The vast body of Seerah literature produced by Muslims over the centuries demonstrates many dimensions of the Prophet’s blessed personality, but two issues have received scant attention: power and politics. This is all the more surprising in view of the fact that the earliest Seerah compilations were about maghazi, the Prophet’s battles, which had essentially to do with power. Only in the last few decades have some Muslim scholars – Professor Muhammad Hamidullah, Maulana Maudoodi, Naeem Siddiqui and Dr Kalim Siddiqui, for instance – drawn attention to these aspects. Professor Hamidullah in particular has written specifically about the political life of the Prophet (Muhammad Hamidullah: Rasool-e Akram ki Siyasi Zindagi, Dar ul Asha’at, Karachi, 1961), while Dr Kalim Siddiqui proposed the study of the Seerah from the power perspective (Kalim Siddiqui: Political dimensions of the Seerah, ICIT, 1998).

In the Qur’an, Allah describes the Prophet’s character as a guiding light and shining example for all humanity to eternity (33:21); He also says that the Messenger was sent with clear guidance and the deen of Truth so that it becomes dominant over all other systems, however much the mushrikeen (those who associate partners with Allah) may detest it (9:33; 61:09). In Surah al-Nasr (s. 110), Allah says that when Muslims are victorious and dominant, then mankind will enter the fold of Islam in multitudes. So there is Allah’s declaration that Islam must become dominant, and that only then will people enter its fold in large numbers. In other words, for the successful propagation of Islam its dominance is important.

But the absence of the power perspective in the Seerah literature, and the Muslims’ experiences under European colonialism, appear to have affected their thought processes profoundly. In the West, the idea of separation of religion and politics is well established; it has now been adopted by some Muslims as well. The argument is extended even to the role of the Prophets: that they were sent merely to deliver the message; implementing it was not their responsibility. Since power and authority relate to governance, they are considered to be outside the Prophets’ purview. Instead, "rationality," projected as the highest form of human achievement, unencumbered by divine guidance, is presented as a panacea for all the ills affecting the Muslim world. Muslims, it is argued, will not be able to make "progress" unless they go through their own Reformation and banish religion from politics. The Church’s peculiar role in history has affected Western society adversely in many ways, yet Muslims have a very different historical experience with the deen (way of life) of Islam.

Based on this dogma of separation of Church and politics, Western Orientalists have written that Muhammad (saw) was a "Prophet" in Makkah but became a "statesman" in Madinah (e.g. Montgomery Watt). What this implies is that as long as he delivered the message without any enforcement mechanism at his disposal, he performed the function of a Prophet, but when he acquired temporal power and authority in Madinah to enforce the laws of Islam, he somehow ceased to be a Prophet (astaghfirullah). In the Western conception of the role of the Prophets, power is excluded, and it is alleged that they were sent merely to preach morality and to deal with rituals; it was not their function to interfere in affairs of state. Even morality has now been relegated to an individual’s personal choice; moral values are no longer anchored in divine guidance, but determined by pressure groups under the rubric of "freedom of choice."

Among Muslims there is another common misconception: that the Prophet (saw) had no power in Makkah; only when he arrived in Madinah did he acquire power. This is not an accurate reading of the situation. The Prophet was not totally powerless in Makkah, nor did he immediately acquire supreme power in Madinah. But before we can discuss the issue of his acquisition of power, we need to define power itself.

Power has been defined as "the ability to effect the outcome you want, and if necessary, to change the behaviour of others to make it happen" (Joseph S. Nye: The Paradox of American Power, Oxford University Press, NY, US, 2002, p.4). Another definition of power is "the possession of certain resources, such as population, territory, natural resources, economic strength, military force and political stability" (ibid., p.5). These are both purely materialistic definitions; there is no role for any religious or spiritual values. Muslims have a different perception of power. According to Dr Kalim Siddiqui, "Real power lies in faith, belief, contentment, commitment, responsibility and accountability to the Almighty in the Hereafter" (Kalim Siddiqui: Stages of Islamic Revolution, London, 1996, p.75). The concepts of faith, belief, commitment, responsibility and accountability must be revisited to understand their true import.

Even the West’s definitions, based on military power, territory and wealth, however, have often proved inadequate. Despite its huge population, China was unable to project power commensurate with its resource base before 1971; the same holds true for India, which has a large population as well as territory but is still weak both economically and politically. India has a soft underbelly: its 350 million absolutely poor people are more than the total population of all its neighbours (except China). The erstwhile Soviet Union had an enormous military machine armed with nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, yet these prevented neither its defeat at the hands of the Afghan mujahideen nor the break-up of the Soviet Union. America’s nuclear weapons were little help in Vietnam, where it suffered an ignominious defeat at the hands of the poor and poorly-armed Vietnamese people. Israel, despite the military, economic, political and diplomatic support of the US, was convincingly defeated in Lebanon by a small group of Hizbullah fighters, armed only with faith and small arms. So there is clearly more to power than the possession of military hardware and territory. On the other hand, countries such as Japan and Canada are not militarily strong but they project considerable attraction and power on the global scene.

So we need to define power more precisely. Two kinds of power can be identified: soft power and hard (or coercive) power. Both have distinct roles that complement each other.

Soft power can be defined as the power of appeal, reason, persuasion, attraction, influence and moral authority. There is generally little or no coercion involved in appealing to others in order to attract them to a particular point of view, although in the contemporary world this is not always the case. All human beings possess some degree of soft and hard power. These manifest themselves in different ways: children exercise soft power over their parents through emotional appeal; both soft and hard power are exercised in husband-wife relationships. Employers exercise both soft and hard power over their employees: appealing to the employees’ sense of duty, employers use soft power to motivate them; the threat of dismissal falls under the heading of hard power. Similarly, employees can exercise hard power by the threat of a strike to secure better wages or working conditions, or both. In the political arena, political parties strive to translate their soft power – their policies projected through propaganda as the panacea for all a society’s problems – into hard power, that is, to get the chance to govern and implement those policies. Running the government, commonly known as "being in power," puts the resources of the state at the party’s (or coalition’s) disposal, enabling them to increase their soft and hard power. Thus the possession of hard power helps to increase one’s soft power as well.

On the societal level, soft power includes the following:

1. Ideology – which should be appealing and must have certain intrinsic values - moral, ethical and social;
   
2. Culture;
   
3. Ability to provide spiritual upliftment;
   
4. Ability to induce sacrifices;
   
5. Ability to generate contentment and satisfaction;
   
6. Ability to create strong bonds among its adherents (i.e. a sense of community, called the Ummah in Qur’anic terminology.)

Soft power is more than influence; it is the ability to entice, attract and persuade, which leads to a break with past habits and traditions and the formation of new ones. Soft power has the ability to motivate an individual to break even with his family and friends if they adhere to an ideology that is at odds with that of the individual. The ideology projected by the new value-system itself leads to the creation of new bonds. We see from the stories of many Prophets – Nuh, Ibrahim, Lut and Muhammad (as), for instance – that they abandoned those relatives who insisted on clinging to beliefs and practices that were opposed to belief in the One God, Allah.

Hard (or coercive) power, on the other hand, can be described as the ability to force people to modify their behaviour to obey certain rules and accept certain values, even though they may not like them or agree with them. This comes from having the authority to enact and enforce laws, to punish law-breakers, and to use military force to fight those who oppose the interests of such a power. Economic and political power is part and parcel of the function of hard power. The preponderance of military power also generates the feeling in some people that they can subjugate and dominate other people, directly or indirectly. Hard power without a corresponding legitimizing soft power, however, does not last long. It invariably leads to tyranny and oppression, and soon people rebel against it. All the colonial powers exercised hard power in their colonies and were thus regarded as illegitimate. There was resentment of their rule, and in time it became too difficult for the colonial powers to maintain their domination.

Colonial entities can also cut down local populations. The Europeans did this very successfully in North America and Australia; they were less successful in Africa and Asia, although not for lack of trying. The zionists are trying to do the same in Palestine today, although likewise without much success. Similarly, soft power without hard power does not go far, even if it is based on sound principles. The example of almost all the Prophets of Allah falls into this category. They had "soft power," that is their message was divinely inspired; it was legitimate and presented in a clear and concise manner, yet most people did not accept the message or were prevented from accepting it. Most Prophets delivered their message and left the world; others were killed by their own people; their "soft power" was not translated into "hard power", that is the implementation of divinely-ordained laws in their societies. Only in a few cases did the "soft power" of the Prophets translate into "hard power" – i.e. obtain the authority to enforce the laws of Allah on earth.

The Prophet’s Soft Power in Makkah

Long before the Prophet (saw) started to deliver the message of tawhid – belief in One God, Allah – the people of Makkah knew him as a man of impeccable courtesy and integrity. In a society steeped in immorality (not unlike most human societies today), he was a paragon of virtue. Even his worst enemies could not point to any flaw in his character; he was called al-Amin (the trustworthy one) and al-Sadiq (the truthful one), yet when he proclaimed the message of Islam the Makkan aristocracy immediately became his mortal enemies. Clearly they did not oppose him because of any flaw in his character (na’uzubillah).

Even before he received divine revelation, the Prophet had a certain amount of soft power: he was honest, he had integrity and charisma, and he belonged to Banu Hashim, a highly respected clan of Quraish. He had also established his credentials as a successful trader and businessman. Thus he possessed many qualities that could be used to rally people around him and attain power if he had personal ambition. Yet he did exactly the opposite: he often withdrew from society, and in the month of Ramadhan he would retreat to the cave of Hira for prayer, meditation and contemplation. It was in Hira during one Ramadhan that he received the first revelation from Allah. The message, or soft power, was given to him by divine sanction from on High.

For nearly three years the message was conveyed only to the Prophet’s relatives and close friends. It was only when the Prophet went public and it became known that a number of people had already accepted Islam that opposition emerged. Here we see the classic pattern of conflict between two types of power: the soft power of the Prophet confronted by the hard power of the tribal chiefs. At first they contemptuously dismissed the message, hoping that it would die a natural death through lack of attention. When that did not happen, Quraish resorted to ridicule, followed soon after by their anger. When even this failed, Quraish intensified their opposition by oppressing and torturing Muslims, leading to the deaths of some of them: Sumayya shaheeda, for instance; others, such as Bilal ibn Rabi’ah and Khabbab ibn al-Aratt, were tortured without mercy.

Despite the oppression unleashed by the tribal chiefs and their followers, people continued to be attracted to Islam, and soon a fair number of adherents gathered round the Prophet. While most of them were from the oppressed and downtrodden of Makkah, there were also a number from the aristocracy. This created a breach in the ranks of the ruling elites. Even with a small following the Prophet (saw) had gained some power at the expense of the established aristocracy. This was because he exercised moral authority that flowed directly from the message.

By giving Muslims a set of values based on divine revelation, Islam established new norms in society. Clearly this could not have been done without the "soft power" that the Prophet exercised. In fact this soft power was demonstrated most effectively when he ordered a group of Muslims to migrate to Abyssinia to escape persecution. Among the immigrants were several members of the aristocracy, such as Umm-Habiba, the daughter of Abu-Sufyan, one of the leading chiefs of Makkah, and Uthman ibn Affan, another prominent member of Banu Umayya, another powerful clan.

The migration to Abyssinia demonstrated two things: the Prophet’s possession of soft power, and his ability to persuade his followers to obey his orders. No coercion was involved, nor the threat of persecution if they did not comply (even today many shaikhs of the Sufi tariqahs exercise similar control and authority over their followers). The group that migrated to Abyssinia left most of their kindred behind, and members of the aristocratic families abandoned the "good life" their parents had provided for them, and migrated to an unknown land to face an uncertain future. This was accepted without hesitation by the first batch of Muslims, some 100 persons in all. Second, the migration to Abyssinia, like the Prophet’s visit to Taif in the tenth year of his mission, was intended to secure a territorial base for Islam. Although the Taif experience turned out to be extremely unpleasant – the Prophet (saw) was insulted and attacked by the people of the town – the fact remains that it was an attempt to secure a safe territorial base. Abyssinia also turned out to be unsuitable because of the intrigues of the priests there, despite the fact that the ruler, the Negus, gave the Muslims protection. He also secretly accepted Islam.

The Prophet (saw) spent 13 years in Makkah delivering the message of Islam. He was among people who had known him all their lives; they knew him well, yet they refused to accept his message. In the 13 years only a few hundred out of a total of some 5,000 people accepted Islam. In Makkah the Prophet only possessed soft power; using their hard power, Quraish made every attempt to block the message of Islam. Quraish could have held an honest and open debate with the Prophet, but they did not choose such a course; they knew that if he were allowed to deliver his message openly, it would appeal to a very large number of people and Quraish would lose their power and privileges. Instead, they did everything in their power to suppress the message, and finally plotted to kill him. The soft power of the Prophet was confronted by the hard power of Quraish; this is in fact a common experience: wielders of hard power always try to destroy those with soft power by terror and intimidation.

What the Prophet’s experience in Makkah shows is that despite possessing soft power conferred by Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala Himself, he was unable to gather a large following. Thus soft power, though necessary, is not sufficient on its own to confront the hard power of the enemies of Allah. While this does not mean that Muslims have to play unfair, the ruthlessness of our enemies leaves us no choice but to confront them with the hard power of the believers. Possession of soft power is an essential pre-requisite, but is not sufficient by itself to defeat the hard power of the oppressors, which must ultimately be challenged by the hard power of the believers, fortified by the soft power of their message.

In Makkah the Prophet (saw) was also offered power in return for compromising with Quraish. The Prophet turned this down completely. In fact, his reply contained within it the element of struggle and conflict in which Islam would become dominant. He told his uncle Abu-Talib, through whom the message from Quraish was delivered: "Were they to put the sun in my right hand, and the moon in my left, I will not stop proclaiming the message that has been entrusted to me by Allah, until it becomes dominant, or I perish in the process." It must have been tempting for the Prophet to accept the offer of Quraish, become their leader, and propagate Islam from the top, but he did not choose to do so. Had he done so, some would argue, he would not only have acquired power but also saved his followers from many more years of persecution.

The Prophet (saw) knew that compromise with Quraish would dilute his own message – the soft power – and confer legitimacy on an illegitimate system created by the hard power of the Quraish. This point, unfortunately, is lost on many members of the Islamic movement today; they are always eager to accept ministerial positions in regimes of dubious credentials. Islam cannot function or operate in a subservient role; it must create its own system rooted in the soft power of Islam. This is what emerges from this Qur’anic ayah: "He [Allah] it is Who has sent the Messenger with clear guidance and the deen of Truth so that it becomes dominant over all other systems, however much the mushrikeen may be averse to it" (9:33; 61:09), as well as from the Seerah of the noble Prophet of Allah (saw).

Acquisition of Hard Power in Madinah

Three years before divine permission was finally granted for the Prophet (saw) to migrate to Yathrib, a group of people came from there to perform the Hajj. The Prophet secretly met 12 or 13 of them, who accepted Islam. They made a pledge, referred to as the First Pledge of Aqaba, to abide by the values of Islam: neither to steal nor to commit adultery, neither to kill their [female] children nor knowingly commit any evil, and not to fail to obey God in His commandment of any good (Haykal: The Life of Muhammad, Islamic Book Trust, Kuala Lumpur, 1993, p.154). At their request the Prophet sent one of his companions, Mus’ab ibn Umayr (ra), to Madinah to teach them about Islam. Mus’ab turned out to be an excellent teacher; the following year, 73 people came from Yathrib and pledged the second Pact of Aqaba.

This was an important breakthrough, because the group from Yathrib pledged to provide political, economic and military support to the Prophet (saw) and to protect him against his enemies. It is important to note that, while the Prophet did not possess any hard power in Makkah, there were people from other lands who were willing not only to pledge him their allegiance but also to offer him the protection of their own hard power to defend him against his enemies. This was a serious undertaking, and shows the influence of the soft power of the Prophet (saw). The delegation from Yathrib also understood what the pledge meant: incurring the enmity of the established power of Makkah’s tribal chiefs, who had strong trade links with people throughout the Arabian Peninsula and beyond. The chiefs of Makkah also controlled access to the Ka’aba, still a place of pilgrimage despite its corruption by idolatrous accretions. The people of Yathrib made their pledge in full knowledge of what the consequences of their act would be.

It is also clear that the Prophet (saw) was not trying to escape from Makkah merely to save his own life; he first allowed his followers to leave in small numbers, until the revelation came permitting him to leave as well. All his moves were aimed at establishing the political authority and power of Islam – translating the soft power of Islam into hard power. The opportunity for this came in the thirteenth year of his mission, when he migrated from Makkah to Yathrib, accompanied by his close friend and companion, Abu-Bakr Siddiq (ra). During the Hijrah (migration), there was an interesting incident. When the chiefs of Makkah discovered that the Prophet had managed to escape even as they plotted to kill him, they offered a reward of 100 camels – a huge reward at the time – for his capture. Bounty-hunters set out in search of the Prophet, each hoping to claim the reward. Suraqa bin Malik of Makkah was one such person, who succeeded in catching up with them. Despite the gravity of the situation, the Prophet turned and said to Suraqa: "I see you wearing the gold bracelets of the emperor of Persia." What this demonstrates is that even at a time of grave danger to his life, the Prophet (saw) was talking about the victory and supremacy of Islam. He was confident not only that the soft power of Islam would become hard power but also that the Muslims would defeat the Persian and Roman empires, the two superpowers of the time. This optimism is breathtaking and proves his great confidence even in times of great crisis. More importantly, it shows that he was quite clear about the mission entrusted to him by Allah: establishment of Islam both in its spiritual and temporal domains. This episode alone should dispel the mistaken notion that the Prophet’s acquisition of power in Madinah was not planned, but occurred as a result of a stroke of good fortune; otherwise he had had no intention of establishing any worldly authority, because that was not in keeping with his Prophetic mission. This is not only a misunderstanding of the nature of Islam but also a distortion of the Seerah.

Life in Madinah was better than what the Muslims had left behind in Makkah. In Makkah they were persecuted and forced to leave; in Madinah they were welcomed, and the Prophet (saw) secured a territorial base from which he could operate. It would, however, be inaccurate to assume that there were no problems in Madinah, that he established the Islamic state and that his authority was accepted by everyone without hesitation or obstruction. The Prophet (saw) and his Companions (ra) were mostly made welcome yet, human nature being what it is, the goodwill could not be taken for granted. The large influx of Muhajiroon (immigrants) from Makkah continued as their families joined them; this could have created great economic and social problems, and had to be handled delicately. Using his soft power – his moral authority – the Prophet urged the Ansar (the helpers of Madinah) to pair with the Muhajiroon and support them. This the Ansar did willingly, but many Muhajiroon asked merely to be shown the way to the marketplace or the fields, where they would work. Not only was a potential social problem averted, it also strengthened the bonds between Muslims, making them a united body to face the challenges ahead.

The influx of the Muhajiroon was only one aspect of the situation. Far more serious was the presence of Jews, who exercised considerable influence over the two dominant tribes – al-Aws and al-Khazraj – in Madinah. The Prophet (saw) initially regarded the Jews as potential allies, because they were people of the Book, against the continuing threat of the Quraish of Makkah, but the Jews’ hostility to Islam was soon exposed. The Prophet launched two initiatives: he built a masjid in Madinah that was both a place of worship and a seat of government, and he drew up the Mithaq (Covenant) of Madinah, guaranteeing religious and political rights and security to all the tribes and groups that signed it, and also setting out their duties and responsibilities.

The Mithaq (Covenant) of Madinah

The Mithaq (also known as the Sahifah) of Madinah is unparalleled in its fairness and farsightedness. The Prophet (saw) was recognized as the undisputed leader of all the people, not just the Muslims. Signatories to the Mithaq acknowledged the Prophet’s supreme authority as political and military leader; no decision could be taken without his permission. This was a remarkable achievement, as most people in Madinah and the surrounding areas, with whom they had alliances, were not yet Muslims. Even the Jews accepted the Prophet’s leadership, although, as we shall see later, they secretly plotted to undermine him. In the tribal society of Arabia such alliances had great significance. Weaker tribes protected their interests by aligning themselves with powerful ones, although this had a price: if a tribe went to war against another, its allies were obliged to support it, and vice versa.

The Prophet foresaw that the chiefs of Makkah would not leave the Muslims in peace just because they had left Makkah and gone to Madinah. On the contrary, the consolidation of Muslim power in Madinah alarmed the Makkan chiefs even more; they were bound to strike to eliminate this threat before it established itself more firmly. By the judicious use of soft power, the Prophet linked a number of tribes residing in the narrow corridor between Madinah and the Red Sea, through which most of the Makkan caravans passed, into an alliance with the Muslims. This was a successful transformation of soft power (moral suasion) into hard power (military muscle). These tribes were now obliged to come to the aid of the Muslims if the Quraish attacked Madinah; the Muslims similarly pledged to defend these tribes if they were attacked by another tribe. Initially, some tribes chose neutrality, but even this worked to the Muslims’ advantage.

The Mithaq and the alliances with nearby tribes also had another consequence: they widened the theatre of conflict, which was no longer confined to Makkah and Madinah. Makkah’s advantage as a concentrated power centre was somewhat neutralized by this stroke of military genius. More, the Muslims’ allies began to threaten Makkah’s trade caravans, which were Makkah’s lifeline. Thus, even before a formal armed clash occurred between the Muslims and their Makkan foes, the Muslims took the initiative and undermined some of the hard power of the Quraish. In a direct clash between Makkah and Madinah, the Quraish enjoyed a preponderance of hard power: military, economic and political. They also had links with many tribes in the rest of the Arabian Peninsula because of the location of the Ka’aba in Makkah, which was also a city on the East-West trade route that conferred further advantage upon it. Besides, the Quraish were good fighters; Muslims, far fewer in number and with few resources, had not been tested in battle yet, so they could point to no victories to attract allies. Their soft power – their beautiful message and superior moral character – were not usually sufficient in themselves to win people over against the threat of Makkah’s hard power.

It is a historical truism that most people do not support an ideology or system simply because it is right; they align themselves with it because they perceive it to have greater military or economic power. "Might is right" seems to be the perception in most cases; only a few hardy souls do what is right regardless of the consequences. This was the case with all the earlier Prophets as well, from Nuh, Ibrahim and Musa all the way to Isa (Jesus), upon them all be peace. Thus, in the struggle between Islam and kufr, led by the chiefs of Makkah, most tribes in Arabia sided with the Quraish. Until the decisive battle of Badr, the Prophet (saw) had only the power of persuasion and the legitimacy of his position from on High; he used these to persuade people to accept Islam and to enter into alliances with the Muslims or, at the very least, to remain neutral in the struggle for supremacy.

For the first five years in Madinah, the Muslims only fought defensive battles against the Quraish. It was the latter who repeatedly attacked Madinah, alone or with other tribes. Muslims did not invade Makkah even once during this time, although they undertook reconnaissance missions. The Quraish also tried to use the Jews and the munafiqeen (hypocrites) – a new breed that emerged in Madinah because of Islam’s dominance – against the Muslims. On each occasion the offending Jewish tribe was warned and then punished, but this seemed to have little deterrent effect on the others. It was after the battle of Ahzab (in the fifth year after the Hijrah) and the siege of Madinah by the Confederate tribes, with whom Banu Quraida, the last Jewish tribe in Madinah, also secretly aligned itself in violation of its covenant with the Muslims, that the Prophet (saw) punished them severely according to their own law. It is also interesting to note that it was only after the Confederate tribes were unsuccessful in their long siege of Madinah that the Prophet decided to visit Makkah, not to fight but to perform umrah (the lesser pilgrimage), for the first time since the Muslims left six years before.

Although the attempt to perform umrah was unsuccessful, the Prophet returned with the Treaty of Hudaibiyya, which consolidated the hard power of Islam. On the face of it the treaty was against the Muslims’ interests, but in reality it had a very significant impact. First, the Quraish were forced to accept the Muslims as equals (they had refused even to tolerate them before this); second, the treaty stipulated that all tribes were free to form alliances with whomever they pleased. Before Hudaibiyya, many tribes had not aligned themselves with the Muslims for fear of antagonizing the Quraish. Hudaibiyya also freed the Muslims to deal with the Jewish stronghold at Khaybar without worrying about an attack from Makkah.

It was after the Treaty of Hudaibiyya that the Prophet (saw) sent messages to many rulers around the Arabian Peninsula, inviting them to Islam. This included the Romans in Palestine and Syria, the rulers of Bahrain, Yemen, Persia, Egypt and the surrounding areas. The Prophet had emerged as the undisputed leader not only of Madinah but also of much of the Peninsula, and could now deal with the superpowers on his own terms. This was a result of the translation of the soft power of Islam into the hard power of the Islamic state. So people in large numbers began to enter Islam, as pointed out in surah an-Nasr (110).

In the 13 years of the Prophet’s mission in Makkah only a few hundred people became Muslims, yet in 10 years in Madinah hundreds of thousands did so. Why such a great disparity? This is also a question that must be pondered by those who insist on tabligh these days, to explain why their efforts bear so little fruit. The difference is that in Makkah the Prophet had only soft power; in Madinah he acquired hard power as well. Soft power backed by hard power is the combination that achieves results best. This is also evident today. The US as a world power has no intrinsic values of decency, ethics or culture, but because of its hard power McDonald’s, Coca Cola and Pepsi products are consumed by millions of people daily, despite these foods having little or no nutritional value; American clothes are considered fashionable all over the world, because of the hard power of the US. The same was true of Britain in the days of its glory.

We can identify a number of important landmarks in the Prophet’s mission. For 13 years in Makkah, he wielded only soft power; its impact was limited because it did not have a territorial base. Madinah provided a territorial base, establishing the power of Islam on a formal basis. The battle of Badr tested the Muslims’ resolve and demonstrated to the people of the Arabian Peninsula that a new power had emerged. Despite this they were not convinced that Muslims would be able to withstand, much less defeat convincingly, the power of the Quraish, who were militarily strong, economically prosperous and had political alliances and influence because of the presence of the Ka’aba in Makkah. Until the fifth year in Madinah, Muslims waged defensive battles against the Quraish; only after the Treaty of Hudaibiyya neutralized one party – the Quraish – did the Prophet (saw) launch an attack against the Jewish stronghold at Khaybar.

We observe that the Prophet did not take on two enemies simultaneously; he first consolidated his position at home before taking on an external enemy. Also, he preferred to deal with the enemy closer to home before the one further away. It was important to defeat the near enemy first because taking on a distant enemy meant a prolonged absence from home, leaving it vulnerable to attack. Even if the battle against the far-off enemy were won, exposing the territorial base would have been a setback and undermined the hard power of Islam by encouraging other foes to raise their heads. Once the two major enemies – the Jews and the Quraish – were neutralized, only then did the Prophet launch a campaign against the Romans, one of the superpowers of the time.

The most eloquent testimony in favour of hard power is the growth in the number of Muslims during the Madinah period. Success has an energizing effect on people: they are automatically attracted to it; failure, by contrast, has few supporters, regardless of how well grounded or reasoned its case may be.

One final point is in order. Today’s political, economic and educational systems produce men and women who are not suited to achieving the goals of Islam. They produce people who can only serve the interests of the prevailing system, which is opposed to the values of Islam. This is true even of many Islamic institutions, because they have been contaminated by outside influences, and hence have become largely irrelevant. Such institutions do not train men and women for the mission for which the Prophet prepared the Sahaba (ra) during his lifetime. That is why it is imperative to change the entire system, much as the Prophet (saw) did in the Arabian Peninsula, and as his Companions continued to do in the surrounding lands after his death. Allah’s Messenger inculcated a different set of values that did not serve the prevailing order. Muslims will have to launch a similar campaign to make Islam the dominant paradigm, as promised and demanded by Allah (9:33, 61:09), but we must understand that this will not come about by operating in or compromising with the present jahili system.

Unfortunately there are too many well-meaning but naive Muslims who believe that, as long as they "do good deeds", they are not responsible for the injustices of the system which they serve. This view is sanctioned by neither the Qur’an nor the Sunnah of the Prophet (saw). We must remember that after he received the first wahy (revelation), he did not return to the cave: nor did he preach meditation or merely to do good deeds quietly. He entered the marketplace and challenged the established order, suffering great hardships in the process; without this Islam could not have become the dominant paradigm.

If Muslims were to reflect only on the kalimah – the declaration of Belief in One God – they would discover that it is the greatest empowering weapon, in accordance with which they accept subservience to no one except Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala. It liberates human beings from the clutches of all false gods (taghoots) and sets them on a course to victory, in which Islam becomes the dominant reality. This is the lesson of the Seerah of the Prophet, the last and final Messenger of Allah (saw), who established the supremacy of Islam in his own lifetime, starting with only a handful of followers. The most important lessons of the Sunnah and Seerah are not confined to individual and physical aspects of taharah and najasah; they are the Prophet’s pursuit of power to make Islam the dominant reality in the world that is presently held hostage by dhulm and oppression.

About this paper