Ansar.Org stated:
Shortly after the demise of Rasulullah r a number of tribes in the Arabian peninsula turned away from Islam. With many of them apostasy was expressed in the form of a refusal to pay the zakah. From Madinah Sayyiduna Abu Bakr t dispatched a number of punitive expeditions. Khalid ibn al-Walid was placed in command of one such expedition.
Notice how the author seeks to tactically place those that didn’t pay Zakat within the same category as apostates, thus muddying the waters. First and foremost, does refusal to pay Zakat to Abu Bakr make one an apostate (Murtad)?
If you analyze the article of Ansar.Org you, will notice that at no point do they offer a position on whether or not Malik was a Muslim. On the contrary they present conflicting reports intentionally so that the reader goes away unsure over whether or not Malik and his associates were believers! This ‘sitting on the fence’ is a common method used by Nawasib who don’t want to declare their position, as it may in turn invite questions about the conduct of their heroes. They do exactly the same thing with Yazeed (la), if you notice they will not have a stance, they won’t call him good or bad.
Let us allay doubts introducing both personalities involved in this incident. We know that the filthy Nawasib try their best to legitimize the brutal killing of people by their hero Khalid bin al-Walid on the premise that those killed were Murtad (apostates) and the legitimate Shari penalty was exercised on them. We will counter this particular ‘allegation’ later in the chapter but in case the Nawasib make any attempt to pollute the ‘past’ of Malik bin Nuwayrah and his brother Mutammim bin Nuwayrah and suggest they were mere common Muslims who (allegedly) became Murtad after the Prophet’s death, we deem it appropriate to shed some light on them. The reality is that both individuals were not common Muslims, but were like all other companions of Holy Prophet (s) who had entered the pale of Islam. Whilst writing about Mutammim, Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records in Al-Isaba, Volume 5 page 566:
“He and his brother Malik converted to Islam”
Khairuddin Zarkali records the following about Mutammim in his famed work Al-Alaam, Volume 5 page 274:
Mutammim bin Nuwayra bin Jamrah bin Shadad al-Y’arbui al-Tamimi, Abu Nahshal: a great poet, Sahabi, amongst the noble ones of his tribe, he was renowned during the times of Jahilya and Islam. He was short and one eyed. His most famous poems are the eulogies for his brother.
Imam Ibn Abdul Barr records in Al-Istiab, Volume 3 page 1362:
“Verily there is no doubt in Mutammim being a Muslim”
Malik bin Nuwayrah was not an ordinary Sahabi, but he was assigned the important task by the Holy Prophet (s) of alms-tax collection (sadaqat). Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records in Al-Isaba, Volume 5 page 560:
Malik bin Nuwayrah bin Jamrah bin Shadad bin Ubaid bin Thalba bin Y’arbu al-Tamimi al-Y’arbuei, his nickname is Aba Handhla and also known as al-Jeful. Al-Marzebani said: ‘He was a poet, honorable, a knight counted among the knights of Bani Y’arbu (tribe) during the days of ignorance and he was amongst the noble ones (of his tribe), he was the representative of kings, the Prophet (s) appointed him to collect alms-tax from his people.
Imam Ibn Habban records in al-Thuqat, Volume 2 page 145:
Those who were appointed by Allah’s Messenger (s) to collect the alms-tax until his (s) death were Uday bin Hatim for his people, Malik bin Nuwayrah for Bani Handhla, Qais bin Asim for Bani Manqer, al-Zurberqan bin Badr for Bani Saad, K’aab bin Malik bin Abi Qais for Aslam and Ghefar and Juhaina, al-Dhahak bin Sufyan for Bani Kelab, Amro bin al-Aas for Oman, al-Muhajir bin Abi Umaya for San’a, Ziyad bin Lubaid on Hadhrmut.
It would be relevant to mention the Shi’a view of Malik bin Nuwayrah, so that after reading the entire article, all knowledge seekers (amongst both Sunni and Shi’a) can make a more informed conclusion. Ibn Shazan records in Al-Fadael, page 75:
Al-Bara bin Azeb said: When we were sitting with Allah’s Messenger (s) a delegation from Bani Tammim (tribe) came to Him (s). Malik bin Nuwayra said: ‘Oh Allah’s Messenger, teach me faith (Iman). Allah’s Messenger said: ‘To testify that there is no god but Allah only, and I’m the messenger of Allah, pray the five prayers, fast during the month of Ramdhan, pay Zakat, perform pilgrimage to (Allah’s) house, and follow my Wasi after me, and he (prophet) pointed his hand to Ali. And don’t shed blood, don’t steal, don’t betray, don’t eat orphan’s money, don’t drink alcohol and follow my laws, permit what is lawful and forbid what is unlawful, give the rights from your own self to the poor and strong, to the old and young. Till (the prophet) mentioned to him the Islamic laws. (Malik) said: ‘Oh Allah’s messenger, I’m a man who quickly forgets, please repeat again’. Then He (s) repeated, then he (Malik) left pulling his cloth and saying: ‘By the God of the house, I learnt faith (Iman).’
