The unanimously held view of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) regarding the Caliphate was that it is an elective system. It must be established through mutual consultation among Muslims and the expression of their free opinions. Authority and leadership attained through heredity or force, in their view, is not the Caliphate; rather, it is kingship or monarchy. The clear and unambiguous concept of the Caliphate and monarchy held by the noble Companions was expressed by Hazrat Abu Musa al-Ashari (may Allah be pleased with him) in the following words:

“The Emirate (that is, the Caliphate) is what has been established through consultation; and what has been established by the force of the sword is kingship or monarchy.”

Chapter One

The Qur’an’s Political Teachings

One: The Concept of the Nature of the Universe

The political doctrine is founded upon the Qur’an’s basic concept of the nature of the universe. This must be kept in view in order to understand the Qur’an’s political doctrine correctly. When the Qur’an’s ideas about the nature of the universe are examined in the context of political philosophy, the following principles emerge before our eyes:

(a) Allah Most High is the Creator of the entire universe, of humankind, and of everything in the universe from which people derive benefit.

*************************

—And He created the heavens and the earth in truth.

*************************

—Say: Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the One, the All-Powerful.

*************************

—O humankind! Fear your Lord, Who created you from a single soul, and from it created its mate, and from the two spread countless men and women. —An-Nisa 1

*************************

—He is the One Who created for you everything on the earth.

*************************

—Is there any creator besides Allah who provides you with sustenance from the heavens and the earth? —Al-Fatir 3

*************************

—Have you considered? Is it you who bring forth children from the semen you emit, or am I their Creator? … Have you considered? Is it you who produce the seed you sow, or am I its Producer? … Have you considered? Is it you who cause the water you drink to descend from the clouds, or am I the One who sends it down? … Have you considered? Is it you who created the tree from which you kindle the fire, or am I its Creator? —Al-Waqi‘ah 58–72

*************************

—To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth, whatever lies between them, and whatever is beneath the soil. —Ta-Ha 6

(b) Allah Most High is also the Owner, Sustainer, Controller, and Administrator of this world He created:

*************************

—To Him belongs everything in the heavens and the earth. Everything is obedient to His command.

*************************

—He created the moon, the sun, and the planets and stars; all are governed by His command. Beware! Creation and authority belong to Him alone. Allah is the Lord and Sustainer of all the worlds, the Possessor of immense blessing.

*************************

—He alone manages the affairs of the world from the heavens to the earth.

(c) Sovereignty in this universe belongs exclusively to Allah Most High; it belongs to no one else and cannot belong to anyone else. No one has the right to become His partner in sovereignty:

*************************

—Do you not know that the dominion of the heavens and the earth belongs to Allah?

*************************

—And He has no partner in the dominion. —Al-Furqan 2

*************************

—To Him belongs all praise in this world and the Hereafter; the authority to issue commands belongs to Him alone. To Him you will all return.

*************************

—There is no authority to decide except Allah’s. —Al-An‘am 59

*************************

—They have no protector or patron among the servants except Him. He does not make anyone a partner in His command. —Al-Kahf 26

*************************

—They say, “Do we have any authority at all?” Say: “All authority belongs entirely to Allah.” —Aal-e-Imran 154

*************************

—Authority belongs to Allah, at the beginning and at the end. —Ar-Rum 4

*************************

—The dominion of the heavens and the earth belongs to Him, and all affairs return to Him. —Al-Hadid 5

*************************

—Can the One who creates be like one who does not create? Will you not reflect? —An-Nahl 17

*************************

—Have they assigned partners to Allah who created things like His creation, so that creation has become confused for them? —Ar-Ra‘d 16

*************************

—Say: Have you ever considered those imaginary partners of yours whom you call upon besides Allah? Show me what they have created on earth. Or do they have any share in the heavens? … Indeed, Allah holds the heavens and the earth from deviating; and if they were to deviate, no one besides Him could hold them in place. —Fatir 40–41

(d) All the qualities and attributes of sovereignty, and all power and authority, are concentrated solely in Allah’s Being. No one else in this universe possesses such qualities, attributes, power, or authority at all. He is supreme over all; He knows everything and is free from every error and defect. He watches over and protects everyone. He grants security to all. He is Ever-Living, ever-awake, and powerful over all things. All power and authority are vested in His hand. Everything, willingly or unwillingly, obeys His command. All good and evil lie within His authority. No one can harm anyone or benefit anyone except through Him and by His permission. No one can even intercede before Him without His permission. He seizes whom He wills and forgives whom He pleases. No one can question or challenge His command. He is not required to answer to anyone or give an account before anyone. Everyone is obliged to answer before Him. His command is always carried out. No power can revoke His command. All these qualities and attributes of sovereignty belong exclusively to Allah. No one shares or partners with Him in them:

*************************

—He alone has authority and control over His servants. He is All-Wise, fully aware of all things. —Al-An‘am 18

*************************

—The Great One, Knower of all that is visible and hidden, Possessor of immense rank. —Ar-Ra‘d 9

*************************

—The Sovereign, free from every defect; free from error and misconception; Giver of peace and security, Protector, the Almighty, the One who issues commands by force, Possessor of immense glory, Owner of majesty.

*************************

—He is Ever-Living, self-subsisting by His own power. Neither sleep nor drowsiness touches Him. To Him belongs everything in the heavens and the earth. Who is it that can intercede before Him without His permission? He knows what is before people and knows what is hidden from them. —Al-Baqarah 255

*************************

—Blessed and exalted is the One in Whose hand is the dominion. He has power over all things. —Al-Mulk 1

*************************

—The authority over all things is in His hand. You will have to return to Him.

*************************

—Everyone who dwells in the heavens and the earth obeys His command, willingly or unwillingly. —Aal-e-Imran 83

*************************

—All authority is vested in His hand. He hears and knows everything. —Yunus 65

*************************

—Say: Who can save you even slightly from Allah if He intends harm for you? Or if He intends good for you, who can prevent Him? —Al-Fath 11

*************************

—If Allah touches you with harm, none can remove it except Him; and if He intends good for you, none can repel His favor. He grants His favor to whom He wills among His servants. He is Forgiving and Merciful.

*************************

—Whether you reveal what is in your minds or conceal it, Allah will call you to account for it. Then He forgives whom He wills and punishes whom He pleases. Allah has power over all things. —Al-Baqarah 284

*************************

He is the Perfect Hearer and Seer. They have no protector or patron among the servants except Him. He does not make anyone a partner in His command. —Al-Kahf 26

******************************

—Say: No one can protect me from Allah, nor can I find any refuge except with Him. —Al-Jinn 22

*********************

—He grants protection, and no protection can be granted against Him. —Al-Mu’min 88

*********************

—He originates and He brings about resurrection. He is Forgiving, Pardoning. He loves. He is the Owner of the kingdom and throne, the Most Great. He does whatever He wills. —Al-Buruj 13–16

*********************

—Indeed, Allah decides; no one can review His decision. —Ar-Ra‘d 41

*********************

—He is not required to answer before anyone for what He does, while everyone else must answer before Him. —Al-Anbiya 23

*********************

—No one can change His command, and you will find no refuge against Him. —Al-Kahf 27

*********************

—Is Allah not the greatest of all rulers? —At-Tin 8

*********************

—Say: O Allah, Owner of the Kingdom! You grant the kingdom to whom You will and take the kingdom away from whom You will. You honor whom You will and disgrace whom You will. All good is in Your authority. You have power over all things. —Aal-e-Imran 26

*********************

—Indeed, the earth belongs to Allah. He makes whomever He wills among His servants inheritors of it. —Al-A‘raf 128

Two: Allah’s Sovereignty

On the basis of this concept of the universe, the Qur’an says that the One who governs and administers the universe is also the One who governs and administers human beings. He alone possesses supreme authority over human affairs, and no human or non-human power besides Him has the right to issue commands or judgments. The only difference here is that, in the universal order, His authority and sovereignty are firmly established by Allah’s own power, so no one’s recognition is needed. Just as everything, from the tiniest particles to the stars and nebulae, is obedient to Him, so human beings too are naturally subject to His sovereignty and authority in the areas of life beyond their own power. He does not impose this sovereignty by force. Rather, through the revealed scriptures, the last of which is the Qur’an, He calls people to accept this sovereignty of His consciously and willingly and to submit to Him. The Qur’an has clearly stated various aspects of this matter.

(a) In reality, the Lord of the universe is also the Lord of humankind. It is desirable to acknowledge His Lordship:

*********************

—Say: Indeed, my prayer, my life, and my death are all for Allah, the Lord of the worlds … Say: Shall I seek a lord other than Allah, while He is the Lord of all things? —Al-An‘am 162–164

*********************

—Indeed, Allah is your Lord, Who created the heavens and the earth. —Al-A‘raf 54

*********************

—Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of humankind, the King of humankind, the God of humankind.

*********************

—Say: Who provides you with sustenance from the heavens and the earth? Whose authority encompasses hearing and sight? Who brings the living out of the dead and the dead out of the living? Who administers the universal order? They will surely say, “Allah.” Say: “Will you not then fear Him?” That, then, is Allah, your true Lord. What remains after truth except misguidance? So where are you being turned away? —Yunus 31–32

(b) No one besides Allah has the right to issue commands and judgments. People should worship Him. This is the correct way:

*********************

—Whatever disagreement you may have, its judgment belongs to Allah.

*********************

—There is no command except Allah’s. He has commanded that you worship none but Him. This is the upright religion—the true and correct way of life. But most people do not know. —Yusuf 40

*********************

—They say, “Do we have any authority?” Say: “All authority belongs to Allah.”

(c) Only Allah possesses the right and authority to issue commands, because He alone is the Creator:

*********************

Beware! Creation belongs to Him, and command belongs to Him alone. —Al-A‘raf 54

(d) Only Allah has the right to issue commands, because He alone is the King of the entire universe:

*********************

—Cut off the hands of the male and female thief. Do you not know that the dominion of the heavens and the earth belongs to Allah alone? —Al-Ma’idah 38–40

(e) Allah’s command is true and correct because He alone possesses knowledge of reality and He alone can guide to the right path:

*********************

It may be that you dislike something while it is good for you, and it may be that you like something while it is bad for you. Allah knows, and you do not know. —Al-Baqarah 216

*********************

—Allah knows who causes corruption and who brings about reform. —Al-Baqarah 220

*********************

—He knows what is before them and what is hidden from them. They cannot acquire any of His knowledge except what He wills to impart to them. —Al-Baqarah 255

*********************

—When you divorce women and they reach the end of their waiting period, do not prevent them from marrying the husbands of their choice. … This is more desirable and purer for you. Allah knows, and you do not know.

*********************

Allah instructs you concerning your children. … You do not know which of your parents and children is nearer to you in benefit. Allah has ordained the shares of inheritance. Surely Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

*********************

They ask you for a ruling! Say, Allah instructs you concerning the kalalah. … Allah explains the rulings concerning you, lest you go astray. And He has knowledge of all things. —An-Nisa 176

*********************

Allah’s Book declares that relatives have greater right than others. Allah has knowledge of all things. —Al-Anfal 75

*********************

Charity is only for the destitute. … This is an obligation prescribed by Allah. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. —At-Tawbah 60

*********************

O believers! Let those whom your right hands possess seek your permission before coming into your presence. … Thus Allah makes His commandments clear to you. He is All-Knowing, All-Wise. —An-Nur 58–59

*********************

O believers! When believing women come to you as emigrants, examine them. … This is Allah’s command. He judges between you. He is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

Three: Allah’s Legal Sovereignty

For these reasons, the Qur’an rules that absolute obedience belongs to Allah, and that following and complying with His laws is what is desirable. Following anyone besides Him, or following the desires of one’s own nafs, is prohibited:

*********************

(O Prophet,) We have revealed this Book to you in truth. So worship Him, making the religion sincerely for Allah. Beware! Sincere devotion belongs to Allah alone.

*********************

Say, I have been commanded to worship Allah, making the religion sincerely for Him. And I have also been commanded to be the first to bow my head in submission. —Az-Zumar 11–12

*********************

And We certainly sent a messenger to every community, saying, Worship Allah and shun the Taghut. —An-Nahl 36 [Any being that displays arrogance against Allah and is worshipped besides Allah—whether the worshipper does so under the compulsion of its influence and power or willingly and contentedly—is called Taghut. Whether it is a human being, Satan, an idol, or anything else, it is so called. (Ibn Jarir, At-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an, vol. 3, p. 13)].

*********************

They were commanded nothing except to worship Allah sincerely and devotedly, making the religion exclusively for Him. —Al-Bayyinah 5

*********************

Follow what has been revealed to you from your Lord, and do not follow leaders besides Him. —Al-A’raf 3

*********************

Even after the knowledge that has come to you, if you follow their desires, you will have no helper or protector against Allah.

*********************

Then We set you upon a particular way of the religion. So follow it, and do not follow the desires of those who have no knowledge.

The Qur’an says that no one has the right to violate the limits Allah has prescribed for organizing and ordering human affairs:

*********************

… These are Allah’s limits, so do not transgress them. Those who transgress Allah’s limits are the wrongdoers. —Al-Baqarah 229

*********************

… These are Allah’s limits. Whoever transgresses Allah’s limits has wronged his own nafs. —At-Talaq 1

*********************

… These are Allah’s limits. For those who refuse to observe the obligations, there is a severe punishment. —Al-Mujadilah 4

The Qur’an also says that any ruling contrary to Allah’s command is not merely unjust and unlawful; rather, it is disbelief, misguidance, wrongdoing, shirk, injustice, and flagrant sin. Any such judgment is a judgment of jahiliyyah—a judgment contrary to faith. Rejecting such a judgment is an essential demand and inseparable part of faith:

*********************

Those who do not judge according to what Allah has revealed are the disbelievers. —Al-Ma’idah 44

*********************

Those who do not judge according to Allah’s revealed command are the wrongdoers. —Al-Ma’idah 45

*********************

Those who do not judge according to Allah’s revealed instruction are the defiantly disobedient, the sinful. —Al-Ma’idah 47

*********************

Do they seek the judgment of jahiliyyah? Yet who is a better judge than Allah for people of faith? —Al-Ma’idah 50

*********************

Have you not seen those who claim to believe in what has been revealed to you and in what was revealed before you, yet they wish to take their disputes to the Taghut for judgment, although they were commanded to reject it? Satan wishes to lead them far astray. —An-Nisa 60

Four: The Status of the Messenger

The only medium through which Allah’s commandments mentioned in the above verses reach people is His Messenger. He conveys Allah’s commandments and guidance to people and explains all those laws and guidance through his words and deeds. Thus the Messenger is the representative of Allah’s Legal Sovereignty in human life. On this basis, obedience to him is precisely obedience to Allah. Allah Himself has commanded that the Messenger’s orders, prohibitions, and judgments be accepted without hesitation. His commands, prohibitions, and judgments must be accepted in such a way that there is not the slightest doubt, conflict, or reluctance in the heart; otherwise, faith will be of no avail:

*********************

We sent every messenger for the purpose that he be obeyed by Allah’s command. —An-Nisa 64

*********************

Whoever obeys the Messenger has in fact obeyed Allah. —An-Nisa 80

*********************

Whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him, opposes him, and follows a path other than that of the believers, We will turn him toward the direction he himself has chosen, and We will cast him into Hell. What an evil destination! —An-Nisa 115

*********************

Whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it, and whatever he forbids you, abstain from it. Fear Allah. Surely Allah is severe in punishment.

*********************

No, by your Lord, they will never be believers until they accept you, O Prophet, as judge in all their disputes, and then find no discomfort in their hearts regarding your judgment, submitting to it completely. —An-Nisa 65

Five: The Supreme Law

According to the Qur’an, the command of Allah and the Messenger is a Supreme Law, before which a believer can adopt only the path of obedience. In matters on which Allah and the Messenger have ruled, no Muslim has the right to issue an independent judgment on his own. Turning away from, opposing, or disobeying the judgment of Allah and the Messenger is contrary to faith:

*********************

When Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, no believing man or woman has any choice in it. Whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has clearly strayed. —Al-Ahzab 36

*********************

They say, We believe in Allah and the Messenger, and we obey; yet a group of them turns away afterward. They are not believers. When they are invited to Allah and His Messenger so that the Messenger may judge between them, a group of them turns away. —An-Nur 47–48

*********************

The response of the believers, when they are invited to Allah and the Messenger so that he may judge between them, is only to say, We hear and obey. It is they who will prosper. —An-Nur 51

Six: Khilafah

According to the Qur’anic order, the true form of governance is that the state recognizes the Legal Supremacy of Allah and the Messenger, relinquishes sovereignty in His favor, and assumes the role of the Khilafah (representation) of the true Ruler. Whatever its powers and authority—legal, administrative, or judicial—they must remain strictly confined within the boundaries described above under Allah’s Legal Sovereignty, the Status of the Messenger, and the Supreme Law:

**********************

(O Prophet!) We have revealed this Book to you in truth. It confirms and safeguards the preceding scriptures. So judge between people according to what Allah has revealed, and do not turn away from the truth that has come to you by following people’s desires.

**********************

O David! We have made you a khalifah (representative) upon the earth. So judge between people in truth and do not follow the desire of the nafs (the inclinations and cravings of the mind). If you do so, it will lead you away from Allah’s path.

Seven: The Significance of Khilafah

The picture of this Khilafah drawn in the Qur’an is as follows: all the power and ability that human beings have acquired on earth has become possible through Allah’s gift and grace. Allah has granted human beings such status that they use His earth with the power He has given them, by the freedom He Himself has granted. Therefore, human beings have no independent ownership on earth. Rather, they are merely the khalifah or representatives of the true Owner:

**********************

And remember when your Lord said to the angels, I am going to place a khalifah on earth. —Al-Baqarah 31

**********************

(O human beings!) We established you on earth and granted you the power to act freely, and We provided for you means of livelihood therein. —Al-A’raf 10

**********************

Do you not see that Allah has subjected to you whatever is on earth? —Al-Hajj 65

Any nation that gains power in any part of the earth is, in essence, Allah’s khalifah there:

**********************

(O people of Ad!) Remember when Allah made you khalifahs on earth after the people of Noah. —Al-A’raf 69

**********************

(O people of Thamud!) Remember when He made you khalifahs after the people of Ad. —Al-A’raf 74

**********************

(O Children of Israel!) The time is near when your Lord will destroy your enemy, Pharaoh, and make you khalifahs on earth. And He will see how you act. —Al-A’raf 129

**********************

Then We made you khalifahs on earth after them, in order to see how you would act. —Yunus 14

But this Khilafah can be correct and lawful only when it follows the command of the true Owner, Allah Almighty. A system of arbitrary rule established by turning away from that command will not be Khilafah. Rather, instead of Khilafah, it will be baghawat, that is, open rebellion:

**********************

He has made you khalifahs on earth. Whoever disbelieves, his disbelief will be against him. The disbelief of the disbelievers can only increase their Lord’s wrath against them. Their disbelief can only increase their loss. —Al-Fatir 39

**********************

Have you not seen how your Lord dealt with Ad? … And with Thamud, who carved rocks in the valley (to build houses), and with Pharaoh, the owner of stakes and tents—those who spread corruption in the land? —Al-Fajr

**********************

(O Moses!) Go to Pharaoh, for he has become rebellious. …. Pharaoh said to the people, I am your greatest Lord, Sustainer, and Cherisher. —An-Nazi’at 17–24

**********************

Allah has promised those among you who believe and do righteous deeds that He will surely make them khalifahs on earth, as He made those before them khalifahs. …. …. They will worship Me and associate nothing with Me.

Eight: Collective Khilafah

No individual, group, or party is the sole bearer and holder of a lawful and genuine Khilafah (representation). Rather, the community that collectively establishes the state and government while accepting the principles mentioned above is the bearer and holder of this Khilafah. The phrase in verse 55 of Surah An-Nur

is absolutely unambiguous on this matter. In light of this phrase, every individual in the community of believers is an equal partner in the Khilafah. No individual or group has the right to seize the right of ordinary believers to Khilafah and keep it for itself. No individual or party may claim a special Khilafah from Allah for itself. This is what distinguishes Islamic Khilafah from mulukiyyah (autocracy, military rule, monarchy), oligarchy, and the rule of a religious priestly class, and turns it toward democracy. But the fundamental difference between Islamic democracy and Western democracy is that Western democracy is based on the principle of popular sovereignty. Islamic democracy (the republican Khilafah of Islam), on the other hand, means that the people themselves acknowledge Allah’s sovereignty and willingly and contentedly restrict their own power and authority within the limits of Allah’s commandments.

Nine: The Limits of Obedience to the State

The people are obliged to obey the state and government established to administer this Khilafah system only in good matters (ma’ruf). There is no obedience in masiyah (violation of the law, sin, and wrongdoing), nor is there any cooperation:

**********************

O Prophet! When believing women come to you to pledge allegiance to you concerning these matters—that they will not associate anything with Allah and will not disobey you in any lawful matter—then accept their pledge. —Al-Mumtahanah 12

**********************

—Cooperate in righteousness and piety—good deeds and God-consciousness; do not cooperate in sin and transgression. Fear Allah. Allah is severe in punishment.

**********************

Ten: Shura

All the affairs of that state—from its establishment and organization to the selection of the head of state and the ulu’l-amr, and including its constitutional and administrative functions—should be conducted through mutual consultation among the believers; whether this consultation takes place directly, without any intermediary, or through elected representatives:

**********************

—and their affairs are conducted through mutual consultation. [For a detailed explanation of this verse, see Tafhim al-Qur’an, Urdu edition, vol. 4, pp. 508–510].

Eleven: Qualifications of the Ulu’l-Amr

The matters that must be considered when selecting the ulu’l-amr to administer this state system are as follows:

(a) He must abide by the principles on the basis of which the responsibility of administering the Khilafat system is entrusted to him. For responsibility for administering a system cannot be entrusted to a person who is fundamentally opposed to that system:

**********************

—O you who believe! Obey Allah, obey the Messenger, and those vested with authority among you. —al-Nisa 59

**********************

—O you who believe! Do not take as confidants those outside your own number. —Al ‘Imran 11 [The original uses the word ********************** (bitanah), which al-Zamakhshari (d. 538 AH/1144 CE) explains as follows: a person’s ‘bitanah’ and walijah is the person whom he chooses as an intimate friend and close companion, on whom he relies and to whom he turns in important matters. (Al-Kashshaf, vol. 1, p. 162).].

**********************

—Do you think you will be left alone, while Allah has not yet tested which among you have striven and have not taken anyone besides Allah, the Messenger, and the believers as an intimate confidant? —al-Tawbah 16 [The original uses the word ********************** (walijah). One explanation of it, quoted from al-Zamakhshari, has been given above. Another explanation was given by Raghib al-Isfahani. He wrote: Walijah refers to a person whom someone accepts as a trusted confidant, although he is not counted among his own people. ********************** It is derived from this Arabic idiom. Its meaning is: ‘So-and-so has entered among that nation, although he is not one of its people.’ (Mufradat fi Gharib al-Qur’an, al-Matba‘at al-Khayriyyah, Egypt, 1322 AH.)

(b) He must not be unjust, wicked, immoral, opposed to Allah, or transgressive. Rather, he must be a believer, God-fearing, and righteous. If an unjust or wicked person assumes the office of emir or imam, then, in the view of Islam, his emirate—his leadership and authority—is invalid:

**********************

—And remember when Abraham was tested by his Lord with certain words and he fulfilled them. Then his Lord said, ‘I am appointing you as an imam for mankind.’ Abraham said, ‘And from my descendants?’ He said, ‘My covenant does not reach the unjust.’ —al-Baqarah 124 [The well-known Hanafi jurist Abu Bakr al-Jassas (d. 370 AH/980 CE), while explaining this verse, says that in the lexicon imam means one who is followed, whether that following concerns truth or falsehood, justice or injustice. But in the verse under discussion, imam refers only to one who is worthy of obedience and whose example must be followed. In this respect, the prophets and messengers, the rightly guided caliphs, and thereafter the scholars and judges who follow the truth occupy the highest ranks of imamate. He then writes: Therefore, no unjust person can be a prophet. Nor is it lawful for him to be a judge, a deputy of a prophet, or the holder of an office of similar rank, whose word must necessarily be obeyed in matters of religion. This verse proves that the imamate of a wicked, sinful, and depraved person is invalid. He cannot be a caliph. If he forcibly establishes himself in such an office, following and obeying him is not obligatory for the people. (Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 1, pp. 79–80, al-Matba‘at al-Bahiyyah, Egypt, 1346 AH.)]

—Shall We treat those who believe and do righteous deeds like those who spread corruption in the land? Shall We treat the God-fearing like the wicked? —Sad 28

**********************

—Do not obey anyone whose heart We have made heedless of Our remembrance, who follows the desire of his soul, and whose conduct exceeds all bounds. —al-Kahf 28

**********************

—Do not obey the transgressors, who spread corruption in the land and do not reform it. —al-Shu‘ara 151–152

**********************

—The most honored of you in the sight of Allah is the one among you who is most God-conscious—the most pious and Allah-fearing.

(c) He must not be ignorant or foolish; rather, he must be learned and knowledgeable. He must be experienced in matters that require it. To administer the affairs of the Khilafat, he must possess sufficient physical and mental capacity:

**********************

—Do not hand over the wealth which Allah has made a means of support for your lives to the foolish. —al-Nisa 5

**********************

—They said, ‘How can he have authority over us, when we have a greater right to rule than he does? Besides, he has not been given abundant wealth.’ The Prophet said, ‘Allah has chosen him over you and has increased him in knowledge and physical strength.’ —al-Baqarah 247

**********************

—And We strengthened David’s kingdom, and gave him wisdom and the ability to deliver decisive judgment. —Sad 20

**********************

Joseph said, ‘Appoint me over the storehouses of the land. Indeed, I am a vigilant guardian and well-informed.’ —Yusuf 55

**********************

—If they had referred the matter to the Messenger and to those vested with authority among them, those among them capable of penetrating to the heart of the matter would have known it. —al-Nisa 83

**********************

—Say, ‘Can those who possess knowledge and those who do not possess knowledge be equal?’ —al-Zumar 9

(d) He must be so trustworthy that responsibility can be entrusted to him with confidence:

**********************

—Indeed, Allah commands you to return trusts to those entitled to them. —al-Nisa 58 [This also includes the meaning that positions of responsibility should be given only to those qualified to hold them. (Alusi, Ruh al-Ma‘ani, vol. 5, p. 58, Idarat al-Tiba‘at al-Muniriyyah, Egypt, 1345 AH.)]

Twelve: Constitutional Fundamental Principles

The constitutional system of this state will be founded on the following fundamental principles:

**********************

(a) O you who believe! Obey Allah, obey the Messenger, and those vested with authority among you. Then, if you differ over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. —al-Nisa 59

This verse clearly sets out six constitutional provisions:

One: Obedience to Allah and the Messenger takes precedence over all obedience.

Two: Obedience to the ulu’l-amr is subordinate to obedience to Allah and the Messenger.

Three: The ulu’l-amr must be from among the believers.

Four: The people have the right to disagree with the rulers and the government.

Five: When a dispute arises, the ruling of Allah and the Messenger shall be the final decisive proof.

Six: In the Khilafat system, there must be an institution that, free from the pressure and influence of the ulu’l-amr and the people, can resolve all disputes in accordance with the higher law.

(b) The powers and authority of the Executive Body must necessarily be limited by Allah’s bounds and bound by the law of Allah and the Messenger. In violation of these, the Executive Body may neither adopt any policy nor issue any directive that falls under the definition of ma‘siyat (sinfulness; anything contrary to any clear, unambiguous command of the Qur’an and Sunnah). For it has no right to demand obedience beyond these legal limits. (In this connection, we have cited clear Qur’anic directives in paragraphs 3, 5, and 9 above.) In addition, the administrative structure must be formed through Shura, that is, election. And it must conduct its affairs through Shura, that is, mutual consultation. This matter has been discussed above in paragraph 10. However, the Qur’an has not prescribed any clear and specific form or structure for election and consultation. Rather, it has laid down a general principle and left open the way for implementing it in different ages according to the circumstances, conditions, and needs of society.

(c) The Legislature must necessarily be based on consultation (see paragraph 10). But its right to make laws must in all circumstances remain limited to the bounds described in paragraphs 3 and 5. In matters concerning which Allah and the Messenger have given no clear directive, or for which they have laid down principles and limits, the Legislature may provide interpretations. It may offer advice on relevant rules and procedures for implementing them and may submit proposals. But it may not alter them. However, in matters concerning which the Supreme Legislator has laid down no clear ruling and established no limits or principles, the Legislature may enact laws as needed in accordance with the spirit of Islam and its general principles. For the absence of any directive in such matters itself proves that the Lawgiver has left them to the sound judgment of the believer.

(d) The Judiciary must be free from every kind of interference, pressure, and influence, so that it may deliver impartial judgments according to the law in matters concerning both the government and the people. The limits mentioned above in paragraphs 3 and 5 must be strictly observed. It is its duty to decide cases on the basis of truth and justice, without being influenced by its own desires or those of others:

**********************

-Judge between them according to what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their desires. -Al-Ma’idah: 48

**********************

-Do not follow the desires of your own selves. If you do so, they will lead you away from the path of Allah. -Sad: 26

**********************

-When you judge between people, judge with justice. -Al-Nisa’: 58

Thirteen: The Objective of the State

This state must work for two noble purposes.

First: That justice and equity may be established in human life, and oppression and persecution may come to an end:

**********************

-We sent Our messengers with clear guidance, and sent down with them the Book and al-Mizan [According to exegetes such as Mujahid and Qatadah, mizan means ‘adl, justice. (Ibn Kathir: Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘Azim, vol. 4, p. 314; Matba‘at Mustafa Muhammad, Egypt, 1937)] so that people may establish justice. And We sent down iron [Iron means political power. This indicates that when people adopt arrogance, the power of the sword must be used against them. (al-Razi: Mafatih al-Ghayb, vol. 8, p. 101, al-Matba‘ah al-Sharqiyyah, Egypt, 1324 AH)], in which there is great strength and benefits for humankind. -Al-Hadid: 25

Second: Through governmental authority and means, arrangements must be established for ‘establishing Salat’ and paying Zakat—the pillars of Islamic life. The advancement of welfare and virtue must be promoted. This is the very purpose of Islam’s advent in the world. Wrongdoing and evil must be resisted. Wrongdoing and evil are most hateful to Allah:

**********************

-They are those who, when We establish them in the land, establish Salat, pay Zakat, enjoin justice, and forbid wrongdoing. -Al-Hajj: 41

Fourteen: Fundamental Rights

These are the fundamental rights of Muslim and non-Muslim citizens living under this system. It is the duty of the state to protect these rights. [For further details about fundamental rights, see Fundamental Rights of Man, Tafhimat, vol. 3, pp. 248–268.]

(a) Protection of Life:

**********************

-Do not kill the life that Allah has made sacred and inviolable, except with due right.

(b) Protection of the Right to Property:

**********************

-Do not consume one another’s wealth through unlawful means.

(c) Protection of Honor and Dignity:

**********************

-Let not one group ridicule another group. … Do not taunt one another, nor give one another offensive nicknames. … Do not backbite one another—do not speak ill of one another in their absence. -Al-Hujurat: 11–12

(d) Protection of the Privacy of Personal Life:

**********************

-Do not enter any house other than your own without first seeking permission. -Nur: 27

**********************

-Do not seek out people’s secrets. -Al-Hujurat: 12

(e) The Right to Raise One’s Voice Against Oppression:

**********************

-Allah does not like public denunciation, except by one who has been wronged.

(f) The right to enjoin justice and restrain wrongdoing, including the right to freedom of criticism:

**********************

-Those among the Children of Israel who disbelieved were cursed by the words of David and Jesus, son of Mary. That was because they disobeyed and transgressed, exceeding the limits. They did not prevent one another from committing evil deeds. How evil was what they used to do! -Al-Ma’idah: 78–79

**********************

-We delivered those who forbade evil deeds from the punishment, and seized the wrongdoers with a severe punishment, in recompense for the فسق—sinfulness they committed. -Al-A‘raf: 165

**********************

-You are the best community brought forth for the good of humankind: you enjoin what is good, forbid what is evil, and believe in Allah.

(g) The right to freedom of association. The condition, however, is that it be used for works of welfare and benefit. It must not be used as a means of spreading factionalism and fundamental discord in society:

**********************

-There should be a group among you that calls to الخير, enjoins what is good, and forbids what is evil. Such people will be successful. Do not be like those who became divided into factions and differed even after clear guidance had come to them. For such people there is a severe punishment.

(h) The right to freedom of conscience and belief:

**********************

-There is no compulsion in religion. -Al-Baqarah: 156

**********************

-Will you compel people to become believers?

**********************

“Fitnah is more grievous than killing.” —Al-Baqarah 191 [Fitnah means using force against a person and compelling him to change his religion. (Ibn Jarir, vol. 2, p. 911)]

(J) The right to be free from distress in religious matters:

**********************

“Do not insult those whom they invoke besides Allah.”

The Qur’an has made it clear in this regard that theoretical discussion of religious matters is permissible, but it must be conducted courteously and in the best manner:

**********************

“Do not debate with the People of the Book except in the fairest manner.”

(K) The right that each person is responsible only for his own actions and that no one may be seized for another’s deeds:

**********************

“Whoever does evil must bear its consequence; no bearer of burdens shall bear another’s burden.” —Al-An‘am 165 [That is, whatever crime a criminal commits, he alone is responsible for it. No one other than him will be apprehended. Responsibility for another’s crime cannot be placed upon him apart from his own crime. (Ibn Jarir, vol. 8, p. 83)]

**********************

“If a disobedient wrongdoer brings you any news, investigate it, lest you harm a people unknowingly and then regret what you have done.” —Al-Hujurat 6

(T) The right that no action may be taken against anyone without evidence and without fulfilling the established requirements of justice:

**********************

“Do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge.” —Bani Israel 36

**********************

“When you judge between people, judge with ‘adl (justice).” —An-Nisa 58

(Th) The right that the needy and deprived be provided with the necessities of life:

**********************

“And in their wealth there is a right for the beggar and the deprived.” —Adh-Dhariyat 19

(D) The right that the state shall not discriminate among its citizens but shall treat everyone equally:

*********************

“Pharaoh exalted himself in the land, divided its inhabitants into factions, weakened one group among them … Indeed, he was one of the corrupters.”

Fifteen: The Government’s Rights over Citizens

Under this system, the government’s rights over citizens are as follows:

(A) They shall obey the government and comply with it:

**********************

“Obey Allah, obey the Messenger, and those vested with authority among you.” —An-Nisa 59

(B) They shall obey the law and shall not disrupt governmental order:

**********************

“Do not spread corruption in the land after it has been set right.”

**********************

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread corruption in the land is that they be killed or crucified ….” —Al-Ma’idah 33

(C) They shall cooperate with the government in all good works:

**********************

“Cooperate with one another in goodness and piety.”

(D) In matters of defense, they shall assist the state to the utmost with their lives and property:

**********************

“What is wrong with you? When you are told to march forth in Allah’s path, you cling to the earth. …. If you do not march forth, He will punish you with a painful punishment and replace you with another people; you cannot harm Him at all. …. March forth, whether lightly or heavily equipped, and strive in Allah’s path with your lives and property. That is better for you, if only you knew.” —At-Tawbah 38–41

Sixteen: Fundamental Principles of Foreign Policy

The guidance given in the Qur’an Majid concerning the foreign policy of the Islamic state is as follows:

(A) Respect for treaties and pledges. If breaking a treaty becomes absolutely necessary, the other party must be informed of it beforehand:

**********************

“Fulfill treaties and pledges; surely the treaty will be questioned about.”

**********************

“Fulfill the covenant made with Allah when you make a covenant. Do not break your oaths after confirming them firmly. …. Do not be like the woman who spun her yarn strongly and then tore it into pieces. Do not use your oaths as a means of deception among yourselves, so that one nation may gain greater advantage over another. Allah tests you by this, and on the Day of Resurrection He will surely make clear to you the matter over which you differed.”

**********************

“So long as the other party remains true to its covenant with you, remain true to yours. Surely Allah loves the pious and God-fearing.” —At-Tawbah 7

**********************

“Except those polytheists with whom you have made a covenant and who have not failed you in fidelity or supported anyone against you: fulfill their covenant to its term.” —At-Tawbah 4

**********************

“If Muslims living in the territory of the enemy seek your help, it is your duty to help them—except against a people with whom you have a treaty.” —Al-Anfal 42

**********************

“If you fear treachery from any people, then throw their treaty back at them, while maintaining equality.” [That is, inform them that the treaty or truce between you and them has been annulled, so that both parties are equal regarding its annulment. If you take any action against them, the other party should not think that you have violated the treaty with them. (Al-Jassas, vol. 3, p. 83)] Allah surely does not love the treacherous. —Al-Anfal 58

(B) Faithfulness and honesty in conduct:

**********************

“Do not use your oaths as a means of deception among yourselves.” [That is, do not make a treaty with the intention of deceiving, so that the other party, relying on your oath, becomes secure from you while you intend to violate it when the opportunity arises. —Ibn Jarir, vol. 14, p. 112]

(C) International justice:

**********************

“Let not the hatred of any people cause you to depart from justice. Be just; that is nearer to piety.” —Al-Ma’idah 8

(D) Respect for the boundaries of neutral states during war:

**********************

“If they do not desist, seize them and kill them wherever you find them …. Except those who join a people with whom you have a treaty.” —An-Nisa 90

(E) Desire for peace:

**********************

“If they incline toward peace, then incline toward it as well.”

(F) Refraining from spreading disorder in the world and seeking supremacy:

**********************

“That abode of the Hereafter We assign to those who do not seek superiority or corruption in the land; and the good outcome is for the God-fearing.” —Al-Qasas 83

(G) Friendly conduct toward powers that are not hostile:

**********************

“Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and justly with those who have not fought you on account of religion or driven you from your homes. Surely Allah loves those who act justly.” —Al-Mumtahanah 8

(H) Good conduct toward those who act well:

**********************

“Can the reward of goodness be anything other than goodness?”

(I) Those who commit excess may be opposed only to the extent of their excess.

**********************

“So whoever transgresses against you, transgress against him to the same extent that he transgressed against you. And fear Allah; surely Allah is with the pious.” —Al-Baqarah 194

**********************

“If you retaliate, then retaliate only to the extent that you were afflicted. But if you are patient, that is better for those who are patient.” —An-Nahl 126

**********************

“The recompense of an evil is an evil equal to it. But whoever pardons and reconciles, his reward is with Allah. Surely He does not love the wrongdoers. There is no blame upon those who retaliate after being wronged. Blame is only upon those who wrong people and transgress unjustly in the land. For them is a painful punishment.” —Ash-Shura 40–42

Characteristics of the Islamic State

The notable characteristics of the state whose picture has emerged before us through these sixteen points in the Qur’an are as follows:

One: A free nation will willingly surrender itself before Almighty Allah, Rabb al-‘Alamin. In place of authority and sovereignty under Him, it will assume the role of khilafah and implement the laws, regulations, and directives that He has given through the Qur’an and the Messenger. The Islamic state comes into existence through such a deliberate declaration by a free nation.

Two: To the extent that it reserves sovereignty for Allah, the state agrees with the basic philosophy of theocracy. But in applying that philosophy, its path differs from theocracy. Instead of making a particular class of religious priests the bearers of Allah’s special authority and entrusting all the powers of ‘ahl al-hall wa’l-‘aqd’ to that class, the Islamic state recognizes all believers living within the country’s borders—those who willingly and consciously pledge themselves to surrender before Allah, Rabb al-‘Alamin—as the bearers of Allah’s khilafah. It entrusts the ultimate authority of ‘ahl al-hall wa’l-‘aqd’ collectively to them.

Three: In the democratic principle that the establishment, transformation, and administration of the state must wholly follow the people’s decision, the Islamic state agrees with democracy. But the people of the Islamic state are not without restraint. It does not mean that the state’s laws, the principles governing the people’s way of life, domestic and foreign policy, and the state’s means and resources will all be determined by the people’s will. Nor can it mean that the Islamic state will bend in whichever direction the people incline. Rather, the supreme law of Allah and the Messenger imposes control over the people’s wishes through its own principles, limits, moral laws, and directives. The state is guided along a definite path, and no one—the executive, legislative, or judicial branch—has the authority to alter it. Nor does the nation as a whole possess that authority. Yes, if the nation breaks its pledge and seeks to move away from the circle of faith, that is a separate matter.

Four: The Islamic state is an ideological state. Naturally, its administration can be undertaken by those who accept its fundamental philosophy and laws. But every person who does not accept them yet is willing to live within the state’s territory in obedience to the law is granted all the civil rights granted to citizens committed to upholding the state’s ideals and principles.

Five: It is a state founded not on lineage, race, language, or geographical nationality, but solely on principles and ideals. Any member of humanity from any region of the earth may accept these principles by choice and join this system with completely equal rights, without any distinction or discrimination. Wherever a state is established on this ideal, it will certainly be an Islamic state, whether in Africa or Asia; its governing body may be black, white, or yellow. There is no obstacle to such an absolute, law-based state developing into a world state. If many such states are established in different regions of the earth, they too will be Islamic states. Instead of nationalist conflict and confrontation, complete brotherly cooperation among these states is possible. At some point they may agree to establish a world federation.

Six: Making politics subordinate to principles and morality rather than self-interest, and conducting it with fear of Allah and piety, is the real spirit of that state. Moral and character-based excellence is its sole basis and single standard of superiority. In selecting the state’s governing body and ‘ahl al-hall wa’l-‘aqd’, moral purity, along with physical and intellectual qualifications, is the most noticeable and important consideration. All its internal administrative departments must likewise be run on the basis of religious integrity, trust, honesty, faithfulness, impartiality, fearless justice, and equitable judgment. Its foreign policy, too, must be founded entirely on integrity and good conduct.

Seven: This state does not exist merely to perform the duties of a police force. Its task is not only to establish law and order and protect the country’s borders; rather, it is an ideological state. It must work positively to establish social justice, promote righteousness, and eradicate wrongdoing.

Eight: Equality of rights, dignity, and opportunities; the rule of law; cooperation in good works; non-cooperation in evil; a sense of responsibility before Allah; a sense of duty regarded as greater than rights; unity of individuals, society, and the state in a common objective; and ensuring that no member of society remains deprived of the necessities of life—these are the basic values of that state.

Nine: This system establishes such a balance between the individual and the state that the state, by becoming unrestrained and possessing total power, cannot turn the individual into a helpless slave, while the individual, by receiving unlimited freedom, cannot become arrogant and an enemy of social interests. On one hand, by granting the individual fundamental rights and making the state subject to the supreme law and shura, it provides every opportunity and facility for the emergence and development of individual personality; it protects the individual from undesirable interference by authority. On the other hand, it firmly binds the individual with the ties of moral principles. It also imposes the duty that, when the state acts according to Allah’s law, the individual must obey it wholeheartedly, cooperate with it fully in good works, refrain from disrupting state order, and not hesitate even slightly to make every kind of sacrifice with life and property for its protection.

Chapter Two

The Principles of Governance in Islam

The task of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) was to translate into reality the political teachings of the Qur’an Majid described earlier. The Muslim society that came into existence after the rise of Islam under his leadership, and that gained political power after the Hijrah, assumed the form of a state whose foundations rested on the political teachings of the Qur’an Majid. The following characteristics of the Islamic system of governance distinguish it from other systems of governance.

One: The Authority of Allah’s Law

The first fundamental principle of this state was that Allah alone possesses sovereignty, and the rule of the believers is essentially khilafah, or representative rule on behalf of Allah. Therefore, it has no right to act without restraint. Rather, it is its indispensable duty to act under Allah’s law, derived from the sources of Allah’s Book and the Sunnah of His Messenger. We mentioned in the previous chapter the verses of the Qur’an Majid in which this principle is stated. Among them, the following verses are especially clear on this matter:

An-Nisa 59, 64, 65, 80, 105; Al-Ma’idah 44, 45, 47; Al-A’raf 3; Yusuf 40; An-Nur 54, 55; Al-Ahzab 36; and Al-Hashr 7.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) also expressed this principle very clearly in numerous sayings:

*********************

—It is incumbent upon you to follow Allah’s Book. Regard as lawful what Allah’s Book has declared lawful, and regard as unlawful what it has declared unlawful. [Quoted in Kanz al-Ummal, Tabarani, and Musnad Ahmad, vol. 1, hadith nos. 907–966; Dairatul Ma’arif, Hyderabad edition, 1955.]

*********************

—Allah has prescribed certain obligations, so do not neglect them; He has specified certain unlawful things, so do not violate them; He has set certain limits, so do not transgress them; and, without forgetfulness, He has remained silent about certain matters, so do not seek them out. [Mishkat, quoted from Daraqutni—Bab al-I’tisam bil-Kitab wa as-Sunnah; Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 1, hadith nos. 981, 982.]

*********************

—Whoever follows Allah’s Book will not go astray in this world, nor will he be wretched in the Hereafter. [The relevant chapter in Mishkat, quoted from Razin.]

*********************

—I am leaving two things among you; as long as you hold firmly to them, you will never go astray: Allah’s Book and the Sunnah of His Messenger. [Mishkat, quoted from the Muwatta, the relevant chapter; Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 1, hadith nos. 877, 949, 955, 1001.]

Accept what I have commanded you, and abstain from what I have forbidden you. [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 1, hadith no. 866.]

Two: Adl—Equal Justice for All

The second principle on which that state was founded was that the law given by the Qur’an and Sunnah is equal for everyone and should be applied equally to all, from the humblest person in the state to its head. There is not the slightest room in it for exceptional treatment of anyone. In the Noble Qur’an, Allah commands His Prophet to proclaim:

*********************

—And I have been commanded to establish adl—justice—among you.

In other words, I have been commanded and appointed to adopt a policy of impartial justice. It is not my task to take anyone’s side, for or against, by adopting a policy of partiality. My relationship with all people is equal—and it is a relationship of adl and justice. I am the ally of whoever is on the side of truth; I oppose whoever is against the truth. In my religion, there is no room for discriminatory treatment of anyone. No separate rights are reserved for relatives and strangers, the small and the great, the noble and the lowly. Whatever is true is true for everyone; whatever is a sin is a sin for everyone; whatever is unlawful is unlawful for everyone; whatever is lawful is lawful for everyone; whatever is obligatory is obligatory for everyone. Even my own person is not exempt from, nor an exception to, the universal effect of Allah’s law. The Prophet (peace be upon him) himself described this principle as follows:

*********************

—The communities before you were destroyed because they punished the lower-ranking criminals according to the law but spared the high-ranking criminals. By the One in whose hand is Muhammad’s life, if Fatimah, Muhammad’s own daughter, were to steal, I would certainly cut off her hand. [Bukhari, Kitab al-Hudud, chapters 11–12.]

Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

*********************

—I myself saw the Messenger of Allah take retribution against himself. [Kitab al-Kharaj, Imam Abu Yusuf, p. 116, al-Matba’at as-Salafiyyah, Egypt, 2nd edition, 1352 AH; Musnad Abu Dawud at-Tayalisi, hadith no. 55, Dairatul Ma’arif, Hyderabad edition, 1321 AH.]

Three: Equality Among Muslims

The third principle of this state was that the rights of all Muslims are equal, regardless of lineage, race, language, place, or time. Within the boundaries of this state, no individual, group, party, lineage, or nation can claim any special rights.

Allah Most High says in the Noble Qur’an:

*********************

—The believers are but brothers to one another. —Al-Hujurat: 10

*********************

—O mankind! We created you from a male and a female, and made you into various peoples and tribes so that you may recognize one another. Indeed, the most honored of you in the sight of Allah is the one among you most mindful of Allah. —Al-Hujurat: 13

The following saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him) explains this principle even more clearly:

*********************

—Allah does not look at your faces or your wealth; rather, He looks at your hearts and deeds. [Tafsir Ibn Kathir, quoted from Muslim and Ibn Majah, vol. 4, p. 217, Mustafa Muhammad Press, Egypt, 1937.]

*********************

—Muslims are brothers to one another. No one has superiority over another except on the basis of taqwa. [Tafsir Ibn Kathir, quoted from Tabarani, vol. 4, p. 217.]

*********************

—O mankind! Listen: your Lord is One. An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor a non-Arab over an Arab. A white person has no superiority over a black person, nor a black person over a white person. Yes, only according to taqwa. [Tafsir Ruh al-Ma’ani, quoted from Bayhaqi and Ibn Marduyah, vol. 26, p. 148, Idarat at-Taba’ah al-Muniriyyah, Egypt.]

*********************

—Whoever testifies that there is no deity except Allah, faces our qiblah, performs salat as we do, and eats the animals we slaughter is a Muslim. He has the same rights as Muslims, and he has the same obligations as Muslims. [Bukhari, Kitab as-Salat, chapter 28.]

*********************

—The blood of all believers is equal in sanctity, and they are united against others. Even the least among them may grant protection on their behalf. [Abu Dawud, Kitab ad-Diyat, chapter 11; Nasa’i, Kitab al-Qasamat, chapters 10, 14.]

*********************

Jizyah cannot be imposed on Muslims. [Abu Dawud, Kitab al-Imarah, chapter 34.]

Four: The Government’s Responsibility and Accountability

The fourth important principle of this state was that governing authority, its powers and jurisdiction, and its financial resources are a trust from Allah and the Muslims. They should be entrusted to God-fearing, believing, and just people. No one has the right to betray this trust according to his own desire or prompted by self-interest. Those to whom this trust is assigned are obliged to be accountable for it. Allah Most High says in the Noble Qur’an:

*********************

Indeed, Allah commands you to deliver the trusts to those qualified to bear them. And when you judge between people, judge with justice. Excellent is the instruction Allah gives you. Surely Allah is All-Hearing, All-Seeing.

The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said:

*********************

—Beware! Each of you is responsible, and each of you will be held accountable for his responsibility. The greatest leader of the Muslims—who rules over all of them—is also responsible, and he too will be held accountable for his responsibility. [Bukhari, Kitab al-Ahkam, chapter 1; Muslim, Kitab al-Imarah, chapter 5.]

*********************

If a ruler who is chiefly responsible for the affairs of Muslim subjects dies while deceiving and betraying them, Allah will make Paradise forbidden to him. [Bukhari, Kitab al-Ahkam, chapter 8; Muslim, Kitab al-Iman, chapter 61; Kitab al-Imarah, chapter 5.]

*********************

—A Muslim state official who does not strive with all his might to fulfill the duties of his office and does not work sincerely will never enter Paradise with the Muslims. [Muslim, Kitab al-Imarah, chapter 5.]

*********************

—The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to Abu Dharr: Abu Dharr! You are a weak man, and public office is a trust. It will be a cause of disgrace and humiliation on the Day of Resurrection—except for one who fully fulfills its due and properly discharges the responsibility entrusted to him. [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 6, hadith nos. 68, 122.]

*********************

—For a ruler, trading among his own subjects is the worst form of betrayal. [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 6, hadith no. 78.]

*********************

—Whoever assumes a position in our state may marry if he has no wife, take a servant if he has none, acquire a house if he has no house, and acquire a mount if he has none for travel. Whoever goes beyond this is a betrayer or a thief. [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 6, hadith no. 346.]

*********************

—Whoever becomes a ruler will face the most difficult reckoning and the fear of the severest punishment. Whoever does not become a ruler will face an easier reckoning and may hope for lighter punishment, because through a ruler there is far greater potential for oppression of Muslims. Whoever oppresses Muslims betrays Allah. [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 5, hadith no. 2505.]

Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

*********************

—If even a young goat were lost—or destroyed—on the banks of the Euphrates, I fear that Allah would question me about it. [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 5, hadith no. 2512.]

Five: Shura, or Consultation

The fifth important principle of this state was that its head should be appointed through the consultation and mutual consent of the Muslims. He should also conduct the affairs of the state on the basis of consultation. It is stated in the Noble Qur’an:

*********************

—And their affairs are conducted through mutual consultation.

*********************

—O Prophet, consult them in matters.

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said: I asked the Messenger of Allah: If, after you, a matter arises before us concerning which there is no instruction in the Qur’an and about which we have heard nothing from you, what should we do?

He said:

*********************

—Consult people who possess knowledge of religion and are devoted to worship in this matter, and do not decide according to the opinion of any particular individual. [In the hadith, the term devoted to worship refers to those who worship Allah and do not act independently according to their own desires. It would be incorrect to infer from this that, when seeking counsel, only the quality of the advisers’ devotion to worship should be considered, while the other qualities necessary for their competence to give opinions and advice are disregarded.]

Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

*********************

—It is not lawful for you not to kill anyone who calls for leadership—his own or someone else’s—without the consultation of the Muslims. [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 5, hadith no. 2577. The significance of Umar’s statement is that, in an Islamic state, an individual’s attempt to forcefully seize power is a serious crime, and the Ummah should not tolerate it.]

In another narration, Umar’s statement is reported as follows:

*********************

There is no caliphate without consultation. [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 5, hadith no. 2354.]

Six: Obedience in Good Deeds

The sixth principle on which this state was founded was that obedience to the government is obligatory only in ma’ruf—good and lawful matters. No one has the right to demand obedience in sin—ma’siyat. In other words, this principle means that the orders of the government and government officials that their subordinates and subjects are obliged to obey are only those that conform to the law. They have no right to issue orders contrary to the law, and no one should obey them. In the Noble Qur’an, even the oath of allegiance to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) is made conditional upon obedience in ma’ruf, although there was never any question of an order of ma’siyat—sin—coming from him:

*********************

—And they will not disobey you in any ma’ruf matter.

The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said:

*********************

—A Muslim must hear and obey his amir and follow him, whether he likes it or dislikes it, so long as he is not commanded to commit ma’siyat—sin. When he is commanded to commit ma’siyat, there is no obedience. [Bukhari, Kitab al-Ahkam, chapter 4; Muslim, Kitab al-Imarah, chapter 8; Abu Dawud, Kitab al-Jihad, chapter 95; Nasa’i, Kitab al-Bay’ah, chapter 33; Ibn Majah, Abwab al-Jihad, chapter 40.]

—There is no obedience in disobedience to Allah; obedience is only in ma’ruf. [Muslim, Kitab al-Imarah, chapter 8; Abu Dawud, Kitab al-Jihad, chapter 95; Nasa’i, Kitab al-Bay’ah, chapter 33.]

The Prophet (peace be upon him) mentioned this matter in various ways in different sayings. In one place he said, “There is no obedience for one who disobeys Allah”; at another time he said, “There is no obedience of the creation in disobedience to the Creator”; at another time he said, “There is no obedience for one who does not obey Allah”; and at another time he said, “Do not obey a ruler who commands you to commit ma’siyat.” [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 6, hadith nos. 293, 294, 295, 296, 299, 301.]

Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) said in one of his addresses:

*********************

—Allah’s curse is upon anyone entrusted with an affair of the Ummah of Muhammad (peace be upon him) who does not govern the people according to Allah’s Book. [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 5, hadith no. 2505.]

For this reason, after becoming caliph, he declared in his very first address:

*********************

—As long as I obey Allah and His Messenger, obey me. When I disobey Allah and the Messenger, you owe me no obedience. [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 5, hadith no. 2282. In another narration, Abu Bakr’s words are reported as follows: —If I disobey Allah, then disobey me. —Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 5, hadith no. 2330.]

Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said:

*********************

—It is obligatory upon the ruler of the Muslims to judge according to the law revealed by Allah and to deliver the trusts. When the ruler acts in this manner, it is the people’s duty to listen and obey, and to respond when he calls them. [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 5, hadith no. 2531.]

On one occasion he said in his address:

*********************

—It is obligatory for you to obey the command I give you in obedience to Allah, whether you like that command or not. But in the command I give you in disobedience to Allah, there is no obedience for anyone in matters involving disobedience or sin against Allah; obedience is only in ma’ruf, obedience is only in ma’ruf. [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 5, hadith no. 2587.]

Seven: Prohibited: Claiming and Coveting Public Office

It was also one of the fundamental principles of that state that, generally, the person most unfit and unsuitable for an important state office, especially the caliphate, is the one who desires office for himself and strives to obtain it.

Allah Most High says in the Noble Qur’an:

*********************

—I shall grant the abode of the Hereafter to those who do not seek greatness on earth and do not desire to spread corruption. —Al-Qasas 28:83

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

*********************

—By Allah, we do not appoint to a position of authority anyone who seeks it or covets it. [Bukhari, Kitab al-Ahkam, chapter 7; Muslim, Kitab al-Imarah, chapter 3]

*********************

—In our view, the person who seeks it himself is the greatest traitor. [Abu Dawud, Kitab al-Imarah, chapter 2]

*********************

—We do not appoint as a government official anyone who desires the position himself. [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 6, hadith no. 206]

*********************

—The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said to Abd al-Rahman ibn Samurah (may Allah be pleased with him): “Abd al-Rahman, do not ask for a public office. For if it is granted to you after you have sought and pursued it, you will be left to your own resources; but if you receive it without seeking or pursuing it, Allah will assist you in fulfilling its obligations.” [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 6, hadith no. 69] Here no one should wonder: if this is a principle, why did Joseph (peace be upon him) ask the king of Egypt for a government position? In fact, Joseph (peace be upon him) did not seek this position in an Islamic state; he sought it from the ruler of a disbelieving state. At a particular psychological juncture, he realized that if he asked the king for the highest office in the state, he might obtain it, and through it the way might be opened for spreading Allah’s religion in that land. But if he refrained from seeking power, he would lose the rare opportunity he had to guide that disbelieving nation. This was a special circumstance, and the general rule of Islam cannot be applied to it.

Eight: The Fundamental Objective of the State

The foremost duty established for the ruler of this state and his government was to establish the Islamic way of life properly, without any alteration or modification, to cultivate good and virtuous qualities according to Islam’s moral standards, and to eradicate evil and immoral qualities. The Holy Quran states the fundamental objective of this state:

********************

—Those who, when We establish them in the land, establish prayer, pay zakat, enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong.

—Al-Hajj 22:41

According to the Quran, this too is the fundamental purpose of the existence of the Muslim community:

***********************

—Thus We have made you a middlemost community—or a community steadfast on a balanced path—so that you may be witnesses over humanity and the Messenger may be a witness over you. —Al-Baqarah 2:143

**************************

—You are the best community brought forth for humanity, for their reform and guidance. You enjoin what is right, forbid what is wrong, and believe in Allah.

Moreover, the task for which Muhammad (peace be upon him) and all the earlier prophets and messengers were commissioned was, in the Quran’s view, this:

******************************

—Establish the religion and do not become divided therein. —Ash-Shura 42:13

All his efforts against the non-Muslim world were directed toward this objective:

****************************

—So that the religion may be devoted entirely to Allah.

Like the communities of all the other prophets and messengers, his community too received Allah’s command:

***************************

—They should worship Allah sincerely, devoting their religion exclusively to Him. —Al-Bayyinah 98:5

Therefore, the first task of the state he established was to establish the complete system of the religion and to allow no admixture that would create a two-faced policy in Muslim society. Concerning this final matter, the Prophet (peace be upon him) sternly warned his Companions and their successors:

***************************

—Whoever introduces into this religion of ours something that does not belong to it, it is rejected. [Mishkat, chapter on holding fast to the Book and the Sunnah]

*************************

—Beware of newly introduced matters. For every newly introduced matter is an innovation, and every innovation is misguidance and belongs to error. [Mishkat, chapter on holding fast to the Book and the Sunnah]

***********************

—Whoever honors an innovator assists in uprooting Islam. [Mishkat, chapter on holding fast to the Book and the Sunnah]

In this connection, we also find him saying that the three people most disliked by Allah include the person who:

**********************

—Seeks to revive a practice of the Age of Ignorance in Islam. [Mishkat, chapter on holding fast to the Book and the Sunnah]

Nine: The Rights and Duties of Enjoining Good and Forbidding WrongNine: The Rights and Duties of Enjoining Good and Forbidding Wrong

The final fundamental principle of this state—which guarantees that it remains on the right path—was that every person in Muslim society would speak the truth, support righteousness and welfare, and wherever he saw any wrong or injustice in society or the state, would strive with all his strength to resist it. This is not merely the right of every member of Muslim society; it is also an indispensable duty. In this regard, the Holy Quran commands:

********************

—Help one another in righteousness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and transgression. —Al-Ma’idah 5:2

*********************

—Believers! Fear Allah and speak words that are true and upright. —Al-Ahzab 33:70

************************

—Believers! Stand firmly for justice and be witnesses for Allah, even if your testimony is against yourselves, your parents, or your close relatives.

*************************

—Hypocritical men and women are alike: they enjoin evil and forbid good. …… And believing men and women are allies of one another: they enjoin good and forbid evil. —At-Tawbah 9:67–71

The Quran mentions this distinctive quality of the believers:

***************************

—Those who enjoin righteousness, forbid evil, and observe Allah’s limits. —At-Tawbah 9:112

The Prophet’s (peace be upon him) command concerning this is:

***************************

—Whoever among you sees a wrong should change it with his hand. If he is unable to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is unable to do that, then with his heart—that is, he should regard it as evil and wish to resist it—and that is the weakest degree of faith. [Muslim, Kitab al-Iman, chapter 20; Tirmidhi, Abwab al-Fitan, chapter 12; Abu Dawud, Kitab al-Malahim, chapter 17; Ibn Majah, Abwab al-Fitan, chapter 20]

****************************

—Then unworthy people will succeed them. They will say things they do not do and do things they were not commanded to do. Whoever strives against them with his hand is a believer; whoever strives against them with his tongue is a believer; and whoever strives against them with his heart is a believer. Beyond this there is not even the smallest degree of faith. [Muslim, Kitab al-Iman, chapter 20]

********************

—Speaking a just or truthful word before a tyrannical ruler is the greatest jihad. [Abu Dawud, Kitab al-Malahim, chapter 17; Tirmidhi, Kitab al-Fitan, chapter 12; Nasa’i, Kitab al-Bay’ah, chapter 36; Ibn Majah, Abwab al-Fitan, chapter 20]

************************

—It is not far off that Allah’s punishment will be sent upon those who see the oppressor yet do not restrain him or prevent him. [Abu Dawud, Kitab al-Malahim, chapter 17; Tirmidhi, Kitab al-Fitan, chapter 12]

**************************

—After me, some people will become rulers. Whoever assists them in falsehood is not of me, nor am I of him. [Nasa’i, Kitab al-Bay’ah, chapters 34–35]

***********************

—Soon rulers will govern you whose hands hold your livelihoods. When they speak to you, they will lie; when they act, they will do evil. They will not be pleased with you so long as you do not praise their evil deeds and believe their lies. Continue presenting the truth to them as long as they tolerate it. Then, if they exceed its bounds, whoever is killed for this cause is a martyr. [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 6, hadith no. 297]

***********************

—Whoever says something to please a ruler that displeases his Lord has left the religion of Allah. [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 6, hadith no. 309]

Chapter Three

The Rightly Guided Caliphate and Its Characteristics

The principles of Islamic governance described in the preceding chapter were the principles upon which the rule of the Rightly Guided Caliphs was established after the Prophet (peace be upon him). Every member of the society established through the Prophet’s direct instruction and effective leadership knew what kind of system of government should be introduced according to Islam’s laws and spirit. Although the Prophet (peace be upon him) left no decision concerning the appointment of his successor, the members of Muslim society knew that Islam required a caliphate based on consultation. Thus no hereditary monarchy was established there, no one came to power by force, and no one sought or even made a nominal effort to obtain the caliphate on his own initiative. Rather, the people freely elected four Companions, one after another, as their caliphs. The Muslim community accepted this caliphate as the Rightly Guided Caliphate. This itself makes clear that, in the view of Muslims, this was the genuine method of the caliphate.

One: Elective Caliphate

Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) proposed Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) as the successor to the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him). All the people of Medina—who at that time had effectively attained the status of representatives of the entire country—accepted him willingly, without any pressure, influence, or inducement, and pledged allegiance to him.

At the time of his death, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) had a testament written concerning Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). He then gathered the people in the Prophet’s Mosque and said:

“Are you satisfied with the person I am appointing as my successor? By Allah, I have not been negligent in applying my judgment and reason in making this decision. I have appointed not one of my relatives, but Umar ibn al-Khattab, as my successor. Therefore, listen to his instructions and obey him.”

Everyone said in unison: “We shall listen to and obey his instructions.” [Al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Umam wa al-Muluk, vol. 2, p. 618; Al-Matba’ah al-Istiqamah, Cairo, 1939]

During the Hajj in the final year of Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) life, a man said: “When Umar dies, I will pledge allegiance to such-and-such a person, because Abu Bakr’s pledge of allegiance also took place suddenly, and ultimately he succeeded.” [He was referring to the fact that at the meeting of Saqifah Banu Sa’idah, Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) had suddenly stood up, proposed Abu Bakr’s name, and immediately pledged allegiance to him. No prior consultation had taken place about making him caliph.] When Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) learned of this, he said: “I will deliver a speech on this matter and warn the people about those who intend to impose themselves upon them by force.” Upon reaching Medina, he mentioned the incident in his very first speech. Relating the events of Saqifah Banu Sa’idah, he said that, in a special circumstance, he had suddenly proposed Abu Bakr’s name and pledged allegiance to him. He then said: “Had we not done so then and left the gathering without settling the question of the caliphate, there was a fear that the people might suddenly reach some wrong decision. It would have been difficult for us both to accept that decision and to change it. Although this action proved successful, it cannot be taken as a precedent for the future. Who among you is equal to Abu Bakr in excellence and popularity? Now, if anyone pledges allegiance to someone without consulting the Muslims, both he and the person to whom allegiance is pledged will have surrendered themselves to death. [Bukhari, Kitab al-Muharibin, chapter 16; Musnad Ahmad, vol. 1, hadith no. 391; third edition, Dar al-Ma’arif, Egypt, 1949] In the narration of Musnad Ahmad, Umar’s words were: ‘Whoever pledges allegiance to an amir without consulting the Muslims has no pledge of allegiance, nor does the person to whom he pledges allegiance have one.’ Another narration records Umar as saying: ‘If someone is given authority without consultation, it is not lawful for him to accept it.’ [Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, vol. 2, p. 125; Al-Matba’ah al-Khayriyyah, Cairo, 1325 AH]

In accordance with the method he himself had explained, Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), at the time of his death, formed an electoral committee to decide the caliphate and said: “Kill anyone who tries to become amir by force without the consultation of the Muslims.” To prevent the caliphate from becoming a hereditary office, he explicitly excluded his own son’s name from the list of those eligible for it. [Al-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 292; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, pp. 34–35; Idarat al-Tiba’ah al-Muniriyyah, Egypt, 1356 AH; Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 3, p. 344, Beirut edition, 1957; Fath al-Bari, vol. 7, p. 49] This electoral committee consisted of six persons. In Umar’s view, they were the most influential and popular people among the community.

The committee authorized its member Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf (may Allah be pleased with him) to propose the name of the caliph in the end. He moved among ordinary people to discover who was most popular. He also consulted the caravans returning to various regions after completing the Hajj. As a result of this survey of public opinion, he reached the conclusion that

the majority of the people favored Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). [Al-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 296; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 36; Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 7, p. 146] He was therefore elected to the caliphate. The public pledged allegiance to him in a general assembly.

After the martyrdom of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), when some people wanted to make Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) caliph, he said: “You do not have the authority to do this. That is the task of the members of the Shura and those who took part in the Battle of Badr. Whoever they wish to make caliph shall be caliph. We shall meet and deliberate on the matter.” [Ibn Qutaybah, Al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, vol. 1, p. 41] The statement attributed by al-Tabari to Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) is: “My pledge of allegiance cannot take place secretly; it must be according to the will of the Muslims.” [Al-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 450]

At the time of Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) death, people asked: “Shall we pledge allegiance to your son Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him)?” He replied: “I am neither instructing nor forbidding you. You may consider the matter carefully yourselves.” [Al-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 112; al-Mas’udi, Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. 2, p. 46; Al-Matba’ah al-Bahiyyah, Egypt, 1246 AH] While he was giving his final counsel to his sons, someone asked: “Commander of the Believers, why are you not appointing your successor?” He replied: “I wish to leave the Muslims in the same condition in which the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, left them.” [Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 8, pp. 13–14; Matba’at al-Sa’adah, Egypt; al-Mas’udi, vol. 2, p. 46]

These events clearly show that the unanimous view of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah regarding the caliphate was that it is an elective office. It must be established through mutual consultation among Muslims and the expression of their free opinions. Authority and leadership gained through heredity or force were, in their view, not caliphate but kingship and monarchy. The clear and unambiguous concept of caliphate and monarchy held by the noble Companions was expressed by Abu Musa al-Ash’ari (may Allah be pleased with him) in the following words:

********************************************************************************************

—Authority—that is, the caliphate—is what is established through consultation; whatever is established by the force of the sword is kingship or monarchy. [Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 4, p. 113]

Two: Government Based on Consultation

These four Caliphs never took any step concerning the administration of the government or the enactment of laws without consulting those among the nation who possessed sound judgment and decision-making authority. Sunan al-Darimi contains a narration from Maymun ibn Mihran that the policy of Abu Bakr was that whenever a matter was brought before him, he would first see what the Book of Allah said about it. If he found no instruction there, he would try to learn what decision the Messenger of Allah had given in such matters. If he found no instruction in the Sunnah of the Messenger either, he would gather the leading and righteous men of the nation and consult them. Whatever view was settled upon through their collective counsel, he would decide accordingly. [Sunan al-Darimi, Futya wa ma fihi min ash-Shiddah.] The policy of Umar was similar. [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 5, Hadith 2281.]

Regarding consultation, the viewpoint of the Rightly Guided Caliphs was that the members of the Shura had the full right to express their opinions freely. On this subject, Umar expressed the policy of the Caliphate in the opening speech of a consultative assembly as follows:

“The only reason I have troubled you by bringing you here is that you may share with me in bearing the trust of responsibility for your affairs that has been placed upon me, Umar. I am one of you. Today you are the affirmers of the truth. Whoever among you wishes may disagree with me, and whoever wishes may agree with me. There is no requirement that you support my opinion—and I do not want that either.” [Imam Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj, p. 25.]

Three: The Bayt al-Mal Is a Trust

They regarded the Bayt al-Mal as a trust from Allah and the people. They did not consider it permissible for anything to enter the Bayt al-Mal unlawfully or for anything to leave it unlawfully. In their view, using the Bayt al-Mal for the personal interests of the ruling class was haram. In their view, the fundamental difference between the Caliphate and monarchy was that kings turned the national treasury into their personal property and disposed of it freely according to their desires, whereas the Caliph regarded it as a trust from Allah and the people, collected every penny according to truth, justice, and principle, and spent it likewise. Once Umar asked Salman al-Farsi, “Am I a king or a Caliph?” He immediately replied, “If you unlawfully collect even one dirham from the land of the Muslims and spend it unlawfully, then you are not a Caliph but a king.” On another occasion Umar said at his assembly, “By Allah, I still cannot understand whether I am a king or a Caliph. If I have become a king, that is a terrible matter.” A man then said, “Commander of the Believers, there is a great difference between the two.” Umar asked, “What difference?” He replied, “A Caliph neither takes anything unlawfully nor spends anything unlawfully. By Allah’s grace, you are likewise. A king, however, oppresses people: he collects unlawfully from one person and gives unlawfully to another.” [Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 3, pp. 304–307.]

The conduct of the Rightly Guided Caliphs in this regard is noteworthy. The day after Abu Bakr became Caliph, he went out carrying a bolt of cloth on his shoulder to sell it, because before the Caliphate this had been his means of livelihood. On the way he met Umar. Umar asked, “What are you doing?” He replied, “How am I to feed my children?” Umar said, “The responsibility of leading the Muslims has been placed upon you. The work of the Caliphate cannot continue alongside trade. Come, let us consult Abu Ubayda, the treasurer of the Bayt al-Mal.” And so they did. Umar consulted Abu Ubayda, who said, “I shall set an allowance for you based on the income of an ordinary Muhajir. This allowance will neither equal that of the wealthiest among the Muhajirs nor be at the level of the poorest.” An allowance was accordingly fixed for him, amounting to nearly four thousand dirhams annually. As his death approached, however, he left instructions that eight thousand dirhams from his estate be returned to the Bayt al-Mal. When this was brought to Umar, he said, “May Allah have mercy on Abu Bakr. He has placed his successors in difficulty.” [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 5, Hadiths 2280–2285.]

“One pair of garments in summer, one pair of garments in winter, and an amount of money for your family equal to that of a middle-class Quraysh man—apart from this, nothing from the wealth of Allah is lawful for me. I am nothing but an ordinary Muslim.” [Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, p. 134.]

In another sermon he said:

“Regarding this wealth, I consider nothing just except three things: it must be acquired justly, distributed according to justice, and kept free from falsehood. My relationship to this wealth is like the relationship of a guardian to an orphan’s property. Unless I am needy, I will take nothing from it; if I am needy, I will take from it in a recognized and proper manner. [Imam Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj, p. 117.]

Ali kept his salary at the same level as the salaries of Abu Bakr and Umar. He wore a lungi reaching midway between his knees and ankles, and it was patched. [Ibn Sa’d, vol. 3, p. 28.] Throughout his life he never had the opportunity to live even somewhat comfortably. Once, during winter, a man went to meet him and found him sitting in a torn, dirty garment, shivering from the cold. [Ibn Kathir, vol. 8, p. 3.] After his martyrdom, an accounting of his estate showed only seven hundred dirhams. Even that he had saved penny by penny in order to purchase a slave. [Ibn Sa’d, vol. 3, p. 38.] Fearful that no acquaintance in the marketplace would accept a lower price from him after recognizing him as Commander of the Believers, he never bought anything in the market from anyone he knew. [Ibn Sa’d, vol. 3, p. 28; Ibn Kathir, vol. 8, p. 3.] At that time he was in conflict with Muawiya, and some people advised him: “Just as Muawiya is winning people over by giving them lavish gifts, you too should gather supporters by emptying the treasury of the Bayt al-Mal and making money flow like a river.” But he rejected this, saying, “Do you want me to succeed unlawfully?” [Ibn Abi al-Hadid, commentary on Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 1, p. 182; Dar al-Kutub al-Arabiyya, Egypt, 1329 AH.] His own brother Aqil asked him for money from the Bayt al-Mal. He refused and said, “Do you want your brother also to go to Hell by giving you the Muslims’ money?” [Ibn Qutayba, al-Imama wa al-Siyasa, vol. 1, p. 71. Hafiz Ibn Hajar wrote in his al-Isaba that Aqil had some debts, which Ali refused to pay. Consequently, displeased, he joined Muawiya’s party. Al-Isaba, vol. 3, p. 487; Matba’at Mustafa Muhammad, Egypt, 1939.]

Four: The Concept of the State

What was their concept of the state? What view did they hold regarding their status and duties as heads of state, and what principles did they follow in their own state? They themselves publicly explained these matters when delivering speeches from the platform of the Caliphate. In the speech Abu Bakr delivered after the public pledge and oath at the Prophet’s Mosque, he said:

“I have been appointed your ruler, although I am not the best among you. By the One in whose hand is my life, I did not accept this office of my own desire. I did not seek to obtain it in preference to anyone else, nor did I ever pray to Allah for it. Therefore no desire for it ever arose in my heart. I accepted this responsibility unwillingly, fearing that disagreement would arise among the Muslims and that the tribulation of apostasy would begin among the Arabs. I find no peace in this office. Rather, it is a tremendous burden placed upon me, and I have no ability to bear it—unless Allah helps me. I wished that someone else would bear this grave responsibility. Even now, if you wish, you may choose someone from among the Companions of the Messenger of Allah for this task. My pledge will not stand in your way. If you judge me by the standard of the Messenger of Allah and expect from me what you expected from him, I do not have the capacity for that. He was protected from Satan, and revelation descended upon him. If I do right, assist me; if I do wrong, set me straight. Truthfulness is a deposited trust, while falsehood is a deposited property that has been misappropriated. Your weak person is strong in my sight until, by Allah’s will, I restore his right to him. And your strong person is weak in my sight until, by Allah’s will, I take the right from him. It has never happened that a people abandoned striving in the way of Allah and Allah did not impose humiliation upon them. Nor has it happened that indecency spread among a people and Allah did not subject them to general calamity. Obey me so long as I obey Allah and the Messenger. If I disobey Allah and the Messenger, you owe me no obedience. I am a follower, not an innovator of a new path.” [al-Tabari, vol. 2, p. 450; Ibn Hisham, al-Sira al-Nabawiyya, vol. 4, p. 311, Matba’at Mustafa al-Babi, Egypt, 1936; Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 5, Hadiths 2261, 2264, 2268, 2278, 2291, 2299.]

In one of his speeches Umar said:

“People! No one may claim such a right over himself that obedience must be rendered to him in disobedience to Allah. People! I am explaining to you the rights you have over me. You may hold me accountable for these rights. Your right over me is that I will not unlawfully take anything from the kharaj or from the fay given by Allah—the spoils acquired without war or bloodshed. And your right over me is that I will not unlawfully spend any part of the money that comes into my hands in this way.” [Imam Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj, p. 117.]

When sending Amr ibn al-As to the war in Syria and Palestine, Abu Bakr gave him the following instructions:

“In all my affairs, public and private, proceed with fear of Allah and shame before Him, for He sees you and all your actions. Work for the Hereafter. In all your actions, seek Allah’s pleasure. Treat your companions in such a way that they are like your children. Do not search out people’s hidden affairs. Deal with them on the basis of their outward actions. Keep yourself restrained, and your subjects will likewise remain upright.” [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 5, Hadith 2313.]

When sending governors to an area, Umar would address them and say:

“I am not appointing you as governors over the community of Muhammad so that you may sit as masters over people’s lives and property. Rather, I appoint you so that you may establish Salat, judge among people with justice, and distribute their rights fairly.” [al-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 273.]

In the first speech Uthman delivered after the pledge, he said:

“Listen: I am a follower, not an innovator of a new path. Know that after adhering to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger, I pledge to you that I will follow three principles. First: I will follow the policy you established by mutual agreement before my Caliphate. Second: In matters for which no policy has previously been established, I will determine the course of action of the people of welfare through consultation with everyone. Third: I will refrain from interfering with you until it becomes necessary, in the eyes of the law, to take action against you.” [al-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 446.]

When Ali appointed Qays ibn Sa’d as governor of Egypt, he sent him with a decree addressed to the Egyptians, in which he said:

“Beware! It is your right over me that I act according to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger. I will administer your affairs according to the rights prescribed by Allah and implement the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah. I will seek your welfare even in your absence.”

After this decree had been read aloud at a public gathering, Qays ibn Sa’d declared: “If I do not deal with you in this manner, then you owe me no pledge.” [al-Tabari, vol. 3, pp. 550–551.]

Ali wrote to a certain governor:

“Do not create a long barrier between yourselves and the people. Creating a barrier between ruler and ruled is a sign of narrow vision and limited knowledge. As a result, they cannot learn the true state of affairs. Small matters become great for them, while great matters become small. Good appears evil to them, and evil takes the form of good; truth and falsehood become mixed.” [Ibn Kathir, vol. 8, p. 8.]

“Ali did not merely say this; he acted accordingly. He himself would go out into the markets of Kufa carrying a whip, forbidding people from wrongdoing and commanding what was right. He would make the rounds of every market to see whether the merchants were deceiving people in their transactions. Because of this daily wandering, no stranger who saw him could imagine that the Caliph of the Muslim world was walking before him. His clothing bore no sign of royalty, nor did any guard force run ahead of him to clear his way.” [Ibn Kathir, vol. 8, pp. 4–5.]

Once Umar publicly proclaimed:

“I have not appointed governors to beat you or seize your property. I appointed them so that they would teach you the religion and the way of the Prophet. If anyone is treated contrary to this instruction, let him bring his complaint to me. By Allah, I swear that I will exact retaliation from that governor.” At this, Amr ibn al-As, the governor of Egypt, stood and said, “If someone becomes ruler of the Muslims and beats them to teach them proper conduct, will you exact retaliation from him as well?”

Umar replied: “Yes, by Allah, I swear that I will exact retaliation from him as well. I saw the Messenger of Allah impose a ruling even upon his own person.” [Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj, p. 115; Musnad Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi, Hadith 55; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 30; al-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 273.]

On another occasion, during the Hajj, Umar summoned all the governors and stood before a public assembly, saying: “If anyone has a complaint that any of them has wronged him, let him present it without hesitation.” Only one man rose from the entire assembly and complained against Amr ibn al-As, saying, “He unjustly struck me with one hundred lashes.” Umar said, “Stand up and take retaliation from him.” Amr ibn al-As objected, saying, “Do not open this path against the governors.” But Umar said, “I saw the Messenger of Allah give retaliation against himself. O complainant, come and take retaliation from him.” In the end, Amr ibn al-As had to protect his back by paying two ashrafis for each lash. [Abu Yusuf, Kitab al-Kharaj, p. 116.]

Five: The Supremacy of the Law

These Caliphs did not consider themselves above the law. Rather, in the eyes of the law they regarded themselves as equal to an ordinary citizen of the country, whether Muslim or non-Muslim dhimmi. Although, as heads of state, they themselves appointed judges, those judges were completely free to rule against the Caliphs, just as they were free in the case of an ordinary citizen. Once a disagreement arose between Umar and Ubayy ibn Ka’b. Both appeared before Zayd. Zayd wished to make Umar sit in his own place, but Umar sat alongside Ubayy. Ubayy then presented his claim, while Umar denied the allegation. According to the rules, Zayd should have required Umar to take an oath, but he hesitated to do so. Umar took the oath himself, and after the session ended he said, “As long as Zayd does not regard an ordinary Muslim and Umar as equal, Zayd cannot be a judge.” [Bayhaqi, al-Sunan al-Kubra, vol. 10, p. 136; Dairat al-Ma’arif, Hyderabad, first edition, 1355 AH.]

A similar incident occurred between Ali and a Christian. In the market of Kufa, Ali saw a Christian selling his lost coat of mail. As Commander of the Believers, he did not seize the armor from the man; rather, he brought a complaint before the judge. Since he could not present witnesses or evidence, the judge ruled against him. [Bayhaqi, al-Sunan al-Kubra, vol. 10, p. 136; Dairat al-Ma’arif, Hyderabad, first edition, 1355 AH.]

The historian Ibn Khallikan relates that once Ali and a dhimmi appeared as plaintiff and defendant before Judge Shurayh’s court. The judge stood to welcome Ali. Ali said to him, “This is your first injustice.” [Ibn Khallikan, Wafayat al-A’yan, vol. 2, p. 168; Maktabat al-Nahda al-Misriyya, Cairo, 1948.]

Six: Governance Free from Dynastic and Tribal Bias

Another characteristic of the early period of Islam was that, in accordance with Islam’s principles and vital spirit, all people were treated equally, rising above bias based on lineage, tribe, or country; no one was shown any kind of favoritism.

After the death of the Messenger of Allah, Arab tribalism rose like a storm. This element was the most active amid the emergence of claimants to prophethood and the rush to abandon Islam. A devotee of Musaylima said: “I know Musaylima is a liar, but a liar from Rabi’a is better to me than a truthful man from Mudar.” [al-Tabari, vol. 2, p. 508.] In support of another false claimant to prophethood, Tulayha, a chief of Banu Ghatafan said: “By God, following the prophet of our allied tribe is dearer to me than following the prophet of Quraysh.” [al-Tabari, vol. 2, p. 487.]

When the pledge was given to Abu Bakr in Medina, Sa’d ibn Ubadah refrained from acknowledging his Caliphate on tribal grounds. On the same tribal basis, Abu Sufyan disliked his Caliphate. He went to Ali and said, “How has a man from the smallest tribe of Quraysh become Caliph? If you are prepared to put yourself forward as a rival, I will fill the entire valley with infantry and cavalry.” But Ali silenced him with a decisive reply. He said, “Your words prove hostility toward Islam and the Muslims. Bring no infantry or cavalry; I do not want any of that. Muslims seek one another’s welfare. They love one another, regardless of how much difference there may be between their homes and physical persons. Hypocrites, however, sever relations with one another. We consider Abu Bakr fit for this office. If he were not fit for it, we would never have allowed him to be appointed to it.” [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 5, Hadith 2374; al-Tabari, vol. 2, p. 449; Ibn Abd al-Barr, al-Isti’ab, vol. 2, p. 689.]

In this environment, Abu Bakr, and then Umar, through impartial, unbiased, and just conduct, dealt fairly not only with the various Arab tribes but also with non-Arab new Muslims, and completely refrained from treating their own lineage and tribe exceptionally. As a result, all forms of tribalism disappeared. Among the Muslims, an international spirit emerged in accordance with Islam’s demands. During his Caliphate, Abu Bakr did not appoint any member of his own tribe to any government office. Throughout his entire rule, Umar appointed only one member of his tribe—Nu’man ibn Adi—as the tax collector of a small area called Maysan near Basra. After a short time, he dismissed him from the post. [Nu’man ibn Adi was one of the early Muslims. He accepted Islam even before Umar. Among those who left Mecca for Abyssinia during the migration, he and his father Adi were included. When Umar appointed and sent him as the tax collector of Maysan, his wife did not accompany him. There he composed some poems out of longing for his wife. These poems mentioned only wine. For this reason Umar dismissed him. Not only that, he also decided never to give him another office. Ibn Abd al-Barr, al-Isti’ab, vol. 1, p. 296; Dairat al-Ma’arif, Hyderabad; Mu’jam al-Buldan, Yaqut al-Hamawi, vol. 5, pp. 242–243; Dar Sadir, Beirut, 1957. Another man, Qudama ibn Maz’un, who was Umar’s brother-in-law, was appointed by him as governor of Bahrain. He had migrated to Abyssinia and was among those who took part in the Battle of Badr. When the accusation of drinking wine against him was proven, Umar dismissed and punished him. (Al-Isti’ab, vol. 2, p. 534; Ibn Hajar, al-Isaba, vol. 3, pp. 219–220.)] In this respect, the conduct of these two Caliphs was truly founded on ideals.

In the final chapter of his life, Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) feared that Arab tribalism—which, despite the immense revolutionary influence of the Islamic movement, had not yet been completely eradicated—might raise its head again after him, thereby causing disorder within Islam. Once, while discussing his possible successors, he said to Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) concerning Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him): “If I appoint him as my successor, he will impose the Banu Abd Manaf (Banu Umayyah) upon the people. Then they will disobey Allah among the people. By Allah, if I appoint Uthman as my successor, he will do so. And if Uthman does this, they will certainly commit sins. In that event, the people will revolt and kill him.” [Ibn Abd al-Barr, Al-Isti’ab, vol. 2, p. 467; Shah Waliullah, Izalat al-Khafa, Maqsad I, p. 342, Berili edition. Some raise the question here: Did Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) receive ilham (subtle revelation), on the basis of which he swore to such a statement that later came true to the letter? The answer is that when a person possessing spiritual insight sometimes examines circumstances and rearranges them in the light of reason, future events become manifest before him like 2 + 2 = 4. Thus, even without ilham, he may make a correct prediction through spiritual insight. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) knew how deeply the germs of tribalism had taken root among the Arabs. He also knew that twenty-five or thirty years of Islam’s propagation had still not eradicated those germs completely. For this reason, he believed that if the slightest change were made in his and Abu Bakr’s (may Allah be pleased with him) policy, and if his successors began granting high offices to members of their own tribes, tribalism would raise its head again and no one would be able to stop it. Consequently, a bloody revolution would become inevitable.] This matter remained in his mind even at the time of his death. At the end, he summoned Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), and Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him), each separately, and said to them: “If you become caliph after me, do not impose the members of your respective tribes upon the people.” [Al-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 264; Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 3, pp. 340–344.] Moreover, among the guidance he left for the six-member electoral shura was the following: The elected caliph must abide by the principle that he should not treat his own tribe preferentially. [Fath al-Bari, vol. 7, pp. 49–50; Muhibb al-Din al-Tabari, Al-Riyad al-Nadira fi Manaqib al-Ashara, vol. 2, p. 76, Husayniyyah Press, Egypt, 1327 AH; Ibn Khaldun, appendix to vol. 2, p. 125, Al-Matba’ah al-Kubra, Egypt, 1284 AH. Shah Waliullah (may Allah have mercy on him) quoted this report in Izalat al-Khafa; see Maqsad I, p. 324.] Unfortunately, the third caliph, Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), was unable to maintain the desired standard in this regard. During his rule, the Banu Umayyah were extensively given very high offices and gifts from the public treasury. Other tribes began to perceive this with bitterness. [Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 3, p. 64; vol. 5, p. 36.] In his view, this was required by kindness toward relatives. He would say: “Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) deprived his close relatives for Allah’s sake, whereas I give to my close relatives for Allah’s sake.” [Al-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 291.] On one occasion he said: “Regarding the public treasury, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) and Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) themselves preferred to remain in straitened circumstances and liked to keep their relatives in the same condition. But I prefer to treat relatives kindly in this matter.” [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 5, hadith 2324; Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 3, p. 64.] Ultimately, the result was exactly what Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) had feared. Revolt and agitation arose against him. Not only was he martyred; the suppressed spark of tribalism also raised its head again, and eventually its flames burned down the very system of the Rightly Guided Caliphate.

Seven: The Lifeblood of Democracy

Unrestricted freedom to express criticism and opinions was one of the most important features of this caliphate. The caliphs remained accessible to the people at all times. They themselves sat in the sessions of the shura and took part in the discussions. They had no government party, nor did any party exist in opposition to them. In a free atmosphere, every member expressed his opinion according to his faith and conscience. Every matter was properly presented before thoughtful people of high intellect and sound judgment. Nothing was concealed. Decisions were made on the basis of evidence and proof, not on the basis of anyone’s authority, influence, prestige, self-interest, or factionalism. The caliphs did not appear before the nation only through the shura. Rather, they appeared before the nation in the congregational prayer five times daily, at the Friday prayer once a week, at the two Eid congregations each year, and at the gathering of the Hajj. At these times, the people also had the opportunity to meet them. Their homes were among the people. There were no doorkeepers at their houses. Their doors remained open to everyone at all times. They moved among the people in the marketplaces. They had no bodyguards or security forces. On such occasions anyone could question them, criticize them, and demand an account from them. Everyone had the freedom to call them to account. They not only permitted people to exercise this freedom; they encouraged them to do so. It has already been mentioned that Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), in his very first address as caliph, openly said: “Help me if I follow the straight path, and set me straight if I deviate.” Once, Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) expressed the view in the Friday sermon that no one should be permitted to set a dower of more than four hundred dirhams. A woman immediately stood up in protest and said: “You have no right to issue such an instruction. The Qur’an permits the giving of heaps of wealth (qintar) as a dower. Who are you to set its limit?” Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) immediately withdrew his opinion. [Tafsir Ibn Kathir, citing Abu Ya’la and Ibn al-Mundhir, vol. 1, p. 467.] On another occasion, Salman al-Farisi openly called him to account in a public assembly: “Each of us received one cloak. Where did you get two cloaks?” Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) immediately presented the testimony of his son, Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), that he had lent the second cloak to his father. [Muhibb al-Din al-Tabari, Al-Riyad al-Nadira fi Manaqib al-Ashara, vol. 2, p. 56, Egyptian edition; Ibn al-Jawzi, Sirat Umar ibn al-Khattab, p. 127.] Once he asked those present at an assembly: “What will you do if I show laxity in some matter?” Bishr (may Allah be pleased with him), son of Sa’d, replied: “If you do so, we will straighten you as one straightens an arrow.” Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “That is why you are people of substance.” [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 5, hadith 2414.] Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) faced the greatest amount of criticism. He never tried to silence anyone by force. Rather, he always publicly defended himself in response to accusations and criticism. During his caliphate, Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) patiently tolerated even the extremely abusive statements of the Kharijites. Once five Kharijites were arrested and brought before him. All of them were openly insulting him. One of them was openly saying: “By Allah, I will kill Ali.” But Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) released all of them and told his men: “If you wish, you may answer their abuse with abuse. But mere verbal opposition, until they actually undertake a rebellious action, is not an offense for which they may be punished.” [Al-Sarakhsi, Al-Mabsut, vol. 10, p. 125, Sa’adat Press, Egypt, 1324 AH.]

The chapter of the Rightly Guided Caliphate that we discussed above was a beacon of light. In later times, the jurists, hadith scholars, and ordinary pious Muslims kept their eyes fixed upon that beacon. In the religious, political, moral, and social systems of Islam, they continued to regard that beacon as their ideal.

Chapter Four

From the Rightly Guided Caliphate to Monarchy

In the previous chapter, the notable features and fundamental principles of the Rightly Guided Caliphate were discussed. In reality, the Rightly Guided Caliphate was not merely a political system; rather, it was a system fully representative of prophethood. That is, its responsibility was not limited to maintaining governmental order, establishing peace, and defending the frontiers; it also fulfilled in the social life of Muslims the roles of teacher, guardian, and guide—roles that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) fulfilled during his life. Its responsibility was to revive and administer, in its true form and living spirit, the complete system of the true and eternal religion in Dar al-Islam, the Islamic state, and to employ the entire social strength of Muslims throughout the world in raising Allah’s word. For this reason, instead of calling it merely the Rightly Guided Caliphate, it would be more appropriate to call it also the Guided Caliphate, meaning the caliphate that shows the true path. The expression “caliphate according to the method of prophethood”—the caliphate following in the footsteps of prophethood—embodies both these characteristics. Such a state is what Islam intends, not mere political rule and authority; no person possessing even a little knowledge of the religion can remain unaware of this.

Here we shall examine the stages through which this caliphate ultimately assumed the form of monarchy. We shall also discuss how far this change removed the Muslim state from Islam’s principles of governance and what effect it had on the social life of Muslims.

The Beginning of the Change

The change began precisely where Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) had feared it would begin. Near the end of his life, what he feared most was that his successors would change, with regard to their families, tribes, and close relatives, the policy that had continued from the time of the Messenger of Allah until his own rule. Throughout his rule, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) gave no office to anyone from the Banu Hashim except Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). During his caliphate, Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) gave no office to anyone from his own family or tribe. During his ten-year rule, Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) appointed only one member of the Banu Adi to a minor office, and dismissed him from it immediately; therefore, tribalism had no opportunity to raise its head at that time. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) feared that changing this policy would cause a terrible disaster. Thus he separately summoned his three possible successors—Uthman, Ali, and Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with them)—and advised them: “If you become caliph after me, do not impose the members of your tribes upon the Muslims.” [Al-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 264; Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 3, pp. 340, 341, 343, 344.]

But after him, Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), having become his successor, gradually departed from this policy. He continued granting great offices, one after another, to his relatives. He gave them such privileges and benefits that they generally became objects of public criticism. [For example, he gave Marwan the entire share of one-fifth of the spoils from Africa—500,000 dinars. Concerning this event, the historian Ibn al-Athir states his findings as follows:]

Abdullah ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Sarh brought one-fifth of the spoils from Africa to Medina, and Marwan ibn al-Hakam purchased it for 500,000 dinars. Thereafter, Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) did not accept this amount from him. This was one of the reasons for which Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) was criticized. Of all the reports found concerning one-fifth of the spoils from Africa, this is the soundest. Some say that Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) gave one-fifth of the spoils from Africa to Abdullah ibn Sa’d. Others say that he gave it to Marwan ibn al-Hakam. This report indicates that Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) gave one-fifth of the spoils from the first African campaign to Abdullah ibn Sa’d, and one-fifth of the spoils from the second campaign—in which the whole of Africa was conquered—to Marwan. [Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, vol. 3, p. 46, Al-Matba’ah al-Tiba’ah al-Muniriyyah, Egypt, 1348 AH.]

Ibn Sa’d also reports in the Tabaqat, through the chain of Imam al-Zuhri: ************** Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) wrote one-fifth of the spoils from Egypt over to Marwan. [Vol. 3, p. 64.] This report of Imam al-Zuhri may be challenged on the grounds that Ibn Sa’d narrated it on the authority of al-Waqidi, and al-Waqidi is not a trustworthy narrator. But first, all hadith scholars acknowledge Ibn Sa’d as reliable and trustworthy. It is recognized that he accepted reports only after examining and verifying them. For this reason, his book Tabaqat is acknowledged as an exceptionally reliable source of Islamic history. Second, scholars themselves know that, regarding al-Waqidi, his hadith reports on legal rulings and Sunan were rejected. What remains is history, particularly the sections on military campaigns and biographies. In this field, who has not accepted reports from al-Waqidi? If, in matters of history, someone imposes on proof of a report exactly the conditions that hadith scholars imposed in matters of Shariah rulings, ninety percent—or even more—of Islamic history would have to be discarded. [It should be noted here that Ibn Khaldun—whom some consider more reliable than others—supported these reports of Ibn al-Athir and Ibn Sa’d. See the appendix to volume 2, pp. 139–140.] He removed Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him) from office and appointed his half-brother, al-Walid ibn Uqbah ibn Abi Mu’ayt, governor of Kufa. Thereafter, he gave this office to another friend of his, Sa’id ibn al-As. He dismissed Abu Musa al-Ash’ari (may Allah be pleased with him) from the governorship of Basra and appointed his maternal cousin, Abdullah ibn Amir, in his place. He removed Amr ibn al-As from the governorship of Egypt and appointed his foster brother, Abdullah ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Sarh, in his place. During the time of Sayyiduna Umar al-Faruq (may Allah be pleased with him), Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) was merely the governor of Syria. [Hafiz Ibn Kathir says: ******************

“The truth is that Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) added the whole of Syria to the governorship of Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) had appointed him ruler over only part of Syria.” [Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 8, p. 124.] Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) placed Damascus, Homs, Palestine, Jordan, and the whole of Lebanon under his rule. Thereafter, he appointed his cousin, Marwan ibn al-Hakam, as his secretary, as a result of which Marwan’s influence and authority extended to the farthest corners of the empire. Thus, all power became concentrated in the hands of one family.

These matters had an unfavorable effect not only on the ordinary people but also on the leading Companions. Nor could it have been otherwise. For example, when al-Walid ibn Uqbah came to Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas bearing the appointment order for the governorship of Kufa, Sa’d said: “I do not know whether you have become more learned after me, or whether I have become a fool.” He replied: “Abu Ishaq, do not be angry. This is kingship: one person enjoys it in the morning, and another in the evening.” Sa’d said: “I understand. Indeed, you will turn this into kingship.” Abdullah ibn Mas’ud also expressed an almost identical attitude. [Ibn Abd al-Barr, Al-Isti’ab, vol. 2, p. 604.]

No one can deny that the members of his family whom Sayyiduna Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) appointed to these government offices demonstrated a high degree of administrative and military skill, and that many territories were conquered under their command. But it is clear that competence was not confined to them alone. Many others possessing outstanding abilities were also present.

They had previously rendered services even greater than those of these men. Bringing the entire area from Khurasan to North Africa under governors from the same family, and appointing members of that same family to the central secretariat, could not be based on competence alone. In the first place, appointing members of the ruler’s family to all the important offices of the state is objectionable in itself. But in addition, there were other factors that made the situation still more complicated:

First, all the members of this family who rose to prominence during the time of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) were among the Tulaqa. Tulaqa refers to a family of Mecca that remained opposed to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the Islamic mission until the end. After the conquest of Mecca, the Prophet pardoned them, and they accepted Islam. Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), al-Walid ibn Uqbah (may Allah be pleased with him), and Marwan ibn al-Hakam were members of this pardoned family. As for Abdullah ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Sarh, he became an apostate after accepting Islam. He was among those concerning whom the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered, after the conquest of Mecca, that they be killed even if they clung to the covering of the Ka’bah. Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) suddenly brought him before the Messenger of Allah, who pardoned him solely out of regard for Uthman’s status. Naturally, no one could be pleased that these men should become leaders of the ummah by pushing aside the foremost Muslims who had accepted Islam in the early period, sacrificed their lives for its victory, and through whose sacrifices Allah’s religion had triumphed.

Second, they were not suited to lead the Islamic movement. They had indeed accepted faith, but they had not had sufficient opportunity to benefit from training in the company of the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) for their mentality, principles, and morals to undergo a fundamental transformation. They could be excellent organizers, administrators, and conquerors. In practice, that is what they proved to be. But Islam did not come merely to conquer kingdoms and govern countries. Islam is, first and foremost, a comprehensive call to goodness and welfare. For its leadership, mental and moral training is more necessary than administrative and military ability. In this respect, their place was not in the foremost ranks of the Companions and Successors, but in the rear ranks. In this connection, the position of Marwan ibn al-Hakam is particularly instructive. His father, al-Hakam ibn Abi al-As, was the uncle of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). He accepted Islam at the conquest of Mecca and settled in Medina. But because of certain conduct, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) expelled him from Medina and ordered him to reside in Ta’if. Ibn Abd al-Barr, in Al-Isti’ab, mentions as one reason that he somehow obtained and divulged the private counsels that the Messenger of Allah held with the leading Companions. As a second reason, he states that al-Hakam imitated the Prophet; indeed, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) caught him doing so. [Al-Isti’ab, vol. 1, pp. 118–119, 263.] In any case, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered him to leave Medina because of a serious offense. Marwan was then seven or eight years old. He too continued living with his father in Ta’if. When Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) became caliph, permission was requested from him to bring Marwan back, but he refused. During Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) time as well, permission was sought to bring him back, but he refused. Even during Umar’s time, Marwan was not permitted to come to Medina. During his caliphate, Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) summoned him and, according to one report, explained that he had interceded for him with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), who had promised him that he would permit Marwan to return. Thus, father and son both moved from Ta’if to Medina. [Ibn Hajar, Al-Isabah, vol. 1, pp. 344–345; Al-Riyad al-Nadira, vol. 2, p. 143.]

In view of this background of Marwan, it can readily be understood that the people could not tolerate his appointment as secretary. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had promised to bring him back after accepting Uthman’s (may Allah be pleased with him) intercession, and the people had accepted this on the strength of Uthman’s word. Therefore, they did not regard summoning him to Medina as objectionable. But it became very difficult for them to accept the appointment as secretary of the son of a man who had incurred the displeasure of the Messenger of Allah, while leading Companions were passed over. It was especially difficult because his displeased father was still alive and might influence state affairs through his son. [It may be noted that he remained alive until the final period of Uthman’s life. He died in 32 AH.]

Third, the character of some of them was such that appointing men like them to high office could not have produced a favorable effect in the purer Islamic society of that time. The example of al-Walid ibn Uqbah may be cited. He too was among those who accepted Islam after the conquest of Mecca. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sent him to collect alms from Banu al-Mustaliq. But when he reached their territory, he became frightened for some reason and returned. Without meeting them, he returned to Medina and instead reported that Banu al-Mustaliq had refused to pay zakat and had attempted to kill him. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) became angry and sent a military force against them. There was a possibility of a major disaster. But the tribal chiefs were informed of the matter in time. They appeared before the Messenger in Medina and submitted: “He did not come to us at all. We were waiting for someone to come and collect zakat from us.” On this occasion, the following verse of the Qur’an was revealed:

*****************

O believers! If a sinful person brings you any news, investigate it, lest you unknowingly take action against someone and later regret what you have done. (Al-Hujurat 49:6) [Commentators generally relate this very event as the occasion of the verse’s revelation. See Tafsir Ibn Kathir. Ibn Abd al-Barr says:]

******************

There is no disagreement among scholars that the verse was revealed concerning al-Walid ibn Uqbah. Ibn Taymiyyah also acknowledged that this verse was revealed concerning al-Walid ibn Uqbah. (Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, vol. 3, p. 176, Amiriyyah Press, Egypt, 1322 AH.)]

Several years after this event, both the Prophet (may Allah’s blessings be upon him) and Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) again gave him an opportunity to serve. Near the end of Umar’s life, he was appointed collector in the Arab region of al-Jazirah, where Banu Taghlib lived. [Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, vol. 11, p. 144; Umdat al-Qari, vol. 16, p. 203; Idarat al-Tiba’ah al-Muniriyyah, Egypt.]

In 25 AH, Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) removed him from this minor office and appointed him, in place of Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, governor of the great and important province of Kufa. There it became known that he was accustomed to drinking wine. One day he even led the dawn prayer for four rak’ahs and then asked the worshippers: “Shall I perform more?” [Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 7, p. 155; Al-Isti’ab, vol. 2, p. 604. Ibn Abd al-Barr says that it is well known that al-Walid led the prayer while intoxicated and then asked, “Shall I perform more?” Reliable transmitters have reported this event on the authority of hadith scholars.]

Reports concerning this incident reached Medina, and it became widely discussed among the people. At last, Miswar ibn Makhrama and Abd al-Rahman ibn Aswad said to Ubaydullah ibn Adi ibn Khayyar, the nephew of Uthman (RA): “Go and speak to your uncle. Tell him that regarding his brother al-Walid ibn Uqbah, people have raised many objections to his conduct.” Drawing his attention to the matter, he requested: “It is necessary for you to enforce the hadd against al-Walid”—meaning the punishment prescribed by the Shariah. When this request was made, Uthman (RA) promised: “In this matter, we shall decide according to the truth, God willing.” Accordingly, a case was brought against al-Walid before a public gathering of the Companions. Hurman, Uthman’s (RA) own emancipated slave, testified that al-Walid had drunk wine. Another witness, Sab ibn Juthama (or Juthama ibn Sab), testified that al-Walid had vomited wine in his presence. (According to Ibn Hajar’s account, four further witnesses—Abu Zaynab, Abu Tuarrā, Jundub ibn Zuhayr al-Azdi, and Sa‘d ibn Malik al-Ash‘ari—were also produced. They too testified to the offense.) Uthman (RA) then instructed Ali (RA) to enforce the hadd against him. Ali (RA) appointed Abd Allah ibn Ja‘far to carry this out, and he administered forty lashes to al-Walid. [Bukhari, Kitab al-Manaqib, chapter on the virtues of Uthman ibn Affan and chapter on the migration to Abyssinia; Muslim, Kitab al-Hudud, chapter on the hadd for wine; Abu Dawud, Kitab al-Hudud, chapter on the hadd for wine. What the jurists and hadith scholars have written in explaining these hadiths is as follows:]

Hafiz Ibn Hajar wrote in Fath al-Bari: The reason people were raising widespread objections concerning al-Walid was that Uthman (RA) was not enforcing the hadd upon him. The second reason was that they disliked al-Walid’s appointment in place of Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas after Sa‘d had been removed from office. Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas was one of the Ashara Mubashshara and a member of the Shura. He possessed such qualities of knowledge, distinction, piety, and having accepted Islam in its earliest period, none of which was found in al-Walid ibn Uqbah…… Uthman (RA) appointed al-Walid governor of Kufa because his ability had become evident to him, and he also wished to fulfill the rights of kinship. When his moral defects became clear to him, he removed him from office. He delayed imposing his punishment in order to investigate thoroughly the condition of those testifying against him. After learning the true circumstances, he ordered the hadd to be enforced against him. (Fath al-Bari, Kitab al-Manaqib, chapter on the virtues of Uthman.)

Elsewhere Ibn Hajar writes: The narrator of Muslim’s report, Abd Allah al-Danaj, was weak; for this reason al-Tahawi deemed Muslim’s report weak. Al-Bayhaqi, however, disagreed with him and wrote that the hadith is sound and authentic; it has been included in the Musnads and Sunans. When al-Tirmidhi asked Imam Bukhari about this report, he described him as reliable. Muslim also accepted him as sound and authentic. Ibn Abd al-Barr said that this hadith is the most reliable in this chapter……. Abu Zur‘ah and al-Nasa’i described Abd Allah al-Danaj as trustworthy and reliable. (Fath al-Bari, Kitab al-Hudud, chapter on striking with palm branches and sandals.)

Imam al-Nawawi writes: This hadith in Muslim proves the view of Imam Malik and the jurists who share his position that whoever vomits wine is to have the hadd for drinking wine enforced upon him. … Imam Malik’s evidence on this matter is very strong. The Companions unanimously decided that al-Walid ibn Uqbah should be flogged. (Muslim’s commentary, Kitab al-Hudud, chapter on the hadd for wine.)

Ibn Qudamah says: According to Muslim’s report, when one witness testified that he had seen al-Walid vomit wine, Uthman (RA) said, “How could he vomit wine without drinking wine?” For this reason he instructed Ali (RA) to enforce the hadd against him. Since this decision was made in the presence of leading, knowledgeable, learned Companions, ijma‘ was established upon it. (Al-Mughni wa al-Sharh al-Kabir, vol. 10, p. 332, Manar Press, Egypt, 1348 AH.) If someone then says that all those who testified against al-Walid were untrustworthy, he is thereby accusing not only Uthman (RA) but a large group of the Companions of punishing a Muslim on the basis of testimony from unreliable witnesses. Someone claimed that Hasan (RA) disapproved of this decision. But Imam al-Nawawi’s explanation of this hadith in his commentary on Muslim has exposed the falsity of this claim. It is thus known that Hasan’s (RA) anger was directed at al-Walid, not at those who decided the case against him.]

For these reasons, Uthman’s (RA) policy succeeded in generating discontent among the people. The appointment, one after another, of members of the Caliph’s own clan to important positions in the state was in itself sufficiently objectionable. When people further saw that these same men were continually being promoted, their anxiety and dissatisfaction increased. In particular, two matters in this connection had far-reaching and disastrous consequences. The first was that Uthman (RA) kept Muawiyah (RA) continuously in the governorship of the same province for a long period. During Umar’s (RA) time, he had served for four years as governor of Damascus. Uthman (RA) placed the entire area from Aylah to the Roman frontier and from al-Jazira to the Northern Ocean under his authority, and retained him in that province throughout his twelve-year reign. [Tabaqat Ibn Sa‘d, vol. 7, p. 406; al-Isti‘ab, vol. 1, p. 253. Four states—Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel—now exist in this area. Even today, their combined area is approximately what it was during Amir Muawiyah’s governorship. See Hazrat Muawiyah, pp. 34–35.]

Ultimately, Ali (RA) had to suffer the consequences of this. The province of Syria was an extremely important military region of the Islamic empire at that time. On one side lay all the eastern provinces, and on the other all the western provinces. Situated between them in such a way, if its governor turned away from the center, he could completely cut off the eastern provinces from the western ones. Muawiyah (RA) had held the administration of this province for a long period. He had firmly established himself there. He was not under the authority of the center; rather, the center depended upon his favor and grace.

The second matter, which proved even more seriously disruptive, was the appointment of Marwan ibn al-Hakam to the important position of the Caliph’s secretary. Taking advantage of Uthman’s (RA) gentle nature and trust, he undertook many actions whose responsibility ultimately fell upon Uthman (RA), although he paid no heed at all to Uthman’s permission or knowledge in carrying them out. Moreover, he continuously attempted to create a breach in the cordial relations between Uthman (RA) and the senior Companions, so that the Caliph would regard him as a greater well-wisher and supporter than his old friends. [Tabaqat Ibn Sa‘d, vol. 5, p. 36; al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, p. 259.] Not only this, he repeatedly delivered such threatening speeches at gatherings of the noble Companions that it was extremely difficult for the Muslims of the early period to hear and tolerate what came from the mouths of the freedmen. For this reason, quite apart from others, Uthman’s (RA) wife, Naila, also held that Marwan bore a major responsibility for creating the crisis for Uthman (RA). Once she explicitly told her husband: “If you follow Marwan’s advice, he will certainly have you killed. This man has no regard for God in his heart, nor any fear or love of Him.” [Tabari, vol. 3, pp. 296–97; al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 7, pp. 172–73.]

The Second Phase

This aspect of Uthman’s (RA) policy was undoubtedly wrong. A wrong action is wrong, whoever commits it. Trying to prove it correct through verbal maneuvering is not demanded by intellectual integrity; nor can religion demand that the mistake of a Companion not be acknowledged as a mistake.

But the truth is that, apart from this one aspect, his character as Caliph was exemplary in every other respect, leaving no room for objection. Moreover, during his caliphate, good works were generally so strong and such great achievements in the conquest of Islam were being completed under his rule that, although the people were not reassured regarding this particular matter, ordinary Muslims nowhere in the empire responded when some people, dissatisfied with the conduct of his governor Sa‘id ibn al-As, attempted to foment rebellion. When Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari (RA), on behalf of Uthman (RA), called upon the people to renew their bay‘ah, everyone except the standard-bearers of the rebellion hastened to respond. [Tabaqat Ibn Sa‘d, vol. 5, pp. 32–33; Tabari, vol. 3, p. 372.]

For this reason, the small group that was trying to create disorder against him adopted the path of conspiracy instead of calling for a widespread rebellion.

The standard-bearers of this movement were connected with Egypt, Kufa, and Basra. Exchanging letters among themselves, they secretly decided to attack Medina suddenly. They compiled a lengthy list of accusations against Uthman (RA), most of which were baseless or consisted of such weak allegations that rational answers could be given—and were later given—to them. They numbered no more than two thousand. In accordance with their agreement, they arrived in Medina together from Egypt, Kufa, and Basra. They represented none of these regions; rather, through intrigue and conspiracy they had formed a group of their own. When they reached the vicinity of Medina, they tried to bring Ali (RA), Talha (RA), and al-Zubayr (RA) into their group. But the three venerable men drove them away. Ali (RA) answered each of their accusations and clarified Uthman’s (RA) position. The Muhajirun and Ansar of Medina—who were recognized as the fundamental vital force in administering the Islamic state at that time—did not agree to support them. Yet they remained obstinate and ultimately entered Medina and besieged Uthman’s (RA) house. Their demand was that Uthman (RA) must relinquish the caliphate. Uthman’s (RA) reply was: “I am prepared to hear any correct and legitimate complaint from you, but I am not prepared to resign as you demand.” [Tabaqat Ibn Sa‘d, vol. 3, p. 66.]

They then continued their disorder for forty days. During this disturbance they committed acts the City of the Messenger had never before witnessed. They even insulted the Mother of the Believers, Umm Habibah (RA). Saying, “Am I too to sell my honor in this flood of wrongdoing?” Aishah (RA) left Medina for Mecca. At last they created a terrible tumult and brutally martyred Uthman (RA). His blessed body remained without burial for three days. After killing him, the wrongdoers also looted his house. [For a detailed account, see al-Tabari, vol. 3, pp. 376–418, and al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 7, pp. 168–197.]

This was not merely a great injustice against Uthman (RA); it was a great injustice against Islam itself and the system of the Rashidun Caliphate. If any of their accusations had even the slightest substance, there was only one such accusation, which we have mentioned earlier. To remove it, it would have been sufficient for them to meet the Muhajirun and Ansar of Medina, especially the senior Companions, and urge them to persuade Uthman (RA) to reform. Ali (RA) had already begun making efforts in this regard, and Uthman (RA) had promised to correct his mistakes. [al-Tabari, vol. 3, pp. 376, 377, 384, 385; al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 7, pp. 171–72.]

Furthermore, even if these accusations were not removed, there was absolutely no Shariah-sanctioned justification for rebelling against the Caliph or demanding his removal. Yet they continued insisting on the Caliph’s deposition. The mere two thousand people from Basra, Kufa, and Egypt—who were not even representatives of their own regions—could have no right to depose, or demand the deposition of, the Caliph of the entire Muslim world. They certainly had the right to criticize the Caliph’s administration. They had the right to raise their complaints and to demand that their grievances be removed. But the person whom the fundamental power of the Islamic state, in accordance with the Islamic constitution of the time, had made Caliph, and whom all the Muslims of the world had accepted as Caliph—how could a few people raise the banner of rebellion against him and demand his deposition solely on the basis of their own complaints, without any representative standing, even if one were to ask whether their complaints had any real value? They had no such right at all. [This is what Abd Allah ibn Umar (RA) had said to Uthman (RA).]

But they did not stop at this degree of excess. Rather, violating all the limits of the Shariah, they killed the Caliph and looted his residence. If the actions of Uthman (RA) that they regarded as crimes were indeed crimes, then in the view of the Shariah they could not be proved to constitute any offense for which a Muslim’s blood could become lawful. Uthman (RA) said this in one of his sermons: “According to the Shariah, a person becomes liable to be killed only for certain specified offenses. I have committed none of those offenses. Then why are you making my blood lawful for yourselves?” [al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 7, p. 179.]

Yet those who were raising accusations against him in the name of the Shariah themselves showed no regard for the Shariah. They made not only his blood but also his property lawful for themselves.

No one should harbor the suspicion that the people of Medina were pleased with this act of theirs. The actual fact is that they entered Medina suddenly and seized the key positions, leaving the city’s inhabitants helpless. [Ibid., vol. 7, p. 198.]

Moreover, no one could even imagine that they would actually commit such a grave crime as murder. For the people of Medina, this was an entirely unexpected event that fell upon them like a sudden bolt from the sky. Later they were deeply ashamed of their negligence in organizing resistance. [Tabaqat Ibn Sa‘d, vol. 3, p. 71.]

Most important of all, Uthman (RA) himself was the greatest obstacle to taking this course. He did not wish, in order to preserve his authority, to involve the Muslims of the City of the Messenger in conflict with one another. He could have summoned troops from all the provinces and taught the besiegers an appropriate lesson, but he refrained from doing so. Zayd ibn Thabit (RA) told him, “All the Ansar are ready to fight in your support.” He replied, “No, there must be no fighting.” He said to Abu Hurayrah (RA) and Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr (RA):

When the terrorists’ demand for his deposition became more vehement, Uthman (RA) asked Abd Allah ibn Umar (RA), “What must I do now?” He replied: “If some people become displeased with their amir, you must not open this path for the Muslims by removing him.” (Tabaqat Ibn Sa‘d, vol. 3, p. 66.) He said the same thing when replying to those demanding his deposition, addressing the besiegers: “Did I seize control of the state by the sword, without consulting the Muslims, that you now wish to depose me by the sword?” (Ibid., p. 68.)

“I am not prepared to fight.” Seven hundred men were present in his palace, ready to fight with all their strength. But until the final moment he restrained them as well. [Ibid., pp. 70–71.]

To speak plainly, in an extremely delicate situation Uthman (RA) adopted a course of action that clearly demonstrated the difference between a Caliph and a king. Had a king been in his place, he would not have hesitated to adopt any means whatsoever to save himself. Even if Medina had been reduced to ruins by his hand, the Ansar and Muhajirun massacred wholesale, the Prophet’s holy wives insulted, and the Prophet’s Mosque demolished and leveled with the ground, he would not have cared. But he was a Rashidun Caliph—a Caliph advancing upon the path of truth and justice. As a God-fearing ruler, even at the most difficult moment he kept in view how far one may go to preserve one’s throne and where one must stop. He considered giving his own life a very small matter compared with selling the honor and dignity of the Muslims. For a Muslim, the honor and dignity of Muslims ought to be dearer than everything in the world.

The Third Phase

After the martyrdom of Uthman (RA), anarchy spread in Medina. The Ummah had no leader, and the state had no head. Following the victory of the outsiders, the Muhajirun and Ansar of Medina and all the leading Tabi‘un were distressed. How could this Ummah and vast empire, extending from the Roman frontier to Yemen and from Afghanistan to North Africa, continue for even a few days without a leader? It had become essential to elect a Caliph as soon as possible, and this election had to take place in Medina. Medina was the center of Islam. The people devoted to Islam, deeply connected with the Islamic system, and constituting Islam’s fundamental vital force—those whose bay‘ah had established the caliphate until then—were present there. Thus there was no possibility of delay. Nor was there any need to look toward the distant cities and ports outside Medina. A grave situation had arisen. To organize the Ummah and protect the state from disorder, it was immediately essential to appoint a more qualified personality as head of state.

Of the six Companions whom Umar (RA), at the time of his death, had described as the Ummah’s foremost men, four were still alive: Ali (RA), Talha (RA), al-Zubayr (RA), and Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas (RA). Among them, Ali (RA) stood foremost in every respect. During the Shura, Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf (RA), after consulting the opinion of the Ummah, decided that the person most trusted by the Ummah after Uthman (RA) was Ali (RA). [Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 7, p. 146.] It was therefore entirely natural that the people would look to him for the caliphate. Not only in Medina but throughout the Muslim world, there was no second person besides him who could attract the Muslims’ attention for this purpose. Even if an election had been held by the methods customary today, he would certainly have won by an overwhelming majority. [Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal says that at that time there was no one more qualified than Ali (RA) for the caliphate—Ibid., vol. 8, p. 130.] Thus all reliable reports indicate that the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and the other people of Medina went to him and said: “This system cannot endure without an amir. An imam is essential for the people. Today we see no one more qualified than you for this position.” They referred to his past services and his closeness to the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). He refused. The people continued pressing him. Finally he said: “My bay‘ah cannot be given secretly while I remain at home. This cannot happen without the consent of the ordinary Muslims.” Thereafter a public assembly was held in the Prophet’s Mosque, and all the Muhajirun and Ansar pledged allegiance to him. Among the Companions, seventeen or twenty did not pledge allegiance to him. [Al-Tabari, vol. 3, pp. 450, 452; al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 7, pp. 225–26. According to Ibn Abd al-Barr, eight hundred such Companions who had been with the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) at Bay‘at al-Ridwan were with Ali at the Battle of Siffin—al-Isti‘ab, vol. 2, p. 423.]

It is conclusively established from the foregoing account that the caliphate of Ali (RA) was certainly founded upon the principles on which the Rashidun Caliphate could be established. He did not seize power by force. He made not the slightest effort or arrangement to obtain the caliphate. The people themselves elected him Caliph through free consultation. The overwhelming majority of the Companions pledged allegiance to him. Thereafter, with the sole exception of Syria, the entire Muslim world recognized him as Caliph. If the caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar (RA) are not rendered doubtful because Sa‘d ibn Ubadah did not pledge allegiance to them, how can Ali’s (RA) caliphate be deemed doubtful because seventeen or twenty Companions did not pledge allegiance to him? Moreover, the failure of those few Companions to pledge allegiance was merely a negative act; it had no effect on the legal position of the caliphate. Was there another Caliph opposite him to whom they had pledged allegiance? Or had they said that the Ummah or the state no longer needed a Caliph? Or had they said that the office of caliphate should remain vacant for some time? If none of these was the case, how can their mere failure to pledge allegiance mean that the person to whom the majority—and an overwhelming majority—had pledged allegiance was not, in fact, the legitimate Caliph?

Thus, at the time of Uthman’s (RA) martyrdom, the Muslims had gained an opportunity to repair the serious breach that had arisen in the system of the Rashidun Caliphate, and Ali (RA) had gained the opportunity to reestablish it. But there were three matters that did not allow this breach to be repaired. Rather, they widened it further and advanced the Ummah one step toward being thrust into the face of mulukiyyat (monarchy).

First: All those who had created terror against Uthman (RA), who had directly participated in his murder, incited it, or assisted in it, and who therefore collectively bore responsibility for this great calamity, took part in making Ali (RA) Caliph. Their participation in the affairs of the caliphate became a major cause of disaster. Yet anyone who tries to understand the situation in Medina at that time cannot fail to realize that it was impossible to prevent them from taking part in the selection of the Caliph. Despite their participation, the decision that was reached was certainly correct. If all the influential figures of the Ummah had strengthened Ali’s (RA) hand on the basis of consensus, it would have been possible to suppress Uthman’s (RA) murderers decisively, and, unfortunately, the chain of calamities that had begun could easily have been eradicated.

Two: The abstention of some of the great Companions from giving allegiance to Ali. Although certain eminent men adopted this course solely with the good intention of avoiding discord, the subsequent course of events proved that their action became a means of fomenting an even greater discord than the one from which they had wished to distance themselves. They were highly influential figures in the Ummah. Thousands upon thousands of Muslims placed their trust in each of them. Their abstention created doubts in the public mind, and unfortunately the unity with which the Ummah ought to have supported Ali in restoring the system of the Rightly Guided Caliphate in a new phase—a task he could not accomplish without such support—could not be achieved.

Three: The demand for retaliation for the blood of Uthman. Two groups came forward with this demand. On one side were Aisha, Talha, and Zubayr, and on the other was Muawiya. While showing respect for the dignity and excellence of both sides, it must nevertheless be said that, from the standpoint of law, the position of neither side can in any way be acknowledged as correct. Obviously, this was not a tribal system of the Age of Ignorance. There was no system in which anyone could demand revenge for a slain person as he pleased and adopt whatever course he wished to fulfill that demand. A constitutional government had been established there. There was an established procedure and legal provision for raising every claim. The right to demand retaliation for a killing belonged to the heirs of the slain person; they were alive and were also present there. If the government had knowingly shown negligence in arresting the criminals and bringing a case against them, others could certainly have demanded justice from the government. But if the government did not adopt a course according to someone’s demand, and that person then refused to recognize the government as a legitimate government at all, what kind of way of seeking justice from a government could this be? Is there any precedent for it anywhere in the Shariah? If Ali was not a legitimate Caliph, then what did it mean to demand from him the arrest and punishment of the criminals? Was he some tribal chief who, without legal authority, could seize whomever he wished and punish whomever he wished?

The course adopted by the first group was even more contrary to the law. Instead of going to Medina—where the Caliph, the criminals, and all the heirs of the slain person were present, and where it was possible to try and punish the criminals—they proceeded toward Basra, gathered an army, and attempted to take revenge for the blood of Uthman. The inevitable result of their demand was bound to be that, instead of one murder, another ten thousand would occur and the order of the state would be endangered. Let alone the Shariah, it cannot be recognized as a lawful course of action by the standards of any law in the world.

The course adopted by the second party, namely Muawiya, was several times more contrary to the law. He raised the demand for revenge for the murder of Uthman not as Muawiya, son of Abu Sufyan, but as the governor of Syria. He acknowledged obedience to the central government. He used the authority of the governorship for his own purpose. He did not demand from Ali that the killers of Uthman be prosecuted and punished. Rather, his demand was that the murderers be handed over to him so that he himself could kill them. [al-Tabari, vol. 4, pp. 3–4; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 148; al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, pp. 257–258.] All this resembled the tribal disorder of the pre-Islamic age rather than the orderly government of the Islamic era. First, the right to demand revenge for the murder of Uthman belonged not to Muawiya but to the heirs of Uthman recognized by the Shariah. Even if Muawiya had the right to make this demand on the basis of kinship, it was a personal right, not one he possessed as governor of Syria. Uthman was related to Muawiya, the son of Abu Sufyan. His governorship of Syria was not the basis of that relationship. In his personal capacity, he could have gone before the Caliph as a complainant and demanded that the criminals be arrested and prosecuted. The Caliph in whose hands allegiance had been duly given according to law, and whose caliphate the entire country, except the province under his administration, had accepted—[Historically, it is established that until after the Battle of Siffin, every province of the Islamic empire throughout the Arabian Peninsula and east and west of Syria was established upon allegiance to Ali. Only Syria was outside his allegiance because it was under Muawiya’s influence. Therefore, the true legal status of the situation was not that anarchy prevailed in the Muslim world and no one was obliged to obey anyone. Rather, the correct legal position was that a valid, lawful central government existed in the state; the other provinces obeyed it, and only one province was rebellious—(al-Tabari, vol. 3, pp. 462–463; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, pp. 137–141; al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 7, pp. 229, 251).] As governor, he had no right to refuse obedience to him. Nor did he have the right to use the military forces of the territory under his administration against the central government. In the sheer manner of ancient ignorance, he had no right to demand that persons accused of murder be handed over to those claiming retaliation without judicial proceedings, so that he himself could take revenge upon them.

Qadi Abu Bakr al-Arabi described the correct status of this matter according to the Shariah in the following manner in Ahkam al-Quran.

[After the martyrdom of Uthman] It was not possible to leave the people without a leader, so the imamate was offered to those whom Umar had named in the council. But they declined it. Ali, who was the most entitled and qualified for it, accepted it so that the Ummah might be protected from bloodshed and internal discord. That bloodshed and discord threatened irreparable harm to the faith and the community. After giving allegiance to him, the people of Syria imposed the condition for accepting his allegiance that the killers of Uthman first be arrested and retaliation be exacted from them. Ali told them: First join the allegiance, then make your claim; you will certainly receive it. But they said, ‘You are not entitled to allegiance at all, for we see the killers of Uthman with you morning and evening.’ On this matter, Ali’s view was more truthful. His statement was entirely correct. For had he attempted at that time to exact revenge from the killers of Uthman, various tribes would have come forward to support them, and a third front in the war would have opened. Therefore, he was waiting for the government to become firm, for his allegiance to be established throughout the country; then the heirs of the slain person would duly bring their claim before the court, and a decision would be made according to truth and justice. There is no disagreement among the scholars of the Ummah that, when there is fear that discord will raise its head and division and disunity will arise, it is permissible for the Imam to delay qisas.’

‘The case of Talha and Zubayr was similar. Neither of them dispossessed Ali of the Caliphate, nor did they object to his religion. Their view, however, was that the matter should begin first with the killers of Uthman. But Ali remained firm upon his view, and his view was correct.’

Proceeding in the same vein, the Qadi wrote:

*****************************************

—wrote in explanation of this verse:

In this situation, Ali acted in accordance with the verse cited above. He fought those rebels who sought to impose their own opinion forcibly upon the Imam. These rebels had no right to make such a demand. The proper course for those demanding qisas was to accept Ali’s position, present their demand for qisas before the court, and bring a case against the killers. Had they adopted this course, then, if Ali failed to exact revenge from the criminals, they would have had no need for hesitation or reservation. The ordinary Muslims themselves would have removed Ali from office. [Ahkam al-Quran, vol. 4, pp. 1706–1707, Egyptian edition, 1958.]

The Fourth Stage

After these three fissures had appeared in the Rightly Guided Caliphate, Ali assumed responsibility and began his work. He had only just begun when two thousand terrorists were still present in Medina. At that time Talha and Zubayr, accompanied by several other Companions, met him and said: ‘We gave allegiance to you on the condition that the hadd be established. Now take revenge from those who participated in the murder of Uthman.’ Ali replied: ‘My brothers! I am no less aware than you of what you know. But how can I seize those who presently hold power over us, over whom we have no influence or authority? Is there any opportunity anywhere for what you now wish to do?’ They all replied, ‘No.’ Thereupon Ali said: ‘By Allah, I too think what you think. Let the situation calm somewhat; let peace return to the public mind; let confusion in people’s thinking disappear; let it become possible to establish the right. [al-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 458; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 100; al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 7, pp. 227–228.]

Thereafter, these two eminent men, with Ali’s permission, went to Mecca. There they met the Mother of the Believers, Aisha, and decided to seek military assistance from Kufa and Basra—where Talha and Zubayr had many supporters—to take revenge for the murder of Uthman. Thus the caravan set out from Mecca for Basra. The Umayyads Sa’id ibn al-As and Marwan ibn al-Hakam also traveled with the caravan. When they reached Marr al-Zahran (the present-day Fatimah Valley), Sa’id ibn al-As said to the people of his party: ‘If you wish to take revenge for the killers of Uthman, then kill these people who are with you in this army.’ [He was referring to such eminent men as Talha and Zubayr. The general belief of the Umayyads was that those who had killed Uthman were not his only killers; rather, those who had at times criticized his policies, or who had been present in Medina during the uprising but had not fought to prevent the murder, were also included among his killers.] Marwan said: ‘No, we shall set them [that is, Talha, Zubayr, and Ali] against one another in battle. Whoever among them is defeated will be finished anyway. And whoever is victorious will become so weakened that we shall easily overcome him.’ [Tabaqat of Ibn Sa’d, vol. 5, pp. 34–35; Ibn Khaldun, appendix to vol. 2, p. 155.] In this way, the caravan reached Basra with these men, and they gathered a large army of their supporters from Iraq.

Meanwhile, Ali was preparing to go to Syria to bring it under the obedience of the Caliphate. On learning of the gathering of troops in Basra, he was compelled to deal with this situation first. But a large number of Companions and influential persons, who naturally regarded civil war among Muslims as a calamity, were not prepared to assist him in this campaign. [al-Bidayah, vol. 7, p. 233.] Consequently, those who had been waiting for an opportunity to escape the killers infiltrated Ali’s small assembled army. This became a cause of disgrace and disaster for him.

When the armies of the Mother of the Believers Aisha and the Commander of the Believers Ali faced each other near Basra, a large group of people devoted to the advancement of the faith and the welfare of the community tried to prevent the two groups of believers from clashing. Discussions toward reconciliation had almost been concluded. But on one side were the killers of Uthman within Ali’s army; they believed that if reconciliation were reached between the two sides, there would be no escape for them. On the other side, the army of the Mother of the Believers included people who desired to involve both sides in conflict and weaken them. Thus they began the battle by an irregular method. Finally, despite the hundred efforts of the well-wishers of both sides to stop the fighting, the Battle of the Camel took place. [al-Bidayah, vol. 7, pp. 237–239.]

At the beginning of the Battle of the Camel, Ali wished to speak with Talha and Zubayr and sent them a message to that effect. When they both appeared, Ali reminded them of a statement of the Messenger of Allah and advised them to refrain from fighting. As a result, Zubayr left the battlefield, while Talha moved from the front line to the rear. [al-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 415; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, pp. 122–123; al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 7, pp. 240, 241, 247; al-Isti’ab, vol. 1, p. 207; Ibn Khaldun, appendix to vol. 2, p. 162.] But a tyrant named Amr ibn Jurmuz killed Zubayr, and according to the famous and highly reliable report, Marwan ibn al-Hakam killed Talha. [Tabaqat of Ibn Sa’d, vol. 3, p. 223; vol. 5, p. 38; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, vol. 5, p. 20; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 124; Ibn Abd al-Barr, al-Isti’ab, pp. 207–208. Ibn Abd al-Barr says: Marwan was part of Talha’s army, and it was he who killed Talha—there is no disagreement on this among reliable authorities. Allamah Ibn Kathir accepted this report as the famous report in al-Bidayah, vol. 7, p. 247.]

In any case, the Battle of Siffin took place, in which ten thousand men from both sides were martyred. After the martyrdom of Uthman, this was the second greatest calamity in Islamic history. This event advanced the Ummah another step toward autocracy. Most of the army that fought against Ali had been gathered from Basra and Kufa. After five thousand people from these regions had been martyred by Ali and thousands had been wounded, how could it be expected that the people of Iraq would support Ali with the same degree of unity with which the people of Syria were supporting Muawiya? The unity of Muawiya’s camp and the disunity of Ali’s camp during and after the Battle of Siffin were fundamentally consequences of the Battle of the Camel. Had this battle not taken place, it would have been entirely possible to prevent the advent of autocracy despite all the later distortions. In fact, this was the consequence of the conflict between Ali and Talha and Zubayr. Marwan ibn al-Hakam had been waiting for this outcome. That was why he went to Basra with Talha and Zubayr. Sadly, his intention was fulfilled one hundred percent.

The course Ali adopted in this battle clearly demonstrates the difference between a Rightly Guided Caliph and a king. First, he announced among his army that they should not pursue anyone who fled, attack any wounded person, or enter the homes of their opponents after victory. After the victory, he led the funeral prayer for the martyrs of both sides and buried them with equal honor. He completely refused to classify the money and property obtained from the opposing army as spoils. Gathering the collected property in the congregational mosque of Basra, he announced: ‘Let whoever recognizes his own property take it.’ People spread the rumor that Ali wanted to kill the men of Basra and turn their wives into slaves. Ali immediately rejected this slander, saying: ‘Such conduct should not be expected from a man like me. That is conduct appropriate toward unbelievers. Such conduct cannot be practiced toward Muslims.’ When they entered Basra, the women assailed them with abuse and reproach from inside their homes. Ali announced to his army: ‘Beware. Do not violate anyone’s honor, enter anyone’s home, or harass any woman—even if they abuse your commanders and righteous men. Even when they were polytheists, we had been forbidden to interfere with them. Now they are Muslims; how, then, can I interfere with them?’ [al-Tabari, vol. 3, pp. 506, 510, 542, 544; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, pp. 122, 131, 132; al-Bidayah, vol. 7, pp. 244–245; Ibn Khaldun, appendix to vol. 2, pp. 164–165.] He treated Aisha, the principal leader of the defeated side, with the utmost respect and sent her to Medina with full honor. [al-Bidayah, vol. 7, pp. 245–246; al-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 547.] When the killer of Zubayr appeared hoping to receive a reward, he gave him the news of Hell. Seeing Zubayr’s sword in his hand, he said: ‘How many times did this sword protect the Messenger of Allah?’ [al-Bidayah, vol. 7, p. 249; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 125; Ibn Khaldun, appendix to vol. 2, p. 162.] When Talha’s son came to visit him, he seated him near him with great affection, returned his property to him, and said: ‘I hope that Allah Almighty has described in the Quran in this manner what will occur between your father and me in the Hereafter:’

*****************

—‘I shall remove from their hearts all rancor, and they shall sit upon couches facing one another as brothers.’ [Tabaqat of Ibn Sa’d, pp. 224–225.]

The Fifth Stage

After the martyrdom of Uthman (18 Dhu al-Hijjah, 35 AH), Numan ibn Bashir took his bloodstained shirt and the severed fingers of his wife, Naila, to Muawiya in Damascus, and had them hung in a public street to stir the emotions of the people of Syria. [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 98; al-Bidayah, vol. 7, p. 227; Ibn Khaldun, appendix to vol. 2, p. 152.] This was proof that Muawiya wanted to take revenge for Uthman’s murder not by lawful means but by unlawful means. Otherwise, it is clear that the news of Uthman’s martyrdom itself was sufficient to arouse anger and sorrow in people’s hearts; there was no need to create excitement among them by displaying the shirt and fingers.

Meanwhile, after assuming the responsibilities of the Caliphate, one of the first actions Ali took was to dismiss Muawiya from Syria in Muharram of 36 AH and appoint Sahl ibn Hunayf in his place. But the newly appointed governor had barely reached Tabuk when an infantry force from Syria met him and said: ‘If you have come on behalf of Uthman, you are welcome. But if you have come on behalf of anyone else, go back.’ [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 103; al-Bidayah, vol. 7, p. 228; Ibn Khaldun, appendix to vol. 2, p. 152.] This was a clear notice that the province of Syria was not prepared to accept the allegiance of the new Caliph. Ali sent another person with a letter to Muawiya, but he gave no reply to that letter. Rather, in Safar of 36 AH, he sent him an envelope through a messenger. Ali opened the envelope and found no letter inside. He asked, ‘What is this?’ The messenger replied, ‘Sixty thousand men are waiting behind me to take revenge for the murder of Uthman.’ Ali asked, ‘From whom do they want to take revenge?’ He replied, ‘From the veins of your neck.’ [al-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 464; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 104; al-Bidayah, vol. 7, p. 229; Ibn Khaldun, appendix to vol. 2, pp. 152–153.] Its clear meaning was that the governor of Syria not only did not wish to acknowledge obedience; he also wished to employ all the power of his province in fighting the central government. His purpose was to take revenge for Uthman’s murder not from the killers of Uthman, but from the reigning Caliph.

All this was the result of Muawiya’s having been continuously appointed governor of such an important province for sixteen or seventeen years—a province whose position was extremely important from the military point of view. For this reason, Syria had largely become his kingdom rather than a province of the Islamic Caliphate. Historians have described Ali’s dismissal of Muawiya in such a way that the reader comes to think that Ali possessed not the slightest foresight or prudence. Mughirah ibn Shu’bah advised him wisely that he should not needlessly provoke Muawiya and invite trouble. Yet, from the picture of the event that emerges from the histories written by those historians, no person possessing political insight can fail to realize that it would have been a grave error for Ali to delay ordering Muawiya’s dismissal. From the very beginning, this step made it clear where Muawiya stood; had his role remained concealed, it would in reality have been nothing more than a covering for deception. It would have been even more dangerous.

Ali then began preparations to attack Syria. At that time, forcing Syria into obedience would not have been very difficult for him, because the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, and Egypt were loyal to him. The province of Syria alone could not have held out against him for long. Moreover, public opinion throughout the Muslim world could not possibly approve of a provincial governor standing with sword drawn against the Caliph. Under these circumstances, it would not have been possible for the people of Syria either to unite in assisting Muawiya against the Caliph. But at that same time, the actions of Aisha, Talha, and Zubayr—which we have mentioned earlier—completely changed the picture, and Ali had to set out toward Basra in Rabi al-Thani of 36 AH instead of advancing toward Syria. [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 113.]

After concluding the Battle of the Camel in Jumada al-Thani of 36 AH, Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) once again turned his attention toward Syria and sent Hazrat Jarir ibn Abdullah al-Bajali to Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) with a letter. Through this, an attempt was made to explain to him that he should submit to the caliphate on which the Ummah had agreed, rather than separating from the united community and creating division. But for a long time he gave Hazrat Jarir neither a yes nor a no. Instead, he kept putting him off, saying that he would give an answer, and allowed time to pass. On the advice of Hazrat Amr ibn al-As, he decided that Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) should be declared responsible for the murder of Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) and war should be waged against him. Both of them firmly believed that after the war Hazrat Ali’s army would not be able to regroup and fight again under his banner; and that Iraq would not be able to assist Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) with the same morale with which the Syrians were prepared to fight under Hazrat Muawiya’s banner. [Al-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 561; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, pp. 141–142; Al-Bidaya, vol. 7, p. 253.] While Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) was delaying, Hazrat Jarir ibn Abdullah met influential people in Damascus and continued telling them that Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) had no connection with the murder of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) and was not responsible for it. Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) became alarmed at this and appointed a man to produce several witnesses who would testify before the Syrians that Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was responsible for the murder of Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). That man therefore brought five witnesses. They testified before the people that Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) had killed Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). [Al-Isti’ab, vol. 2, p. 589.]

Thereafter Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) prepared for war from Iraq, while Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) did so from Syria, and the two advanced toward each other. They met at a place called Siffin, near al-Raqqah on the western bank of the Euphrates. Hazrat Muawiya’s army had already taken control of the Euphrates water. He did not permit the opposing army to use it. Hazrat Ali’s soldiers fought them and drove them away from it. Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) instructed his men to take water according to their needs and to allow the opposing soldiers to benefit from the remaining water. [Al-Tabari, vol. 3, pp. 568–569; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, pp. 145–146; Ibn Khaldun, supplement to vol. 2, p. 170.]

At the beginning of Dhu al-Hijjah, before the war began as usual, Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) sent a delegation to Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him). But he replied: “Leave me; there is nothing between me and you except the sword.” [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 46; Ibn Khaldun, supplement to vol. 2, p. 170.]

After the war continued for some time, an agreement was concluded to suspend it until the end of Muharram in 37 AH. Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) then sent another delegation, led by Hazrat Adi ibn Hatim (may Allah be pleased with him). The delegation told Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) that everyone agreed regarding Hazrat Ali; only you and your companions have separated from him. Hazrat Muawiya replied: “If he hands over to us the killers of Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), so that we may kill them, then we shall listen to you, accept allegiance, and join the community.” He then sent a delegation to Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), led by Habib ibn Maslamah al-Fihri. He said to Hazrat Ali: “If it is your claim that you did not kill Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), then hand over those who killed him to us. We shall kill them in retaliation for the blood of Hazrat Uthman. Then resign from the office of caliphate, so that the Muslims may appoint as caliph whoever they agree upon through mutual consultation.” [Al-Tabari, vol. 4, pp. 3–4; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, pp. 147–148; Al-Bidaya, vol. 7, pp. 257–258; Ibn Khaldun, supplement to vol. 2, p. 171.]

After Muharram ended, the decisive war began in Safar of 37 AH. At the very beginning of the battle, Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) announced to his army: “Beware. Do not initiate the fighting yourselves before they attack. Then, when you defeat them, do not kill anyone who flees, do not strike any wounded person, do not strip anyone naked, do not mutilate the body of any slain person, do not enter anyone’s home, and do not plunder their wealth. Even if the women insult you, do not lay hands on them.” [Al-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 6; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 149.]

During this war, an event occurred that clearly established which of the two sides was upon the truth and which was upon falsehood. The event was that Hazrat Ammar ibn Yasir, who was in Hazrat Ali’s army, was martyred while fighting Hazrat Muawiya’s army. ***************** The statement of the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) concerning Hazrat Ammar—“A rebellious group will kill you”—was widely known and famous among the Companions. This report has been narrated from Hazrat Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, Abu Qatadah al-Ansari, Umm Salamah, Abdullah ibn Masud, Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As, Abu Hurairah, Uthman ibn Affan, Hudhayfah, Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, Abu Rafi, Khuzaymah ibn Thabit, Amr ibn al-As, Abu al-Yusr, Ammar ibn Yasir (may Allah be pleased with them all), and many other Companions in such hadith collections as the Musnad of Ahmad, al-Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, al-Nasai, al-Tabarani, al-Bayhaqi, and the Musnad of Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi. Ibn Sa’d cited this hadith through several chains in his Tabaqat. [Ibn Sa’d, vol. 3, pp. 251, 253, 259.]

Various Companions and Followers who were uncertain during the war between Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) adopted the martyrdom of Hazrat Ammar (may Allah be pleased with him) as the criterion for determining who was upon the truth and who was upon falsehood in this war. [Ibn Sa’d, vol. 3, pp. 253, 259, 261; Al-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 27; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, pp. 157, 165.]

Abu Bakr al-Jassas wrote in his work Ahkam al-Qur’an:

“Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) fought the rebellious group with arms. With him were eminent Companions and participants in the Battle of Badr whose distinction is known to everyone. In this battle he was upon the truth. No one disputes this except the rebellious group that fought him. Moreover, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) himself had told Hazrat Ammar (may Allah be pleased with him), ‘A rebellious group will kill you.’ This is a hadith transmitted through numerous chains and universally accepted as authentic. Even when Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As narrated this hadith to Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him), he could not deny it. He merely explained that Ammar had been killed by those who had pushed him before our spears. The people of Kufa, Basra, the Hijaz, and Syria all narrated this hadith. [Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 3, p. 892.]”

Ibn Abd al-Barr wrote in Al-Isti’ab: “It has been narrated through numerous hadiths from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that the rebellious group would kill Ammar ibn Yasir. This report is among the authentic hadiths. [Al-Isti’ab, vol. 2, p. 424.]”

Hafiz Ibn Hajar wrote the same in Al-Isabah. [Al-Isabah, vol. 2, p. 506.] Elsewhere he wrote: “After Ammar was killed, it became clear that the truth was on Hazrat Ali’s side. Ahl al-Sunnah agree on this, although previously there had been disagreement about it. [Al-Isabah, vol. 2, p. 502.] In Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, Ibn Hajar writes: ****************** The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) told Hazrat Ammar that the rebellious group would kill him; this hadith has been transmitted from him through successive narrations.”

Hafiz Ibn Kathir, while mentioning the killing of Hazrat Ammar ibn Yasir in Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, wrote: “Through this, the truth of the report given by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that the rebellious group would kill Hazrat Ammar has been disclosed. It has also become clear that Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was upon the truth and Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) was rebellious.” [Al-Bidaya, vol. 7, p. 270.]

One of the reasons Hazrat Zubair (may Allah be pleased with him) withdrew from the Battle of the Camel was that he remembered this statement of the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). He saw that Hazrat Ammar ibn Yasir was also in Hazrat Ali’s army. [Al-Bidaya, vol. 7, p. 241; Ibn Khaldun, supplement to vol. 2, p. 162.]

When news of Hazrat Ammar’s martyrdom reached Hazrat Muawiya’s army, and Hazrat Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As (may Allah be pleased with him) reminded both his father and Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) of the Messenger of Allah’s statement, Hazrat Muawiya immediately explained it, saying: “Did we kill Ammar? He was killed only by the one who brought him onto the battlefield.” [Al-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 29; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 158; Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, vol. 7, pp. 268–269.] Regarding this explanation of Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him), Allamah Ibn Kathir says: “The explanation he offered is not acceptable.” Mulla Ali al-Qari cites in his commentary on Fiqh Akbar that when Hazrat Ali learned of this explanation, he said: “On the basis of such an explanation, one could also say that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) himself was the killer of Hazrat Hamzah (may Allah be pleased with him).” [Commentary on Fiqh Akbar, p. 79. See the Delhi Mujtabai Press edition.] Yet the Prophet did not say that the rebellious group would bring Hazrat Ammar onto the battlefield; rather, he said that the rebellious group would kill him. It is therefore clear that he was killed by Hazrat Muawiya’s group, not Hazrat Ali’s group.

On the second day after Hazrat Ammar’s martyrdom, on 10 Safar, fierce fighting took place and Hazrat Muawiya’s army reached the verge of defeat. At that time Hazrat Amr ibn al-As (may Allah be pleased with him) advised Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him): “Now we should tie copies of the Qur’an to the tips of our army’s spears and proclaim ********************* ‘The Qur’an shall decide between us and you.’” Hazrat Amr ibn al-As himself argued in support of this that it would create a rift within Hazrat Ali’s army. One group would say it should be accepted, while another would say it could not be accepted. We would remain united and division would arise among them. If they accepted it, we would gain time. [Al-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 34; Ibn Sa’d, vol. 4, p. 255; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 160; Al-Bidaya, vol. 7, p. 272; Ibn Khaldun, supplement to vol. 2, p. 174.] The clear meaning was that this was merely a military strategy. Accepting the Qur’an as arbitrator was not its objective at all.

Following this advice, Muawiya’s army raised the Qur’an on the tips of their spears. The result was exactly what Hazrat Amr ibn al-As (may Allah be pleased with him) had hoped for. Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) tried repeatedly to persuade the people of Iraq: “Do not fall into this conspiracy; carry the war through to its final stage.” But division arose among them. In the end, Hazrat Ali was compelled to stop the war and conclude an arbitration agreement with Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him). This division also appeared when the arbitrators were to be appointed. Hazrat Muawiya appointed Hazrat Amr ibn al-As (may Allah be pleased with him) as his arbitrator. Hazrat Ali wished to appoint Hazrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) on his behalf. But the Iraqis exclaimed: “He is your cousin. We want a neutral person.” Ultimately, under their insistence, he was compelled to appoint Hazrat Abu Musa al-Ashari (may Allah be pleased with him) as arbitrator, although he himself was not confident about him. [Al-Tabari, vol. 4, pp. 34–36; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, pp. 161–162; Al-Bidaya, vol. 7, pp. 275–276; Ibn Khaldun, supplement to vol. 2, p. 175.]

The Sixth Stage

Now only one final opportunity remained to prevent the caliphate from advancing toward monarchy: the two arbitrators, who had been authorized by the agreement to decide the matter, would deliver a proper judgment. According to the text of the agreement quoted by historians, the basis of the judgment was as follows:

“Both arbitrators shall act according to the Book of Allah; and in matters for which no decision is found in the Book of Allah, they shall act according to the truth-oriented and unifying Sunnah. [Al-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 38; Al-Bidaya, vol. 7, p. 276; Ibn Khaldun, supplement to vol. 2, p. 175.]”

But when both arbitrators met at Dumat al-Jandal, the question of resolving this dispute in the light of the Qur’an and Sunnah was not included in the discussion at all. The Qur’an gives clear guidance that when two groups of Muslims engage in conflict, the proper way to resolve the dispute is to compel the rebellious group to return to the right path. [Al-Hujurat, verse 9. The words of the verse are: **************** “If two groups of believers fight each other, make peace between them. If one of them rebels against the other, then fight the rebellious group until it returns to Allah’s command.”] After Hazrat Ammar’s martyrdom, the Prophet’s clear hadith had unambiguously identified which group was rebellious in this dispute. Clear hadiths also existed concerning those who refused allegiance after the leadership and authority of an amir had been established. The Shariah likewise contained clear rules regarding claims of blood vengeance. In light of these rules, it could have been judged whether Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) had raised his claim concerning Hazrat Uthman’s murder properly or improperly. The arbitration agreement did not actually assign the two arbitrators the responsibility of issuing, according to their own wishes, a judgment about the caliphate. Rather, the dispute between the two sides was clearly placed before them, and they were charged first with resolving it on the basis of the Book of Allah and then the just Sunnah of the Messenger. But when the two eminent men began their discussion, they completely forgot all these matters and occupied themselves with how to reach some solution regarding the caliphate.

Hazrat Amr ibn al-As (may Allah be pleased with him) asked Hazrat Abu Musa al-Ashari (may Allah be pleased with him), “In your opinion, what course is appropriate in this matter?” He replied: “My view is that we should set aside these two men—Ali and Muawiya—and leave the matter of the caliphate to the mutual consultation of the Muslims, so that they may choose whomever they wish.” Hazrat Amr said: “You have thought correctly.” Then both appeared before a general assembly. Four hundred supporters from each side and several neutral elders were present. Hazrat Amr said to Hazrat Abu Musa: “Tell them that we have reached agreement.” Hazrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said to Hazrat Abu Musa: “If you have both reached agreement, let Hazrat Amr ibn al-As announce it, because I fear that you have been deceived.” Hazrat Abu Musa replied: “I have no such fear. We have agreed and reached a decision.” He then stood to address the assembly and announced: “My friend”—meaning Amr ibn al-As—“and I have agreed on one matter: we shall remove Ali and Muawiya, after which the people shall appoint as amir whomever they choose through consultation. Therefore I remove Ali and Muawiya from office. Now take your affairs into your own hands and appoint as amir whoever you consider qualified.” Then Hazrat Amr ibn al-As stood and said: “You have heard what he said. He has removed his own man, Hazrat Ali. I too remove him, and I retain my own man, Hazrat Muawiya, because he was a friend of Uthman ibn Affan (may Allah be pleased with him) and claimed vengeance for his blood. Moreover, he is the most qualified to succeed him.” As soon as Hazrat Abu Musa heard this, he exclaimed:

********************

“What have you done? May Allah not grant you success. You have deceived us and violated the agreement.” Hazrat Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “Abu Musa! I pity you. You proved very weak against Amr’s scheme.” Hazrat Abu Musa replied: “What can I do now? He agreed with me on one matter, then freed himself from it.” Hazrat Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “It would have been far better for Abu Musa if he had died before this.”

Hazrat Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “Look at how far the condition of this Ummah has come. Its future has been entrusted to two men, one of whom has no concern for what he has done, while the other is weak.” [Al-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 51; Ibn Sa’d, vol. 4, pp. 256–257; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 168; Al-Bidaya, vol. 7, pp. 282–283; Ibn Khaldun, supplement to vol. 2, p. 178.]

No one present had any doubt that Hazrat Abu Musa’s speech expressed the agreement reached between the two men. Everything Hazrat Amr ibn al-As (may Allah be pleased with him) did was completely contrary to the agreed decision. Hazrat Amr then went to Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) and gave him the good news of the caliphate. Unable to face Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) out of shame, Hazrat Abu Musa went directly to Makkah. [Al-Bidaya, vol. 7, p. 283; Ibn Khaldun, supplement to vol. 2, p. 178.]

Explaining Hazrat Amr ibn al-As’s action, Hafiz Ibn Kathir wrote: “He did not consider it proper to leave the people without a leader at that moment. Seeing the disagreement prevailing among them, he feared that it would lead to prolonged disorder. Therefore, out of necessity, he retained Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him). Ijtihad may be correct or it may be mistaken.” [Al-Bidaya, vol. 7, p. 283.]

But it would be extremely difficult for any fair-minded person who reads the entire account, beginning with the proposal to tie the Qur’an to the tips of spears, to accept all of it as ijtihad. There is no doubt that all the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) deserve our respect. Anyone who, because of some mistake they made, denies all their services, forgets their exalted rank, and descends to the level of insulting them commits grave injustice. But when one of them makes a mistake, trying to label it ijtihad merely because of the Companions’ status is no less unjust or wrong. If the mistakes of great men become ijtihad because of their greatness, then by what means will we restrain later people from such forms of ijtihad? Ijtihad means striving to the utmost to learn the truth. Even if an unintentional mistake occurs in this effort, the attempt to know the truth is certainly worthy of reward. But knowingly and deliberately committing a mistake according to a carefully devised plan can in no way be called ijtihad. In fact, excess in all such matters must be avoided. A wrong action does not become honorable merely because its perpetrator was a Companion; rather, because of the Companion’s exalted status, the wrong becomes even more conspicuous. Nevertheless, anyone commenting on the matter must exercise caution. His comment must remain limited to considering the mistake a mistake and calling it a mistake. He may not go further and condemn or accuse the Companions as persons in their entirety. Undoubtedly Hazrat Amr ibn al-As (may Allah be pleased with him) was an eminent elder of great distinction. He rendered many valuable services to Islam. But he committed these two actions that cannot be called anything other than mistakes.

Without entering into a discussion of what each of the two arbitrators did, it can be said that everything that occurred at Dumat al-Jandal was completely contrary to the arbitration agreement. The limits of the agreement were undoubtedly violated in this way. They wrongfully assumed that they had the authority to dismiss Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). Yet after the martyrdom of Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), he had been elected caliph through the proper legal procedure. No wording in the arbitration agreement can be interpreted as granting them authority to dismiss him. Moreover, they wrongly assumed that Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) had advanced a claim to the caliphate against Hazrat Ali. Until then, he had merely been claiming vengeance for the blood of Hazrat Uthman; he had not claimed the caliphate. Above all, their assumption that they had been appointed to solve the problem of the caliphate was also mistaken. The arbitration agreement provided no basis for such a misconception. For this reason, Hazrat Ali rejected their judgment and, in a speech at an assembly, said:

“Listen! The two whom you appointed as arbitrators rejected the Qur’an’s command. Each of them followed his own opinion without Allah’s command. They issued a judgment that is founded neither on clear evidence nor on established precedent. Neither of them could agree with this judgment. Neither could reach a decision. [Al-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 57.]”

Thereafter Hazrat Ali reached Kufa and again began preparing to attack Syria. His speeches at this time clearly show how intensely he felt the danger of autocracy being imposed upon the Ummah and how desperately he was striving to preserve the system of the Rightly Guided Caliphate. In one speech he said:

“By Allah, if these people become your rulers, they will rule over you like Caesar and Heraclius. [Al-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 58; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 171.]”

In another speech he said: “Prepare to fight those who are fighting you in order to turn Allah’s servants into their slaves and become despotic rulers. [Al-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 59; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 172.]”

But the people of Iraq had lost their morale, while the upheaval caused by the Kharijites created a new burden for Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). In addition, Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) and Hazrat Amr ibn al-As (may Allah be pleased with him) adopted strategies that caused Egypt and most of North Africa to slip from his control, and the Muslim world effectively became divided between two governments in conflict. Finally, the martyrdom of Hazrat Ali (40 AH) in Ramadan and the settlement made by Hazrat Hasan (41 AH) left the field completely open to Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him). In view of the situation that arose thereafter, even those who had previously remained detached, describing the war between Hazrat Ali and his opponents as merely a fitnah, were able to understand clearly what Hazrat Ali had been striving to preserve and from what consequence he had been trying to save the Ummah at the cost of his life. Near the end of his life, Hazrat Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “I have never regretted anything as much as I regretted not joining Ali (may Allah be pleased with him).” [Ibn Sa’d, vol. 4, p. 187; Ibn Abd al-Barr, Al-Isti’ab, vol. 1, pp. 30–37.] According to Ibrahim al-Nakha’i: “Masruq ibn al-Ajda repented and sought forgiveness for not joining Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him).” [Al-Isti’ab, vol. 1, p. 30.] Hazrat Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-As (may Allah be pleased with him) remained deeply ashamed and regretful throughout his life for taking Hazrat Muawiya’s side in the war against Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). [Al-Isti’ab, vol. 1, p. 371.]

The way Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) acted during this period of crisis was entirely befitting a rightly guided caliph. There is only one matter that appears extremely difficult to justify. That is, after the battle, he changed his position regarding the killers of Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). Until the Battle of the Camel, he had been displeased with them. Despite his reluctance, he tolerated them and waited for an opportunity to bring them under control. When he sent Qa’qa’ ibn Amr to confer with Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), Hazrat Talha (may Allah be pleased with him), and Hazrat al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him), Qa’qa’, speaking on his behalf, said: “Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) has refrained from raising his hand against them until he gains the power to apprehend the killers of Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). If you pledge allegiance, avenging the blood of Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) will become easy.” [Al-Bidayah, vol. 7, p. 237.] Subsequently, immediately before the battle, he spoke with Hazrat Talha (may Allah be pleased with him) and al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him). During that conversation, Hazrat Talha (may Allah be pleased with him) accused him, saying, “You are responsible for the killing of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him).” In reply, he said: “May Allah’s curse be upon the killers of Uthman.” [Al-Bidayah, vol. 7, p. 240.] Yet he later appointed to the governorship those who had incited violence against Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) and were ultimately responsible for his murder, including Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him). Everyone knew the role these men had played in the killing of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). Throughout the entire caliphate of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), this is the only act that we find impossible to regard as anything other than a mistake.

Some people say that, like Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) also appointed many of his relatives to important positions—for example, Hazrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), Hazrat Ubaydullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), and Hazrat Qutham ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), among others. But when presenting this argument, they forget that Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) acted in such circumstances that one group of highly qualified people was not cooperating with him, another group had joined the opposition camp, and people were leaving a third group every day and going off in different directions. In these circumstances, he was compelled to employ people in whom he had complete confidence. There was no similarity between these circumstances and those during the caliphate of Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). He acted at a time when he enjoyed the full cooperation of all the capable people of the ummah. He was not compelled to seek the help and cooperation of his relatives.

The Final Phase

The seizure of the reins of power by Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) was the transitional phase in the return of the Islamic state from the caliphate to despotic monarchy. Farsighted people understood at this stage that they were now facing the despotic system of monarchy. Thus, after the bay’ah to Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), Hazrat Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him) met him and addressed him as “king.” Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) said, “What difficulty was there in addressing me as Commander of the Believers?” He replied, “By Allah, I would never have accepted it in the manner in which you obtained power.” [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 405.] An incident sheds light on Hazrat Sa’d’s (may Allah be pleased with him) view in this matter. During the period of crisis, his nephew, Hashim ibn Utbah ibn Abi Waqqas, once said to him, “If you stand for the caliphate, countless swords are ready to support you.” He replied, “Among these hundred thousand swords, I want only one sword—one that will be used against an unbeliever, not against a Muslim.” [Al-Bidayah, vol. 8, p. 72.] Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) himself knew this. On one occasion he said, “I am the first king among the Muslims.” [Al-Isti’ab, vol. 1, p. 245; Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 8, p. 135.] Indeed, according to Hafiz Ibn Kathir, it is the Sunnah to call him king rather than caliph. For the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had foretold: “The caliphate will remain for thirty years after me; thereafter kingship will come.” This period ended in Rabi al-Awwal of 41 AH when Hazrat Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him) relinquished the caliphate in favor of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). [Al-Bidayah, vol. 8, p. 16.]

At this point, only one means remained of restoring the caliphate according to the Prophetic way (the caliphate established on the path shown by the Noble Prophet). Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) could have left the matter of appointing someone to this office after his death to the mutual consultation of the Muslims; or, if he considered it necessary to settle the matter of succession during his lifetime in order to prevent conflict, he could have assembled the upright and Islamically learned people of the Muslims and granted them the freedom and authority to select the most deserving person from among the ummah. But by obtaining allegiance for his own son Yazid through intimidation and inducements, he brought this possibility to an end as well.

Hazrat al-Mughira ibn Shu’ba (may Allah be pleased with him) was the originator of this proposal. Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) was considering dismissing him from the governorship of Kufa. He learned of this, immediately traveled from Kufa to Damascus, met Yazid, and said: “The leading Companions and distinguished men of Quraysh have departed from this world. I do not understand why the Commander of the Believers is delaying in obtaining allegiance for you.” Yazid discussed the matter with his father. He summoned Hazrat al-Mughira (may Allah be pleased with him) and asked him, “What did you say to Yazid?” Hazrat al-Mughira (may Allah be pleased with him) replied: “Commander of the Believers, you yourself have witnessed all the disputes and bloodshed that occurred after the killing of Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). Therefore, it is better for you to appoint Yazid as your successor and obtain allegiance for him during your lifetime. Thus, God forbid, if anything should happen to you, at least no dispute will arise.” Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) asked, “Who will undertake to complete this task?” He replied, “I will manage the people of Kufa, and Ziyad will manage the people of Basra. After that, no one will remain to oppose it.” Having said this, Hazrat al-Mughira (may Allah be pleased with him) went to Kufa and persuaded ten men, after giving them thirty thousand dirhams, to go as a delegation to Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) and urge him to appoint Yazid as his successor. This delegation, led by Hazrat al-Mughira’s son Musa ibn al-Mughira, went to Damascus and fulfilled its task. Later, Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) called Musa privately and asked, “At what price did your father purchase their religion from them?” He replied, “For thirty thousand dirhams.” Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) said, “Then their religion must be utterly insignificant in their eyes.” [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 249; Al-Bidayah, vol. 8, p. 79; and Ibn Khaldun, vol. 3, pp. 15–16, mention part of this incident.]

Thereafter, Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) wrote to Ziyad, the governor of Basra, asking his opinion on the matter. Ziyad summoned Ubayd ibn Ka’b al-Numayri and said, “The Commander of the Believers has written to me about this matter. In my view, Yazid has many weaknesses.” He listed those weaknesses and then said, “Go to the Commander of the Believers and tell him not to hurry in this matter.” Ubayd said, “Do not try to undermine Hazrat Muawiyah’s opinion. I will go and tell Yazid that the Commander of the Believers has sought the advice of Amir Ziyad on this matter. He believes that the people will oppose the proposal because they disapprove of some aspects of your conduct. Amir Ziyad’s advice, therefore, is that you should correct these matters so that the task can be completed properly.” Ziyad approved this opinion. Ubayd went to Damascus, advised Yazid on the one hand to reform his personal conduct, and told Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) on the other not to hurry in the matter. [Al-Tabari, vol. 4, pp. 224–225; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, pp. 249–250; Al-Bidayah, vol. 8, p. 79.] Historians say that Yazid subsequently corrected many of the behaviors that people found objectionable. But two things become clear from this account. First, the initial movement to make Yazid the successor was not founded on any sound principle. Rather, one elder, for his personal interest, strengthened the interests of another elder and gave birth to this proposal. Neither of these elders considered the path onto which they were pushing the ummah of Muhammad. Second, Yazid himself was not a person of such standing that, apart from being Muawiyah’s son, anyone could say that he was the most qualified person to lead the ummah after Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him).

After Ziyad’s death in 50 AH, Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) decided to designate Yazid as his successor and began trying to secure the support of influential people. In this connection, he sent one hundred thousand dirhams to Hazrat Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and tried to persuade him to pledge allegiance to Yazid. He said, “Oh! This money has been sent to me for that purpose. Then my religion must be very cheap to me.” Saying this, he refused to accept the money. [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 250; Al-Bidayah, vol. 8, p. 89.]

After this, Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) wrote to Marwan ibn al-Hakam, the governor of Medina: “I have grown old. I wish to appoint someone as my successor during my lifetime. Ask the people’s opinion regarding the appointment of a successor.” Marwan raised the matter before the people of Medina. Everyone said that it was entirely appropriate. Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) then wrote to Marwan again: “I have designated Yazid as my successor.” Marwan once more raised the matter before the people of Medina and delivered a sermon in the Prophet’s Mosque. He said: “The Commander of the Believers has left no stone unturned in seeking a suitable person for you. He has appointed his own son Yazid as his successor. This is an excellent decision. Allah the Exalted has granted him the authority to make this decision. His appointing his own son as successor is nothing new. Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) and Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) also designated successors.” At this, Hazrat Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr rose and said: “Marwan! You have lied, and Muawiyah has also lied. You have never considered the welfare of the ummah of Muhammad. You want to turn it into a Caesarist system. When a Caesar dies, his son takes his place. This was not the policy of Abu Bakr and Umar. They did not appoint their own sons as successors.” Marwan said: “Seize him.” It is regarding this man that the Qur’an says:

****************

“The one who says to his parents: Fie upon you.” Hazrat Abd al-Rahman (may Allah be pleased with him) fled and took refuge in Hazrat Aisha’s (may Allah be pleased with her) chamber. Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) cried out: “Marwan has lied. This verse was not revealed concerning anyone from our family. Rather, I could name the person concerning whom it was revealed, if I wished. Indeed, when Marwan was still in his father’s loins, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) invoked a curse upon his father.” Among those present at the gathering, Hazrat Husayn ibn Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), Hazrat Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), and Hazrat Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him), like Hazrat Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), also refused to accept Yazid’s succession. [A brief discussion of this incident appears in the commentary on Surah al-Ahqaf in Sahih al-Bukhari. In Fath al-Bari, Hafiz Ibn Hajar has given a detailed account of the incident on the authority of al-Nasa’i, Isma’ili, Ibn al-Mundhir, Abu Ya’la, and Ibn Abi Hatim. Hafiz Ibn Kathir has also cited Ibn Abi Hatim and al-Nasa’i in his commentary and mentioned related details. For a fuller account, see Al-Isti’ab, vol. 2, p. 393; Al-Bidayah, vol. 8, p. 89; and Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 250. Ibn al-Athir wrote: “According to some reports, Hazrat Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr died in 53 AH. If this is true, he was not present at the time.” But reliable hadith reports contradict this. Hafiz Ibn Kathir wrote in Al-Bidayah that he died in 58 AH.]

At this time, Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) summoned representatives from various regions and raised the matter before them. In response, everyone delivered flattering statements. Hazrat Ahnaf ibn Qays, however, remained silent. Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) asked, “O Abu Bahr, what is your opinion?” He replied: “If I speak the truth, I fear you; and if I lie, I fear Allah. Commander of the Believers, you know very well everything about Yazid’s conduct by day and by night, his movements and his sitting, his inner and outer qualities. If you truly consider him suitable for Allah and this ummah, do not seek anyone else’s advice on this matter. But if you consider him otherwise, do not leave the world in his hands before setting out for the Hereafter. As for our own position, our duty is only to hear and obey whatever instruction is given.” [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, pp. 250–251; Al-Bidayah, vol. 8, p. 80.]

After obtaining allegiance in Iraq, Syria, and other regions, Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) went to the Hijaz, because the matter of the Hijaz was the most important. All the influential figures in the Muslim world whose opposition was feared were there. Hazrat Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him), Hazrat Ibn al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him), Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), and Hazrat Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) met him outside Medina. Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) treated them so harshly that they left the city and went to Mecca. Thus the matter of Medina became easy. He then went to Mecca, summoned the four men outside the city, and met them. His conduct toward them this time differed from his earlier conduct near Medina. He showed them great favor and entered the city with them. Then he summoned them privately and tried to persuade them to pledge allegiance to Yazid. Hazrat Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him) replied: “Adopt any one of three courses. Either, like the Noble Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), appoint no successor at all, and let the people themselves choose a caliph, as they chose Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him). Or follow the method adopted by Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him): he nominated as successor a person like Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), with whom he had no close blood relationship. Or follow the method of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him): he proposed a council of six persons, none of his children being among them.” Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) asked the remaining men, “What do you say?” They replied, “Our position is the same as what Ibn al-Zubayr has said.” Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) then said: “Until now I have pardoned you. But now, by Allah, I swear that if any of you says even a single word in reply to me, he will not be given the opportunity to utter the next word. The sword will fall first upon his head.” He then summoned the chief of his bodyguard and ordered him: “Assign one man to each of them and tell him that if any of them opens his mouth either for or against my opinion, his head is to be struck off.” Then he took them to the mosque and announced: “These men are satisfied with the Muslims’ choice of a successor, and they have pledged allegiance. So you too should pledge allegiance.” In these circumstances, there was no question of the people refusing. Accordingly, all the people of Mecca pledged allegiance. [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 252.]

Thus the rightly guided caliphate came to its final end. A royal dynasty took the place of the caliphate. From then until today, the Muslim masses have never again been granted the caliphate they desired. Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) truly possessed great virtues. The honor of being a Companion is also immensely venerable. He reunited the Muslim world under one banner and accelerated the triumph of Islam in the world even more than before. His services in this regard are undeniable. Whoever abuses him is undoubtedly guilty of excess. But his unjust acts must be called unjust. To call his unjust acts just would mean placing our very standard of right and wrong in jeopardy.

Chapter Five

The Difference Between the Caliphate and Monarchy

We have already discussed in detail how, after passing through various stages, the caliphate ultimately turned into monarchy. The Muslims’ deprivation of an incomparable ideal system of government like the rightly guided caliphate was not a sudden accident. It did not occur suddenly and without cause—this too becomes perfectly clear from reading this account. Rather, there were several causes behind the change in the system, which gradually pushed the ummah from the caliphate toward monarchy. At every stage that emerged during this heartbreaking transformation, there was a possibility of preventing it. But, to the misfortune of the ummah and indeed of all humanity, the causes and forces of change proved extremely powerful. Consequently, none of those possibilities could be put to use.

We shall now examine what the fundamental differences were between the caliphate and monarchy, what essential changes occurred when one replaced the other, and what effect this had on the social life of the Muslims.

First: Change in the Method of Appointing the Caliph

The first fundamental change occurred in the constitutional principle by which a person was chosen as leader of the ummah.

The method of selecting a leader in the rightly guided caliphate was that no one sought the caliphate for himself or assumed power through his own efforts and maneuvering. Rather, the people entrusted leadership of the ummah, through consultation, to the person they considered qualified. Bay’ah (the oath of allegiance) was not the result of power; rather, it was the cause of power. Human effort or conspiracy had no role whatsoever in obtaining bay’ah. In deciding whether or not to pledge allegiance, the people pledged freely and on the basis of their independent opinion. No one assumed power before receiving bay’ah.

All the rightly guided caliphs assumed power according to this principle. None of them made even the slightest effort to obtain the caliphate. Rather, they accepted it only after it had been given to them. Regarding Sayyiduna Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), at most one may say that he considered himself more qualified for the caliphate. But no reliable historical account proves that he ever made even the slightest effort in any way to obtain it. Therefore, considering himself more qualified cannot be called contrary to this rule. In reality, all four caliphs held equal standing with regard to obtaining the caliphate. They did not obtain it through their own efforts; rather, it was given to them.

Monarchy began with the violation of this rule. The caliphate of Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) was not of the kind in which he became caliph because the people made him caliph, nor would he have become caliph had they not done so. He tried to become caliph by whatever means possible. He obtained the caliphate through war. He did not care whether the Muslims were pleased or displeased. The people did not make him caliph; he became caliph through the use of force. Once he had established himself as caliph, the people had no choice but to pledge allegiance. If they had refused to pledge allegiance, he would not have relinquished the position he had acquired; rather, it would have meant bloodshed and disorder, which could not be given preference over peace and order. This is why, after Imam Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him) relinquished the caliphate in Rabi al-Awwal of 41 AH, all the Companions, the Successors, and the upright people of the ummah agreed to pledge allegiance to him. They called it the Year of Unity, or the Year of the Community, because it at least brought the civil war to an end. Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) himself was fully aware of his position. Once, while delivering a speech in Medina at the beginning of his caliphate, he himself said:

*************

“I swear by Allah, when I assumed responsibility for your government, I was not unaware that you were not pleased with my coming to power—you did not approve of it. I know very well everything that is in your hearts about this matter. But I acquired it only after overcoming you with this sword of mine.”

“Now, if you see that I am not fully giving you your due, then remain content with me for receiving even a little.” [Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Ibn Kathir, vol. 8, p. 132.]

The change that began in this way became so firmly established after Yazid’s succession that it did not waver for even a single day until the abolition of the caliphate by Mustafa Kemal in the present century. From this began a distinct tradition of compulsory bay’ah and of kingship passing by hereditary succession to descendants. From then until today, the Muslims have not been destined to return to an elective caliphate. People came to power not through the Muslims’ free and unrestricted consultation, but through the use of force. Instead of gaining power through bay’ah, they began obtaining bay’ah through power. The Muslims were no longer free to pledge or not to pledge allegiance. But the people’s refusal to pledge allegiance did not mean that power would thereby pass from the ruler to someone else.

Whether a caliphate or authority established by force, without the Muslims’ free consultation, is legally valid is entirely irrelevant here. The real question is: what is the correct method of establishing the caliphate in Islam? Is it the method by which the rightly guided caliphs became caliphs, or the method by which Hazrat Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) and those after him became caliphs? Islam has instructed us to adopt one method for carrying out an act. If an act is carried out through a second method, Islam has taught us to tolerate it only because attempting to change and eradicate it could create an even more serious situation. If these two matters are placed on the same level and it is claimed that both methods are equally valid in Islam, that would be a grave injustice. The first method is not merely valid; it is also desirable. The second, although valid, is acceptable only within the limits of endurance, not as something desirable.

Second: Change in the Way of Life of the Caliphs

The second significant change was that, from the very beginning of monarchy, the caliphs dressed as kings adopted a way of life resembling that of Caesar and Chosroes. They abandoned the way of life followed by the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the four Rightly Guided Caliphs. They began living in royal palaces. A royal bodyguard was assigned to protect their palaces and remained constantly on guard. Bodyguards and sentries became barriers between them and the people. The people could no longer reach them directly, nor could they live and move among the people themselves. To learn the people’s condition, they became dependent on subordinate officials. No government can ever learn the true situation through officials. Nor is it possible for subjects to present their needs and complaints directly without an intermediary. This was completely contrary to the manner in which the Rightly Guided Caliphs conducted the affairs of government. They lived among the people, where anyone could meet them freely. They went to the markets, and anyone could speak with them. They performed the five daily prayers in rows alongside the people, and in the Friday sermon they informed the people about government policy as well as the remembrance of Allah and the teachings of the religion. They answered every complaint the people had against themselves and the government. Despite fear for his life, Hazrat Ali maintained this practice in Kufa to the very last moment. But from the opening phase of monarchy, this method was abandoned and the Roman-Persian model was adopted. This change began during the rule of Hazrat Muawiya. Thereafter, the trend continued to advance in earnest.

Three: The Change in the Condition of the Bayt al-Mal

The third major change began in the caliphs’ conduct concerning the Bayt al-Mal.

The Islamic principle concerning the Bayt al-Mal was that it was a trust from Allah and the people in the hands of the caliph and his government. No one had the right to use it according to personal whim. The caliph could neither deposit anything into it unlawfully nor spend anything from it unlawfully. He had to give an account for every penny of its income and expenditure. He had the right to take only what was necessary for a moderate way of living.

This principle governing the Bayt al-Mal was changed under monarchy, and the Bayt al-Mal came to be treated as the property of the king and the royal family. The subjects became nothing more than the king’s taxpayers. No one retained the right to demand an accounting from the government. The luxurious lives then led by the kings and princes, and even by their governors and commanders, were impossible without using the Bayt al-Mal unjustly for personal interests. During his rule, Hazrat Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz began taking account of the unlawful property of the princes and nobles. At that time, he also returned to the Bayt al-Mal property yielding an annual income of 40,000 dinars that he had inherited from his father, Abd al-Aziz ibn Marwan. This property included the garden of Fadak, which had remained under the ownership of the Bayt al-Mal during the rule of every caliph after the Prophet. Hazrat Abu Bakr had even refused to give it to the Prophet’s daughter as an inheritance from the Messenger of Allah. But during his rule, Marwan ibn al-Hakam made this property his own and turned it into an inheritance for his descendants. [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, p. 164; al-Bidaya, vol. 9, pp. 200–208.]

This was their policy regarding expenditure from the Bayt al-Mal. If we now examine the question of its revenues, we find that they made no distinction between the lawful and the unlawful in this matter either. Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz issued an edict listing the unlawful taxes that his Umayyad predecessors had collected from the subjects. [al-Tabari, vol. 5, p. 321; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, p. 163.] From this list one can estimate how they continued violating the provisions of the Shariah in collecting the revenues of the Bayt al-Mal.

The greatest oppression discovered in this matter was that jizya was imposed on non-Muslims who accepted Islam, on the pretext that they had embraced Islam merely to escape jizya. In reality, the reason for imposing jizya was their fear that the spread of Islam would reduce the revenues of the Bayt al-Mal. Ibn al-Athir relates that the governors of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, the viceroy of Iraq, wrote to him: “The dhimmis are embracing Islam in great numbers and settling in Basra and Kufa. As a result, the revenues from jizya and kharaj are declining.” In response, Hajjaj issued an order: “They are to be expelled from the cities, and jizya is to be imposed on them as before.” When they were expelled from Basra and Kufa in accordance with this order, they cried out, “O Muhammad! O Muhammad!” and wept. The tragic scene that unfolded throughout the region is exceedingly difficult to describe. They did not know where to go to appeal against this oppression. The scholars and jurists of Kufa and Basra cried out when they saw this condition, and when the new Muslims left the cities weeping, the scholars and jurists joined in their lamentation. [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, p. 79.] When Hazrat Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz became caliph, a delegation from Khurasan came to him and complained that jizya had been imposed on thousands upon thousands of people who had accepted Islam. Meanwhile, the governor’s tribal and ethnic prejudice had reached such a degree that he openly declared, “One man of my own people is dearer to me than a hundred others.” On the basis of this complaint, he dismissed al-Jarrah ibn Abdallah al-Hakami from the governorship of Khurasan. In his edict he wrote: “Allah Most High sent Muhammad as a caller, not as a tax collector.” [al-Tabari, vol. 5, p. 314; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, p. 158; al-Bidaya, vol. 9, p. 188.]

Four: The End of Freedom to Express Opinions

Another important change of this era was the removal from Muslims of the freedom to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong. Islam had established this not merely as a right of Muslims, but as an obligatory duty. The sound direction of Islamic society and the state depended on the nation’s vigilant conscience: freedom of speech, criticism of anyone occupying the highest position for any wrongdoing, and freedom to speak the truth openly. Under the Rightly Guided Caliphate, this freedom of the people was fully protected. The Rightly Guided Caliphs not only permitted it but encouraged the people to exercise it. During their rule, the voice of one who spoke the truth was not silenced; rather, such people received praise and congratulations. Critics were not suppressed; efforts were made to satisfy them with reasoned answers. But in the age of monarchy, consciences were locked and mouths were sealed. Open your mouth only for praise; otherwise remain silent—this became the prevailing practice. If your conscience is so strong that you cannot refrain from speaking the truth, then prepare for imprisonment, execution, and the blows of the whip. Thus, those who at that time did not refrain from speaking the truth and opposing wrongdoing were given the harshest punishments. Its aim was to terrorize the entire nation.

This new policy began during the rule of Hazrat Muawiya with the killing, in 51 AH, of Hazrat Hujr ibn Adi, a Companion of the Messenger of Allah, an ascetic and devoted worshipper, and a man of distinguished standing among the righteous of the ummah. When, during Hazrat Muawiya’s rule, the cursing and abuse of Hazrat Ali began publicly from the minbar during sermons, the hearts of all ordinary Muslims were wounded. Yet, drinking the cup of patience only with great difficulty, they remained silent. In Kufa, Hujr ibn Adi could not tolerate it. He began praising Hazrat Ali and condemning Hazrat Muawiya. As long as Hazrat al-Mughira was governor of Kufa, he overlooked the matter. But later, when Kufa was incorporated into the governorship of Ziyad along with Basra, conflict began between them. Ziyad would insult Hazrat Ali in his sermons, while Hujr would stand and answer him. On one occasion he also criticized Ziyad for delaying the congregational prayer. Finally, Ziyad arrested him along with twelve companions and brought charges against him: that he had formed a secret army, openly insulted the caliph, called for fighting against the Commander of the Believers, and claimed that the caliphate was lawful for no one except the descendants of Ali; that he had caused disorder in the city and driven out the governor of the Commander of the Believers; that he supported Abu Turab [Hazrat Ali], prayed for mercy upon him, and kept away from his opponents. The testimony of several people was also taken in support of these charges. Qadi Shurayh was presented as one of the witnesses. But in a separate letter he wrote to Hazrat Muawiya: “I have heard that my name is included among the testimonies presented to you against Hujr ibn Adi. My genuine testimony concerning him is that he belongs among those who establish prayer, pay zakat, regularly perform Hajj and Umrah, enjoin good, and forbid wrongdoing. His blood and property are inviolable. If you wish, you may kill him, or you may pardon him.”

Thus, the accused man was sent to Hazrat Muawiya. He ordered his execution. Before the killing, the executioners presented him with this choice: “We have been ordered to release you if you sever your ties with Ali and curse him; otherwise, we have been ordered to kill you.” He refused and said, “I cannot utter with my tongue words that would anger my Lord.” Eventually, he was killed along with seven companions. Among them was Abd al-Rahman ibn Hassan, whom Hazrat Muawiya sent back to Ziyad. He wrote to Ziyad, “Kill this man brutally.” Ziyad buried him alive. [For a detailed account, see al-Tabari, vol. 4, pp. 190–207; al-Istiab, vol. 1, p. 135; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, pp. 234–242; al-Bidaya wa’l-Nihaya, vol. 8, pp. 50–55; and Ibn Khaldun, vol. 3, p. 13.]

This event shook the hearts of all the pious and virtuous members of the ummah. Hazrat Abdullah ibn Umar and Aisha were grieved when they heard the news. Hazrat Aisha had already written to Hazrat Muawiya urging him to refrain from this act. Later, when Hazrat Muawiya once came to visit her, she said, “Muawiya! Did you feel no fear of Allah at all when you killed Hujr?” When Rabia ibn Ziyad al-Harithi, the governor appointed to Khurasan by Hazrat Muawiya, heard the news, he cried out, “O Allah! If, according to Your knowledge, even the slightest trace of righteousness remains in me, then take me from this world.” [Al-Istiab, vol. 1, p. 135; Tabari, vol. 4, p. 208.] Hazrat Hasan al-Basri said: “There are four acts of Hazrat Muawiya such that even committing one of them would be harmful to him. First: taking up the sword against the Muslim ummah and seizing political power without consultation, while the remaining Companions were still present among the ummah. Second: appointing his son as his successor, although he was a drinker and drunkard, wore silk garments, and played the tambura. Third: bringing Ziyad into his family, although the clear instruction of the Messenger of Allah states that the child belongs to the marriage bed, while the adulterer receives stones and gravel. [This will be discussed in detail later.] Fourth: killing Hujr and his companions.” [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 242; al-Bidaya, vol. 8, p. 130.]

From then on, the practice of silencing the people through oppression and persecution continued to increase. When Marwan ibn al-Hakam was governor of Medina, he kicked Hazrat Miswar ibn Makhrama for saying in response to one of his statements, “You have spoken unjustly.” [Al-Istiab, vol. 1, p. 353.] When Hazrat Abdullah ibn Umar criticized Hajjaj ibn Yusuf for lengthening the sermon and delaying the Friday prayer unusually, he said, “I feel like striking the head that contains your two eyes.” [Al-Istiab, p. 369; Tabaqat Ibn Sad, vol. 4, p. 184.] When Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan went to Medina in 75 AH, he stood on the minbar of Allah and declared:

“I will treat the illness of this ummah with nothing but the sword. … Now, if anyone tells me to fear Allah, I will split his head in two.” [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, pp. 41–104; al-Jassas, Ahkam al-Quran, vol. 1, p. 82; Fawat al-Wafayat, Muhammad ibn Shakir al-Kutubi, vol. 2, p. 33, Saadat Press, Egypt.]

Once, Walid ibn Abd al-Malik made the Friday sermon so long that the time for the prayer was nearly over. A man stood up and said, “Commander of the Believers! Time will not wait for you, and you will not be able to answer before Allah for delaying the prayer so long.” Walid replied, “Indeed, you have spoken correctly; but the place where you are standing is not the place for such an outspoken man.” The royal bodyguard immediately arranged to kill him and send him to Paradise. [Ibn Abd Rabbih, al-Iqd al-Farid, vol. 1, p. 62, Cairo, 1940.]

This policy gradually made Muslims timid and opportunistic. The number of people willing to speak the truth while facing danger declined. The price of flattery and selling one’s conscience rose in the marketplace, while the value of love of truth and justice fell. Highly qualified, faithful, and conscientious people withdrew from the government. The country and its affairs no longer held any attraction for the people. One government came and another went, while the people became mere spectators in the theater of these comings and goings. The character this policy began to create among the people is demonstrated by an incident involving Hazrat Ali ibn Husain, Imam Zayn al-Abidin. He said: After the tragic event of Karbala, a man secretly took me to his home and treated me with great kindness and hospitality. He was such that whenever he saw me he would weep, and I thought that only this man’s heart held loyalty toward me. Meanwhile, the proclamation of Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad was heard: “Whoever captures Ali ibn Husain and brings him to us will receive three hundred dirhams as a reward.” As soon as he heard this proclamation, the man came to me. He was tying my hands while weeping profusely. In this state, he handed me over to Ibn Ziyad and accepted the reward. [Tabaqat Ibn Sad, vol. 5, p. 212.]

Five: The End of Judicial Independence

One of the fundamental principles of the Islamic state was the independence of the judiciary. Under the Rightly Guided Caliphate, although the caliphs appointed judges, no pressure or influence other than the fear of Allah and the judges’ own knowledge and conscience was brought to bear upon them. No eminent person dared interfere in the work of the courts. Indeed, a qadi could rule against the caliph himself, and did so. But with the arrival of monarchy, this principle too eventually began to disappear. Whenever the political or personal interests of these king-like caliphs were involved, the courts’ independence in administering justice was taken away. It even became impossible to administer justice in cases against princes, governors, leaders and influential persons, and people connected with the royal court. This was one of the chief reasons why the truth-loving scholars of that time generally refused to accept judicial office; and those scholars who agreed to serve as judges at the rulers’ request began to be viewed with suspicion by the people. Government interference in the judiciary increased to such an extent that governors were given the authority to appoint and dismiss judges. [Al-Suyuti, Husn al-Muhadara, vol. 2, p. 88; al-Matbaat al-Sharqiyya, Egypt, 1327 AH.] Yet during the period of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, no one except the caliph possessed this authority.

Six: The End of Consultative Government

One of the fundamental principles of the Islamic state was that the state would be governed on the basis of consultation, and that consultation would be sought from people in whose knowledge, piety, trustworthiness, and sound and just opinions the people had confidence. During the rule of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, the foremost people of the nation served as their advisers. They possessed complete religious knowledge. They expressed impartial opinions with full independence, according to their knowledge and conscience. The entire nation had complete confidence that they would never allow the government to be led astray. These people were recognized as responsible representatives of the entire Muslim ummah. But with the advent of monarchy, this principle too was changed. Personal autocracy took the place of shura. The kings withdrew from truth-seeking scholars with fearless voices, and the scholars likewise withdrew from them. The people’s confidence was thus lost. In their place, governors, commanders, royal nobles, and courtiers became the king’s advisers.

The greatest loss resulting from this was that no capable institution remained to advise on the constitutional problems arising in a growing civilization. There was no body whose collective or unanimous decision could become part of Islamic law and settle problems in accordance with the decisions of the country as a whole. Although the various royal councils made good or bad decisions concerning the order and discipline of the state, important domestic and foreign problems, and general rules and policies, they were incapable of resolving constitutional problems. Even when they dared to address such problems, the collective conscience of the ummah did not accept their decisions. They themselves knew their own status, and the ummah regarded them as sinners and depraved people. They possessed no religious or moral standing by which their decisions could become part of Islamic law. The scholars and jurists did not fail to try to fill this void, but their efforts remained individual. Through their lessons and fatwas, scholars articulated constitutional rules, while judges gave decisions according to their knowledge, understanding, and ijtihad, or according to the fatwas of other scholars that they regarded as law. As a result, there was no break in the continuity and development of law, but legal anarchy arose in the Islamic state. For an entire century, the ummah had no set of principles that all the courts of the country could accept as authoritative and apply in the same way to matters of detail.

Seven: The Emergence of Dynastic and Nationalist Sentiments

Another immense change that began in the age of monarchy was that the sentiments of nation, lineage, and tribe from the Age of Ignorance, which Islam had erased by giving equal rights to all who accepted Allah’s religion and turning them into one ummah, rose again. From the beginning, the Umayyad government took the form of an Arab government, and the idea of equal rights for non-Arab Muslims and Arab Muslims was almost absent at that time. We have already mentioned the imposition of jizya on new Muslims in clear opposition to Islamic law. As a result, this did not merely create a serious obstacle to the spread of Islam; it also gave non-Arabs the impression that Islam’s victory had essentially turned them into slaves of the Arabs. Even after accepting Islam, they could no longer become equal to the Arabs. This treatment was not limited to that. In appointing governors, judges, and even prayer leaders, consideration was given to whether a person was Arab or non-Arab. In Kufa, Hajjaj ibn Yusuf ordered that no non-Arab should lead the prayer. [Al-Iqd al-Farid, vol. 2, p. 233.] When Hazrat Said ibn Jubayr was brought before him after being arrested, Hajjaj taunted him, saying, “I appointed you imam of the prayer, yet here no one except an Arab may lead the prayer.” [Ibn Khallikan, Wafayat al-Ayan, vol. 2, p. 115, Cairo, 1948.] In Iraq, the Nabataeans were branded. Large numbers of non-Muslims were expelled from Basra. [Al-Iqd al-Farid, vol. 2, pp. 416–417.] When a scholar of such immense stature as Hazrat Said ibn Jubayr—of whose rank there were no more than a few scholars in the Muslim world of that time—was appointed judge in Kufa, murmurs arose in the city that no one except an Arab could be qualified to serve as a judge. Eventually, Abu Burda, son of Hazrat Abu Musa al-Ashari, was appointed qadi. He was instructed not to issue any decision without consulting Ibn Jubayr. [Ibn Khallikan, vol. 2, p. 115.] No non-Arab was even allowed to lead the funeral prayer as long as an Arab child was present. [Al-Iqd al-Farid, vol. 3, p. 413.] If a man wished to marry the daughter of a non-Arab new Muslim, he had to send the proposal not to the girl’s father or relatives but to the Arab family that sponsored them. [Al-Iqd al-Farid, vol. 3, p. 413.] Among the Arabs, a term called hajin, meaning defective, was used for those born of slave women. The idea spread among the people that their share of inheritance could not equal that of the children of an Arab wife. [Ibn Qutaybah, Uyun al-Akhbar, vol. 2, p. 61, Egypt, 1928.] Yet in the eyes of the Shariah, the rights of both kinds of children are equal. According to Abu’l-Faraj al-Isfahani, when a man of Banu Sulaym married his daughter to a non-Arab new Muslim, Muhammad ibn Bashir al-Kharij went to Medina and complained against him to the governor. The governor immediately separated the husband and wife, sentenced the new Muslim to flogging, and humiliated him by shaving his hair and beard. [Kitab al-Aghani, vol. 14, p. 150; al-Matbaat al-Misriyya, Bulaq, Egypt, 1285 AH.]

As a result of all these practices, the Shuubiya movement—non-Arab nationalism—arose among the non-Arabs. Consequently, the Abbasid movement against the Umayyads spread in Khurasan. The Abbasid propagandists used the hatred and aversion toward the Arabs that had arisen in the hearts of the non-Arabs against the Arabs. They joined the Abbasid movement in the hope that, if a revolution were achieved through it, they would be able to curb Arab dominance.

This policy of the Banu Umayya was not confined merely to Arabs and non-Arabs; rather, it also created intense tribalism among the Arabs themselves. All the old disputes between the Adnanites and Qahtanites, the Yemenites and Mudarites, the Azd and Tamim, and the Kalb and Qays were revived in this period. The government itself used one tribe against another. The Arab governors favored members of their own tribes in their respective areas and dealt unjustly with others. As a result of this policy, the conflict between the Yemenite and Mudarite tribes in Khurasan reached such a pitch that Abu Muslim al-Khurasani, the standard-bearer of the Abbasid Empire, set the two tribes at war with each other and brought the Umayyad Empire to an end. Hafiz Ibn Kathir writes in al-Bidaya wa’l-Nihaya, quoting Ibn Asakir: When the Abbasid army was entering Damascus, tribalism between the Yemenites and Mudarites in the Umayyad capital had become inflamed. Indeed, every mosque in the city had two separate mihrabs. In the congregational mosque, two imams delivered sermons from two pulpits and led the two congregations separately. Neither group was prepared even to pray with the other. [Al-Bidaya, vol. 10, p. 45.]

Eight: The End of the Sovereignty of Law

The greatest calamity that befell the Muslims during the monarchical period was that the principle of the supremacy of law was violated. Yet this had been one of the most important fundamental principles of the Islamic state.

The foundation upon which Islam established the state is that the Sharia stands above everything and everyone. The state and its head, the ruler and the ruled, the small and the great, the ordinary and the exceptional—all are subject to the Sharia. No one is above the Sharia, and no one is an exception. No one has the right to act by departing from the Sharia. Whether one is an enemy or an ally, a belligerent unbeliever or a covenant-protected unbeliever, a Muslim subject or a dhimmi subject, a Muslim loyal to the state or a rebel engaged in war—in short, whoever one may be—the Sharia has prescribed a manner of dealing with that person. That manner may not be violated under any circumstances.

The Rightly Guided Caliphs followed this principle strictly throughout their rule. Even Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) and Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) did not violate the limits of the Sharia even in extremely delicate and tense circumstances. The characteristic of the rule of these truth-abiding caliphs was that it observed the limits prescribed by the Sharia; it was neither arbitrary nor unrestrained.

But during the age of monarchy, the royal rulers showed no hesitation in violating the rules prescribed by the Sharia and crossing its limits for personal interests, political purposes, and especially for consolidating their own rule. Although the law of the country was still Islamic in their time, none of them denied the legal authority of Allah’s Book and the Sunnah of the Messenger. The courts judged according to this law, and in ordinary circumstances all matters were settled according to the injunctions of the Sharia. But the politics of all these kings did not follow the religion. They met the demands of the state by every lawful and unlawful means. In this matter they made no distinction between halal and haram. Here we shall mention the extent to which the law was binding during the rule of various Umayyad caliphs.

During the rule of Hazrat Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him)

This policy began during the rule of Hazrat Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). According to Imam Zuhri, during the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) and the four Rightly Guided Caliphs, the Muslims followed the principle that an unbeliever could not inherit from a Muslim, nor could a Muslim inherit from an unbeliever. During his rule, Hazrat Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) made a Muslim the heir of an unbeliever, but did not make an unbeliever the heir of a Muslim. Hazrat Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz abolished this innovation. But Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik restored the tradition of his family. [Al-Bidaya wa’l-Nihaya, vol. 8, p. 139; vol. 9, p. 232.]

Hafiz Ibn Kathir says that Hazrat Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) also changed the Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs concerning blood money. The Sunnah was that the blood money of a non-Muslim under covenant would be equal to that of a Muslim. But Hazrat Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) began reducing it by half and taking the remaining half himself. [Al-Bidaya wa’l-Nihaya, vol. 8, p. 139. In Ibn Kathir’s words: ****************** Mu’awiyah was the first person to reduce blood money by half and take the remaining half himself.]

Another extremely vile innovation was introduced during the rule of Hazrat Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). He himself, and his governors on his orders, would stand on the pulpit and abuse the Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) dearest companion and relative, directly in front of the Prophet’s shrine. The children of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and his closest relatives heard these things with their own ears. [Al-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 188. Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 234; vol. 4, p. 154. Al-Bidaya, vol. 8, p. 259; vol. 9, p. 80.] Abusing someone after his death is contrary not only to the Sharia but even to sound human character. To defile the sermon in this manner was particularly reprehensible from the standpoint of religion and morality. Hazrat Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz changed this tradition, as he changed the other evil traditions of his family, and instead of insulting Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) in the Friday sermon, began reciting this verse:

*****************

…Indeed, Allah commands justice and good conduct, and giving to relatives, and He forbids immorality, reprehensible conduct, and transgression. He admonishes you so that you may take heed. —An-Nahl 90

Hazrat Mu’awiyah also opposed the clear injunctions of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger concerning the distribution of the spoils of war. According to the Book and the Sunnah, one-fifth of the spoils must be deposited in the Bayt al-Mal, and the remaining four-fifths must be distributed among the soldiers who took part in the war. But Hazrat Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) ordered that the gold and silver from the spoils be set aside for him, while the other property was to be distributed according to the injunctions of the Sharia. [Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 7, pp. 28–29. Al-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 187. Al-Isti’ab, vol. 1, p. 118. Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 233. Al-Bidaya wa’l-Nihaya, vol. 8, p. 29.]

The case of Ziyad ibn Sumayyah was also among Hazrat Mu’awiyah’s (may Allah be pleased with him) actions in which, for personal interest, he opposed an unanimously accepted rule of the Sharia. Ziyad was born in Ta’if to a slave woman named Sumayyah. It is said that during the Age of Ignorance, Hazrat Mu’awiyah’s (may Allah be pleased with him) father, Abu Sufyan, committed adultery with Sumayyah, as a result of which she became pregnant. Hazrat Abu Sufyan once hinted at this as well, saying that Ziyad had been born of his semen. When he reached adulthood, Ziyad proved to be an excellent manager, administrator, military commander, and a man of outstanding ability. He was a great supporter of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), and in order to win his support, Mu’awiyah accepted the testimony of his father’s adultery and established that he was his father’s illegitimate son. On this basis, he accepted him as his brother and a member of his own family. How morally abhorrent this act was hardly needs to be stated. But in the eyes of the law it was also plainly unlawful, because no lineage is established through adultery in the Sharia. The Messenger of Allah gave the clear instruction: “The child belongs to the bed, and the adulterer receives the stone.” The Mother of the Believers, Hazrat Umm Habiba, therefore refused to accept him as a brother and observed purdah with him. [Al-Isti’ab, vol. 1, p. 196; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, pp. 220–221; Al-Bidaya wa’l-Nihaya, vol. 8, p. 28. Ibn Khaldun, vol. 3, pp. 7–8.]

Hazrat Mu’awiyah placed his governors above the law and expressly refused to take action according to the injunctions of the Sharia for their excesses. Once his governor, Abdullah ibn Amr ibn Ghaylan, was delivering a sermon from the pulpit in Basra. A man threw a pebble at him, so he had the man arrested and cut off his hand. Yet according to the Sharia, this was not an offense for which anyone’s hand could be cut off. When an appeal was made to Hazrat Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), he said, “I will pay the blood money for the hand from the Bayt al-Mal. But there is no way to exact retaliation (qisas) from the governor.” [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 248. Al-Bidaya, vol. 8, p. 71.] When Hazrat Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) appointed Ziyad governor of Kufa as well as Basra, some people threw pebbles at him when he stood on the pulpit of Kufa’s congregational mosque to deliver his first sermon. He immediately had the mosque doors closed, arrested the pebble-throwers—said to number between thirty and eighty—and cut off their hands. [Al-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 175. Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 228.] No case was filed against them, nor were they brought before any court. The governor punished so many people by cutting off their hands merely by administrative order, although the Sharia contains no such provision whatsoever. Yet the caliph’s court paid no attention to the matter. Busr ibn Artat carried out even more brutal acts of oppression. Hazrat Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) first sent him to the Hijaz and Yemen to wrest those regions from the authority of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), and later ordered him to conquer Hamadan. In Yemen, he killed the two young sons of Ubaydullah ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), Hazrat Ali’s governor there. The children’s mother collapsed in grief over her sons. Seeing this injustice, a woman of Banu Kinanah cried out: “You have killed the men. For what crime are you now killing the children? Even in the Age of Ignorance children were not killed.” Ibn Artat, listen: “There is no government more vile than one that cannot survive without indiscriminately killing children and the elderly, cruelty, and severing the bonds of brotherhood.” [Al-Isti’ab, vol. 1, p. 65; Al-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 107. Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 193. Al-Bidaya, vol. 8, p. 90.] Thereafter Hazrat Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) sent this tyrant to conduct a campaign in Hamadan, which was then under Hazrat Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) authority. There he committed another great injustice in addition to his other excesses: he turned into slave women the Muslim women captured in battle. [Al-Isti’ab, vol. 1, p. 65. Ibn Abd al-Barr says: This was the first time that women captured in warfare between Muslims were turned into slave women. Yet the Sharia contains no such provision whatsoever. Governors and commanders had now been given unrestricted authority to commit oppression and persecution, and they were no longer willing to observe any limits regarding the Sharia—these actions were a practical declaration of precisely that fact.

The barbaric practice of severing heads and sending them from place to place, and of disgracing corpses out of a desire for revenge—a practice that had existed in the Age of Ignorance and that Islam had eradicated—began again in this period.

After the advent of Islam, this was first narrated by Hazrat Ammar ibn Yasir (may Allah be pleased with him) in his Musnad with an authentic chain, and Ibn Sa’d also cited it in the Tabaqat: During the Battle of Siffin, Hazrat Ammar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) severed head was brought before Hazrat Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). At that time two men were quarrelling. Both claimed, “I killed Ammar.” [Musnad Ahmad, hadith nos. 6538 and 6929; Dar al-Ma’arif, Egypt, 1952. Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 3, p. 253.]

Then the head of Amr ibn al-Hamiq (may Allah be pleased with him), one of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, was severed. Although he was a Companion of the Messenger of Allah, he had also taken part in the killing of Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). While Ziyad was governor of Iraq, an attempt was made to arrest him. He fled and took refuge in a cave, where he died from a snakebite. His pursuers severed his head from the corpse and brought it to Ziyad. He sent the severed head to Hazrat Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) in Damascus. After it had been displayed from street to street there, it was thrown into his wife’s lap. [Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 6, p. 25. Al-Isti’ab, vol. 2, p. 440. Al-Bidaya, vol. 8, p. 48. Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, vol. 8, p. 24.]

Similar barbaric treatment was inflicted on Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), Hazrat Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) governor in Egypt. After Hazrat Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) conquered Egypt, he had him arrested and killed, and his body was wrapped in the hide of a dead donkey and burned. [Al-Isti’ab, vol. 1, p. 235. Al-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 79. Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 180. Ibn Khaldun, appendix to vol. 2, p. 182.]

From then on, refusing even to spare the corpses of those killed as political revenge became an established practice. The head of Hazrat Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) was severed and carried from Karbala to Kufa and from Kufa to Damascus. Horses were driven over his corpse. [Al-Tabari, vol. 4, pp. 349, 350, 351, 356. Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, pp. 296–298. Al-Bidaya, vol. 8, pp. 179–192.]

Hazrat Nu’man ibn Bashir (may Allah be pleased with him) remained a supporter of the Banu Umayya until the rule of Yazid. During the rule of Marwan, he was killed for supporting Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr. His head was cut off and thrown into his wife’s lap. [Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, vol. 6, p. 53. Al-Bidaya, vol. 8, p. 245.]

The head of Hazrat Mus’ab ibn al-Zubayr was paraded in Kufa and Egypt. It was then taken to Damascus and hung publicly on the main road. After that, there was an intention to parade it through the cities of Syria, but Atika bint Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah, the wife of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, strongly protested, saying: “Have you not had your fill of what you have done so far? Why are you now going around displaying it again?” The head was then taken down, washed, and buried. [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, p. 14. Ibn Khaldun, vol. 3, p. 35.]

Even harsher, more barbaric treatment—like that of the Age of Ignorance—was inflicted on Hazrat Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, his companion Abdullah ibn Safwan, and Ammara ibn Hazm. Their heads were severed from their bodies and carried from Mecca to Medina and from Medina to Damascus. They were displayed at various places. Their bodies were left hanging on crosses in Mecca for several days, remaining there until they rotted and decomposed. [Al-Isti’ab, vol. 1, pp. 353–354. Al-Tabari, vol. 5, pp. 33–34.]

The question of what rank the people whose corpses were treated in this way held is irrelevant here. The question is: Did Islam permit such treatment even of a non-Muslim?

During the rule of Yazid

The trend begun during the rule of Hazrat Mu’awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him)—placing politics above religion and violating the limits of the Sharia for political interests—reached an even worse stage during the rule of Yazid, his personally appointed successor. During his rule, three events occurred that astonished and stunned the entire Muslim world.

The first event was the martyrdom of Sayyiduna Husayn, may Allah be pleased with him. There is no doubt that, in response to the call of the people of Iraq, he had set out with the intention of shattering Yazid’s throne, and Yazid’s government regarded him as a rebel. Was his rebellion lawful from the Islamic viewpoint? [I have clearly expressed my view on this matter in the booklet Lessons from Muharram. In addition, the eighth chapter of the present book discusses it in greater detail.] For the moment, we shall set this question aside. Of course, we do not know of any Companion or Successor who said during his lifetime or at the time of his death that his rebellion was unlawful or that he was undertaking a forbidden act. Those among the Companions who advised him against it did so because, in their judgment, it was not prudent. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is accepted that the Yazid government’s view on this matter was correct, he was not travelling with an army. With him were his sons and daughters and his family, along with thirty-two horsemen and forty-two foot soldiers. No one can call this a military expedition. The force sent from Kufa against him under the command of Umar ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas numbered four thousand. There was no need for such a huge force to engage a small group in battle, nor was there any need to kill them. They could easily have surrounded and arrested the small group. Moreover, what Hazrat Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) said at the end was: “Let me return, or let me go toward one of the frontiers, or take me to Yazid.” But none of these proposals was accepted; rather, insistence was made on handing him over to Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad. He was unwilling to do so because he knew how Ubaydullah had treated Muslim ibn Aqil. Eventually they fought him. All his companions had been martyred, and he alone remained on the battlefield, yet even then attacking him was deemed necessary. When he was wounded and fell to the ground, he was slaughtered. Everything he possessed was stripped from him; even the clothes were removed from his corpse. He was then trampled under horses’ hooves. His camp was looted, and the cloaks were stripped from the women. His head and the heads of all the other martyrs of Karbala were then severed and taken to Kufa. Ibn Ziyad not only displayed them publicly but also stood on the pulpit of the congregational mosque and proclaimed: ***************

—Praise be to Allah, who has made the truth and its followers manifest, granted victory to the Commander of the Believers Yazid and his party, and killed the liar’s son, the liar—Husayn ibn Ali—and his supporters.

The severed heads were then sent to Yazid in Damascus, and Yazid displayed them in a crowded court. [For a detailed account, see Al-Tabari, vol. 4, pp. 309–356; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, pp. 282–299; and Al-Bidaya, vol. 8, pp. 170–207.]

Suppose that, according to Yazid’s viewpoint, Hazrat Husayn had assumed the role of a rebel. Even if that were so, does Islam have no law governing rebels against the government? This law is recorded in all the major works of jurisprudence. For example, one may consult the chapter on rebels in al-Hidaya and its commentary Fath al-Qadir. Judged by this law, everything that was done from the plain of Karbala through the courts of Kufa and Damascus was entirely haram and a grievous oppression. Various accounts are found concerning what Yazid did or said in the court of Damascus. Setting all these accounts aside, we accept as authentic only this account: “I would have forgiven Hazrat Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him).” He further said: “Husayn! By Allah, had I been your opponent, I would not have killed you.” [Al-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 352. Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3,] Even then the practical question remains: What punishment did he impose on his distinguished governor for this immense oppression? Hafiz Ibn Kathir writes that he neither punished Ibn Ziyad, dismissed him, nor wrote him a letter of condemnation. [Al-Bidaya wa’l-Nihaya, vol. 8, p. 203.] Even then the practical question remains: What punishment did he impose on his distinguished governor for this immense oppression? Hafiz Ibn Kathir writes that he neither punished Ibn Ziyad, dismissed him, nor wrote him a letter of condemnation. [Al-Bidaya wa’l-Nihaya, vol. 8, p. 203.] Quite apart from Islamic courtesy, if Yazid had possessed even the slightest human decency, he would have reflected on how the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) treated his entire family with kindness after the conquest of Mecca, and on how his government had treated the Messenger’s grandson.

The second tragic event was the Battle of Harrah. It took place toward the end of the sixty-third year of the Hijra, in the final period of Yazid’s life. The brief account is that the people of Medina rebelled against Yazid, calling him a wicked, immoral, and unjust man. They expelled the governor of Medina from the city and appointed Abdullah ibn Hanzala as their leader. When Yazid learned of this, he sent Muslim ibn Uqba al-Murri—whom the pious predecessors called “Mushrik ibn Uqba”—with twelve thousand soldiers to attack Medina. He instructed him to invite the people of the city to pledge allegiance for three days. If they still refused, he was to fight them; and if victorious, he was to make Medina lawful for the soldiers for three days. In accordance with these orders, the soldiers entered Medina and conquered it in battle. Thereafter, on Yazid’s orders, the soldiers were instructed to do whatever they wished in Medina for three days. During those three days the entire city was looted. The inhabitants were massacred wholesale. According to Imam Zuhri, seven hundred distinguished people and nearly ten thousand ordinary people were killed. The barbaric army entered house after house and violated women indiscriminately. Hafiz Ibn Kathir says:

—It is said that during this time one thousand women became pregnant as a result of adultery. [For a detailed account, see Al-Tabari, vol. 3, pp. 372–379; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, pp. 310–313; and Al-Bidaya, vol. 8, pp. 219–221.]

Even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the rebellion of the people of Medina was unlawful, was such treatment lawful in Islam even toward a rebellious Muslim population, let alone non-Muslim rebels and belligerent unbelievers? And this was not some other city; it was Medina, the City of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Regarding this city, these statements of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), transmitted from various Companions, are cited in Bukhari, Muslim, Nasa’i, and Musnad Ahmad:

*****************

—Whoever intends evil against Medina, Allah will melt him in the Fire of Hell as lead is melted.

The Noble Prophet also said:

—Whoever terrorizes the people of Medina through oppression, Allah will terrorize him; upon him are the curse of Allah, His angels, and all people. On the Day of Resurrection, Allah Most High will accept nothing from him as expiation for his sin.

Hafiz Ibn Kathir says that, on the basis of these hadiths, a group of scholars considers it permissible to curse Yazid. A statement of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal is also found in support of them. But another group forbids it, fearing that this would open the door to cursing his father or another Companion. [Al-Bidaya, vol. 8, p. 223. The statement of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal cited by Ibn Kathir is as follows: Once his son Abdullah asked him, “What do you say about cursing Yazid?” He replied, “Why should I not curse one whom Allah has cursed?” As evidence, he recited this verse:

****************

“If you gain power, you will spread corruption throughout the land and sever the ties of kinship—what else can be expected of you? Such are the people whom Allah has cursed.” After reciting this verse, the imam said: What greater corruption and severing of family ties could there be than what Yazid did? Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rasul al-Barzanji quotes this statement of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in Al-Isha‘ah fi Ashrat al-Sa‘ah, and Ibn Hajar al-Haytami quotes it in Al-Sawa‘iq al-Muhriqah. However, Allamah al-Saffarini and Imam Ibn Taymiyyah say that, according to the more reliable reports, Imam Ahmad did not approve of cursing Yazid. Among the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah who support cursing him, the names of Ibn al-Jawzi, Qadi Abu Ya‘la, Allamah al-Taftazani, and Allamah Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti are especially noteworthy. Among those who oppose it, Imam al-Ghazali and Imam Ibn Taymiyyah are foremost. In my view, one may generally invoke Allah’s curse upon those possessing accursed characteristics—for example, one may say, “May Allah’s curse be upon the wrongdoers”—but one should not invoke a prescribed curse upon a specific individual. For if he is alive, Allah may later grant him the opportunity to repent; and if he has died, we do not know the condition in which his life ended. Therefore, we should limit ourselves to declaring the wrongdoing of such people to be wrongdoing, and it is better to refrain from cursing them. But this does not mean that Yazid must now be praised or that he should be called Radiyallahu anhu (may Allah be pleased with him). Once, while a certain person was discussing Yazid in the court of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, he addressed him as Amir al-Mu’minin Yazid. Umar became extremely angry and said: “You call Yazid Amir al-Mu’minin?” Saying this, he struck the man twenty lashes. [Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, vol. 11, p. 361.]

Hasan al-Basri (may Allah have mercy on him) was mocked in the following words: “You are not joining any movement to revolt against the Banu Umayyah; are you therefore pleased with the Syrians”—meaning the Umayyads? He replied: “Pleased with the Syrians? May Allah destroy them! Did they not violate the sanctity of the Messenger of Allah? Did they not kill the inhabitants there indiscriminately for three days? Did they not allow their Nabatean and Coptic soldiers to do whatever they wished there? They even attacked respectable, pious women and refrained from violating no one’s honor. Then they attacked the Baytullah—the House of Allah—showering stones upon it and setting it on fire. May Allah’s curse be upon them, and may their fate be wretched.” [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, p. 170.]

Hasan al-Basri (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned the third incident last of all. After destroying the sanctuary of the Messenger of Allah, that army attacked Makkah to fight Ibn al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him), and pelted the Ka‘bah with stones from catapults. As a result, one of the Ka‘bah’s walls collapsed. Reports also exist of the Ka‘bah being set on fire. It is said, however, that there were other causes as well. There is no disagreement concerning the stone-throwing. [Al-Tabari, vol. 4, p. 383; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 316; Al-Bidayah, vol. 8, p. 225; Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, vol. 11, p. 361.]

All these incidents clearly demonstrate that these rulers placed their power, and its preservation and consolidation, above everything else. For this purpose, they felt no shame in transgressing any limit or committing any kind of injustice.

During the rule of the Marwanid dynasty

After this, Marwan and the members of his dynasty began their rule. During this period, rather than separating religion from politics, the tendency to sacrifice the injunctions of religion on the altar of politics reached its peak. Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan was one of the foremost jurists. Before becoming king, he was regarded in Madinah as a jurist of the same rank as Sa‘id ibn al-Musayyib, Urwah ibn al-Zubayr, and Qabisah ibn Dhu’ayb. During Yazid’s reign, he had expressed intense displeasure at the stoning of the Ka‘bah. Yet after becoming caliph himself, he sent Hajjaj ibn Yusuf to Makkah to fight Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him). The tyrant Hajjaj attacked Makkah precisely during the Hajj season; even the unbelieving polytheists of the Age of Ignorance refrained from fighting at that time. He installed catapults on Mount Abu Qubays and pelted the Ka‘bah with stones. At the strong insistence of Abd Allah ibn Umar, he suspended the stoning until the pilgrims arriving from outside had completed their tawaf and sa‘i. But the people of Makkah could not go to Mina and Arafat, nor could even the men of Hajjaj’s army perform tawaf and sa‘i. When the outsiders had completed their tawaf, Hajjaj ordered everyone to leave and resumed the stoning. [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, p. 23; Al-Bidayah, vol. 8, p. 329; Ibn Khaldun, vol. 3, pp. 27–28.] We have already mentioned what was done with the heads and bodies of Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, Abd Allah ibn Safwan, and Umarah ibn Hazm after the victory.

Hajjaj’s governorship was the greatest curse of the reigns of Abd al-Malik and his son al-Walid. He was permitted to carry out oppression and persecution for twenty years. No person in this world is an absolute embodiment of evil; nor was there nothing good in Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. The person who introduced vowel marks into the Qur’an performed such a meritorious deed that, as long as the world endures, his work will be praised. The conquest of Sindh was also one of his commendable achievements, through which people who invoke Allah’s name can be found in this subcontinent today. Yet, leaving aside the oppression and persecution Hajjaj inflicted during his long rule, it may be said directly that all the good deeds of a person who kills a single innocent believer become worthless in comparison with the sin he incurs; likewise, all the good deeds of Hajjaj’s entire life became worthless. Asim ibn Abi al-Najud, the renowned imam of Qur’anic recitation, said: “There is no unlawful act forbidden by Allah that he did not commit.” Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz said: “If all the nations of the world were to present all their wickedness, I could surpass them all.” He called Abd Allah ibn Mas‘ud (may Allah be pleased with him) the leader of the hypocrites. He would say: “If I found Ibn Mas‘ud, I would quench the earth’s thirst with his blood.” He declared: “If anyone recites the Qur’an according to Ibn Mas‘ud’s recitation, I will sever his head. And if I have to erase his recitation from the Qur’an with a sheep’s bone, I will do that too.” He insulted such eminent elders as Anas ibn Malik and Ibn Sahl ibn Sa‘d al-Sa‘idi (may Allah be pleased with them), and stamped seals upon their necks. He threatened to kill Abd Allah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). He openly said: “If I order people to leave the mosque through one door and they leave through another, their blood is lawful for me.” It is said that during his rule eighty thousand people detained without trial were killed. [For details, see Al-Isti‘ab, vol. 1, p. 35; vol. 2, p. 551; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, pp. 29, 133; Al-Bidayah, vol. 9, pp. 2, 83, 91, 128, 129, and 131–138; Ibn Khaldun, vol. 3, p. 39.] At the time of his death, Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan advised his sons concerning this tyrannical governor: “Always look favorably upon Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, for he freed our kingdom from thorns, defeated our enemies, and subdued our opponents.” [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, p. 103; Al-Bidayah, vol. 9, p. 67; Ibn Khaldun, vol. 3, p. 58.] This advice represents the mentality with which they ruled. In their eyes, what mattered was their own throne. Whatever means could consolidate and establish power was accepted as good by them. They did not care even if all the limits of the Shariah were violated.

This oppression and persecution reached such a point that, during the reign of al-Walid ibn Abd al-Malik, Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz once cried out: “Hajjaj in Iraq, al-Walid in Syria, Qurrah ibn Sharik in Egypt, Uthman ibn Hayyan in Madinah, and Khalid ibn Abd Allah al-Qasri in Makkah—O Allah! Your earth has been filled with oppression. Now punish the people and grant them deliverance.” [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, p. 132.] In addition to political persecution, they also became extremely audacious in ordinary religious matters. Unusually delaying the prayer became their habit. [Al-Bidayah, vol. 9, p. 89.] They delivered the first Friday sermon while seated. [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, p. 119.] Marwan introduced the practice of delivering the sermon before the Eid prayer, and this became a distinctive custom of his family. [Al-Tabari, vol. 6, p. 26; Al-Bidayah, vol. 8, p. 258; vol. 10, pp. 30–31; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, p. 300.]

The blessed reign of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

During the Banu Umayyah’s long ninety-two-year rule, Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz’s two-and-a-half-year caliphate was like a beacon of light in the darkness. One incident transformed the course of his life. The incident was as follows:

“The year 93 AH. He was then governor of Madinah. On the orders of al-Walid ibn Abd al-Malik, Khubayb, the son of Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, was given fifty lashes. Not only that, in the bitter cold, a waterskin was emptied over his head. He was then made to stand all day at the gate of the Prophet’s Mosque. As a result, he eventually died. [Al-Bidayah, vol. 9, p. 8.] This was manifest oppression and a punishment wholly contrary to the Shariah. As governor, he had to tolerate the punishment. But afterward he resigned from the post of governor. He suffered intense remorse over this and became fearful of Allah.”

In 99 AH, when he was made caliph in accordance with the secret testament of Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik, he once again made clear before the world the difference between the caliphate and kingship. After the pledge of allegiance had been given to him, the first speech he delivered was as follows:

“I have been tested by being entrusted with the responsibility of governing this state. I did not seek it. My opinion was not consulted in this matter, nor was the counsel of the Muslims sought. I have removed the bond of allegiance that has been placed around your necks. You may now appoint as your leader whomever you wish.”

The assembled people cried out together: “We want you; we are all content with your authority.” It was only after this spontaneous support from the people that he accepted the caliphate. Then he said: “This ummah has no disagreement concerning the Lord, the Prophet, and the religious Book; disagreement exists only over dinars and dirhams. By Allah, I will not give anything to anyone unjustly, nor will I obstruct anyone’s lawful right. O people, listen: obedience to the one who obeys Allah is obligatory. There is no obedience owed to one who does not obey Allah. As long as I obey Allah, your obedience to me will not be obligatory in any way. [Al-Bidayah, vol. 9, pp. 212–213.]

After this, he completely abandoned all the royal customs and ceremonies followed by his predecessors and adopted a way of life resembling that of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. He returned all the unlawful property he had inherited; he even sent his wife’s jewelry and gold to the Bayt al-Mal. Of property worth forty thousand dinars annually, he kept only four hundred dinars a year for himself. He was the lawful owner of only those four hundred dinars. [Al-Bidayah, vol. 9, pp. 200–208; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, pp. 153–164.] Thus, after first presenting his account before Allah and the people, he announced: “Anyone who has a claim against a member of the royal family or the amirs should submit his complaint.” Whenever someone could prove that his rights had been usurped, he restored those rights to him. This caused an uproar among the Banu Umayyah. They sent Fatimah bint Marwan, Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz’s paternal aunt—whom he held in great honor—to persuade him to desist. He replied to her: “If a ruler cannot prevent his own relatives from committing oppression, with what face will he forbid it to others?” She replied: “Your kinsmen warn you that you will face a severe consequence for this.” Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz answered: “If I fear anything more than the Day of Resurrection, I pray to be delivered from it.” His aunt, however, returned disappointed and told the members of her clan: “This is all the result of your own actions. You married a daughter of the descendants of Umar ibn al-Khattab into the family, and in the end the boy followed his maternal grandfather’s path.” [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, p. 164; Al-Bidayah, vol. 9, p. 214.] (It may be noted that the mother of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz was a granddaughter of Umar.)

The following incident reveals how deeply a sense of responsibility had awakened in him. After returning from completing the burial of his predecessor, Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik, he appeared extremely distressed. The people were surprised that, instead of rejoicing at gaining kingship, he had become sorrowful. When they asked the reason for his grief, he said: “There is not a single member of the Ummah of Muhammad, spread from east to west, whose right I will not have to fulfill before he even asks for it. [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, p. 164.]” His wife said: “I entered his room and found him sitting on the prayer mat and weeping. I asked, ‘Why are you crying?’ He replied: ‘The responsibility for the Ummah of Muhammad has been placed upon my shoulders. I am thinking that some of them are spending their days without a penny, some have been impoverished by illness, some are victims of oppression and persecution, and some are living in captivity deprived of their religion. Others are spending their days with their families amid the weakness of old age and immense poverty. In short, people of this kind are scattered throughout every region of the country. I know that on the Day of Resurrection the Lord will ask me what I did for them. Muhammad (peace be upon him) will plead against me on the Day of Resurrection; I fear that I may be found guilty in the case. That is why I weep, thinking of my own wretched future.’ [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, p. 165.] The above account shows the depth of his sense of responsibility.

He dismissed the tyrannical governors and officials and appointed righteous people in their place. He abolished all the unlawful taxes collected during the rule of the Banu Umayyah. He ended the practice of imposing jizyah on new Muslims. He issued strict instructions to the officials, writing that they must not flog any Muslim or dhimmi unlawfully, and must neither kill anyone nor cut off anyone’s hand without consulting him. [Al-Tabari, vol. 5, pp. 314–315, 321; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, pp. 158, 163.]

Toward the end of his reign, a group of Kharijites raised the banner of revolt against him. He wrote to their leader: “What benefit will come from bloodshed? Come and discuss the matter with me. If you are upon the truth, I will accept it; and if I am upon the truth, you will accept it.” The Kharijite leader agreed to his proposal and sent two men to him for discussion. They said: “We acknowledge that your conduct is different from that of the other members of your family. You call their actions evil. But when they were upon misguidance, why did you not curse them?” Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz replied: “I call their actions wrong; is that not enough to condemn them? Is it necessary to curse them as well? How many times have you cursed Pharaoh?” In this way, he gave a decisive answer to each of the Kharijites’ objections. Finally, one of them said: “Can a just person tolerate having an oppressor as his successor?” When he answered in the negative, the man asked again: “You will entrust the caliphate after your death to Yazid ibn Abd al-Malik, although you know that he will not remain established upon the truth.” He replied: “My predecessor, Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik, had already taken the pledge of allegiance for him. What can I do now?” The Kharijite asked again: “Do you think that the person who appointed Yazid ibn Abd al-Malik as your successor had the right to do so? Do you consider his decision just?” Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz was unable to answer this question. After the meeting ended, he repeatedly said: “The matter of Yazid has destroyed me. I have no answer to this argument. O Lord, forgive me.” [Al-Tabari, vol. 5, p. 311; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, pp. 155–157; Ibn Khaldun, vol. 3, pp. 162–163.]

After this incident, the Banu Umayyah began to fear that this man would now end dynastic authority as well and entrust the caliphate to the shura. Not long afterward, he was killed by poisoning, and then everything continued as before.

The Abbasid Empire

The Banu Umayyah ruled with overwhelming authority over a vast region of the world, from Sindh to Spain. Judging from their apparent strength and power, no one could have imagined that one day this vast empire too would fall. But under the manner in which they ruled, only people’s heads bowed before them—they had no place in people’s hearts. For this reason, before a century had passed, the Abbasids brought about their downfall with ease. And when their tragic fall came, there was no one even to shed tears for them.

The reason the new claimants to the caliphate achieved victory was that they assured the Muslims that they were descendants of the Messenger, that they would act according to the Qur’an and Sunnah, and that Allah’s laws would be established through them. In Rabi al-Thani of 132 AH, during the pledge of allegiance to al-Saffah in Kufa, al-Saffah mentioned the oppression and injustice of the Banu Umayyah in his first sermon and said:

“I hope that the family through whom you have received benefit will not inflict oppression and persecution upon you, and that the family through whom you have found the path of reform will not bring destruction or calamity upon you.”

After al-Saffah, his uncle Dawud ibn Ali assured the people, saying:

“We did not arise in order to gather gold and silver for ourselves, build royal palaces, and dig canals in them. Rather, what brought us forth was that our rights had been seized. The descendants of our uncle—meaning the descendants of Abu Talib—were suffering oppression and persecution. The Banu Umayyah were following an extremely wrong path among you. They were humiliating and disgracing you, and using your Bayt al-Mal unjustly. Now, invoking Allah, His Messenger, and Abbas as witnesses on your behalf, we say that we will govern you according to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger.” [Al-Tabari, vol. 6, pp. 82–83; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, p. 325; Al-Bidayah, vol. 10, p. 42.]

But within a short time after gaining power, they proved that all these claims had been nothing but deception.

The Conduct of the Abbasids

After conquering Damascus, the capital of the Banu Umayyah, the Abbasid troops carried out a massacre there. Fifty thousand people were killed in this slaughter. For seventy days, the Umayyad congregational mosque of Damascus was turned into a stable for horses. The graves of all the Banu Umayyah, including Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), were dug up. When the body of Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) was found intact in the grave, it was flogged. It was hung publicly on the main road for several days, then burned and its ashes scattered. Even the children of the Banu Umayyah were killed, and food was eaten on carpets spread over their bloodstained bodies. In Basra, after killing the Banu Umayyah, the dead were dragged by their legs and thrown into the streets. There, jackals and dogs devoured their corpses. The same sort of treatment was inflicted upon them in Makkah and Madinah. [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, pp. 333–334, 341; Al-Bidayah, vol. 10, p. 45; Ibn Khaldun, vol. 3, pp. 132–133.]

When a rebellion broke out in Mosul against al-Saffah, he sent his brother Yahya to suppress it. Yahya issued a proclamation: “Anyone who enters the city’s congregational mosque will be granted safety.” When thousands of people entered the mosque, guards were stationed at the gates and those who had sought refuge were massacred indiscriminately. At night, the cries of the wives whose husbands and guardians had been killed reached Yahya’s ears. He announced that the women and children would have their turn the next day. Thus the massacre continued in Mosul for three days. No one—man or woman, child or elderly person—was spared. Yahya’s army contained four thousand militant soldiers. They descended upon the girls of Mosul, and a campaign of rape began. One woman seized Yahya’s horse’s reins and reproached him, saying: “You are members of Banu Hashim, descendants of the Messenger’s uncle. Your militant soldiers are plundering the chastity and honor of Arab Muslim women. Are you not ashamed?” Yahya’s sense of honor was awakened. He gathered the militant soldiers of his army by tempting them with their pay and rewards, and killed them all. [Al-Tabari, vol. 6, pp. 107–109; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, p. 338; Al-Bidayah, vol. 10, pp. 54–55; Ibn Khaldun, vol. 3, p. 176.]

On the condition and promise that the Abbasids would establish Allah’s laws according to the Book and Sunnah, the renowned jurist Ibrahim ibn Maymun al-Sa’igh of Khurasan participated very actively in their call. Until the revolution succeeded, he was Abu Muslim al-Khurasani’s right-hand man. But after the revolution succeeded, when he demanded from Abu Muslim that Allah’s laws be established and objected to activities contrary to the Qur’an and Sunnah, Abu Muslim sentenced him to death. [Al-Bidayah, vol. 10, p. 68.]

The Abbasids had risen to avenge the oppression and persecution inflicted by the Banu Umayyah upon the descendants of Abu Talib. During the reign of al-Mansur, the falsity of this claim was also exposed. Because Muhammad ibn Abd Allah al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah and his brother Ibrahim had concealed themselves and refused to disclose their whereabouts, al-Mansur arrested members of their families and relatives. All their property was confiscated and auctioned. They were shackled and taken from Madinah to Iraq. Ibrahim ibn Abd Allah’s father-in-law was stripped naked and given one hundred and fifty lashes. He was then killed, and his head was displayed along the roads of Khurasan. Several people had been appointed to testify before the public that it was the head of al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah. [Al-Tabari, vol. 6, pp. 161, 171–180; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, pp. 370–375; Al-Bidayah, vol. 10, pp. 80–82.] Some time later, when al-Nafs al-Zakiyyah was martyred in Madinah, he was beheaded and his head was displayed from city to city. His body and those of his companions were hung on the main streets of Madinah for three days and later thrown near Mount Sala‘ in a Jewish cemetery. [Al-Bidayah, vol. 10, p. 90.]

These events prove from the very beginning that Abbasid rule, like that of the Umayyads, was devoid of religion. Just as the Umayyads did not hesitate to transgress the limits prescribed by Allah for political purposes, neither did the Abbasids hesitate. The revolution brought about by the Abbasids changed only the ruler, not the system of government. They did not correct a single distortion of the Umayyad period. Rather, they retained in full all the changes made in the administrative system of the Islamic state as a result of the establishment of monarchy after the Rightly Guided Caliphate.

The manner in which the Umayyads had conducted royal affairs continued unchanged under the Abbasids. The only difference was that the model for the Umayyads was the Caesar in Constantinople, whereas the Abbasids followed the Kisra of Iran.

The shura-based system of government was also abandoned. I have already indicated the consequences that resulted from this.

Their conduct regarding the Bayt al-Mal was no different from that of the Umayyads. In no matter concerning the revenues or expenditures of the Bayt al-Mal were the rules and principles of the Sharia observed. The Bayt al-Mal became not the people’s treasury, but the treasury of the kings. No one had the right to question anyone about its revenues or expenditures.

Interference by the caliph, palace officials, rulers, and members of the councils in the judiciary continued just as it had under Umayyad rule. During the reign of Caliph al-Mahdi, a case between one of his military commanders and a merchant was brought before the court of Qadi Ubaydullah ibn Hasan. The caliph wrote to the qadi instructing him to rule in favor of his military commander. When the qadi did not obey his order, he was dismissed. [Al-Khatib: History of Baghdad, vol. 10, p. 309, Egypt, 1931.] During the reign of Harun al-Rashid, when Qadi Hafs ibn Ghiyath ruled against a person in a case brought by the caliph’s wife Zubayda, he lost his position. [Tashkopruzada: Miftah al-Sa‘adah, vol. 2, p. 119, first edition, Hyderabad, 1329 AH.]

The Shu‘ubi Movement and the Zindiqs

The hatred based on lineage, tribalism, and nationalism that the Umayyads had engendered became even more intense under Abbasid rule. The Abbasid movement began on the basis of one clan’s claim against another. Yet, for the sake of their victory and success, they adopted a policy of provoking one Arab tribe against another on the one hand, and stirring the non-Arabs against the Arabs on the other, in order to exploit this for their own interests. The leading figure of the Abbasid movement was Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Abdullah ibn Abbas. Before appointing Abu Muslim al-Khurasani to take charge of Khurasan, he gave him instructions, one of which was to exploit the existing conflict between the Yamani and the Mudarite Arabs by making the Yamani tribes fight the Mudarites. His second instruction was: “If possible, do not leave alive a single person who can speak Arabic. If you have the slightest suspicion regarding any Arab child five fingers tall or taller, kill him.” [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 4, p. 295; al-Bidayah, vol. 10, p. 28; Ibn Khaldun, vol. 3, p. 103.] The result of this conduct was that the fire of ethnic pride (Shu‘ubiyyah), which had smoldered within the non-Arabs during Umayyad rule as a result of their Arab partiality, burst into flames under the Abbasids. A group of Zindiqs became active not only against Arab ethnic pride, but against Islam itself.

Among the non-Arabs, the desire for the nobility of lineage and clan had existed from the beginning. In particular, they regarded the Arabs as utterly insignificant compared with themselves. At the time of Islam’s conquests, after being defeated by the camel-drivers of the Arab desert, they initially felt deeply humiliated. But Islam’s principles of justice and equality, and the pious conduct of the Companions, the Tabi‘in, and the scholars and jurists of the ummah, did not merely soothe their wounds; they gradually integrated them into the universal Muslim ummah with full social equality. Had the government’s administrative policy supported this principle as well, no non-Arab would have developed a separate identity, nor would the impulse toward ethnic pride have arisen. But the Umayyads’ humiliating treatment of them and blind Arab partiality—discussed earlier—gave rise to resentment among them. Later, the Abbasids used this for their own political interests, allowing it to grow and spread. Their expectation was: “When a new kingdom is established by the strength of our swords, we ourselves will rule it and end Arab leadership.” This expectation was justified, and it was fulfilled.

Al-Jahiz says that the Abbasid empire had turned into a Khurasani kingdom. [Al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin, vol. 3, p. 81, Matba‘at al-Futuh al-Adabiyyah, Egypt, 1332 AH.] During Mansur’s caliphate, most posts of military commanders and governors were given to non-Arabs, and Arab authority came to an end. [Al-Mas‘udi: Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. 2, p. 515, Sa‘adah edition, Egypt, 1958; al-Maqrizi: Kitab al-Suluk, vol. 1, p. 15, Dar al-Kutub, Egypt, 1934.] In the account of Mansur’s governors given by al-Jahshiyari in Tarikh al-Wuzara (The History of the Ministers), all of them are found to have been non-Arabs. [Diyiana edition, 1926, pp. 139, 153, 155, 157.] Having gained political power, these non-Arabs began the Shu‘ubi movement. In reality, it was not merely a nationalist movement; at its core, it also contained the seeds of atheism.

The Shu‘ubi movement began with the debate that Arabs had no superiority over non-Arabs. Before long, however, the movement assumed the form of opposition to the Arabs, and books began to be written condemning the Arabs, including the Quraysh and even one of their tribes. In Ibn al-Nadim’s al-Fihrist we find descriptions of these books. The moderate Shu‘ubis did not go beyond this, but their extremists went further and began attacking Islam itself. Non-Arab amirs, viziers, secretaries, and military officers secretly encouraged them. Al-Jahiz says: “This disease was transmitted from Shu‘ubiyyah to many people whose hearts contained doubts about Islam. Since the Arabs propagated Islam, they became hostile to Islam.” [Kitab al-Hayawan, vol. 7, p. 68, Egyptian edition, 1906.] They began reviving the religious beliefs and ideas of Mani, Zoroaster, and Mazdak. They began praising non-Arab culture, politics, and methods of governing. Behind the cover of poetry and literature, they spread sin, corruption, and moral bankruptcy. They mocked religion and its laws, invited people to drink and gamble, and ridiculed religious rites and ceremonies. They made those who spoke of the Hereafter and Paradise and Hell objects of ridicule. They made those who spoke of the Hereafter and Paradise and Hell objects of ridicule. With the aim of distorting Islam, many of them fabricated and circulated false hadiths. When a certain Zindiq named Ibn Abi al-Awja was arrested, he admitted that he had fabricated four thousand false hadiths, thereby making the unlawful lawful, the lawful unlawful, and altering Islamic laws. During Mansur’s reign, Muhammad ibn Sulayman ibn Ali, the governor of Kufa, executed him. [Al-Bidayah, vol. 1, p. 113.] Another man named Yunus ibn Abi Farwah wrote a book condemning Islam and the Arabs, presented it at the court of the Caesar, ruler of Rum, and received a reward. [Amali al-Murtada, vol. 1, pp. 90–100, Sa‘adah edition, Egypt, 1907.] Al-Jahiz mentions that a large portion of the non-Arab secretaries criticized the arrangement of the Qur’an, claimed that it contained contradictions, denied hadith, and cast doubt on its authenticity. Their tongues faltered when acknowledging the virtues of the Companions. When Qadi Shurayh, Hasan al-Basri, and al-Sha‘bi were mentioned, they raised various objections against them. But when Irdeshir Babakan and Nushirwan were mentioned, they became eloquent in praising their political wisdom and foresight. [Thalath Rasa’il lil-Jahiz, p. 42, Salqiyyah edition, Cairo, 1344 AH.] Regarding the prominent non-Arabs of that era, Abu al-Ala al-Ma‘arri said that all of them were Zindiqs. He mentioned, by way of example, names such as Debal, Bashshar ibn Burd, Abu Nuwas, and Abu Muslim al-Khurasani. [Al-Ghufran, Dar al-Ma‘arif, Egypt, 1950.] These Zindiq-like ideas were not limited merely to anti-Islamic beliefs; freedom from moral restraints was an essential part of them in practice. Ibn Abd Rabbih says: “Debauchery, adultery, and bribery were essential parts of Zindiq-like thought—the people knew this well.” [Al-Iqd al-Farid, vol. 2, p. 179.]

During the reign of Caliph Mansur (136–158 AH, 754–775 CE), this fitnah fully raised its head. It not only created the fear of doctrinal and moral corruption among Muslims; there was also the fear that, socially and politically, it would fragment Muslim society and the state. Al-Mahdi became alarmed on seeing the threatening consequences of the intrigues of his own clan. He not only tried to eradicate this movement by force, but also appointed a group of scholars to debate the Zindiqs and write books against them. These books were written to remove from the people’s minds the doubts that they had created about Islam. [Al-Mas‘udi, vol. 2, p. 515; al-Maqrizi, Kitab al-Suluk, vol. 1, p. 15.] During his reign, a separate department was established under Umar al-Kalwadhini. Its task was to uproot Zindiq-like ideas and eliminate the Zindiqs. [Al-Tabari, vol. 6, pp. 191–389; al-Bidayah, vol. 10, p. 149.] From the instructions he gave his son al-Hadi, it can be inferred how great a danger he considered the Zindiqs. He said:

“When authority over this state comes into your hands after me, do not neglect to eradicate the followers of Mani. At first they call the people to outward goodness: refraining from obscene acts, living the life of a dervish in this world, and working for the Hereafter. Then they indoctrinate the people that meat is forbidden, water should not be touched—that is, one should not bathe—and no living creature should be killed. Then they lead them to believe in two gods. Finally, they declare marriage between brothers and sisters and bathing with urine lawful. They steal children in order to lead them astray. [Al-Tabari, vol. 6, pp. 433–434.]”

Al-Mahdi’s account makes it clear that the non-Arab Zindiqs of that time outwardly posed as Muslims while secretly striving to revive their ancient religion. According to al-Mas‘udi, during Mansur’s reign books were translated from Pahlavi and Persian. The writings of people such as Ibn Abi Awja, Hammad A‘jard, Yahya ibn Ziyad, and Muti ibn Iyas were spreading this poison. [Muruj al-Dhahab, vol. 2, p. 515.]

The Ummah’s Response

This is a brief account of the changes initiated by the establishment of monarchy in place of the Rightly Guided Caliphate. From this one can infer the consequences of an individual, group, or party disregarding the people’s decision, seeking power for itself, and establishing it by force. Even if, at the time of committing this error, it does not perceive the consequences of its actions or desire such consequences, this natural result is bound to appear.

But it would be a grave mistake to think that these political changes brought about the complete end of the Islamic way of life. Some people study history very superficially and confidently conclude that Islam lasted only thirty years and then came to an end. Yet the actual situation was entirely the opposite. We shall now briefly record how, when the Muslim ummah faced this political revolution, its collective consciousness adopted a way of holding fast to its way of life.

The Division of Leadership

The true beauty of the Rightly Guided Caliphate was that it was the complete representation of the Messenger of Allah—we have discussed this earlier. The Rightly Guided Caliph was not merely rashid, or rightly guided; he was also murshid, or a guide. His task was not merely to maintain law and order in the state and lead the army; it was also to establish the whole religion of Allah in its entirety. A single central leadership was united in his person. Politically, this leadership guided Muslims, while also undertaking responsibility for their leadership and authority in all matters of belief, religion, morality, spirituality, law, Sharia, truthfulness, culture, education, training, da‘wah, and tabligh. Just as Islam encompasses every sphere of human life, this leadership likewise encompassed every aspect. Muslims conducted their entire lives under its guidance with complete confidence.

When monarchy

When monarchy took the place of this caliphate, it was not worthy of such comprehensive leadership, and Muslims were not prepared to grant monarchy this status even for a single day. After the deeds of the kings that we discussed earlier, they could not outwardly retain any moral standing among the nation. They could force the people to bow their heads, and they did so. Through the weapons of fear and greed, they could turn countless people into servants of their purposes, and they did so as well. But they could not win the hearts of the common people so that they would accept them as imams in matters of religion.

As soon as this new situation arose, Muslim leadership was divided into two:

Political Leadership

The kings seized one part of political leadership by force. Since it could not be removed without force, and political leadership without force was impossible, the Muslim ummah accepted this leadership despite its reluctance. It was not a rebellious leadership against Allah that the ummah would reject. The directors of this political leadership were Muslims. They followed Islam and Islamic law. They never refused to recognize the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger as the basis of law. Under their rule, ordinary affairs were conducted according to the Sharia. It was only their politics that did not follow the religion, and for this reason they had departed from Islam’s principles of governance. Thus the administration of the Muslim ummah and state continued, law and order was maintained, the frontiers were defended, jihad was waged against the enemies of the religion, and Friday prayers, congregational prayers, and Hajj continued to be held. Islamic laws continued to be applied through the courts. When the Companions, the Tabi‘in, and the Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in acknowledged their leadership for these purposes, this did not mean that they recognized these kings as righteous leaders or their caliphate as the Rightly Guided and Guiding Caliphate—the bearer and guide of truth. Rather, it meant that they acknowledged the practical reality that these men now possessed the political leadership of the ummah.

Religious Leadership

The second sphere was religious leadership. The surviving Companions, the Tabi‘in, the Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in, jurists, hadith scholars, and the righteous among the ummah stepped forward to undertake this responsibility. Although their leadership was not organized, and there was no single imam or leader whom everyone could recognize as a guide (murshid), nor a powerful council capable of immediately resolving any religious problem and having the entire country accept its resolution, Muslims nevertheless accepted their leadership in religious matters with complete confidence. All of them drew light from the same source of guidance—the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger—and led the religion with good intentions. Therefore, despite differences over details, their overall temperament and nature were one and the same. Although scattered throughout the farthest regions of the Muslim world, all of them provided Muslims with leadership based on the same thought and character.

The Mutual Relationship of the Two Leaderships

There was little cooperation between these two forms of leadership, while conflict or, at the very least, non-cooperation was more common. Political leadership rarely helped religious leadership fulfill its role. And religious leadership accepted even less of whatever help it could have received. For in return for that assistance, its faith and conscience were not prepared to pay the price demanded by political leadership. The state of the ummah itself was such that those among the religious leaders who drew close to kings and rulers, and those who accepted any office or remuneration from them, could retain the nation’s trust only with great difficulty. Keeping away from kings and rulers and remaining firm and steadfast before their wrath became the standard by which religious leadership among Muslims was judged. If a religious leader did not meet this standard, the nation examined him with extreme severity. The nation recognized a person’s superiority only if, even after coming into the company of kings and rulers, he made no compromise regarding the religion. Far from ordinary Muslims, even those who had sold their heads to political leadership were unwilling to place in the position of imam and religious leader anyone who had been bought off like them or who, overwhelmed by the power of authority, sought to alter any religious ruling.

Thus, from the middle of the first Islamic century onward, the path of religious leadership became separate from that of political leadership. [It would be useful for students of history to know that when the Abbasid caliphate began to decline in the third Islamic century, religious leadership became divided into two. Eventually the amirs and sultans, who effectively held the keys to the state, became the actual possessors of this leadership. The Abbasid caliphs became mere occupants of a political throne. They possessed neither religious nor political leadership. They had only a ceremonial religious ‘purity’ that they had acquired in the name of the caliphate. On this basis they crowned the sultans, while the sultans had the khutbah delivered and coins struck in their names.] Whatever work the scholars of the ummah carried out in writing books on tafsir, hadith, fiqh, and other branches of religious knowledge, in teaching and studying the Qur’an and hadith, and in issuing fatwas, they did entirely free from the government and without government assistance; indeed, in most cases they did so in the face of government opposition and by firmly confronting its unjust interference. The responsibility they undertook to purify the minds, character, conduct, and behavior of the righteous Muslims of the ummah was likewise entirely free from the influence of political leadership. Moreover, it was through these elders that Islam spread. At most, the kings and rulers performed the task of conquering country after country and bringing millions of people within Islam’s sphere of influence.

The entry of millions of people into the circle of faith was not the result of the politics of the kings and rulers; rather, it was the miraculous consequence of the righteous, pure character of the ummah.

The True Objective of Islam

But it is clear that Islam’s objective cannot be fulfilled through such a division of leadership. Freed from political leadership, religious leadership performed the invaluable service of preserving Islamic values, and there is no doubt that this was extremely important. It is through all these services that Islam has survived in the world to this day, enabling the Muslim ummah to see its religion in its true and unaltered form. But Islam’s real objective could have been fulfilled only when the ummah attained a leadership that, like the Rightly Guided Caliphate, was simultaneously religious and political, and whose political power not only devoted all its means and resources to fulfilling the objectives of the religion, but whose primary aim itself was to fulfill those objectives. Had the Islamic caliphate been able to preserve this condition for one hundred and fifty or two hundred years, perhaps no trace of unbelief would have remained on earth; and even if some had remained, it would not have had the strength to raise its head.

Chapter Six

The Beginning of Religious Differences among Muslims and Their Causes

One of the principal consequences of the causes and circumstances that led to the fall of the Rightly Guided Caliphate was the emergence of religious differences within the Muslim ummah. Thereafter, precisely because the Rightly Guided Caliphate was not established in its proper form, these differences took root and provided an opportunity for the foundation of various independent groups. For under monarchy there was no reliable and powerful institution capable of eliminating these differences properly and at the proper time.

The beginning of this fitnah was not outwardly so serious. Toward the end of Sayyiduna Hazrat Uthman’s (may Allah be pleased with him) reign, this disorder arose from certain political and administrative complaints. Even then, it remained merely a disorder. No philosophy, doctrine, or religious creed lay behind it. But when, as a consequence, his martyrdom occurred and, during the caliphate of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), intense disagreement took the form of a terrible civil war—when, one after another, the Battle of Jamal, the Battle of Siffin, the arbitration, and the Battle of Nahrawan took place—questions arose in many minds: who was on the right path in these wars, and why? Who was on the wrong path? What was the reason for being on the wrong path? These questions became subjects of discussion in various places. If someone adopted an attitude of silence and neutrality regarding the actions of both groups, on what arguments and evidence did he base that attitude? These questions gave rise to several definite and clear doctrines. Essentially, these doctrines were purely political. But later, their supporters felt the need to acquire some religious basis in order to strengthen their doctrines. Thus, these political groups gradually transformed into religious groups.

Thereafter, as a result of the bloodshed that occurred at the beginning of the era of disagreement and continued subsequently during the rule of the Umayyads and the Abbasids, these disagreements no longer remained limited to disputes over mere beliefs and conjectures. Rather, such severity appeared in them that the religious unity of the Muslims was thrown into a great crisis. Controversial debates spread from house to house. New political, religious, and philosophical problems arose from every issue. Sects formed around each new problem, and from the womb of those sects countless smaller sects continued to be born. These sects produced not only mutual hatred and hostility, but also quarrels, disputes, riots, and disturbances. Kufa, in central Iraq, was the greatest center of this fitnah and corruption. For the Battles of Jamal, Siffin, and Nahrawan took place in Iraq. The heart-rending martyrdom of Hazrat Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) also occurred here. All the major sects were born here. The Umayyads, and later the Abbasids, exercised their greatest severity here in suppressing their opposing forces.

The countless sects that arose in this age of disunity, fragmentation, and disagreement essentially originated in four major sects: the Shi‘a, the Kharijites, the Murji’a, and the Mu‘tazila. Here we shall briefly state the gist of the doctrines of each sect.

Shi‘a’

The group supporting Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was initially called the Shi‘at-e-Ali. Later, as a technical term, this group came to be called simply the Shi‘a.

Among some members of Banu Hashim and others there were people who considered Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) more qualified for the caliphate after the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him). Many also believed that he was superior to the other Companions, especially Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). Some even considered him more entitled to the caliphate because of his kinship with the Prophet (peace be upon him). But until the time of Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), these ideas had not taken the form of a sectarian belief. Those who held such views were not opposed to the caliphs of their time. Rather, they acknowledged the caliphates of all the first three caliphs.

During Hazrat Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) conflicts with Talha (may Allah be pleased with him) and Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him) in the Battle of Jamal, with Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) in the Battle of Siffin, and with the Kharijites in the Battle of Nahrawan, a group holding a distinctive doctrine emerged. Then the martyrdom of Hazrat Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) further united them, fueled their enthusiasm, and gave them strength. It gave their doctrine a clear structure. In addition, the hatred that spread among the common people against the Umayyads as a result of their method of rule, and the sympathy that arose in Muslim hearts because of the oppression and injustice inflicted on the descendants of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and their supporters during the Umayyad-Abbasid period, gave extraordinary strength to the Shi‘a’s call. Kufa was their strongest center. Their distinctive doctrine was as follows:

First:Imamate (their special term in place of caliphate) is not a matter for public consideration. The responsibility of choosing the Imam cannot be entrusted to the people. A person does not become Imam merely because the people appoint him. Rather, imamate is a component of the faith and a fundamental foundation of Islam. Appointing the Imam through an explicit designation, instead of entrusting his selection to the people, is one of the Prophet’s responsibilities. [Ibn Khaldun, Al-Muqaddimah, p. 196, Mustafa Muhammad Press, Egypt; al-Shahrastani, Kitab al-Milal wa al-Nihal, London edition, vol. 1, pp. 108–109.]

Second:The Imam must be ma‘sūm—sinless. That is, he must be free from and protected against all sins, major and minor. He must be incapable of any error or mistake. All his words and deeds must be true. [Ibn Khaldun, p. 196; al-Shahrastani, vol. 1, p. 109.]

The Beginning of Religious Disagreement among Muslims and Its Causes

Third: The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) appointed Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) Imam after him. According to the clear injunction of the Shariah, he is the Imam. [al-Shahrastani, vol. 1, p. 108; Ibn Khaldun, pp. 196–197.]

Fourth: After each Imam, a new Imam shall be appointed according to the designation of the preceding Imam. For the responsibility of appointment to this office has not been entrusted to the Ummah. Therefore, no person can become Imam through the Muslims’ election. [Ibn Khaldun, p. 197; al-Ash‘ari, Maqalat al-Islamiyyin, Egyptian Renaissance Library, Cairo, first edition, vol. 1, p. 87; al-Shahrastani, vol. 1, p. 109.]

Fifth: Imamate is the right—indeed, the exclusive entitlement—of the descendants of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). All Shi‘a groups and subgroups agree on this. [al-Shahrastani, vol. 1, p. 108.]

“After this unanimously held view, differences of opinion appeared among the various Shi‘a subgroups. According to the moderate Shi‘a, Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was the best of all people. Whoever fought him or harbored hatred toward him was an enemy of Allah. He would dwell in Hell forever and be gathered with the unbelievers and hypocrites. If Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) had denied the caliphates of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them)—who had been made Imams before him—and expressed displeasure toward them, we would have said that he too was destined for Hell. But since he accepted their leadership, pledged allegiance to them, and prayed behind them, we cannot proceed by rejecting his conduct. We cannot distinguish between Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and the Prophet (peace be upon him) in anything except the rank of prophethood. In every other respect, we grant him the same status as the Prophet.” [Ibn Abi al-Hadid, commentary on Nahj al-Balagha, vol. 4, p. 520.]

According to the extremist Shi‘a, the caliphs who assumed the caliphate before Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) were usurpers. Those who made them caliphs were accomplices and wrongdoers, because they denied the Prophet’s testament and deprived the true Imam of his right. Some of them went even further and called the first three caliphs, as well as those who made them caliphs, unbelievers.

The mildest view among them was that of the Zaydis. They followed Zayd ibn Ali ibn Husayn (died 122 AH/740 CE). They considered Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) superior, but in their view it was not invalid for an inferior person to be Imam while a superior person was present. Moreover, they held that there was no explicit and personal instruction from the Messenger of Allah in favor of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). Therefore, they acknowledged the caliphates of Hazrat Abu Bakr and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them). Nevertheless, they believed that a qualified person from among Fatimah’s descendants should become Imam. The condition was that he must rise against the kings, claiming and asserting the imamate. [al-Ash‘ari, vol. 1, p. 129; Ibn Khaldun, pp. 197–198; al-Shahrastani, vol. 1, pp. 115–117.]

Kharijites

The group that held a doctrine completely opposite to that of the Shi‘a was the Kharijites. This group arose precisely when, during the Battle of Siffin, Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and Hazrat Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) agreed to appoint two men as arbiters to resolve their disagreement. Until then, they had supported Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). But they suddenly turned against him over the appointment of the arbiters. They said: ‘By accepting human beings as judges instead of Allah, you have become an unbeliever.’ Thereafter they went very far in developing their doctrine. Since they were extremely severe in disposition, supported fighting those who held doctrines different from theirs, and advocated armed revolt against an unjust government, they continued their bloodshed for a long time. Eventually, their power was extinguished during Abbasid rule.

Their greatest strength, too, lay in Iraq. They had large strongholds in a place called al-Batayeh, between Basra and Kufa. The summary of their doctrine is as follows:

First: They accepted the caliphates of Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) and Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) as lawful. But in their view, toward the end of his caliphate Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) departed from justice and truth. He deserved to be killed or deposed. By appointing human beings as arbiters instead of Allah, Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) also became guilty of a major sin. Moreover, both arbiters—that is, Amr ibn al-As; those who appointed them, namely Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and Muawiya; and all the companions of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) who were pleased with their arbitration—were sinners. All those who participated in the Battle of Jamal, including Hazrat Talha, Zubayr, and the Mother of the Believers Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her), were guilty of a grave sin.

Second: In their view, sin was synonymous with unbelief. They called every perpetrator of a major sin an unbeliever, unless he repented and renounced the sin. Thus, they openly called all the eminent figures mentioned above unbelievers. Indeed, they did not hesitate to curse and abuse them. They also called ordinary Muslims unbelievers, first because they were not free of sin, and second because they not only acknowledged the aforementioned Companions as believers but also accepted them as their leaders. They also derived Shariah rulings from the hadiths they narrated.

Third: Regarding the caliphate, their view was that it could be established only on the basis of the free choice of the Muslims.

The Beginning of Religious Disagreement among Muslims and Its Causes

Fourth: They did not accept that the caliph had to be descended from Quraysh. They said that whoever the Muslims elected—whether Qurayshi or non-Qurayshi—was the lawful caliph.

Fifth: They believed that obedience to the caliph was obligatory as long as he remained steadfast on the path of justice and welfare. But if he deviated from this path, then fighting him, deposing him, and killing him were also obligatory.

Sixth: They accepted the Qur’an as the fundamental source of Islamic law. But their view of Hadith and ijma‘ differed from that of ordinary Muslims.

A large group among them, known as the Najdat, believed that establishing a caliphate—in other words, a state and government—was entirely unnecessary and that there was no need for it. Muslims should conduct their social affairs on their own. Of course, if they felt the need to elect a caliph, they could do so. Such an act was also permissible and lawful.

The largest group among them, the Azariqa, called all Muslims other than themselves polytheists. In their view, it was not permissible for the Kharijites to respond to anyone’s call to prayer except their own. Animals slaughtered by others were unlawful for them to eat, and marriage with anyone else was not permissible. A Kharijite and a non-Kharijite could not inherit from each other. They considered jihad against all other Muslims an individual obligation. They considered it permissible to kill their wives and children and to plunder their wealth. They even considered those among their own people who did not participate in this jihad unbelievers. They considered it lawful to seize the wealth of their opponents. Their harshness toward Muslims reached such a degree that non-Muslims enjoyed greater security in their eyes than Muslims did.

The most lenient group among them was the Ibadis. Although they called ordinary Muslims unbelievers, they refrained from calling them polytheists. They said, ‘They are not believers.’ Nevertheless, they accepted Muslims’ testimony. They considered marriage with them and inheritance from them lawful. They regarded their territory not as Dar al-Kufr or Dar al-Harb, but as Dar al-Tawhid. However, they did not regard the seat of the government as Dar al-Tawhid. They considered secret attacks on Muslims unlawful, but regarded open warfare as lawful. [For a detailed discussion, see: Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi, al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, al-Ma‘arif Press, Egypt, pp. 55, 61, 63, 64, 67, 68, 82, 83, 99, 313, 314, and 315.]

al-Shahrastani, vol. 1, pp. 78, 90, 91, 92, and 100.

al-Ash‘ari, vol. 1, pp. 152, 157, 159, 189, and 190; al-Mas‘udi, vol. 2, p. 191.]

Murji’a

A third group emerged as a reaction to the radically opposing doctrines of the Shi‘a and the Kharijites. This group was called the Murji’a. Regarding Hazrat Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) various battles, some people fully supported him while others were his extreme opponents. One group remained neutral. They withdrew, considering the civil war a fitnah, or were uncertain about who was on the right path and who was on the wrong path. They certainly realized that the bloodshed among Muslims was a grave wrong. But they were not prepared to declare any participant in the conflict bad. They left the matter to Allah—He would decide on the Day of Resurrection who was on the right path and who was on the wrong path. Up to this point, their thinking did not differ from that of ordinary Muslims. But when the Shi‘a and Kharijites began, on the basis of their extreme doctrines, to raise the question of unbelief and faith, and disputes and debates over it began, this neutral group too developed an independent religious philosophy in support of its outlook. The essence of their religious philosophy was as follows:

First: Faith consists only in knowing Allah and the Messenger. Deeds are not part of the essence of faith. Therefore, a person remains a Muslim even while abandoning obligations and committing major sins.

Second: Salvation depends solely on faith. No sin can harm a person who possesses faith. For a person’s salvation, it is sufficient to die believing in monotheism while refraining from polytheism. [al-Shahrastani, vol. 1, pp. 103–104; al-Ash‘ari, vol. 1, pp. 198, 201.]

Some Murji’a went a little further and said that whatever sin, however great—apart from polytheism—one committed, it would certainly be forgiven. [al-Shahrastani, vol. 1, p. 104.] Some went one step further and said that if a person possessed faith in his heart and lived in Dar al-Islam—where there was no fear from anyone—yet verbally declared unbelief, worshipped idols, or adopted Judaism or Christianity, he would nevertheless be a perfect believer, a friend of Allah, and destined for Paradise. [Ibn Hazm, al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Nihal, vol. 4, p. 204, al-Matba‘ah al-Adabiyyah, Egypt, 1317 AH.]

These ideas greatly encouraged sinfulness, immorality, indecent conduct, oppression, and persecution. By assuring people of Allah’s forgiveness, they encouraged them to engage in sin.

Another view close to this way of thinking was that if bearing arms became necessary in order to command what is right and forbid what is wrong, this would be a fitnah. It was unquestionably permissible to prevent wrong among people other than the government, but it was not permissible to speak out against the government’s oppression and persecution. [al-Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 2, p. 40.] Allama Abu Bakr al-Jassas strongly denounced this in severe terms, saying that these ideas had strengthened the hand of the oppressor and gravely weakened the Muslims’ power of resistance against injustice and error.

Mu‘’tazila

A fourth doctrine also arose in this conflict-ridden age. In Islamic history it is known as i‘tizal. However, unlike the first three groups, the emergence of this group was not purely the result of political causes. Nevertheless, it presented several clear positions on the political problems of its time and took a highly active part in the struggle of doctrines and ideas. As a result of contemporary political causes, a conflict of doctrines was taking place throughout the Muslim world, especially in Iraq; they played a powerful role in it. The founders of this doctrine were Wasil ibn Ata (80–131 AH/699–748 CE) and Amr ibn Ubayd (died 145 AH/763 CE). At first, Basra was the center of their discussions.

The summary of their political doctrine is as follows:

First: In their view, appointing an Imam—that is, establishing a state—is obligatory according to the Shariah. At other times, however, some Mu‘tazila held that an Imam was not needed at all. If the Ummah itself remained established upon justice, appointing an Imam was meaningless. [al-Mas‘udi, vol. 2, p. 191.]

Second: In their view, the responsibility for choosing the Imam had been left to the Ummah. Imamate was established through the Ummah’s election. [al-Mas‘udi, vol. 2, p. 191.] Some Mu‘tazila imposed the additional condition that the entire Ummah must agree in order to establish the imamate. An Imam could not be appointed in a situation of disorder and disagreement. [al-Shahrastani, vol. 1, p. 51.]

Third: In their view, the Ummah could appoint any righteous and qualified Muslim as Imam, according to its own choice. There was no condition in this regard concerning whether he was Qurayshi or non-Qurayshi, Arab or non-Arab. [al-Mas‘udi, vol. 2, p. 191.] Some Mu‘tazila went further and said that appointing a non-Arab as Imam was preferable. Indeed, appointing a freed slave as Imam was even better, because if he did not have many supporters, it would be easier to remove him during a period of oppression and persecution. [al-Shahrastani, vol. 1, p. 63.] It seems that they were more concerned with how rulers could be removed easily than with stabilizing the government.

Fourth: In their view, prayer behind a corrupt Imam was not permissible. [al-Ash‘ari, vol. 2, p. 124.]

Fifth: Commanding what is right and forbidding what is wrong was also one of their fundamental principles. If they had the power to revolt and there was a possibility of making the revolution successful, they considered revolt against an unjust and oppressive government obligatory. [al-Ash‘ari, vol. 2, p. 125.] For this reason, they took part in the revolt against the Umayyad caliph Walid ibn Yazid (125–126 AH/743–744 CE) and tried to place Yazid ibn Walid in power in his stead, because he held Mu‘tazilite views similar to theirs. [al-Mas‘udi, vol. 2, pp. 190, 193; al-Suyuti, Tarikh al-Khulafa, p. 255, Government Press, Lahore, 1870 CE.]

Sixth: Regarding the dispute between the Kharijites and the Murji’a over unbelief and faith, their own judgment was that a sinful Muslim was neither a believer nor an unbeliever, but occupied an intermediate position between the two. [al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, pp. 94–95.]

In addition to these doctrines, they expressed their own views regarding the disagreements among the Companions and the caliphates of the past. The statement of Wasil ibn Ata was: One of the two sides in the Battles of Jamal and Siffin was impious, but it is impossible to determine with certainty which side had acted impiously. For this reason, they said that even if Ali, Talha, and Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with them) testified regarding a mere bundle of vegetables, I would not accept their testimony, because they might have been impious. According to Amr ibn Ubayd, both sides were impious. [al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, pp. 100–101; al-Shahrastani, vol. 1, p. 34.] They also harshly criticized Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). Some of them even insulted Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). [Ibid., pp. 133–134; al-Shahrastani, vol. 1, p. 40.] In addition, many Mu‘tazila virtually rejected Hadith and ijma‘ among the sources of Islamic law. [Ibid., pp. 138–139.]

The Condition of the Majority

Among these disputatious and extremist groups, the greater part of the Muslims remained established upon the principles and ideals that had been followed by consensus since the time of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. In general, the Companions, the Followers, and ordinary Muslims had regarded these as the principles and ideals of Islam from the beginning. At most, eight or ten percent of the Muslim population was influenced by sectarianism. All the rest remained firm and steadfast upon the beliefs and understanding of the common people.

But from the beginning of the age of controversy until the time of Imam Abu Hanifa, no one had properly explained the views of the ordinary Muslims on disputed matters. No one had given them the form of an independent school of thought. Rather, various jurists and traditionists had explained Islamic thought in scattered form, on different occasions, through their statements, fatwas, transmitted traditions, and practices.

Chapter Seven

Imam Abu Hanifa

We have already discussed that, with the beginning of monarchy, leadership became divided into two parts. First, political leadership: its keys were in the hands of the ruling class. Second, religious leadership: the learned men and truthful people of the ummah assumed this leadership. We have already discussed in detail the causes and consequences of this division of leadership. We have also mentioned what political leadership was like during this period of division. Now we wish to take a look at what those who assumed the religious leadership of the ummah were like and how they dealt with the problems that arose in their time. For this purpose, we shall present here the work of Imam Abu Hanifa as a representative of religious leadership. We shall then mention how his student, Imam Abu Yusuf, completed his work.

A Brief Biography

His name was Nu’man ibn Thabit. According to reliable reports, he was born in Kufa in 80 AH (699 CE). Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan was then the Umayyad caliph, and al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf was the governor of Iraq. He spent fifty-two years of his life under Umayyad rule and eighteen years under Abbasid rule. He was fifteen years old when al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf died. He was a young man during the reign of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz. The turbulent rule of such governors of Iraq as Yazid ibn al-Muhallab, Khalid ibn Abdallah al-Qasri, and Nasr ibn Sayyar unfolded before his eyes. He himself suffered the oppression and persecution of Ibn Hurayra, the last Umayyad governor. The Abbasid movement also began before his eyes. His own city, Kufa, was the center of this movement. Until Baghdad was founded, Kufa was effectively elevated to the status of the center of the newly established Abbasid Empire. He died in 150 AH (767 CE), during the reign of Caliph al-Mansur.

His family originally came from Kabul. His grandfather—whose name some have written as Zawta and others as Zuta—was taken to Kufa as a prisoner of war and, after becoming a Muslim, settled there under the patronage of the Banu Taym Allah tribe. Trade was his profession. He met Ali (RA), and their relationship was so close that he would sometimes send him gifts. [Al-Qardari, Manaqib al-Imam al-A’zam, vol. 1, pp. 65–66, first edition, 1321 AH, Dairat al-Ma’arif, Hyderabad.] His son Thabit, the father of Imam Abu Hanifa, also traded in Kufa. According to a report by the Imam himself, he had a bakery in Kufa. [Al-Makki, al-Muwaffaq ibn Ahmad, Manaqib al-Imam al-A’zam Abi Hanifa, vol. 1, p. 162, first edition, 1321 AH, Dairat al-Ma’arif, Hyderabad.]

Regarding the Imam’s education, he himself reports that at first he studied all the branches of knowledge current in his time, including recitation of the Qur’an, Hadith, Arabic grammar, literature, poetry, and theology. [Al-Makki, vol. 1, pp. 57–58.] He then acquired particular expertise in theology and, after remaining engaged in it for a long time, advanced so far that everyone began to look to him in this field. According to the report of his famous student Zufar ibn al-Hudhayl, the Imam told him: “At first I was attracted to theology. I reached such a level in it that people would point their fingers at me because of it.” [Al-Makki, vol. 1, pp. 55–59.] In another report, the Imam himself says:

“I was a man skilled in discussions of theology. There was a time when I remained occupied with such debates. Since Basra was the center of most controversies, I went there approximately twenty times. Sometimes I stayed there for six months or a year and debated and contended with various groups of the Kharijites—such as the Ibadiyya and Sufriyya—and the various factions of the Hashwiyya. [Al-Makki, vol. 1, p. 59.]”

It may therefore be concluded that he must also have acquired extensive knowledge of the philosophy, logic, and religious controversies of his time. For no one can attain expertise in theology without this. The skill he later displayed in applying sound reasoning and intellect to jurisprudence, and the fame he earned for solving major and complex problems, were the result of this initial intellectual formation.

After being occupied with this work for a long time, he grew weary of the sophistry and disputation of theology and turned his attention to fiqh (Islamic law). Naturally, he could not become attached here to the approach of the Ahl al-Hadith. At that time Kufa was the center of the ashab al-ra’y (those who exercised independent reasoning) in Iraq, and he joined them. This school of thought began with Ali (RA) and Abdallah ibn Masud (d. 32 AH/652 CE). Their three students—Qadi Shurayh (d. 76 AH/697 CE), Alqama (d. 62 AH/681 CE), and Masruq (d. 76 AH/682 CE)—then became its renowned imams. At that time their fame had spread throughout the Muslim world. Leadership of this school subsequently passed to Ibrahim al-Nakha’i (d. 95 AH/714 CE), and after him to Hammad. Imam Abu Hanifa became Hammad’s student and spent eighteen years in his company until his death. Yet he was not content with the knowledge possessed by his teachers in Kufa; rather, during the pilgrimage he repeatedly went to the Hijaz and continued learning from other great scholars of fiqh and Hadith.

When his teacher Hammad died in 120 AH, all the followers of his school unanimously appointed Imam Abu Hanifa as his successor. After assuming this position, he spent thirty years teaching and issuing fatwas, accomplishing work of enduring value that is now regarded as the foundation of the Hanafi school. During these thirty years, according to some, he resolved 60,000 legal problems, and according to others, 83,000; these were compiled under various headings during his lifetime. [Al-Makki, vol. 1, p. 96; vol. 2, pp. 132–136.] He produced seven or eight hundred students who traveled to different regions of the Muslim world, occupied the seats of teaching and fatwa, and became objects of the people’s devotion and respect. About fifty of his students are known to have been appointed qadis (judges) of the Abbasid Empire after him. His school became the law of a large part of the Muslim world. It was also the law of the Abbasid, Seljuk, Ottoman, and Mughal empires. Today, tens of millions of Muslims from China to Turkey follow his fiqh.

He adopted the family profession of trade as his means of livelihood. In Kufa he traded in khazz, a particular type of fabric. Gradually he achieved extraordinary success in this profession as well. He owned a large factory where khazz was produced. [Al-Yafi’i, Mir’at al-Jinan wa I’barat al-Yaqazan, vol. 1, p. 310, first edition, 1337 AH, Dairat al-Ma’arif, Hyderabad.] The cloth produced in his factory was sold not only at his own shop in Kufa; his goods were also sent to distant parts of the country. As public confidence in his trustworthiness and honesty grew, his shop effectively became a bank. People deposited millions of dirhams there. At the time of his death, fifty million dirhams were deposited in that shop. [Al-Makki, vol. 1, p. 220.] This extensive experience in matters of money and commerce gave him insight into many branches of law that jurists could not have acquired through purely theoretical means. This experience greatly assisted him in formulating fiqh. In addition, an indication of his practical foresight and experience in civic affairs may be found in the fact that when al-Mansur began founding the city of Baghdad in 145 AH (762 CE), he appointed him to supervise the work. He remained its chief supervisor for four years. [Al-Tabari, vol. 1, p. 238; Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, vol. 10, p. 97.]

In his personal life he was exceptionally God-fearing and trustworthy. Once he sent one of his partners out to sell some merchandise. Part of the merchandise was defective. The Imam instructed his partner to inform every buyer of the defect. But the partner forgot and returned after selling all the merchandise without disclosing the defect. The Imam gave away the entire amount received for the merchandise, which was 35,000 dirhams. [Al-Khatib, Tarikh Baghdad, vol. 13, p. 358; Mulla Ali al-Qari, Dhayl al-Jawahir al-Mudiyya, p. 488, Dairat al-Ma’arif, Hyderabad, first edition, 1332 AH.] Historians also mention many incidents in which inexperienced people came to his shop to sell their goods and asked for a low price; the Imam would tell them, “Your goods are worth more,” and would pay them the proper price. [Al-Makki, vol. 1, pp. 219–220.] His contemporaries were extraordinarily lavish in praising his piety. The famous Hadith imam Abdallah ibn al-Mubarak said: “I have never seen anyone more God-fearing than Abu Hanifa. The world and its wealth were presented before him, but he ignored them. He was scourged, yet remained steadfast. He never accepted the positions for which people hasten and compete. What can be said about such a man?” [Al-Dhahabi, Manaqib al-Imam Abi Hanifa wa Sahibayhi, p. 115, Dar al-Kutub al-Arabi, Egypt, 1366 AH.] Qadi Ibn Shubruma said: “The world runs after him, but he turns away from it; it turns away from us, but we run after it.” [Al-Raghib al-Isfahani, Muhadarat al-Udaba, p. 206, Matba’at al-Hilal, Egypt, 1902 CE.] Hasan ibn Ziyad said: “By Allah, Imam Abu Hanifa never accepted a gift, present, or donation from any ruler.” [Al-Dhahabi, p. 26.] Once Harun al-Rashid asked Imam Abu Yusuf about the character of Imam Abu Hanifa. He replied:

“By Allah, he strictly avoided everything Allah had forbidden, kept away from worldly people, and observed silence most of the time. He was always absorbed in reflection and study and never spoke foolishly. When asked about a mas’ala (a question concerning Islamic rules), he would answer if he had knowledge of it. O Commander of the Faithful, I know only this much: he protected his soul and religion from evil, occupied himself with his own affairs without depending on people, and never discussed anyone’s bad qualities.” [Al-Dhahabi, p. 9.]

He was extremely generous. He spent freely, especially on scholars and students. He set aside a special portion of his business profits for this purpose. Throughout the year he used it to provide financial assistance to scholars and students. If anything remained at the end, he distributed that among them as well. When giving them money, he would say: “Spend this on your needs, and be grateful to no one but Allah. I have given you nothing from myself. This is Allah’s grace, which He has bestowed upon me for your sake.” [Al-Khatib, vol. 13, p. 260; Al-Makki, vol. 1, p. 262.] A great many of his students were supported entirely by him. He personally assumed all the expenses of Imam Abu Yusuf’s family, because his father was poor. They wanted to take the child away from his studies and put him to work earning money. [Ibn Khallikan, vol. 5, pp. 422–423; Al-Makki, vol. 2, p. 212.]

Imam Abu Hanifa, possessing such character and personality, had to confront nearly all the important problems that arose in the first half of the second Islamic century, after the period of the Rightly Guided Caliphate.

His Views

We shall first discuss the matters concerning which the Imam personally recorded his views. He was not an author. Therefore, in learning about his work, we must generally turn to other reliable sources. But certain issues raised by the Shi’a, Kharijites, Murji’a, and Mu’tazila were such that, concerning them, he took up the pen contrary to his usual practice and compiled, in extremely concise yet clear language, the beliefs, views, and way of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah—that is, the majority of the Muslim community. Naturally, in examining his work, we must give first place to what we find in the form of his writings.

We have already discussed that, as a result of the disagreements that arose among the Muslims during the caliphate of Ali, at the beginning of Umayyad rule, four major sects came into existence. On certain issues they did not merely express extreme opinions; they adopted them as religious creeds, which affected the formation of Muslim society, the character of the Islamic state, the sources of Islamic law, and the authority of the ummah’s collective decisions in the past. On these issues, the views and approach of the Muslim majority were clear and definite, because ordinary Muslims followed them and the great jurists expressed them from time to time in their words and deeds. But until the time of Imam Abu Hanifa, no one had compiled them in an unambiguous and clearly written form.

An Analysis of the Creed of Ahl al-Sunnah

Imam Abu Hanifa was the first person to compose al-Fiqh al-Akbar (the Greatest Fiqh), thereby establishing the creed of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah against all these religious sects. [Before the definition of ilm al-kalam (the science of dialectics) was introduced, the word fiqh was used for everything relating to creeds, the principles of religion, and law. A distinction was made, however, in that creeds and the principles of religion were called al-Fiqh al-Akbar. Imam Abu Hanifa used this name for his book. In recent times researchers have expressed doubts about this book, suggesting that it is merely an addition and not his own composition. But the authenticity of the passages we discuss here is universally acknowledged, because they agree with the Imam Abu Hanifa’s views and approach as known through other means concerning these issues. These include Imam Abu Hanifa’s al-Wasiyyah, Abu Muti al-Balkhi’s report of al-Fiqh al-Absat, and the Aqidah of Tahawiyyah, in which Imam Tahawi (239–321 AH/853–933 CE) recorded the creeds transmitted from Abu Hanifa and his two students, Imam Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani.]

The first issue he discussed in this book relating to our subject is the position of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. The religious sects questioned the legitimacy of the caliphate of some of them. Who among them possessed greater merit than the others? Were all of them Muslims? These questions were not merely historical judgments about certain figures of the past. Rather, they raised the fundamental question of whether the manner in which these caliphs had been made imams of the Muslims would be recognized as the lawful method of appointing the head of an Islamic state. Moreover, if the caliphate of any one of them were doubted, the question would arise whether the consensus-based decisions made during his time would be recognized as part of Islamic law, and whether the caliph’s own decisions would receive the status and authority of legally valid precedents. The questions of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of his caliphate, whether he possessed faith, and even whether one of them had superiority over another all inevitably came back to the question of whether later Muslims trusted that early Islamic society, accepted its collective decisions, and accepted the decisions reached on the basis of the direct guidance and training of the Prophet (PBUH), through which all knowledge of the Qur’an, the Sunnah of the Messenger, and Islamic law was transmitted to later generations.

The second question concerned the position of the community of the Companions. One group described most of them as unjust and misguided, and even as unbelievers, because they had made the first three caliphs imams. The Kharijites and Mu’tazilites pronounced a large number of them unbelievers and sinners. This question, too, did not later remain merely a historical question. Rather, it automatically raised the question of whether the rulings transmitted through them from the Prophet (PBUH) would constitute sources of Islamic law.

The third important question concerned the definition of faith, the fundamental distinction between faith and unbelief, and the effects and consequences of sin. Fierce controversy arose over this among the Kharijites, Mu’tazilites, and Murji’a. This, too, was not merely a theological question; it was connected with the formation of Muslim society. For whatever decision was reached concerning it would necessarily affect the social rights of Muslims and matters relating to their law. Furthermore, in an Islamic state it raised the question of how religious functions such as Friday prayer and congregational prayer, the establishment of courts and the judicial system, and political functions such as war and jihad could properly be carried out under sinful rulers—or whether they could be carried out at all.

Imam Abu Hanifa established the view and approach of the Ahl al-Sunnah concerning all these issues as follows:

On the Rightly Guided Caliphs

After the Messenger of Allah, the best of people was Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (RA), then Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA), then Uthman ibn Affan (RA), and thereafter Ali ibn Abi Talib (RA), may Allah be pleased with them. All of them were upon the truth and lived by the truth. [Mulla Ali al-Qari, commentary on al-Fiqh al-Akbar, pp. 74–87, 1348 AH edition printed by the Mujtabai Press, Delhi; al-Maghnisari, commentary on al-Fiqh al-Akbar, pp. 25–25, Dairat al-Ma’arif, Hyderabad, 1321 AH.]

The Aqidah of Tahawiyyah explains this further as follows: “We first affirm the caliphate of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (RA), considering him the most virtuous of the entire ummah after the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). Then we affirm it for Umar ibn al-Khattab (RA), then for Uthman (RA), and thereafter for Ali ibn Abi Talib (RA). These are the Rightly Guided Caliphs, the truth-following caliphs and rightly guided imams.” [Ibn Abi al-Izz al-Hanafi, commentary on Tahawiyyah, pp. 403–416, Dar al-Ma’arif, Egypt, 1373 AH.]

It is also noteworthy in this connection that Imam Abu Hanifa personally loved Ali (RA) more than Uthman (RA). [Al-Qardari, Manaqib al-Imam al-A’zam, vol. 2, p. 72, first edition, 1321 AH, Hyderabad.] No preference may be given to either of the two eminent men over the other. [Ibn Abd al-Barr, al-Intiqa, p. 163, al-Matba’a al-Qudsiyya, Cairo, 1370 AH; al-Sarakhsi, Sharh al-Siyar al-Kabir, vol. 1, pp. 157–158, Egyptian edition, 1957 CE. Imam Malik and Yahya ibn Sa’id al-Qattan also held this view. Ibn Abd al-Barr, al-Isti’ab, vol. 2, p. 467.] But, accepting the decision reached by the majority regarding the selection of Uthman (RA), he established the collective creed that the order of merit was the same as the order of succession to the caliphate.

Regarding the Companions

“We mention the Companions only in a good manner.” [Mulla Ali al-Qari, p. 87; al-Maghnisari, p. 26.]

The Aqidah of Tahawiyyah explains this in greater detail as follows:

“We love all the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). We do not exceed the bounds regarding our love for any one of them, nor do we revile any of them. We dislike those who harbor hatred toward them and speak ill of them. We mention them only in a good manner.” [Ibn Abi al-Izz, p. 398.]

As for the civil war among the Companions, Imam Abu Hanifa did not hesitate to express his view. He clearly stated that Ali (RA) was more in the right than those with whom he fought—plainly including those who took part in the Battles of the Camel and Siffin. [Al-Makki, vol. 2, pp. 83–84; al-Qardari, vol. 2, pp. 71–72.] This was not merely Imam Abu Hanifa’s view; all Ahl al-Sunnah agreed on this point. Al-Hakim ibn Hajar mentioned it in al-Isaba, vol. 2, p. 502. But he completely refrained from condemning the opposing side.

The Definition of Faith

“Faith is the affirmation and belief.” [Mulla Ali al-Qari, p. 103; al-Maghnisari, p. 33.]

In the work Al-Wasiyyat, he explained this as follows: “Faith is the name for acknowledging with the tongue and believing in the heart.” Proceeding further, he gave this additional explanation: “Deeds are separate from faith, and faith is separate from deeds. The proof of this is that at times deeds may be absent from a believer, but faith does not become absent. … For example, it may be said that zakat is not obligatory upon a person without wealth; but it cannot be said that faith is not obligatory upon him.” [Mulla Husayn, Al-Jawharat al-Munifah Sharh fi Wasiyyat al-Imam Abi Hanifah, pp. 3, 6, and 7. Dairat al-Ma’arif, Hyderabad, 1321 AH.] In this way, he rejected and opposed the Kharijites’ view that deeds constitute the essence of faith and that sin necessarily entails lack of faith.

The Difference Between Sin and Unbelief

“On the basis of no sin—however great it may be—do we declare any Muslim an unbeliever, so long as he does not acknowledge it to be lawful. We cannot remove faith from him; rather, we fundamentally regard him as a believer. In our view, a believer may be a fasiq (sinner), but not an unbeliever—such a thing is possible.” [Mulla Ali al-Qari, pp. 86–89; al-Maghnisari, pp. 27–28.]

In Al-Wasiyyat, he expressed this matter as follows:

“All the sinful members of Muhammad’s ummah are believers, not unbelievers.” [Mulla Husayn, p. 6.]

In Al-Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah, this was explained further as follows:

“A servant does not leave faith except by denying the very thing that brought him into faith.” [Ibn Abi al-Izz, p. 265.]

Once, Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) engaged in a debate with the Kharijites on this matter. This debate fully illuminated this creed and its social consequences. A large group of Kharijites came to him and said that two funeral processions were present at the mosque door. One was that of a drunkard who had died while drinking alcohol. The second was that of a woman who had become pregnant through fornication and, overcome by shame, had died by suicide. He asked: What community did these people belong to? Were they Jews? They replied, No. He asked: Were they Christians? They replied, No. He asked: Were they Magians (fire worshippers)? They replied, No. He then asked: To what community did they belong? They answered that they belonged to the community that professes the testimony of Islam. The Imam asked: Tell me, is that an element of faith? They said: Faith does not consist of a third, fourth, or fifth part. Ultimately, how much of faith do you acknowledge that testimony to be? They replied: The whole of faith. The Imam then immediately asked them: Since you yourselves are calling them believers, why are you asking me? They replied: We want to know whether they are destined for Paradise or for Hell. The Imam answered: Since you wish to know, I shall say of them what Allah’s prophet Abraham said concerning sinners worse than them:

—“O Allah! Whoever follows me is of me, and whoever disobeys me—then surely You are Forgiving, Merciful.” —Ibrahim: 36

******************

Allah’s other prophet Jesus also said concerning sinners worse than them:

****************

—“If You punish them, they are indeed Your servants; and if You forgive them, You are indeed the Almighty, the All-Wise.” —Al-Ma’idah: 118

Allah’s other prophet Noah said:

****************

—“Their reckoning is only upon my Lord, if you could understand. And I am not one to drive away the believers.” —Al-Shu‘ara’: 113–114

Upon hearing the Imam’s reply, those Kharijites were compelled to acknowledge the error in their own thinking. [Al-Makki, vol. 1, pp. 124–125.]

The Fate of the Sinful Believer’—

“We do not say that sin is harmless for a believer. Nor do we say that a believer will not enter Hell; nor do we say that if he is a fasiq, he will remain in Hell forever.” [Mulla Ali al-Qari, p. 92; al-Maghnisabi, pp. 28–29.]

“Nor, like the Murji’ah, do we say that our good deeds must certainly be accepted and our errors and shortcomings must certainly be forgiven.” [Al-Maghnisabi, p. 93, and Al-Maghnisabi, p. 29.]

‘Al-Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah’—to it he adds the following:

“We do not declare any member of the people of the qiblah destined for Paradise, nor do we declare any of them destined for Hell. Nor do we pronounce them guilty of unbelief, polytheism, or hypocrisy, so long as nothing of that nature is actually manifested by them. As for their intentions, we leave them to Allah.” [Ibn Abi al-Izz, pp. 212–213.]

The Consequence of This Creed

Thus, between the extreme views of the Shi‘a, Kharijites, Mu‘tazilah, and Murji’ah, the Imam presented such a balanced creed that it protects Muslim society from disorder and mutual conflict and hatred, while also preventing its members from moral bankruptcy and being incited to sin. When the historical circumstances of the turbulent period in which he presented this explanation of the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah are brought before one’s eyes, it becomes evident that this was a great achievement of his, through which he did his utmost to keep the ummah established upon the true and straightforward path. The meaning of this creed was that the ummah had complete confidence in the early Islamic society established by the Prophet (peace be upon him). The ummah accepts the decisions reached by the members of that society, whether by consensus or by majority. It regards as legally valid and correct both the caliphates of the Companions whom they successively chose as caliphs and the decisions made during their times. The ummah also accepts the complete knowledge of the Shariah that later generations received through the members of that society—that is, the noble Companions. Although this creed was not Imam Abu Hanifah’s own invention, and although a large number of members of the ummah held this creed at that time, the Imam rendered a great service by compiling it in written form. Through this, ordinary Muslims could learn what their distinctive views and path were in opposition to the various sects.

The Formulation of Islamic Law

But the greatest achievement of Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him)—the achievement that has granted him enduring greatness in the history of Islam—was that he filled the vacuum that had appeared in the Islamic legal system when, after the Rashidun Caliphate, the path of shura had been closed. We have already indicated its effects and consequences. All thoughtful people could appreciate the harm that resulted from nearly a century passing in this condition.

On the one hand, the boundaries of the Muslim lands had expanded from Sindh to Spain, and countless peoples, with their own distinct civilizations, customs, traditions, and circumstances, were being incorporated into the Muslim realm. Within the country, problems relating to the economy, the arts and crafts, agriculture, commerce and trade, marriage, administration, and civil and criminal laws were arising day by day. Beyond the country, this vast and extensive empire had relations with many nations of the world, giving rise to issues of war and peace, diplomatic relations, commercial transactions, travel by land and sea, customs duties, and so forth. Since Muslims possessed a distinct philosophy, way of life, and fundamental principles, it was absolutely essential for them to resolve all these ever-new problems according to their own laws and regulations. In short, on one side stood this immense challenge of the age—the challenge Islam had to confront; on the other, the situation was that after the end of the Rashidun Caliphate, no recognized legal institution remained where reliable Muslim scholars, jurists, and experts could sit together to discuss these problems, present dependable solutions in accordance with the fundamental principles of the Sharia, and have those solutions recognized as law for the country’s courts and government departments and implemented uniformly throughout the land.

The caliph, governors, rulers, and qadis and judges all recognized this loss. For no mufti, ruler-judge, or head of any single department could easily resolve, at the proper time, all the various problems that arose daily through personal ijtihad and the force of individual learning and reflection. Although different individuals resolved them independently and in different ways, this created a tangle of conflicting verdicts. The difficulty was that only the government could establish such an institution. But political power was in the hands of people who themselves knew that they possessed no moral standing or trust among the Muslims. Far from facing the jurists, it was difficult for them even to tolerate them. Laws enacted under their authority could in no circumstances become part of Islamic law in the eyes of Muslims. To fill this vacuum, Ibn al-Muqaffa, in his work al-Sahabah, proposed to al-Mansur that the caliph establish a council of learned men, in which respected people of every viewpoint and school of thought would present their knowledge and opinions. The caliph would then issue his own decision on each problem, and the caliph’s decision would become law. But Mansur was not so unaware of himself as to commit such a foolish act. His decisions could not be the decisions of Abu Bakr and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them). The age of his decisions could not exceed his own age. Indeed, he did not even hope that a single Muslim could be found throughout the country who would faithfully observe the laws he had devised. They might have been secular laws (Secure Law), but they could not have been even a part of Islamic law.

In this situation, Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) chose an entirely different path. He remained completely detached from the state and government and established a private legislative council himself. Only a person with a thoroughly independent way of thinking could conceive such a proposal. Moreover, only someone who had such confidence in his own competence, talent, character, and moral standing that, even if he established such an institution and formulated laws, those laws would become effective without any political sanction—through their own excellence, variety, purity, conformity with the surrounding circumstances, and the moral influence of their formulators—could have the courage to do so. The nation itself would accept them, and the state and government would be compelled to accept them of their own accord. The Imam did not possess knowledge of the unseen, yet within half a century after his death, results truly appeared that he had foreseen in advance. But he knew himself and his companions. He understood the social mentality of the Muslims and observed the circumstances of the age with deep attention. As a wise and farsighted man, he had correctly concluded that by filling this vacuum through his personal standing, the vacuum would genuinely be filled.

The members of this council were the Imam’s own disciples, whom he had trained over many years in his legal institution to think about legal problems regularly, conduct research through theoretical methods, and derive conclusions from arguments and evidence. Almost all of them, in addition to studying under the Imam, had learned the Quran, Hadith, fiqh, and other auxiliary sciences—such as language, grammar, literature, history, and biographies—from other leading teachers of the era. Different disciples were regarded as especially proficient in different fields. For example, some held a distinguished position in qiyas and ra’y (reasoning and opinion); others possessed extensive knowledge of Hadith, the fatwas (opinions) of the Companions, and the precedents of earlier caliphs and qadis; while others were particularly skilled in the science of tafsir, a particular branch of law, linguistics, grammar, or maghazi (knowledge relating to battles and military campaigns). Regarding the rank and standing of these men, the Imam himself once said at one of his gatherings:

“There are thirty-six of them: twenty-two are qualified to become qadis, six are qualified to issue fatwas, and two possess the qualifications to train qadis and muftis.” [Al-Makki, vol. 2, p. 246]

The biographers have recorded the method by which this council operated; we shall relate it in their own words. Al-Muwaffaq ibn Ahmad al-Makki (died 568 AH—1172 CE) wrote:

Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him) compiled his madhhab in consultation with them—meaning his capable and expert disciples. He exerted the utmost effort for the religion to the best of his ability, driven by the enthusiasm and zeal he possessed and by the complete sincerity in his heart toward Allah, the Messenger of Allah, and the believers.

For these reasons, he did not like to complete this work solely according to his personal opinion, excluding his disciples. He would present each problem to them, explain its various aspects, listen to their knowledge, reasoning, and opinions, and express his own view as well. Sometimes discussion of a single matter would continue for months. Once a view or decision had finally been settled, Qadi Abu Yusuf would record it in the Kutub al-Usul (books of principles). [Al-Makki, vol. 2, p. 133]

Ibn al-Bazzaz al-Qardari (author of Fatawa Bazzaziyyah, died 827 AH—1424 CE) says:

His disciples would discuss each problem with complete openness, examining it from every perspective. During this time, the Imam would listen silently to what they said. Then he would begin his own discourse on the problem under discussion, and such silence would prevail in the gathering that it seemed as though no one but him was present. [Al-Qardari, vol. 2, p. 108]

Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak said: Once, a problem was discussed continuously in this gathering for three days. On the afternoon of the third day, when I heard the cry of “Allahu Akbar,” I understood that the matter had been decided. [Al-Makki, second volume, p. 54]

From the account of another of the Imam’s disciples, Abu Abdullah, it is learned that after Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him) expressed his opinions in this gathering, he would later have them read back to him. In his own words: I would read the Imam’s statements aloud to him. While recording the decisions of the gathering, Abu Yusuf would simultaneously record his own statements as well. Therefore, when reading, I would try to omit his statements and read only the Imam’s own words to him. One day, I accidentally read a different statement as well. The Imam asked whose statement it was. [Al-Qardari, vol. 2, p. 109]

It is also known from al-Makki’s account that the decisions recorded in this gathering had already been organized during Imam Abu Hanifah’s lifetime into chapters and sections under separate headings:

Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy on him) was the first person to compile the knowledge of this Sharia. No one had done this before him. ……… He gathered it into chapters and sections under separate headings. [Al-Makki, vol. 2, p. ]

We previously mentioned, quoting al-Makki, that 83,000 legal problems were settled in this gathering. The gathering did not discuss only those problems that individuals or the state had actually faced up to that time; rather, it also imagined the possible forms of various matters and discussed them, seeking solutions so that if a problem not yet encountered arose in the future, the law would contain a solution for it. These problems were connected with nearly every branch of law. International law [People today hold the mistaken notion that international law is a new discipline. The first person to establish this branch of law is said to have been the Dutchman Grotius (Grotius, 1583–1645 CE). But anyone who has seen Kitab al-Siyar by Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Shaybani (132–189 AH, 749–805 CE), a disciple of Imam Abu Hanifah, knows that this knowledge had been compiled in great detail under Imam Abu Hanifah nine hundred years before Grotius. It discussed most aspects of international law and its major complex problems. In recent times, a group of scholars has acknowledged this fact, and an organization called the Shaibani Society of International Law has also been established in Germany.] (for which the term al-misr was used), constitutional law, civil and criminal law, court procedures, separate laws governing all branches of economic life, laws concerning personal matters such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance, and the rules and regulations of worship. We find all these headings in the tables of contents of the books later written by Imam Abu Yusuf and, subsequently, Imam Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Shaybani, using the material compiled by this gathering.

The result of this proper codification was that people gradually lost confidence in the work of individual mujtahids, muftis, and qadis. A council of respected scholars had examined the rulings of the Quran and Hadith, past decisions, and precedents, and, under the leadership and supervision of a penetrating thinker like Imam Abu Hanifah, presented the provisions of the Sharia in an exceptionally clear form. It then carried out extensive ijtihad on the basis of the fundamental principles of the Sharia and compiled an acceptable body of law for possible needs arising in every area of life. After this, the provisions compiled and collected by scattered individuals could scarcely attain standing. Thus, as soon as this work became publicly known, the people, rulers, and judges alike were compelled to turn to it. For

it was the demand of the times, and people had long felt the need for precisely such a thing. Thus the celebrated jurist Yahya ibn Adam (died 203 AH—818 CE) said: In the face of Imam Abu Hanifah’s views, the market for the views of other jurists has grown cold. His knowledge alone spread throughout various regions, and caliphs, imams, and rulers began issuing decisions on its basis; transactions came to be conducted in its light. [Al-Makki, vol. 2, p. 41] By the time of Caliph al-Ma’mun (198–218 AH—813–833 CE), the situation had reached the point that one jurist opposed to Abu Hanifah once advised the grand vizier Fadl ibn Sahl to issue an order halting the application of Hanafi fiqh. The grand vizier summoned the experts and asked their opinion on the matter. “They all agreed and said, ‘Do not do this; the people of the entire country will rise against you. The person who advised you has incomplete knowledge.’” The vizier said, “I myself do not agree with them, and the Commander of the Faithful will not agree to it either.” [Al-Makki, vol. 2, pp. 157–158; Al-Qardari, vol. 2, pp. 106–107]

Thus an important event took place in history: the laws formulated by a private legislative institution established by one man became the laws of various countries and states solely because of the character of that man and the moral standing of its compilers. A second important result also emerged: it opened a new path for Muslim legal scholars in formulating Islamic law. However distinct the major systems of fiqh later developed may have been in their methods of ijtihad and their results, this was the model for them. They were established with this model before them.

Chapter Eight

Imam Abu Hanifah’s Views on the Caliphate and Related Matters

Imam Abu Hanifah held an extremely clear view regarding politics. His view encompassed every aspect and branch of political theory and the administration of the state. On certain fundamental matters, his view differed from that of the other imams. Here we shall discuss each aspect and branch and present his views.

One: Sovereignty

Whatever philosophy of statecraft is discussed, the fundamental question is: Whose is sovereignty, and for whom is this sovereignty to be established? Imam Abu Hanifa’s (may Allah have mercy on him) doctrine regarding sovereignty was the universally acknowledged fundamental doctrine of Islam. That is, Allah Almighty is the true possessor of sovereign power. As His representative, the Messenger possesses the right to be obeyed. The command of Allah and the Messenger is the supreme and comprehensive law, in opposition to which no course of action may be adopted except obedience. Since he was a jurist, he expressed this matter in the language of law rather than political philosophy:

Whenever I find a ruling in the Book of Allah, I firmly accept it. If I do not find that ruling in the Book of Allah, I accept the Sunnah of the Messenger and those sound hadiths of his that are famous among reliable people through reliable chains of transmission. If I find no ruling in the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of the Messenger, I follow the statements of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah—that is, their ijma, or unanimous consensus. When they differ, I accept whichever Companion’s statement I wish and reject whichever I wish. But I do not accept anyone’s statement in opposition to theirs….. The remaining people are the others. They have the right to ijtihad, just as I do. [Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Baghdad, vol. 13, p. 368; al-Makki, Manaqib al-Imam al-A’zam Abi Hanifa, vol. 1, p. 89; al-Dhahabi, Manaqib al-Imam Abi Hanifa wa Sahibayhi, p. 20.]

Ibn Hazm says:

The madhhab of Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) was that whenever even a weak hadith was found, analogy and personal opinion would be abandoned in its favor. All his students agreed on this. [Al-Dhahabi, p. 21]

From this it becomes unquestionably clear that he accepted the Qur’an and the Sunnah as the Final Authority. His belief was that legal sovereignty

(Legal Sovereignty) belongs to Allah and His Messenger. In his view, the scope for formulating laws through analogy and personal opinion was limited to those matters in which no ruling of Allah and the Messenger existed. The fundamental reason he gave the personal statements of the Companions of the Messenger (peace be upon him) precedence over the statements of others was that a Companion might have known an instruction of the Messenger of Allah, and that might have been the source of his statement—such a possibility exists in the case of a Companion. Therefore, in matters on which the Companions differed, he would strictly accept a Companion’s statement; he would never issue a ruling according to his own opinion that opposed the statements of all the Companions. For that would risk knowingly opposing the Sunnah. Of course, among these statements, one might be closer to the Sunnah, and he tried to determine that through analogy. During the lifetimes of the Imams, he was accused of giving analogy precedence over the ‘nass’ (explicit ruling). Refuting this accusation, he said:

‘By Allah, whoever says that we give analogy precedence over the nass is lying and falsely accusing us. After the nass, what need can there be for analogy? [Al-Sha‘rani, Kitab al-Mizan, vol. 1, p. 61, al-Matba‘at al-Zahariyyah, Egypt, 3rd ed., 1925.]

Once Caliph al-Mansur wrote to him, ‘I have heard that you give analogy precedence over hadith.’ In reply, he wrote:

‘O Commander of the Believers. What you have heard is not true. First of all, I act according to the Book of Allah. Then according to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah. Then according to the judgments of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali—may Allah be pleased with them all. When they differed, however, I applied analogy. [Al-Sha‘rani, Kitab al-Mizan, vol. 1, p. 62.]

Two: The Correct Method of Establishing the Caliphate

Imam Abu Hanifa’s (may Allah have mercy on him) view regarding the caliphate was that first seizing power by force and then obtaining the bay‘ah (oath of allegiance) through influence was not a lawful means of establishing it. The true caliphate is the one established with the consent and consultation of people qualified to express an opinion. He expressed this view in such a perilous situation that anyone voicing it had virtually no hope of keeping his head on his shoulders. According to the statement of al-Mansur’s secretary, Rabi‘ ibn Yunus, he summoned Imam Malik, Ibn Abi Dhi’b, and Imam Abu Hanifa and said: ‘Allah Almighty has granted me this dominion among this ummah. What is your opinion regarding it? Am I worthy of it?’

Imam Abu Hanifa’s Opinion

Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said: ‘If you were not worthy of it, Allah Almighty would not have entrusted it to you.’

Ibn Abi Dhi’b said:

‘Allah grants worldly dominion to whomever He wills. But He grants dominion in the Hereafter to the one who desires it and whom Allah grants the ability to attain it. If you obey Allah, Allah’s grace will draw nearer to you. Otherwise, if you disobey Him, His grace will move away from you. The truth is that the caliphate is established with the consent of God-fearing people. Whoever seizes the caliphate for himself has no piety or fear of Allah. You and your supporters are far from divine grace and have strayed from the truth. If you now seek peace from Allah and draw near to Him through pure and righteous deeds, this blessing will fall to your lot. Otherwise, you yourself will become your own victim.’

Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) said that while Ibn Abi Dhi’b was saying this, Malik and I were gathering up our respective garments, thinking that perhaps his head would be severed at that very moment and the splashes of his blood would fall on our clothes.

Then al-Mansur turned to Imam Abu Hanifa and asked, ‘What is your opinion?’ He replied:

‘For the sake of religion, a seeker of the truth keeps away from anger. If you ask your conscience, you will realize for yourself that you did not summon us for Allah’s sake; rather, you want us to speak according to your wishes, so that our statements become public and the people know what we say. The truth is that you became caliph by a method through which not even two people among those qualified to express an opinion reached agreement regarding your caliphate. Yet the caliphate is established only through the unanimous consent and consultation of the Muslims. Consider that Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah have mercy on him) refrained from making a decision for six long months until the bay‘ah of the people of Yemen arrived.’

After saying these words, all three rose. Al-Mansur later sent Rabi‘ to the three men with three bags of dirhams. He instructed him to give the money to Malik if he accepted it, but if Abu Hanifa and Ibn Abi Dhi’b accepted it, to behead them. Imam Malik accepted the gift. When Rabi‘ went to Ibn Abi Dhi’b, he said, ‘I do not even consider this money lawful for al-Mansur himself; how could I consider it lawful for myself?’ Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) said, ‘Even if my head were cut off, I would not touch this money.’ When al-Mansur heard this account, he said, ‘This disinterest saved the lives of those two.’ [Al-Qardari, Manaqib al-Imam al-A‘zam, vol. 2, pp. 15–16. In al-Qardari’s account there is one matter I have never been able to understand: that Hazrat Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) refrained from issuing judgments for months until the bay‘ah of the people of Yemen arrived.]

Three: Conditions for Eligibility for the Caliphate

Until the time of Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him), the conditions for eligibility for the caliphate had not been described in as much detail as they were by later researchers and writers such as al-Mawardi and Ibn Khaldun. This was because most of these conditions were then accepted almost without discussion: being Muslim, male, free (not a slave), learned, possessing sound judgment, and free of physical defects, and so on. By then, however, two issues had become subjects of discussion, and it had become necessary to know the answers clearly. One: Can an oppressive and immoral—sinful—person (a zalim and fasiq) become a legitimate caliph? Two: Is it necessary to be Qurashi for the caliphate?

The Leadership of a Zalim and Fasiq

His view regarding the leadership of a fasiq has two aspects, which must be properly understood. When he expressed his view on this matter, Iraq in particular and the Muslim world in general were experiencing a period of fierce conflict between two extremist doctrines. On one side it was emphatically asserted that the leadership of a zalim and fasiq was entirely impermissible and wholly illegitimate. No social act of Muslims could be valid under such leadership. On the other side it was asserted that no matter how a zalim and fasiq seized control of the state, once his authority was established, his leadership and caliphate became completely legitimate. Between these two extreme doctrines, Imam al-A‘zam (may Allah have mercy on him) presented a highly balanced view. The details of this view are as follows:

In al-Fiqh al-Akbar he says: ‘Prayer is permissible behind any believer, whether righteous or sinful. [Mulla Ali al-Qari, Commentary on Fiqh Akbar, p. 91]

Imam al-Tahawi explains this Hanafi position in al-‘Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah, writing:

‘Hajj and jihad will continue under the authority of the Muslim ulu al-amr until the Day of Resurrection, whether that ulu al-amr is righteous or sinful, good or evil. No one may invalidate these acts or bring their continuity to an end. [Ibn Abi al-‘Izz al-Hanafi, Sharh al-Tahawiyyah, p. 322.]

That is one aspect of the issue under discussion. The other is that, in his view, adalat is an essential condition for the caliphate. No zalim or fasiq person can be a legitimate caliph, judge, ruler, or mufti. It is a separate matter that after such a person has actually taken office, the acts Muslims perform under him in their social life according to the correct rulings of the Shariah will be permissible and valid, and the judgments rightly issued by the judges he appoints will be enforceable. The renowned Hanafi Imam Abu Bakr al-Jassas stated this matter very clearly in his work Ahkam al-Qur’an (The Legal Rulings of the Qur’an). He writes:

‘Therefore, it is not permissible for any zalim or oppressor to be a prophet or the caliph of a prophet. Nor is it valid for him to be a judge or hold any office on the basis of which people become obliged to accept his word in matters of religion, such as being a mufti, witness, or narrator of hadith from the Prophet (peace be upon him)……. [“My covenant does not reach the wrongdoers”—al-Baqarah 2:124] establishes that anyone who assumes leadership and authority in matters of religion must be upright and just. This verse proves that the leadership and authority of a fasiq and sinner is invalid. He cannot be a caliph. If a fasiq establishes himself in this position, obedience and compliance with him are not obligatory upon the people. This is what the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: there is no obedience to a creature in disobedience to the Creator. This verse also establishes that a fasiq cannot be a judge or magistrate. Even if he becomes a judge, his ruling cannot be enforced. Likewise, his testimony cannot be accepted, nor can a report narrated by him from the Prophet (peace be upon him) be accepted. If he is a mufti, his fatwa may not be followed. [Abu Bakr al-Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 80.]

Proceeding further, al-Jassas clearly states that this was the madhhab of Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him). He then discusses in detail what a great injustice it was to Imam Abu Hanifa to accuse him of legitimizing the imamate and leadership of a fasiq:

‘Some people have assumed that, according to Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him), the imamate and caliphate of a fasiq are legitimate. ……..If this was not an intentional lie, it is a mistaken assumption. Perhaps its cause is that he said—and he was not alone in this; all the Iraqi jurists whose statements are well known also said—that if a judge is himself just, his judgment will be correctly enforced even if a zalim appoints him. Prayer behind these imams is also permissible despite their fisq. This view is entirely correct in its proper context. But it does not prove that Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) considered the imamate and authority of a fasiq permissible and legitimate. [Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 1, pp. 80–81. Shams al-A’immah al-Sarakhsi expressed this view of the Imam in al-Mabsut, vol. 1, p. 130.]

Both Imam al-Dhahabi and al-Muwaffaq al-Makki have quoted this statement of Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him):

‘The imamate and authority of an imam who unjustly consumes or uses fay’, that is, the people’s wealth, or resorts to injustice in his commands, is invalid; his command is not legitimate. [Al-Dhahabi, Manaqib al-Imam Abi Hanifa wa Sahibayhi, p. 17; al-Makki, Manaqib al-Imam al-A‘zam Abi Hanifa, vol. 2, p. 100]

A deep consideration of all these statements makes it completely clear that, in direct opposition to the Kharijites and Mu‘tazilites, Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) distinguished between de jure and de facto authority. According to the views of the Kharijites and Mu‘tazilites, in the absence of a just and qualified imam, the entire system of Muslim society and the Muslim state would inevitably become dysfunctional. There would be no judges, no Friday prayers or congregational prayers, no courts, and no religious, social, or political activity of Muslims could proceed validly. Imam Abu Hanifa removed this error by explaining that if a lawful imam is not possible, then whoever is de facto imam of the Muslims, the entire system of Muslim social life will continue lawfully under him—even if that imam’s authority is not legally legitimate in its proper sense.

In opposition to this extremism of the Mu‘tazilites and Kharijites, some imams among the Murji’ah and even the Ahl al-Sunnah themselves had adopted a distinct extremism, from which Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) protected the Muslims and its consequences. They too confused the de facto with the de jure. They declared the de facto authority of a fasiq legitimate in such a way that the inevitable consequence of this being de jure would have been for Muslims to sit silently and complacently under the rule of oppressive, unjust, and immoral rulers. Far from trying to change him, they would even abandon the thought of doing so. To remove this mistaken notion, Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) exerted all his strength and declared the truth: the imamate and authority of such people is entirely invalid.

The Condition of Being Qurashi for the Caliphate

Imam Abu Hanifa’s (may Allah have mercy on him) view on this matter was that the caliph must be Qurashi. [Al-Mas‘udi, vol. 2, p. 192.] This was not his view alone; it was the unanimous view of all Ahl al-Sunnah. [Al-Shahrastani, Kitab al-Milal wa al-Nihal, vol. 1, p. 106; Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi, al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, p. 340.] The reason was not merely that, in the view of the Shariah, the Islamic caliphate was the governing right of one particular tribe. Rather, the real reason was the situation of that time, in which it was necessary for the caliph to be Qurashi in order to keep the Muslims united. Ibn Khaldun stated this very clearly: at that time, the main safeguard of the Islamic state was the Arabs, and the greatest unity among the Arabs was possible under the caliphate of Quraysh. If a person from another tribe were accepted, the possibility of conflict and disunity would have been so evident that it would not have been wise to expose the caliphate system to such a danger. [Al-Muqaddimah, pp. 195–196.] For this reason, the Prophet (peace be upon him) instructed that the imam should be from Quraysh. [Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, vol. 13, pp. 93, 96, 97; Musnad Ahmad, vol. 3, pp. 129, 183; vol. 4, p. 421; al-Matba‘ah al-Maymaniyyah, Egypt, 1306 AH; Musnad Abi Dawud al-Tayalisi, hadith nos. 926, 2133; Dairat al-Ma‘arif, Hyderabad, 1321 AH edition.] Otherwise, if this office were prohibited to a non-Qurashi, Caliph Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) would not have said at the time of his death, ‘If Salim, the freedman of Hudhayfah, were alive, I would propose him as my successor.’ While instructing that the caliphate should remain among Quraysh, the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself clearly stated that the office would belong to them as long as certain special qualities remained among them. [Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari, vol. 13, p. 95.] This proves by itself that when these qualities are absent, the caliphate may belong to a non-Qurashi. The fundamental difference between the path of Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) and all Ahl al-Sunnah, on the one hand, and the views of those Kharijites and Mu‘tazilites who establish unrestricted legitimacy for a non-Qurashi caliphate—even going a step further and declaring a non-Qurashi more entitled to the caliphate—on the other, lies here. In their view, the real importance was democracy, even if its consequence was division and disunity. But Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama‘ah also considered the stability and cohesion of the state along with democracy.

Four: The Bayt al-Mal

Among the matters regarding which Imam Abu Hanifa most strongly objected to the contemporary caliphs was their lavish use of the state treasury and their encroachment upon the people’s wealth. In his view, injustice in issuing commands and embezzlement from the Bayt al-Mal were offenses grave enough to invalidate a person’s leadership. We have already mentioned this, quoting Imam al-Dhahabi. He also did not consider it permissible to turn into personal property the gifts and presents that came to the caliph from foreign states. In his view, these belonged to the people’s treasury, not to the caliph and his family. According to him, if they had not been caliphs of the Muslims, and if the caliph’s status had not been established through the collective strength and efforts of the Muslims in international affairs, the caliph would not have received these gifts and presents while sitting at home. [Al-Sarakhsi, Sharh al-Siyar al-Kabir, vol. 1, p. 98.] He also objected to the caliph’s arbitrary use of the Bayt al-Mal and to his gifts and donations. This was one of the chief reasons why he did not accept gifts from the caliphs.

When his fierce conflict with Caliph al-Mansur was underway, al-Mansur once asked him, ‘Why do you not accept my gift?’ He replied, ‘O Commander of the Believers, when have you ever given me a gift from your own money that I should refuse to accept it? If you gave from your own wealth, I would certainly accept it. But you have given me money from the Bayt al-Mal of the Muslims, although I have no right to their wealth. I do not fight to defend them so that I may receive a soldier’s share. Nor am I one of their children that I should receive a child’s share. I am not a poor man either, that I should receive the share due to the poor.’ [Al-Makki, vol. 1, p. 215.]

Because he refused to accept the office of judge, al-Mansur had him flogged thirty times. His body became drenched in blood. At that time, the caliph’s uncle, Abd al-Samad ibn Ali, severely rebuked him, saying, ‘What have you done? You have summoned a hundred thousand swords against yourself. This is the jurist of Iraq—indeed, the jurist of the entire East.’ Ashamed, al-Mansur sent the Imam thirty thousand dirhams, calculating one thousand dirhams for each stroke. But he refused to accept it. He was told, ‘Accept it and give it away in charity.’ He replied, ‘Does he possess any lawful wealth at all?’ [Al-Makki, pp. 215–216.]

Around this time, after enduring repeated persecution, when his final hour approached, he made a bequest that he should not be buried in any of the areas that al-Mansur had forcibly seized from the people to establish the city of Baghdad. Hearing of this bequest, al-Mansur cried out, ‘Abu Hanifa! Who will save me from your grasp in life and in death?’

Five: The Independence of the Judiciary from the Executive

His clear view regarding the judiciary was that, for the sake of justice, it must not merely be free from the intervention and influence of the executive; rather, the judge must possess enough authority to issue an order even against the caliph himself if he interfered with the rights of the people. At the final stage of his life, when he became certain that the government would not allow him to remain alive, he gathered his students and delivered a speech. Among other important matters, he also said in that speech:

‘If the Caliph commits an offense connected with the rights of the people, then the qadi nearest to him in rank (that is, the Qadi al-Qudat—the chief justice) must issue an injunction against him.’ [Al-Makki, vol. 2, p. 100.]

One of the chief reasons he refused to accept government office, particularly the office of qadi, during the rule of the Umayyads and Abbasids was that he did not find the office enjoying this status under their rule. There was no opportunity there to apply the provisions of the law to the Caliph; moreover, he feared that he would be used as an instrument of oppression. He would be forced to issue unjust judgments. And not only the Caliph, but also other persons connected with the Caliphal court, would interfere in his judgments.

During the rule of the Umayyads, Yazid ibn Hubayra, the governor of Iraq, was the first to compel him to accept government office. This was in 130 AH. At that time, such a storm of disaster had arisen in Iraq against the Umayyad Empire that within only two years it overturned the Umayyads’ throne. Ibn Hubayra wanted to accomplish his purposes by enlisting the influence of the leading jurists. He therefore summoned Ibn Abi Layla, Dawud ibn Abi al-Hind, Ibn Shubruma, and others and appointed them to important offices. Then he summoned Imam Abu Hanifa and said, ‘I am placing my seal in your hands. No order will be issued without your seal, and no money will leave the treasury without your approval.’ When he refused to accept the office, he was detained and threatened with flogging. The other jurists advised the Imam, ‘Be kind to yourself. We too were unwilling to accept office, but we accepted under compulsion. You should accept it as well.’ He replied, ‘Let alone his ordering the killing of someone and my approving it; even if he ordered me to count the doors of the mosque of Wasit, I would not be prepared to accept it. By Allah, I will take no part in this responsibility.’ Ibn Hubayra also offered him other offices, but he rejected them. He then decided to appoint him qadi of Kufa and swore that if Abu Hanifa refused this time, he would flog him. Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) also swore, saying, ‘For me, enduring his blows in this world is much easier than suffering punishment in the Hereafter. By Allah, even if he kills me, I will not accept it.’ At last, he struck him twenty or thirty times on the head. According to some reports, he was flogged ten times daily for ten or eleven days. But he remained firm in his refusal. Finally, he was told that the beating would kill him. He said, ‘Is there no one to advise him to grant me a respite so that I may request it from him?’ When Ibn Hubayra’s men conveyed this statement to Imam Abu Hanifa, he said, ‘Set me free so that I may consult my friends.’ As soon as Ibn Hubayra heard this, he released him. He left Kufa for Mecca and did not return from there before the fall of the Umayyad Empire. [Al-Makki, vol. 2, pp. 21, 24; Ibn Khallikan, vol. 5, p. 41; Ibn Abd al-Barr, al-Intiqa, p. 171.]

Afterward, during the Abbasid rule, al-Mansur began pressuring him to accept the office of qadi. We shall mention this matter later. During the revolt of Nafs al-Zakiyya and his brother Ibrahim against al-Mansur, the Imam openly supported them. Consequently, bitterness took root in Mansur’s heart against him. In the words of the historian al-Dhahabi, Mansur was burning himself to death with rage against him, without any fire. [Manaqib al-Imam, p. 30.] But it was not easy for Mansur to move against a person as influential as he was. Mansur knew how the killing of Imam Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) had generated hatred of the Umayyads among the Muslims, and how easily this had ultimately uprooted their power. Therefore, rather than kill him, Mansur considered it preferable to confine him in a golden cage and use him for his own purposes. For this reason, Mansur repeatedly offered him the office of qadi, even proposing to appoint him Qadi al-Qudat—the chief justice—of the entire Abbasid Empire. But he avoided it for a long time by making excuses and delaying. [Al-Makki, vol. 2, pp. 72, 173, 178.] Eventually, when Mansur began pressing him even more, the Imam explained why he could not accept the office. Once, speaking very gently during a discussion, he expressed his inability, saying, ‘A person who lacks the courage to enforce the law against you, your sons, and your commanders cannot be fit for this office. I do not possess such courage. Whenever you summon me, I feel as though my soul is about to leave my body merely upon returning.’ [Al-Makki, vol. 1, p. 215.] On another occasion he spoke more sternly. Addressing the Caliph, he said, ‘By Allah, even if I accepted this office willingly, I could not become one of your trusted men. Therefore, there can be no question of accepting it unwillingly and under duress. If my judgment in a matter goes against you and you threaten me, saying, “If you do not change your judgment, I will drown you in the Euphrates,” I would accept drowning in the river but would not change my judgment. Besides, you have many courtiers. They need a judge who will consider their words out of regard for you.’ [Al-Makki, vol. 2, p. 170; al-Khatib, vol. 13, p. 320.] Hearing all this, Mansur became certain that this man could not be confined in a golden cage, and then proceeded to take open revenge. He was flogged, thrown into prison and subjected to severe deprivation of food and drink, and kept under house arrest. According to some, he died a natural death; according to others, his life ended through poisoning. [Al-Makki, vol. 2, pp. 173, 174, 182; Ibn Khallikan, vol. 5, p. 46; al-Yafi’i, Mir’at al-Janan, p. 310.]

Six: The Right to Freedom of Expression

In his view, in Muslim society, that is, in the Islamic state, freedom of expression was as important as the independence of the judiciary. The Qur’an and Sunnah use the terms enjoining justice and forbidding injustice for this purpose. Mere expression of an opinion may itself be utterly unjust, destructive, opposed to morality and humanity—something no law can tolerate. But restraining people from wrongdoing and enjoining justice is genuine expression of opinion. By adopting this terminology, Islam not only established this particular sphere among all spheres of expression as a right of the people, but also identified it as a duty of the people. Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) deeply felt the importance of this right and duty, because under the system of government of his time this right had been taken away from Muslims. Doubts and disputes had also arisen in people’s minds about its being obligatory. On the one hand, the Murji’a were encouraging and inspiring the people to commit sins by propagating their beliefs; on the other hand, another sect called the Hashwiyya believed that enjoining justice and forbidding injustice against the government was itself a fitna. In addition, he tried to awaken the Muslims’ power to protest against the impiety, profligacy, oppression, and injustice of the Umayyad and Abbasid governments, and tried to define its limits. According to al-Jassas, in reply to a question from Ibrahim al-Sa’igh, a renowned and influential jurist of Khurasan, the Imam said, ‘Enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong is obligatory.’ Through the chain of transmission from Ikrima to Ibn Abbas, he also reminded him of the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him): ‘Hamza ibn Abd al-Muttalib is the best of the martyrs. After him, the best is the person who stands before a tyrannical ruler, speaks the truth, restrains him from wrongdoing, and is killed for this.’ This instruction had such a profound effect on Ibrahim that, after returning to Khurasan, he openly objected to Abu Muslim al-Khurasani, the founder of the Abbasid Empire (d. 136 AH/754 CE), over his oppression, persecution, and indiscriminate massacres. He repeatedly obstructed him. Eventually, Abu Muslim killed him. [Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 81.]

During the revolt of Ibrahim ibn Abd Allah (145 AH/763 CE), the brother of Nafs al-Zakiyya, Imam Abu Hanifa’s course of action was to openly support him and oppose al-Mansur. At that time, however, al-Mansur was staying in Kufa. Ibrahim’s army was advancing toward Basra, and a curfew remained in force throughout the night in the city. His famous disciple Zufar ibn al-Hudhayl relates: ‘At this critical time, Imam Abu Hanifa expressed his opinion openly, loudly, and emphatically. One day I even said to him, “Will you not desist until ropes have been fastened around all our necks?”’ [Al-Khatib, vol. 13, p. 330; al-Makki, vol. 2, p. 171.]

In 148 AH, or 765 CE, the inhabitants of Mosul revolted. After an earlier revolt, Mansur had obtained a pledge from them that if they revolted again in the future, their lives and property would be lawful for him. When they revolted again, Mansur summoned the leading jurists—including Imam Abu Hanifa—and asked them whether, according to the agreement, their lives and property would be lawful for him. The other jurists, relying on the contract, said, ‘If you forgive them, that would be worthy of your rank; otherwise, you may impose upon them whatever punishment you wish.’ Imam Abu Hanifa remained silent. Mansur asked, ‘What is your opinion?’ He replied, ‘The people of Mosul made lawful for you something that did not belong to them—that is, their blood. And you made them accept a condition over which you had no authority. Tell me: if a woman makes herself lawful for someone without marriage, does that make it lawful? If a person tells someone, “Kill me,” does that make killing him lawful for that person?’ Mansur replied, ‘No.’ The Imam said, ‘Then restrain your hand from the people of Mosul. It is not lawful for you to kill them.’ Hearing this reply, Mansur became displeased and dismissed the gathering of jurists. Then he summoned Abu Hanifa privately and said, ‘What you said is correct. But do not issue a fatwa that diminishes your stature and encourages the rebels.’ [Ibn al-Athir, vol. 5, p. 25; al-Qardari, vol. 2, p. 17; al-Sarakhsi, Kitab al-Mabsut, vol. 1, p. 129.]

He also expressed independent opinions against the courts. If a court issued an erroneous judgment, he would clearly point out any error in the law or ruling. In his view, showing respect for a court meant not allowing it to issue an erroneous judgment. For this offense, he was once prevented from giving judgments until the very last moment. [Al-Qardari, vol. 1, pp. 160, 165, 166; Ibn Abd al-Barr, al-Istiqa, pp. 125, 153; al-Khatib, vol. 13, p. 351.]

He went so far in matters of freedom of opinion that, in his view, even if someone spoke against legitimate leadership and a just government, insulted the contemporary leader, or even expressed an intention to kill him, it was not lawful to punish or detain that person so long as he had not firmly resolved to launch an armed rebellion and create disorder. As proof of this, he cited an incident involving Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). The incident is as follows: During his rule, five people were detained. They had been publicly insulting him in Kufa. One of them was saying, ‘I will kill him.’ Ali ordered that they be released. He was told, ‘But the man has expressed his intention to kill you.’ He said, ‘Should I kill him merely for expressing that intention?’ It was said, ‘They were also insulting you.’ He replied, ‘If you wish, you may insult him as well.’ Similarly, concerning opponents of the government, he cited as evidence a declaration by Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding the Kharijites. He had said to the Kharijites: ‘I will not prevent you from coming to the mosque, nor will I withhold you from the spoils of war, so long as you do not adopt an armed course against us.’ [Al-Sarakhsi, Kitab al-Mabsut, vol. 10, p. 125.]

Seven: The Question of Revolt against a Tyrannical Government

Whether one may revolt against the leader of the Muslims if he is tyrannical and sinful was an important question of that time. Even among Ahl al-Sunnah itself there were two opinions on this matter. According to a large group of Ahl al-Hadith (the followers of hadith), one must oppose such a leader only verbally and proclaim the truth, but one may not revolt. Even if the leader unjustly committed murder and bloodshed, unlawfully seized the people’s rights, or openly engaged in fisq—sinfulness—one could not revolt against him. [Al-Ash’ari, Maqalat al-Islamiyyin, vol. 2, p. 125.]

In contrast, Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) held that a tyrant’s leadership was not merely invalid; revolt against him was also permissible. It was not merely permissible; it was obligatory. The condition, however, was that there had to be a possibility of a successful and effective revolution, that a righteous and just person had to be placed in power in place of the tyrannical and sinful ruler, and that the result of the revolt would not be limited to loss of life and exhaustion of strength. Abu Bakr al-Jassas explained his view in these words:

‘His doctrine concerning war against a tyrannical ruler is well known. For this reason, al-Awza’i said, “We tolerated all of Abu Hanifa’s opinions, even when he agreed with the sword—that is, supported fighting against the tyrant. But this was unbearable for us.” Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “Enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong is first obligatory through speech. But if this straightforward method does not work, taking up the sword becomes obligatory.” [Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 81.]’

Elsewhere, citing Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak, he himself quotes a statement of Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him). This was at the time when Abu Muslim al-Khurasani had established a reign of oppression and persecution during the rule of the first Abbasid Caliph. At that time, Ibrahim al-Sa’igh, a jurist of Khurasan, came to Imam Abu Hanifa and discussed with him the matter of enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong. Later, the Imam mentioned this discussion to Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak and said:

‘When we had reached agreement that enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong is obligatory, Ibrahim suddenly said, “Extend your hand so that I may pledge allegiance to you.” On hearing this, the world went dark before my eyes. Ibn al-Mubarak said, “I asked him, ‘Why did this happen?’” He explained, “He called me to one of Allah’s rights, and I refused to accept it.” At last I told him, “If one person stands up for this alone, he will lose his life. That sacrifice will be of no benefit to the people. But if he finds a righteous helper, and a person suitable for leadership who is trustworthy in the affairs of Allah’s religion, then there is no obstacle.” Thereafter, whenever Ibrahim came to me, he pressed me regarding this matter as a creditor presses for repayment of a debt. I would say to him, “This is not the work of one individual. Even the Prophets did not possess this authority until a command came from heaven for it. [Only then] can this responsibility be undertaken. But it is such a task that if a person stands up for it, he will lose his reason. I fear that he will become guilty of assisting in his own destruction. If that person loses his life, the courage of others to face this danger will also disappear.” [Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 2, p. 39.]’

The Imam’s Own Conduct Regarding Revolt

The foregoing discussion makes his fundamental outlook on this matter clear. But before examining the course of action he adopted in the important revolts that took place during his lifetime, it is not possible to grasp his complete outlook.

The Revolt of Zayd ibn Ali

The first incident concerns Zayd ibn Ali. The Zaydi sect among the Shi’a claims affiliation with this event. He was the grandson of Imam Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) and the brother of Imam Muhammad al-Baqir. He was a great scholar, jurist, God-fearing man, and truth-loving elder of his time. Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) himself also learned from him. In 120 AH, or 738 CE, when Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik dismissed Khalid ibn Abd Allah al-Qasri from the governorship of Iraq and investigated him, Zayd was also summoned from Medina to Kufa to testify in the matter. For the first time in many years, a distinguished member of Ali’s family came to Kufa. Kufa was the center of the Shi’a, so his arrival suddenly infused the Alid movement with new life. Large numbers of people began gathering around him. The people of Iraq had already become restless after enduring the oppression and persecution of the wealthy Umayyads year after year. They had long been searching for a way to rise up. Finding a truth-loving scholar and jurist from Ali’s family, they felt blessed and regarded him as a gift for themselves. The people of Kufa assured him that one hundred thousand men were ready to support him. Fifteen thousand people pledged allegiance and duly registered their names. While preparations for the revolt were proceeding secretly, the Umayyad governor was informed of it. When Zayd realized that the government had learned of it, he revolted prematurely in Safar of 122 AH (740 CE). When fighting broke out, the Shi’a of Kufa abandoned him. Only 218 men remained with him in the battle. He was struck by an arrow and died during the fighting. [Al-Tabari, vol. 5, pp. 482, 505.]

In this revolt, he received Imam Abu Hanifa’s complete sympathy. He gave Zayd financial assistance and inspired the people to support him. [Al-Jassas, vol. 1, p. 81.] He compared Zayd’s revolt to the Messenger of Allah’s (peace be upon him) departure for the Battle of Badr. [Al-Makki, vol. 1, p. 260.] This means that, in his view, just as the Messenger of Allah’s adherence to the truth at that time was beyond doubt, so too was Zayd ibn Ali’s adherence to the truth beyond doubt. But when Zayd’s message reached him asking for his support, he told the messenger: ‘If I knew that the people would not abandon him and would truly support him, I would certainly join him in jihad, because he is the true and rightful Imam. But I fear that they will betray him as they betrayed his grandfather, our master Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him). Of course, I will certainly help him financially.’ [Al-Makki, vol. 1, p. 260.] This view was precisely in keeping with the principle he had expressed concerning revolt against a tyrannical ruler. He was well acquainted with the history and psychology of the Shi’a of Kufa. The full record of the character and conduct they had displayed since the time of Ali was before everyone’s eyes. Dawud ibn Ali, the grandson of Ibn Abbas, also warned Zayd against revolting, informing him in due time of the treachery of the people of Kufa. [Al-Tabari, vol. 5, pp. 487, 491.] Imam Abu Hanifa also knew that this movement was confined to Kufa. It had no influence in the other regions of the Umayyad Empire. Nor was there any organization elsewhere from which it could receive assistance. Even in Kufa, this immature movement had taken shape in only six months. Thus, judging by all outward indications, he could not hope that Zayd’s revolt would produce a successful revolution. Moreover, another probable reason for his not joining the revolt was that, at that time, he did not yet possess sufficient influence for his participation to remedy the movement’s weakness to any significant extent. Until 120 AH, leadership of Iraq’s Ahl al-Ra’y school had belonged to Hammad. Until then, Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) had merely been one of his disciples. At the time of Zayd’s revolt, only a year and a half or two years, perhaps somewhat more or less, had passed since he had assumed leadership of this institution of learning. He had not yet been recognized as the jurist of the East, nor had he acquired its influence and standing.

The Revolt of Nafs al-Zakiyya

The second revolt was that of Muhammad ibn Abd Allah (Nafs al-Zakiyya) and his brother Ibrahim ibn Abd Allah. He was a descendant of Imam Hasan ibn Ali. This was the event of 145 AH, or 762–63 CE. By then, Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) had acquired the full extent of his influence and prestige.

Their secret movement had been active since the rule of the Umayyads. Indeed, at one time al-Mansur, along with others among the rebels against the Umayyad Empire, had pledged allegiance to Nafs al-Zakiyya. [Al-Tabari, vol. 6, pp. 155, 156.] After the establishment of the Abbasid Empire, they went into hiding, while their call continued to spread secretly. Their missionaries were dispersed in Khurasan, al-Jazira, Rayy, Tabaristan, Yemen, and North Africa. Nafs al-Zakiyya established his headquarters in the Hijaz, while his brother Ibrahim’s headquarters was in Basra, Iraq. According to the historian Ibn al-Athir, one hundred swordsmen in Kufa were also ready to leap into the field in his support. [Al-Kamil, vol. 5, p. 18.] Al-Mansur had been aware of their secret movement from the outset and was extremely apprehensive about them. Their call was running parallel to the Abbasid call. The Abbasid call eventually led to the establishment of the Abbasid Empire. Their organization was by no means inferior to the Abbasid organization. For this reason, Mansur tried for several years to suppress the movement and adopted extreme measures to thwart it.

When Nafs al-Zakiyya effectively began his revolt from Medina in Rajab of 145 AH, Mansur became extremely alarmed, abandoned the construction of the city of Baghdad, and went to Kufa. He was not certain whether his empire would survive until this movement had been uprooted. Mansur would often say in bewilderment, ‘By Allah, I cannot think what to do. Reports of defeat are arriving from Basra, Qays, Ahwaz, Wasit, Mada’in, Sawad, and other places.’ There was fear that revolt would spread from every direction. For two whole months he had had no opportunity to change his clothes or sleep in a bed; he spent the entire night on his prayer mat. [Al-Tabari has recorded a detailed history of this movement in vol. 6, pp. 155–163. Above, we have mentioned its summary.] He kept a swift mount constantly ready in order to flee from Kufa. Had fortune not aided him, this movement would have overturned the foundations of his rule and the Abbasid Empire. [Al-Ya’qubi, vol. 1, p. 299.]

During this revolution, Imam Abu Hanifa’s conduct was completely distinct from that during the earlier revolt. We have already mentioned that Mansur was in Kufa at the time of that revolt, while a curfew was imposed in the city every night. At that time, he openly supported the movement with great force. Indeed, his disciples feared that all of us would be arrested and taken away. He instructed the people to support Ibrahim and advised them to pledge allegiance to him. [Al-Qardari, vol. 2, p. 72; Al-Makki, vol. 2, p. 84.] He described taking part in the revolt alongside Ibrahim as an act fifty or seventy times more meritorious than performing a voluntary Hajj. [Al-Qardari, vol. 2, p. 71; Al-Makki, vol. 2, p. 83.] He also said to a man named Abu Ishaq al-Fazari: “Your brother has supported Ibrahim. What your brother has done is far better than your fighting jihad against an unbeliever.” [Al-Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 81.] Abu Bakr al-Jassas, al-Muwaffaq al-Makki, Ibn al-Bazzaz, author of Fatawa al-Bazzaziyyah, and eminent jurists such as al-Qardari have quoted this statement of the Imam. The clear meaning of all these statements is that, in his view, striving to free Muslim society from internal disorder in leadership was many times more meritorious than fighting external unbelievers.

His most important and remarkable step was that he persuaded Hasan ibn Qahtaba, al-Mansur’s most trusted general and commander-in-chief, to refrain from fighting against Nafs al-Zakiyyah and Ibrahim. His father, Qahtaba, was the man whose sword, combined with Abu Muslim’s foresight and political skill, had laid the foundations of the Abbasid Empire. After his death, his son was appointed commander-in-chief. Of all the commanders, al-Mansur trusted him most. While stationed in Kufa, however, he became devoted to Imam Abu Hanifa. Once he said to the Imam: “You know all the sins I have committed up to now—that is, all the injustice and oppression I perpetrated while serving Mansur. Is there any way to have these sins forgiven?” The Imam replied: “If Allah knows that you regret and repent of your actions, that, if you are ordered in the future to kill an innocent Muslim, you are prepared to be killed yourself rather than kill him, and that you will not repeat your past actions—if you pledge this to Allah, that would be repentance for you.” Hearing this, Hasan pledged himself before the Imam. Shortly afterward, the revolt of Nafs al-Zakiyyah and Ibrahim took place. Mansur ordered Hasan to go to war against them. He came and informed the Imam. The Imam said: “Your repentance will remain valid. Otherwise, you will be held accountable before Allah for what you did in the past, and you will also be punished for what you do now.” Hasan renewed his repentance and told the Imam: “Even if my life is taken, I will not take part in this war.” He therefore went to Mansur and declared plainly: “Commander of the Believers, I will not go to this war. If everything I have done in your obedience up to now was also obedience to Allah, that is sufficient for me; but if it was disobedience to Allah, I do not wish to commit any more sins.” Mansur became extremely displeased and ordered Hasan’s arrest. Hasan’s brother Hamid came forward and said: “For about a year I have seen him behaving differently. Perhaps he has lost his mind. I will go to this war.” Later Mansur summoned his trusted men and asked them: “To which of these jurists did Hasan go?” They replied that, in particular, he had been visiting Abu Hanifa as well. [Al-Qardari, vol. 2, p. 22.]

If there is a possibility of a successful and righteous revolution, rebelling against a tyrannical government is not merely permissible and lawful; it is obligatory. The Imam’s conduct was entirely consistent with this doctrine. In this matter, Imam Malik’s conduct was also not opposed to that of Imam Abu Hanifa. During the revolt of Nafs al-Zakiyyah, he was asked: “We have pledged allegiance to Mansur; how can we now support another claimant to the caliphate?” In reply, he issued a fatwa: “The Abbasids’ oath of allegiance was taken under coercion, and an oath of allegiance obtained by coercion—whatever form it takes, whether an oath or a forced divorce—is invalid.” [The Abbasids customarily obtained a pledge from the people at the time of allegiance that their wives would be divorced if they violated it. That is why the Imam mentioned oaths and coerced divorce along with allegiance.] As a result of this fatwa, most people came to support Nafs al-Zakiyyah. Imam Malik later suffered punishment for issuing the fatwa. Ja‘far ibn Sulayman, the Abbasid governor of Medina, flogged him and had his hand bound to his shoulder. [Al-Tabari, vol. 6, p. 190; Ibn Khallikan, vol. 3, p. 285; Ibn Kathir, al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 10, p. 84; Ibn Khallikan, vol. 3, p. 191.]

Imam Abu Hanifa Was Not Alone in This Matter

It would be incorrect to think that Imam Abu Hanifa alone among Ahl al-Sunnah held this position regarding rebellion. The truth is that this was the view of the foremost religious leaders of the first Hijri century—the view that Imam Abu Hanifa expressed through his words and actions. In the first sermon he delivered after receiving the oath of allegiance to the caliphate, Abu Bakr said:

*******************

“Obey me so long as I obey Allah and His Messenger. But if I disobey Allah and His Messenger, you are not required to obey me.” [Ibn Hisham, vol. 4, p. 311; al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 5, p. 248.]

Umar said:

*******************

“Whoever pledges allegiance to anyone without consulting the Muslims, both he and the one to whom allegiance is pledged have deceived themselves and each other, and have offered themselves up to be killed.” [This is the wording of a report in Bukhari (Kitab al-Muharibin, Bab Rajm al-Hubla min al-Zina). Another report quotes Umar as saying: “It is not lawful for one to accept the office of emir when it has been given to him without consultation.” —Fath al-Bari, vol. 12, p. 125. Imam Ahmad also cites Umar as saying: “Whoever pledges allegiance to an emir without consulting the Muslims has no allegiance, nor does the person who pledges allegiance to him.” —Musnad Ahmad, vol. 1, hadith no. 391.]

When Husayn rebelled against the tyranny established by Yazid, many Companions were still alive. Almost all the jurists who had seen the Companions were also alive. Yet we have not come across any statement by a Companion or Successor that Husayn was about to commit a forbidden act. Those who tried to dissuade Imam Husayn did so on the grounds that the people of Iraq could not be trusted: “You will not succeed; by taking this step you will only throw yourself into destruction.” In other words, they all held the view that Imam Abu Hanifa later expressed—that rebelling against corrupt leadership is not inherently unlawful. Of course, before taking such a step, one must determine whether it is possible to replace corrupt leadership with righteous leadership. On the basis of the repeated letters from the people of Kufa, he believed that he had gained enough supporters to enable him to carry out a successful revolution with them. He therefore set out from Medina. The Companions who tried to dissuade him, on the other hand, believed that the people of Kufa could not be relied upon because of the betrayals they had committed against his father, Ali, and his brother, Hasan. Thus, the disagreement between those Companions and Imam Husayn was not over whether the step was lawful or unlawful; rather, it concerned the strategy to be adopted.

Similarly, when Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Ash‘ath rebelled against the Umayyads during the oppressive rule of al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, the leading jurists of the time—Sa‘id ibn Jubayr, al-Sha‘bi, Ibn Abi Layla, and al-Buhtari—stood beside him. According to Ibn Kathir’s account, a large regiment of scholars and jurists was with him. None of the scholars who did not support him said that the revolt was unlawful. The speeches these jurists delivered before Ibn al-Ash‘ath’s army on that occasion fully represented their outlook. Ibn Abi Layla said:

“Believers! Whoever sees oppression and persecution taking place and calls to wrongdoing, and regards it as evil in his heart, has escaped and attained deliverance. Whoever expresses disapproval with his tongue has earned reward and is superior to the first person. But whoever opposes these people with the sword in order to exalt Allah’s word and subdue the demands of the oppressors has made the unlawful lawful and opened an evil path among the community. Fight those who have strayed from the truth, who do not recognize the truth, who act according to wrongdoing, and who do not acknowledge wrongdoing as wrongdoing.”

Al-Sha‘bi said:

“Fight them. Do not think that fighting them is a bad deed. By Allah, to my knowledge there is no group on earth today more oppressive, tyrannical, or unjust in its judgments than they are. Therefore, let there be no weakness whatsoever in fighting them.”

Sa‘id ibn Jubayr said:

“Struggle against them, for they are tyrannical in their governance and arrogant in religious matters. They humiliate the weak and ruin the prayer.” [Al-Tabari, vol. 5, p. 163.]

On the other hand, those elders who did not support Ibn al-Ash‘ath in fighting against al-Hajjaj also did not say that the struggle was forbidden. Rather, their position was that undertaking it was contrary to sound strategy. When Hasan al-Basri was asked about this, he said:

“By Allah, Allah did not impose al-Hajjaj upon you without reason. Rather, al-Hajjaj is a particular punishment. Therefore, do not confront Allah’s punishment with the sword. Instead, endure it silently with patience and steadfastness. Weep before Allah and ask Him to forgive you for it. [Tabaqat Ibn Sa‘d, vol. 7, p. 164; al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, vol. 9, p. 135.]”

This was the view of the devout people of the first Hijri century. Imam Abu Hanifa opened his eyes to the world in that very century. His view, therefore, was the same as theirs. Thereafter, during the second Hijri century, that view gradually came to be expressed as what is now called the position of the majority of Ahl al-Sunnah. This position did not emerge because some decisive arguments or proofs had been found in its favor that had been hidden from the thinkers of the first century; nor—Allah forbid—because the thinkers of the first century had adopted a view contrary to the clear evidence of the Qur’an and Sunnah. Rather, there were essentially two reasons. First, the oppressors had left no avenue open for change through peaceful, democratic means. Second, the attempts to bring about change by force of the sword continually produced such consequences that, in view of them, no hope of benefit remained in that path either. [For a detailed explanation, see Tafhimat, vol. 3, pp. 300–320, and Tafhim al-Qur’an, commentary on Surah al-Hujurat, note 17.]

Chapter Nine

Imam Abu Yusuf

As a result of Imam Abu Hanifa’s life, his political philosophy, and his noncooperation with the government, relations between the Abbasid Empire and the Hanafi school became intensely bitter and conflict-ridden. This trend continued for a long time afterward. On the one hand, the foremost men of this school remained firm in their noncooperation. After Imam Abu Hanifa’s death, when his renowned disciple Zufar ibn al-Hudhayl (d. 158 AH/775 CE) was forced to accept the office of judge, he too refused and went into hiding to save his life. [Al-Qardari, vol. 2, p. 183; Miftah al-Sa‘adah, vol. 2, p. 114.] On the other hand, from al-Mansur through the early reign of Harun al-Rashid, the government focused on preventing the influence of this school. For this reason, Mansur and his successors tried to fill, through some other compilation, the legal vacuum in the country that was demanding a codified law. For this purpose, al-Mansur and al-Mahdi also tried during their reigns to bring Imam Malik to the fore. [Ibn Abd al-Barr, al-Intiqa, pp. 40–41.] Harun al-Rashid too, in 174 AH (791 CE), expressed an interest in adopting Imam Malik’s al-Muwatta as the law of the country. [Abu Nu‘aym al-Isfahani, Hilyat al-Awliya, vol. 6, p. 332.] But later, from this school emerged such a powerful personality that, through his outstanding ability and immense influence and authority, he ended the legal vacuum of the Abbasid Empire, turned Hanafi fiqh into the law of the country, and established the country’s governance upon a body of law. This personality was Imam Abu Yusuf, Imam Abu Hanifa’s greatest disciple.

Life

His given name was Ya‘qub. He was born into the Bajila tribe of Arabia. Because of his maternal connection and close relationship with the Ansar of Medina, his lineage was called Ansari. He was a resident of Kufa. He was born in 113 AH, corresponding to 731 CE. After his elementary education, he chose fiqh for specialized study and became a student of Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla. Thereafter he attended Imam Abu Hanifa’s teaching circle and remained permanently attached to him. His parents were extremely poor and did not wish to continue his education. After learning of his circumstances, Imam Abu Hanifa undertook the expenses not only of him but of his entire family. He himself said: “I never had to tell Imam Abu Hanifa about my needs. From time to time he would send such a sum of money to my home that I became completely free of worry.” [Al-Makki, vol. 2, p. 212.] From the very beginning, he was highly optimistic about this disciple. When Imam Abu Yusuf’s father wanted to take him away from the madrasa, he said: “Abu Ishaq, God willing, the boy will one day become wealthy.” [Al-Makki, p. 214.]

Renown in the Realm of Knowledge

Besides Imam Abu Hanifa, he also studied under the other renowned teachers of his time. He mastered hadith, Qur’anic exegesis, maghazi, Arab history, language, literature, and the science of kalam. He had especially profound knowledge of hadith and was a hafiz of hadith. Figures such as Yahya ibn Ma‘in, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and Ali ibn al-Madini recognized him as reliable. [Ibn Khallikan, vol. 5, p. 422; Ibn Abd al-Barr, al-Intiqa, p. 172.] The unanimous view of the scholars of his time was that none of Imam Abu Hanifa’s disciples equaled him. Talha ibn Muhammad said that he was the greatest jurist of his age and that there was no jurist greater than him. [Ibn Khallikan, vol. 5, p. 424.] Dawud ibn Rashid said: “If Imam Abu Hanifa had produced only this one disciple, he alone would have been sufficient for his glory.” [Al-Makki, vol. 2, p. 232.] Imam Abu Hanifa himself held him in very high regard. He said: “Of my disciples, the one who acquired the most knowledge is Abu Yusuf.” [Al-Qardari, vol. 2, p. 126.] Once Abu Yusuf fell gravely ill, and all hope for his life had disappeared. Imam Abu Hanifa set out to visit him. At that time he said: “If he dies, no greater jurist than him will remain in the world.” [Ibn Khallikan, vol. 2, p. 424; al-Qardari, vol. 2, p. 126.]

Compilation of Hanafi Fiqh

After Imam Abu Hanifa, he too, in keeping with the tradition of the Hanafi school, remained away from the state and government for sixteen long years. During this period he continued his teacher’s intellectual and educational work. Alongside this, he undertook another important task: he wrote separate works on most branches of law. In these works he properly codified the decisions of Imam Abu Hanifa’s circle and his own statements. [Fihrist of Ibn al-Nadim, Rahmaniya Press, Egypt, 1348 AH. Citing Talha ibn Muhammad, Ibn Khallikan writes that Abu Yusuf was the first person to write works on all the fundamental branches of jurisprudence according to the Hanafi school and to spread Abu Hanifa’s knowledge throughout the world—vol. 5, p. 424.] Once these works had spread throughout the country, he influenced not only the educated classes but also shaped the views of those employed in the courts and government departments in favor of Hanafi fiqh. For there was then no well-organized and coherent body of law capable of meeting their needs in this way. Although Imam Malik’s al-Muwatta had appeared publicly at once, it was not sufficiently comprehensive to meet the needs of a state, nor was it sufficiently clear in its compilation. [It should be noted that a compilation of fiqh according to the Maliki school, designed to meet the needs of a state, was produced later on the model of Imam Muhammad’s book.] The result of Abu Yusuf’s work was that, even before he came to power, Hanafi fiqh had established its influence over people’s minds and daily practices. Only its transformation into the formal law of the country through political power remained.

The Office of Judge

Abu Yusuf might perhaps have spent his entire life, like his teacher, in noncooperation with the government if his financial circumstances had been even somewhat better. But he was destitute. After Imam Abu Hanifa’s death, he was deprived even of the favor of a generous patron. Under the pressure of poverty, he was once forced to sell a roof beam from his wife’s house. His mother-in-law reproached him so harshly for this that his self-respect could not bear it. For this reason, he was compelled to enter government service. After this incident, in 166 AH (782 CE), he went to Baghdad and met Caliph al-Mahdi. Al-Mahdi appointed him judge of eastern Baghdad. He retained this office during the reign of al-Hadi. By the reign of Harun al-Rashid, the caliph gradually appointed him chief judge of the entire Abbasid Empire. This office was created for the first time in a Muslim state. Previously, no one had been made chief justice in the Rashidun Caliphate or in the Umayyad and Abbasid empires. [Al-Makki, vol. 2, pp. 211, 239; Ibn Khaldun, vol. 5, p. 421.] According to the modern understanding, this office was not merely that of chief justice of a high court; it also included the responsibilities of a minister of law. That is, his duties were not limited to deciding cases and appointing judges to the lower courts; he was also responsible for providing legal guidance in the country’s domestic and foreign affairs.

Abu Yusuf’s assumption of the office of chief justice produced three important results:

First: Instead of being confined to composing books in a mere educational institution or secluded chamber, he gained access to a much broader field of activity. There he had the opportunity to become practically acquainted with the affairs of the largest empire of the time. In these circumstances, he was able to adapt Hanafi fiqh to actual conditions and transform it into a more practical legal system.

Second: Since the appointment and transfer of judges throughout the country were in his hands, people associated with the Hanafi school were appointed as judges in most parts of the empire. Through him, Hanafi fiqh consequently became the law of the country almost by itself.

Third: From the time of Umayyad rule, a kind of legal vacuum and the lawlessness of kings had prevailed in the Muslim Empire. Through his immense moral and scholarly influence, he succeeded in making them conform to the law. Not only that, he also presented the Muslim Empire with a compiled law book. Fortunately, this book, known as Kitab al-Kharaj, remains with us to this day.

Strength of Character

Before discussing the law book he authored, it is essential to dispel a common misconception. The biographers of Imam Abu Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on him) have introduced various fictional tales about him, which, when read, make his life appear to the reader in such a way that he flattered kings and misinterpreted the law according to their wishes. This was supposedly his means of gaining access to kings. Yet even a person of ordinary understanding can realize that whoever gains access to kings through flattery and makes concessions in matters of the Shariah according to their desires can never exert any moral influence over them, no matter how close he becomes to them. When we examine the accounts found in reliable historical works of his conduct toward the Caliph’s ministers and generals, it seems impossible to believe that a flatterer and a person who resorted to deceit and intrigue could ever have dared to behave in such a manner.

This occurred during the reign of Caliph al-Hadi. At that time, he was merely the judge of East Baghdad. In one case, he delivered a judgment against the Caliph himself. [Al-Qardari, vol. 2, p. 128.]

During the reign of Harun al-Rashid, an elderly Christian brought a claim to a garden against the Caliph. Qadi Abu Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on him) not only heard the old man’s petition in the Caliph’s presence, but also compelled the Caliph to take an oath against the claim. Even so, until the moment before his death, he regretted that he had not made the man stand face-to-face with the Caliph. [Al-Sarakhsi, Kitab al-Mabsut, vol. 16, p. 61; al-Makki, vol. 2, pp. 243–244.]

He rejected the testimony of Ali ibn Isa, Harun al-Rashid’s grand vizier. Explaining why, he said, “I heard him call the Caliph a rose.” If he really was a rose, then his testimony is inadmissible. And if he made that statement as flattery, his testimony is likewise inadmissible. [Al-Makki, vol. 2, pp. 226–227.] Harun’s commander-in-chief also inflicted such moral punishment on flatterers of this kind for such flattery. [Al-Makki, p. 240.]

Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak says that he would appear at Harun al-Rashid’s court with such distinction that he would enter behind the curtain mounted on his conveyance (where even the grand vizier had to go on foot). The Caliph would come forward and greet him first. [Al-Makki, vol. 2, p. 240; Mulla Ali al-Qari, Dhayl al-Jawahir al-Mudiyyah, p. 426.]

Once Harun was asked, “Why have you granted Abu Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on him) such great status?” He replied, “In whatever field of knowledge I tested him, I found him complete in every respect. Moreover, he is a man devoted to truth and of stern character. If there is anyone else like him, bring him to me and let me see him.” [Al-Makki, vol. 2, p. 232.]

When he died in 182 AH, or 798 CE, Harun al-Rashid himself followed his funeral procession on foot. He himself led the funeral prayer, buried him in the family cemetery, and said, “This is such a sorrowful event that all the people of the Muslim world should offer condolences to one another.” [Al-Qardari, vol. 2, p. 120.]

His Kitab al-Kharaj is our greatest proof. Anyone can realize, simply by reading the introduction to this book, that no flatterer could write such things to a king, regardless of how he addressed him.

Kitab al-Kharaj

Qadi Abu Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on him) found in Harun al-Rashid a caliph who possessed mutually opposing qualities. He was at once a stern-tempered soldier, a pleasure-loving king, and a God-fearing religious man. Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani describes his qualities in a single sentence: “In matters of exhortation and admonition, he wept more than anyone; but in anger, he was the most oppressive.” [Kitab al-Aghani, vol. 3, p. 178.] Through exceptional wisdom and foresight, Imam Abu Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on him) continued to influence the religious aspects of his nature through his own knowledge and moral influence, without provoking his weak points. Eventually, a time came when he himself requested that a law book be prepared for the state, in accordance with which the affairs of government could be administered in the future. This was the reason for composing Kitab al-Kharaj. Imam Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on him) mentions this matter in the introduction to the book in question:

“The Commander of the Faithful—may Allah, the Exalted, assist him—wished me to compile for him a comprehensive book according to which action could be taken concerning taxes, ushr, sadaqah, jizyah collection, and other matters for which responsibility has been entrusted to him. ….. He asked me about various matters. He wants detailed answers to all these questions so that he may act accordingly in the future.”

From the quotations he gives throughout the book from the questions sent by Harun al-Rashid, it appears that the questionnaire had been prepared by the secretariat in light of important constitutional, legal, administrative, and international problems, so that, after receiving clear answers to all these questions from the legal department, the state’s independent policies could be determined. The title of the book may misleadingly suggest that revenue alone is its principal subject. In reality, almost every matter concerning the state is discussed in it.

Without entering into a detailed discussion here, we shall examine its contents from this particular perspective alone, to show what fundamental philosophy and conception of the state it presents.

A Return to the Rashidun Caliphate

When the entire book is read attentively, the point that becomes clear is that Imam Abu Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on him) wished to move the Caliph completely away from the Caesar-and-Chosroes-like traditions of the Umayyads and Abbasids and toward following the tradition of the Rashidun Caliphate. Of course, nowhere in the book did he tell him to abandon the traditions of his predecessors; yet, leaving aside the Umayyads, nowhere did he even inadvertently present any conduct or decision of Harun al-Rashid’s forefathers as a precedent. In every matter, he either presented evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah or cited precedents from the rule of Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them). If he ever presented the conduct of a later caliph as a precedent, it was not al-Mansur or al-Mahdi; rather, it was the Umayyad caliph Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz. The clear implication is that, while composing this law book for the Abbasid Empire, he avoided the entire tradition and practice of approximately 132 years of rule from the death of Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) to the reign of Harun al-Rashid, except for the two and a half years of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz. If a truth-speaking scholar of fiqh had done this privately and merely as exhortation and admonition, it would not have carried any particular significance. But since a chief judge and minister of law did this officially while fulfilling the responsibility entrusted to him by the reigning Caliph, its significance is greatly increased.

One: The Concept of the State and Government

At the very beginning of the book, he presents the Caliph with his concept of the state and government. In his own words, it is as follows:

“Commander of the Faithful, Allah the Exalted—who is entitled to all praise and gratitude—has entrusted you with a vast and important responsibility. The reward for this task is the greatest, and its punishment the most severe. He has entrusted you with the leadership of the ummah. You are constantly engaged in managing the affairs of a vast populace. He has made you their guardian, granted you leadership over them, tested you through them, and entrusted you with managing their affairs. A structure founded on anything other than fear of Allah does not endure for long. Allah uproots it and casts it upon its builder and those who assisted him in its construction. …….. Just as a shepherd in this world must account before the true owner of the flock, a guardian must likewise account before his Lord. ……… Do not follow a crooked path, or your flock too will begin to follow a crooked path. ……….. Keep all people—whether near or far from you—equal under Allah’s law. ……….. Do not let tomorrow find you appearing before Allah as an oppressor. For the Judge of the Last Day will judge people on the basis of their deeds, not on the basis of lineage or status. ……… Fear harming the flock. The owner of the flock will take full retribution from you. [Al-Kharaj, pp. 3, 4, 5; Salfia Press, Egypt, 2nd ed., 1352 AH.]”

Throughout the book, he then instilled in Harun al-Rashid the understanding that he was not the owner of the country, but merely the caliph of its true Owner. [Al-Kharaj, p. 5.] If he was a just ruler, he would see beneficial results; but if he was an oppressive ruler, he would face the worst consequences. [Al-Kharaj, p. 8.] In one place, he quoted to him the statement of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him): “No person possessing authority in this world has the right to be obeyed in disobedience to Allah.” [Al-Kharaj, p. 117.]

Two: The Life Force of Democracy

He presents the concept of the Caliph’s accountability not only before the Creator but also before His creation. For this reason, he quotes hadiths and statements of the Companions in various places. These hadiths and statements of the Companions establish that Muslims have the right to criticize the rulers freely. The welfare of both government and people lies in this freedom of criticism. [Al-Kharaj, p. 12.]

Enjoining good and forbidding evil are both a right and a duty of Muslims. The closing of this door means that the people will ultimately be plunged into total destruction. [Al-Kharaj, pp. 10–11.] The ruling class should have the patience to hear the truth. Nothing is more harmful than their becoming abusive and intolerant. [Al-Kharaj, p. 12.] In the view of the Shariah, Muslims have the right to hold the ruling class accountable and question them regarding the rights entrusted to them by their subjects and the trust of the people’s wealth placed in their care. [Al-Kharaj, p. 117.]

Three: The Responsibilities and Duties of the Caliph

The responsibilities and duties of the Caliph that he specifically mentions are these: establishing Allah’s limits and, after proper investigation, giving those entitled to them their rights.

Reviving the practices of righteous and just rulers—practices abandoned by oppressive rulers of the past. [Al-Kharaj, p. 5.]

Preventing injustice and oppression and, after investigation, redressing the people’s grievances. [Al-Kharaj, p. 6.] Instructing the people to obey according to Allah’s law and forbidding sinful conduct.

Applying Allah’s law equally to all, one’s own and others alike, and not caring upon whom its consequences fall. [Al-Kharaj, p. 13.]

Collecting revenue from the people lawfully and legitimately and spending it on lawful purposes. [Al-Kharaj, p. 108.]

Four: The Duties of Muslim Citizens

On the other hand, the duties toward the government that he mentions for Muslims are these: they should obey its government and not disobey it.

They should not take up arms against them.

They should not abuse them.

They should remain patient with their harshness.

They should not deceive them.

They should sincerely strive for their welfare.

They should forbid them from evil deeds.

They should assist them in good deeds. [Al-Kharaj, pp. 9, 12.]

Five: The Bayt al-Mal

He describes the Bayt al-Mal (the state treasury), instead of being the king’s personal property, as a trust belonging to the Creator and the people. On various occasions, he reminds the Caliph of statements by Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). In these statements, Caliph Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said that, for the Caliph, the state treasury is like an orphan’s property for the guardian of an orphan. If he is wealthy, then, in accordance with the Qur’anic guidance, he should spend nothing from the orphan’s property. Rather, he should safeguard that property in the path of Allah. But if he is needy, he may take, according to customary practice, only as much in return for his service as everyone considers lawful to take. [Al-Kharaj, pp. 36, 117.]

He also presented Hazrat Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) practice as a model before the Caliph. In spending from the Bayt al-Mal, Caliph Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) exercised even greater caution than a person exercises when spending from his own wealth. In this connection, he also mentions another incident. The incident is that, when appointing the judge, governor, and finance minister of Kufa, Caliph Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) ordered that one goat be provided daily for the maintenance of each of their families. At the same time, he said that any country from which officers were given one goat daily would soon be destroyed. [Al-Kharaj, p. 36.]

He also instructed the Caliph that rulers must be prevented from using state property for personal needs. [Al-Kharaj, p. 186.]

Six: Principles of Taxation

The basic principles of taxation that he mentions are these:

Tax shall be imposed only on wealth exceeding one’s needs.

The burden shall be imposed upon them with their consent.

No one may be burdened beyond his capacity.

It must be collected from the wealthy and spent on the poor. [Al-Kharaj, p. 14.]

In determining and assessing revenue, special care must be taken that the government does not suck the blood of the people.

No unjust method should be adopted in collecting taxes. [Al-Kharaj, pp. 16, 37, 109, 114.]

Apart from taxes imposed through lawful means, the government must not collect any other illegal tax. It must also keep a strict watch to ensure that landowners and other officials cannot collect any such tax. [Al-Kharaj, pp. 10, 132.]

Jizyah must not be collected from those dhimmis who accept Islam. [Al-Kharaj, pp. 122, 131.]

In this connection, he presents the practice of the Rightly Guided Caliphs as a precedent. For example, there is this incident concerning Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him): when instructing the governors, he would say publicly that they must collect the full expenses from them and not be negligent in the slightest. But he would call them privately and say: “Beware! Do not collect revenue by beating anyone or making anyone stand in the sun. Do not treat them so harshly that, in order to pay the government’s dues, they are forced to sell their clothes, utensils, or livestock.” [Al-Kharaj, pp. 15–16.] He also mentions Hazrat Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) practice: by questioning the officials responsible for assessment, he would assure himself that they had not caused hardship to the point of breaking the peasants while imposing taxes upon them. After the collected wealth from a region arrived, he would summon representatives of the people and obtain their testimony that it had not been collected by oppressing any Muslim or dhimmi farmer. [Al-Kharaj, pp. 37, 114.]

Seven: The Rights of Non-Muslim Subjects

Regarding non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic state, Imam Abu Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on him), quoting Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), repeatedly mentions three fundamental principles in this book:

One: Whatever covenant is made with them must be fulfilled.

Two: The responsibility for defending the state belongs not to them but to the Muslims.

Three: Jizyah and income-tax burdens may not be imposed upon them beyond their capacity. [Al-Kharaj, pp. 14, 37, 125.]

He then writes that the poor, the blind, the elderly, religious ministers, synagogue employees, women, and children must be exempted from the jizyah tax. Jizyah may not be imposed upon them. No zakat may be levied on the property or livestock of dhimmis. Beating or physically abusing dhimmis in collecting jizyah from them is not lawful. As punishment for refusing to pay jizyah, at most they may only be detained. It is forbidden to collect anything from them beyond the prescribed jizyah. The state treasury should provide for the care of incapacitated and needy dhimmis. [Al-Kharaj, pp. 122–126.]

Referring to a historical event, he reminds Harun al-Rashid that treating dhimmis generously and courteously is beneficial to the state itself. As a result of such treatment, during the reign of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), the Christians of Syria became grateful and well-disposed toward the Muslims in opposition to their fellow Christians, the Romans. [Al-Kharaj, p. 129.]

Eight: Land Administration

Regarding land administration, Imam Abu Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on him) declares unlawful the kind of zamindari in which the government places one person over the peasants as a landowner in order to collect taxes from them and effectively grants him the power to collect as much as he wishes from the peasants after paying the government’s tax. He says that this is a heinous oppression of the subjects and a cause of the state’s destruction. The state should never adopt such a method. [Al-Kharaj, p. 105.]

He likewise declares unlawful the practice of a government seizing land and granting it to someone as a fief. He writes: “The imam or ruler has no right to take anything from the right of a Muslim or a dhimmi without a lawful or well-established entitlement.” In his view, seizing the people’s property at will and giving it to someone else is equivalent to giving another person money collected through robbery. [Al-Kharaj, pp. 58, 60, 66.]

He says that there is only one lawful method of granting land. That is to grant, within reasonable limits, uncultivated land, land without an owner, or abandoned ownerless land for cultivation, or as a reward for genuine public service. If a person who receives such a grant leaves it uncultivated for three consecutive years, it must also be taken back from him. [Al-Kharaj, pp. 59–66]

Nine: Eradicating Oppression and Injustice

He then tells Harun al-Rashid: It is unlawful for you to appoint oppressive and treacherous people to state offices, or to make them district administrators or regional officials. In that event, you will have to bear the consequences of whatever oppression they perpetrate. [Al-Kharaj, p. 111.]

He repeatedly says: Appoint honest, God-fearing, and trustworthy people to state offices. When selecting people for government work, make sure of their character as well as their competence. Even then, appoint reliable intelligence agents to monitor them, so that if they become corrupt and begin acts of oppression and injustice, the caliph may be informed in time and be able to hold them to the most exact account. [Al-Kharaj, pp. 106, 107, 111, 132, 188.]

He further tells Harun that the caliph must hear the complaints of the people directly. If he arranges a public assembly even once a month, where every oppressed person can appear and present his complaint, and government officials know that reports of their conduct reach the caliph himself, only then will oppression and injustice be eradicated. [Al-Kharaj, pp. 111, 212.]

Ten: The Judiciary

Regarding the judiciary, he says that justice—justice free from every kind of bias—is the judiciary’s sole responsibility. It is unlawful both to fail to punish a person deserving punishment and to punish one who does not deserve it. No punishment should be imposed in cases involving doubt or suspicion. It is better to forgive by mistake than to punish by mistake. Every kind of interference and intercession in matters of justice should be barred. The rank, status, or position of any person must not be given the slightest consideration. [Al-Kharaj, pp. 152–153.]

Eleven: Safeguarding Personal Liberty

He also says that no one may be detained merely on the basis of an accusation. If any charge is brought against a person, a case should be duly filed. Evidence and testimony should be taken in the matter. If the crime is proved, the person should be detained; otherwise, he should be released. He advises the caliph to investigate the people being held in prison. Those detained without evidence or testimony should be freed. All governors must be instructed that in future no one may be arrested without filing a case based merely on an accusation or slander. [Al-Kharaj, pp. 175–176.]

He emphatically states that beating accused persons merely on the basis of slander is unlawful. Until a court has established that a person is liable to punishment, the back of every citizen is fully protected under the Shariah. [Al-Kharaj, p. 151.]

Twelve: Reform of Prisons

In the reform proposals he makes concerning prisons, he says that a detained person is entitled to food and clothing from the public treasury. This is his right. Strongly condemning the practice prevailing under Umayyad and Abbasid rule, he says that during their rule prisoners were taken outside the prison in chains on their hands and feet, and had to beg to obtain food and clothing for themselves. He tells the caliph that this practice should end. The government must provide them with clothing for winter and summer and sufficient food.

He strongly condemns the practice whereby, when a prisoner without heirs died, he was buried without ritual washing, a shroud, or the funeral prayer. He says that this is a matter of profound shame for Muslims. The government should arrange the burial, shrouding, and funeral prayer for such prisoners.

He also recommends that no prisoner should be shackled in prison except one detained for murder. [Al-Kharaj, p. 151.]

A Proper Assessment of His Work

The foregoing is a brief summary of the legal recommendations made by Imam Abu Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on him), twelve hundred years ago, as law minister and chief justice before an arbitrary monarch. When these recommendations are compared with the fundamental principles of the Islamic state, the governing practice of the Rightly Guided Caliphate, and the teachings of his own teacher, Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him), they appear to be largely no more than a minimum. Not the slightest sign of the idea of an elective caliphate is found in them. There is no mention of governing the state through shura, or consultation. The idea that a tyrannical ruler has no right to govern, and that the people have the power to strive to appoint a better ruler in his place, is also absent from his advice. In many other respects as well, these proposals of his are very incomplete in comparison with the true Islamic philosophy. But this does not mean that the scope of Imam Abu Yusuf’s political philosophy was limited to the proposals mentioned in Kitab al-Kharaj. Nor is it correct to suppose that he desired nothing more than what he mentioned in this book. Rather, it was essentially much more than what a realistic philosopher could have hoped for from the Abbasid Empire of that time. His purpose was not simply to draw an imaginary picture based on the special circumstances of that period—a picture confined to mere ideas and fantasies, with no possibility of implementation. Rather, he wanted to formulate a lawful scheme that would contain the minimum vital force of an Islamic state while also being capable of implementation under the circumstances of the time.

Appendix

In Response to Criticism—

[When some chapters of this book were published in Tarjuman al-Qur’an, some friends severely criticized their contents in letters, while others did so in various newspapers and periodicals. Some friends even wrote books against it. I have examined all of this with particular attention. A comprehensive response is presented here to the noteworthy points among these objections.]

The Importance of the Subject Under Discussion

The historical information presented in this discussion has been collected from the most reliable works on Islamic history. I have provided full references for every event I have mentioned. I have not recorded a single statement without a reference. Learned readers can compare it themselves with the original works.

This history was not secretly preserved somewhere, only for me to suddenly bring it out before the public. It had been spread throughout the world for centuries, and modern systems of publication and dissemination have brought it to hundreds of millions of people. Believers and unbelievers, friends and enemies alike, have read it. Nor is it confined to Arabic speakers; Orientalists have widely disseminated it in all the languages of the West, while translators and compilers among us have spread it in our own languages. We cannot conceal it, nor can we tell the people, “Do not read this chapter of Islamic history.” We cannot prevent Allah’s creation from speaking about it. Unless we ourselves narrate this history through authentic citations, in a reasoned, evidence-based, and balanced manner, draw genuine conclusions from it, and present them systematically before the world, Western thinkers and Muslim writers with unbalanced minds—who have long presented, and continue to present, Islamic history in a highly distorted form—will create in the minds of the new generations of Muslims a distorted conception not only of Islamic history but also of the Islamic state and the Islamic way of life. In present-day Pakistan, students in all schools, colleges, and universities study Islamic philosophy concerning Islamic history and political science. Some time ago, the M.A. political science examination at Punjab University asked: What fundamental principles has the Qur’an stated regarding politics? How were those principles implemented during the rule of the Messenger of Allah? What is the caliphate, and why and how was the caliphate transformed into monarchy? Do our critical friends want Muslim students to give the answers to these questions provided by Western writers? Or, because of inadequate study, do they want the students themselves to express confused opinions? Or do they want them to be deceived by those writers, who are distorting not only history but the philosophy of the caliphate itself? Why should we not courageously confront these events in our history? Why should we not examine them impartially and clearly explain what the caliphate fundamentally is, what its notable characteristics are, what its principled difference from monarchy is, why and how monarchy replaced the caliphate among us, what practical difference this replacement made in our social life, and what measures the memorable and distinguished figures of the ummah took to remain free from, or reduce, the harm caused by this difference? Until we provide clear, evidence-based, and well-organized answers to all these questions, the unrest of the mind will not disappear.

Today, anyone who studies Islamic political philosophy in relation to political science sees before him, on the one hand, the political system established during the rule of the Messenger of Allah and the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and, on the other, the nature of the monarchy that followed. He understands the clear difference between the two in their principles, ideals, objectives, methods, vital force, and outlook. Yet he also sees that Muslims showed equal allegiance to both systems of rule; that jihad continued under both; that the qadi enforced the rulings of the Shariah; and that every sphere of religious and cultural life continued along its own course. This naturally raises in the mind of every student of political science the question: What is the true Islamic philosophy of the state? Are both systems equally and simultaneously Islamic in principle, or is there a difference between them from the Islamic point of view? If there is a difference, how is the fact explained that Muslims adopted outwardly similar practices under both? I do not understand how the mind can be prevented from reflecting on these questions. And why should answers to them not be given?

The reader of Islamic history finds this picture emerging from the sequence of events: the Rightly Guided Caliphate, possessing the finest characteristics of the Islamic state, survived until 33–34 AH. Thereafter its decline began. By the time it reached 60 AH, all those characteristics had disappeared, and the distinctive features of worldly rule had become manifest in their place. Forced bay‘ah, hereditary monarchy, a way of life resembling that of Caesar and Chosroes, the distance between ruler and ruled, the disappearance of a sense of responsibility concerning the public treasury, politics’ freedom from adherence to the Shariah, Muslims’ deprivation of the freedom to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong, and the end of the shura system—in short, everything that distinguishes a worldly state from an Islamic state appears, after 60 AH, to have afflicted the Muslims as a distinct disease. What are we now to say about this great and evident change? Or shall we say that the history of that period remains, but that the events in it indicating the causes of this change are unreliable, even though the accounts of those same historians are reliable concerning the periods before and after it? Or shall we say that we should close our eyes to the history of that time and engage in no thought, discussion, or examination of these matters, because some of the circumstances responsible for the consequences of those twenty-six or twenty-seven years may be attributable to certain Companions? In the end, what can we say with accuracy and reason in a way that can reassure an ordinary reader of history?

There is no doubt that the scrutiny, evaluation of chains of transmission, and research undertaken regarding Hadith were not undertaken to the same extent regarding history. Yet it is difficult to say that historians such as Ibn Sa‘d, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Hajar, Ibn Kathir, and Ibn Athir were so lax and careless in describing the conditions of the period of discord that they recorded wholly baseless statements about the Companions in their works. In describing these matters, were they completely unaware of which eminent people we are discussing?

The True Significance of ******************

It has been argued that discussions of this kind diminish the dignity of the Noble Companions and undermine the trust Muslims ought to place in them. I believe it necessary to clarify several points on this matter as well.

My belief concerning the Noble Companions is the belief held by the ordinary hadith scholars, jurists, and the learned community of the ummah: *************** It is clear that they are the means through whom the religion reached us. If the slightest doubt arises regarding their probity, the religion itself becomes doubtful. But *************—“All the Companions were truthful”—does not, in my view, mean that every Companion was free of faults and shortcomings, that each was above human weakness, or that none ever made a mistake. Rather, it means that in transmitting anything from the Messenger of Allah, no Companion ever violated honesty, justice, or probity in attributing anything to him. If the first meaning were accepted, not only history but also reliable and trustworthy hadith transmission would fail to support it. If the second meaning is accepted, it is unquestionably established by evidence; no one can produce reliable evidence against it. Even during the mutual wars of the Noble Companions, when much blood was shed among them, neither side fabricated a hadith for its own purposes and attributed it to the Messenger of Allah, nor did anyone reject an authentic hadith because it went against his interests. Therefore, when discussing the disputes among the Noble Companions, one should not fall into the misconception that the religion is harmed by acknowledging one person as being on the side of justice and another as being on the side of injustice. With regard to reports from the Messenger of Allah, we regard all the Companions as unquestionably trustworthy and reliable, and accept all their reports wholeheartedly.

If the probity of the Noble Companions is understood to mean that all the Companions were completely faithful to the Messenger of Allah, and that all felt they bore the important responsibility of conveying his Sunnah and guidance to the ummah, so that none of them attributed anything erroneous to him, then this interpretation of **************** applies to all of them without exception. But if it is interpreted to mean that, without exception, all the Companions possessed the quality of probity and justice in every matter of their lives, and that none of them ever committed an act contrary to probity, then it does not apply to all of them. There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority attained the highest rank of probity, but it cannot be denied that a very small number also committed acts contrary to probity. Therefore, the second interpretation of ********** cannot be stated as a principle. But the fact that it is not a general principle does not mean that none of them is reliable in transmitting Hadith. The first interpretation unquestionably has the status of a principle, and nothing has ever been found contrary to it.

The question here is: If a person commits an act contrary to ‘adalah, can this result in the complete disappearance of the quality of ‘adalah from him, so that we deny altogether that he is ‘adil and deem him unreliable in transmitting Hadith? My answer is this: If a person commits one, two, or several acts contrary to probity, his ‘adalah does not disappear entirely; nor is he thereby deemed fasiq rather than ‘adil, provided that probity is found in his life as a whole. The venerable Ma‘iz al-Aslami committed the grave sin of adultery. This was undoubtedly an act contrary to probity. But he repented in word and deed, presented himself for punishment, and the penalty for adultery was imposed upon him. His probity did not disappear because he committed one act contrary to it. Hence the hadith scholars accept his hadith.

The answer to the claim that such events should not be mentioned because Allah Most High forgave him can also be found in this example. There can be no doubt that Ma‘iz was forgiven. He performed a repentance such as very few people in the world have ever made. The Messenger of Allah himself explicitly stated that he was forgiven. But is it forbidden to mention the factual event that he committed adultery? Mentioning such events merely as a profession is undoubtedly very bad. But where there is a genuine need to narrate an event of this kind, scholars in the past did not refrain from mentioning it as an account of what occurred, and no instruction can now be given to refrain from doing so. Of course, caution must be exercised when narrating such events, so that the matter remains limited to an account of the event and no Companion is disparaged as a whole. I have exercised this caution to the best of my ability. If anything more than this is found anywhere, then if I am informed of it, God willing, I shall correct it immediately.

Some friends propose an unusual principle on this matter: concerning the Noble Companions, we should accept only those reports that accord with their dignity, and reject anything that casts a blemish upon it. Even if such a matter is mentioned in an authentic hadith, they say, we should not accept it. But I do not know which of the hadith scholars, exegetes, or jurists stated this principle, nor do I know of any jurist, hadith scholar, or exegete who ever upheld it. Are the events of ‘ila’ and takhyir concerning the Messenger of Allah not mentioned in the books of Hadith, Tafsir, and Fiqh? Yet these reports imply an accusation against the Mothers of the Believers that they troubled the Messenger for the sake of maintenance. Are the accounts of the Incident of the Slander, involving certain Companions and the imposition of the punishment for slander upon them, not mentioned in those books? Yet the gravity of this offense is clear. Are the accounts of Ma‘iz al-Aslami and the woman of Ghamid not mentioned in those books? Yet they too attained the honor of being Companions, and according to this invented rule the hadith scholars would have to reject every report mentioning that a male or female Companion committed the abominable act of adultery. If this were an accepted rule, then Umar would have violated it by calling for witnesses against al-Mughira ibn Shu‘ba on a charge of adultery. For under this rule it would not even be conceivable that a Companion could commit such an act, let alone that witnesses could be summoned against him. Indeed, the friends who propose this principle today do not themselves follow it completely. If they truly accepted it, they would say that the Battles of the Camel and Siffin never occurred at all. For the Companions could not possibly have drawn swords against one another and shed the blood of believers with their own hands; their dignity should be above that.

Mistakes Do Not Diminish Eminence

The real point is that no non-prophetic human being, including the Companions, is infallible or sinless; only the prophets and messengers are immaculate and sinless. This is their special characteristic alone. Among non-prophets, no person can be considered eminent in the sense that it is impossible for him to make a mistake or that he has never actually made one. Rather, they are eminent in the sense that goodness and welfare predominate in their lives in knowledge and action. The more goodness predominates in a person, the greater his eminence. A mistake in one of his actions does not diminish his eminence.

There is a fundamental difference between my perspective on this matter and that of others, which often causes people to misunderstand my position. People think that an eminent person does not make mistakes, and that one who makes mistakes cannot be eminent. On this basis, they want no action of an eminent person to be called a mistake. They also think that those who call any of his actions a mistake do not acknowledge him as eminent. My principle is the opposite. In my view, an eminent non-prophet may make a mistake and nevertheless remain eminent. I call an action of an eminent person a mistake when it is established by a reliable source and cannot be explained by any sound rational argument. Once I learn, subject to this condition, that an action was mistaken, I acknowledge it as a mistake. I then restrict my criticism to that action alone. In my view, that mistake does not alter the eminence or status of the eminent person. I have never felt any need to deny the manifest errors of those whom I regard as eminent, conceal them under a veneer, or prove them correct through unreasonable interpretations. The inevitable consequence of calling a mistake correct will be that our standards become distorted and that all the mistakes made by various eminent figures in their respective places will accumulate among us at once. Applying a veneer or covering over actions that are plainly visible does more harm than good. People will then doubt whether the virtues we describe in our eminent figures are perhaps also fabricated.

Differences in Rank among the Companions

From reading the hadiths and biographies concerning the Companions, I have reached the conclusion that they were equal in their status as Companions; but there were differences in rank with regard to knowledge and excellence, receiving spiritual grace from the Noble Prophet, and being influenced by his instruction and training. The environment in which the light of prophethood shone forth was, of course, a human society. Not all the people of that society could receive light from the torch of illumination, nor did all receive equal opportunities and advantages. Moreover, each person had a distinct nature, a different mind and temperament, and all were not equal in ability and talent. Each of them, according to his own capacity, was influenced to a greater or lesser degree by the instruction and company of the Master. Yet there may have been, and there indeed were, among them people who, even after this excellent training in self-purification, retained some weakness in one respect or another. This is a reality that cannot be denied; nor is denying it an inevitable requirement of showing due respect to the noble Companions such that it must be denied.

The Proper Method of Criticizing the Deeds of the Great

Generally, regarding all the great men of religion, and especially the noble Companions, my approach is that whenever a correct explanation of any of their words or deeds is possible through a rational interpretation or a reliable report, that explanation should be accepted; the audacity of labeling it wrong should be avoided as long as there is any alternative. On the other hand, in my view, attempting to conceal an error under a veneer or turn wrong into right by exceeding the limits of reasonable explanation is not only contrary to justice and intellectual honesty, but I also consider it harmful. Such weak advocacy can convince no one, and the result is that even whatever we say about the true virtues of the Companions and other great men is cast into the whirlpool of doubt. Therefore, where something is seen in the clear light of day to be wrong or unjust, rather than quibbling over it, I think it is better to say directly that such-and-such a statement or deed was wrong. Great men too make mistakes; that does not diminish their greatness or make any difference to it. Their rank is determined by their great achievements, not by one or two mistakes.

Regarding the Sources

Some friends have also expressed doubts about the books from which I gathered material in the concluding section of “The Rightly Guided Caliphate and Its Characteristics” and throughout the discussion “From the Caliphate to Monarchy.” Essentially, this material is of two kinds. From one kind I have taken particular relevant incidents, such as from Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Ibn Qutaybah, and al-Mas‘udi. My discussion relies to a considerable extent on the second kind of material, such as that of Muhammad ibn Sa‘d, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Ibn al-Athir, Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, and Ibn Kathir.

Ibn Abi al-Hadid

Among the first type of sources, Ibn Abi al-Hadid’s Shi‘ism is evident. But from him I have accepted only the incident that Sayyiduna ‘Ali refused to give even his brother ‘Aqil ibn Abi Talib anything beyond his due. In any case, this is a true incident; other historians also say that, because of this, ‘Aqil abandoned his brother and joined the opposing camp. For example, see the account of ‘Aqil in al-Isabah and al-Isti‘ab. Thus, this true incident cannot be rejected merely because Ibn Abi al-Hadid was a Shi‘i.

Ibn Qutaybah

The notion that Ibn Qutaybah was a Shi‘i is completely wrong. He was a student of such imams as Abu Hatim al-Sijistani and Ishaq ibn Rahwayh, and a judge of Dinawar. Ibn Kathir writes about him: He was reliable and possessed distinction and competence. Hafiz Ibn Hajar says: He was exceptionally truthful. al-Khatib al-Baghdadi says: He was reliable, devout, and a man of distinction. Maslamah ibn Qasim says:

*********************

“He was completely truthful and belonged to the ranks of Ahl al-Sunnah. It is said that he followed Ishaq ibn Rahwayh.” Ibn Hazm says: “He was reliable in religion and knowledge.” In discussing his creed, Ibn Hajar says:

***************

“al-Salafi says: Ibn Qutaybah was reliable and adhered to the Sunnah. But al-Hakim opposed him because of his creed.… I think by ‘creed’ al-Salafi meant nasibiyyah, because Ibn Qutaybah had an aversion to the Ahl al-Bayt, whereas al-Hakim was the opposite.” [Al-Bidayah wa’l-Nihayah, vol. 11, pp. 48, 57; Lisan al-Mizan, vol. 3, pp. 357–359.] It is thus apparent that, far from being a Shi‘i, he was actually accused of being a Nasibi.

As for the book attributed to him, al-Imamah wa’l-Siyasah—Leadership and Politics—no one has stated with certainty that this book is not his. Doubt has merely been expressed. This is because some reports found in it have no apparent comparison with Ibn Qutaybah’s judgment or with his other works. I have read the book from beginning to end, and I too consider some of its reports to have been added by others. But in my view, rejecting the entire book for that reason is excessive. It contains much that is useful, and nothing in those matters indicates that they should be rejected. Moreover, I have not taken from this book any report whose meaning is not supported by reports in other books. This is clear from the quotations I have given.

Al-Mas‘udi

There is no doubt that al-Mas‘udi was a Shi‘i. But it is not correct to say that he was an extremist. Read what he wrote about Abu Bakr and ‘Umar in Muruj al-Dhahab. No extremist Shi‘i could discuss them in this way. Even so, he did have an inclination toward the Shi‘is. But I have not even cited any statement of his without presenting corroborating accounts from other books.

I shall now discuss the sources of the second category. The main subject matter of my discussion depends on this category.

Ibn Sa‘d’d

Among these, Muhammad ibn Sa‘d is the most noteworthy. I have given his reports precedence over other reports, and have tried as far as possible not to accept from other books any report contradicting his. The reason is that he was an author closer in time to the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphate. He was born in 168 AH and died in 230 AH. The breadth of his knowledge was immense. All the hadith scholars and Qur’an exegetes trusted his reliability concerning the biographies and military campaigns. To this day, no learned person has even expressed suspicion that he was a Shi‘i. al-Khatib al-Baghdadi says:

***************

“In my view, Muhammad ibn Sa‘d was one of the just. His hadiths testify to the truth of this, for he scrutinized most of his reports.” Hafiz Ibn Hajar says:

**************

“He was extremely reliable and one of the restrained hadith memorizers.” Ibn Khallikan says: “He was well-spoken and reliable.” Hafiz al-Sakhawi says:

**************

“His teacher al-Waqidi was weak, but he himself was reliable.” Ibn Taghri Bardi says:

****************

“All the hadith memorizers, except Yahya ibn Ma‘in, acknowledged him as reliable.”

Although his teacher al-Waqidi was deemed weak in hadith, all hadith scholars accepted his reports concerning biographies and military campaigns. The same applies to Ibn Sa‘d’s other teachers, such as Hisham ibn Muhammad ibn al-Sa’ib al-Kalbi and Ma‘shar. That is,

***************

“They all acknowledged him as reliable concerning biographies and military campaigns. Moreover, all learned men acknowledge regarding Ibn Sa‘d that he did not indiscriminately record everything from his teachers without distinguishing the sound from the unsound; rather, he accepted reports only after considerable scrutiny.”

Ibn Jarir al-Tabari

The second is Ibn Jarir al-Tabari. His exalted status as a hadith scholar, Qur’an exegete, jurist, and historian is acknowledged. In knowledge and piety—knowledge and fear of Allah—his rank was very high. When he was offered the position of judge, he refused to accept it. When authority over the suppression of crime was offered to him, he refused that as well. Imam Ibn Khuzaymah says about him:

*******************

“I know of no scholar in the world today greater than he.” Ibn Kathir says:

****************

“In knowledge of the Book and the Sunnah, and in acting according to them, he was one of the imams of Islam.” Ibn Hajar says:

****************

“He was one of the greatest reliable imams of Islam.” al-Khatib al-Baghdadi says:

******************

“Among historians, Abu Ja‘far was the most reliable.” In hadith, he is acknowledged as a hadith scholar. In jurisprudence, he was an independent mujtahid. His school was counted among the schools of Ahl al-Sunnah. Who is there in the field of history who did not rely on him? Experts relied on his views most heavily, especially concerning the history of the period of turmoil. Ibn al-Athir writes in the introduction to his Tarikh al-Kamil: Regarding the disputes among the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, I relied on him more than on any other historian. The reason is:

****************

“Indeed, he was a reliable imam. In soundness of knowledge and belief, and in adherence to truth, he was comprehensive.” Ibn Kathir too would turn to him regarding contemporary history. He writes: Moving away from the reports of the Shi‘is, I relied most heavily on Ibn Jarir, because

*****************

“He was one of the qualified imams in this field.” After relating the events of the Battle of the Camel, Ibn Khaldun also wrote that, leaving aside the other historians, he had extracted this summary of the events from al-Tabari’s history because he was extremely reliable. Ibn Jarir was free of the errors and shortcomings found in the works of Ibn Qutaybah and other historians. In Ibn Khaldun’s words:

*****************

“Because he agreed with Shi‘i thought on certain juristic questions and on the hadith of Ghadir Khumm, some people have needlessly labeled him a Shi‘i.” One great man even called him an imam of the Imamiyyah sect of the Shi‘is. Yet is there any imam among Ahl al-Sunnah whose statement on some juristic question or in determining the authenticity of a hadith has not coincided in some respect with the Shi‘is? Everyone knows Imam Ibn Taymiyyah: he would not spare anyone in whom the slightest trace of Shi‘ism was found. Yet concerning Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari’s tafsir, he says in his fatwa: Among all the well-known tafsirs, his tafsir is the soundest. He says:

****************

“It contains no innovation and nothing contrary to the Sunnah.” [Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah, vol. 2, p. 192, Kurdistan al-‘Ilmiyyah Press, Egypt, 1326 AH.] In reality, because he acknowledged Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal only as a hadith scholar and not as a jurist, the Hanbalis, driven by anger, were the first to accuse him of being a Rafidi. For this reason, the Hanbalis became his enemies during his lifetime. They prevented people from visiting him. After his death, they did not even allow him to be buried in the Muslim cemetery. In the end, he was buried in his own house. [Al-Bidayah wa’l-Nihayah, vol. 11, p. 146.] Seeing this excess, Imam Ibn Khuzaymah said:

*****************

“The Hanbalis wronged him.” Another reason he became the object of disrepute was that among his contemporaries there was another man known as Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari who was a Shi‘i. But anyone who has read Tafsir Ibn Jarir and Tarikh al-Tabari with open eyes cannot fall into the mistaken belief that their author was a Shi‘i, or that these two works belonged to the Shi‘i Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari. [For the biographies of the Sunni Ibn Jarir and the Shi‘i Ibn Jarir, see pp. 100–103 of Ibn Hajar’s Lisan al-Mizan. In recent times, some people have indiscriminately portrayed the author of Tarikh al-Tabari as a Shi‘i historian, even as a hardened extremist Shi‘i. Perhaps they assume that poor Urdu-speakers will never have the opportunity to read the original work and learn the true facts.]

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr

The third is Hafiz Abu ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr. Hafiz al-Dhahabi calls him Shaykh al-Islam in Tadhkirat al-Huffaz. Abu al-Walid al-Baji says:

*******************

“There was no hadith expert in Andalusia equal to Abu ‘Umar.” Ibn Hazm says:

******************

“To my knowledge, there was no one equal to him, let alone better than him, in speaking authoritatively about understanding hadith.” Ibn Hajar says:

********************

“His authored works have no equal. One of them is al-Isti‘ab; no book on the biographies of the Companions compares with it.” Who is there who, in matters concerning the biographies of the Companions, has not relied on his al-Isti‘ab? Who has expressed the suspicion that he was inclined toward the Shi‘is, or accused him of copying anything indiscriminately?

Ibn al-Athir

The fourth is Ibn al-Athir. His Tarikh al-Kamil and Usd al-Ghabah are regarded as highly reliable sources for Islamic history. There is no later author who did not rely on him. His contemporary, Qadi Ibn Khallikan, wrote:

****************

“He was an imam in memorizing hadith, in its knowledge, and in related matters. He was a hafiz of both recent and ancient history. He was well known for his knowledge of Arab genealogies and their conditions. [Wafayat al-A‘yan, vol. 3, pp. 33–34.] No one has even suspected the slightest inclination toward the Shi‘is on his part. In the introduction to his history, he himself states in exceptionally clear terms that, in narrating the disagreements among the Companions, he proceeded with great caution and care.”

Ibn Kathir

The fifth is Hafiz Ibn Kathir. His position as a hadith scholar, Qur’an exegete, and historian is acknowledged by the entire ummah. His historical work al-Bidayah wa’l-Nihayah is regarded as one of the finest sources for Islamic history. According to the author of Kashf al-Zunun, its greatest merit is that:

****************************

“He distinguishes between sound and incomplete reports.” Hafiz al-Dhahabi praises him, saying:

*****************

“He was at once an imam, a mufti, a learned hadith scholar, a discerning jurist, and a trustworthy hadith scholar and Qur’an exegete. He was experienced in citing reports. I relied more heavily on his history for two reasons. First: far from being inclined toward Shi‘i doctrine, he was a staunch opponent of it. He refuted the Shi‘is’ narratives in forceful language. He did his utmost not to allow any blemish to fall upon any of the Companions. In narrating the history of the period of turmoil, he did not refrain from defending not only Mu‘awiyah but even Yazid. Even so, he was so just that he did not attempt to conceal anything in his historical accounts. Second: he was later in time than both Abu Bakr Ibn al-‘Arabi and Ibn Taymiyyah. He was familiar with Qadi Abu Bakr’s al-‘Awasim min al-Qawasim and Ibn Taymiyyah’s Minhaj al-Sunnah. He was not merely Ibn Taymiyyah’s student; he was also his admirer. For this he had to endure considerable hardship. [Al-Durar al-Kaminah; Ibn Hajar, vol. 1, p. 374, Dairat al-Ma‘arif, Hyderabad, Deccan, 1349.] Therefore, I cannot even imagine that he could have been influenced by Shi‘i reports. Nor can I imagine that he could have shown laxity regarding Shi‘i reports, or that he was unaware of the matters discussed by Qadi Abu Bakr and Ibn Taymiyyah.”

In addition, those from whom I gathered a small amount of supplementary information include such figures as Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Ibn Khallikan, Ibn Khaldun, Abu Bakr al-Jassas, Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn al-‘Arabi, Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari, Muhibb al-Din al-Tabari, and Badr al-Din al-‘Ayni. Presumably no one would dare say of them that they were unreliable, tainted by Shi‘i doctrine, capable of showing laxity in speaking about the Companions, or the sort of people who narrated fanciful tales. In proving certain incidents, I have also cited reliable reports from Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, and others. But there is no cure or remedy for the obstinacy of calling a statement wrong merely because it conflicts with someone’s desire, even though it is mentioned in a reliable hadith collection. Nor is there any cure for the obstinacy of declaring something sound whenever it accords with one’s preference, even though its chain of transmission is weaker than that of the report one calls weak.

Are All These Histories Unreliable?

Now consider this. These are the sources from which I have drawn material throughout this discussion. If these are not reliable concerning the history of that period, then declare that no history of Islam from the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) up to the eighth century exists in the world. For the history of the several centuries after the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)—including the histories of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) and Umar al-Faruq (may Allah be pleased with him)—has reached us through these very sources. If these are not trustworthy and reliable, then the history of the Rightly Guided Caliphate as related by them, the biographies of Islam’s notable figures, and all accounts of their achievements are nothing but a storehouse of falsehood, which we cannot present before anyone with confidence. The world can never accept such a principle; indeed, not even the present-day descendants of Muslims themselves would ever admit that all the virtues of our elders mentioned in these histories are true, while all the weaknesses mentioned in these books are false. If anyone believes that the Shi‘as’ conspiracy was so powerful that even these people from among the Ahl al-Sunnah could not escape their influence, and that Shi‘a reports entered their own books and distorted the entire history of that age, then I am astonished: how did the biographies of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) and Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), and the history of their period, remain preserved from this infiltration?

Nevertheless, to those friends who insist that the reports of these historians from which I collected material are unreliable, I respectfully submit that they should kindly state from which date to which date, ultimately, these reports are untrustworthy. Why are the events narrated by these historians before or after that date reliable? And why did these historians become so careless only concerning this intervening period that they collected so much false material about various Companions in their books?

The Difference between Hadith and History

Some friends open the books of Asma al-Rijal, or biographical criticism, to verify historical reports and say that the imams of biographical criticism have declared such-and-such narrators defective. They say that when such-and-such a narrator reported an event, he was still a child, or had not even been born; and that such-and-such a narrator never met the person whose report he cited. In this way they apply the principles of Hadith verification to historical reports. They reject them on the grounds that one event was narrated without an isnad, while the chain of another event contains a break. In saying all this, they forget that the scholars of Hadith adopted these principles of verification primarily with regard to Hadiths concerning legal rulings. For matters as important as halal and haram, obligatory and necessary acts, and reprehensible and permissible matters of the Shariah are decided on this basis. Through it one also learns what is Sunnah in religion and what is not. If these conditions are imposed on historical events as well, then there is no question of the later chapters of Islamic history; at least one-tenth of the history of the early period will be deemed unreliable. Our opponents will then use the conditions of those disciplines to declare unworthy of recognition many of the achievements of which we are proud. For most of them do not pass the standards of Hadith methodology and Asma al-Rijal, or biographical criticism. Indeed, even the pure and holy biography of the Messenger of Allah cannot be compiled on the complete condition that every report be transmitted through an unbroken chain from one reliable person to another.

By citing statements of the leading authorities in the science of narrator criticism concerning al-Waqidi, Sayf ibn Umar, and other narrators like them, one may emphatically claim that their reports are unacceptable not only in Hadith but also in history. Yet the imams whose books are cited for these statements of the authorities of narrator criticism rejected their reports only with regard to Hadith. Concerning history, accounts of wars and battles, and biographies, these scholars themselves cited many events in their books on the authority of those very narrators. Take, for example, Hafiz Ibn Hajar. His Tahdhib al-Tahdhib contains these criticisms by the authorities of biographical criticism. Yet not only in historical works, but also in his commentary on Bukhari, Fath al-Bari, when analyzing accounts of battles and historical events, he freely cites here and there the statements of al-Waqidi, Sayf ibn Umar, and other weak narrators. Similarly, Hafiz Ibn Kathir severely criticized Abu Mikhnaf in his al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, while he himself repeatedly cited from the history of Ibn Jarir al-Tabari events that had been reported through these very narrators. This clearly shows that the great scholars of Hadith have always observed the clear distinction between Hadith and history. They did not merge the two subjects and apply to one the principle of criticism formulated for the other. This method was followed not only by the Hadith scholars, but also by the great jurists, who were even stricter in accepting reports. For example, Imam al-Shafi‘i called al-Waqidi an inveterate liar on the one hand, while on the other he presented legal arguments in the chapter on military expeditions in Kitab al-Umm from his reports.

This does not mean that they accepted the reports of these weak narrators with their eyes closed. In fact, they did not reject all their reports, nor did they accept every one of them. Rather, after examining and selecting from them, they accepted only what they considered worthy of acceptance, and for which they had many other historical facts in support, with which the sequence of events was also consistent. For this reason, there is no reasonable basis for rejecting the matters that Ibn Sa‘d, Ibn Abd al-Barr, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Jarir, Ibn Athir, Ibn Hajar, and other reliable scholars like them narrated from weak narrators in their books. Nor is there any reasonable basis for concluding that everything they accepted through weak and interrupted chains, or narrated without a chain, was merely baseless fiction and must therefore be discarded.

A notion is now being forcefully advanced that, since the writing of Muslim history began during the Abbasid period, and since the Abbasids’ hostility toward the Banu Umayyah is known to everyone, all the histories written at that time must have been filled with Abbasid propaganda against their enemies. But if this claim is true, how are we to explain the fact that these very histories also record the memorable achievements of the Banu Umayyah, which these friends proudly proclaim, and that in these same histories one finds a detailed account of the outstanding life of Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, who was himself one of the Banu Umayyah? Most important of all, these histories also record many of the Abbasids’ faults, shortcomings, oppression, and persecution. Did the Abbasids themselves publicize all these things?

The Fundamental Weakness of This Argument

Before concluding this discussion of the sources, I also wish to make clear why I did not confine my discussion to Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi’s al-Awasim min al-Qawasim, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s Minhaj al-Sunnah, and Shah Abd al-Aziz’s Tuhfah-yi Ithna Ashariyyah. I am a devoted admirer of all these eminent men. It never even occurred to me that they were unreliable in their honesty, trustworthiness, or purity of thought and research. But the reason I chose, on this matter, not to restrict myself to them and instead to investigate the primary sources myself and form an independent opinion is that these three men did not actually compose their books as historical accounts of events; rather, they wrote them in response to the Shi‘as’ severe accusations and excesses. Consequently, they effectively occupied the position of advocates for one side. And advocacy—whether for the plaintiff or the defendant—has this nature: a person turns to those facts that strengthen his case and avoids those that weaken it. This is generally human nature. Qadi Abu Bakr went to an extreme in this matter in particular. No person who has studied history can derive any beneficial impression from it. For this reason, setting them aside, I learned about the events from the original historical works, assembled those events, and reached my own conclusion concerning the subject under discussion.

I shall now return to those fundamental matters that have been discussed in the various chapters.

An Explanation of Uthman’s Conduct toward His Close Relatives

It has never even occurred to me, God forbid, that Sayyiduna Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) adopted his policy toward his close relatives on the basis of any evil intention. He was one of the Messenger of Allah’s most devoted and beloved Companions. His entire life, from embracing faith until attaining martyrdom, bears witness to this. In view of his sacrifices for the true religion, his utter purity, piety, fear of Allah, and integrity, could any intelligent person even imagine that a man of such pure and holy character might adopt such a policy with an evil purpose—what in the political terminology of the present age is called nepotism? In fact, concerning the basis of his conduct, he himself said that he regarded it as the fulfillment of the rights of kinship. [Kanz al-Ummal, vol. 5, Hadith no. 2324; Tabaqat Ibn Sa‘d, vol. 3, p. 64.] He believed that the command in the Qur’an and Sunnah to treat relatives well could be fulfilled only by showing them as much kindness as a person is capable of showing, without the slightest hesitation. This was not a defect of intention or purpose, but a defect of judgment—in other words, an error of ijtihad. It would have been a defect of intention if he had regarded the act as impermissible yet done it for his own benefit or for the benefit of his relatives. But there is no alternative to calling it an error of ijtihad, because the command to treat relatives well applied to him personally, not to the office of the caliphate. There is no doubt that the generous kindness he himself showed to his relatives throughout his life was the finest example of this. He distributed all his own property, possessions, and money among his relatives, and placed his children and family on an equal footing with them. His action cannot be praised too highly. But the office of the caliphate had no connection with treating relatives well. As caliph, promoting the welfare of relatives was not the true requirement of this command.

In explaining the Shariah’s ruling concerning kindness to relatives, none of the treatment that Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) extended to his relatives can be called impermissible or wrong from the perspective of the Shariah. Clearly, there is no provision in the Shariah forbidding a caliph from appointing someone from his clan to an office. Nor was there any Shariah ruling concerning the distribution of the spoils or assistance from the Bayt al-Mal that he violated. The testament of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) that I mentioned in this connection was not a Shariah rule whose lawful limits he violated; no such further charge can be made against him. But can it be denied that, concerning relatives, the policy followed by Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) and Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), and the policy that Umar advised his potential successors to follow, was the soundest policy from the standpoint of administration? Can there be any hesitation in admitting that Sayyiduna Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), by departing from this policy, adopted a course that was inappropriate administratively and in practice proved extremely harmful? There is no doubt that he had no idea of these harms; only a fool could imagine that he did this deliberately for the consequences that later appeared. But an administrative error must be acknowledged as an error. The head of state appointed a member of his own clan as the state’s chief secretary. [It is claimed that in those days, unlike the present age, the caliphate had no office, nor any officials, secretaries, or chief secretary. The caliph supposedly used a person merely for ordinary correspondence. Thus a strange picture is presented of the administration of the Rightly Guided Caliphate: an empire extending from Afghanistan and Turkestan to South Africa was governed without any central administration; reports arrived from the farthest regions, but no records were kept; countless financial transactions involving jizyah, kharaj, zakat, spoils, khums, and the like took place throughout the empire, but there were no accounts; governors and military commanders received daily instructions, yet all their records remained in one man’s mind, and when necessary he summoned someone to handle ordinary correspondence—as though this were not the administration of a state in that age, but a madrasa of fifteen or twenty students of knowledge run by a single maulvi.] Nor can his appointment of members of his own clan as governors throughout all Muslim-conquered territories outside the Arabian Peninsula be deemed correct by any interpretation. It should be noted that, according to the administrative divisions of that time, all the conquered territories of Africa were under the governor of Egypt; all of Syria was under the governor of Damascus; and Iraq, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Khurasan, and all of Persia were under the governors of Kufa and Basra. During Sayyiduna Uthman’s rule, a time came when the governors of all these provinces—or, more precisely, the governor-generals—were his relatives. This is an undeniable historical fact, and all those on his side have acknowledged it in view of the reality. No one has claimed that no such event occurred at all.

To prove this action of his justified, many eminent men have argued that most of those from his own clan whom Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) appointed to office had also held office during Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) time. But this argument is extremely weak. First, they were not Umar’s relatives but Uthman’s close relatives. That fact was not a cause for complaint against anyone. The people found grounds for complaint when the head of state began assigning major offices to his close relatives. Second, during Umar’s rule they were never given offices as important as those later assigned to them. Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh was merely a military officer during his rule; later he was appointed governor of the Egyptian city of Sa‘id. Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) was only governor of the Damascus region. [Damascus did not mean merely the city of Damascus, but that part of Syria whose capital was Damascus. al-Tabari clearly states that at the time of Umar’s death, Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) was governor of Damascus and Jordan—vol. 3, p. 339.] Hafiz Ibn Kathir says:

*************

Rather, the actual fact is that Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) appointed Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) governor of the entire region. Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), however, had appointed him governor of only part of Syria. In the Arab region of al-Jazirah, where the Banu Taghlib lived, al-Walid ibn Uqbah was governor only of that area. Sa‘id ibn al-As and Abdullah ibn Amir were also appointed to relatively minor offices. For the entire Muslim-conquered territory outside the Arabian Peninsula to remain under governors from one family, and for those governors also to be members of the contemporary caliph’s own family [some groups argue here that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) appointed Quraysh to major offices and even preferred them over others regarding the caliphate. But their argument is incorrect. He did not prefer Quraysh because they were his relatives; rather, he explained the reason himself: after the end of Himyar’s leadership in Arabia, Quraysh’s authority was established. From then on, they had long been the leaders of the Arabs in both good and bad times, and the Arabs acknowledged their leadership. Therefore they had to be placed at the forefront, because leadership by others could not prevail against them. I have discussed the Messenger’s statement on this matter in detail in Rasa’il wa Masa’il, vol. 1, pp. 64–69, and Tafhimat, vol. 3, pp. 139–142. If he had advanced people on the basis of kinship, he would have advanced Banu Hashim above everyone else. Yet among them he appointed only Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) to certain offices from time to time. No one can claim that Banu Hashim lacked qualified men.] Such a situation never arose during his rule.

It is also undeniable that most of those who acquired such great importance toward the end of Uthman’s (may Allah be pleased with him) rule embraced Islam after the conquest of Makkah, and had very little opportunity to benefit from the company and instruction of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). The Messenger (peace be upon him) and, after him, the first two caliphs did not adopt a policy of boycotting them or depriving them of every opportunity and facility to work in the Islamic state. Rather, they tried to win their hearts, educate them, and help them adjust properly within society. They also employed them in work according to their abilities. But neither the Messenger (peace be upon him) nor the first two caliphs followed a policy of pushing these people to the forefront while excluding those of the earlier period. Nor was there any opportunity for them to occupy the seats of authority in Muslim society and the state. During the rule of the Messenger (peace be upon him) and the first two caliphs, they were, first of all, bound by strict rules and discipline; there was no laxity or leniency in this discipline. Moreover, their simultaneous appointment to important state offices was not allowed to upset the balance during their rule. Nor could proximity to the head of state become a reason for leniency toward them. Thus, employing them at that time could not produce the faults and shortcomings that resulted from employing them later. The subsequent course of events, after all power became concentrated in the hands of the Banu Umayyah, effectively proves that although they were capable rulers of a non-Islamic state and possessed the highest qualifications administratively and militarily, they were not qualified to provide the moral and religious leadership of the Muslim community. This historical reality is so clear that no defense by their opponents can successfully conceal it.

There was nothing impermissible, from the perspective of the Shariah, in allowing Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) to remain governor of the same province continuously for sixteen or seventeen years; but from the standpoint of political prudence, it was certainly inappropriate. I do not say that he should have been removed for no offense and without cause. It would have been sufficient to transfer him from one province to another every few years. As a result, he could not have become so powerful in any single province, and it would never have been possible for him to stand with the sword against the central authority.

Concerning Assistance to Relatives from the Bayt al-Mal

There is no room for objection, from the perspective of the Shariah, to anything that Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) did in assisting relatives from the Bayt al-Mal. God forbid! He committed no breach of trust concerning the property of Allah and the Muslims. Nevertheless, even in this matter, his policy was such, from the administrative standpoint, that it inevitably became a cause of complaint and objection for others.

Muhammad ibn Sa‘d quoted the following statement of Imam al-Zuhri in his Tabaqat:

***********

During the last six years of his rule, Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) appointed relatives and members of his clan to government offices. He assigned Marwan one-fifth of the spoils from Egypt—that is, one-fifth of the spoils from Africa that came through Egypt. He also gave money to his relatives. He explained that this was kindness toward relatives, which Allah had commanded. He took money from the Bayt al-Mal and also gave loans. He said, “Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) and Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) relinquished their rights in the Bayt al-Mal, whereas I have taken mine and distributed it among my relatives.” It was this that people disliked. [Tabaqat, vol. 3, p. 64. Some say that Ibn Khaldun objected to giving Marwan a share of the African spoils. Yet Ibn Khaldun wrote:

**********

—The actual fact is that Marwan purchased this one-fifth for five hundred thousand, and Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) remitted this amount for him. See Tarikh Ibn Khaldun, appendix to vol. 2, pp. 139–140.]

This is a report of Imam al-Zuhri, who lived very near the time of Sayyiduna Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). Muhammad ibn Sa‘d also lived very close to the time of Imam al-Zuhri. Ibn Sa‘d cites this statement through only two intermediaries. Ibn Sa‘d did not object to this statement of Imam al-Zuhri. Therefore, it must be accepted as true.

Support for this is also found in a report of Ibn Jarir al-Tabari. He said that in Africa, Abdullah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh reached an agreement with the patrician there for three hundred qintars of gold.

***********

—Thereafter, Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) ordered that this money be given to the family of al-Hakam—that is, to the family of Marwan ibn al-Hakam’s father. [al-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 314.]

Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) himself once explained his policy at a gathering where Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him), al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him), Talhah (may Allah be pleased with him), and Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) were also present, and where his financial assistance was being discussed:

“My two predecessors were extremely strict concerning themselves and their relatives. But the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) used to give money to his relatives. I belong to a clan that is poor. Therefore, in return for the service I render to the state, I have taken money from the Bayt al-Mal, and I believe I have the right to take it. If you consider this wrong or unjust, decide that the money should be returned. I shall accept your decision.” Everyone said, “You have spoken with complete correctness.” Then those present said, “You gave money to Abdullah ibn Khalid ibn Asid and Marwan.” They stated the amounts: fifteen thousand to Marwan and fifty thousand to Ibn Asid. Accordingly, the money was collected from them and returned to the Bayt al-Mal, and everyone left the gathering satisfied.” [al-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 382; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 79; Ibn Khaldun, appendix to vol. 2, p. 144.]

What is known from all these reports is that the policy adopted by Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding providing financial assistance to relatives did not in any way exceed the limits sanctioned by the Shariah. Whatever he received, he received as the head of state in return for serving the state and, rather than using it himself, gave it to his loved ones; or he took loans from the Bayt al-Mal and gave them, which he was obliged to repay; or, according to his own judgment, he distributed one-fifth of the spoils of war, concerning which there was no detailed ruling in the Shariah. Clearly, if, like Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) and Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), he had shown this kind of generosity toward others instead of his own relatives, no one would have had anything to say. But the Caliph’s showing such generosity toward members of his own clan became a cause for slander. For this reason, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) and Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) were strict with themselves in order to keep themselves above every suspicion; they denied their close relatives the generosity they showed to others. Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) could not adopt this precaution, and so he became the target of accusations.

The Cause of the Terror

To say that the terror that arose against Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) arose without any cause, merely as a result of the conspiracy of the Sabaeans, or that it was simply the result of the terrorism of the people of Iraq, is not a correct study of history. If there had truly been no reason for discontent among the people, and if genuine discontent had not existed, no group of conspirators could have succeeded in creating terror and drawing Companions and the sons of Companions into their ranks. The policy Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) adopted regarding his relatives caused discontent not only among ordinary people but also among leading Companions; it was solely because of this that they succeeded in their mischief. They took advantage of this and turned the weak group they had gained into victims of their conspiracy. History proves that the makers of disorder gained the opportunity to find a path for their mischief through this very opening. Ibn Sa’d’s account:

**********

The people were displeased with Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) because he kept Marwan in his favor and followed his advice. They believed that most of the acts carried out in Uthman’s name had not actually been ordered by Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him); rather, Marwan did them on his own initiative without consulting him. For this reason, the people objected to Marwan’s being favored and granted such status. [Tabaqat, vol. 5, p. 36.]

Ibn Kathir says that when the delegation of Uthman’s opponents from Kufa came to him to present their complaints, the matter they emphasized most was this:

******************

They sent some people to debate Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) on the matter that you have dismissed many Companions and appointed your relatives from Banu Umayyah as governors in their places. They spoke extremely harshly to Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) about this and demanded that these men be dismissed and others appointed in their place. [Al-Bidayah, vol. 7, p. 168.]

Hafiz Ibn Kathir goes on to write that the greatest weapon of Uthman’s opponents for inciting the people against him was this:

****************

The people expressed discontent because Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) dismissed leading Companions and appointed his relatives as governors. This matter had taken root in the minds of many people. [Al-Bidayah, p. 168.]

The detailed account of the conversation that took place between Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) during this turmoil has been given by al-Tabari, Ibn Athir, Ibn Kathir, and Ibn Khaldun. They say that when criticism of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) began from every direction in Medina, and the situation reached such a point that, apart from a few Companions—Zayd ibn Thabit, Abu Asid al-Sa’idi, Ka’b ibn Malik, and Hassan ibn Thabit (may Allah be pleased with them)—no other Companion was willing to speak in his support, the people said to Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), “Meet Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) and discuss this matter with him.” He went to him and advised him to change the objectionable policies. Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) said, “Those whom I have appointed to office were also appointed by Umar ibn al-Khattab. Why, then, are people objecting to me?” Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) replied, “When Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) appointed someone as governor of a place, if anything objectionable about him reached his ears, he thoroughly investigated the matter. But you do not do this. You show leniency toward your relatives.” In reply, Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) said, “They are also your relatives.” Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) replied—

***************

“There is no doubt that they are closely related to you, but others are better than them.” Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) said, “Did Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) not appoint Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) as governor?” Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) replied, “Even Yarfa, Umar’s slave, did not fear him as much as Muawiyah feared him. But now the situation is that Muawiyah does whatever he pleases without consulting you and goes about saying that it is Uthman’s command. Yet you say nothing. [Al-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 377; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 76; Al-Bidayah, vol. 7, pp. 168–169; Ibn Khaldun, appendix to vol. 2, p. 143.]

On another occasion, Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) went to Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) home and, invoking their close kinship, said to him, “Help me remove this turmoil.” He replied, “All this is happening because of Marwan ibn al-Hakam, Sa’id ibn al-As, Abdullah ibn Amir, and Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). You listen to them, but you do not listen to me.” Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) said, “Very well, from now on I will listen to you.” Thereafter, Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), accompanied by a group of Muhajirun and Ansar, went to the terrorists and persuaded them to withdraw. [Al-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 394; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, pp. 81–82; Ibn Khaldun, appendix to vol. 2, p. 146.]

On another occasion during this turmoil, Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) made the forceful complaint: “I try to settle the matter, but Marwan ruins it. You yourself stand on the Messenger’s pulpit and reassure and calm the people. But after you leave, Marwan stands at your door and abuses the people. The fire flares up again.” [Al-Tabari, vol. 3, p. 398; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, pp. 83–84; Ibn Khaldun, appendix to vol. 2, p. 147.]

Ibn Jarir also cites reports concerning Talhah (may Allah be pleased with him), Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him), and Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) that they too were not satisfied with this situation. [Al-Tabari, vol. 3, pp. 477, 486. A certain friend has claimed that these quotations are incorrect. Perhaps this claim was made on the assumption that Urdu speakers would be unable to consult the original work and learn the truth. Even so, those who know Arabic can consult the original text. Page 477 mentions that when Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said, “By Allah, I shall demand revenge for Uthman’s blood,” Abd ibn Umm Kilab said, “By Allah! You were the first of all to oppose him.” Aishah (may Allah be pleased with her) replied, “They made Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) repent and then killed him.” Similarly, page 486 mentions that Talhah (may Allah be pleased with him) and Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him) addressed the people of Basra. In this speech he said:

**********

“Our aim was only to persuade Amir al-Mu’minin Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him)…….” At this, the people said to Talhah (may Allah be pleased with him):

***********

“Abu Muhammad, we have your letter. It does not mention this objective.” Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him) replied, “Have you ever received a letter from me concerning Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him)?” Ibn Khaldun also mentions these events. See the appendix to vol. 2, pp. 154–157. The fundamental cause—and this discontent itself became an aid to the conspirators and fomenters of disorder against him. I am not the only one to have said this. For example, the seventh-century Shafi’i jurist and hadith scholar Hafiz Muhibb al-Din al-Tabari quotes the following statement of Sa’id ibn al-Musayyab while discussing the cause of Uthman’s (may Allah be pleased with him) martyrdom:

************

When Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) became ruler, some of the Companions disliked his assuming power because he loved the people of his own tribe. He remained in power for twelve years. He repeatedly appointed to government offices people from Banu Umayyah who had not enjoyed the company of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). His appointed officials carried out acts that the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not approve of. During the last six years of his rule, he gave special preference to members of his clan and appointed them to positions of authority. [Al-Riyad al-Nadirah fi Manaqib al-Asharah, vol. 2, p. 124.]

Hafiz Ibn Hajar said the same thing while discussing the cause of Uthman’s (may Allah be pleased with him) martyrdom:

***********

The reason for his murder was that the governors of the major regions were his close relatives. All of Syria was under Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). Sa’id ibn al-As was in Basra, Abdullah ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Sarh was in Egypt, and Abdullah ibn Amir was in Khurasan. People coming from all these regions for the pilgrimage used to complain against their amirs. But Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) was gentle, extremely kind, and patient. He would remove an amir to please the people and then appoint him again. [Al-Isabah fi Tamyiz al-Sahabah, vol. 2, pp. 455–456.]

Maulana Anwar Shah Sahib says:

**********

Amir al-Mu’minin Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) appointed his relatives to government offices. This was a cause of the intensification of all these disturbances. The conduct of some of them was not good. The people objected and complained to Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) against them. But he did not consider the complaints justified. Rather, he thought that they were needlessly incensed against his relatives. Perhaps they were dissatisfied with his appointing his relatives and therefore complained against them. ………… Although Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) did not dismiss his relatives in the face of the people’s objections, neither did he support them. [Fayd al-Bari, vol. 2, p. 222, Majlis-i Ilmi Dabhel, first edition, 1938 CE.]

The Caliphate of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him)

No one is unaware of the circumstances in which Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was nominated as caliph after the martyrdom of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). Two thousand terrorists who had come from outside had laid siege to the capital. They had even killed the Caliph. A significant number of people in the capital itself shared their views. They undoubtedly participated in the election of the new caliph, and reports certainly exist that, when Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was appointed caliph, they forcibly compelled some people to give bay’ah. But the question is: was this election wrong? Was there anyone then, not merely in Medina but in the entire Muslim world, who should have been appointed caliph instead? [A certain friend has claimed that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was not then the best of the Companions and did not possess such standing that the people’s attention would be directed toward him for the caliphate. But no person today can decide this matter correctly. Rather, only the people of that age can decide it correctly. What their view was became clear when, after Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) martyrdom, the members of the shura entrusted the matter of choosing a caliph to Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf (may Allah be pleased with him), and he surveyed public opinion in Medina. In this connection, Hafiz Ibn Kathir writes:

Thereafter, Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf (may Allah be pleased with him) went out to consult the people and ascertain the opinion of the general Muslim public. He continued to ascertain the opinions of the people’s leaders and influential figures, both publicly and privately, individually and in groups. He even asked veiled women, ordinary students of educational institutions, and outsiders in Medina. He remained occupied with this task for three days and three nights. ………… Thereafter, addressing Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), he said, “I have ascertained the people’s opinions regarding both of you. I have found no one who considers anyone else equal to the two of you.” …………….. Then, while addressing the assembly in the Prophet’s Mosque, he said, “Friends, I have ascertained your opinions both publicly and privately. I have found no one among you who considers anyone else equal to either of these two.” [Al-Bidayah, vol. 7, p. 146.]

This proves that after Uthman’s (may Allah be pleased with him) martyrdom, the people’s attention was directed toward Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). According to the established and unanimously accepted Islamic practice of that time, was Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) not elected the lawful caliph? Is there anything anywhere in the Islamic constitution stating that if terrorists who had taken part in violence against the former caliph also participate in electing a new caliph, his election becomes invalid? [Only the Mu’tazilah held that electing a caliph during turmoil or conflict was impermissible. It is astonishing that in our age some scholars among the Ahl al-Sunnah have also expressed doubts about Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) caliphate, because it took place during a time of turmoil. We shall discuss the Ahl al-Sunnah’s position on this matter later. Quotations from Hidayah, Fath al-Qadir, and Sharh Akbar have already been cited; in this connection, a quotation from Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi’s Ahkam al-Qur’an has also been mentioned.] One caliph had been martyred. Was it correct and error-free to leave the Muslim world without a caliph for a long period instead of appointing another caliph in his place as soon as possible? Was that what should have happened? Even if it is conceded that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) knowingly showed laxity in arresting Uthman’s killers and prosecuting them, or that he was powerless before them, is that, according to Islamic law and constitutional principles, sufficient to make his caliphate unlawful and invalid and to legitimize taking up the sword against him? These are all fundamental questions. They are of immense importance in reaching a correct and accurate judgment about the subsequent course of events.

Anyone wishing to answer all these questions affirmatively must produce his evidence. But from the first century until today, all Ahl al-Sunnah have unanimously recognized Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) as the fourth caliph of the Rightly Guided Caliphs. Even in our own country, his caliphate is duly proclaimed every Friday. To a greater or lesser extent, this situation also prevailed during Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) caliphate. Except for Syria, his caliphate was recognized throughout the Arabian Peninsula and the rest of the Muslim world. The administration of the state was in practice established upon his caliphate, and the overwhelming majority of the Ummah acknowledged his leadership. As far as I have been able to investigate, there was not a single scholar after Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) who did not recognize Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) as the fourth Rightly Guided Caliph. Nor was there any scholar who expressed doubt regarding the validity of his bay’ah. Indeed, the scholars of the Hanafi school regarded recognizing his caliphate as one of the doctrines of Ahl al-Sunnah. I have cited Sharh al-Tahawiyyah in chapter seven of the present book on this subject. It is also true that all hadith scholars, exegetes, and jurists recognized Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) wars against the participants of the Battle of al-Jamal, at Siffin, and against the Kharijites as being based on the verses of the Noble Qur’an—

*************

“If one group transgresses against another group, then fight the transgressing group until it complies with Allah’s command”—and recognized Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) fighting as just. For, in their view, he was the true and rightful imam. Rebellion against him was impermissible. I do not know the name of a single jurist, hadith scholar, or exegete who expressed an opinion contrary to this. In particular, the scholars of the Hanafi school unanimously stated that in all these battles Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was on the side of truth, while those who fought against him were rebels. As an example, consider the following quotation from the author of Hidayah:

It is permissible to accept the office of judge from an unjust ruler, just as it is permissible to accept it from a just ruler. This is because some of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) accepted the office of judge from Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), even though, after the opportunity to assume the caliphate arose, the right lay with Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). [Hidayah, Book of Judicial Conduct.]

In explaining this statement, Allamah Ibn al-Humam writes in Fath al-Qadir:

This is an explicit acknowledgment of Muawiyah’s (may Allah be pleased with him) wrongdoing. It does not mean injustice in judicial decisions; rather, it means his rebellion. …………. The actual fact is that the truth was on Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) side. For, when his turn came, he was appointed caliph through a valid bay’ah, and his caliphate was accepted. Therefore, in the battle against the participants of the Battle of al-Jamal and in the battle against Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) at Siffin, he was on the side of truth. Moreover, the Messenger of Allah’s (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) statement concerning Ammar (may Allah be pleased with him), “A rebellious group will kill you,” clearly proves that the companions of Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) were rebels, because they were the ones who killed Ammar (may Allah be pleased with him). [Fath al-Qadir, vol. 5, p. 461, Egypt, 1316 AH.]

Mulla Ali Qari, representing the Hanafi perspective, gives such a detailed discussion of Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) caliphate in his commentary on Fiqh al-Akbar that the whole passage deserves to be read. He writes:

After the martyrdom of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), leading Muhajirun and Ansar gathered before Ali—may Allah honor his countenance—and requested him to accept the caliphate, and they gave bay’ah to him. This was because he was the best among his contemporaries and the most qualified for the caliphate. No one disagrees that he was the most entitled to it. However, a group of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) refrained from assisting him. A group of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) fought against him at the battles of al-Jamal and Siffin. But this is no evidence that his caliphate was invalid. ….. A famous hadith of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace)—

***********

“The caliphate will remain for thirty years after me; thereafter, a bloodstained monarchy will begin”—this hadith is one of the proofs of the validity of his caliphate. It is true that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was martyred at the beginning of the thirtieth year after the death of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). The Messenger of Allah’s (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) statement concerning Ammar ibn Yasir (may Allah be pleased with him):

“A rebellious group will kill you”—proves the correctness of Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) ijtihad and the error in Muawiyah’s (may Allah be pleased with him) objective. This also proves that Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) and those who came after him were not caliphs but kings.

Mulla Ali Qari goes on to write:

The consensus of the ummah is not a condition for establishing the caliphate. Rather, it is established when a number of pious and upright members of the ummah entrust the responsibility of the caliphate to a qualified person for this office. Thereafter, no one has the right to oppose him. Therefore, there is no reason to impose consensus as a condition. For imposing such a condition creates the fear that, when the need arises to appoint an imam, this may be delayed. Moreover, the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) never regarded consensus as a condition in appointing a caliph or giving the bay‘ah. Those who say that Talhah (may Allah be pleased with him) and al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him) gave the bay‘ah under compulsion, and that they said, “Our hands gave bay‘ah to ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), but our hearts did not give bay‘ah to him,” are thereby shown to be making a baseless claim. Likewise, their claim that Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him), Sa‘id ibn Zayd (may Allah be pleased with him), and many others refrained from helping ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and did not obey him is also proved baseless. Their claim is false because the leadership of ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) had been established even without the bay‘ah of these men. It remains to consider why ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) did not kill the killers of ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). The reason was that they were not merely killers; they were also rebels. A rebel is one who possesses strength and also has an interpretation to justify the legality of his rebellion. They possessed both strength and an interpretation. They objected to certain actions of ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), and for this reason considered their rebellion lawful or justified. The ruling in the Shari‘ah concerning such rebels is that, if they submit to the authority of the imam and the just, they are not punished for the harm they previously caused to the lives and property of the people of truth and justice. Therefore, it was not obligatory for ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) to kill them or hand them over for retaliation (qisas) for the killings. Those jurists who consider it obligatory to arrest such rebels also say that the imam should arrest them only when their strength has been weakened, their pride in their power has been crushed, and the imam is certain and assured that disorder will not rise again. ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) had achieved none of these conditions. The rebels’ influence and power remained evident. Their ability to resist and retaliate was intact and ongoing. They also continued to maintain their resolve that they would fight anyone who demanded retribution from them for the blood of ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). In this matter, the course adopted by Talhah (may Allah be pleased with him) and al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him)—which became the cause of the Battle of the Camel—was mistaken, although whatever they did was based on ijtihad, and they were qualified for ijtihad. Later, both of them felt ashamed and remorseful for their actions. Likewise, ‘A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) regretted her action. She wept so much for this reason that the edge of her scarf became soaked. Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) also made a mistake. However, whatever he did, he did on the basis of an interpretation. Therefore, he did not become a fasiq because of that mistake. Among Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama‘ah there is disagreement over whether he may be called a rebel. Some refrain from using this designation concerning him. But the view of those who apply this term to him is correct, because the Messenger of Allah told ‘Ammar (may Allah be pleased with him), “A rebellious group will kill you.” [Commentary on Fiqh al-Akbar, pp. 78–82.]

This discussion makes the entire Shari‘ah-based position perfectly clear. It also reveals the true view and path of Ahl al-Sunnah concerning the caliphate of ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and his opponents. The claim that the caliphate of ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was doubtful and unproven, and that there was room in the Shari‘ah to take up arms against him, requires overwhelming evidence. I am not greatly surprised by the conduct of those who, on the one hand, are determined to prove Yazid’s caliphate legitimate and Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) false, while on the other hand exerting themselves to defend Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him). Yet the evidence establishing ‘Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) caliphate was a thousand times stronger than the evidence used to establish the legitimacy of Yazid’s caliphate. No Shari‘ah-sanctioned evidence can be presented in support of the action of those who took up arms against him to avenge the killing of ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). Allah’s Shari‘ah is inviolable. There is no justification for trying to prove an error correct merely by considering someone’s rank.

The Matter of the Killers of ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him)

On the basis of whatever thought I have given to the rulings of the Shari‘ah, it is my view that there was only one Shari‘ah-sanctioned way to avenge the killing of ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). It was to recognize the caliphate of the reigning caliph and demand that he arrest the killers of ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), bring them to trial, determine through evidence and testimony the extent of each person’s participation in this grave crime, and punish each according to law. On the other hand, on the basis of whatever I have studied about the circumstances of that time, I believe that this lawful measure could not actually be adopted without everyone cooperating with ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and giving him the opportunity to work in a peaceful environment. Historical events prove that those who conspired and attacked Madinah numbered nearly two thousand. They also had a number of supporters in Madinah itself. Small groups supporting them were present in Egypt, Basrah, and Kufah as well. If all truth-seeking people had gathered around ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and cooperated with him, he could have dispersed these small groups and reached out against them. But when, on the one hand, a section of influential Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) adopted a neutral position, while on the other hand powerful armies gathered in Basrah and Syria to fight ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), it became not merely impossible for him to move against these people; he was effectively compelled to accept help from anyone who could assist him against the powerful forces, and compelled not to become involved in a third war with the group that had killed ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him). If anyone disagrees with my view, let him say when ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) could have seized the powerful group of ‘Uthman’s killers: immediately after assuming the caliphate? During the Battle of the Camel? During the Battle of Siffin? Or after Siffin, when Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) was trying to seize the provinces of the state one by one from him, while the Kharijites were forming ranks against him?

Is an Error Based on Ijtihad Really an Error??

From what I have set forth above, it becomes clear that those who took up arms against the caliph of their time to avenge the killing of ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) were not justified in doing so according to the Shari‘ah; strategically also, their action was mistaken.

I have not the slightest hesitation in acknowledging that they undertook this action with good intentions, believing themselves to be upholders of the truth. But although I regard it as a “simple error,” I have great hesitation and misgivings about acknowledging it as an “error based on ijtihad.”

Ijtihad applies only to opinions concerning which the Shari‘ah allows some latitude. We may call an opinion an error based on ijtihad only when there is some legal argument or evidence in its support, although it is not correct or is extremely weak. If there was even the slightest latitude in the Shari‘ah for the legitimacy of taking up arms against ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), what was it? Let some knowledgeable person kindly explain. According to reliable reports, Talhah (may Allah be pleased with him) and al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him) both acknowledged their mistake just before fighting began at the Battle of the Camel and withdrew from the battlefield. ‘A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) later acknowledged her mistake. Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), of course, always considered himself to be upholding the truth. But what could reasonably be presented as a lawful basis for his war? That a new caliph had dismissed a governor? Or that the new caliph had not arrested and prosecuted the killers of the former caliph? Or that the killers of the former caliph had influence over the new caliph? Or that, in the opinion of the governor of one province, the caliphate of the new caliph was not lawfully established, even though it had been recognized in the capital and the other provinces and had in fact been established? If the Shari‘ah contains even the remotest possibility of calling any one of these a lawful reason for taking up arms against the caliph of the time, let it be stated.

In this matter, the argument Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) presented on the basis of this verse was entirely mistaken. The verse never means that, if the caliph of the time does not arrest the killers, the guardians of the murdered person acquire the right to fight against the caliph. Moreover, Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) was not the murdered man’s lawful guardian. Even if it is assumed that he was the murdered man’s guardian, he still had absolutely no right to rebel against the central authority.

The same applies to the case of ‘Amr ibn al-‘As (may Allah be pleased with him). In view of the proposal to raise copies of the Qur’an on spears during the Battle of Siffin and the account of the arbitration at Dumat al-Jandal, as reported in all reliable narratives, there is no alternative but to say that this was merely a “mistake.” There appears to be no justification for calling it an error based on ijtihad.

Ibn Sa‘d cites a report from Imam al-Zuhri that, when the fighting at Siffin had reached its fiercest point and the people’s courage was on the verge of collapsing, ‘Amr ibn al-‘As (may Allah be pleased with him) said to Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him):

“If you follow my advice, order the people to stand holding open copies of the Qur’an and say, ‘People of Iraq! We call you to the Qur’an. Let judgment be according to everything it contains, from al-Hamd to al-Nas.’ If you do this, division and disagreement will arise among the Iraqis, while the unity of the Syrians will remain intact.” Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) accepted this proposal. [Tabaqat, vol. 4, p. 255.]

Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Athir, and Ibn Khaldun have also mentioned this in greater detail. Their unanimous account is that, when ‘Amr (may Allah be pleased with him) proposed making the Qur’an the arbiter, he explained its rationale as follows: “The result will be that division will appear in ‘Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) army. Alternatively, if they all accept it, we will gain an opportunity to suspend the fighting for some time.” [Tabari, vol. 4, p. 34; al-Bidayah, vol. 7, p. 272; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, p. 160; Ibn Khaldun, appendix to vol. 2, p. 174.] As far as I know, no historian has mentioned any other purpose for raising the Qur’an. This unanimous account makes it perfectly clear that the real purpose of the proposal was not to obtain a judgment based on the Qur’an. Rather, it was put forward merely as a stratagem of war. Can this truly be called ‘ijtihad’?”

Regarding what subsequently occurred at Dumat al-Jandal in connection with the arbitration, the unanimous account of Tabaqat-i Ibn Sa‘d, Tarikh al-Tabari, al-Bidayah wa’l-Nihayah, Ibn Athir, and Ibn Khaldun is that Abu Musa (may Allah be pleased with him) came before the assembly and announced the very decision that had been reached privately between ‘Amr ibn al-‘As (may Allah be pleased with him) and Abu Musa al-Ash‘ari (may Allah be pleased with him). ‘Amr (may Allah be pleased with him) then gave a verdict completely contrary to it. [Tabaqat-i Ibn Sa‘d, vol. 4, pp. 256–256; Tabari, vol. 4, pp. 49–52; al-Bidayah wa’l-Nihayah, vol. 7, pp. 281–283; Ibn al-Athir, vol. 3, pp. 167–168; Ibn Khaldun, appendix to vol. 2, p. 178.] After reading this account, can any fair-minded person say that this was ‘ijtihad’?

The Question of Yazid’s Succession

What amazes me most is the argument used to try to prove the legitimacy of making Yazid the successor. Some friends acknowledge that the result was bad. But they say that, if Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) had not appointed Yazid as his successor during his lifetime, civil war would have broken out among the Muslims after him, the Roman emperor would have attacked, and the Islamic state itself would have come to an end. Therefore, the evil resulting from appointing Yazid was comparatively less evil than all those evils. I ask: if his real purpose was to prevent civil war among the ummah over the succession after his death, and if for that reason he felt it necessary to secure an oath of allegiance to a successor during his lifetime, could he not have adopted another means to achieve this noble purpose? Could he not have gathered the remaining Companions and the leading Followers and said to them: choose a suitable person as my successor during my lifetime? Could he not then have obtained their bay‘ah for the person they selected? What prevented him from adopting this course? If Mu‘awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) had followed this path, do you think civil war would still have broken out? Would the Roman emperor still have attacked and brought the Islamic state to an end?

The Charge of Needlessly Advocating for ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him)

Some critical friends have also expressed the suspicion that I am needlessly advocating for ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). But I have already explained my distinctive view concerning the noble Companions, especially the Rightly Guided Caliphs: if any of their statements or actions appears outwardly mistaken, one must make every effort to find the correct explanation in their own statements, the circumstances of the time, or the total course of their conduct. One must offer reasonable explanations in its support, without crossing into the bounds of needless and base advocacy. In Sayyiduna ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), in the first volume of Rasa’il wa Masa’il, concerning the ‘claim to the office’ of ‘Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) caliphate, and in the present article, the approach I have taken is founded on this very principle; it is not the needless advocacy for which I am being reproached. When I see that, according to all reliable reports, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), and ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) supported the three caliphs throughout their caliphates with devotion and sincerity, that cordial and loving relations existed among them, and that after the deaths of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) and ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) they praised them wholeheartedly, then the reports saying that they were displeased with each of their caliphate selections seem weak to me. The reports saying that each of them accepted the caliphate wholeheartedly from the beginning seem stronger to me. When reports from both sides exist and are transmitted with chains of transmission, why should we not prefer those consistent with the overall course of their conduct? Why should we single out only those reports that appear contrary to it? Likewise, from the martyrdom of ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) until his own martyrdom, I sought a sound explanation for every aspect of ‘Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) conduct at every stage, and I found it in his own reports, the circumstances of the time, and the course of events. But concerning the appointment of Malik al-Ashtar and Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr as governors, I found no way to regard this as truth-oriented under any interpretation. For this reason, I acknowledged my inability to support the action.

Some friends repeatedly raise the question that, like ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) also gave important offices to relatives during his caliphate. But they forget what the subject of my book is. In this book I am not recording history; rather, I am discussing which course of events became the cause of disorder. Clearly, in discussing this subject, the reign of ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), not that of ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), falls within the scope of the discussion. Whatever he did during his reign cannot be considered a cause of disorder.

Final Word

Before concluding this discussion, I would submit to my critical friends that, if they consider my arguments and proofs, and the conclusions I have drawn from the facts and principles on which those arguments are based, to be incorrect, they should gladly reject them. But merely rejecting them will not suffice. They must clearly state in a positive manner:

One: What, fundamentally, are the principles of the Islamic state and the Islamic system of governance in the light of the Qur’an and Sunnah?

Two: What are the true characteristics of the Rightly Guided Caliphate on the basis of which it is called a caliphate following the model of prophethood?

Three: Did monarchy come among the Muslims after this caliphate?

Four: If you claim that monarchy did not come, did the characteristics of a caliphate following the model of prophethood remain present in the states of later times?

Five: If you acknowledge that monarchy did come, for what reason and by what means did it come?

Six: At what stage, would you say, did monarchy take the place of the caliphate?

Seven: What accounts for the difference between the Rightly Guided Caliphate and that monarchy? What fundamental change was introduced when one took the place of the other?

Eight: Are the caliphate and monarchy in Islam alike? Or is one system desired from the Islamic perspective, while the second is to be tolerated only when attempting to change it appears likely to cause even greater disorder?

These are the questions that occupy the minds of the millions of people who today study Islamic history and the Islamic branch of political science. If I have given wrong answers to all these questions, then give the correct answers. The learned public at large will itself decide which of the two answers is more logical and supported by evidence.

A Matter to Be Noted

In the present book I have exercised strict care to ensure that no matter is mentioned without a reference. Regrettably, however, one matter was mentioned on page 111 without any reference. It was stated that ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Sarh initially became an apostate. At the conquest of Makkah, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), on the recommendation of ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), pardoned him and accepted his bay‘ah. This incident is mentioned in Abu Dawud, the chapter on the rulings concerning apostates; al-Nasa’i, the chapter on apostates; Mustadrak al-Hakim, the chapter on Maghazi; Tabaqat Ibn Sa‘d, vol. 2, pp. 136–141; Sirat Ibn Hisham, vol. 4, pp. 51–52 (Egyptian edition, 1936); al-Isti‘ab, vol. 1, p. 381; and al-Isabah, p. 309. The detailed account presented in these works may be summarized as follows: he first became a Muslim, migrated to Madinah, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) included him among the scribes of revelation. Subsequently he apostatized and went to Makkah. Having been one of the principal scribes of revelation, he used that status perversely and began spreading misconceptions about the Messenger’s prophethood and the Noble Qur’an. For this reason, at the conquest of Makkah, he was among those concerning whom the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) announced that they should be killed even if they sought refuge beneath the curtains of the Ka‘bah. Hearing this announcement, he went to his foster-brother, ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), and sought refuge with him, and ‘Uthman concealed him. When peace had been established in Makkah and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) came to receive the bay‘ah of the people of Makkah, ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him) brought him before the Prophet and requested that his offense be pardoned and his bay‘ah accepted. The Prophet remained silent. After remaining silent through three requests, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) accepted his bay‘ah. He then said to the Companions: ‘Was there no good man among you who, when he saw me refraining from accepting his bay‘ah, would rise and kill him?’ They replied, ‘We were waiting for your signal.’ The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘It is not the practice of a prophet to give a concealed signal with his eyes.’

There is no doubt that thereafter Hazrat Abdullah Sa’d proved himself to be a devoted Muslim. After that, no objectionable act was committed by him. Therefore, Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) first appointed him as a temporary officer under Hazrat Amr ibn al-As (may Allah be pleased with him), and later appointed him governor of the Sa’id region of Egypt. Subsequently, during the caliphate of Hazrat Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), he was appointed governor-general of all North Africa, including Egypt, and commander-in-chief of the military forces. Those who knew of his past life could hardly be expected not to dislike seeing him installed in such a high position.

End

Bibliography

1. The Glorious Qur’an (the Book of Allah).

2. Sahih al-Bukhari, Imam al-Bukhari.

3. Sahih Muslim, Imam Muslim.

4. Sunan Abu Dawud.

5. Sunan al-Tirmidhi.

6. Sunan Ibn Majah.

7. Sunan al-Nasa’i.

8. al-Tabarani.

9. al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Ibn Kathir, Matba’at al-Sa’adah, Egypt.

10. al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin, al-Jahiz, Matba’at al-Futuh al-Adabiyyah, Egypt, 1332 AH.

11. al-Jawharat al-Munifah fi Sharh Wasiyyat al-Imam Abu Hanifah, Mulla Husayn, Dairat al-Ma’arif, Hyderabad, 1321 AH.

12. al-Durar al-Kaminah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Dairat al-Ma’arif, Hyderabad, Deccan, 1348 AH.

13. al-Riyad al-Nadirah fi Manaqib al-Asharah, Muhibb al-Din al-Tabari, Matba’at Husayniyyah, Egypt, 1327 AH.

14. al-Siyar, Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani.

15. al-Sirah al-Nabawiyyah, Ibn Hisham, Matba’at Mustafa al-Babi, Egypt, 1936.

16. al-Sunan al-Kubra, al-Bayhaqi, Dairat al-Ma’arif, Hyderabad, Deccan, 1355 AH.

16. al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (1504–1567 CE).

18. al-Iqd al-Farid, Ibn Abd Rabbih, Lajnat al-Ta’lif wa al-Tarjamah, Cairo, 1940 CE.

19. al-Awasim min al-Qawasim, Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi.

20. al-Ghufran, Abu al-Ala al-Ma’arri, Dar al-Ma’arif, Egypt, 1950 CE.

21. al-Fasl fi al-Milal wa al-Ahwa wa al-Nihal, Ibn Hazm, al-Matba’at al-Adabiyyah, Egypt, 1317 AH.

22. al-Farq bayn al-Firaq, Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi, Matba’at al-Ma’arif, Egypt.

23. al-Fiqh al-Absat, al-Salafi.

24. al-Fiqh al-Akbar, Imam Abu Hanifah.

25. al-Fihrist, Ibn al-Nadim, Matba’at al-Rahmaniyyah, Egypt, 1348 AH.

26. al-Kashshaf, al-Zamakhshari, al-Matba’at al-Bahiyyah, Egypt, 1343 AH.

27. al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, Ibn Athir, Idarat al-Tiba’ah al-Muniriyyah, Egypt, 1356 AH.

28. al-Mabsut, al-Sarakhsi, Matba’at al-Sa’adat, Egypt, 1364 AH.

29. al-Mughni wa al-Sharh al-Kabir, Ibn Qudamah, Matba’at al-Manar, Egypt, 1348 AH.

30. al-Muwatta, Imam Malik.

31. Amal al-Murtada, Matba’at al-Sa’adah, Egypt, 1907 CE.

32. al-Wasiyyah, Imam Abu Hanifah.

33. Tarikh al-Umam wa al-Muluk, al-Tabari, al-Matba’at al-Istiqamah, Cairo, 1939.

34. Tarikh al-Khulafa, al-Suyuti, Government Press, Lahore, 1870 CE.

35. Tarikh al-Wuzara, al-Jahshiyari, Vienna edition, 1926.

36. Tarikh Baghdad, al-Khatib, Matba’at al-Sa’adah, Egypt, 1931.

37. Tuhfah-yi Ithna Ashariyyah, Shah Abd al-Aziz Muhaddith Dehlawi.

38. Tadhkirat al-Huffaz, al-Dhahabi.

39. Monthly Tarjuman al-Qur’an, edited by Abul Ala Maududi.

40. Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim, Ibn Kathir, Mustafa Muhammad Press, Egypt, 1939 CE.

41. Tafhimat, Abul Ala Maududi.

42. Tafhim al-Qur’an, Abul Ala Maududi, Tamir-i Insaniyyat Library, Lahore.

43. Takmilah (supplement) to Tarikh Ibn Khaldun, al-Matba’at al-Kubra, Egypt, 1284 AH.

44. Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, Ibn Hajar.

45. Thalath Rasa’il, al-Jahiz, al-Matba’at al-Salafiyyah, 1344 AH.

46. Jami al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an, Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Matba’at al-Amiriyyah, Egypt, 1324 AH.

47. Husn al-Muhadarah fi Akhbar Misr wa al-Qahirah, al-Suyuti, Matba’at al-Sharqiyyah, Egypt, 1327 AH.

48. Hilyat al-Awliya, Abu Nu’aym al-Isfahani, al-Matba’at al-Sa’adah, Egypt, 1366 AH.

49. Zayn al-Jawahir al-Mudiyyah, Mulla Ali al-Qari, Dairat al-Ma’arif, Hyderabad, 1322 AH.

50. Risalat al-Sahabah, Ibn al-Muqaffa.

51. Rasa’il wa Masa’il, Abul Ala Maududi.

52. Ruh al-Ma’ani, Allamah al-Alusi, Idarat al-Tiba’ah al-Muniriyyah, Egypt, 1345 AH.

53. Rawdat Umar ibn al-Khattab, Ibn al-Jawzi.

54. al-Isabah fi Tamyiz al-Sahabah, Hafiz Ibn Hajar, Matba’at Mustafa Muhammad, Egypt, 1939 CE.

55. al-Isti’ab, Hafiz Abu Umar Ibn Abd al-Barr, Dairat al-Ma’arif, Hyderabad, Deccan.

56. Sunan al-Darimi.

57. al-Isha’ah fi Ashrat al-Sa’ah, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Rasul al-Barzanji.

58. al-Imamah wa al-Siyasah, Ibn Qutaybah.

59. Sharh al-Siyar al-Kabir, al-Sarakhsi, Matba’at al-Shirkat al-Musahamat al-Misriyyah, Egypt, 1957 CE.

60. Sharh al-Tahawiyyah, Ibn Abi al-Izz al-Hanafi, Dar al-Ma’arif, Egypt, 1373 AH.

61. Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar, al-Maghnisawi, Dairat al-Ma’arif, Hyderabad, Deccan, 1321 AH.

62. Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar, Mulla Ali al-Qari, Matba Mujtabai, Delhi, 1348 AH.

63. Sharh Muslim, Imam al-Nawawi.

64. Sharh Nahj al-Balagha, Ibn Abi al-Hadid, Dar al-Kutub al-Alawiyyah, Egypt, 1329 AH.

65. The Martyrdom of Husayn, Abul Ala Maududi.

66. Ahkam al-Qur’an, Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn al-Arabi, Egyptian edition, 1958.

67. Usud al-Ghabah, Ibn Athir.

68. al-Intiqa, Hafiz Abu Umar Ibn Abd al-Barr, al-Maktabah al-Qudsi, Cairo, 1370 AH.

69. Tabaqat, Ibn Sa’d, Dar Sadir, Beirut, 1957.

70. Aqidah al-Tahawiyyah, Imam al-Tahawi.

71. Umdat al-Qari, Badr al-Din al-Ayni, Idarat al-Tiba’ah al-Muniriyyah, Egypt.

72. Umdat al-Akhbar, Ibn Qutaybah, Matba’at Dar al-Kutub, Egypt, 1928.

73. Fatawa, Ibn Taymiyyah, Matba’at Kurdistan al-Ilmiyyah, Egypt, 1326 AH.

74. Fatawa Bazziyyah.

75. Fath al-Bari, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, al-Matba’at al-Khayriyyah, Egypt, 1325 AH.

76. Fath al-Qadir, Ibn al-Humam.

77. Fawat al-Wafayat, Muhammad ibn Shakir al-Kutubi, Matba’at al-Sa’adah, Egypt.

78. Fayz al-Bari, Anwar Shah Kashmiri, Majlis-i Ilmi, Deoband, 1938.

79. Ahkam al-Qur’an, Abu Bakr al-Jassas, al-Matba’at al-Bahiyyah, Egypt, 1347 AH.

80. Kitab al-Aghani, Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani, al-Matba’at al-Misriyyah, Bulaq, Egypt, 1285 AH.

81. Kitab al-Umm, Imam al-Shafi’i.

82. Kitab al-Hayawan, al-Jahiz, al-Matba’at al-Taqaddum, Egypt, 1906.

83. Kitab al-Kharaj, Imam Abu Yusuf, al-Matba’at al-Salafiyyah, Egypt, 1352 AH.

84. Kitab al-Suluk, al-Maqrizi, Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyyah, 1934.

85. Kitab al-Milal wa al-Nihal, al-Shahrastani.

86. Kitab al-Mizan, al-Sha’rani, al-Matba’at al-Azhariyyah, Egypt, 1925.

87. Kitab al-Maghazi, al-Waqidi.

88. Kitab al-Siyar, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani.

89. Kashf al-Zunun, Haji Khalifah.

90. Kanz al-Ummal, Shaykh Ali al-Muttaqi, Dairat al-Ma’arif, Hyderabad, 1955.

91. Lisan al-Mizan, Ibn Hajar.

92. Muhadarat al-Udaba, Raghib al-Isfahani, Matba’at al-Hilal, Egypt, 1902.

93. Mir’at al-Jinan wa Ibrat al-Yaqzan, al-Yafi’i, Dairat al-Ma’arif, Hyderabad, 1337 AH.

94. Muruj al-Dhahab, al-Mas’udi, Egypt, 1346 AH.

95. Mustadrak, al-Hakim.

96. Musnad Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi, Hyderabad, 1321 AH.

97. Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Egypt, 1949.

98. Mishkat al-Masabih.

99. Mu’jam al-Buldan, Yaqut al-Hamawi, Beirut, 1957.

100. Mafatih al-Ghayb, Imam al-Razi, Egypt, 1324 AH.

101. Miftah al-Sa’adah, Tashkubrazadah, 1329 AH.

102. al-Mufradat fi Gharib al-Qur’an, Raghib al-Isfahani, Egypt, 1322 AH.

103. Maqalat al-Islamiyyin, al-Ash’ari, Cairo.

104. al-Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun, Egypt.

105. Manaqib al-Imam Abi Hanifah wa Sahibayhi, al-Dhahabi, Egypt, 1366 AH.

106. Manaqib al-Imam al-A’zam, Ibn al-Bazzaz al-Kardari, Hyderabad, 1321 AH.

107. Manaqib al-Imam al-A’zam Abi Hanifah, al-Muwaffaq al-Makki, Hyderabad, 1321 AH.

108. Minhaj al-Sunnah, Ibn Taymiyyah, Egypt, 1322 AH.

109. Wafayat al-A’yan, Ibn Khallikan, Egypt, 1948.

110. Dehayah.

111. Yazid ibn Muawiyah, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Taymiyyah Academy, Karachi.