Bani Mustaliq
There is a suspicion raised by the Shiites and Christians that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, God forbid, was a highwayman according to our Sunni narrations.
Citing the following hadith narrated in Sahih Al-Bukhari:
2581 - Ali ibn al-Hasan narrated to us, Abdullah informed us, Ibn Awn informed us, he said: I wrote to Nafi’ and he wrote to me that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, raided Banu al-Mustaliq while they were unaware and their livestock were being watered at the watering place, so he killed their fighters and took their children captive, and on that day he captured Juwayriyah. Abdullah ibn Umar narrated it to me, and he was in That army.
The hadith is authentic and was mentioned in the Book of Emancipation of Slaves by Sahih Al-Bukhari, and it was narrated by all the authentic books!
In the book "Sharh Bulugh Al-Maram min Adillah Al-Ahkam (Part 6)", Sheikh Abdul Mohsen bin Abdullah Al-Zamil explained:
Hadith: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, raided Banu Al-Mustaliq while they were unaware. On the authority of Nafi' - may Allah be pleased with him - he said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, raided Banu Al-Mustaliq while they were unaware; he killed their fighters and took their children captive . Abdullah bin Omar told me about that - - agreed upon. The hadith of Nafi' on the authority of Ibn Omar - - that he raided Banu Al-Mustaliq while they were unaware, meaning: heedless, from it some scholars took that it is permissible to raid the polytheists without warning or announcement, and the scholars differed, and some said: It is permissible absolutely, and some said: It is not permissible, and some said: It is permissible if the call has reached them in general, even if no specific warning has reached them, and this is the correct view; This is why the call of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) reached, became famous, and became apparent among the Arab tribes and became clear, so no excuse remained for anyone. Nothing remained but Islam. If they did not respond and did not submit, then they had no choice but to fight. This is why he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) raided them. From what is apparent from what was mentioned above, there is nothing wrong with raiding the enemy - even if they were unaware - if there was no covenant or treaty between them and the Muslims. There is nothing wrong with that. This is why he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) raided them. The same applies to all polytheists in every time and place, if the call has reached them and become clear. A group of scholars said that it has become clear, the call of the Prophet, and it has become clear and apparent, and there is no ambiguity in it, meaning no concealment, and no one has an excuse for not being a Muslim. This is why it is permissible to raid them, and it is permissible to wait for heedlessness. And he - may God bless him and grant him peace - used to raid, as mentioned in Sahih Al-Bukhari, and he would raid, perhaps he would raid them at the beginning of the day, and he would wait - may God bless him and grant him peace - and if he heard the call to prayer, he would not raid - may God bless him and grant him peace - and if he did not hear, it was an indication that it was the land of polytheism, so he raided them and did not warn them; because the general warning had preceded for them and others. (End) The reason for this is that he - may God bless him and grant him peace - was informed that the chief of Banu Al-Mustaliq, Al-Harith bin Abi Dirar, was traveling with his people and whoever he could from the Arabs, wanting to fight the Messenger of God - may God bless him and grant him peace - so he sent Buraydah bin Al-Husaib Al-Aslami to investigate the news, so he came to them, met Al-Harith bin Abi Dirar and spoke to him, and returned to the Messenger of God - may God bless him and grant him peace - and told him the news.
Ibn al-Qayyim said: It is a delusion, because there was no fighting between them, but he raided them for water and took their children and money as captives, as in the Sahih: The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, raided Banu al-Mustaliq while they were unaware, and he mentioned the hadith. End quote.
The reason for the mention of this hadith about emancipation is because the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, emancipated Juwayriyah bint al-Harithah and married her... and God knows best!
In the book "Sharh Bulugh Al-Maram min Adillah Al-Ahkam (Part 6)", Sheikh Abdul Mohsen bin Abdullah Al-Zamil explained:
Hadith: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, raided Banu Al-Mustaliq while they were unaware. On the authority of Nafi' - may Allah be pleased with him - he said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, raided Banu Al-Mustaliq while they were unaware; he killed their fighters and took their children captive . Abdullah bin Omar told me about that - - agreed upon. The hadith of Nafi' on the authority of Ibn Omar - - that he raided Banu Al-Mustaliq while they were unaware, meaning: heedless, from it some scholars took that it is permissible to raid the polytheists without warning or announcement, and the scholars differed, and some said: It is permissible absolutely, and some said: It is not permissible, and some said: It is permissible if the call has reached them in general, even if no specific warning has reached them, and this is the correct view; This is why the call of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) reached, became famous, and became apparent among the Arab tribes and became clear, so no excuse remained for anyone. Nothing remained but Islam. If they did not respond and did not submit, then they had no choice but to fight. This is why he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) raided them. From what is apparent from what was mentioned above, there is nothing wrong with raiding the enemy - even if they were unaware - if there was no covenant or treaty between them and the Muslims. There is nothing wrong with that. This is why he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) raided them. The same applies to all polytheists in every time and place, if the call has reached them and become clear. A group of scholars said that it has become clear, the call of the Prophet, and it has become clear and apparent, and there is no ambiguity in it, meaning no concealment, and no one has an excuse for not being a Muslim. This is why it is permissible to raid them, and it is permissible to wait for heedlessness. And he - may God bless him and grant him peace - used to raid, as mentioned in Sahih Al-Bukhari, and he would raid, perhaps he would raid them at the beginning of the day, and he would wait - may God bless him and grant him peace - and if he heard the call to prayer, he would not raid - may God bless him and grant him peace - and if he did not hear, it was an indication that it was the land of polytheism, so he raided them and did not warn them; because the general warning had preceded for them and others. (End) The reason for this is that he - may God bless him and grant him peace - was informed that the chief of Banu Al-Mustaliq, Al-Harith bin Abi Dirar, was traveling with his people and whoever he could from the Arabs, wanting to fight the Messenger of God - may God bless him and grant him peace - so he sent Buraydah bin Al-Husaib Al-Aslami to investigate the news, so he came to them, met Al-Harith bin Abi Dirar and spoke to him, and returned to the Messenger of God - may God bless him and grant him peace - and told him the news.
After he, may God bless him and grant him peace, was certain of the news, he summoned the Companions and hastened to leave. He left two nights before the end of Sha’ban, and a group of hypocrites left with him who had not gone out on a raid before that. He appointed Zayd ibn Haritha over Medina, and it was said: Abu Dharr, and it was said: Numaylah ibn Abdullah al-Laythi. Al-Harith ibn Abi Dharar had appointed a spy. When Al-Harith bin Abi Dharar and those with him heard of the march of the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, and his killing of his own people, they were extremely afraid and those Arabs who were with them dispersed from them. The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, reached Al-Muraisi’ - with a dammah followed by a fathah, diminutive, the name of one of their waters in the direction of Qudayd towards the coast - so they prepared for battle. The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, lined up his companions, and the banner of the Muhajireen was with Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq, and the banner of the Ansar was with Sa’d bin Ubadah, and they exchanged arrows for an hour, then the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, ordered them to attack as one man, and victory was achieved and the polytheists were defeated, and those who were killed were killed, and the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, took the women, children, camels and sheep as captives, and only one man from the Muslims was killed, whom a man from the Ansar killed thinking that he was from the enemy.
Ibn al-Qayyim said: It is a delusion, because there was no fighting between them, but he raided them for water and took their children and money as captives, as in the Sahih: The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, raided Banu al-Mustaliq while they were unaware, and he mentioned the hadith. End quote.
The reason for the mention of this hadith about emancipation is because the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, emancipated Juwayriyah bint al-Harithah and married her... and God knows best!
First: The hadith of Ibn Umar:
The hadith of Ibn Umar is an authentic hadith... Ibn Ishaq has nothing to do with it...
