TF-RA | June 6, 2019
Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths [pagans of Mecca] and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? Do you fear them? But Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are [truly] believers.(Qur'ān, 9:13)
This is an explicit text from Qur'ān revealing the truth of what happened at 7th century Arabia. It leaves no room for doubt and criticism. Given the most reliable Islamic source, Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and his companions were oppressed and they were forced to repel the aggressors.
A Detractor's Argument:
A critic who makes his inferences from Islamic sources cannot disregard what is mentioned in the most reliable source in Islamic literature (i.e. Qur'ān). Hence he has no choice but to say, ‘this was what Muhammad ﷺ believed/thought and it's not necessarily true’.
My Rebuttal:
◾ There is a flaw in this argument— If you ask him (i.e. the critic) ‘what's your reason for that?’, he will refer you back to other- least reliable - Islamic sources and make an inference contrary to that of the authors (who used to believe that Qūraish were the first to attack the Muslims). You ask him, ‘how can this happen? How can he infer from the author's compilation that which contradicts the author's view?’ The following explanations can be suggested: (i) The author should have been either a fanatic or a dumb gull to hold a view contrary to what his compilation demonstrates. Or (ii) the critic is more informed of what happened at 7th century Arabia than the author himself. Or (iii) the critic misquotes, misrepresents, or twists what the author has compiled. If the 1st explanation is true, the critic must discard the author's compilation because what is compiled by a fanatic or a dumb gull lacks the required reliability. If he doesn't do that, he should admit to the 3rd explanation, that is, he should admit he's misquoting, misrepresenting, and twisting what the author has compiled, because the 2nd explanation cannot be true.
◾ A worst-case scenario— Considering that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and his companions fought the pagans of Mecca in/with the belief/thought that they had been attacked first (as per the critic's claim), they become absolved from the blame because, after all, they believed/thought to be fighting a legitimate, just, and defensive war. This single point should also leave no room for criticism against Islamic laws pertinent to warfare because we derive Islamic laws from what Prophet Muhammad ﷺ did, said, and approved of. Hence, we conclude that what Islam prescribes for Muslims in regards to warfare is within the boundaries of a just war.
◾ After citing an explicit (historical) text, the burden of proving the claim that ‘it was Muhammad's ﷺ belief/thought which is not necessarily true’ rests on the shoulders of the claimer. The claimer must substantiate this claim, otherwise what the text suggests is to be accepted. As long as this claim is concerned, I've known of two main arguments that the advocates of this claim propose:
▪ Argument #1: According to Meccan pagans, Muhammad ﷺ insulted and cursed their forefathers and gods that's why they resorted to violence against him, so Muhammad ﷺ attacked them first.
This simply isn't true. In Qur'ān 6:108 we have a clear injunction that forbids Muslims from insulting the gods the pagans of Mecca used to invoke. Had Prophet Muhammad ﷺ reviled their gods, we wouldn't have expected such a clear injunction against cursing the gods of Meccan pagans in Qur'ān. We are also ordered (in Qur'ān 2:83) to speak good to people and Prophet Muhammad ﷺ would prevent his companions to use harsh words against people (1). Had Prophet Muhammad ﷺ reviled their gods or forefathers, we wouldn't have expected such a clear injunction against reviling others in his statements.
The pagans of Mecca were known for their false accusations against Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. They literally accused him of every negative thing one could imagine. They accused him of being a magician, a poet, a soothsayer, etc. They even accused him of being possessed. So, of course, they would accuse him of insulting their gods and forefathers. Given what we know of history, all Prophet Muhammad ﷺ did was telling them those they invoke besides God are false and their forefathers are doomed to Hell, and in doing so he wouldn't just rely upon mere claims; rather, he would appeal to basic reasoning in his words and one can notice this in the verses of Qur'ān and his statements. If telling someone what you do is false is an insult, we should first of all accuse scientists of insulting one another, for they constantly falsify one another's conclusions. The Jews and Christians living at that time used to say the same thing about the Meccan pagans' forefathers so why what Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said was an insult but what the Jews and Christians used to say wasn't? So, it's clear that it was a baseless accusation and double-standard.
Moreover, what this argument implies is that verbal abuse justifies using violence, yet most of those who put forward this argument don't seem to accept what this argument implies. Do they?
▪ Argument #2: While still in Mecca, Muhammad ﷺ promised the Meccan pagans slaughter, saying, ‘O people of Qūraish, ... I have brought you slaughter’ (2), so he declared war on them first.
Interestingly, the ISIL used to make the same argument for justifying beheading those who opposed it. Now, you can see the commonality between ISIL and those who malign Islam and Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Basically, these people can build not a single case against either of them unless they resort to various types of misquotation and misrepresentation. Take this as a challenge from me.
By putting Prophet Muhammad's ﷺ statement back in its proper historical and textual context we realize that the words he used shouldn't be taken literally. History reveals that when Prophet Muhammad ﷺ returned back to Mecca victorious along with 10000 troops, he granted security to all the Meccan pagans who had assaulted him, fought against him, killed his loved ones etc. for about two decades. He forgave all of them and freed them. So, had Prophet Muhammad ﷺ promised them slaughter, he wouldn't have spared their lives when he conquered the Mecca.
In fact, there are other reports describing the same incident with different wordings, for example, Abu Nu'aym reports that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said to them, ‘By Allāh, you won't cease till Allāh afflicts you with an immediate penalty’, and he uttered these words when the chieftains of Qūraish abused him while he was circumambulating the Ka'ba (3). So, by putting everything back in its proper context, we realize that the word slaughter was used figuratively. Moreover, as ibn Ishāq mentions, Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was addressing the chieftains of Qūraish who were present there (4), not the entire tribe of Qūraish. In fact, Abu Nu'aym sheds more light on this point and mentions that those who were present there were three (of them, i.e. the chieftains of Qūraish), namely Uqbah ibn Abu Mu'it, Abu Jahl, and Umayya ibn Khalaf (5). In case you don't know, these people were all criminals. They had murdered, tortured, and attacked the poor converts. They even tried to murder the Prophet ﷺ. Moreover, they were slaughtered (i.e. killed) in the first battle Muslims fought against them and the promise was fulfilled. Hence, the word slaughter was used figuratively by the Prophet ﷺ and it was directed to only three criminals.
My Arguments:
What Qur'ān 9:13 describes is, THEREFORE, an undeniable truth because, as discussed, there is no valid reason to think otherwise. In fact, there are enough valid reasons to believe in what Qur'ān 9:13 describes that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and his companions were oppressed and were forced to repel the aggressors:
◾ When Prophet Muhammad ﷺ started calling his people to Islam he was one man armed with nothing but words. He started his mission peacefully as a sincere adviser and warner. ‘O my people, say there is no god but Allāh (the one and only true God) and you shall become successful.’ (6) These were his words. After some time, people started to understand his message of peace, justice, and freedom so they followed him and the number was growing at an increasing rate. Most of his followers were the poor, the slaves, and the destitute. There is no reasonable explanation as to why most of his followers were the poor and the slaves except for the fact that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was calling for establishing social and economic justice and eradicating social hierarchy. Had his message been about enslavement and totalitarianism, the poor and the slaves would have stayed away from him, yet they comprised the majority of his followers. He dignified the women and restored their rights for them, that's the reason why the first martyr in Islam is a woman. Had his message been about female subjugation, a woman wouldn't have been the first to give her life for his cause.
Despite his sincere and helpful efforts, the affluent ones turned against him and his followers and started torturing them to make them revert to their former religion and some were killed in the process. The punishment and torture made a part of his followers who lacked tribal support flee to Abyssinia (7) twice. The chieftains of Qūraish even tried to persuade the Prophet's ﷺ uncle, who was the main barrier between him and them, to surrender him to them so that they could kill him but his uncle refused to do so (8). The Qūraish even plotted to assassinate the Prophet ﷺ publicly and when his uncle was informed of it, he gathered his tribe to move the Prophet ﷺ to their valley where they could protect him and that made the Qūraish boycott the tribes that were protecting the Prophet ﷺ to pressure them into surrendering him. But, they resisted pressure to surrender him (9). The boycott lasted for three years and it resulted in the death of his most beloved wife, Khadijah, and his uncle. Emboldened by the death of Prophet's ﷺ uncle, the Qūraish created an even worse situation for the Muslim community living in Mecca and it made the Prophet ﷺ and his companions abandon the Mecca and emigrate to Yathrib (i.e. Madinah). And even then, the Qūraish made another attempt on the Prophet's ﷺ life (10)— That was a negligible portion of what Qūraish did to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and his followers.
◾ In the first days after emigration, Qūraish started pressuring the pagans from the two main tribes of Yathrib (which had mostly embraced Islam) to surrender Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, so they gathered for this purpose but soon after Prophet Muhammad ﷺ talked to them, they dispersed (11). The Qūraish would even send assassins to Yathrib to kill the Prophet (12). Feeling insecure about the plots of Qūraish, Prophet Muhammad ﷺ used to have guards near him during the night on his arrival in Yathrib (13).
In another attempt, the Qūraish forced the Jews of Yathrib who had initially ratified a treaty with Muslims to fight Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and the Jews responded in the affirmative and betrayed their community. They gathered to fight Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and refused to conclude another treaty with him when he asked them for it, so he fought them and they were defeated and then banished from the city (14). That was how Jews used to deal with Muslims so they were dealt with accordingly. Overall, in few years, some were killed, some enslaved, and some were banished from the city in due recompense for their betrayal and treachery, all in accordance with the rules of warfare at 7th century Arabia (as we clearly see in the threatening message of Meccan pagans in the hadith we referred to in this article.)
◾ After Muslims were expelled from Mecca, they took some of their property with them; however, they were forced to leave a significant portion of their property there, especially their immovable rental property. That's why when Prophet Muhammad ﷺ returned to his hometown (Mecca) victorious he didn't have a place to stay at, for his home had been confiscated by the Meccans after they were forced to emigrate to Yathrib (15).
Therefore, it's entirely obvious why Muslims were harassing the commercial caravans of Qūraish. They were trying to weaken an enemy which had declared war on them (several times before) and attacked them first. They were also trying to restore some of their property confiscated by their enemy back in Mecca.
◾ All the wars that Muslims fought against the pagans of Mecca occurred on the outskirts of Yathrib (Madinah). So, if Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and his companions were the aggressors, why would the pagans of Mecca travel about 300 miles from Mecca to Yathrib to fight Muslims? Is that what an oppressed nation or group does?
Unless one reviews the Islamic history based on some obvious preconceptions, he/she will certainly appreciate the inimitable and blessed life of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and his companions. And none but the wise take heed.
Footnotes:
(1) Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2165.
(2) Ibn Ishāq, Sirat, Beirut, Dārul Fikr, 1978, page 229.
(3) As-Suyuti, Khasāis ul-Kubrā, Beirut, Dārul Kutub, volume 1, page 240.
(4) Ibid.
(5) Ibid.
(6) Ibn Ishāq, Sirat, Beirut, Dārul Fikr, 1978, page 231.
(7) Ibid. page 174.
(8) Ibid. page 148.
(9) Abu Nu'aym, Dalāil un Nobuwwah, Beirut, Dār un Nafāis, 1986, Hadith 205, 1/272.
(10) Ibn Hishām, Sirat, Cairo, al-Fanniyyah al-Muttahidah, volume 2, page 91.
(11) Sunan Abi Dawud, Hadith 3004. Its isnād (chain of transmitters) is classed as authentic by al-Albāni & al-Arnaout (ra).
(12) At-Tabarāni, Mu'jam al-Kabir, Cairo, Maktabah Ibn Taymiyyah, Hadith 117. volume 17, page 56.
(13) Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2410.
(14) Sunan Abi Dawud, Hadith 3004.
(15) Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1351.
No comments:
Post a Comment