Discourse Four: Analysis of the Rights of Legal Opponents
Type of dealing with legal opponents
Iron-handed policy
When Muhajireen came out successful in Saqifah, they at once adopted the policy of suppressing rival parties or adversaries. This they did to establish Abu Bakr’s authority at any rate:
“Abu Bakr Jauhari has narrated from Baraa bin Azib: After the news of allegiance to Abu Bakr in Saqifah spread, immediately Abu Bakr, Umar, Abu Ubaidah and a group of associates of Saqifah set out in the town roaming the streets. Whomever they met on way they held his hand and put it on the hand of Abu Bakr without regard whether that man was in favor or not.
They dragged the people to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr in any way possible. In this matter Umar was more rough than others and after him was Qunfudh bin Umair.
The group that set out to take Bay’at from people was anxious to finish the job as early as possible.”
Umar started the job from Saqifah itself.
“Umar says: When they obtained Bay’at from people they attacked Saad bin Ubadah. One person asked him whether he killed Saad. Umar replied that God killed him!
According to another narration after Umar said: Kill Saad! He shouted: May God kill him. Then he went at the head of Saad and said:
I want to kick in such a way that you become invalid.
”
“At the indication of Umar people kicked Habbab bin Mundhir,
filled his mouth with mud
and broke his nose.
After a short while another group came and kicked Miqdad.
On the same spot Saad bin Ubadah was about to die because of the kicks he had got.
On that day whoever shouted against them his mouth was filled with mud.
There was only one cry, one clamor and one shouting that was constantly heard:
Kill so and so!
Kill them! We cut your throat…
Umar set free whoever paid allegiance to Abu Bakr, pointing him the direction to go. He did this to impress on the public that job was done and finished.
Afterwards this group consisting of close associates and supporters headed to the lanes and by lanes of the town. Whoever they came across they held a grip on him and dragged him, whether he liked it or not to Abu Bakr and taking his hand touched it to the hand of Abu Bakr. Then they set him free.
”
There are historical annals that show:
“A group of Arab nomads (Bani Aslam)
came to Medina to buy rations. Umar sent word to them to see him. When they came Umar told them that:
If they paid allegiance to Abu Bakr they would be paid the cost of rations. He further suggested them to go in the lanes and streets and invite people to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr. He encouraged them to break the head and nose of those who refused.
The narrator says: By God! I saw those rough Arabs tied their waists closely, cloth-pieces of Sanaa on their heads and faces as covering. They took batons in their hands and set out like dogs and forced people to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr’s Caliphate.”
In the same way some orientalists have analyzed the act and behavior of Bani Aslam Arabs thus:
“Bani Aslam was a branch of Khuzaaya. They were known to be loyal to Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet valued their loyalty. He gave them the status of Muhajireen. He ignored as to whether they had really migrated to Medina or not. A considerable number of them resided close to Medina. As such, they were always ready to help the Prophet. They were known as enemies of Ansaar. Therefore it can be said that they with their huge number proved a force that gave strength to Abu Bakr’s Bay’at. They at once replied positively to the proposal of Umar. They also hit Saad bin Ubadah as an insurgent.”
Stamp of Apostasy
“Apostasy was a great disgrace that supporters of Saqifah stamped on their opponents to justify their tyrannies such as killings and forcibly taking Bay’at from the people. These battles and suppressing those who had falsely claimed prophethood went a long way in deceiving people. It was a great help to them to establish their authority and gain people’s confidence. It completed the designs and tricks of the Quraishi party that had now attained the status of being a rightful one to be at power.”
In a short scrutiny on the basis of Abdullah bin Saba, battles that occurred during Abu Bakr’s Caliphate and got a distinction for him according to claim of Sunni sect can be divided into three parts.
1 - Battle with Musailaima and Tolaiha, who claimed prophethood. Some groups too had gathered around them who were in fact, infidels - not Murtad. But Saif bin Umar calls these battles the battles of Murtads and shows its mischief to be widespread one.
In this respect, we should know that Abu Bakr had no other way but to fight them to keep his Caliphate.
“Only two tribes among the tribes around Medina rose against Islam in support of Tolaiha. One was the tribe of Tolaiha himself named Asad, the other was a group of Fuzara, a branch of Ghatfan tribe. This tribe was again a branch of the tribes of Qais Aelaan. Except these two, there appears no other name that could have gathered around Tolaiha and fought against Muslims.”
“In the army of Tolaiha were a few men from Asad tribe, which was his own; besides there were few more from the tribe of Fuzara under the command of their own chief Ainat bin Hisn. There was no one from other tribes.”
Therefore their mischief was not as serious as claimed; that their suppression should be a matter of pride for Abu Bakr and that also in the way of service to Islam!
2 - The numerous battles, all of which are fabricated by Saif bin Umar, have no reality at all.
