The Reality of Jesus' and Mohammed's Lives

[Richard the Lionheart]

Split from a discussion about terrorism in the'Pit as this concerns the evidence from the past. - imb39

Mohammed was a warlord who exterminated his enemies and killed poets who criticized him (this includes commissioning the murder of a woman)

Evidence?

while Jesus on the other hand, let himself be killed by his enemies.

We don't even know if Jesus really existed. Even if he did exist, details of his life are shady at best.

[Ummon]

Evidence?

You don't know about the episode of the slaughter of the poets? It's in the Qu'ran as well.

We don't even know if Jesus really existed. Even if he did exist, details of his life are shady at best.

Then substitute "Jesus" with "Jesus as we are told he was by most of the contemporary sources we have".

[Richard the Lionheart]

You don't know about the episode of the slaughter of the poets? It's in the Qu'ran as well.

No I do not. Could you quote the relevant parts of the text?

"Jesus as we are told he was by most of the contemporary sources we have".

Which are all historically unreliable.

[Tom Paine]

You don't know about the episode of the slaughter of the poets? It's in the Qu'ran as well.

As you seem so fond of posting excerpts, maybe you could do so here, so those of us without a Qu'ran ca read the affair.

Then substitute "Jesus" with "Jesus as we are told he was by most of the contemporary sources we have".

Which is precisely how many?

[Kino]

Honor&Glory
What do you call the Bible? They didn't write all those stories just to be funny.

I've heard Mohammed's life is mysterious and cloudy and the only reliable source is the Quran.

Why not give the Bible and Jesus the same benefit?

[Richard the Lionheart]

What do you call the Bible? They didn't write all those stories just to be funny.

The Bible cannot be used as evidence.

I've heard Mohammed's life is mysterious and cloudy and the only reliable source is the Quran.

Actually no. There is actual historical evidence about Muhammed and his life. At least there is more details about the life of Muhammed than there is about Jesus.

[Ummon]

From the Life of Muhammad and successors by Simon Ockley, section 42, on Dinsmore Documentation: http://www.dinsdoc.com/ockley-1-2.htm

One Salam, a Jew, having been very strenuous in stirring up the people against the prophet, some zealous Casregites desired leave to go and assassinate him. Permission being readily granted, away they went to the Jew’s house, and being let in by his wife, upon their pretending they were come to buy provisions, they murdered him in his bed, and made their escape.

From the Life of Muhammad and successors by Simon Ockley, section 12, on Dinsmore Documentation, based on Arab historians: http://www.dinsdoc.com/ockley-1-2.htm

It is probable that he employed himself for some years in the care of his family, and the prosecution of his trade; conforming all the while to the idolatrous superstition of his countrymen. By the Christian writers he is said to have been profligate in his morals; but nothing of the kind, as was to be expected, is mentioned by any Mohammedan author. However this may be, in the thirty-eighth year of his life he began to affect solitude, retiring frequently into a cave of mount Hara, near Mecca, to spend his time in fasting, prayer, and meditation. Here he is supposed to have composed so much of the Koran as he first published. Mohammed, who, it is agreed on all hands, could neither read nor write, has evidently borrowed many things from the Old and New Testaments, and from the Jewish Talmud. His assistants in the work are said to have been Abdia, the son of Salem, who was a Persian Jew, and a Nestorian monk named Bahira by the eastern, and Sergius by the western writers. From a statement we shall presently give from Abulfeda, it seems probable that Waraka was also in the secret, if he did not lend a helping hand. In his Koran, chap. xvi. the impostor complains that his enemies charged him with being assisted by that Persian Jew, but endeavours to clear himself in these words: “They say, certainly some man teaches him; he whom they mean speaks a barbarous language; but the Koran is in the Arabic tongue, full of instruction and eloquence.”* As for the monk, he is said to have murdered him, when he had no further occasion for him. No doubt he took what care he could to conceal his being assisted.

