Akram Diya al Umari Akram Diya al Umari

Excerpted from Madinan Society At the Time of the Prophet , International Islamic Publishing House & IIIT, 1991 Excerpted no Madinan sabiedrībā, 1991 Laiks no pareģis, Starptautiskās Islāma Izdevniecība & IIIT

The date of the campaign Dienas kampaņas

Two reports, each with a sahih isnad, mention that the campaign against Banu al Nadir took place after the Battle of Badr. Divi ziņojumi, katrs ar sahih isnad, minēts, ka pret Banu al Nadir kampaņa notika pēc tam, kad Badr kaujā.

1. 1. The first was reported by al Zuhri, who said: “Abd Allah ibn Abd al Rahman ibn Ka'ab ibn Malik informed me from one of the companions of the Prophet.[1] Pirmais ziņoja al Zuhri, kurš teica: ". Abd Allah ibn Abd al Rahman ibn Ka'ab ibn Malik mani informēja no viena no pareģis companions [1]

2. 2. The second was reported by ?Urwah from ?Aishah[2], despite the fact that al Bayhaqi said that ?A?ishah was not specifically mentioned (ghayr mahfuz). Otrajā ziņoja? Urwah no? Aishah [2], neskatoties uz to, ka al Bayhaqi teica, ka? Ishah nav īpaši minēts? (Ghayr mahfuz). But al Dhahabi said that she was mentioned. Bet al Dhahabi teica, ka viņa bija minēts. I think that the name has been added by a reliable scholar, and this is acceptable. Es domāju, ka nosaukums ir pievienots ar uzticamu zinātnieks, un tas ir pieņemami. Al Bayhaqi is the only one who mentions the reasons for this report being mursal. Al Bayhaqi ir vienīgā, kas norāda iemeslus šo ziņojumu tiek mursal. There is a mursal report from ?Urwah that this campaign took place six months after Badr.[3] Ir mursal ziņojums? Urwah, ka šī kampaņa notika sešus mēnešus pēc Badr [3].

Al Bayhaqi transmitted another report from ?Urwah which indicated that the campaign took place in Muharram of the third year AH. Al Bayhaqi pārraida citā ziņojumā, no? Urwah, kurā norādīts, ka kampaņa notika Muharram trešajā gadā AH. This agrees with the first report, because Badr occurred on 17th Ramadan in the second year AH. Šis piekrīt pirmo ziņojumu, jo Badr notika 17. Ramadan otrajā gadā AH. This information was also transmitted by Musa ibn ?Uqbah.[4] ?Urwah is a second generation Muslim (tabi'i of great stature and Musa is a tabi'i of lesser stature. The isnad which goes back to them includes some men whose biographies I could not find, otherwise the report would be hasan. Šī informācija tika izplatīts arī Musa Ibn Uqbah.? [4]? Urwah ir otrās paaudzes musulmaņu (tabi'i liela auguma, un Musa ir tabi'i ar zemāku augumu. Isnad kas iet atpakaļ uz tiem ir iekļauti daži vīrieši, kuru biogrāfijas Es nevarēju atrast, citādi ziņojums tiks Hasan.

Ibn Ishaq reported that the campaign took place in the fourth year of the hijrah.[5] Al Waqidi and Ibn Sad relate without isnad, that it happened in Rabi? Ibn Ishaq ziņoja, ka kampaņa notika ceturtajā gadā hijrah [5]. Al Waqidi un Ibn Sad attiecas bez isnad, ka tas notika Rabi? al Awwal, 37 months after the hijrah.[6] Most of the Sirah writers followed Ibn Ishaq in giving the date of the campaign. al Awwal, 37 mēnešus pēc hijrah [6]. Lielākā daļa Sirah rakstnieku pēc Ibn Ishaq sniedzot datuma kampaņu. Ibn al Qayyim is sure that al Zuhri was either confused or mistaken in saying that it happened six months after Badr. Ibn al Qayyim ir pārliecināts, ka al Zuhri bija vai nu jauc, vai kļūdaina, sakot, ka tas ir noticis sešus mēnešus pēc Badr. He does not doubt that it took place after Uhud, and in saying so he favors the report of the majority of Sirah and Maghazi writers.[7] Ibn Hajar thinks that what Abd al Rahman ibn Abd Allah ibn Ka?b mentioned is stronger than what Ibn Ishaq mentioned from the aspect of Viņam nav šaubu, ka tas notika pēc Uhud, un sakot, lai viņš dod priekšroku ziņojumu vairākuma Sirah un Maghazi rakstnieki [7] Ibn Hajar. Domā, ka to Abd al Rahman ibn Abd Allah ibn Ka b jāmin? Spēcīgāka nekā ko Ibn Ishaq minēts no aspekta hadith Hadith soundness (sihhah). stabilitāti (sihhah). But he also thinks that if it can be proved that the reason for the expulsion of Banu al Nadir was connected with the collecting of blood money for the two men of Banu ?Amir who had accidentally been killed, then we should accept Ibn Ishaq?s verdict, because all the scholars are agreed that the incident at Bi?r Ma?unah took place after Uhud.[8] Bet viņš arī uzskata, ka, ja var pierādīt, ka izraidīšana no Banu al Nadir iemesls bija saistīts ar savākt asins naudu par diviem vīriešiem, kas Banu? Amir, kas bija nejauši nogalināti, tad mums vajadzētu pieņemt Ibn Ishaq? S spriedumu, jo visi zinātnieki ir vienisprātis, ka ir Bi incidentu? r Ma? unah notika pēc Uhud [8].

