• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Deep into Islam..

elAshtar

Legendary Member
Thank you for replying Rafidi, You know, I could've written 4 sentences and refrained from giving the sources. Obviously, no one would take my words at face value.

The same applies to you, can you please provide me with the source(s) that confirms this story is fake? Can you also please provide me with a source about what exactly she said?

remember, she only criticized the prophet because he ordered the assassination of a jewish poet as per this quote from above:
فلما قتل أبو عفك، تأففت العصماء بنت مروان (وهي من بني أمية بن زيد، وزوجة يزيد الخطمي) من قتله، فصارت تعيب الاسلام وأهله، وتؤنب الأنصار على اتباعهم رسول الله

Thanks mate!
Okk now this is not accurate.. you should have stated the full sentence and I am again quoting from the book of Sayyed Jaafar:
فصارت تعيب الاسلام وأهله، وتؤنب الأنصار على اتباعهم رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله)، وتقول الشعر في هجوه (ص)، وتحرض عليه، واستمرت
على ذلك إلى ما بعد بدر​
And the same applies for Abu Afk
فكان (أبو عفك) اليهودي يحرض على رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)، ويقول فيه الشعر، فنذر سالم بن عمير أن يقتله، أو يموت دونه، فذهب إليه فقتله (1).​
 
Last edited:

elAshtar

Legendary Member
Bonus reading: الصحيح من سيرة النبي الأعظم (ص) ج23 - موقع الميزان
A list of all the people the Prophet ordered dead. Among them are two slave girls who used to sing satirical songs about him:
وهما قينتان لابن خطل، كانتا تغنيان بهجاء النبي«صلى الله عليه وآله»، فاستؤمن لإحداهما ـ فأسلمت ـ وقتلت الأخرى، قتلها علي«عليه السلام»
That's 7th century charlie hebdo....
First of all, the book mentioned why he ordered them dead:

لأنهم بشركهم، وبصدهم عن سبيل الله، وسعيهم في الأرض فساداً، وجدهم واجتهادهم لإبطال دين الله، وقتل الأنبياء والمؤمنين من أجل نصرة الباطل، وتقويض صرح الحق، ومحاربتهم لله تعالى ـ إنهم بذلك كله ـ يمثلون الرجس والإثم​

Secondly, some of these were later spared like for example:


1 ـ عكرمة بن أبي جهل:

أما عكرمة([7]) بن أبي جهل، فإنه إنما أمر بقتله، لأنه كان هو وأبوه أشد الناس أذية للنبي «صلى الله عليه وآله»، وكان أشد الناس على المسلمين.

ولما بلغه أن النبي «صلى الله عليه وآله» أهدر دمه فرّ إلى اليمن، فاتبعته امرأته وهي بنت عمه، أم حكيم بنت الحارث بن هشام بعد أن أسلمت، فوجدته في ساحل البحر يريد أن يركب السفينة.

وقيل: وجدته في السفينة فردته([8]).

وروي: أن عكرمة قال: بلغني أن رسول الله «صلى الله عليه وآله» نذر دمي يوم الفتح، وكنت في جمع من قريش بأسفل مكة ـ وقد ضوى إلي من ضوى ـ فلقينا هناك خالد بن الوليد، فأوقع بنا، فهربت منه أريد ـ والله ـ أن ألقي نفسي في البحر، وأموت تائهاً في البلاد قبل أن أدخل في الإسلام، فخرجت حتى انتهيت إلى الشعيبة.​

!!! Still the prophet SPARED him at a later stage

وقالوا: إن أم حكيم قالت لرسول الله «صلى الله عليه وآله»: يا رسول الله، قد ذهب عكرمة عنك (أو هرب عكرمة منك) إلى اليمن، وخاف أن تقتله، فأمنه يا رسول الله.

فقال رسول الله «صلى الله عليه وآله»: «هو آمن».​

It is funny that you failed to mention that this is a list of the ppl who CHOSE to fight during Fate7 Macca eventhough the prophet, before the battle, promised to spare their lives if they choose not to fight. And indeed, most of the fighters in Mecca didn't fight and were all spared!!
Even more, the prophet later on spared the lives of some of those who chose to fight like 3ekrema for example!

Seriously, a militant leader who entered a city where he was previously expelled from and his followers were tortured and killed just for accepting Islam, decided to spare the lives of his enemies who chose not to fight and spared few lives of those who chose to fight.. what is shameful about that? are you aware of a militant leader at that time who acted in such a manner?! :)
 
Last edited:

elAshtar

Legendary Member
Bonus reading: الصحيح من سيرة النبي الأعظم (ص) ج23 - موقع الميزان
A list of all the people the Prophet ordered dead. Among them are two slave girls who used to sing satirical songs about him:
وهما قينتان لابن خطل، كانتا تغنيان بهجاء النبي«صلى الله عليه وآله»، فاستؤمن لإحداهما ـ فأسلمت ـ وقتلت الأخرى، قتلها علي«عليه السلام»
That's 7th century charlie hebdo....
Got problem reading Arabic? many of those ordered dead were spared. Among those spared was one of the slaves as written in the text you quoted yet you write that both slaves were killed?!

Also, here is a script from the reference that Sayyed Jaafar cited on the matter:

وَ كَانَ عَهْدُ رَسُولِ اَللَّهِ صَلَّى اَللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ إِلَى اَلْمُسْلِمِينَ عِنْدَ تَوَجُّهِهِ إِلَى مَكَّةَ أَنْ لاَ يَقْتُلُوا بِهَا إِلاَّ مَنْ قَاتَلَهُمْ وَ آمَنَ مَنْ تَعَلَّقَ بِأَسْتَارِ اَلْكَعْبَةِ سِوَى نَفَرٍ كَانُوا يُؤْذُونَهُ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ مِنْهُمْ مِقْيَسُ بْنُ صُبَابَةَ وَ اِبْنُ خَطَلٍ عَبْدُ اَلْعُزَّى وَ اِبْنُ أَبِي سَرْحٍ وَ قَيْنَتَانِ كَانَتَا تُغَنِّيَانِ بِهِجَاءِ رَسُولِ اَللَّهِ صَلَّى اَللَّهُ
عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ وَ بِمَرَاثِي أَهْلِ بَدْرٍ فَقَتَلَ أَمِيرُ اَلْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ إِحْدَى اَلْقَيْنَتَيْنِ​
Seriously wlo lasho el tadlees?!
 

