Umar bin al-Khattab, le deuxième Khalifa des musulmans Dans les temps d'ignorance, Umar a gagné sa vie comme un courtier. Shibli, son biographe, dit que dans sa jeunesse il a foulé des chameaux. Avant d'accepter l'Islam, Umar était l'un des ennemis les plus enragés de Muhammad, le Messager de Dieu. Lorsque Muhammad a proclamé sa mission, beaucoup de gens l'ont reconnu comme le Messager de Dieu. Umar l'a reconnu comme Messager de Dieu après six ans. Certains historiens affirment qu'Omar était un homme très inspirant, et quand il a accepté l'Islam, les idolâtres ont été saisis par la peur pour leur vie. Mais ce n'est qu'un cas où un mythe dominant est en conflit avec des faits laids. Quand Umar a accepté l'Islam, les idolâtres sont restés là où ils étaient, et rien n'a changé pour eux, mais c'est Mohammed qui a été contraint de quitter sa maison, et a dû trouver un sanctuaire dans un ravin désolé. Il a passé trois ans dans ce ravin, et pendant ces années d'exil, sa vie a été exposée à des périls mortels chaque jour et chaque nuit. Pendant toute cette période de plus de 1000 jours, Umar, comme beaucoup d'autres musulmans à Makkah, était le spectateur silencieux des épreuves de son maître. Il ne fit aucune tentative pour mettre un terme à ces épreuves. Muhammad Mustafa a établi la fraternité entre les musulmans à la fois à La Mecque et à Médine. À la Mecque, il a fait d'Omar le frère d'Abou Bakr, et à Médine, il l'a fait frère d'Utban bin Malik. Pour son propre frère, Muhammad a choisi Ali ibn Abi Talib dans les deux villes. La fille de Umars, Hafsa, était mariée à l'Apôtre. Umar était un des fugitifs de la bataille d'Uhud (Baladhuri). Lui-même a dit plus tard: Quand les musulmans ont été vaincus dans Uhud, j'ai couru vers la montagne. (Suyuti dans al-Durr al-Manthoor). Au siège de Khyber, Umar a tenté de capturer la forteresse mais a échoué. Umar était un des fugitifs de la bataille de Hunayn. Abu Qatada, un compagnon du Prophète, dit: "A Hunayn quand les Musulmans fuyaient, je me suis enfui, et j'ai vu Umar avec d'autres. (Bukhari et Kitabul-Maghazi). En 8 A. H. l'apôtre a envoyé Umar comme un rang avec beaucoup d'autres pour se rapporter au devoir à Amr bin Aas, leur commandant, dans la campagne de Dhat es-Salasil. L'apôtre de Dieu a organisé l'expédition syrienne et il a nommé Usama bin Zayd bin Haritha comme son général. Il ordonna à Umar de servir de chef de file dans l'expédition. Bien qu'Umar ait passé dix-huit ans en compagnie de Muhammad Mustafa, le Messager de Dieu, ce dernier ne l'a jamais nommé à aucune position d'autorité civile ou militaire. Lorsque l'apôtre de Dieu était sur son lit de mort, il demanda aux compagnons d'apporter plume, papier et encre afin qu'il puisse dicter sa volonté, mais Omar le défia. Il ne laissait pas l'Apôtre dicter sa volonté et son testament. Umar n'était pas présent aux funérailles du Prophète de l'Islam. Il se bagarrait avec l'Ansar dans la dépendance de Saqifa lorsque le corps du Prophète serait enterré. Umar était le khalifa-fabricant d'Abou Bakr. Durant le khilafat d'Abou Bakrs, Umar était son principal conseiller. Les Banu Umayya étaient les champions traditionnels de l'idolâtrie et les archi-ennemis de Muhammad et de son clan, les Banu Hashim. Muhammad avait brisé leur pouvoir, mais Umar les a ranimés. La composante centrale de sa politique, en tant que chef du gouvernement de Saqifa, était la restauration des Omeyyades. Il leur livra la Syrie comme leur fief, et il en fit la première famille dans l'empire. Un étudiant moderne de l'histoire pourrait trouver des allégations faites au nom de certains compagnons du Prophète plutôt extravagant et déroutant. Il pourrait remarquer en eux le choc de l'imagination populaire avec la réalité historique. Mais s'il veut faire une évaluation réaliste des rôles qu'ils ont joués dans la vie du Prophète, il n'y a pas de meilleur moyen de le faire que de se détourner de la rhapsodie et de la rhétorique et de concentrer l'attention sur les faits et les faits seuls. Quand Umar a pris la charge du califat, les armées musulmanes se battaient contre les Perses en Irak et les Romains en Syrie. L'armée en Syrie était sous le commandement de Khalid bin al-Walid, le général favori d'Abou Bakr. Umars premier acte comme khalifa était de le renvoyer de tous ses commandements, et de nommer Abu Obaida bin al-Jarrah en tant que commandant suprême des forces musulmanes en Syrie. Shibli dit qu'Umar avait, pendant longtemps, nourri une haine secrète de Khalid à cause des excès de ces dernières. Umar avait en effet renvoyé Khalid à cause de ses excès, mais il semble que la rancœur personnelle était également au travail. Il était jaloux de la renommée et de la popularité de Khalids. S'il n'aimait pas les transgressions de Khalid, il aurait dû l'inculper formellement et aurait dû ordonner une enquête complète sur ses crimes en assassinant Malik ibn Nuweira et en s'emparant de sa veuve. Si Khalid avait été prouvé coupable, alors Umar aurait dû lui infliger une sentence selon la loi islamique. Mais il n'y avait pas d'acte d'accusation ni d'enquête. Khalid a été sommairement congédié et il est mort dans la pauvreté et l'obscurité dans 21 A. H. Le califat d'Umars est remarquable pour ses nombreuses conquêtes. Ses généraux ont conquis l'Irak, l'Iran, l'Azerbaïdjan, le Kirman, le Seistan, le Khurasan, la Syrie, la Jordanie, la Palestine et l'Egypte, et les ont incorporés dans l'empire des musulmans. Toutes ces conquêtes étaient permanentes. Les Romains ont perdu la Syrie, la Palestine et l'Egypte pour toujours et en Perse, l'empire Sassani a cessé d'exister. Parmi d'autres événements du califat d'Umar, se trouvaient la première flambée de peste en Syrie en 18 A. H. et une famine à Hijaz dans la même année. Entre eux, la peste et la famine ont tué plus de 25 000 personnes (Suyuti et Abul Fida). Depuis l'empire a grandi énormément dans toutes les directions, Umar a dû établir un système administratif. Mais les Arabes n'avaient aucune expérience de l'administration. Umar, par conséquent, a laissé tranquille le cadre de l'administration perse et romaine dans les provinces conquises. Le personnel perse et romain continuait le travail quotidien comme auparavant. Umar a fondé de nombreux cantonnements militaires en Irak, en Syrie et en Egypte. Comme il voulait que les Arabes soient une classe purement combattante et dirigeante, il ne leur permettait pas d'acheter des terres et de s'installer ou de devenir agriculteurs dans les territoires conquis. Pour évaluer les recettes foncières, Umar devait à nouveau retenir les systèmes persan et romain. Mais en Irak, il a été jugé nécessaire d'inspecter les terres arables et d'en évaluer l'impôt. Les Arabes savaient moins que rien sur l'évaluation des recettes foncières. Il y avait cependant une exception dans Uthman bin Hunaif de Medina. Il était un homme d'une capacité exceptionnelle en tant qu'expert de revenu. Bien qu'il s'agisse de la politique d'Umars de ne pas nommer les citoyens de Medina (Ansar) à des postes importants, il n'a pas eu le choix, et il a nommé Uthman bin Hunaif comme commissaire du développement foncier en Irak. Qadi Yusuf dit qu'Uthman bin Hunaif était une autorité dans toute l'Arabie sur la taxation, l'évaluation des recettes foncières et la récupération des terres (Kitabul-Kharaj et Siyar-ul-Ansar). En moins d'un an, Uthman bin Hunaif avait terminé le travail de prise de mesures de toute la nouvelle province et de faire des évaluations pour la collecte des recettes foncières. Il était donc le premier commissaire aux finances de l'Irak et, accessoirement, l'un des rares Ansaris à occuper une quelconque position d'autorité dans les califats d'Abou Bakr, Umar et Uthman bin Affan. Lorsque la Syrie, la Jordanie et la Palestine ont été conquis, Umar a nommé Yazid bin Abu Sufyan le gouverneur de Syrie Shurahbil bin Hasana gouverneur de la Jordanie et Amr bin Aas le gouverneur de la Palestine. Abu Obaida bin al-Jarrah a été nommé gouverneur de la ville de Damas. Lorsque Amr bin Aas a conquis l'Egypte, Umar en a fait son gouverneur. Yazid bin Abu Sufyan, le gouverneur de Syrie, est mort dans la peste de 18 A. H. Quand Umar a entendu la nouvelle de sa mort, il est allé voir Abu Sufyan pour lui offrir des condoléances. Mais Abu Sufyan a interrompu la commisération d'Umar et lui a demandé: Qui allez-vous nommer gouverneur de la Syrie à la place de mon fils défunt, Yazid Umar a dit: Bien sûr, son frère, Muawiya. Abu Sufyan a immédiatement oublié sa douleur à la mort de ses fils, et s'est réjoui dans l'élévation de Muawiya, son deuxième fils, en tant que gouverneur. Umar a nommé Muawiya le nouveau gouverneur de la Syrie. Quand Abu Obaida est mort, Umar a placé Damas également sous la juridiction de Muawiyas. Il fixe son salaire à 60 000 pièces d'or par an (Istiab, tome I). Après avoir renvoyé Khalid bin al-Walid en tant que commandant suprême des forces en Syrie, Umar l'avait nommé pour un temps, gouverneur du district de Kinnisirin, mais l'a renvoyé pour sa prétendue pomposité. Saad bin Abi Waqqas, vainqueur de la bataille de Qadsiyya contre les Perses, était le gouverneur d'Omars d'Irak. Il a également été renvoyé en 21 A. H. Amr bin Aas était le gouverneur d'Omars en Egypte. Umar ne l'a pas renvoyé mais a réduit ses pouvoirs en nommant Abdullah bin Saad bin Abi Sarah comme un chien de garde sur lui en matière fiscale. Umar était le plus exigeant maître pour tous ses généraux et ses gouverneurs. Il s'empressa de prêter l'oreille à toute plainte contre eux, et il était encore plus rapide de les renvoyer à une exception près. Muawiya Il était toujours indulgent aux fils d'Abu Sufyan et le clan de Banu Umayya. Muawiya, le fils d'Abu Sufyan et Hinda, le gouverneur de Syrie, a vécu à Damas dans la splendeur impériale, entouré par une suite scintillante. C'était un mode de vie que Umar ne tolère pas dans aucun autre gouverneur. Mais Muawiya, pour lui, était un spécial, et les règles qui s'appliquaient à d'autres, ne s'appliquaient pas à lui. Tabari a enregistré l'incident suivant dans le Volume VI de son Histoire. Umar