IFK incident: A Revelation, which itself turned against Muhammad + Pure men have only pure wives + lashing witnesses if they are less than 4 (even if they are telling the truth) 🔥ʰᵒᵗ

Table of Contents:

Summary:

Summary:

During an expedition, the Muslim caravan accidentally departed without ‘Aisha. She remained at the camp, where Safwan (a companion of Muhammad) found her later. They stayed there at night, and the next day, he brought 'Aisha back to Muhammad. Later, rumours that Aisha and Safwan had committed adultery spread in the wake of this incident. This incident is known as IFK.

This situation was dangerous for Muhammad too, while it was indirectly affecting Muhammad's claim of prophethood too, who was childless despite owing multiple wives and slave women.

After almost one month, Muhammad made his first public appearance (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 4757), where:

He declared it (even without any revelation) to be a "forged story", by making an 'argument' that he never saw anything bad in the character of 'Aisha or of Safwan even before this incident.
And then he commanded Muslims to kill 'Abdullah Ibn Ubai, who used this incident to question Muhammad's prophethood. Nevertheless, the people of 'Abdullah's tribe refused to obey Muhammad, and they defended him. The two tribes of Muslims almost started a fight over it. Thus, Muhammad failed to kill him.
Moreover, 'Abdullah Ibn Ubai was not alone. In fact, almost all Sahaba were doubtful about 'Aisha, which was making them doubtful about Muhammad's prophethood too indirectly.

Please note that in that first public appearance, the declaration of 'Aisha's innocence was not even dependent upon any revelation, but it was dependent upon a simple argument, which he had already known even before this incident. So, why did Muhammad wait for one month for this first public appearance in order to claim 'Aisha's innocence?

One can only doubt that it may be possible that during that one-month period, perhaps Muhammad was waiting to make sure that 'Aisha was not pregnant. Had Muhammad claimed any revelation for the innocence of 'Aisha just in the beginning, and later it would have found that she was indeed pregnant, then it would have destroyed his claim of prophethood completely. (Note: If a woman does not get her period after one month, then it is a sign that she is pregnant)

Moreover, the rebellion of the Muslim tribe of 'Abdullah Ibn Ubai, brought Muhammad's position even in more danger. He was losing his grip on his followers as a prophet.

And Muhammad reacted as usual, i.e. by using the claim of new "REVELATIONS". This means, Muhammad not only claimed a revelation for the innocence of 'Aisha, but he claimed an 'entire series of revelations', which were serving all his political purposes regarding this incident.

According to 'Aisha (Sahih Bukhari, 4757), 2 days after his public appearance, Muhammad came to her and claimed the revelation of Surah an-Nur.

Let us see this Surah an-Nur, and how it was serving Muhammad's political purposes (link):

[Verses 1-2] ... The woman and the man guilty of fornication, flog each one of them with a hundred stripes ...

[Verse 3] The fornicator does not marry except a [female] fornicator or polytheist, and none marries her except a fornicator or a polytheist,

Purpose of this verse: This verse should serve as an "argument" for the innocence of 'Aisha, i.e. since Muhammad is neither a fornicator nor a polytheist himself, thus he also didn't marry any female fornicator (i.e. 'Aisha). Nevertheless, this so-called Quranic Argument is flawed and totally against logic. It only shows the colours of 'Human Error' in the so-called divine Revelation.

[Verse 4] As for those persons who charge chaste women with false accusations but do not produce four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes and never accept their evidence afterwards, for they themselves are transgressors.

Purpose: 'Abdullah Ibn Ubai escaped from Muhammad's plan of being killed. But Muhammad still wanted to create an example for people by severely punishing someone. Thus, Muhammad came up with 2 new conditions in these revelations. According to the traditions of Sahih Bukhari, there were 3 witnesses present against 'Aisha. Thus, Muhammad raised the number of witnesses to FOUR. And Muhammad also came up with an entirely new 2nd condition, which had no precedent before, i.e. if there are fewer than 4 witnesses, then they will be flogged 80 times, even if they are telling the truth in their testimony.

