There are 3 people you can be referring to. 2 of them have fake weak isnads and the stories make no sense ( abhu afak and asma ) and kaab instigated a war on the prophet muhammad saws in order to get hi killed.
To refute:
1. Asma bint Marwan: it is not reliably transmitted , ibn ishaqs story, Ibn Ishaq's Sīratu Rasūlu l-Lāh, an important early work of sīra, was composed over 100 years after the Prophet's death using oral traditions passed down from his early followers. However, its accuracy for use as hadith, a body of traditions of the prophet that Muslim scholars use to flesh out Islamic doctrine, is not completely accepted. This particular story has been challenged by Muslim scholars for having a weak chain of transmission, on account of it containing a known fabricator, Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj.
Ibn Ishaq's version of the story has a number of chains of transmission (isnads) that go back to Ibn ‘Abbas, a companion of Muhammad. However, all those various isnads include Muhammad ibn al-Hajjaj al-Lakhmi, also a known fabricator of hadith:
Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Shami → Muhammad ibn al-Hajjaj al-Lakhmi → Mujalid ibn Sa’ed → Al-Shu'abi → Ibn ‘Abbas
Muhammad ibn al-Hajjaj al-Lakhmi has been accused by hadith scholars of fabricating this and other hadiths. Ibn ʻAdī (died 976) stated: "...this isnad (chain of reporters) is not narrated on authority of Mujalid but by Muhammad ibn al-Hajjaj al-Lakhmi and they all (other reporters in the chain) accuse Muhammad Ibn Al-Hajjaj of forging it".
Ibn al-Jawzi (died 1201) said something similar in his Al-'ilal.
Regarding Al-Lakhmi, Al-Bukhari said: "his hadith is abandoned",
Yahya ibn Ma'een said: "compulsive liar" and once said: "not trustworthy".
Al-Daraqutni denounced him as a liar.
1. then ibn sad narrative is even more stupid. firstly again the chain is not correct Al-Albani declared Ibn Sa'd's chain of transmission to be weak as well, as it includes Al-Waqidi:
Ibn Sa'd → Al-Waqidi → 'Abd Allah ibn al-Harith ibn al-Fudayl → Al-Harith ibn al-Fudayl
Al-Waqidi has been condemned as an untrustworthy narrator and has been frequently and severely criticized by scholars, thus his narrations have been abandoned by the majority of hadith scholars.
Yahya ibn Ma'een said: "Al-Waqidi narrated 20,000 false hadith about the prophet". Al-Shafi'i, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Al-Albani
said: "Al-Waqidi is a liar" while Al-Bukhari said he didn't include a single letter by Al-Waqidi in his hadith works.
In addition, this isnad is discontinued (muʻḍal) as Al-Harith ibn al-Fudayl never met any of Muhammad's companions.
1. and why ibn sad story is more retarded is because the hadith says: “She used to revile Islam, offend the prophet, and instigate the people against him. She composed verses. Umayr Ibn Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced upto her back. …” [1]
2. muhammad sent a blind man to do a killing? really now. either way i have proven from the chainof narration that this story is fake, from ibn sads narration a guy that is blind is commanded to do a killing
3. let me just post some more links that completely refute this whole narrative,
4.
http://azblogtalk.blogspot.nl/2015/01/the-murder-of-asma-bint-marwan-myth-vs.html and
http://www.quran-errors.com/the-authenticity-of-the-assassination-story-of-asma-bint-marwan.htmland and
https://islamqa.info/en/177694https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMvEKd_fu041. and
https://discover-the-truth.com/2015/04/04/story-of-asma-bint-marwans-killing-true-or-false-part-1/ and
https://discover-the-truth.com/2015/04/04/story-of-asma-bint-marwans-killing-true-or-false-part-2/ 2. so now your best source of information is broken, the narrators are fakers and forgers and the story dont make sense as a blind man is sent to do a killing, hmm I think more should be said regarding the authenticity of the narration, look at what it says... A blind man crept all the way across town found her house, made it into her bedroom where she was with here 5 kids and an infant, mannaged to locate her in a house he had not seen beffore, not wake anyone up, then remove the child from her arms while she was still sleeping and didnt notice, murder her with out her making a sound or her children waking and then escape...the story does say he was blind.
So asma to conclude: all the isnads to her story are fabricated and weak. And the story doesnt make sense as it is a blind man doing a killing
Next abu afak
For abu afak it is again very easy to refute, as the story is both baseless and if we dig deeper we some things done by abu afak as well.
Firstly proving the story is baseless requires no effor. Because there is literally no isnad for the stkrym there is no chain of narration so we don’t know who gave us such a story thus hoe can we accept it.
As yahya snow said:
According to Ibn Sa'd and Ibn Ishâq, Abu 'Afak was a 120 years old Jewish man who had abused the Prophet(P) verbally, so the latter launched a raid under the command of Salîm Ibn 'Umaîr to kill him. We do know that Ibn Ishâq lived in the 2nd half of the 2nd century after Hijra, as well as Al-Waqîdî from whom Ibn Sa'd (died 230 A.H.) copied the story of Abu 'Afak.
As explained above, the chain of reporters of the story from eye-witnesses of the event till Ibn Ishâq or Al-Waqîdî must be examined and verified. So, our legitimate question is: where is the isnâd (i.e., chain of reporters)?
Unfortunately, references of the Sîrah do not provide such information. Actually, we are told that this story has no isnâd at all; neither Ibn Ishâq (or his disciple Ibn Hîsham) nor Al-Waqîdî (or his disciple Ibn Sa'd) had provided such a thing! In this case, the story is rated by hadîth scholars as "...of no basis", indicating that it has reached the lowest degree of criticism regarding its isnâd. This is in fact a proper scientific position because we cannot accept such a problematic story without evidence.
In brief, we have no commitment to accept such a baseless story - according to scientific criteria of hadîth criticism - which strangely had appeared in the 2nd half of the 2nd century after Hijra. We are therefore obliged to reject the story of the killing of Abu 'Afak by Salîm Ibn 'Umaîr at the Prophet’s command.
Besides this. I have also gone even deeper into the stories ( these stories I found are from the same or other sources. Im not saying they are strong but neither are the hadiths saying he killed him either. But by putting all of this together even if we assume it is strong, ehich it isnt, we could still explain it)
Now what did he do.
“فكان (أبو عفك) اليهودي يحرض على رسول الله”
“The Yahud (Abu Afak) used to instigate (war) against the Messenger of Allah.” (Tarikh al-Khamis, by Husayn Ibn Muhammad Diyarbakri, volume 1, page 408)
يحرض الناس على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
“He (Abu Afak) incited the people (al-nas) against the Messenger of Allah.” (al-Sirah al-Halabiya, by Ali Burhan al-Din al-Halabi, volume 3, page 147
أبي عفك اليهودي من بني عمرو بن عوف وكان شيخا كبيرا قد بلغ مائة وعشرين سنة وكان يحرض على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
“Abu Afak… instigated (war) against the Messenger of Allah.” (Bidaya Wa Nihaya, by Ibn Kathir, volume 5, page 202. Arabic Edition)
يحرض يحث ويحمل الناس “على” قتال “النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم”
“He (Abu Afak) was spurring the movement of provoking and stimulating the people so as to kill the Messenger of Allah.” (Sharh al-Zurqani`alal Mawahib-al laduniyah lil Qastallani by Imam Muhammad az-Zarqani, volume 2, page 347, online source,
http://shamela.ws/browse.php/book-26568/page-860 )
So basically to conclude on abu afak the story is baseless and has no narrator meaning we eont accept it. But even if you want to acceot it we see that he used to instigate war on the prophet wanting to kill him either way it is a false and fake fabricated story.
Finally kaab bin ashraf
After the Battle of Badr, one of the Banu Nadir's chiefs Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, went to the Quraish in order to lament the loss at Badr and to incite them to take up arms to regain lost honor, noting the statement of Muhammad: "He (Ka'b) has openly assumed enmity to us and speaks evil of us and he has gone over to the polytheists (who were at war with Muslims) and has made them gather against us for fighting".[14] This was in contravention of the Constitution of Medina, of which the tribe led by Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf was a signatory, which prohibited them from "extending any support" to the tribes of Mecca, namely Quraish. Some sources suggest that during his visit to Mecca, Ka'b concluded a treaty with Abu Sufyan, stipulating cooperation between the Quraysh and Jews against Muhammad
Ka’ab bin Al Ashraf used to satire the Prophet and incited the infidels of the Quraish against him. …” (Sunan Abi Dawud: Book 19, Hadith 2994)
A real authority and great muhaddith ibn hajar says: The author [Bukhari] placing this in the chapter of Jihad gives the mean that Ka’b was a war enemy. … He was assassinated only because he violated his treaty and assisted in the war against the Messenger of Allah (p)…” (Fath al-Bari, by Ibn Hajar, page 160 and page 340)
KA’B BIN AL-ASHRAF, KILLED
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 (p) and the most zealous advocate of waging war against him. He belonged to Tai’ tribe…” (Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum – The Sealed Nectar: Biography of the Noble Prophet By Safi-Ur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, page 241)
He also incited the Mushrikeen (idolaters) to take revenge against Nabee (Prophet) and the Muslims. This was the same enemy who invited Nabee (Prophet) for a meal and has placed some people to kill him. Allah informed Nabee about this plan and he left from there before this evil plan could be executed. Many Sahabah intended killing this evil man but were exhorted by Nabee (Prophet) to exercise patience and tolerance. However when his evil crossed all limits Nabee (Prophet) permitted action against him and Muhammad bin Maslamah and other finally carried out a mission in which they annihilated this enemy of Allah from the face of the earth.” (Seerah Sayyidul Ambiyaa – The Noble Life of Prophet Muhammad By Muhammad Ali Bin Zubair Ali, page 139)
he went to the Quraish, weeping over their killed (at Badr) and inciting them to fight with the Prophet.’ (Zurqani, vol ii, p. 10)
The Prophet said): ‘He (Ka’b) has openly assumed enmity to us and speaks evil of us and he has gone over to the polytheists (who were at war with Muslims) and has made them gather against us for fighting’ (Zurqani, vol. ii, p. 11)
‘And according to Kalbi, he united in a league with the Quraish before the curtains of the Ka’bah, to fight against the Muslims.’ (Zurqani, vol. ii, p. 11)
‘And he prepared a feast, and conspired with some Jews that he would invite the prophet, and when he came they should fall on him all of a sudden.’ (Zurqani, vol. ii, p. 12)
Ka’b used to incite people to murder the Muslims. Ka’b had broken his agreement with the Prophet, he had revolted against him, he had entered into a league to fight against Muslims till they were extirpated, and he had secretly planned to take away the Prophet’s life. Muhammad the Prophet: by Maulana Muhammad Ali, page 202 – 206)
So the guy treasoned a pact with muhammad and insticated hate against the muslims wanted to make a pact of coalition with the non muslim enemies of the muslims and muhammad in order to wage war against him and to kill muhammad SAWS.
Show Posts