Introduction:
this is going to be the shortest articles I have ever written, but by far the most shocking one to show how dishonest TROP really is, what I read an hour ago before I wrote this article completely shocked me regarding TROP, they are by far more dishonest than the masked Arab and sharif gabir, these two so-called ex-Muslims at least when they cite their sources they give direct quotes from them, what TROP will display here is worse than any Christian apologist I have ever encountered, they have outright cited 3 sources without giving direct quotes from them, and completely insert a false narrative to these sources that don't actually fit or exist in them.
this is going to be the shortest articles I have ever written, but by far the most shocking one to show how dishonest TROP really is, what I read an hour ago before I wrote this article completely shocked me regarding TROP, they are by far more dishonest than the masked Arab and sharif gabir, these two so-called ex-Muslims at least when they cite their sources they give direct quotes from them, what TROP will display here is worse than any Christian apologist I have ever encountered, they have outright cited 3 sources without giving direct quotes from them, and completely insert a false narrative to these sources that don't actually fit or exist in them.
TROP Article:
“The story of the
Jewish woman from Khaybar, who deliberately put poison into a meal eaten by
Muhammad, is cited in the Sahih
hadith. It is heavily referenced by
apologists because it may be the only time in which Muhammad is said to have
"forgiven" someone who did not convert to Islam to save their neck.”
Citation needed
“What They Offer as
Proof
Despite there being
many Sahih verses to choose from,
Discover the Truth quotes a verse from Abu Dawud 4495 graded as daif (weak).
Can you guess why?”
You will need to either cite the
link to the article written by Discover the Truth
or at least provide the quote in which DTT brought this hadith, where is the
link to the article? let alone the quote from DTT? I even went so far and
searched on DTT for that hadith let alone that article and couldn’t find it,
after many searches I was finally able to find the article in DTT, and I was
not even surprised to see that even DTT admitted that the narration was weak,
here is a direct screenshot from DTT
the Link to the article :
how could TROP miss this? are
they that dishonest?, DTT as seen below directly
state that the chain is considered weak
but what comes later is even the
most shocking display of dishonesty I have ever
seen coming out of TROP, this is the part where I talked about in the
introduction how they cite sources and affiliate a claim that doesn’t exist in
them
“What They Leave Out
and Why They are Wrong
Scratching the surface
shows what a poor example of "forgiveness" this episode really
is. That it is cited so heavily
indicates the paucity of available material portraying Muhammad as a man of
character.
First, DTT doesn't tell
us why a woman would want to kill Muhammad. They just say that she was Jewish and leave
it at that. The full account from the
Sira and hadith tell us that this occurred right after the sudden and violent
assault on a farming community, where her own family had been killed (Ibn
Kathir v.3 p.284-287, Sahih Bukhari 71:669, Abu Dawud 4494)”
did that actually happened? do
these sources like tafsir ibn Kathir
really say that her family was killed and that was her motivation?
let’s check Tafsir Ibn Kathir, I’m
going to give the Full account[1]
“(The food of the People of the
Scripture is lawful to you..) meaning, their slaughtered animals, as Ibn
`Abbas, Abu Umamah, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, `Ikrimah, `Ata', Al-Hasan,
Makhul, Ibrahim An-Nakha`i, As-Suddi and Muqatil bin Hayyan stated. This
ruling, that the slaughtered animals of the People of the Book are permissible
for Muslims, is agreed on by the scholars
because the People of the Book believe that slaughtering for other than Allah
is prohibited. They mention Allah's Name upon slaughtering their animals, even
though they have deviant beliefs about Allah that do not befit His majesty. It
is recorded in the Sahih that `Abdullah bin Mughaffal said, "While we were
attacking the fort of Khaybar, a person threw a leather bag containing fat, and
I ran to take it and said, `I will not give anyone anything from this container
today.' But when I turned I saw the Prophet (standing behind) while smiling.''
The scholars rely on this Hadith as evidence that we are allowed to eat what we
need of foods from the booty before it is divided. The scholars of the Hanafi,
the Shafi`i and the Hanbali Madhhabs rely
on this Hadith to allow eating parts of the slaughtered animals of the Jews
that they prohibit for themselves, such as the fat. They used this Hadith as
evidence against the scholars of the Maliki Madhhab who disagreed with this
ruling. A better proof is the Hadith recorded in the Sahih that the people of
Khaybar gave the Prophet a gift of a roasted leg of sheep, which they poisoned.
The Prophet used to like eating the leg of the sheep and he took a bite from
it, but it told the Prophet that it was poisoned, so he discarded that bite.
The bite that the Prophet took affected
the palate of his mouth, while Bishr bin Al-Bara' bin Ma`rur died from eating
from that sheep. The Prophet had the Jewish woman, Zaynab, who poisoned the
sheep, killed. Therefore, the Prophet and his Companions wanted to eat from
that sheep and did not ask the Jews if they removed what the Jews believed was
prohibited for them, such as its fat. Allah's statement,”
Reading from the above, where are
the mentions of her family being killed?, now there has to be mention in
Bukhari right? will let’s read
“When Khaibar was conquered,
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was presented with a poisoned (roasted)
sheep. Allah's Apostle said, "Collect for me all the Jews present in this
area." (When they were gathered) Allah's Apostle said to them, "I am
going to ask you about something; will you tell me the truth?" They
replied, "Yes, O Abal-Qasim!" Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)
said to them, "Who is your father?" They said, "Our father is
so-and-so." Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)
said, "You have told a lie. for your father is so-and-so," They said,
"No doubt, you have said the truth and done the correct thing." He
again said to them, "If I ask you about something; will you tell me the
truth?" They replied, "Yes, O Abal-Qasim! And if we should tell a lie
you will know it as you have known it regarding our father," Allah's
Messenger (ﷺ) then asked, "Who are the people of
the (Hell) Fire?" They replied, "We will remain in the (Hell) Fire
for a while and then you (Muslims) will replace us in it," Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)
said to them. ''You will abide in it with ignominy. By Allah, we shall never
replace you in it at all." Then he asked them again, "If I ask you
something, will you tell me the truth?" They replied, "Yes." He
asked. "Have you put the poison in this roasted sheep?" They replied,
"Yes," He asked, "What made you do that?" They replied,
"We intended to learn if you were a liar in which case we would be
relieved from you, and if you were a prophet then it would not harm you."”[2]
now, reading from above, where is
the mention of her family being killed again?
so far two sources none of them
mention her family being killed, I have strong ergances
to stop writing this article and waste my time with TROP but let’s continue reading
Now as for Sunan Abu Dawood, what
makes this one quite hilarious is that
the number they gave 4494 does refer to the incident of poisoning attempt, but the hadith itself is weak
“Narrated Abu Hurairah:
A Jewess presented a poisoned
sheep to the Prophet (ﷺ), but the Prophet (ﷺ)
did not interfere with him.
now to be fair the website
Sunnah.com does provide one more additional variant in publication edition,
which can give a different number, so let’s
see the other variant
“Qurayzah and Nadir (were two
Jewish tribes). An-Nadir were nobler than Qurayzah. When a man of Qurayzah
killed a man of an-Nadir, he would be killed. But if a man of an-Nadir killed a
man of Qurayzah, a hundred wasq of dates
would be paid as blood-money. When Prophethood was bestowed upon the Prophet (ﷺ),
a man of an-Nadir killed a man of Qurayzah.
They said: Give him to us, we
shall kill him. They replied: We have the Prophet (ﷺ)
between you and us. So they came to him.
Thereupon the following verse was
revealed: "If thou judge, a judge in
equity between them." "In equity"
means life for a life.
The following verse was then
revealed: "Do they seek a judgment of (the days) ignorance?"
Abu Dawud said: Quraizah and
al-Nadir were the descendants of Harun the Prophet (peace be upon him)”[4]
apparently, both
sources of Abu Dawood doesn’t fit TROP narration again, is anyone surprised? but the more accurate hadith is not
actually 4494 it’s 4495
“Jabir ibn Abdullah used to say
that a Jewess from the inhabitants of Khaybar poisoned a roasted sheep and
presented it to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)
who took its foreleg and ate from it. A group of his companions also ate with
him.
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)
then said: Take your hands away (from the food). The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)
then sent someone to the Jewess and he called her.
He said to her: Have you poisoned
this sheep? The Jewess replied: Who has informed you? He said: This foreleg
which I have in my hand has informed me. She said: Yes. He said: What did you
intend by it? She said: I thought if you were a prophet, it would not harm you;
if you were not a prophet, we should rid ourselves of him (i.e. the Prophet).
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) then forgave her and did not punish her. But some of his companions who ate it died. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)
had himself cupped on his shoulder on account of that which he had eaten from
the sheep. AbuHind cupped him with the horn and knife. He was a client of Banu
Bayadah from the Ansar.”[5]
this one is the same one DTT
cited, and it’s regarded as weak like what DTT said
so far None of TROP 3 sources
state that the woman family was killed, one of them is even a weak source
how could anyone fall for TROP
dishonesty so far?
“With the motive firmly
established, the next question is whether or not the woman was punished. Most accounts simply say that she was not
killed. The bar is set a bit low
here. The woman, after all, had not
taken a life and was simply trying to avenge the murder of her family.”
No, she did
not, the claim that she was avenging her family as seen is a myth created by
TROP, this is another lie
“However, there is one
hadith verse from Abu Dawud which is graded Sahih
(authentic) in which the woman is killed on Muhammad's order:
So a Jewess presented
him at Khaybar with a roasted sheep which she had poisoned. The Messenger of
Allah ate of it and the people also ate. He then said: Take away your hands
(from the food), for it has informed me that it is poisoned. Bishr ibn al-Bara'
ibn Ma'rur al-Ansari died. So he (the Prophet) sent for the Jewess (and said to
her): What motivated you to do the work you have done? She said: If you were a
prophet, it would not harm you; but if you were a king, I should rid the people
of you. The Messenger of Allah then ordered regarding her and she was killed.
(Abu Dawud 4497)”
The hadith is not regarded as
Sahih, but rather Hasan Sahih, this is not the same as Sahih, Hasan Sahih
meaning this hadith have been narrated by
two similar narrations, one is Hasan and
the other is Sahih, the combination of
the two will give Hasan Sahih, however,
to be fair Hasan Sahih is regarded as authentic after all and accepted, not on the
level of Sahih
but this hadith as seen just
slaps the sense out of TROP, if this woman
allegedly put poison because of her family member murder (which never happened)
why did she say “If you were a prophet,
it would not harm you; but if you were a king, I should rid the people of you”
so she was trying to kill the
prophet out of a lab test? so much for
her family murder
“In fairness, there are
also other Sahih hadith in which the
woman is not killed (at least not immediately).
However, there are none saying that she was forgiven. This is why DTT surreptitiously slips in the daif (weak) verse.”
DTT already stated as from the
screenshot and from the link I provided that hadith was weak, yet TROP insist
out of a child play that DTT didn’t cite the narration authenticity, but what
is also shocking and not surprising is how TROP lied and stated that there is
not a single narration that she was forgiven, Even DTT go later and cite more
authentic sources that she was indeed forgiven, one of them is the following
“A Jewess brought a poisoned
sheep to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ),
and he ate of it. She was then brought to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)
who asked her about it. She said: I intended to kill you. He said: Allah will
not give you control over it; or he said: over me. They (the Companions) said:
Should we not kill her? He said: No. He
(Anas) said: I always found it in the uvula of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)”[6]
Grade: Sahih
“Even if she was not
killed, it does not mean that she wasn't punished in some other way - or that
she didn't have to convert. One account
says that "She then accepted Islam and the Messenger of God left her
alone" (Ibn Kathir v.3 p.285). This
is implied by the others as well, in which the woman seems to acknowledge
Muhammad as "a prophet." As evidenced in many other places, Muhammad
only forgave those who converted to his cult-like religion (ie. pledging their
life to him).”
where is the evidence that she was forcefully
converted? I looked their source even in
online Ibn Kathir Tafsir search and couldn’t find a single reference to her at all
“Assuming that she was
not killed, the real reason seems to be that she was wily enough to turn
Muhammad's claim about himself back onto him.
If he had been killed, then he would not have been a prophet; if he were
a prophet, then he could not be killed... so the logic goes. This put Muhammad in a difficult position in
which he had to save face by not killing her.”
and this is their conclusion to
this article? this deceptive article that twists
and misinform every source they cite including DTT? the only cult that I see in front of me now is TROP cult of deception
and lies
