"...If you love Allah, then follow me (Mohammed)..." (Sura 3:31).

"Ye have indeed in the Apostle of Allah a beautiful pattern of (conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day." (Sura 33:21).

"I leave with you two things. If you hold fast by them both, you will never be misguided - the Book of Allah and Sunnah of the Prophet." ("Mishkat" I, page 173).

"Whoso obeys me shall enter Paradise and whoso disobeys me, has indeed rejected the truth." (ibid. pages 5 and 159). "All the utterances and deeds of the Holy Prophet are divinely inspired, and in them alone can one find the true meaning and the real significance of the will of Allah...The Prophet alone is best fitted and, therefore, divinely authorized to determine the meanings of the Holy Quran, to unfold before humanity the deep wisdom contained in it...It is by following Muhammad that we can achieve the cherished goal of winning Allah's favour. ("Sahih Muslim" I, Introduction pp. i-ii). See also chapter: "The Hadis and Sunnah", page 46.

It is essential, that our Muslim friends do not assume that Christians are just trying to be difficult when they imply that Mohammed was not a man of immaculate quality.

"For three centuries, they (writers of European countries) have cried themselves hoarse over their accusations of Muhammad being a licentious man, an imposter, a murderer, a liar and all other vile epithets which their hearts could accept. And they go on repeating these lying accusations believing that some of the mud they throw may stick....And what proof have these writers of Muhammad being a licentious man? Nothing but the fact that after he was 53 years old, he gradually contracted a number of marriages which they dislike, and the further fact that whilst he limited the number of wives to his followers at a maximum of four he made an exception of the law in his own case...
Abraham, David, Solomon and many other prophets and saints of the Old Testament had many wives. Were they all licentious men? God forbid such an accusation!" ("Dictionary of Islam", pp. 399-400).

In reply to this, we should like to state that the word "European" has no place here. It is not a question of nationality, race or colour, but rather of truth or error. Racism with all its consequences is evil wherever it comes from.

We reject the implication that certain objections raised by Christians are not supported by fact.

We cannot be ruled by our emotions on this subject. It ought to be mentioned also, that all our information about Mohammed comes from Islamic sources. Every substantiated statement can consequently not be a "lying accusation."

If it is demanded of a person that he follow and obey a certain leader he may weigh up the pros and cons and reach a decision. But when Truth and eternal life are involved, expediency on temporal issues matters no longer. So when we are told to follow the footsteps of a spiritual leader, our confidence must not be emotional only, but most important of all, it must be rational.

That presupposes as deep a study of the quality of the life of the example, as possible. One should not give a deaf ear to negative reports, provided they are substantiated. Also one would not explain away possible flaws. But most of all one must have a fixed standard by which to measure right and wrong, good and evil. As Christians we use the standard that is found in the Bible. Ultimately our concept of what is moral and what immoral will find its origin there.

May just one text indicate what we mean by this:

"Lord, who may dwell in your sanctuary?
Who may live on your holy hill?
He whose walk is blameless and who does what is righteous ...
has no slander on his tongue, who does his neighbour no wrong
and casts no slur on his fellow man ... who keeps his oath
even when it hurts ... " (from Psalm 15).

Since it has been mentioned already, let us look at the concept of monogamy and polygamy. Was Abraham polygamous? He had Sarah, his wife, and after her death he "took another wife whose name was Ketu'rah" (Genesis 25:1). But then he had Hagar for a short period of time on the advice of Sarah, whose servant she was (Genesis 16:1-2) with the object of raising a descendant and heir to Abraham. This was, at least in a sense, polygamy. What was God's view of this relationship? We have only one and that by implication: after this episode God had no communion with Abraham for 13 years. (Genesis 16:16-17:1). Besides this, we see the inevitable problem of jealousy coming up, which eventually led to Hagar and Ishmael's banishment from the family. Also in the case of David we read of no comment by God on his polygamy, although God severely judged him for his adulterous act with Bathsheba (II Samuel 12). Solomon lived in absolute excess as far as women were concerned, yet there is no direct condemnation, except in that he took idolatrous wives who led him away from the Lord in the latter years of his life. There were other cases of polygamy also, but we see no rejection of this practice in the Old Testament. Jesus, when approached on the question of divorce, re-instituted, however, the original purpose of marriage:

"He (God) who made them from the beginning made them male and female" (implying not male and females!) and said, for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife (not wives!) and the TWO shall become one. So they are no longer TWO but ONE. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder." They said to him: 'Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?' He said to them, 'For your hardness of heart Moses (not God) allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you: Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery."