From the Life of Muhammad and successors by Simon Ockley, section 52, on Dinsmore Documentation, based on Arab historians: http://www.dinsdoc.com/ockley-1-2.htm

Mohammed now sent out Kaled and others, to destroy the idols which were still retained by some of the tribes; and to invite them to Islamism. Kaled executed his commission with great brutality. The Jodhamites had formerly robbed and murdered Kaled’s uncle as he journeyed from Arabia Felix. Kaled having proposed Islamism to them, they cried out, “they professed Sabæism.” This was what he wanted. He immediately fell upon them, killing some, and making others prisoners: of these, he distributed some among his men, and reserved others for himself. As for the latter, having tied their hands behind them, he put them all to the sword. On hearing of this slaughter, Mohammed lifted up his eyes, and protested his innocence of this murder; and immediately sent Ali with a sum of money to make satisfaction for the bloodshed; and to restore the plunder. Ali paid to the surviving Jodhamites as much as they demanded, and generously divided the overplus among them. This action Mohammed applauded; and afterwards reproved Kaled for his cruelty.

From the Life of Muhammad and successors by Simon Ockley, section 63, on Dinsmore Documentation, based on Arab historians: http://www.dinsdoc.com/ockley-1-2.htm

The same writers extol Mohammed as a man of fine parts, and a strong memory, of few words, of a cheerful aspect, affable and complaisant in his behaviour. They also celebrate his justice, clemency, generosity, modesty, abstinence, and humility. As an instance of the last virtue, they tell us he mended his own clothes and shoes. However, to judge of him by his actions as related by these same writers, we cannot help concluding, that he was a very subtle and crafty man, who put on
* Gagnier, Note in Abulfeda, p. 140,??? and Vie de Mahom. vol. ii, p. 299. There are many ridiculous stories told of Mohammed, which being notoriously fabulous, are not introduced here. Two of the most popular are: That a tame pigeon used to whisper in his ear the commands of God. [The pigeon is said to have been taught to come and peck some grains of rice out of Mohammed’s ear, to induce people to think that he then received by the ministry of an angel, the several articles of the Koran, ] The other is, that after his death he was buried at Medina, and his coffin suspended by divine agency or magnetic power, between the ceiling and floor of the temple.

63 Hej. 11. A.D. 632.
the appearance only of those good qualities; while the governing principles of his soul were ambition and lust. For we see him, as soon as he found himself strong enough to act upon the offensive, plundering caravans; and, under a pretence of fighting for the true religion, attacking, murdering, enslaving, and making tributaries of his neighbours, in order to aggrandize and enrich himself and his greedy followers and without scruple making use of assassination to cut off those who opposed him. Of his lustful, disposition, we have a sufficient proof, in the peculiar privileges he claimed to himself, of having as many wives as he pleased, and of whom he chose, even though they were within forbidden degrees of affinity. The authors who give him the smallest number of wives, own that he had fifteen; whereas the Koran allows no Mussulman more than four.* As for himself, Mohammed had no shame in avowing that his chief pleasures were perfumes and women.
* Dr. Weil informs us in his Life of Mohammed, that according to the most authentic accounts, Mohammed left nine wives, for Kadija and Zainab had died before him; but others are mentioned in traditions, from whom he was either separated soon after marriage or before consummation. From Asma-bint-Numan, he refrained, because she was leprous; and from Amra-bint-Yezid, because when he was about to embrace her, she exclaimed, “I take my refuge in God in preference to thee;” for it seems she had been so recently converted to Islamism, that the approach of Mohammed made her shudder. The prophet replied to this speech by saying, “He who flies to God finds protection,” and immediately returned her to her friends. Gagnier makes an incorrect statement in reference to this circumstance, for he tells us that the separation was caused by Anna’s relapsing into idolatry, for which the prophet detesting her, sent her home, and afterwards said, “God, who protects me from evil, preserved me from her.” Another writer tells us, that her extreme beauty attracted the jealousy of Mohammed’s other wires, and they accordingly persuaded her to offer a long opposition to his advances, and to call God to her aid, pretending that this would increase the love of her husband, though they well knew that he excessively disliked such conduct. Abulfeda reckons altogether fifteen wives, four of whom, however, never shared connubial rites. Another writer says, that the apostle paid his addresses to thirty women, but with seven of these no marriage contract took place, and he only associated with twelve of the remainder. Mention is also made of one named Kuteila, who was brought from Hadramaut, by her brother, but did not reach Medina till after the death of Mohammed. Kuteila afterwards married a son of Abu Djahl’s, and this being told to Abubeker, he was going to burn the house over her head, on account of the prophet having prohibited [footnote continues on p. 64] his wives from marrying after his death. Omar, however, preserved her, by telling Abubeker that she did not belong to the “mothers of the faithful,” as the ambassador of God had never received her. Beside these wives, Mohammed lived with four female slaves. Two of these Makawkas sent him; one was a captive in war, and the other was given him by his wife Zainab.

