Friday Sermon delivered at Masjid Mubarak, Islamabad, Tilford, UK
After reciting Tashahhud, Ta‘awwuz and Surah al-Fatihah, His Holiness, Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad(aba) said that he would continue mentioning the expeditions from the life of the Holy Prophet(sa).
His Holiness(aba) said that first, he would mention the Expedition of Kurz bin Jabir(ra), which took place in Shawwal 6 AH. His Holiness(aba) quoted Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad(ra) who writes:
‘These were very threatening days for the Muslims, because the whole land was ablaze with the fire of animosity, inflamed by the Quraish and the Jews. Moreover, according to their new policy, they had decided that instead of systematically attacking Madinah, it should be harmed by secret methods. Furthermore, since deceit and treachery were inherent in the uncivilised tribes of Arabia, they were adamant in hurting the Muslims by any means possible. As such, the incident we are about to mention is but a link in this very nefarious chain of events, which came to an end in a terrible manner. The details are that in Shawwal 6 A.H., a few men which were eight in number, from the tribes of ‘Ukl and ‘Urainah, came to Madinah, and after expressing their love and affection towards Islam became Muslim. After a stay of some time, the climate of Madinah affected their spleens and they suffered from a stomach virus. Using this as an excuse, they presented themselves before the Holy Prophet(sa). They presented their illness and said, “O Messenger of Allah! We are Bedouin people and have spent our time living with animals. We are not accustomed to the city life and therefore, we have fallen ill.” The Holy Prophet(sa) responded, “If you feel ill in Madinah, then go out of Madinah and stay in the inhabitation of our cattle and drink the milk of camels, etc., You shall become well.” In another narration, it is recorded that they themselves requested, “O Messenger of Allah! If you permit us we would like to go outside of Madinah where your cattle are situated,” and the Holy Prophet(sa) permitted them to do so. In any case, they sought permission of the Holy Prophet(sa) and went to live in the pasture, which was inhabited by the camels of the Muslims.
When these wretched people had setup camp and fully ascertained the state of affairs, and had recovered their health after living in the open climate and drinking the milk of camels, they suddenly attacked the shepherds of these camels one day and killed them. Moreover, in doing so, they were so cruel that first they slaughtered them like animals, and when there was still some life left in them, they pierced their tongues with sharp desert thorns so that when they made a sound or tossed and turned in the agony of thirst, these thorns would add to their suffering. Then, these barbarians did not suffice at this, but took hot matches and rubbed them into the eyes of the half-dead Muslims. In this manner, the innocent Muslims died tossing and turning in an open field. Among them was a personal servant of the Holy Prophet(sa) named Yassar, who was appointed to graze the camels of the Holy Prophet(sa).
When these savages had killed the Muslims in this barbaric manner, they gathered all the camels and took them away. These events were reported to the Holy Prophet(sa) by a shepherd who happened to escape to safety. The Holy Prophet(sa) immediately prepared a party of twenty companions and sent them in pursuit. Although these people had already covered some ground, by God’s grace, the Muslims swiftly pursued them and managed to capture them. The Muslims tied them in ropes and brought them back. Until that time, no injunctions had been revealed to the Holy Prophet(sa) as to what should be done with an individual who commits such actions. Therefore, as per his old practice that until a new injunction was revealed in Islam, the way of the people of the book was followed according to Mosaic law, the Holy Prophet(sa) ordered that just as these cruel people had treated the Muslim shepherds, they too should be treated in retribution and in equal retaliation. This would serve as a lesson to others. Thus, almost in the same manner, these people were lowered into the pit of death in an open field outside Madinah. However, God had decreed a different law for Islām, and so from thereon, even in a state of retribution and equal retaliation, the punishment of mutilation was forbidden. In other words, it was prohibited that the body of a criminal be disfigured in any way, or for body parts to be cut into pieces in a manner of retribution, etc.
We need not write extensively on this account, because the cruelty was instigated by the infidels towards the Muslims in this savage and barbaric manner without any just cause, purely out of animosity for Islām. Furthermore, whatever was done to them in punishment, was merely in retribution and equitable retaliation. Moreover, it was done in such a state when the entire land was ablaze with a fire of enmity towards Islam. Then, this decision was also in accordance to the Mosaic Law but even then, Islam did not uphold this law, and prohibited such a course of action in the future. In such circumstances, no reasonable individual can raise an objection. On this occasion, it should also be remembered that these men had come to Madinah with evil intentions in the first place. Furthermore, they were most probably trained by their tribe to live among the Muslims and injure them. Additionally, it is very plausible that they harboured an evil intention against the Holy Prophet(sa) himself, but when they could find no opportunity in Madinah, they proposed an undertaking outside the city. Their evil intention can also be gauged by the fact that the manner in which they dealt with the Muslim shepherds was not merely one of thieves and bandits, rather, it was an act of utter revenge. If they had initially become Muslims pure-heartedly and later on, after seeing the camels, their intentions had changed for the worse, then in such a case, what should have happened is that they should have taken these camels and ran off. If a shepherd had happened to become a hindrance, then at most, they should have killed him and left. However, the manner in which they killed the Muslim shepherd, and putting their own selves in danger by prolonging this act of butchery and torturing the Muslims, evidently shows that this action was not the outcome of coincidental greed. Quite the contrary, it clearly possessed the character of animosity and was the result of heart-felt malice and long-standing rancour. In return for this ruthless action, whatever the Holy Prophet(sa) did was merely in retribution and equitable retaliation, according to the Mosaic Law, which existed prior to the revelation of Islamic teachings. However, shortly thereafter, Islamic injunctions were revealed and such punishment was declared unlawful, even as an act of retribution. As such, the words of Bukhari are as follows:
“After this instance, the Holy Prophet(sa) emphasised magnanimity and generosity, and prohibited mutilating the body of enemies in all circumstances.”
Various western research scholars, including Muir, have objected (as per their habit) that the manner in which these murderous pillagers were killed was cruel and barbaric. However, if all the facts are analysed in this case, the mantle of Islām remains absolutely untarnished. Actually, this was not the decision of Islam but of Moses(as), the Law of whom the Christian Messiah did not abrogate but upheld. Perhaps, our opponents have the saying of the Christian Messiah in mind,
“If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.”
If so, then verily, our opposition has the right to raise this allegation, but the question is, whether any reasonable individual considers this teaching at all practical. Furthermore, in the last 1,950 years, has any Christian man, woman, Christian community or government acted upon this teaching? Undoubtedly, this teaching is a wonderful one to stand up at the pulpit and exhort in sermons. However, in practical life, this teaching holds no weight whatsoever, nor can a rational individual be prepared to act upon it. Therefore, in such a case, to place these kinds of emotional models before oneself and make the Muslims the target of an allegation, is but to furnish proof of one’s own ignorance. Of course, look at the Law of Moses(as), who unlike Jesus(as) was a law-maker and who understood the essence of the law. Alternatively, examine the practical conduct of the Christians and not just their claims. The truth shall become evident that pragmatically, no religion can compare with Islam because it does as it claims. It does not have double standards and its claims and actions are both so elevated, that no reasonable and unprejudiced individual can object to it. Quite the contrary, one is inclined to praise Islam. For like the Mosaic Law, it does not enjoin revenge in all circumstances and to wage the axe of retribution indiscriminately. Neither does it teach that punishment should never be administered, nor that when a criminal commits a crime, he should be supported and strengthened in his purpose in accordance to Christian Law. Instead, Islam forsakes these two extremes and presents a moderate teaching which is the basis of true peace in the world which is:
“The punishment of an injury should be the like thereof and should be of equal intensity. However, if the circumstances are such as a probability of reformation exists by forgiveness or lenience, then forgiveness and lenience is the better course of action. Such an individual shall be deserving of a handsome reward from Allah.”
This is the teaching which Islam has presented in this regard and no reasonable individual can deny that this is an unrivalled teaching, which has taken into consideration all aspects of human need. Furthermore, even in the case of punishment, it has set the restriction that appropriate bounds should not be exceeded and it has outrightly condemned the barbaric acts of mutilation, etc. In comparison to this, despite the ‘exemplary teaching’ of Jesus Christas, the actual behaviour which Christians have shown towards their enemies and the atrocities which they have committed during wars, are an open page in history, the repetition of which is not required here.’
(The Life and Character of the Seal of Prophets (sa), Vol. 3, pp. 108 – 113)
His Holiness(aba) said that now he would mention the Battle of Dhi Qarad. There is a difference of opinion among historians as to when exactly this took place. According to Bukhari and Muslim this took place after the Treaty of Hudaibiyah and before the Battle of Khaibar, specifically three days before Khaibar. Some historians regard this as having taken place before the Treaty of Hudaibiyah. Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad(ra) has regarded this as having been in Muharram 7 AH. This is also known as the Battle of Ghabah as this was where the Holy Prophet’s (sa) camels used to graze, an area 4 miles from Madinah behind the Uhud mountain. It is known as the Battle of Dhi Qard because when Uyainah bin Hisn, who had stolen the Holy Prophet’s (sa) camels, were followed to Dhi Qard which is a well.
His Holiness(aba) said that Uyainah led the attack on the grazing ground and killed one of the shepherds while imprisoning his wife. Uyainah was a chieftain of the Banu Fazarah. He was the leader of one of the tribes which joined the Banu Quraizah during the Battle of Ahzab and planned to attack the Muslims in Madinah. Uyainah would go on to accept Islam around the time of the Conquest of Makkah. However, later, during the time of Hazrat Abu Bakr(ra) he became an apostate and accepted one of the false claimants to prophethood. He was eventually brought to Hazrat Abu Bakr(ra) as a prisoner and was forgiven. He would then, once again accept Islam.
His Holiness(aba) said that Hazrat Abu Dharr(ra) had requested the Holy Prophet(sa) to go to the grazing ground. The Holy Prophet(sa) said that he was afraid for him, however, Hazrat Abu Dharr(ra) insisted to go. The Holy Prophet(sa) said he was afraid that his son would be killed and that Hazrat Abu Dharr(ra) would return only with the support of a staff. Hazrat Abu Dharr(ra) expressed his wonder over his insistence, even when the Holy Prophet(sa) was saying that he was afraid for him. And it came to pass exactly as the Holy Prophet(sa) said. Uyainah attacked at night with 40 men, and when Abu Dharr’s(ra) son went out to see what was happening, he was killed.
His Holiness(aba) said that Hazrat Salamah bin Akwa’(ra) learned of the Holy Prophet’s (sa) camels being stolen. He then chased after the perpetrators, and upon locating them, he started firing his arrows at them. He kept following them all alone, and he continued following them until he had recovered the camels. On the other hand, when the Holy Prophet(sa) learned of what had happened, the Holy Prophet(sa) made an appeal and riders began gathering around him. The Holy Prophet(sa) appointed Hazrat Sa’d bin Zaid(ra) and told him to set out with a contingent, saying that he would follow. Then, the Holy Prophet(sa) set out with 500, while some have narrated 700 Muslims. In the meantime, Hazrat Salamah(ra) had encountered Uyainah, who fled out of fear. By that time, Hazrat Salamah(ra) saw the riders sent by the Holy Prophet(sa) approaching. Once the riders arrived, Hazrat Abu Qatadah(ra) had a battle with the son of Uyainah Mas’ada Fazari, and killed him. He then also faced the comrades of Mas’ada who had also approached, ultimately freeing the camels of the Holy Prophet(sa) which they had in their possession.
His Holiness(aba) said that he would continue narrating these incidents in the future.
Summary prepared by The Review of Religions
Related Resources