The Real Story of Beheading of Nadr bin Harith And Alleged Copying Of Quran From Other Sources

The Real Story of Beheading of Nadr bin Harith And Alleged Copying Of Quran From Other Sources
An Analysis and Detailed Response
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
Al- Naḍr b. al- Ḥārith b. ʿAlḳama b. Kalada b. ʿAbd Manāf b. ʿAbd al-Dār b. Ḳuṣayy (d. 624 CE) was an Arab pagan who lived in the same time and region as the Islamic prophet Muhammad,
the son of al-Harith ibn Kalada,it is said that he was a doctor who attended the Persian school in Gundeshapur.
(Shahîd, Irfan (1 February 2010). Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century. Harvard University Press. p. 179. ISBN 978-0-88402-347-0.
Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century, Volume 2, Part 2, p.179, Irfan Shahîd. )
But it is very contradictory.The Arab physician of Taif was not Harith bin Kalada but Nafi bin Harith bin Kalada.Nafi ibn al-Harith bin Kalada al-Thaqafi (in Arabic نافع بن الحارث بن كلدة الثقفي ) (died. 13 AH/634–35)) was an Arab physician of the Banu Thaqif and was recommended by Muhammad and treated Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas, and when Abu Bakr was dying, he designated his illness as poisoning.
So while Nafi bin Harith bin Kalada was Thaqfi and doctor from Taif,Harith bin Kalada was kureshite.So it seems that the historians confused Harith bin Kalada Kureshite with Nafi bin Harith bin Kalada Thaqfi.But one thing is confirmed that even the travel of this Nafi bin Harith bin Kalada to Persia is not confirmed by an authentic source.And the other question is that if Prophet Muhammad p.b.u. had copied persia and Rome,then why he has embraced Islam despite knowing the alleged copying of Quran from foreign sources Whether the physician was Harith bin Kalada Kureshite or Nafi bin Harith bin Kalada.So the lack of authentic sources mentioning the travel of Nafi bin Harith bin Kalada to Persia and his embracement of Islam shows that the allegations on Quran of copying from foreign sources is a mere lie.The western sources confused Harith bin Kalada Kureshite,the father of Nadr bin Harith, with Thaqfi physician Nafi bin Harith bin Kalada and labelled him and his son Nadr bin Harith as the physician.The westerns and atheist blame Prophet Muhammad that he copied from foreign sources and for proof of it,they are not even able to decide that which person they want to label as the man who exposed the alleged copying of Quran from foreign sources.They say that Al-Harith ibn Kaladah (Arabic: الحارث بن كلدة‎‎; d. 13 AH/634–35) was, according to traditional sources, the oldest known Arab physician and a companion of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. Nadr ibn al-Harith was also a doctor and pactitioned in Hejaz. He came from Taif and used to tell the Arabs stories of Rustam and Isfandiyar.Sometimes,they say he was Harith bin Kalada,some times they say he was Nadr bin Harith bin Kalada,some times they say that he was Nafi bin Harith bin Kalada Thaqfi and some times they are so confused that they mix their names.It proves that even westerns and atheists are helpless in proving the alleged copying of Quran from foreign sources,some times they say one thing and then say other thing at different times while having no authentic proof for any of them.
In this article,we Will talk on alleged copying of Quran from foreign sources as declared by Nadr bin Harith in Mecca and as claimed by orientalists and atheists.
The orientalists and atheists claim that Nadr bin Harith came from Taif and used to tell the Arabs stories of Rustam and Isfandiyar,Rome,Herra as he had visited all these areas and claimed of copying of Quran from these sources.Now we analyze the authenticity of sources from which orientalists and atheists take these claims.It is stated
أخبرنا أبو عبد الرحمن محمد بن عبد الرحمن بن محبوب الدهان ، ثنا الحسين بن محمد بن هارون ، ثنا أحمد بن محمد بن نصر ، ثنا يوسف بن بلال ، ثنا محمد بن مروان ، عن الكلبي ، عن أبي صالح ، في قوله : { ومن الناس من يشتري لهو الحديث } - يعني باطل الحديث بالقرآن - ، قال ابن عباس : " وهو النضر بن الحارث بن علقمة ، يشتري أحاديث الأعاجم وصنيعهم في دهرهم ، فرواه من حديث الروم وفارس ورستم واسفنديار والقرون الماضية ، وكان يكتب الكتب من الحيرة والشام ، ويكذب بالقرآن ، فأعرض عنه فلم يؤمن به "
البيهقى فى شعب الايمان
Now we analyze the authenticity of this narration and its chain or isnad.
In the chain of this narration,main narrator narrating this narration from Ibn Abbas R.A is al-Kalbi and this is the person about which Shaukani writes in his book Al-Fawaid al-Majmooa page 316
"The main narrators of the commentary of Ibn Abbas R.A are al-Kalbi and al-Sudi and they are both liars and this is the fact which is well determined."
Imam Abu Hatim writes in his book Al-Jarah Wa-Tadeel volume one page 36:
"Sufian Thauri said that if Al-Kalbi narrates a narration from ibn Abi Saleh,that narration should not be taken as authentic."
So this narration of al-Kalbi from ibn Abbas R. A through ibn Abi Saleh is very weak and unauthenticated.
Now,we analyze the second narration.In Akhbar Al-Makka Lil-Fakihi,this narration is as following:
وحدثني حسن بن حسين الأزدي ، قال : ثنا محمد بن سهل ، قال : ثنا هشام بن الكلبي ، عن محرز بن جعفر ، عن عمرو بن أمية الضمري ، قال : ابن سهل ، وذكره الواقدي أيضا قال : " كانت قريش إنما تغني ويغنى لها النصب ، نصب الأعراب لا تعرف غير ذلك ، حتى قدم النضر بن الحارث وافدا على كسرى ، فمر على الحيرة ، فتعلم ضرب البربط ، وغنى العباد ، فعلم أهل مكة ، وفيه نزلت : { ومن الناس من يشتري لهو الحديث } " *
In this narration,it is claimed that Nadr bin Harith travelled to Persia and Herra and learnt the art of singing and then taught it to Kureshites of Makka in competition of Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H.
Now we anaylze the chain of this narration.In this narration,main narrators are al-Kalbi and al-Waqidi.Al-Kalbi is very weak narrator,Raphizi and a liar according to many Hadith narrators as stated above.
narrates from Bukhari that Al-Waqidi is is raphizi and lack of narrations. Waqidi has faced criticism regarding his scholarly reliability from many Islamic scholars, including:
1. al-Shafi’i (d. 204 A.H.) said "All the books of al-Waqidi are lies. In Medina there were seven men who used to fabricate authorities, one of which was al-Waqidi."
(Ibn Abi Hatim, vol.4 pt.1 p.21)
2.Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 241 A.H.) said "He is a liar, makes alternations in the traditions"
(Muhammad ibn Ahmad Al-Dhahabi,Mizan al-I`tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal, vol. 3 page 110)
3. Al-Nasa’i (d. 303 A.H.) said "The liars known for fabricating the hadith of the Messenger of Allah are four. They are: Arba’ah b. Abi Yahya in Medina, al-Waqidi in Baghdad, Muqatil b. Sulayman in Khurasan and Muhammad bin Sa’id in Syria."
(Ibn Hajr al-‘Asqalani, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, volume 9 page 366 No.604, [Hyderabad, 1326 A.H.cf. Yusuf ‘Abbas Hashmi, Zaynab bint Jahash, ‘Islamic Culture’ vol.XLI, No.1, Hyderabad (India), 1967])
4. Al-Bukhari (d. 256 A.H.) said "al-Waqidi has been abandoned in hadith. He fabricates hadith"
(Muhammad ibn Ahmad Al-Dhahabi,Mizan al-I`tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal, vol. 3 page 110)
5. Al-Dhahabi (d. 748 A.H.) said "Consensus has taken place on the weakness of al-Waqidi"
(Muhammad ibn Ahmad Al-Dhahabi,Mizan al-I`tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal, vol. 3 page 110)
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waqidi)
Al-Tibri narrates it in following manner,
حدثني محمد بن الحسين ، قال : ثنا أحمد بن المفضل ، قال : ثنا أسباط ، عن السدي ، قال : " كان النضر بن الحارث بن علقمة أخو بني عبد الدار يختلف إلى الحيرة ، فيسمع سجع أهلها وكلامهم . فلما قدم مكة ، سمع كلام النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم والقرآن ، فقال : { قد سمعنا لو نشاء لقلنا مثل هذا إن هذا إلا أساطير الأولين } يقول : أساجيع أهل الحيرة
ذكر من قال ذلك حدثنا أبو كريب ، قال : ثنا يونس بن بكير ، قال : ثنا محمد بن إسحاق ، قال : ثنا شيخ ، من أهل مصر ، قدم منذ بضع وأربعين سنة ، عن عكرمة ، عن ابن عباس قال : " كان النضر بن الحارث بن كلدة بن علقمة بن عبد مناف بن عبد الدار بن قصي من شياطين قريش ، وكان يؤذي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وينصب له العداوة ، وكان قد قدم الحيرة ، تعلم بها أحاديث ملوك فارس وأحاديث رستم وأسفنديار ، فكان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا جلس مجلسا فذكر بالله وحدث قومه ما أصاب من قبلهم من الأمم من نقمة الله ، خلفه في مجلسه إذا قام ، ثم يقول : أنا والله يا معشر قريش أحسن حديثا منه ، فهلموا فأنا أحدثكم أحسن من حديثه ثم يحدثهم عن ملوك فارس ورستم وأسفنديار ، ثم يقول : ما محمد أحسن حديثا مني قال : فأنزل الله تبارك وتعالى في النضر ثماني آيات من القرآن قوله : { إذا تتلى عليه آياتنا قال أساطير الأولين } وكل ما ذكر فيه الأساطير في القرآن "
According to this narration, Nadr bin Harith travelled to Rome,Persia and Herra and from there learnt the stories of past and presented them in completion of Quran and labelled them better than Quran.
Now,we analyze the chain of this narration.In this narration,Al-sudi wherher he is Muhammad Bin Marwan Al-sadi or Ismail Bin Abd Rahman Al-sadi,both are very weak narrators.The hadith narrators have even ladbelled Ismail bib Abd Rahman al-Sadi the liar.
(library.islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php…)
(https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/إسماعيل_بن_عبد_الرحمن_السدي)
There is another narration from same Al-sadi,
حدثني محمد بن الحسين ، قال : ثنا أحمد بن المفضل ، قال : ثنا أسباط ، عن السدي ، قال : " كان النضر بن الحارث بن علقمة أخو بني عبد الدار يختلف إلى الحيرة ، فيسمع سجع أهلها وكلامهم . فلما قدم مكة ، سمع كلام النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم والقرآن ، فقال : { قد سمعنا لو نشاء لقلنا مثل هذا إن هذا إلا أساطير الأولين } يقول : أساجيع أهل الحيرة " *
Accord to this narration, Nadr bin Harith travelled to Herra and learnt the stories of past and then presented them in competition against Quran and labelled Quranic description of the old nations as
as the stories of past.
This narration is also from Al-sadi and he is very weak narrator as stated above.So this narration is also very weak and unauthenticated.
There is another similar narration which statea,
حدثنا أبو كريب ، قال : ثنا يونس بن بكير ، قال : ثنا محمد بن إسحاق ، قال : ثنا شيخ ، من أهل مصر ، قدم منذ بضع وأربعين سنة ، عن عكرمة ، عن ابن عباس قال : " كان النضر بن الحارث بن كلدة بن علقمة بن عبد مناف بن عبد الدار بن قصي من شياطين قريش ، وكان يؤذي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وينصب له العداوة ، وكان قد قدم الحيرة ، تعلم بها أحاديث ملوك فارس وأحاديث رستم وأسفنديار ، فكان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا جلس مجلسا فذكر بالله وحدث قومه ما أصاب من قبلهم من الأمم من نقمة الله ، خلفه في مجلسه إذا قام ، ثم يقول : أنا والله يا معشر قريش أحسن حديثا منه ، فهلموا فأنا أحدثكم أحسن من حديثه ثم يحدثهم عن ملوك فارس ورستم وأسفنديار ، ثم يقول : ما محمد أحسن حديثا مني قال : فأنزل الله تبارك وتعالى في النضر ثماني آيات من القرآن قوله : { إذا تتلى عليه آياتنا قال أساطير الأولين } وكل ما ذكر فيه الأساطير في القرآن "
According to this narration, Nadr bin Harith travelled to Rome, Persia and Herra and learnt the stories of past and then presented them in competition against Quran.if we analyze the authenticity of this narration,then in the chain or isnad of this narration,there is a narrator Muhammad ibn ishaq and he is very weak narrator.Some people label him authentic.However, a general analysis of his isnads has given him the negative distinction of being a mudallis, meaning one who did not name his teacher, claiming instead to narrate directly from his teacher's teacher.
(Qaraḍāwī, Yūsuf (2007). Approaching the Sunnah: comprehension and controversy. IIIT. p. 188. ISBN 978-1-56564-418-2.)
Because of his tadlīs, many scholars including Muhammad al-Bukhari hardly ever used his narrations in their sahih books.
(A Biography of the Prophet of Islam, By Mahdī Rizq Allāh Aḥmad, Syed Iqbal Zaheer, pg. 18)
Others, like Ahmad ibn Hanbal, rejected his narrations on all matters related to fiqh.(Jones, J. M. B. (1968). "ibn Isḥāḳ". Encyclopaedia of Islam. 3 (2nd ed.). Brill Academic Publishers. pp. 810–1.)
Imam malik labelled him Dajjal or Antichrist in his Tahzeeb al-Tahzeeb,volume 9,page 41.So this narration is also weak due to this narrator.
There is another narration which ststes,
أخبرنا أحمد بن عثمان بن حكيم الأودي ، فيما كتب إلي ، ثنا أحمد بن المفضل ، عن أسباط ، عن السدي ، قال : " كان النضر بن الحارث بن علقمة من بني عبد الدار يختلف في الحيرة ، فيسمع سجع أهلها وكلامهم ، فلما قدم مكة سمع كلام النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم والقرآن فقال : { قد سمعنا لو نشاء لقلنا مثل هذا إن هذا إلا أساطير الأولين } " *
According to this narration, Nadr bin Harith travelled to Herra to learn the stories of past.This narration is also very weak due to Al-sudi and he is very weak narrator as stated above.
Now read other narrations about Nadr bin Harith narrates from authentic hadith narrators.
أنا حميد ثنا النفيلي ، أنا هشيم ، أخبرنا أبو بشر ، عن سعيد بن جبير ، أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم قتل يوم بدر ثلاثة رهط من قريش صبرا : النضر بن الحارث ، وعقبة بن أبي معيط ، والمطعم بن عدي . فلما أمر بقتل النضر ، قال المقداد : أسيري يا رسول الله ، قال : " إنه كان يقول في كتاب الله ، وفي رسوله ما كان يقول " قال ذلك مرتين ، أو ثلاثا ، فقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : " اللهم أغن المقداد من فضلك " وكان المقداد الذي أسر النضر
حدثنا أبي ، ثنا أبو مسلم أحمد بن أبي شعيب ، ثنا مسكين بن بكير ، عن شعبة ، عن أبي بشر ، عن سعيد بن جبير ، " { وإذا تتلى عليهم آياتنا قالوا قد سمعنا لو نشاء لقلنا مثل هذا } ، قال : هو النضر بن الحارث " *
These narrations describe the mocking of Quran and Holy Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.B by Nadr bin Harith and his beheading after being taken as captive in the Battle of Badr but dont describe his travel to Persia, Rome and Herra.Now there are two things to note.The first thing is that the narrations describing the travel of Nadr bin Harith to Persia, Rome and Herra are narrated from very weak narrators and even these narrations dont describe the claim by Nadr bin Harith of Quran copying from the stories of other books.So the travel of Nadr bin Harith to Persia, Rome and Herra is very doubtful and not believable and the orientalists and atheists claim based on these narrations that Nadr bin Harith claimed that Quran was copied from other books is also wrong.While Nadr bin Harith mocked Quran and labelled its description as the stories of past but never claimed that Quran was copied from other sources.The narrations by authentic narrators dont even describe his travel to Persia, Rome and Herra.So now,how can orientalists and atheists claim that Nadr bin Harith was a philosopher who learnt medical knowledge and philosophy from these regions.Can atheists and orientalists tell us from authentic sources that what is the contribution of Nadr bin Harith to knowledge of philosophy and what philosophical concepts he gave?How can they label him philosopher on the basis of very weak narrations and accounts.
The other question is that if Nadr bin Harith was so knowledgeable man and knew all about the book's of Jews and Christians and claimed that Quran was copied from these sources,then why he had to travel to Jews of Yathrib to help the Kureshites of Makka against Quran.He never had any thing in competition against Quran and had to rely on the questions of jews to test the authenticity of the prophethood of Holy Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H.
The orientalists and atheists further say that Nadr bin Harith asked from the Holy Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H about the number of the men of cave.This question is wrong.Even the old commentaries of Quran which also have very weak narrations never say that Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H was asked about the exact number of the men of cave.The Quranic story does not state the exact number of sleepers, but gives the number of years that they slept as 300 solar years (equivalent to 309 lunar years). The Islamic version includes mention of a dog who accompanied the youths into the cave and appears to keep watch.The Quranic verse from Surah Kahf states
"Now they will say, They are three and the fourth one is their dog', and some will say. 'They are five and sixthone is their dog, without seeing guessing atrandom, 'and some will say, they are seven and the eight one istheir dog.' Say you, 'My Lord knows well their number, none knows them but a few, so debate not about them,but the discussion to the extent outwardly expressed, and ask not to any man of the Book about them."
In this verse,Quran rejected all the numbers of the cave of men but did not reject the number seven and remained silent about it.Based on this fact,the commentators of Quran like Ibn Kathir claim with reference from ibn Abbas R. A that the number of the men of cave according to Quran is seven.Now how can orientalists and atheists claim that Qurani was unable to tell about the exact number of the men of cave.
The orientalists and atheists further say that why Quran did not describe the exact identity of Dhul-Qarnain and the historians greatly differ in his identity.First is that Quran is not the book of history but the book of beliefs.It describes the commands of worship and the way of life but regarding history and science,it gives the details necessary for our lesson but it is not bound to describe all history of mankind or the whole science of universe.The srcond thing is that Quran is not responsible for the controversy about the matter of Dhul-Qarnain among historians.The historians have no right to comment on a thing exactly about which Quran and Hadith, which are the authentic source of Islam,are silent or dont describe the full detail.
They further say that why was Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H unable to answer the questions of Kureshites of Makka for almost two weeks.Was he seeking assistance from other sources?Does it prove that Quran was copied from other sources?The response to this objection is dealt with in full detail on this link.
http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/…/quran-surah-18-plagiari…
The orientalists and atheists claim that Nadr bin Harith was killed brutally by Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H without having no serious crimes and it was agsinst the mercy of a Prophet who is merciful Prophet for all the world.They are biased in their claims and deliberately ignoring the crimes against muslims and torture by Nadr bin Harith in Mecca.
Mohar Ali states that while he did accuse Muhammad of plagiarism, he was executed for other offences though he doesn't specify what it was, although he names al-Nadr as one of the assassins who tried to kill Muhammad before his migration to Medina
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadr_ibn_al-Harith)
David Samuel Margoliouth however claims that he was executed for his challenge and ridiculing Muhammad, a version supported by some ninth and tenth-century Muslim sources including Tabari who cites an oral report of Muhammad justifying his order on basis of Nadr accusing him
Al-Waqidi mentions a report that Nadr asked the Muslims why he was to be executed, they replied that it was for him persecuting and torturing the Muslim as well as ridiculing the Quran
(Gregory M. Reichberg; Henrik Syse; Nicole M. Hartwell. Religion, War, and Ethics: A Sourcebook of Textual Traditions. Cambridge University Press. p. 242. ISBN 0521450381.
Rizwi Faizer. The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi's Kitab Al-Maghazi. Routledge. pp. 53, 54. ISBN 1136921141.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadr_ibn_al-Harith)
Al Nadr ibn al-Harith was an oppressor and tortured many Muslims in Mecca (Makkah). He persecuted Muslims. He was a criminal who had waged war against the Prophet and his community, so he was not as innocent as critics make him out to be.
The following sources shed more light on this person Nadr (Nadir);
Safi-Ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri:
On their way back to Madinah, at a large sand hill, the Prophet (p) divided the spoils equally among the fighters after he had taken Al-Khums (one-fifth). When they reached As-safra, he ordered that two of the prisoners should be killed. They were An-Nadr Bin Al-Harith and Uqbah Bin Abi Muait, because they had persecuted the Muslims in Makkah, and harboured deep hatred towards Allah and His Messenger (p). In a nutshell, they were criminals of war in modern terminology, and they execution was an awesome lesson to oppressors.
(Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum – The Sealed Nectar: Biograpghy of the Noble Prophet By Safi-Ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, page 143 – 144)
Nadhr (Nazr), one of the prisoners of war, was executed after the battle of Badr for his crime of severely tormenting Moslems at Mecca. Musab has distinctly reminded him of his torturing the companions of Mohammad, so there was nothing of a cruel and vindictive spirit of the Prophet displayed towards his enemies in the execution of Nazr as it is made out by Sir W. Muir. On the other hand, his execution is denied by some critics, like Ibn Manda and Abu Naeem, who say, that Nazr Ibn Haris was present at the battle of Honain, A. H. 8, six years after that of Badr, and was presented with one hundred camels by Mohammad. Sir W. Muir himself puts down very quietly Nadhir Ibn al-Harith’s name in a footnote (Vol. IV, page 151) as a recipient of one hundred camels at Honain. The same Nadhr-bin-Harith is shown among the earliest Moslem refugees who had fled to Abyssinia. These discrepancies leave no doubt that the story of Nadhr’s execution is not a fact. …
(A Critical Exposition of the Popular Jihad (Original 1885) – Cheragh Ali page 77 – 79
https://www.google.com/…/why-was-al-nadr-ibn-al-harit…/amp/…)
Man under discussion in this small article is Nazar bin Haris, who was also amid the captives at that time. Some traditions hint that he was executed during detention at the hands of Muslims. Reasons behind his death penalty were that he was directly involved and was responsible for the persecutions and blood shed of innocent, defenceless Muslims in Mecca. Many anecdotes are reported in the books of early Islamic history, which expose cold blooded deaths of adherents by the infidels of Mecca.
Coming back to our point, this fact cannot be refuted that Nazar bin Haris was the only man to be killed while under detention. And this is also a known reality that Islam does not allow to slaughter people for just being enemy and on grounds of fighting against in a war. As there is a revelation containing full injunction regarding this in the holy Quran (Chapter: Mohammad verse no:5 and kitab ul khiraj page:121)
This aspect should also be kept in mind that there are also some traditions in books, which reflect and prove that Nazar bin Haris was not put to sword but remained alive long after Badar. He embraced Islam in the era of battle of Hunain and became a companion of holy Prophet. (Zarqani under: Ghazwa Badar and usud ul Ghaba under: Nazar bin Haris) But contrary to above mentioned narrations these traditions are considered less authentic. (God knows the best)
Anyway among the prisoners of Badar, no one was put to death save Nazar bin Haris. And he was killed under the law of retaliation, which is fully customary in almost all faiths, creeds and societies. And in Islam it is among the basic laws. As it has been stated in holy Quran:
‘O, ye, who believe! Equitable retaliation in the matter of slain is prescribed for you…………..And there is life for you in the law of retaliation. O men of understanding, that you may enjoy security. (Al Baqrah 179-180) so this is clear now that retaliation for the slain is obligatory according to Islam.
(https://muwazna.blogspot.com/2017/03/nazar-bin-haris.html…
http://hadithway.com/Mecca09.html)
Secondly, orientalists and atheists claim that Nathr ibn al-Harith opposed the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, in order to preserve the religious freedom in Mecca and the political system in Mecca based on the balance of the tribes, which we now call a democracy of constraint or sectarian democracy as it is in Lebanon
It is true that the tribal political system in Mecca prior to the mission was a pluralist system similar to that of the current regime in Lebanon, but it was never a good system to be defended by atheists, fools and other secular psychopaths. It is a system of the tribe as an alternative to lawlessness and inequality.The Caliphate of Rashidun approved the law, equality and the state and abolished the tribe. Talk about religious freedom in Mecca before the mission is a blatant lie and the evidence that the the pagans of Makka rejected the Islamic call and practiced the worst forms of torture by simply proclaiming the call in Mecca is proof of this lie.
This suspicion has nothing to do with history or truth. It is a psychological disease for secularists like that of the Marxists,orientalists and atheists.
And who says perhaps the hostility Qureshi limited to Islam alone I told him not because we never read about the temple or synagogue for Jews or Christians or the Magi in the Mecca of ignorance in any book of the biography of any attribution or even without attribution, this indicates that the ruling in Mecca does not accept The other religions.They say that the existence of Christian and Jewish boys in Mecca, is a proof of religious freedom.As for these Christians and the Magi in Makkah, they were not clerics, but merchants and merchants were concerned only with their interests and works. However, there is historically no lack of centers for worshiping religions that were not recognized by the pagans in Mecca because Makkah was simply Center of Paganism in the island.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) proved the highest degree of religious freedom
In a famous debate in which Jewish and Christian scholars gathered with Muslims in the city.Arguing about the true religion of each of them and discussed in specialized things such as the nature of Christ and the truth of Islam itself did not hide the Prophet peace be upon him and the mark and ended the debate victory Muslims after the scholars of the Christians retreat from ignorance.
The orientalists and atheists further say that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to fear from Nadr bin Harith because of his high culture and therefore killed him.
Of course, this is one of the dangers of the Marxist, from whom he learned these misguidance and answered them from the faces:
First, al-Nathar bin al-Harith could not influence the course of the Islamic call in Makkah. He did not mention the stuffed biography of all kinds of news, which was quoted to us by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him. So that the Prophet, peace and blessings of God be upon him and his family, would be afraid to teach his ignorant people to read and write, and unless they do not enter Islam and spread the sciences of the Qur'an because Islam is the one who fought ignorance.Second, there are more dangerous people a thousand times from Al-Nathr ibn al-Harith and left by the Prophet peace be upon him and on him and such as the hypocrite Abdullah bin Abi bin Abi Salloul and monk Abu Amer al-Falak.
They further say that, al-Nathr ibn al-Harith is the first martyr of freedom in the face of al-Jabrut, oppression and Islamic extremism, as they say, God curse them.Of course this gives us the impression that these are bankrupt and enough.
Return to the subject: Question: What if someone went in America or any Western democratic state and produced a newspaper and this newspaper is all falsehood, insult and abuse of Zionism, Jews and Israel and lies in the Holocaust, for example?
What does a person go to China and write a book in which he insults Mutsi Tong or even Karl Marx? The answer is known and disputed.
Al-Nathar ibn al-Harith said: The evidence indicates that the narrator was not a researcher of the truth, but rather a quarrel with stubbornness and arrogance, and sometimes questioning the ability of God Almighty sometimes other times.
Of course, the response to these words in detail during the search through the following elements
First to go over holy symbols
Al-Nadhar bin Al-Harith
Is the assault on the sanctuaries anywhere in the world going unpunished?
No, but the punishment varies according to time, place and event. But before going into this issue, we must first refer to the double standards of the enemies of Allah,
The leftists have no problem with the Lenin massacres and the Bolshevik revolution, and the Communists did their opponents everywhere they came to power, abolished liberties with a pen and their problems in the crimes of the Chinese regime since Mao Zedong and even the massacre of students demanding liberalism in the heavenly field in Beijing in 1989.
Liberals have no problem with the McCarthy trials to protect America from communism and the terrible crimes committed by the American regime, which is far more hidden than what we know in Vietnam, Latin America, Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Crusaders did not have a problem with what Rome and Byzantium did of religious repression and the imposition of the Trinitarian doctrine on the Ethiopians and their problem with what the Orthodox Russians and Habash did to the Muslims in Central Asia and Ethiopia. The Catholics did the same with the Muslims, the Protestants and the Jews when they were able to do what the Protestants did with the Red Indians and what George Bush did on behalf of Christ and all These crusaders have no problem at all in the texts of terrorism, murder, hatred and incitement in their holy book, and even say that they are calling for love and peace !!!! I have not heard in all history about a Christian state that did not fight!
When you read the heads of the misguidance of these all of the Prophet's purified biography and find a polytheist killed in battle or as a result of treachery or libel or harassment of the Muslims, peace be upon him and his and his companions and good and good God bless them.
There is a historical event worth commenting that the Muslims after they opened Iraq and Persia and Syria opened the science of Persians, Greeks and Romans and all their philosophy did not turn away from the great Islam, some of them despised the science of speech and saw it is not worth wasting time The scholars and scholars of the Salaf, including those who teach these sciences and are ignorant of their religion, invent or confound, such as speakers, and us in personalities such as Ibn al-Muqaffa ', al-Razazi, al-Ghazali, Ibn Rushd and Ibn Arabi. Examples of them are those who learned the science of speech from philosophy, dialectics and logic. Even the Mu'tazilites did not deny the existence of the Lord Almighty and did not deny that the Qur'an is a message from Him for guidance but denied the attributes of the Lord for their ignorance of the total rules in the fundamentals of the Creed. Proof of These are the sciences that afflicted the ignorant with their religion only, but from the decrees of the Lord of Powers and Destiny that Latin Europe could not understand the writings of Aristotle and Socrates of Latina except through Muslim scholars in Andalusia and Mashreq who explained these books
Where are these dangerous and frightening sciences threatening the Qur'an and the Sunnah, sick secularists?
(http://www.eltwhed.com/vb/showthread.php?55662-%C7%E1%E4%D6%D1-%C8%E4-%C7%E1%CD%C7%D1%CB)