Totenkopf

New Member
Firstly, it is great to meet someone on this forum that is worth debating with on religious matters. I like your respectful, logical, and objective approach.
Secondly, I will look into what you mentioned. However, can you clarify the reason behind this debate ? That is, why are you discussing this incident with @Rafidi? Also, can you cite the link for the text u quoted cause if I recall correctly, there is more than one edition to this book.
Lastly, and here quoting you ' I agree with you, Al sa7ee7 min is what is true from, so the book should include what is true from the sira of the prophet via a critical investigation by the Sayyed.', this is not accurate.
The book can still contain unauthenticated Hadith or reported incident. Nevertheless, Sayyed Jaafar would have pointed this out.
elAshtar, I am also happy that you joined the discussion. Also if the above in bold is the case, no problem, I stand to be corrected. To recap if the Sayyed points out there is a problem then it is unauthenticated, if he leaves it uncommented, then it is by default authenticated, is this correct?

Now the reason of the discussion was triggered by the professor that had his head cutoff due to the caricatures. I made a point that insulting the prophet in the past also resulted in the death of these people. As such, it should not come as surprising.

Okk now this is not accurate.. you should have stated the full sentence and I am again quoting from the book of Sayyed Jaafar:
فصارت تعيب الاسلام وأهله، وتؤنب الأنصار على اتباعهم رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله)، وتقول الشعر في هجوه (ص)، وتحرض عليه، واستمرت
على ذلك إلى ما بعد بدر​
And the same applies for Abu Afk
فكان (أبو عفك) اليهودي يحرض على رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)، ويقول فيه الشعر، فنذر سالم بن عمير أن يقتله، أو يموت دونه، فذهب إليه فقتله (1).​
It is not accurate based on Sayyed Jaafar, but I did quote multiple sources in previous posts. Somehow we settled on Sayyed Jaafar later.
Here's an example:

السيرة النبوية - ابن هشام الحميري - ج ٤ - الصفحة ١٠٥٢

فلما قتل أبو عفك نافقت، فذكر عبد الله بن الحارث بن الفضيل عن أبيه، قال: وكانت تحت رجل من بنى خطمة، يقال له يزيد بن زيد، فقالت تعيب الاسلام وأهله
There is no وتحرض عليه in this one. Just like we have seen with 3asma2, some details will differ when sources differ.
The idea is that the death of abu afak triggered the unhappiness of 3asma2 into insulting the prophet which got her killed.

First of all, the book mentioned why he ordered them dead:

لأنهم بشركهم، وبصدهم عن سبيل الله، وسعيهم في الأرض فساداً، وجدهم واجتهادهم لإبطال دين الله، وقتل الأنبياء والمؤمنين من أجل نصرة الباطل، وتقويض صرح الحق، ومحاربتهم لله تعالى ـ إنهم بذلك كله ـ يمثلون الرجس والإثم​

Secondly, some of these were later spared like for example:


1 ـ عكرمة بن أبي جهل:

أما عكرمة([7]) بن أبي جهل، فإنه إنما أمر بقتله، لأنه كان هو وأبوه أشد الناس أذية للنبي «صلى الله عليه وآله»، وكان أشد الناس على المسلمين.

ولما بلغه أن النبي «صلى الله عليه وآله» أهدر دمه فرّ إلى اليمن، فاتبعته امرأته وهي بنت عمه، أم حكيم بنت الحارث بن هشام بعد أن أسلمت، فوجدته في ساحل البحر يريد أن يركب السفينة.

وقيل: وجدته في السفينة فردته([8]).

وروي: أن عكرمة قال: بلغني أن رسول الله «صلى الله عليه وآله» نذر دمي يوم الفتح، وكنت في جمع من قريش بأسفل مكة ـ وقد ضوى إلي من ضوى ـ فلقينا هناك خالد بن الوليد، فأوقع بنا، فهربت منه أريد ـ والله ـ أن ألقي نفسي في البحر، وأموت تائهاً في البلاد قبل أن أدخل في الإسلام، فخرجت حتى انتهيت إلى الشعيبة.​

!!! Still the prophet SPARED him at a later stage

وقالوا: إن أم حكيم قالت لرسول الله «صلى الله عليه وآله»: يا رسول الله، قد ذهب عكرمة عنك (أو هرب عكرمة منك) إلى اليمن، وخاف أن تقتله، فأمنه يا رسول الله.

فقال رسول الله «صلى الله عليه وآله»: «هو آمن».​

It is funny that you failed to mention that this is a list of the ppl who CHOSE to fight during Fate7 Macca eventhough the prophet, before the battle, promised to spare their lives if they choose not to fight. And indeed, most of the fighters in Mecca didn't fight and were all spared!!
Even more, the prophet later on spared the lives of some of those who chose to fight like 3ekrema for example!

Seriously, a militant leader who entered a city where he was previously expelled from and his followers were tortured and killed just for accepting Islam, decided to spare the lives of his enemies who chose not to fight and spared few lives of those who chose to fight.. what is shameful about that? are you aware of a militant leader at that time who acted in such a manner?! :)
There was no need to mention all these people chose to fight or not. I only wanted to give an example relevant to the original topic whereby insulting the prophet can get you killed. That is why I only mentioned the 2 slave girls and not the others. I gave you the link, I know what the content is so there's nothing to hide. Surely some of these men challenged him and conspired against him and deserved it.


Got problem reading Arabic? many of those ordered dead were spared. Among those spared was one of the slaves as written in the text you quoted yet you write that both slaves were killed?!

Also, here is a script from the reference that Sayyed Jaafar cited on the matter:

وَ كَانَ عَهْدُ رَسُولِ اَللَّهِ صَلَّى اَللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ إِلَى اَلْمُسْلِمِينَ عِنْدَ تَوَجُّهِهِ إِلَى مَكَّةَ أَنْ لاَ يَقْتُلُوا بِهَا إِلاَّ مَنْ قَاتَلَهُمْ وَ آمَنَ مَنْ تَعَلَّقَ بِأَسْتَارِ اَلْكَعْبَةِ سِوَى نَفَرٍ كَانُوا يُؤْذُونَهُ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ مِنْهُمْ مِقْيَسُ بْنُ صُبَابَةَ وَ اِبْنُ خَطَلٍ عَبْدُ اَلْعُزَّى وَ اِبْنُ أَبِي سَرْحٍ وَ قَيْنَتَانِ كَانَتَا تُغَنِّيَانِ بِهِجَاءِ رَسُولِ اَللَّهِ صَلَّى اَللَّهُ
عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ وَ بِمَرَاثِي أَهْلِ بَدْرٍ فَقَتَلَ أَمِيرُ اَلْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ إِحْدَى اَلْقَيْنَتَيْنِ​
Seriously wlo lasho el tadlees?!

My friend my arabic is not that bad but it looks like you read my text too fast. I never said they both got killed, reread what I wrote please. How can it be tadlees when I am the one who copied the text? The original order was to have both killed correct? In the end only one was killed at the hands of imam Ali, the other converted and was spared. Why did the prophet want them killed? because they sang satirical songs about him. They were slaves, not leaders or fighters or conspirators. That is why I singled them out as an example related to the original topic.

