Chapter 24

Ibn Abbas said: 'This is the first verse that was revealed regarding combat' (1). This is the state of the matter regarding the permission for combat: when did it occur? And what is the evidence for it? However, there are other opinions regarding the first evidence through which permission for combat was granted. In 'Tafsir Ayat al-Ahkam' by Sheikh Muhammad Ali al-Sayis, it is stated: 'Allah the Almighty said: {Permission has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory}... This is the first verse revealed regarding combat... He then mentioned the aforementioned Hadith of Tirmidhi, then said: Ibn Jarir narrated from Abu al-Aliyah that the first verse revealed regarding it is: {And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you}. And in 'al-Iklil' by al-Hakim, it is stated that the first verse revealed regarding it is: {Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives...} - the verse. The apparent [correct] view is the first one: i.e., the verse {Permission has been given to those who are being fought...}, which was revealed on the way to the Hijrah. Many of the Salaf held this view, such as Ibn Abbas, Mujahid, al-Dahhak, Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, Zayd ibn Aslam, Muqatil, Qatadah, and others. This is also supported by the fact that it is mentioned after the promise of defense and victory (2)(3). Having said that, what is meant by the 'combat' for which the door of permission was opened? The answer is: It is the combat that was previously prohibited. We have already established that what was prohibited in Makkah was engaging the aggressive polytheists in direct, rank-and-file combat, just as carrying out surprise assassinations against those polytheists was also prohibited. After the revelation of the permission, that which was prohibited became permissible. From here, it became lawful for Muslims to face the disbelievers on the battlefield face-to-face! ¶

It is permissible for Muslims to carry out assassination operations as a form of retaliation against disbelievers when the public interest (maslaha) necessitates taking the risk of infiltrating their ranks and catching them off guard in order to eliminate them, thereby clearing the field of their presence due to the grave danger their existence poses to the Call (Da'wah) and the believers. Hence, the expeditions and military detachments (saraya and ghazawat) were launched by Muslims targeting the disbelievers of Quraysh. ¶

Furthermore, the Prophet (ﷺ) sent someone to assassinate Abu Sufyan ibn Harb while he was in his home in Mecca. Imam al-Shafi'i recorded this in his book 'Al-Umm' to argue that Mecca, despite being the Sacred City, 'does not prevent any action that has become obligatory upon a person.' Imam al-Shafi'i wrote, in his characteristic dialectical style: 'If it is asked: What is the evidence for what you have described? The response is: The Prophet (ﷺ) commanded, when Asim ibn Thabit, Khubayb, and Ibn Hassan were killed, for Abu Sufyan to be killed in his home in Mecca by stealth (ghila), if one were capable of doing so.' ¶

It remains for us to ask: What is meant by the 'permission' mentioned in the words of the Almighty: 'Permission has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory' (Quran 22:39). ¶

I say: It is stated in 'Ibn al-Arabi' that: 'The meaning of "udina" (permission has been given) is "ubihat" (it has been made permissible), for it is established in the language to signify the legalization of everything previously prohibited. This is evidence that permission comes from the Shariah, and that there is no ruling prior to the Shariah—neither permission nor prohibition—except for that which the Shariah itself has ordained.' ¶

It is stated in Imam al-Shafi'i's 'Al-Umm': 'When some time had passed since the Prophet's (PBUH) migration, during which Allah Almighty blessed a group with following him, they acquired—with Allah’s aid—a numerical strength they did not possess before. Thus, Allah made Jihad obligatory upon them, whereas it had previously been permissible, not mandatory. Allah, the Exalted, stated: "Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you..." (Surah Al-Baqarah: 216).' ¶

In Imam al-Suyuti's 'Al-Hawi lil-Fatawi', regarding the verse: "Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged," it is stated: 'This verse grants permission, it does not impose an obligation. Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) explicitly stated that fighting was forbidden before the Migration (Hijrah), then it was permitted after the Migration, and finally, it became mandatory through the verses of command. This obligation likely occurred at the end of the first year or the second year.' ¶

