Monday, October 19, 2015



The mullahs non Koranic stories are replete with great battles that were fought between the believers, disbelievers and even between the believers. However there is no historical evidence from the periods described to verify these stories. For example the mullahs speak with great pride that the prophet ordered the massacre of between 400 to 900 Jews of the tribe of Bani Quraiza at a place called Yathrib.

The Banu Qurayza (alternate spellings include Quraiza, Qurayzah, and Quraytha) were a Jewish tribe which lived in northern Arabia, at the oasis of Yathrib (presently known as Medina), until the 7th century. In February/March of 627 AD, their conflict with Muhammad led to a 25-day siege of Banu Qurayza ending in the tribe's surrender. There is much debate about the number executed with some estimating that between 400-900 males were beheaded, while the Sunni hadith simply state that all male members were killed, without specifying a figure, and one woman. – Wikipedia.

The Jewish people have a reputation for recording and lamenting every single act of cruelty and violence that was committed against them throughout history. Yet strangely they have no record of this massacre of 900 Jewish males of the Banu Qurayza.

The mullahs also speak of a Battle of Jamal (Battle of the Camel) that was supposed to have taken place between the forces of Aishah (who they say was one of the prophet’s wives) and Ali the prophet’s alleged son in law. And there was another Battle of Siffin between Muawiyah and Ali.

According to the mullahs this was the time of the great conspiracy (fitnah al qubra). These were the great fights which created the murderous split between the sunnis and the shiahs until this day.

There is certainly no historical evidence that all these battles ever took place.
Firstly the prophet is supposed to have married this woman called Aishah when she was six years old. We have seen in Chapter 7 that this is an improbable story and a great fitnah that makes the prophet a paedophile.

But the story goes that after the death of another person called Uthman, the so called third Caliph, Aishah wanted her own friends / relatives to become the fourth Caliph. This would go against the appointment of Ali. In the meantime Muawiyah had also declared himself the Caliph in Syria.

To make a long fairy tale short, it became all out war. Muawiyah on one side and Ali on the other side at the Battle of Siffin.  Then Aishah on one side and Ali on the other side at the Battle of Jamal.

Here is an account of the events preceding the Battle of Siffin between Muawiyah and Ali.

“In Syria, disorder and incitement to commotion continued unabated. Uthman's shirt, besmeared with his blood and the chopped-off fingers of his wife, Naila, were exhibited from the pulpit. In this manner, Muawiya raised the entire country of Syria against Ali. Ultimately, both the parties, opposed to each other, converged on Siffin where their armies pitched their camps in 37/657. Even at this stage, Ali sent three men, viz. Bashir bin Amr bin Mahz Ansari, Saeed bin Qais Hamdani and Shis bin Rabiee Tamini to Muawiya to induce him to settle for union, accord and coming together. According to Tabari (5h vol., p. 243), Muawiya replied that, "Go away from here, only the sword will decide between us."

And this is the account of the events that led to the Battle of Jamal between Aisha and Ali.

“Ayesha, the widow of the Holy Prophet (S), was in Makka for the pilgrimage when Uthman was killed. She had always expected either Talha or Zubayr to succeed him and when she heard of Imam Ali's (A) appointment as Caliph, she was very upset.”

She managed to recruit the support of the powerful clan of Bani Umayyah, to whom Uthman had belonged. The ex-governors of Uthman, who had been replaced by Imam Ali (A), also joined her and the ex-governor of Yemen provided her with the means of financing her war by giving her the treasure he had stolen from Yemen when he was deposed. Talha and Zubayr also joined her, in spite of their oath of allegiance to Imam Ali (A). A large number of aimless drifters were also paid to enlist in the army.

The preparations of war having been completed, Ayesha's army proceeded to Basra. Before leaving, she had asked Umme Salma, a faithful widow of the Holy Prophet (S), to accompany her. Umme Salma had indignantly refused, reminding Ayesha that the Holy Prophet (S) had said that Imam Ali (A) was his successor and whoever disobeyed him, disobeyed the Holy Prophet (S) himself.

