Let us begin with the commands he issued during his lifetime which were countered by the companions with revolt and disobedience.
For the sake of brevity, we shall discuss only those [reports] documented by al-Bukhari in hisSahih. We will devote special pages to the rest of the Sahihs of the ahl al-sunna, they are replete with far more instances, and with far more explicit and challenging reports.
Al-Bukhari reported in volume 3, in "The Chapter on the Conditions on War and Making Treaties with those who Wage Wars", in "The Book of Conditions", after reporting the episode of the treaty of al-Hudaybiyya and 'Umar b. al-Khattab's opposition to what the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) had agreed to, he doubted him, saying to him openly: "Aren't you really the Prophet of Allah"?.. to the end of the story... Al-Bukhari said: "When they finished the matter of writing down the terms [of the treaty], the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) said to his companions: 'Arise and sacrifice the animals and then shave your heads'. He said: 'By Allah! Not a man stood up from them, even after he repeated himself three times. Yet no one amongst them rose. He went to Umm Salama and related to her what he had encountered from the people'" (Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 3, p. 182).
Are you not surprised, O reader, at the insolence and disobedience of the companions with regards to the order of the Prophet (S.A.W.)? Although it was repeated three times, none of them responded.
It is necessary here to relate a discussion that took place between some scholars and myself in Tunis after the publication of my book "Then I Was Guided". In it, they had read my remarks on the treaty of al-Hudaybiyya, and, in turn, had added their comments to mine, saying: "If the companions had disobeyed the order of the Prophet (S.A.W.) on the sacrifice and shaving, and none of them complied with his order, then 'Ali b. Abi Talib was among them and therefore he [also] did not comply with the order of the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.)". I responded to them with the following:
Firstly: 'Ali was not reckoned to be among the companions. For he was the brother and cousin of the Prophet of Allah, the husband of his daughter and the father of his progeny. 'Ali was with the Prophet of Allah on one side, and the rest of the people on the other. If the narrator inSahih al-Bukhari said that the Prophet (S.A.W.) ordered his companions to slaughter the animals and to shave their heads, then Abu'l-Hasan (A.S.) was not counted among them. For he was to him (the Prophet) what Aaron was to Moses. Don't you see that the greetings upon the Prophet are not complete unless the greetings upon his family are added to them? Without doubt he ('Ali) is the leader of the progeny of Muhammad. [As for] Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthman and other companions, their prayers are not complete unless they mention 'Ali b. Abi Talib along with Muhammad b. 'Abd Allah.
Secondly: The Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) always used to share with 'Ali, his brother, his sacrifices, as occurred in the farewell pilgrimage when 'Ali came from Yemen and the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) asked him: "What did you offer [for sacrifice] O 'Ali?" He replied: "What the Prophet of Allah offered". The Prophet shared his sacrifice with him. All the hadith reporters and historians have recorded this incident. He must have been his partner at al-Hudaybiyya too. Thirdly: 'Ali b. Abi Talib was the one who wrote the terms of the treaty of al-Hudaybiyya, as dictated by the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.), and had never disputed with him in anything throughout his life; not at al-Hudaybiyya, nor at any other occasion. History has not recorded a single instance at which 'Ali (A.S.) delayed [carrying out an order of] the Prophet (P) or disobeyed him even once, God forbid, or that he ever fled from a battle and left his brother and cousin amongst the enemies. Rather, he constantly offered himself [as a sacrifice]. In short, 'Ali b. Abi Talib was like the Prophet (P) himself. As a result, the Prophet (S.A.W.) used to say: "None is allowed to remain in the mosque while ritually impure (junub) except I and 'Ali".
Most of the participants [in the discussion] were convinced by what I had presented and admitted that 'Ali b. Abi Talib never in his life opposed any order of the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.).
Al-Bukhari reported in volume 8, in "The Chapter on Abhorrence of Differences", in "The Book on Adherence to the Qur'an and Sunna", from 'Abd Allah b. 'Abbas who said: "When the time of the Prophet's (S.A.W.) death drew near, there were people in the house, among them 'Umar b. al-Khattab. He said: 'Come so that I may write for you [something] so that you may never go astray'. 'Umar said: 'Surely the Prophet (S.A.W.) is overcome by pain; you have with you the Qur'an, and the book of Allah is sufficient for us". The members of the household differed and argued [amongst themselves]. Among them were those who said: 'Come closer, the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) will write for you [something] so you will never go astray afterwards'. Among them were those who said what 'Umar had said. When the noise and differences intensified in the presence of the Prophet (S.A.W.), he said: 'Go away from me'".
Ibn 'Abbas used to say: "The calamity of all calamities was the clamour and differences that occurred between the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) and his writing the dictate for them" (al-Bukhari, vol. 8, p. 161; vol. 1, p. 37, and vol. 5, p. 138).
This is another command of the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) which the companions countered with rejection, disobedience and degradation [of the status of] the Prophet (S.A.W.).
It must be noted that when he (the Prophet) asked for paper and ink to be brought so that he could write for them a letter which would prevent them from going astray, 'Umar b. al-Khattab said in the presence of the Prophet (S.A.W.): "The Prophet of Allah is delirious", i.e., hallucinating, God forbid.
Al-Bukhari, however, rectified that expression and changed it to "overcome by pain", because the one who said it was 'Umar b. al-Khattab. You see, he omitted the name of 'Umar in the narration, saying: "and they said the Prophet of Allah is delirious". This is the honesty of al-Bukhari in transmitting hadith. (We will, God willing, devote a special chapter to this.)
In any case, most hadith scholars and historians relate that 'Umar b. al-Khattab said: "Surely the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) is delirious" and many companions followed him and said what he said in the presence of the Messenger of Allah (S.A.W.). It is for us to picture the awful event and those raised voices, the intense clamour and dissension in his presence. No matter how the narration expresses it, it can inform us only a little of the actual scene. It is the same if we read a historical book on the life of Moses (P); no matter how vivid the book is, it will not have the effect of a film which we see with our eyes.
In volume 7, in "The Chapter on What is Allowable in Anger and Intensity for Allah's sake", al-Bukhari reported in "The Book of Morals": "The Prophet (S.A.W.) made a small room with a mat from palm leaves. He came out (of his house) and went out to pray on it. The people followed him in this. The [next] night they [also] came, but the Apostle of Allah (S.A.W.) delayed and did not come out to them. So they raised their voices and threw stones at the door. He came out angrily and said: 'You insisted on it (the prayer), until I thought it would become obligatory upon you. Offer your (optional) prayer in your homes, for surely the best prayer of a man is in his house, except the obligatory prayer'" (Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 7, p. 99; vol. 2, p. 252; vol. 4, p. 168).
Most unfortunately, 'Umar contravened the order of the Prophet (S.A.W.) and gathered the people for supererogatory prayer during his Caliphate, saying regarding his action: "This is an innovation, a wonderful one". Most of the companions followed his innovation, they espoused his views and supported him in every thing he did and said. 'Ali b. Abi Talib, and the ahl al-bayt,differed with him for they did not act, except [according to] the orders of their master, the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) and did not substitute anything for it. If every innovation leads to error and every error leads to the fire, what about the errors which were invented to oppose the rulings of the Prophet (S.A.W.)?
In volume 5, in "The Chapter on the Battle of Zayd b. Haritha", in "The Book of Campaigns", al-Bukhari reported on the authority of Ibn 'Umar (R) who said: "The Apostle of Allah (S.A.W.) ordered Usama b. Zayd to [lead] a group but they sought to find fault in his leadership. He said: 'If you find fault in his leadership, you [also] sought to find fault in the leadership of his father before him. By Allah, he was created for leadership and was the most beloved of men to me; and now he (Usama) is the most beloved of people to me after him'" (al-Bukhari, vol. 5, p. 84).
This event has been related in detail by the historians; how they angered the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) until he cursed those who stayed behind the expedition of Usama, as he was a young general who had not reached seventeen years of age. The Prophet (S.A.W.) had put him in charge of an army in which were Abu Bakr, 'Umar, Talha, al-Zubayr, 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Awf and all the Qurayshi notables; the Prophet (S.A.W.) did not draft 'Ali b. Abi Talib, nor any of the companions who followed him ('Ali) in that army.
Al-Bukhari always summarizes events and edits the hadith to protect the honour of the "pious predecessors" amongst the companions. Despite this, what he reports is sufficient for one who wishes to attain the truth.
In volume 2 of his Sahih, in "The Chapter on Reproach of He who Fasted Continuously", in "The Book of Fasting", al-Bukhari reported on the authority of Abu Hurayra who said: "The Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) forbade fasting [two days] continuously without breaking it and a Muslim said to him: 'But you fast continuously, O Prophet of Allah!' He replied: 'And who among you is like me? Verily I stay awake at night and my Lord grants me sustenance and water'. When they refused to stop fasting continuously, he joined them one day's fast with another [day], and then they sighted the crescent. Then He said: 'Had it (the crescent) been delayed, I would have continued [fasting] with you'. It was as a reproach to them for having failed to desist as he had ordered" (Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 2, p. 243).
Well done to these companions who the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) prohibited from doing something but they did not desist from it. He kept on repeating the prohibition, but they would not listen. Did they not read Allah's words: "Whatever the Prophet gives you, accept it, and whatever he forbids you from, keep away from it, and fear Allah! Indeed Allah is severe in punishment" (59:7).
Despite the threat of grave punishment by Allah, Glory be to Him, to those who opposed His Messenger, some companions did not attach any importance to His threats and warnings.
If this was their condition, then there can be no doubt about their hypocrisy, even though they outwardly exhibited an abundance of prayer, fasting and strict [adherence to] religion, to the extent that they even forbade themselves from cohabitation with their wives so that they might not travel with their penises dripping with semen. They refrained from what the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) did, as has been discussed previously.
Al-Bukhari, in his Sahih, volume 5, in "The Chapter on the Prophet's (S.A.W.) sending of Khalid b. al-Walid to Banu Judhayma", in "The Book of Military Campaigns", on the authority of al-Zuhri from Salim from his father, he said: "The Prophet (S.A.W.) sent Khalid b. al-Walid to Banu Judhayma and he invited them to Islam. It did not seem proper to them to say we have submitted ourselves and so they said [instead]: 'We have left idol worship. We have left idol worship'. Khalid started to kill them and to take captives. He gave each one amongst us his captive. Then, one day, Khalid ordered each man to kill his captive. I said: 'By Allah! I will not kill my prisoner and none of my companions will kill theirs'. [This happened till] we came to the Prophet (S.A.W.) and we related this to him. The Prophet (S.A.W.) raised his hands and said twice: 'O Allah! I am innocent of what Khalid has done'" (al-Bukhari vol. 5, p. 107, vol. 8, p. 118).
The historians have chronicled this event in some detail and [shown] how Khalid perpetrated this despicable act of disobedience. He, and some of his companions who obeyed him, did not adhere to the commands of the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) regarding the prohibition of killing anyone who accepted Islam. Certainly, this was one of the worst sins that caused the flowing of innocent blood, and the Prophet (S.A.W.) had ordered them to invite the people to Islam, not to kill them.
Khaild b. al-Walid was overcome by the urge of the Jahili period, and a Satanic force overcame him. [This was because] the Banu Judhayma had killed his uncle al-Fakiha b. al-Mughira, during the time of Ignorance. He came upon them and said: "Lay down your arms for the people have accepted Islam". He then ordered that their hands be tied and many of them be killed.
When some of the sincere companions learned of Khalid's intentions, they fled from the army and joined the Prophet (P) and related the news to him. The Prophet of Allah (P) then dissociated himself from his acts and sent 'Ali b. Abi Talib who compensated them for the loss of blood and property.
To know this incident in some detail, there is no harm in reading what 'Abbas Mahmud al-'Aqqad has written in his book: "The wonderful [exploits of] Khalid", wherein al-'Aqqad writes on pages 57 & 58 as follows:
"After the conquest of Mecca, his (the Prophet's) concern was directed to the cleansing of the Bedouin tribes surrounding it (Mecca) from idol worship. He sent expeditions to the tribes to invite them and to ascertain their intentions. Amongst the expeditions was that of Khalid b. al-Walid to Banu Judhayma, numbering about 350 emigrants, Ansars and Banu Sulaym. He sent them as missionaries and did not order them to fight. Banu Judhayma were the fiercest tribe during the period of Ignorance and were known as the "spoonful of blood".
Among those that they had killed on one occasion were al-Fakiha b. al-Mughira and his brother, the paternal uncles of Khalid b. al-Walid and the father of 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Awf and Malik b. al-Sharid and his three brothers from Banu Sulaym in one place, as well as several others from various tribes.
When Khalid came to them and they knew that the Banu Sulaym were with him, they donned their weapons and rode forth for battle, refusing to give in. Khalid asked them: 'Are you Muslims?' It is said that some of them answered in the affirmative and some of them said: 'Saba'na! Saba'na!' i.e., we have left idol worship! We have left idol worship! He then asked them: 'Why are the weapons on you?' They replied: 'There is enmity between us and some Arab tribes and we feared that you might be them, so we donned our weapons'.
He said to them: 'Drop your weapons for the people have accepted Islam'. A man among them who was called Juhdam cried out: 'Woe be unto you O Banu Judhayma! This is Khalid. By Allah, captivity will follow your dropping of weapons. After captivity [he will] behead you. By Allah! I will never give up my weapons'. He was still saying this when his weapons were taken away along with those of others. The other [people] dispersed.
Khalid ordered that they be handcuffed and put to the sword. Banu Sulaym and the other Arabs with them accepted his orders of killing them. The Ansars and Muhajirun, however, refused to kill anyone without being commanded by the Prophet (P) to fight [them]. The news reached the Prophet (S.A.W.) who raised his hands towards the sky and said three times: 'O Allah! I dissociate myself of what Khalid has done'. He then sent 'Ali b. Abi Talib to Banu Judhayma to compensate them for the blood and property that had been destroyed.
The event appalled the prominent companions, those who had accompanied the expedition as well as those who had not. 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Awf was so incensed that he accused Khalid of deliberate slaughter to avenge his two uncles".
This is the verbatim quote of what al-'Aqqad reported in his book "The wonderful [exploits of] Khalid". And al-'Aqqad is like the other ahl al-sunna thinkers, for, after relating the entire episode, he seeks a cold, fictitious explanation [to defend] what Khalid had done, [an explanation] which is baseless and which no sound reason can accept. There is no excuse for al-'Aqqad except that he wrote "The wonderful [exploits of] Khalid". Everything he presented in defence of Khalid is presumptuous, fragile as a spider's web. Whoever reads it realises the folly and weakness of his defence.
How can there be any excuse when he himself bore testimony in his own words that the Prophet (P) sent them as missionaries and did not order them to fight? And he admitted that the Banu Judhayma had removed their arms after having donned them when Khalid deceived them by telling his companions: "Remove your weapons, for the people have become Muslims". He also confessed that Juhdam had refused to lay aside his arms and warned his tribe that Khalid will deceive them by his words: "Woe unto you O Banu Judhayma, he is Khalid! By Allah, there is nothing after the removal of your arms except captivity, and after captivity beheading. By Allah! I will never lay down my arms". Al-'Aqqad said that the Banu Judhayma crowded him until he removed his arms. This shows the submission of the tribe and of their good intentions.
If the Prophet of Allah (P) sent them as preachers of Islam and had not ordered them to fight, as you yourself testified, O 'Aqqad, then what was Khalid's excuse in opposing the orders of the Prophet (P)? I don't think you can legitimize it, O 'Aqqad!
If the tribe had removed their weapons, declared their Islam, and finally won over their companion, who had sworn that he would not lay aside his weapons until they pacified him, as you have yourself admitted, O 'Aqqad, then what is Khalid's excuse for betraying them and killing them when [they were] passive and were bereft of their weapons?
You have said that Khalid issued orders against them, their hands were tied and they were put to the sword. This is another deed that I do not think you can justify, O 'Aqqad! Did Islam order Muslims to kill those who do not fight them, [even] assuming that they did not declare their Islam? Certainly not. This is the argument that the Orientalists, the enemies of Islam, propagate today.
Then, once again, you admit that the Prophet (P) did not order him to fight the people, for you said that the emigrants and the Ansar rebuked Khalid for having killed anyone without being commanded by the Prophet (S.A.W.) to fight. What is your excuse, O 'Aqqad, for seeking excuses for Khalid?
In replying to al-'Aqqad, it is sufficient for us [to note] that he completely refuted and destroyed his own excuses by saying: "The revulsion to the event extended to all the prominent companions, those who were present in the expedition and those who were not". If the prominent companions expressed [their] disgust towards Khalid to the extent that they fled from his army and complained to the Prophet (S.A.W.) and if 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Awf accused Khalid of deliberately killing the people in revenge for his two uncles, as al-'Aqqad has testified, and if the Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) had raised his hands to the sky and said three times: "O Allah, I dissociate [myself] from what Khalid b. al-Walid has done", [and] if the Prophet sent 'Ali with property to compensate the Banu Judhayma for the blood [spilt] and [for the loss] of property so as to appease them, as al-'Aqqad has testified, this [in itself] proves that the community had accepted Islam, but that Khalid had wronged them and committed excesses against them. Can someone ask al-'Aqqad, who tries his best to defend Khalid, is he (al-'Aqqad) more learned than the Prophet of Allah (P) who dissociated [himself] from his acts three times? Or is he more learned than the prominent companions who reproached him? Or more than the companions who were present at the event but escaped from the expedition dismayed by his repulsive acts which they had witnessed? Or [is he more learned] than 'Abd al-Rahman b. 'Awf, who was with him in the expedition and, without doubt, knew Khalid better than al-'Aqqad? He accused him of deliberately killing the people so as to exact revenge for his uncles.
May Allah fight blind fanaticism and jahili zeal which changes the truth. Although al-Bukhari summarized the matter in four lines, what he has mentioned is sufficient to convict Khalid, and the other companions who obeyed him in killing innocent Muslims, and whom al-'Aqqad has mentioned by saying: "Banu Sulaym and those Arabs with him obeyed him in killing them". However, al-Bukhari [mentions] only two or three who did not comply with his commands, they fled from the army and returned to the Prophet complaining of Khalid. You cannot convince us, O 'Aqqad, that the emigrants and Ansars who totalled 350, as you have said, did not obey Khalid in killing the people, and that they all fled from the army, no researcher can believe this. This is [merely] an attempt on your part to preserve the nobility of the pious ancestors, the companions, and to hide the realities at any cost. The time has come to remove the veils and to know the truth.
How many despicable massacres of Khalid b. al-Walid has history related to us, especially on the day of al-Battah when Abu Bakr appointed him to be the head of a big army comprising of foremost companions. He deceived Malik b. Nuwayra and his people when they removed their weapons; he ordered that their hands be tied and then beheaded them without a fight. He entered Layla, Umm Tamim, the wife of Malik, on the same night that her husband was killed. When 'Umar b. al-Khattab came to know [what happened], he castigated him and told him: "You killed a Muslim man then sprang on his wife, by Allah, I will stone you with your stones, O enemy of Allah". Abu Bakr stood beside Khalid and said to 'Umar: "Stop [moving] your tongue against Khalid, he used [his reasoning] and erred". This is another issue whose discussion is lengthy and mentioning it is repulsive.
The rights of how many unfortunate people have been usurped because a tyrant is strong and powerful? How [frequently] a tyrant is helped in his tyranny and falsehood because he is rich and close to the apparatus of the rulers. When he examines the story of the Banu Judhayma, al-Bukhari cuts the story short and says: "The Prophet sent Khalid to Banu Judhayma, he invited them to Islam. They did not deem it proper to say 'We have submitted', so they said 'We have turned away from idol worship'".
Were the Banu Judhayma Persians or Turks or Indians or Germans that they did not deem it proper to say "We have submitted", O Bukhari? Or were they an Arab tribe in whose language the Qur'an was revealed? Blind fanaticism and the major plots which were conspired to protect the nobility of the companions made al-Bukhari utter such statements so as to vindicate the act of Khalid b. al-Walid. Al-'Aqqad also says: "Khalid asked them: 'Are you Muslims?'" Al-'Aqqad then says: "It is said that some of them replied in the affirmative and some of them replied 'saba'na, saba'na (we have left idolatry)'". The words "it is said" show clearly that the community would accept anything which people conjured up so as to defend Khalid b. al-Walid. [This is] because Khalid b. al-Walid was the raised sword of the ruler and was the defender of the usurping Caliphate. He was its follower, exemplifying overwhelming strength to whoever resolved to rebel or revolt against what had been decided by the heroes of Saqifa on the day that the Prophet (S.A.W.) passed away. There is no power nor strength except with Allah, the most High, the most Great.
source : http://www.islamicecenter.com
