Blasphemy

Sahih Bukhari records the following exchange.

... ('Urwa, the ambassador of Pagan Quraysh, said to Muhammad) O Muhammad! Won’t you feel any scruple in extirpating your relations? Have you ever heard of anyone amongst the Arabs extirpating his relatives before you? On the other hand, if the reverse should happen, (nobody will aid you, for) by Allah, I do not see (with you) dignified people, but people from various tribes who would run away leaving you alone.”

Upon that, Abu Bakr replied with these dirtiest possible abusive words:

امْصُصْ بَظْرَ اللاَّتِ

“Go suck the clitoris of (your female goddess) Al-lat”.

Prophet Muhammad didn't intervene to stop or rebuke or punish Abu Bakr for his actions, and his silence on the matter is seen as support, known as Taqriri Hadith according to Islamic Rules, ultimately making it an established "Sunnah" of the Prophet and a part of Islamic Sharia law.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqallani wrote (link):

As the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) was silent on saying of Abu Bakr and didn’t rebuke him, it shows the permissibility of using these words

The largest Islamic website on the Internet is IslamWeb.Net. They provided the following explanation for the use of abusive words by Abu Bakr and the reaction of Prophet Muhammad to it (link):

... (do you) makes no difference between the One True God (i.e. Allah) and the false gods (of non-Muslims); ... insulting the god of non-Muslims is an act by which one gets closer to Allaah and it is an act of obedience۔۔۔ (Additionally, this website Islamweb.net recorded the opinions of early Muslim scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Hajar, and Ibn Qayyim, who all praised this usage of abusive words by Abu Bakr and declared it to be a part of Sharia).

From a historical-critical perspective, ʿUrwa’s original statement contained no blasphemous content against Islam; it was a diplomatic assessment of military risk as majority of Muslims had already run away once during the Battle of Uhud, leaving Muhammad alone.

Abū Bakr’s retort, by contrast, escalated the exchange into vulgar ad hominem abuse directed at the sacred symbol of the opposing party. The Prophet’s non-intervention and the subsequent juridical valorization of the episode by major medieval authorities illustrate a normative precedent within certain strands of classical Islamic law that sanctions verbally aggressive and sexually explicit repudiation of non-Islamic religious symbols, even in the absence of prior provocation of comparable severity.

It is also debated that since 'Urwah was an ambassador, a more diplomatic and civilized response would have been appropriate from Abu Bakr and Muhammad.

Distortion of Abu Bakr’s Statement in Modern Translations of Sahih al Bukhari

The expression attributed to Abu Bakr in Sahih al Bukhari contains terminology that is considered highly offensive in Arabic. The phrase is:

امْصُصْ بَظْرَ اللاَّتِ

which, taken literally, refers to the “clitoris of al Lat”, the pre Islamic female deity. Because of the explicit nature of this phrase, several modern translators have rendered it in significantly softened or altered forms.

One of the most widely circulated English translations of Sahih al Bukhari is that of Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan. In his translation of this passage, the explicit phrase is rendered simply as (link):

امْصُصْ بَظْرَ اللاَّتِ

Hearing that, Abu Bakr abused him.

This translation omits the specific wording used in the original Arabic and instead provides only a general description of verbal abuse. The effect is that the literal content of Abu Bakr’s statement is concealed from the reader.

Another translator, Aisha Bewley, adopts a different approach. She paraphrases the statement in a way that modifies the anatomical reference within the insult, changing the meaning of the original expression. She translated it as:

Abu Bakr said to him: "Suck al-Lat' nipples"

The Spanish edition introduces an even more substantial departure from the original text. The expression is translated as:

“Abû Bakr le dijo: ‘Húndete en la ignominia!’”
which means:
“Abu Bakr said to him: ‘Bury yourself in ignominy!’”

This translation substitutes the original explicit insult with an entirely different idiomatic expression, removing both the anatomical and the religious references.

In contrast to these examples, the translation provided by Michael Fishbein, a non Muslim scholar, follows the literal meaning of the Arabic text and reproduces the explicit terminology found in the original narration. Because of this, his work is often cited as a more accurate reflection of what appears in the Arabic manuscripts of Sahih al Bukhari.

Please also read this article: To Ridicule/Insult/Blaspheme is a fundamental human RIGHT, while it is based on Human NATURE

Apologist Claim that ʿUrwa’s Remarks Constituted a Threat or Verbal Assault

The commentator Waqar Ahmad Cheema has argued that ‘Urwa’s remarks in the Hudaybiyyah narrative amounted to a threat or provocation, and that the companions were therefore justified in responding strongly. He writes (link):

‘Urwah actually threatened the Muslims. He did not just stop at that; he even went on to attribute cowardice and infidelity to the Prophet’s Companions. This was more than just a mere comment. It was an attempt to make the Prophet feel skeptical of his Companions. Therefore, it was natural for the Companions to take strong exception to these statements and respond with strong words.

This characterization, however, does not withstand scrutiny of the primary sources.

The relevant portion of the narration in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī (no. 2731) as follows:

`Urwa said, "O Muhammad! Won't you feel any scruple in extirpating your relations (with your tribe Quraish)? Have you ever heard of anyone amongst the Arabs extirpating his relatives before you? On the other hand, if the reverse should happen (i.e. if Muhammad is attacked), by Allah, I do not see (with you) dignified people (i.e. Muhammad's companions), but people from various tribes who would run away leaving you alone." Hearing that, Abu Bakr said to him: "Go and suck the clitoris of your goddess al-Laat. Do you say we would run and leave the Prophet (ﷺ) alone?"

A close reading of the passage suggests that ‘Urwa’s statement consists of a strategic assessment of the political situation. He comments that the companions might withdraw in a moment of crisis. This observation reflects an earlier episode recorded in Islamic sources concerning the Battle of Uhud, where some members of the early Muslim community ran away, leaving Muhammad alone. The Qur’anic text itself acknowledges this event.

Quran 3:153:
[Remember] when you [fled and] climbed [the mountain] without looking aside at anyone while the Messenger was calling you from behind.

Thus, ʿUrwa was merely articulating a realistic military assessment based on an event already acknowledged in Islamic scripture. No classical exegete or historian regards his words as blasphemous, threatening, or abusive in the technical sense that would warrant the extreme vulgarity of Abū Bakr’s reply.

The apologetic attempt to reframe ʿUrwa’s remarks as a psychological attack or incitement therefore lacks textual foundation. If such historically factual observations about the Companions’ past conduct were deemed impermissible or threatening, large portions of the Qurʾān and the sīra literature—including divine rebukes of the same desertions at Uḥud (Q 3:144–155, 166–168)—would themselves fall under the same prohibition. The defence offered by Cheema and similar writers thus appears to be a post-hoc rationalization rather than a reflection of the original context preserved in the canonical sources.

The Apologetic Claim That Abu Bakr’s Expression Was Merely a Proverb

Waqar Ahmad Cheema has advanced the argument that the phrase used by Abu Bakr in the Hudaybiyyah report should not be understood as an insult, but rather as a proverbial expression in classical Arabic. He writes (link):

“The words that literally mean ‘suck the clitoris of so and so’ are actually a proverb… the proverbial phrase is not meant as an extremely offensive abuse. It is simply a way to forcefully condemn something or express its worthlessness. Consider the following line by the classical literary critic Ibn Rashiq al Qayrawani:
إن الشعراء ثلاثة: شاعر، وشويعر، و ماص بظر أمه
Literally: ‘Poets are of three types: a skilled poet, a mediocre poet, and one who bites the clitoris of his mother.’
The intended meaning, however, is that the third category refers to poets who produce works of very low literary value.”

Cheema therefore concludes that the phrase is a rhetorical device rather than an instance of obscene abuse.

This apologetic reading, however, collapses under examination of both the primary sources and classical scholarly commentary:

1. Abū Bakr did not employ the standard proverbial form ماص بظر أمه (“one who sucks his mother’s clitoris”), which might conceivably have been understood idiomatically in certain pre-modern Arab contexts. He deliberately altered the phrase to أَمْصُصْ بَظْرَ اللَّاتِ (“Go suck the clitoris of al-Lāt”), explicitly substituting the name of the pagan goddess worshipped by ʿUrwa’s tribe (Thaqīf) and the Quraysh. This substitution unambiguously transforms the expression into a direct, sexually charged insult against the deity itself rather than a generic proverbial condemnation of worthlessness.

2. Classical Exegesis explicitly describes the Utterance as Abuse (sabb/shatm) Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852/1449), in his authoritative commentary Fatḥ al-Bārī (on Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, kitāb al-shurūṭ, ḥadīth 2731), states unequivocally:

«وَكَانَتْ عَادَةُ الْعَرَبِ الشَّتْمَ بِذَلِكَ لَكِنْ بِلَفْظِ الْأُمِّ، فَأَرَادَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ الْمُبَالَغَةَ فِي سَبِّ عُرْوَةَ بِإِقَامَةِ مَنْ كَانَ يَعْبُدُهُ مَقَامَ أُمِّهِ»

“It was the custom of the Arabs to abuse (shatm) with such expressions, but using the word ‘mother.’ Abū Bakr, however, wished to exaggerate in abusing (sabb) ʿUrwa, so he substituted the object of his worship [al-Lāt] in place of his mother.”

Ibn Ḥajar thus confirms that the base form was indeed used as abuse and that Abū Bakr’s innovation was designed to intensify the insult by directing it at ʿUrwa’s deity.

3. ʿUrwa’s Reaction demonstrates that he understood it as a personal and religious insult. The same ḥadīth continues:

فَقَالَ عُرْوَةُ: مَنْ هَذَا الرَّجُلُ؟ قَالُوا: أَبُو بَكْرٍ. فَقَالَ عُرْوَةُ: أَمَا وَالَّذِي نَفْسِي بِيَدِهِ لَوْلَا يَدٌ كَانَتْ لَكَ عِنْدِي لَمْ أَجْزِكَ بِهَا لَأَجَبْتُكَ

“ʿUrwa asked, ‘Who is that man?’ They replied, ‘Abū Bakr.’ ʿUrwa said: ‘By Him in Whose hand is my soul, were it not for a favor you once did me that I have not repaid, I would certainly have answered you [in kind].’”

ʿUrwa’s immediate anger and threat of verbal retaliation make it unmistakable that he perceived the remark as a grave personal and religious affront, not as a harmless proverbial expression.

4. The Double-Standard Test:

If the phrase is truly nothing more than an innocuous proverb for “worthless” or “third-rate,” contemporary Muslims who defend its use by Abū Bakr would presumably have no objection to non-Muslims employing the identical construction against Islamic sacred figures, for example, directing the same imperative toward the Prophet’s mother or toward God Himself. The predictable outrage that would ensue reveals that the “proverb” interpretation is untenable when the insult is reversed. The selective application of the proverbial excuse therefore constitutes a clear instance of special pleading.

In sum, neither the textual evidence, the classical scholarly tradition, nor basic consistency supports the claim that Abū Bakr’s words were merely an idiomatic proverb. They were recognized by the earliest authorities and understood by ʿUrwa himself as an act of deliberate, exaggerated, and sexually explicit abuse (sabb) directed at the religious symbol most sacred to his interlocutor. The apologetic attempt to recast this episode as mild rhetorical condemnation represents a further effort to sanitize uncomfortable elements of the canonical sources for modern sensibilities.