Slavery is OK in Islam

Slavery is taken for granted in the Qur’an, even as it enjoins the freeing of slaves under certain circumstances, such as the breaking of an oath: “Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom” (5:89). Slaves are to be freed under certain circumstances, but there is no hint that all slaves should be freed.

Muhammad, the supreme example of conduct for Muslims (cf. Qur’an 33:21) bought slaves: “Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported: There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man).” (Muslim 3901)

Muhammad took female Infidel captives as slaves: “Narrated Anas: The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, ‘Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.’ Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives. She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet. The Prophet made her manumission as her ‘Mahr.’” (Bukhari 5.59.512) Mahr is bride price: Muhammad freed her and married her. But he didn’t do this to all his slaves:

Muhammad owned slaves: “Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s Apostle was on a journey and he had a black slave called Anjasha, and he was driving the camels (very fast, and there were women riding on those camels). Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Waihaka (May Allah be merciful to you), O Anjasha! Drive slowly (the camels) with the glass vessels (women)!’” (Bukhari 8.73.182) There is no mention of Muhammad’s freeing Anjasha.

Also, the seizure of Infidel girls and their use as sex slaves is sanctioned in the Qur’an. According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have paid their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses of those whom Allah has given you as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general. The Qur’an says that a man may have sex with his wives and with these slave girls: “The believers must win through, those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or whom their right hands possess, for they are free from blame.” (Qur’an 23:1-6)

The rape of captive women is also sanctioned in Islamic tradition:

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim 3371)

It is also in Islamic law: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” (Umdat al-Salik O9.13)

The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that meant Muslims would take slaves. In a subsequent interview he elaborated:

Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels. Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars—there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.

When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Koran 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point—there is no disagreement from any of them. […] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti politician, Salwa al-Mutairi, also spoke out in favor of the Islamic practice of sexual slavery of non-Muslim women, emphasizing that the practice accorded with Islamic law and the parameters of Islamic morality.

A merchant told me that he would like to have a sex slave. He said he would not be negligent with her, and that Islam permitted this sort of thing. He was speaking the truth. I brought up [this man’s] situation to the muftis in Mecca. I told them that I had a question, since they were men who specialized in what was halal, and what was good, and who loved women. I said, “What is the law of sex slaves?”

The mufti said, “With the law of sex slaves, there must be a Muslim nation at war with a Christian nation, or a nation which is not of the religion, not of the religion of Islam. And there must be prisoners of war.”

“Is this forbidden by Islam?” I asked.

“Absolutely not. Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, sex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the sex slave can be naked from the waist up. She differs a lot from the free woman. While the free woman requires a marriage contract, the sex slave does not—she only needs to be purchased by her husband, and that’s it. Therefore the sex slave is different than the free woman.”

Iraqi Ayatollah Al-Haeri said in April 7, 2016 that a man could offer slave girls to a friend for sex.

(text extracted as a portion of an article by Robert Spencer, from Jihad Watch)

The Moslem Conquest of India (Hindu Genocide)

An Extract from ‘The Story of Civilization’ 

By Will & Ariel Durant [Volume 1, Chapter 16]

Source

(see a list of additional references at the end of the article)

The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within. The Hindus had allowed their strength to be wasted in internal division and war; they had adopted religions like Buddhism and Jainism, which unnerved them for the tasks of life; they had failed to organize their forces for the protection of their frontiers and their capitals, their wealth and their freedom, from the hordes of Scythians, Huns, Afghans and Turks hovering about India's boundaries and waiting for national weakness to let them in.For four hundred years (600-1000 A.D.) India invited conquest; and at last it came. The first Moslem attack was a passing raid upon Multan, in the western Punjab (664 A.D.) Similar raids occurred at the convenience of the invaders during the next three centuries, with the result that the Moslems established themselves in the Indus valley about the same time that their Arab co-religionists in the West were fighting the battle of Tours (732 A.D.) for the mastery of Europe.But the real Moslem conquest of India did not come till the turn of the first millennium after Christ. In the year 997 a Turkish chieftain by the name of Mahmud became sultan of the little estate of Ghazni, in eastern Afghanistan. Mahmud knew that his throne was young and poor, and saw that India, across the border, was old and rich; the conclusion was obvious. Pretending a holy zeal for destroying Hindu idolatry, he swept across the frontier with aforce inspired by a pious aspiration for booty. He met the unprepared Hindus at Bhimnagar,slaughtered them, pillaged their cities, destroyed their temples, and carried away the accumulated treasures of centuries.Returning to Ghazni he astonished the ambassadors of foreign powers by displaying “jewelsand unbored pearls and rubies shining like sparks, or like wine congealed with ice, andemeralds like fresh sprigs of myrtle, and diamonds in size and weight like pomegranates.” 72 Each winter Mahmud descended into India, filled his treasure chest with spoils, and amusedhis men with full freedom to pillage and kill; each spring he returned to his capital richer than before.

