Bismika Alllahuma

Continued from Part I

Ka`b ibn Ashraf

We now come to the genuine cases which are mentioned in collections of hadith. The first of these is the case of Ka’b ibn Ashraf. We propose to discuss it in detail, for this one case would show how the Holy Prophet has been misrepresented. Ka’b’s father belonged to the tribe of Tayy, but coming over to Madinah he became an ally of the Jewish tribe of Bani Nadir and became so influential that be succeeded in marrying the daughter of a Jewish leader. Ka’b thus stood in a very near relationship to both Jews and Arabs. When the Holy Prophet came to Madinah, the Jews made an agreement with him, by the terms of which Jews and Muslims were to live as one people, both retaining their own faith, and in the case of an attack on Madinah or an unaggressive war with a third party they bound themselves to help each other. The Prophet was accepted as the final court of appeal in all disputes.

When, however, a Makkan army advanced on Madinah in the 2nd year of Hijrah, the Muslims had to meet them alone, and notwithstanding that they were less than a third of the Makkan army and very inferior in efficiency and arms, they inflicted a crushing defeat on the invading army at Badr. The Muslim victory only added to the Jewish spite against Islam. Ka’b, who was bound by the Madinah treaty, now used his poetic gift freely to excite hatred of Islam and the Muslims. Not content with this, he proceeded to Makkah and openly joined hands with the enemies of Islam. He urged upon the Quraish the necessity of attacking Madinah with a strong force at an early date, and swore in the Ka’bah that he would fight against the Muslims when Madinah was invaded. Not only this; he returned from Makkah with a plan to put an end to the Prophet’s life by underhand means. It is only in the true Christian missionary spirit that Muir, in his Life of Mahomet, has no place for these acts while he has sufficient room for the minutest details as to how Ka’b was put to death, and he gives vent to his inner feelings when he concludes his description of one of the alleged “assassinations” in the following words:

“The progress of Islam begins to stand out in unenviable contrast with that of early Christianity. Converts were gained to the faith of Jesus by witnessing the constancy with which its confessors suffered death, they were gained to Islam by the spectacle of the readiness with which its adherents inflicted death. In the one case conversion imperilled the believer’s life; in the other, it was the only means of saving it.”

And if Muir conceals the facts which show that from an ally Ka’b had turned into a combatant, The missionaries, notwithstanding their parading the original authorities, is guilty of the same offence. That there was a war between Muslims and non-Muslims at the time of the alleged “assassination,” in the third year of the Hijrah, is an undeniable fact. The question is whether Ka’b was among the combatants or the non-combatants. If he actually joined hands with the enemies of Islam and placed himself among those who were fighting with the Muslims, and he was killed by the Muslims, can this be called a case of treachery, cruelty or butchery? That Ka’b had openly joined the combatants and become their ally is borne out by all historical accounts; nay, some of them go so far as to say that he had planned to murder the Prophet(P) treacherously. Here are a few authorities:

“He went to the Quraish weeping over their killed (at Badr) and inciting them to fight with the Prophet.”¹

(The Prophet said): “He (Ka’b) has openly assumed enmity to us and speaks evil of us and he has gone over to the polytheists (who were at war with Muslims) and has made them gather against us for fighting”²

“And according to Kalbi, he united in a league with the Quraish before the curtains of the Ka’bah, to fight against the Muslims.”³

“And he prepared a feast, and conspired with some Jews that he would invite the Prophet and when he came they should fall on him all of a sudden.”⁴

Commenting on Bukhari’s report relating to the killing of Ka’b, the author of Fath al-Bari relates the reports which we have quoted above from Zurqani, viz., Ka’b’s going to Makkah and inciting the Quraish entering into a league before the curtains of the Ka’bah to fight against the Muslims, the Holy Prophet’s declaration that he had assumed open enmity, and his plan to kill the Prophet by inviting him to a feast. Bukhari himself speaks of the incidents relating to the killing of Ka’b under headings in which the word harb (fighting) occurs, thus showing that he was looked upon as a combatant. Abu Dawud speaks of the incident under the heading, “When the enemy is attacked and he is unprepared,” showing that Ka’b was dealt with as an enemy at war with Muslims. And the comment on this is that “Ka’b used to incite people to murder the Muslims”; and discussing the legality of what the party sent out for the punishment of Ka’b did, the same commentator adds: “This is not allowed in the case of an enemy after security has been given to him or peace has been made with him … but it is allowed in the case of one who breaks the covenant and helps others in the murder of Muslims.” And Ibn Sa’d tells us that when the Jews complained to the Holy Prophet that their leader was killed, “he reminded them of his deeds and how he urged and incited (the Quraish) to fight against them,” and adds that “the Prophet then called upon them to make an agreement with him”, and this agreement “was afterwards in the possession of ‘Ali.” All this evidence is too clear to show that Ka’b was put to death for having broken the agreement with the Prophet and joining his enemies who were at war with him and he was therefore treated as a combatant, while the other Jews who did not go to this length, though they were not less active in speaking evil of the Holy Prophet, still lived at peace with him and all that they were required to do was to sign an agreement that they would not join hands with those who were at war with the Muslims.

The only question that is worth considering is why Ka’b was put to death by certain Muslims attacking him suddenly and unawares. In the first place, it must be clearly understood that responsibility for the manner in which he was put to death cannot lie with the Prophet. That the Prophet considered Ka’b as deserving death is quite true, but there is no proof at all that he gave any directions as to the manner in which that sentence was to be carried out. On the other hand, according to one report, when the Prophet was asked by Muhammad ibn Maslamah whether he should kill him he assumed silence, while according to another he said: “If you are going to do it, be not in a hurry until you have consulted Sa’d ibn Mu’adh”⁵. At any rate he knew nothing about the details, and it is even doubtful whether the details as given are true, the Holy Prophet had nothing to do with them. And leaving aside the question of the Prophet’s responsibility, there was no other method to which resort could be had under the circumstances. The hostile critic takes it for granted that the conditions under which the Muslims lived at Madinah were very like those under which he lived in the twentieth century. They had to deal with an enemy, and they dealt with him in the only way in which it was possible to proceed under circumstances then existing. Ka’b had chosen to enter into a league with an enemy at war with Muslims, and according to all human and Divine laws he could not but be treated as an enemy at war. And dealing with him as a combatant, the Holy Prophet sent a party against him; it is definitely called a sariyyah (lit. a portion of an army) in all biographical works, thus showing that the party was sent to fight with him; but it rested with the leader of the party to choose the best way in which he could deal a blow at the enemy. And Muhammad ibn Maslamah, the leader, chose a method which was recognised among the Arabs and which in his opinion was the best and most effective way under the circumstances. If the leader of the party had chosen to attack Ka’b openly, there would have been much more bloodshed, and probably the whole Jewish tribe of Bani Nadir would have suffered along with Ka’b. Ka’b had broken his agreement with the Prophet, he had revolted against him, he had entered into a league to fight against the Muslims till they were extirpated, and he had secretly planned to take away the Prophet’s life. For every one of these offences he had forfeited his life. A party was sent to execute this decree and his life was taken in a manner which, if it had the fault of being secret, had also the merit of not involving innocent people along with the culprit, which would surely have been the result in the case of an open attack. But theProphet was not in any way responsible for the method of the execution.

Abul Huqaiq

Having discussed the case of Ka’b at length, the case of Abul Huqaiq (Abu Rafi`) need not detain us long. In fact, Muir had admitted his guilt with a suppressed tongue. Thus under the heading, “Assassination of Abul Huqaiq, a Jewish Chief”, he says:

“A party of the Bani Nazir, after their exile, settled down among their brethren at Khaibar. Abul Huckeick, their chief, having taken a prominent part to the confederate force which besieged Medina, was now suspected of encouraging certain Bedouin tribes to their depredations. An expedition was therefore undertaken by Ali against the Jews of Khaibar … As a surer means of stopping these attacks, Mahomet resolved on ridding himself of their supposed author, the Jewish chief … The assassination of Abul Huckeick did not relieve Mahomet of his apprehensions from the Jews of Khaibar; for Oseir, elected in his mom, maintained the same relation with the Ghatafan, end was even reported to be designing fresh movements against Medina.”