était à Damas et Muawiya venait le voir tous les matins matin et soir dans une tenue royale, avec des montures et des escortes magnifiquement caparisées. Quand Umar a commenté, plutôt acidément, sur sa pagaille, il a dit que la Syrie grouillait avec des espions romains, et il était nécessaire de les impressionner avec la gloire de l'Islam. Sa splendeur, at-il dit, n'était que l'emblème extérieur de cette gloire - la gloire de l'Islam. Mais Umar n'était pas convaincu, et remarqua: C'est un piège posé par l'homme lisse et guileful. Muawiya répondit: «Je ferai tout ce que vous dites, commandant des croyants. Umar a dit: Si je soulève une objection à quelque chose, vous me déconcertez et m'ont confondu avec des mots. Je ne sais pas quoi faire. Ici Umar peut être vu totalement impuissant devant son propre protg. Il pouvait tolérer Muawiya n'importe quoi et tout. En fait, il semblait être ostensiblement courtiser Abu Sufyan et ses fils. Une fois qu'il les a placés à la barre des affaires, ils ont consolidé leur position, et il est devenu impossible de les déloger. C'est ainsi que les Omeyyades profanes, prédateurs, impérialistes et économiquement exploitants furent imposés aux musulmans. La culture des Omeyyades, paraît-il, était l'une des constantes de l'équation politique de Saqifas. Les généraux d'Omar avaient conquis la Perse, la Syrie et l'Egypte. Ses successeurs de la dynastie omeyyade ont poussé ces conquêtes vers le sud de la France à l'ouest et les frontières occidentales de la Chine et de la vallée de l'Indus à l'est. Les étudiants de l'histoire ont exprimé leur étonnement devant la vitesse et l'ampleur des conquêtes des Arabes au cours des XVIIe siècles. Ils ont réalisé toutes ces conquêtes en 100 ans, véritablement l'une des séries de conquêtes les plus remarquables de l'histoire du monde. Beaucoup de siècles plus tard, la recherche se poursuit pour la réponse à la question: Comment les Arabes ont-ils vaincu si tôt? Les historiens ont beaucoup de raisons pour le succès des armes arabes, parmi eux: la guerre civile et l'anarchie en Perse Guerre entre la Perse et Rome qui a duré 26 ans et qui a laissé les deux empires complètement épuisés, saignant et prosterné le mécontentement des sujets romains en Syrie et en Egypte qui a accueilli les Arabes comme des libérateurs et la perte à Rome du parapluie du soutien local La dépendance des Perses et des Romains à l'égard des mercenaires et des conscrits qui manquaient de persécution morale sur la religion des sectes dissidentes et des croyances des Persans et des Romains et du fardeau énorme des impôts que les races étrangères régnaient sur la Perse et Rome, Les paysans dans les deux empires, devait porter. En outre, les Persans et les Romains ont été handicapés par des bagages lourds, et ils manquaient de mobilité. Les Arabes, d'autre part, étaient très mobiles. Ils pourraient frapper à une cible de leur choix, puis se retirer dans le désert sur leurs chameaux rapides où la cavalerie ennemie ne pouvait pas entrer car il n'avait pas de soutien logistique. Dans leurs campagnes, les Arabes étaient invariablement surpassés par leurs ennemis, mais ce n'était pas nécessairement un handicap pour eux. L'histoire abonde en exemples de petites forces de volontaires debout et en battant de grandes armées de conscrits. Mais les musulmans eux-mêmes, la plupart de ces raisons pour leur succès. Selon beaucoup d'entre eux, le secret de leur succès était la piété et le zèle religieux des soldats musulmans. Le pouvoir propulsif derrière les conquêtes arabes du septième siècle, disent-ils, est venu de l'islam, et tous les Arabes qui ont quitté la péninsule pour attaquer le croissant fertile, était un mujahid ou un guerrier saint, luttant pour la gloire de Dieu. Cette affirmation, cependant, n'est que partiellement vraie. Sans aucun doute, il y avait des musulmans qui voulaient répandre la lumière de l'Islam dans le monde, mais il y en avait d'autres, et ils étaient l'écrasante majorité, qui se battaient pour les récompenses matérielles que les conquêtes promettaient de leur apporter. Ils avaient développé un appétit séculier pour le pouvoir et la richesse. Les incitations prédominantes qui chassaient les Bédouins hors de la péninsule étaient la faim corporelle et la cupidité, les conséquences naturelles des circonstances difficiles là et des possibilités infinies d'enrichissement offertes par les sociétés cultivées qu'ils ont envahi. Ainsi, bien qu'il y ait sans doute aussi des hommes qui ont tué pour l'au-delà, les masses d'hommes de tribus ont sûrement tué pour la convoitise terrestre. Les aspects d'autrefois de la prédication de Mahomet étaient complètement éclipsés pendant les conquêtes par le butin incroyable qui pouvait être gagné: ainsi un notable Qurayshite, considéré comme si pieux qu'il était l'un des dix hommes à qui Mohammed pouvait donner sa parole personnelle pendant leur vie Qu'ils allaient au paradis en raison de leur zèle pour l'islam, laissé derrière un domaine dont la valeur nette semble avoir été entre 35 et 52 millions de dirhems il avait onze maisons à Medina seul, ainsi que d'autres à Basra, Kufa, Fustat et Alexandrie . Un autre de ces dix hommes pieux personnellement promis le paradis par Mohammed possédait des biens immobiliers au montant de 30 millions de dirhems à sa mort son intendant avait plus de deux millions de dirhems en espèces. Une fois que ce processus est vu en perspective, il devient clair combien remarquablement obtuse est la conception ancienne et traditionnelle de l'expansion arabe comme étant un mouvement piétiste suscité par le zèle religieux personnel de Mahomet. Il semble y avoir aucun doute que la dernière chose que les Arabes musulmans pensaient était de convertir n'importe qui. Plus particulièrement, le piétisme qui allait devenir la marque distinctive de l'Islam postérieur, du moins dans certaines de ses manifestations, était totalement étranger aux premiers conquérants arabes. Il a été souligné que la force motrice derrière les conquêtes arabes musulmanes n'était pas religieuse dans le moins, mais une impulsion migratoire enracinée dans l'état millénaire de la péninsule arabique. Les hommes comme Khalid et Amr (bin Aas), par exemple, n'étaient évidemment pas pietistes ou mystiques, leurs intérêts étaient tout à fait pratiques. Le passage de l'aristocratie de la Mecque aux côtés des musulmans est une illustration révélatrice de l'injection rapide et irrésistible d'éléments purement laïques dans les premières entreprises de la Umma, qui, bien que formulée sur la base de la religion, a été articulée sur la base de politique. (La formation des Arabes, New York, 1967) Il est vrai que la religion a été le facteur qui a poussé les musulmans hors de l'Arabie, mais une fois qu'elle l'a fait, elle n'a joué aucun rôle significatif dans les conquêtes qui ont suivi. Son rôle a été catalytique dans l'éruption des Arabes. Si la religion et la piété étaient la cause du succès des musulmans dans leurs campagnes, alors comment expliquer le succès des nations qui n'étaient pas musulmanes Certaines de ces nations étaient les ennemis de l'islam mais elles ont été, à un moment donné, triomphantes Une échelle qui correspondait, et parfois dépassait, aux conquêtes des musulmans. Les conquêtes des Arabes étaient étonnantes dans leur immensité, mais elles n'étaient nullement uniques. Près de mille ans avant la montée de l'Islam, Alexandre le Grand, jeune Macédonien, a conquis, en dix ans, toutes les terres de la péninsule balkanique aux frontières de la Chine et de la Libye au Punjab en Inde. Il était polythéiste. Partout où il allait, il adorait les dieux locaux. Il a adoré Zeus en Grèce, Ammon-Re en Libye Marduk à Babylone et Ahura à Persépolis. Ses conquêtes n'étaient inspirées par aucune religion. En fait, la religion ne figurait nulle part dans ses conquêtes. S'il n'avait pas été mort à 32 ans, il aurait conquis le reste du monde. Après les anciens Grecs, les Romains furent les plus grands conquérants et administrateurs. Ils ont construit l'un des empires les plus grands et les plus puissants de l'histoire, et qui a duré plus longtemps que n'importe quel autre empire avant ou depuis. Comme les Grecs avant eux, ils étaient aussi des adorateurs d'idoles, bien que l'Empire romain de l'Est ait été converti au christianisme au début du cinquième siècle A. D. Au XIIIe siècle, les Mongols, menés par Genghiz Khan, ont secoué toute la terre. Ils étaient les ennemis les plus dangereux que l'islam ait jamais rencontrés. Toute l'Asie était à leurs pieds, et ils sont venus dans un as de effacer l'Islam dans ce continent. Leurs conquêtes furent plus rapides et à une échelle encore plus grande que les conquêtes des Arabes. En cinquante ans, ils avaient conquis toute la Chine, toute la Russie, toute l'Asie centrale et occidentale, et avaient pénétré en Europe jusqu'à la Hongrie. Pendant que les musulmans dans leur carrière de conquête, ont été vaincus à Tours dans l'Ouest, et à Constantinople à l'Est, les Mongols étaient constamment victorieux partout. Ils se sont retirés de l'Europe centrale uniquement à cause de la mort, dans le lointain Karakorum, de leur Grand Khan. Les Mongols n'avaient aucune religion du tout. Qu'est-ce qui les a lancés sur la carrière de conquête du monde? Certes, pas de zèle religieux et de piété. Au XVIe siècle, les Conquistadores castillans placent l'Espagne au premier rang des nations du monde. Une poignée d'entre eux quittèrent les rives de l'Espagne et conquirent tout le nouveau monde. Ils posèrent deux continents aux pieds du roi d'Espagne. Il est vrai qu'ils étaient inspirés par le zèle religieux, même s'ils n'avaient pas beaucoup de piété, mais c'était un zèle catholique. Leur zèle n'était pas tant islamique que anti-islamique. Juste avant de découvrir et de conquérir les Amériques, ils avaient défait les musulmans de Grenade en 1492, les avaient chassés de l'Espagne et avaient effacé tout vestige de la culture islamique de la péninsule ibérique. Au 17ème siècle, les Hollandais montèrent sur la crête de gloire. Leur histoire de cette