As-Salāmu Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wabarakathuhu

May the Peace, Mercy and Blessings of God be upon you beautiful people

"Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish." [Qur'an 17:81]

Sunday, 27 July 2008

Allegation that Muhammad killed Kaab over poetry

What About The Killing of Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf?

Reagarding the allegation that the Prophet Muhammad(P) unlawfully killed ka’ab. people often cite the events of the killing of Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf as evidence that Muhammad was of bad charactar. Our contentation is that this conclusion totally ignores the historical events surrounding this incident. This could be because people are unaware of the circumstances leading to his killing, or why the Prophet(P) had allowed it to happen, or perhaps because people are just intentionally spreading lies. It is therefore my wish to discuss this issue in its proper perspective, and stiffle the lies once and for all

Who Was Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf?

Kaab Al-Ashraf was a Jew. He used to insult Muslims, and especially Muslim women. He had been later killed by a Muslim, through the permission of the Noble Prophet(P). This account is present in Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq.
The following is the account in our own words:

The Prophet asked who would get rid of Ka’ab for him. A Muslim man responded that he would. Sadly, the Muslim who agreed with the Prophet, did not eat for three days (except for that which was required). When this was informed to the Prophet, the Prophet asked him the reason. The man told him that he had taken a responsibility (to kill Ka’ab) which he could not handle. So the Muslim asked the Prophet’s permission to tell lies, or to deceive Ka’ab. The Prophet gave him the permission. The Muslim went to Ka’ab, said something deceptive, and made him come out of his house and then killed him.

The attack raised by anti-Islamics here is that the Prophet (P) gave another man to do the job and gave him the permission to lie.

We must first of all understand that the situation of the Muslims were very precarious, even in the aftermath of their victory at Badr. Even though the Quraysh Meccans were defeated and had retreated back to the city to lick their wounds and mourn their dead, the Muslims still face the danger of internal dissent within the walls of Madinah. Indeed, the Muslims had just expelled the Banu Qaynuqa from their homes after their open declaration of war against the Prophet and the early Muslim community. The Banu Qaynuqa were the first of the Jews to break their agreement with the Muslims and go to war and had to be dealt with swiftly so as to quash any ideas of the other Jewish tribes to instigate a war against the Muslims. It was within the context of this situation that Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf took advantage of, by inveighing against the Prophet and reciting verses bewailing the Quraysh who were slain at Badr.

Ibn Ishaq stated, "Ka'ab b. al-Ashraf was of the Ta'I tribe, of the sub-tribe of Banu Nabhan, though his mother was of Banu al-Nadir. He received news of the deaths of those at Badr after the arrival of Zayd b. Al- Haritha and Abd Allah b. Rawaha. He commented, By God, if Muhammad has really struck down those people, then better be inside the earth than upon it!" When this enemy of God was sure of this news, he left for Mecca, where he visited al-Muttalib b. Abu Wada'a b.Dubayrat al- Samhi, whose wife was Atika, daughter of Abu al- Is b. Ummayya b. Abd Shams b. Abd Manaf. She accommodated him graciously AND HE BEGAN INSTIGATING AN ATTACK UPON THE MESSENGER OF GOD (SAAS) speaking verses and mourning the deaths of those polytheists killed at Badr."Here Ibn Ishaq gave his poem. Among the lines of the aforementioned verses are:

Badr’s mill ground out the blood of its people
At events like Badr you should weep and cry
The best of the people were slain round their cisterns
Don’t think it strange that the princes were left lying.
How many noble handsome men,
The refugee of the homeless were slain,
Liberal when the stars gave no rain,
Who bore others’ burdens, ruling and taking their due fourth,
Some people whose anger pleases me say
“Ka’ab b. al-Ashraf is utterly dejected”.
They are right. O that the earth when they were killed
Had split asunder and engulfed its people,
That he who spread the report had been thrust through
Or lived cowering blind and deaf.
I was told that all the Banu’l-Mughira were humiliated
And brought low by the death of Abu’l-Hakim
And the two sons of Rabi’a with him,
And Munabbih and the others did not attain (such honour) as those who were slain

He also gave the response to this poem by Hassan b. Thabit, may God be pleased with him, as well as verse by others. He went on, "Ka'ab then returned to Medina where he composed verses suggestive about the Muslim women and critical of the prophet (SAAS) and his followers. Musa b. Uqba stated, "Ka'ab b. al- Ashraf was of Banu al-Nadir, or associated with them, he harmed the messenger of God (SAAS) by ridiculing him in verse AND HE RODE TO QURAYSH TO INCITE THEM FURTHER. Abu Sufyan, in Mecca, asked him, In your view, I pray you tell me, which religion is more favored by God, that of Muhammad and his friends, or our own? Which of us do you think, is more correct and appropriate, We slaughter our meat generously, give milk-topped water to drink, providing food for all sundry who come.' "Ka'ab b al-Ashraf replied, You are better-guided in your path than they are.' Pg. 6-7

So as you can all see, Ka'ab was the one who started the trouble, he not only insulted the prophet Muhammad. He went to the prophet's enemies, and incited them against Muhammad, he obviously incited them to fight and kill the prophet Muhammad. So therefore as we see, Ka'ab was not innocent, nor did he just insult the prophet and the Muslims, he instigated violence and murder and was rightly punished.

