Ka‘b bin Al-Ashraf: Why was he killed?

[Reuben_J]

In referring to the death of this man as ordered by Mohammad who wrote poems satirizing him, I was called a lie by a certain Muslim poster. I am no expert in Islam and its History; some of the knowledge I have about it is from Muslims themselves and some from other sources. I just want a factual study – I am taking the simple route in this Forum. If possible your (name removed by moderator)ut should be objective as I am more interested in the truth of this matter.

What would be in your opinion the actual reason for the killing of Ka‘b bin Al-Ashraf? Was it treason or personal vendatta? If it’s treason, what is the definiton of treason? Would this killing set a precedent for the Muslims to follow today if any; and what would be its implication to them?

I have extracted a passage from the link that the poster gave me. You should read it in whole however to see for yourself the context. I am using his link to avoid any accusation of being biased. However if you have your own source, it may help to get a more balanced view on this subject.

Your (name removed by moderator)ut would be very much appreciated.

At this stage, the situation became unbearable and could no longer be put up with. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) gathered his men and said: “Who will kill Ka‘b bin Al-Ashraf? He had maligned Allâh, and His Messenger.” Thereupon, Muhammad bin Maslamah, ‘Abbad bin Bishr, Al-Harith bin Aws, Abu ‘Abs bin Hibr and Salkan bin Salamah, Ka‘b’s foster brother, volunteered to do the job.

On Rabi‘ Al-Awwal 14th, at night, the year 3 A.H. the people said good bye to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and set out in the Name of Allâh to implement the carefully drawn plan. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) stayed back praying for them and supplicating Allâh to render them success. The men went and called upon him at night. He came down although his wife warned him not to meet them alleging that: “I hear a voice which sounds like the voice of murder.”

He said: “It is only Muhammad bin Maslamah and my foster brother Abu Na’ilah. When a gentleman is called at night even if he be pierced with a spear, he should respond to the call.” Abu Na’ilah said to his companions: “As he comes down, I will extend my hand towards his head to smell and when I hold him fast, you should do your job.” So when he came down, they talked together for about an hour. They then invited him to go out and spend a nice time in the moonlight. On the way out, Abu Na’ilah remarked: “I smell the nicest perfume from you.” Ka‘b said: “Yes, I have with me a mistress who is the most scented of the women of Arabia.” Abu Na’ilah again 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.

sunnipath.com/library/Boo…0026.aspx#Ka‘b bin Al-Ashraf

 

[JHow]

In the presence of a state religion, religious crimes are always “treason”.

 

[Reuben_J]

In the presence of a state religion, religious crimes are always “treason”.

Muhammad wanted this man killed because he had “Maligned Allah and His apostle!” How does a man hurt Allah?

It is noted that Mohammad did not partake in killing of the man who was hurting Allah and himself but got someone else to do the job for him.

As a Christian this is puzzling for me - Muhammad allowed the assassin to lie to draw Ka`b out of his home. Is lying permitted in Islam?

Note:
The killing of **Ka‘b bin Al-Ashraf **can be found in some fo the Hadith. Bukhari is the longest but there are others too.

Bukhari vol 5 #369
Jabir bin 'Abdullah, hadith 4:270)

 

[Reuben_J]

I did a google on Ka‘b bin Al-Ashraf and found one of the best answers regarding this subject but this is from a non-Muslim.

Kab was a Jew. He hated Muhammad. Kab never lifted a weapon against Muhammad or any Muslim, he only voiced his opinion against Muhammad, and made up some unsavory poems about Muslim women. Muhammad saw him as a threat, and therefore had him murdered in the night.

The Jews around Medina were not under Muhammad’s rule; they had only entered into a general agreement with the Muslims, but this agreement was not a formal, established treaty. Muhammad did not have legal right to murder Kab, rather he took it upon himself to get rid of a man who hated him.

My problem here is, why do Muslims here think Mohammad is justified in murdering Kab?

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100927125923AA09Y2w

 

[men0wjv]

Thank-you for not clogging up my ‘mutual understanding’ thread with this. I will put a little something together in the hope that it helps, if you are sincere in a factual debate then it will be. I have to say that I think you have done a grave dis-service to your Church - it being the founder and main propagator of Philosophy and Logic in the West - as your comments are on this topic are painfully incoherent.

The ‘best’ answer is from yahoo answers for a start, is that really factual? Just looking at the emotive language and lack of justification for his assertions shows it to be just rhetorical BS.

this agreement was not a formal

This is false as you would know having read the full article. The treaty was a signed formal treaty.

Muhammad wanted this man killed because he had “Maligned Allah and His apostle!” How does a man hurt Allah?

Do you not understand idiom? Has the Catholic Church never used expressions like so and so has maligned Christ’s Church?

It is noted that Mohammad did not partake in killing of the man who was hurting Allah and himself but got someone else to do the job for him.

Does the head of state do every act himself or do they delegate? Given the quoted incident, wouldn’t it have been rather silly for Muhammad to have gone in person, since he’d be recognised?

Muhammad allowed the assassin to lie to draw Ka`b out of his home. Is lying permitted in Islam?

The default position is, lying is not permitted. Have you heard Sun Tzu famous quote: ‘All war is deception?’ Deception of an enemy in a war time situation is something else. Can you honestly say the Catholic Church or the Pontificate has never used such tactics? OK you may say Jesus didn’t, but then he was never head of State or in an official war, when Muhammad was in Makkah (a similar situation to Jesus) his actions were very different.

If you wish to know the facts they are as follows:

• There was an official recognised war between Makkah and Madinah
• There was a signed covenant between Banu Nadir and the Muslims
• Ka’b bin Ashraf of Banu Nadir left Madinah and pledged allegiance to Mekkah - even bowing down to their idols
• Ka’b returned to Madinah and incited Banu Nadir to revolt and make Civil War
• Having committed treason, being an intruder and surrounded by a revolutionary army Ka’b was assassinated
• Through the wisdom of the saying: ‘sever the head and the body will follow’ the revolutionary army was subdued and no further action was taken

The above may clarify why some of your statements in other posts are incorrect. For example, you’ve made reference to the Israel-Palestine situation, comparison of which cannot be made since there is no official war etc

Frankly Reuben and JHow, why do you keep going? Your arguments, when faced by an expert are absolutely shattered and yet you don’t apologise for your blatant mistakes and move on to some other point to try and nit pick. You say you want to know, yet all your actions suggest otherwise; that you have an agenda, a prejudice, that you just want to beat people over the head with. You may not agree or like the above, but before you make such arbitrary comments, I suggest you read deeply into your own history first before distorting mine.

 

[Reuben_J]

Thank-you for not clogging up my ‘mutual understanding’ thread with this.

I hope to be a discipline poster here. You are right, bringing this topic there would be to derail that thread and it might be closed as a result, like what happened to the thread before this when the discussion can be a bit heated what with the accusation of lying between the posters.

I will put a little something together in the hope that it helps, if you are sincere in a factual debate then it will be.

You seem quite paranoid; I guess I have to get used to this non-trusting attitude of yours. Putting a condition or suspecting your opponent as being insincere is never a ground for continuing dialoging because you are putting a bad premise from the very beginning.

I hope it will be a factual and objective debate as much as it can be. Isn’t that being stated in the OP?

I have to say that I think you have done a grave dis-service to your Church - it being the founder and main propagator of Philosophy and Logic in the West - as your comments are on this topic are painfully incoherent.

Thank you for this opinion. You think so highly of me – how could I ever speak for the Church and be her representative.

So far I have been consistent with my comment – the problem is that you are being prejudiced even before you could objectively assessed what I said. Most probably you are thinking that I am attacking Islam or the prophet. Rather than thinking like that you should just address what I said – which basically is factual statement of my thought.

