Bloodless Revolution
Al-Risala (English), March 1991, p. 18
By Maulana Wahiduddin Khan
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan is named as the default author of the periodical; a piece that carries another writer’s byline is credited to that writer.
Bloodless Revolution
1991 3 March 18-20 Bloodless Revolution (956) From time to time, throughout the history of man, revolution has become a moral imperative. It is lamentable, however, that such action has almost inevitably meant a bloodbath. No right-minded person has ever found this desirable, yet, history has shown that almost no one has ever succeeded in bringing about a bloodless revolution. All the revolutions recorded in history – with one notable exception – have entailed mayhem and massacres. The only man who proved capable of bringing about a truly bloodless revolution was the Prophet of Islam. If this revolution were to be deleted from the annals of history, societal change would have a sorry record, and bloodless revolution would remain an unattainable myth for the Prophet’s successors. As it stands, it is a beacon of rectitude for those who wish to be guided by its light.
Consider the heavy toll of human life in the confrontations between the monarchy and the people in the French revolution, which began with the storming of the Bastille in 1789. The figures have been placed at one million. The actual number of those who lost their lives in the socialist revolution of Russia in the twentieth century remains unknown, but it has been estimated to be not less than 10 million. Comparatively fewer people were killed in the American war of independence (1775-1783), but still, not less than 50,000 people lost their lives. In the first world war, the death toll rose to 7.5 million and in the second world war the number of casualties was 60 million.
At the time of the Prophet’s death, he was the undisputed leader of an area measuring about 1.2 million sq.m., having brought about an intellectual and moral revolution on a vastness of scale which was unprecedented. Yet, in the whole process, only 1018 people were killed, 259 being Muslims and 759 being non-Muslims. So far as the immensity of the event is concerned, this number is quite negligible. As revolutions go, this one can undoubtedly be described as bloodless.
Every leader claims to be ushering in bloodless revolution, but how seldom this proves to be true. The reason is that if one wants a revolution to be bloodless, one has, oneself, to bathe in blood. This is the price that none of the leaders are willing to pay. Bloody revolutions are the result of clashes and confrontations, whereas bloodless revolutions are brought about slowly and painstakingly with a great deal of patience, and there is no more difficult a task for a man than the exercise of patience.
Exercising patience means taking the jolts oneself instead of letting others suffer. Victory may be won without fighting, but to win such a victory, if the truth be told, one has to do battle with one’s own self. Since normal mortals are, as a rule, unable to do so, they fail to win victories without bloodshed.
How was it that the Prophet succeeded in bringing about a bloodless revolution? This becomes quite plain when we study his life. For full thirteen years in Mecca, he and his companions were subjected to all kinds of persecution. He was hurt not only psychologically, by words, but also physically, by stones. Despite all such forms of persecution, the Prophet never once retaliated in reaction. He never initiated a battle, but continued to suffer all kinds of privations unilaterally, and never became incensed in the face of all kinds of provocations.
All he did was to leave Mecca quietly. Neither did he complain that he and his companions were being compelled to leave Mecca, nor did he care for the fact that by taking such an action, people would accuse him of being a coward.
Once he had left Mecca, the Makkan non-Muslims waged war against him. Even then, he always tried to avoid war. For instance, at Ahzab, when the enemy had come in large numbers to do battle, the Prophet and his companions managed to dig a long trench to create a barrier between his people and the enemy. He did battle only in defence, and only when there was no other way left for him but to take on the enemy. Only three major battles took place in which the Prophet had to take part (Badr, Uhud and Hunayan). The Muta war also took place during the life of the Prophet, but he did not take part in it.
The domination that he achieved in Arabia was not through war. It was rather through that “peace treaty” which is called in the Qur’an the “clear victory”. (48:1).
The ‘Peace Treaty’, aimed at bringing about a bloodless revolution was akin to bathing in blood himself But he was willing to bathe himself in blood so that the blood of others should not be shed.
The domination that the Prophet gained in Arabia was not through war but through dawah. It was to throw open the door to dawah that he even consented to make a peace treaty by conceding all the conditions laid down by the enemy. It is this peace treaty of Hudaybiyyah that is referred to in the Qur’an in these words: “We have given you a glorious victory.” (48:1)
The peace treaty of Hudaybiyyah is a historical proof of the fact that the power of peace is far greater than the power of war. By making peace unilaterally (that is, by accepting all the conditions of the enemy) at Hudaybiyyah, the Prophet has given a practical demonstration of this great truth. However, it is not a simple matter. To bring about an event of this nature, patience is required. And there is no doubt about it that no sacrifice is harder to make than to have patience in this world.
