The Life of Muhammad:Legend&Realities (Rebuttal)

· Islam

The Life of Muhammad:Legends&Realities:(Rebuttal)

This is a Rebuttal to the TV documentary,”Life of Muhammad “presented by Rageh Omaar (14,442 words)

Recent TV documentaries portrayed Muhammad (570-632 AD) as a man who prefers “Peace to War,” and is “compassionate and forgiving” so I have attempted to corroborate these claims from Islamic literature but I was most disappointed because I have found it impossible to substantiate those claims from the realities of Islamic history. Therefore, I have to relegate those claims to be MYTHS. My references will provide the authentication that some may wish to undertake more research into.
(Currently part 1 and 2 are unavailable.)



This rebuttal is to the TV Documentary on “The Life of Mohammad” a summary is  found [here]
The two articles are inter-related and so will form a group.

Introduction (On Being Out of Context)

One of the biggest mistakes we make in attempting to understand Islam is to study incidents in isolation and out of context because we loose perspective and we loose the interconnectivity of the whole. Thus to understand the myths following The Treaty of Hudaibiya, we have to cover a much larger portion of Islamic history and to attempt to connect the essential events that will provide the full tapestry of the psyche of the Prophet Muhammad or Islam. Many myths have been born in Islam because of phrases or edicts taken out of context. It is therefore important to study the whole historical text to separate the ‘Wheat from the chaff.” To appreciate the final Treaty of Hudaibiya leading to the Conquest of Mecca by Muhammad, we have to begin with the early days of Muhammad’s migration to Medina.


Myths:Images of Muhammad did not exist

In the last years of Muhammad in Mecca, a delegation from Medina, consisting of the representatives of the twelve important clans of Medina, invited Muhammad as a neutral outsider to Medina to serve as the chief arbitrator for the entire community. There was fighting in Medina mainly involving its pagan and Jewish inhabitants for around a hundred years before 620. The recurring slaughters and disagreements over the resulting claims, especially after the battle of Bu’ath in which all the clans were involved, made it obvious to them that the tribal conceptions of blood-feud and an eye for an eye were no longer workable unless there was one man with authority to adjudicate in disputed cases.The delegation from Medina pledged themselves and their fellow-citizens to accept Muhammad into their community and physically protect him as one of themselves.

After emigration to Medina, Muhammad drafted the Constitution of Medina, “establishing a kind of alliance or federation” among the eight Medinian tribes and Muslim emigrants from Mecca, which specified the rights and duties of all citizens and the relationship of the different communities in Medina (including that of the Muslim community to other communities, specifically the Jews and other “Peoples of the Book” (Bible))

The Constitution of Medina

(Arabic: صحیفة المدینه‎, Ṣaḥīfat al-Madīna), also known as the Charter of Medina, was drafted by the Islamic prophet, Muhammad. It constituted a formal agreement between Muhammad and all of the significant tribes and families of Yathrib (later known as Medina), including Muslims, Jews, Christians and pagans. This constitution formed the basis of the future caliphate. The document was drawn up with the explicit concern of bringing to an end the bitter inter tribal fighting between the clans of the Aws (Aus) and Khazraj within Medina. To this effect it instituted a number of rights and responsibilities for the Muslim, Jewish, Christian and pagan communities of Medina bringing them within the fold of one community—the Ummah.

The precise dating of the Constitution of Medina remains debated but generally scholars agree it was written shortly after the Hijra (622). It effectively established the first Islamic state. The Constitution established: the security of the community, religious freedoms, the role of Medina as a haram or sacred place (barring all violence and weapons), the security of women, stable tribal relations within Medina, a tax system for supporting the community in time of conflict, parameters for exogenous political alliances, a system for granting protection of individuals, a judicial system for resolving disputes, and also regulated the paying of blood money (the payment between families or tribes for the slaying of an individual in lieu of lex talionis). [1]

For further illustration I will post a few extracts from this Constitution of Medina:

“1. This is a document from Muhammad the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), governing relations between the Believers i.e. Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib and those who followed them and worked hard with them. They form one nation — Ummah.

Believers are all friends to each other to the exclusion of all others.

Those Jews who follow the Believers will be helped and will be treated with equality. (Social, legal and economic equality is promised to all loyal citizens of the State).

No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew.

The enemies of the Jews who follow us will not be helped.

When you differ on anything (regarding this Document) the matter shall be referred to Allah and Muhammad (may Allah bless him and grant him peace).

The Jews will contribute towards the war when fighting alongside the Believers.

The Jews of Bani Awf will be treated as one community with the Believers. The Jews have their religion. This will also apply to their freedmen. The exception will be those who act unjustly and sinfully. By so doing they wrong themselves and their families.

The same applies to Jews of Bani Al-Najjar, Bani Al Harith, Bani Saeeda, Bani Jusham, Bani Al Aws, Thaalba, and the Jaffna, (a clan of the Bani Thaalba) and the Bani Al Shutayba.

Loyalty gives protection against treachery. (loyal people are protected by their friends against treachery. As long as a person remains loyal to the State he is not likely to succumb to the ideas of being treacherous. He protects himself against weakness).

The freedmen of Thaalba will be afforded the same status as Thaalba themselves. This status is for fair dealings and full justice as a right and equal responsibility for military service.

Those in alliance with the Jews will be given the same treatment as the Jews.

No one (no tribe which is party to the Pact) shall go to war except with the permission of Muhammed (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). If any wrong has been done to any person or party it may be avenged.

Any one who kills another without warning (there being no just cause for it) amounts to his slaying himself and his household, unless the killing was done due to a wrong being done to him.

The Jews must bear their own expenses (in War) and the Muslims bear their expenses.

Quraysh and their allies will not be given protection.

The Jews of al-Aws, including their freedmen, have the same standing, as other parties to the Pact, as long as they are loyal to the Pact. Loyalty is a protection against treachery.” [2]

It is abundantly clear that Muhammad was inclusive of all peoples and religions at this stage of his rule in Medina. Medina was a trading centre that was used by Meccans to trade with other parts of the Peninsular and the Jewish tribes were well established and prosperous there owning houses, and agricultural lands and contributed greatly to the wealth of Medina. But the Jewish faith was not receptive to conversion to any other faith and considered Islam as alien. Thus Jews would often support the Meccan Quraish tribes who were determined to destroy Muhammad’s alien beliefs.

The Battle of Badr

(Arabic: غزوة بدر‎), fought Saturday, March 13, 624 AD(17 Ramadan, 2 AH in the Islamic calendar) in the Hejaz region of western Arabia (present-day Saudi Arabia), was a key battle in the early days of Islam and a turning point in Muhammad’s struggle with his opponents among the Quraish in Mecca. The Battle of Badr has been passed down in Islamic history as a decisive victory attributable to divine intervention, or by secular sources to the strategic genius of Muhammad.In the spring of 624, Muhammad received word from his intelligence sources that a (Quraish) trade caravan, commanded by Abu Sufyan and guarded by thirty to forty men, was travelling from Syria back to Mecca. Abu Sufyan sent a message via Damdam, in fear of being attacked by Muslims, to warn Mecca and to get reinforcements. As the trade caravan was carrying a lot of wealth, the Quraish responded well to the call, and an army of 1300 men was sent for its protection later which was reduced by 300 due to another message send by Abu Sufyan assuring his safe return.

The Battle of Badr was extremely influential in the rise of two men who would determine the course of history on the Arabian peninsula for the next century. The first was Muhammad, who was transformed overnight from a Meccan outcast into a major leader. Marshall Hodgson adds that Badr forced the other Arabs to “regard the Muslims as challengers and potential inheritors to the prestige and the political role of the [Quraish].” The victory at Badr also allowed Muhammad to consolidate his own position at Medina.

Muhammad expelled the Jewish tribe, the Banu Qaynuga, from Medina

Shortly after Muhammad’s success at the Battle of Badr Muhammad first reneged on his on his own Constitution of Medina as he expelled the Banu Qaynuqa, one of the Jewish tribes at Medina that had been threatening his political position, using the poor excuse that they had assaulted a Muslim woman, thus breaking the peace treaty. At the same time Abd-Allah ibn Ubayy, Muhammad’s chief opponent in Medina, found his own position seriously weakened. Henceforth, he would only be able to mount limited challenges to Muhammad.

The other major beneficiary of the Battle of Badr was Abu Sufyan. The death of Amr ibn Hashim, as well as many other Quraishi nobles gave Abu Sufyan the opportunity, almost by default, to become chief of the Quraish. As a result, when Muhammad marched into Mecca six years later, it was Abu Sufyan who helped negotiate its peaceful surrender. Abu Sufyan subsequently became a high-ranking official in the Muslim Empire, and his son Muawiya would later go on to found the Umayyad Caliphate.

As Paul K. Davis sums up, “Mohammed’s victory confirmed his authority as leader of Islam; by impressing local tribes that joined him, the expansion of Islam began.” [3][4]

MUHAMMAD – “War is Deceit.”

