THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DETERMINING THE OBJECTIVE
To
emphasize the importance of this matter
I want to make it very
clear to you
that certain aspects
of Prophet Muhammad's noble
Seerah do appear
to be conflicting. The ambiguity
that such conflicting
actions create can however,
only be removed if we are
clear as to Prophet's life
mission and objective.
The enemies of Islam especially the Orientalists have leveled criticism and made accusations on this (apparent) contrast. Of these I shall give a few examples. In Makkah the Prophet (SAW) and his Companions (RAA) were brutally persecuted; his companions were made to lie down on fiery coals; some were dragged like animal carcasses, with ropes tied around their necks across the rocky and sun-baked terrain of Makkah. A believing lady was martyred not only in a most savage but also a most vulgar manner. One of the believers was bound by his hands and feet to four camels which were then driven in four separate directions so that his body was rent to pieces. Despite all this, retaliation was forbidden. For twelve years in Makkah none of the devoted Companions (RAA) of the Prophet (SAW) retaliated against the Mushrikeen of Makkah nor exacted revenge from them. This was so because the Prophet (SAW) had ordered them to keep their hands folded (with restraint). There was absolutely no retaliation at all. This happened despite the fact that, the worthy gentlemen who had embraced the new faith in Makkah were each equal to a hundred men, if not a thousand, in terms of courage and valour. And they numbered a hundred or so then. Yet they did not react even in self-defence thereby adhering to the Prophet's order: "Hold back your hands from fight".
This is one end of an extreme and at the other end during the Madinite era (the period in Madina) the Prophet (SAW) can be seen with the sword and standard in his hand. His faithful Companions, May Allah (SWT) be pleased with them all, can be seen armed with swords, spears, bows and arrows. Not only is retaliatory action being taken but moreover, as I have explained in detail in my repeated lectures on the topic "Manhaj-e-Inqilab-e-Nabawi" (The Methodology of the Prophet (SAW) for an Islamic Revolution), it was the Prophet (SAW) who initiated action after migrating to Madina.
In this background consider the criticisms leveled against Islam and the Muslims during the last two centuries. When not only the sub-continent but a large part of the Muslim world was in the political and military clutches of Western Imperialism, and most of the Muslim countries were under the yoke of one Western power or another, Islam came under severe criticism from most of the ruling nations. It was said that Islam was a violent religion, and the Muslims a bloodthirsty lot. And that Islam was spread by the sword. To quote, “A people whose every legend and age reeks of blood on history's fair page". The foreign invaders hurled these accusations at us with such ferocity that even the Late Allama Shibli Naumani, a religious scholar, biographer of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and historian of great stature, adopted an apologetic stance and in his first volume of the Prophet's biography wrote that the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and his Companions (RAA) did not initiate action nor did they first take up arms and that in fact they only did so to defend themselves. The Late Allama Shibli can be excused in this matter because he was living in a time when the English ruled and dominated the entire region.
But I was shocked and disappointed to hear a statement made in our independent country of Pakistan by a renowned Islamic scholar affiliated with a religious party, and this has come to my knowledge from reliable sources, that "in Islam there is no concept of a war (or course of action) with aggressive designs but only that of a war (or course of action) in self-defense. All the battles that took place in Prophet's era and in those of the rightly guided caliphs (RAA) were defensive in nature."
The enemies of Islam especially the Orientalists have leveled criticism and made accusations on this (apparent) contrast. Of these I shall give a few examples. In Makkah the Prophet (SAW) and his Companions (RAA) were brutally persecuted; his companions were made to lie down on fiery coals; some were dragged like animal carcasses, with ropes tied around their necks across the rocky and sun-baked terrain of Makkah. A believing lady was martyred not only in a most savage but also a most vulgar manner. One of the believers was bound by his hands and feet to four camels which were then driven in four separate directions so that his body was rent to pieces. Despite all this, retaliation was forbidden. For twelve years in Makkah none of the devoted Companions (RAA) of the Prophet (SAW) retaliated against the Mushrikeen of Makkah nor exacted revenge from them. This was so because the Prophet (SAW) had ordered them to keep their hands folded (with restraint). There was absolutely no retaliation at all. This happened despite the fact that, the worthy gentlemen who had embraced the new faith in Makkah were each equal to a hundred men, if not a thousand, in terms of courage and valour. And they numbered a hundred or so then. Yet they did not react even in self-defence thereby adhering to the Prophet's order: "Hold back your hands from fight".
This is one end of an extreme and at the other end during the Madinite era (the period in Madina) the Prophet (SAW) can be seen with the sword and standard in his hand. His faithful Companions, May Allah (SWT) be pleased with them all, can be seen armed with swords, spears, bows and arrows. Not only is retaliatory action being taken but moreover, as I have explained in detail in my repeated lectures on the topic "Manhaj-e-Inqilab-e-Nabawi" (The Methodology of the Prophet (SAW) for an Islamic Revolution), it was the Prophet (SAW) who initiated action after migrating to Madina.
In this background consider the criticisms leveled against Islam and the Muslims during the last two centuries. When not only the sub-continent but a large part of the Muslim world was in the political and military clutches of Western Imperialism, and most of the Muslim countries were under the yoke of one Western power or another, Islam came under severe criticism from most of the ruling nations. It was said that Islam was a violent religion, and the Muslims a bloodthirsty lot. And that Islam was spread by the sword. To quote, “A people whose every legend and age reeks of blood on history's fair page". The foreign invaders hurled these accusations at us with such ferocity that even the Late Allama Shibli Naumani, a religious scholar, biographer of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and historian of great stature, adopted an apologetic stance and in his first volume of the Prophet's biography wrote that the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and his Companions (RAA) did not initiate action nor did they first take up arms and that in fact they only did so to defend themselves. The Late Allama Shibli can be excused in this matter because he was living in a time when the English ruled and dominated the entire region.
But I was shocked and disappointed to hear a statement made in our independent country of Pakistan by a renowned Islamic scholar affiliated with a religious party, and this has come to my knowledge from reliable sources, that "in Islam there is no concept of a war (or course of action) with aggressive designs but only that of a war (or course of action) in self-defense. All the battles that took place in Prophet's era and in those of the rightly guided caliphs (RAA) were defensive in nature."
Now that
we have touched
this issue in our
discussion I want to
clearly state an
important and fundamental
fact that it is always the leader
of the revolt who sows the seeds
of confrontation that follows. Just think about how the Messenger
of Allah Muhammad (SAW) began
his call to the
faith! He invited
people to believe in
the Oneness of God
and openly declared
"O' people! Say that
there is no god but
Allah and attain
(everlasting) success".
Consider carefully the
latent aspects and
full import and meaning of this
statement wherein the
Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is saying that
'Your religion is untrue and your entire system based on it is flawed'.
'Your religion is untrue and your entire system based on it is flawed'.
- Is this not an open declaration of rebellion against a centuries old system in practice?
- Who was it then who raised the cry of revolt in the quiet city of Makkah?
- Who was the one to hurl the stone of dissent into the waters of peaceful city life that sent waves of rebellion throughout?
Now let us return
to the main topic. I had said
earlier that after migrating
to Madina it was the
Prophet Muhammad (SAW) who
initiated action against
the Makkans. After migration the
Prophet Muhammad (SAW) spent
the first six months in bringing
stability to the internal situation
of Madina. This being
done the Prophet
(SAW) then sent eight
raiding parties before
the Battle of Badr four of which he
commanded himself. These
expeditions had two objectives.
The Prophet (SAW) achieved this objective partly by forming a coalition with, and partly by making non-alignment pacts with the tribes residing between Makkah and Madina so that in the event of war they would neither join sides with the Prophet (SAW) nor with the Quraysh. One of these expedition's was sent under the command of Abdullah Bin Jahsh (RAA) to the Valley of Nakhla. This valley is situated between Ta'if and Makkah and served as a transit route for the trade caravans of the Quraysh to gain access to the shore of Yemen on their way from Ta'if. Prophet (SAW) had instructed them to keep a close eye on the activities of the Quraysh and keep him updated on the same on a regular basis. The people in this expedition were not given any orders to engage with the enemy. But it so happened that this expeditionary force found itself in a situation that eventually resulted in a skirmish with a trade caravan of the Quraysh comprising of five individuals and carrying plenty of merchandise. Out of the five Mushrikeen (polytheists) one was killed, two of them fled, and the remaining two were, along with the booty, captured and taken to Madina. I do not have the opportunity or the time to delve into details. What I intend to bring to your attention is the fact that six months after migrating to Madina, action was initiated by the Prophet (SAW) in the form of eight expeditions and the first Mushrik (polytheist) was killed by the Muslims.
- One objective was to imperil the travel routes of the Makkan trade caravans that served as the lifeline of their economy. This in present day terminology can be referred to as "the economic blockade of the Quraysh".
- The second objective was to politically restrain the Quraysh, what in modem day terminology is referred to as "the political isolation and containment of the Quraysh".
The Prophet (SAW) achieved this objective partly by forming a coalition with, and partly by making non-alignment pacts with the tribes residing between Makkah and Madina so that in the event of war they would neither join sides with the Prophet (SAW) nor with the Quraysh. One of these expedition's was sent under the command of Abdullah Bin Jahsh (RAA) to the Valley of Nakhla. This valley is situated between Ta'if and Makkah and served as a transit route for the trade caravans of the Quraysh to gain access to the shore of Yemen on their way from Ta'if. Prophet (SAW) had instructed them to keep a close eye on the activities of the Quraysh and keep him updated on the same on a regular basis. The people in this expedition were not given any orders to engage with the enemy. But it so happened that this expeditionary force found itself in a situation that eventually resulted in a skirmish with a trade caravan of the Quraysh comprising of five individuals and carrying plenty of merchandise. Out of the five Mushrikeen (polytheists) one was killed, two of them fled, and the remaining two were, along with the booty, captured and taken to Madina. I do not have the opportunity or the time to delve into details. What I intend to bring to your attention is the fact that six months after migrating to Madina, action was initiated by the Prophet (SAW) in the form of eight expeditions and the first Mushrik (polytheist) was killed by the Muslims.
Moreover it
is common knowledge
that Prophet Muhammad (SAW)
fought numerous battles
after migrating to Madina as is corroborated by a
depiction of the same in the Quran:
"They fight for Allah's
cause, they kill and
are also killed". So
the difference between the Prophet's life
in Makkah and
that in Medina
is evident before you.
On surface there seems
to be a stark contrast between the two.
This apparent
contradiction is the reason why
the famous historian Toynbee,
who is considered to be an
authority on the philosophy of history,
has injected all the malicious spite in a single statement. To quote words
of disbelief does not mean
to harbour disbelief.
He states that "Muhammad failed as a Prophet but suceeded as a Statesman".
Did you feel the venom and spite in this sentence? He is suggesting that in Makkah Muhammad's life had the semblance of that of a Prophet. There we find Muhammad (SAW) giving people call of the faith of Islam, propagating religion, delivering sermons, giving advice, exhorting good, giving warning and glad tidings (about the Hereafter), observing patience, being pelted with rocks yet choosing not to retaliate. This is exactly what the lives of John the Baptist (Hazrat Yahya) and Jesus Christ (Hazrat Isa) were, peace be upon them both. They are the role models for the Christian world. Jesus Christ (PBUH) never wielded the sword! He never became the head of any government! Likewise John the Baptist (PBUH) never wielded the sword! Therefore Toynbee concludes that the Seerah of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in Makkah is somewhat similar to a Prophet's way of life. Although he does not testify to the prophethood of Muhammad (SAW) yet he admits that his Seerah in Makkah does, to some extent, bear likeness to a prophet's way of life. But according to him this is where Prophet Muhammad (SAW) failed. From Makkah he had to escape for his life.
However in Madina he finds the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) to be an entirely different person. There he can be seen in the role of a General, a Cavalier (or skilled horseman), a King, the 'Leader' of the city-state of Madinah. He himself is the chief justice; cases are put before him and he can be seen passing verdict on the same. He can be seen making pacts and agreements. Upon arriving at Medina he brings three Jewish tribes into separate pacts without any delay. Pacts with other tribes of Arabia were also made in this period. So Toynbee goes on to say that this picture resembles that of a statesman. He does not find it as reflecting a prophet's glory. He concludes that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) succeeded as a statesman. But as a Prophet he was unsuccessful.
He states that "Muhammad failed as a Prophet but suceeded as a Statesman".
Did you feel the venom and spite in this sentence? He is suggesting that in Makkah Muhammad's life had the semblance of that of a Prophet. There we find Muhammad (SAW) giving people call of the faith of Islam, propagating religion, delivering sermons, giving advice, exhorting good, giving warning and glad tidings (about the Hereafter), observing patience, being pelted with rocks yet choosing not to retaliate. This is exactly what the lives of John the Baptist (Hazrat Yahya) and Jesus Christ (Hazrat Isa) were, peace be upon them both. They are the role models for the Christian world. Jesus Christ (PBUH) never wielded the sword! He never became the head of any government! Likewise John the Baptist (PBUH) never wielded the sword! Therefore Toynbee concludes that the Seerah of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in Makkah is somewhat similar to a Prophet's way of life. Although he does not testify to the prophethood of Muhammad (SAW) yet he admits that his Seerah in Makkah does, to some extent, bear likeness to a prophet's way of life. But according to him this is where Prophet Muhammad (SAW) failed. From Makkah he had to escape for his life.
However in Madina he finds the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) to be an entirely different person. There he can be seen in the role of a General, a Cavalier (or skilled horseman), a King, the 'Leader' of the city-state of Madinah. He himself is the chief justice; cases are put before him and he can be seen passing verdict on the same. He can be seen making pacts and agreements. Upon arriving at Medina he brings three Jewish tribes into separate pacts without any delay. Pacts with other tribes of Arabia were also made in this period. So Toynbee goes on to say that this picture resembles that of a statesman. He does not find it as reflecting a prophet's glory. He concludes that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) succeeded as a statesman. But as a Prophet he was unsuccessful.
A
British historian, Montgomery
Watt, has tried
to make Toynbee's statement more
weighty by using
a different tactic. He has
authored two separate
books on the Seerah, 'Muhammad at
Mecca' and 'Muhammad
at Medina' (Peace be upon him). By dividing the Seerah of the Prophet (SAW) into two
parts, he has actually
tried to make more vivid
their apparent contrast, and has given
the impression that the
Muhammad (SAW) we encounter in Madinah
is in reality an altogether different
person from the Muhammad
(SAW) we see
in Makkah. I
have given this
example because to a certain extent
and on the face of it a contrast
does exist. But
ill-meaning people have
exploited this contrast and
have made this
a subject of
criticism and
fault-finding. We have to admit
that they (the two different manifestations of Prophet
Muhammad's personality, peace
be upon
him) do appear
to move in separate
directions. However in the
sequel I will
show where they
converge and how they relate to each other.
Treaty of Hudaibya
Now I will cite another significant
example. All of you must
have read and
heard that in
the 6th year
of the Hijra (Migration to Madina)
a peace treaty was
made between Prophet Muhammad
(SAW) and the Quraysh of
Makkah at a place called Hudaibya which can be found
in all books of the Seerah by
the name of Sulah-e-Hudaibya (or
the Peace Treaty of Hudaibya). The conditions of this treaty were to a great
extent one-sided and
apparently it gave
the impression as if Prophet Muhammad
(SAW) had relented to pressure
in making this
treaty. So much
so that his Companions (RAA)
were extremely vexed
and uneasy as to why the treaty
was made on such
unfavourable terms, and they said
"Are we so weak! Are we not on the true path! We are ready to lay down
our lives for the true cause!" Fourteen hundred Companions
(RAA) had sworn allegiance
to the Prophet (SAW) and
to die for Allah's Cause
if they were ordered to fight.
Each one of them
had taken oath
on the blessed hand
of the Prophet (SAW) that he
would rather lay down
his life than turn his back. Then
why was it that truce was being
made on such
unfavourable terms they protested. One
of the conditions
of the Treaty
also stipulated that they
should go back (to Madina),
come out of the state
of Ihram, as Umrah would not be allowed this time.
This in itself was
impossible to be accepted by the
Companions (RAA). They
had arrived there
in a state of Ihram. The very thought that they would have to take off the Ihram without
performing the Umrah
stirred up unease amongst the Companions. Then there was also an item that
stipulated that in
case any person
from Makkah were
to come to Madina without express permission of his guardian or tribal chief (i.e. after accepting Islam) the Muslims would be
under an obligation
to send him back. But if a person from Madina left the fold of Islam (i.e. became a disbeliever again) the
Quraysh would not be
under any obligation
to return him back.
Quite obviously it
was an extremely unequal proposition.
The Companions
were clearly distraught
at this and became
intensely resentful of the fact that the terms
of the Treaty were inequitable. That
is why when
Prophet Muhammad (SAW), after
signing the Treaty, asked his
Companions to come
out of the
Ihram and perform the ritual
sacrifice of the animals
they had brought with
them for that purpose, none
of them got up. Such was
the state of their emotional
depression and disturbance. It was
as if their minds and bodies
had been paralysed. Everyone
was heart-broken. The Prophet (SAW) repeated twice
that they should untie
the Ihram and sacrifice their
animals but still no one moved. Aggrieved
and dismayed he retired
to his tent. It was
usual for Prophet
Muhammad (SAW) to be accompanied by
any one of his Honourable wives
(RAA) during travel. Consequently on
this journey he
had the company of
Hazrat Umm-e-Salma (RAA).
The Prophet (SAW) confided
with her about
the situation. She suggested that
'O Messenger of Allah! Don't-ask
anybody to do anything. Just
sacrifice your animal
and open your Ihram'. The Prophet (SAW) stepped outside,
performed the ritual sacrifice and
summoned a barber to
shave off his hair after
which he opened
his Ihram. When
the Companions (RAA) saw
this all of them leapt to their
feet. Those who had
brought sacrificial animals
with them performed their
sacrifice. And all
of them after
having their hair trimmed
or shaved opened
their Ihram. The explanation and
interpretation of this episode
is that the Companions (RAA)
were in an
unsettled state of mind. They
were hoping that
perchance events might
take a favourable turn
or that a new (Quranic)
revelation might arrive (from
Allah SWT). But
when the Prophet
(SAW) himself opened his Ihram their wavering
state of mind was gone
and everybody complied
with the Prophet's
(SAW) instructions, otherwise God
forbid, we cannot
even think of the Companions
(RAA) resorting to disobedience. The reason
why I have narrated
in detail the events forming part
of the background is that you
can fully appreciate that in the 6th year
of the Hijra the conditions
stipulated in the peace treaty
concluded at Hudaibya were
inequitable and apparently Prophet
(SAW) negotiated the
peace in a yielding
manner. In reality he
was at that
time making peace purposefully, even
though apparently with
a surrendering posture.
Two
years later on an occasion the Quraysh violated
a clause of the Treaty, and
when Prophet Muhammad
(SAW) held them responsible for doing
so, the Quraysh of Makkah in response
announced their renunciation of
the Treaty. It was then that Abu Sufyan, who
was at that time the chief of the entire clan
of Quraysh, realized that they
had committed a huge
mistake in the heat of the
moment. The Treaty bore in itself their protection. He decided that it should be renewed. Consequently Abu
Sufyan went to
Madina. He spared
no effort, did his utmost to have
the Treaty renewed. He sent intermediaries to plead
on his behalf so that Prophet
Muhammad (SAW) would agree to a renewal of the Treaty. But Abu Sufyan did
not get any positive response
from the Prophet's side.
The Prophet (SAW)
adopted complete silence in
this regard. He did not agree to the
renewal of the Treaty. It may
be noted that here
also there is an apparent
contradiction. After a period of two
years the chief
of the Quraysh himself offers a
truce deal and with this purpose in mind
traveled all the
way to Madina,
but Prophet Muhammad (SAW) refuses to accept the offer.
Now the relationship between these apparently conflicting actions will be made
congruent in case we
analyze matters more deeply.
What is it that is required
to make clear this interrelationship of apparently opposing
attitudes? The connection
between them will be made
manifest only after determining'
the true aim and objective of
Prophet (SAW) --- the
true aim and
aspiration for which
there was a continuous struggle
right from the
beginning of his Prophetic mission.
This aim and aspiration was none
other than "to establish
the supremacy of Allah's
chosen faith (i.e. Islam)". It
is for this
purpose that at
one time retaliation was
forbidden. It was
not permitted even
in self-defense. And at
another point in time the order was to
repel aggression and
initiate action. At one time truce was beneficial for attaining this purpose, so a peace
treaty was made. One's
personal ego was not
allowed to become an obstacle
in this process. The peace
treaty was negotiated in a yielding, and
to some extent a subdued manner, but on
another occasion when
truce was not advantageous for the
ultimate goal, it
was not made.
In reality all
conflicts between actions are
removed only after
the ultimate goal has been clearly identified. The actual
reason behind the Orientalists' faulty
and biased stance is their complete lack of
understanding regarding the
primary purpose for which
Messengers were sent
from God Almighty
to mankind and especially the last Messenger.
To Be Continued....
