revelation] that is unerringly straight, meant to warn of a severe punishment from Him, and to give to the believers who do good works the glad tidings that theirs shall be a goodly reward – [a state of bliss] which they shall enjoy for ever. Furthermore, [this revelation is meant] to warn all those who assert that God has taken to Himself a son. No knowledge whatever have they of Him, and neither had their forefathers: dreadful is this saying that comes out of their mouths, and nothing but falsehood do they utter. Would you, perhaps, torment yourself to death with grief over them if they are not willing to believe in this message. We have willed that all beauty on earth be a means by which We put men to a test [showing] which of them are best in conduct; and indeed We shall in time reduce all that is on it to barren dust. (18: 1-8)17
The sūrah goes on to give a detailed account of the young men whom it calls ‘people of the cave.’ The details it gives of what happened to those young men could never have been learnt by the Prophet from a book or a scholar. These details could be provided only by God, who knows everything. This account is outlined in verses 9-26 of the sūrah, which then proceeds to speak of other matters before it answers the second question suggested by the Jewish rabbis. Verses 83-98 provide a detailed account of the man named in the sūrah as Dhul-Qarnayn and his three trips. There is no shortage of suggestions as to the identity of this man, but perhaps Mawlānā Mawdūdī’s view that the man was no other than the Persian king, Cyrus, carries most weight.
As for the third question, there is a short reference to it in verse 85 of Sūrah 17, entitled The Night Journey or al-Isrā’. This verse may be rendered in translation as follows: “They ask you about the Spirit. Say: [Knowledge of] the Spirit belongs to my Lord and you have been granted very little of real knowledge.”
More Hostility, More Defiance
What change would these answers to the questions suggested by the Jews and put to the Prophet by the unbelievers bring about? Certainly not much. Al-Naḍr ibn al-Ḥārith continued with his propaganda campaign, and the Quraysh continued with its persecution of the believers, and the two camps were as far apart as ever. Something new had to be worked out. Something had to happen soon, either to break the deadlock or to pull the two parties further apart. In the particular circumstances of Makkah at that time, further polarization was more likely.
The Muslims in Makkah felt that they could not allow the Quraysh to continue their persecution campaign without asserting their own presence. They started to be more open with their challenge to the unbelievers. Some of them even prayed in congregation at the Kaʿbah. Moreover, with ʿUmar and Ḥamzah in the ranks of the Muslims, more and more people were joining the new religion.
By now the unbelievers realized that there could be no meeting-ground between them and the Muslims. They were also aware that the tactics they employed to check the tide of Islam were of no great use. A conference was therefore called early in the seventh year of Muhammad’s prophethood to find some more effective methods for achieving that ungodly objective.
A Total Boycott
The hard-liners held sway in that conference. They advocated a total boycott of the Muslims and their supporters. Keen to see their plan implemented, they persuaded the other participants to make their resolutions binding on everyone in Makkah. Hence, they wrote down their resolutions on a scroll and posted it inside the Kaʿbah. This added an air of solemnity to those resolutions which made it much harder for anyone who cared for the Muslims or wished them well to contravene them.
The terms of the boycott were so strict as to rule out any intermarriages or trade transactions between the Hāshimite clan as a whole and the rest of the Quraysh. The Hāshimites were defiant; they joined ranks. The Muslims and the unbelievers among them were unanimous in their support of their leader, Abū Ṭālib, who, in turn, did not waver in his wholehearted support of his nephew. One exception, however, was Abū Ṭālib’s own brother, Abū Lahab.
Abū Lahab was hostile to Islam right from the beginning. He could not bring his tribal loyalties in line with the rest of the Hāshimite clan. He therefore broke off relations with his own clan and joined the boycott. Although his action was so obviously out of line with the traditions of Makkan society, the Quraysh were very happy with his decision to join them, since it showed that opposition to Muhammad was so widespread that even his own kinsfolk wanted to get rid of him. Perhaps one should add here that the terms of the boycott spelled out the conditions for its termination: that the Hāshimites must give up Muhammad to the Quraysh, whereupon he would be killed.
All the Hāshimite clan, including the non-Muslims among them, along with Muslims of other tribes suffered a great deal as a result of the boycott. If a tradesman or a farmer brought some goods or provisions to sell in Makkah, he was offered much more than his asking price on condition that he would not sell anything to the Hāshimites, who were confined to their quarters. The situation became very grave indeed as month after month went by with no flicker of hope for a quick end to this harsh boycott. Starvation was the order of the day for the Muslims and the Hāshimites. Their children cried themselves to sleep every night. Occasionally there was some relief as some kind-hearted person, moved by the cries of hungry children, would smuggle relief supplies through to the Hāshimite quarters under cover of darkness.
Such very welcome relief was bound to be temporary. The hardship continued for nearly three years. While the non-Muslims among the Hāshimites suffered from the boycott, the Muslims in general were subjected to much more persecution. That, however, did not weaken their resolve to hold fast to their new religion and to try to propagate it to their fellow citizens. They continued to do so patiently and tirelessly, under the supervision of the Prophet, the perfect example of a man of perseverance and confidence that his cause was sure to triumph.
In practical terms, the boycott imposed by the Quraysh meant a great deal of hardship which was equally endured by men, women and children. For three years, the Hāshimites were practically prevented from buying anything on the open market, even food for their families. The following report by Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ provides a glimpse of the suffering of the Muslims in this period: “I went out one night to relieve myself. [The Arabs did not have toilets in their homes at that time.] The urine fell over something which crackled. I picked it up. It was a piece of camel skin which had dried. I washed it well before burning it and mixing it thoroughly with water. It was my food for three days.”
Humanitarian Feelings Aroused
This moved some kind people to act to relieve the hardship of the boycotted people a little. A man called Hishām ibn ʿAmr did more than anybody else to help the Hāshimites. Hishām enjoyed a position of respect among his people. His help started by smuggling food and clothes to the Hāshimites in their quarter. He would load a camel with provisions or material and take it, under cover of darkness, to the entrance of the Hāshimite quarter, where he would release it so that it went in.
Meanwhile, God caused the writing which spelled out the covenant of boycott to disappear. He informed the Prophet of what had happened to that scroll posted inside the Kaʿbah. Moths had eaten all the writing which contributed to the injustice suffered by the Hāshimites. Whenever God’s name was mentioned, it remained as it was. The Prophet informed his uncle Abū Ṭālib, who, in turn, informed his brothers. They went out together to the Kaʿbah, where Abū Ṭālib said to the chiefs of Makkah: “My nephew, who has never told a lie to me, has informed me that God has caused moths to eat up everything that contained injustice or boycott of kinsfolk in your covenant. The only thing that has remained is God’s name. Let us go together and find out whether my nephew has told the truth. If what he says is true, then you give in and stop your injustice. If he has told a lie, I will give him up to you, and you may kill or spare him.”
They agreed to his suggestion and said that it was fair. They sent someone to look at the covenant and it was exactly as the Prophet had described. They were at a loss and regretted their agreeing to Abū Ṭālib’s suggestion. They made it clear that they would continue with their boycott. Abū Ṭālib asked them: “What have we done to deserve this state of siege imposed on us, when everything has been made clear?” He and his companions went straight to the Kaʿbah and entered between its robes and its walls.18
They