Treachery of the Tribes of ‘Ukl and ‘Urainah & its Terrible Outcome - Shawwāl 6 A.H.

These were very threatening days for the Muslims, because the whole land was ablaze with the fire of animosity, inflamed by the Quraish and the Jews. Moreover, according to their new policy, they had decided that instead of systematically attacking Madīnah, it should be harmed by secret methods. Furthermore, since deceit and treachery were inherent in the uncivilized tribes of Arabia, they were adamant in hurting the Muslims by any means possible. As such, the incident we are about to mention is but a link in this very nefarious chain of events, which came to an end in a terrible manner. The details are that in Shawwāl 6 A.H.,1 a few men2 which were eight in number,3 from the tribes of ‘Ukl and ‘Urainah, came to Madīnah, and after expressing their love and affection towards Islām became Muslim. After a stay of some time, the climate of Madīnah affected their spleens and they suffered from a stomach virus. Using this as an excuse, they presented themselves before the Holy Prophet(sa). They presented their illness and said, “O Messenger of Allāh! We are Bedouin people and have spent our time living with animals. We are not accustomed to the city life and therefore, we have fallen ill.” The Holy Prophet(sa) responded, “If you feel ill in Madīnah, then go out of Madīnah and stay in the inhabitation of our cattle and drink the milk of camels, etc., You shall become well.” 4 In another narration, it is recorded that they themselves requested, “O Messenger of Allāh! If you permit us we would like to go outside of Madīnah where your cattle are situated,” and the Holy Prophet(sa) permitted them to do so.5 In any case, they sought permission of the Holy Prophet(sa) and went to live in the pasture which was inhabited by the camels of the Muslims.

When these wretched people had setup camp and fully ascertained the state of affairs, and had recovered their health after living in the open climate and drinking the milk of camels, they suddenly attacked the shepherds of these camels one day and killed them. Moreover, in doing so, they were so cruel that first they slaughtered them like animals, and when there was still some life left in them, they pierced their tongues with sharp desert thorns so that when they made a sound or tossed and turned in the agony of thirst, these thorns would add to their suffering.6 Then, these barbarians did not suffice at this, but took hot matches and rubbed them into the eyes of the half-dead Muslims.7 In this manner, the innocent Muslims died tossing and turning in an open field. Among them was a personal servant of the Holy Prophet(sa) named Yassār, who was appointed to graze the camels of the Holy Prophet(sa).8

When these savages had killed the Muslims in this barbaric manner, they gathered all the camels and took them away. These events were reported to the Holy Prophet(sa) by a shepherd who happened to escape to safety. The Holy Prophet(sa) immediately prepared a party of twenty companions and sent them in pursuit. Although these people had already covered some ground, by God’s Grace, the Muslims swiftly pursued them and managed to capture them. The Muslims tied them in ropes and brought them back. Until that time, no injunctions had been revealed to the Holy Prophet(sa) as to what should be done with an individual who commits such actions. Therefore, as per his old practice that until a new injunction was revealed in Islām, the way of the people of the book was followed9 according to Mosaic law,10 the Holy Prophet(sa) ordered that just as these cruel people had treated the Muslim shepherds, they too should be treated in retribution and in equal retaliation. This would serve as a lesson to others. Thus, almost in the same manner, these people were lowered into the pit of death in an open field outside Madīnah. However, God had decreed a different law for Islām, and so from thereon, even in a state of retribution and equal retaliation, the punishment of mutilation was forbidden. In other words, it was prohibited that the body of a criminal be disfigured in any way, or for body parts to be cut into pieces in a manner of retribution, etc.11

We need not write extensively on this account, because the cruelty was instigated by the infidels towards the Muslims in this savage and barbaric manner without any just cause, purely out of animosity for Islām. Furthermore, whatever was done to them in punishment, was merely in retribution and equitable retaliation. Moreover, it was done in such a state when the entire land was ablaze with a fire of enmity towards Islām. Then, this decision was also in accordance to the Mosaic Law but even then, Islām did not uphold this law, and prohibited such a course of action in the future. In such circumstances, no reasonable individual can raise an objection. On this occasion, it should also be remembered that these men had come to Madīnah with evil intentions in the first place. Furthermore, they were most probably trained by their tribe to live among the Muslims and injure them. Additionally, it is very plausible that they harboured an evil intention against the Holy Prophet(sa) himself, but when they could find no opportunity in Madīnah, they proposed an undertaking outside the city. Their evil intention can also be gauged by the fact that the manner in which they dealt with the Muslim shepherds was not merely one of thieves and bandits, rather, it was an act of utter revenge. If they had initially become Muslims pure-heartedly and later on, after seeing the camels, their intentions had changed for the worse, then in such a case, what should have happened is that they should have taken these camels and ran off. If a shepherd had happened to become a hindrance, then at most, they should have killed him and left. However, the manner in which they killed the Muslim shepherd, and putting their own selves in danger by prolonging this act of butchery and torturing the Muslims, evidently shows that this action was not the outcome of coincidental greed. Quite the contrary, it clearly possessed the character of animosity and was the result of heart-felt malice and long standing rancour. In return for this ruthless action, whatever the Holy Prophet(sa) did was merely in retribution and equitable retaliation, according to the Mosaic Law which existed prior to the revelation of Islāmic teachings. However, shortly thereafter, Islāmic injunctions were revealed and such punishment was declared unlawful, even as act of retribution. As such, the words of Bukhārī are as follows:

“After this instance, the Holy Prophet(sa) emphasised magnanimity and generosity, and prohibited mutilating the body of enemies in all circumstances.”12

Various western research scholars including Muir,13 have objected (as per their habit), that the manner in which these murderous pillagers were killed was cruel and barbaric. However, if all the facts are analysed in this case, the mantle of Islām remains absolutely untarnished. Actually, this was not the decision of Islām but of Moses(as),14 the Law of whom the Christian Messiah did not abrogate but upheld.15 Perhaps, our opponents have the saying of the Christian Messiah in mind,

“If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.”16

If so, then verily, our opposition has the right to raise this allegation, but the question is, whether any reasonable individual considers this teaching at all practical. Furthermore, in the last 1,950 years has any Christian man, woman, Christian community or government, acted upon this teaching? Undoubtedly, this teaching is a wonderful one to stand up at the pulpit and exhort in sermons. However, in practical life, this teaching holds no weight whatsoever, nor can a rational individual be prepared to act upon it. Therefore, in such a case, to place these kinds of emotional models before oneself and make the Muslims the target of an allegation, is but to furnish proof of one’s own ignorance. Of course, look at the Law of Moses(as), who unlike Jesus(as) was a law-maker and who understood the essence of the law. Alternatively, examine the practical conduct of the Christians and not just their claims. The truth shall become evident that pragmatically, no religion can compare with Islām because it does as it claims. It does not have double standards and its claims and actions are both so elevated, that no reasonable and unprejudiced individual can object to it. Quite the contrary, one is inclined to praise Islām. For like the Mosaic Law, it does not enjoin revenge in all circumstances and to wage the axe of retribution indiscriminately. Neither does it teach that punishment should never be administered, nor that when a criminal commits a crime, he should be supported and strengthened in his purpose in accordance to Christian Law. Instead, Islām forsakes these two extremes and presents a moderate teaching which is the basis of true peace in the world which is:

“The punishment of an injury should be the like thereof and should be of equal intensity. However, if the circumstances are such as a probability of reformation exists by forgiveness or lenience, then forgiveness and lenience is the better course of action. Such an individual shall be deserving of a handsome reward from Allāh.”17

This is the teaching which Islām has presented in this regard and no reasonable individual can deny that this is an unrivaled teaching, which has taken into consideration all aspects of human need. Furthermore, even in the case of punishment, it has set the restriction that appropriate bounds should not be exceeded and it has outrightly condemned the barbaric acts of mutilation, etc. In comparison to this, despite the ‘exemplary teaching’ of Jesus Christ(as), the actual behaviour which Christians have shown towards their enemies and the atrocities which they have committed during wars, are an open page in history, the repetition of which is not required here.