When he (Malik) went far away from Allah’s messenger, He (s) said: ‘Who ever wants to see a man of heaven, he should look at this man.’ Abu Bakr and Umar said: ‘Oh Allah’s messenger, who are you referring to?’ He (s) looked down to the earth, then they (Abu Bakr & Umar) followed him (Malik) and said to him: ‘Good news from Allah and His messenger to you to have been promised Paradise.’ He (Malik) replied: ‘May Allah bless you if you are testifying by what I testify, because you learnt what Prophet Muhammad taught me. But if you don’t, then may Allah not bless you.’ Abu Bakr said: ‘Don’t say that, I’m the father of Ayesha, the wife of the prophet.’ He (Malik) said: ‘What do you want ?’ They (Abu Bakr & Umar) said: ‘You are from the people of Paradise, so ask for forgiveness for us’. He (Malik) said: ‘May Allah never forgive you, you leave the Messenger of Allah who owns intercession and ask me for forgiveness!’ Then they returned back and signs of sadness appeared on their faces, when Allah’s Messenger saw them, He smiled and said: ‘Is their sadness because of truth?’
When Allah’s Messenger died and Bani Tamim (tribe) returned to Madina with Malik bin Nuwaira being with them, he went to see as to who became the successor after Allah’s messenger, he entered the mosque on Friday and Abu Bakr was giving an address on the pulpit. He (Malik) looked at him and said: ‘Oh brother of Taim’. (Abu Bakr) said: ‘Yes’. He (Malik) said: ‘Where is the Wasi of Allah’s messenger, who ordered I was ordered to follow?’ They (people) said: ‘Oh you desert Arab, things have changed.’ (Malik) said: ‘By Allah, nothing has changed, but you betrayed Allah and His messenger.’ Then he (Malik) got closer to Abu Bakr and said: ‘Who allowed you to climb onto the pulpit while the Wasi of Allah’s Messenger is here?’. Abu Bakr said: ‘Throw out this desert Arabian who urinates on his heels from Allah’s Messenger mosque.’ Qunfud and Khalid bin al-Walid went to him and kept pushing him until they removed him from the mosque.
Then he (Malik) rode on his camel and said (poem): ‘We obeyed Allah’s messenger as long he was amongst us, Oh people, what I have to do with Abu Bakr….’ When every thing was under Abu Bakr’s control, he sent Khalid bin al-Walid and said to him: ‘You heard what Malik said in front of the people, I’m worried that he would cause a crack we wont be able to fix. Kill him.’ When Khalid arrived (to Malik’s land) he (Malik) rode on his horse and he was a knight equal to thousand knights, hence Khalid was scared of him, therefore he (Khalid) gave him oath, and then when (Malik) dropped his weapon, Khalid betrayed him he killed him, placed his head in a cooking pot, and married his wife the same night, raping her like a donkey.’
Also according to the Shia source al-Estighatha by Abu al-Qasim al-Kufi (d. 352 H), Volume 1 page 7, Malik’s tribe refused to submit Zakat to Abu Bakr because they believed that they were supposed to submit it to Ali bin Abi Talib (as).
The Nawasib, sought to justify the brutal anti Islamic acts committed by Khalid ibn al Walid against Mailk and his companions on the premise that their failure to pay Zakat to the Caliph rendered them Murtad, that carried capital punishment. Could these people direct us to the precise Islamic injunction for those that refuse to hand over Zakat to the caliph? The answer is, that even ‘esteemed’ Sahabah including Umar bin Khattab were unaware of the Islamic injunctions for such an individual. Imam Hakim records:
Umar bin al-Khattab said: ‘Had I asked Allah’s messenger about three issues, I would like that more than hum al-Nyam (flock of reddish camel).
Who is the Caliph after him?
If a group of people admit that they believe in Zakat but don’t submit it to us, is it lawful for us to fight them?
and the kalala (who dies and doesn’t have son or parents)
Mustadrak al-Hakim, Volume 2 page 332 Tradition 3186
al-Hakim said: ‘Sahih according to the conditions of the two Sheikhs’
The underlined words indicate that Umar was referring to the same incident that had caused such controversy, namely the incident of Malik bin Nuwayrah, who believed in Zakat, yet failed to submit to Abu Bakr & Co. since he did not deem him the rightful caliph. The implications were that the murder warrants issued against Malik bin Nuwayrah and their subsequent execution were illegal! We all know that one who believes in Zakat but does not submit it to the ruler (for some reason) cannot be deemed a Non-Muslim, this can be evidenced by the fact that we read explicitly in Kashaf al-Qena, by Bahuti al-Hanbali, Volume 2 page 297:
“The one who refuses to submit to Zakat is not a Kafir”
The present day Nawasib have no grounds for deeming Malik bin Nuwayrah a Murtad for refusing to hand over Zakat to Abu Bakr!
