The things that a person leaves unfulfilled in this world and those that need to be done only after the death of the person, he entrusts to a person close to himself whom he deems capable and willing to comply with his wishes. It is the bounden duty of a person to comply with the will of a dear departed person to the best of his capability. The Prophet (a.s) had appointed `Ali (a.s) as his wasi with the confidence that he would comply with all his wishes and instructions during his lifetime and thereafter. He would treat them as his bounden duty. Therefore, `Ali (a.s) acted as the most responsible and committed executer of the Will of the Prophet of Islam (a.s). For the last rites of the Prophet (a.s), in accord with his wish, `Ali (a.s) personally gave him the bath and the burial. Despite of the unfavorable conditions in the neighborhood and the machinations of the adversaries, his only concern at the time was to comply with the last wishes of the Master. In addition to these normal duties, he was responsible for fulfilling the promises that the Prophet (a.s) had made to some people and to clear his outstanding debts. This has also been sited in one of the traditions of the Prophet (a.s): “`Ali will fulfill the promises made to me and will clear my debts.” `Ali (a.s) meticulously performed all the tasks and responsibilities that were entrusted to him by the Prophet (a.s). `Abd al-Wahid ibn `Awan says:
“When the Prophet (a.s) died, `Ali (a.s) appointed a herald to announce that whatever promises the Prophet (a.s) made to the persons or the debts he owed to them, should call on him for settlement. Every year during the H ajj, he used to send a person to make an announcement near `Uqbah, the place of sacrifice, about his commitment to honor the promises made to the people by the Prophet (a.s). After him, Imam al-Hasan (a.s) followed the practice and so did Imam al-Husayn (a.s). Then the practice was discontinued.”[1]
[1] Tabaqāt Ibn Sa`d, Vol 2, Page 319
(341)
Could there be a better example of dedication and fulfillment of responsibilities than this that during the Hajj when people from all over are assembled the announcement was made for fifty years to ensure that the demands of no person remained unattended? For such settlement `Ali (a.s) neither made the condition of any written documents nor he asked for any witnesses. `Abdullah ibn `Awn says that whatever claims anyone made, `Ali (a.s) settled them
This attitude of Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s) should have been a lesson for the persons who did not value the claim of the Prophet’s daughter and made the excuse that the requirements of the witness were not completely complied with. They should have also thought that when the legacy of the Prophet (a.s) was the property of the State then, logically, the liabilities of the Prophet (a.s) too should have been the responsibility of the State as well. But they kept their silence on this matter! It does not stand to reason that the fixed assets of a person are attached by the Sate and the debts incurred by him, also in the discharge of his duty to the State, were left for others to discharge! One has to recognize that one who took the responsibility of discharging the debts was the Prophet’s Deputy after him and the usurpation of the Prophet’s was not a legitimate act!
DENYING THE PROPHET’S DEATH
There was a pall of gloom over al-Madinah after the death of the Prophet (a.s). Muslims were gathered inside and around the al-Masjid al-Nabawi (the Holy Prophet’s Mosque). Their eyes were turning again and again towards the room where the mortal remains of their beloved mentor were lying. Every person was in deep sorrow and grief. The initial rites of the funeral were being performed in the midst of tears and mourning. Suddenly in this sad environment rose a shrill voice:
“Some hypocrites think that the Prophet (a.s) has passed away! By Allah! He is not dead and is visiting Allah as did Mūsa ibn `Imran and returned after remaining away from his people after forty days. At that time too it was said that Mūsa was dead. By Allah! The Prophet (a.s) will return and cut the hands and feet of the persons who say that the Prophet (a.s) has died.”[1]
Again, the voice rose in a warning tone:
“One who says that the Prophet (a.s) is dead, I shall strike him with my sword. The Prophet (a.s) has been carried away to the Firmament!”[2]
These sounds were coming from the mouth of `Umar who was adamant in saying that the Prophet (a.s) was alive and the rumor of his death has been spread by the hypocrites and thus he had put guard over the tongues of the people swinging around his sword. Ibn Kathir writes:
“`Umar stood up and started sermonizing and threatened the people who talked about the death of the Prophet (a.s) that he would cut them to pieces! He said that the Prophet (a.s) was lying unconscious and when he rose, he will kill people and cut their limbs. At this time `Amr ibn Za’idah was reciting the
[1] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 442
[2] Tārīkh Abul-Fidā’, Vol 1, Page 156
(343)
following Verse at the rear of the Mosque: ‘Muhammad (a.s) is a Prophet and many prophets have gone by afore him’!”[1]
The effect of this outrageous talk of `Umar was to affect the thinking of the people and to change their topic of discussion. Therefore, the saddened masses started looking at one another in surprise and whispering to one another whether the Prophet (a.s) had really died or was alive! Although the people who heard him were not willing to believe his words, they had no courage to ask him to go inside and see for himself whether the Prophet (a.s) was really dead or not. Everyone was dumbfounded and was looking at `Umar fencing around with his sword! He was sometimes saying that the Prophet (a.s) was lying unconscious, again he said that he has been raised to the Firmament and he said that like Mūsa ibn Harūn he had gone into hiding! Now, which version of his to accept and which to reject? There was total confusion among those who were standing around watching his fencing skills! What was the need of frightening the people with his martial skills with the sword? If the spirit had gone to the Firmament, as he said, then that was death! If according to `Umar the Prophet (a.s) had gone the way Mūsa went, then Mūsa had gone bodily and had returned with the Torah. The Prophet’s body was very much there and there was no purpose his going the way Mūsa (a.s) went. When Mūsa (a.s) went for forty days he left behind his brother and Vicegerent, Harūn (a.s). `Umar in his outrage was silent about this very important aspect of the comparison that he was making! The Holy Qur’an says:
وَقَالَ مُوسَى لِأَخِيهِ هَارُونَ اخْلُفْنِي فِي قَوْمِي وَأَصْلِحْ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ سَبِيلَ الْمُفْسِدِينَ .
“Mūsa said to his brother Harūn: Take my place among my people, and act well and do not follow the way of the mischief-makers. (7:142)”
`Umar should have hinted at this aspect when he was drawing a comparison with what happened to Mūsa (a.s). But, perhaps, discreetly, he was avoiding hinting at this point in his talk!
Besides, he should have also clarified about who those hypocrites were who, according to him, spread rumors about the death of the Prophet (a.s). He knew that, naturally, the sad news emanated from the household of the Prophet (a.s) where the consorts of the Prophet (a.s), Fatimah al-Zahra’ (a.s), `Ali (a.s), Imam al-Hasan and Imam al-Husayn (a.s), `Abdullah ibn `Abbas, al-Fadl ibn
[1] Al-Bidāyah wan-Nihāyah, Vol 5, Page 242
(344)
`Abbas, `Abdullah ibn Ja`far and others from Banū-Hashim were there. Were these the hypocrites whose limbs, according to `Umar, the Prophet (a.s) would return to cut away!
Certainly, there was confusion in the people about the demise of their beloved Prophet (a.s). This confusion would have persisted, but Abū-Bakr arrived from the place of Sakh in the environs of al-Madinah hearing about the demise of the Prophet (a.s) and heard `Umar ferociously denying to accept that the Prophet (a.s) was dead. He went inside, removed the cloth from the face of the Prophet (a.s), went out, and talked with `Umar for a while, and then addressed the people thus:
“One who worships Allah must know that Allah is immortal and those who worshipped Muhammad (a.s) should know that Muhammad (a.s) has expired. Then he recited this Verse, ‘Muhammad (a.s) is only a prophet of Allah. Before him, there were prophets who have gone. If he dies, or is assassinated, you will turn to infidelity. And those who turn back they cannot harm Allah in any way. And Allah will soon Reward the grateful.’”[1]
When `Umar heard this Verse from the mouth of Abū-Bakr, he expressed surprise and said:
“Is it a Verse from the Holy Qur’an? I did not know that it is a Verse from the Qur’an. Then he added, ‘O people! This is Abū-Bakr who has ascendance over the Muslims! Owe allegiance to him! Owe allegiance to him!”[2]
`Umar who was insisting that the Prophet (a.s) was not dead a while ago accepts the fact hearing the Verse from the mouth of Abū-Bakr. Seeing this sudden change in his attitude, a doubt rises in the mind that whether `Umar really believed that the Prophet (a.s) was alive and not dead. If so, did he get the idea only after hearing that the Prophet (a.s) was no more? If his belief was such, while obstructing the Prophet’s call for pen and paper for writing his will, he could have said that wills are made only by mortal human beings and the Prophet (a.s) was immortal and he did not need to make a will! Instead of this, he said that the Prophet (a.s) was in a state of delirium and he might utter insensible words as his will! A while ago, he was an adamantly
[1] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 443
[2] Al-Bidāyah wan-Nihāyah, Vol 5, Page 242
(345)
denying the Prophet’s death and now changed his stance and said:
“By Allah! I decided to say what I said because of this Verse:’ in the same way We have made you the Middle Ummah that you bear witness to the people and the Prophet (a.s) a witness over you!’ By Allah! I had the feeling that the prophet (a.s) will remain with his Ummah until the end to bear witness over them!”[1]
Then he had seen the Prophet (a.s) struggling between life and death, and now he had seen that the Prophet (a.s) had no signs of life in his body. There were wails rising from the house and the people were expressing sadness over the demise.
This vehement denial of the death of the Prophet (a.s) and sudden face suggests to every right thinking person that there must have been some strategy behind his behavior. His sudden advocacy of people’s allegiance to Abū-Bakr instead of thinking of the last rites of their beloved Prophet (a.s) suggests that he was not so much concerned about the Prophet (a.s) than the matters of power and Caliphate. The truth is that `Umar was not so ignorant that he was not recognizing the fact of the demise of the Prophet (a.s). This was his well thought out political move.
To understand this political move we shall have to recapitulate on certain events. The history is witness that `Ali (a.s) was closely associated with the invitation to the faith of Islam from the very time of the annunciation of the Prophet (a.s) and was always ready to serve the cause. The Prophet (a.s) wished to propagate and protect Islam through him. This fact is evident from the events of Da`wat al-`Ashirah and the Ghadir Khumm. Most of the Companions, both the Muhajirūn and Ansar, were aware of the choice of the prophet (a.s) for his Vicegerent and Successor. Ibn Abil-Hadid writes:
“The majority of Muhajirūn and Ansar had no doubt that after the Prophet (a.s) `Ali (a.s) will be wali `Amr (the Vicegerent)”[2]
It cannot also be denied that the Prophethood and caliphate in the same family was not acceptable to a particular group, and the reason was that they wanted to establish their own hegemony. Therefore, they started preparing their strategy from the living days of the Prophet (a.s) itself. They put impediments against any move that they found was going against their interests. The
[1] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 450
[2] Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah by Ibn Abil-Hadīd, Vol 3, Page 8
(346)
Prophet (a.s) asks for paper and pen from his deathbed, and they talk impertinently to avoid writing of the will by the Prophet (a.s). The Prophet (a.s) orders these persons to proceed on a Campaign under the command of Usamah ibn Zayd and they disobey the Prophet’s orders. One of the main perpetrators of this disobedience was the same `Umar who enacted the drama that the Prophet (a.s) had not demised when the ostensible reason for disobeying his command was that they were sure that he was going to demise and they wanted to be around to manipulate the Caliphate in their favor! Al-Buladhari writes:
“When the Prophet of Allah died, `Abbas said, ‘O `Ali! Come out! I shall owe allegiance to you in front of the people to ensure that none differs about you.’ But `Ali (a.s) refused and said, ‘who can differ (or deny) our Rights and who can overwhelm us?’ `Abbas said, ‘then you will see this will happen!’”[1]
`Umar was one of the persons who did not want the Prophethood and caliphate remaining with one family and feared that the initiative for the bay`ah might assume a practical shape. Therefore, he wanted to crush the movement before it raised its head. At that juncture, he could not think of any strategy and hence, to gain time by diverting the attention of the crowds, he played the ruse of the Prophet’s immortality and that the story of his death was a rumor spread by the hypocrites! As soon as Abū-Bakr arrived the entire drama was over and `Umar started seeking the people’s allegiance for his Caliphate! What was the need for asking for the people’s allegiance at that somber moment? Anyway, after his appeal for votes, it became evident that all his fencing with the sword and the words was merely to play to the galleries until his candidate for the Caliphate arrived on the scene and none else was proclaimed as the successor and Caliph to the Prophet (a.s). Therefore, the events of the Saqifah Banū-Sa`idah are witness to the fact that the group considered installation of their candidate as Caliph more urgent than attending to the last sickness of their beloved Prophet (a.s) and his last rites! They gave a political defeat to the Ansar and established their own hegemony!
