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

them. In character, personality, temperament, attitudes, philosophy and outlook on life,
Ali and the rest of them were the antithesis of each other.

In an earlier chapter, it was pointed out that the
famous line of Keats, "Beauty is Truth and Truth Beauty," can be transposed to
read as "Economic power is political power and political power economic power."
Economic power and political power are reciprocal. Karl Marx said: "Whatever social
class has economic power, also has political and social power." And George Wald,
professor of Biology at the Harvard University, said in an address in Tokyo in 1974:
"Private wealth and personal political power are interchangeable."

There can be no doubt that economic power is a
springboard of political power. This has been a consistent pattern throughout history.

President Abraham Lincoln had defined democracy as
the government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

In the American presidential elections of 1984 when
President Ronald Reagan was reelected, the Russians quipped:

"The United States Government is of the
millionaires, by the millionaires and for the millionaires."

All the members of Umar's electoral committee, were
millionaires – except Ali ibn Abi Talib! Following is a portrait left by historians
of the members of Umar's Electoral Committee:

D. S. Margoliouth

Othman, son of Affan, six years the Prophet's
junior, was a cloth merchant; he also did some business as a money-lender, advancing sums
for enterprises of which he was to enjoy half the profits (Ibn Sa'd, iii, 111), and in
money matters showed remarkable acuteness (Wakidi W. 231). His sister was a milliner,
married to a barber (Isabah, i. 714). He was no fighting man, as his subsequent history
proved, for he shirked one battlefield, ran away from another, and was killed,
priest-like, ostentatiously reading the Koran."

Ibn Sa'd says in his Tabqaat about Othman:
"When he died, he left 35 million dirhems, 150,000 dinars, 3000 camels, and many
horses. He built himself a palace in Medina with marble and teakwood. He had 1000
slaves." (Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, London, 1931)

E. A. Belyaev

In his youth, before the rise of Islam, Uthman had
been very rich and gained much money from profitable usurious transactions. Uthman's
acquisitiveness and business talents gained full scope when he became caliph. He built
himself a stone house in Medina with doors of precious wood and acquired much real estate
in that city, including gardens and water sources. He had a large income from his fruit
plantations in Wadi-ul-Qura, Hunain and other places, valued at 100,000 dinars, besides
large herds of horses and camels on these estates. The day Uthman died his personal
treasury was found to contain 150,000 dinars and one million dirhems.

Multiplying his riches at the expense of the Moslem
treasury, Uthman also gave free use of the latter to some of the closest companions of
Muhammad, attempting to justify his illegal actions by associating these most
authoritative veteran Moslems with his own depredations. The "companions"
applauded the caliph Uthman for his generosity and magnanimity, no doubt for solid reasons
of self-interest.

Zubair ibn al-Awwam, for example, one of the better
known amongst them, built tenement houses in Kufa, Basra, Fustat and Alexandria. His
property was estimated at 50,000 dinars, in addition to which he possessed 1000 horses and
1000 slaves.

Another "companion," Talha ibn Ubaidullah,
built a large tenement house in Kufa and acquired estates in Irak which brought in a daily
1000 dinars; he also built a luxurious house of brick and precious wood in Medina.

Abd-ar-Rahman ibn Auf, also an outstanding
"companion," also built himself a rich and spacious dwelling; his stables
contained 100 horses and his pastures 1000 camels and 10,000 sheep, and one quarter of the
inheritance he left after his death was valued at 84,000 dinars.

Such acquisitiveness was widespread among the
companions of the Prophet and Uthman's entourage. (Arabs, Islam and the Arab Caliphate in
the Early Middle Ages, New York, 1969)

Bernard Lewis

Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas built his house in Al-Aqiq. He
made it high and spacious, and put balconies around the upper part. Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib
said that when Zayd ibn Thabit died, he left ingots of gold and silver that were broken up
with axes, in addition to property and estates to the value of 100,000 dinars. (Islam in
History, New York, 1973)

Dr. Taha Husain of Egypt writes in his book,
al-Fitna-tul-Kubra (The Great Upheaval), published by Dar-ul-Ma'arif, Cairo, 1959, p. 47:

"When Uthman became khalifa, he not only lifted
the ban placed by Umar upon the companions to go to the other countries, but also gave
them rich present from the public treasury. He gave Zubayr 600,000 dirhems in one day, and
he gave Talha 100,000 dirhems in one day enabling them to buy lands, property and slaves
in other countries."

