[Refutation of Arguments used to Justify Composite Nationalism]
By this, the answer to the distortion of some foolish scholars that Britain is a greater enemy to Islam and its adherents, and its authority over the land of India is a greater reason for its power and its rule over Muslim lands like Egypt and Syria, so we must totally eliminate its authority from India by erecting a composite nationalism with the idolaters to help the world of Islam and then we will devote [ourselves] after that entirely to these idolaters, is apparent.
We say: It is not permissible to acquire goodness by means of wickedness, so if we were to concede that composite nationalism will totally eliminate the authority of the Christians over the land of India, despite this, it entails the authority of idolatry and its adherents over it, and the removal of Islam and its symbols from it. So will anybody with a grasp of intellect be satisfied, while he knows that a land from the lands of Islam will benefit by the removal of Islam and its symbols from other lands? Never, by Allah, this is not something that a Muslim who believes in Allah and the Last Day will ever be pleased with.
The jurists have stated that it is not permissible to tolerate a known harm in order to acquire a possible benefit. Furthermore, the defence which the Congress have undertaken does not bring about an immediate revolution, rather it brings it about gradually in order to ruin something of the foundation of the authority of Christianity and build in its place something of the majoritarianism which is its replacement, so the authority of Christians is not eliminated from India except that the majoritarian authority is strengthened therein and its symbols rise and its foundations ascend, and that will not happen except when the traces of Islam are erased and its symbols abolished and its armies eliminated and its foundations destroyed and its structure ruined.
So how will you be entirely devoted to these idolaters when your hearts have reached your throats? And who told you that the democracy which will appear in your land after the authority of the Christians will not help them [i.e. the Christians] against the Muslims and they will not seek dominance and the upper-hand over the lands of Muslims?
For it is manifest that democracy will not remain a democracy, rather it will transform into a repressive autocracy, so if a number of Muslims are fighting their Muslim brothers today to assist the Christians because of hunger and poverty and suffering, then their children and their children‟s children will fight their Muslim brothers willingly to assist composite nationalism in which they were brought up and with the milk of which they were nourished. Hence, the establishment of composite nationalism in India in a jihad for freedom is not part of helping the world of Islam at all.
As for their [i.e. the Muslims who advocate composite nationalism] statement: “Wherever Allah Almighty mentions in His Book the nations of the Prophets, He unqualifiedly uses the term “nation‟ (qawm) for a group including Muslims and idolaters, so the adoption of composite nationalism is established from the mixture of peoples of different religions,” it is pure fallacy and baseless forgery because the accuracy of unqualifiedly using “nation‟ for the aforementioned group does not entail the permissibility of adopting composite nationalism which the politicians adopt in this time.
Do you not see that Allah Almighty, despite unqualifiedly using the term “nation of Nuh‟ for their Muslims and their idolaters, He separated them before that into two groups and He distinguished between the two parties, by His statement: “The similitude of the two parties is as the blind and the deaf and the seer and the hearer. Are they equal in similitude?” (11:24) And He said to Nuh when He called to His Lord, “My son is of my household! Surely Your promise is the truth and You are the Most Just of Judges” (11:45): “O Noah! Verily, he is not of your household; verily, he is of evil conduct, so do not ask Me that of which you have no knowledge. I admonish you lest you be among the ignorant.” (11:46) And He said: “Indeed, there is an excellent example for you in Ibrahim and those with him, when they said to their people, “We disown you and what you worship instead of Allah. We disbelieve in you. Enmity and hatred has arisen between us and you forever, unless you believe in Allah alone.‟” (60:4)
All this negates composite nationalism according to the [definition] which they adopt. Whoever has doubt about this, let him say to the idolaters inviting to this nationalism: “We disown you and what you worship instead of Allah. We disbelieve in you. Enmity and hatred has arisen between us and you forever, unless you believe in Allah alone” (Qur‟an 60:4) and then let him see if they will be happy with making him an integral member of the members of that nationalism or dispel him from the circles and accuse him of pure fanaticism.
And He Almighty said: “Now, can the one who knows that whatever has been revealed to you from your Lord is the truth, be equal to one who is blind?” (13:19) and other verses distinguishing between Muslims and idolaters and between the friends of Allah and His enemies.
Is it possible for anyone to dare to say that the nations of Nuh and Ibrahim and Musa and others of the Prophets were on one religion composed of Islam and disbelief or that the Prophets adopted for their nations a composite nationalism in the sense which is intended by the politicians from the children of our time? Never, no one will dare [to say] this, except one who has not smelt the fragrance of knowledge, because the Qur’an is explicit in that “all men used to be a single community. Then, Allah sent prophets carrying good news and warning, and sent down with them the Book with Truth to judge between people in matters of their dispute. But it was no other than those to whom it was given who, led by envy against each other, disputed it after the clear signs had come to them. Then Allah, by His will, guided those who believed to the truth over which they disputed; and Allah guides whom He wills to the straight path.” (2:213)
In this is an indication – according to one of two opinions – that the sending of Prophets was a distinguishing shredder of the singularity which people were upon from before, negating the composite nationalism which they would adopt in the love between them in the life of the world.
Hence, the unqualified usage of the “nation of Nuh‟ and the “nation of Ibrahim‟ etc. for their Muslims and their disbelievers was only because of their being one nation before the sending of Prophets to them. Where in this is there that Allah Almighty made them one nation, or He adopted for them a composite nationalism? For indeed this is a new terminology invented by politicians from Europe, and those who tread their path in abolishing divine laws and taking off the noose of religion from the necks follow them in this, returning to the earlier Jahiliyya which the Qur‟an alluded to by its statement: “All men used to be a single community” – i.e. on falsehood – “Then, Allah sent prophets carrying good news and warning”; and its statement relating from Ibrahim: “You have chosen only idols instead of Allah. The love between you is only in the life of the world.” (29:25) And His Almighty statement: “They wish that you should disbelieve, as they have disbelieved, and thus you become all alike. So, do not take friends from among them.” (4:89)
Consider His statement “and thus you become all alike,” how it nullifies the basis of composite nationalism, for indeed it has no meaning according to its advocates except the equality of all peoples, in secret and in public, and their forming one body in social intercourse and civilisation.
So it is strange, the dimwittedness of these people, how they reverse the reality and construe composite nationalism which Allah sent the Prophets to abolish and shred as being established in the Qur‟an and hadith. To Allah is the complaint of the distortion of words from their places.
As for their statement that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) wrote, when he arrived at Madinah, a document between the believers and Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib and those who followed them and joined with them and fought with them, that they are one community (ummah) besides the people, and in this [document] it is mentioned that “the Jews of Banu ‘Awf are a community with the believers, for the Muslims is their religion and for the Jews is their religion,” hence this is a composite nationalism which the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) enacted between the believers and the Jews who were disbelievers. [The fallacy] in this is that they became one community not merely because they shared a homeland or lineage or colour or language, but they only became so due to the pact which they made between themselves and this is not at all from composite nationalism, since a pact is only ever between two conflicting parties, nothing bringing them together besides a pact they agree to.
This is something we don’t denounce or dispute, rather it is something we have invited you to many times: that you make with the idolaters of the members of the Congress a pact on which the two parties, the party of Allah and the party of Satan, agree. Then they say: This is from religious fanaticism and group nationalism and not from composite nationalism at all; so look how they are deluded.
Furthermore, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not make the Muslims and Jews one community whereby their system would be majoritarian, premised on the opinion of the majority and the majority opinion, rather the rein of their system was in the hand of Allah‟s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) alone and his rule was dominant over them. This is proven by what is in this very document in his statement: “None of them may leave [Madinah] except by the permission of Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace),” and his statement: “Whatever happens between the signatories of this document, of an incident or dispute, from which corruption is feared, it must be referred to Allah and Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace).” (Sirah Ibn Hisham, 1:280)
There is no dispute over the permissibility of such composite nationalism in which the rule of Islam is dominant over it – but how distant is this from what you call to of a nationalism in which the rein of its system is in the hand of the majority and they are the idolaters and the rule of disbelief is dominant over it? “Will they then not meditate on the Qur’an, or are there locks on the hearts?” (Qur‟an 47:24) “Alas for the slaves (of Allah)!” (Qur‟an 36:30) May these minds be destroyed, how they argue using an opposite [to prove its] opposite. “The blind and the sighted are not equal, nor are darkness and light, nor shade and the heat of the sun.” (Qur‟an 35:19-21)
They say that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) made Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib, the Muslims of them and the disbelievers of them, into one community aside from Quraysh, and a composite nationalism formed between the Muslims and idolaters of them, so they were altogether one body against Quraysh, helping him and protecting him from their persecution, and the rein of this authority was in the hand of Abu Talib who was an idolater and he was the leader of the people, and in whose hand was both [the power] to execute and cancel.
We say: You lied and you did not produce any evidence for your claim, since the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) never requested help from Abu Talib, and Abu Talib would only help him and protect him from his own accord due to what Allah disposed him to, of loving his nephew; and likewise Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib, they only helped him and protected him due to what they were disposed to, of tribalism and disdain of one of them being harmed at the hand of another tribe, and all of that was of their own accord, not due to a request from Allah‟s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace), nor because he formed a composite nation in the sense which the politicians of the disbelievers invented; and the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was not a follower of them in this, rather all of them followed him.
Do you not see that he would openly declare Islam to his people and proclaim it as Allah commanded him to (Qur‟an 15:94), and mention their gods and criticise them, insult them, and mock their customs and accuse their fathers of error and the idolaters of Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib heard all of this and were not satisfied with it from him, for Abu Talib was on the religion of Quraysh and so were the idolaters of Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib and despite this, they helped Allah‟s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and protected him from the persecution of Quraysh until the nobles of Quraysh said to Abu Talib: “Your nephew has cursed our gods, insulted our religion, mocked our way of life and accused our forefathers of error; either you must stop him or you must let us get at him, for you yourself are in the same position as we are in opposition to him and we will rid you of him…we cannot endure that our fathers should be reviled, our customs mocked and our gods insulted. Until you rid us of him, we will fight the pair of you until one side perishes‟…
Abu Talib was deeply distressed at the breach with his people and their enmity but he could not desert the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and give him up to them…Abu Talib sent for the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and told him what his people had said. “Spare me and yourself,‟ he said. “Do not put me on a burden greater than I can bear.‟ The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) thought that his uncle had the idea of abandoning and betraying him, and that he was going to lose his help and support. He answered, “O my uncle! By Allah, if they put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left on condition that I abandon this course, until Allah has made it victorious, or I perish therein, I would not abandon it.” Then the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) broke into tears and got up. As he turned away, his uncle called him and said, “Come back, my nephew,‟ and when he came back, he said, “Go and say what you please, for by Allah I will never give you up on any count.‟” (Sirah Ibn Hisham, 1:140) [Translation extracted from Alfred Guillaume‟s The life of Muhammad, p. 119]
So look! Did the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) request help from his uncle or did he protect him of his own accord? And was Abu Talib a commander over the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) or was he (Allah bless him and grant him peace) the commander over himself, unconcerned with those who helped him or forsook him?
And is there not [evidence] in this that the residents of Makkah invited the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) to a composite nationalism and Abu Talib agreed with them on this and invited the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) to it and he refused them and him, and persisted on publicly announcing insult of their gods and mocking their way of life and proclaiming what Allah commanded him and distinguishing between truth and falsehood, and Abu Talib helped him on this and Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib agreed with him, so they were protectors of the religion and helpers of Islam despite remaining on idolatry, and that was from the mysteries of Allah‟s work through His Prophet since He helped him and aided him via his enemies, despite his proclamation [of Islam] by Allah‟s command and his hurling the falsehood which they were upon by means of the truth? Is this from the composite nationalism which the Congress calls to at all? Never, by Allah! No one will analogise it to that except [one with] a twisted heart or [one who] reverses reality.
Ibn Ishaq said: “Then the Quraysh incited people against the companions of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) who had become Muslims. Every tribe fell upon the Muslims among them, beating them and seducing them from their religion. Allah protected His Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) from them through his uncle, who, when he saw what Quraysh were doing, called upon Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib to stand with him in protecting the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace).
This they agreed to do, with the exception of Abu Lahab, the accursed enemy of Allah. Abu Talib was delighted at the response of his tribe and their kindness, and began to praise them and bring to men’s memory their past. He mentioned the superiority of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) among them and his position so that he might strengthen their resolve and that they might extend their kindness to him. He said: “If one day Quraysh gathered together to boast, “Abd Manaf would be their heart and soul…‟” (Sirah Ibn Hisham, 1:141) [Translation extracted from Alfred Guillaume‟s The life of Muhammad, pp. 120-1]
In this is evidence that Abu Talib is the one who stood in Banu Hashim and Banu al-Muttalib and called them to help the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and protect him from Quraysh, and that was not from his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) doing, nor by his request, rather he – my father and my mother be sacrificed for him – was not in need of their help and from requesting aid from them, and they only did what they did because of the tribalism they were disposed to, and due to what they saw in the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace), of signs to which their necks fell in humility, although they did not announce their acceptance of Islam and faith and remained on the religion of their forefathers as imitators, but intelligence and balance called them to avoid persecuting this trustworthy prophet and stop those who wanted to persecute him from the idolaters.
Ibn Ishaq said: “When Abu Talib feared that the multitude would overwhelm him with his family, he composed the following ode, in which he claims protection in the sanctuary of Makkah and by his position therein. He showed his affection for the nobles of his people while, nevertheless, he told them and others in his poetry that he was not going to give up the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) or surrender him on any count whatever, but he would die in his defence:
“When I saw the people had no love for us
And had severed every tie and relationship
I stood firm against them with my pliant spear
And my shining sword, heirloom of princes
You lie, by God’s house, we will not leave Makkah
And go forth until your affairs are in confusion
We will not give him up until we lie dead around him
And be mindful of our wives and children
By my life I am devoted to Ahmad
And his brothers as a constant lover
May he never cease to be an adornment to the people of the world
An ornament to those whom the Lord of difficulties has befriended
For who among men can hope to be like him
When judges assess rival claim to merit
Clement, rightly guided, just, serious
Friend of a god, ever mindful of him
By Allah! But that I might create a precedent
That would be brought against our elders in assemblies
We would follow him whatever fate might bring
In deadly earnest, not in idle words
They know that our son is not held a liar by us
And is not concerned with foolish falsehood
Ahmad has struck so deep a root amongst us
That the attacks of the arrogant fail to affect him
I shielded and defended him myself by every means
The Lord of mankind strengthen him by His help
And display a religion whose truth holds no falsehood.‟”
(Sirah Ibn Hisham, 1:147) [Translation extracted from Alfred Guillaume‟s The life of Muhammad, pp. 122-7]
In this is evidence that Abu Talib was never a commander over the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace), rather he (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was a commander over him, adored by him. Abu Talib recognised in him integrity, truth and sound judgement but he disdained following him and announcing obedience to him for fear of insult; so where is this from the composite nationalism which the Congress desire from the Muslims of India whereby all of them will be under a majoritarian system based on the majority opinion with the majority being idolaters?
They say: “The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) sought protection with Mut’im ibn ‘Adi, and Abu Bakr with Ibn Al-Dughnah, and they stayed in Makkah under their protection.” We say: This is not at all from the composite nationalism which you are attempting to prove, and it is only from the matter of guarding (hirasah) and we do not deny the permissibility of accepting a non-Muslim bodyguard who will protect us against enemies. Whoever knows the meaning of granting protection and seeking protection which was from the customs of the Arabs, will never doubt that the protector from them was not a leader over the one who sought protection, rather the one who sought protection was a leader over the protector, so if the one who sought protection was persecuted under the protection of one of them, that would be an insult and humiliation for the protector.
Furthermore, granting protection and seeking protection was from the contracts of exchange according to them, so whoever granted protection to another once, it would be binding on the one who sought protection to grant him protection another time in exchange for that.
Do you not see that when Quraysh seized Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah before the migration and thought that he pledged to the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) in secret and promised him support and aid when he migrated to Madinah, so they tied his hands to his neck with the rein of his camel, and they dragged him until they brought him inside Makkah, beating him and pulling him by his hair, and Sahl ibn ‘Amr said to him: “Woe to you! Do you not have between you and a member of Quraysh [an agreement of] protection and a pact?” He said: “Yes, by Allah, I would grant protection to Jubayr ibn Mut’im ibn ‘Adi‟s merchants, and I would protect them from those who wished to harm them in my lands, and [I granted protection to] al-Harith ibn Harb ibn Umayyah ibn ‘Abd Shams.” He said: “Woe to you! Then call the name of the two men, and mention what [happened] between you and them.”
So he did this and a man went to them and found them in the mosque near the Ka’bah and he said to them that a man from Khazraj is calling your names and mentioned that there was [an agreement of] protection between you and him. They said: “Who is he?” He said: “Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah.” They said: “He has spoken the truth; he would grant protection to our merchants and prevent their oppression in his lands.” They then went and freed him. (Sirah Ibn Hisham, 1:247)
All who have knowledge of the position of Banu Hashim in Makkah and its high rank in Quraysh know that there is no tribe from its tribes except Banu Hashim had a favour over it, particularly Mut’im ibn ‘Adi, since Abu Talib helped him multiple times and saved him from many predicaments as indicated in his famous ode:
“O Mut’im! I did not desert you when you called for help
Nor on the day of battle when mighty deeds were called for
Nor when they came against you full of enmity
Opponents whose strength matched yours
O Mut’im! The people have given you a task to do
I too when entrusted with a task do not evade it.”
(Sirah Ibn Hisham, 1:147) [Translation extracted from Alfred Guillaume‟s The life of Muhammad, p. 125] Due to this, the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) sought protection with him during his journey from Ta’if in exchange for what was upon him, and contracts of exchange are not from composite nationalism at all.
Analogise this to Abu Bakr seeking protection with Ibn al-Dughnah, although Abu Bakr did not request from him to grant him protection, and he only granted him protection from his own accord, and he insisted that Abu Bakr return to Makkah under his protection. So where in this is what these people seek, of composite nationalism and its like?
They say that the Muslims migrated to Abyssinia and stayed under the protection of the Negus while he was still a disbeliever, and had not recognised Islam or submitted to it. We say: Did they invent a composite nationalism there with the Negus and his people before his conversion to Islam? Or did they merely live in his lands? If it is the first, produce proof, and if the second, who is it that bans a Muslim journeying to the lands of war for the purposes of trade and farming and touring and relaxation etc.?
These jurists of ours have formed [entire] chapters in jurisprudence for the one granted amnesty (musta’man), and neither they nor any of the politicians considered it to be from composite nationalism. Do you not see that many Jews and Christians entered the abode of Islam and resided there for a period? Is this from composite nationalism at all? And here, we and you, all of us, are in the land of India, under the authority of the Christians, so is this from composite nationalism with the Christians at all? So strange are these inverted minds, how they argue with that in which there is no proof and delude the commoners by leaving the topic, like a drowning person grasping at every straw.
They say: “The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) took ‘Abd Allah ibn Urayqit as a guide when he migrated to Madinah, so why is it blameworthy for us to take the Congress as a guide for us regardless of the dominance of disbelief in it?” We say: ‘Abd Allah ibn Urayqit was his (Allah bless him and grant him peace) bodyguard under his command, and the Congress is not so, rather you are under its command. Ibn Battal said under the commentary of this hadith: “All the scholars allow taking protection from them [i.e. disbelievers] at the time of necessity and other [times], due to what is in this of disgrace for them, and the only prohibition is that a Muslim himself guards an idolater due to what is in this of disgracing a Muslim.” (Fath al-Bari, 4:364)