In the last stanza of this poetry by Ka’ab, he had comitted a transgression of the earlier covenant signed between the Muslims and his tribe with the following words of incitement:

I was told that al-Harith ibn Hisham
Is doing well and gathering troops
To visit Yathrib with armies,
For only the noble, handsome man protects the loftiest reputation.

Furthermore, Ka’ab had composed several amatory verses in defamation of the honour of a Muslim woman by the name of Ummu’l-Fadl bint al-Harith:

Are you off without stopping in the valley
And leaving Ummu’l-Fadl in Mecca?
Out would come what she bought from the pedlar of bottles,
Henna and hair dye.
What lies ‘twixt ankle and elbow in motion
When she tries to stand and does not.

The significance of “what lies ‘twixt ankle and elbow in motion” is explained in the footnote by the translator of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah as:

Presumably her buttocks are meant; they would be between her ankle and her elbow as she reclined. Large and heavy buttocks were marks of female beauty among the old Arabs.

A poet of pre-Islamic days expresses the Arab sentiment of chastity and virtuousness in a couplet, which depicts a lovely picture of Arab womanhood: “If my glance meets the looks of a neighbouring maiden, I cast my eyes low until her abode takes her in”. Hence it was within the context of the above incitements made by Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf which was why the Muslims were agitated when their women were being dishonoured and public sentiment called for his punishment.

Punishable Treason

As we have stated before, Ka’ab’s actions were against a clause in the Madinah Covenant signed between the Muslims and the Jews of Madinah. The relevant stipulation of this covenant is as follows:

Loyalty is a protection against treachery. The freedmen of Thalaba are as themselves. The close friends are as themselves. None of them shall go out to war save with the permission of Muhammad, but he shall not be prevented from taking revenge for a wound. He who slays a man without warning slays himself and his whole household, unless it be one who has wronged him, for God will accept that. The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and loyalty is a protection against treachery. A man is not liable for his ally’s misdeeds. The wronged must be helped. The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war lasts. Yathrib shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document. A stranger under protection shall be as his host doing no harm and committing no crime. A woman shall only be given protection with the consent of her family. If any dispute or controversy likely to cause trouble should arise it must be referred to God and to Muhammad the apostle of God. God accepts what is nearest to piety and goodness in this document. Quraysh and their helpers shall not be given protection.

His acts were openly directed against the Commonwealth, of which he was a member. It is therefore clear that Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf’s antagonism towards the Muslim community was his own undoing, and was no longer protected by the covenant that he himself had violated. Akram Diya’ al-Umari remarks:
The killing of Ibn al Ashraf might be seen as an act of treachery, but on further reflection one realizes that Ibn al Ashraf was party to the treaty according to the Document by which the Jews of Banu al Nadir and others were committed. By slandering the Prophet, who was the head of state, and by showing his sympathy for the enemies of the Muslims (lamenting their dead and inciting them against the Muslims), Ibn al Ashraf had broken the treaty and declared war on the Muslims, and his blood could be shed with impunity. As for his being deceived and killed by those he had trusted, such action is legally permissible (ja’iz) in the case of those who have declared war on the Muslims, and it was carried out by order of the Messenger (See al Tahawi, Mushkil al-Athar). The Messenger, however, did not blame Banu al Nadir for Ibn al Ashraf’s crime; it was sufficient to have him killed for his treachery. The Prophet, in fact, renewed his treaty with them (Banu al Nadir).

However, some may object that Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf was merely composing “poetries” as a form of “freedom of expression”, and therefore was not causing any “harm” to anyone around him. Those who say this certainly do not understand the significance of the blasphemous poetry by Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf. Arabic poetry can be very influential and cannot be thought of in the terms of English poetry or any other forms of poetry in other languages. As Philip K. Hitti himself notes,

No people in the world, perhaps, manifest such enthusiastic admiration for literary expression and are so moved by the word, spoken or written, as the Arabs. Hardly any language seems capable of exercising over the minds of its users such irresistible influence as Arabic.

After noting Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf’s acts of incitement and false accusations towards Muslim women, Haykal says that

The reader is perhaps aware of Arab custom and ethic in this regard, and can appreciate the Muslims’ anxiety over such false accusations directed against their women’s honour.

