Chapter 27

While the majority (jumhur) are of the opinion that there is to be no renewal of those treaties when their term expires. They are subject to the same rules as those treaty-bound people who broke their covenant, regarding the previous options (of choice). Concerning this, Sayyid Qutb says: 'Whoever among the polytheists has a treaty, and has not violated any part of it, nor aided the enemies of the Muslims against them, his treaty is protected until its term expires. However, it shall not be renewed; because the Islamic camp must be cleansed forever of suspicious intruders.' - He then says: - 'This concerns the polytheists of the Peninsula alone, as it is the base of the creed (aqidah)... As for the polytheists outside it, the matter between them and the Muslim Ummah is that they should not stand in the way of the Islamic Da'wah by force, nor seduce the Muslims away from their religion, nor fight the Muslims, nor support (others) against them, nor expel them from their homes. Islam does not intend by this measure to coerce people into Islam, but rather it intends to secure the Islamic camp... and to confront its enemies outside the Peninsula—who have begun to gather against it—while being secure regarding its rear...' - He then says: - 'Communism, which is the idea of a man who errs and hits the mark, its followers do not allow an individual to live among them who does not believe in a terrestrial ideology whose author errs and hits the mark! This is in the twentieth century, after freedom of thought has become widespread in it.' As for me, the view I hold is that the issue of proclaiming the eradication of paganism from the Arabian Peninsula by the force of arms involves two matters: First: The existence of paganism as an entity (kiyan), as it was in Mecca, Taif, or among the tribes that functioned as mini-states in the Arabian Peninsula—there is no room for allowing it to remain after Surah Bara'ah, even if it is a tribe that upheld its treaty with the Muslims and desired to renew the treaty with them, because such a tribe is in one of two states. ¶

The first state: That they open the way in their territories for the Islamic Da'wah and relinquish power to the Muslims, due to the fact that most parts of the Arabian Peninsula had come under the victorious Islamic authority. This is in consideration of the natural order in any region where one group is stronger than others; for the rule, axiomatically, belongs to the stronger group. Hence, there was no room for any tribe to remain aloof from submitting to this authority, to which most tribes in the Arabian Peninsula had already submitted. This is the first state. ¶

The second state: That the tribe stands in the way of the Da'wah or refuses to submit to the new authority. In this case, it is valid to consider them an obstacle in the path of the Islamic Da'wah. Therefore, it is necessary to fight them just as any obstacle standing in the way of the Da'wah is fought. By this method, no non-Islamic entity remained in the Arabian Peninsula. This is what actually happened, as many polytheistic tribes in the Peninsula announced their Islam and sent delegations to Medina for that purpose. Thus, they joined the Islamic State. A few of those tribes attempted to rebel against the authority in Medina, which had become the undisputed master of the Peninsula, but they soon returned and submitted to the Islamic system that encompassed the entire Arabian Peninsula. This is what occurred with some tribes in Yemen, as mentioned in the books of Sirah (biography). ¶

This pertains to the proclamation of eradicating 'paganism' as an entity from the Arabian Peninsula through armed struggle. ¶

Second: As for the proclamation of eradicating 'paganism' on the individual level from the Arabian Peninsula after the Surah of 'Bara'ah' (Repentance), we have previously cited from Al-Naysaburi in his Tafsir that the polytheists in the Peninsula, after the grace period, have 'nothing but one of three things: Islam, the acceptance of Jizyah, or the sword.' ¶

We also cited from Al-Alusi in his Tafsir that after the grace period, they have nothing but 'Islam or the sword,' which is the position held by the majority (Jumhur). ¶

Thus, this is a matter of disagreement, and the intent of this discussion is not to debate this issue or to prefer one opinion over another. However, the ruling that Islam has reached regarding this issue is the prohibition of the polytheists (Mushrikin) remaining in the Arabian Peninsula. This is based on what is narrated in Sahih al-Bukhari from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), who said: 'The Prophet ﷺ advised three things at his death: Expel the polytheists from the Arabian Peninsula, reward the delegations in the same way I used to reward them, and I forgot the third one' (1). ¶

This Hadith is a declaration of the termination of polytheistic presence—even at the individual level—from the Arabian Peninsula, in terms of settling and residing. However, this is not by way of killing, but by way of expulsion from the Peninsula, as indicated by the text of the Hadith. ¶

Moreover, the word 'Mushrikin' (polytheists) refers primarily to idolaters before it refers to the People of the Book, although the latter are also included under the term 'Mushrikin' (2). ¶

Furthermore, this Hadith occurred during the final days of the Prophet's ﷺ life, which may indicate that individual polytheists still existed after Surah Bara'ah in the ninth year of Hijrah, before the command to expel them at the end of the eleventh year of Hijrah (3), even if there are no reports confirming the presence of such individuals when the Prophet ﷺ commanded the expulsion of the polytheists from the Peninsula. In any case, if there are Islamic opinions that suggest the use of force regarding matters of faith within a narrow scope—namely, compelling... ¶

As for the polytheists of the Arabs specifically—according to one opinion—or the idolaters in general—according to another opinion—being compelled to embrace Islam, otherwise facing the sword, Islam granted them a grace period of four months to leave the lands where they were being compelled to do so, without anyone causing them harm, should their souls not incline them to enter willingly into what the people had entered. ¶

This period was sufficient for them to settle their affairs, liquidate their businesses, sell their properties, and collect their rights. During this time, the state was responsible for assisting them in obtaining all those rights. In reality, such an act is not termed compulsion into Islam, and thus it does not contradict the noble verse: 'There is no compulsion in religion; the right course has become clear from the wrong…' ¶

Furthermore, it is worth noting that the greatest power in our current era, which boasts of freedom, including freedom of religion, may resort to interfering with that freedom by restricting and prohibiting it through the force of arms for interests it perceives, even outside its own borders, and it does not see such actions as contradicting the 'freedom of religion' for which it raises the banner. I mean by this: 'The United States of America.' It is stated in the book 'Hiroshima Diary' as follows: ¶

'Among the developments that the Americans introduced to Japan after the defeat was compelling the "Emperor" to declare that he was not descended from the lineage of gods and that he was merely a human being like other people, who should not be worshipped. Thus, the worship of the "Emperor" was abolished definitively in 1946 AD.' ¶

I say: If the American use of force to abolish the worship of humans is considered a glorious humanitarian act, then the Islamic use of force to abolish the worship of stone—according to the opinion that holds this—is a glorious and humanitarian act! ¶

Or is it that, in your view, the ruling on the same act differs depending on whether it was issued by Muslims or by Americans??! ¶

Finally, it is time to rest the pen from this discussion and move on to a new topic. ¶

Third Topic: The Messenger's (ﷺ) Invitation of Heads of State to Islam and its Relationship with Jihad. ¶

In the chapter on 'The Legitimacy of Jihad,' which we are currently analyzing, it was necessary to dedicate a specific section to the letters that the Prophet (ﷺ) sent to kings and leaders both within and outside the Arabian Peninsula to invite them to Islam. This is because the invitation of these figures to embrace this new faith has a significant connection to the legitimacy of Jihad in the path of Allah. ¶

Accordingly, the issues of this discussion are centered around the following: ¶

First Issue: The reason for the Prophet (ﷺ) sending messengers to kings and leaders. Second Issue: The suspicions raised regarding the authenticity of the Prophet (ﷺ) sending letters to kings and leaders, the refutation of those suspicions, and the verification of the letters that are proven to be authentic. Third Issue: The content and implications of the Prophet’s (ﷺ) letters to kings and leaders, and the relationship of this to Jihad in the path of Allah. ¶

First Issue: The reason for the Prophet (ﷺ) sending messengers to kings and leaders. The reason for this is that Allah, the Almighty, entrusted the Messenger (ﷺ) with the delivery of this message. Among the evidence for this is the saying of the Almighty: 'O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message.' (1). ¶

It should be noted that the message which the Prophet (PBUH) was commanded to convey is the message of Islam, and it is directed to all people; it is not restricted to one nation over another, nor to the people of one land over another. ¶

The universality of this message is a principle established from the earliest days of the Islamic call, before it possessed any political entity and before it was embodied in a state in Medina. This is evidenced by the words of the Almighty in Surah Saba, which is one of the chapters revealed in Mecca before the Hijrah—that is, before the establishment of the Islamic state: 'And We have not sent you except as a bringer of good tidings and a warner to all mankind, but most of the people do not know.' ¶

This refutes the claim that the Islamic call was essentially a local call intended specifically for the Arabs, and that it only adopted the mantle of a universal call after it succeeded in controlling the local situation in the Arabian Peninsula, thus aspiring to expand its scope and adopting a universal character. What falsifies this claim is the scriptural text regarding the generality of the message of Islam to all people, at a time when the Islamic call was still in Mecca before the Hijrah—a banned movement whose followers were considered outlaws! Even after the establishment of the Islamic state in Medina, and the Prophet (PBUH) sending diplomatic missions to kings and rulers outside the Arabian Peninsula, we ask the proponents of this claim: Where was that alleged control the Islamic state had over the local situation in the Peninsula that, as they claim, stirred the desire to turn a regional call into a global one in pursuit of the expansion of the Islamic state's political influence? ¶

It is well known—as recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari—that the Prophet’s (PBUH) letter to Heraclius, inviting him to Islam—which represents, as they claim, the transition of the call from a local to a universal nature—was sent shortly after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. At that time, Mecca, the leader of the Arab tribes, was still in the grip of the polytheists, and the Islamic state did not control—at that moment—anything beyond Medina and its surroundings. As for the rest of the Arabian Peninsula, it was either... ¶

Either they were regions under the leadership of polytheism, or states subordinate to the Romans or the Persians through Arab tribal leaders acting as agents. ¶

Accordingly, the Prophet’s (ﷺ) dispatch of envoys to kings and heads of state at that time can only be interpreted as the fulfillment of Allah the Almighty’s command to His Prophet (ﷺ) to invite all people to Islam. ¶

It is stated in Imam al-Zayla'i’s 'Nasb al-Rayah': 'It is narrated that the Prophet (ﷺ) performed the duty of tabligh (propagation) sometimes by speech, and other times by writing to those who were absent. I (the author) say: As for his (ﷺ) propagation by speech, it is well-known. As for writing to those who were absent, it is recorded in the Sahihayn from Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) wrote to Caesar inviting him to Islam.' ¶

Furthermore, it is a matter of logical necessity that any movement, even if it is a universal humanitarian invitation from its inception, must begin by inviting those closest to it. Only when it is firmly established and its ideology is embodied in a state capable of protecting and spreading that message, can it manifest the universality that was its inherent destiny from the start. ¶

Thus, this universality, which emerged in the form of the external activities of the Islamic state, is an essential characteristic of the da'wah (invitation) and not an incidental one—as evidenced by the Shari'ah texts revealed in Makkah, as previously explained. ¶

However, according to the logic of circumstances and the nature of the Islamic da'wah, it was impossible to bring this universality into existence—in the manner manifested by the missions the Prophet (ﷺ) sent to kings and leaders—until this da'wah was embodied in a state and the necessary force was prepared to face any potential negative reactions from those kings or leaders. The situation might require that the armed forces of the Islamic state be in a state of readiness to stand against any aggression or obstruction of the path of Allah, should the need arise. ¶

However, the logic of affairs that we have pointed out does not mean that the Islamic Da'wah was initially a local call that later transformed into a universal one on its own once it felt its strength and the expansion of its influence. Indeed, the situation is vastly different between following the natural path towards proclaiming the Da'wah to the entire world—as was predetermined—and that alleged claim, as is evident from what has been explained above. ¶

This is what is said regarding the first issue. ¶

As for the second issue: it concerns the suspicions raised regarding the Prophet’s (PBUH) sending of letters to kings and heads of state to call them to Islam, refuting those suspicions, and establishing the authenticity of those letters. ¶

First: What are these suspicions? Dr. Akram Diya al-Umari quoted these suspicions while discussing the Prophet’s (PBUH) letters to kings and heads of state, stating: "Most Orientalists doubted the authenticity of the letters in their entirety. Their objections can be summarized as follows: Islam is a religion specific to the Arabs; the Islamic state was too weak to challenge the global powers of that time; Ibn Ishaq did not mention them; they contain legendary details; and some letters include Quranic verses that were said to have been revealed two years after the date of the letters." Dr. al-Umari says: "These observations are not strong enough to demolish the historical foundation of the existence of these letters..."(1) ¶

