of blood were about to flow as two tribes of Muslims were close to wage a war against each other.

Moreover, Islam critics point out that:

• Such 'restrictions' in name of 'Islamic Modesty' are against the 'NATURE'.
• And these unnatural restrictions make the society so much paranoid and skeptic, that it becomes a 'psycho' case.
• Muslims are unable to tell why these 2 companions (i.e. Hassan bin Thabit and Mistah) made a slander against 'Aisha. But the reason seems to be simple that these unnatural restrictions are making members of Islamic society paranoid and turning them into psycho cases, where they believe in such things which actually are not there. (Note: Muslims still use "Radhi Allahu 'Anhu" for these 2 companions and consider them to be the people of high status).
• Even today, thousands of killings take place in Islamic societies, in name of 'Honour Killing', which are based merely upon doubts and paranoia.

The sole reason for this one month long drama was only this restriction upon the interaction of men and women in name of 'Islamic Modesty'. And this same thing is 'hunting' the Islamic society even today.

Also see again this lack of interaction between them when Safwan found 'Asiha.

Islam critics ask:

• How could Islam be considered a 'religion of nature' when it has made it so difficult that even in emergencies men and women don't even exchange a single word?
• What wrong could have happened if they would have greeted each other, and Safwan would have asked her about the problem why she was alone there, and if she needed some other kind of help too in that situation?

Even today Muslim ladies and girls are unable to take help without any hesitation in each and every field from men (either they are male doctors or male teachers etc). So much energy of the society is wasted in these unnatural restrictions, and half of the Islamic society (i.e. women) become practically useless and unable to help with the productivity.

Did Muhammad practice Taqiyyah in case of 'Abdullah Ibn Ubai?

Islam critics point out that:

• Punishment of making a false slander is not killing, but maximum 80 lashes (at it happened with Hassan bin Thabit and others who made the slander)
• But in his personal case, Muhammad still ordered to kill 'Abdullah.
• Nevertheless, Muhammad failed to incite 'Abdullah's tribe men to kill him.
• After one month later, other 3 Sahaba were punished with 80 lashes, but again 'Abdullah Ibn Ubai didn't even get the punishment of those 80 lashes. Why?

Doesn't it mean that Muhammad had to practice Taqiyyah in case of 'Abdullah Ibn Ubai?

And what about companions being the best of generations and best of the believers when they neither killed 'Abdullah nor let him be lashed, despite the clear Quranic verse and the clear prophetic orders?

Why did Muhammad use to take his wives during the battles?

In the time of ignorance, the Kings acted like the dictators. They didn't allow their common soldiers to take their wives during the journeys, but for themselves, they wanted to enjoy their wives during the battles too, although those wives had no role in the battle and they were only an extra load.

Islam critics point out that Muhammad also followed the footsteps of those dictator kings. The incident of Ifk happened while Muhammad took 'Aisha with him in that journey.

In this same Hadith about Ifk, 'Aisha narrated:

So, Islamic critics raise this question, why in the first place Muhammad started to follow the footsteps of those dictator kings of the time of ignorance?