Muhammad Allows Muslims To Rape the Captive Women of Banu al-Mustaliq
Sirach
We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus
with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really
do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined
to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."
(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137)
Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:
I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked
him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with
Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives
>from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard
on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do
coitus interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before
asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and
he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day
of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."
(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459)
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some
females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating
them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interruptus. The Prophet said,
"It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is
going to create till the Day of Resurrection." Qaza'a said, "I heard Abu
Sa'id saying that the Prophet said, 'No soul is ordained to be created but
Allah will create it."
(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 506)
Narrated Ibn Muhairiz
I saw Abu Said and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said said, "We
went with Allah's Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Barli Al-Mustaliq and we
captured some of the 'Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our
wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We
asked Allah's Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, "It is better
for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up
to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence."
(Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 46, Number 718)
Were these captive women human beings or just "war booty" to be used for
sex?
Nima Rezai
confirmation for me in rejecting Hadiths.
Hadith has done nothing but inflicting heavy damage on Islam that is
probably irreparable.
Examples such as yours are a lot but still for some reason people stick to
this nonsense.
All the 4 sources you mentioned go back to Abu Said al-Khudri.
But who the hell is Abu Said?
Probably, some extremely smart Mu´min will response that Abu Said was one of
the most resepected "Sahaba".
I dont believe this whole Hadith stuff. As I mentioned earlier they
contradict themselves from within:
Some of them quote the Prophet saying that he forbade to write down any
Hadith. This forbiddance is a saying (Hadith) itself, so why do self-called
Muslim dont care about it???
The second point is that while the Quran was collected from the very moment
of the Prophets death and appeared in book shape in Caliph Uthmans time, no
single Hadith verse was written down during the first hundred years of
Islam.
Then, almost 200 years later, Bukhari and Abu Muslim and some other Iranians
appear and collect sayings which they decide to call "Sahih" (Authentic).
As long as something has not been written down, it is all but authentic
especially when the person who told it and the person who first heard it
have both passed away for a long time.
And besides, the mere fact that many different sources say the same story
does not make the story become any more true when all of them refer to the
same person who narrated the story initially (in this case Mr. Abu Said).
Another thing is that while Abu Said has been quoted four times on this
aspect, none of the people especially close to the Prophet (Abu Bakr, Umar,
Uthman, Ali, the Ahl al-Bayt...) confirm this saying.
I am Iranian myself and I am very sure that the Hadith were the late revenge
of the Iranians on the Arabs for bringing Islam to Iran.
Their was no way to manipulate the Quran to denounce it so they found
another way. In the middle of more or less useless phrases (useless since
Allahs word does not need additions) the Hadith writers spread alleged
sayings with dangerous character.
In their blind faith the majority of the Muslims did not notice the trap and
decided to accept the apparent nonsense and justified their inner
questioning voice by thinking: "It is from the Prophet, so it has to be true
and it has to be done so, since the Prophet was perfect and never made any
mistakes or sin....".
Now, 1400 years later, still many people are defending these phrases by
referring to their "Sahih"ness (authencity).
Hadith are nothing but argumentative cannon fodder for the enemies of Islam
since there is no way to explain or justify many crazy things that are
deceiptfully associated to the Prophet by calling it "his" sayings.
Nima
Kavalec
> Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
> We got female captives in the war booty...
Can you find any of this nonsense in the Qur'an?
I recommend you read it cover-to-cover.
You will find there only truth. You have to go to questionable
narrations of text *other* than the Revelation to find the kind of
material you posted.
Peace
G. Waleed Kavalec
Moataz Emam
> Now, 1400 years later, still many people are defending these phrases by
> referring to their "Sahih"ness (authencity).
Unfortunately, you seem to be correct. I was never a fan of Hadith
myself, with the plethora of nonsense that one finds in the two famous
Sahihs. Some blatantly contradicting the Quran.
One famous example is one of the most famous of the tellers of Hadiths:
Abdullah Ibn Abbass, Mohammed's cousin. Many of the hadiths in the two
Sahihs are narrated by him. Now listen to this:
After Mohammed died and during the reign of Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Ibn Abbas
was ruler of ElBasra in Iraq, appointed by Ali himself. I will make the
long story short: He embezzled six million darhams from the treasury of
the city (Beet El Mal), resigned and went to live in a palace he bought.
We know this because of the many letters between him and Ali about this
issue. The last letter of which, Ibn Abbass admitted it and dared Ali to
do anything. I read the letters and it shocked me. Now just so you would
know the value of the daraham: We know that 20 darhams were enough to
travel to Mecca from Medina and perform hajj (the pilgrimage) in it
entirety, at the time.
This story I read in ElTabary's "History", and those who know ElTabary
know that his books are the most trusted historical accounts of the
early Islamic period.
How can I possibly trust the Hadiths transmitted by this man now (and
they are MANY)?
How about the major Sahaba (companions of the prophets). I am copying
>from another famous book "The Higher Levels" [ElTabakat ElKobra] by Ibn
Saad, when I tell you what the major companions owned at the time of
their death. You may judge their wealth in the darham unit after I
explained its worth at the time:
Uthman Ibn Affan: 30 million and half darham and 100 thousand dinar
(twice the darham) in addition to livestock
AlZobayr Ibn AlAwam: 52 million darham + palaces and real estate.
Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqaas: 250 000
Talha Ibn Obaid Allah: 30 million + 2 million dinar
Abd ElRahman Ibn Awf: 1000 camels, 3000 sheep, 100 Arabian horses + vast
lands
These were Mohammed's closest companions and some of the greatest
transmitters of Hadiths (according to Bukhary and Muslim) who obviously
forsake their wara' and taqwa for the sake of the glitter of gold. Even
if all that was legitimate, these people were obviously not the saints
we are led to believe they were by our history books. How can I trust
their transmissions any more? And some of these are from the ten that
Mohammed said are going to heaven for sure (al mubasharoon bel ganna).
I was deeply shocked when I read this and more in several trusted
historical sources. The same sources that are the basis of the history
classes in Muslim schools, although of course, these details are
ignored.
Add to that the weird attrocities and excesses of the Caliphs after the
first four :-( our Islamic history is certainly not as clean and as
"Islamic" as we were taught in school.
--
Moataz H. Emam
Sirach
>> We got female captives in the war booty...
>
>Can you find any of this nonsense in the Qur'an?
Can you call Sahih traditions "nonsense" and still be a Muslim? The Sunna
and Shari'ah are based on Sahih traditions.
>You will find there only truth.
How can you interprete the Qur'an without going back to Sahih traditions?
Where do you get the contexts of the Qur'ans "revelation" from? Do you make
them up?
You might not like what the Sahih traditions say about Muhammad but where
else can you find out about his life, sayings, and practices?
>You have to go to questionable
>narrations of text *other* than the Revelation to find the kind of
>material you posted.
Which is exactly where your Muslim exegetes go to understand your
"Revelation".
Kavalec
> >> Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
> >> We got female captives in the war booty...
> >
> >Can you find any of this nonsense in the Qur'an?
>
> Can you call Sahih traditions "nonsense" and still be a Muslim? The Sunna
> and Shari'ah are based on Sahih traditions.
See Moataz Emam's recent post at
...and you will see why I answer yes, and emphatically, to that
question. The fact that Shari'ah is based on hadith is just more
evidence.
Allah(swt) will judge if I am a Muslim.
> >You will find there only truth.
>
> How can you interprete the Qur'an without going back to Sahih traditions?
> Where do you get the contexts of the Qur'ans "revelation" from? Do you make
> them up?
Hadith are useful historically, but they are not scripture. Period
Peace
G. Waleed Kavalec
Ahmed.M.K
r wrong , remmeber it been 1500 years for this ahadiths ..only the
quran stays but the other books will corrubt someday , lol as the
corrubton of torah in the same way , & maybe there is othr resons , we
cant ans this quistions easily ^_^
Sirach
Sunna and Shari'ah are based on Sahih traditions.
>See Moataz Emam's recent post at
>http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&group=soc.rel
igion.islam&safe=off&selm=amk7sq%24bic%241%40blue.rahul.net
>...and you will see why I answer yes, and emphatically, to that question.
The fact that Shari'ah is based on hadith is just more evidence.
You sound like you reject the Sahih Hadith because you don't want to face up
to what Muhammad and his Campanions were really like. I can understand
that. But is that intellectually honest?
Jesus didn't indulge in "attrocities and excesses", on the contrary he lived
a self-sacrifical life. He's someone I can really look up to and respect.
