‘Ali delivered all these verses from Surah, “Al Tawbah,” [The surah in question is Qur’an 9. It is known by either of the two titles “Al Tawbah” (repentance) and “Bara’ah” (absolution). -Tr.] which we have quoted in full for a reason which will soon become apparent. After he finished his recitation of the Qur’an, he continued in his own words: “O Men, no unbeliever will enter Paradise; no associationist will perform pilgrimage after this year; and no naked man will be allowed to circumambulate the Holy House. Whoever has entered into a covenant with the Prophet of God-May God’s peace and blessing be upon himwill have his covenant fulfilled as long as its term lasts.” ‘Ali proclaimed these four instructions to the people and then gave everybody four months of general peace and amnesty during which anyone could return safely home. From that time on no associationist performed the pilgrimage and no naked man circumambulated the Holy House. From that day on, the Islamic state was established.
The Moral Foundations of the Islamic State
It was precisely for the purpose of clarifying the foundation of the Islamic state that we have quoted the verses of Surah “Al Tawbah” at length. This was equally the purpose of ‘Ali’s recitation, namely, to enable all the Arabs to understand this foundation. That is why the Prophet had asked him, according to a number of sources, to recommend that these verses be recited to the people each in his own house and quarter. If one were to give close and conscientious examination to the opening pages of this Surah, he would be convinced that it contains all that constitutes the moral base of any nascent state. The revelation of this Surah of the Qur’an at a time following the last of the Prophet’s campaigns, after conversion of the people of al Ta’if, of Hijaz, Tihamah and Najd, after all these territories and many of the tribes of the south had made common cause with Muhammad and Islam, was meant to clarify the moral foundation on which the new state was to be erected. It was then necessary, as it is now, for the state to have a general moral ideology in which its people believe and for the sake of which they would be prepared to fight with all their power and energy. The Surah in question seems to be saying to the Muslims in particular and to mankind in general that there is no ideology greater than faith in God alone, in God devoid of associates.
No idea, no faith and no conviction of any kind can exercise greater power over the soul of man than that soul’s entry into communion with reality as a whole, with reality at the point of its greatest and most sublime manifestation-in short, with God. Here, man is without master except God; his conscience is without judge except God. The Surah seems to be laying down the principle that those who flout this general conviction which ought to be the foundation of the state are the rebels, the immoral, and the nucleus of subversion and hateful destruction. Such ones should be entitled to no covenant and the state ought to fight them. If their rebellion against the general faith of the state is overt, then they should be fought and brought to subjection. If it is not overt, as was the case with the people of Tabuk, then they should pay the jizyah in acknowledgment of their subjection.
A close but unbiased consideration of the problem from the historical and social points of view will enable us to appreciate the moral which the foregoing verses of the Surah were supposed to teach. Those who hastily have jumped to conclusions condemning Islam and its Prophet do not consider this aspect of the matter and regard these very strong verses of the Surah as a call to fanaticism and intolerance inconsistent with genuine civilization. They take the verses calling for fighting the associationists and killing them wherever they may be found without compassion or mercy as a call to raise the political state on a foundation of power and tyranny. Such false claims one often reads in the books of western Orientalists. They are the claims of those who have no talent for social and historical criticism even though, sometimes, they themselves be Muslims. They are claims which fly in the face of historical truth and run counter to every fact of social life. The prejudice with which such claims are advocated compel their authors to interpret the pertinent verses of this and other Surahs of the Qur’an in violence to the whole biography of the Prophet. Their interpretation contradicts the logic of the life of the great Prophet and the sequence of events from the day God commissioned him to prophethood to his death.
The Principle of Freedom in Western Civilization
In order to establish the foregoing point, it behooves us to inquire what is the moral foundation of the dominant civilization of modern times and then to compare it with the foundation on which Muhammad sought to base the civilization of Islam. The moral foundation of contemporary civilization is the limitless freedom of opinion, a freedom which cannot be limited except by due process of law. On this account, freedom of opinion is a first principle which men are prepared to defend, whatever the sacrifice, and to realize in their societies, whatever the cost, including war. The advocates of this freedom regard this principle as one of their greatest glories. They boast of it and call themselves greater than all previous generations and periods on its account. It is because of their commitment to this principle that the above mentioned Orientalists call Islam’s condemnation of those who believe neither in God nor in the Day of Judgment a will to fanaticism incompatible with freedom. But the fallacious nature of this point of view becomes flagrantly obvious when one realizes that the value of an opinion lies in the ability to express, to propagate, and to implement it. Islam did not call for fighting the Arab associationists who acknowledged the dominion of Muhammad and did not propagate their unbelief or display their pagan rituals. Likewise, the dominant civilization of today wages a war to the knife against any ideology which runs counter to its own, and does so more resolutely and fiercely than the Muslims fought the Arab associationists. Indeed, it imposes upon its own “People of the Book” (i.e., those who reside in its midst but disagree with its basic premises) that which is a thousand times worse than the jizyah of Islam.
The West’s War against Communism
To illustrate this point, we may refer to the fight against slavery. In its war against those of its members who adhered to the institution of slavery, modern western civilization gave no heed to the fact that those adherents believed in their institution, that they did not regard slavery as taboo. By this we do not mean that Islam approves of slavery, though it must be remembered that Islam did not require us to fight anything but that which God had clearly and unequivocally condemned. The two cases are not dissimilar. Therefore, rather than invoking this case, let us look at Europe, the contemporary carrier of dominant western civilization together with America and all those countries of South and East Asia which run in her orbit. Europe has fought Bolshevism and continues to do so with the strongest determination. We, too, in Egypt are also prepared to cooperate with the western countries in fighting Bolshevism. But Bolshevism is only an economic view, an ideological opinion which runs counter to that of the dominant western countries. Can one therefore say that the call of Islam to fight the unbeliever who violates his own covenant after it has been given is a call to fanaticism, an “empty liberalism,” and at the same time say that the call to fight Bolshevism, the destroyer of the West’s economic system, is one which upholds the principle of freedom of faith and opinion and which respects and honors that freedom?
The West’s War against Nudism
Furthermore, in more than one European country it has been thought that moral discipline cannot be separated from bodily discipline, that hiding some parts or organs of the human body under clothing is more sexually arousing, and hence, more corrupting than the exposure of the whole human body in total nakedness. The advocates of this view began to implement it and founded resorts in a number of cities where those who want to discipline themselves to total nakedness can pursue their desire without hindrance. However, as soon as this view began to spread, the rulers of most of the countries concerned decided that the practice constituted a grave threat to the morality of the majority. They thus declared these “health centers” out of bounds and fought the advocate
s of nudism. They propagated laws forbidding the organization or construction of any nudist centers. And were nudism to envelop a whole nation, there is no doubt but that nation would become the object of a new war waged against it by all other nations on the grounds that it constituted a denial of the morality of man. Many a nation was threatened with war by other nations on account of its toleration of slavery, prostitution, or commerce in narcotics. How could such wars be justified? Surely, they could be justified solely on the grounds that freedom, despite its absoluteness, is a value only as long as it is limited to those bounds protecting the community from harm. Wherever the exercise of freedom exceeds those limits, it is deemed a threat to the social, economic, and moral health of the community, an evil worthy of being combated on all fronts. In such an instance, all public exercise of freedom is stopped, and the opinion itself whose freedom is in question is fought. The degree of brutality to which such a war may have to resort is determined by the nature of the threat which the ideological principal in question poses for the particular community.
Legislation Map Restrict Freedom
Such is the social truth acknowledged by the dominant civilization of today. Were we to cite every expression and effect of this truth among the various nations, these pages would hardly suffice. Generally speaking, it may be safely asserted that every piece of legislation designed to combat a social, economic, or political movement is a denial of the freedom of opinion and an act of war against that movement. Such denial of freedom to that to which freedom gives birth can be tolerated only on the grounds’ that the free implementation of those principles entails harm to society. If, therefore, we are to appreciate Islam’s war against associationism and its adherents, and its resolution to pursue the fighting till surrender, it is necessary to consider the social implications of associationism. Without such consideration, it is not fair to pass judgment on the legitimacy of the war. Now, if it can be established that associationism brought great harm to human society in all stages and periods, then Islam’s call to war against it is not only legitimate but obligatory.
Social Aspect of Associationism
The associationism which was prevalent when Muhammad may God’s peace and blessing be upon him began to call men to the religion of God was not only a matter of idol worship. Even if it were so, fighting it would still be obligatory. For it is an insult to the human mind, to the dignity of man, that any member of society should worship a stone. But that is not all. Associationism represented a system of traditional customs, beliefs, and practices; indeed, a total social structure which was far worse than slavery, Bolshevism, or any other social evil in the Twentieth Century. Associationism implied the burial of daughters alive and limitless polygamy whereby a man could marry thirty, forty, one or three hundred women. It implied the most cruel forms of usury and the most degrading license and immorality. The society of Arab pagans of Muhammad’s time was truly one of the worst that has existed on earth. We ask every man of reason the following question: If a certain nation today were to adopt for itself the same system of beliefs and customs as the pagan Arabs, including the burial of daughters alive, limitless polygamy, slavery with or without cause, economic exploitation and usury, would an internal movement that seeks to destroy that order and alter its system be accused of fanaticism and violation of freedom? Suppose a social group neighboring the degraded community, realizing its own exposure to the contagion of such social evils as dominated their neighbors, were to challenge them to a war. Would such a war be justified or not? Would it not be even better justified than World War I in which millions of men were slaughtered for no other reason except the gluttony and recklessness of the colonialist states? If this argument is valid, what is the value of the Orientalists’ criticism of the Qur’anic verses from Surah “Al Tawbah” which we have just brought to the attention of the reader? What would be the point of their critique of Islam’s call to combat associationism and its adherents who seek to establish the evil order which we have just described?
Legitimacy of the War against Associationism
If such was the historical truth of that pattern of life which was prevalent in the Arabian Peninsula under the banner of associationism and paganism, it is not without implications for the historical truth of the life of the Prophet. It must be recalled that, ever since his commission to prophethood thirteen years before, Muhammad had been calling men to the religion of God with argument and the kindest of words. All the campaigns which he undertook against his enemies were purely defensive. In none of them had he been guilty of aggression. On the contrary, he undertook those campaigns in defense of his Muslim converts, of their freedom to preach the religion in which they believed and which they cherished more than their lives. The stringent call to fight the associationists because they were anathema and had violated the covenant and amnesty freely concluded between them and the believers was in fact revealed to the Prophet after the last of his campaigns, viz. the campaign of Tabuk. Islam arose in a land saturated with associationism and unbelief, a land in which associationism had established its destructive economy and immoral social system. If, therefore, the Prophet commanded the Muslims to ask Arabia to exchange its order for one allowing that which God legitimatised and forbidding that which He proscribed, no fair observer could but agree to rise against the associationists and to pursue the fight against them to victory. Such victory is the victory of truth and goodness, of the religion which is all God’s.
‘Amir ibn al Tufayl
‘Ali’s recitation of the Qur’anic Surah “Al Tawbah,” and his calling Muslim attention to the divine order that henceforth no unbeliever would enter Paradise or would perform pilgrimage, and no naked man would circumambulate the Holy House, brought forth the best of fruits. Above all, it removed all hesitancy in the minds of those tribes which had not yet resolved to enter into Islam. Moreover, the territories of Yaman, Mahrah, Bahrayn, and Yamdmah immediately joined the ranks of Islam. No one was left to oppose Muhammad nor to contend with him except a few deluded individuals. One of them was ‘Amir ibn al Tufayl, who refused to convert. His people had enlisted him to serve as a member of their delegation to the Prophet proclaiming their conversion. When the delegation obtained audience with the Prophet, ‘Amir refused to go forward. He even proclaimed himself the Prophet’s equal. Muhammad invited him to a talk and tried to convince him of the truth of Islam to no avail. ‘Amir walked out threatening with war: “By God”, he swore, “I shall fill your spaces with men and cavalry.” Muhammad prayed God to restrict ‘Amir. On his way home, the persistent unbeliever was struck with cancer in his neck and died in an inn belonging to a woman from the tribe of Banu Salul. It is reported that he expired while lamenting, “O Banu ‘Amir, do you leave me to be stifled to death by a lump in my neck as big as a camel’s lump here in the house of a woman of Banu Salul?”
Another persistent associationist was Arbad ibn Qays. He, too, refused to convert and returned to Banu ‘Amir where he perished by lightning shortly after his arrival at the marketplace. However, neither ‘Amir nor Arbad, whether dead or alive, could stop their people from joining Islam. Worse yet was the case of Musaylimah ibn Habib who accompanied the delegation of his tribe, the Banu Hanifah of Yamamah, to the Prophet. His companions assigned him the job of watching their horses while they entered the court of the Prophet to present their submission and receive his blessing. They did not forget him, but they mentioned his case to Muhammad, and the latter ordered that he be given exactly what his companions received. Indeed, Muhammad praised him for agreeing to stay behind and watch his people’s property. But when Musaylimah heard of this, false pride took possession of him and he claimed to be himself a prophet. He not only started to argue that God had associated him with Muhammad in prophethood but as well to compose rhymes and verses in imitation of the Qur’an. He recited such verses as “God blessed the pregnant woman. He brought forth from her the breath of life, embedded within a well padded womb.” Musaylimah proclaimed wine and adultery leg
itimate, and he absolved men from the obligation of prayer. He preached widely but was met with ridicule. Except for these individual cases, Arab groups from all corners of the Peninsula, led by some of the greatest men of the period such as ‘Adiyy ibn Hatim and ‘Umar ibn Ma’di Karib, entered the religion of God. The kings of Himyar sent a messenger to the Prophet declaring their conversion to Islam, and the Prophet accepted their conversion and wrote to then explaining their rights and obligations under God. It was then that Muhammad sent some of the early converts to teach the new Muslims in the south the institutions of their faith and to deepen their understanding of it.
The Other Deputations
Unlike some early biographers, we shall not spend time relating the details of the delegations of tribes who came to declare their entrance into the faith. In his al Tabaqat al Kubra, the historian Ibn Sa’d devoted fifty long pages to those details. Suffice it here to mention only their names. These were: Muzaynah, Asad, Tamim, ‘Abs, Fazarah, Murrah, Tha’labah, Muharib, Sa’d ibn Bakr, Kilab, Ru’as ibn Kilab, ‘Uqayl ibn Ka’b, Ja’dah, Qushayr ibn Ka’b, Banu al Bakka’, Kinanah, Ashja‘, Bahilah, Sulaym, Hilal ibn ‘Amir, ‘Amir ibn Sa’sa’ah, Thaqif ; the Rabi’ah group of ‘Abd al Qays, Bakr ibn Wail, Taghlib, Hanifah, Shayban; the Yamani tribes of Tay’, Tujib, Khawlan, Ju’fiyy, Suda’, Murad, Zubayd, Kindah, al Sadif, Khushayn, Sa’d Hudaym, Baliyy, Bahra’, ‘Udhrah, Salaman, Juhaynah, Kalb, Jarm, al Azd, Ghassan, al Harith ibn Ka’b, Hamdan, Sa’d al ‘Ashirah, ‘Ans, al Dariyyin, al Rahawiyyin branch of Madhhaj, Ghamid, al Nakha‘, Baj ilah, Khath’am, al Ash’arayn, Hadramawt, Azd ‘Uman, Ghafiq, Bariq, Daws, Thumalah, al Huddan, Aslam, Judham, Mahrah, Himyar, Najran, and Jayshan. There remained not one of the tribes of the Peninsula, or of its clans, but had entered into Islam.
The Life of Muhammad Page 65