New Trend Magazine Internet ed. (

(Phone: 410-435-5000)
Address: P.O. Box 356, Kingsville, MD 21087
[$10 for one year. $1 for sample]
Disclaimer: The views expressed are not necessarily shared by the editors.
Critical responses up to 250 words are accepted.

Rebuttal of Attacks on the Companions of Muhammad (pbuh) by Sectarian Elements
Part III

Is There any Validity in the Claims that Khalid ibn al-Waleed (r.a.) Did something unIslamic in the Case of Malik ibn Nuwaira?

(Refer to Parts I and II: In Part I we pointed out that Ali ibn abi Talib (r.a.) as well as those imams who got their wisdom from Ali (r.a.) did not insult, abuse, oppose or attack the sahaba of Muhammad, pbuh. Anyone who insults ‘Ayesha, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Usman (Allah be pleased with them) cannot claim to be a Shia of Ali (r.a.). None of the sectarians tried to answer part I. Their response was limited to letters in which they tried to abuse me. So I will go on after quoting from some more of the people they are supposed to respect if they are Shias of Ali (r.a.):

"Abdullah bin Ahmed, in Zawaid al-Musnad narrates from Hasan bin Zayd bin Hasan: My father narrated from his father who reported from Ali, r.a., that he (Ali r.a.) Said: I was with the Prophet, pbuh, when Abu Bakr and ‘Umar emerged from in front of us. He (the Prophet, pbuh, said: O Ali! These two are the leaders of all the young and old people of Paradise after the messengers and the prophets."

"Imam Muhammad narrates from Ibn Abi Hafsa that he said: I asked Muhammad bin Ali (Baqir) and Jafar bin Muhammad (Sadiq) about Abu Bakr and ‘Umar and both said that Abu Bakr and Umar were ‘Adil (just) imams; we love them and despise their enemies."

In PART II, I responded to the abusive attacks on Khalid ibn al-Waleed (r.a.) by the sectarians. I pointed out that the title of Saifullah (sword of Allah) was given to Khalid (r.a.) by the Prophet, pbuh, himself. I noted out that though the Prophet (pbuh) rejected Khalid's (r.a.) action against the Banu Jadhima, he did NOT reject Khalid (r.a.) and in fact appointed him to command Islamic forces in various fields. The Prophet's (pbuh) understood Khalid (r.a.) as a powerful force for Islam and the greatest Islamic general of all times. The Prophet's (pbuh) vision was true and Khalid (r.a.) combined intense spirituality and tremendous military abilities to carry out some of the greatest victories of Islam, including Ajnadin which changed the course of history.

The Sectarians, however, are not true followers of Muhammad (pbuh). They are followers of Ali (r.a.) (an imagined Ali, r.a., whom they have manufactured through fabricated hagiography as a man who never made a mistake). Hence these people do not accept the Prophet (pbuh) decision that Khalid (r.a.) is the sword of Allah. Again they are going against Ali, r.a., the real Ali, r.a., because when ALI WAS SENT TO REIMBURSE THE PEOPLE OF BANU JADHIMA , Ali, r.a., did not say a WORD AGAINST KHALID (r.a.). In fact Ali, r.a., never spoke against Khalid (r.a.) because he could see that the Prophet (pbuh) saw a great future for Khalid (r.a.) as the leader of Islamic armies. (Remember that in early Islam, one had to be a great Muslim to be put in command of Islamic armies. It was not a generalship which one got just by being a good soldier.)

Now, our sectarians, faced with Khalid saifullah (r.a.) at Ajnadin and the conquest of Damascus, started another smear campaign. This time their story is that Khalid (r.a.) did great wrong in killing in Malik ibn Nuwaira. Some reports indicate that after killing Ibn Nuwaira, Khalid (r.a.) married his widow. Some sectarians are shameless enough to claim that this was rape! (Naudhoobillahe min zalik. Naqle kufr, kufr nabashad..)

Let us take our readers through the story of Malik ibn Nuwaira to help them see how the sectarians distort the truth and how they lie and fabricate in their attempts to abuse the Sahaba:

Readers should remember that the chiefs of Arabia wanted to crush nascent Islam through the "apostacy movement" which was led by a series of false prophets about the time Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) passed away. It was a time of great danger for Islam. Owing to the heroism and incredible military skills of Khalid (r.a.) the powerful uprisings were crushed. [Here we do not see Ali, r.a., taking any important role in the tremendous battles which took place.]

As the Islamic forces advanced, some of the rebels had second thoughts and started retreating. One such group led by Malik bin Nuwaira was captured by Khalid's (r.a.) forces. Tabari narrates in his Tarikh that "it was a bitter cold night" and Khalid (r.a.) gave the call to "warm your prisoners." In the idiom of the Banu Kinana, this also means "kill your prisoners." Among those killed was Ibn Nuwaira.In fact he was killed by Zarar bin al-Azur (r.a.), one of the companions of the Prophet (pbuh). Khalid (r.a.) rushed to stop the killing but it was too late. (According to Tabari.)

Owing to the honesty of our narrators, we are told that there was dissent among Khalid's (r.a.) troops concerning the incident. Abu Qatada (r.a.), one of the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) was so distressed that he left the army without permission and went and complained to Abu Bakr (r.a.), the Caliph. Tabari also narrates that some of the troops claimed that Ibn Nuwaira had embraced Islam and hence his killing was doubly reprehensible. Others seem to have disagreed strongly. [It is this difference of opinion during war time which is honestly narrated by our historians and which provides fuel to the sectarians' fire.]

Tabari also narrates that Umar (r.a) objected strongly to the killing of Ibn Nuwaira and urged Abu Bakr (r.a.) to remove Khalid (r.a.) from command of the army. Abu Bakr (r.a.) listened to both sides of the story and ruled that Khalid (r.a.) had made a mistake but he accepted Khalid's (r.a) explanation and decided to keep him in command of the army. [Umar, r.a., based his position on one witness, whose witness was apparently not supported by the rest of the army including sahaba.]]

[Incidentally this, among many other incidents, takes the wind out of the sectarian story that Abu bakr and ‘Umar, Allah be pleased with both, were always united and were a "party" among the Muslims. These were two powerful personalities and disagreed strongly on tactics.)

ABU BAKR's r.a., WISDOM in accepting Khalid's, r.a. explanation turned out to be right. In the tremendous battles which followed against the Banu Hanifa and Masailama kazzab (the false prophet), Khalid's (r.a.) achievements were so great that few human beings can be compared to him.

MARRIAGE WITH CAPTIVE WOMEN: The sectarians blame Khalid (r.a.) for marrying the widow of Ibn Nuwaira. Such marriage is taught by the Qur'an itself. See references to "those whom your right hands possess." The purpose of such marriages was to heal the wounds of war and to bring the "enemy" into the family. Khalid (r.a.) was only doing what Allah has permitted.

In one of the victories of Khalid (r.a.) against Masailama kazzab, a woman was captured whom hazrat Ali (r.a.) married and she became the mother of his son Muhammad who came to be known as Muhammad ibn al-Hanfiyya. (See Al-Bidaya wa un-Nihayya, vol.6., by ibn Kathir, chapter on Malik ibn Nuwaira).

Here we see Ali, r.a., doing something which the sectarians are blaming Khalid, r.a., for doing. Can these enemies of Islam still claim to be the followers of Ali, r.a.? In fact, according to the war laws of Islam, Khalid (r.a.) had more of a right to marry the widow of his enemy, because he was involved in that battle and hence the healing was even more important. Ali (r.a.) was not even in the battle.

I hope the sectarians, if they have any Islam in them, will apologize to the Muslim ummah. If they do not, they will hear from me again so that their garbage may be disposed of into the dustbin of history.

2002-09-19 Thu 04:31ct