|
list
|
..
|
Chapter
13:
False Allegations of Atrocities:
|
||
Biased Criticism
||
Interdiction against Killing Women
||
Abu Afak ||
Only
Combatants could be Killed
||
Ka`b
ibn Ashraf ||
Abul
Huqaiq ||
Permitting
Rape is a Grievous Calumny
||
|
"Thus it is by Allah's mercy
that thou art gentle to them. And hadst thou been rough,
hard-hearted, they would certainly have dispersed from
around thee" - 3:159.
Biased
Criticism:
European criticism seems to
have lost its sense of justice in dealing with the Prophet.
All the rates of that criticism seem to be subject to the
one consideration that whatever is unfavourable and damaging
to the Prophet's reputation must be accepted as true. As an
example of this trend of criticism, I take Mr. Cash's
"Expansion of Islam" to which the author has attached an
appendix of four pages in which he has collected examples of
what he calls "assassinations," carded out at the Prophet's
instigation and for which he calls the Prophet "cruel,
treacherous and relentless" (p. 29). With one exception Mr.
Cash has taken his material from Muir and, though a list of
original authorities had been added, not the least attempt
has been made to consider them critically before condemning
a man who is looked upon as a model of virtue and kindness
by 400 millions of men. The cases of alleged
"assassinations" are five in all and a sixth case is that of
Bani Quraizah which has already been dealt with in the
9th chapter. The last charge is that of
permitting a rape, a charge false on the face of it and
unknown even to Muir. A brief discussion of these cases is
given below.
How Muslims Bore
Abuses:
The first thing that strikes
us here is that five out of the six alleged cases of
"assassination" and "massacre" relate to Jews. The Jews were
"the people of the Book," and ordinarily the dealings of
Muslims with the people of the Book were much more lenient
than their dealings with Arab idolaters. How was it then
that the people of the Book, people whose Prophets are
frequently mentioned with the utmost respect in the Holy
Qur'an - how was it that these very people were chosen for
assassination and such crimes were not perpetrated against
the Arab idolaters who had most relentlessly persecuted the
Muslims for thirteen years at Makkah, and had taken up the
sword to deal a decisive blow at Madinah? Sir William Muir
and Mr. Cash assert that all these persons were murdered for
no offence other than that of composing verses "which
annoyed the Mussalmans." Poetry was not a special vocation
of the Jews, and verses abusing Islam and the Muslims were
produced in much greater abundance by idolatrous Arabs than
by Jews. In fact, it was the Arab, not the Jew, whose
particular vocation was poetry, and satire and abusive
poetry were used as weapons to discredit and defame Islam
specially by the Arabs. Neither Muir nor Cash has taken the
trouble of testing the reliability of the record on whose
basis he has dared to condemn the most merciful and truest
of men as cruel and treacherous. If the writer had gone to
the root of the question, he would have found that the
Prophet and the Muslims bore patiently the severest abuses
and the annoying verses of all their opponents, whether Jews
or idolaters. Indeed, the Holy Qur'an had plainly enjoined
on them that they should bear all abuses patiently, whether
they came from idolaters or from Jews and Christians. Here
is a verse belonging to a period when the Muslims had
already entered on a state of war with their opponents: "And
you will certainly hear from those who have been given the
Book before you and from the idolaters much abuse. And if
you are patient and keep your duty, surely this is an affair
of great resolution" (3:186). This verse occurs in a chapter
which contains an account of the battle of Uhud, fought in
the 3rd year of Hijrah, and could not
therefore have been revealed earlier than that year, and
this is just the period to which most of the alleged
assassinations relate. How was it possible for the Prophet
and his follower's to go directly against the plain
injunction of the Holy Qur'an? The Holy Prophet could not go
against any Quranic injunction, and the Qur'an says plainly,
and says it at a time when war was going on with both the
polytheistic Arabs and the Jews, that Muslims shall have to
hear such abuse, and they must not only bear the abuse
patiently but should even guard against doing similar evil,
to say nothing of murdering their abusers. How could the
Prophet in the face of such a plain injunction order the
murder of those who abused him, and how could the Muslims
carry out an order which was directly opposed to the Holy
Qur'an? It was simply impossible, and if Ibn Hisham or
Waqidi says that the Prophet ordered the assassination of
his abusers, it is Ibn Hisham or Waqidi - a frail authority
after all - that must be rejected, and not the Qur'an, which
is admittedly the most reliable source of information as to
the doings of the Prophet. The Qur'an had allowed fighting
against an aggressive enemy, yet it refused to give sanction
to the murder of any who abused the Prophet and Islam; nay,
it plainly required such abuse to be borne patiently. It is
simply inconceivable that the Prophet should order the
murder of people for annoying poems and, at the same time
and in the same breath, forbid that abuse should be met with
otherwise than by patient endurance.
