Talk:Ka'b ibn Asad

Killed, Not massacred

I’m changing it from the term ‘massacred’ to ‘killed’ with the following due justification and if you do want to change it back, discuss in this talk page why:

• 1)“kill a large number of people indiscriminately” see here

and

From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, ‘’“The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans ‘’’indiscriminately’’’ and cruelly.”’’

And finally

“the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty” (Merriam Webster Online)

So regardless if you hold the killings to be cruel from your POV, the dictionaries state that a massacre is a large number of INDISCRIMINATE killings, and it’s been substantiated by the only historical accounts of the event that the killings were judged and anything but indiscriminate, with only one single woman being executed (because she killed a Muslim soldier).

• 2)A war, or a battle is not considered is massacre. Not in classical Islamic times and not in contemporary times. So when Muhammad is fighting a battle it shouldn’t be considered as a massacre. The Jewish tribe had amassed “consisted of one thousand and five hundred swords, two thousand spears, three hundred armours and five hundred shields” (Shaykh Safi ur-Rahmaan Mubarakfoori, in his short work ‘’The Story of the Prisoners of the Battle of Badr’’, under the sub-heading “The Story of the 600-700 Jews Beheaded by the Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam at Bani Quraiza in 5 AH”, which is adapted from From Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtoom)

• 3)Tacticlly, the force under Muhemmed was at disadvantage, how can the weaker party be said to have commit “massacre”. ‘’The Jews of Banu Quraiza could have endured the siege much longer because food and water were plentifully available and their strongholds were greatly fortified, whereas the Muslims were in the wild bare land suffering a lot from cold and hunger, let alone too much fatigue consequent on endless warfare operations that had started even before the battle of Confederates.’’ (same work by Safi ur-Rahman)

• 4)The Jewish tribe HAND-PICKED their judge, Sa’d ibn Mu’adh. (see Sahih Bukhari 8/74/278) This judge, selected by the Jewish tribe themselves, gave the verdict that the able-bodied men (those who were capable of fighting and thus had probably defended the fortified position of Banu Quraiza to be killed). There is no reason to believe ALL of the men were executed or even that innocents were in the mix of execution, since even the judge was of their own selection. ‘’’since when is executing enemies who fought and broke a peace contract “massacre”?’’’

From what I mentioned from Sahih Bukhari already, Sa’d said “"So I give my judgment that their warriors should be killed and their women and children should be taken as captives." So how is this a massacre? Killing people who fought you is massacre?

• 5)Not all of the people killed were even from Banu Quraiza, Huyai (who Safi describes as a war criminal) was from Banu Nadir.

• 6)“…the siege of Banu Quraiza's forts lasted for 25 days.” (see Safi’s work again and also the book of Sahih Bukhari I listed (not the actual hadith I listed, the book itself) How can the after-rulings of a siege of 25 full days be considered as a massacre? An example of massacre is what the Tutsis did to unarmed Rawandans, en-mass. Here, the only people targeted were men suspected of fighting for 25 days, with weaponry ammased against the treaty and a rejection of the treaty (by siding with the enemies).

• 7)Also see by Syed Sulaiman Nadwi regarding a Jewish spy who was going to give over the position of Muslim women during the battle. Clearly this is not a simple “massacre” as you want it to read, it was an all out battle for 25 days, and spies were implemented (to help reveal positions and rations left) More on Banu Quraiza and their alliance with the Confederates

• Conclusion) 'Massacre' is not the appropriate term and it has been changed to 'killed', so unless you can come up with a reason better than, Muhemmed is evil, he kills Jews so it's massacre!111!!!1 and Well that's just your religous POV, than stop reverting, Tickle Me. Furthermore, at least two people have agreed with my position on the term and you're injust reverts and they also persisted in reverting it.

--xx-Mohammad Mufti-xx 09:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have bypassed the debate about "killed" versus "massacred" by removing all reference to Ka'b's death from the opening paragraph. The original form of the article was a stub, the only content of which was that Ka'b was a tribal leader who was killed when he lost a battle. I have added several facts about the last ten years of his life. Therefore the manner of his death is no longer the most important information in the article. The final paragraph makes it clear how and why Ka'b and his tribe died, and readers may assess for themselves whether they consider it "killing," "judicial execution" or "massacre".Grace has Victory (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to Kaab making holes in his robe so that it could not be taken as booty. This was referenced to Ibn Ishaq, who clearly states that the person who made holes in his robe was not Kaab but Huyayy ibn Akhtab. If there is a reference somewhere that both men did this, it should be added.Grace has Victory (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)