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
I originally wrote an article here https://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/was_prophet_muhammad_unfair.htm which Sam Shamoun responded back to here http://www../Shamoun/cruelty.htm and then I responded back here https://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/counter_rebuttal_to_people_of_ukl.htm and Sam Shamoun responded back here http://www../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.
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.....
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.
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 didnt Muhammad follow the better way and remit the punishment, taking Allahs advice to be patient with those who committed these crimes? After all, didnt 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.
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.
How can you even try to compare? Did the Muslims start invading and fighting against the Serbs FIRST? Your analogies are flawed.
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.
https://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/shariah_law_being_strict.htm https://www.answering-christianity.com/muslim1/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_47.htm https://www.answering-christianity.com/muslim1/counter_rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_1.htm
Back to My Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.
Rebuttals by Bassam Zawadi.
Islam and the Noble Quran - Questions and Answers.
Contradictions and History of Corruption in the Bible.
Questions about Jesus that trinitarian Christians don't have logical answers for.
What parts of the Bible do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth? and Why?
"Allah" was GOD Almighty's original Name in the Bible according to the Hebrew and Aramaic sources.
Scientific Miracles in Islam and the Noble Quran.
Most of the Bible's books and gospels were written by mysterious people!
Jesus mentioned Muhammad by the name in the Bible.
Did Isaiah 53 really prophesies about the crucifixion of Jesus? It supports Islam's claims about Jesus peace be upon him never died on the cross. I also addressed John 19:36-37 from the Bible and proved that Jesus never got crucified, since GOD Almighty promised that he will protect Jesus' body and not let even a single bone be broken. My question to all Christians is: How in the world is it possible for the feet to get nailed on the cross without any penetration to the bones by the nails, hence breaking part of the feet's bones?! I also added refutations to Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, Zechariah 12:10 and Psalm 34:20, which supposedly prove the Christians' belief about Jesus crucifixion. I proved that this dogma has no truth what so ever and exposed the wrong Trinitarian English translation of Zechariah 12:10.
Send your comments.
Back to Main Page.