Bukhari: Some people from `Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them, so Allah's Apostle (pbuh) allowed them to go to the herd of camels (given as Zakat) and they drank their milk and urine (as medicine) but they killed the shepherd and drove away all the camels. So Allah's Apostle sent (men) in their pursuit to catch them, and they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut, and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron and they were left in the Harra (a stony place at Medina) biting the stones. (Volume 2, Book 24, Number 577)
This narration
is often quoted in order to present the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon
him) as someone who delivered exceedingly cruel and barbaric
punishments. Let us examine the narration more closely along with other
narrations of the same event. The narration states the following:
-Some people from Urayna (or Ukil) tribe came to Madinah after accepting Islam
-They acquired an illness due to the climate, for which the Arabs used to drink milk and urine of camels as medicine
-The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) allowed them to go to the herds of camels for their medicine
-After recovering from their illness, they killed the sheperd and drove away the camels
-The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) ordered their hands and feet cut off, their eyes branded with heated pieces of iron, and they were left in the desert
It is clear that
the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) prescribed the hands and feet
to be cut off in accordance with the Islamic laws concerning hiraabah
(armed robbery). What doesn't appear in this narration is the reason
for branding their eyes with heated pieces of iron. This is explained in
other narrations where it states that this was the punishment because
they had done the same thing to the sheperd whom they killed. As Shaykh
Abdul Khaliq Hasan Ash-Shareef states about this narration:
It should be made clear that those people who came to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) were Muslims and they were sick. The Prophet advised them to go to the herd of camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). When they became healthy, they killed the herder of the Prophet and drove away all the camels that were allocated for sadaqah (charity). When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) came to know about this, he applied the punishment for Hirabah on them. Hiraba means killing people, robbing their money or raping women by an armed group of people. The punishment for Hirabah is mentioned in the Qur’an. Allah says: “The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His Messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom” (Al-Ma’idah: 33).
As for branding their eyes, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) branded the eyes of the people of `Ukl or `Uraina with iron because they killed the herder and branded his eyes with iron. Imam Ibn Hajar stated the differences of opinions among scholars and he said, “The killing that took place (that is, in reference to the above hadith) was in retaliation and Allah Almighty says,
‘And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you’ (Al-Baqarah: 194).”
All in all, using this story as evidence in favor of the permissibility of torturing people in Islam is refuted by the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) applied the punishment for Hirabah on them and that he did not do so for personal vengeance. (SOURCE, emphasis added)
Likwise, Moiz Amjad writes:
عَنْ أَنَسٍ، قَالَ إِنَّمَا سَمَلَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَعْيُنَ أُولَئِكَ لأَنَّهُمْ سَمَلُوا أَعْيُنَ الرِّعَاءِ .There is only one part of the referred narrative, which raises a question-mark in one's mind. It apparently seems strange that after having implemented the punishment prescribed in the Qur'an for crimes committed against the society, in general, why did the Prophet (pbuh) ordered their eyes to be branded. Most of the narratives do not provide an answer to this question. However, in one of the narratives reported in Ibn Al-Jarood's Al-Muntaqaa, Anas (ra) is reported to have explained the reason for this punishment as well. The companion of the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: The Prophet (pbuh) branded their eyes because they had branded the eyes of the herdsmen. (volume 1, Pg. 216)
http://sunnah.com/urn/241370
This explanation adequately clarifies the fact that the Prophet (pbuh) ordered the branding the eyes of the culprits, in compliance with the Qur'anic directive of Qisaas (Al-Baqarah 2: 178, Al-Maaidah 5: 45) for the punishment of murder and inflicting physical injury on someone. In view of the foregoing explanation, I find no reason to consider the incident narrated in the referred narrative to be unauthentic. (SOURCE)
Shaykh Muhammad
al-Qannâs, a Professor at Al-Imam University (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia),
places the narration in perspective by presenting the views of the
various Muslim scholars:
The above mentioned hadîth is narrated in Sahîh al-Bukhârî (6802) and Sahîh Muslim (1671). It reads:
Some people belonging (to the tribe) of `Uraynah came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) at Madînah, but they found its climate uncongenial. So the Prophet (peace be upon him) said to them: If you so like, you may go to the camels that are part of the charity and drink their milk and urine. They did so and were all right. They then fell upon the shepherds and killed them and turned apostates from Islam and drove off the camels of the Prophet (peace be upon him). This news reached Allah’s Apostle (peace be upon him) and he sent (people) on their track and they were (brought) and handed over to him. He got their hands cut off, and their feet, and put out their eyes, and threw them on the stony ground until they died.
The scholars disagree among themselves on this punishment:
1. Some said: This punishment was in retaliation for their act and the Prophet (peace be upon him) punished them in the same way that they killed the shepherds. It is mentioned in Sahîh Muslim “The Prophet (peace be upon him) put out their eyes because they put out the eyes of the shepherds”.
The people concerned in studying the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) military career said: They dismembered the shipyards. Ibn al-Qayyim said: “It is extracted from the story of al-`Arâniyîn tribe that the criminal will be subject to the same act similar to the one he perpetrated, when they put out the shepherd’s eyes, he put out their eyes.” [Zâd al-Mâ`âd: (3/286)]
2. Other scholars said what is mentioned in the hadîth is abrogated, according to the prohibition of mutilation.
Accordingly, what took place in this hadîth was abrogated. This was adopted by al-Bukhârî. He narrated from Qatâdah that: “It is been narrated to us from the Prophet (peace be upon him) after that the Prophet (peace be upon him) encouraged charity and prohibited mutilation.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (4192)].
It was narrated by Qatâdah through Muhammad b. Sîrîn that this took place before the revelation on the ruling of punishments. [Sahîh al-Bukhârî (5686)]
Al-Hâzimî said: “This hadîth was abrogated” and he set a chapter “Mutilation and its abrogation”. He said: “A group of people adopted the opinion that these ruling were fixed in the beginning and then were abrogated when Allah sent: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger…” [Sûrah al-Mâ’dah: 33]
[Al-I`tibâr fi al-Nâsikh wa al-Mansûkh, page 196].
It could be that this severe punishment was at the beginning because the Prophet (peace be upon him) knew that some of the tough and hardened Bedouins who live around Madînah would not refrain from attacking others unless they heard of some of these severe punishments. The desert Bedouins living in the surrounding wilderness were warlike tribes used to toughness and to causing harassment. Allah says: “The dwellers of the desert are very hard in unbelief and hypocrisy, and more disposed not to know the limits of what Allah has revealed to His Messenger; and Allah is Knowing, Wise” [Sûrah al-Tawbah: 97] (IslamToday fatwa service)
Therefore, the
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not punish them any more than
the harm they inflicted upon the sheperd and the Muslim community. He
also sent a strong message to other desert tribes who were accustomed to
raiding and attacking nearby villages and tribes. This punishment was
done for the security of the Muslim community, living in a very
dangerous time with no formal legal system governing the arabian tribes.
The situation is incomparable to modern times where governments have
strong control over their territories - in arabia there existed a
tribalistic anarchy. As Shaykh Muhammad 'Ata Al Sid Sid Ahmad writes:
When the criminals of 'Urainah betrayed the community of Madinah which had met them with all love and respect -- by torturing and killing the herder of their camels and escaping with the Muslim's camels as their booty -- the Prophet quickly marshalled all his powers, arrested and dealt with them in the severest manner as the law allowed him. (Al-Sid, Islamic Criminal Law: The Hudud; Malaysia, Eagle Trading Sdn. Bhd., 1995, p. 132)
It should also
be noted that many critics of the punishments in Islam are themselves
believers in an afterlife in which people will be punished for their
crimes, often with eternal torment in Hell. Eternal torment is far more
servere than any temporary punishment delivered in this life. The
punishments prescribed in Islam are intended to purify the offender of
their sin in order that they may be saved from a far greater punishment
in the next life. It seems that when one defers a punishment to the
afterlife, there is a subconcious belief that such a punishment is not
as "real" and consequently it is not as bothering to sentence someone to
eternal torture in Hell as it is to prescribe a painful punishment here
and now. Such thinking is inherently flawed.
Some writers have also claimed that the punishment delivered to the Ukil/Urayna tribe was prescribed for their apostasy. This is clearly rejected by the text of the hadith as well as the consensus of all Muslim jurists. Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa explains this as well:
Some writers have also claimed that the punishment delivered to the Ukil/Urayna tribe was prescribed for their apostasy. This is clearly rejected by the text of the hadith as well as the consensus of all Muslim jurists. Shaykh Muhammad S. Al-Awa explains this as well:
On the other hand, the prevalent view among Muslim jurists is that the case of this group of 'Ukal and 'Urayna was a case of hiraba (armed robbery) and it was for this crime that they were punished (fn. See Tabari, Tafsir, vol. VI, pp. 132-146; Ibn al-Qayyim, Zad al-Ma'ad, vol. III, p. 78; Ibn Hajar, Fath Al-Bari, where he criticises Bukhari's view). The text itself demonstrates this very clearly. (El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law; US American Trust Publications, 1993, p. 51)
To conclude, this narration refers to an event of Hiraabah (armed robbery), where the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) implemented the law of Qisas
(retribution), and the offendors were punished exactly as they had
punished the sheperd. The Prophet did not exceed this limit at all in
his prescribed punishment, but rather purified the offenders so that the
punishment in the next life would be averted.
Islam haters lack the ability to approach the issues scientifically and reliance on emotion and prejudice. They consider it rational to ask: “Have you filled a prescription for animal urine lately?” (an appropriate answer to such a question could be: Your mother most probably did after giving birth and did or will again around menopause, in the form of “Premarin” equine urine estrogens).
Camel's Urine ?!
To the untrained, uninformed individual, such a medical prescription may sound daft and totally vile. But is it really?
1- the men were cured as a RESULT
of their taking the urine as prescribed by the Prophet s.a.w. Thus, his
questioning of the Prophet's action in this regard is quite moot.
2- Recent researches made in this field showed how camel urine has pharmacological properties..
