Appendix I – The Religious Situation of
The Muslim Community in Mecca

 

Religious conditions in Arabia before Islam have interested many Western writers. For those concerned with the rise of Islam, these conditions have the significance of "explaining" the phenomenon; their immediate object of interest is what has been called "the sources of the Qur’ān." But there is a wide divergence of views among Western scholars as to whether there were Jews or Christians in and immediately around Mecca and if so, to what extent and with what religious consequences.

First, it must be noted that these scholars are so preoccupied by the problems of the relationship of the Qur’ān to the Judeo-Christian religious documents and traditions that they hardly ever discuss the presence of Judeo-Christian ideas among the Meccan Arab population before Islam. The field is sharply divided between two camps, one contending, like Richard Bell,[1] that the main historical source of the Qur’ān's teaching was Christianity, the other, represented by C. C. Torrey,[2] insisting that Judaism was the chief historical antecedent of the Qur’ān. Neither discusses even casually the view expressed strongly by the Qur’ān itself that the Qur’ān, with all its historical content, is revealed directly by God.[3] Montgomery Watt[4] holds that Judeo-Christian ideas were generally present in the milieu of Arabia, particularly in Mecca—without adducing specific evidence. We shall attempt below to clarify this situation and to outline the career of Islam in Mecca in relationship to the Meccans as well as to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Views differ sharply even about whether there was any large Jewish or Christian population in Mecca: Bell and Watt hold that there was no sizable population of the "People of the Book" there, while the less sober view of Torrey posits a "large colony" of Jews on the basis of no particular piece of hard evidence. The main difficulty with Torrey's thesis is that whereas we know very well what happened to the large-scale Jewish communities that existed, for example, in Madina and Khaibar, there is no word whatever in either the Qur’ān or Muslim historical literature as to the fate of any large Jewish community of Mecca. Whether this Jewish community eventually accepted Islam or whether like the majority of Jewish communities in Madina and Khaibar they intransigently opposed it we should reasonably expect to hear about it; but there is nothing on the subject. The opposing thesis that there were hardly any Jews or Christians in Mecca also raises serious problems in view of the Qur’ān's evidence. Some view must be evolved which will do justice to both sides. A satisfactory solution to this problem would also provide us with a materially clearer picture of the career of Islam in Mecca vis-a-vis both the "People of the Book" and the Meccan pagans; would crucially alter some views commonly held by Western scholars on what developments are Madinan and what Meccan; and would provide a gloss on certain key terms used in the Qur’ān.

It is to be noted first that not all Meccan Arabs held identical religious views when Islam appeared among them. Most of them, particularly the mercantile aristocracy, were faithful to their ancestral religion of idol worship, but others—individuals or groups—were in search of a new religion of the monotheistic type. Ibn Isħāq names three Meccans who became Christian, while one, Zayd ibn ‘Amr ibn Nufail, "became neither a Jew nor a Christian," as Ibn Isħāq puts it, but died in search of a new religion. ‘Uthmān ibn Maż’ūn, one of the early converts to Islam, had also gone through a religious agitation. That many Meccan Arabs had been invited by the "People of the Book" to their religions is obvious from the Qur’ān: in 27.an-Naml:67-68 we read, "And the disbelievers [pagan Meccans] say, Shall we be resurrected after we and our forefathers have turned to dust? We and our forefathers before us have been promised this—but this is nothing but legends of the communities of the past." The same idea recurs in 23.al-Mu’minūn:83 in almost identical terms. The words "We and our forefathers before us have been promised this'' make it clear, I think, that Jews and Christians had been attempting to proselytize the Arabs—whether on a large or a small scale—for some time.

Indeed, the repeated charge of the Arab pagans that the Qur’ān offered "the legends of the past [i.e., earlier] communities" is a clear proof that many Arabs knew of the teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Further, we have a strong suggestion in the Qur’ān that at least some Arabs had received this teaching fairly systematically:

 

And they did not estimate God with correct estimation when they said: God has not sent down anything on a human; say [to them]: Who sent down the Book which Moses brought as a light and a guidance for mankind, which you write down in parchments showing them [to people] but hiding much [thereof], and [whereby] you have been taught what neither you nor your forefathers knew? Say: God [sent down that book] and then leave them free-lancing in their discussions. (6.al-An‘ām:91)

 

As we have pointed out in Chapter VIII, the words "and whereby [i.e., the Book of Moses] you have been taught what neither you nor your forefathers knew" in the nature of the case must have been addressed to the pagan Arabs and not to either Jews or Muslims. So also can the beginning of the verse, "And they did not estimate God with correct estimation when they said, God has not sent down anything on a human," have been addressed only to the pagan Arabs, who did not believe in any revelation. The question, however, is: To whom is addressed, "Say: Who sent down the Book that Moses brought . . . which you [or according to another reading, 'they'] write down into parchments"? This could only have been addressed to Jews.

But which Jews? Both Nöldeke-Schwally and Bell believe that these words refer to Madinan Jews and that this part of the verse is Madinan, although Bell believes, without a shred of evidence, that the entire verse is Madinan, while Nöldeke-Schwally think that the rest of the verse is Meccan and addressed to Meccan Arabs. But the texture of the entire verse is so closely knit (as Rudi Paret has also pointed out) that it seems absurd to regard it as a composite of Meccan and Madinan parts, just as it is equally absurd to regard it as only Madinan. The verse is Meccan and is jointly addressed to pagan Meccans and Jews. But, once again, which Jews? Answer: The same Jews from whom pagan Meccans and their forefathers had learnt of the Mosaic teaching, and from whom they had learnt of the promises of Resurrection (cf. 27.an-Naml:68). The language of the Qur’ān implies not just casual encounters but fairly frequent and intimate intercourse between Jews and Meecans. Yet, as we have indicated earlier, we cannot assume a large-scale Jewish presence in Mecca. What is conceivable is that there were a few Jews in Mecca who were visited frequently by other Jews, possibly relatives, from Madina. Also, trading Meccans, when passing through Madina or visiting relatives there, frequently held discussions with Jews and possibly Christians.

Whatever the case, this kind of intercourse was fairly large-scale and systematic. After the Meccans' incessant attempts to contain the Prophet's Message from spreading failed, they sent al-Nađr ibn al-Ħārith and ‘Uqba ibn Abī Mu‘ait to Madina to consult with Jews there as to how to overpower the Prophet in argument. Ibn al-Ħārith was also well versed in Persian legends, and when the Prophet sat among members of the Quraysh preaching, reciting the Qur’ān, and admonishing them with the fates of past nations, al-Nađr used to take the place of the Prophet when he left and, after telling the stories of ancient Iran, would claim that he could compete with the Prophet in telling stories of the ancient peoples.[5]

This evidence proves beyond doubt that at least some Meccans were eager to learn the lores of neighbouring peoples and were particularly well acquainted with the Biblical lore which they learnt from the Jews. It is also certain that there were some Jews and possibly Christians who had entertained Messianic expectations and who, when the Prophet appeared, supported him, encouraged him in his mission, and believed in his Message. Although these people, usually called "people whom We had given the Book [i.e., earlier Revelations]," or "people who had [already] been given the Book," or "people of knowledge," or "people of admonition," are referred to in Madina as well, they figure much more prominently in Mecca. When Meccans demanded proof from the Prophet that he was, indeed, Allāh's Messenger, the Qur’ān said, "Was it not a sign for them [the pagans] that the learned men of the children of Israel recognize him?" (26.ash-Shu‘arā’:197). Later on in Mecca the Qur’ān draws a sharp distinction between these people and the Jews in general who did not believe in the Qur’ān and were denounced as “sectarians [aħzāb]”; we have, "And what of him who is on a clear proof from his Lord and then a Witness [i.e. Gabriel] from God recites it, and before it there is already the Book of Moses as a model and a mercy? Those people [i.e., the learned ones of the Jews who were recipients of the Mosaic Revelation] believe in it [the Qur’ān], but whosoever of the sectarians should disbelieve in it, their destiny is Fire" (11.Hūd:17). Again we read, "Those to whom we had [already] given the Book, rejoice in what has been sent to you [O Muħammad!], but among the sectarians there are those who disbelieve in part of it" (13.ar-Ra‘d:36); and 29.al-‘Ankabūt:47 tells us, "And even thus have We sent down to you the Book; those whom We had [already] given the Book believe in it [the Qur’ān], and among these ones [i.e., the generality of the Jews], too, they are those who believe in it."

But while it is abundantly clear that there was wide diffusion of Jewish and Judeo-Christian ideas and beliefs among Meccans, it is equally clear from the Qur’ān itself that, with very rare exceptions, Meccans were averse to accepting Judaism or Christianity. While the majority of them, particularly the commercial aristocracy, clung to their ancestral religion, those who were going through a more or less severe religious ferment were desirous of a new and special religion which would distinguish them from the earlier communities and make them "excel these in guidance." There is every possibility that the messianism of the People of the Book had influenced the Meccan Arabs as well and that they therefore would rather have a new religion than follow the older ones. After stating that it had been sent because, should Meccans be visited by misfortunes for their deeds, they would try to excuse themselves that no Divine Message had been sent to them to follow, the Qur’ān says, "But when the Truth from Us came to them, they said, Why has he [the Prophet] not been given the like of what Moses had been given?", adding, "But did they not already reject what Moses had been given before?" (28.al-Qaşaş:47-48). The Qur’ān taunts the Meccans; "And they swore with all their might that if a warner should come to them, they would be better guided than any of the [earlier] communities; but when it did come to them, it increased them only in aversion" (35.Fāţir:42) again "And this is a blessed Book we have sent down, so follow it and fear God perchance you may receive mercy. [The Qur’ān has been sent] for otherwise you would say the Book was sent down only on the two communities before us and we were unaware of its teaching, or you would say if a Book had been sent down upon us, we should have been better guided than them [Jews and Christians]" (6.al-An‘ām:156-157).

We have made three main points so far: (1) that before Islam there had been contacts between Arabs and the People of the Book, particularly Jews—fairly large scale and systematic contacts extending over a considerable period, so that Meccans were able to say that they and their forefathers had been told about the Last Day, and the Qur’ān could tell Meccans that they had been taught by the Book of Moses what neither they nor their forefathers had known; (2) that, nevertheless, Meccans in general had rejected the older Semitic religions and many of them hoped for a new religion, a new Prophet, and a new Scripture whereby they could outdo the two older communities; and (3) that from the early days of Islam some Jews and Christians had supported the Prophet's mission, that the Messianism of these learned Jews and Christians had probably influenced certain Meccans who looked forward to the rise of a new religion, and that in the later Meccan period the Qur’ān sharply distinguishes between these Jews and the Jews at large who disbelieved in the Qur’ān and whom the Qur’ān calls "sectarians."

This authentically Meccan situation points to an ongoing controversy, mainly between the Meccans and the Prophet but in which the Jews also formed an important though subsidiary third factor. We must grasp the developing situation in Mecca well in order to pinpoint with sufficient confidence which verses of the Qur’ān can be referred to the Meccan period and which cannot. There appears to be near unanimity among Western scholars that wherever Jews appear as the adversaries of Islam or wherever the term jihād and its derivatives or the term munāfiq occur, those verses must be Madinan and not Meccan. It is very tempting to hold this view, because in Madina the phenomena of Jewish animosity and of the munāfiqūn are both highly prominent. But if one closely follows the developments in Mecca, one is inevitably led to the belief that terms like jihād and munāfiqūn had begun to be used in Mecca, although their meanings become much stronger and more sharply defined in Madina. Indeed, the very fact that in certain verses their meanings are much less emphatic and less sharply defined argues for these verses being Meccan and not Madinan—supported, of course, by relevant background evidence.