At Mathura (on the Jumna) he took from the temple its statues of gold encrusted with precious stones, and emptied its coffers of a vast quantity of gold, silver and jewellery; he expressed his admiration for the architecture of the great shrine, judged that its duplication would cost one hundred million dinars and the labour of two hundred years, and then ordered it to be soaked with naphtha and burnt to the ground. 73

Six years later he sacked another opulent city of northern India, Somnath, killed all its fifty thousand inhabitants, and dragged its wealth to Ghazni. In the end he became, perhaps, the richest king that history has ever known.Sometimes he spared the population of the ravaged cities, and took them home to be sold as slaves; but so great was the number of such captives that after some years no one could be found to offer more than a few shillings for a slave.Before every important engagement Mahmud knelt in prayer, and asked the blessing of God upon his arms. He reigned for a third of a century; and when he died, full of years and honours, Moslem historians ranked him as the greatest monarch of his time, and one of the greatest sovereigns of any age. 74

Seeing the canonization that success had brought to this magnificent thief, other Moslem rulers profited by his example, though none succeeded in bettering his instruction.In 1186 the Ghuri, a Turkish tribe of Afghanistan, invaded India, captured the city of Delhi,destroyed its temples, confiscated its wealth, and settled down in its palaces to establish the Sultanate of Delhi- an alien despotism fastened upon northern India for three centuries, and checked only by assassination and revolt. The first of these bloody sultans, Kutb-ud-Din Aibak, was a normal specimen of his kind -fanatical, ferocious and merciless. His gifts, as the Mohammedan historian tells us, “were bestowed by hundreds of thousands, and his slaughters likewise were by hundreds of thousands.”In one victory of this warrior (who had been purchased as a slave), “fifty thousand men came under the collar of slavery, and the plain became black as pitch with Hindus.” 75

Another sultan, Balban, punished rebels and brigands by casting them under the feet of elephants, removing their skins, stuffing these with straw and hanging them from the gates of Delhi. When some Mongolian habitants who had settled in Delhi, and had been converted to Islam, attempted arising, Sultan Ala-ud-din (the conqueror of Chitor) had all the males -from fifteen to thirty thousand of them - slaughtered in one day.

Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlak acquired the throne by murdering his father, became a great scholar and an elegant writer, dabbled in mathematics, physics and Greek philosophy,surpassed his predecessors in bloodshed and brutality, fed the flesh of a rebel nephew to the rebel's wife and children, ruined the country with reckless inflation, and laid it waste with pillage and murder till the inhabitants fled to the jungle.He killed so many Hindus that, in the words of a Moslem historian, “there was constantly in front of his royal pavilion and his Civil Court a mound of dead bodies and a heap of corpses, while the sweepers and executioners were wearied out by their work of dragging” the victims“and putting them to death in crowds.” 76

In order to found a new capital at Daulatabad he drove every inhabitant from Delhi and leftit a desert; and hearing that a blind man had stayed behind in Delhi, he ordered him to be dragged from the old to the new capital, so that only a leg remained of the wretch when his last journey was finished. 77

The Sultan complained that the people did not love him, or recognize his undeviating justice.He ruled India for a quarter of a century, and died in bed. His successor, Firoz Shah, invaded Bengal, offered a reward for every Hindu head, paid for 180,000 of them, raided Hindu villages for slaves, and died at the ripe age of eighty. Sultan Ahmad Shah feasted for three days whenever the number of defenceless Hindus slain in his territories in one day reached twenty thousand. 78
 
These rulers were often men of ability, and their followers were gifted with fierce courage and industry; only so can we understand how they could have maintained their rule among ahostile people so overwhelmingly outnumbering them. All of them were armed with a religion militaristic in operation, but far superior in its stoical monotheism to any of the popular cults of India; they concealed its attractiveness by making the public exercise of the Hindu religions illegal, and thereby driving them more deeply into the Hindu soul.Some of these thirsty despots had culture as well as ability; they patronized the arts, and engaged artists and artisans--usually of Hindu origin-- to build for them magnificent mosques and tombs; some of them were scholars, and delighted in converse with historians,poets and scientists.One of the greatest scholars of Asia, Alberuni, accompanied Mahmud of Ghazni to India, and wrote a scientific survey of India comparable to Pliny's “Natural History” and Humboldt’s “Cosmos”.

The Moslem historians were almost as numerous as the generals, and yielded nothing to them in the enjoyment of bloodshed and war. The Sultans drew from the people every rupeeof tribute that could be exacted by the ancient art of taxation, as well as by straight forward robbery; but they stayed in India, spent their spoils in India, and thereby turned them back into India's economic life.Nevertheless, their terrorism and exploitation advanced that weakening of Hindu physique and morale, which had been begun by an exhausting climate, an inadequate diet, political disunity, and pessimistic religions. The usual policy of the Sultans was clearly sketched by Ala-ud-din, who required his advisersto draw up “rules and regulations for grinding down the Hindus, and for depriving them of that wealth and property which fosters disaffection and rebellion.” 79

Half of the gross produce of the soil was collected by the government; native rulers had taken one-sixth. “No Hindu,” says a Moslem historian, “could hold up his head, and in their houses no sign of gold or silver...or of any superfluity was to be seen.... Blows, confinementin the stocks, imprisonment and chains, were all employed to enforce payment.” When one of his own advisers protested against this policy, Alauddin answered: “Oh,Doctor, thou art a learned man, but thou hast no experience; I am an unlettered man, but I have a great deal. Be assured, then, that the Hindus will never become submissive and obedient till they are reduced to poverty. I have therefore given orders that just sufficient shall be left to them from year to year of corn, milk and curds, but that they shall not be allowed to accumulate and property.” 80

This is the secret of the political history of modern India. Weakened by division, it succumbed to invaders; impoverished by invaders, it lost all power of resistance, and took refuge in supernatural consolations; it argued that both mastery and slavery were superficial delusions, and concluded that freedom of the body or the nation was hardly worth defending in so brief a life. The bitter lesson that may be drawn from this tragedy is that eternal vigilance is the price of civilization. A nation must love peace, but keep its powder dry.

72 From an ancient Moslem chronicle, Tabakat-i-Nasiri, in Smith, Oxford History, 103.
73 Havell, History, 286.
74 Elphinstone, Mountstuart, History of India,333, 337-38.
75 Tabakat-i-Nasiri, in Smith, Oxford History, 222-23.
76 Smith, 226, 232, 245.
77 Ibn Batuta, in Smith, 240.
78 Smith, 303.
79 In Smith, 234.
80 Ibid

Additional References:

Islamic Invasion Of India: The Greatest Genocide In History, The Muslim Issue, https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/islamic-invasion-of-india-the-greatest-genocide-in-history/

Hindu Kush means Hindu Slaughter, By Shrinandan Vyas, http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/hindu_kush.html

Negationism in India, by Dr Koenrad Elst. (Voice of India, New Delhi.)

“Was There an Islamic Genocide of Hindus?” (article) by Dr. Koenraad Elst (http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/irin/genocide.html)

Rewriting Indian History by Francois Gautier (Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi 1996)

‘‘Aurangzeb, as he was according to Mughal Records’’(An exhibition) by Francois Gautier’s Trust : ‘FACT – India’  URL (http://www.aurangzeb.info/)

The Story of Civilization. Vol. 1: Our Oriental Heritage by Will Durant (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1935.)

A History of Civilisations by Fernand Braudel (Penguin Books, New York 1995)

Histoire de l’Inde, by Jean Danielou. (Editions Fayard, Paris.)

Growth of Muslim population in India (A.D. 1000-1800) by  K.S. Lal. (Voice of India, New Delhi.)

“Demons from the Past” (article in the ‘Daily Times’, Pakistan  August 30, 2004) by Irfan Husain (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-8-2004_pg3_4)

The ‘Hindu Wisdom’ website :  http://thedevil.com/The_Hindu_Holocaust_by_Muslims/Islamic_Onslaught.htm

stephen-knapp.com website :  http://www.stephen-knapp.com/islamic_destruction_of_hindu_temples.htm

The Hindu Holocaust Museum website : http://hinduholocaust.com/HinduHolocaustMuseum.htm

Brutality of ISIS is the copy of what Mughals did with Sikhs of Punjab http://sikhsangat.org/2015/brutality-of-isis-is-the-copy-of-what-mughals-did-with-sikhs-of-punjab/

History of the Jihad against the Hindus of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (638 - ongoing)
http://www.historyofjihad.org/india.html

Islam’s Indian slave trade (Part i) in Islam’s genocidal slavery: part I.
http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&id=3312:islams-indian-slave-trade-part-i-in-islams-genocidal-slavery-

Islam has no age barrier in marriage

Text from Jihadwatch.org

Few things are more abundantly attested in Islamic law than the permissibility of child marriage. Islamic tradition records that Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, was six when Muhammad wedded her and nine when he consummated the marriage:

The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Bukhari 7.62.88).

Another tradition has Aisha herself recount the scene:

The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Bukhari 5.58.234).

Muhammad was at this time fifty-four years old.

Marrying young girls was not all that unusual for its time, but because in Islam Muhammad is the supreme example of conduct (cf. Qur’an 33:21), he is considered exemplary in this unto today. And so in April 2011, the Bangladesh Mufti Fazlul Haque Amini declared that those trying to pass a law banning child marriage in that country were putting Muhammad in a bad light: “Banning child marriage will cause challenging the marriage of the holy prophet of Islam, [putting] the moral character of the prophet into controversy and challenge.” He added a threat: “Islam permits child marriage and it will not be tolerated if any ruler will ever try to touch this issue in the name of giving more rights to women.” The Mufti said that 200,000 jihadists were ready to sacrifice their lives for any law restricting child marriage.

Likewise the influential website Islamonline.com in December 2010 justified child marriage by invoking not only Muhammad’s example, but the Qur’an as well:

The Noble Qur’an has also mentioned the waiting period [i.e. for a divorced wife to remarry] for the wife who has not yet menstruated, saying: “And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women, if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated” [Qur’an 65:4]. Since this is not negated later, we can take from this verse that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a prepubescent girl. The Qur’an is not like the books of jurisprudence which mention what the implications of things are, even if they are prohibited. It is true that the prophet entered into a marriage contract with A’isha when she was six years old, however he did not have sex with her until she was nine years old, according to al-Bukhari.

Other countries make Muhammad’s example the basis of their laws regarding the legal marriageable age for girls. Article 1041 of the Civil Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran states that girls can be engaged before the age of nine, and married at nine: “Marriage before puberty (nine full lunar years for girls) is prohibited. Marriage contracted before reaching puberty with the permission of the guardian is valid provided that the interests of the ward are duly observed.”

According to Amir Taheri in The Spirit of Allah: Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution (pp. 90-91), Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini himself married a ten-year-old girl when he was twenty-eight. Khomeini called marriage to a prepubescent girl “a divine blessing,” and advised the faithful to give their own daughters away accordingly: “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.” When he took power in Iran, he lowered the legal marriageable age of girls to nine, in accord with Muhammad’s example.

