Islam is often described as the “religion of peace,” and Muhammad is presented as the “savior of humanity” or the “highest moral ideal.” However, when we logically analyze these claims, we see that Islamic primary sources, such as Sahih Bukhari, Sirah Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat, Al-Tabari, and other hadith collections, present a different picture.
Reviewing the events described in these sources makes it clear that the methods used against Muhammad’s critics during his lifetime, such as deceptive assassinations, secret killings, and torture, show intolerance and autocratic tendencies.
Logically analyzing them proves that Islam’s core moral framework cannot tolerate criticism, which is inconsistent with modern human rights standards. It is necessary to logically reject such a system because it conflicts with the basic principles of freedom and justice.
The Assassination of Ka’b Ibn Ashraf
Ka’b Ibn Ashraf, a Jewish poet and leader from the Banu Nadir tribe, wrote poems criticizing Muhammad’s victory in the Battle of Badr and the deaths of Quraysh leaders. His poems depicted Muhammad’s actions. In Sahih Bukhari (Tawhid, Chapter 56/ Jihad, Section 56/159, Hadith 3032; and Chapter 64/ Magazi, Section 64/15, Hadith 4037), it is described that Muhammad directly asked, “Who will take the responsibility to kill Ka’b Ibn Ashraf?” because he had “hurt Allah and His Messenger.” Muhammad Ibn Maslamah took this responsibility and, with Muhammad’s permission, used deceptive tactics.
At night, they called Ka’b out of his fortress, and his companions (Abu Abs Ibn Jabr, Harith Ibn Aws, Abbad Ibn Bishr) held his head and struck him with a sword to kill him. In Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat (Fathul Bari 7/340), it is described in more detail that the killers threw Ka’b’s severed head in front of Muhammad, and he praised Allah with takbir from his prayer and congratulated the companions. Sirah Ibn Ishaq (pp. 364-368) and Al-Tabari’s Tarikh (Vol. 7, pp. 94-97) have similar descriptions of this event.
Logically analyzing this shows that this incident reveals a fundamental weakness in Islam’s moral framework: labeling criticism as “hurt” and suppressing it through deception and secret assassination. This points to the autocratic tendencies in Muhammad’s leadership, which conflicts with modern human rights freedoms (such as UNDHCR, Article 19). Such methods are logically unacceptable for any religious system because they hinder truth-seeking and freedom of speech.
The Assassination of Asma Bint Marwan
Asma Bint Marwan, a Jewish female poet, wrote poems criticizing the Battle of Badr and the assassination of Abu Afak, which were accused of inciting people against Islam. In Siratul Mustafa (Allama Idris Kandhalvi) and Sirah Ibn Ishaq (pp. 675-676), it is described that Umayr Ibn Adi (a blind companion) vowed that if Muhammad returned safely, he would kill Asma. At night, he entered her house, moved her children aside, and stabbed her in the chest with a sword to kill her. Later, when he informed Muhammad, he said, “There is no fine for this,” and praised Umayr. Waqidi’s Kitabul Magazi and Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat (Vol. 2, pp. 30-31) describe this event.
Killing a woman in front of her children and praising it conflicts with women’s rights. This indicates a pattern in Muhammad’s leadership, where criticism is suppressed without regard to gender differences. In modern logic, such behavior is an example of religious intolerance, which is inconsistent with international standards like CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women).
The Assassination of the Pregnant Slave Girl
In Sunan Abu Dawud (Hadith 4361), narrated from Ibn Abbas (RA). It describes that a blind man had a pregnant slave girl (Umm Walad, meaning a slave who is the mother of his child) who insulted Muhammad. Despite the man forbidding her, she did not stop. One night, when she insulted Muhammad again, the man took a sharp knife, stabbed her in the stomach, and pressed it to kill her, so both she and her unborn child died. The next day, Muhammad learned about the incident, gathered the people, and asked who did it? The blind man confessed, and Muhammad said, “You all bear witness, her blood went in vain”—meaning no punishment. It is clear that the slave was pregnant, and the killing happened because of criticizing Muhammad.
This hadith (Sunan Abu Dawud 4361) reveals an extreme example of Muhammad’s intolerance and moral decline, where a blind man killed his pregnant slave girl with a sharp knife, along with her unborn child, just for insulting Muhammad, and Muhammad approved the killing by saying her blood “went in vain,” meaning no punishment; this shows that for Muhammad, the life of a weak woman and her unborn child was denied, which completely makes Islam’s claims of “mercy” and “justice” illogical.
The Assassination of Abu Rafi
Abu Rafi (Sallam Ibn Abul Huqaiq), a Jewish merchant and poet from Khaybar, opposed Muhammad and provided help in wars. In Sahih Bukhari (Ifa, Chapter 48/ Jihad, Section 1896, Hadith 2813; also Hadith 4039 and 5:59:370-372), it is described that Muhammad sent a group (led by Abdullah Ibn Atik) to kill Abu Rafi. The killers entered the fortress by deception (pretending to look for a donkey), stole the key, changed their voice to call him, entered the room, and struck him twice to kill him. Sirah Ibn Ishaq (pp. 482-483) and Al-Tabari’s Tarikh (Vol. 8, pp. 17-18) have detailed descriptions of this event.
This reveals Muhammad’s strategic autocracy and violence, using deception and secrecy as weapons, which points to moral weakness. Such methods are inconsistent with modern international law (such as the Geneva Convention), which limits deception in wartime. This questions the logic of Islam’s “just war” claim.
The Assassination of Abu Afak
Abu Afak, a 120-year-old Jewish poet, wrote poems criticizing Muhammad’s wars. In Sirah Ibn Ishaq (p. 675) and Ibn Sa’d’s Tabaqat (Vol. 2, p. 30), it is described that on Muhammad’s order, Salim Ibn Umayr killed him while he was sleeping. In Waqidi’s Kitabul Magazi, it is mentioned as an example of intolerance to criticism.
This shows a pattern in Muhammad’s leadership: suppressing critics while ignoring age or physical weakness. This questions the logic of Islam’s “mercy” claim and is unacceptable in modern ethics (such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
Logically analyzing these events makes it clear that the methods of suppressing criticism under Muhammad’s leadership reveal weaknesses in Islam’s core moral framework. They prove that Islam suppresses criticism with violence, which is inconsistent with modern logic and human rights. It is necessary to logically reject such a system because it hinders truth-seeking and the progress of civilization.
Here, even though the criticism was only verbal, approving extrajudicial killings reveals a toxic mix of slavery, misogyny, and autocracy, which is completely inconsistent with modern human rights, so Muhammad and Islam should be firmly rejected because it is dangerous for humanity.
Leave a Reply