Teks-teks yang telah dikemukakan sudah memadai, dan daripadanya kita membuat kesimpulan berikut:

The texts that have already been presented should be sufficient and from them we deduce the following:

1) Pandangan yang benar ialah persaudaraan antara golongan Muhajirin dan Ansar ini tidak mungkin berlaku sebelum kematian As'ad bin Zurarah (semoga Allah meridhainya), iaitu semasa pembinaan Masjid, kira-kira tujuh bulan selepas kedatangan Nabi ﷺ. Tidak boleh diterima bahawa ia berlaku semasa hayatnya tanpa namanya disebut di dalamnya, kerana beliau ialah ketua Ansar dan salah seorang Naqeeb (pemimpin pilihan Ansar pada Baiah 'Aqabah yang kedua). Oleh itu, kenyataan Abu 'Umar ibn Abd AlBarr:

1) The correct view is that this brotherhood between the Muhajirin and the Ansar could not possibly have taken place prior to the death of As’ad bin Zurarah (May Allah be pleased with him), during the building of the Masjid, about seven months following the arrival of the Prophet (peace be upon him). It is not conceivable that it took place in his lifetime without him having been mentioned in it, as he was chief of the Ansar and one of the Naqeebs (selected leaders of the Ansar at the second pledge of ‘Aqabah). Therefore, the statement of Abu ‘Umar ibn Abd AlBarr:

"Pandangan yang benar sebagaimana dipegang oleh para ulama Sirah dan riwayat-riwayat berkenaan "Mu'akhaah" (persaudaraan) yang dimeterai oleh Rasulullah ﷺ di antara kaum Muhajirin dan kaum Ansar ketika baginda tiba di Madinah, ialah bahawa ia berlaku selepas baginda membina Masjid, dan ia dilaksanakan atas asas penyediaan bantuan/sokongan dan Haqq (kebenaran) …"

“The correct view as held by the scholars of Seera and reports in respect to the “Mu’akhaah” (brotherhood) which the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) concluded between the Muhajirin (emigrants) and the Ansar (helpers), when he came to Al-Madinah, was that it took place after his building of the Masjid and it was upon the basis of the provision of assistance/support and the Haqq (truth) …” .

Adalah sangat munasabah, terutamanya kerana siapnya pembinaan Masjid dan perayaan pembukaannya merupakan peluang yang baik untuk langkah tersebut dilaksanakan. Selain itu, ia pastinya berlaku sebelum peperangan Badr kerana Ubaidah bin Al-Harith (bin Al-Muttalib bin Abd Manaf bin Qusayy Al-Qurashi Al-Muttalibi) disebut di dalamnya bersama saudaranya ‘Umair bin Al-Humam (bin Al-Jamuh bin Zaid bin Haram bin Ka’b), dan kedua-duanya syahid dalam peperangan Badr, semoga Allah meredhai mereka. Mereka adalah saudara dalam kehidupan dan dalam kematian, dan kami berharap daripada Allah agar mereka juga begitu pada Hari Kiamat. 2) Pandangan yang tepat ialah persaudaraan antara Muhajirin dan Ansar ini pada asalnya tidak ditulis, kerana sifatnya tidak sesuai dengan penulisan. Hal itu kerana semua riwayat, tanpa kecuali, sama sekali tidak menyebut sebarang dokumen bertulis. Penelitian terhadap kitab-kitab Sirah, sejarah dan Hadis menunjukkan ketiadaan sebarang sebutan tentang piagam, dokumen bertulis atau kod undang-undang sebelum Sahifah Madinah. Pengecualian kepada perkara itu termasuk:

is very conceivable, and particularly as the completion of the building of the Masjid and the celebration for its opening, represented a good occasion for such a step to be undertaken. I addition, it must have been undertaken prior to the battle of Badr because Ubaida bin Al- Harith (bin Al-Muttalib bin Abd Manaf bin Qusayy Al-Qurashi Al-Muttalibi) is mentioned in it along with his brother ‘Umair bin Al- Humam (bin Al-Jamuh bin Zaid bin Haram bin Ka’b) and they were both martyred at the battle of Badr, may Allah be pleased with them. They were brothers in life and at death, and we hope from Allah that they be like that also, on the Day of Judgement. 2) The correct view is that this brotherhood between the Muhajirin and the Ansar was not written in origin as its nature was incompatible with that. That is because all of the narrations, without exception, do not mention a written document at all. An examination of the books of Seera, history and Hadith reveal the absence of the mention of any charter, written document or code prior to the Sahifah of Al-Madinah. The exception to that included:

"Katakanlah, "Wahai hamba-hamba-Ku yang telah melampaui batas terhadap diri mereka sendiri [dengan berbuat dosa], janganlah kamu berputus asa dari rahmat Allah. Sesungguhnya Allah mengampuni segala dosa. Sesungguhnya Dialah Yang Maha Pengampun, lagi Maha Penyayang." Dan kembalilah [dengan bertaubat] kepada Tuhanmu dan berserahdirilah kepada-Nya sebelum azab datang kepadamu; kemudian kamu tidak akan mendapat pertolongan. Dan ikutilah sebaik-baik apa yang telah diturunkan kepadamu dari Tuhanmu sebelum azab datang kepadamu secara tiba-tiba sedang kamu tidak menyadarinya" [QS. Az-Zumar 39:53-55]."

