We are discussing the Battle of Mu'tah. Last week, we have gotten to the place of Khalid ibn al-Walid having been appointed, and the Prophet PBUH explaining in real-time what had happened in the battle. Now, let us go back to the battle and mention what Khalid ibn al-Walid did. And once again, we reiterate that we only have two or three narrations from which we try to derive the entire story.
Khalid ibn al-Walid Takes Charge
What appears to be the case is that Khalid realizes there is no way to achieve actual victory. The only realistic victory would be to preserve the Muslim army from destruction. So what did he do? He had a two-pronged tactic:
1. The first tactic was that he organized the army for a quick short-term attack. The purpose of this was to cause the Romans to stop moving forward. It was to pause the Romans and stop them from their onslaught. How did Khalid do this? We only have one narration: One of the things he did was that he strategically positioned the archers so that it stopped the Romans from advancing forward. Ibn Ishaq mentions one small incident: One of the archers was an elderly man by the name of Waqid ibn Abdillah al-Tamimi (واقد بن عبد الله التميمي), and even though he had good arms, his eyes were feeble — so he told his two companions, "Lift me on top of your shield and I will shoot as hard as I can. You be my eyes"—he used the two people to basically guide him — more this way, more that way, etc.
2. Attacking head-on with swords was also another tactic, as Khalid ibn al-Walid himself narrates in Sahih Bukhari, "On the day of Mu'tah, nine swords were broken in my hand and only a Yemenite shield of mine remained in my hand." So from this, we derive there was also a ground-level attack led by Khalid ibn al-Walid.
So by the time night fell, the two armies had managed to separate themselves outside the range of bow and arrow attacks. They are still within visual sight, but not within the sight of an arrow. And so when night fell, the Muslims were safe for the time being —they took shelter behind a hill— and it was on that evening they buried the martyrs, including Zayd, Ja'far, and Abdullah ibn Rawahah — the three were buried in the same grave.
What happened the next day? The classical books don't tell us anything. And a later book stresses a technique/strategy that Khalid used (side note: we don't know where the author got it from —so Allah knows best, but— it appears to be something constructed/read into the classical books) and he says: Another tactic Khalid used the next day was that he gave the impression that a group of reinforcements was arriving. So the Romans thought reinforcements were coming from Madinah, and this made them worried and paused. In this pause, Khalid ibn al-Walid and the Muslims managed to escape and achieve total security. Indeed, had they left in front of the eyes of the Romans, the Romans and the Arab Christians would have followed them. But by giving the illusion that reinforcements were coming, the Romans paused for a few hours, and this allowed the Muslims to escape.
How did Khalid give this illusion? One book mentions that he told a group of sahaba to spread out thin in a far far away area with sand and use certain instruments to beat the dust up. So from a distance, there was an illusion that hundreds of horsemen were coming. But again, Allah knows best. The main point is Khalid managed to save the bulk of the Muslim army from what otherwise would have been a complete annihilation. So much so that only a handful of sahaba, up to 20, passed away. Out of 3,000! So less than 1% passed away, and that is a great victory in and of itself. Faced against more numbers, superior fighting power, superior weapons, etc., it was a victory. On the way back, they passed by the same village that had wounded them and killed one of their own, and they got their revenge on them (again, the books don't mention how).
What happened the next day? The classical books don't tell us anything. And a later book stresses a technique/strategy that Khalid used (side note: we don't know where the author got it from —so Allah knows best, but— it appears to be something constructed/read into the classical books) and he says: Another tactic Khalid used the next day was that he gave the impression that a group of reinforcements was arriving. So the Romans thought reinforcements were coming from Madinah, and this made them worried and paused. In this pause, Khalid ibn al-Walid and the Muslims managed to escape and achieve total security. Indeed, had they left in front of the eyes of the Romans, the Romans and the Arab Christians would have followed them. But by giving the illusion that reinforcements were coming, the Romans paused for a few hours, and this allowed the Muslims to escape.
How did Khalid give this illusion? One book mentions that he told a group of sahaba to spread out thin in a far far away area with sand and use certain instruments to beat the dust up. So from a distance, there was an illusion that hundreds of horsemen were coming. But again, Allah knows best. The main point is Khalid managed to save the bulk of the Muslim army from what otherwise would have been a complete annihilation. So much so that only a handful of sahaba, up to 20, passed away. Out of 3,000! So less than 1% passed away, and that is a great victory in and of itself. Faced against more numbers, superior fighting power, superior weapons, etc., it was a victory. On the way back, they passed by the same village that had wounded them and killed one of their own, and they got their revenge on them (again, the books don't mention how).
______________
Is the Battle of Mu'tah a Victory or a Loss?