Koran 2:217
"They question you (O Mohammed) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great transgression but to turn men from the way of Allah and to disbelive in Him and the inviolable place of worship and to expel its people thence is a greater transgression, for persecution is worse than killing"

This verse was allegedly added after the slaughter of Pagan unarmed merchants.

[Dromikaites]

The Bible cannot be used as evidence.

He, he, either we accept both the Bible and the Quran as evidence or we dismiss them both. Both were put in writting some time after the events they account (Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection and Muhammad's death respectively) and both were written by "biased" people.

Actually no. There is actual historical evidence about Muhammed and his life. At least there is more details about the life of Muhammed than there is about Jesus.

Well, Ummon found Arab sources presenting Muhammed in an interesting light. You argue that the site where those Arab sources are quoted is anti-Muslim. Big surprise! Of course the only reasonable verdict on Mahommed based on those sources (Arab chronicles) and on the texts of the Quran and Hadiths (Ummon quoted lots of them on other threads) can't be in Mahommed's favor. However I'm willing to admit that any verdict we may pass is biased by the fact we live in a different age and our moral standards aren't the same of the time those actions were taken and those words were said.

Let's say for the sake of argument there is indeed less evidence about Jesus than about Mahommed. So I will let others to discuss the life of Jesus and I will focus on Mahommed.

Mahommed pretended his God is the God of the Jews and of the Christians. In order for someone to claim it that person needs to know at least superficially the Mosaic and the Christian religions. We know that he knew for sure that the Christians consider Jesus to be the Son of God, that He died on the cross and that He was resurrected. We can be 100% sure he knew that because in the Quran he denies Jesus was the Son of God, that he was crucified and that He was resurrected.

So when he started to claim he was another prophet sent by God he must have been aware of his lack of credibility among both the majority of the Jews (because he was not following the Mosaic laws) and of the Christians. No wonder the overwhelming majority of the converts to his new religion were former Arab pagans, who had little knowledge about the God of Abraham. No wonder also the Jews and the Christians were not very supportive hence their "betryals" on occasions. In the eyes of both the Jews and the Christians he was (and of course he still is) just another false prophet.

Now the question is this: why did he chose to claim to be the prophet of the God of Abraham while both communities who were following that God rejected him? Some might say that since his enemies were polytheist a way to increase the fidelity of his own followers would be to preach a monotheistic religion. Let's however assume that he was mainly interested in the religious aspect of his movement and the military conflict that resulted was due to the religious persecutions him and his followers were subjected to.

If we accept his main motivations were religious then we have to accept he was acting in good faith towards his followers. That means he did hear a voice and that he was truly convinced that was the voice of angel Gabriel. But was that the voice of Gabriel or of somebody else? And was that a voice indeed or the result of a delusional mind?

From an atheist point of view if Muhammed was acting in good faith when claiming he heard the voice of Gabriel he was simply delusional.

From the Jewish point of view it is doubtfull Mahommed heard the voice of Gabriel with orders from God. According to the Jewish tradition there were 600000 prophets but only 55 really important ones (48 men including Moses and 7 women). All those prophets and their prophecies are included into the prophecies made by Moses. There is only one other unidentified prophet Moses talks about but his description fits Jesus more than it fits Mahommed. While most of the Jews consider that prophet is not Jesus they have even less reasons to accept he is Mahommed. So if according to the Jews Mahommed did not hear Gabriel delivering God's words then either Mahommed was delusional or he heard words which didn't come from God. Since those words instruct the believers to follow different practices from those God told the Jews to follow, the only logical conclusion is they come from somebody who is the enemy of God.

From the Christian point of view Mahommed was clearly a false prophet and as such he either was delusional or a tool of Satan.

