The age of Khadija, the mother of the believers

Some say she was born in 555 AD and others say she was born in 567. If we accept the first one than at the time of her marriage in 595 AD with the Prophet she was 40 and if we accept the second one she was 28. She was married twice before her marriage with the Prophet. She had 3 or 4 children from previous marriages, three sons and one daughter, depending on whose the account you accept. Not much is known about any of them except one by the name of Hala, who together with the brother Mother Khadija died either in the battle of Fujjar or in a street brawl as historians have different narrations.

Tabari says the Prophet had eight children, six from Mother Khadija, four daughters, and two sons. However, Shias, in general, believe that she had only one daughter, Fatimah.  We know the names of seven children of the Prophet as given by the historian. We do not have the names of the eight children or age. The first child was born three years after the marriage, thus depending on whose account one accepts either at the age of 44 or 21, the second one’s date of birth is not known, the third one was born at her age of 45 or 33, the fourth one when she was either 47 or 35.  The fifth one when she was 48 or 36 and the sixth one when she was 50 or 38. However, some historians claim that the youngest daughter of the Prophet was born in 615 AD when mother Khadija was 62.

This is what we find in most history books on the ages of the Prophet’s children. Qasim(598 – 600 or 601 AD), Abdullah. 615 AD), Zainab (599 – 630 AD), Ruqayyah (601 – 624 AD), Umm Kulthum (603 – 630 AD), Fatimah (ca. 604 or 615– 632), Ibrahim (630-631))

Now the latest Mayo Clinic research tells us the following. Menopause is the time that marks the end of one’s menstrual cycles. It's diagnosed after one has gone 12 months without a menstrual period. Menopause can happen in the 40s or 50s, It can happen between 40 and 50.

Now, according to the commonly held view the first child of Mother Khadija was born when she was 43 and the last when she was 50 or 62. Is that scientifically possible if one determines that she married the Prophet at the age of 40 or 41? Is accepting that a part of Iman. What if we accept the alternative age, 28 at the time of her wedding the prophet? History gives us both options and the Quran is silent on that. Can science be used to determine her age based on her reproductive cycle or do we have to call it a divine miracle, especially when the longest of her children was Zainab (31 years) Others were Qasim, one year, Abdullah, less than a year, Ruqayyah 23 years, Umm Kulthum 27 years and Fatima, 28 or 18 years depending whose history you accept?

If history cannot help us, can our common sense do that? Don’t be agitated with this question, rather think calmly about the historical accounts that have reached us. If the historians have problems with determining the age of the wives and children of the prophet, can they rely on other details of his life? What then is the criterion of analyzing history and sorting out facts from the faction?

Well, the only a document that dates back to the times of the Prophet is the Quran itself and that is the only criterion to determine the accuracy of events reported by historians in the written form some 300 years after the death of the Prophet.

Kill Them because they Insulted the Prophet! Did the Prophet or the Quran Say So?  No.