The question arises: Is Mu'tah a victory or a loss? There are three opinions:
1. Mu'tah is a big victory. This is the position of Musa ibn Uqba (موسى بن عقبة) (d. 141 AH), al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH), and Ibn Kathir (d. 774 AH). They all felt Mu'tah was a massive victory. Of the reasons they gave:
i) The Muslims returned successfully with less than 1% casualty
ii) They took some war booty [we will talk about one of the stories]
iii) The main evidence for these scholars is what the Prophet PBUH himself said in Sahih Bukhari, as we mentioned in the previous episode: "A Sword from the Swords of Allah took it (took the flag), and Allah gave him VICTORY at his hands." Clearly, if the Prophet PBUH himself says it is a victory, then end of story, it is a victory. This is therefore a theological point for them. The Prophet PBUH said it, so it's a victory.
2. Those who are more historians —al-Waqidi, Ibn Sa'd, and also non-Muslim historians— consider this to be a loss. They look at it from a military perspective, in light of the fact that:
i) The Muslims lost three very important leaders one after the other, and they lost their flag
ii) The Muslims had to retreat, and the Romans remained — and generally speaking, the one who retreats is not the victor
3. It's neither a victory nor a defeat. It's in fact a draw. This is the position of Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Abd al-Barr, and Ibn al-Qayyim — they all say Mu'tah is neutral, similar to Uhud. Why? Because neither side attacked the other at the end of the battle, and the two sides both returned back to their places. Further, neither side took prisoners of war. In terms of the number of casualties, it was probably equal — or maybe the Romans and the Arab Christians had a little more, but it's not as if there was any significant difference. Thus, since both sides returned back home and neither side annihilated the other, it's a tie and a draw.
In our opinion, each of these three opinions is correct in its own way, i.e., from each perspective, they have an element of truth. From a purely theological perspective, the Prophet PBUH said it's a victory, so it's a victory. But at the same time, from other perspectives, one can say opinions 2 and 3 are also correct. The fact that he PBUH calls it a victory doesn't mean it's a victory from a military perspective — it could be a victory from other perspectives. So if somebody comes and says, "Yes, it is a victory, in that, long-term, the goals are achieved"—this is valid. But it doesn't mean it is a victory in this particular battle. It's a different type of victory. Just like Hudaybiyyah was a long-term victory: Short-term, all of the Muslims were quite incensed, "What is going on?" — and even the Prophet PBUH could only say, "I will not disobey Allah, and He will help me" [see episode 66]. So likewise, for Mu'tah —the victory might be long-term, but— in the short-term, al-Waqidi and Ibn Sa'd do have a point that at the end of the day, it was the Romans who remained in their lands, the Arab Christians remained in their lands, the Muslims did not conquer even an inch in this battle, and the Muslims had to return home. So the second opinion does have some truth to it. And of course, the third opinion also has a lot of weight to it, in that, actually, it's not a pure loss because the Romans didn't annihilate the Muslims; rather, they let them go. And therefore, we can say that the Prophet PBUH called it a victory in that the sahaba managed to save themselves from death, and not necessarily that Mu'tah was a military victory. Victory can be of different types, and this victory was a victory of the fact that less than 1% of the army was massacred/martyred and the bulk of the army returned home.
1. Mu'tah is a big victory. This is the position of Musa ibn Uqba (موسى بن عقبة) (d. 141 AH), al-Bayhaqi (d. 458 AH), and Ibn Kathir (d. 774 AH). They all felt Mu'tah was a massive victory. Of the reasons they gave:
i) The Muslims returned successfully with less than 1% casualty
ii) They took some war booty [we will talk about one of the stories]
iii) The main evidence for these scholars is what the Prophet PBUH himself said in Sahih Bukhari, as we mentioned in the previous episode: "A Sword from the Swords of Allah took it (took the flag), and Allah gave him VICTORY at his hands." Clearly, if the Prophet PBUH himself says it is a victory, then end of story, it is a victory. This is therefore a theological point for them. The Prophet PBUH said it, so it's a victory.
2. Those who are more historians —al-Waqidi, Ibn Sa'd, and also non-Muslim historians— consider this to be a loss. They look at it from a military perspective, in light of the fact that:
i) The Muslims lost three very important leaders one after the other, and they lost their flag
ii) The Muslims had to retreat, and the Romans remained — and generally speaking, the one who retreats is not the victor
3. It's neither a victory nor a defeat. It's in fact a draw. This is the position of Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Abd al-Barr, and Ibn al-Qayyim — they all say Mu'tah is neutral, similar to Uhud. Why? Because neither side attacked the other at the end of the battle, and the two sides both returned back to their places. Further, neither side took prisoners of war. In terms of the number of casualties, it was probably equal — or maybe the Romans and the Arab Christians had a little more, but it's not as if there was any significant difference. Thus, since both sides returned back home and neither side annihilated the other, it's a tie and a draw.
In our opinion, each of these three opinions is correct in its own way, i.e., from each perspective, they have an element of truth. From a purely theological perspective, the Prophet PBUH said it's a victory, so it's a victory. But at the same time, from other perspectives, one can say opinions 2 and 3 are also correct. The fact that he PBUH calls it a victory doesn't mean it's a victory from a military perspective — it could be a victory from other perspectives. So if somebody comes and says, "Yes, it is a victory, in that, long-term, the goals are achieved"—this is valid. But it doesn't mean it is a victory in this particular battle. It's a different type of victory. Just like Hudaybiyyah was a long-term victory: Short-term, all of the Muslims were quite incensed, "What is going on?" — and even the Prophet PBUH could only say, "I will not disobey Allah, and He will help me" [see episode 66]. So likewise, for Mu'tah —the victory might be long-term, but— in the short-term, al-Waqidi and Ibn Sa'd do have a point that at the end of the day, it was the Romans who remained in their lands, the Arab Christians remained in their lands, the Muslims did not conquer even an inch in this battle, and the Muslims had to return home. So the second opinion does have some truth to it. And of course, the third opinion also has a lot of weight to it, in that, actually, it's not a pure loss because the Romans didn't annihilate the Muslims; rather, they let them go. And therefore, we can say that the Prophet PBUH called it a victory in that the sahaba managed to save themselves from death, and not necessarily that Mu'tah was a military victory. Victory can be of different types, and this victory was a victory of the fact that less than 1% of the army was massacred/martyred and the bulk of the army returned home.
Also, many of our Muslim historians try to somehow make every battle positive for the Muslims, but in our humble opinion, this is problematic. We need to realize that Subhan'Allah, it is actually of great benefit and wisdom that some battles don't come out to be so positive — that Allah AWJ is showing us, 'Look, you are not going to get everything on a silver platter.' Sometimes you have to struggle; even our Prophet PBUH was injured severely at Uhud. What is Uhud except the illustration of this point? We really don't have to read everything in a positive light. And in our opinion, doing so is actually problematic because when you go through something negative and you don't find anything in the seerah that is anyhow negative, then how are you going to relate? Whereas if this battle actually is not fully positive —which is really our position— then you actually find some comfort in this when you go through some negative. And here we have another wisdom, and that is that, even the sahaba are human, and sometimes, they will make —not necessarily a mistake, but— a judgment that doesn't turn out to be in the best interest in the immediate future. Maybe in the long-term, everything will work out —Allah will take care of everything— but sometimes, in the short-run, victory might not be that tangible.
______________
"They Are the Ones Who Come Back and Will Fight Again"
So the sahaba returned back, and the Prophet PBUH rejoiced at their safe return. But within a few days, rumors began to spread, and smear campaigns were launched against the people who participated in Mu'tah. How do we know this? It's mentioned in one of the books of hadith that once, when the Prophet PBUH saw the wife of Salama ibn Hisham (سلمة بن هشام) and asked her, "What is the matter with Salama? I haven't seen him in the masjid," she said, "Ya Rasulullah, he has not come out of his house because every time he exits, people make fun of him and rebuke him and they say, 'O you who ran away, have you run away from the way of Allah (jihad)?'" So Salama has remained in his house not leaving out of this rebuke. Thus, this shows us some of the sahaba who did not go, they felt a bit of positive anger (or perhaps it was the hypocrites, they found a way of smearing; or perhaps it was a mixture of both) — so the people who fought in Mu'tah were being smeared.
When the Prophet PBUH heard this, he said to all of the masjid, "[They are not furrar (فرار - runners away),] rather, they are kurrar (كرار - the ones who come back and will fight again)." So the Prophet PBUH took the smear, changed one letter (in Arabic), and he made a positive word out of it. This shows us his wisdom PBUH. And this basically shut down all of the smear campaigns.
And by the way, this also shows us that, no doubt, martyrdom is a goal of every single Muslim, but at the same time, it's not a goal you expedite foolishly — you don't walk into a battle and stand there waiting to die. This is not of the fiqh of our religion. Otherwise, every warrior would just throw his arms and say, "Come on, kill me so I can meet Allah." The kurrar didn't run away out of cowardice; they protected themselves and escaped so that they could fight a proper battle later on.
______________
Consoling the Family of the Deceased
In the previous episode, we mentioned the story of the wailing of the women of Ja'far.
Then the Prophet PBUH commanded food to be prepared for the family, "Prepare food for the family of Ja'far, for a matter has occurred that has made them busy." And so food was prepared. And after three days, he visited the wife and the children of Ja'far and said, "After today, let no one cry over my brother"—subhan'Allah, he PBUH called Ja'far his brother. And then he called for the children of Ja'far —and there was Abdullah ibn Ja'far (عبد الله بن جعفر) and Muhammad ibn Ja'far (محمد بن جعفر); and Abdullah was the older of the two who at the time was around 6 or 7; and he is the one who narrates this hadith— and their hair was all disheveled —in fact, the wording Abdullah uses in the hadith is, "We looked like baby chickens"— so when the Prophet PBUH saw this, he ordered a barber be called and their hair be trimmed or shaved off. And then he PBUH praises each one of the children — he says, "As for Muhammad, he looks just like my uncle Abu Talib" —and Abu Talib is Muhammad ibn Ja'far's grandfather— then he calls for Abdullah and says, "As for Abdullah, he looks just like me and he acts just like me." Subhan'Allah. He is trying to console the children and make them feel special. And Abdullah was the eldest, so the Prophet PBUH held onto his hands, raised them up, and said, "O Allah, allow Ja'far's progeny to remain. O Allah, bless Abdullah in all of his transactions"—because Abdullah is going to be the man of the house now. He PBUH said this three times. Then he told them, "Your father's hands have been substituted with two wings, and he is flying around in Jannah wherever he wants to go."
(Tangent: Their mother, Asma bint Umays, was firstly the wife of Ja'far. Then later on, she married Abu Bakr RA, and when she married him, the two of them had Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr (محمد بن أبي بكر). And when Abu Bakr passed away, she married Ali ibn Abi Talib. So she married Ja'far, Abu Bakr, and Ali RA, and from each she had children. [Side note: And of course, this shows us the stigma of divorce/widow did not exist among the sahaba. Many sahaba married one after the other.] And it's mentioned that when Ali was married to Asma, Muhammad ibn Ja'far and Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, the two half-brothers began debating whose father was better. They both say I am this, I am that, my father is this, my father is that. Ali is sitting there watching them, and to tease Asma, he says, "Okay, your mother will be the judge," since she was married to both Ja'far and Abu Bakr. So he calls Asma out and says, "You decide between your two sons." He puts her on the spot and says, "Which of the two is better?" Asma bint Umays says, "As for the young men, then Ja'far is the sayyid of them. As for the wise, senior men, then Abu Bakr is the sheikh of them," i.e., both are top. Subhan'Allah, look at her wisdom. And at this, Ali joked, "Then what have you left for me?" Incidents like this show us again and again that it is ludicrous to think there were tensions between Abu Bakr and the Ahl al-Bayt. Here is Ali marrying Abu Bakr's ex-wife; here is Ali joking, "Which of the two is better, Abu Bakr or my own brother Ja'far?" And it's so obvious there was no tension amongst these great sahaba. Every incident of the seerah shows us —even something as trivial as this— that this tension is completely false and only read in.)
Then Asma bint Umays comes out and begins to complain, "Ya Rasulullah, they are all orphans," meaning, "Who will take care of them?" The Prophet PBUH said, "Are you scared of poverty for them when I will be the one who will take care of them in this world and the Next?" So, subhan'Allah, the Prophet PBUH himself took charge of the children of Ja'far. This demonstrates the care and concern of the Prophet PBUH for orphans.
(Tangent: Their mother, Asma bint Umays, was firstly the wife of Ja'far. Then later on, she married Abu Bakr RA, and when she married him, the two of them had Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr (محمد بن أبي بكر). And when Abu Bakr passed away, she married Ali ibn Abi Talib. So she married Ja'far, Abu Bakr, and Ali RA, and from each she had children. [Side note: And of course, this shows us the stigma of divorce/widow did not exist among the sahaba. Many sahaba married one after the other.] And it's mentioned that when Ali was married to Asma, Muhammad ibn Ja'far and Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, the two half-brothers began debating whose father was better. They both say I am this, I am that, my father is this, my father is that. Ali is sitting there watching them, and to tease Asma, he says, "Okay, your mother will be the judge," since she was married to both Ja'far and Abu Bakr. So he calls Asma out and says, "You decide between your two sons." He puts her on the spot and says, "Which of the two is better?" Asma bint Umays says, "As for the young men, then Ja'far is the sayyid of them. As for the wise, senior men, then Abu Bakr is the sheikh of them," i.e., both are top. Subhan'Allah, look at her wisdom. And at this, Ali joked, "Then what have you left for me?" Incidents like this show us again and again that it is ludicrous to think there were tensions between Abu Bakr and the Ahl al-Bayt. Here is Ali marrying Abu Bakr's ex-wife; here is Ali joking, "Which of the two is better, Abu Bakr or my own brother Ja'far?" And it's so obvious there was no tension amongst these great sahaba. Every incident of the seerah shows us —even something as trivial as this— that this tension is completely false and only read in.)
Then Asma bint Umays comes out and begins to complain, "Ya Rasulullah, they are all orphans," meaning, "Who will take care of them?" The Prophet PBUH said, "Are you scared of poverty for them when I will be the one who will take care of them in this world and the Next?" So, subhan'Allah, the Prophet PBUH himself took charge of the children of Ja'far. This demonstrates the care and concern of the Prophet PBUH for orphans.
From this incident, we derive interesting sunan (سنن - plural of sunnah) pertaining to grieving families:
1. When a family suffers a tragedy/death, the close family and friends should take charge of preparing and giving food. This is proven in this hadith. The Prophet PBUH said, "Make food for the family of Ja'far [because something has come that will cause them to be too busy to cook]."
2. It is sunnah to visit and give them words of encouragement and consolation.
3. It is sunnah to visit them, but not for a long time, i.e., it's discouraged to sit for a long time — it's makruh to turn that visit into a socialization session. The visiting is just to console and to give du'a. You sit for what is reasonable in one's culture —maybe in our culture, half an hour or so— and then leave and give them private time.
1. When a family suffers a tragedy/death, the close family and friends should take charge of preparing and giving food. This is proven in this hadith. The Prophet PBUH said, "Make food for the family of Ja'far [because something has come that will cause them to be too busy to cook]."
2. It is sunnah to visit and give them words of encouragement and consolation.
3. It is sunnah to visit them, but not for a long time, i.e., it's discouraged to sit for a long time — it's makruh to turn that visit into a socialization session. The visiting is just to console and to give du'a. You sit for what is reasonable in one's culture —maybe in our culture, half an hour or so— and then leave and give them private time.
4. It is makruh for the host family to feed the visitors. Unfortunately, this happens in some cultures, but it is wrong. The family who has suffered a tragedy should not be hosting people who come. There is a hadith to this effect, narrated by Jarir ibn Abdillah al-Bajali (جرير بن عبد الله البجلي) : "We used to consider gathering in the house of the deceased and their preparing food for us a part of the niyah (نياح - wailing) that the Prophet PBUH forbade." Notice the two things the sahaba consider to be a part of wailing: (i) gathering in the house of the deceased, and (ii) the feeding of the guests by the family that has suffered a tragedy. (Side note: By "gathering," Jarir RA could not have meant "visiting," because the Prophet PBUH visited. So "gathering" here means turning your visit into a socialization session.) Therefore, we have to be careful that we do not fall into this as well.
5. The Prophet PBUH waited for three days before he came and consoled them, and this shows us that for 3 days, it is allowed to mourn, after which we should stop, except for the wife who remains in her iddah. And iddah is slightly different than mourning. The [legitimate] mourning is to feel a sense of loss, grief and crying, and altering your lifestyle a little bit, i.e., you are so depressed you don't feel like eating too much, you take time off work, etc. — this is halal to do for three days. But beyond this: to beat yourself, wail out loud, shriek, cry claims of kufr, e.g., "Who will take care of me?" "I cannot live without you!" etc. — this is all haram. (But unfortunately, it still happens today in some cultures. And in fact, the Prophet PBUH prophesied, "Four are the things of Jahiliyyah which my ummah will never give up," and the first thing he mentioned was, "wailing for the deceased.") What is allowed is crying without wailing. Our Prophet PBUH himself, when the news came of the death of Zayd, Ja'far, and Abdullah ibn Rawahah, he had to sit down, he was so overcome with grief that he just sat — and Anas says he was crying; and Aisha RA says, "You could see the grief on his face." This is all permissible. As we said in the previous episode, the family of Ja'far went beyond what is allowed — the Prophet PBUH tried to stop them three times through the messenger, until finally when it couldn't be done, he let them be. Then on the third day, he himself comes and puts an end to it. This shows us sometimes you cannot enforce perfection in such sensitive matters. Even in the extended family of the Prophet PBUH things happened that he did not approve of. Think about that. But after three days, you have to deal with it and get to terms with it — so after three days, the Prophet PBUH came and told the women to stop crying. And indeed, time heals all wounds. So three days is the maximum time given where the death of someone can cause us to alter our schedule. The only exception is the wife, she remains in her iddah for 4 months and 10 days with extra rulings — and those rulings are not "mourning," they are "ihdad/haddad" rulings which basically means she does not beautify herself the way that a wife should beautify for her husband, out of respect, and she remains in the house as much as possible. This is something specific for the wife — but even then, after 3 days, she should try to just get into the schedule again, of eating and drinking and whatnot, and try to overcome the extra grief.
5. The Prophet PBUH waited for three days before he came and consoled them, and this shows us that for 3 days, it is allowed to mourn, after which we should stop, except for the wife who remains in her iddah. And iddah is slightly different than mourning. The [legitimate] mourning is to feel a sense of loss, grief and crying, and altering your lifestyle a little bit, i.e., you are so depressed you don't feel like eating too much, you take time off work, etc. — this is halal to do for three days. But beyond this: to beat yourself, wail out loud, shriek, cry claims of kufr, e.g., "Who will take care of me?" "I cannot live without you!" etc. — this is all haram. (But unfortunately, it still happens today in some cultures. And in fact, the Prophet PBUH prophesied, "Four are the things of Jahiliyyah which my ummah will never give up," and the first thing he mentioned was, "wailing for the deceased.") What is allowed is crying without wailing. Our Prophet PBUH himself, when the news came of the death of Zayd, Ja'far, and Abdullah ibn Rawahah, he had to sit down, he was so overcome with grief that he just sat — and Anas says he was crying; and Aisha RA says, "You could see the grief on his face." This is all permissible. As we said in the previous episode, the family of Ja'far went beyond what is allowed — the Prophet PBUH tried to stop them three times through the messenger, until finally when it couldn't be done, he let them be. Then on the third day, he himself comes and puts an end to it. This shows us sometimes you cannot enforce perfection in such sensitive matters. Even in the extended family of the Prophet PBUH things happened that he did not approve of. Think about that. But after three days, you have to deal with it and get to terms with it — so after three days, the Prophet PBUH came and told the women to stop crying. And indeed, time heals all wounds. So three days is the maximum time given where the death of someone can cause us to alter our schedule. The only exception is the wife, she remains in her iddah for 4 months and 10 days with extra rulings — and those rulings are not "mourning," they are "ihdad/haddad" rulings which basically means she does not beautify herself the way that a wife should beautify for her husband, out of respect, and she remains in the house as much as possible. This is something specific for the wife — but even then, after 3 days, she should try to just get into the schedule again, of eating and drinking and whatnot, and try to overcome the extra grief.
After Asma's iddah was over, Abu Bakr proposed for her later on, and she married him.
How about Zayd? He of course had a son who was Usama ibn Zayd (أسامة بن زيد) — and it's mentioned in the Musannaf of Abd al-Razzaq that after the Incident of Mu'tah, whenever the Prophet PBUH would see Usama, he would tear up and cry.
How about Zayd? He of course had a son who was Usama ibn Zayd (أسامة بن زيد) — and it's mentioned in the Musannaf of Abd al-Razzaq that after the Incident of Mu'tah, whenever the Prophet PBUH would see Usama, he would tear up and cry.
And, after a few days, it's mentioned that the Prophet PBUH came to the masjid, and there was a group of sahaba huddled up —some of them crying— so he PBUH asked, "Why are you crying?" They said, "Why should we not cry, O Messenger of Allah, when the best of us and the noblest of us have left?" The Prophet PBUH said, "But do not cry, for the example of my ummah is like a garden whose owner has cut the leaves and the branches and prepared his houses so that each year gives a better crop than the last year. And the Masih Isa (Jesus) will meet this ummah and there will be a group that he meets that are like you or even better than you. And Allah will not humiliate an ummah [whose] I am the first of them and the Masih is the last of them." This hadith is a very beautiful hadith, narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah (ابن أبي شيبة) (d. 235 AH) — Ibn Hajar says it is hasan, but some of the stricter scholars say it is slightly weak. In any case, the meaning is definitely beautiful: Allah will not humiliate an ummah the first of whom is the Prophet PBUH and the last of whom is al-Masih Isa ibn Maryam AS.
Hassan ibn Thabit and many other sahaba wrote long lines of poetry about the martyrs of Mu'tah, and these are recorded in Ibn Ishaq and other books.
The point is from all of these narrations, we learn that Mu'tah was a very traumatic incident.
______________
The Dangers of Arrogance Even For the One Upon the Truth
There is a side story mentioned: In the Battle of Mu'tah, there was also a group of helpers from Yemen. They joined the Muslim army to help fight against the Romans and the Arab Christians. There is a story mentioned about one of those individuals: He only had one sword, and when one of the sahaba had sacrificed an animal to feed the army, the man asked whether he could take the skin of the animal, and the sahabi said, "Take it," so he took it and made a leather armor out of the skin. When in the battle, there was a Roman with golden armor —perhaps a lieutenant or a general— wreaking havoc in the lines of the Muslims. And this man attacked him with only goatskin and a single sword, and he managed to kill him, so he took his beautiful horse, golden armor, weapons, and everything, as booty. (Side note 1: Of course, this is the correct fiqh. The one who kills a soldier gets the booty of that soldier [plus a percentage out of the general fund].) (Side note 2: Recall these rulings only apply to an army that is not paid [see episode 53].) When the battle is over and Khalid sees him, he asks, "What is this?" The man said, "I killed the Roman, so I get all of his goods." Khalid said, "This is too much for one soldier. You must give some to the treasury." The man said, "But this is the Sunnah of the Prophet PBUH" —and indeed, it was— but Khalid insisted, "You won't get all of this," and he took the man's booty and just gave him a portion. So the man said, "I will complain to the Prophet PBUH."
The sahaba go back to Madinah, and the man goes to the Prophet PBUH and tells him what happened, that Khalid took his booty from him. The Prophet PBUH called Khalid to confirm and Khalid confirmed. So the Prophet PBUH said to him, "Give it all back." So Khalid gave him *all* that he earned. At this, the man scoffed at Khalid, "Didn't I tell you?! Now you got what you deserved?" To which, the Prophet PBUH said, "What is this? (Why did you just say this?)" The man explained, "I had told him I would complain to you, and your verdict is in my favor." At this, the Prophet PBUH said, "In that case, O Khalid, do not give it to him," and he PBUH said to the man, "Will you not leave my commanders for me? Take the good from them and leave their bad." This hadith has generated a lot of discussion about what is its meaning — but in Sh. YQ's opinion, it's pretty self-explanatory, and that is that, this man deserved his booty, but when his arrogance got the better of him, the Prophet PBUH needed to send a message to the rest of the army that you cannot treat your leaders and generals in this manner. Khalid is a new Muslim, he made a genuine mistake, he didn't know the ruling; and this man's arrogance trumped the fact that he was right; and so in the end, the judgment was not given in his favor.
This shows us many things:
This shows us many things:
1. The dangers of arrogance even for the one upon the truth. Even for the one upon the truth, your arrogance can make you upon the batil. And Khalid was wrong in this case, but he was right in the sense that he acted in his own ijtihad — and he wasn't chastised; the one that was chastised was the one who showed the arrogance.
2. Also we learn over here that it's allowed for a judge to alter a verdict in light of new circumstances. The Prophet PBUH changed his ruling right then and there.
3. Also a very interesting point: The Prophet PBUH said, "Aren't you going to leave my leaders for me?" meaning, "Have you no respect for my leaders that you are going to mock them in this manner?" Note who appointed Khalid to be a leader? The Prophet PBUH? No. It was the people. Yet he called Khalid *my* leader. And this shows us the Sunni doctrine, and that is: The khalifa/sultan/wali whom the people choose is the khalifa/sultan/wali of Allah on this earth. There are many ahadith in this regard: "The sultan is the representative of Allah on earth," "The sultan is the khalifa of Allah on earth," "The sultan is the shadow of Allah on earth," meaning he is representing the shariah, and he is the one who is ultimately responsible. So as Sunni, we believe that the legitimate ruler does have a respect that must be given to him in matters of this dunya. And it is worth noting that such ahadith are only applicable to legitimate Islamic rulers who were khulafa — NOT to modern-day secular presidents; you cannot apply Islamic injunctions when they themselves are not ruling by Islam; they don't represent Allah's AWJ shariah; whether they should be obeyed or not goes back to the scholars of those times, and the scholars will look at maslaha and mafsada.
______________
The Battle of Mu'tah in Byzantine Chronicles
The Battle of Mu'tah is one of the very few things mentioned by the Byzantine chroniclers — the non-Muslim chroniclers. St. Theophanes (Theophanes the Confessor) (d. 818 CE) was an aristocratic monk who wrote a large book called "The Chronicles," and it is the earliest work of the Byzantine Empire to mention the Prophet PBUH. St. Theophanes uses sources that we no longer possess, and one of them is an Arab source that is a non-Muslim source — he uses an Arab source to talk about the Islamic side of events. He was one of the very few Roman authors who had access to material and names not found in most of the other Byzantine sources. No other Byzantine chronicler was so well equipped as St. Theophanes was. And very interestingly, he mentions the Battle of Mu'tah in his book:
He says: "In the year 623." (Side note 1: Their calendar is slightly different than the Gregorian calendar. In Gregorian year, this corresponds to 630.) (Side note 2: After the main date, he always mentions other dates according to the Roman emperor and dates according to the emperors of the civilizations of that year.) So he says: "Heraclius 22nd year, Abu Bakr 1st year." (Note 3: This is a mistake from his side. He is putting the Incident of Mu'tah in the first year of the khilafa of Abu Bakr. Obviously, he isn't 100% accurate. And indeed, his description of the Prophet PBUH is full of stereotypes. But the point is, by this time, the Romans have heard of Islam, the Prophet PBUH, and the sahaba, and it's very interesting to look at things from their perspective.) He says: "Mohammed (Muhammad PBUH) had appointed four ameers (amirs/leaders) to fight the members of an Arab nation that were Christian." (Side note 4: This is another mistake. The Prophet PBUH appointed three, not four.) And he says: "They came to the village Moukheon (Mukhia). And in that village was stationed Vicarius Theodore." (Side note 5: It's said this Vicarius Theodore is actually the brother of Heraclius. And in Islamic sources, we too find the brother of Heraclius fighting in Mu'tah — so this lines up.) And he says: "And they intended to fall upon the Arabs on the day when they sacrificed to their idols." (Side note 6: This is an interesting tidbit that we don't find in the Muslim side of events. He is saying the Muslims chose to launch an attack on a day that was a festival for the [pagan?] Arabs. And if this is the case, in Sh. YQ's opinion, that makes a lot of sense.) And he continues, "Vicarius, on learning this from a certain Qureshite (Qureshi), he called Koutabas (Qutaybas) who was in his pay..." (Side note 7: This means there was a spy for the Romans, and the spy must have been from the Arab Christian community.) He continues: "...He gathered all of this information and ascertained the day and time they (the Muslims) intended to attack, and he attacked them at a village called Mothous (Mu'tah). And he killed three ameers and the bulk of the army." (Side note 8: The "three ameers" is true, but the "bulk of the army" is not true. The Muslims lost less than 1%.) And he continues: "One ameer, called Khalid, whom they call 'the Sword of God' escaped." (Side note 9: Subhan'Allah. St. Theophanes mentions Khalid as the Sword of Allah. And this is amazing. The title that the Prophet PBUH gave to Khalid had reached even the Roman Empire. And this is why Khalid ibn al-Walid *had* to die in his bed [21 AH].)
______________
Tangent: The Sword of God
And this is why Khalid ibn al-Walid *had* to die in his bed [21 AH]. It is said that when Khalid was dying, he began to cry, and he said to a visitor, "Turn me around and look at me from the front and back. You will not find two fingers on my body except that there is a scar, mark, and bruise. Yet here I am dying on my bed"—he spent his whole life fighting, wanting shahada, yet now he is dying on his bed, and that's what's causing him to cry. He doesn't understand there is a wisdom: Ibn Kathir and all of the later scholars say, "Khalid was the Sword of Allah. Therefore, it is not allowed (i.e., not possible) for anybody to break the Sword of Allah in a battle. Only the One who unsheathed the Sword can put it back where it belongs (and that is Allah SWT)."
______________
Benefits of the Incident of Mu'tah
The primary benefit of the Battle of Mu'tah is that it opened up the northern lands. 95% of the battles of the seerah are southern. The Battle of Mu'tah was the largest battle up north. It was the mother of all northern battles. Mu'tah —yes, we agree that the Romans were not defeated, and the Arab Christians were not defeated, but— the reach of the ummah has spread at least to the peripheries of the Byzantium now, and the strength of the Muslims is established, and fear is put into the hearts of the Arab Christian tribes. And as we will see, when the Prophet PBUH himself marched north [later, for the Battle of Tabuk, in 9 AH], they couldn't even fight him — the Romans didn't even show up to the battle. So there's no denying Mu'tah had a huge impact. 'If only 3,000 could do so much damage and still escape, what are we going to do when the real general and commander, Muhammad himself turns up?' So they didn't even show up for the Battle of Tabuk. So the Battle of Mu'tah was the first and only major battle that took place up north. It was also the first and only battle with the Romans in the lifetime of the Prophet PBUH. And this opens up the door of fighting the Romans after his death PBUH. Khalid ibn al-Walid in particular gets that experience —he learns the tactics of the Romans— and of course, Allah will use him later on to fight the Romans — all of this is intended.
______________
When Did the Incident of Mu'tah Take Place?
The beginning of the 8th year of Hijrah. (So the very next major incident will be the Conquest of Makkah, which took place Ramadan 8 AH.)
______________
During the two years after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah until the Incident of Mu'tah, every single serious threat to the Muslims was eliminated. By going up north, the message has been given to them, that, "You cannot attack us." Recall the Ghassanid chieftain thought he was untouchable, "What are you going to do to me?" But now that they have seen what the Muslims are capable of in their own lands, they will think twice before acting recklessly. So Mu'tah was not a pure victory, but the message was given, that, "Don't mess with us."
Therefore, every serious opposition has gone. The only 'threat' left is a weak, debilitated, declothed, detoothed, neutered Quraysh. They have nothing left and they are all defecting over. Even Amr ibn al-As, their politician, saw this, and that's why he left for Abyssinia (and then embraced Islam and came to Madinah).
[Transcribed by Br. Safwan Khan & Faizan]
safwan-khan@hotmail.com
[Revised by Br. Syed Haq & MAR, October 2021]
safwan-khan@hotmail.com
[Revised by Br. Syed Haq & MAR, October 2021]