Recalling Muhammad’s all inclusive and accommodating terms for his Constitution of Medina it would seem that suddenly following the Battle of Badr, the concept of duplicity was born in Muhammad’s mind. He seemed to have changed overnight having been successful in battle against the Quraish army. His confidence as a leader in deciding the fate of his enemies seem to alleviate his ego to supremacist levels. This sudden change of attitude(of taking over total control of Medina), appears to be replicated again and again in modern times. Hence, it is important to note that this philosophy was born in the 7th century, the modus operandi of the Islamisation of a territory, i.e., by cunning and deceit. Muhammad has said,

Bukhari:V4B52N268 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘War is deceit.'”

Bukhari:V7B67N427 “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.'”

Muhammad expelled the 2nd Jewish tribe the Banu Nadir from Medina within a year of the other expulsion

In the year 625, two of Muhammad’s soldiers killed a man from a tribe that had an agreement of peace with Muhammad (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 650). It was decided that blood-money would be offered to satisfy this debt (although Muhammad held non-Muslims to the highest standards, he never put his own men to death for killing non-Muslims).  However, rather than take care of this debt himself from the substantial wealth that he acquired from raiding Meccan caravans and confiscating Jewish property, Muhammad went to a Jewish tribe, the Banu Nadir, to request their contribution, even though the tribe had nothing to do with the murder (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 652).Once he showed up with his men, Muhammad made his demands and then waited outside the wall of their house for the money.  Later, Muhammad claimed that Allah spoke to him during this time and told him that the Jews were going to assassinate him by dropping a rock from the roof of the house onto his head:

As the apostle was with a number of this companions… news came to him from heaven about what these people intended (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 652)

Based on the conjecture of this hallucination, Muhammad decided to punish the whole Banu Nadir Tribe.

Muhammad left, then returned with an army and laid siege to the entire community, forcing them to surrender without a fight.  As with the Qaynuqa (the Jewish tribe before them), the people were evicted with the clothes on their back and what they could pack on their camels.   Another revelation from Allah (relayed through Muhammad, of course) allowed the prophet of Islam to personally confiscate all of the remaining property for himself (Bukhari 52:153).

For the skeptic, there are a couple of problems with Muhammad’s justification for evicting an entire tribe of people even within the boundaries of the account.  In the first place, it is certainly suspicious that he demanded that another tribe pay for what his own men had done – and that he went personally to collect the money.  Given what Allah supposedly knew, one wonders why Allah didn’t just save His “messenger” the trip.

As for Muhammad’s assertion that his god spoke in his ear, thus enabling him to confiscate the wealth of an entire community for his personal gain… well, let’s just say that it is curious at best.  Revelations of convenience were quite common in Muhammad’s life, providing him with wealth from Muslims and non-Muslims alike, along with eleven wives and unlimited sex with female slaves.  He operated with the impunity of a cult leader.

But the largest problem is that Muhammad justified his attack on the Banu Nadir by saying that they had planned to assassinate him.  By this standard, the Jews would have been acting entirely within their rights, given that the prophet of Islam had carried out several assassinations against their own community by that time!

A Banu Nadir Jew named Ka’b al-Ashraf was actually murdered on Muhammad’s order just a few months before the entire tribe was attacked.  The excuse was that he had lamented the killing of the Meccans at the Battle of Badr and responded by composing crude poems about the Muslim women:

Then he composed amatory verses of an insulting nature about the Muslim women. The apostle said…”Who will rid me of al-Ashraf?” [Another Muslim} said, “I will deal with him for you O apostle of Allah. I will kill him.” He said, “Do so if you can.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 550)

Muhammad gave the man permission to take any measures necessary to murder the poet, including lying.  The assassin gathered a group of Muslims and tricked al-Ashraf to come out of his house, alone and unarmed, by pretending to be interested in obtaining a loan.

The murder took place in the dark and was a messy affair.  al-Ashraf began screaming as he was being stabbed:

Meanwhile the enemy of Allah had made such a noise that every fort around us was showing a light. I thrust [the dagger] into the lower part of his body, then I bore down upon it until I reached his genitals, and the enemy of Allah fell to the ground. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 552)

These two events demonstrate that the Muslims of Medina operated under a different standard than what they held to those around them.  Muslims were allowed to kill others when they felt insulted or in danger, but others were not allowed to even plot in defense of their own lives.

Muhammad was in a position to deny others the same sympathy and tolerance that he demanded for himself because of the control that he had established within his first two years of arriving in Medina.  He used his newfound power to order assassinations and evictions, thus putting dissenters in fear.

Keep in mind that when Muhammad was in Mecca, he told the elders there that he would bring them “slaughter” (Tabari Vol 6, 102) and they subsequently evicted him.  Yet, instead of recognizing the logic behind this, Muhammad complained incessantly about his ignominious ouster and eventually returned with a conquering army.  He also behaved with extreme hypocrisy toward those who spoke out against him, regardless of what sort of threat they actually posed.

For today’s Muslims, who prefer to believe that Muhammad was an unselfish man of perfect character, the fate of the Banu Nadir is but a minor inconvenience.  It does not bother them that an entire tribe of Jews was evicted on the basis of a hypothetical assassination plot following the very real assassination of one of their leaders.  Jews are not Muslims.  Hence they are not entitled to be treated with the same respect. [4]

Muhammad finally Slaughtered All Male members of the Jewish Banu Qurayza Tribe in Medina

Muhammad and his band of immigrants arrived in Medina in 622 completely dependent on the hospitality of the three Jewish tribes that lived there alongside the Arabs. In less than two years, two of the tribes that had welcomed him, the Banu Quynuqa and the Banu Nadir would be evicted, losing their land and their wealth to the Muslims as soon as their guest (Muslims)gained the power to conquer and confiscate. Muhammad accomplished this by deftly exploiting his opponents divisions. 

The prophet of Islam chose the order of tribes carefully, knowing that the other two tribes would not come to the assistance of the first, since they had been aligned against one another in a recent war, nor that the third would assist the second – due to a dispute over “blood money.”

The last tribe to remain was the Banu Qurayza.  Like the others, the Qurayza were a peaceful community of farmers and tradesmen who eventually surrendered to Muhammad without a fight.  Although the prophet of Islam had been wise enough not to order the wholesale slaughter of the first two tribes following their defeat (which certainly would have stiffened the resistance of the Qurayza), there was no practical reason for Muhammad to repress his genocidal urges once the last tribe had surrendered their wealth and power.

Over 800 surrendered men and boys (and at least one woman) from the Qurayza Jewish tribe were beheaded by the prophet of Islam in a bloodbath that is of acute embarrassment(?) to today’s Muslim apologists.  It is an episode that is not only completely at odds with the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion, but also the claim that it is the heir to Christianity, since even that religion’s most dedicated critics could hardly imagine Jesus doing such a thing.

It is only in modern times, as Islam finds itself having to compete with morally mature religions in open debate, that the story of the massacre has become controversial.  Some Muslims deny the episode, largely on the basis of mere inconvenience.  Others are unaware of it altogether.  But, not only is the incident well documented in the Hadith and Sira (biography of Muhammad), there is even a brief reference to it in the Qur’an (verse 33:26).

Since Islam makes no apologies, particularly for anything that Muhammad ever did, contemporary Muslims generally try to convince themselves that the victims of Qurayza deserved their fate.  They must have turned on the Muslims in battle and inflicted many deaths, forcing Muhammad to yield to the wishes of his people and respond in kind.

Unfortunately, the accounts of what happened, as related to the early Muslim historians by eyewitnesses, do not support this myth.  In fact, it was the Qurayza who were caught in an impossible situation at the time between the Muslims and their Meccan adversaries.

Shortly after arriving in Medina in 622, Muhammad began raiding the merchant caravans traveling to and from neighboring Mecca.  He would steal their property and kill anyone who defended it (Ishaq 424-425).  The Jews of Qurayza had nothing to do with this.  Much like the Meccans, the Jews were also traders and they appreciated the value of security in doing business.  They neither encouraged Muhammad’s raids nor shared in his ill-gotten gain.

After a few years of this, the Meccans eventually realized that they would have to try and capture Medina, since it was being used as a base of operations by Muhammad and his pirates.  In 627, they sent an army to the outskirts of the city and appeared poised to take it in what has been called the Battle of the Trench (Muhammad dug a trench around the exposed northern and western parts of the city to stop the Meccan military advance).

The Qurayza, who lived to the east of Medina, were thus caught in a bad situation. Not responsible for Muhammad’s war, they were nonetheless drawn into it, particularly when they were approached by a Meccan leader and asked not to assist Muhammad in his defense against the siege (to that point, the Qurayza had contributed digging tools to the Muslims, but not fighters).