From all of the above, it is clear that the permission issued regarding fighting was in the sense of permissibility (ibahah), and the obligation of fighting followed later. ¶

It is evident that the gradualism in the ruling on fighting was necessitated by the state of the nascent Islamic nation and the Islamic army, which was in the process of formation regarding numbers, equipment, training, and the like. It was necessary for a period of time to pass during which confronting the enemies of the Islamic call—the disbelievers of Quraish who persecuted the Muslims and forced them out of their homes—remained a matter of choice rather than compulsion. This continued until the Islamic state became resilient and the Islamic force gained strength, enabling it to stand against the powers of disbelief in the Arabian Peninsula should Quraish incite them against the Muslims, as indeed happened later! Only then did the obligation of fighting arrive, at a time when the conditions of the Islamic state and the Islamic army were fully prepared to face all contingencies. ¶

This refers to the combat in which Muslims confronted the disbelieving Quraysh, for which the text (revelation) granted 'permission' (idhn)—that is, allowance—not obligation (wujub). ¶

As for the scenario where Muslims—while established in their state in Medina—are subjected to an enemy attack, combat here is an 'obligation' (fard). There is no room for choice, and it is not merely a permitted act. This is an application of the 'Pledge of War' (Bay'at al-Harb), the Second Pledge of Aqaba, which made it incumbent upon the Ansar to fight against the red and black (all) of mankind in defense of the Islamic call, its bearer, and its followers, as has been detailed previously (1). ¶

Furthermore, this is an application of the 'Constitution of Medina' (Sahifat al-Madina), through which the Messenger (ﷺ) organized the relations between the Muslims themselves on one side, and between them and the Jews and polytheists of Medina on the other, occurring shortly after the Prophet's (ﷺ) arrival in Medina. Ibn Hisham recorded the news of this constitution after the report of building the Prophet’s Mosque and before the report of the Brotherhood between the Muhajirun and the Ansar. This indicates that the protection and defense of the Islamic state occupied the highest rank in the hierarchy of the Prophet’s (ﷺ) priorities regarding the consolidation of this nascent state. Thus, he hastened to write this charter, in which he mandated jihad and combat upon the signatories—the inhabitants of Medina—should it be subjected to an attack. He even mandated protecting it from enemies whose entry into the country the state authority deemed a danger; thus, he prohibited granting them 'aman' (asylum/protection), which is known today as an entry visa! ¶

Regarding the matter at hand, the text of this long document states: ¶

'In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. This is a document from Muhammad, the Prophet (ﷺ), between the believers and Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib, and those who followed them, joined them, and performed jihad with them. They are a single Ummah, distinct from all other people... ¶

And that whosoever among the Jews follows us shall have aid and equal treatment... ¶

And that no polytheist shall grant protection (ijarah) to the property of Quraysh, nor to any person, nor shall they interfere against any believer...' ¶

It is not permissible for a believer who accepts what is in this document (Sahifah), and who believes in Allah and the Last Day, to support a 'muhdith' (one who commits a crime) or to provide them sanctuary... And that the Jews shall contribute (financially) alongside the believers as long as they are at war... And that there is mutual support between them against whoever fights the people of this document... And that Quraish shall not be granted protection, nor those who support them... And that there is mutual support between them against whoever attacks Yathrib...! (2). ¶

Furthermore, Perhaps the texts and evidences we have presented are sufficient to shed light on the aspects of this research, 'Permission for Combat' (al-idhn bil-qital), so that the concept of 'permission' is distinguished from others... and the concept of combat which was once forbidden, then permission was granted for it, and then the command for its obligation was issued, as has been detailed previously. ¶

Having reached this point, we conclude this discussion and proceed to the next section... ¶

(1) Meaning: Whoever commits a crime among crimes. (2) Sirat Ibn Hisham (al-Rawd al-Unf: 2/240-242). Sheikh Nasir al-Din al-Albani wrote in the margin of (Fiqh al-Sirah) by Sheikh al-Ghazali: 'Ibn Ishaq narrated this document without an isnad (chain of narration).' Dr. Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti said in his book (Fiqh al-Sirah): 'Ibn Khaythama mentioned it and provided a chain for it... and Imam Ahmad mentioned it in his Musnad...' and he listed both chains... See (Fiqh al-Sirah by al-Ghazali, p. 197) and (Fiqh al-Sirah by Dr. al-Buti, p. 181), and see (al-Tahaluf al-Siyasi fi al-Islam) by Munir Muhammad al-Ghadban, pp. 97-105. ¶

New Edition. The books authored by Mawlana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi (may his blessings endure) are available at the following address: Maktaba Islamia, near Madrasa Alia, Jama Masjid, Delhi-6. Phone: 2268084, 2285759. ¶

Second Chapter: A concise overview of war accounts and their cessation through treaties in the Prophetic biography (Seerah), along with the prominent legal rulings (ahkam) derived therefrom. ¶

Introduction: Regarding the fundamental points encompassed by this research. First Point: The status of the Islamic state in Medina during the Prophetic era regarding its relations with its surroundings, both within and outside the Arabian Peninsula. - The Jews, and the Prophet's ﷺ treaty of peaceful coexistence with them. - Quraish, and their declaration of war against the Islamic state in Medina. - The polytheists in the Arabian Peninsula and the surrounding states. ¶

Second Point: The most significant events of armed conflict and the treaties recorded in the Prophetic biography, their causes, and some of the legal rulings derived from them. 1. The first Islamic Sariyya (expedition), and what is derived from it. 2. The first Ghazwa (expedition led by the Prophet ﷺ), and what is derived from it. 3. 'The First Badr', and what is derived from it. 4. The treaty with Banu Mudlij and Banu Damra, and what is derived from it. 5. The confrontation with Abu Sufyan's caravan, the Battle of Badr, and what is derived from it. 6. Banu Sulaym and Ghatafan declaring war on Medina, and what is derived from it. 7. Banu Qaynuqa' violating the treaty. 8. Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf violating the treaty. ¶

The Battle of Uhud and the lessons derived from it. 10. Banu Asad bin Khuzaymah declare war on Medina. 11. The Hudhayl tribe declares war on Medina. 12. The tragedy of al-Raji', followed by Bir Ma'unah. 13. The Banu al-Nadir violate the covenant. 14. Dumat al-Jandal declares war on Medina. 15. The Battle of Banu al-Mustaliq and its cause. 16. The Battle of the Trench (al-Ahzab), the violation of the covenant by Banu Qurayzah, the lessons learned from this, and the declaration of the shift in the military policy of the Islamic State after the Trench from defense to offense, and the reasons for this. 17. The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah and the purpose of its conclusion. 18. The Battle of Khaybar and its cause. 19. The military expeditions (sariya) after the Battle of Khaybar. 20. The Battle of Mu'tah and its cause. 21. The Battle of Dhat al-Salasil and its cause. 22. The Quraish violation of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah and the Conquest of Mecca. 23. The Battle of Hunayn and its cause. 24. The Battle of Tabuk and its cause; treaties with certain powers in the north, the conversion to Islam of Farwah ibn 'Amr al-Judhami, the governor of Ma'an, and his execution at the hands of the Romans. 25. The conversion of the Thaqif tribe and the revelation of the beginning of Surah Bara'ah. - Persia declares war on Medina, the conversion of the Persian governor in Yemen, and the integration of Yemen into the Islamic State. - The Romans, and the Prophet's (ﷺ) command, before his death, to send the army of Usamah to the province of al-Sham, which was under Roman jurisdiction. Third Point: A review of some of the opinions of the Imams and modern Islamic writers regarding the causes of the Prophet's (ﷺ) wars—were they defensive or offensive? 468 ¶

Views of the ancients: First: The opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah. Second: The opinion of Ibn Kathir. Views of the modernists: Debates between Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazali and other Islamic writers and thinkers, including Sheikh Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani. The position that the Prophet's ﷺ wars were defensive: 1. Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltut. 2. Dr. Wahba al-Zuhayli. 3. Omar Ahmed al-Farjani. The position that the Prophet's ﷺ wars were not limited to a state of defense: 1. Dr. Muhammad Ali Hassan. 2. Dr. Muhammad Said Ramadan al-Buti. 3. Colonel Yassin Suwayd. Point Four: Our view on the causes of the Prophet's ﷺ wars. - The research here is confined to the wars of the Prophet ﷺ and their causes—not to Jihad in general and its causes. 1. The expeditions (saraya) and battles (ghazawat) against Quraysh and others were both defensive and offensive, depending on the perspective. 2. Battle of Badr - where the intent of both parties met for combat. 3. 'Uhud' and 'Khandaq' were defensive in nature. 4. 'Qurayza' was caused by the breach of treaty. 5. 'Khaybar' was caused by offensive defense. 6. Expeditions and battles against non-Quraysh tribes were caused by offensive defense (preventive war). 7. 'Conquest of Makkah' was caused by the breach of treaty. 8. The Battle of 'Mu'tah', then 'Tabuk', followed by the command to dispatch Usama's army to the Levant (al-Sham)—all were caused by offensive defense. 9. The ultimatum to the polytheists who breached their treaties after the revelation of Surah Bara'ah was caused by the breach of treaty. 10. The decision not to renew treaties with polytheists who did not breach them was caused by the necessity to clear the Islamic base in the Arabian Peninsula of non-Muslim presence. ¶

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. (1) Say, 'He is Allah, [who is] One.' (2) 'Allah, the Eternal Refuge.' (3) 'He neither begets nor is born.' (4) 'Nor is there to Him any equivalent.' ¶

Section Two: A concise overview of the accounts of wars and their cessation through treaties in the Prophetic Biography, and the most prominent rulings derived therefrom. ¶

Introduction: Regarding the points covered in this research: We have organized this section to clarify the legitimacy of jihad and the causes of combat as indicated by the biography of the Prophet (peace be upon him) through his wars—ghazawat (expeditions led by the Prophet) and saraya (expeditions he sent out)—and his treaties. This is what we intended by the rulings derived from what was mentioned. It was not our intention to deduce all the rulings that these wars and treaties indicate. This is because this section is governed by the subject matter addressed in the chapter we are in; and this chapter deals solely with the subject of the legitimacy of jihad. Hence, this section had to be restricted to what relates to the legitimacy of jihad and the associated causes behind the wars and treaties contained in the Prophet's biography. ¶

Perhaps the treatment of this research can be completed by focusing the discussion on the following four points: 1. Outlining the situation of the Islamic state in Medina—during the Prophetic era—regarding its relations with its surroundings, both inside and outside the Arabian Peninsula. 2. Pointing out the most significant saraya, ghazawat, and treaties in the Prophetic biography that illustrate the causes that prompted them, while mentioning some of the rulings derived from them that revolve around the orbit of the legitimacy of jihad. As for the ghazawat and saraya in which those same causes and rulings are repeated, we will not lengthen the research by mentioning them. 3. Presenting some of what Islamic writers have said regarding the causes of the Prophet's wars: Were they for defense or for offense? ¶

4 - A summary of our perspective on the causes of the Prophet's ﷺ wars, and the impact of treaties upon them, based on the realities indicated by the Prophetic Biography (Sirah). ¶

First Point: The state of the Islamic state in Medina during the Prophetic era regarding its relations with its surroundings, both within the Arabian Peninsula and abroad. ¶

It was expected by the leaders of Medina who resolved to establish the Islamic state in their land that the migration of the Prophet ﷺ to them and the establishment of that state would result in the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula—most if not all of them—declaring war on this nascent state, sooner or later. This is because the call upon which this state was founded, and to which it invited all people, was a call for a comprehensive revolution in people's lives, their societies, and their states. It addressed their beliefs, values, thoughts, systems, and the ways of life they had adopted... replacing all of that with a new formula for life based on faith in Allah Almighty—that He alone is the Creator in whose hand is everything, and He alone is the source from which we must derive the legislation, values, and systems that govern our path in life, as revealed through the revelation to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Furthermore, it taught that all people will stand before their Creator on the Day of Judgment, where He will hold them accountable for the extent of their adherence to the rulings He sent down to them, leading thereafter either to Paradise or to Hellfire! ¶