[Verses 5-11]...

[Verses 12-16] Why did not the believing men and the believing women when you heard it, think well of their own people (i.e. of 'Aisha and Safwan), and (immediately) said: "This (is) a lie clear?" Why did they [who slandered] not produce for it four witnesses? ... Why did you not, as soon as you heard of it, say, "It is not proper for us to utter such a thing? Glory be to Allah! This is a great slander."

Purpose: It was not only 'Abdullah Ibn Ubai along with 3 more Sahaba, but almost all the companions were doubting 'Aisha and thus Muhammad's prophethood too. Thus, Muhammad used these verses in order to rebuke all of them, so that they stop doubting Muhammad's claim of prophethood.

[Verse 17-25] ... (In these verses, the writer of the Quran (i.e. Muhammad) is threatening all those companions who doubted 'Aisha for great punishment in this world and in the hereafter. But then he says that Allah showed mercy upon those companions this time and stopped this punishment. But they should not repeat this mistake again) ...

[Verse 26] Impure women are for impure men and impure men for impure women, and pure women are for pure men and pure men for pure women. They are free from those scandals which the slanderers utter.

Purpose: Again, the writer of the Quran (i.e. Muhammad himself) used this as an 'argument', so that people believe in the innocence of 'Aisha. Nevertheless, this so-called Quranic Argument is flawed and totally against logic.

[Verse 31] And say to the believing women (that) they should lower [of] their gaze and they should guard their chastity, and not (to) display their adornment except what is apparent of it. And let them draw their head covers over their bosoms, and not (to) display their adornment except to their husbands ...

Purpose: This was the first verse about the Hijab of women, which was revealed after the incident of Ifk.

Double Standards: Muhammad 'outside' the house VS Muhammad 'inside' the house

Look at Muhammad's behaviour outside the house during his first public appearance, which happened almost after one month:

Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 4757:

Narrated Aisha: ... Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) got up and addressed the people. He recited Tashah-hud, and after glorifying and praising Allah as He deserved, he said, "To proceed: O people Give me your opinion regarding those people who made a 'forged story' against my wife. By Allah, I do not know anything bad about her. By Allah, they accused her of being with a man (i.e. Safwan) about whom I have never known anything bad, and he never entered my house unless I was present there, and whenever I went on a journey, he went with me."

Thus In public:

Muhammad totally denied this slander as a "forged story".
And when he said {By Allah, I do not know anything bad about her}, then he gave the impression that neither he ever doubted 'Aisha, nor he ever doubted Safwan (the man who found 'Aisha) right from the beginning.

But it was Muhammad's bad luck that 'Aisha exposed the total opposite behaviour of Muhammad in the story which happened 'inside the house', where he was not only doubting 'Aisha right from the beginning, but he kept on doubting her till the very last moments.

Sahih Bukhari 4141 (Dar-us-Salam Ref):

Narrated `Aisha: ... "After we returned to Medina, I became ill for a month. The people were propagating the forged statements of the slanderers while I was unaware of anything of all that, but I felt that in my present ailment, I was not receiving the same kindness from Allah's Messenger as I used to receive when I got sick. (But now) Allah's Messenger would only come, greet me and say,' How is that (lady)?' and leave. ... ('Aisha further said) When the Divine Inspiration was delayed, Allah's Messenger called `Ali bin Abi Talib and Usama bin Zaid to ask and consult them about divorcing me ... (Muhammad then also asked Barira, the maid-servant about 'Aisha's charater) and Barira said to him, 'By Him Who has sent you with the Truth. I have never seen anything in her (i.e. Aisha) which I would conceal, except that she is a young girl who sleeps leaving the dough of her family exposed so that the domestic goats come and eat it. ... ('Aisha further told that she went to her parents' house, while she was disturbed from those rumors and from Muhammad's behavior. Then after one month) Allah's Messenger came, greeted us and sat down. He had never sat with me since that day of the slander. A month had elapsed and no Divine Inspiration came to him about my case. Allah's Apostle then recited Tashah-hud and then said, 'Amma Badu, O `Aisha! I have been informed so-and so about you; if you are innocent, then soon Allah will reveal your innocence, and if you have committed a sin, then repent to Allah and ask Him for forgiveness for when a slave confesses his sins and asks Allah for forgiveness, Allah accepts his repentance.' ... ('Aisha further said) Then I said to my mother, 'Reply to Allah's Messenger on my behalf concerning what he has said.' She said, 'By Allah, I do not know what to say to Allah's Messenger .' In spite of the fact that I was a young girl and had a little knowledge of Qur'an, I said, 'By Allah, no doubt I know that you heard this (slanderous) speech so that it has been planted in your hearts (i.e. minds) and you have taken it as a truth. Now if I tell you that I am innocent, you will not believe me, and if confess to you about it, and Allah knows that I am innocent, you will surely believe me. By Allah, I find no similitude for me and you except that of Joseph's father when he said, '(For me) patience in the most fitting against that which you assert; it is Allah (Alone) Whose Help can be sought.' Then I turned to the other side and lay on my bed; ... ('Aisha further said after that immediately revelation started coming to Muhammad and he said to her) 'O `Aisha! Allah has declared your innocence!' Then my Mother said to me, 'Get up and go to him (i.e. Allah's Messenger). I replied, 'By Allah, I will not go to him, and I praise none but Allah.

Of course, it was not in the interest of Muhammad to show the people outside of his house that he was doubting 'Aisha.

Human intellect guides us that such a person can never be a true Prophet, who shows such double standards.

Muhammad rebuked OTHERS through REVELATION for doubting 'Aisha, but he forgot he was himself the one who doubted 'Aisha the most

Due to that public appearance, Muhammad posed as if never doubted 'Aisha's character.

But at the same time, Muhammad was very angry with people, who indeed kept on believing that incident (and thus endangering his claim of prophethood).

Therefore, in order to rebuke those people, after one month, Muhammad then claimed the revelation of the following Quranic Verses:

Quran 24:12-16:

Why did the faithful men and women not think well of their people (i.e. 'Aisha and Safwan) when they heard this, and said: "This is a clear lie?" ... Why did you not say when you heard it: "It is not for us to speak of it? God preserve us, it is a great lie!"

In these verses, Muhammad himself put those conditions i.e.:

immediately thinking good about 'Aisha and Safwan,
and immediately denying it as an obvious falsehood
and immediately considering it to be a great lie.

But the problem occurred when later, 'Aisha also told the story, which happened inside the house during that period, where:

It was also Muhammad himself who neither immediately thought good about 'Aisha,
nor Muhammad immediately denied it as an obvious falsehood,
nor Muhammad completely rejected it immediately by saying it was a big lie.

But contrary to this, according to 'Aisha:

Muhammad himself started doubting 'Aisha.
And Muhammad stopped showing KINDNESS towards 'Aisha, despite her being ill. Even if he came to 'Aisha, then he only greeted her and then left.
Then Muhammad also started investigating about the character of 'Aisha from Ali and Zayd (the adopted son), and Barira (i.e. the maid-servant) inside the house.
Then Muhammad also consulted them regarding giving "Divorce" to 'Aisha.
Even after one month, Muhammad was still doubting 'Aisha, and he asked 'Aisha if she had committed a sin, then she should confess it and repent.
'Aisha said, she was so much disappointed with the behaviour of Muhammad that she refused to even talk to him directly.
'Aisha even refused to testify her innocence to Muhammad, while she was of the opinion that the slander had already been planted in the heart of Muhammad, and he would not accept her testimony.
'Aisha further said, but if she falsely confesses that she indeed committed a sin, then Muhammad was immediately going to believe it.
Then 'Aisha turned her face from Muhammad and lay on the other side of the bed.
Then Muhammad claimed divine revelation came to him, which proved her innocence, but 'Aisha was still so much upset with Muhammad's behaviour when her mother asked her to accompany Muhammad, then 'Aisha refused to even go with him.

Any logical mind can easily see how Muhammad used the revelation in order to rebuke others for the same thing which he himself did.

Actually, Muhammad was the one who caused the most pain to 'Aisha through his behaviour.

How did Muhammad know Allah will 'soon' reveal the verses of innocence of 'Aisha after one month?

No revelation came for 'Aisha's innocence for the entire month. Then Muhammad came to 'Aisha (who was staying at her parent's house at that time) and he claimed Allah will 'soon' reveal the verses about her innocence. And then surprisingly, only after one minute, he claimed that revelation came, and it made 'Aisha free of those accusations.

Sahih Bukhari 4141 (Dar-us-Salam Ref):

Allah's Messenger came, greeted us and sat down. He had never sat with me since that day of the slander. A month had elapsed and no Divine Inspiration came to him about my case. Allah's Apostle then recited Tashah-hud and then said, 'Amma Badu, O `Aisha! I have been informed so and so about you; if you are innocent, then soon Allah will reveal your innocence, and if you have committed a sin, then repent to Allah and ask Him for forgiveness for when a slave confesses his sins and asks Allah for forgiveness, Allah accepts his repentance ... (Aisha said) 'By Allah, no doubt I know that you heard this (slanderous) speech so that it has been planted in your hearts (i.e. minds) and you have taken it as a truth. Now if I tell you that I am innocent, you will not believe me, and if confess to you about it, and Allah knows that I am innocent, you will surely believe me ... Then I turned to the other side and lay on my bed ... But, by Allah, before Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) left his seat and before any of the household left, the Divine inspiration came to Allah's Messenger (about my innocence).

Thus:

Muhammad could only make such a claim (i.e. soon revelation will come for her innocence) when it was in his own hands to make the revelations at any time that he wished.
And is it not strange that indeed the revelation came immediately on the spot, as soon as Muhammad and 'Aisha finished their conversation, as Muhammad predicted?

This proves only there is no Allah present in the heavens, but Muhammad was making all those revelations on his own, and on the spot as he wished.

Quranic order to lash the eyewitnesses if their number is less than 4 (even if they are telling the truth

Muhammad also claimed the revelation of verse 24 of Surah Nur at the same time of the incident of Ifk. This verse stipulated an entirely new condition (which had no precedent before, and even after it in the entire world), i.e. if the number of witnesses is less than 4, then all those witnesses should be lashed 80 times, even if they are telling the truth.

Surah Nur 24:4

And those who accuse chaste women and then do not produce four witnesses - lash them with eighty lashes and do not accept from them testimony ever after.

The first question is, why did the writer of the Quran (i.e. Muhammad) has to reveal this order?

The reasons were as below:

Muhammad wanted to make 'Abdullah Ibn Ubai an example (by killing him) for all those who were doubting 'Aisha (and indirectly doubting Muhammad's prophethood).
Nevertheless, 'Abdullah Ibn Ubai escaped from Muhammad's plan.
And an additional problem also developed for Muhammad, where the Muslim tribe of 'Abdullah Ibn Ubai not only openly disobeyed him as a prophet, but they were also ready to wage a fight against Muhammad and his other followers. Muhammad was losing his grip upon his followers.
Thus, if not 'Abdullah Ibn Ubai, still Muhammad had to 'severely punish' someone else in order to create an example for all those who were doubting his prophethood.