The chief of the Qurayza did not wish to even entertain the Meccan envoy, but was tricked into allowing him into his home (Ishaq/Hisham 674).  Once there, the Meccan began making his case that the battle was going against Muhammad and that his fall was imminent.  The anguish of the Qurayza chief over the trying circumstances of the position that he felt forced into is noted even by Muslim historians:

When Ka’b heard of Huyayy’s coming he shut the door of his fort in his face, and when he asked permission to enter he refused to see him, saying that he was a man of ill omen… Then Huyayy accused him of [being inhospitable]… This so enraged Ka’b that he threw open his door. [Huyayy] said to him, “Good heavens, Ka’b, I have brought you immortal fame and a great army… They have made a firm agreement and promised me that they will not depart until we have made an end of Muhammad and his men. “Ka’b said, “By God, you have brought me immortal shame and an empty cloud while it thunders and lightenings with nothing in it. Woe to you Huyayy, leave me as I am.” (Ishaq/Hisham 674)

After much “wheedling” by the Meccans, however, the Qurayza leader finally gave in and agreed to remain neutral in the conflict.  He would neither contribute troops to the city’s defense nor to its impending capture at the hands of an army with superior numbers.  The Muslims would be left on their own to deal with the conflict they had started with the Meccans.

Shortly afterwards, however, the Meccans abandoned their siege.  With the battle over, Muhammad turned his army against the Qurayza and claimed that the neutrality of their leader was a breach of the original constitution of Medina, which the prophet of Islam had personally drawn up for the tribes five years earlier.  The original language of this ‘treaty’ is not known, however, and later guesses as to what it might have said seem suspiciously tailored. 

It is unlikely, for example, that the tribes of Medina would have given Muslims the right to slaughter them for merely speaking out against him, yet several prominent Jewish leaders and poets had been assassinated on Muhammad’s order prior to the Qurayza affair.  At least one innocent merchant was slain by his Muslim business partner following Muhammad’s order in 624 for his men to “kill any Jew who falls into your power” (al-Tabari 7:97).  Muhammad had also attacked the other two Jewish tribes – parties to the same agreement – looting their property and then evicting them from their land.

There is little doubt that the troubles Muhammad brought on Medina, through his mistreatment of the Jews and his relentless pursuit of hostilities against the Meccans, were a part of the sales pitch to the Qurayza leader to win his neutrality – along with the implicit threat of slaughter if the city were taken by the Meccans.  From Kab’s perspective, it would only be a matter of time before Muhammad found an excuse to attack and plunder his tribe as well.

Contrary to popular misconceptions, however, the Qurayza had not attacked the Muslims.  In fact, had they attacked, then it surely would have been the end of Muhammad and his band of pirates since the southern end of the city was completely exposed to the Qurayza.  In a terrible irony, it was the decision not to engage in violence that later sealed the fate of the Jews, who were only the first in a very long line of victims to horribly overestimate the value that Islam places on the lives of unbelievers.

Interestingly, neither the Meccans nor the Muslims suffered more than a few dozen casualties combined during the entire Battle of the Trench.  The weather and the city’s unexpected resistance caused the Meccans to eventually give up and go home after only a handful of attempts to breach the perimeter.

According to Muhammad, the angel Gabriel then appeared (recognized only to him, of course)  and provided yet another remarkably convenient revelation, this time telling him to lay siege to the Qurayza stronghold.  After twenty-five days of blockade, the Jews gave in and surrendered to the prophet of Islam.  As Ibn Ishaq/Hisham puts it, they “submitted themselves to the Apostle’s judgment” (Ishaq/Hisham 688).

Another misconception is that Muhammad did not render the death sentence against the Qurayza and was therefore not responsible for it.  Interestingly, there is a partial truth in this, in that Muhammad clearly attempted to offload responsibility on another party.  However, from the narrative, including his choice of “arbitrator” to his subsequent reaction, it is obvious that Muhammad clearly approved of the subsequent massacre.First, the prophet of Islam tricked the Qurayza by getting them to agree to put their fate in the hands of “one of their own.”  In fact, this was a Jewish convert to Islam, a Muslim who had fought in the Battle of the Trench.  Unbeknownst to the Qurayza, Sa’d bin Muadh had also been one of the few Muslims injured in the battle (Ishaq/Hisham 689), which one can reasonably assume to have influenced his judgment.  According to the Hadith, he was quite eager to continue slaying “unbelievers” even as he lay dying in his tent (Bukhari59:448).

Secondly, when Sa’d did render his decree that the men of Qurayza should be killed and their women and children pressed into slavery, Muhammad did not express the slightest bit of disapproval.  In fact, the prophet of Islam confirmed this barbaric sentence to be Allah’s judgment as well (Bukhari 58:148).

Consider the contrast between the historical Muhammad and the man of “peace and forgiveness” that today’s Muslims often assure us that he was.  In light of the fact that the Qurayza had not killed anyone, wouldn’t a true man of peace have simply sought dialogue with them to try and determine their grievance, find common ground and then resolve the matter with dignity to both parties?

Instead, the prophet of Islam had the men bound with rope.  He dug trenches and then began beheading the captives in batches.  In a scene that must have resembled footage of Hitler’s death squads, small groups of helpless Jews, who had done no harm to anyone, were brought out and forced to kneel, staring down at the bodies of others before their own heads were lopped off and their bodies were pushed down into the ditch.

There is some evidence that Muhammad personally engaged in the slaughter.  Not only does the earliest narrative bluntly say that the apostle “sent for them” and “made an end of them,” but there is also support for this in the Qur’an. Verse 33:26 says of the Qurayza, “some you slew, some you took captive.”  The Arabic “you: is in the plural, but the Qur’an is supposed to be Allah’s conversation with Muhammad, so it makes no sense that he would not be included.

In any event, there is no denying that Muhammad found pleasure in the slaughter, particularly after acquiring a pretty young Jewish girl (freshly “widowed” and thus available to him for sexual servitude) (Ishaq/Hisham 693). 

Other women were not quite as compliant.  Ibn Ishaq/Hisham records the reaction of one woman who literally lost her mind as her family was being killed. The Muslims found her maniacal laughter annoying and beheaded her as well. As Aisha later recounted:

“I shall never forget my wonder at her good spirits and her loud laughter when all the time she knew that she would be killed.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 691)

(One can forgive Aisha’s obtuseness. At the time that she and her husband sat observing the carnage together, the wife of Muhammad was only 12-years-old).

Boys as young as 13 or 14 were executed as well, provided that they had reached puberty.  The Muslims ordered the boys to drop their clothes.  Those with pubic hair then had their throats cut (Abu Dawud 4390).  There was no point in trying to determine whether or not they were actual combatants because there were none.  There had been no combat!

Muhammad parcelled out the widows and surviving children as slaves to his men. The wealth accumulated by the Qurayza was also divided.  Since the tribe had been a peaceful farming and trading community, there were not enough weapons and horses taken to suit Muhammad’s tastes, so he obtained more of these by trading off some of the Qurayza women in a distant slave market (Ishaq 693). 

In addition to the main question as to why people who had not killed anyone were put to death at all, there are several others raised by Muhammad’s massacre of the Qurayza.  For example, why was every member of the tribe punished for a decision pressed on one member when the Qur’an says that “no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another” (Quran 53:38)?  And what of the places in the Qur’an where violent passages are sometimes mitigated by the occasional admonishment to cease killing those who stop fighting?  The surrendered Qurayza had never even fought in the first place. [4] [5]


Word spread like wild fire when it was learned that Muhammad had defeated the mighty Quraish armies in the Battle of Badr. Soon followed by his driving out and massacring the three thriving Jewish tribes in Medina within 5 years of his arrival there. Here was a new charismatic, fearsome warrior mujahid to lead the Arab people out of their poverty and indolence and to focus their loyalties to Allah. The details of his massacre of the Banu Qurayza  became a legend of heroics among the Arabs. He was a leader of men. This news spread throughout the length and breadth of the Arabian Peninsular, and beyond. The Arabs were proud to have a man of steel to lead them against their enemies. Little wonder that wherever Muhammad travelled with his men, there were shouts of adulation, “ALLAHU AKBAR.” Here was a conquering Arab hero. Muhammad was never a humble cowering pathetic like Ghandi that Muslims attempt to tell us he is. Muhammad was a proud Arab warrior, nothing less. Warrior qualities was, and still is, a highly admired quality of the Arabs and Afghan-Pakistani peoples even today.

But to the infidel, Muslims tell us that Muhammad was a compassionate man of peace, preferring peace to war. Evidence does not bear this out and proves the dissimulation that is being told to the infidel to disarm the infidel as the Jews of Medina were disarmed, and later banished or slaughtered.

No.1-MUHAMMAD’S MYTHS while in MEDINA before Treaty of Hudaibiya

Muhammad’s invitation, by the 12 major clans to come to Medina adjudicate their disputes marked a turning point in the future for Muhammad. The early establishment of Muhammad in Medina is detailed above to illustrate the myths from the realities of the life and character of Muhammad. From the details described we clearly discern the myths of Muhammad such as:
MYTH: Muhammad Never Approved of Dishonesty
(It is very obvious that Muhammad broke his pledge and betrayed the “Constitution of Medina” with the Jews.)
MYTH: Muhammad Lived at Peace with Jews.
MYTH: Muhammad never approved of murder.
MYTH: Muhammad Never Killed Captives.
MYTH: Muhammad Never Killed Innocent Children.
MYTH: Muhammad Was a Compassionate and Forgiving Man.
MYTH: Muhammad Always Chose Peace to War.
(The betrayal of the Jewish tribes in Medina, and particularly the genocide of the Banu Qurayza Jewish tribes clearly proved all the above myths.)


(Lesser Pilgrimage) in 628

[I find it inexplicable why a Muslim, worshipping Allah, would ever want to pay pilgrimage to a pagan (Quraish) alter containing 360 pagan idols. Then wanting to conquer the sacred alter of pagans just to destroy all pagan idols except for the pagan idol Hubal known as the Moon God and worshipped as “Allah” by the Quraish and other tribes and represented by some black asteroid rock, now suddenly representing the Islamic “ALLAH.” Surely this black rock is symbolic of the object of worship and hence an Islamic idol? There is no question that this “BLACK ROCK” is an Islamic icon and highly regarded and worshipped by Muslims throughout the world.]

In the sixth year after his migration to Medina (March 628), Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) decided to perform the Umrah (the lesser pilgrimage).In the month of Shawwal 628, Muhammad ordered his followers to obtain sacrificial animals and to make preparations for a pilgrimage (umrah) to Mecca, saying that God had promised him the fulfillment of this goal in a vision where he was shaving his head after the completion of the Hajj. Upon hearing of the approaching 1,400 Muslims, the Quraysh sent out a force of 200 cavalry to halt them. Muhammad evaded them by taking a more difficult route, thereby reaching al-Hudaybiyya, just outside of Mecca.


Negotiations commenced with emissaries going to and from Mecca. While these continued, rumors spread that one of the Muslim negotiators, Uthman bin al-Affan, had been killed by the Quraysh. Muhammad responded by calling upon the pilgrims to make a pledge not to flee (or to stick with Muhammad, whatever decision he made) if the situation descended into war with Mecca. This pledge became known as the “Pledge of Acceptance” (Arabic: بيعة الرضوان , bay’at al-ridhwān‎) or the “Pledge under the Tree.” News of Uthman’s safety, however, allowed for negotiations to continue, and a treaty scheduled to last ten years was eventually signed between the Muslims and Quraysh. The main points of the treaty included the cessation of hostilities; the deferral of Muhammad’s pilgrimage to the following year; and an agreement to send back any Meccan who had gone to Medina without the permission of their protector.

“I have been sent as envoy to the courts of Kesra (Chosroes), Qaisar (Caeser), and the Negus but I have not seen a king whose men so honor him as the companions of Muhammad honor Muhammad. If he commands anything they almost outstrip his words in fulfilling it….When he speaks, their voices are hushed in his presence and they lower their eyes in reverence for him. He has made you a good offer, therefore accept it from him.”

 It included:

“In your name, O Allah. These are the terms of the truce between Muhammad, the son of Abdullah and Suhayl, the son of Amr (of Mecca).Both parties have agreed to lay down the burden of war for ten years. During this time, each party shall be safe, and neither shall injure the other; no secret damage shall be inflicted, but uprightness and honor shall prevail between them.

The Muslims shall return this year without performing Umrah (the pilgrimage). In the coming year, you may enter it with your companions, staying therein for three days, bearing no arms except the arms of the traveller, with swords remaining in their sheaths.

If a Quraysh person comes to Muhammad (i.e., after accepting Islam) without the permission of his guardian, Muhammad shall return him to them, but if one of the Muhammad’s people come to the Quraysh, he shall not be returned.

Whoever wishes to enter into covenant with Muhammad can do so, and whoever wishes to enter into covenant with the Quraysh can do so.”

The Quraysh realizing their mistake and the risk of losing important allies, came to an agreement with the Prophet. The terms of the treaty were written down and is known as the “Treaty of Hudaibiyah.”

Many Muslims were not satisfied with the terms of the treaty (considering it as a humiliation to Muhammad.) However, the Qur’anic sura “Al-Fath” (The Victory) (Qur’an 48:1-29) assured the Muslims that the expedition from which they were now returning must be considered a victorious one. It was only later that Muhammad’s followers would realise the benefit behind this treaty. According to Welch, these benefits included the inducing of the Meccans to recognise Muhammad as an equal; a cessation of military activity posing well for the future; and gaining the admiration of Meccans who were impressed by the incorporation of the pilgrimage rituals.

After signing the truce, Muhammad made an expedition against the Jewish oasis of Khaybar, known as the Battle of Khaybar. This was possibly due to it housing the Banu Nadir, who were inciting hostilities against Muhammad, or to regain some prestige to deflect from what appeared to some Muslims as the inconclusive result of the truce of Hudaybiyya. According to Muslim tradition, Muhammad also sent letters to many rulers of the world, asking them to convert to Islam (the exact date is given variously in the sources). Hence he sent messengers (with letters) to Heraclius of the Byzantine Empire (the eastern Roman Empire), Khosrau of Persia, the chief of Yemen and to some others. In the years following the truce of Hudaybiyya, Muhammad sent his forces against the Arabs on Transjordanian Byzantine soil in the Battle o Mu’tah, in which the Muslims were defeated.


Less than two years after making a treaty with the people of Mecca, Muhammad returned with an army and took the city by surprise.  Although this has been a traditional source of pride for Muslims down through the centuries, contemporary scholars are more apt to dwell on excusing Muhammad’s action, since it contrasts with the claim that Islam is a religion of peace.

Rather than making the case that Muhammad was forced into war, which the historical account clearly does not support, today’s apologists argue that he was justified in taking Mecca on the basis that the other party had violated the treaty between them.  Of particular interest are the technicalities concerning alliances.

After the treaty of Hudaibiya was made, two feuding tribes aligned themselves on opposite sides of the Meccan-Muslim divide.  The Banu Bakr tribe allied with the Meccans had suffered a series of murders at the hands of the other tribe Banu Khuza’ah (allied to the Muslims) prior to the alliance, which they sought to avenge.

Rather than get bogged down with names for the moment, let’s summarize it as follows:

  1. A member of Tribe Banu Bakr(later allied with Mecca) is murdered by members of Tribe Banu Khuza’ah(later allied with Muhammad).
  2. Tribe Banu Bakr murders a member of Tribe Banu Khuza’ah in revenge.
  3. Tribe Banu Khuza’ah then murders three members of Tribe Banu Bakr in revenge.
  4. After committing these murders, Tribe Banu Khuza’ah joins the Muslim alliance.
  5. In response, Tribe Banu Bakr joins the Meccans.
  6. Tribe Banu Bakr then seeks revenge for the last murders by killing members of Tribe Banu Khuza’ah.

This is detailed in Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 803, in which Tribe Banu Bakr is with the Quraish and Tribe Banu  Khuza’a is with Muhammad.  Although the Khuza’a had started the original chain of murder, the fact that they were attacked by the tribe allied with the Meccans after allying with the Muslims constituted a technical breach of the treaty – which Muhammad then capitalized on by marching his superior forces into Mecca and establishing the authority of Islam by force.

On the surface then, it would appear that the Meccans were the first to violate the treaty.  Even though most Muslims admit that the Meccans did not want a war, they still insist that Muhammad was justified in taking Mecca because of the treaty violation.

But, in fact, Muhammad was the first to violate the Treaty of Hudaibiya.

Even the Qur’an acknowledges this, which means any knowledgeable Muslim must as well.

The terms of the treaty specified that any Meccan who flees Mecca for Medina (where Muhammad resided) must be returned to Mecca. But when a group of Muslims did exactly that a few weeks after the treaty signing, Muhammad did not return all of them, but kept the women.  A verse from Allah arrived conveniently to justify his decision (60:10).

Today’s Muslims have only one answer for this: Allah gave Muhammad His personal permission to break the treaty.  It is an obvious double standard, but one that they are comfortable with, since Muslims believe their religion makes them superior.  (It remains unclear as to why Allah had Muhammad sign on to terms that were intended to be violated).

Eschewing technicalities at this point, the apologists then begin to talk of the seriousness of violations, claiming that the killing of those tribe members allied with the Muslims constituted a graver offence.  They are correct, of course, but there is yet another piece to the story that drives home the double standard all the more:

As it turns out, Muslims were murdering Meccans after the treaty signing and prior to the revenge killings between the allied tribes!

Bukhari 50:891 tells of a man named Abu Basir who embraced Islam and then killed a Meccan.  Muhammad sends the man to live on the coast, where he forms a group of seventy Muslims who support themselves by attacking Meccan caravans.  According to the Hadith, he and the other Muslims “killed them and took their property.”  Muir words it as follows, “They waylaid every caravan from Mecca (for since the truce, traffic with Syria had again sprung up) and spared the life of no one.”

Attacking and killing Meccans was an obvious violation of the treaty of Hudaibiya, but the victims did not want war with Muhammad and thus did not march against him.  Yet, Muhammad jumped on the first excuse to attack the Meccans, even though they were not threatening him.  His adversaries wanted peace, but he wanted power.  Needless to say, they had little choice but to surrender to him without a fight.

