11 March 2012

Return from Khaibar; and Hadith 39: Leniency on those who Err, Forget, or is Forced

Seerah of Muhammed*
*: May the Peace, Blessings and Mercy of Allah be upon him
TMQ: Translation to the nearest meaning of the Qur’an

Wadi Al-Qura

No sooner had the Prophet* discharged the affair of Khaibar than he started a fresh move towards Wadi Al-Qura, another Jewish colony in Arabia. He mobilized his forces and divided them into three regiments with four banners entrusted to Sa‘d bin ‘Ubada, Al-Hubab bin Mundhir, ‘Abbad bin Bishr and Sahl bin Haneef. Prior to fighting, he invited the Jews to embrace Islam but all his words and exhortations fell on deaf ears. Eleven of the Jews were killed one after another and with each one newly killed, a fresh call was extended inviting those people to profess the new faith. Fighting went on ceaselessly for approximately two days and resulted in full surrender of the Jews. Their land was conquered, and a lot of booty fell in the hands of the Muslims. The Prophet* stayed in Wadi Al-Qura for four days, distributed the booty among the Muslim fighters and reached an agreement with the Jews similar to that of Khaibar.

The Jews of Taima’

On hearing beforehand about the successive victories of the Muslim army and the defeats that their brethren, the Jews, had sustained, showed no resistance when the Prophet* reached their habitation. On the contrary, they took the initiative and offered to sign a reconciliation treaty to the effect that they receive protection but pay tribute (Jizya)  in return. Having achieved his objective and subdued the Jews completely, the Prophet* made his way back home and arrived in Medina in late Safar or early Rabi‘ Al-Awwal 7 A.H.

It is noteworthy that the Prophet*, being the best amongst war experts, realized quite readily that evacuating Medina after the lapse of the prohibited months (Muharram, Dhul Qa‘da and Dhul Hijja) would not be wise at all with the presence of the desert bedouins roaming in its vicinity. Such a careless attitude, the Prophet* believed, would tempt the undisciplined mob to practise their favourite hobby of plundering, looting and all acts of piracy. This premonition always in mind, the Prophet* despatched Aban bin Sa‘id at the head of a platoon to deter those bedouins and forestall any attempt at raiding the headquarters of the nascent Islamic state during his absence in Khaibar. Aban achieved his task successfully and joined the Prophet* in Khaibar after it had been conquered.

The Expedition called Dhat-ur-Riqa

Having subdued two powerful sides of the Confederates coalition, the Prophet* started preparations to discipline the third party, i.e. the desert bedouins, who took Najd for habitation, and continued in their usual practices of looting and plundering. Unlike the Jews of Khaibar and people of Mecca, they had a liking for living in the wilderness dispersed in scattered spots, hence the difficulty of bringing them under control, and the futility of carrying out deterrent campaigns against them. However, the Prophet* was determined to put an end to this unacceptable situation and called the Muslims around him to get ready to launch a decisive campaign against those harassing rebels. Meanwhile it was reported to him that Bani Muharib and Banu Tha‘lbah of the Ghatafan tribe were gathering army in order to encounter the Muslims. The Prophet* proceeded towards Najd at the head of 400 or 700 men, after he had mandated Abu Dhar - in another version, ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan - to dispose the affairs of Medina during his absence. The Muslim fighters penetrated deep into their land until they reached a spot called Nakhlah where they came across some bedouins of Ghatfan, but no fighting took place because the latter had agreed to go into reconciliation with the Muslims. The Prophet* led his followers that day in a prayer of fear (Salat-ul Kauf).

Al-Bukhari, on the authority of Abu Musa Al-Ash‘ari, narrated that they set out on an expedition with the Messenger of Allah*. "We were six in number and had (with us) only one camel which we rode turn by turn. Our feet were injured. My feet were so badly injured that my nails came off. We, therefore, bandaged our feet with rags, so this expedition was called Dhat-ur-Riqa‘ (i.e. the expedition of rags.)"

Jabir narrated: In the course of Dhat-ur-Riqa‘ expedition, we came to a leafy tree where the Prophet* sat shading himself off the burning sun. The others dispersed here and there seeking shelter from heat. The Prophet* had a short nap after he had hung his sword on the tree. A polytheist, meanwhile came, seized the sword and unsheathed it. The Prophet* woke up to find his sword drawn in the man’s hand. The bedouin here asked the Prophet (unarmed then): "Who would hold me back from killing you now?" The Prophet* then answered: "It is Allah." In another version, it was reported that the Prophet* took the sword when it had fallen down and the man said: "You (the Prophet) are the best one to hold a sword." The Prophet* asked the man if he would testify to the Oneness of Allah and the Messengership of Muhammad. The Arabian answered that he would never engage in a fight against him, nor would he ally people fighting the Muslims. The Prophet* set the man free and let him go to his people to say to them that he had seen the best one among all people.

A woman from the Arabians was taken prisoner in the context of this battle. Her husband, on hearing the news, swore he would never stop until he had shed the blood of a Muslim. Secretly at night, he approached the camp of the Muslims when he saw two sentries stationed there to alert the Muslims against any emergency. He shot the first one, Abbad bin Bishr, who was observing prayer, with an arrow but he did not stop prayer, he simply pulled it out. Then he was shot by three other arrows but would not interrupt his prayer. After he had done the closing salutations, he awakened his companion ‘Ammar bin Yasir, who remonstrated that he should have alerted him to which the latter replied that he was half way through a Chapter and did not like to interrupt it.

The victory at the expedition of Dhat-ur-Riqa‘ had a tremendous impact on all the Arabians. It cast fear into their hearts and rendered them too powerless to antagonize the Muslim society in Medina. They began to acquiesce in the prevailing situation and resigned themselves to new geo-political conditions working in favour of the new religion. Some of them even embraced Islam and took an active part in the conquest of Mecca and the battle of Hunain, and received their due shares of the war booty.

Other Expeditions

From that time onward, the anti-Islam tripartite coalition had been subdued, and peace and security prevailed. The Muslims, then started to redress any political imbalance and fill in the small gaps that still triggered unrest here and there in the face of the great drive of Islamization that enveloped the whole area. We could in this context mention some of these incidental skirmishes which pointed markedly to the ever-growing power of the Muslim society.

1. A platoon headed by Ghalib bin ‘Abdullah Al- Laithi in Safar or in Rabi‘ Al- Awwal 7 A.H. was despatched to muffle the provocative behaviour of Bani Al- Muluh. The Muslims managed to kill a large number of the enemy soldiers and captured a great deal of booty. A large army of polytheists rushed in their heel but floods hindered the pursuit, and the Muslims managed to withdraw in safety.

2. ‘Umer bin Al-Khattab, at the head of a 30- soldier group, set out to a spot called Turbah in Sha‘ban 7 A.H. to discipline the people of Hawazin. He no longer arrived at their habitation that they fled for their lives.

3. Thirty men with Basheer bin Sa‘d Al-Ansari headed for Bani Murrah in Sha‘ban 7 A.H. in Fadak area. He killed a large number of the enemy and seized a lot of their camels and cattle. On his way back, the enemy gathered up forces and overtook the Muslims at night. They showered Basheer and his men with arrows, and killed all the Muslims except Basheer, who took refuge in Fadak and stayed with the Jews there until his wounds healed.

4. Ghalib bin ‘Abdullah Al-Laithi at the head of a platoon of 130 men launched an attack against Bani ‘Awal and Bani ‘Abd bin Tha‘lbah in Ramadan 7 A.H. They killed some of the enemy’s men and captured their cattle and camels. ‘Usama bin Zaid killed Mardas bin Nahik, a polytheist, but after he had pronounced the testimony of Allah’s Oneness to which incident the Prophet* commented addressing his Companions: "Would you rip open his heart to discern whether he is truthful or a liar?" The seventeen-year-old Usamah was allowed to take part in this expedition. He had been with the army behind the Trench, but this was his first campaign in the fullest sense. During the encounter, a man of Murrah mocked at him on account of his youth. He soon had reason to regret it. Already bent on showing his mettle, Usamah was now goaded to fury and pursued the man far into the desert despite the orders given before the battle that they should all keep together; He finally caught up with him and wounded him, whereupon the man shouted La ilaha illallah, there is no god but God. But despite this testification of Islam, Usamah dealt him the death-blow.

The commander of the expedition was Ghalib ibn 'Abd Allah;! and one of his first thoughts after the battle was: "Where is Usamah?" He and every other man in the army knew of the Prophet's great love for the son of Zayd; and despite the victory it was to an exceedingly troubled camp that Usamah returned, one hour after nightfall. Ghalib sternly rated him. "I went after a man who was scoffing at me," said the youth, "and when I had come up with him and had fleshed him, he said La ilaha illallah," "Whereupon thou didst sheathe thy sword?" said Ghalib. "Nay," said Usamah, "not until I had made him drink the draught of death." At that the whole camp thundered abuse, and he buried his head in his hands, overcome with shame. Nor could he bring himself to eat any food during the march home. There had been a Revelation which the older men well knew in connection with one or two cases where a believer had been about to kill a disbeliever, who had then professed Islam; and exasperated at the idea of losing the spoils of armour and weapons which he had thought were his, the victor had said "Thou art not a believer," and had killed him. In Usamah's case the motive had been honour not spoils, but the principle was the same. The revealed verse was: 0 ye who believe, when ye fight in the way of God, discriminate, nor say unto him who proffereth you peace: "Thou art not a believer, " seeking the gains of this lower life, for with God are spoils in plenty. Thus were ye wont to be aforetime, but God hath sent down His Grace upon you. Therefore discriminate. Verily God is Informed of what ye do:

As soon as they reached Medina Usamah went to the Prophet, who fondly embraced him. Then he said: "Now tell me of thy campaign." So Usamah told him all that had happened since they had set out, and when he reached the point where he had killed the man, the Prophet said: "Didst thou, O Usarnah, slay him when he had said La ilaha illallah? "O Messenger of God," he answered, "he did but say it to escape from being slain." "And so," said the Prophet, "thou didst split open his heart to know if he spake the truth or if he lied!" "Never again will I slay any man who saith La ilaha illallah," said Usarnah. And he would say afterwards: "I wished that I had only entered Islam on that day."? For the Prophet had affirmed that the entry into the religion effaces the guilt of all past sins.

5. A thirty-horseman group headed by ‘Abdullah bin Rawaha marched towards Khaibar on reports that Aseer (or Basheer bin Razam) was rallying the ranks of Bani Ghatfan to attack the Muslims: They managed to persuade that Jew to follow them to Medina encouraging him that the Prophet* would institute him as a ruler of Khaibar. On their way back there occurred a sort of misunderstanding that gave rise to fierce fighting between the two parties resulting in the death of Aseer and the thirty men with him.

6. In Shawwal 7 A.H., Basheer bin Sa‘d Al-Ansari marched towards Yemen and Jabar at the head of 300 Muslim fighters to subdue a large mob of polytheists who gathered to raid the outskirts of Medina. Basheer and his men used to march at night and lurk during the day until they reached their destination. Having heard about the advent of the Muslims, the polytheists fled away leaving behind them a large booty and two men who later embraced Islam on arrival in Medina.

7. In the year 7 A.H., shortly before the Compensatory ‘Umrah (lesser pilgrimage), a man called Jashm bin Mu‘awiyah came to a spot called Ghabah where he wanted to gather the people of Qais and entice them into fighting the Muslims. The Prophet*, on hearing these reports, despatched Abu Hadrad with two men to see to the situation. Abu Hadrad, through a clever strategy, managed to rout the enemy and capture a lot of their cattle. With this he was able to pay his dowry of 200 dirham that he has promised his wife (after the Prophet* said that he shouldn’t have agreed to pay so much even if he was fishing the money out of the river).

Nawawi's Forty Hadith
Hadith 39: Drawing Nearer to Allah Through Obligatory Duties

Ibn Abbas reported that the Messenger of Allah*, said: "Truly Allah has for my sake pardoned the mistakes and forgetfulness of my community, and for what they have done under force or duress." [Ibn Majah, Al-Baihaqi]

What has been stated in this hadith has also been stressed and emphasised in the Qur'an. In Surah al-Baqarah, Ayah 286, it is stated: "Our Lord, punish us not if we forget or fall into error." Allah says in Surah al-Ahzab, Ayah 5: And there is no sin on you concerning that in which you made a mistake, except in regard to what your hearts deliberately intended. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”  Allah also says in Surah al-Nahl, Ayah 106: Whosoever disbelieved in Allah after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with faith or at certainty.

Being excused for what is done mistakenly or out of forgetfulness does not mean that there will be no consequent rulings. This means that a person might be forgiven but he still has to take responsibility for his actions. The consequent rulings for doing something mistakenly or out of forgiveness can be classified into three categories:

1. There are mistakes where there is no consequent ruling such as a person or a Muslim who eats during the day in the month of Ramadhan out of forgetfulness. The majority of scholars say that his fasting is still valid and he does not have to repeat that day. This opinion is based on the hadith that is related by Imam Al-Bukhari and Imam Muslim which states that "any Muslim who eats during Ramadhan out of forgetfulness will be excused and forgiven."

2. There are consequent rulings to actions that are done out of mistakes or forgetfulness such as if someone kills a Muslim by mistake - as what happens nowadays in car accidents or accidents at work, etc. It is well-known by scholars that for such a person there is no consequent ruling. There is no kaffarah (expiation of sins) but he has to pay the fidyah as stated in the Qur'an. Another example is if someone caused harm or damage to the property or money of someone else by mistake. In this case the person is responsible and has to compensate for what he has damaged even though he is forgiven by Allah and is not being regarded as sinful.

3. There are actions where there are different opinions among the Muslim scholars of whether there is a consequent ruling or not. Some scholars say that the person has a consequent ruling. Others will say that he is fully excused and has nothing to do. For example, if a person talked out of forgetfulness during his prayer. Does he have to repeat his prayer? Here we have different opinions among the scholars. Some will say he has to repeat while others will say he is going to be forgiven and excused. Another example is that a person takes an oath or swears by Allah not to do something and then he does it out of mistake or because of forgetfulness. Is this person responsible? Some scholars will say he is not forgiven and he has to make kaffarah. Others will say that he is forgiven and need not make kaffarah. A third example is if a person who is muhrim - that is he intended to perform 'umrah or hajj and then by mistake he hunts or kills an animal. Is he forgiven (i.e. is this not considered a sinful act)? He is forgiven and will not be punished for that. But the issue is whether he has to pay for it and be responsible or not. This is again a debatable issue among the scholars.

In the situation where a person is forced to do something which is not acceptable in Islam, this ikrah or duress can be categorised, according to Ibn Rajab, into two categories:

1. The person is powerless and has no choice to refuse doing an evil act or something which is not acceptable by shari'ah. This person is excused.

2. The person is forced to harm someone else. In this situation, we look at the issue from the perspective that he has the power over his actions and can refuse to do the harm but at the same time his intention is to remove the harm from himself rather than to harm the other person. What is the ruling in this case? The scholars say that there are certain cases where the Muslim should not do it (i.e. harm someone else) even if he is harmed himself, such as if a Muslim is forced to kill someone else. He is not allowed to do so because this is a major harm that Muslims should do their best to avoid.

But the scholars have different views regarding similar situations and actions. The first situation is that if a Muslim took an oath not to do something and then he is forced to do it. Some say that he is excused and he is allowed to do the thing that he promised not to do - he is excused and there is no ruling here. Other scholars say he is responsible and he should not do it. If it is out of his choice, this goes under the first category. The same if someone is forced or threaten or even beaten and he has been ordered to cause damage to the property of someone else. Scholars say since he has the choice, he has to do his best not to cause the damage. The issue here is that if he does it, scholars say that he will be excused in the sense that he is not sinful but he still remains responsible for the damage that he caused.  The second situation where Muslim scholars differ is prohibited acts such as drinking wine. Some scholars say if a person is forced, then he is excused. Other scholars say though he is forced, he is not allowed to do it.

Another view or category is the distinction between speech and actions.

In terms of speech, a person might be forced and allowed to say something that is not allowable. The scholars say he should not practice taqiyah. Taqiyah means to say or do something which you do not believe in and are not satisfied with. This only applies to sayings and not actions. Regarding this issue there is an agreement among the Muslim scholars. They say that whoever is forced to say something that is not allowed in shari'ah, then he will be allowed to say it - he will not be regarded or considered as 'saying' it. There is another condition that the scholars set. They say that whenever a person is put into ikrah or duress, the duress should be definite and most likely to happen and not just something the person imagines or assumes. He has to be sure. What is mentioned in this hadith should not be abused. Some Muslims today abuse what the hadith implies by using it as an excuse to not uphold a responsibility or to break a promise. Allah knows our intentions and we should not take what is mentioned in the hadith to get away from the responsibility of fulfilling a commitment or an obligation.

The misuse of the principle of Dhuroora (necessity)

Unfortunately today some people misuse Islamic principles in order to justify clearly prohibited actions. One of the most commonly misapplied principles is that of Dhuroora (necessity). People often use it to justify taking interest based loans, working in jobs that involve haram, engaging in bribery, supporting kufr political parties and a variety of other prohibited actions. They attempt to justify this from Islamic texts by saying that when your dying of hunger it becomes permitted to eat pork and other haram foods. From this they generalise and say therefore we can break the Shariah rules under any type of difficulty.

It is true that Allah said: "He has forbidden you Al-Maytah (meat of a dead animal), blood, flesh of swine, and any animal which is slaughtered as a sacrifice for other than Allah. But if one is forced by necessity without willful disobedience and not transgressing, then there is no sin on him." [al-Baqara, 2:173]

So, the person who is in dire need can eat of what he finds from these prohibited food which is enough to keep him alive. It must be understood that these rules are specific rules with specific evidences, from them we cannot generalize and say that we are allowed to bend the shariah rules on the basis of any hardship, to do this would be haram. We must be careful here when we talk about the principle of "necessity ". Let us refer to what the classical ulema have said about this matter. Imam al Razi Al Jassas al Hanafi says in his Ahkam al Quran: "Here the meaning of necessity purports the fear for life and limb when someone avoids foods (that are in essence forbidden) ....."

Ibn Qudamah al Maqdasi al Hanabli in his Al Mughni says: "If it has become established, then the necessity that is expedient is the type that leads to starvation if the food is left". He continues to say: "...The reason for the allowance of is the need to preserve the self from destruction because this Maslaha is more beneficial than the benefit of avoiding the impure...."

Imam Abu Hamid Al Ghazali Al Shafi says in his Wasit (): "As for necessity we imply the state that probably will lead to the person's destruction, If, for example he does not eat and similarly if he fears that an illness would lead to death....."  Imam Ibn Juzi al Maliki says: "...As for necessity it is the fear of death and it is not conditional that someone is patient to such an extent that he witnesses his own death".

Clearly then we are talking about an acute scenario that is particular. Even this has certain constraints according to many of the Ulema.

(1) That there is no other means to remove this overbearing situation.

(2) That this does not affect the rights of others. In other words we try to look for an exit that does not affect others. At least in principle to such an extent that a number of Ulema forbid Muslims to eat dead human flesh in matters of starvation because this affects the rights of others i.e. those of the dead.

Another very common example is the sinking ship scenario. What if we are going to sink because of the excessive weight of the passengers, do we throw a few overboard to their doom to save the majority? The vast majority refuse this scenario of utilitarianism in Dhuroora. Another example is the Muslim prisoner shield that is put up in defence of a non Muslim army. This example is typically allowed for as a Dhuroora on a state level but more importantly because there are textual indications that allow collateral damage if it cannot be avoided. Some scholars understand this point as a Duroorah Kulia i.e. an all encompassing Duroorah (It applies to the Muslims as a whole rather than some at the expense of others)

(3) Uttering Kufr by force is a Rukhsa (legal permission) and it is better according when forced on pains of torture and death to avoid it. Imam Suyuti in Ashbah wal Nadhair page 63 says: "Eating the flesh of the dead in times of necessity takes precedence over taking someone else's money (to purchase food)." The scholars also differed on whether you can take drink alcohol when you are dying from thirst. Imam Shafi thought that alcohol makes the thirst even worse. Others also differed on whether one can take medication that has forbidden elements in it. Finally even some scholars did not consider it a sin if someone refused to take anything forbidden at all. Anyway all four schools of thought and in fact the consensus agree that Dhuroora in the fiqhi sense makes some things that are forbidden allowed in an acute scenario. Remember this is not a norm but for very particular severe situations. It cannot be made a law. Certainly it cannot lead to a normal rule for an entire population.

So one cannot claim that they have to take an interest based mortgage to buy a house on the pretext of necessity as they can rent or stay with relatives. Similarly someone can't claim that he has to pay bribery to achieve his interests as he can achieve them in a legitimate way even if it is more difficult. Someone working in a job that involves haram such as in a restaurant where they would have to serve alcohol or as a cashier in a bank where they would have to receive and give riba (usury) can get another job that is halal even if it is lesser in pay.

The countless ayat and ahadith ordering us to undertake our actions according to the commands and prohibitions of Allah can't just be washed away based upon some difficulty or hardship. "And certainly, We shall test you with something of fear, hunger, loss of wealth, lives and fruits, but give glad tidings to As-Sabirin (the patient ones.)." [al-Baqarah:155-157]

We should listen to the warning of the Messenger of Allah* when he said: "Be prompt in doing good deeds (before you are overtaken) by turbulence which would be like a part of the dark night. During (that stormy period) a man would be a Muslim in the morning and an unbeliever in the evening or he would be a believer in the evening and an unbeliever in the morning, and would sell his Deen for worldly goods" [Sahih Muslim]

Allah says: "It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error." [al-Ahzaab:36]

Children's Feedback:

• Muslim Invention of a Postal Service – through birds
• Selected hadith on the many qualities of the Prophet*
• Joy & Sorrows
• Prophet Isa (Jesus)