I say: It was expected by the men who were in the process of establishing the Islamic state that when this call materialized into a state in Medina, most of the Arabian Peninsula would declare war on it, sooner or later. This is because the masters of the old Jahili (pre-Islamic) order would perceive this nascent state as a threat to their interests and beliefs, and they would mobilize their followers to ignite war after war with the goal of eliminating it before it could take root and branch out! In fact, the men of this Islamic state expected even more than that; they expected that the major powers surrounding the Arabian Peninsula would intervene to bring down this state, which would compel the Muslims to wage wars against those powers. ¶

Among the evidences for this is: ¶

- What was explicitly stated by 'Abu al-Haytham ibn al-Tayyihan,' one of the leaders of the Ansar, during the Second Pledge of Aqaba; he said... ¶

Regarding the migration of the Prophet ﷺ from Makkah to Madinah, which signified the establishment of the Islamic state, he addressed the Ansar: 'Know that if you expel him, the Arabs will unite against you like a single bow.' ¶

Similarly, Abbas bin Nadlah, one of the men present at this pledge, expressed what he anticipated regarding the inevitable clash with the Arabs and non-Arabs if this pledge were fulfilled, the Prophet ﷺ migrated to Madinah, and established the Islamic state there. He addressed the Ansar saying: 'Do you realize what you are pledging allegiance to this man for? They said: Yes! He said: You are pledging to fight against the red and black (i.e., all) people!' This was what the Ansar expected concerning the position of the Arabian Peninsula and the international powers surrounding it regarding the establishment of the Islamic state in Madinah. ¶

So, how did matters proceed between this state and the powers surrounding it? Ibn al-Qayyim states: 'When the Prophet ﷺ arrived in Madinah, the disbelievers were divided into three categories with him: - A group with whom he made peace and a treaty that they would not fight him, nor aid others against him, nor support his enemies against him, while they remained in their state of disbelief, with their lives and wealth protected. - A group that fought him and displayed hostility toward him. - A group that left him alone; they neither made peace with him nor fought him, but rather waited to see the outcome of his affair and the affair of his enemies.' ¶

This is what Ibn al-Qayyim said, summarizing the position of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ in his capacity as the caller to the message and the head of the Islamic state. In detail: Those with whom the Messenger of Allah ﷺ made a treaty immediately upon his arrival in Madinah were the Jews of Banu Qaynuqa, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qurayza, who were like small states around Madinah with whom he entered into a pact. ¶

The Messenger (ﷺ) concluded an armistice agreement, similar to what is termed today a 'good neighborly treaty', between them and the Islamic State. Each of their groups possessed an independent entity and its own distinct system. They were not subject to the Islamic system, and their inhabitants were not considered subjects of the Islamic State. Thus, they were not like the Ahl al-Dhimmah (protected people), who are subject to the Islamic system and considered citizens of the Islamic State, even if they have not embraced Islam. ¶

This is contrary to the view of Muhammad Shadid in his book, 'Jihad fi al-Islam', where he considers them to be like the Ahl al-Dhimmah, as subjects of the state. He writes: 'It is an exaggeration, or an error, to consider what occurred between him (the Messenger ﷺ) and the Jews of Medina as military battles, for they were subjects of the Islamic State, and then they broke the bond of obedience and betrayed the state during the most critical of circumstances.' ¶

