Muslims & The Straight Path [Published 2010]
Part - 3-I
THE BEGINNING AND THE END OF THE CALIPHATE
The divinely instituted system of the godly guidance of Imamat should not be confused with the movement started with political exigencies for the secular power and authority called the ‘Caliphate’ which was started by man and ended by man himself. It looks as if the Caliphate was a play or a game which some children started, played with it for some time and they got tired of it themselves and then ended it themselves. Or it can be said that the Caliphate was a toy which looked to be very attractive to some children who aspired to own it, quarreled and even fought for it, got it, and broke it into bits and ultimately the bits were thrown away, one after another until the toy altogether disappeared.
Khilafat-e-Rashida
The Holy Prophet had not even breathed
his last, the people who only waited for his departure from this world to gain
hold over the vast Muslim Empire, quarreled among themselves as to who should
hold the Authority-Supreme, the Mohajirs, (i.e. those who had migrated
from Makkah to Medina) or the Ansars (the helpers (i.e. the Medinites)
who gave the Mohajirs, the emigrants, the asylum. The people deserted
the Holy Prophet, in his death-bed and assembled at a place called the
‘Saqeefa-e-Bani Sa’ada’.
We put the question to you! Where would
you like to be if you believe in a Prophet from God and that prophet is about
to depart for his final journey? Look in the pages of history to find where
were some of the most prominent Muslims of the time when Prophet was dying.
According to the author of Ghiayathul-lughat,
Saqifah was a secret location where the Arabs used to gather for their
evil activities. Here Saad ibn Ubadah, who was then ailing, was led to a
stately chair and made to sit upon it, wrapped in a blanket, so that he might
be elected as the Caliph. Saad then delivered a speech in which he recounted
the virtues of the ansar and told them to take over the caliphate before anyone
else could do so. The ansar agreed and said that they wanted him to be the
Caliph. But then among themselves, they began to ask: “What reply should we
give to the mujajirun (emigrants from Makkah) of the Quraysh if they
oppose this move and put forth their own claim?
A group said: “We shall
tell them, let us have one leader from among you and one from among us.” Saad
said: “This is the first weakness you have shown.”
Someone informed Omar ibn
al-Khattab of this gathering saying: “If at all you desire to acquire the
dignity of rulership you should reach the Saqifah before it is too late
and difficult for you to change what is being decided there.” On receiving the
news, Omar, along with Abu Bakr, rushed to the Saqifah. Abu Ubaydah ibn
al-Jarrah also accompanied them.
At-Tabari, Ibnul-Athir, Ibn
Qutaybah and others proceed with their narrations stating that having reached
the Saqifah, Abu Bakr, Omar and Abu Ubaydah had hardly taken their seats when
Thabit ibn Qays stood up and began enumerating the virtues of the ansar
and suggested that the office of the caliphate should be offered to someone
from the ansar. Omar is reported to have said later on: “When the
speaker of the ansar finished his speech, I made an attempt to speak as
already I had thought over some important points, but Abu Bakr beckoned me to
keep quiet. Therefore, I remained silent. Abu Bakr had more competence and
knowledge than myself. He then said the same things I had thought of and
expressed them even better.”
According to Rawdatus-Safa,
Abu Bakr addressed the assembly at the Saqifah thus: “Assembly of the ansar!
We acknowledge your good qualities and virtues. We have also not forgotten your
struggles and endeavours for promoting the cause of Islam. But the honour and
respect the Quraysh have among the Arabs is not enjoyed by any other tribe, and
the Arabs will not submit to anyone other than the Quraysh.”
In as-Sirah al-Halabiyyah,
it is added:
“However, it is a fact that
we the muhajirun were the first to accept the Islamic creed. The Prophet
of Islam was from our tribe. We are the relatives of the Apostle. . . and
therefore we are the people who are
entitled to caliphate. . . It will be advisable to have the leadership among us
and for you to take the ministry. We will not act unless we consult with you.”
Heated arguments started
during which Omar cried: “By Allah, I will kill him who opposes us now.”
Al-Hubab ibn al-Mundhir ibn Zayd, an ansari from the Khazraj tribe,
challenged him saying: “By Allah, we will not allow anyone to rule over us as a
caliph. One leader must come from you and one from us.” Abu Bakr said: “No,
this cannot be; it is our right to the rulers and yours to be our ministers.”
Al-Hubab said: “O ansar! Do not submit yourselves to what these people
say. Be firm. . . By Allah, if anyone dares to oppose me now, I will cut his
nose with my sword.” ‘Omar remarked: “By Allah, duality is not advisable in the
caliphate. There cannot be two kings in one regime, and the Arabs will not
agree to your leadership, because the Apostle was not from you tribe.”
It is to be noted that the
concept of one Ummah was broken right there. Selection on the basis of
kinship and tribal relations were given as the reasons. If you look at the
reasons Abu Bakr gave to justify his own caliphate were all those in which Ali
was better than him. He said, “We are the relatives of the Apostle” and Ali was
a closer relative. Another reason given was that the Muhajirun were the
first to accept the Islamic creed and Ali was first among all men in the world
to accept the message of Islam. If Prophet of Islam was from Abu Bakr’s tribe,
Ali was his first cousin and also son-in-law.
