Category Archives: Refuting False Allegations on The Prophet

Documentations that Prove the Existence of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ

A Moron Blabbers a Lie without any proof Whatsoever

Despite the very authentic historicity of the life and achievements of Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be peace, vested academic interests have throughout the centuries tried, in vain, to rob him of his rightful place, indeed, his very presence, in the story of human progress. Presented herein under is a compilation of evidences from Western academic sources which reiterate the historic role of the most complete personality that man has known from among his own kind.

“Muhammad is not completely a fiction of later pious imagination, as some have implied; we know that someone named Muhammad did exist, and that he led some kind of movement. And this fact, in turn, gives us greater confidence that further information in the massive body of traditional Muslim materials may also be rooted in historical fact.” ~ Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam, p. 53, University of Chicago, Fred Donner – Professor of Near Eastern History

While it has become popular to question the very existence of Prophet Muhammad and other major religious figures like Moses, Jesus, and Buddha, the historical evidence for Prophet Muhammad existing and living in 7th century Arabia is vast and well-documented. Several examples of the earliest sources documenting the existence and mission of Prophet Muhammad are summarized below:

1. A Byzantine Greek text written within two years of Muhammad’s death in 634CE confirms he existed and claimed to be a Prophet:

“There is no doubt that Mohammed existed, occasional attempts to deny it notwithstanding. His neighbours in Byzantine Syria got to hear of him within two years of his death at the latest; a GREEK TEXT written during the Arab invasion of Syria between 632 and 634 MENTIONS that ‘a prophet has appeared among the Saracens’ and dismisses him as an impostor on the ground that prophets do not come ‘with sword and chariot.’ It thus conveys the impression that he was actually leading the invasions…If such a revised date is accurate, the evidence of the Greek text would mean that Mohammed is the only founder of a world religion who is attested in a contemporary source. But in any case, this source gives us pretty irrefutable evidence that he was a historical figure.” ~ Patricia Crone (Former Professor of Oriental Studies – University of Cambridge), ‘What Do We Actually Know About Mohammed,’ June 2008

2. A Syrian manuscript folio examined by W. Wright, which dates to 636 AD (four years after Prophet Muhammad Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam passed away), mentions Prophet Muhammad Sallallaahu alayhi wasallan and the Arab conquest of Syria. Documented in W. Wright, Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired Sincethe Year 1838, 1870, Part I, Printed by order of the Trustees: London, No. XCIV, pp. 65-66.

3. Another Syrian manuscript mentions Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and the Arab conquests and this also comes from the year 634 AD – two years after Prophet Muhammad passed away. See W. Wright,Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum Acquired Sincethe Year 1838, 1872, Part III, Printed by order of the Trustees: London, No. DCCCCXIII, pp. 1040-1041.

4. The writing of the Syrian Christian Thomas the Presbyter in 640 testifies that Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi wasallam)existed and led a movement. That is just eight years after his death:

“For example, an early Syriac source by the Christian writer, Thomas, the Presbyter, dated to around 640CE – that is, just a few years after Prophet Muhammad’s death – provides the earliest mention of Prophet Muhammad and informs us that his followers made a raid around Gaza. This, at least, enables the HISTORIAN TO FEEL MORE CONFIDENT that Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is not completely a fiction of later pious imagination, as some have implied; WE KNOW THAT SOMEONE NAMED MUHAMMAD DID EXIST, and that he LED some kind of MOVEMENT. And this FACT, in turn, gives us greater confidence that further information in the massive body of traditional Muslim materials may also be rooted in HISTORICAL FACT. The difficulty is in deciding what is, and what is not, factual.” ~ Fred Donner (Professor of Near Eastern History – University of Chicago), Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam, p.53

5. The Qur’an provides direct evidence of Prophet Muhammad. Not only does it mention Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) by name, but it mentions and describes Prophey Muhammad as a prophet and various events in his life and the life of his community.And the scholarly consensus is that the Qur’an as we have it today certainly contains what Prophet Muhammad said and recited in his lifetime:

“Mohammed is also mentioned by name, and identified as a messenger of God, four times in the Qur’an… We can be reasonably sure that the Qur’an is a collection of utterances that he made in the belief that they had been revealed to him by God. The book may not preserve all the messages he claimed to have received, and he is not responsible for the arrangement in which we have them. They were collected after his death – how long after is controversial. But that he uttered all – or most – of them is difficult to doubt.” ~ Patricia Crone (Former Professor of Oriental Studies – University of Cambridge), ‘What Do We Actually Know About Mohammed?’ June 2008

And, yet again:

“For example, meticulous study of the text by generations of scholars has failed to turn up any plausible hint of anachronistic references to important events in the life of the later community, which would almost certainly be there had the text crystallized later than the early seventh century C.E. Moreover, some of the Qur’an’s vocabulary suggests that the text, or significant parts of it, hailed from western Arabia. So we seem, after all, to be dealing with a Qur’an that is the product of the earliest stages in the life of the community in western Arabia…The fact that the Qur’an text dates to the earliest phase of the movement inaugurated by Muhammad means that the historian can use it.” ~ Fred Donner (Professor of Near Eastern History – University of Chicago),Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam

6. The Constitution of Madina is preserved in eighth century sources and all scholars accept it as authentic and going back to Muhammad’s own lifetime when he ruled over Madinah (Yathrib):

“On the Islamic side, sources dating from the mid-8th century onwards preserve a document drawn up between Mohammed and the inhabitants of Yathrib, which there are good reasons to accept as broadly authentic; Mohammed is also mentioned by name, and identified as a Messenger of God, four times in the Qur’an.” ~ Patricia Crone (Former Professor of Oriental Studies – University of Cambridge),‘What Do We Actually Know About Mohammed?’ June 2008

7. Other non-Muslim sources attesting to Muhammad include Christian and Persian writings:

(a) Sebeos, Bishop of theBagratunis (Writing in 660s CE/ 40s AH)

“Moreover, an Armenian document probably written shortly after 661 identifies him by name and gives a recognisable account of his monotheist preaching.” ~ Patricia Crone (Former Professor of Oriental Studies – University of Cambridge), ‘What Do We Actually Know About Mohammed?’ June 2008

One of the most interesting accounts of the early seventh century comes from Sebeos who was a bishop of the House of Bagratunis. From this chronicle, there are indications that he lived through many of the events he relates. He maintains that the account of Arab conquests derives from the fugitives who had been eyewitnesses thereof. He concludes with Mu’awiya’s ascendancy in the Arab civil war (656-61 CE), which suggests that he was writing soon after this date. Sebeos is the first non-Muslim author to present us with a theory for the rise of Islam that pays attention to what the Muslims themselves thought they were doing (see R. G. Hoyland, Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey And Evaluation Of Christian, Jewish And Zoroastrian Writings On Early Islam, 1997, op. cit., p. 128). He says the following about Prophet Muhammad:

“At that time, a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Muḥammad], a merchant, as if by God’s command, appeared to them as a preacher [and] the Path of Truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learnt and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order, they all came together in unity of religion.

“Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. He said: ‘With an oath God promised this land to Abraham and his seed after him forever. And he brought about as he promised during that time while he loved Ismael. But now you are the sons of Abraham and God is accomplishing his promise to Abraham and his seed for you. Love sincerely only the God of Abraham, and go and seize the land which God gave to your father Abraham. No one will be able to resist you in battle, because God is with you.” ~ Bishop Sebeos, (in R. W. Thomson with contributions from J. Howard-Johnson & T. Greenwood),The Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos Part – I: Translation and Notes, 1999, Translated Texts For Historians – Volume 31, Liverpool University Press, pp. 95-96)

Sebeos was writing the chronicle at a time when memories of sudden eruption of the Arabs were fresh. He knows Muhammad’s name and that he was a merchant by profession. He hints that his life was suddenly changed by a divinely inspired revelation (see R. W. Thomson with contributions from J. Howard-Johnson & T. Greenwood, The Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos; Part – II: Historical Commentary, 1999, Translated Texts for Historians – Volume 31, Liverpool University Press, p. 238). He presents a good summary of Muhammad’s preaching, i.e., belief in one God, Abraham as a common ancestor of Jews and Arabs. He picks out some of the rules of behaviour imposed on the Ummah; the four prohibitions which are mentioned in the Qur’an. Much of what he says about the origins of Islam conforms to the Muslim tradition.

(b) A Chronicler of Khuzistan (Writing c. 660s CE/ 40s AH)

This is an anonymous and short Nestorian chronicle that aims to convey Church as well as secular histories from the death of Hormizd, son of Khusrau, to the end of the Persian kingdom. Because of its anonymity, it is known to scholars as the ‘Khuzistan Chronicle,’ after its plausible geographical location or Anonymous Guidi, after the name of its first editor. Amid his entry on the reign of Yazdgird, the chronicler gives a brief account of the Muslim invasions:

“Then God raised up against them the sons of Ishmael, [numerous] as the sand on the sea shore, whose leader (mdabbrānā) was Muḥammad (mḥmd). Neither walls nor gates, armour or shield, withstood them, and they gained control over the entire land of the Persians. Yazdgird sent against them countless troops, but the Arabs routed them all and even killed Rustam. Yazdgird shut himself up in the walls of Mahoze and finally escaped by flight. He reached the country of the Huzaye and Mrwnaye, where he ended his life. The Arabs gained control of Mahoze and all the territory.” ~ Chronicler of Khuzistan, (R. G. Hoyland,Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey And Evaluation Of Christian, Jewish And Zoroastrian Writings On Early Islam, 1997, op. cit., p. 186)


Refuting the Rubbish about The Death of Our Holy Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam)

An Islamophobe Using his deceptive Craft

by Saif min Suyufillah

Well, There is a verse and a hadith which are usually inter related to claim that the death of Our Holy Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was a penalty, which is definitely wrong.

See the verses.

We would have seized him by the right hand;

Then We would have cut from him the aorta (The word used here is Wateen).

And there is no one of you who could prevent [Us] from him.   [Qur’an 69:45-47]

See the hadith

Narrated Aisha (radhiyallahu anha):

The Prophet (ﷺ) in his ailment in which he died, used to say,

“O ‘Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta (the word used here is  abhari) is being cut from that poison. [Sahih Bukhari 4428]

Now note the following points:

1.The penalty had to start with hand, right hand.

Gripping or seizing the right hand means there must be some sort of paralysis or severe injury, continuing up to death which never occurred.

According to the verses, the punishment had to start from right hand but The right hand remained well till death. Nothing of such type had ever occurred.

There was no such punishment by Allah because there was no changing of Quran.

2. Nothing could have prevented Us (69:47), means not even the time could have prevented the punishment, there would be instantaneous seizing together with the cutting of aorta, without any delay.

Again, there was no such scene.

The Holy Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) died many years after the incident of Khyber 629-632 A.D.

3. Note the tone of these verses and the intensity of Wrath.

Could you imagine a slow death afterwards, without seizing the hands?

No, because it was never the case.

Not at all.

4. The Holy Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was stable at the moment, stable afterwards. According to another hadith, He (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) called the woman and asked her about the poison.

His condition was well, He remained well later on.

There were no acute symptoms (sudden deteriorating condition), nor was there any case of chronic poisoning (long term slow poisoning).

The Holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), leaded, organized and managed about 41 expeditions later on.

He was not only managing a city but a whole developing Muslim empire.

He traveled many times,even in extreme conditions

How could you ever imagine a person with cut aorta, travelling and leading so many expeditions?

Use some brains.

5. Coming towards the aorta, The words are totally different. According to google translate, the translation of word aorta in Arabic is Wateen or Shryaan. There is nothing like abhariSee Here

The translation of Abhari  is given as aortic or breathing. So it would be like cutting breathing, not the cutting aorta.

Refuting the Allegation that Qur’an 9:29 Encourages Forced Conversion & Violence


With valuable inputs from brother Sami Zaatari of answering-christianity team

You may also be interested in the following:-

Verse 9:29 of Surah at-tauba is probably the intentionally most misinterpreted verse of the Quran. This is what it says: –

“Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth , (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” [S. 9:29 Y. Ali]

Dear brother mansour, I totally understand you when you say that this verse promotes violence on a cursory glance. But if you read it carefully you’ll find that it doesn’t. I hope you will be patient enough to be with me throughout the end of this article.

The verse says “Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth”.

My question to you brother. Does this verse stop here? No it doesnt. It continues and gives the actual reason as to the fighting. This is the continuation: – “until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”.


