Friday, September 20, 2013

Was Medina an Islamic State?

It is a well-documented fact that the first Islamic State came into existence the moment the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) migrated from Makkah to Medina. In Medina the Messenger of Allah (saw) enjoyed the position of ruling and hence ruled according to the decree and will of Allah. He was acknowledged as the head of the state by all the tribes of the surrounding areas and started to implement Islam from the very first day. It was this ruling as per the decree of Allah that qualifies Medina as the first Islamic State.

However there are some scholars who argue that the first Islamic State came into existence only after the conquest of Makkah and not before it. They argue that it was the conquest of Makkah in the year 8 Hijri that transformed Medina into a full and complete Islamic State. The discussion whether Medina was an Islamic State or it turned into one after the conquest of Makkah may seem trivial and innocuous to some, but the debate is very significant and carries pivotal importance in today’s scenario. It is important because it is on this debate rests the methodology and the way forward for the Muslim Ummah. One of the primary differences that may emerge would be the permissibility of armed struggle even before the formation of an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) waged many battles before Makkah came under the control of Muslims. However if we consider Medina to be an Islamic State then there would be no armed struggle before the Ummah establishes the rule of Allah at a given place and once this takes place, armed struggle would start. Hence the issue cannot be trivialised and there is a need to dig in to the objections of those who do not recognise Medina to be a complete Islamic State.

Here are some of the objections raised;

OBJECTIONS

1.    Parallel Government of Jews in Medina

One of the objections that Medina was not the Islamic State stems from the fact that the Messenger of           Allah (saw) did not have only his government in Medina. There were Jews in the city of Medina who were running their parallel government and deciding there affairs from their laws. Even at the time of the siege of Banu Quraiza, the Messenger (saw) did not give his own decree, but called Saad Ibn Muadh (ra), the leader of Aws, who was a strong ally of the Jews. Hence the Messenger (saw) was not the only one who was judging but others too had a say in the state.

2.    Slander on Aisha (ra)

It was the munafiqun (hypocrites) who started slandering about Aisha (ra), the mother of the believers (may Allah be pleased with her), yet the Messenger of Allah (saw) did not take any action against the slanderers. Some argue that such action of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) further corroborates that the Messenger (saw) did not have the sole supreme authority and hence Medina could not be termed as an Islamic State.

3.    Makkah was the Centre of Arabian Peninsula

It is often argued that Makkah was the central place in the Arabian Peninsula and hence the ‘revolution’ of the Messenger of Allah (saw) was completed only when Makkah was conquered and not before that. In this lies an argument that Taif, Medina, etc., were just the cities of the big Arabian Peninsula and hence the liberation of one city cannot be counted as the complete state. Hence the conquest of Makkah, in reality, marks the beginning of the Islamic State.

4.    Foreign Policy of Islam not Followed

The foreign policy of the Islamic State is crystal clear. It is based on three conditions;
(a) Either the people accept Islam
(b) If they do not accept then they must accept the supremacy of Islam and pay Jiziya
(c) If the above two are not acceptable, then Jihad (armed struggle) has to be taken up to remove the obstacles from the path to make the deen victorious.
Scholars argue that the since none of the three conditions were presented before the people of Medina, hence Medina cannot be considered as an Islamic State as the foreign policy of Islam was not applied in case of Medina.

5.    States Do Not perform Treaties With Citizens

The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) came up with the charter (Meethaq-e-Medina) when he entered it. The Meethaq was between the Messenger (saw) and the people (citizens), however it is unthinkable for the ruler to sign or make agreements with the people whom he is supposed to rule. This point reinforces the argument that Medina was a safe haven or a safe sanctuary for Muslims and not an Islamic State.

6.    The Messenger (saw) was an Arbiter

It is often argued that the tribes of Aws and Khazraj were completely fed up with their ongoing vendettas and counter-vendettas and they were in need of some authority who could judge among them and bring peace and stability to their chaotic and bloody wars that they had been fighting. Hence, in the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), the tribes saw an arbiter and gave him a place to migrate so as to bring the dispute to an end.

7.    Muhajireen and Ansar addressed Separately

Before the conquest of Makkah, muhajireen and ansar were addressed separately. In Surah Anfal, they were addressed separately;
وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَهَاجَرُوا وَجَاهَدُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ وَالَّذِينَ آوَوْا وَنَصَرُوا أُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ حَقًّا لَهُمْ مَغْفِرَةٌ وَرِزْقٌ كَرِيمٌ
Those who believed and left their homes and strove for the cause of Allah, and those who took them in and helped them - these are the believers in truth. For them is pardon, and bountiful provision.[TMQ 8:74]

However after the conquest of Makkah, this separation was no longer present. The Quran says;
 وَالسَّابِقُونَ الْأَوَّلُونَ مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالْأَنْصَارِ وَالَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُمْ بِإِحْسَانٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوا عَنْهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي تَحْتَهَا الْأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا أَبَدًا ذَلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ
And the first to lead the way, of the Muhajirin and the Ansar, and those who followed them in goodness - Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him, and He hath made ready for them Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the supreme triumph. [TMQ 9:100]

This separate addressing of the muhajireen and the ansar hence corroborate that the muhajir Muslims were just a group in Medina and they were enjoying the safety and security in Medina which they could not have had enjoyed in Makkah.

8.    The Messenger Did Not Order The Ansar To Fight

Some argue that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not censure or inquired from the Sahaba who did not partake in to the battles before the conquest of Makkah, for example Badr, Uhud, etc. However, he called upon all those and asked explanations from everyone who did not join the Messenger (saw) at the battle of Tabuk. Hence, it is argued that, had the Messenger been the ruler before the conquest, he would have sought an explanation from the Sahaba before as well.

Another objection comes from Ustad. Imran Nazar Hosein, whose argument is a little different and takes into account the future of the Khilafah, but falls in the same lime. Excerpt from his book, ‘The Caliphate The Hejaz and The Saudi-Wahhabi Nation State’;
Our conclusion is that the institution of the Caliphate, which forms part of Dar al-Islam, is indispensable for the restoration of power.... We need, therefore, to articulate anew the provisions of the Islamic Public Order (Dar al-Islam) and Islam's Conception of an International Order, and to demonstrate their clear superiority over the secular rival which has emerged from western civilization.... We also need to recognize, as this booklet has made clear, that it is impossible, and will remain impossible, to restore the Caliphate so long as the Hejaz remains under the control of the Saudi-Wahhabi alliance. Power cannot be restored without the liberation of the Haramain and the Hajj from the control of those who participated in the destruction of the Caliphate.”

Hence, in his view, the Khilafah will only be re-estabished when the Haramain will come under the purview of the Khalifah. This raises the question for the future of the Khilafah as, according to him, unless the Haramain is liberated, there is no Khilafah, i.e. if the revolution in any state, today, results in the transformation from Dar al Kufr to Dar al Islam, it will not be considered as Khilafah as the Haramain would still at that point of time remain outside the influence of the ruler in the Dar al Islam. So the Khilafah would only come when the Haramain gets liberated.

REBUTTAL

Before delving deeply into the rebuttal, there is a need to clarify what Dar al Islam and Dar al Kufr stands for. In order to understand the position of Medina we have to dwell upon the two definitions.

Dar al Islam and Dar al Kufr

The classical scholars like Ibn Qayyim, Imaam Al-Kasaani, Qadi Abu Ya’la, etc., have also differentiated between Dar al Islam and Dar al Kufr primarily on the basis of two aspects. One is the security of the state and the other one is the laws that are being implemented within the land.
Imaam Al-Kasaani writes, “There is no disagreement among the ahnaaf (scholars of the Hanafi Madhab), that Dar al-Kufr becomes Dar al-Islam, when the rules of Islam becomes dominant. Our brothers only dispute on how Dar al-Islam transfers to become Dar al-Kufr. Our Imam (Abu Haneefah) said, 'Dar al-Islam becomes Dar al-Kufr in three (situations); when the law and order becomes Kufr, when the state has a border with a Kufr (state) without treaty or when there is no longer any security for the Muslim or the Dhimmi (citizens).[1]
Ibn Qayyim writes in his book Kitaab Ahkaam ahl al-Dhimmah, “The Jumhour (majority) of the 'Ulema say, 'Dar al-Islam is where the Muslims go and reside and the Islamic rules are dominant. If people (the Muslims) reside in one place and Islam becomes dominant, that is Dar al-Islam If however, Islam does not become dominant it is not (considered) Dar al-Islam even if it is in close proximity to the state. Taa'if was so close to Makkah (at the time when Makkah was Dar al-Islam) but it did not become part of Dar al-Islam until it was conquered.[2]
Ibn Muflih writes in Al-Adaab al-Shariah, “There are only two, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr. Any Dar (domain) where Islamic law is dominant is Dar al-Islam, and any domain where Kufr law is dominant is Dar al-Kufr, there are only these two camps.[3]
The above definitions are the definitions which the classical scholars have given. However if we look at the nineteenth and twentieth century scholars, we do not find a difference.
Imam Shawkani says, “When we speak about a Dar (dominion) by whoever’s word being dominant, we mean if the command and prohibition is for the Muslims, in a way that no one from the Kuffar becomes dominant with his Kufr except by what is granted him from Islam, then that is considered Dar al- Islam.[4]
Syed Qutub writes in his seminal work ‘In the Shade of the Quran,’ “The whole world in the eyes of Islam is divided into two, the first is Dar al-Islam, and the second is Dar al-Harb. Dar al-Islam is where the Shari’ah of Islam alone is implemented, regardless of whether the inhabitants are all Muslims or Muslims mixed with Dhimmi (Jews and Christians) or if all of the citizens are Dhimmi with only some Muslims in power. Dar al-Harb is any land where the Kufr law is dominant even if everybody in the land is Muslim.[5]
In short according to the Sharia terminology, Dar al Islam and Dar al Kufr could be defined as follows
Dar al Islam is the land which is governed by the laws of Islam and whose security (Aman) is maintained by the security of Islam, i.e. by the authority and protection of Muslims inside and outside the land, even if the majority of its inhabitants are non-Muslims.
Dar al-Kufr is the land which is governed by the laws of Kufr, and whose security is not maintained by the security (Aman) of Islam, i.e. by other than the authority and security of Muslims, even if the majority of its inhabitants are Muslims.
So what matters in determining whether the land is Dar al-Islam or Dar al-Kufr is neither the land itself nor its inhabitants, rather it is the laws and the security.
Now if we look at Medina and the kind of laws that were being implemented there, it becomes clear that the moment the Messenger of Allah migrated, the land of Medina, as per the definitions of Dar al Islam and Dar al Kufr, transformed into the Dar al Islam. The authority straight away was given into the hands of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and he ruled with the authority of Islam among the inhabitants of Medina. This point would further be clarified by understanding the Meethaq-e-Medina (The Charter of Medina), which the Messenger ratified with the people of both, including the Jews and their tribes.

Meethaq-e-Medina

Meethaq is an Arabic word which comes from the root word wusuq which means trust. Hence the Meethaq-e-Medina was not like a normal agreement between the two parties, rather it was the trust that the inhabitants of Medina showed for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and the Messenger ratified the Meethaq on his terms and conditions. So with the word Meethaq it becomes clear that the Messenger of Allah was actually dictating the terms of governance and hence as per the definition of Dar al Islam, Medina was an Islamic State and the Messenger of Allah as its head of state.

Besides, one could easily assess that the Messenger (saw) enjoyed the position of ruling in Medina by looking at the terms of the Meethaq. Some of the terms of the Meethaq are as follows;
a) When you differ on anything, the matter shall be referred to Allah and Muhammad (saw).
b) Those Jews who follow the believers will be helped and will be treated with equality.
c ) No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew.
d) No separate peace will be made by anyone in Medina when believers are fighting in the Path of Allah.
e) The peace of the believers cannot be divided. (i.e. it is either peace or war for all. It cannot be that a part of population is at war with the outsiders and a part is at peace)
f) No Unbeliever will be permitted to take the property of the Quraysh (the enemy) under his protection. Enemy property must be surrendered to the state.
g) No one shall go to war except with the permission of Muhammad.

The kind of terms and conditions the Messenger of Allah (saw) put in the Meethaq makes it clear that he was enjoying the position of ruling in Medina. The very article that if any difference would arise it will be returned to Allah and his Messenger, clarifies that the laws of Islam were being implemented and the final authority was in the hands of the Messenger of Allah.

Looking at the second condition for Dar al Islam, the Meethaq put out the clear guidelines related to it. No one was allowed to go to war except with the permission of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and peace was not supposed to be divided. Hence if the Muslims are at war, then the rest of the inhabitants could not do peace treaty with others. And the very article that the enemy property must be returned to the state in itself explains the authority and control of the Islamic state over its citizens.

Again, one could easily understand that since no one was allowed to go to war except with the permission of the Messenger of Allah, it clearly explains that the security of Medina was in the hands of the Muslims.

Putting the reality of Medina in the definition of Dar al Islam, which is that the laws of Islam should be implemented and the authority should remain in the hands of the Messenger of Allah, one can easily understand that Medina was nothing but an Islamic State, where the Messenger was the ruler and he ruled as per the decree of Islam and implemented nothing but Islam. Had the Messenger been implementing anything other than Islam, which could never have happened, the state could not have been named as an Islamic State.

So by looking at some of the terms of the Meethaq it becomes clear as to what kind of position the Messenger enjoyed in Medina. Any objection, hence, should be seen in the specific context of when they occurred and should not be used as a straight away conclusion that Medina was not an Islamic State.

So after getting a sense of the prerequisites of an Islamic State, let us look at the objections that have been raised by the scholars and reconcile it with the understanding of Dar al Islam and Dar al Kufr.

1.    Parallel Government of Jews in Medina

The first objection is that the Jews were running their parallel government in Medina and hence they also had the authority in ruling. If we look at it from the Quran, this is not true.

The sole condition for being an Islamic State is that the rules that are being implemented should be of Islam. As per the case of parallel government of Jews, let us look at the verse of the Quran;

Listeners for the sake of falsehood! Greedy for illicit gain! If then they have recourse unto thee (Muhammad) judge between them or disclaim jurisdiction. If thou disclaimest jurisdiction, then they cannot harm thee at all. But if thou judgest, judge between them with equity. Lo! Allah loveth the equitable. [Surah al Maida - Verse 42[

The verse says that if you judge between them then judge justly between them. Therefore, it is nothing but the command of Allah that gave the Messenger the choice to judge or not to judge between their disputes. Hence it was the Messenger (saw) who had the command from Allah to either judge or not judge and Allah did not reveal the command so as to abolish their governments or courts. In addition to it the Dhimmi in the Islamic State enjoy their cultural or religious rights at the individual level so they were free to judge the matters related to their culture or religion through their own courts.

As per the argument that Saad Ibn Muadh (ra) was called to give his judgement in the case of Banu Qurayza, it must be remembered that Saad Ibn Muadh (ra) became the adjudicator only by the permission of the Messenger of Allah and not on his own and it was the Messenger (saw) who delegated his powers to judge to Saad. This furthers the claim that the only person who had authority in Medina was the Messenger of Allah (saw).

2.    Slander on Aisha (ra)

Before discussing the case of slander against Aisha (ra), the mother of the believers, let us look at what led to the expulsion of Banu Qaynuqah. It so happened that a Muslim woman sat a jeweller’s shop with her ornaments. A Jew approached her from behind and nailed the back of her dress with a thorn. When she arose her garment came off and the Jews all laughed at her insultingly. She called for help and the nearby Muslims responded and killed the Jew, after which the Jews assembled and killed the Muslim. On learning about this the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) asked the Jews to stop the provocation and when they were defiant he went out with the Muslims and surrounded Bany Qaynuqah. The Messenger decided to kill all for their treachery, however Abdullah Ibn Ubayy Ibn Salul pleaded to the Messenger (saw) and said, “Oh Muhammad. Be lenient with them.” He continued pleading until the Messenger said that the Banu Qaynqah must be exiled.[6]

One thing that one may draw from the story of Banu Qaynqah was that the Messenger of Allah was the only ruler and he was the one before who people had to take their cases and plead for approval. This very fact that even the most influential and powerful people of Medina had to plead before the Messenger (saw) proves that he was the leader of Medina and he was the one who used to take all the decision. It was the decision of the Messenger of Allah (saw) to kill all the people from Banu Qaynuqah and it was also his decision to exile Banu Qaynuqah. Proving once again that he was the one in authority in Medina.

Similarly, if we apply it in case of slander of Aisha (ra), it was the decision of the Messenger of Allah (saw) to punish or not to punish and in both the cases he had exercised his right to rule. Hence it would be incorrect to say that since the Messenger (saw) did not enjoy the ruling position in Medina, therefore he did not punish Abdullah Ibn Ubayy Ibn Salul.

One may also relate it to some incidences where the Messenger of Allah (saw) asked the people, who had come to confess their crime, to go as if they insist he would have to implement the hadd on them.

Ibn Mas’ood (ra) says a man came to the Prophet and said, "O Apostle of Allah. I found a woman in a garden and did everything to her except having intercourse: I kissed her and hugged her and so on, but I didn’t go beyond this. So judge me as you wish." The Prophet of Allah said nothing in reply and the man went away.

Hence one may find instances where the Messenger of Allah (saw) left certain things without acting upon them. So punishing Abdullah Ibn Ubayy could come under this category; however not punishing would not make the Islamic State redundant.