Sahih Bukhari 4141:

... Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) got up on the pulpit and complained about `Abdullah bin Ubai (bin Salul) before his companions, saying, 'O you Muslims! Who will relieve me from that man who has hurt me with his evil statement about my family? By Allah, I know nothing except good about my family and they have blamed a man about whom I know nothing except good and he used never to enter my home except with me.' Sa`d bin Mu`adh the brother of Banu `Abd Al-Ashhal got up and said, 'O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! I will relieve you from him; if he is from the tribe of Al-Aus, then I will chop his head off, and if he is from our brothers, i.e. Al-Khazraj, then order us, and we will fulfill your order.' On that, a man from Al-Khazraj got up. Um Hassan, his cousin, was from his branch tribe, and he was Sa`d bin Ubada, chief of Al-Khazraj. Before this incident, he was a pious man, but his love for his tribe goaded him into saying to Sa`d (bin Mu`adh). 'By Allah, you have told a lie; you shall not and cannot kill him. If he belonged to your people, you would not wish him to be killed.' On that, Usaid bin Hudair who was the cousin of Sa`d (bin Mu`adh) got up and said to Sa`d bin 'Ubada, 'By Allah! You are a liar! We will surely kill him, and you are a hypocrite arguing on the behalf of hypocrites.' On this, the two tribes of Al-Aus and Al Khazraj got so much excited that they were about to fight while Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was standing on the pulpit. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) kept on quietening them till they became silent and so did he.

Human logic will always guide you that:

This Islamic ruling is totally against human rationale to lash the witnesses even if they are telling the truth.
This illogical ruling proves that no revelation was coming from any divine being, but it was Muhammad himself who was making the revelation on his own. That is why we see the colors of 'human error' in it.

Quranic claim that Pure Men have only the pure Women

In this same revelation of Surah Nur, the Quran also claimed that pure men have only pure women. This Quranic claim should serve as an argument that 'Aisha was innocent, while she was wed to a pure man, i.e. Muhammad.

Surah Nur 4:3 and 4:26:

The fornicator does not marry except a [female] fornicator or polytheist, and none marries her except a fornicator or a polytheist, and that has been made unlawful to the believers ۔۔۔ Women impure are for men impure, and men impure for women impure and women of purity are for men of purity, and men of purity are for women of purity: these are not affected by what people say: for them there is forgiveness, and a provision honorable.

Ibn Kathir wrote in his Tafsir under verse 26 of Surah Nur:

"Evil women are for evil men and evil men are for evil women, and good women are for good men and good men are for good women. This also necessarily refers back to what they said, i.e., Allah would not have made `A'ishah the wife of His Messenger unless she had been good, because he is the best of the best of mankind. If she had been evil, she would not have been a suitable partner either according to His Laws or His decree.
Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Surah Nur 24:26

The Qur'an itself gives the example of the wife of Lut, who was not pure of heart, while Lut himself was a pure man. The Qur'an also gives the example of the wife of Pharaoh; she was a pure woman, while Pharaoh was not. Similarly, the wife of Noah was also not pure.

Thus, this argument from Quran/Muhammad was full of flaws, and again shows the human nature of the revelation (i.e. there is no Allah present in the heavens, and Muhammad was making the revelation on his own).

Role of so-called 'Islamic Modesty' in the incident of Ifk

The idea of the so-called 'Islamic Modesty' plays a negative role in this incident too:

Sahih Bukhari 4141:

Narrated `Aisha: ... I was carried (on the back of a camel) in my howdah and carried down while still in it (when we came to a halt). So we went on till Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) had finished from that Ghazwa of his and returned. When we approached the city of Medina he announced at night that it was time for departure. So when they announced the news of departure, I got up and went away from the army camps, and after finishing from the call of nature, I came back to my riding animal. I touched my chest to find that my necklace which was made of Zifar beads (i.e. Yemenite beads partly black and partly white) was missing. So I returned to look for my necklace and my search for it detained me. (In the meanwhile) the people who used to carry me on my camel, came and took my howdah and put it on the back of my camel on which I used to ride, as they considered that I was in it...They made the camel rise and all of them left (along with it). I found my necklace after the army had gone.

Some of the unique cultural presumptions of Islam come to play in this incident:

The Islamic idea of hijab necessitates the wholesale separation of women from the society of all men not in some way related to them.
Even conversation, and any kind of interaction between men and women, is considered vulgarity, and is against 'Islamic Modesty'.

