When Allah/Prophet themselves start teaching VULGAR ABUSIVE Language

Please have a look at this unbelievable Hadith: 

Imam Bukhari, Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 963:

'Utayy ibn Damura said, "I saw with Ubay a man who was attributing himself (in lineage) with an attribution of Jahiliyyah, so Ubay told him to bite his father's male organ (i.e. penis) and did not speak figuratively (i.e. was explicit). So his companions looked at him. He said, 'It appears that you disapprove of it.' Then he said, 'I will never show apprehension to anyone with regards to this. Verily, I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, "Whomever attributes himself (in lineage) with an attribution of Jahiliyyah, then tell him to bite his father's male organ and do not speak figuratively (i.e. be explicit)." ' "

Grading:

• Albani: It is an authentic hadith (Link)
• Shaykh al-Arna'ut: Its chain of narration is authentic (Link)
• Muhammad al-Amin al-Shanqiti: It is an authentic hadith(Link)
• Al-Haythami: Its narrators are trustworthy (Link)
• Al-Munawi: Its narrators are reliable (Link)

This is a use of language that cannot be expected from any person of moral character, let alone from a prophet. This, in itself, is proof that the claim made by Muslims and the Quran: “Indeed, you [O Muhammad] are of a great moral character”, is completely false.

Muslim scholars also try to defend this hadith by saying:

"Pride in one’s pre-Islamic lineage is a very serious issue, which is why the Prophet responded with such harsh words i.e. to eliminate this cancerous mindset."

But this defence is weak and unreasonable on multiple levels.

Is the use of obscene language necessary for moral reform? Can a Prophet, who is supposed to be a role model for humanity, rely on insults and vulgar expressions for social correction? Would we ever permit a teacher, leader, or moral guide today to speak this way just to stop someone from doing something wrong? Absolutely not.

So, no matter how wrong pride in one’s lineage might be, using such obscene and degrading language to oppose it is entirely unnecessary. There are far more respectful and effective ways to condemn and prevent such behavior. For example, Muhammad could have simply said that taking pride in pre-Islamic lineage is wrong, it is a major sin, and Allah will punish it severely etc. without resorting to vulgarity.

Islam’s largest fatwa website “Islam Question and Answer” writes under this hadith that:

• This hadith is part of Shariah and acting upon it is obligatory.
• The Companions themselves used to address people in these words or with even worse expressions.

The statement from the Islam Question and Answer fatwa website is as follows (link):

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

Hence some of the scholars said that this indicates that it is permissible to bluntly state the name of the private part if there is a need to do so or there is an interest to be served thereby, and this does not come under the heading of obscene speech that is forbidden, as in the hadith of Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, according to which the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said:

“If you hear someone boasting in an ignorant manner of his tribal lineage, then tell him to bite his father’s male member, and do not use a metaphor.” Narrated by Ahmad. And Ubayy ibn Ka‘b heard a man saying: O So and so, and he said: Bite your father’s penis. Something was said to him about that, and he said: This is what the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) instructed us to do (in the case of such a person).

Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah (8/408, 409) ...

The senior Sahaabah acted on this advice and regarded it as a punishment to be carried out on whoever deserved it, and they did not regard it as rude in any way. We have mentioned above the words of Ubayy ibn Ka‘b, who narrated the hadith on this topic. This was also said by Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq (may Allah be pleased with him), when ‘Urwah ibn Mas‘ood, who came as a negotiator on behalf of the mushrikeen at al-Hudaybiyah, said to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him): By Allah I see faces, and I see a mixture of people who are most likely going to flee and desert you. Abu Bakr said to him: Suck the clitoris of your goddess al-Laat! Would we flee and desert him? Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2581) 

Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

... It was the custom of the Arabs to revile one another in this manner, but by mentioning the mother, so Abu Bakr wanted to go further in reviling ‘Urwah by referring to his object of worship instead of his mother. What made him do that was his anger towards him when he accused the Muslims of being cowards and saying that they would flee. This also indicates that it is permissible to say words that are regarded as foul or bad for the purpose of rebuking one who behaves in a manner that leads to him deserving that. Ibn al-Munayyir said: In the words of Abu Bakr we see an insult to the enemy, rejection of their beliefs, and highlighting the flaws in their belief when they said that al-Laat was the daughter of Allah – exalted be Allah far above that – by suggesting that if she was a daughter that she would have what every female has. 

Fath al-Baari (5/340) 

Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

The words of Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq to ‘Urwah – “Suck the clitoris of al-Laat – indicate that it is permissible to name of the private part bluntly, if that will serve the purpose, according to the situation, as the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) gave permission to mention the father’s male member bluntly to the one who boasted in an ignorant manner of his tribal lineage, to whom it may be said: “Bite your father’s penis”, without using a metaphor. Every situation is to be dealt in the manner that is appropriate to it. 

Zaad al-Ma aad fi Hadiy Khayr al-‘Ibaad (3/305) 

And Allah knows best.

So, the early Islamic scholars did not just declare this hadith “authentic”, but they elevated it to the level of divine law.

To them, insulting your enemy with the vilest, most obscene language was not just allowed, but it was a sacred act, justified because they believed these words were directly sanctioned by the Prophet himself.

Consider the hadith recorded in Sahih Bukhari:

In the presence of Prophet Muhammad, Umar ibn al-Khattab hurled a vile curse at Quraysh’s envoy ‘Urwah, saying:

"Go and suck the clitoris of your goddess Lat!"

This was not just an outburst. It was witnessed, left uncorrected, and therefore silently endorsed by the Prophet, making it a part of Islamic Sharia (known as taqrīr Hadith in Islamic sciences).

And for 1400 years, Muslims have tried to justify this filth with one tired excuse: That ‘Urwah had insulted the Muslims by implying they would abandon the Prophet during battle.

But here is the uncomfortable truth:

• ‘Urwah was not lying.
• Muslims had already deserted Muhammad at the Battle of Uhud.
• And after this incident, they did it again at the Battle of Hunayn. The Qur’an itself confirms it:

Surah At-Tawbah (9:25–26):

“On the Day of Hunayn, when you were proud of your numbers… but they did not help you. The earth, despite its vastness, closed in on you, and you turned and fled.”

So let us ask:

What wrong did ‘Urwah commit? 

Did he use foul language? No.

He simply said something he believed was true, and history, along with the Qur’an, supports him.

Was Allah so helpless, and was His Prophet so incapable of responding wisely, that they needed to answer a diplomatic envoy not with reason but with degrading, filthy abuse, delivered through Abu Bakr?

And let us not forget: ‘Urwah was a diplomat. In every civilized society, diplomats are treated with respect, not slandered with the most disgusting curses imaginable.

This is where the real issue lies, in the hypocrisy of Muslim scholars.

They know this is indefensible.

They know that such behavior would not be acceptable from any decent human being, let alone someone they call “the best of creation.”

Yet they go to extreme lengths to excuse it.

They use force, fear, and shame to pressure others into accepting this as righteous behavior, not only from men, but from their God and His Messenger.

And by doing so, they trample over the one thing that matters more than any religion:

Truth. Justice. Humanity.

Do not silence that voice inside you, the one that recoils from cruelty, the one that stands up when something feels wrong.

Because that voice, your humanity, will never betray you.

It does not need scripture or fatwa to understand what decency looks like.

And when religion demands that you switch off your conscience,

That is when you know something is deeply, tragically wrong.

Muslim Apologists: The Qur’an is Innocent, Only Hadiths Contain Insults

Whenever authentic hadiths from Sahih Bukhari and other respected collections are cited, including those that include vulgar language or disturbing teachings, then modern Muslim apologists respond with a convenient excuse: "These things are only in hadiths, not in the Qur’an. We only follow the Qur’an."

But this defence falls apart under scrutiny. The real issue is that the Qur’an itself lacks clear moral laws that address many of these concerns directly. For all its length, the Qur’an is mostly filled with assertions of divine authority, threats of eternal punishment for non-believers, and repeated stories of ancient peoples. It doesn’t provide straightforward legal or ethical rulings on many matters affecting real human lives.

Take slavery, for example. For 1,400 years in Islamic history, slave women were routinely sexually exploited. Today’s “Qur’an-only” Muslims dismiss the hadiths that legalized this, claiming that the Qur’an does not explicitly allow it. But that’s exactly the point: why didn’t Allah clearly prohibit it?

If Allah truly exists, and if He is all-knowing, and if He is aware that millions of Muslim men across centuries would justify the rape of slave women using hadith, then why didn’t He reveal a single clear verse forbidding sex with slave women without their consent? Is it really too much to expect one unambiguous sentence in a book that claims to be a guide for all of humanity?

If Allah could foresee that these abuses would be defended for over a millennium, why did He remain silent in His own book?

The same silence applies to verbal abuse. Allah could have revealed a single verse forbidding the use of degrading language rooted in tribal pride or hatred, but He didn’t. The result? For 1,400 years, Muslims have hurled insults at others—justifying it through religion.

And it’s not just hadith. The Qur’an itself contains deeply offensive language toward non-Muslims. It refers to them as:

• Zaneem (bastards),

• Impure (rijs),

• Dogs, pigs, donkeys,

• Worst of creatures,

• Liars, corrupt, cursed, wicked, and more.

So here's the question, what if non-Muslims responded in kind, what if they began calling Allah or Islamic figures pigs, donkeys, or the "worst of creation", if they cursed them, called them evil or false, then  how would Muslims react?

They would call it blasphemy. They would riot, rage, and in many cases, kill.

But when the Qur’an uses the same language for others, suddenly it becomes holy, sacred, and justified.

The Excuse: "But the Qur’an Forbids Insults"

Some apologists claim: "The Qur’an tells us not to insult others, so these hadiths can’t be authentic."

But this is like bringing your own cousin as a witness in your own trial. It’s biased and hollow.

Yes, Surah al-An‘am, verse 108 does tell Muslims not to insult the gods of non-believers, but only when Muslims were weak in number in Meccan period.
After that, the Qur’an itself insults non-believers again and again. It calls them:

• Bastards (zaneem),

• Impure,

• Dogs, pigs, donkeys,

• Cursed, liars, the worst of all beings.

And then we have Surah al-Hujurat, verse 11, which says:

"Do not call each other by offensive nicknames."

But somehow, that didn’t stop Muhammad from nicknaming Amr ibn Hisham as Abu Jahl (“Father of Ignorance”), and Allah Himself begins cursing Abu Lahab by name in the Qur’an.

So what does this contradiction tell us?

It suggests a human origin. If there was an all-knowing God, consistent and just, these contradictions wouldn’t exist. The reason we see these conflicting messages i.e. condemning insults in one place while using them in another, it is because Muhammad was a human being, and these verses were coming from his own mind, shaped by his emotional states.

When he was calm, he spoke of manners and restraint. When angry, he lashed out, even through the “revelations” themselves. That’s why the Qur’an reflects both moments of high ethics and moments of raw human anger. Because it was never divine, but it was only human.