The Life & Character of the Seal of Prophets (sa) – Volume III — Page 156
Seal of the Prophets - Volume III 156 This dialogue of Abū Sufyān and Heraclius did not occur immediately after the Treaty of Ḥudaibiyyah. Rather, it must have taken some time for the Holy Prophet sa to prepare and then send a letter to Heraclius inviting him to Islām, and then for that letter to reach Heraclius, and then for the assembly of the royal court of Heraclius, and to find Abū Sufyān and summon him to that court, etc. It is conceivable that by then the fleeing of Abū Baṣīr to Madīnah and the incidents of Ummi Kulthūm and other Muslim women leaving Makkah and reaching Madīnah had already taken place. It is for this reason that all historians mention the account of Abū Baṣīr and Ummi Kulthūm first and then the account of the letter to the Caesar of Rome later. However, despite this, Abū Sufyān could not raise the allegation of breach of contract against the Holy Prophet sa , even though his words indicated that it was his desire to raise an objection if possible. Despite this, critics born 1300 years later do not fear God while levelling the allegation of breach of contract against the Holy Prophet sa. Alas! How unfortunate it is! Then, if we delve deeper into the details of these allegations, their weakness becomes even more evident. For example, the first allegation is that both men and women were in fact included in this agreement. However, the Holy Prophet sa acted tyrannously and declared women exempt. As we have already mentioned, this allegation is false and baseless because the words of the agreement as are recorded in the most authentic narration, clearly mention that only men were the object of this agreement and not both men and women. As we have already seen the words of the agreement as recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ Bukhārī, they are as follows: أْتِیْك َ مِنَّا رَجُل ٌ وَاِن ْ كَان َ عَلی ٰ دِیْنِك َ اِلَّا رَدَدْتَه ٗ اِلَیْنَا ا لَا یَ “Any man from among us who comes to you, shall be returned to us, even if he be a Muslim. ” 1 In the presence of these clear and indisputable words, to object that in actuality both men and women were intended in this agreement, is not only unjust, rather it is utter dishonesty. Then if it is asserted that in various historical narrations, the word Rajul or “man” is not used in the words of the agreement, but that general words are used which refer to both men and 1 Ṣaḥīḥul-Bukhārī, Kitābush-Shurūṭ, Bābush-Shurūṭi Fil-Jihādi. . . , Ḥadīth No. 2731-2732