لطفا منتظر باشید ...
Saqifa and the Logic of History
IN THE INTRODUCTION TO THIS BOOK, I had called
attention of the reader to the tendency and the readiness of most of the Orientalists, to
accept, at face value, many of the false statements and spurious claims which were put
into circulation, long ago, by the historians who were on the "payroll" of the
governments of Damascus and Baghdad – both heirs to the government of Saqifa. There
is, for example, a consensus among them that Muhammad Mustafa, the Messenger of God, did
not appoint his own successor nor did he tell the Muslims how they ought to select their
leaders for the government which he had founded; and he died leaving everything,
apparently, to their resources and discretion. Some examples of the uncritical acceptance by
Orientalists of this claim, were given in Chapter 45. Following is one more example: "Mohammed died at Medina on June 8, 632,
without leaving any instructions for the future government of the Muslim
community..." This statement occurs in the article captioned
Caliphate, on page 643, volume 4, 14th edition (1973) of the Encyclopedia Britannia. It is
a patent piece of propaganda but the Encyclopedia Britannia, that great disseminator of
knowledge, has swallowed the line. It is the most divisive historical canard in Islam, but
surprisingly, it goes unchallenged, century after century. The Orientalists may not challenge this time-honored
falsehood but it nevertheless raises some fundamental questions. These questions which
relate to the ethos of Islam and the political philosophy of Muhammad, the Apostle of God,
are listed below. All of them rest on the premise that Muhammad did not (repeat not)
appoint his own successor nor did he give any instructions to his companions for the
future government of the Muslim community. Therefore, when he died, his umma (people)
found itself in a state of utter bewilderment. 1. Did Muhammad, the Messenger of God, and the
Founder of the Government of Medina, consider himself qualified to appoint his own
successor or not? 2. What could be the possible, hypothetical
reason(s) for Muhammad's failure to appoint his own successor? 3. Since Muhammad did not appoint his own successor,
did he charge the Muslim community with the task of electing or selecting its own leader? 4. Since the Muslim community lacked guidance for
the selection of a leader, did the companions of Muhammad, by their common consent, and
before appointing a leader (or even after appointing a leader) prepare a set of rules or
guidelines to which they adhered (subsequently)? 5. What was the attitude and the conduct of the
principal companions of Muhammad toward the leadership of the Muslim community after his
death? 6. What was the practice of Muhammad in regard to
the selection and appointment of officers? 7. What is Quran's verdict on Muhammad's practice? 8. What did Muhammad actually do about his
succession? 9. What actually happened after the death of
Muhammad? 10. What importance does the question of succession
have in history in general? An attempt has been made to answer these questions
as follows: Question 1 Did Muhammad, the Messenger of God, and the Founder
of the Government of Medina, consider himself qualified to appoint his own successor or
not? Answer No one would suggest, least of all a Muslim, that
Muhammad was not qualified to appoint his own successor. A Muslim cannot imagine that the
Apostle lacked the ability to select a successor for himself. The Arabs were a notoriously arrogant, ignorant,
turbulent and lawless breed. Muhammad promulgated the laws of God among them, and he
compelled them to respect and to obey those laws. He created a political organization
called the State or the Government of Medina. In that State, his powers were unlimited. He
chose all its functionaries, civil and military. He could appoint an officer or he could
dismiss him, arbitrarily, and without giving any reason(s) to anyone for doing so. Muhammad's pattern of conduct was consistently
consistent. He was, in fact, so consistent that he became almost "predictable."
All Muslims knew that he would select and appoint capable men for all key positions, and
they also knew that he would do so without consulting them. He did not even delegate
authority to any of his companions to appoint officers. Muhammad, the Apostle of God,
alone was qualified to select and to appoint his own successor, and no one else could have
done it for him. Question 2 What could be the possible, hypothetical reason or
reasons for Muhammad's failure to appoint his own successor? Answer If Muhammad died without nominating his heir and
successor, he is laid open to the charge of dereliction of duty. Whoever claims that he
did not nominate his successor, is suggesting that he launched the frail vessel of Islam
on turbulent seas without a compass, without a rudder, without an anchor and without a
captain, and left it completely at the mercy of wind and wave. It is to presuppose that he
was unmindful of the most vital interests of the Muslim umma, and that he was heedless of
the welfare of the generations of Muslims yet to come. Such "heedlessness" on
his part could have had three possible reasons, viz., (a) All members of the Muslim umma had become
intelligent, wise, God-fearing and God-loving; and each of them had acquired perfect
knowledge of the interpretation of Qur’an. Also, every individual was equal, in every
respect, of every other individual. It was impossible for Satan to tempt or to mislead any
of them. Therefore, Muhammad could leave the duty of selecting and appointing his
successor to blind chance. He could take comfort in the thought that whoever was made the
leader of the community by the drift of events, would be the right man; and the government
of Medina and the community of the faithful, both could be entrusted to his care. But such was not and could not be the case. It is
impossible even for two individuals to be identical in ability, character and temperament.
Muhammad knew that all the Arabs who had accepted Islam, were not necessarily sincere
Muslims. Among them, there was a very large number of "hypocrites" or
"nominal Muslims." Their presence in Medina is attested by Qur’an itself.
They professed Islam outwardly but at heart they remained pagans. They were the enemies of
Muhammad, of Islam, and of the State he had founded. They constituted a "fifth
column" of paganism in Medina, ready to seize the first opportunity to subvert Islam.
If Muhammad were to leave the new State without a head, he would, in effect, place in the
hands of these ideological saboteurs, the very weapons with which they would destroy it. Muhammad knew all this, and he died, not suddenly,
but after a protracted illness. He had abundant time to attend to the important affairs of
State the most important of which was the selection and nomination of his own successor.
One thing he could not do, was to abandon his government, which was the Kingdom of Heaven
on Earth, to the care of some unknown favorite of fortune or some swashbuckling
adventurer. (b) Mohammed did not really love Islam. He was
animated only by personal ambition. He wanted to bring the Arabian Peninsula under his
control, and Islam was the means through which he succeeded in doing so. But once he
realized his ambition he did not care if after his death, the government which he had
founded, held together or went to pieces. He did not care if, after his death, the Arabs
remained faithful to Islam or they relapsed into idolatry and barbarism. What can be more absurd than to imagine that
Muhammad did not love Islam? In Makkah, he endured torture, hunger, thirst, privation,
indignity and exile, all for the sake of Islam. Once in Medina, he was called upon to make
even greater sacrifices for Islam. Two of his uncles, three of his cousins, two adopted
sons, and one foster brother, and numerous friends were killed in the defense of Islam. In
due course, he became the sovereign of Medina but nothing changed in his lifestyle. Many
members of the new community were destitute, and he fed them. He fed them his own food so
that quite frequently, he and his children had to go hungry. This went on year after year.
He made all these and countless other sacrifices only to make Islam viable and strong. In Makkah, the Quraysh had offered Muhammad power,
wealth and beauty if he would abandon his mission as Prophet of Islam. But he spurned them
all. In spurning them, he was spurning "ambition." Perhaps it did not even occur
to him that there was such a thing as ambition. The mainspring of his work for Islam was
only his love for it. This love sustained him from beginning to end. He did have one
"ambition" in life, and that was to see Islam become everlasting. He realized
this "ambition" since we know that Islam is everlasting. (C) Mohammed did not appoint his successor because
he was afraid of opposition. Muhammad was an absolute stranger to fear. He challenged
paganism at a time when he was all alone in the whole world, and that whole world was
seething with hostility toward him. Paganism spent all its power to break him but it
failed. He broke it. By dint of personal courage, he triumphed over a whole world. In two
out of the five major campaigns of Islam, the Muslims were defeated, and they fled from
the battlefield. But he stood firm and did not flee, and in fact, became the rallying
point of the fugitives. His presence of mind revived the courage of the Muslims, and they
returned to the battle. After the battle of Hunayn, all Arabia was at the
feet of Muhammad, and no tribe or even a coalition of tribes could challenge his power.
His power, within the peninsula, was supreme. The question of his being afraid of anyone's
opposition, therefore, does not arise. Question 3 Since Muhammad did not appoint his own successor,
did he charge the Muslim community with the task of electing or selecting its own leader? Answer The appointment of the Chief Executive of the
community of the faithful was an important matter. Muhammad realized its importance. But
for some unknown reason(s), he refrained from appointing him. The only possible reason
that he did not appoint him can be that he charged the community with this duty. But neither Abu Bakr and Umar nor the latter-day
Sunni historians, ever made such a claim. They never claimed, for example, that Muhammad
Mustafa said: "O Muslims! I do not wish to appoint my own
successor," or "I cannot appoint my own successor," or "I lack the ability to appoint my own
successor. Since I lack this ability, I charge you with this responsibility. When I die,
you elect or select a leader for yourselves." No one has ever tried to attribute any such
statement to Muhammad Mustafa. Muhammad Mustafa did not give his companions the authority
to appoint even a petty official much less the future head of the State of Islam! Question 4 Since the Muslim community lacked instructions for
the selection of a leader, did the companions of Muhammad, by their common consent, and
before selecting a leader (or even after selecting a leader) prepare a set of rules or
guidelines to which they subsequently adhered? Answer The companions of Muhammad did not prepare, at any
time, a set of rules to guide them in selecting a leader. In this matter, they adhered to
the rule of expediency. First they appointed a leader, and then they formulated a
"rule" or a "principle" for his selection. The Muslims
"appointed" the first four, the "rightly-guided" caliphs. The
appointment of each of them led to the discovery of a new "rule" or a new
"principle." These four "principles" were duly incorporated in the
political thought of the Muslims. But soon a new caliph came to power in Syria. His
rise led to the discovery of a new "principle" known as "Might is
Right." This "principle" made the first four "principles"
obsolete. From this time, caliphate was to be the prize of the candidate who could use
brute force more brutally than his opponents. This "principle" has found the
most universal acceptance among the Muslims throughout their long history. Question 5 What was the attitude and conduct of the principal
companions of Muhammad toward the leadership of the Muslim community after his death? Answer The Sunni Muslims say that Abu Bakr and Umar were
the principal companions of Muhammad Mustafa. It were both of them, the principal
companions, who seized the government of Medina at a time when Ali and all members of Banu
Hashim were busy with his obsequies. As soon as the Prophet died, his principal
companions gathered in the outhouse of Saqifa to claim leadership of the community. This
leadership, in their opinion, was so important that they could not pause even to bury
their dead master and benefactor. The naked struggle for power erupted within minutes of
the death of the Prophet. Zamakhshari, one of the most authoritative Sunni scholars and
historians, writes in this connection: "It was the consensus of all the companions
that after the death of the Prophet they had to appoint his successor immediately. They
believed that doing so was more important than even to attend the funeral of their master.
It was this importance that prompted Abu Bakr and Umar to address the crowd of Muslims.
Abu Bakr said: ‘O people, listen to me. Those of you who worshipped Muhammad, let
them know that he is dead; but those who worshipped God, let them know that He is alive,
and will never die. Since Muhammad is dead, you should now decide who should be your
future leader.' They said: ‘You are right; we must have a new leader.' We Sunnis and
Mu'tazilis, believe that the community of the Muslims must at no time be without a leader.
Sheer logic dictates this. Also, the Apostle of God had enacted laws, and had promulgated
orders about the defense of Islam, the defense of Medina and the defense of Arabia. After
his death, there ought to be someone to enforce his laws, and to execute his orders."
From the foregoing testimony, it is obvious that the
companions of the Prophet realized how important it was for his umma to have a leader.
They knew that if there was no one to implement the laws and orders promulgated by him,
his umma would fall into disarray. The situation reeks with irony. The companions were
convinced that it was vitally important for the Muslim umma to have a chief executive but
there was one man who was not convinced that it was important, and he was Muhammad! After
all, if he were, he would have given it a chief executive. He was the only man to whom it
did not occur that there ought to be someone to implement the laws and orders which he
himself had promulgated. The principal companions did not attend his funeral.
For them, much more important than attending the funeral of their master, was to find a
new leader. The problem was quite complex but they "solved" it by appointing one
out of themselves, i.e., Abu Bakr, as the new leader of the Muslims. Two years later, Abu Bakr lay dying. On his
deathbed, he appointed Umar his successor, and the leader of the Muslims. In appointing
Umar as his successor, he not only knew that he was discharging his most important duty
but he was also aware that if he did not, he would be answerable to God for his failure to
do so. "Asma, the wife of Abu Bakr, says that when her
husband was on his deathbed, Talha came to see him, and said: ‘O Abu Bakr! you have
made Umar the amir of the Muslims, and you know well that he was such a tyrant while you
were the khalifa. But now that he will have a free hand, I do not know how he will oppress
the Muslims. In a short time you will die, and you will find yourself in the presence of
God. At that moment you will have to answer Him for your action. Are you ready with an
answer?' Abu Bakr sat up in the bed, and said: ‘O Talha! are you trying to frighten
me? Now listen that when I meet my Lord, I will say that I have appointed the best man as
the amir of the Muslim umma.'" Abu Bakr added that his knowledge of and long
experience with Umar had convinced him that no one in the Muslim umma could carry the
burden of khilafat as well as he (Umar) could. He was, therefore, confident that his
answer would satisfy God. Abu Bakr knew that he would have to vindicate
himself in the Tribunal of God for appointing Umar the ruler of the Muslims. He was
convinced that he could not have chosen anyone better than Umar to be his successor. And
Talha's anxiety for Abu Bakr's accountability to God, only points up his own
conscientiousness about his duty "to command others to do good and to forbid them to
do wrong." Irony again! All companions were idolaters before
Muhammad, the blessed Messenger of God, converted them to Islam. Now, as devout Muslims,
they were aware that they were answerable to God regarding their obligation to appoint his
successor. But curiously, incredibly, there was one man who apparently had no awareness
that, some day, he too might have to stand in the Tribunal of God, and be questioned
regarding his obligation to appoint his successor. He was Muhammad, God's Own Messenger!
Muslims believe that Abu Bakr was ready to defend his action in appointing his successor,
with an answer which he knew, would satisfy God. Do they also believe that Muhammad, their
Prophet, was ready, to defend his failure to appoint his own successor, with an answer
that God would find satisfactory? After the death of Abu Bakr, his successor, Umar bin
al-Khattab, ruled as khalifa for ten years. During the later years of his life, he was
often seen engrossed in deep thought. Whenever questioned by his friends what he was
thinking about, he said: "I do not know what to do with the umma of Muhammad, and how
to appoint an amir who would lead it after my death." Umar obviously considered appointing his successor a
matter of great importance since he was devoting so much of his time and attention to it. Umar's anxiety regarding the leadership of the umma
after his own death, was shared by Ayesha, the widow of the Prophet. Tabari, the
historian, reports the following in this connection: "When Umar was dying, he sent his son to Ayesha
seeking her permission to be buried near the Apostle and Abu Bakr. Ayesha said: ‘With
the greatest pleasure,' and she added: ‘Give my salam to your father, and tell him
that he must not abandon the Muslims without a leader otherwise there would be chaos after
his death.'" Ayesha was showing great solicitude for the welfare
of the Muslims just as she should have. When Umar was dying, she counseled him not to
abandon the Muslim umma without a leader, or else, she warned, chaos would follow his
death. It is amazing that Ayesha never counseled her own husband to appoint a leader for
the Muslims, and she did not warn him that chaos would follow his death if he left them
leaderless. But Ayesha, the daughter of Abu Bakr, had good
reasons to be "discreet" with her husband, and did not bring up, for discussion
with him, the subject of the appointment of a successor, at any time. Question 6 What was the practice of Muhammad Mustafa in regard
to the selection and appointment of officers? Answer During the last ten years of his life, Muhammad
organized more than eighty expeditions. He sent out many of them under the command of some
officer; others he led in person. Whenever Muhammad sent out an expedition, he
appointed one of his companions as its captain. He ordered the rankers to obey him, and he
made him (the captain) answerable to himself. When the expedition returned to Medina, he
debriefed the captain. It never so happened that he told the members of an expedition or a
reconnaissance party that they had to elect or select their own captain. In the event when Muhammad was himself leading an
expedition out of Medina, he appointed a governor for the city, and made him responsible
for maintaining law and order during his own absence. He never told the citizens that in
his absence, it was their duty to elect or select a governor for themselves. In 630 when Muhammad captured Makkah, and
incorporated it into the new State, he appointed an administrator for that city, and he
did so without consulting either the Makkans or his own companions. Montgomery Watt The extent of Muhammad's autocratic powers in his
last two or three years is illustrated by his appointment of ‘agents' to act on his
behalf in various areas, and indeed by the whole matter of administrative appointments.
