NO PLEDGE FOR WAR
Peace holds intrinsic, positive value, whereas war does not. War is entirely a negative phenomenon. In other words, peace is a permanent necessity for human society, while war is only a temporary, conditional response—and that too only when all avenues for preserving peace have failed and confrontation in defense becomes the only remaining option.
This distinction between peace and war is so fundamental that it has been universally recognized across all religions—without exception. Islam, being a preserved and unaltered religion, affirms this understanding. The Quran declares, “Reconciliation is better” (Quran, 4:128), but no verse states, “War is better.” Similarly, a hadith states: “Do not wish to meet the enemy; instead, ask God for well-being.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 2966) Nowhere does Islamic teaching encourage the desire for war or the pursuit of battle.
This principle is consistently upheld in both the Quran and Hadith. Yet in modern times, there exists a segment among Muslims who claim to follow Islam but, in reality, seem to admire war. They frequently glorify conflict in their speeches and writings. Their intellectual hero is Iqbal, who poetically wrote: “The sword is sharpened by the strength of selfhood—‘There is no god but God.’”
However, these individuals are peace-loving when it comes to their own lives. Their approach is: do not engage in war—but talk about it endlessly. They have no intention of risking personal harm, yet they glorify martyrdom and bloodshed. As a result of this double standard, they remain safe, while impressionable Muslims—swayed by their rhetoric—end up paying the price.
In Islamic history, the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah is one of the clearest examples of Islam’s deep commitment to peace. Yet war-inclined thinkers have even tried to derive a pro-war message from this event by referencing the Pledge of Ridwan (Bay’at al-Ridwan). They argue that this pledge proves that war was central to Hudaybiyyah. But this interpretation is both unfounded and misleading.
Historical and hadith sources make it clear that the Pledge of Ridwan was not a pledge for war—it was a pledge against retreat. This event occurred during the Prophet’s journey to Hudaybiyyah. When he departed from Madinah, he explicitly declared that the purpose of the journey was to perform Umrah, not to wage war. Even after reaching Hudaybiyyah, he repeatedly clarified that the objective was to perform the peaceful pilgrimage.
Under such circumstances, the idea of taking a pledge for war simply does not arise. To understand the true nature of Bay’at al-Ridwan, a brief historical context is necessary.
Bay’at al-Ridwan (6 AH) is a well-documented event in Islamic history that took place during the Prophet’s journey to Hudaybiyyah. The purpose of this journey was solely to perform Umrah. However, when the Prophet reached Hudaybiyyah, the Quraysh of Makkah blocked his entry, and negotiations began. To convey the Muslims’ peaceful intentions, the Prophet sent Uthman ibn Affan, who later became the third Caliph of Islam, as his envoy to Makkah.
The Quraysh detained Uthman. When his return was delayed, a rumour spread that he had been killed. This led the Prophet to gather his 1,400 companions and take a pledge of solidarity—this was Bay’at al-Ridwan.
What was this pledge about? Some accounts suggest that the Prophet took a pledge of death. However, Jabir ibn Abdullah, who personally took part in the pledge, refuted this and clarified:
“The Messenger of God did not take a pledge from us to die. He took a pledge that we would not flee.” (Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Vol. 4, p. 380)
Leading Islamic scholars support this interpretation. For example, Ibn Qayyim—an eminent medieval Islamic jurisconsult, theologian, and spiritual writer—states: “They pledged not to flee.” (Zad al-Ma‘ad, Vol. 3, p. 259)
Later, the Quraysh sent Suhayl ibn Amr as a negotiator. Suhayl was known for his calm temperament. When the Prophet saw him approaching, he said: “When the Quraysh send someone like Suhayl, it means they desire peace.” (Seerah Ibn Hisham, Vol. 2, p. 316)
Throughout the Hudaybiyyah journey, the Prophet remained firmly committed to peace. Despite provocation, he never responded with aggression. At every turn, he chose to de-escalate. For instance, when he learned that 200 Quraysh cavalrymen were approaching, he did not order his companions to prepare for battle. Instead, he changed his route to avoid confrontation.