If I am wrong in my understanding, I am happy to be corrected.
 

Rafidi

Legendary Member
@elAshtar first, thank you sir for participating. I learned that the Sayyed passed away last year in October, my he RIP. I would have loved to meet him.

I agree with you, Al sa7ee7 min is what is true from, so the book should include what is true from the sira of the prophet via a critical investigation by the Sayyed.

Here's the page that mentions Abu Afak and 3asma2 along with others. Notice for Abu Afak, there is no commentary which implies there is no doubt about its authenticity.

For 3asma2, let's read it in 2 parts together. The first part being:

2 ـ قتل العصماء بنت مروان:

فلما قتل أبو عفك، تأففت العصماء بنت مروان (وهي من بني أمية بن زيد، وزوجة يزيد الخطمي) من قتله، فصارت تعيب الإسلام وأهله، وتؤنب الأنصار على اتباعهم رسول الله «صلى الله عليه وآله»، وتقول الشعر في هجوه «صلى الله عليه وآله»، وتحرض عليه، واستمرت على ذلك إلى ما بعد بدر. فجاءها عمير بن عوف ليلاً لخمس بقين من شهر رمضان المبارك، فوجدها نائمة بين ولدها، وهي ترضع ولدها ـ وعمير ضعيف البصر ـ فجسها بيده؛ فوجد الصبي على ثديها يرضع، فنحاه عنها، ثم وضع سيفه في صدرها حتى أخرجه من ظهرها، ثم ذهب إلى النبي «صلى الله عليه وآله»، فقال له «صلى الله عليه وآله»: أقتلت ابنة مروان؟

قال: نعم.

قال «صلى الله عليه وآله»: لا ينتطح فيها عنزان. أي لا يعارض فيها معارض([2]).

هكذا زعم المؤرخون: وإن كنا نشك في صحة ذلك، إذ لا يعقل أن ينحي ولدها عنها ولا تلتفت إليه، وتبقى ساكنة ساكتة، حتى يضع سيفه في صدرها.

هذا، وقد جاء في شواهد النبوة: أن عمير بن عدي الخطمي سمع أبياتها التي قالتها حين كان النبي «صلى الله عليه وآله» في بدر، والتي قالتها في ذم الإسلام والمسلمين، وكان ضريراً، فنذر: لئن رد الله رسوله سالماً من بدر ليقتلنها.

ففي ليلة قدومه «صلى الله عليه وآله» ذهب إليها عمير فقتلها؛ فلما رآه النبي «صلى الله عليه وآله» قال له: أقتلت ابنة مروان؟


قال: نعم.

فأقبل «صلى الله عليه وآله» على الناس، وقال: «من أحب أن ينظر إلى رجل كان في نصرة الله ورسوله؛ فلينظر إلى عمير بن عدي».

فقال عمر: إلى هذا الأعمى؟ بات في طاعة الله ورسوله!!.

فقال النبي «صلى الله عليه وآله»: مه يا عمر، فإنه بصير، أو كما قال([3]).

ورجع عمير إلى قومه من بني خطمة؛ فقال لهم: يا بني خطمة، أنا قتلت ابنة مروان، فكيدوني جميعاً، ولا تنظرون.

فذلك أول ما عز الإسلام في دار بني خطمة، وكان من أسلم منهم يستخفي بإسلامه، ويومئذٍ أسلم رجال منهم بما رأوا من عز الإسلام([4]).

ولعل ما في شواهد النبوة من أن عميراً كان أعمى، وقد جاء هذا على لسان عمر أيضاً، قد جاء على سبيل المبالغة؛ لأنه كان ضعيف البصر بالفعل، فإن من الصعب على الضرير أن يقوم بعملية كهذه، وهي نائمة ليلاً بين ولدها.

إلا أن يقال: إنه إذا عرف مكانها الذي تنام فيه، فإن بإمكانه تمييز الطفل عن غيره بواسطة تلمس أبدانهم، كما هو صريح الرواية. ولكنها ـ كما قلنا ـ تبقى عملية صعبة على الرجل الضرير.

ولذلك فنحن نرجح طريقة المبالغة كما قلنا.


In blue, the Sayyed mentions a second source for this incident شواهد النبوة
Notice the second source does not mention she had a child sleeping on her ( he had a problem with this part in the first narration)
His take on this is that the way it was done was exaggerated لذلك فنحن نرجح طريقة المبالغة كما قلنا
Why ? Because the claim that 3amir was blind is the exaggeration, he was not and this is proved in the following commentary below.
He did not say it did not happen, if you continue reading you will see further commentary from the Sayyed. Surprising he still comments on the child part. Please see the following:

ج: مع موقف عمير في أصالته ونبله:

1 ـ يلاحظ: أن عمير بن وهب ينحي ولد العصماء عن صدرها، ثم يقتلها.

وهذا يؤكد: على أن الإسلام قد ربى أتباعه على أنه ليس ضد الإنسان، وإنما هو ضد مواقفه وتصرفاته المنحرفة عن الحق، والعدل، والفطرة.

فهو يريد فقط: أن يقضي على مصدر الخطر على الحق والفطرة.


وحينما لا يبقى ثمة سبيل إلا القضاء على مصدر الفتنة؛ وحيث يكون آخر الدواء الكي؛ فإنه لا بد أن يكتفى بالحد الأدنى، الذي يتحقق فيه الهدف الأقصى، وهو إقامة الدين والحق.

2 ـ ثم إننا لنكبر هذا التعقل النادر لعمير في موقف حرج وخطير كهذا، حتى إنه ليملك في هذه اللحظات الحساسة جداً أن يتخذ القرار الحاسم والمبدئي، وكما يريده الإسلام، بعيداً عن كل اضطراب وانفعال، لا سيما وهو ضرير، كما قيل، أو ضعيف البصر.

نعم، إنه يتصرف بهدوء واطمئنان، ووعي، حتى في أحرج اللحظات، وأكثرها إثارة للأعصاب، وتشويشاً للحواس.

3 ـ ثم هناك رواية شواهد النبوة، التي تضيف: أن بعض الصحابة قد نفس على عمير هذا الوسام النبوي الذي ناله عن جدارة واستحقاق، ولم يستطع أن يخفي ذلك في نفسه، بل ظهر في فلتات لسانه بتعبير فيه شيء من الجفاء الجارح، دعا الرسول الأكرم «صلى الله عليه وآله» إلى محاولة حسم الموقف، ثم التلطيف والتخفيف من وقع تلك العبارة، ثم معاودة التأكيد على جدارة عمير، واستحقاقه للثناء، وعرفان حقه، بقوله «صلى الله عليه وآله»: «مه يا عمر، فإنه بصير».

