Makes sense – May Allah bless you.

No offense at all and jazakallah khair for the question! As far as I know (and anyone, please correct me if I’m wrong), the information about Abu Basir comes from a hadith that al-Bukhārī and Abū Dāwūd recorded from Ma’mar, who heard it from al-Zuhrī, who heard it from ‘Urwah b. Zubayr, who heard it from a certain al-Miswar b. Makhramah. Though there are considerable differences between the two records, both records say that God’s messenger (s) said of Abū Basīr, “Wayla ummihī, mis’ara ḥarbin law kāna lahū aḥad.” My parsing of the statement is the following:

Wayla (Woe to) ummihī (his mother) mis’ara (a kindler) ḥarbin (of war) law (if) kāna (there was) lahū (to him) aḥad (anyone) -“Woe to his mother, a war kindler were anyone to be with him.”

Despite the english translation, I can find no indication that God’s messenger (s) was acknowledging Abū Basīr’s “excellence” in any way. Rather, I see nothing but disapproval in the statement “mis’ar ḥarb.” Thereafter, “law kāna lahū aḥad” is a subtle statement indicating “no one here will support you.”

Abū Basīr’s raids are only mentioned in the record al-Bukhārī records from ‘Abdullāh b. Muḥammad from ‘Abd al-Razzāq from Ma’mar and not in the record that Abū Dāwūd records from Muḥammad b. ‘Ubayd from Muḥammad b. Thawr from Ma’mar. There may be many reasons for that, but even the former record certainly shows no indication that God’s messenger (s) ever approved this action.

As for the reports of raids in the early Madinan period, our strongest and earliest historical record (the Qur’an) certainly suggests that it was not the case that the Quraysh were minding their own business. Sūrah Hajj (22:39), widely considered the verse that gave Muslims permission to fight, states “Udhina li lladhīna yuqātalūna bi anna hum ḍhulimū – Permission is given to those who are being fought because they are oppressed.” It is clear here that the referents of this verse were 1) being actively fought against and 2) oppressed.

Hope that helps! God bless you!

Adnan

I was reading your article and have to say quite thought-provoking 🙂

I apologise if I ask out of ignorance, but I genuinely would like to know the caravan raids involving Abu Baseer (RA). This is when the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah had just come into operation. Abu Baseer (RA) was a newly reverted Muslim, and he fled to Medina to be with the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). However, due to the Treaty, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had to return Abu Baseer back to Mecca, as was requested by the Meccan Pagans.

As Abu Baseer left with two Meccan Pagans, they stopped at a particular place en route to Mecca. Abu Baseer managed to kill one of the Pagans, whereas the other fled. Abu Baseer returned to Medina, and told Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that Allah had saved him. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) replied “Woe to his mother! What excellent war-kindler he would be if only he had supporters”. (could someone explain what this literally means?) It is stated that this was a subtle clue for Abu Baseer to leave Medina and live somewhere else, or he would have to be returned to Mecca again.

Now whilst he lived elsewhere on the coastal plains which was strategically en route to the Syrian caravan trade from Mecca, he and other muslim reverts (who joined him from Mecca) would attack the Quraish caravans and kill the infidel merchants within hence looting their goods.

My concern with this is that would this be considered banditry? Or am I misunderstanding something? Was it due to the endless persecutions and tortures he suffered by the Meccan Pagans and because of that he wanted revenge? – something similar to the caravan raids that the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) allowed when he first entered Medina; was it also because he was a freshly new revert and was not aware of the Islamic values? Could it also be that because Abu Baseer (RA) and his band of fellow Muslims were not part of the Medinan Community, they could do whatever they liked to the Quraish?

The comment made by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) “Woe to his mother! What excellent war-kindler he would be if only he had supporters” – is that allowing Abu Baseer to stir trouble against the Quraish? or was it an Arabic idiom that when translated sounds a bit harsh? I mean I can understand that Abu Baseer (RA) was out of jurisdiction for Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to act upon, as the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was a contract between the Meccan Pagans and the Medina Muslims – it wasn’t Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) “problem”.

I just feel a bit confused that why would Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) allow Abu Baseer (ra) to stir trouble especially when it risked upholding the Treaty.

Also there are some who will say that this event allows Muslims to attack the non-muslims if they are at war with them. This partly explains why you will see some Muslims today will attack civilians amongst the enemy’s side.

I hope I haven’t offended anyone by asking such questions – just need clarification.

Jaza K’Allah Khair

Adam

Thank you for your thoughts. What you describe of Islam’s position on fighting is a very principled one, but I think it’s very true when you say that emotions of dissatisfaction, anger, shame, revenge, hatred, etc. all can come in to sway us away from holding to Islam’s ideal.