In our commentary on 6.al-An‘ām:91, we drew attention to the fact that the verse was addressed jointly to Arabs and Jews in Mecca and the latter were accused of writing down the Book of Moses in such a way that they suppressed parts of it from the people. This accusation, though carried over into Madina, certainly begins in Mecca. Indeed, in an obviously Meccan verse, the Qur’ān expresses itself sarcastically about Jewish scribes: "And before it [the Qur’ān] you [O Muħammad!] were not given to reciting any scripture, nor did you write it down with your right hand—for in that case those who disbelieve in you would have reason to doubt" (29.al-‘Ankabūt:48). In 42.ash-Shūrā:13, while the Qur’ān stresses the unity of revealed religion and the indivisibility of the line of prophetic succession from Noah and Abraham through Moses and Jesus to Muħammad (PBUH), and declares that the Meccan pagans are particularly opposed to this whole line of prophetic succession, it also underlines its disapproval of divisions and sects among the earlier communities—a phenomenon we have dealt with at some length in Chapter VIII. Then, after stating in 42.ash-Shūrā:14 that these earlier communities, having split up into sects, are exposed to grave uncertainties and doubts, the Qur’ān goes on in the next verse to ask the Prophet to judge among them in religio-theological matters and not social matters (which occurred in Madina). Indeed, the Qur’ān is described as a judge upon those points where the Israelites—which probably includes Christians—differ among themselves: "This Qur’ān [authoritatively] narrates to the Children of Israel most matters regarding which they mutually differ" (27.an-Naml:76). It is strange, therefore, that Western scholars should declare 29.al-‘Ankabūt:46 to be Madinan; it reads: "And dispute not [O Muslims!] with the People of the Book but with the most polite method, except those of them who transgress."

The reason given by Nöldeke-Schwally and others for calling this verse Madinan is that, in view of the weakness of the Muslims in Mecca, the Qur’ān could not have advocated a non-polite treatment even of transgressing Jews. It is the Islamic situation in its later Meccan phase that we must now clarify in order to understand and correctly evaluate the relative positions of Meccan pagans, Muslims, and Jews. For this, we must briefly sketch out the career of Islam in Mecca, since the indelible impression on the minds of most scholars is that Muslims were an utterly helpless people and that is why they had to emigrate first to Abyssinia and then to Madina—as though their position had remained absolutely static with regard to the powerful Quraysh pagans.

This is simply not true. The truth seems to be that although the Meccans disapproved of the new Faith, they were never able to put up an all-out, concentrated, sustained opposition to it. Muslims were persecuted, and indeed tortured, but this occurred haphazardly. Perhaps because they had a guilty conscience about the accusations that the Qur’ān constantly laid against them—of idol-worship, fraudulent practices in commerce, and exploitation of the poor—or perhaps because Islam gradually appealed to many, including some honorable and influential persons, while the Meccans were jittery on the one hand, on the other their opposition was desultory and half-hearted (consider the immunity of the Prophet himself due to Abū Ţālib's protection).

After Abū Bakr and Abū ‘Ubaida ibn al-Jarrāħ became Muslims at an early stage and the Prophet launched his movement into the open, some leaders of the Quraysh, after two unsuccessful attempts to persuade Abū Ţālib to dissuade the Prophet from preaching his new message or to lift his protection from him, gathered to think of an effective strategy. But they seem to have harmed their own position rather than benefiting it, because by their propagandizing against the Prophet at the time of pilgrimage all Arabs, including the Madinese, came to know of Islam. The persecution of Muslims seems to have been undertaken in earnest after Ħamza became Muslim; that persecution resulted in the first Emigration to Abyssinia, particularly of the weaker members of the Muslim society. But while this Emigration was still in progress, ‘Umar became Muslim. Ibn Isħāq tells us that the Islam of ‘Umar and Ħamza strengthened the Muslims so much that “they were able to compete with or withstand the Quraysh in power [‘āzzū Quraishan].”[6] This led the Quraysh, as though in half panic, to institute a boycott of the Banū Hāshim, which failed after two or three years (as if it was ever possible for it to succeed). Despite the severe trials of some members of the new community at times, the Meccans—even with the support of Jews—never seemed to be able either to silence the Prophet in the debates into which they drew him now and then, or to come to a point where the crushing of the new movement would seem imminent. And as time went on, the Muslims became stronger and stronger through the slow but steady conversion gains they made.