There is however another scenario which makes possible for Mahommed to be both sane and not a tool of Satan. If he was a warlord who lied about hearing voices and who used the new religion as a means to control his followers then most likely he was sane and the discussion about Satan becomes irrelevant. Within this framework Islam is simply just another religion. And as such it competes with religions which have the concept of Satan and with religions which don't have that concept. Satan is therefore more of a label used by those who want to employ religion for political goals (like those who call US the Great Satan).

[Tom Paine]

He, he, either we accept both the Bible and the Quran as evidence or we dismiss them both. Both were put in writting some time after the events they account (Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection and Muhammad's death respectively) and both were written by "biased" people.

Personally I'd be inclined to dismiss both, as both create unreal accounts of people; truly unreal charicatures.

[Dromikaites]

Personally I'd be inclined to dismiss both, as both create unreal accounts of people; truly unreal charicatures.

Yeah but that kills a debate on religious figures right from the beginning. Which would leave us only with topics like "The Existence of God" or "Is Religion the Opium of the Peoples?"

[Richard the Lionheart]

He, he, either we accept both the Bible and the Quran as evidence or we dismiss them both. Both were put in writting some time after the events they account (Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection and Muhammad's death respectively) and both were written by "biased" people.

The Quran is not the only evidence of Muhammed's existence and life.

The Bible is the only "evidence" of Jesus' existence and life.

Well, Ummon found Arab sources presenting Muhammed in an interesting light. You argue that the site where those Arab sources are quoted is anti-Muslim. Big surprise! Of course the only reasonable verdict on Mahommed based on those sources (Arab chronicles) and on the texts of the Quran and Hadiths (Ummon quoted lots of them on other threads) can't be in Mahommed's favor. However I'm willing to admit that any verdict we may pass is biased by the fact we live in a different age and our moral standards aren't the same of the time those actions were taken and those words were said.

Let's say for the sake of argument there is indeed less evidence about Jesus than about Mahommed. So I will let others to discuss the life of Jesus and I will focus on Mahommed.

Mahommed pretended his God is the God of the Jews and of the Christians. In order for someone to claim it that person needs to know at least superficially the Mosaic and the Christian religions. We know that he knew for sure that the Christians consider Jesus to be the Son of God, that He died on the cross and that He was resurrected. We can be 100% sure he knew that because in the Quran he denies Jesus was the Son of God, that he was crucified and that He was resurrected.

So when he started to claim he was another prophet sent by God he must have been aware of his lack of credibility among both the majority of the Jews (because he was not following the Mosaic laws) and of the Christians. No wonder the overwhelming majority of the converts to his new religion were former Arab pagans, who had little knowledge about the God of Abraham. No wonder also the Jews and the Christians were not very supportive hence their "betryals" on occasions. In the eyes of both the Jews and the Christians he was (and of course he still is) just another false prophet.

Now the question is this: why did he chose to claim to be the prophet of the God of Abraham while both communities who were following that God rejected him? Some might say that since his enemies were polytheist a way to increase the fidelity of his own followers would be to preach a monotheistic religion. Let's however assume that he was mainly interested in the religious aspect of his movement and the military conflict that resulted was due to the religious persecutions him and his followers were subjected to.

If we accept his main motivations were religious then we have to accept he was acting in good faith towards his followers. That means he did hear a voice and that he was truly convinced that was the voice of angel Gabriel. But was that the voice of Gabriel or of somebody else? And was that a voice indeed or the result of a delusional mind?

From an atheist point of view if Muhammed was acting in good faith when claiming he heard the voice of Gabriel he was simply delusional.

From the Jewish point of view it is doubtfull Mahommed heard the voice of Gabriel with orders from God. According to the Jewish tradition there were 600000 prophets but only 55 really important ones (48 men including Moses and 7 women). All those prophets and their prophecies are included into the prophecies made by Moses. There is only one other unidentified prophet Moses talks about but his description fits Jesus more than it fits Mahommed. While most of the Jews consider that prophet is not Jesus they have even less reasons to accept he is Mahommed. So if according to the Jews Mahommed did not hear Gabriel delivering God's words then either Mahommed was delusional or he heard words which didn't come from God. Since those words instruct the believers to follow different practices from those God told the Jews to follow, the only logical conclusion is they come from somebody who is the enemy of God.

From the Christian point of view Mahommed was clearly a false prophet and as such he either was delusional or a tool of Satan.

