Chapter 25

The Arabs used to wait for the conquest (of Mecca) to embrace Islam, saying: 'Leave him and his people alone; if he prevails over them, then he is a truthful Prophet.' When the event of the conquest occurred, every tribe hastened to embrace Islam, and my father was among those who hastened with his people to embrace it. ¶

Hence, the primary focus of the Prophet (ﷺ) at this stage was concentrated on several matters: ¶

A- Avoiding conflict with Arab tribes other than the Quraish, so as to prevent the dissipation of Islamic strength across multiple fronts on one hand, and to prevent those tribes from joining the Quraish in their struggle against the Muslims on the other. ¶

B- Increasing the strength of the Islamic state to enable it to wage the major wars expected against its enemies, and to strike terror into the hearts of the Jews and the polytheists of Medina, so that they would not dare to covet the Islamic state or harass it. ¶

C- Ensuring that everyone, near and far, understood that the essential cause of the conflict between the new Islamic state and the leaders of Mecca was the 'Islamic Call' (Da'wah). - The Quraish, who had declared war on this Call both before and after the establishment of the state, sought to extinguish its light and liquidate its men. - The Muslims were not the ones who initiated the aggression; rather, they were responding to the aggression started by the Quraish. They were acting upon the state of war declared by the Quraish against them, fighting with the aim of removing this obstacle from the path of the Islamic Call. Intercepting the caravans of the Quraish was merely one of the weapons used in this struggle, intended to weaken the obstacle standing in the way of the spread of the Call—namely, the Quraish in Mecca. Once this obstacle weakened and surrendered, the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula would hasten to enter into Islam in the manner previously mentioned. ¶

Regarding the justification for the Muslims' intercepting the trade caravans of the Quraysh, most Islamic authors have pointed out that this served as compensation for the property of the Muslims that was confiscated by the polytheists in Makkah when they migrated to Madinah (1). However, I do not see a need for such a justification; the existing state of war is sufficient to allow each of the warring parties to seize whatever assets of their opponent they can lay their hands on. ¶

Professor and Counselor 'Ali Ali Mansour' states: 'Does international law not permit those in a state of war to take as spoils of war whatever they can from their opponent?' (2). ¶

Evidence that a state of war is sufficient to justify targeting and seizing an opponent's assets is found in the fact that when, later on, Arab tribes declared war on the Muslims and Islamic expeditions and raids were dispatched to discipline those tribes, the Muslims would take as spoils whatever assets of those tribes they could acquire. Among those tribes that declared war on the Muslims were some who had not yet harmed the Muslims in any 'silent' wealth (gold, silver, goods) or 'vocal' wealth (livestock) (3) which would have made the spoils taken by the Muslims a form of compensation for what had been stolen from them (4). ¶

Furthermore, perhaps the Prophet's ﷺ refusal to allow the property that the Muslims left behind in Makkah to be the subject of discussion after the Conquest of Makkah—even after some Muhajirun requested the restoration of their former assets—supports the position we have taken. ¶

It is clear from this that there was no role played by the assets of the Muslims which the Quraysh had confiscated in the matter of the Muslims intercepting the commercial caravans of Makkah. ¶

It is stated in the Sirah of Ibn Hisham: "When the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) conquered Makkah, 'Abu Ahmad'(1) spoke to him regarding their house, but the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) delayed his response. The people said to Abu Ahmad: 'O Abu Ahmad! The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) dislikes that you take back anything of your wealth that was taken from you for the sake of Allah the Almighty...'(2)." ¶

5- It is mentioned in the Sirah that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) went out to intercept the caravan of the Quraysh that had escaped him while heading towards the Levant, at Dhu al-Ushairah in Yanbu. He went out for it again after its return from the Levant to Makkah in Ramadan of the second year of Hijrah, and it was under the leadership of Abu Sufyan. It escaped him this time as well, but when the Quraysh learned of the danger to their caravan, they set out with a thousand fighters to protect it, before they knew of its later safety, and the encounter between the two parties occurred without a pre-arranged appointment(3). Thus, the Battle of Badr took place, and victory was granted to the Muslims by the grace of Allah. Ibn al-Qayyim describes the effect of this victory in Madinah and its surroundings, saying: ¶

"The Prophet (peace be upon him) entered Madinah supported, victorious, and triumphant, having struck fear into every enemy in Madinah and its surroundings. Many people of Madinah accepted Islam, and at that time, 'Abdullah ibn Ubayy the hypocrite and his companions entered into Islam outwardly..."(4). ¶

It is understood from the report of the interception of Abu Sufyan's caravan and the subsequent Battle of Badr that: ¶

