Day: October 26, 2023

The Miracles of the Nabi Pakﷺ – part 24

aal-e-qutub

Miracles related to the cure of disease:

A. The Prophet cures the boy who is suffering from epilepsy (due to being touched by the Shaitân):

Imâm Ahmad narrated on the authority of Ya’lî Ibn Murrah who said: “A woman came to the Prophet with a son of hers who was suffering from epilepsy (due to being touched by the Shaitân). The Messenger of Allâh said to him: “Get out you – enemy of Allâh- I am the Messenger of Allâh “. Thereupon the boy was cured, and the woman gave the Messenger of Allâh two sheep, some cheese and some butter as a present. The Prophet took the cheese and the butter, and one of the two sheep, and gave her the other “

B. Making Du’â’ for the woman who was suffering from epilepsy:

Imâm al-Bukhârî related on the authority of ‘Atâ’ bin Abî Rabâh who said: “Ibn ‘Abbâs said to me: “Shall I show you a woman of the people of Paradise?” I said “Yes”. He said: “This black lady came to the prophet and said: “I get attacks of epilepsy and my body becomes uncovered; please invoke Allâh for me”. The Prophet said (to her): “If you wish, you can be patient and enter Paradise; and if you wish, I will invoke Allâh to cure you. She said: “I will remain patient” and added, “But I become uncovered, so please invoke Allâh for me that I may not become uncovered”. So, he invoked Allâh for her³³.

C. Making Du’â’ for the Emigrants to be cured from fever in Madinah:

Imâm al-Bukhârî narrated on the authority of ‘Âishah (may Allâh be pleased with her) that: “When the Messenger of Allâh arrived in Madinah, both Abû Bakr and Bilâl fell ill. When Abû Bakr’s fever got worse, he would recite the (poetic verses):

Everybody is
Staying alive with his people, yet Death is nearer to him than
Related by Imâm al-Bukhârî in the Book of “Patients His shoe laces”.

And Bilâl, when his fever deserted him, would recite: Would that I could stay overnight in A valley wherein I would be surrounded by Idhkhar and Jalîl (two types of good smelling grass) Would that I could drink the water Of the Majanna, and would that (The two mountains)

Shâmah and Tafil would appear to me!

The Prophet said: “O Allâh! Curse Shaibah bin Rabi’ah and ‘Utbah bin Rabî’ah and Umaiyyah bin Khalaf as they turned us out of our land to the land of epidemics. Allâh’s Messenger then said: “O Allâh! Make us love Madînah as we love Makkah or even more than that. O Allâh! Give blessings in our Sâ’and our Mudd (measures symbolizing food) and make the climate of Madînah suitable for us, and divert its fever towards al-Juhfah”9” Aishah (may Allâh be pleased with her) added: “When we reached Mâdînah, it was the most unhealthy of Allâh’s land, and the valley of Bathân (the valley of Madînah) used to flow with impure colored water”.60

Allâh the Almighty, responded to the Du’â’ of the Prophet and al-Madinah became the most healthy place, due to the blessing of the arrival of the Prophet in it, and his Du’â’.

A place close of Madinah on the way to Makkah.


Rays from the life of Imam Hasan bin Ali (AlaihisSalam)-part 9

aal-e-qutub

Stage One: During His Father’s Lifetime

Imam Hasan’s [a] role, during the lifetime of his father, and especially under his caliphate, was marked by his total obedience to his father, who was his example and leader. He dealt with him, not only as a kind son, but also as an obedient soldier in the deepest sense of the word, with its implications of compliance and discipline. The role of Imam Hasan [a] was expressed, during all the critical days his father, Imam Ali [a], lived through, in total submission to his father, his leader and the source of his inspiration.

Following are some of his deeds during this part of his life:

1. After the camp of Imam Ali [a] was attacked, due to the mutiny of Talha and al-Zubair in the city of Basrah, and after the rising of the deviants under the leadership of Mu’awiyah bin Abu Sufyan, Imam Ali [a] felt he needed the support of the masses of Kufa to protect the right and put down the sedition kindled by some people. For that mission, he chose his elder son, Hasan [a]. He ordered him to encourage the people of Kufa to champion the pure Islamic cause, represented by Imam Ali [a]. Imam Hasan [a] accepted the mission and made for Kufa in the company of Ammar bin Yasir. Imam Hasan [a] was carrying an edict from Imam Ali [a] to his governor in Kufa, Abu-Musa al-Ash’ari, relieving him of his post due to his disgraceful stance in failing Imam Ali [a] and turning his back on the indisputable truth.

