The Sex Life of the Prophet

images (1)

Muslims are shown a benign image of Muhammad. He is presented as a noble and holy man whose actions and teachings are to be emulated by all mankind.

Many of these Muslims get these ideas from books written by Islamic apologists (who cleverly make baser metals into gold), and not from the original sources like the Hadiths.

Muslims are generally afraid of reading anything negative about their beloved prophet from his biography. This is what I call an ostrich mentality (“If I can’t see it, then it’s not there”) and it doesn’t help a seeker of truth.

The Quran says: “And most surely you [Muhammad] conform (yourself) to sublime morality” (Sura 68:4).

We must not blindly believe these claims until we examine the life of Muhammad. And if we find it to be rotten, then we must reject his prophethood.

The Lord Jesus said a good tree is known by its fruits (Mt. 7:18). In the same way, a true prophet is known by his acts, not just by claims.

Muhammad himself said:

Whoever can guarantee [the chastity of] what is between his two jaw bones and what is between his two legs, I guarantee Paradise for him” (Bukhari 8:76:481).

What he means is that if your tongue and private parts are chaste, then you are truly qualified for paradise. Looking at the hadiths however, it’s clear that Muhammad failed his own test.

Here, I will address his sexual life and then address his tongue elsewhere. Here are some examples:

1. Concubinage

Allah gave Muhammad a verse allowing him to have as many women as he wanted, even “a believing [Muslim] woman if she offers herself to the Prophet and the Prophet wishes to marry her, a privilege for you only...” (Sura 33:50).

The hadith records that a woman came to him and said: “O Allah’s Apostle! I want to give myself to you” (Bukhari 3:505).

Muhammad would “check out” these sex partners; if they were good to his taste, he would allow them enter his harem, otherwise, he would give them to other men. Prophethood has never been so sweet.

He also made up what is called Mut’ah. According to Ibn Masu’d:

We were fighting along with Messenger of Allah while (our) wives are not with us. We said: shall we not undergo castration? The Holy Prophet forbade us from that. Afterwards he made lawful Mut’ah Marriage. So all of us married a woman for a fixed term in exchange for a cloth. Afterwards [Muhammad] recited: O those who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made for you (Sura 5:87)” (Mishkat ul-Masabih 2:115).

Mut’ah is a temporary “marriage” by a Muslim man with a lady in exchange for cash; a sort of “holy prostitution.” Today, it’s more commonly practiced by Shi’ite Muslim tourists and pilgrims.

2. Satyriasis

This is a condition in which a man has an abnormally high sexual appetite (called nymphomania in females). Muhammad obviously had this problem:

“…The apostle of Allah said ‘Gabriel bought a kettle from which I ate and I was given the power of sexual intercourse of 40 men” (Tabaqat al-Kabir 1:438).

Why an angel of God would give a prophet “heavenly Viagra” is beyond me.

Anas b. Malik narrated that “the Prophet use to pass by [have sexual relations with] all his wives in one night, and that time he had 9 wives” (Bukhari 7:142).

Abu Usaid narrated when a lady from Bani Jaun lodged in a house. Muhammad went to see her and said “give yourself as a gift’ she said ‘can a princess give herself to an ordinary man?’ The Prophet raised his hand to pat her that she may become tranquil. She said ‘I seek refuge with Allah from you…” (Bukhari 7:63:182).

The “give yourself as gift” here means “give your body to me.” When she rejected his advances, he was angry and wanted to hit her and she became afraid. Muhammad attempted to use his “prophethood” to mount every beautiful lady in town.

3. Rape

This is defined as any non-consensual sexual intercourse – even if force was not involved. This crime of Muhammad (and his followers) is well documented in islamic records. An example is the case of a Jewess named Safiya.

According to Ibn Hisham’s biography, she was 17 years old when Muhammad killed her husband. On the same night “she was groomed and made up for the prophet by Umm Salam … they spent the night there. Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of the Prophet the whole night [while he raped her]…” (Ibn Hisham, Sira, vol. 3, p. 351; see also Ibn Sa’d, Vol. 8, p. 126).

Another victim was Juwairiya who was captured as a slave during the Islamic jihad against the Bani Mustaliq tribe. She was given to Thabit ibn Qayas and had a choice of paying 9 okes of gold to him to release her but she couldn’t afford it.

Then Muhammad saw how beautiful she was and was “moved” (i.e. sexually aroused). He told her “would you like something like that? I will discharge your debt and marry you. She said ‘yes O then it is messenger of Allah. ‘Done’ he replied” (Bukhari 3:46:717).

Muslims may call this “marriage” but it’s rape. Do you think these young women loved to have sex with a filthy old man in his 50s who killed their fathers, husband, brothers and exterminated their entire tribe? They simply had no choice. The sexual relationship this man had with them was not consensual.

4. Paedophilia

This is a sexual activity with a pre-pubescent child (generally 13 years or younger). A paedophile is one who has a recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies or sexual behaviours involving sexual activity with a child.

Muhammad married Aisha at the age of 6 and had sex with her at 9.

The Prophet was engaged to me when I was a girl 6 years old … I was playing in a swing with some of my girlfriends … unexpectedly, Allah’s apostle came to me in the afternoon and my mother handed me over to him. At that time I was a girl of 9 years” (Bukhari 4:234).

The Prophet used to kiss her and suck her tongue when he was fasting” (Sunan Abu Dawud 13:2380).

Can you imagine a 52 year old man kissing and sucking a 9 year old child? Anyone who is not repulsed by this act is mentally sick.

Some modern Muslims who are embarrassed by their prophet’s paedophila try to bring Aisha’s age up to 13 or 14. Some even claim the hot weather of the desert made children mature (for sex?).

Aisha herself said:

“I used to play with dolls in the presence of the prophet and my girlfriends also used to play with me. When Allah’s apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves” (Bukhari 8:73:151).

When the prophet married me, my mother came to me and made me enter the house (of the prophet) and nothing surprised me but the coming of Allah’s apostle to me in the forenoon…” (Bukhari 7:62:90)

Note that she was playing with her dolls because she was still a little girl, and she was surprised when the old man ‘came to her in the forenoon’ to have sex with her.

Indeed, she wasn’t psychologically and physically matured for sex at that age – with a man old enough to be her granddad!

Again, in Sirat Rasulallah, Muhammad saw a baby girl crawling towards him and he said “if she grows up and I am still alive, I will marry her. But he died before she grew up” (pg. 311)

5. Pederasty

This is a sexual or romantic activity between an adult male and a little boy. It was commonly practiced among the ancient Greeks and Arabs. Muhammad loved sucking little boys’ tongues.

He [Muhammad] sat down and wrapped himself in his garment. Then he said, ‘where is the little one? Call the little one to me.’ Hasan came running and jumped into his lap. Then he put his hand on his beard. Then the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, opened his mouth and put his tongue in his mouth. Then he said, O Allah, I love him, so love him and the one who loves him!” (Bukhari 1183, Narrated Abu Hurayra)

“A Bedouin came to the Prophet and said ‘you (people) kiss the boys! We don’t kiss them!’ The Prophet said ‘I cannot put mercy in your heart after Allah has taken it away from it” (Bukhari 8.73:27, Narrated Aisha).

6. Cross Dressing

Sexually healthy men do not cross dress, but Muhammad had a habit of dressing up in women’s clothes, specifically his child bride Aisha’s. This is another disturbing aspect of Muhammad’s sexuality, making him out as a drag queen.

Revelations [the Quran] never come down to me when I’m dressed in women’s clothing except when I’m dressed in Aisha’s” (Bukhari 21911).

These narrations quoted so far give us a picture of what Muhammad’s sex life was all about and they disqualify him from the carnal Paradise he preached about.

Muslims usually defend his sexual perversions by saying that those acts were acceptable back then, but not today. This begs the question.

If these perverted acts were acceptable by the ignorant pagans at the time, why then did Muhammad copy them? Wasn’t he supposed to lay a good or noble example for humanity?

This man claimed to be “the most perfect example for mankind” (Sura 33:21) and “the most honourable Messenger” of God (Sura 81:19) thereby endorsing all the evil practices he indulged in in his time, making it a norm for all his followers today.

If Muhammad were alive today, he would have been jailed or executed for his crimes against humanity.

If by human standards, he stands condemned as grossly immoral and evil, how much more by God’s holy standard?

I will like to ask my Muslim friends, where is the evidence that by following such a man you are on your way to heaven? There’s none! God says:

“Outside [of heaven] are dogs [sex perverts], sorcerers, sexual sinners, murderers, idolaters and all who lie in all they say and do” (Rev. 22:14).

A Case Study of Watchtower Falsehood (Part II)


The most ridiculous part of the “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” booklet was when it began to quote patristic sources to support its assertions.

On page 7 under the heading “What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught,” quotes from Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Origen were presented as if these men were second century Jehovah’s Witnesses who believed in a supreme God and archangel Michael called Jesus.

Interestingly, none of the sources they obtained their quotes from were indicated. I will quote from the booklet (which will appear in blue) and provide the real quotes from the early church fathers below each one.

Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C. E., called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is “other than the God who made all things.” He said that Jesus was inferior to God and “never did anything except what the Creator … willed him to do and say” (p. 7)

Yes, Justin Martyr did say that Jesus manifested as an ‘Angel’ in the Old Testament:

“[He] is called an Angel and apostle, for he declares whatever we are to know, and is sent forth to declare what is revealed.”

But he also said: ” [the] Son who also, being the first begotten Word of God, is even God” (First Apology, LXIII cited in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1994, 1:184).

Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the “One true and only God” who is “supreme over all, and beside whom there is no other.”

But here is what he really taught:

“We have already shown from Scripture that not one of these sons of Adam is called ‘god’ in the proper sense of the term or named ‘lord’. But that He (Jesus) is Himself, in His own right, beyond all men who have ever lived, God and Lord and king Eternal, and Incarnate Word, proclaimed by the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself” (Against Heresies III, 6, p. 419)

While Irenaeus argued against the modalist heresy by stressing that Jesus was a different person from God the Father, he never taught that he had a “separate existence from God.”

The Watchtower writer is trying to put their own beliefs in Irenaeus’ mouth!

He refuted their belief in the same work:

“Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is of God of the living, who spake to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers.” (p. 467)

Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C. E., called God “the uncreated and imperishable and only true God.” He said that the Son”is next to the only omnipotent Father” but not equal to him. (p. 7)

Clement of Alexandria didn’t call Jesus a creature. In his writings, he stated that Jesus is eternally pre-existent and uncreated.

“There was then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; and also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated” (Clement, Fragments Part 1, Sec. III 190 A.D)

He also wrote:

“I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father” (Stromata Book V, ch. 14).

Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God … He also said: “There was a time when the Son was not … Before all things, God was alone.” (p 7)

This is a shameless misquoting of Tertullian. The full quote says:

“For before all things God was alone–being in Himself and for Himself universe, space and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone for He has with Him that which He possessed in Himself that is to say, His own Reason … which term we also designate Word or Discourse … the Word was in the beginning with God.” (Against Praexe Ch. 2, Vol. III, p 300).

Origen, who died about 250 C.E., said that “the Father and Son are two substances … two things as to their essence,” and that “compared with the Father, [the Son] is a very small light”

JWs are trying to make Origen say what they think he should say. What he really wrote was:

“[Jesus is] the perfect essence of God the Father; for these things cannot be severed from Him or separated from His essence… In their nature and essence they are one, and in them is the fullness of divinity” (On First Principles, IV, 28).

Origen in fact, rightly call those like JWs who believe that Jesus was created heretics:

“For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a substance outside Himself, so that there was a time when He did not exist” (De Principis, Bk. V Summary, Sec 28).

Perhaps realizing that their patristic quotations do not fly above the roof, JWs concluded the paragraph by quoting Alvan Lamson’s The Church of the First Three Centuries:

“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]; and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ.”

Now, if the Watchtower Society had a modicum of integrity on their side, they should have informed their readers that Alvan Lamson was a Unitarian heretic and therefore can’t be relied on for Christian orthodoxy.

Why did they need a quote from a Unitarian (a 19th century cult) to cement their views if it was well-affirmed by history?