This is what Dr. al-Umari said in his listing of the Orientalists' objections and the responses to them. It might be useful to answer those objections in detail rather than in summary. On this basis, we say: - The first objection is based on the claim that Islam is a religion specific to the Arabs. The clarification of this objection in the context of doubting the letters sent by the Prophet (PBUH) to kings and heads of state is as follows: ¶

If Islam were a religion intended solely for the Arabs—as per the claim of Orientalists—this would contradict the dispatching of invitations to kings and heads of state outside the Arabian Peninsula. For according to that claim, those kings and leaders are not obligated by this message, which is supposedly specific to the Arabs; thus, there is no rationale for sending such letters to them to invite them to a matter for which they are not responsible. Otherwise, the Prophet (peace be upon him) would have contravened the command to restrict this message to the Arabs. Since it is necessary to accept that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not contravene what he was commanded in this regard, one would have to argue that those letters were never sent, that those missions were never dispatched, and that the narrations mentioning this are intellectually rejected (marduda dirayatan) due to their contradiction with the notion that the Islamic call was specific to the Arabs alone. ¶

The answer to this objection has already been provided through the definitive evidence we presented in our discussion of the first issue, which is that the universality of the Islamic call and its inclusivity of all people were established principles from the time this message began in Makkah before the Hijra, and before the establishment of the Islamic state in Madinah. Therefore, there is no need to repeat the discussion on this point. ¶

As for the second objection, it states: that the Islamic state was weak and could not have challenged the global powers of that time. ¶

This objection is based on a false premise: that the mere act of the Prophet (peace be upon him) sending messengers and conveying the call to kings and heads of state was tantamount to the Islamic state declaring war on those monarchs if they did not embrace Islam or submit to the Islamic state. ¶

Based on this perception, the argument that those letters encompassed all or most of the kings and leaders within and surrounding the Arabian Peninsula would mean that the Islamic state was in a state of readiness to confront all hostile forces within the Arabian Peninsula and all global powers in an all-out war on all fronts. However, in reality, the Islamic state at that time had not yet reached such a level of power in the global balance of power. From this, it is deduced that those letters, which stirred the entire world, contradict the state of the Islamic government at the time; hence, it is suggested that those letters were not sent and that the narrations regarding them are incorrect! This is the gist of the second objection regarding the issue of sending letters to kings and heads of state. ¶

The answer to this objection is that the basis for establishing the occurrence or non-occurrence of an event is solely the narrations (riwayat) that convey it. Therefore, if the conditions of authenticity (shurut al-sahha) are met in those narrations regarding the occurrence of an event, we affirm its occurrence. If the conditions of authenticity are lacking in a narration that includes the occurrence of a matter, we do not affirm its occurrence. ¶

This is the foundation for accepting or rejecting the events and facts contained in reports (akhbar). As for judging those events and facts based on what the intellect accepts or rejects regarding the possibility of their occurrence—based on surrounding circumstances and context—this is a method that may lead to the affirmation of things that never occurred, and the denial of other things that actually did occur, depending on the biases or perception of those analyzing these matters! ¶

It may be that one person is more eloquent in depiction and analysis than another, leading to a verdict that his position is correct, while the truth actually lies with the one who disagrees with him, but whose analytical and expressive ability failed to captivate the audience or readers or persuade them to adopt his view. ¶

Hence, judgment on the occurrence or denial of events cannot be left to rhetorical and descriptive faculties to erase or establish what they please. Rather, one must return to an objective criterion in this judgment, which is what the 'Science of Hadith' (Ilm al-Hadith) has established regarding the conditions for accepting or rejecting a report. Yes, it is valid to consider circumstances and context in rejecting a report—even if the narration is acceptable in terms of its chain of transmission (isnad)—if that report completely contradicts tangible reality. In such a case, we attribute the error to the narrators in their transmission, which is possible, and we prioritize what is certainly proven by tangible reality. However, this does not apply to the issue we are discussing here: the Prophet ﷺ sending letters to kings and princes inviting them to Islam. There is nothing in these letters, nor in that invitation, that contradicts tangible reality in any way. ¶

To clarify this, we will present the narrations that have been verified according to the criteria of the scholars of Hadith regarding the Prophet ﷺ sending those letters to kings and rulers, to see if they contradict the tangible reality of the Islamic state's conditions—which led most Orientalists to deny them—or if it is merely a perception played upon by whims or imagination, which created that perceived contradiction for its proponents. ¶

1. In Sahih al-Bukhari, it is narrated from Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both): "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) wrote to Caesar inviting him to Islam. He sent his letter with Dihya al-Kalbi and ordered him to hand it over to the governor of Busra so that he could deliver it to Caesar..." Bukhari then records the text of the letter: "In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. From Muhammad, the servant of Allah and His Messenger, to Heraclius, the Great of Rome. Peace be upon him who follows the guidance. To proceed: I invite you to the call of Islam. Accept Islam and you will be safe; accept Islam and Allah will grant you your reward twice over. But if you turn away, upon you is the sin of your subjects (al-Arisiyyin). 'O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you - that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah.' But if they turn away, then say, 'Bear witness that we are Muslims.'" ¶

2. In Sahih al-Bukhari, also from Ibn Abbas: "The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) sent his letter to Chosroes (Kisra). When Chosroes read it, he tore it up." The narrator (Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri) says: "I believe Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib said: 'Upon this, the Prophet (ﷺ) invoked a curse against them, that they be torn into pieces.'" ¶

3. In Sahih Muslim, from Anas: "The Prophet of Allah (ﷺ) wrote to Chosroes, to Caesar, to the Negus, and to every tyrant, inviting them to Allah the Exalted. And this is not the (same) Negus whose funeral prayer the Prophet (ﷺ) performed." ¶

These are the authentic traditions narrated regarding the sending of letters by the Prophet (ﷺ) to kings and leaders. As for others, Dr. al-Umari says in this regard: "As for the texts of the letters addressed to the Muqawqis, ruler of Egypt, which are two letters, as well as the replies of the Muqawqis, which are also two, they have not been established through any authentic chain. Similarly, the texts of the letters to al-Harith ibn Abi (Shimr) have not been established." ¶

Shammir al-Ghassani, the governor of Damascus; Hawdha bin Ali al-Hanafi, the governor of al-Yamama; and Jayfar and 'Abd, the sons of al-Julanda, the governors of 'Oman, are questionable from the perspective of Hadith methodology. However, this does not negate the sending of letters to these kings and rulers, nor does it imply a historical critique of the texts, as they may be authentic in form and content, yet they do not reach the level required to be used as evidence in Islamic political jurisprudence (al-Siyasa al-Shar'iyya). Consequently, the text of the Prophet's ﷺ letter to 'Heraclius' remains the only one that is authentically established through Hadith scholarship, and it can be considered a model against which other letters are compared. I argue: Based on this, what is contained in the Prophet's ﷺ letter to 'Heraclius,' and similar letters sent to other kings and presidents, even if their texts have not reached us through an authentic chain of transmission? What is in the letter addressed to 'Heraclius' and others that contradicts the position of the Islamic state in the international balance of power, compared to the great powers of that time? Does such a letter constitute a declaration of war by the Islamic state against the Roman Empire if 'Heraclius' did not respond to what the letter contained? In our present era, Imam Khomeini sent a letter to the leader of the Soviets, 'Gorbachev,' inviting him to Islam and to abandon the communist doctrine upon which the Soviet Union was founded. Was such a letter a declaration of war by the 'State of Iran' against the 'Soviet Union'? If we were to apply the logic of Orientalists in negating or affirming historical reports, we would conclude that 'Khomeini' did not send that letter, because sending it would imply waging war against the Soviets, and Iran currently lacks the power to do so; therefore, it is irrational for it to involve itself in a war against the second greatest power in the world. Hence, the logic of Orientalists—if we were to apply it—would lead to the negation of the report. ¶

The dispatching of that letter by 'Imam Khomeini', despite the news agencies and international media outlets—both audio and print—publishing this news, and despite the text of the letter being in the hands of the people who were reading it; because the logic of the Orientalists is considered 'truer' than the eyes of the readers and the ears of the listeners!!! ¶

I say: It is unfortunate that, despite this blatant incoherence in the logic of the Orientalists, there are still those who rely for their intellectual nourishment on the opinions and perceptions they present, which contradict the established facts in our Islamic heritage. ¶

Furthermore, this concerns the second objection presented by the Orientalists to deny the authenticity of the letters of the Prophet ﷺ to kings and heads of state. As for the third objection, it is that 'Ibn Ishaq' did not mention those letters. We respond: We have previously mentioned that the act of sending letters to kings and heads of state is established through a sound (sahih) chain in the narration of Anas—may Allah be pleased with him—in Sahih Muslim (1). And that sending a letter to Chosroes (Kisra) is also established in Sahih al-Bukhari and Muslim (2). ¶

As for the texts of those letters, the text of the letter addressed to 'Heraclius' came in Sahih al-Bukhari (3). Likewise, Sheikh 'Nasir al-Din al-Albani' judged the narration of the text of the letter addressed to 'Chosroes' to be of the 'Hasan' (fair) category of hadith (4). This is its text, as it appears in al-Tabari: 'In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to Chosroes, the Great of Persia. Peace be upon him who follows guidance, believes in Allah and His Messenger, and testifies that there is no god but Allah alone, having no partner, and that Muhammad is His servant and messenger. I invite you with the call of Allah, for I am the Messenger of Allah to all people, to warn those who are alive, and that the word may be justified against the disbelievers. So, accept Islam and you will be safe; but if you refuse, then the sin of the Magians will be upon you' (5). ¶

Now, if the Orientalists trust the texts of those letters mentioned by Ibn Ishaq, then the text of the Prophet’s (PBUH) letter addressed to 'Heraclius'—which Bukhari and Muslim recorded in their Sahihs—is found in the Tarikh al-Tabari (History of Tabari), also via the chain of Ibn Ishaq (1). ¶

Likewise, Ibn Ishaq also mentioned in the Tarikh al-Tabari the text of the letter addressed to the Negus (Najashi), albeit without an isnad (chain of narration) (2). Furthermore, Al-Tabari included in his history the narration of Ibn Ishaq regarding the text of the letter addressed to Chosroes (Kisra), which we mentioned earlier (3). ¶

In any case, the intention here is not to establish the authenticity of the text of this letter or that one; rather, the intention is to refute the Orientalists' denial that those letters were sent at all, which they base on certain considerations, including the claim that Ibn Ishaq did not substantiate the texts of those letters. Here, Ibn Ishaq does indeed mention some of the texts of those letters, as recorded in the Tarikh al-Tabari, which refutes the allegations of the Orientalists. ¶

We now come to the fourth objection: that the accounts of sending the messengers contain mythical details. I say: Perhaps the intended meaning behind this statement is the presence of unverified narrations regarding certain matters, such as the claim that the messengers sent by the Prophet (PBUH) became like the disciples of Jesus, peace be upon him, whom he sent to the nations—that is, every companion sent to those kings and leaders began to speak the language of the people to whom he was sent (4). I say: The explanation regarding which narrations are accepted and which are not has already been provided. ¶

If such a phenomenon as the one referred to had been conveyed through a definitive (qati) chain of transmission, there would be no room to deny it, and it would be considered a miracle (mu'jiza) for the Prophet (PBUH) appearing on the tongues of those envoys. However, the report regarding this miraculous event is not authentic (sahih), and therefore, in such a state, there is no basis to believe in it. ¶

Furthermore, when a report comes through an acceptable (maqbul) source, but contains some unacceptable details—according to the standards of the hadith scholars—by what logic do we reject the report in its entirety, despite the establishment of its core authenticity, merely because of those details that were not proven to be sound? ¶

Is it not a requirement of fairness in judgment to affirm what is proven and restrict denial only to what has not been proven? ¶

Finally, we come to the fifth objection, which is that some of the letters include a Quranic verse that is said to have been revealed two years after the date of those letters. ¶

In this regard, the verse referred to is the one included in the letter addressed to 'Heraclius', which is: 'Say, "O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you - that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah." But if they turn away, then say, "Bear witness that we are Muslims."' (Surah Al-Imran: 64). ¶

It has been reported that this was revealed on the occasion of the delegation of the Christians of Najran coming to Medina during the 'Year of Delegations' (Am al-Wufud), which was the ninth year of the Hijra, whereas this letter to Heraclius was sent at the end of the sixth year of the Hijra, after the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. ¶

The answer to this problem is that there are narrations stating that this verse was revealed regarding the Jews who were around Medina—that is, before they were expelled—and it is known that the affairs of those Jews concluded with the defeat of Banu Qurayza in the year 5 AH, i.e., before the Prophet (PBUH) sent his letter to Heraclius. ¶

Likewise, there are also narrations stating that the verse was revealed on the occasion of the delegation of Najran, that is, after the Prophet (PBUH) had sent his letter to Heraclius. ¶

Regarding this, Al-Tabari states in his Tafsir: 'The scholars of interpretation have differed concerning whom this verse was revealed about. Some say: It was revealed regarding the Jews of the Children of Israel who lived around the city of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ' — then he cited narrations mentioning this. ¶

He then said: 'Others say: Rather, it was revealed regarding the delegation of the Christians of Najran' — then he cited narrations mentioning this. He then stated: 'And there is no authentic athar (report)! Therefore, it is obligatory that every scriptural text be understood according to its context...' (1). ¶

Given that there is no authentic report regarding the reason for the revelation (asbab al-nuzul) of the verse in question, and since this verse appears in the letter of the Prophet ﷺ to 'Heraclius,' it implies that the verse had already been revealed before that event. On this basis, the Prophet ﷺ included it in his letter, or it was revealed at the time the Prophet ﷺ wrote that letter. There is no authentic evidence to prove otherwise, and as such, there is no ambiguity. Consequently, the skepticism of Orientalists regarding the authenticity of the letter containing this verse—based on this alleged ambiguity—is invalid. ¶

With this, we conclude the second issue and move to the third issue of this research. Third Issue: The content and implications of the letters of the Prophet ﷺ to kings and princes, and their relationship to Jihad in the path of Allah. The contents of those letters whose authenticity is established can be summarized in the following points: 1. The universality of the message of Islam: It is addressed to all of humanity, not to one nation to the exclusion of others. Evidence for this has already been presented. 2. The obligation to convey the message of Islam to nations and their leaders, and to invite those leaders to Islam. They receive a double reward if they respond, because their conversion often leads to those under their authority entering Islam. 3. Warning the leaders of nations against refusing to respond to the invitation, and the assignment of double the sin. ¶

upon them, due to the prevention of their peoples from Islam through force, or through [the power of] example! ¶

4. Counselor 'Ali 'Ali Mansur mentions what those letters signify, stating: ¶

'These letters, beyond being an invitation to believe in Allah and worship Him alone, are a declaration by the Islamic State of its establishment and existence. This is a practice followed in current international law; when a state is established, even by secession from others or by any other means, it notifies other states of its establishment, as if it were seeking their recognition... He then said: The responses of the princes and kings were different. Most of them were gentle in their response, or sent gifts, or aligned themselves [with the state], and it is as if these had recognized Islam as a religion and the Islamic State in the Arabian Peninsula. Some did not respond to the Prophet’s letter, and it is as if they were hesitant. Some tore up the Prophet’s letter, such as Chosroes Anushirvan... and that means that the Chosroes of Persia... did not recognize Islam as a religion, nor Muhammad as a head of state...' ¶

Now, regarding the relationship between these letters and Jihad in the path of Allah? ¶

The answer is that they represent the implementation of the Shariah ruling on the obligation to convey the Islamic message to all people, both populations and leaderships, in a manner that stimulates thought and draws attention before embarking on Jihad against those who stand as an obstacle in the path of that call. ¶

Hence, the Prophet ﷺ dispatched those diplomatic missions carrying the letters of invitation to Islam to be delivered to the kings and presidents. ¶

By doing so, the Prophet ﷺ created a wide-scale media campaign that drew the world's attention to the Islamic idea, the echo of which reverberated throughout the international arena known at the time. It occupied the global public opinion with that new idea, which calls for the salvation of humanity from the worship of servants to the worship of Allah, from the tyranny of religions to the justice of Islam, and from the systems of the earth to the system of the heavens! ¶

Through that massive media campaign, all peoples and nations understood that behind this idea stands a state carrying its banner, and waging Jihad in the path of Allah to achieve it, and that it is not merely a dream haunting tormented humanity and afflicted nations! ¶

When we take into consideration that jihad in Islam was originally legislated to remove the barriers standing in the way of the Dawah (call to Islam), and that the letters which the Prophet ﷺ sent to peoples and nations through their kings and leaders were not carrying a threat of war if there was no response, nor was the Islamic state at that time capable of opening all fronts against it... I say: If we take all that into consideration, we realize that the purpose behind those letters was to introduce the Islamic idea within those countries to their leaderships and peoples so they would have sufficient time to study it, learn about it, and let it take its effect on public opinion in those lands. ¶

- It happens that public opinion in some of those countries turns towards Islam, or the leadership there responds to this call, as happened in Yemen—which was a province 'dependent' on the Persians—for its leadership declared its separation from the Persians and its joining of the Islamic state, following the Prophet’s ﷺ dispatch of his letter to Kisra (Chosroes), as previously explained. ¶

- As for if there is no response from the public opinion or the high leadership in those lands to Islam, then the effect of those letters directed to them—at the very least—is that some people or some small leaders respond to them, adopting the Islamic idea, introducing it, and spreading it. If the supreme authority in those lands then stood in their way, this would be standing in the way of the Dawah—a matter considered a declaration of war by that authority against the Islamic state. This allows the Islamic state, in such a situation, when circumstances assist it and power is available to it, to begin war against that hostile authority that stood in the path of Islam, in order to topple it, annex the land to the Islamic state, and enable people to enter Islam without pressure or coercion. ¶

This is what happened in some provinces of the Levant (al-Sham) that were subject to the Romans; people there converted to Islam, as did the governor of 'Ma'an', who was a governor on behalf of the Romans over that region. The Roman authority stood in the way of Islam and killed the governor of 'Ma'an'—Farwa ibn Amr al-Judhami—as previously explained. Consequently, the Islamic armies successively fought the Romans in the Levant until they expelled them from it in the end! ¶

This is the relationship between those epistles addressed to kings and heads of state and the concept of Jihad in the way of Allah. This connection was well understood by Heraclius, who received a letter from the Prophet (PBUH) inviting him to Islam. Although that letter did not explicitly mention the 'Jihad' that would ensue should the call be rejected or obstructed, Heraclius convened a conference to which he invited the Roman leadership to discuss the contents of the Prophet's (PBUH) letter and to adopt a unified official stance regarding the 'Islamic Call'. It appears—as suggested by the narration in Sahih al-Bukhari—that Heraclius was inclined to respond to this call and pledge allegiance to the Prophet (PBUH), which would have meant joining the Islamic state. However, when he saw the rejection of this response by the leaders around him, his love for his kingdom prevailed, and he succumbed to their will. Consequently, the Romans waged war against the Islamic Call and persecuted the Muslims... Nevertheless, Heraclius, with his foresight, realized the eventual trajectory of the Islamic state, which was gaining prominence by carrying the message of Islam and engaging in Jihad in the way of Allah. Thus, as recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari, he expressed the extent of the authority the Prophet (PBUH) would eventually attain in reference to the letter he received. Heraclius stated: 'And his kingdom will surely reach that which is beneath my feet.' And later, it happened exactly as he had said! ¶

With this, we reach the conclusion of this study and proceed toward the final research section of this chapter. ¶

All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds, and peace and blessings be upon the master of the prophets and messengers, and upon his family and all his companions. ¶

To proceed: Knowledge is a light that guides the servant to the pleasure of Allah Almighty, and it is the inheritance of the prophets, peace be upon them. There is no doubt that seeking knowledge is an obligation upon every Muslim man and woman. Among the most important sciences is the knowledge of the Book of Allah Almighty and the Sunnah of His Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him. For this reason, we intended to present these pages to the seeker of knowledge, and we hope from Allah Almighty that He may benefit Islam and the Muslims through them, and that He may make them purely for His noble sake. ¶

And Allah is the Grantor of success and the One whose help is sought. ¶