
come down to us from this generation of
scholars due to the largely oral nature (see
;    
) of scholarly activity at the time
(see   ; -
  ). Questions of authen-
ticity also surround material attributed to
these early scholars. For example, the au-
thorship of Tanwīr al-miqbās as ascribed to
Ibn Abbās by its compiler Abū āhir
Fīrūzābādī, is seriously doubted (cf. Sezgin,
 , i, ).
Muhammad al-Faruque
Bibliography
Primary: Abd al-Razzāq, Muannaf; al-
Balādhurī, Amad b. Yayā, Ansāb al-ashrāf,
ed. M. al-Firdaws al-A'amī,  vols., Damascus
-; Bukhārī, +aī; Ibn azm, Jawāmi al-sīra
wa-khams rasāil ukhrā, ed. I. Abbās and N. al-
Asad, Cairo , repr. Gujranwalah ca.;
Ibn Isāq, Sīra, ed. M. al-Saqqā, Beirut ;
Ibn Isāq-Guillaume; Ibn al-Jawzī, Abū l-Faraj
Abd al-Ramān b. Alī, al-Wafā bi-awāl al-
Mu afā, ed. M.A. A#ā, Beirut ; Ibn Sad,
-abaqāt, ed. I. Abbās; Nasāī, Sunan; al-Rāghib
al-I%fahānī, Abū l-Qāsim al-usayn, Mufradāt
alfā* al-Qurān, ed. (.A. Dāwūdī, Damascus
; Suyū#ī, Itqān; abarī, Tarīkh, ed. M. Abū
l-Fal Ibrāhīm.
Secondary: M.R. Amad, al-Sīra al-nabawiyya fī
$aw al-maādir al-aliyya. Dirāsa talīliyya, Riyadh
; M.. al-Dhahabī, al-Tafsīr wa-l-mufassirūn,
 vols., Cairo ; M. Hamidullah, The first
written constitution in the world, Lahore ;
R. Hoyland, Seeing Islam as others saw it, Prince-
ton , -; A.A. b. Idrīs, Mujtama al-
Madīna fī ahd al-rasūl, Riyadh ; M. Lecker,
Muslims, Jews and pagans. Studies on early Islamic
Medina, Leiden ; G. Mélamède, The meet-
ings at al-AFaba, in Le monde orientale  (),
-, repr. in U. Rubin et al. (eds.), The life of
Muammad, Brookfield, VT , -; R.B.
Serjeant, The sunna jāmia, pacts with the Yathrib
Jews, and the tarīm of Yathrib. Analysis and
translation of the documents in the so-called
‘Constitution of Medina,’ in   (),
-; repr. in U. Rubin (ed.), The life of Muam-
mad, Brookfield, VT , -; Sezgin,  ;
B.A. al-Ward, Aāb al-hijra fī l-Islām, Beirut ;
W.M. Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, Oxford ;
id., Muhammad at Medina, Oxford , repr.
Karachi .
18
Emigration
Departure from a place or abode. The
Arabic term for emigration (hijra, from the
root, h-j-r) denotes cutting oneself off from
friendly or sociable relations (see 
;  ), ceas-
ing to speak to others, forsaking, abandon-
ing, deserting, shunning or avoiding
( :; :; :). It also means depar-
ture from the desert to the town or villages
and vice versa. Its most common meaning
is to forsake one’s own land and take up
residence in another country. The Qurān
frequently uses the variations of the root
kh-r-j to convey this sense ( :; :;
:; :). It also has been interpreted to
mean an emigration from the territory of
unbelievers to the territory of believers for
the sake of religion ( :; :). Tech-
nically, the term hijra has been used to de-
signate the emigration of the prophet
Muammad (q.v.) and his early compan-
ions from Mecca (q.v.) to Medina (q.v.) in
 .. (Lane, viii, -; see -
   ;  
). Although the standard sources
narrate an earlier emigration of a group of
Muslims from Mecca to Abyssinia (q.v.),
the term is primarily used in the sense of
emigration from Mecca to Medina. Its var-
ious derivatives appear thirty-one times in
the Qurān, sixteen of which refer to the
emigration of Muslims from Mecca to
Medina and to departure from home for
the cause of God (see   ).
