The Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) Treatment of Envoys
The establishment of social, political, economic, cultural, and similar relations between states is a necessity of international relations. These interactions are conducted through envoys who represent their respective nations. The duties of these envoys include representing their country, protecting the rights and interests of their citizens, engaging in negotiations, gathering information, and fostering economic, cultural, and scientific ties between the sending and receiving states. Indeed, the rules that regulate diplomatic relations—established since ancient times based on customs and traditions—are considered among the most fundamental principles of international law.
Within this framework, a special status has been granted to envoys to enable them to perform their duties freely and without pressure. Until the 15th century, states conducted diplomatic affairs by sending envoys only when needed. Starting in the 15th century, however, recognizing the necessity of having diplomatic representatives permanently stationed in other countries, especially among the Italian city-states led by Venice, the practice of appointing permanent envoys was established. When we look at Islamic legal and historical sources, we find an extensive body of literature—both legal and practical—concerning the institution of diplomacy and the treatment of envoys.
A. The Institution of Diplomacy in Islam
In Islamic legal literature, the assurance of safety granted to a non-Muslim who is not a citizen of the Islamic state is referred to as “amān.” The basis for the practice of amān in Islam is the Qur’anic verse: “If one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the word of God. Then deliver him to a place where he is secure.” (Surah At-Tawbah, 9:6) In his interpretation of this verse, Ibn Kathir notes that “An envoy coming from a foreign land must be granted inviolability so that he can fulfill his duty,” thereby affirming the diplomatic immunity of envoys.
The purpose of states sending envoys to one another within the framework of diplomatic relations is to resolve international disputes peacefully and to foster mutual understanding in their dealings. During the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), not only did foreign envoys come to the Islamic state, but envoys were also dispatched to other nations. This practice was perceived as a requirement of international courtesy and mutual respect. In this regard, Islam places great value on human dignity, a value that becomes even more evident when it involves diplomatic envoys. Great care and respect were shown to envoys, and specific measures were taken in their favor to ensure they could properly carry out their missions.
The special status of envoys arises from the representative role they carry. Even without a formal amān contract, envoys—by virtue of their position—benefit from this immunity. Ernest Nys, a historian of international law, observed that in the Middle Ages, the security of envoys was not based on a legal foundation but rather on the personal promise of the host. If the person who gave the promise died, the envoy’s immunity would end. This observation is significant in highlighting the general condition outside the Islamic world.
This article will focus on how the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) established certain principles and protections in favor of envoys to enable them to perform their duties, and how he instilled the principle of “no harm shall come to the envoy” as a dominant understanding in international relations.
B. Personal Immunity of Envoys
In Islamic law, barā’at al-dhimmah—the presumption of innocence and freedom from obligation—is a fundamental principle. Individuals who have committed no crime against the state or its citizens and who are not part of any organization acting against humanity may not be detained without cause, regardless of their nationality. Another core principle is the sanctity of life in Islam—taking a life is strictly prohibited (haram). For this reason, envoys cannot be detained or imprisoned in a foreign land under any circumstances.
The host state is responsible for taking all necessary measures to protect the envoy’s person, freedom, and dignity from any harm or threat. This immunity extends not only to the envoys themselves but also to their accompanying family members and staff. Furthermore, as long as the diplomatic mission continues, the envoy’s private property is also covered by this immunity. Personal immunity is not granted based on the individual’s own identity, but rather due to the representative function assigned to them by their home country. An attack or offense against the envoy is considered an offense against the state they represent.
1. Approval of the Envoy by the Receiving State
Before the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) intended to send the respectedʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb—who had prior experience in Quraysh diplomacy—to Mecca as an envoy. However, when ʿUmar asked to be excused for certain reasons, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) appointed the respectedʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān , considering his family ties with the Meccan leader Abū Sufyān. In modern diplomacy, an envoy can only be appointed if the receiving state grants approval—this is known as agrément in diplomatic terminology.
2. Freedom of Religion for Envoys
The freedom of envoys to practice their religion is also considered part of their personal immunity. During the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), diplomats were allowed to perform their religious rituals freely and safely. For example, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had invited the Christian delegation from Najrān to Medina. This delegation, led by Abū Ḥāritha ibn ʿAlqamah and consisting of sixty members, met with the Prophet. When the time for their prayers came, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) allowed them to worship inside the Prophet’s Mosque (Masjid al-Nabawī). They turned to the east and performed their religious rites there. This incident is significant as it underscores the importance of protecting the religious freedom of diplomatic envoys.
3. The Prophet’s Treatment of Envoys
During the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and the era of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs, diplomats who were under the protection of the Islamic state enjoyed full personal immunity. Their lives, property, honor, and dignity were respected; they were not subjected to torture or harassment. Even if an envoy or diplomatic staff member was considered a criminal in their own country, they were still granted immunity due to their diplomatic status. A clear example of this respect is found in the Prophet’s response to the envoys sent by Musaylimah al-Kadhdhāb, who had apostatized and falsely claimed prophethood. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to them, “If it were permissible to kill envoys, I would have killed you.” This statement highlights how much the Prophet valued diplomatic immunity, even for those representing hostile or heretical powers.
The concept of granting protection to envoys also existed among the pagan Arabs. When Musaylimah killed Ḥubayb ibn ʿAbdullah, the envoy of Caliph Abū Bakr, his own followers disapproved of the act. This underscores the necessity of personal immunity for envoys in order to conduct negotiations and maintain diplomacy during times of both war and peace.
A particularly noteworthy incident that demonstrates the Prophet’s care and sensitivity regarding the special status of envoys occurred in the 2nd year after Hijrah, following the Battle of Badr. The Meccans sent Abū Rāfiʿ to Medina as their envoy. Upon meeting the Prophet, Abū Rāfiʿ felt a strong desire to embrace Islam and refused to return to Mecca. He said: “O Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him), I will never return to those Meccans!” However, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) replied: “I do not break agreements, nor do I detain envoys. So go back now, and if you remain of the same mind, you may return to us.” Abū Rāfiʿ later did return and accepted Islam in the presence of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). According to Ibn Hishām, Abū Rāfiʿ had been sent by the Meccans to negotiate the release of prisoners captured at Badr. This incident clearly reflects the Prophet’s commitment to the inviolability of diplomatic representatives.
Another example is reported in Sunan Abū Dāwūd. A group was found worshipping Musaylimah, who claimed prophethood, in the mosque of Banū Ḥanīfah. They were urged to repent and embrace Islam. All but one—Ibn Nawwāḥah, an apostate—accepted the offer. An investigation was carried out to determine whether Ibn Nawwāḥah held diplomatic status. When it was confirmed that he did not, he was given the punishment he deserved. Similarly, Wahshī ibn Ḥarb, who had killed Ḥamzah ibn ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib at the Battle of Uḥud, approached the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) for the first time as part of a delegation from Ṭā’if, thereby benefiting from diplomatic protection. These examples unmistakably illustrate the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace and blessings be upon him) deep respect for diplomatic protocol and his strict adherence to the principles of diplomatic representation.
4. The Detention of Envoys in Extraordinary Circumstances
While international law practices are decisive in this matter, any actions that jeopardize the life or property of envoys are evaluated based on the principle of reciprocity. For example, during the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) sent Uthman ibn Affan to Mecca for negotiations. The Meccans detained Uthman for a long time, and even though the treaty was signed during this period, the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) detained two representatives from the Meccan delegation, Suhayl ibn Amr and Amir ibn Lu’ay, saying: “None of you will leave until our envoy has safely returned!” Once Uthman returned safely to the camp, the Meccan representatives were released. This incident demonstrates that envoys can be detained in exceptional circumstances.
5. The Prophet’s Stance on the Killing of Envoys
In Islam, the personal inviolability of diplomatic representatives is a firmly established principle. Therefore, the killing of an envoy in the country they are sent to is considered an act of war. For instance, in the eighth year of the Hijrah, the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) sent an envoy, Harith ibn Umayr al-Azdi, to the Ghassanids in the Syrian region. When the Ghassanids killed the envoy, the Prophet responded by sending an army of 1,000 soldiers under the command of Zayd ibn Harithah, leading to the Battle of Mu’tah. In modern international law, this issue is also evaluated within the framework of a state’s international responsibility. Accordingly, the host country is obligated to show the necessary respect for the envoy and to take all necessary measures to prevent any attacks on their person, liberty, honor, or dignity. Even in times of war between two nations, the country in which diplomats are stationed must ensure their safety.
6. Diplomats Engaging in Espionage Activities
In certain cases, there are exceptions to diplomatic immunity. Specifically, diplomatic representatives are required to act in accordance with the laws and regulations of the host country, refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of the accepting state, avoid using mission premises in a manner inconsistent with their diplomatic functions under international law or treaties, and refrain from engaging in professional or commercial activities for personal gain. If a diplomat violates these conditions and engages in actions that disrupt the peace and security of the host state or acts as a spy against the country, the only recourse may be to detain the diplomat temporarily, prevent further activities, or expel them from the country by declaring them persona non grata.
In Islamic law, there is consensus that foreign nationals who enter a country with a guarantee of safety (emân) and then engage in espionage should be punished for their actions. Indeed, the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) had spies who entered the Islamic state under the protection of emân tracked and punished. According to the Hanafi and Shafi’i schools of thought, if diplomats violate the conditions of their emân by engaging in espionage activities against the Islamic state, their personal immunity is nullified. In such cases, they lose their diplomatic status and may either be treated as prisoners of war or be executed.
However, according to the Maliki and Hanbali schools, a spy in this context loses their emân rights and immunity regardless of whether there was an explicit condition prohibiting espionage against the Islamic state. On the other hand, Imam Muhammad of the Hanafi school suggests that a suspected spy, whose guilt is not proven, should be expelled. Imam Awzai also holds that a person caught engaging in espionage should have their emân contract terminated and be immediately expelled.
From these perspectives, it can be said that modern international law’s provisions on the expulsion of diplomats involved in espionage align with the views of Imam Muhammad and Imam Awzai on this matter.
C. The Prophet’s Reception of Ambassadors
The state that accepts a diplomatic representative is obliged to take all necessary measures to ensure that no attack is made on the diplomatic premises, that they are not damaged, that diplomatic peace is not disrupted, and that the representative’s dignity is not tarnished. During the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), ambassadors who arrived in Medina were typically hosted in private homes rather than official buildings. After fulfilling their duties, they were sent back to their countries. It is reported that there were several large houses in Medina specifically designated for foreign guests. A narration in Abu Dawood’s Sunan provides information about the house of Mughira ibn Shu’ba and a tent set up next to the mosque, which was arranged for the ambassadors to stay in. Additionally, the Christian delegation from Najran, who came to Medina for negotiations, stayed at the house of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari. Furthermore, it is mentioned in sources that the large house of Ramlah bint Haris, which had a palm grove, was used as a place where ambassadors were hosted and honored.
Moreover, Muhammad Hamidullah mentions a house known as “Darud-Difān” (guest houses). In later periods, these houses were supplemented by “Daru’s-Said” (state guest houses), and during the later period of the Abbasids, special accommodations for ambassadors were provided.
Conclusion
Since ancient times, inter-state relations have continuously developed. In this regard, from very early times, ambassadors have been granted certain privileges to carry out their duties. Considering that in regions outside the Islamic world, the security of ambassadors was not based on legal principles, the issue of ambassadorial immunity during the early periods of Islam was addressed within the framework of Islamic general principles, and regulations were made that could form the basis for current practices in international law. Furthermore, Islam established and applied the principle of “no harm to the ambassador,” ensuring that ambassadors had personal immunity in international relations. The involvement of ambassadors in activities outside their diplomatic roles, such as espionage, constitutes an exception to this general rule.
During the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), even though the concept of permanent embassies did not exist as it does in modern international relations, temporary ambassadors were still appointed to establish peace or end wars. These practices during the early periods of Islam significantly contributed to the development of the institution of diplomacy in subsequent periods.
Dr. Ali Aslan Topçuoğlu — July / August / September 2011 – Issue 93
