What is sharia law?

[chrisse]

Eh? That wasn’t my logic at all.

The book doesn’t exist. Not just the original. There aren’t even copies of it that exist!

Whereas the Qur’an was first of all memorized by countless people, in entirety, and was copied many times, and every letter of every copy is always checked again my someone who has memorized it.

No, the same logic. The original qur’an does not exist, not even one of the 7 known original qur’ans.

The original of this book doesn’t exist.

Both were copied however and passed down.

You claim, as a muslim, that the qur’an is perfect and unchanged from the original (whatever one that is) even though the original/s do not exist and cannot be verified.

You claim that this book cannot be accepted as the original doesn’t exist.

Typical muslim illogic.

No, both are accepted with the qualifier that no absolute verification is possible. Islamic blind indoctrinated faith that the qur’an they hold is as “allah” holds with him is just that - blind faith.

 

[algebra]

Both were copied however and passed down.

No Chrisse you are wrong. Ibn Ishaq is lost. There are no copies.

What we do have is ibn Hisham’s work. Which is considered to be identical to at Tabari work.

It was this work, along with at-Tabaris work that Guillaume translated.

They were recessions of ibn Ishaq’s work.

Well then - why did he use ibn Ishaq’s name?

Because it carried so much weight, it was well acknowledged in the islamic world that ibn Ishaq’s seerah is the most authentic.

In Truth, it is accepted to come close to the original, however it is not the original.

This is not the case for the quran. The quran has been authentically recorded from at least 80 years after the death of the prophet.

Before that…well thats anyones guess.

 

[samaan]

That’s kind of cute… are still stuck with the rather annoying problem that the book written by Ibn Ishaq doesn’t exist.

I’ll take the “cute” remark as a compliment.

Your quote that the book written by Ibn Ishaq “doesn’t” exist is a mistatement.

The version of Ibn Ishaq’s text we have in full text was redacted by Ibn Hisham, around the 10th century, I believe. Ibn Hisham did two things:

-He added a long series of explanatory notes to the text, which Mr. Gullaiume has translated in the back of the text
-He edited out traditions in the book he thought were spurious or unreliable

It seems to me the more pressing question is that, if we have Ibn Ishaq’s biography and we know that Ibn Hisham redacted the text, obviously he thought the Kinana story really happened, lest he would have edited it out of the text.

Ibn Ishaq is often quoted or expanded upon by Al-Tabari, the great Moslem historian. You can see this if you read Tabari’s History and the volumes concerning Mohammed’s life. You can read these in the preface notes and other notes which Guillaiume adds to the text for explanation in the margins and preface.

If it doesn’t exist, how could it possibly be translated? …

I have answered your question above.

I find it funny how you say that Ibn Ishaq’s biography never existed. That would imply that the biography, which you can find at many Moslem bookstores (I can list more if you are interested), must be a fake as well, and the Moslems are deceiving themselves by reading it.

It’s impossible to say it doesn’t exist, because it clearly does; how else would they be able to sell it? It’s also ridiculous to even suggest that it’s a poor source of Islamic tradition since it was written by Moslems for Moslems and it’s used by Moslem scholars all around the world.

If you want to read the actual Arabic, the biography is called Sirat Un-Nabawiya, and if you go to any good Islamic bookstore you can find the original in the Arabic text.

Moreover, I actually have a couple of different books on the Sirah… this bizarre story doesn’t appear at all.

Which “books” on Sirah do you have?

Amy, if you haven’t realized it yet, many of these modern biographies of Mohammed are sanitized with respect to the original orthodox Islamic sources. Anything which would make Mohammed appear in a negative light is selectively missing.

I find that interesting, especially when Mohammed said:
Don’t lie against me, for whoever tells a lie against me will enter the fire (of hell).
Sahih Bukhari, Volume I, Book I, Number 106 (also 107-111)

My suggestion to you: read the early sources of Islam written by the orthodox Moslems- Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Ibn Sa’d, Waqidi, Bukhari, Muslim- if you want to know about Mohammed and early Islam, and make your citations from the early sources.

And the fact that you’re quoting it is very very weird anyway. …You need to provide all sorts of facts, … I guess you can’t tell … just by reading it that it’s very suspicious anyway. …

I’m quoting because you wanted to know the story. You didn’t want to believe it when other people gave you sources that referenced it, so I provided the story for you.

Do you find it weird that I provided textual proof to support my claims?

You say that it’s suspicious “just by reading it” and that is something “I can’t tell.” Why? Do you have some kind of unique insight? Or is this story inconsistent with your personal image of Mohammed because it shows Mohammed sanctioning murder and torture?

Kinana isn’t the only case where Mohammed is involved in murder. There are many more cases, and not just in Ibn Ishaq but Tabari, Waqidi, Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Sa’d, and many other reliable, orthodox collections of Islamic tradition. I’d be more than happy to provide not only accounts, but stories as well. That is, if you’re open to discussion.

All the same, I provided a story a few pages back where the Prophet (saws) actually scolded his companions for torturing two boys.

And I can provide you a story where Mohammed orders his follower to cruelly torture 80 men to death because they “caused mischief” to Mohammed. I can also provide you a story where Mohammed orders an old man murdered for criticising him, and a (I believe) widowed woman who has five children murdered for similar reasons.

If you want to quote stories and discuss from the early Islamic text, I’m open. I will provide proof, logical reasoning, examples, and cited sources. I expect you to do the same.

All you have is what is at best a very inauthentic weak report in a translation of a book that no longer exists (and didn’t exist to be translated anyway.) Just looking for trouble, all to make Muhammad look bad. It should tell you something that you have to try so hard

Translation: This story didn’t happen because it makes Mohammed look bad.

I don’t to try to make Mohammed “look bad.” Mohammed does that on his own, and your orthodox Moslem scholars support this image. I just present their writings.

You don’t have to like what Mohammed did. You cannot selectively choose from the early Islamic sources what you want to believe Mohammed did or didn’t do, because then your image of Mohammed is a lie, and as Mohammed said about liars:

Don’t lie against me, for whoever tells a lie against me will enter the fire (of hell).
Sahih Bukhari, Volume I, Book I, Number 106 (also 107-111)

Are you willing to discuss Mohammed’s life using the orthodox Islamic sources combined with proof, logical reasoning, examples, and references?

Yes or no?

 

[chrisse]

No Chrisse you are wrong. Ibn Ishaq is lost. There are no copies.

What we do have is ibn Hisham’s work. Which is considered to be identical to at Tabari work.

It was this work, along with at-Tabaris work that Guillaume translated.

They were recessions of ibn Ishaq’s work.

Well then - why did he use ibn Ishaq’s name?

Because it carried so much weight, it was well acknowledged in the islamic world that ibn Ishaq’s seerah is the most authentic.

In Truth, it is accepted to come close to the original, however it is not the original.

This is not the case for the quran. The quran has been authentically recorded from at least 80 years after the death of the prophet.

Before that…well thats anyones guess.

How does that change my point? How does that make the point I’m making incorrect?

There are NO ORIGINALS of either. What we have are what are believed to be authentic. The claim about the qur’an is that it is absolutely uncorrupted from the original. The basis of that claim is pure, blind, indoctrinated belief. Simply put, it’s six of one and half a dozen for the other.

 

[rtconstant]

How does that change my point? How does that make the point I’m making incorrect?

There are NO ORIGINALS of either. What we have are what are believed to be authentic. The claim about the qur’an is that it is absolutely uncorrupted from the original. The basis of that claim is pure, blind, indoctrinated belief. Simply put, it’s six of one and half a dozen for the other.

I think Algebra was just giving information. I don’t think he was saying that you’re point wasn’t valid.

 

[chrisse]

I think Algebra was just giving information. I don’t think he was saying that you’re point wasn’t valid.

Well considering a goat ate many chapters of the qur’an which were under aisha or mohammed’s bed (I’ll have to get the source for that), it would appear that at least a part of the qur’an is well and truly back into dust by now.

 

[Sister_Amy]

True for at-Tabari. Not true for ibn Ishaq or ibn Hisham.

Yeah it is. It’s true for many accounts of the Seerah.

 

[Sister_Amy]

No, the same logic. The original qur’an does not exist, not even one of the 7 known original qur’ans.

The original of this book doesn’t exist.

Both were copied however and passed down.