Abdur Rahman bin Auf was a member of the inner
circle of the friends of Uthman. About him Sir William Muir writes:

"Abd al-Rahman, when in after years he used to
fare sumptuously on fine bread and every variety of meat, would weep while looking at his
richly furnished table and thinking of the Prophet's straitened fare." (The Life of
Mohammed, London 1877)

The love that Abdur Rahman bore his late master,
Muhammad, was deeply moving. His wives and concubines prepared delicacies of many colors
and tastes for him. When he sat down to eat, recollection came to him of the Spartan times
of the Apostle. He "missed" him and he "missed" those times, shed many
a tear, and then gobbled up everything on the table.

Sir William Muir sums up his impressions of the
companions of the Apostle of God as follows:

"In pursuing the annals of the
‘companions' and first followers of Mohammed, few things so forcibly illustrate the
spirit of Islam as, first, the number of their wives and concubines and the facility of
divorce; and, next, the vast riches they amassed; a significant contrast with the early
days of Christianity." (The Life of Mohammed, London, 1877)

Sir William Muir has done a great injustice, in the
first place, in lumping the companions all together whereas there were two distinct
categories of them. The first category which comprised the overwhelming majority, is the
one he has correctly depicted in his book, but there also existed another, though very
small, category, and he has taken no notice of it.

In the second place, Sir William Muir has attributed
the insatiable acquisitiveness of the companions to "the spirit of Islam," and
this is an even grosser injustice. The acquisitiveness of the companions, or rather, the
acquisitiveness of most of the companions of the Apostle, illustrates, not the spirit of
Islam, but a reaction against that spirit. The obsession with materialism runs counter to
the spirit and genius of Islam. Qur’an has castigated those people who amass gold and
silver.

If anyone wishes to see the real spirit of Islam, he
will find it, not in the deeds of the nouveaux riches of Medina, but in the life,
character and deeds of such companions of the Apostle of God as Ali ibn Abi Talib, Salman
el-Farsi, Abu Dharr el-Ghiffari, Ammar ibn Yasir, Owais Qarni and Bilal. The orientalists
will change their assessment of the spirit of Islam if they contemplate it in the austere,
pure and sanctified lives of these latter companions.

It may be noted that the members of the electoral
committee were all men of Makkah. There was no man of Medina among them. Umar had
studiously kept them out. When he was explaining to the members of the committee what they
had to do, he addressed them as "O group of Muhajireen." He told them that the
khalifa had to be one of them, and that the men of Medina had no share in khilafat. Some
companions pressed Umar to appoint his own successor. He named a number of people who were
dead, and said that if any of them were alive, he would have appointed him as his
successor.

Dr. Taha Husain

"The Prophet of Islam had been dead, not days
but only a few hours when Islam was confronted with its first crisis - in the matter of
his succession. The Ansar said to the Muhajireen: ‘One chief from us and one from
you.' But Abu Bakr did not agree to this, and he quoted the following tradition of the
Prophet: ‘The rulers shall be from the Quraysh.' Then he said to the Ansar: ‘We
shall be rulers and you will be our ministers.' The Ansar accepted this arrangement (with
the exception of Saad ibn Ubada).

This is how the ‘aristocracy' of Islam was
born. Its right to rule rested on its propinquity to Muhammad. All authority was vested in
the Quraysh. The Ansar were the advisers. Every Muslim has the right to offer advice. The
Quraysh were to rule, and the Ansar and the other Muslims were to give advice but not to
rule.

When Umar was dying, he was questioned about his
successor, and he said: ‘If Abu Obaida bin al-Jarrah were alive, I would have made
him the khalifa. If Khalid bin al-Walid were alive, I would have appointed him the amir of
the Muslims. And if Salim, the client of Abu Hudhaifa, were living today, then I would
have designated him as your ruler.' This Salim was a slave who came from Istakhar in
Persia. He was emancipated, and became a ‘mawali' (client) of Abu Hudhaifa. He was
well-known for his piety. Many Muslims deferred to him in matters of Faith even in the
times of the Prophet. Sometimes he led the Muslims in prayer also. He was killed in the
Ridda wars during the khilafat of Abu Bakr. He was a devout and God-fearing man."
(al-Fitna-tul-Kubra {The Great Upheaval}, published by Dar-ul-Ma'arif, Cairo, 1959).

It was really unfortunate for the umma that Salim
was dead or else Umar would have made him his successor, and he might have made an
excellent khalifa. At any rate, Umar knocked down that "tradition" of the
Apostle which Abu Bakr had quoted before the Ansar in Saqifa according to which no one but
the Quraysh had the right to become rulers. Here was Umar, the greatest
"pontiff" of the Sunni establishment, ready, willing and eager to make Salim the
khalifa of the Muslims, who was:

(a)a non-Qurayshi

(b)a non-Arab

(c)a ‘non-free' man, a client, a man who was
emancipated by an Arab, and who was under his protection.

