“Mostly False” Indiana billboard is actually 100% true. My latest in FrontPage:
The self-proclaimed fact-checker Snopes.com has been harshly criticized for its Leftist bias, and as is so often the case, a tilt to the Left also means a willingness to foster ignorance and complacency about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat. After a billboard went up in Indiana pointing out six unsavory aspects of the life of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, Snopes labeled the billboard’s charges “Mostly False” – but that label applies far more accurately to the Snopes report than to the billboard.
Snopes’ falsehoods begin with its initial assertion that the billboard’s title, “the perfect man,” “is poor translation from an Arabic phrase in the Koran, which describes the Prophet as an excellent example.” In reality, the appellation “perfect man” is not a poor translation of a Qur’anic phrase; it is not a Qur’anic phrase at all. The Qur’anic phrase “excellent example” (33:21) is uswa hasana, while “perfect man” is al-insan al-kamil, a title ascribed to Muhammad in Islamic tradition.
Snopes goes on to state that “none of the items listed on the billboard appear in the Koran — they are historical events, and the accuracy of details surrounding them remain contested by scholars.” This is true, but irrelevant, since Muhammad’s status as the “excellent example” for Muslims, as well as the “perfect man,” make him a model for emulation for Muslims: if Muhammad did it, it is good, and Muslims should do it.
A scholar that Snopes cites as an authority, Ayesha S. Chaudhry, Associate Professor of Islamic Studies and Gender Studies at the University of British Columbia, “told us that all accounts of the Prophet’s life, which occurred 1,400 years ago in 7th-century Arabia, were written at least 200 years after his death, and their reliability for accuracy is shaky.” This unreliability is something Islamic apologists acknowledge only when confronted with unsavory aspects of Muhammad’s career as recorded in the earliest Muslim sources. Chaudhry doesn’t mention the fact that when Islamic scholars deem a statement or action by Muhammad to be authentic, it is normative for Islamic law, and all the statements on the billboard come from Islamic sources that Muslims deem authentic.
1. Married 6-year-old
Regarding the billboard’s charge that Muhammad married a six-year-old girl, Snopes claims that “the age of the young wife in question, Aisha Bint Abu Bakr, is contested — many believe she was actually in her late teens when she married Muhammad. Accounts contradict each other; while Aisha is quoted by one source saying she was six when she was married and nine when the marriage was consummated, another account describes Muhammad refusing offers from older men to marry his 9-year-old daughter because he thought her to be too young. Muhammad’s first wife, Khadija, on the other hand, was 15 years his senior and he remained married to her exclusively until she died.”
Denise Spellberg, history professor at the University of Texas at Austin, adds: “Most early accounts state Aisha was 6 or 7 at betrothal and 9 or 10 when the marriage was consummated. One later source in Arabic from the 13th century suggests 9 at the age of betrothal, and 12 at consummation. Child betrothal and marriage were not uncommon at this time in Arabia or throughout the pre-modern world. In Roman law, girls had to be 12, for example.”
In reality, few aspects of Islam that contradict Western laws and principles of human rights are more abundantly attested in Islamic law than the permissibility of child marriage. Islamic tradition records that Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, was six when Muhammad wedded her and nine when he consummated the marriage: “The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)” (Sahih Bukhari 7.62.88).
Another tradition has Aisha herself recount the scene: “The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, ‘Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.’ Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Sahih Bukhari 5.58.234). Muhammad was at this time fifty-four years old.
Chaudhry doesn’t explain to Snopes why she rejects the testimony of Sahih Bukhari, the hadith collection that Muslims consider most reliable. Nor does she cite the sources that show that Aisha was older; in reality, they only do so indirectly, by making chronological statements that suggest she was older, without saying so explicitly. These sources are, moreover, much later than Bukhari and are considered much less reliable.
2. Tortured and killed unbelievers
Snopes then moves on to the billboard’s charge that Muhammad tortured and killed nonbelievers: “Chaudhry also told us she doesn’t know of any accounts of nonbelievers being tortured and killed, although Muhammad was engaged in warfare during his lifetime.” It quotes her: “Torturing and killing non-believers — I don’t know what they’re talking about. There were several battles that happen during his life and they’re complicated.”
How odd to find such ignorance in a professor of Islamic Studies! How about these?
“When Muhammad saw Hamzah he said, ‘If Allah gives me victory over the Quraysh at any time, I shall mutilate thirty of their men!’ When the Muslims saw the rage of the Prophet they said, ‘By Allah, if we are victorious over them, we shall mutilate them in a way which no Arab has ever mutilated anybody.” (Al-Tabari, vol. 7, p. 133; cf. Ibn Ishaq 387)
“Anas reported: Eight men of the tribe of ‘Ukl came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and swore allegiance to him on Islam, but found the climate of that land uncongenial to their health and thus they became sick, and they made complaint of that to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: Why don’t you go to (the fold) of our camels along with our shepherd, and make use of their milk and urine. They said: Yes. They set out and drank their (camels’) milk and urine and regained their health. They killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This (news) reached Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and he sent them on their track and they were caught and brought to him (the Holy Prophet). He commanded about them, and (thus) their hands and feet were cut off and their eyes were gouged and then they were thrown in the sun, until they died.” (Sahih Muslim 4131)
Muhammad, according to Islamic tradition, didn’t just justify torture. He ordered it: “Kinana b. al-Rabi`, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (T. was brought) to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, ‘Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?’ he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, ‘Torture him until you extract what he has,’ so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud.” (Ibn Ishaq 515).
3. Rapist
Chaudhry laments: “The rape comment is just hateful. I don’t know what to do with that.” Says Snopes: “There are no known accounts of the Prophet committing rape — to the contrary, the image Muslims derive from the Koran is one of a compassionate person prone to mercy.”
No known accounts? Really? I know of a few. In two, Muhammad allows his followers to rape captive women: “The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.’” (Sunan Abu Dawud 2150; see also Sahih Muslim 3433)
“O Allah’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.” (Sahih Bukhari 34:432)
And in another hadith, Muhammad demands a captive girl for himself: “I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr who bestowed that girl upon me as a prize. So we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: ‘Give me that girl.’” (Sahih Muslim 4345)
4. 13 wives, 11 at a time
Says Snopes: “Muhammad was an influential political figure during his lifetime. All of his wives, except Aisha, were either divorcees or widows, which Suleiman said denotes the strategic nature of marriage in those times. Some were widows of his allies, and marriage prevented them from falling to the economic fringes of society. Chaudhry added that in an era when polygamy was commonplace, the Koran limited it to four wives.” (Suleiman is Omar Suleiman, Islamic Studies professor at Southern Methodist University.)
While all that may be true, it does not refute, or even attempt to refute, the charge made on the billboard.
5. Slave owner & dealer
Here again, Snopes retails falsehoods: “In terms of slavery, it was a reality throughout Muslim, Christian and Jewish communities during Muhammad’s lifetime. But tradition holds he purchased slaves for the purpose of liberating them. Suleiman told us Muhammad purchased 63 slaves in order to set them free, and at the time of his death he owned no slaves. Some of them were elevated to authoritative social roles. For example, Bilal ibn Rabah became a trusted companion of the Prophet, who was given the role of calling people to prayer.”
In reality, the Qur’an has Allah telling Muhammad that he has given him girls as sex slaves: “Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty.” (Qur’an 33:50)
Muhammad bought slaves: “Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported: There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man).” (Muslim 3901)
Muhammad took female Infidel captives as slaves: “Narrated Anas: The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, ‘Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.’ Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives. She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet. The Prophet made her manumission as her ‘Mahr.’” (Bukhari 5.59.512)
Mahr is bride price: Muhammad freed her and married her. But he didn’t do this to all his slaves: “Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s Apostle was on a journey and he had a black slave called Anjasha, and he was driving the camels (very fast, and there were women riding on those camels). Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Waihaka (May Allah be merciful to you), O Anjasha! Drive slowly (the camels) with the glass vessels (women)!’” (Sahih Bukhari 8.73.182) There is no mention of Muhammad’s freeing Anjasha.
6. Beheaded 600 Jews in one day
Suleiman attempts to justify this, saying: “the bullet point that claims Muhammad ‘beheaded 600 Jews’ may well be an attempt to paint the prophet as an anti-Semite, but it is in regards to an incident known as the Battle of the Trench, which took place during a siege on Medina in 627. A number of Jewish tribes were allied with Muhammad’s forces — but one, Banu Qurayza, committed treason, allowing an attack to happen from the inside. An arbiter, Abdullah ibn Salam (who was a convert from Judaism to Islam) was selected to punish the tribe in keeping with the Torah — the men would be killed and women and children kept as captives.”
Once again, the incident is not disputed. Snopes does, however, dispute the number of Jews Muhammad killed: “But the number of men killed is again the subject of controversy. Suleiman said it may have been 100 to 200. Spellberg pointed to a source that said 400. Chaudhry said one prominent scholar, Ibn Hajar, who died in 1449, doesn’t believe the executions took place at all. Again, Chaudhry cited the fact the account was collected 200 years after the fact: ‘Muslims early on were disagreeing whether that actually happened. This is a really contested issue. It’s not part of the [Muslim faith’s] narrative.’”
Note the irony: Chaudhry disputes the number based on the fact that the source it comes from was written 200 years after the incident, but Snopes has no trouble citing other accounts that were written over 800 years after the fact to dispute the incident.
That sums up the apologetic nature of Snopes’ “fact-checking.” This isn’t fact-checking, this is Islamic apologetics.
Adrian says
Flim-flam and coverups from Islamists and their enablers will continue to obscure and muddle the minds of the general public that is a tabula rasa and also too lazy to research on their own…
And, sadly, following John Kerry’s “meeting” with Hollywood directors and producers, we cannot expect an honest movie about any element in Islam – historical nor on contemporary jihadis…
Ammianus says
When this controversy first emerged, I was struck by the fact that the billboard in question never explicitly mentioned Muhammad or Islam. My, my, my…touchy aren’t we?
somehistory says
They all know he fits the profile. A profile of a defiled…and it fits so many of the moslums today, to one degree or another.
Adrian says
Snopes asserts that Muslim sources might have lied about Muhammed… Hogwash
Muhammed is the “perfect man” to be emulated in all things by “good” Muslims… this explains all the crazy, violent, murderous acts recorded in this earliest bio of Muhammed by devout Muslim Ibn Ishaq, who recorded faithfully all the killings, rapes, division of spoils, etc etc in his conviction that ANYTHING Muhammed did was correct and not to be criticized… EVEN SO, Muslim sources state that Ishaq’s bio was much longer originally and had even more damning evidence against Muhammed – before the more outrageous parts got excised by the first Caliphs…
mortimer says
Adrian wrote: “Muslim sources might have lied about Muhammed”.
This is more than speculation. Many hadiths contradict other hadiths. It is thus a PROVEN FACT that the hadiths are not reliable. Moreover, the traditional legends about Mohammed start with few details and lo and behold, 200 years later a complete picture of the life of Mohammed emerges. There is no question that the hadiths are filled with made-up stories about Mohammed. It is more than likely that ‘Mohammed’ is based on the life histories of the caliphs in order to give them more credibility with their subjects.
Donald R Laster Jr says
Don’t confuse the order the Qur’an is written in as having contradictions. The Qur’an is ordered from the longest chapter to shortest chapter not in the order the text was written. This is believed to be part of the deception used by Islamics. So when the Qur’an says to be friends with Jews and Christians in one area those instructions were later replaced later with the instruction to kill and enslave.
Or in other words when Mohammad was trying to get Jews and Christians to follow Hubal (Baal), the Arab moon god and chief god of the Arab pantheon of gods, he instructed his followers to do one thing. When Mohammad was rejected he told his followers to kill and enslave Jews ad Christians. In short, Mohammad changed his mind and wrote a new set of instructions based upon people rejected his lies about his god. Also, remember “allah” simply means “the god”, it is not a name.
c matt says
Muslim sources might have lied about Muhammed
It is also irrelevant – a sufficiently dangerous number of Muslims accept those sources, accurate or not. It is upon what they base their religious system. If a cult of murderous spaghetti monster worshipers believed their deity raped penne pasta noodles, it matters not if it is true or not – it matters that they believe it and hold up rape of penne pasta noodles as a model to follow.
Bill McKenzie says
Mohammad had sex slaves:
SAHIH MUSLIM Volume 37, Number 6676: A person was accused with fornication with the slave-girl of Allah’s Apostle. Thereupon Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) said to Ali: Go and cut off his head”
gravenimage says
Exactly, Bill.
mortimer says
The gross dishonesty of Ayesha S. Chaudhry in pretending not to know of the PRIMARY SOURCE TEXTS of Islam is not acceptable in a person in a responsible academic job.
This university teacher should be rebuked by her institution for uttering falsehoods.
Ayesha S. Chaudhry DEFINITELY DOES KNOW ALL THE REFERENCES that Robert Spencer has mentioned above. Moreover, she knows and understand the MEANING and IMPLICATIONS of every reference. Moreover, she knows that classical, canonical Islam understands the texts IN THE SAME WAY as Robert Spencer does, since he is quoting from the Islamic CONSENSUS.
Shameful lying.
gravenimage says
Standard Taqiyya.
Jaladhi says
Ayesha Chaudhry is simply using taqiyya to defend her religion – in plain real words – she is lying to deceive non-Muslims!! There is no mystery about Muslims lying whenever they engage with non-Muslims – she is being a “good” Muslim and can’t her religion being slammed!The Western universities are stupid to employ Muslims to teach Islam- they will never ever teach the truth about Islam, all we can expect are lies and lies only to whitewash the criminal nature of Islam, Muslims and Mohammad.
John Fofrbes says
The LYING is standard fare for the believers of this IDEOLOGY ! The IDEOLOGY must never be given exclusive protection & allowed to hide behind the odious term ISLAMOPHOBIA !
For Democracy;s sake & our children;s sake & grand children”s sake this must never be allowed to happen !
This IDEOLOGY more than any other must be examined & criticized in detail & SHARIA never allowed to take hold in the USA !!
mortimer says
Most Muslims would recognize the idea that Mohammed is ‘the perfect man’.
http://www.chishti.ru/d_m_perfectman.htm
In the teachings of Ibn al-‘Arabi there is a central position to the perfect man (al-insan al-kamil).
About the perfect man and that he is Muhammad and that he is a corresponding opposite to the Creator and the creation.
Know that the perfect man comprises in himself correspondences with all the realities of existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ins%C4%81n_al-K%C4%81mil
The origin of al-insān al-kāmil
Mansur al-Hallaj and Al-Biruni expressed the idea within their works. The concept was also applied by Ibn Arabi, a well-respected and influential Islamic thinker. The ORIGIN of this CONCEPT is DERIVED FROM the Quran and Hadith. As mentioned in Ibn Arabi’s Fusus Al-Hikam, “Muhammad’s wisdom is uniqueness (fardiya) because he is the MOST PERFECT existent creature of this human species. For this reason, the command began with him and was sealed with him. He was a Prophet while Adam was between water and clay, and his elemental structure is the Seal of the Prophets.”
Don McKellar says
Snopes has tried to jump on board the trash Trump train to try and get bigger numbers. To do that, they hired some left-fascist scum. As a result, they are now about as credible as Politifact — they have none — and can be caught spreading lies and falsehoods themselves regularly. This white-wash of the billboard (is that a pun?) is just an off-shoot of that. Islamic supremacists always are empowered by the willfully ignorant politically correct nonsense of the left.
Emilie Green says
Here’s a bit of good news. That billboard doesn’t mention jihad, Islam, or Muslim.
Yet everyone knew, knew to a certainty, who was being talked about.
It has taken an incredibly long time, but general awareness of the many, many negative aspects of Islam is seeping into the culture.
gravenimage says
+1
Westman says
The simple test is, “..by their fruits you shall know them..” To which Islamic country does the world emmigrate? Put that on a billboard.
This is a measure of Islam that even Snopes cannot distort.
Norger says
Excellent.
balam says
Mohammad was a PERFECT ROGUE!!!
Tjhawk says
Using Aisha Chaudhry as a source of information kind of reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKMn-_aQoPk
Using Philip Morris as the source of information about the dangers of cigarette smoking might not have been the best idea.
WPM says
good one +1 all Western leaders today seem to like the lie Islam the religion of peace over the truth Islam the cult of death. Keep smoking those lies Merkel and the rest of the EU cheer leaders!
John says
Fact-checking the factcheckers. They have been found to be deceiving! Say Nope to S-Nope-s!
Thankmailer says
Well we all should thank her for putting a brave effort to defend late Mr. Muhammed! She is available at ayesha.chaudhry@ubc.ca. Everyone should mail her the link http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267124/snopes-carries-water-muhammad-robert-spencer so that she could learn and grow!
c matt says
Even Snopes, Snopes!!! could only say “mostly” false. Even if they were not simply lying their a$$es off, that would mean what, 49.999999% true? Long past time to snope Snopes, or simply ignore them.
Ren says
Another day, another lie, another dumb muslim, another stupid dhimmi.
somehistory says
” she doesn’t know of any accounts of nonbelievers being tortured and killed, ”
A lying moslum. What a surprise.
StacyGirl says
Exactly. Just where did the pattern of terror exhibited by Muslims worldwide, going back 1400 years, originate? It’s always someone’s misunderstanding or mental illness.
Donald R Laster Jr says
All one has to do is to read the Qur’an and what Mohammad was comes out clearly. As for Snopes they are avid supporters of Mr Obama and were shown to be liars early on – by WND I believe who did a point by point rebuttal of what Snopes claimed at the time by citing sources and other information. Anyone who takes Snopes as trustworthy is being stupid. No one on the “Left” can ever be trusted since the lie is a tool that they use all the time to advance their agenda. Just like Islamics.
WBSM says
If it were so inaccurate, tell me how people recognise it is about Mohamed? The billboard does not have his name. So it is they themselves who get offended or upset by it who condemn their “perfect man” guilty of all those charges. If someone were sincerely convinced those statements aren’t true, that person should just say, “I don’t know who that billboard is about.” Nevertheless they walked into the trap, because their adulation of Mohamed is NOT SINCERE. Deep down they also know very well that he was not a good man.
Donald R Laster Jr says
So true – the know exactly who was being discussed because the person being discussed did all of the things specified.
StacyGirl says
By their wicked fruits they know one another.
Norger says
My armchair psychoanalysis is that this adulation of Muhammad is sincere on some emotional/religious level. The believers also know “non-believers will find the truth about Muhammad’s conduct to be absolutely horrifying, hence the lies and dissimulation.
WBSM says
Yes, the adulation is sincere “on some emotional/religious level”, but those are very sick emotions or religion, completely against one’s sense of the truth and humanity, respect for life and liberty, and therefore contradicting the authentic sense of being human, hence NOT SINCERE, really not.
Unless one is mentally disordered or ignorant of the main facts (those who recognise Mohamed from the few words of the billboard are evidently not ignorant of these), has to judge such emotions or religious belief to be wrong. It is like the personality cult of dictators such as Mao or Hitler… so many people hailed them, but how much of it was sincere?
Irene Brekelmans says
When muslems don’t have to keep to the laws of the land, can behead and stone and rape people etc,
gat special treatments, can destroy anything, feel themselves superior to other people is one terri le thing, but the people who don’t even dare to speak out about it, then it says everything about those people themselves and it is not their Christianity that forbids them to speak out.
There is no empathy or compassion in this religion of “peace”
This INSANE, CRAZY WORLD!!! Who would have thought this about the human race, but then it always was and is still so. Good luck to all.
ensitue says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxg6Xs3jQek&index=2&list=WL
ensitue says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxg6Xs3jQek&index=2&list=WL
ensitue says
The Truth About CNN
.
Paul Joseph Watson
Paul Joseph Watson
Bob says
Unavailable!
gravenimage says
Robert Spencer in FrontPage: Snopes Carries Water for Muhammad
………………………..
Even though Snopes’ bias was often shown in its phrasing, they usually stuck to the broad facts–I would cite them fairly frequently. Now they have just jumped the shark and are in full apologia for Islam mode.
But all too many people still consider then trustworthy, and will believe this crap. Very disturbing.
Kim Bruce says
The Mikkelsons should know better than to put their trust in a taqiyyah master to provide their facts.
‘Just goes to show you…you can’t always trust but should “always Check the Fact Checkers”.
Thanks, Robert Spencer!
Smack Daddy says
We need this billboard in Minneapolis. There are numerous Somali’s however, I don’t think they let the women use the internet. They are very controlled and the men speak for them. We need to get them to think about this. Also, the public here is clueless regarding Islam, hence Keith Ellison, and the StarTribune is so liberal they censor comments on any immigrant related articles. Anyone that tries to call them out is silenced.
Please help!
Bob_Oscar says
Islam knows they have a problem explaining Mo & his history, so they just do what their *book* tells them to do…LIE.
common sense says
I’d be just as happy if “THE PERFECT MAN” billboard had only a picture of George Washington holding the constitution. I’d even settle for Donald Trump. You see see a frenzy then!