Excuses, Excuses and more Excuses

The case of Asma bint Marwan

Quick jump index:
Basic Info on Asma Marwan
List of reasons for her death
Best Muslim explanation (17)
Analysis and conclusion
The problem with criticism
More resources on this topic
The offending Poetry
Nothing ever changes
People that attack Islam will often cite the tragic death of Asma bint Marwan (also called Usma bint Marwan, Al-Asmaa bintu Marwaan, Al-Asmara bantu Marwan, and Asma, daughter of Marwan) as an argument against that religion. As a general rule, Muslims prefer to not discuss anything about Islam that is difficult to explain - they prefer to ignore many facts about their religion. When they do have to explain certain objectionable things, they use a standard list of excuses (1. Out of context, 2. Bad translation, 3. That was then, it no longer applies, 4. Nobody really believes that, and so on...). Sometimes, these don't really apply and they have to have better and more creative reasons. This is a collection of "excuses" (or justifications) relating to the death of Asma bint Marwan that I have found on the Internet, from Islamic sites.

The basic facts. First of all, let us look at what Wikipedia says about this incident. The paragraphs below are from three entries found on that online encyclopedia.

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 [girl] 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 feared for their lives."
(From Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasul Allah" - Biography of the Prophet of Allah - the oldest and primary biography of Muhammad).

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

"Abu Afak, a man of great age (reputedly 120 years) was killed because he had 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." (From Ali Dashti's 23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad (3) page 100).

click for imageCourage? So what really happened? Is the story true? It certainly makes Islam's prophet look not just petty, but evil. How do Muslims explain this event found in their traditions? I decided to do some research. Here are the explanations I have come across on the Internet at Muslim sites, with the justification (or excuse), the text itself (in italics), my comment, a screen shot and a link to the source page at the original site. One Islamic site, the Academy of Islam, (see thumbnail) not only confirms the story, but sees courage in the act of killing a nursing mother in the middle of the night.

Update: I have added an extra section at the bottom of the page about a case that is in many ways similar to that of Asma bint Marwan. It is the modern story of a young man in Egypt that simply stated a few facts about current events that he witnessed, about what is written in Islamic scriptures and voiced his opinion. For this, like Asma, he must be silenced. Go here to read about this:

Back to top.

Now let's take a look at how Muslims view the death of Asma bint Marwan. What justifications or explanations do they give for this event?

1. Don't know, don't care

click for image Excuse: I don't know anything about this, and I don't care enough to want to find out.
Text: I have not heard of any of those stories before; they do not appear in any of the biographical accounts that I have read. I am not familiar with any of the works that they are cited in or their authors. Brother John, you need to ask a scholar about the soundness of the reports and their meaning. That is far beyond anything I am qualified to do.
Comment: At least the guy is honest, give him credit for that.
Source: http://www.muhajabah.com/niqabi/archives/2003/04/i_dont_know_wha.php

2. Its a miracle!

click for image Excuse: Praise Allah, its not a crime, but a glorious miracle. A blind man was able to kill her!
Text: A woman Asma Bint Marwan was also among such poets. Her satiric verses were against the Muslims, the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), the Holy Qur’an, Jibril and Allah. Those verses greatly irritated Muslims. The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was also quite discomforted by her poetry. He was an extremely tolerant and a patient person, therefore he did not take action against her....
...However, the ordinary Muslims could not hear such poetry directed against their Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and their religion. They were greatly hurt since they were witnessing these poets openly blaspheming and airing lampoonery against their Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and Allah. The Muslims could have tolerated such attacks against themselves but it was too trying to bear such insulting remarks against the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and Allah. One day, a blind Muslim (Umain bin Awf) entered the house of Asma Bint Marwan and stabbed her to death.
The next day the people were greatly surprised to know that she has been stabbed by Umair bin Awf as the task appeared impossible for a blind man. He was among her near relations and had lived there for years. He was well familiar with every nook and corner of her house, her habits and the place where she slept. The news quickly spread in Madinah. The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) heard the news in the Mosque. When that blind man came to the Mosque, the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) inquired, "Is it you who has killed her?"
He replied, "Yes! O Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) of Allah! I have killed her last night and I am not least ashamed of it".
The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was saddened as he hated bloodshed. He was also pained to know that anti-Islamic elements were taking undue advantage of the patience of the Muslims. They were instigating them to take measures against their will. The Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) was helpless to interfere in matters regarding Asma’s murder: as according to the pact of Madinah, each tribe was autonomous in its internal affairs. When the murderer and the murdered belonged to the same tribe, intrusion by another person was undesirable. The punishment could only be imposed by their tribe.

Comment: This is unbelievable. Instead of a murder, the writer only sees a great supernatural miracle. Not only does the does the original text not say that Muhammad was "sad" but this excuse doesn't mention the "who will rid me of this woman" statement. And how did Asma make the man kill her "against his will"?
Source: http://www.islamic-paths.org/home/english/Muhammad/Book/Biography/Chapter_25.htm.

3. The biographer is a Christian, or Jew!

click for image Excuse: The guy who wrote the account was a Jew or Christian, and so the account is untrue.
Text: Similarily, some guy name Ibn Hisham (probably an arab Christian or jew) writes a book and you believe him!
But i can't blame you for doing so. You have no knowledge. In Islam the only two sources of religion and life of the prophet (may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him) are the quran and hadith.
There is a thread on the Islam forum about "hadith", which are authentic narrations of the Prophet's life.
The only ones considered authentic are: Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Tirmidhi, Sahih Muslim, Sahih Abu Dawud Sahih Ibn Majah and Sahih Nas'eeh. Therefore bring ou proofs from the the "Sahih". Hope this clears up many misconceptions about Islam.

Source: http://www.whyislam.org/Forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1956
Here is another reference to Asma from the same site:
The story of Asma bint Marwan has been 'used' by Christian missionaries to discredit the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, due to their lack of knowledge of the strict rules of transmission of the hadith of the Prophet. I am not sure where you got your story from and I dont want to assume but more than likely judging your post from a unreliable source. I am posting a link that inshaAllah (God-Willing) will clear up any misunderstanding re this story and in particular the character of the Prophet Muhammad SAAW.
Comment: Yes, of course he was! Ibn Ishaq, the man that wrote the oldest and primary biography of Muhammad, was a Jew or Christian - or maybe both - and yet none of the tens of thousands of other Muslims sites on the Internet know or mention this. Strange! Oh yes, Ibn Ishaq is "unreliable," even if his work is the primary biography of Muhammad used by all Muslims everywhere and by all subsequent writers. Humm, I bet Ishaq was a Jew! He is far too clever to have been a Christian.
Source: http://www.whyislam.org/Forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2547

4. Asma was an Imperialist pig!

click for image Excuse: She was an oppressor, writing oppressive poetry. She deserved what she got!
Text: The trouble here is that in the face of repeated proofs that these people are willing oppocupiers [sic], you still consider them innocent when they purposely oppress Muslims. Please refute my posts on the other forum before you use this cheap hyperbole. Remember, this woman, Asma wrote poetry and by her other actions tried to oppress Muslims with a view to killing them, just like how occupiers do by occupying someone else's land.
Comment: Yes, of course she was, of course she did! Let me see now... Mohammad had conquered her city, yet she was an occupier and she oppressed Muslims. She must have been a very busy women, taking care of 5 children and oppressing Muslims at the same time. It appears that the current Israeli/Palestine problem is also her fault!
Source: http://www.ummah.net/forum/showthread.php?p=92735

5. Asma was a war criminal!

click for image click for image Excuse: Her poetry caused incitement and distress and therefore she was a war criminal - maybe a Buddhist war criminal!
Text: And of course, here is where we beg to differ. The reason why Asma' bint Marwan was treated as such was nothing to do with the freedom to criticise or criticism of Islam, but rather, it was her incitement and her behaviour in sowing distress and resentment amongst Muslims which leads to her killing. Islam's history is replete with people speaking their mind and even openly disagree with the Prophet (P), to which he(P) would listen their views and calmly answers them if their views are in contrast to what Islam teaches.
The Qur'an also teaches: "It is by the mercy of God that thou hast been gentle with them. Hadst thou been harsh and severe-hearted, they would have scattered away from thee. Therefore, forgive them and ask God's pardon for them, and consult them in all affairs." (Surah 3:159)
So much for the vain, cruel and vindictive tyrant. Hence it is clear that there is no reason for us to come to the pre-conceived conclusions she has held against the Prophet(P). But she does not stop there in sowing hatred for the Prophet...