4 ـ
وهناك أيضاً موقف آخر لعمير في قومه، الذي أدى إلى أن يعز الإسـلام فيهم، ويسلم منهم رجـال. فإن في ثقـة عمير بنفسه وبدينه، وصلابته في التعبير عن هذه الثقة، حتى لقد صرح لهم: أنه لم يعد يخشى أحداً على الإطلاق ـ إن في ذلك ـ ما يجعل كل من يتردد في قبول الإسلام، بسبب خوفه، وضعف نفسه، يشعر بأن بإمكانه أن يجد في الإسلام نصيراً ومعيناً وحامياً له، ولم يعد ثمة ما يبرر موقفه السلبي منه.

ولأجل هذا نجد: أن عدداً منهم يدخل في الإسلام، حينما شعر بعزة الإسلام وبقوته في تلك القبيلة.

This incident happened after the killing of abu afak and resulted in more people embracing Islam from 3amir's tribe.
It cannot be ruled out just like that, why did the Sayyed include extra commentary if it was totally fabricated?

You can see the full page here:

Bonus reading: الصحيح من سيرة النبي الأعظم (ص) ج23 - موقع الميزان
A list of all the people the Prophet ordered dead. Among them are two slave girls who used to sing satirical songs about him:
وهما قينتان لابن خطل، كانتا تغنيان بهجاء النبي«صلى الله عليه وآله»، فاستؤمن لإحداهما ـ فأسلمت ـ وقتلت الأخرى، قتلها علي«عليه السلام»
That's 7th century charlie hebdo....

First, a report in the history books without narrators cannot be substantiated. All the above is based on reasoning and speculation. That is means: "if" this was the case, "then" that would have happened. The Sayyid apparently is analysing. This is analysis.

It is actually surprisingly that after you denied she was inciting bloodshed and calling for the Prophet's assassination, you went on to quote the narrations whereby it is mentioned:

1. She was present in the Battle of Badr.
2. She was calling for the Prophet to be harmed.

Whether this event happened remains to be proven. The supposition that he killed was blind rules out the event altogether. Except if he is believed to have had weak or poor eyesight. The latter would be speculative.

Lastly, the Sayyid mentioned:

هكذا زعم المؤرخون

It means "this is what historians claim". He didnt say كما وردة في الروايات

This goes to show there is no hadith back up or mention of this event. This event could have happened and for the above 2 reasons. And it may not have happened altogether, let alone if the alleged killer was actually blind without any speculation or further analysis. Even if he was not blind, it still amuses me that a troublesome woman, who goes to the battlefield was sleeping alone with her kid and she couldn't escape the grip of an old man with poor sight.
 

Totenkopf

New Member
First, a report in the history books without narrators cannot be substantiated. All the above is based on reasoning and speculation. That is means: "if" this was the case, "then" that would have happened. The Sayyid apparently is analysing. This is analysis.

It is actually surprisingly that after you denied she was inciting bloodshed and calling for the Prophet's assassination, you went on to quote the narrations whereby it is mentioned:

1. She was present in the Battle of Badr.
2. She was calling for the Prophet to be harmed.

Whether this event happened remains to be proven. The supposition that he killed was blind rules out the event altogether. Except if he is believed to have had weak or poor eyesight. The latter would be speculative.

Lastly, the Sayyid mentioned:

هكذا زعم المؤرخون

It means "this is what historians claim". He didnt say كما وردة في الروايات

This goes to show there is no hadith back up or mention of this event. This event could have happened and for the above 2 reasons. And it may not have happened altogether, let alone if the alleged killer was actually blind without any speculation or further analysis. Even if he was not blind, it still amuses me that a troublesome woman, who goes to the battlefield was sleeping alone with her kid and she couldn't escape the grip of an old man with poor sight.
First, I am happy we are finally on the same page, as in reading from the same book.
While you quoted my post, it seems you read it too quickly.

1- She was NOT in the battle of badr, واستمرت على ذلك إلى ما بعد بدر
فنذر: لئن رد الله رسوله سالماً من بدر ليقتلنها
2 - Recall I quoted 4 sources in total. In some of them there is no تحرض عليه, I gave an example in my last reply

Now, in my opinion and based on my reading, the incident happened based on the following:
1-It was triggered by the killing of Abi Afak, this is what triggered her off. That incident did happen or else she would not have spoken against the prophet.
2-The Sayyed said هكذا زعم المؤرخون because he had a problem with the fact 3amir removed the child from her and she did not wake up
وإن كنا نشك في صحة ذلك، إذ لا يعقل أن ينحي ولدها عنها ولا تلتفت إليه، وتبقى ساكنة ساكتة، حتى يضع سيفه في صدرها
3-The Sayyed provided another source for the same incident هذا، وقد جاء في شواهد النبوة:
4-The Sayyed noted that the fact that 3amir is presented as blind is an exaggeration
قد جاء على سبيل المبالغة؛ لأنه كان ضعيف البصر بالفعل، فإن من الصعب على الضرير أن يقوم بعملية كهذه
Why did he say that? because the same narration says فقال النبي «صلى الله عليه وآله»: مه يا عمر، فإنه بصير
5- The Sayyed went on to write a detailed commentary about how nice and noble 3amir proved to be, did you read it? Why would he do this if the story was a total fabrication?
6- this incident resulted in more people from 3amir's tribe converting to Islam which is a notable aftermath.

Let us recap our subject, if someone insults or mocks the prophet, they get killed. I think 3asma2 story got attention because of the drama of being killed at night with her child on her.

So, to prove my point, we can take another example from my last post:
الصحيح من سيرة النبي الأعظم (ص) ج23 - موقع الميزان
Here you will find two slave girls who used to sing satirical songs about the prophet.
One of the them was killed by Imam Ali and the other was spared for converting.
وهما قينتان لابن خطل، كانتا تغنيان بهجاء النبي«صلى الله عليه وآله»، فاستؤمن لإحداهما ـ فأسلمت ـ وقتلت الأخرى، قتلها علي«عليه السلام»
وذكر عن ابن إسحاق: أن فرتنى هي التي أسلمت، وأن قريبة قتلت
 

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
there is always a justification for killing someone; the real problems are not in the justification but rather in the act itself, there is nothing divine in it. there is nothing divine in sword fights and wars and heads rolling, it is rather the very problematic caused by the weak human condition that finds itself needing to resort to violence to establish itself.

if asked people at this very moment will rationalize the religious fatwa for salman rushdi's death, and will try to find out all sorts of justifications to validate their stances, but reality will always remain the same, this is nothing but a reflection of the human condition at its worst, and there is nothing divine about it, people playing both judge and executioner, and all in the name of allah.

we have been over most of these issues and these examples in the past, the discussion is only repeating itself, going on tracks that many have become very familiar with so far, and it will keep going in circles for many, blessed are those who gain enough wisdom on these circular tracks, so that when they find themselves at the beginning once more, they would have gained some understanding and some deeper perspectives from their previous runs.
 

elAshtar

Legendary Member
elAshtar, I am also happy that you joined the discussion. Also if the above in bold is the case, no problem, I stand to be corrected. To recap if the Sayyed points out there is a problem then it is unauthenticated, if he leaves it uncommented, then it is by default authenticated, is this correct?
one can assume that it is authenticated by Sayyed Jaafar .. true.

Now the reason of the discussion was triggered by the professor that had his head cutoff due to the caricatures. I made a point that insulting the prophet in the past also resulted in the death of these people. As such, it should not come as surprising.
ok

It is not accurate based on Sayyed Jaafar, but I did quote multiple sources in previous posts. Somehow we settled on Sayyed Jaafar later.
Here's an example:

السيرة النبوية - ابن هشام الحميري - ج ٤ - الصفحة ١٠٥٢

فلما قتل أبو عفك نافقت، فذكر عبد الله بن الحارث بن الفضيل عن أبيه، قال: وكانت تحت رجل من بنى خطمة، يقال له يزيد بن زيد، فقالت تعيب الاسلام وأهله
There is no وتحرض عليه in this one. Just like we have seen with 3asma2, some details will differ when sources differ.
The idea is that the death of abu afak triggered the unhappiness of 3asma2 into insulting the prophet which got her killed.
Your claim that she was killed just because she insulted the prophet is weak:

1- There is another version cited by a prominent scholar that you yourself referred to stating that she was instigating against the prophet (i.e. calling for the killing of the Prophet)

2- While this may have been dropped by some sources. Logically speaking, one should recon to authenticated sources that provided more details especially that it agrees with the mentality of the people at that time i.e. calling for the murder of whom you think is responsible for your loss of a dear/close person

3- What also makes your argument weak is the practices of the prophet at that time: (1) the prophet freed prisoners of war. (2) he took care of those who abused him (his Jewish neighbor a story that is agreed on by ALL Muslims), (3) he even spared those who caused him significant pain (e.g. Habshi who killed his uncle Hamza).

4- You can't find any source reporting a direct order or saying by the prophet that calls for the murder of those who insult him. Also, if this was really the case, you should have been able to find reports about murdering hundreds of people because certainly hundreds were insulting the prophet during the first years following the spread of Islam.

5- In the worst case and least probable scenario, let us assume that indeed she was killed because she insulted the prophet. One can't simply compare the political situation at that time when the woman was killed with our times. I am not sure if you have read the paragraph that preceded mentioning the murder of these two persons of interest. I quote from Sayyed Jaafar book:

اذن، فلابد - برأي اليهود - من تطويق هذا الخطر، والحد من هذا النفوذ قبل فوات الاوان، حتى يتسنى لليهود الاستمرار في الاحتفاظ بالتفوق السياسي والاقتصادي في المنطقة.
وقد بدأت محاولات اليهود في هذا السبيل من أوائل الهجرة، وقبل حرب بدر، ثم كانت حرب بدر ونتائجها المذهلة، فزاد ذلك من مخاوف اليهود، والمشركين، والمنافقين على حد سواء، فصعدوا من نشاطاتهم، وتحدياتهم بشكل ملحوظ كما سنرى.
وقد بدأ اليهود قبل بدر بالتحريض على الرسول الأعظم (صلى الله عليه وآله) والمسلمين، والتعرض لهم بمختلف أنواع الأذى، فكان (أبو عفك) اليهودي يحرض على رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)، ويقول فيه الشعر، فنذر سالم بن عمير أن يقتله، أو يموت دونه، فذهب إليه فقتله (1).​

So, it is clear that these two killings took place at a time when some Jews started conspiring against the Muslims and hurting them although there was an agreement between them and the Prophet!!

There was no need to mention all these people chose to fight or not. I only wanted to give an example relevant to the original topic whereby insulting the prophet can get you killed. That is why I only mentioned the 2 slave girls and not the others. I gave you the link, I know what the content is so there's nothing to hide. Surely some of these men challenged him and conspired against him and deserved it.
Seriously, you just threw names to give the impression that the prophet killed tens of people for insulting him when in fact many of these were spared. And those who were killed, were killed because the insisted on fighting the Muslims as they were entering Mecca?! Mecca from which the prophet and his followers were kicked out because of their belief in Islam? You think that mentioning these details are insignificant to mention? really? :). You think these details wouldn't help those who are unfamiliar with the incident to understand what character Mohammad had?! :)
Please tell me of a victorious leader who enters a city he was expelled from, other than Muhammad, who spared the lives of those who fought him before? An army who enters a city without raping, killing,..etc? Maybe it is beneficial here to mention what happened when the army of the Muslims were entering Mecca (Saad Bin Obada was one of the Muslims militant leaders):

إنّ سعداً يقول: اليوم يوم الملحمة، اليوم تسبى الحرمة، اليوم أذلّ الله قريشاً،..... ، فوقف رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) وناداه: يا أبا سفيان، اليوم يوم المرحمة، اليوم أعزّ الله قريشاً، وأرسل عليّاً إلى سعد بن عبادة ليأخذ اللّواء منه ويدخل به مكّة، وهو ينادي كما أمره رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم): اليوم يوم المرحمة، اليوم تصان الحرمة.


My friend my arabic is not that bad but it looks like you read my text too fast. I never said they both got killed, reread what I wrote please. How can it be tadlees when I am the one who copied the text? The original order was to have both killed correct? In the end only one was killed at the hands of imam Ali, the other converted and was spared. Why did the prophet want them killed? because they sang satirical songs about him. They were slaves, not leaders or fighters or conspirators. That is why I singled them out as an example related to the original topic.

If I am wrong in my understanding, I am happy to be corrected.
I stand correct. Sorry, you did not say that they were both killed but that it was ordered that both be killed. However, how can you tell that they were ordered to be killed ONLY because they sang satirical songs?
I will repost the text I quoted before:

Again, here is a script from the reference (الإرشاد ج۱ ص۱۳۶) that Sayyed Jaafar cited on the matter:

وَ كَانَ عَهْدُ رَسُولِ اَللَّهِ صَلَّى اَللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ إِلَى اَلْمُسْلِمِينَ عِنْدَ تَوَجُّهِهِ إِلَى مَكَّةَ أَنْ لاَ يَقْتُلُوا بِهَا إِلاَّ مَنْ قَاتَلَهُمْ وَ آمَنَ مَنْ تَعَلَّقَ بِأَسْتَارِ اَلْكَعْبَةِ سِوَى نَفَرٍ كَانُوا يُؤْذُونَهُ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ مِنْهُمْ مِقْيَسُ بْنُ صُبَابَةَ وَ اِبْنُ خَطَلٍ عَبْدُ اَلْعُزَّى وَ اِبْنُ أَبِي سَرْحٍ وَ قَيْنَتَانِ كَانَتَا تُغَنِّيَانِ بِهِجَاءِ رَسُولِ اَللَّهِ صَلَّى اَللَّهُ
عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ وَ بِمَرَاثِي أَهْلِ بَدْرٍ فَقَتَلَ أَمِيرُ اَلْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ إِحْدَى اَلْقَيْنَتَيْنِ

I hope you are good in grammar. If these two maids were killed because they were just singing, then قَيْنَتَانِ (Marfoo3) should have been قَيْنَتَيْنِ (Majroor) like in' ... سِوَى نَفَرٍ cause in this case it would be 'Ma3toofa 3ala nafaren: sewa nafaren w qainatain'. The fact that it is Qainatan and not Qainatain, means that Qainatan ma3toofa 3ala 2eben Khatal w 2eben sar7 i.e. the two maids belong to the same group of ppl who were hurting the prophet كَانُوا يُؤْذُونَهُ :).
 

Rafidi

Legendary Member
First, I am happy we are finally on the same page, as in reading from the same book.
While you quoted my post, it seems you read it too quickly.

1- She was NOT in the battle of badr, واستمرت على ذلك إلى ما بعد بدر
فنذر: لئن رد الله رسوله سالماً من بدر ليقتلنها
2 - Recall I quoted 4 sources in total. In some of them there is no تحرض عليه, I gave an example in my last reply

Now, in my opinion and based on my reading, the incident happened based on the following:
1-It was triggered by the killing of Abi Afak, this is what triggered her off. That incident did happen or else she would not have spoken against the prophet.
2-The Sayyed said هكذا زعم المؤرخون because he had a problem with the fact 3amir removed the child from her and she did not wake up
وإن كنا نشك في صحة ذلك، إذ لا يعقل أن ينحي ولدها عنها ولا تلتفت إليه، وتبقى ساكنة ساكتة، حتى يضع سيفه في صدرها
3-The Sayyed provided another source for the same incident هذا، وقد جاء في شواهد النبوة:
4-The Sayyed noted that the fact that 3amir is presented as blind is an exaggeration
قد جاء على سبيل المبالغة؛ لأنه كان ضعيف البصر بالفعل، فإن من الصعب على الضرير أن يقوم بعملية كهذه
Why did he say that? because the same narration says فقال النبي «صلى الله عليه وآله»: مه يا عمر، فإنه بصير
5- The Sayyed went on to write a detailed commentary about how nice and noble 3amir proved to be, did you read it? Why would he do this if the story was a total fabrication?
6- this incident resulted in more people from 3amir's tribe converting to Islam which is a notable aftermath.

Let us recap our subject, if someone insults or mocks the prophet, they get killed. I think 3asma2 story got attention because of the drama of being killed at night with her child on her.

So, to prove my point, we can take another example from my last post:
الصحيح من سيرة النبي الأعظم (ص) ج23 - موقع الميزان
Here you will find two slave girls who used to sing satirical songs about the prophet.
One of the them was killed by Imam Ali and the other was spared for converting.
وهما قينتان لابن خطل، كانتا تغنيان بهجاء النبي«صلى الله عليه وآله»، فاستؤمن لإحداهما ـ فأسلمت ـ وقتلت الأخرى، قتلها علي«عليه السلام»
وذكر عن ابن إسحاق: أن فرتنى هي التي أسلمت، وأن قريبة قتلت

You are free to believe anything you like. I'm not here to change your mind. Apparently, you are the one on that mission.

Regarding this story, let me conclude, I dont believe it happened, like many other stories for the obvious reasons. Being that these type of stories including the new one you presented about Imam Ali killing another found in Ibn Ishaq, are found in history books and without sources or chain of narrators. They are logically inconsistent internally and in relations to other accounts and need the help of imagination and to add (interpolations) to the stories to make them make sense.

Again I'm not seeking to convince you. But let's say these stories did happen. The way you are portraying it is wrong. In one of the narrations you presented, we read: "kanat tu7arred 3alan nabi". What does this mean? It means she was inciting others to kill the Prophet. She was inciting fitnah and bloodshed, including during the time of Badr when Muslims were very weak and God granted them victory over a bigger army. And the Quran makes it clear: "fitnah is worse than killing". Your aim is not only to establish the story as true and even without doubt, but to go as far as ignoring her purported actions and turning a blind eye to them.

So have a nice time believing whatever.
 
Last edited:

Totenkopf

New Member
Your claim that she was killed just because she insulted the prophet is weak:

1- There is another version cited by a prominent scholar that you yourself referred to stating that she was instigating against the prophet (i.e. calling for the killing of the Prophet)

2- While this may have been dropped by some sources. Logically speaking, one should recon to authenticated sources that provided more details especially that it agrees with the mentality of the people at that time i.e. calling for the murder of whom you think is responsible for your loss of a dear/close person

Fair enough, more details work both ways so I accept that. I wonder though what her prominence was in order to merit being killed. She may have had a young child. Was she a nobody or did she have stature that allowed her to impact things on the ground? Abi Afak must have meant something to her, she got pissed off and started insulting and instigating knowing who killed him.


3- What also makes your argument weak is the practices of the prophet at that time: (1) the prophet freed prisoners of war. (2) he took care of those who abused him (his Jewish neighbor a story that is agreed on by ALL Muslims), (3) he even spared those who caused him significant pain (e.g. Habshi who killed his uncle Hamza).

The prophet was a very smart man, he was politically shrewd and knew what to do when. He did not adopt a permanent nice guy approach like you're mentioning. He adapted to the situation depending on his power position and he excelled at that. So to tell me he freed prisoners of war, it was not a common practice, بني المصطلق (among many others) would beg to differ. I want to avoid going on tangents, let us finish this subject and we can open new ones subsequently.

4- You can't find any source reporting a direct order or saying by the prophet that calls for the murder of those who insult him. Also, if this was really the case, you should have been able to find reports about murdering hundreds of people because certainly hundreds were insulting the prophet during the first years following the spread of Islam.
I don't know where the figure of hundreds comes from. He did call on murdering those that hurt him and among them are people that mocked or insulted him as with the slave girls example.

5- In the worst case and least probable scenario, let us assume that indeed she was killed because she insulted the prophet. One can't simply compare the political situation at that time when the woman was killed with our times. I am not sure if you have read the paragraph that preceded mentioning the murder of these two persons of interest. I quote from Sayyed Jaafar book:

اذن، فلابد - برأي اليهود - من تطويق هذا الخطر، والحد من هذا النفوذ قبل فوات الاوان، حتى يتسنى لليهود الاستمرار في الاحتفاظ بالتفوق السياسي والاقتصادي في المنطقة.
وقد بدأت محاولات اليهود في هذا السبيل من أوائل الهجرة، وقبل حرب بدر، ثم كانت حرب بدر ونتائجها المذهلة، فزاد ذلك من مخاوف اليهود، والمشركين، والمنافقين على حد سواء، فصعدوا من نشاطاتهم، وتحدياتهم بشكل ملحوظ كما سنرى.
وقد بدأ اليهود قبل بدر بالتحريض على الرسول الأعظم (صلى الله عليه وآله) والمسلمين، والتعرض لهم بمختلف أنواع الأذى، فكان (أبو عفك) اليهودي يحرض على رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)، ويقول فيه الشعر، فنذر سالم بن عمير أن يقتله، أو يموت دونه، فذهب إليه فقتله (1).​

So, it is clear that these two killings took place at a time when some Jews started conspiring against the Muslims and hurting them although there was an agreement between them and the Prophet!!

Seriously, you just threw names to give the impression that the prophet killed tens of people for insulting him when in fact many of these were spared. And those who were killed, were killed because the insisted on fighting the Muslims as they were entering Mecca?! Mecca from which the prophet and his followers were kicked out because of their belief in Islam? You think that mentioning these details are insignificant to mention? really? :). You think these details wouldn't help those who are unfamiliar with the incident to understand what character Mohammad had?! :)
Please tell me of a victorious leader who enters a city he was expelled from, other than Muhammad, who spared the lives of those who fought him before? An army who enters a city without raping, killing,..etc? Maybe it is beneficial here to mention what happened when the army of the Muslims were entering Mecca (Saad Bin Obada was one of the Muslims militant leaders):

إنّ سعداً يقول: اليوم يوم الملحمة، اليوم تسبى الحرمة، اليوم أذلّ الله قريشاً،..... ، فوقف رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) وناداه: يا أبا سفيان، اليوم يوم المرحمة، اليوم أعزّ الله قريشاً، وأرسل عليّاً إلى سعد بن عبادة ليأخذ اللّواء منه ويدخل به مكّة، وهو ينادي كما أمره رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم): اليوم يوم المرحمة، اليوم تصان الحرمة.

This is the second time you misunderstand me, I did not give the impression the prophet killed tens of people for insulting him. what I did is provide a reference to a page that lists the people he ordered dead. Why? Because among them is the example I used, the 2 slave girls. Why were they ordered dead? because they mocked him in their songs.

In this scenario, the prophet was merciful to his kinfolk, correct? he was after all born into the hashemite clan of the tribe. Like I said above, the prophet who started with small raids ended up challenging the byzantine empire, he knew how to grow his power base.

***out of topic***
Regarding entering a city without rape etc, if you like military history, check out the Kings and General channel on youtube. They cover all sorts of historical battles, you'll come across plenty of different scenarios.

I stand correct. Sorry, you did not say that they were both killed but that it was ordered that both be killed. However, how can you tell that they were ordered to be killed ONLY because they sang satirical songs?
I will repost the text I quoted before:

Again, here is a script from the reference (الإرشاد ج۱ ص۱۳۶) that Sayyed Jaafar cited on the matter:

وَ كَانَ عَهْدُ رَسُولِ اَللَّهِ صَلَّى اَللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ إِلَى اَلْمُسْلِمِينَ عِنْدَ تَوَجُّهِهِ إِلَى مَكَّةَ أَنْ لاَ يَقْتُلُوا بِهَا إِلاَّ مَنْ قَاتَلَهُمْ وَ آمَنَ مَنْ تَعَلَّقَ بِأَسْتَارِ اَلْكَعْبَةِ سِوَى نَفَرٍ كَانُوا يُؤْذُونَهُ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ مِنْهُمْ مِقْيَسُ بْنُ صُبَابَةَ وَ اِبْنُ خَطَلٍ عَبْدُ اَلْعُزَّى وَ اِبْنُ أَبِي سَرْحٍ وَ قَيْنَتَانِ كَانَتَا تُغَنِّيَانِ بِهِجَاءِ رَسُولِ اَللَّهِ صَلَّى اَللَّهُ
عَلَيْهِ وَ آلِهِ وَ بِمَرَاثِي أَهْلِ بَدْرٍ فَقَتَلَ أَمِيرُ اَلْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلِيُّ بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ عَلَيْهِ السَّلاَمُ إِحْدَى اَلْقَيْنَتَيْنِ

I hope you are good in grammar. If these two maids were killed because they were just singing, then قَيْنَتَانِ (Marfoo3) should have been قَيْنَتَيْنِ (Majroor) like in' ... سِوَى نَفَرٍ cause in this case it would be 'Ma3toofa 3ala nafaren: sewa nafaren w qainatain'. The fact that it is Qainatan and not Qainatain, means that Qainatan ma3toofa 3ala 2eben Khatal w 2eben sar7 i.e. the two maids belong to the same group of ppl who were hurting the prophet كَانُوا يُؤْذُونَهُ :).
You are correct sir, they belonged to ibn Khatal, their wrong doing should be on him not on them! Since he is their owner, he can force them to do whatever he wants. I also understand quiet well this part كَانُوا يُؤْذُونَهُ , they were nobody slaves so the maximum they can do is hurt his feelings. I would also have my feelings hurt if someone sang mockery songs about me (and I am nobody) so imagine it's about someone like the prophet with a reputation to uphold :)
 

Totenkopf

New Member
You are free to believe anything you like. I'm not here to change your mind. Apparently, you are the one on that mission.

Regarding this story, let me conclude, I dont believe it happened, like many other stories for the obvious reasons. Being that these type of stories including the new one you presented about Imam Ali killing another found in Ibn Ishaq, are found in history books and without sources or chain of narrators. They are logically inconsistent internally and in relations to other accounts and need the help of imagination and to add (interpolations) to the stories to make them make sense.

Again I'm not seeking to convince you. But let's say these stories did happen. The way you are portraying it is wrong. In one of the narrations you presented, we read: "kanat tu7arred 3alan nabi". What does this mean? It means she was inciting others to kill the Prophet. She was inciting fitnah and bloodshed, including during the time of Badr when Muslims were very weak and God granted them victory over a bigger army. And the Quran makes it clear: "fitnah is worse than killing". Your aim is not only to establish the story as true and even without doubt, but to go as far as ignoring her purported actions and turning a blind eye to them.

So have a nice time believing whatever.
No problem my friend, forget about 3asma2 story. We can stick to the two slaves I mentioned which prove the claim I first made.

Besides that, I want to thank you for getting this far with me with no insults. It's been a pleasure and I hope we can have new discussions later.
 

NewLeb

Member
Unfortunately, that’s the reason why Christians don’t properly cleanse themselves after defecation; or why they eat horrible things like pork-meat. They had no figure to guide them in relation to the everyday and ordinary instances of human life.

6A845B71-A459-4845-9F32-8964ABF2CD91.jpeg
 

elAshtar

Legendary Member
Fair enough, more details work both ways so I accept that. I wonder though what her prominence was in order to merit being killed. She may have had a young child. Was she a nobody or did she have stature that allowed her to impact things on the ground? Abi Afak must have meant something to her, she got pissed off and started insulting and instigating knowing who killed him.




The prophet was a very smart man, he was politically shrewd and knew what to do when. He did not adopt a permanent nice guy approach like you're mentioning. He adapted to the situation depending on his power position and he excelled at that. So to tell me he freed prisoners of war, it was not a common practice, بني المصطلق (among many others) would beg to differ. I want to avoid going on tangents, let us finish this subject and we can open new ones subsequently.


I don't know where the figure of hundreds comes from. He did call on murdering those that hurt him and among them are people that mocked or insulted him as with the slave girls example.



This is the second time you misunderstand me, I did not give the impression the prophet killed tens of people for insulting him. what I did is provide a reference to a page that lists the people he ordered dead. Why? Because among them is the example I used, the 2 slave girls. Why were they ordered dead? because they mocked him in their songs.

In this scenario, the prophet was merciful to his kinfolk, correct? he was after all born into the hashemite clan of the tribe. Like I said above, the prophet who started with small raids ended up challenging the byzantine empire, he knew how to grow his power base.

***out of topic***
Regarding entering a city without rape etc, if you like military history, check out the Kings and General channel on youtube. They cover all sorts of historical battles, you'll come across plenty of different scenarios.


You are correct sir, they belonged to ibn Khatal, their wrong doing should be on him not on them! Since he is their owner, he can force them to do whatever he wants. I also understand quiet well this part كَانُوا يُؤْذُونَهُ , they were nobody slaves so the maximum they can do is hurt his feelings. I would also have my feelings hurt if someone sang mockery songs about me (and I am nobody) so imagine it's about someone like the prophet with a reputation to uphold :)
1- My point is that these two slaves belonged to a group who have hurt
the prophet and did not only insult him as is mentioned in the source. I did not mean they belonged to Iben Khatal.
2- And while you are right with them being slaves to Iben Khatal, they could have denounced what they have done. One did and she was spared.
3- The prophet was tortured along with his followers in Mecca by tens of ppl. He later had several battles where hundreds were killed. So, to think that there are other hundreds of ppl who insulted him is a quite reasonable assumption.
4- Again, if the penalty of insulting him was death, how come there is no mention to that in the quran or in the sayings of the Prophet?

5-Now, you are right about something which I have already mentioned before. You can't talk about these incidents without taking into consideration the political situation at the time when these killings happened. This is why I quoted the paragraph from Sayyed Jaafar which explains the political situation at the time when Abu afak and Asma2 were killed. That is, at a time when there was an aggreement between the prophet and the jews. Also, the fact that their actions were aiming at causing civil unrest, creating chaos, and weakening the muslims.
As an example, it is perfectly fine to raise the Nazi flag nowadays in the US. Would the authoroties in the US have dealt in the same way if this flag was raised in 1943 for instance?

6- And no, the prophet wasn't merciful to his kinfolks. I mentioned for instance Habshi, who was a black person from Habasha. And the Prophet spared him when he was at his maximum strength.

Main point remains: In all of the FEW examples you have mentioned, you failed to prove that these ppl were killed because they ONLY insulted the Prophet. In various sources, it was reported that these ppl didn't only insult the prophet but hurt and instigated against him.
 

Totenkopf

New Member
1- My point is that these two slaves belonged to a group who have hurt
the prophet and did not only insult him as is mentioned in the source. I did not mean they belonged to Iben Khatal.
2- And while you are right with them being slaves to Iben Khatal, they could have denounced what they have done. One did and she was spared.
3- The prophet was tortured along with his followers in Mecca by tens of ppl. He later had several battles where hundreds were killed. So, to think that there are other hundreds of ppl who insulted him is a quite reasonable assumption.
4- Again, if the penalty of insulting him was death, how come there is no mention to that in the quran or in the sayings of the Prophet?

5-Now, you are right about something which I have already mentioned before. You can't talk about these incidents without taking into consideration the political situation at the time when these killings happened. This is why I quoted the paragraph from Sayyed Jaafar which explains the political situation at the time when Abu afak and Asma2 were killed. That is, at a time when there was an aggreement between the prophet and the jews. Also, the fact that their actions were aiming at causing civil unrest, creating chaos, and weakening the muslims.
As an example, it is perfectly fine to raise the Nazi flag nowadays in the US. Would the authoroties in the US have dealt in the same way if this flag was raised in 1943 for instance?

6- And no, the prophet wasn't merciful to his kinfolks. I mentioned for instance Habshi, who was a black person from Habasha. And the Prophet spared him when he was at his maximum strength.

Main point remains: In all of the FEW examples you have mentioned, you failed to prove that these ppl were killed because they ONLY insulted the Prophet. In various sources, it was reported that these ppl didn't only insult the prophet but hurt and instigated against him.
1 & 2, regardless of belonging to the group rather than Iben Khatal only, the fact is they were ordered dead because they mocked the prophet. Not because of anything else because they do not have any other power to hurt the prophet except for his feelings as they were in the lowest rank of society. They may have been forced or truly felt what they said vis a vis the prophet.
3-Maybe 10s and maybe 100s, I don't know everything obviously and there might have been many stories that didn't make it into the books. It is safe to assume the number of incidents is most likely higher than those we know from the books. I don't think we can beat this horse further as none of us has the full picture.
4-There is no punishment for rape in the Quran, does that mean rape went unpunished?
5-The Nazi flag example is not a good one, it is as if you are implying that today it is acceptable to mock and insult the prophet when it was not during the time of the prophet.
6-My point was only in the context of Badr, it was not a blanket statement. It ties with what I mentioned previously about the prophet being a shrewd strategist knowing exactly the best decisions to take.

Main point remains that mocking and insulting the prophet will get you killed. I gave a few examples because my aim is not to spam (ie list a bunch at once) or else we would both lose interest quickly as focus would be lost.

Here's another example from the same page quoted previously: كعب بن زهير
وهو الشاعر الذي كان يهجو رسول الله «صلى الله عليه وآله»، وجاء بعد ذلك فأسلم، ومدحه بقصيدة بانت سعاد. ذكره الحاكم
Ignoring the fact that he did not end up dead, why did the prophet put his name on the hit list in the first place?
 

Iron Maiden

Paragon of Bacon
Orange Room Supporter
Unfortunately, that’s the reason why Christians don’t properly cleanse themselves after defecation; or why they eat horrible things like pork-meat. They had no figure to guide them in relation to the everyday and ordinary instances of human life.

View attachment 22043




@SeaAb fancy some crispy allah bacon?
 

agnostic

Legendary Member
Islam told you to not eat pig. But as French say on ne donne pas de la confiture aux cochons car ils ne savent pas l’apprécier.

# Eat Pig and Get Corona for free.

 
Top