Ishaq Akintola, A professor of Islamic Eschatology and Director of Muslim Rights Concern, said that “Islam has no age barrier in marriage and Muslims have no apology for those who refuse to accept this” (The Punch). He explained:

Islam is a complete way of life. As a religion, non-Muslims will have to take Muslims as they are, not as they want them to be. Neither Muslims nor their religion should be judged according to other standards. There will never be any inter-religious understanding so long as non-Muslims continue to measure Muslims and their way of life by Christian, Buddhist or Confucianist yardsticks. The simple truth is: Islam has no age barrier in marriage and Muslims have no apology for those who refuse to accept this, particularly since 99.99 per cent of such marriages are conducted among Muslims themselves. If the man is a Muslim and the girl is also a Muslim and the girl’s parents give their approval, what is the business of any non-Muslim in that? It is sheer interference in the affair of Muslims and an attempt to exert undue influence on them. More often than not, those who interfere in this manner have ulterior motives. It is either for the purpose of smearing the image of Islam or to gain a comparative advantage and score a religious point (for their own faith of course).

 

Safiyah, the Jewish Forced Bride of Prophet Muhammad

I am reproducing below an article by Ali Sina (http://www.faithfreedom.org/) as published on blog No Compulsion. It covers the following subjects:

1. The rape of Safiya
2. The torture of Safiya's husband, Kinana
3. The treacherous attack against the Jews in Khaybar
4. The exile of the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir
5. The extermination of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza

Muhammad the Prophet and Muslims ride and raid to slaughter Koffar Infidels

The following is the story of Safiyah Bint Huyayy Ibn Akhtab, the Jewish woman who was captured when Muhammad’s troops attacked Khaybar and brought her to the Prophet as part of his share of the booty. Muhammad ordered Kinana, the young husband of Safiyah to be tortured to death to make him reveal the whereabouts of the treasure of the town. On the very nigh of that murder, he took Safiyah to his bed and claimed her as his trophy. This story is reported by Tabari in detail. It can also be found in Sira of Ibn Ishaq. The following is reported in the Book of Tabaqat, compiled by Ibn Sa’d. Two years earlier, Muhammad had beheaded Huyayy, the father of Safiyah along with 900 men of Banu Qurayza.

Huyayy Ibn Akhtab, father of Safiyah was the leader of the Bani Nadir, one of the Jewish tribes of Medina. Muhammad had exiled the Banu Qainuqa’, another Jewish tribe of Medina and was coveting the wealth of the Bani Nadir. He was looking for an excuse.

Meanwhile one of his followers had treacherously killed two travelers and had stolen their belonging. Banditry had become the way of living for the Muslims. All trade and business in Medina had disappeared after Muhammad’s migration and the only way people could survive was through banditry

Muhammad the Prophet and Muslims raid and pillage caravans

When this person reported his crime to Muhammad and came to pay him his 20% share, Muhammad thought of a plan. He told the man that he had made a treaty with the Bani ‘Amer to not kill them and now he has to pay the blood wit. He then went to the Bani Nadir and said since they had a treaty with him they should pay the blood wit. Now this was an outrageous demand. The Medinan treaty was unilateral and was imposed on the Jews. Even then it said that the Jews will fight against the invaders. There was no clause saying they are liable for the crimes committed by Muslims. Muhammad thought that for sure the Bani nadir will object to this unjust demand and he will use it as excuse to get rid of them.

However, when he went to their quarter, accompanied by six of his close companions, the Jews were too frightened to argue and agreed to collect the money. Muhammad and his companions then sat beneath the shade of a wall while the Jews went to collect the money that he was extorting from them. This was not what Muhammad hoped for. He had come looking for an excuse and the Jews were not giving it. So he thought of another plan. He told his companions to sit there and that he will be back soon. His companions sat and he never came. The Jews came with the money but Muhammad had already gone.

Muhammad the Prophet and Muslims slaughter the Banu Qurayza Jewish Tribe

 

When they went to the mosque, the saw him there. He told them that the Jews were plotting to kill him by throwing a stone on him from the top of the wall. When his companions expressed their surprise because they did not notice anything strange, he told them Gabriel had informed him.

Anyway, using that excuse he demanded that the Bani Nadir leave, leaving all their wealth for him. He actually wanted to massacre them all, but give in to Abdullah ibn Ubay who told him he won’t let him kill his allies. The Bani Nadir were exiled and Muhammad took possession of all their wealth alone, 100% of it. He argued since Muslims did not have to fight, and the Jews surrendered all their spoils belonged to him personally.

A year alter he fell on the Bani Qurayza, the last Jewish tribe of Medina. Huyayy ibn Akhtab, the leader of the Bani Nadir was in the fortress of Bani Qurayza. Muhammad that all the men of this tribe should be beheaded and it was here that Huyayy was killed along seven to nine hundred men and boys of Bani Qurayz

Muhammad the Prophet and Muslims mass slaughter the Banu Qurayza Jewish Tribe

 

If the Bani Nadir wanted to kill him they did not need to climb a wall to throw a stone on him. He was in their fortress. They could easily kill him. But they were afraid of him. Their story should serve as a lesson to us. Cowardice never pays.