This verse doesn’t ask the Muslims to do mindless slaughter as the media portrays or deceives. It gives the Muslims the permission to fight only those non-Muslims who do not pay jizya – the state tax. And we all know that jizya is applicable only in an Islamic governed region. Neither India, nor US or Britain are Islamic states. So to put this verse as an excuse for what happened there only shows how biased, unknowledgable and unfair the media is and it hurts us deeply.

I can show whole verses from other scriptures that are truly inhuman, yet no one questions them. Do you want a sample? Ill give it to you at the end. I promise.


Again, the verse permits the muslims to fight the non –muslims in an islamic nation ONLY and ONLY  if they refuse to pay the jizya – Willingly . Re-read the verse from ANY translation if you are not sure. But once they pay the jizya tax they can continue to believe in their atheistic pagan beliefs, but it will be under an Islamic region. You can still forgive them by not forcing them into Islam, nor oppressing them or being bad to them because of their wrong beliefs.


This is not to you brother coz I consider you as a truly respectable friend. To others who read this article – I openly challenge you to show me ONE verse from the Quran which says to kill the disbelievers just because they are disbelievers. There are verses which permit the Muslims to fight and kill non-Muslims. But every time sensible and reasonable conditions are laid. I can show you all verses from other religious scriptures where slaughtering is done for reasons that are as silly and stupid as honor, glory and greatness. Sometimes for fun too.  Wait till the end of the article to have a sample.


Coming back to the verse, now people might say isn’t it unfair that they have to pay the jizya tax? Not really. Since when is punishment for refusal to pay lawful taxes considered as terrorism? Also, the jizya tax is very cheap and affordable, and it grants the non-Muslim’s many benefits, benefits which even the Muslims don’t get! For instance, the non-Muslims who are paying jizya in an Islamic state are not obliged to take part in any battle or war, unless they themselves choose tothe Muslims do not have this choice. Muslims have to actually burn their asses out to protect both Muslims and non-Muslims living in their lands. Also if the Islamic state cannot grant protection to the non-Muslims then the non-Muslims are not obliged to pay the jizya tax, since Muslims themselves must meet expectations for the jizya tax to be implemented. Also, Society today has no problem in paying taxes (Property Tax, Income Tax, Service Tax, Sales & Goods Tax, Road Tax, Entertainment Tax, Vehicle Tax, etc etc) to the government, so therefore they should have no problem in paying a tax in an Islamic Shariah governed state either.

There you go my friend, verse 9:29 doesn’t encourage the muslims to do terrorism. It is a perfectly fair and just verse. Just throw this article on the face of anybody who tries to misrepresent islam to you in the future.

I could lay my hands on 7 different english translations of the quran and ALL OF THEM HAVE THE CONDITION:-

1. “[And] fight against those who – despite having been vouchsafed revelation [aforetime] – do not [truly] believe either in God or the last Day, and do not consider forbidden that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and do not follow the religion of truth [which God has enjoined upon the], till they [agree to] pay the exemption tax with a willing hand, after having been humbled [in war]” 9:29  Asad’s Translation

2. “Fight those people of the Book (Jews and Christians) who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, do not refrain from what has been prohibited by Allah and His Rasool and do not embrace the religion of truth (Al-Islam), until they pay Jizya (protection tax) with their own handsand feel themselves subdued.” 9:29 Malik’s Translation

3. “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” 9:29 Yusuf Ali’s Translation

4. “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.” 9:29 Pickthall’s Translation

5. “Fight against those who believe not in Allâh, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” 9:29 Muhsin Khan’s Translation

6. “Fight those People of the Book who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Last Day, and do not take as unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have declared as unlawful, and do not profess the Faith of Truth; (fight them) until they pay jizyah with their own hands while they are subdued.” 9:29 Mufti Taqi Usmani’s Translation

7. “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.” 9:29  Sahih International Translation


Finally, people might now say well isn’t Islam violent because Muslims are commanded to fight those who do not believe in God and so on etc etc. Not really, because fighting in this verse does not explicitly mean physical violence.  Observe the words in the above verses like “willingly”, “willing submission”, “readily” etc. Here it is spoken about bringing a change from within the hearts of people which is brought about intellectually. There are many ways in which you fight against somebody that does not involve a physical aspect. You can fight someone with the tongue, using your wisdom and telling him about the truth, you are fighting against the lies that person is propagating and eventually with your tongue you will speak the truth and crush his lies leading him to the truth. So fighting does not have to only be physical.

But alas! We totally over look these things when we mindlessly base allegations on the Quran. I never comment on any religion until I have read and understood ALL their scriptures. I don’t just google out some anti-religious sites to come up with instant allegations. This is so unfair.

7. Quick Noble Verses that refute the terrorism LIE in Islam:

“Fight in the cause of God those who fight you,but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. (The Noble Quran, 2:190)“

“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).(The Noble Quran, 8:61)“

“If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear God, the cherisher of the worlds. (The Noble Quran, 5:28)“

God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers. (The Noble Quran, 60:8)“

“And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God.  But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers.(The Noble Quran 2:193)“

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error:  whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks.  And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (The Noble Quran, 2:256)“

“Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God’s will) in Islam.  Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them). (The Noble Quran, 15:2-3)“

“Say, ‘The truth is from your Lord’: Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it):……(The Noble Quran, 18:29)“

“If it had been thy Lord’s will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then COMPEL mankind, against their will, to believe!(The Noble Quran, 10:99)“

“Say: ‘Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you.   If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance.  The Messenger’s duty is only to preach the clear (Message). (The Noble Quran, 24:54)“

“Say : O ye that reject Faith!  I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship.  And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship.  To you be your Way, and to me mine. (The Noble Quran, 109:1-6)“

I can spend my entire life showing you verses such as these that are littered throughout the Quran which throw the lie of terrorism out of the window.

You said “the alleged terrorizing verses” of the quran are everywhere. i ask you brother to point out EVERY such verse from the Quran so that i can clear up the matter with you. Google them out if you want. I don’t care. But don’t forget to compare them with what i am going to show you next.


Refuting the False Allegation that Prophet Muhammad Fabricated Things against God

Some pathetic non-Muslims use unreliable quotes from unreliable books. They quote the following from Al-Tabari’s book:

“I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken.”
~MUHAMMAD (Al-Tabari 6:111)


This is in fact such a weak and stupid argument made by some Christians and they desperately and shamelessly use it to disprove the prophethood of Muhammed.

For starter, who is Tabari ?! Tabari was an exegete (mufassir) & an HISTORIAN (for understanding the scholars rules on historical reports read: Difference between Ahadith Narrations & Historical Reports ), so he does not verify the narrations as we will read in the introduction of his history book.

Anyway, Islamic historians would simply compile all the known narrations about a certain event, regardless of how authentic or reliable each of those narrations were. They would copy the Isnads (chains of transmitters) into their books, in order that the Muhadditheen (scholars of Hadith) could determine which narration was Sahih/Hasan (authentic/good) and which was Dhaeef (weak) or even Mawdoo (fabricated). In other words, the historians compiled the narrations, and the Muhadditheen authenticated them. Therefore, based on the above,we find that Tarikh at-Tabari is simply a COLLECTION OF NARRATIONS on certain events; some of these narrations are ACCURATE, whereas others are NOT. The authenticity of each narration depends on the Isnad (chain of transmitters): if the narration was transmitted by reliable narrators, then it would be accepted as valid, but if it was transmitted by unreliable people, then the narration was to be disregarded. Tabari says in a disclaimer in the introduction of his book:

“I shall likewise mention those (narrators) who came after them, giving additional information about them. I do this so that it can be clarified whose transmission (of traditions) is praised and whose information is transmitted, whose transmission is to be rejected and whose transmission is to be disregarded…The reader should know that with respect to all I have mentioned and made it a condition to set down in this book of mine, I rely upon traditions and reports which have been transmitted and which I attribute to their transmitters. I rely only very rarely upon (my own) rationality and internal thought processes. For no knowledge of the history of men of the past and of recent men and events is attainable by those who were not able to observe them and did not live in their time, except through information and transmission produced by informants and transmitters. This knowledge cannot be brought out by reason or produced by internal thought processes. This book of mine may contain some information mentioned by me on the authority of certain men of the past, which the reader may disapprove of and the listener may find detestable, because he can find nothing sound and no real meaning in it. In such cases, he should know that it is not my fault that such information comes to him, but the fault of someone who transmitted it to me. I HAVE MERELY REPORTED IT as it was reported to me. (Tareekh at-Tabari, Vol.1, Introduction)”  []    

So this quote is a LIE against Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), not just that, but there were many lies invented by the hypocrites from among the Jews in order to REJECT prophet Muhammed. The people were certain that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the awaited one and to defend themselves, the hypocrites from the Jews invented such lies.

Inventing lies is not a big problem for the liars, this is their job. For example, the Prophet once recited some Surahs (verses from Qur’an) to the pagans in Makkah and prostrated to God Almighty at the end. The pagans who were speechless at the beauty of the recitation also prostrated. When the news spread to the leaders of the pagans, they were upset and were looking to take action against those pagans who had prostrated. In order to defend themselves, those pagans lied that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had said good things about their false gods. The lie was made to defend themselves.

If these Christians feel that the hypocrites were telling the truth and he really praised the pagan gods, then he must also accept the hypocrites around Prophet Jesus (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) who claimed the same for Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him).

Just like the hypocrites invented lies against the Prophets of the Old Testament (sinners, rapists, killers, incest performers, idol worshippers, nudists etc), they invented lies against Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) but the difference is that Muslims have rejected these hypocrites and have thrown them of their books .

Another thing, Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was SINCERE, and he was called ”The Trustworthy” and “Truthful” before his prophethood, so how can he fabricate things on God, doesn’t make any sense, does it ?!

Christians’ conclusion that Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had Satan behind him just reminds one of the story of Lazarus when Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) raised him from death by the permission of God Almighty. The hypocrites around him stated that “the devil was behind him”. Such allegations have been labeled at Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as well and it is no surprise at all.

So this argument that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) openly said that he lied is just PATHETIC and CHILDISH as can be seen. Making use of the weakest of weak narrations is the job of the HYPOCRITES.

I bear witness there’s no god but Allah, and Muhammed is his final messenger..

And Allah knows the best..

With some additions from myself to the original article:


The Killing Of Umm Qirfa and the False Propaganda of a Christian Liar


The moron (in the pic) has cut the context and tried to portray the early Muslims as ‘thugs’, this is the typical ‘art of deceiving’ the Anti-Islam morons apply to deceive unwary masses and create in their hearts the hatred aginst Islam. Here we will rebut his falsehood and expose his lie on this issue with solid proofs.

A brother has answered this nonsense propaganda in a detailed manner:

The way the story of killing of Umm Qirfa is presented by anti-Islamic polemicists is a perfect example of how they twist the facts.

The twisted story:

They (the Islam-haters like the one in the pic – islamreigns) give an impression as if she was a noble lady of great character and Muslims for no valid reason attacked her tribe and her killing in that specific manner, of tying her legs to two camels and driving them away and thus tearing her apart, was carried out on by the command of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) himself. They also allege that her head was brought to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and he ordered it to be paraded in Medina. Then they try to make an issue about her daughter who was taken as a prisoner and later gave birth to a child of Hazn bin Abu Wahb. They tend to convey as if she was raped. Indeed nothing can be far from truth then this.

Some issues with the narration:

First of all let me say that there is some confusion as to when was Umm Qirfa killed and who lead the campaign against her violent tribe. According to Baihiqi’s Sunan al-Kubra 8/204 and Sunan Darqutni (H.3249) she was killed during the caliphate of Abu Bakr (RA) while most of the books on Sirah (life and times of the Holy Prophet PBUH) put it somewhere in 6th year A.H. Further according to Sahih Muslim (H.3299) Abu Bakr (RA) led the campaign during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). But accounts in the books of Sirah give the notion as if Zaid bin Harith (RA) was the leader. Polemicists, mostly Christians, generally refer to the books of Sirah so we shall reply considering those particular narrations.

5- Further we learn that Umm Qirfa in her capacity of being the tribal leader plotted to harm the Holy Prophet (PBUH) in person (Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtum p.457). In Sirat Halabiyya it is stated that;

“Zaid bin Harith ordered the killing of Umm Qirfa for she used to revile the Prophet, on whom be peace and blessings of Allah, and because she had prepared thirty riders from amongst her children and grand children and had asked them to attack Medina and kill Muhammad (PBUH).” (Sirat Halabaiyya 3/251)

Facts and the Lies!

Now this clarifies certain points.

1- It was the Tribe of Fazara, which was headed by Umm Qirfa, who first attacked Muslims who were merely on trading journey.