"And he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery." (Matthew 19:4 and Luke 16:18).

Why? Because polygamy excludes devoted love, for love between the sexes is exclusive, otherwise it is degraded in essence to mere sexual fulfilment. No woman who loves her husband and wishes to be fully loved in return, can tolerate a partner. One may lose sight of this fact in a polygamous society, but even Ayshah, the favourite wife of Mohammed, confessed to having been jealous. How much more would the others have been!

But there is one further aspect: Monogamy gives recognition, status and integrity to a woman. It is silly to argue that a polygamous society makes prostitution unnecessary. What about sexual fulfilment for the woman, who has to share her husband with other wives? And what about the men who surely have to go without wives, because someone else has more than one?

The fact that there is a numerical superiority of girls over boys, is too insignificant to justify the legalisation of polygamy.

We cannot accept the argument that during the "Holy Wars" when many men were killed, polygamy was a justifiable provision for the widows. According to notes in "Sahih Muslim" III, page 941, in all the 82 hostilities during the lifetime of Mohammed, only 259 Muslims lost their lives. He moved to Mecca with 10 000 men. How many of them would have had a chance of marrying even one widow? 2%!

Be that as it may, we do not wish to regard the custom of polygamy as a sinful practice, simply because it appears that in Old Testament times at least, God overlooked it--maybe because of the "hardness of heart" of the people or simply because it was part of their culture. Had it been of much consequence spiritually, God would, no doubt, have spoken out. Nevertheless to a Christian and even in Western Society the above quotation by Jesus and the reasoning that follows, give polygamy a negative connotation.

We have to remember that Mohammed lived in a polygamous society. But he also lived after Jesus and ought to have been aware of His teaching.

Mohammed and his wives

In Sura 66:1 ff we read:

"Oh prophet, why do you hold forbidden what Allah has made lawful to thee? Thou seekest to please thy wives. And Allah is all-forgiving, all-compassionate. Allah hss ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths. Allah is your protector and he is the all-knowing and the all-wise. When the Prophet confided to one of his wives a certain matter; and then when she told of it, and turned aside one part; then when he told her of it, she said, 'Who told thee this?' he said, 'I was told of it by the All-knowing and the All-aware. If you two repent to Allah, yet your hearts certainly inclined, but if you support one another against him, Allah is his protector and Gabriel and the righteous among the believers and after that the angels and his supporters. It is possible that, if he divorces you, his Lord will give him in exchange wives better than you, women who have surrendered, believing, obedient, penitent, devout, given to fasting, who have been married and virgins too."

Al-Baizâwi, (Commentary Vol.II, pp. 340-341), the Quranic commentator, gives an explanation of this passage:

"It is related that Mohammed was alone in company with Mary in Ayshah's or Hafsah's turn. Hafsah became aware of that and therefore scolded him about it. He declared he had taken an oath, but admitted his unlawful behaviour, therefore these verses descended." ("Mizanu'l Haqq, page 330). (The "Mishkat" names Zainab instead of Hafsah - "Mishkat" II, pages 680-681).

(The complete story is told in the Rauzatu'r Safâ , Vol. II, page 188).

It is in brief, as follows:

"Mary (the Copt) was a Christian slave given to Mohammed 7 A.H. (628 A.D.) by the Governor of Egypt, Elmokaukas. Her sister, Shereena was also given at the same time. Mohammed became intimate with Mary and she bore him Ibrahim, who died in 10 A.H. The intimacy took place in the home and bed of his wife Hafsah (daughter of Umar) who was absent at that moment and on the day which was either her or Ayshah's turn. When Hafsah found this out and questioned him he promised (on oath) not to touch Mary again if she would keep this a secret, and promised that Umar and Abu-Bakr should be his successors. Hafsah, however, told Ayshah about this event, and for a full month Mohammed had no dealings with any of his wives, living with Mary alone." During that period this "revelation" was given. ("Der Koran", translated by Ludwig Ullman, Footnote 2 of Sura 66:1-2, page 456).