The dual ethics of Islam are ingrained in the faith, including the disparate treatment of unbelievers.  It should be no surprise that Muhammad held others to standards by which he was personally unwilling to abide.  In this case, he was the first to violate the treaty of Hudaibiya.  Thus did he establish an example for his followers: a promise to non-Muslims is not obligatory for the believer.  As Abu Bakr, himself a military leader, put it:

“If I take an oath to do something and later on I find something else better than the first one, then I do what is better and make expiation for my oath.” (Bukhari 78:618)

Muhammad no doubt would have agreed:

“The Prophet said: ‘War is deceit’.” (Bukhari 52:269) [7] [8]

The Battle of Khaybar

There was no question that Muhammad with his 1400 pilgrims suffered a massive humiliation when he was prevented from executing the Hajj in 628 AD and “The 10 year Treaty of Hudaibiya” was imposed upon him by the Quraish which he was forced to accept. But Muhammad noticed that the Quraish did not immediately engage in battle, and that they were willing to allow him to do the Hajj the following year provided he stuck to this agreement. By accepting the Treaty and agreeing to it, the Quraish now continue with their caravan trading without any fear of raids by Muhammad’s men. They could now relax their vigilance for the next 10 years and build up their wealth and reserves with no fear of raids.

Muhammad on the other hand was already planning his next moves. He strengthened his army and sought to enrich his troops with battle experience and with the taste the booty and inherit the war machinery of their enemy by defeating the rich and well equipped (instruments of war) belonging to the Jews of Khaybar.

The Battle of Khaybarwas fought in the year 629 between Muhammad and his followers against the Jews living in the oasis of Khayar, located 150 kilometers (95 miles) from Medina in the north-western part of the Arabian Peninsula,  in modern-day Saudi Arabia. According to Muslim sources, the Muslims attacked Jews who had barricaded themselves in a fort.On the reasons for the attack, Scottish historian William Montgomery Watt notes the presence in Khaybar of the Banu Nadir. who were inciting hostilities along with neighbouring Arab tribes against the Islamic community in Medina. Italian orientalist Laura Veccia Vaglieri,  while giving full credence to Watt’s view, claims other motives included the prestige the engagement would confer upon Muhammad among his followers, as well the booty which could be used to supplement future campaigns (planned war with Meccan Quraish.)

The Jews of Khaybar finally surrendered and were allowed to live in the oasis on the condition “that they would give one-half of their produce to the Muslims.”Jews continued to live in the oasis for several more years until they were finally expelled by caliph Umar. The imposition of tribute upon the conquered Jews served as a precedent for provisions in the Islamic law requiring “the exaction of tribute known as jizrya from non-Muslims under Muslim rule, and confiscation of land belonging to non-Muslims into the collective property of the Muslim community.” In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim state’s protection from outside aggression, and to be exempted from military service and the Zakat,  which is obligatory upon Muslim citizens. [9]

Muhammad having crushed the Jews of Khaybar making sure they could not join up with the Quraish to fight Muhammad, and having looted wealth and war materials to support his next battle, Muhammad was now prepared for his most important task of his life, to conquer Mecca.


By virtue of the treaty of Hudaibia, Bani Khuzza who had declared their association with the Muslims were now considered a part of Muslims now nobody (Quraish) had any right to challenge them; but the Quraish in order to punish them for their friendship with the Muslims violated the treaty and asked Bani Nakr to kill them and pillage their territory. Even Suhail himself, who had signed the treaty of Hudaibia on behalf of the Quraish came to fight in disguise. Bani Khuzza begged to spare their lives but they did not listen and (the Quraish) slew all of them. Even those who had taken refuge in (the) Kaaba were massacred. When the refuges of Kaaba pleaded for mercy in the name of Allah, the Quraish replied, “there is no Allah today.”

When the Prophet (Muhammad) (S.A.W) heard the news of the gruesome killing from the forty refugees (including women and children) who had somehow reached Madina he ordered “an army of ten thousand people to get ready to attack Mecca,” though it was the month of “Ramsanand the Muslims were fasting.

Abu Sufian who was then the governor of Mecca rushed to Madina to apologise for the killings and ask for forgiveness of the Prophet (S.A.W). But the Prophet (S.A.W) did not believe his words and ordered his men to march towards Mecca. Saad Ibne Ebada was given the command of the advance force when the Prophet (S.A.W) learned from his uncle Abbas that Saad and his men were contemplating to loot Mecca in retaliation of the massacre of Bani Khuzza, he removed him from the command and gave it to Ali (A.S.). Ali (A.S.) took his men to Marruzaharan near Mecca and camped there for the final attack. *Abu Sufian seeing his end near immediately embraced Islam, but the Prophet (S.A.W) did not believe his words again and ordered the Muslims to surround Mecca and enter from four different points. Ali (A.S.) who was also commanding a large cavalry along with being the flag-bearer of the Muslims army was ordered to hoist the flag on Mount Hajun and wait for the Prophet (S.A.W). The other officers were also asked not to attack the Meccans first.

*This quotation is included to show that there were conversions to Islam under the Sword.

“The oft-quoted Qur’anic verse “let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256) takes a serious beating against the reality of Muhammad’s later years.  The prophet of Islam had no real power when this seemingly tolerant passage was “revealed”.  Things were much different, however, by the time the ninth Sura was recited, which explicitly calls for forcing others into prayer and paying the jizya (9:29).

Examples from Muhammad’s life prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not opposed to forcible conversions and even ordered them once he had the military authority to do so,

Continuing the story of Abu Sufyan, when the Meccan leader visited the Muslim army camp in 630 in an attempt to convince Muhammad not to make war (on the Quraish), he was chased into their prophet’s presence at the point of a sword.  There he was “invited” to embrace Islam:

[Muhammad] said, “Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn’t it time that you recognize that I am Allah’s apostle?” He (Abu Sufyan) answered, “As to that I still have some doubt.” I (the narrator) said to him, “Submit and testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of Allah before you lose your head,” so he did so. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 814)

No word of admonishment from Muhammad is recorded.  The prophet of Islam fully accepted the “conversion” and immediately made use of Abu Sufyan to further his political goals.” (He used Abu Sufyan’s conversion to Islam as an example for all Quraish members to emulate.)

Ali (A.S.) as ordered reached Mount Hajun without harming anybody and hoisted the flag of Islam on it. Other generals too led their army peacefully and gathered near Ali (A.S.). When the Prophet (S.A.W) arrived, he removed his armour,  but (wore) the dress of a pilgrim and wore a black turban and proceeded towards the Kaaba with Ali (A.S.) to offer prayers.

There were three hundred and sixty Idols inside the Kaaba representing the different pagan Arab gods. Pictures of Prophet Ibrahim (S.A.W) and his son Ishmail and of angels in female form were posted on the walls of the Kaaba. The Prophet (S.A.W) after obliterating these pictures broke all idols. The idol of Hubal, the so-called god of Mecca could not be broken by the Prophet (S.A.W) or Ali (A.S.) as it was fixed at a high place. the Prophet (S.A.W) made Ali (A.S.) stand on his shoulde4s to break it. Not one person from the whole of Mecca came forward to stop Muhammad (S.A.W) and Ali (A.S.) from breaking their gods The whole of Mecca was at his mercy. While the prophet (S.A.W) and Ali (A.S.) were breaking the idols the Muslims were celebrating the victory of Islam on the infidels. 

Addressing the Meccans who had summoned before him the Prophet (S.A.W) asked them, “What do you expect from me today?” “Mercy,” they all pleaded. Tears rolled from the eyes of the Prophet (S.A.W) and he declared, “Today I will speak to you as Yusuf spoke to his brothers. I will not harm you and Allah will forgive you for He is Merciful and Loving. Go you are free.”Abu Sufian who was sure than he will not be forgiven ran after every important person whom he thought could influence the Prophet (S.A.W). When nobody accompanied him he caught hold of Prophet (S.A.W)’s uncle Abbas and begged him to save his life. Abbas requested the Prophet (S.A.W) to forgive Abu Sufian, and the Prophet (S.A.W) did not turn down his uncle’s request, and freeing Abu Sufian said “Go you are a freed slave.”

After the conquest of Mecca the Prophet (S.A.W) sent some of the Muslims as missionaries to visit the small hamlets of non-Muslims near Mecca and invite them towards Islam. He had given specific orders not to harm anyone but Khalid Bin Waleed who had embraced Islam only after the fall of Mecca chose the occasion to take the revenge on his infidel uncle from Bani Jazhima who were all Muslims. When the people of Bani Jazhima learned about Khalid Bin Waleed’s coming they came out of their hamlets to meet him but armed. Khalid knowing fully well that they were Muslims asked them who they were. The people of Bani Jazhima said that they were Muslims and followed the teachings of Mohammad (S.A.W). They also informed him that they had built a mosque in which they recite Azaan and offer Namaz. When Khalid could not find any other excuse to kill them he asked them as to why did they come armed to meet him. They replied that they mistook him and his men to be some other clan with whom they did not have good relations. Khalid did not accept this explanation and ordered them to surrender their arms, which they immediately did. Khalid then ordered his men to tie their hands behind their backs. When their hands were tied Khalid beheaded all of them.

When the Prophet (S.A.W) learned about the killings of Muslim by Khalid, he was so angry and agitated that thrice he prayed, “O Allah I deplore Khalid’s action.” Then he sent Ali (A.S.) to compensate the survivors for their losses and to return all that Khalid had looted. Ali (A.S.) enquired from every person of Bani Jazhima of his or her’s losses and sufferings and gave all what they asked for. When every person was paid to his satisfaction and there was still some money left, Ali (A.S.) redistributed it to all of them. When the Prophet (S.A.W) was informed about the way Ali (A.S.) handled the sufferers of Bani Jazhima he appreciated Ali (A.S.)’s generosity. [10]

Yet the following narration tells a slightly different account of what happened after the conquest of Mecca:

After he had conquered Mecca, Muhammad began ordering the executions of those who had insulted him or apostatized.  One of these was his former scribe, Abdullah bin Sa’d, who transcribed Muhammad’s “revelations” from Allah, but lost his faith in the “prophet” when the latter adopted editing changes that he suggested (Allah’s word was supposed to be unalterable).  Abdullah saved himself by reverting back to Islam in Muhammad’s presence at Mecca as the prophet of Islam waited for someone to strike off his head:

The apostle remained silent for a long time til finally he said ‘yes.’  When Uthman [and Abdullah] had left, he said to his companions who were sitting around him, “I kept silent so that one of you might get up and strike off his head!”  One of the Ansar said, “Then why didn’t you give me a sign, O apostle of Allah?”  He answered that a prophet does not kill by pointing. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 819).

Several poets were murdered by Muhammad at Mecca for the crime of having mocked him.  Another such poet, named Ka’b bin Zuhayr, saved his own skin by converting to Islam after finding no other way to avoid execution. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 888-889).

The Hadith also records that many other Meccans converted to Islam under obvious duress.  As one apprehensive observer noted to Muhammad at the time:

(They embraced Islam because) they were defeated at your hands (and as such their Islam is not dependable). (Sahih Muslim 4453)

These sorts of conversions were fully recognized by Muhammad, as proven by this hadith, in which he rebukes a soldier for killing a person who had “converted” merely to save his life:

Allah’s Apostle sent us towards Al-Huruqa, and in the morning we attacked them and defeated them.  I and an Ansari man followed a man from among them and when we took him over, he said, “La ilaha illal-Lah.”  On hearing that, the Ansari man stopped, but I killed him by stabbing him with my spear.  When we returned, the Prophet came to know about that and he said, “O Usama! Did you kill him after he had said “La ilaha ilal-Lah?”  I said, “But he said so only to save himself.”  The Prophet kept on repeating that so often that I wished I had not embraced Islam before that day.  (Bukhari 59:568)

(Note that Muhammad was not in the least bit concerned that the victims were slaughtered while fleeing the Muslim army.  This is another strike against the myth that Muslims are only supposed to fight in self-defence).

By this time Muhammad was spreading Islam by any means necessary. He was even using captured wealth to BUY LOYALTY

(after the conquest of the Quraish in Mecca:)

Allah’s Apostle gave (gifts) to some people to the exclusion of some others. The latter seemed to be displeased by that. The Prophet said, “I give to some people, lest they should deviate from True Faith” (Bukhari 53:373).

Muhammad actually captured a man’s wife and children, then used them as leverage to force his conversion:

The apostle told them to tell Malik that if he came to him as a Muslim he would return his family and property to him and give him a hundred camels. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 879)

Islam was being cheapened.  It was no longer a religion, but rather a political allegiance established by force.  Muhammad sent one of his men to Yemen with a military force, where a local pagan leader was told, “Testify that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck.” (Bukhari 59:643)

Neither was there any heartfelt religious conviction in the reluctant “conversion” of the Thaqif tribe, for example:

[The Thaqif leaders said to one another] “We are in an impasse. You have seen how the affair of this man [Muhammad] has progressed. All the Arabs have accepted Islam and you lack the power to fight them… don’t you see that your herds are not safe; none of you can go out without being cut off.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 915)

Their solution was to “accept Islam,” and so they sent their couriers to Muhammad to announce their conversion, ask for a promise that they would no longer by harassed by the Muslims, and request a grace period before they had to ‘give up’ their old religion:

The riders of Thaqif had come to make their submission and accept Islam on the apostle’s conditions provided that they could get a document guaranteeing their people and their land and animals… Among the things they asked the apostle was that they should be allowed to retain their idol al-Lat undestroyed for three years.  The apostle refused, and they continued to ask him for a year or two and he refused… (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 916)

Obviously the Thaqif were not acting out of a true belief in Islam, but rather from the desperation in which non-Muslims Arabs were finding themselves in the wake of Muslim aggression.  Muhammad had the power and he was directing his armies to wipe out those who would not submit to Islam.

“Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah,” were his instructions to one of his military leaders (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992).  Muhammad also congratulated a faraway king on accepting Islam and “killing the polytheists” under his reign, even as he directed another military leader to “invite” a neighboring tribe to Islam and then slaughter them if they refused:

Then the apostle sent Khalid bin Walid… to the Banu al-Harith and ordered him to invite them to Islam three days before he attacked them. If they accepted then he was to accept it from them; and if they declined he was to fight them. (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 959)

Khalid’s famous announcement, “If you accept Islam then you will be safe,” is echoed by Jihadists like Osama bin Laden to this day.

Excerpts from other religious text clearly show that Muhammad’s conquest of Mecca was not a peaceful benevolent entry of a liberating force, but details show that:

Muhammad was intolerant and conceited and could not tolerate any criticism or rejection of his cult.

Today’s Muslims have a visceral need to believe that their religion made Mecca a better city, because if Islam wasn’t better than the paganism that came before, then it has little chance of being better than Western religion and other alternatives that exist today. 

Unfortunately, the picture painted by the early Muslim historians is in stark contrast to what today’s Muslims desperately want to believe.  The truth is that Islam transformed a highly tolerant and religiously pluralistic city into one of only two in the entire world where one is not even allowed to set foot if they do not profess the predominant religion.  ( Medina is the other). 

Mecca, prior to Muhammad, was one of six cities in Arabia with a Kaaba, the cube-like building that housed hundreds of idols and religious artifacts.  The Meccans were mostly polytheists, who worshipped their preferred gods, yet respected everyone else’s. 

Mecca was also the site of an annual religious pilgrimage, in which people from across the region would visit the city over a four month period.  The commerce and income generated from this annual event was extremely important to the local economy.

People from foreign lands were allowed to store their idols at the Kaaba, including Hindus.  There was even room made for the faith of Jews and Christians, who worshipped there alongside the others.  Meccans allowed conversions between faiths and there was no record of persecution against those who practiced their religion without insulting others.

Even Muhammad’s own experience is proof of the Meccan desire to live in peace and harmony.  According to Muslim historical sources, the people of Mecca did not mind Muhammad preaching a new religion, as he began to do in 610 at the age of 40.  They simply asked that he be as tolerant of them as they were of him. 

Instead of obliging, however, the self-proclaimed prophet broke with tradition and openly insulted the local religions as well as the ancestors of the people who practiced it.  This not only caused great offense, but it directly threatened the primary source of livelihood for many residents.

Even so, the people allowed Muhammad to preach in contradiction to local customs for 13 years, which is positive proof of their tolerance.  In fact, it was the Muslims who were the first to draw blood, as they became increasingly violent. 

To be fair, there were some Meccans who responded in kind after the Muslims became violent, but only one death was recorded in the Sira (that of an elderly slave from stress) and none in the Hadith.  Muhammad’s presence was still tolerated up to the point (when) he finally joined with a foreign tribe in an alliance of war against the very city in which he lived.  At that point he was evicted from Mecca.  The year was 622.

Although his adversaries were content leaving him alone in Medina, where he fled with his tribe, Muhammad would not let got of the bitterness over his rejection. He harassed the Meccans by raiding their caravans and goading them into open conflict. Eventually he tricked them into signing a 10-year treaty, The Treaty of Hudaibiya, which left them (Quraish) defenceless before (Muhammads) secretly prepared 10,000 army, when he (Muhammad) suddenly decided top take the city by surprise less than two years later in 630 (by reneging on his treaty promise.)  

The violent history of early Islam leaves little around the edges on which Muslim apologists can make the case that Islam is a peaceful, tolerant religion.  Thus the occupation of Mecca in the aftermath of Muhammad’s victory is usually their primary example, since it was was not followed by widespread massacre of the residents (other than the annihilation of anyone who tried to defend his home from foreign occupation, as a handful did).

Yet, it is fascinating to see just how low Islam’s own defenders must set the bar for their religion.  It is clear” from the accounts of Ibn Ishaq/Hisham and other early historians that the residents of Mecca did not want war, did not prepare for war, and were obviously not expecting it (because there was an Peace Agreement in force for 10 years) when Muhammad marched through the gates of their city with an army of 10,000 soldiers.  There is simply no reason to expect that these innocent people would be slaughtered in the first place (other than the fact that the prophet of Islam had ordered such massacres in the past).

As it was, there were some residents who were sentenced to death by Muhammad himself

(“a small number who were to be killed even if they were found beneath the curtains of the Ka’ba” Ishaq 818, see also Abu Dawud 2677).   These included his old enemies who had personally mocked and rejected him, including two slave girls who had made up songs about him:

“He had two singing girls, Fartana and her friend, who used to sing satirical songs about the apostle, so he ordered that they should be killed.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 819)

Their master, Ibn Khatal, an apostate from Islam, was also slain on Muhammad’s order even as he tried to take refuge in the holiest of places:

Allah’s Apostle entered Mecca in the year of its Conquest wearing an Arabian helmet on his head and when the Prophet took it off, a person came and said, “Ibn Khatal is holding the covering of the Ka’ba (taking refuge in the Ka’ba.”)

The Prophet said, “Kill him.” (Bukhari 29:72, Muslim 7:3145)

A former scribe of Muhammad’s named Abdullah also made the list for leaving Islam after realizing that the transmissions from Allah were arbitrary – after he was able to suggest changes to Muhammad about the wording of certain supposedly immutable “revelations.” 

As with some of the others, Abdullah managed to save his neck by “converting” to Islam just before the moment of execution.  Rather than mock the people who mocked him, or turn the other cheek (as a different “prophet” named Jesus once preached), Muhammad killed those who would not repent for rejecting him (see the Answering Islam article “Muhammad and the Ten Meccans” for a full list of those were sentenced and/or executed).

It was at this point that Mecca, one of the most religiously diverse cities on earth, became one of the most oppressive and intolerant.  Muhammad’s first order of business was to destroy the idols of the very people who allowed him to preach his religion in their city for thirteen years:

“The Prophet entered Mecca and (at that time) there were three hundred and sixty idols around the Ka’ba. He started stabbing the idols with a stick he had in his hand and reciting: “Truth (Islam) has come and Falsehood (disbelief) has vanished.” (Bukhari 43:658)

The prophet of Islam then sent his men out to destroy the temples of other tribes, both around Mecca (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 840) and later as far away as Yemen (Bukhari 59:643). 

With their own religion violently destroyed, most Meccans had no choice but to outwardly “convert” to the very religion they had adamantly rejected for the twenty-one years prior to having a sword at their throat.  To say that this was heartfelt (as some Muslims today actually do) stretches the limits of credulity.

Before evicting those who would not convert, Muhammad first used the allied strength of the local Meccans to conquer a neighboring city, al-Taif, as payback for their earlier rejection of him (and, ironically enough, their unwillingness to make an alliance with him against the Meccans).

After a few months, Muhammad was in a position to break what was left of his treaty and forcibly evicted the remaining non-Muslims from their own city (Mecca):

“So when the sacred months have passed away, then  slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their war free to them” (Quran 9:5)

According to Islam’s holiest text, the only way for polytheists to avoid death was to convert to Islam or flee the city. Needless to say, anyone who did not profess their faith in Muhammad after a four month grace period was not allowed back to perform the pilgrimage, which had been a centuries-old tradition (for all faiths during Quraish control before Islam.) According to the Qur’an, this was not because they posed any sort of physical threat, but rather because they were “unclean.” (Quran 9:28)

The story of Muhammad’s violent expulsion of non-Muslims from their own city can be found in Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 920-923.  Muslim apologists often claim that Muhammad only commanded the killing of those pagans who had “broken the treaty,” yet the historical context states that the command to fight applies to “the polytheists who had broken the agreement as well as those who had a general agreement after the four months which had been given them as a fixed time” (Ishaq 922).  In other words, unbelievers were given four months to vacate their homes, whether they had done anything wrong or not.

Jews and Christians received a special fate as they were eventually chased out of the entire Arabian peninsula based on Muhammad’s final injunction from his deathbed:

I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula 

and will not leave any but Muslims. (Sahih Muslim 4366)

This is the legacy of intolerance left by Muhammad and his “Religion of Peace.”  It is a system of double standards in which “might makes right” and the morality of an action is judged only by whether or not it advances Islam or benefits Muslims.

To this day, Muslims who demand the freedom to preach their faith in non-Muslim countries actively deny the same rights to other religions where and when Islam has the power.  They also insist that others have the right to convert to Islam, while no Muslim as the right to leave on penalty of death.

As it concerns Mecca, the Qur’an’s second chapter tells Muslims that preventing people from from worshipping at the Kaaba is akin to “persecution,” and so important that “slaughter” is mandated by Allah in this case.  Yet, the first order of business for Muhammad, once he established control, was to prevent others from worshipping there.

The effects of supplanting the traditional pagan system with Islam were unmistakable.  Fifty years after Muhammad’s death the Kaaba, which had stood for centuries under the banner of religious tolerance and respect, lay in ruins from one of the many internal Muslim wars that sprang up immediately following Muhammad’s death.

To this day, Muslims are still at each others throats and there is no Islamic country in the world that truly allows other religions to preach openly faith and recruit converts as Muhammad was allowed to do in Mecca.  In stark contrast to its pre-Islamic history, this city now holds the honor as being the most religiously intolerant city on earth, as non-Muslims are not even allowed to visit…

…and there is not a single Muslim voice of protest. [11]

No.2 – THE MYTHS OF MUHAMMAD after the Treaty of Hudaibiya and Conquest of Mecca

(1) It was a Myth that the Meccans were the first to Break the Treaty of Hudaibiya.
(2) Myth that Muhammad chose Peace to War.
(3) Myth Muhammad never forced conversions.(AbuSufyan and other Meccans)
(4) Myth Muhammad never killed captives.
(5) Myth Muhammad never approved dishonesty.(Bukhari:V4B52N268 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘War is deceit.'” He is dishonesty personified.)
(6) Myth Muhammad never killed women.(Satirist Fartana and friend)
(7) Myth Muhammad was a forgiving man.

  1. The fact that he attacked Meccan caravans that were not attacking him, literally killing innocent drivers because of their city’s previous rejection of him.
  2. The brutal execution of 800 Jews at Qurayza who had killed no one, but belonged to a tribe whose leader was pressed to switch loyalties in a time of conflict.
  3. The killing of Uqba for the crime of mocking him at Mecca.
  4. The executions ordered at Medina of those who had insulted him.
  5. The executions ordered at Mecca of those who had insulted him
(8) Myth Muhammad only waged war in self defence.
(9) Myth Muhammad made Mecca a more tolerant city.
(10) Myth Muhammad never approved of Murder.
(11) Myth Muhammad did not practice genocide;


Prophet Muhammad’s Myths


No.1-MUHAMMAD’S MYTHS while in MEDINA before Treaty of Hudaibiya

Muhammad’s invitation, by the 12 major clans to come to Medina adjudicate their disputes marked a turning point in the future for Muhammad. The early establishment of Muhammad in Medina is detailed above to illustrate the myths from the realities of the life and character of Muhammad. From the details described we clearly discern the myths of Muhammad such as:

MYTH: Muhammad Never Approved of Dishonesty

(It is very obvious that Muhammad broke his pledge and betrayed the “Constitution of Medina” with the Jews.

Bukhari:V7B67N427 “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.'”)

(1) MYTH: Muhammad Lived at Peace with Jews.

(2) MYTH: Muhammad never approved of murder.

(3) MYTH: Muhammad Never Killed Captives.

(4) MYTH: Muhammad Never Killed Innocent Children.

(5) MYTH: Muhammad Was a Compassionate and Forgiving Man.

(6) MYTH: Muhammad Always Chose Peace to War.

(The betrayal of the Jewish tribes in Medina, and particularly the genocide of the Banu Qurayza Jewish tribes clearly proved all the above myths.)

No.2 – THE MYTHS OF MUHAMMAD after the Treaty of Hudaibiya and Conquest of Mecca

(7) Myth that the Meccans were the first to Break the Treaty of Hudaibiya.

(8) Myth that Muhammad chose Peace to War.

(9) Myth Muhammad never forced conversions.(AbuSufyan and other Meccans)

(10) Myth Muhammad never killed captives.

(11) Myth Muhammad never approved dishonesty.(Bukhari:V4B52N268 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘War is deceit.'” He is dishonesty personified.)

(12) Myth Muhammad never killed women.(Satirist Fartana and friend)

(13) Myth Muhammad was a forgiving man.

1.           The fact that he attacked Meccan caravans that were not attacking him, literally killing innocent drivers because of their city’s previous rejection of him.

2.           The brutal execution of 800 Jews at Qurayza who had killed no one, but belonged to a tribe whose leader was pressed to switch loyalties in a time of conflict.

3.           The killing of Uqba for the crime of mocking him at Mecca.

4.           The executions ordered at Medina of those who had insulted him.

5.           The executions ordered at Mecca of those who had insulted him

(14) Myth Muhammad only waged war in self defence.

(15) Myth Muhammad made Mecca a more tolerant city.

(16) Myth Muhammad never approved of Murder.

(17) Myth Muhammad did not practice genocide;

Evidence provided in the article has proven that the Prophet Muhammad was a wily cunning manipulator of people. Whenever it suited him he would resort to dissimulations, deceit, and treachery to achieve his aims. He was also merciless and brutal in dispensing his justice with no allowance for compromise except if it was to his advantage.