We believe that the characterization of the relationship between those Jews and the Islamic State was closest to the relationship that exists between states linked by treaties. Our view is supported by what is stated in Mukhtasar al-Muzani: 'Al-Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: I do not know of any scholar of the Seerah (biography) who disagrees that when the Prophet (ﷺ) arrived in Medina, he made a truce with the Jews as a whole without the Jizya, and that the saying of Allah the Almighty: 'So if they come to you, judge between them or turn away from them' was revealed specifically regarding them. They were not held to the condition of having Islamic law applied to them—[i.e., they were not held as Ahl al-Dhimmah who are subject to Islamic rule]... He said: The Imam has no discretion regarding any of the Mu'ahidin (covenant-bound) to whom the law applies—[i.e., the Ahl al-Dhimmah]—when they come to him regarding a prescribed limit (Hadd) of Allah Almighty; he is obliged to implement it, as I have described from the saying of Allah the Almighty: '...while they are humbled.'' ¶

And it is mentioned by Ibn al-Qayyim regarding this armistice that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) concluded between the state... ¶

Between Medina and its neighboring Jewish tribes, he stated the following: 'The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) made peace with the Jews of Medina and wrote between them and himself a treaty of security'(1). ¶

This was the situation regarding those with whom the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) concluded a treaty of peace and non-aggression. ¶

As for those who showed him hostility and declared a state of war against the Islamic state and its people, they were the Quraysh, immediately following the migration of the Messenger (peace be upon him) to Medina and the establishment of the state there. ¶

The tribes spread throughout the Arabian Peninsula later followed the path of the Quraysh in their hostility toward the new state. ¶

By the Quraysh's declaration of war on Medina, we do not mean the harm and torture they inflicted upon the Muslims while they were in Mecca, which forced them to emigrate... We do not mean this here. Rather, we mean—regardless of the Quraysh's prior transgressions before the state was established—that the actions taken by the leaders of the Quraysh in Mecca after the establishment of the Islamic state in Medina prove that Mecca took the initiative in declaring war on the new state in Medina, and considered its people as 'ahl harb' (people of war)! ¶

The evidence for this is what is recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari, on the authority of 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him), who narrated from Sa'd ibn Mu'adh that he was a friend of Umayyah ibn Khalaf. When Umayyah passed through Medina, he would stay with Sa'd, and when Sa'd passed through Mecca, he would stay with Umayyah. When the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) came to Medina, Sa'd went out to perform Umrah and stayed with Umayyah in Mecca. Sa'd said to Umayyah, 'Look for a time of solitude for me so that I may circumambulate the House (the Kaaba).' So he took him out near the middle of the day, and they met Abu Jahl. He asked, 'O Abu Safwan! Who is this with you?' He replied, 'This is Sa'd.' Abu Jahl said to him, 'Do I see you circumambulating Mecca in safety, even though you have sheltered the Sabians (new Muslims), and claimed that you support and aid them? By Allah, were it not that you are with Abu Safwan, you would not have returned to your family in safety.' Sa'd replied, raising his voice at him, 'By Allah, if you prevent me from this, I will prevent you from something more burdensome to you: your route to Medina...'(3). And in a narration by al-Bayhaqi: 'By Allah...' ¶

“If you prevent me from circumambulating the House (Kaaba), I will certainly sever your trade route to Syria” (1). ¶

This incident indicates that Abu Jahl considered Sa’d ibn Mu’adh among the 'ahl al-harb' (belligerents) in relation to the Quraish. Were it not for the fact that he had entered Mecca under the protection of one of its leaders, his blood would have been shed. This was a new approach by the leaders of Mecca regarding the people of Medina, which did not exist before the establishment of the Islamic state there. Previously, no one from Medina required a pledge of security (aman) to be permitted entry into Mecca. In fact, the Quraish, prior to this new situation, loathed the idea of a war breaking out between them and the people of Medina. They said to the people of Medina, addressing them: “By Allah, there is no tribe among the Arabs whose conflict with us is more hateful to us than yours!” (2). This story also proves that the trade caravans of the Quraish on their way to Syria were safe until this incident occurred, and the Islamic state did not subject them to any harm. That is, the Islamic state, up to this point, had not treated the people of Mecca as 'ahl al-harb'; it had not imposed an economic blockade upon them, nor had it confiscated any of their caravans, nor did it intend them any evil. ¶

This means that those holding the reins of power in Mecca were the ones who initiated and declared war against the Islamic state in Medina, and deemed the Muslims to be 'ahl al-harb' who would not be allowed to enter Mecca except as 'musta’minin' (those granted safe passage). ¶

Another piece of evidence regarding the initiative of the Meccan leaders in declaring war on the Islamic state in Medina is what is recorded in Sunan Abi Dawud: “From Abd al-Rahman ibn Ka’b ibn Malik, from a companion of the Prophet (PBUH) that the disbelievers of Quraish wrote to 'Ibn Ubayy' and those who worshipped idols with him from the Aws and Khazraj—while the Messenger (PBUH) was in Medina at that time, before the Battle of Badr: ‘You have given shelter to our companion (Muhammad). We swear by Allah that you must either fight him or expel him, or we will march against you with all our forces, until we kill your warriors and take your women as spoils.’ When this reached ‘Abdullah ibn Ubayy and those idolaters with him, they gathered to fight the Prophet (PBUH). When this reached the Prophet (PBUH), he met them and said: ‘The threat of the Quraish has reached its peak against you; they could not have plotted against you with anything greater than this.’” ¶

“Among the things you wish to inflict upon yourselves is that you intend to fight your own sons and brothers!” When they heard this from the Prophet (peace be upon him), they dispersed (1). This was the case with the Quraish, who took the initiative in declaring a state of war between themselves and Medina, irrespective of the animosity they harbored toward the Muslims and the injustices they had perpetrated against them before the establishment of their state in Medina. As for the other tribes within the Arabian Peninsula and the states surrounding the peninsula, they did not engage in hostile activities against the state of Medina immediately upon its establishment—as the Quraish had done! Rather, that hostility emerged later, in the manner we shall clarify in the following point: Second Point: The most important events of the armed conflict and the treaties recorded in the Prophetic biography (Seerah), which illustrate the reasons that led to them, along with a mention of some of the rulings derived from them that fall within the sphere of the legitimacy of Jihad. After the Quraish initiated the declaration of a state of war between themselves and the state of Medina—as previously explained—it became natural for the state of Medina to deal with the Quraish according to the requirements of this state of war. The activity of the Messenger (peace be upon him) shifted toward consolidating the position of this state and responding to the Quraish for their declaration of war against Medina. His activity was directed toward sending out *saraya* (expeditions) and embarking on *ghazawat* (military campaigns) to locations west of Medina, targeting three objectives: 1. Threatening the trade route to the Levant used by the Quraish, which exerted economic pressure on Mecca. 2. Concluding treaties with the tribes located in that region in order to neutralize them in the ongoing conflict between Mecca and Medina, if it was not possible to win them over to their side, because the basic principle is... ¶

These tribes tended towards Quraish and cooperated with them, as there existed between them historical alliances which the Holy Quran termed 'Ilaf' (1), through which Quraish sought to secure its trade with Syria and Yemen (2). ¶

3 - Demonstrating the emerging Islamic power in Medina and highlighting its challenge to Quraish, the leader of the Arab tribes in the Peninsula. This made the Jews in Medina, as well as the polytheists therein and in the surrounding areas, feel threatened by engaging in any hostile activity against this nascent power or by leaning towards Quraish in its conflict with the Muslims. ¶

Now, we shall point to the most important military operations and peace treaties that the Messenger (PBUH) undertook to achieve the goals we have mentioned: ¶

1 - The first Islamic Sariya (expedition) that confronted Quraish was the Sariya of 'Hamza bin Abdul Muttalib,' seven months after the Hijrah. However, no sooner had the two sides prepared for battle than 'Majdi bin Amr al-Juhani,' who was an ally to both parties, intervened and stood between them, preventing the fight (3). ¶

What can be inferred from the news of this Sariya: ¶

a - The external activity of the Islamic state concerning the conclusion of peace treaties with neighboring tribes preceded the military operations it undertook. The evidence for this is that the 'Sariya of Hamza' (may Allah be pleased with him) was the very first military action taken by the Islamic state, and it was directed against Quraish, while the Juhaynah tribe—located on the Red Sea coast—was under a peace treaty with the State of Medina, and it was they who mediated to prevent fighting between the Muslims and their enemies. ¶

b - It is permissible for the Islamic state to conclude a peace treaty with another state that is, in turn, linked by a peace treaty with an enemy of the Islamic state, provided that the treaty does not extend to an agreement that the state allied with the Muslims would support that enemy state should it engage in battle with the Muslims! ¶

C - It is permissible for the Islamic state to refrain from fighting its enemies after having prepared for it, in response to the mediation of another state, provided that this does not cause harm to the Muslims. ¶

2 - The first ghazwa (military expedition) undertaken by the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was the Ghazwa of 'Waddan', also known as 'al-Abwa' (1). It took place twelve months after the Hijrah with the intention of intercepting the Quraysh caravan, though the caravan managed to escape. In this expedition, the Prophet (ﷺ) entered into a peace treaty with 'Makhshi ibn Amr al-Damri', the leader of the Banu Damra (2). The text of the treaty states: ¶

'In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. This is a document from Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, for the Banu Damra. They are secure regarding their wealth and their lives. They shall be aided against anyone who transgresses against them, unless they fight against the religion of Allah, for as long as the sea can wet a tuft of wool! If the Prophet calls upon them for assistance, they shall answer. They are under the guarantee of Allah and His Messenger...' (3). ¶

Lessons derived from this expedition: ¶

A - It is permissible for the Islamic state to conclude a defensive treaty with another state if the interest of the Muslims requires it, and provided no harm results from such a treaty. In such a case, the Islamic state is obligated to support the allied state if called upon to do so against aggressive disbelievers. Likewise, it is permissible for the Islamic state to request the allied state to provide arms and men to fight under the banner of the Islamic state against the enemy disbelievers. ¶

3 - It is mentioned in the Sira: 'Kurz ibn Jabir al-Fihri' raided the pastures of Medina and drove away livestock that were grazing in the Hima (protected pasture). The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) went out with some Muslims thirteen months after the Hijrah and reached the vicinity of 'Badr', but he did not catch him, so he returned. This pursuit is called the 'First Ghazwa of Badr' (4). ¶

The benefits derived from this expedition are as follows: (a) The legitimacy of fighting to defend the wealth of the Muslims if the enemy encroaches upon it, and the effort to recover it. (b) The permissibility of refraining from fighting for the sake of public interest (maslahah), even if the Muslims are unable to recover their wealth. ¶

4. It is stated in the Sirah (Prophetic Biography) that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ concluded a peace treaty with the 'Banu Mudlij' and their allies, the 'Banu Damra,' sixteen months after his Hijrah, when he set out to intercept a Quraysh caravan at 'Dhu al-Ushayrah' in the vicinity of 'Yanbu'—which was heading to the Levant. However, he missed it. This was the same caravan he sought to intercept upon its return, but he missed it for a second time as well, and it was the cause of the Battle of Badr. ¶

From this report and the preceding one, we learn that: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ limited his military activity against the Quraysh, excluding the tribes neighboring Medina that were spread along the trade routes. Rather, his policy toward those tribes was directed toward concluding peace or defense treaties. The explanation for this is that it was the Quraysh who initiated the state of war between themselves and Medina. As for the other tribes, no hostile activity against the Muslims had emerged from them thus far; therefore, he refrained from fighting them, except for the case of 'Kurz bin Jabir al-Fihri,' as previously mentioned. ¶

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ confined his military activity specifically against the Quraysh and continued to exert pressure on them in compliance with the state of war which they themselves had declared against him. ¶

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ acted accordingly based on the interest of the Islamic Dawah (call). This is because the Quraysh at that time were the leaders of the Arabian Peninsula and held the ultimate authority therein. They represented the material barrier that prevented the spread of the Dawah in the peninsula. Once this barrier was broken, or once they entered Islam, the tribes of the peninsula hastened to embrace the new religion without any significant difficulty. This is evidenced by the narration in Sahih al-Bukhari: 'From 'Amr bin Salamah, he said...' ¶