返回总目录
Revisiting "Was Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) Unfair In The Way He
Punished The Armed Robbers From The Tribe Of Ukl?" (Part 2).
Search
and find articles and topics quickly and accurately! See different advanced ways to
search for articles on this site.
Revisiting "Was
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) Unfair In The Way He Punished The Armed Robbers From
The Tribe Of Ukl?" (Part 2)
A Concise Rebuttal
By
Bassam Zawadi
I originally wrote an article here http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/was_prophet_muhammad_unfair.htm
which Sam Shamoun responded back to here http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/cruelty.htm
and then I responded back here http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/counter_rebuttal_to_people_of_ukl.htm
and Sam Shamoun responded back here http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_ukl.htm
and now I am responding back here.
I urge all readers to read the debate from the beginning in
order to grasp and understand what this article is saying.
Sam Shamoun wrote a 16 page response to me in which 9 pages
are red herrings. They have absolutely nothing to do with the topic in discussion. He
talks about how its not fair that Muslims don't get executed for murders against non
Muslims and how Islam teaches that you should fight against those even if they did not
physically wage war against you etc.
This has nothing to do with the topic. Lets look at the title
of discussion again, "Was
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) Unfair In The Way He Punished The Armed Robbers From
The Tribe Of Ukl?"
Basically Sam Shamoun has not given any new arguments. He
keeps insisting that God sent down Surah 5:33 was given after Muhammad's punishments the
people from Ukl. He insists that this was a rebuke from God for his cruelty.
However, I already answered this......
And he said he heard Muhammad Ibn Ajlan say: This verse has come down on the
Messenger of Allah peace be upon him as a recrimination in that and taught him the
punishment of people like them from cutting and killing and refusal (refusing to give
the water) and he did not pierce the eyes of anyone after them. He said this statement
has been mentioned to Ibn Umar, he renounced the fact this verse came down as a
recrimination and said that indeed the punishment of those men was by their eyes (meaning
they deserved to have their eyes pierced) then this verse came down as a
punishment for anyone besides them for who fought after them and the piercing of the eyes
as a punishment was over.
Source:
http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=4&Rec=5480
It is clear that Surah 5:33 was to be a punishment for those
that came after the people of Ukl, however those people of Ukl did deserve what they
got.
Sam quotes hadith (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52,
Number 261) and (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 797) to try and prove that Muhammad did not allow them to have
their water. However, the Hadith does not say that. The Hadith simply says that they were
brought to the Prophet and then the Prophet order for their hands and feet to be cut off.
Isn't it possible that the people were brought to the Prophet and then the Prophet issued
the order and then the Prophet left but the companions of the Prophet did not give them
the water? Do we see a direct order from the Prophet stating that they should die of
thirst?
Sam also says that I quoted Ibn Umar in order to undermine the
other narrations. I wasn't trying to undermine the other narrations. I never said the
other narrations were weak or false. What I said was that I would rather take Ibn Umar's
opinion over the opinion of the other companion who thought that the verse was sent down
as recrimination.
Then I was left with some questions to answer.....
- What happened to Muhammad’s prophethood? After all, he was supposed to be in
contact with Allah so then why didn’t Allah send down his decision [cf. Sura 5:33]
before he killed these men in such a brutal fashion?
I already
quoted Ibn Umar showing why. That the people from Ukl did deserve what they got but Allah
made the punishment for future criminals. But God willed that the people from Ukl get what
they got. Nothing has happend to the Muhammad's prophethood. It is still standing.
- Was it necessary for Muhammad to torture the criminals the way he
did? Obviously not since Zawadi cited the following text:
And if ye do catch them out, catch them out no worse than they catch you out: But if
ye show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for those who are patient.
S. 16:126 Y. Ali
Why didn’t Muhammad follow the better way and remit the
punishment, taking Allah’s advice to be patient with those who committed these
crimes? After all, didn’t Muhammad himself have his men attack and plunder caravans
as well?
This verse is applied to the victims only. Meaning if some one
cut my hand off then I have a right for retribution and have his hand cut off as well. But
if I choose to forgive him then that is better. However, if someone killed me, the state
does not have a right to go and say that forgiveness is better and then let the murderer
go free. That is only the choice of the victim or heir to the victim if he was
murdered.
They murdered the shephered and there was no relatives of his
around so the Prophet had to execute judgment.
- What would the Muslims of today say if the Israelis were to torture Islamic terrorists
in the same way? What would the Muslims today say if the Serbs were to torture
Bosnian Muslims in the same way? What would the world say? What does your
heart say?
If the Muslims tortured the Israelies or Serbs in a
horrible and unjust way then the Serbs and Israelis have a right to do the same. It is
retribution. But that does not apply today. Because it is the Serbs murdering and raping
the Bosnian Muslims and Israel occupying land that is not theirs and making the lives of
the Palestinians a living hell.
http://lightuponlight.com/islam/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=62&orderby=dateD
- If Muslims today condemn the atrocities that the Serbs or other perpetrate upon their
fellow Muslims, then shouldn't they condemn the actions of Muhammad himself? What's
good for the goose is good for the gander. If Muslims today justify Muhammad's actions
upon his enemies, then they have no right to complain about many (not all) of the
suffering inflicted upon fellow Muslims by their enemies.
How
can you even try to compare? Did the Muslims start invading and fighting against the Serbs
FIRST? Your analogies are flawed.
- If Muhammad was allowed by Allah to do this to the criminals, and Muslims are commanded
to follow Muhammad's lifestyle, then what does this say about real Islamic society?
If any
one does to someone what the tribe of Ukl did to that poor shepherd then of course we will
punish them accordingly. This real Islamic society will be a society that protects its
citizens and fights crime hard.