Interdiction
against Killing Women:
Let us now take the cases
individually. The first case cited by Mr. Cash is that of
Asma' of the tribe of Aus. She is said to have been a
poetess who wrote some verses stating that the Prophet was
an upstart who had slain many of their chiefs, referring to
the battle of Badr. It is stated that she was brutally
murdered for this abuse by a Muslim named `Umair, and that
the Prophet not only approved of this murder but also
praised `Umair for the deed. The authorities quoted are
Waqidi, Ibn Hisham and Ibn Sa'd. That this is not a reliable
record is shown not only by what has been stated above -
that the Holy Qur'an never allowed the murder of an abuser -
but also by clear directions repeatedly given by the Holy
Prophet that no woman was to be killed even though she took
part in actual war with the Muslims. No less an authority
than Bukhari has a chapter on the "Murder of Women during
War" (Kitab aI-Jihad) in which the following
report from Ibn `Umar is recorded: "A woman was found killed
in one of the battles fought by the Holy Prophet, so the
Holy Prophet forbade the killing of women and children." If
the Holy Prophet forbade the killing of women even when they
were actually accompanying the enemy forces, how could he
approve or applaud the killing of a woman for simply abusing
or composing some annoying verses? Even the Companions of
the Holy Prophet were so well aware of his strict orders
against the killing of women that when Abul Huqaiq's wife
interposed herself between them and Abul Huqaiq, they had to
withhold their raised swords "because they remembered that
the Holy Prophet had forbidden the killing of a woman"
(Fath al-Bari, ch. Killing of Abul Huqaiq). In the
face of this clear testimony, none but a biased mind can
accept as reliable a report which relates that the Holy
Prophet had ordered and applauded the killing of a woman
simply for the offence that she composed annoying verses.
This report is undoubtedly a forgery.
The fact is thus established beyond
the shadow of a doubt that the Holy Prophet gave a clear
interdiction against the murder of women even in wars. In
this connection, a saying of the Holy Prophet has been
quoted from the most reliable traditionist of Islam, the
Imam Bukhari. The heading under which Bukhari quotes this
saying is "Murder of Women during Wars," thus showing that
the interdiction against the murder of women was to be
observed even in wars. Bukhari is not alone in reporting the
incident and the interdiction; it is contained in all the
books of the Sihah Sittah (the six reliable collections of
the Traditions of the Holy Prophet [pbuh]) with the
exception of only one, and therefore its authenticity is
beyond dispute. Moreover, their interdiction is accepted as
a basic principle by later jurists. Thus according to Malik
and Auza'i, the killing of women and children is not allowed
under any circumstances whatsoever, and according to Shafi'i
and Kufis, a woman may be killed only when she is a
combatant, while according to one authority, even when a
woman is a combatant it is not lawful to kill her
intentionally unless she is about to kill or attack a man
with the intention of killing him. (`Aun al-Ma'bud,
Commentary on Abu Dawud, ch. Murder of Women). According to
Malik and Auza'i, however, as already stated, a woman should
not be killed under any condition, so much so that if a
fighting force takes the shelter of women and children or
takes shelter in a fort or a boat in which there are also
women and children with them, it is not lawful to shoot at
or set fire to the fort or the boat (Fath al-Bari,
ch. Ahl al-dar-i yabitun). In the face of these facts it is
simply unthinkable that the Prophet should have ordered the
assassination of a woman, under peaceful conditions, for no
other fault than singing certain annoying verses.