We love the Prophet. We try to follow him in every aspect of our lives. We adore him. We sing praises in his glory. We recite his name in every prayer that we offer. We regard him, dearest, to use. We give preference to him over our own lives.
But should we kill or insult those who insult him or who are critical of him or who ridicule him? Should we tell the world that if our sentiments are not respected, we would be at war and we would destroy or try to silence everyone who stands in our way?
If murder is the answer to every word of criticism, then no one is safe, because we all are critical of each other in a way or the other.  We all are disrespectful to each other in one way or the other.
We cannot impose our love for our Prophet, upon others. We will have to earn that respect for our Prophet through our actions patterned after his life. We cannot expect people to give him the same regard as we do. If some do we are thankful to them, but if they do not, we cannot complain.
Despite all the efforts to project a positive image of our Prophet or Islam, if some people still choose to reject him or insult him, we have to accept the right of the people to do so, because this is the right that has been given to them by the divine.
Among Muslims, especially among many of their scholars and intellectuals prevails a criticism of the United States, Europe and what they term as western thinkers and policymakers that they have double standards towards the principle of free speech. When it comes to criticism of the state of Israel, the West unanimously prefers to remain silent while when it comes to Islam, the West pursues a path of ecstasy.
This is a weak and meaningless argument. We follow a principle because we believe in its divine origin and its supremacy. Thus, we respect free speech because it is an essential right in Islam. It is a right that no government or establishment can ever take away. In the Quranic phraseology, it is considered one of the worst sins against God.
The right to dissent or have a different perspective other than the one that is popular or dominant or acceptable by Muslims is the right that is the essence of Islamic thinking. It is a right that the Prophet secured and stood for. During the endorsement proceedings of the constitution of Medina in the initial stages of the formation of a state of the newly adopted city, four Muslim tribes of Aws refused to sign the treaty. The prophet never retaliated against them and used violence to bring them in line with his ideals.
The Prophet defended the rights non-Muslims to reject him. He never retaliated against those who were his harshest critics. Many members of the early Arabian society were his worst critics. They were his sworn enemies. They hurled abuses at him. They called him different derogatory names. They even plotted to kill him. Yet he did not retaliate against them. Rather, he forgave them. What better example of forgiveness one can find them to quote his exemplary behavior after the opening of Makkah, the city that had persecuted him for 13 years. Did he ask people to slaughter the people of Makkah? No, he offered them general amnesty and embraced his critics.
Freedom should not be measured by the behavior and attitude of the West or the East. Freedom, in itself, is the essence of faith. Freedom is absolute and it cannot be sliced by special interest groups. Muslims cannot expect others to respect their freedom without defending the rights of others.
Yes, freedom means that people have a right to be critical of Islam and the Prophet. Our love for our Prophet should not prevent others from entertaining their own ideas. It would hurt us, but we cannot silence them using coercion. If we want them to show respect to our Prophet, then we should demonstrate the essential traits of the Prophet's character in our lives. Those traits are forgiveness, controlling one's anger, showing love and respect to others and defending life.
When we show these characteristics in our lives, we become true followers of the Prophet, When we respect the freedom of others to be critical of Islam and its Prophet, we show our highest commitment to him. His personality is powerful. It would not crumble under any criticism of his critics. It would shine in all situations and circumstances. It is through respecting this right of others to practice free speech, we would promote the real dignity of our prophet.

Who is benefiting from her ongoing Saga?

Prophet Muhammad said: "The seeking of knowledge is obligatory for every Muslim." (Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith #74) He also said: “One who treads a path in search of knowledge has his path to Paradise made easy by God…” (Riyadh us-Saleheen, hadith #245)
He further said: "A servant of God will remain standing on the Day of Judgment until he is questioned about his (time on earth) and how he used it; about his knowledge and how he utilized it; about his wealth and from where he acquired it and in what (activities) he spent it; and about his body and how he used it." (Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith #148)
The Prophet also said: "Knowledge from which no benefit is derived is like a treasure out of which nothing is spent in the cause of God." (Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith #108)
He also said: "God, His angels and all those in the Heavens and on Earth, even ants in their hills and fish in the water, call down blessings on those who instruct others in beneficial knowledge." (Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith #422)
Then he said: "Acquire knowledge and impart it to the people." (Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith #107)
In Sunan Abdu Dawood, one reads the Prophet explains, "If anyone travels on a road in search of knowledge, God will cause him to travel on one of the roads of paradise. The angels will lower their wings in their great pleasure with one who seeks knowledge. The inhabitants of the heavens and the earth and (even) the fish in the deep waters will ask forgiveness for the learned man. The superiority of the learned over the devout is like that of the moon, on the night when it is full, over the rest of the stars. The learned are the heirs of the Prophets, and the Prophets leave (no monetary inheritance), they leave only knowledge, and he who takes it takes an abundant portion. (Hadith #1631)

The statement that seeks knowledge, even if you have to travel to China is often attributed to the Prophet, but these are the words of Imam Ali, the fourth Caliph of Muslims.