There is however another scenario which makes possible for Mahommed to be both sane and not a tool of Satan. If he was a warlord who lied about hearing voices and who used the new religion as a means to control his followers then most likely he was sane and the discussion about Satan becomes irrelevant. Within this framework Islam is simply just another religion. And as such it competes with religions which have the concept of Satan and with religions which don't have that concept. Satan is therefore more of a label used by those who want to employ religion for political goals (like those who call US the Great Satan).

You're only putting forth your personal opinions about Muhammad. So what's your point?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

The Quran is not the only evidence of Muhammed's existence and life.

The Bible is the only "evidence" of Jesus' existence and life.

This is incorrect actually. There are two references to Jesus in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. One of them was 'doctored' by later Christian scribes to make it say things Josephus would never have said (eg 'He was the Messiah'), but take away those rather obvious interpolations and you are left with a straightfoward passage that clearly shows that Josephus knew of the existence of a Galilean preacher called Jesus. We also have other evidence that this passage was simply added to, not created wholsesale.

There is also a second passage - one that those who claim there is no extra-Biblical evidence of Jesus conveniently ignore - which details the execution of Jesus' brother James. Non-existent people don't have existent brothers.

Wholesale dismissing of the gospels and other books of the New Testament is a neat approach to the question, but not a terribly valid one. For ancient documents, the NT books were actually written remarkably close to the events. They are not, however, biographies, documentary journalism or straight history - they are statements of faith. That said, however, they are statements of faith which do contain elements of biography. They also contain elements which, if this Jesus guy was entirely fictional, don't make a lot of sense.

For example, they depict him as coming from Nazareth. This was a problem for early Christianity, since the Messiah was meant to come from Bethlehem. So two of the gospels tie themselves (and each other) in knots trying to explain why a Messiah who was supposed to be from Bethlehem in Judea was well known as a man from Nazareth in Galilee. So the question is - why, if Jesus was a fiction, create this problem in the first place? Why not depict a fictional Messiah from Bethlehem and avoid the awkwardness of Nazareth?

Unless, of course, he really did exist, really did come from Galilee and was well-known as a man from Nazareth.

The NT books can be used by historians. They just can't be taken at face value or used naively. Which means they have to be analysed in context, just like any other ancient source. Dismissing them out of hand, however, is quite invalid.

And I'll remind anyone reading this that I'm an atheist. I'm just an atheist who, as a historian, finds the whole 'Jesus was a myth/we have no evidence he existed' argument highly contrived and rather silly.

[Dromikaites]

The Quran is not the only evidence of Muhammed's existence and life.

The Bible is the only "evidence" of Jesus' existence and life.



You're only putting forth your personal opinions about Muhammad. So what's your point?

My point is to put the historical Mahommed into the context of his times. To show how he was seen by the people following the God he claimed to be a prophet of. Because in return that explains his attitude towards the "people of the book" . While Muslims had to pay a 2% income tax the Jews and Christians were taxed at whatever level the Muslim authorities saw fit. In practice that ment higher taxation for non-Muslims, sometimes the process of paying the taxes being accompanied with yelling at and hitting the non-Muslim. Here's how a Muslim theologian of the 12th century (Al-Zamakhshari) recommended the jizya should be collected:

The Jizyah shall be taken from them with belittlement and humiliation. The dhimmi (non-Muslim) shall come in person, walking not riding. When he pays, he shall stand, while the tax collector sits. The collector shall seize him by the scruff of the neck, shake him, and say "Pay the Jizyah!" and when he pays it he shall be slapped on the nape of the neck."

Now, while that might have been just an abuse by some overzealous 12th century scholar, let's see what Mahommed himself tells the Jews of Elath/Eilat:

Thou hast to accept Islam, or pay the tax, and obey God and His Messenger and the messengers of His Messenger, and do them honor and dress them in fine clothing, not in the raiment of raiders…for if you satisfy my envoys you will satisfy me. Surely the tax is known to you. Therefore if you wish to be secure on land and on sea, obey God and His Messenger…But be careful lest thou do not satisfy…for then I shall not accept anything from you, but I shall fight you and take the young as captives and slay the elderly…Come then, before a calamity befalls you…

Humm, it sounds like racketeering to me

[AngryTitusPullo]

Honor&Glory
What do you call the Bible? They didn't write all those stories just to be funny.