Timeline of Muhammad’s Life (A.D)

570 – Born in Mecca
576 – Orphaned upon death of mother
595 – Marries Kadijah – older, wealthy widow
610 – Reports first revelations from angel at age of 40
619 – Protector uncle dies
622 – Emigrates from Mecca to Medina (the Hijra)
623 – Orders raids on Meccan caravans
624 – Battle of Badr (victory)
624 – Evicts Qaynuqa Jews from Medina
624 – Orders the assassination of Abu Afak
624 – Orders the assassination of Asma bint Marwan
624 – Orders the assassination of Ka’b al-Ashraf
625 – Battle of Uhud (defeat)
625 – Evicts Nadir Jews
627 – Battle of the Trench (victory)
627 – Massacre of the Qurayza Jews
628 – Signing of the Treaty of Hudaibiya with Mecca
628 – Destruction and subjugation of the Khaybar Jews
629 – Orders first raid into Christian lands at Muta (defeat)
630 – Conquers Mecca by surprise (along with other tribes)
631 – Leads second raid into Christian territory at Tabuk (no battle)
632 – Dies


The Black Stone of the Kaaba

 ” As in the Kaabah of Mecca, the Kaabbah of Taif had a large Black Stone around which the people circled. The stone was the main element in Arabian Star Family Worship.

The Kaabah of Mecca was insignificant, even to the tribe of Quraish, until Muhammad imposed it as the exclusive place of worship for Muslims.

The tribe of Quraish continued to make two religious trips, or pilgrimages.  One was to the northern Kaabah, which I discussed before, and the other was to the Kaabah of Taif. When Mohammed occupied Mecca, he came with a verse from the Qur’an, prohibiting his followers to make such trips. The Qur’an compelled them to worship only in the Kaabah of Mecca. The verse I’m referring to is found in Surah Quraish 106:1-3,

For the covenants by the Quraish, their covenant journeys by winter and summer, let them adore the lord of this house. “[12]

“It is not related that the Black Stone was connected with any special god. In the Ka’ba was the statue of the god Hubal who might be called the god of Mecca and of the Ka’ba. Caetani gives great prominence to the connection between the Ka’ba and Hubal. Besides him (Hubal), however, al-Lat, al-`Uzza, and al-Manat were worshipped and are mentioned in the Kur’an; Hubal is never mentioned there. What position Allah held beside these is not exactly known. The Islamic tradition has certainly elevated him at the expense of other deities. It may be considered certain that the Black Stone was not the only idol in or at the Ka’ba. The Makam Ibrahim was of course a sacred stone from very early times. Its name has not been handed down. Beside it several idols are mentioned, among them the 360 statues. ” [13]

Origin of the Kaaba

“The Kaaba is a cube like structure built for Allah, where Muslims go to kiss the “black stone,” and pray to Allah. It is the central shrine for all Muslims.

Muslims believe that the shrine was built by Abraham and Ishmael, and the instructions were given to them by God (Allah). But history shows a different story.

“It is virtually certain that Abraham NEVER reached Mecca” (Watt, p.136, Muslim and Christian Encounters, emphasis mine).

“According to Muslim Tradition, Abrah, and Ishmael built the Kaaba…But outside these traditions there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE for this claim-whether epigraphic, archaeological, or documentary. Indeed Snouck Hurgronje has shown that “Muhammad INVENTED the story to give his religion an Arabian origin…at the same time incorporating into Islam the Kabah with all its historical and religious associations for the Arabs”” (Warraq, Why I Am Not A Muslim, p.131, emphasis mine).

What is (were) its real origins?

“In pre-Mohammedan times it was believed that “the stone” had fallen from the moon and “was sacred to the OLD MOON GOD HUBAL.” The stone was enclosed in a small square temple known as the KABAH, which contained many lesser gods…” (Robert Payne, The History of Islam, p.4, emphasis mine).

“…the Kabah was in fact built as a shrine for the MOON-GOD” (Morey; The Moon God Allah, p.9, emphasis mine).

Maxine Robinson Says, “The Kaaba at Mecca, which may have been INITIALLY A SHRINE OF HUBAL ALONE…” (Life of Muhammad, p.40, emphasis mine).

“At the time of Muhammad, the Kaaba was officially dedicated to the GOD HUBAL…” (Karen Armstrong, Muhammad, p.61, emphasis mine).” [14]



Did Ibrahim build Al- Ka’bah?

Actually this is a very strange and irrational saying, as it is against the history,
archaeology and the holy books

The Holy Bible never mentioned that Ibrahim went to the Arabic peninsula in his life, he
lived in Palestine, and then he went to Egypt and returned back to Palestine passing by
the Sinai desert and he never went there in his travels

In the history books and the old archaeology of the Far East and the Arabic peninsula
there was no single mentioning that Ibrahim went to the Arabic peninsula

In the book of “who built the Ka’bah the Muslims’ most holy place” by W.L.Cathe, which
is a book enriched with detailed maps said: the author concluded that Ibrahim never
went to the Arabic peninsula

The Islamic encyclopedia, part 1, page 77 mentioned that:” it was never mentioned that
Ibrahim had put the foundations of the House (AL-Ka’bah) and he was not the first

In the whole Mekkaian chapters (those chapter written in Makkah before the immigration
of the prophet) of the quran there were no single mentioning of Ibrahim, but in the
madinian chapters (those chapter written in Madina after the immigration of the prophet)
the situation is different, as Ibrahim was called “Hannifin Muslim” and the founder of the
religion of Ibrahim and he raised the foundations of the House (AL-Ka’bah) with Ishmael
the cow chapter (Surat Al-Baqarah) 127

The secret behind that difference between the Mekkaian chapters and the madinian
chapters exists in the fact that Mohammed made an alliance with the Jews in Makkah in
the beginning, but they showed hostility to him, so he had to find some others, so he
thought of the father of all Arabs Ibrahim, so he was able to get rid of the Judaism of his
time to create a connection with the Judaism of Ibrahim that became the origin of Islam,

When he was mentally fully occupied with Makkah, then Ibrahim became the founder of
the House of God

The pilgrimage

Pilgrimage is one of the essential pillars of Islam; it is derived from the pre-Islam

The word “hajj “itself is derived from “Hack” which means in Arabic language friction as
there was a pagan ritual performed at the time of Hajj, in which women were doing
friction of their private part by the black stone for enhancing their breeding capabilities
(Dr.jawad Ali in his book “the history of Arab before Islam”, part 5, page 223)

(This issue will be explained in details in a separate chapter)

In the book “Ka’bah through the history, by Dr; Ali Hassen Al-Kharboutly he wrote:

{The Arabs before Islam were going to Makkah in the season of Hajj (pilgrimage) every
year to perform the pilgrimage obligation}

What was the purpose of Pilgrimage in paganism?

In Islamic encyclopaedia, part 11, page 3465:” there were 2 commercial markets every
year during the month of Dhu-al-Qa’dah, the first one in Okaz and the second one in
Makkah, they were followed in the first few days of Dhu-al-Hijjah by a market, called Dhu-
almjaz, those markets following the season of dates collection was connected o the
pilgrimage (Hajj), it is called”Mosem al-Hajj”

The word “Mousem” in their language was meaning the fertility festival or ” wasm”, this
word as mentioned in the book “the legendary and the heritage” by Sayed Al-Kemny,
page 165: “wasm” or “Mousem” is the word from it “Mousem Al-Hajj “was derived, it
means ” “moumes” which in Arabic language means prostitute, noticing that there were
many prostitutes in Makkah before Islam

In his book, Sayed Al-Kemny said in page 160: inside Al-Ka’bah, there was also the god
“hobble” the god of fertility, that’s why there were sexual rituals, widely spread in these
areas, There were performing group sex seeking fertility as a part of their pagan rituals
and they were doing circumambulation around Al-Ka’bah naked

Nowadays they are also doing circumambulation around Al-Ka’bah semi-naked with the
origin of that ritual in the paganism epoch

The pilgrimage rituals in the paganism epoch

Arab in the paganism epoch were performing the same rituals, Muslims are performing

The same rituals, nothing had been altered from it at all

In the book ” the historic roots for the Islamic legislation by Dr: Khalil Abdul-Karim, page
16, he recapitulated that rituals in the following:

1) “Al-Talbi’h” the Muslims’ saying around the Ka’bah” labbik Al-Lahom labbik” while
they are doing the circumambulation
2) ” Al-Ihram” the wearing of the special pilgrimage clothes
3) ” Al-Hade'” market
4) Stopping by “Arafa”
5) Stoning of the ‘jamarat”
6) The slaughtering
7) The walking between the “safa” and ” the ” marwa”
8) Kissing of the black stone
9) The circumambulation around Al-Ka’bah seven times

They took all the pilgrimage rituals unaltered from the pre-Islam paganism. [15]


[1] The 1st Caliphate:

[2] The Medina Charter:

[3] Battle of Badr:

[4] Muhammad’s Myths:

[5] Banu Qurayzah Tribe-K.Armstrong:

[6] Timeline Muhammad incl myths:

[7] Treaty of Hudaibiyah:

[8] Treaty of Hudaibiyah Myth:

[9] The Battle of Khaybar:

[10] The Conquest of Mecca, 630 :

[11] Myths of Muhammad:

[12] Kaaba was The Temple of The Arabian Star Worship:

[13] The Black Stone:

[14] Origins of the Kaaba:

[15] The Hajj:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: