"The first victim was a woman," writes Major Osborn, "Asma, daughter of Marwan; she had composed some satirical verses on the Prophet and his followers; and Muhammad, moved to anger, said publicly: "Who will rid me of this woman?" Omeir, a blind man, but an ardent Moslem, heard the speech, and at dead of night crept into the apartment where Asma lay asleep surrounded by her little ones; he felt about in the darkness till his hand rested on the sleeping woman, and then, the next instance his sword was plunged into her breast."[206]
The story of Asma"s murder has been variously related by the Arabian writers, and the testimonies on which it rests are contradictory and conflicting in themselves. Wakidi, Ibn Sad, and Ibn Hisham relate a very strange thing about it, that she was killed by Omeir the _blind_ at the dead of night. A blind person commits murder in a stranger"s house during nocturnal quietness, and is not arrested by any one! Doctor Weil writes, that Omeir was a former husband of Asma, and the origin of the murder may be traced to a long-brooding and private malice. Ibn Asakar in his history (vide _Seerat Shamee_) relates that Asma was a fruit-seller; some person of her tribe asked her if she had better fruits. She said "yes," and entered her house followed by that man. She stooped down to take something up, the person turned right and left, and seeing that n.o.body was near, gave a violent blow on her head, and thus dispatched her.
[Sidenote: 47. The story deserves not our belief.]
The historians even relate that Omeir, being offended at the verses composed by Asma, had volunteered himself of his own free-will to kill her.[207] She might have been a sacrifice to envy or hatred by the sword of her a.s.sa.s.sin, but Mohammad really had no hand in her death. She had made herself an outlaw by deluding the people of Medina to a breach of treaty with the Moslems, whereby the rights and jurisdictions of Jews and Moslems were definitively settled.
Ibn Ishak quietly leaves unnarrated any transaction with regard to Asma.
Wakidi and Ibn Sad do not affirm that Mohammad, being annoyed at her lampoons, said dejectedly, "Who would rid me of that woman?" On the contrary, Wakidi writes, that Omeir had voluntarily swore to take her life. It is only Ibn Hisham who relates without citing his authority, that Mohammad, hearing Asma"s verses, declared: "Is there n.o.body for me (i.e., _to rid me_) from Bint Marwan?" This version of the story has no corroborative proofs from the earliest biographers, and we are not inclined to put any faith in it.[208]
2.--_Abu Afak._
[Sidenote: 48. Abu Afak.]
It has been related that Abu Afak of Bani Amr had enraged the Moslems by fomenting enmity and sedition against their Government, when one Haris was executed for his murdering treacherously his fellow-comrade in the battle of Ohad during the time they were fighting together side by side.
A convert from amongst the Bani Amr vowed to slay Abu Afak, and falling unawares upon him killed him with a cruel blow of his sword. From Ibn Ishak we learn that Mohammad had said with reference to Abu Afak, "Who would rid me of this pestilent fellow?"[209] The biographers do not give their authorities whence they derived their information of the words attributed to Mohammad which he is said to have uttered with relation to Abu Afak before his followers; while at the same time it is no fair justice to form a hasty opinion of the fact without a critical examination and well-balancing of evidences of men like Ibn Ishak and others who have forgotten to tell us the original sources of their own a.s.sertion. Besides, the words quoted above are not equivalent to a peremptory order, and even granting this last condition, we are not justified in construing them to mean _a.s.sa.s.sination_. Sir W. Muir writes that, "the Secretary of Wackidi says distinctly--"Now this was by command of the Prophet."" (Vol. III, p. 133, _f.n._) But it is a very easy thing for the secretary or other biographers to give an ample play to their fancies, or to fabricate commands, which the Prophet had never given out, on a very slender basis, or on no reasonable basis at all.
The tendency of the biographers is always to exonerate the companions of the Prophet at the expense of truth, and to justify their deeds by casting the whole blame upon him.
3.--_Kab, son of Ashraf._
[Sidenote: 49. Kab, son of Ashraf.]
Kab-ibn Ashraf was an influential Jew connected with the tribe of Bani Nazeer. Being very much mortified by the defeat of the Meccans at the battle of Badr, he soon after proceeded to Mecca, where he stirred up the Koreish to avenge themselves on the Moslems of Medina. On his return to the latter place he manifested avowed hostility towards the Moslem Commonwealth. He was a traitor and a turncoat, for he not only violated his allegiance to the Moslems, but preached rebellion among their enemies. Under such circ.u.mstances, he deserved execution by the military and international law, and was decapitated at Medina accordingly. The mode of execution was a sudden violence or deception, but Mohammad never fulminated any harsh commands against him either for his a.s.sa.s.sination or for his murder. He deserved capital punishment for his treachery, which was duly measured out to him in the absence of any legal tribunals for trials of criminals by jury, for in that case any man was authorized to execute the sentence of the law. Even if it be taken for granted that the Prophet had prayed "O Lord, deliver me from the son of Ashraf, in whatsoever manner seemeth good unto thee, because of his open sedition and verses;" or said, "Who can ease me of the son of Ashraf?"[210] This does not amount to a fiat for murder or execution, much less for a.s.sa.s.sination.
[Sidenote: 50. Mohammad could not have any share in his murder.]
The biographers and narrators of the campaigns of Mohammad generally relate untrustworthy and fabulous details of such events, and are by no means to be relied upon. Mohammad Ibn Ishak, the earliest biographer, whose work exists, does not relate that Mohammad the Prophet ever prayed for, or said to his followers, to be got rid of Kab; whereas the latest biographers and traditionalists give us to understand that the Prophet sanctioned the murder of Kab by his own express orders. "I am far from a.s.serting," says Sir W. Muir, "that every detail in the foregoing narrative, either of instigation by Mahomet or of deception by the a.s.sa.s.sins, is beyond suspicion. The actors in such scenes were not slow to magnify and embellish their own services at the expense of truth.
There may also have been the desire to justify an act of perfidy, at which even the loose morality of the day was startled, by casting the burden of it on the infallible Prophet. But, after allowing all due weight to both of these considerations, enough remains to prove, in this case, the worst features of a.s.sa.s.sination, and the fact that they were directly countenanced, or rather prompted, by Mahomet himself."[211]
There is no substantial proof in this case which tends to establish the instigation Mohammad offered for the murder of Kab. The best traditions for the story of Kab"s a.s.sa.s.sination rest with Jabir-bin Abdullah,[212]
and Ibn Abbas through Ikrama.[213]
None of them can be an authority, for they were neither eye-witnesses, nor they heard the Prophet countenancing or prompting the a.s.sa.s.sination, nor they allude to their own authorities. Jabir-bin Abdullah was a mere boy at that time. He was not allowed to appear even at the battle of Ohad, which took place after the alleged execution of Kab, on account of his tender age.[214] Ibn Abbas was even younger than Jabir, and besides, was putting up at Mecca at the period in question.[215] Ikrama was a slave of Ibn Abbas, and was notoriously given to the forging of fict.i.tious traditions.[216]
4.--_Sofian-bin Khalid._
[Sidenote: 51. Sofian-bin Khalid.]
After the reverse at Medina, in the battle of Ohad, large gatherings were organized in various quarters of Arabia against the Moslems. The Bani Lahyan, and other neighbouring tribes, rallied round the standard of their chief Sofian, the son of Khalid, at Orna with the avowed purpose of taking this occasion by the forelock when the tables were turned at Ohad. "Mahomet, knowing that their movements depended solely upon Sofian, despatched Abdullah ibn Oneis with instructions to a.s.sa.s.sinate him."[217] The accredited envoy volunteered himself for the service, which he accomplished by destroying Sofian by surprise. Neither Ibn Ishak, nor Ibn Hisham, nor Ibn Sad have anything to say about "instructions" for a.s.sa.s.sination. Abdullah-bin Oneis may have been sent as a spy to reconnoitre the movements of Sofian and his army, or to bring advices concerning him, but it cannot be affirmed that he was tutored by Mohammad to a.s.sa.s.sinate Sofian, even on the supposition that his mission was to kill the latter.
[Sidenote: 52. Justifications of Sofian"s alleged murder.]
Among the Arabs the international law of estates in their hostile relations, and the military law and usage of former times, not forgetting to mention the European international law as late as the last century, maintained the broad principle that "in war everything done against an enemy is lawful that he may be destroyed, though unarmed and defenceless; that fraud or even poison may be employed against him; that a most unlimited right is acquired to his person and property."[218]
Every sort of fraud except perfidy was allowed to be practised towards an enemy in war. "I allow of any kind of deceit," writes Bynkershoek, a writer on international law, the successor of Puffendorf and the predecessor of Wolff and Vattel, "perfidy alone excepted, not because anything is unlawful against an enemy, but because when our faith had been pledged to him, so far as the promise extends, he ceases to be an enemy."[219]
In the case of Sofian there was no perfidy, treachery, or violation of faith, nor was there any permission granted by Mohammad for his a.s.sa.s.sination. He sent, if it be proved he did (but it is never proved), Abdullah against Sofian who had made every preparation of arms, and who had mustered together several Bedouin tribes to attack Mohammad, to fight and kill him; it was a straightforward course allowed by the usages of the military law. Mohammad had distinctly and expressly interdicted _perfidy, deceit and a.s.sa.s.sination_. "Do not," said he, charging his commanders and soldiers on the point of marching for a military expedition, "commit perfidy, and do not mutilate, and do not kill a child."[220] He also laid down the golden maxim, "_Belief is the restraint to a.s.sa.s.sination. No believer should commit a.s.sa.s.sination_."[221]
5.--_Abu Rafe._
[Sidenote: 53. Abu Rafe.]
Abu Rafe, called also Sallam Ibn Abul Hokeik, was the chief of Bani Nazeer, who had warred with the Moslems at Medina, and had been banished to Khyber. He had taken a prominent part in the a.s.sembling of most of the Bedouin tribes at the war of the confederates when they besieged Medina. Subsequently, he had excited Bani Fezara and other Bedouin tribes to carry on their depredations among the Moslems. A band of the latter was dispatched to inflict condign punishment upon him, and he met with his death at their hands. But the account of his execution are full of contradictions and discrepancies. But none of these diverse stories has, that Mohammad commanded the a.s.sa.s.sination of Abu Rafe, while Ibn Ishak gives no account of him at all. Ibn Hisham has--"That Abu Rafe had brought the confederate army against Mohammad, and some of Khazraj had asked permission to kill him, and Mohammad permitted them."[222] Sir W.
Muir narrates that Mohammad "gave them command to make away with Abul Huckeick,"[223] whilst the Secretary of Wakidi, whom he follows, simply says, "He gave command to kill him." "_Making away with a person_"
creates an idea of secret murder tantamount to "a.s.sa.s.sination," but such is not the wording of the original. _Sending a party to kill_, or _fight with an enemy_ are synonymous, and permissible by the international or military law, the Arab mode of fighting mostly consisting of single combats.
6.--_Oseir-bin Zarim._[224]
[Sidenote: 54. Oseir-bin Zarim.]
Oseir-ibn Zarim, the chief of Bani Nazeer, had maintained a hostile animosity against the Moslems of Medina, to war with whom he had enrolled himself in the adverse tribe of Ghatafan. Preparations were briskly made by this tribe to make a havoc of Medina, and Oseir had been made the hero of the enterprise. Hereupon Mohammad delegated the mission of bringing the insurgent to Medina to Abdullah-bin Rawaha and some others, with a promise of making him Governor of Khyber,[225] and treating him with marked distinction, if he yielded to the wishes of the Prophet. Oseir complied, and set out with his followers to Medina. On a camel were mounted Abdullah-bin, Oneis, and Oseir. Hardly they had travelled six miles when Oseir repented of his determination to go to Medina, and stretched forth his hand towards the sword of Abdullah, who leaped from the camel and cut off his leg, Oseir in the meantime wounding Abdullah"s head with his camel staff.[226]
Now, whether Oseir was a.s.sa.s.sinated or murdered perfidiously; whether he meditated treachery, and Abdullah struck him in his self-defence,--whatever might be the case, certainly there is nothing in the narrative of Oseir"s death to show that Mohammad had sent him "on a secret errand with a view of getting rid of the Jewish chief" as Sir W.
Muir explains.[227] The story is not imparted by earliest writers like Ibn Ishak, and the traditions of a later date are incoherent, one-sided, and imperfect. Notwithstanding these inaccuracies, no account tells us that mandates were issued for fighting with or killing Oseir, much less for his a.s.sa.s.sination.
7.--_The alleged intended a.s.sa.s.sination of Abu Sofian._
[Sidenote: 55. The intended a.s.sa.s.sination of Abu Sofian.]
A Bedouin Arab was sent by Abu Sofian to Medina to a.s.sa.s.sinate Mohammad.
The emissary was tracked in his evil attempt, and confessed the purpose with which he had come. This is related by Ibn Sad Katib Wakidi as the cause of Mohammad"s sending Amr Ibn Omeya to a.s.sa.s.sinate Abu Sofian.[228] According to Hishamee, Amr was commissioned by the Prophet to fight with Abu Sofian, and to kill him in immediate revenge for the murder of Khobeib and his companions captured at Raji.[229] Now, Ibn Ishak and Wakidi preserve absolute silence on this head. Ibn Hisham relates nothing about a.s.sa.s.sination. It is only Ibn Sad Katib Wakidi who hands down to posterity the orders of Mohammad for the a.s.sa.s.sination of Abu Sofian. This tradition is neither strengthened by any sterling witness, nor is it a genuine one; and for this very reason it was not accepted by Ibn Ishak or even by Wakidi, so p.r.o.ne to the recital of apocryphal traditions.
[Sidenote: 56. Irving and Muir quoted: concluding remarks.]
Referring to the above attempted a.s.sa.s.sination Mr. Washington Irving says: "During this period of his career Mahomet in more than one instance narrowly escaped falling by the hand of an a.s.sa.s.sin. He himself is charged with the use of insidious means to rid himself of an enemy, for it is said that he sent Amru Ibn Omeya on a secret errand to Mecca, to a.s.sa.s.sinate Abu Sofian, but the plot was discovered, and the a.s.sa.s.sin only escaped by rapid flight. The charge, however, is not well substantiated, and is contrary to his general character and conduct."[230]
Sir W. Muir writes: "There is just a shadow of possibility that the tradition may have been fabricated by the anti-Omeyad party to throw odium on the memory of Abu Sofian, as having been deemed by Mahomet worthy of death. But this is not to be put against the evidence of unanimous and apparently independent traditions."[231] But, in fact, there are no unanimous and apparently independent traditions of the command of Mohammad to a.s.sa.s.sinate Abu Sofian; there is only one and but one, by Ibn Sad, which is wholly unreliable, and that too from the lips of the would-be a.s.sa.s.sin himself who before the introduction of Islam was a professional cutthroat, whose narration, therefore, deserves not our belief.
Even if it be taken for granted that Mohammad did send some one to a.s.sa.s.sinate Abu Sofian, who had already sent some one to a.s.sa.s.sinate Mohammad as related by Ibn Sad, it was justified in self-defence. It was a measure for retaliation, not one of mere revenge, but only a means of protective retribution, which is lawful under the military law.[232]
[Footnote 205: Selections from the Kur-an by Edward William Lane, with an Introduction by Stanley Lane Poole. Intro., p. xliv: Trubner & Co., London, 1879.]
[Footnote 206: Islam under the Arabs, by R.D. Osborn, p. 60, London, 1876.]
[Footnote 207: Wakidi"s Campaigns of Mohammad, pp. 172 & 173: Calcutta Baptist Mission Press; edited by A. Von Kremer.]
[Footnote 208: Sir W. Muir writes that "Hishami says, that Mahomet, being vexed by Asma"s verses, said _publicly_, "Who will rid me of this woman?"" But there is no such word in Ibn Hisham which may be rendered "_publicly_."]
[Footnote 209: Ibn Hisham, p. 994. Wakidi does not give this sentence.
On the contrary, he says, Salim had taken a vow to kill Abu Afak or die himself.]
[Footnote 210: Ibn Sad Katib Wakidi, pp. 186, 187.]
[Footnote 211: The Life of Mahomet, by Sir W. Muir, Vol. III, pp.
147-148.]
[Footnote 212: In the collections of Bokhari in the Book of Campaigns; and in the Book of Jihad by Moslim.]
[Footnote 213: Mohammad-bin Sad Katib Wakidi and Mohammad-bin Ishak. The latter in Ibn Hisham, p. 551.]
[Footnote 214: Vide _Osaba-fi Tamiz Issahaba_; or, Biographical Dictionary of Persons who knew Mohammad, by Ibn Hajr-al-Askalani. Part I, No. 1021, p. 434.]