Whatever the reasons given,
Ghadeer and other traditions of the Prophet regarding Ali were
forgotten!
At-Tabari and Ibnul-Athir
both state that there was a fairly prolonged exchange of words between al-Hubab
and Omar on this matter. Omar cursed
al-Hubab: “May Allah kill you.” Al-Hubab retorted: “May Allah kill you.”
Omar then crossed over and
stood at the head of Saad ibn Ubadah and said to him: “We want to break every
limb of yours.” Infuriated by this threat, Saad got up and caught Omar’s beard.
Omar said: “If you pull out even one hair, you will see that all will not be
well with you.” Then Abu Bakr pleaded with Omar to be calm and civil. Omar
turned his face from Saad who was saying: “By Allah, had I strength enough just
to stand you would have heard the lions roar in every corner of
Ibn Qutaybah says that when
Bashir ibn Saad, the chief of the tribe
of Aws, saw that the ansar were uniting behind Saad ibn Ubadah,
the chief of the Khazraj, he was
overcome with envy and stood up supporting the claim of the Qurayshite
muhajirun.
In the midst of this melee,
‘Omar said to Abu Bakr: “Hold out your hand so that I may give my bayat (i.e.
pledge of loyalty).” Abu Bakr said: “No, you give me your hand so that I may
give my bayat, because you are stronger than me and more suitable to the
caliphate.
Omar took the hand of Abu
Bakr and pledged allegiance to him saying: “My strength is not of any value
when compared to your merits and seniority. And if it is of any value then my
strength added to yours will successfully manage the caliphate.”
Bashir ibn Saad followed
suit. Khazrajites cried to him that he was doing it out of envy for Saad ibn
Ubadah. Then the tribe of Aws talked amongst themselves that if Saad ibn Ubadah
was made caliph that day, the tribe of Khazraj would always feel themselves
superior to the Aws, and not one from the Aws would ever achieve that dignity.
Therefore, they all pledged their allegiance to Abu Bakr.
Someone from the Khazraj
tribe took out his sword but was overcome by the others. Thus, the first Caliph
of the Muslims was chosen. It is this selection, on the basis of which Muslims
to this day, claim to be torchbearers of democracy. To what extent democracy
was the guiding principle for choosing subsequent Caliphs will be seen later.
Amidst all this unseemly
wrangling, Ali and his friends attended to the washing of the body of the Holy
Prophet and the proper observances regarding burial. By the time these were
over, Abu Bakr had achieved a fait accompli.
Ibn-Qutaybah writes: “When
Abu Bakr had taken the caliphate, Ali was the first towards whom the ire was
turned and bayat (allegiance) was demanded from him. The door of Ali’s house
was put on fire. The burning door fell on the ribs of Prophet’s daughter,
Fatima, and she broke not only the ribs but also the child in her womb died due
to this. Ali was dragged to Abu Bakr with a rope tied to his neck as he repeatedly
declared, ‘I am the slave of Allah and the brother of the Messenger of Allah.’
Then Ali was commanded to take the oath of allegiance of Abu Bakr.
Ali said: “I have more
rights to the caliphate than anyone of you. I will not pledge obedience to you.
As a matter of fact, you should give the pledge of obedience to me. You called
the ansar to give their bayat on the ground that you had blood
relations with the Messenger of Allah. You are usurping the caliphate from us,
the members of his house. Did you not reason with the ansar that you
have better rights to the caliphate than they because the Apostle was of your
kinship, and they handed over the government to you and accepted your
leadership? Therefore, the very reason put forth by you before the ansar
is now forwarded by me. Our relations with the Apostle in life as well as in
death are much closer than those of anyone of you. If you are faithful to your argument, you
should do justice; otherwise you know that you have knowingly moved towards
tyranny.’
“Omar said, ‘Unless you
give bayat, you will not be released.’ Ali cried, ‘Milk out as much as
you can for the udders are in your hand. Make it as strong as possible today,
for he is going to hand it over to you tomorrow. Omar, I will not yield to your
commands: I shall not pledge loyalty to him.’ Ultimately Abu Bakr said, ‘O Ali!
If you do not desire to give your bayat, I am not going to force you for
the same.
Several aspects of the
above-mentioned events deserve more attention:
1. It was the tradition of the Arabs that once a
person was declared, even by a small group, to be the chief of the tribe,
others did not like to oppose him, and willy-nilly followed suit. This
tradition was in the mind of Abbas, the Prophet’s uncle, when he told Ali:
“Give me your hand so that I may pledge allegiance to you . . . because once
this thing is taken over no one will ask him to relinquish it.”
And it was this tradition
which prompted Saad to exhort the ansar to ‘take over the caliphate
before anyone else could do so.’