From the beginning Muhammad had appointed men to perform various functions for which he
was responsible. Thus he appointed commanders for the expeditions where he was not present
in person. Another regular appointment from the earliest times was that of a Deputy in
Medina when Muhammad was absent from the city. (Muhammad at Medina, 1966) Maxime Rodinson He (the Prophet) either appointed a leader or took
command himself. He seems to have had a gift for military as he had for political
strategy. He delegated certain of his functions to individuals who acted as his personal
agents. Whenever, for example, he left Medina, he used to leave a representative behind
him. (Mohammed translated by Anne Carter, 1971) Such was the policy and practice of Muhammad, the
Messenger of God, in selecting and appointing his officers, and there was never a
deviation from it at any time. Question 7 What is Qur’an's verdict on Muhammad's
practice? Answer According to Qur’an, the actions of Muhammad
are the actions of God Himself. The Muslim reader is invited to reflect on the meaning of
the following verses (of Qur’an): When thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not
thy act, but God's. (Chapter 8; verse 17) Verily those who plight their fealty to thee, do no
less than plight their fealty to God; the hand of God is over their hands: then anyone who
violates His oath, does so to the harm of his own soul, and anyone who fulfills what
he has covenanted with God, - God will soon grant him a great reward. (Chapter 48; verse
10) All Muslims believe that whatever Muhammad said or
did, was inspired by Heaven. In other words, he was the instrument through which the
commandments of Heaven were executed. As noted before, Muhammad, the Apostle of God, did
not share his authority to appoint a governor for a city or a commander for a military
expedition, with anyone else. He and he alone exercised it from beginning to end. Much
more important than the appointment of a governor or a commander, was the selection and
appointment of his own successor, and the future sovereign of the Muslim umma. There was
no reason for him to reverse his own policy and practice, and to abandon his whole umma
leaderless. His conduct was consistent, and following is the testimony of Qur’an on
it: No change wilt thou find in God's way (of dealing):
No turning off wilt thou find in God's way (of dealing). (Chapter 35; verse 43) (Such has been) the practice (approved) of God
already in the past: No change wilt thou find in the practice (approved) of God (Chapter
48; verse 23) There was no change in the practice of God's
Messenger. He did not abandon the Muslims so they would be like sheep without a shepherd.
He selected his cousin, Ali ibn Abi Talib, to be his successor, and the future sovereign
of the Muslim umma. He introduced Ali to the umma as its future sovereign, at the Banquet
of Dhu'l-'Asheera, just after the first public proclamation of his mission as the Last and
the Greatest Messenger of God upon earth. Question 8 What did Muhammad actually do about his succession? Answer Muhammad created a new state – the Islamic
State. In creating the Islamic State, his purpose was to establish the Kingdom of Heaven
on Earth. This he did with the support and collaboration of his cousin, Ali ibn Abi Talib.
