Biography of Imam `alĪ Ibn AbĪ-tĀlib

The Mischief of Apostasy

After the provisional bay`ah at the Saqifah of Banū-Sa`idah the majority of the people of al-Madinah owed their allegiance to Abū-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 restlessness 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 Quraysh and Banū-Thaqif remained steadfast with the establishment. Ibn al-Athir writes:

“The Arabs became apostates. The land of Arabia became a center for mischief and unrest. Barring the Quraysh and Banū-Thaqif, almost all the tribes, or certainly a part of each, turned to apostasy.”[1]

During the reign of Abū-Bakr the chiefs of the apostates who raised their heads had already turned apostate while the Prophet (a.s) was alive. Therefore, al-Aswad al-`Anzi, Musaylamah the Imposter and tulayhah ibn Khuwaylid had already turned hostile and made claims of prophethood during the lifetime of the Prophet (a.s) al-Aswad al-`Anzi was killed by Fayrūz al-Daylami during the times of the Prophet (a.s) and his supporters created mischief. Musaylamah was killed by Wahshi during the period of Abū-Bakr. tulayhah embraced Islam during the time of `Umar. Similarly, `Alqamah ibn `Alasah and Salma bint Malik became apostates during the time of the Prophet (a.s) and after his demise entered into armed conflict However Laqit ibn Malik became an apostate after the Prophet (a.s) and Sujah bint al-Harith too made a claim of prophethood after his demise. Laqit was vanquished by the Muslims totally and Sujah was rendered a supplement of Musaylamah and married him to spend the rest of her life in obscurity. These were the apostates who created mischief during the period of Abū-Bakr. The people who were known as those who refused to pay the zakat were from these


[1] Al-Kāmil fit-Tārīkh, Vol 2, Page 231

tribes. They were the same persons who claimed to be prophets and their cohorts. Therefore, Abū-Bakr had said about the delegation of tulayhah ibn Khuwaylid:

“Even if they refuse to give the rope that is used for tying the camels, I shall fight with them.”[1]

This mischief had raised its head during the lifetime of the Prophet (a.s) and later on, some more tribes joined them. But saying that barring the Quraysh and Thaqif all other tribes were involved in apostasy was far from the truth. How could it be possible that immediately after the Prophet (a.s) 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 (a.s) was no more they recanted from Islam. This sort of thinking will strengthen the idea of some people that Islam did not spread with the missionary zeal of the Prophet (a.s) 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 apostasy and they were attacked with this excuse. Therefore, `Amr ibn Harith asked Sa`id ibn Zayd whether he was present at the time of the Prophet’s death? He replied in the affirmative. He asked on what day the bay`ah of Abū-Bakr took place? He replied that happened the same day as the Prophet’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.”[2]

This reply proves the fact that those who opposed the candidature of Abū-Bakr were dubbed apostate, although their refusal to owe allegiance to Abū-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 Abū-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 Shari`ah. But since they did not 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


[1] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 476
[2] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 447

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 Abū-Bakr mentioned about taking armed action against them, the senior Companions raised objections to the idea. `Umar too said in clear terms:

“O Abū-Bakr! On what account you want to battle with them that the Prophet (a.s) has said, ‘I am not permitted to battle with people until they do not recite the kalimah Tawhid and besides other rights their lives and properties are secure and their account is Allah’s concern!’”[1]

But at that time neither the Companions opinion was considered nor what `Umar said. Abū-Bakr remained firm on his stand and deputed Khalid ibn al-Walid to destroy the Arab tribes. Therefore, he murdered Malik ibn Nuwayrah 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 ibn Nuwayrah was the respected chief of the tribe of Banū-Yarbū`. No person from the tribe could disobey his commands. He personally went to the presence of the Prophet (a.s) in al-Madinah and embraced Islam. He learned personally from the Prophet (a.s) the mandatory rites and duties of the Faith. Trusting his honesty, the Prophet (a.s) authorized him for the collection of the alms. Ibn al-Athir writes:

“The Prophet (a.s) appointed Malik ibn Nuwayrah for the collection of the alms from Banū-Hanzalah.”[2]

His charity, bravery and valor were exemplary. Therefore, in Arabia they used to say, “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 entertain him. Until the last days of the Prophet (a.s), he regularly collected the alms and sent them. When the news of the Prophet’s demise reached him, he abstained from the collections and told the people of his tribe that they must retain the amount of zakat with them until it was confirmed that the new establishment at al-Madinah was trustworthy. In that period Sujah bint Harith wanted to attack al-Madinah with 4,000 men. When he reached Jarwan near the locality


[1] Itmām al-Wafā, Page 24
[2] Al-Kāmil fit-Tārīkh, Vol 2, Page 205

of Banū-Yarbū`, al-Bitah, he sent word to Malik for truce and agreement for non-hostility towards each other. Ibn al-Athir writes:

“Sujah decided to battle with Abū-Bakr and sent a message to Malik ibn Nuwayrah and made a request for an agreement of peace and no-war-pact. Malik accepted this suggestions but asked him not to fight with Abū-Bakr. He suggested to Sujah to attack the tribes of Banū-Tamim, instead, and Sujah accepted his advice.”[1]

This agreement and no-war-pact cannot be termed as apostasy. Therefore, Ibn al-Athir writes:

“When the Prophet (a.s) died and the Arabs turned apostates and Sujah claimed that he was prophet, at that time Malik struck an agreement with him. But this does not indicate in any manner that that he was himself an apostate.”[2]

The strategy in this agreement was to involve Sujah in battle with the non-Muslim tribes and divert him from attacking the Capital, al-Madinah. Therefore, Malik was able to divert him from his original plan of attacking al-Madinah and heading towards the habitations of Banū-Tamim. If this was apostasy, then Waki` ibn Malik, who also belonged to Banū-Tamim, had also struck a similar deal with Sujah. He was not taken to task by the Caliph. Khalid ibn al-Walid was deputed to attack Banū-Yarbū` for destruction and killing. Malik had disbursed the people of Banū-Yarbū` to restrict the losses of lives. Khalid sent men to chase and round them up. When Banū-Yarbū` saw this situation, they took to arms. Abū-Qutadah al-Ansari, who was in Khalid’s Contingent, seeing them armed, said:

“We are Muslims; they say they too are Muslims. We asked, why are they carrying arms? They asked why you have 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.”[3]

When Banū-Yarbū` were disarmed, then Malik ibn Nuwayrah was arrested and brought before Khalid. When Malik was taken prisoner, his wife, Ummu-Tamim bint Minhal, came out behind him. Ibn Wadih al-Ya`qūbi writes:


[1] Al-Kāmil fit-Tārīkh, Vol 2, Page 239
[2] Usd al-Ghābah, Vol 3, Page 97
[3] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 503

“His wife came behind him. When Khalid saw her, he liked her looks.”[1]

Malik, who was aware of Khalid’s character, realized that he would now eliminate him. Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani writes:

“Thabit ibn 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!’”[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, Abū-Bakr, must have said such and such things.”[3]

At this Khalid got angry and said why he was repeatedly calling Abū-Bakr his ‘master’ as if he did not consider him his own master. He now gave an eye to Zurarah ibn al-Azwar to pounce on Malik and slay him. Then the men of Khalid attacked Banū-Yarbū` 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. Al-Tabari writes:

“The soldiers made hearths from the severed heads and put the cooking pots over them.”[4]

After this murder and bloodletting Khalid ibn al-Walid gave more evidence of his cruelty with regard to Malik’s spouse Ummu-Tamim that the men in the army felt revulsion and Abū-Qutadah al-Ansari was so much affected that he broke away from the army and went to al-Madinah:

“He made a pledge to Allah that he who not participate in any other campaign with Khalid ibn al-Walid.”[5]

On the return of Abū-Qutadah, when this awful news reached the people, they condemned the act of Khalid ibn al-Walid and `Umar was furious. When Khalid came back to al-Madinah, he entered the mosque proudly wearing an arrow in his turban, `Umar 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:


[1] Tārīkh al-Ya`qūbī, Vol 2, Page 110
[2] Al-Isābah, Vol 3, Page 337
[3] Tārīkh al-Kāmil, Vol 2, Page 243
[4] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 503
[5] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 503

“You have killed a Muslim and molested his wife. By Allah! I shall stone you to death”[1]

`Umar wanted to stone Khalid for his sin of adultery or execute him for the killing of Malik, or at least to remove him from his position. But Abū-Bakr waved him aside saying:

“Wait `Umar! He has made a mistake in his interpretation. Therefore, do not talk about what he has done!”[2]

After this event, Malik’s brother, Mutammim ibn Nuwayrah, came to al-Madinah. He offered his Morning Prayer at the Mosque 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 Abū-Bakr said, “Neither have I killed him nor did I rebel against him!” Then he ordered the blood money to be paid from the bayt al-mal to his people! Ibn al-Athir writes:

“Abū-Bakr ordered that the captives be released and the blood money paid for the blood of Malik.”[3]

After these events, terming such cruel acts as jihad is tampering with the very concept of Islamic jihad. Does Islam permit that people should be disarmed and massacred 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 Abū-Bakr to Khalid. Khalid was under strict instruction not to harm any habitation from where he heard the sounds of adhan and prayer. Therefore, Al-Tabari writes:

“Abū-Bakr, in addition to all other instructions, said that wherever the men halted, they should say the adhan and Iqamah. If the people there too followed suit, they need not be attacked.”[4]


[1] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 504
[2] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 503
[3] Al-Kāmil fit-Tārīkh, Vol 2, Page 243
[4] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 502

But where Abū-Qutadah al-Ansari, `Abdullah ibn `Umar and other Muslims find Banū-Yarbū` saying the adhan and offering prayers and bear witness to their being Muslims, Khalid and his men cruelly behead them. Al-Tabari writes:

“Among the persons who bore witness to the Islam of Malik ibn Nuwayrah was Abū-Qutadah Harith ibn Rab`i.”[1]

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. Is not it a sin to term a Muslim apostate? If Khalid was a Companion, was not Malik too a Companion of the Prophet (a.s)? It is surprising that after the Prophet (a.s) it is believed that apostasy was rampant and many tribes turned hostile. People do not 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 apostasy? 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 regularly offered prayers, how could they recant from the important tenet of zakat? Therefore, `Umar too bore witness to their Islam. And even Abū-Bakr did not blame them of apostasy. If Abū-Bakr considered Malik and his people apostates, he would not have said that Khalid had made an error of interpretation. When Mutammim ibn Nuwayrah claimed qisas, Abū-Bakr approved it without raising any question of the apostasy of Malik and his men. However, Abū-Bakr’s fault was that he did not institute any action against Khalid ibn al-Walid terming it as a khata’ ijtihadi (error in interpretation)! How could the question of ijtihad 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 error in interpretation was used to save the perpetrator of a serious crime. Then the door of ijtihad 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 error in interpretation 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 error in interpretation.


[1] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 503

It is surprising under what rule Abū-Bakr termed the foul act of Khalid ibn al-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 Kaniz, could he be exempted from the period of `iddah that any widow has to undergo before her remarriage. Khalid did commit a major sin and the Caliph was condoning it as a khata’ ijtihadi! Ibn Abil-Hadid al-Mu`tazili, although he tried to protect Khalid, had to concede in the end, saying:

“I do not 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 did not consider the norms of Faith in the matter. Therefore, in the times of the Prophet (a.s) what he did with Banū-Judhaymah, and more than that his treatment of Malik Ibn Nuwayrah proved his cruel nature. The Prophet (a.s) was upset with him for long. Then he forgave him. Because of this forgiveness he became bolder and he did, what he did, with Banū-Yarbū` at the place of Bitah.”[1]

[1] Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah, Vol 4, Page 187