Certainly, the reader would agree with us that “freedom of expression” certainly does not include the right to defame the honour of another, or to incite aggression against a legitimate Government. Hence it is clear that by modern terms today, Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf will be duly charged with sedition against the State and for outraging the modesty of a Muslim woman.

A Public Trial for War Criminals?

Controversialists have stigmatised this execution as an “assassination”. And because a Muslim was sent secretly to kill each of the criminals, in their prejudice against the Prophet(P) they shut their eyes to the justice of the sentence, and the necessity of a swift and secret execution. There existed then no police court, no judicial tribunal, nor even a court-martial, to take cognisance of individual crimes. In the absence of a State executioner, any individual might become the executioner of the law. This man had broken their formal pact - it was impossible to arrest him in public, or execute the sentence in the open before their clans, without causing unnecessary bloodshed, and giving rise to the feud of blood and everlasting vendetta. The exigencies of the State required that whatever should be done should be done swiftly and noiselessly upon those whom public opinion had arraigned and condemned.


As we can see already, Ka’ab did not simply insult the prophet Muhammad and Muslim women. He did much more; he went to the prophet's enemies and incited them against the prophet Muhammad. He incited the Quraysh to go kill and fight Muhammad, therefore the prophet Muhammad had every right to go and send someone to kill Ka’ab for doing such a thing. There was no injustice done at all, Ka’ab incited people to kill Muhammad and Muslims, so therefore he became an enemy, it doesn't matter if Ka’ab did not raise a weapon. Using that logic then that means that every accomplice in a murder case is free to go since they never really committed the crime, they just helped out!

In today's legal system, if you incite murder that is seen as a crime and you yourself are guilty of murder as well. This is exactly what Kab did; he incited murder and violence, so therefore he was punished.

It is clear that where the killing of Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf was concerned, it was done as a deterrent against crimes committed against the public weal or infringements of the promulgated law. In considering the punishments that were dealt to the enemies of Islam, we must not forget, first, that they were political actions made necessary by the conditions of the time; second, that none of them were excessive unacceptable by the usages or mores of that time.

And only God knows best!


Anonymous said...

your god must be weak, no love or mercy that make you do all those horrible things, only Jesus can help you event your qur'an told you so, don't be naif.

Leviathon said...

Not my God, there is only one God. Implementation of law means God is weak? so we should all live in a society without any laws or sanctions and let people do as we please, not a very good idea. If you read the article and don't agree with the answer that's fine, but to say the Quran says only Jesus can help us? well that is blatantly false and if you have any evidence for your random statement would be appreciated. Peace

Anonymous said...

Typical Muslim cover up stories without any authentic references. And i was surprised to know that Muhammad allowed his followers to lie to non Muslims if they wanted to kill.

Now i would be more careful of Muslims around me.

Leviathon said...

lol the sources are provided within the text if you read it, and the rest is the consequential historical context and background derived from that.

You should be careful in life generally so well done for your new found caution, if my blog helps you avoid some mishap then it was worth it. Peace.

Mullah Hamid said...

good work my brother.

Anonymous said...

After Ka'ab incited the Quraysh to go kill and fight Muhammad, did the Quraysh really going to kill and fight Muhammad?

Anonymous said...

'He incited the Quraysh to go kill and fight Muhammad, therefore the prophet Muhammad had every right to go and send someone to kill Ka’ab for doing such a thing. There was no injustice done at all, Ka’ab incited people to kill Muhammad and Muslims, so therefore he became an enemy, it doesn't matter if Ka’ab did not raise a weapon. Using that logic then that means that every accomplice in a murder case is free to go since they never really committed the crime, they just helped out!'


Anonymous said...

In agriculture we often eliminate pest by one way of the other.Kaab has become a pest which may multiply if not contain. Prevention is better than cure.

hermanseele said...

Leviathon writes: "In all three translations [of the Koran], we clearly see that if the slave woman desires to keep chaste, then her Muslim master must not compel her into sex." But what is written in the Koran is that she cannot be compelled into PROSTITUTION which is sex for money. Most acts of sex, though, are not prostitution.
Sometimes Muhammad was in a good mood and he felt goodwill towards captives and slaves. Other times, Muhammad felt aloof, distant, uncaring, just like the following hadith records:
"We [Muhammad’s merry men] went out with Allah's messenger on the expedition to the Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing azl" (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: "We are doing an act whereas Allah's messenger [i.e., Muhammad] is amongst us; why not ask him?" So we asked Allah's messenger and he said: "It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born". (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, #3371)
Tellingly, the role model of the Muslims, Muhammad, does not exclaim:

Nor does he exclaim to the married men: “DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY WITH THE CAPTIVES!!”

Finally, we note that he does not yell: “DO NOT RAPE THE CAPTIVES!!!”
So the Debate Question is then: “Why did Muhammad not instead say, “Leave the poor captives alone!”?