You claim, as a muslim, that the qur’an is perfect and unchanged from the original (whatever one that is) even though the original/s do not exist and cannot be verified.

You claim that this book cannot be accepted as the original doesn’t exist.

Typical muslim illogic.

No, both are accepted with the qualifier that no absolute verification is possible. Islamic blind indoctrinated faith that the qur’an they hold is as “allah” holds with him is just that - blind faith.

That’s not even close. There are lots of texts of which “originals” don’t exist. I mean, you’d be hard-pressed to find an “original” Saheeh or Musnad or Sunan or Muwatta, but those books are authentic. The point has nothing to do with the original being kept in tact.

Rather, that some copy of it remains at all. None exists of Ibn Ishaaq. Whereas the Qur’an was copied loads of times (always checked with a hafidh–someone who memorized it.) Maybe my ‘logic’ is too difficult for you, since you keep saying it’s something else.

Please, join the discussion or leave it. If you can’t even get straight what I’m saying, I hope you’ll choose the latter lest you become even more confused.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Well considering a goat ate many chapters of the qur’an which were under aisha or mohammed’s bed (I’ll have to get the source for that), it would appear that at least a part of the qur’an is well and truly back into dust by now.

As if the Qur’an was something a Muslim would keep under his bed.

How stupid.

 

[Sister_Amy]

How does that change my point? How does that make the point I’m making incorrect?

There are NO ORIGINALS of either. What we have are what are believed to be authentic. The claim about the qur’an is that it is absolutely uncorrupted from the original. The basis of that claim is pure, blind, indoctrinated belief. Simply put, it’s six of one and half a dozen for the other.

Huh? There are a number of copies of the original Qur’an, some still exist, in various places in the Muslim world.

But the transmission of the Qur’an was not, in the early stages of Islam, by book. Students of the Qur’an do not learn it from a book.

 

[Sister_Amy]

I’ll take the “cute” remark as a compliment.

It wasn’t, but whatever.

Your quote that the book written by Ibn Ishaq “doesn’t” exist is a mistatement.

No it wasn’t. It is a correct statement.

The version of Ibn Ishaq’s text we have in full text was redacted by Ibn Hisham, around the 10th century, I believe. Ibn Hisham did two things:

We clearly don’t have the full text of Ibn Ishaaq’s work then, do we? We have maybe some of it, as well as some other things. It is misleading to parade it around as that of Ibn Ishaq, and since that is precisely what the translator did, we can call him a liar then, can’t we?

-He added a long series of explanatory notes to the text, which Mr. Gullaiume has translated in the back of the text
-He edited out traditions in the book **he thought **were spurious or unreliable

And because Ibn Hisham is already several generations after the Prophet Muhammad (saws) we can still doubt the authenticity of much of his stories. The way things are authenticated in islam are not by a historian reporting them, as is all you can claim.

I find it funny how you say that Ibn Ishaq’s biography never existed.

Don’t laugh too soon, because that is NOT what I said. I said it DOESN’T exist, present tense. Not that it never did.

It’s impossible to say it doesn’t exist, because it clearly does;

No, it doesn’t. It did, but no longer does. This is common knowledge.

how else would they be able to sell it? It’s also ridiculous to even suggest that it’s a poor source of Islamic tradition since it was written by Moslems for Moslems and it’s used by Moslem scholars all around the world.

First of all, doesn’t exist. It isn’t sold anywhere. If pieces of it managed to survive in the writings of other scholars, that’s something else. You also must remember that the stories were not authenticated–meaning that they all must be verified for authenticity before Muslims can affirmatively accept them as traditions. There’s lots of weird stuff in seerah books, in case you haven’t noticed–it doesn’t make it true.

If you want to read the actual Arabic, the biography is called Sirat Un-Nabawiya…

Wow, so the translated title was also a lie?

Which “books” on Sirah do you have?

I have Muhammad–his life based on earliest sources by Martin Lings, and I have Fiqh as-Seerat an-Nabawiyya by an author whose name I can’t precisely recall, but I remember it has ‘Ramadan’ in it

Amy, if you haven’t realized it yet, many of these modern biographies of Mohammed are sanitized

No, they are authenticated with weak and unreliable (spurious was your word?) traditions being removed.

[quoteI find that interesting, especially when Mohammed said:
*Don’t lie against me, for whoever tells a lie against me will enter the fire (of hell).
Sahih Bukhari, Volume I, Book I, Number 106 (also 107-111) Haven’t you ever studied sciences of hadith? To know that there are absolutely hadith which have been fabricated? Lies. People aren’t supposed to lie–I mean, that’s even one of the 10 commandments. But they do, don’t they?

Do you find it weird that I provided textual proof to support my claims?

Surprising, since most people posting here can’t be bothered with actual proof, and are too hasty to bash Islam. Weird works.

You say that it’s suspicious “just by reading it” and that is something “I can’t tell.” Why? Do you have some kind of unique insight? Or is this story inconsistent with your personal image of Mohammed because it shows Mohammed sanctioning murder and torture?

No, but it’s leaving out a lot of important facts.

Kinana isn’t the only case where Mohammed is involved in murder. There are many more cases, and not just in Ibn Ishaq but Tabari, Waqidi, Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Sa’d, and many other reliable, orthodox collections of Islamic tradition. I’d be more than happy to provide not only accounts, but stories as well. That is, if you’re open to discussion.

You must know that the only reliable orthodox collections I will accept are those that are considered to be authentic. So you can stick with Saheeh al-Bukhari, and Saheeh Muslim, because those reports have actually been authenticated. And even then, you’re not likely to find much that will prove your case–I expect you’ll do what most bashers here do, which is take a story out of context to make Muhammad look bad when he carries out justice. Case and point–Banu Quraydah. If you’re going to waste my time with things like that, then I’m definitely not interested.

I don’t to try to make Mohammed “look bad.” Mohammed does that on his own, and your orthodox Moslem scholars support this image. I just present their writings.

Sigh. A loud sigh. I mean seriously, do you know so little about Islam, and the value of scholarship?

Are you willing to discuss Mohammed’s life using the orthodox Islamic sources combined with proof, logical reasoning, examples, and references?

Yes or no?

Only if they are authentic. And not the same drivel that normally occupies these boards. (Like my example of the Banu Quraydah.)

But I should probably just say no, in case I get busy and disappear lest you claim you’ve shocked me with something you claim to be from an “orthodox source” that is in fact a source that doesn’t actually exist (like Ibn Ishaaq), especially it’s this same kind of garbage that’s never been authenticated.

So.

No. Don’t waste my time.

 

[Sister_Amy]

Incidentally, the story I mentioned earlier in the thread about Muhammad scolding his Companions for torturing the two boys–it appears on page 142.

 

[Sister_Amy]

And another thing–this Kinanah ibn al-Rabi’ was a person from Mecca, which makes it especially weird that he would be ‘custodian’ of the wealth of the Banu Nadir, extremely weird. Something that needs to be explained, if one is to believe such a strange story anyway.

 

[algebra]

Yeah it is. It’s true for many accounts of the Seerah.

No its not.

First I encourage you to find out who the benefactors of the writers were.

Why should you do this?

Well writing and keeping histories wasnt cheap back then, you needed a sponsor (you still do, and its usually a govt/university).

You are also accountable for what you write.

Just because the stories in at Tabari do not fit into your neat little islamic story doesn’t make it untrue.

The fact that they are identically recorded in ibn Hisham’s work reinforces their credibility.

 

[sedonaman]

Translation: This story didn’t happen because it makes Mohammed look bad.

From this discussion and others, it appears that the violent verses in Islamic foundational texts were written to facilitate rule of primitive tribal societies in the Arabian Peninsula of the seventh century, in other words, rule by fear. Meanwhile, the world moved beyond that time and place, and now a leader must be perceived as “good” to appeal to a wider range of the masses throughout the world at large in order to enjoy more political support, à la Machiavelli. It has therefore become necessary to expunge those original violent verses for inducing embarrassment, or at least to explain them away; hence we are reduced to “‘tis so - ‘tis not” debates.

In the case of Islamic ruled countries today, like Saudi Arabia, rather than modify “the perfect word of Allah for all time,” they have elected to keep the masses in the seventh century.

 

[inJESUS]

Since every scandalous Sunni hadith is rejected by the Shia “for slandering Muhammad’s morality”, and since every scandalous Shia hadith is rejected by the Sunni “for slandering Muhammad’s morality”, and since both would reject what Muslims themselves wrote under “Israeliyyat”, or " people with agenda", in other words, both groups have what both agree on being “immoral”, and since both groups date back to Muhammad, it is funny that some are blaming us of seing Muhammad for who he really was .

If sister Amy does not like the Kinanah stuff, maybe she will explain to us the following :

HADITH OF SAHIH BUKHARI (2)

From Volume 1, #234

1.234: Narrated Abu Qilaba:

Anas said, “Some people of 'Ukl or 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron. They were put in ‘Al-Harra’ and when they asked for water, no water was given to them.” Abu Qilaba said, “Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle .”

Maybe Sister Amy will tell us that divine justice demands that eyes be seared with hot irons then gouged out and people thrown upon the hot, black rocks of the Harra desert to be dehydrated, to beg for water, to bit at the rocks in their agony and pain, and to die a very slow and torturing death. “And we have sent you but a mercy to manking, oh merciful Muhammad,”

Sister Amy, as always, will turn evil into good and cover this inhuman and criminal act that does not stem from someone who is punishing but from someone with bitter hate, and driving need for revenge and see people die a slowly death infront of his eyes that only inferior spirits can drive someone to do.

 

[sedonaman]

Sister Amy, as always, will turn evil into good and cover this inhuman and criminal act that does not stem from someone who is punishing but from someone with bitter hate, and driving need for revenge and see people die a slowly death infront of his eyes that only inferior spirits can drive someone to do.

More than likely she will find something in the Bible to bring Christianity and Judaism down to the level of Islam.

 

[samaan]

Part 1

It wasn’t, but whatever.

I know- rudeness doesn’t compensate for intelligence.

… It is misleading to parade it around as that of Ibn Ishaq, and since that is precisely what the translator did, we can call him a liar then, can’t we?

Amy, I agreed with you that the full original text by Ibn Ishaq no longer exists. I never questioned you on this. I said that Ibn Ishaq’s text was redacted down and preserved by Ibn Hisham. Ibn Ishaq wrote the text. Ibn Hisham edited and preserved the text.

The unanswered point I made earlier is if Ibn Hisham edited the text, he kept the Kinana story was because he must have had reason to believe it happened.

And because Ibn Hisham is already several generations after the Prophet Muhammad (saaws) we can still doubt the authenticity of much of his stories…

If you had read Ibn Ishaq in Arabic you wouldn’t make this statement, because you would have seen that Ibn Ishaq provides the isnads in his text.

You say that we can doubt Ibn Hisham because he was “several generations away”- he died in 833 AD. What about Bukhari, Muslim, and Majah who died in 870, 875, and 887? Are they “less accurate” because they lived even more generations after Mohammed?

I made the quote about lying (Bukhari Vol I, Book 3, num. 106) because Moslem scholars who wrote these books didn’t want to lie about Mohammed because they knew if the did they would go to hell.

Don’t laugh too soon, because that is NOT what I said. I said it DOESN’T exist, present tense. Not that it never did.

No, it doesn’t. It did, but no longer does. This is common knowledge.

Are you saying that Ibn Ishaq’s biography is an Islamically acceptable source or not? Yes or no?

First of all, doesn’t exist. It isn’t sold anywhere. If pieces of it managed to survive in the writings of other scholars, that’s something else. You also must remember that the stories were not authenticated–meaning that they all must be verified for authenticity before Muslims can affirmatively accept them as traditions. There’s lots of weird stuff in seerah books, in case you haven’t noticed–it doesn’t make it true.

Of course the Biography (as we discussed earlier) doesn’t exist. That’s why I can buy it from most Islamic bookstores.

Yes, there strange stories in the seerah. There are also strange stories in the Hadith, in the history books, and many other collections.

Amy, if the pious Moslems who wrote these books knew (especially because they were scholars and Imams) that Moslems who lie about Mohammed go to hell, why would they lie in their books?

They have no reason to lie. On the contrary, they have every reason not to lie in order to preserve their own souls from hell.

You don’t like what the books say, so you try to discredit them or myself.

The Moslem scholars who wrote them, the Classical Koranic commentators, Imams, and intellectually-inclined Moslems didn’t discredit them because they knew that these are the orthodox sources of early Islamic history.

I canot help if you don’t like history. I will not let you engage in historical revisionism because you don’t like what happened.

Wow, so the translated title was also a lie?

I answered this.

(see next post for continuation)

 

[samaan]

I have Muhammad–his life based on earliest sources by Martin Lings, and I have Fiqh as-Seerat an-Nabawiyya by an author whose name I can’t precisely recall, but I remember it has ‘Ramadan’ in it

No, they are authenticated with weak and unreliable (spurious was your word?) traditions being removed.

So a 20th century biography is more accurate than an original source, referenced by all the great moslem scholars for the past 12 centuries?

Haven’t you ever studied sciences of hadith? To know that there are absolutely hadith which have been fabricated? Lies. People aren’t supposed to lie–I mean, that’s even one of the 10 commandments. But they do, don’t they?

How funny. I provide an actual source from the hadith of Bukhari, volume, book, and number cited, and you persistently refuse to present me with consistent proof, logical reasoning, examples, and referenced sources to support your claims. So far, the only source that I have seen for your claims that you are willing to accept as legitimate is yourself.

You claim that the Kinana story is fabricated. I have given you proof, logical reasoning, an example, and a referenced source. All that you have tried to do is attack the veracity of Ibn Ishaq rather then actually engage the story, thereby ignoring the matter of discussion and diverting it to another topic.

It’s your turn to provide proof, reasoning, examples, and references for your claims. I have done my part.

Surprising, since most people posting here can’t be bothered with actual proof, and are too hasty to bash Islam. Weird works.

It’s the only way I operate.

No, but it’s leaving out a lot of important facts.

Two words: Such as?

You must know that the only reliable orthodox collections I will accept are those that are considered to be authentic. So you can stick with Saheeh al-Bukhari, and Saheeh Muslim, because those reports have actually been authenticated. And even then, you’re not likely to find much that will prove your case–I expect you’ll do what most bashers here do, which is take a story out of context to make Muhammad look bad when he carries out justice. Case and point–Banu Quraydah. If you’re going to waste my time with things like that, then I’m definitely not interested.

So you’re saying “only Bukhari and Muslim are reliable because I say so?”

Amy, if you read any of the classical islamic scholars and Koranic commentators such as Al-Asqalani, Zamakhshari, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Qayyum, Ibn Taymiyya, and so forth, all of them use more sources than just Bukhari and Muslim. They use Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d, Waqidi, and more.

Either your views are erroneous and 14 centuries of Islamic scholars are wrong, or 14 centuries of Islamic scholars are right and you are wrong.

Don’t you call me an “Islam basher.” I don’t need to “disgrace Islam” or Mohammed- your own moslem scholars do that well enough. I quote what they say. It’s not my fault if you are embarrassed by Early Islamic texts written by orthodox Moslems.

You still have yet to provide proof for your argument about Kinana.

…do you know so little about Islam, and the value of scholarship?

…said the woman who consistenly refuses to provide proof, reasoning, examples, and evidence to support her arguments and then changes the topic when people hold her accountable.

…(Like my example of the Banu Quraydah.)

It’s spelled “Banu Qurayza”

But I should probably just say no, … especially it’s this same kind of garbage that’s never been authenticated. So. No. Don’t waste my time.

You don’t have to like early Islamic sources written by Moslems, but you cannot criticize people for making statements and then change the subject, discredit the person, or attack the source in order to avoid answering the question.

I hold myself accountable, and I will hold you accountable if I see you doing the same to other posters.

 

[samaan]

Incidentally, the story I mentioned earlier in the thread about Muhammad scolding his Companions for torturing the two boys–it appears on page 142.

…
…the killing of the 80 men (the number 80 is found in the same story narrated by Ibn Sa’d, and the tale is also found in Bukhari and Muslim and Dawud) is on pages 677-678
…and the story about killing the old man, Ka’b bin Ashraf, Pages 364-369
…the quartering of an old woman, Umm Qirfa, Page 665
…the killing of Asma bint Marwan, a mother of five children, for criticising Mohammed, and then said “Two goats won’t butt heads about her” (i.e. "nobody will remember her memory), Pages 675-676

You want to continue? Let’s go!