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.
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.
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
Comments