The hadith states:“We sold the mothers of our children during the time of the Messenger of Allah and the time of Abu Bakr, but when Umar was in power, he forbade us, so we stopped.”
Narrator: Jabir ibn Abdullah — Source: Irwa’ Al-Ghaleel, No. 1777 — Ruling: Sahih.

The correct statement is that selling the mother of a child (umm al-walad) is forbidden, and that mothers of children are not sold because they are freed upon their master’s death.

On the authority of Al-Khattab ibn Salih, on the authority of his mother, she said: Salamah bint Maqal told me: I was with Al-Habbab ibn Amr and I had a boy from him. His wife said to me: “Now you are being sold for his debt.” So I came to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and mentioned that to him. He said: “Who is the owner of the estate of Al-Habbab ibn Amr?” They said: “His brother Abu Al-Yusr Ka’ab ibn Amr.” So he called him and said: “Do not sell her, but free her. When you hear that a slave has come to me, then come to me and I will compensate you.” So they did. And they differed among themselves after the death of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) — some said: “The mother of the child is a slave, otherwise the Messenger of Allah would not have compensated you.” And others said: “She is free and the Messenger of Allah has freed her.” And so the difference arose.

Narrator: Khawwat ibn Jubayr —“The mother of the child is not sold.”

Narrator: Abdullah ibn Abbas —“Any man whose female slave gives birth to a child from him — she is freed by virtue of that birth.”

The scholars differed regarding the mother of a child. The majority held that she is not sold, not given as a gift, and is freed upon her master’s death — and this is authentically reported from Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him). Its attribution as a direct prophetic statement is a mistake, as Al-Hafiz mentioned. It was also reported from Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) that he initially heard Umar’s opinion prohibiting sale, then later inclined toward permitting it — whereupon Ubaydah ibn Umar Al-Salmani said: “Your opinion together with Umar’s opinion on this group is more beloved to us than your opinion alone.”

Ahmad and Ibn Majah narrated on the authority of Abu al-Zubayr on the authority of Jabir that he said:“We used to sell our concubines, the mothers of our children, while the Prophet (peace be upon him) was alive among us. We saw no harm in that.” Al-Bayhaqi said: “There is nothing in the chains of transmission proving that the Prophet (peace be upon him) knew about the sale of the mothers of children and approved of it.” As for the Companion’s statement “we used to do it” — it amounts to a raised (marfu’) hadith according to the correct view, and the two Sheikhs acted upon it. Abd al-Razzaq also narrated that Abu Bakr al-Siddiq used to sell the mothers of children during his emirate, and Umar did so during half of his. It is possible that this was permissible in the early period, then the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade it — but Abu Bakr did not come to know of the prohibition due to the short duration of his caliphate or his preoccupation with fighting the apostates. Then Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) forbade it when he heard the ruling from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and the Companions stopped accordingly.

The hadith states:“We captured captives on the day of Awtas, and they had husbands among their people. So they mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah, and the following was revealed: {And chaste women, except those your right hands possess.}”
Narrator: Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri — Source: Sahih Al-Tirmidhi, No. 1132 — Ruling: Sahih.

“And chaste women, except those your right hands possess. This is the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are all beyond that, that you may seek with your wealth, in chastity, not in fornication. So whatever of them you have enjoyed, give them their dowries as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree upon after the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.”

The word “chastity” (ihsan) in Arabic carries multiple meanings: it means being chaste, being free, and being married. The phrase “chaste women” therefore refers to free women whose general status protects them and prevents attack upon them. However, if a woman is married and then a war or dispute occurs between her people and the believers — and she becomes a prisoner of the Muslims — her captivity moves her from her prior marriage into the Islamic environment, where she becomes a right-hand possession. Her ownership through captivity removes the “chastity” that had previously tied her to her former husband. Hence the exception:{Except those your right hands possess}.

This does not occur except after she has been purified, and it is confirmed that her womb is free of any fetus she may have carried from her people.

“A pregnant woman should not be touched until she gives birth, nor a non-pregnant woman until she menstruates.”

This is an honour for her — because when she was separated from her husband and became a right-hand possession, Allah did not leave her deprived. Rather, He permitted her to live under her master’s protection so that she would not be cut off from emotional and physical companionship, as an alternative to her master violating people’s honour.

Second case: The woman is captured alone — the marriage is annulled, and there is no known disagreement on this. The verse and the hadith of Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri indicate this directly.

Third case: The man alone is taken captive — the marriage contract is not annulled, because there is no text to that effect, nor does analogy require it. The Prophet (peace be upon him) took seventy captives on the day of Badr and did not rule that their marriages be annulled. Abu al-Khattab and Abu Hanifa said the marriage is annulled due to separation of the spouses by the two houses and because ownership came to one of them. Al-Shafi’i said: if the man is enslaved, the contract is annulled; if he is pardoned or ransomed, it is not.

Some — particularly certain Shi’a groups and orientalists — have accused Khalid ibn al-Walid of killing Malik ibn Nuwayrah out of desire for his wife Layla bint Sinan, not out of a legitimate religious ruling.

That the Prophet (peace be upon him) announced the deaths of Zayd, Ja’far, and Ibn Rawahah to the people before the news reached them. He said:“Zayd took the banner and was struck, then Ja’far took it and was struck, then Ibn Rawahah took it and was struck” — and his eyes were shedding tears — “until a sword from the swords of Allah took the banner and Allah granted them victory.”

“The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) did not consider any of his companions equal to me and Khalid ibn al-Walid since we converted to Islam.”

Historical accounts agree on a common foundation: Malik ibn Nuwayrah was killed by some of Khalid’s soldiers, and Khalid later married his wife Layla bint Sinan. Most ancient historians — Al-Waqidi, Ibn Ishaq, Wuthaymah, Sayf ibn Umar, Ibn Sa’d, Khalifa ibn Khayyat, and others — recorded that the cause of the killing was Malik’s refusal to pay zakat, his withholding of the charity camels, and his commanding his people to withhold what was due from them.

“The consensus is that Khalid debated with him and he rejected him, and that Malik permitted the prayer but turned away from paying zakat.”

“Then Khalid brought Malik ibn Nuwayrah forward to behead him, so Malik said: ‘Are you going to kill me while I am a Muslim who prays towards the qiblah?!’ Khalid said to him: ‘If you were a Muslim, you would not have withheld zakat, nor would you have ordered your people to withhold it.’”

It appears that Malik’s position on zakat was ambiguous at the outset — he did not explicitly deny its obligation, nor did he fulfil it. This ambiguity caused confusion for some Companions, including Umar ibn al-Khattab, his son Abdullah, and Abu Qatadah Al-Ansari. Abu Qatadah testified that Malik’s people had performed the prayer, while others stated they had not called the adhan or prayed. Since Malik appeared outwardly Muslim, those Companions held that Khalid should have investigated further before proceeding.

“Abu Qatadah came to Abu Bakr and informed him of the killing of Malik and his companions, and he was extremely upset by that. Abu Bakr wrote to Khalid and he came to him. Abu Bakr said: ‘Does Khalid do more than interpret and make a mistake?’ Abu Bakr sent Khalid back, paid the blood money for Malik ibn Nuwayrah, and returned the captives and the money.”

“His brother Mutammam ibn Nuwayrah came to Abu Bakr and recited a eulogy for his brother, appealing about his blood and their captives. Abu Bakr returned the captives. Al-Zubayr ibn Bakkar mentioned that Abu Bakr ordered Khalid to divorce the wife of Malik. Umar was harsh to Khalid in this matter, but Abu Bakr excused him.”

“Malik ibn Nuwayrah is not known to have been inviolable in blood, and this has not been proven to us. Then it is said: The most that can be said about the story of Malik ibn Nuwayrah is that his blood was inviolable and that Khalid killed him based on an interpretation. This does not permit the killing of Khalid — just as when Usamah ibn Zayd killed the man who said ‘There is no god but Allah,’ the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: ‘O Usamah, did you kill him after he said: There is no god but Allah?’ — and he denied his killing, yet did not require retaliation, blood money, or expiation. Likewise, Khalid ibn al-Walid killed Banu Juthaymah based on an interpretation, and the Prophet raised his hands and said: ‘O Allah, I disavow before You what Khalid did.’ Despite this, the Prophet did not kill him because he acted based on an interpretation. So if the Prophet did not kill him for that, then Abu Bakr would not have killed him for killing Malik ibn Nuwayrah — by the prior and more appropriate reasoning.”

The claim that Khalid killed Malik in order to marry his wife is an early accusation that Malik himself and some of his followers appear to have raised — without any apparent evidence — seemingly to obscure the real reason for which he was killed, namely the withholding of zakat.

“Malik ibn Nuwayrah turned to his wife, looked at her and then said: ‘O Khalid, will you kill me for this?’ Khalid said: ‘Rather, for the sake of Allah I will kill you — for your turning away from the religion of Islam, your prevention of the charity camels, and your ordering your people to withhold what is due from their wealth.’ Then Khalid brought him forward and struck his neck.”

“Thabit ibn Qasim narrated in Al-Dala’il that Khalid saw Malik’s wife — and she was extremely beautiful — and Malik said to his wife after that: ‘You killed me! Meaning: I will be killed for your sake.’ He said this out of suspicion, so it happened that he was killed — and his killing was not for the sake of the woman as he thought.”

“The truth is that Khalid was not killed for this reason, because Malik apostatized and returned his people’s charity when he heard of the death of the Messenger of Allah, as the apostates did — and Malik’s own brother admitted this to Umar. As for his marriage to his wife: perhaps her waiting period had expired after she gave birth following his death, or perhaps she was taken captive with him and her waiting period from prior husbands had ended. In any case, Khalid was too pious to be suspected of such a vile act — one that would not be committed by the lowest of believers, let alone the sword of Allah drawn against His enemies. The truth is what Abu Bakr did, not what Umar objected to him with. This is supported by the fact that when Umar became caliph, he did not confront Khalid, rebuke him, or say a single word about this matter — showing that he came to recognise that what Abu Bakr had done was right.”

“This is a new statement that is not to be relied upon, as the ancient sources are devoid of any reference to it — rather, they contradict it in their explicit texts. Al-Mawardi mentions in Al-Ahkam Al-Sultaniyyah (p. 47) that what made Khalid proceed to kill Malik was his withholding of the charity by which he made his blood permissible. The ruling on the women of apostates when they reach the land of war is that they should be taken captive, not killed — as Al-Sarakhsi indicates in Al-Mabsut (10/111). So when Umm Tamim was taken captive, Khalid chose her for himself, and when she became permissible, he consummated the marriage.”

Khalid took her as a right-hand possession since there is no waiting period for a captive — and it is absolutely forbidden for her master to approach her if she is pregnant before she gives birth, or if she is not pregnant until she menstruates once. The jurists differed regarding the waiting period of death: is it obligatory for a non-Muslim woman? There are two well-known opinions among the Muslims. They also differed regarding the apostate who is killed or dies in his apostasy — according to the schools of Al-Shafi’i, Ahmad, Abu Yusuf, and Muhammad, his wife does not observe the waiting period of death, but rather the waiting period of an irrevocable separation, because the marriage is voided by the husband’s apostasy. As for what was mentioned about Khalid marrying his wife on the night of the murder — this is not established to be proven. And if it were proven, there would be a juristic interpretation that prevents condemnation. In short: we do not know that the incident occurred in a manner that forecloses ijtihad, and attacking a person with such a claim is speaking without knowledge — something Allah and His Messenger have forbidden.