It is noteworthy that a revelation from the Holy One should promote and commend a breach of oath by Mohammed--and under such circumstances!

We conclude that Mohammed, at least in his later years, used Quranic utterances in favour of his personal interests. That certain revelations were used for his personal convenience is obvious, and bewilder us:

"O believers, enter not the house of the Prophet, except leave (permission) is given you for a meal without watching for its hour. But when you are invited, then enter. And when you have had the meal, disperse, neither lingering for idle talk; that is hurtful to the Prophet and he is ashamed before you." (Sura 33:53).

According to the Hadis ("Sahih Muslim" II, page 723 ff. and "Mishkat" II, page 210) this "revelation" came when Mohammed had just married Zainab and he wanted the guests to leave.

In Sura 33 there are other instances that no-one can really term ethical. The Sura records:

"It is not fitting a believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and his Apostle, to have any option about their decision. If anyone disobeys Allah and his Apostle, he is indeed on a clearly wrong path." (Sura 33:36).

We find it presumtuous - not to say blasphemous - when a prophet assumes a position of equality with God ("..... has been decided by Allah and his Apostle...."). This suspicion is amplified when the very next text covers up, or even makes acceptable, an action which we consider unethical, never mind what the circumstances.

In this case Mohammed married the wife of his adopted son, Zaid-ibn-Haritha. The story is rather obscure, but was reported by Al-Baizâwi thus:

"Mohammed beheld her, (Zainab, Zaid's wife) after he (Mohammed) had wedded her (Zainab) to him (Zaid), and she fell into his soul; therefore he said: 'Praise to Allah who turneth hearts upsidedown.' Zaid heard it and there occured to his soul an aversion from her society (nearness). Therefore he came to the Prophet and said: 'I desire to put away my wife!' After having been persuaded to keep her on, Zaid tried a while, but then divorced her. After the time prescribed following a divorce, (a waiting period of 90 days), another "revelation" came to Mohammed: " 'We wedded her to thee' (Sura 33:37)... the meaning is that He (Allah) made her his (Mohammed's) wife without the interposition of a marriage contract. And what confirms it (i.e. this explanation) is that she used to say to the rest of the Prophet's wives, 'Verily Allah acted the part of a relative in my being given in marriage, and as for you, your relatives gave you in marriage.' And it is said that Zaid was the go-between in her betrothal, and that was a great trial, and an evident witness to the strength of his faith". (Commentary of Al-Baizâwi Volume II, page 129), (Mizanu'l Haqq, pages 331-332).

The latter statement of Baizâwi is, also reflected in the "Sahih Muslim" (page 724):

"Allah's Messenger said to Zaid to make a mention to her (Zainab) about him. Zaid went--and said: 'Zainab, Allah's Messenger has sent (me) with a message to you!' She said: I do not do anything until I consult the will of my Lord.' So she stood at her place of worship and the (verse of) the Quran (pertaining to her marriage) was revealed, and Allah's Messenger came to her without permission."

This "revelation" can be read in Sura 33:37-38:

"When Zaid had dissolved (his marriage) with her with the necessary (formality = 90 days' waiting), We (= Allah) joined her in marriage to thee ... And Allah's command must be fulfilled.

There can be no difficulty to the Prophet in what Allah has indicated to him as a duty."

All the modern commentators explain that both Zaid and Zainab, being incompatible, were suffering in their marriage; that both were encouraged by Mohammed to stay together, until the marriage could last no longer; only then did Zaid (a freed slave) divorce Zainab (of a noble family); and Mohammed, feeling partly responsible for the failure and wanting to reinstate Zainab, married her. We have not found any support for this modern interpretation in the Traditions.

We are reminded of the words of Jesus:

"He who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery." (Luke 16:18).

