Myths about the Holy Prophet - Part 3: Massacre of Banu Qurayza

The next myth I want to discuss is a very serious one: the allegation that the Holy Prophet was responsible for the massacre of a Jewish tribe - upto 900 members of Bani Qurayzah were executed in cold blood and dumped in a mass grave. Once again, Western historians point to Sunni books which make this claim, including the prominent biography of the Holy Prophet compiled by Ibn Ishaq.

Before the arrival of the Holy Prophet and the message of Islam, there were three Jewish tribes who lived in Medina along with other Jewish settlements further in the north (most importantly in Khayber and Fadak). At the time, the Holy Prophet hoped that the Jews of Medina, as followers of a divine religion would show understanding to the introduction of a new monotheistic religion, Islam. However, as soon as these Jewish tribes realised that Islam was being firmly established and gaining power, they adopted an actively hostile attitude, with the final result being the disappearance of these Jewish communities from the region.

Two of the three tribes, the Banu Qaynuga and Banu al-Nadir tried to provoke the Muslims. They were besieged and were forced to surrender. They were then allowed to depart the region. According to Ibn Ishaq, the third of the Jewish tribes, Banu Qurayza sided with the Quarysh tribe and made an unsuccessful attack on Medina in an attempt to destroy the Muslims. The challenge failed, and the Banu Qurayza were captured by the Holy Prophet. Although the tribe surrendered, they were subject to arbitration by Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, a member of the Aws tribe. He ruled that the grown-up males be killed and the women and children sold to slavery. The Holy Prophet, it seemed, concurred.Consequently, trenches were dug in Medina and the men of Qurayza were brought and their heads cut off by the Holy Prophet himself. Estimates of those killed vary from 400 to 900.

Once again, rather than refute these outrageous claims Muslims try to apologise or justify the events that took place. For example, Muslim scholars argue that the punishment was according to the Bible, Saad ruled in accordance with Jewish/Biblical law, so the Jews had nothing to complain about: for example, the Bible says: “When the Lord thy God delivers [the city] into thy hand, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take for a prey unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.” (Deuteronomy 20:13-14). Muslim scholars also argue that we shouldn’t judge the practises of those times with the human-rights standards we have today; that the Muslims wanted to deter future treachery by setting an example with severe punishment of Bani Qurayzah, that the Prophet feared that if he let them live, the Qurayza would flee and join the Banu Nadir in the fight against the Muslims.

This is all nonsense, no such massacre took place. Once again it is a myth spread to try and condemn and ridicule the Holy Prophet and this time I have six reasons as to why the story is a complete fabrication:

1. The first person to mention this story about Bani Qurayza was Ibn Ishaq, the author of the Sira, the first biography of Rasooallah, but he was not a contemporary of the Prophet, he was born nearly 80 years after the death of the Prophet and, according to Arafat, he based his narrations about the killing of the Jews of Bani Qurayzah based on the testimonies of the descendants of that tribe. Not exactly impartial, is it? Ibn Ishaq’s contemporary, the early traditionist and jurist Imam Malik ibn Anas, called him unequivocally "a liar" and "an impostor" who transmits his stories from the Jews". In a later age, Allama Ibn Hajar further explained the point of Malik's condemnation of Ibn Ishaq. Malik, he said, condemned Ibn Ishaq because he made a point of seeking out descendants of the Jews of Medina in order to obtain from them accounts of the Prophet's campaigns as handed down by their forefathers. Ibn Hajar then rejected the stories in question in the strongest terms referring to them as "such odd tales as the story of Qurayza and al-Nadir". An outright rejection!
2. The Holy Quran makes no mention of the apparent massacre: "And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew, and ye made captive some." (Surah 33, Verse 26).
   There is no reference to numbers, and only a reference to those people who were doing the fighting. Unlike Ibn Ishaq’s Sirah, which came more than a 100 years later, the Quran is a contemporary text, of that time period, regardless of whether you accept it is the word of God or not.
3. To kill such a large number is diametrically opposed to the Islamic sense of justice and to the basic principles laid down in the Qur'an - particularly the verse. "...no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another." (Suran 53, Verse 38) Collective punishment is not an option in Islam. It is obvious in the story that the leaders were numbered and were well known. They were named. Why kill everyone else? On what basis?
4. It is unlikely that the Banu Qurayza should be slaughtered when the other Jewish groups who surrendered before Banu Qurayza and after them were treated leniently and allowed to go. Indeed it is related that when Khaybar fell to the Muslims, there were among the residents a particular family or clan who had distinguished themselves by excessive unseemly abuse of the Prophet. Yet in that hour the Prophet addressed them in words which are no more than a rebuke: "Sons of Abu al-Huqayq (he said to them) I have known the extent of your hostility to God and to His apostle, yet that does not prevent me from treating you as I treated your brethren." That was after the surrender of Banu Qurayza.
5. If indeed so many hundreds of people had actually been put to death in the market-place, and trenches were dug for the operation, it is very strange that there should be no trace whatever of all that - no sign or word to point to the place, and no reference to a visible mark. No commemoration.
6. In the story of Qurayza only a few specific persons were actually named as having been put to death, some of whom were described as particularly active in their hostility. It is the reasonable conclusion that those were the ones who led the sedition and who were consequently punished - not the whole tribe.

The mass massacre is a complete and total myth. It didn't happen and nor should we ever dream that the Holy Prophet could do such a thing - the slaughter of innocent people is completely un-Islamic and not an act carried out by the greatest of all human beings.

Myths about the Holy Prophet - Part 2: Marriage to Bibi Aisha

Following my previous blog, I now would like to address yet more outrageous claims about the Holy Prophet. Critics like to argue that the Holy Prophet was a serial womaniser, who married several women to satisfy his desires. What they fail to recognise was that he was married for a period of almost 25 years to a single woman, Bibi Khadija and in that time, until the age of 45, he was married to her and no-one else. When he did start marrying again, after her death in 615 AD, he married mostly widowed women, older women, women with whose tribes or families he happened to be cementing political or diplomatic alliances. Not out of love or lust or pleasure.

Arguably one of the most prominent and favourite allegations that critics like to attack our Holy Prophet with is the claim that he married a 6 year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was 9 years old, whilst he was into his fifties. The girl in question was the daughter of Abu Bakr, Bibi Aisha. Unfortunately, the allegations arise from several Sunni books, including Sahih Bukhari and the standard Muslim response is so what if she was nine, Bedouin Arab girls living in the desert in those days matured earlier, that child marriage was more acceptable back then, that the Prophets mentioned in the Bible also engaged in marriage with much younger girls. It is a very defensive response that fails to challenge the myth of her age itself. The truth is that when you study the Sunni books of history and hadith, you find that there is no conclusive or clear proof or evidence that she was 6 or 9 when she got married; on the contrary, a range of possible ages is offered when you actually go beyond the myths, gossip and hearsay and actually examine the history. Here are ten reasons to reject the myth of the marriage to a 6 year old.

1. Several books of hadith report that Aisha was married to the Prophet at age 6 and her marriage was not consumated until age 9. Most of quotes on this have come from one man, Hashim bin Urwah, who was the last narrator of this chain. However, he did not narrate this information when he was a famous teacher in Madina, but only after he moved to Iraq in his seventies. By that stage, even his own student, Malik ibn Anas had said that his narrations should be rejected as unreliable and suspect.
2. According to hadith in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim, Aisha is said to have joined Muhammad on the raid that culminated in the Battle of Badr, in 624 CE. However, because no one below the age of fifteen was allowed to accompany raiding parties, Aisha should have been at least fifteen in 624 CE and thus at least thirteen when she was married following the Hijra in 622 CE.
3. Ibn Hisham’s commentary on Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rashul Allah, the earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, records Aisha as having converted to Islam before Umar ibn al-Khattab, during the first few years of Islam around 610 CE. In order to accept Islam she must have been walking and talking, hence at least three years of age, which would make her at least fifteen in 622 CE.
4. Tabari reports that Abu Bakr wished to spare Aisha the discomforts of a journey to Ethiopia soon after 615 CE, and tried to bring forward her marriage to Mut`am’s son. Mut`am refused because Abu Bakr had converted to Islam, but if Aisha was already of marriageable age in 615 CE, she must have been way older than nine in 622 CE.
5. Tabari also reports that Abu Bakr’s four children were all born during the Jahiliyyah, the pre Islamic period, which could be said to have ended in 610 CE, making Aisha at least twelve in 622 CE.
6. According to Ibn Hajar, Fatima was five years older than Aisha. Fatima is reported to have been born when Muhammad was thirty-five years old, meaning Aisha was born when he was forty years old, and thus twelve when Muhammad married at fifty-two.
7. According to the generally accepted tradition, Aisha was born about eight years before Hijrah. However, according to another narrative in Bukhari (Kitaab al-Tafseer) Aisha is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur’an , was revealed, “I was a young girl, a jariya”. The 54th Surah of the Qur’an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Aisha had not only been born before the revelation of the referred Surah, but was actually a young girl, not even only an infant at that time. So if this age, of jariya, is assumed to be 7 to 14 years then her age at the time of marriage would be 14 to 21.
8. A famous Sunni imam, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, reports in his Musnad, that after the death of Khadijah, "Khaulah came to the Holy Prophet and advised him to marry again. She had two propositions for the Prophet: Either Muhammad could marry a virgin (bikr), or he could go for woman who had already been married (thayyib)". Khaulah named Aisha for a virgin (bikr). It is common knowledge that the term bikr in the Arabic language refers to a well formed lady and not to a 9 year old, playful, immature girl. If she were nine, the word used by Khaulah would have been jariyah and not bikr.
9. According to many Ahadith in Bukhari, it is believed Aisha participated in the battle of Badr and Uhud. Also in Bukhari (Kitabu’l-maghazi) Ibn `Umar states that the "Prophet did not permit me to participate in Uhud, as at that time, I was 14 years old." But on the day of Khandaq, when I was 15 years old, the Prophet permitted my participation. So if it was not allowed to participate in Uhud for people younger than 15, then Aisha would be at least 15 in those battles, making her age at least 13 to 14 at the time of marriage.
10. According to almost all the historians, Asma the elder sister of Aisha, was ten years older than Aisha. It is reported that Asma died in the 73rd year after migration of Muhammad when she was 100 years old. Now, obviously if Asma was 100 years old in the 73rd year after Migration to Medina, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of migration. If Asma was 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijrah, Aisha should have been 17 or 18 years old at that time. Thus, Aisha – if she got married in the first or second year after the Hijrah, as is commonly reported – was between 18 to 20 years old at the time of her marriage.

So in conclusion, we are doing our Holy Prophet a great disservice. We should be defending the honour, character and reputation of our Holy Prophet and reject these claims that he married a 6 year old child, whether they appear in non-Muslim or Muslim books. The evidence is just not there.

Myths about the Holy Prophet - Part 1: "Epileptic plagiarist!"

Following on from my last post about the misconceptions of women in Islam, I wanted to discuss yet another controversial subject that is used to criticise Islam and Muslims across the world. Our Holy Prophet Muhammed (S.A.W.), has become an unnecessarily controversial figure of attack from non-Muslims and those with an Islamaphobic agenda. The allegations, misconceptions and myths surrounding our Holy Prophet are the most painful, hurtful, outrageous and offensive.

From the famous 14th century poem, Dante's Inferno by an Italian poet, which placed the Holy Prophet in hell to Salman Rushdie's infamous "Satanic Verses" which portrayed the Holy Prophet as a dishonest and immoral man. The Danish cartoons in 2006 which depicted him as a lustful suicide bomber, Western literature and culture and of course, a media infected by Islamaphobia has been intent on trying to demonise and dismiss our Holy Prophet.

Non-Muslims fail to understand our attachment and relationship with the Holy Prophet, and fail to understand why we get so offended when he is insulted. Love for the Holy Prophet is a measure of ones faith and as the Quran say, our faith is completed only when our love for the Holy Prophet exceeds our love for everything else in this world, including our own lives: "The Prophet is closer to the believers than their selves..." (Surah 33, Verse 6)

And it's not just non-Muslims, certain Muslim groups also try to talk the Prophet down and try to deprive him of his true status not just in Islam, but in the entire history of mankind. Sunni Wahhabis and Salafis treat the Holy Prophet as a glorified postman, he delivered the Quran, he died, he's gone, forget him - he was no different to any other man they claim. In this next series of posts, I would like to discuss these allegations and attacks (non-Muslim and Muslim) that are directed towards the Holy Prophet and try to dispel and expose them for the lies and myths that they truly are.

For centuries, many Westerners have tried to argue that the Holy Prophet was somehow a false Prophet, fraudulent, mad, dishonest who borrowed from Judaism and Christianity to create his own false religion, Islam. It's perhaps best expressed in recent years by the well-known atheist author Christopher Hitchens who referred to the Holy Prophet in his book "God Is Not Great," as an "epileptic plagiarist."


Over the years, some critics have tried to argue that the periods of Quranic revelations from the Angel Gabriel where in fact epileptic fits that the Prophet suffered. Others have claimed that the Holy Prophet was a con artist who copied chunks of the Bible, copied the stories of Jesus, Moses and Abraham. Hitchens however, does us a favour, by combining the two. How can one be an epileptic plagiarist? How can you be both? Either you're an epileptic who is having seizures which are then being misinterpreted as revelation from God, or you are a clever, calculating con-man who is consciously and deliberately stealing stories from other religions and trying to pass them off as new. You cannot be both surely.

Where is the evidence that the Holy Prophet suffered with epilepsy? Modern medicine characterises epilepsy and epileptic seizures as a loss of consciousness, loss of memory and physical collapse. The Holy Prophet suffered with none of these symptoms whilst receiving revelation. On the contrary, he was coming out of those periods with new information, new instructions, new verses, new guidance, new facts. Are we really expected to believe that the greatest piece of Arabic literature ever produced in human history was a result of a series of epileptic fits? You’d have to have blind faith to believe that!

As for the plagiarism accusation, it’s so lazy. Have these people read the Quran and the Bible? Seen the differences in the stories? For example, the birth of Jesus and how it is narrated in the Gospels and how it is narrated in the Surah Ale Imran, chapter 3, of the Quran? Totally different. Read the stories of Prophets Hud and Saleh, whose names do not even appear in the Bible. Also, where were all these Christian and Jewish scholars that Muhammad copied from? There weren’t any in Makkah when he declared his prophethood – even Professor Patricia Crone, writing in the New York Times, in 2002, acknowledged there were not “substantial number of Jews and Christians” in Makkah at that time and therefore it is a fallacy to claim that Muhammad copied the Quran from the Jewish Torah or the Christian Bible. It is a myth!

Next time, I'll be discussing the allegation that leads to some outrageous and offensive claims about our Holy Prophet that centre around the claim the he married a 6 year old girl.

Does Islam oppress women?

The role and treatment of women in Islam is a controversial subject. The myths peddled by non-Muslims and even Muslims revolve around the idea that somehow women are inferior in Islam, women are inferior to men, women are not important characters or key personalities in the history of Islam. There's even the myth that men are allowed to beat women in order to discipline them. Then there's the whole issue of the hijab for women, how it is a sign of oppression towards women.

Once again these myths are inaccurate and false. No doubt there are many Muslims and even Muslim nations which oppress women, but there is nothing Islamic in their actions. When exploring all these myths, it's important to reflect on the quote by the historian George Bernard Shaw: "Islam is the greatest religion, but Muslims are the worst followers," and nowhere is this more apt then when discussing the myths about women in Islam. (I would also add that it's important to remember that quote whenever we discuss these myths and others that have tainted the perception of Islam today).

