Answering The Critics
This section presents in simple accusation and response format, answers to common distortions and fabrications made against the religion of Al-Islam. Subjects such as the meaning of Jihad, treatment of women, terrorism, slavery, spread of Al-Islam by the sword, racism, religious tolerance, honor killings, concept of Allah and other subjects will be addressed. The intent of this section is to address, head on, the most common charges made against Al-Islam portrayed in main stream media today and by enemies of Al-Islam. It will provide ready answers to those most critical of Al-Islam.
There is a lot of deliberate demonization of the religion of Islam done by people who don't know Islam regarding Islam, slavery, the spread of Islam in Africa and even what Islamic scriptures have to say about slavery. This video is an excellent, insightful rebuttal of these deliberate lies.
I invite both the sincere person searching for truths about Islam regarding these subjects as well as the misguided hater of Islam to check out this video. I pray that truth will prevail and even the hater of Islam will realize the uselessness of their lies against Islam and maybe they too will change.
"Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us)." Quran 21:18
A YouTube view is presented below for those who may not be able to access the video natively above:
Muhammad saw Um Habiba the daughter of Abbas while she was fatim (age of nursing) and he said, "If she grows up while I am still alive, I will marry her.
Musnad Ahmad, Number 25636
You are referring to this Hadith, which is quoted in Musnad Ahmad, Musnad abi Ya'la and al-Kabeer of Imam at-Tabarri etc. The major problem here is the main route and known narrator of the sirah ibn Ishaq who is considered as not reliable in hadith matters, even the son of Imam Ahmad said quoting his father: لم يكن يحتج به في السنن Nobody used his narration when it commes to sunnah/hadith as an argument.
So scholars tend to say the hadith is da'if (weak) because hadith of ibn Ishaq isn't reliable if there's no similar narration of any other on the matter, which is the case here all the scholars who compiled this hadith have ibn Ishaq in the narrator chain.
An other narrator who is not reliable in the chain is Hussayn ibn Abdullah ibn Obaydallah ibn 'Abas حسين بن عبد الله بن عبيد الله بن العباس : he was a known narrator of manakeer.
Two major scholars have qualified this hadith as dai'f (weak): Sheikh Shoayb al-Arnaout in his examination of Musnad Ahmad and Sheikh Hussayn Salem Assad in his examination of Musnad abi Ya'la. (See also this thread in Arabic on the matter)
An other note on the hadith matn, assuming it would be accepted: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) only said that he would marry her if.... if she reached the right age for marriage, so this doesn't have nothing to do with desire, but could be related to strengthen the relationship to al-Abbas as he did with Abu Bakr and Omar (May Allah be pleased with them). So this hadith shows the position of al-'Abbas and his ranking by the Messenger of Allah.
And Allah knows best.
To comment further about this specific Hadith, we need to look at Hadith history. Was it possible that Jews, hypocrites and other enemies of Islam united together and tried to include fabricated Hadiths, to mislead the Muslim community? Yes of course. The proof that an attempt had been made by the enemies of Islam with introduction of false Hadiths is the fact that out of seventeen books of Hadiths only six were accepted by our religious scholars. More than 65% were rejected as being fabricated and misleading.
Was this Hadith Musnad Ahmad, Number 25636 part of the 6 books that was accepted as authentic Hadiths? NO, it was not!
As mentioned above, two of the narrators of this Hadith were proven to be unreliable. Further to that the main narrator Ibn Ishaq was pointed out by his contemporary, the early traditionalist and jurist Malik, of unequivocally being "a liar" and "an impostor" "who transmits his stories from the Jews". Malik explained his condemnation of Ibn Ishaq saying Ibn Ishaq made a point of seeking out descendants of the Jews of Medina in order to obtain from them accounts of the Prophet's campaigns as handed down by their forefathers. Malik and other Jurists rejected Ibn Ishaq’s stories in the strongest terms!
Proof of him taking this story about Ummu’lFadl from the Jews is shown by the peculiar choice of her age being 3 that narrators attribute her age to be. Why not 2, 4, 5 or some other number? Why 3? It is because 3 is the age identified in Jewish scriptures numerous times as permissible to have sex with. Here are some references taken directly from the Jewish Talmud:
MISHNAH: A girl of the age of three years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse … (Niddah 44b)
Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. — Sanhedrin 55b
There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an enquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, and Rabbi [Judah the Prince] declared her eligible to live with a priest.
Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki adds in a footnote: "I.e., permitted her to continue to live with her husband." — Yebamoth 60b
GEMARA. … It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, (2) for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, (3) and Phinehas (4) surely was with them. And the Rabbis? (5) — [These were kept alive] as bondmen and bondwomen. (6) If so, (7) a proselyte whose age is three years and one day (8) should also be permitted!
Dr. Daiches tells us that, according to the Sages, the hymen of a girl younger than three literally grows back again. "If they had sexual intercourse before they were three years and one day old the hymen would grow again, and they would be virgins." V. 9a and 11b and cf. Nid. 44b and 45a.
The above are all explicit references to having sex with children in the Talmud. There is no interpretation or unknown weak narration involved as there is in the references made to Islam. They have tried to charge Islam with something their scriptures are guilty of.
Hadith 25636 and others narrated especially by Ibn Ishaq and also Tabbari are havens for Islamophobic websites whose whole purpose is to demonize Islam and steer people away from the religion. The fact that most good Muslims who adhere to the authentic Hadiths in the 6 books of Hadith don’t even know about these Hadiths that are quoted so much by haters of Islam is proof that these false Hadiths don’t form the basis of our religion. The fact that these false Hadiths are so well known by Jews, Islamophobes and haters of Islam shows a passing down through the generations over time the false Hadiths that was introduced into Islam by these same enemies of Islam. They know exactly what they tried to include in the religion to demonize it and have passed it on through time only to surface again today. Students and truth seekers should beware of this and not be deceived.
Verse 65:4 of Surah 'At-Talaq' does NOT make any references of marriage of under-aged females as wrongly and ignorantly claimed by various belligerent non-Muslim groups.
The Verse in focus is:
"And for such of your women as despair of menstruation, if ye doubt, their period (of waiting) shall be three months, along with those who have it not. And for those with child, their period shall be till they bring forth their burden. And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah, He maketh his course easy for him." 65:4 (Surah At-Talaq)
The following are examples of the Prophet’s treatment of those who apostatized during his lifetime. I have also included links to the information to check the sources:
The Qur’anic verse 2:256 states ‘la ikraha fid-din (meaning: there is no compulsion in religion).’ This ayah is explicit in its claim that Islam’s aim is not compulsion. The following example shows how the prophet (saw) demonstrated this verse in a particular instance:
In the Qur’anic commentaries it is written that an Ansar companion of the Prophet (S) who had previously been a polytheist had two sons who had become Christians. He went to the Prophet (S) and said to him: “O Messenger of Allah! What can I do to these two sons of mine that have become Christians? Do you give me permission to force them to leave their religion and become Muslims?” The Prophet (S) said: “No! There is no compulsion in religion.” 
EXAMINATION OF HADITHS
Some comment may be offered on the Hadiths that are set forth in support of the position by those who contend that apostasy is punishable with death. One Hadith states that Abi Qalabah reported on the authority of Anas:
Some people of Akal or Urainah came to Medina and found that its climate disagreed with them. The Holy Prophet told them to go and stay among his she-camels outside Medina and drink their milk. They followed his instructions, and when they were fully restored they tortured and killed the Holy Prophet's keeper of the camels and drove away the camels. They then declared themselves apostates to Islam. When the Holy Prophet was informed of this incident, he sent some men after them who caught them and brought them to the Holy Prophet. He directed that they should be tortured in the same way as they had tortured his keeper of the camels.
Now, it is true that those people had become apostates, but it is quite clear that the penalty imposed upon them was not in respect of their apostasy, but on account of their torturing and killing the Holy Prophet's keeper of his camels. This Hadith, therefore, does not in any manner lend support to the thesis that apostasy is punishable with death.
Another instance that is cited in support of the thesis that apostasy is punishable with death is the case of Ibn Khatal who was one of the four people who were executed on the occasion of the fall of Mecca. It is true that he was an apostate, but it is not a fact that he was executed on account of his apostasy. His case is set out in Mawahibal Ludunniyyah where it states:
The Holy Prophet directed the execution of Ibn Khatal. He had been a Muslim and the Holy Prophet (saaw), had sent him to collect the zakat. He was accompanied by an Ansari and a freed man of his who served him and who was a Muslim. They arrived at a place where they were to spend the night and he directed the freed man to slaughter a goat and to prepare dinner. Having given this direction, he went to sleep and when he woke up, he found that the freed man had done nothing for the preparation of dinner. He was intensely annoyed and set upon the freed man and killed him. He then repudiated Islam and reverted to paganism, and went to Mecca and settled down there.
This recital makes it quite clear that Ibn Khatal was not executed as a punishment for his apostasy, but on account of his murder of the Muslim freed man.
Our thesis is not that no apostate has ever been punished. We concede that there are several instances of the execution of apostates, but in each case the execution was for some offence committed by the apostate and not on account of his apostasy. We repeat that there has not been a single case in which the Holy Prophet (saaw), directed the execution of an apostate whose only default was that he had repudiated Islam and who had not been guilty of any offence attracting the penalty of death.
The third case which is cited in support of the advocates of the penalty of death for apostasy is that of Maqees bin Sababah who was also executed on the occasion of the fall of Mecca. Concerning him Zarqani has recorded in his commentary on Mawahibal Ludunniyyah:
Maqees bin Sababah had become a Muslim and thereafter he killed an Ansari who had killed his brother Hisham during the campaign of Zeeqard, mistakenly thinking that he was one of the enemies. After that incident Maqees had accepted blood money in respect of his brother from the Ansari, and yet, he killed the Ansari. He then repudiated Islam and went to Mecca and joined the Quraish. This again is a case where an apostate was executed on account of a treacherous murder that he had committed.
Having met nothing but frustration in their search for a genuine case of execution on account of simple apostasy, those who differ with us on this question have been driven to rely upon two utterly unreliable Hadiths, each of which mentions the execution of a woman on account of her apostasy. These two Hadiths are false on the face of them as there is good authority affirming that the Holy Prophet, peace be on him, never directed the execution of a woman for apostasy.
In certain Hadiths it is merely mentioned as a hypothesis that an apostate deserves to be executed, but in every one of those Hadiths, a qualification is added which requires that the apostate should have fought the Muslims or should have committed some other offence. It is not necessary, therefore, to examine those Hadiths in detail.
3. APOSTATE PARDONED BY HOLY PROPHET
Abdullah bin Abi Sarah was one of the scribes of the Holy Prophet (saaw), in Medina. He became an apostate and went and joined the Meccans and identified himself with them. On the fall of Mecca, he was among those few persons who were condemned to death by the Holy Prophet (saaw), on account of their misdeeds. He was a foster brother of Hazrat Usman bin Affan, who gave him shelter in his house where he remained hidden for some days. When order was restored in Mecca, Hazrat Usman interceded with the Holy Prophet on his behalf, who remained silent for a while and then signified his forgiveness of Abdullah. This incident is mentioned both in the Tafseer Kabeer of Imam Razi (Vol. V, p.527), and in the commentary Ruhul Maani (Vol. IV, p.484).
This incident also furnishes clear proof that there was no penalty for apostasy in Islam. Abdullah bin Abi Sarah had been condemned on account of his misdeeds and not on account of his apostasy. Had the punishment for apostasy been death, Hazrat Usman would never have given him shelter, and the Holy Prophet would never have accepted Hazrat Usman's intercession on his behalf.
It is well known that the Holy Prophet never accepted any intercession in respect of the prescribed punishment for an offence. If anyone attempted intercession in such a case, the Holy Prophet rejected it and was gravely displeased with the intercessor. This is well illustrated by the case of a woman of the Makhzoom who had been found guilty of theft. Bukhari has related on the authority of Aisha:
The Quraish were much disturbed on account of a Makhzoomi woman who had committed theft. They consulted together and wondered who could approach the Holy Prophet (saaw), on her behalf, except Usamah bin Zaid, whom the Holy Prophet held dear. They persuaded Usamah to approach the Holy Prophet, and intercede on behalf of the woman. When he did so, the Holy Prophet rebuked him: Do you intercede in respect of a penalty prescribed by Allah? Then he stood up and, addressing his companions, said: Many people before you went astray because they overlooked the offence of a person belonging to a good family and imposed the prescribed penalty upon a common thief. I call God to witness that if Fatimah, daughter of Muhammad, were to be guilty of theft, I would certainly cut off her hand (Bukhari, Indian edition, p.lOO3).
Thus it can be seen what the attitude was of the Holy Prophet in respect of prescribed penalties. Had Abdullah bin Abi Sarah been liable to the penalty of death on account of his apostasy, the Holy Prophet would never have accepted Hazrat Usman's intercession on his behalf and would have responded to Hazrat Usman in the same way as he had responded to Usamah bin Zaid.