Did Khaalid ibn al-Waleed kill Maalik ibn Nuwayrah so that he could marry his wife?
Question

                I am asking about something that I have read on a Shi’i website where it says that Khaalid saw the wife of Maalik – who was very beautiful – and after that Maalik said to his wife: You have killed me  - meaning, I will be killed because of you. al-Zamakhshari, Ibn al-Atheer, Abu’l-Fida and al-Zubaydi said that Maalik ibn Nuwayrah  (may Allaah be pleased with him) said to his wife on the day that Khaalid ibn Waleed killed him: Have you killed me? 

I am asking how true this story is.
Praise be to Allah.Firstly: 
The noble Sahaabi Khaalid 
    ibn al-Waleed was the Sword of Allaah that was unsheathed against the 
    mushrikeen, and the leader of the mujaahideen, (known as) al-Qurashi 
    al-Makhzoomi al-Makki. He became Muslim in 7 AH after the conquest of 
    Khaybar, or it was said that it happened before that. He died in 21 AH, and 
    is known for many virtues. Among the most important reports about his 
    virtues are the following: 
1-
It was narrated from Anas 
    (may Allaah be pleased with him): 
That the Prophet  
    (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) announced the death of Zayd, 
    Ja’far and Ibn Rawaahah to the people before the news came to them and he 
    said: “Zayd took the banner and was killed, then Ja’far took (it) and was 
    killed, then Ibn Rawaahah took (it) and was killed,” and his eyes were 
    streaming with tears, “then one of the swords of Allaah took the banner, 
    until Allaah granted them victory.”
Narrated by al-Bukhaari 
    (4262). 
2-
It was narrated that ‘Amr 
    ibn al-‘Aas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: 
The Messenger of Allaah 
     (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not regard any of his 
    companions as equal to me and Khaalid ibn al-Waleed from the day we became 
    Muslim.” 
Narrated by al-Haakim in 
    al-Mustadrak (3/515) and by Abu Ya’la in al-Musnad (13/274). 
    Al-Haythami said in Majma’ al-Zawaa’id (9/350): its men are thiqaat. 
Secondly: 
This noble Sahaabi has been 
    exposed to slander and misrepresentation by some of the Orientalists who 
    accepted all reports without researching or analyzing them, which were 
    fabricated by some groups of Shi’ah out of hatred towards this Sahaabi who 
    excelled in fighting the kuffaar and protecting the Muslim state during the 
    time of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs. Among these slanders is the famous story 
    about Khaalid killing Maalik ibn Nuwayrah and marrying his wife Layla bint 
    Sinaan. 
Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was 
    known by the kunyah Abu Hanzalah; he was a poet and knight, one of the 
    knights of Banu Yarboo’, and the Prophet  (peace and blessings of Allaah 
    be upon him) employed him to collect the zakaah of his people. 
The historical reports 
    agree to some extent that Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was killed by some of the 
    troops of Khaalid ibn al-Waleed, and that after that Khaalid married his 
    wife Layla bint Sinaan. 
As for the reason why 
    Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was killed, and the circumstances surrounding this 
    incident, the reports vary, but most of the earlier historians who recorded 
    this incident, such as al-Waaqidi, Ibn Ishaaq, Wuthaymah, Sayf ibn ‘Umar, 
    Ibn Sa’d, Khaleefah ibn Khayyaat and others, state that Maalik ibn Nuwayrah 
    refused to pay zakaah and withheld the zakaah camels, and he prevented his 
    people from paying it, which led Khaalid to kill him, without paying any 
    attention to his claim that he was Muslim and prayed regularly. 
Ibn Salaam said in 
    Tabaqaat Fuhool al-Shu’ara’ (172): 
The point on which there is 
    consensus is that Khaalid debated with him and that Maalik agreed to pray 
    but refused to pay zakaah. End quote. 
Al-Waaqidi said in 
    al-Riddah (107-108): 
Then Khaalid ordered that 
    Maalik ibn Nuwayrah should be brought forward so that his neck might be 
    struck, and Maalik said: Are you going to kill me when I am a Muslim who 
    prays facing the qiblah? Khaalid said to him: If you were a Muslim you would 
    not have withheld the zakaah and you would not have told your people to 
    withhold it. End quote. 
This was also narrated by 
    many of the later historians such as al-Tabari, Ibn al-Atheer, Ibn Katheer, 
    al-Dhahabi and others. 
Some reports speak of the 
    relationship between Maalik ibn Nuwayrah and the woman Sajjaah who claimed 
    to be a prophet, and they also mention some bad statments spoken by Maalik 
    ibn Nuwayrah, from which it may be understood that he had apostatized from 
    the religion of Islam, as was mentioned by Ibn Katheer in al-Bidaayah 
    wa’l-Nihaayah (6/322). He said: 
It was said that Khaalid 
    summoned Maalik ibn Nuwayrah, and warned him against following Sajjaah and 
    withholding zakaah. He said: Do you not know that it is the partner of 
    prayer? Maalik said: Your companion used to say that. He said: Is he our 
    companion and not yours? O Diraar, strike his neck. So I struck his neck. 
    End quote. 
So why did some of the 
    Sahaabah criticize Khaalid for killing Maalik ibn Nuwayrah, as was done by 
    ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab and his son ‘Abd-Allaah, and Abu Qataadah al-Ansaari? 
The reason for that may be 
    found in some reports, as it seems that the attitude of Maalik ibn Nuwayrah 
    about zakaah was ambiguous at first, and did not clearly deny that it was 
    obligatory, and he did not pay it, so these Sahaabah were not certain about 
    his view on the issue. But Khaalid ibn al-Waleed accused him and killed him. 
    Because Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was outwardly a Muslim and prayed, Khaalid 
    should not have been hasty and should have investigated his case further, 
    and see whether Maalik ibn Nuwayrah would change his mind about zakaah. So 
    some of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) denounced him for 
    that. 
It says in al-Bidaayah 
    wa’l-Nihaayah by Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) (6/322): 
Khaalid sent the troops to 
    al-Battaah, calling the people to Islam, and the leaders of Banu Tameem came 
    to him, hearing and obeying, and they paid the zakaah, except for Maalik ibn 
    Nuwayrah. It is as if he was not certain what to do and he was holding back. 
    The troops came to him and took him and his companions prisoner, but the 
    soldiers disagreed about what to do with them. Abu Qataadah al-Haarith ibn 
    Rib’i al-Ansaari bore witness that they prayed, but others said that they 
    did not give the adhaan or pray. End quote. 
Because Maalik ibn Nuwayrah 
    was one of the leaders and nobles of his people, and his stance was not 
    clear at the beginning, his brother Mutammim ibn Nuwayrah complained to Abu 
    Bakr al-Siddeeq (may Allaah be pleased with him) about what Khaalid had 
    done, and he rebuked Khaalid and said that he had erred by rushing to kill 
    Maalik ibn Nuwayrah before referring the matter to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq and 
    the senior Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them).  
Khaleefah ibn Khayyaat 
    (1/17) narrated: 
‘Ali ibn Muhammad narrated 
    to us from Abu Dhi’b from al-Zuhri from Saalim that his father said: Abu 
    Qataadah came to Abu Bakr and told him that Maalik and his companions had 
    been killed, and he was very upset by that. Abu Bakr wrote to Khaalid 
    telling him to come to him. Abu Bakr said: The worst that Khaalid could have 
    done is making the wrong decision. Abu Bakr reinstated Khaalid and paid the 
    diyah for Maalik ibn Nuwayrah, and he returned the prisoners and the wealth. 
    End quote. 
Ibn Hajar said in 
    al-Isaabah (5/755): 
His brother Mutammim came 
    to Abu Bakr and eulogized his brother and urged him to pay the diyah and 
    return the prisoners, so Abu Bakr set the prisoners free. Al-Zubayr ibn 
    Bakkaar said that Abu Bakr ordered Khaalid to divorce the wife of Maalik, 
    and ‘Umar rebuked Khaalid sternly about the case of Maalik, but Abu Bakr 
    pardoned him. End quote. 
This is the most that can 
    be said about the story of Khaalid ibn al-Waleed killing Maalik ibn 
    Nuwayrah. Either he was correct in killing him for withholding zakaah and 
    denying that it was obligatory after the death of the Prophet  (peace 
    and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or he made a mistake and Khaalid 
    rushed to kill him when he should have examined the matter and established 
    proof. Whatever the case, this is not a slander against Khaalid (may Allaah 
    be pleased with him). 
Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah 
    have mercy on him) said in Minhaaj al-Sunnah (5/518): 
It is not known whether the 
    blood of Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was protected by sharee’ah, and we have no 
    proof of that. The most that can be said about the story of Maalik ibn 
    Nuwayrah is that his blood was protected and that Khaalid killed him as the 
    result of a misjudgement. This does not mean that it would be permissible to 
    kill Khaalid (in retaliation), just as when Usaamah ibn Zayd killed the man 
    who said Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah, the Prophet  (peace and blessings of 
    Allaah be upon him) said to him: “O Usaamah, did you kill him after he said 
    Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah? O Usaamah, did you kill him after he said Laa ilaaha 
    ill-Allaah? O Usaamah, did you kill him after he said Laa ilaaha 
    ill-Allaah?” He denounced him for killing him, but he did not order that he 
    be killed in retaliation or require him to pay diyah or offer any expiation. 
     
Muhammad ibn Jareer 
    al-Tabari and others narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with 
    him) that this verse – “and say not to anyone who greets you (by 
    embracing Islam): ‘You are not a believer’” [al-Nisa’ 4:94] – was 
    revealed concerning Mardaas, a man from Ghatafaan. The Prophet  (peace 
    and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sent an army to his people, whose 
    leader was Ghaalib al-Laythi, and his companions fled but he did not flee, 
    and he said, I am a believer.  The cavalry came to him and he greeted them 
    with salaam, but they killed him and took his sheep. Then Allaah revealed 
    this verse and the Messenger of Allaah  (peace and blessings of Allaah 
    be upon him) ordered that his wealth be returned to his people and that the 
    diyah for him be paid to them, and he forbade the believers to do such 
    things. Similarly, Khaalid ibn al-Waleed killed Banu Judhaymah as the result 
    of misjudgement, and the Prophet  (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon 
    him) raised his hands and said: “O Allaah, I disavow before You what Khaalid 
    has done.” But despite that the Prophet  (peace and blessings of Allaah 
    be upon him) did not execute him because he had acted on the basis of a 
    misjudgement. As the Prophet  (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon 
    him) did not execute him even though he had killed more than one of the 
    Muslims of Banu Judhaymah on the basis of a misjudgement, so it was more 
    appropriate that Abu Bakr did not execute him for killing Maalik ibn 
    Nuwayrah.  
As for the accusation that 
    Khaalid ibn al-Waleed (may Allaah be pleased with him) killed Maalik ibn 
    Nuwayrah so that he could marry his wife because he desired his wife, it 
    seems that this is an early accusation that Maalik himself and some of his 
    followers also made, but they had no clear evidence for that. Rather it 
    seems that he said that in order to conceal the real reason why he was 
    killed, which was withholding zakaah. This is indicated by the discussion 
    between Khaalid and Maalik that was narrated by al-Waaqidi. 
Al-Waaqidi said in 
    Kitaab al-Riddah (107-108): 
Maalik ibn Nuwayrah turned 
    to his wife and looked at her, then he said: O Khaalid, for this will you 
    kill me? 
Khaalid said: No, rather 
    for the sake of Allaah I will kill you, because of your recanting the 
    religion of Allaah and your withholding the zakaah camels, and your telling 
    your people to withhold the zakaah of their wealth that is due from them. 
    Then Khaalid issued orders that he brought forward and his neck be struck. 
It was said that Khaalid 
    ibn al-Waleed married the wife of Maalik and consummated the marriage with 
    her, and the scholars are agreed on that. End quote. 
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said in
    al-Isaabah (5/755): 
Thaabit ibn Qaasim narrated 
    in al-Dalaa’il that Khaalid saw the wife of Maalik – who was very 
    beautiful – and after that Maalik said to his wife: You have killed me! 
    Meaning: I will be killed because of you. 
He said this as 
    speculation, and it so happened that he was killed, but he was not killed 
    because of the woman as he thought. End quote. 
Ibn Hajar al-Haytami said 
    in al-Sawaa’iq al-Muhriqah (1/91): 
The correct view is that 
    Khaalid did not deserve to be executed because Maalik apostatized and 
    returned his people’s zakaah to them when he heard of the death of the 
    Messenger of Allaah, as the apostates did, and Maalik’s brother admitted 
    that to ‘Umar. 
With regard to his marrying 
    his wife, perhaps it was because her ‘iddah ended by her giving birth 
    immediately after he died, or it may be that she was detained in his home 
    after the end of her ‘iddah according to Jaahili custom. Whatever the case, 
    Khaalid was too pious a man for anyone to think that he would do such a 
    shameful deed that was not done by even the least of the believers, so how 
    about the Sword of Allaah that was unsheathed against His enemies? What Abu 
    Bakr did was right, not what ‘Umar suggested to him. That is supported by 
    the fact that when ‘Umar was appointed caliph, he did not prosecute Khaalid 
    or rebuke him, and he never mentioned this matter to him, so it is known 
    that he realized that what Abu Bakr did was right, and he recanted his 
    objection. Otherwise he would not have ignored the issue when he had the 
    power and authority to deal with it, because he feared Allaah and would not 
    compromise with regard to His sacred limits. End quote. 
Dr. ‘Ali al-Sallaabi said 
    in his book Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq (219): 
To sum up, there are those 
    who accused Khaalid of marrying Umm Tameem immediately after she fell into 
    his hands, because he could not be patient in the face of her beauty and his 
    desire for her, in which case his marriage to her – Allaah forbid – would 
    have been an act of immorality. This is a recently fabricated view that is 
    of no worth, because the classical sources make no reference to it. Rather 
    it is contrary to the clear texts. Al-Maawirdi said in al-Ahkaam 
    al-Sultaaniyyah (47) that what made Khaalid kill Maalik was his 
    withholding the zakaah, which made it permissible to shed his blood. Thus 
    the marriage contract between him and Umm Tameem was invalidated, and the 
    ruling on the wives of apostates, if they live in dar al-harb, is that they 
    are to be taken prisoner, not killed, as was indicated by al-Sarkhasi in 
    al-Mabsoot (10/111). When Umm Tameem was taken prisoner, Khaalid chose 
    her for himself, and when she became permissible for him he consummated the 
    marriage with her as is stated in al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah. 
Shaykh Ahmad Shaakir 
    commented on this issue by saying: Khaalid took her and had intercourse with 
    her as a concubine because she was a prisoner, and there is no ‘iddah in the 
    case of a prisoner, but it is completely haraam for her master to approach 
    her if she is pregnant, before she gives birth, or if she is not pregnant, 
    before she has had one menstrual period. Then he may have intercourse with 
    her and that is something that is permitted according to sharee’ah and no 
    one criticized that except his enemies who were opposed to him and saw their 
    opportunity in that action, so they took their chance and started claiming 
    that Maalik ibn Nuwayrah was a Muslim, and that Khaalid had killed him 
    because of his wife. As for what they said about him marrying his wife on 
    the night that he was killed, this is something that is not proven. If it 
    were proven, there may be a way to explain it which would mean that Khaalid 
    could not be stoned to death. The fuqaha’ differ concerning the 'iddah of a 
    woman whose husband has died – is it required in the case of a kaafir 
    husband? There are two views. They also differed as to whether a dhimmi 
    woman is obliged to observe the ‘iddah following the death of her husband. 
    There are two views that are well known among the Muslims, unlike the ‘iddah 
    following divorce. The reason for that is intercourse; it is essential that 
    it be established that the womb is empty. As for the ‘iddah following the 
    death of the husband, it is required as soon as the marriage contract is 
    drawn up. If he dies before consummating the marriage with her, should she 
    observe ‘iddah following the death of a kaafir husband or not? There is a 
    difference of opinion concerning that. The same applies if he did consummate 
    the marriage with her and she had one menstrual period following the 
    consummation. 
This applies if he was 
    originally a kaafir. As for the apostate, if he is killed or he dies in his 
    apostasy, then according to the view of al-Shaafa’i, Ahmad, Abu Yoosuf and 
    Muhammad, she does not have to observe the ‘iddah of a woman whose husband 
    has died, rather she should observe the ‘iddah of irrevocable divorce, 
    because the marriage became invalid when the husband apostatized. This 
    separation is not a divorce (talaaq) according to al-Shaafa’i and Ahmad, but 
    it is a divorce (talaaq) according to Maalik and Abu Haneefah, hence they 
    did not oblige her to observe the ‘iddah of one whose husband has died, 
    rather she should observe the ‘iddah of irrevocable divorce. If he did not 
    consummate the marriage with her then she does not have to observe ‘iddah, 
    just as she does not have to observe the 'iddah following divorce (talaaq) 
    in that case. 
It is known that Khaalid 
    killed Maalik ibn Nuwayrah because he thought that he was an apostate. If he 
    had not consummated the marriage with his wife, then she did not have to 
    observe ‘iddah according to most of the scholars, and if he had consummated 
    the marriage, then she had to wait for one menstrual cycle to establish that 
    the womb was empty, not a full ‘iddah, according to one scholarly opinion; 
    according to the other opinion, she had to wait for three cycles. If he was 
    a kaafir then his wife did not have to observe the 'iddah following death of 
    the husband according to one scholarly opinion, and if it was required to 
    establish that the womb was empty by waiting for one cycle, then she may 
    have already menstruated. Some of the fuqaha’ regard one cycle as sufficient 
    to establish that the womb is empty, so if she was at the end of her menses, 
    that could have been taken as evidence that her womb was empty. 
To sum up, we do not know 
    whether this matter happened in a way that leaves no room for ijtihaad, and 
    making accusations in such a manner is the speech of one who is speaking 
    without knowledge, which is something that is forbidden by Allaah and His 
    Messenger. End quote. 
And Allaah knows best.