The Life of Muhammad

by M. Husayn Haykal

  Threat to the Jews

  Perhaps, too, by these expeditions and armed sorties, Muhammad sought to warn the Jews of Madinah and the neighboring area. We have already seen how, upon Muhammad’s arrival at Madinah, the Jews hoped to bring him into alliance with them and how, after befriending him and pledging to honor his freedom to practice and preach the new religion, they had begun to oppose and plot against him. In fact, no sooner had Muhammad settled down and the prospects of Islam had begun to improve, than the Jews, for their part, began their undeclared war against him. Their opposition and hostility were never open. Above all, they feared lest any harm might befall their trade; and, although they had fanned and fueled the fires of civil war in the past, they adeptly avoided every possible involvement. Henceforth, their covenant with Muhammad at least prevented them from any such open involvement; and they recoursed to every hidden way to instigate enmity and hostility between the Muhajirun and Ansar so as to revive the old hatreds between al Aws and al Khazraj by reminding them of the day of Bu’ath in reciting the war poetry which had been composed on that occasion.

  Jewish Plots

  The Muslims realized what the Jews were about, for the latter were neither gentle nor discrete. Their instigation was always overdone. The Muslims accused those who entered into the Covenant of Madinah of hypocrisy, and classified them with the munafiqun.[Munafiqun, literally, the pretenders; applied to the insincere idolaters who joined the ranks of Islam for ulterior motives. -Tr.]. Some Jews were once violently expelled from the mosque, and were later isolated and boycotted. After failing to convince them of the truth of Islam, the Prophet, may God’s blessing be upon him, let them alone. But to let them alone religiously did not mean that they should be allowed to instigate the Muslims to a civil internecine war. Politically speaking, it was not enough to warn them and to warn the Muslims of their instigation. It was necessary to impress them with the fact that the Muslims were sufficiently strong to stamp out any such war as the Jews were instigating as well as to uproot its causes. A good way for pressing this realization upon them was the sending out of Muslim forces on military expeditions in all directions on condition that such sorties entail no actual fighting and no military setback. This account seems to be factual, for men like Hamzah, whom we know to have been quick to fly into a rage, turned around in front of the enemy without engagement. The appearance of an honored friend asking for peace is not enough to separate two parties either of which is bent upon fighting. Rather, non-engagement was a deliberate and carefully laid out plan. Its specific purpose was on one side to threaten and warn the Jews, and, on the other, to seek an understanding with the Quraysh to let the religious call take its course freely, without impediment or recourse to war or fighting.

  Islam and Fighting

  This peaceful show of strength by Islam does not at all mean that Islam, at that time, forbade fighting in defense of personal life and of religion, or to put a stop to persecution. Indeed, Islam did not. Rather, it imposed such defense as a sacred duty. What it did really mean at that time, as it does today or will ever do, was to condemn any war of aggression. “Do not commit any aggression,” God commands. He counsels, “God does not love the aggressors.”[Qur’an, 2:190] If, at that time, the Muhajirun felt justified in seizing the property of the Quraysh in retaliation for the latter’s confiscation of their property when they emigrated, they certainly realized that to protect the Muslims against apostasy from their faith was a greater duty in the eyes of God and His Prophet. The latter was the main purpose for the sake of which God had permitted the Muslims to fight at all.

  ‘Abdullah ibn Jahsh’s Expedition

  The proof of the foregoing contention may be found in the expedition of ‘Abdullah ibn Jahsh al Asadi, who was sent by the Prophet of God at the head of a number of Muhajirun in the month of Rajab of the second year A.H. The Prophet gave him a document and asked him not to look at it until two days after the start of his journey. He was then supposed to follow its instructions without forcing any of his companions to comply with them. Two days after he started off, ‘Abdullah, having unsealed the document, read the following instructions: “As soon as you have read this document, proceed to Nakhlah between Makkah and Ta’if, and there seek to learn for us the news of the Quraysh and their movements.” When his companions learned that they were under no compulsion to go along with him, they all decided to do so except for Sa’d ibn Abu Waqqas al Zuhri and ‘Utbah ibn Ghazwan, who preferred to look, on their own, for some of their camels which the Quraysh had seized. ‘Abdullah and his companions proceeded as instructed. At Nakhlah, they saw a donkey caravan carrying trade goods for the Quraysh which were guarded by ‘Amr ibn al Hadrami. The date was the end of the month of Rajab. Remembering the old persecutions of the Quraysh and the latter’s seizure of their wealth and property, ‘Abdullah ibn Jahsh, after consulting with his Muhajirun companions, said: “Surely, if you allow the caravan to pass through tonight unmolested, they will reach the holy territory tomorrow and will thereby become forbidden to you. And yet, if you kill them today, you will have killed them in the holy month when killing is forbidden.” The hesitant Muslims were afraid to attack the caravan; but, encouraging one another, they agreed to kill whomever they could and to seize the goods in his possession. One of them shot an arrow at ‘Amr ibn al Hadrami and killed him. The Muslims captured two men from the Quraysh.

  Sedition Greater Than Murder

  ‘Abdullah ibn Jahsh arrived in Madinah together with the two Quraysh captives and the donkey caravan loaded completely with goods. He had already earmarked one-fifth of the booty to the Prophet. But when the Prophet saw them, he said: “I have not instructed you to fight during the holy months.” He stopped the caravan in its place as well as the two captives and refused to take any part of the booty. He castigated ‘Abdullah ibn Jahsh and his companions and, later on, they were further scolded and punished by their fellow Muslims for what they had done. The Quraysh seized the opportunity to spread the propaganda everywhere that Muhammad and his companions had violated the sanctity of the holy month by having killed, robbed and captured. The Muslims of Makkah answered that the event had taken place not in the holy months but during the following month of Sha’ban. The Jew; immediately joined the chorus of Quraysh propaganda with the hope of engaging the Muslims in a war with the Quraysh over a case in which the Muslims were apparently in the wrong according to Arabian custom. It was then that God revealed ‘ he judgment

  “They ask you concerning the holy month whether or not fighting is permitted therein. Answer: ‘to fight therein is a grave misdeed. But to impede men from following the cause of God, to deny God, to violate the sanctity of the holy mosque, to expel its people from its precincts is with God a greater wrong than fighting in the holy month. Moreover, to divide the community of Muslims against itself is greater yet. Your enemies continue to fight you by all these means in order to compel you to abjure your religion.”[Qur’an, 2:217]

  This revelation brought the Muslims relief, and the Prophet accepted his share of the booty. When the Quraysh sought to ransom the two captives, the Prophet answered: “We shall not accept your ransom for the two captives unless you return our two men whom you have captured, namely Sa’d ibn Abu Waqqas and ‘Utbah ibn Ghazwan. If you kill them we shall likewise kill your two men.” Sa’d and ‘Utbah were returned and the two Quraysh captives were released. One of them, al Hakam ibn Kaysan, was immediately converted to Islam and spent the rest of his life in Madinah. The other returned to Makkah where he remained to the end.

  It is well worth our while to pause here for further consideration of the evidence which this expedition of ‘Abdullah ibn Jahsh and the Qur’anic verse, which was revealed in that connection, furnish for our generalization concerning the political theory of Islam. The event occurs as it were at the very crossroads of the development of Islamic policy. In kind, it is new. It points to a spirit strong in its nobility, human in its strength, a spirit which orders the material, moral, and spiri
tual aspects of life very strictly while enhancing man’s quest of perfection. The Qur’an answered the question of the idolaters concerning whether or not fighting is permissible in the holy months and approved their view that it is a grave misdeed. But it also warned against something yet greater in its evil and immorality: that is to impede men from following the path of God and to deny Him, to stop men from entering the holy mosque, to expel the worshipers therefrom, or to sway and lure man away from his religion by promise, threat, bribery, and persecution. All these are greater misdeeds than fighting during the holy months or any months. The Quraysh and the idolaters who blamed the Muslims for killing during the holy months were themselves still fighting the Muslims by these means in order to compel them to renounce their religion. If the Quraysh and the idolators perpetrated all these misdeeds together, the victims of their misdeeds cannot be blamed for fighting during the holy months. Rather, the real misdeed is that of perpetrating these evils during the holy month against the innocent and the peaceful.

  The Qur’an and Fighting

  Fitnah, or sedition, is a greater crime than murder. It is a right, nay a duty, of whosoever witnesses it, whether perpetrated against an individual or a whole community, to take up arms and fight for the sake of God and thus put an immediate end to it. It is here that the Orientalists and the missionaries raise their eyebrows and voices, shouting: “Do you see? Here is Muhammad agreeing that his religion actually calls to war, to jihad in the cause of God, that is, to compel man by the sword to enter into Islam. Isn’t this precisely what is meant by fanaticism? Now contrast this with Christianity, which denies fighting and condemns war, which calls for peace and advocates tolerance, which binds men in bonds of brotherhood in God and in Christ . . . .” In arguing this point I do not wish to mention the statement of the New Testament, “I have not come to send peace but a sword . . . .”[Matthew, 10:34] Nor do I want to analyze the meanings implicit in such statements. The Muslims understand the religion of Jesus only as interpreted by the Qur’an. Rather, I want to begin by refuting the claim that Muhammad’s religion calls for fighting and coercion of men into Islam. That is a false accusation denied by the Qur’anic judgment:

  “There is no compulsion in religion-the truth is now distinct from error;” as well as by the command, “Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not commit any aggression. God does not love the aggressor.”[Qur’an, 2:256, 190]

  The same directives are contained in a number of other verses.

  War in the Cause of God

  Jihad, or war for the sake of God, is clearly defined in the verses which we have mentioned and which were revealed in connection with the expedition of ‘Abdullah ibn Jahsh. Its definite meaning is to fight those who sway the Muslim away from his religion and prevent him from walking in the path of God. This fight is waged solely for the freedom to call men unto God and unto His religion. To use a modern expression consonant with the usage of the present age, we may say that war in Islam is permitted-nay, it is rather a duty-when undertaken in defense of freedom of thought and opinion. All weapons used by the aggressors may be used against them. If somebody seeks to sway a man from conviction or opinion, and he effectively uses propaganda and logic without physical coercion, persecution, discrimination, or use of illicit means such as bribery, no man may stop him except by answering his argument and analyzing and exposing his logic. However, if he resorts to armed force to prevent a man from holding a certain opinion, then it becomes necessary to answer his armed power with equal armed power wherever practical. Man has no dignity if his convictions have none. Convictions are far more precious than wealth, position, power or life itself. To those who appreciate the meaning of humanity, convictions are far more precious than the material life which man shares with the animals. If man’s humanity consists of no more than eating and drinking, growing and struggling for survival, he is one with the animals. Man’s spiritual and moral convictions constitute the moral bond which unites him to his fellowmen, the spiritual link between him and God. The life of conviction is man’s great distinction from the animal kingdom. By it, man wills for his brother that which he wills for himself; by it, he inclines to share his wealth with the poor, the destitute, and the miserable, though such sharing may imply some deprivation to his near relatives; by it, man enters into communion with the universe to perform that which enables the universe to realize the perfection which God has prescribed and established for it.

  Should conviction take possession of a man and should another man attempt to make him renounce it under conditions in which self-protection or defense are impossible, such a man would do what the Muslims did before their emigration from Madinah, namely, to bear patiently all injury, persecution, and injustice. Neither hunger nor deprivation of any kind would cause him to succumb to ignoble desires; patient forbearance was precisely what the Muslims practiced in Makkah as well as what the early Christians had practiced. But those who suffer in patience for the sake of their convictions are not the majority of mankind nor the plebians among them. They are, however, the select and chosen few whom God has endowed with such moral strength that they are capable of standing up against any injury or injustice, however great. It was precisely this kind of conviction which the New Testament has associated with the judgment that whoever is endowed therewith “shall say unto this mountain, remove hence to yonder place, and it shall remove.”[Matthew, 17:20]. But if it is possible for man to defend himself against aggression with the same arms as the aggressor, to fight the man who blocks the path of God by use of his own means, then it is his duty to do so. Otherwise, one would be weak of faith and doubtful in conviction. That is what Muhammad and his companions did after they had achieved a measure of security for themselves in Madinah. That is equally what the Christians did after they had achieved power in Rome and Byzantium, after the conversion of the Roman emperors.

  Christianity and Fighting

  The missionaries say, “But the spirit of Christianity condemns fighting altogether.” I do not wish to pause here for investigating the truth, or lack of it, of such a claim. The history of Christianity, however, is a legitimate witness in this matter and so is the history of Islam. From the dawn of Christianity until today every country of the world has been soaked with blood in the name of Jesus Christ. The Romans and the Byzantines of old as well as the European peoples of modern times are guilty of shedding blood in religious causes. The Crusades were launched and their fires fanned by Christians, not by Muslims. For hundreds of years, one army after another rolled out of Europe in the direction of the Muslim Orient to fight, to destroy, and to shed blood. In every case, the popes who claimed to be the vicars of Jesus Christ, blessed and encouraged these armies and hurried them to Jerusalem and other destinations. Were all these popes heretics? Was their Christianity spurious? Or was every one of them a pretender, an ignoramus, unaware that Christianity absolutely condemns fighting? The missionaries rejoin, “Those were the Middle Ages, ages of darkness, unfit as evidence against Christianity.” If this is an argument on which they pin some hope, let us then turn to the twentieth century in which we now live and which they call “the century of the highest human civilization.” This century has indeed seen the same darkness as did the Middle Ages. Lord Allenby, representing the allied forces of England, France, Italy, Rumania, and America, stopped in Jerusalem in 1918 after his conquest of that city toward the end of the first World War and said: “Today the Crusades have come to an end.”

  The Saints in Islam and Christianity

  If in every age and period, there have been Christian saints who have condemned fighting and who rose to the pinnacles of human brotherhood-indeed, of brotherhood among all element of the universe-so there were among the Muslims saints who have reached these very pinnacles and related themselves to all existence and being in a bond of brotherhood, love, and illumination and who realized within their souls the very unity of being. These saints, however, whether Muslim or Christian, do not represent human life
in its constant development and struggle toward perfection. Rather they represent the highest example of the realization of that perfection. The general run of men, however, seek to understand and realize such perfection, but neither their reason nor their imagination succeeds in doing so with any amount of precision or completeness. Their attempts to realize it are understandable as preliminaries and trials. One thousand three hundred and fifty-seven years have so far passed since the emigration of the Arab Prophet from Makkah to Madinah. Throughout these years men have increased their capacities to fight, improved their devilish art of war, and made its weapons more destructive than ever. However, disarmament and the cessation of war are still words of mere propaganda spread before the eyes of the credulous in war after war, each more devastating than the preceding. These noble ideals have hardly been more than propaganda claims made by people thus far incapable-and who knows, perhaps never capable of realizing any such desiderata, of bringing true peace into the world, a peace of brotherhood and justice instead of an armed peace which is only a preliminary to another war.

  Islam, the Natural Religion

  The religion of Islam is not one of illusion and fantasy. Neither is it a religion which addresses only the individual as such and urges him to rise to perfection. Rather, Islam is the natural religion, the religion which naturally belongs to all men, individuals as well as groups. It is the religion of truth, of freedom, and of order. As long as it is also the nature of man to fight and to make war, to discipline that nature and to limit this inclination within the narrowest frontier is all that is possible for men to bear and abide by; it is all that humanity can hope to achieve in its struggle toward goodness and perfection. By far the best disciplining of this inclination to war is to limit it to pure defense of one’s person, one’s faith, one’s freedom of opinion, and one’s freedom to preach. The greatest wisdom is to regulate the making of war so that all the rights and dignities of man may be respected and observed to the utmost. And this is precisely what Islam has sought to do, as we have seen and as we shall have occasion to see later. That is precisely what the Qur’an has commanded, as we have seen, and shall have occasion to see in the sequel.