“Say, “O My servants who have transgressed against themselves [by sinning], do not despair of the mercy of Allah. Indeed, Allah forgives all sins. Indeed, it is He who is the Forgiving, the Merciful”. And return [in repentance] to your Lord and submit to Him before the punishment comes upon you; then you will not be helped. And follow the best of what was revealed to you from your Lord before the punishment comes upon you suddenly while you do not perceive” [TMQ 39:53-55].

b) Majallah Luqman: Al-Majallah dan begitu juga As-Sijli ialah sebuah Sahifah (dokumen bertulis) yang dibalik atau (halamannya) dibalik-balikkan. Itu seperti yang disebut dalam "Dala'il An-Nubuwwah" karya Al-Baihaqi (2/419). (Setelah menyebut keseluruhan rantaian periwayatan) 'Asim bin 'Umar bin Qatadah Al-Ansaariy meriwayatkan daripada Shuyukh (para tokoh tua) kaumnya, bahawa mereka berkata:

b) The Majallah of Luqman: Al-Majallah and likewise As-Sijli are a Sahifah (written document) that is turned or (its pages) turned over. That is like what came mentioned in “Dala’il An-Nubuwwah” of Al- Baihaqi (2/419). (After mentioning the full line of transmission) ‘Asim bin ‘Umar bin Qatadah Al-Ansaariy related from the Shuyukh (elders) of his people, that they said:

“Suwaid bin As-Samit, saudara Bani ‘Amr bin ‘Awf, datang ke Makkah sebagai jemaah haji atau ‘umrah. Kaumnya menggambarkan Suwaid sebagai orang yang paling sempurna di kalangan mereka, disebabkan usianya, kulitnya dan rambutnya. Dia (perawi) berkata:

“Suwaid bin As-Samit, the brother of Bani ‘Amr bin ‘Awf, came to Makkah as a pilgrim for Hajj of ‘Umrah. Suwaid was described by his people as being the model of perfection among them, due to his age, skin and hair. He (the narrator) said:

Kemudian, Rasulullah ﷺ menghampirinya dan mengajaknya kepada Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla dan kepada Islam. Suwaid berkata: “Barangkali apa yang ada padamu seperti apa yang ada padaku.” Maka Rasulullah ﷺ bertanya: “Dan apakah yang ada padamu?” Dia menjawab bahawa dia memiliki Majallah Luqman, yakni Hikmah Luqman. Rasulullah ﷺ kemudian bersabda: “Tunjukkan kepadaku,” lalu dia pun menunjukkannya. Baginda ﷺ bersabda: “Ucapan ini baik, tetapi apa yang ada padaku lebih baik daripadanya. Ia adalah al-Qur’an yang telah diturunkan Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla, ia merupakan petunjuk dan cahaya.” Rasulullah ﷺ kemudian membacakan al-Qur’an kepadanya dan mengajaknya kepada Islam. Dia tidak menjauhkan diri daripadanya dan berkata: “Sesungguhnya ini adalah ucapan yang baik.” Kemudian dia pergi dan tidak lama selepas itu dia tiba di Al-Madinah kepada kaumnya. Tidak lama kemudian, dia dibunuh oleh Khazraj. Ada dalam kalangan kaumnya yang berkata: “Kami berpendapat bahawa dia dibunuh ketika dia seorang Muslim,” dan pembunuhannya berlaku sebelum peperangan Bu’ath. [Akhir petikan] c) Sahifah (dokumen bertulis) Boikot yang zalim dan terkutuk, yang digantungkan oleh kaum Quraisy di dalam Ka’bah; kisahnya, kisah anai-anai yang memakannya, dan kemudian kisahnya yang masyhur dan mutawatir mengenai pembatalannya. d) Lembaran-lembaran (Suhuf) yang Rasulullah ﷺ berikan kepada panglima-panglima ekspedisi ketenteraan, yang mengandungi arahan, dan ia dimeterai atau dicantumkan semula. Contohnya ialah apa yang dinyatakan dalam Kitab al-Maghazi karya Al-Waqidi (1/13).

Then, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) approached him and invited him to Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla and to Islam. Suwaid said: “It may be that what you have is like that which I have”. So, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) asked: “And what do you have?” He responded by saying that he had the Majallah of Luqman, meaning the Hikmah (wisdom) of Luqman. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) then said: “Show it to me” and so he did. He (peace be upon him) said: “This speech is good but what I have is better than it. It is a Qur’an that Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla has revealed and it is guidance and light”. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) then recited the Qur’an to him and invited him to Islam. He didn’t distance himself from it and said: “Verily, this is a good speech”. He then left and later arrived to Al-Madinah to his people. It was not long thereafter that he was killed by the Khazraj. There were men from his people who would say: “We view that he was killed whilst he was a Muslim” and his killing occurred before the war of Bu’ath” [End of Quote]. c) The Sahifah (written document) of the (oppressive and accursed) Boycott which the Quraish hung inside the Ka’ba along; its story, the story of the termites eating it and then its well-known Mutawatir story concerning its nullification. d) The pages (Suhuf) which the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) gave to the commanders of the military expeditions, containing instructions, and they were sealed or patched together. And example of that is what came stated in Al-Waqidi’s “Kitab ul-Maghazi” (1/13):

Ekspedisi ke Nakhla yang diketuai oleh Abdullah bin Jahsh (Nakhla ialah sebuah lembah di Bustan (Kebun) Ibn ‘Amir) berlaku pada bulan Rejab, bulan ketujuh belas selepas Hijrah.

“The expedition to Nakhla commanded by Abdullah bin Jahsh (Nakhla is a valley in the Bustan (Orchard) of Ibn ‘Amir) took place in the month of Rajab, the seventeenth month AH.

Mereka berkata: Abdullah bin Jahsh berkata: Rasulullah ﷺ memanggilku ketika baginda selesai menunaikan solat Isyak, lalu bersabda: "Datanglah kepadaku pada waktu Subuh dengan membawa senjatamu, kerana aku akan mengutusmu dalam suatu misi." Dia berkata: Maka aku pun datang pada waktu Subuh dengan membawa pedang, busur, bekas anak panahku dan perisaiku. Nabi ﷺ menunaikan solat Subuh bersama orang ramai, kemudian baginda keluar dan mendapati aku. Baginda mendapati aku telah berdiri di pintunya lebih dahulu, sementara aku juga bersama sekumpulan orang Quraisy (iaitu kaum Muhajirin) di situ. Rasulullah ﷺ memanggil Ubayy bin Ka'b dan memerintahkannya untuk menulis sebuah dokumen. Kemudian baginda memanggilku dan memberikan kepadaku sehelai kulit dari Khawlan, sambil bersabda: "Aku melantikmu memimpin kumpulan ini. Teruskanlah perjalanan sehingga kamu telah bermusafir selama dua malam. Kemudian bukalah suratku dan lakukanlah apa yang tertulis di dalamnya." Aku bertanya: "Wahai Rasulullah, ke arah mana?" Baginda menjawab: "Pergilah ke arah Najdiyyah sehingga kamu sampai ke sebuah perigi kecil." Perawi berkata: Abdullah bin Jahsh bergegas sehingga sampai ke perigi Ibnu Dumayrah. Dia kemudian membuka surat itu dan membacanya. Tertulis di dalamnya: "Pergilah, dengan nama Allah dan dengan keberkatan-Nya, sehingga kamu sampai ke lembah Nakhlah, tetapi jangan memaksa seorang pun daripada sahabatmu untuk pergi bersamamu. Teruskanlah mengikut perintahku bersama sesiapa yang mengikutimu, sehingga kamu sampai ke lembah Nakhlah dan berintai di sana untuk kafilah Quraisy." [Tamat petikan]

They said: Abdullah bin Jahsh said: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) called for me when he prayed Ishaa’, and said: “Come to me at dawn with your weapons, as I will send you on a mission”. He said: So, I approached at dawn with my sword, my bow, my quiver and my shield. The Prophet prayed Subh (i.e. Fajr) with the people, and then he left and found me. He found me having preceded him already standing at his door whilst I found a group of the Quraysh (i.e. Muhajirun) with me there. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) called for Ubayy bin Ka’b and commanded him to write a document. Then he called me and gave me the sheet of leather from Khawlan, saying: “I have appointed you over this group. Proceed until you have travelled for two nights. Then open my letter and do as it says”. I said: “O Messenger of God, in which direction?” He replied, “Go towards Najdiyya until you reach a small well”. The narrator said: Abdullah bin Jahsh hastened, until he reached the well of Ibn Dumayra. He then opened the letter and read it. It said: “Go, in the name of Allah and with His blessings, until you come to the valley of Nakhla, but do not force any one of your companions to go with you. Proceed according to my commands with whoever follows you, until you reach the valley of Nakhla and lie in wait for the caravan of Quraysh from there” [End of Quote].

Di mana sahaja kita menemui riwayat tentang sebuah Sahifah atau dokumen bertulis antara kaum Muhajirin dan kaum Ansar, atau yang berkaitan dengan hak diyat, peperangan atau perdamaian, kita tahu secara mutlak bahawa ia tidak ada kaitan dengan "Mu'akhaah" (pembentukan persaudaraan) ini. Ia sama ada berkaitan dengan Sahifah Madinah, atau sesuatu yang datang atau ditulis jauh kemudian daripadanya. Tidak juga sah apa yang dinukilkan dalam "As-Seera An-Nabawiyah" karya Ahmad Abu Zaid (m. 71) di bawah tajuk "Tarikh penulisan perjanjian (Mu'ahadah) dengan orang Yahudi": "Salah seorang penyelidik kontemporari berpendapat dengan kuat bahawa dokumen itu sebenarnya asalnya dua dokumen, kemudian ahli sejarah menggabungkannya menjadi satu. Salah satunya membincangkan perjanjian Rasulullah ﷺ dengan orang Yahudi dan ditulis sebelum Perang Badar yang besar. Manakala yang kedua menjelaskan komitmen (tanggungjawab) kaum Muslimin daripada kalangan Muhajirin dan Ansar, hak dan kewajipan mereka. Beliau berkata: 'Pada pandangan saya, adalah lebih kuat bahawa dokumen perjanjian damai (Muwada'ah) dengan orang Yahudi ditulis sebelum Perang Badar yang besar. Adapun dokumen kedua, ia ditulis selepasnya.'" Sumber-sumber klasik telah menyatakan perkara yang menyokong pendapat yang lebih kuat ini. Abu 'Ubaid Al-Qasim bin Salam berkata: "Wathiqah (dokumen) itu ditulis dalam dua keadaan, ketika Nabi ﷺ tiba di Madinah, sebelum Islam menjadi dominan dan kukuh, dan sebelum baginda diperintahkan untuk mengambil Jizyah daripada Ahl al-Kitab (kaum ahli kitab)." Al-Baladhuri berkata: "Apabila Rasulullah ﷺ tiba di Madinah, baginda mengadakan perjanjian (Muwada'ah) dengan orang Yahudi dan menulis satu dokumen antara baginda dan mereka. Baginda menetapkan ke atas mereka bahawa mereka tidak boleh menyokong atau berpihak kepada musuh-musuh baginda, dan bahawa mereka hendaklah membantu baginda menentang sesiapa yang menyerang baginda, dan bahawa baginda tidak akan berperang untuk mempertahankan Ahl udh-Dhimmah." Beliau tidak memerangi sesiapa pun, mereka tidak mencela beliau dan beliau tidak mengutus pasukan tentera, sehinggalah Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla menurunkan: “Diizinkan [untuk berperang] bagi orang-orang yang diperangi, kerana sesungguhnya mereka telah dizalimi. Dan sesungguhnya Allah benar-benar Maha Kuasa menolong mereka. [Mereka ialah] orang-orang yang diusir dari kampung halaman mereka tanpa alasan yang benar” (TMQ 22:39-40).

