Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Why Did Muhammad Torture and Mutilate the Apostates of Uraynah?

In the comments section of a previous post, Bassam defended the historicity of the healing of a group from Uraynah. Since we're discussing this event, I thought it would be a good time to address Muhammad's reason for torturing and mutilating these men. Muslims typically claim that the men were mutilated because they had mutilated one of Muhammad's herdsmen. But is this the true reason? The Hadith, as usual, paint an inconsistent picture.

Let's begin with the basic story:

Sunan an-Nasa'i 4029--Anas bin Malik narrated that a group of eighty people from Ukl came to the Prophet, but the climate of Al-Madinah did not suit them and they fell sick. They complained about that to the Messenger of Allah and he said: "Why don't you go out with our herdsmen and drink the milk and urine of the camels?" They said: "Yes (we will do that)." They went out and drank some of the (camels') milk and urine, and they recovered. Then they killed the herdsmen of the Messenger of Allah, so he sent (men after them) and they caught them and brought them back. He had their hands and feet cut off and branded their eyes, and left them in the sun to die.

While this Hadith doesn't clearly state the reason for the punishment, the following Hadith does:

Sunan an-Nasa'i 4040--It was narrated that Anas bin Malik said: "Some Bedouin from Uraynah came to the Prophet of Allah and accepted Islam, but the climate of Al-Madinah did not suit them; their skin turned yellow and their bellies became swollen. The Prophet of Allah sent them to some milk camels of his and told them to drink their milk and urine until they recovered. Then they killed their herdsmen and drove off the camels. The Prophet of Allah sent (men) after them and they were brought back, then he had their hands and feet cut off, and their eyes were branded." The Commander of the Believers, Abdul-Malik, said to Anas, when he was narrating this Hadith: "Was that (punishment) for Kufr or for sin?" He said: "For Kufr."

So we can see that the punishment was not for attacking the herdsman, but for leaving Islam! But wait, there's more:

Sunan an-Nasa'i 4042--It was narrated that Aishah said: "Some people raided the milk camels of the Messenger of Allah. He caught them and had their hands and feet cut off and their eyes gouged out."

Here it seems that the men were tortured and mutilated simply because they dared raid Muhammad's camels. But we have yet another reason:

Sunan an-Nasa'i 4048--It was narrated that Anas said: "The Prophet only had the eyes of those people gouged out, because they had gouged out the eyes of the herdsmen."

Bassam, of course will go with this reason, since it seems the least unjust to him. The problem, of course, is that even Allah believed that Muhammad's punishment was unjust:

Sunan an-Nasa'i 4047--It was narrated from Abu Az-Zinad that the Messenger of Allah had the (hands and feet) of those who drove off his camels cut off, and their eyes gouged out with fire. Allah rebuked him for that, and Allah, Most High, revealed the entire verse: "The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger."

Why bother defending a man so brutal that even Allah (certainly no stranger to brutal punishments) must rebuke him? (Notice that the only reason given for the punishment in this Hadith is that the men drove off Muhammad's camels.)

*****NOTE: BE CAREFUL IF YOU WANT TO AGREE WITH ALLAH AND SAY THAT MUHAMMAD WAS WRONG FOR TORTURING, MUTILATING, AND EXECUTING THESE MEN. IF YOU DO, YOU'RE SURE TO GET THE STANDARD MUSLIM RESPONSE: "BUT THE BIBLE . . ." (AS IF THIS ANSWERS THE OBJECTION AND REMOVES THE BRUTALITY!)*****

13 comments:

B said...

David said: “So we can see that the punishment was not for attacking the herdsman, but for leaving Islam!”

I don’t fully understand what Abdul Malik was trying to say, but if he is saying what you claim he is (i.e. the only reason was their apostasy, their crime of murder and torturing the shepherd was irrelevant. This means that if they committed this crime, but didn’t apostatize they wouldn’t have got punished), then he is definitely wrong and this is very easy to refute.

“David said: Why bother defending a man so brutal that even Allah (certainly no stranger to brutal punishments) must rebuke him?”

Abdullah bin Umar disagreed with the companions who took this position. He said that the punishment to those warriors was just, for they pierced the eyes of the shepherd and thus deserved the same fate. Allah sent down this verse only to state that the punishment for anyone afterwards would be what was stated in the verse; however it was acceptable for those particular people. The Prophet (peace be upon him) shouldn’t have been rebuked since he didn’t knowingly disobey any commands.

So we can’t say for sure that this verse was sent down in order to rebuke the Prophet. The verse in and of itself does not indicate that. Some “interpreted” the revealing of this verse as a rebuke and others have not. I take the latter position not because I simply feel like it but because I honestly don’t see where the Prophet went wrong in implementing a just punishment (i.e. give the criminal the same fate as his crime)

“David said: (Notice that the only reason given for the punishment in this Hadith is that the men drove off Muhammad's camels.)”

No it doesn’t say that. It says that there were people who drove of the Prophet’s and camels and then…

The narration does not give the impression that this was their only crime.


Kind Regards,

Bassam

DAN12345 said...

Are we ever going to get an honest muslim write on this blog"yes that was terrible what muhammad did" no never,they will defend him until they are blue in the face no matter what he did.He can marry a child they will praise him,he can order people to kill and torture and allow them to lie they will praise him.They know in their hearts what he done is wrong,but they continue to defend it as they have no choice,they cannot admit the truth.Please show me which of the 10 commandments muhammad kept,or any of jesus's teaching he kept.The teachings of muhammad and jesus are so opposite 1 is from god 1 is not very simple for anyone without beer goggles to see....and we with a soul and a mind know which ones of these are true.

Sami Zaatari said...

dan, , lets see how honest you truly are, dan, will you condemn your bible for:

-calling for the genocide of several towns and people by your god

-ordering attackers to destroy homes and rape the women in the process

-call for the rapist to marry the victim and give 50 shekels

-calling all of the above as inspired and lovely scripture

will you condemn all of the above???? lol now come with the excuses until you are blue in the face, btw im not even nearly done, i forgot some others:

-advocating parents to beat their children with a rod

-advocating torture of enemy combatants with axes, saws

:) so will you condemn all of the above which is advocated by your god on his chosen armies to do? something tells me you wont, now go on and make your lovely excuses. the hypocrisy is so lovely.

David Wood said...

Here's my take on Muhammad's torture and mutilation of the Uraynah apostates. (There are many possibilities as to what actually happened, but this, I think, is the most probable chain of events.)

(1) A group of Muslims felt sick.
(2) Muhammad told them to go drink camel's urine.
(3) They drank camel's urine, and felt even worse.
(4) They concluded that Muhammad must be a false prophet, and, in a rage, they scattered Muhammad's camels.
(5) In retaliation for their apostasy and attack on his property, Muhammad mutilated, tortured, and killed them.

Later Muslims were surprised by Muhammad's brutality, so they began modifying the story. They invented the part about the men being cured by the camel's urine. This, however, wasn't enough to make Muhammad's deeds acceptable, so they also invented the part about the men killing Muhammad's shepherd. But this wasn't enough either, so they invented the part about the men mutilating Muhammad's shepherd. When this wasn't enough, they invented the part about Muhammad being rebuked by Allah.

DAN12345 said...

Sami first dont use this word genocide so easy,are you saying Allah initiated Genocide with Nuh in the flood?or did he also commit genocide with sodom and g?
So i dont need to even answer your question you can answer it yourself if you consider Gods judgement genocide or not?Now when this post is posted about your prophet you suddenly attack the bible?i was making a comparison between jesus acts and those of muhammads which you can never condemn,and you backed into a corner attack the bible.You didnt even make or offer an explaination to why this was done.Now if you want me to answer all your points about the old test i will do it in my next post if that makes you feel good about what muhammad did,but i would like to hear what you think about did God do genocide

Nakdimon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nakdimon said...

(a small lapse in the previous post. here is the re-post)

Sami, These are the provisions that God set upon the Israelites, yes. I think God has that right and souvernty to make those calls. But now I’m going to call you, or ANY MUSLIM, out on all the points you raised.

dan, , lets see how honest you truly are, dan, will you condemn your bible for:

-calling for the genocide of several towns and people by your god


No, I will not. God has the right to give life and to destroy. Israel is not called to commit genocide outside of the instances that God calls them specifically to that purpose. And God gives the reasons for it why He did it. You try to appeal to emotions when it comes to the Bible, but will deny those emotions when it comes to Islam. Be consistent: If you argue for the God of Heaven being genocidal, because He orders His people to kill ONE or TWO tribes of people, then you have to condemn Allah for trying to take credit for Sodom and Gomorrah also. Not to mention Allah boasting about the flood, that destroyed all tribes on earth except 6 people! Sami, be consistent: what do you think about that act of Allah?

-ordering attackers to destroy homes and rape the women in the process

Where do you find that? There is an entire discussion about this topic. It has been shown that the Bible doesn’t endorse the raping of women. You can have another shot, since your fellow Muslims weren’t successful of projecting the flaws of your own religion into the Bible, so what you have to do is to show us that what you say is correct. Give us book, chapter and verse to substantiate your case and I’ll respond. But now I will call you out: unlike the Bible. your “holy” book condones rape, casual sex and adultery! And your prophet confirms it. In the Qur’an, chapter 4, Allah condones sex with captive and slave women, even if they are married. Your ahadith substantiate that teaching.

1 Both areas (Qur’an and Hadith) shamelessly declare that your god and prophet allowed sex with women when their spouses are still with them. That is rape, unless you can show us that those married women conceded to having sex with their Muslim conquerors.

2 Those women were married and thus we have adultery! The men caused the women to commit adultery and they themselves were committing it too, for the same reason as the women.

3 Here are several points to be made:
(a)Your ahadith declare shamelessly that the Muslim men, although married, can abuse those women as they see fit since it gives the Muslim men no boundaries. That is casual sex, unless you can show us that those Muslim men were to marry those women, as Bassam claims in the other thread.
(b)If such a ruling exists, that those men were to marry those women, then you have to show us the prohibition that Muslim men, already married to 4 wives are prohibited to have sex with captive women, since they run the risk to have more than 4 wives because they are to marry those captive women that they impregnate.
(c)Even IF the ruling for having to marry those women that the Muslim men impregnate, then you this still counts for casual sex, since there is no such ruling for women they do NOT impregnate. They can have sex with those women and ditch them as they please.
(d)As said before, Bassam claims that the women that were impregnated were to be taken as wives by the Muslim conquerors. This is nonsensical, because the men were selling those women into slavery after they had their way with them. And there is no ruling to wait for a few months to see if they are pregnant or not before they sold the women as slaves. At least, I have never seen it. If there is such a ruling, then you have a point and I will concede this point “d”. But if there isn’t then Bassam’s attempt to try to vindicate Islam from endorsing this atrocious act has failed and the charge still stands!

-call for the rapist to marry the victim and give 50 shekels

Specific book, chapter and verse please! And while you are looking the verses up, allow me to call you out on rape in Islam. You complain that the provisions of “rape in the Bible” are unjust. But can you tell us how the provisions of rape in Islam are superior to those supposedly in the Bible?

(1) What rights does the female victim have?
(2) What are the requirements for the females victim to make a case against her rapist? How can she built her case?
(3) What is the rulings against the rapist?
(4) What are the compensations for the females victims?
(5) What is the position and view of the victim in society?
(6) What has been the consistent testimonies of those situations throughout Islamic history? Have they vindicated/convicted the victims or have they vindicated/convicted the perpetrators?

Don't go hiding behind "oh that were just the regimes" UNLESS you can show us that those regimes clearly go against the teachings of the Qur'an!


-calling all of the above as inspired and lovely scripture

First of all you are completely misrepresenting the Scriptures. But I’m afraid that no matter how much your interpretation is proven to be wrong, you will still raise those same lame regurgitated arguments simply because you want so desperately to find something wrong in the Bible. Second, it has been shown that your religion doesn’t fare any better, if not is even worse off, than the very Scriptures you want to see condemned! You Muslims are the most inconsistent people I have ever encountered in my life. I have debated orthodox Jews for years and was astonished at their inconsistencies. But little did I know that I had seen nothing yet!

will you condemn all of the above???? lol now come with the excuses until you are blue in the face, btw im not even nearly done, i forgot some others:

-advocating parents to beat their children with a rod


lol, Book verse and chapter please! Btw, you claim that you are only allowed to beat your wives with toothpicks or grass. How do you beat someone with a toothpick anyway? Last time I checked, according to your sources, women are beaten until their skin changes colour or they are sore. (as in the case with Ayesha)

-advocating torture of enemy combatants with axes, saws

Book chapter and verse please! Calling you out again: you praise your prophet for mutilating people (chopping off the hands and feet and burning out the eyes) and leaving them to die slowly in the scorching sun. That is praiseworthy when it comes to Muhammad, but with any other person you go boo-hoo.

:) so will you condemn all of the above which is advocated by your god on his chosen armies to do? something tells me you wont, now go on and make your lovely excuses. the hypocrisy is so lovely.


This remark very strongly reminds me of the saying about the pot and the kettle. You accuse our faith of killing a bug, while your own faith allows you to kill entire packs of buffalos. I challenge you (or ANY MUSLIM, but especially YOU) to respond to all I have said and in the process provide the references you were talking about for the accusations in the Tenach.

BARUCH HASHEM!

DAN12345 said...

Al-Baqarah 2 40:O Children of Israel! Call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfil your Covenant with Me as I fulfil My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me.
Al-Baqarah 2 47:O Children of Israel! Call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others (for My Message).
Now the children of israel means the jews,it says allah preferred the JEWS to all others.Even in the quran it shows the promise our heavenly father made to the jews,this promise even found its way into the quran.
Al-Baqarah 2 83:And remember We took a Covenant from the Children of Israel (to this effect): worship none but Allah; treat with kindness your parents and kindred, and orphans and those in need; speak fair to the people; be steadfast in prayer; And practise regular charity. Then did ye turn back, except a few among you, and ye backslide (even now).
This is also amazing Allah the creator is saying he took Covenant's from the children of israel,,but wait here i thought he was the God who gave these rules in the first place,so why does he need to borrow the childrens of israels rules?The children of israel never created any rules.any rules morals we got is from God dont kill,dont steal etc we know these are wrong by the 10 commandments given by god,so why would allah need to take a covenant from the children of israel when we thought he gave them these laws in the first place.
So you are trying to accuse the bible of genocide when you can see even in the quran god gave the children of israel their own rules to live by,and gave special favours to them as gods chosen people.So still its bemusing Sami you using the word genocide.Normally this word is practised by your people so easily.The turks against the armenians a great genocide still hidden from the world in the history books,and to a lesser extent the kurds also though i wouldnt call their fight against the kurds genocide.The grand mutfi of jerusalem was with hitler in the genocide of the jews,the grand mutfi also had a squad assembled of bosnian muslims to really get the genocide going.Saddam against the kurds.In sudan,nigeria the list goes on and on.Jews and christians getting killed daily why,,,,,they follow the lead of muhammad their prophet!Sami i would recommend you subscribe to voice of the martyrs and see what is going on against christians all over the world.No muslim is persecuted by a christian who follows Gods teaching.But unfourtently christians are persecuted by muslims who follow allah's teachings....they think this is right.

Dk said...

Dan said:

"if you consider Gods judgement genocide or not?"

Dan the implication here seems to be (atleast to me) that genocide is NOT genocide when INSTRUCTED by GOD.

Theists seem to be quite fond of this tactic, likewise when a human being commits murder (and seemingly God also commits murder), God is however not held accountable for murder.

If we reason from these grounds (as you and Zaatari have pointed out) then there is no common ground to attack anothers religion, the bottom line is , BOTH of you can say "GOD SAYS SO" therefore its MORAL/RIGHT, anything that has divine permission or has been divinely sanctioned is acceptable (as proven by Nakdimon). Yes morality becomes relative and dependent on the actions and moodswings of a lunatic deity and not indepedent, objective and absolute when you are truely consistant with these beliefs.

Hesperado said...

Bassam wrote:

"their crime of murder and torturing the shepherd was irrelevant"

There is nothing in the hadiths to suggest that the Infidels "tortured" the shepherd, only that they killed him.

So why did Mohammed order their gruesome torture? Abu Ghraib anyone?

srizals said...

You left out this one,

It was narrated that Anas said:
"The Prophet [SAW] only had the eyes of those people gouged out, because they had gouged out the eyes of the herdsmen." (Sahih)
Sunnah.com reference: Book 38, Hadith 78
English reference: Vol. 5, Book 1, Hadith 4048

srizals said...

You intentionally left out this one in the same book of reference. It was narrated that Anas said:
"The Prophet [SAW] only had the eyes of those people gouged out, because they had gouged out the eyes of the herdsmen." (Sahih) Sunnah.com reference: Book 38, Hadith 78
English reference: Vol. 5, Book 1, Hadith 4048. An eye for an eye for the ones that tricked, mutilated, tortured, killed and stole the belongings of the one that had helped, protected and treated them when they were sick. That is known to you as justice. And what would you have them do to such horrible crimes? Sorry for the belated reply. Just found your webpage.

Unknown said...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=evwcuBo0izo&list=UU2_1wjpCP53EHRWkP_zrHWQ&index=51

Shia Islam answers everything you said about Muhammad (pbuh)