He picked out Ali among all his companions, to succeed him, as head of the Islamic State,
and as the Sovereign of all Muslims. To appoint Ali as his successor, Muhammad did not
wait until he had actually created the Islamic State, and had consolidated it as the
Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. He declared Ali to be his successor at a time when the State
did not have any existence. He declared Ali to be his successor at the same time when he
declared that God had sent him as His Last Messenger to mankind. Muhammad designated Ali ibn Abi Talib as his
successor at the Banquet of Dhu'l-'Asheera in Makkah when the latter was only thirteen
years old; and he spent a lifetime in grooming him for the tremendous responsibilities
ahead of him. Twenty years later, in the vast plain of Khumm, near
Ghadeer, Muhammad gave finishing touches to his work, and invited his umma, at a mass
rally, to meet its future sovereign. In doing so, he complied with a commandment of Heaven
enshrined in verse 70 of the fifth chapter of Qur’an; and he fulfilled an obligation
toward his umma. His umma had a right to know who would lead it after his (Muhammad's)
death. Muhammad Mustafa did not appoint Ali his successor
merely to expound or to interpret the laws of Islam. He appointed Ali his successor to
implement and to enforce those laws. In other words, he appointed Ali to run the
government of Islam. If there is a law, there must be someone to enforce
it – in the city-state of Medina – as elsewhere. The mere act of passing a law
does not mean anything. By itself, a law cannot guarantee the safety, welfare and
happiness of man. After a law is enacted, it is necessary also to create executive power
to enforce it. If a law cannot be enforced, it is nothing more than a piece of paper. If a
government lacks executive authority, it cannot even be called a government. Therefore,
when Islam enacted laws, it also created executive authority. In the time of Muhammad, the Apostle of God, laws
were not only expounded and promulgated; they were also implemented and enforced. He
implemented and enforced them. Muhammad appointed Ali to implement the laws of
Islam, and to enforce God's ordinances as revealed to him in Qur’an. He appointed Ali
to exercise executive authority over the Muslims, after his own death. Question 9 What actually happened after the death of Muhammad
Mustafa? Answer After the death of Muhammad Mustafa, the blessed
one, the Ansar, gathered in the outhouse of Saqifa to select a leader. Abu Bakr, Umar and
Abu Obaida – the three Muhajireen – paid them a visit. They told the Ansar that
since Muhammad had not designated his own successor, they had to appoint someone to fill
that position. Their action, they said, was not only justified but also was absolutely
necessary, if only to save the umma from anarchy and chaos. The three Muhajireen engaged in an animated debate
with the Ansar in Saqifa. The theme of the debate was: ‘Should the successor of
Muhammad and the ruler of the Muslims be a Muhajir (Makkan) or an Ansari (Medinan).' The
fiery orators discussed this theme threadbare. Although there were some other important issues
which were not altogether irrelevant to the debate, such as the wishes of God and His
Messenger, the qualifications required in the candidate(s) for the vacant throne of
Arabia, and the interests of Islam and the Muslim umma, they were not discussed. These
issues were not on the "agenda" of the meeting in Saqifa. The orators,
therefore, did not digress from their theme. Eventually, with skill, patience and ingenuity, the
three Muhajireen ironed out the problem, or, rather, they "improvised" a
solution to it. Francesco Gabrieli At the tumultuous council held in the headquarters
of the Banu Saidah in Medina, Omar, almost as a surprise, imposed Abu Bakr as khalifa or
successor of the Envoy of God. Like so many events and institutions, the caliphate was
born of an improvisation. (The Arabs – A Compact History, 1963) Caliphate or the leadership of the Muslim umma is
the most important political institution in all Islam. In fact, the physical existence of
Islam hinges upon the caliph or the leader of the umma. It's, therefore, incredible that
it was left to nothing better than an improvisation! It should occasion no surprise that
the Muslim world has been repeatedly deluged in blood over the question of succession and
leadership. Wars, civil wars, revolutions, conflicts, subversion and anarchy became
inevitable when the umma chose improvisation in Saqifa, in preference to the heavenly
design and the inspired "blueprint" of Muhammad Mustafa, for an orderly and
peaceful transfer of power from himself to his successor. The protagonists of Saqifa say that Umar's action
was prompted by his desire to prevent leadership of the umma from forever becoming the
monopoly of one family – specifically, the family of Muhammad Mustafa. They say that
such a monopoly of power would have been a "disaster" for Islam. This convoluted
argument of the Sunni historians has become a regular latter-day Greek chorus intoning
doom. But no one among them has ever explained how. If after the death of Muhammad, the leadership of
the Muslims had become the "monopoly" of his own family, would the Arabs have
abjured Islam, and relapsed into idolatry? Or, would the Persians and/or the Romans, have
invaded and overrun Arabia, and exterminated all Muslims? In the perceptions of Abu Bakr and Umar, there was
only one way of "saving" the umma of Muhammad from "disaster," and
that was by blackballing his family, and by appropriating his government for themselves! Umar was very anxious that caliphate should not
become hereditary in any one family, and that it ought to keep circulating among the
Muslims so that "every Arab boy may have the opportunity to become the khalifa."
And yet, notwithstanding all the vision and foresight of Umar, caliphate did become
hereditary within sixteen years of his own death. But it became hereditary not in the
family of Muhammad but in the family of his arch-enemies – the crypto-pagans of
Makkah – the children of Abu Sufyan and Hinda. Thus Umar's foresight did not extend
beyond sixteen years unless it was his purpose that caliphate should become hereditary in
the house of Abu Sufyan. If it was, then it must be conceded that he was truly remarkable
for his foresight. Abu Bakr and Umar achieved a prodigy of
extemporization in Saqifa. Commenting on the turmoil following the death of
Muhammad, and giving his reasons why his cousin, Ali, was blackballed from caliphate, Sir
John Glubb writes: The Arabs have never been willing to pay respect to
pomp, rank, or hereditary privileges or titles. (The Great Arab Conquests, 1963) This analysis, by the historian, of the Arab
character, runs counter to the evidence of history. The Seljukes, the Mamlukes and the
Ottoman Turks ruled the Arabs for many centuries. The Arabs submitted to them like sheep.
They, in fact, accepted the axiom that the Turk was to command, and they (the Arabs) were
to obey. No one can tell how much longer the Turkish domination of the Arab lands would
have lasted if the British and the French had not put an end to it. In their total and abject surrender to the Turks,
the Arabs were paying respect precisely to "pomp, rank, or hereditary privileges or
titles." For many centuries, the Turks ruled the Arab countries with an iron hand,
and no one ever heard the faintest murmur of protest from the Arabs. Actually, the Arabs are no different from any other
people including the British, to which the historian himself belongs. If others pay
respect to pomp, rank or privileges and titles, Arabs pay respect to them. It is not clear
why Sir John Glubb is eager to make so many sacred cows out of the Arabs! The same writer further says: "Heredity was never admitted by the Arabs as a
sufficient basis for succession. In the selection of ordinary chiefs, the most suitable
candidate of the ruling family was normally chosen. In the selection of a khalif, the most
natural choice, and that which in theory was made in the cases of the first four, was that
of the most suitable Muslim leader. In practice the difficulty of selecting the best
candidate and the resulting danger of civil war often resulted in the use of primogeniture
in later Muslim dynasties. The Arabs, however, have never adopted the principle of the
automatic succession of the eldest son." (The Great Arab Conquests, 1963) The historian, it appears, is, once again, at odds
with facts. When he says that heredity was never admitted by the Arabs as a sufficient
basis for succession, he ought to make it clear, that the Arabs he is referring to,
belonged to the generation of the Prophet himself, and not to those which came after it.
Within thirty years of the death of the Prophet, the same Arabs were prostrate at the feet
of the Syrian khalifa, and they admitted heredity as a sufficient basis for succession
without batting an eye. Not only did they acknowledge Yazid, the son of Muawiya, as their
lawful khalifa, but for the next 600 years, i.e., until the extinction of the khilafat
itself in 1258, they never raised a question regarding the right of the son of a khalifa
to succeed his father. Geoffrey Lewis With the fifth caliph, the powerful Mu'awiya (661
– 680), the office (caliphate) had become hereditary. His Umayyad dynasty was
supplanted by the Abbasids in 750. (Turkey, 1965) Dr. Hamid-ud-Din "From the time of Muawiya, the throne of
caliphate became the hereditary right of the Umayyads. Every khalifa appointed his own son
or some other relative as his successor, and the Muslims meekly acknowledged him as their
khalifa, and did not ask any questions." (History of Islam, 1971, page 364, published
by Ferozsons Ltd., Karachi and Lahore, Pakistan). The only Arabs who did not admit heredity as a basis
for succession, were the companions of Muhammad himself. Their reason for not admitting
heredity as a basis for succession, was pragmatic. If they had admitted heredity as a
basis for succession, then there was no way for them to become khalifas. In the Shia theory of government, heredity is not
considered as a basis for succession. According to the Shia theory, the right to designate
his own successor, belonged exclusively to Muhammad Mustafa, and not to his companions;
and he designated Ali. He did not designate Ali because of propinquity, but because it was
the command of God to him to do so. When the Arabs refused to acknowledge the
designation by Muhammad Mustafa of Ali ibn Abi Talib as his successor, they were not
exactly upholding a "principle." Their refusal was only a gambit to take the
locus of power and authority out of the house of Muhammad. Once this "principle"
had served its purpose, they – the Arabs – were the first to ditch it. Laura Veccia Vaglieri "Towards the end of his reign, Muawiya, using
all his diplomatic skill, managed to persuade the notables of the empire to recognize his
son Yazid as heir to the throne, leaving untouched the rule that homage must be paid at
the moment of succession. In this way he achieved a compromise. Theoretically, the will of
the electors was respected, since it was admitted that they could reject the heir
appointed by the reigning sovereign (in actual fact, only four or five notables refused to
accede to Muawiya's request), but in reality it implied the abolition of the elective
system, which had been the cause of so much trouble in the past, and introduced hereditary
succession. Muawiya's innovation was followed by all the caliphs who came after him, and
enabled the Umayyads to retain power for 90 years, and the Abbasids for five
centuries." (Cambridge History of Islam, 1970) Muawiya junked the "principle" of election
which had never been anything more than a farce anyway. And yet, in all this crooked business of
"electing" or "nominating" or "selecting" a ruler for the
Muslims, there was one "principle" at work. It was the "principle" of
excluding the members of the family of Muhammad Mustafa, the blessed Messenger of God,
from the locus of power and authority. Saqifa, in fact, was a monolithic, unified and
integrated movement of the principal companions and their proxies to exclude the Banu
Hashim from the government of Islam. If there was any consistency either in the deeds of
the first three khalifas, or, of the majority of the companions, or of the Umayyads and
the Abbasids, it was in the application of this "principle." On this point,
there was consensus among them all. It was the denominator in, and the linchpin of, the
planned and coordinated policy of all of them. Even to the dynasties which were to follow
the Umayyads and the Abbasids, the Saqifa signals were strong, clear and unmistakable.
They faithfully, almost fanatically, toed the line of "policy" formulated in the
outhouse of Saqifa. The centerpiece of that policy was blatant antagonism to Ali ibn Abi
Talib, the first cousin of Muhammad, and to the Banu Hashim, the clan of Muhammad. Question 10 What importance does the question of succession have
in history in general? Answer The question of succession or transfer of power from
one incumbent to another, has been one of the most complex and thorny problems of human
history. In most cases, the problem has been solved in a no-holds barred struggle, and
power has been the prize of the most ruthless of the contenders. The fact that a nation
has a constitutional government, is no guarantee that it will be immune to the struggle
for power. The struggle of Stalin and Trotsky after the death of Lenin in 1924, and the
liquidation of Beria after the death of Stalin in 1953, are two out of many of its
examples from current history. On countless occasions in history, the question of
succession has triggered civil war in which countless men and women have perished. Many of
us may be tempted to boast that we have outlived that barbaric past in which thousands of
men and women were killed before the question was settled who was going to be the ruler.
But there is no reason to be complacent. The struggle for power can erupt anywhere anytime
just as inevitably in the future as it did in the past. A sub-surface struggle perhaps
simmers all the time but it actually comes to a boil when the head of a state dies. Geoffrey Blainey "A search for causes common to many wars of the
eighteenth century reveals one obvious clue. The death of a king was often the herald of
war. The link is embodied in the popular names given to four important wars. Thus there
was a War of the Spanish succession, and a war of the Polish succession, and they were
followed by wars of the Austrian and then the Bavarian succession. Their names
persuasively imply that the question of who should succeed to a vacant throne was the
vital cause of the wars. These four wars of succession were not the only wars
which were preceded by and influenced by the death of a monarch. In 1700 the rulers of
Saxony, Denmark and Russia went to war against Sweden whose boy ruler, Charles XII, had
not long been on the throne. In 1741 Swedish troops invaded Russia whose tsar was one year
old. In 1786 the death of Frederick the Great of Prussia prepared the way for the
Austro-Russian campaign against Turkey in the following year. And in March 1792 the death
of the Emperor Leopold II in Vienna was one of the events that heralded the French
Declaration of war against Austria in the following month. In all eight wars of the 18th-century had
been heralded and influenced by the death of a monarch; and those wars constituted most of
the major wars of that century. Nor did those death-watch wars entirely vanish after 1800.
Thus two wars between Prussia and Denmark were preceded by the death of Danish kings, the
American Civil War followed the departure of a president in 1861, the First World War was
preceded by the assassination of the Austrian heir." (The Causes of War, 1973) The struggle for power is a permanent feature of
human history. In the past, on many occasions the death of a king was the signal for
uprisings in his own country. If he had held the country together with a firm hand, his
death was considered to be an opportunity to strike at the central government, and to
assert the independence of a dissident region. On other occasions, the death of a king was
an invitation to ambitious neighbors to invade his country in the hope that the new ruler,
lacking experience, would not be able to offer effective resistance to them, and they
would capture new territory for themselves. The history of the Muslim dynasties is soaked in the
blood of the Muslims. In the past, whenever a king or sultan died, his sons and brothers
flew at each other's throats to slit them. Sometimes minors and even infants were not
spared if they were in the direct line of descent from the sovereign, and therefore, were
potential sources of trouble. At the death of a ruler, outbreak of wars and civil wars,
and rebellions in the provinces, were considered normal. Many modern historians who have studied Islam's
political theory and practicability, and have tried to correlate causes and effects, have
attributed the intra-Muslim conflicts and wars to the "failure" of Muhammad
Mustafa to appoint his own successor. There is a veiled hint or equivocal reflection in
their works that he was "responsible" for them. But some other reflections are
not so veiled or equivocal. Edward Jurji The state of war, existing between the Prophet and
his kinsmen, was brought to an end in the total victory of the Islamic forces climaxed by
Muhammad's triumphant entry into the city of his birth to destroy the monuments of
idolatry. Prophetic though his career remained, Muhammad had increasingly come to wield
the sword of a militant ruler and to head the affairs of an aggressive political state,
conscious of its role in history. When his death occurred on June 8, 632, he bequeathed to
his followers a religio-political heritage ever burdened and harassed for many centuries
with the task of finding an acceptable caliph (successor) to fill the highest office in
Islam. The caliphate (succession) as an issue, aggravated by the uniform silence of the
Prophet on the subject of who was to follow him, became the root of much evil, the chief
internal misfortune of Islam, the origin of rifts and schisms, and a sad patrimony of
tears and blood. (The Great Religions of the Modern World, 1953) According to this historian, it was the
"uniform silence" of the Prophet on the subject of who was to follow him, which
became "the root of much evil, the chief internal misfortune of Islam, the origin of
rifts and schisms, and a sad patrimony of tears and blood." Is this the "legacy" that Muhammad left
for his umma? If the modern Muslims still believe the Saqifa myth that Muhammad did not
appoint his own successor, then they will have to agree with the judgment of this
historian. But if they agree with his judgment, they will have to disagree with
Al-Qur’an al-Majid which has called Muhammad a "mercy for all the
worlds." Sir John Glubb The Prophet died without leaving any instructions
regarding the successor. No sooner was it known that he was dead than the people of Medina
gathered together and decided to elect their own chief. Rival claimants to the khilafate
were to give rise to endless Muslim civil wars, which might perhaps have been avoided if
Mohammed had laid down rules for the succession. (A Short History of the Arab Peoples,
1969) If the modern Muslims, after reading this verdict of
a historian, still insist that their Prophet did not appoint his own successor, then they
will have to concede that all the bloody civil wars of their history, were a
"gift" to them from him – from him who was the embodiment of mercy. Are
wars, especially, civil wars, a curse or a blessing? If they are a curse – and there
is no greater curse on the face of earth than wars – would they believe that their
Prophet was the Bringer to them of Islam – of Peace? Actually, one of the aims of Muhammad, as God's
Messenger, was to obliterate war, and to restore genuine peace to the world. War is the
most unmitigated curse, and peace is one of God's greatest blessings. He was the Apostle
of Peace. In fact, the movement which he launched, was itself called peace or Islam. If a
Muslim believes that Muhammad was a catalyst of wars and bloodshed, he will cease to be a
Muslim. Now the choice before a Muslim is simple: either he
believes that Muhammad did not (repeat not) appoint his own successor, or he believes that
he did. If he believes that he (Muhammad) did not, then it would mean that he brought all
the sorrows and tragedies of the past and the future upon the Muslim umma. Such a belief
would, in fact, be a tacit "indictment" by a Muslim, of Muhammad for his
"dereliction" of duty. But he should ask himself if he can "indict"
the Last and the Greatest Messenger of God, and still be a Muslim. If the modern Muslim believes that Muhammad
appointed his own successor, then he will have to concede that the meeting held in Saqifa
was "ultra vires" because it was held in defiance of the commandments of God and
His Apostle. All the evils, the internal misfortunes of Islam, the rifts and schisms, the
sad patrimony of blood and tears, and the endless civil wars of the Muslims, had their
origin in Saqifa. Islam has given freedom of choice to all Muslims. On
the one hand they have the inspired judgment of Muhammad; on the other, there is the
judgment made in the outhouse of Saqifa. They can choose whichever they like. Muhammad, the Messenger of God and the Interpreter
of Qur’an, was the most knowledgeable of men. Not only he had knowledge of history,
and knowledge of the causes of the rise, decline and fall of nations, he also had
knowledge and understanding of human nature. The patterns of history were all familiar to
him. Because he was endowed with such knowledge, he did not leave the matter of succession
to blind chance. He had begun the implementation of the program of the reconstruction of
human society, and he had established the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. And he knew that he
would not live for ever. Muhammad knew that he would die but his mission
would live. His mission called for continuity. Continuity was all important for the
success of his mission, and nothing was to interrupt it, not even his own death. To give
continuity to his mission, therefore, he picked out Ali who though young in years, was the
personification of all the qualities of leadership in Islam. Muhammad made an inspired
declaration in the Banquet of Dhu'l-'Asheera that Ali was his wazir, his vicegerent and
his successor. But he had also made a lifelong study and analysis of Ali's character and
abilities, and had found him incomparable. Ali was unique. He was a transcendent character in
Islam! Even if no historical evidence were available that
Muhammad appointed his own successor, it is still possible to make a few deductions from
his disposition and temperament. He was most meticulous, circumspect and punctilious in
private and public life. Prudence, vision and thoughtful planning characterized his work.
The allegation that he did not tell his umma who would lead it in war and in peace, and
who would guide it in other exigencies of life, is clearly at variance with his
character. Muhammad was the teacher of the Muslims. He taught
them everything they knew. Of the knowledge of Islam, he withheld nothing from them. To
claim that he withheld from them the information most vital for them, viz., the name of
the person who would steer the vessel of Islam, after his own death, defies all the canons
of commonsense and reason. It will be remembered that when Muhammad Mustafa was
in Makkah, the citizens of Makkah, brought their cash and other valuables to him for
safe-keeping – both before and after he began to preach Islam because they trusted
him. His truthfulness and fidelity were beyond any question. In A.D. 622 Muhammad Mustafa migrated from Makkah to
Medina. Before leaving Makkah, he made Ali responsible for returning all the deposits to
their (pagan) owners – the same owners who were lusting to kill him for preaching
Islam. But a trust is something sacred, and must be honored by everyone, especially by an
Apostle of God! "Trusts may be expressed or implied. Express
trusts are those where property is entrusted or duties are assigned by some one to some
other whom he trusts, to carry out either immediately or in specified contingencies, such
as death. Implied trusts arise out of power, or position, or opportunity; e.g., a king
holds his kingdom on trust from God for his subjects." (A. Yusuf Ali,
Translator and Commentator of Al-Qur’an al-Majid). After Muhammad's departure from Makkah, Ali returned
all the deposits to their owners. But for Muhammad, there was no "trust"
greater than Islam. God imposed upon him the duty of delivering this trust to all mankind.
Therefore, before his death, he had to make someone responsible to take charge of this
"trust." Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, made Ali responsible
to take charge of this "trust," and its political expression – the
government of Medina. The best guarantee of the security of the State that
Muhammad had founded, was in informing the Muslims who would be their leader after his own
death. The security of the State would, in fact, be fatally compromised if he failed to
inform his followers who would succeed him as its Chief Executive. No Muslim would dare to imagine that Muhammad, the
Messenger of God, would say or do anything detrimental to the interests of Islam. Nor
would any Muslim dare to imagine that Muhammad would say or do anything illogical. The assumption that Muhammad did not appoint his own
successor, and did not introduce him to the Muslim umma, is supported neither by facts nor
by logic. Facts and logic are on his side – perennially and inevitably. It was in the
outhouse of Saqifa that the logic of history went awry.
