format_quote Originally Posted by
Zionazi_Dissent
Please answer!
Salaams. When it comes to Wikipedia, it is hardly reliable. Anyone who signs up to be a writer for Wikipedia can be a writer for them and shove biased material into articles all the time. I have seen articles on Islam from Wikipedia cite anti-Islamic authors as a source, such as Josh McDowell, (who has been refuted several times.) -This is hardly credible.
For a biography that covers any and all controversial issues in the life of Muhammad (Saas) and gives a scholarly answer to each one, I would suggest the English translation of the biography of Muhammad by Egyptian Scholar Muhammad Hussain Haykal. It's a very well written and well translated book that gives convincing answers to issues in the life of Muhammad (saas) that many Islam-bashers have attempted to distort. Including the ones you have questioned here.
As far as whether or not Aisha declared innocence on committing adultery, the answer is, according to the Hadith, when she found out the monstrous thing some of the hypocrites and some Muslims were saying about her (that she committed adultery) she began to cry so much that she was almost choking. This is why she didn't come out and say, at first, that she didn't commit adultery. She was busy crying! But when she found out that even her parents thought it was possible she had committed adultery, she became angry with them! Another reason she couldn't deny to the Prophets face that the rumor was false was because the Prophet (saas) himself wasn't sure if the rumors were true or not. Thus he became more solitary, and didn't spend as much time with Aisha.
Furthermore, Aisha (raa) had no clue that these rumors were spreading about her until just before the Qu'ran verse was revealed proclaiming her innocence. Recall that people had been saying this rumor about her for almost 30 days before she ever even found out about it.
But consider what would be true if Aisha (raa) really did commit adultery (astagfur Allah!) That would mean the person she supposedly would have done it with, that is Safwan ibn al Mu'attal al Salami (raa) would have been guilty also. But of Safwan the Prophet himself (saas) said that he was "one of my companions whom I know to be good and who has never entered my house except in my company..."
To think that Safwan, a noble and righteous companion of Muhammad (Saas) could ever do the unthinkble, is absurd.
Consider also that the Servant of Aisha (raa) was thoroughly questioned by Ali ibn Abu Talib (Raa) -to the point where Ali (raa) struck her. Surely the servant, in fear, would have disclosed any adulteress affiar of her mistress to save her own skin. But Aisha's servant did nothing but reiterate the truth of the matter, that she knew nothing but good from Aisha (Raa).
When Aisha finally found out about the scandal against her, she became furious with her parents for not telling her of the rumors, saying to her mother: ""May God forgive you, O Mother! people talk as they do and you do not inform me of it?"
So this in and of itself is an immediate claim of Aisha (raa) of her innocence, considering her outrage at the situation.
And then of course there is the final answer, that the Qu'ran revealed Aisha's innocence. This is all a true believer really needs. Allah (swt) knows all, sees all, and hears all, and had He willed, he would have revealed that Aisha was guilty, if in fact she were. But al Qu'ran in fact revealed just the opposite. The following revelation was revealed concerning the event:
"Those who brought forth this lie and spread it are some of you. However, do not regard this, O Muhammad, as an evil. You may yet draw good therefrom. Everyone of those who spread the lie shall have his share of due punishment. As for him who has taken the chief part in that gossip, his will be the greatest punishment . . . . When you heard the great lie, you thought that it was unbecoming of you to listen or to respond to it, and you condemned it saying, `Holy God, that is a great calamity!' God admonishes you never to do such a thing if you are believers. He, the Omnipotent, the All-Wise, shows forth His signs to you. Those who like to see immorality spread among the believers will receive a painful punishment in this world as well as in the next. God knows and you do not."[Qur'an, 24:11, 16-17]
Considering the battle of Khaybar, Muhammad Husain Haykal gives the following reasons as to why such an endeavor was necessary:
"But would Muhammad send his missions to the foreign kings while his own domain was threatened by the treacherous Jews who were still living to the north of Madinah? It is true that the Treaty of Hudaybiyah had secured his southern flank, especially from Quraysh. But what about the north, where both Heraclius and Chosroes might attack Madinah in cooperation with the Jews of Khaybar who were anxious for an opportunity to take revenge upon Muhammad? It would be relatively easy for either emperor to remind the Jews of the fate of their co-religionists, the Banu Qurayzah, Banu al Nadir, and Banu Qaynuqa`, who had previously been expelled from their dwellings after blockade, fighting, and war, and to incite them to new ventures against Muhammad. For their enmity and bitterness surpassed that of Quraysh. They were more attached to their religion, more intelligent, and more learned. On the other hand, it was not possible to reconcile them with a peace treaty like that of Hudaybiyah since the covenant of Madinah had been violated by them much to their own detriment. Were help to come to them from the side of Byzantium, their natural inclination to rise again against Muhammad could not be contained. Hence, it was thought necessary to put a final end to their influence in the Arabian Peninsula, and to do so quickly without giving them the time to forge any new alliances with Ghatafan or any of other tribe hostile to Muhammad."
(Life of Muhammad, Haykal)
As to the questions of Muhammad (Saas) killing children, this is of course patently false. -Unless the Children were accidentally killed, or it is a misrepresentation, for example, of younger teenagers fighting against Muhammad (saas) and so they are ordered executed... well, they have reached the age of accountability and so no one need be upset over this. A 14 year old who actively fights is an enemy combatant the same as a 23 year old who fights.
Now it is true that a Muslim man may take women war captives, and that he has a right to them. But this is no different than any other previously revealed religion. The same rights are granted to Musa (saas) in the Torah, and even Christians are allowed to own slaves according to certain verses in the New Testament.
But one is not allowed to rape them, and this can be cited from both the Qu'ran and Sunnah:
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah: "Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My master forces me to commit fornication. Thereupon the following verse (of the Qu’ran) was revealed: "But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity)." (Surah 24:33) From the Sunan Abu Dawud, Divorce (Kitab Al-Talaq), Book 12, Number 2304.
However, if a female slave were to allow permission, her Master may then enjoy all the rights of a wife with her.
Hope this has answered your questions.