Muhammad and Safiyyah Revisited

Addressing the Polemics of A Muslim Dawagandist (Part 2)

Sam Shamoun

Here, we resume our rebuttal (cf. Part 1) to Zawadi’s response.

Exposing More of Zawadi’s Circular Reasoning

Here is Zawadi’s response to my criticisms regarding Muhammad’s marriage to Juwayriyyah:

I wish he continued what I posted earlier in my first article...

By marrying Juwayriyya, the Banu Mustaliq were able to enter Islam with honor, and with the humiliation of their recent defeat removed, and it was not necessary for them to embark on a war of vengeance that would have continued until one of the two parties had been annihilated.

All the booty that had been taken from the Banu Mustaliq was returned, and all the captives were set free, as soon as the marriage took place, for they were now the in laws of Prophet Mohamed (PEACE BE UPON HIM).

I wish Zawadi actually read my response very carefully so he could have understood my point since this would have saved me time from repeating myself and constantly exposing his logical fallacies.

Let me repeat my point, but this time by further simplifying and clarifying it so that Zawadi doesn’t miss it. First, the Banu al-Mustaliq would not have needed to embark on a war of vengeance if Muhammad had decided not to attack them in the first place. They would not have felt any humiliation if Muhammad had chosen to leave them alone.

Second, Zawadi is being inconsistent here. He first wants us to believe that Banu al-Mustaliq had the intention of attacking the Muslims, which caused Muhammad to launch a preemptive strike against them. If this were the case, then the Banu al-Mustaliq would have no just cause for vengeance since the Muslims were merely defending and protecting themselves against their proposed attack.

Third, Muhammad could have simply commanded that the entire tribe be set free and their property returned, without having to marry Juwayriyyah. This approach would have restored the tribe’s honor and dignity, and helped them see even more clearly just how peaceful and merciful Muhammad was.

Zawadi says this regarding the statement of the hadith that Juwayriyyah accepted Muhammad’s marriage proposal:

Secondly, this hadith refutes Shamoun. Notice that Juwayriyah said that she had already bargained to purchase her freedom. She asked the Prophet who then offered her marriage and she agreed WILLINGLY. However, she could have refused because if she really wanted to, she could have waited for her family members to come and pay her ransom since she was well known amongst her tribe.

He repeats this claim again, and thinks that this somehow justifies what Muhammad did. Zawadi doesn’t want to accept the fact that Juwayriyyah’s willingness to marry her captor is irrelevant to the discussion of whether Muhammad was right to attack and enslave peoples and tribes.

It is not uncommon for woman to marry their captors as a way of escaping their dire circumstances, especially when this is the only option given to them. But this in no way justifies the actions of the person committing these atrocities and heinous crimes against humanity. Zawadi is confusing a question of fact with a question of relevance.

Zawadi stated in relation to my response that Muhammad married Juwayriyyah for her beauty that:

I fail to see the argument or immorality. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is human and is attracted to women. So what? Do men go around marrying ugly women? Obviously, beauty is one of the main things that a person looks for in a woman before he marries her, but not the only thing.

When you can’t address the real issues then simply resort to attacking straw man arguments. I was addressing Zawadi’s claim that Muhammad married her in order to set her free, which wasn’t the real reason. Muhammad could have simply demanded that both her and her tribe be set free and the Muslims would have no choice but to obey their prophet’s orders. It is obvious that the real reason that Muhammad married her was because of her beauty, a fact which even Aisha admitted.

Zawadi tries to deny that the hadith that I cited from Aisha regarding Juwayriyyah’s beauty means what it actually says:

The hadith does not show that. It shows that it probably was A reason, but not THE reason.

How do you refute someone who does nothing but constantly deny what his own sources plainly and emphatically teach?

Muhammad and Sauda Revisited

As I had anticipated, Zawadi tries to deny what even his own sources clearly admit. Here is what Zawadi had to say after I highlighted that Ibn Kathir plainly stated that Muhammad married Sauda because he needed someone to watch his young daughters:

The above quotes by Ibn Kathir don't say that the Prophet married Sauda because the Prophet (peace be upon him) wanted to use her as a maid. If that was the case, then the Prophet (peace be upon him) could have had a slave to do it.

It isn’t merely that Muhammad wanted a maid, but needed an older woman who could assume the role of a mother to his young daughters. This is what Ibn Kathir himself said, which Zawadi wants to merely brush aside but to no avail. Here, once again, is what Ibn Kathir wrote, this time with even more emphasis:

And so it happened. After three years of constant struggle, a relative of his, called Khawla, went to him and pointed out that his house was sadly neglected and that his daughters needed a mother to look after them. "But who can take the place of Khadijah?" he asked. "Aisha, the daughter of Abu Bakr, the dearest of people to you," she answered. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) had been the first man to accept Islam and he was the Prophet's closest companion. Like Khadijah, he had done all that he could do to help the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and had spent all his wealth in the way of Allah. However, while the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was now fifty-three years old, Aisha as only a little girl of seven. SHE WAS HARDLY IN A POSITION TO LOOK AFTER EITHER THE PROPHET’S HOUSEHOLD OR CHILDREN. "She is very young." Replied the Prophet. Khawla had A SOLUTION for everything. She suggested that he marry at the same time a lady called Sawda, the widow of Al-Sakran ibn 'Amr… Sawda bint Zam'a, may Allah be pleased with her had been the first woman to immigrate to Abyssinia in the way of Allah. Her husband had died and she was now living with her aged father. She was middle-aged, rather plump, with a jolly, kindly disposition, AND JUST THE RIGHT PERSON TO TAKE CARE OF THE PROPHET’S HOUSEHOLD AND FAMILY… Sawda went to live in Muhammad's house AND IMMEDIATELY TOOK OVER THE CARE OF HIS DAUGHTERS AND HOUSEHOLD, while Aisha bint Abu Bakr became betrothed to him and remained in her father's house playing with her dolls. (Wives of the Prophet Muhammad; source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Zawadi wants his readers to believe that Muhammad really married her because of her love of Islam:

The reason why the Prophet (peace be upon him) specifically chose Sawda is because he saw the love that she had for Islam. Shamoun "forgot" to quote these quotes by Ibn Kathir...

There was great surprise in Mecca that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would choose to marry a widow who was neither young nor beautiful. The Prophet, however, remembered the trials she had undergone when she had immigrated to Abyssinia, leaving her house and property, and crossed the desert and then the sea for an unknown land out of the desire to preserve her deen. (Ibn Kathir, Wives of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), Source)

It is rather unfortunate for Zawadi that he doesn’t see how such arguments backfire against him and severely undermine Muhammad’s credibility. If it is true that this is the reason Muhammad married her then why did he later threaten to divorce her when he no longer felt attracted to her? As one modern Muslim biographer honestly admits:

Muhammad's personal and family life were not always smooth. His wives sometimes bickered amongst themselves and even once engaged in a petty plot against him. A'ishah, for example, disliked her Jewish co-wife, Safiyah, and insulted her periodically. Muhammad had to defend her status and honor a number of times and scold the youthful A'ishah. Hafsah became jealous of her co-wife, Maria, when she found her and Muhammad resting[sic] in her apartment one day. Sawdah gave up her allotted day with the Prophet WHEN SHE REALIZED HE WAS NOT REALLY ATTRACTED TO HER. As for the conspiracy, A'ishah agreed with two other co-wives to convince the Prophet that eating honey made him unpleasant to be around. When Muhammad vowed to never eat honey again, she privately repented to her co-conspirators. Though these incidents were not the norm, they demonstrate that the women in Muhammad's life were as human as the rest of us. (Yahiya Emerick, Critical Lives: Muhammad [Alpha Books, A Member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2002], p. 263; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

Wasn’t her love for Islam good enough for Muhammad to keep her as his wife in spite of not being attracted to her? After all, if her religious piety was good enough for him to marry her then it should have been good enough for him to keep her as his wife without her having to forfeit her day to Aisha.

Zawadi claims that he has shown that the narrations that say Muhammad wanted to divorce Sauda is weak, but failed to address our refutation of his assertion:

What makes this rather interesting is that we even used one of his very own sources (specifically Ibn Kathir!) to show that this report is actually authentic! Now watch Zawadi again attack his own sources, much like he has been doing here, in order to deny the obvious fact that Muhammad mistreated Sauda.

Zawadi Still Questions Juwayriyyah's [Lack Of] Piety

Zawadi asserts that the English version of the ahadith, specifically of al-Bukhari and Muslim, regarding Zainab being called Barra incorrectly translated the Arabic since they inserted words which somehow changed the meaning of the narratives:

Narrated By Abu Huraira:
Zainab's original name was "Barrah," but it was said, "By that she is giving herself the prestige of piety." So the Prophet changed her name to Zainab. (Volume 008, Book 073, Hadith Number 212)


Zainab, daughter of Umm Salama, reported: My name first was Barra… (Sahih Muslim, Book 025, Number 5336)

Zawadi argues that the Arabic texts do not have the words "original" and "first." If one is wondering why Zawadi would even need to point this out, here it is:

This is important because the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not change her BIRTH name but a nickname that was given to her…

He then claims that Barra was a nickname given to Juwayriyyah on the grounds that one hadith has her introducing herself as Juwayriyyah!

In the first place, neither hadith mentions Juwayriyyah but refer to Muhammad changing the name of another Barra to Zainab, and therefore have nothing to do with the issue of whether Juwayriyyah was the birth name or not.

Moreover, since Zawadi will later ask me to satisfy the burden of proof for my assertion regarding the unhappy state of Muhammad’s wives (*), I now return the favor and ask him to do the same in order to make sure he is being consistent:

Zawadi, please provide a sound narration, a Sahih hadith, which says that Barra wasn’t the birth name of Juwayriyyah but a nickname which was given to her later in life.

More on this below.

Now assuming for argument’s sake that Juwayriyyah was her birth name, it seems to have never occurred to Zawadi that some people give their children more than one name, one of which may be less used or known to others. It is, therefore, just as possible that Juwayriyyah had two genuine birth names growing up.

Besides, even claiming that it was a nickname, as opposed to a birth name, merely reinforces my case against Zawadi. This indicates that the people saw something good in these women which led them to give them this title.

Furthermore, how could this name be a sign of the women’s arrogance when, as even Zawadi admits, this was given to them by others? They didn’t name themselves Barra, but others did so.

Additionally, neither Al-Amin nor as-Siddiq were birth names given to Muhammad or Abu Bakr, but nicknames which others gave to them. So how does Zawadi justify Muhammad and Abu Bakr being given these titles! By asserting that there is no problem with Muhammad being called praised one (the meaning of his name) since this is true! And in the case of Abu Bakr being called as-Siddiq, well that wasn’t his name but a title!!!

Note the glaring inconsistency here. He wants us to accept that it was perfectly all right for Muhammad and his companion to be given names or titles that highlighted a specific moral virtue whereas it was a problem for these women to be given a name to signify their piety!

Zawadi provides a citation from Sahih Muslim where Muhammad changed the name of a woman from Asiya (disobedient) to Jamila (beautiful) in order to refute my assertion that Muhammad was somehow sexist. It never ceases to amaze me how Zawadi fails to see how his arguments severely undercut his own position. If Muhammad could name someone beautiful then why did he have a problem with women being named Barra? Isn’t this more proof of Muhammad’s inconsistency?

Moreover, Zawadi completely ignores the reason Muhammad gave for changing Juwayriyyah’s name:

Ibn Abbas reported that the name of Juwairiya (the wife of the Holy Prophet) was Barra (Pious). Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) changed her name to Juwairiya and said: I did not like that it should be said: He had come out from Barra (Pious). The hadith transmitted on the authority of Ibn Abi 'Umar is slightly different from it. (Sahih Muslim, Book 025, Number 5334)

Notice that Muhammad didn’t say that he was changing her name because this was a sign of arrogance on her part. Rather, he expressly stated that he didn’t want people to say that he came out of piety, a clear indication that he knew there was something wrong with that picture. After all, what kind of piety did Muhammad show by attacking a tribe and marrying one of their most beautiful women when the more correct and righteous act would have been to set them free without offering himself to her in marriage?

Finally, and more importantly, this all assumes that Juwariyyah was actually her birth name. Yet the above hadith introduces a major problem with this assertion since it implies that Barra was the birth name, not Juwayriyyah! Notice, again, what it says:

Ibn Abbas reported that the name of Juwairiya (the wife of the Holy Prophet) WAS BARRA (Pious). Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) CHANGED HER NAME TO Juwairiya and said: I did not like that it should be said: He had come out from Barra (Pious). The hadith transmitted on the authority of Ibn Abi 'Umar is slightly different from it.

Notice that this says her name was Barra and that Muhammad CHANGED it TO Juwayriyyah, which means that the latter wasn’t her birth name, but the former was! After all, if she was always Juwayriyyah then Muhammad would not have had to CHANGE the name, but only demand/force her to drop her second name or nickname. But this hadith seems to say clearly that it was Muhammad who came up with that new name, i.e. it was not originally hers.

The renowned historian and exegete al-Tabari provides further substantiation that her name was originally Barra:

According to [Ibn 'Umar al-Waqidi] - 'Abdallah b. 'Abd al-Rahman - Zayd b. Abi 'Attab - Muhammad b. 'Amr - 'Ata - Zaynab bt. Abi Salamah - Juwayriyyah bt. Al-Harith: Juwayriyyah's name HAD BEEN Barrah, and the Prophet CHANGED IT TO Juwayriyyah, for he resented that people would say "He came out of Barrah's place." (The History of al-Tabari: Biographies of the Prophet's Companions and Their Successors, translated by Ella Landau-Tasseron [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1998], Volume XXXIX (39), p. 184; capital emphasis ours)

Now this means that the hadiths are either contradicting themselves at this point, since one narrative says that Barra introduced herself to Muhammad as Juwayriyyah even before he changed her name, or that the narrator has redacted the report by reading the later name Juwayriyyah back into a time in which this name wasn’t used. Whatever the case, the problems still remain for Zawadi.

As a sidenote, this may explain the reason that the English translations of al-Bukhari and Muslim added the words "original" and "first" since one of these reports expressly says that Zainab's name was changed from Barra, implying that the latter was her original name. This is further implied by the following report:

Abu Huraira reported that the name of Zainab WAS Barra. It was said of her: She presents herself to be innocent. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) GAVE HER THE NAME of Zainab. (Sahih Muslim, Book 025, Number 5335)

This shows that Zawadi didn't bother to read these sources carefully, thereby providing further substantiation for my charge that he is incapable of understanding what he reads.

So much for Zawadi’s claims.

Muhammad and Boasting

Zawadi denies that Muhammad was being arrogant for boasting about his status on the Day of Judgment:

Shamoun then talks about how the Prophet claimed to be an intercessor on the day of judgment. However, Shamoun assumes without evidence that the tone of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is that of arrogance when he was talking. The Prophet was speaking about his status because he was informed by God regarding it. So this is not a matter of the unseen because this has now become public knowledge for us.

Note the circular reasoning being employed: Muhammad wasn’t boasting since God told him of his status! Zawadi has assumed that Muhammad was a prophet and on the basis of this unproven assumption has further assumed that Muhammad wasn’t bragging but speaking the truth!

That Muhammad knew he was boasting can be readily seen from the following narrations:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas

When some of the companions of Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) were sitting he came out, and when he came near them he heard them discussing. One of them said Allah had taken Abraham as a friend, another said He spoke direct to Moses, another said Jesus was Allah's word and spirit, and another said Allah chose Adam. Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) then came out to them and said, "I have heard what you said, and you wonder that Abraham was Allah's friend, as indeed he was; that Moses was Allah's confidant, as indeed he was; that Jesus was His spirit and word, as indeed he was; and that Adam was chosen by Allah, as indeed he was. I am the one whom Allah loves, and this is no boast. On the Day of Resurrection I shall be the bearer of the banner of praise under which will be Adam and the others, and this is no boast. I shall be the first intercessor and the first whose intercession is accepted on the Day of Resurrection, and this is no boast. I shall be the first to rattle the knocker of Paradise, and Allah will open for me and bring me into it accompanied by the poor ones among the believers, and this is no boast. I shall be the most honourable in Allah's estimation among those of earliest and latest times, and this is no boast."

Tirmidhi and Darimi transmitted it. (Tirmidhi Hadith Number 1518; ALIM CD-Rom Version)

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "I am the leader (qa'id) of the messengers, and this is no boast; I am the seal of the prophets, and this is no boast; and I shall be the first to make intercession and the first whose intercession is accepted, and this is no boast."

Darimi transmitted it. (Tirmidhi Hadith Number 1519; ALIM CD-Rom Version)

The fact that he even needed to say that this was no boast shows that he was very aware that this clearly smacked of arrogance. So what does he do about it? Deny that it is such on the grounds that this is a revealed truth, which begs the question since this assumes that he was a prophet even though all the evidence shows that he wasn’t.

Moreover, it is evident from other sources that Muhammad himself didn’t always believe his own hype:

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Whoever says that I am better than Jonah bin Matta, is a liar." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 128)

Narrated Abu Huraira:
"A man from the Muslims and a man from the Jews quarreled, and the Muslim said, ‘By Him Who gave superiority to Muhammad over all the people!’ The Jew said, ‘By Him Who gave superiority to Moses over all the people!' On that the Muslim lifted his hand and slapped the Jew. The Jew went to Allah's Apostle and informed him of all that had happened between him and the Muslim. The Prophet said, ‘Do not give me superiority over Moses, for the people will fall unconscious on the Day of Resurrection, I will be the first to regain consciousness and behold, Moses will be standing there, holding the side of the Throne. I will not know whether he has been one of those who have fallen unconscious and then regained consciousness before me, or if he has been one of those exempted by Allah (from falling unconscious).’" (See Hadith No. 524, Vol. 8) (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 564)

Anas b. Malik reported that a person came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: O the best of creation; thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: He is Ibrahim (peace be upon him). (Sahih Muslim, Book 030, Number 5841)

How can Muhammad be preeminent over the others when he clearly said that Abraham was the best of creation and that he wasn’t better than either Moses or Jonah? Doesn’t this show that Muhammad was a rather confused and inconsistent person?

Revisiting Muhammad and the Bible

Zawadi claims that there are articles which have refuted some of the links I provided in my defense of the Islamic attacks against God’s Word, the Holy Bible. Zawadi somehow thinks that his links provide a refutation to our material, when in reality his so-called responses fall way short of providing a meaningful rebuttal. In fact, here are a few more rebuttals which not only address these articles but further turn the tables on Muhammad and Islam:

We invite the readers to read his articles and then compare them with the rebuttals and links we have provided in order to see who is really addressing the issues.

To be quite frank, the quality of these so-called rebuttals is much like his current response, and that isn’t a compliment! As an example of what we mean about the quality, Zawadi or the other authors he cites have the habit of brushing aside the quotations of Muslim sources and scholars for other citations, thinking that this somehow suffices as a rebuttal. Zawadi will also try to undermine specific Islamic sources on the grounds that they are either classified as weak or lack a chain of transmission (isnad). And, as we saw in this very rebuttal, he will also question or explain away his own links and quotes anytime we use them against him!

It is truly ironic that Zawadi and his cohorts do not see how this further substantiates our repeated assertion that the Quran is an incoherent and unintelligible book and that Muslim scholars can’t even agree with each other regarding the grading of certain narratives, i.e. some argue that a specific narration is sound and have no qualms quoting it while others deny that the report in question is authentic.

For more on the mass confusion that exists among Muslims regarding the classification of specific narratives and their importance on the exegesis of the Quran we recommend the following links:

Zawadi stated that I didn’t correctly understand what he wrote:

It doesn't seem like Shamoun didn't read what I said properly (as usual)...

Even the false accusations leveled against Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) are not half as bad as the torture, rape and disgust found in the Bible.

else where I said...

So even if Shamoun is successful in proving his arguments to the Muslims that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was cruel and unjust, he's even pushing us further away from his Bible, because it is much worse than the false accusations put against the noble Prophet. Shamoun shouldn't expect people running to the Bible by giving these kind of arguments against Islam.

So its not like I argued "well yeah, the Bible contains violence too!". No, no. What I did was refute Shamoun's ridiculous arguments and then showed correct arguments against his Bible. Then I stated that EVEN IF his arguments against the Prophet were true, he would only be pushing us further from the Bible.

Zawadi again makes it obvious that he is the one who didn’t understand what I wrote in response since I specifically addressed this claim. But since Zawadi has shown that he has a hard time comprehending what is in front of him it seems I need to not only repeat my point, but also further simplify it in order that he gets it this time.

Recall that earlier in our discussion we provided statements attributed to Muhammad where he expressly confirmed his faith in the Holy Bible that was available at his time. Muhammad did not say that the Books that the Jews and Christians were reading were corrupted, that they were not the revelation given by God to his prophets; rather, he emphatically testified that he believed that these Scriptures were God’s Word and could be used to verify his prophetic claims.

As we said in our initial rebuttal, we know what these Books looked like since we have manuscripts (MSS) dating before, during and after Muhammad’s time. The manuscript (MS) evidence conclusively demonstrates that what Muhammad had available to him is what we have in our possession today. In other words, Muhammad was basically confirming the authority of the Holy Bible as we now have it since this is what the Jews and Christians were reading during his time.

Yet this is the very Book that Zawadi has attacked for being bad and disgusting, for containing torture and rape. Thus, if Zawadi is correct then this only further proves that Muhammad was a false prophet since he mistakenly and erroneously believed that the Holy Bible was the pure Word of God, and that this is the Book which could be used to judge him, despite the fact that it contains bad and disgusting teachings such as rape and torture!

Now, the logical question for Zawadi to answer is, why is he still a Muslim when Muhammad believed in the Holy Bible and even appealed to it for verification? Why does he believe and defend a self-professed prophet who believed in a vile and filthy Book (according to Zawadi)? Why doesn’t Zawadi turn agnostic or embrace some other religion besides Judaism, Christianity and Islam? Maybe Zawadi should become a Hindu or Buddhist since, unlike Christianity and Islam, these religions do not make it an obligation for their followers to uphold the integrity of the Holy Bible, specifically the Torah.

Zawadi’s Distortions Exposed

Once again, Zawadi brushes aside my arguments that provided substantiation for the accuracy of al-Waqidi’s narratives. He then highlights the part that he wanted me to substantiate:

Ibn Umar [al-Waqidi] - Kathir b. Zayd - al-Walid b. Rabah - Abu Hurayrah: While the Prophet was lying with Safiyyah Abu Ayyub stayed the night at his door. When he saw the Prophet in the morning he said "God is the Greatest." He had a sword with him; he said to the Prophet, "O Messenger of God, this young woman had just been married, and you killed her father, her brother and her husband, so I did not trust her (not to harm) you." The Prophet laughed and said "Good". (The History of al-Tabari, Volume XXXIX (39), p. 185; bold and underline emphasis ours)

I want Shamoun to show me an authentic narration in which the Prophet laughed and said "good".

Although I provided evidence showing why we can take these narrations as being authentic, I will take the bait and provide evidence that this specific part is credible. I will do so by quoting a narration that shows that Muhammad’s reaction in the above report suits his behavior perfectly:

Narrated Anas ibn Malik:

On the Day of Hunayn, Umm Sulayman took out a dagger she had in her possession. AbuTalhah saw her and said: Messenger of Allah, this is Umm Sulayman. She is holding a dagger. The Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) asked (her): Why are you holding this dagger? She said: I took it up so that I might tear open the belly of a polytheist who comes near me. The Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) BEGAN TO SMILE (at these words).

