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

In the 19^th century, the British carved
out an empire for themselves over which the sun never set. In North America, they ruled
the northern half of the continent; in Africa, their empire extended from Alexandria in
the north to Cape Town in the south; and in South Asia, they conquered from Kabul to
Rangoon. They colonized Australia and New Zealand. They established Pax Britannia over all
this immense area, one-fourth of the earth.

In the 18^th century when the British were
building their empire, they had only 35,000 men in arms, and 7,500 out of them were busy
in pacifying Ireland.

While the Royal Navy held the British Empire
together, their merchant marine built another - an invisible empire. It was their
commercial empire which comprehended many of those countries which were out of the orbit
of their political power.

At one time, when the power of the British was at
its zenith, no nation on earth could challenge them on land or on sea.

Concurrently, with the extension of their political
power and commercial influence, the British also established their cultural hegemony. They
spread the English language over most of the world so that it is spoken or it is
understood in most of the countries of the world.

The British accomplished all this and much more but
not because of their piety and religious zeal. They were only tepidly interested in
religion. They did not conquer an inch of foreign territory for the sake of Christ or the
Bible; they conquered only for Britain, and to build the British Empire.

The old imperial system of Britain, France and the
Netherlands held the world in an iron grip for nearly two centuries. Muslim states
everywhere were at the feet of these powers. But in the aftermath of the two World Wars,
their empires broke down. From the debris of their empires rose a multitude of new
nations. One of these new nations was the Zionist State of Israel.

On May 14, 1948, the British relinquished their
mandate over Palestine, and the Jewish settlers of the country proclaimed the birth of the
State of Israel. On the following day (May 15) five Arab states invaded Israel with the
avowed intention of "pushing Israel into the sea." But they could not push
Israel into the sea. Israel defeated them all, and they had to retreat into their own
shells.

Since then, there have been other wars between the
Arabs and Israel. There was one in 1956 and another in 1967. In both wars, Israel defeated
the Arabs, and captured much territory from them including Old Jerusalem.

In August 1969, a part of the Masjid-ul-Aqsa in
Jerusalem caught fire. It was an act of arson. All Muslims – Arab as well as non-Arab
– were inflamed at this outrage. The shock waves of the incident reached the remotest
corners of the Muslim world, the two ends of which are 10,000 miles apart – from
Indonesia in the east to Mauritania in the west. The Muslim nations held a conference in
Rabat(Morocco) to consider some action to recover Jerusalem from Israel. But all they did,
was pass resolutions and denounce Israel. An insolent Israel dared and defied the vast,
sprawling Muslim world, but the latter lacked the grit and the gumption to take up the
challenge.

In October 1973, Egypt attacked Israel on Yom Kippur
when the Jews were occupied with their devotions. The Jews were caught off-guard but they
recovered from the surprise, and immediately struck back. They raced through the Sinai
desert, crossed the Suez, established a beachhead on the west bank of the canal – 60
miles from Cairo, and surrounded the whole Egyptian Third Army!

It was American pressure on Israel that saved the
Egyptian Third Army. But curiously, Egypt claimed the military action against Israel a
"victory" for herself. War and "victory," the Egyptian government
said, had restored the morale and self-respect of Egypt even though it was the United
Nations and the United States which on this, as on earlier occasions, had rescued them
from disaster.

In June 1982 Israel rode rough shod into Lebanon.
She evicted the Palestinian guerrillas from the country as the whole Arab world sat gazing
in silent despair – a truly helpless giant if ever there was any.

In all these wars one thing the Arabs did not lack
was economic power. They had more of it than any other country in the Third World. As for
manpower, the Arabs outnumbered Israelis by more than 50 to 1. And yet, never before did
they face the paradox of the combination of wealth and powerlessness; material abundance
and moral bankruptcy; strategic importance and humiliation, as they are doing in their
confrontation with Israel. It may even be said that some Arab countries, e.g., Jordan, are
enjoying their "independence" only by the "courtesy" of Israel.

Thus it appears that religion, any religion, pagan,
animistic, Christian or Islamic, had little, if anything, to do with the military
conquests of a nation.

A recurring phenomenon in world history is that at
any given time, any one nation, is supreme, militarily, politically, and in many cases,
also intellectually. At that moment or in that epoch, it is irresistible and invincible.

The hundred years from 632 to 732 were the century
of the Arabs. They were supreme, they were triumphant, they were irresistible and they
were invincible – in that century. Islam united them and gave them a sense of
direction, purpose and propulsive power. Without Islam, their future would have been just
as irrelevant and barren as their past had been. But there is no correlation between their
conquests on the one hand, and piety and religious enthusiasm on the other.

