Peace in the Prophet’s Life and Teaching

 (For detail please read my book "Islam: A Religion of Peace)

The Islamic View of peace is expressed in terms of the wars in which the Prophet found himself engaged. The circumstances, sanction, and consequences of these wars, and the general injunctions are based on specific events. Reverting, therefore, to the sequence of events, the Prophet of Islam, intensely persecuted by the Makkans, was forced to leave his ancestral home. At the cave of Hira, he had received the first wahy or revelation. Here, he had preached the fledgling faith to anyone who cared to listen and here at the cave of Thaur, he lay concealed for three days. 

He reached Madinah on 2nd July 622 A.D., a few days earlier than the commencement of the Islamic calendar on the first day of Muharrum. (The Western orientalists deliberate campaign to misinform the public about the Prophet’s mission is evident in the use of the phrase ‘flight of Mohammad’ for Hijrat when the word ‘migration’ is its literal translation). Madinah became the cradle of Islam since the first mosque was built here by the Prophet by his own hands with the help of the Muhajireen-i-Makka and the Ansars. The residents of Madinah Islam’s first muazzin was the slave Bilal, whose call for prayer seemed to carry, as it were, to the farthest reaches of Arabia and beyond. The Makkans, intensely hostile to the increase in the Prophet’s following, advanced towards Madinah with an army, despite the fact that the Madinaites, on instruction from the Prophet, had not blocked their trade route that lay close to Madinah. 

The Prophet’s first battle took place in the Valley of Badr in 2 A.H., where despite their numerical inferiority. 313 Muslim stood poised against the Makkan army. The man who had never wielded a weapon, whose tenderness and pathos caused his enemies to call him ‘womanish’ was compelled by the necessities of the situation and against his own inclination to recite the rajz of war. In the Qur’ân, the simple recurring injunction is:
“To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged”.1
Over a thousand well-equipped men under the generalship of Abu Jahl (‘The Father of Ignorance’) fell upon the small bank of disciples and, in the battle that followed, several leaders and the most experienced warriors of Arabia, including ‘the inveterate persecutor of Islam’ were killed:
“Allâh had helped you at Badr, when ye were a contemptible little force”.2
The rationale for going to war was the imminent danger to Islam from the sworn enemies of the faith3. The important words are “wa qaatilu fi sabilillah,” i.e. “Fight in the cause of Allâh, those who fight you.”
In the aftermath of the war, several prisoners taken by the Muslim were treated with kindness and mercy, in emulation of the recurrent description of Allâh as being– ‘full of kindness and mercy’ (Wa in Allâha rauf-ur-rahim)4. The distribution of spoils, however, led to sharp dissensions among the Muslim soldiers. The Prophet calmed it down by dividing them equally among all. In Arab Jahiliyat the practice was that the spoils became the property of whoever laid hands on them. Realising the contentious nature of this issue, Allâh promulgated a special ordinance, which is incorporated in the chapter of the Qur’ân Al Infal (Spoils of War).
By this law the distribution of the spoils was left to the discretion of the chief of the Commonwealth, a fifth being reserved for the poor and indigent. In his commentary on this chapter, Abul Kalam Azad compares the Arab Jahiliyat’s attitude to spoils, with the British penchant for maall-e-ghanimat as reflected in the looting which followed their victory over Srirangapatnam and Hyderabad, and in the seven days after the fall of Delhi in 1857 when the British soldiery was allowed to go on a wild rampage.
Meanwhile, Madinah was being honeycombed by sedition and treachery. At the slightest nod from the Quraish, the Jews of Yethrib were ready to break the covenant they had made with the Prophet. Therefore, it became his duty to guard against that dreaded catastrophe which, arising from within, or a sudden attack from without, would have entailed upon his followers. At this moment, he was not simply a preacher of Islam but was also the guardian of the lives and liberties of his people. As a Prophet he could afford to ignore the revilings and jibes of his enemies, but as the Head of State at the time of almost continual warfare, when Madinah was kept in a state of military defence and under a sort of military discipline, he could not overlook treachery.
