Question: What was the political system of the Rashidun Caliphate? How did the Caliphate begin? Provide complete details of the first period of the Caliphate.
Answer!!
All praise is due to Allah!
In this regard, we will study:
This question is of utmost importance in the history of the Rashidun Caliphate because the answers to many subsequent questions are based on it. The question is, what was the political system of the Rashidun Caliphate and what were its features? Humans have developed many systems of government in the world, each with different characteristics. These include monarchy, autocracy, theocracy, secularism, aristocracy, feudalism, tribal systems, democracy, etc. Then, within democracy, parliamentary and presidential systems are common. All these systems have been practiced in different regions and different eras of the world. Before determining what the system of the Rashidun Caliphate was, it would be appropriate to describe the basic features of these systems. Then, with this help, we will try to determine which political system was prevalent during the Rashidun Caliphate era. It should be clear that the intention here is not to endorse or refute any system, but rather our purpose is to conduct a comparative study of different political systems to try to understand which system of government was prevalent during the Rashidun Caliphate era and then in later periods.
Monarchy is a system in which the government is considered the right of a specific family. A person from this family is made the king, who rules with the help of his agents. This king is generally above the law and has immunity. Every word spoken by the king is law. During his lifetime, no person or group can remove him from government, and anyone who does so is considered a rebel. After the king’s death, his son or another person from the family is made king. Sometimes it also happens that the king nominates one of his sons or brothers as the crown prince before his death. The state treasury is considered the king’s personal property, and however he wishes to spend it, no one can hold him accountable. People are mentally conditioned in such a way that they consider themselves slaves of the king. Criticism of the government is not allowed, and generally, freedom of expression is not permitted.
Currently, monarchy exists in only a few countries in the world, including Brunei, the Gulf states, Morocco, etc. But even in these countries, it is not a pure monarchy; rather, their system of government is a mixture of monarchy, theocracy, and democracy, in which the element of monarchy is dominant. Similarly, in Britain, the Netherlands, and Japan, a mixture of monarchy and democracy is prevalent, but there the element of democracy is dominant.
This is also a system similar to monarchy in which one person holds all the powers and is himself above all kinds of law. He is called an autocrat or dictator. The difference between monarchy and autocracy is that in monarchy, the government is considered the right of one family, whereas in autocracy, it is limited to that person. After the dictator’s death or his downfall, another dictator takes his place. Usually, autocracy is obtained on the basis of military power. Military autocracy has been established in many countries of the world, including Hafez al-Assad’s Syria, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Gaddafi’s Libya, North Korea, and to a large extent, Pakistan. The Communist Party’s rule in China can also be called an autocracy.
In this system, the source of authority is not a king but God, and it is God’s law that prevails. All government officials, including the ruler, have to follow this law. The interpretation and explanation of this law lie with religious scholars (ulama). In practice, the result is that the government falls into the hands of religious scholars, and they can even compel the king. These religious scholars usually take the form of a specific organization, and then the head of this organization is the real ruler. The ruler of the empire is generally subordinate to this organization of scholars and cannot disobey its orders. In the Middle Ages, a system of theocracy was prevalent in Europe, and such was the power of the Catholic Pope that kings had to wait to meet him. In the modern era, Iran’s system of government is close to a theocracy. Similarly, the element of theocracy is prominent in the systems of the Gulf states.
This system is the opposite of theocracy. In it, it is accepted that religion is the personal matter of every human being, and religion will not have interference in governmental and collective matters. In this way, the authority of religious scholars is ended. The system formed under the philosophy of secularism can consist of any element: monarchy, autocracy, democracy, or aristocracy.
In this system, the source of authority is a specific class, which is called the elite (ashrafiyya). This is the class of the country’s wealthy people who run the system of government together. They include politicians, feudal lords, big businessmen, bureaucrats, military generals, religious scholars, media tycoons, etc. Currently, this system is prevalent in almost all countries of the world. In the Middle Ages, aristocracy, like monarchy, was hereditary, and a person born into a poor family could never be included among the aristocrats. In the modern era, this restriction has been largely eliminated in developed countries; however, this restriction still remains in underdeveloped countries.
In terms of the economic system, aristocracy has several forms, among which Feudalism, Capitalism, and Socialism have been prevalent in the world.
In this system, the axis and center of political activity is the tribe. A tribe is actually a very large family in which every person is related to the other. Every tribe has a chief (sardar). Within tribes, a system of autocracy, democracy, or aristocracy can be established. However, if many tribes live in one place, they appoint a federation or council (panchayat) to live together, in which the tribal chiefs make collective decisions together. Every tribe has freedom in its internal affairs. In ancient Arabia, it was the custom that people from outside the family were also made part of the tribe. These people were called “allies” (halif) or “clients” (mawali) of that tribe.
In this system, the source of power is acknowledged to be the people. Every person is considered equal in society and is given the right to form a party to gain power. Every person has the right to express their views openly, criticize the government, and express their opinion. The ruler is elected through the votes of the common people. The ruler is not above the law; rather, he can also be held accountable. The judiciary and media are free from government restrictions and hold the government accountable. Every important matter is decided with the consultation of the parliament. Approval from the parliament is necessary for legislation.
Two types of systems are prevalent in democracy: one is called parliamentary democracy and the other presidential. In parliamentary democracy, the people elect their representatives through their votes, and these representatives elect a Prime Minister from among themselves. This Prime Minister is accountable to the parliament. In contrast, in the presidential system, the people directly elect the head of the country, who is generally called the “President.” Along with this, the people also elect the parliament. A balance is maintained in the powers of both, and they run the government together. An example of parliamentary democracy is Britain, and an example of presidential democracy is the system of government in America.
Currently, democracy is considered the ideal system of government. Democracy is prevalent in many countries of the world; however, in practice, it is a relatively better form of aristocracy. Wealth and family background have a decisive status in becoming a member of parliament. However, in developed democracies, an effort is made to reserve seats in parliament for the weaker sections of society, such as laborers, farmers, women, and minorities, so that their representation in government can be ensured.
In the Holy Quran, Allah Ta’ala has not commanded the adoption of any single system of government because different systems of government are needed in different situations. However, a fundamental principle has been stated in the Quran, and that is that whatever system of government Muslims adopt, its basis must be on “consultation” (mushawarah), and all affairs of the government should be run by the people together through mutual consultation.
وَالَّذِينَ اسْتَجَابُوا لِرَبِّهِمْ وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلاةَ وَأَمْرُهُمْ شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنْفِقُونَ.
Those who respond to their Lord, establish prayer, their affairs are [decided] by mutual consultation among them, and they spend from what We have provided them. (Ash-Shura 42:38)
The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), although he was not in need of consulting anyone, was also given this command:
فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ وَاسْتَغْفِرْ لَهُمْ وَشَاوِرْهُمْ فِي الأَمْرِ فَإِذَا عَزَمْتَ فَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَوَكِّLĪN.
So pardon them, ask forgiveness for them, and consult them in the matter. Then, when you have decided, then rely upon Allah. Indeed, Allah loves those who rely [upon Him]. (Aal 'Imran 3:159)
It is clear from these verses that any collective system of Muslims must run on consultation. Who should be made the ruler? How should governmental decisions be made? How should the ruler be deposed? All of this will be decided by the mutual consultation of Muslims. It is not that the ruler listens to everyone’s advice and then does as he pleases; rather, the affairs will be decided only by the consultation of the people. The ruler will have to accept the opinion given by the majority of the people.
The system of government that the Rashidun Caliphs adopted, according to their era, can be called a tribal federation system. The spirit of consultation was fully functional in this system. Many tribes had been settled in Arabia since the era of ignorance (Jahiliyyah). Their autonomy was very dear to these tribes, and this was the reason they could not agree on one government for centuries and kept fighting among themselves. When the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) established his government in Madinah Munawwarah, he made these tribes part of the Islamic state through treaties. In these treaties, there was a condition that the tribe would remain autonomous in its internal affairs, and no one would be appointed as a ruler over them against their will. In inter-tribal matters, the central government of Madinah would have the decisive status. The Rashidun Caliphs also continued this same system of government.
Matters related to each tribe were settled only with the consultation of that tribe. For the central government, the procedure adopted was that all tribes unanimously accepted that after the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), they would accept the rule of the Quraysh tribe. Thus, the matter of electing the Caliph was entrusted to the Quraysh tribe, that they should elect a person from among themselves as Caliph. Now, which person should be elected Caliph? For this, the opinion of all the residents of Madinah was taken. In this, the opinion of those companions (Sahaba) who had accepted Islam in times of extreme hardship was given importance. This included those companions who believed before the Battle of Badr. After them was the rank of the rest of the companions who participated in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, and after them, all the rest of the companions. The ten companions who had participated in the mission of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) in the very early years and had made great sacrifices for the sake of religion held high government positions.
They are called the “Ashara Mubashara” (The Ten Given Glad Tidings [of Paradise]). Their names are:
General governmental affairs used to be run by a cabinet of these ten companions, headed by the Caliph of the time. The procedure for solving large and important problems was that when a decision was intended, an announcement of “Salat al-Jami’a” (The Congregational Prayer) would be made, by which all the people of the capital would gather in the Prophet’s Mosque (Masjid Nabawi), including women. The issue would be placed before them, and every person had complete freedom to express their opinion. After that, the opinion on which the people collectively agreed would be adopted. In the case of very big issues, representatives from the tribes and provinces were also summoned, and decisions were made together with them. The decision for the major attack on Persia was made in this way. In these, besides the official representatives, any common person had the right to participate in the consultation, and they could come to the Caliph’s court whenever they wanted and present their advice. The Caliph’s court was not held in any magnificent palace but on the floor of the mosque, where no one could stop anyone from entering.
If the opinion of the Caliph of the time was different from the opinion of the common people, he could not implement his opinion until he convinced them. It is a famous incident that when the issue of the management of the lands of Iraq was faced, the opinion of most companions was that they should be distributed among the conquerors. The opinion of Hazrat Umar (Radhi Allahu Anhu) was that they should be kept in government ownership, and a partnership arrangement should be made with the farmers. This issue was debated for several days, and finally, when the companions agreed with Hazrat Umar’s opinion, it was implemented. Yes, if there was a clear command of the Quran or Sunnah in any matter, then it was implemented without hesitation.
People were kept informed of governmental affairs, and for this, the occasion of the Friday prayer was fully utilized. For the Friday prayer, not only the people of Madinah but also people from the surrounding villages used to come. The Caliph of the time would deliver the Friday sermon (khutbah), and in it, he would also discuss important governmental affairs and state the government’s policy. If anyone had a disagreement, he was allowed to interrupt the Caliph right on the pulpit (minbar) and state his opinion. The transparency in financial matters was such that the distribution of wealth took place openly in the mosque, and every person had the right to object and express their opinion. Once a year, the accounts of the Bayt al-Mal (Treasury) were closed, and all the wealth in it was distributed among the people according to their services. The Bayt al-Mal was cleaned, and it was swept.
When the provinces of the Rashidun Caliphate began to be established, this same model was adopted there. The governor of every city was appointed according to the opinion of the people of that city. It is famous that the people of Kufa and Basra, during the eras of Hazrat Umar and Uthman (Radhi Allahu Anhuma), demanded several times to remove their governor and appoint someone else, and it was accepted. The governors were ordered to carry out all their decisions only with the consultation of the people of the city. If any person had any complaint against the governor, he had direct access to the Caliph. On the occasion of Hajj, the Rashidun Caliphs used to hold such gatherings in which any person could present their petition against the governors, and they faced no danger of any kind.
In this way, the Rashidun Caliphs established such a consultative (Shura’i) system of government, an example of which is difficult to find even in the modern American and European democracies. Even in these modern democratic states, many matters are kept hidden from the public, and the common man cannot interfere in governmental affairs. But in the Rashidun Caliphate, even a common man had the right to hold the Caliph accountable, and this accountability also used to be not out of any negative sentiment, but out of a sentiment of goodwill (khair khawahi) for the Caliph and the common Muslims.
Here this question arises: on the one hand, Islam is a proponent of equality and declares every Muslim equal, but on the other hand, why was the condition of being Qurayshi set for the election of the Caliph at that time?
For the answer to this question, we have to look at the civilizational conditions of that era. According to the founder of sociology, Ibn Khaldun (732-808 H / 1332-1405 CE), the foundation of any nation is “Asabiyyah” (group feeling/solidarity). Asabiyyah is the sentiment under which a person considers himself affiliated with a group and establishes his identity through it. It is due to this Asabiyyah that the concept of “us” and “them” arises in a person’s mind. In the current era, this Asabiyyah can arise on the basis of country, province, region, language, religion, color, race, or anything. For example, we here, the people of Pakistan, consider ourselves a separate nation from Indians. Similarly, Punjabis, Sindhis, Baloch, Pathans, Kashmiris, Baltis, etc., consider themselves separate nations. The sentiment of Asabiyyah is at work behind all of this. If the Asabiyyah weakens, the nation shatters, but if it is strong, the formation of the nation is based on it.
The situation with the Arabs was that their basic societal unit was the “tribe,” and the basis of Asabiyyah was on it. Tribal Asabiyyah had the status of a religion. Arabs could not tolerate the supremacy of any external force over their tribe. When Islam taught the lesson of equality, as a result of it, it was not possible for the Arabs to abandon their centuries-old tradition in one day. Those who are familiar with sociology know that social change never comes in one day. Especially the prejudices and solidarities (Asabiyyat) that become established among people require centuries to end. For example, if a campaign is started in our tribal areas today in which they are encouraged to abandon tribal Asabiyyat, this process will be completed in several centuries. Until five hundred years ago, Punjab was also a tribal area. As a result of a process of centuries here, the tribes ended, but their remnants still exist in the form of brotherhoods (baradaris) (like Jatt, Arain, Rajput, etc.), and when voting, care is taken to vote only for the representative of one’s own brotherhood.
It was not possible to end the tribes that were formed in the Jahiliyyah Arab setup as a result of a process of thousands of years in a few days. Hundreds of years were required to end the Asabiyyat of these tribes and unite them in the Asabiyyah of Islam. In reality, these Asabiyyat ended only after three or four hundred years, but some of these tribes have maintained their identity even today.
A tradition had been established since the Jahiliyyah period as a result of which the Quraysh tribe obtained the status of the chief tribe in Arabia. The Quraysh were the descendants of Hazrat Ismail (peace be upon him), and along with taking care of the Kaaba, they used to manage the Hajj. Since the Arabs were the Ummah of Hazrat Ibrahim and Ismail (peace be upon them) and, due to their connection, the Kaaba had a central status among them, they respected the Quraysh a lot. In the Jahiliyyah era, Hajj had become a manifestation of united Arab nationalism, and apart from this, there was no collectivism of any kind among them. If a trade caravan of an Arab tribe entered the area of another tribe, it would be looted, but the trade caravans of the Quraysh traveled without hindrance from Yemen to Syria, and they had peace from every tribe. This is why people from other tribes also started investing in the Qurayshi caravans. In this way, the Quraysh became a formidable economic power in Arabia.
In these circumstances, if any person from any tribe except Quraysh had been made the Caliph, all the remaining Arab tribes would have rebelled against him because tribal Asabiyyah existed in them. They would have considered a person from another tribe as tantamount to their nose being cut off (a great dishonor), and a series of useless and endless wars would have begun. This was not the case with the Quraysh because, due to their connection with Hazrat Ibrahim and Ismail (peace be upon them) and the Kaaba, all Arabs, except for a few, respected them.
After the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), only two tribes could claim the Caliphate. One of them was Quraysh (the Muhajirun/Emigrants), and the other was Ansar (the Helpers). The Qurayshi companions had made immense sacrifices in the Meccan life, endured oppression, and sacrificed their homes and wealth for the religion of Allah Ta’ala. On the other hand, there were the Ansar of Madinah, who had given refuge to the Muhajirun of Quraysh, taking on the opposition of all of Arabia. No one could deny their services, but if seen on the democratic principle, it was the Muhajirun of Quraysh who had the support of more or less all the tribes of Arabia. In contrast, the Ansar of Madinah did not have the support of any tribe other than their own. Furthermore, the Ansar were divided into two more tribes, which were called Aws and Khazraj. Enmity had been ongoing between these tribes since the Jahiliyyah era, which Islam ended and made them brothers.
This is why the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) had decided this issue during his blessed life, as to which tribe the Caliphate would go to immediately after his death. Before the conquest of Makkah, the Ansar had a majority in the state of Madinah. This is why the governors whom the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family) appointed in the areas of Yemen, Khaybar, etc., in that period, belonged to the Ansar. If, hypothetically, the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) death had occurred before the conquest of Makkah, it is quite possible that the first Rashidun Caliph would also have been from the Ansar. But after the conquest of Makkah, the situation changed, and not only the entire Quraysh tribe but all the tribes of Arabia accepted Islam. Now, the supporters of Quraysh gained the majority. This is why the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) settled this issue.
وحدثنا محمد بن رافع. حدثنا عبدالرزاق. حدثنا معمر عن همام بن منبه. قال: هذا ما حدثنا أبو هريرة عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم. فذكر أحاديث منها: وقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم (الناس تبع لقريش في هذا الشأن. مسلمهم تبع لمسلمهم. وكافرهم تبع لكافرهم.
Hazrat Abu Hurayrah (Radhi Allahu Anhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “The people are followers of Quraysh in this matter. Their Muslims are followers of their (Quraysh’s) Muslims, and their disbelievers are followers of their (Quraysh’s) disbelievers.” (Muslim, Kitab al-Imarah, Hadith 1818)
This same point was stated by Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (Radhi Allahu Anhu) at Saqifah Bani Sa’idah in these words:
فأما العرب فلن تعرف هذا الأمر الا لهذا الحي من القريش.
“As for the Arabs, they will not recognize this matter [leadership] for any but this tribe of Quraysh… The good of the Arabs follow the good people of Quraysh, and their evil ones follow the evil ones of Quraysh.” (Tabari. p. 11H/2/1-408. Hadith Saqifah)
It should be clear that this was not a permanent ruling but was for that time, as long as this support for Quraysh remained. This situation continued until the fourth century Hijri, as long as the Banu Abbas held power. After that, the Caliphate remained only in name. When the power of non-Arab nations exceeded that of the Arabs, Sultan Selim I of Turkey (918-926 H / 1512-1520 CE) transferred the Caliphate from the Arabs to the Turks in 922 H / 1517 CE, and the Islamic world accepted this decision. When the power of the Turks ended, the Ottoman Caliphate also came to an end in 1343 H / 1924 CE.
The Bay’ah of Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) took place in two stages.
The first stage was at Saqifah Bani Sa’idah, and the second stage was among the general public.
Saqifah Bani Sa’idah was a thatched shelter belonging to a clan of the Ansar of Madinah, under which they would sit for mutual consultation. At the time of the Messenger of Allah’s (peace be upon him) passing, some Ansar felt that due to their services, the Caliph should be from among them. However, not all Ansar were agreed on this. When the esteemed Muhajir (Emigrant) companions learned that the Ansar wanted to appoint a Caliph without the consultation of the general Muslims, they went to them and tried to convince them. Since the Ansar had a great passion for serving the religion, they were convinced and unanimously gave their Bay’ah to Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA). After that, the next day in the Prophet’s Mosque (Masjid Nabawi), the matter was presented before the general public, and all the people gave their Bay’ah, unanimously electing him as Caliph.
It is mentioned in books like Sahih Bukhari, Musnad Ahmad, Tarikh Tabari, Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, and al-Ansab al-Ashraf that the incident of Saqifah Bani Sa’idah occurred after the passing of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). Some of the Ansar of Madinah wanted to make Sa’d ibn Ubadah (RA) (who was an esteemed companion and head of the Khazraj tribe of the Ansar) the Caliph. The Muhajirun, including esteemed elders like Umar and Abu Ubaidah (RA), convinced them that the Caliph should be from the Quraysh tribe, because the Arabs would not accept the rule of any tribe other than the Quraysh. The Ansar were convinced. Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) proposed the name of Umar or Abu Ubaidah (RA) for the caliphate, but both these gentlemen gave their Bay’ah to Abu Bakr (RA), and then the Ansar also gave him their Bay’ah.
(Sahih Bukhari, Hadith No. 3668, 2462)
(Tarikh al-Islam, p. 328, Vol. 1)
(Tarikh al-Khulafa, p. 52)
(Usd al-Ghabah, p. 222, Vol. 3)
(Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, p. 248, Vol. 5)
Up to this point, there is no issue (ishkal) with this event, because the Ansar of Madinah had made many sacrifices for the religion. It was a natural matter that they considered themselves deserving of the caliphate. However, at that time, tribal ‘Asabiyyah (solidarity) had not yet ended, and many tribes had only recently entered Islam. Mutual enmities between these tribes had been ongoing since the era of ignorance (Jahiliyyah). Since that era, the Quraysh tribe held a distinguished position in Arabia. If the Caliph had been made from another tribe, its opponents would have risen up, and it would have led to civil war.
This is why the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), in view of the situation after his passing, had said: “The rulers will be from the Quraysh.”
(Musnad Ahmad, Hadith No. 12307)
(Tarikh al-Khulafa, Suyuti, p. 14)
And he (peace be upon him and his family) had also indicated towards Abu Bakr (RA) by nominating him to lead the prayers.
(Sahih Bukhari, Kitab al-‘Ilm)
The Ansar of Madinah had made countless sacrifices for the sake of religion. They had even shared their properties with the Muhajirun. Because of this, it was a natural desire that their chief be made Caliph for the service of the religion. But in that case, the Arab tribes would have rebelled, and the situation would have deteriorated.
The second problem was that the Ansar themselves were divided into the Aws and Khazraj tribes, and enmity had been ongoing between these two tribes since the era of ignorance. Before the message of Islam reached Madinah, a great war had taken place between them, which is called the Battle of Bu’ath, and their great chiefs were killed in this war. If a Caliph had been selected from one of these tribes, the other tribe would not have liked it.
On the basis of these reasons, when Abu Bakr, Umar, and Abu Ubaidah (RA) tried to convince them, they were convinced. They accepted their Muhajir brothers as Caliph with all their heart and soul, and did so in such a way that they never again became claimants to the caliphate in opposition to them.
Here, however, some narrations have created a question, and that is that Sa’d ibn Ubadah did not give Bay’ah to Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA), and some harsh words and scuffling also occurred at the Saqifah. Later, Sa’d (RA) did not give Bay’ah to Abu Bakr and Umar (RA). Then he went to Syria, where he died mysteriously on the way. Proponents of conspiracy theories attribute his death to Umar (RA). First, we will present these narrations in detail, and then we will present their analysis under the established principles of historical criticism. Here we request that if you have not studied the previous series, please study them first, because the procedure for scrutinizing historical narrations has been detailed in them.
Ibn Abbas (RA) narrates that… a person said that if Umar passes away, I will pledge allegiance to so-and-so. By Allah! Abu Bakr’s Bay’ah happened suddenly (faltatan)… So Umar (RA) sat on the minbar and gave a sermon.
In it, he said: … “I have received news that one of you says that if Umar passes away, I will pledge allegiance to so-and-so. Let no one deceive you by saying that Abu Bakr’s (RA) Bay’ah was completed suddenly (faltatan). Listen! It was indeed like that, but Allah protected [us] from its evil. There is no one among you who has the virtue of Abu Bakr. Whoever pledges allegiance to any man without consulting the Muslims, his pledge should not be recognized (lit: ‘done’), as he is liable to be killed.
When Allah gave death to His Prophet (peace be upon him), we received news that the Ansar were disagreeing with us. They gathered with their families at Saqifah Bani Sa’idah. Ali, Zubayr, and their companions also disagreed with us, along with those who were with them. The Muhajirun gathered with Abu Bakr. I said to Abu Bakr: ‘Abu Bakr! Let’s go to our Ansar brothers.’ We walked towards them. When we got close, two righteous men from among them met us. They both described what the people were inclined towards.” Then they asked: “O group of Muhajirun! Where are you going?” We said: “To our Ansar brothers.” They said: “It is not appropriate for you to go to them; rather, you should decide your matter yourselves.” I said: “By Allah! We will go to them (and instead of deciding ourselves, we will convince them first).”
We reached them at Saqifah Bani Sa’idah and saw a man sitting in their midst, wrapped in a blanket. I asked: “Who is this gentleman?” They said: “This is Sa’d ibn Ubadah.” I said: “What is wrong with him?” They said: “He has a fever.” We had only been sitting there a short while when a speaker from among them, after reciting the Kalimah Shahadah and praising Allah as He deserves, began. Then he said: ‘Amma Ba’d. We are the Ansar (helpers) of Allah and the army of Islam, and you, O Muhajirun, are a group whose people intend to uproot us and take this matter [government] into their own hands.’
When he fell silent, I (Umar) wanted to speak. I had prepared a speech that I wanted to deliver before Abu Bakr. I used to defer to him to some extent. When I wanted to speak, Abu Bakr spoke, and he was more clement and dignified than me. By Allah! Whatever good I had thought of, he said the same thing, or even better, extemporaneously, completing his speech. He said:
“(O Ansar!) The virtues you have described are indeed present in you. But this matter (caliphate) is exclusive to the Quraysh, because they are considered superior among the Arabs in terms of lineage and connection to the House of Allah (Kaaba). In my opinion, you should pledge allegiance to whichever of these two men you like.” Saying this, he took my (Umar’s) hand and the hand of Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah, who was sitting between us.
(Umar says:) “I disliked nothing of his speech except that part. By Allah! I would prefer to have my neck struck than to be the leader of a group in which Abu Bakr is (subordinate to me). O Allah! May my soul, at the time of my death, make this thing seem good to me, which I do not feel within me now.” At that, a man from the Ansar said: “We are the root of Islam and its main pillars. O Quraysh! One leader (Amir) from us and one from you.” At that, a clamor arose, and voices were raised. I feared disagreement, so I said: “Abu Bakr! Extend your hand.” He extended his hand, and I pledged allegiance to him. The Muhajirun also pledged allegiance, and then the Ansar pledged allegiance to him. We ‘overcame’ Sa’d ibn Ubadah. Someone shouted: “You have practically killed Sa’d ibn Ubadah.” I said: “Allah has killed Sa’d, (not us).”
Umar (RA) narrates: “(Regarding) the matter that happened (at Saqifah), we feared that if we left without Abu Bakr’s Bay’ah being done, these people would pledge allegiance to someone else behind our backs (and thus rebellion would arise among the Arab tribes). In that case, we would either have to pledge allegiance to someone against our will, or we would oppose him, and there would be corruption (fasad). Whoever pledged allegiance to someone without the consultation of Muslims, he should not be followed. And neither should the person who pledged be followed. Their punishment is precisely that they be killed.”
(Sahih Bukhari, Kitab al-Muharibin min Ahl al-Kufr wa al-Riddah, Hadith No. 6830)
This incident has three points that someone who criticizes the Sahaba Karam (Noble Companions) might raise:
As for the first question, it is clear that the Ansar of Madinah were not completely unanimous that the Caliph should be from among them. This is why they presented different proposals. The first proposal was that Sa’d ibn Ubadah (RA) be made Caliph. The second was that one Caliph be from the Muhajirun and one from the Ansar. When consultation is ongoing, every person has the freedom to form their own opinion, which leads to differences of opinion. There is no harm in this. Yes, when the consultation is complete and the Muslims agree on one thing, then creating division (tafarruqa) is an evil. Freedom of dissent is available even then, but creating division based on this difference of opinion is a crime. The Ansar had merely expressed their opinion. When arguments were presented to them, they accepted that the Caliph should be from the Muhajirun. For this reason, no objection can be raised against the Ansar.
The second question is that Umar (RA) pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr (RA) during the consultation, which was not correct. The reason for this was that Umar knew that Abu Bakr was a personality over whom no one would disagree. He used to take care of the weak among the Muhajirun and Ansar without discrimination, served them, and helped everyone. This is why, as soon as he pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr, everyone rushed to pledge allegiance to him. In that gathering of Ansar, the number of Ansar was much greater than that of the Muhajirun. If the Ansar did not want to pledge allegiance to him, they could have at least refused at that time, but on the contrary, they rushed to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr (RA). This shows what opinion the majority of them also held about Siddiq Akbar (RA).
From some other narrations, it is known that when Umar proposed the name of Abu Bakr (RA), the Ansar rushed to pledge allegiance to him, and Sa’d ibn Ubadah (RA) also accepted the caliphate of Abu Bakr with an open heart. The narrations are:
Abdullah ibn Umar (RA) narrates that when the Ansar said, “One leader from us and one from you,” Umar said to them: “O group of Ansar! Do you not know that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) commanded Abu Bakr to lead the people in prayer? Which of you would wish to step ahead of Abu Bakr?” The Ansar replied: “We seek refuge in Allah from stepping ahead of Abu Bakr.”
(Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Al-Musnad. Musnad Umar. Hadith 135. 1/98. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr. www.waqfeya.com (ac. 16 Dec 2009))
[Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut says: The chain (sanad) of this hadith is Hasan (good, reliable). In its chain is ‘Asim, who is Ibn Abi al-Najud. He is Hasan al-Hadith (his hadith are ‘good’). All other narrators are extremely reliable and Bukhari and Muslim narrated from them.]
Umar (RA) narrates that when I held his (Abu Bakr’s) hand, a man from the Ansar preceded me and placed his hand on his hand before I placed mine. Then I placed my hand on his hand, and the people pledged allegiance.” In some narrations, his name is mentioned as Bashir ibn Sa’d, who was the father of Nu’man ibn Bashir.
(Ibn Kathir citing Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d. 5/342)
Abu Bakr gave a speech and left nothing unsaid regarding what was revealed (in the Quran) about the Ansar, and he also mentioned what the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) had stated about them. He said: “You gentlemen know that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: ‘If the people walk in one valley and the Ansar in another, I will walk in the valley of the Ansar.’ Sa’d! You know that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) also said, and you were sitting right there at the time, that ‘Quraysh are the guardians of this matter (caliphate). (Other tribes’) righteous man follows their righteous man, and their evil man follows their evil man.'” Sa’d said: “You have spoken the truth. You are the leaders (Umara’), and we are your ministers (Wuzara’).”
(Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Al-Musnad. Musnad Abi Bakr. Hadith 19, 1/60)
From these narrations, it is known that the Ansar were happy with the Bay’ah of Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA)!
The third question is why Umar used harsh words about Sa’d ibn Ubadah (RA). This question actually arises from unfamiliarity with Arab culture. Arabs were simple-natured people and rarely adopted a diplomatic style of speaking. Whatever was in their heart, they would express it openly without any hypocrisy, and the other person would not take offense. It is just like how in our villages, people openly say things that city dwellers find offensive, but the villager listening does not mind. That is why in the Arabic of that era, there are many idioms like “May Allah strike you,” “May your mother weep for you,” “May your nose be rubbed in dust.” This is just like in Urdu when “May your ship sink (tumhara beda gharq)” or “May God destroy you (khuda tumhein gharat kare)” is said. All these idioms do not mean that the speaker actually wants the other person to be truly destroyed. It is merely an informal expression of displeasure. This is why among friends, people use these phrases informally, and the listener does not mind. Something similar is the case with Umar’s (RA) words. If he had truly said something harsh about Sa’d (RA), the chief of the Khazraj tribe, the Ansar of the Khazraj tribe would have at least warned him. Some narrations show that people rushed for the Bay’ah in such numbers that Sa’d was almost crushed among them. Upon this, someone said the sentence, “You have killed Sa’d,” to which Umar replied jokingly, “No, Allah has killed him.”
If the Bay’ah had been taken from the Ansar by force, then their role in the Rashidun Caliphate era would not have been what they played. We all know that a person can never demonstrate the level of performance in work done under duress that he does in work done of his own free will. It is known about the Ansar that they participated wholeheartedly in the projects of the Rashidun Caliphs. Be it the wars against the apostates (Murtaddin) or the conquest of Rome and Persia, the matter of administration of the conquered territories or managing the Bayt al-Mal (Treasury), in every single matter, many people from the Ansar participated and performed extraordinary feats.
Numerous people from the Ansar were appointed as governors and given high military ranks. Among them, the names of Mu’adh ibn Jabal, Ubadah ibn al-Samit, Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, Zayd ibn Thabit, and Qays ibn Sa’d ibn Ubadah (RA) can be presented. Mu’adh was the second-in-command of the Islamic armies in Syria after Abu Ubaidah, and after his death, he became the commander-in-chief of the army.
Qays ibn Sa’d ibn Ubadah (RA) was a governor and police chief during the era of Ali (RA).
Ubadah ibn al-Samit, Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, and Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (RA) were commanders of important armies. The death of Abu Ayyub also occurred during the Jihad of Constantinople, and his grave is still present in Istanbul today. Zayd ibn Thabit (RA) was appointed acting Caliph by Umar.
From the narration stated above, it is also known that Sa’d ibn Ubadah (RA) himself accepted the caliphate of Abu Bakr (RA). The incident is as follows:
When Abu Bakr (RA) gave the sermon (at Saqifah Bani Sa’idah), he left nothing unsaid regarding the virtues of the Ansar. He mentioned everything the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) had said about the virtue of the Ansar and said: “I know that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: ‘If the people walk in one valley and the Ansar in another, I will walk in the valley of the Ansar.’ O Sa’d! You certainly know that when you were sitting, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: ‘The Quraysh are entitled to this matter (caliphate), because the righteous among the people follow their righteous, and the evil among the people follow the evil among these Quraysh.'” Sa’d replied: “You have spoken the truth. We will be the ministers (Wuzara’), and you will be the leaders (Umara’).”
(Ahmad ibn Hanbal. Musnad Umar. Hadith 135, 1/98)
These details show that the role of the Ansar during the Rashidun Caliphate era is a witness to the fact that they gave their Bay’ah with full consent and inclination. If the Bay’ah had been taken from them by force, they would not have participated in collective tasks with such enthusiasm.
What happened after the Saqifah incident has been detailed by Anas ibn Malik (RA) as follows:
Anas says that he heard Umar (RA) giving a sermon on the day after the death of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). Abu Bakr was sitting silently and not saying anything. Umar said: “I used to hope that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) would live on and pass away after us. Then, if Muhammad (peace be upon him) has passed away, Allah has created a light (the Quran) before you, through which you receive guidance and by which Allah Ta’ala guided Muhammad (peace be upon him). Indeed, the companion of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), Abu Bakr, who was his second companion in the cave, is the most worthy among the Muslims regarding your affairs. Therefore, get up and pledge allegiance to him.” A group of these people had already pledged allegiance to him at Saqifah Bani Sa’idah. The general Bay’ah took place at the minbar.
Zuhri narrated Anas ibn Malik’s (RA) words that “I heard Umar on that day repeatedly saying to Abu Bakr: ‘Come to the minbar.’ He kept repeating this until Abu Bakr sat on the minbar, and the people pledged allegiance to him.”
(Sahih Bukhari, Kitab al-Ahkam, Hadith No. 7219)
From this, it is known that the vast majority of Muslims liked Abu Bakr (RA) and wanted to see him as the Caliph.
Some orientalists have raised this question that Sa’d ibn Ubadah (RA) was secretly assassinated so that he would not become a threat to the government. This is a baseless objection. Sa’d (RA) was the chief of the Khazraj tribe of the Ansar and one of the esteemed companions from the Sabiqoon al-Awwaloon (the first and foremost) of the Ansar. He is among those companions who played a tremendous role in spreading the message of Islam in Madinah. He was extremely generous and used to feed eighty members of the Ashab al-Suffah. How was it possible that he would create division in the community of Muslims when the Ansar themselves had unanimously pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr?
During the Siddiqi era (era of Abu Bakr), he stayed in Madinah Munawwarah and remained the chief of the Khazraj tribe. Then, during the era of Umar, he also stayed in Madinah for two or three years. After that, in 15 or 16 H, he was going to Syria when he passed away on the way at the place of Hawran.
(Muhammad ibn Sa’d ibn Mani’ al-Zuhri (d. 230H/844). Al-Tabaqat al-Kabir. Sahabi No. 353. 3/570. Cairo: Maktaba al-Khanji www.waqfeya.com (ac. 6 May 2011))
The fact is, Baladhuri in Ansab al-Ashraf has narrated three such narrations, from which this conspiracy theory is derived. As soon as one looks at their chain of transmission (sanad), the whole matter becomes clear. Baladhuri narrates:
First Narration:
جدثنا محمد بن مصفى الحمصي، ثنا بقية بن الوليد، عن الزبيري، عن الزهري:
“Everyone pledged allegiance to (Abu Bakr) except Sa’d ibn Ubadah. He slipped away and left, and then went to Syria.”
(Baladhuri. Ansab al-Ashraf. Amr al-Saqifah. 2/264. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr. www.waqfeya.com (ac. 27 Oct 2007))
In the chain of this narration is Baqiyyah ibn al-Walid, who is not a reliable narrator.
The second narration is:
جدثني روح بن عبد المؤمن، جدثني علي بن المدائني، عن سفيان بن عينية، عن عمرو بن دينار، عن أبي صالح:
“Sa’d ibn Ubadah went out to Syria and was killed there.”
(Baladhuri. Ansab al-Ashraf. Amr al-Saqifah. 2/272. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr. www.waqfeya.com)
In the chain of this narration is Ruh ibn Abd al-Mu’min, about whom no detail is known regarding his level of reliability. In this narration, it is not clearly stated who had Sa’d (RA) killed.
The Third Narration:
This is completely clear on the subject and is the basis of the conspiracy theory:
المدائني عن ابن جعدبة عن صالح بن كيسان، وعن أبي مخنف، عن الكلبي وغيرهما:
“Sa’d ibn Ubadah did not pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr and left for Syria. Umar sent a person and said: ‘Call him to the Bay’ah and trouble him. If he refuses, seek Allah’s help against him.’ This person came to Syria and found Sa’d in an enclosure in Hawran. He invited him to the Bay’ah, and he said: ‘I will never pledge allegiance to any Qurayshi.’ He said: ‘Then I will fight you.’ He said: ‘Will you fight me?’ He said: ‘Are you inside this Ummah or outside?’ He said: ‘I am outside this Bay’ah.’ He struck him with a spear and killed him. It is also narrated that Sa’d was attacked in a bathhouse (hammam). And it is also said that he was sitting and urinating when a Jinn shot him with an arrow and killed him.”
(Baladhuri. Ansab al-Ashraf. Amr al-Saqifah. 2/272. Beirut: Dar al-Fikr. www.waqfeya.com (ac. 27 Oct 2007))
If you have not studied the previous series, please do so now so that you can be introduced to the famous historians of the first two centuries. This narration has two chains, and each one has names that make the basis of the whole conspiracy theory understandable.
One is the famous historian Abu Mikhnaf, about whom we have stated before that his heart was full of hatred for the Sahaba Karam. He is narrating from al-Kalbi, whose hatred for the Sahaba Karam is famous. The second historian is Ibn Ja’dabah, whose full name is Yazid ibn ‘Ayyad ibn Ja’dabah. Imam Bukhari called him Munkar al-Hadith (Rejected in Hadith), Imam Malik declared him a liar, Daraqutni called him Da’if (weak), and Yahya ibn Ma’in said that he used to mix lies into narrations, so his narrations should not be written.