This is an important topic because of the attention it receives in the Western world today. When a non-Muslim is confronted with Islam and with Muslims, they rarely criticise our belief in God, our belief in the Prophet or in the Day of Judgement. Their attacks begin on our religion, by criticising how Islam treats women. It is on of the most misunderstood issues about Islam. We are familiar with the accusations: "Islam oppresses women," "Islam gives women no rights, etc etc. All are untrue, Islam does not oppress women but unfortunately some Muslims do. Many Muslim men do treat women badly, repressively and un-Islamically but it is important to make the distinction between what Islam says and what Muslims do.

Women are oppressed in Afghanistan, intimidated in Pakistan, treated unequally in Saudi Arabia, but criticise the Afghans, the Pakistanis and the Saudis, do not criticise Islam. Their actions are miles apart from what Islam prescribes and that it the focus of this particular topic. What does Islam say about women?

When discussing the role and importance of women in Islam, the best starting point is the Holy Quran. Some of the most favourable, sympathetic and gripping personality portraits in the Quran are of women. There is the Queen of Sheeba, the exemplary and renowned leader referred to in the story of Prophet Solomon. The mother of Moses who surrendered her son to the will of Allah. The wife of the Pharoah Firawn, Bibi Asiya, devoted to Allah and turning to him for protection against the oppression of her pagan husband. Then there is Bibi Maryam, the mother of Prophet Jesus. Her example is so important, there is a whole Surah, chapter in the Quran devoted to her - Surah 19, Surah Maryam.

Arguably one of the most important and crucial stories of a woman in the Quran, is the story of Bibi Hawwa, Eve - the first woman. The Biblical story of Eve is one of slander and dishonest allegations. Eve is accused in the Bible of leading Adam, Prophet Adam astray by encouraging him to listen to Satan and eat the fruit from the forbidden tree. The Bible blames the sins of mankind, the so-called "original sin" of man on the temptation of woman. Yet in the Quran, there is no mention of Eve being the sinner, of tempting Adam. When the story of the forbidden fruit is told in the Quran it always refers to two individuals - the man and the woman. Satan tempted them both: "And he swore to them both, that he was their sincere adviser. So by deceit he brought about their fall." (Surah 7, Verses 21-22) The Quran, unlike the Bible, does not blame all the sins of mankind on the "original sin" and more importantly it doesn't blame the sin of man on the temptation of woman.

In God's eyes there is no difference between man and woman. In God's eyes all that differentiates between one another is their level of piety and virtue, both men and women can achieve these types of excellence. On the Day of Judgement each individual, regardless of sex, will be judged according to their purity of beliefs, their actions and their behaviour: "Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct." (Surah 49, Verse 13)

On the Day of Judgement, God will not look at us and say "you are a man, you go to heaven, you are a woman, you go to hell." he will say, "you are a believer, you go to heaven, you are a non-believer, you go elsewhere." On this day it will not matter if we are men or women, it will only matter if we are believers. This is what Islam teaches us in the Holy Quran which goes on to describe the equality of men and women in great detail:

"And the believers, men and women, are protecting friends one of another; they enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and they establish worship and they pay the poor-due, and they obey Allah and His messenger. As for these, Allah will have mercy on them. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Wise." (Surah 9, Verse 71)

" Whosoever doeth right, whether male or female, and is a believer, him or her verily we shall quicken with good life, and We shall pay them a recompense in proportion to the best of what they used to do." (Surah 16, Verse 97)

"If any do deeds of righteousness,- be they male or female - and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them." (Surah 4, Verse 124)

"And their Lord hath heard them (and He saith): Lo! I suffer not the work of any worker, male or female, to be lost. Ye proceed one from another." (Surah 3, Verse 195)

And there is one verse which stands out when dealing with the issue of how Islam apparently treats women. This verse should be quoted to all Muslims and non-Muslims who feel that Islam is oppresive towards women, that they are somehow inferior to men:

"For Muslim men and women,- for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise,- for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward." (Surah 33, Verse 35)

These verses were revealed in the 7th Century to an area of the world where women were being treated worse than animals. Such equality and values placed on both men and women were unheard of at that time. Compare with Europe, where only in the 16th Century, Christian scholars in France after long discussions decided that "a woman is a human being, but made to serve man." In England it was not until about 1850 that women were counted in the national population census.

It was as late as 1882 for a British law to pass that granted women the right to decide how their own incomes should be spent, instead of handing it over to their husbands. Islam, fourteen centuries ago, guaranteed the total financial independence of Muslim women; their right to own and dispose of property, to conduct business and trade without having to check with anyone. "To men is allotted what they earn, and to women what they earn: But ask Allah of His bounty. For Allah hath full knowledge of all things." (Surah 4, Verse 32)

Many Muslims try to claim that women are inferior to men in Islam. They argue that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's and therefore women are worth less then men. This all stems from a particular verse in the Quran, which unsurprisingly has been taken out of context:

"O ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as Allah Has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear His Lord Allah, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If they party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her." (Surah 2, Verse 282)

This verse specifically refers to the dealings of business transactions, nothing else. At the time women were not allowed to testify at all. Islam gave them the right to testify in court, in business deals. Using that as a starting point, it is true that the Quran has instructed the believers dealing in financial transactions to get two male witnesses or one male and two female witnesses. Islam asks for this because at the time in the 7th Century, women were not experienced in being involved in such transactions, it was not their usual environment. However, the verse firstly asks for two male witnesses - it is not sufficient to have just one witness (male or female), and to equate from this that a woman's testimony across the board (not just in business transactions) is inferior to a man's is ludicrous.

If you want to play the numbers game this way, you can then flip it on its head by stating that not only is a woman's testimony equal to a man's, it can also nullify a man's testimony and even be worth four times that of a mans. When it comes to the far more sensitive issues of divorce and adultery, the woman's testimony is far more important in the Quran:

"As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves; let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies, (swearing) by Allah that he is of those who speak the truth. And yet a fifth, invoking the curse of Allah on him if he is of those who lie. But it would avert the punishment from the wife, if she bears witness four times (with an oath) By Allah, that (her husband) is telling a lie. And a fifth (time) that the wrath of Allah be upon her if he speaketh truth." (Surah 24, Verses 6-11)

If a woman denies her husband's accusation of unchastity, then she is not considered guilty. Similarly when it comes to the grave sin of adultery, the Quran describes:

"And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony - They indeed are evil-doers" (Surah 24, Verse 4)

In this situation, four witnesses are needed to testify against a woman charged with adultery. One woman's testimony is worth that of four men. Accusations of adultery or unchastity are much more morally significant than business transactions. Two female witnesses are required in the latter simply because at the time of revelation it was not a field women were experienced in. The debate should be as to whether the ruling needs to be modified for the 21st century, not that it means women are inferior to men. If four men are required to prove the charge of adultery against one woman, anyone want to argue that women are four times superior to men (apart from the women readers!)? Islam and the Quran does not suggest that women are inferior to men.

Another important issue which again tries to indicate that women are inferior to men, is the issue of wife-beating. In many Muslim countries and in the UK, Muslim husbands try to claim that they have a right to beat their wives - it has lead to many cases of domestic abuse and further claims about how Islam oppresses women. It all stems from the following Quranic verse:

"As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (daraba) (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)." (Surah 4, Verse 34)

Firstly the word 'daraba' has over 25 different meanings, "to beat" is just one possible interpretation and conveniently also the most oppressive, aggressive sounding. Secondly, everyone is quick to rush into the beating aspect of the verse, but what about the prior instructions to admonish and refuse to share beds, is that ever carried out? Thirdly, if we are to accept that it means "to beat," as Laleh Bakhtiar explains in her book, The Sublime Quran, there are further verses in the Quran which appear to contradict this instruction:

"When ye divorce women, and they fulfil the term of their ('Iddat), either take them back on equitable terms or set them free on equitable terms; but do not take them back to injure them, (or) to take undue advantage; if any one does that; He wrongs his own soul. Do not treat Allah's Signs as a jest, but solemnly rehearse Allah's favours on you, and the fact that He sent down to you the Book and Wisdom, for your instruction. And fear Allah, and know that Allah is well acquainted with all things." (Surah 2, Verse 231)

"And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect." (Surah 30, Verse 21)

The first verse above seems to indicate that a woman is treated better after divorce than in marriage, even though it is far more important to try and save a marriage rather than resort to a divorce - an act that is advised as a last resort in Islam. The husband may not hold back his wife from divorce by hurting, harming, injuring her or using force against her. The second verse clearly describes and encourages love and mercy between a married couple, where would "beating" fit in there?

Most importantly, if it does mean "to beat," it was an act never carried out by the Holy Prophet, and he had a few dodgy wives. In-fact, in many books of hadith the Holy Prophet has been quoted as saying "could any of you beat your wife as he would a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?" One can argue that the verse carries an instruction that although not carried out by the Prophet, does not mean that it is not allowed. However, we are also followers of the Sunnah of the Prophet and since he never carried out this instruction, us followers should also resist.

Laleh Bakhtiar goes on to argue that what makes far more sense is the interpretation of 'daraba' as "to go away." Using "to beat" as the interpretation goes against the moral and legal principles the Holy Quran, it makes far more sense to read "admonish them, then refuse to share their beds and lastly go away from them." When reading the Quran as a whole and not cherry-picking verses, the idea that men are allowed to beat their wives is abhorrent and wrong.

Now, it is true to say that today far too many women are condemned in the Muslim world, and in the developing world as a whole, but this is not due to Islam. It is due to the neglect of religious injunctions, the neglect of Islamic morality and the adoption of pre-Islamic ignorance by so-called Muslim leaders, so-called Muslim governments, so-called Muslim societies. The general treatment of women across the Muslim world goes completely against Islamic teachings. We have to start putting our prejudices and our ignorance to one side. We have to open our eyes to the realities of Islam, to the teachings of the Quran and to the life example of the Holy Prohpet. Now you know why I quoted George Bernard Shaw at the beginning of this piece.

Outside of the Holy Quran, we Muslims and we Shias in particular have the example of three great women, all of whom were unique in their own way. First is the example if Bibi Khadija, "Ummul-Momineen", mother of the believers and the first and favourite wife of the Holy Prophet. She was a wealthy businesswomen who dedicated all her money, material possession, to fund and support her husband as he started on his mission to spread the message of Islam. It would not have been possible without Bibi Khadija. He was married to her for more than 25 years and in that time did not marry anyone else.

The other two examples are her daughter and grand-daughter respectively. Bibi Fatima's (a.s.) status can best be exemplified by a hadith narrated by Bibi Aisha, who said that when the Holy Prophet would come to see Bibi Fatima (a.s.), she would stand up, kiss him and then seat him where she had been sitting. Nothing strange about this as all daughters should do the same. Bibi Aisha went on to say that when Bibi Fatima (a.s.) visited the Holy Prophet, he would immediately rise to his feet, kiss her and seat her where he had been sitting. Our Holy Prophet would stand whenever Bibi Fatima (a.s.) entered the room out of respect for her status, not as his daugther but as the mistress of the women of Paradise, as the most perfect of women.

Bibi Fatima (a.s.) is the centre of the Ahlul-Bayt, the Household of the Prophet. She is the axis of the Ahlul-Bayt in a way which no other memeber can ever claim to be. She was the daughter of the Holy Prophet, wife of Imam Ali (a.s.) as well as the mother of Imams Hasan (a.s.) and Hussain (a.s.). Thus, despite being the only woman in the Ahlul-Bayt, it is Bibi Fatima (a.s.) who unites the "Fourteen Infallibles" together.

Lastly, Bibi Zainab, grand-daughter of the Holy Prophet ensured that the Islam we follow and practice today was preserved after the tragic events of Kerbala. Along with the 4th Holy Imam, she stood up to the persecution by the so-called Muslim leader at the time, the tyrant Yazid (may Allah curse him), and ensured that the message of the Holy Prophet lived on. The religion of Islam was saved thanks mainly to the actions of the women of Imam Hussain's (a.s.) camp, following his martyrdom.

Islam does not oppress women, but unfortunately Muslims do. The Quran does not promote violence or aggression towards women, but unfortunately Muslims do. I cannot defend the actions of these Muslim countries and Muslim societies, but I can rightly highlight how it goes against the teachings of Islam. People will continue to argue about how Muslim men oppress women and they are right to do so. It is our responsibility to not only educate them about Islam but to educate ourselves and promote the true Islam and condemn the actions of the Muslim societies/communities who try to advocate that what they are doing is Islamic when it is the exact opposite. As with a lot of issues facing Muslims today, we need to correct ourselves and our actions in order to present the true Islam. Easier said than done. It is not all doom and gloom however, as a lot of women are converting to Islam despite all the apparent oppression. They are thankfully able to see through the actions of Muslims and evaluate and appreciate the true teachings of Islam.

Does Islam and the Quran promote violence?

A man was walking in a London park when he saw a young girl being attacked by a pit-bull terrier. Running over to the girl, he started fighting with the dog and managed to kill it, thus saving the young girl's life. A reporter who witnessed the whole incident came running over to the man and said, "that was incredible, so brave. I'm going to run the headline in tomorrow's paper: "Brave Londoner saves life of little girl!" You're going to be a hero."
The man replies, "oh no, I'm not from London."
"Ok, I'll say "Brave British man, saves life of little girl!""
"I'm not British either, I'm from Saudi Arabia."
Next morning, the Evening Standard runs the headline "Islamic fundamentalist asylum-seeker, murders innocent British dog. Police investigate links to Al-Qaeda."

When I first read this, I actually Googled the headline before realising it was a joke. Arguably the greatest myth of Islam is the myth of Islam and violence. I have been getting more and more fed up about how the media, right wing extremists and even the Tory Government try to condemn Islam as a religion of violence. The Quran is a "barabaric" book proclaimed by the English Defence League. As a result, this blog is a bit of a departure from the overall theme by trying to discuss an Islamic rather than Shia issue, but it is a topic I feel is important and needs addressing.

We Muslims are apparently all terrorists, militants and killers. The common phrase your hear is "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims!" If you believe the media, then all acts of terrorism across the world are carried out by Muslims and Muslims alone. It feeds into this myth of Islam and violence but has been grossly misrepresented.

Up until the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Hindu separatist group, the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, killed more people in suicide attacks than all Muslim terrorist groups put together. Even to this day, the Tigers have killed more civilians than Al-Qaeda.

As for Muslim terrorism itself., according to EUROPOL, the EU police intelligence agency, in 2006 only one out of 498 documented terrorist attacks across Europe were classed as "Islamist" and in 2007 this figure rose to four out of 583 attacks. In contrast, 517 attacks across the continent, in 2007, were claimed or attributed to nationalist or separatist terrorist groups suchs as ETA in Spain. However, none of these figures gets any coverage, all we hear about is "Jihad" and terrorism from Muslims.

Ever since the attacks on the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001 (9/11), violence in the name of Islam has come under sharp focus. Muslim author, Ziauddin Sardar, commented in his Observer column shortly after 9/11 that "the very mention of the term "jihad" sends shivers down the spine of civilised people." There has been an explosion of interest in this so-called Islamic jihad. Today, a simple search on Google brings up 10.2 million results (compared to say, Hinduisim with only 6.2 million results). On Amazon.com there are over 4,000 books related to jihad, the majority of which are overtly negative, hostile and Islamaphobic.

It has reached the stage where now the US Justice Department in terrorism cases defines jihad as "the Arabic word meaning 'holy war'. In this context, jihad refers to the use of violence, including paramilitary action against persons, governments deemed to be enemies of the fundamentalist version of Islam." Jihad has absolutely nothing to do with holy war. It simply means "struggling" or "striving". It is derived from the root Arabic verb, "jahada" which means to struggle, to strive and from the root Arabic noun, "judh" which literally means 'a struggle'. In this sense, jihad is once of the most important concepts in Islam, the term 'jihad' appears more than thirty times in the Holy Quran and not once is it used to express an immoral meaning, a violent meaning or a military meaning.

The term 'holy war' was actually first coined by the Christians during the Crusades when they fought against the Muslims of the Middle East in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries. There is no Islamic counterpart to the phrase 'holy war', and if there was, it would not be 'jihad'. The Arabic words for war are 'harb' or 'qital'. Jihad means to struggle as hard as one can in a spiritual, intellectual and social sense and it is used in that reference throughout the Quran.

Howver, the dominant myth remains that Islam is a violent religion, obsessed with so called holy war. It is a myth which is pushed not just by non-Muslims, Islamaphobes and people on the far right but by Muslims themselves throughout history. From the corrupt rulers in early Islam such as Muawiya and Yazid to the present day terrorists such as Bin Laden, Zarqawi and Mullah Omar.

We Muslims need to take responsibility and face up to this militant minority who use and abuse Islam and the Quran to justify their violence and extremism. They try to hide behind Islam and even some Muslims now believe that Islam is associated with violence and intolerance in general and suicide bombings and beheadings in particular. We can the blame the media all we want, but the fact remains that 9/11 did happen, 7/7 did happen and by so-called Muslims, in the name of Islam. Numerous other foiled attacks have also taken place such as the 21/7 attacks and the plan to blow up Bluewater shopping centre, all in the name of Islam. We cannot allow Islam to be abused, misrepresented and exploited like this, by fellow (so-called) Muslims, the world needs to know that it is not occurring in our name.

Sheikh Hamza Yusuf Hanson said that "Islam has been hijacked by a discourse of anger and rhetoric rage," and that is exactly the point, Islam has been hijacked. Some scholars continue to call for theological debates within Islam about jihad, but there is simply no need. There is NO justification for the killing of innocent human beings, be they men, women or children, Muslim or non-Muslim. The Holy Quran makes this quite clear when it states

"that if any one slew a person... ...it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people." (Surah 5, Verse 34). 

To kill one innocent person is as if killing 6 billion - it is an offence against God, and yet you would not believe it given all the rhetoric of the Bin Ladenists or the coverage in the media.

The main arguement of the extremists tends to follow the lines of "they killed our people, let us kill theirs." However, just as we tell our children, two wrongs do not make a right, these extremists need to realise that there is no justification for the killing of any innocents in Islam. For us Shias, that is even more prudent. In Iraq, Shias are constantly being targetted and persecuted, but Ayatullah Sistani has issued several fatwas condemning the violence and preventing Shias from retaliating. I was fortunate enough to meet Ayatullah Sistani in 2002 and I asked him about the justification of suicide bombing. At that time it was very prominent in Israel, with attacks carried out by Palestinians against civilian populations. Ayatuallah Sistani was clear, it was entirely haram and un-Islamic.

Of course we should feel outrage about the attacks against Muslims across the world and the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent Muslims in the likes of Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan but as hard it is, we have to take the moral high ground. I realise it's easy for me to say this, sitting here in Britain with no threat to my life or my family and I'll never be able to understand how it feels for a Iraqi or a Palestenian who has lost his or her family, but we have the example of the Ahlul-Bayt. The family of the Holy Prophet were constantly persecuted and oppressed, but not once did they retaliate with violence or extremism. No Imam ever killed an innocent in retaliation to their persecution. Our 4th Imam, Zainul-Abideen (a.s.) saw 18 members of his family killed by the army of Yazid, he did not retaliate by killing Yazid's family. If we are to be followers of Ahlul-Bayt, then we need to follow their example. We need to follow their sunnah, we cannot pick and choose. We need to use their example to help making moral decisions today.

The idea of a nuclear bomb is inherently un-Islamic. The Islamic Republic of Iran, despite what the media report, admits that it is "forbidden under Islam" and the Supreme Leader, Ayatullah Khameni has issued a fatwa saying as much. However, you also have the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which has developed nuclear weapons and labelled them "Islamic bombs," completely outrageous.

Nuclear weapons do not discriminate against combatants and non-combatants, neither do suicide bombs and that is the most important distinction to make in Islam. Islam is not a pacifist religion, it accepts that violence is sometimes necessary, but only as a last resort under provacation with strict rules, provisos and restrictions from Allah. The reality is that this extreme form of Islam or Islamism, in its militant form offers a religion to die for, but the actual Islam, authentic Islam offers a religion to live for.

Enemies of Islam have used the so-called "War on Terror" as an excuse to bash Islam and the Holy Quran. They claim that the Quran advocates hatred, intolerance and violence. In the US, Franklin Graham, right-wing cleric who was close to President Bush said "If you buy the Quran, read it for yourself, and it’s in there. The violence that it preaches is there." Here in England, right-wing columnists in the Express, call the Quran a "bloodthirsty little book." Even left-wing, secular atheist, Polly Toynbee casually and inaccurately refers to the "many ferocious verses calling for the blood of infidels in [Muslim] holy book, verses that justify terror." These critics have not even read the Quran and the small minority who have, quote verses selectively and out of context, without the full and proper background.

The most popular verse that critics and extremist alike use to justify violence in Islam is verse 191 of the 2nd Surah of the Holy Quran:

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out"

Whenever this verse is quoted, conveinently, the verse before this verse, the rest of this verse and the verse after are left out. The full context of the this quote can be provided by reading it in full:

"Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (Surah 2, Verses 190-192)

The verse taken out of context is not about aggression, but more about appropritate retaliation when provoked and with strict guidelines not to be over-zealous or over-aggressive. Islam is not a pacifistic religion, Muslims are allowed to defend themselves when provoked.

Another classic verse is the so-called "Verse of the Sword," in which interestingly, there is no mention of the word 'sword', nor is there in the entire Quran:

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush." (Surah 9 Verse 5)

However, yet again, we find that this verse has been taken out of context by ignoring the verses before and after this verse.

"Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him). Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not." (Surah 9, Verses 4-6)

These verses were revealed to the Holy Prophet at the time when the small Muslim community had entered into treaties with neighbouring tribes (Jewish, Christian and Pagans). Several Pagans betrayed the treaties and attacked the Muslim community. The verses instruct the Muslims to continue to honour the treaties with anyone who has not betrayed them and to those who have declared war, the Muslims can fight them. The subsequent verse then clearly tells the Muslims to grant refuge to any member of the Pagan army who asks for it. Taken in context, the "Verse of the Sword" is not as aggressive as the extremists would have us believe, but by taking it out of context, the likes of Bin Laden have used this verse to justify the killing of non-Muslims, Christians and Jews. Whoever tries to argue that this verse justifies violence or terrorism is either blind, illeterate or just plain dishonest.

On the flip-side there are plenty of verses in the Quran which encourage and advocate the philosophy of peace and the justice of Islam. When will extremists start quoting such verses?

"If they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Lo! He, even He, is the Hearer, the Knower." (Surah 8,  Verse 61)

Also, let me be clear, when the Quran states "those who fight you," it means actual fighters - civilians are protected. The Prophet made his instructions clear whenever he sent out an army: "Set out for battle in the name of Allah and for the sake of Allah. But do no lay your hands on the old, those verging on death, or on women or on children and babies. Do not steal anything from the booty and collect together all that falls to your lot in the battlefield, and do good, for Allah loves the virtuous and the pious."


The whole problem with Bin Ladenism and various other Muslim extremists, is that while they use the language of Islam to make emotional, political appeals to the Muslim ummah, they neglect Islam's moral and ethical tenets. Political Islam or Islamism has tried to paint this picture of the Holy Prophet as a warrior statesman. He was this, but he was so much more. His mission was to uplift the character of people through teaching worship, good conduct and humility before God.

According to the teachings of the Holy Prophet and indeed of Imam Ali (a.s.) we must pursue the moral high ground even in the face of an aggressor who is not moral. The Quran has declared the Prophet as a "mercy to all the worlds." He was motivated by a profound and intimate love for God and his community. He was a peacemaker and a diplomat. For our Prophet and our Imams the end never justified the means but you'll never hear much mercy from the extremists. Their call to action may have Islamic language but it goes entirely against Islamic principles. If we allow this to continue then we make a mockery of Islam and turn it into a narrow, materialistic, emotional-driven political ideology. It will lose its rightful place as a genuine guiding force in peoples lives.

I leave you with the following verses of the Holy Quran which prescribe peace and justice as the overriding factors that allow us to continue on the right path:

"It may be that Allah will ordain love between you and those of them with whom ye are at enmity. Allah is Mighty, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers." (Surah 60, Verses 7-8)

"O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Informed of what ye do." (Surah 5, Verse 8)

Who is Abu Hurairah?

First of all, commiserations to Shias and Muslims across the world as we commemorated the Chelum of Imam Hussain (a.s.) this week. Every year we remember his sacrifice that saved Islam in its entirety, forget Shia Islam, all of Islam was under the threat of annihilation. Us Shias are continuously attacked for this commiseration, only two days ago, bomb blasts killed several Shia pilgrims in Kerbala and in Pakistan, suicide blasts targetted Shia processions in Lahore and Karachi, injuring and killing over 50 people. Everytime I hear such news I feel dejected and depressed. We are mourning the brutal killing of the grandson of the Holy Prophet and his companions and instead of joining in the mourning, Shias are killed instead. I pray for the day when Shias can remember the sacrifice of Imam Hussain (a.s.) in peace across the world and especially in so-called Muslim countries such as Iraq, Syria and Pakistan.

The tragedy at Kerbala saw the brutal killings of Imam Hussain (a.s.) and his 72 companions. These were true companions, worthy of the name. They sacrificed themselves for the sake of Islam and are rightly revered. Sunnis seem to have a different outlook when it comes to companions. They are the followers of the sunnah of the Prophet, the majority of which has been relayed by his companions. Companionship is a great virtue but it did not make the Prophet's companions infalliable, amongst them there were many loyal and honest men and women, but there were also those who were hypocrites, who commited sins and crimes under the cover of "companionship:" "...and among the townspeople of Al-Madinah (there are some who) persist in hypocrisy whom thou (O Muhammad) knowest not." (Surah 9, Verse 101) There were some hypocrites that even the Prophet did not know about.

Sunnis follow the sayings of the Prophet, the ahadith, as narrated by his companions sometimes regardless of the accuracy. For Shias, no book is 100% accept the Holy Quran, and perhaps Nahjul Balagha. Today I want to focus on a source of common Sunni misguidance, the companion Abu Hurairah, a key man behind several dodgy and fradulent ahadiths and a person Sunnis seem to follow blindly.

Abu Hurairah was born in Yemen in 603 AD, he was an orphan, with only a mother and no other relatives. His name at birth was Abd al-Shams (servant of the sun) but as a child he used to play with cats and became known as Abu Hurairah - Father of kittens. In 629 AD, he visited Madina with members of his tribe and then spent approximately three years with the Holy Prophet, until his death on 8th June 632 AD. Abu Hurairah died in 681 AD, aged 78, a year after the tragedy of Kerbala.

According to Sunni traditions, his great knowledge came from the Prophet himself: "The Prophet began to ladle knowledge with his hands and put it into the garment saying to Abu Hurayra: “Join it to your chest.” Abu Hurairah joined it to his chest and became infallible from forgetting; therefore he was the best of companions in keeping Sunna in mind and the most aware of it." Having become infallible from forgetting ahadith, he then went onto narrate thousands of sayings from the Prophet.

I want to look at a few examples of these apparent infallible ahadiths and ask whether they appear to make much sense, let alone whether the Holy Prophet could have narrated such sayings. To begin with, the Holy Prophet apparently narrated several ahadith about Prophet Moses. Various Sunni books quote Abu Hurairah talking about Prophet Moses:

• The Angel of Death used to come to people visibly, but when he came to Prophet Moses to take his life, Moses slapped him, gouged his eye, and sent him back to God one-eyed. After this accident, the angel of death went to people invisibly!
• Another wonder of Abu Hurairah's was the competition between Moses and the rock. Moses put his cloths on the rock to swim in the sea away from people. The rock ran away with Moses' cloths in order to force him to follow it nakedly as he was born in front of the Israelites in order to refute the rumor saying that Moses had a hernia. Moses ran after the rock shouting: “O, rock, my cloths. O rock, my cloths.” The rock stopped after ending its task. Moses began beating the rock with his stick severely until he made some scars in the rock.
• And another one about an ant that pinched prophet Moses. Moses ordered his followers to burn the village of the ants. Then Allah inspired to him: “Because of an ant that pinched you, you burnt a nation, which pleased Allah!”

• Another tradition, this time about Prophet Solomon who said: “I will go to bed with a hundred women tonight that every one of them will give birth to a boy, who will fight for the sake of Allah.” The angel asked him to say inshallah. He did not say. So no one of his wives gave birth to a baby save one, who gave birth to half a human being!

• Salim, the freed slave of Nasriyyin, said: I heard Abu Huraira as saying that he heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: O Allah, Muhammad is a human being. I lose my temper just as human beings lose temper, and I have held a covenant with Thee which Thou wouldst not break: For a believer whom I give any trouble or invoke curse or beat, make that an expiation (of his sins and a source of) his nearness to Thee on the Day of Resurrection. (Sahih Muslim, Book 32, Number 6293)

• Allah's Apostle said, "When the Adhan is pronounced Satan takes to his heels and passes wind with noise during his flight in order not to hear the Adhan. When the Adhan is completed he comes back and again takes to his heels when the Iqama is pronounced and after its completion he returns again till he whispers into the heart of the person (to divert his attention from his prayer) and makes him remember things which he does not recall to his mind before the prayer and that causes him to forget how much he has prayed." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 11, Number 582)

That last ahadith is depressingly sad but amusing at the same time. Satan apparently passes wind, farts, in order not to hear the Adhan and Iqama. Can anyone honestly claim that the Holy Prophet would narrate such events? These are just some of the examples of narrations by Abu Hurairah, there are plenty more which are equally absurd.

Abu Hurairah has narrated over 5,000 ahadiths from the Holy Prophet all in the space of the three years he spent with the Holy Prophet. According to Muhammed Zubayr Siddiqui, in his book "Hadith Literature: It's Origin, Development, & Special Features," Abu Hurairah has narrated 5,374 ahadiths. In comparison, Bibi Aisha has narrated 2,210 ahadiths, Umar al-Khattab has narrated 537 ahadiths, Imam Ali (a.s.) 536 ahadiths and Abu Bakr 142 ahadiths. Abu Hurairah has narrated more from the Holy Prophet than the other four just mentioned, combined and only in the space of three years. Doesn't make any sense.

Beyond the above ahadiths mentioned above, there are then the ahadiths that seem to conrtadict what was happening at the time. For example, Abu Hurairah narrated the story of a conversation with the wife of Uthman, Ruqqaya and the Holy Prophet: He said: “Once I entered the house of Ruqayya, the Prophet's daughter and Uthman's wife. She had a comb in her hand. She said: “The Prophet left just a little ago. I combed his hair. He said to me: “How do you find Abu Abdullah (Uthman)?” I said: “he is good.” He said to me: “Grace him! He is the most similar to me, among my companions, in morals.” Imam al-Hakim, famous Sunni transmitter of ahadith, narrates this and says: “This tradition has a true series of narrators but untrue text, (the content is untrue) because Ruqayya had died in the third year of hijra during the battle of Badr, whereas Abu Hurairah came and became a Muslim after the battle of Khaybar (four years later).” So how did he have this conversation that he claims?

Another such ahadith is when Abu Hurairah boasted "We conquered Khaybar but we didn't gain gold or silver. We gained sheep, cows, camels, wares and houses." Abu Hurairah never participated in the Battle of Khaybar. He became a Muslim after that battle, and so once again, this narration doesn't make much sense.

If he was such a great companion and privy to so much information from the Holy Prophet, surely he would have been revered amongst the other companions. However, this was not the case. The second caliph, Umar al-Khattab, reportedly beat Abu Hurairah on more than one occasion: Ibn Sa'ad in Tabaqat, Volume IV, Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Isaba, and Ibn Abd-e-Rabbih in Iqdu'l-Farid, Volume I, write that the Caliph said: "'When I made you the governor of Bahrain, you had not even shoes on your feet, but now I have heard that you have purchased horses for 1,600 dinars. How did you acquire this wealth?' He replied, 'These were men's gifts which profit has multiplied much.' The Caliph's face grew red with anger, and he lashed him so violently that his back bled. Then he ordered the 10,000 dinars which Abu Huraira had collected in Bahrain be taken from him and deposited in the account of the Baitu'-Mal."

This was not the first time that Umar beat Abu Huraira. In Sahih Muslim it mentions that during the time of the Prophet, Umar Bin Khattab beat Abu Huraira so severely that the latter fell down on the ground. Allama Muttaqi Hindi in his Kanzu'l-Umma reports that Caliph Umar lashed him, rebuked him, and forbade him to narrate hadith from the Holy Prophet. Umar, asked why he did so, said: "Because you narrate hadith in (such) large numbers from the Holy Prophet, you are fit only for attributing lies to him. So you must stop narrating hadith from the Prophet; otherwise, I will send you back to your tribe in Yemen.”

Bibi Aisha was also someone who was not fond of Abu Huraira: Ibn Qutayba, in Ta'wil-e-Mukhtalifu'l-Hadith, and Hakim in Mustadrak, Volume III, and Dhahabi in Talkhisu'l-Mustadrak, reporting about the characteristics of Abu Huraira, all say that Bibi Aisha repeatedly contradicted him and said, "Abu Hurairah is a great liar who fabricates hadith and attributes them to the Holy Prophet." The famous book on hadith by Ibn Qutaiba Al-Dinory, records the story of Bibi Aisha telling Abu Hurairah; "You tell ahadiths about the prophet Muhammed that we never heard them from him" He answered "You (Aisha) were busy with your mirror and make up" She (Aisha) answered him; "It is you who were busy with your stomach and hunger. Your hunger kept you busy, you were running after the people in the alleyways, begging them for food, and they used to avoid you and get away from your way, and finally you would come back and pass out in front of my room and the people think you were crazy and step all over you."

Lastly, Imam Ali (a.s.) famously derided Abu Hurairah: Ibn Abi'l-Hadid, in his commentary on Nahju'l-Balagha, Volume I, reports from his teacher, Imam Abu Ja'far Asqalani, that Ali said, "Beware of the greatest liar among the people, Abu Huraira."

So when we reject the traditions and narrations of Abu Hurairah, we are rejecting the man who Umar, Aisha and Imam Ali (a.s.) rejected. This is not some Shia conspiracy or hate campaign. Yet, the tragedy today is that majority of Muslims accept his words, his traditions, his narrations, his nonsense. His legacy is long-lasting. Sunni Islam is built on the narrations of the companions, many of them on the false, unreliable, odd and offensive narrations of Abu Hurairah. There is nothing wrong with following the Sunnah of the Prophet but it depends on which Sunnah. Abu Hurairah was a fabricator of ahadith and I've hopefully shown how anything narrated by him cannot be trusted.

There are two types of Sunnah, there is the Sunnah defined by the likes of Abu Hurairah and others (Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik ibn-Tayimah) who came long after the Prophet and projected their own prejudices and theological inclinations. Then there is the household of the Holy Prophet as defined by Imam Ali (a.s.) and his children - the Ahlul Bayt. Before people dispute this claim of the household and the value of following them, learning from them, being inspired by them, I end this blog with the following quotes:

"I heard the Prophet saying, "There will be twelve Muslim rulers (who will rule all the Islamic world)." He then said a sentence which I did not hear. My father said, "All of them (those rulers) will be from Quraish." (Sahih Bukhari, Vol 9, Book 89, No. 331)

"It has been reported on the authority of Jabir b. Samura who said: I went with my father to the Messenger of Allah (may peeace be upon him) and I heard him say: This religion would continue to remain powerful and dominant until there have been twelve Caliphs. Then he added something which I couldn't catch on account of the noise of the people. I asked my father: What did he say? My father said: He has said that all of them will be from the Quraish" (Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Nos 4477, 4478, 4480, 4481, 4482, 4483)

Who am I to disagree?

Who is Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan?

The story of Ashura and the great sacrifice made by Imam Hussain (a.s.) to save the religion of Islam was a classic tale of good versus evil. Imam Hussain (a.s) lost the battle but definitely won the war. The evil in these events was personified by Yazid ibn Muawiya (may Allah curse him), a man who was simply a despicable human, let alone a so-called Muslim.

His reign as "caliph" was short but painful. In his first year of rule he commanded his forces to kill the grandson of the Holy Prophet, along with his family and friends and in the second year he attacked the Holy Kaa'ba and set fire to it. He was a power-hungry, selfish and arrogant man but tracing through history, he was not the real brains behind the attempt to destroy Islam, the real brains was his father - Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan. Of the trio of the founding Umayyad fathers, Abu Sufyan, Muawiya and Yazid, Muawiya is the most significant, the most influential and most cunning.

Sunnis lay a lot of credit on Muawiya's door. They have a lot invested in him. They don't really take note of Abu Sufyan and condemn the actions of Yazid, on the whole (apart from fools like Dr. Zakir Naik). Muawiya on the other hand is treated with a lot of respect. They call him Hazrat Muawiya - rasiallahu-anhu (may Allah be pleased with him) amongst other respectful titles. He has been bizarrely sanctified by the Ahle Sunnah over the centuries, his reputation has been shrouded in myths, legends and propaganda.

The Ahle Sunnah like to give him three main claims to fame. Firstly, he was a great companion of the Holy Prophet. Looking at history, he was in the Holy Prophet's midst only for the last 2 years of the Prophet's life. Any hadith claiming words of praise about Muawiya from the Holy Prophet have been fabricated by Muawiya himself. He was a great propaganda machine and spent much of his time in power creating new hadiths about himself and Bani Ummaya. He also created other hadiths trying to discredit Imam Ali (a.s.) and Bani Hashim in an attempt to legitimise his rule.

The reality is that he was not a great companion of the Holy Prophet, and the Prophet enunciated not one word of praise or merit about Muawiya. Many Sunni scholars have come to this conclusion in their research, including Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Jalaluddin Al-Suyuti and Abdul-Haqq Dehlavi who all attest to there being no hadiths in praise of Muawiya in their books.

The Ahle-Sunnah also believe Muawiya to have been a legitimate ruler, caliph of the Muslims. He obtained the Caliphate by ousting the 2nd Holy Imam, Imam Hasan (a.s.) through bribery and blackmail of Imam Hasan's supporters. He negotiated a peace treaty with Imam Hasan (a.s.) and then systematically broke every single article of the treaty. He broke the central condition of the treaty - regarding succession to his rule, by appointing his cursed son Yazid as Caliph.

He is, in effect, Islam's first tyrant. He was the man who created structures of kinship and autocracy. He dug the roots of tyranny, terror and totalitarianism that defaces Islam today. Famous Sunni scholar, Abul Ala Maududi, in his 1973 book "Caliphate and Kingship", outlines in detail the numerous ways in which Muawiya enriched himself at the expense of the people, how corrupt he was, how many companions and innocent Muslims he killed and how he amassed both power and wealth. He turned the Caliphate into a Kingship. (After all that criticism, Maududi still managed to end the book with "Hazrat Muawiya, (r.a.)"!!)

If he is a true Caliph and deserved the title, why is he not one of the Khulafa-e-Rashideen - the four rightly guided Caliphs? Why does it end with Imam Ali (a.s.), why wasn't Muawiya added to this list? They know the truth, but cannot bring themselves to admit as much. The irony is that how could he be a great Caliph when some of his own companions refused to pray behind him? A companion of Abu Huraira, no friend of the Shia, claims in Sirat-e-Halabiya that "On the plains of Siffin, Abu Huraira would pray Salat behind Ali, but would go and eat with Muawiya. Someone asked why he did this, to which he replied "Food with Muawiya is better, but Salat under Ali is better.""

In fact, Muawiya himself made it obvious that he was only interested in power and material gain. He didn't even pretend to have any inclination towards the spiritual, the moral and the Islamic aspects of caliphate and leadership of the Muslim community. Sunni scholar Sibt ibn al-Jawzi writes in his book, Mir’at al-Zaman that Muawiya openly claims "I did not fight you to pray, fast and pay charity, but rather to be your leader and to control you!" From the horses mouth himself.

His last claim to 'fame', say the Ahle-Sunnah, was that he was a writer of the Holy Quran when it was first revealed - 'Writer of the Revelation." Before analysing this claim further, in and of itself it's not that big a deal to be the Writer - one of the writers became an apostate in later life, as claimed by Sunni scholer Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani who writes in his book "Fath al-Bari": "The first man from the Quraysh who was the writer of the revelation was Abdullah bin Saad. After this he apostatised and became a kaffir."

Was Muawiya a Writer of the Revelation? As I mentioned earlier, he converted to Islam in 630 AD, just 2 years before the death of the Holy Prophet. How could he be the writer, when most of the Quran had already been revealed and transcribed by the companions of the Prophet? Sunni scholar Allama Zahabi in his book "Tareekh ul Islam" states that "Muawiya was the writer of the Prophet's correspondence, his letters between the Prophet and the Arabs." I guess "Writer of Letters" doesn't quite have the same ring to it. This is further backed up by notorious Egyptian Sunni scholar Sayyid Qutb, the forefather of Al-Qaeda, who writes in his book "Social Justice in Islam" "The erroneous fable still persists that Mu'awiya was a scribe who wrote down the revelations of Allah's Messenger. The truth is that when Abu Sufyan embraced Islam, he besought the Prophet to give Mu'awiya some measure of position in the eyes of the Arabs; thus he would be compensated of being slow to embrace Islam and of being one of those who had no precedence in the new religion. So the Prophet used Mu'awiya for writing letters and contracts and agreements. But none of the companions ever said that he wrote down any of the Prophet's revelations, as was asserted by Mu'awiyas partisans after he had assumed the throne. But this is what happens in all such cases."

So Muawiya was not the man who wrote down the Quran. He was however the man who made his army place 500 copies of the Quran on spears and lances during the Battle of Siffin when he was losing and yet he is still praised by Sunnis today. When Newsweek claimed in 2005 that soldiers had desecrated copies of the Quran in Guantanamo Bay these same Sunnis were up in arms across the globe and yet they ignore the mistreatment of the Quran by Muawiya centuries ago. He's not the writer of the Quran, he is an abuser of the Quran.

Setting the path for many Muslim leaders today, he was the first ruler to publicly drink alcohol. Sunni scholar Ahmad ibn Hanbal writes in his famous collection of Hadtih: "Musnad" ""Abdullah bin Buraida said: 'I entered on Muawiya with my father, then he (Mu'awiya) made us sit on a mattress then he brought food to us and we ate, then he brought a drink to us, Muawiya drank it and then he offered that to my father, thus (my father) said: 'I never drank it since the messenger of Allah made it [that drink] Haram'...."

However, his greatest claims to infamy are the harsh treatment and even the killings of several companions of the Holy Prophet & Imam Ali (a.s.) for which he was responsible. Abu Dharr al-Ghifari was a great companion of the Holy Prophet, who stated that "The earth has not borne nor has the sky covered, a man more truthful than Abu Dharr"- as narrated by Sunni scholar Allama Muhammed ibn Saad in his book Tabqat Ibn-e-Saad. He goes on to narrate how Abu Dharr constantly used to criticise the corrupt and lavish rule of the third caliph, Uthman ibn Affan. On Muawiya's say so, Uthman had him flogged and whipped and then exiled outside Madina, to Al-Rabathah, where he died alone a few years later.

Muawiya was responsible for the death of the great companion of the Holy Prophet, Ammar ibn Yasir. There are many Sunni narrations praising the status of Ammar ibn Yasir. According to the Sunni book Sunan ibn Majah (one of the Sunni six major Hadith collections), the Holy Prophet said "Ammar is filled with faith, with imaan, from the crown of his head, to the soles of his feet." He was the son of Yasir and Sumaya, who were amongst the first people that were martyred in the name of Islam.

When it came to his death, it was prophesied by the Holy Prophet and is mentioned in both Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim (the 2 most important Sunni books of hadith). Sahih Bukhari narrates: "Ibn 'Abbas said to me and to his son 'Ali, "Go to Abu Sa'id and listen to what he narrates." So we went and found him in a garden looking after it. He picked up his Rida', wore it and sat down and started narrating till the topic of the construction of the mosque reached. He said, "We were carrying one adobe at a time while 'Ammar was carrying two. The Prophet saw him and started removing the dust from his body and said, "May Allah be Merciful to 'Ammar. He will be inviting them (i.e. his murderers, the rebellious group) to Paradise and they will invite him to Hell-fire." 'Ammar said, "I seek refuge with Allah from affliction." (Volume 1, Book 8, Number 438). And in Sahih Muslim: "This hadith has been transmitted on the authority of Umm Salama that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to 'Ammar: A group of rebels would kill you." (Book 041, Number 6968).

Who were these rebels that would kill Ammar ibn Yasir? History is clear when it records the death of Ammar in the Battle of Siffin. He fought in the ranks of Imam Ali (a.s.) and was killed by the army of Muawiya. The famous English translator of Sahih Muslim, Abd-al-Hamid Siddiqui goes on to add a footnote to the above hadith about Ammar: "This narration is clearly indicative of the fact that in the conflict between Hadrat Ali and his opponents, Hadrat Ali was on the right as Ammar Ibn Yasir was killed in the Battle of Siffin fighting in the camp of Hadrat Ali." It does not, therefore, make much sense to say that both Imam Ali (a.s.) and Muawiya were in the right.

Muawiya then went on to have Ammar ibn-Yasir beheaded and mutilated. It was Muawiya who first introduced such immoral and un-Islamic practices that his cursed son Yazid would then continue at Karbala and that so many Muslim terrorists continue around the world today - with their beheadings of hostages and mutilations of the bodies of their enemies.

Muawiya was also responsible for the deaths of other Muslims such as Hujr ibn Adi. Abul Ala Maududi writes in "Caliphate and Kingship" that Muawiya had Hujr ibn Adi buried alive for refusing to curse Imam Ali (a.s.). He also killed Muhammed ibn Abu Bakr - son of the first caliph and foster son of Imam Ali (a.s.), and then wrapped him in the carcass of a dead donkey and burned it to ashes. It was following this incident as narrated by Allama ibn Athir, in his book Tarikh-e-Kamil, that Ayesha, wife of the Holy Prophet and sister of Muhammed ibn Abu Bakr, began cursing Muawiya after every salat.

His greatest crime was killing the grandson of the Holy Prophet - Imam Hasan (a.s.). Muawiya paid Imam Hasan's wife, Jada 100,000 dirhams and his son, Yazid's hand in marriage if she would kill her husband. She poisoned his water, causing him to suffer for 40 days before dying. This has been reported in many major Sunni hadith books, including works by Abul Fida, Abdul Rahmān bin Abd Rabbāh, Ibne Shahnah and Ibne Abdul Birr. Muawiya went on to pay Jida the money, but refused to marry his son to her - if she could kill one husband, what would stop her killing her next husband?

Muawiya is arguably the greatest contributor to the Sunni-Shia split that exists today. His hatred of Imam Ali (a.s.) and the Ahlul Bayt continues to this day from his followers, from those Sunnis who ignorantly respect him. The Sunnis who try to build up Muawiya are living in denial. Muawiya was a corrupt, greedy and un-Islamic leader and should be treated as such. I encourage you to open your eyes and hearts and come to realise who Muawiya really was.