Donate To Discover The Truth

Kaleef K. Karim

What did the generous Quraysh do when Muhammed (p) and his companions fled to Madinah from persecution? You read it right! They started stealing and ravishing the property of Muslims who fled persecution from Makkah to Madinah. Not only were they oppressors, tyrants and murderers, but they were also the biggest thieves. These are the people bigots, fascists and Christian supremacists defend against Muslims. They find what Muhammed preached against idolatry more grievous, more painful than Muslims getting oppressed, tortured and murdered. According to them, Muslims preaching, exercising their free speech deserved to be tortured, murdered. These are the sick people we come across online justifying the actions of warmongers and murderers.

Example, critics attempt to down play the atrocities at Makkah, committed against the Muslims on the basis that the Muslims were the ones who exercised free speech by speaking against idolatry. They further claim that when the Muslims fled to Madinah, the generous Quraysh didn’t rob, steal the property of Muslims in Makkah. Thus, Prophet’s (p) attacks on the caravans weren’t warranted since the property wasn’t stolen by the Quraysh, and what the Muslims did was unwarranted.

However, the above claims are false.

Let’s read the following Hadiths and demonstrate that property of the Muslims were stolen by the Quraysh.

Narrated `Abdur-Rahman bin `Auf: I got an agreement written between me and Umaiya bin Khalaf that Umaiya would look after my property (and family) in Mecca and I would look after his in Medina. When I mentioned the word ‘Ar- Rahman’ in the documents, Umaiya said, “I do not know ‘Ar-Rahman.’ Write down to me your name, (with which you called yourself) in the Pre-Islamic Period of Ignorance.” So, I wrote my name ‘ `Abdu `Amr’. … (Sahih al-Bukhari volume 3, Book 38, Hadith 498)

And

Narrated `Abdur-Rahman bin `Auf: “I had an agreement with Umaiya bin Khalaf (that he would look after my relatives and property in Mecca, and I would look after his relatives and property in Medina).” … (Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 5, Book 59, Hadith 310)

The above authentic Hadith, we can deduce the following:

1. Abdur-Rahman bin `Auf had some family and property in Makkah when he fled to Madinah.

2. Agreement between Abdur-Rahman bin `Auf and Umayya bin Khalaf was that he (Abdur-Rahman) would look after Umayya’s property and family in Madinah if he were to do the same for him in Makkah. Abdur-Rahman bin `Auf and Umayya were good friend’s during the pre-Islamic era and still kept in touch.

3. Umayya bin Khalaf had the power to protect Abdur-Rahman bin `Auf’s property and family because he was one of the leaders of the Quraysh.

4. Those who weren’t as fortunate as Abdur-Rahman bin Awf, their property was taken and their families would have gone through torture till they abandon their Islamic faith.

The above are interesting points to think about. We can clearly see that those Muslims who were still in Makkah but didn’t have tribal protection, their property, household were stolen by the Quraysh. We can also emphasize that those Muslims who fled persecution out of Makkah to Madinah, their property weren’t protected and hence were stolen by the Quraysh. Furthermore, we can read from the above reports that those few Muslims who were still in Makkah, were either tortured or even killed, as other companions were killed before.

Besides the Quraysh threatening, stealing and attacking Muslims in Madinah, they were also committing further crimes in Makkah by persecuting and stealing properties of Muslims.

In the following authentic Hadith we have clear report wherein we are told that the Muslims who fled persecution, their property were stolen.

At the start of the report it speaks about booty taken in war and who will get a share of it. It tells us that those Muslims whose property were stolen, taken by the Quraysh will have a share of the booty since they don’t own anything because the Makkans stole from them:

Az-Zuhri said: This applies exclusively to the Messenger of Allah and refers to an Arab village called Fadak, and so on. What Allah gave as booty (Fay’) to His Messenger (Muhammad) from the people of the townships – it is for Allah, His Messenger (Muhammad), the kindred (of Messenger Muhammad), the orphans, Al-Masakin (the poor), and the wayfarer (And there is also a share in this booty) for the poor emigrants, who were expelled from their homes and their property [stolen] And (it is also for) those who, before them, had homes (in Al-Madinah) and had adopted the Faith And those who came after them. There is no one left among the Muslims but he has some rights to this wealth, except for some of the slaved whom you own. If I live, if Allah wills, I will give every Muslim his right.” Or he said: “His share.”

Arabic Text:

“>قَالَ الزُّهْرِيُّ هَذِهِ لِرَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم خَاصَّةً قُرًى عَرَبِيَّةً فَدَكُ كَذَا وَكَذَا ‏{‏ مَا أَفَاءَ اللَّهُ عَلَى رَسُولِهِ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْقُرَى فَلِلَّهِ وَلِلرَّسُولِ وَلِذِي الْقُرْبَى وَالْيَتَامَى وَالْمَسَاكِينِ وَابْنِ السَّبِيلِ ‏}‏ وَ ‏{‏ لِلْفُقَرَاءِ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ الَّذِينَ أُخْرِجُوا مِنْ دِيَارِهِمْ وَأَمْوَالِهِمْ ‏}‏ ‏{‏ وَالَّذِينَ تَبَوَّءُوا الدَّارَ وَالإِيمَانَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ ‏}‏ ‏{‏ وَالَّذِينَ جَاءُوا مِنْ بَعْدِهِمْ ‏}‏ فَاسْتَوْعَبَتْ هَذِهِ الآيَةُ النَّاسَ فَلَمْ يَبْقَ أَحَدٌ مِنَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ إِلاَّ لَهُ فِي هَذَا الْمَالِ حَقٌّ – أَوْ قَالَ حَظٌّ – إِلاَّ بَعْضَ مَنْ تَمْلِكُونَ مِنْ أَرِقَّائِكُمْ وَلَئِنْ عِشْتُ إِنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ لَيَأْتِيَنَّ عَلَى كُلِّ مُسْلِمٍ حَقُّهُ أَوْ قَالَ حَظُّهُ ‏.‏ (Sunan an-Nasa’i volume 5, Book 38, Hadith 4153)

The Arabic word used in the above report is ‘Ukhrijoe’ (أُخْرِجُوا). Reading the following Arabic-English dictionaries, they tell us that the word has a variety of meanings from, exile, expel, ‘to take’, ‘extort’, and ‘rob’ i.e., stealing ‘property’:

Arabic-English Lexicon – Edward William Lane:

trad. … [And he took forth, or took forth for himself (accord. To a property of many erbs of this form), some dates from a water-skin]: (TA:) [so, too, is …; as meaning he took, led drew, or pulled, out, or forth: but this generally implies some degree of effort, or labour; as does also …; and likewise, desire: i.e., it means he sought, or endeavoured, to make a thing come forth: the former is also syn. With … (q. v.) and …: and both of them signify, and so does أُخْرِجُوا [ukrij] in many instances, he drew out, or forth; extracted; edured; produced; elicited; fetched out by labour or art; got out; or extorted: this is what is meant by its being said] … [1]

Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic: Arabic-English – Hans Wehr:

… أُخْرِجُوا [Ukrijoe] (katt) to be derailed, run off the track (train) II to move out, take out, dislodge (. S.o., s.t.h.); to remove, eliminate (…); to exclude, except (…); to train (…); to educate, bring up, … to pull out, extract (…) … to bring out into the open, make public (…); to remove, extract, (…); to expel, evict, exile, expatriate (…); to dismiss, fire, remove (. S. o. from an office); أُخْرِجُوا (tarwatihi) to rob s.o. of his property, dispossess, expropriate… [2]

Wortabet’s Arabic-English Dictionary – Wortabet William Thomson:

To make come or pass out; take or draw out; expel أُخْرِجُوا, exclude … to draw out, elicit, extort … [3]

Arabic English Dictionary for the use of students – Reverend F. J. G. Hava, S. J.:

[Ukrijoe]

أُخْرِجُوا To take, to send … a. o. or a. th. Out from. [4]

Al-Mawrid A Modern Arabic-English Dictionary – Dr. Rohi Baalbaki:

أُخْرِجُوا To Take out, bring out, get out, let out: drive out, oust … [5]

An Arabic-English vocabulary for the use of English students of modern Egyptian Arabic – Donald Andreas Cameron:

أُخْرِجُوا , he took, sent, or drove out; exported …, he extracted, elicited. … a going out, issue, exit, exodus. [6]

We can see clear evidence that besides Muslims fleeing Makkah, their property was stolen, robbed by the Quraysh. And those few Muslims who were still in Makkah, their property and themselves weren’t protected and thus they were robbed and tortured, or as some other companions’ fates, they were murdered for believing in Islam.

Therefore, we can conclude that the attacks against Quraysh’s caravans was committed because of the continued hostilities, persecutions against Muslims. And the Muslims were only regaining some of the property which had been wrongfully robbed by the Quraysh from the Muslims. For those who claim that no property were taken by the Quraysh is nothing but fictitious accusations to try to make Quraysh thieves in good light and to absolve them of doing any wrong. Thus, the overwhelming evidences presented shows that the Quraysh did indeed steal houses and property from Muslims. [7]

References:

[1] Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane (London: Willams & Norgate 1863), page 718

[2] Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic: Arabic-English By Hans Wehr, page 232

[3] Wortabet’s Arabic-English Dictionary by Wortabet William Thomson, with the collaboration of Rev. John Wortabet M.D. and Professor Harvey Porter Ph. D., [Fourth edition – Librairie du liban Beirut], page 125

[4] Arabic English Dictionary for the use of students [Byrut – Catholic press, 1899, By the Rev. F. J. G. Hava, S. J., page 153

[5] Al-Mawrid A Modern Arabic-English Dictionary [Dar el-Ilm Lilmalayin – seventh edition 1995] by Dr. Rohi Baalbaki, page 507

[6] An Arabic-English vocabulary for the use of English students of modern Egyptian Arabic By Donald Andreas Cameron page 74

[7] Classical scholar Ibn al-Qayyim says that when people embraced Islam, the polytheists of Makkah used to forcefully steal the property of these newly converted Muslims:

“It was also part of his guidance that when a person embraced Islam and he had something in his possession, it belonged to him and he did not return to the MUSLIMS their personal property which HAD BEEN TAKEN BY THE DISBELIEVERS WHEN THEY EMBRACED ISLAM. … “ (Provisions for the Hereafter (Zaad Al-Ma’ad) by Ibn Al-Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, page 320)