Two Allegations Levelled by Christian Historians Relevant to the Treaty of Ḥudaibiyyah

There is perhaps not a single notable account in the life of the Holy Prophet(sa) which Christian historians have left without objection and the Treaty of Ḥudaibiyyah also comes under this principle. Putting aside various secondary and insignificant allegations, Christian writers have raised two objections with relation to the Treaty of Ḥudaibiyyah:

The fact that the Holy Prophet(sa) excluded women from the conditions of the Treaty of Ḥudaibiyyah was not permissible in light of the conditions of the agreement because its words were general, wherein both men and women were included.

With relevance to the account of Abū Baṣīr, the Holy Prophet(sa) broke the spirit of the agreement, rather, by indicating to Abū Baṣīr that instead of returning to Makkah he could establish a separate party and run his affairs independently. So, the Holy Prophet(sa) acted against this agreement.

In response to these allegations, first and foremost, it should be remembered that this agreement was with the Quraish of Makkah and the Quraish of Makkah was such a people as were at war with the Holy Prophet(sa) from the very beginning. Furthermore, they were accustomed to criticising and raising objections against even the smallest of things. Even so, they were not a far off foreign people, rather, they were the people of the Holy Prophet(sa), who were well-informed of all the circumstances. Moreover, the complete details of the conditions of the agreement and their complete background was also before their eyes. Hence, if the Quraish of Makkah who were the involved party in this agreement, did not object to this action of the Holy Prophet(sa), and did not consider it to be against the agreement, then how can those people who came 1300 years later, to whom many finer details were hidden, and were not fully informed as to the background of this agreement, have the right to raise an allegation? This is totally illogical that those to whom this entire account occurred, deemed it to be right at the time and remained silent, whereas those who came 1300 years later, made a huge fuss. After all, what is the reason that the Qur’ān, Aḥādīth and the history of Arabia is replete of allegations which the infidels of Makkah and the other infidels of Arabia would level against the Holy Prophet(sa) and Islām, but there is not even the slightest hint of an allegation being raised that the Muslims acted against the Treaty of Ḥudaibiyyah.

Additionally, it is proven by the most authentic testimony that after the Treaty of Ḥudaibiyyah, when the Holy Prophet[sa] sent a letter to the Caesar of Rome inviting him to Islām, it so happened that Abū Sufyān bin Ḥarb, the chieftain of Makkah, was also in Syria. Heraclius, the King of Rome, summoned him to his royal court and asked him certain questions about the Holy Prophet(sa). Among them was also the question, “Has this claimant to prophethood from your people ever broken an agreement?” In response to this question, the words uttered by Abū Sufyān who at the time was the chief of the disbelievers and was the most vehement of the enemies of Islām were:

“Nay, Muḥammad(sa) has never proven treacherous in the matter of his covenants. However, in these days, we are at a truce with him, but I do not know how he shall deal until the conclusion of this agreement. Abū Sufyān said that throughout the entire course of this dialogue, except for this phrase, he could say nothing more to produce a possible doubt in the heart of Heraclius against the Holy Prophet(sa).”1

This dialogue of Abū Sufyān and Heraclius did not occur immediately after the Treaty of Ḥudaibiyyah. Rather, it must have taken some time for the Holy Prophet(sa) to prepare and then send a letter to Heraclius inviting him to Islām, and then for that letter to reach Heraclius, and then for the assembly of the royal court of Heraclius, and to find Abū Sufyān and summon him to that court, etc. It is conceivable that by then the fleeing of Abū Baṣīr to Madīnah and the incidents of Ummi Kulthūm and other Muslim women leaving Makkah and reaching Madīnah had already taken place. It is for this reason that all historians mention the account of Abū Baṣīr and Ummi Kulthūm first and then the account of the letter to the Caesar of Rome later. However, despite this, Abū Sufyān could not raise the allegation of breach of contract against the Holy Prophet(sa), even though his words indicated that it was his desire to raise an objection if possible. Despite this, critics born 1300 years later do not fear God while levelling the allegation of breach of contract against the Holy Prophet(sa). Alas! How unfortunate it is!

