The prophet's attitude over Bir-Mauna incident

 (And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another), Al-An`am, 164.

One of the aspects of the Prophet's justice to non-Muslims is that he never punished any body for other's faults even if they are grave. This is because every tribe and people has the righteous and the bad, the faithful and perfidious. For example; the attitude of the Prophet Muhammad after the tragedy of Bir-Mauna and how he restored the deposits to their owners of people of Mecca before migration to Medina. In this regard, Allah, Almighty, says: (Every soul, for what it has earned, will be retained), Al-Mudathir, 38 and (And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another), Al-An`am, 164.

A plian example for this point is the issue of `Amr ibn Umayah Adamri[1] after the incident of Bi'r-Ma'ana[2].

This incident was reported by Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: (The people of the tribes of Ril, Dhakwan, 'Usiya and Bani Lihyan came to the Prophet and claimed that they had embraced Islam, and they requested him to support them with some men to fight their own people. The Prophet supported them with seventy men from the Ansar whom we used to call Al-Qurra'(i.e. Scholars) who (out of piety) used to cut wood during the day and pray all the night. So, those people took the (seventy) men till they reached a place called Bi'r-Ma'ana where they betrayed and martyred them. So, the Prophet invoked evil on the tribe of Ril, Dhakwan and Bani Lihyan for one month in the prayer[3]).

This was a crisis afflicted Muslims where seventy of the most honorable and righteous of the companions of the prophet were murdered perfidiously. The prophet Muhammad was grieved for that incident to the extent he spent a whole month invoking Allah, Almighty, on those perfidious. This is not usual issue in the life of the prophet Muhammad, however; it may be the only time to get this degree of sorrow.

Just one companion was saved of this incident called `Amr ibn Umayyah Ad-Damri who was released by `Amir ibn At-Tufayl[4] in exchange for a slave the mother of `Amir had vowed to free at one time. `Amr ibn Umayah returned to Median and on the way he met two men of bani `Amir. Accordingly, Amr killed them to avenge his Muslim company that murdered before, but it happened that these two men were in peacemaking covenant with the prophet Muhammad.

What was the reaction of the prophet Muhammad to the act of Amr?!

The prophet Muhammad overlooked his sorrows over his seventy companions and observed the principles of Islam. The prophet Muhammad said to `Amr (I will pay the blood money of the two men you killed[5]). The prophet himself designed to pay the blood money for their families.

The prophet Muhammad had not justified for himself to breach the covenant of these two men as their tribe done with him as they killed seventy of his companions. This is because the prophet Muhammad does not punish some one for other's fault. The two men had not wronged the prophet and hand not killed his companions and they are in covenant with the prophet, thus it is forbidden to kill them what ever the case is.

Killing the seventy companions was not only a source for a political crisis; but Medina was experiencing many other crises at that time which may be influential factor on making decisions.

The economic crises ranked first that Muslims in Medina were experiencing poverty extremely; especially these incidents took place months following the battle of Uhud. Therefore, there was a difficulty to procure the blood money, the matter made the prophet Muhammad seek the support of the Jews by virtue of the agreement concluded between them which may worsen the bilateral relations.

Indeed, how numerous and compound crises they are!

It is not only the psychological and emotional factor which affects the situation, but also the economic and political ones do. In spite of that, the prophet Muhammad insisted to pay the blood money and verily the prophet went to Bani –An-Nadir asking their support in virtue of the bilateral agreement. Such visit of the prophet Muhamamd to Bani An-Nadir was the reason why the prophet forced them out of there homes as well known in the concerned books of Sirah (the biography of the prophet[6]).

Has it never found in the old or recent times justice like this?!

Is it grounded to any claimer after this incident to assume that the prophet has not respected, recognized or dealt fairly the non-Muslims?!

The Prophet Muhammad, the truthful and honest

Such marvelous attitude of the prophet may appear to many people pure fantasy or myths, but Islam effectuate the fantasies.

The incident of paying the blood money of the two men is as a drop in the bucket of the similar attitudes of the prophet Muhammad over similar incidents. To exemplify, the deposits of people pf Mecca that was entrusted to him and the famous attitude of the prophet over this matter before migration to medina needs a contemplation.

People of Mecca were holding the prophet Muhammad honest as never held some one else. Thus, they used to keep their wealth and deposits with him as they used to attribute him the faithful and the honest.

Though, they harmed the prophet and accused him of being magician, liar, priest, poet and other vicious attributes, they kept reserving their wealth in his possession. Though, they acted in this manner with him, the prophet never refused to keep their wealth with him.

Migration to Medina was the incident necessitated on Muslims to leave their homes, properties and business due to harassments the prophet and his companions experienced of people of Mecca.

Indeed, migration was a psychologically bitter to the prophet that declared through the statement of the prophet (you, Mecca, are the best land in the sight of Allah and dearest to Allah. Were it not for your people brought me out of you unwillingly, I would never have left[7]).

Though all these sorrowful circumstances, the prophet Muhammad sought administering justice to the extreme degree. To illustrate; the prophet Muhammad left `Ali ibn Abi-talib with the deposits instructing him to restore them back to its owner. `Ali stayed at Mecca three days and nights until restored all the deposits[8].

I do not think that any one worldwide applied justice as the prophet Muhammad did.

If some one else were to be in the place of the prophet, he would have taken the deposits. Such one definitely would justify it that they took his wealth and that of Muslims and confiscated them along with their homes, namely tit for tat.

Such one may justify it as they drove them out of their homes unwillingly and seriously planned to kill him to the extent he was saved hardly. Or the one in place of the prophet may justify it by the need to such deposits to back Muslims and Da`wah, especially at the very days in Medina. There may be other numerous reasons justifying it to the one in place of the prophet to keep the deposits in his possession.

Indeed, justifiers are numerous, but upon coming to the point away from any personal inclination, these justifiers become null and unacceptable and the righteousness is plain and observing justice needs special characters and charisma.

People of Mecca entrusted their wealth to the prophet Muhammad based on an agreement to keep it for them, in virtue of his agreement, the prophet is more humane to them and their wealth than their fathers and mothers do.

The prophet Muhammad never betrays whatever circumstances are. Justice entails pardoning those trusted him who took no part in assaulting him.

Though they were busy in attempts to kill him, the prophet was busy in restoring their deposits.

Indeed, they were very perfidious, but the prophet Muhammad was very faithful to them!

They are polytheists, but he is the Messenger of Allah, Almighty!

The difference between the prophet and the polytheist is that between earth and heavens.

The serious point is that the prophet Muhammad restored their deposits simply without affectation (Say, [O Muúammad], "I do not ask you for the Qur'an any payment, and I am not of the pretentious), Sad, 86.