After reciting Tashahhud, Ta‘awwuz and Surah al-Fatihah, His Holiness, Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad^(aba) said that he would continue mentioning the expeditions during the life of the Holy Prophet^(sa).

Was Umm Qirfah Really Killed By the Muslims?

His Holiness^(aba) said that in relation to the Expedition of Banu Fazarah, there is mention of the murder of Umm Qirfah. Upon analysing historical accounts, it becomes evident that this is a false incident. His Holiness^(aba) quoted Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad^(ra) who writes:

‘In place of the above-mentioned Sariyyah of Hazrat Abu Bakr^(ra), Ibni Sa‘d has mentioned a Sariyyah wherein Zaid bin Harithah^(ra) was the commander. In other words, Ibni Sa‘d mentions Zaid bin Harithah as the commander of this Sariyyah instead of Hazrat Abu Bakr^(ra). 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 Ummi 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, Ibni 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 daughter was entrusted to Salmah bin Akwa‘^(ra). It is this story which to some extent, has also been mentioned by Ibni Ishaq with brevity, abridgment and variation.

On the basis of this narration, Sir William Muir, 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 wrote that the very reason he included this in his book was because the Muslims committed a cruel deed in this Sariyyah. As such, Mr. Muir wrote:

“There were several unimportant raids this year hardly requiring mention, but I must not omit one for the cruel deed that closed it.”

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. This is because it can never be expected that such an individual 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 calmness 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 Prophet^(sa), which he issued in the prohibition of killing women in the fundamental discussion on Jihad. 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 Prophet^(sa) was very displeased. The Holy Prophet^(sa) emphatically stated to his companions that this should never happen again. Similarly, it has also been mentioned that whenever the Holy Prophet^(sa) 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 Harithah^(ra), who was like the family of the Holy Prophet^(sa), killed or had a lady killed in the manner described by Ibni Sa‘d, cannot be accepted at all. Undoubtedly, in this narration, although the deed of killing has not been attributed to Zaid^(ra), rather, it has been attributed to another Muslim, but since this instance occurred under the command of Zaid^(ra), either way, the ultimate responsibility would fall on him. Moreover, regarding Zaid^(ra), to think that he allowed for something of this nature to occur under his watch, knowing full well the teaching of the Holy Prophet^(sa) cannot be accepted in the slightest. Invariably, if a woman commits a crime, she will receive the punishment of that crime and the Shari‘ah 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, rather, even execution 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 Prophet^(sa) 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 Prophet^(sa) 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 Prophet^(sa) did not kill severer and more vicious criminals than Ummi 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 Harithah^(ra), is completely unacceptable. Hence, from a rational perspective, the falsehood and fabrication of this story is evident and clear and no impartial individual could find room to doubt this.

Now remains the aspect of narration. Hence, firstly, Ibni Sa‘d or Ibni 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 Prophet^(sa) 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 to that of Ibni 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 Ibni Sa‘d and others have no weight in comparison to that of Sahih Muslim and Sunan Abu Dawud. This distinction becomes further evident when we bear in mind that where Ibni Sa‘d and Ibni 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 Abu Dawud has already been mentioned above. In it, 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 Bakr^(ra) instead of Zaid^(ra). 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:

1. It is described in both these narrations that this expedition was against the Banu Fazarah.
2. It is mentioned in both these narrations that the chieftain of the Banu Fazarah was an elderly lady.
3. Both narrations mention the imprisonment of this lady.
4. It is mentioned in both of these narrations that this lady had a

   daughter, who was also imprisoned with her.

5. Both narrations mention that this girl was given to the lot of

   Salmah 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 Ibni 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 Ibni Sa‘d and Ibni Ishaq have erroneously mentioned in the story of Ummi 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 and clearly written that both these accounts are but one and the same thing.

Therefore, it is completely undeniable that in the narration of Salmah bin Akwa‘^(ra) recorded by Muslim and Abu Dawud, the very same account has been mentioned, which Ibni Sa‘d and Ibni Hisham have erroneously recorded by the name of ‘Sariyyah of Ummi Qirfah’. Moreover, the narration of the Sihah 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 Ibni Sa‘d and Ibni Hisham. For this reason, there is no room for doubt in the fact that the account of the ‘barbaric murder’ of Ummi 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 Sariyyah 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.’

(The Life and Character of the Seal of Prophets (sa), Vol. 3, pp. 74-79)

Expedition of Abdullah bin Atik^(ra)

His Holiness^(aba) said that then there was the Expedition of Abdullah bin Atik which was sent towards Abu Rafi’. His Holiness^(aba) quoted Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahamd^(ra) who writes:

‘There is a disagreement amongst narrations with regards to the killing of Abu Rafi‘. In the following of 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 since their nature is identical. Tabari has put it in 3 A.H., after the occurrence of Ka‘b bin Ashraf. Waqidi has mentioned it in 4 A.H. Referring to Ibni Ishaq, Ibni Hisham has simply recorded it as being after the Ghazwah of Banu Quraizah, which took place towards the end of 5 A.H. and in this manner, it can be considered as having occurred in the beginning of 6 A.H. However, Ibni Sa‘d has specifically recorded it in 6 A.H. and most historians have taken the stance of Ibni Sa‘d. Allah knows best.’

(The Life and Character of the Seal of Prophets (sa), Vol. 3, pp. 83-84)

How the Killing of Abu Rafi’ Unfolded

His Holiness^(aba) further quoted Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad^(ra) who 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 A.H. Among them, Huyaiy bin Akhtab had already met his end along with the Banu Quraizah. However, Sallam bin Abil-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 were 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 Prophet^(sa), 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 Prophet^(sa). Furthermore, it is proven by history that the Jews of Khaibar who were creating disorder in 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 Madinah under the leadership of Hazrat ‘Ali^(ra).

However, Abu Rafi‘ did not suffice with this, and his enmity was thirsty for Muslim blood and the person of the Holy Prophet^(sa) 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. 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 presented themselves before the Holy Prophet^(sa) and said, “Now, the solution to this turmoil is nothing but to put an end to the mastermind of this unrest.” Considering the fact that the elimination of a single mischief-maker and seditious person was more preferable than mass bloodshed throughout the land, the Holy Prophet^(sa) granted permission to these companions. He sent four companions from the Khazraj under the leadership of ‘Abdullah bin ‘Atik Ansari^(ra) towards Abu Rafi‘. However, as he sent them he emphasised, “Look here, do not at all kill any woman or child.” Therefore, in the month of Ramadan 6 A.H. this party set off, and returned after very skillfully completing its mission. In this manner, these clouds of calamity dispersed from the sky of Madinah. The details of this account as mentioned in Bukhari, which is the most authentic in this regard, have been recorded as such:

“Bara’ bin ‘Azib narrates that the Holy Prophet^(sa) 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 Prophet^(sa) and would incite and help people against the Holy Prophet^(sa). When ‘Abdullah bin ‘Atik and his companions reached near the castle of Abu Rafi‘ and the sun had set, ‘Abdullah bin ‘Atik left his companions behind and proceeded to the gate of the castle. He covered himself with his mantle and sat down as if answering the call of nature. When the gate-keeper approached the entrance of the castle, he called out to ‘Abdullah bin ‘Atik and said, ‘O servant of Allah, 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 to one side of the castle. The gate-keeper 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, 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 inquired, ‘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 castle. 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 Madinah, we informed the Holy Prophet^(sa) of the death of Abu Rafi‘. Upon listening to the entire account, the Holy Prophet^(sa) said, ‘Stretch out your broken leg.’ I stretched out my leg and the Holy Prophet^(sa) 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 ‘Atik^(ra) 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 Prophet^(sa) had prohibited the killing of women and therefore he refrained from doing this.

At this point, we need not enter a discussion on the justification of killing Abu Rafi‘…Fundamentally, the following points should be remembered:

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.

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 Madinah.

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.

The Jewish people were already at war with Islam and at that time there existed a state of war between the Muslims and Jews.

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 has increased to such an unlawful extent that even a tyrant becomes a hero. The punishment which he receives, results in attracting the sympathies of the common people and his crimes are forgotten. However, as far as Islām 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. Therefore, we have already written a fundamental note on this topic in the issue of Ka‘b bin Ashraf in Volume 2, the repetition of which is not needed here.

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 Prophet^(sa) 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 of his Messenger (sa).’

(The Life and Character of the Seal of Prophets (sa), Vol. 3, pp. 79-83)

His Holiness^(aba) said that he would continue mentioning these incidents in the future.

Summary prepared by The Review of Religions