She said: Messenger of Allah, kill all those people --other than us-- whom thou hast declared to be free (on the day of the Conquest of Mecca). (They embraced Islam because) they were defeated at your hands (and as such their Islam is not dependable). The Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Umm Sulayman, God is sufficient (against the mischief of the polytheists) and He will be kind to us (so you need not carry this dagger). (Sahih Muslim, Book 18, Number 4453)

Muhammad smiled at Umm Sulayman’s desire to kill the people who embraced Islam out of fear, much like Muhammad laughed at Abu Ayyub’s willingness to kill Safiyyah in case she tried to kill him for murdering her family. Now doesn’t this narration taken from the second most authentic collection of hadiths substantiate the above report from al-Waqidi? Doesn’t this so-called sound hadith demonstrate that it wasn’t unusual for Muhammad to react the way he did when Abu Ayyub explained to him why he was standing outside Muhammad’s door all night with his sword while he slept with Safiyyah?

After getting caught and being exposed for his inconsistent approach to the use of al-Waqidi, Zawadi tries to pull a fast one upon his readers by making the following amazing assertion:

Ignoramus Shamoun forgets what my main argument was during this whole exchange between me and him on the Hudaybiyyah issue. I argued that the narrations were not reliable and therefore we could not verify what truly happened...

So even according to Sam we cannot be sure about what truly did happen. This is all contradictory evidence. If evidence is contradictory then it is unreliable. Can unreliable evidence be sufficient enough to convict some body of a crime in a reliable court of law? No! So then it cannot be used in this case as well. (Source)

That was my main argument.

He even dares to say that he reiterated this point in the following article:

We invite the readers to go through his article to see whether what Zawadi said has anything to do with the reliability of al-Waqidi specifically. The reader can see from what is even posted here that this is not what Zawadi was addressing.

Here is what I said in response which helps to bring this out more clearly:

Zawadi tries to use the contradictions which exist among the Muslim sources to disprove that Muhammad broke the treaty, but it won’t work for the following reasons. First, all these sources agree that Muhammad refused to return the women back to the Meccans. Second, the Muslim sources also agree that the guardians of these women, specifically the brothers of Umm Kulthum, demanded that Muhammad return them in accord with the stipulations of the treaty. It is from this point onwards that we find disagreements and the reason should be clear. Some Muslims couldn’t handle the fact that Muhammad broke the treaty because they realize how bad this makes him look. They therefore decided to come up with various explanations to justify his treachery towards the Meccans. (Source)

Zawadi’s point, in context, was that since the Muslim sources were contradicting one another regarding the matter of who broke the treaty, one could not be certain what truly happened. But this is a far cry from saying that al-Waqidi is questionable since he wasn’t focusing specifically on his reliability.

In fact, if Zawadi is going to be consistent then he can no longer quote Ibn Kathir, al-Tabari, Muhammad Asad, and Yusuf Ali, the very scholars that were cited in these specific rebuttals, since they all contradict one another and cannot, therefore, be trusted!

With this in mind, does anyone really believe that this is what Zawadi was trying to say, that all of these scholars and sources are just as unreliable as al-Waqidi? Isn’t it rather apparent that once I exposed him for inconsistently using al-Waqidi to support his case but then attacking me for quoting him to expose Muhammad that Zawadi decided to save face by claiming that he did question al-Waqidi in his article concerning the treaty of Hudaibiyyah when the fact is that his comments weren’t aimed specifically at al-Waqidi’s reliability?

At this point, Zawadi has not only further proven that he is not capable of reading my articles carefully, he has also shown that he either lies – and knows exactly what he is doing - or he doesn’t really know what he wrote and ends up embarrassing himself as a result of it.

Zawadi made a plea to me which I would like to repeat to him in an adapted form:

Plea to Zawadi: Learn objectivity since once you start being objective you will then be able to see that Muhammad was a false prophet, and a very vile and immoral human being. You will be able to grasp reality more clearly and come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Son of God and your only hope of salvation. Even though it is too late for Muhammad since he rejected the historical Jesus for a counterfeit named Isa, there is still hope for you to be objective and repent of your false religion.

Further Reading

Here is a link to an online forum debate and discussion between Muslims and non-Muslims regarding Muhammad’s marriage to Safiyyah:

Rebuttals to Answering-Christianity
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page