From the last thread the thrust of my thought is this:

(1) That Muslims have to follow the example of Mohammad – what he had done during his lifetime.
(2) That Mohammad was not only a spiritual and religious figure but also a ruler. Therefore there is very little to separate Islam and what he personal did.
(3) Muslims are not evil; they would be like one’s nice next door neighbors if they keep their belief to themselves as personal guide to their lives.
(4) However Islam can easily become an ideology especially in view of (2). Today there is a rise of awareness among Muslims to be a nation regardless of their ethnic origin.

The ‘best’ answer is from yahoo answers for a start, is that really factual? Just looking at the emotive language and lack of justification for his assertions shows it to be just rhetorical BS.

I suggest you don’t indulge in expletive – it will the easiest way for you to be shown the exit around here.

The reference to yahoo is not that it is the best answer – yahoo considers it is the best answer from its participants in its forum regarding this topic. As I have cautioned – this is from a non-Muslim – so it should be seen as what it is - the element of a biased but nevertheless a view point from the other side of the coin.

This is false as you would know having read the full article. The treaty was a signed formal treaty.

I have to study this further. Thank you for reminding me on this. At this moment in time I thought that was a time of tribal warfare before the creation of Islamic nation or empire. But I keep my mind open on what you said.

FYI, I have read quite a number of other articles written by well established historians but at the moment I am still gathering my thought in the light of your rebuttal on all this.

Do you not understand idiom? Has the Catholic Church never used expressions like so and so has maligned Christ’s Church?

This is new to me. My God does not need defending nor do we kill when He is maligned. So teach me.

Does the head of state do every act himself or do they delegate? Given the quoted incident, wouldn’t it have been rather silly for Muhammad to have gone in person, since he’d be recognised?

Obviously not. I thought you are intelligent enough to know that it was not meant to be understood that way. The idea was why a man is ordered to be killed just because he wrote a nasty poem about you (and instigated others to hate and to disbelieve in you)?

The default position is, lying is not permitted. Have you heard Sun Tzu famous quote: ‘All war is deception?’ Deception of an enemy in a war time situation is something else.

That exactly was my point. Goodness, why do we have to go this far to reach this?

It was war – therefore deception, Sun Tzu, tactic, et al. And Mohammad was the ‘general’ hiding behind the scene directing every move.

Get the picture now?

No, I not am saying he is hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan but what these people are doing now is quite close to what he had done himself.

 

[Reuben_J]

Can you honestly say the Catholic Church or the Pontificate has never used such tactics?

OK you may say Jesus didn’t, but then he was never head of State or in an official war, when Muhammad was in Makkah (a similar situation to Jesus) his actions were very different.

Personally for me, for you to even compare Jesus here is a blasphemy. I am tolerating it because you are different in belief than mine and therefore should be accorded the benefit of doubt.

To answer your question – no, the Pope would not use such tactic. This is for the general. But then again, the Pope is no Mohammad.

If you wish to know the facts they are as follows:

• There was an official recognised war between Makkah and Madinah
• There was a signed covenant between Banu Nadir and the Muslims
• Ka’b bin Ashraf of Banu Nadir left Madinah and pledged allegiance to Mekkah - even bowing down to their idols
• Ka’b returned to Madinah and incited Banu Nadir to revolt and make Civil War
• Having committed treason, being an intruder and surrounded by a revolutionary army Ka’b was assassinated
• Through the wisdom of the saying: ‘sever the head and the body will follow’ the revolutionary army was subdued and no further action was taken

Thank you for the information. Readers however should weigh the truth themselves from the information available and should not listen to any biased conclusion no matter how good is the intention.

The above may clarify why some of your statements in other posts are incorrect. For example, you’ve made reference to the Israel-Palestine situation, comparison of which cannot be made since there is no official war etc

As far as the Palestinian Arabs and Israelis are concerned they are in a state of war even if there is no official declaration. All you need to do is to ask them and hear what they and their leaders say publicly or personally. You need to see the violence and death as a result of this war.

You also need to know the mind of those other Islamic leaders worldwide who nevertheless thought that a major war is going on between them and the power that might be.

Frankly Reuben and JHow, why do you keep going? Your arguments, when faced by an expert are absolutely shattered and yet you don’t apologise for your blatant mistakes and move on to some other point to try and nit pick. You say you want to know, yet all your actions suggest otherwise; that you have an agenda, a prejudice, that you just want to beat people over the head with. You may not agree or like the above, but before you make such arbitrary comments, I suggest you read deeply into your own history first before distorting mine.

Frankly, I wanted to stop after the two posts in that thread. I have no intention of going any further in any Islamic thread in this forum. It is when you accused me of lying that I need to explain all this. I did not lie! All the information I got is from what you get it too. It is only that our conclusion on this is not the same.

I had the feeling you did not even read my post when you said that I lie. You did not even see my reference. How could I lie when the information on this is publicly known from the Hadith? The only difference is how historians view them.

By harping on my intention you are trying to paint me as a poster with an insidious agenda and thus destroying my credibility so that no matter what I said on this subject it will not be taken seriously as one’s opinion.

 

[men0wjv]

If you feel that you are not benefiting or benefiting others in your posts then maybe knocking them on the head is a good idea. I don’t think there is such need, but you may wish to think about how you present yourself and really really try hard to understand the other posters before replying. Again your last post shows that you are human but there are some very curious comments. I’m not sure you’ve really understood anything?

To answer your question – no, the Pope would not use such tactic. This is for the general. But then again, the Pope is no Mohammad.

Note that I was not saying would (present) I’m asked did (past). If you denied a Pope has ever used such political manipulation in some sort of published work then I think it’d be heavily criticised by your academic peers. You need to read your own history - its fascinating. I’m not going to make your mistake and teach you your own religion, we’ll leave this.

biased conclusion

I wrote no conclusions? Making coherent well informed conclusions is a good thing every other is worthless.

As far as the Palestinian Arabs and Israelis are concerned they are in a state of war even if there is no official declaration. All you need to do is to ask them and hear what they and their leaders say publicly or personally. You need to see the violence and death as a result of this war.

This is an important point, which is exactly what I’m trying to say. They are not officially at war, no matter how cold the ‘cold war,’ so any violence is vigilantism unlike this example under discussion.

You also need to know the mind of those other Islamic leaders worldwide who nevertheless thought that a major war is going on between them and the power that might be.

A good point. They’ve made the same mistake as you; there is no official explicit war (making all violence forbidden) but (they say) there is one implicitly so we can attack and kill. They also make broad statements and lump all ‘kufar’ together and say ridiculous things like all Israeli people are actually soldiers because they live in the occupied land. Its all nonsense that is used to justify indiscriminate killing

I did not lie!

OK you didn’t intentionally lie, but saying that Ka’b was killed for simply writing defaming poetry is a lie. Where did you found out about it? That bastion (GREAT SARCASM) of truth answering Islam?

How could I lie when the information on this is publicly known from the Hadith?

You misrepresented the information and didn’t contextualise any of it and at first you made no references. Also it is a grave sin to interpret ahadith at face value without being a muhadith (hadith expert), which funnily enough is exactly the sin the terrorists make.

By harping on my intention you are trying to paint me as a poster with an insidious agenda and thus destroying my credibility so that no matter what I said on this subject it will not be taken seriously as one’s opinion.

