... ('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).
Please also note that there was no insult or abuse present in the words of 'Urwah (i.e. the ambassador of polytheists of Quraysh), and he was only telling his opinion as Muslims had already run away once during the Battle of Uhud, leaving Muhammad alone. So, how does it become blasphemy if 'Urwa mentioned his opinion that he felt that Muslims would once again leave Muhammad alone on the battlefield?
It is human nature when people lose their argument (especially those who are not well-civilized), then they become aggressive and abusive. The same thing happened with Abu Bakr and Muhammad and they became aggressive and abusive towards 'Urwah. As 'Urwah was an ambassador, a more diplomatic and civilized response would have been appropriate from Abu Bakr and Muhammad.
Distortion (Tehrif تحريف) of Abu Bakr's Abusive Words by Dishonest Muslim Translators
The words uttered by Abu Bakr were so offensive that ALL Muslim translators of Sahih Bukhari distorted the translation and concealed the actual words he used.
One of the most widely known English translators of Sahih Bukhari is Mohsin Khan. Let us examine his distortion. He translated these words as (link):
امْصُصْ بَظْرَ اللاَّتِ
Hearing that, Abu Bakr abused him.
But Abu Bakr not only abused him, but he used the words: “Go suck the clitoris of (your female goddess) Al-lat”. Nevertheless, Mohsin Khan hid the original words of Abu Bakr through this distortion.
Aisha Bewley (Another Translator) goes another route, instead changing the bodily anatomy that Abu Bakr ordered Urwah to suck:
It was not sucking the nipples of al-Lat, but Abu Bakr told him to suk the clitoris of al-Lat.
Even worse, the Spanish version replaces Abu Bakr’s words with entirely different words. The passage is translated as “Abû Bakr le dijo: ‘Húndete en la ignominia!’” translates into English as “Abu Bakr said to him: ‘Bury yourself in ignominy!’”
But however, we have one honest translator in the form of Michael Fishbein (a non-Muslim). He translated it absolutely correctly:
Please also read this article: To Ridicule/Insult/Blaspheme is a fundamental human RIGHT, while it is based on Human NATURE
1st Excuse by Islamic Apologists: 'Urwa's words were a THREAT and an ATTACK
Waqar Ahmad Cheema (an Islamic apologist), claimed that 'Urwa threatened Muslims, and thus Abu Bakr had the right to use harsh words against him. Mr Cheema wrote (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.
Contrary to this accusation by Islamic apologists, 'Urwa's words were neither threatening nor attacking nor abusive. Here are the exact words of 'Urwa in the Hadith:
`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?"
'Urwa had full right to express his opinion that the Companions of Muhammad would run away in the case of war, leaving Muhammad alone, as it had already happened once during the battle of Uhud, where companions ran away from the battlefield, leaving Muhammad alone. Muhammad was calling them from their backs, but they were not listening to Muhammad. The Quran is itself a witness to this.
Quran 3:153: [Remember] when you [fled and] climbed [the mountain] without looking aside at anyone while the Messenger was calling you from behind.
Therefore, the words of 'Urwa were neither a threat, nor an attack, nor abusive.
Do you remember the "The Wolf and the Lamb" Fable:
In the fable "The Wolf and the Lamb," a thirsty lamb comes across a stream and begins to drink from it. Upstream, a wolf is also drinking, and he wants to eat the lamb. The wolf uses various excuses and false accusations to justify his intention.
First, the wolf claims that the lamb is making the water muddy and ruining his drinking experience. The lamb politely denies this, pointing out that he is downstream and couldn't possibly affect the wolf's water.
Undeterred, the wolf then accuses the lamb of insulting him the previous year. The lamb again denies this, stating that he was not even born a year ago.
Frustrated, the wolf then accuses the lamb's mother of disrespecting him and then he ate the lamb.
The fable illustrates how those with evil intentions may use false justifications to carry out their intentions, regardless of the truth.
And Islamic apologists are those same bloodthirsty wolves in this case, who are resorting to baseless rationalizations to legitimize Abu Bakr's offensive and indecent language.
Furthermore, if 'Urwa's words are genuinely considered a threat (or inciting scepticism), then the Quran and Hadiths contain numerous statements that are considerably more menacing than 'Urwa's utterances. By that logic, should non-Muslims also resort to using derogatory and offensive language against the Quran and Allah?
2nd Excuse by Islamic Apologists: The words of Abu Bakr were not abusive, but only a Proverb
Furthermore, the Islamic apologist, Mr Cheema wrote (link):
The words that literally mean ‘suck the clitoris of so and so’ are actually a proverb ... In fact, the proverbial phrase is not meant as an extremely offensive abuse. It is just a way to strongly condemn or point out the worthlessness of something. Consider the following line by renowned classical Arabic literary critic Ibn Rashiq al-Qayrawani (d. 463 A.H.):
إن الشعراء ثلاثة: شاعر، وشويعر، و ماص بظر أمه
Literally, it would be translated as:
Verily, the poets are of three categories: an excellent poet, an ordinary poet and the one who bites the clitoris of his mother.
The meaning however is that the third category is of third-class poets who produce absolute rubbish in literary terms. This is the ultimate proof that the original sense of the words is neither abuse nor obscene yelling but it is an expression used for forceful condemnation.
Response:
Primarily, it is evident that Abu Bakr did not employ those offensive words as part of a proverb. His intention was unequivocal: he aimed to directly insult 'Urwa's goddess. This is evident from his modification of the phrase from "clitoris of the mother" to specifically incorporating the name of al-Laat, stating, "Go and suck the clitoris of your goddess al-Laat."
Consequently, it is erroneous to label Abu Bakr's offensive words as a mere proverb; their intent was undeniably to abuse and deride 'Urwa's deity.
This interpretation is further substantiated by 'Urwa's response to the insult, displaying his anger towards Abu Bakr's derogatory words. 'Urwa said:
... 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 alone?". `Urwa said, "Who is that man?" They said, "He is Abu Bakr." `Urwa said to Abu Bakr, "By Him in Whose Hands my life is, were it not for the favor which you did to me and which I did not compensate, I would retort on you."
Actually, Islamic scholars themselves pointed out that Arabs used these words to "Abuse" their opponents, and Abu Bakr did the same, except for replacing "mother" with the goddess "al-Laat" as Abu Bakr wanted to exaggerate in abuse.
Ibn Hajar al-Asqallani wrote in the commentary of this Hadith (link):
واللات اسم أحد الأصنام التي كانت قريش وثقيف يعبدونها وكانت عادة العرب الشتم بذلك لكن بلفظ الام فأراد أبو بكر المبالغة في سب عروة بإقامة من كان يعبد مقام أمه وحمله على ذلك ما أغضبه به من نسبة المسلمين إلى الفرار وفيه جواز النطق بما يستبشع من الألفاظ لإرادة زجر من بدا منه ما يستحق به ذلك
Al-Lat is name of an idol which is worshiped by Quraish and Thaqeef. Arabs used to abuse (Arabic الشتم) with these words, but with word of ‘mother’ and Abu Bakr wanted exaggeration in abusing (Arabic سب) Urwa (who described the companions as they are not dignified people and they flee away and leave Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam)) so he used his god’s name in the place of ‘mother’. What made Abu Bakr angry to use these words is, Urwa’s description of Muslims that they flee away (and leave Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam)).
Secondly, if Muslims contend that the phrase is merely a proverb, would they permit non-Muslims to employ this same proverb in the same context? Can non-Muslims also tell Muslims to go and do the same with their revered figures or god?
If not, then why these "Double Standards"? The reason is clear that these words of Abu Bakr are so dirty and such a clear abuse and insult, that Muslims can never take these words as merely a proverb when used against their own revered figures.
The reality is, Abu Bakr used the "worst possible and the dirtiest abusive words" for insulting. There are no other words which could be dirtier or more insulting and abusive than the words of Abu Bakr.
No reasonable Muslim would use this supposed proverb concerning the clitoris of the mother or goddess within their own family, as these are not mere proverbs but rather abusive language.
The approach of Islamic apologists is to label 'Urwa's commonplace utterance as a threat, an attack, and a grave offence, while simultaneously downplaying Abu Bakr's usage of the vilest abusive language as a mere form of mild criticism.
Hassan Radwan