The Khaybar Jews were either exiled (Abu Dawud, Book 19, Number 3000, Ibn Sad, Volume 2, Pages 132-133) or they were allowed to stay giving some of the Muslims half their yield (Ibn Sad, Volume 2, Page 137).
Shamoun, the King and Master of everyone who has a reading comprehension problem said the above statements after reading the following hadith:
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar:
The Prophet fought with the people of Khaybar, and captured their palm-trees and land, and forced them to remain confined to their fortresses. So they concluded a treaty of peace providing that gold, silver and weapons would go to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and whatever they took away on their camels would belong to them, on condition that they would not hide and carry away anything. If they did (so), there would be no protection for them and no treaty (with Muslims).
They carried away a purse of Huyayy ibn Akhtab who was killed before (the battle of) Khaybar. He took away the ornaments of Banu an-Nadir when they were expelled.
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) asked Sa'yah: Where is the purse of Huyayy ibn Akhtab?
He replied: The contents of this purse were spent on battles and other expenses. (Later on) they found the purse. So he killed Ibn AbulHuqayq, captured their women and children, and intended to deport them. They said: Muhammad, leave us to work on this land; we shall have half (of the produce) as you wish, and you will have half. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) used to make a contribution of eighty wasqs of dates and twenty wasqs of wheat to each of his wives. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 19, Number 3000)
Where on earth does it say that Kinana was tortured for treasure? No where does it say this. Also, where does it say that the main reason for Kinana being killed was because he "merely" hid treasure? It does not say that. Let us read the hadith again, while I emphasize in bold the important parts:
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar:
The Prophet fought with the people of Khaybar, and captured their palm-trees and land, and forced them to remain confined to their fortresses. So they concluded a treaty of peace providing that gold, silver and weapons would go to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and whatever they took away on their camels would belong to them, on condition that they would not hide and carry away anything. If they did (so), there would be no protection for them and no treaty (with Muslims).
They carried away a purse of Huyayy ibn Akhtab who was killed before (the battle of) Khaybar. He took away the ornaments of Banu an-Nadir when they were expelled.
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) asked Sa'yah: Where is the purse of Huyayy ibn Akhtab?
He replied: The contents of this purse were spent on battles and other expenses. (Later on) they found the purse. So he killed Ibn AbulHuqayq, captured their women and children, and intended to deport them. They said: Muhammad, leave us to work on this land; we shall have half (of the produce) as you wish, and you will have half. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) used to make a contribution of eighty wasqs of dates and twenty wasqs of wheat to each of his wives. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 19, Number 3000)
Based on the above hadith we see the following facts:
- The Muslims and the Jews at Khaybar were already at war (*).
- The Muslims and the Jews agreed to a peace treaty that ended the war.
- The peace treaty stated that the Jews must not hide any treasure from the Muslims; otherwise this would be considered a violation of the treaty.
- If the treaty is broken, then that means that the other party is a war combatant who must be fought and killed.
- Kinana broke the treaty by hiding the treasure unjustifiably due to his greed.
- Kinana was treated as a war combatant because he violated one of the conditions of the peace treaty.
- War combatants are to be killed.
- Kinana knew that what he would do would lead to his death if he were to get caught. No one forced him to lie or to be greedy. It was his choice.
- Kinana's death was justifiable.
So the main reason for the killing of Kinana (putting aside the fact that he was already guilty of murder) was not merely over money. Rather, it was due to him becoming a war combatant after breaking a peace treaty. His concealment of the money violated the peace treaty, which then led to his death. It's not like the Muslims just went around confiscating people's money for no reason.Shamoun is making it out to be that Muslims were just greedy for money and would kill anyone that stood in their way, while that is not the case at all.
Shamoun said:
Third, there is no evidence that Ibn Ishaq took this story over from the Jews. This is merely conjecture on the part of the Muslim writer.
So where did he take it from? The burden of proof is on Shamoun to show the story has come from reliable sources. I am not arguing that it came from the Jews, but that still doesn't change the fact that we don't know where it came from.
Shamoun said:
Fourth, even if this report did originate from the Jews, Zawadi's source erroneously assumes that this automatically calls the event into question. But why should that be the case? Why shouldn't we assume the exact opposite, that the Jews would be able to more accurately and honestly recount the atrocities committed against them by Muhammad than would the Muslims? It is equivalent to saying that stories from the Jews regarding the atrocities they experienced during the holocaust should not be trusted since this is nothing more than Isra'iliyat propaganda!
Every case is examined individually. The evidence for the holocaust is absolutely overwhelming, while the evidence for Kinana's torture is not even considered to be mildly good. Shamoun is committing nothing more than the fallacy of false analogy. The main point that must be understood is that we don't know where the story came from, hence we can't be sure of its reliability.
Furthermore, in Islam we wouldn't reject Jewish testimony just for the mere fact that they are Jewish. Two examples would suffice to prove this point:
A man named Ta'ima stole a suit of armor from Qataada, his neighbor. Qataada had hidden the armor inside a sack of flour so, when Ta'ima took it, the flour leaked out of the sack through a hole, leaving a trail up to his house. Ta'ima then left the armor in the care of a Jewish man named Zayed, who kept it in his house, in order to conceal his crime. Thus, when the people searched for the stolen armor, they followed the trail of flour to Ta'ima's house but did not find it there. When confronted, he swore to them he had not taken it and knew nothing about it. The people helping the owner also swore that they had seen him breaking into Qataada's house at night, and had subsequently followed the tell-tale trail of flour, which had led them to his house. Nevertheless, after hearing Ta'ima swearing he was innocent, they left him alone and looked for further clues, finally finding a thinner trail of flour leading to the house of Zayed, and so arrested him.
