How was the Khilafat of Hadrat ‘Umar (ra) and Hadrat ‘Uthman (ra) Established? — Seal of the Prophets Vol. 2
Introduction
In this discourse from The Life & Character of the Seal of the Prophets (Volume 2), Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad (ra) details the historical events and scholarly insights surrounding How was the Khilafat of Hadrat ‘Umar (ra) and Hadrat ‘Uthman (ra) Established?.
Book Series: The Life & Character of the Seal of the Prophets (Volume 2)
Author: Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad (ra)
Section: XII – First Era of Life in Madinah Comes to an End and the Islamic System of Government
Pages: Book pp. 539–542 (PDF pp. 563–566)
Navigation: Book Table of Contents | « Previous: [Consultation is Necessary in Government] | Next: [Khilafat of the Banu Umayyah was not a True Islamic Khilafat] »
Historical Account
actuality, the Khilāfat of Ḥaḍrat ‘Umarra is also proven to have been established according to the principle of consultation and election. The Khilāfat of Ḥaḍrat ‘Umarra was settled when Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakrra, who was himself an elected Khalīfah, was about to pass away. At the time, the effects of the rebellion of apostasy had not yet faded away and the system of Khilāfat was also in its early stages. Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakrra felt that Ḥaḍrat ‘Umarra was the most appropriate and worthy individual for Khilāfat in the future, but if the election of the Khalīfah was left to the public vote, it was possible that due to the apparently stern disposition of Ḥaḍrat ‘Umarra, his name may not be presented in the election. This could have opened the door to further unrest in the community of the Holy Prophetsa. For this reason, Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakrra called upon the learned Companions and sought their counsel. After this consultation, Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakrra appointed Ḥaḍrat ‘Umarra as his successor, who was not a relative, nor was he from the same tribe, even though at the time, the very son and other near relatives of Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakrra were also present in great number. Now, every individual can understand that this method cannot be considered as being opposed to the system of consultation and election at all. The reason being that firstly, Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakrra did not make this decision by himself, rather, he did so after consulting various learned Companions. Secondly, Ḥaḍrat Abū Bakrra was himself an elected Khalīfah, due to which his verdict represented the voice of the people in one respect. Furthermore, he did not appoint any of his own relatives as the Khalīfah, rather, he elected a completely unrelated person and in this way it could not be presumed that the people would provide biased advice with the thought that the person in consideration was a close relative of the Khalīfah of the time. In this case, it cannot be assumed in the least that a way of consultation and election was not employed; rather, this shall also be considered a form of consultation. In addition to this, there was also a clear prophecy of the Holy Prophetsa with relation to the Khilāfat of Ḥaḍrat ‘Umarra, and for this reason, no Muslim could have held an
[Tārīkhur-Rusuli Wal-Mulūk (Tārīkhuṭ-Ṭabarī), By Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad bin Jarīr Aṭ-Ṭabarī, Volume 4, p. 78, Thumma Dakhalat Sanatu Thalātha ‘Ashara / Dhikru Istikhlāfihī ‘Umarabnil- Khaṭṭāb, Dārul-Fikr, Beirut, Lebanon, Second Edition (2002) * Al-Kāmilu Fit-Tārīkh (Tārīkhu Ibnil-Athīr), By ‘Izzuddīn Abul-Ḥasan ‘Alī bin Muḥammad Ibnul- Athīr, Volume 2, pp. 272-273, Sanatu 13, Dhikru Istikhlāfihī ‘Umarabnil-Khaṭṭāb, Dārul-Kutubil- ‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon (2006)]
[Ṣaḥīḥul-Bukhārī, Kitābu Faḍā’ili Aṣḥābin-Nabiyyisa, Bābu Manāqibi ‘Umarabnil-Khaṭṭāb, Ḥadīth No. 3682 * Ṣaḥīḥu Muslim, Kitābu Faḍā’iliṣ-Ṣaḥābah, Bābu Min-Faḍā’ili ‘Umara, Ḥadīth No. 6192]
objection against his Khilāfat. Quite the contrary, everyone accepted it with the utmost satisfaction of heart.
