Lies and More Lies Against the Prophet
Some Muslim and non-Muslim historians allege that the prophet also ordered the assassination of Abu Afak, Sofian ibn Khalid, Abu Rafi, Oseir bin Zarim, Abu Sufian, Nadhir bin Harith, Okba, Abdul Ozza and Moawiya bin Mughaira. They also allege without providing any evidence that at the command of the Prophet Umm Kirfa was executed and Urnee robbers’ bodies were mutilated after the killing. They also say that Kinana, chief of the Jews of Khyber and his cousin were tortured in addition to the killing of Abu Basir.
The non-Muslims pick up these events from Muslim historians and add their own details and promote lies against the prophet propagating that he was a prophet of terror and Islam originated in violence. Much of the propaganda revolves around these lies. Earliest Muslim historians or writers included whatever they heard from their contemporaries without verifying their claims. None of their cotemporaries were present at the time of the Prophet and whatever is attributed to them is what they heard from someone.
Most of these allegations are based on one narration and in none of the allegations, any solid evidence is given. These accounts contradict each other and whatever is attributed to the Prophet defies his character and the Quranic teachings. It is strange that the historians did not apply the Quranic criterion to analyze the reported incidents. Moreover they also ignored the teachings of the Prophet in dealing in matters they were reporting. A cursory analysis of the reported events reveals that the prophet had no part in any of the events attributed to him. Here is a brief description of some of the incidents alleged attributed to the Prophet.
The Prophet is accused of asking his companions to kill Abu Afak, a poet who reportedly was very vocal in his criticism of Islam. He is said to be 120 years old. Ibn Ishaq, in his work Life of Muhammad, (lost and rewritten from memory by Ibn Hisham some 50 years after it was reportedly first jotted down) and Ibn Sa’d compiling reports on the basis of oral narrations conclude that the prophet was upset at his criticism and commanded his companions to get rid of him. It is said that the prophet reportedly used the following expression: “who will get rid of that rascal.” The two early historians did not identify the sources. The reported incident contradicts the Quranic teachings of forgiveness and dealing with those critical of others. The Quran says: “Nor can goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: Then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate!” (41:34)
It is unimaginable that the one who is preaching the above divine teaching would be the first one to violate it.
The Quran further says: “Let those (disposing of an estate) have the same fear in their minds as they would have for their own if they had left a helpless family behind: Let them fear Allah, and speak words of appropriate (comfort).” (4:9)
Or “O you who believe! Fear Allah, and (always) say a word directed to the Right: (33:70)
The language attributed to the Prophet is very vulgar. Nowhere in the authentic literature had we read that the Prophet ever used a vulgar or foul word even to describe his enemies. Based on a simple comparison with the Quranic message, this incident should have been thrown out of the books. It is false and at best can be called a forgery.
Let us examine the narrations in Ibj Isha and Ibn Sa’d’s words.
Ibn Ishaq's account
"Salim b. Umayr's expedition to kill Abu Afak".
Abu Afak was one of the B. Amr b. Auf of the B. Ubayda clan. He showed his disaffection when the apostle [Muhammad] killed al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit and said:
Long have I lived but never have I seen
An assembly or collection of people
More faithful to their undertaking
And their allies when called upon
Than the sons of Qayla when they assembled,
Men who overthrew mountains and never submitted,
A rider who came to them split them in two (saying)
"Permitted", "Forbidden", of all sorts of things.
Had you believed in glory or kingship
You would have followed Tubba
The apostle [Muhammad] said, "Who will deal with this rascal for me?" Whereupon Salim b. Umayr, brother of B. Amr b. Auf, one of the "weepers", went forth and killed him. Umama b. Muzayriya said concerning that:
You gave the lie to God's religion and the man Ahmad [the prophet]!
By him who was your father, evil is the son he produced!
A hanif gave you a thrust in the night saying
Take that, Abu Afak, in spite of your age!
Though I knew whether it was man or jinn
Who slew you in the dead of night (I would say naught).
Ibn Sa'd's account
Another description of this story comes from The Major Classes by ibn Sa'd al-Baghdadi, although this work is based on the former source:
"Then occurred the "sariyyah" [raid] of Salim Ibn Umayr al-Amri against Abu Afak, the Jew, in [the month of] Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijra, of the Apostle of Allah. Abu Afak, was from Banu Amr Ibn Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle of Allah, and composed (satirical) verses [about Muhammad]. Salim Ibn Umayr who was one of the great weepers and who had participated in Badr, said, "I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu Afak or die before him. He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people who were his followers, rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him."
The two accounts differ in their narrations. Ibn Ishaq’s account attributes the killing to the Prophet while Ibn Sa’d say that it was committed by the companions on their own
Ibn Ishaq also accuses the prophet of killing one al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit, while Ibn Sa’d does not mention that at all. One does not find any reference to the killing of Harith except in Ibn Ishaq’s work. Obviously, Ibn Sa’d must have strong reasons not to include the details given by Ibn Ishaq who did not provide any source for his information. The writings were lopsided as is also evident from the discrepancy between the accounts of Wakidi and his secretary on this incident. Wakidi says that Salim had taken a vow to kill Abu Afak or die himself while his secretary as reported by Sir W. Muir, says “this was was the command of the Prophet.”
Based on the discrepancies, there is no reason to believe that the Prophet knew about the incident attributed to him.Sofian-bin Khalid.
It is reported in some books of history that Sofian bin Khalid, leader of the Bani Lahyan tribe vowed to wage war against Muslims. Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham and Ibn Sad did not report that the Prophet instructed his companions to kill him. Abu Dawood’s collection of Prophet’s sayings mentions that “belief is the restraint to assassination and no believer should commit assassination. How can the Prophet act contrary to his own words? The story is a concocted one.
Abu Rafe was known as Sallam Ibn Abul Hozeiq, was the chief of bani Nazeer. He was a prominent leader in the war against Muslims in the battle of confederates. There is no evidence to suggest that the Prophet asked his companions to kill him. Ibn Ishaq does not give any account of that. However the secretary of Waqidi says that the Prophet gave command to kill him. It is strange that the earlier writers did not find any report of such an act while the later ones wrote about it in great details.
Oseir bin Zarim
He was the chief of Bani Nazeer. It is reported that he was mobilizing tribes against Muslims and the Prophet commanded his companions to get rid of him. There is nothing in the writings of early writers that the Oseir’s death had anything to do with the Prophet. The later narratives are incomplete and imperfect and do not give any evidence that the Prophet knew about the killing.
It is reported by Ibn Sad, secretary of Waqidi that Abu Sufian sent a Bedouin to Medina to assassinate the Prophet. The plot was discovered and the prophet allegedly retaliated by sending one Amr to assassinate Abu Sufian. Ibn Ishaq and Waqidi are silent on this and there is nothing to prove that this report is accurate.
It is also alleged that Nadhr bin Harith, one of the prisoners of war was killed after the battle of Badr. However, there are other reports given by Ibn Manda and Abu Naeem saying that Nadhr bin Harith was present at the battle of Honain, eight years after the battle of Badr. They also say that the Prophet gave him one hundred camels. It is also said that Nadhr was among the earliest Muslims who had migrated to Abyssinia.
Okba bin Muit is another prisoner who was reportedly killed after the battle of Badr. Ibn Ishaq says that he was killed by Asim while Ibn Hisham says it was Ali who killed him. There is also discrepancy in the mode of Okba’s execution. Some says he was beheaded, other says he was crucified and his body was mutilated. However, no account about his killing meets the criterion of accuracy.
Abdul Ozza is another prisoner who according to some historians was killed after the battle of Badr. However, there are reports that the Prophet released him by way of his compassion for his five daughters and freed him without any compensation. But Abdul Ozza went back to his people and exhorted his supporters to bear up arms against the Prophet and joined the Makkan army. He was killed in a skirmish that took place at Hamra in the battle. He was not killed at the command of the Prophet as was alleged.
Moawiya bin Mughaira was also freed by the prophet and was asked to leave Medina within three days. Yet he overstayed and tried to instigate the people against the Prophet and broke the covenant that he had made. He was reprimanded and yet he did not keep his words. He was duly prosecuted and brought to justice.
The name of Um Kirfa is mentioned as the one who was killed at the command of the prophet with her each leg tied to a separate cample. Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham and Waqidi did not give any account of that. The prophet was not even aware of her or her killing.
One of the allegations against the prophet is that he ordered his companions to kill Urnee robbers who had plundered the camels of Medina and cut off the hands and legs of their herdsman. This again is a lie against the Prophet who warned his companions against the mutilation.
The prophet showed magnanimity and kindness to the prisoners of war. There are reports that talk about this treatment of prisoners. We read in the hadith literature accounts saying: “Blessing be on the men of Medina. They made us ride, while they themselves walked, they gave us wheat bread to eat, when there was little of it, contenting themselves with dates.”
Prisoners were generally freed by the prophet. For example the prisoners of the Bani Mustalik were released by the prophet without any ransom. The Bani Hawazin’s six thousand prisoners at Honain were set free. Even those who had plotted to kill the Prophet at the Hudaibiya were freed. It is reported that they were 80 in numbers.
With so much evidence about his kindness it is a lie to accuse the prophet of killing his opponents or asking his companions to mutilate the bodies of criminals.
Lies have been woven without any evidence. The Prophet’s life is an example of mercy and magnanimity. It is unimaginable to even think that that prophet would indulge in an act of violence and torture even against his own enemies. It is true that some of Muslim historians have written accounts to suggest revenge and violence against the enemies of Muslims. Yet, when judged on the basis of evidence, none of them qualify to be called authentic or accurate.
One must never lose sight of the fact that the identity of the Prophet is built around the Quranic concept of “mercy to the worlds” and anything that challenges that identify is false, wrong and utter lie no matter who says and where it comes from. This simple principle will liberate us from scores of lies that are presented to us as part of the statements and actions attributed to our prophet.