The Maghazi of Sayyiduna Muhammad: The Earliest Known Biography of the Messenger of Allah
By Musa ibn ‘Uqbah
Translated by Wordsmiths Editing Ltd. USA – Malaysia – UK: Imam Ghazali Publishing, 2024.
The Summary
When a group of men murdered and mutilated Yassar, Muhammad’s camel herder, “The Messenger of Allah gave orders for them [to be executed], and so their hands and feet were cut off, and their eyes were gouged out” (63). When Ka‘b ibn al-Ashraf lampooned and mocked him, Muhammad had him murdered by his henchmen who, repeatedly, “stabbed him in the stomach, piercing his intestines” (67). Muhammad also sent several of his assassins to kill Salaam ibn Abi al-Huqayq, a Jewish man, in his house (70). When they returned, Muhammad asked to see the sword. He relished in the fact that the contents of the Jew’s stomach were on the edge of the sword (70).
After losing the battle of Uhud, “the treachery of the Jews became apparent, and Medina boiled over with hypocrisy like a cauldron” (91-92). Musa ibn ‘Uqbah describes Jews as the “enemies of Allah” (101). Muhammad proceeded to expel the Banu al-Nadir Jews, ordering that their homes be destroyed and their date palms burnt and cut down (101).
When he confronted the Jews of Banu Qurayzah, Muhammad addressed them as “O assembly of Jews, O brothers of chimpanzees” (113). The Prophet permitted them to pick their judge. They selected Sa‘d ibn Mu‘adh, hoping for mercy, compassion, and sympathy. To their surprise and dismay, he ruled that their men should be slaughtered, their women and children enslaved, and their property divided up as booty (114). Muhammad was pleased and observed that “You have judged according to the ruling of Allah” (114). All six hundred men were slaughtered: their blood reaching the market of the town (114-115).
Even though the Muslims were exhausted and hungry at the battle of Khaybar, Muhammad had the domestic donkeys of the Jews slaughtered (133) and allowed them to rot in the sun (133). After imposing a siege on Khaybar, the Jews “asked the Messenger of Allah for a treaty on the basis that he would guarantee their lives and they would not interfere between him and Khaybar, its land and its wealth” (133-135). The Messenger of Allah “agreed to a treaty with them in exchange for the yellow and white — namely dinars and dirhams, weapons, clothes besides that which they were wearing, and “the guarantee of Allah and His Messenger is absolved of you if you conceal any of that” (135).
After the fortress fell, Muhammad took Safiyyah as a captive (136). Both her father and her husband had just been killed by the Prophet’s forces. He gave two other Jewish daughters to Dihyah al-Kalbi as a reward (136). Some companions, who were not aware that Muhammad had chosen her, came to him and asked if she could be given to one of them (137). Since Muhammad had just taken her, without announcement, marriage, or ceremony, his companions had no idea if she was his concubine or his wife (137). Either way, there is no consent under the shadow of a sword.
The Messenger of Allah asked Huyyayy ibn Rabi‘ and Kinanah ibn Rabi‘ about some treasure. They lied and said that it was spent on the battle (136). After Muhammad absolved them of the guarantee of Allah and His Messenger, “he instructed al-Zubayr ibn al-‘Awwam to punish Kinanah” (136). As such, “he tortured him severely” (136). After intimidating an “intellectually challenged” servant, Muhammad’s men located the treasure. Even though he had obtained the wealth he wanted, the Prophet still had Kinanah executed (136).
Since the fortress had fallen, Muhammad appointed ‘Abdullah ibn Rawahah to address the conquered people of Khaybar. The companion of the Prophet proclaimed: “O assembly of Jews, by God, you are amongst the most hated of God’s creation to me” (139). As if abusing the vanquished did not suffice, Musa ibn ‘Uqbah relates that “Allah cast terror into the hearts” of the Jews (142). If the Prophet kept any Jews alive, it was not out of mercy or compassion but “on the condition that they work, humiliated, and subjugated” (145).
The author, Musa ibn ‘Uqbah, reminds readers that Muhammad promised to “expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula” which, in his view, was made good by the second caliph, ‘Umar, who asserted that “two religions cannot co-exist” (143). He also notes that “God instructed His Prophet in al-Bara’ah to fight the People of the Book (the Jews and Christians) until they either embraced Islam or paid jizyah, willingly submitting and fully humbled” (174).
When Muhammad called upon Muslims to join the expedition to Tabuk, al-Jadd ibn Qays al-Salmi asked for permission to stay behind for, as he confessed, he was a person of “uncontrollable sexual desire and weakness” (181). “Get ready,” Muhammad encouraged him, “and perhaps you will make some of the yellow girls ride behind you” (181). In the Arabic of the time, yellow was used to describe white, European, or Caucasian people. In this case, the Prophet enticed his men into battle with the hope that they could capture blonde Christian girls as sex slaves.
The explanation for the death of the Prophet is particularly intriguing. After attacking the fortress of Khaybar a few years earlier, Muhammad had taken Safiyyah as a captive. Since Muhammad had just slaughtered her father, her husband, her brother, and most of her clan, his companion, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, stood watch outside his tent, fearing that Safiyyah would kill Muhammad during the night. The morning after the Prophet spent the night having sex with Safiyyah, Abu Ayyub shared his fears with the Prophet, who broke out in laughter.
After the battle in question, related Musa ibn ‘Uqbah, Zaynab bint al-Harith, a Jewish lady whose brother had been murdered on the orders of Muhammad, gifted Safiyyah a roasted lamb that she had poisoned (138). She put most of the poison in the shoulder and foreleg because she had heard that this was the joint that the Messenger of Allah loved the most (138). His companion Bishr, who swallowed a morsel, was poisoned, turned green, and soon succumbed (139). Since the Prophet spat out his piece of meat, it took three years for him to die from the poison (139). According to the Maghazi of Musa ibn ‘Uqbah, it seems that Zaynab and Safiyyah got the last laugh.
The Critique
According to ‘Abdul Aziz Suraqah, the author of the preface, and another white convert to Islam, “the Maghazi of Musa ibn ‘Uqbah… is brimming with goodness” (xix). It is the biography of “the best of creation” (xix). It “fills one’s heart with awe and reverence” (xiv). It is a “blueprint for the prophetic nation” (xiv). In fact, “it presents examples of how the Prophet dealt with friends and foe” (xiii). For Suraqah, the failure to spread Islam in the West results from the fact that Muslims are not following the method that Muhammad used to spread it (xiv). Suraqah is no radical Salafist Jihadist. He seems to be a Sufi Muslim. Apparently, even so-called moderate Muslims are enthusiastically prepared to take the protagonist presented by Musa ibn ‘Uqbah as a model.
Like Suraqah, the publisher, Muhammad Adnaan Sattaur, also lavishes praise upon the Maghazi of Musa ibn ‘Uqbah. He proudly describes it as “one of the earliest and most authentic biographies of the Messenger of God… highlighting his exemplary moral character” (xxii). He claims that it is filled with “myriad spiritual and moral insights” (xxii). “By studying Kitab al-Maghazi,” writes Sattaur, “readers … gain insights into … the ethical considerations” of the Prophet and “the profound impact of his moral and political leadership” (xxiv). It helps readers “discover the beauty and excellence of the Messenger” (xxiv). It offers “valuable lessons for contemporary readers” (xxiii) After all, “our master Muhammad” was a man of “sublime character” (xxi). He was “the greatest of those who came and were sent before him, and the best of all those who shall come until the Day of Judgement” (xxi).
Many historians believed that the earlier the biographies of the Prophet Muhammad, the better they would be. In fact, the older they get, and the closer they get to their subject, the worse they get. How could any believer believe in such a book? How could any person take the protagonist it depicts as a prophet and messenger of God? Some Sunni and Sufi Muslims, it seems. Shiites would spit on such a book, and rightfully so. They hold that Muhammad was impeccable and infallible. They reject any traditions that portray him otherwise. Patently, this is a faith-based, theological, methodology, and not a historical, critical, and scientific one. The Shiites had their agendas but so did the Sunnis. Still, with so many competing Muhammads to pick from, why not pick a positive one?
If we treat the Qur’an as the oldest surviving Islamic source, and we compare it to prophetic biographies like those of Musa ibn ‘Uqbah (d. 758), Ibn Ishaq (d. 768), Ma‘mar ibn Rashid (d. 770), and al-Waqidi (d, 823), the gulf between them is vast. The Qur’an describes Muhammad as a “shining lamp” (33:46), a “mercy to the worlds” (21:107), a man with a “sublime character” (68:4), and a “model worthy of emulation” (33:21). The biography of Musa ibn ‘Uqbah depicts him as a sexist, a robber, a racist, a torturer, a mutilator, a rapist, a butcher, and a mass murderer. Does the person depicted in the biography of Musa ibn ‘Uqbah, and other early accounts, match the description of the Qur’anic Muhammad?
One thing is patently clear. If Muhammad appears in a positive light in modern biographies, it is because their authors, with apologetic or missionary intent, as opposed to rigorous historical-critical methodology, have pruned, edited, censored, mutilated, mangled, and misrepresented the oldest biographies of the Prophet. Although early evangelists attributed some sayings to Jesus that many Christians wish they had not, Christ is presented in a radiantly positive light in the Gospels. The same cannot be said of Muhammad. His early biographers make him out to be a monster. It is as if they were mocking his name, Muhammad, which means the Praiseworthy, and presenting him as if he were Mudhammam, the Blameworthy.
Muhammad is said to have lived between 570-632. Musa ibn ‘Uqbah lived between 665-758. He died 126 years after the passing of the Prophet Muhammad. It is assumed that he wrote his account of Muhammad’s military expeditions at some point during the early eighth century. At its earliest, it was written 100 years after the death of Muhammad. At its latest, it was composed 125 years later. Does the biography written by Musa ibn ‘Uqbah, a slave of the Zubayr family, and a servant of the Umayyads, the inveterate enemies of the Prophet and his Household, have any historical value? Islamophobes and Islamists will cry yes. Many Muslims, it seems, will say yes, as well. Other Muslims, those who think, will scream no. Otherwise, they will be forced to reconsider their religion based on the behavior of its founder.
Despite the delusions of some Sunnis, The Maghazi of Sayyiduna Muhammad: The Earliest Known Biography of the Messenger of Allah is not a work of love that one would expect an early Muslim to write about his beloved prophet and messenger. In fact, it comes across as a work of hate propaganda that was determined to defile his memory, presenting him as a warmonger and conqueror as opposed to a spiritual authority and a peacemaker. This is precisely the image that the imperialist Umayyads and ‘Abbasids wanted to project of the Prophet Muhammad. What better inspiration for their troops? What better way of justifying war, conquest, slaughter, rape, enslavement, and sexual slavery?
Rational, reasonable, faithful, and self-loving Jews, Christians, or non-Muslims, cannot co-exist with supremacist Muslims who refuse to co-exist with them and who wish to deny their very right to exist. No interfaith activities can be conducted with such people. No dialogue can be made on such terms. Only a self-loathing Jew or Christian would protect and defend Muslims who wish to conquer, convert, subjugate, humiliate, and exterminate them. Do all Muslims hold such views? No. Is Islam monolithic? No. Islam is plural. There are as many manifestations and interpretations of Islam as there are Muslims. Still, the People of the Book should beware of who they befriend.
As a survey of the biographies of the Prophet Muhammad manifest, there is not a single Muhammad, but multiple ones. We cannot speak of the life of the Prophet. We can only speak of the competing lives of Muhammad. The sources are replete with lacunae, anachronisms, and contradictions. They cannot agree on the most basic components of his biography: the date of his birth; his birth name; the religious identity of his parents; whether he was raised a polytheist or a monotheist; the number of his wives; the number of his children; the number of battles he waged; his physical appearance; and the year and circumstances of his death.
Some sources present the Prophet Muhammad as a proto feminist; others are a rabid misogynist. Some depict him as an emaciated ascetic who was perpetually praying and fasting. Others depict him as a lascivious and morbidly obese glutton. Some present him as profoundly anti-Jewish and anti-Christian. Others present him as a defender of the People of the Book. Some depict him as a racist. Others depict him as an anti-racist. Finally, some portray him as a peacemaker while others portray him as a brutal warlord with imperialistic ambitions. Clearly, these conflicting accounts cannot all be true. In fact, it is possible that they are all false, that the founder of Islam is merely a whiteboard on which anyone can write, and that the real Muhammad, whoever he was, is hopelessly lost to history.
As sobering a thought as that may be, the consequence of taking Muhammad, the Warlord, as a model, whether historical, legendary, or mythological, has been catastrophic to Islam, Muslims, and all their victims over the past 1500 years. The actions of Jihadists past and present, from the seventh century to the twenty-first century, are all inspired by the foundational texts of Islam. Christians may have committed crimes in the name of Christ throughout history; however, their actions had no precedent or justification in the teachings of Jesus. At the same time, it should not be forgotten that the proponents of rational Islam, the Mutazilites, and the exponents of spiritual Islam, the Sufis, all found inspiration in early Islamic sources.
Considering the myriad forms of Islam that are available to them to choose, for their sake, and that of humanity, Muslims should follow Muhammad, the Praiseworthy, the Mercy to the Worlds, and reject Mudhammam, the Blameworthy, by returning to the Qur’an and the Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad with the People of the Book. Let them embrace moderate, spiritual, humanitarian Islam as opposed to Islamic fundamentalism and extremism.
Truth stands clear from falsehood (Qur’an 2:256). Right and wrong, and good and evil, have never been more obvious. Unless Islam is reformed, radicalism is rejected, fundamentalism is forsaken, and extremism is excoriated, the only remaining Muslims will be the Islamists and fundamentalists. The moral, ethical, and rational ones will have no other option but to reject it becoming deists, monotheists, perennialists, agnostics, secularists, and even atheists. As statistics from throughout the world confirm, Muslims are leaving Islam in droves. It might have many converts; however, it has even more deserters.
To Muslims I ask: Do you love God, or do you love your man-made books of sirah, hadith, and shari‘ah? Do you worship God or prefer to take your traditionists, biographers, and jurists as “lords beside God” (Qur’an 9:31). The time has come to throw your salacious and scurrilous biographies and fake sayings of Muhammad into the trash. They are an insult to God and Muhammad. Burn your blasphemous books in bonfires. Stop swimming in the cesspool of the slanderous fake sunnah. Stick to the Qur’an and anything that agrees with it.
Dr. John Andrew Morrow, author of Controversies in Islam: Religious Law, Qur’anic Ethical Imperatives, and Higher Moral Objectives
For a video review of the book, see:
Dr. John Andrew Morrow 