If you're new here, you may want to get regular updates via Ja esat jauna šeit, jūs varat saņemt regulārus atjauninājumus, izmantojot RSS feed RSS feed . . Thank you for visiting! Paldies par apmeklējot!

Continued from Turpinājums no Part I I daļa

Ka`b ibn Ashraf Ka `b ibn Ashraf

We now come to the genuine cases which are mentioned in collections of hadith . Esam nonākuši pie īstas lietas, kas minēti kolekcijas Hadith. The first of these is the case of Ka'b ibn Ashraf. Pirmais no tiem ir, ja Ka'b ibn Ashraf. We propose to discuss it in detail, for this one case would show how the Holy Prophet has been misrepresented. Mēs ierosinām, lai apspriestu to detalizēti, lai šī viena lieta būs parādīt, kā Svētā pareģis ir maldinoši. Ka'b's father belonged to the tribe of Tayy, but coming over to Madinah he became an ally of the Jewish tribe of Bani Nadir and became so influential that be succeeded in marrying the daughter of a Jewish leader. Ka'b tēvs piederēja pie cilts Tayy, bet nāk vairāk nekā uz Madinah viņš kļuva sabiedrotais ebreju cilts Bani Nadir un bija tik ietekmīgi, ka ir izdevies apprecot meita ebreju līderis. Ka'b thus stood in a very near relationship to both Jews and Arabs. Ka'b tādējādi stāvēja ļoti tuvu attiecību, lai gan ebreji un arābi. When the Holy Prophet came to Madinah, the Jews made an agreement with him, by the terms of which Jews and Muslims were to live as one people, both retaining their own faith, and in the case of an attack on Madinah or an unaggressive war with a third party they bound themselves to help each other. Kad Svētais pareģis bija Madinah, ebrejiem, kas līgumu ar viņu, ar kādiem ebrejiem un musulmaņiem bija dzīvot kā viena tauta, gan saglabājot savu ticību, un, ja uzbrukums Madinah vai unaggressive kara ar trešo pusi, ko tie saista, lai palīdzētu viens otram. The Prophet was accepted as the final court of appeal in all disputes. Pravietis tika pieņemts, jo galīgs tiesas apelācijas visos strīdos.

When, however, a Makkan army advanced on Madinah in the 2nd year of Hijrah, the Muslims had to meet them alone, and notwithstanding that they were less than a third of the Makkan army and very inferior in efficiency and arms, they inflicted a crushing defeat on the invading army at Badr. Tomēr, ja Makkan armijas uzlabotas par Madinah ar 2 gadu Hijrah, musulmaņi bija jāatbilst viņus vienatnē, un neskatoties, ka tie bija mazāk nekā trešdaļa Makkan armijas un ļoti sliktāki efektivitātes un ieročiem, viņi radīja saspiešanas sakaut par okupē armiju pie Badr. The Muslim victory only added to the Jewish spite against Islam. Musulmaņu uzvara tikai pievienota ebreju spīti pret islāmu. Ka'b, who was bound by the Madinah treaty, now used his poetic gift freely to excite hatred of Islam and the Muslims. Ka'b, kurš bija saistīts ar Madinah līgumu, tagad izmanto viņa dzejas dāvanu brīvi ierosināšanai naidu par islāmu un musulmaņiem. Not content with this, he proceeded to Nav apmierināts ar to, viņš sāka Makkah Makkah and openly joined hands with the enemies of Islam. un atklāti pievienojās rokās ar islāma ienaidniekiem. He urged upon the Quraish the necessity of attacking Madinah with a strong force at an early date, and swore in the Ka'bah that he would fight against the Muslims when Madinah was invaded. Viņš mudināja uz Quraish nepieciešamību uzbrukt Madinah ar spēcīgu spēkā drīz, un zvērēja jo Ka'bah ka viņš cīņa pret musulmaņiem, kad Madinah bija iebruka. Not only this; he returned from Makkah with a plan to put an end to the Prophet's life by underhand means. Ne tikai šajā, viņš atgriezās no Makkah ar plānu, lai izbeigtu pravieša dzīvi, slepens līdzekļiem. It is only in the true Christian missionary spirit that Muir, in his Life of Mahomet , has no place for these acts while he has sufficient room for the minutest details as to how Ka'b was put to death, and he gives vent to his inner feelings when he concludes his description of one of the alleged “assassinations” in the following words: Tas ir tikai taisnība, kristiešu misionārs gars, Muir, viņa dzīve Mahomet, nav vietas šo tiesību aktu, bet viņam ir pietiekama telpa minutest informāciju par to, kā Ka'b tika likts uz nāvi, un viņš dod vent viņa iekšējās izjūtas, kad viņš noslēdz savu aprakstu par vienu no iespējamiem "slepkavībām" ar šādiem vārdiem:

“The progress of Islam begins to stand out in unenviable contrast with that of early "Islāma progress sāk izceļas neapskaužams kontrastē ar paša sākuma Christianity Kristietība . . Converts were gained to the faith of Jesus by witnessing the constancy with which its confessors suffered death, they were gained to Islam by the spectacle of the readiness with which its adherents inflicted death. Pārvērš tika iegūta ar ticību Jēzus, ko piedzīvojam pastāvība, ar kuru tās apliecinātāji cietuši nāvi, viņi ieguva ar islāmu ar briļļu gatavību, ar kuru tās piekritēju radīti nāvi. In the one case conversion imperilled the believer's life; in the other, it was the only means of saving it.” Šajā vienā gadījumā konversijas apdraudētas ticīgais dzīvi, jo no otras puses, tas bija vienīgais veids, kā ietaupīt tā. "

And if Muir conceals the facts which show that from an ally Ka'b had turned into a combatant, The missionaries, notwithstanding their parading the original authorities, is guilty of the same offence. Un, ja Muir slēpj faktus, kas liecina, ka no sabiedrotais Ka'b bija pārvērtusies kaujinieks, misionāri, neskatoties uz to parading sākotnējo iestādes, ir vainojama pašu nodarījumu. That there was a war between Muslims and non-Muslims at the time of the alleged “assassination,” in the third year of the Hijrah, is an undeniable fact. Ka tur bija karš starp musulmaņiem un nemusulmaņiem laikā iespējamā "slepkavības", trešajā gadā Hijrah, ir nenoliedzams fakts. The question is whether Ka'b was among the combatants or the non-combatants. Jautājums ir, vai Ka'b bija viens no kaujiniekiem, vai ne-kaujiniekiem. If he actually joined hands with the enemies of Islam and placed himself among those who were fighting with the Muslims, and he was killed by the Muslims, can this be called a case of treachery, cruelty or butchery? Ja viņš tiešām sadevās rokās ar islāma ienaidniekiem un ievieto pats starp tiem, kas cīnījās ar musulmaņiem, un viņš tika nogalināts ar musulmaņiem, to var saukt par uz nodevību, nežēlību vai miesnieku? That Ka'b had openly joined the combatants and become their ally is borne out by all historical accounts; nay, some of them go so far as to say that he had planned to murder the Prophet(P) treacherously. Ka Ka'b bija atklāti pievienojās kaujinieku un kļūtu par viņu sabiedroto apstiprina visas vēsturiski kontiem; nē, daži no tiem iet tik tālu, ka teikt, ka viņš plānoja slepkavību pareģis (P) nodevīgi. Here are a few authorities: Šeit ir dažas iestādes:

“He went to the Quraish weeping over their killed (at Badr) and inciting them to fight with the Prophet.” "Viņš devās uz Quraish raud pa to iet bojā (pie Badr) un kūdīšana uz tām, lai cīnītos ar pareģis." ^{1 1}

(The Prophet said): “He (Ka'b) has openly assumed enmity to us and speaks evil of us and he has gone over to the polytheists (who were at war with Muslims) and has made them gather against us for fighting” (Pravietis teica): "Viņš (Ka'b) ir atklāti uzņēmusies ienaids mums un runā ļaunu par mums, un viņš aizgāja pār polytheists (kas bija karš ar musulmaņiem), un tos ir savākt no mums apkarošanā" ^{2 2}

“And according to Kalbi, he united in a league with the Quraish before the "Un pēc Kalbi, viņš vieno līga ar Quraish pirms curtains aizkari of the Ka'bah, to fight against the Muslims.” no Ka'bah, lai cīnītos pret musulmaņiem. " ^{3 3}

“And he prepared a feast, and conspired with some Jews that he would invite the Prophet and when he came they should fall on him all of a sudden.” "Un viņš sagatavo mielastu, un sazvērējušās daži ebreji, ka viņš aicinās pareģis, un, kad viņš atnāca tie attiecas uz viņu visiem, ja pēkšņi." ^{4 4}

Commenting on Bukhari's report relating to the killing of Ka'b, the author of Fath al-Bari relates the reports which we have quoted above from Zurqani, viz., Ka'b's going to Makkah and inciting the Quraish entering into a league before the curtains of the Ka'bah to fight against the Muslims, the Holy Prophet's declaration that he had assumed open enmity, and his plan to kill the Prophet by inviting him to a feast. Komentējot Bukhari ziņojumu par nogalināšanu Ka'b, Bari autors Fath al-attiecas uz ziņojumiem, kas mums ir citēts iepriekš, no Zurqani, proti., Ka'b notiek uz Meku un kūdīšana Quraish noslēgt līgas pirms aizkari un Ka'bah cīnīties pret musulmaņiem, Svētā pareģis deklarāciju, ka viņš uzņēmās atvērt ienaids, un viņa plāns, lai nogalinātu pareģis, uzaicinot viņu svētki. Bukhari himself speaks of the incidents relating to the killing of Ka'b under headings in which the word harb (fighting) occurs, thus showing that he was looked upon as a combatant. Bukhari pats runā par incidentiem, kas saistīti ar nogalināšanu Ka'b pozīcijās, kurās vārds harb (cīņa) notiek, tādējādi parādot, ka viņš izskatījās pēc kā kaujinieks. Abu Dawud speaks of the incident under the heading, “When the enemy is attacked and he is unprepared,” showing that Ka'b was dealt with as an enemy at war with Muslims. Abu Dawud runā par incidentu ar nosaukumu "Kad ienaidnieks ir uzbruka un viņš nav gatavs", parādot, ka Ka'b tika izskatīts kā ienaidnieku kara ar musulmaņiem. And the comment on this is that “Ka'b used to incite people to murder the Muslims”; and discussing the legality of what the party sent out for the punishment of Ka'b did, the same commentator adds: “This is not allowed in the case of an enemy after security has been given to him or peace has been made with him … but it is allowed in the case of one who breaks the covenant and helps others in the murder of Muslims.” And Ibn Sa'd tells us that when the Jews complained to the Holy Prophet that their leader was killed, “he reminded them of his deeds and how he urged and incited (the Quraish) to fight against them,” and adds that “the Prophet then called upon them to make an agreement with him”, and this agreement “was afterwards in the possession of 'Ali.” All this evidence is too clear to show that Ka'b was put to death for having broken the agreement with the Prophet and joining his enemies who were at war with him and he was therefore treated as a combatant, while the other Jews who did not go to this length, though they were not less active in speaking evil of the Holy Prophet, still lived at peace with him and all that they were required to do was to sign an agreement that they would not join hands with those who were at war with the Muslims. Un par šo ir tas, ka "Ka'b ko izmanto, lai rosināt cilvēkus slepkavību musulmaņi", un apspriežot tiesiskumu, ko persona, kas izsūtīti no Ka'b sods bija, pats komentētājs komentāru piebilst: "Tas nav atļauta ja ienaidnieka pēc drošības ir piešķirta viņam mieru gūti ar viņu ... bet tas ir atļauts, ja kurš pārtraukumus derība un palīdz citiem slepkavību musulmaņiem "Un. Ibn Sa'd stāsta mums, ka tad, kad jūdi sūdzējās Svētā pareģis, ka viņu vadītājs tika nogalināts, "viņš atgādināja par viņa darbiem, un kā viņš mudināja un kūdīja (Quraish), lai cīnītos pret tiem," un piebilst, ka "pareģis, tad aicināja tos padarīt vienošanās ar viņu ", un šis nolīgums" tika pēc tam valdījumā "Ali." Viss šis pierādījums, ir pārāk skaidrs, lai pierādītu, ka Ka'b tika likts uz nāvi, ka tā ir sadalīti vienošanos ar pareģis un savieno viņa ienaidnieki, kas bija karš ar viņu, un viņš bija uzskatīti par kaujiniekiem, bet otru ebrejus, kas nav doties uz tik ilgu, taču tās nebija tik aktīvi runā ļauno no Svētā pareģis, vēl dzīvoja mierā ar viņu, un visu to tika prasīts darīt bija parakstīt vienošanos, ka viņi nepievienosies rokas ar tiem, kas bija karš ar musulmaņiem.

The only question that is worth considering is why Ka'b was put to death by certain Muslims attacking him suddenly and unawares. Vienīgais jautājums, kas ir vērts apsvērt, ir, kāpēc Ka'b tika likts uz nāvi dažu musulmaņu uzbrūkot viņam pēkšņi un negaidot. In the first place, it must be clearly understood that responsibility for the manner in which he was put to death cannot lie with the Prophet. Pirmkārt, tam jābūt skaidri jāsaprot, ka atbildība par veidu, kādā viņš tika nodots nāvei, nevar gulēt ar pareģis. That the Prophet considered Ka'b as deserving death is quite true, but there is no proof at all that he gave any directions as to the manner in which that sentence was to be carried out. Ka pareģis uzskata Ka'b par pelnījusi nāvi ir taisnība, bet nav visu pierādījumu, ka viņš deva nekādi norādījumi attiecībā uz veidu, kādā šis teikums bija jāveic. On the other hand, according to one report, when the Prophet was asked by No otras puses, saskaņā ar vienu ziņojumu, kad pareģis lūdza Muhammad Muhammad ibn Maslamah whether he should kill him he assumed silence, while according to another he said: “If you are going to do it, be not in a hurry until you have consulted Sa'd ibn Mu'adh” ibn Maslamah, vai viņš ir nogalināt viņu, viņš pieņem klusuma, bet saskaņā ar citu, viņš teica: "Ja jūs gatavojas to darīt, ir ne steigā, kamēr jums ir apspriedusies Sa'd ibn Mu'adh" ^{5 5} . . At any rate he knew nothing about the details, and it is even doubtful whether the details as given are true, the Holy Prophet had nothing to do with them. Katrā ziņā viņš zināja, neko par informāciju, un tas ir pat apšaubāmi, vai informācija, kas sniegta informācija ir patiesa, Svētais pravietis bija neko darīt ar tiem. And leaving aside the question of the Prophet's responsibility, there was no other method to which resort could be had under the circumstances. Un atstājot malā jautājumu par pareģis atbildību, nebija neviena cita metode, ar kuru kūrortu varētu būt bijusi apstākļos. The hostile critic takes it for granted that the conditions under which the Muslims lived at Madinah were very like those under which he lived in the twentieth century. Naidīgu kritiķis uzskata par pašsaprotamu, ka nosacījumus, ar kādiem musulmaņi dzīvoja Madinah bija ļoti līdzīgi tiem, kādos viņš dzīvoja divdesmitajā gadsimtā. They had to deal with an enemy, and they dealt with him in the only way in which it was possible to proceed under circumstances then existing. Viņiem bija, lai risinātu ar ienaidnieku, un tie jārisina ar viņu vienīgais veids, kādā tas bija iespējams rīkoties saskaņā ar apstākļiem, tad esošās. Ka'b had chosen to enter into a league with an enemy at war with Muslims, and according to all human and Divine laws he could not but be treated as an enemy at war. Ka'b bija nolēmusi slēgt līgu ar ienaidnieku kara ar musulmaņiem, un saskaņā ar visiem cilvēka un Dieva likumus viņš nevarēja, bet uzskatīt par ienaidnieku kara. And dealing with him as a combatant, the Holy Prophet sent a party against him; it is definitely called a sariyyah (lit. a portion of an army) in all biographical works, thus showing that the party was sent to fight with him; but it rested with the leader of the party to choose the best way in which he could deal a blow at the enemy. Un nodarbojas ar viņu kā kaujas, Svētā pareģis nosūtīja personai, pret viņu, tas ir noteikti sauc sariyyah (lit. daļu armijas) visos biogrāfisko darbiem, tādējādi parādot, ka pusei tika nosūtīts, lai cīnītos ar viņu, bet tā atpūtušies ar līderi puses izvēlēties labāko veidu, kā viņš varēja risināt trieciens pie ienaidnieks. And Muhammad ibn Maslamah, the leader, chose a method which was recognised among the Arabs and which in his opinion was the best and most effective way under the circumstances. Un Muhammad ibn Maslamah, vadītājs, izvēlējās metodi, kas tika atzīta starp arābiem un kas pēc viņa domām bija labākais un efektīvākais veids apstākļos. If the leader of the party had chosen to attack Ka'b openly, there would have been much more bloodshed, and probably the whole Jewish tribe of Bani Nadir would have suffered along with Ka'b. Ja puses vadītājs bija izvēlējies uzbrukuma Ka'b atklāti, ka būtu bijis daudz vairāk asinsizliešana, un, iespējams, visai ebreju cilts Bani Nadir būtu cietusi kopā ar Ka'b. Ka'b had broken his agreement with the Prophet, he had revolted against him, he had entered into a league to fight against the Muslims till they were extirpated, and he had secretly planned to take away the Prophet's life. Ka'b bija sadalīti savu piekrišanu ar pareģis, viņš bija sacelšanās pret viņu, viņš stājās līga cīnīties pret musulmaņiem līdz tie izskausts, un viņš bija slepeni plānots atņemt pareģis dzīvi. For every one of these offences he had forfeited his life. Par katru no šiem nodarījumiem viņš zaudē savu dzīvi. A party was sent to execute this decree and his life was taken in a manner which, if it had the fault of being secret, had also the merit of not involving innocent people along with the culprit, which would surely have been the result in the case of an open attack. Persona tika nosūtīta, lai izpildītu šo dekrētu, un viņa dzīve bija pieņemts tādā veidā, kas, ja tā vaina ir noslēpums, arī bija nopelns nav saistīti ar nevainīgu cilvēku kopā ar vaininieks, kas būtu noteikti bijis rezultāts Ja atklātu uzbrukuma. But theProphet was not in any way responsible for the method of the execution. Bet theProphet nav nekādā veidā atbildīgs par metodi izpildi.

Abul Huqaiq Abul Huqaiq

Having discussed the case of Ka'b at length, the case of Abul Huqaiq (Abu Rafi`) need not detain us long. Ņemot apsprieda gadījumā Ka'b pēc garuma, no Abul Huqaiq (lieta Abu Rafi ") nevajag aizturēt mums ilgi. In fact, Muir had admitted his guilt with a suppressed tongue. Faktiski Muir atzina savu vainu ar apspiestas mēli. Thus under the heading, “Assassination of Abul Huqaiq, a Jewish Chief”, he says: Tādējādi pozīcijā, "slepkavība Abul Huqaiq, ebreju galvenais", viņš saka:

“A party of the Bani Nazir, after their exile, settled down among their brethren at Khaibar. "Puse Bani Nazir, pēc trimdā, izšķir uz leju starp viņu brāļi pēc Khaibar. Abul Huckeick, their chief, having taken a prominent part to the confederate force which besieged Medina, was now suspected of encouraging certain Bedouin tribes to their depredations. Abul Huckeick, to galvenais, sākusi ievērojamu daļu domubiedru spēku, kas besieged Medina, tagad bija aizdomas veicināt dažu beduīnu ciltis to depredations. An expedition was therefore undertaken by Ali against the Jews of Khaibar … As a surer means of stopping these attacks, Mahomet resolved on ridding himself of their supposed author, the Jewish chief … The assassination of Abul Huckeick did not relieve Mahomet of his apprehensions from the Jews of Khaibar; for Oseir, elected in his mom, maintained the same relation with the Ghatafan, end was even reported to be designing fresh movements against Medina.” Ekspedīcija tika veikta ar Ali pret ebrejiem Khaibar ... Kā surer apstāšanās šo uzbrukumu, Mahomet atrisināt atbrīvojot sevi no to domājamu autors, ebreju galvenais ... slepkavības Abul Huckeick nebija atbrīvot Mahomet no viņa aizturēšanu no ebreji Khaibar, par Oseir, ievēlēts viņa mamma, saglabāt to pašu saistībā ar Ghatafan, beigas bija pat Ziņots, ka projektēšana svaigu kustības pret Medina. "

The Bani Nadir, a Jewish tribe, originally lived at Madinah, and were in alliance with the Holy Prophet, but being suspected of keeping up correspondence with the Quraish and one of the Arab tribes in alliance with them having murdered some Muslims treacherously, they were asked to renew the alliance, which they refused, and were ultimately banished from Madinah. Bani Nadir, ebreju cilts, kas sākotnēji dzīvoja pie Madinah, un bija alianses ar Svēto pareģis, bet ir aizdomas, ka tur pat sarakste ar Quraish un arābu ciltis, kas aliansē viens ar tiem, kam nogalināja dažas musulmaņu nodevīgi, tie bija lūdza atjaunot alianse, kurā viņi atteicās, un galu galā izraidīja no Madinah. They settled at Khaibar, a Jewish stronghold and became a source of immense trouble to Muslims, constantly inciting the tribes around Madinah to commit depredations on the Muslims. Viņi apmetusies Khaibar, ebreju cietoksnis un kļuva avotu ārkārtīgi nepatikšanas ar musulmaņiem, pastāvīgi kūdīšana ciltis ap Madinah izdarīt depredations par musulmaņiem. Abul Huqaiq, their head, was also a leader in the “Battle of the Allies” in which the Arabian and Jewish tribes had gathered together to give a crushing blow to Islam. Abul Huqaiq, viņu galvas, arī bija līderis "un sabiedrotie", kurā arābu un ebreju ciltis bija sapulcējušies kopā, lai iegūtu saspiešanas trieciens pret islāmu Battle. Abul Huqaiq and the Jews had thus come out into the field of battle against the Muslims, and even after the allies had to go back in discomfiture, Abul Huqaiq continued to excite and help the Arab tribes living around Madinah in their depredations against the Muslims. Abul Huqaiq un ebreji bija tā nāk ārā jomā, cīņā pret musulmaņiem, un pat pēc tam, kad sabiedrotie bija jāiet atpakaļ samulsums, Abul Huqaiq turpināja satraukt un palīdzētu arābu ciltis dzīvo ap Madinah to depredations pret musulmaņiem. The Prophet(P) was thus justified in sending an expedition against the Khaibar Jews, but before doing this in the 7th year, he sent a small party to deal with Abul Huqaiq alone in 6 AH Undoubtedly the underlying idea was that bloodshed might be avoided, as far as possible, and that if the ring-leader was taken away, the mischief might cease. Pravietis (P), tika pamatots, nosūtot ekspedīcijā pret Khaibar ebrejiem, taču pirms tam tas 7 gadu viņš nosūtīja nelielu puse galā ar Abul Huqaiq tikai 6 AH Neapšaubāmi pamata ideja bija, ka asinsizliešanu varētu izvairīties no , cik vien iespējams, un, ja gredzena līderis tika pieņemts prom, ļaunums varētu pārtraukt. But even Abul Huqaiq's death did not bring peace to the Muslims, and, accordingly, Khaibar had ultimately to be attacked and conquered. Bet pat Abul Huqaiq nāves nesniedza mieru musulmaņi, un, attiecīgi, Khaibar bija galu galā ir uzbruka un iekaroja. That the party sent against him chose to adopt the method which was successfully adopted against Ka'b, again throws no blame on the Prophet. Ka puse nosūtījusi pret viņu izvēlējās pieņemt metodi, kas tika veiksmīgi pieņemta pret Ka'b, atkal throws nav vainot par pareģis.

Permitting Rape is a Grievous Calumny Ļauj Izvarošana ir smagi apmelojums

The last charge against the Holy Prophet(P) is one that is Pēdējā apsūdzības Svētā pareģis (P) ir viens, kas ir promulgated izsludināts by the Islamophobic Faithfreedom International , ie, having allowed rape of the women of Bani Mustaliq, which is a grievous calumny. ar islamofobiskajiem Faithfreedom International, ti, ņemot ļāva izvarošanu apmelojums sievietēm Bani Mustaliq, kas ir smagi. And the allegation that “all the traditional books” mention it is a bold statement. Un apgalvojums, ka "visas tradicionālās grāmatas" pieminēt tas ir treknrakstā paziņojumu. Not a single collection of hadith contains testimony establishing the charge — a charge of which even a hostile writer like Muir is unaware. Ne viens kolekcija hadith ir liecība, ar ko izveido maksa - maksa, kas pat naidīga rakstnieks, piemēram, Muir nezina. The only thing that is met with in the collections of hadith is a report from Abu Sa'id Khudri Vienīgais, ka ir ievērots ar Eiropas un Hadith kolekcijās ir ziņojums no Abu Sa'id Khudri ^{6 6} that some people in the Muslim army intended contracting temporary marriage relations with some women who were prisoners of war andmaking use of a birth control device, but there is not the least evidence that they ever did it. ka dažas musulmaņu armijas cilvēki paredzēts līgumslēdzējam pagaidu laulības attiecības ar dažām sievietēm, kas bija kara gūstekņi andmaking lietošanas dzimstības kontroles ierīces, bet ir ne mazāk pierādījumu, ka viņi kādreiz to darīja.

Abu Sa'id's report, in fact, relates to the legality of `azl , a birth control device, and it does not say at all how the women of Bani Mustaliq were treated Abu Sa'id ziņojumā, faktiski attiecas uz likumību "AZL, dzimšanas vadības ierīci, un tas nav pateikt visu kā Mustaliq sievietēm Bani tika ārstēti ^{7 7} . . It is a fact that before the advent of Islam, temporary marriage relations were allowed, The Holy Qur'an put an end to them, but all reform was, and had to be, gradual. Tas ir fakts, ka pirms islāma Advent, pagaidu laulības attiecības ir atļautas, Svētais Korāns izbeigtu tiem, bet visas reformas bija un bija, pakāpeniski. The Qur'an is explicit on marriage with prisoners of war, and the verse quoted below is a clear rebuttal of the Islamophobes' unfounded charge: Korāns ir skaidra par laulībām ar kara gūstekņiem, un dzejolis kotētas zemāk ir skaidra pierādījuma atspēkojums par Islamophobes "nepamatota maksas:

“And whoever among you cannot afford to marry free believing women, (let him marry) such of your believing maidens as your right hands possess…so marry them with the permission of their masters, and give them their dowries justly, they being chaste, not fornicating, nor receiving paramours; then if they are guilty of adultery when they are taken in marriage, they shall suffer half the punishment for free married women. "Un kurš no jums nevar atļauties precēties bezmaksas uzskatīt sievietes, (lai viņš precēties) šāds jūsu domāt, meitenes, jūsu tiesības rokas piemīt ... tik precēties viņiem atļauju to kapteiņiem, un dot viņiem dowries pamatoti, tie ir nevainīgs, nav fornicating, ne saņēmēja paramours, tad, ja tie ir vainīgi laulības pārkāpšanā, ja tie ir veikti laulībā, viņi cieš pusi sods par brīvu precētām sievietēm. This is for him among you who fears falling into evil. Tas ir viņu jūsu vidū, kuri baidās nonākšanu ļaunu. And that you abstain is better for you. Un, ka jūs atturēties ir labāka par jums. And Allah is Forgiving. Un Allah ir žēlsirdīgs. Merciful” (4:75) Žēlsirdīgs "(4:75)

As regards the treatment of the women of Bani Mustaliq in particular, there is the clearest historical evidence in all hadith books that they were all set free without ransom because one of them, Juwairiyah, was set free and married by the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah(T) be upon him. Runājot par attieksmi pret Bani Mustaliq sievietēm, jo īpaši, ir skaidrākajiem vēsturiskā pierādījumu visās hadith grāmatas, ka tie visi, kas brīvi bez izpirkuma naudu, jo viens no tiem, Juwairiyah, tika noteikta brīva un precējies ar pareģis, mieru un blessings Allah (T) be upon him.

And only God knows best! Un tikai Dievs zina vislabāk!

1. Zurqani, vol. Zurqani, tilp. ii, p. ii lpp 10 [ 10 [ back atpakaļ ] ]
2. ibid. , vol. turpat., vol. ii, p. ii lpp 11 [ 11 [ back atpakaļ ] ]
3. ibid. [ turpat. [ back atpakaļ ] ]
4. ibid. , p. turpat., lpp 12 [ [12 back atpakaļ ] ]
5. Zurqani, vol. Zurqani, tilp. ii, p. ii lpp 12 [ [12 back atpakaļ ] ]
6. Sahih Muslim , Volume 8, Book 77, no 6001 [ Sahih musulmaņu, sējums 8, Book 77, nē 6001 [ back atpakaļ ] ]
7. On this point see also the hadith from Jabir, Sahih Muslim , Kitab al Nikah (Book 8), no 3388. Saistībā ar šo jautājumu skatīt arī Hadith no Jabir, Sahih musulmaņu, Kitab al Nikah (Book 8), nav 3388. It should be noted that the hadith is placed under the chapter on nikah (marriage), which shows that it certainly was not “rape”! Jāatzīmē, ka Hadith ir nodotas nodaļā par nikah (laulības), kas liecina, ka tas noteikti nebija "izvarošanu"! [ [ back atpakaļ ] ]