Read these sayings of the prophet again and again. Repeat them to yourself and to others and notice something very simple that can be summarized in the following words.

“Knowledge is indivisible and regardless of one’s gender and age, it is obligatory upon everyone.”

Throughout our Islamic history, we have tried to define and redefine knowledge in our image, an image conditioned by our politics, culture, gender, ethnicity, society, economics and personal interests. We are the ones who have bifurcated it into worldly and religious sciences. We are the ones who have closed its doors whomsoever we wanted out. We are the ones who have tried to limit its acquisition whomever we wanted to exclude and we are the ones who have often tried to contaminate the purity of education with our biases and absurdities. We often presented our viewpoints like that of God because we claimed that we are created in His image.
The Prophet did not do it. His message is simple and direct.

But most of us failed to recognize that it was not the intent of God and the Prophet to limit the access of education to girls and women. It was not their intent to deprive those born in a state of bondage of knowledge. It was not their intent to dictate to others what to study and what not study as long as one understands the responsibilities that come with the knowledge.

Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan and those who are like them and have behaved like them throughout human history, have argued that they have the knowledge and authority to overrule God and the Prophet and set the limits on nature and type of education girls, women, children, and even men should acquire.

A 10-year-old child, in her innocence, stood up against this idea based on her common sense not fully aware of the true dimensions of the divine directions of education. The logic was simple. How could God be unjust to His own creation by giving one more access to education than to another of His creation on the basis of one's gender? She was critical of them. She condemned their tactics as she saw them playing it in her small village. She even called them terrorists and unjust zealots.

The mighty Taliban was upset. How could a 10-year-old child question their understanding of religion and culture? After all, this is not the role of a woman or children in their religious society. They are meant to be quiet and subservient. 
They were angry and they forgot in this anger the basic Islamic principle. They did not return to the divine to seek guidance by taking account of their own attitudes.
Rather than reviewing their own attitudes or trying to educate their perspectives to the child, they became furious. Thus, she became their target. Finally, they assaulted her and tried to kill her. This is how they had learned to deal with their opponents. Shoot those who oppose you and you would be blessed by the one in whose name you kill. But the one who gives life and death saved her. She got injured and even though she was in danger of losing her life, He inspired physicians, mostly non-Muslims, to save her.

There were several countries in the world including those with Muslim majority who could have offered medical help to her including Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, or India, but Britain took the lead to offer her the treatment. Since then, she is being projected by the so-called western media as a symbol of resistance and an icon for women's education. This gesture of Britain is seen as a symbol of white supremacy over uneducated Muslims. 
The Muslim media could also have taken up her case, but it preferred not only to ignore her but to cast doubt on her story. Some even suggested that she was not attacked and she faked her injury. Among those who questioned her integrity were those Muslim theologians who have spent their lives teaching their followers the Quranic message that says: "don't assume things."

The so-called western campaign to project her as a role model for girls regardless of their religion and ethnicity has angered many pious Muslims. After all, not many 10-year-old kids question the authority of a coercive group in a small village in a remote area of the world. How could a child's question a religious practice in a culture where even adults are not allowed to speak in front of a religious elder?
The projection of a girl in a position of prominence does not sit well with them. A woman should spend her time in the home getting ready to produce children and then rear and nurture them. She is not supposed to talk about education or to offer a leadership role. Children are not the teachers of their adults, so they are upset. 
Religion is the prerogative of men only. A woman's voice in public is unacceptable in their understanding of Islam. Since they are the defenders of Islam and its gatekeepers, how could they let her be used or abused by the West to make a mockery of genuine Islamic teachings?

They see in her rise a conspiracy on the part of the West to exploit her situation to serve their agenda secular against Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Muslim world. They suspect that the West is using her to impose upon the Muslim world its educational values, devoid of morality. They also see in her projection a well-conceived plot to strip the Muslim world of its religious identity.