Ansar.Org stated:
It has even been reported that they encountered armed resistance from Malik and his men at an oasis called al-Ba’udah.6 Those who put up the resistance, including Malik, were captured and brought before Sayyiduna Khalid. He decided that they must be put to death. This is how Malik ibn Nuwayrah was killed.
In Sayyiduna Khalid’s party was the Sahabi Sayyiduna Abu Qatadah t . He was amongst those who claimed that they had seen Malik’s people making salah. He was thus understandable upset at the decision of Sayyiduna Khalid, and returned immediately to Madinah to complain to Sayyiduna Abu Bakr t.
Look carefully at these paragraphs. The text begins with confrontation on the basis of rumor. Then we have two opinions amongst the spies of Khalid over whether / or not they pray. When one has two conflicting reports then it is obvious that someone is lying, is there any evidence that Khalid sought to personally investigate the matter and ascertain the truth? Then, as cited by Ansar.org we have the eye witness testimony of Abu Qatadah confirming that they offered Salat, so why did Khalid reject this eye witness testimony? Moreover why are Ansar.Org the loyal defenders of the Sahabah not willing to accept this Sahabi’s testimony? Ponder carefully over the wording:
Ansar.Org stated:
In Sayyiduna Khalid’s party was the Sahabi Sayyiduna Abu Qatadah t . He was amongst those who claimed that they had seen Malik’s people making salah. He was thus understandable upset at the decision of Sayyiduna Khalid, and returned immediately to Madinah to complain to Sayyiduna Abu Bakr t.
The word claim is an unsubstantiated allegation. When Ansar.Org believe that all the Sahabah are just and truthful, why are they describing the eye witness testimony of a just and truthful Sahabi as merely a claim? Why are Ansar.Org casting doubts over the truthfulness of the Sahaba? Why do they refuse to accept his claim as fact? It is amazing that when it comes to protecting the crimes of Khalid ibn al Walid, Ansar.Org are even prepared to cast doubts over a Sahabi’s eye witness testimony.
It is also amazing that this Nasibi refers to Abu Qatadah being ‘understandable upset at the decision of Sayyiduna Khalid’ – shouldn’t we all be understandably upset at the fact the Khalid bin Walid slaughtered Muslims that observed Salat?
The deceitful Nasibi author has:
- played with the words and rationalized Malik’s murder with a few sentences
- failed to present the gravity of the incident
- presented the episode in a very light manner,
- failed to cite the testimony of Sahabi Abu Qatadah wherein the ‘actual reason’ for killing Khalid bin Walid was mentioned
Let us reveal the actual incident:
Abdulrazaq – Mu’amar – al Zuhari –from- Aba Qutadah said: During Reda (days), we marched to Ahl Abyaat and reached there at sunset, then we raised our spears, hence they asked: ‘Who are you?’ We replied: ‘We are slaves of Allah.’ They said: ‘We are slaves of Allah too.’ Then Khalid arrested them and when it was morning he ordered their beheading. Then I said: ‘Oh Khalid! Fear Allah, this is not allowed for you.’ He (Khalid) replied: ‘Stay (back); this is not your business.’ Then Abu Qutadah swore by Allah never to march with Khalid for any war. Qutadah said:‘The desert Arabs encouraged him (Khalid) on killing them for the sake of booties and that was Malik bin Nuwayrah’s case.’
Al-Musanaf, Volume 10 page 174 Tradition 18721
Abdulrazaq: Dahabi said:‘Thiqah’ (Siar alam alnubala, v9 p563), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p599). Mu’amar: Dahabi said:‘Hujja’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p190), Ibn Hajar said:‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p202). Al-Zuhari: Dahabi:‘The Hafiz of his time’ (Sial alam alnubala, v5 p326), Ibn Hajar said: ‘There is an agreement on his magnificence’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p133).
If you show this tradition to any unbiased individual, he would conclude:
It was this unjustified killing that lead to Abu Qatadah lodging a formal complaint with Khalifa Abu Bakr. In Ahle Sunnah eyes are not all the Sahabah just and truthful? So why was the eye testimony of this just and truthful Sahabi rejected by Abu Bakr?
Though there shouldn’t be any need to mention the known Islamic laws pertaining to the payment of blood money (Diayt), since our opponents comprise of those that share their genealogies with men of deceit, we deem it appropriate to shed some light on the matter and make it clear that blood money (Diayt) is not given to the family of a deceased Murtad. Shaykh Muhammad bin Ahmad Sharbini popularly known as Khateeb Sharbini (d. 977 H) in his book Mughni al-Muhtaj, Volume 4 page 17, Shaykh Abdul Hamid Sherwani (d. 1118 H) in Hawashi al-Sherwani, Volume 8 page 401, Shaykh Zakaria al-Ansari (d. 936 H) in Asna al-Matalib, Volume 18 page 308 and Abu al-Barakat (d. 1201 H) in his authority work Al-Sharh al-Kabir, Volume 4 page 268 record:
“There is no Diyat for a Murtad”
The Nawasib of Ansar.Org likewise acknowledges the issuing of Diyat to the brother of Malik:
In not punishing Khalid for the execution of Malik ibn Nuwayrah, and not dismissing him from his post as commander, Sayyiduna Abu Bakr t was thus completely justified. His interrogation of Khalid revealed that Khalid had committed an error of judgement, and the insistence of Sayyiduna ‘Umar t that Khalid be dismissed was met by a resolute answer form Sayyiduna Abu Bakr t : “I will not sheath the sword that was drawn by Allah.”13 Like Rasulullah r did in the case of Banu Jadhimah,Sayyiduna Abu Bakr paid out blood money to Malik’s brother Mutammim, and ordered the released of all captives taken by Khalid.13
The fact that Abu Bakr paid blood money (Diyat) to Malik’s brother Mutammim is sufficient to prove that Malik bin Nuwayrah was Muslim and he was unjustly murdered by the thug whose actual motives were to earn the war booty and seize Malik’s wife whose beauty was known in the area. Hafiz Ibn Asakir quoted the following episode from Allamah Khalifa bin Khayat’s authority work ‘Tarikh Khalifa bin Khayat’ page 68 in the following manner:
Ali bin Muhammad – Abi Daeb – al-Zuhari – Salim – his father that he said: Abu Qutada came to Abu Bakr and informed him of the murder of Malik and his companions, hence he (Abu Bakr) became extremely aggrieved. Abu Bakr then wrote (a message) to Khalid, and he (Khalid) came to him. Abu Bakr said: ‘Can it be more than Khalid interpreted and made a mistake? Then Abu Bakr sent Khalid back and paid blood money for Malik bin Nuwayrah and returned the booty.
Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Volume 16 page 254
Ali bin Muhammad: Imam Dahabi said: ‘Seduq’ while Imam Yahya bin Moin said: ‘Thiqah Thiqah Thiqah’ (Tarikh al-Islam, v16 p289). Abi Daeb: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p194), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p105). Al-Zuhari: Dahabi: ‘The Hafiz of his time’ (Sial alam alnubala, v5 p326), Ibn Hajar said: ‘There is an agreement on his magnificence’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p133). Salim bin Abdullah: Dahabi said:‘Hujja’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v1 p88), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1, p335). Abdulllah Ibn Umar (Salim’s father): A Sahabi.
The concerns shown by Abu Qatadah for the act of Khalid, Abu Bakr (apparently) becoming aggrieved on hearing it and then most importantly his paying the blood money to the Maliks’s brother proves that Malik bin Nuwayrah was not a Murtad and whatever was done with him and with his wife was unislamic. Yet, Abu Bakr did not waste a minute in offering the excuse that Khalid committed a mistake. Notice how Abu Bakr does not ask Khalid to explain his behavior, he justifies in his own mind that Khalid must have been mistaken and then absolves him. Is it not the duty of a Khalifa to ensure the implantation of Islamic Shari’ah to the letter? Does Islam allow you to exempt a murderer and a fornicator because he is your ally? Is that was Islam teaches us? The Ahle Sunnah themselves have clear traditions that prove that no one can evade the Shar’iah no matter who they are. We read in Sahih Bukhari, Kitab al Hudood Book 017, Number 4187:
‘A’isha reported that the Quraish had been anxious about the Makhzumi woman who had committed theft, and said: Who will speak to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) about her? They said: Who dare it, but Usama, the loved one of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him)? So Usama spoke to him. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Do you intercede regarding one of the punishments prescribed by Allah? He then stood up and addressed (people) saying: O people, those who have gone before you were destroyed, because if any one of high rank committed theft amongst them, they spared him; and it anyone of low rank committed theft, they inflicted the prescribed punishment upon him. By Allah, if Fatima, daughter of Muhammad, were to steal, I would have her hand cut off. In the hadith transmitted on the authority of Ibn Rumh (the words are):” Verily those before you perished.”
With this tradition in mind what gave Abu Bakr the right to ignore the Shariah in this instance? It is not like there were no witnesses to this heinous crime. We have previously learnt that Abu Qatadah personally witnessed this group offering Salat, and objected to the orders to have the men executed. He had also exposed the objective of Khalid was ‘for the sake of booties’. Clearly these issues would have been reported back to Abu Bakr. Does eye witness testimony bear no value in Islam? Clearly not, after all this was the same Judge that rejected the testimonies of Fatima (as), Umm Ayan (ra), Ali (as), Hasan (as) and Hussain (as) in the Fadak dispute! When it came to ruling in this heinous war crime even the eye witness testimony of a Sahabah was rejected, why was the stance of this just, truthful Sahaba ignored, and Khalid absolved? Is this how a judge should act in Islam, base decisions not on eye witness testimony, but purely on personal deduction? Why was his crime interpreted as a ‘mistake’? This was clearly a political decision and why not, politics is always about keeping your allies and supporters content, how could the Khalifa take action against a thug that he could unleash on those who opposed his caliphate, when he gave the order.
Having proved that Abu Bakr paid Malik’s blood money to his brother Mutammim, we should also mention Khalid’s condemnation by Mutammim for the murder of his brother Malik bin Nuwayrah, a Sahabi. Imam Tabarani records the following words of Mutammim in Muajam al-Kabeer, Volume 8 page 294:
Abu Khalifa al-Fadhl bin Habab narrated from Muhammad bin Salam al-Jumahi from Abu Ubaida, who said: Dharar bin al-Auwzor the one who killed Malik bin Nuwaira, therefore Mutammim bin Nuwaira said a (poem) in that case condemning Khalid bin al-Walid :… ‘you gave him an oath in the name of Allah and then you killed him? Surely if he (Malik) gave you an oath, he would never betray…’
Imam Abi Bakr al-Haythami also recorded this tradition from Tabarani and stated:
“The narrators are reliable”
Majm’a al-Zawaed, Volume 6 page 222 Tradition 10391
These words of Mutammim clearly allude to the fact that prior to the murder of Malik, Khalid and Malik exchanged oaths and that too, in the name of Alah (swt). This proves that Mailk was a Muslim, not a Murtad. Moreover, the condemnation of Khalid by Mutammim also proves the same. We also read in Al-Istiab, Volume 4 page 1455:
“No one has poems for mourning the dead as his (Mutamam) poems for mourning his brother Malik”
Allamah Shibli Numani al-Hanafi records this event in his esteemed book Al Faruq, Volume 2 page 234 published by Taj Company Ltd Karachi:
“The greatest poet of the day was Mutammim bin Nuwaira, whose brother had been slain by mistake by Khalid in the reign of Abu Bakr. He was so shaken by the event that he wept unceasingly and sang elegies over his dead brother. Men and women followed him as he passed and made him recite the elegies. He read and wept and others wept with him. When he came to see Omar, the Caliph asked him to recite his elegies. He recited a few verses; the last two ran as follows:
“For a time we were together with the courtiers of Jadhima, until people said we would never part
Then we parted, it was as if we had never spent a night together”
Omar said if he knew how to compose an elegy, he would have composed one for his brother Zaid.
Al-Faruq (Urdu), Vol. 2 page 234 by Shibli Numani (Taj Co. Ltd. Karachi & Lahore)
Mutammim recited elegies for his deceased brother just like Adam (as) had recited elegies for Habeel (al-Bidayah wa al Nihaya, v1 p181), Hasaan bin Thabit for Holy Prophet (al Bidayah wa al Nihaya, v5 p485), which is a further proof that his brother Malik bin Nuwayrah was a Muslim otherwise it would mean that a Sahabi, Mutammim was reciting elegies for a deceased ‘Murtad’ which would have been a great sin, moreover Umar bin al-Khattab’s approval to the elegies for Malik bin Nuwayrah recited in front of him by Mutammim also attest to the fact that Malik bin Nuwayrah was a Muslim, and fell prey to the viciousness of Khalid bin al-Walid.
It is indeed unfortunate that the shameless Nawasib try to excommunicate a Sahabi to cover up the heinous crime committed by their hero Khalid bin al-Walid, backed by the caliph of the time. Now, let us prove Malik bin Nuwayrah’s faith from a different angle and for this, allow us to introduce the father in law of Malik namely al-Minhal al-Tamimi. Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records in Al-Isaba, Volume 6 page 249:
Al-Minhal al-Tamimi: Amongst Malik’s bin Nuwayrah’s relatives. He [Lahu Idraak] converted (during Prophet’s time), al-Zubair bin Bakr mentioned him in al-Muwafaqyat (book)…He said: ‘al-Minhal passed by Malik bin Nuwayrah’s body when Khalid killed him, then he brought a cloth from his bag and shrouded him (Malik) and then buried him.’
For those readers who are unaware of the context of the Arabic term ‘Lahu Idraak’ and also for the shameless followers of Khalid, we should cite the words of Sunni scholar Ahmad bin al-Sidiq (d. 1380 H), who wrote in his book Ergham al-Mubtade, page 9:
“Lahu Idraak” means he was counted amongst the Sahaba.
Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his book al-Isaba fi Tameedh al-Sahabah that records the biographies of the Sahaba included a number of people for whom “Lahu Idraak” has been used (e.g. Translation Nos. 452, 787, 3659, 4135 etc). Whilst recording details about Malik’s wife and his father in law, we read in the footnote written by Sheikh Ali Sheri for the book al-Futuh by Ahmad bin Atham, Volume 1 page 20:
“She is Um Tammim bint al-Minhal bin Esma al-Reyahi, and he is the one who shrouded Malik”
Now having proved the belief (Iman) of Minhal al-Tammimi and the fact that he (a Sahabi, or at least a Muslim) gave ablution to the body of Malik bin Nuwayrah and then shrouded him, there should be no grounds to doubt the faith of Malik bin Nuwayrah, because the ablution and shroud is not given to a Murtad but to a Muslim only. To substantiate this, let us mention the text of an esteemed Sunni book on Fiqh namely Al-Bahr al-Raiq, Volume 5 page 361:
A Murtad should neither be washed nor shrouded, but must be thrown into a ditch like a dog.
Al-Bahr al-Raiq, Volume 5 page 361
Khalid bin Walid unjustly killed a Muslim who was from amongst the Sahabah; hence Khalid was the one who deserved the treatment mentioned in the above cited text!
The deceitful Nasibi author of Ansar.org creates a topic titled “Khalid’s alleged marriage to Malik’s wife” under which he writes:
With the passage of time the incident of Malik ibn Nuwayrah became the object of the attention of certain unscrupulous transmitters of history. An obnoxious tail was soon introduced into the story in the form of Malik’s wife, who is named as Umm Tamim bint Minhal. Khalid, it was said, was so enamoured of the beautiful Umm Tamim that he saw fit to slaughter Malik and his entire tribe in order to possess her, and barely was the slaughter over when he took her as his own wife.
In an allegation as serious as this one would have expected the party levelling the accusation to produce reliable evidence to support their claim. However, all that is ever produced is fragments of statements by historians. The accusers consistently fail to realise that a quotation is of no value for as long as it cannot be authenticated. While they display great vigour in levelling the accusation and stating their references, complete with volume and page numbers, they conveniently and consistently forget to authenticate those “facts”.
No matter how many attempts the Nawasib make to cover up the war crimes of their ancestors any rational minded person reading history that General Khalid bin Walid’s slaughtering innocent people and also marrying the widows of one of his victims is fact not fiction. Ibn Asakir records (from two variant chains, one from Abu Ghalib al-Bana and the rest of the narrators while the other from Abu Abdullah al-Bana with the same remainder narrators):
Abu Ghalib al-Bana and Abu Abdillah al-Bana narrated from Abu Jaffar bin Maslama from Abu Tahir al-Mukhalis from Ahmad bin Sulaiman from al-Zubair bin Bakr from Mus’ab bin Abdullah, who said:….Umar said: ‘I admonished Khalid for breaking the orders and for what he did with the money., Khalid would distribute the booty amongst the soldiers without informing Abu Bakr. He made decisions that contravened those of Abu Bakr, he killed Malik bin Nuwayra and married his wife. He made peace with the people of Yamama and married the daughter of Maj’a bin Marara. These were met with disapproval by Abu Bakr and he issued Diyat (blood money) to Mutammim bin Nuwayrah and ordered Khalid to divorce Malik’s wife….’
Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Volume 16 page 274
Abu Ghalib bin al-Bana: Dahabi said: “A’ali al-Isnad” (Tarikh al-Islam, v36, p151), Imam Ibn al-Jawzi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tarikh al-Islam, v36 p151), Imam of Salafies Al-Albaani declared him ‘Thiqah’ (Silsila Sahiha, v3 p349).
Abu Abdullah bin al-Bana: Dahabi said: ‘Pious’ (Tarikh al-Islam, v36 p260), Imam Al-Andlasi praised him (Tarikh al-Islam, v36 p260).
Abu Jaffar bin Maslama: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Siar alam alnubala, v18 p213), Ismail bin al-Fadhl said: ‘Thiqah’ (Siar alam alnubala, v 18 p214). Abu al-Fadhl bin Khayroon said:‘Thiqah’ (Siar alam alnubala, v18 p215.
Abu Tahir al-Mukhalis: Dahabi said: ‘Seduq’ (Siar alam alnubala, v16 p478), Ibn Kathir said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, v11 p382), Al-Khatib said:‘Thiqah’ (Siar alam alnubala, v16 p479).
Ahmad bin Sulaiman: Dahabi said: ‘Seduq’ (Tarikh al-Islam, v24 p98), Al-Khatib said: ‘Seduq’ (Tarikh Baghdad, v4, p400). Al-Safadi said: ‘Pious’ (A-Wafi bel Wafiyat, v6 p249).
Al-Zubair bin Bakr: Dahabi said: ‘Seduq’ (Al-kashif, v1, p401), Al-Khatib said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Tarikh Baghdad, v8 p468), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p309).
Mus’ab bin Abdullah al-Zubairi: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Al-kashif, v2 p268), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p186), Al-Khatib said: ‘Well known for Arab’s history’ (Tarikh Baghdad, v13 p113), Imam Ibn Haban included him in his book of Thiqah narrators (al-Thuqat, v9 p175).
Moreover, if we read the following episode, we will come to know that Umar bin Khattab was angry over Khalid bin Walid on account of his killing Malik bin Nuwayrah and also at the manner Khalid ‘married’ the widow of Malik, which serves as a proof that Malik bin Nuwayrah was a Muslim and Khalid did not marry Umm Tamim according to the Islamic method. Hafiz Ibn Asakir records:
Abu Bakr al-Ansar from al-Hassan bin Ali from Abu Umar bin Haywiyah from Ahmad bin Maroof from al-Hussain bin al-Fehm from Muhammad bin Saad from Muhammad bin Umar from Muhammad bin Abdullah from al-Zuhari from Handala bin Ali al-Aslami who said: ‘…When Khalid arrived at Madina, he entered the mosque of Allah’s Messenger wearing rusty armor and with his sword. There were some arrows in his turban, he passed by Umar but didn’t talk to him, then he came to Abu Bakr, and he heard from Abu Bakr what pleased him, he then left happy. Umar therefore knew that Abu Bakr had pleased him, therefore he didn’t talk to him (Khalid). Umar was angry at him (Khalid) because of what he had done, by killing Malik bin Nuwayrah and marrying his wife and also for what was in his heart against him (Khalid) about Bani Jadhima case’
Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Volume 16 page 258
Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Abdulbaqi: Dahabi said: ‘Musnad of his time’ (Siar alam alnubala, v20 p23), Albaani said: ‘Thiqah’ (Silsila Daeefa, v4 p361). Al-Hassan bin Ali al-Johari: Dahabi said: ‘Seduq’ (Siar alam alnubala, v18 p68), Khatib Baghdadi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tarikh Baghdad, v7 p393). Muhammad bin Abbas bin Hayweh: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Siar alam alnubala, v16 p409), Khatib Baghdadi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tarih Baghdad, v3 p121). Ahmad bin Maroof: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tarikh al-Islam, v24 p102), Khatib Baghdadi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tarikh Baghdad, v5 p368). Al-Hussain bin Fehm: Dahabi said: ‘Huge Hafiz’ (Tazkirat al-Hufaz, v2 p680), Khatib Baghdadi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Tarikh Baghdad, v8 p91). Muhammad bin Saad: Dahabi said: ‘Seduq’ (Al-Kashif, v2 p174), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p79). Muhammad bin Umar Waqidi. Muhammad bin Abdullah: Dahabi said: ‘Thiqah’ (Siar alam alnubala, v7 p197), Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p99). Al-Zuhari: Dahabi:‘The Hafiz of his time’ (Sial alam alnubala, v5 p326), Ibn Hajar said:‘There is an agreement on his magnificence’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v2 p133). Handalah bin Ali: Dahabi said:‘Thiqah’ (Al-Kashif, v1 p358), Ibn Hajar said:‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib, v1 p250).
We have presented a tradition that evidences that Umar bore a grudge Khalid for this very filthy deed. Whilst Ansar.Org automatically accuse the Shi’a of attributing ‘An obnoxious tail’ to Khalid, what do they say about the stance of their beloved Khalifa Umar? Was this just and truthful Sahabas hatred of Khalid due to his being influenced by an obnoxious tale? Umar bore a grudge against Khalid for the very act that Ansar.Org denies. Now we appeal to Ahle Sunnah, whose opinion is more reliable, Ansar.Org that deny the event, or Umar who believed in it, and accordingly hated Khalid on account of it?
Moreover, this tradition supports the Shia tradition cited earlier according to which the task to remove Malik bin Nuwayrah (ra) was assigned to Khalid by Abu Bakar, that is why according to the above cited tradition, Khalid approached Abu Bakar directly without any hesitation and according to his expectations, Abu Bakar was pleased with the ‘achievement’ of Khalid.
Imam of Ahle Sunna Mullah Muttaqi Hindi (d. 975 H) in his famed work Kanz ul Ummal quoted a tradition from the esteemed Sunni work ‘Tabaqat al Kubra’ by Imam Ibn Saad which was sufficient to unveil the actual role of Khalid in the case of Malik bin Nuwayrah but the Sahabah worshippers could not tolerate this and tampered with ‘Tabaqat al Kubra’ and removed it. But, the presence of this tradition in Kanz ul Ummal shall make our readers realize why it was essential that the children of Muawiyah delete the primary source. We read the following tradition in Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 5 page 619 Tradition 14091:
Ibn Abi Aun and others narrated that Khalid bin al-Walid claimed that Malik bin Nuwayrah had become Murtad according to the information that he (Khalid) had received. Malik denied this and said: ‘I am a Muslim, I never changed.’ Abu Qutada and Abdullah ibn Umar testified that (Malik is Muslim) but Khalid ordered Dharar bin Al-Auzwar to behead him (Malik). Then Khalid took his (Malik’s) wife. (Umar) said to Abu Bakr: ‘He (Khalid) has performed adultery, you have to stone him’. Abu Bakr said: ‘I can’t stone him; he interpreted hence made a mistake’. (Umar) said: ‘Then dismiss him’. He (Abu Bakr) said: ‘I cannot put the sword back in the sheath which Allah has pulled out on my opponents.’(Ibn Sa’ad).
We have until now relied on traditions to expose the despicable war crimes of Khalid bin Walid. Let us now submit the testimonies of some esteemed Sunni scholars in Khalid’s case. No matter how many attempts Nawasib make to prove Khalid’s was right to kill Malik because he deemed him a Murtad and then married his widow, the Imams of Ahle Sunnah have expressed their personal reservations about calling Malik bin Nuwayrah a Murtad. The Sunni Ulema have in the same context testified that Khalid then married Umm Tamim, the widow of Malik. The acceptance of these facts by certain notable Sunni scholars who were obviously more competent for determining the authenticity of the text than today’s Nawasib, shall suffice to refute all attempts by our opponents to absolve their hero Khalid. Imam Ibn Abdul Barr gives a very diplomatic response in Al-Istiab, Volume 3 page 1362:
There is disagreement about him (Malik) did he (Khalid) kill him as a Muslim or Murtad. In my opinion he (Khalid) was mistaken in killing him and Allah knows best.
Allamah Zamakhshari states in Al-Faiq, Volume 3 page 65:
Khalid married her after her husband’s murder and he (Khalid) has been condemned for that.
Let us now read the views of the beloved scholar of Nawasib Ibn Kathir who in his book Sirah al-Nabawyiah, Volume 3 page 595 stated:
Therefore the Sidiq (Abu Bakr) didn’t dismiss him (Khalid) when he killed Malik bin Nuwayrah during the days of Reda, because he (Khalid) interpreted when he beheaded him and took his wife Um Tamim.
If you read any polemical article written by Ansar.Org, they will seek continual reliance upon the writings and views of Ibn Kathir. To them, he is the sole word of authority for the Sunni Sect. We would therefore suggest that they adopt that same loyalty when their beloved Imam affirms that Khalid took the wife of Umm Tamim. We would have welcomed the opportunity to know what interpretation of the Deen entitled Khalid to execute a Muslim and sleep with his wife.
Imam Ibn Athir testified as follows in Gharib al-Hadith, Volume 4 page 15:
“She was pretty and Khalid married her after killing him [Malik]“
One of the pioneer reliable Sunni historians Ahmad bin Atham (d. 314 H) records in Kitab al-Futuh, Volume 1 page 20:
It has been said that Khalid married Malik’s wife and had sexual intercourse with her and that is what the scholars agreed on.
Among the defenders of Khalid & Co. there was a Sunni scholar Hussain bin Muhammad al-Diyarbakri (d. 966 H) who too in his famed book Tarikh Khamees, Volume 2 page 309 testified that after killing Malik bin Nuwayrah, he committed adultery with the widow of Malik, yet Diyar Bakri tired his best to argue Khalid’s case on the basis of mere conjectures, which was indeed an useless attempt. He stated:
“Khalid ordered them to be killed and killed Malik bin Nuwayrah, marrying his wife on the same night and she was pretty. They said, she might have been divorced (by Malik) and her Idda was over but she was imprisoned by him (Malik). Umar was very angry because of that and said to Abu Bakr: ‘Stone Khalid because he made it lawful for himself.’ Abu Bakr said: ‘By Allah I will not do so if Khalid made an error because he did Taweel’.
One of the pioneer Sunni scholars in the field of History (Siar alam alnubala, v10, p651) namely Ibn Salam al-Jamhi (d. 232 H) in his book ‘Tabaqat al-Fahawal al-Sh’ura’ page 27 stated:
“But what is confirmed according to us is that Umar condemned the murder (of Malik) and he stood against Khalid and was very rude towards him while Abu Bakr forgave Khalid and accepted his excuse.”
We also read:
Those who excuse Malik say: ‘That he (Malik) by his statement ‘your companion’ meant ‘Quraysh’, while Khalid interpreted that differently and said: ‘He denies the prophet’.
Tabaqat al-Fahawal al-Sh’ura, page 27
The same reality has been attested to by A.I. Akram in his ode to Khalid bin Al-Walid “Sword of Allah Khalid b. al-Waleed – a biographical study of one of the greatest military generals in history” who as part of his discussions within the chapter “The end of Malik bin Nuwaira” has opined that Malik was a rebellious apostate, who deserved his unceremonious end and states on page 161:
“Laila became a young widow, but not for long. That same night Khalid married her! She had hardly made up her mind to mourn her departed husband when she became a bride again, this time of the Sword of Allah!”
Rather than feel embarrassed and deny the event as Ansar.Org do the said author in concluding this topic on page 164 even praises Khalid for his capture of such a voluptuous woman:
“The long and short of the whole affair was that Malik was killed and the beautiful Laila with the gorgeous eyes and the lovely legs became the wife of Khalid bin Al-Waleed”.