All opinions are equal are they? It’s fine for Protestants to deny purgatory and the media to portray all priests as pedophiles? Of course its not because uninformed opinion is useless, completely useless. So you offer an opinion of your own concoction based on incoherent assumptions based on small portions of evidence and this is equal to 1400 years of sound scholarship is it? If you want to know about Islam, you ask the scholars. When I want to find out about Catholicism, I try and find priests or read books or journals that are well regarded. I don’t ask some ignoramus who knows nothing because doing that would make you believe concupiscence means all babies that die burn eternally in hell…

Is any of the above making sense? If you want truth then make the appropriate effort. Its immaterial if I agree with it or not, or like it or not because truth is truth and that is ultimately all we should care about.

If you are leaving the forum then go in peace, I’m sorry for offending you and there is no ill feeling on my part pax vobiscum

 

[Reuben_J]

Note that I was not saying would (present) I’m asked did (past). If you denied a Pope has ever used such political manipulation in some sort of published work then I think it’d be heavily criticised by your academic peers. You need to read your own history - its fascinating. I’m not going to make your mistake and teach you your own religion, we’ll leave this.

Unless you are insinuating that Mohammad is the same as the Pope. Do you?

Sure there were bad Popes in the past. We know that and we do not deny that. But what Mohammad did with Ka’b Ibn Alsharaf was not honorable. You admitted as much it was a deceit. What do you expect then from a non-Muslim who would see it more objectively in history?

You are trying to tell me that Mohammad is no different from the Popes. I say fine but that is not what Muslims claim Mohammad to be! The Popes are just human being albeit Christ’s vicar on earth; but they are still human with all the fault that humans can have. If you are putting Mohammad on the level of the Popes, you are sadly contradicting the believe of your well-polished peers.

I wrote no conclusions? Making coherent well informed conclusions is a good thing every other is worthless.

I can say that many scholars would disagree with you when you stated that there was declaration of treaty and war during the Kab Alsharaf’s murder. I did not dispute you then because I still respect your conclusion. And from where did you get them from? These are the people who have interest in propping up Mohammad’s image naturally.

God’s willing, I will critique every bit of Bukhari’s Hadith on this.

This is an important point, which is exactly what I’m trying to say. They are not officially at war, no matter how cold the ‘cold war,’ so any violence is vigilantism unlike this example under discussion.

What’s the difference when the action on the ground is the same? There is killing, there is violence. And you are not totally right – the other party obviously is declaring war.

A good point. They’ve made the same mistake as you; there is no official explicit war (making all violence forbidden) but (they say) there is one implicitly so we can attack and kill. They also make broad statements and lump all ‘kufar’ together and say ridiculous things like all Israeli people are actually soldiers because they live in the occupied land. Its all nonsense that is used to justify indiscriminate killing.

So where is this comes from? If a person’s willing to sacrifice his/her own lives, surely the motivation is really deep in their belief to do so. This is what I was saying – since the command is from Allah, it makes it even more binding for the adherence to follow.
Yes, I agree – this is all senseless. I do not say that all Muslims support them.

OK you didn’t intentionally lie, but saying that Ka’b was killed for simply writing defaming poetry is a lie. Where did you found out about it? That bastion (GREAT SARCASM) of truth answering Islam?

In Bukhari’s hadith it is NOT a lie! Ka’b was a poet. The poem was against Mohammad and against Muslim women.

You misrepresented the information and didn’t contextualise any of it and at first you made no references. Also it is a grave sin to interpret ahadith at face value without being a muhadith (hadith expert), which funnily enough is exactly the sin the terrorists make.

If you admit it, you were making a bluff but got caught. I did not make any reference because I know that Muslims know that this Hadith existS. When Protestants mention any obvious issues either in the Bible or Magestrium, even without mentioning any references we know what they are talking about and we would just rebut them if we do not agree with them.

You probably thought that I was making random accusation without knowing my source. In fact your reaction was to deny this (the killing) and hoping that I did not know what I was talking about. When I gave you my reference which I put in a quote, most probably you did not see it or the references below. When you replied to that post you still said I am a liar.

Only later after many posts did you reply saying that it was treason because it was done in a state of war! See how ridiculous your response was?

If you are leaving the forum then go in peace, I’m sorry for offending you and there is no ill feeling on my part pax vobiscum

I am willing to let this go. I do not keep score or harbor resentment. I just want to explain myself. Perhaps the honesty is on your part to answer, not mine. If you had been more honest it would not have come to this.

 

[elwill]

let us then gather the all facts which mentioned in both sides as an answering for the OP question

Ka‘b bin Al-Ashraf: Why was he killed ?

1- There was a signed covenant between Banu Nadir and the Muslims which Ka’b bin Al-ashraf broke it

2- Ka’b bin Ashraf of Banu Nadir left Madinah and pledged allegiance to Mekkah during the time of official war between mekans and muslims ( any sane man will consider that treason )

3- Ka’b returned to Madinah and incited Banu Nadir to revolt and make Civil War ( although theire were signed covenant between them)

4- finally it was recorded that he wrote poems satirizing mohammed (pbuh) . which i think it’s nothing with comparison to what he did above

now , do you think that killing such a man is unfair ?
do you think that his actions dosn’t fit your defination for the word " treason" ?

 

[jakasaki]

BUKHARI, VOLUME 5, #369

Narrated Jabir Abdullah:

Allah’s messenger said "Who is willing to kill Ka`b bin al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His apostle?"

Thereupon Maslama got up saying, “**O Allah’s messenger! Would you like that I kill him?” **
The prophet said, “Yes”.

Maslama said, "**Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka`b). **

The prophet said, “**You may say it.” **

~…

Just by reading the first few sentences it is clear that mohamad stated that he & allah was “hurt” by whatever Ka’b was saying againt mohamad & allah.

It is also clear that mohamad asked for a “volunteer” to kill Ka’b

It is also clear that mohamad allowed the killer to “lie” to Ka’b.

It has been asked already - how does a human “hurt” allah…???

Also to the new muslim poster ~

If I am not mistaken… I believe that calling any member on CAF a “liar” or stating a poster has “lied” or whatever a poster typed is a “lie” is against forum rules…

 

[Reuben_J]

**trea•son **

NOUN:

1. Violation of allegiance toward one’s country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one’s country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

Was Ka’b a Medinan? No. Was Medina his country or sovereign? No.
Even if he committed treason, was the punishment death?

In any case Ka’b was punished by death. The death punishment is nothing to do with treason but retaliation for a slight to a group’s honor in the culture of Arab society of the day.

Mohammad ordered the killing, the reason being more as stated.

Ka’b was infuriated at Muhammad’s execution of a number of Meccan notables of the Quraysh tribe who had been captured after the Muslim victory in the Battle of Badr in March 624. The traditional Muslim biography of Muhammad reports Ka’b as saying "…if Muhammad has indeed struck down those people, then it were better to be buried in the earth than to walk upon it!"Ibn Hisham. Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya (The Life of The Prophet). English translation in Stillman (1979), p. 124 He went to Mecca, where he wrote a poetic eulogy commemorating the Quraysh prisoners of war who had been killed upon Muhammad’s order after the Battle of Badr and encouraged the Quraysh to fight against the Muslims. Upon returning to Medina, Ka’b also wrote erotic poetry about Muslim women, which Muhammad and his followers found offensive.

….

Because the norms of the Arab society of that period demanded retaliation for a slight to a group’s honor, Muhammad called upon his followers to kill Ka’b, and Muhammad ibn Maslama offered his services, collecting four others, including a foster-brother of Ka’b. By pretending to have turned against Muhammad, they enticed Ka’b out of his fortress on a moonlight night for what was supposed to be negotiations of Ka’b’s sale of food to them. When the assassins went out on their mission, Muhammad accompanied them for much of their way. After Ka’b walked out of his fortress to meet ibn Maslama and his companions, they attacked Ka’b and killed him in spite of his vigorous resistance.Ibn Hisham. Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya (The Life of The Prophet). English translation in Stillman (1979), pp. 125–126

