Both al-Bukhari, in "The Book of Calling the Apostates to Repent" in "The Chapter on Killing those who Refuse to Accept the Obligatory Laws and those Associated with Apostacy"; and Muslim, in "The Book of Faith" in "The Chapter on the Order to Fight People", report, on the authority of Abu Hurayra, who said: "After the Prophet had died, and Abu Bakr was made his successor, there were [some] Arabs who turned to disbelief. 'Umar said: 'O Abu Bakr! How can you fight the people when the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) has said: 'I have been ordered to fight the people until they say: 'There is no God but Allah' and whoever says this, makes himself and his property inviolable except by legal right, and his reckoning is with Allah?' Abu Bakr replied: 'By Allah! I will fight whoever differentiates between salat and zakat, for zakat is a lawful right upon the property! By Allah! Were they to withhold even a single animal that they used to give the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.), I will fight them over their withholding it'. Then 'Umar said: 'By Allah! I saw then that Allah had opened the heart of Abu Bakr to [the cause of] fighting, and I realized then that it was correct'".
This is nothing strange with Abu Bakr and 'Umar, who had threatened to burn the house of Fatima, the leader of the women, along with those companions inside it who withheld the pledge of allegiance [to Abu Bakr]. If the burning to death of 'Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan, al-Husayn and a party of the best of companions who had refused the pledge was a trivial thing for them, then the killing of those who refused the zakat is just a simple matter. For what is the value of these distant desert tribes, compared to the Prophetís family and the virtuous companions? I would add to it that those who refused to give their pledge perceived that the Caliphate was their right according to the designation of the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.). Even if we assume that there was no appointment on them, then it was still their right to refuse, to criticize and to voice their views if there was consultation, as they claim. The threat of them being burnt to death is established by overwhelmingly numerous reports. Had 'Ali not capitulated and ordered the companions to go out and give their pledge, to prevent the shedding of Muslim blood and to preserve the unity of Islam, there would have been no delay in carrying out the threat of burning them.
Yet the [controversy] subsided and their power grew strong; and there was no more opposition mentioned after the death of al-Zahra and after 'Aliís reconciliation with them. How could they then desist from [acting against] some tribes that refused to pay the zakat to them? A refusal based on the argument of waiting until the matters of the Caliphate and what happened after the Prophetís death were clarified, the Caliphate being, as 'Umar himself admitted, a sudden decision.
It is not strange therefore that Abu Bakr and his government should have undertaken the killing of innocent Muslims and the destruction of their sanctity and the enslavement of their women and progeny. Historians have documented that Abu Bakr sent Khalid b. al-Walid, who burnt to death the tribe of Banu Sulaym. He then sent him then to al-Yamama and to Banu Tamim, whom he treacherously killed, having bound them and beheaded them while in captivity. He killed Malik b. Nuwayra, an eminent companion whom the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) had entrusted with charity money of his people, having confidence in him. He [Khalid] then slept with Malikís wife on the same night of her husband's murder. There is no strength and no power except with Allah, the Highest most Powerful.
Malik and his people were guilty of nothing [by way of opposition] except that they had heard of what had transpired after the death of the Prophet (S.A.W.); the alienation of 'Ali and the oppression of al-Zahra, to the extent that she died still angry at them. Similarly, [they heard] the opposition of the chief of the Ansar, Sa'd b. 'Ubada, and his breaking of the oath, as well as the reports, which the desert tribes had circulated, casting doubt on the validity of the pledge to Abu Bakr. Due to all this, Malik and his people hesitated giving the zakat. The [resulting] decree from the Caliph and his supporters was that they be killed; their women and children taken as prisoners of war; their sanctity be defiled and they be subdued, so that the views of the dissidents and the arguments on the Caliphate may not spread to the rest of the Arabs.
Most unfortunately, you will find those who defend Abu Bakr and his government justifying his errors, despite the fact that Abu Bakr himself admitted them. They say what 'Umar did: "By Allah, I perceived that Allah had opened Abu Bakrís heart to fighting and I realized then that it was right".
Can we ask 'Umar the secret of his conviction concerning fighting the Muslims, about whom he himself had said that the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) had forbidden fighting as they had professed [the declaration] "there is no God but Allah?" Indeed, 'Umar himself had opposed Abu Bakr with this hadith. How then did he suddenly change his stance and convince [himself] about fighting them and know that it was the right thing simply because he felt Allah had expanded Abu Bakr's heart? How did this operation of expanding his heart occur? And how did 'Umar alone perceive it, to the exclusion of everyone else?
If this "opening of the heartî was figurative rather than literal, how would Allah open the hearts of a people to what would make them oppose His rules, which He had dictated through the tongue of His Prophet (S.A.W.)? How could Allah have said to His servants, through His Prophet: "Whosoever says: 'There is no God but God' you are forbidden to kill him, for his accounting lies with me", then He opens the heart of Abu Bakr and 'Umar to fighting them? Did revelation descend upon the two of them after Muhammad (P)? Or was it personal judgment, (ijtihad) dictated by political reasons, which discarded the laws of Allah?
As for those apologists who claim that they had reverted from Islam and that it was therefore obligatory to kill them, this allegation is not correct; whoever has read the historical books knows most certainly that those who withheld the zakat had not reverted from Islam. How could they have [done so] when they prayed with Khalid and his forces when he came to destroy them?
This is nothing strange with Abu Bakr and 'Umar, who had threatened to burn the house of Fatima, the leader of the women, along with those companions inside it who withheld the pledge of allegiance [to Abu Bakr]. If the burning to death of 'Ali, Fatima, al-Hasan, al-Husayn and a party of the best of companions who had refused the pledge was a trivial thing for them, then the killing of those who refused the zakat is just a simple matter. For what is the value of these distant desert tribes, compared to the Prophetís family and the virtuous companions? I would add to it that those who refused to give their pledge perceived that the Caliphate was their right according to the designation of the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.). Even if we assume that there was no appointment on them, then it was still their right to refuse, to criticize and to voice their views if there was consultation, as they claim. The threat of them being burnt to death is established by overwhelmingly numerous reports. Had 'Ali not capitulated and ordered the companions to go out and give their pledge, to prevent the shedding of Muslim blood and to preserve the unity of Islam, there would have been no delay in carrying out the threat of burning them.
Yet the [controversy] subsided and their power grew strong; and there was no more opposition mentioned after the death of al-Zahra and after 'Aliís reconciliation with them. How could they then desist from [acting against] some tribes that refused to pay the zakat to them? A refusal based on the argument of waiting until the matters of the Caliphate and what happened after the Prophetís death were clarified, the Caliphate being, as 'Umar himself admitted, a sudden decision.
It is not strange therefore that Abu Bakr and his government should have undertaken the killing of innocent Muslims and the destruction of their sanctity and the enslavement of their women and progeny. Historians have documented that Abu Bakr sent Khalid b. al-Walid, who burnt to death the tribe of Banu Sulaym. He then sent him then to al-Yamama and to Banu Tamim, whom he treacherously killed, having bound them and beheaded them while in captivity. He killed Malik b. Nuwayra, an eminent companion whom the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) had entrusted with charity money of his people, having confidence in him. He [Khalid] then slept with Malikís wife on the same night of her husband's murder. There is no strength and no power except with Allah, the Highest most Powerful.
Malik and his people were guilty of nothing [by way of opposition] except that they had heard of what had transpired after the death of the Prophet (S.A.W.); the alienation of 'Ali and the oppression of al-Zahra, to the extent that she died still angry at them. Similarly, [they heard] the opposition of the chief of the Ansar, Sa'd b. 'Ubada, and his breaking of the oath, as well as the reports, which the desert tribes had circulated, casting doubt on the validity of the pledge to Abu Bakr. Due to all this, Malik and his people hesitated giving the zakat. The [resulting] decree from the Caliph and his supporters was that they be killed; their women and children taken as prisoners of war; their sanctity be defiled and they be subdued, so that the views of the dissidents and the arguments on the Caliphate may not spread to the rest of the Arabs.
Most unfortunately, you will find those who defend Abu Bakr and his government justifying his errors, despite the fact that Abu Bakr himself admitted them. They say what 'Umar did: "By Allah, I perceived that Allah had opened Abu Bakrís heart to fighting and I realized then that it was right".
Can we ask 'Umar the secret of his conviction concerning fighting the Muslims, about whom he himself had said that the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) had forbidden fighting as they had professed [the declaration] "there is no God but Allah?" Indeed, 'Umar himself had opposed Abu Bakr with this hadith. How then did he suddenly change his stance and convince [himself] about fighting them and know that it was the right thing simply because he felt Allah had expanded Abu Bakr's heart? How did this operation of expanding his heart occur? And how did 'Umar alone perceive it, to the exclusion of everyone else?
If this "opening of the heartî was figurative rather than literal, how would Allah open the hearts of a people to what would make them oppose His rules, which He had dictated through the tongue of His Prophet (S.A.W.)? How could Allah have said to His servants, through His Prophet: "Whosoever says: 'There is no God but God' you are forbidden to kill him, for his accounting lies with me", then He opens the heart of Abu Bakr and 'Umar to fighting them? Did revelation descend upon the two of them after Muhammad (P)? Or was it personal judgment, (ijtihad) dictated by political reasons, which discarded the laws of Allah?
As for those apologists who claim that they had reverted from Islam and that it was therefore obligatory to kill them, this allegation is not correct; whoever has read the historical books knows most certainly that those who withheld the zakat had not reverted from Islam. How could they have [done so] when they prayed with Khalid and his forces when he came to destroy them?
Furthermore, Abu Bakr himself nullified this spurious claim by paying blood money for Malik from the state treasury and apologized for his death. No apology is needed for the killing of an apostate, nor is any blood money paid from the state treasury. None of the righteous predecessors ever said that those who withheld the zakat had reverted from Islam, except in the later periods when there sprang up [different] schools of thought (madhahib) and sects. The ahl al-sunna then tried their utmost, though unsuccessfully, to justify the actions of Abu Bakr, and found it necessary to formulate the charge of apostasy against them; for they knew that abusing Muslims was wicked and that killing them was [tantamount to] disbelief. This is what has been reported in the Sahih literature of the ahl al-Sunna, and even when al-Bukhari reported the account of Abu Bakr and his speech: "By Allah, I will fight whoever differentiates between salat and zakat..." he gave the chapter the title, "Whosoever refuses to accept the obligatory commandments, and what is attributed to them with [charges of] apostasy"; this is clear proof that he did not himself believe in the charge of their apostasy (as is obvious).
Yet, others have attempted explanations of the hadith, as did Abu Bakr, that zakat is a right upon property. It is an interpretation taken out of its rightful context.
Firstly: Because the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) forbade the killing of whoever said "la ilaha illa Allah"; there are several narrations on this, verified by the Sihah, as we will show presently.
Secondly: If zakat were a right on property, then the hadith allows, in this instance, for the judge to take the zakat by force from those who refuse it, without killing them or the spilling their blood.
Thirdly: If this explanation were correct, the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) would have fought Tha'laba, who refused to give the zakat to him. (The story is well known, and there is no need to repeat it).
Fourthly: We quote what has been authenticated by the Sihah regarding the prohibition of killing whoever says "la ilaha illa Allah." I shall restrict myself to al-Bukhari and Muslim and to some traditions, for the sake of brevity.
Muslim, in "The Book of Faith" in "The Chapter of Prohibition on the Killing of a Kafir after he says "la ilaha illa Allah", and al-Bukhari, in "The Book of Military Expeditions" relates: "Khalifa informed me, on the authority of Miqdad b. al-Aswad, that he said to the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.): 'What do you think, if I were to meet a man from the disbelievers, and we were to fight, and if he struck one of my hands with his sword and severed it, then fled from me to the shelter of a tree, beseeching: 'I have submitted myself to Allah', should I, O Prophet of Allah, kill him after he has said this?' The Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) said: 'Do not kill him'. So he said: 'But, O Prophet of Allah, he cut off one of my hands, then he said it after severing it'. The Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) said: 'Do not kill him. Were you to kill him, he would be in your position before you killed him, and you would be in his position before he had uttered those words'".
This hadith shows us that it is forbidden to kill the kafir who professes "There is no God but Allah", even after his attack upon a Muslim and his cutting of his hand. There is no [question here of the] acceptance of Muhammad as a Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.), nor of the [obligatory] prayer, zakat, fast of Ramadan, or pilgrimage. Where, then, do you go and how can you interpret [this]?
Al-Bukhari relates in his Sahih in "The Book of Military Campaigns" in the chapter [entitled]: "The Prophet (S.A.W.) sent Usama b. Zayd to al-Haraqat from Juhayna", and Muslim in "The Book of Faith" in "The Chapter on the Prohibition of the killing of a kafir after he has said 'There is no God but Allah'", on the authority of Usama b. Zayd, who said: "The Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) sent us to al-Haraqat and we arrived there at dawn and attacked them; I and an Ansari were in combat with one of their men. After we defeated him, he said: 'There is no God but Allah'; the Ansari turned away from him, but I struck him with my spear until I killed him. When we returned, he informed the Prophet (S.A.W.) who said: 'O Usama, did you slay him after he said: 'There is no God but Allah?' I said: 'He was seeking to spare himself'. He (the Prophet) kept on repeating this until I wished I had not accepted Islam prior to that day".
This hadith proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is forbidden to kill whoever says "There is no God but Allah". Because of this, we observe the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) severely rebuking Usama until the latter wished he had not accepted Islam prior to that day, acting in accordance with the hadith "Islam cleans whatever was done before it"; and he yearned for Allah's forgiveness for that grave sin.
Al-Bukhari reported in his Sahih in "The Book of Clothing" in "The Chapter On White Clothes"; and Muslim narrated in "The Book of Faith" in "The Chapter on Whoever Dies not associating anything with Allah will enter heaven" that Abu Dharr al-Ghifari (R) said: "I came to the Prophet (S.A.W.) and he was clothed in a white outfit and was asleep. I came again and [this time] he was awake. He said: 'Any servant who says 'There is no God but Allah' and then dies in this state, enters paradise'. I said: 'Even if he fornicates and steals?' He said: 'Yes, even if he fornicates and steals'. I said: 'Even if he fornicates and steals?' He said: 'Yes, even if he fornicates and steals'. I said: 'Even if he fornicates and steals?' He said: 'Yes even if he fornicates and steals, despite what Abu Dharr feels'".
Whenever he used to relate the hadith, Abu Dharr used to say: "Despite what Abu Dharr feels". This is another hadith which confirms admission to paradise for anyone who says: "There is no God but Allah" and then dies in that state, killing him is forbidden. This is in spite of what Abu Bakr or 'Umar and all their helpers, who interpreted away the realities and turned them upside down, so as to protect the honor of their predecessors and their seniors who changed the rulings of Allah, might have felt.
Most certainly Abu Bakr and 'Umar knew these rulings for they were closer than we are to grasping the rulings, and closer than others to the bearer of the message. However, for the sake of the Caliphate, they reinterpreted the bulk of the rulings of Allah and His Prophet (P), even though they had knowledge and proofs.
Perhaps, when Abu Bakr resolved to fight those who withheld the zakat, and 'Umar opposed him with the Prophetic hadith forbidding that, he (Abu Bakr) convinced his companion that it was he ('Umar) who had carried the firewood to burn the house of Fatima by himself, and that the least that could be said for Fatima was that she used to testify, "there is no God but Allah". He perhaps also persuaded him that 'Ali and Fatima were still of high standing in the capital city of the Caliphate whereas the tribes withholding the zakat, if they were left alone to consult their matters within the Islamic state, they would have a major influence on the centre of the Caliphate. With that, 'Umar perceived that Allah "had opened Abu Bakr's heart" to fighting [such tribes] and admitted that he was right.
Yet, others have attempted explanations of the hadith, as did Abu Bakr, that zakat is a right upon property. It is an interpretation taken out of its rightful context.
Firstly: Because the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) forbade the killing of whoever said "la ilaha illa Allah"; there are several narrations on this, verified by the Sihah, as we will show presently.
Secondly: If zakat were a right on property, then the hadith allows, in this instance, for the judge to take the zakat by force from those who refuse it, without killing them or the spilling their blood.
Thirdly: If this explanation were correct, the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) would have fought Tha'laba, who refused to give the zakat to him. (The story is well known, and there is no need to repeat it).
Fourthly: We quote what has been authenticated by the Sihah regarding the prohibition of killing whoever says "la ilaha illa Allah." I shall restrict myself to al-Bukhari and Muslim and to some traditions, for the sake of brevity.
Muslim, in "The Book of Faith" in "The Chapter of Prohibition on the Killing of a Kafir after he says "la ilaha illa Allah", and al-Bukhari, in "The Book of Military Expeditions" relates: "Khalifa informed me, on the authority of Miqdad b. al-Aswad, that he said to the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.): 'What do you think, if I were to meet a man from the disbelievers, and we were to fight, and if he struck one of my hands with his sword and severed it, then fled from me to the shelter of a tree, beseeching: 'I have submitted myself to Allah', should I, O Prophet of Allah, kill him after he has said this?' The Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) said: 'Do not kill him'. So he said: 'But, O Prophet of Allah, he cut off one of my hands, then he said it after severing it'. The Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) said: 'Do not kill him. Were you to kill him, he would be in your position before you killed him, and you would be in his position before he had uttered those words'".
This hadith shows us that it is forbidden to kill the kafir who professes "There is no God but Allah", even after his attack upon a Muslim and his cutting of his hand. There is no [question here of the] acceptance of Muhammad as a Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.), nor of the [obligatory] prayer, zakat, fast of Ramadan, or pilgrimage. Where, then, do you go and how can you interpret [this]?
Al-Bukhari relates in his Sahih in "The Book of Military Campaigns" in the chapter [entitled]: "The Prophet (S.A.W.) sent Usama b. Zayd to al-Haraqat from Juhayna", and Muslim in "The Book of Faith" in "The Chapter on the Prohibition of the killing of a kafir after he has said 'There is no God but Allah'", on the authority of Usama b. Zayd, who said: "The Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) sent us to al-Haraqat and we arrived there at dawn and attacked them; I and an Ansari were in combat with one of their men. After we defeated him, he said: 'There is no God but Allah'; the Ansari turned away from him, but I struck him with my spear until I killed him. When we returned, he informed the Prophet (S.A.W.) who said: 'O Usama, did you slay him after he said: 'There is no God but Allah?' I said: 'He was seeking to spare himself'. He (the Prophet) kept on repeating this until I wished I had not accepted Islam prior to that day".
This hadith proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is forbidden to kill whoever says "There is no God but Allah". Because of this, we observe the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) severely rebuking Usama until the latter wished he had not accepted Islam prior to that day, acting in accordance with the hadith "Islam cleans whatever was done before it"; and he yearned for Allah's forgiveness for that grave sin.
Al-Bukhari reported in his Sahih in "The Book of Clothing" in "The Chapter On White Clothes"; and Muslim narrated in "The Book of Faith" in "The Chapter on Whoever Dies not associating anything with Allah will enter heaven" that Abu Dharr al-Ghifari (R) said: "I came to the Prophet (S.A.W.) and he was clothed in a white outfit and was asleep. I came again and [this time] he was awake. He said: 'Any servant who says 'There is no God but Allah' and then dies in this state, enters paradise'. I said: 'Even if he fornicates and steals?' He said: 'Yes, even if he fornicates and steals'. I said: 'Even if he fornicates and steals?' He said: 'Yes, even if he fornicates and steals'. I said: 'Even if he fornicates and steals?' He said: 'Yes even if he fornicates and steals, despite what Abu Dharr feels'".
Whenever he used to relate the hadith, Abu Dharr used to say: "Despite what Abu Dharr feels". This is another hadith which confirms admission to paradise for anyone who says: "There is no God but Allah" and then dies in that state, killing him is forbidden. This is in spite of what Abu Bakr or 'Umar and all their helpers, who interpreted away the realities and turned them upside down, so as to protect the honor of their predecessors and their seniors who changed the rulings of Allah, might have felt.
Most certainly Abu Bakr and 'Umar knew these rulings for they were closer than we are to grasping the rulings, and closer than others to the bearer of the message. However, for the sake of the Caliphate, they reinterpreted the bulk of the rulings of Allah and His Prophet (P), even though they had knowledge and proofs.
Perhaps, when Abu Bakr resolved to fight those who withheld the zakat, and 'Umar opposed him with the Prophetic hadith forbidding that, he (Abu Bakr) convinced his companion that it was he ('Umar) who had carried the firewood to burn the house of Fatima by himself, and that the least that could be said for Fatima was that she used to testify, "there is no God but Allah". He perhaps also persuaded him that 'Ali and Fatima were still of high standing in the capital city of the Caliphate whereas the tribes withholding the zakat, if they were left alone to consult their matters within the Islamic state, they would have a major influence on the centre of the Caliphate. With that, 'Umar perceived that Allah "had opened Abu Bakr's heart" to fighting [such tribes] and admitted that he was right.
No comments:
Post a Comment
براہ مہربانی شائستہ زبان کا استعمال کریں۔ تقریبا ہر موضوع پر 'گمنام' لوگوں کے بہت سے تبصرے موجود ہیں. اس لئےتاریخ 20-3-2015 سے ہم گمنام کمینٹنگ کو بند کر رہے ہیں. اس تاریخ سے درست ای میل اکاؤنٹس کے ضریعے آپ تبصرہ کر سکتے ہیں.جن تبصروں میں لنکس ہونگے انہیں فوراً ہٹا دیا جائے گا. اس لئے آپنے تبصروں میں لنکس شامل نہ کریں.
Please use Polite Language.
As there are many comments from 'anonymous' people on every subject. So from 20-3-2015 we are disabling 'Anonymous Commenting' option. From this date only users with valid E-mail accounts can comment. All the comments with LINKs will be removed. So please don't add links to your comments.