Another recent research:2012
http://www.sciencedirect.com
Journal of Ethnopharmacology, Available online 16 August 2012, ISSN 0378-8741, 10.1016/j.jep.2012.07.042.
Quote:Camel urine components display anti-cancer properties in vitro
Ethnopharmacological relevance
While camel urine (CU) is widely used in the Arabian Peninsula to treat various diseases, including cancer, its exact mechanism of action is still not defined. The objective of the present study is to investigate whether camel urine has anti-cancer effect on human cells in vitro.
Materials and methods
The annexinV/PI assay was used to assess apoptosis, and immunoblotting analysis determined the effect of CU on different apoptotic and oncogenic proteins. Furthermore, flow cytometry and Elispot were utilized to investigate cytotoxicity and the effect on the cell cycle as well as the production of cytokines, respectively.
Results
Camel urine showed cytotoxicity against various, but not all, human cancer cell lines, with only marginal effect on non-tumorigenic epithelial and normal fibroblast cells epithelial and fibroblast cells. Interestingly, 216 mg/ml of lyophilized CU inhibited cell proliferation and triggered more than 80% of apoptosis in different cancer cells, including breast carcinomas and medulloblastomas. Apoptosis was induced in these cells through the intrinsic pathway via Bcl-2 decrease. Furthermore, CU down-regulated the cancer-promoting proteins survivin, β-catenin and cyclin D1 and increased the level of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p21. In addition, we have shown that CU has no cytotoxic effect against peripheral blood mononuclear cells and has strong immuno-inducer activity through inducing IFN-γ and inhibiting the Th2 cytokines IL-4, IL-6 and IL-10.
Conclusions
CU has specific and efficient anti-cancer and potent immune-modulator properties in vitro.
2011(Source)
http://www.liebertpub.com/
Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine; Sep2011, Vol. 17 Issue 9, p803-808, 6p, 4 Charts, 1 Graph
Quote:The Antiplatelet Activity of Camel Urine.
Background: For centuries, camel urine has been used for medicinal purposes and anecdotally proclaimed as a cure for a wide range of diseases. However, the apparent therapeutic actions of camel urine have yet to be subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Recent preliminary studies from the authors’ laboratory have indicated that camel urine possesses potent antiplatelet activity, not found in human or bovine urines, suggesting a possible role for camel urine in inhibiting platelet function. The goal of the current study was to characterize the antiplatelet activity of camel urine against normal human platelets based on agonist-induced aggregation and platelet function analyzer (PFA-100) closure time. Materials and methods: Urine was collected from healthy virgin, pregnant, and lactating camels aged 2–10 years. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) was prepared from blood collected from healthy individuals’ blood into citrated anticoagulant. Agonist-induced aggregometry using donor PRP and PFA-100 closure times in whole blood were carried out in the presence and absence of added camel urine. The responses of platelets to multiple doses of camel urine were also assessed. The experimental procedure was repeated in human and bovine urines. Results: Camel urine completely inhibited arachidonic acid (AA) and adnosine diphosphate (ADP)–induced aggregation of human platelets in a dose-dependent manner. PFA-100 closure time using human whole blood was prolonged following the addition of camel urine in a dose-dependent manner. Virgin camel urine was less effective in inhibiting ADP-induced aggregation as compared to urine from lactating and pregnant camels; however, all three showed comparable inhibitory activity. Neither human nor bovine urine exhibited antiplatelet activity. Conclusions: Camel urine has potent antiplatelet activity against ADP-induced (clopidogrel-like) and AAinduced (aspirin-like) platelet aggregation; neither human nor bovine urine exhibited such properties. These novel results provide the first scientific evidence of the mechanism of the presumed therapeutic properties of camel urine.
Effect of camel urine on the cytological and biochemical changes induced by cyclophosphamide in mice.
(Source)Abstract
Camel urine treatment was found to cause a significant cytotoxic effect in the bone marrow cells of mice. This cytotoxicity at higher doses was comparable with that of standard drug cyclophosphamide (CP). However, unlike CP, the camel urine treatment failed to induce any clastogenicity. The cytotoxicity induced by camel urine treatment was substantiated by the reduction of liver nucleic acids and glutathione levels and increased malondialdehyde (MDA) contents in the same animals. CP treatment was found to be highly clastogenic, cytotoxic and it reduced the levels of nucleic acids, proteins, glutathione and increased malondialdehyde concentration due to its prooxidant nature. The non-clastogenic nature of camel urine was attributed to the antioxidant and antimutagenic compounds present in camel urine. Pretreatment with camel urine increased the cytotoxicity of CP and intensified the CP induced reduction of liver nucleic acids, glutathione and increased the MDA concentration. The increase of CP induced cytotoxicity appears to be partly due to the additive effect of the two treatments on cellular lipid peroxidation.
Conclusion:
Islam haters lack the ability to approach the issues scientifically and reliance on emotion and prejudice. They consider it rational to ask: “Have you filled a prescription for animal urine lately?” (an appropriate answer to such a question could be: Your mother most probably did after giving birth and did or will again around menopause, in the form of “Premarin” equine urine estrogens).