Other accounts with regard to the date of the campaign are reported in the commentary of the Qur?anic verse: Citiem kontiem attiecībā uz datumu kampaņas ir ziņots komentārs par Qur Anic dzejolis?:

“O you who believe! "O tu, kas tic! Call in remembrance the favor of God unto you when certain men formed the design to stretch out their hands against you, but God held back their hands from you: so fear God. Zvanu piemiņai Dieva labu jums, kad daži vīri veidoja dizainu izstiep rokas pret jums, bet Dievs kavē rokas no jums: tā bailes Dievu. And on God let believers put (all) their trust.” (Al Ma?idah 5:12) Un Dievs lai ticīgajiem nodot (visi) viņu uzticību. "(Al Ma? Idah 05:12)

The reports say that this was revealed concerning Banu al Nadir when they were on the point of killing the Prophet, and Allah rescued him by His grace. Ziņojumos norāda, ka tas bija atklāts par Banu al Nadir, kad viņi bija punktā nonāvēšanas pareģis, un Dievs izglāba viņam Viņa žēlastību. There is some weakness in this account, but when that is put together with other accounts, they support each other and can be accepted as valid evidence.[9] Ir daži šā konta vājumu, bet, ja tas ir salikts kopā ar citiem kontiem, tās atbalsta viena otru un var pieņemt derīgu pierādījumu [9].

These chronicles support what Ibn Ishaq suggested, but still the question remains without a definite answer: when did the campaign against Banu al Nadir take place? Šie hronikas atbalstu to, ko Ibn Ishaq ieteica, bet joprojām paliek jautājums, bez noteiktu atbildi: ja bija cīņa pret Banu al Nadir notiek? Ibn Hajar did not give a definite opinion on the matter, despite the fact that he had studied the reports and decided which one was the strongest, and he stated that Ibn Ishaq?s report could be accepted if it were proved that the campaign against Banu al Nadir was connected to the killing of the two men from Banu ?Amir. Ibn Hajar nedeva noteiktu viedokli šajā jautājumā, neskatoties uz to, ka viņš bija studējis ziņojumus un nolēma, kuriem viens bija spēcīgākais, un viņš paziņoja, ka Ibn Ishaq? S ziņojumu varētu pieņemt, ja tas būtu pierādīts, ka cīņā pret Banu al Nadir bija saistīts ar nogalināšanu divi vīrieši no Banu? Amir. It seems that the abundance of reports, despite their weakness, support Ibn Ishaq?s verdict. Šķiet, ka pārpilnība ziņojumiem, neskatoties uz to vājumu, atbalstīt Ibn Ishaq? S spriedumu. This explains why Ibn Hajar did not give a definite opinion. Tas izskaidro, kāpēc Ibn Hajar nedeva noteiktu viedokli. The method of dealing with historical reports is more flexible in applying the rules of Hadith taking into consideration the specialization of other scholars, and respects the suggestions of the scholars of Maghazi. To, kas nodarbojas ar vēsturisku atskaites metodi ir elastīgāks, piemērojot noteikumus Hadith, ņemot vērā specializāciju citi zinātnieki, un respektē ierosinājumus par Maghazi stipendiātiem.

The reasons for the campaign Iemeslus kampaņas

The sources mention three reasons for the campaign: Avoti minēt trīs iemeslus kampaņai:

1. 1. The attempt of Banu al Nadir to kill the Messenger after the Battle of Badr. No Banu mēģinājums al Nadir, lai nogalinātu Messenger pēc tam, kad Badr kaujā. The sources mention two attempts. Avoti min diviem mēģinājumiem. The first attempt came after Quraysh had written to Banu al Nadir, threatening to wage war on them if they did not fight the Messenger. Pirmais mēģinājums bija pēc tam, kad Quraysh ir nosūtījis Banu al Nadir, draud karot ar viņiem, ja viņi nav cīņa Messenger. Banu al Nadir complied with their wish and resolved to use treachery. Banu al Nadir ievēroti vēlmi un nolēma izmantot nodevību. The Jews sent a message to the Prophet, inviting him to come out with 30 of his companions to meet them. Ebreji nosūtīja ziņu uz pareģis, aicinot, lai viņš nāk klajā ar 30 viņa biedri, lai sasniegtu tos. They promised to come out with a similar number of their rabbis, to a place in the center of Madinah, where they would listen to him: if the rabbis believed what he said, then all the Jews would convert. Viņi apsolīja nākt klajā ar līdzīgu skaitu viņu rabīnu, uz vietu centrā Madinah, kur viņi varētu uzklausīt viņu: ja mācītāji ticēja, ko viņš teica, tad visi ebreji varētu konvertēt. When the two parties approached each other, the Jews suggested that the Prophet and three of his companions should meet with three of their rabbis, and if he convinced them, then Banu al Nadir would convert. Ja abas puses tuvojās viens otram, ebreji ierosināja, ka pareģis un viņa biedri trīs jātiekas ar trim saviem rabīnu, un, ja viņš pārliecināts, tiem, tad Banu al Nadir varētu konvertēt. The three rabbis were carrying daggers, but one of the Jewish women whose brother was a Muslim told him about their plans. Trīs rabīni bija veikušas Krustiņš, bet ebreju sievietēm, kuru brālis bija musulmaņu pastāstīja viņam par saviem plāniem vienu. He told the Prophet who turned back and did not go to meet them. Viņš teica Pravietis, kas griezās atpakaļ un negāja, lai sasniegtu tos. Then he besieged them until they accepted expulsion, on the condition that they could take with them whatever their camels could carry, except weapons; they even took the doors of their houses. Tad viņš apber tos, līdz tie pieņemti izraidīšanu, ar nosacījumu, ka tās varētu veikt ar tiem neatkarīgi no to kamieļu varētu veikt, izņemot ieročus, tie pat ir durvis viņu mājas. The isnad of this report includes men who are reliable; the name of the companion is not known, but this does not affect the validity of this isnad (because all the companions are reliable).[10] Šī ziņojuma isnad iekļauti vīrieši, kuri ir uzticami, to biedrs nosaukums nav zināms, taču tas neietekmē spēkā esamību šīs isnad (jo visi pavadoņi ir uzticami) [10].

2. 2. The second attempt was reported by Ibn Ishaq, who was followed by most of the other Sirah writers. Otrais mēģinājums ziņoja Ibn Ishaq, kas sekoja lielākā daļa citu Sirah rakstniekiem. The Prophet went to Banu al Nadir to ask them for help in paying the blood money for two men from a tribe which was party to the treaty, whom Amr ibn Umayyah al Damari had killed by mistake following the incident of al Raji. Pravietis devās uz Banu al Nadir lūgt viņiem palīdzību, lai apmaksātu asins naudu diviem vīriešiem, no cilts, kas bija puse līgumā, kuru Amr Ibn Umayyah al Damari bija nogalināti kļūdas pēc negadījuma al Raji. When he came to Banu al Nadir, he sat down against a wall. Kad viņš atnāca pie Banu al Nadir, viņš apsēdās pie sienas. They were about to drop a rock onto him and kill him, but he learnt of that through divine inspiration. Viņi bija gatavi nomest rock uz viņu, un nogalināt viņu, bet viņš uzzināja, ka ar dievišķo iedvesmu. He left them quickly and went back to Madinah, and he ordered that they should be besieged. Viņš atstāja tos ātri un devās atpakaļ uz Madinah, un viņš lika tiem jābūt besieged. They agreed to a peace treaty after a siege lasting six days, on the condition that they could take with them whatever their camels could carry.[11] The isnad of this report ends with Yazid ibn Ruman, who is a lesser tabi'i, but it could be strengthened by other similar reports. Viņi vienojās miera līgumu pēc tam, kad aplenkuma ilgst sešas dienas, ar nosacījumu, ka tās varētu veikt ar tiem neatkarīgi no to kamieļu varētu veikt [11]. Šā ziņojuma isnad beidzas ar Yazid ibn Ruman, kas ir mazākā tabi'i, bet to var pastiprināt citus līdzīgus ziņojumus. Indeed, it was followed by the report of ?Urwah ibn al Zubayr in the Maghazi of Musa ibn ?Uqbah.[12] Musa ibn ?Uqbah was a writer of Maghazi who added to what Ibn Ishaq had said: “Banu al Nadir had plotted with Quraysh, encouraged them to fight the Messenger of Allah, and had told them of the Muslims? Patiešām, tas sekoja ziņojums Urwah Ibn al Zubayr kas Maghazi uz Musa IBN Uqbah [12] Musa ibn Uqbah bija par Maghazi rakstnieks, kas papildina to, Ibn Ishaq bija teikusi:?.? "Banu al Nadir bija attēlots ar Quraysh, mudināja viņus cīnīties Messenger of Allah, un bija teicis viņiem musulmaņiem? weak points.”[13] vājie punkti "[13].

Despite the fact that Abd al Razzaq?s report is stronger in its isnad than that of Ibn Ishaq, the Sirah writers preferred the latter. Neskatoties uz to, ka Abd al Razzaq? Ziņojumā ir spēcīgāka savā isnad nekā Ibn Ishaq, Sirah rakstnieki vēlamo pēdējo. Both reports attribute the Muslims? Abi ziņojumi atribūts musulmaņiem? siege of Banu al Nadir to their attempt to kill the Prophet by treachery. aplenkuma Banu al Nadir to mēģinājumu nogalināt pravieti, ko nodevību. Musa ibn ?Uqbah does not say exactly when the Jews committed such acts against the Muslims as intrigue, incitement, and giving information to Quraysh. Musa ibn? Uqbah nav pateikt precīzi, kad ebreji izdarījis šādas darbības pret musulmaņiem, kā intriga, kūdīšanu un sniedzot informāciju Quraysh. It is well-known that they incited the disbelievers to fight the Muslims ? Ir labi zināms, ka tās mudinājusi disbelievers cīnīties musulmaņiem? this resulted in the Battle of Uhud ? tas izraisīja no Uhud kaujas? and that they helped Abu Sufyan to attack the outskirts of Madinah, which caused the Muslims to pursue him after Uhud in a campaign known as Ghazwat al Suwayq. un ka viņi palīdzēja Abu Sufyan uzbrukt nomale Madinah, kas izraisīja musulmaņu veikt viņam pēc Uhud kampaņā, ko sauc par Ghazwat al Suwayq. The poems which Ka?b ibn al Ashraf al Nadari composed to incite Quraysh to make war on the Muslims are well known. Dzejoļus, kas Ka? B Ibn al Ashraf al Nadari sastāvā mudināt Quraysh karot par musulmaņiem ir labi zināmi. Musa ibn Uqbah?s reference to these events in his report was probably intended to give an indication of the deterioration of the relationship between the Muslims and Banu al Nadir, and that it came to an end when they attempted treachery. Musa ibn Uqbah? S atsauce uz šiem savā ziņojumā pasākumos, iespējams, bija paredzēts, lai sniegtu norādījumus par stāvokļa pasliktināšanos attiecības starp musulmaņiem un Banu al Nadir, un ka tas beidzās, kad viņi mēģināja nodevību. This was a direct cause of their being besieged, but it was preceded by a succession of aggressive acts. Tas bija tiešs iemesls tos besieged, bet tas bija pirms gada ar virkni agresīvu rīcību.

The Prophet's warning of expulsion to Banu al Nadir Pravieša brīdinājumu izraidīšanu uz Banu al Nadir

There is no report which is sahih from the hadith point of view, which refers to the Prophet?s warning Banu al Nadir of expulsion. Nav ziņojumu, kas ir sahih no hadith viedokļa, kas attiecas uz pareģis? Brīdinājums Banu al Nadir izraidīšanai. However, their actual expulsion is proved in a sahih hadith which was reported by Abd Allah ibn ?Umar.[14] The warning was mentioned by al Waqidi and Ibn Sa'd ? Tomēr to faktiskā izraidīšana ir pierādījies sahih Hadith kas ziņoja Abd Allah ibn? Umar [14] brīdinājuma minēja al Waqidi un Ibn Sa'd?. without isnad ? bez isnad? who said that the Prophet asked them to leave Madinah within ten days; anyone who was seen after that would be beheaded. kurš teica, ka pareģis lūdza viņus atstāt Madinah desmit dienu laikā; ikviens, kurš bija redzams pēc tam, kad tas būtu nocirstas galvas. They prepared to leave, but ?Abd Allah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul incited them to rebel and stay, and he promised to support them. Viņi gatavi atstāt, bet? Abd Allah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul mudinājusi viņus nemiernieku un uzturēšanos, un viņš apsolīja tos atbalstīt. They announced their rebellion, and the Muslims besieged them.[15] Two reports?both with isnads ending with ?Urwah ibn al Zubayr and Musa ibn ?Uqbah, and containing narrators whose biographies I could not find ? Viņi paziņoja par savu sacelšanos, un musulmaņi besieged tiem. [15] Divi ziņojumi? Gan ar isnads beidzot ar? Urwah Ibn al Zubayr un Mūsas ibn? Uqbah, un kuri satur teicēju, kuru biogrāfijas es varētu to atrast? mention the Prophet?s warning the Banu al Nadir that they would be expelled.[16] nerunājot par pravietis? brīdinājums Banu al Nadir, ka tie būtu izraidīt [16].

Most of the books of Sirah report this warning without giving any isnad.[17] Despite the fact that the attitude of the hypocrites (in supporting Banu al Nadir) is only mentioned in weak reports which cannot be taken as valid evidence, it can be proved by many sahih reports to have been revealed concerning Banu al Nadir.[18] Lielākā daļa no Sirah grāmatu par šo brīdinājumu, nesniedzot isnad [17]. Neskatoties uz to, ka liekuļi attieksmi (atbalstot Banu al Nadir) ir minēta tikai vāja ziņojumos, ko nevar uzskatīt par derīgu pierādījumu, to var apliecina daudzi sahih ziņojumi ir kļuvuši par Banu al Nadir [18].

The Siege of Banu al Nadir and their Expulsion Agreement Siege of Banu al Nadir un izraidīšanas nolīgumu

There is enough evidence to make sahih the report that the Messenger of Allah besieged Banu al Nadir and said: “I will not guarantee your safety unless you make a treaty with me and promise to adhere to it.” They refused to make a treaty with him, so the Messenger led the Muslims in fighting them all day. Ir pietiekami daudz pierādījumu, lai sahih ziņo, ka Allah Messenger besieged Banu al Nadir un teica: ". Es negarantē Jūsu drošību, ja vien jūs veicat līgumu ar mani un sola tai pievienoties" Viņi atteicās sniegt līgumu ar viņu, lai Messenger lika musulmaņu cīņā pret tiem visu dienu. The next day, he left Banu al Nadir and came to Banu Qurayzah with soldiers on horseback. Nākamajā dienā viņš aizgāja Banu al Nadir un nonāca pie Banu Qurayzah ar karavīriem uz zirga. He invited Banu Qurayzah to make a treaty with him; they did so and then he left them. Viņš aicināja Banu Qurayzah lai līgumu ar viņu; viņi to darīja, un tad viņš atstāja. The following day he came to Banu al Nadir with the soldiers, and fought them until they agreed to accept expulsion, on the condition that they could take with them whatever their camels could carry, except weapons. Nākamajā dienā viņš ieradās Banu al Nadir ar karavīriem, un cīnījās tos līdz tās ir gatavas pieņemt izraidīšanas, ar nosacījumu, ka tās varētu veikt ar tiem neatkarīgi no to kamieļu varētu veikt, izņemot ieročus. Banu al Nadir came and took with them as many of their possessions as their camels could carry, including the doors of their houses; they destroyed their houses and took from them the choicest wood.[19] Banu al Nadir nāca un ņēma līdzi, jo daudzi no viņu mantu, jo viņu kamieļu varētu veikt, ieskaitot to māju durvīm,. Tie iznīcināti savu māju un paņēma no tām choicest koka [19]

It is stated in the Qur?an[20] and hadith[21] that the Prophet burnt and cut down some of Banu al Nadir?s palm trees during the siege. Ir noteikts, Qur? [20] un Hadith [21], ka pareģis sadedzināti un samazināt dažas no Banu al Nadir's palmas laikā aplenkuma.

The expulsion treaty confirmed that the Jews? Izraidīšanas līgums tika apstiprināts, ka ebreji? blood would be spared, that they would be expelled from their homes, and that they would be permitted to take with them whatever possessions and wealth their camels could carry, with the exception of weapons, which they were to leave for the Muslims. asinis būtu aiztaupīts, ka tās būtu izslēgti no mājas, un ka tie būtu atļauts ņemt līdzi visus īpašumus un bagātības saviem kamieļiem varētu veikt, izņemot ieročus, kurā tie atstāt musulmaņiem. It is possible to reconcile the sahih reports which say that they were expelled to Syria[22], with Ibn Sa?d?s report[23] that they went to Khaybar, when we understand that their leaders, such as Huyayy ibn Akhtab, Salam ibn Abu al Haqiq, Kinanah ibn al Rabi? Ir iespējams saskaņot sahih ziņojumus, kas saka, ka viņi tika izraidīti uz Sīriju [22], ar Ibn Sa? D? Ziņojumā [23], ka viņi devās uz Khaybar, kad mēs saprotam, ka to vadītājiem, piemēram, Huyayy ibn Akhtab, Salam Ibn Abū al Haqiq, Kinanah Ibn al Rabi? and others went to Khaybar, while most of them went to Syria. un citi devās uz Khaybar, bet vairums no tiem devās uz Sīriju. Ibn Sa'd?s report is weak and without isnad, but it is proved by later events which are mentioned in strong reports, such as reports of their fighting at the Battle of Khaybar, of the killing of Kinanah and of the capture of Safiyah, and the report about Salam ibn Abu al Haqiq. Ibn Sa'd? Ziņojumā ir vāja un bez isnad, bet tas ir pierādīts ar jaunākajiem notikumiem, kas minēti spēcīgi ziņojumos, piemēram, ziņojumus par to cīnās pie Khaybar kaujas, par nogalināšanu Kinanah un uztveršanu Safiyah , un par Salam Ibn Abū al Haqiq ziņojumu. The reports can be reconciled by the explanation that Banu al Nadir were expelled to Syria, and some of them settled in Khaybar. Ziņojumus var salīdzināt ar paskaidrojumu, ka Banu al Nadir tika izraidīti uz Sīriju, un daži no tiem apmetās Khaybar. Ibn Ishaq suggested this.[24] Two men from Banu al Nadir had become Muslims, so they kept their possessions; they were Yamin ibn ?Umar ibn Ka?b and Abu Sa?d ibn Wahb.[25] The wealth and palm trees of Banu al Nadir were exclusively for the Messenger according to the text of the Qur?an[26]. . Ibn Ishaq ierosināts šajā [24] Divi vīrieši no Banu al Nadir kļuva musulmaņiem, lai viņi tur viņu mantu, tie bija Yamin ibn Umar ibn Ka b un Abu Sa d ibn Wahb [25] bagātības un palmām?. gada Banu al Nadir bija tikai Messenger saskaņā ar tekstu, Qur? [26]. Surat al Hashr was revealed concerning Banu al Nadir.[27] He spent some of the income from it on his family every year, and used what was left to buy weapons and horses in readiness for fighting for the cause of Allah. Surat al Hashr tika atklāts par Banu al Nadir [27]. Viņš pavadīja dažas ienākumu no to ģimenes katru gadu, un izmanto to, kas bija pa kreisi pirkt ieročus un zirgu gatavību cīnīties par iemeslu Allah. The Prophet distributed the Jews? Pravietis izplata ebrejiem? land among the Muhajirun; he gave land to only two Ansar ? zemes vidū Muhajirun, viņš deva zemi tikai divas Ansar? Sahl ibn Hanif and Abu Dujanah Sammak ibn Kharashah?because they were poor.[28] Sahl ibn Hanif un Abu Dujanah Sammak ibn Kharashah?, Jo tie ir slikti [28].

The expulsion of Banu al Nadir led to the collapse of power of the Jews and the hypocrites in Madinah. Gada Banu al Nadir izraidīšanu noveda pie jaudas ebreju sabrukuma un Madinah liekuļi. The Qurayzah renewed the treaty with the Muslims during the siege of the Banu al Nadir, and showed their willingness to adhere to the treaty until the Battle of the Ditch. Qurayzah atjaunoja līgumu ar musulmaņiem laikā aplenkuma Banu al Nadir, un parādīja savu vēlmi pievienoties līgumam, līdz kaujas grāvju. The hypocrites did not fulfill their promise of support to Banu al Nadir, and the Jews realized the futility of relying on the hypocrites. Liekuļi neizpildīja savu solījumu par atbalstu Banu al Nadir, un ebreji saprata veltīgums atsaukties uz liekuļi.

Islam Islams became stronger by getting rid of Banu al Nadir and benefitting from their lands which were given to the Muhajirun, who had previously relied on the lands and houses of the Ansar. kļuva spēcīgāka, atsakoties no Banu al Nadir un gūst labumu no viņu zemēm, kas tika nodoti Muhajirun, kas iepriekš atsaucās uz zemes un mājas Ansar.

Banu al Nadir's incitement of the Mushrikun Banu al Nadir's naida Mushrikun

The Jews of Banu al Nadir continued to hate the Muslims; this hatred led them to incite the disbelievers of the Quraysh and other tribes to attack Madinah in the Battle of the Ditch. Ebreji Banu al Nadir turpināja ienīst musulmaņiem, tas naidu aizveda viņus mudināt disbelievers no Quraysh un citām ciltīm uzbrukt Madinah kaujā grāvja. Several reports have been transmitted which are weak either because they are mursal or munqati or because one of the narrators in the isnad is majhul.[29] But when these reports are put together, they can be taken as evidence, and they strengthen one another. Vairāki ziņojumi ir nosūtīti, kas ir vāji tāpēc, ka tie mursal vai munqati vai tādēļ viens no isnad teicēju ir majhul [29]. Bet, ja šie ziņojumi ir salikti kopā, tie var būt pierādījums tam, un tie stiprina viena otru . The reports go back to ?Urwah ibn al Zubayr, ?Asim ibn ?Umar ibn Qatadah, Abd Allah ibn Abu Bakr ibn Hazm, Sa'id ibn al Musayyab and Musa ibn ?Uqbah. Ziņojumos atgriezties? Urwah ibn al Zubayr,? Asim IBN? Umar ibn Qatadah, Abd Allah ibn Abu Bakr ibn Hazm, Sa'id Ibn al Musayyab un Mūsas ibn? Uqbah. Some of them gave the names of the inciters from Banu al Nadir and Ibn Ishaq mentioned some of them: Salam ibn Abu al Haqiq, Kinanah ibn Abu al Haqiq al Nadari and Huyayy ibn Akhtab al Nadari.[30] Dažas no tām bija nosaukumus inciters no Banu al Nadir un Ibn Ishaq minēti daži no tiem:. Salam Ibn Abū al Haqiq, Kinanah Ibn Abū al Haqiq al Nadari un Huyayy Ibn Akhtab al Nadari [30]

References Atsauces

[1] Abd al Razzaq, al Musannaf, 5/357; Abu Dawud, al Sunan, 2/139-26, Kitab al Kharaj wa al Fay wa al Imarah [1] Abd al Razzaq, al Musannaf, 5 / 357, Abu Dawud, al Sunan, 2/139-26, Kitab al Kharaj wa al Fay wa al Imarah

[2] Al Hakim, al Mustadrak, 2/483, Kitab al Tafsir [2] Al Hakim, al Mustadrak, 2 / 483, Kitab al Tafsir

[3] Abd al Razzaq, al Musannaf, 5/357 [3] Abd al Razzaq, al Musannaf, 5 / 357

[4] Al Bayhaqi, Dala'il al Nubuwwah, 3/446-450; Abu Nu'aym, Dala'il al Nubuwwah, 3/176-7 [4] Al Bayhaqi, Dala'il al Nubuwwah, 3/446-450, Abu Nu'aym, Dala'il al Nubuwwah, 3/176-7

[5] Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3/683; al Bukhari, al Sahih, 3/11, Mu'allaq from Ibn Ishaq. [5] Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3 / 683, Al Bukhari, al Sahih, 3 / 11, Mu'allaq no Ibn Ishaq.

[6] Al Waqidi, al Maghazi, 1/363; Ibn Sa'd, al Tabaqat, 3/57). [6] Al Waqidi, al Maghazi, 1 / 363, Ibn Sa'd, al Tabaqat, 3 / 57). Ibn Hisham agrees with them that it took place in Rabi? Ibn Hisham piekrīt, ka tā bija notikusi Rabi? al Awwal (Al Sirah, 3/683). al Awwal (Al Sirah, 3 / 683).

[7] Ibn al Qayyim, Zad al Ma'ad [7] Ibn al Qayyim, Zad al Ma'ad

[8] Fath al Bari, 6/388-9 [8] Fath al Bari, 6/388-9

[9] See isnads in al Tabari (Tarikh al Rusul, 6/146-7) some of which end with Yazid ibn Ruman. [9] Skatīt isnads Al Tabari (Tarikh al Rusul, 6/146-7) dažas no kurām beidzoties ar Yazid ibn Ruman. Some include Daži ietver Muhammad Muhammad ibn Hamid al Razi, who is weak, and Salamah ibn al Fadl al Abrashi, Da'la`il al Nubuwwah, by al Bayhaqi, 3/446-8. Ibn Hamid al Razi, kas ir vājš, un Salamah Ibn al Fadl al Abrashi, Da'la "il al Nubuwwah, al Bayhaqi, 3/446-8. with two isnads going back to Urwah ibn al Zubayr and Musa ibn Uqbah (the two isnads end with them; Ibn Kathir, al Tafsir, 3/31, transmitted from Ibn Ishaq, Mujahid and Ikrimah). ar diviem isnads atgriezties Urwah Ibn al Zubayr un Mūsas ibn Uqbah (divas isnads beigām ar tiem; Ibn Kathir, al Tafsir, 3 / 31, pārsūta no Ibn Ishaq, Mujahid un Ikrimah).

[10] Abd al Razzaq, al Musannaf, 5/359-60; see also, Ibn Hajar, Fath al Bari, 7/331; Abu Dawud, Sunan, 2/139-40, Kitab al Kharaj wa al Fay wa al Imarah [10] Abd al Razzaq, al Musannaf, 5/359-60, skatīt arī, Ibn Hajar, Fath al Bari, 7 / 331, Abu Dawud, Sunan, 2/139-40, Kitab al Kharaj wa al Fay wa al Imarah

[11] Ibn Ishaq, al Sirah, 3/191 [11] Ibn Ishaq, al Sirah, 3 / 191

[12] Ibn Hajar, Fath al Bari, 7/331 [12] Ibn Hajar, Fath al Bari, 7 / 331

[13] Ibid., 7/332 [13] Turpat., 7 / 332

[14] Al Bukhari, al Sahih, 3/11; Muslim, al Sahih, 5/159 [14] Al Bukhari, al Sahih, 3 / 11 musulmaņu, al Sahih, 5 / 159

[15] Al Waqidi, al Maghazi, 1/363-70, but al Waqidi is matruk; Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3/682, without isnad; Ibn Sa?d, al Tabaqat, 3/57-8, without isnad; al Bayhaqi, Dala?il al Nubuwwah, 3/446-50, with two isnads which include four men who are majhul. [15] Al Waqidi, al Maghazi, 1/363-70, bet al Waqidi ir matruk, Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3 / 682, bez isnad; Ibn Sa d, al Tabaqat, 3/57-8, bez isnad? , al Bayhaqi, Dala il al Nubuwwah, 3/446-50 ar diviem isnads kas ietver četriem vīriešiem, kuri ir majhul?.

[16] Al Bayhaqi, Dala?il al Nubuwwah, 3/446-8; Abu Nu?aym, Dala?il al Nubuwwah, 3/176-7. ? [16] Al Bayhaqi, Dala il al Nubuwwah, 3/446-8; Abu Nu aym, Dala il al Nubuwwah, 3/176-7?. Their isnads include Abu Ja?far Muhammad ibn ?Abd Allah al Baghdad, Abu Alaqah Muhammad ibn ?Amr ibn Khalid, Muhammad ibn ?Abd Allah ibn ?Itab and al Qasim ibn ?Abd Allah ibn al Mughirah; I did not find their biographies, but the other men in the two isnads are reliable (thiqah). To isnads arī Abu ja vien Muhammad ibn Abd Allah al Bagdādi, Abu Alaqah Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Khalid, Muhammad ibn Abd Allah ibn ITAB un al Qasim ibn Abd Allah ibn al Mughirah;?? Man nav atrast savu biogrāfijas, bet citi vīrieši divās isnads ir ticami (thiqah).

[17] Al Tabari, Tarikh al Rusul, 3/334-5; Ibn Sayyid al Nas, Uyun al Athar, 3/48; Ibn Kathir, al Bidayah, 3/45, and others [17] Al Tabari, Tarikh al Rusul, 3/334-5; Ibn Sayyid al Nas, Uyun al Athar, 3 / 48 Ibn Kathir, al Bidayah, 3 / 45, un citi

[18] Ibn Sayyid al Nas, Uyun al Athar, 2/49; Ibn Kathir, al Tafsir, 4/330; al Suyuti, Lubab al Nuqul fi Asbab al Nuzul, 214 [18] Ibn Sayyid al Nas, Uyun al Athar, 2 / 49; Ibn Kathir, al Tafsir, 4 / 330, Al Suyuti, Lubab al Nuqul fi Asbab al Nuzul 214

[19] Abd al Razzaq. [19] Abd al Razzaq. al Musannaf, 5/358-361; Abu Dawud, al Sunan, 3/404-7; al Bayhaqi, Dala?il al Nubuwwah, 3/446-8; see also, Ibn Hajar, Fath al Bari, 7/331 al Musannaf, 5/358-361, Abu Dawud, al Sunan, 3/404-7;? al Bayhaqi, Dala il al Nubuwwah, 3/446-8, skatīt arī, Ibn Hajar, Fath al Bari, 7 / 331

[20] Surat al Hashr (59:5): ?Whatever you cut down (O you Muslims) the tender palm trees, or you left them standing on their roots, it was by leave of Allah?” [20] Surat al Hashr (59:5)? Lai ko jūs samazināt (O esat musulmaņi) konkursu palmu koki, vai arī Jūs tos esat atstājuši stāv uz to saknēm, tā bija atvaļinājums Allah "?

[21] Al Bukhari, al Sahih, 3/11, 143; Abu Dawud, al Sunan, 3/36; al Tirmidhi, al Sunan (with the commentary Tuhfat al Ahwadhi, 5/157-8; Ibn Majah, Sunan, 3/948-9 [21] Al Bukhari, al Sahih, 3 / 11, 143, Abu Dawud, al Sunan, 3 / 36 al Tirmidhi, al Sunan (ar komentāriem Tuhfat al Ahwadhi, 5/157-8, Ibn Majah, Sunan, 3 / 948-9

[22] Abd al Razzaq, al Musannaf, 5/358-361 [22] Abd al Razzaq, al Musannaf, 5/358-361

[23] Ibn Sa'd, al Tabaqat, 3/58 [23] Ibn Sa'd, al Tabaqat, 3 / 58

[24] Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3/683, without isnad. [24] Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3 / 683, bez isnad. It is strengthened by what is in at Bayhaqi's Dala?il al Nubuwwah, 3/446-9, with an isnad going back to ?Urwah and Musa ibn ?Uqbah. Tas nostiprina to, kas ir pēc Bayhaqi's Dala il al Nubuwwah, 3/446-9 ar isnad atgriezties? Urwah un Mūsas ibn? Uqbah?. The two isnads mention men whose biographies I could not find. Divas isnads pieminēt vīriešiem, kuru biogrāfijas es nevarēju atrast.

[25] Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3/683, with an isnad going back to Abd Allah ibn Abu Bakr. [25] Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3 / 683, ar isnad atgriezties Abd Allah ibn Abu Bakr.

[26] “What God has bestowed on His Apostle (and taken away) from them?for this you made no expedition with either cavalry or camelry: but God gives power to His Apostle over any He pleases: and God has power over all things.” (al Hashr 59:6) ? [26] "Ko Dievs ir piešķīris viņa apustuļa (un aizvest), no tiem par šo jums neko ekspedīcija ar vai nu kavalērijas vai camelry: bet Dievs dod tiesības Viņa apustuli uz jebkuru Viņš pleases: un Dievs ir vara pār visām lietām . "(al Hashr 59:6)

[27] Sahih al Bukhari, 3/131 and Sahih Muslim, 8/345 [27] Sahih al Bukhari, 3 / 131 un Sahih musulmaņu, 8 / 345

[28] Abd al Razzaq, al Musannaf, 5/358-361; Abu Dawud, al Sunan, 3/404-7; see also Ibn Hajar, Fath al Bari, 7/331 and Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3/683-4 [28] Abd al Razzaq, al Musannaf, 5/358-361, Abu Dawud, al Sunan, 3/404-7, skatīt arī Ibn Hajar, Fath al Bari, 7 / 331 un Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3 / 683 -4

[29] Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3/700-1; Abd al Razzaq, al Musannaf, 5/368-373; Ibn Sa'd, al Tabaqat, 3/65-6; Ibn Hajar, Fath al Bari, 7/412-4 [29] Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3/700-1; Abd al Razzaq, al Musannaf, 5/368-373, Ibn Sa'd, al Tabaqat, 3/65-6, Ibn Hajar, Fath al Bari, 7 / 412-4

[30] Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3/700-701 [30] Ibn Hisham, al Sirah, 3/700-701

Welcome to Bismika Allahuma , your premier source of counter-missionary information from an Islamic perspective! Laipni lūdzam Bismika Allahuma, jūsu premier avots counter-misionāru informāciju no islāma viedokļa! If you are new here, you may want to get regular updates via Ja esat jauns šeit, jūs varat saņemt regulārus atjauninājumus, izmantojot RSS feed RSS barību . . Thank you for visiting! Paldies par apmeklējot!