The Policy of the Prophet

It is generally believed that the way of the Prophet is always to follow the ideal path, rather than make concessions. But this notion is not all-embracing. When in search of practical methods, what is actually worthy of consideration is the situation and circumstances rather than an absolute ideal. The importance of idealism in Islam is no doubt as great as that of making concessions. But neither of these courses is superior to the other in any absolute sense. A study of seerah substantiates this point of view.

The word ‘Azimat’ does not appear in the Quran in the sense of idealism as is generally believed. This word has been used in the Quran in the sense of persevering steadfastly, and for refraining from impulsive retaliation. It is never used in the sense of rushing headlong to confront the enemy at every provocation. This is borne out by the following verse:

Have patience, then, as had the steadfast Messengers before you; and be in no haste about them. (The Quran, 46:35)

Here, it is quite clear that the way of patience has been called the way of ‘Azimat’ That is to say, despite the provocation, persecution, and other antagonistic activities of opponents, the dayee has to exercise patience unconditionally, and to refrain completely from retaliatory activities. This is the way of patience—the way of resolve and courage.

What does making a concession mean? It is not another name for cowardice or escapism. It is in actual fact a strategy, which is resorted to in order to open up better opportunities. In no way does it mean inaction. At the end of the Prophet’s stay in Makkah, armed enemies had surrounded the Prophet’s house with the avowed intention of killing him. Yet the Prophet did not confront them. Instead, what he did was to leave his home quietly, in the dead of night, and go away to Madinah.

It was not as it might appear, escapism or the taking of an easy course. It was, in actual fact, adherence to a realistic rather than to an emotional plan. Seeking martyrdom on such occasions is not the ideal action, nor is it an act of bravery; it is indeed, an unwise, and futile act. That is why the Prophet scrupulously avoided unnecessary clashes so that he might continue his dawah mission all the more effectively. Islam does not call for beheadings; it calls rather for saving the head. Islam does not teach us to annihilate life; it teaches us rather to devote our lives to a good cause.

Islam is a natural religion, with realism as one of its important teachings. The policy of the Prophet of Islam may well be termed a form of pragmatism. In this matter, Islam grants so many concessions that one can even resort to saying something which is not in accordance with the facts in order to save one’s life. Saving one’s life by some untrue utterance under compulsion is better than showing undue inflexibility and losing one’s life futilely as a result of uncalled for fervour for sticking to the “truth.”

An incident which took place during the Makkan period is an extreme example. It concerned one Ammar ibn Yasir, who was at that time a slave of an idolatrous Makkan chief. During the Makkan period those believers who were ‘freed people’ (Makkan society being divided into freed people and slaves) remained largely safe from the oppression of the idolaters, for their tribe protected them. But those who belonged to the slave class, fell victim to severe persecution at the hands of their masters on account of their conversion.

Ammar ibn Yasir was one such convert. His master tortured him and said that unless he expressed his belief in the tribe’s idols and denied Muhammad, he would continue to torture him. Under duress, Ammar uttered the words, which his idolatrous master wanted to hear. Then Ammar came to the Prophet and said he had uttered those blasphemous words under duress. The Prophet asked him what the true state of his mind was. Ammar replied that his heart was fully convinced of the truth of Islam. Then the Prophet said:

If the idolaters force you to say those words again, you may utter them again. (Sunan al-Kubra by Al-Baihaqi, Hadith No. 16896)

According to Islam, the Prophet of Islam serves as an example for all humanity. (33:21) In this capacity, it was essential that he led a life in the world as a human being, undergoing all those states that common people passed through in normal circumstances. If an angel had been placed at his command at all times, so that he could meet the challenges posed to him on a superhuman level, then he could not have served as an example for the common man. In such a situation it would have amounted to asking people to do something, which was beyond their capacity. It would have been like asking them to follow a Prophet who was not like them—a Prophet who was possessed of superhuman power. That was why the Prophet, throughout his life, took into account what in normal circumstances was practicable for people and what was not. He conducted his life, according to what was possible and practicable, and refrained from such actions as he thought were impossible for the average person to emulate.

Verbal Dawah

There are always two ways to solve a problem. One way is to plan one’s moves by making allowance for practical imperatives. Another way is to rush headlong into things without caring about the result. A study of the 23-year prophetic life of the Prophet shows that the Prophet opted exclusively for the former course.

For instance, 360 idols were ensconced in the Kabah (the house of God). Although the Prophet’s mission was to remove them, he never attempted to smash them during his 13-year stay in Makkah after receiving his prophethood. Twenty years thus passed (13 in Makkah, 7 in Madinah), without his having taken any action, for throughout this period the Prophet confined himself only to verbal dawah. It was only twenty years later, when Makkah had been conquered, that he took practical steps to purify the Kabah of these idols.

This shows that the Prophet drew a line between what was practicable and what was not. For twenty years verbal dawah alone was acceptable as far as idols were concerned. If the Prophet was able to continue his mission, it was because he confined himself to the field of peaceful dawah. After the conquest of Makkah, when the purification of the Kabah became feasible, the Prophet took concrete steps towards this end. This shows that differentiating between result-oriented action and non-result-oriented action is also an important sunnah of the Prophet.

The Principle of Differentiation

From a study of the Prophet’s life, we learn an important principle—that of differentiation. That is to say, understanding significant distinctions in practical matters, and dealing with them accordingly.

This differentiation is a principle of nature and the course followed by the Prophet of Islam bears out the fact that he made full concession to it.

One of the distinctions to be made is between word and deed. For instance, these words of the Prophet have been recorded in a Hadith:

The greatest jihad was to say a word of truth and justice to a tyrant ruler. (Sunan Abu Dawood, Hadith No. 4344)

On the other hand, a number of traditions have been recorded in books of Hadith, which show that even if rulers became tyrants, Muslims had to obey them, and never clash with them or adopt a policy of confrontation. (Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 1847)

For instance, Huzaifa, a companion of the Prophet has been recorded as saying that the Prophet said,

In later times perversion will set in in the rulers whose bodies will appear to be those of human beings, while their hearts will be those of Satans.

Huzaifa then asked the Prophet what they were supposed to do at such times. The Prophet replied,

You must pay heed to your ruler and obey him. Even if you are flogged on your back, and your wealth is taken away from you, you must hear and obey him. (Sahih Muslim, Hadith No. 1847)

Let us make a comparative study of these two traditions. In the first Hadith we are encouraged to perform jihad against the tyrant ruler, whereas in the second Hadith we are strictly forbidden to do so. The reason for this difference is that the first Hadith relates to verbal advice while the second Hadith relates to practical confrontation. According to the Hadith, verbal advice is a desirable act, while practical confrontation is a totally undesirable act.

Here verbal advice does not mean issuing statements in newspapers, making speeches and staging protests. It only means that when one finds some perversion in a ruler, one should pray for him, and meet him by appointment in private and try to make him understand his shortcomings in total sincerity and with expressions of well-wishing.

When Abdullah ibn Abbas asked the Prophet how to perform the duty of enjoining good and forbidding evil in the presence of the rulers, he replied:

If you must do it, it should be done in complete privacy, with no one else between you and the ruler. (Jaami al-Uloom wa al-Hikam, Vol. 1, p. 236)

Similarly, Islam differentiates between individual and congregational action. In individual action, only one’s own life is in danger (when an action is confined to the individual sphere, only an individual suffers the consequences). But in congregational initiatives, the lives of thousands of people are involved. It is therefore but natural that the command in each case is not identical.

An incident connected with the Hijrah provides a pertinent example. When Umar bin Al Khattab migrated from Makkah to Madinah, he took his sword and bow and arrows and came to the Kabah. The Quraysh leaders were seated there in the courtyard. First, he circumambulated the Kabah, then said two rakah of prayer. Finally, he approached the Quraysh leaders and said to them: “Whoever wants his wife to become a widow and his children to become orphans should come and see me outside the city.” (The Quraysh were persecuting everyone, particularly those who were migrating to Madinah, that was why Umar threw down this challenge to them.) Then Umar set off for Madinah and none of them followed him. (Tarikh al-Khulafa’ by as-Suyuti, Vol. 1, p. 94)

But, unlike Umar bin AI-Khattab, the Prophet migrated secretly. As we know, in the thirteenth year of the Makkan period, the Quraysh leaders met at Dar-al-Nadwah (Meeting Hall) to decide upon the steps to be taken to remove him from their path. The following night, youths wielding swords surrounded his house. But the Prophet, to avoid any confrontation, had quietly left the place at night under the cover of darkness. In this move the Prophet maintained such great secrecy that, although he had to go to Madinah from Makkah, he went in the opposite direction and remained hidden on the way for three days inside the cave of Thaur. Then he reached Madinah by an unfamiliar route. Noting this dissimilarity of strategy, some biographers have raised this question of why Umar departed publicly, after challenging the idolaters and without any fear or apprehension, and why the Prophet migrated secretly, taking every precaution to ensure his safety. Did that mean that Umar was braver than the Prophet? (Fiqh as-Seerah al-Nabawiyyah, Vol. 1, p. 137)

This question has no validity, for actions have to be judged in terms of their motivations, which will be different at individual and communal levels. Islam always advises proceeding wisely and judiciously, and certainly does not favour acting on impulse. However, an individual may be allowed to take such steps, if it is only he himself who is concerned. This will be no more than his personal choice, and his actions will not serve as a model for others.

The way Umar undertook his journey was justified by its being a personal or individual action, but the position of the Prophet of Islam was not merely that of an individual. The Prophet was the leader of the entire Muslim community. His each and every step served as an example for the entire ummah. Whatever he did was to be followed by the Muslims for all time, therefore, when it is a question of taking the initiative at the communal level, the same way would be adopted as that of the Prophet at the time of his emigration. That is, before taking any action, all precautions should be taken, and full concessions made to the situation and circumstances.

The principle we derive from this incident of the Prophet’s emigration is that if someone on his own personal basis, wanted to take a dangerous step, he would be allowed to do so. However, there is no doubt about it that an individual’s taking such a step would remain a matter of option or concession and not one of compulsion.

But where a group or community is concerned, taking risky steps with no thought for the result is not allowed by Islam. Moreover, the individual enjoys this right solely in his own personal sphere. He is not allowed to instigate people to engage in emotional and ill-considered actions by means of provocative speeches and writings.

When an individual enjoys the position of a leader, he has to give proper consideration to the interests of the community. Even if he is not a leader, he has no right to incite people by his pen and speeches to adopt a course, which might imperil them. He may take such a step in his individual capacity, but he is in no circumstances allowed to lead unwary people into danger.

The Example of Husain

We do not find any examples in the life of the Prophet of his taking an emotional step without caring for the consequences. However, there are some people who justify their own stand on the taking of such steps by citing the example of Husain, the grandson of the Prophet. They maintain that the military strength of Imam Husain was far less than that of the Umayyad forces, yet when he saw that truth was not being upheld, the forces of evil being rampant, he battled with the forces of Yazid, without considering the consequences, and sacrificed his life for the cause.

But this image of Husain ibn Ali, being man-made, is totally unrealistic. It is one promoted by poets and orators, for no authentic history presents this picture of Husain ibn Ali. Authentic records—History of Tabari, History of Ibn Kathir, and AI-Bidayah wa-al-Nihayah by ibn Kathir—have all clearly, and in no uncertain terms, stated that when Husain reached Kufa and was informed of the real situation, he was prepared to go back to Makkah.

The events tell us that when Husain ibn Ali set off from Makkah to Kufa, he had no intention of fighting the forces of Yazid. He was accompanied only by about 150 people, including women, children and even sick people. No one who goes out to do battle would be accompanied by such a group. The only reason for his leaving Makkah for Kufa was that he had received a message from its inhabitants that he should visit their town, as they were all ready to make him their leader. It was on this basis that Husain had gone there.

Al-bidayah wa al-Nihayah (Part VIII) describes this incident in great detail. From this we learn that when Husain had almost reached Karbala, he received the news that his representative, Muslim ibn Aqil, had been killed by the Umayyad ruler and that, out of fear, the Kufans had withdrawn their allegiance to Husain. At this point Husain decided to go back to Makkah.

According to authentic historical records, the Umayyad army in Kufa did not let him turn back. They wanted to kill him. According to Tabari and other historians, Husain said to the Umayyad governor: “O Umar, accept one of three conditions: Either allow me to go back to where I came from; or if this is not acceptable to you, then take me to Yazid (the caliph) and I will place my hand on his hand and let him decide about me; and if even this is not acceptable, then let me go to the heathen Turks so that I may perform jihad against them until I am martyred.” (Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Vol. 8, p. 183)

The truth is that, justifying what was a self-made political jihad in the name of Husain ibn Ali had nothing to do with the actual example set by Husain, and resulted in a distorted version of his true character and actions. Only from authentic historical records may the real picture of Husain be pieced together.

Status Quoism

One very important principle of the Prophet’s policy was status-quoism, that is, accepting the prevailing situation. However, the status-quoism of the Prophet did not simply mean to accept the extant sets of circumstances for all time. It meant rather carving out a path for oneself by adopting a non-confrontational policy within the existing set-up. Far from leading to a state of inertia, this was a planned course of action.

The Prophet of Islam followed this principle in his life at Makkah as well as at Madinah. This is one of the reasons for his achieving such great success—within the short period of 23 years—as had never been achieved by anyone throughout the entire course of human history.

The great benefit of such status quoism is that, by adopting this policy, one is instantly able to avail of opportunities for carrying out one’s projects. One is in a position to utilize one’s energies fully in one’s mission without wasting one iota of effort. By avoiding unnecessary clash and confrontation, one is able to devote oneself to constructive activity to the fullest extent.

The mission of the prophet of Islam was to establish monotheism (Tawheed). When he received his prophethood, the situation in Makkah was that 360 idols were in position inside the Kabah. The presence of these idols in the house of monotheism went totally against his mission. But the Prophet completely refrained from any practical confrontation with the worshippers of these idols and devoted himself to the propagation of monotheism in theory.

That is, he adopted the principle of status-quoism in the matter of the Kabah. The benefit deriving from this policy was the opportunity to communicate the message of monotheism for a period of thirteen years. During these thirteen years he was highly successful in that he managed to bring the 200 most worthy individuals of Makkah within his fold. It was these people, who, by giving their full support to the Prophet, brought the history of Islam into existence.

At the end of the Makkan period the Prophet’s uncle Abu Talib died. As he had been the chief of the Banu Hashim, his death left the Prophet without the kind of support, he needed to lead his life under that tribal system. Here too the Prophet, taking advantage of the situation in Makkah, managed to find a supporter in Mutim ibn Adi. As we know, Mutim ibn Adi was an idolater. But the Prophet welcomed his support, for there was scope for this in terms of status quo in Arabia.

After the emigration when he reached Madinah, he found idolaters and Jews living alongside Muslims. But in order to establish a system based on Islamic teachings, the Prophet did not immediately attempt to launch a movement to expel Jews and idolaters from Madinah. Instead, he announced the establishment of a system based on the existing society. This declaration is called the charter of Madinah. It was mentioned in this Charter that the affairs of their tribes would be settled according to whichever of their own traditions were prevalent at the time.

Prophet Abraham (and later Ismail) had established the Hajj system on the basis of the lunar calendar, which is of a shorter duration than the solar calendar. The idolaters subsequently adjusted the calendar to the solar system. The Prophet of Islam was then entrusted by God with changing back to the lunar calendar. But the Prophet neither attempted to bring about this change during his stay in Makkah, nor did he even broach the subject immediately after the conquest of Makkah. He waited for almost the whole of his life before he took this step. He did so only in the 23rd year of his prophethood, when in accordance with astronomical principles; the Hajj fell on the correct date of Dhul Hijjah, as in the system established by Abraham. This was when the Prophet performed his last ‘farewell’ pilgrimage, and on this occasion the Prophet announced that, in future, Hajj would always be performed in the month of Dhul Hijjah. (For further details, see the book, Muhammd, A Prophet for All Humanity, by the author, p.95 in the chapter entitled, “The Revolution of the Prophet.”)

This status-quoism abounds in the life of the Prophet of Islam, to the extent that some matters were left in their existing state, although the Prophet knew fully, well that after him no one would be able to change them.

One clear example of this is provided by the issue of Hateem (an un-built area) in the Kabah. When Prophet Abraham and Ismail built their mosque in the form of the Kabah, it included the part known as Hateem. Originally, the Kabah built by Abraham was rectangular while the present Kabah is a square. This square Kabah was built by the idolators. Once the ancient walls of the Kabah collapsed in the wake of a flood, and then were rebuilt. But, due to the shortage of building material, the Quraysh could cover only half of the area, the other half being left un-built. Aisha, the wife of the Prophet, said that the Prophet had told her that he wanted to bring down the present walls of the Kabah and re-build them on the foundation laid by Abraham. But since the people had recently converted, he feared that they would be provoked at such a step. Therefore, the Prophet left the Kabah on the existing foundations. That meant that the Kabah would remain forever on the foundations laid by the idolaters. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 1583)

There are many such instances which go to show that the method of the Prophet of Islam was to proceed carefully without upsetting the status quo, rather than go on a collision course with a long-established convention.