As soon as he entered Kufa, the multitudes swelled around Imam Hasan [a] declaring their loyalty and their readiness to help him. He made a speech, in which he blew enthusiasm into their inept souls, and urged the people to hoist the banner of jihad high. Imam Hasan [a] was most successful in accomplishing his mission. He exhorted them to support the right, defend the message and its noble state.

The battle of al-Jamal (The Camel) had already ended in Basrah. Mu’awiyah was rapidly gathering Syrian forces, stationing them at Siffin. Imam Ali [a] got wind of the moves of the Ummayad party. He divulged the news to his soldiers, and asked their council. They all announced their readiness to do whatever Imam Ali [a] ordered them.

In the meantime, Imam Hasan [a] was standing amid the masses calling them to rally around the truth. In one of his speeches he said:

“Thanks be to Allah. There is no god other than He. He has no partner. I praise Him and He is praiseworthy. Allah gave you great favours and showered you with His graces which are beyond number. One cannot possibly thank Him for them. Neither a statement nor saying can express them. We are angry only on behalf of Allah. He favoured us with what cannot be given by anyone but Him. We should, therefore, thank Him for His bounties, tribulations and favours. Our praise should ascend to Allah, carrying our satisfaction to Him. It should be truthful. Our praise has to be so true that Allah believes us. It has to make us entitled to receive more of his bounties. Our praise should increase rather than decrease Allah’s favours. No group of people gather around some matter without making it firmer, and their beliefs solid. So mobilize yourselves for the fight against your enemy, Mu’awiyah, and his soldiers, because he has advanced against you. And do not discourage one another, for discouragement cuts asunder the heartstrings. Advancing under the spearheads is a sign of bravery and piety, for no people had ever observed jihad without the lifting of malaise from among them by Allah. He would spare them the tribulations of humility, and guide them to the hallmarks of denomination… “[17]

In this speech, Imam Hasan’s [a] aim was to solidify the bonds of unity, close the ranks of the people, and rally the people to challenge the party led by Mu’awiyah and a handful of opportunists. 3. The Commander of the Faithful, Imam Ali bin Abi Talib [a], had warned the people against the arbitration during the Battle of Siffin. He knew it was a trick. After the charade of arbitration was over – and it ended with Abu-Musa al-Ash’ari’s failing Imam Ali [a] – the camp of Imam Ali [a] was thrown into confusion. Chaos prevailed, and each group of people began to disassociate


themselves from the other. They started reviling each other. Imam Ali [a] wanted to explain to the people the situation as it was, and to show that the arbitration was invalid because it was not based on truth and logic. He assigned this task to his son Abu Muhammad Hasan [a].

“Stand up, son, and talk about these two men: Abdullah bin Qais,[18] and Amru bin al-Aas,” Imam Ali [a] told his son. Imam Hasan [a] stood and addressed the people, telling them the real dimensions of the situation. He said:

“O people! You have talked too much about these two men. They were only chosen to judge according to the Book and in the light of its guidance. But, they judged according to their whims and not the Book. This being true, their verdict cannot be called a judgement. Rather, it was an opinion forced upon them. Abdullah bin Qais erred when he named Abdullah bin Umar as the caliph. He made mistakes concerning three points: First, he disagreed with his father who did not rate him as qualified for caliphate, nor did he appoint him as member of the Shura (consultative group). Secondly, he did not consult him on the matter. And thirdly, neither the immigrants nor the Ansar (helpers) rallied around him. These are those who appoint the ruler and establish his reign over the people. As for arbitration, the Messenger of Allah [s] himself had chosen Sa’d bin Ma’ath for this. And he did judge with what pleases Allah. Undoubtedly, if he had deviated, the Messenger of Allah [s] would not have approved of him”. [19]

In these words, the grandson of the Holy Prophet [s], Imam Hasan [a], clarified the matter, disclosed the falsity of the arbitration, and proved to the people the mistake of Abu Musa al-Ash’ari, who was elected by the common people among the army of Imam Ali [a], and without thinking it over, they charged him with a task he could not fairly accomplish. The man had bad intentions.

