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
Aal-e-Qutub Aal-e-Syed Abdullah Shah Ghazi 