Originally Posted by witness
There's 2 big mistakes, and they never actually occurred in the life of Prophet Muhammad so be careful of them insha Allah;
is Mr. Lings’ rendering of the relationship between the Prophet and Zaynab, for this creates the impression of a passionate romantic love affair between them. He paints a picture of Zaynab at her house who – being lightly
clad – upon hearing of the Prophet’s arrival at her door, was so eager to greet him that she leapt she leapt to her feet and ran to the door, to invite him to stay until her husband Zayd returned” (p. 213). That is, she was improperly dressed, and the Prophet was overcome with passion, amazed at her beauty. Mr. Lings’ borrowed his “story” from certain forged narrations of al-Waaqidee et al., and these were aptly described by some critics absolutely unacceptable for such a Hollywood film”. Obviously, such material is absolutely unacceptable for such a sacred subject as the life of the Prophet Muhammad, his virtuous wives and righteous Companions.
The real story of Zaynab is mentioned here;
The final example I will mention – and perhaps the most detrimental – which clearly points to gross misconceptions and distortions of the Prophet’s Seerah
by Mr. Lings’ is the incident of the Prophet’s entry into Makkah on the Day of Victory. It is well known that he was commissioned by the almighty Allaah to purify the Ka’bah of all signs of polytheism, by ridding it of all the idols surrounding it.
Furthermore, the Prophet ordered his companions to destroy and efface everything which remained inside the Ka’bah by way of painting or sculpture [of idols etc], and to remove such before he entered inside to pray.
This has been authentically related in the compilation of al-Bukhaaree et al.
Lings on the contrary, relates another “story” (p. 300) gleaned from the forged narratives contained in his so-called “dependable ancient sources” (i.e. al-Waajidee, al- Azrajee et al.). This “story” totally contradicts what has been authentically related regarding this incident and contradicts the essential principle of Tawheed
, for Lings’
writes the following: “Apart from the icon of the Virgin Mary and the child Jesus and a painting of an old man said to be Abraham, the walls inside (the Ka’bah ) had been covered with pictures of pagan deities. Placing his hand protectively over the icon, theProphet told ’Uthmaan to see that all other paintings, except that of Abraham, were effaced.”
I ask: Can it be believed that the Prophet ( sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam
) would protect such icons of Mary, Jesus and Abraham in this manner, and that he would allow these idols to be left intact inside the sacred Ka’bah
, the very symbol of pure unadulterated Tawheed [monotheism]?! The answer should be quite obvious to anyone possessing firm faith and good
sense, for if such a story were true- and it certainly isn’t – then it follows that the Prophet affirmed the very symbols of polytheism and by implication, it indicates that he
approved of the distorted existing versions of the previously revealed religions of Christianity and Judaism, symbolised by his protection of their two respective icons.
So the 1st issue
is the marriage of Zaynab bint Jahsh to Prophet Muhammad, he made it look like a hollywood scene with a forged love story [p.213], so you should reject that. There's an alternative link above to explain what really happened.
The 2nd issue
is about Prophet Muhammad ordering ALL the idols and pictures to be destroyed
from within the Ka'bah
(in Makkah), because the Arabs used to worship them. Martin Lings said
[on page 300] that all the idols were told to be destroyed except the idol of Abraham and Mary
. This is false
, and again forged. Why would the Messenger of God/Allah, who has brought people out of idol worship into pure monotheism still allow idols to remain there? So obviously, this is a major mistake. What really happens is that ALL the idols were destroyed, and the Messenger of Allah destroyed them too
So yeah, just look out for them mistakes insha Allah. :)