The Jews were terrified at the assassination of Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf, and as a Muslim biographer of Muhammad put it “…there was not a Jew who did not fear for his life”.Ibn Hisham. Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya (The Life of The Prophet). English translation in Stillman (1979), p. 127 Shortly after the killing of Ka’b, Muhammad attacked Banu Nadir and expelled them from Medina.Stillman (1979), p. 14

encycl.opentopia.com/term/Ka%27b_ibn_al-Ashraf

– sorry this link is not Answering Islam as what your other fellow Muslim may think.

 

[jakasaki]

Reuben -

I was just reading more on this stuff and it seems like after this occured, it is claimed that allah passed down surah 108 - for the “enemy of the prophet to be cut off”…

 

[men0wjv]

I want start with an apology. Firstly if it is against CAF rules to call someone a liar or the like then I’m truly sorry - I was unaware of that. Secondly I want to apologise for starting this thread again, I should have left it alone because most of the comments after my last post have been really unhelpful. If I’m being honest on that last post maybe I was a bit accusative and perhaps my ego got the better of me a bit, so I’m sorry for that too.

I thought that you (Reuben) - and others - were willfully trying to mislead, misrepresent and generally have no desire for the truth, but after reading the last few posts its clear you guys just don’t have the capacity, which basically means this whole conversation is futile. things like:

In Bukhari’s hadith it is NOT a lie! Ka’b was a poet. The poem was against Mohammad and against Muslim women.

Just show you have not understood anything at all, not even the slightest bit??? And things like:

I did not make any reference because I know that Muslims know that this Hadith existS. When Protestants mention any obvious issues either in the Bible or Magestrium, even without mentioning any references we know what they are talking about

Which is totally ridiculous given the context; you make reference to something that never happened (I know you can’t get this, but he wasn’t killed for mere poetry, there are loads of other examples where abusive poets are just ignored) and you are surprised I don’t know what you’re talking about???
Your sources are all rubbishy internet sites - do you not honestly not see a problem? If not then next time your unwell don’t go to the doctors just google search a cure and order it online - sheer madness??? I know I gave you a web link, but that is just an electronic version of a book. If you are really honest in your quest to find out about Islam then read Fr. Hans Kung’s book on Islam. If not then just keep wasting your time…
Have a nice life

 

[jakasaki]

I want start with an apology. Firstly if it is against CAF rules to call someone a liar or the like then I’m truly sorry - I was unaware of that. Secondly I want to apologise for starting this thread again, I should have left it alone because most of the comments after my last post have been really unhelpful. If I’m being honest on that last post maybe I was a bit accusative and perhaps my ego got the better of me a bit, so I’m sorry for that too.

I thought that you (Reuben) - and others - were willfully trying to mislead, misrepresent and generally have no desire for the truth, but after reading the last few posts its clear you guys just don’t have the capacity, which basically means this whole conversation is futile. things like:

Just show you have not understood anything at all, not even the slightest bit??? And things like:

Which is totally ridiculous given the context; you make reference to something that never happened (I know you can’t get this, but he wasn’t killed for mere poetry, there are loads of other examples where abusive poets are just ignored) and you are surprised I don’t know what you’re talking about???
Your sources are all rubbishy internet sites - do you not honestly not see a problem? If not then next time your unwell don’t go to the doctors just google search a cure and order it online - sheer madness??? I know I gave you a web link, but that is just an electronic version of a book. If you are really honest in your quest to find out about Islam then read Fr. Hans Kung’s book on Islam. If not then just keep wasting your time…
Have a nice life

**Allah’s messenger said “Who is willing to kill Ka`b bin al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His apostle?” **

How can a human/Ka’b hurt allah…???

 

[JHow]

…Frankly Reuben and JHow, why do you keep going? Your arguments, when faced by an expert are absolutely shattered and yet you don’t apologise for your blatant mistakes and move on to some other point to try and nit pick…

I have no dog in this hunt, and this is not the place to re-open a closed thread.

 

[jakasaki]

…
.
Frankly Reuben and JHow, why do you keep going? Your arguments, **when faced by an expert **are absolutely shattered and yet you don’t apologise for your blatant mistakes and move on to some other point to try and nit pick. You say you want to know, yet all your actions suggest otherwise; that you have an agenda, a prejudice, that you just want to beat people over the head with. You may not agree or like the above, but before you make such arbitrary comments, I suggest you read deeply into your own history first before distorting mine.

Who is this “expert” you are talking about.

 

[elwill]

**trea•son **

NOUN:

1. Violation of allegiance toward one’s country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one’s country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

Was Ka’b a Medinan? No. Was Medina his country or sovereign? No.

actually the correct answer for your questions is " yes"
he was Medinan , and Madianah was his country

Even if he committed treason, was the punishment death?

if it wasn’t death , then what was it ?

 

[jakasaki]

…
If you wish to know the facts they are as follows:
*]There was an official recognised war between Makkah and Madinah
*]There was a signed covenant between Banu Nadir and the Muslims
*]Ka’b bin Ashraf of Banu Nadir left Madinah and pledged allegiance to Mekkah - even bowing down to their idols
*]Ka’b returned to Madinah and incited Banu Nadir to revolt and make Civil War
*]Having committed treason, being an intruder and surrounded by a revolutionary army Ka’b was assassinated
*]Through the wisdom of the saying: ‘sever the head and the body will follow’ the revolutionary army was subdued and no further action was taken

…

Please note the above black bold font size 3:

So, Ka’b commited treason, caused chaos for mohamad therefore he had to be assissinated.

OK - I got it -

Why then does the hadith from Bukhari state that Ka’b “hurt allah & mohamad”.

Is allah hurt by treason???
Is mohamad hurt by treason???
Is allah hurt by chaos & rebellion???
Is mohamad hurt by chaos & rebellion???
Is allah hurt by a broken treaty?
Is mohamad hurt by broken treaty?

Who is mohamad to do this?

These Arab Jews, such as Ka’b & his people were living in that part of the country before mohamad was even born.

 

[jakasaki]

Reuben (et al)

I got this to add to your thread which validates/confirms your point on the “poetry” issue"

Quraan.com Authentic Islamic Literature

… snip -

On hearing the news of Badr, he got terribly exasperated and swore that he would prefer death to life if the news was true.

When this was confirmed he wrote poems satirizing Muhammad (Peace be upon him), eulogizing Quraish and enticing them against the Prophet (Peace be upon him).

He then rode to Makkah where he started to trigger the fire of war, and kindle rancour against the Muslims in Madinah.

When Abu Sufyan asked him which religion he was more inclined to, the religion of the Makkans or that of Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and his companions, he replied that the pagans were better guided.

… snip

**He then returned to Madinah to start a fresh campaign of slanderous propaganda that took the form of obscene songs and amatory sonnets with a view to defaming the Muslim women.

At this stage, the situation became unbearable and could no longer be put up with. **

The Prophet (Peace be upon him) gathered his men and said: “Who will kill Ka‘b bin Al-Ashraf? He had maligned Allâh, and His Messenger.”

Thereupon, Muhammad bin Maslamah, ‘Abbad bin Bishr, Al-Harith bin Aws, Abu ‘Abs bin Hibr and Salkan bin Salamah, Ka‘b’s foster brother, volunteered to do the job.

Muhammad bin Maslamah said: “O Messenger of Allâh, do you wish that I should kill him?” He said: “Yes.”
…
snip…

Source link:

quraan.com/index.aspx?tabindex=4&tabid=11&bid=7&cid=26

Scroll down to heading:

Ka‘b bin Al-Ashraf, killed