S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Interesting conclusion. Might I ask what History book you’re reading? 
- Status
S
Sam_777
Guest
I think the word “treason” would be relevant if Ka‘b was a Muslim, but since he was a Jew then that word is irrelevant, however, from my Arabic history book, here are the reasons for the killing:
- He was a Jew (that is enough for killing him).
- He was wealthy and beautiful.
- He was a well known poet between the Arabs at that time.
- He was using his beauty to seduce Muslim women.
- He was provoking pagans against Muslims and Muhammed.
P
PNS2A
Guest
Peace and blessing of god to everyone… I would just like to give my final opinion to perhaps end this discussion from my side. Religion requires logic, we say we are not bias and we look at it from all angles. If this is the case then we are only looking at all the information that describes Mohammed’s (pbuh) actions and even then not all of it is being accounted for. We are just taking what we can find for face value. Again let’s take a look at the bigger picture.
Have we got any information on Ka’b or what sort of person he is??? Have we got an account of his actions except what the (the small amounts)hadith’s states prior to and after the event? If we went to court for justice can we use just the information we have so far (From a couple of hadiths that only describes that particular moment when the action was ordered) to prove someone did this for their own benefit or revenge - no. The judge will say we need to hear both sides of the story and that we also need to hear the events running up to an event. If someone told me, a man(x) goes and kills another man(Y) because he swore at him. From face value I will automatically say “send him to prison!” This would be any ones natural reaction. If the person then tells me, however that person(Y)(Who got killed) and his friends killed his(x’s) mother and sister prior to that crime and also was planning to kill him and still that person did not lay a hand on him until he was provoked, then anyone will say “it is not his fault.” If someone goes and kills your family for not believing what they believe what would you say and do. You would retaliate till you have avenged their death. Mohammed (pbuh) when he preached the word of God and if we take a look at the hadith’s it will tell you the going-ons of the Arabs and the Jews in Macca. The Arabs and the Jews against Mohammed and his followers went and tortured them and then killed them just because they said “believe in the one god”. If I say to you believe in the One God do I deserve to be punished and then killed. One hadith states the first martyr of Islam was a women called Sumaya (RA) who was killed by these groups of people because simply she would not stop believing in Mohammed and the one God. The opposing tribes took a spear and put it through her private part (But all praises be to God, she died saying one God and Mohammed is his messanger) and then they got her husband and tied him to a horse and ripped him into two parts. They killed many Muslim’s just because they denounced the Idol God’s and believed in the one God. If this started happening where you lived and you and your community were being killed just for your belief Jesus and nothing else (Not for harming anyone else), what would you do? The tribes of Macca and Madinah were corrupt hence the reason why God sent a messanger. The tribes other traditions were to bury female babies and infants alive (Because they did not respect women and believed they were just property and they could use and abuse them as they wished. Also how can an innocent baby girl be of any harm or bad) these were the teaching of the tribes of Macca and Medinah including Ka’bs group. If you believe this is right and this is what we need to stand up for then that is up to you.
When Mohammed(PBUH) came to power he did not go around killing every Christian and Jew. He said respect them for they too are Gods creation. Look at the government today they say the same. All humans should live accordingly with society, there is freedom of speech but if I go and incite hatred against the government I will be imprisoned (today this is know as fundamentalism or terrorism). If this is the case was Ka’b a fundamentalist/terrorsit etc???The state uses laws to store peace and order in society. People could have their own opinion during Mohammed’s time, the example are the Christians and the Jews who practiced their own religion at that time. This way of society maintained by Mohammed is still maintained in modern society. He was the first to create a society where different sects could live EQUALLY as long as they paid a tax to the state government and they were protected by this tax from all people including any muslims. Do we not have the same legislation today? If we can say these legislations are right, my question would be when it is implemented in Mohammeds time why is it wrong?
Final point is since Mohammed (pbuh) was the last messenger and god has said there will be no miracles to come any more until the coming up to the end of the world, what do the believers do against the tyrants? How will the people who believe in God live against tyrant like those of Mohammed’s(PBUH) time, how would we live if we are being killed if and there will be no miracle from God to help us? Hence the reason God gave permission to defend and protect yourselves against oppression. God is the all knower he knows how things will pan out hence the reason he gave criteria’s to follow and not to be ignorant and to be fair and patient. The hardest thing for someone who does not believe in God is to be patient. They cannot help themselves but to react to issues and these are the traits of a hypocrite as well. Mohammed (pbuh) said one of the first things that will take a person in to hell will be his tongue. He who controls his tongue then works his way to controlling himself can achieve patience and perseverance.
I would like to end my opinion quoting Surah Al-Asr of the glorious Quran which states:
“By the token of time”
“Surley Mankind are in loss”
“Except those who have faith (in the one God), and do righteous deeds, and (Join together) in mutual teaching of truth and of patience and constancy”
All praised be to God the most gracious, the most merciful and may the peace and blessing of God be upon you all.
Have we got any information on Ka’b or what sort of person he is??? Have we got an account of his actions except what the (the small amounts)hadith’s states prior to and after the event? If we went to court for justice can we use just the information we have so far (From a couple of hadiths that only describes that particular moment when the action was ordered) to prove someone did this for their own benefit or revenge - no. The judge will say we need to hear both sides of the story and that we also need to hear the events running up to an event. If someone told me, a man(x) goes and kills another man(Y) because he swore at him. From face value I will automatically say “send him to prison!” This would be any ones natural reaction. If the person then tells me, however that person(Y)(Who got killed) and his friends killed his(x’s) mother and sister prior to that crime and also was planning to kill him and still that person did not lay a hand on him until he was provoked, then anyone will say “it is not his fault.” If someone goes and kills your family for not believing what they believe what would you say and do. You would retaliate till you have avenged their death. Mohammed (pbuh) when he preached the word of God and if we take a look at the hadith’s it will tell you the going-ons of the Arabs and the Jews in Macca. The Arabs and the Jews against Mohammed and his followers went and tortured them and then killed them just because they said “believe in the one god”. If I say to you believe in the One God do I deserve to be punished and then killed. One hadith states the first martyr of Islam was a women called Sumaya (RA) who was killed by these groups of people because simply she would not stop believing in Mohammed and the one God. The opposing tribes took a spear and put it through her private part (But all praises be to God, she died saying one God and Mohammed is his messanger) and then they got her husband and tied him to a horse and ripped him into two parts. They killed many Muslim’s just because they denounced the Idol God’s and believed in the one God. If this started happening where you lived and you and your community were being killed just for your belief Jesus and nothing else (Not for harming anyone else), what would you do? The tribes of Macca and Madinah were corrupt hence the reason why God sent a messanger. The tribes other traditions were to bury female babies and infants alive (Because they did not respect women and believed they were just property and they could use and abuse them as they wished. Also how can an innocent baby girl be of any harm or bad) these were the teaching of the tribes of Macca and Medinah including Ka’bs group. If you believe this is right and this is what we need to stand up for then that is up to you.
When Mohammed(PBUH) came to power he did not go around killing every Christian and Jew. He said respect them for they too are Gods creation. Look at the government today they say the same. All humans should live accordingly with society, there is freedom of speech but if I go and incite hatred against the government I will be imprisoned (today this is know as fundamentalism or terrorism). If this is the case was Ka’b a fundamentalist/terrorsit etc???The state uses laws to store peace and order in society. People could have their own opinion during Mohammed’s time, the example are the Christians and the Jews who practiced their own religion at that time. This way of society maintained by Mohammed is still maintained in modern society. He was the first to create a society where different sects could live EQUALLY as long as they paid a tax to the state government and they were protected by this tax from all people including any muslims. Do we not have the same legislation today? If we can say these legislations are right, my question would be when it is implemented in Mohammeds time why is it wrong?
Final point is since Mohammed (pbuh) was the last messenger and god has said there will be no miracles to come any more until the coming up to the end of the world, what do the believers do against the tyrants? How will the people who believe in God live against tyrant like those of Mohammed’s(PBUH) time, how would we live if we are being killed if and there will be no miracle from God to help us? Hence the reason God gave permission to defend and protect yourselves against oppression. God is the all knower he knows how things will pan out hence the reason he gave criteria’s to follow and not to be ignorant and to be fair and patient. The hardest thing for someone who does not believe in God is to be patient. They cannot help themselves but to react to issues and these are the traits of a hypocrite as well. Mohammed (pbuh) said one of the first things that will take a person in to hell will be his tongue. He who controls his tongue then works his way to controlling himself can achieve patience and perseverance.
I would like to end my opinion quoting Surah Al-Asr of the glorious Quran which states:
“By the token of time”
“Surley Mankind are in loss”
“Except those who have faith (in the one God), and do righteous deeds, and (Join together) in mutual teaching of truth and of patience and constancy”
All praised be to God the most gracious, the most merciful and may the peace and blessing of God be upon you all.
M
men0wjv
Guest
I thought that I’d try the same endeavour, take of the turban off and try and start again to see where you’re coming from. It may help since two heads are better than one… or so they say
The problem with trying to be ‘objective’ about Islam is really that all the evidence is written by Muslims, there aren’t really any accounts from the pagan Arabs etc. You simply can’t escape the Muslim interpretation. It might be that we look afresh at the evidence to avoid apologia etc, but even then we’d have to ask if the Muslims were really that embarrassed with something they’d simply not record it.
If we start with the Bukhari hadith then with any book we have to ask who the author was and why did he write the book. Bukhari knew 600,000 ahadith and he said that 100,000 of them were rigorously authentic (sahih), but he only included 7,000 in his book. For a start we realise that it is only a portion of the ‘story.’ The book was written as an aide memoir for experts, which is why little explanation is included, which makes us realise we are getting an even smaller portion of the ‘story’ and that we may easily fall into error since he has assumed we have studied hadith, tafsir, logic etc.
The hadith about Ka’b comes up in (I’ve used A. Bewley’s excellent trans. found at: sunnipath.com/library/Hadith/H0002P0000.aspx) book 61 ‘jihad and experditions’ numbers 2867 and 2868. Since the vast majority of experts reading this book are jurists he’s titled 2867 with ‘lying in war’ and 2868 with ‘assassinating the people of war.’ Therefore we can deduce that this event took place in war time and that in war time lying and assassination may be legislated. It also appears in full in book 67 ‘Expeditions’ number 3811. Here Bukhari has tried to put events in chronological order, this hadith comes in the section titled ‘This happened at the beginning of the six month after the Battle of Badr and before Uhud’ which means we can deduce its time.
The motivation given in the hadith is ‘he has insulted Allah and His Messenger.’ This statement could mean that Ka’b said derogatory things about Islam and Muhammad (pbuh) and so it was a ‘revenge’ type attack. This interpretation would seem unlikely since Bukhari also has the following hadiths:
“[The people of Tai’f] struck and wounded him, and he said as he wiped the blood from his face, ‘O Allah, forgive my people. They do not know.’”
“The strong man is not the one who throws people in wrestling. The strong man is the one who has control of himself when he is angry.”
“A bedouin urinated in the mosque. The people moved towards him and the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘Let him be and pour a bucket or pail of water onto his urine. You were sent to make things easy and not to make them difficult.’”
“And you do not do evil to those Who do evil to you, but you deal With them with forgiveness and kindness.”
The Qur’an also states: “those who control their rage and pardon other people. Allah loves the do good-doers,” (3:134) and “Good action and bad action are not the same. Repel the bad with what is better” (41:33). Just from these evidences we can deduce a president established of not doing things out of anger and it seems Muhammad (pbuh) was someone in control of his anger and did not retaliate. There are plenty of other examples, like the one of Abu Lahab where the response to an insult was a witty retort (we consider it revelation chapt 111). In fact there are many examples when Muhammad (pbuh) showed restraint, (sticking just with Bukhari) such as when 'Uqbah ibn Abi Mu’ayt threw a placenta of a camel on him and he simply carried on praying. So the question is, why is the Ka’b situation so different that it required assassination?
M
men0wjv
Guest
We mentioned that Ka’b was killed during war time between Badr and Uhud, so it must have been when Muhammad (pbuh) was leader of Madinah. The aforementioned incidents happened in Mecca when Muhammad (pbuh) was not leader so it probably to do with that leadership. I thought maybe it was because in Madinah he was strong enough to respond, but this seems unlikely since he was protected by powerful allies like Abu Talib, otherwise the pagans would simply have killed him. If it was to do with leadership and during a war it may be to do with Ka’b being an enemy - maybe he was Meccan - or perhaps this insult relates to treason; treason does not necessarily require violence on the part of the criminal. For example Lord William Joyce was executed by the UK in 1946 for broadcasting Nazi propaganda - see UK legislation statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1038452.
We don’t know from the Bukhari evidence anything much about Ka’b. We have to look further afield and the most likely source to contextualise the situation and give us detail are the compilations of sirah (biography). Sirah is a type of hadith because it too follows the same chain of narration criteria and so is no less valid as a piece of evidence. There are many to choose, but the Sealed Nectar is highly acclaimed (it won an award), is dry because it sticks to the facts and is freely available (sunnipath.com/library/Books/B0033P0000.aspx). Here Ka’b is described as Jewish and the suggestion from the wording ‘He belonged to Tai’ tribe but his mother to Banu Nadir’ is that he was Jewish by ethnicity and considered part of Banu Nadir. We know also from the sirah that there was a ‘signed covenant,’ between Bani Nadir and Muhammad. Could he have been killed for insulting and being Jewish? Seems unlikely since Muhammad said: 'whoever hurts a dhimmi (A Jew or Christian under Muslim protection), hurts me; and whoever hurts me, hurts Allah (Al Bayhaqi) - there is a host of evidence that could refute an anti-Jewish sentiment, but for brevity this should suffice. Also the sirah states that Ka’b; ‘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 (Allah bless him and give him peace) 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.’
Given the above then, we can say with reasonable surety that Ka’b was a Jew under Muslim protection, he insulted the the head of state (i.e. Muhammad), ‘trigger[ed]’ the enemy to fight and returned to Madinah to spread ‘slanderous propaganda.’ We have seen it wasn’t his Jewishness or angry retaliation or just insults that brought about his assassination and so logic would suggest it was for the co-operating with the enemy and possibly propaganda and for defaming Muslim women. I may be biased, but I tried my best and given the evidences came up with pretty much what ‘the Muslims’ say - interestingly they don’t really disagree on this point. At the very least then we can say this is the ‘Muslim’ understanding of events.
If I presented this as a published work I think I wouldn’t get much criticism except to do a lot more research, which is where we’d hit a bit of a stumbling block because to go much deeper would require learning Arabic and going to places like Al Azhar to look at the manuscripts there.
The reason seems more to do with ‘inciting revolution’ and this - in my country at least - would constitute treason. Whilst arguments could continue ad infinitum I think the only real question of worth - given Muslims understand it to be treason - that an objective person may ask is where the methods right? And perhaps this single example is not really all that helpful anyway, maybe a broader look at Islamic governance is what is required.
I’m tired now and I’m sure you’re bored. Hope that helps. Peace
We don’t know from the Bukhari evidence anything much about Ka’b. We have to look further afield and the most likely source to contextualise the situation and give us detail are the compilations of sirah (biography). Sirah is a type of hadith because it too follows the same chain of narration criteria and so is no less valid as a piece of evidence. There are many to choose, but the Sealed Nectar is highly acclaimed (it won an award), is dry because it sticks to the facts and is freely available (sunnipath.com/library/Books/B0033P0000.aspx). Here Ka’b is described as Jewish and the suggestion from the wording ‘He belonged to Tai’ tribe but his mother to Banu Nadir’ is that he was Jewish by ethnicity and considered part of Banu Nadir. We know also from the sirah that there was a ‘signed covenant,’ between Bani Nadir and Muhammad. Could he have been killed for insulting and being Jewish? Seems unlikely since Muhammad said: 'whoever hurts a dhimmi (A Jew or Christian under Muslim protection), hurts me; and whoever hurts me, hurts Allah (Al Bayhaqi) - there is a host of evidence that could refute an anti-Jewish sentiment, but for brevity this should suffice. Also the sirah states that Ka’b; ‘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 (Allah bless him and give him peace) 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.’
Given the above then, we can say with reasonable surety that Ka’b was a Jew under Muslim protection, he insulted the the head of state (i.e. Muhammad), ‘trigger[ed]’ the enemy to fight and returned to Madinah to spread ‘slanderous propaganda.’ We have seen it wasn’t his Jewishness or angry retaliation or just insults that brought about his assassination and so logic would suggest it was for the co-operating with the enemy and possibly propaganda and for defaming Muslim women. I may be biased, but I tried my best and given the evidences came up with pretty much what ‘the Muslims’ say - interestingly they don’t really disagree on this point. At the very least then we can say this is the ‘Muslim’ understanding of events.
If I presented this as a published work I think I wouldn’t get much criticism except to do a lot more research, which is where we’d hit a bit of a stumbling block because to go much deeper would require learning Arabic and going to places like Al Azhar to look at the manuscripts there.
This was a good question and one I also thought. The two things one can say is that the concept of police is a relatively new thing, a sort of militia might have kept the peace and Ka’b would live in the Banu Nadir suburb of Madinah (they didn’t live together as we do now). For Muhammad (pbuh) to arrest him would require sending in armed soldiers, I think - given the sirah evidence - this would have been unwise since it could have triggered the incited populous and initiated a revolt.
The reason seems more to do with ‘inciting revolution’ and this - in my country at least - would constitute treason. Whilst arguments could continue ad infinitum I think the only real question of worth - given Muslims understand it to be treason - that an objective person may ask is where the methods right? And perhaps this single example is not really all that helpful anyway, maybe a broader look at Islamic governance is what is required.
I’m tired now and I’m sure you’re bored. Hope that helps. Peace
E
elwill
Guest
i think , it will be very important to readthe signed treaty
The Prophet’s Document Between the Muhajirun (The Emigrants), the Ansar (The Helpers from Madinah) and the Jews (of Madinah):
Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim (In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate)
(1) This is a document from Muhammad, the Prophet (governing the relations) between the believers and the Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib, and those who followed them and joined them and struggled with them.
(2) They are one community (ummah) to the exclusion of all men.
(3) The Quraysh Muhajirun, according to their present custom, shall pay the blood money within their number and shall redeem their prisoners with the kindness and justice common among believers.
(4) The Banu ‘Awf, … with kindness and justice.
(5) Banu al Harith (Ibn al Khazraj)…
(6) Banu Sa’idah…
(7) Banu Jusham …
(8) **Banu al Najjar **….
(9) Banu ‘Amr ibn ‘Awf …
(10) Banu al Nabit…
(11) Banu al Aws… with kindness and justice.
(12a) Believers shall not leave anyone destitute among them by not paying his redemption money or blood money in kindness.
(12b) A believer shall not take as an ally against him the freedman of another Muslim.
(13) The God-Fearing believers shall be against the rebellious or anyone who seeks to spread injustice, or sin, or enmity, or corruption between the believers; the hand of every man shall be against him even if he be a son of one of them.
(14) A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer.
(15) God’s protection is all-embracing, the least of them may give protection to a stranger on their behalf. Believers are friends and protectors one to the other, to the exclusion of outsiders.
(16) To the Jews who follow us belong help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided.
(17) The peace of the believers is indivisible. No peace shall be made when believers are fighting in the way of God. Conditions must be fair and equitable to all.
(18) In every foray a rider must take another behind him.
(19) The believers must avenge the blood of one another shed in the way of God.
(20a) The God-fearing believers enjoy the best and most upright guidance.
(20b) No polytheist shall take the property or person of Quraysh under his protection nor shall he intervene against a believer.
(21) Whosoever is convicted of killing a believer without good reason shall be subject to retaliation unless the next of kin is satisfied (with blood money), and the believers shall be against him as one man, and they are bound to take action against him.
(22) It shall not be lawful to a believer who holds by what is in this document and believes in God and the Last Day, to help an evil-doer or to shelter him. The curse of God and His anger on the Day of Resurrection will be upon him if he does, neither repentance nor ransom will be received from him.
(23) Whenever you differ about a matter, it must be referred to God and to Muhammad.
(24) The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the believers.
(25)** The Jews of Banu ‘Awf are one community with the believers (the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs), their freedmen and their persons except those who behave unjustly and sinfully, for they hurt but themselves and their families.
(26) The Jews of Banu al Najjar are like the Jews of Banu ‘Awf.**
(27) The Jews of Banu al Harith …
(28) The Jews of Banu Sa’idah ….
(29) The Jews of Banu Jusham …
(30) The Jews of Banu al Aws …
(31) The Jews of Banu al Tha’labah …
(32) Jafnah, a clan of the Tha’labah, are as themselves.
(33) The Jews of Banu al Shutaybah …
(34) The freedmen of Tha’labah are as themselves.
(35) The close friends of the Jews are as themselves.
(36a) None of them shall go out to war save with the permission of Muhammad.
(36b) But he shall not be prevented from taking revenge from a wound. He who slays a man without warning slays himself and his household, unless it be one who has wronged him, for God will accept that.
(37a) The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and righteousness is a protection against sinfulness.
(37b) A man is not liable for his ally’s misdeeds. The wronged must be helped.
(38) The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war lasts.
(39) Yathrib (Madinah) shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document.
(40) A stranger under protection shall be as his host doing no harm and committing no crime.
The Prophet’s Document Between the Muhajirun (The Emigrants), the Ansar (The Helpers from Madinah) and the Jews (of Madinah):
Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim (In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate)
(1) This is a document from Muhammad, the Prophet (governing the relations) between the believers and the Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib, and those who followed them and joined them and struggled with them.
(2) They are one community (ummah) to the exclusion of all men.
(3) The Quraysh Muhajirun, according to their present custom, shall pay the blood money within their number and shall redeem their prisoners with the kindness and justice common among believers.
(4) The Banu ‘Awf, … with kindness and justice.
(5) Banu al Harith (Ibn al Khazraj)…
(6) Banu Sa’idah…
(7) Banu Jusham …
(8) **Banu al Najjar **….
(9) Banu ‘Amr ibn ‘Awf …
(10) Banu al Nabit…
(11) Banu al Aws… with kindness and justice.
(12a) Believers shall not leave anyone destitute among them by not paying his redemption money or blood money in kindness.
(12b) A believer shall not take as an ally against him the freedman of another Muslim.
(13) The God-Fearing believers shall be against the rebellious or anyone who seeks to spread injustice, or sin, or enmity, or corruption between the believers; the hand of every man shall be against him even if he be a son of one of them.
(14) A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer.
(15) God’s protection is all-embracing, the least of them may give protection to a stranger on their behalf. Believers are friends and protectors one to the other, to the exclusion of outsiders.
(16) To the Jews who follow us belong help and equality. He shall not be wronged nor shall his enemies be aided.
(17) The peace of the believers is indivisible. No peace shall be made when believers are fighting in the way of God. Conditions must be fair and equitable to all.
(18) In every foray a rider must take another behind him.
(19) The believers must avenge the blood of one another shed in the way of God.
(20a) The God-fearing believers enjoy the best and most upright guidance.
(20b) No polytheist shall take the property or person of Quraysh under his protection nor shall he intervene against a believer.
(21) Whosoever is convicted of killing a believer without good reason shall be subject to retaliation unless the next of kin is satisfied (with blood money), and the believers shall be against him as one man, and they are bound to take action against him.
(22) It shall not be lawful to a believer who holds by what is in this document and believes in God and the Last Day, to help an evil-doer or to shelter him. The curse of God and His anger on the Day of Resurrection will be upon him if he does, neither repentance nor ransom will be received from him.
(23) Whenever you differ about a matter, it must be referred to God and to Muhammad.
(24) The Jews shall contribute to the cost of war so long as they are fighting alongside the believers.
(25)** The Jews of Banu ‘Awf are one community with the believers (the Jews have their religion and the Muslims have theirs), their freedmen and their persons except those who behave unjustly and sinfully, for they hurt but themselves and their families.
(26) The Jews of Banu al Najjar are like the Jews of Banu ‘Awf.**
(27) The Jews of Banu al Harith …
(28) The Jews of Banu Sa’idah ….
(29) The Jews of Banu Jusham …
(30) The Jews of Banu al Aws …
(31) The Jews of Banu al Tha’labah …
(32) Jafnah, a clan of the Tha’labah, are as themselves.
(33) The Jews of Banu al Shutaybah …
(34) The freedmen of Tha’labah are as themselves.
(35) The close friends of the Jews are as themselves.
(36a) None of them shall go out to war save with the permission of Muhammad.
(36b) But he shall not be prevented from taking revenge from a wound. He who slays a man without warning slays himself and his household, unless it be one who has wronged him, for God will accept that.
(37a) The Jews must bear their expenses and the Muslims their expenses. Each must help the other against anyone who attacks the people of this document. They must seek mutual advice and consultation, and righteousness is a protection against sinfulness.
(37b) A man is not liable for his ally’s misdeeds. The wronged must be helped.
(38) The Jews must pay with the believers so long as war lasts.
(39) Yathrib (Madinah) shall be a sanctuary for the people of this document.
(40) A stranger under protection shall be as his host doing no harm and committing no crime.
N
NoWings
Guest
Probably the same reason Jews and Christians feel that Elisha was justified in calling two she-bears from the woods to maul 42 children (youths) to death.
- Status