The Last Days of Umar bin al-Khattab

One of the friends of Umar was a certain Mughira bin
Shaaba. Umar had appointed him governor, first of Basra, and later of Kufa.

A slave of Mughira had a certain grouse against him.
He requested Umar's intercession, and upon the latter's refusal, he attacked him, and
mortally wounded him.

A physician was called. He gave Umar some medicine
to drink but all of it came out of the gaping wound in his navel. When the physician
noticed this, he told Umar that there was no hope of his recovery, and advised him to make
his will since little time was left for him in this world.

Word rapidly spread that the khalifa was mortally
wounded, and the news caused much commotion in the city.

Many companions called on Umar to enquire after his
health. Some of them suggested that he designate someone as his successor. Umar said:

"If I designate someone as my successor,
nothing would be amiss with it since Abu Bakr designated me as his successor, and he was
better than me. But if I do not designate anyone as my successor, nothing would be amiss
with that either since the Apostle of God did not designate his own successor, and he was
better than both of us (Abu Bakr and Umar)."

Ayesha also sent word to Umar urging him to appoint
someone as khalifa before his own death, or else, she warned, "anarchy and chaos may
spread in the land."

Umar asked Ayesha's messenger to tell her as
follows:

"I have considered this matter, and I have
decided to appoint six men as members of an electoral committee, and to charge them with
the task of selecting one out of themselves as khalifa. The six men are: Ali, Uthman,
Abdur Rahman bin Auf; Talha, Zubayr and Saad bin Abi Waqqas. The Apostle of God was
pleased with all six of them when he left this world, and each of them is qualified to
become the khalifa of the Muslims."

Umar then called all six members of his electoral
committee to his home to explain to them what they had to do. When they came, he addressed
them as follows:

"O group of Muhajireen! Verily, the Apostle of
God died, and he was pleased with all six of you. I have, therefore, decided to make it
(the selection of khalifa) a matter of consultation among you, so that you may select one
of yourselves as khalifa. If five of you agree upon one man, and there is one who is
opposed to the five, kill him. If four are one side and two on the other, kill the two.
And if three are on one side and three on the other, then Abdur Rahman ibn Auf will have
the casting vote, and the khalifa will be selected from his party. In that case, kill the
three men on the opposing side. You may, if you wish, invite some of the chief men of the
Ansar as observers but the khalifa must be one of you Muhajireen, and not any of them.
They have no share in the khilafat. And your selection of the new khalifa must be made
within three days." (Tabari, History)

Umar ordered his son, Abdullah, also to attend the
meetings of the newly-formed electoral committee, though not as a candidate for caliphate,
and said to him:

"If the members of this committee disagree
among themselves, you support those who are in majority. If there is a tie with three on
each side, then you support the party of Abdur Rahman bin Auf."

Sir John Glubb

Umar had prescribed a maximum of three days for
their (the electoral committee's) deliberations. At the end of that period, they must
willy-nilly unanimously choose a khalif. In the event of the decision not being unanimous,
the majority candidate was to be adopted, the members of the minority being all
immediately put to death." (The Great Arab Conquests, 1967)

When Umar was satisfied that he had done his duty in
the matter of his succession, he asked some of those men who were around him, whom out of
the six nominees, they would like to see as their new khalifa. One of them present named
Zubayr. Umar said: "Will you make your khalifa a man who is a believer when he is
happy, and an unbeliever when he is angry?" Another man named Talha. Umar said:
"Will you make your khalifa a man who has mortgaged the gift of the Apostle of God to
a Jewess?" A third named Ali. Umar said: "If you make him your khalifa, he will
not let you deviate from truth but I know that you will not."

Walid bin Aqaba, a half-brother of Uthman, was also
present in the assembly. When he heard Umar's comments on the candidates, he exclaimed:
"I know who will become the next khalifa." Umar who was lying down, sat up in
the bed, and asked, who. Walid said: "Uthman."

Umar ordered Abu Talha Ansari to lead the Muslims in
prayer during the interregnum, and also to watch the members of the electoral committee
during their deliberations. He also gave him fifty armed men to enable him to carry out
his duties. These men were to act, if necessary, as executioners (Tarikh Kamil).

On the following day, Umar called the members of the
electoral committee again, and when they came, he said: "So everyone of you wants to
become the khalifa after me?" Everyone kept quiet. Umar repeated his question
whereupon Zubayr said: "And what's wrong with that? You became khalifa and you
managed it. Why can't we? " Umar then asked: "Shall I tell you something about
each of you?" Zubayr answered: "Go ahead; tell us." Umar commented upon
them as follows:

"Saad bin Abi Waqqas is a good archer but he is
arrogant, and khilafat is beyond his reach. Talha is rude, greedy and conceited. Abdur
Rahman is too much given to comfort and luxury; if he becomes khalifa, his wives will run
the government. Zubayr is a believer when he is in a happy mood but is an unbeliever when
he is angry. Ali is worthy of being the ruler of the Muslims in every respect but he is
too ambitious."

Umar then turned to Uthman, and said:

"Take it from me. It is as if I am seeing with
my own eyes that the Quraysh have put this necklace (khilafat) around your neck, and you
have foisted the Banu Umayya and the Banu Abi Muayt (Uthman's family) upon the Muslims,
and have given them all the wealth of the umma. Then the wolves of the Arabs came, and
slaughtered you. By God, if they (the Quraysh) do, you will certainly do; and if you do,
they (the Arabs) will certainly do." (If the Quraysh make Uthman their khalifa, he
would give all his power and authority to Banu Umayya; and when he does so, the Arabs will
come and kill him).

Umar told the members of the electoral committee
that the Apostle of God was "pleased" with them when he left this world. But was
the Apostle pleased only with these six men? Was he displeased with the rest of the
Muhajireen and the Ansar? If he was not, then why did Umar exclude all of them from his
electoral committee? He did not give the rest of the Muhajireen and Ansar the right even
to express an opinion much less the right to select their ruler.

Though Umar chose six Qurayshites as electors
because as he said, the Apostle was pleased with them, he himself found nothing
commendable in them. He found them arrogant, rude, greedy, conceited, henpecked,
temperamental, venal and ambitious.

If, at the election of Abu Bakr, the principle was
accepted that it is the right of the Muslim umma (people) to select or elect its own
rulers, then how is it that the leading companions of the Prophet, and Ayesha, his widow,
urged Umar to appoint his own successor? Didn't they know that a ruler was to be chosen by
the umma? But Umar, instead of denying or affirming this right of the umma, said that if
he appointed someone as khalifa, he would be following the precedent of Abu Bakr; and if
he did not, then he would be following the precedent of the Prophet himself. In practice,
however, he followed neither the precedent of Abu Bakr nor the precedent of the Prophet.
He named six men as members of an electoral committee, and made them responsible for
selecting a khalifa out of themselves – regardless of the opinions and wishes of the
Muslim umma.

It is true that Umar did not name anyone as his
successor but his electoral committee was, in point of fact, a de facto designation. Its
constitution guaranteed the selection only of Umar's own candidate. His first stipulation
was that the candidate who gets most of the votes, would become khalifa. There was no way
for Ali to get most of the votes. Abdur Rahman bin Auf was the husband of the half-sister
of Uthman. (This lady was the daughter of the mother of Uthman and her second husband).
Saad bin Abi Waqqas was the first cousin of Abdur Rahman, and was under his influence.
"Tribal solidarity" or "tribal chauvinism" was very strong among the
Arabs. Talha belonged to the clan of Abu Bakr, and was married to one of his daughters
(the sister of Ayesha). Therefore, it was unthinkable that any of them would vote for Ali.
Thus Ali had to count out four votes even before the beginning of the parleys. All he
could do, was to hope that he might get Zubayr's vote. In any case, Abdur Rahman bin Auf
– the self-appointed king-maker, had the casting vote. As Umar's confidante, it was
inevitable that he would give his vote and his support only to his (Umar's) favorite, and
the brother of his own wife – Uthman.

Now the minority in the electoral committee had one
of the two choices open before it, viz., either acquiesce in the king-maker's selection
and acknowledge Uthman as khalifa or pass the sentence of death to itself!

Hudhaifa, a companion, reports that sometime before
the attempt was made on his life, a few companions had asked Umar who would succeed him as
khalifa, and he had told them, Uthman. (Kanz-ul-Ummal and Tarikh-Ahmedi).

The author of Riyadh-un-Nadhra writes in the same
connection as follows:

"In the Hajj season someone asked Umar who
would be the khalifa of the Muslims after him, and he said, Uthman bin Affan."

Umar desired nothing so much as to appoint Uthman as
his successor but for some reason known only to him, he did not wish to do so openly. At
the same time, he did not allow the Muslims to exercise their freewill in the matter of
choosing their ruler. Left to themselves, they would not have chosen his favorite, and he
knew it. He, therefore, devised a new mode of giving the umma its leader. This new mode,
spun out with intricate sophistication, guaranteed the election of Uthman.

Umar had assembled the Electoral Committee only to
dissemble!

Perhaps it would have served the interests of the
umma better if Umar had openly appointed Uthman as his successor instead of framing a
panel of electors for this purpose. A direct and open appointment would have averted the
civil wars in Islam. His panel of electors proved to be the catalyst of the battles of
Basra, Siffin and Nehrwan. He achieved his aim at the moment but only at the expense of
the integrity of Islam in the future.

Abdullah ibn Abbas ibn Abdul-Muttalib was the first
cousin of Muhammad Mustafa and Ali ibn Abi Talib. When he heard that Umar had given
special powers to Abdur Rahman bin Auf in the panel of electors, he said to Ali:

"Khilafat is lost to us once again.This man
(Umar) wants Uthman to be the new khalifa. I know they will keep khilafat out of the house
of Muhammad."

Ali made the following comment:

"I agree with what you say. I have no illusions
in this matter. Nevertheless, I shall attend the meeting(s) of the Shura (electoral
committee), and the Muslims will see with their own eyes the conflict between Umar's words
and his deeds. By placing my name in his electoral committee, he has, at least,
acknowledged my right to become caliph whereas in the past, he went around saying that
prophethood and caliphate ought never to combine in the same house."

How did Abdullah ibn Abbas know that Umar wanted
Uthman to become the khalifa? As noted before, it was obvious from the constitution of the
electoral committee. One look at its terms of reference was enough to convince anyone that
the outcome of its quest was predetermined. Those terms of reference declared, loudly and
unmistakably, that khilafat was going to be the prize of Uthman and the Umayyads.
Therefore, after the promulgation by Umar of the constitution of his electoral committee,
if Ali had any interest still left in it, and in its professed purpose, it was purely
academic and abstract, and as he himself said, his participation in its meetings would do
nothing more than point up the contradictions inherent in it.

This is the age of democracy. The people choose
their leaders. Elections are held from the lowest to the highest levels of public life;
from the chairmen of school committees and fund-raising groups to the heads of governments
and states. But it has never so happened that those candidates for office who lose the
election to their opponents, are put to death. The candidates who lose, become leaders of
the opposition, and the existence of a healthy opposition is considered essential for the
existence of democracy itself. If the opposition is liquidated, then democracy becomes a
casualty, and the state becomes totalitarian.

Umar's order to kill the minority in his electoral
committee has no parallel in the history of mankind. He ordered the execution of all those
companions of Muhammad Mustafa, who as candidates for caliphate, would get fewer votes
than their opposite numbers, even though he knew that it is the job of others to give or
to withhold their votes. In other words, he decreed that it is a "crime" to get
fewer votes than one's opponent, and the penalty is death!

This was the last decision of the man who once said:
"The Book of God is sufficient for us." Did he really believe in what he said?
Did he read that Book? Did he find sanction in that Book for his order to kill a candidate
for a certain office because he scored lower than his opponent?

Here it should be pointed out that no one out of the
six Muhajireen had applied to Umar for membership in his electoral committee. His action
in choosing them was totally arbitrary. He then imposed upon them the duty of electing a
khalifa with the stipulation that if anyone of them disagreed with the majority, he would
forfeit his life.

Umar had obviously opted for the totalitarian
"remedy" of taking the right of dissent away from the Muslims.

For many centuries, the Sunni Muslims have raved
over what they call "the justice of Umar." Is his order to kill the dissenting
member or members of his electoral committee a sample of that "justice?" Is it
the sample of justice that they proudly uphold to the nations of the earth?

Umar died on the last Saturday of Zil-Hajj (the last
month of the Islamic calendar) of 23 A.H. (A.D. 644), and he was buried next to the
Prophet and Abu Bakr.

The Members of the Electoral Committee

Umar, on his deathbed, had appointed six Muhajireen
as members of a panel which was to choose one out of themselves as the future khalifa of
the Muslims. They were Ali ibn Abi Talib, Uthman, Talha, Zubayr, Abdur Rahman bin Auf and
Saad bin Abi Waqqas. Except Ali, all other members of the panel were capitalists, or
rather, neo-capitalists. When they came from Makkah, they were penniless and homeless but
within twelve years, i.e., from the death of Muhammad Mustafa in 632 to the death of Umar
in 644, each of them, except Ali, had become rich like Croesus. Between these two dates,
they had accumulated immense wealth, and had become the richest men of their times.

Ali did not qualify as a member of this exclusive
"club" but Umar admitted him anyway. Apart from the fact that Ali made his
living as a gardener whereas his other five co-members lived on the revenues of their
lands and estates, there was another gulf, even more unbridgeable, that separated him from