The truth is, JWs will not mind quoting a heretic who shares their anti-Trinitarian view to reinforce their belief, and to make it worse, they had to misrepresent patristic works (which are easily accessible) to support their position. This indicates a high disregard for historical facts.

Read part 3 here

Was Peter the First Pope?

The Catholic belief that apostle Peter was the first pope from which a “dynastic succession” of popes have descended is challengeable on many levels. Here, I will be presenting proofs that Peter was not a pope and the absence of such an office in the New Testament.

I. Peter was a family man. He wasn’t a celibate, unmarried pope. “And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of fever” (Matt. 8:14).

The statement of Paul the apostle later indicates that the apostles – including Peter (Cephas in Aramaic) were married. “Don’t we have the right to take our wives along with us like the other apostles, the Lord’s brothers, and Cephas do?” (1Cor. 9:5).

II. Peter didn’t allow men to bow to him or kiss his feet. When he came to his house, “Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up saying, stand up; I myself am a man” (Acts 10:25-6).

Compare this with what the pope is:

“The whole life of such a man [the pope], from the moment when he is placed on the altar to receive the first homage by the kissing of his feet, will be an unbroken chain of adulations” (J. H. Ignaz von Dollinger, The Pope and the Council, London 1869, p. 337).

III. Peter didn’t place traditions on the same level with the Word of God. On the contrary, he had little faith in “traditions from your fathers” (1Pet. 1:18).

In his sermon at Pentecost, he upheld the authority of Scripture – not a recital men’s traditions – and without a single mention of “an infallible church” in Rome (Acts 2:14-39).

IV. It takes a very ridiculous interpolation to take Jesus’ statements to Peter “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) and use it to support the papal office or papal succession.

God Himself is the “Rock” of our salvation all through the Old Testament (Deut. 32:3, 4, Ps. 62:1, 2). In fact, the Bible declares that God is the only Rock: “For who is God besides the Lord ? And who is the Rock except our God?”
(Ps. 18:31).

The New Testament says that Jesus Christ is the Rock upon which the church is built, and being God and one with the Father, He is the only Rock.

The rock upon which the “wise man built his house” was not Peter but Christ and His teachings (Matt. 7:24-29). Paul also called Christ “the chief cornerstone” of the church (Eph. 2:20). Therefore, “this rock” in that Matthew passage refers to Christ. In fact, it is Christ’s church – not “St. Peter’s church.”

V. Matthew 16:19 where Christ gave Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” that whatsoever is bound/loosed on earth is bound/loosed in heaven is also frequently quoted as “proof” of a Petrine office.

But this very promise of binding was extended to all of the disciples two chapters later – not to Peter alone (Mt. 18:18). Though he was given the special privilege of presenting the gospel first to the Jews and the Gentiles (Acts 2:14; 10:34-48), Peter had no special authority.

VI. Modern Rome apologists have linked the statement about “the key of the house of David” in Isaiah 22:20-22 to the words of Jesus in Revelation 3:7 with Peter in Matthew 16:19. This is a desperate attempt to force the papal office into the Bible.

I want to first point your attention to the fact that, in that Revelation 3:7 – long after Peter’s death – Jesus still holds the key of David! The reason is this: there is a difference between the “key of David” (singular) in Isaiah 22 and Revelation 3 and the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” (plural) in Matthew 16.

The former refers to the Messianic lineage of Christ while the latter is associated with the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Since Jesus cites this Isaiah 22 as applying to Himself and didn’t say He gives this key to anyone else, we must reject the attempt by Catholic apologists to read their falsehood into Scripture.

Peter Cullman has aptly pointed out that:

“He who proceeds without prejudice, on the basis of exegesis and only on this basis cannot seriously conclude that Jesus here [Matt 16:18-19] had in mind the succession of Peter … On exegetical grounds we must say that the passage does not contain a single word concerning the succession of Peter” (Peter, Disciple, Apostle and Martyr, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953, p. 207)

VII. Roman Catholic leaders also claim that Christ’s word to Peter in John 21:15-17 “Feed my lambs…my sheep” gave Peter the unique authority to function as a Pope.

On the contrary, Peter himself applied this command to all elders: “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof…” (1 Pet. 5:2).