The Jewish man told them that Ta'ima had left the armor with him, and some Jewish people confirmed his statement. The tribe to which Ta'ima belonged sent some of their men to the Messenger of God to present his side of the story, and asked them to defend him. The delegation was told, 'If you do not defend our clansman, Ta'ima, he will lose his reputation and be punished severely, and the Jew will go free.' The Prophet was subsequently inclined to believe them, and was about to punish the Jewish man when God revealed the following verses of the Quran to vindicate the Jew.
Surah 4:105-109
"Indeed, We have revealed to you, (O Muhammad), the Book in truth so you may judge between the people by that which God has shown you. And do not be an advocate for the deceitful. And seek forgiveness of God. Indeed, God is ever Forgiving and Merciful. And do not argue on behalf of those who deceive themselves. Indeed, God loves not one who is a habitually sinful deceiver. They conceal [their evil intentions and deeds] from the people, but they cannot conceal [them] from God, and He is with them (in His knowledge) when they spend the night in such as He does not accept of speech. And God ever is encompassing of what they do. Here you are - those who argue on their behalf in [this] worldly life - but who will argue with God for them on the Day of Resurrection, or who will [then] be their representative?"
These verses continue to be recited by Muslims today as a reminder that justice must be served for all.
Once, a dispute arouse between Ali bin Ali Talib, when he was the Caliph, and a Jewish man who went to Judge Shuray al-Kindi. Shuray tells the details of what happened:
"Ali found he was missing a suit of mail, so he went back to Kufa and found it in the hands of a Jewish man who was selling it in the market. He said, 'O Jew! That suit of mail is mine! I did not give it away or sell it!'
The Jew responded 'It is mine. It is in my possession.'
Ali said, 'We will have the judge rule on this for us.'
So they came to me and Ali sat next to me and said, 'That suit of mail is mine; I did not give it away or sell it.'
The Jew sat in front of me and said, 'That is my suit of mail. It is in my possession.'
I asked, 'O Commander of the Faithful, do you have any proof?'
'Yes,' Ali said. 'My son Hasan and Qanbar can testify that it is my suit of mail.'
I said, 'Commander of the Faithful, the testimony of a son in his father's favor is not admissible in court.'
Ali exclaimed, 'How Perfect is God! You cannot accept the testimony of a man who has been promised Paradise ? I heard the Messenger of God saying that Hasan and Husain are the princes of the youth in Paradise .' (Al-Tirmidhi)
The Jewish man said,
'The Commander of the Faithful takes me before his own judge and the judge rules in my favor against him! I bear witness that no one deserves worship except God and that Muhammad is His Messenger [the Jewish man accepted Islam], and that the suit of armor is yours, Commander of the Faithful. You dropped it at night and I found it.' (Abu Bakr Hayyan, Tarikh al-Qudat, Volume 2, p. 200)
Anyone who reads history and watches the videos on T.V. can know very well who the victims of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are. But because Christianity isn't that peaceful religion, which many people make it out to be, we have millions of evangelicals supporting the state of Israel and use the Bible to do so as well. I hope that Christianity is being distorted by Christians today and that it really doesn't teach this violence. But when I see well respected Christian scholars such as Dr. William Lane Craig and Professor Kenneth Richard Samples supporting the state of Israel and they are well respected authorities of the Christian faith, what am I then to think of Christianity?
Shamoun then brings up the issue of the Jewess who poisoned the Prophet's sheep. He argues that the narrations seem to be contradicting each other on whether the Prophet (peace be upon him) had her killed or not. There is no contradiction. What happened was that once the Prophet (peace be upon him) found out she put the poison, he forgave her. However, what happened was that later on after some time the poison ended up killing the Prophet's companion. When that occurred the Prophet (peace be upon him) had her killed for murder in retaliation.
First of all, Muhammad (peace be upon him) had no right to demand the family of Bishr to forgive the Jewess. It is exclusively their right and their decision. Muhammad (peace be upon him) had no authority to intervene and overrule God's law at this point.
Secondly, Shamoun thinks that if Muhammad (peace be upon him) were to punish people for their crimes then that would negate the notion that he was sent as a mercy to people. To always forgive people for heinous crimes for no valid reason is not mercy, rather it is stupidity and injustice. The Prophet (peace be upon him) forgave at times and implemented justice at times. He knew when to balance between the two. He couldn't always be forgiving, for this would put the Muslims in a weak position and make them vulnerable to more attacks by their enemies. Neither did he always punish people as is evident by him forgiving the Bedouin that tried to kill him (Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 49, Number 458), forgave the one who murdered his uncle (Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 399), the people of Mecca when he conquered them (Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 112), except with very few exceptions, etc.
Indeed Islam is the religion of moderation. We don't need blood thirsty murderers as we see the false God of the Old Testament ordering people to be and we don't need cowards who would just turn the other cheek as we see the false God of the New Testament trying to teach people to do. Rather, we need Islam that is moderate and balances between justice and mercy.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.