[1] Ansāb al-Ashrāf, Vol 1, Page 583
AN OVERVIEW OF THE EVENTS OF SAQIFAH
The drama that was enacted about the demise of the Prophet (a.s) was over. It had to be over because it was enacted to gain time until Abū-Bakr arrived on the scene. But it created doubts in the minds of the Ansar. They started thinking that the rumpus over providing paper and pen to the Prophet (a.s) for writing his will, the disobedience to proceed for the campaign with Usamah ibn Zayd and the imminent and vehement denial of `Umar about the Prophet’s demise were the links of the same chain. The purpose was to divert the Caliphate from its main focus and take it somewhere else. They urgently put together a conclave at Saqifah Banū-Sa`idah to owe allegiance to a person from the Ansar and render the Muhajir’s plan unsuccessful. If the Ansar were sure that the Muhajirūn will not obstruct `Ali (a.s) assuming the Caliphate, they would never have established the conclave at the Saqifah. There conscience always raised the same call that they did at the Saqifah, “We shall owe allegiance to none other than `Ali (a.s)”
In that conclave both the tribes of Ansar Aws and Khazraj participated despite their differences. Whether it was Aws or Khazraj, the dominance of one group of the Muhajirūn was not acceptable to them, nor they considered their hegemony in the interest of the Ansar. However, the people of Khazraj were very active in organizing this conclave and one of their prominent persons, Sa`d ibn `Abadah was the secretary of the meeting and was sitting there with a quilt around his body as he was suffering from a fever at that time. He started the proceedings with his speech that was delivered in a very low tone because of his weakness. His son, Qays, repeated loudly what he said. He said, “O people of Ansar! The precedence and importance that you have in the Faith, no other Arabs have it! The Prophet (a.s) kept inviting his people to the Right Path for ten years, but only a few persons accepted to embrace Islam. It was not in the power of a few persons to safeguard the Faith. Allah blessed you that you embraced Islam and acted as shields of protection for the Prophet (a.s) and his small group of companions! You entered the field of battle and fought for the cause. With your swords, the proud Arabs were vanquished! The Prophet (a.s) has left this world! He was happy and satisfied
(348)
with you until his last breath! Who is more deserving of the Caliphate than you who have rendered yeoman service to the Faith! Therefore rise and make your hold tight over the Caliphate!” All the participants appreciated his talk and said that they would support him to become the Caliph. If this was only the matter of the Ansar, they could have finalized the bay`ah and decided immediately. But there was a fear that if the Muhajirūn opposed the move, there would be unnecessary conflict. Therefore, after the speech of Sa`d ibn `Abadah the question arose that if the Muhajirūn did not agree with them, then how would the problem be resolved? Some suggested that if they do not agree then they could opt for one emir from each side. Sa`d said that this is the weakness of the Ansar. He said that if there was solidarity in their thoughts they would never have suggested sharing power with the Muhajirūn and would decide the matter before the other side thought of the bay`ah.
Although the people of Aws too were present at this conclave, they were there just as observers. They also wanted to give others a feeling that the Ansar were not divided. But in their hearts, they still carried a grudge against the Khazraj. They had even fought a bloody battle, known as the Battle of Bu`ath, that was fought just before the advent of Islam to their area. Although Islam paved the way for peace and amity between them, and to a major extent removed the hostility between the two groups, but the human failing always maintained a sort of distance between them. Therefore, at this time too, some men of Aws carried the message about the conclave to `Umar. `Umar was disturbed with this news and, accompanied by a couple of cohorts, went to the Saqifah to disrupt the conclave. Ibn al-Athir writes:
“When `Umar heard this news he came to the place of the Prophet (a.s) where Abū-Bakr was present. He sent word to Abū-Bakr to come out for a while. He said that he was busy with the Prophet (a.s). `Umar sent word that some accident had happened and his coming out was important. Therefore, Abū-Bakr came out and he was informed of the event. Both of them took Abū-`Ubaydah along and proceeded fast towards the quarters of the Ansar.”[1]
`Umar thought it necessary to inform Abū-Bakr about the conclave of the Ansar. This was not a personal or individual affair and concerned the entire Ummah. If there was any fear of harm to the community at large from the conclave of the Ansar, then informing to the other important persons too was
[1] Al-Kāmil fit-Tārīkh, Vol 2, Page 222
(349)
very essential. Were `Abbas, `Ali (a.s), al-Zubayr and other persons from Banū-Hashim not important enough to be taken into confidence. Instead of surreptitiously sending a message to Abū-Bakr, `Umar could have himself entered the chambers of the Prophet (a.s) and informed the persons there about the gravity of the situation. But his maintaining secrecy about the matter creates doubts about the intentions of the two comrades.
When these three persons arrived panting at the Saqifah, the Ansar were completely surprised. With the revelation of their secret conclave, they thought that their plans had gone awry. The Aws too got a chance to join hands with the Muhajirūn to defeat the plans of the Khazraj. As soon as `Umar arrived there, he viewed the gathering and asked, “Who is the person draped in the quilt?” He was informed that it was Sa`d ibn `Abadah who was presiding over the conclave and was the candidate for the Caliphate. `Umar knit his brows and wanted to say something to the gathering. Abū-Bakr knew his vitriolic temper and stopped him from uttering anything that might harm their own interest. `Umar sat down saying:
“I shall not disobey the dictates of the Caliph of the Prophet (a.s) in a day or two!”[1]
Abū-Bakr rose and addressed the gathering:
“Allah sent the Prophet (a.s) at a time when idol worship was rampant. He stood up to stop people from worshipping the idols and start worshipping the one and only Allah. But the Arabs did not agree to forsake their ancestral faith. Allah selected the initial Muhajirūn, who are from the same clan as the Prophet (a.s), to bear witness to his Faith. They bore with patience the hardships inflicted on them by the men of their own clan. At that time, all the people were against this handful of the supporters of the Prophet (a.s). They remained steadfast in their Faith and were the first to worship Allah. These people are the true friends of the Prophet (a.s) and are from his clan. Who could be more deserving of the Caliphate than they could? Those who dispute with them in this matter will be termed rebellious! O Group of Ansar! Your felicity in the Faith and the precedence in accepting Islam too cannot be denied! Allah made you the supporters of the Prophet of Islam and gave you
[1] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 444
(350)
elevated status! Therefore, we shall be the Emir and you will be the Vizier! No matter shall be settled without you consent!”
This speech of Abū-Bakr reflected his foresight, understanding of the situation and the political wisdom. It was his political wisdom that he prevented the outburst of `Umar when they arrived at the Saqifah to ensure that in his anger he did not use words that would upset the Ansar. Abū-Bakr was seeing that the situation was not for strictness and needed discreet and smooth handling. Therefore, in his well-balanced words, he impressed the Ansar by terming them the advisers for the Muhajirūn and offered to them to be their Vizier. The main point about the speech was that while he was not the opponent of the Ansar, he gave them the impression that the Muhajirūn were one with them. He did not present himself as an opponent but as a one who had come to them as a facilitator. He talked about the Muhajirūn and Ansar in a manner that he never sounded that they were opponents. If the question of Muhajir or Ansar had arisen, it would be to great disadvantage to his own group. It was then possible that the endemic tribal rivalry amongst the Arabs would have raised its head once again. Then the race for power would have started and none would achieve any success. He was also very discreet in not posing the Muhajirūn in general against the Ansar but only the small group who had the privilege of embracing Islam in the early days and helping with the Prophet’s Mission. He did this to impress on them that he was not trying to project the tribal superiority of the Muhajirūn and only the felicity of the small group that was close to Prophet (a.s) in his early days of propagation of the Faith. Then, to strengthen his point of view, while he praised the contribution of the select group of the Muhajirūn, he praised the contribution of the Ansar to the Cause. To establish the claim of the Muhajirūn for the Caliphate he mentioned the qualities of the Muhajirūn that were convincing for the audience. The Ansar knew that among the Muhajirūn there was a small group who had precedence over all in embracing Islam under very difficult circumstances. He stressed his point to establish the claim for the Caliphate and this point went well with the audience! He knew that `Ali (a.s) had precedence over everyone else in embracing Islam, he was from the Quraysh and was the closest person to the Prophet (a.s) throughout his Mission. But Abū-Bakr gleaned over this fact and kept the Ansar quiet by offering to them the carrot of becoming the Vizier. This offer also removed the doubts from the minds of the Ansar that their rights might be denied to them in the new disposition. It is another matter that the position of vizier was created neither during the time of Abū-Bakr nor `Umar. It was just a non-existent carrot that was offered to the Ansar only at the Saqifah. But during the reign of `Uthman,
(351)
a position almost similar to vizier, the katib (clerk), was created. But how could an Ansar dream of the position when an Umayyad was available!
Aws were happy with the oratory of Abū-Bakr because they were not happy with the claims of superiority by their rivals, the Khazraj. They kept sitting with their head bent and did not raise any objection to whatever he claimed. But the Khazraj did speak out. Their representative, Habbab ibn al-Mundhir rose to say:
“O people of Ansar! You must firmly take your stand! These people are living under your shadow! None can dare to say anything against you or act against your wishes. You have respectability, affluence, strength and valor! Neither are you lesser in numbers than they are nor in martial skills. People are looking towards you. Remain united. If you do not remain together, you will fail in you endeavor. The Prophet (a.s) migrated to settle in your City. Because of you, there was freedom for Worship and Mosques were constructed. With the help of your swords, the Arab Tribes were subdued and Islam was successful. You are not the wrong claimants of the Caliphate. If these people do not accept your rights, there must be one Emir from our side and one from theirs!”
The spirit with which Habbab started his speech, it became evident that the Ansar would not capitulate to the Muhajirūn at any cost nor will they allow the diminution of their determination. But that was not to be. `Umar suddenly rose and said, “How is it possible to have two chiefs at the same time? By Allah! The Arabs will never agree for this arrangement to bring you to that position when the Prophet (a.s) was not one of you The Arabs can certainly accept the leader only from the clan of the Prophet (a.s) Therefore, whoever opposes our right to Caliphate, we shall oppose him with this argument! Whoever clashes with us about the Emirate of the Prophet’s Domain will be a sinner and will be the cause of his own destruction!
After `Umar’s talk, Habbab rose once again. And with great emotion addressed the Ansar, “O group of Ansar! Remain steadfast on your stand! Do not pay any heed to the talk of these persons. If they do not accept your claims, push them out of the city! Then select anyone you wish to have as your emir. By Allah! You are more deserving of the Caliphate than these persons are. Because the Faith was spread through your efforts and the people bent towards Islam! By Allah! If anyone refutes me I shall cut his nose with my sword!”
(352)
Habbab’s talk did not convince the gathering when compared to the oratory of Abū-Bakr and `Umar. Although Habbab was considered a person of opinion amongst the Ansar, he did not have the foresight and maturity that is required to make a success out of a popular movement. An example of his indiscretion was reflected in his speeches at the gathering. It was required at the moment that instead of exhibiting emotional outbursts prevalent during the age of ignorance and exercising discretion in making statements that was the need of the day. Therefore, with his outburst he made his position weak and was not able to make any impression on the audience. Abū-`Ubaydah was realizing the gravity of the situation. He shook the religious sentiments of the Ansar by saying, “O group of Ansar! You have given us support and succor when we had the need! Do not change your ways now and remain steadfast with your past attitude! “The result of this talk was that even the people of Khazraj relented. Seeing the direction of the wind, Bashir ibn Sa`d Khazraji said, “O group of Ansar! Although we have the felicity of taking on the infidels and took precedence in accepting Islam, the only thing in our sight was the pleasure of Allah and the obedience for the Prophet (a.s)! It is not proper that we use the Faith for worldly advancement and contest for gaining power. The Faith is a Blessing given by Allah. The Prophet (a.s) was from the Quraysh and therefore his tribe has the right to bring forth his successor and Emir. May Allah forbid that I dispute with them on this matter! You must fear Allah and do not get embroiled with them.” When Bashir uttered these words, the unity of the Ansar manifested so far went into thin air. Their attitude suddenly changed. There is no doubt people’s attitude takes no time in changing!
As a result of the weakness and irresolution of the Ansar when the foundations of their claims started shaking, the Muhajirūn got the opportunity to exploit their weakness. Therefore, Abū-Bakr stood up and said that sitting in their presence were `Umar and Abū-`Ubaydah and they may pledge their allegiance to any one of them! This was a move which could certainly confuse the audience but might not bring about an assent. The condition of the minds of the audience was like that of a traveler who had lost his way and was standing confused at the crossroads. He fails to decide which way to take. People started staring at each other’s faces and got confused for the selection of one of the two. If Abū-Bakr had suggested only one name, there would not have been any difficulty in the gathering agreeing to it. The reason would be that they look to a person’s suggestion that has impressed their thinking at the meeting and they go with closed eyes in the direction pointed out by the person. But Abū-Bakr neither proposed only one name for the position nor he expressed any particular interest in any one of the two. It appears a very
(353)
clever move that he wanted to confuse the gathering and divert their attention towards the source of the suggestion that was he! Sensing the confusion in the minds of the audience `Umar suggested that Abū-Bakr was suitable in all respects to be the Caliph. He asked Abū-Bakr to stretch his hand that he and others extend their allegiance to him. Abū-Bakr instantaneously stretched his hand as if the proposal of the other two names was just a formability and the matter was already predetermined between them. `Umar was about to put his hand in the hand of Abū-Bakr when Bashir ibn Sa`d put his hand on the outstretched hand of Abū-Bakr in token of owing his allegiance to him. Then `Umar and Abū-`Ubaydah did bay`ah with Abū-Bakr followed by the people of Khazraj. Although the people of Aws had come to the conclave as supporters of Sa`d ibn `Abadah, they would not have liked someone from the Tribe of Khazraj to get a position of power. Therefore, the representative of the Aws, Usayd ibn Hudayr, seeing the Khazraj move forward to owe allegiance to Abū-Bakr said:
“By Allah! If Khazraj are able once to rule over you, they will get superiority over you for all time. Then they will not give you any share from that emirate. Therefore, rise and owe your allegiance to Abū-Bakr.”[1]
The words of Usayd ibn Hudayr indicate that they were agreeing to owe allegiance to Abū-Bakr only on account of the differences between the tribes of Aws and Khazraj. They never wanted anyone from the Khazraj to become the Caliph and dominate them forever. Another motivation that the vizierate was being offered to the Ansar and the Aws might rise to that position in time to come. But it is a fact of history that the Ansar were neglected even for small positions of power and the position of a Vizier was never instituted. The talk of Habbab ibn al-Mundhir proved true that he told Ansar while asking them not to owe allegiance to the Muhajirūn, “O group of Ansar! I see with my eyes that your children are begging at the thresholds of the progeny of Muhajirūn with outstretched lapels and no one giving them even water to drink!”
In this hullabaloo of the bay`ah, Habbab ibn al-Mundhir took out his sword but it was snatched away from him and was disarmed. Sa`d ibn `Abadah was trampled under feet. `Umar came back in his element. While he was subdued in the beginning, now after the dispelling of the political danger, he could take a stern stance. With Sa`d ibn `Abadah, he exchanged harsh words and pulling of each others beards. `Umar shouted and said:
[1] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 458
(354)
“Kill him! May Allah perish him! He creates unrest!”[1]
The words of Tarikh al-Tabari are:
“May Allah kill him. He is a hypocrite!”[2]
Sa`d ibn `Abadah, was an important person from the Ansar and a chief from the Tribe of Khazraj and one of the important companions of the Prophet (a.s). What was his crime to be termed a hypocrite and troublemaker? If he was a claimant of the caliphate, others too had come there for the same purpose. If Abū-Bakr and `Umar thought that it was important to decide about the Caliphate before the Prophet’s funeral to avoid unrest and dispute, the Ansar too had gathered together for the same purpose. If the conclave was illegitimate, the Muhajirūn too made use of the same illegitimate conclave to get their candidate foisted as the Caliph. When they said that the conclave of the Ansar was non-representative because of the Muhajirūn not being there, then how could the selection of the Caliph be legitimate when there were only three persons from the Muhajirūn and none of the Banū-Hashim was present at the Conclave. When the relationship with the Prophet (a.s) was made a condition for the selection of the Caliph, Banū-Hashim were the closest of his kin. If the elders have to meet and decide the urgent and important matters, then the action of Sa`d ibn `Abadah cannot be termed illegitimate. Calling him a hypocrite and troublemaker was not warranted. The truth is that Sa`d ibn `Abadah was a candidate for the caliphate and that was not palatable to `Umar.
All this proves that the bay`ah of Abū-Bakr came about in disturbed and emotional circumstances. On the one hand there was the clash between Aws and Khazraj and on the other was mutual antagonism between two Khazrajites that provided an opportunity to the Muhajirūn to put forward a candidate for the bay`ah. Bashir ibn Sa`d tried to obstruct the claim of Sa`d ibn `Abadah took the first initiative in extending his hand in bay`ah to Abū-Bakr. Seeing Bashir, the Khazraj yielded and Aws followed too. In this pell-mell there was no chance for any parleys or consultation and the bay`ah was done in a hurry. `Umar too considered it the creation of the unusual circumstances and said:
“Abū-Bakr’s bay`ah was a ‘falta’ or something done without thinking about it. Even then, Allah spared us from His anger. Again if someone follows this method, he must be killed.”[3]
[1] Al-`Iqd al-Farīd, Vol 3, Page 63
[2] Vol 2, Page 459
(355)
`Allamah al-Zamakhshari describing the meaning of ‘falta’ writes:
“Abū-Bakr put the shackle of caliphate in his neck in a way as if something is snatched from another person or is snatched away with the talons. Without doubt such a bay`ah is born of mischief and wickedness but Allah saved people from evil consequences.”[1]
It may be right to call this bay`ah a fitnah (mischief) because although he had decided on the candidature of Abū-Bakr, beforehand, and had enacted subterfuges to clear the ground, but he kept the name of Abū-Bakr secret until the last moment. When he felt that the Ansar were about to achieve unanimity about one candidate, in an opportunistic manner he extended the hand of Abū-Bakr for the bay`ah. People were raring to cast their lot. As soon as a candidate was presented before them, they rushed to give their votes. Thus, the ‘fitnah’ came about!
It was `Umar’s political acumen that besides the confidantes none else got wind of what was brewing. If this secret leaked, some persons could have opposed the move. If the Banū-Hashim had learned about the scheme, it would have run into failure. The reason was that the contention of the Muhajirūn was that Abū-Bakr was near of kin to the Prophet (a.s). If someone from the Banū-Hashim was around, this contention would have collapsed! The reason being that whether someone was from Banū-taym or Banū-`Adi, he could not claim nearness to the Prophet (a.s) in comparison with Banū-Hashim. If `Ali (a.s) had reached there, there would not have been the question of anybody else getting selected for the Caliphate. Therefore, al-Mundhir ibn Arqam, representing the sentiments of the Ansar says:
“Among the Muhajirūn, `Ali ibn Abi-Talib was one that if he contested for the Caliphate then not a single group of the Ansar would go against him.”[2]
In view of the Democratic Caliphate, what came about cannot be called an exercise in democracy. The requirement of the democratic process was that the common man was allowed to express his choice. But what really happened was that at first the Caliphate was restricted to the Muhajirūn, and then only three persons from the Muhajirūn quietly present themselves at the conclave
[1] Al-Sawā`iq al-Muhriqah, Page 36
[2] Al-Fā’iq, Vol 1, Page 146
[3] Tārīkh al-Ya`qūbī, Vol 2, Page 103
(356)
of the Ansar for the selection of a leader at the Saqifah. In the beginning the majority of the conclave was in the favor of Sa`d ibn `Abadah. If that selection were concluded, at least, it would have sent a signal that in Islam selection of the caliph is not on the basis of tribal affiliation. When the caliphate can be got by Banū-taym and Banū-`Adi, why not the Ansar? If it is accepted that the caliph can only be from the clan of the Prophet (a.s) then the nearest to him was `Ali ibn Abi-Talib, as against those who meet with the Prophet (a.s) with the ninth or tenth forbear! About this Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s) has said:
“They argued about the tree but had destroyed the fruits.”[1]
At the Saqifah of Banū-Sa`idah, the opponents were the Ansar, the contention that worked was “the Arabs want to see the Caliphate where the Prophethood was.” If the competition was with the Banū-Hashim, then `Umar would have said what he told once to Ibn `Abbas:
“People do not like that the Prophethood and caliphate come together in one family!”[2]
[1] Nahj al-Balāghah
[2] Al-Kāmil fit-Tārīkh, Vol 3, Page 34
HOMAGE AND USE OF COERCION
The efforts of Abū-Bakr, `Umar and Abū-`Ubaydah bore fruits and they succeeded in getting the Caliphate in their favor. When this campaign was over, they started from the Saqifah towards the Mosque. On the way, some other persons joined them. On such occasions, generally people come getting influenced by curiosity or the position of power the person has attained. On the way the persons they met were asked to shake hands with Abū-Bakr. Thus taking bay`ah, and announcing about the bay`ah this small group proceeded on its way. Al-Barra’ ibn `azib says:
“Whosoever they met on the way, they forced him to come along and for the bay`ah touched his hand with that of Abū-Bakr, whether he wished to do it or not.”[1]
When they arrived at the Mosque, they sent some couriers to catch hold of people and bring them for the bay`ah. Therefore, people were assembled at the Mosque where in one of the rooms the Prophet (a.s) was being given his final bath before burial. The process of the bay`ah proceeded with the slogans of Takbir. Buladhari writes:
“Abū-Bakr was brought to the Mosque and the people did their bay`ah with him. `Abbas and `Ali (a.s) heard the sounds of Takbir from the Mosque when they had just completed the bath for the Prophet (a.s).”[2]
This is a very sad reflection of the unfaithfulness of the world that on the one side are the mortal remains of the Prophet of Islam (a.s) and on the other there is a crowd of persons come to take bay`ah at the hands of the new rulers. Only sometime ago the same people were sad in mourning. But now there is no tear in any eyes or any sign of mourning on their faces. This gives us an idea of the minds of the populace. In such a situation, they cannot be expected to think how the selection of the Caliph came about and whether it was
[1] Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah by Ibn Abil-Hadīd, Vol 1, Page 74
[2] Ansāb al-Ashrāf, Vol 1, Page 582
(358)
legitimate or not. Was it done with the consent of the people or done with the opinion of selected few? Who were these selected few? Were there any other persons involved than the three who managed to go to the conclave of the Ansar? Were `Abbas, `Ali (a.s), Salman al-Farisi, Abū-Dharr, al-Miqdad, `Ammar, al-Zubayr, Khalid ibn Sa`id and the important persons of the Banū-Hashim consulted before making the selection of the Caliph? People were just flooding in as if they were coming out of curiosity. If anyone raised a little objection, he was silenced either by force or through promises of material benefit. Those who had some power behind them were avoided for the time being. Therefore, clashing with Sa`d ibn `Abadah was not thought discreet before establishing themselves in the reins of power. When the disposition was consolidated with the bay`ah of `Uthman, `Abd al-Rahman ibn `Awf, Sa`d ibn Abi-Waqqas, Banū-Umayyah and Banū-Zahrah, he was sent a message to come and owe his allegiance. His reply was:
“By Allah! I shall not owe my allegiance until I throw the arrows from my quiver on you and battle with you along with the men of my Tribe!”[1]
Hearing this reply Abū-Bakr kept quiet but `Umar was furious and said that he will not rest until he took the bay`ah from the person. Bashir ibn Sa`d said at this point that if he has refused to owe allegiance, he would rather give his life than condescend to the demand! His family members too will prefer to die with him and they will not die until the tribe of Khazraj totally perished and Khazraj will not perish until a single person of the Aws lived. The most far-sighted thing would be to leave Sa`d ibn `Abadah to his own scruples. Therefore, they did not approach him thereafter. During the rule of Abū-Bakr, he lived in al-Madinah but kept no contact with the ruling clique. He neither participated with them in the prayers nor went with them for the Hajj. When `Umar came to power, he once met Sa`d on the way and told him if he was the same Sa`d. He replied in the affirmative and added that his stand was the same and unaltered as before! He said that he hated `Umar’s company as much as he hated before! `Umar asked him why he then did not leave al-Madinah for good? Sa`d now felt that `Umar might make an attempt on his life any time. Therefore, he left al-Madinah and moved away to Syria and after sometime became the victim of someone’s arrows at a place called Hawran. Ibn `Abd-Rabbih al-Andalusi writes:
[1] Tabaqāt Ibn Sa`d, Vol 3, Page 616
(359)
“`Umar sent one person to Syria and asked him to demand bay`ah from Sa`d. If he refused, seek Allah’s help against him. The person reached Syria and met Sa`d within the four walls of a house and invited him for the bay`ah. He replied that he would never give bay`ah to any Qarashi. The person said that in the case he would battle with him. Sa`d replied that he did not mind battling. The man said that he wanted to be out of what the entire Ummah had accepted. He replied that he preferred to be out of the bay`ah. The man took out an arrow and shot him dead.”[1]
The person who killed him is said to be Muhammad Ibn Maslamah or Mughirah Ibn Shu`bah but a rumor was spread that a Jinn had shot him with an arrow.
During the First Caliphate, Sa`d ibn `Abadah was neither troubled nor was treated with cruelty. But the operatives of the Caliphate immediately started efforts to obtain allegiance from `Ali (a.s) and did not abstain from any harsh method to obtain their objective. Therefore, he was spending the life of a recluse at home. A message inviting for the bay`ah came from the rulers. `Ali (a.s) and others who were at his house refused to abide by the invitation. `Umar, in a rage of anger came threatening to burn down the house of `Ali (a.s). Buladhari writes:
“Abū-Bakr sent a message to `Ali (a.s) seeking his bay`ah. But `Ali refused to comply, at which `Umar brought burning fire. Fatimah (a.s) saw `Umar and said, ‘O son of al-Khattab! Will you burn down the door along with me?’ `Umar replied, ‘Yes” ” [2]
Al-Zubayr ibn al-`Awwam was present in the house of `Ali (a.s) at that time. Although he was Abū-Bakr’s son-in-law from the side of his mother Safiyyah bint `Abd al-Muttalib, he was related to the Banū-Hashim as well. When he saw `Umar trying to burn down the house in a rage, he came out angrily with his sword unsheathed. But Salamah ibn Ashyam snatched away the sword from his hand and arrested him disarmed. The historian al-Tabari writes:
“`Umar ibn al-Khattab came to the house of `Ali (a.s). At the house there were Talhah, al-Zubayr and a few Muhajirūn. `Umar called for them to come out for bay`ah. He swore by
[1] Al-`Iqd al-Farīd, Vol 3, Page 65
[2] Ansāb al-Ashrāf, Vol 1, Page 580
(360)
Allah that he would set fire to burn all of them down. Al-Zubayr took out his sword and came out to fight. But he stumbled, the sword fell off his hand, the men overwhelmed him and he was arrested.”[1]
`Umar and his men somehow succeeded in taking `Ali (a.s) to Abū-Bakr for the bay`ah. Protesting against the demand, `Ali (a.s) said:
“I am more entitled to caliphate than you! I shall not do the bay`ah with you but you must owe allegiance to me! You snatched the caliphate from the Ansar with the plea that you were close relations of the Prophet (a.s). And now you are bent on snatching away the caliphate from the Ahl al-Bayt. Did not you make a claim with the Ansar that you were more deserving of the Caliphate than them on which basis they entrusted the leadership and Emirate to you? The reason that you gave to the Ansar for establishing your right, for the same reason I prove my right to you. We are more important for the Prophet (a.s) in his like and his death. If you have embraced the Faith, be just to us. Otherwise you are not unaware that you are committing an injustice!”[2]
Abū-Bakr sat quietly but `Umar threatened that until he agreed for the bay`ah he would not be released. `Ali (a.s) replied that he was neither going to give any cognizance to his talk nor owe allegiance to any one Then bringing out the hidden secret, `Ali (a.s) said:
“Milk (the cow that is) the caliphate! You too have an equal share in that! By Allah! You are killing yourself for the caliphate of Abū-Bakr that tomorrow he leaves it behind for you!”[3]
On Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s) refusing to owe allegiance to Abū-Bakr they went to great lengths to force him into acquiescence. They threatened to burn down his house; they dragged him with a rope round his neck and threatened to assassinate him. The treatment meted out to `Ali (a.s) was so harsh that Mu`awiyah ibn Abi-Sufyan wrote a letter to Muhammad ibn Abi-Bakr in a very sarcastic manner:
[1] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 3, Page 443
[2] Al-Imāmah wal-Siyāsah, Vol 1, Page 11
[3] Ansāb al-Ashrāf, Vol 1, Page 587
(361)
“Those who were first to usurp `Ali’s right were your father, Abū-Bakr and al-Farūq. They demanded bay`ah from `Ali (a.s) but `Ali (a.s) delayed his acquiescence. On account of it the two inflicted on him mountains of difficulties and torture!”[1]
The procedure adopted for obtaining the bay`ah was absolutely illegitimate and unwarranted. In no law, it is permitted to force one’s will on others. If they had evidence that `Ali (a.s) was preparing from the time of the Prophet (a.s) to acquire a position of power, and if he had organized a group for such a purpose, there could have been some justification in adopting harsh measure to protect their own interests. But when there was no such evidence, it is surprising why Abū-Bakr and `Umar adopted very harsh measures to extract bay`ah from `Ali (a.s). How such measures could be called just and legitimate from no lesser persons than the first and the second Caliphs of Islam!
`Ali’s refusal to give bay`ah was not just for sentimental reasons. But his denial was purely on principles. Even if the aggression had gone to the maximum extent, he would not have bowed down to the injustice inflicted in the name of democracy. There was no justification from the Shari`ah for such hegemony. Therefore, he bore with great courage all the hardships inflicted on him. He never accepted the Democratic Caliphate and therefore no question arises of his ever acquiescing to owe bay`ah to those Caliphs!
[1] Murūj al-Dhahab, Vol 2, Page 60
AMIR AL MU’MININ’S DISCREET SILENCE
Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s) openly challenged the Democratic Caliphate and proved his Right with the same proofs that his opponents used at the Saqifah. His proof was, in fact, more valid than that of his adversaries. His was a protest against the politics that resulted in the ‘elected ruler’ who assumed the status of Caliph of the Prophet (a.s)! In his protest, there was neither wish for acquiring power nor craze for position of strength. If he had such ambitions, he could have also indulged in politics of the same order that the other group did. He could have accepted the cooperation of persons who had offered their support to him for such moves. But he discreetly turned their offers down.
When the selection of Abū-Bakr was taking place in Saqifah, the Umayyad Chief Abū-Sufyan was not present in al-Madinah. The Prophet (a.s), during his last days, had deputed him for some work away from there. When he returned after the Prophet’s demise, and heard about the passing away of the Prophet (a.s) and the elevation of Abū-Bakr to the Caliphate, he raised a hue and cry. He went running to `Abbas ibn `Abd al-Muttalib and after discussing with him came to `Ali (a.s) and wanted to assure him of the support of his tribe to stand against the self-styled rulers. Therefore, in a very confident tone he said:
“How has the governance gone into the hands of a person from the lowliest family of the Quraysh? If you wish, by Allah, I can fill al-Madinah with cavaliers and foot-men!”[1]
Any ordinary person would find it very difficult to control his emotions. He might tend to accept such an offer in a similar situation. But Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s) was never influenced by emotions nor could he be tricked by wearing a cloak of friendship. He read through the subterfuge of Abū-Sufyan that it was not the spirit of friendship and fairplay that motivated his offer. But it was his ulterior motive to cause trouble in the fledgling Islamic State and usurp power in the bargain. Refusing his offer, the Imam (a.s) angrily said:
[1] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 449
(363)
“By Allah! Your aim is only to create disorder. You have always opposed Islam and I do not need your sympathies and advice!”[1]
This fact needs consideration that what enmity Abū-Sufyan had with Abū-Bakr that immediately on arrival he started lobbying against him. In fact both persons were always very chummy and even during the days of Abū-Sufyan’s infidelity, Abū-Bakr did not like to hear anything against him. Once some companions, amongst whom were Salman, Suhayb and Bilal, were sitting at a place when Abū-Sufyan passed by. They passed a remark that the enemy of Allah was not killed by Allah’s Swords even to that day! Abū-Bakr was angry at their remark and said that they were making an impertinent remark against a senior chief of the Quraysh and moved away from there. He then went to the presence of the Prophet (a.s) and repeated what he had heard them say about Abū-Sufyan. The Prophet (a.s) said:
“Perhaps you have offended those persons! If you have angered them, you have angered Allah!”[2]
Hearing these words from the Prophet (a.s), Abū-Bakr returned to those persons and asked them if they were upset with what he told them concerning Abū-Sufyan. They only said, “May Allah forgive you!”
This incident can only be from the days of Abū-Sufyan’s infidelity. If he were not an infidel, the persons would not have termed him as Allah’s enemy and deserving of getting killed by Allah’s Swords. Even Abū-Bakr would not have referred to him only as a senior Quraysh Chief. Some historians have clarified that this event took place at the time of Hudaybiyah in 7 H and Abū-Sufyan embraced Islam after the conquest of Makkah in 8 H.
It becomes evident from this event that neither Abū-Sufyan had any enmity with Abū-Bakr, nor Abū-Bakr disliked him. Then how is it that the person thought of disturbing his apple cart and trying to bring a person from the Tribe inimical to his own who had personally dispatched many of his close kinsmen in recent battles! The truth is that he played the trick to give an impression to the rulers of the day that he was capable of creating a group in opposition to them to put their rule in danger. This way he wanted to frighten Abū-Bakr and his cohorts to get things decided the way he wanted them. Therefore, this strategy of his proved successful. When the rumor spread that Abū-Sufyan was conspiring with Banū-Hashim against the rulers, the rulers
[1] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 449
[2] Ansāb al-Ashrāf, Vol 1, Page 489
(364)
quietened him by giving him undue favors. `Umar told Abū-Bakr:
“Abū-Sufyan has arrived! He is bound to create some mischief. The Prophet (a.s) himself used to keep him appeased with regard to Islam! The charities that are in his control they should remain with him. Therefore, Abū-Bakr did accordingly and Abū-Sufyan was happy. He extended his bay`ah!” [1]
Abū-Sufyan was not only appeased in this manner. His son Yazid was appointed the governor of Syria that proved as the cornerstone of the Umayyad Dynasty!
`Ali’s discreet quiet is reflective of his sagacity and understanding of the fissiparous conditions prevalent at that time. If he had agreed to fight at the instigation of Abū-Sufyan, the conflict would not have been given any other name than the search for power. The hands of the enemies of Islam would have strengthened as a result of the war of attrition between two groups of Muslims. People would have felt that taking shelter behind the Prophet’s name he was running after acquisition of power. Then his silent protest against the existing power center would have gone in vain. He still had strength in his arms to face any adversary, the example s of which he had set time and again in the ghazawat that he won single-handed while other important functionaries were fleeing, and he had the courage and will to stand any onslaught. But his farsightedness stopped him from taking any precipitate action. The defeated Jews and the captive Ansar were looking for a chance to rise no sooner they smelled that the Muslims were a divided house. The hypocrites were busy in the garb of Muslims as well. All these forces were raring to unite under one flag to inflict one final blow to the Muslims! This is a great favor to Muslims from `Ali (a.s) that he made only silent protest and did not rise against the persons who had deprived him of everything that was rightfully his as Ordained by Allah and His Prophet (a.s).
[1] Al-`Iqd al-Farīd, Vol 3, Page 62
THE LAND OF FADAK
Fadak was a personal property of the Prophet (a.s). When the Verse “And give to the near of kin his due, (17/26)” was revealed, he transferred its ownership to Fatimah al-Zahra’ (a.s) through a document. The land was in the possession and use of Fatimah (a.s) until the demise of the Prophet (a.s). When Abū-Bakr assumed power, he evicted her from the possession of the land and the garden thereon. She went into appeal against this action and produced `Ali (a.s) and Umm Ayman as her witnesses. They both gave the evidence that Fatimah (a.s) was right in her claim that the Prophet (a.s), in his lifetime, had made the hibah of the property in her favor. Abū-Bakr rejected the claim saying:
“O Daughter of the Prophet! The evidence is not complete unless there are two male witnesses or one man and two female witnesses!”[1]
Fatimah (a.s) seeing that the evidence of `Ali (a.s) and Umm Ayman was deemed incomplete and the gift of the Garden of Fadak was rendered invalid she claimed it as an inheritance from her father, the Prophet (a.s). The contention was that if Abū-Bakr did not consider it as a donation; he should concede it to her as an inheritance from her father. Abū-Bakr said that the properties of the Prophet (a.s) are not to be transferred to his offspring as inheritance because the Prophet (a.s) had said: “We, the group of Prophets do not make any inheritors and our assets are the sadaqah.”
Fatimah (a.s) rejoined, “Is it written in the Book of Allah that you receive your father’s inheritance and I do not? Has the Prophet (a.s) not said that the right of a person is that his off springs are protected?”[2]
Fatimah (a.s) was so upset with the verdict of Abū-Bakr that she stopped talking to him and was cross with him the rest of her life. This attitude was not a momentary thing. The person, Fatimah (a.s), whose truthfulness and
[1] Futūh al-Buldān, Page 38
[2] Tārīkh al-Ya`qūbī, Vol 2, Page 106
(366)
veracity the Prophet (a.s) established and proved on the day of Mubahalah was suspected of making a false claim by Abū-Bakr. Imam al-Bukhari writes:
“Fatimah (a.s), after her father’s demise, claimed from Abū-Bakr al-Siddik that the property that the Prophet (a.s) acquired from the infidels without battling, and had left behind as inheritance, was her right and must be given to her. Abū-Bakr said, ‘Allah’s Messenger (a.s) has observed that the prophets do not give any inheritance. Whatever they leave behind is a sadaqah (charity)’. Fatimah (a.s) was very angry at this and severed all contact with Abū-Bakr until her demise.”[1]
If we presume that neither a donation was made of the Fadak nor it was an inheritance, what was the problem in Abū-Bakr giving away the land to Fatimah (a.s) considering her nearness to the Prophet (a.s). It is considered a right and the duty of a ruler that he can give anything to anyone at his discretion! Therefore, Muhammad al-Khadrami al-Misri writes:
“The Shari`ah of Islam does not prevent the ruler from giving any gift to any Muslim.”[2]
Abū-Rayyah, an Egyptian scholar, writes:
“It is the right of the Khalifah that he can give what he wants to give to anyone!”
Therefore, Abū-Bakr gave to al-Zubayr ibn al-`Awwam a property in the valley of al-Jurf and `Umar too transferred to him a property in the Valley of `Aqiq. `Uthman gave away Fadak to Marwan during his reign. Why did not Abū-Bakr give the garden of Fadak to Fatimah (a.s) in the same manner? Fatimah (a.s) was certainly angry with Abū-Bakr and the gravity of this anger can be judged from what the Prophet (a.s) himself had said:
“O Fatimah (a.s)! Allah is angry if you are angry and if you are happy Allah will be happy!”[3]
It surprises one as to what rule of Shari`ah was followed when the claim of Fatimah (a.s) was turned down. The Prophet (a.s) had given to her the possession of the land and made the document of donation. If the possession was not there, Abū-Bakr could have said that since she was not in possession
[1] Sahīh al-Bukhārī, Vol 2, Page 132
[2] Itmām al-Wafā, Vol 2, Page 132
[3] Al-Isābah, Vol 4, Page 366
(367)
of the land the donation was incomplete. Since possession is the proof of ownership, the burden of proof was on Abū-Bakr to establish that the donation was wrong. There was no need for him to ask her to produce witnesses. Could anyone have doubted Fatimah (a.s) would tell falsehoods juts to keep possession of the Fadak and make a claim over something that did not belong to her. Her truthfulness is an established fact and the certificate is issued by no less a person than `A’ishah:
“I have not found anyone other than Fatimah’s father more truthful than Fatimah.”[1]
When Fatimah al-Zahra’ (a.s) presented the witnesses then Abū-Bakr said that the evidence was incomplete. The contention was wrong because the Prophet (a.s) in his time had decided cases on the basis of the evidence of even a single witness. If Abū-Bakr wanted he could have decided in favor of Fatimah (a.s) by taking an oath from `Ali (a.s) that the Prophet (a.s) had given the land at Fadak as hibah to her. In the books of tradition, there are several cases where even the need of a witness was not considered for arriving at a decision considering the personal status of the claimant. In some cases, they accepted the evidence of one witness only. When the sons of Suhayb went to the court of Marwan claiming that the Prophet (a.s) had given two houses and a room to Suhayb, they were asked to produce their witness. They said Ibn `Umar will bear witness for them. Ibn `Umar was called to the court:
“He witnessed that the Prophet (a.s) had given to Suhayb two houses and a room. Marwan gave a verdict in their favor on the basis of the evidence of Ibn `Umar.”[2]
At that time neither Ibn `Umar’s evidence was deemed incomplete nor was there any delay in accepting it. Was `Ali (a.s) not even of the status of Ibn `Umar that his evidence was not accepted. On Ibn `Umar there was a remark that he had owed allegiance to the evil Yazid. Those who bore witness in the matter of Fadak were known for their nobility and strength of character. Therefore, al-Ma’mūn once asked the scholars their opinion about those who bore witness about the hibah of the land of Fadak. All of them said that they were truthful and straightforward:
[1] Al-Istī`āb, Vol 4, Page 366
[2] Sahīh al-Bukhārī, Vol 1, Page 357
(368)
“When the scholars unanimously agreed about their truthfulness, al-Ma’mūn gave Fadak to the progeny of Fatimah (a.s) and gave them a certificate to the effect.”[1]
There was no justification of even rejecting the claim of Fatimah (a.s) to the inheritance left by her father, the Prophet (a.s). The tradition that Abū-Bakr quoted in support of his claim is quite contrary to the Command of the Holy Qur’an that says,
وَلِكُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا مَوَالِيَ مِمَّا تَرَكَ الْوَالِدَانِ وَالْأَقْرَبُونَ.
“And to every one We have appointed heirs of what parents and near relatives leave. (4/33)”
When this verse is there, there is no justification in terming the Prophet’s inheritance as sadaqah and depriving his daughter of the ownership of the land. If it was sadaqah, then the Prophet (a.s) would have immediately distributed it to the poor and needy as soon as it came in his possession. Of course, the Prophet (a.s) used to distribute the produce of the land to the poor and needy. But this does not mean that he had forfeited the ownership of the property. Instead of seeking shelter behind the tradition of ‘we, the Prophets, do not leave inheritances,’ if Abū-Bakr had said that Fadak was not the personal property of the Prophet (a.s) and the question of its going as an inheritance to his daughter did not arise. But when Abū-Bakr accepted it as the property of the Prophet (a.s), and then denying that the Prophets do not leave any inheritance is not tenable. The right of inheritance given by the Qur’an cannot be voided by a tradition which, according to Abū-Bakr, he was himself the sole narrator! Abū-Bakr was silent about the other material inheritance left by the Prophet (a.s). If the tradition narrated by Abū-Bakr pertained only to the property in the form of land, then he should have evicted the consorts from the houses they inherited from the Prophet (a.s)! Eviction was a far-fetched idea; their ownership of the assets was approved by the Caliph. On the basis of this right to ownership that when permission was sought from `A’ishah for the interment of Imam al-Hasan (a.s) near the Prophet (a.s), she asserted the right of ownership of the room and refused permission! Umm al-Mu’minin used these words while denying permission:
“This house is my house and I do not permit him to be buried in this house!”[2]
[1] Tārīkh al-Ya`qūbī, Vol 3, Page 196
[2] Tārīkh Abul-Fidā’, Vol 2, Page 183
(369)
In the Qur’an when reference is made about the houses concerning the consorts of the Prophet (a.s) reference is also made about the houses of the Prophet (a.s) as well. If the reference is pertaining to the ownership of the houses, then two persons cannot be the owner of the same premises. Therefore, in one case, that of the spouses, it is the right to live in the house and in the other instance, it the right of ownership of the house that was vested in the Prophet (a.s) If the right to ownership of the houses by the consorts is accepted, we have to know how they acquired the ownership? Did the Prophet (a.s) make a hibah in their favor? If they became owners through donation, then why did not the First Caliph evict them and asked for the examination of the witnesses to the process of hibah? If such a procedure was not followed, then the Caliph had concocted the tradition about the prophets being prohibited from leaving any inheritance for their families!
If it is a fact that the prophets cannot pass on any inheritance to their next of kin. Then why did not he Prophet (a.s) communicate this commandment to the most concerned person, his daughter and the Consorts. He did not talk about it in the open as well. The only person he told about it was Abū-Bakr! It is very surprising that the Prophet (a.s) has left behind detailed instructions about the inheritance of properties for his Ummah, but he mentioned about his personal inheritance only to the First Caliph!
After the demise of the Prophet (a.s), his consorts wanted to claim their share of the inheritance. They preferred their claim through `Uthman. Therefore, `A’ishah said:
“When the Prophet (a.s) passed away the wives wanted to send `Uthman to Abū-Bakr and seek their share of the Prophet’s inheritance. `A’ishah then said, ‘Has not the Prophet (a.s) said that they (the Prophets) do not give any inheritance. Whatever we leave behind is a charity.’”[1]
If the consorts had known about this tradition, they would never have tried to seek their share. If `Uthman had known about it, he could have sounded the ladies about their position. But `A’ishah tells to the other wives of the Prophet (a.s) about this order. Perhaps she had heard this from her father. She once said:
“People differed about the inheritance left by the Prophet (a.s). I found no single person who knew anything about it. But Abū-
[1] Sahīh Muslim, Vol 2, Page 91
(370)
Bakr said, ‘I have heard the Prophet (a.s) say ‘We, the Prophets, do not make anyone our inheritor. Whatever we leave behind is a sadaqah.’’”[1]
If instead of denying the right of inheritance to all the prophets, it was thought of for only the last Prophet (a.s), it might have been acceptable to people. But when all the prophets have been included in the order, one starts feeling uneasy whether all the successors of the prophets, from Adam to `Isa were deprived of their fathers’ heritage? And despite all the epochs going by, only Abū-Bakr was fortunate enough to have learned that the prophets have no inheritors! Contrary to this claim, the Holy Qur’an has talked in clear terms about the inheritance of the prophets. Therefore, about the inheritance left by Dawūd (a.s) it says, “Sulayman was the inheritor of his father Dawūd.”
People have tried to interpret this Verse in a way that the inheritance received by Sulayman (a.s) was not material inheritance but it was the inheritance of knowledge and wisdom. They must know that at the time of the demise of his father Sulayman had possessed all the knowledge and wisdom and the inheritance mentioned in the Book is the material assets of his father, Dawūd (a.s). Ibn Qutaybah writes:
“When Dawūd (Prophet David) died, Sulayman (Prophet Solomon) inherited his realm.”[2]
Muhammad ibn Sa’ib al-Kalabi says:
“Those good and pedigree horses that were produced before Sulayman (a.s) were the one thousand steeds that Sulayman (a.s) had inherited from his father.”[3]
Similarly, through Zachariah (a.s) it is related in the Holy Qur’an:
وَإِنِّي خِفْتُ الْمَوَالِيَ مِنْ وَرَائِي وَكَانَتْ امْرَأَتِي عَاقِرًا فَهَبْ لِي مِنْ لَدُنْكَ وَلِيًّا يَرِثُنِي وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ وَاجْعَلْهُ رَبِّ رَضِيًّا.
“And surely I fear my cousins after me, and my wife is barren, therefore grant me from Thyself an heir Who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Jacob, and make him, my Lord, one in whom Thou art well pleased. (19/5-6)”
[1] Tārīkh al-Khulafā’, Page 54
[2] Al-Akhbār al-Tiwāl, Page 20
[3] Al-`Iqd al-Farīd, Vol 1, Page 84
(371)
Even interpreting this verse to mean inheritance of knowledge and wisdom is not correct. Knowledge, wisdom and prophethood are not hereditary. If that meaning is taken then the fear expressed by Zachariah (a.s) loses its meaning. Did he have a fear that the people would steal his knowledge and occupy it forcibly? Or was he scared that despite not having the capability of prophethood he was made a prophet? It is evident that such a fear was neither there nor there was any reason of being there. But the fear could have been there that his not having any children, people could have usurped his property and belongings. Zachariah did not want that his possessions went to his tribesmen because they were greedy and avaricious people and they would use the assets for wrong purposes. Therefore, he prayed for such an inheritor who would be liked by Allah and that he should use his assets for good purposes.
After these clear proofs, taking shelter behind the tradition and saying that the prophets do not have inheritors is tantamount to going against facts. Against the evidence from the Qur’an giving credence to a tradition where the narrator is only one person certainly creates doubts about its veracity. The authenticity of this tradition was denied in clear terms by the daughter of the Prophet (a.s) and his Vicegerent (a.s). If Fatimah (a.s) had accepted this tradition as the saying of the Prophet (a.s), there was no reason for her to become angry on Abū-Bakr. To the contrary, she would have sympathized with him saying that he was helpless with regard to her claim. And if `Ali (a.s) had accepted this tradition, instead of taking sides with Fatimah (a.s) he would have asked her to forget her claim. In fact the events prove that even Abū-Bakr did not have doubts about the authenticity of the tradition nor the caliphs after him gave any cognizance to it. Therefore, in the beginning Abū-Bakr acknowledge Fatimah al-Zahra'’s right to inheritance and even he had written down the document and given to her But with the intervention of `Umar he had to retract his decision. `Allamah Halabi writes:
“Abū-Bakr wrote the document about Fadak and gave to Fatimah (a.s). At that moment, `Umar came and asked what it was. Abū-Bakr said that he had written down the document about Fatimah’s inheritance that came to her from her father. `Umar then asked what he was going to spend on the Muslims while the Arabs were raring to battle with them. Saying this, `Umar tore away that document.”[1]
[1] Al-Sīrah al-Halabiyyah, Vol 2, Page 400
(372)
If Abū-Bakr was certain about the authenticity of the tradition, and was confident that the Prophet (a.s) was not entitled to an inheritor, he would not have prepared the document in the first instance. When `Umar intervened he did not cancel the deed because Fatimah (a.s) had no right over the property but for other reasons. If `Umar was confident about the tradition he need not have mentioned about the monetary needs of the State and could have only insisted on the disqualification of the Prophet’s daughter from the inheritance. Although `Umar intervened at that time and tore away the document, his agreement with the tradition narrated by Abū-Bakr is not indicated. It is recorded in the books of Ahl al-Sunnah to the extent that, in his own time, accepting the right of Fatimah (a.s) to the inheritance, he had entrusted Fadak to `Ali (a.s) and `Abbas ibn `Abd al-Muttalib. Therefore, Yaqūt al-Hamawi writes:
“A dispute arose between `Ali (a.s) and `Abbas ibn `Abd al-Muttalib about Fadak. `Ali (a.s) says that the Prophet (a.s) had given Fadak to Fatimah (a.s) in his lifetime. `Abbas denied this and said that the Prophet (a.s) died intestate leaving Fadak as his property and that he was its inheritor. This dispute reached `Umar. He said that they understood their matters themselves and he had entrusted it (the Fadak) to them!”[1]
According to this narration the point of dispute between `Ali (a.s) and `Abbas was that whether Fadak was a gifted (hibah) property or an intestate property of the Prophet (a.s). `Abbas was claiming that since it was a legacy, he had a right over it as a close relation of the Prophet (a.s). Now a decision was to be made whether the land was a hibah, legacy a property of the Prophet (a.s) that, according to one opinion, was to remain in public domain. If `Umar thought that it was a hibah property he would have handed it over to `Ali (a.s). If he thought that it was a sadaqah, then it would remain as a public property. He allowed it to remain in the joint hands of `Ali (a.s) and `Abbas. This proves that he neither considered the land as hibah nor sadaqah and since he felt that it was an inherited property he entrusted it to both the persons as they had an interest in it as the inheritors of the deceased. This proves that if `Umar had given any credence to the tradition of “we the Prophets do not leave legacies” he would not have given this decision. In this matter, people invent an excuse. They say that `Umar did not transfer the estate to `Ali and `Abbas. He had just entrusted it to them as the official
[1] Mu`jam al-Buldān, Vol 14, Page 239
(373)
representatives! If such was the case, he could have clearly told the persons about his intention while entrusting the property to them.
It is certainly proved from this tradition that `Umar did accept the right to inheritance and as far as the actual handing over of Fadak was concerned, the coming events do not support it but it remained as a ‘no-man’s-land’ for long. The men in power allowed its use to whomever they favored in their time! Therefore, when `Uthman’s reign came, he gifted it to his son-in-law Marwan in 34 H. The historian Abul-Fida’ writes:
“`Uthman gave the Fadak as a gift to Marwan although it was a sadaqah of the Prophet (a.s) and Fatimah (a.s) had claimed it as an inheritances.”[1]
When Mu`awiyah ibn Abi-Sufyan came into power, he took Fadak in his control and left a third of it in the use of Marwan, gave a third to `Umar ibn `Uthman and the remaining portion to his own son `Abd al-`Aziz When `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz got it as an inheritance, he handed it over to the Progeny of Fatimah (a.s). Yaqūt al-Hamawi writes:
“When `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz assumed the Caliphate, he wrote to the administrator of al-Madinah ordering that Fadak be returned to the progeny of Fatimah.”[2]
It is evident from this action of `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz that he did not give any credence to the tradition of “we, the Prophets, do not leave legacies” and termed the decisions of the past caliphs as absolutely wrong. It is a highly commendable act that he recognized the truth and returned the usurped right of Fatimah (a.s) to her children. But after him, the same things happened that were happening before him. Yazid ibn Abd al Malik, on succeeding `Umar, took back Fadak from Banū-Fatimah and gave it to Banū-Marwan. Until the collapse of Banū-Umayyah Dynasty it remained with Banū-Marwan. When Abul-`Abbas al-Saffah acquired power, he gave Fadak to `Abdullah ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Hasan ibn `Ali. After al-Saffah, al-Mansūr, the `Abbasid ruler, took the land away from the progeny of al-Hasan (a.s). But al-Mahdi ibn Mansūr once again gave the land to Banū-Fatimah. When Mūsa ibn al-Mahdi assumed power he took away the land as a state property. Until the time of al-Ma’mūn Rashid it remained a state property. On sitting on the throne in 210 H al-Ma’mūn ordered the administrator of al-Madinah, Qathm ibn Ja`far:
[1] Tārīkh Abul-Fidā’, Vol 1, Page 179
[2] Mu`jam al-Buldān, Vol 14, Page 239
(374)
“The Prophet (a.s) had gifted Fadak to his daughter Fatimah (a.s).It is such a clear and established fact that there is no difference of opinion between the Prophet’s Household about it. Fadak requires from amir al-mu’minin (al-Ma’mūn) that because of his true dedication to the Prophet (a.s) it is most appropriate that Fadak be given back to them who are its true inheritors. This way the rights ordained by Allah will be discharged and the orders of the Prophet (a.s) complied with. Therefore, he orders that this decision be recorded in all offices and the functionaries informed accordingly. At the time of the demise of the Prophet (a.s) it was the practice that during the Hajj it used to be announced that whoever was given any sadaqah or anything was given as a hibah, he should come and prefer a claim for it. The claims used to be accepted and the promises fulfilled. Then Fatimah (a.s) was the most deserving of getting the thing that the Prophet (a.s) had apportioned for her. Her word and claim should have been accepted. Amir al-Mu’minin (al-Ma’mūn) has given written orders to his freed slave, Mubarak al-Tabari that he should return the estate of Fadak to the progeny of Fatimah (a.s) along with the slaves and the grains stored therein.”[1]
Therefore, according to the decree of al-Ma’mūn, Fadak was handed over to Banū-Fatimah. When al-Mutawakkil assumed power, he again withdrew the estate from them. Buladhari writes:
“When al-Mutawakkil became the caliph, he ordered Fadak to be restored to its former state that it was before al-Ma’mūn.”[2]
With the prevaricating stand of different rulers over the ownership of Fadak, it is evident that the tradition narrated by Abū-Bakr was not given credence by many of them. A pious and just ruler like `Umar ibn `Abd al-`Aziz realized the weak points of the tradition narrated by Abū-Bakr and thought that depriving Fatimah (a.s) of her inheritance was a gross injustice. He did justice, but injustice continued to be inflicted on Banū-Fatimah for centuries to come!
[1] Futūh al-Buldān, Page 40
[2] Futūh al-Buldān, Page 41
THE MISCHIEF OF APOSTASY
After the provisional bay`ah at the Saqifah of Banū-Sa`idah the majority of the people of al-Madinah owed their allegiance to Abū-Bakr and his caliphate was established from the democratic point of view. But when this news spread far and wide, a wave of discontent arose and restlessness developed in the minds of the Arab tribes that urged them not to cooperate with the establishment. Some of the tribes joined under the flags of the apostates. From every side the voices of opposition started emanating. In this atmosphere only Quraysh and Banū-Thaqif remained steadfast with the establishment. Ibn al-Athir writes:
“The Arabs became apostates. The land of Arabia became a center for mischief and unrest. Barring the Quraysh and Banū-Thaqif, almost all the tribes, or certainly a part of each, turned to apostasy.”[1]
During the reign of Abū-Bakr the chiefs of the apostates who raised their heads had already turned apostate while the Prophet (a.s) was alive. Therefore, al-Aswad al-`Anzi, Musaylamah the Imposter and tulayhah ibn Khuwaylid had already turned hostile and made claims of prophethood during the lifetime of the Prophet (a.s) al-Aswad al-`Anzi was killed by Fayrūz al-Daylami during the times of the Prophet (a.s) and his supporters created mischief. Musaylamah was killed by Wahshi during the period of Abū-Bakr. tulayhah embraced Islam during the time of `Umar. Similarly, `Alqamah ibn `Alasah and Salma bint Malik became apostates during the time of the Prophet (a.s) and after his demise entered into armed conflict However Laqit ibn Malik became an apostate after the Prophet (a.s) and Sujah bint al-Harith too made a claim of prophethood after his demise. Laqit was vanquished by the Muslims totally and Sujah was rendered a supplement of Musaylamah and married him to spend the rest of her life in obscurity. These were the apostates who created mischief during the period of Abū-Bakr. The people who were known as those who refused to pay the zakat were from these
[1] Al-Kāmil fit-Tārīkh, Vol 2, Page 231
(376)
tribes. They were the same persons who claimed to be prophets and their cohorts. Therefore, Abū-Bakr had said about the delegation of tulayhah ibn Khuwaylid:
“Even if they refuse to give the rope that is used for tying the camels, I shall fight with them.”[1]
This mischief had raised its head during the lifetime of the Prophet (a.s) and later on, some more tribes joined them. But saying that barring the Quraysh and Thaqif all other tribes were involved in apostasy was far from the truth. How could it be possible that immediately after the Prophet (a.s) all the tribes became antagonistic to Islam? Did they embrace Islam out of fear of the growing power of the Muslims? When they knew that, the Prophet (a.s) was no more they recanted from Islam. This sort of thinking will strengthen the idea of some people that Islam did not spread with the missionary zeal of the Prophet (a.s) and that the main cause of the spread was the swords of the Arabs.
The truth is that to settle scores with some tribes, they were unreasonably blamed of apostasy and they were attacked with this excuse. Therefore, `Amr ibn Harith asked Sa`id ibn Zayd whether he was present at the time of the Prophet’s death? He replied in the affirmative. He asked on what day the bay`ah of Abū-Bakr took place? He replied that happened the same day as the Prophet’s demise. He was asked, did any one oppose the selection? He replied:
“None objected except those who were apostates or were about to become apostate.”[2]
This reply proves the fact that those who opposed the candidature of Abū-Bakr were dubbed apostate, although their refusal to owe allegiance to Abū-Bakr was the only thing that prompted such an extreme reaction from his supporters. As far as withholding of payment of zakat is concerned, when those people had not accepted Abū-Bakr as the Caliph, they were naturally reluctant to pay the zakat. They were just refusing to pay the zakat and were not against the institution of zakat. They were aware that the zakat Tax was mandatory in the Shari`ah. But since they did not approve of the new establishment, they were refusing to fulfill their obligation of paying the zakat. The evident proof that they were not apostates was that they regularly
[1] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 476
[2] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 447
(377)
offered their mandatory prayers. They had also not denied the rules and conditions for the zakat. They were only refusing to pay zakat to the rulers of the day and not denying it as an obligatory pillar of the Faith. They cannot therefore be termed apostates. Therefore, when Abū-Bakr mentioned about taking armed action against them, the senior Companions raised objections to the idea. `Umar too said in clear terms:
“O Abū-Bakr! On what account you want to battle with them that the Prophet (a.s) has said, ‘I am not permitted to battle with people until they do not recite the kalimah Tawhid and besides other rights their lives and properties are secure and their account is Allah’s concern!’”[1]
But at that time neither the Companions opinion was considered nor what `Umar said. Abū-Bakr remained firm on his stand and deputed Khalid ibn al-Walid to destroy the Arab tribes. Therefore, he murdered Malik ibn Nuwayrah and his tribesmen and added a dark chapter to the history of Islam. He severed the limbs of the people and killed them mercilessly.
Malik ibn Nuwayrah was the respected chief of the tribe of Banū-Yarbū`. No person from the tribe could disobey his commands. He personally went to the presence of the Prophet (a.s) in al-Madinah and embraced Islam. He learned personally from the Prophet (a.s) the mandatory rites and duties of the Faith. Trusting his honesty, the Prophet (a.s) authorized him for the collection of the alms. Ibn al-Athir writes:
“The Prophet (a.s) appointed Malik ibn Nuwayrah for the collection of the alms from Banū-Hanzalah.”[2]
His charity, bravery and valor were exemplary. Therefore, in Arabia they used to say, “Youth is there, but where is the like of Malik?” He was so hospitable that his kitchen fires burned day and night. Whenever a traveler lost his way and came in his environs, he used to bring him home and entertain him. Until the last days of the Prophet (a.s), he regularly collected the alms and sent them. When the news of the Prophet’s demise reached him, he abstained from the collections and told the people of his tribe that they must retain the amount of zakat with them until it was confirmed that the new establishment at al-Madinah was trustworthy. In that period Sujah bint Harith wanted to attack al-Madinah with 4,000 men. When he reached Jarwan near the locality
[1] Itmām al-Wafā, Page 24
[2] Al-Kāmil fit-Tārīkh, Vol 2, Page 205
(378)
of Banū-Yarbū`, al-Bitah, he sent word to Malik for truce and agreement for non-hostility towards each other. Ibn al-Athir writes:
“Sujah decided to battle with Abū-Bakr and sent a message to Malik ibn Nuwayrah and made a request for an agreement of peace and no-war-pact. Malik accepted this suggestions but asked him not to fight with Abū-Bakr. He suggested to Sujah to attack the tribes of Banū-Tamim, instead, and Sujah accepted his advice.”[1]
This agreement and no-war-pact cannot be termed as apostasy. Therefore, Ibn al-Athir writes:
“When the Prophet (a.s) died and the Arabs turned apostates and Sujah claimed that he was prophet, at that time Malik struck an agreement with him. But this does not indicate in any manner that that he was himself an apostate.”[2]
The strategy in this agreement was to involve Sujah in battle with the non-Muslim tribes and divert him from attacking the Capital, al-Madinah. Therefore, Malik was able to divert him from his original plan of attacking al-Madinah and heading towards the habitations of Banū-Tamim. If this was apostasy, then Waki` ibn Malik, who also belonged to Banū-Tamim, had also struck a similar deal with Sujah. He was not taken to task by the Caliph. Khalid ibn al-Walid was deputed to attack Banū-Yarbū` for destruction and killing. Malik had disbursed the people of Banū-Yarbū` to restrict the losses of lives. Khalid sent men to chase and round them up. When Banū-Yarbū` saw this situation, they took to arms. Abū-Qutadah al-Ansari, who was in Khalid’s Contingent, seeing them armed, said:
“We are Muslims; they say they too are Muslims. We asked, why are they carrying arms? They asked why you have come armed. We told them, ‘If you are Muslims according to your claims, then disarm yourselves.’ Therefore, they disarmed. We prayed and they too joined in the prayer.”[3]
When Banū-Yarbū` were disarmed, then Malik ibn Nuwayrah was arrested and brought before Khalid. When Malik was taken prisoner, his wife, Ummu-Tamim bint Minhal, came out behind him. Ibn Wadih al-Ya`qūbi writes:
[1] Al-Kāmil fit-Tārīkh, Vol 2, Page 239
[2] Usd al-Ghābah, Vol 3, Page 97
[3] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 503
(379)
“His wife came behind him. When Khalid saw her, he liked her looks.”[1]
Malik, who was aware of Khalid’s character, realized that he would now eliminate him. Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani writes:
“Thabit ibn Qasim narrates that when Khalid saw the wife of Malik, who was an extremely pretty lady, Malik told her, ‘You have prepared the way for my killing!’”[2]
His fear was correct. Khalid devised an excuse to kill Malik that Malik said a couple of times:
“My doubt is that your master, Abū-Bakr, must have said such and such things.”[3]
At this Khalid got angry and said why he was repeatedly calling Abū-Bakr his ‘master’ as if he did not consider him his own master. He now gave an eye to Zurarah ibn al-Azwar to pounce on Malik and slay him. Then the men of Khalid attacked Banū-Yarbū` and in no time 1,200 persons were killed. They made hearths from severed heads and put the cooking pots on fire over them to cook their food. Al-Tabari writes:
“The soldiers made hearths from the severed heads and put the cooking pots over them.”[4]
After this murder and bloodletting Khalid ibn al-Walid gave more evidence of his cruelty with regard to Malik’s spouse Ummu-Tamim that the men in the army felt revulsion and Abū-Qutadah al-Ansari was so much affected that he broke away from the army and went to al-Madinah:
“He made a pledge to Allah that he who not participate in any other campaign with Khalid ibn al-Walid.”[5]
On the return of Abū-Qutadah, when this awful news reached the people, they condemned the act of Khalid ibn al-Walid and `Umar was furious. When Khalid came back to al-Madinah, he entered the mosque proudly wearing an arrow in his turban, `Umar went forward and took away the arrow from the turban, twisted and trampled it under his feet in an anguish of temper. He then said:
[1] Tārīkh al-Ya`qūbī, Vol 2, Page 110
[2] Al-Isābah, Vol 3, Page 337
[3] Tārīkh al-Kāmil, Vol 2, Page 243
[4] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 503
[5] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 503
(380)
“You have killed a Muslim and molested his wife. By Allah! I shall stone you to death”[1]
`Umar wanted to stone Khalid for his sin of adultery or execute him for the killing of Malik, or at least to remove him from his position. But Abū-Bakr waved him aside saying:
“Wait `Umar! He has made a mistake in his interpretation. Therefore, do not talk about what he has done!”[2]
After this event, Malik’s brother, Mutammim ibn Nuwayrah, came to al-Madinah. He offered his Morning Prayer at the Mosque and thereafter he recited some couplets of pathos in the memory of his brother. In one of the couplets he said, “You invited him in Allah’s name and then you rebelled against him and cheated him. If he had invited you to anything, he would never have shown faithlessness.”
At this Abū-Bakr said, “Neither have I killed him nor did I rebel against him!” Then he ordered the blood money to be paid from the bayt al-mal to his people! Ibn al-Athir writes:
“Abū-Bakr ordered that the captives be released and the blood money paid for the blood of Malik.”[3]
After these events, terming such cruel acts as jihad is tampering with the very concept of Islamic jihad. Does Islam permit that people should be disarmed and massacred their heads used cruelly to make pot-stands for cooking food and their womenfolk molested? This act was not only an abject contravention of the Islamic norms but was also contrary to the instructions given by Abū-Bakr to Khalid. Khalid was under strict instruction not to harm any habitation from where he heard the sounds of adhan and prayer. Therefore, Al-Tabari writes:
“Abū-Bakr, in addition to all other instructions, said that wherever the men halted, they should say the adhan and Iqamah. If the people there too followed suit, they need not be attacked.”[4]
[1] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 504
[2] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 503
[3] Al-Kāmil fit-Tārīkh, Vol 2, Page 243
[4] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 502
(381)
But where Abū-Qutadah al-Ansari, `Abdullah ibn `Umar and other Muslims find Banū-Yarbū` saying the adhan and offering prayers and bear witness to their being Muslims, Khalid and his men cruelly behead them. Al-Tabari writes:
“Among the persons who bore witness to the Islam of Malik ibn Nuwayrah was Abū-Qutadah Harith ibn Rab`i.”[1]
The demand of justice is that the misdeed of a person be recognized and to justify his evil act a group of Muslims are not falsely termed apostates. Is not it a sin to term a Muslim apostate? If Khalid was a Companion, was not Malik too a Companion of the Prophet (a.s)? It is surprising that after the Prophet (a.s) it is believed that apostasy was rampant and many tribes turned hostile. People do not say that these tribes, in fact, turned hostile to the establishment of the day that was thrust on their head in the name of democracy rather than becoming apostate. Can anything besides their refusal to accept the caliphs be produced as a proof of their apostasy? The refusal to pay the zakat too was connected with their non-acceptance of the Caliph. When the establishment was not proper in their view, they naturally abstained from paying their taxes. When these people regularly offered prayers, how could they recant from the important tenet of zakat? Therefore, `Umar too bore witness to their Islam. And even Abū-Bakr did not blame them of apostasy. If Abū-Bakr considered Malik and his people apostates, he would not have said that Khalid had made an error of interpretation. When Mutammim ibn Nuwayrah claimed qisas, Abū-Bakr approved it without raising any question of the apostasy of Malik and his men. However, Abū-Bakr’s fault was that he did not institute any action against Khalid ibn al-Walid terming it as a khata’ ijtihadi (error in interpretation)! How could the question of ijtihad arise when a person blatantly contravenes a clear and established norm of the Faith! If such crimes can be condoned behind the excuse of interpretation, then crime will not remain crime at all and people could get away with anything!
This was the first instance in Islam when the excuse of error in interpretation was used to save the perpetrator of a serious crime. Then the door of ijtihad was wide open for such persons. For every misdeed, there was an ‘interpretation’ to protect the person. Therefore, the history records that under the umbrella of error in interpretation thousands of Muslims were killed and innumerable habitations were put to fire. None could raise their voice against this tyranny because whatever happened was, in the eyes of the rulers, on account of error in interpretation.
[1] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 503
(382)
It is surprising under what rule Abū-Bakr termed the foul act of Khalid ibn al-Walid as an error of interpretation and spared him from drastic punishment? Can error of interpretation be admitted in the matter of killing of Malik or for molesting his spouse? Even if he had admitted her as a Kaniz, could he be exempted from the period of `iddah that any widow has to undergo before her remarriage. Khalid did commit a major sin and the Caliph was condoning it as a khata’ ijtihadi! Ibn Abil-Hadid al-Mu`tazili, although he tried to protect Khalid, had to concede in the end, saying:
“I do not condone Khalid of the crime. I feel that he was cruel and heartless. On whatever thing he was infuriated or his carnal desires upbraided him, he did not consider the norms of Faith in the matter. Therefore, in the times of the Prophet (a.s) what he did with Banū-Judhaymah, and more than that his treatment of Malik Ibn Nuwayrah proved his cruel nature. The Prophet (a.s) was upset with him for long. Then he forgave him. Because of this forgiveness he became bolder and he did, what he did, with Banū-Yarbū` at the place of Bitah.”[1]
[1] Sharh Nahj al-Balāghah, Vol 4, Page 187
ISTIKHLAF OR NOMINATION OF THE SECOND CALIPH
At the Saqifah, the foundation of democracy was raised in Islam. Whatever that democracy was, could not be continued with any more and nomination took its place. Therefore, Abū-Bakr, in his deathbed, decided to nominate `Umar. He called `Uthman and `Abd al-Rahman ibn `Awf and took their advice. `Abd al-Rahman said that the choice was right but `Umar had an element of anger and cruelty in his nature. `Uthman fully supported the idea and said that it was for the betterment of the Ummah to nominate `Umar as the next caliph. After this discussion Abū-Bakr sent the two persons away. He again called `Uthman to prepare the document of nomination. When he started dictating, and only the preamble was written when Abū-Bakr swooned and became unconscious. `Uthman knew what he was intending to dictate. Therefore, during the period of the unconsciousness of the caliph `Uthman wrote, “I have nominated `Umar ibn al-Khattab as caliph.”
When Abū-Bakr revived from his unconsciousness he asked what was written. `Uthman read to him what he had written down. He asked `Uthman whether he hurried writing down the name fearing that he might not revive and pronounce the name of his successor and that might cause unrest and differences amongst the Muslims? `Uthman nodded his agreement. Abū-Bakr said that Allah would Bless `Uthman for what he did!
After this document of succession was completed, Abū-Bakr called `Umar and gave him the document for safekeeping and to follow the decree recorded therein. `Umar took the document from him and asked people to pledge that they would abide by the decree of the first caliph! One person asked `Umar, what was written in the document? `Umar said he was not aware of what was written in the document but affirmed that the contents of the document were binding for him. The person said, “But by Allah! I know what is written in the document. Last year you made him the caliph and now he is leaving creating you the caliph!”[1]
[1] Al-Imāmah was-Siyāsah, Vol 1, Page 33
(384)
When this news spread, some people remained quiet out of discretion and some started protesting against the nomination. Therefore, a group of Muhajirūn and Ansar came to Abū-Bakr and said, “O Deputy of the Prophet! Nominating Ibn al-Khattab as your successor you have placed a ruler over our heads! When you go to the presence of Allah, what reply will you give Him?”[1]
Talhah ibn `Ubaydullah too expressed dissatisfaction on the nomination and said, “You have imposed `Umar over the people as caliph and ruler. You know fairly well that with you around how much hardship he was putting them to! Now he will have total authority to do what he wished to do! What reply will you give to Allah when He asked you questions about the people?”[2]
It has been the attitude of the democratic regimes to beat the drums about the peoples’ right to elect their representatives. But when they are elected, they keep aside the people’s rights and do what suits their own interests. Then the democracy gets restricted to one or a few persons only. The democracy of Saqifah Banū-Sa`idah came to such a pass. In about two years and half it got restricted to two or three persons! If the process of nomination is accepted, we shall have to acknowledge that the selection of the caliph is not determined by the opinion of the populace. Even if Abū-Bakr was the people’s representative, he was not given the authority to nominate his successor unilaterally. In no democratic regime such an authority is ever given. Even if Abū-Bakr expressed his choice, it was only to `Abd al-Rahman ibn `Awf and `Uthman and none else. One of them thought it futile to oppose the nomination and the other wholeheartedly supported the nomination to reap the benefits in the future! The opinion of two persons cannot be termed as the opinion of all the people. If he really wanted advice of the men of wisdom, he could have consulted `Abbas ibn `Abd al-Muttalib about whom the Prophet (a.s) had said that he was his uncle and his ancestors’ representative. Even `Ali Ibn Abi-Talib (a.s) was available who had been with the Prophet (a.s) from the beginning of his Annunciation. They had an excuse that he was not invited to come to the Saqifah of Banū-Sa`idah because he was preoccupied with the last rites of the Prophet (a.s) at that time. But for this nomination process Abū-Bakr had no excuse why he avoided consulting `Ali (a.s) on this very important matter. It is surprising that `Ali (a.s) was consulted on all important matters like the ghazawat etc, and his wisdom was praised by
[1] Talkhīs al-Hubbayr, Page 348
[2] Tārīkh al-Tabarī, Vol 2, Page 621
(385)
everyone, including the new coterie, but now he was totally forgotten in this very vital decision. According to the opinion of the Prophet (a.s), `Ali (a.s) was having the first right to be the caliph. But here he was not even consulted on the matter!
Anyway, those who accepted the caliphate on the flimsy democratic process concluded at the conclave of Saqifah, surrendered themselves to the rule of `Umar as well. Abū-Bakr, after being on the throne for two years, three months and ten days, left this world on 22 Jumada II 13 H leaving the reins of power in the hands of `Umar.
source : http://www.imfi.ir/