“In this respect, we see battles of imagination in the history of Islam, which are called battles with apostates during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr like: the Battle of Abraq, attack of Zilqissa, apostasy and battle of Tai tribe, apostasy and battle of Umme Zamal, apostasy of the people of Mohra, apostasy of the people of Oman, the first battle with the apostates of Yemen, apostasy and battle of Akhabas, the second battle of apostates of Yemen.”
“Yes, the only thing true and which other historians have also mentioned is that Abu Bakr raised an army and gave the command of Ansaar to Thabit bin Qais, making Khalid bin Waleed the commander of the forces and sent them to confront those who had camped at Buzakha intending to attack the Muslims. After this there was no other battle.
Yes, except for these two Abu Bakr did not appoint anyone else to the command and except for this flag did not raise any flag. He also did not send Khalid bin Saeed [bin Aas] as commander of army to fight apostates of Hamaqtain at the outskirts of Syria. Actually Khalid bin Saeed [bin Aas] was sent with soldiers to Syria.”
Accordingly on this basis battles with the Murtads in the time of Abu Bakr and all other battles are short of credit, having no basis. They are all inventions of Saif bin Umar.
“According to a deep research and investigation in this matter it can be said with certainty that: all the matters given in detail about the battle of Abraq and story of Zilqissa, they are all mentioned only by Saif bin Umar. No other historian has said anything about them. It is nothing but fabrication of Saif. There was no apostasy of most of these tribes Saif has blamed. No one camped at Abraq and Zilqissa and neither is there any truth in the story that the apostates were about to attack Medina. Similarly the report that Abu Bakr appointed some persons for defense of Medina is also false. All the four battles of Abu Bakr mentioned by Saif are imaginative ones. He has fabricated all incidents about the victories, his praises, his domination and control over enemy territories. In fact all the persons and places recorded by Saif have no base in reality.”
These stories are invented to give superiority and greatness to Abu Bakr. To show that it was service to Islam and to uplift the Caliph in people’s view.
According to the research of Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari in the 2nd volume of his book, Abdullah bin Saba, all the narrations related to the battle of Abraq are forged and all the events that show the serious problems the apostates posed that the Caliph had to struggle hard to suppress them, are in fact all figments of the imagination of Saif bin Umar.
In the same way except for some events related to Zilqissa all are forgeries and unreliable.
The whole story of apostasy of Umme Zamal, People of Oman and Mohra,
people of Yemen and Akhabat are fabrications of Saif bin Umar.
These stories were invented to give superiority to Abu Bakr and show that it was service to Islam; thus exalting him in people’s view.
Similarly, the apostasy of Tai tribe and their insurgency being crushed during Abu Bakr’s Caliphate is not true. According to historical documents, the Tai tribe had not apostised; in fact they were staunch supporters of Abu Bakr.
On the basis of this all the battles of apostates supposed in the time of Abu Bakr and other battles which are called as victories, are all fabricated and have no historical basis.
They are all products of the imagination of Saif Ibne Umar.(
)(
)
3 - The real reason for battle with Muslims was for their not accepting Abu Bakr. They declared them Murtad (Apostates) only to justify their suppression and bloodshed at the hands of officers of Abu Bakr such as Khalid bin Waleed, Akrama bin Abi Jahl and Ziyad bin Labeed.
“Some tribes revolted on the issue of Zakat. They did this because they were against Abu Bakr and his rule. Their reasoning was: Just as Quraish revolted against the will of Prophet, so too do not obey the Quraishite regime of Abu Bakr and his party. The sign of their disobedience was their not paying the tax to central government. By this act they in fact challenged the legitimacy and legality of Abu Bakr’s rule. It stamped a great question mark over it. From here started the battles under name of Battles of Apostates which were actually the battles to confirm their own seat of Caliphate, which had come into being by means of revolt of Quraish immediately after passing away of Prophet. They thought such a way of harsh dealing with the people would blanket their rule by legitimacy.”
Saif bin Umar continued to add imaginative wars and battles either under name of Murtads or victories. In fact it was suppression of opponents who refused to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr like the Kinda tribes that lived outside Medina. They called Murtad whoever refused to give Bay’at to Abu Bakr as Caliph. While the fact was that they were not so.
But they found no other excuse. In the days of Abu Bakr it is said:
“Associates of Saqifah wanted to show that refusal to accept Abu Bakr as Caliph and not to pay Zakat to him was refusal of the very faith of Islam. So it is infidelity. By so doing, they were making Abu Bakr sacred.”
“The logic of Saqifah people was that whoever opposes Abu Bakr and his government was an infidel and the battles of Ridda against the nearby tribes were based on this policy.”
Some of these tribes were dealt with very harshly. The soldiers of Abu Bakr killed them and destroyed their properties. Most of this bad treatment was not necessary either. Therefore they refused to pay taxes to the collectors of Abu Bakr. For this also they had to pay heavily.
We read the following claim in describing Abu Bakr’s stand in such cases:
“In crushing insurgency and campaigning against the plot of Murtads and the disunity in Islam our lord Abu Bakr followed the same policy which the prophets of God had adopted in their age. Abu Bakr performed the true part of Caliphate. The gratitude and praises together with thanks of Muslims go to him till the Day of Judgment.”!
