TwelverShia.net Forum

Malik Ibne Nuwayra, was this man a companion of the Prophet (pbuh) or not???

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ameen

Brothers and sisters, I was going through this article on Shia pen.

Weren’t Malik bin Nuwayrah (ra) and his brother Mutammim believers?
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.

 

Observation – Ansar.Org’s refusal to refer to Malik (ra) and his associates as believers
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.

The Truth: Malik bin Nuwayrah and his brother Mutammim were companions of the Holy Prophet (s)
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:

أسلم هو و أخوه مالك
“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:

متمم بن نويرة بن جمرة بن شداد اليربوعي التميمي، أبو نهشل: شاعر فحل، صحابي، من أشراف قومه، اشتهر في الجاهلية والاسلام. وكان قصيرا أعور، أشهر شعره رثاؤه لاخيه
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:

وأما متمم فلا شك في إسلامه
“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:

مالك بن نويرة بن جمرة بن شداد بن عبيد بن ثعلبة بن يربوع التميمي اليربوعي يكنى أبا حنظلة ويلقب الجفول قال المرزباني كان شاعرا شريفا فارسا معدودا في فرسان بني يربوع في الجاهلية وأشرافهم وكان من أرداف الملوك وكان النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم استعمله على صدقات قومه
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:

وكان ولاة رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم على الصدقات حتى توفى عدى بن حاتم على قومه ومالك بن نويرة على بنى الحنظلة وقيس بن عاصم على بنى منقر والزبرقان بن بدر على بنى سعد وكعب بن مالك بن أبى القيس على أسلم وغفار وجهينة والضحاك بن سفيان على بنى كلاب وعمرو بن العاص على عمان والمهاجر بن أبى أمية على صنعاء وزياد بن لبيد على حضرموت
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.

A short account of Malik bin Nuwayrah (ra) from a Shia source
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).

Sahabah were ignorant of the Islamic punishment for those who believe in Zakat but do not submit to the caliph
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:

ولا يكفر مانع الزكاة
“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!

The Sahabi Abu Qatadah exposed Khalid’s objective behind murdering Malik and his supporters
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.

Observation One – Why have Ansar,Org cast doubts upon the direct eye witness testimony of a Sahaba?
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?

Observation Two – Ansar.Org have intentionally watered down this incident, to cover up this war crime
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:

The people were believers of Allah (swt)
Khalid heard the testimony from the captives that they were believers, and did not challenge their claim
The Sahabi Abu Qatadah objected to Khalid asking him to fear Allah (swt) and warned him that killing such people was unjustified.
Despite this, Khalid had them executed
Abu Qatadah testified unequivocally that the sole objective for killing them was to attain war booty.
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?

Abu Bakr paying Diyat (blood money) to the family of Malik bin Nuwayrah proves that he was Muslim
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:

ولا دية لمرتد
“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.

The Sahabi Mutammim testified that his deceased brother was a Muslim and condemned Khalid for his murder
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:

ليس لأحد في المراثي كأشعاره التي يرثي بها أخاه مالكا
“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.

This is one side of the argument. Let me post the other side of it.

Ameen

The administering of ablution and shrouding Malik’s body by his father in law proves that Malik was not a Murtad
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:

المنهال التميمي: من رهط مالك بن نويرة. له إدراك ذكره الزبير بن بكار في الموفقيات عن حبيب بن زيد الطائي أو غيره. قال: مر المنهال على أشلاء مالك بن نويرة هو ورجل من قومه حين قتله خالد بن الوليد فأخرج من خريطة له ثوباً فكفنه فيه ودفنه
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:

له إدراك أي أنه معدود من الصحابة
“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:

هي أم تميم بنت المنهال بن عصمة الرياحي وهو الذي كفن مالكا
“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:

أما المرتد فلا يغسل ، ولا يكفن ، وإنما يلقى في حفيرة كالكلب
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!

Khalid ‘marrying’ the widow of Malik
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”.

Screenshot from Ansar.org

Reply
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).

Umar bin Khattab hated Khalid bin Walid on account of his killing Malik and marrying his wife
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.

A narration from Kanz ul Ummal
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).

Acceptance by the Sunni scholars of Khalid’s crime
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:

واختلف فيه هل قتله مسلما أو مرتدا وأراه والله أعلم قتله خطأ
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:

وقد تزوجها خالد بعد قتل زوجها فأنكر ذلك عليه
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:

ولهذا لم يعزله الصديق حين قتل مالك بن نويرة أيام الردة ، وتأول عليه ما تأول حين ضرب عنقه واصطفى امرأته أم تميم
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:

وكانت جميلة وتزوجها خالد بعد قتله
“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:

فيقال إن خالد بن الوليد تزوج بامرأة مالك ودخل بها وعلى ذلك أجمع أهل العلم
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:

فأمر بهم خالد فقتلوا وقتل مالك بن نويرة وتزوج بأمرأته أم تميم من ليلته وكانت جميلة ، قيل لعلها كانت مطلقة قد انقضت عدتها الا انها كانت محبوسة عنده فاشتد في ذلك عمر وقال لأبي بكر ارجم خالدا فانه قد استحل ذلك ، فقال ابوبكر والله لا أفعل ان كان خالد تأول أمرا فأخطأه
“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:

غير أن الذي استقر عندنا أن عمر أنكر قتله، وقام على خالد فيه وأغلظ له، وأن أبا بكر صفح عن خالد وقبل تأوله
“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:

فيقول من عذر مالكاً: إنه أراد بقوله: ” صاحبك ” أنه أراد القرشية. وتأول خالد غير ذلك فقال: إنه إنكار منه للنبوة
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”.
Khalid bin al-Waleed, pages 161 and 164 by A.I. Akram
« Last Edit: February 26, 2015, 05:04:26 PM by Ameen »

Hani

You should check our website more often:
http://twelvershia.net/2014/02/26/response-to-khalid-bin-walid-portrait-of-a-war-criminal/

PS, it is not allowed to post large articles from websites.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2015, 05:26:02 PM by Hani »
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Ameen


Response to Khalid bin Walid: Portrait of a War Criminal

Posted by TwelverShia.net on Feb 26th, 2014 in Hadith, Sahaba | 4 comments

The following is a refutation to the ShiaPen article entitled: Response to Khalid bin Walid: Portrait of a War Criminal, which can be found here.
Readers need to be aware that the ShiaPen article is actually a refutation to an earlier article written by the Ansar.org team.
It is known, by all the Muslim laymen, let alone the scholars of Islam, that Khalid bin Al-Waleed was a primary cause in the victory of the Muslims upon the Romans in the battle of Mu’tah. The name Khalid bin Al-Waleed is also synonymous with the title the “Sword of Allah”. ShiaPen do not even attempt to provide any refutation to the fact that the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) gave this title to Khalid. Ignoring this aspect of his biography is perhaps the best they can do after all.
There are no doubts that Khalid bin Al-Waleed was given such a title, and this was documented through authentic chains from Anas bin Malik in Al-Bukhari, Abdullah bin Ja’afar in Musnad Ahmad, and Abdullah bin Abi Awfa in Mustadrak Al-Hakim. The hadith was also narrated through Abu Bakr Al-Sideeq and Abu Huraira, as well as through other Tabi’een, but those are weak in strength, and the previous three authentic narrations are sufficient for all Sunnis with an objective heart to accept it.
Carrying on, in the article published by ShiaPen, we find several accusations pointed towards Khalid bin Al-Waleed. These are accusations of rape, brutality, and general brutality. We have these accusations on one side, in the form of narrations, and on the other side, we have this authentic report from the Messenger (salalahu alaihi wa salam), giving Khalid a most grandiose title. This reason alone is sufficient to cast doubt upon the narrations that ShiaPen has provided. However, Ahl Al-Sunnah are proud of their objectivity, which is why we have taken the time to study these texts in order to come to a more complete conclusion of Khalid bin Al-Waleed’s character.
Accusation #1 – The Killing of Malik bin Nuwaira
ShiaPen state the following:
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.
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).
We respond to all of the above with this:
Ahl Al-Sunnah do not take narrations from liars, let alone late Imami Rafidhi historians.
ShiaPen continue by providing a narration where in which Khalid purposefully kills Malik while knowing that he is a Muslim:
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
We respond:
The narration is disconnected, since Al-Zuhri only heard narrations from the Sahabah that died very late, like Anas bin Malik. Abu Qatada however, died before that by decades, and this is common knowledge to all students of Hadith.
ShiaPen also provide another Hadith in attempt to prove that Malik’s family received some blood money, implying that he is a Muslim:
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
The narration is weak since Ibn Abi Dhi’ib is weak in his narration from Al-Zuhri. This is the position stated by Ahmad bin Hanbal and Ali bin Al-Madeeni. See Mizan Al-I’itidal 6/229.
ShiaPen also make the argument that Abu Qatada and other witnessed Malik bin Nuwairah performing prayers, however, this too cannot be found in any authentic chains. See Tareekh Khalifa bin Khayyat p 53.
ShiaPen then argue that Malik bin Nuwairah made an oath, which implied that he was a Muslim:
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.
The narration is weak since Mohammad bin Salaam Al-Jumahi is from a very late level of narrators and his shaikh, Abu Ubaida, presumably Ma’amar bin Al-Muthana, died around the year 200 AH. So, between him and the events of the narration is a very wide gap, which makes the narration weak.
ShiaPen continue by providing a statement from Ibn Hajar, in an attempt to prove that Malik bin Nuwairah was a companion of the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam):
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:
المنهال التميمي: من رهط مالك بن نويرة. له إدراك ذكره الزبير بن بكار في الموفقيات عن حبيب بن زيد الطائي أو غيره. قال: مر المنهال على أشلاء مالك بن نويرة هو ورجل من قومه حين قتله خالد بن الوليد فأخرج من خريطة له ثوباً فكفنه فيه ودفنه
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.’
We respond:
The term “idraak” does not mean met. It means that one was a contemporary of the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam). This is better illustrated with Ibn Hajar’s biography of another Muslim, Bajala bin Abda Al-Tameemi, in which he said:
أدرك النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ولم يره
“Adraka Al-Nabi (salalahu alaihi wa salam) but did not see him.”
He ironically titles this chapter: The names of those that adraka Al-Nabi (salalahu alaihi wa salam) but did not meet him.”
Regardless, even if one assumed that Malik bin Nuwairah was at one time a Sahabi, which is unproven, there correct view is that he died as a non-Muslim.
ShiaPen continue by providing evidence that Omar condemned Khalid for his actions:
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
We respond:
Mus’ab Al-Zubairi died in the year 236 AH, and was not an eye witness of the events, which makes the narration not acceptable.
ShiaPen then quote another similar narration:
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
The narration is weak because it is from the narration of Mohammad bin Omar Al-Waqidi, the infamous liar.
Then ShiaPen quote another. The follow it up with an accusation that Sunnis have distorted Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra as well:
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).
The narration exists in a separate work called Al-Juz’ Al-Mutamim li Tabaqat Ibn Sa’ad since the older published edition of the book was based on an incomplete manuscript. The narration is #231 and includes Al-Waqidi again, which makes the narration weak.
ShiaPen then decide to list the opinions of scholars that supported some of the claims, like Ibn Abd Al-Barr, Al-Zamakhshari, Ibn Katheer, Mohammad bin Salaam Al-Jumahi, Ibn Al-A’atham, and Al-Diyarbakri.
In response to this, we quote the original article by Ansar.org, who correctly argue:
Shî‘î authors have the habit of supplying incidents like this with multiple references. In order to fully convince the uninformed Sunnî reader, they will quote not only at-Tabarî as the source for the incident, but also Ibn Kathîr’s al-Bidâyah wan-Nihâyah, Ibn al-Athîr’s al-Kâmil, etc. They conveniently forget that Ibn Kathîr and Ibn al-Athîr, and like them, most later historians, draw directly from at-Tabarî, and have stated as much in their respective introductions. It is thus of no benefit to quote them as separate references, since all they do is quote at-Tabarî. And as for at-Tabarî himself, he has never claimed all the material in his huge work to be the truth. On the contrary, he states very clearly in his introduction:
Whatever is to be found in this book of mine as quoted from some past source, which the reader finds unacceptable or the hearer deems repugnant for the reason that he does not see any authenticity in it or does not find real meaning in it, let it be known that we are not responsible for it. The one responsible for it would be one of those who transmitted it down to us. We for our part have only reproduced what has been transmitted to us.
Finally, we provide our final verdict regarding this incident, and it is that there are no authentic reports on this matter. Most of the narrations regarding this matter are disconnected or come to us through the report of Al-Waqidi the liar. It is due to this that we find Khalid bin Al-Waleed innocent of the accusations regarding the killing of Malik bin Nuwairah. We furthermore add that we do not believe that Malik bin Nuwairah died as a Muslim, for if this was the case, then he would have been at least included in the earlier books that list the names of the companions. The main four books in the field are the ones that Ibn Al-Atheer based his book Usd Al-Ghaba upon, which are the works of Ibn Mandah, Abu Nu’aim, Ibn Abd Al-Barr, and Ibn Al-Madeeni, and yet, none of them mentioned him.
Ibn Al-Atheer, was left confused by this (see 4/178), he named him as one of the Arabs who renegated from Islam alongside Musaylamah al-Kazzab in the bio of Khalid, then mentioned that some people said that he died a Muslim after hinting towards the reports we dealt with above, he also does the same  in the bio of ibn Nuwayrah, but it is obvious, when studying the evidences, that there is no authentic proof that Malik bin Nuwairah died as a Muslim.
Accusation #2: Khalid Legitimizes his Junior Officer’s Rape of a Woman Captured in War.
Imam Bayhaqi records the following incident involving the two best mates, Khalid bin Walid and Dharar bin al-Auwzwar:
Abu al-Hussain bin al-Fadhl al-Qatan narrated from Abdullah bin Jaffar bin Darestweh from Yaqub bin Sufyan from al-Hassab bin Rabee from Abdullah bin al-Mubarak from Kahmas from Harun bin Al-Asam who said: Umar bin al-Khatab may Allah be pleased with him sent Khalid bin al-Walid in an army, hence Khalid sent Dharar bin al-Auwzwar in a squadron and they invaded a district belonging to the tribe of Bani Asad. They then captured a pretty bride, Dharar liked her hence he asked his companions to grant her to him and they did so. He then had sexual intercourse with her, when he completed his mission he felt guilty, and went to Khalid and told him about what he did. Khalid said: ‘I permit you and made it lawful to you.’ He said: ‘No not until you write a message to Umar’. (Then they sent a message to Umar) and Umar answered that he (Dharar) should be stoned. By the time Umar’s message was delivered, Dharar was dead. (Khalid) said: ‘Allah didn’t want to disgrace Dharar’
Sunan al-Bayhaqi, Volume 2 page 365 Tradition 18685
Harun bin Al-Asam was only considered to be reliable only according to Ibn Hibban, and the scholars have clearly stated that Ibn Hibban is notorious for mentioning anonymous narrators in his book of trustworthy scholars.
Furthermore, Abu Hatim Al-Razi in Al-Jarh wal Ta’deel in the biography of Harun, mentioned that his narration from Omar bin Al-Khattab is disconnected.
In both cases, the narration is weak and to be rejected.
Accusation #3: Khalid Unjustly Fought Tulaiha bin Khalid.
ShiaPen lay out the following argument:
Prior to the campaign that culminated in the murder of Malik bin Nuwayrah, Abu Bakr had launched a similar campaign against a person called Tulaiha, who (like Malik) rejected the illegitimate caliphate of Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr deemed it paramount that this opponent be silenced, he connoted a claim that Tulaiha had claimed Prophethood for himself, and should hence be killed. This task was also given to his loyal pet Khalid bin Walid. The present day Nawasib would no doubt make feeble attempts to support the allegation of Abu Bakr against Tulaiha with the help of some weak narrations, but for our open minded readers, let us cite the words of the reliable Sunni historian, Ibn Atham (d. 314 H), who in his book Al-Fatuh, page 14 records:
وجعلت بنو أسد وغطفان وفزارة يقاتلون بين يدي طليحة بن خويلد أشد القتال وهم ينادون لا نبايع أبا الفصيل يعنون أبا بكر الصديق رضي الله عنه
Bani Asad, Ghatfan and Faraza (tribe) fought sternly in Tulaiha bin Khawaild’s army and they stated: ‘We wont give baya to Abu al-Fasil that referred to Aba Bakr al-Sidiq (ra)’
First of all, we reject the claim that Abu Bakr needs to provide an extravagant motive in order to enlist the Muhajireen and Ansar. It is common knowledge, amongst both Sunni and Shia schools of thought that several Arab tribes renounced Islam after the death of the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam), and this very fact is supported by the words of Allah:
يا أيها الذين آمنوا من يرتدّ منكم عن دينه فسوف يأتي الله بقوم يحبهم ويحبونه
{O ye who believe! Whoso of you becometh a renegade from his religion, (know that in his stead) Allah will bring a people whom He loveth and who love Him, humble toward believers, stern toward disbelievers, striving in the way of Allah, and fearing not the blame of any blamer.} [Al-Ma’idah 54]