Paul also applied the same to the Ephesian elders:

“Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God” (Acts 20:28).

Paul didn’t say, “As Peter is the Chief Shepherd you act as under-shepherds of God’s flock.” The passage in no way sets Peter apart as the ‘prince of the Apostles’.

VIII. Nothing in the words of the Lord Jesus hint at the idea of Peter being “the Vicar of Christ” or the Pope.

When James and John came to Jesus requesting to sit at His right and left in His kingdom, He didn’t grant their request (Mark 10:35-39).

If one of those seats had already been given to Peter as pope, He would have told them one already belonged to Peter, in fact, they wouldn’t have asked Him at all because they would have known.

In Luke 22:24:30, the apostles got into an argument on who was the greatest among them. Now, if the disciples understood the words of Jesus in Matthew 16:18 to establish Peter as the foundation of the Church, the pope, then there would have been no need to argue on the matter.

The Lord would have simply rebuked the remaining disciples and inform them that He had already chosen Peter as the first pope, the head of the church, but we didn’t hear this, rather He said such authoritarianism of the Gentiles must not be known among Believers.

He speaks instead of conferring a kingdom upon all of them – not Peter alone – so that they can “sit on thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel.”

IX. Peter never addressed himself as the pope or the “Bishop of bishops.” In his epistles, he exhorted equals, not command subordinates: “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder” (1Peter 5:1).

He didn’t attach exalted ecclesiastical position or power to himself, but rather introduces himself as “a witness of the sufferings of Christ” along with other apostles who were “eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2Peter 1:16).

X. When the apostles gathered in Jerusalem around 45-50 A.D. as described in Acts 15:4-29, the meeting was actually convened on Paul’s initiative, not Peter’s.

Peter’s statement during the meeting was not even doctrinal, it was simply a summation of his experience in preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles. But it was James who drew on the Scriptures and argued from a doctrinal point of view. He said:

“It is my judgement, therefore that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles…” (vs. 19).

He made the final declaration. If Peter was the pope, he would have taken precedence in that meeting and issue a decree ex-cathedra.

XI. The idea of Peter being a Bishop of bishops in Rome is historically false. Paul was the one called “the apostle of the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:13) and Rome was then a Gentile city. Peter on the other hand had his ministry primarily to the Jews (Gal. 2:7-9).

Although church tradition says Peter was crucified in Rome, he is never credited with establishing a church there.

Paul mentions over 27 people by name in his letter to the Romans (chapter 16) and did not the name of Peter. This would have been strange if Peter was the Pope of Rome. That would be like a missionary greeting 27 church members by name and omitting the head bishop or pastor!

The theory of Peter being the first pope developed gradually as the popes took over from the Roman emperors.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1:696) declares “…the scarcity of documents leaves much that is obscure about the early development of the episcopate.”

Jesuit scholar and former professor of theology at Notre Dame, John Mckenzie stated that: “Historical evidence does not exist for the entire chain of succession of church authority” (The Roman Catholic Church, New York, 1969, p. 4).

XII. Peter was not a pope for he wore no crown. All through the many centuries, the popes wore crowns and claimed to have power over heaven, hell and the mythical purgatory.

But Peter himself explained that when the Chief Shepherd appears, then shall we “receive the crown of glory that will never fade away” (1 Pet 5:4).

Since Jesus the Chief Shepherd has not yet appeared again, the crowns worn by many of the popes weren’t bestowed upon them by Christ in the first place.

XIII. Jesus Christ is the Head of the invisible church which consists of all believers. “He is the head of the body the church” and He must “have the preeminence” (Col. 1:18). The fruit of the popes all through history opposes those of Christ. As a Catholic author agrees:

“Only seven hundred years after Peter died, the popes had become obsessed with power and possessions. Peter’s [alleged] successors [became] not the servants but the masters of the world. They…dress in purple like Nero and call themselves Pontifex Maximus.” (Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, Crown Publishers, 1988, 35).

When one reads the New Testament as a whole, in its own context, language and historical setting (something which is quite impossible for a faithful Catholic), one cannot come up with an idea of a papacy conferred upon Peter by Jesus Christ.