I've heard Mohammed's life is mysterious and cloudy and the only reliable source is the Quran.

Why not give the Bible and Jesus the same benefit?

There are many books written on Muhammad's life. There are more stories about previous prophets prior to Muhammad in the Quran, instead of Muhammad himself. The Quran is not about the life of Muhammad. In anyway it contains Muhammad than it is regarding God's command to him, not his life story.

The majority of Muhammad's life can be found in the Hadith (or sayings) which were attributed to him. What's so mysterious about him ? There are many books written about him, by muslim and western scholars alike.

There is only one chapter name after Muhammad, but it's not the history of his life. There are many more chapter (or Surah) name after other prophets:

Surah 10 : Yunus (Jonah)
Surah 11 : Hud (not sure biblical equivalent)
Surah 12 : Yusof (Joseph)
Surah 14 : Ibrahim (Abraham)
Surah 19 : Maryam (Mary - that right, the Virgin Mary)

This is the link to the English translation :

http://www.islam101.com/quran/yusufAli/

From Geocites :

http://www.geocities.com/infoquran/

While the text of the original Arabic Qur'an is identical and unchanged since its revelation, you will find various translations and interpretations. Anytime a translation is done into another language, the translator (who is only human) has to interpret the meaning and render it in the new language, which of course has different rules of grammar. It is, by nature, an approximation of the meaning, since words and ideas cannot be expressed identically in different languages. Note that any translation of the Qur’an cannot be free of errors; No one has the right to assign a novel meaning to the revealed words of the Qur’an on his own accord.

Arabic is a very rich language, and words have many shades of meaning. Thus in many languages, especially English, it often requires more wordiness to get the meaning across. Without these additional words, either the meaning would be different or unclear, or the translation would contain grammatical errors. Muslim translators usually try to put these words between parenthesis because they try to be as accurate and as honest as possible when translating Allah’s words.

Pickthall writes in his foreward of 1930: "... The Qur'an cannot be translated. ...The book is here rendered almost literally and every effort has been made to choose befitting language. But the result is not the Glorious Qur'an, that inimitable symphony, the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy. It is only an attempt to present the meaning of the Qur'an-and peradventure something of the charm in English. It can never take the place of the Qur'an in Arabic, nor is it meant to do so..."

[Tom Paine]

I think because I trust neither of them; they told those stories to create a deity, not tell the life of a man.

[Kino]

Are you counting the Hadiths?

If there is just as much historical evidence don't skip over the bad things said about him, that have as much reliablity as the good.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Are you counting the Hadiths?

If there is just as much historical evidence don't skip over the bad things said about him, that have as much reliablity as the good.

My point is that there is more information about Muhammed than there is about Jesus. At least we know for a fact that Muhammad existed. However, we can't say the same about Jesus.

[Richard the Lionheart]

There is no historical evidence for such accounts. It also appears that the tone of the authors are rather biased. I could just as easily provide accounts which paint a completely positive picture of Muhammed.

[Ummon]

There isn't? Then that historian is quite biased... Though I stand corrected, it's not in the Qu'ran, my mistake, it's in Arab historians.

About the poets: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Muhamm...mies/asma.html

The Death of `Asma' Bint Marwan
Abstract


In Yathrib (Medina), Muhammad had a number of people killed. One of them was `Asma' bint Marwan. Her crime was that she spoke out against Muhammad for having another man murdered named Abu Afak. In his displeasure towards her, Muhammad asked his followers to murder her as well. She was killed while she slept.
Introduction

After Muhammad came to Yathrib he began to grow in power. However, a number of people, both Jew and Arab, opposed him. Muhammad began to silence his opposition by various means. One of these means was to have them murdered.

Muhammad did have a number of enemies and critics, some were dangerous, others were ordinary people who lived in the area and thought nil of Muhammad. They spoke their minds.

One by one, they were silenced. Through treaties, intrigue, or outright terror, Muhammad gained power in Medina. Eventually, he was master of the area. He knew his followers loved him, and would die for him. They were at his disposal; and at times, he chose to use them to accomplish his desires.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRESENTATION OF ISLAMIC SOURCES


From the Sirat Rasul Allah (A. Guilaume's translation "The Life of Muhammad") pages 675, 676.

