The Prophet Muhammad’s Relations With Non-Muslims

Critics of Islam claim that the Prophet Muhammad preached hatred for, and unrelenting conflict with, non-Muslims. They argue that Muslims are forbidden by Islam from having cordial relations with people of other faiths. They contend that the Prophet aimed at exterminating, or, at least, fully subjugating all non-Muslims.

In this regard one should note that some radical Islamist ideologues and activists, who see themselves as great champions of Islam and as heralds of what they call Islamic Revival, have misinterpreted certain Quranic verses and hadith reports in such a way that those who do not have a proper understanding of Islam are led to believe that the above-mentioned critics of Islam are not entirely wrong in their assessment of the Prophet.


The truth, however, is that the Prophet Muhammad earnestly desired and sought to establish good relations with non-Muslims. In this regard, the Quran instructed Muslims thus:


‘God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for [your] faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loves those who are just’ (60:8).


In accordance with this Quranic dictum, the Prophet did not advocate that Muslims must avoid non-Muslims, leave alone hate and persecute them. In Mecca, the Prophet began his prophetic career under the protection of his uncle Abu Talib, who was not a Muslim but a polytheist. There is no evidence at all that his being a polytheist made the Prophet love and respect him any less. Rather, the Prophet would often pray to God for him. On returning from a missionary tour to Taif, where he was badly persecuted, the Prophet sought refuge with polytheist, under whose protection he entered Mecca. When he migrated from Mecca to Medina, the Prophet made a polytheist, Abdullah Ibn Oraiqit, his guide because he was not familiar with the route leading to Medina. In such a sensitive matter—when the Prophet was secretly travelling to Medina—he did not hesitate to trust this non-Muslim polytheist and share his secret plans with him. How, then, can it be claimed that he hated all non-Muslims and willed their destruction?


In Medina, to begin with, the Prophet and his followers established friendly relations with the town’s Jews. They engaged in commercial dealings with them, participated in their joys and sorrows and gave and received help from them. The Prophet’s social interaction with the Medinese Jews is evident from the simple fact that at the time of his demise his armour had been given in mortgage to a Jew. He sometimes borrowed money from Jews and also arranged for loans from them for some of his companions. The story is told that one day a Jew caught hold of the cloth the Prophet was wearing and demanded that he repay the loan he had taken from him. Umar, who later became the second Caliph, was present on the occasion. He flew into a rage and roundly scolded the Jew. On this the Prophet intervened and said that the Jew had the right to speak, and that it would have been better had Umar advised him to make his request politely. Then, he ordered that the loan be repaid to the Jew, and because Umar had scolded him, the Prophet insisted that he be given more money than what he had actually been owed. Another instance may be cited to show how the Prophet treated non-Muslims. Once, while in Medina, the funeral procession of a Jew passed by and the Prophet stood up in respect.


The Sahih al-Bukhari is replete with narrations that speak of how the Prophet would visit non-Muslims who were sick to enquire about their health. He exchanged gifts with several non-Muslims. Often, they would attend his sermons and even visit his home. They would question him and sometimes seek his advice. According to a hadith report, a Jewish woman once invited the Prophet and his companions to her home, which the Prophet accepted. The story is related that once a group of Muslims looted a field belonging to some Jews. On hearing this, the Prophet scolded them and declared that such actions were sternly forbidden or haram.


More such instances of close social interactions between the Prophet and people of other faiths are cited in the books of Hadith. It is said that some Jews would taunt the Prophet by using bad words to address him, but this did not deter him from his mission of establishing friendly relations with his non-Muslim neighbours. This was because they were people he sought to invite to the path of God, and God had instructed him to deal in a good manner with them. For, as the Quran says:


‘Nor can goodness and evil be equal. Repel [evil] with what is better: then will he between whom and you was hatred become as it were your friend and intimate’ (41:34)


The Quran also stresses that, in their capacity of being human, every person is worthy of respect:


‘We have honoured the sons of Adam’ (14:70).


From all these instances it is clear that in his social dealings the Prophet did not discriminate against non-Muslims just because they followed other religions. This indicates that a person’s infidelity or not being a Muslim should not be a cause for a Muslim not to have ordinary human relations with him.


It is said that out of respect for them the Prophet even offered some non-Muslims his sheet to sit on. There are numerous traditions that speak of the Prophet bringing non-Muslim guests to the mosque in Medina where he discussed various matters with them. In today’s context, all this might seem very surprising. In this regard it is important to clarify that from the Prophet’s practice and from Islamic teachings it is clear that when the Quran refers to the impurity of the polytheists, it does not mean that they are physically impure. Hence, there should be no reason why non-Muslims should not be allowed to enter mosques.


The deterioration that later occurred in the relations between the Prophet and his followers and some non-Muslims had to do with the aggression directed by the latter against the former. This is clearly indicated in several verses in the Quran, as, for instance, 2:190, 194; 16:126; 60:9, and so on.


There are several causes for the prevailing misunderstandings about the Prophet’s relations with non-Muslims. One of these is the fact that some ulema contend that the reason (‘illat) for the battles led by the Prophet against some non-Muslim groups was their infidelity. This, for example, was the argument of Imam Shafi‘i. This claim is wrong, however. The actual reason for these battles, or what is called qital in the Quran, was not their infidelity or their being non-Muslims, but, rather, their having revolted (muharaba) against the Prophet or their aggression, as the Quran clearly indicates.


Certain other events in the life of the Prophet have not been properly understood, which have given rise to severe misunderstandings. Because the underlying causes and context of these events have not been appreciated, many non-Muslims wrongly believe that the basic mission of the Prophet was to annihilate all those who did not accept Islam. These events include the sending into exile of the Bani Nazir from Medina, and the slaying of the armed members of another Jewish tribe, the Bani Quraiza. Another is the statement attributed to the Prophet, according to which he ordered all polytheists, or, according to another narration, all Jews and Christians, to leave the Arabian peninsula.


The case of the Bani Nazir actually arose when they broke their treaty with the Prophet, something that was even in pre-Islamic times considered to be a major crime. Furthermore, the Bani Nazir tried several times to kill the Prophet. Even after he forgave them they did not relent. Naturally, then, there was no other way left but to expel them from Medina.


The story about the killing of the Jews of Bani Quraiza on the decision of Sa ‘ad Ibn Muadh is extremely doubtful, although it is mentioned in some detail in the books of Hadith. On the basis of detailed research, the Indian scholar Barkat Ahmad, in his Urdu book Rasul Akram Aur Yahud-e Hijaz (‘The Noble Prophet and the Jews of the Hijaz’) argues that this story is false. He provides numerous eyewitness accounts to back his claim.


On the issue of purging the Arabian peninsula of all non-Muslims, including pagans and the ‘People of the Book’, it is crucial to note that by this the Prophet did not mean to refer to ordinary non-Muslims. That is why some leading fuqaha or scholars of Muslim jurisprudence maintain that the order for qital given to the Prophet was specific only to the Quraish pagans of Mecca. Thus, the noted Egyptian Islamic scholar Shaikh Muhammad Abu Zahra writes in this regard in his book Nazariyat al-Harb fi al-Islam (‘The Concept of War in Islam’), ‘Qital was restricted only to the Quraish, because it was they who were aggressors, and even after the migration of the Prophet to Medina they continued to target the helpless Muslims who remained in Mecca.’


It must be noted here that the commandment to clear the Arabian peninsula of polytheists was related to that particular historical context. Interestingly, some ulema argue that the reference to the Arabian peninsula in these hadith reports is only to Medina, or else simply to Medina and Mecca, and not the entire Arabian peninsula, because clearing the whole of this region of non-Muslims was impossible and, in fact, did not happen.


In conclusion, it can be said that the Prophet made serious efforts to have good relations with non-Muslims at every level. He did not consider non-Muslims’ lack of faith in Islam to be a barrier in ordinary social relations or interaction with them. The contrast between his model and that of certain Muslim rulers, for instance, who were harsh towards their non-Muslim subjects must then be located not in Islamic teachings per se, but, rather, in the latter’s quest for power and personal gain. Numerous fuqaha, particularly in the later period, developed certain fiqh rules that, we must admit, clearly militated against non-Muslims and were not in accordance with the spirit of Islam. In this they were deeply influenced by the political context of their times and the fact of Muslim domination.


These rules have, undoubtedly, strengthened the misunderstandings that many people have about Islam, particularly about its stance towards non-Muslims. We need to seriously re-look at this corpus of fiqh to bring it in consonance with the true spirit of Islam. If we fail to do this, and, instead, blindly abide by these fiqh prescriptions and perspectives, as some Muslim groups and movements, such as the Taliban, advocate, we will be doing a major disservice to Islam and its mission.