المساعد الذكيجارٍ تحميل القصة…
ز
مرحبًا زائرThe Expedition against Banu Lihyan near Usfan in Jumada al-Awwal of Year 6 after the Hijrah (6 AH)
The Prophet ﷺ went out against Banu Lihyan near Usfan in Jumada al-Awwal of the sixth year after the Hijrah, but the Muslims did not meet anyone from them.
The Prophet ﷺ went out against Banu Lihyan near Usfan in Jumada al-Awwal of the sixth year after the Hijrah, but the Muslims did not meet anyone from them.
It falls among the ghazwahs of the sixth year after the Hijrah, after the Confederates faltered, and in the context of the Prophet ﷺ following up on expeditions and raiding parties.
And in Jumada al-Awwal of this year as well: The Expedition against Banu Lihyan took place near Usfan, and they met no one.
This means that the Prophet ﷺ went with his Companions to the land of Banu Lihyan, but the people did not confront the Muslims, so no direct clash took place.
Al-Rahiq al-Makhtum mentions that Banu Lihyan had betrayed ten of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ at ar-Raji' and caused their execution. Then, when the Confederates faltered, the Prophet ﷺ felt that the time had come to take revenge for his Companions who were killed at ar-Raji'.
What Banu Lihyan had done in betraying ten of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ at ar-Raji'.
No direct detailed change is recorded after this ghazwah.
It is among the ghazwahs of the sixth year after the Hijrah mentioned in the sequence of events.
It shows the Prophet’s continued initiative toward those who had attacked the Muslims.
It reflects the effect of earlier tribal betrayal on relations between groups.
It shows that responding to aggression should be within disciplined leadership, not impulsiveness.
It contributes to building security and deterring betrayal in the emerging Muslim community.
It represents a military move in the context of maintaining prestige and pursuing opponents.
Leader of the ghazwah
The side targeted in the ghazwah
Trust in Allah’s planning while taking the necessary means.
Betrayal is blameworthy and leaves a mark on historical memory.
Aggression leaves tension between groups and tribes.
The Prophetic state deals with threats according to what serves the public good.
Organized action is better than impulsive reaction.
The presence of central leadership directing ghazwahs and expeditions.
Establishing the principle of deterrence and preserving security.
Earlier attacks that leave security and political effects.
The need to deal with threats with wisdom and awareness of outcomes.
The importance of planning and not rushing into confrontation.
Preserving security and deterring betrayal within an organized framework.
Not to act on impulse in his reactions, but to follow the method.
It is not valid to map the details of the ghazwah directly onto modern events as if they were identical.
The prophetic context was revelation and infallible leadership, while the modern context is human ijtihad.
Aggression is met with planning and discipline, not chaos.
