The Religion of Peace and the Dunning Kruger-Effect Did Muhammad Forgive a Woman for Poisoning Him?

Introduction:
this is going to be the shortest articles I have ever written, but by far the most shocking one to show how dishonest TROP really is, what I read an hour ago before I wrote this article completely shocked me regarding TROP, they are by far more dishonest than the masked Arab and sharif gabir, these two so-called ex-Muslims at least when they cite their sources they give direct quotes from them, what TROP will display here is worse than any Christian apologist I have ever encountered, they have outright cited 3 sources without giving direct quotes from them, and completely insert a false narrative to these sources that don't actually fit or exist in them.

TROP Article:

“The story of the Jewish woman from Khaybar, who deliberately put poison into a meal eaten by Muhammad, is cited in the Sahih hadith.  It is heavily referenced by apologists because it may be the only time in which Muhammad is said to have "forgiven" someone who did not convert to Islam to save their neck.”

Citation needed

“What They Offer as Proof

Despite there being many Sahih verses to choose from, Discover the Truth quotes a verse from Abu Dawud 4495 graded as daif (weak).   Can you guess why?”

You will need to either cite the link to the article written by Discover the Truth or at least provide the quote in which DTT brought this hadith, where is the link to the article? let alone the quote from DTT? I even went so far and searched on DTT for that hadith let alone that article and couldn’t find it, after many searches I was finally able to find the article in DTT, and I was not even surprised to see that even DTT admitted that the narration was weak, here is a direct screenshot from DTT

the Link to the article :

https://discover-the-truth.com/2015/03/25/sarah-the-poet-seerah/

how could TROP miss this? are they that dishonest?, DTT as seen below directly state that the chain is considered weak

but what comes later is even the most shocking display of dishonesty I have ever seen coming out of TROP, this is the part where I talked about in the introduction how they cite sources and affiliate a claim that doesn’t exist in them

“What They Leave Out and Why They are Wrong

Scratching the surface shows what a poor example of "forgiveness" this episode really is.  That it is cited so heavily indicates the paucity of available material portraying Muhammad as a man of character.

First, DTT doesn't tell us why a woman would want to kill Muhammad.  They just say that she was Jewish and leave it at that.  The full account from the Sira and hadith tell us that this occurred right after the sudden and violent assault on a farming community, where her own family had been killed (Ibn Kathir v.3 p.284-287, Sahih Bukhari 71:669, Abu Dawud 4494)”

did that actually happened? do these sources like tafsir ibn Kathir really say that her family was killed and that was her motivation?

let’s check Tafsir Ibn Kathir, I’m going to give the Full account[1]

“(The food of the People of the Scripture is lawful to you..) meaning, their slaughtered animals, as Ibn `Abbas, Abu Umamah, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, `Ikrimah, `Ata', Al-Hasan, Makhul, Ibrahim An-Nakha`i, As-Suddi and Muqatil bin Hayyan stated. This ruling, that the slaughtered animals of the People of the Book are permissible for Muslims, is agreed on by the scholars because the People of the Book believe that slaughtering for other than Allah is prohibited. They mention Allah's Name upon slaughtering their animals, even though they have deviant beliefs about Allah that do not befit His majesty. It is recorded in the Sahih that `Abdullah bin Mughaffal said, "While we were attacking the fort of Khaybar, a person threw a leather bag containing fat, and I ran to take it and said, `I will not give anyone anything from this container today.' But when I turned I saw the Prophet (standing behind) while smiling.'' The scholars rely on this Hadith as evidence that we are allowed to eat what we need of foods from the booty before it is divided. The scholars of the Hanafi, the Shafi`i and the Hanbali Madhhabs rely on this Hadith to allow eating parts of the slaughtered animals of the Jews that they prohibit for themselves, such as the fat. They used this Hadith as evidence against the scholars of the Maliki Madhhab who disagreed with this ruling. A better proof is the Hadith recorded in the Sahih that the people of Khaybar gave the Prophet a gift of a roasted leg of sheep, which they poisoned. The Prophet used to like eating the leg of the sheep and he took a bite from it, but it told the Prophet that it was poisoned, so he discarded that bite. The bite that the Prophet took affected the palate of his mouth, while Bishr bin Al-Bara' bin Ma`rur died from eating from that sheep. The Prophet had the Jewish woman, Zaynab, who poisoned the sheep, killed. Therefore, the Prophet and his Companions wanted to eat from that sheep and did not ask the Jews if they removed what the Jews believed was prohibited for them, such as its fat. Allah's statement,”

Reading from the above, where are the mentions of her family being killed?, now there has to be mention in Bukhari right? will let’s read

“When Khaibar was conquered, Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) was presented with a poisoned (roasted) sheep. Allah's Apostle said, "Collect for me all the Jews present in this area." (When they were gathered) Allah's Apostle said to them, "I am going to ask you about something; will you tell me the truth?" They replied, "Yes, O Abal-Qasim!" Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said to them, "Who is your father?" They said, "Our father is so-and-so." Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "You have told a lie. for your father is so-and-so," They said, "No doubt, you have said the truth and done the correct thing." He again said to them, "If I ask you about something; will you tell me the truth?" They replied, "Yes, O Abal-Qasim! And if we should tell a lie you will know it as you have known it regarding our father," Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) then asked, "Who are the people of the (Hell) Fire?" They replied, "We will remain in the (Hell) Fire for a while and then you (Muslims) will replace us in it," Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said to them. ''You will abide in it with ignominy. By Allah, we shall never replace you in it at all." Then he asked them again, "If I ask you something, will you tell me the truth?" They replied, "Yes." He asked. "Have you put the poison in this roasted sheep?" They replied, "Yes," He asked, "What made you do that?" They replied, "We intended to learn if you were a liar in which case we would be relieved from you, and if you were a prophet then it would not harm you."”[2]

now, reading from above, where is the mention of her family being killed again?

so far two sources none of them mention her family being killed, I have strong ergances to stop writing this article and waste my time with TROP but let’s continue reading

Now as for Sunan Abu Dawood, what makes this one quite hilarious is that the number they gave 4494 does refer to the incident of poisoning attempt, but the hadith itself is weak

“Narrated Abu Hurairah:

A Jewess presented a poisoned sheep to the Prophet (ﷺ), but the Prophet (ﷺ) did not interfere with him.

Abu Dawud said: The Jewess who poisoned the Prophet (ﷺ) was the sister of Marhab.”[3]

now to be fair the website Sunnah.com does provide one more additional variant in publication edition, which can give a different number, so let’s see the other variant

“Qurayzah and Nadir (were two Jewish tribes). An-Nadir were nobler than Qurayzah. When a man of Qurayzah killed a man of an-Nadir, he would be killed. But if a man of an-Nadir killed a man of Qurayzah, a hundred wasq of dates would be paid as blood-money. When Prophethood was bestowed upon the Prophet (ﷺ), a man of an-Nadir killed a man of Qurayzah.

They said: Give him to us, we shall kill him. They replied: We have the Prophet (ﷺ) between you and us. So they came to him.

Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "If thou judge, a judge in equity between them." "In equity" means life for a life.

The following verse was then revealed: "Do they seek a judgment of (the days) ignorance?"

Abu Dawud said: Quraizah and al-Nadir were the descendants of Harun the Prophet (peace be upon him)”[4]

apparently, both sources of Abu Dawood doesn’t fit TROP narration again, is anyone surprised? but the more accurate hadith is not actually 4494 it’s 4495

“Jabir ibn Abdullah used to say that a Jewess from the inhabitants of Khaybar poisoned a roasted sheep and presented it to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) who took its foreleg and ate from it. A group of his companions also ate with him.

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) then said: Take your hands away (from the food). The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) then sent someone to the Jewess and he called her.

He said to her: Have you poisoned this sheep? The Jewess replied: Who has informed you? He said: This foreleg which I have in my hand has informed me. She said: Yes. He said: What did you intend by it? She said: I thought if you were a prophet, it would not harm you; if you were not a prophet, we should rid ourselves of him (i.e. the Prophet). The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) then forgave her and did not punish her. But some of his companions who ate it died. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had himself cupped on his shoulder on account of that which he had eaten from the sheep. AbuHind cupped him with the horn and knife. He was a client of Banu Bayadah from the Ansar.”[5]

this one is the same one DTT cited, and it’s regarded as weak like what DTT said

so far None of TROP 3 sources state that the woman family was killed, one of them is even a weak source

how could anyone fall for TROP dishonesty so far?

“With the motive firmly established, the next question is whether or not the woman was punished.  Most accounts simply say that she was not killed.  The bar is set a bit low here.  The woman, after all, had not taken a life and was simply trying to avenge the murder of her family.”

No, she did not, the claim that she was avenging her family as seen is a myth created by TROP, this is another lie

“However, there is one hadith verse from Abu Dawud which is graded Sahih (authentic) in which the woman is killed on Muhammad's order:

So a Jewess presented him at Khaybar with a roasted sheep which she had poisoned. The Messenger of Allah ate of it and the people also ate. He then said: Take away your hands (from the food), for it has informed me that it is poisoned. Bishr ibn al-Bara' ibn Ma'rur al-Ansari died. So he (the Prophet) sent for the Jewess (and said to her): What motivated you to do the work you have done? She said: If you were a prophet, it would not harm you; but if you were a king, I should rid the people of you. The Messenger of Allah then ordered regarding her and she was killed. (Abu Dawud 4497)”

The hadith is not regarded as Sahih, but rather Hasan Sahih, this is not the same as Sahih, Hasan Sahih meaning this hadith have been narrated by two similar narrations, one is Hasan and the other is Sahih, the combination of the two will give Hasan Sahih, however, to be fair Hasan Sahih is regarded as authentic after all and accepted, not on the level of Sahih

but this hadith as seen just slaps the sense out of TROP, if this woman allegedly put poison because of her family member murder (which never happened) why did she say “If you were a prophet, it would not harm you; but if you were a king, I should rid the people of you”

so she was trying to kill the prophet out of a lab test? so much for her family murder

“In fairness, there are also other Sahih hadith in which the woman is not killed (at least not immediately).  However, there are none saying that she was forgiven.  This is why DTT surreptitiously slips in the daif (weak) verse.”

DTT already stated as from the screenshot and from the link I provided that hadith was weak, yet TROP insist out of a child play that DTT didn’t cite the narration authenticity, but what is also shocking and not surprising is how TROP lied and stated that there is not a single narration that she was forgiven, Even DTT go later and cite more authentic sources that she was indeed forgiven, one of them is the following

“A Jewess brought a poisoned sheep to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), and he ate of it. She was then brought to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) who asked her about it. She said: I intended to kill you. He said: Allah will not give you control over it; or he said: over me. They (the Companions) said: Should we not kill her? He said: No. He (Anas) said: I always found it in the uvula of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)”[6]

Grade: Sahih

“Even if she was not killed, it does not mean that she wasn't punished in some other way - or that she didn't have to convert.  One account says that "She then accepted Islam and the Messenger of God left her alone" (Ibn Kathir v.3 p.285).  This is implied by the others as well, in which the woman seems to acknowledge Muhammad as "a prophet." As evidenced in many other places, Muhammad only forgave those who converted to his cult-like religion (ie. pledging their life to him).”

where is the evidence that she was forcefully converted? I looked their source even in online Ibn Kathir Tafsir search and couldn’t find a single reference to her at all

“Assuming that she was not killed, the real reason seems to be that she was wily enough to turn Muhammad's claim about himself back onto him.  If he had been killed, then he would not have been a prophet; if he were a prophet, then he could not be killed... so the logic goes.  This put Muhammad in a difficult position in which he had to save face by not killing her.”

and this is their conclusion to this article? this deceptive article that twists and misinform every source they cite including DTT? the only cult that I see in front of me now is TROP cult of deception and lies

---

[1] http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=818

[2] Sahih Al-Bukhari Vol. 7, Book 71, Hadith 669

[3] Sunan abu Dawood Book 40, Hadith 4494

[4] Sunan Abi Dawud 4494

[5] Suan Abu Dawood Book 40, Hadith 4495

[6] https://sunnah.com/abudawud/41/15