The second question relates to the Khilāfat of Ḥaḍrat ‘Uthmānra. Firstly, although his election took place within a small group, it was still a form of consultation nonetheless, and it cannot be said that his Khilāfat was established as a result of the decision of his predecessor. Islām has not interfered with respect to the details of the specific method of election or consultation, rather, has left them to be settled by the circumstances of varying times. Hence, the method of limited consultation, which was employed for the Khilāfat of Ḥaḍrat ‘Uthmānra cannot be deemed to contradict Islāmic teaching at all; especially when it is taken into account that Ḥaḍrat ‘Abdur- Raḥmān bin ‘Aufra, who was the President of the consultative body that elected Ḥaḍrat ‘Uthmānra, personally consulted many learned Companions himself and decided the matter of his Khilāfat after gauging the public opinion first. Then, the circumstances of the time were such that if this issue had been left to the public opinion completely, it was possible that some form of unrest may have broken out. In addition to this, Ḥaḍrat ‘Umarra elaborated that although my son would be a member of the consultation, he would not have the right to be elected as the next Khalīfah. Moreover, it should also be remembered, that just as in the case of Ḥaḍrat ‘Umarra, there was a prophecy of the Holy Prophetsa
[Ṣaḥīḥul-Bukhārī, Kitābu Faḍā’ili Aṣḥābin-Nabiyyisa, Bābu Qiṣṣatil-Bai‘ati Wal-Ittifāqi ‘Alā ‘Uthmānabni ‘Affāna, Ḥadīth No. 3700 * Ṣaḥīḥu Muslim, Kitābul-Masājidi Wa Mawāḍi‘iṣ-Ṣalāti, Bābu Nahyi Man Akala Thauman Au Baṣalan….., Ḥadīth No. 1258 * Ṣaḥīḥul-Bukhārī, Kitābul-Janā’iz, Bābu Mā Jā’a Fī Qabrin-Nabiyyisa Wa Abī Bakrin Wa ‘Umara….., Ḥadīth No. 1392 * Ṣaḥīḥu Muslim, Kitābul-Imārati, Bābul-Istikhlāfi Wa Tarkihī, Ḥadīth No. 4713-4714 * Sunanu Abī Dāwūd, Kitābul-Kharāji Wal-Imārati Wal-Fai’i, Bābu Fil-Khalīfati Yastakhlifu, Ḥadīth No. 2939 * Sunanut-Tirmidhī, Kitābul-Fitani, Bābu Mā Jā’a Fil-Khilāfah, Ḥadīth No. 2225]
[Ṣaḥīḥul-Bukhārī, Kitābul-Aḥkām, Bābu Kaifa Yubāyi‘ul-Imāmun-Nāsa, Ḥadīth No. 7207 * Tārīkhur-Rusuli Wal-Mulūk (Tārīkhuṭ-Ṭabarī), By Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad bin Jarīr Aṭ-Ṭabarī, Volume 5, pp. 77-81, Thumma Dakhalat Sanatu Thalāthin Wa ‘Ishrīna / Qiṣṣatush-Shūrā, Dārul- Fikr, Beirut, Lebanon, Second Edition (2002) * Al-Kāmilu Fit-Tārīkh (Tārīkhu Ibnil-Athīr), By ‘Izzuddīn Abul-Ḥasan ‘Alī bin Muḥammad Ibnul- Athīr, Volume 2, pp. 459-468, Sanatu 23, Dhikru Qiṣṣatish-Shūrā, Dārul-Kutubil-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon (2006)]
[Ṣaḥīḥul-Bukhārī, Kitābu Faḍā’ili Aṣḥābin-Nabiyyisa, Bābu Qiṣṣatil-Bai‘ati Wal-Ittifāqi ‘Alā ‘Uthmānabni ‘Affāna, Ḥadīth No. 3700]
regarding the Khilāfat of Ḥaḍrat ‘Uthmānra. For this reason, no Muslim levelled an allegation against his Khilāfat.
[Mishkātul-Maṣābīḥ, By Waliyyudīn Abū ‘Abdillāh Muḥammad bin ‘Abdillāh, Volume 2, p. 425, Kitābul-Manāqibi, Bābu Manāqibi ‘Uthmāna Raḍiyallāhu, Al-Faṣluth-Thānī, Ḥadīth No. 6077, Dārul- Kutubil-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon, First Edition (2003)]
Khilāfat of the Banū Umayyah was not a True Islāmic Khilāfat Now remains the question of the Kings of the Banū Umayyah and Banū ‘Abbās. There is no doubt, that there form of Khilāfat was opposed to true Islāmic teaching. Research scholars have never considered their form of leadership to be in line with Islāmic practice, for this reason, it cannot be presented as an argument. Narrations of history and Ḥadīth explicitly mention that on the basis of erroneous advice, Amīr Mu‘āwiyyah introduced an innovation in the faith. In other words, he practically snatched the right of election from the majority and appointed his own son Yazīd as his successor. Most of the prominent Companions who were alive at the time opposed him and advocated that it was against the teachings of Islām to seek an oath of allegiance for the son of a Khalīfah who was already alive. However, Amīr Mu‘āwiyyah did not pay heed and with public support, appointed Yazīd as his successor. As a result, when Amīr Mu‘āwiyyah passed away, although the Companions who were alive at the time remained silent with the thought of preventing unrest, they did not accept the leadership of Yazīd in their hearts, as indicated in history and Ḥadīth. As a matter of fact, Ḥaḍrat Imām Ḥusainra and ‘Abdullāh bin Zubairra considered this practice to be so greatly at odds with the Islāmic teaching that despite an extreme state of weakness, they stood up in contestation to Yazīd. Ultimately, it was in this very struggle that Imām Ḥusainra was martyred in the lifetime of Yazīd and ‘Abdullāh bin Zubairra
[Ṣaḥīḥul-Bukhārī, Kitābut-Tafsīr, Tafsīru Sūratil-Aḥqāf, Bābu Walladhī Qāla Li-Wālidaihī Uffin Lakumā….., Ḥadīth No. 4827 * Fatḥul-Bārī Sharḥu Ṣaḥīḥil-Bukhārī, By Al-Imām Aḥmad bin Ḥajar Al-‘Asqalānī, Volume 8, pp. 740- 741, Kitābut-Tafsīr, Tafsīru Sūratil-Aḥqāf, Bābu Walladhī Qāla Li-Wālidaihī Uffin Lakumā….., Under Ḥadīth No. 4827, Qadīmī Kutub Khānah, Ārām Bāgh, Karachi * Al-Kāmilu Fit-Tārīkh (Tārīkhu Ibnil-Athīr), By ‘Izzuddīn Abul-Ḥasan ‘Alī bin Muḥammad Ibnul- Athīr, Volume 3, pp. 349-355, Sanatu 56, Dhikrul-Bai‘ati Li-Yazīda Bi-Wilāyatil-‘Ahdi, Dārul- Kutubil-‘Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon (2006) * Tārīkhur-Rusuli Wal-Mulūk (Tārīkhuṭ-Ṭabarī), By Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad bin Jarīr Aṭ-Ṭabarī, Volume 6, pp. 153-155, Thumma Dakhalat Sanatu Sittin Wa Khamsīna / Dhikru Khabaril-Bai‘ti Li- Yazīda Bi-Wilāyatil-‘Ahdi, Dārul-Fikr, Beirut, Lebanon, Second Edition (2002)]
Book Series: The Life & Character of the Seal of the Prophets (Volume 2)
Section: XII – First Era of Life in Madinah Comes to an End and the Islamic System of Government | Navigation: « Previous: [Consultation is Necessary in Government] | Next: [Khilafat of the Banu Umayyah was not a True Islamic Khilafat] »