Providing immunity to diplomats is the Prophet’s Sunnah

Musaylimah ibn Habib or “the Liar” grew up as a Christian, like most of the Banu Hanifa tribe in the region of Najd who embraced Christianity before Islam. He decided to go to Al-Quds (Jerusalem) to study theology and the Latin language. While there, he heard priests speaking about the imminent coming of the Prophet about whom the Messiah had prophesied. Like many other priests, he started thinking: Why should he be that expected Prophet? News soon reached Al-Quds about the mission of Muhammad (peace be upon him) in Makkah. When he returned to Thimamah, he found out that many members of his tribe had gone to Madinah with others to embrace Islam. Musaylimah did not like that. He decided to go to Madinah but refused to take the oath of allegiance (Baiea) to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), unless he made him a partner like Haroon was to his brother Musa (peace be upon them). The Prophet did not like the idea and said, “Earth is God’s ownership, which he gives to anyone of His choice.”
When the sedition of Musaylimah reached its peak, the Prophet sent him an envoy, Habib bin Zaid, who had been one of Musaylimah’s companions. Habib had embraced Islam at an early stage and was among the 70 people who took oath of allegiance to the Prophet during the Second Pledge at Al-Aqabah. When Habib arrived at Banu Hanifa’s home and gave the Prophet’s message to Musaylimah, the latter became very angry. Evil and hatred showed clearly on his face. He gave orders to put the envoy in chains. Next day he asked Habib if he believed in Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and the envoy answered in the affirmative. He also asked Habib if he believed that Musaylimah was a prophet, and Habib kept quiet, faking that he had not listened. Musaylimah ordered that part of the envoy’s body be chopped. He repeated his question, and every time the envoy did not respond, some of his limbs were cut until he died in front of all the audience.
Against this backdrop, Musaylimah’s emissaries came to the Prophet. This has also been stated in one of the Prophet’s Hadiths (sayings). They were Ibn Al-Nwaha and Ibn Athal. The Prophet asked them if they believed he was the messenger of God, and they answered in the negative. They said it was Musaylimah who was the prophet. The Prophet said: “If I was a murderer, I would have killed you.” This Hadith constitutes the international principle that envoys will not be killed. Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations reads: “The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The host country shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity.”
The other articles of the agreement prevent attacks on diplomatic buildings such as embassies and consulates.
I remember this story while worriedly following the demonstrations and protests in a number of Muslim countries against the film shown in the United States that ridiculed Prophet Muhammad.
I would like to state, first of all, that every Muslim has the right to be angry over the attempts of some unknown people who are seeking fame through attacking Islam and Prophet Muhammad. It is our duty to defend our religion and our Prophet, but this defense should be within the following boundaries.
The civilized conduct the Prophet had adopted toward the emissaries of Musaylimah, against the brutality and violence the latter had shown toward his envoys, was one of the features that characterized Islam. Defending the Prophet should be done by firmly sticking to his Sunnah. People should not sacrifice the Prophet’s Sunnah under the pretext of defending him, because this is against the Qur’an, which says: “So take what the Apostle assigns to you and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you. And fear God; for God is strict in punishment” (Surat Al-Hashar, verse No.7).
I have previously said that providing immunity to diplomats is a Sunnah of the Prophet. According to a story, a wise man was asked how men could reply to his enemies. The man answered: By reforming himself. The situation of Muslims today is a far cry from what the Prophet wanted Muslims to do. Therefore, the best reply to the campaigns targeting the Prophet is through adhering more to his Sunnah, presenting this Sunnah to the entire world, and redrafting life according to it. This is the ideal and best reply. It is much better than the violent reactions. In similar incidents, Muslims have demonstrated and many lives were lost.
Campaigns against the Prophet are as old as his dawa. These attacks were initiated by the Qureish, his tribe, and even by some members of his own family. The Prophet was accused of lying, madness, sorcery and love of leadership. All of this did not work, because Islam became stronger with attacks against it. The anti-Islam campaigns continued throughout the ages, repeating the same lies and false allegations until they reached Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoonists.
Such attacks are bound to be repeated by the enemies of Islam. For this reason, Muslim scholars should enlighten the Ummah to be cautious and more committed to the teachings of Islam to foil the designs of the enemies. Scholars should teach Muslims to respond to such attacks according to the Prophet’s Sunnah. Muslims should not be carried away by their sentiments and should stay away from violent reactions that might harm innocent people and provide opportunists the chance they look for to undermine Islam.
These incidents should rally all rational people in the world to stand together against those using the pretext of freedom of speech to attack Islam. If we are more accurate, such acts do not fall within the freedom of speech or opinion concept. They are, rather, a form of intellectual terrorism. The laws of the world incriminate anyone who shouts “fire!” in a crowded place just to agitate people or falsely alert them because of the consequences that might result from such act. The claim that such legislations might impinge on the concept of freedom of speech is not acceptable. Western countries have enacted laws incriminating anyone who denies the Holocaust. Lately, France issued a legislation incriminating anyone who denies the massacres carried out by the Turks against the Armenians. Where is the restriction of freedom of speech in these legislations? The best guarantee to freedom of speech is the responsible use of this freedom to enlighten people with ideas and opinions, and not to give the opportunity to the enemies to breathe their poisons and plant seeds of dissentions among people. It is the innocent Muslims who demonstrated, and the staff of the US Consulate in Benghazi who paid the price of such seditions.

n Dr. Ghanim Alwan Al-Jumaily is the Iraqi ambassador to the Kingdom. (Courtesy of Al-Riyadh newspaper)