As the Quraysh realized increasingly that
matters related to the new religion were getting out of their
control, they proposed even more tough actions, one after the
other, against the believers and their supporters, so that the
Message may be prevented from becoming a success. The Banu
Hashim had given refuge to the Prophet (sws), and the Quraysh
were unsuccessful in convincing Abu Talib to withdraw this
support. Therefore, some emotional people decided to punish
the Banu Hashim itself for this support, in the shape of a
social boycott.
The Most Common
Narrative of the Boycott
The most common narrative related to the
boycott, that biographers have relied upon, is that when the
Quraysh were offended by the expressions of esteem and good
wishes for Muslims from Najashi, they agreed among themselves
to kill the Prophet (sws). They wrote an agreement against the
Banu Hashim, saying that, unless that tribe delivered the
Prophet (sws) to them, no family of the Quraysh would develop
any bonds of marriage with them, conduct any business dealings
or have any interaction with them. This written document was
hung inside the Ka‘bah. According to the narrative, acting
upon this agreement, they put the Banu Hashim and their ally,
the Banu Muttalib, under siege in Sha‘b Abi Talib. They were
neither allowed to be given any food, nor to purchase anything
from external traders. They survived by eating the leaves of
berry trees. Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas became so hungry once that,
when he found a piece of dried leather, he roasted it over the
fire, chewed it and swallowed it with water. A few kind
individuals would drive a beast laden with grain towards them.
When children cried with hunger, the Quraysh rejoiced in their
sounds. The Banu Hashim tolerated this situation for three
years. Finally, the Prophet (sws) informed Abu Talib that the
document of the agreement had been eaten up by woodworm. Abu
Talib went to the kafirs, and asked them to present the
agreement. According to his nephew, nothing was written on the
document. If he was wrong, Abu Talib would deliver him to
them. When the document was brought forth, it was found to be
empty of any writing. At this point, some large hearted
leaders such as Mut‘im ibn ‘Adi, Abu al-Bukhtari ibn Hashim,
Zam‘ah ibn al-Aswad, ‘Adi ibn Qays and Zuhayr ibn Abi Umayyah
insisted that they would not allow such cruelty any further,
and they brought the beleaguered people from the valley. They
had raised their voices even before this cruel agreement was
made.
According to this narrative of the
agreement, every tribe of the Quraysh was bound to implement
the following:
· No one would enter into marriage with
the Banu Hashim
· No trade would be conducted
with them and,
· No one would have any social
interaction with them
until they gave Muhammad (sws) into their
custody, so that they could get rid of him.
Other narratives of this event differ in
their detail. According to some, the Quraysh put the Banu
Hashim in Sha‘b Abi Talib, but according to others, they came
together of their own accord. Narratives also give the
duration of the siege as 2-3 years, or less, or more. There is
also a difference regarding the part of the document that was
destroyed by woodworm: was it the first part with the words bi
ismika allahumma, or did these words remain and the rest was
destroyed?
In our view, several questions arise,
regarding such a narrative, to which satisfactory answers
cannot be found. For example:
1. The agreement includes
clauses forbidding marriages and trade relations, but none on
putting them under siege. Thus, there was no requirement under
this agreement to bring them under siege, and no Quraysh tribe
was under any compulsion to do so. Without such a clause in
the agreement, how did the Quraysh implement it with
consensus?
2. This agreement was against the Banu
Hashim and its ally, the Banu Muttalib. Other tribes were not
to be affected by it. Yet, Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas is said to be
chewing a piece of leather in his hunger. He belonged to the
tribe of the Banu Zahrah. The question arises, why was he
included in those besieged? If he was forced, why did his
tribe not come to his rescue?
3. The trade ban with the Banu Hashim was
put only on the Quraysh; it did not apply to other tribes or
traders who came from outside Makkah. In such a situation, the
Banu Hashim would not have found it difficult to obtain
necessary goods from other traders, and cause their children
to go hungry. But the narrative shows that they suffered from
hunger throughout the three year siege.
4. It was not an easy task to kill anyone
in Arab society. If the Quraysh wanted to kill the Prophet (sws),
the best place to take such a decision have would been the Dar
al-Nadwah, where all Quraysh leaders would gather to make
important decisions. But such a meeting was not held.
Decisions taken out of the ambit of such meetings were not
considered to be joint decisions, even if they were important
ones, and were not implemented. It was after this event that
all the tribes of the Quraysh gathered in the Dar al-Nadwah,
and after much debate and discussion, decided on ways and
means to kill the Prophet (sws). Because this decision was
taken very seriously, God instructed the Prophet (sws) to
migrate and thus he was saved from his enemies.
5. If the three year siege had occurred,
it would have carried so much significance that the entire
Arab world should have resonated with its implications,
because the Banu Hashim held the responsibility of taking care
of the hajj pilgrims, giving them water, managing the House of
God and serving the travelers. If they vanished for three
years, this should have created a crisis in the country. But
history does not mention any alternative arrangement that was
put into place after banishing the Banu Hashim to a besieged
status.
In the light of these facts, it is not
possible to believe such weak narratives. The event is
different from what has been portrayed in them.
The Possible
Situation
Abu Hurayrah (rta) relates that, when
they were in Mina# during the last day of the hajj, the
Prophet (sws) said that they would descend into the valley of
the Banu Kananah the next day. This was the place where people
promised to remain disbelievers, the Quraysh and the Banu
Kananah swore that they would neither marry into Banu Hashim
and the Banu Muttalib, nor have any commercial dealings with
them, until they gave up the Prophet (sws) to them.
This is far more close to reality than
the previous narrative. According to this, the situation may
have been somewhat as follows: a group of the disbelievers of
the Quraysh promised each other that they would boycott both
the Banu Hashim and the Banu Muttalib, who had remained
steadfast in their support to Banu Hashim. The boycott
included not getting involved in mutual marriages and ending
all trade relations with them. It had no clause that covered a
ban on getting food to them, or besieging them. This promise
was made in a valley of Mina, not in Makkah, and whatever
status it had for those who participated, it was not an
agreement made by the Quraysh, hence it was not written down.
With this background, it is not difficult to come to the
following conclusions:
1. This was not a collective agreement of
the Quraysh made after careful deliberation. A few people of
the Quraysh and the Banu Kananah thought of harassing the Banu
Hashim and got together in the valley of Mina# to boycott
them. It is quite possible that some emotional people were
involved in this, and the elders were kept out. There was no
mention of any siege.
2. This agreement was not acceptable to
some important Quraysh leaders. They fought with the
proponents of the boycott constantly and their efforts brought
the conflict to an end. This shows that it was not a
consensual agreement among the Quraysh, and was therefore
often breached by some people, as some narratives show.
3. Since there was no siege, the
relatives of the Banu Hashim could convey necessary items to
them. Thus, some narratives give the example of Hakim ibnn
Hizam taking grain to them.
4. Abu Hurayrah’s story does not explain
the duration for which the Banu Hashim remained worried. But
the worry existed, not because of any siege or lack of food,
but because they faced this situation caused by people with
whom they had had good relations previously.
As explained above, most people within
the jurisdiction of the Quraysh and Banu Kananah had accepted
Islam. Since this agreement was only against Banu Hashim and
the Banu Muttalib, the rest of the Muslims, such as Abu Bakr (rta),
Omar (rta) and those whose names have been cited above were
not affected. Hence this boycott did not hamper the spread of
Islam.
It can be deduced that there was no ban
on free movement of either the Prophet (sws) or other Muslims,
to come to the Ka‘bah or go to the city. Hence his preaching
continued as before. In such a situation, Banu Hashim would
have been able to fulfill their responsibilities related to
hajj and ‘umrah.
5. Except from those who were part of the
agreement, Banu Hashim could trade with others who were not
bound by the agreement.
6. The location of the siege is given as
Sha‘b Abi Talib, but such a place does not exist within the
surrounds of Makkah. It could have been Sha‘b Bani Hashim,
which is the area within Makkah where Banu Hashim resided in
large numbers, and which was present in the recent past in the
south west of the Prophet’s place of birth. With the extension
of the Ka‘bah, all signs of this quarter and the hill over
which it was located have vanished. The idea that this was a
valley away from Makkah and where the Banu Hashim were
imprisoned is completely wrong, since these narratives also
say that when the children of Muslims cried from hunger, the
Quraysh would hear their cries and laugh. This could only have
been possible if the valley was close to other quarters of
Makkah. It was also barren and had no berry trees on the
leaves of which the Banu Hashim could have survived for so
long.
Had the Banu Hashim gathered in this
place, it is possible that Abu Talib may have asked those of
his tribe, who lived out of the area to come together for fear
of oppression by the Quraysh. Then, when the better elements
within the Quraysh put a stop to their activities, the Banu
Hashim returned to their homes. This has also been stated in
one of the narratives.
Invitation for
Reconciliation
When the Quraysh realized that their
oppression was worsening the situation and the new religion
was gaining dominance in society, they made a political move.
They pleaded to the Prophet (sws) that they were brothers to
each other; it did not please them to create difficulties for
them. They had great expectations from him, that he would lead
the Banu Hashim so that the status of the Quraysh would be
raised. They believed that, if he changed some parts of his
teachings that were objectionable to them, they would accept
these. Additionally, there were some behaviours and actions
that they were now so used to, that it was not possible for
people to adjust to the new injunctions he was asking them to
obey; they would request him to revise these as well. This
would lead them to implement his instructions. Their people
would accept his religion and his mission would be successful.
Such ideas cause one to pause and
rethink. One is impelled to consider the pros and cons, and
think that if one could give some flexibility to people,
perhaps they could come around to belief in the original
teachings after having understood it in totality. The Prophet
(sws) loved his people, and was eager for them to accept the
faith, concerned that they may become fodder for hell in their
foolishness. Thus, he began to think about their proposal.
Since prophets act as the representatives of God on earth,
they are under His guidance. On occasions such as these, when
a prophet is indecisive about an action, God stops him from
taking a wrong decision and guides him to the straight path.
God explained the Prophet Muhammad’s situation thus:
And indeed,
they were about to tempt you away from that which We revealed
to you in order to [make] you invent about Us something else;
and then they would have taken you as a friend. And if We had
not strengthened you, you would have almost inclined to them a
little. Then [if you had], We would have made you taste double
[punishment in] life and double [after] death. Then you would
not find for yourself against Us a helper. (17:74-75)
At another place, the Qur’an says:
And when Our
verses are recited to them as clear evidence, those who do not
expect the meeting with Us say: “Bring us a Qur’an other than
this or change it.” Say, [O Muhammad]: “It is not for me to
change it on my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to
me. Indeed I fear, if I should disobey my Lord, the punishment
of a tremendous Day.” Say: “If Allah had willed, I would not
have recited it to you, nor would He have made it known to
you, for I had remained among you a lifetime before it. Then
will you not reason?” (10:15-16)
In other words, the Qur’an was not the
Prophet’s creation that he could make changes in it according
to his will. This was God’s guidance which he was bound to
follow and could not cancel any part of it. If he did so, he
would come under God’s grasp.
At another place:
[He is] Knower
of the unseen, and He does not disclose His [knowledge of the]
unseen. Except whom He has approved of messengers, and indeed,
He sends before each messenger and behind him observers. That
He may know that they have conveyed the message of their Lord;
and He has encompassed whatever is with them and has
enumerated all things in number. (72:26-28)
This shows that when God gives knowledge
of the unknown to His messenger through divine revelation, He
does not leave him to himself to say whatever he will to the
people. The messenger is kept under strict observation and is
surrounded by angels who ensure that the message is
communicated to the people in its entirety and purity. Hence,
there is no possibility that the message could be changed by
the messenger of his own accord, or through the influence of
others. Explaining this further, the Qur’an says:
[It is] a
revelation from the Lord of the worlds. And if Muhammad had
made up about Us some [false] sayings, We would have seized
him by the right hand; Then We would have cut from him the
aorta. And there is no one of you who could protect him from
[Us]. And indeed, the Qur’an is a reminder for the righteous.