époque se lit comme une saga de grands et héroïques actes. A la maison ils avaient été enfermés dans une lutte mortelle contre deux ennemis les Espagnols et la mer, et ils avaient vaincu les deux. Ils avaient chassé les Espagnols des Pays-Bas, et ils avaient apprivoisé la mer du Nord sauvage et déchaînée. Après avoir conquis ces deux ennemis, les Hollandais mirent dehors pour de nouveaux mondes à conquérir. La dynamique de la guerre contre l'Espagne et la mer du Nord, leur a donné un élan de victoire et de succès qui les a portés autour du monde. Dans une explosion d'énergie, les Hollandais ont cerné la terre, conquérant, colonisant et édifiant. Les Hollandais n'étaient pas seulement de bons marins et navigateurs, ils étaient aussi de bons marchands et colonisateurs. Ils construisirent des usines en Inde et fondèrent des colonies en Amérique du Nord et du Sud et en Afrique du Sud. Leur colonie en Afrique du Sud est devenue l'une des plus réussies de l'histoire de l'établissement et de la colonisation dans le monde entier. Les Hollandais étaient aussi des constructeurs d'empire. A douze mille milles de la maison, ils conquirent les Indes orientales, qui étaient les plus riches de tous les empires de l'époque de l'impérialisme, et ils l'ont tenu pendant 350 ans. Et pourtant, dans leur âge d'or, au XVIIe siècle, les Hollandais étaient si peu nombreux. Mais aussi peu qu'ils étaient, leur qualité était superbe. Ils ne permettaient pas à l'absence de chiffres de mettre un frein sur ce qu'ils pouvaient accomplir, prouvant de cette manière qu'il n'y a pas de corrélation entre un grand nombre et la réalisation. C'est un record remarquable de succès pour une nation aussi petite que les Hollandais. Ils ont également prouvé qu'il n'y a pas nécessairement une corrélation entre la religion et la réussite. Des siècles avant l'aube de leur grandeur, les Hollandais avaient été des chrétiens dévots, mais ce n'est qu'au 17ème siècle que leur montée vertigineuse et éblouissante a commencé. Au XIXe siècle, les Britanniques forment un empire sur lequel le soleil ne se couche jamais. En Amérique du Nord, ils gouvernaient la moitié nord du continent en Afrique, leur empire s'étendait d'Alexandrie au nord au Cap au sud et en Asie du Sud, ils ont conquis de Kaboul à Rangoon. Ils ont colonisé l'Australie et la Nouvelle-Zélande. Ils établirent Pax Britannia sur toute cette immense étendue, un quart de la terre. Au XVIIIe siècle, quand les Britanniques construisaient leur empire, ils n'avaient que 35 000 hommes d'armes, et 7 500 d'entre eux étaient occupés à pacifier l'Irlande. Tandis que la Marine royale réunissait l'Empire britannique, leur marine marchande construisait un autre - un empire invisible. C'était leur empire commercial qui comprenait beaucoup de ces pays qui étaient hors de l'orbite de leur pouvoir politique. À une époque, quand la puissance des Britanniques était au zénith, aucune nation sur terre ne pouvait les défier sur terre ou sur mer. Parallèlement, avec l'extension de leur pouvoir politique et de leur influence commerciale, les Britanniques établissent aussi leur hégémonie culturelle. Ils répandent la langue anglaise dans la plupart des pays du monde pour qu'ils soient parlés ou qu'ils soient compris dans la plupart des pays du monde. Les Britanniques ont accompli tout cela et bien plus encore, mais pas à cause de leur piété et de leur zèle religieux. Ils ne s'intéressaient qu'à la religion. Ils n'ont pas conquis un pouce de territoire étranger pour le bien du Christ ou la Bible qu'ils ont conquis seulement pour la Grande-Bretagne et pour construire l'Empire britannique. L'ancien système impérial de la Grande-Bretagne, de la France et des Pays-Bas tenait le monde dans une poignée de fer pendant près de deux siècles. Les États musulmans étaient partout au pied de ces puissances. Mais au lendemain des deux guerres mondiales, leurs empires se sont effondrés. Des débris de leurs empires s'éleva une multitude de nations nouvelles. L'une de ces nouvelles nations était l'État sioniste d'Israël. Le 14 mai 1948, les Britanniques renoncent à leur mandat sur la Palestine, et les colons juifs du pays proclament la naissance de l'Etat d'Israël. Le lendemain (15 mai), cinq États arabes envahirent Israël avec l'intention avouée de pousser Israël dans la mer. Mais ils ne pouvaient pas pousser Israël dans la mer. Israël les a vaincus tous, et ils ont dû se retirer dans leurs propres obus. Depuis lors, il ya eu d'autres guerres entre les Arabes et Israël. Il y en avait un en 1956 et un autre en 1967. Dans les deux guerres, Israël a vaincu les Arabes, et en a capturé beaucoup de territoire, y compris le Vieux Jérusalem. En août 1969, une partie des Masjid-ul-Aqsa à Jérusalem a pris feu. C'était un acte d'incendie criminel. Tous les musulmans arabes aussi bien que non-arabes ont été enflammés à cet outrage. Les ondes de choc de l'incident ont atteint les coins les plus reculés du monde musulman, dont les deux extrémités sont à 10.000 miles de l'Indonésie à l'est de la Mauritanie à l'ouest. Les pays musulmans ont tenu une conférence à Rabat (Maroc) pour envisager une action pour récupérer Jérusalem d'Israël. Mais tout ce qu'ils faisaient, c'était de passer des résolutions et de dénoncer Israël. Un Israël insolent a osé et défié le vaste monde musulman, mais celui-ci n'a pas eu le courage et le courage de relever le défi. En octobre 1973, l'Égypte a attaqué Israël sur Yom Kippur quand les Juifs ont été occupés avec leurs dévotions. Les Juifs ont été pris au dépourvu, mais ils ont récupéré de la surprise, et a immédiatement frappé en arrière. Ils ont couru à travers le désert du Sinaï, traversé le Suez, établi une tête de pont sur la rive ouest du canal à 60 miles du Caire, et a encerclé toute la troisième armée égyptienne C'est la pression américaine sur Israël qui a sauvé la troisième armée égyptienne. Mais curieusement, l'Egypte a réclamé l'action militaire contre Israël une victoire pour elle-même. La guerre et la victoire, selon le gouvernement égyptien, avaient rétabli le moral et l'estime de soi de l'Égypte, même si ce sont les Nations Unies et les États-Unis qui, comme autrefois, les avaient sauvés du désastre. En juin 1982, Israël est monté à bord du Liban. Elle a expulsé les guérilleros palestiniens du pays pendant que tout le monde arabe regardait dans le désespoir silencieux un géant vraiment impuissant si jamais il y en avait. Dans toutes ces guerres, les Arabes ne manquaient pas du pouvoir économique. Ils en avaient plus que tout autre pays du tiers monde. En ce qui concerne la main-d'œuvre, les Arabes ont dépassé les Israéliens de plus de 50 à 1. Et pourtant, jamais auparavant ils ont fait face au paradoxe de la combinaison de la richesse et l'impuissance abondance matérielle et la faillite morale importance stratégique et humiliation, comme ils le font dans leur confrontation avec Israël. On peut même dire que certains pays arabes, par ex. Jordanie, ne jouissent de leur indépendance que par la courtoisie d'Israël. Il semble donc que la religion, toute religion, païenne, animiste, chrétienne ou islamique, ait eu peu à faire avec les conquêtes militaires d'une nation. Un phénomène récurrent dans l'histoire du monde est qu'à n'importe quel moment, n'importe quelle nation est suprême, militairement, politiquement, et dans beaucoup de cas, également intellectuellement. A ce moment ou à cette époque, il est irrésistible et invincible. Les cent ans de 632 à 732 étaient le siècle des Arabes. Ils étaient suprêmes, triomphants, irrésistibles et invincibles en ce siècle. L'islam les a unis et leur a donné un sens de la direction, du but et du pouvoir propulsif. Sans l'islam, leur avenir aurait été aussi peu pertinent et stérile que leur passé. Mais il n'y a pas de corrélation entre leurs conquêtes d'une part, et la piété et l'enthousiasme religieux de l'autre. Un des amis d'Umar était un certain Mughira bin Shaaba. Umar l'avait nommé gouverneur, d'abord de Basra, puis de Kufa. Un esclave de Mughira avait une certaine grouse contre lui. Il demanda l'intercession d'Umars, et, sur le refus de ce dernier, il l'attaqua et le blessa mortellement. Un médecin a été appelé. Il a donné à Umar quelques médicaments à boire, mais tout cela est sorti de la blessure béante dans son nombril. Quand le médecin remarqua cela, il dit à Umar qu'il n'y avait aucun espoir de sa guérison, et lui conseilla de faire sa volonté puisque peu de temps lui restait dans ce monde. Le mot se répandit rapidement que le khalifa était mortellement blessé, et les nouvelles causèrent beaucoup de commotion dans la ville. Beaucoup de compagnons ont appelé Umar à s'enquérir de sa santé. Certains d'entre eux ont suggéré de désigner quelqu'un comme son successeur. Umar a dit: Si je désigner quelqu'un comme mon successeur, rien ne serait mal avec elle depuis Abu Bakr m'a désigné comme son successeur, et il était meilleur que moi. Mais si je ne désignais personne comme mon successeur, rien ne serait mal à cela puisque l'Apôtre de Dieu n'a pas désigné son propre successeur, et il était meilleur que nous deux (Abu Bakr et Umar). Ayesha a également envoyé un mot à Umar le pressant de nommer quelqu'un comme khalifa avant sa propre mort, ou bien, elle a averti, l'anarchie et le chaos peuvent s'étendre dans la terre. Umar a demandé au messager d'Ayeshas de lui dire ce qui suit: J'ai examiné cette affaire, et j'ai décidé de nommer six hommes comme membres d'un comité électoral, et de les charger de choisir un de eux-mêmes comme khalifa. Les six hommes sont: Ali, Uthman, Abdur Rahman bin Auf Talha, Zubayr et Saad bin Abi Waqqas. L'Apôtre de Dieu a été satisfait de tous les six d'entre eux quand il a quitté ce monde, et chacun d'eux est qualifié pour devenir le khalifa des musulmans. Umar a ensuite appelé les six membres de son comité électoral à son domicile pour leur expliquer ce qu'ils devaient faire. Lorsqu'ils sont venus, il les a adressés comme suit: O groupe de Muhajireen En vérité, l'Apôtre de Dieu est mort, et il a été heureux avec vous tous les six. J'ai donc décidé de faire de