Imam Hasan [a] demonstrated some or Abu Musa’s mistakes. Among them was deposing Imam Ali [a] and calling Abdullah bin Umar bin alKhattab the caliph of Muslims. His judgement involved three errors, not to mention the rest of his arbitration. Imam Hasan [a] was an astute thinker, had a sound foundation in logic and politics. His analysis of Abu Musa’s actions in the arbitration process was acute and left no doubt in a reasonable mind that the analysis was without flaw. He said that:

1. When Umar bin al-Khattab appointed a six-man consultative group at his deathbed, he did not appoint his son Abdullah as one
of the group. That was because he recognised that his son was not qualified to be a caliph, and a leader of the people.

2. The pledge of allegiance, as was the order of the day, was initiated by the immigrants and Ansar, then, the whole of the ummah followed suit. How could al-Ash’ari do something without consulting them?

3. Al-Ash’ari, when he appointed Abdullah as the caliph of Muslims, did it without seeking the view of the man himself. He could not tell whether Abdullah would consent or refuse. The man was not informed of the question earlier, and he was not asked about this most historically critical matter.

Moreover, Imam Hasan [a] set an example of a just and good arbitration, which is approved of by Allah. He cited the arbitration of S’ad bin Ma’ath, who was chosen by the Messenger of Allah [s], to settle the question of Bani Quraidhah, after their military defeat by the Messenger of Allah [s]. His judgement was firm and sound.

1. Imam Hasan [a] took part in all the wars fought by his father, Imam Ali [a], including those of Basrah, Nahrawan, and Siffin. He played a critical role in them. He fought in those battles and put down those seditions without any motives other than his concern over Islam.

[16] Baqir Sharif al-Qarashi, Hayat al-Imam Hasan [a], (Najaf:1965). vol.1,

p.387. [17] Ibid., p.432. [18] Abdullah bin Qais Abu-Musa al-Ash’ari. [19] Ibid., p. 479.

THE MISCHIEF OF APOSTACY

aal-e-qutub

THE MISCHIEF OF APOSTACY

After the provisional Bai-ath at Saqifa e bani Saaeda the majority of the people of Madina owed their allegiance to Hazrat Abu Bakr and his caliphate was established from the democratic point of view. But when this news spread far and wide, a wave of discontent arose and reslessness developed in the minds of the Arab Tribes.that urged them not to cooperate with the establishment. Some of the tribes joined under the flags of the apostates. From every side the voices of opposition started emanating. In this atmosphere only Qureish and Bani Thaqeef remained steadfast with the establishment. Ibne Atheer writes:

“The Arabs became apostates. The land of Arabia became a center for mischief and unrest. Barring the Qureish and Bani Thaqeef, almost all the tribes, or certainly a part of each, turned to apostacy.” Ref: Tareeq e Kaamil, Vol 2, Page 231

During the reign of Hazrat Abu Bakr the chiefs of the apostates who raised their heads had already turned apostate while the Prophet (s.a.) was alive. Therefore Aswad Anasi, Masilama Kaddaab and Taliha ibne Khawilad had already turned hostile and made claims of prophethood during the lifetime of the Prophet (s.a.). Aswad Anasi was killed by Firoze Deelmi during the times of the Prophet (s.a.) and his supporters created mischief. Maasilama was killed by Wahshi during the period of Hazrat Abu Bakr. Taliha embraced Islam during the time of Hazrat Omer. Similarly Alqama ibne Alasa and Salma binte Malik became apostates during the time of the Prophet (s.a.) and after his demise entered into armed conflict. However Laqeet ibne Malik became an apostate after the Prophet (s.a.) and Sajah binte Harit too made a claim of prophethood after his demise. Laqeet was vanquished by the Muslims totally and Sajah was rendered a supplement of Masilama and married him to spend the rest of her life in obscurity. These were the apostates who created mischief during the period of Hazrat Abu Bakr. The people who were known as those who refused to pay the Zakat were from these tribes. They were the same persons who claimed to be prophets and their cohorts. Therefore Hazrat Abu Bakr had said about the delegation of Taliha ibne Khawilad:

“Even if they refuse to give the rope that is used for tying the camels, I shall fight a Jejad with them.”

Tareeq e Tabari, Vol 2, Page 476

This mischief had raised its head during the lifetime of the Prophet (s.a.) and later on some more tribes joined them. But saying that barring the Qureish and Thaqeef all other tribes were involved in apostacy was far from the truth. How could it be possible that immediately after the Prophet (s.a.) all the tribes became antagonistic to Islam. Did they embrace Islam out of fear of the growing power of the Muslims? When they knew that the Prophet (s.a.) was no more they recanted from Islam. This sort of thinking will strengthen the idea of some people that Islam didn’t spread with the missionary zeal of the Prophet (s.a.) and that the main cause of the spread was the swords of the Arabs.

The truth is that to settle scores with some tribes, they were unreasonably blamed of apsotacy and they were attacked with this excuse. Therefore
Umro ibne Harith asked Saeed ibne Zaid whether he was present at the time of the Prophet (s.a.)’s death? He replied in the affirmative. He asked on what day the Bai-ath of Abu Bakr took place? He replied that happened the same day as the Prophet (s.a.)’s demise. He was asked, did any one oppose the selection? He replied:

“None objected except those who were apostates or were about to become apostate.

Ref: Tareeq e Tabari, Vol 2, Page 447

This reply proves the fact that those who opposed the candidature of Abu Bakr were dubbed apostate, although their refusal to owe allegiance to Abu Bakr was the only thing that prompted such an extreme reaction from his supporters. As far as withholding of payment of Zakat is concerned, when those people had not accepted abu Bakr as the Caliph, they were naturally reluctant to pay the Zakat. They were just refusing to pay the Zakat and were not against the institution of Zakat. They were aware that the Zakat Tax was mandatory in the Shariah. But since they didn’t approve of the new establishment, they were refusing to fulfill their obligation of paying the Zakat. The evident proof that they were not apostates was that they regularly offered their mandatory prayers. They had also not denied the rules and conditions for the Zakat. They were only refusing to pay Zakat to the rulers of the day and not denying it as an obligatory pillar of the Faith. They cannot therefore be termed apostates. Therefore, when Hazrat Abu Bakr mentioned about taking armed action against them, the senior Companions raised objections to the idea. Hazrat Omer too said in clear terms:

“O Abu Bakr! On what account you want to battle with them that the Prophet (s.a.) has said, ‘I am not permitted to battle with people till they don’t recite the Kalima e Tawheed and besides other rights their lives and properties are secure and their account is Allah’s concern!”” Ref: Atmam al Wafa, Page 24

But at that time neither the Companions opinion was considered nor what Hazrat Omer said. Hazrat Abu Bakr remained firm on his stand and deputed Khalid ibne Walid to destroy the Arab tribes. Therefore he murdered Malik ibne Navera and his tribesmen and added a dark chapter to the history of Islam. He severed the limbs of the people and killed them mercilessly.

Malik ibne Navera was the respected chief of the tribe of Bani Yarboo. No person from the tribe could disobey his commands. He personally went to the presence of the Prophet (s.a.) in Madina and embraced Islam. He learned personally from the Prophet (s.a.) the mandatory rites and duties of the Faith. Trusting his honesty, the Prophet (s.a.) authorized him for the collection of the Sadaqaat. Ibne Athir writes:

“The Prophet (s.a.) appointed Malik ibne Navera for the collection of the Sadaqaat from Bani Hanzala.

Ref: Tareeq e Kaamil, Vol 2, Page 205

His charity, bravery and valor were exemplary. Therefore in Arabia they used to say, “fata wa laa Kamalak – youth is there, but where is the like of Malik?” He was so hospitable that his kitchen fires burned day and night. Whenever a traveler lost his way and came in his environs, he used to bring him home and entertin him. Till the last days of the Prophet (s.a.)he regularly collected the Sadaqaat and sent them. When the news of the Prophet (s.a.)’s demise reached him, he abstained from the collections and told to the people of his tribe that they must retain the amount of Zakat with them till it was confirmed that the new establishment at Madina was trustworthy. In that period Sajah ibne Harith wanted to attack Madina with 4,000 men. When he reached Jaroon near the locality of Bani Yarboo, Bataah, he sent word to Malik for truce and agreement for non hostility towards each other. Ibne Athir writes:

“Sajah decided to battle with Hazrat Abu Bakr and sent a message to Malik ibne Navera and made a request for an agreement of peace and nowar-pact. Malik accepted this suggestions but asked him not to fight with Hazrat Abu Bakr. He suggested to Sajah to attack the tribes of Bani Tameem, instead, and Sajah accepted his advice.”

Ref: Tareeq e Kaamil, Vol 2, Page 239

This agreement and no-war-pact cannot be termed as apostacy. Therefore Ibne Athir wirtes:

“When the Prophet (s.a.) died and the Arabs turned apostates and Sajah claimed that he was prophet, at that time Malik struck an agreement with him. But this doesn’t indicate in any manner that that he was himself an apostate.

Ref: Asad al Ghaba, Vol 3, Page 97

The strategy in this agreement was to involve Sajah in battle with the non-Muslim tribes and divert him from attacking the Capital, Madina. Therefore Malik was able to divert him from his original plan of attacking Madina and heading towards the habitations of Bani Tameem. If this was apostacy, then Wakih ibne malik, who also belonged to Bani Tameem, had also struck a similar deal with Sajah. He was not taken to task by the Caliph. Khalid ibne Walid was deputed to attack Bani Yarboo for destruction and killing. Malik had disbursed the people of Bani Yarboo to restrict the losses of lifes. Khalid sent men to chase and round them up. When Bani Yarboo saw this situation, they took to arms. Abu Qatada Ansari, who was in Khald’s Contingent, seeing them armed, said:

“We are Muslims; they say they too are Muslim. We asked, why are they carrying arms? They asked why have you come armed? We told them, ‘If you are Muslims according to your claims, then disarm yourselves’. Therefore they disarmed. We prayed and they too joined in the prayer.” Ref: Tareeq e Tabari, Vol 2, Page 503

When Bani Yarboo were disarmed, then Malik ibne Navera was arrested and brought before Khalid. When Malik was taken prisoner, his wife, Umm e Tamim binte Minhal, came out behind him. Ibne Wazeh Yaqoobi writes: “His wife came behind him. When Khalid saw her, he liked her looks. Ref: Tariq e Yaqoobi, Vol 2

His fear was correct. Khalid devised an excuse to kill Malik that Malik said a couple of times:

“My doubt is that your master, Abu Bakr, must have said such and such things.”

Ref: Tareeqe Kaamil, Vol 2, Page 243

At this Khalid got angry and said why he was repeatedly calling Abu Bakr his master’ as if he didn’t consider him his own master. He now gave an eye to Zarara ibne Azoor to pounce on Malik and slay him. Then the men of Khalid attacked Bani yarboo and in no time 1,200 persons were killed. They made hearths from severed heads and put the cooking pots on fire over them to cook their food. Allama Tabari writes:

“The soldiers made hearths from the severed heads and put the cooking pots over them.”

Ref: Tareeq e Tabari, Vol 2, Page 503

After this murder and bloodletting Khalid ibn e Walid gave more evidence of his cruelty with regard to Malik’s spouse Umm e Tamim that the men in the army felt revulsion and Abu Qatada Ansari was so much affected that he broke away from the army and went to Madina:

“He made a pledge to Allah that he won’t participate in any other campaign with Khalid ibne Walid.”

Ref: Tareeq e Tabari, Vol 2, Page 503

On the return of Abu Fatada, when this awful news reached the people, they condemned the act of Khalid ibne Walid and Hazrat Omer was furious. When Khalid came back to Madina, he entered the mosque proudly wearing an arrow in his turban, Hazrat Omer went forward and took away the arrow from the turban, twisted and trampled it under his feet in an anguish of temper. He then said:

“You have killed a Muslim and molested his wife. By Allah! I shall stone you to death’

Ref: Tareeq e Tabari, Vol 2, Page 504

Hazrat Omer wanted to stone Khalid for his sin of adultery or execute him for the killing of Malik, or atleast to remove him from his position. But Abu Bakr waved him aside saying:

“Wait Omer! He has made a mistake in his interpretation. Therefore don’t talk about what he has done!”

Ref: Tareeq e Tabari, Vol 2, Page 503

After this event Malik’s brother Mutham ibne Navera came to Madina. He offered his morning prayer at the Mosquer and thereafter he recited some couplets of pathos in the memory of his brother. In one of the couplets he said:

“You invited him in Allah’s name and then you rebelled against him and cheated him. If he had invited you to anything, he would never have shown faithlessness. “”

At this Abu Baskr said, “Maa ghadarta wa maa qatalat – neither have I killed him nor did I rebel against him!” Then he ordered the Deet to be paid from the Bait al Maal to his people! Ibne Athir writes:

“Abu Bakr ordered that the captives be released and the the Deet paid for the blood of Malik.” “9

Ref: Tareeq e Kaamil, Vol 2, Page 243

309 Page 110 “”

Malik, who was aware of Khalid’s character, realized that he will now eliminate him. Ibne Hajar Asqalani writes:

“Tabit ibne Qasim narrates that when Khalid saw the wife of Malik, who was an extremely pretty lady, Malik told her, ‘You have prepared the way for my killing!””

Ref: Asaba, Vol 3, Page 337

After these events terming such cruel acts as Jehad is tampering with the very concept of Islamic Jehad. Does Islam permit that people should be disarmed and masacred, their heads used cruelly to make pot-stands for cooking food and their womenfolk molested? This act was not only an abject contravention of the Islamic norms but was also contrary to the instructions given by Abu bakr to Khalid. Khalid was under strict instruction not to harm any habitation from where he heard the sounds of Adhaan and prayer. Therefore Allama Tabari writes:

“Hazrat Abu Bakr, in addition to all other instructions, said that wherever the men halted, they should say the Adhaan and Aqamat. If the people there too followed suit, they need not be attacked.” -Tareeq e Tabari, Vol 2, Page 502

But where Abu Qatada Ansari, Abd Allah ibne Omer and other Muslims find Bani Yarboo saying the Adhaan and offering prayers and bear witness to their being Muslims, Khalid and his men cruelly behead them. Allama Tabari writes:

“Among the persons who bore witness to the Islam of Malik ibne Navera was Abu Qatada Harith ibne Rubai.

Ref: Tareeq e Tabari, Vol 2, Page 503

The demand of justice is that the misdeed of a person be recognized and to justify his evil act a group of Muslims are not falsely termed apostates. Isn’t it a sin to term a Muslim apostate? If Khalid was a Companion, wasn’t Malik too a Companion of the Prophet (s.a.)? It is surprising that after the Prophet (s.a.) it is believed that apostacy was rampant and many tribes turned hostile. People don’t say that these tribes, in fact, turned hostile to the establishment of the day that was thrust on their head in the name of democracy rather than becoming apostate. Can anything besides their refusal to accept the caliphs be produced as a proof of their apostacy? The refusal to pay the Zakat too was connected with their non-acceptance of the Caliph. When the establishment was not proper in their view, they naturally abstained from paying their taxes. When these people regulary offered prayers, how could they recant from the important tenet of Zakat. Therefore Hazrat Omer too bore witness to their Islam. And even Abu Bakr didn’t blame them of apostacy. If Abu Bakr considered Malik and his people apostates, he wouldn’t have said that Khalid had made an error of interpretation. When Mutham ibne Navera claimed Qasas, Abu Bakr approved it without raising any question of the apostacy of Malik and his men. However, Abu Bakr’s fault was that he didn’t institute any action against Khalid ibne Walid terming it as a Khata e Ijtehadi— the error of interpretation! How could the question of Ijtehad arise when a person blatantly contravenes a clear and established norm of the Faith! If such crimes can be condoned behind the excuse of interpretation, then crime will not remain crime at all and people could get away with anything!

This was the first instance in Islam when the excuse of Khata e Ijtehadi was used to save the perpetrator of a serious crime. Then the door of Ijtehad was wide open for such persons. For every misdeed there was an ‘interpretation’ to protect the person. Therefore the history records that under the umbrella of Khata e Ijtehadi thousands of Muslims were killed

and innumerable habitations were put to fire. None could raise their voice against this tyranny because whatever happened was in the eyes of the rulers, on account of Khata e Ijtehadi.

It is surprising under what rule Abu Bakr termed the foul act of Khalid ibne Walid as an error of interpretation.and spared him from drastic punishment? Can error of interpretation be admitted in the matter of killing of Malik or for molesting his spouse. Even if he had admitted her as a Kaneez, could he be exempted from the period of Iddat that any widow has to undergo before her remarriage. Khalid did commit a major sin and the Caliph was condoning it as a Khata e Ijtehadi! Ibne abil Hadeed Motazali, although he tried to protect Khalid, had to concede in the end, saying:

“I don’t condone Khalid of the crime. I feel that he was cruel and heartless. On whatever thing he was infuriated or his carnal desires upbraided him, he didn’t consider the norms of Faith in the matter. Therefore, in the times of the Prophet (s.a.) what he did with Bani Jazima, and more than that his treatment of Malik Ibne Navera proved his cruel nature. The Prophet (s.a.) was upset with him for long. Then he forgave him. Because of this forgiveness he became bolder and he did, what he did, with Bani Yarbo at the place of Batah.”

–Shara Nahj al Balagha, Vol 4, Page 187