A Prophet Above Criticism? Muhammad, Assassinations, and the Collapse of the ‘Perfect Example’ Narrative
Islam presents Muhammad as the ultimate moral exemplar, a prophet whose life embodies divine guidance for all humanity. The Qur’an declares, “Indeed in the Messenger of Allah you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for Allah and the Last Day…” (Surah 33:21). Yet, when we examine Muhammad’s actions through Islam’s own sources, a troubling pattern emerges: his authorization of assassinations against critics and adversaries. These acts—far from reflecting moral perfection—reveal a leader driven by pragmatism and vengeance, undermining the claim of an infallible guide. When paired with Muhammad’s deception in the Satanic Verses, his possession fears, and other theological flaws, the assassination episodes expose a prophet not above criticism but deeply flawed, collapsing the narrative of his exemplary status.
The Qur’anic Claim: Muhammad as the Perfect Example
Surah 33:21 positions Muhammad as a moral and spiritual model, a claim reinforced by Hadiths like Sahih al-Bukhari 7.70.557, where Muhammad’s actions are said to guide believers. Islamic tradition holds that his sunnah (example) is authoritative, shaping ethics, law, and devotion. Yet, this narrative falters when confronted with historical accounts of Muhammad ordering assassinations, actions that clash with any reasonable standard of moral excellence.
Assassinations Ordered by Muhammad: The Evidence
Islamic sources, including Sahih Hadith and early biographies, document several instances where Muhammad sanctioned the killing of individuals, often for criticizing or opposing Islam. Three prominent cases illustrate this:
Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf (d. 624 CE):
Source: Sahih al-Bukhari 5.59.369; Ibn Hisham, Sirat Rasul Allah, pp. 367–369.
Context: Ka’b, a Jewish poet in Medina, composed verses mocking Muhammad and inciting the Quraysh against him after the Battle of Badr. Muhammad reportedly said, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?” His companions, led by Muhammad ibn Maslama, deceived Ka’b, lured him out, and assassinated him.
Details: The killers used deception, gaining Ka’b’s trust by pretending to criticize Muhammad, then stabbed him at night. Muhammad praised the act, and Bukhari notes it instilled fear in Medina’s Jews.
Abu Rafi (Sallam ibn Abi al-Huqayq, d. 627 CE):
Source: Sahih al-Bukhari 5.59.371; Ibn Hisham, pp. 714–715.
Context: Abu Rafi, a Jewish leader, opposed Muhammad and supported his enemies. Muhammad dispatched a team from the Ansar, led by Abdullah ibn Atik, to kill him in Khaybar. The assassins infiltrated his home, killed him in his sleep, and escaped.
Details: The mission involved stealth and deception, with Muhammad approving the outcome. The act was celebrated as a victory for Islam.
Asma bint Marwan (disputed, d. 624 CE):
Source: Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat 2.30–31; not in Sahih collections, thus debated.
Context: Asma, a poetess, criticized Muhammad’s killings in Medina. He reportedly asked, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” Umayr ibn Adi assassinated her at night, stabbing her while she slept with her children. Muhammad allegedly commended Umayr.
Debate: While Ibn Sa’d records this, its absence from Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim leads some scholars to question its authenticity. However, its inclusion in early biographies lends historical plausibility.
Historical Context: In 7th-century Arabia, tribal warfare and retribution were common, and Muhammad faced existential threats from critics and enemies. Assassinations may have been pragmatic, consolidating his power in Medina. Yet, their moral implications challenge the claim of universal moral perfection.
Moral and Theological Implications
The assassinations raise profound questions about Muhammad’s status as a “good example” (Surah 33:21):
Ethical Failure:
Ordering killings, especially via deception (Ka’b, Abu Rafi), contradicts principles of honesty and justice expected of a divine prophet. The Bible condemns such acts (Proverbs 6:16-19, God hates “hands that shed innocent blood”).
Targeting critics like Ka’b for poetry or Asma for speech suggests intolerance of dissent, clashing with modern notions of free expression and even the Qur’an’s call to “invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom” (Surah 16:125).
Contrast with Jesus:
Jesus, Christianity’s moral exemplar, rejected violence against critics, saying, “Love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44). When Peter struck a soldier, Jesus rebuked him (John 18:11). Muhammad’s assassinations stand in stark contrast, undermining Islam’s claim to supersede Christianity.
From a Christian perspective (2 Corinthians 11:14), these acts align with a deceptive influence, echoing Muhammad’s Satanic Verses error (Ibn Ishaq, p. 165).
Undermining Divine Guidance:
A prophet guided by Allah should model universal ethics, not tribal vengeance. Muhammad’s possession fears (Sahih al-Bukhari 1.1.3) and suicidal ideation (Bukhari 9.87.111) already suggest spiritual vulnerability; ordering assassinations further questions his divine clarity.
The Qur’an’s vague moral framework (Surah 33:21 lacks specific guidance) and reliance on Hadiths for Muhammad’s actions expose a system prone to justifying violence, unlike the Gospels’ clear ethical teachings (Matthew 7:12).
Flaw: A “perfect example” should transcend cultural norms, not reflect them. Muhammad’s assassinations, even if strategic, betray a moral failing that disqualifies him as a universal role model.
Muslim Responses: Justifications Fall Short
Muslim scholars and apologists offer defenses, but they falter:
Contextual Necessity: Some argue the assassinations were wartime measures against traitors (Ka’b, Abu Rafi) who threatened the Muslim community. Yet, targeting individuals for speech or influence, not direct combat, stretches the definition of “necessity” and ignores deception’s ethical weight.
Prophetic Prerogative: Scholars like Al-Ghazali claim Muhammad’s actions, as Allah’s messenger, are inherently just (Ihya Ulum al-Din). This circular reasoning dodges moral scrutiny, unlike Jesus’ transparent ethics (John 13:15).
Disputing Weaker Accounts: The Asma bint Marwan story is dismissed by some due to its non-Sahih status. However, Ka’b and Abu Rafi’s killings, in Sahih al-Bukhari, are undisputed, and Asma’s story aligns with the pattern of silencing critics.
Weakness: These responses either justify violence with context or evade criticism by appealing to Muhammad’s authority, mirroring excuses for the Satanic Verses (Surah 22:52) or the Night Journey’s anachronism (Surah 17:1). They fail to reconcile assassinations with moral perfection.
Connection to Muhammad’s Broader Flaws
The assassination episodes amplify existing critiques of Muhammad’s prophethood:
Satanic Verses: Muhammad’s recitation of false verses praising pagan goddesses (Al-Tabari, Tarikh VI, pp. 107–110) shows he could be deceived, undermining his reliability, much like his pragmatic killings suggest moral compromise.
Possession Fears: His initial terror of demonic influence (Bukhari 1.1.3) and suicidal despair (Bukhari 9.87.111) reveal a prophet prone to doubt, not divine certainty, consistent with actions driven by human, not divine, motives.
Qur’anic Ambiguities: The Qur’an’s pagan-like oaths (Surah 91:1-4) and endorsement of a non-existent mosque (Surah 17:1) reflect cultural and historical errors, paralleling the assassinations’ reliance on tribal norms over universal ethics.
These flaws collectively dismantle the narrative of a prophet “above criticism,” exposing a figure shaped by his time, not eternity.
Biblical Contrast: A True Moral Exemplar
The Gospels present Jesus as a stark contrast to Muhammad:
Non-Violence: Jesus forgave his enemies, even during crucifixion (Luke 23:34), unlike Muhammad’s targeted killings.
Moral Clarity: The Gospels’ teachings (Matthew 5:38-42, turn the other cheek) offer universal ethics, corroborated by early manuscripts (e.g., P52, c. 125 CE), unlike the Qur’an’s reliance on late Hadiths (Bukhari, c. 870 CE).
Reliability: The Gospels’ apostolic authorship and external corroboration (Josephus, Antiquities 18.3.3) surpass the Qur’an’s solitary prophet and lack of contemporary validation, as seen in the Islamic Dilemma (Surah 5:47).
Jesus’ example aligns with divine justice, while Muhammad’s assassinations reflect human expediency, unfit for a “perfect” prophet.
Conclusion: The Collapse of a Narrative
The Qur’an’s claim that Muhammad is a “good example” (Surah 33:21) crumbles under the weight of his actions. Ordering assassinations—Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf, Abu Rafi, and possibly Asma bint Marwan—reveals a prophet who silenced critics with deception and violence, far from the moral perfection Islam asserts. These acts, documented in Sahih Hadith and early biographies, clash with universal ethics and divine justice, exposing Muhammad as a product of 7th-century tribal warfare, not a timeless guide.
When viewed alongside his Satanic Verses deception, possession fears, and theological contradictions, the assassination episodes cement a pattern of fallibility. The Gospels’ Jesus, by contrast, offers a coherent, non-violent model, backed by reliable texts and historical anchors. For those seeking a prophet above criticism, Muhammad’s legacy fails the test, collapsing the narrative of perfection and pointing not to divine truth but to human frailty.
No comments:
Post a Comment