Friday Sermon
6 December 2024
Muhammadsa: The Great Exemplar
After reciting the tashahhud, ta‘awwuz, and Surah al-Fatihah, Hazrat Khalifatul Masih Vaa stated:
I will continue to mention further details regarding the Treaty of Hudaibiyah today. In The Life and Character of the Seal of Prophetssa, Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad Sahibra has mentioned a particular incident as follows:
“It is common for flaws to be left undetected in agreements, which later on become the result of significant outcomes. Likewise, even in the Treaty of Hudaibiyah, a deficiency went undetected, as although the return of Muslim men was clearly stipulated, there was no mention of such women from the people of Mecca, who would accept Islam and join the Muslims. However, shortly thereafter, such circumstances began to reveal themselves as made this flaw evident to the people of Mecca. Only a short time had passed in the settlement of this agreement, when some Muslim women managed to escape the hands of the infidels and reach Medina. Among them, the first was a daughter of a dead idolater, the chieftain ‘Uqbah bin Abi Mu‘ait, named Ummi Kulthum. On her mother’s side, she was also the sister of Hazrat Uthman bin Affanra. Exhibiting commendable courage, Ummi Kulthum reached Medina by foot, (she undertook this long journey by foot) and, presenting herself before the Holy Prophetsa expressed her acceptance of Islam. However, two of her close relatives also followed behind to capture her and demanded her return.
“These people claimed that although the word ‘man’ has been used in the treaty, in actuality, the agreement was general and effected both men and women equally. However, in addition to the words of the treaty, Ummi Kulthum contended for an exception in the case of women because a woman belongs to a weaker gender. Moreover, in comparison to men, she holds a subordinate position to men, so for this reason to return her, would be equivalent to tossing her into the mouth of spiritual death and thus depriving her of Islam. Therefore, to consider women exempt from this stipulated agreement was not only in complete accordance with this agreement, but logically speaking, it was closer to justice and necessary. For this reason, naturally and equitably, the Holy Prophetsa gave a verdict in favour of Ummi Kulthum and sent her relatives back. Furthermore, God the Exalted also supported this decision. Consequently, during these days, the Quranic verse was revealed that, ‘When believing women come to you as refugees, examine them, and if they prove to be virtuous and sincere, send them not back to the disbelievers but if they are married women, return to their disbelieving husbands their dowries.’ Thereafter, whenever a woman would leave Mecca and arrive in Medina, she would be thoroughly examined and her intention and sincerity would be thoroughly assessed. Then, as for those women who proved to be well-intentioned and sincere and there was no materialistic or personal purpose behind their migration, they would be kept in Medina. However, as for those women who were married, their dowries were paid to their husbands and after that they were free to marry amongst the Muslims.” (The Life and Character of the Seal of Prophetssa, Vol. 3, pp. 147-149)
With regards to the conditions of the treaty, there is an incident that is recorded relating to Hazrat Abu Basir. The details of this incident are as follows:
“Among the conditions of the agreement of Hudaibiyah, one condition was that if an individual from among the Quraish becomes Muslim and came to Medina, the people of Medina should not grant him protection, instead, they should return him. If however, a Muslim denounces Islam and heads towards Mecca, then the people of Mecca would not return him. At the outset, this condition seemed to be a means of disgrace for the Muslims. It was for this reason that many Muslims were averse, so much so, that even a venerable and remarkably understanding companion like Hazrat Umarra, in the emotional situation of that time (when people had become severely impacted and shocked over the fact that they were forsaking their rights), he became very displeased and restless concerning this condition. However, soon thereafter, it was proven that in reality, this condition was a means of weakness for the Quraish and strength for the Muslims. Just as the Holy Prophetsa had stated in the beginning, that if a Muslim became apostate and left Medina, then he was a rotten limb. (Only those who were hypocrites or those who were not truly sincere could have left Islam. Therefore, there was no harm in them leaving and there was no reason to bring them back to Medina. Thus, the Holy Prophetsa had mentioned from the outset that he had no issue with them not being returned because he was a rotten limb), whose amputation was actually better. However, in comparison to this, if an individual became Muslim pure-heartedly and left Mecca, whether he find a place in Medina or not, he would become a means to strengthen Islam, irrespective of where he resided, and ultimately, Allah would clear a way for his deliverance. This perspective quickly proved truthful, because it had not been long since the Holy Prophet’ssa arrival back in Medina, when a man named Abu Basir ‘Utbah bin Usaid Thaqafi, who was a resident of Mecca, and was an ally of the Banu Zuhrah, became Muslim, and escaped from the Quraish and fled to Medina. The Quraish of Mecca sent two men in his pursuit and implored the Holy Prophetsa to hand Abu Basir over, as per the conditions of the agreement. The Holy Prophetsa summoned Abu Basir and ordered him to go back. Abu Basir lamented, ‘I am a Muslim; these people shall give me grief in Mecca and shall coerce me to denounce Islam.’ The Holy Prophetsa said, ‘We are bound by the agreement and cannot keep you here. If you are patient for the sake of God, He will open a way for you. We are constrained by the treaty and cannot act in offense to the agreement.’ (This was the degree to which the Holy Prophetsa would fulfil his oaths.) Helpless, Abu Basir left to return with these people but was extremely terrified that upon reaching Mecca, many cruelties would be inflicted upon him and that he would be compelled to hide a blessing like Islam, rather, due to oppression and persecution, perhaps wash his hands of it altogether. Therefore, when this party reached Dhul-Hulaifah, which is situated a few miles from Medina enroute to Mecca, finding the right opportunity, Abu Basir managed to kill one of his attendants, who was also the leader of that party. He was about to take aim at the next, but he fled for his life in such a manner that he reached Medina even before Abu Basir.
“Behind him, Abu Basir also reached Medina. When this person reached Medina, the Holy Prophetsa was in the Mosque. Upon seeing his fearful state, the Holy Prophetsa said, ‘It seems as if he has been afflicted by some fear or terror.’ Panting for breath and trembling, he said to the Holy Prophetsa, ‘My companion has been killed and I am also as if in the mouth of death.’ When the Holy Prophetsa heard of this occurrence, he consoled him. Meanwhile, clutching a sword in hand, Abu Basir also reached there and as soon as he arrived, he began to say to the Holy Prophetsa, ‘O Messengersa of Allah! You handed me over to the Quraish and now your duty has been fulfilled. However, God has granted me deliverance from a cruel people and now you have no responsibility over me.’ The Holy Prophetsa spontaneously said:
وَيْلُ اُمِّهٖ مُسْعِرُحَرْبٍ لَّوْكَانَ لَهٗ اَحَدٌ
“‘Woe to his mother (in the idiom of the Arabs, these words are used to reproach someone or express astonishment), this man is kindling the fire of war. If only there was someone to control him.’
“When Abu Basir heard these words, he understood that in any case, the Holy Prophetsa would order him to go back due to the treaty. In relation to this, the words of Bukhari are:
فَلَمَّا سَمِعَ ذٰلِكَ عَرَفَ اَنَّهٗ سَيَرُدُّهٗ اِلَيْهِمْ
“When Abu Basir heard these words of the Holy Prophetsa, he knew that he would be returned to the Meccans.
“Upon this, he quietly left from there, and instead of going to Mecca, where he foresaw both his physical and spiritual deaths, he reached Siful-Bahr towards the coast of the Red Sea.
“When the other weaker and hidden Muslims of Mecca found out that Abu Basir had set up a separate abode, they slowly began to leave Mecca and reached Siful-Bahr. Among them was Abu Jandal as well, who was the son of the chieftain of Mecca, Suhail bin Amr, and about whom we have already read that the Holy Prophetsa sent him back from Hudaibiyah. Gradually, these people reached approximately 70 in number, or as per some narrations, 300.
“In this manner, it was as if, in addition to Medina, a second Islamic sovereignty also came into being, which in terms of religion was under the Holy Prophetsa, but was separate and independent in terms of government. On the one hand, the existence of an independent political system within the region of Hijaz was dangerous for the Quraish, and on the other, the Muhajirin of Siful-Bahr were deeply wounded by the Quraish of Mecca. For this reason, after only a short while, relations between these Muhajirin of Siful-Bahr and the Quraish of Mecca, took on a form almost identical to that, which initially existed with the Muhajirin of Medina. Furthermore, since Siful-Bahr was situated very close to the route which ran from Medina to Syria, for this reason, confrontations between the caravans of the Quraish and these Muhajirin began to take place. This new war took on a very dangerous state of affairs for the Quraish. Firstly, because the Quraish had become very weak after the last war and secondly, their number had drastically decreased. Furthermore, in comparison to them, the Islamic State of Siful-Bahr, which was led by zealous companions such as Abu Basir and Abu Jandal, was full of the fresh fervour of faith and the strength springing from the bitter memories of cruelties committed against them, which knew no opposition.
“The outcome was that after a short period in time, the Quraish threw in its arms and becoming distressed by the attacks of the party of Abu Basir, by means of a delegation, they came to the Holy Prophetsa and pleaded on account of their relation to him, to call the Muhajirin of Siful-Bahr to Medina and make them a part of his political system. Moreover, along with this, they happily forfeited the condition of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah, which stipulated that, ‘New Muslims of Mecca shall not be granted protection in Medina,’ to the Holy Prophetsa of their own accord. (They themselves removed the condition that anyone who became a Muslim and went to Medina would be returned, saying that the Holy Prophetsa could keep them with him). The Holy Prophetsa accepted this request, and sent correspondence to Abu Basir and Abu Jandal, that since the Quraish had amended the treaty of their own accord, they could now come to Medina. When the ambassador of the Holy Prophetsa reached Siful-Bahr, Abu Basir was ill and bedridden and he was becoming weak. Abu Basir clutched the blessed letter of the Holy Prophetsa very affectionately, and shortly thereafter, he passed away in this very state. After this, Abu Jandal and his companions buried their brave and gallant leader in Siful-Bahr and reached the Holy Prophetsa with bittersweet feelings of delight and grief. Grief because their brave leader, Abu Basir, who was the hero of this account, remained deprived of paying respects to the Holy Prophetsa, and delighted due to the fact that they themselves reached the company of the Holy Prophetsa and were thus, granted deliverance from the bloodthirsty onslaughts of the Quraish.” (The Life and Character of the Seal of Prophetssa, Vol. 3, pp. 150-154)
As per usual, non-Muslim historians distort historical accounts and seek to level allegations against Islam. Regarding the Treaty of Hudaibiyah, there are certain allegations raised by Christian historians. In relation to this, Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad Sahibra has written:
“There is perhaps not a single notable account in the life of the Holy Prophetsa that Christian historians have left without objection and the Treaty of Hudaibiyah also comes under this principle. Putting aside various secondary and insignificant allegations, Christian writers have raised two objections in relation to the Treaty of Hudaibiyah:
“(The first allegation is) the fact that the Holy Prophetsa excluded women from the conditions of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah was not permissible in light of the conditions of the agreement because its words were general, wherein both men and women were included.
“(The second is that) with relevance to the account of Abu Basir, the Holy Prophetsa broke the spirit of the agreement, rather, by indicating to Abu Basir that instead of returning to Mecca he could establish a separate party and run his affairs independently. So, the Holy Prophetsa acted against this agreement.
“In response to these allegations, first and foremost, it should be remembered that this agreement was with the Quraish of Mecca and the Quraish of Mecca was such a people as were at war with the Holy Prophetsa from the very beginning. (Even when the agreement was being written, we find how their representatives were objecting to even the smallest things). Furthermore, they were accustomed to criticising and raising objections against even the smallest of things. Even so, they were not a far-off foreign people; rather, they were the people of the Holy Prophetsa, who were well-informed of all the circumstances. (The Quraish, with whom they had this agreement, were from the tribe of the Holy Prophetsa and were well aware of everything. They were also aware of whether or not men and women were both included in this agreement. In any case, he further writes). Moreover, the complete details of the conditions of the agreement and their complete background were also before their eyes. Hence, if the Quraish of Mecca who were the involved party in this agreement, did not object to this action of the Holy Prophetsa, and did not consider it to be against the agreement, then how can those people who came 1300 years later, to whom many finer details were hidden, and were not fully informed as to the background of this agreement, have the right to raise an allegation? (The idolaters at the time did not raise this allegation, yet the orientalists of today raise allegations against Islam.)
“This is totally illogical that those to whom this entire account occurred, deemed it to be right at the time and remained silent, whereas those who came 1300 years later, made a huge fuss. After all, what is the reason that the Quran, ahadith and the history of Arabia are replete of allegations that the infidels of Mecca and the other infidels of Arabia would level against the Holy Prophetsa and Islam, but there is not even the slightest hint of an allegation being raised that the Muslims acted against the Treaty of Hudaibiyah. (For such a long period of time no such allegation had been raised, yet only now has it occurred to them to raise this objection.)
“Additionally, it is proven by the most authentic testimony that after the Treaty of Hudaibiyah, when the Holy Prophetsa sent a letter to the Caesar of Rome inviting him to Islam, it so happened that Abu Sufyan bin Harb, the chieftain of Mecca, was also in Syria. Heraclius, the King of Rome, summoned him to his royal court and asked him certain questions about the Holy Prophetsa. Among them was also the question, ‘Has this claimant to prophethood from your people ever broken an agreement?’ In response to this question, the words uttered by Abu Sufyan who at the time was the chief of the disbelievers and was the most vehement of the enemies of Islam were:
“‘Nay, Muhammadsa has never proven treacherous in the matter of his covenants. However, these days, we are at a truce with him, but I do not know how he shall deal until the conclusion of this agreement.’ Abu Sufyan said that throughout the entire course of this dialogue, except for this phrase, he could say nothing more to produce a possible doubt in the heart of Heraclius against the Holy Prophetsa.
“This dialogue between Abu Sufyan and Heraclius did not occur immediately after the Treaty of Hudaibiyah. Rather, it must have taken some time for the Holy Prophetsa to prepare and then send a letter to Heraclius inviting him to Islam, and then for that letter to reach Heraclius, and then for the assembly of the royal court of Heraclius, and to find Abu Sufyan and summon him to that court, etc. (as travel was not easy in those days). It is conceivable that by then the fleeing of Abu Basir to Medina and the incidents of Ummi Kulthum and other Muslim women leaving Mecca and reaching Medina had already taken place. It is for this reason that all historians mention the account of Abu Basir and Ummi Kulthum first and then the account of the letter to the Caesar of Rome later. However, despite this, Abu Sufyan could not raise the allegation of breach of contract against the Holy Prophetsa, even though his words indicated that it was his desire to raise an objection if possible. Despite this, critics born 1300 years later do not fear God while levelling the allegation of breach of contract against the Holy Prophetsa. Alas! How unfortunate it is!
“Then, if we delve deeper into the details of these allegations, their weakness becomes even more evident. For example, the first allegation is that both men and women were in fact included in this agreement. However, the Holy Prophetsa acted tyrannously and declared women exempt. As we have already mentioned (this was discussed earlier), this allegation is false and baseless because the words of the agreement, as are recorded in the most authentic narration, clearly mention that only men were the object of this agreement and not both men and women. (As it was mentioned earlier), the words of the agreement as recorded in Sahih Bukhari, they are as follows:
لَا يَاْتِيْكَ مِنَّارَجُلٌ وَاِنْ كَانَ عَلٰي دِيْنِكَ اِلَّارَدَدْتَهٗ اِلَيْنَا
“‘Any man from among us who comes to you, shall be returned to us, even if he be a Muslim.’
“In the presence of these clear and indisputable words, to object that in actuality both men and women were intended in this agreement, is not only unjust; rather it is utter dishonesty. Then if it is asserted that in various historical narrations, the word rajul or ‘man’ is not used in the words of the agreement, but that general words are used which refer to both men and women, then the answer to this is that firstly, the more authentic narration should be preferred and when the word rajul or ‘man’ has been used in the most authentic narration, then definitely, it must be deemed the correct word. Additionally, if the words mentioned in historical narrations are studied, they also support the explanation we have provided. For example, in the most well-known and renowned book of history, Sirat Ibni Hisham, the following words are mentioned:
مَنْ اَتٰي مُحَمَّدًامِنْ قُرَيْشٍ بِغَيْرِ اِذْنِ وَلِيِّهٖ رَدَّهٗ عَلَيْهِمْ
“‘Any individual from the Quraish who comes to Muhammadsa without the permission of his guardian, shall be returned to the Quraish.’
“Undoubtedly, in these Arabic words, the word ‘man’ has not been mentioned distinctly, but an individual who possesses even the most elementary knowledge of the Arabic language is aware that in Arabic, unlike various other languages, separate tenses and pronouns are used for men and women. In the above-mentioned passage, the male tenses and male pronouns have been used, from beginning to end. Therefore, as per the principle of the elaboration of the language of treaties, only men should be deemed in this phrase and not men and women collectively. No doubt, in common idiom, the male tense is used to refer to both men and women at times, but it is obvious that the phrase in question is not this kind of a phrase. Quite the contrary; it is the phrase of an agreement, which possesses the rank of law, rather, a rank higher still. For each and every word is penned down after strict contemplation and the choice of words is made after the cross-examination and approval of both parties. Therefore, in the case of such a phrase, the meaning which is most limited and specific should be accepted. (In any case, we heard the account and its details in the previous sermon, as to how much detail the representative of the disbelievers went into for this treaty.) Hence, the conclusion derived from this perspective would be that only men were implied in this agreement and not men and women inclusively.
“Additionally, as mentioned, to return a woman who is of the weaker gender, and is generally at the mercy of her husband or male relatives, would mean to cast her back to disbelief and polytheism with one’s own hands, which is not only far from emotions of mercy and compassion, but also equality and justice. No doubt, that by returning a man the risk existed that the infidels of Mecca would subject him to different kinds of torture and grief, but still, a man is a man. Not only can he bear more suffering but as is needed by hiding or fleeing, or by creating a partnership, etc., he can open many ways for his own deliverance (just as Abu Basir did); but what can a helpless woman do? In such circumstances, there was the case of forcefully depriving her of Islam or death. In these circumstances, it was completely impossible for a merciful and noble person like the Holy Prophetsa to return helpless and vulnerable Muslim women back to the cruelties of the tyrannous infidels. Thus, whatever was done, was not only correct and in complete accordance with the agreement but it was also completely appropriate and correct as per the sound principle of equality and justice, mercy and compassion. Nothing more than deplorable shame came to the lot of those who objected, in that they did not hold back their tongues of criticism, even regarding an arrangement for the protection of oppressed and helpless women.
“The second allegation relates to the account of Abu Basir. However, upon reflection, this allegation also proves to be completely weak and feeble. Undoubtedly, the Holy Prophetsa concluded an agreement stating that any individual, i.e., any man who flees to Medina from the infidels of Mecca, he shall be returned even if he be a Muslim. However, the question is, did the Holy Prophetsa act in opposition to this agreement? Not at all! Not at all! Instead, the Holy Prophetsa demonstrated such a complete and magnificent fulfilment of this agreement that the world is unable to present its likeness. Just contemplate – becoming convinced of the truth of Islam, he flees from Mecca, and in order to save himself from the persecution of the Quraish and to save his faith, he secretly reaches Medina. However, his cruel relatives also pursue him and by the power of the sword, they wish to forcefully turn him from the truth of Islam. Upon this, both parties present themselves before the Holy Prophetsa. In an emotional tone and terrified manner, he says to the Holy Prophetsa, ‘O Messenger of Allah! God has inferred upon me the blessing of Islam. The life of grief and danger which lies before me if I return to Mecca is known to you. For the sake of God do not send me back!’ However, in opposition to this, the relatives of Abu Basir demand from the Holy Prophetsa that it is his agreement with them that any man who comes to Medina, shall be returned. The grief of Abu Basir, and the indignation of his companions is before the eyes of the Holy Prophetsa, and his own emotions produce a buffeting in his heart (it pained the Holy Prophetsa a great deal); but this embodiment of honesty and truthfulness, remaining firm upon his covenant in the likeness of a rock says in such beautiful words indeed:
“‘O Abu Basir, verily you know that we have entered into a treaty with these people and being dishonest to one’s covenant is not permissible in our religion. (Observe how even when a person’s life was at stake, he stated that to break one’s oath was not permitted in our religion. Those of us, on the other hand, who break even the smallest of oaths should assess the state of their faith. He then stated:) You should go with these people and if you remain firm upon Islam with patience and steadfastness, then God shall Himself open a way of deliverance for you and other helpless Muslims like yourself.’ (And we observe that a way to their deliverance did indeed open up.)
“In light of this instruction of the Holy Prophetsa, Abu Basir left with the Meccans. On his way back, when he physically overcame those who had imprisoned him and returned to Medina again, upon seeing him, the Holy Prophetsa angrily said:
وَيْلُ اُمِّهٖ مُسْعِرُحَرْبٍ لَوْكَانَ لَهٗ اَحَدٌ
“‘Woe to his mother. This man is kindling the fire of war. Alas! If there was someone to control him!’
“Upon hearing these words, Abu Basir becomes certain that the Holy Prophetsa would send him back either way and so secretly left Medina, and established an abode for himself in a far-off place. Now, if this entire account is justly analysed, how was the Holy Prophetsa responsible for this and what allegation could be raised against him? Instead, the truth is that the Holy Prophetsa suppressed his emotions and fulfilled the covenant not only once, but sent Abu Basir back twice. Moreover, the Holy Prophetsa sent him back with such magnificent words that the history of the world cannot present its likeness. The Holy Prophetsa suppressed his own emotions, he suppressed the emotions of his companions, he suppressed the emotions of Abu Basir, and he fulfilled the covenant at every cost. If then, Abu Basir freed himself from the people of Mecca and went somewhere else, what allegation can be levelled against the Holy Prophetsa and what condition of the treaty stipulated the obligation of the Holy Prophetsa to return someone who had fled from Mecca, irrespective of where he may be? Alas! How unfortunate it is! The enemies of Islam did not deal justly with Islam on any matter.
“Furthermore, if it is alleged that the Holy Prophetsa could have dispatched an order to Abu Basir in his established camp to return to Medina, and since he did not do this, therefore, although the Holy Prophetsa did not break the words of the agreement, he did act against its spirit. (This is another weak allegation which is raised.) As such, this allegation is also one of sheer ignorance and the words of the agreement and the spirit of those words reject it. The condition of the agreement that if a Muslim resident of Mecca fled to Medina, the Holy Prophetsa would return him, clearly proves that the purpose of this condition was to ensure that such a person, despite his being Muslim, would not be accepted into the circle of Medina’s Islamic government. In other words, although he should be Muslim in terms of belief, the Holy Prophetsa would not include him in the government of Medina. If then, such an individual had been expelled from the Islamic government as per the conditions of the agreement, how can a demand be made with relation to him that the Holy Prophetsa would order him to return no matter where he may be? Therefore, how grave an injustice it is that if the Holy Prophetsa was to keep such an individual in Medina, it was alleged that the Holy Prophetsa had an agreement that he would not include him in his Government, even if he be a Muslim. Then, if the Holy Prophetsa was to hand him over to the people of Mecca, expelling him from the government of Medina and sending him out of Medina, it is alleged that why did the Holy Prophetsa not include him in his government and dispatch an order to him? Hence, politically speaking, this allegation is so weak and so feeble and so meaningless, that no sensible individual can pay heed to it.
“Furthermore, the truth is that this unreasonable condition which was included in this agreement by the infidels, that no Muslim Muhajir would be granted protection in Medina, was turned into a punishment by God. Moreover, they were told that their Messenger was true to his covenant either way, but that they planted thorns in their own path and cut their own hands by weapons produced by themselves. Furthermore, when they themselves said that any Muslim youth from Mecca who came to Medina would not be kept in Medina and that he would be considered expelled from the government of Medina, how can they then demand from the same mouth that the Holy Prophetsa impose the rule of his government upon such people and order them back to Mecca, wherever they may be residing? (This is completely illogical.) They presented the condition themselves that the Holy Prophetsa may rule the souls of these people and their matters of the hereafter, but should not become the ruler of their government and worldly affairs. (Politically, administratively and by law he would not have any right over them, even if they were Muslim. Spiritually, they made a pledge to the Holy Prophetsa and were considered Muslims; however, they placed the condition that they would not belong to him politically. He accepted that they would not remain with him.) Then, when they excluded them from the government of the Holy Prophetsa themselves, then what objection can there be upon the Holy Prophetsa? In any case, this was a plot of the Quraish of Mecca which was overturned upon their very selves, and either way, the person of the Holy Prophetsa was pure and remained pure. The Holy Prophetsa fulfilled the words of the covenant and dismissed Abu Basir from Medina, handing him over to the people of Mecca. Moreover, the Holy Prophetsa also fulfilled the spirit of this agreement, as was the actual purport of this condition. The Holy Prophetsa excluded Abu Basir and his companions from his own government. So, the Holy Prophetsa remained truthful in every respect and the infidels became the victims of their own trap. Ultimately, they came to the Holy Prophetsa humiliated in that they themselves desired to take this clause out of the agreement.
“Then, to assert that by saying,
وَيْلُ اُمِّهٖ مُسْعِرُحَرْبٍ لَوْكَانَ لَهٗ اَحَدٌ
“‘Woe to his mother, this man is kindling the fire of war. If only there was someone to control him’, (they raise the allegation that) the Holy Prophetsa indicated to Abu Basir that he should make his own party and wage war against the Quraish, is such injustice and such a corrupt mentality, and in light of the situation, is such ignorance! These words are clear proof of the truthfulness of the Holy Prophetsa and his abhorrence of unnecessary war. (The Holy Prophetsa said, ‘does he wish to ignite a war? It was not an indication for him to wage war.) Furthermore, these words proved that the Holy Prophetsa was expressing his immunity from and disgust towards this action of Abu Basir, and not that he wished to entice him to wage war by some hidden message.
“Then, one may think, as Sir William Muir has concluded, that the last words of the Holy Prophetsa
لَوْكَانَ لَهٗ اَحَدٌ
“could also mean, ‘If he had but with him a body of adherents!’ Some might think that this shows that the wish of the Holy Prophetsa was that if Abu Basir was to find a companion, he may be able to ignite the fire of war, and in this phrase there seems to be an indication of instigating war. The answer to this is that firstly, the translation we have done is in complete accordance with Arabic idiom, examples of which are found copiously in Ahadith. In addition to this, if hypothetically the second meaning is accepted (as Sir William Muir takes it), even then, in the context of the expression, the meaning of this phrase would be nothing more than, ‘If Abu Basir was to find a like-minded companion, he would inflame the fire of war. Thankfully, however, he has no such companions in Medina.’ (It can be concluded that if he finds anyone, that is all well and good, but there are no such people here to help him.) Therefore, whichever meaning is taken, the context of this expression and its initial parts are sufficient evidence of the fact that the intent of the Holy Prophetsa was to rebuke Abu Basir, not to incite him to war. Can an individual who begins his sentence with words of displeasure and reproach such as, ‘Woe to his mother, he is about to kindle the fire of war,’ then immediately utter such words in his mouth, ‘Yes! indeed, ignite the fire of war’? After all, in the eagerness of raising an allegation, one should not forfeit common sense! (Clearly, such orientalists consider themselves to be well-educated, but when it came to the Holy Prophetsa and the history of Islam, they start making completely uninformed claims.) Furthermore, the greatest thing to note is what effect these words of the Holy Prophetsa had upon Abu Basir and what did he understand from the Holy Prophetsa. In relation to this, in this very narration, the following words are mentioned:
فَلَمَّا سَمِعَ ذٰلِكَ عَرَفَ اَنَّهٗ سَيَرُدُّهٗ اِلَيْهِمْ
“‘When Abu Basir heard these words of the Holy Prophetsa, he understood that the Holy Prophetsa would return him to the people of Mecca in any case,’ upon which he secretly fled and left for somewhere else.
“Alas! How unfortunate it is that the individual who was directly addressed by these words understood that the Holy Prophetsa was displeased by this action of his and that the Holy Prophetsa would, either way, return him to Mecca; yet the gracious ones who came 1300 years after, have asserted that in reality, the Holy Prophetsa enticed Abu Basir to make his own party and wage war. May prejudice be destroyed! There should be a limit to injustice.” (The Life and Character of the Seal of Prophetssa, Vol. 3, pp. 154-162)
These have always been the double standards of those who claim to be proponents of justice, which has resulted in the disorder in the world, and this is the same disorder we are witnessing today. May Allah the Almighty grant sense to the world today, especially the Muslims and safeguard them against the ploys of the antichrist.
(Official Urdu transcript published in the Daily Al Fazl International, 27December 2024, pp. 2-6. Translated by The Review of Religions.)