Then, if we delve deeper into the details of these allegations, their weakness becomes even more evident. For example, the first allegation is that both men and women were in fact included in this agreement. However, the Holy Prophet(sa) acted tyrannously and declared women exempt. As we have already mentioned, this allegation is false and baseless because the words of the agreement as are recorded in the most authentic narration, clearly mention that only men were the object of this agreement and not both men and women. As we have already seen the words of the agreement as recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ Bukhārī, they are as follows:

“Any man from among us who comes to you, shall be returned to us, even if he be a Muslim.”2

In the presence of these clear and indisputable words, to object that in actuality both men and women were intended in this agreement, is not only unjust, rather it is utter dishonesty. Then if it is asserted that in various historical narrations, the word Rajul or “man” is not used in the words of the agreement, but that general words are used which refer to both men and women, then the answer to this is that firstly, the more authentic narration should be preferred and when the word Rajul or “man” has been used in the most authentic narration, then definitely, it must be deemed the correct word. Additionally, if the words mentioned in historical narrations are studied, they also support the explanation we have provided. For example, in the most well-known and renowned book of history, Sīrat Ibni Hishām, the following words are mentioned:

“Any individual from the Quraish who comes to Muḥammad(sa) without the permission of his guardian, shall be returned to the Quraish.”3

Undoubtedly, in these Arabic words, the word “man” has not been mentioned distinctly, but an individual who possesses even the most elementary knowledge of the Arabic language is aware that in Arabic, unlike various other languages, separate tenses and pronouns are used for men and women. In the above-mentioned passage, the male tenses and male pronouns have been used, from beginning to end. Therefore, as per the principle of the elaboration of the language of treaties, only men should be deemed in this phrase and not men and women collectively. No doubt, in common idiom, the male tense is used to refer to both men and women at times, but it is obvious that the phrase in question is not this kind of a phrase. Quite the contrary, it is the phrase of an agreement, which possesses the rank of law, rather, a rank higher still. For each and every word is penned down after strict contemplation and the choice of words is made after the cross-examination and approval of both parties. Therefore, in the case of such a phrase, the meaning which is most limited and specific should be accepted. Hence, the conclusion derived from this perspective would be that only men were implied in this agreement and not men and women inclusively.

Additionally, as mentioned above, to return a woman who is of the weaker gender, and is generally at the mercy of her husband or male relatives, would mean to cast her back to disbelief and polytheism with one’s own hands, which is not only far from emotions of mercy and compassion, but also equality and justice. No doubt, that by returning a man the risk existed that the infidels of Makkah would subject him to different kinds of torture and grief, but still, a man is a man. Not only can he bear more suffering but as is needed by hiding or fleeing, or by creating a partnership, etc., he can open many ways for his own deliverance; but what can a helpless woman do? In such circumstances, there was the case of forcefully depriving her of Islām or death. In these circumstances, it was completely impossible for a merciful and noble person like the Holy Prophet(sa) to return helpless and vulnerable Muslim women back to the cruelties of the tyrannous infidels. Thus, whatever was done, was not only correct and in complete accordance with the agreement but it was also completely appropriate and correct as per the sound principle of equality and justice, mercy and compassion. Nothing more than deplorable shame came to the lot of those who objected, in that they did not hold back their tongues of criticism, even regarding an arrangement for the protection of oppressed and helpless women.