The Bani Nadir took refuge in Khaybar, a Jewish fortress 160 km to the North of Medina. That is how Safiyah ended up in Khaybar and married her young cousin Kinana who became a leader and the treasurer of that town.

Khaybar Fortress
Khaybar Jewish Fortress captured by Muhammad, Ali and Muslims
Khaybar Fortress is at least 1400 years old. Some of the earliest accounts of it came from the narrative of the Battle of Khaybar, when the Prophet Mohammed and Muslims invaded and conquered Khaybar. It was his nephew and son-in-law, Ali ibn al Abi Talib (4th Caliph of Rashedin and the 1st Shiite Imam) who was able to unlock the gate of the fortress to allow the Muslim armies to finally conquer the fortress. After the victory Muslims committed many atrocities, slaughtered and enslaved the Jews.

 

Safiyah was seventeen and very beautiful. When Muhammad raided Khaybar. He killed the unarmed men. People were not ready for war. They were taken by surprise. Muhammad was not a warrior. He was a terrorist. His wars are called gazwah (raid, ambush, sudden attack).

Muhammad then captured Kinana and tortured him. He wanted to know where he had hidden the funds of the city. He pressed red hot iron into his eyes and started a fire on his chest until Kinana died.

At this moment someone seeing Dihya taking possession of Safiyah, the 17 year old Kinana’s beautiful bride, feels jealous and informs Muhammad that Kinana’s wife is very beautiful and he should take her for himself. Muhammad orders Bilal to find her and bring her.

Bilal finds Safiyah was with her cousin, another young woman, sister of Kinana, and brings the two women to Muhammad. Dihya also comes.

Kinana ibn al Rabi tortured and murdered by Muhammad the Prophet and Muslims
Here, Muhammad and Muslims are torturing Kinana the husband of Safiyah to reveal the location of the Bani Nadir Jewish tribal funds.

 

When Kinana’s sister saw her brother’s mutilated corps, and the mutilated body of another man who was her husband she became hysterical and started shouting. Muhammad became enrages, slapped her and shouted, take this devil away from me. Moments later, he told Bilal, “don’t you have any humanity to parade women in front of the corpses of their loved ones?” Bilal responded, I did it on purpose. I wished to see their grief and anger stirred up.

Muhammad then took Safiyah to his tent and wanted to have sex with her on that very night. She was after all his “right hand possession and as the Quran 4:24 says, she it is permissible for Muslims to rape women captured in war.

The following is from Tabaqat:

“Safiyah was born in Medinah. She belonged to the Jewish tribe of Banu ‘I-Nadir. When this tribe was expelled from Medinah in the year 4 A.H, Huyayy was one of those who settled in the fertile colony of Khaybar together with Kinana ibn al-Rabi’ to whom Safiyah was married a little before the Muslims attacked Khaybar. She was then seventeen. She had formerly been the wife of Sallam ibn Mishkam, who divorced her. One mile from Khaybar. Here the Prophet married Safiyah. She was groomed and made-up for the Prophet by Umm Sulaim, the mother of Anas ibn Malik. They spent the night there. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of the Prophet the whole night. When, in the early dawn, the Prophet saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: “I was afraid for you with this young lady. You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account”. The Prophet prayed for Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (Ibn Hisham, p. 766) Safiyah had requested the Prophet to wait till he had gone a stage away from Khaybar. “Why?” asked the Prophet. “I was afraid for you on account of the Jews who still happened to be near at Khaybar!”

Submission of Banu Nadir Jewish Tribe to Muhammad and Muslims

The reason Safiyah rejected the sexual advances of Muhammad should be obvious to any thinking person. I believe most women would rather mourn than jump into bed with the killer of their father, husband and many relatives on the same day of their death. But the fact that the Prophet of Allah, this “Mercy of God to all the creation” could not contain his sexual urges for one day to let this young girl grieve, says a lot of his moral character. He was utterly bereft of conscience and empathy.

As for the rest of the story we are not sure whether it is true or was fabricated by Muslim historians to wipe the impression of rape. But this is all we have and to find the truth we have to rely on these lopsided documents narrated and written by Muslims.

The story goes on to say that Abu Ayyub, was concerned for the safety of the prophet because he (Muhammad) had killed Safiyah’s father, husband and many of her relatives. This is logical. It is foolish to sleep with a woman after killing her loved ones. But Safiyah’s excuse for rejecting Muhammad’s advances towards her seems unreasonable. When Muhammad took this young girl into his tent, he had already killed many Jews and had chained others. If there were any Jews left, they were more worried for their own lives than Safiyah being raped. This excuse sounds foolish and obviously forged to claim that Safiyah wanted to have sex with Muhammad, if she didn’t it was because she was concerned for his safety. The depravity of the Muslim mind is bottomless. They are a bunch of stupid people that believe in any asininity without thinking, but I am those with commonsense can see the excuses are a lie.

“The next day a Walima (wedding-feast) was arranged on behalf of the Prophet…”

Note that the historian is saying that the wedding took place one day after Muhammad got private with Safiyah and made his moves to have sex with her. This presented no problem for the prophet as he had his Allah reveal a verse saying it is okay to sleep with women captured in war without marrying them even if they are married.

“And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess…”(Q. 4:24 )

The above verse shows that Muhammad did not believe that slaves have any right. Should Muslims come to power, this would be the fate of all non-Muslim women. Muslims can’t change anything that Muhammad has said or done.

This is confirmed in another place.

(Q. 23: 1-7)
1-The believers must (eventually) win through,-
2- Those who humble themselves in their prayers;
3-Who avoid vain talk;
4- Who are active in deeds of charity;
5- Who abstain from sex,
6- Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,
7- But those whose desires exceed those limits are transgressors;-

Let us continue with the story of Safiyah.

“The other wives of the Prophet showed their jealousy by making slights upon her Jewish origin. But the Prophet always defended her. Once Safiyah was vexed to the extreme by the taunts of all the Arab wives of the Prophet. She took the complaint to the Prophet, who felt great compassion for her. He consoled her. He encouraged her. He equipped her with logic. He said: “Safiyah, take courage and be bold. They are in no way superior to you. Tell them: I am a daughter of the Prophet Harun, a niece of the Prophet Musa, and a wife of the Prophet Muhammad”.

“When she was brought along with other prisoners, the Prophet said to her, “Safiyah, your father always maintained enmity with me until Allah made the final decision.” She said, “But Allah does not catch one for the sins of another.”

This contradicts Muhammad’s own behavior that annihilated the entire Bani Qainuqa with the pretext that few of them had killed a Muslim in retaliation of him killing a Jew. He banished an entire tribe, making them pay for the killing of a Muslim. That Muslim had already killed a Jew. But this did not matter to Muhammad. He needed an excuse to lay his hand on their wealth.

That is despite the verse that says “Namely, that no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another” (Q. 53:38) Also it was not Allah who made the final decision.

See how this despicable man washed his hand from his crime. Safiyah’s father was killed by Muhammad’s not by Allah. If God wanted to kill all those people He could have done it on his own. God needs no mercenaries to do his will.

“The Prophet then gave her the choice of joining her people after freedom or accepting Islam and coming into a matrimonial relationship with him”

Gave her a choice? What choice? Muhammad had killed her husband and all her relatives. Where could she go? Joining her people? Which people? The men were killed and the women were enslaved.

“She was very intelligent and gentle and said, “O Allah’s Messenger, I had hoped for Islam, and I confirmed you before your invitation. Now when I have the honor to be in your presence, I am given a choice between kufr and Islam I swear by Allah, that Allah and His Messenger is dearer to me than my own freedom and my joining with my people.”

Was this confession, if true, sincere? Was she safe to speak her mind? She was enslaved by a man who had exterminated her family. See the reference made to her “freedom”. This shows clearly that she was not free. In fact she must have been very intelligent to fabricate those lies to save her own life. But the truth is that this story is most likely a lie.

“When Safiyah was married, she was very young, and according to one report she was hardly seventeen years old and was extremely beautiful. Once Aisha said a few sentences about her short stature, at which the Prophet said, “You have said a thing that if it were left in the sea, it would mix with it (and make its water dirty). ” (Abu Dawud). She not only deeply loved the Prophet but also greatly respected him as Allah’s Messenger, for she heard the conversations of her father and uncle after they went to Medinah. When the Prophet migrated to Medinah, they came to see him and find out whether he was the true Messenger of Allah spoken of in the Scriptures. When they got back and talked together that night, Safiyah was in her bed listening to them. One of them said, “What do you think about him?” He replied, “He is the same Prophet foretold by our Scriptures.” Then the other said, “What is to be done?” The reply came that they must oppose him with all their might.”

Is this story, narrated by Abu Dawud, credible? How can two Jews recognize Muhammad as the prophet foretold by their scriptures and decide to oppose him with all their might? It defies all logic. It takes a “deficient in intelligence” or a Muslim to believe in this nonsense

 Muhammad the Prophet spreads Islam by the sword and murder

 

She was deeply in love with Muhammad, the murderer of her father and husband? How stupid can Muslim be to believe in this narration? How can a seventeen years old beautiful girl fall in love with an aging crippled man with a broken tooth and fetid smell? Read my book Understanding Muhammad to learn how Muhammad was deformed and smelled foul.

Understanding Muhammad, a Psychobiography

It’s doubtful these were the words of Safiyah. If she said such thing, she was lying, to make herself safe, but I doubt she said such thing. All we need is a working brain to find where Muslims lie.

Why would someone decide to oppose with all his might the one who he knows is the promised one of his own scriptures? Where in the Bible Muhammad is foretold? Is Muhammad mentioned in the Bible? Read this article to see the pathetic lies of Muslims. Muhammad is not mentioned in the Bible or in any sacred book.

“So Safiyah was convinced of the truth of the Prophet. She spared no pain to look after him, care for him and provide every comfort that she could think of. This is evident since she came into his presence after the fall of Khaybar.”

See how the writer contradicts himself in one page? Just a few lines above we read that she was captured and was taken to Muhammad as a prisoner. She didn’t come on her own. She was taken to Muhammad because she was young and the beautiful.

“The Prophet had a slight grievance against her for she had refused when the Prophet wanted to have privacy with her at the previous stage (of the journey). At the next halt, the Prophet had privacy with her and spent all night with her. When she was asked by Umm Sulaim, “What did you see in Allah’s Messenger?” She said he was very pleased with her and did not sleep at all but was talking to her all night. He had asked her, ‘Why did you refuse at the first stage when I desired privacy with you?’ She had said, ‘I was afraid for you because of the nearness of the Jews. “‘This thing further increased my merit in his eyes.”(Tabaqat).