Umar "proved" on his deathbed that the
"tradition" of the "Qurayshi connection" by which the Muhajireen had
claimed their "superiority" over the Ansar in Saqifa, was spurious, and he
"proved" that to be a khalifa of the Muslims, it was not necessary to be a
Qurayshi after all.

Umar could consider a former slave who was not
distinguished for anything except for his piety, for the most important position in Islam
but he could not consider an Ansari for it, even if he had distinguished himself in war
and peace. The Ansaris, in fact, could not fill even less important positions. In his
book, Al-Farooq, M. Shibli, the Indian historian, has published a list of the names of the
civil and military officers of his (Umar's) time. With one solitary exception (Uthman bin
Hunaif), the entire list is made up of names of men who were noted for their animosity to
Ali, to Banu Hashim, and to the Ansar.

These Ansaris were the same people who had, at one
time, given sanctuary to Umar in their city. They had given him food, clothing and shelter
when he did not have any of these things. Now he was repaying them!

Umar's attitude toward the Ansar is in sharp
contrast to the attitude toward them of Muhammad, the Messenger of God. The latter loved
the Ansar. He appointed many of them as governors of Medina, and he made many of them
commanders of various expeditions. On one occasion he said that he would rather be with
them (the Ansar) than with any other people. He also considered them capable of and
qualified to rule the Muhajireen.

Montgomery Watt

The remark of Muhammad about Sa'd bin Mu'adh when he
was about to judge the case of Banu Qurayza, "Stand for your chief (Sayyid),"
could be taken to justify the view that the Ansar were capable of ruling over Quraysh, and
the story was therefore twisted in various ways to remove this implication. (Muhammad at
Medina, Oxford, 1966)

The Apostle of God called Sa'd the Chief of the
Quraysh. Sa'd was obviously capable of ruling the Quraysh, and why not? After all what was
there in the "credentials" of the Quraysh that the Ansar didn't have? Nothing.
But the Ansar lost their capability of ruling the Quraysh as soon as Muhammad, their
master, died. During the caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar, it was a
"disqualification" to be an Ansari to hold any important position in the
government.

Laura Veccia Vaglieri

As he lay dying, Umar was anxious about the
succession and he appointed a committee of six, all Qurayshites, whose duty it should be
to choose one of their number as caliph. The inhabitants of Medina no longer had any share
in the election of the head of the state. (Cambridge History of Islam, Cambridge, 1970)

Far from having a share in the election of the head
of the state, not to speak of themselves becoming the head of the state, the inhabitants
of Medina, did not have a share in anything. They might have given some "advice"
to Abu Bakr and Umar. In Saqifa, Abu Bakr and Umar had told them that they would consult
them (the Ansar) in all matters.

Few, if any, would challenge the general
interpretation of this poignant fact that the most important and most indispensable single
factor in the year 1 of Hijri, namely, the support of the Ansar, had become the most
striking non-factor in the year 11 Hijri.

The Cassandra utterances of Hubab ibn al-Mandhir in
the bedlam of Saqifa proved only too true. He had expressed the fear that the children of
the Ansar would beg for food at the doors of the houses of the Muhajireen, and would not
get any. Much worse was to come for them in the times of Yazid bin Muawiya.

The Ansar fought in all the campaigns of Abu Bakr
and Umar but only as other ranks and never as generals. The new wealth which came flooding
into Medina after the conquest of Persia and the Fertile Crescent, also appears to have
bypassed them with the exception of a few, who collaborated with the Saqifa government.
Among the latter were the two spies from the tribe of Aus who had squealed on the Khazraj
to Umar and Abu Bakr. Others were Muhammad bin Maslama, Bashir bin Saad, and Zayd bin
Thabit. They had shown great zeal in taking the oath of loyalty to Abu Bakr in Saqifa.

Zayd bin Thabit was fanatically devoted to Uthman,
and for this reason, he received many gifts and rewards from the treasury. He was the son
of poor parents but during the caliphate of Uthman, became one of the richest men in
Medina.

Two officers of the public treasury in Medina and in
Kufa who had been appointed by Abu Bakr, had thrown the keys of the treasuries in their
charge, before Uthman, in protest against the plunder of the public funds by himself and
by one of his governors. Uthman gave both keys to Zayd bin Thabit.

Zayd bin Thabit was also the chairman of the
committee appointed by Uthman to collect the verses of Qur’an, and to publish them in
one volume, as noted before.

Zayd bin Thabit was one of the few Ansaris who
shared the bonanza in the times of Umar and Uthman. He was also one of the few Ansaris who
did not take part in the campaigns of Ali in Basra, Siffin and Nehrwan. Most of the
Ansaris fought on Ali's side against his enemies in these battles.

Following deductions can be made from Umar's
arrangements for finding a khalifa:

1. It is not necessary for the khalifa of the
Muslims to be a Qurayshi. Even an emancipated slave like Salim can become their khalifa.
The "tradition" that the leaders must be members of the tribe of Quraysh, was
cooked up and was attributed to the Prophet on a special occasion, and for a special
purpose; it worked in Saqifa, and checkmated the Ansar.

2. The incumbent khalifa can arbitrarily restrict
the right and power to choose a new khalifa to five or six men without any reference to
the Muslim umma. The Muslim umma can be safely ignored.

3. Within the electoral committee, if a man
disagrees with the majority, he merits death, even if he is a friend of the Prophet of
Islam; even if he fought at Badr; and even if he is a "Companion of the Tree."
Nothing can save him.

4. The Muslim umma can be left leaderless for three
days. It is not necessary to select a new khalifa immediately after the death of the
incumbent khalifa. A khalifa was chosen immediately after the death but before the burial
of Muhammad Mustafa, on the ground that the Muslim umma ought not to be without a head
even for a moment. Umar thus set a new precedent, viz., flexibility in the application of
political "principles."

5. Those drawbacks and shortcomings of character
which Umar found in the members of his electoral committee, such as lust, anger,
arrogance, conceit, greed, nepotism and ambition, etc., are not a disqualification for
khilafat. A man may be arrogant, conceited, henpecked and greedy; he can still become a
khalifa of the Muslims. A khalifa does not have to be a man of outstanding character and
ability.

Muawiya's Verdict on Umar's Electoral Committee

Ibn Abd Rabbeh writes in his famous book,
Iqd-ul-Farid (The Unique Necklace), Volume II, page 203, that many years after Muawiya was
firmly established on the throne, and had consolidated his position as the khalifa of the
Muslims, he posed, one day, the following question to one of his courtiers:

Muawiya: You are a wise, intelligent and
knowledgeable man. I would like to know what in your opinion, exactly, was the cause of
the civil wars of the Muslims.

The Courtier: The murder of Uthman.

Muawiya: No.

The Courtier: Ali's accession to the throne.

Muawiya: No.

The Courtier: Then I will request the Commander of
the Faithful to enlighten me in this regard.

Muawiya: Well, I will tell you what was the real
cause of the civil wars of the Muslims. All the conflicts and civil wars of the Muslims
had their origins in the electoral committee which Umar appointed to choose a khalifa.

Muawiya was right. The seeds of civil war in Islam
were planted on the day when Umar picked out the members of his electoral committee.
Instead of one candidate for caliphate, he made six candidates. If his decision to appoint
his successor had been as direct and forthright as that of Abu Bakr had been, Islam might
have been spared the traumatic and horrendous experience of civil wars so early in its
career. The Muslims who fought against and killed each other in these civil wars, did not
belong to the distant future; they belonged to the generation of the Prophet
himself.

Civil wars broke out in Islam at a time when its
idealism was supposed to be still fresh. But the elective system devised by Umar had
built-in confrontation, and it took Islam across a great divide. His policy proved to be
counter-productive, and his mode of giving the Muslims a leader through his panel of
electors turned out to be one of the greatest misfortunes of the history of Islam.

Umar and Muhammad Mustafa, the Messenger of God

Umar had accepted Islam at the end of the year 6 of
the Call. Seven years later, he migrated with other Muslims to Medina. In Medina, these
immigrants (Muhajireen) made a fresh start in life.

In Medina, there were occasions when Umar had to
remind Muhammad that in him (in Umar), he (Muhammad) had to reckon with a man who had
great reserves of moral courage. If he disagreed with him (with Muhammad), he was not at
all queasy about expressing his disagreement. Thus, among all the companions, he (Umar)
alone had the moral courage to show his resentment and insolence to him (to Muhammad) at
Hudaybiyya when he (Muhammad) signed a treaty of peace with the Quraysh.

There were other occasions when Umar found it his
unpleasant "duty" to "correct" the "errors" of Muhammad, the
Apostle of God. Following are some incidents in which Umar figured as a critic of the
actions of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam.

When Abdullah bin Ubayy died, the Apostle attended
his funeral, and prayed to God to forgive him and to bestow mercy upon his soul. Umar
tried to dissuade him from doing so by pointing out that Ibn Ubayy had been a Munafiq