He was bound by duty to his subjects to suppress a party that might have led and almost did lead to the sack of a city by investing armies. The safety of the State required the prescription of the traitors who were either sowing the seeds of sedition within Madinah or carrying information to a common enemy. It was incumbent upon him to repel the attacks of the enemy by force of arms, to organise his followers for self-defence, and often to send out expeditions to anticipate treacherous and sudden onslaughts. Hence, the forcefulness of the following Qur’ânic injuctions:
“Will ye not fight people who have violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took to aggression, by being the first (to assault) you? Fight them and Allâh will punish them by your hands.”5
The Prophet’s second major battle was fought besides the hill of Ohod in the third year of the Hijrat. This time the proportion was one to three in favour of the Quraish. Victory had almost been declared for the Muslim when the archers, forgetting the instructions of the Prophet, and seeing the enemy in flight, dispersed in search of plunder. Hamza, the great warrior of Arabia, was killed, and Ali, Omar, and Abu Bakr, the closest associates of the Prophet, were wounded. The Prophet was injured but his friends formed a huddle to protect him. Retreating to the heights of Mount Ohod, Ali fetched water in his shield from the hollow of a rock and washed his wounds. The moral lessons of Ohod are too numerous to be recalled, but a few may be mentioned. First, during the course of Ohod a cry was raised that the Prophet had been killed, causing great demoralisation among the Muslim. Hence, the Qur’ânic revelation:
“Muhammad is no more than a messenger: many, were the messengers that passed away before him. If he died, or were slain, will ye then, turn back on your heels?6
Second, the injunctions that the ultimate reward and punishment should be left to Allâh. Although the Muslim were justified in defending themselves, but indeed if any do help, and defend themselves. After a wrong (done), against such there is no cause to blame,7 but they were expected to do no more than their duty. Allâh would dispense justice according to a design that is often incomprehensible to the human intellect:
“Not for thee (but for Allâh)
Is the decision:
Whether He turn in mercy
To them or punish them.”8
The third lesson was of gross physical violence. While retreating from the Battle, the Quraish barbarously mutilated their dead enemies. The morbid incident of Hind, Abu Sufiyan’s wife, tearing out Hamaza’s heart and making bracelets and necklaces of the ears and noses of the dead, made the Prophet forbid for once and for all the practice of mutilation of corpses that prevailed among all nations of antiquity, at the same time, exhorting the Muslim:
“Bear wrong patiently; verily, best it will be for the patiently enduring.”
The third incident pertains to peace, not war, and is referred in history as Sulh-e-Hudaibiya. Thus the first initiative of the Prophet against the Makkans, the arch enemies of Islam, reflects the true working of his mind. His was a deliberate act of choosing peace instead of war, of opting for retreat, thereby avoiding hundreds of war casualties.
Six years had passed since the Prophet and his Companions were driven from Makkah and expelled from the precincts of the Kaaba. Driven by their longing to perform pilgrimage at the holy shrine, seven hundred Muslim led by the Prophet, set out on the journey. Although the Quraish were mere custodians, not owners of Kaaba and, therefore, not authorised by any law of the land to interdict the approach of even an enemy. They posted themselves at every point of access to the city, to ensure that Muslim could not enter.
The Prophet was justified to fight because the issue was freedom to worship; the little Muslim community had as much right to worship at the Kaaba as the rest of the Quraish. The principle involved was one of all worship, Jewish or Christian, as well as Muslim. Little incidents had taken place which could have plunged the Quraish and Muslim into a fight. But the Prophet had a peace-offensive in mind, thereby maintaining the peace of the Sanctuary. Surah 48 Al-Fath is based on the Treaty of Hudaibiya:
“And it is He who
Has restrained their hands
From you and your hands
From them in the midst
Of Makkah, after that He
Gave you the victory
Over them”.9
It was on this occasion that the Muslim took the pledge called Baitur-Rizwan or Bait-ush Shajr, to ‘fight for their faith’, but the Prophet, determined to end the state of warfare between the Muslim and Quraish, expressed his willingness to agree to any terms the Makkans may impose. After intense negotiations, a treaty was concluded, by which it was agreed that all hostilities would cease for ten years. Among other clauses was the ultra-conciliatory one that the Muslim, without advancing further would retrace their steps but should be permitted in the following year to visit Makkah and remain there for three days with their travelling arms.
The moderation and magnanimity displayed by the Prophet in concluding this treaty caused discontent among some of his impulsive followers. The Quraish, blustering and excited, objected to the introductory words of the treaty such as in the name of Allâh. They were unwilling to accept the Prophet’s signature which included the words ‘Mohammed, Rasool Allâh’. The Prophet asked Ali to strike out the appellation ‘Prophet of God’. When Ali pleaded his inability to do so, the Prophet struck off the ‘offensive’ words and substituted ’Mohammed, son of Abdullah’. The Qur’ânic rendering expressed the importance of self-restraint:
“While the Unbelievers got up in their hearts heat and cant—the heat and cant of ignorance—Allâh sent down his tranquillity to his Messenger and to the believers, and made them stick close to the command of self-restraint”.10
The command here is for Muslim to exercise self-restraint as much as possible. Force is a dangerous weapon. It may have to be used for self-defence or self-preservation, but self-restraint, the Qur’ân says again and again, is more pleasing in the eyes of Allâh. Fighting for principle rather than passion is permissible. Earlier in the Surah, the words as Huwwal lazi anzalas sakinatu fi qulub-il-Mominin, meaning:
“It is He who sent down tranquillity into the hearts of the Believers”.
In terms of the principle of violence, from the battles of Badr and Ohod, discussed earlier, and the peace of Hudaibiya, it is evident that war is permissible only when the patently aggressive behaviour of the enemy becomes evident. When undertaken, it must be vigorous combat but not relentless. Strict limits must not be transgressed:
“women, children, old, and infirm men should not be molested, nor trees and crops cut down, nor peace withheld when the enemy comes to terms”.
These were unprecedented religious injunctions in those times:
“And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in Allâh. But if they cease let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.”11
A few Qur’ânic injunctions about violence which have become cliche need to be discussed briefly. All Semitic religions have provision for just retribution. The Qur’ân is no exception. In several Surahs, the concept of this justice is explained:
“We ordained therein for them life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself.”12
In another Surah, the injunction goes a step further “Faman tassadaqa bihi fahuwa kaffaratun lah,” stating that not only does the remitter atone for his own sins, by forgiveness he earns his just reward from Allâh.
“The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree) but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation his reward is due from Allâh. For (Allâh) loveth not those who do wrong.”
The rationality underlying the act of forgiveness is made more explicit in the next few lines:
“But indeed if any show patience and forgive that would truly be an exercise of courageous will and resolution in the conduct of affairs.”14
The retribution theme is further elaborated with the emphasis being the transformation affected by humanistic treatment of evil, a far cry from “Wal aina bil ainee” concept which would have struck an instant chord in the ingenious Bedouin mind. The Muslim were being shown the higher rationality for peace:
“Nor can Goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better. Then will be between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate and no one will be granted such goodness except those who exercise patience and self-restraint.”15
Innumerable Hadith of the Prophet on peace have been recorded which is not surprising because the untamed Bedouins had to be reminded again and again. Sahih Bukhari, regarded the best among Hadith literature, records the Prophet in the chapter entitled, Kitab al-Mazaalim (The Book of Oppression):
“Help your brother whether he is an aggressor or victim of aggession.”
The Prophet was asked:
“how can we help the aggressor?”
He replied:
“by doing your best to stop him from aggression.”
Violence is condemned by the words “those who commit violence:
“God has given them respite only until the day their eyes become glazed.”
In the Hadith attributed to Abu Hurairah and Tirmidhi, the theme of love for the fellowmen is expressed in words without which no religious scripture of the world is whole. He who shows not compassion to his fellowmen is under serving of God’s compassion (Tirmidhi):
“He who is not affectionate to God’s creatures and his own children would not receive the affection of God (Abu Hurairah).”
In the year of the Deputations, i.e., 9 A.H. the Prophet sent teachers all over Arabia, as well as to Heraclius, the Byzentine Emperor, and Khusro Paraviz, the Kesra of Persia giving them the following instructions:
“Deal gently with the people, and be not harsh, cheer them and condemn them not, and ye will meet people of the Book who will question thee, what is the key to Heaven? Reply to them, to testify to the truth of God, and to do good work.”
The emphasis on unity and brotherhood was counter-positive for the warring tribes of Arabia (as also to tribes of the North West Frontier), engaged for generations in internecine wars. The Prophet’s objective was to knit them into a fraternity:
“And hold fast all together by the Rope which Allâh (stretches out for you) among yourselves and be not divided and remember with gratitude Allâh’s favour on you for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace ye become brethren.”16
This concept of unity in the Qur’ân, according to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad’s Tarjuman-al Qur’ân, has a wider scope than unity only among Muslim. In Surah Fatiha, Allâh is Rabb-ul-Alimeen (Lord of Creation) not Rabb-ul-Muslimin (Lord of Muslim). The Prophet came for the “rahmat” of mankind. The Prophet’s Hadith states:
“No Muslim can become a Momin unless he likes for all others what he likes for himself, and he makes friends with them for the sake of God.”
To take this a step further, in the Qur’ân a distinction is made between the just (Adil) and the unjust (Zalim), i.e., those who believe in peaceful living and those who are opposed to it. K.G. Saiyidain gives an entirely new dimension to the meaning of Mumin and Kafir defining them not in narrow theological terms, but in broad human terms which transcend formal religious differences.
The creed of violence is antithetical to universal brotherhood which, some mujtahids claim, is the ultimate objective of Islam. The word of the Qur’ân, they say, attests to this fact. Since Islam gives to all Muslim the right of personal interpretation of the Qur’ân, therefore, it follows, that one may agree or disagree but a mujtahid’s interpretation may not be branded right or wrong.
Azad interprets the Sura Fatiha to contain the quintessence of the universal man. Al Fatiha takes the form of a prayer addressed by man to Allâh, in which he pours out his heart’s yearning and describes his concept of the kind of man he would like to become. He prays for the good of all men, whatever their race, religion, colour, or status; he is anxious to follow the right and straight path, which is not a particular, narrowly circumscribed path, but the path of all those who have been blessed by God’s grace. He wishes to avoid the path of all those who have incurred His displeasure by their misdeeds and denial of His guidance.
Despite the justification for violence contained in the Qur’ân, the overall feeling after closing the book and returning once again to the first chapter, Surah Fatiha, is that in this scheme of universality, there is little room for violence. His mission was sanctioned by his faith; in fact as they both matured, it became difficult to keep them apart. The lesson of peace that he taught his men was underpinned by the concept of universal brotherhood:
“All mankind is a single community”.17
“O Mankind! We created you from a single (pair)
Of a male and female, and made you into
Nations and tribes that ye may know each other”.18
In the final analysis, it is evident that Qur’ânic injunctions were not only for the immediate present or the geographical area in which they were revealed but the principles enunciated had the capacity to apply to very different and much more complicated future situations. Detailed or specific rules about the exact course of action to be followed in all circumstances were not prescribed. Islam encouraged man to use his own intellect (stay away from ignorance) and adjust to the needs of a changing situation.
“Command what is right, but turn away from the ignorant.”19
If we review it in the context of the circumstances which forced the Prophet to involve in war. The Prophet and his companions had endured for fifteen years unspeakable insult and injuries at the hands of the Quraysh of Makkah so much so that they were obliged to bid goodbye to their native place. The Makkans who were thirsty for their blood did not allow them to lead a life of peace even in their new abodes. They fell upon them with all their forces in order to exterminate them root and branch. Fate, however, decided otherwise and they were defeated by a small army of the Muslim. Amidst such feeling of bitterness the Prophet remained calm and self-possessed.
The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)had noble attitude toward the prisoners. Out of the seventytwo captives, only two were executed, viz., al-Nadr b. al-Harith and Uqbah b. Abi Miaqit who were notorious for their unrelenting hostility towards the Muslim. The rest of the captives were treated with most kindness and consideration. The said one of these in later days:
“Blessing on the men of Madina, they gave us wheaten bread to eat when there was little of it, contending themselves with dates.”
It is not surprising, therefore, that some of the captives yielding to those influences, embraced Islam and were, therefore, immediately set free. The rest were kept for ransom. But this was long before Qurayash could humble themselves to visit Madinah for the purpose. The spell of kindly treatment was thus prolonged and left a favourable impression on the minds of those who did not at once go over to Islam.

REFERENCES
1.    The Qur’ân, XXIII:39.
2.    Ibid., III:123.
3.    Ibid., II:190.
4.    Ibid., XXIV:20.
5.    Ibid., IX:13-14
6.    Ibid., III:44.
7.    Ibid., XLII:41.
8.    Ibid., III:128.
9.    Ibid., XLVIII:24.
10.    Ibid., XLVIII:26.
11.    Ibid., II:193.
12.    Ibid., V:45.
13.    Ibid., XLII:40.
14.    Ibid., XLII:48.
15.    Ibid., XLI:34-35.
16.    Ibid., III:103.
17.    Ibid., II:213.
18.    Ibid., XLIX:13.
19.    Ibid., VII:199.