la consultation entre vous le choix de khalifa, afin que vous puissiez choisir l'un de vous comme khalifa. Si cinq d'entre vous sont d'accord sur un seul homme, et qu'il y en a un qui s'oppose aux cinq, le tuer. Si quatre sont un côté et deux de l'autre, tuez les deux. Et si trois sont d'un côté et trois de l'autre, alors Abdur Rahman ibn Auf aura le vote de casting, et le khalifa sera choisi de son parti. Dans ce cas, tuez les trois hommes du côté opposé. Vous pouvez, si vous le voulez, inviter quelques-uns des principaux hommes des Ansar en tant qu'observateurs, mais le khalifa doit être l'un de vous Muhajireen, et pas aucun d'entre eux. Ils n'ont aucune part dans le khilafat. Et votre choix du nouveau khalifa doit être fait dans les trois jours. (Tabari, Histoire) Umar a ordonné à son fils Abdullah d'assister aux réunions de la commission électorale nouvellement formée, mais non comme candidat au califat, et lui a dit: Si les membres de ce comité ne sont pas d'accord entre eux, Ceux qui sont majoritaires. S'il ya égalité avec trois de chaque côté, alors vous soutenez le parti d'Abdur Rahman bin Auf. Umar avait prescrit un maximum de trois jours pour ses délibérations. A la fin de cette période, ils doivent volontiers choisir un khalif. Si la décision n'était pas unanime, le candidat majoritaire devait être adopté, les membres de la minorité étant tous immédiatement mis à mort. (Les Grandes Conquêtes Arabes, 1967) Quand Umar fut convaincu qu'il avait fait son devoir en matière de succession, il demanda à quelques-uns des hommes qui l'entouraient, parmi les six candidats, Nouveau khalifa. L'un d'eux présente nommé Zubayr. Umar a dit: Voulez-vous faire votre khalifa un homme qui est un croyant quand il est heureux, et un incroyant quand il est en colère Un autre homme appelé Talha. Umar dit: Voulez-vous faire de votre Khalifa un homme qui a hypothéqué le don de l'Apôtre de Dieu à une Juive Un troisième nommé Ali. Umar a dit: Si vous faites de lui votre khalifa, il ne vous laissera pas dévier de la vérité, mais je sais que vous ne le ferez pas. Walid bin Aqaba, demi-frère d'Uthman, était également présent à l'assemblée. Lorsqu'il entendit Umars commenter les candidats, il s'écria: Je sais qui deviendra le prochain khalifa. Umar qui était couché, s'est assis dans le lit, et a demandé, qui. Walid a dit: Uthman. Umar a ordonné à Abu Talha Ansari de conduire les musulmans en prière pendant l'interrègne et de surveiller les membres du comité électoral lors de leurs délibérations. Il lui donna aussi cinquante hommes armés pour lui permettre de remplir ses devoirs. Ces hommes devaient agir, si nécessaire, en tant que bourreaux (Tarikh Kamil). On the following day, Umar called the members of the electoral committee again, and when they came, he said: So everyone of you wants to become the khalifa after me Everyone kept quiet. Umar repeated his question whereupon Zubayr said: And whats wrong with that You became khalifa and you managed it. Why cant we Umar then asked: Shall I tell you something about each of you Zubayr answered: Go ahead tell us. Umar commented upon them as follows: Saad bin Abi Waqqas is a good archer but he is arrogant, and khilafat is beyond his reach. Talha is rude, greedy and conceited. Abdur Rahman is too much given to comfort and luxury if he becomes khalifa, his wives will run the government. Zubayr is a believer when he is in a happy mood but is an unbeliever when he is angry. Ali is worthy of being the ruler of the Muslims in every respect but he is too ambitious. Umar then turned to Uthman, and said: Take it from me. It is as if I am seeing with my own eyes that the Quraysh have put this necklace (khilafat) around your neck, and you have foisted the Banu Umayya and the Banu Abi Muayt (Uthmans family) upon the Muslims, and have given them all the wealth of the umma. Then the wolves of the Arabs came, and slaughtered you. By God, if they (the Quraysh) do, you will certainly do and if you do, they (the Arabs) will certainly do. (If the Quraysh make Uthman their khalifa, he would give all his power and authority to Banu Umayya and when he does so, the Arabs will come and kill him). Umar told the members of the electoral committee that the Apostle of God was pleased with them when he left this world. But was the Apostle pleased only with these six men Was he displeased with the rest of the Muhajireen and the Ansar If he was not, then why did Umar exclude all of them from his electoral committee He did not give the rest of the Muhajireen and Ansar the right even to express an opinion much less the right to select their ruler. Though Umar chose six Qurayshites as electors because as he said, the Apostle was pleased with them, he himself found nothing commendable in them. He found them arrogant, rude, greedy, conceited, henpecked, temperamental, venal and ambitious. If, at the election of Abu Bakr, the principle was accepted that it is the right of the Muslim umma (people) to select or elect its own rulers, then how is it that the leading companions of the Prophet, and Ayesha, his widow, urged Umar to appoint his own successor Didnt they know that a ruler was to be chosen by the umma . But Umar, instead of denying or affirming this right of the umma . said that if he appointed someone as khalifa, he would be following the precedent of Abu Bakr and if he did not, then he would be following the precedent of the Prophet himself. In practice, however, he followed neither the precedent of Abu Bakr nor the precedent of the Prophet. He named six men as members of an electoral committee, and made them responsible for selecting a khalifa out of themselves regardless of the opinions and wishes of the Muslim umma . It is true that Umar did not name anyone as his successor but his electoral committee was, in point of fact, a de facto designation. Its constitution guaranteed the selection only of Umars own candidate. His first stipulation was that the candidate who gets most of the votes, would become khalifa. There was no way for Ali to get most of the votes. Abdur Rahman bin Auf was the husband of the half-sister of Uthman. (This lady was the daughter of the mother of Uthman and her second husband). Saad bin Abi Waqqas was the first cousin of Abdur Rahman, and was under his influence. Tribal solidarity or tribal chauvinism was very strong among the Arabs. Talha belonged to the clan of Abu Bakr, and was married to one of his daughters (the sister of Ayesha). Therefore, it was unthinkable that any of them would vote for Ali. Thus Ali had to count out four votes even before the beginning of the parleys. All he could do, was to hope that he might get Zubayrs vote. In any case, Abdur Rahman bin Auf the self-appointed king-maker, had the casting vote. As Umars confidante, it was inevitable that he would give his vote and his support only to his (Umars) favorite, and the brother of his own wife Uthman. Now the minority in the electoral committee had one of the two choices open before it, viz. either acquiesce in the king-makers selection and acknowledge Uthman as khalifa or pass the sentence of death to itself Hudhaifa, a companion, reports that sometime before the attempt was made on his life, a few companions had asked Umar who would succeed him as khalifa, and he had told them, Uthman. (Kanz-ul-Ummal and Tarikh-Ahmedi). The author of Riyadh-un-Nadhra writes in the same connection as follows: In the Hajj season someone asked Umar who would be the khalifa of the Muslims after him, and he said, Uthman bin Affan. Umar desired nothing so much as to appoint Uthman as his successor but for some reason known only to him, he did not wish to do so openly. At the same time, he did not allow the Muslims to exercise their freewill in the matter of choosing their ruler. Left to themselves, they would not have chosen his favorite, and he knew it. He, therefore, devised a new mode of giving the umma its leader. This new mode, spun out with intricate sophistication, guaranteed the election of Uthman. Umar had assembled the Electoral Committee only to dissemble Perhaps it would have served the interests of the umma better if Umar had openly appointed Uthman as his successor instead of framing a panel of electors for this purpose. A direct and open appointment would have averted the civil wars in Islam. His panel of electors proved to be the catalyst of the battles of Basra, Siffin and Nehrwan. He achieved his aim at the moment but only at the expense of the integrity of Islam in the future. Abdullah ibn Abbas ibn Abdul-Muttalib was the first cousin of Muhammad Mustafa and Ali ibn Abi Talib. When he heard that Umar had given special powers to Abdur Rahman bin Auf in the panel of electors, he said to Ali: Khilafat is lost to us once again. This man (Umar) wants Uthman to be the new khalifa. I know they will keep khilafat out of the house of Muhammad. Ali made the following comment: I agree with what you say. I have no illusions in this matter. Nevertheless, I shall attend the meeting(s) of the Shura (electoral committee), and the Muslims will see with their own eyes the conflict between Umars words and his deeds. By placing my name in his electoral committee, he has, at least, acknowledged my right to become caliph whereas in the past, he went around saying that prophethood and caliphate ought never to combine in the same house. How did Abdullah ibn Abbas know that Umar wanted Uthman to become the khalifa As noted before, it was obvious from the constitution of the electoral committee. One look at its terms of reference was enough to convince anyone that the outcome of its quest was predetermined. Those terms of reference declared, loudly and unmistakably, that khilafat was going to be the prize of Uthman and the Umayyads. Therefore, after the promulgation by Umar of the constitution of his electoral committee, if Ali had any interest still left in it, and in its professed purpose, it was purely academic and abstract, and as he himself said, his participation in its meetings would do nothing more than point up the contradictions inherent in it. This is the age of democracy. The people choose their leaders. Elections are held from the lowest to the highest levels of public life from the chairmen of school committees and fund-raising groups to the heads of governments and states. But it has never so happened that those candidates for office who lose the election to their opponents, are put to death. The candidates who lose, become leaders of the opposition, and the existence of a healthy opposition is considered essential for the existence of democracy itself. If the opposition is liquidated, then democracy becomes a casualty, and the state becomes totalitarian. Umars order to kill the minority in his electoral committee has no parallel in the history of mankind. He ordered the execution of all those companions of Muhammad Mustafa, who as candidates for caliphate, would get fewer votes than their opposite numbers, even though he knew that it is the job of others to give or to withhold their votes. In other words, he decreed that it is a crime to get fewer votes than ones opponent, and the penalty is death This was the last decision of the man who once said: The Book of God is sufficient for us. Did he really believe in what he said Did he read that Book Did he find sanction in that Book for his order to kill a candidate for a certain office because he scored lower than his opponent Here it should be pointed out that no one out of the six Muhajireen had applied to Umar for membership in his electoral committee. His action in choosing them was totally arbitrary. He then imposed upon them the duty of electing a khalifa with the stipulation that if anyone of them disagreed with the majority, he would forfeit his life. Umar had obviously opted for the totalitarian remedy of taking the right of dissent away from the Muslims. For many centuries, the Sunni Muslims have raved over what they call the justice of Umar. Is his order to kill the dissenting member or members of his electoral committee a sample of that justice Is it the sample of justice that they proudly uphold to the nations of the earth Umar died on the last Saturday of Zil-Hajj (the last month of the Islamic calendar) of 23 A. H. (A. D. 644), and he was buried next to the Prophet and Abu Bakr. Umar, on his deathbed, had appointed six Muhajireen as members of a panel which was to choose one out of themselves as the future khalifa of the Muslims. They were Ali ibn Abi Talib, Uthman, Talha, Zubayr, Abdur Rahman bin Auf and Saad bin Abi Waqqas. Except Ali, all other members of the panel were capitalists, or rather, neo-capitalists. When they came from Makkah, they were penniless and homeless but within twelve years, i. e. from the death of Muhammad Mustafa in 632 to the death of Umar in 644, each of them, except Ali, had become rich like Croesus. Between these two dates, they had accumulated immense wealth, and had become the richest men of their times. Ali did not qualify as a member of this exclusive club but Umar admitted him anyway. Apart from the fact that Ali made his living as a gardener whereas his other five co-members lived on the revenues of their lands and estates, there was another gulf, even more unbridgeable, that separated him from them. In character, personality, temperament, attitudes, philosophy and outlook on life, Ali and the rest of them were the antithesis of each other. In an earlier chapter, it was pointed out that the famous line of Keats, Beauty is Truth and Truth Beauty, can be transposed to read as Economic power is political power and political power economic power. Economic power and political power are reciprocal. Karl Marx said: Whatever social class has economic power, also has political and social power. And George Wald, professor of Biology at the Harvard University, said in an address in Tokyo in 1974: Private wealth and personal political power are interchangeable. There can be no doubt that economic power is a springboard of political power. This has been a consistent pattern throughout history. President Abraham Lincoln had defined democracy as the government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In the American presidential elections of 1984 when President Ronald Reagan was reelected, the Russians quipped: The United States Government is of the millionaires, by the millionaires and for the millionaires. All the members of Umars electoral committee, were millionaires except Ali ibn Abi Talib Following is a portrait left by historians of the members of Umars Electoral Committee: Othman, son of Affan, six years the Prophets junior, was a cloth merchant he also did some business as a money-lender, advancing sums for enterprises of which he was to enjoy half the profits (Ibn Sad, iii, 111), and in money matters showed remarkable acuteness (Wakidi W. 231). His sister was a milliner, married to a barber (Isabah, i. 714). He was no fighting man, as his subsequent history proved, for he shirked one battlefield, ran away from another, and was killed, priest-like, ostentatiously reading the Koran. Ibn Sad says in his Tabqaat about Othman: When he died, he left 35 million dirhems, 150,000 dinars, 3000 camels, and many horses. He built himself a palace in Medina with marble and teakwood. He had 1000 slaves. (Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, London, 1931) In his youth, before the rise of Islam, Uthman had been very rich and gained much money from profitable usurious transactions. Uthmans acquisitiveness and business talents gained full scope when he became caliph. He built himself a stone house in Medina with doors of precious wood and acquired much real estate in that city, including gardens and water sources. He had a large income from his fruit plantations in Wadi-ul-Qura, Hunain and other places, valued at 100,000 dinars, besides large herds of horses and camels on these estates. The day Uthman died his personal treasury was found to contain 150,000 dinars and one million dirhems. Multiplying his riches at the expense of the Moslem treasury, Uthman also gave free use of the latter to some of the closest companions of Muhammad, attempting to justify his illegal actions by associating these most authoritative veteran Moslems with his own depredations. The companions applauded the caliph Uthman for his generosity and magnanimity, no doubt for solid reasons of self-interest. Zubair ibn al-Awwam, for example, one of the better known amongst them, built tenement houses in Kufa, Basra, Fustat and Alexandria. His property was estimated at 50,000 dinars, in addition to which he possessed 1000 horses and 1000 slaves. Another companion, Talha ibn Ubaidullah, built a large tenement house in Kufa and acquired estates in Irak which brought in a daily 1000 dinars he also built a luxurious house of brick and precious wood in Medina. Abd-ar-Rahman ibn Auf, also an outstanding companion, also built himself a rich and spacious dwelling his stables contained 100 horses and his pastures 1000 camels and 10,000 sheep, and one quarter of the inheritance he left after his death was valued at 84,000 dinars. Such acquisitiveness was widespread among the companions of the Prophet and Uthmans entourage. (Arabs, Islam and the Arab Caliphate in the Early Middle Ages, New York, 1969) Sad ibn Abi Waqqas built his house in Al-Aqiq. He made it high and spacious, and put balconies around the upper part. Said ibn al-Musayyib said that when Zayd ibn Thabit died, he left ingots of gold and silver that were broken up with axes, in addition to property and estates to the value of 100,000 dinars. (Islam in History, New York, 1973) Dr. Taha Husain of Egypt writes in his book, al-Fitna-tul-Kubra (The Great Upheaval), published by Dar-ul-Maarif, Cairo, 1959, p. 47: When Uthman became khalifa, he not only lifted the ban placed by Umar upon the companions to go to the other countries, but also gave them rich present from the public treasury. He gave Zubayr 600,000 dirhems in one day, and he gave Talha 100,000 dirhems in one day enabling them to buy lands, property and slaves in other countries. Abdur Rahman bin Auf was a member of the inner circle of the friends of Uthman. About him Sir William Muir writes: Abd al-Rahman, when in after years he used to fare sumptuously on fine bread and every variety of meat, would weep while looking at his richly furnished table and thinking of the Prophets straitened fare. (The Life of Mohammed, London 1877) The love that Abdur Rahman bore his late master, Muhammad, was deeply moving. His wives and concubines prepared delicacies of many colors and tastes for him. When he sat down to eat, recollection came to him of the Spartan times of the Apostle. He missed him and he missed those times, shed many a tear, and then gobbled up everything on the table. Sir William Muir sums up his impressions of the companions of the Apostle of God as follows: In pursuing the annals of the companions and first followers of Mohammed, few things so forcibly illustrate the spirit of Islam as, first, the number of their wives and concubines and the facility of divorce and, next, the vast riches they amassed a significant contrast with the early days of Christianity. (The Life of Mohammed, London, 1877) Sir William Muir has done a great injustice, in the first place, in lumping the companions all together whereas there were two distinct categories of them. The first category which comprised the overwhelming majority, is the one he has correctly depicted in his book, but there also existed another, though very small, category, and he has taken no notice of it. In the second place, Sir William Muir has attributed the insatiable acquisitiveness of the companions to the spirit of Islam, and this is an even grosser injustice. The acquisitiveness of the companions, or rather, the acquisitiveness of most of the companions of the Apostle, illustrates, not the spirit of Islam, but a reaction against that spirit. The obsession with materialism runs counter to the spirit and genius of Islam. Quran has castigated those people who amass gold and silver. If anyone wishes to see the real spirit of Islam, he will find it, not in the deeds of the nouveaux riches of Medina, but in the life, character and deeds of such companions of the Apostle of God as Ali ibn Abi Talib, Salman el-Farsi, Abu Dharr el-Ghiffari, Ammar ibn Yasir, Owais Qarni and Bilal. The orientalists will change their assessment of the spirit of Islam if they contemplate it in the austere, pure and sanctified lives of these latter companions. It may be noted that the members of the electoral committee were all men of Makkah. There was no man of Medina among them. Umar had studiously kept them out. When he was explaining to the members of the committee what they had to do, he addressed them as O group of Muhajireen. He told them that the khalifa had to be one of them, and that the men of Medina had no share in khilafat. Some companions pressed Umar to appoint his own successor. He named a number of people who were dead, and said that if any of them were alive, he would have appointed him as his successor . The Prophet of Islam had been dead, not days but only a few hours when Islam was confronted with its first crisis - in the matter of his succession. The Ansar said to the Muhajireen: One chief from us and one from you. But Abu Bakr did not agree to this, and he quoted the following tradition of the Prophet: The rulers shall be from the Quraysh. Then he said to the Ansar: We shall be rulers and you will be our ministers. The Ansar accepted this arrangement (with the exception of Saad ibn Ubada). This is how the aristocracy of Islam was born. Its right to rule rested on its propinquity to Muhammad. All authority was vested in the Quraysh. The Ansar were the advisers. Every Muslim has the right to offer advice. The Quraysh were to rule, and the Ansar and the other Muslims were to give advice but not to rule. When Umar was dying, he was questioned about his successor, and he said: If Abu Obaida bin al-Jarrah were alive, I would have made him the khalifa. If Khalid bin al-Walid were alive, I would have appointed him the amir of the Muslims. And if Salim, the client of Abu Hudhaifa, were living today, then I would have designated him as your ruler. This Salim was a slave who came from Istakhar in Persia. He was emancipated, and became a mawali (client) of Abu Hudhaifa. He was well-known for his piety. Many Muslims deferred to him in matters of Faith even in the times of the Prophet. Sometimes he led the Muslims in prayer also. He was killed in the Ridda wars during the khilafat of Abu Bakr. He was a devout and God-fearing man. (al-Fitna-tul-Kubra , published by Dar-ul-Maarif, Cairo, 1959). It was really unfortunate for the umma that Salim was dead or else Umar would have made him his successor, and he might have made an excellent khalifa. At any rate, Umar knocked down that tradition of the Apostle which Abu Bakr had quoted before the Ansar in Saqifa according to which no one but the Quraysh had the right to become rulers. Here was Umar, the greatest pontiff of the Sunni establishment, ready, willing and eager to make Salim the khalifa of the Muslims, who was: (c) a non-free man, a client, a man who was emancipated by an Arab, and who was under his protection. Umar proved on his deathbed that the tradition of the Qurayshi connection by which the Muhajireen had claimed their superiority over the Ansar in Saqifa, was spurious, and he proved that to be a khalifa of the Muslims, it was not necessary to be a Qurayshi after all. Umar could consider a former slave who was not distinguished for anything except for his piety, for the most important position in Islam but he could not consider an Ansari for it, even if he had distinguished himself in war and peace. The Ansaris, in fact, could not fill even less important positions. In his book, Al-Farooq, M. Shibli, the Indian historian, has published a list of the names of the civil and military officers of his (Umars) time. With one solitary exception (Uthman bin Hunaif), the entire list is made up of names of men who were noted for their animosity to Ali, to Banu Hashim, and to the Ansar. These Ansaris were the same people who had, at one time, given sanctuary to Umar in their city. They had given him food, clothing and shelter when he did not have any of these things. Now he was repaying them Umars attitude toward the Ansar is in sharp contrast to the attitude toward them of Muhammad, the Messenger of God. The latter loved the Ansar. He appointed many of them as governors of Medina, and he made many of them commanders of various expeditions. On one occasion he said that he would rather be with them (the Ansar) than with any other people. He also considered them capable of and qualified to rule the Muhajireen. The remark of Muhammad about Sad bin Muadh when he was about to judge the case of Banu Qurayza, Stand for your chief (Sayyid), could be taken to justify the view that the Ansar were capable of ruling over Quraysh, and the story was therefore twisted in various ways to remove this implication. (Muhammad at Medina, Oxford, 1966) The Apostle of God called Sad the Chief of the Quraysh. Sad was obviously capable of ruling the Quraysh, and why not After all what was there in the credentials of the Quraysh that the Ansar didnt have Nothing. But the Ansar lost their capability of ruling the Quraysh as soon as Muhammad, their master, died. During the caliphate of Abu Bakr and Umar, it was a disqualification to be an Ansari to hold any important position in the government. Laura Veccia Vaglieri As he lay dying, Umar was anxious about the succession and he appointed a committee of six, all Qurayshites, whose duty it should be to choose one of their number as caliph. The inhabitants of Medina no longer had any share in the election of the head of the state. (Cambridge History of Islam, Cambridge, 1970) Far from having a share in the election of the head of the state, not to speak of themselves becoming the head of the state, the inhabitants of Medina, did not have a share in anything. They might have given some advice to Abu Bakr and Umar. In Saqifa, Abu Bakr and Umar had told them that they would consult them (the Ansar) in all matters. Few, if any, would challenge the general interpretation of this poignant fact that the most important and most indispensable single factor in the year 1 of Hijri, namely, the support of the Ansar, had become the most striking non-factor in the year 11 Hijri. The Cassandra utterances of Hubab ibn al-Mandhir in the bedlam of Saqifa proved only too true. He had expressed the fear that the children of the Ansar would beg for food at the doors of the houses of the Muhajireen, and would not get any. Much worse was to come for them in the times of Yazid bin Muawiya. The Ansar fought in all the campaigns of Abu Bakr and Umar but only as other ranks and never as generals. The new wealth which came flooding into Medina after the conquest of Persia and the Fertile Crescent, also appears to have bypassed them with the exception of a few, who collaborated with the Saqifa government. Among the latter were the two spies from the tribe of Aus who had squealed on the Khazraj to Umar and Abu Bakr. Others were Muhammad bin Maslama, Bashir bin Saad, and Zayd bin Thabit. They had shown great zeal in taking the oath of loyalty to Abu Bakr in Saqifa. Zayd bin Thabit was fanatically devoted to Uthman, and for this reason, he received many gifts and rewards from the treasury. He was the son of poor parents but during the caliphate of Uthman, became one of the richest men in Medina. Two officers of the public treasury in Medina and in Kufa who had been appointed by Abu Bakr, had thrown the keys of the treasuries in their charge, before Uthman, in protest against the plunder of the public funds by himself and by one of his governors. Uthman gave both keys to Zayd bin Thabit. Zayd bin Thabit was also the chairman of the committee appointed by Uthman to collect the verses of Quran, and to publish them in one volume, as noted before. Zayd bin Thabit was one of the few Ansaris who shared the bonanza in the times of Umar and Uthman. He was also one of the few Ansaris who did not take part in the campaigns of Ali in Basra, Siffin and Nehrwan. Most of the Ansaris fought on Alis side against his enemies in these battles. 1. It is not necessary for the khalifa of the Muslims to be a Qurayshi. Even an emancipated slave like Salim can become their khalifa. The tradition that the leaders must be members of the tribe of Quraysh, was cooked up and was attributed to the Prophet on a special occasion, and for a special purpose it worked in Saqifa, and checkmated the Ansar. 2. The incumbent khalifa can arbitrarily restrict the right and power to choose a new khalifa to five or six men without any reference to the Muslim umma . The Muslim umma can be safely ignored. 3. Within the electoral committee, if a man disagrees with the majority, he merits death, even if he is a friend of the Prophet of Islam even if he fought at Badr and even if he is a Companion of the Tree. Nothing can save him. 4. The Muslim umma can be left leaderless for three days. It is not necessary to select a new khalifa immediately after the death of the incumbent khalifa. A khalifa was chosen immediately after the death but before the burial of Muhammad Mustafa, on the ground that the Muslim umma ought not to be without a head even for a moment. Umar thus set a new precedent, viz. flexibility in the application of political principles. 5. Those drawbacks and shortcomings of character which Umar found in the members of his electoral committee, such as lust, anger, arrogance, conceit, greed, nepotism and ambition, etc. are not a disqualification for khilafat. A man may be arrogant, conceited, henpecked and greedy he can still become a khalifa of the Muslims. A khalifa does not have to be a man of outstanding character and ability. Ibn Abd Rabbeh writes in his famous book, Iqd-ul-Farid (The Unique Necklace), Volume II, page 203, that many years after Muawiya was firmly established on the throne, and had consolidated his position as the khalifa of the Muslims, he posed, one day, the following question to one of his courtiers: Muawiya: You are a wise, intelligent and knowledgeable man. I would like to know what in your opinion, exactly, was the cause of the civil wars of the Muslims. The Courtier: The murder of Uthman. The Courtier: Alis accession to the throne. The Courtier: Then I will request the Commander of the Faithful to enlighten me in this regard. Muawiya: Well, I will tell you what was the real cause of the civil wars of the Muslims. All the conflicts and civil wars of the Muslims had their origins in the electoral committee which Umar appointed to choose a khalifa. Muawiya was right. The seeds of civil war in Islam were planted on the day when Umar picked out the members of his electoral committee. Instead of one candidate for caliphate, he made six candidates. If his decision to appoint his successor had been as direct and forthright as that of Abu Bakr had been, Islam might have been spared the traumatic and horrendous experience of civil wars so early in its career. The Muslims who fought against and killed each other in these civil wars, did not belong to the distant future they belonged to the generation of the Prophet himself. Civil wars broke out in Islam at a time when its idealism was supposed to be still fresh. But the elective system devised by Umar had built-in confrontation, and it took Islam across a great divide. His policy proved to be counter-productive, and his mode of giving the Muslims a leader through his panel of electors turned out to be one of the greatest misfortunes of the history of Islam. Umar had accepted Islam at the end of the year 6 of the Call. Seven years later, he migrated with other Muslims to Medina. In Medina, these immigrants (Muhajireen) made a fresh start in life. In Medina, there were occasions when Umar had to remind Muhammad that in him (in Umar), he (Muhammad) had to reckon with a man who had great reserves of moral courage. If he disagreed with him (with Muhammad), he was not at all queasy about expressing his disagreement. Thus, among all the companions, he (Umar) alone had the moral courage to show his resentment and insolence to him (to Muhammad) at Hudaybiyya when he (Muhammad) signed a treaty of peace with the Quraysh. There were other occasions when Umar found it his unpleasant duty to correct the errors of Muhammad, the Apostle of God. Following are some incidents in which Umar figured as a critic of the actions of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam. When Abdullah bin Ubayy died, the Apostle attended his funeral, and prayed to God to forgive him and to bestow mercy upon his soul. Umar tried to dissuade him from doing so by pointing out that Ibn Ubayy had been a Munafiq (hypocrite). It is true that Abdullah bin Ubayy was a hypocrite. But his hypocrisy was not a secret from anyone in Medina. Everyone knew that he was a hypocrite. On the eve of the battle of Uhud, he withdrew his contingent of 300 warriors from the army on the ostensible pretext that the Muslims had not accepted his plan of the battle. In that battle, the Muslims were defeated. But they were defeated not because of Ibn Ubayys defection but because of their own greed and indiscipline. The withdrawal of Ibn Ubayys troops did not affect the fortunes of war in any way. Since Ibn Ubayy played a divisive role in a crisis, the Muslims were alert at all times for what he might do. He could, therefore, never catch them off-guard. He was a known and an open hypocrite. Far more dangerous to Islam were the hypocrites who were hidden from the sight of the Muslims. The true believers considered them to be sincere Muslims and trusted them. This trust of the Muslims in them made the Muslim society and the State of Medina much more vulnerable to sabotage by them. Al-Quran al-Majid is a witness to the presence in Medina, in large numbers, of these hypocrites, and has castigated them repeatedly. It were they the hidden hypocrites and not Abdullah ibn Ubayy and his supporters who were the real source of danger to the security of Islam. Abdullah ibn Ubayys son was a true believer. He volunteered to kill him (his father). But Muhammad, the bringer of mercy, did not let him. And when Ibn Ubayy died, he (Muhammad) condoned all his transgressions, most of which, he knew, were products of frustration. Before the Prophets arrival from Makkah, he (Ibn Ubayy) had hoped to become the king of Medina. To forgive and to forget was characteristic of Muhammads magnanimity. Earlier, he had shown the same magnanimity toward the idolaters of Makkah when he conquered that city, and granted amnesty to them all. It was, therefore, entirely, in character for him to conduct the funeral services for Ibn Ubayy, to see that he was given a proper burial, to pray for his soul, and to offer condolences to his son, notwithstanding Umars remonstrance. In late 630, Muhammad, the Messenger of God, sustained a personal loss. His son, Ibrahim, from his Egyptian wife, Maria the Copt, died when he was 11 months old (some say 16 months). Muhammad was very much attached to him. He was deeply aggrieved at his death, and could not withhold his tears. Umar took it upon himself to call his (Muhammads) attention to the impropriety of shedding tears at the death of his son. If Umar was right in his attempts to prevent the Apostle of God from commiserating with the bereaved members of the family of Abdullah ibn Ubayy, and in invoking Gods mercy upon his (Ibn Ubayys) soul or if he was right in trying to prevent him from crying at the death of his own son, then it must be said that Islam is a highly dehumanized religion which denies Muslims even the right to forgive their enemies, and withholds from them the freedom of expression of such innocuous feelings as sympathy and sorrow. But such is not the case. Islam is not dehumanized. It is, in fact, the most humane of all religions, and urges its followers to be forgiving, kind, courteous and considerate to others and commands them never to be vindictive. Vindictiveness was considered a pagan characteristic. Islam also commands Muslims, in the following verses of Al-Quran al-Majid, to return good for evil: And turn off evil with good. (Chapter 13 verse 22) Repel evil with that which is best. (Chapter 23: verse 96) Nor can goodness and evil be equal. Repel (evil) with what is better: then will he between whom and thee was hatred, become as it were thy friend and intimate. (Chapter 41: verse 34) Muhammad Mustafa, the Interpreter of Al-Quran al-Majid, gave a demonstration of the application of these commandments of Heaven at the death of Abdullah ibn Ubayy. In the summer of A. D. 632, Muhammad, the Messenger of God, lay on his deathbed in his house in Medina. His last wish was to comply with the commandment in the Book of God to write his will and testament. But Umar did not countenance this idea. In his opinion, writing a will was not the right thing for the Prophet of Islam to do. At Hudaybiyya, he had opposed the Prophet but had failed in his opposition this time, however, he had no intention of failing. He opposed the dying Prophet, and he scored a brilliant success in his opposition. The will the Prophet wished to write, was never written. If Umar was right in his attempts to inhibit the freedom of action of Muhammad, the Messenger of God, then it means that the latter was wrong. And if he (Muhammad) was wrong, then it means that Al-Quran al-Majid was also wrong because it claimed that: Nor does he (Muhammad) say (anything) of (his own) desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him. (Chapter 53 verses 3 and 4) If Umar was right, then Muhammad and Quran were wrong. This is the only conclusion to which such a line of argument can lead. It is now for the Muslims to decide if this is the logic which appeals to them, and therefore, is acceptable to them. When Muhammad Mustafa died in A. D. 632, his successors - Abu Bakr and Umar - lost no time in seizing the estate of Fadak from his daughter. Umar was a conscientious man, and he was presumably prompted by his moral courage to rectify the error which Muhammad had made in giving the estate of Fadak to his daughter in A. D. 628. Umar had, to all intents and purposes, appointed himself a censor of the words and deeds of Muhammad while the latter was still alive. If he countermanded his (Muhammads) orders after his death vis--vis his succession or the estate of Fadak, there is nothing odd about it. If he had any inhibitions in this matter, he threw them overboard as soon as Muhammad died. Muhammad, the Apostle of God, had expressed the wish, on his deathbed, to write his will, and as noted before, Umar had thwarted him by shouting that the Book of God was sufficient for the Muslim umma . and that it did not need any other writing from him. Umar, it appears, actually believed in what he said, viz. a will or any other writing of the Prophet was redundant since Quran had the ultimate answers to all the questions. And if any doubts still lingered in anyones mind on this point, he removed them when he became khalifa. Muhammad lived in the hearts of his companions and friends. After his death, they wished to preserve all their recollections of his life. These recollections were of two kinds - his words and his deeds. The two together formed his Sunnah (the trodden path). Anything he said, and was quoted by a companion, is called a hadith or tradition. But Umar did not want the companions to preserve any recollection of the words and the deeds of the Prophet. He, apparently, had many reservations regarding the usefulness, to the Muslim umma, of these recollections. He, therefore, forbade the companions to quote the sayings of the Prophet in speech or in writing. In other words, he placed the Hadith of the Prophet under a proscription. Following is the testimony of two modern Sunni historians on Umars ban on Hadith: Muhammad Husayn Haykal Umar ibn al-Khattab once tried to deal with the problem of committing the Hadith to writing. The companions of the Prophet whom he consulted, encouraged him, but he was not quite sure whether he should proceed. One day, moved by Gods inspiration, he made up his mind and announced: I wanted to have the traditions of the Prophet written down, but I fear that the Book of God might be encroached upon. Hence I shall not permit this to happen. He, therefore, changed his mind and instructed the Muslims throughout the provinces: Whoever has a document bearing a prophetic tradition, shall destroy it. The Hadith, therefore, continued to be transmitted orally and was not collected and written down until the period of al-Mamun. (The Life of Muhammad, Cairo, 1935) Dr. Mohammad Hamidullah Abu-Dhahabi reports: The Caliph Abu-Bakr compiled a work, in which there were 500 traditions of the Prophet, and handed it over to his daughter Aishah. The next morning, he took it back from her and destroyed it, saying: I wrote what I understood it is possible however that there should be certain things in it which did not correspond textually with what the Prophet had uttered. As to Umar, we learn on the authority of Mamar ibn Rashid, that during his caliphate, Umar once consulted the companions of the Prophet on the subject of codifying the Hadith. Everybody seconded the idea. Yet Umar continued to hesitate and pray to God for a whole month for guidance and enlightenment. Ultimately, he decided not to undertake the task, and said: Former peoples neglected the Divine Books and concentrated only on the conduct of the prophets I do not want to set up the possibility of confusion between the Divine Quran and the Prophets Hadith . (Introduction to Islam, Kuwait, pp. 34-35, 1977) One of the companions whom the Sunni Muslims consider one of the greatest authorities on Hadith, was Abu Hurayra. He was ever ready to quote a Hadith. There was never an occasion when recollection did not come to him of something he had heard the Prophet saying or something he had seen him doing. Once Umar asked him: O Abu Hurayra Tell me this. Did the Messenger of God have nothing in the world to do except to whisper Hadith in your ears Umar then ordered Abu Hurayra not to narrate any more Hadith. Abu Hurayra was a very gregarious and a garrulous man. When Umar gagged him, he felt bottled up. But he was a patient man, and quietly awaited the time when he would be unmuzzled. His opportunity came when Umar died, and he returned, with a vengeance, to the business of relating Hadith . Today, the books of Hadith, compiled by Sunni collectors, are brimming with traditions narrated by him. It is perhaps interesting to speculate on Umars decision in placing the traditions of the Prophet under proscription. Did he believe that the proscription would outlast his own caliphate There is no way of knowing the answer to this question. But he could not have meant the proscription to be effective only during his own lifetime he could only have meant it to be everlasting. If so, then did he want to deprive the Muslims of the record of the precepts and precedents of their Prophet forever Muhammad Husayn Haykal says in the passage quoted above from his book that Umar was moved by Gods inspiration to place the Hadith of the Apostle of God under proscription. This means that Umars authority to order the suppression of Hadith . was implicit in the inspiration of which he was the recipient, and he didnt hesitate to exercise it. In exercising his inspired authority, he overrode even the consensus of the companions. Consensus, incidentally, is a very important principle in Sunni jurisprudence. But Umar was right in overriding it. After all the consensus of fallible, earth-bound mortals could never supersede the authority of Umars inspiration. But Umars ordinance suppressing Hadith leaves one vital question unanswered, viz. is it possible to understand and to practice Islam at all, and to obey the commandments of God embodied in Al-Quran al-Majid, without the knowledge and understanding of the sermons, statements, speeches, commands, prohibitions, precedents, examples and explanations of Muhammad Mustafa Was it, for example, possible for the companions to know, merely by reading Quran, how to say the five canonical prayers if Muhammad himself had not taught them Or, would they have known how much Zakat (poor-tax) to pay, when to pay and whom to pay if they had not seen the Apostle himself paying it Without Hadith . Muslims could never understand the ideology of Islam nor could they grasp its practicability. In this regard, the contemporary, Austrian-born scholar, translator and commentator of Quran, Muhammad Asad, writes in his book, Islam At The Crossroads . as follows: The Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad is, (therefore) next to Quran, the second source of Islamic law of social and personal behavior. In fact we must regard the Sunnah as the only valid explanation of the Quranic teachings and the only means to avoid dissension concerning their interpretation and adaptation to practical use. Many verses of the Quran have allegorical meaning and could be understood in different ways unless there was some definite system of interpretation. And there are, furthermore, many items of practical importance not explicitly dealt with by the Quran. The spirit prevailing in the Holy Book is, to be sure, uniform throughout but to deduce from it the practical attitude which we have to adopt is not, in every case, an easy matter. So long as we believe that this Book is the word of God, perfect in form and purpose, the only logical conclusion is that it never was intended to be used independently of the personal guidance of the Prophet which is embodied in the system of Sunnah. (pp. 117-118) The Apostles statements and his actions were a detailed interpretation and application of the principles of the Book of God. That Book has repeatedly and emphatically called upon the Muslims to obey him and to follow him, as per the following verses: Say: if ye do love God, follow me: God will love you and forgive your sins for God is oft-forgiving, most Merciful. (Chapter 3 verse 31) God did confer a great favor on the believers when He sent among them an Apostle from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the signs of God, sanctifying them, and instructing them in Scripture and Wisdom, while before that they had been in Manifest Error. (Chapter 3: verse 164) Those are limits set by God: those who obey God and His Apostle, will be admitted to the Gardens with Rivers flowing beneath, to abide therein (forever) and that will be the supreme achievement. (Chapter 4: verse 13) O ye who believe Obey God, and obey His Apostle, and those charged with authority among you. if ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and his apostle. (Chapter4: verse 59) We sent an Apostle but to be obeyed, in accordance with the will of God. (Chapter 4: verse 64) But no, by thy Lord, they can have no (real) faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction. (Chapter 4: verse 65) He who obeys the Apostle, obeys God. (Chapter4: verse 80) Obey God and His Apostle, if ye do believe. (Chapter 8: verse 1) It is such as obey God and His Apostle, and fear God and do right, that will win (in the end). (Chapter 24: verse 52) Ye have indeed in the Apostle of God a beautiful pattern of conduct for everyone whose hope is in God and the final day, and who engages much in remembering God. (Chapter 33: verse 21) O ye who believe Obey God, and obey the Apostle, and make not vain your deeds. (Chapter 47: verse 33) Whatever the Messenger assigns to you, take it, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you, and fear God. (Chapter 59: verse 7) From the foregoing verses, it is clear that Umars ban on Hadith was in a head-on collision course with the commandments of Al-Quran al-Majid. Quran as the explicit Word of God, and Hadith as the explicit word of His Last Messenger, form one integral whole, each elucidating, amplifying and illuminating the other. Sunni jurists perhaps did not want to set themselves at odds with Umar but they also realized that there was no way for them to dispense with Hadith . and still call themselves Muslims, and that his ban (on Hadith ) could not coexist with Islam. They, therefore, discreetly tiptoed around the issue. Let the Hadith of our Prophet be free of bans, was their tacit consensus even if such a reorientation of thought was painful to some of them, and they decided to address themselves to the most vital task of collecting, collating, and preserving, for themselves and for posterity the record of the sayings and the deeds of Muhammad Mustafa, their Guide and Leader in this world and in the world to come. Omar Khalifah is an assistant professor of Arabic literature and culture at Georgetown School of Foreign Service in Qatar. He received his M. A and PhD from the Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies at Columbia University. His PhD dissertation (2013) studied the representations of Egyptian president Nasser in Egyptian fiction and film. In addition to modern Arabic literature, Khalifahs research interests include textual and visual representations of memory, world literature, and cinema and nationalism in the Arab world. His forthcoming book, Nasser in the Egyptian Imaginary . will be published by Edinburgh University Press. A Fulbright scholar, Khalifah is also a short story writer in Arabic. His collection Kaannani Ana (As If I Were Myself) was published in Amman, Jordan in 2010. He has taught classes on the Arabic novel, freedom in modern Arabic literature, and Arab womens autobiography. Arabic Literature, Language and culture, Palestine, Secularism and sectarianism in the Middle East, The history of modern Egypt Switch to section footer Switch to main footer Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar Education City P. O. Box 23689, Doha, Qatar Phone: 974-4457-8100 Fax: 974-4457-8241 Follow us on: Visit our Facebook page Visit our Twitter Profile Visit our Instagram Profile Visit our Youtube Channel Visit our LinkedIn page
No comments:
Post a Comment