(69:43-48)
Here, the Quraysh were told that when one
was was selected as God’s messenger, there was no danger that
he would mix his own falsehoods with God’s revelations. If
ever a messenger dare do this, he would be destroyed
immediately by God.
In this way, God instructed the Prophet (sws)
that it was his responsibility to communicate God’s revealed
message without any addition or subtraction to people. These
people wanted to show flexibility in their attitude if he
would do the same. But he was not authorized to do so. He was
answerable only to God, not to them. However hard his
detractors may try, they must not succeed in swaying him from
God’s verses. The Prophet (sws) should proclaim all the verses
that they disliked, loudly and clearly. God’s revelations can
neither be reversed nor hidden. This demonstrates the
difference between a politician and a prophet. The latter
cannot change his stance, but a politician changes his
decisions according to changing circumstances and benefits
from the type of opportunities which the Quraysh had offered
to the Prophet (sws).
As a part of the above offer of
reconciliation, a group from the Quraysh met with Abu Talib
and requested him to convince his nephew to revise his
message. In return, they would give him whatever wealth, fame,
status and political standing that he may wish for. When Abu
Talib called the Prophet (sws) and presented this idea to him,
he said what became one of his most famous sayings: “Uncle, if
these people were to place the sun in my right hand and the
moon in my left in lieu of my preaching, I would not accept
these offerings.” At this, Abu Talib asked him to continue
with his work.
When the opponents despaired of any
breakthrough in compromise, they started to terrorize people
again and to torture the Prophet (sws) and his colleagues.
Abu Bakr’s Decision
to Migrate
Abu Bakr Siddiq (rta) was respected
highly among the Quraysh and it was his responsibility to
decide on matters related to blood money and ransom. Despite
this, the Quraysh were deeply offended by his “crime” of
accepting Islam. He was a man of great honour and did not
hesitate to help any poor Muslim and back him up. He never
faltered even under the most trying of circumstances. But now
the Quraysh were becoming so barbaric that even such a
steadfast person as he, thought of migrating from Makkah and
joining other Muslims in Abyssinia. He had travelled several
miles already from Makkah when he met a friend, Ibn al-Daghnah,
who was the leader of the tribe Qarrah. In response to his
query about where he was heading, Abu Bakr (rta) replied that
his nation had forced him to move out. Now he wanted to go
elsewhere, where he could worship God freely. Ibn al-Daghnah
offered to take him into his protection and return to Makkah.
On his return, Ibn al-Daghnah met all leaders of the Quraysh
and told them categorically that a man like Abu Bakr (rta)
could neither leave Makkah nor be forced to leave. Would they
banish a person who helped the poor, treated his relatives
well, carried the burdens of others, took care of guests and
supported those in trouble? The Quraysh accepted Ibn al-Daghnah’s
protection and allowed Abu Bakr (rta) to worship God in his
house, say the prayer, read the Qur’an, but not make this
public, as this would lead their women and children astray.
Abu Bakr (rta) had left an open space within his house, where
he made a place for offering the prayer. He would offer the
prayer and read the Qur’an. He would break into tears when
doing so. Passersby would wonder and be concerned. The
idolaters became worried and asked Ibn al-Daghnah to control
Abu Bakr (rta), at which he asked the latter to pray inside
his house. If he failed to do so, he should return his
protection, because he did not wish the Arabs to put the blame
of breaking a promise of protection himself. Abu Bakr (rta)
was not ready to accept protection under these conditions and
returned it to Ibn al-Daghnah, saying that he was happy with
the protection of God. He also decided to fight against the
oppression of the Quraysh himself and not to migrate from
Makkah.
Thus, God retained a trustworthy well
wisher to look after the interests of the Muslims within
Makkah. Another benefit of his stay in Makkah was that, he was
a very trusted friend of the Prophet (sws) who would consult
him in all important matters. This consultation continued
until both migrated together.
(Translated
by Nikhat Sattar)
_________________
|