Non Appointment Theory and its effects

At the threshold of our enquiry we must take into account the power and prestige that propaganda has exercised over political opinions from the beginning of history up to the present time, and proceed with that care and caution which the circumstances of the case require. In addition to the usual circumspection necessary in historical enquiries when the annals that have come down to us have been written by the "winning party", we must bear in mind two factors peculiar to the present enquiry, namely, (a) there has been in Islamic history a long continuous period when the ruling faction that were the sponsors of the Theory of Non-appointment used every means in their power to stifle and smother from the very start any opinion that was not to their liking or was contrary to those which they wanted to promulgate, since this was the Theory upon which their very existence depended; and (b) the view they promulgate is so absurd on the face of it, and so illogical in its conception, that the directing hand of propaganda-cum-force is distinctly visible. I say absurd because of the rapid extension of the empire and the possibilities of still further expansion of which the Prophet (P) was fully aware, and because of the claims which the Prophet advanced as to the finality and permanancy of his mission. Contrast this far-sighted vision of the message lasting in its pristine purity till the end of the world and the sway of Islam extending over the. face of the earth with the hazy, blurred and almost blinded view with which this theory credits the Prophet (P), namely that he was not able even so much as to anticipate the confusion that might follow his death or the scramble for power which might ensue "in the absence of anyone already recognized and declared as a successor to step at once into his place- and this about a Prophet and reformer who supplied details for the daily routine of life, laid down rules for the guidance of man in all his affairs, and never left Medina without first appointing his deputy over it. He was also aware of the natural proneness or the new converts to revert to their old habits, customs and thoughts if his check, under which they had for the time being held, was withdrawn. The example of Israel reverting to their old habits and worship during the forty days' absence of Moses, as mentioned in the Qur'an, served as a divine lesson for him. He knew full well that there was a large number of Munafiqin (hypocrites) among his people who were only biding their time for a chance to wreck the Islamic State. The absurdity of this view is only heightened when we find that the necessity of securing a successor to the Prophet immediately upon his death dawned on those who were in the running for the office. To them the urgency appeared. so pressing that they left the dead body of the Prophet (P) and neglected to render him the last service in their haste to get one of themselves acknowledged as the Caliph. The matter does not stop here. Every Caliph who followed was, from the very beginning, conscious of this crying need, and on his death-bed felt it his first duty to make arrangements for it. Abu Bakr nominated "Umar as his successor and 'Umar made a clever arrangement that would permit no-one except his nominee, Uthman, to get the post. Not to speak of the rulers, the people themselves had become so nomination-minded that they urged every dying Caliph to nominate his successor. Being a Muslim my lips are sealed, but no non-Muslim would hesitate to observe that all notions of election and democracy dissolved and vanished into thin air once their objective (i.e. displacement of the Prophet's nominee, Ali had been achieved. The Theory of Non-appointment would have us believe that the only man who failed to realise the need, let alone its urgency, was the Prophet himself. 

I say this Theory is illogical because one is drawing a conclusion without premises. 

For what reason would the Prophet not designate his successor?

 Was the constitution of the state founded by him democratic, and was there any indication of this in the Qur'an? 

I find none there, but if any such indication in the Qur'an be pleaded, then Abu Bakr and 'Umar must be taken to have transgressed a very important Qur'anic rule by nominating their own successors. 

No Muslim holding this Theory will contemplate this omission of sin on the part of these two Caliphs. 

Muslim historians have had of necessity to be unanimous on this point, as they all belong to one party. We have the evidence of an eminent Indian historian belonging to this party, Mawla Shibli, who says that all eminent historians of Islam have been Sunnis"(1), that is, members of the party that is the originator and propounder of the Theory of Non-appointment. 

Unanimity, generally the evidence of authenticity, has no value in their case. They are so anxious to guard this Theory against criticism that they have taken it into the fold of religion, the only way in which it would acquire sanctity and gain immunity against criticism. They hold that any Muslim who maintains that the Prophet (P) did not leave the succession open for election by the Umma is not a good Muslim, and certainly is not a Sunni. This they made a rule in spite of the fact that the question of Imamate is not one of the fundamentals of their religion". 

What this amounts to is that the general question of Imamate is not a part of their religion(2), but the question of the Imamate of Abu Bakr and Umar is. 

This and many other illogicalities in their religion are traceable to this Theory of Non-appointment.