Bukhari also has recorded some Hadithes telling the invasion of Khaybar and how Muhammad met Safiyah.

Narrated ‘Abdul ‘Aziz:
Anas said, ‘When Allah’s Apostle invaded Khaybar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaybar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet. He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, ‘Allah-o Akbar! Khaybar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.’ He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, ‘Muhammad (has come).’ (Some of our companions added, “With his army.”) We conquered Khaybar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, ‘O Allah’s Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.’ The Prophet said, ‘Go and take any slave girl.’ He took Safiyah bint Huyayy. A man came to the Prophet and said, ‘O Allah’s Apostles! You gave Safiyah bint Huyayy to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Qurayza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.’ So the Prophet said, ‘Bring him along with her.’ So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, ‘Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.’ Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her.”

Thabit asked Anas, “O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?” He said, “Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her.” Anas added, “While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet. (Sahih Bukhari 1.367)

Mahr is the dowry that a bride gets from her husband when he marries her. Muhammad did not pay Safiyah her Mahr because he had to pay it to himself for manumitting her. This story is significant because it gives us an insight into the moral and ethical values of Muhammad and his benighted followers. Muhammad was a psychopath. But Muslims have no shame. They worship a psychopath and want us to respect them. Does stupidity deserve respect? By virtue of following an insane man, every one of them acts insane.

Any decent, or even normal person cringer with stories like this, yet Muhammad taught that he is going to receive two rewards by marrying Safiyah. One for manumitting someone whom no one but himself had enslaved, and the other for marrying her.

Abu Musa reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said about one who emancipated a slave woman, and then married her, that for him there are two rewards. (Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 33

After the slaughters and murders, Muhammad comes up victorious!
Muhammad the Prophet victoriously enters Medinah.

 

Isn’t that disgusting? Drop this stupid political correctness and call a spade a spade. Muslims are a bunch of morons. How stupid these people can get?

Narrated Anas:
The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaybar when it was still dark and then said, “Allah-o-Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.” Then the inhabitants of Khaybar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiyah was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet. The Prophet made her manumission as her ‘Mahr’. (Sahih Bukhari V.5 B.59 N.512)

 -- text from No Compulsion.

Woman who accepts Islam and whose husband is a kafir must divorce him

You will find Muslim women and Islamic apologists saying that Muslim woman is full of rights, including the right to choose her husband. Of course, this is not true, and below is another proof of that. For one thing, a Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim man. But what if she is already married to a normal husband (a non-Muslim) when resolving to become Muslim, can she stay married? The answer is NO. For her to be married, the husband must become Muslim too, otherwise the marriage has no value under the Sharia.

You think I'm making this up? Or is this a joke? No, the thing is very serious. Below is the interpretation derived from the site Islam Question and Answer. Read and draw your conclusions.

117: Woman who accepts Islam and whose husband is a kaafir

Question

If a lady reverts to Islam and is married to a non-Muslim man, must she divorce this man? If he refuses to become a Muslim, can she continue to live with him?

Answer

All praise be to Allah the Almighty.

If a woman becomes a Muslima and her husband is a kaafir, then it becomes mandatory for her to separate from him and it is not permissible for her to remain with him in his state of shirk (disbelief), as per Allah's injunction (interpretation of the meaning):

"… do not send them back to the disbelievers—they are not lawful (wives) for the disbelievers nor are the disbelievers lawful (husbands) for them…" (Al-Mumtahinah 60:10).

It is her duty to invite him to Islam and to attempt to convince him via various approaches in the hope that Allah may accept her efforts and give her the great reward for his guidance through her. The prophet (peace be upon him) once told Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) when he sent him to a people who were idol-worshippers:

"Invite them to Islam and inform them what is required of them, for (I swear) by Allah, that Allah guides a man through you is better than if you had humr un-na'am (a particular kind of camel which is the most sought-after wealth among the Arabs)" (Al-Bukhari, Fath il-Baari 3009).

As for the course of the marriage, and what she should do if her husband accepts Islam or doesn't, Ibn ul-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy upon him) said: What is indicated by evidence of his (i.e., the prophet's) ruling is that the marriage is mawqoof, or in abeyance (i.e. suspension); if her husband accepts Islam before the elapsing of her 'iddah (waiting period), then she remains his wife. If her 'iddah elapses then she has the right to marry whom she pleases or if she likes she may wait (in the hope he may still accept Islam). If he then accepts Islam, she becomes his wife without need of renewing the marriage. (Zaad ul-Ma'aad, Vol 5 p.138).

wallahu a'lam. (And Allah the Most Knowledgeable knows what is the most true and correct)

Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Obligation to destroy idols: Islamic Jihad against Human History and Human Art

 This comes from Islam Question and Answer Fatwa 20894

In a nutshell: It is an obligation for Muslims to destroy "idols" even if they are part of the legacy of human civilization!

Question:
Is it obligatory to destroy statues in Islam, even if they are part of the legacy of human civilization? Why is it that when the Sahaabah conquered other lands and saw statues there they did not destroy them?.

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.  

The evidence of sharee’ah indicates that it is obligatory to destroy idols, for example:

1 – Muslim (969) narrated that Abu’l-Hayaaj al-Asadi said: ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib said to me: “Shall I not send you with the same instructions as the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sent me? ‘Do not leave any image without defacing it or any built-up grave without leveling it.’”

2 – Muslim (832) narrated from ‘Urwah ibn ‘Abasah that he said to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “With what were you sent?” He said, “I was sent to uphold the ties of kinship, to break the idols, and so that Allaah would be worshipped alone with no partner or associate.”

The obligation to destroy them is even stronger if they are worshipped instead of Allaah.

3 – al-Bukhaari (3020) and Muslim (2476) narrated that Jareer ibn ‘Abd-Allaah al-Bajali said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to me: “O Jareer, will you not relieve me of Dhu’l-Khalsah?”  That was a house (in Yemen) belonging to the (tribe of) Khath’am, which was called Ka’bat al-Yamaaniyyah. I set out with one hundred and fifty horsemen. I used not to sit firm on horses and I mentioned that to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He struck me on my chest with his hand and said, 'O Allaah! Make him firm and make him one who guides others and is guided on the right path.' " So Jareer went and burned it with fire, then Jareer sent a man called Abu Artaat to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He said, “I did not come to you until we had left it like a scabby camel.” Then the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) blessed the horses of (the tribe of) Ahmas and their men five times.

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said:

This hadeeth indicates that it is prescribed to remove things that may tempt or confuse the people, whether they are buildings, people, animals or inanimate objects.

4 – The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sent Khaalid ibn al-Waleed (may Allaah be pleased with him) on a campaign to destroy al-‘Uzza.

5 – and he sent Sa’d ibn Zayd al-Ashhali (may Allaah be pleased with him) on a campaign to destroy Manaat.

6 – And he sent ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas (may Allaah be pleased with him) on a campaign to destroy Suwaa’. All of that happened after the Conquest of Makkah.

Al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah, 4/712. 776. 5/83; al-Seerah al-Nabawiyyah by Dr. ‘Ali al-Salaabi, 2/1186.

Al-Nawawi said in Sharh Muslim when discussing the issue of image-making:
They were unanimously agreed that whatever casts a shadow is not allowed and must be changed.
Images that cast a shadow are three-dimensional images like these statues.

With regard to what is said about the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) not destroying idols in the conquered lands, this is merely conjecture. The companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would not have left idols and statues alone, especially since they were worshipped at that time.

If it is asked, how come the Sahaabah left alone the ancient idols of the Pharaohs and Phoenicians? The answer is that these idols fall into one of three categories:

1 – These idols may have been in remote places that the Sahaabah did not reach; when the Sahaabah conquered Egypt, for example, that does not mean that they reached every part of the land.

2 – These idols may not have been visible, rather they may have been inside Pharaonic buildings etc. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us to hasten when passing through the abodes of the wrongdoers and those who had been punished, and he forbade entering such places. In al-Saheehayn it is says: “Do not enter upon those who have been punished unless you are weeping, lest there befall you something like that which befall them.” He (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said that when he passed by ashaab al-hijr [the dwellers of the rocky tract – see al-Hijr 15:80], in the land of Thamood, the people of Saalih (peace be upon him).

According to another report narrated in  al-Saheehayn, “If you are not weeping, then do not enter upon them, lest there befall you something like that which befall them.” 

What we think is that if the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) saw a temple or building belonging of these people, they did not enter it or even look at what was inside it. 

This will dispel any confusion about why the Sahaabah did not see the Pyramids or what is inside them. There is also the possibility that their doors and entrances were covered with sand at that time.

3 – Many of these idols that are visible nowadays were covered and hidden, and have only been discovered recently, or they have been brought from remote places that the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not reach.

Al-Zarkali was asked about the Pyramids and the Sphinx etc: Did the Sahaabah who entered Egypt see them?

He said: They were mostly covered with sand, especially the Sphinx.

Shibh Jazeerat al-‘Arab, 4/1188

Then even if we assume that there was a statue that was visible and not hidden, then we still have to prove that the Sahaabah saw it and were able to destroy it.

The fact of the matter is that the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) would not have been able to destroy some of these statues. It took twenty days to destroy some of these statues even with tools, equipment, and explosives etc that were not available to the Sahaabah at all.

This is indicated by what Ibn Khuldoon said in al-Muqaddimah (p. 383), that the caliph al-Rasheed was unable to destroy the estrade of Chosroes. He started to do that, and he gathered men and tools, and burned it with fire, and poured vinegar on it, but he was unable to do it. And the caliph al-Ma’moon wanted to destroy the Pyramids in Egypt and he gathered workers but he could not do it.

With regard to the excuse that these statues are part of the legacy of mankind, no attention should be paid to such words. Al-Laat, al-‘Uzaa, Hubal, Manaat and other idols were also a legacy for those who worshipped them among Quraysh and the Arabs.

This is a legacy, but it is a haraam legacy which should be uprooted. When the command comes from Allaah and His Messenger, then the believer must hasten to obey, and the command of Allaah and His Messenger cannot be rejected on the grounds of this flimsy excuse. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“The only saying of the faithful believers, when they are called to Allaah (His Words, the Qur’aan) and His Messenger, to judge between them, is that they say: “We hear and we obey.” And such are the successful (who will live forever in Paradise)”

[al-Noor 24:51]

We ask Allaah to help the Muslims to do that which He loves and which pleased Him.

And Allaah knows best.