He even selected the most soft-natured person in the group—Uthman—to serve as his envoy, symbolizing his peaceful intent. And even when the rumour of Uthman’s death reached him, the Prophet did not retaliate. Instead, he stayed in place and took a pledge from his companions—to stand firm, not to attack. If the Quraysh initiated war, they would defend themselves. But if peace was possible—even on unequal terms—they would accept it. And that is exactly what happened.
The fact that a treaty was signed after Bay’at al-Ridwan is clear proof that the pledge was not about launching war. Had it been a war pledge, the signing of a peace treaty—especially on seemingly one-sided terms—would never have followed.
When Uthman was sent to Makkah, he went as the Prophet’s official envoy. According to international norms, killing an envoy is an act of war. So when the Muslims heard the rumour of his death, they naturally believed the Quraysh had rejected all peaceful options and chosen war. At that moment, the situation appeared to have changed.
Initially, the Prophet’s choice had been between war and peace—and he chose peace. But when Uthman was believed to have been killed, the choice seemed to shift between retreat and war. The Quraysh appeared ready to fight, making war seem inevitable. In response, the Prophet took a pledge of non-retreat and defensive readiness. But when the news of Uthman’s death turned out to be false, the Prophet once again returned to his original position—and opted for peace, even if it meant accepting unfavourable terms.
The message of Bay’at al-Ridwan is this: when your choice is between retreat and resistance, choose resistance. But when your choice is between war and peace, choose peace—even if it means accepting the conditions of the other side. Moreover, even the pledge to resist rather than retreat was conditional, not absolute. At Hudaybiyyah (6 AH), the Prophet chose resistance over retreat. But earlier, in Makkah (1 AH), when faced with a similar situation, he chose to migrate.
The Importance of Patience
Hudaybiyyah, in essence, is another name for the policy of non-confrontation. This same approach is referred to in Islam as sabr (patience). In Islam, patience holds immense significance. The Prophet of Islam said: “No one has been given a better and more generous gift than patience.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 1481)
Many similar sayings of the Prophet emphasizing the importance and superiority of patience can be found in the books of hadith. For example, in Musnad Ahmad, the Prophet is reported to have said: “I do not find any provision more abundant for you than patience.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 11091)
In these hadiths, patience is described as a form of provision and a gift. This indicates that patience is not a negative trait; rather, it is a deeply positive force. Patience is not deprivation—it is a form of attainment. It is not passivity—it is one of the highest forms of action. In fact, patience forms the very foundation of prophetic activism, or Islamic activism. The Prophet’s entire method of action was based on the principle of patience.
The Quran revealed to the Prophet is, in its entirety, a book of patience. The verses that explicitly command patience are obviously so. But on closer reflection, even the remaining verses are, indirectly, verses of patience. For example, “Read in the name of your Lord who created” (Quran, 96:1) is essentially a verse about patience, because engaging in the act of reading in a hostile environment is only possible through patience. Likewise, “Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds” (Quran, 1:2) does not contain the word sabr, but it is inherently a verse of patience, because true expressions of praise in the face of loss and deprivation can only come from a person grounded in patience. The verse “Speak to him gently” (Quran, 20:44) is also a verse of patience, because speaking gently to an arrogant opponent requires the ability to endure hurtful speech without reacting harshly.
In this world, the only secret to success is to begin with what is possible. And the single greatest cause of failure is to waste one’s strength and energy in the pursuit of what is impossible.
In other words, one could say that a violent course of action leads a person toward destruction, whereas a peaceful course of action leads toward success. Violent methods are always the result of impatience. In contrast, peaceful methods are adopted by those who can demonstrate patience and restraint in situations of conflict. In this world, peace is the greatest force—and patience is what enables a person to successfully harness the power of peace.
