I was listening to Sh. Mokhtar Maghraoui's lecture on Turning Points in Islamic History and came across this very interesting tale from the Prophet's life.
Here's a quick summary: Due to a stipulation in the Treaty of Hudaibiya that prevented new Muslim converts from joining the Prophet (saw) in Madina, a group of 70 of them setup camp on the Syrian caravan route outside Mecca. They proceeded to attack and loot the Meccan trade caravans until the leaders of Quraish pleaded the Prophet (saw) to take these Muslims into his ranks in Madina.
This brings up some very intriguing questions:
1. What, if not terrorists, were these group of 70 Sahabah who attacked civilian traders? In fact, this group seems to fit the very definition of highway robbers (hirab), against whom Allah (swt) has legislated one of the severest punishments (death, crucifixion, or cross-amputation).
2. What was the Prophet's response to their actions? It seems he could have easily commanded them to cease and desist, but refrained from doing so. What does that tell us?
3. How do scholars interpret the actions of this 'renegade' group? How are the lessons from this episode applicable in current times?
===========
For those interested, here is a more detailed version of the story:
In the 6th year after migrating from Mecca to Madina, the Prophet (saw) took 1500 companions to peacefully return to Mecca in order to perform Umrah. Due to agressive tactics by the Quraish, they were forced to camp outside Mecca at Hudaibiya. Negotiations ensued and the peace treaty of Hudaybia was the outcome.
The treaty had several seemingly unacceptable clauses, primarily the one that stated that if a person from amongst Quraysh leaves Mecca without the permission of his elder and joins the Muslims, Muhammad must return him to Quraysh. However, if one of the Muslims goes away to Quraysh they will be under no obligation to surrender him to the Muslims.
The Prophet (saw) agreed, and amazingly, this clause was put to the test even before the treaty was signed.
Abu Jandal, the son of Suhayl bin Amr, the Quraish representative, entered the Muslim camp during the negotiations, seeking refuge from his father (Abu Jandal had converted to Islam and his father had imprisoned him as punishment). At the sight of his son, Suhayl forcefully demanded that his son be returned, as was conditioned in the yet-unsigned treaty. When the Prophet (saw) replied that the terms hadn't even been finalized, Suhayl stubbornly refused to continue and declared the peace talks over.
Eventually, he (saw) gave in and let Suhayl take his son Abu Jandal back with him. The Prophet (saw) consoled him with these prescient words of wisdom: "O Abu Jandal! Be patient. We wished that your father should hand you over to us by way of love and affection. Now that he hasn't agreed to do so, you should be patient and forbearing and should know that Allah will open a path of relief for you as well as for others who are under arrest".
Not long after the Messenger of Allah had returned to Madinah, a man named Abu Basir left Mecca to join the Muslims. The Quraish complained to the Prophet (saw), 'Under the terms of the treaty which you made with us you must hand him over.' So the Prophet (saw) allowed them to take Abu Basir, but on the way back to Mecca, he escaped from them and fled to the coast.
As it turned out, Abu Jandal also escaped and since he couldn't join the Muslims in Madina, he joined Abu Basir. Eventually, all those who became Muslim and left Quraish joined Abu Basir until they comprised a group of seventy. They set themselves up on a trade route and whenever a caravan of the Quraish left for Syria, they laid siege to it, killing the merchants and taking the booty.
Witnessing the terror wrought on their trade caravans, the Quraish went to the Prophet, begging him to cancel that clause in the treaty and take in his fellow Muslims in Madinah, thereby fulfilling the prophecy of Muhammad (saw) when he stated "Allah will open a path of relief for you as well as for others who are under arrest."
The very clause of the treaty that was most objectionable to the Muslims proved most damaging to the Quraish.
(Sources: Sahih Bukhari, Encyclopedia of Islam)
WAW
3 days ago
35 comments:
A very interesting point indeed. Subhan'Allah.
I knew of this incident but never looked at it this way.
I wonder how the shuyookh might explain this.
So was there any punishment to the "terrorist" for raiding the caravans and killing the people?
does it explicity mention in bukhari that killing took p;ace?if my memory serves correctly there were no killings.
Well, in the story of Abu Basir, he actually killed the Qurayshi who was sent to Medina to escort him back to to Mecca. Furthermore, scholars mention that because they were not under the jurisdiction of the Prophet [saw] - as per the treaty - and they were on their own, they were not bound by a covenant or treaty of non-aggression.
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
They were not terrorists, but a group of refugees who killed their enemies as they could not flee from them. They were not a group of fanatics who wreaked general destruction on innocent people in pursuit of power or an unpopular political goal, or who killed those who disagreed with them. I am fed up with seeing the Sahaba compared to the extremists and terrorists of today, and even with criminals; there just isn't any comparison.
They always taught us that there was a treaty of Hudaibiya. Not really what happen to it and with it.
interesting.
-The Muslim Kid-
I reminds me that sometimes things appear to be against us short term but if we are patient and steadfast in our beliefs, Allah will grant us victory.
AA-
@Anon2, "does it explicity mention in bukhari that killing took place?"
The hadith states "whenever they heard about a caravan of Quraish heading towards Sham, they stopped it and attacked and killed them (i.e. infidels) and took their properties."
@Anon3, "they were not bound by a covenant or treaty of non-aggression."
That's sorta what I'm thinking. However, if the Prophet (saw) felt that their actions were endangering the treaty, he could easily have told them to stop.
And even if we go by the technical argument that they were not under the jurisdiction of the Prophet (saw), which he obviously followed to the letter of the treaty, they still carried out attacks on civilians in trade caravans. How do we explain that?
@Yusuf, Wa-alaikum-assalam.
"but a group of refugees who killed their enemies as they could not flee from them."
Why couldn't they have migrated to Ethiopia or some other land where they could live peacefully? If the message that we're constantly propagating is of a peaceful Islam, even in the face of the worst oppression, then why didn't these Sahabah choose peace?
"They were not a group of fanatics who wreaked general destruction on innocent people in pursuit of power or an unpopular political goal, or who killed those who disagreed with them"
But they *were* a group "who wreaked general destruction on innocent people". Pursuit of power or an unpopular political goal as you put it, is irrelevant. Actually its your way of introducing current-day terrorists to the discussion, which I never did.
Their goal was very clear, IMO - in addition to getting the spoils of the trade caravans, they wanted to make the lives of Quraishites difficult. Actually, it can be argued that their goal was somewhat political (to put pressure on Quraish to change the terms of the contract).
"I am fed up with seeing the Sahaba compared to the extremists and terrorists of today"
Yusuf, I too, like you, have great reverence for all the companions of our dear Prophet (saw). I'm not trying to equate them to anybody alive these days. The sacrifices they went through and sincerity of belief that they possessed are beyond comparison.
But let's look at the facts. This group of 70 carried out acts that weren't sanctioned by the Muslim ruler of the time (Prophet saw), attacked civilians outside the stage of a battle, while never having their own lives threatened (removing the possibility of it being defensive).
Let's take any mention of suicide bombing, road-side bombs, shooting sprees, and what-not out of the discussion. How would you characterize the acts of these Sahabah?
I just might throw in the fact that there are quite a few hadith etc that show some of the sahabah in less then stellar lighting...they were not Super Muslims as many would like to believe...they were newly converted to the this new religion that asked quite alot of them in regards to changing lifelong habits. It wasnt any easier for them then it is for us today.
Having said that...I find that many of their actions bespoke of Muslims that were finding it hard to "take the high road" all the time. Intentions are all well and good...but life tends to make choices for you...in a matter of speaking.
AA- Coolred,
Good point, but that's not the reason why I referred to them as possible 'terrorists'.
I don't for one second believe this group of Sahaba to be criminals, gang-bangers, or thugs. And by no means do I consider them tarnished for these actions that I referred to in my post.
In fact, I believe that their actions *were* approved of by the Prophet (saw) since he never ordered them to stop (the Sunnah is what the Prophet said, did, or allowed to take place in his presence without correcting it).
My contention is that *we* are the ones who need rectification - with our twisted understanding of terrorism.
We have fallen into the one-track mindset of what is terrorism, as defined by the imperialistic forces.
We need to return to the seerah and get the proper understanding of what is and what is not terrorism.
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
We have fallen into the one-track mindset of what is terrorism, as defined by the imperialistic forces.
We need to return to the seerah and get the proper understanding of what is and what is not terrorism.
The problem is that the term "terrorism" was only coined during the French revolution, and what it means is in no doubt - spectacular acts of destruction designed to cause loss of life among a civilian population, as well as or in preference to combatants. This bears no resemblance to what that group of Sahaba did.
The fact that it was not sanctioned by "the ruler" is irrelevant, because the ruler was the Prophet (sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) who cannot be compared to any of the early Caliphs, let alone the rulers of today, and because in any case they were not under the command of any ruler, as there was no ruler for the Arabian peninsula as a whole at that time. The Quraish had been at war with the Muslims, then negotiated a truce with the main body of Muslims but manufactured an enemy for themselves out of a second group who had failed to flee, by demanding a treaty which enabled them to continue persecuting them.
Terrorism is not even relevant to any discussion of the situation of Abu Basir (radhi Allahu 'anhu) and his group, because if it would be classed as any criminal activity at all, it would be classed as banditry or brigandage. Even so, bandits harass travellers in general as a way of making a living; those they attack are not those with whom they are at war, as was the case here.
Assalaamu alaikum yakhi.
here is the website i promised:
www.asliahlesunnet.com
for the lectures, go to the audio section, then manhaj. You will find lots of great lectures on the topics we were talking about there.
hope you like it.
shariq
As'salamu Aleikum,
Br. Naeem, before you posted maybe you should have looked after the word and read the definition. And I have also difficulties to understand your purpose of this article.
Wa'aleikum salaam.
AA- Yusuf and Gess,
I think I may not have been very clear in why and how I used the term 'terrorist'. It was not meant to degrade or disgrace the Sahabah.
My intent was to point out the following problem: Regardless of how you wish to define the term, I think its clear that not only would most non-Muslims refer to these Sahabah as terrorists, but so would many Muslims.
The former would do so in the same fashion that the term is loosely slapped onto any group resisting occupation (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine) or oppression (Chechnya, Somalia).
But more troubling to me, many Muslims would fall into the apologetic stance and immediately condemn a group like these Sahabah.
The point I was trying to make is that the actions of these Sahabah has the outward appearance of being terrorism. But the reality is that they were well within their rights to do what they did - the Prophet's silence is proof enough.
If Muslims were to carry out similar actions in a situation similar to that of the Sahabah, how would the world (Muslim and non-Muslim) react?
"If Muslims were to carry out similar actions in a situation similar to that of the Sahabah, how would the world (Muslim and non-Muslim) react?"
I love this post, Naeem because it makes on think and it made me think. Thank you for posting it. Would you mind if I drew attention to it on my blog?
Now regarding your question in the last comment, I think we would react like we should react in the 21st century. The ideals of the 7th century were different from the ideals of the 21st century no matter who defined "terrorism". Today a lot is illegal and immoral that was taken for granted in the 7th century tribal Arabia. My question is why should we redefine the word "terrorism" when we, the Muslims, never defined it in the first place? The definition isn't twisted, our notions are twisted - because something matters to us and makes sense to us and benefits us does not mean it is right.
But similarly because the so-called "War on Terror" matters to the US and makes sense to the US and "benefits" the US it does not mean it is right.
AA- Suroor,
"Would you mind if I drew attention to it on my blog?"
Depends...any royalties involved? :-P
"Today a lot is illegal and immoral that was taken for granted in the 7th century tribal Arabia."
Illegal as defined by the international community (read the G8) should be taken with a grain of salt.
Immoral is defined by a thorough study of the Islamic texts and what has/has not changed from the stances taken by the Prophet (saw) during his time to what can/cannot be done today. Not a simple task.
Nonetheless, I get your point. People don't raid tribes and trade caravans and sign peace treaties in tents. Times have changed. Gotcha.
But I still believe the spirit of their actions remains.
"The definition isn't twisted, our notions are twisted"
Not sure what you mean here. I contend that the definition (of terrorism) IS twisted, especially when its the colonizer defining the term and recklessly applying it on the colonized.
The context of an action is ripped away and only the action itself is left to be condemned.
It was the context in which the Sahabah carried out their attacks that allows us to accept their actions. Otherwise, they would be written off as blood-thirsty terrorists.
Not sure I'm making sense here...
No royalties, sorry. I am broke no thanks to your latest post on empowering men!
It is tricky you know. I mean there are some who even justify 9/11. Or those who argued with me endlessly siding with Hamas' every decision. So there will always be people who will side with an issue and will make sense of things and will 'accept the action' while others won't. I mean I am looking at it - trying to look at it as a third person, a neutral outsider if you will. As a Muslim I will of course make sense of things and will accept them but there will be some who won't - not that we are bothered by what they think! But this post got me thinking about what and how much we accept at face value without asking questions. This is something I never once thought about, honestly so thank you.
I just had a discussion with Mr on this and he thinks that it is at worst perhaps banditry but not terrorism. He thinks that we don't know all the circumstances and situations and perhaps they were questioned over it later. But he thinks that when you push someone so much against the wall that they have no room, they will bend over backwards to survive. These men were almost in exile and had no means to survive and that is what they could do. Perhaps they were attacked first. Perhaps they didn't mean to kill but things got out of hand. Maybe they never killed and that is wrongly reported. Maybe the Prophet found out too late. We know that he did abide by the rules and had given up the two men over to Quraish. Maybe the Quraish were not civilian traders as we think.
Anything is possible - says Mr. I will have to read more on it to think like him, I guess.
So you are saying these people were violent and that Muhammad thought that was ok. So, does that mean that you do not see Islam as a religion of peace? You referred to this in an earlier comment but never answered. And, are you also saying that God endorses violence at times?
Interesting because some religions emphasize peace and non-violence as the highest good, this verse seems not to subscribe to that idea.
Suroor, No offense, but your and your Mr.'s faith actually seems better than the religion you adhere to! You believe in non-violence and thus want to find any reason why this verse was not true or could be justified, when in fact, it was probably just a part of life and needed no excuses. So in fact, you all hold quite different ideals than the prophet himself.
AA- Suroor,
"it is at worst perhaps banditry but not terrorism."
Actually, many people/scholars have tried to equate the two - using the known Islamic term of banditry (hiraba) as equal to the current-day phenomenon of terrorism.
Regardless, I don't think the Prophet would have allowed his companions to partake in banditry, especially considering the severity of the crime.
"Perhaps they were attacked first. Perhaps they didn't mean to kill but things got out of hand. Maybe they never killed and that is wrongly reported. Maybe the Prophet found out too late."
They weren't attacked first, so their attacks on the trade caravans were not defensive, they did kill, according to the Bukhari hadith, and I can't believe that the news of their actions never reached the Prophet (saw).
"Maybe the Quraish were not civilian traders as we think."
I think THAT is what it comes down to. There was no concept of non-combatants in their time (outside of women and children). Once this group of Muslims was oppressed to the point of exile, the two sides of this struggle were clearly delineated - this group vs. all Quraish men.
The treaty was between the Prophet and the Quraish and it was the Quraish who prevented this group of 70 from coming under the jurisdiction of the Prophet. So the Prophet basically said to the Quraish, 'If you don't want them with me, then they are YOUR problem. You deal with them.'
Another explanation is that they were simply retrieving the property of the Muslims that the Quraish usurped when all the Muslims left Mecca for Madina.
got here through Achelois's blog...very interesting post. I just hope people would try to look at things pragmatically, a view that you have tried to maintain in the post and have a healthy discussion here rather than accusing each other of blasphemy
Just one more thing that I wanted to add: wen we talk about Sahaba, although it is very important to ensure reverence but it is also important to realize that they were all after all humans and thus fallible. A lot of the times we dont tend to read stuff which makes them seem 'more human'
Anon,
"So, does that mean that you do not see Islam as a religion of peace? You referred to this in an earlier comment but never answered."
No, I do believe that Islam is a religion of peace, but it is not a pacifist religion. Big difference.
There is a clear component of Jihad that allows for combat in pursuit of justice and peace.
My point that I believe you are alluding to is the misconception amongst many Muslims that Islam is a pacifist religion - that Muslims are all about Kumbaya and loving your enemy.
Our Creator has allowed for armed confrontation when the need arises, with conditions and rules of engagement.
I brought up this incident in the life of the Prophet to shed light on an aspect that too many Muslims are not considering when presenting Islam as some sort of Hare Krishna religion of peace.
You know, Naeem, I am astounded by what I read today. Here is an excerpt:
“Military service, at least in ancient Athens, was both a duty and a privilege of citizenship… There was no separation of military and civilian authorities. Most policy issues engaged a citizen’s military status, experience and sympathies. In the world of Athenian men, it would not have occurred to an Athenian citizen to separate his lifelong military training, obligations, and activity from his political participation in the democracy” - Jones, N. (2008). Politics and Society in Ancient Greece. Westport: Praeger.
This is about a society from around 5th Century BC. Other city-states including Sparta did not differentiate between civilian and military lives. I guess it is a modern concept to have separate military guarding and protecting the civilians when the world population is so large that it can be afforded. In ancient worlds and especially in early Islam, out of a few thousands of Muslims, how many would be civilians and how many military personnel. I guess the answer lies in this discovery of historical fact that the ‘bandits’ and the Quraish were both not civilian as we know civilians now and were the civilian and the military both. Fantastic, don’t you think?!
PS:
I am with Karachiwali. Thinking is not blasphemy, for Goodness sake, ya Muslimoon! :D My dear brother is never blasphemous. And yes, sahaba were but human.
To Anonymous: I didn’t take offense at all; it’s a compliment. Yes, we are non-violent people, very peaceful and the religion we “adhere to” is peace. Thanks and peace!
It is an interesting post because it is thought provoking. Here's my 2c.
This particular group of Sahaba's aim was for the right to practice Islam as instructed by the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. Hardly resembling any group today (and especially the Pakistani Taliban).
Moreover, they did not attack ANY caravan, only the Quraish. AND most of the Quraish were not civilians, as pretty much any male men in the Quraish had participated in war against Muslims and were still in a state of war against THIS group of Sahaba.
I agree that we should not definte just ANY one as terro rist if the West describes them as terro rists because their intentions are not very pure. On the other hand these Sahaba group cannot be compared to most of the bunch of thug-like so-called "Muslim" groups we have today.
Salamu 3aleykum all,
My 2 cents: the biggest difference I think is most Western thinking, or modern-day thinking, is individualist orientated. Older civilizations didnt think that way, especially not the desert arab tribes. You were part of your tribe. Your tribe leaders made decisions and you sided with them no matter what. There was no such thing as "young Qurayshi refusing to join the war because he doesnt agree or wants to do something else". Or anything for that type of thinking. Exceptions are always there ofcourse.
The same goes indeed about differences in older civiliations in defintions as public/private sphere, militairy service and if that was related to as a civil duty, obligation or individual choice, etc etc.
But its a very good point you raised akhi NAEEM and should lead to a healthy debate and re-thinking amongst Muslims.
Naeem,
I appreciate you speaking openly about Islam being a religion of peace, not a pacifist religion. I think Muslims in the US, especially, have gotten caught up in trying to equate Islam to Christianity in ways that are fundamentally untrue. Christianity is supposed to be a pacifist religion (we all know how things have gone in practice) but the emphasis in Islam (similar to Judaism) is more on justice, I think...Anyways, while people can be whatever they want for themselves, they shouldn't impose values on their religion when it in truth does not support them...they should rather appreciate the values their religion does hold, or leave that religion...
Tessa/Ruth,
Welcome to the blog. Your compliments, err..I mean comments are always welcome.
Please be informed that I've enabled a special Artificial Intelligence feature on my blog that will automatically delete any text that may be construed as a possible 'diss'. This includes all sorts of criticism, especially the variety that will make me look foolish.
In the Naeem no-spin zone, flattery will get you everywhere.
Salaam Naeem,
How would you describe the events of Bani Al-Mustaliq? This is a serious question on which I would appreciate your views.
S
AA- Suroor,
What specifically about Banu Mustaliq are you asking? The tribes rebellion? the slander against Aisha (ra)?
The tribes rebellion.
wa alaikum asalaam wa rahmatAllahi wa barakatuhu,
when talking about such things we should try to also consider the following points.
1- this was a sahabi (radhiAllah anhu) of the prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam)
2- when the quraysh could no longer bear this and they came begging to the prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) to change the clause in their agreement and then abu basir and others came to madina, they weren't punished by the prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam). so if the prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) didn't see fit to punish them, then who are we to suggest that they were terrorists/mindless bandits.
3- they wouldn't raid just anyone, it was just the quraysh caravans, and you should remember that the prophet (sallahu alayhi wa sallam) also targetted the quraysh caravan in the build-up to the battle of badr.
i would highly recommend listening to CD4 from the following link in which shiekh awlaki talks about this matter and also explains it;
http://islambase.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1253&Itemid=181
if you wish to follow me up on anything i've said you can email me at rahilhabib@hotmail.com
Post a Comment