The Killing of Abu ‘Afak And The Killing of ‘Asma’

There’s a wide and approved accusations among of haters nonbelievers against Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ordered of a feeble old man, Abu Afak and frail mother of six children, Asma, during her unaware sleeping time. But their accusations based on reports which fulls of flaws. Will you bring the case to court based on flaw evident?

Certainly you won’t cause you’re not going to win and there’s a chance that the case will go back against you. This is happening with charge imposed at Prophet Muhammad to be responsible of killing two poets that launched satirical poetry, Abu Afak and Asma.

And here’s the explanation of Hesham Azmy concerning the killing of Abu Afak and Asma, that I originally taken from: Noor Allah website, feel free to read.

The Killing of Abu ‘Afak

Where is The Isnad?

According to Ibn Sa’d and Ibn Ishaq, Abu ‘Afak was a 120 years old Jewish man who abused the Prophet (peace be upon him) verbally, so the latter launched a raid under the command of Salem Ibn ‘Umair to kill him. Well, we know that Ibn Ishaq lived in the 2nd half of the 2nd century after Higra, as well as Al-Waqidi 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 Ishaq or Al-Waqidi must be examined and verified. So, our legitimate question is: where is the isnad (i.e., chain of reporters)?

Unfortunately, references of Seera do not provide such information. Actually, we are told that this story has no isnad at all; neither Ibn Ishaq (or his disciple Ibn Hesham) nor Al-Waqidi (or his disciple Ibn Sa’d) provide such thing!!

In this case, the story is rated by Hadith scholars as “of no basis” indicating that it has reached the lowest degree of criticism regarding its isnad. This is in fact a proper scientific position because we cannot accept such a problematic story without evidence.We are obliged to reject the story of the killing of Abu ‘Afak by Salem Ibn ‘Umair at the Prophet’s command.

In brief, we have no commitment to accept such a baseless story – according to scientific criteria of reeports’ criticism – which strangely appeared in the 2nd half of the 2nd century after Higra.

The Killing of ‘Asma’

True Story? or Forgery?The charge is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had ordered the killing of ‘Asma’ when she insulted him with her poetry, and the implications are that he (peace be upon him) “stiffles” criticism by murdering his opponents. As it is usually the case where the history of Islam and the character of the Prophet (peace be upon him) 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”[1] 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 isnad (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.[2]

It is also reported by Ibn al-Gawzi in “Al-’Ilal”[3] and is listed among other flawed reports.

So according to its isnad, the report is forged – because one of its reporters is accused of fabricating hadith. Hence, such a story is better put in trash can.

---

Prophetic Attitude Toward Women and Old Men in WarI’m going to display here the *authentic* Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) regarding women and old men in war. No baseless or forged reports are allowed here; we will only display authentic reports.

Well, in brief, authentic Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) prohibits the killing of women in war.

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 God’s Apostle.
(Sahih al-Bukhârî, Volume 3, Book 47, Number 786)

The Prophet (peace be upon him) refused to kill a woman who did intentionally try to poison him, but the Christian missionaries, using a fabricated story, wants us to believe that he ordered the killing of a woman who only abused him verbally.

Narrated Ibn ‘Umar: Messenger of God (peace be upon him) saw the corpse of a woman who had been slain in one of the raids, and he disapproved of it and forbade the killing of women and children.
(Sahih-ul-Bukhârî, Volume 4, Book 52, Numbers 257 & 258. Also see Mutta Malik, Book 21, Section 3, Number 9)

Due to this prohibition, scholars of Abu Hanifah’s School of Thought state that apostate women are not to be killed because the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade killing women and since the prohibition is general, then it includes apostate women.[4]

Even after the Prophet’s demise, his Sunnah was preserved by the Muslims  …

Abu Bakr advised Yazid: “I advise you ten things: Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camel except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly.”
(Mutta Malik, Book 21, Section 3, Number 10)

Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mabarakfuri sums it up in “Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtoum”,

The Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] had issued honourable strict rules about war and bade his soldiers and leaders to comply with them. They were forbidden to break those rules under any circumstances. In reference to Sulaiman bin Buraidah’s version, who said that his father had told him that whenever the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] appointed a leader on an army or on a battalion, he used to recommend him to fear Allâh, the Great and All-Mighty, when dealing with those who were closest to him and to be good with all Muslims. Then the Prophet [pbuh] would say to him:

“Let your invasion be in the Name of Allâh and for His sake. Fight those who disbelieve in Allâh. Invade but do not exaggerate nor commit treachery. Never deform the corpse of a dead person or kill an infant child.”

The Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] asked people to facilitate but he forbade them to bear down hard on others or constrain. “Pacify”, he said, “and do not disincline”. [Sahih Muslim 2/82,83] When it happened that he arrived at the battlefield by night, he would never invade the enemy till it was morning. He utterly forbade burning (i.e. torturing people) in fire, killing children and women or even beating them. He also forbade theft and robbery and proceeded so far as to say gains acquired through plundering are not less forbidden than the flesh of a corpse. Corruption of tillage and race and cutting down of trees were all forbidden unless they were badly needed and there was no other substitute:

“Do not kill a wounded person nor run after a fleeing one or kill a captive.”

He decreed that envoys cannot be killed. He also stressed on not killing those who made covenants. He even said:

“He whoever kills one who is under pledge to a covenant shall not smell Paradise, though its smell could be experienced at a forty-year distance from it.”

There were some other noble rules which purified wars from their Al-Jahiliyah (pre-Islamic) filthiness and turned them into sacred wars. [Za'd Al-Ma'ad 2/64-68; and for details Jihad in Islam p.216-262]

I believe this should clarify any acquired misconception readers hold toward our beloved Noble Prophet (peace be upon him). And to God is the judgement in all affairs.

---

ConclusionThe Western Orientalist Bernard Lewis notes,

From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition.
(Bernard Lewis, Islam In History, 1993, Open Court Publishing, pp.104-105)

We have utilized their scientific methodology to expose the false narratives attributed to the Prophet (peace be upon him) about the alleged killing of Abu ‘Afak and ‘Asma’ bint Marwan. Examination of isnad (i.e., chain of reporters) has revealed the unreliability of both stories. Also, examination of matn (i.e., text) has revealed their inevitable contradiction with vigorously authentic traditions and established Islamic principles. ‘Abdûr-Rahmân I. Doi had stated that

As far as the Matn is concerned, the following principles of criticism of the Hadith are laid down:
(1) The Hadith should not be contrary to the text or the teaching of the Qur’an or the accepted basic principles of Islam.
(2) The Hadith should not be against the dictates of reason or laws of nature and common experience.
(3) The Hadith should not be contrary to the Traditions which have already been accepted by authorities as reliable and authentic by applying all principles.
(4) The Hadith which sings the praises and excellence of any tribe, place or persons should be generally rejected
(5) The Hadith that contains the dates and minute details of the future events should be rejected.
(6) The Hadith that contains some remarks of the Prophet which are not in keeping with the Islamic belief of Prophethood and the position of the Holy Prophet or such expressions as may not be suitable to him, should be rejected.[5]

But critics may have an objection; if these stories are untrue, then why they are mentioned in Islamic references in the first place? In response, we have shown the position of learned Muslim scholars toward references of biographies whose authors used to copy masses of reports without check or criticism. These particular stories even prove their unscientific methodology because they are reported without isnad at all. This is extremely unusual of any respectable scholar. Ibn Jarir At-Tabari (224-310 A.H.) in his encyclopedic book of history “Tarik Al-Umam wa Al-Mulouk” did not give mention of these stories at all despite the fact that he mentions far less significant reports in his book.

Hence, based on the empirical evidence, we can therefore conclude that the so-called “killing” of Abu ‘Afak and ‘Asma’ bint Marwan is inherently false and had never happened. This certainly throws the spanner into the works of the missionary’s “only” conclusion, which is based upon nothing but hatred, paranoia and xenophobia towards the elect Apostle of God, Muhammad (peace be upon him).

And Allah knows best.

My main article to post this article to refute Ibn Kamunna in:

http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2110