And it was because of this
tradition that Omar was told to reach Saqifah ‘before it was too late
and difficult for him to change what was being decided there.’ And it was
because of this custom that once some people accepted Abu Bakr as Caliph, the
majority of the Muslims in
2. Ali was well-aware of this custom. Then why did
he refuse to extend his hand to accept the bayat of Abbas, telling him,
“Who else, other than I, can call for such pledge of allegiance?”
It was because Ali knew that
the khilafah (caliphate) of the Holy Prophet was not the chieftainship
of the tribe. It was not based on the declaration of allegiance by the public.
It was a responsibility given by Allah, not by the people. And as he had
already been publicly appointed by Allah through the Prophet to the Imamate,
there was no need for him to rush to the public to seek their allegiance. He
did not want the people to think that his Imamate was based on the bayat
of men; if the people came to him on the basis of the declaration of Ghadeer-e-Khumm,
well and good; if they did not, it was their loss, not his.
3. Now we turn to the events of Saqifah:
During the lifetime of the Holy Prophet, the Mosque of the Prophet was the
centre of all Islamic activities. It was here that decisions of war and peace
were made, deputations were received, sermons were delivered and cases were
decided. And the news spread of the death of the Holy Prophet, the Muslims
assembled in that very mosque.
Then why did the partisans
of Saad ibn Ubadah decide to go three miles outside
Keeping in view the
declaration of Ghadeer-e-Khumm and the tribal custom of
4. When Omar and Abu Bakr came to know of that
gathering, they were in the mosque. A majority of the Muslim were at the
mosque. Why did they not inform any other person about that gathering? Why did
they, together with Abu Ubaydah, slip out secretly? Was it because Ali and Banu
Hashim were present in the mosque and in the house of the Prophet, and Omar and
Abu Bakr did not want them to know of the plot? Was it because they were afraid
that if Ali came to know of that meeting of Saqifah, and if by a remote
chance he decided to go there himself, no one else would have had a chance to
succeed?
5. When Abu Bakr was extolling the virtues of muhajirun
as being from the tribe of the Holy Prophet, did he not know that there were
other people with much more stronger right to that claim because they were
members of the very family of the Holy Prophet and his own flesh and blood?
It was this aspect of the
pretence that prompted Ali ibn Abi Talib to comment: “They argued by the
strength of the tree (tribe) and then destroyed the fruit (i.e., the family of
the Prophet).”
Looking dispassionately at
this event, we are unable to call it an ‘election’, because the voters (all the
Muslims scattered throughout Arabia, or, at least, all the Muslims of Medina)
did not even know that there was to be an election, let alone when or where it
was to be held. Aside from the voters, even prospective candidates were unaware
of what was happening at Saqifah. Again we are reminded of the words of Imam
Ali in connection with the two points mentioned above:
“If you claim to have secured authority over the Muslims’ affairs by consultation,
How did it happen when those to be consulted were absent!
And if you have scored over your opponents by (the Prophet’s) kinship,
Then someone else has greater right on the Prophet and is nearer to him.”
And we cannot call it even
a ‘selection’ because a majority of the prominent Companions of the Holy
Prophet had no knowledge of these events. Ali, Abbas, Uthman, Talhah, Zubayr,
Saad ibn Abi Waqqas, Salman Farsi, Abuzar Ghaffari, Ammar ibn Yasir, Miqdad,
Abdur-Rahman ibn Awf – none of them were consulted or even informed.
The only argument which can
be offered for caliphate is this: “Whatever the legal position of the events of
Saqifah, as Abu Bakr succeeded (because of tribal custom) in taking the
reins of power in his hands, he was a ‘constitutional’ Caliph.”
In simple language, Abu
Bakr became a constitutional Caliph because he succeeded in his bid for power.
Thus, the Muslims who have been taught to glorify this event are inadvertently
taught that the only thing which counts is the ‘power’. Once you are secure in
the seat of power, everything is all right. You will become the ‘constitutional’
head of state.
In the end, I should quote
a comment of Omar himself, who was the author of this caliphate. He said in a
lecture during his caliphate:
“I have been informed that
someone said: ‘When Omar dies, I will pledge allegiance to so-and-so.’ Well no
one should be misled like this, thinking that although the allegiance of Abu
Bakr was by surprise, it became all right. Of course, it was by surprise, but
Allah saved us from its evils. Now if anyone wishes to copy it I will cut his
throat.” (Sahih-al-Bukhari)
Nomination of Omar
The majority of Sunnis
believe that what happened at Saqifah was a manifestation of the
“democratic” spirit of Islam. In view of that belief it was reasonable to
expect the ‘democratic election’ (whatever it’s meaning in the context of Saqifah)
to continue as the basis of Islamic caliphate. But this was not to be.
Abu Bakr was indebted to
Omar for establishing his caliphate and he knew that if the masses were given
freedom of choice, Omar had no chance. (He was known as “rude and of harsh
nature.”) Therefore, he decided to nominate his own successor – Omar.
