سعد بن أبي وقاص: “كان أبي يعلمنا المغازي والسرايا، ويقول: يا بني هذه شرف آبائكم فلا تضيعوا ذكرها” – شرح الزرقاني على المواهب اللدنية بالمنح المحمدية
Sa’ad ibn Abi Waqqas: “Our father used to teach us about the battles and raids [of the Prophet ﷺ], and used to say; my son, this is the honor of your ancestors, so do not lose its memory.”
Al ‘Indiya: A Refutation of Shaykh Hamza’s “Antidote” to Warfare in the Sīrah literature:
Recently a friend approached me with a lecture titled “The Sīrah and Warfare” by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, which he had been given access to by a student at Zaytuna College. It was released on October 16 but seems to have been recorded earlier. The student felt uncomfortable with much of the content and wanted a second opinion. Below are my notes on the lecture. This is Part 1 of a 2 Part series being published here exclusively. Shaykh Hamza’s general stance on jihād gathered from the numerous scattered statements over the decades is very problematic from a traditional perspective; but since October 7, many have found his words especially insensitive, and some of his remarks indefensible if they are meant to represent traditional Islamic teachings rather than something else entirely. But again, as always, he comments in such a haphazard manner that his supporters will always be able to say that he has been taken “out of context.” Here, finally, we have a long lecture where he could articulate his views on all the issues with more than sound bites. This was a chance to put his detractors out of business and his supporters at peace. But what follows has been in line with the general agreement of his detractors (of the sincere kind) and a burgeoning number of former supporters, that Shaykh Hamza is promoting a brand of “traditional” Islam that is historically and textually unrecognizable.
The purpose of this writing is not to say anything novel that has not already been said about Shaykh Hamza’s apparent tilt to what some call Sufi Madkhalism. I am commenting in real time as I hear Shaykh Hamza make a case for his understanding of warfare in the sīra. One thing that becomes immediately clear is that Shaykh Hamza increasingly engages in what is called “looking for the keys under the lamp post”, also known as the streetlight effect, a type of observational bias. He wants the sīra to be a certain thing, namely something that does not challenge his own pacifist inclinations, and that he can also present to his non-Muslim friends without the embarrassment of needing to challenge their prejudices, and then goes around looking for sources that support his presuppositions. I leave it to the readers to make their own judgment.
In the transcription, I have removed tangential comments not relevant to the central points being made. For our purposes we start when Shaykh Hamza starts reviewing Martin Ling’s Life of Muhammad ﷺ:
HY: The Arabic that he based it on is of Ibn Hishām… Now my criticism of it is not a criticism of Dr. Lings but a criticism of our sīra literature in general which is the focus on warfare. If you read this book you will feel like this is all the Prophet ﷺ was doing was fighting, and this is something that much of our literature has. There’s so much in the battles and on the ghazawāt and so, unfortunately, that’s the idea that people get –– that there’s constant warfare –– and this is a problem. So, what I wanted to do [today] is provide an antidote to that, to look at the sīra and warfare but before I do that, I want to recommend a few books.
This ‘criticism of our sīra literature in general’ comments slipped in here casts a big vote of no-confidence on the integrity of ulema and scholarly tradition. The sīra literature was penned by some of the most righteous ulema in all the ʿulūm. The authors of the likes of al-Shifāʾ, al-Mawāhib, al-Ḥalabiyya, al-Shāmiyya, alongside so many of the hundreds of commentaries and super commentaries, all men who are widely considered awliyāʾ of this ummah. To teach that there was something so fundamentally deficient in the way our scholars covered the sīra and to think that in the 21st century one is going to finally provide an “antidote” to it, is a tremendously dangerous statement.
Shaykh Hamza then goes on to recommend a series of books in English. What stands out in this list is Juan Cole’s Muhammad: Prophet of Peace Amid Clash of Civilizations. He says about the book:
HY: This is arguably one of the most important books I have ever read on the sīra. This book completely changed my perception of the sīra.
We will revisit this book later. But keep the above statement in mind while you read what now transpires. The above revelation is not insignificant.
HY: […] and then in Arabic there are many, my personal favorite is Zayni Dahlan’s abridgment of the Sīrah al-Halabiyya…but my favorite is the Sīrah al-Halabiyya and I wish somebody would do a critical edition of it because it’s just a stunning book.
Shaykh Ahmed Zayni Daḥlān’s book is not an “abridgement” of the al-Halabiyya, although it was originally written as marginalia on the al-Halabiyya. Rather it should be considered an independent work that summarizes some of the most important texts in Sīrah literature. In Shaykh Ahmed Zayni Daḥlān’s words:
“After Allah facilitated me the reading of a number of commentaries of the Shifāʾ, and al-Mawāhib and its commentary by al-ʿAllāma al-Zarqānī, and going over other sīra books like the sīra of Ibn Sayyid al Nas, and Ibn Hishām, and al-Ḥalabiyya –– as these are the most authentic books penned in this regard –– I thought of writing a summary of what comprised of his blessed sīra from the miracles which proves the truthfulness of the call of the Best of Creation…..and these matters are the greatest causes of the strengthening of Iman.”
Interestingly, the book deals less with the muʿjizāt– as it sets its main purpose in the preface– and primarily covers the ghazawāt–warfare! Dahlan’s book– as published by Dār al-Qalam al-ʿArabiyya, Ḥalab, in three volumes– runs to over a thousand pages. In Part One, the topic of ghazawāt starts from page 353 and runs to page 415, the entirety of Part 2 is primarily focused on the ghazawāt, some 372 pages. So, 425 of 1120 pages are about ghazawāt that took place during the time of the Prophet ﷺ! The specific treatment of the muʿjizāt takes place at the end of Part 3 and runs to 210 pages.
So, the question is why would Shaykh Daḥlān claim his work to be primarily about muʿjizāt and then write about it less than the ghazawāt? The answer is that some of the greatest muʿjizāt of the Prophet ﷺ appear through the ghazawāt, which Shaykh Dahlan enumerates as he writes.
HY: Another incredible sīra is the Shifāʾ of which there is a translation in English. This book must be read with some caution because it was written at the height of Islamic sovereignty, and so, you just have to understand how for a modern reader some of the things might be a little shocking…but overall, it’s one of the most important books.
What “caution” is being suggested? And who must have caution? Are these modern sentiments that would be shocked by the Shifāʾ true and justified or false? In a bizarre move for a ‘traditional’ Islamic scholar, Shaykh Hamza would appear to be saying they are true and justified. And what are the implications of having been “written at the height of Islamic sovereignty”? I would argue the opinions of a scholarly tradition at the height of their sovereignty reflect their integrity better, as opposed to taqiya-esque positions issued in a state of feebleness. Therefore, our opinions on the greatest of subjects, the Life of the Prophet ﷺ, is surely reflected with more honesty and integrity when we are at the height of sovereignty and not constantly feeling the need to do apologetics.
كلهم عالجوا الشفا و لكن ما أتي بالشفا غير عياض
They all sought to heal, but none achieved healing except ʿIyāḍ –– Abu Abdullāh Al Miknāsī al Fāsī
It is not a coincidence that the Shifāʾ is the most studied, printed, commentated, and praised of all the sīra books. The qabūl of the ʿawām and the khawāṣ received by the book is unprecedented. In his Madkhal ilā Kitāb al-Shifāʾ, the great Maghrebi scholar al-Sayyid Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Ḥayy al-Kattānī wrote: “As a result of [the greatness of the book] it became –– after the Book of Allah –– the most sought-after [book], not a house or a place would be without it from East to the West.” (page 76).
Here is a brief list of statements made about the Shifāʾ and Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ by the ulema in al-Kattānī’s book:
As for Qadi Iyad, it should suffice that he possessed nobility and majesty, reliance, trust and knowledge, agreed upon by all –– Taqiyy al-Dīn al-Subkī in his book Shifāʾ al-Siqām (page 81)
His (Qadi Iyad) creative innovation in it is unprecedented –– no one has criticized him for his unique work, and no one can deny the indebtedness of other works that followed it, you can see the general agreement of all upon it…hence it spread East to West –– Al-Burhān Ibn Farḥūn in his al-Dībāj (page 88).
It is a most sublime book. No one has authored like it in this subject. In fact it is one of the Pillars of Islam (arkān). ––Tash Kubra Zadeh in his Miftāḥ al-Saʿāda.
We can go on for hundreds of pages where Shaykh al-Kattānī enumerates the greatness of this book, miracles such as literal healing of the body from ailments by reading it, reliance of the ulema on it, dreams of scholars and commoners seeing Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ with the Prophet ﷺ.
Shaykh Hamza knows all this. So, what has happened? What happened to that young firebrand who inspired so many? What is this inward conflict Shaykh Hamza now struggles with? Again, what should one be “cautious” about when reading a book of such reputation, one of the most important in all our tradition? Shaykh Hamza leaves it to his audience to guess that. The implication is: “There is something wrong with our tradition. You need me to fix it so that it can be acceptable to our time.”
Then Shaykh Hamza starts his presentation talking about the Meccan Period. He briefly touches on themes of “forbearance, patience, and prayer” during this period.
HY: And then this was the time of mujahada,
وَٱلَّذِينَ جَـٰهَدُوا۟ فِينَا لَنَهْدِيَنَّهُمْ سُبُلَنَا ۚ وَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَمَعَ ٱلْمُحْسِنِينَ
This is in Surah al-ʿAnkabūt, but it was revealed in Makkah, before military jihad. So, this is the primary Jihad. “Those who struggle for our sake We will guide to our ways” […] so Allah is with the people of iḥsān because that is what comes out of it.”
What is “the primary jihad”? Does that exclude warfare? This is not what the ulema say! Bayḍāwī and Abū Suʿūd point out that the jihād prescribed in this verse is unrestricted, and explicitly state it includes offensive jihād! The ulema note that this verse was revealed before military jihād, but none of them draw the bizarre conclusion that this means military jihād is not covered by the verse! Allah in His knowledge knew that the military jihād would soon be established, and that these verses would be read by the whole umma for the rest of history!
HY: So, when the Prophet makes Hijrah, this is one of the first [ayats]:
{ أُذِنَ لِلَّذِينَ يُقَاتَلُونَ بِأَنَّهُمْ ظُلِمُواْ وَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ عَلَىٰ نَصْرِهِمْ لَقَدِيرٌ } * { ٱلَّذِينَ أُخْرِجُواْ مِن دِيَارِهِم بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ إِلاَّ أَن يَقُولُواْ رَبُّنَا ٱللَّهُ وَلَوْلاَ دَفْعُ ٱللَّهِ ٱلنَّاسَ بَعْضَهُمْ بِبَعْضٍ لَّهُدِّمَتْ صَوَامِعُ وَبِيَعٌ وَصَلَوَاتٌ وَمَسَاجِدُ يُذْكَرُ فِيهَا ٱسمُ ٱللَّهِ كَثِيراً وَلَيَنصُرَنَّ ٱللَّهُ مَن يَنصُرُهُ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَقَوِيٌّ عَزِيزٌ }
Permission was granted to those who fight…so the reason they were permitted to fight was because they have been oppressed…and Allah…he is capable of giving them victory…so they have been removed from their homes without just right…they are persecuted…only for saying: Our Lord is Allah!…so here had it not been for God using some people to constrain other people and it’s very interesting that He didn’t say the Muslims and the kuffar. He said some people to constrain other people. Traditionally a lot of mufassirun said that this was meant the Muslims constraining the non-Muslims, but I think Allah put it there for a reason because sometimes it’s going to be people Allah raises up who will stop other people from oppressing people… so this gives you the real reason for jihad it is for religious freedom and this is one of the things that
Juan Cole really brings out in this book… is that the Prophet..he [Cole] says his whole mission was for two fundamental reasons: 1) to make the world safe for religion…religion, nakira (نكرة)..for people of faith to practice without being persecuted as they saw it, 2) and for commerce and isn’t it interesting that he is the Merchant Prophet like why did Allah make him a merchant? because nothing is better for our worldly lives than commerce and nothing is better for our spiritual lives than religion so these are the two great benefits that our Prophet brought to make the world safe, for conscience, that people could worship Allah as they saw and also for commerce and this is why.. if had it not been you would have seen temples … the monasteries and the Christian and Jewish temples destroyed… and the masjids…and Allah will give victory to those who aid the religion of God…
“Traditionally a lot of mufassirūn said that this meant the Muslims constraining the non-Muslims, but I think…” Ideally this should end the discussion. How does Zaytuna claim to be traditional when they have institutional عندية? It is acceptable to offer opinions –– even if a minority one –– but within the framework of agreed upon uṣūl. Claiming jihād exists to promote religious freedom is a total departure, and a gesture to secularism. Is this the jihād of John Locke? Something like this can come from the Mustafa Akyols of the world but coming from a ‘traditionalist’ is mighty strange.
HY: So this gives you the real reason for jihad it is for religious freedom and this is one of the things that Juan Cole really brings out in this book…is that the Prophet…he [Cole] says his whole mission was for two fundamental reasons: 1) to make the world safe for religion…religion nakera (نكرة)..for people of faith to practice without being persecuted as they saw it, 2) and for commerce..
This is just more conflicted obfuscation. There seem to be two Shaykh Hamzas, fighting against one another. This lecture is about warfare and not only jihād which is broader than qitāl, fighting/killing. Rather he should have spoken about qitāl– which is specific to actual fighting–and made a case against our conventional understanding of qitāl. Qitāl is a reciprocal form, the root of which (q-t-l, ‘to kill’) occurs in the Qur’an more frequently than the root for jihād. As for the statement, “so this gives you the real reason for jihād it is for religious freedom”, Shaykh Hamza’s favorite sīra author, Shaykh Zahni Dahlan, begs to differ: “The Prophet and his companions continued yaqātilūn (fighting) until people entered the dīn of Allah in droves (afwāja) upon droves.” (page 352)
As for Juan Cole’s claims that the mission of the Prophet was to 1) make the world safe for religion, any religion, and 2) to promote commerce, this is a claim that no Muslim can take seriously despite it sounding very “humane and liberal” and would attract good press for Zaytuna from liberal America. This from a man who also claims in the book: “Although most of his biographers have treated him as a provincial holy man, Muhammad traveled widely. He would have been acquainted with Roman law, culture, and languages. Contrary both to later Muslim apologetics and to the assumptions of Western Orientalists, he was literate, as any great long-distance merchant would have been. He knew the Bible, probably in written Aramaic versions and oral Arab traditions, though possibly in Greek as well. In his thirties, I suspect, Muhammad’s inner thirst took him to Christian monasteries, eldritch shrines, Jewish synagogues, and Neoplatonist salons in Damascus and Bosra. Unexpectedly, his quest ended when its object came instead to him.”
Shaykh Hamza makes this kāfir more of an authority than the mufassirūn whose words he would prefer to dismiss. Here, Cole is not talking about the “real” knowledge of the Prophet which encompasses more than the world can hold, but the “acquired” knowledge of the Prophet that the disbelievers must assume. This we know is not the case. Case in point, when Sayyidna Ali ibn Abi Talib (RA) refused to erase the name of the Prophet from a document in Hudaybiyya, and then the Prophet asked where his name was so he could do it himself. He ﷺ “knew the Bible in Aramaic” but we have established reports of him not able to read Arabic? He is al-nabiyy al ummiyy as Allah Himself states in the Qur’an.
Then Shaykh Hamza delves into his favorite jihād al-akbar and al-aṣghar theme.
رجعنا من الجهاد الأصغر، إلى الجهاد الأكبر
HY: now this is called…. it’s a weak hadith. Imam Bayhaqi relates it but it’s absolutely sound in its meaning and all of our ulema have accepted this distinction between the two jihads, jihad al akbar and jihad al asghar…the reason why the jihad of the ego is the great jihad is because it’s constant you have to do it all the time many of us will never be at war will never go to war you can reach as I have a seventh decade without ever having been I haven’t ever been in war I’ve been close to it I was on the border of Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion but I have not fought in a war but I have to fight myself I have to fight my ego so that is why it’s greater because the majority of our ummah will never fight and the Prophet said people should at least want to defend the truth…
Shaykh Hamza often refers to the hadith about the minor jihad (fighting) versus the major jihad (purification of the self). He uses this as an overarching principle and criterion. But this hadith is weak (in fact, the muḥaddithīn say it not even a hadith) and it really does not explain anything about the issue at hand. We take into consideration weak ahadith if they are in faḍāʾil, but not when we need to explain the māhiyya of something. Therefore, it is no surprise that the biggest contemporary fiqh compilation in the Arabic language for Ahl ul Sunna, the الموسوعة الفقهية الكويتية (45 volumes), does not mention this hadith once.
The work took around fifty years to complete. It is one of the most authoritative books on Sunni fiqh. No scholar worth their salt will have anything remotely critical to say about it for lacking authority or traditional pedigree. It’s the fruit of labor of many contemporary scholars. It combines the most authoritative positions from the four Sunni schools on all matters of the Sharīʿa. The section on jihād is in volume 16, page 124-164. Yet no mention of this hadith. Why? Because it does not add to our understanding of the term and therefore, we can’t deduce any ḥukm from it.
وَقَـٰتِلُوا۟ فِى سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلَّذِينَ يُقَـٰتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوٓا۟ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ ٱلْمُعْتَدِينَ
HY: Now this is my proof…because this was early debate among the Muslims…is jihad only defensive or offensive? Empire went offensive and a lot of fuqaha went that route. But there were fuqaha that said NO.”
I would like to know who those fuqaha were. Hold on, he does mention them:
HY: Ibn Taymiyya actually said that all the Prophets’ battles were defensive… like when they went to Jordan when they saw that there was no he had been there were rumors that the Byzantines were planning to invade that’s why they went but when they saw it wasn’t true he brought the army came back…so this (Baqarah 190) to me is a proof that jihad is defensive because it says “do not aggress”! Allah does not love aggressors” Is Allah’s love is fickle? Hashahu…God does not change… this is not abrogated.”
Tafsir Jalalayn on this verse: “After the Prophet was prevented from visiting the House in the year of the battle of Hudaybiyya he made a pact with the disbelievers that he would be allowed to return the following year at which time they would vacate Mecca for three days. Having prepared to depart for the Visitation ‘umra he and the believers were concerned that Quraysh would not keep to the agreement and instigate fighting. The Muslims were averse to becoming engaged in fighting while in a state of pilgrimage inviolability in the Sacred Enclosure al-haram and during the sacred months and so the following was revealed And fight in the way of God to elevate His religion with those who fight against you the disbelievers but aggress not against them by initiating the fighting; God loves not the aggressors the ones that overstep the bounds which God has set for them this stipulation was abrogated by the verse of barā’a ‘immunity’: This is a discharge from all obligations, by Allah and His Messenger, to the polytheists you [believers] have entered into treaties with”(9:1). In other words, abrogation did take place. Muslims were permitted to initiate war.
Shaykh Hamza then goes on to explain the types of jihād. He calls them:
- Lesser jihad
- Intellectual jihad
- Spiritual Jihad
HY: Now what are the types of jihad? […] there’s jihad Asghar which is the military jihad and then there’s the intellectual jihad. Wa jahid bihi jihadan kabeeran…Allah says do Jihad with the Quran so that’s an intellectual jihad so it’s actually ijtihad… I mean it’s not for nothing that the word for the jurist who’s really trying to think deeply it’s from the same root so also refuting obfuscations refuting people that attack Islam and then jihad al Akbar which is the jihad to purify the heart now the Prophet had 29 expeditions now they’re called battles in English it’s a total mistranslation…ghazwa does not mean battle…ma’raka means battle…Ghazwa means a military expedition it doesn’t mean that there’s going to be fighting,
‘It doesn’t mean there’s going to be fighting’ (!). We are not talking here lughatan, rather isṭilāḥan. Shaykh Zayni Daḥlān: it is the way of the muḥaddithīn and sīra writers generally in there isṭilāḥāt (terminologies) to call every military confrontation that He ﷺ attending with his noble self “ghazwa”. Ones where he sent other Companions is called sariyya and baʿth.”
HY: So, there were 29 –– how many actually had fighting? Eleven, that means 18 had no fighting, so to call them battles is just wrong –– so two-thirds almost were peaceful… 23 years times 354 days (lunar calendar) so the Prophet’s mission is 24 years, so that’s 8142 blessed days of the profits I mean his whole life was blessed but this is his life I mean people don’t think about this but we only have on average you know like four thousand weeks not a lot of time in a lifetime four thousand weeks that’s it 80 years give you four thousand weeks so 8142 days so how many of those days were fighting 70 Now if you read this book (Martin Lings) you’ll just come to the conclusion that that’s all they were doing but there’s only 70 days of fight where there’s war…
This is a misleading way of framing the issue. Yes, it’s true that the Prophet took part in 29 battles, but there were also expeditions and raids that were sent by his orders. In the words of Shaykh Zayni Daḥlān: “As for the expeditions in which the Companions were sent, they numbered 47 and some say it exceeds 70”. (page 353).
Then Shaykh Hamza discusses some statistics on the deaths caused at the ghazawāt of the Prophet. This was the least controversial part of the lecture. Yes, this is factually true and is a refutation of those who falsely claim the Prophet loved bloodshed. But the statistics on fatalities do not prove that the Prophet had pacifist tendencies. It just adds to our belief that as the Prophet of Mercy, even the enemies of Islam suffered less in situations where bloodshed could have been by orders of magnitude greater. But this does not take away from the fact that he was also the Prophet of Battles (nabi al-malāḥim). Hudhaifa bin al Yamaan رضي الله عنه:
I once was walking in the streets of Madina…I heard the Prophet ﷺ say while he was also walking: “I am Muhammad, and Ahmed and the Prophet of Mercy نبي الرحمة, and the Prophet whose Ummah’s repentance is accepted نبي التوبة، and The First to be Resurrected الحاشر, and the One who is the true inheritor of the Prophets المقفِي, and 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒉𝒆𝒕 𝒘𝒉𝒐 𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒂𝒌𝒆𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒃𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒍𝒆𝒔 نبي الملاحم (Musnad Imam Ahmed).
We will continue in the second part.
You can find more from Anwar on X @movetomuscat
Abu Huraira narrated that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “I have been ordered to fight the people until they say La Ilaha Illallah”, and if they say that, then their blood and wealth will be protected from me, except what it makes obligatory upon them, and their reckoning is up to Allah.”