In any enquiry regarding this Theory, it must be clearly realized that the party that seized power on the death of the Prophet (P) owed its very existence to the proceedings at Saqifa Bani Sa'idah where Abu Bakr was acknowledged as the Caliph, and thus the validity of those proceedings can be upheld on no grounds except that hypothesis that the Prophet left this question open, and what is more, that he did not even so much as give directions for the selection or election of his successor. Even in a democratic system of government, rules are required to regulate the status of the voters and the manner of taking and counting votes. At the Saqifa, no rule, no definite principle, except that of attaining their objective by whatever means possible, was followed, to regularise this extraordinary way of installing a man of one's own choice, it was absolutely essential that a complete seal should be put on the lips of the Prophet (P). As they could not shut his mouth during his life, they did so after his death by shutting out all that he had said on the point. It is remarkable that a view standing on such a slender basis should have been accepted by impartial scholars of history without their noticmg the absurdity which is apparent on the surface.

The advocates of the contrary view have been treated as the dissenting party and their views as a heresy in the Islamic faith. But truth lies quite the other way, who is to be treated as a dissenter in an institution' or community? The answer is plain. If the differences are among the followers of the founder, arising after his death, the dissenters wi1l be those who differ with the views of the majority. But if the differences are with the founder himself, the numbers lose their significance, and the dissenters are those who have fallen away from the founder, even if they have, by intrigue or otherwise, acquired superiority in numbers. It is they who must be treated as renegades, apostates or deserters. 

Let us apply this test to the present enquiry, and find out which of the two factions is to be treated as the dissenting one in Islam. The Prophet had not left anything to chance, least of all the important fact as to who were his own men, the expositers of his principles, the propagators of his genuine Islam. On his death-bed, when his companions were near him, he asked them to supply writing materials so that he could get his will written down as a security against their being misled. It is now well known that he wanted to write his will designating Ali by name as his successor, and those present there at once guessed his intentions. The opposition party, therefore, raised hue and cry, and went to the extent of ascribing this desire to delirium brought on by high fever-a pretext rightly rejected by Margoliouth as untenable(3)". 

From the rebukes he administered to the recalcitrants and his retort to the charge of delirium, it is evident that the Prophet was quite in his senses. When their conduct became intolerable, he ordered them to get out. By this expulsion he showed the world that those men had left him and deviated from his course; they were no longer his men, they ceased to be his followers. This is a very important event, and I have discussed it more fully elsewhere(4)". Later on when he felt secure on his throne, 'Umar admitted that on this occasion the Prophet had wanted to write a will in favour of Ali, but that he had prevented him from doing so(5). 

Another factor which has had great influence with the European writers is the oft-repeated statement that the elevation of Abu Bakr was through a valid election on a democratic basis. Nothing can be further from the truth than this political fiction. There was neither election nor democracy; it was merely a political coup d'etat, carefully planned and cleverly carried out. To obtain a correct perspective of the situation, a full account of this momentous event, fraught with such grave consequences for Islam, is absolutely essential; I have dealt with it in its proper place(6). 

The fact is that the Prophet (P), more than once, announced that he had, on God's command, appointed Ali as his successor. This was very clearly announced at the beginning of his ministry at the Feast of the Relatives, called Dawat Dhu- al-'Ashira(7), as also towards its close on the occasion of the return journey from the Last Hajj at a place called Khum on 18 Dhu al-Hijja, A.H.10 (corresponding to 20th March 632 A.C.). A detailed account of this follows in its proper place(8). 

Apart from these clear and formal announcements, the Prophet (P) throughout his ministry treated Ali as his Wali al-Ahd (successor) and Caliph (9). 

The following facts in particular deserve consideration in this connection: 

1. So as to bring up and educate Ali under his very eyes, the Prophet (P) took him from his parents.

2. He married his own daughter to Ali, that daughter most dear to him(10).

3. The Prophet held secret and confidential talks with Imam Ali, which excited the envy of others.

4. The Prophet never placed Imam Ali under the subjection of any leader of an expedition, whereas other companions of note, such as Abu Bakr and 'Umar, were often placed under the subordination of others. 

5. He associated Imam Ali with himself in his own mission to the exclusion of everyone else, for example (a) in clearing the Kaaba of its idols, which was the chief object of his mission, and (b) in the dispute with the Christians of Najran; when the truth of the assertions of each party was to be tested by means of a challenge to prayers, the Prophet took Ali, his sons and his wife and associated them with his prayers.

6. While fostering brotherhood among his companions, the Prophet considered Ali's position much too high to be made the brother of an ordinary person, and he therefore made him own brother. 

7. The houses were built so as to open into the mosque. The Prophet considering the frequent coming and going of all sorts of people through the mosque, which was turning it into a thoroughfare to be derogatory to a place of worship ordered the doors of the houses opening into it to be closed, but his own house and that of Ali were exempted from this order. This was a distinction which all of them envied.

8. He appointed Imam Ali to announce to the gathering at the Kaaba the first forty verses of the Sura of At-Tawba containing his future policy towards the Quraish and other pagan tribes . . declaring at the same time that this was a duty which no-one except himself or Ali could discharge. In his conversations and public lectures, the Prophet told his followers repeatedly that Ali had all those qualities and qualifications necessary in a successor of the Prophet(P). 

Describing the events that followed the death of the Prophet, Sayyid Amir Ali says "And now arose the question as to who was to succeed in the government of the commonwealth. Muhammad had often indicated Ali as his successor, but had laid down 'no definite rules. This gave scope to individual ambitions to the detriment of Islam, and in later times became the fruitful cause of dynastic wars and religious schisms. Had Ali been accepted to the Headship of Islam, the birth of those disastrous pretensions that led to so much bloodshed in the Muslim world would have been averted,,(11). 

This writing from the pen of a very prominent member of the community with which the Non-appointment Theory is an article of faith is very useful for our purposes, and conclusively establishes what I have to say on this subject. I need not mind the feeble attempt which he has made to lay the blame at the door of the Prophet when he says that the Prophet made no definite rules regarding his successor; the attempt lacks soul and has not succeeded. Definite rules for what? The Prophet's duty ended with his indication that Imam Ali was to succeed him; this indication was as much in the nature of a rule as a nomination, and was quite definite. For our purposes it is quite enough to know that the Prophet (P) nominated Imam Ali as his successor but the individual ambitions and disastrous pretensions of those who contrived to install themselves in power contrary to the indications and wishes of the Prophet prevented him from taking his legitimate position. These ambitions were detrimental to the interests of Islam and were the root cause of all the future ills that beset Islam in the long course of its history. In his monumental work "The Spirit of Islam", the same learned writer says "Most of the divisions in the Church of Muhammad owe their origin primarily to political and dynastic causes - to the old tribal quarrels and the strong feelings of jealousy which animated the other Quraishites against the family of Hashim. It is generally supposed that the Prophet did not designate anyone as his successor in the spiritual and temporal government of Islam; but this notion is founded on a mistaken apprehension of facts, for there is abundant evidence that many a time the Prophet had indicated Imam Ali for the vicegerency. Notably on the occasion of the return journey from the performance of the Farewell Pilgrimage during a halt at a place called Khum, he had convoked an assembly of the people accompanying him, and used words which could leave little doubt as to his intentions regarding a successor. Ali, said he, "is to me what Aaron was to Moses. Almighty God, be a friend to his friends and a foe to his foes; help those who help him, and frustrate the hopes of those who betray him"(12). 

Again the Sunnite strain has stood in the way of Sayyid Amir Ali from quoting the whole declaration; the memorable words Ali is the Mawla (master and ruler) of everyone of whom I have been the Mawla, which are the soul of the whole speech, have been left out. Anyway, even what he has quoted is sufficient, and proves my contention that the Prophet designated Imam Ali as his successor. It further shows that the opposition to Imam Ali was actuated by jealousy and tribal quarrels. 

It is therefore evident that the explanation supplied by the later historians like Shibli and others that the companions of the Prophet left his dead body and hastened to the Saqifa in the interests of Islam, to save it from an impending calamity, is mere political trash. On the other hand, had Ali been accepted to the Headship of' Islam, the untold miseries and calamities that befell Islam would have been avoided. "Had", says Sedilot, "the principle of hereditary succession (in favour of Ali) been recognised at the outset, it would have prevented the rise of those disastrous pretensions which engulfed Islam in the blood of Muslims(13), Just how far this feeling of jealousy and animosity towards the family of Hashim had carried these people is amply demonstrated by the fact that they accepted those very same principles of nomination and hereditary succession, and very early in their history at that, which they had discarded in the case of Imam Ali. Both by nomination and on the principles of hereditary succession, Imam Ali was the rightful heir of Muhammad (P). But they would not acknowledge him as such. Abu Bakr nominated Umar as his successor, and this nomination was allowed to take effect smoothly. Mu'awiyah nominated his son Yazid, a pagan in private and profligate in public, and he was very gladly accepted as the religious head of Islam. Their love of Yazid did not stop here. When, after the crime of Kerbala, the people of Medina stirred and it appeared that they might try to throw off the yoke of the author of that horrible tragedy, 'Abd Allah, the son of 'Umar, took up the cudgels on behalf of the tyrant and, collecting his descendants and relatives, exhorted them to remain steadfast in their loyalty to Yazid, adding that he would have nothing to do with any man who turned against him(14). The question naturally arises as to the reason for this. The answer is plain: their efforts to acquire the Caliphate could have no chance of success unless and until they had formed a strong party of their own to bar the way to 'Ali. Henceforth we always find this party in authority. Naturally they would not object as long as one of their own men was proposed for the post. 

This determination to oppose the children of the Prophet led to very serious results, one of which was persistent enmity and implacable hatred towards those whom they ought to have loved and respected. A continuous series of injustices, cruelties, oppressions and tyrannies brought into play against the children of the Prophet, that started on his death and ended only with the Islamic Empire, forms the gloomiest reading of Islamic History. Ubaid Allah, the son of 'Umar, who had kiIled Hurmuzan without any valid excuse, was saved from punishment, which was to be capital, by the clamour of the Companions saying that his father was their Caliph and they would not let him die(15). 

Yet when Al-Husain, the grandson of the Prophet, along with his children and womenfolk, was pursued by the relentless enmity of Yazid from place to place, and eventually surrounded by his armies and cut to pieces with all his friends and relatives at Kerbala under the most tragic circumstances, not a single companion of the Prophet outside his own devoted band was found to say "No, we will not let him die, he is the grandson of our Prophet and benefactor". 

Fatima, the dearest daughter of the Prophet (P), was deprived of her only source of livelihood(16)" and was tormented and annoyed in a hundred other ways. She was so thoroughly disgusted with them that she would not look at their faces, did not allow them to see her in her last illness, and wished to be buried at dead of night so that they should not be present at her funeral; she pined away her life within the short period of six months, and died complaining that she had met with nothing but injustice, cruelty and' ill-treatment at the hands of the actors of the Saqifa coup after the death of her father, and that she would complain of them to him when she would meet him in the next world. On the other hand, the lady of their own party, A'isha, the widow of the Prophet (P), was treated in a quite different way; she was allowed a'greater amount of the monthly salary than the rest of the widow on the alleged grounds that she had been able to secure a greater amount of the love of the prophet, and besides this, she was the recipient of constant attentions and favours. She used to say "Her throat is choked with feelings of gratefulness. What kindness I have met at the hands of Umar Ibn al-Khattab since the death of the Prophet!". The contrast is significant, and the contradictory treatment meted out to two different people on account of the same thing, that is, the love of the Prophet, and by the same persons, is an inviting object of study for a student of psychology; a student of polictics might also take a lesson from it (17).

 Their contemporaries denied the barest justice to the children of Muhammad (P), who bore every hardship with patience and 'every calamity with fortitude, and defended Islam to the last drop of their blood. Their spirits claim this denied justice at the bar of posterity. Now that reason has shaken off those shackeles which held the human intellect in bondage for centuries, and now that bigotry and prejudice have yielded place to broadmindedness and equity, at least in Europe and at least in matters of past history, we should expect an impartial review of the events of the period following the death of the Prophet (P). In a search after truth, ignorance of the real facts and want of courage to disturb the status quo are two of the greatest obstacles. We may hope that knowledge will supply the requisite amount of courage. This treatise is intended to help the Reader in removing these obstacles to truth.

References:
(1) Shibli: "Al-Ma'mun", Part I, p. 61. (Qawmi Press).
(2) 'Abd al-Haq: "'Aqa'id al-Islam, pp. 6, 8, 9.  .
(3) Margoliouth: "Life of Muhammad". Chptr 13, p. 469.
(4) See page 234 et seq.
(5)Ibn Abi al-Hadid: "Commentary on Nahi al-Balagha", Vol. 3, pp. 97, 114; Shibli: "Al-Faruq", Part l , pp. 204, 205.
(6)See page 250 et seq.
(7)At-Tabari, Vol. 2, p. 217; Abu al-Fida', Vol. I, p. 116; Ibn al-Athir: "al-Kamil", Vol. 2, p. 22; etc.
(8)Abii Dawud ar-Tyalesi: "Musnad", Vol. 3, p. 360; Ibn Taymiyya:
"Minhaj as Sunna", Vol. 3, p.8; Ahmad ibn Hanbal: "Musnad", Vol.-I, p. 331; Vol. 3. p. 48; Vol. 4, pp. 164, 437; Vol. 5, pp. 358, 361, 204.
(9) Shah wall Allah: "Izalat al-Khafa'" (Urdu translation), p. 276.
(10)a!-Tyalesi: "Musnad", p.88: Ahmad ibn Hanbal: "Musnad", Vol. 5. p. 24: 'Abd al-Haq: "Ashiat al-Lam'at", VoL 4. p. 384. (Bombay).
 11)Amir Ali: "Short History of the Saracens", Chptr 4, p. 21.
(12)Amir 'Ali: "The Spirit of Islam", Chptr 8, pp. 292. 293.
(13) Ibid. p. 296.
(14)Al-Bukhari  "Sahih", 'Chptr "ldh Qala "inda Qawmin Shai'an Thumma Kharaja Faqala be Khelafehi, Ahmad ibn Hanbal: "Musnad", Vol. 2, pp. 48,96, 97; Ibn Hijr AI-Asqalani: "Fath al-Bari", Vol. 13, p. 61.
(15)1bn Khaldun (Urdu translation), Vol. 4, p. 186.
 16)"AI-Balagh al-Mubin", Vol. 2, pp. 1178- 1237
 (17)AI-Hakim: "AI-Mustadrak", Vol. 4, p. 8.