Therefore, on this journey too, 'Aisha was made to hide from the eyes of men behind the curtains of her howdah. And since men and women could not even 'greet' each other as it is also considered vulgar in Shariah, those men (who were lifting her howdah) were unable to find out if she was present in the howdah or not, by simply saying 'hello' to her.

The results here were quite dire:

'Aisha was weeping the entire night long for one complete month and she was in pain. And even she was innocent, but still even Muhammad planted this slander in his heart and he showed no kindness towards her.
It split the Muslims into two camps, ready to kill one another

Moreover:

Such 'restrictions' in the name of 'Islamic Modesty' are against the 'NATURE'.
And these unnatural restrictions make society so paranoid and sceptical that it becomes a 'psycho' case.
Muslims are unable to tell why these 2 companions (i.e. Hassan bin Thabit and Mistah) made slander against 'Aisha. But the reason seems to be simply that these unnatural restrictions are making members of Islamic society paranoid and turning them into psycho cases, where they believe in such things which actually are not there. (Note: Muslims still use "Radhi Allahu 'Anhu" for these 2 companions and consider them to be people of high status).
Even today, thousands of killings take place in Islamic societies, in the name of 'Honour Killing', which is based merely upon doubts and paranoia.

The sole reason for this one-month-long episode was only this restriction upon the interaction of men and women in the name of 'Islamic Modesty'. And this same thing is 'hunting' Islamic society even today.

Also, see this lack of interaction between them when Safwan found 'Asiha.

Sahih Bukhari 4141 (Dar-us-Salam Ref)

Narrated 'Aisha: ... While I was sitting in my resting place, I was overwhelmed by sleep and slept. Safwan bin Al-Muattal As-Sulami Adh-Dhakwani was behind the army. When he reached my place in the morning, he saw the figure of a sleeping person and he recognized me on seeing me as he had seen me before the order of compulsory veiling (was prescribed). So I woke up when he recited Istirja' (i.e. "Inna li l-lahi wa inna llaihi raji'un") as soon as he recognized me, I veiled my face with my head cover at once, and by Allah, we did not speak a single word, and I did not hear him saying any word besides his Istirja'. He dismounted from his camel and made it kneel down, putting his leg on its front legs and then I got up and rode on it. Then he set out leading the camel that was carrying me till we overtook the army in the extreme heat of midday

Thus:

How could Islam be considered a 'religion of nature' when it has made it so difficult that even in emergencies, men and women don't even exchange a single word?
What could have happened if they had greeted each other, and Safwan had asked her about the problem in detail (and perhaps helped her in finding her necklace), why she was alone there, and if she needed some other kind of help too in that situation?

Even today Muslim ladies and girls are unable to take help without any hesitation in each and every field from men (either they are male doctors or male teachers etc.). So much energy of society is wasted in these unnatural restrictions, and half of the Islamic society (i.e. women) becomes practically useless and unable to help with productivity.

PS:

Muslims are divided on the issue of whether a woman's 'face' should be veiled or not. Those who support the veiling of the face too, present this tradition as proof, while here 'Aisha veiled her full face from Safwan.

Why did Muhammad use to take his wives during the battles?

In the Islamic Jahiliyyah period in Arabia, the Kings acted like dictators. They didn't allow their common soldiers to take their wives during the journeys but did bring their own wives for themselves, despite the extra burden this imposed on their army.

Muhammad also followed the footsteps of these dictator kings. The incident of Ifk happened while Muhammad took 'Aisha with him in that journey.

In this same Hadith about Ifk, 'Aisha narrated:

Sahih Bukhari 4141 (Dar-us-Salam Ref):

Whenever Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) intended to go on a journey, he used to draw lots amongst his wives, and Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) used to take with him the one on whom lot fell. He drew lots amongst us during one of the Ghazwat (in which the incident of Ifk happened) which he fought. The lot fell on me and so I proceeded with Allah's Messenger (ﷺ).

: Parent Category: en; Category: Divine Revelation OR Human Drama?