One may argue that in Zainab's case Mohammed was subject to the culture and customs of those days. True. But when God speaks He gives absolute standards that are binding to all who claim to be believers.

Also very strange to us is a special concession to Mohammed concerning his matrimonial affairs. In Sura 4:3 the number of wives for a Muslim is restricted to four at a time, plus, however,

"what your right hand possesses", i.e. concubines or slave girls (Al-Baizâwi).

We would contend that prisoners or slaves are still human beings with needs and feelings. One could degrade them to animals or use them like a shirt or socks, but we hold that this is barbaric and unethical. If that was the practice in a barbaric society, a man of God could not fall in line with it. Purely for that reason alone we ought to say that an intimate relationship, without giving the woman concerned the status of wife, constitutes exploitation, even if the social environment does not regard it as such. That is why concubinage is a practice rejected by Christians.

In Sura 33:50-57, however, we notice a different law:

"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives (1) to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses (2) and of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; (3) and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts (4) who migrated with thee (from Mecca); and any believing woman (5) who dedicates her soul to the Prophet--if the Prophet wishes to wed her. This only for thee and not for the believers....Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any thou pleasest, and there is no blame on thee if thou invitest one whose (turn) thou hast set aside....It is not lawful for thee (to marry more) women after this, nor to change them for other wives, even though their beauty attract thee, except any thy right hand should possess."

"It is not right for you that ye should annoy Allah's Apostle, or that ye should marry his widows after him at any time: truly such a thing is Allah's sight an enormity....Allah and his Angels send blessings on the Prophet. 0 ye that believe! Send ye blessings on him, and salute him with all respect. Those who annoy Allah and his Apostle--Allah has cursed them in this world and in the hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating punishment."

Thus Mohammed indeed enjoyed a superhuman status.

Ayshah, Mohammed's favourite wife,

"reported that Allah's Apostle married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her, and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was 18 years old." ("Sahih Muslim", page 716).

In Sura 4:23 marriage is forbidden with two sisters at the same time. It is not well-known, but Mohammed had as slave-concubine not only Mary, the Copt, but also her sister, Shereena.

How Mohammed's wives must have felt about all this is reflected to some extent in a Hadis of Ayshah's:

"I used to backbite those (females) who offered themselves for the Messenger of Allah. So I asked: 'Does a woman offer herself? Then the Almighty Allah revealed: 'You may put off whom you please of them, you may take to you whom you wish, and if you desire any whom you have separated no blame attaches you.' (Sura 33:51) I said: 'It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire.'" ("Mishkat" I, page 210).

We must emphasize, that all this information comes from authentic Islamic sources!

Not without reason Christians are inclined to be critical about expedient "revelations" like this:

"Ayshah reported that Allah's Messenger sought our permission when he had (a turn to spend) a day with (one of his wives) amongst us (whereas he had wanted to visit his other wives too). It was after this that this verse was revealed: 'Thou mayest put off whom thou pleasest of them, and take for thee whom thou pleasest.' (Sura 33:51)." ("Sahih Muslim" II, page 762).

Muslims seem to be under the impression, that sexuality in the case of Mohammed played a very subordinate role in his marriages. Quotations from the Hadis do not confirm this. Perhaps one Hadis of Al-Bukhari's (Volume I, page 165) will illustrate this:

"Anas bin Malik said, 'The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.' I asked Anas, 'Had the Prophet the strength for it?' Anas replied, 'We used to say that the Prophet was given strength of thirty (men).' "

There are some final questions. Was there no envy or jealousy among the wives of Mohammed? Did he actually make use of his special privileges? Did he treat all his wives alike, as is prescribed in the Quran?