3.    Makkah was the Centre of Arabian Peninsula

It is indeed true that Makkah was the centre of the Arabian Peninsula; however the liberation of Makkah cannot be linked to the formation of the Islamic State.

Let us go back to the definition of Dar al Islam and Dar al Kufr. The condition is the implementation of Islamic laws and security in the hands of the Muslims, i.e. the state should have an army whereby it may protect itself from the foreign onslaught.

Now those who argue that since Taif, Medina, etc. were just the towns in the Arabian Peninsula and hence their liberation cannot be taken as the formation of Islamic State, fail to see it in the specific context and often misunderstand it by keeping the present system of countries and cities, which was, of course, not the case with Medina. People often relate those towns to the present cities in the modern world, where the centre holds the power and the federal system governs the states. The states do not possess independent armies and hence do not have the military of their own whereas the Tribes of Medina and of Taif had independent and sovereign armies, which clarifies that these towns were actually independent statelets and not just any towns of the Arabian Peninsula.

When we study the history and geo-politics of the tribes we find that those tribes not only had their own military, but rather they used to have different relations with different empires and emperors and tribes around them and even their economies were independent. They in fact were completely independent and did not depend at all on Makkah except that Makkah was the religious centre and because of that it used to enjoy the position of a kind of super power in the region, however it never influenced the policies and external behaviour of the tribes in other parts of the Arabian Peninsula.

Hence it would be improper to relate the emergence of Islamic State with the liberation of Makkah as it had no hold over the independence of other tribes in vicinity and far.

4.    Foreign Policy of Islam not Followed

. One must keep in mind that Medina was the land where Muslims first established their rule and hence the foreign policy of the Islamic State could never be applied as before migration to Medina there was no Islamic State. It was only when the Islamic State was established in Medina that its foreign policy began to be implemented.
So we will see that prophet (saw) sent emissaries with letters to various rulers. He sent letters to rulers of Absynia, Rome and Persia inviting them to Islam and this is he undertook as a part of the Foreign policy of Islam. So it is incorrect to assume that he (saw) did not implement the foreign policy of Islam.  

5.    States Do Not Perform treaties With Citizens

The point to remember here is that the Meethaq-e-Medina was not the agreement or treaty between the people of Medina and the Messenger of Allah, rather it was the trust that they reposed on the Messenger. In addition to it could be understood as a constitution in the present scenario. Whenever a new state comes into existence or a new regime takes over any nation, they form or change the constitution. The recent example of the change of constitution was seen in Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood leader Morsi.

So Meethaq-e-Medina was similar to the new constitution of Medina as it was transforming from Dar al Kufr to Dar al Islam and hence the charter was the necessary requirement and it should not be seen as a treaty but rather a constitution.

6.     The Messenger was an Arbiter

The Messenger (saw) could have been the arbiter had he only solved the differences between the tribes of Aws and Khazraj. However we know that the Messenger not only solved the differences but he ruled over them according to the decree of Allah. He did the Meethaq which made him the head of the state and put the clause that any difference must be returned to Allah and his Messenger (saw). Hence even if we admit that he was an arbiter between Aws and Khazraj, yet there is substantial proof that he ruled Medina by Islam.

7.    Muhajireen and Ansar addressed Separately

The separate addressing of muhajireen and ansar before the conquest of Makkah does not prove that the Messenger (saw) enjoyed authority only over the muhajireen and not the ansar. It must be kept in mind that the ansar played a significant role in the establishment of deen as it was their effort that led to the establishment of the first Islamic State which gave Muslims a safe haven to worship Allah and presented a launching pad to launch Islam to the rest of the Arabian Peninsula.

Hence their role was pivotal and the verse of Surah Anfal reinforces the fact that their role was pivotal and significant, however it does not mean that the Messenger was not ruling over them.
Let us look at the verse wherein the muhjireen and the ansar are addressed as a single entity after the liberation of Makkah.
وَالسَّابِقُونَ الْأَوَّلُونَ مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَالْأَنْصَارِ وَالَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُمْ بِإِحْسَانٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوا عَنْهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي تَحْتَهَا الْأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا أَبَدًا ذَلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيمُ
And the first to lead the way, of the Muhajirin and the Ansar, and those who followed them in goodness - Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him, and He hath made ready for them Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the supreme triumph. [TMQ 9:100]