Note: My comments will be in [ ] type brackets. Notes by the Translators of the texts will be in { } brackets.


`UMAYR B. `ADIYY'S JOURNEY TO KILL `ASMA' D. MARWAN She was of B. Umayyya b. Zayd. When Abu `Afak had been killed she displayed disaffection. `Abdullah b. al-Harith b. Al-Fudayl from his father said that she was married to a man of B. Khatma called Yazid b. Zayd. Blaming Islam and its followers she said:

I despise B. Malik and al-Nabit
and `Auf and B. al-Khazraj.
You obey a stranger who is none of yours,
One not of Murad or Madhhij. {1}
Do you expect good from him after the killing of your chiefs
Like a hungry man waiting for a cook's broth?
Is there no man of pride who would attack him by surprise
And cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him?
Hassan b. Thabit answered her:


Banu Wa'il and B. Waqif and Khatma
Are inferior to B. al-Khazrahj.
When she called for folly woe to her in her weeping,
For death is coming.
She stirred up a man of glorious origin,
Noble in his going out and in his coming in.
Before midnight he dyed her in her blood
And incurred no guilt thereby.
When the apostle heard what she had said he said, "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" `Umayr b. `Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, "You have helped God and His apostle, O `Umayr!" When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, "Two goats won't butt their heads about her", so `Umayr went back to his people.

Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [daughter of] Marwan. She had five sons, and when `Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, "I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting." That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was `Umayr b. `Adiy who was called the "Reader", and `Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.

{1} The note reads "Two tribes of Yamani origin."

[END OF IBN HISHAM QUOTE]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Ibn Sa`d's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, translated by S. Moinul Haq, volume 2, page 31.


SARIYYAH OF `UMAYR IBN `ADI
Then (occurred) the sariyyah of `Umayr ibn `Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against `Asma' Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the apostle of Allah. `Asma' was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him: "Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?" He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?" He [Muhammad] said: "No. Two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the apostle of Allah. The apostle of Allah called him `Umayr, "basir" (the seeing).

[END OF IBN SA`D QUOTE]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORROBORATING WRITINGS

In "23 Years; A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad", by Ali Dashti, (Mazda Press, 1994), Dashti also references the murders of Abu `Afak and `Asma' b. Marwan. He wrote (page 100):


Abu Afak, a man of great age (reputedly 120 years) was killed because he lampooned Mohammad. The deed was done by Salem b. 'Omayr at the behest of the Prophet, who had asked, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" The killing of such an old man moved a poetess, Asma b. Marwan, to compose disrespectful verses about the Prophet, and she too was assassinated.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCUSSION

Let's sum this up and put it in perspective.

Muhammad had Abu `Afak murdered. `Asma' b. Marwan spoke out against that evil deed. She encouraged her fellow tribesmen to take action against Muhammad. When Muhammad heard of what she had said, he had her killed also.

At first glance, this might seem justifiable. `Asma' was really calling for someone to kill Muhammad. It is understandable for Muhammad to be bothered by that.

But let's look deeper at the event and examine the context of `Asma's relationship to her tribe.


1)
First of all, her tribe was not under Muhammad's rule. Perhaps they had a treaty with Muhammad, perhaps not. At this time, the writer of this paper does not know if a treaty existed between Muhammad and the Banu Khatma. Either way, this woman was free to speak her mind. If a treaty existed, and she was out of line, Muhammad could have complained to her tribe's leaders, and they could have commanded her to be silent.

2)
What's more noteworthy about this event is that after she was murdered, Muhammad said "Two goats won't butt their head about her", meaning no one will care about her death. (Well except her children and her family).
Also note, that there were already people from her tribe who had become Muslims. Certainly these people were not going to listen to her.

The point is this: if no one really cared about her being murdered, then no one really cared about what she had to say. Her people also knew about Muhammad having Abu `Afak murdered, and they didn't care about that either. Even in that light, no one would take her serious enough to listen to her urgings to murder Muhammad, who was the leader of a powerful group of people. None of her people were willing to put their lives on the line for her words.