Let us hear another of Ayshah's accounts ("Sahih Muslim" IV, pages 1 299-1 301):

"The wives of Allah's Apostle sent Fatima, the daughter of Allah's Messenger, to Allah's Apostle. She sought permission to get in as he had been lying with me in my mantle (robe). He gave her permission and she said: 'Allah's Messenger, verily your wives have sent me to you in order to ask you to observe equity in case of the daughter of Abu Quhâfa' (It happened to be "her turn" G.N.). Ayshah said: 'Keep quiet.' Thereupon Allah's Messenger said to Fatima: 'O daughter, don't you love whom I love?' She said: 'Yes!' Thereupon he said: 'I love this one'. Fatima then stood up when she heard this from Allah's Messenger, and went to the wives of Allah's Apostle and informed them of what she had said to him and what Allah's Messenger had said to her. Thereupon they said to her: 'We think that you have been of no avail to us. You may again go to Allah's Messenger and tell him that his wives seek equity in case of the daughter of Abu Quhâfa.' Fatima said: 'By Allah, I will never talk to him about this matter.' Ayshah (further) reported: The wives of Allah's Apostle then sent Zainab, the wife of Allah's Apostle, and she was one who was somewhat equal in rank with me in the eyes of Allah's Messenger, and I have never seen a woman more advanced in religious piety than Zainab...., more close to Allah, than her. She, however, lost her temper very soon, but was soon calm. Allah's Messenger permitted her to enter as she (Ayshah) was alone with Allah's Messenger in her mantle, in the very same state when Fatima entered. She said, 'Allah's Messenger, your wives have sent me to you, seeking equity in the case of the daughter of Abu Quhâfa.' She then came to me and showed harshness to me and I was seeing the eyes of Allah's Messenger whether he would permit me. Zainab went on until I came to know that Allah's Messenger would not disapprove if I retorted. Then I exchanged hot words until I made her quiet. Thereupon Allah's Messenger smiled and said: 'She is the daughter of Abu Bakr' "

We have not quoted the above to slander Mohammed, but try to balance the one-sided romantic picture that has persisted in Islam down the centuries. This is despite the above negative information being available - information that prevents us from being able to accep that Mohammed's life is the product of divine revelation. We appeal to those who present a totally one-sided impression of the life of Mohammed to the followers of Islam, to be impartial.
We are aware that prophets are only people, after all. But we do not expect them to secure an exclusive position for themselves, and seek privileges that would be called sin in others. For instance, we cannot accept the sentimental suggestions by many Muslims, that Mohammed's matrimonial (and extra-matrimonial) affairs are the result of unselfish sacrifice to unite Arab tribes and protect exploited widows, although this should not be ruled out. That Mohammed lived in monogamy until Khadiyah's death (when he was 50) and that he married no virgin (apart from Ayshah) does not seem to prove anything when one considers reports in the Hadis such as quoted above.

Mohammed and his enemies

As Christians our ethics are strongly influenced by and have their origin in the teaching of Jesus Christ and His attitudes towards His enemies. Admittedly a very high standard is set here, perhaps too high for the normal individual to be realized in full on every occasion. Consequently, Biblical Christianity rejects force of any description, at least in attaining spiritual goals. We reject as totally unjustifiable all "religious" wars such as Crusades and those of the "Conquistadores". Christ's Kingdom "is not of this world", otherwise His servants would have fought for it (John 18:36). When Peter used force to defend Christ, he was reprimanded. Practising Christians therefore have no sympathy with "holy wars". That churches have repeatedly given their blessings to wars and even bombs is a sad proof of the fact that mass-Christianity has little concern for Biblical standards and consequently has no right to call itself truly Christian.

Here we should like to have a closer look at the subject of one's enemies on a more personal level:

"We were (sitting) in the mosque when the Messenger of Allah came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews. We went out with him until we came to them. The Messenger of Allah stood up and called out to them (saying): 'O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe.' They said: Abu'l Qasim (=Mohammed) you have communicated (Allah's message to us).' "This was twice repeated with the same answer. Then Mohammed added: "You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I wish that I should expel you from this land." Mohammed expelled Banu Nadir. ("Sahih Muslim" II, pages 963-960 and "Mishkat" II, page 454). The Banu Quraiza (also Jews) put up a resistance.

"Then he killed their men and distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah, who granted them security. They embraced Islam." ("Sahih Muslim" III, pages 963-964).

"The people of Quraiza surrendered accepting the decision of Saïd ibn Mu'adh (a loyal Muslim) about them....Saïd said; 'You will kill their fighters and capture their women and children.' (Hearing this), the Prophet said: 'You have judged by the command of God.' " (ibid. page 966).

We are told in practically all the explanations of this incident, that the Quraiza had been acting treacherously towards the Muslims. We could not find this claim confirmed in any Hadis, but even if we had, the following event would not be justified:

"Then the Apostle of Allah went out to the market place of Medinah....and caused to be dug in it trenches. Then he sent for them and beheaded them in those trenches. They were brought forth unto him as sent for....there were 600 - 700 of them. And he who estimates their number highest says that they were between 800 and 900....And that state of affairs did not come to an end until the Apostle of Allah had finished with them....

Ayshah says:

"None of their women were slain, except one woman....she was with me, talking with me....while the Apostle of Allah was killing her men in the market place, when a crier cried out her name.....She said, 'It is I, by God.' I said to her, 'Alas for thee, what is the matter with thee?' She said, 'I shall be killed.'I said, 'And why?' She said, 'For the talk which I talk.' Then she was taken off and beheaded." Ayshah used to say, " By Allah, I do not forget my surprise at her, the godliness of her person...." "Then verily the Apostle of Allah divided the goods of the Banu Quraiza and their wives and children among the Muslims....And the Apostle of God chose for himself of their women Rihânah....and she was with the Apostle of Allah until he died from her, and she was among his concubines." (Siratu'l Rasool vss. 689-693).

She remained in that state, yet this was despite the clear ordinance that

"when war ceases, the slave women and girls, when taken at home, cannot be used (!) for sexual intercourse without regular marriage. Look at the case of the Prophet. He did not keep any captive women of war without marriage....This was repeated in the verse: '(You may marry) of those whom your right hands have possessed (=prisoners) from among your believing maidens. (Sura 4:25). There is mention of fornication in the above verse if the slave girls are not taken lawfully in marriage." ("Mishkat" II, page 460- commentary).

Considering the easy and superficial way marriage could be concluded and dissolved, this means very little effort indeed.

Again we conclude that this action, however much justification is given to it, is not appropriate for a man of God, all the more when we compare it to the life and teaching of Jesus Christ.

"In the Battle of Badr, 70 prisoners fell to the hands of Muslims, some of them were released without any ransom by the clemency of the Prophet and some with ransom." ("Mishkat" II, page 439).

Maybe the compiler of this Hadis overlooked what Muslim had recorded. There it is related ("Sahih Muslim" III, pages 961-962) that Mohammed asked Abu Bakr for his opinion concerning the 70 captives. Considering that they were of the same tribe, he suggested release for ransom. Thereupon Ibn Khattab was also asked. His reply was:

"I am of the opinion that you should hand them over to us so that we may cut off their heads."

Mohammed did not approve. Next the narrator Ibn Abbas found Mohammed and Abu Bakr shedding tears. Asked for the reason, he said:

"I weep for what has happened to your companions for taking ransom (from the prisoners). I was shown the torture to which they were subjected (in hell? G.N.). Then Allah revealed the verse: 'It is not befitting for a prophet that he should take prisoners until the force of the disbelievers has been crushed....' to the end of the verse: 'So eat ye the spoils of war, (it is) lawful and pure'. (Sura 8:69). So Allah made booty lawful for them."

Yet another account of the same situation we read in the "Dictionary of Islam" (page 380):

"On the morrow (the day after Badr), the prisoners were brought before him (Mohammed). As he scrutinized each, his eye fell fiercely on Nadir, son of Harith. `There was death in that glance,' whispered Nadir trembling to a bystander. `Not so,' replied the other, `it is but thine own imagination.' The unfortunate prisoner thought otherwise and he sought Musab to intercede for him. Musab reminded him that he had denied the faith and persecuted believers. `Ah!' said Nadir, `had the Quraish been made thee a prisoner, they would never have put thee to death!' `Even if it were so,' Musab scornfully replied, `I am not as thou art; Islam hath rent all bounds asunder.' Micdad the Captor, fearing lest the prisoner, and with him the chance of a rich ransom, was about to slip from his hands, cried out: `The prisoner is mine!' But at this moment the command to strike off his head was interposed by Mohammed, who has been watching what passed. ... Nadir was forthwith beheaded by Ali. Two days later Ocba another prisoner, was ordered for execution. He ventured to expostulate and demanded why he should be treated more rigorously than the other captives. `Because of thy enmity to Allah and His Prophet,' replied Mohammed. `And my little girl?' cried Ocba, in the bitterness of his soul, `who will take care of her?' `Hellfire!' exclaimed the ... conqueror and on the instant his victim was hewn to the ground.'"

