The study of the Seerah enables the student to acquire a better
understanding of the factors which contributed to the triumph of
Islam in its early days, and of the personality of the Prophet of
Islam, Muhammad, peace be on him. It is a well known fact that there
has been no leader of any type in the history of mankind whose behaviour,
habits, manners and actions have been recorded, researched, authenticated
and made known to all nations and ages as those of Muhammad.
We know every minute detail of his life whether on the personal level,
such as his activities as a human being, or on a very special level-as
the Messenger of Allah. We know his private life as a father, husband
and master, and his public life as a Prophet and a unique leader and
statesman. We may wonder why does Allah permit the highly personal
and private aspects of the life of His Prophet to become public knowledge,
when everyone of us takes extra care to keep his own private affairs
really private? The reason is both simple and important. When we say
Islam is a way of life, we mean it literally. It is in order to provide
us with guidance in all spheres of life that we are given such minute
details about the life of the Prophet.
Islam does not approve of any distinction between the material, political
and worldly on the one hand and the spiritual and religious on the
other. Its outlook is comprehensive. It regulates life in all its
aspects, and considers any human action, made with the right attitude,
an act of worship. It is for this reason that we need to have guidance
in all fields, so that we may elevate all our actions to the level
Perhaps this has been heard so often that we tend to overlook its
importance. But, it is impossible to overstress this central concept.
We can, indeed, transform all our actions into acts of worship, but
for this we need guidance. This guidance is provided by the Seerah.
This should be the basis of our approach to the Seerah. We must not
read it as we read a history book or a biography of a great man.
We must approach it as one who has for long been in despair approaches
a source of light and hope. When reading the Seerah our concern should
be to learn how the Messenger conducted his life, and to conduct our
lives on the same lines.
I'd like to introduce my second premise by relating an incident which
took place during an Islamic Society function some ten years ago.
The theme was "The Battle of Badr" and the speaker related the events
which preceded the battle. He mentioned the fact that the Muslims
who took part in it did not set out of their homes in order to fight
a full-scale war; they were very badly equipped for such an eventuality.
The speaker explained that their original purpose was to confiscate
a commercial caravan which belonged to the Meccan polytheists. In
the discussion which followed the talk one of the active members of
the Islamic Society criticised the speaker for what the questioner
considered to be a failure to distinguish fact from fiction. The questioner
argued that the Messenger of Allah and his companions could not, on
any account, have indulged in such a monetary pursuit; that they were
too noble to descend to such a material level; that the caravan affair
was fabricated by the enemies of Islam to give a distorted picture.
He proceeded to warn us against being deceived by such distortion.
It was not easy to explain to him afterwards all the relevant facts
and to show him that in the circumstances in Arabia at that time the
attempt to confiscate the caravan was both legitimate and honourable.
I have related this incident in order to introduce a basic principle
in the study of the Seerah. I have thought about it a great deal over
the years and the more I thought about it the better I could understand
this brother's predicament. Taken in isolation the caravan affair
may easily look, as our brother thought, a shameful act of piracy!
But it appears so only when it is taken in isolation, which is a very
dangerous process. Hence, we need our second basic principle which
is that we we must always try to understand the Seerah against the
background of the Arab society in which its events had taken place.
We must not judge events in the Seerah by other periods' standards
only. That would give us a one-sided picture of the early stages of
the Islamic call. Understanding the Arabian society of the time will
not give us a localised picture of the life of the Prophet. It will
help us to appreciate fully the change Islam brought about in that
society. This will, in turn, help us recognise the change we must
bring about within ourselves and in the society at large to make it
So, if we want to understand the feeling of brotherhood which Islam
generated among the companions of the Prophet, we must first of all
understand, how near to brotherhood or how far from it the Arabs were
immediately before Islam.
We need to know how they conducted their affairs at the individual
and collective level. We all know that the Arabian society at the
time of the Prophet was a tribal one. But we must try to understand
the place the individual occupied within the tribe and the place of
the tribe within society at large.
The clan, which was a branch of the tribe, was a closely-knit unit.
It was the sole source of protection for the individual; every individual
was vividly aware of his association with his clan. There were numerous
feuds and wars between the Arabian tribes and clans, and vendetta
was the motto and the life style of all. Every individual accepted
the implications of this type of life to his person and his immediate
family. He would fight the wars his clan decides to enter without
question. It was not his business to question the merits or the motives
of any war; he simply went to war with his clan knowing that being
killed in a senseless war was a better eventuality than being disowned
by his clan. This state of affairs is amply illustrated in the poetry
of the period. A frequently quoted line of poetry says:
"I am merely one of my tribe Ghuzayyah. If it indulges in corrupt
ways I indulge in the same, and if it follows the right I do the same."
Clans also included the allies and slaves who were second and third
class citizens. The allies were individual persons who, for various
reasons, sought to be associated with one particular clan or another.
They fought with their clans and were given protection, but they remained
in a lower position than that of the ethnic members. The slaves, on
the other hand, had no rights whatsoever. Their status was scarcely
better than that of productive machines, except that a man hardly
ever wilfully destroyed a useful machine he had, but he might very
often kill his slave for the most trivial reason. When that happened
no one could question the master or speak to him about what he had
done. This is a brief outline of the social order within the clan.
There was also another line of distinction. Tribes had their own hierarchy
with which some of them were given high standing and others were left
down the scale. These positions were not static: a lower tribe could
improve its standing and prestige on the basis of certain criteria
like the victories it achieved in wars against other tribes. But the
tribe which had the upper hand and the highest prestige was that of
Ouraish, to which the Prophet and a large number of Al-Muhajireen
The picture is not as simple as it may seem at the first glance, We
have mentioned two levels of hierarchy, the clan and the tribe. We
need to ask: what constituted a clan? The question is problematic.
To simplify the problem we need to remember that any one person may
establish, over two generations, a large family of fifty grandsons
and great grand- sons. Over three generations the number could easily
reach two hundred, and over .-our or five generations it may become
a thousand. The basic rule of allegiance in the Arabian society was
that everyone was loyal to his immediate father, grandfather, great
grandfather and so on. But once a group of brothers and immediate
cousins become conscious of their strength they become a branch of
a clan of their own. Each individual becomes conscious of his belonging
to one particular group as opposed to another formed by his fellow
tribesmen, who may only be one step more distant. Wars used to erupt
between such small branches of the same clan. We may cite the example
which took place after the death of Oussai ibn Kilab, who was the
leader of Mecca, and an ancestor of the Prophet. Oussai bequeathed
to his eldest son Abduddar all the traditional honours of nobility,
to compensate him for the honour attained by his younger son Abd Manaf.
The two brothers were not long dead when their children fell out and
prepared for war. They were immediate cousins yet they would engage
in brutal killing of one another. Both households were joined by other
clans and war was about to break out between the two sides. It was
averted through the good offices of a wiser intermediary who suggested
a division acceptable to both sides.
This is an example of the extremely narrow allegiance which was the
norm not the exception. Allegiance becomes wide.- in scope according
to the source of danger. Both households mentioned in our example
would have joined forces against any hostile outsider, though it may
belong to the same branch of their tribe. Again that hostile outsider
would join forces with them against any more distant enemy. In short,
the system was pyramid-like, and within that hierarchy the allegiance
of the individual starts with the smallest sub-branch and it travels
upwards through sub- branches and branches until it reaches the main
I have dwelt on this point because I feel it is very important to
have a clear view of the pre-islamic social order, if we are to properly
appreciate the change brought about by Islam. The hierarchical system
in Arabia played a central role in the strategy of both the Islamic
and the anti-Islamic camps. It afforded a degree of protection to
the Prophet and to some of the early Muslims, while it led to an extremely
harsh treatment of the less fortunate Muslims, like Bilal, Khabbab
and Suhaib who were either slaves or allies of their clans. At the
same time, the system dictated the attitude of some of the most bitter
enemies of Islam.
Once Abu Jahl came out with his potent reason for his opposition to
Islam. He said: "We contested glory with the clan of Abd Manaf: They
fed the poor, we did the same; they granted support to others, we
did likewise; they gave generously, we did likewise. When we were
with them on the same level like two horses in a race-course they
claimed that one of them is a Prophet who receives revelation from
heaven. How can we attain such prestige. We will never accept him
or believe in him." We can say, then, without hesitation, that this
tribal system was one of the main reasons behind the relentless opposition
to Islam on the part of the Meccans, with the opponents of Islam trying
to preserve the system against the Islamic principle of equality and
brotherhood. it was this hierarchy, with its complicated system of
multiple loyalty, which Islam sought to replace by the tie of brotherhood.
Islam hit at the fibre of the Arabian social order and preached the
equality of all men and the brotherhood of all believers. It was not
a sentimental or theoretical motto to which the Muslim might pay lip
service. It was a reality practised by the Prophet and his companions.
Any newcomer would be immediately educated in the new social foundation
which demanded that loyalty should be only to Islam.
To quote an example from the Medinian period: Safwan ibn Umayyah and
Umair ibn Wahb were two Meccan friends who felt deeply the humiliating
defeat of the Meccans in Badr. Safwan's father and brother were killed
in the battle and Umair's son was held captive by the Muslims. One
day Umair said to Safwan when the two were talking about the Meccan
defeat: "My handicap is twofold-my debts which I cannot settle and
my young dependents who would have no one to look after them. Otherwise
I would definitely go to Medina and kill Muhammad." Safwan immediately
replied with this offer: "I will settle all your debts and I will
take in your dependants with mine and I will be as kind to them as
you wish me to be, if you go and kill Muhammad."
The deal was made and Umair had his sword sharpened and poisoned.
He then set out till he arrived in Medina. Umar ibn Al-Khattab saw
him when he arrived and suspected his motives, so he asked a few people
who were with him to go and sit with the Prophet to watch Umair. Umair
entered the mosque with Umair. The Prophet asked him his reasons for
coming to Medina. He answered that he wanted to offer some ransom
in return for the freedom of his son. The Prophet asked why he had
his sword. Umair replied rhetorically-"What use are these swords to
us!" The Prophet then said to him-"Tell me the truth. What have you
come here for?" Umair replied-"For the reason I told you, to buy my
son's freedom." The Prophet then said to him "No, that is not true.
You talked things over with Safwan and made a deal with him that he
will take over your debts and dependants in return for you killing
me. But Allah will foil your designs." Umair immediately accepted
the truth of what the Prophet had said, declared that the deal was
made between him and Safwan in secret and that the Prophet's knowledge
of it was, to him, a sufficient evidence of the Prophethood of Muhammad
and proclaimed himself a Muslim. The Prophet turned to his companions
"Teach your brother his religion and let him read the Qur'an, and
let his son free."
Here we have a man plotting to kill the Prophet, and admitting
his plot, but the very fact that he declared himself a Muslim made
the Prophet refer to him as "brother" to the rest of his companions.
Thus, Islam set a great divide between old loyalties and new ones.
All past loyalties and enmities are forgotten immediately a man becomes
a Muslim. He is given a crash course, as it were, in the new pattern
of social behaviour, and helped to observe the new standard. Some
people may think that after the great victory the Muslims achieved
in Badr, they could well afford to show such a benevolent attitude
to someone like Umair in order to win him over to their side. But
such a view is extremely mistaken. The brotherhood of the Muslims
was declared right at the outset. It was practised by the early followers
of the Prophet in the very early stages of the new religion. Al-Arqam,
who was the eleventh person to embrace Islam, turned his house into
a general headquarters for the new call. Every Muslim, whatever his
position in society, was welcome there to study, worship and stay.
Reading through the Seerah one cannot fail to observe a mode of social
relations between the Muslims different from that between the others.
It reveals their close association with one another, and their feeling
of unity against the rest of the world.
The prime example in the early period may be taken from the actions
of Abu Bakr, whose tribal position enabled him to escape from much
of the persecution suffered by other Muslims. (This is not to say
that he escaped it all. He was spared in the early period because
of his high standing, but later on, when attitudes became more rigid
he suffered a great deal of hardship.) However, Abu Bakr was in a
better position than say, Bilal or Khabbab. Abu Bakr was keenly aware
of the plight of his brethren, and did his best to alleviate their
sufferings. He bought five women slaves and two men, Bital and Amir
ibn Faheerah, and set them free to spare them the torture inflicted
by the Meccan polytheists.
Abu Bakr's father, who was not a Muslim, blamed him for so doing and
said: "You would have been better off if you had bought strong, young
men who would be able to defend you, instead of buying women slaves
and setting them free." We must say that in the Meccan type of society,
based on tribal and clan hierarchy, Abu Bakr's father's advice sounds
very logical. Everyone in that society was in need of protection and
Abu Bakr's action was not motivated by any desire for worldly gains.
He told his father: "What I did was for the sake of Allah." Abu Bakr
never thought of keeping a fellow Muslim a slave, although that was
permissible, and the social structure would have favoured such course
of action. But the mere idea of having his own brother or sister as
his slave was in no way acceptable to Abu Bakr.
This example does not merely show us how good Abu Bakr was to his
Muslim brethren. It shows a keen awareness on his part for a complete
departure from the old social practices of Jahiliyyah, to the new
social order Islam wanted to establish. Abu Bakr's action reveals
his complete acceptance of the new order of things and his readiness
to implement the desired change, albeit on a limited scale. But that
limited scale was the best he could do in the circumstances.
Abu Bakr was not alone in implementing the change. Indeed, all Muslims
were educated in the new basis of social relations. Most of them accepted
the change and implemented it readily. Their practice was a declaration
served on the Meccans that they no longer acknowledged the old system
of loyalties based on blood relationships. Their only relationship
was that of Islam which contracts a permanent brotherhood between
This rejection of the old loyalties is highlighted by the Hijra, twice
to Abyssinia, and a third and final time to Medina. By the very fact
that a Muslim left Mecca and went to Abyssinia, he forfeited all his
claims for protection and support by his clan or tribe. He was simply
saying to them: "I no longer belong to you, I belong to a different
nation. I share nothing with you, but I share everything with my Muslim
brothers who belonged to different tribes. Together we form a homogeneous
unit which rejects your social structure in its totality."
It may be said that the Hijra was not a matter of choice; that the
Muslims were fleeing from persecution. That may be true in some cases,
but we read in the Seerah that the first person to go to Abyssinia
was Othman ibn Affan, who did not suffer much hardship in Mecca. Indeed,
he belonged to a highly influential clan which meant that he was fairly
secure from persecution, except perhaps for some harassment by his
mother, which does not constitute an urgent motive to flee.
Another early Muhaijir was Jaafar ibn Abi Talib, the Prophet's cousin.
Because of the protection of Abu Talib, the Prophet enjoyed a considerable
degree of freedom. Surely, Abu Talib's own son would have enjoyed
at least an equal degree of freedom not to warrant his flight. Indeed,
when we go through the list of those who went to Abyssinia we find
that many of them did not need to go by reason of persecution and
torture. On the other hand some of those who received more than their
share of persecution did not go. This supports our conclusion that
the Hijra was in essence a demonstration of the Muslim's rejection
of the old ties in favour of the new tie of Islamic brotherhood.
Another incident is of Abu Salaman, the first to immigrate to Medina.
He migrated about a year earlier than anybody else. When he was leaving
he faced a dilemma; his tribe did not allow his son to go with him
although his wife was allowed to go along. There was a brawl between
the two tribes which resulted in the loss of one arm of the child.
So the child was taken by the tribe of Abu Salamah's grandfather,
and the woman by her tribe, but Abu Salamah went alone to Medina.
He did so because the tie of parenthood, marriage and other blood
relations was not so important as the tie of brotherhood in the same
faith. He knew that in Medina there would be an Islamic community
and he wanted to join that in preference to his tribe. This is the
main tie and the only tie which a Muslim has. The tie of brotherhood
was reflected by the binding which the Prophet made with the Medinians,
the Jews, Muslims and the polytheists, all subscribing to the same
covenant, "the Muslims are a nation of their own and they belong to
no other communities or tribes ... They are all one against whoever
commits injustice and whoever seeks corruption in the land even if
he was the son of anyone of them."
Then the Prophet Muhammad made a formal pact of brotherhood between
pairs of Muslims; one from Mecca and another from Medina. It was a
brotherhood in every respect and even when one of them died, the other
inherited him like a blood brother. That was in the early stage, but
then this was discontinued. But the tie itself was not weakened because
when Bilal left for Syria, Umar ibn Khattab asked him, "to whom will
you trust your affairs here?" He said, "Abu Hurairah, because of the
brotherhood the Prophet entrusted between me and him." That was about
twenty-five years later.
In Badr we witnessed how the tie of faith dictated the actions of
every Mu'min. In Badr, we read that many Muslims fought their own
relations. Abu Udaiba killed his father. Abu Bakr Siddique was about
to kill his son. Umar ibn Khattab killed his uncle. Take this against
the loyalty of the past and you realise the transformation that was
brought a bout.
Today we talk a lot of this brotherhood, and we address each other
as Brother. We even write Sr. instead of Mr. when we send letters
or cards to one another. But we should ask ourselves how much are
we prepared to give in order to save a brother some trouble, or to
solve a problem he is facing. Let us ask ourselves how keenly are
we aware of this relationship and how much are we prepared to sacrifice
in order to preserve our belonging to the Muslim community.