User:Lehrasap/Sandbox 1
The incident of Ifk + Ruling of 4 witnesses + Pure men could have only 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 (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:
- Firstly Quranic verses 24:12-16 of Surah Nur questioned the people why they doubted 'Aisha's innocence and why didn't they immediately denied those slanders at their own. But Islam critics point out that there is contradiction in Quranic revelation and Muhammad's own behaviour. 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.
- 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 she was wed with Muhammad, who was a pure man. But Islam critics point out that this Quranic argument shows a human error, as there is no guarantee that pure men will always get pur women (or vice-versa).
- 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.
- 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 in the name of 'Islamic Modesty', 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:
(Because of the event) some people brought destruction upon themselves and the one who spread the Ifk (i.e. slander) more, was `Abdullah bin Ubai Ibn Salul." (Urwa said, "The people propagated the slander and talked about it in his (i.e. `Abdullah's) presence and he confirmed it and listened to it and asked about it to let it prevail." `Urwa also added, "None was mentioned as members of the slanderous group besides (`Abdullah) except Hassan bin Thabit and Mistah bin Uthatha and Hamna bint Jahsh along with others about whom I have no knowledge,...
`Aisha added, "After we returned to Medina, I became ill for a month. The people were propagating the forged statements of the slanderers while I was unaware of anything of all that, but I felt that in my present ailment, I was not receiving the same kindness from Allah's Messenger as I used to receive when I got sick. (But now) Allah's Messenger would only come, greet me and say,' How is that (lady)?' and leave. ...
('Aisha further said) When the Divine Inspiration was delayed, Allah's Messenger called `Ali bin Abi Talib and Usama bin Zaid to ask and consult them about divorcing me ...
(Muhammad also asked Barira, the maid-servant) and Barira said to him, 'By Him Who has sent you with the Truth. I have never seen anything in her (i.e. Aisha) which I would conceal, except that she is a young girl who sleeps leaving the dough of her family exposed so that the domestic goats come and eat it.' So, on that day, Allah's Messenger got up on the pulpit and complained about `Abdullah bin Ubai (bin Salul) before his companions, saying, 'O you Muslims! Who will relieve me from that man who has hurt me with his evil statement about my family? By Allah, I know nothing except good about my family and they have blamed a man (i.e. Safwan) about whom I know nothing except good and he used never to enter my home except with me.
' Sa`d bin Mu`adh the brother of Banu `Abd Al-Ashhal got up and said, 'O Allah's Messenger ! I will relieve you from him; if he is from the tribe of Al-Aus, then I will chop his head off, and if he is from our brothers, i.e. Al-Khazraj, then order us, and we will fulfill your order.' On that, a man from Al-Khazraj got up. Um Hassan, his cousin, was from his branch tribe, and he was Sa`d bin Ubada, chief of Al-Khazraj. Before this incident, he was a pious man, but his love for his tribe goaded him into saying to Sa`d (bin Mu`adh). 'By Allah, you have told a lie; you shall not and cannot kill him. If he belonged to your people, you would not wish him to be killed.' On that, Usaid bin Hudair who was the cousin of Sa`d (bin Mu`adh) got up and said to Sa`d bin 'Ubada, 'By Allah! You are a liar! We will surely kill him, and you are a hypocrite arguing on the behalf of hypocrites.' On this, the two tribes of Al-Aus and Al Khazraj got so much excited that they were about to fight while Allah's Messenger was standing on the pulpit. Allah's Messenger kept on quietening them till they became silent and so did he.
... ('Aisha further told that she went to her parents house and stayed there. And after one month) Allah's Messenger came, greeted us and sat down. He had never sat with me since that day of the slander. A month had elapsed and no Divine Inspiration came to him about my case. Allah's Apostle then recited Tashah-hud and then said, 'Amma Badu, O `Aisha! I have been informed so-and so about you; if you are innocent, then soon Allah will reveal your innocence, and if you have committed a sin, then repent to Allah and ask Him for forgiveness for when a slave confesses his sins and asks Allah for forgiveness, Allah accepts his repentance.' ...
('Aisha further said) Then I said to my mother, 'Reply to Allah's Messenger on my behalf concerning what he has said.' She said, 'By Allah, I do not know what to say to Allah's Messenger .' In spite of the fact that I was a young girl and had a little knowledge of Qur'an, I said, 'By Allah, no doubt I know that you heard this (slanderous) speech so that it has been planted in your hearts (i.e. minds) and you have taken it as a truth. Now if I tell you that I am innocent, you will not believe me, and if confess to you about it, and Allah knows that I am innocent, you will surely believe me. By Allah, I find no similitude for me and you except that of Joseph's father when he said, '(For me) patience in the most fitting against that which you assert; it is Allah (Alone) Whose Help can be sought.' Then I turned to the other side and lay on my bed; ...
('Aisha further said after that immediately revelation started coming to Muhammad and he said to her) 'O `Aisha! Allah has declared your innocence!' Then my Mother said to me, 'Get up and go to him (i.e. Allah's Messenger ). I replied, 'By Allah, I will not go to him, and I praise none but Allah.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 to Muhammad, while she was of opinion that the slander had already been planted in the heart of Muhammad, and he would not accept 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 this revelation at his own, and that is why we see this 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.
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:
- Hassan bin Thabit (the famous poet)
- Mistah
- Hamna bint Jahsh (She was a sister of Zaynab, who was another wife of Muhammad)
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, while their numbers were less than 4.
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 stipulated the numbers of witnesses to be 4, and to punish all if their numbers are less that 4, even if they are telling the truth.
- 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. And then surprisingly, only after one minute, he claimed that revelation came and it made 'Aisha free of those accusations.
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.
Therefore, Muhammad once himself forgot that he had to sweat while claiming the descent of revelation, and instead of that, he slept and kept on snorting.
So, neither any hard condition overtook Muhammad, nor he sweat due to the heavy weigt of the revelation, but this time he forgot it and kept on sleeping and snorting comfortably while receiving the revelation.
Why was the revelation delayed 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. And one of the doubt is that it might be that Muhammad waited for complete one month, 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 innocence of 'Aisha through revelation earlier, and later 'Aisha would have become pregnant, then it would have totally destroyed his claim of prophethood and revelation. That is why, although outside the house, Muhammad was strongly defending 'Aisha, but still he didn't use the revelation for this defence for complete one month.
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:
- Firstly, Islam tried to make women disappear from the eyes of men, in name of Hijab.
- 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.
PS:
Muslims are divided on the issue if woman's 'face' should be veiled or not. Those who support the veiling of face too, they present this tradition as a proof, while here 'Aisha veiled her full face from Safwan.
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?