Still more distasteful if not in numbers, then in sordidness, is the record of the murder of Ka'b ibnu'l Ashraf, a Jew of the tribe of Banu Nadir. He is said to have conspired against the life of Mohammed and to have sung obscene songs defaming Muslim women.

"These crimes were enough to take his life", is the comment on this account in the "Sahih Muslim",

"The Messenger of Allah said: 'Who will kill Ka'b ibnu'l Ashraf? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger!'" (This was after the Muslims apparently were in control of the war situation.) "Muhammad ibn Maslama said: 'Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him?' He said: 'Yes" ... so Muhammad ibn Maslama came to Ka'b and pretended to be a dissident of Islam to gain his confidence. He asked for the loan of foodstuffs. It was agreed upon to pledge the weapons in exchange. Muhammad ibn Maslama promised that he would return with three (four) friends. That night they went. When his wife heard them, she exclaimed: "I hear a voice which sounds like the voice of murder", but Ka'b quietened her and went down to them. Muhammad (ibn Maslama) said to his companions: "As he comes down, I will extend my hands towards his head and when I hold him fast, you should do your job.'" They conversed about the "very fine smell" of the scent of his hair. Being allowed to smell his hair, he held his head fast" and said to his companions: 'Do your job.' And they killed him." ("Sahih Muslim" III, pages 990-991).

Ibn Hisham in the "Siratu'r Rasul" (vss. 550-553) has a more elaborate version. When Muhammad ibn Maslama doubted his ability to execute the "job", Mohammed said to him:

"'All that is incumbent upon you is that you should try. 'He said: 'O Apostle of God, we shall have to tell lies.' He answered: 'Say what you like, for you are free in the matter.'" So lies and deception were used. Mohammed accompanied them for a while and blessed them in parting: "Go in God's name; O God help them." After having seized the locks of Ka'b he said: "'Smite the enemy of Allah'. Accordingly they smote him. Their swords came in collision with one another and effected nothing. Muhammad ibn Maslama said: 'Then I recalled to mind my dagger ... I seized it. The enemy of Allah cried out with such a cry, that around us there remained not a stronghold on which a fire was not kindled. Then I stuck it into his abdomen, then I pressed upon it till it reached his genitals, and the enemy of Allah fell.'" In the grappling with the swords one of the companions was wounded. They carried him back to Mohammed who was - "standing praying. We saluted him, and he came out to us. We informed him of the killing of the enemy of Allah. He spat upon our comrade's wound, and went back." The laconic end of the story goes like this: "Our attack upon God's enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life."

In the same verses, we are told that Ibn Ishaq said:

"the Apostle of Allah said, 'Kill any Jew that falls into your power.'" (vs. 553).

This resulted in the killing of a Jewish merchant. (vss 714-715) We are told that rivalry existed between the tribes of the Ansars, Aus and Khazraj, each being resolved that the others should not excel it in zeal for Islam and Mohammed.

"When the Aus had destroyed Ka'b ibnu'l Ashraf ... the Khazraj said: 'By Allah, they shall never excel us in this!' They remembered a man who was hostile to the apostle, Sallam ibn Abu'l Huqaiq, at Khaibar. They asked permission of the apostle of Allah to slay him, and he gave them leave. Abdullah ibn Atik was placed in command of the group of five by Mohammed. He also forbade them to kill a child or a woman. Again in a treacherous way they pretended to seek to buy corn. Having been admitted by his wife, they found him in bed. "We went in to him, we locked the room upon ourselves and upon her (thereby shutting her out), through fear lest, if there should be a combat over him, she should intervene between us and him. Therefore his wife cried out and screamed at us. (How impolite! G.N.) We came unexpectantly upon him with our swords: (he was in his bed) ... Accordingly, when we struck him with our swords, Abdullah ibn Unais pressed upon him with his sword in his belly till he pierced him through ... and we went out."

There was an unexpected casualty. On fleeing down the staircase, one of the murderers fell down and hurt himself. The dying victim's friends tried to pursue the murderers, who were then hiding. The victim died when his friends returned.

"We carried our wounded comrade and came to the Apostle of Allah and informed him about the killing of the enemy of Allah. And in his (Mohammed's) presence we differed among ourselves about his killing, each of us laying claim to it. Therefore the Apostle of Allah said: 'Bring your swords.' We brought them to him. He looked at them and said: 'Truly the sword of this Abdullah ibn Unais has killed him: On it I see the traces of food!'"

Sallam ibn Abu'l Huqaiq was also known under the name of Abu Rafe, and we find the above report confirmed in "Mishkat" IV, page 404:

"Bara'a reported: The holy Prophet sent a party to Abu Rafe'. Abdullah ibn Atik entered his house at night while he was asleep and killed him. Abdullah ibn Atik said afterwards, 'I fixed my sword over his belly till it went out by his back.' He fell thereafter and broke his leg. It was bandaged and then he went to Mohammed to report the murder, whereupon he healed him."

In similar manner Abu Afak, a very old man, was slain as also was Asma daughter of Marwan, a poetess who attacked Mohammed in her verses. (Ibid. vs. 995)

"The Apostle of Allah said, 'Who will rid me of the daughter of Marwan?' "

Umair ibn Udaj went to her house and killed her.

"Then in the morning he was with the Apostle of Allah and said to him, 'O Apostle of Allah, verily I have killed her.' Then (Mohammed) said, 'Thou hast helped Allah and His Apostle, o Umair!' "

In a footnote (2,272) in "Sahih Muslim" III, page 991, we find a commentary by the well-known Maulana Maududi regarding the murder of Ka'b ibnu'l Ashraf:

"It is wrong to infer from this that taking of the lives of the chiefs of the enemy secretly is a permanent clause in the ethics of Islamic warfare. ... We find in the whole history of Islam only two persons who were killed this way: one Ka'b ibnu'l Ashraf and the other Abu Rafi'.... This goes to prove, that killing of an enemy secretly, is not the war policy of Islam, but an exceptional case, which is permitted under exceptional circumstances, when the enemy does not come to the forefront, but constantly conspires against the Muslims secretly." ("al-Jihad fi'l-Islam", pages 259-260).

This, as many similar comments, shows the embarrassment of Islam about certain actions in early Islamic history. This is a hopeful sign. Disappointing, however, is the fact, that such despicable terrorism is covered by a cloak of respectibility--simply because Mohammed is involved. The sincere love for the Truth at any cost is absent. All these reports undermine the possibility that Mohammed is the final and universal Apostle of God.

The evidence given here speaks for itself. It may be objected that this chapter is one-sided - that may be so - yet a camouflage or denial of these facts, is just as one-sided. If we consider Hitler, for example, and leave out his failures and negative trends we would have a person who eliminated unemployment in a country that was riddled with it and who built up a new economy, sense of nationhood and integrity for a whole nation. He built roads and highways, initiated the Volkswagen, which at that time cost two months' salary of the average employee and had tremendous home ownership schemes for the workers, How wonderful! But he left Germany in a chaos of ruins and despair. So, in fairness, we have to present the other side of the picture.

QUESTION: As mentioned before, Christians have a code of ethics by which the above behaviour and happenings are absolutely unacceptable. Can an honest Muslim with a sense of justice and righteousness see any quality reflecting divine inspiration in such actions? Comparing the reports above with the reports of the life of Jesus, can anyone fail to see the total difference? Can any Christian be blamed to prefer being a Christian with a knowledge of the above facts?

Christians Ask Muslims: Table of Contents
Answering Islam Home Page