(Dhahabi. Mizan al-I’tidal. 7/259. Narrator No. 9748)
From this, it is known that this narration is unreliable and was fabricated by someone who bore hatred for the Sahaba Karam, especially Umar (RA).
If analyzed from the perspective of dirayah (rational criticism), the question arises: Did Umar (RA) send the killer to Sa’d ibn Ubadah (RA) after telling these people? If he had sent the killer openly, why did Sa’d’s children, family, and tribe remain silent? And if he had sent the killer secretly, how did these narrators find out? Furthermore, if he was intended to be killed, what was the need to wait three years for it?
No such details are found in any historical narration according to which Sa’d (RA) ever tried to become a threat to the government, nor is any trace found that his children and tribesmen accused the government of a conspiracy to kill him. This shows that this conspiracy theory is merely a fiction, and its purpose is nothing but to defame Umar (RA).
Ibn Sa’d has transmitted this narration in al-Tabaqat:
أخبرنا يزيد بن هارون عن سعيد بن أبي عروبة قال سمعت محمد بن سيرين يحدث:
“Sa’d ibn Ubadah urinated while standing. When he returned, he said to his companions: ‘I feel something crawling on my body.’ Then he passed away, and his companions heard a Jinn reciting this couplet: ‘We have killed the chief of the Khazraj, Sa’d ibn Ubadah, and we struck him with two arrows whose target is never missed.'”
(Ibn Sa’d. Tabaqat al-Kubra. Sa’d ibn Ubadah, Sahabi No. 353. 3/570. Cairo: Maktaba al-Khanji.)
From Waqidi’s narration on the same page, it is known that he had urinated in a hole, and when he died, his skin had turned green. From this, it seems that the place where he urinated must have been the hole of a snake, which came out and bit him. “Feeling something crawling on his body” suggests that the snake might have entered his clothes. As for the matter of the Jinn reciting poetry, it is possible that the snake was a Jinn, or it was merely a superstition of his companions, as such superstitions do arise among people when a mysterious incident occurs, and voices seem to be heard. This tragedy occurred in 15/636, and for one hundred and fifty years, no son, grandson, or tribesman of Sa’d (RA) accused Umar (RA) of a conspiracy. This idea came to Ibn Ja’dabah, Abu Mikhnaf, and al-Kalbi one hundred and fifty years after this incident, and they narrated this report. Based on their narration, some orientalists fabricated the story.
Regarding this matter, the analysis of the narrations transmitted in the books of history is this.
[[In Baladhuri (d. 279/893), there are a total of 16 narrations related to the Bay’ah of Ali, of which 8 narrations contain unreliable narrators, whose names are:
And in Tabari (224-310 H / 838-922 CE), there are a total of 5 narrations on the Bay’ah of Ali, of which the number of unreliable narrations is 4:
This means that out of a total of 21 narrations related to the Bay’ah of Ali, 12 narrations are unreliable, leaving only 9 narrations behind. You can see that a large portion of historical reports has entered the books of history through unreliable narrators.
The historical narrations reported in this matter are of three types:
Ahead, we will examine the narrations of all three groups in detail, Insha’Allah!!!
(Narrations of giving Bay’ah willingly)
These are numerous, and we present them here.
وَحَدَّثَنَا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَافِظُ ، وَأَبُو مُحَمَّدٍ عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ أَبِي حَامِدٍ الْمُقْرِئُ ، قِرَاءَةً عَلَيْهِ ، قَالا : حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْعَبَّاسِ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ ، ثنا جَعْفَرُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ شَاكِرٍ , ثنا عَفَّانُ بْنُ مُسْلِمٍ , ثنا وُهَيْبٌ , ثنا دَاوُدُ بْنُ أَبِي هِنْدَ , ثنا أَبُو نَضْرَةَ , عَنْ أَبِي سَعِيدٍ الْخُدْرِيِّ:
Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (RA) narrates that when Abu Bakr (RA) ascended the minbar (pulpit) to take the Bay’ah, he noticed that Hazrat Ali was not present. He asked about him. A man from the Ansar stood up and went to call him. When he came, [Abu Bakr] said to him: “O cousin and son-in-law of the Messenger of Allah! Do you wish to break the staff (strength) of the Muslims?” He also said: “O Caliph of the Messenger of Allah! Do not reproach me.” And then he gave him the Bay’ah. Then he saw that Hazrat Zubayr (RA) was absent. He sent for him. When Hazrat Zubayr came, he said to him: “O paternal cousin of the Messenger of Allah and his disciple (Hawari)! Do you wish to break the staff (strength) of the Muslims?” He said: “O Caliph of the Messenger of Allah! Do not reproach me.” Then he stood up and gave the Bay’ah.
(Bayhaqi, Al-I’tiqad ila Sabil al-Rashad. Bab Ijtima’ al-Muslimeen ‘ala Bay’at Abi Bakr. Hadith 325. Baladhuri, Ansab al-Ashraf. 2/267)
حدثنا عبيد الله بن سعد ، قال : أخبرني عمي ، قال : أخبرني سيف ، عن عبد العزيز بن ساه ، عن حبيب بن أبي ثابت:
Hazrat Ali (RA) was sitting in his house when someone informed him that Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) was taking the Bay’ah in the mosque. At that time, Hazrat Ali was wearing only a long shirt (qamis) and had not tied his lower garment (tahmad/izar). He got up fearing he would be late and rushed to the mosque without tying his lower garment. He gave the Bay’ah and sat down with Siddiq Akbar. After that, he sent for his remaining clothes from home and put them on.
(Ibn Jarir al-Tabari. Hadith Saqifah. 11H/2/1-410)
محمد بن سعد، ثنا محمد بن عمر الواقدي، عن أبي معمر، عن المقبري، و يزيد بن رومان مولى آل زبير، عن ابن شهاب:
(After the event of Saqifah) Hazrat Ali said to Abu Bakr (RA): “Abu Bakr! Don’t you know that we also had a right in this matter (consultation)?” He replied: “Yes, but I feared disunity (intishar) and a great matter had fallen upon me.” Ali said: “I know that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) commanded you to lead the prayer, and I also know that you were the ‘second of the two’ in the cave (Thawr). We had a right (to be consulted), but we were not consulted. In any case, may Allah forgive you.” Saying this, he gave the Bay’ah.
(Baladhuri. Ansab al-Ashraf. 2/263)
حدثن عن الحسن بن عرفة، عن علي بن هشام بن اليزيد، عن أبيه، عن أبي الجحاف:
When people had given the Bay’ah to Abu Bakr, he stood up and announced three times: “O people! (If you wish) you can retract my Bay’ah.” Ali said: “By Allah, we will neither retract your Bay’ah nor will we let you resign. When the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) appointed you as Imam in prayer, then who is there who can put you behind (in worldly leadership)?”
(Baladhuri. Ansab al-Ashraf. 2/270)
From these narrations, it is known that Sayyiduna Ali and Zubayr (RA) gave Bay’ah to Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) willingly. The manner in which they later participated wholeheartedly in the affairs of the government during the era of the first three Caliphs also indicates that they gave the Bay’ah with full consent. In terms of the chain of narration (sanad), the narration of Hazrat Abu Sa’id (RA) is the most authentic. Although the rest of the narrations are weak in terms of their chain, the conduct that Hazrat Ali and Zubayr adopted with the first three Rashidun Caliphs (RA) shows that these narrations are correct in their content.
(Narrations concerning hesitation in giving Bay’ah)
According to these narrations, Sayyida Fatimah (RA) demanded the inheritance of Bagh Fadaq (Orchard of Fadaq). This was an orchard whose income was spent on the family of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). Hazrat Abu Bakr’s (RA) stance was that this orchard was state property, which is why its inheritance could not be distributed. However, the family of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) would continue to receive a share from its income. Sayyida Fatimah (RA) became displeased at this and did not speak to Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) until her death six months later.
The narration of Bagh Fadaq is this:
حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ العَزِيزِ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، حَدَّثَنَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ سَعْدٍ، عَنْ صَالِحٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ، قَالَ: أَخْبَرَنِي عُرْوَةُ بْنُ الزُّبَيْرِ، أَنَّ عَائِشَةَ أُمَّ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا أَخْبَرَتْهُ:
Sayyida Aisha Umm al-Mu’minin (RA) stated that Fatimah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), after his death, asked Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) to distribute her inheritance from what Allah Ta’ala had given to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) as Fay’ (spoils acquired without fighting). Abu Bakr said that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) had said: “Our (Prophets’) inheritance is not distributed; whatever we leave is charity (sadaqah).” (Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri says that) Fatimah (RA) became angry and left Abu Bakr. She did not meet him again until her death. She lived for six months after the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him).
(Sahih Bukhari. Kitab Khums. Hadith 4240)
Hazrat Ali (RA) remained confined to his house for six months and did not give Bay’ah to Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA). After Sayyida’s death, Hazrat Abu Bakr went to him and spoke with him. Both mentioned the virtues of the other, and after that, Hazrat Ali gave Bay’ah to Hazrat Abu Bakr.
The narration is as follows:
حدثنا أبو صالح الضرار ، قال : حدثنا عبد الرزاق بن همام ، عن معمر ، عن الزهري ، عن عروة ، عن عائشة :
Hazrat Fatimah and Abbas (RA) came to Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) and demanded the inheritance of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), saying that the share of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) in Fadaq and Khaybar should be given to them. Abu Bakr said: “If I had not heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say that there is no inheritance in our properties, what we leave is charity, I would have certainly given these properties to the family of Muhammad. However, you will receive [provisions] from its income. By Allah, I will act upon everything that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) acted upon.”