A- The fact that the Muslims, after consultation, prioritized leaving the caravan, not continuing to pursue it, and preparing to fight the Quraysh(4), reveals that the primary objective of intercepting the caravans of the Quraysh was not to obtain wealth—even though that in itself is legitimate! Rather, the long-term goal was to weaken that obstacle standing in the way of the Dawah by exerting economic pressure upon it. ¶

The successive campaigns that targeted parties other than the Quraysh, beyond the collapse they were bound to cause within the enemy in the long run, were a result of the state of anxiety and fear that the Quraysh lived in constantly with every caravan that departed and every caravan that returned! ¶

(b) This was manifested in the Battle of Badr as a verification of the previous statement: that the Prophet's (ﷺ) focus in directing his military operations specifically against the Quraysh was because they represented the obstacle in the path of the Dawah (call to Islam) and the spread of Islam more than any other tribe in the Arabian Peninsula. Once this obstacle weakened and began to crumble, the path opened for the Dawah, and people began entering Islam in proportion to how much this obstacle was removed from their way, as Ibn al-Qayyim stated: 'A large number of people from the people of Medina embraced Islam,' meaning following the Muslims' victory at Badr. From this, it becomes clear that Jihad in the path of Allah, overcoming hostile forces, and removing them from the path is the ideal method for conveying the Dawah and spreading the word of Islam! ¶

One might ask: what caused a large number of people to enter Islam in the aftermath of the Battle of Badr, as Ibn al-Qayyim says? ¶

It is Jihad in the path of Allah and the victory over the forces that stood as a stumbling block in the path of Islam. This is a matter through which the carriers of the Dawah feel that they are leaning on a power capable of protecting them and disciplining those from the forces of disbelief who dare to confront them! ¶

Furthermore, the people being invited to Islam also feel that it is not easy for those disbelieving forces to harm them if they respond to the religion of Allah, because Jihad is in wait for anyone who seeks to persecute the Muslims for their faith! ¶

From this, we realize that the legitimacy of Jihad is fundamentally tied to it being a method for conveying the Dawah to people by removing the material barrier that stands between them and Islam, so that it may shape their life as the Creator of life intended for them! This is a state that makes a human being, in the shadow of this living Islam, feel the same sense as one who has found themselves after being lost. After this, whoever prefers to remain in the world of loss and darkness, that is their affair, and there is no compulsion in religion. However, they do not have the right to impose loss and darkness upon others, and they will not be allowed to be an obstacle in the path of the Divine Law (Shariah) of life! ¶

(c) As for the reason for the Battle of Badr, and the depiction that 'the Quraysh called for mobilization and set out...' ¶

Makkah, with all its strength and resources, was heading towards Madinah to wage war against the Muslims and eradicate them in their own home. And that the position of the Muslims in this battle was 'nothing but a position of defending themselves, and the war on their part was defensive, not offensive.' ¶

I say: This depiction of the Battle of Badr, which was intended to refute the accusation that the Muslims initiated the fighting against Quraish, is, in my view, unnecessary, as we have already known that Quraish was the one that initiated and declared a state of war against Madinah after the establishment of the Islamic state therein. In such a situation, the commencement of fighting by the other party in the conflict is an established matter, unless both parties agree on a truce (muwada'ah) that terminates the previous state of war. We believe that the specific cause of the Battle of Badr was the convergence of the will of both parties to engage in it, as I will clarify during the discussion of the final point of this research. ¶

6. It is mentioned in the Sirah: That 'Banu Sulaym and Ghatafan' had declared war on Madinah in the aftermath of 'Badr,' and their territories were located to the east of Madinah. They had gathered at a watering hole belonging to Banu Sulaym called 'Qarqarat al-Kudr' in order to march towards the Islamic state. When the news reached the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), he preempted them with his army at their gathering point; however, they fled as soon as they sensed his approach. ¶

We understand from this report: That the Arab tribes began to support Quraish in their declaration of war against the Muslims, even though the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was keen on maintaining peace and establishing truces with them. But what was the reason for this new aggression from the Arab tribes? ¶

Perhaps it was a natural response to what the Arabs were accustomed to—raiding one another during the Jahiliyyah as a means of livelihood! And perhaps—as some say—they felt that the Muslims' strike on the trade route used by... ¶

The Quraysh were adversely affected by this, and they moved against this economic blockade. In any case, the tribes of Ghatafan and Sulaym were among the foremost tribes that had previously declared this war against the Muslims. ¶

7. Following the Battle of Badr, the Jews in the vicinity of Medina began to violate their covenants with the Islamic state. It is stated in the History of al-Tabari: 'Then the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) resided in Medina upon his return from Badr. When he first arrived in Medina, he had entered into a treaty with the Jews that they would not aid anyone against him, and if an enemy attacked him there, they would support him. When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) killed those of the Quraysh polytheists who were killed at Badr, they (the Jews) showed envy and insolence, saying: Muhammad has not encountered anyone who knows how to fight. Had he encountered us, he would have faced a battle unlike any other. They then manifested their breach of the covenant...' ¶

It is also mentioned in al-Tabari: 'The Banu Qaynuqa were the first of the Jews to break the covenant between them and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), and they fought between the time of Badr and Uhud.' ¶

Thus, it was these Jews who initiated the declaration of war against Medina by breaching the covenant, which ultimately resulted in their expulsion from their homes. ¶

8. The Sira (biography) notes that among the events following Badr, Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf broke the covenant, despite being among the Jews with whom the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had entered into a treaty upon his arrival in Medina. ¶

In the Sira of Ibn Hisham: 'When the companions at Badr were defeated... Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf—who was a man from the Tayy tribe, and his mother was from the Banu Nadir—said: By Allah, if Muhammad has truly struck these people, then the belly of the earth is better than its back. When this enemy of Allah confirmed the news, he set out until he reached Mecca... and he began inciting others against the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)...' ¶

Ibn al-Qayyim stated: 'Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf was in a state of treaty with the Prophet (ﷺ) among those he had made peace with.' ¶

The Jews of Medina... When the people of Badr (the polytheists) were killed, this weighed heavily upon him; he went to Mecca and lamented them before the Quraysh... Then, when he returned to Medina, he began to recite poetry and utter indecencies regarding the Muslim women, causing them great harm, until the Prophet ﷺ said: 'Who will deal with Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf? For he has harmed Allah and His Messenger (1).' ¶

Furthermore, Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf lived apart from his people, the Banu al-Nadir, in a fortress of his own near theirs (2). He was eliminated one night in his fortress by a group of the Ansar, in accordance with what is recorded in the Sirah (biographical) literature (3). ¶

This report clearly indicates that the killing of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf was due to his breach of the covenant and his declaration of war against the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. ¶

9 - Then came the Battle of Uhud, in which it was evident that in addition to the Quraysh's insistence on continuing the state of war they had initiated against the Muslims, they came this time with their 'Ahabish' (allies) (4) and the tribes of Kinana and the people of Tihama who followed them (5). They marched toward the Muslims with three thousand fighters (6). When the news reached the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, he presented his opinion to the Companions, saying: 'If you see fit to remain in Medina and leave them where they have encamped, then if they stay, they will stay in a precarious position, and if they enter upon us, we shall fight them within it...' (7). ¶

Among the reports of this battle, after the fighting had ceased and Abu Sufyan departed toward Mecca... after the polytheists had been victorious in the final round of this battle - there came reports indicating that the polytheists had resolved to return to annihilate the Muslims... 'And some of them said to others: You have accomplished nothing.' ¶

You have struck their power and edge, yet you left them, while their leaders remain and are gathering against you! Go back so that you may eradicate them. This reached the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, so he called out to the people and summoned them to march forth to meet their enemy... The Messenger of Allah and the Muslims with him marched until they reached 'Hamra al-Asad'. Ma'bad ibn Abi Ma'bad al-Khuza'i came to the Messenger of Allah and embraced Islam. The Prophet ordered him to join Abu Sufyan to discourage him. He caught up with him at al-Rawha', and Abu Sufyan did not know of his conversion. He asked: 'What news do you have, O Ma'bad?' He replied: 'Muhammad and his companions are furious with you and have come out in a force the likes of which they have never displayed before. Those who stayed behind from his companions are now regretting their absence...' Abu Sufyan said: 'By Allah, we had resolved to return to them to wipe them out!' He said: 'Do not do it, for I am a sincere advisor to you.' So they turned back on their tracks to Mecca. ¶

Benefits derived from the report of this expedition: (a) The Al-Ahbash—namely the Banu al-Mustaliq, the Banu al-Hun ibn Khuzaymah, as well as tribes from Kinanah and the people of Tihamah—had declared war on Medina by joining the Quraysh in this battle. (b) When the enemies of the Muslims challenge the Muslims to fight, it is not necessary for the Muslims to respond; rather, they may refrain from engaging their enemies according to their own best interests. (c) Allowing combatant enemies to enter Muslim lands—if under special circumstances it provides better opportunities to defeat the enemy without incurring any harm—is permissible in the Shariah. (d) It is permissible for Muslims to resort to intermediaries to halt hostilities between them and their enemy if it serves the interests of the Muslims. 10. Following the Battle of Uhud, Talhah and Salamah, the sons of Khuwaylid, went to their people and those who obeyed them, calling the 'Banu Asad ibn Khuzaymah' to war against the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. ¶

