Allegation of Tauriyyah Against the Holy Prophet (sa) — Seal of the Prophets Vol. 3
Introduction
In this discourse from The Life & Character of the Seal of the Prophets (Volume 3), Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad (ra) details the historical events and scholarly insights surrounding Allegation of Tauriyyah Against the Holy Prophet (sa).
Book Series: The Life & Character of the Seal of the Prophets (Volume 3)
Author: Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad (ra)
Section: I – Commencement of the Second Era of Life in Madinah
Pages: Book pp. 23–28 (PDF pp. 41–46)
Navigation: Book Table of Contents | « Previous: [Prayer Upon Returning from a Journey] | Next: [Sariyyah of Zaid bin Harithah (ra) to Tarif -Jamadi’ul-Akhir 6 A.H.] »
Historical Account
lives of past prophets and the righteous, but do not possess the ability to comprehend the appropriateness of a situation either. They understand “goodness” to purport that man should not take part in worldly affairs at all, and if one is compelled to do so, no worldly plan be adopted; and if a worldly plan is required, then it should be administered in an exceedingly simple and silly manner and everything should be transparent in every instance, and no method of disguise or secrecy be employed. We concur, that if this is the name for “goodness”, then no doubt, various actions of the Holy Prophetsa become the targets of objection. The question, however, is whether this is truly the definition of “goodness”, and in light of this definition whether any prophet or reformer can be safe from such allegations?
We do not need to look far, just take the example of the Messiah of Nazareth, who in this era has been set upon the throne of divinity by the advanced nations of Europe and America. They judge all good deeds by the measure of his actions and sayings. Is it not true, however, that when it was alleged that he was giving a teaching that was in opposition to the government of the time, stating that tax should not be paid to the government, in an attempt to make him worthy of reproach in the eyes of the government, instead of giving a transparent and straightforward answer he sent for a current coin? Upon viewing the image of the Caesar of Rome upon it, he said, “This is the image of Caesar. Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s and unto God the things which be Gods.” In this manner he gave an ambiguous answer and passed the question. Similarly, it is mentioned in the Hindu scriptures that the Honorable Krishana (the holiest person from among the Hindus) and some of his holy companions, entered a king’s palace in disguise to murder him. In order to acquire retribution, they hid their actual identities and misled the thoughts of the people. Similarly, it is mentioned in the books of the Sikhs that when Governor Gobind Ji, who was an extremely famous and distinct governor who has passed among the Sikhs, was besieged, he clothed another man similar in appearance to his own in his personal clothes, and seated him in his place. He left in the outfit of a Muslim pilgrim with some of his companions, leaving the invaders in their ignorance. If these religious leaders can be deemed pure and holy despite such actions, then how can an allegation be raised against the Holy Prophetsa for adopting a perfectly
[Luke 20:19-26, Matthew 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17]
[Yugishwar Krishan, written by Pandit Jamu Pati, pp. 86-87]
[Pinth Parkash, written by Giyani Giyan Singh, pp. 207]
25
legal tactic of war?
The truth is that in this day and age, a very erroneous concept of “goodness” and “honesty” has developed in the hearts of people. In actuality, true goodness does not constitute that man should empty himself of common sense and wisdom and act foolishly, thus sowing the seed of his destruction by his own hands. Instead, goodness means that if on the one hand man refrains from falsehood and treason, and does not do anything contrary to truth and honesty, on the other, he opens the way to spiritual and worldly success for his nation, by acting with complete prudence and remaining vigilant in all aspects. If a man is prudent and alert, but does not refrain from falsehood and treason, and commits treachery, then no doubt, he does not possess the right to be referred to as righteous. Likewise, if an individual acts in truth and loyalty, but does not demonstrate common sense, wisdom, prudence and vigilance, then he cannot at all be deemed to possess high morality either. This is because the true definition of goodness is to possess a relationship with God. If a relationship with God, who is the fountainhead of all intellect cannot develop common-sense and wisdom within man, then what else will? No doubt, in such a case, this cannot be considered a true relationship with God. This is why in the definition of goodness, Islām has not specified any particular action, but has declared that true goodness is the righteousness of heart. Only that deed has been classified as “good”, which is administered with the righteousness of heart, considering the pleasure of God and the betterment of His creation, in accordance with the present circumstances. For example, if the question is to deal between friends, then high character should be exhibited according to the circumstances. If the question is to deal with enemies, then a commendable character should be exhibited according to the circumstances. If an environment of peace already exists, then one should exhibit the best possible character. If it is a period of war, then a character of high morals should be exhibited. As such, keeping in mind the acquisition of the pleasure of Allāh the Exalted and God’s creation, whatever noble and complete character is adopted with the righteousness of heart, is true goodness. Islām has specified a different virtue in accordance to every instance and every condition. This is the correct understanding which is worthy of being declared the definition of “goodness”. It is a place of pride for Islām that its holy founder, may peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him, demonstrated the true definition of goodness in this world. It is that very holy being who has demonstrated high moral character in every walk of life. Those who raise allegations, do so merely on the
26
basis of ignorance and short-sightedness.
In war, to hide one’s movement and transport from the enemy, or to devise an appropriate plan to produce successful results, is not only a completely lawful action, but with respect to the art of war, it is extremely necessary and incumbent. If a general does not employ such tactics, he cannot be referred to as the possessor of high moral character, but he will definitely be referred to as a foolish general of the lowest degree, who does not even possess the knowledge of elementary and principle tactics of war. I am confident that if the Holy Prophetsa had not employed such tactics of war, and had openly administered tactics meant to be kept secret during wars instead, the very same people who object would allege that the Holy Prophetsa was completely oblivious to the art of war and fully deprived of the quality of superior strategic planning. This is not mere conjecture. As a matter of fact, various non-Muslim historians have raised similar allegations upon the apparent failure of various Islāmic expeditions. They assert that on certain occasions when Muslims arrived at the settlement of an enemy and the enemy had already dispersed due to prior notice, this proved that there was a lack of strategic planning in the Islāmic expeditions. In actuality, for something of this nature to occur in an expedition does not constitute a lack of strategic planning. It only proves that the enemy was also intelligent and vigilant in its own right, and that despite the intelligence and vigilance of the Muslims, the enemy would at times act mischievously and succeed in their mischief. However, even so, the conclusive outcome was still in the favour of Islām. This mindset of the opponents of Islām proves nothing other than the fact that they predetermine to raise objections in all circumstances. In other words, if the Muslims demonstrated vigilance and superior strategic planning, it is alleged that Islām promoted teachings of deceit and trickery. If on the other hand, (the Muslims) ever became the target of the enemy’s prudence and trickery, it is alleged that there was a lack of vigilance and superior strategic planning in Islām. There is none who possesses the cure to such a mentality, except God Himself. It is fortunate however, that such ignorant allegations are only levelled by ignorant people and those of the lower class. Wise people recognise and admit that a true religion is one which, along with spiritual advancement, also sharpens the intellect of man; and that along with truth and honesty, the founder of Islām was an embodiment of superior strategic planning.
1ْاَللّٰھُمَّ صَ لِّ عَلَیْهِ وَاٰلِهٖ وَسَ لِّم
In conclusion, the Holy Prophetsa did not at all commit anything unlawful or against good morals by hiding his movements in war or by employing a plan of caution. As a matter of fact, the truth is that these tactics are proof of the farsightedness and vigilance of the Holy Prophetsa. An individual who raises an allegation on such things, furnishes proof of his own ignorance.
It should also be remembered that “Tauriyyah” (i.e. to conceal) and a misstatement of the facts (i.e. lying) are as far apart as heaven and earth. No sensible individual can equate the two of these things together. Tauriyyah means to hide something, i.e., to speak in a manner, by which under the best course of action, something is concealed, so as to prevent disorder. However, falsehood means to state something contrary to the facts and to speak a lie. There is a world of difference between these two concepts. In one’s daily life, man hides hundreds of things – some on account of shame and modesty, some on the basis of preventing disorder, while others due to some illicit reason. However, to this day, no sensible individual has objected to this course of action, as a matter of fact, this is thought of as a very commendable trait. Fabricating the truth and lying is something quite different; which to any noble individual is a hateful and unlawful action. Islām has strictly prohibited this and declared it unlawful, so much so, that there is a Ḥadīth that on one occasion someone inquired of the Holy Prophetsa, “O Messenger of Allāh! What is the greatest sin of all sins?” At that time, the Holy Prophetsa was reclining on a cushion in his gathering. The Holy Prophetsa first mentioned Shirk and the disobedience of parents and then sat up, very fervently stating the following:
ِاَلَا وَقَوْلَ الزُّوْرِ۔۔۔ اَلَا وَقَوْلَ الزُّوْر
“O Ye! Pay heed! O Ye! Pay heed! After them, the greatest of sins is to speak a lie.”
[Ṣaḥīḥul-Bukhārī, Kitābush-Shahādāt, Bābu Mā Qīla Fī Shahādataz-Zūri, Ḥadīth No. 2654 * Ṣaḥīḥul-Bukhārī, Kitābul-Adab, Bābu ‘Uqūqil-Wālidaini Minal-Kabā’iri, Ḥadīth No. 5976 (Publishers)]
The narrator states that the Holy Prophetsa repeated these words again and again with such passion, that considering the discomfort of the
Holy Prophetsa, they wished that he would be silent, so as to save himself the discomfort of repeating this admonition.
Sariyyah of Zaid bin Ḥārithahra to Ṭarif –
Jamādi’ul-Ākhir 6 A.H. Sometime after the Ghazwah of Banū Liḥyān, in Jamādi’ul-Ākhir 6 A.H., the Holy Prophetsa dispatched a squadron of 15 men in the command of Zaid bin Ḥārithahra towards Ṭarif, which was located at a distance of 36 miles from Madīnah. In those days, the people of Banū Thu‘labah resided there, but before Zaid bin Ḥārithahra could reach it, the people of this tribe received a timely alert and dispersed. After a temporary absence of a few days, Zaid bin Ḥārithahra and his companions returned to Madīnah. During this expedition, the military slogan of the Muslims was ْاَمِتْ اَمِت.
Sariyyah of Zaidra to Ḥismā – Jamādi’ul-Ākhir 6 A.H. In this month, Jamādi’ul-Ākhir, the Holy Prophetsa sent Zaid bin Ḥārithahra with 500 Muslims towards Ḥismā to the north of Madīnah, which was the settlement of the Banū Juzām. The purpose of this expedition was because a companion of the Holy Prophetsa named Diḥyah Kalbīra was returning from Syria after meeting the Caesar of Rome. He was accompanied by goods as well, some of which were in the form of gifts, etc. from Caesar, while some were goods of trade. When Diḥyahra passed by the region of the Banū Juzām, the chief of the tribe, Ḥunaid bin ‘Arīd, took a party of his tribe and attacked Diḥyahra, and seized all his goods to the extent that they left nothing on the body of Diḥyahra except for a few torn clothes. When news of this reached the Banū Ḍubaib,
[Sharḥul-‘Allāmatiz-Zarqānī ‘Alal-Mawāhibil-Ladunniyyah, By Allāmah Shihābuddīn Al-Qusṭalānī, Volume 3, p. 130, Sariyyatuhū Ilā Ḥismā, Dārul-Kutubil-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon, First Edition (1996)]
Book Series: The Life & Character of the Seal of the Prophets (Volume 3)
Section: I – Commencement of the Second Era of Life in Madinah | Navigation: « Previous: [Prayer Upon Returning from a Journey] | Next: [Sariyyah of Zaid bin Harithah (ra) to Tarif -Jamadi’ul-Akhir 6 A.H.] »