She also reminded her of the time when he had addressed all his wives saying that the DOGS OF HAWWAB would bark at one of his wives, who would be part of a rebellious mob. She then warned Ayesha not to be fooled by the words of Talha and Zubayr who would only entangle her in wrong deeds. This advice had a sobering effect on Ayesha, who almost gave up her plan. However, her adopted son, Abdallah bin Zubayr, convinced her to go ahead.

The Dogs of Hawwab.

The story of the Dogs of Hawwab is a dead giveaway that these narratives are fake. It’s a lame attempt to lend some credence to this story.

“She (Umme Salama) also reminded her (Aisha) of the time when he (prophet) had addressed all his wives saying that the dogs of Hawwab would bark at one of his wives, who would be part of a rebellious mob.

Another version of this story says :

The story of the dogs of Hawab is not narrated in the nine Sunni books (Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Al-Nisa’ei, Ibn Majah, Al-Turmithi, Abu Dawood, Muwatta Imam Malik, Musnad Ahmed and Al-Darumi) except in Musnad Ahmed. Ahmed narrated two versions of the story. Also, the story is found in Saheeh Ibn Habban, Al-Mustadrik by Al-Hakim, and in history books”.

The story goes as follows :

“Isma’eel narrated from Qays who said, ‘When Ayesha approached the waters of Bani A’amir, she heard some dogs barking. Ayesha asked, ‘What is the location of these waters?’ She was answered, ‘This is the waters of the Hawwab.’ Then she said, ‘I am going back!’ Some of the people with her said, ‘No, you should go on. Then the Muslims would see you and Allah would make peace between them.’ Then she said again, ‘I heard that the prophet peace be upon him said, ‘Then what would you (the wives of the prophet) do when you hear the barking of the dogs of Al-Hawwab ?’’  The prophet peace be upon him said to his wives, “Which one of you would be barked at by the dogs of Al-Hawwab?”

According to these hadiths, the prophet had become a fortune teller. He could predict that one of his wives would lead a rebellion. He could predict that the dogs of Hawwab would bark at that wife. The prophet’s soothsaying abilities had picked out dogs as the warners as opposed to say camels or horses that would also be common at that place and time. The prophet could even identify the exact location where the dogs would bark ie at a place called Hawwab. Yet the prophet could not predict exactly which one of his wives would be leading the rebellion. That part of the vision was a little cloudy !

About his soothsaying or fortune telling abilities the prophet said the following :

7:188 Say: I do not control any benefit or harm for my own soul except as Allah please; and had I known the unseen I would have had much of good and no evil would have touched me; I am nothing but a warner and the giver of good news to a people who believe

Other translators say ‘had I known the unseen I would have profited myself’.

The Prophet could never see into the future. If he could then surely he would have divulged these terrible future events very accurately to his beloved wife (Aisha?), to his believeing sahaba (Muawiyah?) to his beloved son in law (Ali ?) so that no calamity would befall his beloved wife, his beloved companions and beloved family members.

But the fact was that the Prophet was no soothsayer. Not only could he not know the unseen but he could never see into the future and see dogs barking at Hawwab.

52:29 “Therefore continue to remind, for by the grace of your Lord, you are not a soothsayer, or a madman

It was not the prophet’s job to predict what would happen in the future. And the following verses too:

69: 39 – 47  But nay! I swear by that which you see, and that which you do not see. Most surely, it is the Word brought by an honored Apostle, And it is not the word of a poet; little is it that you believe; Nor the word of a soothsayer; little is it that you mind. It is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. And if he had fabricated against Us any of the sayings, We would certainly have seized him by the right hand, Then We would certainly have cut off his aorta. And not one of you could have withheld Us from him.

The Koran is very threatening here. It reiterates that the Prophet was not a soothsayer. If the Prophet had attempted to say anything other than the Koran and then claimed that it was also from Allah, then Allah says he would have severely punished the prophet of Islam. And no one could have helped the prophet. 

Certainly the prophet could not have made soothsayer type predictions that the Dogs of Hawwab would bark at one of his wives. All this talk about the dogs of Hawab is just fake.