(Al-Zuhri) stated that because of this incident, Fatimah did not speak to Abu Bakr about this matter again until her death and cut off relations. When Fatimah passed away, Ali buried her at night and neither informed Abu Bakr of her death nor invited him to the burial. After Fatimah’s death, the people’s attention turned back to Ali. Fatimah lived for six months after the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and then passed away.
Ma’mar says that a person asked al-Zuhri if Ali did not pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr for six months. He said no, he did not; and as long as he did not, no one from the Banu Hashim did. But after Fatimah’s death, when Ali saw that the people’s disposition was not the same as it was during Fatimah’s life, he inclined towards reconciliation with Abu Bakr. He sent a message to Abu Bakr to come and meet him alone, and no one else should come. Since Umar was a stern man, Ali did not want him to come with Abu Bakr. Umar said to Abu Bakr, “Do not go to the Banu Hashim alone.” Abu Bakr said: “No, I will go alone. I do not expect any ill-treatment.”
Abu Bakr came to Ali, and all the Banu Hashim were gathered. Ali stood and gave a speech. After praising Allah, he said: “O Abu Bakr! The reason we have not given you the Bay’ah until today is not because of any denial of your virtue or envy of the goodness Allah has given you. Rather, we considered this caliphate to be our right, but you took it from us by force (istibdad).” After that, Ali mentioned his kinship with the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and his right. Ali elaborated on these matters in detail until Abu Bakr wept.
When Ali fell silent, Abu Bakr began his speech. He recited the Kalimah Shahadah and, after praising Allah as He deserves, he said: “By Allah! The relatives of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) are dearer to me than my own relatives. Regarding these properties that have become a source of disagreement between me and you, I have only acted with due diligence. And I have heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say, ‘We (Prophets) do not leave inheritance; what we leave is charity.’ However, the family of Muhammad (peace be upon him) will continue to receive from its income. And I seek refuge in Allah from mentioning something the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) did and not acting upon it myself.”
Ali said: “Alright! We will give you the Bay’ah this evening.” After the Zuhr prayer, Abu Bakr gave a speech on the minbar in front of everyone and apologized to Ali for some matters. Then Ali stood up and expressed and acknowledged the greatness of Abu Bakr’s right, his virtue, and his precedence in Islam. Then he went to Abu Bakr and gave him the Bay’ah.
(Bukhari. Kitab Khums. Hadith 4642) [Note: The text cites Bukhari 4642, but the detailed narration is famously in Bukhari 4240-4241]
(Tabari. 11H/2/1-411)
This incident can be analyzed from two perspectives: one, from the perspective of the sanad (chain of narration), and two, from the perspective of dirayah (rational analysis), and there are some problems with it from both perspectives.
Hafiz Ibn Kathir (701-774 H / 1301-1372 CE) tried to reconcile the first and second types of narrations. He says that Hazrat Ali (RA) had given Bay’ah to Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) right at the beginning. Due to Bagh Fadaq, some tension (kashidgi) had arisen in the Sayyida’s (RA) mind. The arising of tension is a human matter that can happen to anyone, no matter how high-ranking they may be. After that, when Sayyida Fatimah (RA) fell ill, Hazrat Ali did not go out much due to nursing her. Secondly, he wanted to compile the Holy Quran in its chronological order of revelation, which was a scholarly endeavor. This is supported by this narration from Baladhuri:
حدثنا سلمة بن الصقر، وروح بن عبد المؤمن قالا: ثنا عبد الوهاب الثقفي، أنبأ أيوب، عن ابن سيرين قال:
Ibn Sirin says: Abu Bakr asked Ali (RA): “Do you dislike me being your Amir (leader)?” He said: “No. The fact is, I swore after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him) that I would not come out until I had compiled the Holy Quran (in its order of revelation).”
(Baladhuri. Ansab al-Ashraf. 2/269)
Due to Hazrat Ali’s (RA) not coming out, some people assumed that there was some displeasure between them, whereas Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq had already gone to Sayyida Fatimah’s (RA) house and reconciled with her. Siddiq Akbar’s decision was exactly in accordance with Shari’ah; however, he still consoled the Sayyida, which shows his love for the Ahl al-Bayt. The Sayyida (RA) also accepted his viewpoint and was pleased with him.
(Ibn Kathir. Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah. 5/389)
After her death, Hazrat Ali publicly renewed his Bay’ah to Siddiq Akbar so that the misunderstanding of the people would be removed, and they would know that there was no displeasure among the Companions of the Messenger and that they were like one soul in many bodies. In this regard, Baladhuri has narrated this report, which clarifies the role of Hazrat Uthman (RA) in this matter.
المدائني، عن عبد الله بن جعفر، عن أبي عون:
Abu ‘Awn says: When the Arabs apostatized, Uthman went to Ali, and Ali said: “My cousin! No one has come to see me.” Uthman said: “These are the enemies (apostates), and you have not given the Bay’ah.” Uthman sat with Ali until he walked with him and came to Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr stood up upon seeing him and embraced him. After this, both these gentlemen wept, and Ali gave Bay’ah to Abu Bakr. The people then prepared for war, and the armies were dispatched.
(Baladhuri. 2/570)
(Narrations of the Bay’ah being taken by force)
The narrations of the Bay’ah being taken by force are generally found in the books of the Ahl al-Tashayyu’ (Shi’a). According to them, Hazrat Ali (RA) refused to give Bay’ah to Siddiq Akbar (RA). Upon this, Hazrat Umar (RA) attacked his house and burned the door. When Sayyida Fatimah (RA) came forward, she was knocked down, which caused her miscarriage and broke her rib. Then Hazrat Ali (RA) was compelled, and the Bay’ah was taken from him by force.
The narrations of forced Bay’ah are mostly narrated from Abu Mikhnaf Lut ibn Yahya (d. 157/774), whose prejudice against the Sahaba Karam is famous, and most of the narrations related to the character assassination of the Sahaba are transmitted from him. Apart from Abu Mikhnaf, only one such narration is found, which Baladhuri has transmitted:
المدائني، عن مسلمة بن محارب، عن سليمان التيمي، وعن ابن عون:
Abu Bakr sent a message to Ali to come and give Bay’ah. He did not give Bay’ah. Umar came to his house, and he had a torch in his hand. Fatimah came to the door of the house and said: “Ibn al-Khattab! Will you burn the door of my house?” He said: “Yes. This is a stronger way (to unify) than what your father brought.” In the meantime, Ali came and gave the Bay’ah, saying: “My only intention was not to leave the house until I had compiled the Quran.”
(Baladhuri. 2/268)
There are two problems with the chain of this narration:
Apart from this one narration, these reports are not found through any other source. Whoever fabricated this narration of the forced Bay’ah has tried to tarnish the reputation of not only Hazrat Abu Bakr and Umar but also Hazrat Ali (RA), and has attributed things to him that are not worthy of his dignity. The bravery (shuja’at) of Hazrat Ali is proverbial. Was it possible that someone would come and attack his house and disrespect the “Queen of Paradise” (Khatun-e-Jannat), and Hazrat Ali would calmly tolerate it and then also bow his head and give the Bay’ah? No honorable husband of our time would tolerate this, let alone imagining this about a great hero like Sayyiduna Ali Sher-e-Khuda (the Lion of God)? If you ponder the words of the narration, the image of Hazrat Ali (RA) that emerges is in no way worthy of his dignity.
Now it is up to every person’s own conscience. They can either believe these disconnected and false narrations and remain suspicious about the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), or they can accept the falsehood of these narrations as falsehood and keep their hearts clean regarding the Sahaba Karam. In the first case, they would also have to believe that (God forbid) the mission of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) failed, and the people who believed in him turned their backs immediately after his death and kept watching his family being oppressed. Whoever wants to think this, let them think, but then they must also provide an explanation for those thousands of narrations in which the mutual love and relationship between the Companions of the Messenger and the Ahl al-Bayt are described. These narrations of love are far more numerous than the narrations of hatred. Even an unbiased non-Muslim historian cannot ignore them and accept only the narrations of hatred. We have mentioned several of these narrations above.
One more narration is presented:
حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بِشْرٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ ، حَدَّثَنَا زَيْدُ بْنُ أَسْلَمَ ، عْن أَبِيهِ أَسْلَمَ:
Aslam al-‘Adawi narrates: “When Bay’ah was given to Abu Bakr (RA) after the Prophet (peace be upon him), Ali and Zubayr bin al-Awwam (RA) went to Sayyida Fatimah (RA) and began consulting with her. When Umar (RA) learned of this, he came to the Sayyida’s house and said: ‘O daughter of the Messenger of Allah! In our view, no one in creation is more worthy of love and devotion than your father, and after your father, no one is more worthy of devotion than you.’ Saying this, he spoke with the Sayyida. The Sayyida said to Ali and Zubayr (RA): ‘You two return and be guided (i.e., join the Muslims).’ They both returned and went and gave (Abu Bakr’s) Bay’ah.”
(Ibn Abi Shaybah. Al-Musannaf. Vol. 21. Hadith 38200. www.almeshkat.net (ac. 23 Feb 2008))
From the perspective of dirayah (rationality) as well, this accusation against Hazrat Umar and Ali (RA) is false.
It is known from countless narrations that during the era of the first three Rashidun Caliphs, Hazrat Ali stayed with them, assisted them in the affairs of the state, and adopted an attitude of goodwill towards them. After the death of Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Ali married his widow, Asma bint Umays. They had a son from Hazrat Abu Bakr named Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr. Hazrat Ali raised him like his own sons. If the Bay’ah had been taken from him through oppression and violence, could he have done all this? If it is said that he did this as Taqiyyah (dissimulation), this would be a slander (God forbid) against Hazrat Ali, that he strove wholeheartedly for something he did not believe in his heart.