Abu Afak:
The next incident related by
Mr. Cash is that relating to the alleged assassination of
Abu Afak, "an aged Jewish proselyte, whose offence was
similar to that of Asma'." We have no hesitation in calling
this story as baseless a fabrication as that relating to the
murder of Asma'. Our reason for doing this is that the
interdiction against the murder of women also included two
other classes, viz., children and old men. It is true
that the saying of the Prophet as reported in the Bukhari
mentions only women and children, and not aged
persons, but there is a hadith in Abu Dawud
(ch. Du'a al-Mushrikin) reported by Anas, son of Malik,
according to which the Holy Prophet said: "Do not kill an
aged person, nor a child, nor a minor, nor a woman." That
the Prophet expressly forbade the killing of old men appears
also from the directions given by Abu Bakr, the first
Caliph, to Yazid, son of Abu Sufyan, when he sent him in
command of an army to Syria. In the directions given to him
the following relates to our subject: "Do not kill children,
nor women, nor old men." (Fath al-Qadir, vol. v, p.
202.) It is clear that Abu Bakr could give such directions
only on the authority of the Holy Prophet. Hence there was
an interdiction against the killing of old men as there was
against the killing of women. And it is impossible, we
repeat, that the Holy Prophet should have given such clear
injunctions and then himself ordered the killing of "an aged
Jewish proselyte," as Abu Afak is said to have been, and for
no offence but that he composed some annoying
verses.
Only Combatants
could be Killed:
In fact, as the Hidayah
has put it clearly, a person's life, unless he is
a murderer, cannot be taken on any ground other than that he
is a combatant: "And they should not kill a woman, nor a
child, nor an aged person, nor one who does not take part in
a war, nor a blind man, because what makes it lawful to take
a man's life, according to us, is his being a combatant, and
this is not true in their case" (ch. Kaifiyyat
al-Qital). In fact, this conclusion, which is the basic
principle of the Hanifite law, is based on the express words
of the Holy Prophet himself. As Abu Dawud reports on the
authority of Rabah, son of Rabi`: "We were with the Prophet
in a certain battle, and he saw the people gather together
in one place. So he sent a man to make an inquiry as to why
the people had gathered together. The messenger came back
and said, "There is a woman killed." The Holy Prophet said,
She was not Fighting. The reporter says that Khalid
was leading at the time. So the Prophet sent a man to Khalid
and asked him to tell Khalid that he should not kill a woman
nor a hireling". (ch. Qatl al-Nisa’). By
remarking that "she was not fighting", the Holy Prophet made
it plain that even in battle only such persons could be
killed as actually took part in fighting, and along with
women he excepted hirelings, because they were only hired
for other work and did not take part in actual fighting. It
is on this basis that the Hanifite law excepts, along with
women, children and old men, all such persons as cannot take
part in fighting. And the conclusion is inevitable that
according to the Holy Prophet's own injunctions the killing
of a person was not lawful unless he took part in fighting,
and any report to the effect that a person was killed though
he was not a combatant is either untrue or defective, even
if it is met with in a reliable collection of traditions.
And as for biographies, they cannot be trusted at all in
such matters, and the case of Ibn Sunainah's murder must be
rejected as untrue. The statement that this murder was due
to the Prophet giving a general order for the slaughter of
the Jews is sufficient to discredit this report, for not
only would such an order be against the clear injunctions of
the Qur'an, but also because if such an order were given it
would not have resulted in the murder of a single
Jew.
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,
Cash, notwithstanding his 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 Holy Prophet
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." (Zurqani, vol. ii, p.
10)
(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" (Zurqani, vol. ii, p. 11)
"And according to Kalbi, he
united in a league with the Quraish before the curtains
of the Ka'bah, to fight against the Muslims." (Zurqani,
vol. ii, p. 11)
"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." (Zurqani, vol. ii, p. 12)
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"
(Zurqani, vol. ii, p. 12). 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 the Holy Prophet 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 Holy Prophet 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:
Mr. Cash's last charge against
the Holy Prophet, i.e., having allowed rape of the women of
Bani Mustaliq, is a grievous calumny. And the allegation
that "all the Tradition 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 Khudri that some people in the Muslim army intended
contracting temporary marriage relations with some women who
were prisoners of war and making 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 treated. 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 Mr. Cash's 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 Holy Prophet, peace and
blessings of Allah be upon him.
Top
footer
|
'E-mail'
this page to a friend!
|
E-mail
Us!
This website is designed,
developed and maintained by the members of:
The Lahore
Ahmadiyya Movement for the Propagation of
Islam
(Ahmadiyya
Anjuman Isha'at-e-Islam, Lahore
-- A.A.I.I.L.)
and is being managed in the Netherlands.
The responsibility of the content
of this website lies with the respective
authors
You may print-out and spread this
literature for the propagation of Islam provided our website
[aaiil.org]
is acknowledged
|