The Bani Nadir, a Jewish tribe, originally lived at Madinah, and were in alliance with the Holy Prophet, but being suspected of keeping up correspondence with the Quraish and one of the Arab tribes in alliance with them having murdered some Muslims treacherously, they were asked to renew the alliance, which they refused, and were ultimately banished from Madinah. They settled at Khaibar, a Jewish stronghold and became a source of immense trouble to Muslims, constantly inciting the tribes around Madinah to commit depredations on the Muslims. Abul Huqaiq, their head, was also a leader in the “Battle of the Allies” in which the Arabian and Jewish tribes had gathered together to give a crushing blow to Islam. Abul Huqaiq and the Jews had thus come out into the field of battle against the Muslims, and even after the allies had to go back in discomfiture, Abul Huqaiq continued to excite and help the Arab tribes living around Madinah in their depredations against the Muslims. The Prophet(P) was thus justified in sending an expedition against the Khaibar Jews, but before doing this in the 7th year, he sent a small party to deal with Abul Huqaiq alone in 6 A.H. Undoubtedly the underlying idea was that bloodshed might be avoided, as far as possible, and that if the ring-leader was taken away, the mischief might cease. But even Abul Huqaiq’s death did not bring peace to the Muslims, and, accordingly, Khaibar had ultimately to be attacked and conquered. That the party sent against him chose to adopt the method which was successfully adopted against Ka’b, again throws no blame on the Prophet.

Permitting Rape is a Grievous Calumny

The last charge against the Holy Prophet(P) is one that is promulgated by the Islamophobic Faithfreedom International, i.e., having allowed rape of the women of Bani Mustaliq, which is a grievous calumny. And the allegation that “all the traditional books” mention it is a bold statement. Not a single collection of hadith contains testimony establishing the charge — a charge of which even a hostile writer like Muir is unaware. The only thing that is met with in the collections of hadith is a report from Abu Sa’id Khudri⁶ that some people in the Muslim army intended contracting temporary marriage relations with some women who were prisoners of war andmaking use of a birth control device, but there is not the least evidence that they ever did it.

Abu Sa’id’s report, in fact, relates to the legality of `azl, a birth control device, and it does not say at all how the women of Bani Mustaliq were treated⁷. It is a fact that before the advent of Islam, temporary marriage relations were allowed, The Holy Qur’an put an end to them, but all reform was, and had to be, gradual. The Qur’an is explicit on marriage with prisoners of war, and the verse quoted below is a clear rebuttal of the Islamophobes’ unfounded charge:

“And whoever among you cannot afford to marry free believing women, (let him marry) such of your believing maidens as your right hands possess…so marry them with the permission of their masters, and give them their dowries justly, they being chaste, not fornicating, nor receiving paramours; then if they are guilty of adultery when they are taken in marriage, they shall suffer half the punishment for free married women. This is for him among you who fears falling into evil. And that you abstain is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving. Merciful” (4:75)

As regards the treatment of the women of Bani Mustaliq in particular, there is the clearest historical evidence in all hadith books that they were all set free without ransom because one of them, Juwairiyah, was set free and married by the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah(T) be upon him.

And only God knows best!

1. Zurqani, vol. ii, p. 10 [back]
2. ibid., vol. ii, p. 11 [back]
3. ibid. [back]
4. ibid., p. 12 [back]
5. Zurqani, vol. ii, p. 12 [back]
6. Sahih Muslim, Volume 8, Book 77, no 6001 [back]
7. On this point see also the hadith from Jabir,Sahih Muslim, Kitab al Nikah (Book 8), no 3388. It should be noted that the hadith is placed under the chapter on nikah (marriage), which shows that it certainly was not “rape”! [back]