The Koran also says :

8:62 And if they intend to deceive you -- then surely Allah is sufficient for you; He it is Who strengthened you with His help and with the believers

8:63 And united their hearts; had you spent all that is in the earth, you could not have united their hearts, but Allah united them; surely He is Mighty, Wise.

8:64 O Prophet! Allah is sufficient for you and the believers that follow you.

These verses are especially relevant to muslims who believe in the Koran. The Koran assures the prophet that Allah had united the hearts of the companions who were with him. This would certainly include Aisha, Ali, Uthman, Muawiyah and others (if they really existed at all).

The Koran says ‘Al haqq min al Rabbiq’ which means ‘the Truth is from the Lord’. So when Allah says (USING THE PAST TENSE) that He has united the hearts of the companions of the prophet, this is a Haqq or statement of Truth from Allah.

If any muslim then or now doubted this  then the Koran reiterates the position: “had you spent all that is in the earth, you could not have united their hearts, but Allah united them; surely He is Mighty, Wise”.

Allah must have united their hearts. But the mullahs are telling the muslims that as soon as the prophet died all these promises in the Koran went out the window. It became a brawl in the desert with Ali, Muawiyah, Aisha all having a go at each other.

Since the Koran also represents the spoken words of the prophet, it would appear that the prophet too was pulling everyone’s legs.

The mullahs stories become more incredible when we see these obvious and silly concoctions.

The Koran also  lays down the LAW about the relationship between the prophet, his wives and the believers.

33:6 The Prophet has a greater claim on the believers than they have on themselves, and his WIVES ARE AS THEIR MOTHERS; and the possessors of relationship have the better claim in the ordinance of Allah to inheritance, one with respect to another, than (other) believers, and (than) those who have fled (their homes), except that you do some good to your friends; this is written in the Book.

The Prophet’s wives were like mothers to the believers. Such is their high status. Yet the mullahs will have us believe that ‘the mother of the Believers’ by the name of Aishah together with some other companions went tooth and nail against other companions of the prophet whose hearts Allah had united’ (8:63).

About Aishah they say : “when she heard of Imam Ali's (A) appointment as Caliph, she was very upset” 

In other words when Allah says in the Koran that ‘..Even if you spent all your wealth, you could not have united them but Allah has united their hearts’ Allah was actually lying. He was pulling a fast one on the muslims as well.

According to the mullahs when Allah says the prophet’s wives are like ‘mothers’ to the believers, Allah was also just kidding. According to them even a ‘mother of believers’ could lead a war to cut off the heads of her own children - the other believers.

These are all fabrications and lies by the mullahs. The truth was that the companions whose hearts Allah had united did not go to war with each other. Neither did the prophet make any predictions about barking dogs at a place called Hawwab.

The Battle of Jamal and the Battle of Siffin never happened. All these stories are just fake.


There is NOT one thing which the mullahs practice that can be traced directly to the Koran – NOT ONE.

Here is one more item that can be added to the list of ‘It is NOT stated in the Koran’. This is the Treaty of Hudhaybiyah. Not only is it not stated but the so called Treaty Of Hudhaybiyah which the mullahs have conjured up contradicts the Koran totally.

The so called Treaty of Hudhaybiyah that plays such a large part in Sunni theology is a fake. It is also another false hadeeth that slanders the good name of the prophet. This treaty never happened.

The Treaty of Hudhaybiyah is a concoction which talks about an agreement between the prophet and the disbelievers (the so called Quraysh). Here is the Treaty of Hudaybiyah.

In drawing up the treaty, the Messenger of Allah summoned ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and told him to write, "In the name of Allah, ar-Rahman ar-Raheem." Suhayl said, "Hold it! I do not recognise ar-Rahman ar-Raheem, but write ‘In your name, O my Lord’." The Messenger of Allah told ‘Ali to write the latter and he did so. Then he said, "Write ‘This is what Muhammad the Messenger of Allah has agreed with Suhayl ibn ‘Amr’." Suhayl said, "Hold it! If I witnessed that you were Allah’s Messenger I would not have fought you. Write your own name and the name of you father." The Messenger of Allah said, "Write ‘This is what Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah has agreed with Suhayl ibn ‘Amr’." After these opening lines the treaty between the two sides was written comprising the following clauses:

1. To lay aside from war and refrain from hostilities during the period of the truce.
2. If anyone from Quraysh embraced Islam and came to Muhammad without the permission of his guardian, he would return him to them, and if anyone from those with Muhammad came to Quraysh they need not return him to Muhammad.
3. Whosoever wished from amongst the Arabs to enter into an alliance with Muhammad could do so, and he who wished to enter into an alliance with Quraysh could do so.
4. The Muslims and Muhammad’s companions had to retire from Makkah that year to return the following year when they would be free to enter Makkah and stay there three nights. They would be allowed to carry swords in their sheaths and nothing more.
5. The treaty was for a limited period of time, ten years from the date of its conclusion.

Let us focus on point number 2 of this treaty :

2. “If anyone from Quraysh embraced Islam and came to Muhammad without the permission of his guardian, he would return him to them, and if anyone from those with Muhammad came to Quraysh they need not return him to Muhammad.

This point alone is sufficient to demonstrate that this treaty never happened in history. It is all fake. What this treaty says is that if anyone from the disbelievers embraced Islam without the permission of his guardian and crossed over to Islam then the prophet was obliged to send them back to the disbelievers.

But in the Koran, Allah and the Rasul say the exact opposite. Here are the relevant verses:

60 : 10 “O ye who believe! When there come to you believing women refugees, examine them: Allah knows best as to their Faith: if ye ascertain that they are Believers, then send them not back to the Unbelievers. They are not lawful for the Unbelievers, nor are the (Unbelievers) lawful for them. But pay the Unbelievers what they have spent, and there will be no blame on you if ye marry them on payment of their dower to them. But hold not to the guardianship of unbelieving women: ask for what ye have spent on their dowers, and let the (Unbelievers) ask for what they have spent. Such is the command of Allah. He judges between you. And Allah is Full of Knowledge and Wisdom.

Pay close attention to these words “Such is the command of Allah” - thalikum hukmu Allahi.

These are Allah’s commands. Certainly women who are refugees have most definitely run away from someone (without their permission). If any such women ran away from the disbelievers and came over to the side of Islam, then the Koran says they shall not be returned to the disbelievers.

But the Treaty of Hudaybiyah says : . If anyone from Quraysh embraced Islam and came to Muhammad without the permission of his guardian, he (MUhammad) would return him to them..

This Treaty of Hudaybiyah makes a fool of the good prophet. This fake hadeeth has the Prophet entering into a treaty that is exactly opposite of what Allah COMMANDED (HUKUM) in the Koran.

Here is another verse from the Quran that exposes the Treaty of Hudhaybiyah as fake :

9:6. If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah and then escort him to a place of safety. That is because they are men without knowledge.

According to the Koran if a pagan asks the prophet for asylum, the prophet must grant him asylum. After that the pagan must be escorted to a place of safety. The Arabic is very clear : ‘tsumma ablighu ma manahu’ which means ‘then convey him to a place of safety’. But according to the Treaty of Hudhaybiyah not just pagans but even the Muslims must be returned back to the disbelievers. The Treaty of Hudhaybiyah clearly contradicts these verses in the Koran.

Plus the following verses in the Koran which were also taught to us by the Prophet of Islam:

61.2 “O you who believe! why do you say that which you do not do?

We must not say one thing and then do something else – especially things that are exactly opposite of what we say. No double talk. 

So the prophet of Islam cannot be saying one thing from the Koran about granting asylum and safety to believers and pagans and then sign a treaty with the so called Quraish that says the exact opposite of what he has been preaching by sending asylum seekers, pagans and Muslim converts back to the Quraish.

61:3 “It is most hateful to Allah that you should say that which you do not do”.

If the prophet engaged in double talk it would be very hateful to Allah. Hence we can see that this so called Treaty of Hudhaybiyah is a simple fake.