Really? When he was at Mecca he did not have the choice because he was weak. But at the Battle of Badr he captured Al-Nadr bin al-Harith who had mocked his revelations in Mecca. Al-Nadr was not allowed to ransom himself. What happened to him?

There was another man captured at Badr who was not allowed to ransom himself as well. Uqba bin Abu Muayt begged Muhammed for his life and asked "Who would look after my children?" Muhammed said "Hell fire". What happened to him next?

Asma bint Marwan wrote and sang songs that mocked Muhammed. What happened to her?

Abu Afak also mocked Muhammed. What happened to him? What did Salim b. Umayr do?

Kab bin al-Ashraf wrote a poem mourning the Meccan dead at the Battle of Badr. What happened to him?

Abdullah bin Katal had two singing girls who sang songs that mocked Muhammed. After the fall of Mecca all three were ordered killed. One of the girls was but the other plead for her life and was pardoned.

Amr bin Umayya took shelter in a cave and met a one-eyed bedouin. They chatted and ate and then the Arab sang a short poem that seemed to mock Islam. As he slept Amr bin Umayya murdered him in a particularly nasty fashion.

I am all for not killing people merely for a cartoon. Let me support that. But you should not distort the historical record. In the right circumstances and at the right time, Muslims have killed people for less. At least one article here has been deleted for saying what would happen to the cartoonists in Saudi Arabia.

He was killed for his insults, the harm he inflicted on the Muslims, his inciting words that made people rise up and fight against the Muslims. What you have left out is that the Prophet captured 70 prisoners during the Battle of Badr and only 3 of them were put to death for the reason(s) mentioned above.

Why didn't you include the story of Abu 'Azza al-Jumahi who was freed after the same battle on the condition that he would never fight Muslims again.

Whilst it is true that Uqba bin Abu Muayt was put to death for all the misschief he caused, the narration that he begged is not even found in the authenthic seeras. So I say to you HeiGou instead of CAPing from answering-islam, provide the source for that story including its transmission. If it is in Tabari, or ibn Ishaq, provide the full arabic quote including its isnad.

Both forgeries. Never happend.

By brother Hesham Azmy

The Killing of Abu 'Afak: Where is The Isnad?

According to Ibn Sa'd and Ibn Ishâq, Abu 'Afak was a 120 years old Jewish man who had abused the Prophet(P) verbally, so the latter launched a raid under the command of Salîm Ibn 'Umaîr to kill him. We do know that Ibn Ishâq lived in the 2nd half of the 2nd century after Hijra, as well as Al-Waqîdî from whom Ibn Sa'd (died 230 A.H.) copied the story of Abu 'Afak.

As explained above, the chain of reporters of the story from eye-witnesses of the event till Ibn Ishâq or Al-Waqîdî must be examined and verified. So, our legitimate question is: where is the isnâd (i.e., chain of reporters)?

Unfortunately, references of the Sîrah do not provide such information. Actually, we are told that this story has no isnâd at all; neither Ibn Ishâq (or his disciple Ibn Hîsham) nor Al-Waqîdî (or his disciple Ibn Sa'd) had provided such a thing! In this case, the story is rated by hadîth scholars as "...of no basis", indicating that it has reached the lowest degree of criticism regarding its isnâd. This is in fact a proper scientific position because we cannot accept such a problematic story without evidence.

In brief, we have no commitment to accept such a baseless story - according to scientific criteria of hadîth criticism - which strangely had appeared in the 2nd half of the 2nd century after Hijra. We are therefore obliged to reject the story of the killing of Abu 'Afak by Salîm Ibn 'Umaîr at the Prophet’s command.

The Killing of Asma': True Story or Forgery?

Basically the charge is that the Prophet(P) had ordered the killing of Asma' when she insulted him with her poetry. As it is usually the case where the history of Islam and the character of the Prophet(P) is concerned, it is left to the Muslims to throw some light on authenticity of the story in which this incident is reported by the sources and educate the missionaries in matters which they have no clue about.

The story of the killing of Asma' bint Marwan is mentioned by Ibn Sa'd in Kitab At-Tabaqat Al-Kabir and by the author of Kinz-ul-'Ummal under number 44131 who attributes it to Ibn Sa'd, Ibn 'Adiyy and Ibn 'Asaker. What is interesting is that Ibn 'Adiyy mentions it in his book Al-Kamel on the authority of Ja'far Ibn Ahmad Ibn Muhammad Ibn As-Sabah on authority of Muhammad Ibn Ibrahim Ash-Shami on authority of Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj Al-Lakhmi on authority of Mujalid on authority of Ash-Shu'abi on authority of Ibn 'Abbas, and added that

...this isnâd (chain of reporters) is not narrated on authority of Mujalid but by Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj and they all (other reporters in the chain) accuse Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj of forging it.

It is also reported by Ibn al-Gawzi in Al-'Ilal and is listed among other flawed reports.

So according to its isnâd, the report is forged - because one of its reporters is notorious for fabricating hadîth. Hence, such a story is rejected and is better off being put into the trash can.

In addition, why didn't the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) order the killing of a Jewish Woman who brought him a poisoned cooked sheep?

Narrated Anas bin Malik: A Jewish woman brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allaah's Messenger(Bukharee)

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


Source + isnad.

I do not dispute this. I just do not see the relevance.

What would the relevance be?

I confess, some what shamefacedly, to going to that website. It was extremely convenient I have to say.

Hang on - both forgeries? Neither man was killed?

Is that a genuine question? Perhaps he thought that God would look after and protect him. That seems to have been the Jewish assumption.
[indent]Volume 4, Book 53, Number 394:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

When Khaibar was conquered, a roasted poisoned sheep was presented to the Prophets as a gift (by the Jews). The Prophet ordered, "Let all the Jews who have been here, be assembled before me." The Jews were collected and the Prophet said (to them), "I am going to ask you a question. Will you tell the truth?'' They said, "Yes.' The Prophet asked, "Who is your father?" They replied, "So-and-so." He said, "You have told a ie; your father is so-and-so." They said, "You are right." He siad, "Will you now tell me the truth, if I ask you about something?" They replied, "Yes, O AbuAl-Qasim; and if we should tell a lie, you can realize our lie as you have done regarding our father." On that he asked, "Who are the people of the (Hell) Fire?" They said, "We shall remain in the (Hell) Fire for a short period, and after that you will replace us." The Prophet said, "You may be cursed and humiliated in it! By Allah, we shall never replace you in it.'' Then he asked, "Will you now tell me the truth if I ask you a question?" They said, "Yes, O Ab Li-AI-Qasim." He asked, "Have you poisoned this sheep?" They said, "Yes." He asked, "What made you do so?" They said, "We wanted to know if you were a liar in which case we would get rid of you, and if you are a prophet then the poison would not harm you."[indent]

Perhaps he thought that the poison had failed. After all that was one really slow acting poison.

I would rather not. I have no interest is debating whether or not these people were killed or who gave the order or whatever.

What is clear is that there is a strong tradition in the Muslim histories that Muhammed did have people killed for various reasons. The previous poster was wrong. Anything beyond that would be pointless.

I admire your honesty.

It wasn't a slow-acting poison as another Companion of the Prophet (pbuh) who had eaten from the roast died very quickly. Rather Allah prolonged the Prophet's life until the message had been delivered (although of course this is not something that would accept, but I was simply explaining the Muslim view on the events).
Yes. But never for a personal grudge, his own personal vendetta or an insult made to him, which is what was implied in your original post.

Peace.

That is very generous of you and it is extremely useful even for those of us who are not missionaries. But I have just noticed - I mentioned seven cases where Ibn Ishaq or others claim that Muhammed had people killed for mocking him. You have accepted that one, Al-Nadr bin al-Harith, was executed for that reason. You deny that there is any strong evidence, in an Islamic sense, to say that Uqba bin Abu Muayt, Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak were killed. But you do not mention the others. In some of these cases the evidence is a little stronger. Kab bin al-Ashraf is mentioned in the aHadith.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 271:

Narrated Jabir:

The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew)." Muhammad bin Maslama replied, "Do you like me to kill him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like." The Prophet replied, "I do (i.e. allow you)."

Sahih Muslim Chapter 41: THE MURDER OF KA'B B. ASHRAF, (THE EVIL GENIUS) OF THE JEWS
Book 019, Number 4436:

It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Who will kill Ka'b b. Ashraf? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger. Muhammad b. Maslama said: Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him? He said: Yes. He said: Permit me to talk (to him in the way I deem fit). He said: Talk (as you like). So, Muhammad b. Maslama came to Ka'b and talked to him, referred to the old friendship between them and said: This man (i. e. the Holy Prophet) has made up his mind to collect charity (from us) and this has put us to a great hardship. When be heard this, Ka'b said: By God, you will be put to more trouble by him. Muhammad b. Maslama said: No doubt, now we have become his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his affairs will take. I want that you should give me a loan. He said: What will you mortgage? He said: What do you want? He said: Pledge me your women. He said: You are the most handsome of the Arabs; should we pledge our women to you? He said: Pledge me your children. He said: The son of one of us may abuse us saying that he was pledged for two wasqs of dates, but we can pledge you (cur) weapons. He said: All right. Then Muhammad b. Maslama promised that he would come to him with Harith, Abu 'Abs b. Jabr and Abbad b. Bishr. So they came and called upon him at night. He came down to them. Sufyan says that all the narrators except 'Amr have stated that his wife said: I hear a voice which sounds like the voice of murder. He said: It is only Muhammad b. Maslama and his foster-brother, Abu Na'ila. When a gentleman is called at night even it to be pierced with a spear, he should respond to the call. Muhammad said to his companions: As he comes down, I will extend my hands towards his head and when I hold him fast, you should do your job. So when he came down and he was holding his cloak under his arm, they said to him: We sense from you a very fine smell. He said: Yes, I have with me a mistress who is the most scented of the women of Arabia. He said: Allow me to smell (the scent on your head). He said: Yes, you may smell. So he caught it and smelt. Then he said: Allow me to do so (once again). He then held his head fast and said to his companions: Do your job. And they killed him.

Would you mind explaining to me what Kab had done that he deserved to die?

You do not mention the singing girls either

Sunun Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2678:

Narrated Sa'id ibn Yarbu' al-Makhzumi:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: on the day of the conquest of Mecca: There are four persons whom I shall not give protection in the sacred and non-sacred territory. He then named them. There were two singing girls of al-Maqis; one of them was killed and the other escaped and embraced Islam.

Would you mind telling me who the other four were?

May I ask who the Companion who died was?

I do not know what was in Muhammed's mind. I do know people are said to have mocked him. And then been killed. I hope I did not imply anything else.

I never rejected all cases save one, rather I rejected the case of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak.

Not quite. I never denied that Uqba ibn Abu Mauyt was killed. Let's see what I wrote:

Whilst it is true that Uqba bin Abu Muayt was put to death for all the misschief he caused, the narration that he begged is not even found in the authenthic seeras.

Could you please point out where I flat out denied that he was killed for his treason?

Would you mind reading the article that I posted in my previous post?

He was killed for breaking the covenant signed between the Muslims and his tribe. He defamed the Muslim women.

In the article written by brother menj, it states:

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).

I did mention the girls. Firstly, the girls were slave-girls but there is some conflict regarding their owner. Some narratives say that their owner was ibn Khatal and others mention that they were owned by Maquees. The first was killed for her treason whilst the other was pardoned and as a result, she embraced Islaam. al-Maqis was killed for killing a Muslim by deception, inciting hatred, breaking the covenant. Ibn Khatal was killed for inciting hatred, breaking the covenant and killing a Muslim servant for serving the food 'late'. The slave girl was killed for inciting hatred and breaking the covenant. One has to understand that their propaganda and inciting the non-Muslims to fight against the Muslims resulted in wars and loss of life.

The other fours were al-Maqis, Ibn Abu Jahal, Ibn Abu Sarh and ibn Khatal.




Now the question is, do you object against the punishment laid out for their treason?


Peace

Interesting link.

The problem with this is the constant blurring of lines. It asks if Ka'b placed himself among the combatants or non-combatants. Surely the question ought to be whether he took up arms. But no matter. Some accounts go so far as to say that he planned to murder Muhammed. I take it then, that he did not do so or they all would.

Then the obvious question would be, what was this incitement and what did it consist of?

The problem of those blurred lines is still there. We would all agree, I guess, that the Muslims thought of him as an enemy and treated him as such. The question is why - what did he actually do?

Thus it seems that his only crime was to "incite" the Quraysh to fight the Muslims. I still wonder how as we are dealing with hostile sources from Muslim authors. They may have different ideas of what incitement consists of.

Right. Sorry.

OK I have misunderstood your objection. So you reject the begging. I am not going to argue about it. Do you agree he was killed for mocking Muhammed?

I think I have done that now and replied to it or were there two at bis.org?

I am sorry but what part of that is relevant? Where does it say you may not make fun of Muslim women or even, come to that, incite the Quraysh?

So all he did was slander Muhammed and show his sympathies for the enemies of the Muslims. I think we are all in agreement here. I make no judgement on what was done. Just that something was done that involved more than forgiveness. This man slandered Muhammed. He was killed. The moral issues are for Muslims to argue about.

Treason? A slave girl is owned by a man. That man may commit treason. Or not depending on your definition of treason. But how can a slave girl do so?

In any event she clearly did nothing but defame Muhammed. For which she was killed. Are we agreed on that?

I understand entirely.

Thank you.

Not really. At most I would quibble about the use of the word "treason" but it does not seem inappropriate. And I would object to the killing of the girl who cannot, as a slave, commit treason in this form, but if Islamic law says that slave girls must resist their owners at the cost, potentially, of their lives, that is what it says. Seems a little rough to me.

Hello Hei Gou,
I'm going to comment on a number of things you mentioned.
That some of the companions died from the poisoning is mentioned in a number of narrations, for example Abu Dawud relates from Wahb b. Baqiyyah from Khalid from Muhammad b. Amr from ABu Salama who notes that is was Bishr b. al-Bara' b. al-Ma'rur who died immediately from the poisoning. It is also mentioned by Al-Bayhaqi who narrates from Abd al-Razzaq from Ma'mar from Al-Zuhri from Abdur-Rahman b. Ka'b b. Malik that some (pl) of the companions died as a result of the poisoning. Other reports from Ibn Lahia and Ibn Ishaq also mention the death of Bishr b. al-Bara' as a result of the poisoning.

A combatant is someone who rights, and if someone joins the combatants it means that they join the fighters. Musa b. Uqba, Ibn Ishaq and others relate that he incited the enemy troops to attacks the Muslims. If he joined the combatants and incited them, then there is no reason why he shouldn't be targeted. A General of an opposing army may be fought even if he doesn't take up arms himself, simply because he is associated with and instructing the combatants. Or take the case of any of the modern terrorist leaders who are wanted 'dead or alive', many of them for crimes that they have instructed their followers to carry out, even though they may not have personally killed anyone themselves.

By what logic? Surely such a statement could only be made if there were contradictory accounts.

As mentioned by Musa b. Uqba and others, the incitment consisted of his travel to Makkah after Badr and persistently confronting the Makkans, encouraging them to take revenge for their defeat at badr and specifically instigating an attack on the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. In short, he was calling for terrorist attacks, to use the modern language.

Musa b. Uqba, Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Kathir mention, "]He had not left Makkah before he had united them to fight the Messenger of God".

One other point - when Ka'b was leaving his house that night after Abu Naila called out to him, notice what his wife said to him:
But you're a man engaged in combat. Warriors don't go down at such as this!

Clearly, his military efforts against the Prophet Muhammad pbuh were known.