The bottom line is this: `Asma' b. Marwan was not a legitimate threat to Muhammad.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's explore a similar example. Throughout the Mideast, there are Muslims who call America the Great Satan. These Muslims have called for the violent destruction of America. Frequently great crowds have gathered to chant "death to America, death to Reagan, or Bush, or ???". Now, if America, or Reagan, or Bush, etc. were to use Muhammad's standards, they would engage in killing quite a few Arabs. But we know that the chanting of a crowd of hot-heads does not justify the use of violence against them. There are better ways of dealing with critics and criticisms. Frequently, in the passion of youth, people do and say things they don't intend to act out, or are not able to carry out.

So why then did Muhammad really request Asma's murder?

Try multiple choice:


a)
Muhammad believed that she constituted a legitimate threat to himself, so he ordered her murdered,

b)
Muhammad was bothered by her words, and wanted her silenced

c)
God told Muhammad to have this woman murdered
Obviously, the only real choice is b). She didn't scare him, she was not the leader of her tribe, and she had little or no influence. She was little more than a nuisance to him. If God told Muhammad to go and kill her, Muhammad would have claimed to have a revelation like "Oh Muslims, Allah says to go and kill `Asma' b. Marwan". And it would have happened immediately. If that was the case then Muslims would have attacked her in force in the daylight.

No, the only conclusion is that this lady troubled Muhammand and he wanted her silenced.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS


1)
What alarms me the most about Islam is its disposition to violence and use of violence as a standard of God's will.
`Umayr is a perfect example of this. Here is a Muslim man, a friend of Muhammad's, acting upon Muhammad's request and going into a woman's home under the cover of night. He comes upon the woman, sleeping in her bed with her child, and murders her by plunging a sword through her body.

Afterwards, Muhammad tells the man that he has "helped God and his apostle". If Allah were really threatened by this woman, I think He could have killed her Himself, don't you? Does God need men to sneak around in the night and murder sleeping women?


2)
Further, what kind of religion is Islam really? Soon after `Umayr murdered `Asma', he went to her family and mocked them! He was laughing in their faces that he had murdered their mother and that they were powerless to do anything about it! Here is the quote again:

She had five sons, and when `Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, "I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don't keep me waiting.

3)
I also have to criticize the non-Muslim Arabs in Muhammad's time. They did lack a sense of the value of human life. Here one of their own woman was murdered, and instead of being appalled, they began to convert to Islam because they "saw the power of Islam".

4)
Finally, similar to observation #1, look at the power of Islam. Here is the quote:

That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma. ... The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.
So then, the power of Islam is to go about and murder sleeping women in the night, and get away with it?

Does "might make right" ring true in Islam? Is it "he who has the biggest sword is from Allah?

The only people I know who respect that kind of power are criminals, Mafia type people who also go in the night and murder people while they sleep.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTIONS


1)
What kind of a man was Muhammad? Did he really need to ask his men to murder a mother of five, a woman who was no legitimate threat to him?

2)
Why couldn't Muhammad murder her himself? Why is it that every time Muhammad wanted someone killed, he always got someone else to do his killing?

3)
Look at this dark side of Islam. This is the Islam Muhammad practiced. When the founder of a religion has to have powerless women murdered in the night for opposing him, how can that religion be described?

4)
Where are "women's rights", or "human rights" now in Islam? If Muhammad denied freedom of speech to others, how does that reflect upon Islam and what we see occurring in the Islamic world today? Why is it that the more fundamentalist Muslim nations become, the more oppressive they are toward all basic human rights?

5)
Is this Muhammad a man that you could really trust?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION

We know that there are good and bad in all religions, but this case is different. This event reflects upon the man who started Islam: Islam is built upon Muhammad's words and deeds. We see here that Muhammad had a woman brutally murdered. She was killed because she spoke out against him, and became more of a nuisance, not a legitimate threat. Further, Muhammad had no legal right to kill her. He took the situation into his own hands and had her murdered. Muhammad felt that this murder was helping God; he felt no guilt, or sense of repentance.

Jesus condemned those who murdered unrepentedly ... "Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood" Revelation 22:15. Muhammad falls into that category. How then, can this man Muhammad be a real prophet of God?

[Richard the Lionheart]

About the poets: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Muhamm...mies/asma.html

This website is biased....obviously enough.

P.S. I'm still waiting for your quotes from the Quran. :wink: