Islam critiqued prefers anything to Muslims; Who were the Uraina/Ukl gangsters?

In answer to the video "Muhammad did it. Therefore it is not sinful."

Before getting to the story, it is important to stress that in conflicts, the Quran always leaves the door open to a peaceful resolution and magnanimity. It however never denies the basic human right of self-defense when unjustly opressed beyond the limits where peaceful diplomacy can still stop this harassement and eventually reform the opposite party, when such oppression goes as far as threatening one's life. If in such case, one opts for a more conrontational stance, as most would tend to do when wronged, the Quran explicitly forbids any retaliation above and beyond what a person has himself received 2:190-5,16:126-8,22:60,42:39-43.

The very foundations of the divine law, as taught by all Prophets, is the establishment of justice and to argue a person has no right to seek his rights, or no say in the matter once guilt has been established, is an absolute wrong. In various types of social felonies, the Quran gives the right of having recourse to the law of "equitable punishment or compensation"/qisas, which is approximately equivalent to what Judeo-Christian tradition refers to as lex talonis 2:178,5:45. It is not an "exact same thing" situation, since killing another's child because he killed mine would be against all common sense, and justice. "Life for life" does not entail "your child's life in exchange of my child's life". The point is that the offending party must compensate with a life, the murderer's own life. It is a "punishment fits the crime" scenario. The definition of the word "qisas" itself stresses the importance of fairness and justice in the application of that system.

 As stated in 17:33, the retribution must never exceed the harm suffered. This blocks the way to blind vengence and actually helps society to seek reparation for a moral or spiritual harm in conformity with justice.

 However it is stressed that in both cases (self-defense and social justice) the opressed or the victim may show magnanimity and forgiveness in order to grow spiritually, an issue the Torah, which also mentions the law of retaliation, does not contain in its proper context. To its credit, the HB does speak in other places of self-restraint as a great virtue

Prov14:29,20:22,19:11"It is good sense for a man to be slow to anger, and it is his glory to pass over a transgression". 

This then means that the equitable physical injury is the maximum that the victim can ask for with preferrance for forgiveness and even better forgiveness. It says that such patient attitude is a great sign of spiritual might and courage, a blessing from Allah and the way He prefers for His creatures

3:134,16:126,41:34-36,42:43"And whoever is patient and forgiving, these most surely are actions due to courage".

This shows that the the spirit of vengeance is absent from the law, which is but aimed at reforming the society and deterring future vices. It is important noting the deep psychology behind the ordinance, issued by the creator of all things who knows humans inside and out; When it encourages, instead of imposing, this act of amnesty, it appeases the aggrieved party by giving it the position of superiority because the death penalty is a legitimate and authorized option.

Further, by knowing that execution might be an option, the instinctive reaction of seeking revenge killings is neutralized.

In case of murder, there are several aspects of wisdom in leaving the life of the killer directly at the mercy of the heirs of the murdered person. It firstly compensates to some extent the tremendous loss caused, because once the justice system has done its job of exposing the guilty, true justice consits in compensating emotionaly or materialy for those first and foremost concerned, ie the victims themselves.

The other wisdom in leaving the punishment of the killer in the heirs of the slain person's hands is that in case they adopt the preferred issue of being magnanimous, they do a big favour to the murderer and his family, resulting in many other benefits.

The prophet waived his right for equal retribution many times against his opponents once he had the power to execute justice

"Whoever suffers an injury done to him and forgives (the person responsible), Allah will raise his status to a higher degree and remove one of his sins” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi).

There are countless traditions about his life which clearly illustrate his forgiveness to others, but he had no right to force the believers to do the same, thereby negating their rights to resort to the law of retribution should they desire. As already said, although the Quran encourages magnanimity in these cases it can only be from the victim, on his or her own accord, without any pressure or influence from anyone, or without any interference from the authorities. This way, because it is an unexpected, benevolent act, it heals both the victim and the criminal.

When a group of armed men feinted conversion from the tribe of Ukl/Uraina/Urayna, taking advantage of the prophet's hospitality then captured his shepherd, tortured and murdered him before leaving with the camel herd, the prophet, as an embodiement of the state, could not force his penchant for leniency for a crime committed on someone else. Beyond being a crime against the shepherd, this was also a direct attack against the state and its citizen among whom these criminals had sought protection. Beyond being a crime against the shepherd, this was also a direct attack against the state and its citizen among whom these criminals had sought protection. The Islamic state was at that time subject to attacks from all sides, yet its leader and citizen had generously offerred shelter to foreigners who not only abused from their hospitality, in addition infiltrated the community, spreading violence and bloodshed. The prophet could neither impose magnanimity on the victim's family nor on a state which represents its citizen.

He therefore inflicted the law of equal retribution upon these cold blooded murderers in its full force; they were tortured the same way they did to the innocent hospitable shepherd who had given them food, drink and medicine when they were hungry, thirsty and ill, then they were left to die of thirst in the desert.

Although many later Quran commentators have linked this incident to the revelation of 5:33-4, there actually is no report that proves it. Ibn Umar even denies that this verse that limits the harshness of punishments upon criminals, is in anyway a divine disapproval of the prophet's severity. The law of equal retribution still stands and can be used in case one is subject to the same gruesome murder circumstances of the prophet's shepherd. 5:33-4 is unrelated to qisaas, the law of equal retribution, which concerns all members of a community. This passage rather it is a set of punishments for crimes which only the state has the final word for, committed against governement institutions, interests, laws, etc.