Thus, the tribe of 'Banu Asad' was the one that initiated the declaration of war against the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). The Messenger (peace be upon him) adopted a stance of 'offensive defense' (1) against them; he dispatched Abu Salamah at the head of one hundred and fifty Muslim combatants, and 'they captured camels and sheep, but encountered no resistance' (2). ¶

11. Similarly, it reached the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) that Khalid bin Sufyan al-Hudhali had gathered forces intending to invade Medina. By doing so, the tribe of 'Hudhayl' (3) declared war on the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). The Prophet (peace be upon him) sent a man who killed him and dispersed his forces, and Allah spared the believers from fighting (4). ¶

12. In the aftermath of Uhud, the tragedies of al-Raji' (5) and then Bi'r Ma'unah (6) occurred. In these incidents, tribes from the Arabs of Hijaz and Najd betrayed the bearers of the Islamic Da'wah, even though the Prophet (peace be upon him) had sent them at the request of the leaders of those tribes, and after they had pledged to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) to grant them safety and protection. Thus, it was several tribes in Hijaz and Najd that initiated and declared war on the Muslims (7). ¶

13. Then the 'Banu al-Nadir', from among the Jews living around Medina, broke their treaty with the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and attempted to kill him, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, in the manner recorded by the books of history and Sirah (8). Thus, the 'Banu al-Nadir' were the ones who initiated hostilities against the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), and the consequence of their treachery was expulsion from their homes. ¶

14. In Rabi' al-Awwal of the year five AH, it reached the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) that 'Dumat al-Jandal'... ¶

In the north of Medina, hostile forces began to gather, intending to invade the city. The Prophet ﷺ set out towards them with a thousand Muslims. Upon learning of his arrival, they dispersed, and the Muslims obtained some spoils of war before returning to Medina. During this expedition, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ concluded a peace agreement (muwada'a) with Uyaynah ibn Hisn al-Fazari. ¶

It is stated in the History of al-Tabari: "The Messenger of Allah ﷺ made a peace agreement with Uyaynah ibn Hisn, allowing him to graze his livestock in 'Ta'lamayn' [a place name] and its surrounding areas... This was because Uyaynah's land had suffered from drought, so the Messenger of Allah ﷺ permitted him to graze from 'Ta'lamayn' to 'al-Marad' [a place in the lower valley that retains water], which had become fertile due to rainfall. Thus, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ concluded a peace agreement with him to graze there." ¶

From the account of this expedition, we observe: ¶

(a) That 'Dumat al-Jandal' had declared war on Medina and was mobilizing against the Muslims. Consequently, the Prophet ﷺ adopted a stance known as 'offensive defense' against them, effectively aborting that hostile movement. ¶

(b) This expedition teaches us that if any among the disbelievers desire peace, Islam does not make things difficult for them. Instead, it enters into treaties with them that alleviate their hardships and crises—provided it is within the limits of the interests of the Da'wah (Call to Islam) and the Muslims, and provided there is no harm, naturally—just as was the case with the agreement the Prophet ﷺ made with Uyaynah ibn Hisn al-Fazari. ¶

15. Then occurred the Expedition of Banu al-Mustaliq. Ibn al-Qayyim said: "Its cause was... that al-Harith ibn..." ¶

Dirar, the chief of Banu al-Mustaliq, set out with his people and those of the Arabs who followed him, intending to wage war against the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)... (1). We have previously known that when the Quraish marched to Uhud, they were accompanied by their confederates (Ahabish), namely the Banu al-Mustaliq and the Banu al-Hawn ibn Khuzaymah. Thus, the Banu al-Mustaliq had previously declared war on Medina and participated with the Quraish in fighting the Muslims at Uhud. Now, they were on the move to attack Medina, and when the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) confirmed the news, he set out toward them. Al-Tabari says: 'The people clashed and fought intensely, and Allah defeated the Banu al-Mustaliq, and those who were killed among them were killed...' (2). This initiative taken by the Muslims to fight those preparing to wage war against them is a form of defense known as 'proactive defense' (al-difa' al-hujumi) — as previously mentioned. Eventually, the matter of the Banu al-Mustaliq ended with them embracing Islam (3). 16- Then came the Battle of the Trench (Khandaq), and during it occurred the violation of the covenant by the Jews of Banu Qurayza with the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), their declaration of war against him, and their joining of the Confederates (al-Ahzab). The cause of this battle was that the Jews—specifically the Banu al-Nadir—who had been expelled from their homes due to their breach of the covenant and declaration of war against Medina, had settled in Khaybar. Their leaders assumed command there, then left Khaybar for Mecca, and incited the Quraish to fight the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). Ibn Hisham states: 'They called upon them to fight the Messenger of Allah and said: We will be with you against him until we annihilate him! ... Then those groups of Jews departed until they reached the Ghatafan...' (4). Thus, ten thousand fighters gathered from several Arab tribes, declaring war on Medina, namely: the tribes of Banu Asad, Ashja', Banu Murra, Banu Sulaym, Ghatafan, and Fazarah, whose leader... ¶

‘Uyaynah ibn Hisn, who had previously concluded a peace treaty with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), broke the covenant here and joined the hostile confederates (al-Ahzab). ¶

Furthermore, Khaybar had also entered into a state of war with the State of Medina, as some of its leaders were the instigators of this war. ¶

Then, the Banu Qurayzah broke their covenant with the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and joined the confederates who had besieged Medina. ¶

In light of this, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) attempted to break the siege on Medina by proposing a treaty to lift the blockade. ¶

It is recorded in the book Al-Maghazi al-Nabawiyyah by Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri: “The Prophet (ﷺ) sent word to ‘Uyaynah ibn Hisn ibn Badr al-Fazari—who was at that time the leader of the polytheists of Ghatafan and was with Abu Sufyan—asking: ‘What if I grant you a third of the produce of the Ansar, would you return with those of Ghatafan who are with you and sow discord among the confederates?’” (1) ¶

The Prophet (ﷺ) explained this move to the Ansar, saying: “I did not intend that except because I saw that the Arabs were attacking you from a single bow (united against you) and had surrounded you from every side; I wanted to break their power over you to some extent.” The Ansar replied: “We have no need for this. By Allah, we shall give them nothing but the sword until Allah judges between us and them.” ¶

The treaty was not concluded, the Muslims stood firm, and the siege of Medina was lifted by the help of Allah Almighty. The Banu Qurayzah suffered the dire consequences of their actions, as detailed in the books of Sirah and history. (2) ¶

From the account of this battle, the following is derived: a) It is permissible for the Islamic state—in times of need or necessity—to offer wealth to the enemies. ¶

Deflecting harm from the Muslims is greater than the loss of the wealth given to the disbelievers. This is based on the Prophet's (PBUH) negotiations with Ghatafan for peace. Accordingly, even though that peace treaty did not materialize, the very act of negotiating this matter is evidence of its permissibility, as the jurists of the various schools have stated, and as will be detailed when discussing treaties in Islamic jurisprudence. However, a contemporary scholar has denied the validity of relying on the peace negotiations at the Battle of the Trench as evidence for the permissibility of giving wealth to disbelievers in times of need or necessity. ¶

Dr. Muhammad Said Ramadan al-Buti stated: 'The peace of the Trench did not take place, and that which did not take place is not considered evidence according to any of the schools of the Muslims, neither ancient nor modern.' He then asserts: 'If any of the Muslims is forced by absolute necessity to give up part of his wealth to an usurper, whether it be a Muslim or a disbeliever, the issue is one of usurpation, nothing more and nothing less.' (1) I say: I do not know the reason for denying that the Prophet's (PBUH) aforementioned negotiations—even if they did not conclude in a treaty—serve as evidence for the permissibility of this matter in times of need or necessity, or for restricting the issue—should it occur—solely to the category of usurpation! Especially since the expressions of the jurists of the four schools point to these negotiations for peace when establishing the permissibility of giving wealth to the disbelievers—though some linked the permissibility to 'need' (hajah), some to 'necessity' (darurah), and some linked it to the 'fear of the polytheists.' ¶

These are the expressions of the jurists: * - Al-Jassas, one of the Imams of the Hanafi school, said: 'If they (the Muslims) cannot repel the enemy from themselves except by giving them what they demand, it is permissible for them to do so, because the Prophet (PBUH) had made peace with Uyaynah ibn Hisn and others on the day of the Ahzab (the Confederates) regarding half of the fruits of Medina... He then added: This indicates that when they fear the polytheists, it is permissible for them to repel them from themselves with wealth.' (2) * - Ibn al-Arabi, one of the Imams of the Maliki school, said: 'It is permissible for the Muslims, in times of need, to contract...' ¶

Making peace by giving wealth to the enemy: The basis for this is the Prophet's (ﷺ) truce with Uyaynah ibn Hisn and others during the Battle of the Trench (al-Ahzab) on the condition that he would give them half of the fruits of Medina. (1) ¶

- Al-Qurtubi, an Imam of the Maliki school of jurisprudence, stated: 'It is permissible for Muslims in times of necessity to enter into a peace treaty by giving wealth to the enemy, due to the Prophet's (ﷺ) truce with Uyaynah ibn Hisn... this was a negotiation and not a formal contract.' (2) ¶

- It is stated in Al-Muhadhdhab by Al-Shirazi, in the Shafi'i school: '...If necessity dictates it—that is, paying wealth to the disbelievers—such as the disbelievers encircling the Muslims, fearing annihilation, or if they have captured a Muslim and there is a fear of him being tortured, it is permissible to pay the wealth to rescue him. This is based on the narration of Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) that al-Harith ibn Amr al-Ghatafani, the leader of Ghatafan, said to the Prophet (ﷺ): "If you grant me half the fruits of Medina, otherwise I will fill it with horses and men against you!" The Prophet (ﷺ) replied: "I will consult the two Sa'ds," meaning: Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, Sa'd ibn Ubadah, and As'ad ibn Zurarah... [The author] then said: "If it were not permissible in times of necessity, he would not have returned to the Ansar to seek their counsel if they saw it fit..."' (3) ¶

- Regarding the ruling in Shafi'i jurisprudence on the permissibility of paying wealth to the disbelievers in times of necessity, is it a matter of permissibility (mubah) or obligation (wajib)? Mughni al-Muhtaj states: 'As for when necessity demands its payment—such as them torturing captives so we pay the ransom, or they surround us and we fear annihilation—then paying is permissible, and indeed, according to the more correct view, it is obligatory.' (4) ¶

- Ibn Qudamah, an Imam of the Hanbali school of jurisprudence, stated: 'As for if the Imam makes peace with the disbelievers by paying them wealth, Ahmad explicitly stated the prohibition of this, which is also the Shafi'i view, because it contains humiliation for the Muslims. This is understood to apply to non-emergency situations. However, if necessity dictates it, meaning there is fear for the lives or captivity of the Muslims, then it is permissible...' (494) ¶

Abdur Razzaq records in 'Al-Maghazi', via Ma'mar from Al-Zuhri, that the Prophet ﷺ sent a message to Uyaynah bin Hisn, who was with Abu Sufyan during the Battle of the Confederates (al-Ahzab), saying: 'What if I were to grant you one-third of the Ansar’s crops; would you return with those of Ghatafan who are with you and sow discord among the Confederates?' ... Then he (the author) said: 'Had this not been permissible, the Prophet ﷺ would not have offered it.' ¶

I say: After this survey of the opinions of the jurists regarding their reliance on negotiations for peace at the Trench—in the context of averting the evil of the disbelievers through wealth in times of need or necessity—it remains understood that working to strengthen the Muslims themselves is naturally mandatory, so that they are not forced into such a demeaning position. ¶

I say: After this review, we return to what can also be derived from the Battle of the Confederates and the subsequent Battle of Qurayza. ¶

B - It is derived from the Battle of Qurayza that it is permissible to decree death upon those who break a covenant among those with whom a peace treaty exists, except for those who dissociate from the violators while explicitly denouncing their action; such individuals remain bound by their covenant and are not to be killed. ¶

Imam Al-Shafi’i said in his book 'Al-Umm': 'This is how the Messenger of Allah ﷺ acted with the Banu Qurayza. Their leader had concluded a peace treaty with him, yet they violated it, and those (others) did not dissociate from them, so the Messenger of Allah ﷺ marched against them... and killed their combatants... Not all of them participated in the assistance against the Prophet ﷺ and his companions, but they all remained in their fortresses and did not dissociate from those among them who were treacherous, except for a few, and that (dissociation) spared their blood...' ¶

C - It is derived from the Battle of the Confederates that most of the well-known Arab tribes in the center of the Arabian Peninsula had declared war on Medina, incited by the Jews residing in 'Khaybar' and led by the Quraysh, with the intent of eradicating the Messenger ﷺ, the Muslims, and the Islamic mission. ¶

At this juncture, it was necessary for the state of Medina to direct its war policy in a different manner that was suitable... ¶

The new situation imposed upon the Muslims by the Arab tribes and the Jews of the North—a situation in which the State of Medina became surrounded by a sea of enemies! Regarding the new direction of the Islamic State’s military policy, the Prophet (ﷺ) declared—as recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari: 'Now we shall attack them, and they shall not attack us; we shall march towards them'(1). This was stated after the siege of the Ahzab (Confederates) around Medina had been lifted. But how do we reconcile this offensive statement when the reality—as we have seen—indicated an increase in enemies and their collusion against the Islamic State, which seems to contradict this statement!? What did this massive military demonstration against Medina indicate that prompted the Prophet (ﷺ) to make such a declaration? And what was being contemplated by the Islamic leadership, and what did they intend to do, in light of which they perceived that the time had come to shift the military strategy of the Islamic State from a defensive phase—even if it occasionally wore the garb of offense on some fronts—to a phase of offense against all fronts hostile to the Islamic State? The answer is: What transpired during this hostile demonstration, the failure that resulted from it, and the subsequent external activity of the Islamic State, explain the aforementioned saying of the Prophet (ﷺ): 'Now we shall attack them, and they shall not attack us; we shall march towards them.' The following are some significant points regarding the matter at hand: A- It became evident to the Islamic leadership that the factions of this demonstration were not united; for instance, the 'Ghatafan' tribe was ready to break up this demonstration at the first glimmer of incentive when the Prophet (ﷺ) dangled the fruits of Medina before them. B- It became clear to the Islamic leadership that the front in Medina was too strong to be harmed by them. ¶

The mobilization of the Arab forces, and that Jewish treachery—when the Ansar refused to provide any produce from Medina to their enemies—is a sign of weakness! ¶

C - The failure of the siege imposed by the Confederates (al-Ahzab) around Medina, without the Muslims making any concessions, provided further evidence of the internal cohesion of the front in Medina and its capacity for steadfastness on one hand, and the fragility of the hostile forces and their lack of endurance in attack and siege on the other. ¶

D - Regarding what the leadership in Medina sought after the Battle of the Trench (al-Khandaq) to neutralize the Quraysh through the peace treaty concluded with them—despite the concessions it contained from the Islamic side—so that they could focus on subduing other hostile forces; I maintain that this neutralization of Quraysh had a profound impact on eliminating some hostile fronts and incorporating others into the power of the Islamic State. This weakened Quraysh by isolating it from its allies and caused the balance of power to tip in favor of the Islamic State. This is what ultimately led Quraysh to surrender... and subsequently enter into Islam. ¶

This is what occurred on the ground after the Trench, serving as a faithful translation of the new policy announced by the Prophet (peace be upon him) in the wake of the Battle of the Confederates, when he said: 'Now we shall raid them, and they shall not raid us; we shall march towards them' (1). ¶

Let us look at how the Messenger (peace be upon him) proceeded with his new policy: ¶

17 - The Messenger (peace be upon him) concluded the 'Treaty of Hudaybiyyah' with Quraysh for a period of ten years (2), and he accepted the harsh conditions it imposed on the Muslims because the benefit of this peace—in isolating Quraysh from assisting their allies among the enemies of the Muslims should the Messenger (peace be upon him) turn towards them—was greater than the harm inflicted upon the Muslims by those harsh conditions, in addition to other benefits realized for the Islamic call during the period of the truce. ¶

In Sharh al-Siyar al-Kabir, regarding the Prophet’s (PBUH) strategy of isolating Quraysh from its allies through the initiative of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, it states: 'The people of Makkah stipulated that he (PBUH) return to them anyone who came to him as a Muslim, and he fulfilled this condition until it was abrogated. This contained a benefit (maslaha) for the Muslims, because there was a collusion between the people of Makkah and the people of Khaybar, wherein if the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) turned towards one party, the other would raid Madinah. Thus, he made a truce with the people of Makkah so that his flank would be secure when he turned towards Khaybar!' ¶

18 - After the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) marched towards Khaybar, having secured his rear from the direction of Quraysh and having guaranteed that they would not support their ally, 'Khaybar'. This was in accordance with the treaty he had concluded with Quraysh. ¶

It should be noted that 'Khaybar' was in a state of war with the State of Madinah, as previously explained, due to its Jewish leaders inciting Arab tribes against the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), which resulted in the Battle of the Ahzab (Confederates). Furthermore, it was an ally of the polytheists in general—who were in a state of war with the Muslims. Al-Shafi'i stated in al-Umm: 'Khaybar was situated among polytheists, and its Jewish inhabitants were allies of the polytheists.' As stated in Sirat Ibn Hisham: 'He (PBUH) descended between them—the people of Khaybar—and Ghatafan, to stand between them and prevent them from reinforcing the people of Khaybar, as they were supporting them against the Messenger of Allah (PBUH).' It appears that it had previously been considering gathering its allied forces with the goal of invading Madinah. ¶

In Zad al-Ma'ad, it is stated: 'Ali set out with a hundred men towards 'Fadak' to a clan of Banu Sa'd bin Bakr; because the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) received news that there was a gathering there intending to reinforce the Jews of Khaybar... He captured one of their spies, who admitted that they had sent him to Khaybar to offer their support in exchange for receiving a share of the fruits (produce) of Khaybar.' ¶

Just as the alliance of the Jews of Khaybar—mentioned earlier in 'Sharh al-Siyar al-Kabir'—with the Quraysh, which necessitated that 'Khaybar' assist the polytheists of Mecca if the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) were to turn towards them, this alliance is a piece of evidence added to the body of evidence that confirms the state of war existing between Khaybar and the Muslims, and its striving to strike the Islamic state whenever the opportunity arose. ¶

Hence, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) hastened to 'Khaybar' after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, and eliminated the last stronghold of the Jews in the Arabian Peninsula that threatened the state in Medina, as recorded in the books of history and Prophetic biography (1). ¶

19. After 'Khaybar', the Prophet (ﷺ) sent several expeditions (sariya) to various directions towards tribes that were fighting the Islamic state, such as the expedition of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq to 'Banu Fazara', which was among the tribes that had participated in the Battle of the Trench with the Confederates (al-Ahzab) against Medina, as mentioned in Sahih Muslim: On the authority of Salamah ibn al-Akwa', who said: 'We fought against Fazara, and Abu Bakr was our commander' (2). ¶

And the expedition of 'Bashir ibn Sa'd' to 'Banu Murra' in Fadak. This was also one of the tribes that had participated in the Battle of the Trench against Medina (3). ¶

(1) See the report of the Battle of Khaybar in: Ibn Hisham (al-Rawd al-Unuf 4/39 et seq.) and Tarikh al-Tabari: 9/3 et seq., and Zad al-Ma'ad 3/316 et seq. The conquest of Khaybar occurred in 6 AH according to Malik, and Ibn Hazm asserted this as well, while the majority (jumhur) hold that it was in 7 AH. It is stated in Zad al-Ma'ad 3/316: 'Malik said: The conquest of Khaybar was in the sixth year, while the majority say it was in the seventh. Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm asserted that it was in the sixth without doubt. Perhaps the disagreement is based on the beginning of the history—is it from Rabi' al-Awwal, the month of his arrival in Medina? Or from Muharram at the beginning of the year? People have two ways regarding this. The majority hold that history is counted from Muharram. And Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm believes it is from the month of Rabi' al-Awwal, when he arrived.' ¶

It is stated in Fath al-Bari 7/393: '...that a group of the predecessors used to count history from the Muharram that occurred after the Hijrah! And they counted the months prior to that up to Rabi' al-Awwal! Ya'qub ibn Sufyan followed this in his history; he mentioned that the Battle of Badr al-Kubra was in the first year! And that the Battle of Uhud was in the second, and the Trench was in the fourth. This is a correct action based on that foundation; but it is a foundation that opposes what the majority follow, which is to set the history from the Muharram of the year of the Hijrah. According to that, (Badr) would be in the second, (Uhud) in the third, and the Trench in the fifth. This is the adopted view.' (2) Sahih Muslim, No. 1755, Vol. 3/1375. (3) Zad al-Ma'ad by Ibn al-Qayyim, 3/360. ¶

20 - Then the Battle of Mu'tah took place in Jumada al-Awwal, 8 AH. Ibn al-Qayyim states: "The cause of it was that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) sent al-Harith bin 'Umayr al-Azdi with his letter to the Levant, to the King of the Romans or to Busra. Shurahbil bin 'Amr al-Ghassani intercepted him, bound him, brought him forward, and struck off his head. No messenger of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was killed other than him. This grieved the Prophet (peace be upon him) intensely when the news reached him, so he dispatched armies..." (1) ¶

21 - Then came the Battle of Dhat al-Salasil. Ibn al-Qayyim states: "It is beyond Wadi al-Qura... and between it and Medina is a ten-day journey... Ibn Sa'd said: News reached the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) that a collective group of 'Quda'a' had gathered and intended to approach the outskirts of Medina. So the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) called 'Amr bin al-'As... and sent him with three hundred of the elite of the Muhajirun and the Ansar..." (2) ¶

22 - Then the Quraysh violated the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, as detailed in the books of Sirah (biography), which became the cause of the Conquest of Mecca. (3) ¶

23 - Then the Battle of Hunayn took place. Regarding the cause of this battle, Ibn Hisham states: "Ibn Ishaq said: When the Hawazin heard about the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and the victory God had granted him over Mecca, Malik bin 'Awf al-Nasri gathered them. With the Hawazin, all of Thaqif assembled, as did all of Nasr and Jusham, along with Sa'd bin Bakr and some people from Banu Hilal." (4) ¶

Thus, it becomes clear that it was these Arab tribes who initiated the declaration of war against the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and gathered for the purpose of fighting the Muslims. The matter of Hawazin ended at the Battle of Hunayn, and then it became necessary to pursue the Thaqif, who had participated in the war, back to their town of Ta'if. (5) ¶