Wherever we find a narration about a Sahifah or a written document between the Muhajirin and the Ansar, or concerning blood money rights, war or peace, we know, by necessity, that it bears no relation to this “Mu’akhaah” (formation of brotherhood). It would either be related to the Sahifah of Al-Madinah or something that came or was written (much) later than it. There is also no validity in what came related in “As-Seera An- Nabawiyah” by Ahmad Abu Zaid (p. 71) under the heading “The date of the writing of the treaty (Mu’ahadah) with the Jews”: “One of the contemporary researchers found preponderant that the document was actually two documents in origin and then the historians combined them into one. One of them dealt with the treaty of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) with the Jews and was written prior to the great battle of Badr. That is whilst the second clarified the commitments (duties) of the Muslims from the Muhajirin and the Ansar, their rights and obligations. He said: “It is preponderant in my view that the peace agreement (Muwada’ah) document with the Jews was written before the great battle of Badr. As for the second document, then it was written after it”. The classical sources have expressed that which supports this preponderance. Abu ‘Ubaid Al-Qasim bin Salam said: “The Wathiqa (document) was written on two occurrences, when the Prophet (peace be upon him) arrived in Al-Madinah, prior to the dominance of Islam and its becoming strong and before he was commanded to take the Jizyah from Ahl ul-Kitab (the people of the book)”. Al-Baladhari said: “When the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) arrived in Al-Madinah he made a treaty (Muwada’ah) with the Jews and wrote between himself and them a document. He stipulated upon them that they should not support or side with his enemies, to support him against those who attack him and that he would not fight in defence of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah. He did not then wage war against anyone, they did not defame him and he did not dispatch a military expedition, until Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla revealed: “Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is capable of providing them victory. [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right” (TMQ 22:39- 40)”.

Kebenaran [untuk berperang] telah diberikan kepada mereka yang diperangi, kerana mereka telah dizalimi. Dan sesungguhnya Allah benar-benar Maha Kuasa untuk memberikan kemenangan kepada mereka.

“Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is capable of providing them victory.

"[Mereka itu] yang telah diusir dari rumah-rumah mereka tanpa alasan yang benar" [TMQ 22:39-40]

[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right” [TMQ 22:39-40]

Itu kerana "Muwada'ah" (keamanan dan gencatan senjata) ialah keadaan yang semula jadi dan asal, dan ia tidak memerlukan sebarang persidangan untuk mewujudkannya. Kemudian, sekiranya peperangan berlaku, "Muwada'ah" akan terhenti dan tidak akan kembali sehingga peperangan berakhir melalui gencatan senjata, perjanjian, atau perjanjian damai.

That is because the “Muwada’ah” (peace and truce) is the natural and original situation and is not in need of being convened in order to establish it. Then, if war was to take place, the “Muwada’ah” would cease and it would not return until the war ends by way of a truce, treaty or peace agreement.

Oleh itu, "Muwada'ah" mewakili satu status yang boleh wujud atau tidak wujud. Oleh yang demikian, sabda Rasulullah ﷺ: "Biarkanlah orang Habsyah selagi mereka membiarkan kamu" bermaksud secara mesti: tegaskan dan teruskan status sedia ada Muwada'ah (damai dan gencatan senjata) selagi Habsyah berbuat demikian. Oleh itu, berkenaan dengan kenyataan yang digunakan oleh ulama Sirah dan riwayat mengenai Nabi ﷺ seperti: "Apabila baginda tiba di Madinah, baginda berdamai dengan semua orang Yahudi yang tinggal di sana", tidak dibenarkan untuk difahami bahawa baginda mewujudkan "Muwada'ah" rasmi atau membuat perjanjian (perjanjian rasmi). Sebaliknya, ia bermaksud bahawa baginda menegaskan dan meneruskan status sedia ada gencatan senjata dan damai yang wujud antara mereka.

Consequently, the “Muwada’ah” represents a status that could be present or absent. Therefore, the statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him): “Leave the Abyssinians be as long as they leave you be” means by necessity: Affirm and continue upon the status quo of the Muwada’ah (peace and truce) as long as Abyssinia does so. As such, in respect to the statement used by the scholars of Seera and reports concerning the Prophet (peace be upon him) like: “When he arrived in Al-Madinah he made peace with all of the Jews who were residing there”, it is not permissible to be understood to mean that he established an official “Muwada’ah” or contracted a covenant (official treaty). Rather, it means that he affirmed and continued upon the original status quo of the truce and peace existing between them.

Jika kita memperhatikan apa yang diriwayatkan daripada beliau ﷺ: "Jika dia (Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf) berpegang kepada apa yang dipegang oleh selainnya yang sependapat dengannya, dia tidak akan dibunuh. Namun, dia telah mencaci dan mengejek kita melalui syair, dan tidak ada seorang pun di antara kamu yang akan melakukan itu kecuali jika dia mempunyai pedang," maka kita akan melihat bahawa ia mengesahkan pandangan kita ini dengan sempurna. Ini kerana tidak ada apa-apa yang disebut di dalamnya mengenai perjanjian atau persetujuan yang telah dilanggar oleh Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf. Sebaliknya, dia tidak terus berpegang kepada dan mengesahkan perdamaian (Muwada'ah) yang dipegang oleh pihak lain. Imam Ibn ul-Qayyim (semoga rahmat Allah dilimpahkan ke atasnya) mengetahui sebahagian daripada perkara ini. Beliau menyatakan dalam kitabnya "Ahkam Ahl adh-Dhimmah" (3/1404):

“Dan ia adalah satu kesilapan kerana wanita ini berada dalam keadaan aman dan di bawah gencatan senjata (Muhadanah). Ini kerana apabila Nabi ﷺ tiba di Al-Madinah, baginda membuat perdamaian dengan semua orang Yahudi yang menetap di sana secara tanpa sekatan, dan baginda tidak mengenakan Jizyah ke atas mereka. Perkara ini diketahui ramai oleh ahli ilmu sehingga ke tahap Tawatur (periwayatan serentak yang muktamad) dalam kalangan mereka. Ash-Shafi'iy (semoga rahmat Allah ke atasnya) berkata: “Saya tidak mengetahui seorang pun daripada ahli ilmu Sirah yang berselisih pendapat mengenai perkara ini: bahawa apabila Rasulullah ﷺ menetap di Al-Madinah, baginda membuat perdamaian dengan semua orang Yahudi tanpa pengenaan Jizyah.” Demikianlah sebagaimana yang dinyatakan oleh Ash-Shafi'iy (semoga rahmat Allah ke atasnya). Ini kerana Al-Madinah dikelilingi oleh tiga kelompok Yahudi: Banu Qainuqaa', Banu An-Nadir dan Banu Quraizhah. Banu Qainuqaa' dan Banu An-Nadir adalah sekutu Khazraj, manakala Banu Quraizhah adalah sekutu Aws. Kemudian apabila Rasulullah ﷺ tiba di Al-Madinah, baginda membuat gencatan dan perdamaian dengan mereka, dengan persetujuan baginda terhadap mereka, bersama-sama mereka yang berada di sekitar Al-Madinah daripada kalangan musyrikin yang merupakan sekutu golongan Ansar, berdasarkan pakatan dan perjanjian yang mereka pegang sebelum ini. Baginda juga mengambil perjanjian daripada kaum Yahudi bahawa mereka akan menyokong baginda sekiranya baginda diperangi. Kemudian, Banu Qainuqaa' memungkiri perjanjian, diikuti oleh An-Nadir dan kemudian Quraizhah.” [Tamat petikan].

“And it is a mistake because this woman was at peace and under a truce (Muhadanah). That is because when the Prophet (peace be upon him) came to Al-Madinah he made peace with all of the Jews residing there an unrestricted manner and he did not impose Jizyah upon them. This is well-known by the people of knowledge to the level of Tawatur (decisive concurrent transmission) among them. Ash- Shafi’iy (may Allah’s mercy be upon him) said: “I do not of any from the people of knowledge of Seera who disagree upon the point “That when the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) settled in Al- Madinah, he made peace with all of the Jews without the imposition of the Jizyah”. It is as Ash-Shafi’iy (May Allah’s mercy be upon him) stated. That is because Al-Madinah had three groups of Jews surrounding it: Banu Qainuqaa’, Banu An-Nadir and Banu Quraizha. Banu Qainuqaa’ and Banu An-Nadir were allies of the Khazraj, while Banu Quraizha were allies of the Aws. Then when the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) came to Al-Madinah, he made a truce and peace with them with his approval of them, alongside those who were around Al-Madinah from the polytheists who were allies of the Ansar, upon the basis of their alliance and covenant that they had previously been upon. He even took a covenant from the Jews that they would support him if he was fought against. Then, Banu Qainuqaa’ broke the covenant, followed by An-Nadir and then Quraizha” [End of Quote].

"Piagam (dokumen) Wathiqa itu ditulis dalam dua peristiwa (Hadathani), iaitu ketika Nabi ﷺ tiba di Al-Madinah, sebelum Islam berkuasa dan menjadi kuat, serta sebelum baginda diperintahkan untuk memungut Jizyah daripada Ahl ul-Kitab (kaum Ahli Kitab)."

“The Wathiqa (document) was written on two occurrences (Hadathani), when the Prophet (peace be upon him) arrived in Al- Madinah, prior to the dominance of Islam and its becoming strong and before he was commanded to take the Jizyah from Ahl ul-Kitab (the people of the book)” .

Perkataan "Hadathani" tidak menetapkan bagi kita satu jangka masa yang tertentu yang boleh diambil kira. Islam hanya tersebar secara meluas dan benar-benar menjadi kuat selepas kekalahan Al-Ahzab (pihak-pihak bersekutu), iaitu Perang Khandaq. Itu kerana Nabi ﷺ mula melancarkan serangan ke atas kaum itu, dan mereka tidak lagi menyerang baginda. Selain itu, kita tidak tahu bila baginda diperintahkan untuk mengambil Jizyah daripada kaum itu. Manakala kenyataan baginda "ambillah Jizyah daripada Ahl ul-Kitab (ahli kitab)" ialah pengulangan satu kesilapan yang terkenal, kerana hakikatnya Jizyah turut diambil daripada golongan musyrik, termasuk kaum Majusi, sebagaimana yang telah dinyatakan dalam Hadis An-Nu'man bin Muqarrin, yang diriwayatkan dalam Sahih Muslim dan koleksi-koleksi lain. 2) Adapun kenyataan Al-Baladhari

is vague because the word “Hadathani” does not establish for us a determined time frame that can be taken into consideration. Islam only manifested in a prevalent manner and truly became powerful following the defeat of the confederates (Ahzab i.e. battle of the trench). That is because the Prophet (peace be upon him) began to go on the offensive against the people and they were no longer on the offensive against him. In addition, we do not know when he was commanded to take the Jizyah from the people. That is whilst his statement “take the Jizyah from Ahl ul-Kitab (the people of the book)” is a repetition of a well-known error, as the truth is that the Jizyah was taken even from the polytheists, including the Majus, as has come stated in the Hadith of An-Nu’man bin Muqarrin, recorded in Sahih Muslim and other collections. 2) As for the statement of Al-Baladhari

“Apabila Rasulullah ﷺ tiba di Al-Madinah, baginda mengadakan perjanjian (Muwada’ah) dengan orang-orang Yahudi dan menulis di antara baginda dengan mereka sebuah dokumen. Baginda mensyaratkan ke atas mereka bahawa mereka tidak boleh menyokong atau berpihak kepada musuh-musuh baginda, membantu baginda menentang sesiapa yang menyerang baginda, dan bahawa baginda tidak akan berperang untuk mempertahankan Ahl udh-Dhimmah. Baginda kemudian tidak memerangi sesiapa pun, mereka tidak memfitnah baginda, dan baginda tidak menghantar ekspedisi ketenteraan, sehinggalah Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla menurunkan wahyu: “Diizinkan [untuk berperang] kepada mereka yang diperangi, kerana mereka telah dizalimi. Dan sesungguhnya Allah benar-benar berkuasa memberikan pertolongan kepada mereka. [Mereka ialah] orang-orang yang telah diusir dari kampung halaman mereka tanpa alasan yang benar” (TMQ 22:39-40)”.

“When the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) arrived in Al- Madinah he made a treaty (Muwada’ah) with the Jews and wrote between himself and them a document. He stipulated upon them that they should not support or side with his enemies, to support him against those who attack him and that he would not fight in defence of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah. He did not then wage war against anyone, they did not defame him and he did not dispatch a military expedition, until Allah ‘Azza Wa Jalla revealed: “Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is capable of providing them victory. [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right” (TMQ 22:39-40)”.

Ucapan ini bercanggah kerana beliau ﷺ pada asalnya belum diizinkan untuk berperang sebelum turunnya ayat tersebut, dan beliau tidak berada dalam keadaan perang dengan sesiapa pun. Juga tidak ada jangkaan bahawa Al-Madinah akan diserang. Oleh itu, ayat dalam ucapannya: “Beliau mensyaratkan ke atas mereka bahawa mereka tidak akan menyokong atau berpihak kepada musuh-musuhnya, untuk menyokong beliau terhadap mereka yang menyerangnya”, yang meringkaskan sebahagian daripada apa yang dinyatakan dalam “Sahifah”, tidak dapat difahami dan tidak mempunyai kenyataan pada zaman tersebut. Lebih dahsyat lagi ialah kenyataan: “Dan bahawa beliau tidak akan berperang untuk mempertahankan Ahl udh-Dhimmah”, dengan andaian tiada kesilapan dalam percetakan. Pertama, sebenarnya tidak ada “Ahl udh-Dhimmah” di sana pada asalnya. Kedua, bagaimana mungkin mereka wajib menyokong beliau terhadap mereka yang menyerangnya, sedangkan beliau tidak wajib menyokong mereka terhadap mereka yang menyerang mereka?! 3) Kenyataan Al-Baladhariy mengenai Banu Qainuqaa’:

This speech is contradictory because he (peace be upon him) had not been permitted in origin to engage in fighting prior to the revelation of the Aayah and was not in a state of war with anyone. There was also no expectation for Al-Madinah to be attacked. Therefore, the sentence from his speech: “He stipulated upon them that they should not support or side with his enemies, to support him against those who attack him”, which summarized some of what came stated in the “Sahifah”, is inconceivable and has no reality to it during that time period. Even more atrocious is the statement: “And that he would not fight in defence of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah”, assuming there was no error in the printing. Firstly, there were no “Ahl udh-Dhimmah” there in origin. Secondly, how could it be that they are obliged to support him against those who attack him, whilst he is not obliged to support them against those who attack them?! 3) The statement of Al-Baladhariy concerning Banu Qainuqaa’:

"Sebabnya ialah bahawa Rasulullah ﷺ, apabila tiba di Al-Madinah, telah membuat perjanjian damai dengan orang-orang Yahudinya dan menulis satu dokumen antara baginda dengan mereka. Kemudian, apabila kaum Muslimin meraih kemenangan di Badr dan pulang ke Al-Madinah dengan rampasan perang yang melimpah, orang-orang Yahudi memberontak dan memungkiri perjanjian." Maka ini juga tidak bermakna apa-apa. Ini kerana "Muwada'ah" (keadaan damai) adalah asal dan tidak perlu dimeterai secara rasmi atau ditulis secara bersama. Sedangkan Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf adalah orang pertama yang melanggar, memerangi dan memutuskan "Muwada'ah" (keadaan damai atau gencatan senjata) yang, seperti yang telah disebutkan sebelum ini, telah ditetapkan melalui riwayat Mutawatir (yang pasti dan berterusan). Dia kemudian menulis "Sahifah" yang bukan tujuan menetapkan "Muwada'ah", tetapi untuk menubuhkan "Kesatuan Konfederal (Ittihad Confedarali)". Selepas itu, Bani Qainuqa' keluar dari "kesatuan" dan memerangi, diikuti oleh Bani An-Nadir, kemudian Quraizah mengkhianati. 4) Mengenai kenyataan At-Tabari:

“The reason for it was that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), when he arrived in Al-Madinah, made a peace agreement with its Jews and wrote a document between himself and them. Then, when the Muslims were victorious at Badr and came back to Al- Madinah with abundant booty, the Jews rebelled and broke the covenant”, then this also has no meaning to it. That is because the “Muwada’ah” (state of peace) is the origin and does not need to be officially mutually contracted or write. That is while Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf was the first to transgress, war and cut the “Muwada’ah” (state of peace or truce) which, as previously mentioned, has been established via Mutawatir (decisive concurrent) transmissions and he then wrote the “Sahifah” which was not the purpose of establishing a “Muwada’ah” but rather to establish a “Confederal Union (Ittihad Confedarali)”. Thereafter, Bani Qainuqaa’ exited from the “union” and waged war, followed by Banu An-Nadir and then Quraizhah betrayed it. 4) Concerning the statement of At-Tabari:

Kemudian Rasulullah ﷺ tinggal di Madinah setelah kepulangannya dari Badar. Ketika Baginda tiba di Madinah, Baginda telah mengadakan perjanjian damai dengan orang-orang Yahudi di Madinah, dengan syarat bahawa mereka tidak akan membantu sesiapa pun menentang Baginda dan bahawa jika Baginda diserang di Madinah oleh musuh, mereka akan menyokong Baginda. Kemudian, apabila Rasulullah ﷺ membunuh mereka yang telah Baginda bunuh daripada kalangan Musyrikin (orang-orang musyrik) Quraisy, mereka menunjukkan rasa dengki dan sikap memberontak terhadap Baginda, serta menunjukkan pengkhianatan terhadap perjanjian tersebut.

“Then the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) remained in Al- Madinah after his return from Badr. When he had arrived in Al- Madinah he had made a peace agreement with its Jews upon the stipulation that they do not assist anyone against him and that if he was attacked in Al-Madinah by an enemy, they would support him. Then when the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) killed those whom he had killed from the Mushrikin (polytheists) of Quraish, they demonstrated envy and rebelliousness towards him and demonstrated the breaching of the covenant”,

maka ia selaras dengan ucapan Al-Baladhariy di atas, dan sanggahannya adalah sama, walaupun ia jauh lebih baik. Ini kerana beliau tidak menegaskan bahawa "Muwada'ah" (perjanjian damai/gencatan senjata) yang lama, sebelum Badr, adalah dokumen bertulis, sebagaimana Al-Baladhariy tersilap dalam hal itu, dan juga kerana teksnya tidak mengandungi sesuatu yang setara dengan ayat yang keji, "Dan bahawa beliau tidak akan berperang untuk mempertahankan Ahl udh-Dhimmah". Walau bagaimanapun, kenyataan At-Tabari "pencabulan perjanjian (Naqdh Al-'Ahd)" bukanlah sesuatu yang bersesuaian dengan realiti. Ini kerana tiada "Ahd" (perjanjian) terdahulu pada asalnya, sebaliknya ia ialah "Muwada'ah" dalam keadaan asalnya. Melainkan jika kita menganggap penerimaan dan pematuhannya sebagai "Ahd" (Perjanjian/triti) secara tersirat?! Seperti kenyataan Ahmad Abu Zaid:

then it is in line with the speech of Al-Baladhariy above and the refutation to it is the same, although it is much better. That is because he did not assert that the old “Muwada’ah” (agreement of peace/truce), prior to Badr, was a written document, as Al-Baladhariy slipped up in, just as his text does not include something equal to the atrocious sentence “And that he would not fight in defence of the Ahl udh-Dhimmah”. Despite that, the statement of At-Tabari “breaching of the covenant (Naqdh Al‘Ahd)” is not something that fits with reality. That is because there was no prior “Ahd” (covenant) in origin but rather a “Muwada’ah” upon its original state. That is unless we were to consider its acceptance and adherence to it as being an “Ahd” (Covenant/treaty) implicitly?! As the statement of Ahmad Abu Zaid:

"Dalam kesaksian-kesaksian Mutawatir (riwayat berterusan yang menunjukkan kepastian) ini, terdapat cukup bukti untuk membuktikan keutamaan, sehingga dapat disimpulkan bahawa dokumen perjanjian damai dengan orang Yahudi telah ditulis pada tahun pertama Hijrah. Selain itu, analisis terhadap pasal-pasal dan teksnya menunjukkan bahawa ia tidak menggambarkan sebarang ketegangan antara Nabi ﷺ dan orang Yahudi. Oleh itu, berdasarkan semua ini, dakwaan ensiklopedia Islam itu gugur dan keraguan mereka telah disangkal", maka terdapat kesilapan yang ketara, bahkan kesilapan yang fatal di dalamnya.

“In these Mutawatir (concurrent transmissions indicating decisiveness) testimonies, there is enough to establish preponderance to conclude that the peace agreement document with the Jews was written in the first year of the Hijrah. In addition, an analysis of its articles and texts indicate that they are not indicative of any tension between the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Jews. As such, due to all of this, the claims of the Islamic encyclopaedia fall down and their doubts are refuted”, then there are significant, indeed fatal errors in it.

1) Pernyataan atau pandangan para ahli sejarah tidak disebut sebagai kesaksian (shahada) kecuali jika datang daripada saksi sezaman (saksi langsung). Jika tidak, pandangan tersebut hanyalah pendapat yang didasarkan pada maklumat atau premis yang benar atau salah. Sejumlah besar pendapat yang sejalan atau serupa juga tidak disebut sebagai Tawatur (iaitu ditetapkan secara pasti melalui periwayatan yang berterusan), dan pendapat-pendapat tersebut tidak memiliki nilai kesaksian Tawatur yang bersifat muktamad sebagai penegasan.

1) The statements or views of the historians are not called testimonies (shahada) unless it is from a contemporary (first-hand) witness. Otherwise, such a view is merely an opinion based upon correct or incorrect information or premises. A large number of conforming or similar opinions is not called Tawatur (i.e. established definitely by concurrent transmission) and they do not hold the value of Tawatur (decisive) testimonies of affirmation.

2) Sebahagian perlembagaan boleh digubal selepas berlakunya perang saudara, namun teksnya tidak mencerminkan wujudnya sebarang ketegangan antara pihak-pihak yang terlibat. Ini kerana tujuan perlembagaan ialah untuk menggariskan peraturan negara (iaitu bentuk Kesatuan atau Persekutuan dan sebagainya). Oleh itu, tarikh ketegangan atau konflik yang berlaku sebelum penggubalannya tidak ditulis mahupun disebut di dalamnya. Justeru, berkenaan pernyataan "Teks-teks tersebut (iaitu teks-teks itu) tidak menunjukkan sebarang ketegangan antara Nabi ﷺ dan kaum Yahudi", maka sebaliknya juga benar. Ini kerana penulisan perlembagaan konfederal atau perjanjian antarabangsa dengan sendirinya bukanlah bukti bagi wujudnya ketegangan, konflik atau peperangan yang mendahuluinya. Mungkin ada, mungkin juga tiada. Hal ini hanya dapat diketahui melalui petunjuk sejarah lain yang dikaji secara bebas daripada dokumen yang sedang diperiksa, atau daripada teks dokumen itu sendiri yang menunjukkan berakhirnya sesuatu konflik, terhentinya peperangan, atau penyelesaian masalah seperti pampasan dan diyat (wang darah) dan sebagainya. Ustaz Ahmad Abu Zaid ingin menyangkal dakwaan "Ensiklopedia Islam" yang beliau rumuskan sejurus sebelum itu dalam "As-Seera An-Nabawiyah" karya Ahmad Abu Zaid (m.s. 70) seperti berikut:

“Selepas ensiklopedia itu menyebut apa yang terkandung dalam perjanjian tersebut (Mu’ahadah) dari segi dasar kenabian yang bijaksana, dan selepas ia menunjukkan bahawa Ibn Ishaq telah memelihara teks perjanjian itu, ia menyatakan: Nampaknya teks ini tidak berasal, dari segi tarikh penulisannya, dari tahun pertama Hijrah, kerana ia mencerminkan hubungan yang tegang antara Nabi ﷺ dengan orang-orang Yahudi.”

“After the encyclopaedia mentioned what the contracting of that treaty (Mu’ahadah) contained in terms of wise prophetic policy making and after it indicated to Ibn Ishaq having preserved the text of that treaty, it stated: It appears that this text does not go back, in respect to the date of its writing, to the first year of the Hijrah, because it reflects the tense relations between the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Jews”.

Hakikatnya, Sahifah Madinah ditulis pada permulaan tahun ketiga Hijrah berdasarkan bukti daripada teks-teks sejarah yang diriwayatkan, sebagaimana yang telah kami kemukakan sebelum ini. Oleh itu, ensiklopedia tersebut benar mengenai perkara ini. Adapun kesimpulan para orientalis, yang merupakan pengarang ensiklopedia tersebut, bahawa teks (iaitu Sahifah) itu

The truth is that the Sahifah of Al-Madinah was written at the beginning of the third year of Hijrah based upon the evidence of the historical transmitted texts that we have presented earlier. As such, the encyclopaedia was correct regarding this matter. As for the deduction of the orientalists, who are the authors of the encyclopaedia, that the text (i.e. Sahifah)

mencerminkan hubungan yang tegang antara Nabi ﷺ dan orang-orang Yahudi,

“reflected tense relations between the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Jews”, .

Maka ini tidak meyakinkan dan tidak kena pada tempatnya. Orang-orang telah membebaskan imaginasi mereka di sini. Padahal sejarah hanyalah peristiwa dan realiti yang telah berlalu, dan laporannya mesti diambil daripada saksi-saksi tangan pertama serta rekod-rekod daripada mereka yang hidup pada zaman itu, bukan daripada imaginasi atau bahkan kesimpulan logik. Benar, keadaan yang melingkungi penulisan Sahifah menunjukkan bahawa ia ditulis kerana berlakunya ketegangan dalam hubungan dengan sebahagian orang Yahudi (Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf khususnya). Namun, teksnya tidak mengandungi apa-apa yang menunjukkan kepada sebarang ketegangan atau konflik sebelumnya, bahkan tidak sedikit pun!

then this is not convincing and out of place. People have given free reign to their imaginations here. That is whilst history is merely events and realities that have passed by and its reports must be taken from first-hand witnesses and records of those living at the time, not from imaginations or even logical deductions. Yes, it is true that the circumstances surrounding the writing of the Sahifah reveal that it was written due to the occurrence of a tension in the relations with some of the Jews (Ka’b in Al-Ashraf specifically). However, its text does not include anything indicating to any prior tension or conflict and not even remotely!