Some verses from Surah Shura (42:36-43) come to mind. The believers are first described “idhaa maa ghadeboo hum yaghfiroon” – when they are angry, they forgive. But then we are told “idhaa asawbahumu l-baghyu hum yantaseroon” – when a great wrongdoing afflicts them, they defend themselves. Are the two contradictory?

Well, I don’t believe so, especially when we realize that defending oneself and seeking justice does not require that we be driven by the emotional whims of anger and hatred. The former verse seems to focus on the emotional state of the believer, to rise above anger and become “kaadhemeena l-ghaith wa l-‘aafeena ‘ani n-naas” (those who suppress their anger and pardon humanity, 3:134). The latter verse reminds us that suppressing our anger doesn’t mean that we should let ourselves be pushed around. Even when war is the only way to defend oneself and seek justice, the fighter should enter battle free from rage, as in the example of ‘Ali (r.a./a.s.) when he refrained from killing his enemy who spat at him.

Some have translated “yantaseroon” as “taking revenge” but I think this is a poor translation. From what I understand, and I hope the scholars can correct me, the term “yantaseroon” means simply to seek justice for a wrongdoing. By contrast, “taking revenge” in modern English has an additional connotation of being motivated by anger and hatred. It is on account of these negative emotions that simply “taking revenge” often leads to a departure from the sunnah of our Messenger (saws).

For instance, some among us may say, “The Israelis kill our innocent children, so there’s nothing wrong when Palestinians kill their innocent children.” This, in my opinion, is horrendously indefensible and a corrupted understanding of qisaws (reciprocation). Would these people also say, “We can rape their women and men if they rape our women and men”? Can we become so clouded by our anger so as to come to opinions like these? But when we rise above these emotions, I believe most believers will see that the Quran’s injunction “‘aaqiboo bimithli maa ‘ouqibtum bih” (punish with the like of what you were punished with, 16:126*) cannot be twisted so as to justify committing all the evil that the Messenger (saws) explicitly prohibited.

God know better, and may He forgive me for any wrong I say.

Keep well!
Adnan

*PS: Verse 2:194 says something similar – “faman i’tadaa ‘alaikum, fa’tadoo ‘alaihi bimithli ma’tadaa ‘alaikum” – but as far as I know, this is specifically in relation to defending oneself from attack during the sacred months when fighting is prohibited – not a general allowance to reciprocate agression, which would contradict with the preceding verse 2:190, “wa laa ta’tadoo, innallaha laa yuhebbu l-mu’tadeen” (do not transgress, God does not love transgressors).

Jazakallah khair brother Munir,

Thank you for the link – his talk was very moving. I’ll read up more about him.

Allahumma ameen

be prepared to defend your territory, because otherwise you might become oppressed and your oppressors will prevent your people’s practice of Islam. but very extremely sparing of that ability, favouring all peaceful means so long as it can provide a better outcome, and absolutely not initiate the hostilities or break a treaty. when obligated to defend yourself or allies, do not be excessive or destroy the innocent – including non-human creatures and their homes. be ready to cease hostilities as soon as an opportunity for peace presents itself. when without power to defend, stay patient or emigrate to seek Allah’s help.

it is conceptually extremely simple and consistent with the tenets of faith. but even with clear faith, just like points of fiqh, we may disagree on whether the situation has tipped into validating war, or not yet, but it should not cause serious rifts so long as we’re deliberating by the same rules above, as we can only do our best effort. but more often though, we do not – we make exceptions for ourselves, try to reinterpret these ground rules to make it more ‘likely’ for our favoured conclusion to be justified to others. it is our emotions of dissatisfaction, anger, shame, loss, resentment, revenge, fear and hatred that makes it difficult to follow these rules and is the reason we make so many excuses and exceptions for our particular situation.

are you familiar with the thought of Jawdat Said? It might interest you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbCwozvK8E

Walaikum Assalam.

“Thus we should rather look to those times when the Messenger was in a position of weakness, i.e. in Mecca. There, he “never negotiated” with the polytheists. And yet you stop yourself from advocating the complete nonviolence that the Messenger (saws) demonstrated in Mecca – why is that aspect of the sunna irrelevant?”

Because the verse, ‘Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not’, had not been revealed at that time. It is as simple as that.

Only one more thing i’d like to say, you really think the killings in the mosque are because of the same people? If thats the case im afraid you really need to get your facts right.

I dont think theres any point of explaining my opinion any further.

JazakAllah Khayr for your replies.

May Allah guide us all to the right path.