Having left Medina and settled at Khaibar, the Banu Nadir started hatching a wide-spread conspiracy against Islam. Their leaders, Sallam Ibn Abi-al Huqauaiq, Huyayy Ibn Akhtab, Kinana al-Rabi and others came to Mecca, met the Quraish and told them that Islam could be destroyed." (Allama Shibli Nu'Mani, Sirat-Un-Nabi, volume II, p 106)This goes to show that Kinana was a war criminal. Let's read on...
" While describing the battle of Khaibar, the history writers have committed a serious blunder in reporting a totally baseless report, which has become a common place. It is said that the Prophet ( Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had granted amnesty to the Jews on condition that they would not hide anything. When Kinana Ibn Rabi' refused to give any clue to the hidden treasures, the Prophet ( peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered Zubair to adopt stern measures to force a disclosure. Zubair branded his chest with a hot flint again and again, till he was on the point of death. At last he ordered Kinana to be put to death and all the Jews were made slaves.The whole truth in the story is that Kinana was put to death. But it was not for his refusal to give a clue to the hidden treasure. He was put to death because he had killed Mahmud Ibn Maslama (also Muslima). Tabari had reported it in unambiguous words: " Then the Holy Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) gave Kinana to Muhammad Ibn Maslama (Muslima), " and he put him to death in retaliation of the murder of his own brother, Mahmud Ibn Maslama (Muslima)."
In the rest of the report, both Tabari and Ibn Hisham have quoted it from Ibn Ishaq, but Ibn Ishaq does not name any narrator. Traditionalists, in books on Rijal, have explicitly stated that Ibn Ishaq used to borrow from the Jews stories concerning the battle of the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). As Ibn Ishaq does not mention the name of any narrator whatsoever in this case, there is every likelihood of the story of having been passed on by the Jews.
That
a man should be tortured with burns on his chest by the sparks of a
flint is too heinous a deed for a Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allah
be upon him) who had earned for himself the title of Rahma'lil Alamin
(Mercy for all the worlds). After all, did he not let the woman who had
sought to poison him go scot free? Who would expect such a soul to order
human body to be so burnt for the sake of a few coins.
As
a matter of fact, Kinana Ibn Rabi Ibn al-Huquaiq had been granted his
life on the condition that he would never break faith or make false
statements. He had also given his word, according to one of the reports,
that if he did anything to the contrary, he could be put to death.
Kinana played false, and the immunity granted to him was withdrawn. He
killed Mahmud Ibn Maslama (Muslima) and had, therefore to suffer for it,
as we have already stated on the authority of Tabari." (Allama Shibli Nu'Mani, Sirat-Un-Nabi, volume II, p 173-174)
As we can see there is no evidence what so ever for this story of Kinana because there is no narration or source given. It was contrary to the teachings of the Quran and the Prophet's character. Therefore, Critics of Islam have to stop using this argument against the glorious Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).(by bassam zawadi )
Baseless Story Of Kinana Ibn Al-Rabi – Treasure? – Discover The Truth
Let us look at this logically and see how significant this work is in relation to Muhammad (P). From the above extracts it is clear that the work of Ibn Ishaq was based on “oral tradition,” in other words “chinese whispers” and “heresay.” Furthermore his work was edited several times and what we have in our posession today is not the original work of Ibn Ishaq but something that was edited and changed several times by his students. Looking at it critically it would only be fair to ask what were the sources of information after 100 odd years after Muhammad (P) on which the history written by Ibn Ishaq (chinese whispers and heresay) was edited? Could there have been political motives for editing the work of Ibn Ishaq? The work of Ibn Ishaq was based on “oral tradition,” but is there any other concrete evidence (such as writings, wall inscriptions, excavated material, paintings and drawings etc.) to support the narrations on which he has based his history or is there any evidence to suggest that the information derived from the writing of Ibn Ishaq has ever been verified? As far as I am aware there is not a single historian other than Tabari who has backed him up. Historians like Tabari have simply copied from the writings of Ibn Ishaq and some more “heresay.”
The whole story (according to the narration quoted in tarykh at-Tabari) has heavy weaknesses, so most scholars consider it as fabricated.
The
narrator Mohammed ibn Hamyd ar-Razi محمد بن حميد الرازي was considered
as a kind of fabricator Imam ad-Dahabi called him صَاحِبُ عَجَائِبَ "A
man or fellow of wonders, meaning who told hair-rising stories"
al-Bukhari said one must take his narrations very carefully some said he
was considered as a liar.
The
narrator Ibn Ishaq ابن إسحاق has no sanad (no continuous chain) to our
Prophet (peace be upon him) and some of the people of his time
especially Imam Malik -who knew him well- regarded this story as a
fabrication of him! As they said in his narration there were some
israeliyaat! However Malik might be biased as there was a concurrence
situation between both. So when it comes to maghazi (battle's of
the Porphet) Ibn Ishaq is a good refence, but as a narrator in hadith
matters he might need the support of other trustworthy narrators who
have narrated the same thing. As he used to make strange addittions.
By the way also a similar narration in Tabaqat الطبقات ibn Sa'ad is weak because of similar reasons.
Now
on the other hand there are many ahadith (hadiths) which show 1st that
the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was not known to like nor to
use torture as his sunna proofs the opposite and 2nd true sahih ahadith
(hadiths) show that the Jews of Khaybar have been condemned because they
broke a promise and the messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) had
promised that he will keep them in peace if they didn't. And it seems
that Kinana himself was condemned according to a hadith quoted by
al-Bayhaqi for taking an innocent life (of Mahmud ibn Maslma) this i
only found quoted by Ibn Hajjar Al-A'sqalani in Fath al-Bary.
Therefore this story can't only be considered as baseless or fabricated.
here are some examples of the sunna:
It
has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraida through his father that when
the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) appointed anyone as leader of an army or
detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good
to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of
Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in
Allah. Make a holy war,
do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not
mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your
enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action.
If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold
yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if
they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting
against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land
of the Muhajireen and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have
all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajireen. If they refuse to
migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and
will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they
will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they
actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they
refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to
pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay
the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort
and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and
His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His
Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your
companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or
your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the
name of Allah and His Prophet be violated. When you besiege a fort and
the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's
Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do
so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will
be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them.
`Abd Allah b. Mughaffal reported the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) as saying : Allah is gentle, likes gentleness, and gives for gentleness what he does not give for harshness.It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah(ﷺ) said: "Allah is Gentle and loves gentleness, and He grants reward for it that He does not grant for harshness."
The story of the treasure also is a bit strange, it could only be explained by the disloyalty and breaking the covenant! Those scholar who accept it said that at least it was revealed to the Prophet (peace be upon him). So
if there has been a treasure it has been found, it could be the
treasure or the goods the Jews of bani Qaynuqa' who have been expelled from Medina have taken with them even if they were not allowed to according the treathy or charter of Medina!
http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/counter_rebuttal_to_people_of_ukl.htm
“The Apostle said, ‘Get him away from me and cut off his tongue.‘ Ishaq:595.”
Answer: (I could not find the hadith regarding this. . As noted this claim is made by Ibn Ishaq. No reason is given as to why the Prophet ordered that a man have his tongue cut off. (Perhaps the man was suffering from gross habitual “liar-itis” or “slander-itis”). The question is, was the person’s tongue “cut off”? There does not seem to be any evidence that it was. If there was, for certain the critic(s) would have referenced it.
Cut off his tongue!
Bismllah alrahman alraheem
here is my first interesting finding in an anti Islam website, a very amazing example of lying and deception was found in "The Prophet of Doom" chapter 24
here Craig Winn wants his readers to believe that prophet Mohammed orderded his followers to cut a man tongue off!!, but what is the real story? is it true? Or is it a pure immoral lie by the author? Why the man tongue was cut? Why the author didn't quote the whole incident?
let's see.
the quote is taken from Ibn Ishaq's seera book page 595, let us read the story
here is the Arabic text for the story (from http://www-eman.com/Islamlib/viewchp.asp?BID=180&CID=39)
speaking about the post Hunayn battle division of booty.
<< BEGIN TYRANSLATION >>
and Muawya ibn Abi Sufyan was giving 100 and Safwan ibn Umya was giving 100 and Huaitab was giving 100 and Uwyna was giving 100 and Alaqra'` was giving 100 and Al Abbas Ibn Merdas was giving few camels and so he hated it and said in a poem that he doesn't like how the booty was divided and so the Apostle of Allah said "take him away and cut his tongue off" so they gave him (a bigger share of booty) until he was satisfied"
<< END TRANSLATION >>
don't even think the problem is that Craig Winn doesn't know the ins & outs of Arabic, the real problem is that the story is fully detailed in Ibn Ishaaq's book but Craig Winn chose to LIE to his readers when he selected only the "cut his tongue" statement and ignored the rest of the story to DECEIVE his readers.( by ummah )
“The Prophet said, “No prayer is harder for the hypocrites than the Fajr and the ‘Isha’ prayers and if they knew the reward for these prayers at their respective times, they would certainly present themselves (in the mosques) even if they had to crawl.” The Prophet added, “Certainly I decided to order the Mu’adhdhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses.“–(Bokhari Vol. 1, #626).
If Mohammad had given this command who could have prevented it from being executed? No one! And there would have been several dutiful Muslims to carry out his order.
The question is how many houses were burnt? Not a single one! Moreover, it is hardly believable that Mohammad would have burned any house (which might have killed innocent children) seeing that he taught that a Muslim is not to burn his enemy and not even an ant, that fire is the punishment of Allāh–(Abu Dawud, Vol. 2, #2667-2669).
Clearly, this thought which the Prophet expressed was only to communicate the importance and benefit of the congregational prayer: that if Muslims knew the benefit they would even crawl to get to the Masjid–(Bokhari Vol. 1, #’s 589; 626; Vol. 3, #854).
Ishaq:316 page
Here's a quick summary of what Islam teaches about burning people:
What is forbidden is killing with fire, because of the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him), according to which the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him) said: “No one should punish with fire except Allaah.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (3016). The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him) saw an anthill that one of the Companions had burned with fire and he said: “No one should punish with fire except the Lord of fire.” Narrated by Abu Dawood (2675), classed as saheeh by al-Nawawi in Riyadh al-Saaliheen (519) and by al-Albaani in al-Silsilah al-Saheehah (487). From: http://islamqa.info/en/105190
The stories in the work of Al-Tabari which relay accounts that Abu Bakr burned people are not authentic.
( by yahya snow )
In
fact, the eight men from ‘Ukil were not killed for apostatizing, but
were held accountable for committing a vicious murder and treason.
We
cite this event in full below. But first, reiterate the heinousness
Islam attributes to murder. As already mentioned, murder and treason are
the only two crimes for which the Qur’an allows the death penalty
two
opposing ideologies are presented—one of harshness and one of
compassion. Prophet Muhammad clearly chose compassion and condemned
harshness. Compassion was his nature. Taking these accounts into
consideration, it is clear from a historical perspective the fate of the
men from ‘Ukil was not based on those men apostatizing, but on the
protection of the state of Medina. These men committed violence, theft, murder, and treason, and were thus held accountable for their own actions.
Eight Men From Ukil Savagely Killed A Shepherd ... - Discover The Truth
http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/counter_rebuttal_to_people_of_ukl.htm
“The Apostle said, ‘Get him away from me and cut off his tongue.‘ Ishaq:595.”
Answer: (I could not find the hadith regarding this. . As noted this claim is made by Ibn Ishaq. No reason is given as to why the Prophet ordered that a man have his tongue cut off. (Perhaps the man was suffering from gross habitual “liar-itis” or “slander-itis”). The question is, was the person’s tongue “cut off”? There does not seem to be any evidence that it was. If there was, for certain the critic(s) would have referenced it.
Cut off his tongue!
Bismllah alrahman alraheem
here is my first interesting finding in an anti Islam website, a very amazing example of lying and deception was found in "The Prophet of Doom" chapter 24
Ishaq:595 “The Apostle said, ‘Get him away from me and cut off his tongue.”
here Craig Winn wants his readers to believe that prophet Mohammed orderded his followers to cut a man tongue off!!, but what is the real story? is it true? Or is it a pure immoral lie by the author? Why the man tongue was cut? Why the author didn't quote the whole incident?
let's see.
the quote is taken from Ibn Ishaq's seera book page 595, let us read the story
here is the Arabic text for the story (from http://www-eman.com/Islamlib/viewchp.asp?BID=180&CID=39)
وأعطى
لمعاوية بن أبي سفيان مائة وأعطى صفوان بن أمية مائة وحويطب بن عبد العزي
وعيينة بن حصن والأقرع بن حابس مائة وأعطى العباس بن مرداس أباعر فسخطها
وقال وكانت نهابا تلافيتها بكرى على المهر في الأجرع فأصبح نهبي ونهب العبي
د بين العيينة والأقرع وما كنت دون امرئ منهما ومن يضع اليوم لا يرفع فقال
عم اقطعوا عني لسانه فاعطوه حتى رضي
speaking about the post Hunayn battle division of booty.
<< BEGIN TYRANSLATION >>
and Muawya ibn Abi Sufyan was giving 100 and Safwan ibn Umya was giving 100 and Huaitab was giving 100 and Uwyna was giving 100 and Alaqra'` was giving 100 and Al Abbas Ibn Merdas was giving few camels and so he hated it and said in a poem that he doesn't like how the booty was divided and so the Apostle of Allah said "take him away and cut his tongue off" so they gave him (a bigger share of booty) until he was satisfied"
<< END TRANSLATION >>
don't even think the problem is that Craig Winn doesn't know the ins & outs of Arabic, the real problem is that the story is fully detailed in Ibn Ishaaq's book but Craig Winn chose to LIE to his readers when he selected only the "cut his tongue" statement and ignored the rest of the story to DECEIVE his readers.( by ummah )
Was Umm Qirfa Innocent? – Discover The Truth
“The Prophet said, “No prayer is harder for the hypocrites than the Fajr and the ‘Isha’ prayers and if they knew the reward for these prayers at their respective times, they would certainly present themselves (in the mosques) even if they had to crawl.” The Prophet added, “Certainly I decided to order the Mu’adhdhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses.“–(Bokhari Vol. 1, #626).
If Mohammad had given this command who could have prevented it from being executed? No one! And there would have been several dutiful Muslims to carry out his order.
The question is how many houses were burnt? Not a single one! Moreover, it is hardly believable that Mohammad would have burned any house (which might have killed innocent children) seeing that he taught that a Muslim is not to burn his enemy and not even an ant, that fire is the punishment of Allāh–(Abu Dawud, Vol. 2, #2667-2669).
Clearly, this thought which the Prophet expressed was only to communicate the importance and benefit of the congregational prayer: that if Muslims knew the benefit they would even crawl to get to the Masjid–(Bokhari Vol. 1, #’s 589; 626; Vol. 3, #854).
Ishaq:316 page
Here's a quick summary of what Islam teaches about burning people:
What is forbidden is killing with fire, because of the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him), according to which the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him) said: “No one should punish with fire except Allaah.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (3016). The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him) saw an anthill that one of the Companions had burned with fire and he said: “No one should punish with fire except the Lord of fire.” Narrated by Abu Dawood (2675), classed as saheeh by al-Nawawi in Riyadh al-Saaliheen (519) and by al-Albaani in al-Silsilah al-Saheehah (487). From: http://islamqa.info/en/105190
The stories in the work of Al-Tabari which relay accounts that Abu Bakr burned people are not authentic.
( by yahya snow )
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder