Friday Sermon
10 January 2025
Muhammadsa: The Great Exemplar
After reciting the tashahhud, ta‘awwuz, and Surah al-Fatihah, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa stated:
In the sermon two weeks ago, accounts relating to the expeditions and battles from the time of the Holy Prophetsa were being discussed; among them was the Expedition of the Banu Fazara. With regard to the expedition against the Banu Fazara, an incident is recorded in history that relates to the killing of Umm Qirfa. The manner in which some historians have recorded it clearly demonstrates that it is a fabrication. In Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, it is recorded that in the sixth year after migration, Hazrat Zaid bin Harithahra travelled to Syria for trade. He was carrying the goods of the Companions of the Holy Prophetsa with him. When he reached near Wadi’ul-Qura’, he encountered some people from the Banu Badr tribe, who were a branch of the Banu Fazara. They beat him and his comrades and seized their belongings. When Hazrat Zaidra recovered, he went to the Holy Prophetsa and informed him of the incident. The Holy Prophetsa sent him towards these people, i.e., towards those who attacked him. The Muslims would hide by day and travel by night. However, Banu Badr came to know of their [movements]. As such, Hazrat Zaidra and his comrades reached them in the morning, raising slogans of “Allahu Akbar” [Allah is the greatest] and surrounded everyone that was present. They captured Umm Qirfa, whose real name was Fatimah bint Rabiyya bin Badr and her daughter, Jariyah bint Malik bin Hudhaifa bin Badr. Hazrat Salama bin Akwara captured Jariyah and gave her to the Holy Prophetsa. Thereafter, the Holy Prophetsa gave her to Hazn bin Abi Wahab.
As I mentioned, in some books of history, this incident of the killing of Umm Qirfa has been presented in a strange manner, which, in light of Islamic teachings and practices, is impossible to accept. Nevertheless, in some books of history, it is recorded that Qais bin Muhassir headed towards Umm Qirfa. She was an elderly lady and Qais killed her brutally. He tied both of her legs to two separate camels. He then made the camels run in opposite directions, thus tearing this woman into pieces. Qais killed two other men as well. When Hazrat Zaidra returned from this expedition and knocked on the door of the Holy Prophetsa, he pulled over his cloak, stood beside Zaidra, hugged and kissed him and enquired about his well-being. Upon this, Zaidra informed him of these incidents and that Allah the Almighty had granted them victory. (Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol. 2, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, p. 69; Kitab-ul-Maghazi, Waqdi, Vol. 2, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, p. 61)
In this narration, it is mentioned that this woman was torn to pieces. However, Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad Sahibra has related this incident in an exceptional manner and with compelling arguments. He writes:
“In place of the above-mentioned expedition of Hazrat Abu Bakrra, Ibn Sa‘d has mentioned an expedition wherein Zaid bin Harithahra was the commander. In other words, Ibn Sa‘d mentions Zaid bin Harithahra as the commander of this expedition instead of Hazrat Abu Bakrra. Moreover, differing in details as well, he writes that this expedition was to discipline the Banu Fazarah, who resided near the Wadi’ul-Qura’ and who had attacked a trade caravan of the Muslims, stealing all of its wealth and goods. The driving force behind this mischievous group was an old lady, named Umm Qirfah, who was a staunch enemy of Islam. When this lady was captured, a man named Qais from the party of Zaid killed her. Moreover, Ibn Sa‘d describes the story of this murder such as both of her feet were tied to two different camels and then these two camels were driven in opposing directions, due to which this lady was literally torn in two pieces. After this, her (the elderly lady’s) daughter was entrusted to Salama bin Akwa‘ra. It is this story, which, to some extent, has also been mentioned by Ibn Ishaq with brevity, abridgement and variation.
“On the basis of this narration, Sir William Muir, ( an orientalist), who is accustomed to providing more details than most European historians, very enthusiastically makes this occurrence the highlight of his book as an example of the ‘barbaric spirit’ of the Muslims. As a matter of fact, Sir William Muir wrote that the very reason he included this in his book was because the Muslims committed a cruel deed in this expedition. As such, Mr. Muir wrote:
“‘There were several unimportant raids this year for which the Muslims had to leave Medina, but they hardly require mention, (he continues) but I must not omit one for the cruel deed perpetrated by the Muslims.’”
This is what William Muir wrote. In the analysis of this, Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad Sahibra writes:
“A historian who gives preference to one occurrence over another merely on the basis that it furnishes proof of the brutality and ruthlessness of a people and makes it the highlight of his book, is in actuality not worthy of being referred to as an unbiased researcher. (He wrote himself that he would omit the other incidents but focus solely on this one. This shows that he was biased and not prone to doing full research.) This is because it can never be expected that such an individual (who is biased) would pay attention to investigating whether this occurrence of brutality and ruthlessness was even true or not, because in doing so, a proof in his favour is lost to him. In any case, Mr Muir has written this account in his book with special enthusiasm. However, as shall now become evident, this occurrence was completely erroneous and categorically baseless. Furthermore, both in terms of record and rationality, this narration is vindicated as being fabricated.
“In terms of rationality, it should be known that to imprison a lady who is not convicted of murder and then to kill her in cold blood and then to kill her in the manner which is related in this narration, is something quite untenable. Islam strongly prohibits even killing women in the very field of battle and we have already mentioned the instructions of the Holy Prophetsa, (wherein he forbade the killing of women on several occasions) […] As such, it is mentioned in a hadith that on one occasion, a woman of an enemy tribe was found dead in the field of battle and even though it was not known which circumstances and by whose hand she had been killed, upon seeing this, the Holy Prophetsa was very displeased. The Holy Prophetsa emphatically stated to his Companions that this should never happen again (no woman should be killed). Similarly, it has also been mentioned that whenever the Holy Prophetsa would send off an army, in addition to all other advice, one instruction which he would give to his Companions was not to kill women and children.
“In the existence of these fundamental instructions, to think that the Companions and among them, Zaid bin Harithahra, who was like the family of the Holy Prophetsa, killed or had a lady killed in the manner described by Ibn Sa‘d, cannot be accepted at all. Undoubtedly, in this narration, although the deed of killing has not been attributed to Zaidra, rather, it has been attributed to another Muslim, since this instance occurred under the command of Zaidra, either way, the ultimate responsibility would fall on him. Moreover, regarding Zaidra, to think that he allowed for something of this nature to occur under his watch, knowing full well the teaching of the Holy Prophetsa cannot be accepted in the slightest. Invariably, if a woman commits a crime, she will receive the punishment of that crime and the sharia of no religion, nor the law of any country, excludes a woman from the punishment of a crime. Moreover, occurrences of the punishment of women, or rather, even executions for the punishment of murder, are printed on a daily basis. However, killing a woman merely on account of religious enmity and more so, to kill her in the manner described in this narration, is such an action as is clearly rejected by the fundamental instruction of the Holy Prophetsa and the whole of Islamic history.
“Furthermore, if it is stated that this lady was a criminal and, as mentioned in various narrations, she conspired to assassinate the Holy Prophetsa and for this reason, the sentence of murder could be lawfully issued against her, then this is correct. But the question is: if the Companions of the Holy Prophetsa did not kill severer and more vicious criminals than Umm Qirfah – and male enemies at that – in this manner, then to think that an elderly lady was treated in this way under the watch of a well-informed Companion the like of Zaid bin Harithahra, is completely unacceptable. Hence, from a rational perspective, the falsehood and fabrication of this story are evident and clear and no impartial individual could find room to doubt this.
“Now remains the aspect of narration. Hence, firstly, Ibn Sa‘d or Ibn Ishaq have not provided authentication for this narration and without a reliable source, a narration of this kind, which is contradictory to the clear instruction of the Holy Prophetsa and the common and well-known practice of the Companions, cannot be accepted at all. Secondly, this very account has been mentioned in Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abi Dawud, which are two very authentic books of Hadith, but the mention of Ummi Qirfah being killed has not been mentioned at all. Furthermore, in various other details, this account differs from that of Ibn Sa‘d and others. Moreover, sahih ahadith are definitely and universally accepted as far more reliable and worthy of preference. For this reason, the narration of Ibn Sa‘d and others have no weight in comparison to that of Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abi Dawud. This distinction becomes further evident when we bear in mind that where Ibn Sa‘d and Ibn Ishaq have mentioned their narrations without any authentication, on the other hand, Imam Muslim and Abu Dawud have furnished complete authentication for their narrations. Either way, in comparison to the caution practised by the muhaddithin, who worked very prudently, the general narrations of historians possess no value.
“The manner in which this account has been recorded in Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abi Dawud […] there is not even mention of the killing of Ummi Qirfah. Invariably, in the narration of Muslim and Abu Dawud, the name of Ummi Qirfah is not mentioned and the name of the commander is also recorded as Abu Bakrra instead of Zaidra. Regardless, we cannot imagine that this expedition was another one altogether, as the rest of the significant details are the same in their totality. For example:
- It is described in both these narrations that this expedition was against the Banu Fazarah.
- It is mentioned in both these narrations that the chieftain of the Banu Fazarah was an elderly lady.
- Both narrations mention the imprisonment of this lady.
- It is mentioned in both of these narrations that this lady had a daughter, who was also imprisoned with her.
- Both narrations mention that this girl was given to the lot of Salama bin Akwa‘ra.
“Additionally, there are similarities in other facts as well. Now contemplate, in the presence of these significant and fundamental commonalities, is it possible for an individual to imagine that these were two different accounts? However, we do not rest on this rational argumentation alone; rather, researchers of the past have clearly written that the account of Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abi Dawud is the same one which Ibn Sa‘d has recorded in another manner. As such, ‘Allamah Zurqani, Imam Suhaili and ‘Allamah Halabi have clearly written that this is the same account which Ibn Sa‘d and Ibn Ishaq have erroneously mentioned in the story of Umm Qirfah. However, more than this, proof of the fact that this is the same account is that Tabari has mentioned both these narrations side by side (alongside one another) and clearly written that both these accounts are but one and the same thing.
“Therefore, it is completely undeniable that in the narration of Salama bin Akwa‘ra recorded by Muslim and Abu Dawud, the very same account has been mentioned, which Ibn Sa‘d and Ibn Hisham have erroneously recorded by the name of ‘Expedition of Umm Qirfah’. Moreover, the narration of the Sihah (i.e., the narrations of the six authentic books of Hadith) which has been mentioned with authentication and is narrated by one who participated in the event, is in any case, worthy of precedence to the unauthenticated narration of Ibn Sa‘d and Ibn Hisham. For this reason, there is no room for doubt in the fact that the account of the ‘barbaric murder’ of Umm Qirfah is a completely false account without foundation, which, due to the ‘favour’ of a hidden enemy of Islam or a hypocrite, has found its way into some historical narrations. The truth is that the verity of this expedition is nothing more than what Muslim and Abu Dawud have mentioned. It is not surprising for an erroneous account to be recorded in history, because such examples are found in the history of every country and nation. It is surprising, however, for a man like Sir William to give this erroneous account a place in his book without any investigation and to openly confess that the purpose of his recording it was merely as an example of a cruel deed of the Muslims was found in it.” (Sirat Khatam-un-Nabiyyeen, pp. 717-721)
In any case, this incident is fabricated, and it never took place in this manner.
There is mention in history of the Expedition of Abdullah bin Atik towards Abu Rafi‘. Ibn Sa’d has narrated that this expedition took place in Ramadan 6 AH. (Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra, Vol. 2, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, p. 70)
In light of his research from various books of history, Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad Sahibra has written in regard to this as follows:
“There is a disagreement amongst narrations with regard to the killing of Abu Rafi‘. While following Zuhri, Bukhari has simply mentioned it as having occurred after the killing of Ka‘b bin Ashraf, without specifying a date, which is true either way. Perhaps both these accounts have been mentioned together (both have been narrated side by side) since their nature is identical. Tabari has put it in 3 AH, after the occurrence of Ka‘b bin Ashraf. Waqidi has mentioned it in 4 AH. Referring to Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Hisham has simply recorded it as being after the Ghazwah of Banu Quraizah, which took place towards the end of 5 AH and in this manner, it can be considered as having occurred in the beginning of 6 AH. However, Ibn Sa‘d has specifically recorded it in 6 AH and most historians have taken the stance of Ibn Sa‘d. Allah knows best.” (Sirat Khatam-un-Nabiyyeen, p. 726)
Ibn Ishaq narrated that after the Battle of Ahzab and the matter of Banu Quraizah was concluded, Salam bin Abu al-Huqaiq, also known as Abu Rafi‘, was among those who had gathered forces against the Holy Prophetsa. The tribe of Aus had already killed Ka‘b bin Ashraf, a Jewish man, before the Battle of Uhud due to his enmity towards the Holy Prophetsa and his incitement against him. Thus, the tribe of Khazraj sought permission from the Holy Prophetsa to kill Salam bin Abu al-Huqaiq, who was in Khaybar at the time, and he granted them permission.
These two tribes, Aus and Khazraj, would compete with each other in serving the Holy Prophetsa like two racing camels. When the tribe of Aus would accomplish something for the Holy Prophetsa, the Khazraj would say, “By this deed, they will gain more excellence than us in the eyes of the Holy Prophetsa and in Islam.” And so they would not rest until they performed a similar deed. Likewise, when Khazraj did something noteworthy, Aus would seek to match it.
When the Aus killed Ka‘b bin Ashraf due to his hostility towards the Holy Prophetsa, the Khazraj declared, “By Allah, the tribe of Aus shall never surpass us because of this!” They competed in deeds that would bring them closer to Allah the Almighty and His Messengersa. They contemplated who might be equal to Ka‘b bin Ashraf in enmity towards the Holy Prophetsa, and they remembered Ibn Abi al-Huqaiq, who was in Khaybar or the land of Hijaz.
Ibn Sa‘d reports that the Khazraj said Abu Rafi‘ bin Abi al-Huqaiq had gathered the tribe of Ghatafan and the surrounding polytheists, establishing a substantial stipend for them to fight against the Holy Prophetsa. So the Khazraj sought permission from the Holy Prophetsa to kill him, and he granted it.
Thus, five men of the Khazraj tribe from amongst Banu Salama set out: Abdullah bin Atiq, Mas‘ud bin Sinan, Abdullah bin Unais Johani – who was a confederate of the Ansar – Abu Qatadah Harth bin Rib‘i, and Khuza‘i bin Aswad. According to Muhammad bin Umar and Ibn Sa‘d, it was Aswad bin Khuza‘i who was a confederate of the Ansar from the tribe of Aslam. Bara bin Azib added Abdullah bin Utbah, as mentioned in Sahih Bukhari, making them six. Ibn Uqbah and Suhayli added Asad bin Haram, bringing the total to seven. The Holy Prophetsa appointed Abdullah bin Atiq as their leader and forbade them from killing women and children. (Subul Al-Huda Wa Al-Rishad, Vol. 6, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, p. 102)
Even here, the Holy Prophetsa unequivocally stated not to kill women and children.
In Sahih Bukhari, the details of Abu Rafi‘s killing are narrated thus: Bara bin Azib reported that Abu Rafi‘ used to cause great harm to the Holy Prophetsa and would aid his enemies. He lived in his fortress in the land of Hijaz. When they approached, the sun had set and people had returned with their herds. Abdullah bin Atiq told his companions, “Stay in your places while I go ahead and try to find a way around the gatekeeper so I can enter.” He went and approached the gate, then wrapped himself in his cloak as if answering the call of nature, and everyone had gone inside. In one narration, Abdullah bin Atiq said that he began devising a plan to enter the fortress, seeking some pretext.
In the meantime, the people in the fortress realised one of their donkeys was lost and so they took a lantern and set out in search for it. He says, “I was afraid that they might recognise me.” This Companion said, “I covered my head so as to make it seem as if I was answering the call of nature (this is according to a narration of Bukhari). The gatekeeper called out and said, ‘O servant of God, if you wish to enter, then come through as I wish to close the door.’ I entered and then hid once I was inside.”
It is recorded in another narration, “I entered and hid inside the donkey pen inside the fortress by the door. When the people entered, he closed the door and hung the keys on a nail.” He said, “I got up and went towards the keys. I took them and opened the door.” Another narration states, “When the voices quieted down and I no longer heard any movement, I emerged.” He said, “I saw the gatekeeper put the keys to the fortress on a small shelf (this is also a narration of Bukhari). People used to sit and have conversations with Abu Rafi‘ at night (he would have sittings) while he was on the upper level.” He says, “When the people who were speaking with Abu Rafi‘ left […]” he says he had been watching and when those who were speaking with him left and according to another narration, the people had dinner with Abu Rafi‘ and they continued having conversations until a portion of the night had passed, “[…] then they all returned to their quarters (this is also a narration from Bukhari). I started ascending towards him and every door I opened, I would close from the inside. I told myself that even if people did hear me, they would not be able to reach me before I killed him. Ultimately, I reached him.” According to another narration, he said, “I moved towards the doors to his quarters and closed them from the outside. I then climbed some stairs and reached Abu Rafi‘.”
This is also a narration from Bukhari. He says, “I found him lying in the dark amongst his family and I could not tell where he was in the room. I said, ‘O Abu Rafi‘!’ He replied, ‘Who is it?’ I moved towards the direction of the voice. I struck him with my sword. I was frightened (he was nervous) and so my blow did nothing and he screamed (his blow did not properly land and Abu Rafi‘ started raising a clamour). I left the room. Then I waited just for a short while and then went back to him as if I had arrived to help him and said, Abu Rafi‘ what is the matter?’ as I changed my voice. Abu Rafi‘ said, ‘May your mother be ruined; just a short while ago, a man came into the room and attacked me with his sword.’”
Hazrat Abdullah bin Atiq says, “When I heard his voice, I struck him, which caused him to become covered in blood but I was not able to kill him. Then I stuck the tip of my sword into his abdomen until it reached his back.” Another narration mentions his second attack as follows: “Then I lunged at him again and struck him again but it was of no use. He screamed, which caused his family to wake up.” He says, “Then I returned and changed my voice and went towards the person who was shouting (the second time he came, he changed his voice). I found him lying alert on his back. I put my sword upon his stomach and then bent down until I could hear his bones breaking. (These are also narrations from Bukhari). I knew I had killed him. Then I opened the doors one by one until I reached the final step.
I placed my foot and thought that I had reached the floor, but I fell.” It was not the last stair; rather, two or three stairs remained, so he fell down the stairs. “So in that full-moon night, my calf was fractured.” Another narration says, “My ankle was dislocated.” [He continues] “I tied it with my turban, then began walking and sat down near the door. I began thinking that I would not leave tonight until I knew for sure that I had killed him. When the roosters crowed in the morning, (i.e., when the roosters began crying out in the morning to start the day, as they usually do); then the one who announces a death, stood atop the fortress wall and began saying, ‘I bring news of the death of a merchant from among the people of Hijaz.’ So I began travelling to my companions. I said to them, ‘Freedom! Allah has killed Abu Rafi‘.’ Then I reached the Holy Prophetsa and informed him. He said to me ‘put your foot forward,’ I put my foot forward and he passed his hand over it. Behold, it was as if I never felt pain in the first place after he passed his hand over it.”
Another narration says that Abdullah bin Atiq states, “I came limping to my companions. I told them, ‘Go and give the good news to the Holy Prophetsa, because I will not be able to leave until I hear the voice of the one who announces a death.’ When morning neared, the announcer climbed up and said, ‘I give news of the death of Abu Rafi‘.’”
Abdullah bin Atiq states, “When I stood up to walk, I didn’t feel any pain. I caught up with my companions before they reached the Holy Prophetsa.” So this is another narration saying his pain was already gone and he had sprained his ankle. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab-ul-Maghazi, Hadith 4039, 4040)
Imam Bukhari narrates this incident through Hazrat Bara bin Aazib. It states that Abdullah bin Atiq killed Abu Rafi‘ himself. However, Ibn ‘Uqba, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad bin Umar, and Ibn Sa’d, etc. have narrated that all the Companions alongside Abdullah bin Atiq killed him [Abu Rafi‘] together. (Subul Al-Huda Wa Al-Rishad, Vol. 6, Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, pp. 104-105)
Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad Sahibra has also presented his analysis of this incident and writes:
“The mischief-making and instigation of the Jewish chieftains resulted in the dangerous conflict of the Battle of Ahzab against the Muslims in 5 AH. Among them, Huyaiy bin Akhtab had already met his end along with the Banu Quraizah. However, Sallam bin Abi al-Huqaiq, whose appellation was Abu Rafi‘, was still engaged freely in his mischief-making as before, in the region of Khaibar. Rather, the humiliating failure of Ahzab and the terrible end of the Banu Quraizah had only further increased his animosity. Since the settlement of the tribes of Ghatafan was situated near Khaibar and the Jews of Khaibar were as if neighbours to the tribes of Najd, for this reason, Abu Rafi‘ who was a very affluent and influential merchant, had made it a custom to incite the barbaric and warmongering tribes of Najd against the Muslims. In his animosity towards the Holy Prophetsa, he was the like of Ka‘b bin Ashraf. As such, during that era, which we are mentioning now, he had given the Ghatafani people very significant financial aid in order to launch an assault against the Holy Prophetsa. (He gave them a large sum of money.) Furthermore, it is proven by history that the Jews of Khaibar, who were creating disorder under the watch of Abu Rafi‘, were also behind the threat which emerged against the Muslims by the Banu Sa‘d in the month of Sha‘ban for the defence of which an army was sent from Medina under the leadership of Hazrat ‘Alira.
“However, Abu Rafi‘ did not suffice with this, and his enmity was thirsty for Muslim blood and the person of the Holy Prophetsa was a thorn in his eye. Therefore, ultimately, the plan which he employed was that, in the likeness of the Battle of Ahzab, he once again began to tour the Ghatafan tribes and other tribes, and began to gather a grand army to destroy the Muslims. (After the Battle of Ahzab, he began to amass another army in order to attack them.) When the state of affairs reached this extent and the scenes of Ahzab once again began to appear before the eyes of the Muslims, a few Ansar from the Khazraj tribe presented themselves before the Holy Prophetsa and said, ‘Now, the solution to this turmoil is nothing but to put an end to the mastermind of this unrest;’ (i.e., to kill Abu Rafi‘.) Considering the fact that the elimination of a single mischief-maker and seditious person was more preferable to mass bloodshed throughout the land, the Holy Prophetsa granted permission to these Companions. He sent four Companions from the Khazraj under the leadership of ‘Abdullah bin ‘Atik Ansarira towards Abu Rafi‘. However, as he sent them, he emphasised, ‘Look here; do not at all kill any woman or child.’ (He reiterated this point; how could it be then that the aforementioned woman was killed?) Therefore, in the month of Ramadan 6 AH, this party set off and returned after very skilfully completing its mission. In this manner, these clouds of calamity dispersed from the sky of Medina. The details of this account as mentioned in Bukhari, which is the most authentic in this regard, have been recorded as such, (as I have mentioned already. Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad Sahib has written in his own way):
“‘Bara’ bin ‘Azib narrates that the Holy Prophetsa sent a party of his Companions to kill Abu Rafi‘ the Jew, and appointed ‘Abdullah bin ‘Atik as their leader. The story of Abu Rafi‘ is that he would inflict great grief on the Holy Prophetsa and would incite and help people against the Holy Prophetsa. When ‘Abdullah bin ‘Atik and his companions reached near the fort of Abu Rafi‘ and the sun had set, ‘Abdullah bin ‘Atik left his companions behind and proceeded to the gate of the fort. He covered himself with his mantle and sat down as if answering the call of nature. When the gatekeeper approached the entrance of the fort, he called out to ‘Abdullah bin ‘Atik and said, “You there, enter if you wish, for I am about to close the gate.” Still covered in his mantle, ‘Abdullah bin ‘Atik quickly entered the gate and hid on one side of the castle. The gatekeeper closed the gate, hung the key on a nearby peg and left.
“After this, the narration of ‘Abdullah bin ‘Atik himself begins. He says, “First and foremost, I got up and opened the lock on the gate, so that a swift and easy exit was possible if needed. At the time, Abu Rafi‘ was in a room of his, (he was on his terrace of his house, in his room) and many people were seated around him in a night assembly talking to each other. When these people dispersed and it became silent, I climbed the stairs to the home of Abu Rafi‘. I was careful that whenever I came to a door, I would enter it and close it from behind. When I reached the room of Abu Rafi‘, he had put out the lantern and was preparing to fall asleep. The room was pitch dark. I called out the name of Abu Rafi‘ to which he responded, ‘Who is there?’ So I sprung towards the source of the voice and made a single and powerful strike of the sword. However, it was very dark, and due to my perplexity, I missed him. Abu Rafi‘ cried out, upon which I left the room. After some time, I entered the room again, and changing my voice, enquired, ‘O Abu Rafi‘ what is this noise?’ He could not recognise my changed voice and said, ‘May your mother forsake you; someone has just now attacked me with a sword.’ Upon hearing this voice, I sprung towards him again and struck him with the sword. This time, my strike was on point but he was still not dead, upon which I attacked him a third time and killed him. After this, I quickly opened the doors one by one till I reached outside of the home. However, when I was descending the stairs, there were still a few steps left, and I thought I had reached the ground, due to which I fell down and broke my leg (and in another narration, it is mentioned that the leg was dislocated). However, I tied it with my turban and dragged myself out, but I said to myself that until I am fully satisfied that Abu Rafi‘ is dead, I shall not leave. Therefore, I hid in a place near the fort. The next morning, I heard the voice of someone from inside the castle saying, Abu Rafi‘, the merchant of Hijaz, has died. Thereupon, I got up, and slowly but gradually met with my companions. Upon arriving in Medina, we informed the Holy Prophetsa of the death of Abu Rafi‘. Upon listening to the entire account, the Holy Prophetsa said, ‘Stretch out your broken leg.’ I stretched out my leg and the Holy Prophetsa rubbed his blessed hand upon it while praying, and I felt as if I had never had any ailment whatsoever.’”
“In another narration, it is mentioned that when ‘Abdullah bin ‘Atikra attacked Abu Rafi‘, his wife began to scream loudly, upon which he became worried that others might be alerted by her noise and clamour. Upon this, he raised his sword to kill her, but then he remembered that the Holy Prophetsa had prohibited the killing of women and therefore he refrained from doing this.” This is the same matter again, that since it was prohibited to kill women, he refrained from doing so, even though he was in a very dangerous position.
“At this point, we need not enter a discussion on the justification for killing Abu Rafi‘. The bloodthirsty undertakings of Abu Rafi‘ are an open page of history […] Fundamentally, the following points should be remembered:
“Firstly, during that era, the Muslims were in a very weak state, surrounded by adversity from all directions and the fire of enmity was ablaze all throughout the land. It was as if the entire land was uniting to annihilate the Muslims.
“Secondly, in these delicate times, Abu Rafi‘ was fuelling the fire which had been inflamed against the Muslims. Furthermore, through his power, influence and wealth, he was inciting the various tribes of Arabia against Islam. Also, in the likeness of the Ghazwah of Ahzab, he was preparing to unite the barbaric tribes of Arabia to again launch an assault against Medina.
“Thirdly, during that era, there was no government in Arabia whereby justice could be administered. Instead, every tribe was free and independent. Therefore, there was no other option other than to employ a strategy for self-protection.
“Fourthly, the Jewish tribes were already at war with Islam and at that time there existed a state of war between the Muslims and Jews.
“Fifthly, at that time, the state of affairs was such that if forces were openly mobilised against the Jews, there would have been a substantial loss of lives and wealth. It was possible that the fire of war would take on the form of mass destruction throughout the land.
“In these circumstances, whatever the Companions did was absolutely correct and prudent. Moreover, in a state of war, when a nation is passing through life or death, strategies of this kind are completely permissible. Furthermore, as required, every nation and every community has employed such tactics in all eras. However, it is unfortunate that in this era of moral deterioration, emotions of sympathy towards criminals have increased to such an unlawful extent that even a tyrant becomes a hero.
“(This is even seen today; oppressors become heroes and the punishment that ought to be meted out to them owing to their crimes is rescinded owing to the sympathies of the general public.) The punishment which he receives, results in attracting the sympathies of the common people (or the sympathy of selfish individuals) and his crimes are forgotten. However, as far as Islam is concerned, we confess that it is pure of such false emotions. It refers to a criminal as a criminal and considers his punishment as a mercy to the country and society. It teaches that a putrid body part should be amputated and does not wait for a rotten body part to destroy the healthy ones. Now remains the manner in which the punishment was administered. Regarding this, as has been mentioned, considering the circumstances of Arabia at the time and taking into account the state of war which existed between the Muslims and Jews, the method that was employed was best and most appropriate for the peace of society […] With regards to the healing of the leg of ‘Abdullah bin ‘Atik, it is not clarified in the narration of Bukhari as to whether this healing occurred immediately in a supernatural manner or whether it slowly and gradually followed its natural course of healing. In the latter case, this would be considered a normal occurrence. The affect of the prayer of the Holy Prophetsa would be understood inasmuch that by the blessings of his prayer, this injury did not take on a permanent effect and no negative result came about. Rather, the leg of ‘Abdullah was ultimately restored to its original and full strength and the effects of the injury disappeared completely. However, if this healing took place immediately in a supernatural manner, then most certainly this occurrence would be a miracle especially decreed by God Almighty, which He manifested as a result of the prayer and blessings of his Messengersa.’” (Sirat Khatam-un-Nabiyyeen, pp. 721-725)
Nonetheless, these were the incidents related to this event; there are some further incidents, which will be related in the future, insha-Allah.
(Official Urdu transcript published in the Daily Al Fazl International, 31 January 2025, pp. 2-6. Translated by The Review of Religions.)