Ironically, none of those, especially the ones living in the West, would agree with what the Taliban have done or have been doing. Even the most anti-Western among them have serious issues with the thinking and logic of Taliban in implementing a version of Islam that is contaminated with male-chauvinism, tribal jingoism, and feudal parochialism. Even many religious scholars are in doubt of the Taliban understanding of Islam. Many clean shaved clerics of Azhar or short, bearded religious scholars of the Americas would be treated as criminals and sinful in a Taliban run state for improperly trimming their beard. They fully understand that if they land in a Taliban run Islamic Afghanistan, they would immediately be taken into prison or given some lashes. Only a few US Muslim religious leaders can escape this wrath of the Taliban's Islamic will. Yet, these clerics and leaders have chosen to be silent on these issues.

The critics of the 16-year-old girl tend to ignore the fact that the girl they are accusing of playing in the hands of the West is echoing the ideas of their Prophet on education to the world in an atmosphere of understanding and recognition. Their logic is interesting. "Don't speak the truth if it serves the political interests of others." In other words, the truth has no value of its own and cannot stand on its own strength. She is quoting the Quran. They do not like it. After all the Quran is their monopoly. How could she or her secular father quote or use the Quran in their arguments? Her dress does not fall outside the parameters of Islamic norms. But they are still not convinced because the two inches of her hair closer to her forehead are still exposed to a male eye. Her language is soft and her style is decent, but it does not matter. She is not talking about revenge, even against those who tried to kill her and they think she cannot decide on her own whom to forgive and whom to declare an enemy. She is repeating what every sensible Muslim has repeated and would like to repeat about education, but they argue that being a woman, she has no validity to do so.

Seemingly, they can’t rejoice the rise of one of their daughters and sisters to a position of dignity in front of a world audience in a climate that is filled with admiration towards her? To them, as soon as a girl reaches the age of puberty, she is a source of test for men regardless of their age. They are so much obsessed with the sexuality of women in their own context that they are not willing to treat others as their own daughters and sisters.

Let us come to other issues in raising her case. The critics argue that the west is exploiting her situation. Even if the West is exploiting her, so what? The message she is delivering is worth repeating from every channel. She is not questioning Islam or challenging the Quran or the Prophet. She is simply following what every Muslim should have followed.

How many of those people who are critical of her were raising their voices in support of education for all when they were about her age? How many of them took the bullets for their stand? How many of them persisted in their mission even after being hit by a bullet? How many of them were seen as a symbol of hope by adults and non-Muslims when they were in their teens.

The argument that the West is hypocritical in its policies towards the Muslim world needs to be analyzed on its own merit. The West has double stand standards towards its own values. Yes, the West has used its drones to kill innocent people, yet it has played politics and havoc with the lives of the people, and yes it is not honest when it deals with Islam in general. But the same analysis can easily be applied to those countries that claim to be Muslims. 
Let us also remember, that many others, including the citizens of the Western world, have also suffered at the hands of its brutal policies. The US destroyed its own economy in indulging itself in wars that were not necessary. The tug of war between Republicans and Democrats is ruining the economy of the country. The foreign policies of the West are problematic even to its own declared principles. But those policies need to be challenged on the basis of their absurdities and not on the basis of how the 16-year-old girl is being projected.  If the critics look beyond their myopic perspectives, they would discover a new image of Islam emerging in the words of this girl, an image that none of them was able to create as most of them were busy and are still busy in infighting and destroying each other.

Rejoice: It is the birthday of Prophet Muhammad: Let us Celebrate and be proud

Today is one of the most significant days in human history. It’s a day when the one who challenged the superstitions and ignorance of his times was born. It’s a day when the one who brought consistency and authenticity in religious ideas opened his eyes in this mortal world and it’s a day when the one who changed the social fabric of the world forever arrived in the physical world at a time when he was needed most. It is the 12th Rabi ul Awwal. It’s the birthday of Prophet Muhammad. It’s a day of joy and happiness. It’s a day that should bring the entire world together and not just Muslims.
Instead, the world of Islam is divided on this occasion and a simple act of showing love and happiness has become one of the most controversial issues. The divisions are about the date of his birth or the authenticity of celebrating Mawlid or initiating an innovation etc. In a Friday sermon in India on January 18, 2013 an Imam declared the Mawlid (the birthday of the Prophet) an innovation and warned the people that those who celebrate it or attend any function related to it would not only be frowned by Allah and His messenger but would also be sent to hellfire to live there forever. Those who celebrate Mawlid are the worst of humans, he concluded. He described the practice of celebrating Mawlid a Shia practice and said that Shias were not authentic Muslims.
Showing love to the Prophet is part of Muslims’ conviction or Iman. “Say: "If you do love Allah, follow me: Allah will love you and forgive you your sins: For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (3:31)
“Say: If it be that your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your mates, or your kindred; the wealth that ye have gained; the commerce in which ye fear a decline: or the dwellings in which ye delight - are dearer to you than Allah, or His Messenger, or the striving in His cause;- then wait until Allah brings about His decision: and Allah guides not the rebellious.” (9:24)
Expressing one’s love for the Prophet and showing it openly on the day of his birthday cannot be termed a sin or a bida or innovation as is evident from the Quran. Yet, those opposed to Mawlid, take a hard line and based on the opinions of some of the Muslim scholars of the 9^th and 12^th Centuries declare others as deviant Muslims.
Regardless of the opinions of scholars, we the Muslim people have every right to express our commitment and dedication to the Prophet and if we do it on 12^th of Rabi ul Awwal, it should not cause anyone any pains or trauma. Showing love to the prophet is a virtue and we are promised the reward for that.
It is the prophet who introduced the world to the Quran. It is the Prophet who lived the Quran in his life. It is the prophet on whose authority and authenticity Muslims accept, the Quran. It is the Prophet who established a community based on Quranic principles. It is the Prophet who suffered at the hands of his opponents for declaring the oneness of Allah.
It is through his life we understand the Quran as he is called the best example for us. When we celebrate the birth of the Prophet, we celebrate the Quran and the emergence of the last of the divine messages and its relevance to the world.
Rather than having the controversy about the Mawlid Muslims should be exploring new ways to celebrate his birthday. His life is for all time and relevant in every day for all people. So on this day when Allah brought him to this world, we should do something more than usual to thank Allah for this act of mercy. And why should we not? Allah himself gives glad tidings in the Quran of the birth of Prophets and describe it in a positive manner.

“So Peace on him the day he was born, the day that he dies, and the day that he will be raised up to life (again)” (19:15)
It is sad that the birthday of the one who is the foundation of our faith is being used by various groups to settle issues related to their intellectual insecurities. In our world, this issue has become a source of the conflict between Barelvis, Deobandis, Salafis, sofas, Malikis, Hanbalis and Hanafis as well as shoes.
Rather than focusing on the prophet and his life and work, each one of them is showing their intellectual bankruptcy in dealing with the situation. They have spent countless hours in debating a non-issue.
We must understand that celebrating Mawlid is not controversial and is not a sin. Those who oppose it are wasting their time and confusing people about the event. They have a political agenda for which they use their religious understanding. They do not revere the Prophet; rather they worship their scholars and their respective positions that emerged in a political culture controlled by despotism and religious obscurantism.
Let us celebrate the Mawlid without any guilt and feel proud because the Quran tells us:
“Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet: O you that believes! Send ye blessings on him, and salute him with all respect.” (33:56)

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 contemporaries 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.

Abu Afak

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).^[2]

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."^[3]

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 the 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

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 the 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 say 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 a discrepancy in the mode of Okba’s execution. Some say he was beheaded, other say 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 camel. 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 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.

Ka’b Bin Ashraf: No the Prophet did not order his killing.

The killing of Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf, a poet from the Tayy tribe is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari, Sahi Muslim, Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d as well as in Ibn Hisham’s work on the life of the Prophet. Many of Muslim scholars have challenged the authenticity of the incident related to Asma bin Marwan, but a great majority of them accept that this Ka’b ibn Ashraf was murdered at the behest of the Prophet. Many have used this incident to support the killing of anyone who insults the Prophet. Others have used this to prove their point that Islam is inherently violent and the Prophet promoted terror.
Based on the analysis of the incident, the message of the Quran and the character of the Prophet it can safely be concluded that the Prophet did not have and could not have a share in his killing if it ever took place.
One of the problems of the biographers and narrators of the campaigns of the Prophet is that they generally narrate untrustworthy and fabulous details of such anecdotes and do not substantiate their assertions with any concrete facts.
The presence of this story in Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari does not make it error-proof. The earliest biographer of the Prophet, Ibn Ishaq, did not give any indication in his book that the Prophet ever prayed for, and asked his followers to get rid of Ka’b, while the later biographers and Muhaditheen (traditionalists) not only accepted those narratives but also wrote extensively about it and added on their own details. They even attributed the killings to the Prophet. They did not provide any substantial evidence in support of their narratives.
Based on the readings of the divine message and the character of the Prophet, there is nothing substantial to prove that the Prophet instigated his followers to murder his opponents including Ka’b bin Ashraf for their role in instigating the Makkans to destroy the emerging Islamic state.
In Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari the story, giving details about the killing of Ka’b is attributed to Jabir bin Abdullah, Ibn Abbas and Akrama. None of them were eye witnesses of the event. None of them heard the Prophet ordering his killing and none of them spoke on their own authority.
Jabir bin Abdullah was a minor when the alleged incident took place. He was not even allowed to participate in the battle of Uhud because of his age, which took place after the alleged killing.
Ibn Abbas was in Makka at the time of this incident and still a child, even younger than Jabir. Ikrama was the servant of  Ibn Abbas and in the words of Yahya bin Saeed al Ansari, Ali Ibn Abdullah bin Abbas, Ibn al Mosayyb, Ata Ibrahim bin Masirua, Muhammad bin Sireen, Kasim and Abdullah bin Omar, was a liar. How his accounts did have precedence over the character of the Prophet and the dictates of Allah is a matter of further research and investigation.
With so much evidence against the alleged incident, it should have been rejected by Muslim scholars and muhaditheen, yet they preferred to include it in their works either due to the lack of authentic sources to verify it or negligence.
Modern scholars also did not do better as they followed the old schools of thought in repeating the story without critically examining the story, its contents, and its sources.
In The Sealed Nectar, Biography of the Noble Prophet, Saifur Rahman al Mubarakpuri, reproduces the event in the following words.
“Ka'b ibn al-As Ka‘b bin Al-Ashraf was the most resentful Jew at Islam and the Muslims, the keenest on inflicting harm on the Messenger of Allah and the most zealous advocate of waging war against him. He belonged to Tai’ tribe and his mother was from Banu Nadeer. He was a wealthy man known for his handsomeness, and a poet living in luxury in his fort southeast of Medina at the rear of Banu Nadir’s habitations.

“On hearing the news of Bard, 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, eulogizing Quraish and enticing them against the Prophet. He then rode to Makkah where he started to trigger the fire of war, and kindle rancor against the Muslims in Medina. When Abu Sufyan asked him which religion, he was more inclined to, the religion of the Makkans or that of Muhammad and his companions, he replied that the pagans were better guided. With respect to this situation, Allah revealed His Words:

·"Have you not seen those who were given a portion of the Scripture? They believe in Jibt and Taghût, and say to the disbelievers that they are better guided as regards the way than the believers (Muslims)." [4:51]

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

“At this stage, the situation became unbearable and could no longer be put up with. The Prophet gathered his men and said: "Who will kill Ka‘b bin Al-Ashraf? He had maligned Allah, 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 Allah, do you wish that I should kill him?" He said: "Yes." He said: "Permit me to talk (to him in the way I deem fit)." He said: "Talk (as you like)." So, Muhammad bin Maslamah came to Ka‘b and talked to him, saying: "This man (i.e. the Prophet) has made up his mind to collect charity (from us) and this has put us to a great hardship." When he heard this, Ka‘b said: "By Allah, you will be put to more trouble with him." Muhammad bin Maslamah answered: "No doubt, now we have become his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his affairs will take. I want that you should give me a loan." He said: "What will you mortgage?" Muhammad answered: "What do you want?" The immoral and heartless Jew demanded women and children as articles of security against the debt. Muhammad said: "Should we pledge our women, whereas you are the most handsome of the Arabs, and the son of one of us may be abused by saying that he was pledged for two wasq (measurement unit of weight) of dates but we can pledge you (our) weapons." Ka‘b agreed. Salkan bin Salamah, Abu Na’ilah, at another time, went to see Ka‘b for the same purpose and there were more or less the same subjects, only that Abu Na’ilah would bring him some companions. The plan was successful and provided for the presence of both men and weapons. On Rabi‘ Al-Awwal 14th, at night, the year 3 A.H. the people said goodbye to the Prophet and set out in the Name of Allah to implement the carefully drawn plan. The Prophet stayed back praying for them and supplicating Allah 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. 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, "Allah is Great". The Prophet heard them and realized that they had killed the enemy of Allah. As they saw him, he said: "Cheerful faces are yours." In reply, they said: "And yours O Messenger of Allah." They handed the head of the tyrant over to him. He entertained Allah’s praise for their success. He then applied his saliva to Al-Harish’s wound and it healed on the spot.

“When the Jews learned about the death of their tyrant, Ka‘b bin Al-Ashraf, they were scared and even their stone like hearts were in the grip of inexpressible panic. They realized that the Messenger of Allah would thenceforth never hesitate to use force when good words and admonition failed. They remained silent and resigned, and faked adherence to covenants.

“Now the Prophet was free to collect his thoughts and give himself up to resolving foreign affairs, and facing dangers that could be carried with hostile wind blowing again from Makkah.”
Mubarakpuri took  part of the story from Sahih Bukhari vol 5 #369 and added details without giving their sources.
“It is 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."
Maslama went to Ka`b and said, "That man (i.e. Muhammad) demands Sadaqa (i.e. Zakat) [taxes] 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!" 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." Ka`b said, "Yes, but you should mortgage something to me." 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 people's 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 to you."
“Maslama and his companion promised Ka`b that Maslama 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 Maslama and my (foster) brother Abu Na'ila have come." His wife said, "I hear a voice as if blood is dropping from him." Ka`b said, "They are none by my brother Maslama and my foster brother Abu Na'ila. A generous man should respond to a call at night even if invited to be killed."
“Maslama went with two men. So 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. Maslama said, "I have never smelt a better scent than this." Ka`b replied, "I have got the best Arab women who know how to use the high class of perfume." Maslama requested Ka`b "Will you allow me to smell your head?" Ka`b said "yes." Maslama 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 Maslama 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."
In Sahih Muslim the incident is narrated in the following manner.
It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir that
“the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: Who will kill Ka'b bin Ashraf? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger. Muhammad b. Maslama said: Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him? He said: Yes. He said: Permit me to talk (to him in the way I deem fit). He said: Talk (as you like). So, Muhammad b. Maslama came to Ka'b and talked to him, referred to the old friendship between them and said: This man (i. e. the Prophet) has made up his mind to collect charity (from us) and this has put us to a great hardship. When be heard this, Ka'b said: By God, you will be put to more trouble by him. Muhammad b. Maslama said: No doubt, now we have become his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his affairs will take. I want that you should give me a loan. He said: What will you mortgage? He said: What do you want? He said: Pledge me your women. He said: You are the most handsome of the Arabs; should we pledge our women to you? He said: Pledge me your children. He said: The son of one of us may abuse us saying that he was pledged for two wasqs of dates, but we can pledge you (cur) weapons. He said: All right. Then Muhammad bin Maslama promised that he would come to him with Harith, Abu 'Abs b. Jabr and Abbad b. Bishr. So they came and called upon him at night. He came down to them. Sufyan says that all the narrators except 'Amr have stated that his wife said: I hear a voice which sounds like the voice of murder. He said: It is only Muhammad b. Maslama and his foster-brother, Abu Na'ila. When a gentleman calls at night, even it to be pierced with a spear, he should respond to the call. Muhammad said to his companions: As he comes down, I will extend my hands towards his head and when I hold him fast, you should do your job. So when he came down and he was holding his cloak under his arm, they said to him: We sense from you a very fine smell. He said: Yes, I have with me a mistress who is the most scented of the women of Arabia. He 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.”
The two narratives in the books of ahadith differ in details. In the narrative of Bukhari, two men accompany Maslama while in the narrative of Muslim, four men accompany him. In the narratives of Mubarakpuri, we read about one of the people bleeding due to injuries while in the accounts of the Bukhari and Muslim no such details are found.
Based on these two accounts, many Muslim scholars have argued that the enemies of Allah and his prophet can be killed through deception and secretive planning.
Ibn Taymiyyah, one of the most respected Muslim scholars commented on the incident, saying in his book As-Saarim Al-Maslool ‘alaa Shaatim Ar-Rasool: “The way the ruling of the Prophet regarding Ka‘b bin Al-Ashraf was executed indicates that Muslim public interest may necessitate that the execution is done secretly. Secrecy becomes a must if there is potential tribulation, or danger that might harm the Muslims a great deal if the execution is not carried out in secret. This indicates that confrontation with the disbelievers, enemies of Islam, and fighters against the Islamic state is not restricted to the battlefield, but transcends into any action that would spite them, provided it is within the limits of Shariah.”
Ibn Tymiyyah did not try to verify the authenticity of the incident. He did not verify it from the Quranic text. Nor did he evaluate its accuracy from the perspective of the character of the Prophet.
The Prophet’s authority was well established in Medina after the battle of Badr. A treaty had existed among the people of Medina including Jews and pagans that had spelled out the process through which issues related to accusations of treachery were to be discussed. The treaty had established the Prophet as the chief arbitrator in disputes between Muslims and Jews. It is unthinkable that the Prophet would violate this treaty by secretly calling for the killing o Ka’b especially when the Quran says clearly:  to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfill the contracts which you have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah fearing. (2:177)

“Fulfill the Covenant of Allah when ye have entered into it, and break not your oaths after ye have confirmed them; indeed ye have made Allah your surety; for Allah knows all that ye do.” (16:91)

About secretive talks, the Quran says: “No good comes, as a rule, out of secret confabulations - saving such as are devoted to en­joining charity, or equitable dealings, or setting things to rights between people: and him who does this out of a longing for God's goodly acceptance We shall in time grant a mighty reward.” (4:114)
Obviously, the Prophet cannot be accused of violating the Quran and betraying his own character that is presented as the best example of forgiveness and patience.
Thus, it can be concluded that the Prophet did not have any share in the killing of Ka’b because such an act was against his own character, as well as against the Quran. We are told in the Quran that the Prophet does not say of (his own) Desire. (53:3) To say that the Prophet ordered the killing is almost saying that Allah wanted Ka’b to be killed because He perceived his presence a threat to His majesty is ridiculous. This is an absurd idea and it is unfortunate that it has been made part of our literature and even jurisprudence. Moreover, the accounts given about the story by various writers are contradictory and highly untrustworthy.