'AL AMEEN. THE FAITHFUL' Muhammad the Greatest

 'AL AMEEN. THE FAITHFUL' 

 

a. "A MAN OF TRUTH AND FIDELITY; TRUE IN WHAT HE DID, IN WHAT HE SPAKE AND THOUGHT. THEY NOTED THAT HE ALWAYS MEANT SOMETHING. A MAN RATHER TACITURN IN SPEECH; SILENT WHEN THERE WAS NOTHING TO BE SAID; BUT PERTINENT WISE, SINCERE, WHEN HE DID SPEAK; ALWAYS THROWING LIGHT ON THE MATTER. THIS IS THE ONLY SORT OF SPEECH WORTH SPEAKING!" Heros and Hero-Worship, p. 69

b. "MAHOMET NATURALLY GAVE OFFENCE TO THE KOREISH, KEEPERS OF THE KAABAH, SUPERINTENDENTS OF THE IDOLS. ONE OR TWO MEN OF INFLUENCE HAD JOINED HIM:

1. “THE THING SPREAD SLOWLY, BUT IT WAS SPREADING, NATURALLY HE GAVE OFFENCE TO EVERYBODY."[The Jews hated the Prophet: the Christians hated the Prophet: the mushriks (the Polytheists) hated the Prophet, and the Munafiqeen (the hypocrites) hated the Prophet. It is the nature of Falsehood to hate the Truth. Light dismisses Darkness, but darkness does not take kindly to light. ] Heros and Hero-Worship, p. 77 c.

"NOT A MEALYMOUTHED MAN! A CANDID FEROCITY, IF THE CASE CALLS FOR IT, IS IN HIM; HE DOES NOT MINCE MATRERS! THE WAR OF TABUC IS A THING HE OFTEN SPEAKS OF: HIS MEN REFUSED, MANY OF THEM, TO MARCH ON THAT OCCASION; PLEADED THE HEAT OF THE WEATHER, THE HARVEST, AND SO FORTH; HE CAN NEVER FORGET THAT. YOUR HARVEST? IT LASTS FOR A DAY. WHAT WILL BECOME OF YOUR HARVEST THROUGH ALL ETERNITY? HOT WEATHER? YES, IT WAS HOT; 'BUT HELL WILL BE HOTTER!' SOMETIMES A ROUGH SARCASM TURNS UP: HE SAYS TO THE UNBELIEVERS, YE SHALL NOT HAVE SHORT WEIGHT!" Heros and HeroWorship, p.95/6.

Remember, Thomas Carlyle uttered these words, and many more to a shocked and bewildered Christian audience in England, a hundred and fifty years ago. History did not record for us the lively arguments and debates which his lecture must naturally have caused. He kept to his promise: "I mean to say all the good of him (his Hero Prophet) I justly can'" and he went on in his talk to I defend Muhammad (pbuh) against the false charges, slander and calumnies of his enemies:

Source

To Be Continued....

ADMONITION AS REVEALED Muhammad the Greatest

ADMONITION AS REVEALED

I may furnish just one incident from the life of the Prophet. An incidence which reflects the highest degree of his sincerity in recording a Revelation in the Noble Qur’ân even if it seems to reprove him for some natural and human zeal. 

 It was in the early days of his mission in Makkah. Muhammad (pbuh) was deeply engrossed in trying to wean the leaders of the pagan Quraish to his teachings. Apparently one of them was giving him an attentive hearing when a poor blind man by the name of Abdullah lbn Umm-l- Maktum tried to barge in into the discussion and wanting to draw attention to himself. The blessed Prophet said nothing, but perhaps a thought went through his mind (why don't you have a little patience, can't you see (sense) that because of your impatience I might lose these customers). I believe that lesser men, sinners and saints, will not be questioned for such lapses, but not so for Muhammad (pbuh). Did not God choose him and honour him with that lofty status as recorded?  

And Most Certainly Thou (O Muhammad) Are of Most sublime And Exalted Character. 

Noble Qur’ân 68:4

Source

To Be Continued....

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DETERMINING THE OBJECTIVE

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."

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'.   

• 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. 

• 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.

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.

Source:LOVE FOR THE MESSENGER (SA)

To Be Continued....