Muhammad's behaviour during the Incident of Ifk + Ruling of 4 eye-witnesses + Quranic claim of pure men have only the pure women

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 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.

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^[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 directly.
• 'Aisha even refused to testify her innocence in front of Muhammad, while she was of opinion that that 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 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, which would put his own behaviour in direct contradiction to this revelation.

Thus it is enough to understand that this was not a divine revelation, but it was only the human drama of Muhammad, while if this revelation was really from any divine being, then this revelation 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

In this same 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 mistake 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 less than 4, 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''' only due to the reason that 4 eye-witnesses are not present.
• This illogical ruling proves that no revelation was coming from any divine being, but it was Muhammad himself, who was doing this human drama of revelation, and that is why we see the colour of human mistake in this ruling.
• The number of those witnesses was 3. But if their number was 4, then Muhammad would have still punished them by putting the condition of 5 witnesses. 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 just 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 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 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 here that Muhammad waited for complete one month before making the claim of revelation, '''while he wanted to make sure that 'Aisha didn't become pregnant'''. Had Muhammad announced the revelation earlier, and later 'Aisha would have become pregnant, then it would have destroyed his claim of prophethood.

(Note: If woman doesn't bleed at time of her first period, then it is a sign that she has become pregnant)

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 by simply saying 'hello' to her.

The result of this Islamic modesty came in 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 started counselling to divorce 'Aisha.
• 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 untrusting 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 Allaho 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.

The sole reason for this one month long drama was only this restriction upon the interaction of men and women. And this same thing is 'hunting' the Islamic society even today. Even today, a lot of misunderstandings are happening due to this and things go even to the 'killings'.

Also see again this lack of interaction 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 and what happened that 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 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 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 in his personal case, Muhammad still ordered to kill 'Abdullah.

Nevertheless, Muhammad failed to incite 'Abdullah's tribe men to kill him.

Later Muhammad claimed the revelation of verse 24:2 of Surah Nur, which stipulated the punishment of 80 lashes if the number of witnesses doesn't reach to 4.

These 3 other companions were not so influential, and thus they were lashed for 80 times. But again 'Abdullah ibn Ubai got no punishment of lashes too.

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

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

References