The scholars of the Tabi’een, like Al-Hasan, Al-Dhahhak, Qatada, and Ibn Juraij, all testified that this verse was intended for Abu Bakr, for he fought those that left Islam.
The fact that the tribes have left Islam is sufficient for troops to be mobilized against them.
Secondly, Ibn A’atham is a weak Shi’ee according to Yaqoot Al-Hamawi, and this quote was accepted by Ibn Hajar Lisan Al-Mizan. Brocklemann also accepted that his rendition of history is a Shi’ee version. See Athar Al-Tashayyu ‘ala Al-Riwayaat Al-Tareekhiyah (bio of Ibn A’atham) for evidences of his Tashayyu’.
Accusation #4: Khalid Kills a Woman on the Battlefield.
ShiaPen argue:
Imam of Nawasib Ibn Kathir records in Sirah al-Nabawyiah, Volume 3 page 638:
Ibn Ishaq said: ‘Some of our companions narrated that Allah’s Messenger (s) passed by a woman who had been killed by Khalid bin al-Walid, the people were gathered around her, then He (s) said to some of his companions: ‘Go after Khalid and say to him: ‘Allah’s Messenger orders you not to kill a child, woman, or slave.’
Sirah al-Nabayiah, Volume 3 page 638
Imam Ahmed records a tradition in his Musnad that has been declared as ‘Sahih’ according to Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut in the margin of the book:
Rabah bin al-Rabee said: Handhala al-Katib marched with Allah’s messenger to a battle and Khalid bin al-Walid was at the front, then Rabah and the companions of Allah’s Messenger passed by and killed a woman, who had been killed by the front troops. They stopped and stared at her and wondering of her looks, until Allah’s Messenger (s) arrived, they then moved away (to let the Prophet pass) then Allah’s Messenger (s) stood next to her and said: ‘She wasn’t a warrior’. Then He (s) said to some one: ‘Go to Khalid and tell him to not to kill children or slaves’.
Musnad Ahmad, Volume 3 page 488 Tradition 16035
The second narration, which is authenticated by Sh. Shoaib, states that Khalid bin Al-Waleed was leading the army. It does not say that he killed the woman, unlike the first narration quoted from Ibn Ishaaq from his companions, which is weak and not reliable since we do not know who his companions were, nor have they witnessed the events.
Accusation #5: Khalid bin Al-Waleed Kills Members of the Tribe of Bani Jatheema in Cold Blood.
ShiaPen state:
The following incident will also give a sketch to our readers about Khalid bin Walid inhumane characteristics. We read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 628:
Narrated Salim’s father:
The Prophet sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, “Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam),” but they started saying “Saba’na! Saba’na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another).” Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of) them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive, I said, “By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive.” When we reached the Prophet, we mentioned to him the whole story. On that, the Prophet raised both his hands and said twice, “O Allah! I am free from what Khalid has done.”
It should be noted that Khlid was sent by the Prophet (s) to invite people to Islam not to kill them. Despite this Khalid personally killed those he was unable to convince to embrace the faith, and asked his collegues to likewise kill those that they had captured, and on what grounds? Just for fun! Thank god his colleagues adopted sense and opted to ustilise their humanity, and rejected these orders that later on turned out to be the correct decision as the Holy Prophet (s) in automatically distanced himself from the brutality committed by Khalid. Are these the types of acts these Nawasib evidence as the ‘bravery’ of Khalid? Ofcourse Ansar.Org put this tragedy down to a mere mistake, they state:
When the news of their execution reached Rasulullah r he lifted his hands and said, “O Allah, I dissociate myself from what Khalid has done.”8 Although Rasulullah r dissociated himself from the haste Khalid made himself guilty of, he did not punish him, since it was an error in judgement on his part. A very regrettable error it was, but it was still an error.
The reality is this was more than just an error of judgement, it was a calculated cold blooded murder of Muslims, merely to settle some old scores. We shall seek to evidence this through the testimony of the Sahaba themselves…
By going through the narration, we find no evidences that suggest that his actions were a calculated murder. Not only that, but if these actions were calculated, then why did the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) let Khalid bin Al-Waleed continue to lead armies? This is common knowledge found in the books of Seerah and the Saheehain. More specifically, he sent Khalid to Yemen during his last years, way after the incident of Bani Jathima.
ShiaPen though, provide the following narration in order to make their theories sound more reasonable:
“Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Abdulbaqi from al-Hassan bin Ali from Abu Umar Muhammad bin Abbas from Abdulwahab bin Abi Haya from Muhammad bin Shuja from Muhammad bin Umar from- Abdullah bin Yazid from Eas bin Salamah narrated from his father that when Khalid bin al-Walid came to the Prophet (s) after what he had done to the tribe of Jadhima, Abdurrahman bin Auf discredited Khalid on his deed and said: ‘Oh Khalid, you adopted the manner of Jahiliyah and killed them to avenge your uncle al-Fakeh, may Allah curse you.’ Then Umar bin al-Khatab supported him against Khalid. Khalid said: ‘I avenged your father.’ Abdulrahman ibn Auf said: ‘By Allah, you have lied, I killed the killer of my father with my own hands and Uthman bin Affan is witness to that’. Then he (Abdulrahman) looked at Uthman and said to him: ‘I appeal to you by Allah, do you witness that I killed my father’s killer?’ Uthman said: ‘Yes.’ Then Abdulrahman said: ‘Oh Khalid, shame on you, even if I didn’t kill the killer of my father, would you kill Muslims to take avenge my father?’ Khalid said: ‘Who told you that they were Muslims!’ (Abdulrahman said): ‘All the soldiers testify that you saw them building mosques and testifying that they were Muslims, and then you struck them with the sword.’ (Khalid) said: ‘I had received a message from Allah’s messenger to invade them, therefore I attacked them on the orders of the Prophet (s)’. Abdulrahman said: ‘You have attributed a lie to Allah’s messenger.’ Then (Khalid) became rude with Abdulrahman and Allah’s Messenger became angry and turned his face from Khalid because of what he did to Abdurrahman…”
Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Volume 16 page 234
Once again though, ShiaPen have relied on Al-Waqidi the liar for information, which is why the narration goes against the authentic and logical position of the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) that we have provided above.
Accusation #6: Khalid bin Al-Waleed Mulatilates Malik bin Nuwairah.
Previously we just shed light on the fact that Khalid bin Walid unjustly killed the Sahabi Malik bin Nuwayrah by alleging that he was a Murtad. He then slept with his wife. Let us now reveal the post murder activity done by Khalid to the severed head of this martyred Sahabi. Ibn Kathir records:
وأمر برأسه فجعل مع حجرين وطبخ على الثلاثة قدرا فأكل منها خالد تلك الليلة ليرهب بذلك الأعراب من المرتدة وغيرهم
He (Khalid) ordered that the head (of Malik) be placed with two stones and inserted into a cooking pot, he (Khalid) then ate from it that night in order scare the Arabs and others from being apostates.
al-Bidayah wa al-Nihaya, Volume 6 page 354
The narration is not included with a chain and is therefore rejected. ShiaPen should know better since we don’t accept narrations from people that barely died a century later, let alone from a book that was written in the eighth century.
Accusation #7: Khalid Didn’t Know How to Pray.
Ibn Asakir records:
Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Abdulbaqi from al-Hassan bin Ali from Abu Umar Muhammad bin Abbas from Ahmad bin Maroof from al-Hussain bin al-Fahm from Muhammad bin Saad from al-Fadhl bin Dukain from Al-Waleed bin Abdullah bin Jamee said: ‘A man whom I trust told me that Khalid bin al-Waleed led the prayer in Hyra (city), hence he read verses from different chapters, then he looked at the people and said: ‘Jihad kept me busy from learning Quran’’.
Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Volume 16 page 250
We do not know who narrated this narration, nor do we know if that person was an eye witness to the events, and therefore, we cannot accept this narration as reliable.
Accusation #8: Khalid’s Troops were Alcoholics.
Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Abdulbaqi from al-Hassan bin Ali from Abu Umar Muhammad bin Abbas from Ahmad bin Maroof from al-Hussain bin al-Fahm from- Muhammad bin Saad from Ibrahim bin Abdullah bin Hatim al-Harawi from Hashem from Awam bin Hushab who said: ‘My people narrated from a man among them whose name is S’as’a: ‘Alcohol was being spread in Khalid bin Walid’s troop’
Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Volume 16 page 252
Notice how Awam bin Hawshab narrates from “his people” who narrated from “a man named Sa’sa’a”. All these are anonymous and therefore the Hadith is rejected. It boggles the mind that ShiaPen bothered to discuss the credibility of all the narrators in the chain, when the chain is obviously weak due to these clear flaws.
Accusation #9: Khalid was a Nasibi.
It should some as no surprise to learn that Khalid bin Walid was a Nasibi, since one possessing habits to commit Haram acts commonly has this Nasibi affliction. In Musnad Ahmad, Volume 5 page 358, we read the confession of Sahabi Abu Buraidah that he was a Nasibi as was Khalid bin Walid:
حدثنا عبد الله حدثني أبي ثنا وكيع ثنا الأعمش عن سعد بن عبيدة عن بن بريدة عن أبيه انه مر على مجلس وهم يتناولون من على فوقف عليهم فقال انه قد كان في نفسي على علي شيء وكان خالد بن الوليد كذلك
Buraida narrated from his father that he passed by a group of people abusing Ali, he stopped there and said: ‘There is something in myself against Ali as is the stance of Khalid bin al-Walid.’
Musnad Ahmad, Volume 5 page 358 Tradition 23078
This is from the event that took place in Yemen, when `Ali (ra) took some of the booty for himself (a female servant) and deprived the others, he did so as it was his right, his part of the Khums. So all the soldiers accompanying him held a grudge against him which includes Buraydah and Khalid.
Then they complained to the Prophet (saw) upon their return, he (saw) got angry and said: “Man Kuntu Mawlahu fa `Aliyun Mawlahu”.
Which resolved the issue and Buraydah said in a narration: “Then `Ali became the most beloved person to me after the messenger (saw).”
This is why the narration quoted above by ShiaPen is not correctly translated, the correct translation is: “I have had something in my heart against `Ali, and Khalid bin al-Walid was like this too.”
Then he himself narrates Hadith al-Ghadir which is the greatest of praise for `Ali (ra), what does this mean? It means that this thing they held against `Ali was replaced with loyalty and love after the messenger (saw) said what he said.
Some might weaken this report because of the Tadlis of al-A`mash, however his Tadlis is not harmful in the view of  others.
Accusation #10: Khalid bin Al-Waleed was from an Illegitimate Birth, and is Therefore Doomed to Hell-fire.
ShiaPen disturbingly try to suggest the following:
We have already presented the testimony of the Sahabi Abu Buraidah that Khalid bin Walid had something against Ali bin Abi Talib (as) that made him a Nasibi that automatically renders him a hypocrite. Being a Nasibi is also dependent upon one being of illegitimate lineage. Imam of Ahle Sunnah, Fakhruddin al-Razi said correctly in Tafseer al-Kabeer, Volume 30 page 85:
ولأن الغالب أن النطفة إذا خبثت خبث الولد ولهذا قال عليه الصلاة والسلام لا يدخل الجنة ولد الزنا ولا ولده ولا ولد ولده
If the seed is evil then the progeny will also be evil, therefore the Prophet (s) said: ‘The son of adultery and his son and his grand son shall not enter heaven.’
Such narrations have been declared as fabrications by Ibn Al-Jawzi and other Hadith scholars. Not only that, but these fabrications go against the Qur’an:
وَلَا تَزِرُ وَازِرَةٌ وِزْرَ أُخْرَى
{Each soul earneth only on its own account, nor doth any laden bear another’s load.} [Al-An’am: 164]
In conclusion, the accusations by ShiaPen towards Khalid bin Al-Waleed all fall short, for they are all weak. All that stands is the authentic praise of the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) through several chains. Even though it would be great to add a section regarding the conquests of Khalid bin Al-Waleed (radhi Allah ‘anhu) and his great achievements in the name of Islam, we do believe that the very attempt of doing so in the form of an article would do him a great injustice, for such a work would require at least a volume.