At-Tabari writes: “Abu Bakr
called Uthman – when the former was dying – and told him to write an
appointment order, and dictated to him: ‘In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent,
the Merciful. This is the order of Abdullah ibn Abi Quhafah (i.e., Abu Bakr) to
the Muslims. Whereas. . .’ Then he fell unconscious. Uthman added the words: ‘I
appoint Omar ibn al-Khattab as my successor among you.’
“Then Abu Bakr regained his
consciousness and told Uthman to read the order to him. Uthman read it; Abu
Bakr said: Allah-o-Akbar’, and was pleased and commented, ‘I think you were
afraid that people would disagree amongst themselves if I died in that state.’
Uthman replied, ‘Yes.’ Abu Bakr said: ‘May Allah reward you on behalf of Islam
and the Muslims.’ Thus the appointment letter was completed and Abu Bakr
ordered it to be read before the Muslims.
Ibn Abil-Hadid al-Mutazli
writes that when Abu Bakr regained his consciousness and the scribe read what
he had written and Abu Bakr heard the name of Omar, he asked him, “How did you
write this?” The scribe said, “You could not pass him over.” Abu Bakr replied,
“You are right.”
Shortly afterwards Abu Bakr
died.
Omar gained the caliphate
by this appointment. Here one is reminded of a tragedy which occurred three or
five days before the death of the Holy Prophet.
In the Sahih of
Muslim there is a tradition narrated by Ibn Abbas that: “Three days before the
Prophet’s death Omar ibn al-Khattab and other Companions were present at his
side. The Apostle said, ‘Now let me write something for you by way of a will so
that you are not misled after me.’ Omar said, ‘The Apostle is talking in
delirium; the Book of Allah is sufficient for us.’ Omar’s statement caused a
furor among those present there. Some were saying that the Apostle’s command
should be obeyed so that he might write whatever he desired for their
betterment. Others sided with Omar. When the tension increased the Apostle
said: ‘Go away from me’.”
A few Quranic injunctions
should be mentioned here:
Muslims should not raise
your voices above the voice of the Prophet. . .’lest your deeds become null
while you perceive not (49:2). The Holy Prophet’s words were “revelation” from
Allah: ‘Nor does he speak out of (his) desire. It is naught but revelation that
is revealed (53:3-4). And Muslims were expected to follow his command without
any ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’: ‘Whatever the Apostle gives you, take it; and from
whatever he forbids you, keep back. (59:7)
And when such an Apostle,
three days before his death wished to write a directive to save Muslims from
going astray, he was accused of ‘talking in delirium’.
When Abu Bakr who had no
such Divine protection from error, began dictation of the appointment letter in
such critical condition that he fell unconscious before naming his successor,
Omar did not say that he was talking in delirium!
No one can be sure of what
it was the Holy Prophet wanted to write. But the phrase he used gives us an
idea. On several occasions the Holy Prophet had declared:
O People! Verily, I am
leaving behind among you Two Precious Things, the Book of Allah and My
Descendants who are my family members. So long as you keep hold of them
sincerely, you will never go astray after me.
When he used the same
phrase three days before his death (“. . . Let me write something for you by
way of a will so that you are not misled after me”), it was easy enough to
understand that the Holy Prophet was going to write what he had been telling
them all along about the Quran and his Ahlul-bayt.
Perhaps Omar guessed as
much, as is apparent from his claim: “The Book of Allah is sufficient for us.”
He wanted to make it known to the Prophet that he would not follow ‘the Two
Precious Things’. One was enough for him.
And he himself admitted in
a talk with Abdullah ibn Abbas, in which he, inter alia said: “And surely he
(the Prophet) intended during his illness to declare his (Ali’s) name, so I
prevented it.” (Ibn Abil-Hadid)
Perhaps the word “delirium”
would have served his purpose even if the Prophet had written the directive.
Omar and his partisans would have claimed that as it was written “in delirium”
it had no validity.
Ash-Shura: The Committee
After ruling for about ten
years, Omar was fatally wounded by a Zoroastrian slave, Firuz.
Omar was very indebted to
Uthman (because of the appointment letter) but did not wish to openly nominate
him as his successor; nor did he allow the Muslims to exercise their free will
after him. He ingeniously invented a third system.
He said, “Verily the
Apostle of Allah died and he was pleased with these six people from the
Quraysh: Ali, Uthman, Talhah, Zubayr, Saad ibn Abi Waqqas and Abdur-Rahman ibn
Awf. And I have decided to make it (the selection of caliph) a matter of
consultation among them, so that they may select one from among themselves.”
They were called when he
was nearing death. When he looked at them, he asked, “So, every one of you
wants to become caliph after me?’ No one answered. He repeated the question.
Then Zubayr said, “And what is there to disqualify us? You got it (the
caliphate) and managed it; and we are not inferior to you in the Quraysh either
in precedence or in relation (to the Holy Prophet).”
Omar asked, “Should not I
tell you about yourselves?”
Zubayr said, “Tell us,
because even if we ask you not to tell, you will not listen.” Then Omar began
enumerating the bad character points of Zubayr, Talhah, Saad ibn Abi Waqqas and
Abdur-Rahman ibn Awf. Then he faced Ali and said, “By Allah you deserved it had
it not been that you are of humorous nature. However, by Allah, if you people
made him your ruler, he would surely lead you towards clear truth and on the
enlightened path.”
Then he looked towards
Uthman and said, “Take it from me. It is as though I am seeing that the Quraysh
have put this necklace (caliphate) around your neck because of your love; then
you have put the Banu Umayyah and Banu Abi Muayt (Uthman’s tribe) on the
shoulders of the people (as rulers) and have given them exclusively the booty
(of the Muslims); thereupon a group from the wolves of Arab have come to you
and slaughtered you in your bed.”
“By Allah if the Quraysh
give the caliphate to you, you will surely give exclusive rights to the Banu
Umayyah; and if you do so, the Muslims will surely kill you.” Then he caught
the forehead of Uthman and said: “So if it happens, remember my words; because
it is bound to happen.”
Then Omar called Abu Talha
al-Ansari and told him that after his (Omar’s) burial, he was to collect fifty
people from the ansar, armed with swords, and gather the six
above-mentioned candidate-voters in a house to select one from among themselves
as the caliph. If five agree and one disagrees, he should be beheaded; if four
agree and two disagree, those two should be beheaded; if there is a division of
three and three, the choice of the group of Abdur-Rahman ibn Awf should prevail
and if the other three do not agree to it they should be beheaded. And if three
days pass and they are unable to reach a decision, all of them should be beheaded
and the Muslims should be left free to select their caliph.”
The Shia author Qutbud-Din
Rawandi narrates that when Omar decreed that the group of Abdur-Rahman ibn Awf
would prevail, Abdullah ibn Abbas told Ali: “Again this is lost to us. This man
wants Uthman to be the caliph.” Ali replied, “I also know this; still I will
sit with them in the Shura, because Omar by this arrangement has, at
least publicly, accepted that I deserve the caliphate, while before he was
asserting that nubuwat (prophethood) and Imamat could not be
joined in one family. Therefore, I will participate in the Shura to show the
people the contradiction of his actions and his words.” (Ibn Abil-Hadid)
Why were Ibn Abbas and Ali
sure that Omar wanted Uthman to be the caliph? It was because of the
constitution of the Shura and its terms of reference.
Abdur-Rahman was married to
Uthman’s sister; and Saad ibn Abi Waqqas and Abdur Rahman were cousins.
Seeing the hold which
family ties had in
Talhah (ibn Ubaydillah) was
from the clan of Abu Bakr, and since the day of Saqifah the Banu Hashim and
Banu Taym felt nothing but enmity towards each other. On a personal level, Ali
had killed his uncle; Umayr ibn Uthman, his brother Malik ibn Ubaydilah and his
nephew Uthman ibn Malik in the battle of Badr. It was impossible for him to
support Ali. Zubayr was the son of Safiyyah, Ali’s aunt, and after Saqifah,
he had taken out his sword to fight those who had entered the house of Ali to
take him to Abu Bakr. And it was reasonable to expect him to favour Ali. But on
the other hand, he could be tempted to stand for the caliphate himself.
Thus, the most Ali could
hope for was that Zubayr was in his favour. Still four would have gone against
him and he would have lost. Even if Talhah had favoured Ali, he could not be
caliph because in case of equal division, the opinion of Abdur-Rahman would
have been upheld.
After this study of the
terms of reference, what happened in the Shura is of academic interest
only. Talhah withdrew in favour of Uthman; prompting Zubayr to withdraw in
favour of Ali and Saad in favour of Abdur-Rahman ibn Awf.
On the third day,
Abdur-Rahman ibn Awf withdrew his name and told Ali that he would make him
caliph if Ali pledged to follow the Book of Allah, the traditions of the Holy
Prophet and the system of Abu Bakr and Omar. Abdur-Rahman knew very well what
his reply would be. Ali said, “I follow the Book of Allah, the traditions of
the Holy Prophet and my own beliefs.”
Ali told Abdur-Rahman: “By
Allah, you did not do it but with the same hope which he (Omar) had from his
friend.” (He meant that Abdur-Rahman had made Uthman caliph hoping that Uthman
would nominate him as his successor.)
Then Ali said, “May Allah
create enmity between you two.” After a few years Abdur Rahman and Uthman grew
to hate each other; they did not talk to each other till Abdur-Rahman died.
The unwarranted condition of his own
that Abdur Rahman laid down in front of Ali that the successor to Omar should
abide by the tradition laid down by the previous Caliphs, besides the Holy
Quran, could not have been acceptable to Ali.
Anybody who aspired for the supreme
authority of the State would have readily accepted the condition to act or not
according to the terms, later on. But Ali who detested the worldly glory, could
never accept it when it included the acceptance of new authority set up
parallel to the Word of God and the Tradition of Holy Prophet. Ali said he
would rule the State by the Word of God as explained by the word of the Holy
Prophet and if any of the traditions of the former Caliphs were opposed to
these two authorities they would naturally be unworthy to follow. Abdur Rahman
insisted upon his own innovated condition and Ali rejected the offer which was
diametrically opposed to the Spirit of Islam. Uthman accepted the condition and
Abdur Rahman appointed Uthman as the Caliph. It is quite evident that the
condition was intentionally innovated and particularly Abdur Rahman knew the
loyalty of Ali to the Holy Quran and the Holy Prophet; with which Ali would
never accept anything in the world which is opposed to even any one of these
two. At the appointment of Uthman, the entire Muslim world viz.
After Uthman’s death, whole multitude
of the Muslims approached Ali to handle the affairs as the Caliph. Although the
approach was unanimous from the people and was pressing on him to accept the
Caliphate, Ali bluntly refused and ultimately when it became unavoidable and
also expedient that the chaos in the public life should be halted and Peace and
Order be restored, Ali accepted the Caliphate declaring openly in Mosque of the
Holy Prophet, fully packed by the people, that he would be guided only by the
Word of God and the tradition of the Holy Prophet and nothing else. Thus at the
unanimous persistent imploration of the people consisting of the
representatives of the various units of the
During the time of Uthman,
the third Caliph, the most deceitful and materialistic minded people from the
tribe of Umayyads had come to acquire high positions. They did all they could
to play with the power that had come to their hands. Close companions of the
Prophet, including the likes of Abuzar Ghaffari, were ill-treated or killed.
During the twenty five years, which had
passed since the death of the Holy Prophet, the nature and outlook of the
Muslims had changed to such an extent that many prominent people found Ali’s
administration (which was based on absolute justice and equality, just like the
government of the Holy Prophet) unbearable; they could not think of themselves
as being treated equal to non-Arab Muslims. Muawiya - the governor of
After the
martyrdom of Ali, Hasan - the eldest son of Ali and Fatima, the First grandson
of the Holy Prophet - remained a Caliph only for six months. He wanted to
continue the war with Muawiya. But most of his officers were, meanwhile, bribed
by Muawiya; and many were the commanders who, when sent ahead to intercept
Muawiya, changed sides and went over to the enemy. When Muawiya’s intrigues,
conspiracies and mischief began hurting the general interest of the poor
people, particularly of those faithfully attached to the family of the Holy
Prophet and more particularly those pious ones who called themselves the Shias
of Ali, i.e., followers of Ali, Hasan in the interest of the public peace and
safety concluded a Truce with Muawiya with the following conditions:
(1) That Muawiya would follow the Holy Quran
and the tradition of the Holy Prophet in word and action.
(2) That Muawiya would stop abusing
Ali, which he had enforced even from the pulpits in the Mosques.
(3) That Muawiya would give protection
of life, property and honour of the Shias, i.e., the devotees of Ali.
(4) That Muawiya would not appoint any
one as his successor to the throne.
Thus Imam Hasan relinquished the
Caliphate and Muawiya became the Caliph but violated the terms of the truce and
the same treachery and tyranny continued and converted the Caliphate into
Kingship, i.e., a Hereditary Monarchy. Thus the rule called the Caliphate,
virtually ended and in its place started the despotic hereditary kingdom.
The Caliphate or the rulership ran in
the following order:
(1) Abu-Bakr who ruled for 2 years 4
months
(2) Omar who ruled for 10 years 6
months
(3) Uthman who ruled for 11 years 11
months
(4) Ali who ruled for 4 years 9 months
(5) Hasan who ruled for 6 months
————————————————
about
30 years in all.
Calculating the exact dates of the
months of the start and the end of the Caliphate and the Prophet had already
prophesied the start and the end of this institution.
The Holy Imam Hasan, after
relinquishing the Caliphate retired into seclusion, having nothing at all to do
with politics or any of the political leaders and yet he was black-mailed
through all sorts of degrading fabrications against him and was ultimately
martyred through poison, and even his body was not allowed to be buried besides
his Grandfather, the Holy Prophet. As his funeral proceeded, arrows were shot
at the coffin and some of the arrows had even entered the coffin and some were
stuck in the holy body of the poisoned Imam. Hasan was ultimately forced to be
buried in the public cemetery of the ‘Jannatul Baqi’.
Muawiya followed none of the points in
the Truce. However, the Omayyad rule commenced from Muawiya and Muawiya against
the Truce, appointed Yazid who was an acknowledged brute in human frame, who
enacted the wholesale massacre of the Holy Imam Husain, his kith and kin, and
his godly comrades at
The Omayyad rule continued till Marwan
II (133 A.H.). To know about the manners and conduct of the Omayyad rulers who
called themselves the successors of the Holy Prophet, a reference to the
detailed work by Hitti - the well-known historian who has given a detailed
version of the Muslim rule, with the documentary evidence - will suffice.
Viewpoint
The Sunnis recognize four
principles for appointing a caliph.
a) Ijma: that is, consensus of men of power and position on a certain
point. The agreement of all the followers of the Prophet is not necessary, nor
is it essential to secure the consent of all the persons of power and position
in the ummah.
b) Nomination by the previous caliph.
c) Shura, that is, selection by a committee.
d) Military power; that is, if anyone acquires
power by military force he will become a caliph.
The author of Sharhul-maqasid
has explained that when an Imam dies and a person possessing the requisite
qualifications claims that office (without the oath of allegiance – bayat
– having been taken for him and without his having been nominated to succeed),
his claim to caliphate will be recognized provided his power subdues the
people; and apparently the same will be the case when the new caliph happens to
be ignorant or immoral. And similarly when a caliph has thus established
himself superior force but is afterwards subdued by another person, he will be
deposed and the conqueror will be recognized as Imam or caliph.
The fourth ‘constitutional’
way was framed after the peace treaty of Imam Hasan with Muawiya, which
resulted in Muawiya becoming the ‘Caliph’ of the entire Muslim region and from
then onwards, the ‘Caliphate’ passed from one to another within the tribe of
Umayyads until they were ousted by the Abbasids.
There is another very
important point to be noted! In the realm of politics, usually the constitution
of a country is prepared beforehand. And when time comes to elect a government
or enact legislation, every function is carried out according to the provisions
of the constitution. Whatever conforms to it is held valid and legal; whatever
is contrary to it is rejected as invalid and illegal.
Since, according to the
Sunni point of view, it was the duty of the ummah to appoint a caliph,
it was necessary for Allah and His Prophet to provide them with a constitution
(with details of the procedure for election of such a caliph). And if that was
not done, then the Muslims themselves should have appointed the constitutional
measures in advance before proceeding to elect a caliph.
But strangely enough this
was not done. And now we find a unique ‘unsettled constitution’ in which
actions do not follow a constitution because there is none; rather the
constitution follows the circumstances.
The best argument put
forward by the Sunnis to support their claim is that the Muslims of the first
era considered it their duty to appoint a caliph, and that they regarded it so
important that they neglected to attend the funeral of the Holy Prophet and
went to Saqifah of Banu Saidah to settle the question of the caliphate.
From that event they concluded that the appointment of a caliph was the duty of
the ummah.
But they fail to understand
that it is the validity of that very so-called ‘election’ which is challenged
by the Shias.
The Shias claim that that
event was illegal; the Sunnis claim that it was legal and correct. How can the
Sunnis put their claim as their argument and proof?
To put their claim as proof
is like saying: “This action of mine is legal because I have done it.” Which
court of justice would uphold such an argument?
The Practical Problems
Let us see what effects
this had on the Muslim leadership and the Muslim mindset.
Within thirty years after
the death of the Holy Prophet every conceivable way of acquiring power was used
and canonized: election, selection, nomination and military power. The result
is that today every Muslim ruler aspires to occupy the seat of the khilafat
and “spiritual leadership” of the Muslims; and it is this basic defect of the
Muslims’ outlook which has always been, and is today the underlying cause of
political instability in the Muslim world. Every Muslim ruler who, as a Muslim,
has been taught that “military supremacy” is a constitutional way to khilafat
tries to weaken the other Muslim rulers so that he himself may emerge as the
most supreme among the Muslim rulers. In this way, this “constitution” has
directly contributed to the weakness of the Muslims in the world.
Apart from that, let us see
once again how ‘all-encompassing’ these methods proved immediately after they
were invented. This four-sided boundary of caliphate is so unsafe that anyone
may enter into it, irrespective of his knowledge or character. The first caliph
after Muawiya was his son, Yazid, who was ‘nominated’ by Muawiya and had
undisputed “military power”. Muslims had given their bayat during the lifetime
of Muawiya; thus, there was Ijma (consensus) also. So he was a
“constitutional caliph”. But what were his beliefs and character? Yazid was a
man who bluntly refused to believe in the Holy Prophet. He frankly stated his
beliefs in a poem in which he said: “Banu Hashim had staged a play to obtain
the kingdom; actually there was neither any news (from God) nor any
revelation.”
Neither did he believe in
the Day of Judgment: “O my beloved! Do
not believe in meeting me after death, because what they have told you about
our being raised after death for judgment is only a myth which makes the heart
forget the pleasures of this real world.” (Tazkirah-Sibt ibn al-Jawzi)
After assuming the
caliphate, he openly made fun of Islamic prayers; and showed his disrespect for
religion by putting the robes of religious scholars on dogs and monkeys.
Gambling, and playing with bears were his favourite pastimes. He spent all his
time drinking (wine), regardless of place or time and without any hesitation.
He had no respect for any woman, even those of the prohibited degrees such as
step-mother, sister, aunt and daughter. They were just like any other woman in
his eyes.
He sent his army to
The Holy Mosque of the
Prophet remained closed for many days; the army of Yazid used it as their
stable. Dogs made it their shelter and the pulpit of the Prophet was deified.
Finally, the Commander of
the army compelled the people of
Then the army, on the order
of Yazid, proceeded to Makkah. That holiest city of
Yazid was not just a stray
exception; it sadly proved to be the general rule. Al-Walid ibn Yazid ibn
Abdil-Malik was another caliph from the Banu Umayyah. He was a drunkard. One
night he was drinking with one of his concubines, they heard the azaan
(call for prayer) of the dawn prayer. He swore that the concubine would lead in
the prayer. She wore the robe of the caliph and lead in the prayer in the same
condition of drunkenness.
One day he molested his
teenage daughter in the presence of her servant woman. She said that (it was
not Islam) it was the religion of the Majus. Al-Walid recited a couplet:
“A man who cares for the (tongues of) people, dies in sorrow; the daring man
gets all the pleasures.”
Harun Rashid, the famous
Caliph of One Thousand and One Nights who is thought as one of the greatest
caliphs, wanted to sleep with one of his late father’s concubines. The woman
rightly pointed out that this would be incest since she was in a position like
his mother. Harun Rashid called Qazi Abu Yusuf and told him to help him find a
way to satisfy his lust. The Qazi said: “She is just a slave woman. Should you
accept whatever she says? No. Do not accept her words as true.”
So the Caliph satisfied his
desire. Whether the present day system of fatwas started then or even
before, cannot be said with certainty!
Ibn Mubarak comments: “I do
not know who among these was more surprising: the Caliph who put his hand into
the blood and property of the Muslims and did not respect his step-mother; or
the slave woman who refused to grant the desire of the Caliph; or the Qazi who
allowed the Caliph to dishonour his father and sleep with that concubine who
was his step-mother?”
Ibn Mubarak may not have
known the answer. Most surprising is the Muslims who continue to regard Harun
Rashid as an epitome of best that Islam has to offer!
One from among such Muslims
is Dr. Zakir Naik who has nothing but praises to shower on Yazid. This is
because he can give no argument as Yazid was the constitutionally elected
caliph of the Muslims. After all, if they criticize Yazid’s actions they will
be criticizing the very systems on the basis of which they have built the
foundations of their caliphate.
Consequently, teachings of
Islam got derailed. Muslims got weakened politically and were compelled to obey
anyone who succeeded in his bid for power irrespective of his qualifications or
character.
As though it was not
enough, it compelled them to change their total religious outlook and beliefs.
First of all, an
overwhelming majority of the caliphs were devoid of any sense of religious
propriety or piety. To justify the caliphate of such people, they claimed that
even the prophets used to commit sins. Thus, the belief in the ismah
(sinlessness) of the prophets was changed.
As there were perhaps
hundreds of people more knowledgeable, more pious and more qualified for the
caliphate than the caliph on the throne, they were compelled to say that there
was nothing wrong with giving preference to an inferior person over a superior
and a more qualified one.
When it was pointed out by
the Shias that it was ‘evil’ according to reason to give preference to an
inferior person when a superior person was available, the Sunnis declared that
nothing was good or evil in itself, whatever Allah orders becomes good;
whatever He forbids, becomes evil.
As for ‘reason’, they
denied that it exists anywhere in the religion. This logic was extended to such
an extent that till the time of Mughals, mathematics was not taught in the madrasas
as it initiated the person to ‘reason’. If despite such an approach, the
Muslims became the leaders of learning in the entire world for two hundred
years after the Prophet, it speaks of the power that the message of Islam
contained.
World got to understand
Islam as a religion that spread through sword. Territories were annexed and
booties collected; people were forcefully converted; their places of religious
worship targeted. Yet Muslims continued to justify all this and more.
To protect these wayward
caliphs, not only the prophets were deprived of their ismah
(sinlessness) but even Allah was deprived of His Justice and it was said that
being ‘Just’ is not necessary for the Creator. From this vantage point, we may
easily understand the full significance of the verse revealed at Ghadeer-e-Khumm:
O Apostle! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; (i.e., the Caliphate of Ali) and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you from the people. . .
(5:67)
The purity of Islamic
beliefs and deeds depended upon the Caliphate of Ali; if that one message was
not delivered, then it would be as though no message were delivered at all. The
safety of the whole religion depended upon the Caliphate of Ali after the Holy
Prophet.
The Fate of Those Who Annoy the Holy Prophet
Among them are those who hurt the Apostle (Mohammad)
and say they (that) ‘he is (all) – ear’ (i.e., one who believes in everything
he hears); say he (Mohammad) is the Ear of good for you; he believeth in God
and hath faith in the believers and a mercy unto those of you who believe, and
those who hurt the Apostle of God (Mohammad) for them is a grievous
chastisement.
Quran: 9:61
Know they not that whosoever opposeth God and His
Apostle (Mohammad) verily for him is the fire of Hell to abide therein? That is
the grievous abasement.
Quran: 9:63
Verily those who annoy God and His Apostle
(Mohammad), God hath cursed them in this world and the hereafter, and He hath
prepared for them a chastisement disgraceful.
Quran: 33: 57
Judge the position of those who annoyed
He who annoyed
No comments:
Post a Comment