Was the Assassination of Ka’b b. Ashraf Treacherous?

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) forbade treachery: 

Narrated’ Abdullah bin’ Amr: The Prophet said, “Whoever has the following four (characteristics) will be a pure hypocrite and whoever has one of the following four characteristics will have one characteristic of hypocrisy unless and until he gives it up. 

1. Whenever he is entrusted, he betrays.

2. Whenever he speaks, he tells a lie.

3. Whenever he makes a covenant, he proves treacherous.

4. Whenever he quarrels, he behaves in a very imprudent, evil and insulting manner.” [Saheeh Al-Bukhari]

He also said:

Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge (wala taghdiru); and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. [Saheeh Muslim]

Yet, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) sanctioned the use of deception in warfare, stating, “War is deceit (khud’a)” [Saheeh Al-Bukhari]. This does not present a contradiction, as it is crucial to distinguish between deception (khud’a) and treachery (ghadr) within the context of military conflicts and hostilities.

Imam as-Sarkhasi (d. 483 A.H.) states in Al-Mabsut:

وَالْغَدْرُ الْخِيَانَةُ وَنَقْضُ الْعَهْدِ

“Treachery refers to betrayal and the breaking of a covenant.”

Imam at-Tabari states what kind of deception is permitted in war in his Tahdheeb al-Athar:

وَإِنَّمَا الَّذِي أَذِنَ فِيهِ مِنْ ذَلِكَ، كَالَّذِي فَعَلَهُ بِالْأَحْزَابِ عَامَ الْخَنْدَقِ

“What has been permitted in this regard is akin to what was done with the Ahzab during the Battle of the Trench.”

The example that Imam at-Tabari refers to is the Battle of the Ditch, particularly highlighting the incident involving:

“A man from the tribe of Ghatfan called Na’im bin Mas’ud asked to be admitted in the audience of the Prophet [pbuh]. He declared that he had embraced Islam secretly and asked the Prophet [pbuh] to order him do anything that might benefit the Muslims. The Prophet [pbuh] asked him to do anything that could help the Muslims in the present distress and use any strategem of avail. The man, in a shuttle movement, between the Jews, Quraish and Ghatfan managed to incite each party to let down the other. He went to see the chiefs of Banu Quraiza and whispered in their ears not to trust Quraish nor fight with them unless the latter pledged some hostages. He tried to lend support to his counsel by claiming that Quraish would forsake them if they perceived that victory over Muhammad [pbuh] was far fetched, and the Muslims then would have terrible revenge on them. Na’im, then headed for the camp of Quraish and managed to practise a similar strategem in its final result but different in content. He claimed that he felt that the Jews regretted breaching their covenant with Muhammad [pbuh] and his followers. He told them that the Jews maintained regular correspondence with the Muslims to the effect that Quraishite hostages be sent to the camp of the Muslims with full Jewish allegiance paid to them as already agreed upon. Na’im then exhorted Quraish not to send hostages to the Jews. On a third errand, he did the same with the people of Ghatfan.” (Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, The Sealed Nectar, Chapter on Al-Ahzab (The Confederates) Invasion, p. 199 Source) 

Here, it is evident that the Muslims employed deception against their enemies who were not bound by any covenant. Such a form of deception is considered permissible.

Imam al-Nawawi states in his commentary on Saheeh Muslim:

واتفق العلماء على جواز خداع الكفار في الحرب , وكيف أمكن الخداع إلا أن يكون فيه نقض عهد أو أمان فلا يحل

“The scholars unanimously agree on the permissibility of deceiving non-believers during warfare. However, this is only permissible as long as it does not involve breaking a covenant or violating a pact of safety, which would not be allowed.”

So, what is the crucial difference between deceiving in war and committing treachery in war? Treachery involves betraying a trust or breaking an agreement, whereas deception does not necessarily involve such a breach. In warfare, it is possible to deceive the enemy without engaging in treachery, as there was never an established loyalty to the enemy that could be violated.

We now come to the event of Ka’b al-Ashraf’s assassination. We read the story in Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Hadith 2762:

Jabir reported:

The Messenger of Allah ( may peace be upon him) said : Who will pursue Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf, for he has caused trouble to Allah and His Apostle? Muhammad bin Maslamah stood up and said: I (shall do), Messenger of Allah. Do you want that I should kill him? He said: Yes. He said: So permit me to say something (against you). He said: Yes say. He then came to him (Ka’b b. al-Ashraf) and said to him: This man has asked us for sadaqah (alms) and has put us into trouble. He (Ka’b) said: You will be more grieved. He (Muhammad bin Maslamah) said: We have followed him and we do not like to forsake him until we see what will be the consequences of his matter. We wished if you could lend us one or two wasqs. Ka’b said: What will you mortgage with me? He asked: what do you want from us? He replied : your Women. They said: Glory be to Allah: You are the most beautiful of the Arabs. If we mortgage our women with you, that will be a disgrace for us. He said “The mortgage your children.” They said “Glory be to Allaah, a son of us may abuse saying “You were mortgaged for one or two wasqs.” They said “We shall mortgage or coat of mail with you. By this he meant arms”. He said “Yes, when he came to him, he called him and he came out while he used perfume and his head was spreading fragrance. When he at with him and he came there accompanied by three or four persons who mentioned his perfume. He said “I have such and such woman with me. She is most fragrant of the women among the people. He (Muhammad bin Maslamah) asked “Do you permit me so that I may smell? He said “Yes. He then entered his hand through his hair and smell it.” He said “May I repeat?” He said “Yes. He again entered his hand through his hair. When he got his complete control, he said “Take him. So they struck him until they killed him.”

In this case, Ka’b al-Ashraf was deceived into believing that Muhammad b. Maslamah approached him as a friend without any intention of harm. He was clearly tricked. However, was this an act of treachery?

When some Muslim scholars used the term fatk (فتك) to describe Ka’b’s killing, they referred to its linguistic meaning, which denotes a killing that is sudden and unexpected, rather than its Islamic legal sense, which implies treachery, defined as the breaking of a covenant.[1] Scholars concur that this was not an act of treachery because Ka’b b. Ashraf had already violated his covenant with the Muslims. Therefore, no covenant was in place at the time of his assassination.

However, scholars differ on how the covenant was broken. Some argue that it was because Ka’b incited the disbelievers to wage war against the Muslims,[2] while others maintain that it was due to his insults directed at the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).[3]

Christians, in particular, should not raise this argument as a moral objection, as the Old Testament records two similar events.

We read in the Book of Judges, chapter 3, verse 12-22:

12 Once again the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the LORD, and because they did this evil the LORD gave Eglon king of Moab power over Israel.

13 Getting the Ammonites and Amalekites to join him, Eglon came and attacked Israel, and they took possession of the City of Palms. ^[4]

14 The Israelites were subject to Eglon king of Moab for eighteen years.

15 Again the Israelites cried out to the LORD, and he gave them a deliverer--Ehud, a left-handed man, the son of Gera the Benjamite. The Israelites sent him with tribute to Eglon king of Moab.

16 Now Ehud had made a double-edged sword about a foot and a half ^[5] long, which he strapped to his right thigh under his clothing.

17 He presented the tribute to Eglon king of Moab, who was a very fat man.

18 After Ehud had presented the tribute, he sent on their way the men who had carried it.

19 At the idols ^[6] near Gilgal he himself turned back and said, “I have a secret message for you, O king.” The king said, “Quiet!” And all his attendants left him.

20 Ehud then approached him while he was sitting alone in the upper room of his summer palace ^[7] and said, “I have a message from God for you.” As the king rose from his seat,

21 Ehud reached with his left hand, drew the sword from his right thigh and plunged it into the king’s belly.

22 Even the handle sank in after the blade, which came out his back. Ehud did not pull the sword out, and the fat closed in over it.

Likewise, we read in the Book of Judges, chapter 4, verses 14-24:

14 Then Deborah said to Barak, “Go! This is the day the LORD has given Sisera into your hands. Has not the LORD gone ahead of you?” So Barak went down Mount Tabor, followed by ten thousand men.

15 At Barak’s advance, the LORD routed Sisera and all his chariots and army by the sword, and Sisera abandoned his chariot and fled on foot.

16 But Barak pursued the chariots and army as far as Harosheth Haggoyim. All the troops of Sisera fell by the sword; not a man was left.

17 Sisera, however, fled on foot to the tent of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, because there were friendly relations between Jabin king of Hazor and the clan of Heber the Kenite.

18 Jael went out to meet Sisera and said to him, “Come, my lord, come right in. Don’t be afraid.” So he entered her tent, and she put a covering over him.

19 “I’m thirsty,” he said. “Please give me some water.” She opened a skin of milk, gave him a drink, and covered him up.

20 “Stand in the doorway of the tent,” he told her. “If someone comes by and asks you, `Is anyone here?’ say `No.’”

21 But Jael, Heber’s wife, picked up a tent peg and a hammer and went quietly to him while he lay fast asleep, exhausted. She drove the peg through his temple into the ground, and he died.

22 Barak came by in pursuit of Sisera, and Jael went out to meet him. “Come,” she said, “I will show you the man you’re looking for.” So he went in with her, and there lay Sisera with the tent peg through his temple--dead.

23 On that day God subdued Jabin, the Canaanite king, before the Israelites.

24 And the hand of the Israelites grew stronger and stronger against Jabin, the Canaanite king, until they destroyed him.

It would be inconsistent for Christians to morally object to the killing of Ka’b while accepting the similarly sanctioned assassinations found in their own scriptures. In fact, the story of Jael in the Old Testament illustrates a clear violation of a covenant, which stands in stark contrast to the circumstances surrounding Ka’b’s assassination.

---

[1] Imam al-Nawawi states in his commentary on Saheeh Muslim:

بل الفتك هو القتل على غرة وغفلة، والغيلة نحوه

“Fatk specifically means killing someone unexpectedly and by surprise, similar to ambush or treachery.”

[2] Imam al-Baghawi says in his Sharh al-Sunnah:

وَكَانَ كَعْب بْن الْأَشْرَف مِمَّن عَاهَدَ رسُول اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَن لَا يُعين عليْهِ أحدا، وَلَا يُقاتله، ثُمّ خلع الْأمان، وَنقض الْعَهْد، وَلحق بِمَكَّة، وَجَاء مُعْلنا معاداة النّبِي صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يهجوه فِي أشعاره، ويسبه، فَاسْتحقَّ الْقَتْل لِذلِك

Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf was among those who had made a pact with the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), agreeing not to support or fight against him. However, he later violated this agreement, broke the covenant, and fled to Mecca. There, he openly declared his hostility towards the Prophet, attacking him in his poetry and insulting him. As a result, he deserved to be killed for these actions.

[3] See Ibn Taymiyyah’s discussion on the killing of Ka’b in his book, al-Sarim al-Maslul.