2- They killed Muslims and took their merchandise.

3- Muslims made a counter attack to punish the trigger-happy tribe.

4- There is no authentic report whether Holy Prophet (PBUH) ordered her killing specifically. Infact it was Zaid bin Harith (RA) who ordered her killing as she was, being the leader of the tribe, responsible for all that happened. And we just read Zaid himself had seen their aggression and merely survived it.

5- Her killing was perfectly justified as she led her tribe to commit violence against Muslims. She was no innocent a woman and was rather a hostile enemy.

6- The manner she was killed was not ordained by the Prophet (PBUH) but was carried on by the people who had undergone the terror practiced by her men. It was a reaction by such people; nevertheless it goes against the mannerism taught by Islam. And though such a behavior is deplorable, it is Umm Qirfa herself who is to be held responsible for such a reaction.

7- No authentic report makes any mention of her head being brought to the Prophet (PBUH) and then paraded in the streets of Medina. This is a myth and a lie! The books these slanderers produce as a reference are no authority as they are not written by trustworthy people and no authentic report in any of the classical books gives even a hint to such a happening.

The Daughter of Umm Qirfa:

8- Now coming to the daughter of Umm Qirfa. There are two reports and these liars refer to both of them. According to Sahih Muslim, she was given to Salama bin al-Akwa’ and then Holy Prophet (PBUH) took her from Salama and she was given as a ransom for Muslim captives in Makkah. While according to Sirat Ibn Hisham etc she was taken from Salama and then given to Hazn bin Abu Wahb and later bore him a son, Abdul Rahman.

9. She was not raped: According to Sahih Muslim she was first given to Salama (RA) and he himself reports:

“…we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) met me in the street and said: ‘Give me that girl, O Salama!’ I said: ‘Messenger of Allah, she has fascinated me. I had not yet disrobed her.’ The next day, the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) again met me in the street, he said: ‘O Salama, give me that girl, May God bless your father.’ I said: ‘She is for you. Messenger of Allah! By Allah! I have not yet disrobed her.’ The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) sent her to the people of Makkah, and surrendered her as ransom for a number of Muslims who had been kept as prisoners at Makkah.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 3299)

Now one can observe that Salama (RA) said that he had not disrobed her when they reached Medina and again when the Holy Prophet (PBUH) met him in the street he told that he had not disrobed her. And even the next day, after the night having passed, when he was again asked for the girl, he testified that he had yet not disrobed her though she fascinated him.

This is enough proof that Salama didn’t forcefully lay with her as it was against the teachings of Islam. Islam does not allow a man to forcefully have sexual intercourse with his slave woman, otherwise no could stop Salama from sleeping with a slave girl who fascinated him. And if she later gave birth bore Hazn bin Abu Wahb (RA) a son then it must have been by her own consent. We have seen the conduct of pious companion Salama (RA) and there is no reason to say that another pious companion Hazn (RA) would have violated the Islamic injunction and forced the daughter of Umm Qirfa into the intimate relation.


Indiscriminate killing of women and children:

“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” (1 Samuel 15:3)

Agreed that the Amalekites were accused of being violent to the Israel on their way out of Egypt but did Fazara, the tribe lead by Umm Qirfa, not do the same to Muslims who were merely on trading journey? But still there is difference. Muslims killed only those who fought and plotted against Muslims and even Holy Prophet (PBUH) in person, but why did the ‘loving Father’ in the Heavens above order the indiscriminate killing of men and women and even infants? Why infant and the suckling? No devil or saint can help the Christians come up with a justification for such cruelty.

Keep virgin women ‘for yourselves’!

Bible puts the following words into the mouth of Moses (PBUH) alleging that he was inspired by God:

“Therefore kill all that are of the male sex, even of the children: and put to death the women, that have carnally known men. But the girls, and all the women that are virgins save for yourselves:” (Numbers 31:17-18)

Again why kill children? Were they also accused of deceiving the people of Israel? Why kill even the little ones for your weakness of Faith? Even the learned men of Christianity find no way to justify this barbarism attributed to holy men. Adam Clarke in his commentary to this verse says:“The little ones were safely lodged; they were taken to heaven and saved from the evil to come.” What a justification! Reasoning and rationality can only mourn at it.

But ‘all the girls and all the women that are virgins save for yourselves!’ says the Bible attributing it to Moses (PBUH). What for? Were the virgin women not accused of deceiving the Israel while even the children were? I need not say that as you, the reader, can easily sense what the reason can be. And I urge you to give a verdict if it suits these slandering Christians to speak about Islam?

Kill the men, capture the women, and take the spoils!

“When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.” (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

These verses are a slap on the face of all those evil mongers among the Christians who speak against the Islamic idea of Jihad, taking women as captives (remember, Islam allows this under some special circumstances governed by rules that guarantee rights of those taken as captives) and capturing spoils of war.It does not suit a person who dwells in a house made of delicate glass to throw stones at others!

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”



Refuting the Anti-Islamist Allegation that The Qur’an Allows Torture

Can Muslims torture prisoners of war??

For the Captives of war, absolutely not! But for the enemy who has treacherous designs against the Muslims, there is a PUNISHMENT that he must face as shown below. Don’t get it twisted with torture.

Those “treacherous designs” are the tricky and deceiving evil actions such as causing a war between the Muslims and other non-Muslim tribes by using tricks and deceptions. Another example is when some of the hypocrites during Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) times used to falsely embrace Islam to be accepted among the Muslims, and then later try to create conflicts among Muslim men and cause them to revenge from each others, because they belonged to tribes that had bloody wars with each others before they embraced Islam. The punishment for such enemy is Noble Verses 5:33-34 as shown below.

Let us look what Allah Almighty Said regarding the captives or the prisoners of wars:

“O Prophet! say to those who are captives in your hands: ‘If Allah findeth any good in your hearts, He will Give you something better than what has been taken from you, and He will Forgive you: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. But if they have treacherous designs against thee, (O Messenger!), they have already been in treason against Allah, and so hath He given (thee) power over them. And Allah is He who hath (Full) knowledge and wisdom. (The Noble Quran, 8:70-71)”

The following explanation of Noble Verses 8:70-71 was taken from the commentary of  Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s English translation:

“This is a consolation to the prisoners of war. Inspite of their previous hostility, Allah will forgive them in His mercy if there was any good in their hearts, and confer upon them a far higher gift than anything they have ever lost. This gift in its highest sense would be the blessing of Islam, but even in a material sense, there was great good fortune awaiting them, e.g., in the case of Al-Abbas (who was among the unbelievers and was taken as a prisoner of war).

Note how comprehensive is Allah’s care. He encourages and strengthens the Muslims, at the same time condemning any baser motives that may have entered their minds. He consoles the prisoners of war and promises them better things if there is any good in them at all. And He offers comfort to those who have left their homes in His Cause, and knits them into closer fellowship with those who have helped them and sympathized with them.

If the kindness shown to them is abused by the prisoners of war when they are released, it is not a matter of discouragement to those who showed the kindness. Such persons have in their treachery shown already their treason to Allah, in that they took up arms against Allah’s Prophet, and sought to blot out the pure worship of Allah.The punishment of defeat, which opened the eyes of some of their comrades, evidently did not open their eyes. But Allah knows all, and in His wisdom will order all things for the best. The Believers have done their duty in showing such clemency as they could in the circumstances of war. For them “Allah sufficeth” (Noble Verse 8:62)”].

Note: For the captives, paying money is not always the way to freedom. It is true that they would lose their weapons and other equipment such as their carts, horses, camels, etc…, but to gain their way out of captivity doesn’t always have to be through paying money.

When the Muslims won the first battle of Islam against the Pagans, the battle of Badr, our Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) told his captives that whoever wants to earn his freedom he must teach 10 illiterate Muslims how to read and write, and he will then be set free.

Did Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ever abuse or kill any of his Captives or take personal revenges from them??

Absolutely not! Killing captives is forbidden in Islam, except for those who deserve it such as war criminals as clearly proven below

Narrated Salim’s father: “The Prophet sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, “Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam),” but they started saying “Saba’na! Saba’na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another).” Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of) them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive, I said, “By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive.” When we reached the Prophet, we mentioned to him the whole story. On that, the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) raised both his hands and said twice, “O Allah! I am free (or innocent or not responsible for) from what Khalid has done.” (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 628)”

“They perform (their) vows, and they fear a Day Whose evil flies far and wide. And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive — (Saying), ‘We feed you For the sake of Allah alone: No reward do we desire from you, nor thanks.’ (The Noble Quran, 76:7-9)”

Muslims not only can’t kill their captives, but they also must feed them for the “love of Allah”.

Our Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) forgave the enemies of Islam. When the Muslims liberated Makkah from the Pagan Arabs, and the Pagans’ army gave up, because they were widely out numbered by the Muslims, our Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said his very famous word that was taught to us in schools:
“Go, you are free.”

Muslims are commanded by Allah Almighty to treat their Captives with kindness and to feed them!

Let us look what Allah Almighty said in the Noble Qur’an:

“They perform (their) vows, and they fear a Day Whose evil flies far and wide. And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive — (Saying), ‘We feed you For the sake of Allah alone: No reward do we desire from you, nor thanks.’ (The Noble Quran, 76:7-9)”

In these Noble Verses, we clearly see how Allah Almighty orders the Muslims to treat their captives with kindness and to not expect anything back in return. Muslims must do it for the love of Allah Almighty, hence they have to feed their captives in kindness and love.

Notice here how Allah Almighty is so Great, Merciful and Gracious, that even the captives are given His Love. Allah Almighty’s door for Mercy and Forgiveness is always open.

When the captured enemy must not be considered a “Captive” or “Prisoner of War”?? And how can Muslims punish them?? Is Ethnic Cleansing allowed in Islam??
What power did Allah Almighty give to Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) over the enemies who had treacherous designs against Islam; “….and so hath He given (thee) power over them…..(The Noble Quran, 8:71)”?

The captured enemy can not be considered a captive or prisoner of war if he had treacherous designs against the Muslims.

This would never apply to ordinary soldiers!

It would rather apply to people like war criminal leaders and commanders. There is a punishment that such enemy must face as shown below in Noble Verses 5:33-34. Those “treacherous designs” are the evil actions such as for instance causing a war between the Muslims and other non-Muslim tribes by using tricks and deceptions. Another example is when some of the hypocrites during Prophet Muhammad’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) times used to falsely embrace Islam to be accepted among the Muslims, and then later try to create conflicts among Muslim men and cause them to revenge from each others, because they belonged to tribes that had bloody wars with each others before they embraced Islam, and the tribal mentality might still remained in them. The punishment for such enemy is Noble Verses 5:33-34 as shown below

Let us look at what Allah Almighty Said in the Noble Qur’an:

“The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (The Noble Quran, 5:33-34)”

There are times when Muslims must accept no captives. This is the time when the Muslims are ordered to punish the enemy severely. Its not torture, torture can be defined as:

Torture is the intentional and systematic infliction of physical or psychological pain and suffering in order to punish, intimidate or gather information

What the Qur’an gives the option of is simply to impose a punishment on the most dangerous of the enemy. Punishment can be defined as:

Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive on a person in response to an unwanted or disobedient behavior.

So its clear, you can impose a punishment on the enemy, The enemy is a specific person who has plans and designs to do you great harm – bearing in mind he would do the same or much worse to you, the punishments are justified. There are options to choose one, or the person can simply be exiled and sent to another land. This is reasonable bearing in mind he is a threat to peace and stability, and as such no state would want someone like that causing upheavel in society.

So what are those times where Muslims must not accept any captive??

When they had been betrayed by the enemy. Let us look at some incidents where Noble Verse 5:33 had been applied to the enemy:

The first incident is when the Muslims were just starting Islam in Madinah. Along with the Muslims there, there were some Christians and three big Jewish tribes: Bani Al-natheer, Bani Qaynuqaa, and Bani Qurayza. When the Pagans of Makkah wanted to end Islam once and for all, they finally agreed along with several other Pagan tribes out side Makkah to attack the Muslims in Madinah.

Prior to this, the Muslims had already signed a treaty of united defense of Madinah with the Jews. When the Pagans of Makkah and their allies finally started marching to Madina, the Muslims became aware of it. One of our beloved Prophet’s close companions, Salman Al-Farisi (radhiyallahu anhu), suggested that the Muslims should dig a big trench to along all of the plain areas of Madina to disable the Pagans from attacking the Muslims.

The Jews’ tribes were stationed in the North side of Madinah. They didn’t need to dig any trench because they had such high mountains that they could easily defend by stationing their troops on top of the mountains, which would then disable the Pagans from entering Madinah from the North. But the Jews will always remain Jews no matter what. They betrayed our Prophet and told the Pagans that they could attack them from the North along with the Jewish army. Allah Almighty had blessed the Muslims with a big victory after long battles and Allah Almighty’s blessings of the winds that blocked the eye sights of the enemies of Islam.

After the Pagans withdrew back to Makkah, our Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) executed Noble Verse 5:33 and exiled Bani Qurayza, the first Jewish tribe to betray the Muslims, from Madinah. Later on, the other two Jewish tribes were exiled too.

The second incident is in the following narration about our Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), which further explains in details when the Muslims need to apply Noble Verse 5:33 to the enemy:

Narrated Abu Qilaba: “Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “Some people of ‘Ukl or ‘Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in ‘Al-Harra’ and when they asked for water, no water was given to them.” Abu Qilaba said, “Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle. (Sahih Bukhari, Ablutions (Wudu’), Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234)”

Notice in the above incidents that the enemy had betrayed the Muslims. In the first incident, the Jews betrayed the Muslims by breaking up the treaty and fighting along side with the Pagans. In the second incident, the Pagans killed the Shepherd and and stole all of the Camels after they gained the Muslims’ trust by embracing Islam. These are the only times where Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) ever applied Noble Verse 5:33 to anyone.

Please browse “Did Prophet Muhammad prescribe Camel Urine as Medicine??” See from Medical proofs that several of our medicines today are indeed extracted from animal urines.

The point is that Muslims are not allowed to kill ordinary “Prisoners of War” as it is clearly stated in Noble Verses 8:70-71. The sever punishment for the enemy and the refusal to accept any captives is when the Muslims had been betrayed by the enemy (Noble Verse 5:33).

Note: Notice also in Noble Verse 5:34 that the door for mercy and forgiveness for the sincere enemy is open. The Muslims can not do any harm to the enemy if the enemy repents.

Further explanations from Abdullah Yusuf Ali:

The following explanation of Noble Verse 5:33 comes from the Noble Qur’an that I used, which was translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali:

“For the double crime of treason against the State, combined with treason against Allah, as shown by overt crimes, four alternative punishments are mentioned, any one of which is to be applied according to circumstances, viz., execution (cutting off of the head), crucifixion, maiming, or exile.”

Definitions of crucifixtion:

Crucifixion is an ancient method of execution, where the victim was tied or nailed to a large wooden cross and left to hang there until death.

Death by being nailed to a cross –

Its a punishment allowed for the most dangerous in society, in an Islamic Governing state carried out by an Islamic governing state. The aim is to punish, not to satisfy sadistic needs. You seem to want to create the impression that this is something that is permissible at all times to anyone. Its not a general rule, it refers to specific dangerous individuals who are a threat to society.

By anti-islamist logic, anything is torture. If you shoot someone, and they suffer pain and anguish during the period of being shot and when they eventually die – that would also be torture. So basically unless someone does instantly, its torture.

Allah is Merciful, and just. In order to maintain justice in society, there have to be rules. Rules that are broken require remedy, the remedy can be punishment for the rule breaker. Allah can’t be just and merciful if he allows a criminal to go unpunished. The rules legislate for all situations.

Conclusion: The verse is not about torture, its a punishment – for a specific danger to society. Only can be carried by an Islamic Governing State.


Does Islam allow wife-beating?? A response to Anti-Islamists

Regarding an allegation made by anti-islamists, that in Islam, wife beating is permissible

Wife beating anytime and for any reason is never allowed in Islam.

What Muslims may or may not do is another discussion altogether. The teachings of Islam are however clear, and that is the basis upon which Islam has to be judged.

Wife beating is not allowed in Islam!

Before we start, I’d like to first say that because Arabic is a complex language, and because Allah Almighty purposely and carefully chose certain words to be placed in certain Noble Verses, I strongly believe that Allah Almighty allowed for the interpretation of NOT beating wives to be valid. In other words, a Muslim man would not be going against Allah Almighty’s Divine Will if he doesn’t beat his wife, and instead, deserts her by leaving the house and living for instance with his parents for a period of time until the disobedient wife comes back to her senses, which would be as equivalent as the first interpretation, since the end result is the same, which is to discipline the bad wife and to get her back on the Right Path of what makes GOD Almighty satisfied with her.

Let us look at Noble Verses 4:34-36

“(34). Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).
(35). If ye fear a breach between them twain, appoint (two) arbiters, one from his family, and the other from hers; if they wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation: For Allah hath full knowledge, and is acquainted with all things.
(36). Serve Allah, and join not any partners with Him; and do good- to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess: For Allah loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious;”

The Arabic word used in Noble Verse 4:34 above is “idribuhunna”, which is derived from “daraba” which means “beat”. The thing with all of the Arabic words that are derived from the word “daraba” is that they don’t necessarily mean “hit”. The word “idribuhunna” for instance, could very well mean to “leave” them. It is exactly like telling someone to “beat it” or “drop it” in English. It has a similar meaning to tap, and not BATTER as Anti-Muslim evil devils allege.

Allah Almighty used the word “daraba” in Noble Verse 14:24

“Seest thou not how Allah sets (daraba) forth a parable? — A goodly Word Like a goodly tree, Whose root is firmly fixed, And its branches (reach) To the heavens”. “daraba” here meant “give an example”. If I say in Arabic “daraba laka mathal”, it means “give you an example”.

Allah Almighty also used the word “darabtum”, which is derived from the word “daraba” in Noble Verse 4:94, which mean to “go abroad” in the sake of Allah Almighty:

“O ye who believe! When ye go abroad (darabtum) In the cause of Allah, Investigate carefully, And say not to anyone Who offers you a salutation: ‘Thou art none of a Believer!’ Coveting the perishable good Of this life: with Allah Are profits and spoils abundant. Even thus were ye yourselves Before, till Allah conferred On you His favours: therefore Carefully investigate. For Allah is well aware Of all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:94)”

So “daraba” literally means “beat”, or “go abroad”, or “give” but not in the sense to give something by hand, but rather to give or provide an example.

Important Note: Notice how Allah Almighty in Noble Chapter (Surah)  He used “daraba (4:34″ and “darabtum (4:94)”, which are both derived from the same root. He used both words in the same Chapter, which tells me that “daraba” in Noble Verse 4:34 means to desert or leave, since that’s what its derived word meant in Noble Verse 4:94. The next section below will further prove my point.

I am sure there are more Noble Verses that used words derived from “daraba” in the Noble Quran, but these are the only ones I know of so far. In the case of Noble Verse 4:34 where Allah Almighty seems to allow men to hit their wives after the two warnings for ill-conduct and disloyalty, it could very well be that Allah Almighty meant to command the Muslims to “leave” the home all together and desert their wives for a long time in a hope that the wives would then come back to their senses and repent.

So it is not the brutal thrashing proposed by non muslims. The word used in the Quran has many meanings which are equally viable.

If we take the meaning of beat for example, it will be as to tap someone or to give them a sign that what they are doing is wrong. It is not to BEAT them up. Its like tapping someone on the shoulder and saying STOP. This is not beating.

If we take the other meanings, it means to remove oneself from their presence. The best example of the teachings of the Quran is Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Any tom dick or harry cant come along and practice Islam how they think it is, and intepret verses how they want – especially not non-muslims who have an anti islamic agenda. If we look at the conduct of the prophet, he NEVER mistreated his wives, which clearly shows the Qur’an does not allow wife beating. He had problems with them just as anyone would, but he did not beat them. If the Quran allows for it, then why wouldnt the prophet of Islam do it??

Noble Verses and Sayings that support the prohibition of any type of wife-beating:

The following Noble Verses and Sayings from the Noble Quran and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) respectively seem to very well support the above interpretation:

“…Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them…(The Noble Quran, 2:231)”

“If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men’s souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:128)”

Narrated Mu’awiyah al-Qushayri radhiyallahu anhu): “I went to the Apostle of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)”

Narrated Mu’awiyah ibn Haydah: “I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2138)”

Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) reported Allah’s Apostle (sallallaahu alayhi wasallan) as saying: “He who believes in Allah and the Hereafter, if he witnesses any matter he should talk in good terms about it or keep quiet. Act kindly towards woman, for woman is created from a rib, and the most crooked part of the rib is its top. If you attempt to straighten it, you will break it, and if you leave it, its crookedness will remain there. So act kindly towards women. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Book 008, Number 3468)”

“O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (The Noble Quran, 4:19)”

“And among God’s signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect. (The Noble Quran 30:21)”

“Women impure for men impure. And women of purity for men of purity. These are not affected by what people say. For them is forgiveness and an honorable provision. (The Noble Quran 24:26)”

Narrated Abu Huraira (radhiyallahu anhu): “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The strong is not the one who overcomes the people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself while in anger. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab), Volume 8, Book 73, Number 135)”

Narrated Abu Huraira (radhiyallahu anhu): “A man said to the Prophet , ‘Advise me! ‘The Prophet said, ‘Do not become angry and furious.’ The man asked (the same) again and again, and the Prophet said in each case, ‘Do not become angry and furious.’ (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab), Volume 8, Book 73, Number 137)”

Abu Huraira (radhiyallahu anhu) reported: “I heard Allah’s Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as saying: One is not strong because of one’s wrestling skillfully. They said: Allah’s Messenger, then who is strong? He said: He who controls his anger when he is in a fit of rage. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Virtue, Good Manners and Joining of the Ties of Relationship (Kitab Al-Birr was-Salat-I-wa’l-Adab), Book 032, Number 6314)”

Allah Almighty loves those who restrain anger: “Those who spend (freely), whether in prosperity, or in adversity; who restrain anger, and pardon (all) men; for Allah loves those who do good. (The Noble Quran, 3:134)”

Linguistic element

The key to the problem is the mistranslation of the two key words nushuz and adriboo. Some of the possible meanings for both the words are given below. Again, the appropriate meaning will depend on the context of the verse.

Nushuz: Animosity, hostility, rebellion, ill-treatment, discord; violation of marital duties on the part of either husband or wife.

Adriboo (root: daraba): to beat, to strike, to hit, to separate, to part.

In the context of the above verse the most appropriate meaning for nushuz is ‘marital discord’ (ill-will, animosity etc), and for adriboo is ‘to separate’ or ‘to part’.

Otherwise, it is inviting the likelihood of a divorce without any reconciliation procedure. Such a step would blatantly contravene the Qur’anic guidance shown in verse 4:35 below. Therefore, a more accurate and consistent translation of the above verse would be:

(4:34) […]as for those women whose animosity or ill-will you have reason to fear, then leave them alone in bed, and then separate; and if thereupon they pay you heed, do not seek a way against them.

The separation could be temporary or permanent depending on the reconciliation procedure. Such as construction is legitimate within the terms of the language and fits in very well with the divorce procedure outlined in the Qur’an (see 8:5).

The verse following the above verse gives further weight to the above translation.

(4:35) And if ye fear a breach between them twain (the man and the wife), appoint an arbiter from his folk and an arbiter from her folk. If they desire amendment Allah will make them of one mind. Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Aware.

Added weight to the meanings outlined above is given by verse 4:128 quoted below. Here, in the case of a man, the same word nushuz is used, but it is rendered as ‘ill-treatment’ as against ‘rebellion’ in the case of a woman as shown earlier in the traditional translation of verse 4:34. One find oneself asking whether since the ill-treatment is on the part of the husband, a process of reconciliation is here to be encouraged!

(4:128) If a wife fears ill-treatment (nushuz) or desertion on her husband’s part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best[…]

This, obviously, is a double standard and the only way to reconcile the meanings of the two verses, in the contexts they are being used, is to accept the meaning of adriboo as: ‘to separate’ or to ‘part’. In this connection I would like to refer the reader to an excellent article by Rachael Tibbet from which I quote:

(a) Qur’anic commentators and translators experience problems with the term Adribu in the Qur’an not just in this verse but in others, as it is used in different contexts in ways which appear ambiguous and open to widely different translations into English. ‘Daraba’ can be translated in more than a hundred different ways.

(b) The translation of adribu as ‘to strike’ in this particular verse (4:34) is founded upon nothing more than:

(i) The authority of hadiths (Abu Dawud 2141 and Mishkat Al-Masabih 0276) that this is what Adribu means in this context.

(ii) The prejudices and environment of the early commentators of the Qur’an which led them to assume that ‘to strike’, given the overall context of the verse, was the most likely interpretation of the many possible interpretations of adribu.

Conclusion: Wife beating is not prescribed in the Qur’an