The Desperation of a Christian Islamophobe
This is ludicrous. OK so it's becoming common knowledge that
the anti-Muslim brigade who make the claim that Prophet Muhammad (p) tortured
Kinana is based on a non valid source (i.e. it's something that traditional
Muslim scholarship and scholarly methodologies have never accepted) as the
'story' is baseless in that it has no narration and no source to it. Of course
if you're one of those unscrupulous people who believes anything you may accept
it but if you are a person of discernment and scholarship (regardless of
whether you are Muslim or not) you are not going to accept it.
Also even if one was not to know the invalidity of the story
about Kinana being tortured one would find it highly suspicious as Islam forbid
torture as per the explicit Prophetic teaching about the prohibition of
torture:
.png){kind=link}
.png)
OK so there may be a bit of confusion. People may be
thinking, why s it written in a Muslim book if this is a false story. The truth
is there are many false stories and stories without any validation written down
by the early biographers. The key here is, it's for people to discern what is
valid and what is invalid using the classical methodology which Muslim scholars
have used for centuries. Biography writers such as Al Tabari acknowledged that
they merely reported what they heard and that they in no way shape or form
stand by any falsehood therein:
Hence, if I
mention in this book a report about some men of the past, which the reader or
listener finds objectionable or worthy of censure because he can see no aspect
of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know that this is not to be
attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us and we have merely
passed this on as it has been passed on to us."
See here for
more on this and Ibn Ishaq here
I want to just show you the tacit acknowledgement (on the part of a CHRISTIAN Polemicist) that this story of 'torture' is indeed not to be accepted. Oh and in the process I will highlight his desperation in his exchange with the excellent Muslim Apologist Bassam Zawadi.
So Bassam Zawadi scolds a Christian polmecist for making the claim
of torture based on the 'story' in Ibn Ishaq. Bassam Zawadi points out the story is
invalid as it has no source:
Having left
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, Christians have to stop using this argument against the glorious Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right so that was that particular Christian polemicist told. That particular polemicist does not respond (as far as I know). What happens next? Well, his desperate colleague comes running with a Hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud claiming this hadith proves torture took place. Yet it turns out that this particular Christian was either lying or had a severe reading problem as the Hadith made no mention of torture!
His hunt and appeal to the Hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud shows the tacit admission that nobody of discernment and scholarship would accept the 'story' of torture in Ibn Ishaq (hence why the Christian desperately and misleadingly appealed to another Hadith):
He argues that there is an authentic
hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud that shows that Kinana was tortured for treasure. He
said before posting it:
Finally,
and more importantly, one particular hadith provides substantiation that the
torture of Kinana over the treasure actually happened:
And after he posted it he said:
Thus, we
have one of the most trusted collections of hadiths corroborating this story of
Muhammad torturing and killing Kinana for withholding information
regarding the whereabouts of the money purse.
Shamoun [the name of the desperate Christian], 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?
See here for the entire piece:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
There you have it folks. It's all about scholarship and
discernment. If you are willing to be fair, use discernment and be scholarly
you will be OK but if you are going to go the opposite way you will end up
being duped by Anti-Muslim polemicists who have little knowledge and even less
regard for the truth.
Good sites to check when you come across something on the
internet about Islam which you are unsure of:
Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
http://www.thedeenshow.com
Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment