This may help bro;
[PIE]Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:
A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet(pbuh) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (pbuh) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet(pbuh) was informed about it. He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up.
Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up. He sat before the Prophet (pbuh) and said:
Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her. Thereupon the Prophet (pbuh) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood.
[/PIE]
[PIE]Although the Hadith in consideration, no doubt, is reported with continuity of the chain of narrators who are mostly deemed reliable by the scholars of the science of Hadith yet what makes the Hadith slightly questionable is its single chain of narrators: it is only Abdullah Bin Abbas who told Ikrama who told Uthman al Shahham, who narrated it to only two people. The report remained confined to only a single person in each of the first three generations. An incident, which took place before a gathering of Muslims and a decision, so important was made about an apparently brutal murder; reason demands should have been quoted by a large number of narrators.
Moreover, the narrative does not find mention in any of the more recognized books of Hadith like Mu'atta of Imam Mailk, Sahih of Muslim and Sahih of Bukhari. Only those who are very lenient about the acceptance of traditions have reported it.
Finally, scholars dealing with the personalities of the narrators are not unanimously positive about the personality and reports of Uthman al Shahham. Ya'ya Bin Saeed al-Qattan comments that his traditions are sometimes accepted and sometimes not. (Meezanul-I`tidal vol.5 page 76 CD ed.) Nisaai is reported to have said that he (Uthman-al-Shaham) was not reliable. (Meezanul-I`tidal vol.5 page 76 CD ed.) Bukhari didn't take any report from him and he is dealt with among Zuafaa in Al-kamil-fi-Zuafaa.
Leaving the checks on its narrators and their reliability aside we have enough problems in ascertaining the truth about the matter. Many important facts about the incident remain unanswered. Who was the woman? To which faith did she belong? What made her stick to her habit of slandering the Prophet (sws)? Did the Prophet already know her abusing him? Did he himself try to talk her out of her mischief or did he advise his companion to prevent her from doing that? What was the phase of the prophethood when the incident occurred? With every bit of information supplied the explanation of the act of the prophet may change.
Whatever the situation might have been, we are bound to admit that every action of the Prophet should be in harmony with the moral and legal teaching of the religion. If an act ascribed to the Prophet (sws) does not fit into the moral status of a messenger, we should not hesitate to renounce it. However the tradition under consideration can very conveniently be explained in the light of the religious sources. An explanation follows:
The Qur'an tells us that Muhammad (sws) was not only a Prophet (nabi) but also a messenger (Rasu'l) of Allah. The Qur'an tells us that when Allah sends His messenger in a people, these people are not allowed to live on Allah's earth if they reject the messenger. It tells us that these people are given time in which to make up their minds and to present all their objections against the messenger (Rasu'l). It tells us that when the Al-knowing Allah decides that these people have been given adequate time and that they are now absolutely clear of the truthfulness of the messenger and thus are not left with any excuse for their rejection but still are persistent in their rejection then Allah directs his prophet to migrate from the area and then he destroys all those who have rejected his messenger. The Qur'an refers to the peoples (nations of the messengers of old - Noah, Hood, Lot, Shoaib, Saaleh and Moses (pbuh)- and narrates the result of their rejection. It declares to the direct addressees of Muhammad (sws) that if they don't accept the message of Allah's messenger (Muhammad) their fate shall be no different from those nations that have gone before them. (Surah al-Qamar the whole Surah especially verse no 43-45)
In short the Qur'an says it is the unalterable law of Allah that when he sends his messenger in a people, these particular people are left with no option but to accept his message or to face the punishment of death and sometimes complete annihilation.
The Qur'an goes further to tell us how this punishment was implemented on the polytheists from among the direct addressees of the Prophet (sws). It tells us that although the previous nations of the messengers of Allah were annihilated because of their rejection through (apparently) natural calamities the companions of Muhammad (sws) because Allah has given them rule in a land (Medina) shall fight the rejecters and through these believers shall Allah implement his punishment (al_Tauba 9:14-16). It directs them that the Mushrikeen should be killed without any exception. They should only be allowed to live if they accept Islam (al-Taubah 9:5). On the other hand, it also directs them that the Jews and the Christians (because they weren't polytheists I.e. Mushrikeen) even if they don't enter the folds of Islam, they may be allowed to live if they accept to live under the Muslim rule and agree to pay the Jizyah (Al-Taubah 9:29). Thus the Prophet (sws) sent his messenger who declared at the time of Hajj that no one from among the rejecting polytheists shall be allowed to live after the prohibited months, if he does not accept Islam. As a result of this declaration, most of the people who previously were polytheists, accepted Islam and thus the punishment of Allah was avoided.
In my opinion, the decision is based on the fact that the murder of the woman is an implementation of the punishment to which all the direct addressees of the prophet would have been subject had they not accepted the faith. It is obvious from the tradition that the incident occurred after the migration to Madina. And migration in the preaching mission of a messenger of God is a phase when all the rejecters of the faith lose the right of being allowed to live on the earth. So did the woman. Now somebody killed her and the person who killed her is acquitted of the crime because he implemented a punishment, to which all the rejecters would have been subjected to, in any case.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Tariq Mahmood Hashmi
September 25, 2002
Source
[/PIE]
Let's not forget that Mohammad(SAW) was not given the laws and the Qur'an overnight. anyone one who has studied how the Arabs were prior to Islam will know they were Barbaric and full of pride. The man did an evil act and Truely feared what he done as he was trembling.
"Forgiveness is only incumbent on Allah towards those who do evil out of ignorance and then turn quickly (in repentance) to Allah. Toward them will Allah turn in mercy; for Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom." (4:17)
[PIE]In order for forgiveness to be accepted, these conditions should be met:
(1) The crime is committed out of ignorance, not with the intention that, "Let us go ahead and commit this crime as Allah is forgiving, so He will forgive us.";
(2) Quickly turn into shame and repentance after committing a crime out of ignorance;
(3) After asking for forgiveness, make a promise or pledge to "mend his ways", and to stick to his promise. Let us examine verses of Quran.
"...if any of you did evil in ignorance, and thereafter repented and amended (your conduct), lo! Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (6:54)
Source
[/PIE]
[PIE]The Word was sent down to Muhammad (saas) 14 centuries ago, in the land of Arabia, and this event happened most likely somewhere around the Hijra. I'm not implying that "times have changed," rather it is that I am aware of the Islamic (not necessarily Muslim) stance on the issue of vigilantism. Vigilantism is strictly prohibited in the religion and the person that commits this particular crime incurs nothing but wrath from the Divine. Prophet Muhammad (saas) was a man of superior intellect, he was extremely careful in making the right decision(s) each day and each night; he bore a heavy burden from the Lord and was cognizant of the potential consequences of each choice he would make in this lifetime. Hudud, or punishment, is carried out solely by the authorities in charge within an Islamic state; this is the legal ruling.
If the Messenger (saas) were here we would gain a better understanding of the matter, we cannot see the hadith in it's entire context. For those of you who have read the Seera (life-story) of the Messenger, I ask you how many times had Muhammad prevented his companions from killing a sinner or an enemy of his? Many! Consider the story of the man who ran upto to the Prophet (saas) and nearly choked him out concerning a garment (I believe it was) the Prophet was wearing which he had borrowed from this inidividual. A sahabi was ready to retaliate, but the Prophet forbade so. Observe the hadith(s) about the Jewish man who met the Messenger in order to test him: he began ridiculing and insulting Muhammad (saas), eager to witness the response. Upon noticing the Prophet's calmness and his refusal to respond in an equally aggressive manner he embraced him as the Messenger.
I also admire the story of Christ (a.s) in the book of John where Jesus is described to have prevented the Jews from stoning the lady guilty for adultery. This does not indicate that Jesus (a.s) was sent to abolish the Law, [this he denies in the Bible] every messenger is appointed with a set of unique instructions to guide a unique commmunity of people. The adulteress the Prophet had executed literally asked for her punishment. Muhammad turned away from her, almost pretending not hear, for Muhammad was not a fan of blood and gore. The woman was eventually stoned after she kept on requesting an execution, after she gave birth that is. Another woman was killed for the same crime without Muhammad's knowledge. When Muhammad learned of this, he rebuked the ones responsible for the hudud, for he was informed that the lady had repented. But at the same time, Muhammad, God's own Prophet, was commanded to obey the divine Law, as all prophets were. Isa (a.s) is reported to have threatened a false prophetess, whom he called a "Jezebel," with capital punishment, for her actions were a misguidance to his people, - she could have lead the believers astray into the eternal blaze of Hell.
A while ago I saw The 10 Commandments (the new version) and I watched how Moses (a.s) had to prepare the same punishment for a man and a woman that had committed adultery. He was hesitant, for he was merciful by nature, however he was compelled to adhere to the Law of the Lord for one special reason: God always knows best. He wept and out to God after the incident and sought further clarification from Him concerning the nature of his mission, which he eventually received. Who knows, perhaps the man of the hadith was mentally challenged, in addition to being blind. Of a surety, Muhammad (saas) prohibited the vigilant hudud of death. I'd take Karen Armstrong's advice, as she has spent years studying the amazing life of the holy Prophet. And Karen is pretty straight forward.[/PIE]
[PIE]I have personally seen people turn a blind eye to facts in order to justify their prejudice against Islam. All the people on the forum as "Faith Freedom International" refuse to acknowledge anything good about Islam, Muslims, or Muhammad. It is quite absurd. Even if you don't believe he is a prophet, you should at least acknowledge the fact that he is a social reformer who did nothing but benefit the Arabia in general. But when people reject a religion, especially one that proselytizes a lot, the more they demonize it, the safer they feel about not being a part of it. That is why you will find the most demonizing comments coming from apostates. This is the difference between rejecting Islam, and just not being a Muslim.[/PIE]
May Allah(SWT) guide us to Seerat Al-Mustaqeem
eace: