Critics of Islam claim that Prophet Muhammad preached
hatred for, and unrelenting conflict with, non-Muslims. They argue that
Muslims are forbidden in Islam from having cordial relations with people
of other faiths. They contend that the prophet aimed at exterminating, or
at least fully subjugating, all non-Muslims. In this regard, one should
note that some radical Islamist ideologues and activists, who see
themselves as great champions of Islam and as heralds of what they call
Islamic revival, have misinterpreted certain Koranic verses and Hadith
reports in such a way that those who do not have a proper understanding of
Islam are led to believe that the above-mentioned critics of Islam are not
entirely wrong in their assessment of the prophet.
The truth however is that Prophet Muhammad earnestly
desired and sought to establish good relations with non-Muslims. In this
regard, the Koran instructed Muslims thus: “God forbids you not, with
regard to those who fight you not for [your] faith nor drive you out of
your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loveth those
who are just” (60:8).
In accordance with this Koranic dictum, the prophet did
not advocate that Muslims must avoid non-Muslims, let alone hate and
persecute them. In Mecca, the prophet began his prophetic career under the
protection of his uncle, Abu Talib, who was not a Muslim but a polytheist.
There is no evidence at all that his being a polytheist made the prophet
love and respect him any less. Rather, the prophet would often pray to god
for him. On returning from a missionary tour to Taif, where he was badly
persecuted, the prophet sought refuge with polytheists under whose
protection he entered Mecca. When he migrated from Mecca to Medina, the
prophet made a polytheist, Abdullah Ibn Oraiqit, his guide because he was
not familiar with the route leading to Medina. In such a sensitive matter
– when the prophet was secretly travelling to Medina – he did not hesitate
to trust this non-Muslim polytheist and share his secret plans with him.
How then can it be claimed that he hated all non-Muslims and willed their
destruction?
In Medina, to begin with, the prophet and his followers
established friendly relations with the town’s Jews. They engaged in
commercial dealings with them, participated in their joys and sorrows and
gave and received help from them. The prophet’s social interaction with
the Medinese Jews is evident from the simple fact that at the time of his
demise his armour had been given in mortgage to a Jew. He sometimes
borrowed money from Jews and also arranged for loans from them for some of
his companions. The story is told that one day a Jew caught hold of the
cloth the prophet was wearing and demanded that he repay the loan he had
taken from him. Umar, who later became the second caliph, was present on
the occasion. He flew into a rage and roundly scolded the Jew. On this,
the prophet intervened and said that the Jew had the right to speak and
that it would have been better had Umar advised him to make his request
politely. Then he ordered that the loan be repaid to the Jew and because
Umar had scolded him, the prophet insisted that he be given more money
than what he had actually been owed. Another instance may be cited to show
how the prophet treated non-Muslims. Once, while in Medina, the funeral
procession of a Jew passed by and the prophet stood up in respect.
The Sahih al-Bukhari is replete with narrations
that speak of how the prophet would visit non-Muslims who were sick to
inquire about their health. He exchanged gifts with several non-Muslims.
Often they would attend his sermons and even visit his home. They would
question him and sometimes seek his advice. According to a Hadith report,
a Jewish woman once invited the prophet and his companions to her home,
which the prophet accepted. The story is related that once a group of
Muslims looted a field belonging to some Jews. On hearing this, the
prophet scolded them and declared that such actions were sternly
forbidden, or haram.
More such instances of close social interactions between
the prophet and people of other faiths are cited in the books of Hadith.
It is said that some Jews would taunt the prophet by using bad words to
address him but this did not deter him from his mission of establishing
friendly relations with his non-Muslim neighbours. This was because they
were people he sought to invite to the path of god and god had instructed
him to deal in a good manner with them. For, as the Koran says: “Nor can
goodness and evil be equal. Repel [evil] with what is better: then will he
between whom and you was hatred become as it were your friend and
intimate” (41:34).
The Koran also stresses that, in their capacity of being
human, every person is worthy of respect: “We have honoured the sons of
Adam” (14:70).
From all these instances it is clear that in his social
dealings the prophet did not discriminate against non-Muslims just because
they followed other religions. This indicates that a person’s infidelity
or not being a Muslim should not be a cause for a Muslim not to have
ordinary human relations with him.
It is said that out of respect for them the prophet even
offered some non-Muslims his sheet to sit on. There are numerous
traditions that speak of the prophet bringing non-Muslim guests to the
mosque in Medina where he discussed various matters with them. In today’s
context, all this might seem very surprising. In this regard, it is
important to clarify that from the prophet’s practice and from Islamic
teachings it is clear that when the Koran refers to the impurity of the
polytheists, it does not mean that they are physically impure. Hence there
should be no reason why non-Muslims should not be allowed to enter
mosques.
The deterioration that later occurred in the relations
between the prophet and his followers and some non-Muslims had to do with
the aggression directed by the latter against the former. This is clearly
indicated in several verses in the Koran as, for instance, 2:190, 194;
16:126; 60:9 and so on.
There are several causes for the prevailing
misunderstandings about the prophet’s relations with non-Muslims. One of
these is the fact that some ulema contend that the reason (illat)
for the battles led by the prophet against some non-Muslim groups was
their infidelity. This, for example, was the argument of Imam Shafi. This
claim is wrong, however. The actual reason for these battles, or what is
called qital in the Koran, was not their infidelity or their being
non-Muslims but rather their having revolted (muharaba) against the
prophet or their aggression, as the Koran clearly indicates.
Certain other events in the life of the prophet have not
been properly understood, which has given rise to severe
misunderstandings. Because the underlying causes and context of these
events have not been appreciated, many non-Muslims wrongly believe that
the basic mission of the prophet was to annihilate all those who did not
accept Islam. These events include the sending into exile of the Banu
Nazir from Medina and the slaying of the armed members of another Jewish
tribe, the Banu Qurayza. Another is the statement attributed to the
prophet, according to which he ordered all polytheists or, according to
another narration, all Jews and Christians, to leave the Arabian
peninsula.
The case of the Banu Nazir actually arose when they broke
their treaty with the prophet, something that was even in pre-Islamic
times considered to be a major crime. Furthermore, the Banu Nazir tried
several times to kill the prophet. Even after he forgave them, they did
not relent. Naturally then, there was no other way left but to expel them
from Medina.
The story about the killing of the Jews of Banu Qurayza on
the decision of Saad Ibn Muadh is extremely doubtful although it is
mentioned in some detail in the books of Hadith. On the basis of detailed
research, the Indian scholar Barkat Ahmad, in his Urdu book Rasul Akram
Aur Yahud-e Hijaz (‘The Noble Prophet and the Jews of the Hijaz’),
argues that this story is false. He provides numerous eyewitness accounts
to back his claim.
On the issue of purging the Arabian peninsula of all
non-Muslims, including pagans and the ‘People of the Book’, it is crucial
to note that by this the prophet did not mean to refer to ordinary
non-Muslims. That is why some leading fuqaha, or scholars of Muslim
jurisprudence, maintain that the order for qital given to the
prophet was specific only to the Quraish pagans of Mecca. Thus the noted
Egyptian Islamic scholar Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahra writes in this regard
in his book Nazariyat al-Harb fi al-Islam (‘The Concept of War in
Islam’), “Qital was restricted only to the Quraish because it was
they who were aggressors and even after the migration of the prophet to
Medina, they continued to target the helpless Muslims who remained in
Mecca.”
It must be noted here that the commandment to clear the
Arabian peninsula of polytheists was related to that particular historical
context. Interestingly, some ulema argue that the reference to the Arabian
peninsula in these Hadith reports is only to Medina, or else simply to
Medina and Mecca, and not the entire Arabian peninsula because clearing
the whole of this region of non-Muslims was impossible and in fact did not
happen.
In conclusion, it can be said that the prophet made
serious efforts to have good relations with non-Muslims at every level. He
did not consider non-Muslims’ lack of faith in Islam to be a barrier in
ordinary social relations or interaction with them. The contrast between
his model and that of certain Muslim rulers, for instance, who were harsh
towards their non-Muslim subjects must then be located not in Islamic
teachings per se but rather in the latter’s quest for power and personal
gain. Numerous fuqaha, particularly in the later period, developed
certain fiqh rules that, we must admit, clearly militated against
non-Muslims and were not in accordance with the spirit of Islam. In this
they were deeply influenced by the political context of their times and
the fact of Muslim domination.
These rules have undoubtedly strengthened the
misunderstandings that many people have about Islam, particularly about
its stance towards non-Muslims. We need to seriously re-look at this
corpus of fiqh to bring it in consonance with the true spirit of
Islam. If we fail to do this and instead blindly abide by these fiqh
prescriptions and perspectives, as some Muslim groups and movements such
as the Taliban advocate, we will be doing a major disservice to Islam and
its mission.