(Here the post goes on to suggest that Buddha might have been a better person than Muhammad. It continues...)
From this (rhetorical) question, she expects Muslims to conclude or at least insinuate that it is the Buddha who is the one who should be rightfully considered as the "decent human being" or a "holy man sent by God" for all mankind. As we have shown, her understanding is totally misplaced, and thus her polemic is utterly and irrevocably refuted.
Good claim, but a really bad understanding of the polical situation at the time. Since Asma' bint Marwan was a war criminal, she would not bow down to the judgement of the Prophet (P) and yet she would still remain under the protection of her tribe and free to do her mischief. As we had written previously in our defense of the Ka'ab bin Al-Ashraf issue

Comment: I have read Asma's verses and she is much more critical of her own tribe than of Mohammad. So, Asma is a cruel and vindictive tyrant and gentle, loving Muhammad has her killed for petty politics. Did I get that right?
Source: http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org/viewtopic.php?t=1758

6. It was treason - and a conspiracy!

click for image Excuse: She was part of a conspiracy to assassinate the prophet. Paul Harvey here has discovered that Asma was part of a conspiracy to murder Mohammed. They caught one of the traitors and after a gentle interrogation asking questions and saying "please" they got the names of Asma and three others, or only two. So Mohammed had Asma assassinated for trying to assassinate him.
Text: Main Characters:
--'Asma bint Marwan: the woman, a FREE WOMAN from a DISTINGUISHED family, Marwan ibn Zayd ibn Umayyah (Marwan being the progenator of the 'UMMAYAD dynasty), a cousin of the future and third Caliph of the Muslim Ummah. She lived in MAKKAH.
--'Umayr ibn 'Awf: the Assassinator, not the HUSBAND, OWNER/MASTER, or FATHER to ANY of 'Asma's children. He lived in MADINA (400 miles to the North, about 3 days travel)
-- Yazid al Khatmi: the name of 'Asma bint Marwan's HUSBAND, the father of ALL her children, had no role in her assassination and he too lived in MAKKAH.
First, 'Asma wasn't married to her assassinator, 'Umayr ibn 'Awf, nor was 'Asma "pregnant". Nor was her assassination simply due her "abusing or disparaging" the character of the Prophet(SAWS). Now for the REST OF THE STORY:
The incident that 'Ali Sina is trying to explain took place shortly after the battle of Badr (around 2 al Hijra). A man by the name of 'Umayr ibn Wahb al Jumahi (from Makkah) was intercepted by the Muslims as he was on his way to "ASSASSINATE" the Prophet(SAWS)(in MADINA).
After interrogation, he revealed that he was hired by FOUR people, three of which he knew. He gave the names of Abu Afak bin 'Awf, Abdallah ibn Ubayy ibn Saluul and 'Asma bint Marwan -- plus he implicated a fourth unknown person, who acted as the "money man". For these actions, Abdallah ibn Ubayy ibn Saluul, 'Asma bint Marwan and Abu 'Afak were assassinated, not merely for slanderous verbal attacks on the Prophet(SAWS), as the enemies of Islam pretend, but for a capital offense against the State. The fact that the persons designated to carry out the task of assassinating Abu Afak, 'Abdallah ibn Ubayy and 'Asma were, in fact related to them (in the case of 'Asma, a distant COUSIN, ‘Umayr ibn ‘Awf -- and not her "owner"); and the nature of the reason of death, absolves the payment of "blood money". To further illustrate this: “After returning from the funeral the family of ‘Asma asked ‘Umayr if he had anything to do with her assassination, he replied, “Indeed so!” This so affected the husband of ‘Asma, that his tribe, Banu Khutmah (hence, the name "Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi), accepted Islam, citing the Muslim’s emphasis on justice and integrity. [Source: Haykal, Muhammad. The Life of Muhammad. 1976 North American Trust Publications. Page 243.]

Comment: Say what you will about this hypothesis, but it has imagination. It also doesn't let the known facts interfere with a good theory. Note that this event is described as a case of "justice and integrity." Strange justice; grotesque integrity. Note also the reference to Ali Sina. This brave man that has the best site on the Internet for learning about Islam: www.faithfreedom.org. I highly recommend it, especially the debates (link!) and all the supporting links to Islamic sites.
Source: http://www.viaccess.net/local/messages/56/4743.html?1053875721

7. Killing Asma made Mohammad respected

click for image Excuse: This murder showed the power of Islam and made Mohammad more respected.
Text: Muhammad was sorely tried by several poets. One was Asma bint Marwan. When her latest verses were recited to the Prophet, he cried out, "Will no one rid me ofthis daughter of Marwan?" Umayr ibn Ali, a clansman of hers volunteered. That night she was sleeping, her youngest child still at her breast, when her clansman thrust his sword through her. On that day new converts were won as they could see the power of Islam.
. . . A month later an almost identical situation occurred. This time it was the poet Abu Afak, reputedly over a hundred years old, who raised the Prophet's ire. Muhammad exclaimed: "Who will avenge me on this scoundrel?" and Salim ibn Umayr was the helper of God. The victory at Badr had increased the Prophet's standing: the Bedoums, in particular, showed him much more respect.

Comment: Yes, of course, murdering a woman while she is breast-feeding a child is the most noble way to get respect! This is a sick justification for a disgusting event. Shame!
Source: http://numberonestars.com/koran/mohammad2.htm

8. Its a forgery because Allah says not to kill women.

click for image Excuse: Never happened since Mohammad forbade the killing of women.
Text: Interdiction against Killing Women: Let us now take the cases individually. The first case cited by Mr. Cash is that of Asma' of the tribe of Aus. She is said to have been a poetess who wrote some verses stating that the Prophet was an upstart who had slain many of their chiefs, referring to the battle of Badr. It is stated that she was brutally murdered for this abuse by a Muslim named `Umair, and that the Prophet not only approved of this murder but also praised `Umair for the deed. The authorities quoted are Waqidi, Ibn Hisham and Ibn Sa'd. That this is not a reliable record is shown not only by what has been stated above - that the Holy Qur'an never allowed the murder of an abuser - but also by clear directions repeatedly given by the Holy Prophet that no woman was to be killed even though she took part in actual war with the Muslims. No less an authority than Bukhari has a chapter on the "Murder of Women during War" (Kitab aI-Jihad) in which the following report from Ibn `Umar is recorded: "A woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by the Holy Prophet, so the Holy Prophet forbade the killing of women and children." If the Holy Prophet forbade the killing of women even when they were actually accompanying the enemy forces, how could he approve or applaud the killing of a woman for simply abusing or composing some annoying verses? ...This report is undoubtedly a forgery. The fact is thus established beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Holy Prophet gave a clear interdiction against the murder of women even in wars. In this connection, a saying of the Holy Prophet has been quoted from the most reliable traditionist of Islam, the Imam Bukhari.
Comment: Of course there is the fact that the ahadith are full of references to Islam's prophet ordering or suggesting the death of dozens of people, including women. There are many instances of Mohammed ordering the death of women (see list below), murdering adversaries and killing captives, even cutting down trees, although these are forbidden in his own writings. Perhaps this person has not noted that there are a lot of exceptions and special rules in the Quran, conveniently ordained by Allah and proclaimed by Mohammad, that benefit only Mohammad. What is a murder or two between such good friends as Allah and Mohammad?
Source: http://ahmadiyya.ws/text/books/mali/muhammadprophet/falseallegationsatrocitiesmuhammad.shtml

9. Poetry is Pus!

click for image Excuse: The stories are not reliable, and poetry sucks! Asma had to die because it was "bad" poetry.
Text: ... The stories of the killing of Abu Afak and Asma are not reliable as proven here: http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/forgeries_about_killing.htm.
Poetry in its essence is not what is forbidden in Islam. It is poetry that that does nothing but promotes and instigates indecency, illegal lusts and desires, and inspires one towards transgression of the boundaries of Islam. (Just like how Kab ibn Ashraf did, read this article http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Muhammad/kaab.htm) http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Muhammad/kaab.htm.
It is indeed true that the Messenger of Allah (saws) did not like poets and poetry, which sensationalized and encouraged the pursuit of the world and its alluring lusts. But he encouraged those poets whose poetry praised Allah, and contained words of wisdom which related to the guidance to Allah (Sahih Muslim, Book 028, Hadith Number 5609). Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: It is better for a man's belly to be stuffed with pus which corrodes it than to stuff one's mind with frivolous poetry.

Comment: I have an idea what "lust" and "desire" are and I think Mohammud did, too! Could somebody please define not only what is a "transgression" but what are the "boundaries of Islam," and why is being "inspired" a crime. So just thinking in Islam is a possible criminal act.
Source: http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/did_prophet_muhammad_hate_poets.htm

10. Bad roads!

click for image Excuse: Asma insulted Muslims; Orientalists say one thing and Muslims say another. If Mohammad could have visited everywhere they would have loved him. Actually, I am not sure what this post says.
Text: Islam’s enemies used every means of communication against Islam. For the Arabs, poets were historians, genealogists, satirists, moralists and founts of wisdom.24 The poet was the ‘kindler of battle’25 and ‘the journalist of the time’.26 The Ansar (the Muslims of Medina) were accused of dishonoring themselves by submitting to an outsider. Asma hint Marwan of Umayyah b. Zayd composed verses taunting and insulting Medinite Muslims.
... It is sad to note that while an orientalist puts the Holy Prophet’ssa success down to ‘the sway of the religious ideas of Islam’, a leading Muslim of Maulana Maududi’s stature insists that it was through the sway of the sword after the battle of Hunayn that teeming thousands of Arabs accepted Islam. If these were the people whose souls were cleansed with the blade of the sword, then these were also the people who were the first to revolt after the Prophet’s death. That answer to the Maulana’s argument, however, does not explain the revolt.
In the past travel was difficult. There were no roads and therefore one’s safety could not be guaranteed. It was, therefore, impossible for every Arab to come to the Prophetsa learn about Islam at first hand, nor for the Prophetsa to visit every region of the peninsula. The Arab custom was that either a tribal delegation would be sent to the Prophetsa or a Muslim delegation would be sent to the tribes to deliver the message of Islam. There were discussions and debates, and after every question had been asked the tribe accepted whatever the members of the delegation or the elders of the tribe decided. So there was a large number of converts who had no opportunity of benefiting directly from the Prophet’ssa teaching; they had never even seen him. They did not even have the chance to spend time with the Prophet’ssa Companions.

Comment: I really can't figure this one out, so I'm putting this down as "bad roads". If the roads were better everybody could have traveled and listened to Mohammad and Asma wouldn't have to have been killed to prevent her verses from causing trouble among the faithful, or unfaithful, or whatever...
Source: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/mna/chapter_3.html.

11. Allah was weak

Excuse: I found this one on an Islamic forum and saved the text to my hard drive and then lost it!. Basically the argument was that Asma had to die because it was a very critical moment for Islam, and Mohammed had to take strong measures because the success and spreading of Allah's message depended upon his victories. Sooner or later I will come across the post and add it to this page.
Comment: All powerful Allah had to kill a woman because if she had written one or two more verses, Islam and Muhammud would have been defeated. It was a very close thing!

12. Excuses - we don't need no excuses

click for image Excuse: This is easy. If you insult Islam's prophet, you die.
Text: At the time of Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) there were individuals who disrespected and insulted the Prophet (pbuh) upon whom the Islamic judgement was executed. Such people were not tolerated in the past and throughout the history of Islam were dealt with according to the Shariah.
Ka'ab ibn Ashraf was assassinated by Muhammad ibn Maslamah for harming Rasoolallah (pbuh) by his words, Abu Raafi' was killed by Abu Ateeq for swearing at Rasoolallah (pbuh) , Khalid bin Sufyaan was killed by Abdullah bin Anees who cut off his head for harming Rasoolallah (pbuh) by his insults, Al-Asmaa bintu Marwaan was killed by Umayr bin Adi' al-Khatmi, a blind man, for writing poetry against Rasoolallah (pbuh) , Al-Aswad al-Ansi was killed by Fairuz al-Daylami and his family for insulting Rasoolallah (pbuh) and claiming to be a Prophet himself. This is the judgement of Islam upon those who dishonour and insult Rasoolallah (pbuh).
Shortly after these incidents the people began to realise that insulting the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) was not something to be taken lightly and that by doing so would mean that you would be killed for it, a concept that many have seem to forgotten today.
The dishonouring and insulting of Rasoolallah (pbuh) is something that the Muslims cannot and will not tolerate and the punishment in Islam for the one who does so is death. The kuffar are attacking Rasoolallah (pbuh) and are allowed to get away with it...
"...I will instill terror into the hearts of unbelievers. Then strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." Holy Quran 8:12

Comment: I like this one. No excuses, no "ifs" "buts" or "howevers" and no silly explanations. No matter what the traditions and histories say about any acts committed by Mohammed, you cannot criticize him or them. In fact, it is best not to even think about these things.
Source: http://www.afghan-web.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi/YaBB.cgi?board=news;action=display;num=1140644966

13. The Christians made these stories up!

click for image Excuse: It's all fake. The story of Asma was planted by a Christian to embarrass Muslims.
Text: The story of asma bint marwan is a fake story which a christian scholar made up to demonize mohammed (PBUH), some people could truly be low. ...These people are blinded by prejudices. They don't see the religion they see the people and what their eyes want to see. They want a religion that goes according to their desires. Their knowledge is so shallow and they just pick up things and leave things out.
Comment: This is a variation of Excuse 3, except it was planted by some Christian rascal. Wow, this joker not only made up the story, but tricked Ibn Ishaq into adding it to his biography.
Often I see Muslims complaining that the story of Asma is only found on Christian websites, so it must not be true. Actually they are right, for it is most often found on non-Muslim pages rather than on Islamic websites. The fact that it is usually mentioned on Christian sites has a very obvious explanation. It is, however, also found on Islamic sites and it does come from early Islamic historical sources. The only question is if the sources and facts are credible.
Source: http://www.oman3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1213

14. It was a copyright dispute!

click for image Excuse: She was killed because she said Mohammed stole her verses (or her father's) and killing is good because it prevents killing!
Text: "Ten Myths about Islam" Answered By Muhammad Mushtaq Tariq
These murders should be understood in the light of following points:
1.The poetess was a lying lady. She had no proof that Muhummad stole Quran from poetry of her father. You also gave no any such proof. If Muhummad allowed her propaganda, then it could create many more liers and every poet could start claiming the same. It was decree of God to finish lie before it took its roots.
2.The old man was enemy of Islam. He wanted to setup a very bad example of making fun of worship of the true and only God. If he was allowed his actions, it could encourage many other people and they could be murdered by Muslims. So it was decision of God to kill him to save lives of others and to setup an example for others.

Comment: I don't know where he got this, but it is original. Notice the explanation for the death of Abu Afak. Notice the great idea: kill to save lives. In a way I guess terror works. If you kill a few people it makes others think twice about speaking out.
Source: http://www.geocities.com/mushtaqtariq70/2004/ch5_ten_myths.htm

15. Asma was a Combatant and Dangerous Revolutionary

Excuse:Asma was an enemy combatant, inciting violence against the Muslims
Text:
Before the victory of Badr the Muslims used to fear the Madinese non-Muslims, for they were still too weak to return any aggression inflicted upon them. But when they returned victorious from Badr, Salim ibn Umayr took upon himself the job of getting rid of Abu Afk, a tribesman of Banu Amr ibn Awf. The latter was a poet who composed verses disparaging Muhammad and the Muslims and inciting his own tribe to rise against them. Even after Badr, Abu Afk still composed and disseminated abusive verse. Salim attacked Abu Afk in his sleep in his own yard and killed him. Likewise, Asma, daughter of Marwan, of the tribe of Banu Umayyah ibn Zayd, used to insult Islam and the Prophet by encouraging bad feeling against the Muslims. The Battle of Badr did not make her reconsider. One day, ?Umayr ibn ?Awf attacked her during the night while she was surrounded by her children, one of whom she was nursing. ?Umayr was weak of sight and had to grope for her. After removing the child from his victim, he killed her; he then proceeded to the Prophet and informed him of what he had done. When her relatives returned from the funeral, they asked him whether he had killed her. "Indeed so," said ?Umayr, "You may fight me if you wish. By Him Who dominates my soul, if you should deny that she composed her abusive poetry, I would fight you until either you or I fall." It was this courage of ?Umayr that caused the Banu Khutmah, the tribe of ?Asma's husband, to turn to Islam. Having converted to Islam but fearing persecution at the hand of their fellow tribesmen, some of them had hidden their conversion. Henceforth, they no longer did so. (Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, tran. Isma'il Raji al-Faruqi [American Trust Publications, USA 1976; Malaysian edition by Islamic Book Trust], p. 243; source)

So as you can see the sources make it very clear that these 2 not only mocked the prophet and insulted him, they also INSTGATED their people to attack and harm the Muslims! Hence these people were not mere poets writing mocking poems, they were inciting violence and hatred against the Muslims! They were inciting their people to rise up to fight and kill the Muslim population, and this made them direct enemy combatants because they were inciting violence against the Muslims. Therefore as we can see, there is nothing wrong in what was done against them, they brought it on themselves, you don't have to hold a sword to be an enemy or an enemy combatant, inciting violence and instigating violence is just as bad and is the exact same thing. Even in today's world men who preach ?hate' and incite violence will be arrested and imprisoned.
Comment: This is another member of the "criticize Mohammad and die" school of thought. The writer says that killing the nursing mother for the horrible crime of "encouraging bad feeling" was ok, or in his own words: "there is nothing wrong in what was done against them, they brought it on themselves, you don't have to hold a sword to be an enemy or an enemy combatant." Notice that there is no argument that the story is false. Notice also that Asma's poety does not directly attack Muslims in general or even Mohammed in particular, but men of her tribe, calling them cowards. Notice also the 'freedom of speech' issue: if a person is critical of Islam, or Muslims, or Mohammaed, they must be silenced. Nothing has changed in 1300 years. Another thing, this excuse says Asma wanted her people to "rise up to fight and kill the Muslim population" as if the Muslims were just fellow people in town. The Muslim had just conquered her village. They were an army of occupation, ie, conquerers. Oh yes, so, Israeli occupation, bad, Mohammad occupying a village, good.
Source:http://muslim-responses.com/Abu_Afak_and_Asma/Abu_Afak_and_Asma_ http://muslim-responses.com/Abu_Afak_and_Asma/Abu_Afak_and_Asma_

16. Asma was an intolerant bigot who supressed religious freedom

click for image Excuse: She was killed so that people could have religious freedom (to choose Islam, of course) and live peacefully forever more.
Text: Reading this, any person with a little intelligence can figure out what was going on within B. Khatma: non-Muslims could speak against Islam and even call for the murder of Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w) but those who had converted to Islam were suppressed and had to conceal their religion. And many who wanted to convert to Islam couldn't because they were afraid. It also seems that Asma was a powerful lady who exerted great political influence on her people. As soon as she was killed, people of her tribe accepted Islam because, according to Ibn Ishaq, "they saw the power of Islam." They realized that the barrier had been removed and they were free to choose Islam as their religion without being subjugated to the authority of those who ridiculed Islam. There were only three people in her tribes who were Muslims. If the Muslims wanted to force them into Islam, they could have done so much earlier. That's what all the historical accounts say that while she lived, people were afraid to profess their religion openly.
Comment: Yes, everything about Asma just screams 'tyrant'. She was a real Jezebel, obviously. So having her killed made people free to choose Islam. I don't see how they claim she had "political influence" and "authority" to suppress Islam. The idea here is, I guess, kill for religious freedom - and you know how Muslims love the concept of 'religious freedom'.
Source: http://www.groupsrv.com/religion/about80198.html



Back to top.