The second allegation relates to the account of Abū Baṣīr. However, upon reflection, this allegation also proves to be completely weak and feeble. Undoubtedly, the Holy Prophet(sa) concluded an agreement stating that any individual i.e., any man who flees to Madīnah from the infidels of Makkah, he shall be returned even if he be a Muslim. However, the question is did the Holy Prophet(sa) act in opposition to this agreement? Not at all! Not at all! Instead, the Holy Prophet(sa) demonstrated such a complete and magnificent fulfillment of this agreement that the world is unable to present its likeness. Just contemplate - becoming convinced of the truth of Islām, he flees from Makkah, and in order to save himself from the persecution of the Quraish and to save his faith, he secretly reaches Madīnah. However, his cruel relatives also pursue him and by the power of the sword, they wish to forcefully turn him from the truth of Islām. Upon this, both parties present themselves before the Holy Prophet(sa). In an emotional tone and terrified manner, he says to the Holy Prophet(sa), “O Messenger of Allāh! God has inferred upon me the blessing of Islām. The life of grief and danger which lies before me if I return to Makkah is known to you. For the sake of God do not send me back!” However, in opposition to this, the relatives of Abū Baṣīr demand from the Holy Prophet(sa) that it is his agreement with them that any man who comes to Madīnah, shall be returned. The grief of Abū Baṣīr, and the indignation of his companions is before the eyes of the Holy Prophet(sa), and his own emotions produce a buffeting in his heart; but this embodiment of honesty and truthfulness, remaining firm upon his covenant in the likeness of a rock says in such beautiful words indeed:

“O Abū Baṣīr, verily you know that we have entered into a treaty with these people and being dishonest to one’s covenant is not permissible in our religion. You should go with these people and if you remain firm upon Islām with patience and steadfastness then God shall Himself open a way of deliverance for you and other helpless Muslims like yourself.”4

In light of this instruction of the Holy Prophet(sa), Abū Baṣīr left with the Makkans. On his way back, when he physically overcame those who had imprisoned him and returned to Madīnah again, upon seeing him the Holy Prophet(sa) angrily said:

“Woe to his mother. This man is kindling the fire of war. Alas! If there was someone to control him!”5

Upon hearing these words, Abū Baṣīr becomes certain that the Holy Prophet(sa) would send him back either way and so secretly left Madīnah,6 and established an abode for himself in a far off place. Now, if this entire account is justly analysed, how was the Holy Prophet(sa) responsible for this and what allegation could be raised against him? Instead, the truth is that the Holy Prophet(sa) suppressed his emotions and fulfilled the covenant and not only once, but sent Abū Baṣīr back twice. Moreover, the Holy Prophet(sa) sent him back with such magnificent words that the history of the world cannot present its likeness. The Holy Prophet(sa) suppressed his own emotions, he suppressed the emotions of his companions, he suppressed the emotions of Abū Baṣīr, and he fulfilled the covenant at every cost. If then, Abū Baṣīr freed himself from the people of Makkah and went somewhere else, what allegation can be levelled against the Holy Prophet(sa) and what condition of the treaty stipulated the obligation of the Holy Prophet(sa) to return someone who had fled from Makkah, irrespective of where he may be? Alas! How unfortunate it is! The enemies of Islām did not deal justly with Islām on any matter.

Furthermore, if it is alleged that the Holy Prophet(sa) could have dispatched an order to Abū Baṣīr in his established camp to return to Madīnah, and since he did not do this, therefore, although the Holy Prophet(sa) did not break the words of the agreement, he did act against its spirit. As such, this allegation is also one of sheer ignorance and the words of the agreement and the spirit of those words reject it. The condition of the agreement that if a Muslim resident of Makkah fled to Madīnah, the Holy Prophet(sa) would return him, clearly proves that the purpose of this condition was to ensure that such a person, despite his being Muslim, would not be accepted into the circle of Madīnah’s Islāmic Government. In other words, although he should be Muslim in terms of belief, the Holy Prophet(sa) would not include him in the government of Madīnah. If then, such an individual had been expelled from the Islāmic Government as per the conditions of the agreement, how can a demand be made with relation to him that the Holy Prophet(sa) would order him to return no matter where he may be. Therefore, how grave an injustice it is that if the Holy Prophet(sa) was to keep such an individual in Madīnah, it was alleged that the Holy Prophet(sa) had an agreement that he would not include him in his Government, even if he be a Muslim. Then, if the Holy Prophet(sa) was to hand him over to the people of Makkah, expelling him from the government of Madīnah and sending him out of Madīnah, it is alleged that why did the Holy Prophet(sa) not include him in his government and dispatch an order to him? Hence, politically speaking, this allegation is so weak and so feeble and so meaningless, that no sensible individual can pay heed to it. Furthermore, the truth is that this unreasonable condition which was included in this agreement by the infidels, that no Muslim Muhājir would be granted protection in Madīnah, was turned into a punishment by God. Moreover, they were told that their Messenger was true to his covenant either way, but that they planted thorns in their own path and cut their own hands by weapons produced by themselves. Furthermore, when they themselves said that any Muslim youth from Makkah who came to Madīnah would not be kept in Madīnah and that he would be considered expelled from the government of Madīnah, how can they then demand from the same mouth that the Holy Prophet(sa) impose the rule of his government upon such people and order them back to Makkah, wherever they may be residing? They presented the condition themselves that the Holy Prophet(sa) may rule the souls of these people and their matters of the hereafter, but should not become the ruler of their government and worldly affairs. Then, when they excluded them from the government of the Holy Prophet(sa) themselves, then what objection can there be upon the Holy Prophet(sa)? In any case, this was a plot of the Quraish of Makkah which was overturned upon their very selves, and either way, the person of the Holy Prophet(sa) was pure and remained pure. The Holy Prophet(sa) fulfilled the words of the covenant and dismissed Abū Baṣīr from Madīnah, handing him over to the people of Makkah. Moreover, the Holy Prophet(sa) also fulfilled the spirit of this agreement as was the actual purport of this condition. The Holy Prophet(sa) excluded Abū Baṣīr and his companions from his own government. So, the Holy Prophet(sa) remained truthful in every respect and the infidels became the victims of their own trap. Ultimately, they came to the Holy Prophet(sa) humiliated in that they themselves desired to take this clause out of the agreement.

Then, to assert that by saying, (i.e., Woe to his mother, this man is kindling the fire of war. If only there was someone to control him), the Holy Prophet(sa) indicated to Abū Baṣīr that he should make his own party and wage war against the Quraish, is such injustice and such a corrupt mentality, and in light of the situation, is such ignorance! These words are clear proof of the truthfulness of the Holy Prophet(sa) and his abhorrence of unnecessary war. Furthermore, these words proved that the Holy Prophet(sa) was expressing his immunity from and disgust towards this action of Abū Baṣīr, and not that he wished to entice him to wage war by some hidden message.

Then, one may think, as Sir William Muir has concluded, that the last words of the Holy Prophet(sa) could also mean, “If he had but with him a body of adherents!” Some might think that this shows that the wish of the Holy Prophet(sa) was that if Abū Baṣīr was to find a companion, he may be able to ignite the fire of war, and in this phrase there seems to be an indication of instigating war. The answer to this is that firstly, the translation we have done is in complete accordance with Arabic idiom, examples of which are found copiously in Aḥādīth. In addition to this, if hypothetically the second meaning is accepted, even then, in the context of the expression, the meaning of this phrase would be nothing more than, “If Abū Baṣīr was to find a like-minded companion, he would inflame the fire of war. Thankfully, however, he has no such companions in Madīnah.” Therefore, whichever meaning is taken, the context of this expression and its initial parts are sufficient evidence of the fact that the intent of the Holy Prophet(sa) was to rebuke Abū Baṣīr, not to incite him to war. Can an individual who begins his sentence with words of displeasure and reproach such as, “Woe to his mother, he is about to kindle the fire of war,” then immediately utter such words in his mouth, “Yes! indeed, ignite the far of war,”? After all, in the eagerness of raising an allegation, one should not forfeit common sense! Furthermore, the greatest thing to note is what effect these words of the Holy Prophet(sa) had upon Abū Baṣīr and what did he understand from the Holy Prophet(sa)? In relation to this, in this very narration the following words are mentioned:

“When Abū Baṣīr heard these words of the Holy Prophet(sa), he understood that the Holy Prophet(sa) would return him to the people of Makkah in any case,” upon which he secretly fled and left for somewhere else.7

Alas! How unfortunate it is that the individual who was directly addressed by these words understood that the Holy Prophet(sa) was displeased by this action of his and that the Holy Prophet(sa) would either way, return him to Makkah; yet the gracious ones who came 1300 years after, have asserted that in reality, the Holy Prophet(sa) enticed Abū Baṣīr to make his own party and wage war. May prejudice be destroyed! There should be a limit to injustice.