THE RELIABILITY OF THE SOURCE TO ACCUSE PROPHET MUHAMMAD

Submitted by Mohamad Nozzi (Singapore), May 4, 2009 at 09:04

You have extracted the few books as below to support how bad Prophet Muhammad was. However, I suspect the reliability of the sources. I have a few queries about the sources as below:

a) Are these sources reliable for all muslims to believe that was done by Prophet Muhammad? You have mentioned well that Muhammad was against non-muslims for their action towards idolatry. If Muhammad was so against non-muslims in idolatry, I do not believe what you wrote below is true the character of Muhammad in the past since he would call non-muslims to repent. For instance, if your support is true that non-muslims would fight against him or her, he would surely slaughter him or her. How could it be that Muhammad would have secret relationship with non-muslims, the unclean people? We, muslims, treat non-muslims to be unclean and do not let these unclean people to enter into mosque. We, muslims, do not even want our muslim children to marry with non-muslim people, the unclean ones and don't expect us to touch any of your parts for fun or whatever since it is unclean. The same as we treat pork and pig. We do not even want to touch pork, the unclean thing. Thus, your sources to accuse Muhammad is certainly not reliable. I strongly believe that it must be those non-muslims that protested against Muhammad and his followers intentionally created rumours and unpardonable sins to him.

b) Remember, in one of your comment and you did bring out a discussion about he slaugthered a woman and yet he let her children to be separated from her. For instance, if Muhammad liked to lust with women, he would simply have a certain internal relationship with her instead of slaughtering he.

c) Could you prove to us, muslims, how true are those sources that you have collected? I am certain that not only me, all the muslims would not believe all these sources since we, muslims, treat all non-muslims to be unclean. We, muslims, will never let our children marry with you and even your children, the unclean things. As we, muslims, treat all non-muslims to be unclean, those people that want to marry with muslims have to be converted to muslims before they could be recognised by muslim people. You, especially you, Plato, the unclean thing, don't expect we would welcome you to the mosque since mosque is holy and you are unclean and dirty fellow.

As all muslims treat pagans to be unclean, the sources about Muhammad that you have gathered to us are definitely not reliable.

If your support that the Holy Quran supports fighting against non-muslims is correct from your own point of view, that is even without logic. This is due to if muslims have to slaughter non-muslims is true, do you think Muhammad would have secret relationship with slave? Certainly, he would not. This is due to if your support that muslims must fight with non-muslims, Muhammad should have slaughtered the slave instead of mixing with the unclean thing, the slave woman.

Please answer me this question if you support the following extracts are true: For instance, if Muhammad was so cruel that he would kill pagans as he liked, would you think he would not slaughter the slave and let the unclean thing, the slave, to associate with him. Disgusting! I have no part with unclean thing! Yeah! Disgusting! Only you, unclean thing, Plato that could think Muhammad would do. We, Muslims, would never believe this lie since we do not touch even the pork, the unclean, do not think we believe Muhammad would touch the unclean thing, the slave girl? Back off! Who to believe a lie? Only you the ignorant, the simple mind. i tell you the truth. You speak to muslims children and yet might fool them. You tell this to muslim adults. They will not believe the lie.

I extract below what Plato would believe as below (Surely many muslims would not believe this lie):

Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 637: "Narrated Buraida: The Prophet sent 'Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and 'Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus."

This hadith tells you that the prophet found nothing wrong in Ali raping a captive slave girl.

Bukhari Book 008, Number 3373: "Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported: We took women captives, and we wanted to do 'azl with them. We then asked Allah's Messen- ger (may peace be upon him) about it, and he said to us: Verily you do it, verily you do it, verily you do it, but the soul which has to be born until the Day of judg- ment must be born."

In this hadith the prophet gives blanket permission to rape captured slave women.

"BukhariVolume 7, Book 71, Number 589: Narrated Anas: Some people were sick and they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Give us shelter and food. So when they became healthy they said, "The weather of Medina is not suitable for us." So he sent them to Al-Harra with some she-camels of his and said, "Drink of their milk." But when they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away his camels. The Prophet sent some people in their pursuit. Then he got their hands and feet cut and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron. I saw one of them licking the earth with his tongue till he died. "

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".