When Hazrat Umar (RA) himself went to Syria for the conquest of Jerusalem, he appointed Hazrat Ali (RA) as the acting Caliph behind him, which is a sign of blind trust in him. If Hazrat Ali (RA) had wanted, he could have taken advantage of this opportunity to seize power, but he did not do so. According to a narration in Nahj al-Balaghah, when Hazrat Umar wanted to go himself to conquer Persia, Hazrat Ali himself stopped him. Hazrat Ali named his sons Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman,
(Mus’ab al-Zubayri (156-236 H / 773-851 CE). Nasab Quraysh. Bab Walad Ali bin Abi Talib. 42, 43. www.waqfeya.com (ac. 14 Aug 2012))
which is a sign of his love for these three Caliphs, and two of these sons, Abu Bakr and Uthman, were martyred in the tragedy of Karbala.
(Ibn Hazm. Jamharat al-Ansab. 38. Cairo: Dar al-Ma’arif)
If Hazrat Ali and Sayyida Fatimah (RA) had been subjected to oppression and violence, was it possible that he would have treated the first Caliphs with such sincerity and love?
This question also arises: Was the matter of the caliphate so important that an attempt was made to settle it even before the burial of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)?
Those who are familiar with political affairs are not unaware that keeping the nation united and not giving the slightest opportunity for turmoil and corruption (fitna wa fasad) is a matter that is more important than all other matters. If a government does not remain for even one day, there is a danger of turmoil and corruption spreading in the country, as a result of which the lives, property, and honor of the people are endangered. This is why in our era, it has been decided in the constitution that if the head of state dies, the speaker of the National Assembly or the chairman of the Senate will become the acting president.
The requirement of love for the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was precisely this: that his Ummah (community) be saved from division and disunity.
And the wisdom in delaying the burial was also that the maximum number of people could be present and have a final glimpse of him.
All the people of Banu Umayyah and Banu Hashim accepted the caliphate of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) with all their heart and soul. Among the Banu Umayyah, Hazrat Uthman, and among the Banu Hashim, Hazrat Ali (RA) were prominent personalities, and we have detailed above that they accepted the caliphate of Hazrat Abu Bakr with all their heart and soul. Some narrations have been reported according to which two individuals from Banu Umayyah, Hazrat Abu Sufyan and Hazrat Khalid ibn Sa’id, and one individual from Banu Hashim, Hazrat Abbas (RA), did not accept the caliphate of Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) wholeheartedly and conspired against him. It would be appropriate for us to examine these narrations.
First Narration:
حدثني محمد بن عثمان بن صفوان الثقفي ، قال : حدثنا أبو قتيبة ، قال : حدثنا مالك – يعني ابن مغول – عن ابن الحر:
Ibn al-Hurr says that Abu Sufyan said to Ali (RA): “What is this, that the government has gone to the smallest family of Quraysh? By Allah! If you wish, I can bring an army full of horses and men and snatch the government from Abu Bakr.” Ali said: “Abu Sufyan! You have always been an enemy of Islam and Muslims, but Islam has not suffered any harm from your enmity. We have pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr, considering him worthy of the government.”
(Baladhuri stated the chain of this incident as: حدثني محمد بن سعد، عن الواقدي، عن يزيد بن عياض، عن ابن جعدبة، عن محمد بن المنكدر.
Another chain is: المدائني، عن الربيع بن صبيح، عمن حدثه، عن الحسين، عن أبيه.)
Second Narration:
حدثني محمد بن عثمان التقفي ، قال : حدثنا أمية بن خالد ، قال : حدثنا حماد بن سلمة ، عن ثابت:
When Abu Bakr became Caliph, Abu Sufyan said: “What do we have to do with him? This (government) is the right of the Banu Abd Manaf.” Someone said to him: “But Abu Bakr has also made your son (Yazid) a governor.” He said: “Yes, in this matter, he has upheld the ties of kinship (silah rehmi).”
Third Narration:
حدثت عن هشام ، قال : حدثني عوانة:
When all the people were ready for the Bay’ah of Abu Bakr, Abu Sufyan came to them and said: “I am sure that this action will cause chaos and bloodshed. O family of Abd Manaf! What right does Abu Bakr have to interfere in your affairs? Where are those two weak ones? Where are Ali and Abbas? Abu al-Hasan (Ali!) open your hand, I will pledge allegiance to you.” But Ali did not accept his offer. Abu Sufyan then recited these verses of Mutalammis: “None bear injustice except two weak things: the donkey of the family and the peg of the tent. When the peg is struck, its head sinks. When the donkey is loaded, it groans, but no one has mercy on it.” Ali reprimanded Abu Sufyan and said: “Your intention with this proposal is nothing but to create turmoil and corruption. You have always tried to harm Islam. We do not need your advice.”
(Tarikh Tabari. 2/1-411)
(Tabari stated the second chain as: قال هشام بن محمد : وأخبرني أبو محمد القرشي: .)
If you look at the names in the chain, these narrations are reported by people who are famous for being prejudiced and narrating falsehoods:
All four of these narrators are unreliable. From a dirayah (rational) perspective, there are several problems with this narration:
Regarding the esteemed companion Hazrat Khalid ibn Sa’id ibn al-Aas al-Umawi (RA), who is counted among the Sabiqoon al-Awwaloon, Baladhuri has transmitted this narration that he said to Hazrat Uthman and Ali (RA): “You two are the symbols (of your respective clans), not the common people. Would you like this government to go outside the Banu Abd Manaf?” Upon this, Hazrat Ali (RA) said: “This is Allah’s matter; He grants it to whomever He wills.” It is possible that this was Hazrat Khalid’s opinion, but he had given the Bay’ah to Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA).
Among the Banu Hashim, such narrations have been reported about Hazrat Abbas (RA) according to which he advised Hazrat Ali (RA) not to give the Bay’ah. The narration is:
حدثني عباس بن هشام، عن أبيه، عن جده، عن أبي صالح عن جابر بن عبد الله:
Abbas said to Ali: “What has forced you to stay behind?” When the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) passed away, Abbas used to say to Ali: “Come out so that I may pledge allegiance to you in front of everyone. No one will dispute this matter.” Hazrat Ali refused and said: “Is there anyone who denies our right and will overcome us?” Abbas said: “Soon you will see this.” When the Bay’ah of Abu Bakr took place, Abbas said to Ali: “Ali! What did I tell you?”
(Baladhuri 2/64)
If you look at the chain of the narration, Abbas son of Hisham Kalbi is seen narrating from his father and his grandfather. Meaning, the narration is running through three generations of one family, and we have already stated about this entire family that they held severe hatred in their hearts for the Sahaba Karam.
From the chain (sanad) of all these narrations, it is clear that the originators of all the narrations reported regarding the disagreement over the caliphate of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) are the same ones who bore hatred for the Sahaba Karam. These narrations have no reality and were fabricated merely as propaganda to defame specific personages.
We know from the earliest history of the Rashidun Caliphate that during the last days of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), Musaylimah in Najd and Aswad al-Ansi in Yemen had claimed prophethood. After that, several other people claimed prophethood, and many followers gathered around them. Some people refused to pay Zakat. Under the leadership of Hazrat Siddiq Akbar (RA), the Muslims fought all these apostates, and after a year of war, all of them were brought under control. Generally, since historical accounts merely state these events and do not discuss their sociological causes, this question remains in the minds of many students: what suddenly happened that many tribes of Arabia rebelled in this way? It would be appropriate for us to detail these reasons.
To understand this detail, we need to understand the structure of the Arab tribal system and their mutual politics. As we know, in that era, the identity of a nation or tribe was established by a great personality.
Two types of tribes were settled in the Arabian Peninsula. One was the Himyarite tribes of Yemen, and the other was the Hejazi tribes who were among the descendants of Hazrat Ismail (peace be upon him). In the era of ignorance (Jahiliyyah), a struggle persisted between them. The Himyarites had, at one time, laid the foundation of a great civilization in Yemen. In the fourth and fifth centuries CE, their famous “Ma’rib Dam,” broke, and the Himyarite civilization declined. On the other hand, the Hejazi tribes gained strength. We know this about human psychology that a state of animosity always persists in the hearts of the subjugated against those who gain dominance.
On the other hand, among the descendants of Hazrat Ismail (peace be upon him), the person whose lineage spread rapidly was named Adnan. The descendants of Adnan were divided into multiple tribes, among which the Rabi’ah and Mudar tribes gained extraordinary power, and consequently, a struggle for dominance over each other began between them. The Mudar tribes were more powerful, and one of their branches was the “Quraysh,” in which the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was sent, as a result of which the status of Quraysh was further elevated. … The result was that animosity and jealousy arose against them on the one hand from the Rabi’ah tribes (who were mostly settled in Najd), and on the other hand from the Himyarite tribes (who were settled in Yemen). It was not that this animosity existed in all the people of these tribes… but there was a class that had accepted obedience merely by seeing the outward pomp and show of Islam, but Islam had not yet fully entered their hearts.
In every nation, there are some adventure-seeking people who take big risks for big gains. … Some such adventure-seeking people planned to use the animosity present in the Himyarite and Rabi’ah tribes, and thus the Himyarites found a national leader in the form of Aswad al-Ansi, and the Rabi’ah tribes in the form of Musaylimah. Seeing them, other claimants of prophethood also emerged.
Such was the state of tribal prejudice that… a follower of Musaylimah’s response was: “I would prefer to side with a false prophet from the Rabi’ah tribes over a true prophet from the Mudar tribes.” However, it was not that a very large part of the Arabs had become followers of these false prophets. … This is why when Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) took action against them, peace was established in all of Arabia in just one year, and these false prophets became mere historical stories.
This question may arise in the mind of a modern reader: Why were Rome and Persia attacked during the era of Siddiq Akbar (RA)? Was this not interference in the freedom of other nations? For the answer to this question, we will have to examine two things. One is a special law of Allah Ta’ala regarding the Messengers, and the other is the principles of global politics of that time.
What is the special law of Allah Ta’ala regarding the Messengers?
It is the practice (qa’idah) of Allah Ta’ala that He has repeatedly chosen a nation on this earth and sent His Messenger to it. … After a specific time, the punishment of Allah Ta’ala came upon the deniers of this Messenger, and they were annihilated. On the other hand, the followers of the Messenger were given governance of that region…
Twice in the known history of humanity, it has happened that such a large number of people believed in the Messenger that the task of implementing this reward and punishment was taken from their own hands. These were Hazrat Musa and Muhammad (peace be upon them).
Exactly the same thing happened at the hands of the companions of Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). … When all the tribes of Arabia united and attacked Madinah… he predicted at that very time that soon the treasures of the earth would come into the hands of the Muslims. (Bukhari. Hadith 3595). … This matter was the completion of the argument (itmaam-e-hujjat) for the kings of Rome and Persia, and it became clear to them that Muhammad was the true Messenger of Allah. Even after this, when they disobeyed, the punishment of Allah was implemented upon them through the swords of the companions… and this prediction of the Holy Quran was fulfilled:
قَاتِلُوهُمْ يُعَذِّبْهُمْ اللَّهُ بِأَيْدِيكُمْ وَيُخْزِهِمْ وَيَنْصُرْكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ وَيَشْفِ صُدُورَ قَوْمٍ مُؤْمِنِينَ.
Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people. (At-Tawbah 9:14)
A companion, Hazrat Rib’i ibn ‘Amir (RA), stated the purpose of their campaign in the court of the Persian commander Rustam: “We have come to liberate humans from the slavery of humans and bring them into the servitude of Allah.” (Tabari. 14H /2/2-287)
After reading this detail, someone might say that a Muslim… can be satisfied by this, but how can a non-Muslim… be satisfied? For non-Muslims, too, there is proof in this of the truth of the prophethood of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). If he were not the true Prophet and Messenger of Allah, he and his companions would never have achieved dominance in the world. … The fact that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) made predictions and achieved dominance over the superpowers of his time is proof of the truth of his prophethood.
The second point is that the actions taken by him and his companions were exactly in accordance with the established international law of their time. The military action was initiated by Rome and Persia. The Muslims neither violated any international law in this nor transgressed any moral code. The details are as follows.
What was the international law of the seventh century?
What to say of the seventh century, even before 1945, the principle of global politics was “might is right.” … In ancient times, no global treaty existed. … The general principle was that whichever government had power, it could launch military expeditions against other countries. …
Rome and Persia had established vassal states between themselves and the Arabs… Between Rome and Arabia was the Christian “Ghassanid” kingdom… Similarly, between Persia and Arabia was the “Lakhmid” kingdom of Hira.
When all of Arabia united under one center… alarm bells rang in the corridors of Rome and Persia. … They took the initiative in action against the Muslims. The King of Persia, Khosrow Parviz (r. 590-628/6H), … ordered the governor of Yemen, Badhan (d. 10/632), to take military action and (God forbid) arrest the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and send him to Persia. In this way, he declared war against him. … Thus, Yemen, which was a colony of the Persians, separated from the Persian Empire. (Tabari. 7H/2/1-272)
In the time of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA), the government of Persia took action against those who became Muslims… and forced them to apostatize. Along with this, they attacked the Arab tribes living in the Muslim territory. … Hazrat Muthanna ibn Haritha (RA) (d. 14/635), came to Madinah and convinced Hazrat Abu Bakr (RA) to do something for their protection. He sent an army under the leadership of Hazrat Khalid ibn al-Walid (RA) to confront Persia.
On the other hand, Rome also initiated action.
When the ambassador of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), Hazrat Shuja ibn Wahb al-Asadi (RA), reached the ruler of the Ghassanid kingdom, he had him killed. Under international law, the killing of an ambassador was a very big crime and, in a way, a declaration of war. … A battle took place between them at the Battle of Mu’tah…
It is known from a narration in Sahih Bukhari that upon receiving the blessed letter… the Caesar of Rome… became convinced that the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was the true Prophet of Allah. … he said this historic sentence: “If I had the means, I would go to him. Write this down, that the land that is currently under my feet will definitely come under their control.” (Sahih Bukhari. Hadith No. 7)
However, Caesar’s companions forced him to fight the Muslims, and he met with failure in this war.
From this detail, it is known that the military action was initiated by Persia and Rome. Then the Muslims counter-attacked… At this point, Hazrat Umar (RA) expressed this desire: “I wish there was a river of fire between us and them.” This shows that at this point, he wanted to stop this series of wars, but Rome and Persia continued their actions. …
During these wars, the Sahaba Karam only took action against the government and its armed forces. They did not target any ordinary citizen. Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) had issued this directive on this occasion:
“Beware! Do not spread corruption in the land, nor disobey commands. Do not cut down palm trees, nor burn them. Do not kill livestock, nor cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not demolish any place of worship, and do not kill the elderly, children, or women. You will find many people who have confined themselves in monasteries and have no connection with the world. Leave them to their state.”
(Sunan Bayhaqi, Sunan al-Kubra, 18125)
After the companions of Hazrat Musa, Dawud, and Sulayman (peace be upon them), the companions of Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), were the first group to succeed in bringing war into the fold of morality. They ended the restrictions imposed on ordinary citizens. They granted them complete religious freedom. The invitation to Islam was presented to them, but no restriction was placed on anyone, under the principle of “لا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ” (There is no compulsion in religion). Later Muslims maintained this, and the non-Muslims of Persia, Afghanistan, and then India were given complete freedom. The Christian populations in the Muslim-conquered territories of Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq, and the Hindu majority in India, are living proof that they were given complete religious freedom and there was no interference in their affairs. If any over-zealous ruler tried to do so, the Muslim scholars (Ulama) themselves stepped forward to protect these non-Muslims.
This detail shows that the Sahaba Karam (RA) did not snatch any nation’s freedom; rather, they liberated people from the slavery of Caesar and Kisra (the rulers of Rome and Persia). In this way, an opportunity was created for truth-seekers worldwide that if they wanted religious freedom according to their conscience, they could move to this region. This is why many Jews from Europe and such Christians who disagreed with the Church kept coming and settling in Muslim areas and living their lives with freedom.
The last question that arises regarding the era of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) is that he nominated Hazrat Umar (RA) as his successor before his death. By doing this, did he not violate the established Quranic principle of Shura (consultation)?
To get the answer to this question, we will have to consider the situation at the time of his death. There had been no change in two years to the situation that existed at the time of the Messenger of Allah’s (peace be upon him) passing. It was the same Arab tribes who had accepted the Quraysh tribe as their head. They had no objection to another Qurayshi becoming the Caliph upon the death of a Qurayshi Caliph. This was a situation exactly like when the president or prime minister of a ruling party dies during their term of government, elections are not held; rather, another person from the same party is made the president or prime minister. The authority of the Quraysh had not yet ended; rather, the Arab tribes still considered them their leaders.
In these circumstances, when Siddiq Akbar fell ill, it was not the case that he made Hazrat Umar (RA) the Caliph by his own will and imposed him on everyone. Instead, he deemed it appropriate that the consultation for the selection of the Caliph, which was to take place after his death, should happen before his death. Thus, according to the narrations in Tabari, Ansab al-Ashraf, Tabaqat, and other books of history, he called each companion one by one and consulted with them. Everyone had complete freedom to express their opinion. When some companions expressed their reservations about Hazrat Umar, Hazrat Abu Bakr convinced them with arguments. When everyone agreed, he had the will written and confirmed the selection of Hazrat Umar (RA). This shows that the selection of Hazrat Umar (RA) was not by nomination but by Shura. The only difference was that this consultation was completed before the death of Siddiq Akbar, not after it. The narrations are as follows:
At the time of his death, Abu Bakr called Abdur Rahman bin Awf and asked him: “Tell me, what is your opinion about Umar?” He said: “O Caliph of the Messenger! He is even better than what your opinion is about him, compared to other people, but there is severity in his temperament.” Abu Bakr said: “This severity was because I was lenient. When the government itself is handed over to him, he will abandon most of such things. O Abu Muhammad (Abdur Rahman!), I have seen him closely that when I was angry with someone about some matter, Umar would advise me to be pleased with him, and when I was lenient with someone, he would advise me to be firm with him. Abu Muhammad! Do not mention these things I have said to you, to others.” Abdur Rahman said: “Very well.”
After this, Abu Bakr called Uthman bin Affan and said to him: “Abu Abdullah! Tell me, how is Umar?” He said: “You know him the best.” Abu Bakr said: “Yes, O Abu Abdullah! The responsibility for this rests on me.” Then Uthman said: “By Allah! I consider Umar’s inner self (batin) to be better than his outer self (zahir); there is no other person like him among us.” …
It is narrated from Abu al-Safar that Abu Bakr looked out (into the mosque) from his house. (His wife) Asma bint Umays, whose hands had henna on them, was holding him. He said: “O people! Do you approve of the person I am appointing as Caliph over you? Because I have spared no effort in considering this matter. I have not selected any of my relatives; rather, I have made Umar bin al-Khattab your Caliph. So listen to his command and obey him.” Upon hearing this, everyone said: “We accept with all our heart and soul that we will obey him.”
(May Allah be pleased with them all).
(Tarikh al-Tabari. The account of Hazrat Abu Bakr’s death. 13H/2/2-204)
(And Allah Ta’ala knows best what is correct.)
Reference: https://alfurqan.info/problems/391
A logical and theological refutation of Javed Akhtar’s atheistic objection regarding the existence of God and worldly suffering. This piece… Read More
Zina is a debt”, “Remain chaste so your women stay chaste”, “Whoever commits zina, zina will be committed with him”… Read More
Is it allowed for fathers to give all property to sons and deprive daughters? Complete Islamic ruling with Quran (4:7,… Read More
Can you kill a snake, carry a child, clear throat, or silence phone during Salah? Complete list of 20 actions… Read More
Can men & women pray following the Imam from a roof, basement, or adjacent house if they only hear his… Read More
Husband tells wife not to observe hijab/niqab in front of non-mahrams. Is obedience compulsory? Complete ruling on obeying husband, parents… Read More