The first emigration of Muslims was to
Abyssinia (al-abasha, modern Ethiopia).
Early sources place this in the fifth year of
the Qurān’s revelation to Muammad.
According to the various accounts, when
the Meccan persecution of the Prophet’s
followers intensified and Muammad
found himself unable to protect them, he
instructed them to disperse in various
directions. Upon their inquiry of where,
 19
exactly, to go, he advised them to set out
for Abyssinia, the “land of truthfulness,”
whose ruling (Christian) king was a just
person, and to stay there until God re-
lieved them from their difficulties (Ibn
Isāq, Sīra, i, ). Several groups of Mus-
lims, therefore, both with and without their
families, emigrated there. The Abyssinian
king, the Negus, received them favorably.
He inquired about their new religion and
inquired about their understanding of
Jesus (q.v.), the son of Mary (q.v.). In reply,
their leader, Jafar, recited  :-,
which had been revealed shortly before
their leaving Mecca. The king, satisfied
with this response, allowed them to stay in
his country, denying the request of the del-
egation of Quraysh (q.v.) who had followed
them to Abyssinia in the hope of convinc-
ing the king to force their return. A total of
eighty-two people, excluding the youth,
emigrated to Abyssinia at different times
( abarī, Tarīkh, ii, ), though Ibn Sad,
(-abaqāt, i, , ) gives a higher figure
of one hundred sixteen. When rumor
reached this group that leading Meccans
had been followers of the Prophet ( abarī,
Tarīkh, ii, , ), thirty-three of their
number returned to Mecca where they re-
mained until their second emigration, this
time to Medina. Those Muslims who had
elected to stay in Abyssinia eventually left
to join the Prophet in Medina.
A summary narrative of the second but
more consequential emigration can be
drawn from the most commonly available
sources of early Islamic history. Accord-
ing to these accounts soon after the end of
the boycott of the Prophet’s clan, Banū
Hāshim, by the rest of the clans of Qu-
raysh, probably in  .., two important
figures in the life of the Prophet died: his
uncle Abū ālib (see   
) who had continuously provided
him with protection (q.v.) and his wife
Khadīja (q.v.; see    ),

who had been a source of both financial
and moral support. As chief of the Banū
Hāshim, Abū ālib was succeeded by his
brother Abū Lahab who, it is said, had ini-
tially promised to protect Muammad in
the same way as Abū ālib had done, but
soon withdrew this protection on the
grounds that Muammad had alleged that
Abd al-Mu##alib (their common ancestor)
was in hell (q.v.). This loss of security
caused great distress to the Prophet and his
followers, since he could now be easily tar-
geted for harsher treatment (see -
  ). Thus, both he and
his supporters were no longer safe in
Mecca. Moreover, the Prophet probably
realized that he had already achieved what
he could in Mecca. No dramatic change in
the attitude of the Meccans could be ex-
pected and no important conversions
could be foreseen. Faced with such cir-
cumstances, he changed his strategy and
decided to convey his message to the no-
madic tribes of Arabia (see ; 
 ), doing this during the last
three years of his stay in Mecca. In his
quest to continue his mission he went to
āif, a neighboring city at a distance of
some twenty-five miles ( km) south of
Mecca and dominated by the Thaqīf, a
branch of the Hawāzin. Like Mecca, āif
was a commercial city (see )
and the Thaqīf, who maintained close ties
with Yemen (q.v.), were a natural rival of
the Quraysh. What actually prompted the
Prophet to choose āif in preference to
other localities is not clear, but he certainly
sought to utilize their rivalry with the
Quraysh to his advantage. The people of
āif, however, not only rejected his mes-
sage but encouraged the town rabble to
throw stones at him. He was physically in-
jured and left āif without any immediate
success. On his way back to Mecca, he
realized that his re-entry into the city
would be highly risky, given his lack of
 
protection and his failed mission at āif.
So, through an intermediary, he ap-
proached three clan chiefs for protection.
One of them, al-Mu#im b. Adī, chief of
the Banū Nawfal and a relative of the
Prophet on his mother’s side, appears to
have agreed and took him to the Kaba
(q.v.), where the protection was recognized
by the leaders of the Quraysh (Ibn Isāq,
Sīra, i, ).
The Prophet then re-entered Mecca and
remained there, preaching to the various
tribes that came to the city for pilgrimage
and fairs. During the pilgrimage season of
 .. he met at Aqaba with six mem-
bers of the Khazraj tribe in Yathrib (see
) who accepted his message and
promised to propagate it. These six were
the first from Yathrib (the name of Medina
before the hijra) to convert to Islam, al-
though reports do claim that two members
of the Aws, killed before the battle of
Buāth (between the Aws and Khazraj one
year before the hijra), died as Muslims
(Balādhurī, Ansāb, i, -). Five of these
six came back during the pilgrimage the
following year and brought seven others
with them, three of whom were from the
tribe of Aws. They met the Prophet again
at Aqaba and made a solemn pledge (q.v.)
to support and protect him. This was
known as the Pledge of Women (bayat al-
nisā) as no fighting was involved (Ibn
I%āq-Guillaume, -; cf.  :). They
went back to Yathrib, having promised to
convey Muammad’s message to their
brethren. The Prophet also sent Mu%ab b.
Umayr to Yathrib to teach the Qurān to
the new converts and to invite others to
Islam. Their work was apparently so effec-
tive that converts were made from every
family of anār (i.e. the Helpers or residents
of Yathrib who were to receive and help
the Emigrants — muhājirūn — from Mecca)
except the Aws Allāh, a group of the Aws
known as Aws Manāt before Islam.
20
In the following pilgrimage season (
..),  men and three women met the
Prophet at Aqaba and made a pledge
not only to obey him but also to protect
and fight for him. This pledge is known as
the Pledge of War (bayat al-arb). Tradi-
tional accounts stress that the Prophet’s
uncle Abbās, though not yet a Muslim,
was present at this Pledge in order to
oversee the smooth transfer of responsi-
bility for Muammad’s protection from
the Banū Hāshim to the people of Yath-
rib (Ibn Isāq, Sīra, ii, -). The authen-
ticity of this anecdote is, however, seri-
ously questioned by modern scholarship
and is ascribed to Abbāsid propaganda
efforts — Abbās was the eponymous an-
cestor of this dynasty — aimed at enhanc-
ing their image. Soon after this group went
back to their city, the Prophet instructed
his Companions to leave, in small groups,
for Yathrib. All but two of his Compa-
nions gradually left Mecca and reached
Yathrib. Of the remaining two, Abū Bakr
was asked by the Prophet to delay his emi-
gration and to be his travel companion as
the Prophet was expecting divine permis-
sion to emigrate (see   -
;   ).
The other, Alī (see  .  ),
remained in Mecca at the Prophet’s in-
struction and later joined the rest of the
Muslims at Yathrib.
The standard accounts continue that
after receiving divine permission, the
Prophet left Mecca on the same night the
Quraysh surrounded his house to attack
and kill him ( :). He stayed the first
three days after leaving Mecca at the
Cave of Thawr ( :; see ), south
of Mecca, then moved to Yathrib follow-
ing an unusual route. On the th of
Rabī I he reached Qubā, in al-Āliya of
Yathrib (topographically, Medina was di-
vided into Āliya and Sāfila — upper and
lower — Medina, respectively; see Lecker,
 21
Muslims, -; see ), where he
stayed for about two weeks and built the
first mosque (q.v.). He then moved to the
main part of the city, called Sāfila, and
settled at the spot on which his famous
mosque is now located. The city changed
its name to commemorate the occasion,
from Yathrib to Madīnat al-Nabī (lit. the
city of the Prophet), commonly shortened
to al-Madīna (Medina being the popular
English transliteration).
The early sources differ in their interpre-
tations of who was saved by the hijra: the
Prophet from Meccan persecution, or the
Medinans from self-destruction. One side
stresses that it was Muammad who was
rescued as he sought a safe haven to avoid
the persecution of the Meccans and to
continue his mission. With this under-
standing it is the Prophet who receives
salvation, the Medinans who provide it by
offering Muammad and his followers
shelter and protection (Ibn Sad, -abaqāt, i,
; for qurānic reference to shelter and
assistance, cf.  :, ; for a detailed dis-
cussion on the salvation issue, see Rubin,
Eye, -). One allusion to the potential
salvific role of the Medinans is the insis-
tence of the uncle of the Prophet, Abbās
(said to have been present at the second
pledge of Aqaba), that the Medinans be
serious about their commitment to shelter-
ing and protecting Muammad and not
abandon him when he moved to their city.
Evidence of the view that perhaps Mu-
ammad did not need ‘salvation’ is found
in Abbās’ reported statement that if the
Medinans had such an intention [i.e. to
abandon Muammad], they should leave
him immediately, for he already enjoyed
protection and honor in his city and from
his clan (Ibn Isāq, Sīra, ii, -).
In the reports that emphasize the Medi-
nans as the actual recipients of salvation
and the Prophet as the provider, the Medi-
nans are depicted as being on the verge of

collapse due to their internal feuds (be-
tween the Aws and the Khazraj, which
resulted in a long-lasting war). It was for
assistance in the resolution of this crisis
that they had invited the Prophet (Ibn
Isāq, Sīra, ii, ; iv, -; abarī, Tafsīr,
ad  :). Several commentators, such
as al- abarī (d. ⁄), al-Rāzī (d. ⁄
) and al-Qur#ubī (d. ⁄), as well
as Sayyid Qu#b (d. ) in modern times,
are of the opinion that  : and :
refer to the chaotic situation which pre-
vailed in Medina before the Prophet
brought peace, stability and order. This
interpretation understands Muammad to
be the rescuer, and the Medinans the res-
cued. Some sources indicate that Muam-
mad himself insisted on this understanding
during reconciliation with the unhappy
Medinans after the Battle of unayn (q.v.;
⁄; Ibn Isāq, Sīra, iv, -; see also
  ). While the exe-
getical and historical sources express no
unanimity on this issue, they uniformly
contend that both parties greatly benefited
from the hijra.
Classical Muslim historiography is also
unanimous in understanding the emigra-
tion to Medina as an event of great impor-
tance for the development of Islam (q.v.).
According to this literature, for the great
majority of Meccans the Prophet was an
unwanted reformer who had created ten-
sion and uneasiness in their society and
hence was rejected by them. Their disdain
was compounded by the Prophet’s lack of
either elite status or strong financial back-
ing. In Medina, after the hijra, his position
changed markedly. There, he was an in-
vited and accepted leader with the respon-
sibility of saving the Medinan community
from self-destruction and leading them to
prosperity. He eventually became the un-
disputed leader of all of Medina, to whom
issues were referred for final resolution (Ibn
Isāq, Sīra, ii, ). There, the Muslim
 
community (umma) was established as a
polity (see    
 ) and the Muslims, freed from
the fear of persecution, began to flourish
as a supra-tribal community.
Viewed through the lens of the exegeti-
cal literature that it generated, the Qurān
also attests to the importance of the hijra.
Not only are sūras of the Qurān tagged
as Meccan or Medinan (based on the
place⁄period of revelation, though some
are understood to contain both Meccan
and Medinan portions; see 
  ), but their contents also
reflect the changed position of the umma
after the hijra. While the major emphases
of Meccan verses appears to be on belief
in the unity of God (tawīd), in the proph-
etic office of Muammad (risāla) and in the
life to come (ākhira, see ), the
emphases found in Medinan verses are
related to the social, economic, legal and
political affairs of the umma. The classifica-
tion of sūras as Meccan and Medinan also
takes account of changes in tone and ter-
minology (see    
 ). While the pre-hijra verses use
the vocative phrase “O you people” ( yā
ayyuhā l-nās), post-hijra verses are often ad-
dressed to “O you who believe” ( yā ayyuhā
lladhīna āmanū, see   ).
Classical qurānic exegesis thus saw the
hijra as the demarcation for major changes
in the course of the umma’s development
and for changing themes of the qurānic
message. The Muslim calendar provides
another indication of the decisive impor-
tance accorded to this event. When Umar
b. al-Kha##āb, the second caliph, estab-
lished the Muslim calendar (q.v.), its begin-
ning was set on the first day of the lunar
year in which the hijra had taken place.
Early authors differ on whether the door
of hijra, i.e. the period in which emigration
could be undertaken for religious reasons,
was closed after the conquest of Mecca (in
⁄) or whether it remained open indefi-
22
nitely (see ). The disagreement
revolves around two sets of conflicting tra-
ditions. In one, the Prophet said, “There is
no emigration after the conquest” (Abd
al-Razzāq, Muannaf, v, ; Bukhārī, +aī,
K. al-Fat). In another, the Prophet is re-
ported to have said, “The hijra will not
come to an end as long as the infidels are
fought,” or in a variation, “The hijra will
not come to end until the sun shall rise
from its place of setting” (Nasāī, Sunan,
K. al-Baya, ch. , no. -; Ibn anbal,
Musnad, i, ; iv, ). The issue was so
hotly debated in scholarly circles that both
Abū Dāwūd (d. ⁄) and al-Nasāī
(d. ⁄) included separate chapters in
their adīth compilations entitled “On
whether the hijra has ended” and “Mention
of disagreements regarding the hijra on
whether it has come to an end,” respec-
tively. Both of them record conflicting tra-
ditions in their chapters on this topic.
Madelung (Has the hijra come to an end?)
has lately shown that the set of traditions
which understand hijra as not having ended
with the conquest of Mecca originates pri-
marily in Syria with Umayyad backing. It
was the Umayyads who compelled Mus-
lims to relocate to newly conquered territo-
ries, a process initiated by the second ca-
liph Umar (q.v.; r. -⁄-). The
heated debate notwithstanding, the hijra
acquired new significance and meaning
after the death of the Prophet. No longer
was it considered necessary to emigrate to
Medina but the duty to emigrate to a safer
place remained in force for Muslims when-
ever their faith and practice were at risk in
their own lands ( :). For example,
some Khārijīs (q.v.) demanded that those
adhering to their cause break off from
other Muslims, considered by them to be
unbelievers or monotheists at best, and
depart for a place defined as a seat or cen-
ter of emigration (dār al-hijra, see Watt,
Khārijite thought). Even in modern times,
many reformist leaders urge the emig-
 23
ration of their followers when they are
oppressed in their own lands or unable to
perform their religious obligations as they
would wish.
Muhammad al-Faruque
Bibliography
Primary: Abd al-Razzāq, Muannaf; al-
Balādhurī, Amad b. Yayā, Ansāb al-ashrāf, ed.
M. al-Fardūs al-A'm,  vols., Damascus -;
al-Bayhaqī, Abū Bakr Amad b. al-usayn,
Dalāil al-nubuwwa wa-marifat awāl āib al-
sharīa, ed. A. Qilājī,  vols., Beirut ;
Bukhārī, +aī; Ibn anbal, Musnad; Ibn azm,
Jawāmi al-sīra wa-khams rasāil ukhrā, ed. I. Abbās
and N. al-Asad, Cairo , repr. Gujranwalah
ca. ; Ibn Isāq, Sīra, ed. M. al-(aqqā, repr.
Beirut ; Ibn Isāq-Guillaume; Ibn al-Jawzī,
al-Wafā bi-awāl al-Mu afā, ed. M.A. A#ā,
Beirut ; Ibn Kathīr, al-Fuūl fī sīrat al-rasūl,
ed. M. al-Kha#rawī and M. Mastū, Damascus
; Ibn Rushd, Muammad (al-jadd, the
grandfather), Kitāb al-Jāmi min al-muqaddimāt, ed.
al-Mukhtār b. al- āhir al-Talīlī, Amman ;
Ibn Sad, -abaqāt, ed. I. Abbās, repr. Beirut n.d.;
Nasāī, Sunan; abarī, Tarīkh, ed. Ibrāhīm.
Secondary: M.R. Amad, al-Sīra al-nabawiyya fī
$aw al-maādir al-aliyya. Dirāsa tahlīliyya, Riyadh
; P. Crone, The first-century concept of
hiǧra, in Arabica  (), -; M. al-Ghazālī,
Fiqh al-sīra, Beirut ; M.J. Kister, Notes on
the papyrus account of the Aqaba meeting, in
Muséon  (), -; F. Krenkow, The
topography of the hijrah, in   (), -;
Lane; M. Lecker, Muslims, Jews and pagans. Studies
on early Islamic Medina, Leiden ; W. Made-
lung, Has the hijra come to an end? in  
(), -; G. Mélamède, The meetings at al-
AFaba, in Le monde orientale  (), -, repr.
in U. Rubin et al. (eds.), The life of Muammad,
Brookfield, VT , -; U. Rubin, The eye of
the beholders. The life of Muammad as viewed by the
early Muslims. A textual analysis, Princeton ;
W.M. Watt, Khārijite thought in the Umayyad
period, in Der Islam  (), -; id., Muham-
mad at Mecca, Oxford ; id., Muhammad at
Medina, Oxford , repr. Karachi .
Enemies
A military foe or hostile force. The root of
the common Arabic term for “enemy”
(aduww, pl. adā), -d-w, occurs frequently
in the Qurān. Its essential meaning is to

run or gallop swiftly or, in so doing, to
pass by or beyond something. The root
therefore took on the meaning of passing
beyond boundaries or limits, i.e. to trans-
gress, a meaning which occurs commonly
in the Qurān in various forms (e.g.
 :; see   ).
An enemy is thus one who has transgressed
against another.
The term “enemy” is often applied in the
Qurān specifically to Satan ( :, ;
:; :; :; :; :; :; :;
:; see ; ) or more generally
to those in ancient days who did not listen
to previous prophets ( :; :; :;
see   ), espe-
cially the Egyptians who were the enemies
of Moses (q.v.;  :, ; :, ; :,
, ; see also ; ; ).
“Enemy” is also applied to those who re-
fuse to believe in God and⁄or God’s angels
( :-; :; :, ; :-; see
; ), those actively opposing
Muammad and his followers ( :, ;
:, ; see   )
or who do so discretely ( :), the idola-
trous relatives of the believers ( :; see
  ) including the
relatives of Abraham (q.v.;  :; :)
and kinship groups hostile to one another
even among the believers ( :; see
;   ).
“Enemies” is also used to describe the
natural state of humankind in conflict with
one another as a result of Adam’s and his
unnamed wife’s banishment from the gar-
den (q.v.;  :; :; :; see 
 ; ;   ).
God commands them, “Descend [from the
garden, from now on being] enemies one
to another” (ihbi ū ba$ukum li-ba$in
aduww). This state of affairs persisted nat-
urally until God brought friendship and
unity among the believers ( :; see
     ;
  ), although as
mentioned previously, the Qurān does