Let us scrutinize the behavior of Abu Bakr with those who opposed him; how they were falsely declared as Murtads no matter however staunch Muslims they were.
“The regime of that time started a bloody campaign against opponents of Abu Bakr and killed them all so there remained no opponent.”
“In historical books, it is endeavored to avoid mention of their apostasy but several evidences prove they were not Murtads nor did they refuse Zakat. They refused to pay Zakat only because they did not recognize Abu Bakr a legitimate successor of Prophet.
Some historians and researchers have also explained this matter:
Ibn Katheer says:
Various tribes of Arabs entered Medina in groups. They prayed. But they did not pay Zakat.
Some only refused to pay Zakat to Abu Bakr.
Yaqoobi narrates:
Some groups of Arabs declared their Prophethood. Some became Murtad, some placed crown on their heads.
Some were although not Murtads yet they refused to pay Zakat to Abu Bakr.
Regarding the rules of Murtad (Apostates) Ibn Hazm says:
These men were Muslims. They never departed from faith of Islam. So they were not Murtads. The only thing they did was they refused to pay tax to the person of Abu Bakr. They were killed for this.
Ibn Hazm further adds: The Hanafi and Shafei sect too are in agreement with belief that the decree of Murtad cannot be applied to them. They all were Muslims - within the embrace of Islam. Therefore both these two sects are against the ruling of Abu Bakr.
Naubakhti and Saad bin Abdullah Ashari have the following comments:
They were a group unwilling to pay Zakat to Abu Bakr. They said they would distribute that sum among poor and needy ones of their own tribe. They said: We shall do this until a real and rightful successor of the Prophet is known to them. This shows that they did not consider Abu Bakr as a rightful successor to Prophet. So were they Murtad?
Tabari also narrates from Abu Mikhnaf: The two tribes Asad and Fuzara said: By God! We will never give Bay’at to Abu Bakr - the successor to Prophet.
In this regard, the well-known Egyptian writer Abbas Mahmood Uqqad writes:
Another group was believer in the very principle of Zakat. But they did not believe nor had any faith in one whom they were supposed to pay Zakat.
Shaykh Muhammad Aale Yasin has performed a scholarly analysis of all narrations regarding Murtads mentioned in Tarikh Tabari surrounding the whole period of Abu Bakr. He rejects all of them because of false reports and lack of authenticity. He comments: There is no text in hand that shows their rejection of the principle of Zakat. When it is thus, there is no ground to prove their turning Murtad (apostates).
He says: Behind the killings on pretext of being Murtad is concealed some other reality. The fact is that the code of Murtad was the only option to Abu Bakr. It gave him a pretext to destroy and kill them as their presence was destructively detrimental to Abu Bakr. Their not paying Zakat could have taken to itself a movement and a movement could have spread far and wide. The consequence was still more dangerous because it could have challenged his Caliphate - that is his occupation of the seat of a Caliph of the Prophet of God. Therefore he had to kill them to rescue himself. Of course the code of Murtad came to his aid.
Ali Abdul Razzaq (a contemporary Egyptian writer) says in frankness: There no doubt at all that battles with Murtad was only a political aspect. Abu Bakr had to crush it under the excuse of apostasy, which he did.
They were only opponents of Abu Bakr like other Muslims who did not desire to come under the yoke of Abu Bakr’s rule.
The writer says that the issue of apostasy is the darkest spot of the ground of crimes in the history.
Allamah Askari also in his documentary research has dealt with the sense and the meaning of Murtad, that is denial of faith after having embraced it and the difference how the Prophet looked at it and how he (Abu Bakr) used it as a tool. Thus the Allamah comments:
From what we said so far it comes to light that those accused of being Murtad were actually not apostates. They were only opposed to Abu Bakr’s Caliphate therefore they refused to pay Zakat to him.
The writer of History of Ridda
says that Malik bin Nuwairah, Qais bin Asim and Aqra bin Habis collected Zakat and distributed it among their own people.
This act of Qais was regarded as a great crime and they said that he was the greatest criminal.
More than this is Ibn Athim’s
saying and also Waqadi’s words: They talk of apostasy of the people of Hadhramaut and tribes of Kinda:
Some among these tribes considered Caliphate the right of the Prophet’s house members.
Haritha bin Suraqa one of the chiefs of Kinda, said to Ziyad bin Labeed
who had come to collect Zakat:
We obeyed the Prophet of God as long as he was alive. Now if one of his House Members comes to power we will obey him. But as for Abu Bakr there is no obligation on us to obey him and he has no commitment towards us.
…Harith bin Muawiyah, one of the chiefs of Bani Tameem, said to Ziyad bin Labeed who had come to collect Zakat: You are asking us to obey one regarding whom we have not pledge or covenant.
Ziyad said: But we have chosen him for us.
Then Harith asked: Just tell me why Caliphate was taken away from the Prophet’s House? On the other hand Quran says that they are more befitting than others to this job.
Zaid answered: Muhajireen and Ansaar know their own affairs better than you.
Harith: No. By God, it is not so. Because of your envy you departed from Household Members of Prophet. I can never accept that the Prophet passed away without nominating anyone in his place.
Ziyad! Get up and go away from here because you are inviting us to a thing, which enrages God.
In the meantime Arfaja bin Abdullah al-Zahali said: By God, Harith is telling the truth. Avoid this man (Ziyad) as his friend, Abu Bakr has no worth to sit in the seat of Caliph. Emigrants and Helpers also are not wiser than the Prophet for the Ummah.
Then they dragged Ziyad from there. They wanted to kill him. Ziyad forced the tribe whichever he visited to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr. But they responded in a way that was unpleasant to Ziyad. They did not agree with Ziyad’s logic. Therefore Ziyad’s mission failed in the tribes. Finally, Ziyad returned to Medina and reported the results of his visits to Abu Bakr.
Abu Bakr became extremely angry. He sent Ziyad again to the same tribes, this time with a force of four thousand soldiers.
Ziyad went to the tribes with the soldiers and also with a concealed motive of revenge. He massacred the tribes of Bani Hind, Bani Aqal, Bani Hujar and Bani Himyar.
Then he confronted other tribes of Kinda. After many battles and attacks which resulted in bloodshed on a wide scale, help reached Ziyad when soldiers of Akrama bin Abi Jahl came to his rescue. Ziyad defeated all of them at Hadhramaut.
Besides these tribes, there are other tribes whose men too were massacred and their properties and belongings looted or destroyed. Their children and womenfolk were made captives. When Yamama people heard that Abu Bakr had become Caliph they refused to recognize him. Abu Bakr sent troops there. Yamama people also refused to pay Zakat to Abu Bakr because he was in their view not the legitimate Caliph. Abu Bakr found no ground to kill them in order to take revenge of their rejecting his authority. The only way open to him was to declare them apostates. The soldiers massacred them all.
The tribe of Bani Salim too was not safe from this killing, plunder, pillage and other atrocities. Khalid bin Waleed under instructions of Abu Bakr burned their menfolk alive. This was such a brutal tyranny that even Umar objected and censured Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr in reply to criticisms said: Khalid is the sword of God.
The inhabitants of Daba, a district between Oman and Bahrain were also massacred by the army of Akrama bin Abi Jahl. Abu Bakr had issued him direct orders to not leave anyone alive. Their properties were plundered. Their sons, daughters and widows were made captives.
There are several other tribes and also groups who came under the category of apostates.
Tabari gives us a list of the tribes in the third volume of his history that apostised after passing away of Prophet.
For instance, he mentions Tai, Asad, Ghatfan, Hawazin, Bani Salim, Bani Amir, people of Yamama, Najd, Bahrain, Amman, Tihama, Yemen, Hadhramaut and Bani Tameem. It is interesting that Tabari has narrated most events from the greatest liar of history, Saif bin Umar.
His source was the lies of Saif.
Because the sense and meaning of Murtad is obscure and even its extent not known, most cases of apostasy are doubtful and cannot be accepted.”
In a way these cases of Murtad were fabricated, the battles against them too were false. Some were only to provide a ground to crush opponents of Abu Bakr.
It could be said that fabrication of cases of apostates and including them in books like Tarikh Tabari was only to hide the crimes of Abu Bakr’s rule towards Muslims who regard Abu Bakr’s regime illegitimate.
In other words, so many cases of apostates in the history of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate were fabricated to suggest to the people what terrible harm they would have caused to Muslim society, thus leading to the conclusion that whatever done was necessary. So the readers will not go after research and on the contrary even praise Abu Bakr and feel a sense of indebtedness to him for his services to Islam. The reader would regard him as a rescuer of Islam from apostasy.
“They were those who did not see Abu Bakr a deserving one to succeed the Prophet as Caliph. Therefore they were not willing to pay tax to him though they had no doubt in Zakat as an obligation.
…people who were massacred in those days had faith in God and His Prophet. They prayed. They did not deny the obligation of Zakat. The only thing was they hesitated to pay tax to Abu Bakr because Abu Bakr’s becoming the Caliph to them was a matter of suspicion.
The Sunni sect too believes that Abu Bakr tried to justify the crimes of Khalid. They refused to pay tax to Abu Bakr, but they did not refuse the very Zakat itself.
In fact, they did a right thing. So they have a reward with their God. Zakat of property should be calculated and paid. But to whom? Only to him who has Guardianship (Wilayat) over them. Such a one can be only Infallible - introduced by God and His Prophet. He must be the legitimate successor of the Prophet. Was Abu Bakr so? He came to power through a plot - Saqifah. But tyranny knows no reasoning. Its language is of force, torture and atrocity.
On the other hand in reliable books of Sunni sect such as Sahih of Muslim and Sahih of Bukhari it is mentioned that the blood of those who refused to pay tax to Abu Bakr was not legal to be shed. Their bloodshed was wrong because they were Muslims.
These numerous traditions are partly general and partly conditional.
Neither a battle with them nor killing them could be justified. Abu Bakr has said that Zakat is from the property and it should be paid. But the dispute here is the person or authority who can demand it. Only he can demand who is a guardian of people. It is the Prophet only who can appoint a guardian. Anyone who reaches the seat of Caliph by hook or by crook cannot be a guardian. What is the legitimacy that gives authority to him?
Even if they refused to pay, was it reasonable to wage a war against them? Or kill them? Reason dictates to attend to the grievances and see their reasoning instead of killing them.
Battle with them is against their right of protection of their blood. Mere presumption of Abu Bakr cannot be a ground for their killing.
In the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim, it is narrated on the authority of Usamah bin Zaid that: The Prophet sent us to Hirqa.
In the morning we attacked the pagans there and defeated them. I and one of Ansaar reached them. When we were among them, one shouted: There is no god except Allah. The Ansaari who was with me left him unhurt, but I killed him. When we returned and reported the event to the Prophet he told me: Usamah! Did you kill him after he had uttered there is no god except Allah?
I told the Prophet: I thought he meant refuge by uttering the name of God.
The Prophet repeated his words so much, I wished I were not a Muslim before that day.
Allamah Sharafuddin writes: Usamah wished thus because he thought that all his deeds such as prayers, fasting, being in the company of the Prophet, holy wars, paying Zakat and going to Hajj all have gone in vain. They cannot wipe out the sin of killing a man who had just become a Muslim. He knew that the sin of killing a Muslim had destroyed all his virtuous deeds.
The feelings of Usamah represent his fear that he would not be forgiven or redeemed. For this very reason, he wished that he were a Muslim after that incident of killing as the Prophet has said that Islam washes all sins preceding it.
We think it is enough for the reader to understand the worth of: ‘There is no god but Allah’ and its sayer.
Reliable books by Sunni authors are full of such traditions that show the dignity of Muslim blood.
Accordingly the incident of Usamah clearly indicates that killing a Muslim only because of his not paying Zakat is not allowed and the case becomes more serious if the reason for non-payment is not rebellion but a suspicion on his part about the truth or legitimacy of Caliph. They doubted the right on the part of Abu Bakr to be Caliph. So they were in hesitation to make the payment. Therefore they did not deserve to be killed.”
Allamah Sharafuddin has protested in a way that even the Sunni sect concurs with it. He protested for the killing of Malik bin Nuwairah. He writes:
“The crime of Malik bin Nuwairah was his refusal to pay Zakat to Abu Bakr. It was at a time when he was occupied in investigation about legality of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate to honor his own commitment to God and His Prophet. It is obvious that the intention of Malik was not to create difference among Muslims nor did he reject Zakat itself nor did he doubt about Islam and its laws. Malik did not want to fight with the Caliph. So it is better to determine the cause first for his non-payment and then decide what to do. It is not so easy to kill a Muslim merely at a pretext. Malik bin Nuwairah in view of the position he had among his people obviously saw it fit to investigate the situation whether the new government that had come into being in Medina and was busy in crushing its opponents and occupied in spotting and eliminating hidden adversaries of Abu Bakr from the scene was really a legitimate government.
That is the only reason why Malik bin Nuwairah abstained from paying Zakat and began to investigate so that he pay to the proper person and thus fulfill his duty properly.
So it was necessary that Abu Bakr and his officials should have given time to Malik to make his decision in the light of his investigations and act accordingly. They should not have dealt with him in such haste.
Because he was not a denier of Zakat, he did not differentiate between Zakat and prayer and was not one that considered it necessary to fight Abu Bakr or other Muslims.
This was the reality of Malik and his people’s refusal to pay Zakat.
Malik was not one to wage war among Muslims. Malik even advised his tribe members to preserve their Islam.
He further advised them to disperse and not camp all together at one place lest Khalid may think that they are planning an armed confrontation.”
Conclusively it can be said that:
“The fact is that there was no Murtad at all in the period of Abu Bakr. Those whom Abu Bakr fought were within Islam and none had renounced faith. A few could have been there who had not become Muslims since the beginning itself. A few refused to pay Zakat to Abu Bakr. So how they became Murtad?”
“After Zahra’s martyrdom, the government sent troops to deal with those who were outside Medina as they had not given Bay’at to Abu Bakr.
Even though Abu Bakr’s regime tried to label all their opponents as Murtads and under this excuse fight and kill them, they could not identify all of them as apostates.
The accusation of being a Murtad was the best means to destroy the enemy. So he used this means, which was to his own ends.
But analysis shows that a multitude of the people was not Murtad and did not deserve such loss of life and property even though Caliph’s circular reads:
Whoever does not submit to the government should be killed or burnt alive and his women and children should be taken as captives.
”
Historical documents show that the plan of Abu Bakr was so harsh and brutal against his opponents that it is said:
A) “Fight them even if they refuse to give a camel’s tether.(
)(
)
B) The circular of the Caliph was thus:
I have given the assignment to this army to kill by sword those who have departed from religion of Islam. Furthermore, they have a mandate to burn them alive and make their widows and children captives…”
Now the question is - after all these scrutinies and analyses can it still be claimed:
“The stand of Abu Bakr was strong and he showed no weakness in his motive of saving the religion of Islam. Where religion of Islam was concerned, he was without any consideration. God had inspired him with such strength. The religion is indebted to him.”
Whenever we recall those strict stands of Abu Bakr towards those who refused to pay Zakat we come to realize his honesty, truth, trustworthiness and straight forwardness in carrying out the mandate vested to him by God.”!
“The right was with Abu Bakr in relation to those who did not pay Zakat.”
Please do pay attention to the following statement:
“Abu Bakr’s government did not observe any distinction between a Muslim and an apostate. He dealt with all equally like Arabs of the age of ignorance. When they waged a battle, the victor had a right to take the widows as concubines and make their children captives and confiscate their property.
On this ground, when the government suppressed so-called apostates they propagated that they killed non-Muslims. Likewise, they attacked the towns, killed and murdered whomever they liked, captured and arrested some. Their children were enslaved, womenfolk made concubines and belongings they took for themselves.
As a result, a considerable wealth found its way to Medina and was hoarded there.
This process had no compatibility with teachings of Islam. That is why it reflected an unhealthy and undesirable effect in the eyes of many. People considered that the acts the Caliph committed, such as murder, plunder, killing and pillage was part of Islamic teachings. This process influenced to a great extent on the minds of the people to think - rather to believe - that Islam is a religion of sword; and it spread by force.”
Although these crimes and inhumane acts, which are against Islamic teachings and mankind, are recorded in history yet they claim:
“Whatever the Caliph did throughout the period of his Caliphate was in accordance with traditions of Prophet and God’s commandments.”
While the fact is that:
“From what we said it seems that Abu Bakr’s army fought with Muslims who neither drew out swords nor announced a war. Rather they repeatedly declared their Islam and prayed with Muslims in the same row.
Yes, Abu Bakr’s army fought against such men, made them captives, killed them after accusing them of non-payment of Zakat. They did not even ask them to pay the Zakat to see whether they would pay or not.
There are still several other motives in these battles. There are ends and aims, hidden, which have no bearing on Zakat nor related to its payment…”
Examples of Caliphate facing its legal opponents
A - Malik bin Nuwairah
“All historians, Tabari, Ibn Athir, Ibn Kathir and Yaqoobi say: Abu Bakr sent an army under Khalid bin Waleed to tribes that had not given Bay’at to Abu Bakr after passing away of Prophet or did not pay Zakat to collectors of Abu Bakr, so that they may be forced to make the payment.”
“Malik bin Nuwairah was a brave man, a poet and chief of a part of Bani Tameem tribe. He was a companion of the Prophet and his agent. Malik did not send to Medina, alms
he had collected after passing away of Prophet. He returned the amounts to persons he had collected from.
”
When Khalid bin Waleed arrived at Bitah
he gave an assignment to Zirar bin Azwer and sent him with a few soldiers to attack the tribe of Malik. Abu Qatadah
too was among them. They made a surprise attack on Malik’s tribe. Abu Qatadah used to narrate after a long time since this incident: We told them if you are telling the truth that you are Muslims, keep your weapons on the ground. They agreed and placed their weapons on the ground and stood to pray
.
Ibn Abil Hadeed writes in his Sharh Nahjul Balagha: As soon as Malik and his associates placed their weapons on the ground, Zirar and his friends rushed up on them and tying them with ropes dragged them to Khalid bin Waleed.
”
“Khalid claims that Malik bin Nuwairah had renounced Islam. In other words, he had become a Murtad. Khalid’s reasoning was that Malik uttered some words which made him a Murtad.
On the other hand Malik denied having uttered any words at all. Malik had this to say:
I am a Muslim. I have neither amended nor changed any of its regulations. Abu Qatadah and Abdullah bin Umar also attested the statements of Malik, but Khalid refused. He first killed Malik, then ordered Zirar to behead him. After that, Khalid the same night, slept with his widow
.”
“In Isabah it is narrated from Zubair bin Bikkar on the authority of Ibn Shuhab (Zuhri) that Malik bin Nuwairah had lavish hair. After having killed Malik Khalid ordered that his severed head be placed under the cooking pot. The fire consumed the hair and had not yet reached to the skin that the food was cooked.”
From this historical document we can conclude that Malik was a hairy man. The soldiers placed the severed heads under cooking pots. Malik’s head did not burn completely because the flames that rose up from the hair cooked the food.
Two Reminders
One - We draw your attention to two points raised by Allamah Sharafuddin in his book, Ijtihaad Dar Maqaabile Nass with regard to murder of Malik bin Nuwairah and his tribe:
“Bukhari with regard to delegating Ali and Khalid to Yemen writes in his Sahih: A man stood and said: O Prophet! Fear God. The Prophet said: Woe on you! Am I not the most deserving person in the world to be in refuge of God and most befitting to be in piety?
Khalid said: O Prophet of God! Shall I cut his throat?
The Prophet said: No. Perhaps this man performs prayers.
How nice it would have been if Khalid had remembered Prophet’s words. If only Khalid had shown some respect to prayers. Did not Malik pray? Why Khalid did not honor prayers of Malik? Khalid disobeyed the Prophet in killing Malik. Abdullah bin Umar and Abu Qatadah Ansaari gave evidence to Khalid that Malik had performed the Morning Prayer that day. Then on what ground he killed him?”
“According to Yaqubi’s statement in his history, Abu Qatadah went to Abu Bakr and reported the case to him and said: By God, I shall not go anywhere under the command of Khalid. He killed Malik inspite of his being a Muslim.
Tabari too has mentioned that Abu Qatadah was among those who gave evidence that Malik was a Muslim.
In Tarikh Abil Fida it is mentioned that Abu Bakr and Umar got the news and learnt of the events. Abu Bakr said: I will never execute him (Khalid), because he has erred in his Ijtihaad. I will not sheath the sword that Allah had pulled on them.”
“It is mentioned in several sources such as Wafayaat al-Ayaan, Tarikh Abul Fida and Kanzul Ayaan: When the news of Khalid’s killing Malik and raping his widow reached Abu Bakr and Umar, Abu Bakr said that he would not stone Khalid to death. He is a jurisprudent and has erred in his jurisprudence.
Umar asked him to dismiss Khalid.
Abu Bakr said: I will not sheath the sword God has pulled out.”
“Ibn Abil Hadeed writes: Abu Bakr said: Shut up Umar! This is not our first mistake. You better hold your tongue about Khalid.”
We must remark here:
“Abu Bakr during his rule appointed Khalid as the commander of his army in Syria.
Then he ordered him in advance to be the commander of forces in Baghdad upon his return from Syria.”
Khalid was stone-hearted. In the history of Abu Bakr’s Caliphate his record was such:
“When Khalid bin Waleed moved to Buzakha he sent Akhasheh bin Mehsin and Thabit bin Aqram as scouts ahead of the forces. They reached near a place where Tolaiha with his brother had come to evaluate the army of Islam. They accidentally met Khalid’s scouts and killed them.
Tabari narrates from Ibn Kalbi: Khalid with his army passed by the corpse of Thabit and rode on it by mistake. They dead body got trampled under the hooves of horses…”
Two - it is interesting that inspite of these crimes committed by Khalid and murder of Malik in that beastial way they still praise Abu Bakr:
“Elasticity and leniency of Abu Bakr towards Khalid bin Waleed is appreciable. In the view of Abu Bakr the mistake and error of Khalid was ignorable.”
In the end, they add:
“Anas bin Malik says that companions of Prophet were not willing to wage a war against those who refused to pay Zakat. They said that they were performers of prayers. But Abu Bakr pulled out the sword and set out alone. People too followed him…
According to the above narration, Abu Bakr was alone. He pulled the sword himself only thus he went. People saw him going alone and were compelled to trot behind him.
According to this report it seems that Abu Bakr himself fought Malik bin Nuwairah. On the other hand all historians write (rather to exculpate Abu Bakr), that Khalid ordered Zirar bin Azwar and he killed Malik cutting off his head.”
“The fact is that Malik was a man of reputation. He was chief of a tribe. At that time Abu Bakr’s rule was still weak and they feared that a little movement could easily topple their Caliphate.
The interior too was shaky. Groups like Bani Hashim and Ali at their head, Khazrij under the leadership of Saad bin Ubadah and Quraish with Abu Sufyan were still their opponents.
So this courageous and honorable man of Bani Tameem regarded as real danger a person who was a few miles from Medina and thought of some way to be safe from him. So he should be by any means and at any pretext be eliminated and the elimination should be such as to serve a lesson to others.
As a result of all this scrutiny, we can say that the real cause of the murder of Malik and one actually responsible of it was Abu Bakr himself - not Khalid.”
“Abu Bakr was very much enraged at Malik bin Nuwairah for not considering him a lawful successor of the Prophet and had given orders to Khalid bin Waleed to kill Malik wherever he was found.”
B - Saad bin Ubadah
Saad bin Ubadah Khazraji was the first to reach the meeting of Ansaar at Saqifah Bani Saadah, and he was the most popular candidate. Muhajireen joined a little later. They changed the course of discourse, which resulted in Abu Bakr’s becoming Caliph. As a matter of fact, Muhajireen made Abu Bakr the Caliph.
“They left Saad alone for a few days since the plot of Saqifah. Later he was invited to pay allegiance to Abu Bakr as all his people and relatives had paid allegiance to Abu Bakr.
Saad answered: By God! I will shoot all my arrows on you till they are exhausted. I will color my lance with your blood. But I will not give Bay’at to you. As long as I could, I will fight you, but I will not keep my hand in yours.
When they heard these words of Saad, Umar told Abu Bakr not to let Saad go unless he pays allegiance.
However Basheer bin Saad
said that he would not pay allegiance to you because he has become stubborn to you. He added: It is not so easy to kill him. If he is killed all his relatives, sons, associates and family members too should be killed. If you let him go
he would not harm you because he is only one.
They accepted the guidance of Basheer and left Saad.
Saad did not attend any of their meetings nor joined them in daily and Friday prayers. During the Hajj season, he was not seen with them.
It continued like this until Abu Bakr died and Umar came to power.
”
One day Umar saw Saad in a lane of Medina. Umar called him: O, Saad! Saad too replied at once: O, Umar!
The Caliph asked: Are you not the one who used to say such and such? Saad said: Yes, I am that man. Now you have reached to power. By God, I hate your company.
Umar said: One who hates his neighbor changes the place. Not much time passed
but that Saad left Medina for Syria in the early days of Umar’s Caliphate…
Balazari writes in his book Ansaab al-Ashraaf:
Saad bin Ubadah did not pay allegiance to Abu Bakr and left for Syria.
Umar engaged a man, instructed him to go to Syria and persuade Saad to pay allegiance by hook or crook. He asked him to play any trick he knew to get Saad’s acknowledgement to Umar’s Caliphate. In case of failure he asked him to kill Saad by the help of God. The hired man headed to Syria, met Saad in Howaryeen and opened the subject of allegiance. He tried to persuade him to acknowledge Umar’s Caliphate but when he got disappointed he pulled out the arrow from the case that hung at his back and shot him. It immediately cut the main vein and Saad died at once.
In the book, Tabsiratul Awaam it is mentioned that Umar had hired Muhammad bin Musailaima Ansaari
for this secret job. Muhammad accordingly went to Syria and shot Saad bin Ubadah with an arrow.
It is also said that Khalid bin Waleed was also present in Syria at that time and he assisted Muhammad bin Musailaima in eliminating Saad…
Ibn Abde Rabb says: Saad bin Ubadah’s body was found with an arrow in his heart. They spread a rumor that Jinns had killed Saad by two arrows in his heart.
”
C - Umme Farwa
“This lady named Umme Farwa announced her opposition to Abu Bakr when she said: I recognize only Ali as a real and true successor of Prophet. She was executed by the orders of Abu Bakr.”
Fujayat al-Salma was burnt
“There was a man of Bani Salim tribe named Fujayat
whose main occupations were theft, murder, plunder and rowdism. At last he was captured
and brought to Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr ordered them to make a fire in the praying square of Medina. Then he ordered that he should be thrown into it alive with hands and legs tied.
So it was done and he died in this way. While he was dying he was calling out the testimonies of being a Muslim at the pitch of his voice.”
“Tabari and Ibn Athir have narrated the story thus:
“A man named Fujayat came to Abu Bakr from the tribe of Bani Salim and said: I am Muslim. I want to fight against the apostates, but I have neither a horse nor a weapon. Give me a horse and a weapon. Abu Bakr provided him what he was short of, but Fujayat instead of going on his mission went to the highways and began to loot people or shoot them if they resisted. He rode the horse looting and plundering. A man named Najba bin Abi al-Mitha from Bani Shareed tribe helped him.
When news reached Abu Bakr he wrote to Tarifa bin Hajir: The enemy of God, Fujayat, came to me and announced he was a Muslim. He asked me to provide him with a horse and weapon so he can fight the apostates. I provided him the same, but now I hear that this enemy of God is looting Muslims and pagans alike.
So you with the help of Muslims under your command arrest or kill him. If you arrest him, bring him to me.
Tarifa bin Hajir headed towards Fujayat. Both met and shooting without aim or target took place. In the meantime, Najba bin Abi al-Mitha got hurt and died. Fujayat understood that Muslims were determined to arrest and execute him. He spoke to Tarifa: You have neither preference nor any superiority over me. You have an assignment from Abu Bakr and I too have orders from him.
Tarifa bin Abi Hajar said: If you are telling the truth put down the weapon and come with me to Abu Bakr.
Fujayat agreed. They both (Fujayat and Tarifa) went to Abu Bakr.
As soon as he saw Fujayat he ordered Tarifa to take him to Baqi and burn him alive.
In another narration Tabari says that Tarifa gathered fuel wood as much as he could and ignited the fire. Then he tied up Fujayat and threw him into the huge flames.
In this regard, Ibn Athir has this to say: Tarifa tied the hands of Fujayat to his neck. Then he was tied by ropes round his body then he threw him into the fire until he died.”
0%
Author: Ali Labbaf