17. The chain of narration or 'Isnad' is invalid.

click for image Excuse: It is fabricated because it has a bad 'chain of narration' and one author is known to have fabricated accounts. (Note: this is the famous "Silas Kill" explanation found on dozens of Islamic websites.)
Text: The Killing of ‘Asma’ - True Story? or Forgery?
     The charge is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had ordered the killing of 'Asma' when she insulted him with her poetry, and the implications are that he (peace be upon him) "stiffles" criticism by murdering his opponents. As it is usually the case where the history of Islam and the character of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is concerned, it is left to the Muslims to throw some light on authenticity of the story in which this incident is reported by the sources and educate the missionaries in matters which they have no clue about.
     The story of the killing of 'Asma' bint Marwan is mentioned by Ibn Sa'd in "Kitab At-Tabaqat Al-Kabir"[1] and by the author of "Kinz-ul-'Ummal" under number 44131 who attributes it to Ibn Sa'd, Ibn 'Adiyy and Ibn 'Asaker. What is interesting is that Ibn 'Adiyy mentions it in his book "Al-Kamel" on the authority of Ja'far Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn As-Sabah on authority of Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim Ash-Shami on authority of Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj Al-Lakhmi on authority of Mujalid on authority of Ash-Shu'abi on authority of Ibn 'Abbas, and added that this isnad (chain of reporters) is not narrated on authority of Mujalid but by Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj and they all (other reporters in the chain) accuse Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj of forging it.[2]
     It is also reported by Ibn al-Gawzi in "Al-'Ilal"[3] and is listed among other flawed reports. So according to its isnad, the report is forged - because one of its reporters is accused of fabricating hadith. Hence, such a story is better put in trash can.

from http://www.geocities.com/noorullahwebsite/silas-kill.html

Conclusion...

click for image      This is by far the 'best' explanation for the accusations against Mohammed for the murder of Asma bint Marwan - and one of the most common. It is found in dozens of Islamic sites and this text in all is basically identical. This is the Silas_Kill" explanation, named after the vile Christian missionary (I am just repeating the words of Muslims that post this explanation).
Here are a few sites on which this justification (or response) can be found, with minor variations: http://www.geocities.com/noorullahwebsite/silas-kill.html
http://www.answering-christianity.com/abu-afak_rebuttal.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.com/karim/forgeries_about_killing.htm
http://gusdur-voice.blogspot.com/2007/01/true-stories-or-forgeries-killing-of.html
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/the-killing-of-abu-afak-and-asma-bint-marwan/
http://ebrahimsaifuddin.multiply.com/journal/item/11

Back to top.

The explanation (Number 17 above) sounds good. The problem is that the explanation given is confused: a. there is no isnad, there is but it is b. unreliable or c. not authenticated or even d. that is a forgery. Make up your mind, please!
     The following points must be considered:
1. First, it is from Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasul Allah" - the oldest and basic biography of the Prophet of Islam. Almost all original source material relating to the life of Mohammad comes from this source. It is mentioned by Ibn Sa'd in ‘Kitab At-Tabaqat Al Kabir Volume 1, pages 27 and 28 and by Ibn 'Adiyy in Al-Kamel, Volume 6 page 145.
2. In any historical work, there are certain rules that are used to judge the source. Three of them are relevant here: a. an earlier work has precedence over a later one, b. a work is judged according to its entire content, c. a work is judged against other sources, preferably other historical records and archeological findings.
3. The problem (in this case) is that all Muslims accept and respect Ibn Ishaq and his writings. They are cited everywhere in Islamic scholarship and his stories of the life of Mohammad are told everyday millions of times on the planet. If one throws out parts of "Sirat Rasul Allah" you must throw out 9o% of what is known about Mohammud. You must be consistent.
4. Notice that there is another ancient source (Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir). Muhammad ibn Sa'd is the author of the earliest extant collection of biographies of distinguished Muslims. His work, Kitab al-tabaqat al-kabir, contains more than 4,000 individual entries, with 600 devoted to women - including Asma.
5. Bad chain of narration? Actually there is more than one chain, very long ones, and multiple sources. Notice how many names of "authorities" are given as referring to the tragic event even in the paragraphs above arguing that the narrative lacks authority. So there is a chain, but the writer doesn't like it so he accuses Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj of forging it. Actually, he doesn't accuse Ibn Al-Hajjaj of forging this particular story, but of forging other hadiths, and therefore concludes that the story of the death of Asma to be unreliable because the source is flawed (because other reports, not that of Asma's death, were fabricated). So what he is saying is not that it doesn't have an Isnad (chain of narration), but that it is an invalid one. No, it is not invalid (unsubstantiated) but a forgery (a made-up lie!) because one of the reporters is known to have lied about another story. Whatever!
6. The writer accuses a certain Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj of forging this hadith. Oh yes, so who was this dispicable, vile, loathsome ibn al-Hajjaj that did this dastardly, horrible thing? Here is a brief biography from Encyclopædia Britannica: born c. 817, Nishapur, Iran - died 875, Nasrabad. In full, Abu Al-husayn Muslim Ibn Al-hajjaj Al-qushayri - scholar who was one of the chief authorities on the Hadith, accounts of the sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad. Muslim traveled widely; his great work, the Sahih (“The Genuine”), is said to have been compiled from about 300,000 traditions, which he collected in Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. The Sahih has been unanimously acclaimed as authoritative and is one of the six… and so on. Here is another report on this guy from Answers.com: Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Muslim Author of the second most widely recognized collection of Hadith in Sunni Islam, "Sahih Muslim", "Muslims authentic (collection)". He is largely known as simply "Al-Muslim." His book is considered among the most authentic collections of hadith, second only to al-Bukhari's work (a minority of scholars consider Muslim's work more authentic). The introduction of his book is a methodology on hadith, and how to differentiate between authentic and non-authentic narrations.
     I must admit that when I first read this explanation I didn't realize the writer was accusing Muslim (the Muslim) of being a big fat liar - I though he was referring to some minor, unimportant historian. It almost makes me think that the writer used the little known name "Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjajman" instead of the well-known and respected "Al-Muslim" name to fool people. Or maybe I am just cynical. I also imagine that very few of the Muslims (plural, people of the Islamic faith) that have posted this 'explanation' as to the case of Asmaa bint Marwan realize that they are defaming Muslim (singular, a particular person), a man they constantly quote. Well, kiss all the hadiths goodbye.
7. So Al-Muslim, the man considered either the second or first most authoritative expert on hadiths, is accused not just of bad work, but of forging a story. What about the thousands of other hadiths he collected? Are they also invented? fake? lies? Oh yes, this is the guy that wrote the rule book for authenticating hadiths. See the Note about the hadiths below. Also, the Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir (by the well-known scholar Ibn Sa'd) is widely available in numerous translations and is considered a highly regarded and primary biography of Islam's prophet. It accepts the story of Asma's death as reliable. One last small detail: The story of Ama bint Marwan in not in Al-Muslim's writings. They guy that these people accuse of fabricating the story didn't write about it (Go to the MSA/USC online collection of hadith and check for yourself). Is that a problem? Well, maybe a small one. Bummer!
8. Note that the writer quotes Bukhari in his original argument, saying that M. could not have killed Asma because in Bukhari's hadith it states that it is forbidden to kill women. So I take it that this means that the writer considers Bukhari to be a reliable, reputable source. Great! Note that Bukhari also says that Mohammed and his men make unprovoked, surprise attacked on villages, killing men and enslaving the women. Note that when asked about sexually assaulting the women (something about coitus interruptus), the prophet says "Don't worry, just screw them." Here is the link, note the source and read it yourself: Click for link to Islamic source. Note that Bukhari also tells us that Mohammud committed brutal, barbaric torture. Of course, unless cropping off legs and hands, putting hot nails in eyes and then letting people then die of thirst is not really torture. Click for link to Islamic source (read verse 261). Actually the books of Bukhari are full of stories of hate and violence against non-Muslims, who are portrayed as vile and treacherous. Also, look up the word 'ghazawat' in Bukhari's accounts. For a so-called man of peace, or as he is known to Muslims - a Mercy for all Mankind - Mohammed and his men sure did a lot of ghazawating, bringing pain, suffering and sorrow to thousands, and maybe tens of thousands.
So which is it? Would the writer care to explain how he uses a source to deny that Mohammed did one specific evil when that same source affirms that Islam's prophet murdered, plundered, enslaved and raped on other occasions? Just asking.
9. The numerous other accounts of murder and mayhem by Muhammud must be taken into consideration. If it were only a single case in one source, then the "fabricated" explanation would be worthy of consideration. The problem is that there are dozens of cases of murder, torture, slavery, rape and other horrible deeds done by Mohammad himself or upon his command. These are found in many different sources (including the respected works of Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Kathir, and al-Tabari) and are far too mumerous to dismiss.
10. The words "Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?" follow a pattern of other murders found in many Islamic traditions (For example: "Who would kill that scoundrel?" "Who is ready to kill Ka’b bin Ashraf?" etc). According to the hadiths, on several other occasions Mohammed would say something like "who will rid me of so and so?" and then some follower would take the not-so-subtle hint and so and so would die. I guess this method is what is called "modus operandi".
11. Here is a partial list of people killed on the orders of Mohammad, compiled from a wide range of sources, including the earliest biographies and the strongest and most reliable hadiths: Abd Abbah Ibn Hilal Ibn Khatal al-Adrami, Abd Allah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh, Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul al-Aufi, Abu Afak (*), Al-Huwayrith Ibn Nuqaydh, Al-Nadr bin al-Harith (*), Al-Yusayr b. Rizam and Khalid b. Sufyan, Amr b. Jihash, Asma Bint Marwan (*), Fartana, Habbar Ibn al-Aswad, Hind Bint Utbah, Ibn Sunayna (*), Ikrimah Ibn Abi Jahl, Ka`b bin al-Ashraf (*), Kinana al-Rabi (Mohammud built a fire on his chest), Miqyas Ibn Sababah al-Laythi, Qaribah, Sallam Ibn Abu'l-Huqayq (Abu Rafi), Sarah the mawlat of Amr Ibn Hashim, Singing girl for Abdullah bin Katal(*), Umaiya bin Khalaf Abi Safwan, Unnamed One-eyed Bedouin (*), Uqba bin Abi Mu`ayt / Uqba bin Abu Muayt (*). These do not even include several other people without names or even a specific description - or the slaughter of prisoners from his raids on caravans and villages or the mass executions after his victories in wars. The (*) indicates a poet or singer, which leads us to conclude that Mohammad was not exactly a great fan of the arts (not to mention jokes about "Mohammad's Dead Poets Society").
12. These references are too numerous to dismiss and they are in line with the earliest historical records from secular (Byzantine) sources, as well as early Jewish and Christian sources. In fact, these non-Muslim sources must be considered because they say many of the same things about the terrible deeds of Mohammad that are found in Islamic sources (because, for the most part, they simply use Muslim sources).
13. Even in the most respected hadiths (like those of Bulkari, for example) we find stories of rape, torture and even wife-beating by Mohammad. We also find the prophet of Islam doing many of the things that are supposedly forbidden under Islam: killing women, torture, cutting down trees, killing captives, etc.. Remember, these things were written by the friends and followers of Mohammad, not his enemies. To simply consider the death of Asma bint Marwan as a "fake" because a sira or isnad does not meet certain unique criteria applied only to this case, does not do justice to the victims of so many similar events recorded elsewhere, or to the many murders done today in the name of Islam and its dear prophet. There is another thing that I would like to look into, someday. It appears that the only hadiths that Muslims are beginning to reject are those critical of their dear prophet, and this is a fairly recent phenomena. They are never critical of the isnad of those verses they like. These stories have been there for a thousand years, but its has been only recently that Muslims such as this writer and others have decided that they were falsified.
14. Muslims often will note that the story of Asma Marwan is found mostly on anti-Muslim websites. True. But then again, anything in the Quran and hadiths that is unfavorable to the Quran and hadiths is automatically excluded from Muslim sites (this is either denial or dishonesty - you figure it out). Well, it wasn't exactly Mohammad's greatest moment. Be aware that when Abu Muhammad Abd al-Malik Ibn Hisham (d. 834) edited the biography written by Ibn Ishaq, he stated "I am omitting things which Ishaq recorded in this book. I have omitted things which are disgraceful to discuss and matters which would distress certain people." (Ishaq, 691). All modern day biographies (like that of Karen Armstrong, for example) are even more abridged and "cleaned up" (or censured).
15. Almost all modern biographies of Islam's prophet also omit the story of Asma, not because of its lack of substance, but because of the nature of the event. None of the Muslim books I have seen about Mohammad include any of the hundreds of facts that show Mohammad in a bad light, even thought they are found in page after page in so many of the early writers. For example, Karen Armstrong's popular biography omits the rape of the women at Banu Mustaliq and describes the murder of Mohammad's enemies after the capture of Mecca in these terms: "He blacklisted several people." To me this demonstrates an appalling lack of intellectual honesty and moral integrity - but such is Islam, and such is the nature of political correctness in Western societies. (Yes, I know Armstrong is not a Muslim, but since her chair and program at the University is endowed by the Saudis).


click for image click for image click for image This distortion of facts to soften the harsh reality of Islam is common. Here are pages about what happened when Muhammad conquered Mecca, taken from a book by Karen Armstrong and from Tabari (one of the original Islamic sources). These pages describe the same event, believe it or not. When Islam's prophet entered the city, Tabari says the prophet ordered the death of his critics and details the murders. However, Ms. Armstrong describes the event saying that Mohammad's critics were merely "blacklisted" - which I assume means that they could not get writing jobs in Hollywood. In her 1992 book, Muhammad, a biography of the prophet (Harper Collins, NY), she forgot to include the story of Asma Marwan and the fate of many others that criticized Islam's great leader.
      So, this last excuse is a web of lies, distortions and mistakes. The writer first says it has no chain valid of narration, then says yes it has a chain but it is falsified. It has multiple sources, but only one is accused of forging it. How could that be? Wait! It is not the source that is 'flawed,' it is one of the 'reporters'! So if one of the reporters has flawed reports, and the others don't, how then does that make this report inherently false? Why didn't the writer tells us the criteria used to determine that story is falsified? There are, you know, such criteria in the Mustalah al-Hadith (see note below). Also, the writer totally disregards the fact that the story is found in both the works of Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sa'd. The writer then blames one of Islam's most respected figures for this infamous act, even though he never recorded the story. The writer takes a quote from another respected reporter to prove that Mohammed could not have done it, even though that same reporter gives accounts of Mohammed's role in sadistic torture, murder, plunder, enslavement and rape. The writer also gives a reference that cannot be found or verified. All evidence of a multitude of other atrocities (murder, torture, rape, plunder, enslavement and even wife beating) by Islam's dear prophet and recorded in a broad range of boooks by Islam's earliest, most prestigious and respected writers of Hadith are never considered.

      In a way, this last excuse is worse than those above, because it hides behind pseudo-technical language. It hides behind 'research' that is either incompetent or deceitful. At least those excuses above don't pretend to be anything except the truth as they see it. Most of the above excuses are morally objectionable, this last one is both intellectually dishonest and morally repugnant. If anything belongs in the trash can, it is this miserable excuse.


click for image       Now let me tell you what really irritates me. This excuse or justification was evidently written as a response to the accusations of some guy named Silas. I have no idea who Silas is. However, I would like to known why the writer named his webpage "silas-kill.html." Why not "silas-response.html" or "about-asma.html"? Also, in the original response, this writer calls Silas a "vile" person. Why? Because he (Silas) says bad things about his (the writer's) dear prophet? Actually, Silas was only repeating what different Muslim historians wrote over a thousand years ago. Shouldn't the Muslim writers then be the ones considered vile? Did not they falsify facts, according to this writers understanding of the account? Yet this writer chooses to call Silas a despicable, adominable person when in fact the primary transgression, by his own words, is that of Muslims themselves, and of Allah, for not protecting the honor of his prophet and the integrity of his tradtions from errors by Muslims.
      Well, anyway, I believe this should clarify any acquired misconception readers hold toward Islam's beloved Noble Prophet, a man that the Quran says is a good example to follow if you want to get your virgins in Paradise.

Notes:
1. I tried to find the source text mentioned for the forgery accusation (Ibn 'Adiyy, Al-Kamel, and Ibn al-Gawzi, Al-'Ilal) on the Internet, but no luck. It would be interesting to read about a Muslim calling Muslim a liar. I could only find two "al-Kamal" works on ahadith: by al-Hafiz Abd al-Ghani al-Maqdisi (d. 600 IC) known as Al-Kamal fi Asma al-Rijal, and by Jamal al-Din Abu l-Hajjaj Yusuf b. Abd al-Rahman al-Mizzi (d. 742 IC) called Tahdhib al-Kamal fi Asma al-Rijal. Of course, because of the many variations in the spelling of Arabic names, research and or use of search engines is often very difficult, or maybe even hopeless. Another thought: Could there be another guy with the same name as Muslim? Don't know, don't care.

2. On the Hadiths: The rules regulating the classification of ahadith (plural form of hadith) is known as Mustalah al-Hadith (the classification of hadith). There are many, many ways in which the ahadith have been classified, of which some are:
a. According to the links in the isnad, i.e. whether the chain of reporters is interrupted or uninterrupted, e.g. musnad (supported), muttasil (continuous), munqati' (broken), mu'allaq (hanging), mu'dal (perplexing) and mursal (hurried).
b. According to the number of reporters in each stage of the isnad, e.g. mutawatir (consecutive) and ahad (isolated), the latter being divided into gharib (scarce, strange), 'aziz (rare, strong), and mashhur (famous).
c. According to the reliability and memory of the reporters; the final judgment on a hadith depends crucially on this factor: verdicts such as sahih (sound), hasan (good), da'if (weak) and maudu' (fabricated, forged) rest mainly upon the nature of the reporters in the isnad (ie., Rijal al-Hadith, the study of the reporters of hadith).

When debating with Muslims, you must refer to the hadiths. They are the "traditions" of Mohammed and early Islam. From them one can get a good idea of how Islam is to be "practiced". Do not let Muslims tell you they do not accept these accounts. The fact is that the Hadiths are accepted as sacred by almost all Muslims. Here are five quotes about the authority of these writings:

"Both sources are indispensable; one cannot practice Islam without consulting both of them (Quran and Sunnah). Bukhari's collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be one of the most authentic collections of the Sunnah of the Prophet..." (from http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/sbtintro.html)

"This thorough authentication process ensures that these accounts (the Hadiths) are real, validated narrations of the sayings, actions, and tacit approvals of the Prophet Muhammad. (from http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=106)

"These (hadiths) are the real explanation, interpretation, and the living example of the Prophet (...) for teachings of the Qur'an." (from http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/)

"The Shareeah, which is embodied (in) the Quran and Sunnah, are the proclamations of Allah and His Messenger (...) ...it is obligatory for every Muslim to obey any command that he hears from Allah or His Messenger (...), even if the command should go against his own desires, opinion or against popular opinion." (from http://www.iisca.org/articles/document.jsp?id=65)

"To be a true Muslim, the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (...) must be followed. The sources of information about the Sunnah are found in Hadith..." ( from http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=article&id=141)

      So even if an individual Muslim rejects all the hadiths, it does not matter because almost all other Muslims accept them, quote them and draw lessons from them - and the hatred expressed and vile events narrated in them do not seem to bother them, which tells you a lot about Islam and Muslims.

      As a final note let me say that in my humble opinion the whole Science of Hadith is quackery at its best. It is mental masturbation that makes counting angels on a pin look like serious business. There is no external evidence to back up these stories, and they are full of contradictions.
      Nevertheless, it suits me to consider them as serious material and accept them as Muslims do, because they are the best indictment of the evil in Islam and the vile, despicable acts of its prophet. A study of the Quran and hadiths reveals the source of the hate and alienation we see in Islamic societies. The content of the Ahadith and Quran are consistent with the violence, oppression and terror we see in contemporary Islam.

      Yes, the hadiths are really serious stuff. Take, for example this hadith with an impecable pedigree: Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said "If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink), for one of its wings has a disease and the other has the cure for the disease." (from here.)
      Why waste time with issues relating to murder, abuse of power, human rights when Allah has inspired his prophet to reveal to us unknown pharmaceutical and medicinal properties of the common house fly. Quakery, I say.

click for image A page from The Life of Muhammad, by Hisham. Note that Muhammad says to the murderer after the vile deed: "You have helped God and his Apostle". So killing and old women helps Allah and Muhammad! So, for some people, happiness is a dead woman, killed for speaking the truth as she saw it, as it was.

Back to top.

click for image Finally, please consider this incident: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html#038.4348.
Note that it is from a Muslim site at the University of California. I really don't need to comment on the content of the link. Read it!

This event, and so many others like it, leaves little doubt about the character of Islam's great prophet. If anything, I find this incident as repugnant as the murder of Asma. It is not as well known because the lady's name is not given. If the man responsible for these things had been named 'Joe', everyone, even Muslims, would agree that Joe was a vile monster. However, since his name is Mohammed, Muslims write SAW /PBUH - Praise be unto him - after his name. That, I think, tells you everything you need to know about Islam and the character of Muslims, all Muslims.

The Problem....

A message to infidels from the "Religion of Peace"
Take a look at the picture and ask yourself if the story of the murder of Asma is unbelievable? Could it be that followers of Islam would kill somebody that criticizes Islam and its dear prophet? Take a wild guess!

     Why is the story of Asma and her murder so important? In the face of obvious and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, from Islam's own sources, Muslims want to believe that Mohammed was a perfect, sweet, gentle guy. History tells us that Mohammed could be cruel and murderous, yet all Muslims say he is their 'great moral example'. Think of what that means!

     I quote a typical Muslim opinion about Islam's prophet:
"No, Muhammad (pbuh) was NOT a murderer. He was Almighty Allah's Messenger who Spread Islam to Mankind by peace, except when wars were imposed upon him and his followers. Allah, in the Qur'an, calls Muhammad, a Mercy for mankind!"

     They also want us non-Muslims to accept this or at least to shut up and obey. This results in intellectual dishonesty and moral decay - and a complete loss of freedom of expression and conscience. If a man can kill, torture, rape and enslave, and we must endure in silence, then society and civilization are doomed, and our lives and those of our families are meaningless, and have no rights or protection. Think about that!

     The problem is that nothing has changed, as seen in the recent "Cartoon Wars". There are those today that would very much like to kill anybody - infidel or even Muslims - that dares question the nature and character of Islam's prophet.

Please read the following lines from an Islamic site:

click for image Source: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec1.htm
The Judgement of the Shari'a regarding someone who curses or disparages the Prophet
Know that all who curse Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or blame him or attribute imperfection to him in his person, his lineage, his deen or any of his qualities, or alludes to that or its like by any means whatsoever, whether in the form of a curse or contempt or belittling him or detracting from him or finding fault with him or maligning him, the judgement regarding such a person is the same as the judgement against anyone who curses him. He is killed as we shall make clear. This judgement extends to anything which amounts to a curse or disparagement. We have no hesitation concerning this matter, be it a clear statement or allusion.
The same applies to anyone who curses him, invokes against him, desires to harm him, ascribes to him what does not befit his position or jokes about his mighty affair with foolish talk, satire, disliked words or jies, or reviles him because of any affliction or trial which happened to him or disparages him, because of any of the permissible and well-known human events which happened to him. All of this is the consensus of the 'ularna' and the imams of fatwa from the time of the Companions until today.
Part Four - The judgements concerning those who think the Prophet imperfect or curse him
Section Two - The proof of the necessity of killing anyone who curses the Prophet or finds fault with him.
The Qur'an says that Allah curses the one who harms the Prophet in this world and He connected harm of Himself to harm of the Prophet. There is no dispute that anyone who curses Allah is killed and that his curse demands that he be categorised as an unbeliever. The judgement of the unbeliever is that he is killed.
Allah says, "Those who harm Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this world and in the Next, and has prepared for them a humiliating punishment." (33:57). He said something similar about those who kill the believers. Part of the curse on them in this world is that they are killed. Allah says, "Cursed they will be. Wherever they are found, they are seized and all slain." (33: 61) He mentions the punishment of those who fight, "That is humiliation in this world for them." (5:45) "Killing" (qatl) can have the meaning of "curse".[6] Allah says, "May the conjecturers be killed!" (51:11) and "May Allah fight them! How they are perverted!" (9:30) i.e. may Allah curse them.


click for image A picture is worth a thousand words. Would these nice, loving people be capable of killing? How absurd!

The Masud site (see above) provides a list of people killed for doing that the writer says never happened - the killing of people for being critial of Mohammed http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/misc/alshifa/pt4ch1sec2.htm):
Similarly on the Day of the Conquest, he ordered the killing of Ibn Khatal and his two slavegirls who used to sing his curses on the Prophet.
In another hadith about a man who used to curse the Prophet, the Prophet said, "Who will save me from my enemy?" Khalid said, "I will," so the Prophet sent him out and he killed him.
Similarly the Prophet commanded that a group of unbelievers who used to injure and curse him, like an-Nadr ibn al-Harith and 'Uqba ibn Abi Mu'ayt, be killed. He promised that a group of them would be killed before and after the conquest. They were all killed except for those who hurried to become Muslim before they were overpowered. Al-Bazzar related from Ibn 'Abbas that 'Uqba ibn Abi Mu'ayt cried out, "O company of Quraysh, why is it that I alone among you am to be killed without war?" The Prophet said, "For your disbelief and your forging lies against the Messenger of Allah."
'Abdu'r-Razzaq mentioned that a man cursed the Prophet, causing the Prophet to say, "Who will save me from my enemy?" Az-Zubayr said, "I will." He sent az-Zubayr and he killed him.
It is related that a woman used to curse the Prophet and he said, "Who will save me from my enemy?" Khalid ibn al-Walid went out and killed her.
It is related that a man forged lies against the Prophet and he sent 'Ali and az-Zubayr to kill him.
Ibn Qani' related that a man came to the Prophet and said, "Messenger of Allah, I heard my father say something ugly about you, so I killed him," and that did not distress the Prophet.
Al-Mujahir ibn Abi Umayya, the Amir of Yemen, reported to Abu Bakr that a woman there in the time of the Ridda[8]chanted curses against the Prophet, so he cut off her hand and pulled out her front teeth. When Abu Bakr heard that, he said to him, "If you had not done what you already did, I would have commanded you to kill her because the hadd regarding the Prophet is not like the hadd regarding others."
Ibn 'Abbas said that a woman from Khatma[9 - Usma bint Marwan] satirised the Prophet and the Prophet said, "Who will deal with her for me?" A man from her people said, "I will, Messenger of Allah." The man got up and went and killed her. He told the Prophet who said, "Two goats will not lock horns over her."[10]
Ibn 'Abbas said that a blind man had an umm walad who used to curse the Prophet. He scolded her and restrained her, but she would not be restrained. That night she began to attack and revile the Prophet, so he killed her. He told the Prophet about that and he said he had shed her blood with impunity.[11]
In the hadith of Abu Barza as-Aslami it says, "One day I was sitting with Abu Bakr as-Siddiq and he became angry at one of the Muslim men." Qadi Isma'il and other Imams said that the man had cursed Abu Bakr. An-Nasa'i related it as, "I came to Abu Bakr and a man had been rude and answered him back. I said, 'Khalif of Allah, let me strike off his head!' He said, 'Sit down. That is not for anyone except the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.'
Qadi Abu Muhammad ibn Nasr said, "No one disagreed with him." So the Imams take this, as a proof that anyone who does anything that might anger, harm or curse the Prophet in any way should be killed.
There is also the letter of 'Umar ibn 'Abdu'l-'Aziz to his governor in Kufa. He had asked his advice about killing a man who had cursed 'Umar. 'Umar wrote back to him, "It is not lawful to kill a Muslim for cursing anyone except the Messenger of Allah. Whoever curses him, his blood is lawful."

(and so on)

You may not like what it says or agree with it, but you must admit the message is very clear!

It goes on and on and on...

It is not one, two or three, or ten or even twenty stories in Islam's accounts about Mohammad killing his critics and women, and letting his men murder with impunity. Here are some more...

In response to a question about the death of Asma bint Marwan, MuftiSays.com, a large Muslim site answers the question "Al-jawab billahi at-taufeeq" (with Allah's guidance). Here is the link: http://www.muftisays.com/qa.php?viewpage=viewQA&question=2144

The scholars are unanimously agreed that a Muslim who insults the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) becomes a Kaafir and an apostate who is to be executed. This consensus was narrated by more than one of the scholars, such as Imaam Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Qaadi 'Iyaad, al-Khattaabi and others. (Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/13-16)

Asma bint Marwan wrote a poem against Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasalam) insulting him, Upon hearing the poem, Muhammad (Sallallahu alihi wa sallam) decided to have her executed.

Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir describes the death of Asma bint Marwan: "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). (Ibn Sa'd' Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, translated by S. Moinul Haq, volume 2, page 31)

Ibn 'Adiyy mentions this incident in his book "Al-Kamal" on the authority of Ja'far Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn As-Sabah on authority of Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim Ash-Shami on authority of Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj Al-Lakhmi on authority of Mujalid on authority of Ash-Shu'abi on authority of Ibn 'Abbas...
The folks at Muftisays then note that some scholars consider this story to be a forgery because the only sources for the story are Ibn Ishaq's Sira and Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir (only the two main and earliest biographies of Mohammad, only) and because Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj was known for fabricating Hadiths (Yes, the guy that didn't write about Asma is accused of fabricating a lie about her -- see Excuse #17 above). MuftiSays doesn't really say if it considers the story to be true or not. However in the next line they inform us that the stories of the murder of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf and Abu Rafi', "due to speaking ill against and insulting the Prophet" (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) are found authentic in Bukhari and even give the links:
The killing of Kaab Ibn Ashraf, Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369:
http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html
The killing of Abu Rafi, Bukhari :Volume 5, Book 59, Number 371:
http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html

So what they are saying is yes, you criticize Mohammad, you die, but we don't known about Asma and couldn't care less. On that site there were also some references to the "prohibition against killing women" (Excuse number 8 above) that is mentioned so often on Mulim sites. Too bad Mohammad and his men didn't know about this, or maybe they did but the rules don't apply to them. Here are two stories from Islam's own writings:
According to Ibn Humayd - Salamah - Ibn Ishaq - 'Abdallah b. Abi Bakr, who said: The Messenger of God sent Zayd b. Harithah to Wadi al-Qura, where he encountered the Banu Fazarah. Some of his companions were killed there, and Zayd was carried away wounded from among the slain. One of those killed was Ward b. 'Amr, one of the Banu Sa'd b. Hudhaym: he was killed by one of the Banu Badr [b. Fazarah]. When Zayd returned, he vowed that no washing [to cleanse him] from impurity should touch his head until he had raided the Fazarah. After he recovered from his wounds, the Messenger of God sent him with an army against the Banu Fazarah. He met them in Wadi al-Qura and inflicted causalities on them. Qays b. al-Musahhar al-Ya'muri killed Mas'adah b. Hakamah b. Malik b. Badr and took Umm Qirfah prisoner. (Her name was Fatimah bt. Rabi'ah b. Badr. She was married to Malik b. Hudhayfah b. Badr. She was a very old woman.) He also took one of Umm Qirfah' daughters and 'Abdallah b. Mas'adah prisoner. Zayd b. Harithah ordered Qays to kill Umm Qirfah, and he killed her cruelly. He tied each of her legs with a rope and tied the ropes to two camels, and they split her in two. Then they brought Umm Qirfah's daughter and 'Abdallah b. Mas'adah to the Messenger of God. Umm Qirfah's daughter belonged to Salamah b. 'Amr b. al-Akwa', who had taken her - she was a member of a distinguished family among her people: the Arabs used to say, "Had you been more powerful than Umm Qirfah, you could have done no more." The Messenger of God asked Salamah for her, and Salamah gave her to him. He then gave her to his maternal uncle, Hazn b. Abi Wahb and she bore him 'Abd al-Rahman b. Hazn. (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1997], Volume VIII, pp. 95-97)

Also among them was 'Abdallah b. Khatal, a member of the Banu Taym b. Ghalib. The Messenger of God ordered that he should be killed only for the following reason: He was a Muslim, and the Messenger of God sent him to collect alms, sending with him one of the Ansar. With him went a mawla of his, also a Muslim, to serve him. He halted at a resting place and commanded the mawla to slaughter him a goat and make him a meal; then he went to sleep. When he woke up, the mawla had done nothing for him; so he attacked him and killed him. He had two singing girls, Fartana and another with her. The two used to sing satire about the Messenger of God; so the latter commanded that the two of them should be killed along with him…
So an old lady was killed in the most brutal manner possible and Mohammad didn't do anything. Well, he didn't do anything to the murderers, he did take the lady's daughter (a slave captive) and give her as a gift to his uncle. In the second story one of his men murders a man for a petty motive and then Islam's prophet orders the murder of two singing girls. And, as they say, only Allah Ta'ala Knows Best.

Back to top.

More resources

click for image I strong urge everyone to study the life of Mohammad. Everybody, Muslim and non-Muslim, must agree that his life and message is very important, especially today. What ever you think of him, he was doubtless a very complicated man, and smart, and determined, and influential. The problem is that it is often hard to find the real man under the myth. Another problem is political correctness, a post modern ideology that makes an honest appraisal of non-Western figures almost impossible. Add to these difficulties the very real threat of Islamic violence, and you get the situation we find today - there much that is written about Islam's prophet is incomplete and distorted. If you want to know the real Mohammud, read the translations of the early biographies and the hadiths (the traditions). These vary a lot in details, but they paint a very coherent picture of the man and his life. So, if you accept the ahadith as true, you have to give him Mohammed some credit: he was a good general, he said some nice things, and he really had an exciting life, with great highs and very great lows. The problem is that he also said and did some very vile, evil things and left a legacy of anger and violence that is with us today. That, I believe, is a true summary of the life of Islam's great prophet based upon Muslim sources.

Here is a small essay I found on the Internet called "Trends in Biographies of Muhammad" by Jay Smith, that presents some of the problems that historians have in dealing with this subject: http://www.mylinuxisp.com/~jrlaw/islam/trends_in_biographies_of_muhamma.htm
This same essay can also be found here: http://debate.org.uk/topics/theo/muhbiog.htm

A good source for information on the Koran / Quran and Hadiths: http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/debate/part1.htm

Return to the main Index page.



Back to top.
Oh yes, the verses... what did Asma say? Here are two translations of the poem I found on the Internet:
Version A
Despise Banu Malik and al-Nabit
and Auf and Banu 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
And cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him?"
Version B
F*cked men of Malik and of Nabit
And of 'Awf, f*cked men of Khazraj:
You obey a stranger who does not belong among you ....
Do you, when your own chiefs have been murdered, put your hope in him
Like men greedy for meal soup when it is cooking?
Is there no man of honour who will take advantage of an unguarded moment
And cut off [Mohammad]?
I think we can all agree that the lady had a tongue. She didn't measure her words, but dished it out equally to all sides on the conflict. If you read her verses, it is obvious that she was more critical of the men of her tribe than of Mohammud. All I can say is Wow!


Here are a few other pages from this site that might be of interest...




Here are a few other pages from this site that might be of interest, including a link to the main Index page: I have a page about Lies and misconceptions about Islam. My experiences with censorship, again and again. A few words about the hard things , or apologetics, that Muslims don't want to talk about. A look at events at a small quiet village in old Arabia called Banu-al-Mustaliq. A collection of Stupid things my Imam told me... Really Stupid! A few thoughts on Free Speech and the 'danger' of criticizing Islam. A page about brave women and abuse and misogyny and Islam. A look at the not-so-funny Cartoons of Mohammed. I am offended too! An investigation into the death of a woman named Asma bint Marwan and the excuses Muslims make about her death. A page about liberty and religious freedom, and the campaign to end these. As expected, as predicted, Muslims in France are rioting. What does this mean? This is a farewell post on Fjordman's blog about Islam. It is a summary of our problem and the challenges we face. Oh no, I have been accused of promoting 'hate'. So this page is about hate and Islam. I call this page Fools-R-US. It is about news from the Old World that make you wonder about their sanity. Here is a page about marriage to Saudis and more. This started with a US State Department notice that was taken down so not to hurt Saudi feelings. This page is about the never ending tragedy in Darfur. Why doesn't anybody care? One of my early pages on Islam and Muslims, and their inability to discuss certain issues. The Bishop speaks and gets in trouble. Facts are not facts if Muslims don't like them. Another old file I saved. This is official statement made to the US Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Domestic and Foreign Terror in 1998 about the troubles that were coming. This is one of the things that started it all - being censored by PBS on an Internet forum.
Back to top.

Postscript: Nothing has changed

The story of a brave young man in Egypt. I was going to end this page here. But then I decided to add a few lines about what is happening in Egypt today. Nothing has changed. Just as Asma bint Marwan was persecuted and killed, a blogger named Kareem is being held and tortured for criticizing Islam.
click for image click for image click for image What happened? He saw a riot in his town of Alexandria, where Muslims attacked Christians in the streets, trying even to invade a church. He wrote about what he saw. He said these actions were like those recorded in the early accounts of Islam in which Mohammud and his men attacked non-Muslims. He said that the two events, ancient and modern, were linked. So, he stated a fact, another fact, and then an opinion. For this he was vilified, arrested, condemned and thrown in jail. If you have any knowledge of Egypt's prisons and human rights situation, you know this means torture and abuse. The thumbnails show reports of this in the media, include a respecte Harvard site called Global Voices Online.

Kareem was sentenced to 4 years in jail for insulting Islam and Egypt's president, Moubarek. A group of supporters are working to help the young man. They set up a website "FreeKareem" to provide information about the case and asking people to send letters to “government officials, diplomats, human rights groups, local media outlets, and the United Nations.”
click for image click for image I find this group to be well intentioned, but ineffective and without moral authority. Let me explain: Their position is that Kareen is wrong but be should be in jail. Or, in other words, he is guilty (for Insulting Islam) but should not be in prison. This position is weak and illogical.

So I post the following comment on the Global Voices website for this article: click for site
And what did you expect? Egypt is, after all, an Islamic country and Islam is not known for respecting human rights or basic liberties. Muslims blame all their problems on others (The West, Israel, the US, Hollywood, colonialism, the crusades, and so on) but never take a hard cold look at the hate, violence and discrimination that is in the heart of their religion. Nor do Muslims dare examine the acts of their prophet, a man who did so many evil things - according to their own writings (hadiths). Perhaps, just maybe, the Quran and hadiths explain why this younbg man must suffer. Poor Kareem, he is in for trouble. Even so I bless him and admire his moral stature and courage. All he did was tell the truth, but Islam cannot co-exist with truth and freedom. John Kactuz
The author of the post, Amira Al Hussaini (a blogger known as 'Silly Bahrain Girl') replied to me as follows:
Thank you Mr Kactuz for your comments, which show a grave misunderstanding of a great religion which should not be blamed for the vices of those who claim they are Muslim. For someone who seems to desperately want us to assume that he is an authority in what he is talking about by mentioning the Hadith and Quran, I too would like to invite you to take a ‘hard cold look’ at the hate filling your heart when it comes to Islam, Muslims and Prophet Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him). I don’t know which Islam calls for hate, violence and discrimination but you drive home the saying a little learning is a dangerous thing indeed! Regardless of my personal beliefs and learnings, such hate rhetoric being spewed by anyone against any religion or belief, saddens me. From my shallow understanding, Mr Kactuz’ missive was obviously targeted at venting out his blind hatred of Islam and Muslims and in no way was in defence of a blogger - whom he didn’t even have the courtesy of spelling out his name correctly. By the way, the blogger’s name is Kareem, with a K, and not Bareem. To be more accurate, it is Abdulkareem or Kareem, for short.
I have heard this a million times, if you say something unkind about Islam, Muslims will say you are ignorant and need to learn more from an expert.

A few weeks later Global Voices had another post on Kareem, in which they discuss the "success of the ‘Free Kareem’ campaign in attracting attention and winning sympathy for the young blogger…” click for site

I make another comment:
Please do not use the word “success” as long as this young man is in prison.
And yes, this campaign is about the freedom to criticize Islam, because that it was criticizing Islam that put Kareen in jail (the remarks about Moubarek were secondary).
Kareem’s only ‘crime’ was to tell the truth as he witnessed it with his own eyes, and as is recordered in Islam’s own traditions. He saw Muslims attacking Christian Copts and he wrote about it. He said that the Quran is full of hate and violence against non-Muslims. He said that Islam’s own hadiths tell of many vile things done by Islam’s prophet (murder, plunder, raids, enslavement, oppressions, etc..). Kareem said that there was, in his opinion, a link between the two things. The facts are that these things are exactly what are written in Islam’s own writings. Kareem was just being honest, much more honest than his critics and even his supporters - who felt the necessity of putting a big disclaimer on their blogs and the Global Voices entry concerning the content of this young man’s writings (Ie, We do no agree…). They were, in fact, undoing their own support by taking a position that said Kareem was wrong but even so they support this fool. They, the so-called supporters, didn’t even have the courage to say where or why he was wrong. It was, at best, a timid, half-hearted support without any moral basis or intellectual reasoning.
Kareem stands alone. No Muslim has the courage to look at Islam and tell the truth - or more likely, it is a matter of fear. This is why the problem is Islam. The lack of freedoms and rights in Muslim societies is a consequence of Islamic ideology that not only imposes abhorrent and inequitable moral values on society, but seeks to silence any voices that question those values. If people cannot be honest about basic concepts of right and wrong, or be able to analyze so-called sacred texts without fear, then there is no hope for Muslim societies. Worse yet, Muslims in the West are demanding that we, too, give up our right to criticize Islam and its prophet.
Kiss your freedoms goodbye.
John, Old Man kactuz
click for image click for image I was probably too hard on the two Global Voices moderators... Amira and the other blogger are certainly trying to help and are taking a stand, even when most people are too afraid or unconcerned to do anything. I pity Kareem because of the well-known brutality of Egyptian prisons and I admire his moral fortitude and physical courage.

I try to follow this case, to let Muslims know that people care. Never to give an inch, I took my position to the arabist.net in an article about how the Muslim Brotherhood (a radical, fundamentalist Islamic movement) is using the Kareem case to criticize the Egyptian government. The MB writer says the following about Kareem even as he uses his case to assult the Mubarek regime: "As an Islamist, I am of course against the hate speech and the anti-Islamic sentiments Amer expressed in his blog.” click for site

I posted this:
Kareen must suffer because he attacked the regime and because the regime feels the anti-islam charge will make the Islamist’s happy. How stupid. The only interest the MB has is to use it against the pathetic government in power. If and when the Islamists come to power, it will only get worse. Christian blood will flow red in the streets of Egypt. As an Islamist, you are against free speech, not hate speech. If you were against hate speech, you would reject the the Quran, which in case you haven’t noticed is full of hate speech against non-Muslims. If Islamists were in power, this young man would already be dead. You are just using this case to advance your agenda, just like the government. One group is as evil and pathetic as the other. Poor Egypt. Yes, Kareens writing was anti-Islam. However, he only wrote the truth as he saw it and as it is. He witnessed mobs of Muslims attacking Copts. Is it wrong to talk about that? Is that hate speech? He said that Islam’s great prophet attacked, plundered, murdered and enslaved. That is exactly what is found in the hadiths, Islam’s own traditions, in case you care to read them. He said there was a link between the two events. Could be. Makes sense to me. Is it wrong to have an opinion? Is it hate speech? Is it wrong to tell the truth?
Things are going to get worse because Muslims cannot be honest and will not respect other people.
John Kactuz
PS: Tell me, don’t Muslims have any faith in Allah? Don’t they think he (their god) can punish apostates and infidels? It appears that they don’t trust him to punish people like Kareen and others who leave Islam, so they have to do it themselves. That tells one a lot about this religion, and its followers. Think about this, why don’t you…
A page about the Copts. Here are a few links with material on Kareem: click for site click for site and here is a page about the Copts (click on icon).
It is one of the first pages I ever wrote about Islam and these things. Around 1995, I had a conversation with a man in Egypt, a Coptic monk. I asked him things were going there for his church and people. He said one word: "bad," then stated that the people in the US and Europe have no idea of how life is under Islam. I have not forgotten that conversation. This page is for him. The fact is that the situation for the Christians of Egypt is not good, and it's getting worse. I fear for the Copts.

I have also discussed these issues time after time in other sites and forums, such as here click for site and here click for site .

What Kareem said

I will end this page with a few words and images taken from Kareem's site, at http://www.freekareem.org/2007/03/25/kareem-amer-the-naked-truth-about-islam-as-i-saw-it-in-maharram-beh/
Here is the link: click for site
Everything below is from that site.

Notes:
• The article below is an English translation of an article Kareem Amer published on his blog on October 22, 2005, the day following the Alexandria riots that occurred in Moharram Bek (Maharram Beh).
• Kareem was arrested for this article in the same month. He was held for 18 days, then released on November 13 with the help of human rights groups.
• The original Arabic text can be found below, or at his blog.
• This translation was produced by J. Ahmed Salib.

DISCLAIMER: The creators of the Free Kareem campaign would like to stress the fact that they do not agree with the contents of this article.

The Naked Truth about Islam As I Saw It In Maharram Beh

By Abdul Kareem Nabeel Suleiman (Kareem Amer)
Saturday, October 22, 2005

The Muslims have taken the mask off to show their true hateful face, and they have shown the world that they are at the top of their brutality, inhumanity, and thievery. They have clearly shown their worst features and have shown that in dealing with others they are not governed by any moral codes.

From what I have seen yesterday of the events at Maharram Beh, which were quite shameful, and have shown me more facts that they have tried to cover over the centuries.

They have indicated that Islam is a religion of peace and forgiveness, but their true face has been uncovered to show barbarism and thievery and fanaticism and not acknowledging others, and attempting to remove them from existence.

Some may think that the actions of the Moslems does not represent Islam and has no relationship with the teachings of Islam that was brought by Mohamed 14 centuries ago, but the truth is that their actions is not different from the Islamic teachings in its original form when it has urged people to deny others and hate them and kill them and take their property, things that they know well but they try to deceive people by falsely defending the teachings of Islam by extremists and they are hiding from the truth and they prefer living a lie.


I have seen with my own eyes the thugs as they break into our Christian brothers’ stores after the whole area of Maharram Beh was completely out of control of the government authorities, and I saw them as they ransack the contents of the store right and left, amidst cheering and shouting extremist Islamic slogans, and I saw them stealing the money from inside the drawers of the cash registers and splitting it among themselves as if it is justified by being owned by what they call the infidels and the worshippers of the cross.


I saw them break into a liquor store owned by a Coptic merchant Labib Lotfy and I saw them smash everything they can get their dirty hands on, including the refrigerator and the scale and the boxes and liquor bottles. I saw some of them stealing liquor bottles so they can get drunk after a hard day’s work against the Coptic infidels.


It is worth mentioning that although some people may think that this Christian-owned liquor store was particularly targeted because the owner is selling the forbidden alcoholic beverages that is forbidden in Islam, but another liquor store in front of the Christian-owned store happens to be owned by a Moslem merchant, and none of the thugs dared to attack, as they did with the Christian-owned store. Now you can see the hateful sectarian actions.

What the Moslems did yesterday in a very vulgar and criminal and horrible way proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that they don’t acknowledge others or their rights of existence or their rights to live with the freedom of expression and also consider them less than them, and these actions should be fought and exterminated for is it right to leave these horrible human beings to do what they want and kill, destroy, steal, and burn??!!

The Islamic teachings that was brought by Mohammed 14 centuries ago should be faced with courage and boldness, we should expose and show its faults and warn humanity of its dangers. We should, even though we are different –look with reason to these teachings that urges people, human beings, to become monsters that don’t know anything in life except killing and looting and plundering and raping and pillaging.


We should stand courageously and boldly against these teachings that became a plague on humanity and is not supported except by extremists like bin Laden and al Zarqawi and al Zawaheeri and the thugs that assaulted our Coptic brothers and burned their homes and stole their properties, and tried to assault their religious men and destroy their churches.

We should take off the religious and sectarian gown and look at matters in a more humane way. We should hold trials to all the acts of terrorism and extremism, that our Islamic history have kept their names and their criminal actions starting with Mohamed ibn Abdullah and his company of murderers like Khalid ibn el Waled and Omar ibn el Khattab and Saad ibn Abbi Waqqas and Moiizah Bin Shaabah and Samra bin Gandab and the kings of Beni Ummaya and Beni al Abbass and al Osman, and ending with the Moslem criminals of the modern day that became more famous than movie stars and singers.

We should show the world the truth of these criminals that unfortunately have become role models for our youth and our children and our women. We should expose their false teachings and show the world that they are a big danger that should be exterminated and removed from its roots.

Before you put on trial the people that are responsible for the crimes that occurred on Black Friday in Maharram Beh, you should first put on trial the dirty teachings that caused them to go on a rampage of stealing and plundering and looting.. put Islam on trial and sentence it and its symbols with a figurative execution so that you can be sure that what happened yesterday will never be repeated again.

For as long as Islam exists on this planet all your efforts to end wars and disputes and upheavals will fail because Islam’s dirty finger will be found behind every catastrophic event to humanity.

Original (Arabic) text:

More translations available here: What Kareem Said.