Ameen

Brothers and sisters, here we have two sides of the argument. A very lengthy argument in deed. I just want to move away from this lengthy argument and put simple questions forward? My questions would be to anyone, most preferably to brother Farid or Hani,

According to the Ahle Sunnah perspective was Malik Ibne Nuwayra a companion of the Prophet (pbuh)???? Just a simple and straight forward answer, Yes or no???

If he wasn't a companion then was he a Muslim during the Prophet's (pbuh) time and did he remain a Muslim after the Prophet's (pbuh) death???

Hani

Brother please stop posting big articles, a link is enough.

Although the answer to your question is in the article we linked you to. Yet I'll let Farid give you your answer since it is he who did the research and dealt with this article.
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Ameen

Brother please stop posting big articles, a link is enough.

Although the answer to your question is in the article we linked you to. Yet I'll let Farid give you your answer since it is he who did the research and dealt with this article.

No problem bro. Could you remove them and just put the link forward. Thanx. I know the answers are in the article but I want to move away from the lengthy discussion and just discuss the basics with you.

Rationalist

Are separatist ever left alone in any nation? I haven't really seen any examples in history because there has always been consequences. Besides, Ameen I was told that Umar disagreed with Abi Bakr in the major areas of this part of the history. However, the 12ers only point the area where Umar only opposed Khalid bin Walid  in the quick Muta marriage which later became permanent. 

Also to justify muta Labelling theory posted this reference.

Quote
By the way, are you aware of the the reason why the verse 4:24 was even revealed? Take a read here:
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=684&Itemid=59

"Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed. Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women"

See here? The reason why they initially wanted to marry these women was for sexual pleasure only. They were afraid it was haram because they were already married (to non-Muslim men). This verse was revealed and told them it was okay to have sexual relations with them - not real marriage
.

So please do tell me why is what Khalid done with Malik's wife a crime to the 12er Shia ?
« Last Edit: February 26, 2015, 11:27:30 PM by Rationalist »

Ameen

Are separatist ever left alone in any nation? I haven't really seen any examples in history because there has always been consequences. Besides, Ameen I was told that Umar disagreed with Abi Bakr in the major areas of this part of the history. However, the 12ers only point the area where Umar only opposed Khalid bin Walid  in the quick Muta marriage which later became permanent. 

Also to justify muta Labelling theory posted this reference.

