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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reuben_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My question about this is, why would all’ah command someone be killed when he gave this commandment:
Though shalt not KILL!
or is that command corrupted? 😃
 
My question about this is, why would all’ah command someone be killed when he gave this commandment:
Though shalt not KILL!
I don’t know my dear… I don’t know…

From the same link I provided above…
He then held his head fast and said to his companions: “Do your job.”
And they killed him.
The group of men came back after fulfilling their mission.
One of them Al-Harith bin Aws was wounded by mistake with the swords of his men, and was bleeding badly.
When they reached Baqee‘ Al-Gharqad, they shouted, “Allâh is Great”.
The Prophet (Peace be upon him) heard them and realized that they had killed the enemy of Allâh.
As they saw him, he said: “Cheerful faces are yours.”
In reply, they said: “And yours O Messenger of Allâh.”
They handed the head of the tyrant over to him. He entertained Allâh’s praise for their success.
 
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?
Many people use answering islam JUST like muslims use answering Christianity web site…

But… read **my **post…

My source is **NOT **from answering islam
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.
**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?tab…1&bid=7&cid=26

Scroll down to heading:

Ka‘b bin Al-Ashraf, killed
 
And Reuben - Please don’t leave your thread - please return to it. :hug1:

Thanks!
 
And Reuben - Please don’t leave your thread - please return to it. :hug1:

Thanks!
Thank you very much for the support. :hug1:

I find it difficult to really carry on a meaningful discussion with this Muslim poster as he will try to run you down. I know it’s his discussing technique but it stinks.

Anyway, I don’t think I had made any mistake as far as the topic is concerned. He may not agree but that does not mean I cannot have my opinion on how I see the whole thing. There is accusation going back and forth but he cannot deny the Hadith, which he tried to do - the poet being killed. I don’t know for what purpose; it is there right before our very eyes.

God bless.
 
actually the correct answer for your questions is " yes" 😃
he was Medinan , and Madianah was his country
Ka’b was not from Mohammad’s tribe. Medina is not a country. Even if it is, Ka’b was not Mohammad’s subject.
if it wasn’t death , then what was it ?
Politic. Ka’b did not fight him. It was political infighting.

The argument for treason is weak. It is a postulation that looks to deviate from the real reason of the killing – that the poems were offensive to Mohammad and his tribe.

As there is argument for treason, other commentators also argued that it was not. One specifically gave the reason as retaliation for the slight in their (Mohammad’s tribe) honor.
The official reason as stated in the Hadith is that Ka’b had ‘hurt Allah and Allah’s apostle’, in Mohammad’s own word. Since we cannot see Allah we know who was actually hurt by the poem.

Let’s go to the sequence of the events again.

(1) Ka’b went to Mekkah to eulogize the Mekkan notables who were put to death by Mohammad. The killing saddened Ka’b and the eulogy was not favorable to Mohammad (of course).
(2) Ka’b went back to Medina and composed a poem degrading Muslim women – it was degrading because it described them exposing their private parts.

When Mohammad asked for volunteers to kill Ka’b, his henchmen naturally took it up. The reason is obvious:
(1) Mohammad was personally offended by the eulogy in Mekkah, so he had a motive for the killing.
(2) The tribes were offended by the insult on their women and thus they had a motive too.

It was noted in those days this was enough reason for the killing.

The reason of treason is weak because what Ka’b did was basically political. He did not kill anybody or actually caused a rebellion against Mohammad. It’s akin to a political figure today that calls for the destruction of Israel and asked Muslims to rise up and fight against her.

Well, Israel shouldn’t kill that person, say for example when he leaves his country to speak in the united Nation in New York, and taking advantage that opportunity to ambush him. Closer analogy would be the Intifada by the Israeli/Palestinian Arabs - the call for the Arabs to rise against the Israeli occupation. So should Israel murder their political leaders?

So basically, the Hadith is right. The primary reason for Mohammad to have Ka’b killed is because of the offensive poem in Mekkah. He had willing henchmen to do the job for him because they also had a stake in the killing.

Obviously Mohammad already had his eyes on the bigger scheme of thing. He wanted to expand. After Ka’b was killed he moved on to attack his tribe and thus eliminate a potential enemy. Why did he attack them? After all they did not mount any military operation against Mohammad; in fact they (Jews) were so sacred after Ka’b was killed that military action was unthinkable at that point in time. Yet Mohammad attacked them nevertheless. So there was a plan already in the mind of Mohammad.

It also looks like nobody should make fun of him. Ka’b therefore had become for him an example for all to see. I would see this happens until today because obviously some (not all) Muslims follow this example.
 
in OP you request that our (name removed by moderator)uts should to be objective , and the discussion should to be constructive

from islamic prespective we gave you many reasons for killing him , and we didn’t deny that one of these reasons was his insults to muslims women and his poetry to raise a war against muslims

you didn’t denied the other reasons we presented , but you insist that his only fault was the poetry !

that’s fine with me

my concern now is about treason , how can’t you consider these acts as a treason

this is your own defination for this word " treason " in post # 12
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.
and that’s what Ka’b did
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 with muslims

4- Some sources suggest that during his visit to Mecca, Ka’b concluded a treaty with Abu Sufyan, stipulating cooperation between the Quraysh and Jews against Muhammad
The reason of treason is weak because what Ka’b did was basically political. He did not kill anybody or actually caused a rebellion against Mohammad. It’s akin to a political figure today that calls for the destruction of Israel and asked Muslims to rise up and fight against her.
Well, Israel shouldn’t kill that person, say for example when he leaves his country to speak in the united Nation in New York, and taking advantage that opportunity to ambush him. Closer analogy would be the Intifada by the Israeli/Palestinian Arabs - the call for the Arabs to rise against the Israeli occupation. So should Israel murder their political leaders?
did you read the signed covenant between Banu Nadir and the Muslims ?
 
in OP you request that our (name removed by moderator)uts should to be objective , and the discussion should to be constructive

from islamic prespective we gave you many reasons for killing him , and we didn’t deny that one of these reasons was his insults to muslims women and his poetry to raise a war against muslims

you didn’t denied the other reasons we presented , but you insist that his only fault was the poetry !

that’s fine with me

my concern now is about treason , how can’t you consider these acts as a treason

this is your own defination for this word " treason " in post # 12

and that’s what Ka’b did
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 with muslims

4- Some sources suggest that during his visit to Mecca, Ka’b concluded a treaty with Abu Sufyan, stipulating cooperation between the Quraysh and Jews against Muhammad

did you read the signed covenant between Banu Nadir and the Muslims ?
The kind of ‘treason’ that Ka’b committed was not sufficient to have him killed. By using the word ‘treason’, Islamic apologists are going for the overkill.

You will surely agree with me that no treason was mentioned in the Hadith. What moved Mohammad to finally have him killed were the poems. It was a genius move by him – he was able to rouse his followers to do the assassination while at the same time fulfilled his own objective, that is having Ka’b killed and an intimidation to subdue the latter tribe and as an example for anyone who dare to stand up against him.

As I had mentioned, there was no military operation by Ka’b against Mohammad. Therefore it was purely rhetorical and political power play.

I have no complaint against Mohammad here. If I were him I would have done the same – eliminate your potential enemy before he could do further harm. Except that if you see what happened subsequently, Mohammad was not satisfied in just killing Ka’b – he (Mohammad) had greater design in his mind – to conquer Ka’b’s tribe and eventually moved in for the kill against Mekkah.

But here we are talking about a prophet, of peace (sic). To me his action was not consistent to that claim. Moreover, there are more than one characteristic of peace and religion being transgressed here. To name a few – lying, revenged killing and anger. These are all present in the intrigue of the murder of Ka’b ibn Al-asharaf.
 
The kind of ‘treason’ that Ka’b committed was not sufficient to have him killed. By using the word ‘treason’, Islamic apologists are going for the overkill.
at least you agree that he commited the treachery!
You will surely agree with me that no treason was mentioned in the Hadith. What moved Mohammad to finally have him killed were the poems. It was a genius move by him – he was able to rouse his followers to do the assassination while at the same time fulfilled his own objective, that is having Ka’b killed and an intimidation to subdue the latter tribe and as an example for anyone who dare to stand up against him.
and you will agree with me that the first line in the hadeeth says
At this stage, the situation became unbearable and could no longer be put up with.
which means to me that it wasn’t the only reason to kill him
As I had mentioned, there was no military operation by Ka’b against Mohammad. Therefore it was purely rhetorical and political power play.
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”
ibid., 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.”

“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.”
ibid., 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.
But here we are talking about a prophet, of peace (sic). To me his action was not consistent to that claim. Moreover, there are more than one characteristic of peace and religion being transgressed here. To name a few – lying, revenged killing and anger. These are all present in the intrigue of the murder of Ka’b ibn Al-asharaf.
are we talking about a prophet of peace ?
i thought we were talking about why Ka’b was killed :confused:
 
Thank you for being with me in getting deeper into this issue. I did not deny that Ka’b maligned Mohammad. I can even admit it was a treachery. My objective in the study – was that so-called treachery warrant an assassination? You said yes, which is fine. But what treachery did he commit? Satirical poem!

The bottom line – the only recorded evidence that Ka’b was killed was because of the poems he composed. One was satirizing Mohammad personally and the other slighting Muslim women.

Ka’b did not kill any of Mohammad’s men.
He did not lift up any weapon.
He did not raise an army.
He did not mount any military attack on Mohammad.

His crime was coming out with the poems, an indirect dig at Mohammad. He was unhappy because Mohammad put to death the notables of Mekkah, naturally criticism would be leveled against him by Ka’b.

Treason is an overkill to justify his killing. The obvious reason Muslim apologists need to use this route is if they want to avoid the poems being the reason for the killing. That seems to me is their course. 🙂

Bukhari vol.5 book 59 no.360 p.248 is the longest hadith on the assassination of Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf. “(369) Narrated Jabin bin ‘Abdullah : Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?’ Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?’ The Prophet said, ‘Yes.’ Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka’b).’ The Prophet said, ‘You may say it.’ Then Muhammad bin Maslama went to Ka’b and said, ‘That man (i.e. Muhammad demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) from us, and he has troubled us, and I have come to borrow something from you.’ On that, Ka’b said, ‘By Allah, you will get tired of him!’ Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘Now as we have followed him, we do not want to leave him unless and until we see how his end is going to be. Now we want you to lend us a camel load or two of food.’ (Some differences between narrators about a camel load or two.) Ka’b said, ‘Yes, (I will lend you), but you should mortgage something to me.’ Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion said, ‘What do you want?’ Ka’b replied, ‘Mortgage your women to me.’ They said, ‘How can we mortgage our women to you and you are the most handsome of the Arabs?’ Ka’b said, ‘Then mortgage your sons to me.’ They said, ‘How can we mortgage our sons to you? Later they would be abused by the peoples’ saying that so-and-so has been mortgaged for a camel load of food. That would cause us great disgrace, but we will mortgage our arms [weapons] to you.’
Muhammad bin Maslama and his companion promised Ka’b that Muhammad would return to him. He came to Ka’b at night along with Ka’b’s foster brother, Abu Na’ila. Ka’b invited them to come into his fort, and then he went down to them. His wife asked him, ‘Where are you going at this time?’ Ka’b replied, ‘None but Muhammad bin Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na’ila have come.’ His wife said, ‘I hear a voice as if dropping blood.’ Ka’b said, ‘They are none but my brother Muhammad bin Maslama and my foster brother Abu Na’ila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed.” Muhammad bin Maslama went with two men. (Some sub-narrators mention the men as Abu ‘Abs bin Jabr, Al-Harith bin Aus and ‘Abbad bin Bishr.) So Muhammad bin Maslama went in together with two men, and said to them, ‘When Ka’b comes, I will touch his hair and smell it, and when you see that I have got hold of his head, strike him. I will let you smell his head.’ Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf came down to them, wrapped in his clothes, and diffusing perfume. Muhammad bin Maslama said, ‘I have never smelt a better scent than this.’ K’ab replied, ‘I have got the best Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume.’ Muhammad bin Maslama requested Ka’b ‘Wall you allow me to smell our head?’ Ka’b said, ‘Yes.’ Muhammad smelt it and made his companions smell it as well. Then he requested Ka’b again, ‘Will you let me (smell your head)?’ Ka’b said, ‘Yes.’ When Muhammad got a strong hold of him, he said (to his companions), ‘Get at him!’ So they killed him and went to the Prophet and informed him." Bukhari vol.5 book 59 no.369 p.248-250

Some study found that there is nothing in early Muslim literature that says Ka’b did any of these things (below). Without any evidence, perhaps the English translator made up this defense of Mohammed. Mohammed (truly or falsely) believed he said or did something, but the footnote might be inventing charges to justify the assassination.

In the translation of the Sahih Muslim hadiths, footnote 2269 p.990 says, “Ka’b b. Ashraf was a Jew belonging to the tribe of Nadir and thus he was pledged to honour the treaty made between the Muslims and Banu Nadir, but he never honoured that pledge. He conspired against the life of the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him), helped the Meccans against the Muslims, sang obscene songs and amatory sonnets with a view to defaming the Muslim women. The victory of Badr mortified him and he shifted to Mecca and stirred up the Quraish to avenge their heroes of Badr. All these acts of his were directly contravening the covenant in which he had entered along with the members of his tribe. Who can tolerate such an immoral conspirator who breaks the treaty, conspires against the Head of the Islamic State, and the State itself, and drags the honour of the women into the mire and pollutes the pious atmosphere of the Islamic society with immoral songs? All these crimes were enough to take his life.”
 
BTW, Ka’b bin Ashraf was a Meccan. He actually had a Jewish mother and a pagan Arab father but the hadiths just call him a Jew (See al-Tabari vol.7 p.xxix)

Is there any significant that the Hadith call Ka’b only a Jew?

Could even this false placement of K’ab’s identity contributed to what finally happened to him as a real motive of the killing?
 
Reuben I realised that I never read post #6, instead I started at #7! This means that I didn’t get your introduction, which testifies to your sincerity and contextualises #7 and so misunderstood you a little, which was the catalyst for the misunderstanding that ensued. As such - through my mistake - I have done you a dis-service, I’m sorry. Perhaps we could start over?

I just thought I might share this example. My Christian mother was working in a nursery and this woman was quite severe with the children. When my mum confronted her and asked her to explain her overly harsh behavior, the woman replied: 'Jesus said, Suffer the children [Matt 19:14]. This interpretation is false on so many levels its just painful despite the fact the reference is correct; she mis-understood the meaning of the Old English ‘suffer,’ didn’t contextualise the verse by quoting the whole thing let alone the surrounding verses and of course she completely ignored Christian tradition. This may give some insight into why a lot of this discussion is not really interpreting the event correctly.

Classical Islamic Scholarship understands the Ka’b incident as I have articulated. As such it gives rise for a legitimate leader in similar circumstances to use similar means. Islam, unlike Christianity, was a State during the time of the founder, Christianity had to wait until Constantine (although there elements before). When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire then it started to organise more definitively because at last it was allowed to and due to its growth it needed to. As such theologians came across organisational ‘problems’ that there was no explicit (there may well be implicit) teaching from scripture etc. Decisions had to be made regarding state business, so for example St Augustine of Hippo theorised with the concept of a ‘just war,’ because despite its vile nature, unfortunately at times its necessary for a state. Interestingly the conditions are similar to the concept of armed jihad; St Augustine stipulated, which gained more clarity under Pope Urban II and his predecessor, that to wage war it must be from: a legitimate authority, a just cause, the right intention. To truly compare Catholicism with Classical Islam requires a lot of research beyond merely the outward meaning of sacred texts.

The discussion on this topic has been making similarly painful mistakes as the ‘suffer’ example above, for example the hadith has not been contextualised (hence why commentary exists), the translation isn’t superb (hence the strange question of ‘hurt’), absolute literalism (hurt Allah and His Messenger - does ‘God’s house’ mean his address?), misunderstanding of Sunnah (because Sunnah is not just hadith), classical scholarship (interestingly in Bukhari it comes under the title ‘lying in war’) and the tradition that preserves the meaning is ignored. It doesn’t seem fair that Muslims should answer for an interpretation they don’t believe in. I take the point that a man in the Afghani mountains may use it for his own purposes, but then do heretics represent orthodoxy?

In your quest for finding out about Islam, I must say you have chosen an unusual route. This is rather an obscure part of Islam that relates to the finer points of Islamic governance, something which you can’t find in practice anywhere in the World today (and tradition has it, that it wont be again until the 2nd coming). Its a bit like starting out with Saeculum obscurum to try and understand the Catholic Church. The Fr Hans Kung book was a good sincere piece of advice. Also the interent - as we all know - isn’t great for finding objective truth, although I would really recommend the BBC website… for anything

I will endeavor to be as disciplined as you example 🙂 and again please forgive me for inciting ill feeling.

PS: The Jew thing is a misnomer because the Jewish tribe is a matriarchal line i.e. through the mother. There is sadly, some anti Jewish feeling in the modern Muslim World because of the Israel-Palestine conflict. As Norman Finkelstein points out, it just started as anti-Zionist feeling because they perceived an injustice and wanted them to stop occupying their land, but the ignorant masses changed this into anti-Jewish feeling as Zionism became the default position in Israel. On a side point, the Arabs are also a Semitic people
 
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?
:console:

The same reason Muslims cursing this man and his wife whenever they recite chapter 111 of Quran:

“PICKTHAL: The power of Abu Lahab will perish, and he will perish.
PICKTHAL: His wealth and gains will not exempt him.
PICKTHAL: He will be plunged in flaming Fire,
PICKTHAL: And his wife, the wood-carrier,
PICKTHAL: Will have upon her neck a halter of palm-fibre.”
 
BTW, Ka’b bin Ashraf was a Meccan. He actually had a Jewish mother and a pagan Arab father but the hadiths just call him a Jew (See al-Tabari vol.7 p.xxix)

Is there any significant that the Hadith call Ka’b only a Jew?

Could even this false placement of K’ab’s identity contributed to what finally happened to him as a real motive of the killing?
i think theire is a missing point in your side , Reuben
if the mother were jew
and the father were pagan from mekkah
then what is the problem if he was jew as his mother from Bani_nadir which lived in madinah ?

or do you suggest that he was pagan and jew in the same time , is that possible !
or do you suggest that he was pagan , not jew ? what is your objections ?
 
Thank you for being with me in getting deeper into this issue. I did not deny that Ka’b maligned Mohammad. I can even admit it was a treachery. My objective in the study – was that so-called treachery warrant an assassination? You said yes, which is fine. But what treachery did he commit? Satirical poem!
should i repeat all what i said again 🙂

broking a treaty ( treaty of peace) is treachery . (when you read this treaty you will understand why broking it considered treachery )

his inciting to Banu Nadir to revolt and make Civil War with muslims to help mekkans agianst muslims after they signed a treaty of peace with muslims is treachery

when he left Madinah and pledged allegiance to Mekkah during the time of official war between mekans and muslims , made himself one of the enemy who deserve to be killed
The bottom line – the only recorded evidence that Ka’b was killed was because of the poems he composed. One was satirizing Mohammad personally and the other slighting Muslim women.
Ka’b did not kill any of Mohammad’s men.
He did not lift up any weapon.
He did not raise an army.
He did not mount any military attack on Mohammad.
the fact that Kab went to the prophet Muhammad’s enemy and incited them against him?

that’s the same reason you can find govenments in the world will kill the spys , even if they didn’t kill directly anyone

so let him (Ka’b) do that with any other way but poem , he will deserve the same punishment , the problem was basically his treachery , not his treachery by poems , treachey isn’t accepted by any means

Back in time of mohammed (pbuh) , 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.

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
His crime was coming out with the poems, an indirect dig at Mohammad. He was unhappy because Mohammad put to death the notables of Mekkah, naturally criticism would be leveled against him by Ka’b.
Treason is an overkill to justify his killing. The obvious reason Muslim apologists need to use this route is if they want to avoid the poems being the reason for the killing. That seems to me is their course. 🙂
you have right to believe in what you want , it’s enough for me to represent the facts from islamic prespective
and i thank you for listnning anyway 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top