To think of the Prophet and his followers in this situation as utterly helpless and totally at the mercy of opponents who might kill or destroy them at their own sweet will is certainly at least a half-myth, created, no doubt, by certain later Muslim accounts and impressed upon the minds of modern Orientalists. Hence the dictum of Nöldeke-Schwally that in 29.al-‘Ankabūt:46 the words "except those [Jews] who transgress" cannot be Meccan. Yet 27.an-Naml:76, wherein the Qur’ān claims to authoritatively set theological points of disputation among the "Israelites," is happily accepted by Nöldeke-Schwally to be Meccan. It is also clear that when, after the death of Khadīja and Abu Ţālib, the Prophet preached his message to various tribes in the Hajj season, and visited Ţā’if, and eventually moved to Madina, these were not the actions of a helplessly desperate person but of a man who had gained enough following to be confident that, should some outside elements support him, he could sooner or later secure Mecca for Islam. Ibn Isħāq also tells us that on his second meeting at the ‘Aqaba with the Madinese before the hijra, the Prophet was accompanied by his uncle ‘Abbās, who was not then a Muslim but who told the Madinese that Muħammad (PBUH) and his cause were being entrusted to them for aid and were not being surrendered to them, since Muħammad (PBUH) had enough protection at Mecca.[7]

In light of this we may now discuss a passage which some Muslim commentators declare to be Madinese while others consider it to be Meccan and which, with the exception of A. Sprenger, followed by Hirschfeld,[8] all Western scholars believe to be Madinan because it uses words like jihād and munāfiq:

 

Do people, then, think that they will be left alone, after they say, We believe, and that they shall not be tried? Indeed, We tried people before them [Muslims] and God must know those who are true and He must know who are the false ones. Or, do those who perpetrate evil think that they will outstrip Us?—evil is what they judge. . . .And who so struggles hard [jāhada], does so only for himself—[for] God is independent of the whole world. . . . And We have admonished man to do good to his parents, but if they should try their best [put you to trial—jāhadāka] that you associate with God that of which you do not know [i.e., if they try to compel you to worship others besides God], then do not obey them—to Me is your return and I shall let you know what you had been doing. . . . And among men there is he who says We believe in [one] God, but when he is persecuted in God's cause he comes to equate the trial inflicted upon him by people with God's punishment; so if help comes [to you Muslims] from your Lord, these [turncoats] will say. We were with you—indeed does God not know what is in the hearts of men? God, indeed, shall clearly separate those who [really] believe from those who are hypocrites [hypocritical]. (29.al-‘Ankabūt:2-11)

 

This passage contains a cluster of three key terms which are closely related. One is fitna, which describes a situation where a person is pressured by others—mostly by relatives and friends—to defect from his affiliations or retreat from his views; the weapons used can be either propaganda or mental or physical torture. One element in fitna seems to be that, although its victims are usually individuals or families, it is exercised on a fairly large scale and creates a situation where some people do not know what to do and sooner or later simply succumb to pressure, unless they are very strong indeed. The second key term is jihād, which means to struggle or try hard for a cause. This word has been used twice, once in reference to a person and meaning to struggle hard to stand up against fitna ("Whoso struggles hard does so only for himself [or his own good]") and, secondly, referring to one's parents who try hard to convert him back from Islam to paganism. The third term is munāfiq or munāfiqūn, i.e., hypocritical ones. Now, if one were to consider only the terms jihād and munāfiqūn, it would be tempting to regard them as Madinan, since both of these are standard Madinan terms. As for fitna, although the term is used in the very early Madinan days to describe the active pressure, including physical violence and even fighting of Meccans to bring back those new Muslim converts who had left Mecca and joined the Prophet in Madina, its standard use refers to the persecution of Muslims by Meccan pagans in Mecca itself. Large-scale fitna undoubtedly occurred either just before the Emigration to Abyssinia or during the last phase of the Prophet's life in Mecca, and particularly on the eve of and during the Emigration to Madina. A. Sprenger locates this passage of the Qur’ān during the first persecution.[9] Since most Muslims at that time were not strong enough to withstand pressure, it is unlikely that the Qur’ān would have used such strong language against defectors, particularly the terms jihād and munāfiqūn.

But Islam gained very considerable strength during the last phase of the Prophet's Meccan career. Indeed, Muslims were permitted by the Qur’ān in 16.an-Naħl:126 even to retaliate against attacks upon them with physical violence, although bearing persecution with patience rather than violence was still declared better in this verse, which the generality of Western scholars believe to be Meccan. Muslims were, therefore, powerful enough to be able to retaliate. If we consider the terms jihād and munāfiqūn in this Qur’ānic passage, in this fitna-back-ground, it at once becomes clear that their meanings are not the same as when they are employed later in Madina. We must first note that the verse which speaks of a person or persons who, when subjected to persecution, regard it as though it was punishment from God, cannot possibly refer to Madina, for there subjection of any Muslim to such persecution is unthinkable. This fact in itself should have been enough to deter Nöldeke-Schwally and others from declaring the passage to be Madinan, even though some Muslim authorities have also held this view.

As for the term jihād in this context, it obviously means not jihād in its Madinan sense but merely a strong-willed resistance to the pressures of fitna and retaliation in case of violence; or, in the case of the parents of a son who had embraced Islam, a strong effort to reconvert him from Islam. The jihād of Madina refers to an organized and total effort of the community—if necessary through war—to overcome the hurdles in the way of the spread of Islam. Indeed, in Madina, it is often equivalent to qitāl or to active war. The meaning of the term munāfiqūn here is also much less strong than in Madina, for here it simply signifies people who succumb to pressure and whose faith is not strong enough to withstand that pressure. In Madina, this term primarily indicates a group of people, the clientele particularly of ‘Abd Allāh ibn Ubayy, who had deliberately put on the facade of Islam as a kind of fifth column in order to subvert Islam and undermine the Prophet's position from within. These people had a more or less definite identity and a kind of secret alliance both with Jews and with Meccan pagans; always, in times of war, they were with the enemies of Islam, at least passively. But in the Qur’ānic passage under consideration, munāfiqūn are simply fickle-minded people whose power of faith is weak. In Madina, too, such people probably existed but they were secondary to that hard core of "hypocrites" to whom the term applies in a specific, technical sense. (A parallel to the present verse is in 22.al-Ħajj:11 which, without using the term munāfiqūn, says, "And among men there is he who worships [one] God only as a peripheral matter: so long as good keeps coming to him, he is happy with it, but when a fitna strikes him, he turns right around.")

There is, thus, a continuity of transition from the late Meccan to the early Madinan period, not the clear break projected by so many of the modern writings on dating the Qur’ān and on the life of the Prophet. Western writers seem on the whole to be obsessed by certain Madinan phenomena, especially the Muslim-Jewish hostility and the change in the qibla, which many think changed the very orientation of Islam away from Judaism to Arabia. We have argued that these capital misunderstandings occur primarily because the Meccan developments and perspectives are not seen properly. Another capital misunderstanding we have attempted to clarify here is that terms like jihād and munāfiqūn are seen as invariably Madinan, again because of the lack of a proper perspective, for Islam is seen throughout its Meccan career as totally helpless vis-à-vis both the Jews and the Quraysh without due allowance for the continuous changes in the character of the Muslim community in Mecca. The review that we have offered here, though brief, has far-reaching implications for the general modern prevailing view of the nature of the nascent stage of Islam and, indeed, of the formal emergence of the Muslim community.[10]