I think I'd be ashamed to follow Muhammad and his Companions.
>> How can you interprete the Qur'an without going back to Sahih traditions?
Where do you get the contexts of the Qur'ans "revelation" from? Do you make
them up?
>Hadith are useful historically, but they are not scripture. Period
I think you missed my point. The Sahih Hadith interprete the Qur'an. If
the Sahih Hadith are nonsense then how do you know the contexts of the
Qur'an's "revelation" so as to interprete it correctly?
Eric
news:amk7sq$bic$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> And some of these are from the ten that
> Mohammed said are going to heaven for sure (al mubasharoon bel ganna).
I wonder if someone might be able to translate the paranthetical expression?
Kavalec
> >> Can you call Sahih traditions "nonsense" and still be a Muslim? The
> Sunna and Shari'ah are based on Sahih traditions.
>
> >See Moataz Emam's recent post at
>
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&group=soc.rel
> igion.islam&safe=off&selm=amk7sq%24bic%241%40blue.rahul.net
>
> >...and you will see why I answer yes, and emphatically, to that question.
> The fact that Shari'ah is based on hadith is just more evidence.
>
> You sound like you reject the Sahih Hadith because you don't want to face up
> to what Muhammad and his Campanions were really like. I can understand
> that. But is that intellectually honest?
That borders close to ad hominem, friend. Is that your intent? I could
equally observe that your posts sound like attempts to slander Islam
any way you can.
The "intellectually honest" thing, for me, is that I recognize the
ijaz of the Qur'an. And this is something no argurment from human
beings can take from me.
>
> Jesus didn't indulge in "attrocities and excesses", on the contrary he lived
> a self-sacrifical life. He's someone I can really look up to and respect.
> I think I'd be ashamed to follow Muhammad and his Companions.
And how do you know this? Were you there? I suggest you research the
massive body of apocrypha and other texts that were not included in
the New Testament by the Council of Nicea (aka the First Ecumenincal
Council).
> >Hadith are useful historically, but they are not scripture. Period
>
> I think you missed my point. The Sahih Hadith interprete the Qur'an. If
> the Sahih Hadith are nonsense then how do you know the contexts of the
> Qur'an's "revelation" so as to interprete it correctly?
The Qur'an has nothing left out. Our Creator says so. I believe Him.
If our understanding of the Revelation shifts as we learn to do
without much of the Hadith, then that is what He intends.
G. Waleed Kavalec
Moataz Emam
> You sound like you reject the Sahih Hadith because you don't want to face up
> to what Muhammad and his Campanions were really like. I can understand
> that. But is that intellectually honest?
I cannot speak for Kavalec, but my view is that Sahih Hadith obviously
needs revision. None of the writers of Hadith were even alive at the
time of Mohammed. There is so much nonsense in them. However, rejecting
them in total is certainly not a good idea, since many of them indeed
support Quranic views and explain them. The science of Hadith is very
complex and difficult. Rejecting a Hadith off hand is a dangerous issue.
But then, some are so contradictory to the Quran that they scream
"WRONG" at you. In any case, the story of Bani-ElMustalaq is not in the
Sirah books as far as I know.
--
Moataz H. Emam
Nima Rezai
> You sound like you reject the Sahih Hadith because you don't want to
> face up to what Muhammad and his Campanions were really like. I can
> understand that. But is that intellectually honest?
The question is whether something is intellectually honest that relies on
alleged sayings
that were written down 200 years after Muhammad, especially when one of the
main
sources was Abu Hurayra:
http://www.submission.org/Abu-Hurayra.htm
http://www.submission.org/hadith/bhadith.html
I also recommend this site:
http://www.mostmerciful.com/hadithbook-sectionone.htm
>
> Jesus didn't indulge in "attrocities and excesses", on the contrary
> he lived a self-sacrifical life. He's someone I can really look up
> to and respect. I think I'd be ashamed to follow Muhammad and his
> Companions.
Your problem.
> I think you missed my point. The Sahih Hadith interprete the Qur'an.
> If the Sahih Hadith are nonsense then how do you know the contexts of
> the Qur'an's "revelation" so as to interprete it correctly?
Sorry, but who says that the Hadith act as history book?
If you need historical context then go read Tabaris works or Ibn Hishams
work.
Nima