Inquiry about “selling the mother of a child” and “marrying a chaste right hand slave”

 The first doubt is this hadith:

We sold the mothers of our children during the time of the Messenger of Allah and the time of Abu Bakr, but when Umar was in power, he forbade us, so we stopped. Narrator: Jabir bin Abdullah Narrator: Al-Albani - Source: Irwa’ Al-Ghaleel - Page or number: 1777
Summary of the narrator’s ruling: Sahih.


The second doubt is this hadith:
We captured captives on the day of Awtas, and they had husbands among their people . So they mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah, so the verse was revealed: {And chaste women, except those your right hands possess} Narrator: Abu Saeed Al-Khudri Narrator: Al-Albani - Source: Sahih Al-Tirmidhi - Page or number: 1132
Summary of the narrator’s ruling: Sahih.

The third doubt is this question:
Did Khalid bin Al-Walid kill Malik bin Nuwairah in order to marry his wife?

The first doubt is this hadith:
We sold the mothers of our children during the time of the Messenger of God and the time of Abu Bakr, but when Umar came, he forbade us, so we stopped. Narrator: Jabir bin Abdullah. Narrator: Al-Albani - Source: Irwa’ al-Ghaleel - Page or number: 1777
Summary of the narrator’s ruling: Authentic.

The correct statement is that it is forbidden, and that the mothers of children are not sold because the mothers of children are freed by death:

On the authority of Al-Khattab bin Salih, on the authority of his mother, she said: Salamah bint Maqal told me: I was with Al-Habbab bin Amr and I had a boy from him , so his wife said to me: Now you are being sold for his religion, so I came to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and his family and grant them peace, and mentioned that to him, so he said: Who is the owner of the estate of Al-Habbab bin Amr? They said: His brother Abu Al-Yusr Kaab bin Amr, so he called him and said: Do not sell her, but free her. When you hear that a slave has come to me, then come to me and I will compensate you. So they did , and they differed among themselves after the death of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and his family and grant them peace. Some people said: The mother of the child is a slave, otherwise the Messenger of God, may God bless him and his family and grant them peace, would not have compensated you. Some people said: She is free and the Messenger of God, may God bless him and his family and grant them peace, has freed her. So the difference was
in the Narrator: Salamah bint Maqil Narrator: Al-Shawkani - Source: Al-Sayl Al-Jarrar - Page or number: 3/33


Summary of the narrator’s ruling: Its chain of transmission is sound. The mother of the child is not sold. Narrator
: Khawwat bin Jubayr Narrator: Al-Albani - Source: As-Silsilah As-Sahihah - Page or number: 2417
Summary of the narrator’s ruling: It is authentic according to the sum of its chains of transmission.

Any man whose female slave gives birth to a child from him, she is freed from his mother after he has given birth
. Narrator: Abdullah bin Abbas Narrator: Al-Albani - Source: As-Silsilah As-Sahihah - Page or number: 5/544
Summary of the narrator’s ruling: Its chain of transmission is according to the conditions of Al-Bukhari, with a weakness in the memory of Sharik bin Abdullah

and the hadith of Ibn Omar and the hadith of Jabir, the hadith of Ibn Omar states that the mothers of children - the mother of a child - is the female slave who was penetrated by her master, and she gave birth to what is considered a mother of a child, meaning: a pregnancy that was formed or began to form, it is not a condition that it be alive, a hand, a head, or a leg, or contrary to some issues if nothing appeared and the beginning of formation appeared, so if she became pregnant, for example, and gave birth even if it was a crack and there was formation in it, then she is a mother of a child.

The scholars differed regarding the mother of a child; because they were abundant at that time, and also if it was wanted to be completed from jihad, that ruling was found, the majority of scholars, most of them are of the opinion that she is not sold or given as a gift, as Omar - may Allah be pleased with him - said, and this report is authentic from Omar, and its attribution to the Prophet - may Allah have mercy on him - is a mistake as Al-Hafiz - may Allah have mercy on him - mentioned, and it was reported from Ali - may Allah be pleased with him - that he heard Omar's opinion that it should not be sold, then after that he saw the opinion of selling, so Ubaidah bin Omar Al-Salmani said: Your opinion and Omar's opinion regarding the group is more beloved to us than your opinion alone.

It was also narrated from some of the Companions, who said: It is not sold or given as a gift . They also provided evidence with the hadith of Abu Saeed Al-Khudri, and the hadith of Jabir bin Abdullah, that he - may God bless him and grant him peace - said: O Messenger of God, about the sweet woman, and we desire women and they had mothers of children, so they asked him to have intercourse with them, and it was as if they hated to have intercourse with them. It was said: For fear that they would become pregnant, so it would be forbidden to sell them if they became pregnant - if she became pregnant, and this supports the statement of the one who said: It is not sold. (*)

Any man whose female slave gives birth to her, she is freed from her husband’s anus .
Narrator: Abdullah bin Abbas. Narrator: Al-Albani - Source: As-Silsilah As-Saheehah - Page or number: 5/544
Summary of the narrator’s ruling: Its chain of transmission is according to the conditions of Al-Bukhari, with a weakness in the memory of Sharek bin Abdullah.

The second doubt is this hadith
: We captured female captives on the day of Awtas, and they had husbands among their people . So they mentioned that to the Messenger of God, and the following was revealed: {And chaste women, except those your right hands possess.} Narrator: Abu Saeed Al-Khudri Narrator of Hadith: Al-Albani - Source: Sahih Al-Tirmidhi - Page or number: 1132
Summary of the Hadith’s ruling: Sahih

{And chaste women, except those your right hands possess. This is the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are all beyond that, that you may seek with your wealth, in chastity, not in fornication. So whatever of them you have enjoyed, give them their dowries as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree upon after the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.}
[An-Nisa’: 24]

Chastity is used to mean chastity, and chastity is used to mean It means that she is free, and chastity is used to mean that she is married, and chaste women are used to mean free women. The general status of a free woman is what makes her eligible and no one dares to attack her, but suppose a woman is married and then a dispute or war occurs between her people and the believers and she becomes a prisoner of the Muslims even though she is married according to their way in her country, and through captivity she has moved from this marriage and come to the Islamic environment and become a slave, and her ownership and captivity have removed chastity from her, so He said: {Except those whom your right hands possess}.

So she is a right-hand possession and the chastity is dropped from her , and the Muslim can marry her or enjoy her if she enters his possession even if she is married because there is a difference in the two worlds, she is in the house of Islam and she left the house of war so she became the right-hand possession, and this does not happen except after she has been purified and it is confirmed that her womb is free of a fetus that she brought from her people, according to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) regarding the captives of Awtas:

“A pregnant woman should not be touched until she gives birth, nor a non-pregnant woman until she menstruates.” This is an honour for her because when she was separated from her husband and became a right-hand possession, Allaah did not want to prevent her, but rather made her enjoy her master and live under his protection so that she would not be deprived of emotional and physical contact, instead of her master invading people’s honour. (*)

If a married non-Muslim is taken captive, there are three conditions; one of them is that both spouses are taken captive together, in which case their marriage is not annulled. This is what Abu Hanifa and Al-Awza’i said. Malik, Ath-Thawri, Al-Layth, Ash-Shafi’i and Abu Thawr said: Their marriage is annulled, because Allah the Almighty said: {And chaste women, except those your right hands possess} and chaste married women {except those your right hands possess} by captivity. Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri said: This verse was revealed about the captives of Awtas. Ibn Abbas said: Except those captives who had husbands.

And because he took control of the place of the right of the infidel, so his ownership was removed, as if he had captured her alone. And for us, slavery is a meaning that does not prevent the beginning of marriage, so it does not interrupt its continuation, like manumission. The verse was revealed about the captives of Awtas, and they had taken the women without their husbands. The generality of the verse is specific to the slave woman who is married in the House of Islam, so the place of dispute is excluded from it by analogy.

The second case is that the woman is captured alone, so the marriage is annulled, without any disagreement that we know of.

The verse indicates this. Abu Saeed Al-Khudri narrated: We captured female captives on the day of Awtas, and they had husbands among their people. This was mentioned to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and the following verse was revealed: {And chaste women, except those your right hands possess .} Narrated by Al-Tirmidhi, who said: This is a good hadith. However, Abu Hanifa said: If a woman is captured alone, then her husband is captured a day later, the marriage contract is not annulled.

And for us, the reason requiring annulment was found, so the marriage contract was annulled, as if he was taken captive after a month. The third case, if the man alone is taken captive, then the marriage contract is not annulled; because there is no text in it, nor does analogy require it. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, took seventy infidels captive on the day of Badr, and he pardoned some of them and ransomed others, so he did not rule that their marriages should be annulled. And because if we do not rule that the marriage contract should be annulled if they were both taken captive, while taking possession of the place of his right, then it is more appropriate that his marriage contract should not be annulled without taking possession. Abu al-Khattab said: If one of the spouses is taken captive, the marriage contract is annulled. And they are not separated.

Abu Hanifa said the same; because the spouses were separated by the house, and ownership came to one of them, so the marriage contract was annulled, as if the woman alone was taken captive. Al-Shafi’i said: If he was taken captive and enslaved, his marriage contract is annulled, but if he pardoned him or ransomed him, it is not annulled. And for us, what we mentioned, is that the captive did not lose his ownership of his money in the land of war, so he did not lose it from his wife, just as he did not lose it from his female slave. (*)

Original post by galileo 

The third doubt is this question:
Did Khalid bin Al-Walid kill Malik bin Nuwairah in order to marry his wife?

I read a response to it in Islam Question and Answer, but I did not understand anything.

I hope you will respond to them, please.

What do you not understand from the answer here, my dear brother?

Did Khalid ibn al-Walid kill Malik ibn Nuwairah in order to marry his wife?

As explained:

This great companion, Khalid ibn al-Walid, was subjected to campaigns of slander and distortion carried out by some orientalists who accept every story without research or scrutiny, and by groups of Shiites out of hatred and spite towards this companion who performed well in fighting the infidels and protecting the Muslim state during the era of the Rightly-Guided Caliphate.

Some of these attacks include the famous story of the killing of Malik bin Nuwairah and Khalid marrying his wife Laila bint Sinan.

The reason for his killing was his refusal to pay zakat,

the correct statement is that “selling the mother of a child” is forbidden, and that the mothers of children are not sold because the mothers of children are freed by death: On the authority of Al-Khattab bin Salih, on the authority of his mother, she said: Salamah bint Maqal told me: I was with Al-Habbab bin Amr and I had a boy from him , and his wife said to me: Now you are being sold for his religion, so I came to the Messenger of God, may God bless him and his family and grant them peace, and I mentioned that to him, and he said: Who is the owner of the estate of Al-Habbab bin Amr? They said: His brother Abu Al-Yusr Kaab bin Amr, so he called him and said: Do not sell her, but free her. When you hear that a slave has come to me, then come to me and I will compensate you. So they did , and they differed among themselves after the death of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and his family and grant them peace. Some people said: The mother of the child is a slave, otherwise the Messenger of God, may God bless him and his family and grant them peace, would not have compensated you. Some people said: She is free and the Messenger of God, may God bless him and his family and grant them peace, has freed her. So the difference was in the Narrator: Salamah bint Maqil Narrator: Al-Shawkani - Source: Al-Sayl Al-Jarrar - Page or number: 3/33 Summary of the narrator’s ruling: Its chain of transmission is sound. The mother of the child is not sold. Narrator : Khawwat bin Jubayr Narrator: Al-Albani - Source: As-Silsilah As-Sahihah - Page or number: 2417 Summary of the narrator’s ruling: It is authentic according to the sum of its chains of transmission. Any man whose female slave gives birth to a child from him, she is freed from his mother after he has given birth . Narrator: Abdullah bin Abbas Narrator: Al-Albani - Source: As-Silsilah As-Sahihah - Page or number: 5/544 Summary of the narrator’s ruling: Its chain of transmission is according to the conditions of Al-Bukhari, with a weakness in the memory of Sharik bin Abdullah: As for the hadith that you mentioned, you will find its explanation in: Sunan Abi Dawood >> Emancipation >> On Emancipating the Mothers of Children Awn al-Ma’bud Sharh Sunan Abi Dawood (So we have finished) : Ahmad and Ibn Majah narrated on the authority of Abu al-Zubayr on the authority of Jabir that he heard him say: We used to sell our concubines, the mothers of our children, while the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, was alive among us. We saw no harm in that. Al-Bayhaqi said: There is nothing in the chains of transmission that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, knew about that, meaning the sale of the mothers of children, and approved of it. End quote. As for the statement of the Companion: We used to do it, it is based on the hadith being raised according to the Sahih, and the two sheikhs acted upon it. And Abd al-Razzaq narrated that Ibn Jurayj informed us, that Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Walid informed us that Abu Ishaq al-Hamdani informed him that Abu Bakr al-Siddiq used to sell the mothers of children during his emirate, and Umar did so during half of his emirate. Al-Mundhiri said: An-Nasa’i and Ibn Majah narrated from the hadith of Abu al-Zubayr from Jabir who said: We used to sell the mothers of children while the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was alive and did not see anything wrong with it. It is a good hadeeth. An-Nasa’i narrated from the hadeeth of Zayd al-Ammi from Abu al-Siddiq al-Naji from Abu Sa’eed regarding the mothers of children:


He said: We used to sell them during the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, except that the hadith of Zayd the blind cannot be relied upon. Some of the people of knowledge said: It is possible that this action was done by them during the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and he did not realize that it was something that rarely happened, or that the mothers of children were not like other slaves that were traded among the owners. Their sale increases, and the matter is not hidden from the elite or the general public.
It is possible that this was permissible in the first era, then the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade it, but Abu Bakr did not know about it because it did not happen during his days due to the short duration of their time or because he was busy with religious matters and fighting the apostates. Then Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) forbade it when he heard about it from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), so they stopped doing it. It's over.

Here .

The second doubt is this hadith: We captured captives on the day of Autas, and they had husbands among their people. So they mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah, so the following was revealed: {And chaste women, except those your right hands possess} Narrator: Abu Saeed Al-Khudri Narrator: Al-Albani - Source: Sahih Al-Tirmidhi - Page or number: 1132 Summary of the narrator’s ruling: Authentic.

But suppose that a woman was married and then a dispute or war occurred between her people and the believers and she became a captive of the Muslims even though she was married according to their way in her country. Through captivity, she moved from this marriage and came to the Islamic environment and became a slave. Her ownership and captivity removed her chastity,

but what was her fault in a war she did not participate in?

I really don't know, my dear brother, where you got your saying, " A war you didn't enter."

If you weren't in the war, how was it taken if you weren't fighting?!

We have already made this point clear, my dear brother.

And because he took over the place of the infidel’s right, his ownership was removed, as if he had taken her captive alone. And for us, slavery is a meaning that does not prevent the beginning of marriage, nor does it interrupt its continuation, like manumission, and the verse was revealed about the captives of Awtas, and they had taken the women without their husbands, and the generality of the verse is specific to the female slave who is married in the House of Islam, so the place of dispute is specific to it by analogy to it. (*)

Then I explained to you that this is a gift for her, not a hardship for her.

This can only happen after she has been purified and is certain that her womb is free of a fetus that she may have brought from her people, based on the words of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, regarding the captives of Awtas:

“A pregnant woman should not be touched until she gives birth, nor a non-pregnant woman until she menstruates.” This is an honor for her because when she was separated from her husband and became a slave by right hand, God did not want to prevent her, but rather made her enjoy her master and live under his protection so that she would not be deprived of emotional and physical contact, instead of her master slandering people. (*)

Did Khalid bin Al-Walid kill Malik bin Nuwairah so he could marry his wife?
Given the reason for his killing was his refusal to pay zakat,
please clarify what you did not understand in the response, my honorable brother.

The question is why did he marry Laila bint Sinan after that? Did Khalid bin Al-Walid kill

Malik bin Nuwairah because he saw his wife and liked her, as the Shiites say?
These are my questions, and I hope you will answer for us. Thank you, my brothers.

No, he did not kill him because he liked his wife, as the falsifiers claim.

Rather, this was, as explained, to prevent him from paying zakat.

 Khalid ibn al-Walid killing Malik ibn Nuwayrah is that either he was right and killed him for withholding zakat and denying its obligation after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or he was wrong and rushed to kill him when it would have been more appropriate for him to investigate and verify. In either case, there is no criticism of Khalid (may Allaah be pleased with him) .

Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) says in Minhaaj as-Sunnah (5/518):

“ It is not known that Malik ibn Nuwayrah was not protected by blood, and this has not been proven to us.
Then it can be said: The most that can be said about the story of Malik ibn Nuwayrah is that his blood was protected, and Khalid killed him based on an interpretation. This does not permit the killing of Khalid,
just as when Usamah ibn Zayd killed the man who said: ‘There is no god but Allaah’,
the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to him: ‘O Usamah, did you kill him after he said: ‘There is no god but Allaah’? O Usamah, did you kill him after he said: ‘There is no god but Allaah’
? O Usamah, did you kill him after he said: ‘There is no god but Allaah’?”
"He denied his killing, and did not require retaliation, blood money, or expiation.


Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari and others narrated on the authority of Ibn Abbas and Qatadah that this verse: The Almighty’s saying:

( And do not say to one who gives you peace, “You are not a believer”) was revealed regarding Mirdas, a man from Ghatafan. The Prophet,

may God bless him and grant him peace, sent an army to his people, led by Ghalib al-Laythi. His companions fled, but he did not flee. He said: I am a believer. The horses attacked him, and he greeted them. They killed him and took his sheep. So God revealed this verse, and the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, ordered that his property be returned to his family and his blood money to them, and he forbade the believers from doing the same.

Likewise, Khalid ibn al-Walid killed Banu Juthaymah based on an interpretation, and the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, raised his hands and said: “O God, I disavow before You what Khalid did.”

Despite this, the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, did not kill him because he was based on an interpretation. So if the Prophet “ He was not killed with his killing except for one of the Muslims from Banu Judhaymah for the interpretation, so Abu Bakr would not have killed him for killing Malik bin Nuwayrah by way of the first and most appropriate way.” End.

As for the accusation of Khalid bin Al-Walid, may God be pleased with him, that he killed Malik bin Nuwayrah in order to marry his wife because of his previous desire for her, it seems that it is an early accusation that Malik himself and some of his followers threw at him ,
and they do not have any apparent evidence for it, but it seems that he made it to cover up the real reason for which he was killed, which was to prevent the zakat, as

is indicated by: the dialogue that Al-Waqidi transmitted between Khalid and Malik.

Al-Waqidi said in “The Book of Apostasy” (107-108):

“ Malik ibn Nuwayrah turned to his wife, looked at her and then said: O Khalid, will you kill me for this?
Khalid said: Rather, for the sake of Allah, I will kill you, for your turning away from the religion of Islam, your refusal – meaning your prevention – of the camels of charity, and your order for your people to withhold what is due from them of the zakat of their wealth.

He said: Then Khalid brought him forward and struck his neck with patience.

It is said that Khalid ibn al-Walid married Malik’s wife and consummated the marriage with her, and the people of knowledge are unanimously agreed on this.” End quote .

Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar says in “Al-Isabah” (5/755):

“And Thabit ibn Qasim narrated in “Al-Dala’il” that Khalid saw Malik’s wife – and she was extremely beautiful – and Malik said to his wife after that: You killed me! Meaning: I will be killed for your sake.”

This is what he said out of suspicion, so it happened that he was killed, and he was not killed for the sake of the woman as he thought.” End quote.


Ibn Hajar al-Haytami says in “al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqah” (1/91):

“The truth is that Khalid was not killed, because Malik apostatized and returned his people’s charity when he heard of the death of the Messenger of God, as the apostates did, and Malik’s brother admitted that to Umar.


And his marriage to his wife: perhaps because her waiting period had ended after she gave birth after his death, or it is possible that she was imprisoned with him after her waiting period from husbands had ended according to the custom of the Age of Ignorance. In any case, Khalid was too pious to be suspected of such a vile act that would not be committed by the lowest of believers, so how about the sword of Allah drawn against His enemies?
The truth is what Abu Bakr did, not what Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, objected to him with. This is supported by the fact that when the caliphate was entrusted to Umar, he did not confront Khalid, nor did he rebuke him, nor did he say a word about this matter at all.
So he knew that what Abu Bakr did was right, so he retracted his objection. Otherwise, he would not have left him when he took over the matter independently, because he was too pious to be lenient with anyone in the religion of Allah.

The question

I am asking about an article I read on a Shia website which stated: Khalid saw Malik’s wife - and she was extremely beautiful - and Malik then said to his wife: You killed me. Meaning: I will be killed for your sake. Al-Zamakhshari, Ibn al-Athir, Abu al-Fida, and al-Zubaidi said: Malik ibn Nuwayrah, may God be pleased with him, said to his wife on the day Khalid ibn Walid killed him: Did you kill me? I am asking about the extent of the authenticity of this narration.

The answer

Thank God.

First:
The noble companion Khalid bin Al-Walid, the sword of Allah drawn against the polytheists, and the leader of the Mujahideen, the Qurashi Makhzumi, converted to Islam in the year 7 AH after the conquest of Khaybar, and it was said before that, and he died in the year 21 AH, and he had many virtues, and among the most important of what came in his virtues:
1- On the authority of Anas, may Allah be pleased with him:
That the Prophet, may Allah’s prayers and peace be upon him, announced the death of Zaid, Ja’far, and Ibn Rawahah to the people before the news of them came to them, so he said:
(Zaid took the banner and was struck, then Ja’far took it and was struck, then Ibn Rawahah took it and was struck) and his eyes were shedding tears (until a sword from the swords of Allah took the banner until Allah granted them victory)
Narrated by Al-Bukhari (4262)
2- On the authority of Amr ibn al-Aas, may God be pleased with him, who said:
“The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, did not consider any of his companions equal to me and Khalid ibn al-Walid since we converted to Islam.” Narrated by al-Hakim in “al-Mustadrak” (3/515) and Abu Ya’la in “al-Musnad” (13/274). Al-Haythami said in “Majma’ al-Zawa’id” (9/350): Its men are trustworthy.
Second:
This great companion has been subjected to campaigns of slander and distortion carried out by some orientalists who accept every story without research or scrutiny, and by groups of Shiites out of hatred and spite towards this companion who performed well in fighting the infidels and protecting the Muslim state during the era of the Rightly-Guided Caliphate.

Among these slanders is the famous story of the killing of Malik ibn Nuwayrah and Khalid marrying his wife Layla bint Sinan.
Malik ibn Nuwayrah was known as Abu Hanzala, and was a poet and knight from the knights of Banu Yarbu’. The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, used to employ him in collecting the alms of his people.

Historical accounts agree on a common factor, that Malik ibn Nuwayrah was killed by some of Khalid ibn al-Walid’s soldiers, and that Khalid later married his wife Layla bint Sinan.
As for the reason for killing Malik ibn Nuwayrah and mentioning some of the circumstances of that incident, the accounts differed in explaining it, except that most of the ancient historians who recorded that incident, such as Al-Waqidi, Ibn Ishaq, Wuthaymah, Saif ibn Umar, Ibn Saad, Khalifa ibn Khayyat and others, mentioned Malik ibn Nuwayrah’s refusal to pay zakat and his withholding of the charity camels, and his people preventing him from paying it, which prompted Khalid to kill him, without paying attention to what he showed of Islam and prayer.
Ibn Salam said in “Tabaqat Fuhool Al-Shu’ara” (172):
“The consensus is that Khalid debated with him and rejected him, and that Malik allowed the prayer and turned away from paying zakat.” End quote.
Al-Waqidi said in “Al-Ridda” (107-108):
“Then Khalid brought Malik ibn Nuwayrah forward to behead him, so Malik said: Are you going to kill me while I am a Muslim who prays towards the qiblah?!” Khalid said to him: If you were a Muslim, you would not have withheld zakat, nor would you have ordered your people to withhold it.” End quote.
This was also mentioned repeatedly by historians after them, such as al-Tabari, Ibn al-Athir, Ibn Kathir, al-Dhahabi, and others.

Some narrations speak of a relationship between Malik ibn Nuwayrah and Sajah, who claimed prophethood, and also refer to a bad speech issued by Malik ibn Nuwayrah, from which it is understood that he had apostatized from the religion of Islam, as Ibn Kathir mentioned in “al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah” (6/322), where he said:
“It is said: Rather, Khalid summoned Malik bin Nuwairah, and reprimanded him for following Sajah and for withholding the zakat, and said: Didn’t you know that it is a companion of the prayer? Malik said: Your companion used to claim that. He said: Is he our companion and not your companion?! O Dhirar, strike off his head. So his head was struck off.” End quote.

So why did some of the Companions denounce Khalid bin al-Walid for killing Malik bin Nuwairah, as Umar bin al-Khattab, his son Abdullah, and Abu Qatada al-Ansari did?
The reason for this can be seen from some narrations, as it seems that Malik bin Nuwairah was ambiguous at the beginning of his position on zakat, as he did not explicitly deny its obligation, nor did he perform it, so his matter was confused for these companions, except that Khalid bin Al-Walid took him on suspicion and killed him. Since Malik bin Nuwairah appeared to be a Muslim and prayed, it was incumbent upon Khalid to investigate and take his time in his matter, and to consider the truth of what Malik bin Nuwairah’s opinion on zakat would lead to, so those companions who denied it, may God be pleased with them, denounced him.
It was stated in Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah by Ibn Katheer, may God have mercy on him (6/322):
“So Khalid sent out the raiding parties in the plains calling the people, and the leaders of Banu Tamim received him with obedience and obedience, and they gave zakat, except for Malik ibn Nuwayrah, who seemed confused about his situation and withdrew from the people. Then the raiding parties came to him and took him prisoner and his companions prisoner with him, and the raiding parties differed about them. Abu Qatada Al-Harith ibn Rib’i Al-Ansari testified that they had performed the prayer, and others said that they had not called the adhan or prayed.” End quote.
Since Malik ibn Nuwayrah was one of the notables and nobles of his people, and his position was unclear at the beginning, his brother Mutammam ibn Nuwayrah complained about what Khalid had done to Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq, may God be pleased with him, so that led to Khalid being rebuked and accused of making a mistake in rushing to kill Malik ibn Nuwayrah before referring his matter to Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq and the senior Companions, may God be pleased with them.
Khalifa bin Khayyat (1/17) narrated:
“Ali bin Muhammad narrated to us on the authority of Abu Dhi’b on the authority of Al-Zuhri on the authority of Salim on the authority of his father who said: Abu Qatada came to Abu Bakr and informed him of the killing of Malik and his companions, and he was extremely upset by that, so Abu Bakr wrote to Khalid and he came to him. Abu Bakr said: Does Khalid do more than interpret and make a mistake? Abu Bakr sent Khalid back, and paid the blood money for Malik bin Nuwayrah, and returned the captives and the money.” End quote.
Ibn Hajar said in “Al-Isabah” (5/755):
“His brother Mutammam bin Nuwayrah came to Abu Bakr and recited to him a eulogy for his brother, and he appealed to him about his blood and their captives, so Abu Bakr returned the captives. Al-Zubayr bin Bakkar mentioned that Abu Bakr ordered Khalid to divorce the aforementioned wife of Malik, and Umar was harsh to Khalid about the matter of Malik, but as for Abu Bakr, he excused him.” End quote.

This is the most that can be said about Khalid ibn al-Walid killing Malik ibn Nuwayrah. Either he was right in killing him for withholding zakat and denying its obligation after the death of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, or he was wrong in hastening to kill him when it would have been more appropriate for him to investigate and verify. In either case, there is no objection to Khalid, may God be pleased with him.
Ibn Taymiyyah, may God have mercy on him, says in “Minhaaj as-Sunnah” (5/518):
“Malik ibn Nuwayrah is not known to have been infallible in blood, and this has not been proven to us. Then it is said: The most that can be said about the story of Malik ibn Nuwayrah is that his blood was infallible, and that Khalid killed him based on an interpretation. This does not permit the killing of Khalid, just as when Usamah ibn Zayd killed the man who said: There is no god but Allah, the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, said to him: “O Usamah, did you kill him after he said: There is no god but Allah? O Usamah, did you kill him after he said: There is no god but Allah? O Usamah, did you kill him after he said: There is no god but Allah?” "He denied his killing, and did not require retaliation, blood money, or expiation.
Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari and others narrated on the authority of Ibn Abbas and Qatadah that this verse: The Almighty’s saying:
(And do not say to one who gives you peace, “You are not a believer”) was revealed regarding Mirdas, a man from Ghatafan. The Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, sent an army to his people, led by Ghalib al-Laythi. His companions fled, but he did not flee. He said: I am a believer. The horses attacked him, and he greeted them. They killed him and took his sheep. So God revealed this verse, and the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, ordered that his property be returned to his family and his blood money to them, and he forbade the believers from doing the same.
Likewise, Khalid ibn al-Walid killed Banu Juthaymah based on an interpretation, and the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, raised his hands and said: “O God, I disavow before You what Khalid did.” Despite this, the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, did not kill him because he was based on an interpretation. So if the Prophet “He was not killed with his killing except for one of the Muslims from Banu Judhaymah for the interpretation, so Abu Bakr would not have killed him for killing Malik bin Nuwayrah by way of the first and most appropriate way.” End.

As for the accusation of Khalid bin Al-Walid, may God be pleased with him, that he killed Malik bin Nuwayrah in order to marry his wife because of his previous desire for her, it seems that it is an early accusation that Malik himself and some of his followers threw at him, and they do not have any apparent evidence for it, but it seems that he made it to cover up the real reason for which he was killed, which was to prevent the zakat, as is indicated by: the dialogue that Al-Waqidi transmitted between Khalid and Malik.
Al-Waqidi said in “The Book of Apostasy” (107-108):
“Malik ibn Nuwayrah turned to his wife, looked at her and then said: O Khalid, will you kill me for this?
Khalid said: Rather, for the sake of Allah, I will kill you, for your turning away from the religion of Islam, your refusal – meaning your prevention – of the camels of charity, and your order for your people to withhold what is due from them of the zakat of their wealth. He said: Then Khalid brought him forward and struck his neck with patience.
It is said that Khalid ibn al-Walid married Malik’s wife and consummated the marriage with her, and the people of knowledge are unanimously agreed upon this.” End quote.
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar says in “Al-Isabah” (5/755):
“And Thabit ibn Qasim narrated in “Al-Dala’il” that Khalid saw Malik’s wife – and she was extremely beautiful – and Malik said to his wife after that: You killed me! Meaning: I will be killed for your sake. He
said this out of suspicion, so it happened that he was killed, and his killing was not for the sake of the woman as he thought.” End quote.
Ibn Hajar al-Haytami says in “Al-Sawaiq Al-Muhriqah” (1/91):
“The truth is that Khalid was not killed, because Malik apostatized and returned his people’s alms when he heard of the death of the Messenger of God, as the apostates did, and Malik’s brother admitted that to Umar.”
And his marriage to his wife: perhaps because her waiting period had expired after she gave birth after his death, or it is possible that she was imprisoned with him after her waiting period from husbands had expired according to the custom of the Age of Ignorance. In any case, Khalid was too pious to be suspected of such a vile act that would not be committed by the lowest of believers, so how about the sword of God drawn against his enemies? The truth is what Abu Bakr did, not what Umar, may God be pleased with them both, objected to him with. This is supported by the fact that when Umar became caliph, he did not confront Khalid, nor did he rebuke him, nor did he ever say a word about this matter, so he knew that what Abu Bakr did was right, so he retracted his objection. Otherwise, he would not have left him when he took over the matter independently. “Because he was more pious to God than to flatter anyone in the religion of God.” End quote.

Dr. Ali al-Sallabi says in his book “Abu Bakr al-Siddiq” (219):
“The gist of the story is that there are those who accused Khalid of marrying Umm Tamim as soon as she fell into his hands, because he could not bear her beauty and because of his previous love for her. Thus, his marriage to her – God forbid – was fornication. This is a new statement that is not to be relied upon, as the ancient sources are devoid of any reference to it. Rather, they contradict it in their explicit texts. Al-Mawardi mentions in “al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah” (47) that what made Khalid proceed to kill Malik was his withholding of the charity by which he made his blood permissible. Thus, the marriage contract between him and Umm Tamim was invalidated. The ruling on the women of apostates when they reach the land of war is that they should be taken captive and not killed, as al-Sarakhsi indicates in al-Mabsut (10/111). So when Umm Tamim was taken captive, Khalid chose her for himself, and when she was permissible, he consummated the marriage with her, as in “al-Bidaya” And the end.

Sheikh Ahmed Shaker comments on this issue by saying: Khalid took her and her son as a right hand possession as a captive, since there is no waiting period for a captive, and it is absolutely forbidden for her owner to approach her if she is pregnant before she gives birth, and if she is not pregnant until she menstruates once, then he entered her, which is a permissible and lawful act that is not flawed or questionable, except that his enemies and those who disagreed with him saw their opportunity in this act, so they seized it and went on to claim that Malik bin Nuwayrah was a Muslim, and that Khalid killed him for the sake of his wife. As for what he mentioned about marrying his wife on the night of his murder, this is something that is not known to be proven. If it were proven, there would be an interpretation that prevents stoning. The jurists differ regarding the waiting period of death: Is it obligatory for a non-Muslim? According to two opinions. They also disputed: Is the waiting period of death obligatory for a dhimmi woman? According to two well-known opinions of the Muslims, unlike the waiting period of divorce, because that is caused by intercourse, so the womb must be clear. As for the waiting period for death, it becomes obligatory as soon as the marriage contract is made. If he dies before consummating the marriage, does she have to observe the waiting period for the unbeliever or not? There is a dispute about this. The same applies if he had consummated the marriage with her and she menstruated after consummating the marriage.
This is if the unbeliever was originally a man. As for the apostate who is killed or dies in his apostasy, according to the schools of thought of al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, Abu Yusuf and Muhammad, she does not have to observe the waiting period for death, but rather the waiting period for an irrevocable separation, because the marriage is voided by the husband’s apostasy. This separation is not a divorce according to al-Shafi’i and Ahmad, but it is a divorce according to Malik and Abu Hanifa. For this reason, they did not require her to observe the waiting period for death, but rather the waiting period for an irrevocable separation. If he did not consummate the marriage with her, then she does not have to observe the waiting period, just as she does not have to observe the waiting period for divorce.
It is known that Khalid killed Malik ibn Nuwayrah because he saw him as an apostate. If he had not consummated the marriage with his wife, then she does not have to observe ‘iddah according to most scholars. If he had consummated the marriage with her, then she must purify herself with one menstrual cycle, not with a full ‘iddah, according to one of their two opinions. According to the other opinion, it is three menstrual cycles. If he was originally a disbeliever, then his wife does not have to observe ‘iddah for her death, according to one of their two opinions. If purification with one menstrual cycle is required, then she may have menstruated. Some jurists consider part of the menstrual cycle to be ‘iddah, and if it is at the end of the menstrual cycle, then that is considered ‘iddah because it indicates that the womb is clean.
In short, we do not know that the case occurred in a way that does not allow for ijtihad, and attacking with such a thing is the opinion of someone who speaks without knowledge, and this is something that Allah and His Messenger have forbidden.” End quote.