Quote
By the way, are you aware of the the reason why the verse 4:24 was even revealed? Take a read here:
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=684&Itemid=59

"Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed. Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women"

See here? The reason why they initially wanted to marry these women was for sexual pleasure only. They were afraid it was haram because they were already married (to non-Muslim men). This verse was revealed and told them it was okay to have sexual relations with them - not real marriage
.

So please do tell me why is what Khalid done with Malik's wife a crime to the 12er Shia ?

Brother my questions are,

The killing of Malik Ibne Nuwayra was this justified and how???
Was Malik a companion of the Prophet (pbuh)??? Yes or no???
If Malik became a murtad then how and why did he become that???
Just because you refuse to give Zaka'ath how does this justify your killing???
Waging war on part of your community because they refuse to give Zaka'ath, what does the Quran and Sunnah say about the first Khalifs actions here??? And how is this Jihad, fighting your own people???
What do the Ahle Sunnah mean by Malik became murtad???
Come on guys, this is not difficult. You can do it.

Ameen

Are separatist ever left alone in any nation? I haven't really seen any examples in history because there has always been consequences. Besides, Ameen I was told that Umar disagreed with Abi Bakr in the major areas of this part of the history. However, the 12ers only point the area where Umar only opposed Khalid bin Walid  in the quick Muta marriage which later became permanent. 

Also to justify muta Labelling theory posted this reference.

Quote
By the way, are you aware of the the reason why the verse 4:24 was even revealed? Take a read here:
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=684&Itemid=59

"Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed. Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women"

See here? The reason why they initially wanted to marry these women was for sexual pleasure only. They were afraid it was haram because they were already married (to non-Muslim men). This verse was revealed and told them it was okay to have sexual relations with them - not real marriage
.

So please do tell me why is what Khalid done with Malik's wife a crime to the 12er Shia ?

Forget about the 12r Shias and their fever, did Khalid kill Malik??? Or have him killed??? If yes then why and what for??? Did Khalid marry Malik's wife??? If yes, then when??? And if you think this is a fairy tale created by the Shias then please sort out your books and for starters stop calling them authentic.

Rationalist



Brother my questions are,

The killing of Malik Ibne Nuwayra was this] justified and how???

Was Malik a companion of the Prophet (pbuh)??? Yes or no???
If Malik became a murtad then how and why did he become that???
1) No
2) Yes
3) No, unless Murtad in the context means regressor.
Quote
Just because you refuse to give Zaka'ath how does this justify your killing???
Its an ijithad and not a Prophetic order. In politics there are consequences of refusing to pay tax, and starting a separatist movement.
Quote
Waging war on part of your community because they refuse to give Zaka'ath, what does the Quran and Sunnah say about the first Khalifs actions here??? And how is this Jihad, fighting your own people???
You are repeating the same question.

Quote
What do the Ahle Sunnah mean by Malik became murtad???
Come on guys, this is not difficult. You can do it.
Murtad here can mean regressor. If it means apostate there is a problem.

« Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 12:23:54 AM by Hani »

Rationalist


Forget about the 12r Shias and their fever, did Khalid kill Malik??? Or have him killed??? If yes then why and what for??? Did Khalid marry Malik's wife??? If yes, then when??? And if you think this is a fairy tale created by the Shias then please sort out your books and for starters stop calling them authentic.
I guess that muta culture of war did no leave Khalid so easily. Also recall the 2nd's reaction to all of this.

Ameen



Brother my questions are,

The killing of Malik Ibne Nuwayra was this] justified and how???

Was Malik a companion of the Prophet (pbuh)??? Yes or no???
If Malik became a murtad then how and why did he become that???
1) No
2) Yes
3) No, unless Murtad in the context means regressor.
Quote
Just because you refuse to give Zaka'ath how does this justify your killing???
Its an ijithad and not a Prophetic order. In politics there are consequences of refusing to pay tax, and starting a separatist movement.
Quote
Waging war on part of your community because they refuse to give Zaka'ath, what does the Quran and Sunnah say about the first Khalifs actions here??? And how is this Jihad, fighting your own people???
You are repeating the same question.

Quote
What do the Ahle Sunnah mean by Malik became murtad???
Come on guys, this is not difficult. You can do it.
Murtad here can mean regressor. If it means apostate there is a problem.

[/quote]
[/quote]

In politics there are consequences??? I am talking about Quran and Sunnah. How was waging war and killing Malik Ibne Nuwayra and people of his tribe justified through Quran and Sunnah??? You can't answer this because there is no justification for the first Khalifs actions. If there is then prove to me through Quran and Sunnah. Politics can go either way like people who rebelled against the fourth are looked at with blind eye.

The wars they fought were not jihad and their Khilafath was not Islam. They went and did according to their own initiative and what they assumed was right and better. Since Saqeefa all this nonsense and controversy started and this was an embarrassing era and period for the Muslims and Islam.

Things just got from bad to worse and even worsened from here on. This is what such Khliafath and iktedar brings. The first Khalif fought but didn't accuse anyone of becoming a murtad. If he did provide me with references. The fourth Khalif fought but didn't call anyone a murtad. But here we have you stripping companions of their titles because it goes against you belief.

Rationalist

The wars they fought were not jihad and their Khilafath was not Islam. They went and did according to their own initiative and what they assumed was right and better. Since Saqeefa all this nonsense and controversy started and this was an embarrassing era and period for the Muslims and Islam.
 Since Saqeefa all this nonsense and controversy started and this was an embarrassing era and period for the Muslims and Islam.
Abu Sufyan agrees with your school on this. However, what did Imam Ali (as) say in reply to it ?

Quote
Things just got from bad to worse and even worsened from here on. This is what such Khliafath and iktedar brings. The first Khalif fought but didn't accuse anyone of becoming a murtad. If he did provide me with references. The fourth Khalif fought but didn't call anyone a murtad. But here we have you stripping companions of their titles because it goes against you belief.
Do you know  what the scholarly definition of a companion is ? If you want I will post it next time.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2015, 12:29:03 AM by Rationalist »

Hani

Those folks were asked by the Prophet (saw) to offer him their Zakat so he may divide between the people, we read in Sunan al-Nasa'i:

Bahz bin Hakim said: "My father told, me that my grandfather said: 'I heard the Prophet say: With regard to grazing camels, for every forty a Bint Labbun (a two-year old female camel). No differentiation is to be made between camels when calculating them. Whoever gives it seeking reward, he will be rewarded for it. Whoever refuses, we will take it, and half of his camels, as one of the rights of our Lord. And it is not permissible for the family of Muhammad to have any of them."'

Meaning they had no option of refusing an obligatory duty as Muslims, the Prophet (saw) said he would take it by force should they refuse to give it. After the Prophet (saw) passed away his successor assumes the exact position he had, the Khalifah is supposed to take the place of the Prophet (saw) in everything he did as far as political management.

Abu Bakr said: "By Allah! I will fight whoever separates between Salat and Zakat. This is because Zakat is the right to be taken from property (according to Allah's Orders)."

This is because by keeping their Zakat to themselves they have transgressed and we are ordered to fight transgressors until they return to Allah's path, Rasul-Allah (saw) said when talking about the prohibition of fighting against other Muslims:

"Their blood and wealth become forbidden except for a right that is due, and they will have the same rights and obligations as the Muslims."

He said "except for a right that is due" and he said "obligations", meaning they cannot do as they please. I add, that in some narrations the Prophet (saw) said he would fight them until they pray their prayer and give their due charity.

Also in Kitab-ul-Muwafaqah by ibn al-Samman page 48 it is narrated that Abu Bakr asked `Ali about them: "What do you say O Aba al-Hasan?" `Ali replied: "I say: If you leave with them anything that Rasul-Allah (saw) used to take from them then you have strayed from the Sunnah." So Abu Bakr said: "Now that you have said this, I shall fight them should they not offer even a rope for the camels (that they used to offer previously)."
عَلامَةُ أَهْلِ الْبِدَعِ الْوَقِيعَةُ فِي أَهْلِ الأَثَرِ. وَعَلامَةُ الْجَهْمِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُشَبِّهَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الْقَدَرِيَّةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ السُّنَّةِ مُجَبِّرَةً. وَعَلامَةُ الزَّنَادِقَةِ أَنْ يُسَمُّوا أَهْلَ الأَثَرِ حَشْوِيَّةً

Religion = simple & clear

Abdullah Efendi

Bismillah.

Just wanted to post some interesting findings from Islamic books on Malik.

From Usud al-Ghaba:
قال أبو عمر : فأما مالك فقتله خالد بن الوليد واختلف كثير من الصحابة وغيرهم فيه : هل قتل مرتدا أو مسلما وأما متمم فلم يختلف في إسلامه
"Abu Umar (ibn AbdulBar) said: As for the Malik, he was killed by Khalid ibn Waleed.COMPANIONS AND OTHERS differed a lot, if he was killed as an apostate, or Moslem. As for his brother Mutammam, his Islam wasn't disputed".

What important here, that it is clearly noted even from time of companions some people accepted Malik as an apostate.

From Ikmal al-Kamal.
واخوه مالك بن نويرة شاعر فارس، اسلم ايضا، وهو الذى قتله خالد ابن الوليد في الردة
"And his brother Malik ibn Nuwayrah was Poet, Persian that also accepted Islam. He was killed by Khalid ibn Walid in apostasy".

From al-Istiab
 ففتح الله عليه اليمامة وغيرها، وقتل على يده أكثر أهل الردة منهم مسيلمة ومالك بن نويرة.
"And Allah opened on his hands Yamamah and other places, and by his hands were killed a lots of apostates, from them Musaliyma and Malik ibn Nuwayrah"

From Thiqat of ibn Hibban:
 فلما بلغهم وفاة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فأما عدى بن حاتم فتمسك بالاسلام وبقى في يده الصدقات وكذلك الزبرقان بن بدر وأما مالك بن نويرة فأرسل ما في يده وقال لقومه قد هلك هذا الرجل فشأنكم بأموالكم
"And when the news in regarding prophets death reached them (they act in this way):as for Adi ibn Hateem, he remained steadfast upon Islam.And he kept property collected as the sadaqah in his hands. And in the same way al-Zabarqani. As for Malik Nuwayrah he send all that been collected (back to people) and said: PERISHED THAT MAN, AND UPON YOU TO DEAL WITH YOUR OWN BUSINESS".















 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
950 Views
Last post July 23, 2016, 09:04:11 PM
by taha taha
0 Replies
677 Views
Last post October 07, 2017, 12:56:49 AM
by Rationalist
1 Replies
699 Views
Last post August 23, 2019, 10:58:00 PM
by Rationalist
5 Replies
547 Views
Last post June 09, 2020, 01:21:23 AM
by Soccer