Was Prophet Muhammad Wrong For Killing Ka’ab bin Al Ashraf?

This post is meant to respond another Ibn Kamunna imagination of prophet Muhammad to be a merciless killer, I have before proved him wrong in Faithfreedom.org evolves to be Christian site and put him in disparate situation on not being able refute my arguments there, thus to make a loophole for himself to avoid answering my argument, he brought 2 issues that are not matters at hand and called me rude for saying “Stupid”, while he’s freely calls Islamic scholars writing as charade of idiocy (see our dialogues in here:here).

Infidels like Ibn Kamunna is every where, they feel that they’re the only people deserve insulting others but not prepared to receive insult from others. It’s becoming their mentality and as muslim I only can pity on them.

Ok now let’s deal with Ibn Kamunna article in: Muhammad The Wise Assassin.

First of you must realize that the time Ka’b Al Ashraf insulted prophet was at warring time, while Islam still growing disparately and just experienced the decisive battle with Meccan. It’s normal for a leader to make sure the safety of his community.

And Ka’ab Al Ashraf was a dangerous thread, he launched a derogatory poem against prophet and Muslims and incite Meccan to take revenge for their killed people.

Back in time when Arabia was into jihaalat, poem was so powerful that it was used to start wars. So you will find in the History of wars, before any battle, the poets were throwing verses of poems before throwing arrows.

And this is one of the reason why Qur’aan had a challenge that nobody could create such a word as the Qur’aan.

This poet already lighted the fire of war against my beloved Prophet and Islam, and if left alone was going to poor petrol in that fire. And the entire barbaric Arabs were going to stand against Him and Islam. The only way to put off that fire was to finish him.

Don’t let yourself get influenced by opposition, accept the reality, that if he did it He has good reasons otherwise he would not have done it. He was the most compassionate among the human race.
Ask help from Allah to make you understand the truth.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) ordered to kill him because his life would have costed many lives of companions as he was inciting Meccan to attack Madina.

And the following is a response of brother Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi:

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. (Source: What About The Killing of Ka’ab bin Al-Ashraf?)