The Religion of Peace and the Dunning Kruger-Effect Did Muhammad abuse Aisha

Note:

This is going to be the Final reply to section 1 of TROP reply to DTT, after this I shall resume my work on the masked arab, the next video I will debunk will be the “7 reasons why I left islam” I was asked multiple times to take it down so it’s going to be my next tarfet, after it I shall go after his newest video on jizyah or his video comparing the prophet Muhammad to a villain

I rushed out this article because I really wanted to go back to the masked arab, I will pause my current refutations to TROP for the time being, but then go back to my major works on the masked arab, the next video I will refute as stated is his “7 reasons why I left islam”

This is not however my last reply to TROP, if you check their website they dedicated 3 sections each containing articles to DTT, this is going to be the final reply to section 1, after I finish with a couple of videos from the masked arab or sharif gabir, I will go back to TROP based on demand if necessary.

i spent less time working in this short article because i want to rush back to the masked arab project as fast as possible

TROP’s Argument:

“Critics of Islam who want to undermine the character of the Prophet Muhammed have accused the Prophet of beating his wife Aisha up”

Why did I decide to quote this first even though there is no argument here?

The free dictionary gives the definition of beat up to

“(tr, adverb) to strike or kick (a person), usually repeatedly, so as to inflict severe physical damage”

Did we see any evidence of multiple strikes and hits in the hadith, we shall see later on

They used a word that doesn’t even come close to what the words “beat up” means, the incident insist of only one hit, beating up someone suggest a series of hits that could cause multiple injuries, to accuse Muhammad of such thing is  to show that he delivered more than just one hit, this argument or lack of from TROP fall flat on it’s face, we didn’t even start with the article and we are already into a misleading introduction, why I’m not surprised?

“Although explicitly permitted by the Quran, wife-beating is extremely unpopular in Western society, to say the least.  The character of a man who hits a woman is judged to be poor, which poses a problem for apologists, given that their prophet Muhammad not only sanctioned such behavior, but purportedly engaged in it himself”

Hold on, Wife beating is extremely unpopular in western society? What kind of a white washing is that? of course as typical of TROP they cite no sources no evidence for such nonsense.

Moving on

“Discover the Truth mostly takes aim at Sahih Muslim 4:2127, a straight-forward account of Muhammad hitting his favorite wife, Aisha, in the chest.  Since the source of the verse is Aisha herself and the chain of narration is graded sahih (authentic), the apologists cannot deny that it occurred.  What they say instead is that the Arabic word used means "pushed away" rather than "strike".  They actually go so far as to associate it with " conferring blessings."”

Hold on, where are the sources?

All be it the source Does exist and we do have the article from DTT

https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/12/23/refuting-the-allegation-that-muhammed-hit-his-wife-aisha-and-more/

but still, Again as typical of TROP, you either cite them directly or give a link

“DTT also quotes several hadith in which Aisha purportedly says that Muhammad "never hit anything" including "servant or woman."

Much is also made about the weakness of another verse in which Muhammad says, "a man will not be asked why he beat his wife."  It is pointed out that that verse is graded daif.”

This is funny at best, this hadith does make it sound as islam allow wife beating, the problem here is that DTT didn’t cite it as a positive connotation to islam, let’s see what DTT stated

“Another Hadith which is frequently quoted by Critics that Prophet Muhammed (p) approved of wife abuse is:

Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab: The Prophet said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.(Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2142)

This Hadith is narrated by Umar bin al khattab and it was mentioned in the following Hadiths books:

Abu Dawood number 2147, Al-Nasai 5/372, Ibn Majah num/1987 And Ahmed Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad (1/275) and all these books that is mentioned have the same chain of narrations. This chain which is narrated from Abu Dawud Bin Abdullah Aloudi from Abdurahman Al-Measly from Al-Ashath Ben qays from Umar Ibn Al-khattab.

This Hadith quoted is considered by majority of Scholars to be a ‘weak Hadith”

As seen above DTT already stated that this hadith is weak

“DTT is correct about the verb used in Sahih Muslim 4:2127.  It can mean "to violently push," as their own citation states.  What they neglect to address is that Aisha reported that what her husband did to her caused pain, meaning that it was a physical act that harmed her (ie. spousal abuse).  “

Where is the evidence that this was a physical harm? There are no connotations no implantation of physical pain at all, all the citation say that it caused pain, a vague and ambiguous word mind you, hitting is spousal abuse if done repeatedly, but pushing in no way an abuse so long as she was not pushed directly to a wall violently, pushing doesn’t cause injuries or damage

“In this case, the DTT apologist is playing the role of lawyer, who claims that his client is "innocent" of beating his wife because an open hand was used instead of a closed fist.  What Muhammad did to his underage wife is still physical abuse.  The prophet of Islam acted in a moment of rage upon finding out that she had left the house without his permission.”

“Various individuals and groups have defined domestic violence to include everything from saying unkind or demeaning words, to grabbing a person's arm, to hitting, kicking, choking, or even murdering. Domestic violence most often refers to violence between married or cohabiting couples, although it sometimes refers to violence against other members of a household, such as children or elderly relatives. It occurs in every racial, socioeconomic, ethnic, and religious group, although conditions such as poverty, drug or alcohol abuse, and mental illness increase its likelihood. Studies indicate that the incidence of domestic violence among homosexual couples is approximately equivalent to that found among heterosexual couples.”[1]

To such we need to put this in context, the prophet never ever beat his wife, nor did he hit anyone as pointed out by DTT, Yet TROP so irrationaly ignore this very important hadith that simply refute their allegation that the prophet continusaly abuse his wife

“Aisha said: “Allaah’s Messenger (pbuh) never hit anything with his hand ever, except when fighting in the path of Allaah. Nor did he ever hit a servant or a woman.” [Recorded In Ibn Majah. Al-Albani graded it Sahih.]”

Much more attempts from TROP to dehumize the prophet and fail to show one example of him directly hitting his wife let alone a single hadith that state that the prophet “USED” to hit his wife, meaning domestic violence, we don’t have a single hadith giving such account to the prophet, the closest we have is this hadith, and not even this hadith state that the prophet hit his wife, rather he simply pushed her, DTT showed screen shots of the same dictionary

“Past translators were more candid about what occurred.  Unfortunately, even Sunnah.com has gotten into the act of massaging the translation to downplay the violence.  They now leave out the part about pain, and refer to the physical act as being a "nudge on the chest."  However, this is not how they translate the text in other verses, such as Sunan an-Nasa'i 3964: "He gave me a shove on the chest that hurt me." (This verse is also graded sahih).”

While I agree with the fact that Sunnah.com can get edgy translations, however they do have different accounts to the incident, citing the word pain

Now the problem here is that TROP use a Hyperlink https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/games/discover-truth/topics/img/wife-beat-3416.JPG in this text and refers to a screenshot in sunnan alnisai giving it to number 3964, however the accurate one that contain the translation “hurt me” that they seek is 3963

“Aisha was also struck by her father, Abu Bakr, when she was with Muhammad: "Abu Bakr came towards me and struck me violently with his fist..." (Sahih Bukhari 82:282).  Again, she reports that this caused her pain... 

And again, Discover the Truth plays the role of criminal defense attorney, claiming that the beaten woman was simply "poked" and asking rhetorically: 'she was still standing wasn't she?':

A woman getting struck by a fully grown man and yet she still stands there? The fact that Aisha still stood there, not falling down from the assumed blow, proves that Aisha was not hit by her father’s fist, but poked hard by her father.  (Discover the Truth)

Classy defense, very classy indeed.  Unfortunately for DTT, Aisha was not standing, but laying down: "Abu Bakr came to me while Allah's Messenger was sleeping with his head on my thigh..." (Sahih Bukhari 82:827) "I remained motionless as if I was dead lest I should awake Allah’s Apostle although that hit was very painful."  So much for that.”

Classy Misquotation, very Classy indeed.

Let’s take a look at what DTT actually said:

(“Third Hadith which is quoted by Critics

Narrated Aisha: Abu Bakr came to towards me and struck me violently with his fist and said, “You have detained the people because of your necklace.” But I remained motionless as if I was dead lest I should awake Allah’s Apostle although that hit was very painful. Volume 8, Book 82, Number 828: Sahih Bukhari 1:7:330, and Sahih Bukhari 6:60:132

Whoever translated the Hadiths above has translated it wrong. The word above is entailing that the Abu Bakr STRUCK Aisha. The word in Arabic that is used is “Lakazani”. I will now show what the correct translation is:

lakazani[4]

(giving screen shot)

So as you see Abu bakr poked Aisha hard. She was never hit with his fist, let me explain:

If Abu Bakr, the father of Aisha really hit her, wouldn’t she at least fall on the floor from such a blow or even stumble? It doesn’t make any sense. A woman getting struck by a fully grown man (his father) and yet she still stands there? The fact that Aisha still stood there, not falling down from the assumed blow, proves that Aisha was not hit by her father’s fist, but poked hard by her father. Correct translation would be that Abu Bakr poked her hard.”)

As you can see, nowhere did DTT claimed Aisha was standing still, they simply made a rhetorical example, however at no point does the hadith state that Aisha was sleeping, otherwise the statement “and nothing could stop me from moving except the reclining of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) (on my thigh)” how could she be moving if she is sleeping, hitting someone while they sleep will not cause them to move at all, the simple explanation he is that aisha had her legs rolled while she was posturing her upper body upward, she was not sleeping at all with the prophet, if she was sleeping why would she attempt not to move? Abu baker could continually hit her and she won’t move a bit, as explained she only had her legs rolled in and her upper body standing, and that is where abu bakir was hitting, she attempted not to move because if she did she will fall down

It’s a simple explanation, simple thinking that this so called TROP author didn’t even thought of?

“So what of the hadith verses that have Aisha saying that Muhammad "never struck anything?"  For one thing, we don't know when she said this.  Secondly, these verses aren't quite as reliable as the ones in which she admits to abuse.  The collections of Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari, for example, do not contain these verses, meaning that Islam's most respected Hadith compilers rejected them as being reliably authentic.  “

That is a red herring fallacy, these hadiths are classified as Sahih, the same level of authentic Sahih Bukhari give to his own collection, if these were classified as Hasan then TROP will have a point there, but these hadiths are sahih in authentic, TROP replied they are running out of options so they tried this cheap shot at DTT, but what makes it even more hilarious is that We Do have reference to these hadiths from Sahih Muslim

“'A'isha reported that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) never beat anyone with his hand, neither a woman nor a servant, but only, in the case when he had been fighting in the cause of Allah and he never took revenge for anything unless the things made inviolable by Allah were made violable; he then took revenge for Allah, the Exalted and Glorious.”[2]

What a sad attempt at research from TROP

“Interestingly, the word used by Aisha to deny that Muhammad hit women is daraba.  This is ironic because it is the same word used in verse 4:34 of the Quran, which gives men permission to beat their wives.  There, apologists bend over backwards to (falsely) claim that it doesn't mean "strike," yet, here... they freely acknowledge it.”

Did TROP just Shoot themselves right in the foot? If this word means Beat and TROP rightfully admit that this is what it means, then how come they claim that there is no hadith or verse that claim Muhammad didn’t beat his wives?

“While DTT is correct in pointing out that the verse from Abu Dawud 2142 saying, "A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife" is graded as "weak", this pertains only to the chain of narration for that particular verse.  It does not mean, as they claim that, "a Hadith being ‘weak’ means that the Prophet could not have made the statement."  That is untrue.  In fact, there is another verse from Sunan Ibn Majah 9:1986 which essentially says the same thing and is graded hasan (sufficient).  “

Now here is where it Ignorance of TROP plays in, you can’t just cite hadiths to criticize islam without citing explanations, I demand that all the time yet polemicists insist on using hadiths without further explanations

Let’s check the following explanation of this hadith:

“”will not be asked as to why he beat his wife” meaning this is referring to nushoz (disobedient) meaning don’t ask the man and don’t punish him, but if he managed his conditions and his limits in beating then say it, However this could be rhetorical question aswell, meaning that it should not be spread about the man when he beat his wife it could mean that is will affect his reputation”[3]

This was actually confirmed by the fact they he was actually beating his wife

“It was narrated that Ash'ath bin Qais said:

"I was a guest (at the home) of 'Umar one night, and in the middle of the night he went and hit his wife, and I separated them. When he went to bed he said to me: 'O Ash'ath, learn from me something that I heard from the Messenger of Allah" A man should not be asked why he beats his wife, and do not go to sleep until you have prayed the Witr."' And I forgot the third thing."”

So apparently the second interpretation is the more probable, omar was beating his wife and when Ash’ath came he separated them both when he was beating her (so much for the claim that wife beating was common) then omar told him this narration from the prophet right after he beat his wife, which indicate that this meant to keep the common reputation of a figure from the community

So we have 2 interpretations, one is your typical TROP interpretation, the other is to prevent imbalance among community members that could be caused by a reputation of a single member

“There are also many sahih verses in which Muhammad exhibits indifference toward spousal abuse, sometimes even laughing at it (Sahih Muslim 9:3506).  In one case he ordered a badly beaten woman to return to her husband (Sahih Bukhari 72:715).  Even Aisha stated that Muslim wives suffer abuse at the hands of their husbands worse than other women (Sahih Bukhari 72:715).”

How is that related to the topic? The topic is Did Muhammad abuse or beat Aisha, but TROP with their ill-informed author cites irrelevant hadiths that have no connections, the first one is where Muhammad replied to Umar statement saying he have those women around him meaning the daughter of Khadiga, in reply to his joke, the second is where Muhammad was making a difference between a cheating wife and her husband, infact the second hadith shoots polemicists in the foot, if Muhammad truly sanction and allow wife beating then why was aisha shocked? If this is such a common thing during his time why should aisha be shocked at what happened to that women, this shows that wife beating was not actually common during his time and was extremely rare by her own statement “"I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!"” while the Arabic text doesn’t specifically say “I have not seen any woman” but simply just believing women, this still refute the idea that wife beating was common

While to be fair they do cite at the end one hadith where Muhammad appeared to contradict himself, at one point he say don’t beat them then later allow it, while still i'm not sure why they cited it, it has no connection to the topic in hand and showing Muhammad contradicting himself (supposedly) doesn't really help their case, did he or did he not approve of wife beating

In conclusion, TROP misrepresent several quotes from DTT, cited sources that shoots them right in the foot, went out of the topic from did Muhammad abuse aisha to how women are treated in islam, ignored an authentic hadith from Sahih muslim and falsely claimed that it didn’t exist, falsely articulated that Sahih hadiths from other books are not equivalent to Sahih Bukhari and muslim and so on

---

[1] https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Spousal+abuse

[2] https://sunnah.com/muslim/43/108

[3] Hashia Al-sindi ala ibn Majah