The verse does not address muhajireen and the ansar as one group or separate group rather it grades the believers. It is very simple to understand that those who reverted to Islam early had to undergo a lot of tests and tribulations, whereas those who entered the faith late had to give less sacrifices. Hence, the Quran grades the believers here as Sabiqoon al Awwaloon which means those who entered into the faith early, who are from the muhajireen and the ansar and the lesser grade is of those who followed them in goodness.
Hence the verse in no way says that they were a separate group before the liberation of Makkah and when Makkah got liberated they became a single group.
8.    
TThe Messenger Did Not Order The Ansar To Fight

One may understand this point by looking at the pledge which the Messenger of Allah took from the leaders of Aus and Khazraj at the second pledge of Aqabah. The pledge was about the protection of the Messenger from the rest of the tribes and empires and the ansar knew the implications of giving the pledge very well. It was clear that the rest of the nations and tribes would descend upon the Muslims and their allies and they would have to protect them. Hence the ansar were not oblivious of the fact that they would have to take part alongside the Messenger of Allah in the battles as they knew that the deen of Islam will supersede or surpass all the other ways of life and practices.

The necessity to fight with the other empires and nations can also be clarified from the statement of Abdullah Bin Ubadah Bin Nazlah al-Ansari (ra) who spoke at the time when the group from Medina was ready to give the pledge to the Messenger of Allah. He asked the people as to whether they have understood what would be the implications of the pledge that they would give to the Messenger of Allah. The people replied in affirmation. He then said that this pledge would mean that you have to fight every nation in pursuit of the protection of the Messenger even if your wealth perishes and your elders are slain. So if you want to leave him leave him now because the result of breaking the promise would be humiliation in this world and the hereafter. However if you fulfill the promise it would be good in this world and the hereafter. So by the statement of Abdullah Bin Ubadah (ra), we can easily decipher that the people of Medina knew the implications and they accepted the Messenger (saw) as a ruler come what may because when they asked the Messenger what would they get if they fulfill their pledge with the Messenger the Messenger replied, “Al Jannah (paradise).”

Now coming back to the question of the Messenger ordering the people to fight, was again based on the decree of Allah. Jihad was not made obligatory before the battle of Tabuk and this is what we see from the Quran where the verses talk about only motivating the believers and not holding them accountable for not participating in the battles. The word in the Quran harridhil mumuneen conveys that the believers before the battle of Tabuk were only motivated and morally pushed to go for Jihad and it was not any obligation on the Muslims. The Quran further explained the difference in the level of those who fight in the way of Allah and those who sit at home and do not come out. In one verse Allah said, Not equal are those who fight in the way of Allah and those who sit at home.

Hence not ordering fight does not mean that he was not the ruler in Medina, but Quran tells us that by not ordering the people to fight the Messenger (saw) was only implementing the will of Allah.

In modern terms, this could also be equated to the concept of conscription where the state asks the civilians to join the army when the need arises. Hence all the battles before Tabuk were not very much fierce and hence every time the Messenger would get the number of men he needed, however Tabuk was a different story altogether as there the main purpose was to instill fear in the heart of the enemy and this was exactly what happened and no actual war took place at Tabuk.

Now coming to the last objection from Ustad Imran Nazar Hosein, one can find an easy answer to it by looking at the Seerah of the Messenger of Allah. As we have already discussed that Medina was an Islamic State from the moment the Messenger (saw) set foot there and he began to implement the laws of Islam from the very first day. Hence, during the time of the Messenger the Islamic State came into existence even before Makkah came under the control of the Messenger. Going on the similar lines we can argue that if any nation or a region or a state changes from Dar al Kufr to Dar al Islam, it would be the Khilafah despite the fact whether the haramain (the two holy comes under the control of the Khalifah or not.

Hence based on the explanations of Dar al Islam and Dar al Kufr, other arguments and evidences given above, the objections presented are weak, and the fact remains that Medina had become an Islamic State after the Prophet (saw) migrated to it.

- Kamran Abu Musa & Abdul Aziz

-      3rd Dhul Qa’da 1434, 10th September 2013



[1] Bada' us-Sanaai', Vol. 7 pg. 131
[2]  Ibn Qayyim, Kitaab Ahkaam ahl al-Dhimmah, Vol. 1 pg. 366
[3]  Al-Adaab al-Shari'ah, Vol. 1 pg. 190
[4] Al-Sayl Jaraar, Vol. 1 pg. 576
[5] Sayyid Qutb, In the Shade of the Qur’an, Vol. 2 pg. 874
[6] The Islamic State, Taqiuddin An-Nabahani, Page 65.

No comments: