False Occurrence of the Murder of Ummi Qirfah

In place of the above-mentioned Sariyyah of Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakr(ra), Ibni Sa‘d has mentioned a Sariyyah wherein Zaid bin Ḥārithah(ra) was the commander. In other words, Ibni Sa‘d mentions Zaid bin Ḥārithah as the commander of this Sariyyah instead of Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakr(ra). Moreover, differing in details as well, he writes that this expedition was to discipline the Banū Fazārah, who resided near the Wādi’ul-Qurā’ and who had attacked a trade caravan of the Muslims, stealing all of its wealth and goods. The driving force behind this mischievous group was an old lady, named Ummi Qirfah, who was a staunch enemy of Islām. When this lady was captured, a man named Qais from the party of Zaid killed her. Moreover, Ibni Sa‘d describes the story of this murder such as both of her feet were tied to two different camels and then these two camels were driven in opposing directions, due to which this lady was literally torn in two pieces. After this, her daughter was entrusted to Salmah bin Akwa‘(ra).1 It is this story which to some extent, has also been mentioned by Ibni Isḥāq with brevity, abridgment and variation.2

On the basis of this narration, Sir William Muir, who is accustomed to providing more details than most European historians, very enthusiastically makes this occurrence the highlight of his book as an example of the ‘barbaric spirit’ of the Muslims. As a matter of fact, Sir William wrote that the very reason he included this in his book was because the Muslims committed a cruel deed in this Sariyyah. As such, Mr. Muir wrote:

“There were several unimportant raids this year hardly requiring mention ; but I must not omit one for the cruel deed that closed it.” 3

A historian who gives preference to one occurrence over another merely on the basis that it furnishes proof of the brutality and ruthlessness of a people and makes it the highlight of his book, is in actuality not worthy of being referred to as an unbiased researcher. This is because it can never be expected that such an individual would pay attention to investigating whether this occurrence of brutality and ruthlessness was even true or not, because in doing so, a proof in his favour is lost to him. In any case, Mr. Muir has written this account in his book with special enthusiasm. However, as shall now become evident, this occurrence was completely erroneous and categorically baseless. Furthermore, both in terms of record and rationality, this narration is vindicated as being fabricated.

In terms of rationality, it should be known that to imprison a lady who is not convicted of murder and then to kill her in calmness and then to kill her in the manner which is related in this narration, is something quite untenable. Islām strongly prohibits even killing women in the very field of battle and we have already mentioned the instructions of the Holy Prophet(sa), which he issued in the prohibition of killing women in the fundamental discussion on Jihād. As such, it is mentioned in a Ḥadīth that on one occasion, a woman of an enemy tribe was found dead in the field of battle and even though it was not known which circumstances and by whose hand she had been killed, upon seeing this, the Holy Prophet(sa) was very displeased. The Holy Prophet(sa) emphatically stated to his companions that this should never happen again.4 Similarly, it has also been mentioned that whenever the Holy Prophet(sa) would send off an army, in addition to all other advice, one instruction which he would give to his companions was not to kill women and children.5

In the existence of these fundamental instructions, to think that the companions and among them, Zaid bin Ḥārithah(ra), who was like the family of the Holy Prophet(sa), killed or had a lady killed in the manner described by Ibni Sa‘d, cannot be accepted at all. Undoubtedly, in this narration, although the deed of killing has not been attributed to Zaid(ra), rather, it has been attributed to another Muslim, but since this instance occurred under the command of Zaid(ra), either way, the ultimate responsibility would fall on him. Moreover, regarding Zaid(ra), to think that he allowed for something of this nature to occur under his watch, knowing full well the teaching of the Holy Prophet(sa) cannot be accepted in the slightest. Invariably, if a woman commits a crime, she will receive the punishment of that crime and the Sharī‘ah of no religion, nor the law of any country, excludes a woman from the punishment of a crime. Moreover, occurrences of the punishment of women, rather, even execution for the punishment of murder are printed on a daily basis. However, killing a woman merely on account of religious enmity and more so, to kill her in the manner described in this narration, is such an action as is clearly rejected by the fundamental instruction of the Holy Prophet(sa) and the whole of Islāmic history. Furthermore, if it is stated that this lady was a criminal and as mentioned in various narrations, she conspired to assassinate the Holy Prophet(sa)6 and for this reason the sentence of murder could be lawfully issued against her, then this is correct. But the question is: if the companions of the Holy Prophet(sa) did not kill severer and more vicious criminals than Ummi Qirfah – and male enemies at that – in this manner, then to think that an elderly lady was treated in this way under the watch of a well-informed companion the like of Zaid bin Ḥārithah(ra), is completely unacceptable. Hence, from a rational perspective, the falsehood and fabrication of this story is evident and clear and no impartial individual could find room to doubt this.

Now remains the aspect of narration. Hence, firstly, Ibni Sa‘d or Ibni Isḥāq7 have not provided authentication for this narration and without a reliable source, a narration of this kind which is contradictory to the clear instruction of the Holy Prophet(sa) and the common and well-known practice of the companions, cannot be accepted at all. Secondly, this very account has been mentioned in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and Sunan Abū Dāwūd, which are two very authentic books of Ḥadīth, but the mention of Ummi Qirfah being killed has not been mentioned at all. Furthermore, in various other details, this account differs to that of Ibni Sa‘d and others. Moreover, Ṣaḥīḥ Aḥādīth are definitely and universally accepted as far more reliable and worthy of preference. For this reason, the narration of Ibni Sa‘d and others have no weight in comparison to that of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and Sunan Abū Dāwūd. This distinction becomes further evident when we bear in mind that where Ibni Sa‘d and Ibni Isḥāq have mentioned their narrations without any authentication, on the other hand, Imām Muslim and Abū Dāwūd have furnished complete authentication for their narrations. Either way, in comparison to the caution practiced by the Muḥaddithīn who worked very prudently, the general narrations of historians possess no value.

The manner in which this account has been recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and Sunan Abū Dāwūd has already been mentioned above. In it, there is not even mention of the killing of Ummi Qirfah. Invariably, in the narration of Muslim and Abū Dāwūd, the name of Ummi Qirfah is not mentioned and the name of the commander is also recorded as Abū Bakr(ra) instead of Zaid(ra). Regardless, we cannot imagine that this expedition was another one altogether, as the rest of the significant details are the same in their totality. For example:

1. It is described in both these narrations that this expedition was against the Banū Fazārah.

2. It is mentioned in both these narrations that the chieftain of the Banū Fazārah was an elderly lady.

3. Both narrations mention the imprisonment of this lady. It is mentioned in both of these narrations that this lady had a daughter, who was also imprisoned with her.

4. Both narrations mention that this girl was given to the lot of Salmah bin Akwa‘(ra).

Additionally, there are similarities in other facts as well. Now contemplate, in the presence of these significant and fundamental commonalities, is it possible for an individual to imagine that these were two different accounts? However, we do not rest on this rational argumentation alone, rather, researchers of the past have clearly written that the account of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and Sunan Abū Dāwūd is the same one which Ibni Sa‘d has recorded in another manner. As such, ‘Allāmah Zurqānī,8 Imām Suhailī9 and ‘Allāmah Ḥalabī10 have clearly written that this is the same account which Ibni Sa‘d and Ibni Isḥāq have erroneously mentioned in the story of Ummi Qirfah. However, more than this, proof of the fact that this is the same account is that Ṭabarī has mentioned both these narrations side by side and clearly written that both these accounts are but one and the same thing.11

Therefore, it is completely undeniable that in the narration of Salmah bin Akwa‘(ra) recorded by Muslim and Abū Dāwūd, the very same account has been mentioned, which Ibni Sa‘d and Ibni Hishām have erroneously recorded by the name of ‘Sariyyah of Ummi Qirfah’. Moreover, the narration of the Ṣiḥāḥ which has been mentioned with authentication, and is narrated by one who participated in the event, is in any case, worthy of precedence to the unauthenticated narration of Ibni Sa‘d and Ibni Hishām. For this reason, there is no room for doubt in the fact that the account of the ‘barbaric murder’ of Ummi Qirfah is a completely false account without foundation, which due to the ‘favour’ of a hidden enemy of Islām or a hypocrite, has found its way into some historical narrations. The truth is that the verity of this Sariyyah is nothing more than what Muslim and Abū Dāwūd have mentioned. It is not surprising for an erroneous account to be recorded in history, because such examples are found in the history of every country and nation. It is surprising however, for a man like Sir William to give this erroneous account a place in his book without any investigation and to openly confess that the purpose of his recording it was merely as an example of a cruel deed of the Muslims was found in it.