On the authority of Ibn Awn, he said: I wrote to Nafi’ asking him about the supplication of the polytheists during battle, so he wrote to me that this was at the beginning of Islam and the Prophet of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, raided Banu al-Mustaliq while they were unaware and their livestock were drinking water, so he killed their fighters and took their captives and captured Juwayriyah bint al-Harith on that day. Abdullah told me about this and he was in that army. Abu Dawud said: This is a noble hadith narrated by Ibn Awn on the authority of Nafi’ and no one else shared it with him. * (Sahih) It was narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim. Secondly, regarding the doubt: This doubt was raised by some Muslim writers, then the Christians transmitted it from them and changed it... As for some Muslim writers, they denied the hadith, claiming that it is not authentic... Their argument for that is that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not raid anyone except that he called them to Islam first... And they believe that this hadith did not indicate that he called them, but rather he came to them by surprise... ..!! As for the Christians, they vary in their presentation of doubts between (clever and donkey). As for the clever and the more shrewd, they will transmit the doubt as it is. As for the fools among them, the ignorant of history, the incompetent, and the lost of identity, the clever among them will act smart to try to exaggerate this doubt, and he will present it as foolish.. And the doubt, as the brother transmitted it with their foolishness, is their saying: that Banu al-Mustaliq were living in peace and were not hostile to the Muslims, so the Prophet raided them suddenly... which means that the Prophet fought and took captive the peaceful and secure people who were not hostile to him. So, to respond to the doubts raised about the hadith, the following two questions must be answered: 1- Did Banu al-Mustaliq not convey the call of Islam?! And therefore, the hadith is not authentic, as some have claimed?! 2- Were Banu Mustaliq peaceful with the Muslims, so the Prophet surprised them by fighting and raiding them?!! 1- Did Banu Mustaliq not convey the call to Islam?! And therefore the hadith is not authentic as some have claimed?! First: The narrator of the hadith not mentioning “the state of Banu al-Mustaliq regarding the call” does not necessarily mean that we conclude from his silence that they did not reach the call. This is a ridiculous conclusion that has no evidence or weight. Not mentioning their state regarding the call does not mean that they did not reach the call or that they were ignorant of it. The narrator is not required to narrate the details of everything about Banu al-Mustaliq, but rather he is narrating the story of the incident itself. Therefore, the narrator’s silence regarding an event cannot be a valid reason for denying the hadith regarding another event. The hadith is also not understood at all and there is nothing in it that indicates that Islam and its call did not reach them. Rather, the state of the one who denies this hadith, who denies the authenticity of the event, is like the state of the one who denies this fact: “ Egypt surprised the Jews by surprise and stormed the Bar Lev Line in 1973. ” A poor man will come and say that this story is incorrect. Why, poor man? We expect him to answer us: It is incorrect because the narrator did not say: That Egypt was defeated first in 1967 and he did not say that there was hostility between Egypt and Israel.. Therefore, the story and the event are questionable in their authenticity!!! "The narrator's failure to mention an event does not necessitate denying the story because he did not mention another event." - Rather,
"Fighting them by surprise" does not mean at all that they were fought without knowledge of Islam and its call or that they were fought without committing a sin. The surprise here is temporal, a surprise that refers to a temporal surprise that has no relation to causality. Rather, the correct understanding of the term temporal surprise "by surprise" does not allow us to conclude anything more than that the raid was a surprise to them... The Muslims surprised them in their homes while they were unaware...!!
- And the speaker may say.. " It was narrated from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, that " The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, never fought a people except that he called them , " and surprise negates the call to Islam.. "
And the response to this argument is... that the call to Islam does not necessitate calling them on the battlefield.. It is not necessary to call the infidels directly before fighting them! And Al-Hasan Al-Basri pointed to this when he was asked about the enemy: Do they call before fighting? He said: “Islam has reached them since Allah sent Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.” Narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah (12/365) and Saeed bin Mansour (3/2/206/2486 ). Therefore, it is said with Banu al-Mustaliq that they may have been called to Islam before the battle, and that Islam reached them since Muhammad was sent. Rather, what we will prove is that the call reached them and that they were hostile to Islam and initiated war and fighting against the Muslims.
Secondly: Did the call of Islam not reach Banu al-Mustaliq?
No.... Rather, the call of Islam reached Banu al-Mustaliq. The call of Islam reached them. Historical evidence confirms that they heard it and even openly declared their hostility to Islam, as will be detailed later. How could it not have reached them when they were pure Arabs neighboring Medina, and the call had reached Persia and Rome?!!
1- The call to Islam reached Banu al-Mustaliq.. they are cousins of Aws and Khazraj... Aws and Khazraj are the supporters of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) (the Muslim Ansar) .. Banu al-Mustaliq, Aws and Khazraj meet in their grandfather Amr ibn Amir ibn Haritha ibn Imru’ al-Qais... the second grandfather of Aws and Khazraj and the fourth grandfather of al-Mustaliq... meaning that there is a blood relationship between Banu al-Mustaliq and Medina... so how did the call to Islam not reach them when all of their cousins converted to Islam?!!
2- The call reached them.. How could it not, when Banu al-Mustaliq are from Khuza'ah?!.. Many of the Khuza'ah converted to Islam, including Amina bint Khalaf, who migrated to Abyssinia with her husband Khalid bin Saeed bin al-Aas.. That is, she converted to Islam before the Messenger fought Banu al-Mustaliq, and even before he entered Medina as a migrant.. Likewise, during the migration, Atika Umm Ma'bad al-Khuza'iyah converted to Islam .. And so did Mu'tab bin Auf bin Amir, who also migrated to Abyssinia and witnessed Badr.. And so did Nafi' bin Badil, who was martyred at Bir Ma'unah..
3- Finally.. The call reached them.. and they rejected it and prepared to fight Islam and the Muslims and mobilize armies against the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace. This is what will be detailed now... below.
The hadith of Ibn Umar is an authentic hadith... Ibn Ishaq has nothing to do with it...
On the authority of Ibn Awn, he said: I wrote to Nafi’ asking him about the supplication of the polytheists during battle, so he wrote to me that this was at the beginning of Islam and the Prophet of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, raided Banu al-Mustaliq while they were unaware and their livestock were drinking water, so he killed their fighters and took their captives and captured Juwayriyah bint al-Harith on that day. Abdullah told me about this and he was in that army. Abu Dawud said: This is a noble hadith narrated by Ibn Awn on the authority of Nafi’ and no one else shared it with him. * (Sahih) It was narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim. Secondly, regarding the doubt: This doubt was raised by some Muslim writers, then the Christians transmitted it from them and changed it... As for some Muslim writers, they denied the hadith, claiming that it is not authentic... Their argument for that is that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did not raid anyone except that he called them to Islam first... And they believe that this hadith did not indicate that he called them, but rather he came to them by surprise... ..!! As for the Christians, they vary in their presentation of doubts between (clever and donkey). As for the clever and the more shrewd, they will transmit the doubt as it is. As for the fools among them, the ignorant of history, the incompetent, and the lost of identity, the clever among them will act smart to try to exaggerate this doubt, and he will present it as foolish.. And the doubt, as the brother transmitted it with their foolishness, is their saying: that Banu al-Mustaliq were living in peace and were not hostile to the Muslims, so the Prophet raided them suddenly... which means that the Prophet fought and took captive the peaceful and secure people who were not hostile to him. So, to respond to the doubts raised about the hadith, the following two questions must be answered: 1- Did Banu al-Mustaliq not convey the call of Islam?! And therefore, the hadith is not authentic, as some have claimed?! 2- Were Banu Mustaliq peaceful with the Muslims, so the Prophet surprised them by fighting and raiding them?!! 1- Did Banu Mustaliq not convey the call to Islam?! And therefore the hadith is not authentic as some have claimed?! First: The narrator of the hadith not mentioning “the state of Banu al-Mustaliq regarding the call” does not necessarily mean that we conclude from his silence that they did not reach the call. This is a ridiculous conclusion that has no evidence or weight. Not mentioning their state regarding the call does not mean that they did not reach the call or that they were ignorant of it. The narrator is not required to narrate the details of everything about Banu al-Mustaliq, but rather he is narrating the story of the incident itself. Therefore, the narrator’s silence regarding an event cannot be a valid reason for denying the hadith regarding another event. The hadith is also not understood at all and there is nothing in it that indicates that Islam and its call did not reach them. Rather, the state of the one who denies this hadith, who denies the authenticity of the event, is like the state of the one who denies this fact: “ Egypt surprised the Jews by surprise and stormed the Bar Lev Line in 1973. ” A poor man will come and say that this story is incorrect. Why, poor man? We expect him to answer us: It is incorrect because the narrator did not say: That Egypt was defeated first in 1967 and he did not say that there was hostility between Egypt and Israel.. Therefore, the story and the event are questionable in their authenticity!!! "The narrator's failure to mention an event does not necessitate denying the story because he did not mention another event." - Rather,
"Fighting them by surprise" does not mean at all that they were fought without knowledge of Islam and its call or that they were fought without committing a sin. The surprise here is temporal, a surprise that refers to a temporal surprise that has no relation to causality. Rather, the correct understanding of the term temporal surprise "by surprise" does not allow us to conclude anything more than that the raid was a surprise to them... The Muslims surprised them in their homes while they were unaware...!!
- And the speaker may say.. " It was narrated from the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, that " The Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, never fought a people except that he called them , " and surprise negates the call to Islam.. "
And the response to this argument is... that the call to Islam does not necessitate calling them on the battlefield.. It is not necessary to call the infidels directly before fighting them! And Al-Hasan Al-Basri pointed to this when he was asked about the enemy: Do they call before fighting? He said: “Islam has reached them since Allah sent Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.” Narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah (12/365) and Saeed bin Mansour (3/2/206/2486 ). Therefore, it is said with Banu al-Mustaliq that they may have been called to Islam before the battle, and that Islam reached them since Muhammad was sent. Rather, what we will prove is that the call reached them and that they were hostile to Islam and initiated war and fighting against the Muslims.
Secondly: Did the call of Islam not reach Banu al-Mustaliq?
No.... Rather, the call of Islam reached Banu al-Mustaliq. The call of Islam reached them. Historical evidence confirms that they heard it and even openly declared their hostility to Islam, as will be detailed later. How could it not have reached them when they were pure Arabs neighboring Medina, and the call had reached Persia and Rome?!!
1- The call to Islam reached Banu al-Mustaliq.. they are cousins of Aws and Khazraj... Aws and Khazraj are the supporters of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) (the Muslim Ansar) .. Banu al-Mustaliq, Aws and Khazraj meet in their grandfather Amr ibn Amir ibn Haritha ibn Imru’ al-Qais... the second grandfather of Aws and Khazraj and the fourth grandfather of al-Mustaliq... meaning that there is a blood relationship between Banu al-Mustaliq and Medina... so how did the call to Islam not reach them when all of their cousins converted to Islam?!!
2- The call reached them.. How could it not, when Banu al-Mustaliq are from Khuza'ah?!.. Many of the Khuza'ah converted to Islam, including Amina bint Khalaf, who migrated to Abyssinia with her husband Khalid bin Saeed bin al-Aas.. That is, she converted to Islam before the Messenger fought Banu al-Mustaliq, and even before he entered Medina as a migrant.. Likewise, during the migration, Atika Umm Ma'bad al-Khuza'iyah converted to Islam .. And so did Mu'tab bin Auf bin Amir, who also migrated to Abyssinia and witnessed Badr.. And so did Nafi' bin Badil, who was martyred at Bir Ma'unah..
3- Finally.. The call reached them.. and they rejected it and prepared to fight Islam and the Muslims and mobilize armies against the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace. This is what will be detailed now... below.
In conclusion:
Calling to Islam is obligatory for those who have not received the call to Islam and have no knowledge of it. Before launching a military attack, it is obligatory to call them, for Islam is a religion of guidance, clarification, and instruction, and it has no purpose in destructive wars, as is clear from the guidance of this pure religion.
As for those who have received the call to Islam and have knowledge of it, such as the case of Banu al-Mustaliq, it is not obligatory for them to renew the call because they have knowledge of it, especially if it is known that they are plotting evil against the Muslims and trying to strike the fortress of Islam, as happened with them and the details will come.
Calling to Islam is obligatory for those who have not received the call to Islam and have no knowledge of it. Before launching a military attack, it is obligatory to call them, for Islam is a religion of guidance, clarification, and instruction, and it has no purpose in destructive wars, as is clear from the guidance of this pure religion.
As for those who have received the call to Islam and have knowledge of it, such as the case of Banu al-Mustaliq, it is not obligatory for them to renew the call because they have knowledge of it, especially if it is known that they are plotting evil against the Muslims and trying to strike the fortress of Islam, as happened with them and the details will come.
2- Were Banu Mustaliq peaceful towards the Muslims, and the Prophet surprised them by fighting and raiding them?!!
The Christians claimed that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, attacked and captured Banu Mustaliq, even though they were peaceful and safe, not fighting Islam and the Muslims.
As for the Muslims being safe from them, this is a foolish myth, or the nonsense of a drunkard... Why?!!
1- The Abyssinian bloc and the Battle of Uhud....
(They were called the Abyssinians because they were a group of tribes who formed an alliance in a valley called Al-Abyssinia, below Mecca. They formed an alliance to fight the Messenger and the Muslims..) .. SoBanu Al-Mustaliq were supporters of Quraysh in this battle within the Abyssinian bloc, who were hostile to Islam and the Muslims (Sirat Ibn Hisham 1/373). So they were the ones who started the war against the Muslims, so they participated with Quraysh in the Battle of Uhud, and fought the Muslims, and the Muslims were defeated in this battle...So they were not safe and peaceful, but the Muslims started the fighting and fought them in Uhud..!!
2-After the return of Banu Mustaliq from the Battle of Uhud, they began to mobilize armies against Islam and Muslims for two years.
Banu Mustaliq prepared for the battle in full readiness. When the news of them reached the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, he appreciated the situation and began to think about confronting this tribe. He began to closely monitor the movements of this enemy, then ordered Buraydah bin Al-Husaib to go to them to know their destination and strength. He quickly went out until he reached them and found them to be a people who were arrogant about themselves and the strength they had, and hadincited the tribes and gathered the crowds.He contacted their leader, Al-Harith bin Abi Dharar, and Al-Harith (the king of Banu Mustaliq) asked him:
“Who is the man?” He said: “A man from among you has come forward when I heard that you have gathered this man (meaning the Messenger of God), so I will march among my people and whoever obeys me, so that our hand will be one, until we eradicate him.” The people’s joy increased at the addition of a new force to their force, so Al-Harith said to him: “We are on that, so hurry us up.” Buraydah said: “I will ride now and bring you a large group of my people and whoever obeys me.” They were pleased with that from him, so he went to Medina and informed the Muslims of their situation.” (Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d 2/63, and Maghazi Al-Waqidi 1/404-405)
If the reason for the Battle of Banu al-Mustaliq was that the chief of Banu al-Mustaliq, Al-Harith bin Abi Dirar, marched with his people and whoever he could of the Arabs wanted to wage war against the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace... then they are the aggressors who openly declare their enmity... and thus the myth of the claim that they are "safe and peaceful" falls away!!
For more information about this raid, we refer the reader to the book:
Narrations of the Battle of Banu al-Mustaliq, which is the Battle of al-Marisi’, by Ibrahim bin Ibrahim Qaribi, Islamic University of Medina,
as he excelled and explained in detail.
The Christians claimed that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, attacked and captured Banu Mustaliq, even though they were peaceful and safe, not fighting Islam and the Muslims.
As for the Muslims being safe from them, this is a foolish myth, or the nonsense of a drunkard... Why?!!
1- The Abyssinian bloc and the Battle of Uhud....
(They were called the Abyssinians because they were a group of tribes who formed an alliance in a valley called Al-Abyssinia, below Mecca. They formed an alliance to fight the Messenger and the Muslims..) .. SoBanu Al-Mustaliq were supporters of Quraysh in this battle within the Abyssinian bloc, who were hostile to Islam and the Muslims (Sirat Ibn Hisham 1/373). So they were the ones who started the war against the Muslims, so they participated with Quraysh in the Battle of Uhud, and fought the Muslims, and the Muslims were defeated in this battle...So they were not safe and peaceful, but the Muslims started the fighting and fought them in Uhud..!!
2-After the return of Banu Mustaliq from the Battle of Uhud, they began to mobilize armies against Islam and Muslims for two years.
Banu Mustaliq prepared for the battle in full readiness. When the news of them reached the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, he appreciated the situation and began to think about confronting this tribe. He began to closely monitor the movements of this enemy, then ordered Buraydah bin Al-Husaib to go to them to know their destination and strength. He quickly went out until he reached them and found them to be a people who were arrogant about themselves and the strength they had, and hadincited the tribes and gathered the crowds.He contacted their leader, Al-Harith bin Abi Dharar, and Al-Harith (the king of Banu Mustaliq) asked him:
“Who is the man?” He said: “A man from among you has come forward when I heard that you have gathered this man (meaning the Messenger of God), so I will march among my people and whoever obeys me, so that our hand will be one, until we eradicate him.” The people’s joy increased at the addition of a new force to their force, so Al-Harith said to him: “We are on that, so hurry us up.” Buraydah said: “I will ride now and bring you a large group of my people and whoever obeys me.” They were pleased with that from him, so he went to Medina and informed the Muslims of their situation.” (Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d 2/63, and Maghazi Al-Waqidi 1/404-405)
If the reason for the Battle of Banu al-Mustaliq was that the chief of Banu al-Mustaliq, Al-Harith bin Abi Dirar, marched with his people and whoever he could of the Arabs wanted to wage war against the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace... then they are the aggressors who openly declare their enmity... and thus the myth of the claim that they are "safe and peaceful" falls away!!
For more information about this raid, we refer the reader to the book:
Narrations of the Battle of Banu al-Mustaliq, which is the Battle of al-Marisi’, by Ibrahim bin Ibrahim Qaribi, Islamic University of Medina,
as he excelled and explained in detail.
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment