Restatement of the History of Islam and Muslims [Electronic resources] نسخه متنی

This is a Digital Library

With over 100,000 free electronic resource in Persian, Arabic and English

Restatement of the History of Islam and Muslims [Electronic resources] - نسخه متنی

Sayed Ali Asghar Rizwy

| نمايش فراداده ، افزودن یک نقد و بررسی
افزودن به کتابخانه شخصی
ارسال به دوستان
جستجو در متن کتاب
بیشتر
تنظیمات قلم

فونت

اندازه قلم

+ - پیش فرض

حالت نمایش

روز نیمروز شب
جستجو در لغت نامه
بیشتر
لیست موضوعات
توضیحات
افزودن یادداشت جدید



Principal Events of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr


The First Civil War in Islam.

As soon as the news of the death of Muhammad Mustafa
spread beyond the environs of Medina, false Prophets appeared in many parts of the
country. More well-known among them were Musailama in Yamama; Tulaiha Asadi in Nejd;
Laqait bin Malik in Oman; and Aswad Ansi in Yemen. Some of them wanted the government of
Medina to share its authority with them, and some others wanted "autonomy" in
their territories. Abu Bakr sent his troops against them which suppressed them.

Usama's Expedition

As noted earlier, the Prophet had organized, from
his deathbed, a new army to attack Syria. He had appointed Usama, a lad of 18, as the
general of this army, and he had placed all his companions under his command. His orders
to this army were to leave Medina immediately. But the companions did not want to leave
Medina, and they did not – until the Prophet died.

But after the death of the Prophet, when Abu Bakr
felt secure in the seat of power, he showed great promptness in sending Usama's army to
Syria. He said that one thing that he could not do, was to countermand the orders of his
late master.

Abu Bakr walked with Usama's army for some distance
to acquire "merits" for himself. When he thought he had acquired enough merits,
he sought the General's permission to return to the city. He also requested the General to
allow Umar to stay with him (with Abu Bakr) in Medina since he would need his advice in
running the government.

Usama granted both requests and Abu Bakr and Umar
returned to Medina.

At length Usama left Medina and marched toward the
north at the head of his army minus Abu Bakr and Umar. But his army had lost its lan. He
now perhaps did not know what to do, and returned to Medina after an absence of two
months.

Sir John Glubb

In September 632, after two months' absence, Usama
returned to Medina with plundered sheep and camels, though few details of his operations
have been handed down to us. It appears that he raided Bedouin tribes rather than
Byzantine troops. (The Great Arab Conquests, 1963)

Usama bin Zayd bin Haritha, the favorite of
Muhammad, and the general of the expedition to Syria, appears soon to have faded out of
history; very little is heard about him after he returned from his campaign. He might have
taken part in the campaigns of Abu Bakr and Umar in some minor capacity.

Malik ibn Nuweira and the Massacre of his Tribe

Ibn Khalikan, the historian, says that Malik ibn
Nuweira was a man of high rank in Arabia. He was a famous cavalier, a knight, a
distinguished poet, and a friend of Muhammad Mustafa.

Ibn Hajar Asqalani says in his biography of the
companions that when Malik accepted Islam, the Apostle of God appointed him a Revenue
Officer for the tribe of Banu Yerbo. He collected taxes from his tribe, and sent them to
Medina. But when he heard the news of the death of the Apostle, he stopped collecting
taxes, and said to his tribesmen that before making any remittances to Medina, he wanted
to know how the new government in the City of the Prophet had taken shape.

Malik did not pay taxes to the new government in
Medina, and Abu Bakr sent a punitive force under the command of Khalid bin al-Walid to
assert his authority, and to collect the defaulted taxes.

Khalid had a brief meeting with Malik, and the
latter knew that he was going to be killed. Some historians say that Khalid was in love
with Malik's wife, and he ordered his execution. Malik turned to his wife, and said:
"You are the one to bring death upon me." But Khalid denied this and said:
"No. You have become an apostate, and your apostasy is responsible for your
death." Though Malik protested that he was a Muslim, Khalid did not listen, and the
former was executed.

Abu Qatada Ansari was a companion of the Prophet. He
came with Khalid from Medina. He was so shocked at Malik's murder by Khalid that he
immediately returned to Medina, and told Abu Bakr that he would not serve under a
commander who had killed a Muslim.

After killing Malik ibn Nuweira, Khalid
"married" his widow. In Medina, Umar was so scandalized that he demanded, from
Abu Bakr, the immediate dismissal of Khalid. He said that Khalid had to be put on trial
for the twin crimes of murder and adultery. According to Islamic law, Khalid had to be
stoned to death. But Abu Bakr defended Khalid, and said that he had simply made "an
error of judgment."

The tribesmen of Banu Yerbo had withheld taxes
(zakat) but apart from that they were Muslims in every sense of the term. Abu Qatada
himself testified that he heard Adhan (the call to prayer) in the village of Malik, and
saw his tribesmen offering congregational prayers. Even so, Khalid ordered his troops to
massacre them.

Tabari writes in his History that when Khalid and
his troops entered the Banu Yerbo territory, they said to the tribesmen: "We are
Muslims." They said: "We are also Muslims." Khalid's men asked: "If
you are Muslims, why are you bearing arms? There is no war between us. Lay down your
weapons so that we may all offer our prayers."

The tribesmen put down their weapons. But no sooner
they had done so, than Khalid's warriors seized them, bound them, and let them to shiver
in the cold night. On the following morning, they were all put to death. Khalid then
plundered their houses, captured their women and children, and brought them as prisoners
of war to Medina.

Sir John Glubb

"Abu Bakr sent Khalid b. Waleed into Nejd with
4000 men. Many clans of Beni Temeem, hastened to visit Khalid but the Beni Yerboa branch
of the tribe, under its chief, Malik ibn Nuweira, hung back. Malik was a chief of some
distinction, a warrior, noted for his generosity and a famous poet. Bravery, generosity
and poetry were the three qualities most admired among the Arabs. Unwilling perhaps to
demean himself by bowing to Khalid, he ordered his followers to scatter and himself
apparently moved away across the desert alone with his family. Abu Bakr had given orders
that the test to be applied to suspected rebels was that they be asked to repeat the
Muslim formula and that they answer the call to prayer. Khalid, however, preferred more
aggressive methods and sent out parties of horsemen to round up the fugitives and plunder
their property. One such party seized Malik ibn Nuweira and his family and brought them in
to Khalid, although they claimed to be Muslims. The men of Medina who were with the army
protested vigorously against Khalid's ruthlessness, but without avail. The prisoners were
placed under guard but, during the night, Malik ibn Nuweira and his supporters were killed
in cold blood. Within 24 hours Khalid had married the widow of his victim.

Malik ibn Nuweira had been executed while professing
to be a believer. Indeed Khalid's marriage to the beautiful Leila gave rise to the
suspicion that Malik had been killed with the object of making her available to the
conqueror.

The men of Medina, who had already opposed Khalid's
ruthless actions, were outraged by the death of Malik. A certain Abu Qatada, an erstwhile
friend and companion of the Prophet, hastened to Medina to complain to Abu Bakr, who
summoned Khalid to answer the accusation. Umar b. Khattab pressed the caliph to deprive
Khalid of his command. Khalid returning to Medina, claimed that he had not ordered the
execution of Malik, but that his instructions to the guards had been misunderstood. The
wise Abu Bakr, whatever he may have thought of the morals of his lieutenant, was aware of
his prowess. ‘I will not sheathe a sword which God has drawn for His service,' he
exclaimed. Khalid's excuses were accepted." (The Great Arab Conquests, 1963, p. 112)

The tribesmen of Banu Yerbo declared that God is
One, and Muhammad is His Messenger, and they said their prayers regularly. They even
accepted the principle of paying Zakat, and they were paying it to the Prophet. But they
withheld payment of Zakat to the government of Abu Bakr whereupon he said that they had
become apostates, and declared war upon them.

Toeing the official line, the Sunni historians have
bracketed all those tribesmen who withheld taxes from the Saqifa government as
"apostates." Were they really apostates?

The Muslim jurists have defined "apostasy"
as the repudiation of Islam. But failure to say prayers or to fast in Ramadan or to go to
Makkah for pilgrimage or to pay zakat (poor tax), is not the repudiation of Islam. A man
who does not carry out the mandatory duties imposed by Islam but claims that he is a
Muslim, cannot be called an apostate. If one were to become an apostate for missing a
prayer or a fast or payment of zakat, then many Muslims of each generation would have to
be called apostates. But they are not.

There is no verse in Qur’an calling upon a
Muslim government to kill those Muslims who do not pay zakat. There is no tradition of the
Prophet of Islam stating that the penalty for refusal to pay zakat is death.

Far from killing the Muslims for their failure to
pay zakat, the Prophet actually granted exemption from payment of taxes (zakat), at least
in one case. This is what the modern Sunni historian, Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah, writes in
his book, Introduction to Islam, (Kuwait, 1977):

"...a delegation from Ta'if came to Medinah
offering submission. But it requested exemption from prayer, taxes and military service...
The prophet consented to concede exemption from payment of taxes and rendering of military
service... This act of the Prophet shows that concessions could be given to new
converts..."

Here was a new precedent. The Prophet had granted
exemption to the residents of Ta'if from payment of taxes. But Abu Bakr did not follow the
prophetic precedent; he decided to make a precedent of his own; all men of the tribe of
Malik ibn Nuweira were to be killed, and women and children to be made prisoners of war.

Besides Qur’an and Hadith, the Sunni Muslims
also acknowledge the authority of "consensus." In fact, consensus in Sunni
jurisprudence is such an important principle that it is rated as something almost
infallible. There was consensus of all companions including Umar himself in opposing Abu
Bakr's decision to fight against those Muslims who had not paid taxes. But Abu Bakr
overrode their consensus and said that if the tribes withheld even that piece of rope with
which they tied a calf, out of the share of zakat, he would fight against them, and would
take it from them. His orders to his troops were categorical: Exterminate all those people
who do not pay zakat.

Abu Bakr's troops carried out his orders. They
subjected the Muslim tribesmen to unspeakable horrors, and committed acts of supreme
cruelty upon them for withholding the poor-tax.

The so-called "wars of apostasy" fought in
the caliphate of Abu Bakr, were actually a civil war – the first in Islam. These wars
were fought by Muslims against Muslims – the casus belli in their case being the
refusal of some tribes to pay the poor-tax to the government of Abu Bakr.

Abu Bakr began his reign with a civil war but he
called it a war of apostasy. When a civil war was given the name of a war of apostasy, it
became "respectable" and "holy," and it became the duty of all Muslims
to participate in it.

In their anxiety to defend Khalid, many Muslims
blandly assert that after the death of the Prophet, Malik and his tribe had become
apostates, and the penalty prescribed in Islam for apostasy is death. If their reason for
defending Khalid is that he was a companion of the Prophet, then Malik was also a
companion of the Prophet. Companionship of the Prophet, therefore, cannot be their reason
for defending Khalid. There must be some other reason or reasons. Actually they defended
Khalid because he was an instrument of the policy of the Saqifa government. Malik ran
afoul of the Saqifa government when he withheld taxes from it. Apart from this, he and his
tribesmen were practicing Muslims. But for their "indiscretion" they paid a
frightful penalty – they were extirpated!

In the face of overwhelming evidence against Khalid,
Abu Bakr was compelled to arraign him but as a grateful master, he defended him, and
attributed his crimes to a minor "error of judgment." As a reward for his
quickfix exploit, he bestowed upon him the title of "the sword of God," and one
year later, when the whole peninsula came under his control, he (Abu Bakr) appointed him
(Khalid) the supreme commander of his armies in Syria.

Such offenses as adultery and the mass murder of
Muslims could not only be overlooked as minor "errors of judgment," but could
actually be rewarded if their authors lent their blind support to the government of
Saqifa.

The "error of judgment" syllogism proved
to be a serendipitous discovery for many Muslims. It enabled them to rationalize every
crime, and to defend every criminal. In the years to come, they drew a veil over some of
the most ghastly acts and egregious deeds in the history of Islam with the explanation
that they were only "errors of judgment."

Here one can see an interesting case of the
application of the proverbial double-standard. In the caliphate of Abu Bakr, all those
Muslims who had withheld the poor-tax, were denounced by him and by the Sunni historians
as "apostates," and were put to the sword. But in the caliphate of Ali ibn Abi
Talib, all those people who rose in rebellion against the lawfully constituted authority,
and who caused the death of tens of thousands of Muslims, were exonerated and exculpated
because they had committed merely an "error of judgment," and they had
"repented."

The "error of judgment" was a remarkably
expansive blanket!

As noted above, Abu Bakr inaugurated his caliphate
with a civil war. But he was able to disguise it as a war of apostasy, and by resolute
action, succeeded in crushing all opposition to himself.

Other Conquests of Abu Bakr

The Apostle of God had appointed one Ziad bin Labeed
as governor of Hadrmaut and Kinda. When he died, a certain Ash'ath bin Qays rose in
rebellion against the government of Medina which now was headed by Abu Bakr. The latter
sent his general, Ikrima bin Abu Jahl, to restore his authority in South Arabia. Ikrima
defeated Ash'ath, captured him and sent him as a prisoner to Medina. Ash'ath asked for
pardon. Abu Bakr not only pardoned him but also gave his sister in marriage to him.

In Bahrain, the tribes of Banu Bakr and Banu
Abdul-Qays had refused to pay taxes. Punitive action was taken against them, and they were
compelled to pay their taxes.

These campaigns are known in history by the generic
name of the "Ridda" wars.

Abu Bakr spent full one year in fighting against the
Ahl-er-Ridda and the false Prophets. At year's end all of them had been reduced to
submission, and his authority was established in the country. However, at the successful
termination of these campaigns, he did not want his troops to be idle; he sent them to
invade the neighboring countries of Syria and Persia.

John Alden Williams

"When Abu Bakr was done with the case of those
who apostatized, he saw fit to direct his troops against Syria. To this effect, he wrote
to the people of Mecca, al-Taif, al-Yaman, and all the Arabs in Nejd and al-Hijaz calling
them for a holy war and arousing their desire in it and in the obtainable booty from the
Greeks (Byzantines). Accordingly, people including those actuated by greed as well as
those (in) hope of divine remuneration, flocked to al-Madina. It is reported on the
authority of al-Waqidi that Abu Bakr assigned Amr (ibn al-Aas) to Palestine; Shurahbil
(ibn Hasana) and Yazid (ibn Abu Sofyan) to Damascus." (Themes of Islamic
Civilization, 1971)

The campaigns against Syria and Persia were begun by
Abu Bakr but he died before he could conclude them. They were brought to a successful
conclusion by his successor, Umar bin al-Khattab.

Seizure by Abu Bakr of the Estate of Fadak

Fadak was one of the estates acquired by the Prophet
of Islam after the conquest of Khyber in 7 A.H. But since his troops did not have to fight
for it, and it was surrendered voluntarily to him, it was considered to be the property of
God and His Messenger.

As noted before, the Messenger of God made Fadak a
gift to his daughter, partly as a recompense for the great sacrifices her mother, Khadija,
had made for Islam.

When Abu Bakr took charge of the government of the
Muslims, one of his first acts was to take forcible possession of Fadak. He evicted the
agents of Fatima Zahra from her estate, and he also confiscated the property her father
had given her in Medina itself.

When Fatima Zahra protested against these seizures,
Abu Bakr answered her with a "tradition" of her father. He said that he had
heard the Apostle of God saying that the apostles do not have any heirs, and such wealth,
property or material goods as they possess in their lifetime, belong, after their death,
not to their children, but to the umma (the people).

Fatima said that Fadak was not a bequest of her
father; it was a gift. She claimed that Fadak was the private property of the Apostle of
God, and it was as his private property that he had given it to her.

Abu Bakr asked if there were any witnesses.

This was truly fantastic. Only four years had passed
since the conquest of Khyber. Abu Bakr was not only present at the siege but had also made
an abortive attempt to capture the fortress. He had seen with his own eyes what the
Apostle had done with Fadak. Now four years later, he was acting as if he did not know
anything. According to Bukhari, the collector of Hadith, the following dialogue took place
between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Fatima: O Abu Bakr, if your father dies, who will be
his heir?

Abu Bakr: I, who am his son.

Fatima: Who is the heir of my father?

Abu Bakr: You, his daughter.

Fatima: If I am his heir, then why have you seized
Fadak?

Abu Bakr: I have heard the Apostle of God saying:
"We are the group of Prophets, and we do not have any heirs to inherit our property.
Whatever property we have, belongs to the umma when we die."

Fatima: But my father bestowed Fadak upon me as a
gift during his lifetime, and it has been in my possession all these years.

Abu Bakr: Do you have any witnesses?

Fatima: Ali and Umm Ayman are my witnesses.

Abu Bakr: The testimony of one man and one woman is
not enough. There must beeither two men or one man and two women. But since it is not so,
the case is dismissed.

The ears Fatima was addressing, were not willing to
listen to any argument or reason. The witnesses would have made no difference to those who
were resolved not to be convinced. The accused party had one very conclusive argument in
its favor, viz., Brute Force! It was an argument that had the power to silence every other
argument, and it did.

To support his action in seizing the estate of
Fadak, Abu Bakr quoted a "tradition" of the Apostle of God. But it is strange
that he alone heard this "tradition." And it's just as strange that Muhammad did
not tell members of his own family that they would not inherit his property after his
death because he was God's messenger, but he went around whispering "traditions"
into the ears of outsiders.

Abu Bakr is the only man in the umma of Muhammad who
reported this "tradition" and who set it against the authority of Al-Qur’an
al-Majid.

The verdict of Qur’an is as follows:

From what is left by parents and those nearest
related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or
large, – a determinate share. (Chapter 4; verse 7)

To benefit every one, We have appointed sharers and
heirs to property left by parents and relatives. To those, also, to whom your right hand
was pledged, give their due portion. For truly God is Witness to all things. (Chapter 4;
verse 33)

According to these verses, God has given the
children the right to inherit the property left by their parents. Is there any other verse
which denies this right to the children of the messengers of God, specifically, to the
daughter of Muhammad?

Even if it is assumed that the "tradition"
quoted by Abu Bakr is not spurious, and the heirs of Prophets cannot inherit their
property, then this "law" ought to apply to the children of all the Prophets,
and not just to the daughter of Muhammad. But according to Qur’an, the Prophets of
the past had their heirs, and those heirs inherited the property left by their Prophet
– fathers.

And Solomon was David's heir. (Chapter 27; verse 16)

Translator's Note to this verse

The point is that Solomon not only inherited his
father's kingdom but his spiritual insight and the prophetic office, which do not
necessarily go from father to son. A. Yusuf Ali)

At any rate, it was not necessary for Fatima Zahra
to bring witnesses. She was already in possession of Fadak. Her ownership of Fadak rested
upon a solemn decree or pragmatic sanction of Muhammad Mustafa as the Messenger of God and
the Sovereign of all Muslims, and could not be lawfully challenged. The burden of proof
that Fatima's possession of the estate was illegal, was on Abu Bakr.

An important point is that the judiciary should be
separate from the executive, and the executive should not interfere with the judiciary.
But in the case of Fadak, Abu Bakr who was the accused party, was himself the judge and
the jury, and his verdict inevitably went against the plaintiff as it would have done in
any kangaroo court or star chamber.

The seizure of Fadak was a highly arbitrary act. Not
long after Fadak, Abu Bakr was confronted with many new and complex problems. To solve
them, he set two important precedents. One was the appointment of the companions as
judges. For these positions, he selected men who were noted for their knowledge and sound
judgment. If he had been fair, he ought to have referred the case of Fadak to one of his
judges for adjudication instead of taking unilateral action on it by seizing it.

The second precedent was consultation with the
companions. If Abu Bakr had a difficult problem, he sat in the mosque, summoned the
leading companions, and put it before them. After some deliberation, they solved the
problem. If Abu Bakr had been fair, he ought to have requested them to give their
impartial judgment on Fadak. But he did not do so.

The "tradition" which Abu Bakr quoted as
his "reason" for taking possession of Fadak, was actually an ad hoc juridical
formulation designed to meet a situation which threatened to compromise his position. It
was a "principle" invoked for the first and the last time. Once the crisis had
passed, it was given a burial, never again to be exhumed.

In her legal confrontation with the government of
Saqifa, over the seizure of Fadak, Fatima Zahra hardly expected any justice. The death of
her father, naturally, was the greatest shock and greatest sorrow for her. But some of his
companions didn't think that her sorrow was great enough, and they sought to make their
own "contribution" to it. It was just when she was in the midst of mourning for
her father that Abu Bakr evicted her estate manager from Fadak, and his agents took
possession of it.

A long time after the plaintiff and the defendants
in the case of the estate of Fadak had left this world, Umar bin Abdul Aziz, the Umayyad
caliph, restored it to the heirs of Fatima Zahra. He was pious and God-fearing, and
realized that the seizure of Fadak had been an wanton act and an outright usurpation.

The action of the Saqifa government in seizing Fadak
had little to do with law or its interpretation. Its leaders were inspired by a single
aim, viz., to deprive the children of Muhammad Mustafa of their means of living. Sadaqa
was unlawful for them, and they could not accept it. The property which he gave them, was
confiscated from them, and their right of inheritance was not recognized.

Ali's Retirement from Public life

After these revolutions, Ali spent most of his time
at home where he occupied himself with the task of collecting the verses of Qur’an,
and in arranging them in their chronological order. He was thus demonstrating that his
duty was to serve Islam regardless of the extraneous circumstances. He often quoted,
before his friends, the tradition of the Prophet that the members of his family and
Qur’an were his "legacy" to the Muslim umma, and that both of them were
inseparable from each other.

No one among the companions was better qualified
than Ali to collect the verses of Qur’an. He was one of the few companions of the
Prophet who knew Qur’an by heart. Incidentally, Umar bin al-Khattab had spent
fourteen years trying to memorize the second chapter of Qur’an (Al-Baqarah), but was
unable.

Collecting all the scattered verses of Qur’an
in the same order in which they were revealed, was a job that could be done by someone
especially tutored by Muhammad Mustafa himself. Such a person was Ali. He had spent more
time with him than anyone else. He had literally grown up with Qur’an. He himself
said that there was not a verse in Qur’an about which he did not know when it was
revealed, where it was revealed, and why it was revealed. He had the knowledge of the
time, the place and the occasion of the revelation of every single verse of Qur’an.

Ali completed the self-imposed task. But
unfortunately for Islam, the party in power, in line with its policy, did not want to give
recognition to his work. Nothing was more unwelcome to it than to acknowledge Ali's
services to Islam. It did not, therefore, "accept" his collection of the verses
of Qur’an.

In the days immediately following the death of the
Apostle, many people came to see Ali, and some of them counseled him to seize by force
what was his by right. Among these people there were a few sincere friends, and also there
were many unscrupulous opportunists. They all offered him their support. The latter, of
course, offered their support for ulterior reasons. They hoped to kindle war in Islam and
to profit by the infighting of the Muslims.

Immediately after the death of the Prophet, his
uncle, Abbas ibn Abdul Muttalib, called on Ali, and said: "Hold out your hand, and I
will give you my pledge of allegiance. This gesture of mine will have a great
psychological effect upon the Muslims. They would say that the uncle of the Prophet has
given his pledge of loyalty to Ali; we too, therefore, should give him our pledge."

Abbas, of course, was one of the few sincere
friends. In another category of Ali's "well-wishers" was Abu Sufyan, the leader
of the Banu Umayya, the life-long antagonist of Muhammad, and the symbol of the pagan
opposition to and hatred of Islam. In the events following the death of the Prophet, he
perceived his opportunity to subvert Islam, and he seized it. He came to Ali and said:
"It is outrageous to see men of the humblest clans of Quraysh usurping your right,
and capturing the government which is yours. All you have to do to take it from them, is
to give me the signal, and I shall fill the streets of Medina with infantry and cavalry,
ready to die at your command."

What mortal could have resisted this offer? And what
did Ali have to lose now anyway? What he could lose, he had lost. But then who in the
Muslim umma loved Islam more than he did? He never allowed temptation or provocation to
make him do anything that would militate against the broader interests of Islam and the
Muslims. Islam was still a highly fragile achievement quite capable of being aborted and
corrupted by forces inside and outside Medina but in Ali it had a protector who did not
let it happen.

If Ali was "the best judge in Islam," he
was also the best judge of men. His reply to Abu Sufyan, framed as a question, was
characteristic. "Since when you have become a well-wisher of Islam?" asked Ali.
It was only a rhetorical question, and with it he spurned Abu Sufyan's offer with the
contempt that it deserved, and squelched him.

With this answer, Ali demonstrated once again that
he and he alone was the true guardian of Islam. In this fateful moment, he forswore his
own interests and ambitions but he saved Islam from shipwreck.

It was a truly critical time in the history of
nascent Islam. Rebellions against the government of Abu Bakr were breaking out all over
the country. If Ali had accepted the offers of his uncle, Abbas ibn Abdul Muttalib, and of
Abu Sufyan, he might have succeeded in capturing the government of Medina. But his success
would have come only at a cost, to Islam, of a civil war in Medina which was the core of
the Muslim state and society. War in Medina at this juncture might have brought the career
of Islam to an abrupt end.

Ali passed this test as he had passed many others in
life. He did not yield to temptation.

The Society of Cincinnati, formed at the close of
the American Revolution by officers who served with Washington, has long maintained ties
with those descendants of French officers who served the American cause. The English
translation of the Society's motto is: "He relinquished everything to save the
nation."

Perhaps even more appropriate would be a motto
designed for Ali ibn Abi Talib which might read:

"He relinquished everything to save
Islam."

The Death of Fatima Zahra

Ali had sustained two terrible shocks in one day;
the first was the death of his friend and benefactor, Muhammad, the Apostle of God. The
Apostle's death had put an emphatic end to Ali's and his family's happiness and welfare in
this world. The second was the usurpation of his right of succession. The companions had
taken caliphate out of his house, and had appropriated it for themselves.

Ali was trying to recover from these two shocks when
a third shock came, just as devastating as the first two. About seventy five or ninety
five days after the death of the Apostle of God, his beloved daughter, and Ali's wife
– Fatima Zahra – also died. Ali was overwhelmed by sorrow at her death. Fatima
Zahra was given burial at night, as per her own request. Only the family members knew
about her burial and the site of burial. The people of Medina did not know when and where
she was buried.

After the death of her father, Fatima Zahra wished
nothing more than to be reunited with him in Heaven. Her death was hastened, rather
caused, by the series of shocks which came like waves, one after another, following the
death of her father. Most of the companions of her father had not attended his funeral;
from her funeral they were purposely excluded. She met her father in Heaven, and she found
the happiness which had eluded her since his death, once again.

Ali was only 32 years old when the Apostle of God
and his daughter died. But after their death, the time still left to him, was like
twilight years in which he tried to drown his sorrows in devotion to God and in service to
Islam. Notwithstanding his differences and disagreements with the rulers of the times, he
never adopted an obstructionist policy. He was ever ready to serve the Muslims. Everything
he ever said or did, was calculated to strengthen Islam or to benefit the Muslims. Ali
demonstrated over and over again that his love and his hatred, his friendship and his
animosity, were for God and for God alone. His attitude toward personalities was
invariably impersonal. His love and his hatred were equally impersonal. He loved and he
hated – only for the sake of God. He loved those who loved God, and he hated those
who disobeyed God.

Abu Bakr's Policy

Abu Bakr and Umar knew that the Arabs had two
obsessions: love of plunder and vindictiveness. They skillfully used both these
obsessions. They gave the Arabs a taste of plunder by denouncing those Muslims as
apostates who had withheld the payment of taxes to their government. Once the latter were
branded as apostates, it became lawful to kill them, to plunder their homes, and to
enslave their women and children.

But the eradication of "apostasy" was a
small-scale and local affair. To solve their long-term problems, Abu Bakr and Umar hit
upon a bolder plan of action. They did not let the victors of the skirmishes and the
battles of apostasy return to Medina. Instead, they ordered them to march upon the
frontiers of Syria and Persia, and to invade those countries simultaneously. This decision
was a stroke of political genius as events were soon to show.

Noldeke

It was certainly good policy to turn the recently
subdued tribes of the wilderness towards an external aim in which they might at once
satisfy their lust for booty on a grand scale, maintain their warlike feeling and
strengthen themselves in their attachment to the new faith. (from the Sketches from
Eastern History)

Noldeke would be more correct if he were to modify
his statement to read that the tribes "might strengthen themselves in their
attachment to the new government of Saqifa," instead of the "new faith."
Faith is not strengthened by killing other people and by plundering their homes and
cities. But the tribes were certainly strengthened in their attachment to the government
of Saqifa which gave them most splendid opportunities to "satisfy their lust for
booty on a grand scale."

Geoffrey Blainey

Professor Quincy Wright, who completed in Chicago in
1942 an ambitious study of war, concluded that a major and frequent cause of international
war was the aggressive tendency "to indulge in foreign war as a diversion from
domestic ills." Wright's argument is more forceful in the current edition of the
Encyclopedia Britannia, for which he wrote the article on causes of war: he doubted
whether a totalitarian dictatorship could exist without taunting or attacking a foreign
scapegoat. (The Causes of War, New York, 1973)

Sir Basil H. Liddell Hart

Dictators make war on some other state as a means of
diverting attention from internal conditions and allowing discontent to explode outward.
(Why Don't We Learn From History? 1971)

When the Muslim armies attacked the outposts at the
frontiers of the Roman and the Persian empires, their discontent exploded outward.

Professor James M. Buchanan

"We must beware the shades of Orwell's
‘1984,' when external enemies are created, real or imaginary, for the purpose of
sustaining domestic moral support for the national government." (Quoted by Leonard
Silk in the New York Times, October 24, 1986)

A modern Pakistani historian, Dr. Hamid-ud-Din, says
that Abu Bakr had very strong reasons for attacking Persia and Rome. In his History he
writes:

The Arabs were united under the banner of Islam, and
the Persians considered them a perennial danger. The Christian Arab tribes of Iraq often
instigated the Persians against the (Muslim) Arabs. (Iraq in those days was part of the
Persian Empire). But the Persians were unable to give any attention to the Arabs because
of their own civil wars which had ruined their country. Nevertheless, Abu Bakr was
convinced that if internal peace returned to Persia, the Persians would attack the Arabs.
He was, therefore, always cautious, and never overlooked the principle of "safety
first." Skirmishes had already begun between the nomads of Iraq and the Muslim tribe
of Wael. Mathanna bin al-Harith, chief of the Wael, went to Medina and sought permission
from Abu Bakr to attack Iraq. Khalid bin al-Walid had recently been freed from the
campaigns against the apostates in Central Arabia which he had successfully terminated.
Abu Bakr appointed him as second-in-command to Mathanna. (History of Islam by
Hamid-ud-Din, Ph.D. [Harvard University], Lahore, Pakistan, 1971)

Abu Bakr, apparently, had equally strong reasons for
attacking the Romans. Dr. Hamid-ud-Din further writes in his History:

Just like the Persians, the Romans were also afraid
of the newly consolidated government of the Arabs. They considered it a threat to
themselves. There was, therefore, always the danger of an attack by them on Medina. Abu
Bakr was never unmindful of this threat. Therefore, he sent an officer, one Khalid bin
Saeed, at the head of a company of soldiers, for the surveillance and reconnaissance of
the Roman frontier. It appears that this Khalid was "provoked" into attacking
the Romans.

Abu Bakr's generals "pacified" Arabia,
collected poor-tax from the tribes which had not paid them earlier, and when nothing was
left for them to do at home, they made the first tentative excursions into the Persian and
Byzantine (Roman) territory. Minor successes were followed by major victories. A steady
stream of gold and silver, of women and slaves, began to pour into Medina. The Muhajireen
and the Ansar forgot their debates of right and wrong. They also forgot their mutual
jealousies and suspicions. The campaigns in Persia and Syria consolidated the Saqifa
government in Medina.

The Aims of the Wars of Abu Bakr and Umar

1. To silence the critics of the Saqifa government,
and to put an end to interrogations of all kinds.

2. To convince the Muslims that the policies of the
Saqifa government were inspired by true religious zeal.

3. To give the Arabs an opportunity to gratify their
lust for plunder. The theory was that once the Arabs tasted the pleasures of conquest and
plunder, they would have little time or inclination to ponder moral, ethical or
philosophical questions. Their self-interest would take precedence over everything else.

4. To assure the security of the government of
Saqifa by all means. Its leaders figured that in the tumult of war and conquest, the Arabs
would gradually forget the family of their Prophet, and this would be their real triumph.

5. To give an opportunity to the enemies of the
family of Muhammad Mustafa to rise to high positions so that they would buttress the
Saqifa power structure.

Though Ali had never challenged Abu Bakr and Umar,
they saw his mere presence as a "threat" to their security. To make themselves
"secure" they believed that they had to find a new base of power. This they
readily found in the family of Abu Sufyan and the other Umayyads of Makkah, and they
forged an alliance with them.

Sir John Glubb

The three column commanders (of Abu Bakr in the
Syrian campaign) were Amr bin Aas, Shurahbil bin Hasana, and Yezeed bin Abu Sufyan (his
father, old Abu Sufyan, the victor of Ohod, and Mohammed's old opponent, had meanwhile
been shelved by being given a governorship in the Yemen.(The Great Arab Conquests. 1963)

The Saqifa government appointed Abu Sufyan its
governor in Yemen, and his eldest son, Yazid, its general in the Syrian campaign. Yazid's
younger brother, Muawiya, was appointed a staff officer, and he accompanied him to Syria.

New possibilities were created for the all but
moribund Umayyads, and from their total obscurity in the time of Muhammad Mustafa, they
suddenly vaulted to top ranks in the time of Abu Bakr.

Abu Bakr and Umar, both exhibited a powerful tropism
toward the Umayyads throughout their reigns. They might have done this for insuring party
dominance and integrity. Abu Bakr, it appears, was much impressed by Abu Sufyan and his
children. M. Shibli, the historian, has recorded the following incident in his Life of the
Prophet:

In the sight of Muhammad, rich and poor, master and
slave, white and black, were all equal. Salman, Sohaib and Bilal, all three had been
slaves at one time but in his sight, they were in no way inferior to the chiefs of the
Quraysh.

One day Salman and Bilal were going somewhere when
they came across Abu Sufyan and Abu Bakr. Salman or Bilal (one of the two) said: "Why
the edge of the sword has not found the neck of this enemy of God yet?"

Abu Bakr was horrified to hear this remark, and
said: "How do you dare to use such language for the lord of the Quraysh?" He
then immediately went to see the Prophet and complained to him about what he had heard.
But the Prophet said: "I hope that you have not made Salman and Bilal angry. If you
have made them angry, then you have made God angry."

Abu Bakr went back to Salman and Bilal, and asked
them: "Are you angry with me?" They said: "No. May God forgive you."
(Life of the Prophet, Vol. II, Azamgarh, India, 1974)

Dr. Hamid-ud-Din

When Muhammad died, Abu Bakr became khalifa. Abu
Bakr was highly conscious of the high status of the Umayyads, and he was very mindful of
their honor and glory. He appointed Yazid, the son of Abu Sufyan, the general of an army.
At this time, the Umayyads performed such great deeds for the sake of Islam that the
people forgot their past hostility to Islam. When Damascus was conquered, Umar bin
al-Khattab (who had succeeded Abu Bakr as khalifa) appointed Yazid bin Abu Sufyan its
governor. When Yazid died, he (Umar) appointed Muawiya (Yazid's younger brother), as the
new governor of Damascus. (History of Islam, Lahore, Pakistan, 1971)

In this appraisal, the historian has interjected a
purely subjective note. What great deeds did the Umayyads perform "for the sake of
Islam" during the caliphate of Abu Bakr or even of Umar? The Umayyads performed great
deeds, i.e., they conquered new lands, but much later, and not for the sake of Islam but
for their own sake. And who were the people who forgot the past hostility of the Umayyads
to Islam? The people who were the first to forget the Umayyad hostility to Islam were none
other than Abu Bakr and Umar themselves!

The alliance of Abu Bakr and Umar with the family of
Abu Sufyan and the Umayyads against the family of Muhammad and the Banu Hashim was
permanent and unbreakable.

As the spiritual heirs and the
"instruments" of the policy of Abu Bakr and Umar, the Umayyads served a period
of "apprenticeship" at the end of which they were ready to claim and to receive
their reward. Their reward was the government of Saqifa itself!

This is the story of the rise of the Umayyads to
power. It was in this manner that in the words of Gibbon, "the champions of idolatry
became the supreme heads of his (Mohammed's) religion and empire," –one of
history's most consummate touches of irony.

Abu Bakr's sickness and death

In 13 A.H. (A.D. 634) Abu Bakr fell ill, and when he
sensed that he was going to die, he bethought of appointing his own successor.

Abu Bakr called his secretary, Uthman bin Affan, to
write his will. When the latter came, he sat up in his bed, and began to dictate to him as
follows:

"In the name of God Who is Most Merciful and
Beneficent. I, Abu Bakr, successor of the Apostle of God..."

Abu Bakr had gone only as far as this when he had a
fainting spell and he lost consciousness. While he was still unconscious, Uthman, his
secretary, himself added the words:

"appoint Umar as my successor and your
ruler."

When Abu Bakr recovered consciousness, he asked
Uthman to read what he had written, and he read:

"I, Abu Bakr, successor of the Apostle of God,
appoint Umar as my successor and your ruler."

When Abu Bakr heard this, he was immensely pleased
with Uthman. He gave him his blessings, and then went ahead with the rest of the
dictation. (Tabari – History, Vol. 4, page 52)

Uthman had no way of knowing if Abu Bakr would ever
regain consciousness and would complete the dictation of his will. On his part, he
(Uthman) had already forged a document, and he and some others were going to foist it upon
the umma – the umma of Muhammad – as Abu Bakr's will and testament!

Though Abu Bakr had many other fainting spells when
he was dictating his will, Umar did not shout that he (Abu Bakr) was delirious and was
talking nonsense. It was the same Umar who had refused to let the Apostle of God dictate
his will even though the latter did not faint, and did not lose consciousness at any
time.

Umar took Abu Bakr's will in his hand, and went
around asking people to obey what the khalifa of the Prophet had written in it.

Abu Bakr's election and democracy

Many historians claim that Abu Bakr's election was
governed by democratic principles. But such a claim cannot be sustained on the following
grounds:

1. When Muhammad Mustafa died, most of the Arabs had
accepted Islam. According to the principles of democracy, all of them ought to have taken
part in the election of their leader. But if it was not possible to do so, then the chiefs
of all the tribes ought to have been consulted in the matter. But if this also was not
possible, then the successor of the Prophet ought to have been chosen in his Mosque, in an
assembly of all the Muhajireen and the Ansar who were present in Medina. This, very
definitely, was possible.

But none of these methods was adopted. What actually
happened was that some members of the two tribes of the Ansar, viz., the Aus and the
Khazraj, gathered in Saqifa to select their own chief. The spies of Abu Bakr and Umar
informed them about the assembly of the Ansar, and they went running to it. On their way
they took Abu Obaida ibn al-Jarrah along with them.

Abu Bakr and Umar are touted to be great champions
of democracy. If they were, they ought to have told the Ansar to dissolve their meeting in
Saqifa, and then to reassemble in the Great Mosque to elect a leader in the presence of
all the Muhajireen and all the Ansar. But they did not.

2. Abu Bakr and Umar, in their speeches in Saqifa,
acknowledged the services of the Ansar to Islam, but added: "The government which you
are eager to seize, was created by Muhammad. Now that he is dead, it should belong only to
his heirs, and not to you. We are his heirs. We are Qurayshites same as he was."

In democracy, a basic rule is that a candidate for
office runs in an election on the strength of his personal qualifications. He must be
qualified by ability, experience and integrity etc. He does not claim that he is running
for office and ought to be elected because he is related to an erstwhile head of state.
Yet Abu Bakr told the Ansar that he had a better claim to leadership than they had because
he was nearer to the Prophet than they were.

3. In the matter of appointing Umar as his
successor, Abu Bakr did not go through the motions of the farce of an election. He went
ahead and arbitrarily declared Umar as the next khalifa.

The Sunni Muslims claim that Muhammad, the Messenger
of God, did not appoint his own successor, and left his (the successor's) choice to the
umma. But Abu Bakr appointed his own successor, and in doing so, he deviated from the
practice of the Prophet. If it was a tradition of the Prophet not to appoint his own
successor, then Abu Bakr defied it by appointing his own successor. He also defied, at the
same time, a tradition of democracy.

Abu Bakr was not alone in repudiating democracy by
his deeds. The man most responsible for his (Abu Bakr's) election, viz., Umar bin
al-Khattab, himself denounced it. He warned Muslims not to try to find a leader through
election again, and said that God had saved them from the pernicious effect of this mode
of finding a leader in the case of Abu Bakr.

Abu Bakr died in August 634, and was buried by the
side of the Prophet of Islam in his tomb.

/ 86